|
|
Post by Mark_Stevenson on Dec 21, 2007 12:28:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Shockprowl on Dec 21, 2007 22:11:32 GMT
That's put dark images in the mind of Shockprowl!
I think this'd be excellant. Intruiged by the "Bridge" film. Wonder if they could ever manage a Sillmarillion movie? God knows how they'd do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Dec 21, 2007 22:26:04 GMT
I always felt it was pretty inevitable that New Line and Jackson would reach armistice enough for him to work on "The Hobbit". It makes
sense to put the same director on it as did "The Lord of the Rings". They'll be banking on him repeating the same success as those films did. And I reckon they've got a good chance of it working out.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 21, 2007 22:28:38 GMT
I just hope it's not as po-faced as the Rings movies. Very well crafted but bored me shitless.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Dec 22, 2007 8:49:03 GMT
I just hope it's not as po-faced as the Rings movies. Very well crafted but bored me shitless. I thought they were wonderful, the extended DVD versions in particular. The only world on film that I am happy to immerse myself in for 11.5 hours straight, completely switching off from the real world and entering a more magical one. And when the Hobbit comes out, I'll watch it all through 14+ hours straight, enjoying every minute of it. But I'm sure it will be much lighter and less serious. No Frodo/Sam, and lots of dwarves - it's pretty much inevitable. Bring it on! Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on May 1, 2008 6:50:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Shockprowl on May 1, 2008 9:12:15 GMT
Brilliant. Very excited 'bout this. Good they're doing two films, instead of cramming the whole story into one.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on May 1, 2008 16:16:07 GMT
More inclined to check this out with Peter Jackson not helming it. I just don't rate him as a director.
I am struggling to see why The Hobbit needs two films though.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on May 1, 2008 16:31:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on May 1, 2008 19:40:49 GMT
I am struggling to see why The Hobbit needs two films though. -Ralph Me too. It has been a while since I read it but "The Hobbit"'s narrative strikes me as one that you could comfortably do in two hours. I'm not sure there is any requirement to break it in two (and I'm not sure that it would be a good idea pacing-wise either). Ah well, we shall see what we shall see I guess. Karl |
|
|
|
Post by karla on May 3, 2008 21:04:11 GMT
he's also supposed to be doing "At The Mountians Of Madness" too, which = shoggoths!
but he's doing hobbit first. That kid eating monster thing from Pan's Labyrinth *shivers* I hate that thing!
|
|
Rich
Protoform
Posts: 880
|
Post by Rich on May 5, 2008 17:20:53 GMT
Doing the Hobbit and getting Del Toro to direct - great move. Having a second film not based on a story by Tolkien? Weird; not something I'm on board with at all. Why not do the children of Hurin or one of the other stories form the Silmarillion? Frankly I'm surprised the contract allows them to do that.
|
|
Nigel
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
Posts: 5,098
|
Post by Nigel on Dec 21, 2011 10:14:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 21, 2011 18:26:49 GMT
Quite possibly the most boring trailer I have ever seen. I actually switched it off when that bloody song droned on and on. Ah, Peter Jackson: have you heard of fun? WHY SO SERIOUS?
I'll stick with the book!
-Ralph
|
|
Hero
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
King of RULES!
Everything Rules
Posts: 7,487
|
Post by Hero on Dec 21, 2011 18:54:15 GMT
 This pic surfaced recently. Quite liked the trailer myself. Looks set to be a masterpiece of a movie. |
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Dec 21, 2011 20:09:06 GMT
Quite possibly the most boring trailer I have ever seen. I actually switched it off when that bloody song droned on and on. Ah, Peter Jackson: have you heard of fun? WHY SO SERIOUS? I'll stick with the book! -Ralph I am the anti-Ralph, that trailer looks EXCELLENT. |
|
|
|
Post by legios on Dec 21, 2011 20:23:57 GMT
Not entirely sold on that trailer to be honest. It felt a little too slow and staid, needed more of a sense of rollicking adventure to it.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 21, 2011 20:47:08 GMT
I agree.
The Rings films reeked of every frame crying out: THIS IS SERIOUS! LOOK HOW SERIOUS IT IS. THERE WILL BE NO FUN HERE. THIS IS DRAMA. LOOK LOOK.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Dec 22, 2011 12:05:46 GMT
Yes, but that's how the books were written. There's plenty of fun fantasy out there on TV and in the movies for when people want that sort of thing - that's not the niche Tolkien is meant to fill. 'The Lord of the Rings', at least, is supposed to be a serious epic about the struggle between good versus evil in the world and in individuals. If the characters had been cheery and devil-may-care types, making quips and enjoying themselves while trying to save their homes from war and destruction, the whole thing would have failed.
When Peter Jackson set out to make the movies, he made what I consider to be a brave decision, namely to insist that the audience take it ultra-seriously or go and see something else. I think it was a risky move, but that it paid off - with both the critics and the box office, and with most Tolkien fans. If he hadn't committed so wholeheartedly to that route, I don't think the films would have done as will with the critics or the box office or the fans.
'The Lord of the Rings' is among my top ten books of all time (alongside more 'fun' fantasies like 'Don Quixote' and the 'Alice'). The extended film trilogy is among my top ten films of all time (alongside more 'fun' fantasies like 'Labyrinth' and 'The Princess Bride'). I don't think either the book or the films would be in my top ten if Tolkien and Jackson had tried to make them less serious.
As for 'The Hobbit' - it looks great to me from the trailers. But the book isn't among my top ten, and I wouldn't object to the films being less serious than 'The Lord of the Rings'.
I take the point people are making, mind. It's the same point I make when I say I only like James Bond films when they're silly. But in the case of Tolkien, I think that if it's _not_ done completely straight and serious, there's no point doing it at all.
Martin
|
|
Rich
Protoform
Posts: 880
|
Post by Rich on Dec 22, 2011 15:31:19 GMT
I've always felt that LotR was the serious book and The Hobbit the joyful one. The trailer looks a joyless affair to me and fails to excite my interest as a result. But I thought Jackson's first trilogy was generally dull and disappointing, so maybe I'm not best placed to judge. I was very disappointed with Guillermo del Toro dropped out, and don't think this will be a fraction of the film it might have been with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 22, 2011 21:48:55 GMT
I've always felt that LotR was the serious book and The Hobbit the joyful one. You beamed the words out of my brain! -Ralph |
|
Hero
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
King of RULES!
Everything Rules
Posts: 7,487
|
Post by Hero on Dec 22, 2011 22:51:15 GMT
I am sure other trailers between now and the films release will show something joyful.
===KEN
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Feb 9, 2012 11:04:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Benn on Feb 10, 2012 8:51:41 GMT
Well, that's the start of joy, right? I still say he should have cast Brian Blessed as Bombur.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Feb 11, 2012 0:35:24 GMT
He is deeply disliked in Glasgow due to the blatant bullshit he has made up about life on the Clyde shipyards and life around Partick. Wanker of the highest order. -Ralph |
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Feb 11, 2012 0:40:13 GMT
Used to like him but he has become less funny as the years have gone on.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Feb 11, 2012 0:50:34 GMT
I just can't abide the shit he makes up about Partick. Makes my blood boil.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Benn on Feb 11, 2012 14:09:57 GMT
Hobbit: Back to being joyless then.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Feb 11, 2012 14:33:51 GMT
Oh don't let my rants about Billy Connolly put folk off from enjoying The Hobbit.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Dec 15, 2012 0:09:09 GMT
The movie that no one knew for years would get made, is now out, at least stateside.
I'm not a LotR fan. Not in the fandom way, like I am transformers, or GL. Not in the way people are Star Wars, and such.
But, I've been really into the movies, and feel they were some of the cinimatic highlights of the previous decade.
I remember rushing to read the books, trying to beat the movies. After that, I was burnt out from reading, but it was sooooo worth it.
I tried to follow it up with The Hobbit... but I just couldn't do it. Too burnt out.
So this is my first exposure to The Hobbit, and I gotta say, I enjoyed the store a lot more than LotRs.
Not so weighty. As much as I love LotRs, they do feel like a chore at times watching it (Which wasn't exactly unintentional). They leave you tired, and emotionally drained.
But Hobbit was a lot more of a fun experience.
It is definately a spectacle, and if you're like me and not really impressed by 3D, I'd suggest giving a try with this one.
Avatar didn't impress me. Hobbit did.
Tolkien fans will rejoice at this movie. People who thought the Rings movies were meerly "Okay," I think will be much more pleased with this.
I can't wait until next christmas! (That was, oddly enough, one of the best parts about the trilogy, eagerly waiting for the next chapter)
|
|
