I've been laid up with a bad back, and with nothing to do but lie on the floor in front of the TV, decided I'd actually watch the whole Lord of the Rings, Special Extended Editions. Over several days anyway, my painkillers weren't strong enough to get me through 10+ hours of cinematic swords'n'sorcery in one sitting (or rather, lying and writhing in pain-ing).
Good fun. And I think we'd all agree that really we couldn't have hoped for a much better adaptation. But I decided to do a Search here and see what we all thought at the time. . .
First off, there were threads on casting, and they reveal that we all pretty-much expected the worst. The title of the first such thread (created by myself in my former alter ego The First One) in July 1999 says it all - OH, NO!!!. When that thread went downhill, a second thread continued to document the casting decisions as they were made/announced, albeit in a more positive light. I'm quite impressed that I first broached the notion of Christopher Lee as Saruman. . .
As we moved into 2000, the positive threads continued, to be expected when they're posted by the terminally-optimistic AndrewR! And by 2001, the excitement was almost palpable.
I've found two significant threads about The Fellowship of the Ring, one rather gloomy courtesy of Colin "Trinculo/TargetEmployee/Newark" Lindsly (who else?), the other far more upbeat and the official TFotR thread!
Colin was back in 2002 with the first proper Two Towers thread, and he was uncharacteristically happy this time out. However, it's an earlier thread discussing the trailer which makes the most interesting reading, as it features now-departed poster EdipisReks who maintained despite fierce opposition that the films should never have been made at all.
After all that excitement, the thread discussing The Return of the King seems almost anticlimactic. . .
Anyway. Sorry to bore you, it's just become an idle hobby of mine, researching old threads, digging up memories (*sings*) of the way we were. . .
But it also got me thinking about the proposed film version of The Hobbit. Again, I think the consensus would be that we'd all like to see a filmed version of the book, especially if done as well as TLotR and by Peter Jackson.
Now, though, I have my doubts. It's generally agreed that one of the main strengths of TLotR was that, being filmed back-to-back, it made the overall experience more seamless and eliminated a lot of potential minor continuity gaffes that could crop up over the course of a film series. And we'd all like a Hobbit that'll fit in just as well - but I'm not sure it's possible, or something to wish for.
First off, there are practical considerations. At this moment, Ian McKellen is 67 years old, and Ian Holm is 74. Gandalf isn't that much of a presence, so McKellen could participate easily - if they could have the octogenarian Lee playing Saruman, well, McKellen seems hale and hearty enough! The younger Bilbo isn't meant to be an action hero, but all the same, would they be prepared to hang such an important and physical part on Holm's shoulders? Would they have the character in his fifties (I think he was that age in the book) or make him younger like they did Frodo - either way, I'd say re-casting is inevitable, and maybe not a problem given you only see one brief flashback of him finding the ring in TFotR, and they could do a Lucas and change that - TFotR Special Special Edition DVD ahoy!
And what would be changed from the book? Too many dwarves, for one thing! There are at least a dozen, and how many of them do anything important? The list reads: Thorin Oakenshield, �in, Gloin, Dwalin, Balin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, F�li and K�li, Dori, Nori, and Ori. I can remember Thorin, Balin, Fili, Kili and Bombur being important, but that's it!
Plus, it's a children's book, and that'll require a different tone. The Orcs are called Goblins, and are much more humourous than the misshapen creatures in TLotR. Trolls and Wargs have personalities and aren't just monsters. Elves are bigoted assholes in TH. . . You get the idea. All this just leaves me wondering if a bit of separation, of different between TH and TLotR might be a good thing. Perhaps a different director, for a start. Jackson may not want to do it; they may not want him to do it, after all, does making six billion dollars on three movies (a 1400% profit) make him set for life to do whatever he likes?
What do you think?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: As we moved into 2000, the positive threads continued, to be expected when they're posted by the terminally-optimistic AndrewR! And by 2001, the excitement was almost palpable.
Tee Hee!
I think I can remember where I was when I posted that (In the biol library at uni - probably) cause I know there was where I downloaded that first teaser trailer and then the longer trailer that had at the end of it 2002: The Two Towers and then 2003: The Return of the King I remember thinking to myself - OH MY!! 2003 is SO far away.
Now it's 2006 the same difference in time from 2000 to 2003 as it is from 2006.
Next year marks my 10th anniversary on the net - and I've done nothing since I first plugged in! Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
They mentioned "goblins" in the trilogy movies. Legolas pulls and arrow out of a dwarf corpse and says, "Goblins." Then Aragorn, after exiting, refers tot he same creatures as Orcs. I don't see a problem there.
As far as having too many dwarves, I wouldn't have a problem with all of them showing up. You could focus on the main guys and leave the rest as background characters.
I would really want to see Ian Holm as Bilbo. He brought such a warmth to the character in the trilogy, and made his friendship with Gandalf seem so deep... I'd want to see him do the part, even if they had to make the character a little older.
Oh... and Peter Jackson as director is also a must for me. In my own little world where I make the rules anyway.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I've heard it suggested before (by Gandalf himself I believe) that the best depiction of the Hobbit would be in the form of a high budget mini-series. Principally because in that form it can include just about every single chapter. Now I'm not pretending it'd be word for word (unless it's narrated, that's not much of an option) but the plot could easily be split up into a relatively small number of 1 or 2 hour episodes. I'm sure the "Riddles in the Dark" episode would be the most anticipated. I've actually waited in vain for them to release a Hobbit audio book narrated by Andy Serkis, Gollum aside, I dare say he's quite the talented voice actor.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I think that it would be hard to make "The Hobbit" after the trilogy simply because of the difference in the styles of the two stories. There is a naivity to The Hobbit that is quickly dissipated in the LOTR. How do you recapture that? If they are going to do it, they need to treat it as a completely separate entity and not tie it into LOTR.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
There is a naivety to The Hobbit that is quickly dissipated after Gandalf vanquishes Tom, Bert and Bill. And the whole spider-debacle.
Also, it will be quite irresistable for the director (especially if it's PJ himself) to show at least a glimpse of what exactly Gandalf and his council went off to do while Bilbo and the dwarves had to pass through Mirkwood alone. A short scene of the Necromancer or just his Shadow leaving the forest in a beeline for Mordor, with a few choice words of Saruman, Gandalf or Glorfindel standing on a mound and gazing, saying that "this is just the beginning" or something to that effect, would be foreboding and perfect in a tie-in to LOTR. Just like the Star Wars prequels wallowed in scenes and pictures that hinted at that future (like filming the profile of Palpatine at Qui-Gon Jinn's funeral pyre, after Yoda's and Windu's "master/apprentice" talk. NUDGE-NUDGE.).
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Isn't there still a rights issue re The Hobbit?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Wow. You mean even with all the out-of-the-loop-ness I've been enduring this last year or so, I still am better informed about the Hobbit than anyone elses here? Daaaaamn...
There was a long-negotiated rights issue that is now resolved. Peter Jackson and his cohorts at Wingnut Films now have the rights to make a movie of the Hobbit, and have had for some months now. Ian Holm said years ago (sometime during or just after the trilogy) that he definitely wouldn't play Bilbo in the Hobbit. And I've heard noises that PJ has been itching to show Fanduil and the Wood-Elf caverns, Smaug, and the thirteen dwarves of Thorin's party.And Hobbiton is still there. Just needs to be spiffed up a bit.
Me, I'd love to see the Necromancer bit slipped in, as well as maybe a brief flash of the Goblin Wars for which Glamdring, Orcrist, and Sting were forged when they're discovered...
--Jonah
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Oh god yes. Orcrist. But really, Glamdring and Orcrist where forged long before Beleriand was sunk. To show when they where forged or used would be to show the founding or fall of Gondolin. I'm not saying a flashback of that wouldn't be good, it's just that it would need one hell of an establishing flashback. But Orlando already put us in there by mentioning Morgoth in TFOTR. I say go for it.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Anyone see X-Men 3... the first 10 minutes with a younger Charles and Eric visiting a freaky Jean Grey??
Well did they look younger to you? Yes? Well they were digitally given a facelift... They were both made to look about 20 years younger... I was reading an interview with Sir Ian. He said that this technology could be bad in Hollywood - all the young starlets wanting to be digitally made younger. He said the he and Patrick would happily do a 'prequal' to the X-men when they can be made to look younger like that. He said that he was made to look about the time when he was mostly on the stage doing Shakespeare and Patrick was just starting out on The Next Generation.
(I really don't think Patrick Stewart looks like he's aged much from Season 1 TNG anyway).
ANYWAY, they could apply the same technology to Ian Holm for Bilbo - I though he was fantastic as the younger Bilbo in the caves under the Misty Mountains when they flashed back to him finding the One Ring.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"(I really don't think Patrick Stewart looks like he's aged much from Season 1 TNG anyway)."
His head is shaped differently, hair is cut shorter to reflect more loss, & he's got a waddle now.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think he is very obviously older.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
OK Thinking about it - from season 3 onwards he didn't change very much. I think the unflattering uniforms and the film grain (or whatever it was) of season 1 and 2 made PS look different. I mean compare his age change to Riker - Riker got fat and red and shiny-faced and his hair became bedgraggled and his eyes more squinty. That attempt at turning back time in the hideous final episode of Enterprise was just wrong.
I would say Patrick, LeVar, Michael and Gates have grown old gracefully.
Marina has but not when they dress her up like they did in that episode I just mentioned
Brent has obviously gained weight etc.
Johnathon... well I mentioned that.
All though having said all that they are all still pretty good for their ages.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: ANYWAY, they could apply the same technology to Ian Holm for Bilbo - I though he was fantastic as the younger Bilbo in the caves under the Misty Mountains when they flashed back to him finding the One Ring.
That sounds horrendously expensive to do for the entire length of a movie. Not to disparage Ian Holm's performance but there are other actors who could play the part sucessfully. Especially if you consider that Bilbo as he is in LotR is a very different character than the Bilbo of The Hobbit.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
A new Bilbo is probably a given.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
I would say irregardless of Ian Holms's willingness, the physicality demanded of his character would necessitate recasting. I do heart both Sir Ians, but it wouldn't be such a bad thing if the two films (while maintaining some visual and obviously contextual continuity) exist as separate entities. So long as they didn't try to recast Bilbo younger with a walking haircut like Paul Walker, I'm sure there are plenty of actors who could do the part justice.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I've never read the Lord of the Rings before I saw the movies, which were spectacular in my opinion. I've tried reading the books, but could only get through half of it before I went insane from all the crappy singing.
In short: Movies = Good! Books = Bad.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I encountered the same problem. Easily solved but simply skimming past the songs.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
That's what I said in one of those old threads, and I suddenly became some sort of literary pariah.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I like the poems in all the books, though. Especially the one Sam recites on the way to Rivendell, concerning Gil-Galad. I wish he'd have finished it.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Friend of mine skipped the Council of Elrond when he first read 'em. Too much talking. Seriously. . .
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Such loss. That's like the run-down to end all run-downs. I've sometimes read only 'Council', to feel that sense of impending doom and to hear Gandalf talk in his most serious and respected role, as the envoy of the Valar.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Da_bang80: I've never read the Lord of the Rings before I saw the movies, which were spectacular in my opinion. I've tried reading the books, but could only get through half of it before I went insane from all the crappy singing.
In short: Movies = Good! Books = Bad.
Cartoon LOTR = Awful. On Earth as it is in Hollywood, Amen.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
"Frodooooo of the niiiiine fingers... and the Ring of dooooooom....."
Classic.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: That's what I said in one of those old threads, and I suddenly became some sort of literary pariah.
Maybe it was pirah�a?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Prahaps a literary pinata?
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
That's a big pi�ata.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Someone get a stick, I want some candy! Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
*self edited* it was just WAYYYYYY too wrong.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Moments ago we received this email from Peter Jackson and his crew down in New Zealand, take a look...
Dear One Ringers,
As you know, there's been a lot of speculation about The Hobbit. We are often asked about when or if this film will ever be made. We have always responded that we would be very interested in making the film - if it were offered to us to make.
You may also be aware that Wingnut Films has bought a lawsuit against New Line, which resulted from an audit we undertook on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring. Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses.
However, we have always said that we do not want to discuss The Hobbit with New Line until the lawsuit over New Line's accounting practices is resolved. This is simple common sense - you cannot be in a relationship with a film studio, making a complex, expensive movie and dealing with all the pressures and responsibilities that come with the job, while an unresolved lawsuit exists.
We have also said that we do not want to tie settlement of the lawsuit to making a film of The Hobbit. In other words, we would have to agree to make The Hobbit as a condition of New Line settling our lawsuit. In our minds this is not the right reason to make a film and if a film of The Hobbit went ahead on this basis, it would be doomed. Deciding to make a movie should come from the heart - it's not a matter of business convenience. When you agree to make a film, you're taking on a massive commitment and you need to be driven by an absolute passion to want to get the story on screen. It's that passion, and passion alone, that gives the movie its imagination and heart. To us it is not a cold-blooded business decision.
A couple of months ago there was a flurry of Hobbit news in the media. MGM, who own a portion of the film rights in The Hobbit, publicly stated they wanted to make the film with us. It was a little weird at the time because nobody from New Line had ever spoken to us about making a film of The Hobbit and the media had some fun with that. Within a week or two of those stories, our Manager Ken Kamins got a call from the co-president of New Line Cinema, Michael Lynne, who in essence told Ken that the way to settle the lawsuit was to get a commitment from us to make the Hobbit, because "that's how these things are done". Michael Lynne said we would stand to make much more money if we tied the lawsuit and the movie deal together and this may well be true, but it's still the worst reason in the world to agree to make a film.
Several years ago, Mark Ordesky told us that New Line have rights to make not just The Hobbit but a second "LOTR prequel", covering the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR. Since then, we've always assumed that we would be asked to make The Hobbit and possibly this second film, back to back, as we did the original movies. We assumed that our lawsuit with the studio would come to a natural conclusion and we would then be free to discuss our ideas with the studio, get excited and jump on board. We've assumed that we would possibly get started on development and design next year, whilst filming The Lovely Bones. We even had a meeting planned with MGM executives to talk through our schedule.
However last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken and told him that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on the Hobbit and the LOTR 'prequel'. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects.
Ordesky said that New Line has a limited time option on the film rights they have obtained from Saul Zaentz (this has never been conveyed to us before), and because we won't discuss making the movies until the lawsuit is resolved, the studio is going to have to hire another director.
Given that New Line are committed to this course of action, we felt at the very least, we owed you, the fans, a straightforward account of events as they have unfolded for us.
We have always had the greatest support from The Ringers and we are very sorry our involvement with The Hobbit has been ended in this way. Our journey into Tolkien's world started with a phone call from Ken Kamins to Harvey Weinstein in Nov 1995 and ended with a phone call from Mark Ordesky to Ken in Nov 2006. It has been a great 11 years.
This outcome is not what we anticipated or wanted, but neither do we see any positive value in bitterness and rancor. We now have no choice but to let the idea of a film of The Hobbit go and move forward with other projects.
We send our very best wishes to whomever has the privilege of making The Hobbit and look forward to seeing the film on the big screen.
Warmest regards to you all, and thanks for your incredible support over the years.
We got to go there - but not back again ...
So that's that, then.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Fan outrage, GO!
Mark
Posted by Chris (Member # 71) on :
Well, that sucks. If they could snag Andrew Adamson and WETA, they might be able to swing it. But Peter Jackson would have been the best choice to do The Hobbit.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Damn it. I know a nice group of self-absorbed, haughty polemics on minastirith.com who will howl in joy and piss on Jackson's grave now. People who've been posting in a 300-page "Why the films sucked"-thread for the last six years, thinking they are doing great important work for mankind. The site owner even labeled them "purists" for keeping with the books and called those who like both books and films "moviephiles".
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
So that's what happened to EdipisReks!
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
In a word; Bugger.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Sheesh....this is the "Making 173.6 million dollars is NOT good enough.....we need to nickel and dime everyone until was make 175 million!" mentality. Somehow you just know that if one of the Mental Midgets in charge got the idea, we would be seeing "Alien-eight vs. Hobbit" with Sigourney Weaver as Galadriel invading Thangorodrim to steal the Silmaril from the Alien Queen MilkyWay.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
It is now 20 November 2006. How long do we speculate until New Line realises just how badly they just fucked themselves?
I seem to remember Sir Ian McKellan and Andy Serkis both saying they'd love to reprise their roles "as long as Peter is making it". If they choose not to come back now, and if New Line tries to recast, can they genuinely believe the movie won't suck donkey balls?
--Jonah
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well trading on the brand name alone they may get away with breaking even, though unless they do something really special I can't see it being a huge success.
If you really want to be mean though, you could say that based on the snorefest that was King Kong, Jackson may have lost his touch somewhat.
Personally I'm of the opinion that the Hobbit would be best served as a mini-series rather than a movie. For starters it's a slow episodic story with lots of wandering about followed by brief moments of peril that would better suit the mini-series format. I would imagine the DVD sales alone would make the endevour worth it.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I find it very unlikely that anyone from the trilogy will reprise roles for the two new ones without Jackson involved.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)