Scots Taffer on 13/9/2006 at 23:41
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Representing those who liked the films just fine but who think the books are stupefyingly dull, poorly-written, and in general a waste of ink, paper, and the energy it took to produce them.
Unfortunately in this case you weren't in before me, I am representing that camp loud and proud.
Oh, let us digress onto a nine page discussion of a valley, of how rolling it is, how lush and verdant and green it is, and let's see how many other words I can use to describe vegetation while executing precisely zero character growth or plot progression...Agent Monkeysee on 14/9/2006 at 00:52
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
Unfortunately in this case you weren't in before me, I am representing that camp loud and proud.
Oh, let us digress onto a nine page discussion of a valley, of how rolling it is, how lush and verdant and green it is, and let's see how many other words I can use to describe vegetation while executing precisely zero character growth or plot progression...Y'know everybody makes fun of Tolkien for that kind of landscape expository but when I read through the trilogy a few years ago I really didn't notice very much of that. The text falls flat on its face during those interminable songs and poems he insists on transcribing FOR PAGES ON END. If anything the scenery suffers from too little description, often you can't tell exactly where the fellowship is in relation to their immediate surroundings.
ignatios on 14/9/2006 at 01:00
I've only ever read the poetry once, and even then, I can't be sure that I read every single line of it. It's just brutal.
But I've never been big on poetry anyway, which I somewhat regret.
BEAR on 14/9/2006 at 01:18
It wasnt that I thought the movies were terrible, so much as I felt they basically destroyed the spirit of the books for me, I most of the basic story was there but it felt totally diffrent to me, I really wanted to like it but it just rubbed me the wrong way.
I have the same feeling about the hobbit, I have too much of a engrained feeling about the book, and I know the movie wont get the tone right, it will be the lotr movies with the hobbit story, which wouldnt be right.
I think anyone who thinks that anyone who didnt like the lotr movies needs therapy.
Scots Taffer on 14/9/2006 at 01:41
You're right, AM. I suppose the endless folklore banter was more interminable than the descriptions of scenery. I'm not the type of reader that feels the need to refer to appendices for Family Trees just to grasp wtf side-issue the elf is jabbering on about.
Anyway, I'd just like to point out that aside from MGM spouting this rumour, the word from the Jackson camp is that they're busy with lots of other projects and also, they've just optioned another fantasy series, Temeraire.
jimjack on 14/9/2006 at 01:42
I'm wondering if anyone slogged through Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle-earth by Tolkien. I've also read Farmer Giles of Ham I have no idea why. Unfinished Tales starts at the time of the Elder days in Middle-earth up to the end of the Ring War. So if you ever wanted to know anything about the whole scope all the stories including language, kings and politics and whole load of garbled welsh sounding words..thats one hard read... I'd like to see Jackson wrap a film around that.
Mingan on 14/9/2006 at 02:04
A few years ago, I was looking for more Tolkien in my local bookstore (which is most aweful, they got more new-age psycho-babble than real books). I quickly shuffled through the pages and found out that it's mostly the same thing as the Silmarillion, plus comments from Tolkien's son. So I ditched the whole thing. Wading through the Silmarillion was hard enough once.
SithLord2001 on 14/9/2006 at 02:40
Quote Posted by BEAR
I have the same feeling about the hobbit, I have too much of a engrained feeling about the book, and I
know the movie
wont get the tone right, it will be the lotr movies with the hobbit story, which wouldnt be right.
.
Well, at least we know you can't be disappointed
Agent Monkeysee on 14/9/2006 at 03:55
Quote Posted by BEAR
I think anyone who thinks that anyone who didnt like the lotr movies needs therapy.
Well I think you're dumb with an ugly face and you have a big butt and your butt smells and you like to smell your own butt.
oudeis on 14/9/2006 at 05:09
GETTING THIS THREAD BACK ON TRACK,
I have to say first that I am
amazed at the indifference I've read in this thread.
How can anybody not be excited about "The Hobbit" coming to the big screen? Have you all completely forgotten how much fun you had reading it when you were younger?
As much as it tempts me to weigh-in to the whole 'novel vs film' discursion above, I'll refrain (and I could write a fucking treatise on the topic, in terms whose lightest word would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood, and etch themselves in bleeding lines of fire upon the inside of your monitor screen) and focus instead on why every one you twinkies is going to see this movie. Why, you say? Because you want to see
* The three trolls debating how to cook the dwarves, only to fall victim to Gandalf's trickery.
* The passage over the Misty Mountains, complete with mountain giants.
* The escape from the goblin tunnels and the wolf glade.
* Bilbo rescuing the dwarves from the spiders.
* The revelation of Erebor: Bilbo, perched atop a barrel, rounds a river bend and sees the Lonely Mountain, looming above Lake-Town like the middle finger of Doom.
* Bilbo creeps down the tunnel, peeks around the edge of the doorway, and is confronted with the majesty that is Smaug (and you
know that WETA Digital could hit the ball out of the fucking park on this one).
* The attack on Lake-Town.
* THE BATTLE OF FIVE ARMIES.
I really don't care who directs the film, provided it's not Michael Bay or Paul W(orthless) S(hitbag) Anderson. Peter Jackson would be great, provided Philippa Boyens is not allowed to find the 'female energy' in the text; however, I don't think his participation is a sine qua non. As for casting, I'd love to see Kenneth Branagh as Bilbo. Ian Mckellen was fantastic as Gandalf, but his presence wouldn't be absolutely necessary, either: The Gandalf of 'The Hobbit' is very different from the depiction in LOTR- much more a comedic figure- and wouldn't suffer from a lighter touch. Think Nicol Williamson in Excalibur. Smaug would need a Christopher Lee or the equivalent to voice him. Other than that the field is wide open.
addendum- Oh Christing
FUCK this is unbelievable. I haven't paid attention to or even read a Village Voice film commentary since they insisted that James Cameron was a misogynist for making Ripley such a hardass in 'Aliens' (he portrayed her as the stereotypical castrating bitch every teenage boy fears) and an anti-semite for casting Paul Reiser as the greedy, conniving yuppy Carter Burke, despite the rampant WASPiness of the name. However, when I stumbled across (
http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0353,sinagra2,49911,20.html) this link while doing a quick spell-check of Boyens' name I knew I had to share it with you. This is the most sophomoronic, self-impressed piece of film-criticism cum social-commentary-as-art-form bullshit I've come across in recent memory. This is up there with RIAA lawsuits, Microsoft 'feature' press releases, and George Bush political speeches on the STA*U*FU meter.
*absolute *uttermost
