Topic: Peter Jackson's Hobbit

[Fandir Nightshade]

BLASPHEMY!....  i agree though

[patsy02]

"The wind so whirled a weathercock
 He could not hold his tail up;
 The frost so nipped a throstlecock
 He could not snap a snail up.
 'My case is hard' the throstle cried,
 And 'All is vane' the cock replied;
 And so they set their wail up."

EVERY SONG SHOULD BE IN THERE

[TexasYankee]

A rare moment in Back Table history . . . TexasYankee and Oak Prince on one side of the argument, PhillyT and Odominus on the other . . . I think I'll go play the lotto now . . . 

[oak_prince]

A rare moment in Back Table history . . . TexasYankee and Oak Prince on one side of the argument, PhillyT and Odominus on the other . . . I think I'll go play the lotto now . . . 

 

Is it weird that I'm already contemplating the future of the franchise -after- the Hobbit movies are done? That is, whether they'll spin a couple movies out of the Silmarillion/Unfinished Tales/Hurin stuff.

[BAWTRM]

I think a few songs might work. Where in the LOTR films you had the grand vista shots you could have those in the Hobbit as well, but with added singing for instance.

Then again some songs are too cool not to include.

I was a little disappointed when LOTR didn't include the Ent marching song for instance:

    To Isengard! Though Isengard be ringed and barred with doors of stone;

    Though Isengard be strong and hard, as cold as stone and bare as bone,

    We go, we go, we go to war, to hew the stone and break the door;
    For bole and bough are burning now, the furnace roars - we go to war!

    To land of gloom with tramp of doom, with roll of drum, we come, we come;

            To Isengard with doom we come! With doom we come, with doom we come!

[Finlay]

disagree philly. It’s a classic because it transcends its era, not because it’s a dusty throwback. I read it for first time a few years ago and it was absolutely amazing. Still shouldn’t put songs in the films though.
Hobbit of course is in a different style and partially different target audience.

[jlutin]

It stands because it is well written and has a richness and depth that flows through it's characters and the world he created.  He created a world before he created the story.  So many works are just people winging it, creating something as the go along.

[Wolfgang aus Wien]

Or they are they just not all that good compared to modern books?  They are classics for a reason.  They inspired almost all fantasy that has come since, but if you go and read them now, they are a bit dry and stale, as though they were written by a fuddy duddy linguist professor or something...

Not sure what you mean by 'modern', but I cannot recall reading any fantasy novel written in the past, oh, say, 30-40 years or so that was any better than 'beach reading' at best.
'Inspired' is right.....
Go into any bookstore -new or used - and a good 75% + of all fantasy is basically LotR re-written by some hack.
And I'm not even that much of a Tolkien fan.

Regarding the Battle Hymn of the Ents: I wonder what that would actually sound like. If done in human speech (for movie audiences), would it sound like a record being played at half speed? Takes them hours just to say 'Good morning', y'know........

[phillyt]

disagree philly. It’s a classic because it transcends its era, not because it’s a dusty throwback. I read it for first time a few years ago and it was absolutely amazing. Still shouldn’t put songs in the films though.
Hobbit of course is in a different style and partially different target audience.

I am not saying that it isn't a fantastic book series.  I am not even saying there are any series that are as good as it (though how can they be when they are all so linked ti the LOTR).  The depth of the content, the original ideas, and the characters are all amazing.  But if terms of the actual presentation, descriptive content, and pacing, it is in many ways a little droll and dull.  Add pages of those songs and you kind of get the idea.  If he had finished the Simerilian you could have actually held competitions to see which is more entertaining, reading that book or watching paint dry.

[Finlay]

agree on silmarillion, never got into it. But I do disagree with dry and dull point. The songs are superfluous, I didn’t read most of them, but apart from perhaps a little with frodo and sam, I never found it dry or dull.

[patsy02]

They included the songs as well as they could've in the LOTR films, where it was most natural. Having them in just for their own sake is pointless, especially when half of them really are a bit too retarded to use in a live action film.

[phillyt]

agree on silmarillion, never got into it. But I do disagree with dry and dull point. The songs are superfluous, I didn’t read most of them, but apart from perhaps a little with frodo and sam, I never found it dry or dull.

To me in many cases it was read as a war report.  But if I recall, that was in many ways Tolkien's intent.  It was a lot of "They went there.  They then went there.  They did this.  They got to there."

Don't think I don't love the books.  I do.  But at the same time, one needs to be careful about mythologizing the actual book.  In many cases, people adore the images the book created.  I suppose though, that is the point of all books right?

I actually preferred the movies version to the books.

[GamesPoet]

Not sure I need to see three movies of the hobbit, but I likely will.  Seems there could be room for three, particularly if its paced well.

As for the "f" word, my experience has rarely if ever been boring, and rarely have I had to say no.  I hope and doubt these movies will be either.

Regarding the songs, I mostly agree with Patsy02.

And the Silmarillion, it is very good.  When I first tried to read it as a youngster, it was difficult to read and I stopped.  When I picked it up again in college, I saw the light, and it was good, very good.

[phillyt]

Keep in mind though, Tolkien didn't write the Simerilion. HE started it and died and then his son sort of cobbled it together.

[GamesPoet]

Not just Christopher Tolkien, but if I recall correctly, also Guy Gavriel Kay, another masterful story teller.  But yes, my understanding is that it was compiled from J.R.R.’s writings of the tales over his life time, and that there are portions of it not written by J.R.R., in order to fill in some gaps and eliminate inconsistencies with the parts that were written by J.R.R. himself.  I once got hung up on this, but after reading and enjoying it very much, I failed to see the point of me doing such, and let that go.

"The Silmarillion" might make for some very good movie making, too.  However, I'm looking forward to the movie version of "The Hobbit" and hope it lives up to the same quality as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings effort.

[jlutin]

If the Hobbit works (and there is no reason to expect it won't), we can look forward to the Simarillion producing and endless stream of movies.  Not unlike Comic book movies.

It all depends on how the fans receive the side stories they are throwing into the Hobbit.  There is just way too much money to be made.

Now if we could just get a decent warhammer or 40k movie, then GW will live forever and make cheap plastic figs for funsies.

[zifnab0]

Now if we could just get a decent warhammer or 40k movie, then GW will live forever and make cheap plastic figs for funsies.

It's certainly not for lack of trying.

The problem with the 40k and warhammer settings is that they're just not really very good.  40K especially.

[Finlay]

Yep. Cliched, hackneyed nonsense really. Comparing them to Tolkien is hilarious.

[jlutin]

The stories need work, but the universe created is strong enough to support a movie franchise.

[t12161991]

If the Hobbit works (and there is no reason to expect it won't), we can look forward to the Simarillion producing and endless stream of movies.  Not unlike Comic book movies.

It all depends on how the fans receive the side stories they are throwing into the Hobbit.  There is just way too much money to be made.

Now if we could just get a decent warhammer or 40k movie, then GW will live forever and make cheap plastic figs for funsies.

Not so much, actually. The Tolkein estate hates the movies and didn't them made, but the rights to the Hobbit and LotR were already sold. The rights to the Silmarillion were not.

[Finlay]

Disagree really. LotR manages to transcend geekiness, so opens itself up to a massive audience. GW doesn’t.

Most kids (at least those whose parents read to them) will have encountered the Hobbit.

[jlutin]

Not so much, actually. The Tolkein estate hates the movies and didn't them made, but the rights to the Hobbit and LotR were already sold. The rights to the Silmarillion were not.

The Tolkein estate will eventually bow to the money.  If not this generation, then the next or the one following.  Stories just want to be free.. Yo.

[BAWTRM]

I don't think the nihilistic nature of the 40K universe lends itself well to a series of films that endear them to a large audience.

A single GrimDark movie sure but people generally like some hope and goodness to shine through and I don't think the Tau will work (though you never know after Avatar).

[phillyt]

Disagree really. LotR manages to transcend geekiness, so opens itself up to a massive audience. GW doesn’t.

Most kids (at least those whose parents read to them) will have encountered the Hobbit.

Not a single member of my class knew what the Hobbit is.  They only knew LOTR because of the movies.

[patsy02]

Making a film about Warhammer is impossible because of its expansive nature. It's possible to make a good film set in the 40k or Fantasy universe, and about as hard as making a good superhero film.

If presented in the childish and garish way GW is doing it, it's bound to be terrible. It can be made as well as Nolan's Batman, or as embarrasingly bad as the Fantastic Four. Additionally, because of the relatively small fanbase, a Warhammer based film would have to stand on its own merits - it'd have to be an actually decent sci-fi or fantasy film.