SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: May 06 2010 04:28 pm

Peter Jackson is starting filming on the Hobbit movie pretty soon, so I figured might as well start speculation on how fucking sweet it's gonna be. But mainly I want him to get the Hobbit done so he can make the Silmarillion which will change the world. More info from the link below.

Fun Fact: The Lord of the Ring Trilogy won 17 oscars. An average of about 6 per movie.

http://derhobbit-film.de/indexengl.shtml

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

I enjoyed the Hobbit book very much. I hated the The Fellowship of the Ring book. I loved the The Fellowship of the Ring Movie.

I'm not sure if I will super love the Hobbit or just regular hate it.

Posted: May 06 2010 10:14 pm

Spanish Meatloaf wrote:

But mainly I want him to get the Hobbit done so he can make the Silmarillion which will change the world.

The Silmarillion really isn't something I can picture being made into a movie. There are way too many separate story lines, way too many characters for a movie, and it spans entire generations which would be awkward for a movie to pull off. There is also the lack of any central character to tie everything together which would be important for a movie as well.

To make it a movie they would have to edit and rewrite it so heavily that I would honestly prefer they didn't attempt at all.

Posted: May 06 2010 10:40 pm

GPFontaine wrote:

I enjoyed the Hobbit book very much. I hated the The Fellowship of the Ring book. I loved the The Fellowship of the Ring Movie.

I'm not sure if I will super love the Hobbit or just regular hate it.

My exact same assessment of this series. The original Hobbit book was superior to all the Lord of the Rings books IMO.

Posted: May 07 2010 02:01 am

jackfrost wrote:

Spanish Meatloaf wrote:

But mainly I want him to get the Hobbit done so he can make the Silmarillion which will change the world.

The Silmarillion really isn't something I can picture being made into a movie. There are way too many separate story lines, way too many characters for a movie, and it spans entire generations which would be awkward for a movie to pull off. There is also the lack of any central character to tie everything together which would be important for a movie as well.

To make it a movie they would have to edit and rewrite it so heavily that I would honestly prefer they didn't attempt at all.

Definitely. It can't be done properly so they shouldn't even try it. Unless they want to pick out a specific story line, and then they'd still have to expand it out more than Tolkien ever wrote.

But the Hobbit? Can't wait.

Posted: May 07 2010 02:54 am

My first exposure to Tolkien was through the Rankin-Bass animated version of The Hobbit, then I wound up with a softcover edition of the book.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

The Hobbit was the only Tolkien book I really enjoyed. However, I don't like Peter Jackson at all and I'm sure I'll probably not like this.

Title: Alexz Aficionado Joined: May 21 2008 Posts: 2889

Little people? Talking dragons? Elves? Barrel riding?

This will never work Razz

Posted: May 07 2010 06:38 am

After LOTR though, won't the Hobbit be kind of a let down? I mean, here's three epic, action packed films and now here's a quaint, little character story with very little movie-like action. It seems to me like it'll be a let down coming after the epic LOTR trilogy and that The Hobbit should have come first.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

*Yawn*

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

joshwoodzy wrote:

*Yawn*

The thread or the movie?

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves a bit with our estimates of the story as a major motion picture. I am guessing that it will be done right and will probably be a great prequel to the trilogy.

Joined: Mar 13 2009 Location: Arlington Posts: 467

I like the idea that he's working with Guiermo Del Toro. If it looked just like LOTR, it might be a let down. I just hope they get rid of the singing like they did in Lord of the Rings.

They could make a movie on The Silmarillien and focus on Beren and Luthien. They could show a bunch of crazy crap going on all around them, but the focus would be mortal man who wants to get with an Elf, cuts a rock from Morgoth's head and then half the world is destroyed. Who wouldn't want to see that.

Title: Cat of Ulthar Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 93

I love The Hobbit ; it's my favorite of all the books (read it many times), and thought the movies were good to watch in the theater but multiple times? Nah. So, I guess I'm not too excited about this, but we'll see...

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

A'The Silmarillion' movie would be fucking EPIC.

Posted: May 26 2010 01:54 pm

I saw the LOTR movies first, then attempted to read the first book. Couldn't get through it. Not that it wasn't good, but seeing the movie first killed the experience. This time I'm committed to reading the book before seeing the Hobbit.

Posted: May 26 2010 02:02 pm

Ice2SeeYou wrote:

I saw the LOTR movies first, then attempted to read the first book. Couldn't get through it. Not that it wasn't good, but seeing the movie first killed the experience. This time I'm committed to reading the book before seeing the Hobbit.

I get what you're saying about seeing the films first and then reading the books. Usually that's a good order to do it in, but LOTR books are different. I read them when I was a kid, forgot most of them, and then reread after watching the movies. Brutal.

The Hobbit is very different from the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. It was intended for a younger audience so it's a much easier read. I love the LOTR films, but the Trilogy books are freaking boring to me. The Hobbit isn't amazing or anything but at least Tolkien kept the story moving. It's a decent read, and it's not super-long either.

Posted: May 26 2010 02:08 pm

Klimbatize wrote:

Ice2SeeYou wrote:

I saw the LOTR movies first, then attempted to read the first book. Couldn't get through it. Not that it wasn't good, but seeing the movie first killed the experience. This time I'm committed to reading the book before seeing the Hobbit.

I get what you're saying about seeing the films first and then reading the books. Usually that's a good order to do it in, but LOTR books are different. I read them when I was a kid, forgot most of them, and then reread after watching the movies. Brutal.

The Hobbit is very different from the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. It was intended for a younger audience so it's a much easier read. I love the LOTR fims, but the Trilogy books are freaking boring to me. The Hobbit isn't amazing or anything but at least Tolkien kept the story moving. It's a decent read, and it's not super-long either.

I probably made it about halfway through Fellowship when I tried to read it. It felt to me that Tolkien spent far too much time describing the shit they were eating and other useless information. I understand that he's known for going into a lot of detail and that some people probably appreciate that, but I don't really give a fuck what kind of rice cakes they were eating.

Looking forward to reading the Hobbit, though.

Posted: May 26 2010 04:35 pm

i never read LotR, but i have read Wheel of Time. all of them. so, im sure i can get thru the LotR books

Title: Cat of Ulthar Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 93

The book trilogy is good, but there are parts of it that are just unnecessarily long-winded. I can recall one part in Fellowship where they are at that council with Elrond, and the dialog that is uttered (takes up almost two whole chapters if my memory serves) is some of the most tedious I've ever read.

The Hobbit is short and to the point and just a better read in my eyes.

Posted: May 26 2010 08:21 pm

The Two Towers novel was especially boring for me because instead of inter-splicing the two storylines (Sam and Frodo on their own & Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolos running around killing orcs), Tolkien just presents one for half the book, then moves on to the other for the second half. You just get Sam and Frodo walking around for like 200 pages. And it gets so redundant because he focuses on how long they walk, what they ate, what their shoes smelled like...everything.

Title: Cat of Ulthar Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 93

The amount of detail he goes into has always impressed me, but it can make it a chore to read at times.

Posted: May 27 2010 10:04 am

If you think of Tolkein as a painter, he'd be a landscape artist.

Posted: May 27 2010 10:21 am

Klimbatize wrote:

And it gets so redundant because he focuses on how long they walk, what they ate, what their shoes smelled like...everything.

I call BS! Hobbits don't wear shoes! Ah ha!!! Got you!!!!

Phoney!!!

Hey everyone, this guy is a big Phoney!!!

Posted: May 27 2010 04:10 pm

Klimbatize wrote:

You just get Sam and Frodo walking around for like 200 pages. And it gets so redundant because he focuses on how long they walk, what they ate, what their shoes smelled like...everything.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. God knows how much detail to fill out what is essentially just hundreds of pages worth of walking and eating.

Posted: May 27 2010 04:47 pm

Knyte wrote:

Klimbatize wrote:

And it gets so redundant because he focuses on how long they walk, what they ate, what their shoes smelled like...everything.

I call BS! Hobbits don't wear shoes! Ah ha!!! Got you!!!!

Phoney!!!

Hey everyone, this guy is a big Phoney!!!

Hey wait a minute. Knyte's not really a knight! He's a fraud cleverly disguised behind a misspelled word. FRAUD.

I, on the other hand, really do Klimbatize. It's a verb.