hmm
Peter Jackson is a polarizing figure. Yes as director of LOTR he hit out of the park but remember he was the director of King Kong (groan) also.
Jackson’s Hobbit becomes a trilogy
Lord of the Rings Director Peter Jackson has revealed that his next work, a film adaptation of The Hobbit, will span three films. The adaptation had previously been pencilled in as two flicks. Jackson took to Facebook to announce the extension, arguing that editing of the first film has yielded the insight that: “We were …
-
-
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 02:30 GMT Simon_Sharwood_Reg_APAC_Editor
Re: hmm
Bad Taste is indeed magnificent. I liked the brains best. The sheep was pretty funny.
His next project, IIRC, was a Muppets parody called "Meet the Feebles." The student 'paper I worked on at the time interviewed him and asked if he would like to work with puppets again. His answer was yes he would, but puppets have said they won't work HIM again.
Here all week ....
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 07:37 GMT h4rm0ny
Re: hmm
Meet the Feebles is one of the most disgusting, perverse films ever made. I am continually amazed watching him churn out things like Lord of the Rings that this is the same person. He also did the film Beautiful Creatures with a young Kate Winslet, which was a very nice film. To me, he seems to have done his entire career backwards - starting off with extraordinary works of off the wall genius and descending into mainstream blockbusters.
Meet the Feebles is the film that features a walrus driving a car out of a whale's anus, a sex scene between a weasel and a sheep and a fox in silver top hat and tales performing a song and dance routine that begins with the lyrics - "You may think it rather odd of me, that I so enjoy the act of Sodomy".
Peter Jackson - what happened to you?
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 08:27 GMT JDX
Re: I wonder why...
That was 3 films for 3 long books... each longer than The Hobbit.
On the one hand I'm sad it'll span 3 years to see all the films, on the other it would be nice for a change to see a proper, deep film version that pleases fans - provided they get the extra info from real books and don't just make up a backstory they like.
Maybe I'll wait until all 3 are out and watch them together.
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 12:31 GMT Ian Yates
Re: I wonder why...
Don't get too enthused: he's clearly incorporating an entirely new set of substories alongside the main Hobbit one, so how much of each he uses is unclear.
I think six hours would be enough to do The Hobbit a lot of justice, but nine hours means he's planning a lot of new material.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 05:59 GMT Arctic fox
Re: Too much padding?
Precisely. LOTR itself of course needed to be a trilogy - it would have been impossible to give it anything like the proper treatment otherwise. Indeed, the extended cut justified itself IMHO, artistically as well as commercially. However, stretching The Hobbit (a novel that I am very fond of BTW) to three films is no more than a very shabby piece of commercial exploitation without the faintest tinge of artistic merit. The novel is a little jewel in it's own right and deserves to be treated as such.
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 13:11 GMT Timbo 1
Re: Too much padding?
Can't remember if it was the MSX or C64 version but do remember it taking ages to load. About 400 on the tape counter I think. Gave me time to go outside and smash some imaginary dwarves to bits before returning to the house and not long after :-
>Cleave Gandalf's skull
Fond memories.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 06:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
Inventive
“We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance,”
What Battle of Dol Guldur is that, then? Perhaps the one that DOESNT appear in "The Hobbit" book?
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 07:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Where's the ambition?
Three films? Amateurs. That's nearly 100 pages a film. They've just made a full film of The Very Hungry Caterpillar which has only about 20 pages and very little dialogue in, and no CGI battle sequences whatsoever.
Peter Jackson is seriously underselling himself and his 'vision' - by that yardstick he should be able to screw at least 20 or 30 films out of The Hobbit.
The sooner Martin Freeman hangs up his prosthetic ears and feet and escapes back to make the third series of Sherlock the better.
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 09:03 GMT terlan
of course it has to be three films.
and you can imagine how this epic idea for three films came about. and its all very reasonabla if you think about it. the piutch probably went along the lines of .....
Peter baby, we really need 3 films, You need at least an hour for bilbo to have flashbacks to explain his undying love for [insert current flavour of the month starlets name here] and the backstory of why they are no longer together.
Then at least 30 minutes in the second film where the go off on a side quest and bolbo is finally reunited with her, even though he thought she had died.
And of course we have to have that really big section about the forbidden love between gandalf and whats her name... the pointy eared chick from lord of the rings....because the audience are desperate to learn more about that.
Oh and about another 30 minutes to recap how golumn found the ring in case they missed it in lord of the rings.
And we have to get strider into the film, cause we have a bucket load of strider action figures that never sold when return of the kind came out and we could really do with the extra cash.
And how about we sneak in a few scenes with legolas, cause chicks REALLY dug orlando bloom in lotr, and you know, we can put his picture on all three films posters to lurte them in , even if he's only in it for 5 minutes. plus you know, we can sell some of those legolas for men aftershaves we could shift when the orginal films came out.
oh and as a last minute surprise is there any way we can get jack sparrow into the story, cause I know he wasnt originally in the hobbit, but like putting him into a movie is box office gold baby, and we can explain it as he's actually gandlafs second cousin or the likes.
So peter how about it, we doing a trilogy or what?
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 11:04 GMT Tony Paulazzo
The Hobbit would have made a nice 3 hour film (King Kong was overstretched at 3 hours 7 minutes), with a beginning, middle and (proper) end - like the book... that he wanted to film... Splitter!
DISCLAIMER: I actually bought the Extended King Kong DVD because it contained 13 more minutes of glorious dino action which I felt should have been in the cinema version (but they could easily have edited out about 30 minutes from the boat scenes and maybe shortened the tyrannosaurus fight).
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 11:15 GMT Steven Davison
Correction to my inital post "it's the dog's bloody name!"
@ AC : 08:17 - No, I don't believe any word is a 'bad' word. Words become bad based on the context in which they are used...
@ Mr Lion - I'm not sure what you are attempting to say here. I didn't mention anything about colour. Please elaborate.
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 11:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
I'll give him the benifit of the doubt
I enjoyed LOTR trilogy, and thought the extended versions were even better. So lets hope he turns the Kids book of the series into a spectacular trilogy. However if after paying for three films to watch one story I find any part of it un-necesary, un-cinematic or just dull then Mr Jackson will never get any of my money ever again. Ever.
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 12:06 GMT stucs201
It'd be quicker to read the book than watch the films
I know that happens with films based on short stories, but when it happens with a novel things are getting silly.
Then again I'd get most of the travelling over with in 5 minutes with an Indiana Jones style red line on a map then spend most of the budget on CGI for the 2 pages with the dragon, which was the only bit of the book I liked.
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 12:34 GMT Drieakko
Good
As someone who read all the Tolkien books repeatedly as a young teenager I have this to say: this is very nice news. The book Hobbit alone is poorly connected to LOTR, which made Tolkien to create a lot of additional characters and story outlines later, part of which seem to be within Jackson's reach now (part still not, I assume). The book Hobbit is also confusingly different in tone and scope than LOTR.
For me, only major worry is that since Tolkien's complementing stories are often brief and anecdotal, the screenwriters need to flesh them out a lot. All of Jackson's detours with LOTR material were not totally successful.
All in all, Jackson has the right opinion to take all the available material and create a double trilogy that makes sense in its entirety and feels whole. If he and his team earn more money while doing this, I allow that pleasure to him gladly.
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 13:57 GMT perlcat
He has a long uphill road to travel to make this good
Every previous Hobbit movie had that gawd-awful singing in it, trying to keep faithful to the book. Don't get me wrong -- I love all the books, but 'The Hobbit' was pure kiddie lit, while the 2nd and 3rd volume of the LOTR were serious fiction.
Tolkien's genius took a long time to evolve, but it turned into a masterpiece. Watching/reading 'The Hobbit' after those is like looking at the stick figures Van Gogh drew and stuck on whatever passed his mum's refrigerator.
[ducking from the inevitable hailstorm of fanboy abuse]
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 18:49 GMT sisk
A trilogy of movies for one book?
Actually that sounds about right if you're going to do the book justice. I've always figured that one good novel was about three movies worth of material. That, I think, is why Hollywood can't seem to adapt a book into a movie without ripping it to shreds. Just look at what they did to John Carter (to name a recent offense).
-
Tuesday 31st July 2012 20:00 GMT Petrea Mitchell
I give up
An Unexpected Journey was the one film I was really looking forward to this year, and I was willing to live with having to wait 'til next year for the second half, but if it's going to take THREE consecutive years to get the whole story out, then just let me know when I can watch the whole thing from start to finish.
There's nothing inherently wrong with making a miniseries adaptation of a book... just make it an honest miniseries and release the whole thing as one season.
-
Wednesday 1st August 2012 20:40 GMT Old Handle
It's kind of silly, isn't it?
The Hobbit was, if I'm not mistaken, a shorter book than each of the three LotR books. How can it be that one fairly short book needs the same number of movies to tell the story as three longer books? Now I realize film adaptations typically cut out quite a bit of the source material but maybe there's a good reason for that. I have my doubts that there's really enough content in The Hobbit to make three interesting movies.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
