# Let the Hobbit happen



## Forgotten Path (Nov 23, 2004)

I figured I would post this for all of the people out there who want to see the Hobbit made into a film. There is a petetion for the production of the film. Visit LetTheHobbitHappen to sign the online petetion and to get the adresses of where to send postcards, letters, etc. to beg for the Hobbit's production. And I think TTF should become a partner site!


----------



## Astaldo (Nov 23, 2004)

Let's hope The Hobbit will be true some day.


----------



## fadhatter (Nov 24, 2004)

is there a petition to ban PJ from making it???


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 24, 2004)

Before I become involved in requesting a film version of The Hobbit, I would have to know who is making it. If it's Peter Jackson and the same scriptwriting crew that "adapted" LOTR, I will pass, thanks! I waited most hopefully for Jackson's _first_ Tolkien project.... Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me _twice_, shame on _me!_


----------



## Narsil (Nov 24, 2004)

A fun thread would be "What could Peter Jackson mess up in the filming of _The Hobbit_? "  

I wouldn't mind if he brought in the people in charge of the sets, weapons, clothes..I'd love _The Hobbit_ to LOOK the same. I'd love to see The Shire, the Misty Mountains, Mirkwood, etc and have it look the same as LOTR. Despite their faults, they are indeed beautiful movies to watch and in many ways brought Middle Earth to life. 

But if Jackson is going to have the same writers as he did before..Forgettabout it! He really needs to fire his wife and buddies and get some people who know what the heck they are doing.


----------



## fadhatter (Nov 24, 2004)

thrice says he


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 25, 2004)

Narsil said:


> A fun thread would be "What could Peter Jackson mess up in the filming of _The Hobbit_? "
> 
> I wouldn't mind if he brought in the people in charge of the sets, weapons, clothes..I'd love _The Hobbit_ to LOOK the same. I'd love to see The Shire, the Misty Mountains, Mirkwood, etc and have it look the same as LOTR. Despite their faults, they are indeed beautiful movies to watch and in many ways brought Middle Earth to life.
> 
> But if Jackson is going to have the same writers as he did before..Forgettabout it! He really needs to fire his wife and buddies and get some people who know what the heck they are doing.


The first prerequisite would be for Jackson to actually _read_ the book, understand what the author is "saying" and then try to bring _Tolkien's_ story to the screen rather than his own "take" on it. If he does that, then he will do a good job with all of the visuals as he has already proven. If he decides, however, that he can "tell the story _better_", then I would just as soon stick with Rankin Bass, lousy as it is.


----------



## Turin (Nov 25, 2004)

You guys do realize that PJ's gonna make the Hobbit whether you like it or not. I might see it, but I certainly won't preorder the tickets .


----------



## Astaldo (Nov 25, 2004)

I don't know about you but I am surely going to see it. And pre-order the tickets.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 25, 2004)

Turin said:


> You guys do realize that PJ's gonna make the Hobbit whether you like it or not. I might see it, but I certainly won't preorder the tickets .


I thought he was going to do the big monkey thing. With the Twin Towers gone, what's he gonna have it climb? Of course, he may go back to the Empire State Building, but that's sort of "old hat" these days - unless, of course, he sets it back to the time of the original.

Who knows? If it takes him long enough to find a building for the ape to climb at the climbax (sorry for the pun), he may forget all about The Hobbit!


----------



## Ol'gaffer (Nov 26, 2004)

Well thank god that we have proffessionals on screenwriting like Narsil and Mrs M here to tell awarded writers how to do their jobs.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 26, 2004)

Ol'gaffer said:


> Well thank god that we have proffessionals on screenwriting like Narsil and Mrs M here to tell awarded writers how to do their jobs.


Take away all of the spectacular visuals and the good acting and looking at the screenwriting by itself - as a story - I think that you would find it less than great or even good except for the first film. When it is considered in relationship to the original story, it falls even further from the mark. 

Most screenplays adapted from successful books while they may digress in the plot, keep the major characters pretty much as the author presented them. In these films, Jackson got away with his tremendous changes mostly because either the audience did not _know_ the original characters (not having read the book or having done so only superficially) or the visual presentation was so overwhelming that many book lovers were willing to accept the changes in exchange for the visuals. 

However, the screenwriting kept deteriorating throughout the films until the last film was merely another epic fantasy spectacular containing very little of the true drama and meaning of the book. Since we do not (and cannot) lay the blame for this failing on the actors, the cinematography or the special effects, then the only remaining factor on which it _can_ be laid is the writing - and the directing since Jackson was involved in both writing _and_ directing.

Oh, and by the way, one doesn't have to be an architect to appreciate - or denigrate - a building, nor does one have to be an artist to comment upon a piece of art, nor does one have to be a writer to criticize a book (most critics are _not_ writers but their comments are accepted as legitimate), nor does one have to be in cinema to critique a film - despite what O.g. believes. One wonders if he demanded that all of those kudos given to these films came _only_ from scriptwriters or special effects technicians. Probably not. Actually, the only thing O.g. _will_ accept for these films is unadulterated, uncritical praise and he will happily accept that from _anyone_, even those with no credentials whatsoever.


----------



## Ol'gaffer (Nov 26, 2004)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> Take away all of the spectacular visuals and the good acting and looking at the screenwriting by itself - as a story - I think that you would find it less than great or even good except for the first film. When it is considered in relationship to the original story, it falls even further from the mark.



Nope, it's still pretty great. As an adaptation of a massive book like this, it hits the mark on nearly every spot that a succesfull adaptation should. There are flaws as I have pointed out in the first page of the What PJ changes upset you? thread. Theoden could have been better, the Ents slightly different, Sarumans demise different. But I, unlike some people, can handle these and look at the big picture. I can look at the changes as necessary for the audiences TODAY, not 50 years ago. Let's face it, the warg scene was there just to present a sense of danger and a terrific action sequence for the younger audiences. The Scene with Aragorn over the cliff was there to create anxiety for the audiences unfamiliar with the story and to bring back Arwen for a moment to keep the love story alive for the audiences. Not everyone, especially people in todays society who enjoy films more than books at least as a majority, can't 'comprehend' a love story without actually seeing it on screen from time to time. I've even heard criticism that the love story wasn't on screen enough, you can't seem to get over the fact that it was an adaptation made to be suitable for the masses. In that, it captured the spirit and the story of the books terrificly, and still managed to keep the audiences entertained. 



> Most screenplays adapted from successful books while they may digress in the plot, keep the major characters pretty much as the author presented them. In these films, Jackson got away with his tremendous changes mostly because either the audience did not _know_ the original characters (not having read the book or having done so only superficially) or the visual presentation was so overwhelming that many book lovers were willing to accept the changes in exchange for the visuals.



Actually, many movies that have been succesfully adapted from books have not kept the charecters or even the story the same! Look at Blade Runner, Vanilla Sky, Dreamcatcher. With the exception of Dreamcatcher (and even that made a fair dollar at the box office) both movies have been hugely succesfull and Blade Runner is heralded as a contemporary classic. 

In the films most changes were noted by audiences, but the majority were either caught up in the epic story that Jackson and crew had brought to life on screen, or then they didn't care because the story moved along well with the change and the basic story was still there. It just had a new layer to it. I just find it peculiar that what do you mean by 'superficially' reading the books? Do you mean by that the people who do not live and breath LotR like you do? Or people who have only read the books once? Explain please. 



> However, the screenwriting kept deteriorating throughout the films until the last film was merely another epic fantasy spectacular containing very little of the true drama and meaning of the book. Since we do not (and cannot) lay the blame for this failing on the actors, the cinematography or the special effects, then the only remaining factor on which it _can_ be laid is the writing - and the directing since Jackson was involved in both writing _and_ directing.



First, Jacksons part in the screenwriting was mainly concentrating on bringing the battles and action sequences from the book to life, along with the more visually challenging scenes. If you'd actually take a look at the EE documentaries you'd know this. 

I wouldn't go as far as saying that the screenplay deteriorated through the films, but rather it did a bump. The first was very very close to the original book, with almost everything there and only slight changes. But then again, the first book is the easiest to adapt. The second book was the hardest, and it shows on screen. To have a book to adapt with no real end or beginning, you have to have compromises. Also, it didn't help the fact that all three movies were made at the same time, and Jackson & Co even admit on the EE documentaries that the Two Towers both filmwise and scriptwise was the black sheep as they had concentrated first very hard to make the best beginning as possible of FotR and then concentrated on RotK to make the best ending as possible. All things considered, they managed very well to bring the second book to life, and were able to keep the audiences entertained through all three storylines, which is immensly hard to do.

RotK had no drama or trueness to the story? You must have been on some strong medication or in total denial while watching it. Didn't RotK have human drama with Sam carrying Frodo up mount doom? With Aragorn charging for Frodo? With the charge of Rohan to Minas Tirith? With the I'am no man scene? Wasn't the story about the triumph of the hobbits? and the little people that made all the difference? It's odd, because I seem to recall all of that in the movie.



> Oh, and by the way, one doesn't have to be an architect to appreciate - or denigrate - a building, nor does one have to be an artist to comment upon a piece of art, nor does one have to be a writer to criticize a book (most critics are _not_ writers but their comments are accepted as legitimate), nor does one have to be in cinema to critique a film - despite what O.g. believes.



No, one doesn't. But one should atleast no something about the art when they put down a crew of writers or talk so pompously, automatically giving and impression that they think that they can do a better job.

8quote]One wonders if he demanded that all of those kudos given to these films came _only_ from scriptwriters or special effects technicians. Probably not. Actually, the only thing O.g. _will_ accept for these films is unadulterated, uncritical praise and he will happily accept that from _anyone_, even those with no credentials whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

I answer politely to criticism that actually is constructive criticism, the kind that Joxy has given, the kind that Narsil has given. The kind that you seem to be unable to give. You keep bringing up the same old things, arguing that people who enjoy the changes or aren't bothered by them don't understand the books like you do, you take an elitist attitude towards the movies and give them no credit and then expect that I should have to be polite to you.

I have given my criticism toward the films, but I enjoy them so and find them to be such a great adaptation of a good book that I usually stick to defending them. Or atleast the parts that I enjoyed, and since for the past months there has only been criticism toward the same old things, I have tried to get you most of all to listen and look closer, but you seem unable to do that.

I know the movies are not perfect, I've said that even, but I won't accept the attitude that they lack all merits without actually hearing some proper arguments. And your "they're not the books" attitude is simply not going to do it. 

(Note: this argument is not directed at Joxy, Narsil, or others. It is simply between me and Mrs M. Just to make it clear once and for all.)


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 26, 2004)

The films "captured the spirit" of the book - or something of that nature. That leads me only to realize that either we saw different films, read a different book - or, most probably - *understood the same book differently*. That is the _only_ realistic response to that statement - there simply _is_ no other. 

Therefore, as we are talking about two entirely different things, it is senseless to keep up the discussion....


----------



## Ol'gaffer (Nov 26, 2004)

Why am I not surprised at that answer? 

We're not discussing the book now, we're discussing the films. Something you should keep in mind when posting at the film forum.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 26, 2004)

Ol'gaffer said:


> Why am I not surprised at that answer?
> 
> We're not discussing the book now, we're discussing the films. Something you should keep in mind when posting at the film forum.


Why am I not surprised at that answer?

That is perhaps the silliest thing I've ever read on this forum - and that's saying something!


----------



## Ol'gaffer (Nov 26, 2004)

Well I'm glad you're amused. But you really should learn how to write proper arguments, or atleast how to answer others' if you're going to continue with that pompus and ignorant attitude.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 26, 2004)

Ol'gaffer said:


> Well I'm glad you're amused. But you really should learn how to write proper arguments, or atleast how to answer others' if you're going to continue with that pompus and ignorant attitude.


I might well say the same about you except that I limit my critiques to the films, not people. 

However, insofar as "proper arguments" are concerned, I do very well, thank you. 

[1] I speak only to matters that are observable and in many cases have also been mentioned by other members of this forum. 

[2] I always indicate that my like or _dis_like of a particular thing in the films is _sub_jective even though the critical point being made (such as the changes in the characters) is in fact _ob_jective. 

[3] I make no insulting references to those who have different opinions although I do not refrain from pointing out observations made by them that are patently without factual foundation (and/or are just plain "silly") or presented as fact when they are, in _fact_, merely opinion (It was _spectacular!_). 

Whether or not you accept the above _factual comments_ does not alter their veracity. Indeed, such comments as _you_ made in the above "quote" merely underscore the paucity of your arguments since you must engage in _ad hominem_ comments as a means of presenting them.


----------



## Ol'gaffer (Nov 26, 2004)

Or maybe, just maybe. I'm getting sick and tired of you avoiding discussions that you start, but can't finish without giving wordy responses that can be summed up as either "you don't understand the book, thus it's useless to talk about the films" or "to each their own." 

For once, I'd just love to see you actually respond to a argument that *you* have started instead of dismissing it with another snide and wordy response.


----------



## Narsil (Nov 26, 2004)

Ol'gaffer said:


> Well thank god that we have proffessionals on screenwriting like Narsil and Mrs M here to tell awarded writers how to do their jobs.



ROTFLMAO!  Well, if they call me, I will come.  

As Mrs M pointed out, one doesn't have to be an awarded screenwriter to critique a movie. Isn't that what forums like this are all about?  Roger Ebert hasn't called me to join him as of late so here I am!  

Seriously, if I were producing and directing a movie such as _The Hobbit_ or LOTR I would give the writers a copy of the book and say "READ THIS". I would do that with any movie that was "based on", "adapted", etc, etc from _any_ book. Seems like the proper prerequisite in any case. Then I would sit and discuss it with them in great detail. I'd want to know their thoughts and feelings about the book and the story in general. I'm assuming that I myself would be well versed in the book and plot to begin with. I'm giving Jackson the benefit of the doubt here. Where I personally think he stumbled was hiring his wife and buddies to write the story. I really don't think they were all that enchanted with LOTR or understood it at all and unfortunately it shows. 

What I get from the movies and from the EE DVD discussions (which I find very interesting) is that the writers really don't seem very knowledgeable or impressed with Tolkien's LOTR. I think that in itself is a real problem and unfortunately IMO it _does_ come out in the movies. They got around it in FOTR because I think more care and attention to detail was put into it and also, as you have pointed out, it's the easiest movie to adapt because FOTR is fairly simple and linear and the parts that were omitted and changed weren't that detrimental to the finished product (I know some will disagree with me here). But IMO wasn't the case with the later movies, especially TTT.

The writers admit that TTT was akin to the "Black Sheep", "Redheaded stepchild", etc of the three movies. It didn't have to be that way. A lot of important characters and plotlines were introduced in that movie. We are introduced to the Rohirrim, Ents, Gollum, Faramir, etc. The War of the Ring actually becomes a reality in this book. There was no reason for _anything_ to be added or significantly changed! But indeed it was and as a result the movie didn't even end properly! Why were things actually added and fabricated except to satisfy the ego and hubris of the writers, who actually thought they could do better than Tolkien himself? 

Ol' Gaffer, while I understand and actually agree with many of the points you have made but I'm sorry, I just can't see why these writers felt the need to take up pen and paper and fabricate _so many_ changes and additions except to satisfy their own egos and/or because they just weren't impressed with Tolkien and the way _he_ did it. 

I think it was done in part because they felt they felt the characters needed to be "fleshed out", and made "realistic". I feel that they felt that the characters needed to "go on a personal journey" to "find themselves" and that introducing needless conflict, angst and melodrama was the way to do it. The end result was that some of the characters came off as confusing and inconsistant (Theoden, Treebeard and Faramir) and others were cartoonish (Denethor, M&P, Gimli). 

That might be fine with any fictional action adventure movie, drama or love story. It might've worked with an historical event like the sinking of _The Titanic_ but IMO when you base it on a thousand plus pages of a well known, well loved classic like _The Lord of the Rings_ it just isn't acceptable. This movie wasn't aimed at the usual audience..or at least it shouldn't have been. Great care and thought were taken to make the movie _look_ proper but I really do think they dropped the ball when it came to making the characters and story come alive. I think that adding things that weren't even IN the book to be not only sad and disappointing but improper. 

I think they intended to make a lot more changes then they actually did and wound up hitting so many walls and made such a mess that they wound up backing up and rewriting many things. In many cases I think their salvation _was_ the book! The finished product reflects this. I guess one could take consolation in that it could've been much worse than it actually was! 

I may not be a professsional screenwriter but I do know a good story when I see and read it. I see a lot of problems and blunders in a good portion of TTT. A lot of it is "fixed" in ROTK, but not all. But I will say that while I find portions of TTT to be totally unwatchable, although the EE did make it a bit better. I can sit and enjoy ROTK (although I do admit to wincing frm time to time) and am eagerly awaiting to see how things are addressed in the EE. I think FOTR is wonderful, despite the mistakes, so yes, adaptation can be done well and be acceptable to the masses. I do feel there is room for mistakes as nothing is perfect. 

As I've stated before I do think it's sad that so much of the movies actually _need_ an EE DVD to address and correct the mistakes that were made. IMO the EE should _add_ to the movie but not _fix_ it. 

I think these writers were involved in the wrong film. I do think that it's important that when you retell or interpret a story that's been in existence for half a century and is revered by huge numbers of people that you remain true to it. You don't add to it unnecessarily. You don't distort it. You do your best to bring the characters and the world in which they exist alive. How well you do this is how you will be judged. If you don't want to be judged in this context than make up your own story, but don't mess with someone else's.

In the visuals I give the Jackson team an "A". The fight and action scenes are fun and entertaining to watch. But their interpretation of the characters and story is pretty dismal in many respects. It didn't have to be this way. What was "good" could easily been "great" with the right people at the helm. 

Call me arrogant but I really do think I could have done better. I think most of the people here could have done better simply because they love and understand what LOTR is all about and what Tolkien was trying to convey. IMO that's half the battle right there.


----------



## Ol'gaffer (Nov 26, 2004)

First, before getting to the point. I'd like to applaud Narsil for a great post. You fleshed out your criticism in a well thought out manner without falling, too much atleast imo, to assumptions that many 'purists' (I'm not saying that you're one) love to use. Also, you adressed the issues with a proper knowledge to look at it (even if only slightly) from both points of view, as a person who has read and adores the books, as well as a person who just can watch the films for what their worth. Thank you for that! 

Now on to the subject itself. 



Narsil said:


> ROTFLMAO!  Well, if they call me, I will come.



That was meant to be a sarcastic poke at the both of you, but after reading your posts I regret posting that certain thing, atleast in the manner I meant it to be. 



> As Mrs M pointed out, one doesn't have to be an awarded screenwriter to critique a movie. Isn't that what forums like this are all about?  Roger Ebert hasn't called me to join him as of late so here I am!



No, but as I pointed out to Mrs M, one should be atleast somewhat familiar with the art before they act pompus and think that they can do a better job at screenwriting. It's the same with all the other arts and crafts. 



> Seriously, if I were producing and directing a movie such as _The Hobbit_ or LOTR I would give the writers a copy of the book and say "READ THIS". I would do that with any movie that was "based on", "adapted", etc, etc from _any_ book. Seems like the proper prerequisite in any case. Then I would sit and discuss it with them in great detail. I'd want to know their thoughts and feelings about the book and the story in general. I'm assuming that I myself would be well versed in the book and plot to begin with. I'm giving Jackson the benefit of the doubt here. Where I personally think he stumbled was hiring his wife and buddies to write the story. I really don't think they were all that enchanted with LOTR or understood it at all and unfortunately it shows.



This is possibly the one argument that has remained constant. Do the writers and director understand the material? Imo, I'd say that yes, they understand it, but only to the extent that us 'normal' people understand it. I think that they never have pondered, or if they have they've scrapped it from the screenplay, the other layers of the story. Industrialism etc, that occur in the books. There are hints to it, yes. But I think that they never thought of it further than absolutely necessary to the unfortune of many book fans.

From what I gather (and that is to say, I've watched Jacksons films since the very first ones.) Jackson had met his wife already back in 1989 while filming Meet the Feebles, and they've co-written their movies together since. Philippa Boyens joined the team early in the screenwriting process when there was going to be only two films for Miramax. The EE documentaries make it somewhat clear that PB and Frances Walsh both wrote the majority of the screenplay together, with Peter writing the visually difficult parts and the battle/action sequences. 

Regarding the familiarisation with the story. As I pointed out, I think that Jackson and co. never thought about the story further than it's most basic levels, an assumption that if true, I can forgive them. Already facing a daunting task of making the books into two films, they had to consider in a relatively short time period (Tolkien had almost a decade, they had less than year) about what to leave in and what to take out of the story to make it a easily accessible and workable and bankable film. When the film moved to New Line Cinema, they had more room to work in, but still not enough time. Also, they had to constantly work on the script during the shoot. Mainly to try and make the best version possible, and if they had stumbled somewhere it was here. Working on a major film like this is hard enough, but to write at the same time revisions to a script, one can easily lose the big picture. I think that that's what happened to TTT, the group was so busy working on the rewrites and pickups to both FotR and RotK that TTT was missed. As admitted in the EE, they were almost afraid of the task to adapt TTT because it was the hardest part with no end or beginning and with multiple storylines that had to make sense to non-book readers and flow smoothly with the film as well.



> What I get from the movies and from the EE DVD discussions (which I find very interesting) is that the writers really don't seem very knowledgeable or impressed with Tolkien's LOTR. I think that in itself is a real problem and unfortunately IMO it _does_ come out in the movies. They got around it FOTR because I think more care and attention to detail was put into it and also, as you have pointed out, it's the easiest movie to adapt because FOTR is fairly simple and linear and the parts that were omitted and changed weren't that detrimental to the finished product (I know some will disagree with me here). But IMO wasn't the case with the later movies, especially TTT.



While I agree with you to some extent, I wouldn't go as far as saying that they weren't impressed with Tolkiens LotR. If they hadn't been impressed to start with, they wouldn't have started working on the film in the first place, imo atleast. What I do agree is, that like rest of us who have read the book. Jackson had a certain vision while reading it. He had his own picture in his head about what he would do and what he would leave out, I think it's in one of the documentaries that he says that he had thought about what the film would be like since a teenager. I think that there are moments in the films in which that teenager still resides in and Jacksons own visions are at work, like the darker and more omnious Bree for example instead of the jolly and warm one in the books. 

You're very right about FotR. The team most certainly put more effort into it because at the time it came out, the rest of their budjet was still uncertain and if the movie didn't come out as expected they would have ended up with a case similar to Bakshi, no funding and no movies. Also, FotR is a type of a 'road movie' like Jackson remarks on the commentary. It's a journey from point a to b in a group. It's a easy thing to adapt with things that can be left out easily without damaging the story. I'll get to the matter of TTT in the next part.



> The writers admit that TTT was akin to the "Black Sheep", "Redheaded stepchild", etc of the three movies. It didn't have to be that way. A lot of important characters and plotlines were introduced in that movie. We are introduced to the Rohirrim, Ents, Gollum, Faramir, etc. The War of the Ring actually becomes a reality in this book. There was no reason for _anything_ to be added or significantly changed! But indeed it was and as a result the movie didn't even end properly! Why were things actually added and fabricated except to satisfy the ego and hubris of the writers, who actually thought they could do better than Tolkien himself?



The problem with TTT was, as admitted in the documentaries, that it was stuck in a middle phase of the filming. FotR was on it's theatrical run and the team had to do countless of press meetings and work on the EE. Then there was RotK which was to be the ending chapter. It was a tricky situation for the team, and TTT's plotline didn't help at all. 

Like you said, they had to introduce a number of important charecters, some more active than others in the book. They also had to have three sepparate storylines in the film running side by side, because unlike a book. You can't have a movie that is split into a part 1 and 2 with part 1 dealing only with Aragorn and Co then ending and then jumping back to part 2 with Frodo and Sam in their journey, it would kill the movie. Also the ending with Shelob and Helms Deep together were a major problem and like said in the documentaries, it was a simple decision to move Shelob to RotK. A decision that imo, was for the better. 

The reason I think that many of the charecters were changed, most importantly Faramir (which even bugged me in the TE) was that like Philippa said in one of the documentaries that Frodo and Sam needed to have some kind of a major event happening to them. It may sound, and it does sound, like a horrible reason to insert Faramir as the obstacle. But in the end, if you consider that the charecter would not have anything else to do in the film other than talk to them for a bit and then leave, it's a agreeable decision. Maybe not the best of decisions, but I've come to terms with it atleast. Also, the EE did help a lot in this case, and I was very happy to see a more thorough explanation for Faramirs behaviour. 

I don't think that the writers were trying to be better than Tolkien in a sense that they wanted to rewrite the story for the sake of it. But rather, I think that they felt that they new what they were doing was for the best. Some have agreed with that logic, and many have not. But they are not without humility, if you remember the part in the documentaries which discusses Arwen at Helms Deep. The writers discuss a early draft in which they wanted to have the romance between Arwen and Aragorn more concrete, but in the end they realised how wrong they were and how they shouldn't have changed Tolkiens plan that much. It shows that they are not without respect for Tolkien, but merely were thinking of the best possible way to make things work so that audiences today would accept it. I know it's hard to swallow an explanation like that, but if you look at the movies that make big box office these days, you'll notice that they are the most linear films in the market. Credit is due atleast a little to the writers for having the courage to admit their mistakes and go back to the original story, even if it would have cost them more than now.


----------



## Ol'gaffer (Nov 26, 2004)

> IMO I think it was in part because they felt they felt the characters needed to be "fleshed out", and made "realistic". I feel that they felt that the characters needed to "go on a personal journey" to "find themselves" and that introducing needless conflict, angst and melodrama was the way to do it. The end result was that some of the characters came off as confusing and inconsistant (Theoden, Treebeard and Faramir) and others were cartoonish (Denethor, Gimli).



Treebeard and Theoden I agree with completely, they are the only parts of TTT that even I can't enjoy 100%. But Faramir to me atleast, became in the EE the faramir that I found in the books. I found that the challenge that he faces is not only the ring, but to stand up against his father and be like Boromir could have been. 

Denethor I never found cartoonish, but his appearence in the TE of RotK was somewhat odd. But from what I've heard, the EE has more to his behaviour, and supposedly they have a scene with the palantir and him. I'll have to get back to you in this one  



> Ol' Gaffer, I understand and actually agree with many of the points you have made but I'm sorry, I just can't see why this writers felt the need to take up pen and paper and fabricate so many changes and additions except to satisfy their own egos and/or because they just weren't impressed with Tolkien and the way _he_ did it.



And I agree with you on many points as well. But one thing that I can't agree on is the attitude that the writers were trying to satisfy their egos, because they have said in their own words on the documentaries many times that they weren't out to do that. But to instead try and adapt the most cinematic approach to the story. And like it or not, there are people in the world who think that LotR has not aged well as a book, and as a film it has to have some modifications. Some are good or succesfull, imo, (Elves at Helms Deep, Faramir) and some aren't, again imo (Theoden, Ents).



> That might be fine with any fictional action adventure movie, drama or love story. It might've worked with an historical event like the sinking of _The Titanic_ but IMO when you have a thousand plus pages of a well known, well loved classic like _The Lord of the Rings_ it just isn't acceptable. This movie wasn't aimed at the usual audience..or at least it shouldn't have been. Great care and thought were taken to make the movie _look_ proper but I really do think they dropped the ball when it came to making the characters and story come alive. I think that adding things that weren't even IN the book to be not only sad and disappointing but improper.



The problem with who to aim a movie like this, is the fact that in the end you are controlled by the studios. Now Jackson wasn't a rich man when this started, his own firms WingNut Films and WeTa were just small teams when the filming started. He was all the time under the eyes of New Line and it's producers. It was a constant struggle to keep them happy, and stay true to the story. Originally the producers had wanted a lot more dramatical changes to the story. True, there are moments in the story when Jackson and team wanted to smooth out the story by dropping or changing some scenes, only to go back and realise that more had to be changed, Helms Deep is one of the biggest examples of that. By removing Shelob from TTT (for a reason that I think is acceptable) they had to make Helms Deep the climax of the story. But in doing so, Theoden was changed and many other elements were changed as well. It is unfortunate, considering that Helms Deep is an amazing sequence on it's own in the movie imo. 



> They couldn't have made this movie without acknowledging their audience. They must've realized that there would not only be John and Jane Smith who had never read the book and want to see another rendition of _Star Wars_ but millions who _have_ read the book and eagerly awaited not only to see Middle Earth come to life, but the story and characters as well.



and I think that you're right on the issue. But you also should consider that there are millions of people who are most pleased with the movie and those millions have voted around the world for the movie to win all it's prizes and make huge amounts of money, if the movies were terrible like many here have said, they wouldn't have been so succesfull. On a interesting side note, TTT which is considered by audiences and critics alike to be the weakest part of the trilogy as a FILM, made the least money and won only awards for effects, and Andy Serkis' amazing performance.

Also, IMO, I think that what we got was Middle Earth alive and breathing. With the charecters and events from the book alive, and even with it's problems (I think it's stupid to say that the book doesn't have it's problems) the movies are amazing cinema and most likely will stay in cinema history.



> Aside from aesthetics, I don't think much thought was givien to _those_ people when it came to actually adapting the story to screen. It's apparent when you listen to the writers speak about the movie themselves. There's this distinct "We can do it better" attitude that comes out. So they attempted to do just that and in many ways (I'm NOT saying ALL ways!) they failed. I think they intended to make a lot more changes then they actually did and wound up hitting so many walls and made such a mess that they wound up backing up and rewriting many things. In many cases I think their salvation _was_ the book! The finished product reflects this. I guess one could take consolation in that it could've been much worse than it actually was!



I think that in a way, you are right and wrong. Imo, they did concentrate more on the audiences who were not familiar with the story or had only heard of the basic plot than the audiences who had read it. It's unfair yes, but it's also a safer bet from the studios to fund a movie like that.

I also haven't heard any attitude like the one you describe from the makers, I stated earlier that while they were trying to improve the story in a way that it had a more cinematic feel to it, they were also very humble and knowledgeable about the fact that Tolkien knows best, and that infact in many cases the book really was their answer to problems. I also think that there are people here who think that the movies couldn't have gotten any worse  



> I may not be a professsional screenwriter but I do know a good story when I see and read it. I see a lot of problems and blunders in a good portion of TTT. A lot of it is "fixed" in ROTK, but not all. But I will say that while I find portions of TTT to be totally unwatchable, although the EE did make it a bit better. I _can_ sit and enjoy ROTK (although I do admit to wincing frm time to time) and am eagerly awaiting to see how things are addressed in the EE. I think FOTR is wonderful, despite the mistakes, so yes, adaptation _can_ be done well and be acceptable to the masses. I do feel there is room for mistakes as nothing is perfect.



and I agree with you. There are moments in TTT that make me flinch as well. I can watch the movies, but it may be because I've never held the books as close to me as I've felt the movies to be. 



> As I've stated before I do think it's sad that TTT and parts of ROTK actually _need_ an EEE DVD to address and correct the mistakes that were made. IMO the EE should _add_ to the movie but not _fix_ it.



While I feel the same way, I think that so far only TTT has needed the EE for fixing. Not that it's a consolation, considering it's a big part of the trilogy. But I feel that the EE for both FotR and RotK will only add to the films and that both can be viewed as TE versions as well. 

Continued


----------



## Ol'gaffer (Nov 26, 2004)

> I think these writers were involved in the wrong film. It may sound elitist but I do think that it's important that when you retell or interpret a story that's been in existence for half a century and is revered by huge numbers that you remain true to it. You don't add to it. You don't distort it. You do your best to bring the characters and the world in which they exist alive. How well you do this is how you will be judged. If you don't want to be judged in this context than make up your own story, but don't mess with someone else's. In the visuals I give the Jackson team an "A". The fight and action scenes are fun and entertaining to watch. But their interpretation of the characters and story is pretty dismal in many respects. It didn't have to be this way. What was "good" could easily been "great" with the right people at the helm.



I think that as a team, they were very brave to want to try this. Also they were very lucky to have gotten the money for it in the end. I don't feel that it was a wrong film for them, because many parts prove that they do know their stuff most exceptionally (Moria, Rivendell, Shire, Minas Tirith, Mordor) and also many parts are bad (Theoden, Rohan, Denethor) but that's what filmmaking is about, a process through which you learn from. It was a giant leap for Jackson to make, from a indie film like Heavenly Creatures (a brilliant movie I might add) to a multimillion dollar movie trilogy like LotR would scare any director away. Infact, nobody dared to touch the project before Jackson and Co. And I'm glad that they finally did do it. 



> Call me arrogant but I really do think I could have done better. I think most of the people here could have done better simply because they love and understand what LOTR is all about and what Tolkien was trying to convey. IMO that's half the battle right there.



I must ask, you would understand what Tolkien was trying to convey. I bet you could bring many expedition scenes to screen well with the charecters intact. But could you make the films work on such a scale that they were action packed, entertaining and appealing to the masses and still create a very close work? Who knows, maybe you could. But in the end, it's always easier to talk about doing something than actually doing it. Jackson and Co. did something remarkable with the trilogy, and for that, even with all it's problems that the trilogy has, I respect them.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 26, 2004)

Ol'gaffer said:


> Or maybe, just maybe. I'm getting sick and tired of you avoiding discussions that you start, but can't finish without giving wordy responses that can be summed up as either "you don't understand the book, thus it's useless to talk about the films" or "to each their own."
> 
> For once, I'd just love to see you actually respond to a argument that *you* have started instead of dismissing it with another snide and wordy response.


I don't "start arguments"; I make comments referable to a point being made and in so doing, make some of my own. _I respond to those who address those points if and when that actually happens_. 

However, what I _refuse_ to do is to respond to points that are _entirely irrelevant_ to what I have posted and are, in fact, nothing more than a reiteration of points that long ago _were_ addressed - frequently at great length. Since they add nothing to anything that I said in the first place or have been addressed at length before, it is futile to respond.

Finally, what I _said_ - had you been sufficiently objective to make the effort to understand - was that you _obviously_ did not understand the book _as I did_. Frankly, if you can honestly say that these films "captured the spirit of the book", I simply cannot reasonably arrive at any other conclusion! And although I did not say anything about the _validity_ of your interpretation, I recognize that it is pointless to discuss the matter further as you will never understand the problems I have with Jackson's "interpretation" of characters _or_ plot. What is the sense of my pointing out that Jackson screwed up most of the characters and therefore seriously affected Tolkien's vision, _if your interpretation of the book leaves you without any problems with Jackson's characters?_ Right there we have what might be called "irreconcilable differences" vis a vie book to film at least with regard to the "vision" of the tale.

In order for "dialogue" to exist, both parties must at the very least be speaking the same language! It is obvious that in this instance we do not and therefore responding to each other's points is, in fact, point_less_ since we have no common ground of understanding from which to proceed.


----------



## Narsil (Nov 26, 2004)

Ol'gaffer said:


> First, before getting to the point. I'd like to applaud Narsil for a great post. You fleshed out your criticism in a well thought out manner without falling, too much atleast imo, to assumptions that many 'purists' (I'm not saying that you're one) love to use. Also, you adressed the issues with a proper knowledge to look at it (even if only slightly) from both points of view, as a person who has read and adores the books, as well as a person who just can watch the films for what their worth. Thank you for that!



Wow! I'm impressed at the time and effort you took to address all that I said. I went back and re-read it and thought "too long and involved" and cut some out.. But I guess it was too late as you quoted it in full so I put it back the way it was as I didn't want to confuse people.  I appreciate your time and candor and kind response. 

I have no problem with folks agreeing to disagree. After all, isn't that what forums like this are about? The free and open exchange of ideas and opinions? As long as it doesn't get nasty or personal I think it's fun and interesting to debate things. If the day comes when everyone agrees with each other things will get very dull indeed. 

I find it interesting how two people will read the same book, watch the same movie and yet come to completely different conclusions. As Spock would say "Fascinating and highly illogical".  



> That was meant to be a sarcastic poke at the both of you, but after reading your posts I regret posting that certain thing, atleast in the manner I meant it to be.



I thought it was funny. Added a bit of levity to things, even it that wasn't the intended result.  



> From what I gather (and that is to say, I've watched Jacksons films since the very first ones.) Jackson had met his wife already back in 1989 while filming Meet the Feebles, and they've co-written their movies together since.



So if Peter Jackson _wasn't_ entirely happy with his wife's contribution to this effort how easily could he have fired her?  I run a business myself and I've learned the hard way not to hire friends and working side by side with your spouse can be, uh, awkward at times. Some would argue with me on this but sometimes too much familiarity isn't always a good thing. 



> The EE documentaries make it somewhat clear that PB and Frances Walsh both wrote the majority of the screenplay together, with Peter writing the visually difficult parts and the battle/action sequences.



That's how I've understood it to be. I don't necessarily think that was a good thing. I get the impression that Jackson himself did understand and care about LOTR and he held his end up well, but the other two I have serious doubts about it. I think he should've worked harder to find writers that were more familiar and appreciative of the material they were adapting and interpreting. It's just my opionion but that's the distinct impression I got when I watched the EE documentaries. 



> Already facing a daunting task of making the books into two films, they had to consider in a relatively short time period (Tolkien had almost a decade, they had less than year) about what to leave in and what to take out of the story to make it a easily accessible and workable and bankable film. When the film moved to New Line Cinema, they had more room to work in, but still not enough time.



I understand and agree with you there. It's not the "taking out" part that I have a problem with. Not having Tom Bombadil or the Old Forest in FOTR wasn't a problem at all. Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel and the flight to the Ford wasn't something I lost sleep on. I understand the need to introduce Arwen, the love interest, etc, etc. These things were done quite well. It was when they started "making up" and "drastically changing" when I started seeing red. If they didn't have much time to work with then they shouldn't have felt the need to write in scenes and make changes that didn't exist at all. Rewriting characters and adding things like Wargs, Aragorn falling off the cliff, going to Osgiliath, etc..all that had to take up precious time that could've been served elsewhere.



> Also, they had to constantly work on the script during the shoot. Mainly to try and make the best version possible, and if they had stumbled somewhere it was here. Working on a major film like this is hard enough, but to write at the same time revisions to a script, one can easily lose the big picture.



Agreed! I think that's _exactly_ what happened! So they should've kept the revisions to a minimum and just concentrated on filming as faithful adaptation to Tolkien's story as possible.



> I think that that's what happened to TTT, the group was so busy working on the rewrites and pickups to both FotR and RotK that TTT was missed. As admitted in the EE, they were almost afraid of the task to adapt TTT because it was the hardest part with no end or beginning and with multiple storylines that had to make sense to non-book readers and flow smoothly with the film as well.



I think they made a bigger deal of the "no beginning/no end" situation with TTT then it had to be. It started with picking up where the first movie ended off. Gollum was introduced but he'd been discussed and alluded to in the first movie. Then there was Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli setting off after the Orcs and M&P. Good enough beginning to lead into the story.

I know you and I aren't going to agree but I personally think ending with Shelob would've been the absolutely perfect cliffhanger. They could've made perfect use of this "in between" film and used it to their advantage instead of mucking it up by changing and rewriting whole portions of it. IMO they were their own worst enemy with regards to TTT. 




> While I agree with you to some extent, I wouldn't go as far as saying that they weren't impressed with Tolkiens LotR. If they hadn't been impressed to start with, they wouldn't have started working on the film in the first place, imo atleast. What I do agree is, that like rest of us who have read the book. Jackson had a certain vision while reading it. He had his own picture in his head about what he would do and what he would leave out, I think it's in one of the documentaries that he says that he had thought about what the film would be like since a teenager. I think that there are moments in the films in which that teenager still resides in and Jacksons own visions are at work, like the darker and more omnious Bree for example instead of the jolly and warm one in the books.



Jackson's image of Bree didn't bother me. Everyone has their "own" image of the book and how things look. It's to be expected and I rather liked Jackson's verson of Bree. I think Tolkien didn't make it out to be the happy place that The Shire was due to it's locale and the fact that it was being affected by events leading up to the war. 

I think that Jackson did indeed have a vision and love for Tolkien's LOTR. It was his vision. That is evident by his choice of the actors, the locale, sets, costumes and the evident pride with which he speaks about the film in the EE. I think it was his wife and writer friends that were the problem. Maybe their intentions were good but the execution wasn't. When they stuck to Tolkien it worked. When they changed things drastically and added their own, it didn't work. That's where the failings were. I really don't think they understood what the story was all about. Jackson should've gotten writers who did. 



> You're very right about FotR. The team most certainly put more effort into it because at the time it came out, the rest of their budjet was still uncertain and if the movie didn't come out as expected they would have ended up with a case similar to Bakshi, no funding and no movies.



I'm a bit confused here...Didn't they film all the movies at once?  Wasn't the three parter a done deal? I didn't think that the success of FOTR was needed for the completion of the other movies. If that was the case then TTT and ROTK shouldn't have been a problem in that respect. 



> Also, FotR is a type of a 'road movie' like Jackson remarks on the commentary. It's a journey from point a to b in a group. It's a easy thing to adapt with things that can be left out easily without damaging the story.



I think that's the main reason FOTR worked. It was an easy enough story to make work. Fairly straightforward plot-wise and you are still introducing the basic characters. Still, I have to give credit to Jackson for doing a wonderful job of bringing Middle Earth to life in this movie. It's such a beautiful movie to watch. The Hobbits are at their most likeable and Gandalf is just incredible, as is Saruman. My problems with the movies generally don't start until TTT. Yes, I could pick apart FOTR but I'd just as soon sit back and enjoy it. Nothing is perfect. I've ordered and eaten a perfect cut of sirloin and enjoyed it. I'm not going to worry about a little gristle.


----------



## Narsil (Nov 26, 2004)

> The problem with TTT was, as admitted in the documentaries, that it was stuck in a middle phase of the filming. FotR was on it's theatrical run and the team had to do countless of press meetings and work on the EE. Then there was RotK which was to be the ending chapter. It was a tricky situation for the team, and TTT's plotline didn't help at all.



I know that was their explanation but I think they undertook a number of big changes for TTT, it didn't work and they had to backtrack. The end result was the problems in TTT. I truly believe that if they'd just stuck to the book version it would've gone well enough. I think they bit off more than they could chew. 



> Like you said, they had to introduce a number of important charecters, some more active than others in the book. They also had to have three sepparate storylines in the film running side by side, because unlike a book. You can't have a movie that is split into a part 1 and 2 with part 1 dealing only with Aragorn and Co then ending and then jumping back to part 2 with Frodo and Sam in their journey, it would kill the movie.



Agreed. It was a confusing scenario to start but why did they have to go and make it more confusing?  The Wargs, Aragorn off the cliff, Osgiliath, etc, etc? These didn't have to happen. They added them, thus even more confusion.


> Also the ending with Shelob and Helms Deep together were a major problem and like said in the documentaries, it was a simple decision to move Shelob to RotK. A decision that imo, was for the better.



Here's where I'll disagree with you and them.  I don't see why it would've been a problem with Shelob and Helm's Deep being in the same movie. IMO ROTK had a lot more going on. Shelob was lost in that movie. 

Helm's Deep was totally separate from Frodo, Sam and Gollum. It might not have been two parts, as in the book, but there was definitely a separate plotline going on. You had a resolution of one plotline with Helm's Deep. Then there was the resolution of another with the Ents going to war against Saruman in another. So it stood to reason that while the movie ended with Frodo, Sam and Gollum walking off thru the woods (a _most_ unsatisfactory ending!) it would've been much better if the movie had ended with the same cliffhanger that ended the book. 

Helm's Deep was a satisfying resolution. Shelob would've made for an incredible cliffhanger. Two totally separate scenarios! I can only imagine how the audience would've reacted upon seeing Frodo stung by Shelob, Sam battling Shelob, Sam assuming Frodo was dead, taking the ring and then seeing the Orcs taking Frodo's body away and hearing them say Frodo was still alive..the Sam rushing to the doors as they clanged shut. It would've been an incredible ending! 

Now you might say "They didn't have time." They would've had time if they'd cut that whole silly part with Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath and substituted Shelob instead. In ROTK there then would've been time for things such as...Saruman, The Witch King facing down Gandalf, The Houses of Healing, Mouth of Sauron..any of those things that weren't addressed in the theatrical version of ROTK and as a result _that_ movie would've been better too. 

So I think moving Shelob wasn't a good thing at all. IMO it was a big mistake and it's one of the things I point to when I say that these writers didn't understand and were bent on "improving Tolkien". They saw an opportunity to make their own mark on the movie. Now they could insert angst, melodrama and conflict. They could remake Faramir and start him on _his_ personal journey, turn Frodo against Sam and make him into a tortured soul, throw in a neat scene with the Nazgul, a battle scene or two, etc, etc. 

It didn't work. It was laughable at best and a complete and utter failure at worst. I don't think it worked cinematically regardless of whether it was based on a book or not. It was just thrown in, just like the Wargs, Aragorn falling off the cliff. It disturbed the sequence of events and added nothing to the story. 

Had they used Shelob properly (and _not_ wasted their time and ours by having Frodo telling Sam to "go home") it would've turned TTT from a redheaded stepchild into a brilliant bridge between the beginning and the end of the tale. It's a shame they didn't consult me.  

Oh..but then again, they just could've opened the damn book! 



> The reason I think that many of the charecters were changed, most importantly Faramir (which even bugged me in the TE) was that like Philippa said in one of the documentaries that Frodo and Sam needed to have some kind of a major event happening to them. It may sound, and it does sound, like a horrible reason to insert Faramir as the obstacle. But in the end, if you consider that the charecter would not have anything else to do in the film other than talk to them for a bit and then leave, it's a agreeable decision. Maybe not the best of decisions, but I've come to terms with it atleast. Also, the EE did help a lot in this case, and I was very happy to see a more thorough explanation for Faramirs behaviour.



The EE does help a lot in that respect. But if they'd used Shelob in the correct place none of this would've been necessary. Frodo and Sam _would_ have had a major event happen to them! They took the perfect opportunity and cast it away! Instead they decided to fabricate something on their own! If that isn't answering the call of ego and hubris I don't know what is! 

If they'd done things properly Faramir would've indeed come into his own. I really do think that they couldn't live with the idea of Faramir walking away from the ring so they decided to change a huge hunk of the story. I've heard their explanation, understand where they are coming from but I don't agree it was the best thing for the movie. It led to a domino effect where the end result was pretty awful. 

Well, it sound like you and I agree on Faramir so I guess we're just nodding our heads in unison on this one.



> I don't think that the writers were trying to be better than Tolkien in a sense that they wanted to rewrite the story for the sake of it. But rather, I think that they felt that they new what they were doing was for the best. Some have agreed with that logic, and many have not.



I don't think they made the changes out of malice but they are artists. Here they are making an incredible epic of a movie based on the book that is outsold worldwide by only the Holy Bible. It's a pretty awesome undertaking. As artists one would think that they'd want to make their mark on it in some way.

I honestly think that they felt there's a formula that's needed for movie making and that these characters needed to be made more realistic, fleshed out and go on a "journey". I honestly feel that they felt the need to insert more melodrama and conflict into Tolkien's version..so they did. Some applaud it, some don't care and others detest it. I didn't like the obvious changes at all and felt they should've left well enough alone. Whatever their reasoning for the changes I didn't agree with the results. 



> But they are not without humility, if you remember the part in the documentaries which discusses Arwen at Helms Deep. The writers discuss a early draft in which they wanted to have the romance between Arwen and Aragorn more concrete, but in the end they realised how wrong they were and how they shouldn't have changed Tolkiens plan that much.



I recall that at one point they were going to have Arwen at Helm's Deep! Fortunately they scrapped that idea but just the fact that they were thinking of doing such a thing gets me wondering? All the dead ends...The Elves showing up at Helm's Deep, Elrond showing up to give Aragorn his sword and mumbling something about Arwen being tied to the ring. All this craziness gets me thinking that they had a much broader sweep in mind and fortunately figured out it wasn't going to work so they backtracked. I'll give them credit for figuring things out and fixing things at least in part. I just wish that from the very start they had worked within the original storyline and portrayed the characters as they were in the book. 



> It shows that they are not without respect for Tolkien, but merely were thinking of the best possible way to make things work so that audiences today would accept it. I know it's hard to swallow an explanation like that, but if you look at the movies that make big box office these days, you'll notice that they are the most linear films in the market. Credit is due atleast a little to the writers for having the courage to admit their mistakes and go back to the original story, even if it would have cost them more than now.



I can give them credit for not messing things up entirely.  Seriously, it's nice to think that they said "Uh Oh, we'd better get back to Square One" but I do feel that if given more time they might've wreaked far more havoc than they did. I guess I'm just a bigger pessimist than you are in that respect. 

I think audiences today like the good parts of the movie, which happen to be the parts that correspond most closely with Tolkien's version...So why not make the entire movie correspond with how Tolkien did it? I don't think it's by accident that the screw-ups are the parts that they fabricated and pieced together..Not so much because it didn't adhere to the book but because IMO they really didn't do a very good job on those parts.


----------



## Ol'gaffer (Nov 26, 2004)

Narsil said:


> So if Peter Jackson _wasn't_ entirely happy with his wife's contribution to this effort how easily could he have fired her?  I run a business myself and I've learned the hard way not to hire friends and working side by side with your spouse can be, uh, awkward at times. Some would argue with me on this but sometimes too much familiarity isn't always a good thing.



How very right you are. But I do think that Peter was looking back at their record together. Meet the Feebles brought them a strong cult fame and a notable prize at Cannes. Braindead was a hit considering the controversy it brought with it. And Heavenly Creatures was loved by critics and audiences. 
I guess Jackson felt that he they could bring the magic here as well, and in parts they did and in parts they didn't.



> That's how I've understood it to be. I don't necessarily think that was a good thing. I get the impression that Jackson himself did understand and care about LOTR and he held his end up well, but the other two I have serious doubts about it. I think he should've worked harder to find writers that were more familiar and appreciative of the material they were adapting and interpreting. It's just my opionion but that's the distinct impression I got when I watched the EE documentaries.



I think that you may be correct, I can't recall how well PB and FW knew LotR before they began writing, but I'll check it out later this weekend. Jackson I do know that he had loved the book since he was a teenager. 



> I understand and agree with you there. It's not the "taking out" part that I have a problem with. Not having Tom Bombadil or the Old Forest in FOTR wasn't a problem at all. Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel and the flight to the Ford wasn't something I lost sleep on. I understand the need to introduce Arwen, the love interest, etc, etc. These things were done quite well. It was when they started "making up" and "drastically changing" when I started seeing red. If they didn't have much time to work with then they shouldn't have felt the need to write in scenes and make changes that didn't exist at all. Rewriting characters and adding things like Wargs, Aragorn falling off the cliff, going to Osgiliath, etc..all that had to take up precious time that could've been served elsewhere.



Like I've said earlier, most changes were made to boost the story for non book audiences. For better and for worse. The wargs I have no problem with, the battle was entertaining enough, but the osgiliath thing does bug me. Less than it did before, but it's still not my favorite thing in the trilogy.



> Agreed! I think that's _exactly_ what happened! So they should've kept the revisions to a minimum and just concentrated on filming as faithful adaptation to Tolkien's story as possible.



*nods head in agreement*



> I think they made a bigger deal of the "no beginning/no end" situation with TTT then it had to be. It started with picking up where the first movie ended off. Gollum was introduced but he'd been discussed and alluded to in the first movie. Then there was Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli setting off after the Orcs and M&P. Good enough beginning to lead into the story. I know you and I aren't going to agree but I personally think ending with Shelob would've been the absolutely perfect cliffhanger. They could've made perfect use of this "in between" film and used it to their advantage instead of mucking it up by changing and rewriting whole portions of it. IMO they were their own worst enemy with regards to TTT.



First, I think that TTT has a really nice beginning. It's made up, one of the few things that they made up that really worked. But I do agree with you on the ending! I think that the Frodo and Sam walking towards Mordor ending that we have now, is ok. And certainly omnious enough so that the normal audiences were expecting the worst, but I would have loved to see an ending with Sam at the gates pounding and clawing them and then slumping to the ground with the camera panning away and then fading to black. It would have been awesome, but the audiences would have hated it. It would have been a case of Matrix Reloaded which has a ending very similar to TTT's.



> I'm a bit confused here...Didn't they film all the movies at once?  Wasn't the three parter a done deal? I didn't think that the success of FOTR was needed for the completion of the other movies. If that was the case then TTT and ROTK shouldn't have been a problem in that respect.



From what I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong. I rememer hearing that Jackson and co. Had a similar deal that Bakshi had. All three movies at the same time, but if the first one flops, then the money is off.


----------



## Narsil (Nov 26, 2004)

Ol'gaffer said:


> Treebeard and Theoden I agree with completely, they are the only parts of TTT that even I can't enjoy 100%. But Faramir to me atleast, became in the EE the faramir that I found in the books. I found that the challenge that he faces is not only the ring, but to stand up against his father and be like Boromir could have been.



I will say that the TTT EE and ROTK does help Faramir's character but I enjoy him so much more in the book. But at least I can watch and appreciate him in the movie with the changes. I'm looking forward to seeing what the ROTK EE does as well. 

As I said before, it's not just the changes to Faramir that i disliked but all the accompanying scenes that were thrown in. I can't stand the scene at Osgiliath, with the Nazgul and how Frodo freaks out on Sam..and that's how the movie ends. It really galls me. I guess that's a factor in why I would've loved to have seen that movie end with Shelob. 



> Denethor I never found cartoonish, but his appearence in the TE of RotK was somewhat odd. But from what I've heard, the EE has more to his behaviour, and supposedly they have a scene with the palantir and him. I'll have to get back to you in this one



You really need the Palantir to give rhyme and reason to Denethor and why he acts as he does. He looks like a raving lunatic otherwise, certainly not the way a Steward of Gondor should be. When I say "cartoonish" I mean one dimensional. He's all crazy and evil. You hate the guy and that's not the way he was meant to be portrayed. He's not likeable but he is to be respected. You don't get that in the movie.

As satisfying as it was to see Gandalf smack him upside the head (I laughed at that) when you watch it again and again it doesn't come off well. It certainly doesn't make Gandalf look good either. This is another example of "cartoonish".  



> And I agree with you on many points as well. But one thing that I can't agree on is the attitude that the writers were trying to satisfy their egos, because they have said in their own words on the documentaries many times that they weren't out to do that. But to instead try and adapt the most cinematic approach to the story.



I believe any artist has an ego to satisfy. Here they are given an incredible job of making a movie based on an epic novel of our time..Who wouldn't want to insert a bit of themselves into it? That's what I mean by "ego". It's a natural thing that they'd want to do so but there's a line in the sand as to how much of themselves should be inserted... 

In some respects I don't have a problem but in many cases I think they went too far over the line. Completely altering characters and fabricating storylines is "too far". While some agree with the changes and feel it works for a movie aimed at today's society I feel that a really good movie is timeless..You shouldn't have to do anything to make it fit any particular time period. 

A good story will work regardless of when it's presented. There's no need to psychoanalyse Frodo or explore Theoden's weaknesses, Aragorn's indecision or inflict needless conflict into the story just for the sake of doing so. I believe when they did this they failed. When they stuck to the story as told by Tolkien and brought his world and characters to life they did a good job. 

But that doesn't satisfy the ego as much.  It would be far more satisfying to say "I did it myself" rather than "I adapted another man's story to the screen". 



> And like it or not, there are people in the world who think that LotR has not aged well as a book, and as a film it has to have some modifications.



I don't agree with them about the book aging. That's one thing I feel is "timeless". I guess it's a matter of how much I will agree or disagree with the modifications to it via the movie. I didn't mind the Elves at Helm's Deep for cinematic effect (but I did think "What's the point?"). Howver it didn't offend me. Faramir and the baggage that went with it did offend me. Theoden in TTT was just awful. Aragorn falling over the cliff..IMO that's where the movie followed him. I could go on and on nitpicking. Some folks with agree with me, some won't. It's all just a matter of personal opinion. 




> By removing Shelob from TTT (for a reason that I think is acceptable) they had to make Helms Deep the climax of the story. But in doing so, Theoden was changed and many other elements were changed as well. It is unfortunate, considering that Helms Deep is an amazing sequence on it's own in the movie imo.



I don't have the problem with the actual battle. It was fun to watch. But I just don't like the events leading up to it. I don't think that Theoden needed to be changed. I guess they were really looking to have this tortured soul in Theoden and wanted the situation to appear hopeless and desperate...300 poorly armed farmers, women, children and a weak king to lead them. I thought that was very uninspiring and sad, especially when you've read the book and know what the Rohirrim are all about. 

But the battle itself was fun to watch and I thought it was well executed. Perfect? Probably not. But I still like to watch it so that says something in itself. Unfortunately I do think the movie was about more than the battles and fight scenes. 



> and I think that you're right on the issue. But you also should consider that there are millions of people who are most pleased with the movie and those millions have voted around the world for the movie to win all it's prizes and make huge amounts of money, if the movies were terrible like many here have said, they wouldn't have been so succesfull.



LOL!  _Baywatch_ is the most popular and successful TV show in the world. Millions of people watch reality shows like _The Bachelor_. Success isn't an indication of quality. The two are mutually exclusive...Thank goodness!  

That said, I don't think the movies are at all "terrible". I've bought the EE DVDs for FOTR and TTT and have the TE of ROTK and intend to buy the EE on December 14th. I don't do that with movies I consider terrible. But I do think they could've been better and enjoy discussing why I think so. It doesn't mean I hate them but I would've liked to have seen some things done differently. 

Since we are discussing a movie that hasn't been made yet (_The Hobbit_) I am hoping some of the faults in LOTR will be addressed and perhaps fixed, especially if the same team produces it. It's a bit much to hope for, given the success of the first rendition, but there's always hope. Besides, I like talking about it.  



> On a interesting side note, TTT which is considered by audiences and critics alike to be the weakest part of the trilogy as a FILM, made the least money and won only awards for effects, and Andy Serkis' amazing performance.



Shame, because it didn't have to be that way. TTT could've been an incredible movie if they'd looked at it's perceived weaknesses as strengths and used them to their advantage. I think there's this preconceived notion that the sequel isn't as good as the original but that doesn't always have to be the case. It certainly didn't with TTT. As I said before, TTT failed due to the _changes and fabrications and weak plot devices_ that the writers introduced, not because it was "in the middle" and "had no beginning or end". 



> Also, IMO, I think that what we got was Middle Earth alive and breathing. With the charecters and events from the book alive, and even with it's problems (I think it's stupid to say that the book doesn't have it's problems) the movies are amazing cinema and most likely will stay in cinema history.



Time will be the ultimate judge on how well the movies hold up ultimately but right now I do enjoy watching them if only to see Middle Earth come to life. Jackson did do an excellent job bringing ME to life visually. I don't think many will disagree with that. I'd like to see him do the same for _The Hobbit_ but I'm still convinced he should give Phillippa and Fran their walking papers. 



> I also think that there are people here who think that the movies couldn't have gotten any worse



I don't agree with those people. I think the movies could've been A LOT worse. 



> There are moments in TTT that make me flinch as well. I can watch the movies, but it may be because I've never held the books as close to me as I've felt the movies to be


. 

I watched FOTR and the TE of TTT before I read the books. I liked them well enough. Then I read the books and it did change my perspective. I honestly feel that the movies should've been more in line with the books and their weaknesses are apparent when they aren't. So I can look at this from both perspectives..as from someone who hasn't read the books and someone who has. I really do think that Tolkien did it best. Call me a "Purist" or whatever but that's what I think and feel. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy the movies but I do find myself gritting my teeth and shaking my head at times. 

That said, I do think it's better that the movies have been made. I do know that that people have been inspired by their love and enjoyment of the movies to read the books. I count myself among them. To be introduced to ME and Tolkien is a good thing, regardless of how it's done.  



> I think that so far only TTT has needed the EE for fixing. Not that it's a consolation, considering it's a big part of the trilogy. But I feel that the EE for both FotR and RotK will only add to the films and that both can be viewed as TE versions as well.



I'm hoping that the EE will fix some things in ROTK as well. I'd really like to see what the heck happens to Saruman. Leaving him stuck in Orthanc at Isengard is pretty unacceptable.


----------



## Narsil (Nov 26, 2004)

Ol'gaffer said:


> I think that as a team, they were very brave to want to try this. Also they were very lucky to have gotten the money for it in the end. I don't feel that it was a wrong film for them, because many parts prove that they do know their stuff most exceptionally (Moria, Rivendell, Shire, Minas Tirith, Mordor) and also many parts are bad (Theoden, Rohan, Denethor) but that's what filmmaking is about, a process through which you learn from.



"The only real mistake is the one you don't learn from".  

The action-adventure stuff they did fairly well. If you are talking about the sets, locale, etc..I agree..They did a great job. But it's the changes in the characters and additions that I don't like. I think a lot of people here feel likewise. If they'd just stuck to Tolkien and pretty much gone the way they did in FOTR throughout we'd be having an entirely different conversation. 

I think it gets down to _ how much_ you dislike and are willing to accept the changes, fabrications, additions, etc. Some, like yourself, are fairly accepting and agree with the spirit in which they were done. You understand their intention and the reasons for doing so and are willing to overlook the flaws in execution. I'm not as accepting but can still enjoy the movies in varying degrees.

But I really don't care to see it all happen again in _The Hobbit_. Since I see the writers as the weak link I'd like to see that changed and hopefully there will be a different outcome more in line with my expectations.




> I must ask, you would understand what Tolkien was trying to convey. I bet you could bring many expedition scenes to screen well with the charecters intact. But could you make the films work on such a scale that they were action packed, entertaining and appealing to the masses and still create a very close work? Who knows, maybe you could. But in the end, it's always easier to talk about doing something than actually doing it. Jackson and Co. did something remarkable with the trilogy, and for that, even with all it's problems that the trilogy has, I respect them.



Well, if given the resources that Jackson & Co had and if I had the experience in screenwriting, the background, etc but still retained the feelings I have with regards to Tolkien's work, the book, the characters and story..I really do think that I could make it work. "Easier said then done", one might say. I've rewritten a lot of movies in my head..From _Forrest Gump_ to _Star Trek Generations_. I guess we all do that. But I will say that for many it's much harder to adapt and interpret someone else's work than it is to make up our own. Understanding and remaining true to Tolkien and Middle Earth seemed to be harder for PJ's writers to accomplish than I think even they realized. 

But yes, I do respect what they did..I just wish they'd done it a better.


----------



## Narsil (Nov 26, 2004)

Ol'gaffer said:


> How very right you are. But I do think that Peter was looking back at their record together. Meet the Feebles brought them a strong cult fame and a notable prize at Cannes. Braindead was a hit considering the controversy it brought with it. And Heavenly Creatures was loved by critics and audiences.
> I guess Jackson felt that he they could bring the magic here as well, and in parts they did and in parts they didn't.



I can see that..But for such an undertaking as LOTR I think it would've served him well to have at least expanded his options with regard to writers. 

I guess hindsight is 20/20 and everyone is a Monday Morning quarterback but since we were discussing what we'd like to see for _The Hobbit_ the change in writers is what I brought up because I do see it as a weak link for the first 3 movies. 





> I can't recall how well PB and FW knew LotR before they began writing, but I'll check it out later this weekend. Jackson I do know that he had loved the book since he was a teenager.



If you watch the EE discussions it's pretty apparent that Jackson is much more "Tolkien-oriented" than the other two. I don't think this is a good thing seeing as the others wrote most of the screenplay.  

Also, I might get flamed for this big time..But I do think it would've served the movie well if they'd had more of a male presence when it came to writing the movie. Women tend to have one way of looking at the world, men another. I think a lot of the revisions to the characters were "female-oriented". I don't think men are as much into melodrama, angst and psychic journeys and conflicts. Since LOTR is about war, nobility, bravery, friendship, etc, among men it would've been wise if Jackson had a man or two involved to balance things out. He was there but he had a lot on his plate and I feel that he delegated a lot of the screenwriting to the two women. What do you think? 




> Like I've said earlier, most changes were made to boost the story for non book audiences. For better and for worse. The wargs I have no problem with, the battle was entertaining enough, but the osgiliath thing does bug me. Less than it did before, but it's still not my favorite thing in the trilogy.



Yep, I agree with your explanation about the changes but I don't agree with the changes themselves. The wargs in themselves wouldn't have been a problem if Theoden hadn't been made a wuss, Aragorn hadn't fallen off the cliff, etc, etc.




> First, I think that TTT has a really nice beginning. It's made up, one of the few things that they made up that really worked.



The beginning with Frodo dreaming about Gandalf didn't bother me. I actually liked it. I will say that for those who hadn't read the book but saw the first movie it pretty much gave away that Gandalf was coming back. When I saw TTT in the movies I hadn't read the books. I'd seen FOTR and didn't have a clue that Gandalf would return. The beginning did cue me in. I think that was a weakness but I did enjoy watching it. 



> But I do agree with you on the ending! I think that the Frodo and Sam walking towards Mordor ending that we have now, is ok. And certainly omnious enough so that the normal audiences were expecting the worst,



Well, it forshadows that Gollum is going to do "something" to the Hobbits, which is easy enough to figure out. The ending is most unsatisfying, especially after the mess at Osgiliath. 



> but I would have loved to see an ending with Sam at the gates pounding and clawing them and then slumping to the ground with the camera panning away and then fading to black. It would have been awesome, but the audiences would have hated it.



They would've _thought_ they hated it!  You have a middle movie and anyone walking in there knows it so it's to be expected. So why not take full advantage of it and leave 'em hanging? They'd be banging the doors of the movie theater on the opening day of ROTK like Sam did at the tower of Cirith Ungol..  

It's works well in the book. When I finished TTT I was churning with frustration. It was all I could do to NOT flip forward in ROTK to Book Six (where it picks up with Sam and Frodo in the book). People in the audience would've been cursing and complaining but really, was it any different from the ending of FOTR, with Sam and Frodo headed off to Mordor and Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas in pursuit of the Orcs who captured M&P? 

It would've been GREAT. Plus it would've allowed them to have configured ROTK better. 



> It would have been a case of Matrix Reloaded which has a ending very similar to TTT's.



Yeah, but _Matrix Reloaded_ stunk.  What a yawnfest. 



> From what I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong. I rememer hearing that Jackson and co. Had a similar deal that Bakshi had. All three movies at the same time, but if the first one flops, then the money is off.



I got the impression that all 3 were a "go" regardless of whether FOTR flopped or not. I think that's what made the whole thing so incredible..That New Line was willing to invest so much without any guarantees. If I'm wrong, someone correct me.


----------



## Ol'gaffer (Nov 27, 2004)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> However, what I _refuse_ to do is to respond to points that are _entirely irrelevant_ to what I have posted and are, in fact, nothing more than a reiteration of points that long ago _were_ addressed - frequently at great length. Since they add nothing to anything that I said in the first place or have been addressed at length before, it is futile to respond.



You do know that you keep getting the same old answers because you keep complaining about the same old things. Are you doing it just for fun? Writing down the same old complaint and then just looking how long it'll take for someone to answer it so you can dismiss it entirely?



> Finally, what I _said_ - had you been sufficiently objective to make the effort to understand - was that you _obviously_ did not understand the book _as I did_. Frankly, if you can honestly say that these films "captured the spirit of the book", I simply cannot reasonably arrive at any other conclusion! And although I did not say anything about the _validity_ of your interpretation, I recognize that it is pointless to discuss the matter further as you will never understand the problems I have with Jackson's "interpretation" of characters _or_ plot. What is the sense of my pointing out that Jackson screwed up most of the characters and therefore seriously affected Tolkien's vision, _if your interpretation of the book leaves you without any problems with Jackson's characters?_ Right there we have what might be called "irreconcilable differences" vis a vie book to film at least with regard to the "vision" of the tale.
> 
> In order for "dialogue" to exist, both parties must at the very least be speaking the same language! It is obvious that in this instance we do not and therefore responding to each other's points is, in fact, point_less_ since we have no common ground of understanding from which to proceed.



Not really a good explanation. We're here to talk about the films, not aobut the books. Narsil and I have both different views on the book but we still manage to have a interesting discussion on the movies as adaptations. Something that you and I can't seem to do with your infuriating "you don't understand it like *I* do" attitude.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Nov 27, 2004)

As long as you keep stating that these films captured the "spirit" of the book, I will continue to refute you. If you are just going to natter on about the excellence of the films, well that is your subjective opinion. Mine is different but it hardly matters since it is unimportant. 

_However_, when you bring the book into the matter and declare that these films are an accurate adaptation of Tolkien's story, then I must vigorously and vehemently disagree. Is the plot (relatively) the same? Certainly. But the plot is only _part_ of the tale and does not contain its core meaning. That is presented through the _natures and actions of the characters_ and in that alone, Jackson has failed and failed, in my opinion, miserably.

All the rest of the cinematic "fluff" - including his successes and failures - pale before the hash he made of the characters and, through them, the story's real meaning. Just because everyone starts and ends in the films as they did in the book doesn't mean that what happened in between is irrelevant or that the book and films are equivalent. It isn't and they aren't.


----------



## Morgaphry (Nov 27, 2004)

Must you all destroy discussions with the same argument on every single thread on this forum? 
It's really going nowhere and let's just keep it to the Peter Jackson's LOTR vs. Tolkien's. That's clearly what it is there for.

Now we're past that:

Does anyone else look forward to seing a Dwarf army? We've seen only one solitary dwarf in action thus far and I'd like to see at least one thousand in rank with battle armour, instead of travelling armour like Gimli's.


----------



## Narsil (Nov 27, 2004)

Morgaphry said:


> Does anyone else look forward to seing a Dwarf army? We've seen only one solitary dwarf in action thus far and I'd like to see at least one thousand in rank with battle armour, instead of travelling armour like Gimli's.



Ahh..Excellent point!  I would LOVE to see more about the Dwarves! Unfortunately in LOTR Tolkien didn't get into much description about the part that the Dwarves played at Dale when King Dain and King Brand held off Sauron in the north at Erebor. He does get into it in the Appendices though. _The Hobbit_ is an entirely different situation. I'd love to see more Dwarves on the big screen.  

_The Hobbit_ would be an excellent opportunity to feature the Dwarves. After all, doesn't the story feature them? As long as Jackson (or whoever directs and writes the movie) refrains from portraying the Dwarves as bumbling, comic figures in the "Seven Dwarves" mode and makes them the noble, courageous, strongwilled characters that Tolkien intended them to be it will work out wonderfully and give those who have read and appreciate both the books and movies a different perspective of Middle Earth. 

One of the reasons I really want to see _The Hobbit_ made into a movie is that I really want to see more about the Dwarves. The Dwarf Army would be quite a sight to behold. The Dwarves have an illustrious history and it would be nice to expand on it. It was hinted at in FOTR in the mines of Moria but they could do a lot with it in the _The Hobbit_. 

Hopefully they will be careful about the portrayal of the Dwarves and the _The Hobbit_ is presented _seriously_..not as a children's story. Those are two things I do have concerns about.


----------



## Forgotten Path (Nov 29, 2004)

Seeing a Dwarf army in action would be awesome!  And also more eagles!  Sweet!  

The Hobbit would make an excellent movie. I wonder what the arkenstone would look like in film?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 11, 2004)

*Lord of the Rings stars offer their support for The Hobbit*

The stars of Lord of the Rings have given director Peter Jackson a promise they'll return for The Hobbit if the New Zealand director decides to complete the J.R.R. Tolkien saga - even though their Rings characters weren't born when the story takes place.

Jackson has hinted that he would be interested in adapting the revered British author's pre-Lord of The Rings story into a movie, and now his Hobbit stars are pushing him to go for it.

Scottish actor Billy Boyd, who played Hobbit Pippin in the Lord of The Rings films, says, "People want it so much. There was talk of us playing our characters' relatives. I'm sure we'd all make ourselves free for that."

And Jackson would be able to cut down on the on-set costs if his Hobbits returned - they're considering buying a communal property in New Zealand.

Elijah Wood explains, "A lot of us are actually thinking about going in on property in New Zealand."


Published December 9, 2004

Source: http://www.wizardnews.com/story.20041209.html

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 11, 2004)

MAJOR NEWS!!!!

Just a mere two weeks into our letter writing campaign and already we have received an official response from the co-CEO/co-Chairman of New Line Cinema, Robert Shaye! Follow the link to read how our LET THE HOBBIT HAPPEN campaign was received at New Line Cinema! 

We are very encouraged by Mr. Shaye's letter and feel that New Line Cinema has the best intentions of the fans at heart when the time comes to make The Hobbit a reality. And its pretty darn cool that Mr. Shaye sees Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh as critical to the success of bringing our favorite The Lord of the Rings prequel to the big screen.

But wait...there's more...

New Line Cinema might have responded, but we have yet to hear back from MGM/UA! Please keep up your letter writing and postcard sending efforts to the remaining two addresses on the left side of this page. One down, two to go!

Source: http://thehobbitfilm.com/ 

This is a _very_ interesting site, and deserves thorough perusal, especially the place where you can actually _download postcards and letter samples_ to send to New Line, etc., at http://thehobbitfilm.com/letters.html#03 and http://thehobbitfilm.com/postcards.html !

Letting the "Hobbit Happen" is not a mere bagatelle or whimsy. There are literally _several hundred_ websites with the same goal and passion in mind (and you can add your own Tolkien-themed site to the list), and all their links are available at http://thehobbitfilm.com/partners.html

And if you find all this technical stuff too much, just send your pro-Hobbit movie postcards and letters (the ordinary kind) to

Alex Yemenidjian
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.
10250 Constellation Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90067

and

Danny Rosett
EVP Marketing and Distribution
United Artists Corporation
10250 Constellation Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90067

If you're wondering what to say in a letter, here's what thehobbitfilm.com used (which got the response from New Line):

===============================

To: New Line Cinema, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. and United Artists

We, the undersigned, wish to make clear our strong desire to see a quality film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit. Having spent the last three years in Middle-earth, under the spell of magician Peter Jackson and the wizards of Weta Workshop, we find ourselves only wanting more. The Tale of the Ring is incomplete without the story of It’s finding by Bilbo, and the other aspects of his adventure make for a captivating cinematic journey as well.

Fans know that the film rights reside with New Line, while distribution is the legal domain of MGM/United Artists. It would be heartbreaking for the fans to be denied this film, simply because of this rift in rights. Surely an agreement can be reached that will prove mutually advantageous to the studios. The phenomenal success of The Lord of the Rings trilogy clearly demonstrates that there is a huge fan base worldwide, ready to support The Hobbit in like manner - particularly if it is made by Mr. Jackson and Weta, who have proven themselves so gifted in the visual creation of a world which until now only existed on the printed page, in the art of great talents like Alan Lee and John Howe, and in the imaginations of Tolkien readers.

Please work together to eliminate this barrier to the film’s making and distribution. We, the fans, will make it worth your while. We are not ready to leave Middle-earth!

===============================

You can use the above as a starting place.

Barley

PS: My letters are going out in today's post!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 11, 2004)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> ...it is senseless to keep up the discussion...



Indeed it is, and you have said this countless times in other posts, so _why_ do you still do it anyway? Time and time again you have made that same empty pledge (oath, threat, promise) to _never again_ engage a "discussion" with us wretched philistines and cultural bottomfeeders who have _betrayed Tolkien_ by having the temerity to actually _enjoy_ PJ's movies — yet time and time again we find you making yet another outraged "charge into the breach" in highest deepest dudgeon, releasing yet another fetid flood of pompous pontifications and umbrageous ululations against Peter Jackson. 

We ALL KNOW what you think of PJ and his movies. We have all heard it countless times: your oleaginous opinions and damning denunciations Trumpeted Forth from On High as though Divine Revelation. 

We have your number, M, and have had it for a long time. When it comes to PJ, we all know your _oh-so-boring_ one-note tune by heart. Please keep your promise for once and do not "keep up the discussion." And when PJ brings _The Hobbit_ to the screen at last, please consider simply not seeing it: you'll save money; we'll be spared specious spouting.

Now — on to an _important_ matter: I have signed the Hobbit Petition: PJ, bring it on!

Barley


----------



## treebeardgarden (Dec 26, 2004)

I hope the Hobbit is made and I hope it is completely different to the book in essence. Not in the landscape, the characters, or their make up. However I hope like the other films they become a there are enough changes made to seperate it from the book. I enjoyed the LOTR films, but no where near as much as I enjoyed the Books. I have re-read the books at least once a year for the last 25-30 years. I can't see me watching the films for anything like the same length of time, or with the same level of enjoyment. 
So bring on the film but please change it from the book. I want to keep the images in my head that JRR left there, not some poor Peter Jackson copy of his images.
Hope this adds to the discussion, mabey stir things a bit.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 22, 2007)

http://nz.news.yahoo.com//070921/3/1rru.html

Saturday September 22, 09:31 AM
Jackson scores costs victory in legal battle


Photo : NZPA
Peter Jackson has scored a victory in his legal battle with New Line Cinema over the accounting of The Lord of the Rings films.

Jackson is embroiled in a legal wrangle with New Line over royalties from the films, which have grossed more than $US3 billion ($NZ4.42 billion) in ticket sales alone since 2001.

The lawsuit, believed to potentially be worth tens of millions of dollars for Jackson, has driven a wedge between Jackson and New Line and delayed development of a contemplated New Line-MGM movie based on The Hobbit.

In a legal victory a United States federal magistrate has hit the studio with $US125,000 ($NZ171,939) in sanctions for failing to produce potential evidence, www.latimes.com reported today.

It also ordered New Line to hire an outside document retrieval service to ensure the studio's electronic records are searched appropriately.

In his ruling US Magistrate Judge Stephen J Hillman found that New Line may have destroyed (or failed to prevent the destruction of) documents and failed to search diligently for documents and e-mails it was required by the court to produce.

He was particularly critical of how New Line treated e-mails related to the film and its accounting.

The $US125,000 in sanctions is intended to reimburse Jackson's attorneys for some of their costs in pursuing the documents.

In July 2006, Judge Hillman ordered New Line to produce sales and licensing documents the studio had argued were confidential and proprietary.

Barley


----------



## fadhatter (Sep 29, 2007)

Good news, if NewLine doesnt even want to pay a paltry 10-20 million plus to Jackson they will never give Jackson the hobbit !!!

i mean the bad actors on Friends get 30-50million each pers season.....Tom Cruise used to get 50million per movie


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 29, 2007)

fadhatter said:


> Good news, if NewLine doesnt even want to pay a paltry 10-20 million plus to Jackson they will never give Jackson the hobbit !!!
> 
> i mean the bad actors on Friends get 30-50million each pers season.....Tom Cruise used to get 50million per movie



I totaly agree! We have already seen that Jackson does not have a clue as to the spirit of Tolkien. Lets give someone else the chance to put "The Hobbit" on screen.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 30, 2007)

Good Lord! Goth and FH in agreement! LOTR (as well as politics) doth indeed make strange bedfellows... 

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 27, 2007)

I have to admit that whoever directs/produces/stars in The Hobbit, I will simply have to go and see it. The idea of sitting and actually seeing a depiction of Middle-earth unfold on screen is a temptation beyond all the fears that it's going to be rubbish.

I'm also hoping that The Tolkien Estate will get greedy and allow other stories to be screened too. There must be at least a dozen feature films in the Silmarillion alone.


----------



## chrysophalax (Dec 18, 2007)

Interesting...for once TTF's Dragon gets to break some news? I'm honoured!

Peter Jackson will be producing, NOT directing (at least, at this time) The Hobbit. It will be 2 films that will premier 2010 & 2011. Something more to look forward to, eh? I have this from Danish TV, by the way...we Dragons have sources in the oddest places.


----------



## Urambo Tauro (Dec 18, 2007)

The web is simply abuzz! 

You're right, Chrysophalax; you get ten gold stars!
This news deserves its own thread....


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 19, 2007)

chrysophalax said:


> Interesting...for once TTF's Dragon gets to break some news? I'm honoured!
> 
> Peter Jackson will be producing, NOT directing (at least, at this time) The Hobbit. It will be 2 films that will premier 2010 & 2011. Something more to look forward to, eh? I have this from Danish TV, by the way...we Dragons have sources in the oddest places.


I had to check this out! Denmark is spot on! Why wasn't it on UK tv news (not even the entertainment bits)? Here's one of the links I found.


----------

