Peter Jackson passed over for The Hobbit and LOTR Prequel by New Line

Oh come on, the movies weren't that bad at all, they were a lot of fun. Big story, big environment, lots of characters, epic battles, good vs.evil and all that rot. I watched all three a few weekends ago while it rained and rained outside. Great diversion.

Unless we dug up Eisenstein and asked him to direct the LOTR trilogy with a cast of a million Russians (which would have been great!), I'm not sure anyone could have done better than Jackson.

I'd like to ask all the folks who thought the LOTR movies sucked to please tell us of a great film(s) in the same genre so that we may enjoy it as they did.

Well, I didn't think they sucked, they were fun. But as far as that genre goes (which genre is it really btw?), "The Mummy" or "Pirates" were much better. You can laugh at bad dialogue without thinking it was meant to be serious. LOTR lacks in humor and females, and takes itself to seriously. Of course in a way those aren't legitimate criticisms because they are made from books, but they do make the movies less enjoyable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

(which genre is it really btw?)

---

Hmm, good question.

Epic fantasy?

Hobbits with French accents:

[fast-forward]

Bilbo: Go away, Dwarvish Kniggets, or I shall taunt you a second time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Hobbits with French accents:

[fast-forward]

Bilbo: Go away, Dwarvish Kniggets, or I shall taunt you a second time!

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I'd like to ask all the folks who thought the LOTR movies sucked to please tell us of a great film(s) in the same genre so that we may enjoy it as they did.

---

One word: Kurosawa. Although I doubt that you would consider that to be the same genre at all..

My kids (8 and 11) adored Seven Samurai, Yojimbo and the huge epics such as Ran. I don't want to be a snob about this, but even my kids notice the difference between real drama and the watered-down version of LOTR which, for all its computer-generated scenery and duplicate extra's, is as dramatically empty as that bottle of Bordeaux I finished yesterday.

My oldest is firmly into Harry Potter, which is to say he loves the hype of there being always a next book, another film, another computer game around Harry, always a new 'curse' you can cast on your friends in the playground. But he also realises that the Potter stories are gone the moment you've read or seen them. However, six months later is he still fascinated with the witch in Throne of Blood, Kurosawa's 'Hamlet', trying to imitate (and finally, truly understand) his incredibly beautiful, ethereal song... 'What is it that men strive for in this fleeting abode called life...'

Sorry Adey, lah, but you really are a screaming snob. :laugh4:

I can imagine you inflicting existentialist-angst movies by Ingmar Strindberg and baffling, French Art-House flicks on your kids even while they were still in the womb.

I think crazy people like you are great, but I wouldn't have wanted you for a dad!

:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

Sorry Adey, lah, but you really are a screaming snob. :laugh4:

I can imagine you inflicting existentialist-angst movies by Ingmar Strindberg and baffling, French Art-House flicks on your kids even while they were still in the womb.

I think crazy people like you are great, but I wouldn't have wanted you for a dad!

:dizzy2:

---

Whoah, who says I push anything down my kids' throats? Let alone Ingmar Angstberg flicks. :laugh4:

I wouldn't expose them to three hours of Kurosawa if they hated it. Come on. It's the kids themselves who ask for more. And like I said, my oldest is in deep Potter doodoo and I don't discourage that at all.

I may not be the best Dad in the world, but I guarantee you won't see my kids on Jerry Springer ten years from now...

"My Dad's a snob and I hate him!" :angry:

EDIT
Come to think of it, I believe my kids are making a sort of gradual switch from externalized drama (bloody fights involving superphat armies with cool weapons) to internalized drama. When my oldest had to chose a book to review before his school class, he picked The curse of Polyphemos which is a children's version of the Odyssee, because the hero 'is a smart guy who masters himself so he can master storms and monsters and women and stuff'.

That's my boy. 'Master women', haha. If only we could - and we'd probably be the worse for it anyway.

Forgive the previous hyperbole, but it's just the impression you give, mate! ~;)

As for Lotr, I thought that it was pretty good by general cinematic standards considering the technical difficulties of filming a convincing fantasy epic of that nature. That is, apart from the sickening 'Brigadoon' opening and the ending of the last instalment that kept beginning ... and ending ... and beginning ... etcetera. I stood up and down about five times at the end of that movie, repeatedly thinking it had finished. I assumed PJ was giving us a workout after spending aeons on our asses.

The books weren't crap, in fact they were very good, if you've the patience to read them. If you haven't then you're probably not into that type of book, in which case don't buy/read the book in the first place.

The same goes for the Movies, not brilliant, a bit too self indulgent in the effects department, cliched, alot of wooden acting especially from "Frodo". As to the really, really gay overtones in the movie, they were in the books also, but the movies went too far with it. Basically Hobbit Culture seemed to be different to human culture in that Hobbits don't worry if there best friend is gay if he gives them a hug or whatever. An interesting aspect in some ways, annoying in others. It didn't worry me too much.

Despite all of the negatives the films were entertaining and fun. I'm not sure what some people expected from it? If you watch every film with the mindset of a hard nosed film critic and the attitude of a snob, then few films will be worth your while paying for. Save your money and wait for it to be on TV.

So easy to criticise the LOTR movies, because everyone does it, not so easy to point out the positives. That is that they are entertaining, contain some good cinematics and effects and are always a it with the kids.

:2thumbsup:

W.H. Auden, in the booklet coming with a J.R.R. Tolkien Soundbook:

Quote:

---

I presume that most people who buy this record will already have read Professor Tolkien's tetralogy, and I hope it will persuade anybody who has not, to do so at once. A prospective reader, however, should, I think, be warned: "This is a work that will either totally enthrall you or leave you stone cold, and, whichever your response, nothing and nobody will ever change it." As a member of the enchanted party, I have found by experience that it is quite useless to argue with the unconverted.

---

This goes for the films also, of course, and being a member of the enchanted party I'll not argue either: I don't care much for other people's criticism of the story (as to me these are minor points), and I know that the unconverted will care even less for the great love I and others have for Tolkien's work. Just so long as the criticism doesn't turn to ridicule, I'm fine with it all - but sadly, ridicule is all you'll get from a whole lot of people who don't 'get it'.

Now, on the topic: regardless of anyone's opinion of Jackson's work, I think New Line are showing their bad side here - the Hollywood film studio side - and their treatment of Jackson seems to be just vile and treacherous. After all, if it wasn't for the man's creative input, they wouldn't have had those millions of dollars to cheat him out of. Even if they manage to still pull together a half-decent Hobbit movie, I'm not sure I'll be wanting to go and watch it - unlike a previous poster, I had actually been looking forward to the darker, more mature feel that Jackson might have brought to the story.

Anyway, a Variety article has MGM, which holds the distribution rights for "The Hobbit", saying that "the matter of Peter Jackson directing 'The Hobbit' films is far from closed." Regardless of PJ's involvement or lack thereof, Weta at any rate is still "hopeful that we may be invited to work on The Hobbit", according to chief Richard Taylor. So New Line will have that going for their film, but if they fail to get actors like McKellen onboard, I doubt any good will ever come of the project. Or rather, I'll be highly sceptical wether the 'new guys' do a good job or not.

Wow, some serious intellectual snobbery in this thread. I'd post a picture from "The Critics" in Viz, but it would be against forum rules ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

One word: Kurosawa. Although I doubt that you would consider that to be the same genre at all..

My kids (8 and 11) adored Seven Samurai, Yojimbo and the huge epics such as Ran. I don't want to be a snob about this, but even my kids notice the difference between real drama and the watered-down version of LOTR which, for all its computer-generated scenery and duplicate extra's, is as dramatically empty as that bottle of Bordeaux I finished yesterday.

---

Yes, of course Kurosawa is going to be better than LOTR. But there's more to movies than drama. Shallow movies can be plenty enjoyable, I find people who hate them as odd as people who refuse to watch movies that have subtitles.

Don't get me wrong, I adore Kurosawa, but the LOTR films were fine for what they were. I wouldn't want P. Jackson to do a film of King Lear, and I wouldn't want Kurosawa to direct The Hobbit.

The theatrical releases of the LOTR films were kind of, um, bad. Too herky-jerky, too all-action all-the-time, but the DVD extended releases are surprisingly good. Stick some quiet moments back in, allow a tiny bit of character development, and suddenly you have a much better film.

I re-read the books after I'd seen all three films, and I made an interesting discovery -- almost everything that bothered me in the films was in the books. There's something to be said for a very, very faithful reproduction.

I think P.J. is well within his rights to hold out for what he's owed -- artists being bent over and used roughly by questionable accounting practices is an old, sad story. Whenever I see a filmmaker, writer, musician or what-have-you stand up for what's theirs, I give a little golf clap and mumble "bravo."

It is the inverted snobbery in this thread that is ridiculous. Having kids who love Homer or Kurosawa just as much as Harry Potter doesn't make me a bad Dad. Rather a lucky Dad, in fact.
:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Having kids who love Homer or Kurosawa just as much as Harry Potter doesn't make me a bad Dad. Rather a lucky Dad, in fact.
:yes:

---

Absolutely. And with that I'm shamelessly going to quote here C.S. Lewis's opinion on The Ride of the Rohirrim, his favourite passage:

"That's at least as good as anything in Homer."

~D

Of course, er, Peter Jackson, ehhh... not so much, but still, love the bugger and his movies, for all their flaws.

Homer? Homer gets old very fast. -.-" He has his academics and cultural values, which are very interesting, but aside from that it's really not that spectacular as it's made out to be.

I mean, come on, I understand how the Greek culture views the likes of Achilles as heroic and all that -- they have a lecherous, fitful, perverted old man for a Supreme God after all. But for us to have English professors acting like snobs, proclaiming to appreciate the glory of Achilles' symbolism of manhood or something, something, and something...

I always feel nauseous. Achilles is just a touchy, self-centered, emo brat with a good luck and a strong arm. Get over it. I know the Greeks just consume melodrama; you don't have to pretend to be.

Thus, I am equally repulsed by extreme criticism of the Lord of the Rings (Oh noes! Plebeian entertainment! Shallowness! -- not you though, Adrian :bow: ) as I am by the fanatics who seems to think Professor Tolkien wrote an inviolable Holy Text with the subtlety of the true literary greats; you know, those kinds who seem to think the availability of mithril in Middle-Earth is something Earth-shattering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Achilles is just a touchy, self-centered, emo brat with a good luck and a strong arm.

---

Achilles is a dead man walking and fighting. He has been given a choice between leading the sedate life of a king in peacetime, admired by his people and respected by his opponents, but doomed to be forgotten soon after his death, or becoming a short-lived but unrivalled warrior, destined for the cruellest of battles and assured of eternal glory. He chose the latter. It makes him self-centred and bitter and causes him to turn against his comrades, although he is useful as well in that he is the only one to stand up against the haughty Agamemnon.

Odysseus, on the other hand, is a survivor. Although that does not exactly make him a push-over either, he explores, lives and loves life to the max. If you consider the passage in the Odyssee where he and Achilles meet in the underworld, you must admit there is more to these characters than emo vs metro.

Old? Yes. Irrelevant? Uh-uhn. :no:

Geesh, Arian, you seem to think drama means 'slow' (Kurosawa). ~;p

Sure, maybe the films aren't the slow paced Kurosawa films where the lack of action is assumed to be deep, meaningful drama, but they're good and entertaining.

Jackson screwed up in some parts, but he succeded by bringing the films to life.

And the books are marvelous works of literature - Tolkein deserves to be counted amoung the literary greats.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Geesh, Arian, you seem to think drama means 'slow' (Kurosawa). ~;p

Sure, maybe the films aren't the slow paced Kurosawa films where the lack of action is assumed to be deep, meaningful drama, but they're good and entertaining.

Jackson screwed up in some parts, but he succeded by bringing the films to life.

And the books are marvelous works of literature - Tolkein deserves to be counted amoung the literary greats.

Crazed Rabbit

---

I really don't think so. LOTR is filled with dramatic events sure, bet the people are always black and white. Either evil or good. The ring supposedly changes this but it never moves anyone into "grey" it just makes good people evil. Real people aren't like that. That's why none of the characters are particularly likable or interesting.

edit: you only think Kurosawa is slow because of this thing he does called "character development" :tongue3:

I like LotR.

I like Akira Kurosawa.

I like apples.

I like pears.

I don't like redwine, though.

RE: slowness of Kurosawa. Watch the Seven Samurai and call him slow again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Achilles is a dead man walking and fighting. He has been given a choice between leading the sedate life of a king in peacetime, admired by his people and respected by his opponents, but doomed to be forgotten soon after his death, or becoming a short-lived but unrivalled warrior, destined for the cruellest of battles and assured of eternal glory. He chose the latter. It makes him self-centred and bitter and causes him to turn against his comrades, although he is useful as well in that he is the only one to stand up against the haughty Agamemnon.

---

Achilles is one of the greatest of literary creations, especially in epic poetry. You are right to defend him, and I wonder if other people, so many of whom say that he is only a selfish and shallow character, have actually 'read' the Iliad. He is the only character who thinks 'outside the box', so to speak. He contemplates the futility of war and killing in ways that have rarely been bettered since, and yet he is this killing machine, who goes on killing. Great character, and great literature. He is not a brat, and he is a much more complicated persona than Odysseus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I really don't think so. LOTR is filled with dramatic events sure, bet the people are always black and white. Either evil or good. The ring supposedly changes this but it never moves anyone into "grey" it just makes good people evil. Real people aren't like that. That's why none of the characters are particularly likable or interesting.

---

Read the "Silmarillon". The trilogy of the Ring is more sintetic and pedagogic than anyother story of Tolkien. The Silmarillon won't be as attached to reality as you may want (i.e. still separates bad and good clearly) but the characters are, though less developed than in the trilogy, more varieded. However the story is still plagued with historical determinism, the ones that ought to fall will fall.

I think the movies were the greatest on its genre. The direction was above average, but the soundtrack was devastating, perfectly engaged with the moments to give that filling of drama (even if some people consider it "false drama"). I got that cold travelling through my spine many times during the battles.

When I get home I am watching the Hobbit cartoon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I really don't think so. LOTR is filled with dramatic events sure, bet the people are always black and white. Either evil or good. The ring supposedly changes this but it never moves anyone into "grey" it just makes good people evil. Real people aren't like that. That's why none of the characters are particularly likable or interesting.

---

You're kidding, right ?

So, Gollum is either black or white, either evil or good, right ? Remember how he changes soooo many times during the movie? Remember the inner struggle, with the clash between the "nice Smeagol" and "bad Gollum" ? How about the scene where he decides to kill Frodo and Sam, that's like 5 minutes or more in the movie, a scene that has absolutely no other purpose than to show you the duality of the character.

How about Boromir ? Is he also good or bad ? No, he changes from good, to bad, and then he changes back to good in the end.

How about Faramir ? First he wants the ring - but not for himself, but to prove himself in the eyes of his father, but later on he gives that up.

Aragorn is haunted by his fears and doubts, and they are outlined in the movie more than I would have expected (remember exchanges between him, and Arwen, and Elrond).

No character development, right...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

You're kidding, right ?

So, Gollum is either black or white, either evil or good, right ? Remember how he changes soooo many times during the movie? Remember the inner struggle, with the clash between the "nice Smeagol" and "bad Gollum" ? How about the scene where he decides to kill Frodo and Sam, that's like 5 minutes or more in the movie, a scene that has absolutely no other purpose than to show you the duality of the character.

How about Boromir ? Is he also good or bad ? No, he changes from good, to bad, and then he changes back to good in the end.

How about Faramir ? First he wants the ring - but not for himself, but to prove himself in the eyes of his father, but later on he gives that up.

Aragorn is haunted by his fears and doubts, and they are outlined in the movie more than I would have expected (remember exchanges between him, and Arwen, and Elrond).

No character development, right...

---

It depends on what you call 'character'.

As one critic has famously stated, Tolkien's literary creations exist only 'from the neck up'. This alone makes that his books are essentially children's stories.

Another aspect is that even though his characters may change from good to evil and back, the nature of good and evil itself is not disputed or explored. Good and evil in LOTR are solid categories, as solid as the characters' asexuality.

Furthermore, good and evil are externalised in separate things, creatures, regions and natural phenomena (mountains etcetera). Hence they are never seen as two sides of one and the same coin, so to speak. In LOTR-speak, even a coin would either be a Smuggblub ('good coin') or a Crengdwar ('bad coin').

I case you wonder what language this is - it is Flubdubgrogglesnot, a fake language I just invented in order to suggest meaning where there is none. Such is the way of the Hobbitses, I'm afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

It depends on what you call 'character'.

As one critic has famously stated, Tolkien's literary creations exist only 'from the neck up'. This alone makes that his books are essentially children's stories.

---

The characters - some of them at least - seem developed enough for me - more so in the books, less so in the movie (understandably, since the movie's focus, or point, was not a 3-hour long introspection in the psychological processes of hobbits).

So, all books that have characters which are insufficiently developed, are children's books ?!:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Another aspect is that even though his characters may change from good to evil and back, the nature of good and evil itself is not disputed or explored. Good and evil in LOTR are solid categories, as solid as the characters' asexuality.

---

I beg to differ in this case, my argument being, again, Gollum. If that doesn't dispute and explore the nature of good and evil, the causes, the process, the oscillation, then I don't know what would suffice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Furthermore, good and evil are externalised in separate things, creatures, regions and natural phenomena (mountains etcetera). Hence they are never seen as two sides of one and the same coin, so to speak. In LOTR-speak, even a coin would either be a Smuggblub ('good coin') or a Crengdwar ('bad coin').

I case you wonder what language this is - it is Flubdubgrogglesnot, a fake language I just invented in order to suggest meaning where there is none. Such is the way of the Hobbitses, I'm afraid.

---

Sure they are presented as two sides of the same coin: Gollum, Faramir, Boromir - they all have their good traits and bad traits, and they oscillate between them. It's exactly like you said: two sides of the same coin.

As for the non-alive things, which are either good or bad, I'm not sure what your point is there. Sure, there's places with a bad reputation, and "nice" places, how is that unrealistic? Seems to me that reality is exactly like that.
If I go visit a mine, or a former prison, where hundreds of people died, or were killed, or suffered, I'll bet your morning coffee cup I won't be all cheery and prancing, and I won't be getting any "good vibes" from the place.
On the other hand, if I go to a theme-park, a rollercoaster thingie, or a place famous for, say, lovers kissing on/in/under/ it, etc, sure enough I'll get "good vibes".

I'm afraid I also missed your point about the languages. I thought the creation of all the languages specific to the various races adds immensely to the realism and the immersion of Tolkien's work, and it's pretty much admired by a bunch of philologists and folks concerned with languages and such. I don't understand why that is a negative point for you, but of course we're all allowed our opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Read the "Silmarillon". The trilogy of the Ring is more sintetic and pedagogic than anyother story of Tolkien. The Silmarillon won't be as attached to reality as you may want (i.e. still separates bad and good clearly) but the characters are, though less developed than in the trilogy, more varieded. However the story is still plagued with historical determinism, the ones that ought to fall will fall.

---

The Silmarillon is a horribly self indulgend book though. It's like with LOTR Tolkien tried to write the 'new' testament and then with the Silmarillon he tried to add the old. Of course, Tolkien would probably turn over in his grave if he read me compare his books to the Bible, considering his views on the subject :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

So, all books that have characters which are insufficiently developed, are children's books ?!:inquisitive:

---

With insufficiently developed characters, not necessarily. But stories populated exclusively by asexual beings usually are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

I beg to differ in this case, my argument being, again, Gollum. If that doesn't dispute and explore the nature of good and evil, the causes, the process, the oscillation, then I don't know what would suffice.

---

What I meant to say was that good and evil in LOTR are two different, clearly identifiable coins. There is never a dilemma about what constitutes good or evil in a given situation, is there? Well, I didn't get the inpression there was any when I read some of Tolkien, though maybe I have missed out on a major aspect. I see no moral ambiguity such as I see in a figure like Achilles, who is under no influence but his own and who has to ask himself whether what he wants is good or evil.

Evil is represented in LOTR as a clearly identifiable outside force, the force of the Ring which by its mere presence corrupts Gollum's originally good nature. He becomes a slave to the Ring. The essential thing is that the Ring seeks him out, not the other way around. Gollum never chose evil; evil chose him.

The idea that evil (as represented by the Ring) 'takes care of itself' and will always try to return to its origins is a truly dramatic theme that could have been beautifully explored in the Tolkien books or movies - if only evil had been restored to its proper abode, the human mind, instead of embodied in a shiny thingamy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

With insufficiently developed characters, not necessarily. But stories populated exclusively by asexual beings usually are.

---

Whoa! So, let me make sure I understand what you're saying, LOTR is childish because there's not enough emphasis on sexuality ?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

What I meant to say was that good and evil in LOTR are two different, clearly identifiable coins. There is never a dilemma about what constitutes good or evil in a given situation, is there? Well, I didn't get the inpression there was any when I read some of Tolkien, though maybe I have missed out on a major aspect. I see no moral ambiguity such as I see in a figure like Achilles, who is under no influence but his own and who has to ask himself whether what he wants is good or evil.

Evil is represented in LOTR as a clearly identifiable outside force, the force of the Ring which by its mere presence corrupts Gollum's originally good nature. He becomes a slave to the Ring. The essential thing is that the Ring seeks him out, not the other way around. Gollum never chose evil; evil chose him.

---

Okay, now I understand what you're saying.
But I think that the choices that Boromir and Faramir have to make are pretty much showing that: the moral ambiguity of their decisions. It's not wrong/evil in itself that Faramir/Boromir want the ring, but the way they would get it, and the price they would be paying for it, makes it wrong. Also, they were not under the influence of the Ring while struggling with those choices, because they never wore the Ring (unlike Gollum, for whom I agree with your argument).
Also, while they are portrayed rather fleetingly in the movie, several other characters have to make choices about the Ring - Gandalf, Galadriel - and, again, it is their own choice not to take it.

I guess one could argue that none of these are characters central to the plot, and there is relatively little emphasis on them.