The Hobbit Is Go! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News



Message


Empire Admin -> The Hobbit Is Go! (16/10/2010 4:47:19 AM)

Post your comments on this article




Francis46 -> Mr Jackson is the ideal man for the job (16/10/2010 9:00:55 AM)

Thank goodness that Peter Jackson is going to be directing The Hobbit films. The very real chance of somebody else possibly screwing up the job looks to have been avoided and we can all rest easy in the knowledge that a couple of very special movies are coming up on the horizon.

All that needs to happen now is for Mr Jackson to start thinking about filming The Silmarillion [;)]




zombie mastermind -> RE: ...yyaaaawwwwwnnnn.... (16/10/2010 10:24:28 AM)

Why bother posting?




zombie mastermind -> RE: Why two films? (16/10/2010 10:26:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ryecatcher

Why is he making two films, the Hobbit is a short book that can easily be made in one film. No doubt he will make his own story up like he did with the last 3 films, especially the second one, which had so much shit added it was nothing to do with the book.
These are two films I'm really not looking forward too.
Peter Jackson and books dont mix, look at the Lovely Bones, he fucked that up to.


Did you watch the same films as me? Yes he added some "shit" but the films were FAR from fucked.

May a throng of Balrog's be upon you!




Snake-Eyes -> RE: ...yyaaaawwwwwnnnn.... (16/10/2010 11:17:30 AM)

never mind.




Tootled -> RE: The Hobbit Is Go! (16/10/2010 1:04:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jasper_29

"No director as qualified as Peter Jackson..."

Did they see King Kong and The Lovely Bones?


Did you see LotR?

The best director qualified to direct more Terminator films is James Cameron. Oh wait....he made Titanic and Avatar, looks like he isn't best qualified after all.




hatebox -> RE: Why 2 films....? (16/10/2010 1:42:12 PM)

I'll watch it, but making the story span over 2 films is taking a liberty.




paul.mccluskey -> RE: The Hobbit Is Go! (16/10/2010 3:22:40 PM)

Fantastic news. Peter Jackson is the only guy who should adapt Tolkien's stories, he brought the Trilogy to life perfectly.

Concerning the second film, I heard Jackson doesn't have the rights to the other books. He needs to research the 12 volumes of The History of Middle Earth if he is to make a film on what happened after The Hobbit, but how can he achieve this if the Tolkien estate isn't granting him permission?




kumar -> RE: (16/10/2010 3:38:02 PM)

Yahooo! [:)]

Scotland would be a great choice!




Spaldron -> RE: Why two films? (16/10/2010 6:34:11 PM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: ryecatcher

Why is he making two films, the Hobbit is a short book that can easily be made in one film. No doubt he will make his own story up like he did with the last 3 films, especially the second one, which had so much shit added it was nothing to do with the book.
These are two films I'm really not looking forward too.
Peter Jackson and books dont mix, look at the Lovely Bones, he fucked that up to.


In my opinion the second film is by far the best. The fact they had to make up so much "shit" as you say actually benefits the film as it takes us out of the more fantastical realm of Tolkien and gives the trilogy a more realistic feel, more akin to a historical epic particularly in the Rohan scenes where there's barely a CGI shot to be seen.

I don't get this whole bandwagon dislike of LOTR personally. I think a lot of people say they dont like it just because its cool to say you hate something popular. Im over the moon that Jackson is on board, Lovely Bones or not he's still one of the worlds premier filmakers.




Dashbo -> RE: Why two films? (16/10/2010 8:11:00 PM)

With you on that one Spaldron. Jackson did something previously though impossible - turning the three books into three watchable films.

I've no doubt that he'll dig much more out of the fuller texts that just the Hobbit book to fill out some background and context to the characters....not to mention that it'll be a nice money spinner to carve the book into two films.

They are doing it with Potter, which shows an alarming trend - they'll probably start doing it with other books soon just make a shot load of cash - Jordan's 'autobiographies', Peter and Jane...you know all the important serialisations.




MarcE -> RE: Great News (17/10/2010 10:45:27 AM)

Good news, I will always wonder how a Del Toro version would have looked though!

Having read the book I can see how it can easily cover two films. In my opinion the story isn't as strong as LOTR but will still make great viewing.




pete_traynor -> RE: Why two films? (18/10/2010 11:26:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron



quote:

ORIGINAL: ryecatcher

Why is he making two films, the Hobbit is a short book that can easily be made in one film. No doubt he will make his own story up like he did with the last 3 films, especially the second one, which had so much shit added it was nothing to do with the book.
These are two films I'm really not looking forward too.
Peter Jackson and books dont mix, look at the Lovely Bones, he fucked that up to.


In my opinion the second film is by far the best. The fact they had to make up so much "shit" as you say actually benefits the film as it takes us out of the more fantastical realm of Tolkien and gives the trilogy a more realistic feel, more akin to a historical epic particularly in the Rohan scenes where there's barely a CGI shot to be seen.

I don't get this whole bandwagon dislike of LOTR personally. I think a lot of people say they dont like it just because its cool to say you hate something popular. Im over the moon that Jackson is on board, Lovely Bones or not he's still one of the worlds premier filmakers.


With you! It’s an utterly laughable opinion! The single greatest cinematic achievement I have ever witnessed. He filmed The Lord of the Rings! Amazingly well! The ultimate go to text for the ‘… can’t be filmed’ argument. And even the best directors make serious missteps. So, he made The Lovely Bones… David Fincher made the woeful The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and just returned to blistering form! Spielberg has a couple of real turds in his repertoire but he is also capable of creating pure cinematic gold. You’ve got to take the rough with the smooth when it comes to creative output as it’s not always going to work 100% of the time. But when the smooth is The Lord of the Rings, people trying to take credit away from Jackson with the Lovely Bones sound more than a little bit pathetic.

Some people just don’t know when they’ve got it good! [:D]




Spaldron -> RE: (18/10/2010 6:21:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: qinni31


WTF!?!

Edit - seriously - at what point did it seem a good idea to copy a post full of malware links?




karlos1974 -> RE: Why two films? (19/10/2010 4:56:34 PM)

fool of a took
quote:


_____________________________




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.125