Login

Or
Register Now


Already have an account?
Username:

Password:

Remember me

Lost Your Password?
Main Menu
Collector's Guide Table of Contents
Recent Visitors

laurel
45 minutes ago

Stu
46 minutes ago

Jlong
52 minutes ago

Findegil
1 hour 47 minutes ago

wellinghall
3 hours 13 minutes ago

Glorfindel
4 hours 6 minutes ago

Beren
4 hours 14 minutes ago

Laurin666
4 hours 23 minutes ago


« 1 ... 62 63 64 (65) 66 67 68 ... 117 »


Hobbit might be split into THREE movies now. Sigh
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/8/10 2:07
From Queenstown, New Zealand
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 617
Offline
Some blurb pulled fron news.com.au.

How the hell can The Hobbit be Three movies. Two movies is utterly ridiculous, but three is just madness.

Perhaps I can see by CT seems to be so despairing...

Grrr....

S.


"THE Hobbit is no Lord of the Rings. It’s a 350-page book, bright and breezy in tone and can be finished in a single sitting.
But Peter Jackson and his studio backers, Warner Bros, see J.R.R. Tolkien's children's story differently. They see a three-film epic.

Jackson has already split The Hobbit into two parts for its screen outing - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again. But while presenting footage of his much-anticipated return to Middle-earth at Comic Con this weekend, he let slip that he wasn't prepared to say goodbye to his beloved hobbits just yet.
When asked if he was considering splitting the second film into two parts, he said he and Warner Bros were in "discussions".

"We have certainly been talking to the studio about some of the material we can't film, and we've been asking them so we can do a bit more filming next year. I don't know what would come of that, whether it'd be extended editions or whatnot. But those discussions are ongoing," he told movie website HitFix.

"There's so much good stuff in the appendices that we haven't been able to squeeze into these movies."
Jackson finished filming both Hobbit films last month after an epic 250-day shoot in New Zealand. His respect for Tolkien's fantasy world is such that his motives for making a third Hobbit film are unlikely to be driven by money.

However, the Lord of the Rings franchise is a lucrative one and Warners will be looking for ways to continue it. Splitting the second film - which will see Bilbo Baggins confront the dragon Smaug - seems to be an ideal way to wring more cash out of audiences.

Warners started the trend when it served up the final Harry Potter book in two chunky instalments. The decision earned the studio an extra billion dollars at the box office.

Lionsgate studio adopted the same strategy for the final chapter of its popular Twilight series and last week it was at it again, announcing it was splitting the third Hunger Games book, Mockingjay, in half.
Although such decisions are good for studios' bottom lines, they can backfire. Critics panned Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1 for being bloated and Hunger Games fans are already griping that Mockingjay is the weakest book in Suzanne Collins' trilogy and is unlikely to make one good film never mind two.

In Jackson's favour is the rich, textured world Tolkien created for Bilbo and Gandalf to inhabit. The appendices of The Lord of the Rings are a gold mine of back stories and Middle-earth mythology.
It's ironic that Jackson is considering making three films out of The Hobbit when a complicated fight over the film rights, a fallout between Jackson and the studio heads, the bankruptcy of MGM and a union dispute almost stopped the book getting to the screen.

During his Comic Con appearance Jackson touched on The Hobbit's troubled history and addressed the furore over his decision to film it at 48 frames per second, which is twice the standard frame rate.
In April Jackson showed footage of The Hobbit at the higher rate but some of those who saw it likened the experience to watching BBC dramas from the 1970s. The disappointing reaction was the reason he decided to show Comic Con audiences footage at the standard rate.
He told the Huffington Post: "What I learned from the CinemaCon experience is don't run a seven or eight or ten minute reel where the total focus is going to be on the 48 frames. I mean, that was a disappointing thing.

"I'm not going to go to Comic-Con with 12 minutes of footage and have the same reaction. I don't want people to write about 48 frames. Forty-eight frames can be written about in December. When people can actually watch a full length narrative film, everyone can go to town on 48 frames. And if you hate it, you hate it."

The 12-minute reel Jackson showed at Comic Con gave fans glimpses of five full scenes, including Bilbo's recruitment to the quest, Gandalf being chased through darkened hallways and Bilbo's first encounter with Gollum. Those scenes were intercut with brief shots of Saruman, Legolas and cave trolls.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/ ... 26427023461#ixzz20l1EQSR3
"

Posted on: 2012/7/15 21:44


Re: Discussion forum problem
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/8/10 2:07
From Queenstown, New Zealand
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 617
Offline

Morgan wrote:
Well, not really a problem, but what appears to be a technical glitch: is it only me, or does it happen to others that the forum sometimes looks different? That is, lacking parts of the layout (e.g., not displaying the number of edits).


I can't say that I have noticed it.

Posted on: 2012/7/15 15:52


Re: CT 2012 French Language Article/Interview in Le Monde
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/8/10 2:07
From Queenstown, New Zealand
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 617
Offline

Turbo wrote:
We should be careful not to put our own interpretations of the words as fact. What he says as I understand it is not that the movies will harm the books or make them dissapear, but that he doesn't consider the movies to be very accurate representations of the books. Either way the comments is about the movies.


The (translated) article that I read implies very strongly that CTs view is that the movies harm the books and Tolkien's Legacy.

For example, the following quote is attributed to CT: "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has gone too far for me. Such commercialisation has reduced the esthetic and philosophical impact of this creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: turning my head away."

The above quote could indeed be taken as "The movies in and of themselves have no aesthetic or philosophical impact", but that certainly isn't how most people seem to have read it (judging by the various comments on various fora). It has widely been read as "The movies and commercialisation have reduced the value of the original work to nothing".

It may be that the article is ambiguous (or the translation is ambiguous), unfortunately. Readers can only go on the words that are written...

Posted on: 2012/7/15 15:40


Re: CT 2012 French Language Article/Interview in Le Monde
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/8/10 2:07
From Queenstown, New Zealand
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 617
Offline

Urulókë wrote:
I do have to agree with something said/implied by Christopher, and echoed on the Mythopoeic Society discussion groups and elsewhere:

The mental landscape (the inner vision, imaginations, whatever) of readers of the books, has forever been altered by the movies. Fan art post-PJ is almost all movie derived imagery, for example. For myself, I have to fight my inner voice when reading, even when it is saying innocuous things like "this is written so much better than what the movie showed for this scene." Shut up, voice! Of course it is, now stop distracting me from the story.


That is, of course, the danger with any adaptation. The answer is just to not see the movies, really. I haven't seem them since the RoTK DVD set came out, and have no plans on ever seeing them again. Nor will I go and see the Hobbit movies. I am actually very fortunate to have been "inoculated" at an early age with the BBC Radio Dramatisation of LoTR*, and those are largely the voices in my head when I read the books. Sir Michael Hordern IS Gandalf.


I do believe that there will be LOTR (and Hobbit) readers into the next century, whose imaginative vistas will be unspoiled by PJ imagery as those moves age, the effects become dated, and the tastes of film-goers evolve.

At that point, the movie remakes will come out.


It isn't really PJ imagery, it is Lee/Howe + NZ imagery , so I blame them (except for NZ - it seems a bit harsh to blame an entire country)! The movies look pretty, but my imagination is stronger than their art, which I find a bit tedious (due to overexposure), to be honest.

* WARNING:: Don't accidentally inoculate yourself with the BBC Dramatisation of the Hobbit or you will have to kill yourself. Gandaaaalf, Indeed.

Posted on: 2012/7/12 18:05


Re: CT 2012 French Language Article/Interview in Le Monde
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/8/10 2:07
From Queenstown, New Zealand
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 617
Offline
Reading the article, it does amuse me how upset the Estate gets about the Movies (beyond the Hollywood execs trying to stiff them, that is!). The existence of the movies (which I personally detested) doesn't change the content of the books at all (and besides, the Estate does seem happy to allow the publication of lucrative film tie-in editions that further cement the relationship between the books and the films. This seems like hypocrisy to me).

CT needs to have more faith in the books and their ability to stand the test of time, I think. Or perhaps he needs to have more faith in the readers. Either way. The books haven't changed, they haven't become something else because JRRT *sold* the rights to have them turned into all manner of crap including the movies.

Really, the Estate do need to get some perspective. Tolkien wasn't an Albert Einstein or Leonardo Da-Vinci. He was a man who was skilled with languages and wrote a relatively small number of (publisher-friendly) stories that have divided opinion since they were published and will continue to do so.

Philosophical Impact? Maybe the Estate should just be happy with how many books they have sold and how many people have *enjoyed them*. Personally, I can't imagine there will ever be a book that I enjoy more than the LoTR. But I certainly don't think it is "important" or philosophically relevant (and the movies haven't influenced my thinking on that). No disrespect to CT, but I think he has been so entrenched in his father's work that he has lost perspective of what matters.

Posted on: 2012/7/12 3:16



 Top
« 1 ... 62 63 64 (65) 66 67 68 ... 117 »