Peter Jackson to direct "The Hobbit"

[MarkAndrew]

You see you try to bully everyone into agreeing with you.

But saying that anyone that doesn't share your view is cinematically illiterate or doesn't understand the form is just you trying to force everyone to agree with you.

You are in fact saying that "Everyone that doesn't hate what i hate and like what I like doesn't understand film and has no right to their view".

The fact that you don't see it is what gets my back up.

If you don't like Jackson that is fine,you said that but what is the point of the way you keep popping up here and insaulting him and posting "CANCEL THE PRODUCTION!" in caps.  We know you hate Jackson and wish nothing but death on him and his family why wouldn't you let this thread move on.

The fact is Jackson made some of the most sucsessfull films in History with the Lord of the Rings so he is going to be involved with these film,if you don't like him these films are not aimed at you.  There is nothing productive you can say in this thread.

Why don't you start the "Perter Jackson suck!" post in that?

If you have something constructive to say besides "Jackson Sucks" then say it and i will listen.  But so far all you have had to say is that Jackson is pure evil.

Let's talk about the Hobit in a productive manner.

I know what Issac why don't you post an outline of how you would have liked to have seen the Lord of the Ring movies made,and what you would like to see in the Hobbit with out getting abusive towards Jackson.

Just post an outline of how you would have made the movies,and we can have an interesting polite debate over that.

People, just don't feed the troll

Now how about that Smaug?  Boy, I can't wait to see him up on the big screen.  Hopefully it'll top Reign of Fire and Eragon for coolness.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

I never directly called anyone a four-year-old. Do you see me saying "you're a four year old!" anywhere? No?

People, just don't feed the troll

Don't call me a troll. I've been registered here longer than you.

[ChrisHanel]

I never directly called anyone a four-year-old. Do you see me saying "you're a four year old!" anywhere? No?

People, just don't feed the troll

Don't call me a troll. I've been registered here longer than you.

There are many reasons why calling you a troll would be incorrect, but how long you've been here is immaterial.

Trolls say things (that they don't necessarily mean) to start fights for their own amusement. Isaac says whatever his on his mind and naturally causes arguments through his demeanor.

That's not a troll, but I don't have a witty name for it yet. So for now, I will just call it "being an Isaac".

[Doctor Who?]

1. Improved pacing.

I can see that,but i did love the old 60s epic style pacing that the movies have now.

2. Don't dumb down the work in order to make money

How was it dumbed down,most of the lines are from the book and it squeezes a lot more of the book into the movie then the old animated version.

What parts did you fell where dumbed down?  How would you have changed it?

3. Don't steal from better filmmakers.

What did he steal. Also given that he has now won a best director Academy Award(I know you hate the Academy Awards but it is the way the film indestry  has chosen to decide what is and is not good and we can't continue to argue that based on what we like since we don't like the same things)how do you define a "better director"?

4. Don't make changes or add material that lowers the quality of the work (see 2), either by making scenes painful to watch or by making certain scenes unintentionally humorous (implying that the Shire is full of potheads).  Well it wasn't painful for me to watch and if it had been for most people they would not have come back for the next two movies.  Also i didn't think the Shire was full of pothead,but you do know that if they had known to smoke plants back then they would have been much closer to pot then tobaco.  Also the smoking was toned down from the book.

5. Don't over-direct your actors to the point of unintentional hilarity. ("Is my accent ridiculous enough yet?")

I have been fallowing a lot of those actors since i was a kid(I am a big fan of British TV)and by and large they were used their real voices.

6. Make the action sequences a little less clumsy.

This movie had some of the best sword fights I have seen since Robin Hood.

7. Make the CGI a little more realistic. Use less of it.

The CGI set the standard at the time and still looks a lot better then most of the movies that were out at the same time.  Also He mostly used bigitures
and old style SFX,he only used CGI as a last resort(Something that shocked CGI crazy Hollywood at the time).

8. Actually, don't make it as a live-action film at all.

So there was no way you were ever going to like this movie.  Why do you care about the Hobit then.

9. Keep Disney the hell away from it. [They had the rights to it for some time, then United Artists got the rights, then the rights went to Zaentz.]

You should be happy Jackson took it away from them.

10. Keep the Weinstein Brothers the hell away from it.

Again they had nothing to do with it what is your point?

11. And, above all, respect the work. I mean, really respect it. Don't lie about respecting the work and then sue your studio when you're not happy that you didn't get paid exactly what you wanted despite the fact that you spent a few years doing promotions, audio commentaries, and appearing in documentaries for the distributors even though they supposedly underpaid you, and why did you wait so long to complain about it?, come on, let's not kid ourselves here, if he really got screwed, wouldn't he complain about it immediately?, but I digress...

this is just a repeat of you attacks on Jackson that you have yet to prove so i will not respond.

[SmilinJackRoss]

I never directly called anyone a four-year-old.

You didn't answer my question.  What did you mean when you said this:

If you're above the age of four and able to read, you should not hate reading subtitles.

[ChrisHanel]

11. And, above all, respect the work. I mean, really respect it. Don't lie about respecting the work and then sue your studio when you're not happy that you didn't get paid exactly what you wanted despite the fact that you spent a few years doing promotions, audio commentaries, and appearing in documentaries for the distributors even though they supposedly underpaid you, and why did you wait so long to complain about it?, come on, let's not kid ourselves here, if he really got screwed, wouldn't he complain about it immediately?, but I digress...

this is just a repeat of you attacks on Jackson that you have yet to prove so i will not respond.

And he never, ever will.

[Doctor Who?]

I never directly called anyone a four-year-old.

i don't like Subtittles because they take up part of the screen that you are supposed to see and it is hard to read and watch at the same time.

You called me a four year old.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

i did love the old 60s epic style pacing that the movies have now.

When I was watching the film, I kept thinking that the filmmakers thought that everyone else in the world has attention deficit disorder.

How was it dumbed down

Well, for one example, there's the fact that the pacing was seemingly based on the idea that everyone other than the filmmakers and the studio has attention deficit disorder.

I would keep mostly to the book. I know I've praised filmmakers in the past who've done things a little differently than the book while respecting it, but in Tolkien's case, I don't think that you can make drastic changes to his writing without being disrespectful to it. I understand if things were cut for time (I.E., the Tom Bombadil character) or budget, but I see Jackson as trying to change things in order to make it more of his own writing, not an adaptation of another's. Rankin/Bass basically tried to make a children's film out of The Return of the King. The Hobbit was a children's book, but Lord of the Rings was not.

What did he steal.

Off the top of my head, there were shots directly based off of films by Hitchcock and Kubrick...Fellowship has many scenes directly based upon the stagings of the 1978 animated film. And actually there were a couple of scenes that weren't in the book. One of them might just be the interpretation of some readers (including myself), so I'll skip it to avoid another argument, but it doesn't explicitly describe the scene where the Nazgul go up in the hobbits' room and slash up their beds only to find that they're not there. 

the smoking was toned down from the book.

Jackson had one really bizarre scene with Gandalf and Bilbo smoking a pipe and both looking really stoned. (That was how I felt about the scene. It didn't seem intentional.) I felt that could have been directed better. I don't think Jackson intended to suggest that they were smoking pot, that's just how it came out. As for your suggestion that perhaps they were, it's clear in the book, that it's tobacco. I can see that, but some people can't. I don't think Tolkien would suggest cannabis. He was a tobacco smoker himself.

by and large they were used their real voices.

I believe that while the accents do have accents, under Jackson's direction, the accents come off a lot more extreme than they should have. Do you really think that John Rhys-Davies' (Gimli) voice sounds that Scottish in real life? He was born in England to Welsh parents. I can't imagine how that's his real voice.

So there was no way you were ever going to like this movie.

No, that's not true. I would have liked it if it were done right. The reason I said this is because I really do think that animation is the perfect way to tell any story. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy live-action films at all. Great directors can do wonderful things in live-action or animation, but you were asking me how I would have made the film. I will also respond to your remark about my comments towards CGI here. I'm not really fond of mixing purely CGI effects with live-action. I don't really feel that the CGI effects of LOTR were top-notch, best of the line. I've seen better. But generally, I feel it's best to go with old-fashioned effects and only use CGI to clean things up as a last resort. I think that as far as things go, I'd find live-action in a CGI movie more engaging than CGI in a live-action movie.

You should be happy Jackson took it away from them.

So he could do equal injustice to Tolkien?

I'm telling you, I really don't like anything Jackson has done. His early independent films were on the level of Coleman Francis in terms of filmmaking and storytelling. I gave his LOTR films a chance, and it just turned me further away from the director.

Again they had nothing to do with it what is your point?

Harvey and Bob produced the movie. It was originally going to be distributed by Miramax in the initial stages of the production. Again, I'm talking about how I would make LOTR. Back when LOTR was produced, the Weinsteins were slightly better businessmen, and they are likely the ones who suggested that it would work better as three films rather than two (something Jackson probably never even thought of. Probably trying to imitate what United Artists wanted for the '78 adaptation). But since then, they've made some bad decisions in regards to film production. They tampered with what Gilliam was trying to do on Brothers Grimm, they released Grindhouse on Easter, causing its commercial failure... I would not them around my film if I tried to make LOTR today.

this is just a repeat of you attacks on Jackson that you have yet to prove so i will not respond.

I was trying to use humor to lighten the mood, as I had previously explained. As far as proof goes, the connections are there, you just don't see them. He sued New Line in 2007. You mean, he finally realized that he never got a paycheck after three years? Seems doubtful.

[SaucyRossy]

Alright you know what with that post you made some great arguments for your points with out insulting any one or responding to any ones insults.

I agree, LOTR movies aren't the end all be all to what they could of been. They could of been better that is for sure.

On your point about Jackson stealing shots, well let's behonest here Isaac. Im sure the argument can be made that every director steals shots or ideas from the ones they are influenced by without them even realizing they did so.

As for your point on the CGI, sure some of it was down right horrible but most if not all of it was the cutting edge of what was possible then and really even up until now we haven't seen anything as good. If you can think of some movies that had better CGI then let me know what they are.
As for doing the movies with traditional special effects....I guess its possible but things like the Balrog, trolls, etc how would you even attempt that?

[doggans]

I don't think Jackson intended to suggest that they were smoking pot, that's just how it came out. As for your suggestion that perhaps they were, it's clear in the book, that it's tobacco. I can see that, but some people can't.

To be fair, including the "Concerning Pipe-weed" portion of the prologue in Galadriel's opening monologue probably would have slowed things down a bit too much.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

As for doing the movies with traditional special effects....I guess its possible but things like the Balrog, trolls, etc how would you even attempt that?

How would I do it? Or how would the film industry do it?

A lot of make-up, maybe animatronics, puppets. Then use CGI to lightly polish it, make it look more realistic...obviously the audience would know what is and isn't real, but real enough to allow for suspension of disbelief. Not too much, though, because even when Missile to the Moon came out, people laughed at that shit.

Personally, I like animation as the best way for me to go. It would really cut the costs down, and you've also got a film that is really nice to look at visually as well.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

someone mentioned something damned important and it got ignored with all this pointless blather with isaac (ive been guilty too)

SMAUG

good lord i hope they do him right.  To do it right he cant just be a mere dragon.  We have seen dragons before in films, but smaug needs to be given enough screentime to make him seem unbeatable.  That whole monolauge he has about how powerful he is cant be cut.  i forgotten how cool hobbit is i got to go reread it agian. 

[Cosmic Muse]

I'm just wondering if we'll be seeing any characters from Lord of the Rings make cameos in Hobbit, like Elrond or Legolas (It could happen because he's Prince of Mirkwood.) and we know Gollum will be a given. Oh, and Liam Neeson should play Legolas' dad, Elven King of Mirkwood.

[esoobaC .T bocaJ]

I'm just wondering if we'll be seeing any characters from Lord of the Rings make cameos in Hobbit, like Elrond or Legolas (It could happen because he's Prince of Mirkwood.) and we know Gollum will be a given. Oh, and Liam Neeson should play Legolas' dad, Elven King of Mirkwood.

Ian McKellen was keen to reprise the part of Gandalf: Jackson had told him, "You must play Gandalf whether I direct or not." Andy Serkis also admitted, "I'd find it very hard to turn down [playing] Gollum again, as he's very much become a part of me." Orlando Bloom, Viggo Mortensen, Cate Blanchett, Elijah Wood and Christopher Lee have said they would reprise their roles as Legolas, Aragorn, Galadriel, Frodo Baggins and Saruman if they were required for either prequel. Composer Howard Shore had also said he has thought of some themes for the film.

[Doctor Who?]

When I was watching the film, I kept thinking that the filmmakers thought that everyone else in the world has attention deficit disorder.

So on the one hand it was too slow,on the other it was made for people with ADD?  That's the sort of thing that would kill a robot in Star trek.

I would keep mostly to the book. I know I've praised filmmakers in the past who've done things a little differently than the book while respecting it, but in Tolkien's case, I don't think that you can make drastic changes to his writing without being disrespectful to it. I understand if things were cut for time (I.E., the Tom Bombadil character) or budget, but I see Jackson as trying to change things in order to make it more of his own writing, not an adaptation of another's. Rankin/Bass basically tried to make a children's film out of The Return of the King. The Hobbit was a children's book, but Lord of the Rings was not.

So what did Jackson do wrong again?  He didn't change that much compared to most movies based on books and the old animated version that you are holding up as the standard has even more changes.

Off the top of my head, there were shots directly based off of films by Hitchcock and Kubrick...Fellowship has many scenes directly based upon the stagings of the 1978 animated film. And actually there were a couple of scenes that weren't in the book. One of them might just be the interpretation of some readers (including myself), so I'll skip it to avoid another argument, but it doesn't explicitly describe the scene where the Nazgul go up in the hobbits' room and slash up their beds only to find that they're not there.

Most films have shots that will remind you of another film because let's be honest so many films have been made that the only way not to take shots from other films is to invent a whole new way to film movies.  Also if you would watch the behind the scenes stuff on the four disc sets you would know that the shots taken from the old animated version were done as a loving tribute by Jackson.

Jackson had one really bizarre scene with Gandalf and Bilbo smoking a pipe and both looking really stoned. (That was how I felt about the scene. It didn't seem intentional.) I felt that could have been directed better. I don't think Jackson intended to suggest that they were smoking pot, that's just how it came out. As for your suggestion that perhaps they were, it's clear in the book, that it's tobacco. I can see that, but some people can't. I don't think Tolkien would suggest cannabis. He was a tobacco smoker himself.

So you want a shorter film but you also want them to spend half an hour going over the history of what they are smoking to make sure a few people don't think it's pot? 

I believe that while the accents do have accents, under Jackson's direction, the accents come off a lot more extreme than they should have. Do you really think that John Rhys-Davies' (Gimli) voice sounds that Scottish in real life? He was born in England to Welsh parents. I can't imagine how that's his real voice.

I have been fallowing John Rhys-Davies since i was a kid(I Claudius is my favorite tv show ever produced)and that is his real voice.

No, that's not true. I would have liked it if it were done right. The reason I said this is because I really do think that animation is the perfect way to tell any story. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy live-action films at all. Great directors can do wonderful things in live-action or animation, but you were asking me how I would have made the film. I will also respond to your remark about my comments towards CGI here. I'm not really fond of mixing purely CGI effects with live-action. I don't really feel that the CGI effects of LOTR were top-notch, best of the line. I've seen better. But generally, I feel it's best to go with old-fashioned effects and only use CGI to clean things up as a last resort. I think that as far as things go, I'd find live-action in a CGI movie more engaging than CGI in a live-action movie.

He did shoot it old fashioned.  You would be surprised how much of the movie is not CGI.

So he could do equal injustice to Tolkien?

I'm telling you, I really don't like anything Jackson has done. His early independent films were on the level of Coleman Francis in terms of filmmaking and storytelling. I gave his LOTR films a chance, and it just turned me further away from the director.

Sorry i have to disagree with everything you just said.  Even his first movie(I can't remember the name right now)  that he made when he was a teenager and was mainly just a big gross out fest still had better direction then most other directors working today.

Harvey and Bob produced the movie. It was originally going to be distributed by Miramax in the initial stages of the production. Again, I'm talking about how I would make LOTR. Back when LOTR was produced, the Weinsteins were slightly better businessmen, and they are likely the ones who suggested that it would work better as three films rather than two (something Jackson probably never even thought of. Probably trying to imitate what United Artists wanted for the '78 adaptation). But since then, they've made some bad decisions in regards to film production. They tampered with what Gilliam was trying to do on Brothers Grimm, they released Grindhouse on Easter, causing its commercial failure... I would not them around my film if I tried to make LOTR today.

I didn't see their names in the credit,and i have watch the movies more times then you can count.

Yes he did think of it.

If you are going to smack talk at least watch the behind the scene stuff before you do it.

Also Jackson started going after New Line for his back pay back in late 2004,less then a year after the release of the last movie.  Anything like this takes long time to get the courtroom stage because you first want to make sure that you can't work it with out given half the money to the lawyers. 

Also Lenord Nimoy had a problem just like this with Paromount in the 60s and 70s,he didn't bring it to court for 8 and a half years.  he must have been
lieing too.

Also other people have had the same problem with New Line why do you find it so hard to believe that Jackson would to,unless you hate him and that is the only reason you keep brining this up with out proof.