After
the great success of the trilogy ‘The Lord of the Rings’ there had been a lot
of conversations about what should be the next movie in the world of J.R.R
Tolkien. Many of us said that the most logical would be to make ‘The Hobbit’, although a few others were hoping for ‘The
Silmarillion’. (Knowing now Peter Jackson’s point of view on the subject,
filming the Silmarillion is something impossible! If Lord of the Rings was 3
movies, then they will have to film at least 5 movies to cover Silmarillion!)
But that’s not our subject today. When I heard
that ‘The Hobbit’ was to become a movie, and especially at the hands of Peter
Jackson, I became very happy. A little later when I heard that they would film
it in 2 movies, I started to worry. A few days ago I read that Peter Jackson
himself stated that finally ‘The Hobbit’ will be 3 movies! There I was
panicked! 3 movies! The Hobbit? How is this possible?
All of you that already know the book, I’m
sure you have the same feelings like me. For the ones that are not familiar
with the book let me give you an example.
Let’s try very simple mathematics here: The
Lord of the Rings was written as a trilogy by Tolkien. There are 3 books with
about 1000+ pages altogether. So, each of the 3 films dealt with each one of
the books. That means that each fılm covered about 300-350 pages. (Plus the
extras that P.Jackson fitted in) (Some were very good, some others not).
But’ The Hobbit’ is nothing like that! Nothing!
Many people I know that read ‘The Hobbit’ after reading ‘The Lord of the Rings’,
were complaining that they found it a bit childish. And they have right.
Because ‘The Hobbit’ is a chıld’s book! It was written in a very simple way,
and it was meant for children. Now, the
whole book is 300 pages more or less. So, with the simple mathematics we used
before, means that each film will cover about 100 pages. How is that even
possible?
It will be possible when P.Jackson put in the
films his own ideas and the new parts of the plot that I’m sure he is preparing
right now. First of all, many characters that are not even mentioned in the
book will be part of the movies. Legolas and Galadriel for example.
But under these circumstances, it will be better
(and more honest) not to name these movies ‘The Hobbit’. They can find some
other altrenative name, like ‘Peter Jackson’s Hobbit’, or The Hobbit – The
P.Jackson’s version, etc etc… hahahah …
Don’t get me wrong here, I really loved The
Lord of the Rings movies, and I really thank P.Jackson for what he achieved!
But this thing he’s trying to do now, I don’t know…
Of course it’s all about the money! And I
agree. Money is very important in show business. But everything has its limits,
don’t you think?
Speaking for myself, I will go (of course) to
watch the movies, but I will go prepared that I will not see ‘The Hobbit’, the
book I first read when I was 10 years old and grew up with! (Until the age of
15-16 when I discovered ‘The Lord of the Rings’). I will see a movie that will
contain inside some parts of ‘The Hobbit’ among hundreds of other things…
But enough with the serious talk. Let’s finish
this post in a funny way.
I discovered this video sometime ago, and I
think it is super!
It needs an update, because it was made in the
period when everybody knew that the
Hobbit would be 2 movies. It’s an ‘alternative’ trailer for the movie. Please
watch it carefully, and pay attention to the lyrics of the song! Its hilarious!
Enjoy it! hehehe
hello
ReplyDeleteLord of the rings movie was a dissapointment for me, Part1 was nice close to the book , part2 was a big disaster n part3 was saved only by the "ride of the rohirim" scene. Dont get me wrong but I really love Tolkien n that made me to have big expectations from Jackson but unfortunately he prefered money over being faith to Tolkien ( Gimli becomes a Clown , new monsters n mobs comes in to the film , Legolas becomes a switch jacknife superhero n dont forget Liv Tyler who took the place of Gandalf in part1 in the river scene ).
Thats why I dont expect to see anything good from Hobbit n since it will be a trilogy film , a book you can read in one night , thats one more reason for me to just wait n see it on the internet just out of curiosity.
I am also a very big fan of Tolkien Nighteyes...
DeleteYes, P.Jackson changed some things in the movies I agree...
But he achieved something that a few years back we couldn't even imagine. The first movie is very very close to the book. (Even some dialogues are exactly the same!), in the second film he added a few stupid things, but in parts the movie was very good, and the third movie was again a good one! I totally agree about Gimli, I was really pissed with how he was behaving in the movies. As for the river scene it was Glorfindel and not Gandalf, (if I remember well). Yes he added many scenes, but don't forget that The Lord of the Rings contains very very few girly scenes. And he wanted to add some things for the women audience of the movie. I don't agree, but...
I have spend many hours speaking for these 3 movies with many people. Everybody had his/her own disagreements about these films. But the bottom line was that he achieved something really really difficult, and the final outcome was very good!
I forgot to mention that when I'm talking about this movie, I'm talking about the extended versions that a bit later went out on Dvd's. These versions are better by far!
DeleteI cannot even see the original movie now, after having watched the extended versions...
for me Lord of the rings in the world of fantasy is what the holy bible is for the christians , everyone that changes the holy bible for any reason is a blasphemer, ofc thats my opinion but in some things i am very strict , stubborn n headstrong :P
DeleteI have yet to watch a movie or TV show that follows a published book word for word. Unfortunately, there are some things that can be written in a book that just don't translate well to "moving pictures", and I guess that's one reason why Mr Jackson is getting paid millions of dollars to achieve with the Hobbit movies what he did already with the Lord of the Rings.
ReplyDeleteNow, I am disappointed to learn 2 things about this movie....firstly that they will released in 3D, and secondly that he will make 3 movies. While I may agree with what many people are saying, that it is a money scam. "Lets release 3 movies, then a boxset on DVD, then extended dvd's, blurays" etc etc, I will still watch them, I may even add them to my dvd/bluray collection, cause no matter what I think, these movies will be a massive hit, just like the original 3, and curiosity will get the better of me. Cause afterall, how can 1 book be turned into 3 movies, that alone has to be worth a watch :P
Oh, and btw...the first version of LOTR that I saw had Legolas meeting Aragorn and Frodo etc at the river :P it was a really old cartoon version which ended I think toward the end of the second book :D
The Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion both got amazingly wide materials plus an incredibly enormous lore to boot. Speaking for myself when I sit down to watch a movie which is adapted from a book I am already prepared to see a changed director's version of it. But how and where it is changed is really important.
ReplyDeletePeter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings was close to the contemporary Fanstasy Fiction rather than Tolkien's own lore. I did not like the scenes with Liv Tyler in the second movie but I had absolutely no problem with her acting the part of Glorfindel (not Gandalf) in the first movie. If you ask me one thing that lacks in The Lord of the Rings (as a book) are women warriors (as we see in the modern works of Fantasy Fiction)despite the attempt to elevate Eowyn. Still she is very much pushed into the back lines of the book. Now that is totally normal in a work which was written back in the First World War when war was considered to be the province of men but now that the style of works have changed this was also adapted in the movie.
I liked the versions of The Lord of the Rings by Peter Jackson. And I say it as a dedicated-to-the-lore- role player in The Lord of the Rings Online.
As for changing the Bible or Koran or whatever religious book there is on earth...if it doesnt answer to the age you live in...then they should be changed/adapted/renovated...but thats a whoooooooooooole other conversation :))
This trailer I posted in my blog as well, I think its absolutely hilarious :))
Ooooh adapting the religious texts for the current age is a must, but I agree that's a whole other topic and one which could take a very looooong discussion :) hope you guys are doing good and not missing me too much on my vacations :))) see you online soon
DeleteThe thing is that I wrote this post in order to support the video, which I think it's great fun! But I don't think anyone watch it... Everybody's writting about Peter Jackson and The Lord of the Rings movies! hahahaha
ReplyDeleteok i think you got me wrong in some things.
DeleteFirst of all books that i like i never expext them to be same as good on movie as they are in the book thats why i dont like when the do movies out of them ( the only movies that was based on a book i really liked was "the name of the rose" though i missed the theological discussions n arguments of the book and "the shining" not the Kubrick's version ofc )
Second Tolkien n Lord Dansany are the pioneers of the fantasy literature and they built the foundations of it thats why when someone tries to make them into a movie imo must be strictly close to the book.
Third yes Lord of the rings is an old book written in a different time ( no women in crucial roles , 9 people start an impossible journey n 8 comes back alive is a bit lame for me )but thats how it is , changing/adopting/renovating it would just be a different book n not Lord of the rings
Fourth I am reading fantasy exclusively for the last 20 years n Lord of the rings is not on my top5 list , I am not obssessed with it I just respect what it represents , I preffer women authors mostly ( Robin Hobb , Trudi Canavan) who has female heroines instead of male heroes :P
Fifth I dont believe in any higher power some people invented to manipulate the masses for thousands of years now , it was just an example probably not a good one as it seems :)
sixth all these are MY opinions i never blamed or mocked anyone for having a different one :) n btw i have watched all the trailers from hobbit George I always have to see something so I can have an opinion about it , the dwarf song rules its a very nice one
ps I am leaving for vacations today in a place where i will have no internet access for 3 weeks so enjoy your 21 nighteyesfree gays , your vacations if you will have any , have fun n see you in the end of august all :)
First of all, have some very nice holidays! :)
DeleteWe will surely miss your passionate comments here... :)
I totally agree on these two movies you mentioned, and I want to add one more: Misery. I think it was an excellent movie, and very close to Stephen Kings' book. (Not to mention Kathy Bate's acting!)
Again, have some nice time and we will be waiting for your return. *Whispers* I'll try to find some lame top-5,10 etc lists to post here especially for you! :P
ok when i say 21 nighteyesfree gays i mean DAYS ofc sorry for the typing mistake and ty in advance George for the upcoming lists :)
Delete