Peter Jackson`s Philosophy On His Trilogies [Pic]

Submitted by: fancylad 4 years ago in Funny

Why should Peter Jackson be any different?
There are 32 comments:
Male 5,413
I have nothing important to say so I`ll just say...


And?
0
Reply
Male 5,617
And?
0
Reply
Female 1,467
One book though that will transcribe really well to film I think is Ender`s Game. But the only problem might be it will be seen as dated and a bit old hat.

I just remembered cheesy romance novels are so funny to watch as films because there is hardly any time for them to fall in love. It is like hi, I hate you, fifteen minutes later they are having the post-engagement sexxors. So I would prefer a four hour long film than one that is only two hours and makes no damn sense.
0
Reply
Female 1,467
@ Lynch`s Dune being 14 hours long, bring it on! I would love to watch that. Such an awesome book and movie.

I only don`t like it when they say they are making a movie of a book but are actually making a movie inspired by a book. That to me seems like false advertising. And I prefer books to movies just for the sake of efficiency. Text to speech is awesome!
0
Reply
Male 5,094
I saw it yesterday, and while I was somewhat disappointed in the roller-coaster scenes that only were there to show off the 3D, I liked it overall. They cut some of the original story, but added a LOT of history and background information and expanded on things that happened in the world but were largely glossed over in the book.

Tolkien wrote so very much about his amazing world, and I`m happy that we get to see more of it.

If nothing else, the riddle scene between Bilbo and Gollum is so good that it`s worth watching the entire movie for.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@MacGuffin
As usual, you are soooo wrong. There is plenty of material in The Hobbit for 3 films, counting the exposition and back-stories found in The Silmarillion and the LOTR appendices.

The simple reason this went from a planned 2-film project to 3 films is Jackson wanted this to be the definitive finish to his Middle Earth saga, and so many Tolkein fans gave him so much shet over the changes and omissions in the trilogy he knew he`d best get this one right. This time he had the budget and studio pull to be able to throw everything he could into it, so... 3 movies.
0
Reply
Male 2,841
People like to make money? DUN DUN DUN
0
Reply
Male 15,832
The fact is, you can`t do a large novel in 2.5 hrs. The 3-film version of The Hobbit will probably do justice to the book better than the 3-film version of LOTR.

When David Lynch shot the first Dune movie in 1984, Frank Herbert insisted on being on the set to make sure that Lynch stayed true to the book and shot every scene in its entirety. When they were finished, they had a 14-hour movie. It was subsequently chopped down to 137 minutes, but it wasn`t Dune; it was more like Excerpts from Dune strung together by a narrator. It was later expanded to 177 min to show on TV in 2 nights (4 hrs with commercials).

I`m hoping that one day someone will take the original 14-hour movie and turn it into a miniseries.
0
Reply
Male 3,442
i read the hobbit back in eighth grade, i reread about two years ago, it is the only book i have ever reread. it is great, i love it, and i must say, the first movie is all kinds of incredible and i love it as much as the book, many things are different yes, but it works more for this movie then the changes in watchman did for it.
0
Reply
Female 474
wow, they really blew the lid off this conspiracy. you mean directors make movies for...money? GET OOOOUT
0
Reply
Male 1,737
All movies are about money, otherwise no one would invest in them and they would never get made.
0
Reply
Male 512
So sick of book purists. It`s a different medium!!! Have you ever read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Bladerunner is an amazing film but do you think that I like that a musician and an underground network that tries to convince Decker that he`s the replicant was turned into a stripper that dies while running through plate glass | run-on-sentence???!!! NO! Get with the moving picture! It takes a visionary that can translate between the two mediums! Gawd I hate book purists commenting on movies! You guys are idiots!
0
Reply
Female 1,515
Also, there are interesting stories in the Appendices, the Silmarillion and Lost Tales or wahtever the other book is, like about the other wizards, how they came to middle earth etc etc. I`m glad they are adding a bit of backstory to it.
0
Reply
Female 1,515
Wolfstar is right actually. Have you seen the Hobbit? There is a bunch of extra scenes in there from the Silmarillion and Appendices. It is NOT the Hobbit. It is the Hobbit with backstories/sidestories. So yeah you can make it into three movies. I didn`t find that it seemed drawn out or excessive at all.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
@wolfstar: well, thanks for clearing that up. If some fanboi blog on the internetz says it`s not about the money, it must be true.

@tedgp: Did he get paid for LOTR? My understanding is that he did. Which makes what he claims he "would" have done a completely moot point. If my uncle had tits and a uterus he would`ve been my auntie. He didn`t, and he isn`t.
0
Reply
Female 455
This is getting really boring. It`s not about the money.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
Jackson doesnt need money. He even publicly stated that he would have no issues not getting paid for doing Lord of the rings.
0
Reply
Male 1,197
how is the hobbit 3 movies? its not that long :/
0
Reply
Male 198
There`s no need to "borrow" things from other writings when you cut things out of the LotR trilogy to keep it at three movies. The only reason Hobbit is three movies as well is for money.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
If it takes longer to watch the movie than it does to read the book then the movie is too long.
0
Reply
Male 96
This is false. They borrowed from other Tolkien writings such as the Silmarillion.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Three films may be pushing it, but I liked the first one, and if $20 a year is too much money for you then I think you have bigger problems than watching a movie.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
Much as I loved LOTR, this picture is accurate. There`s nowhere near enough material in The Hobbit for a trilogy of films, and I`m not interested in watching a mash up of lesser books in the Tolkien collection just to pad it out. Looks like they let simple greed get the better of them with this project. I`ll give it a miss.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
culberto

"There is a lot of wandering around in the LOTR trilogy" "if that had gone into the films they would have been unwatchable"

Did we watch the same movies? Half of them were wandering around.
0
Reply
Male 505
He wouldn`t make any money if he did something nobody wanted to watch.
0
Reply
Male 70
There is a lot of wandering around in the LOTR trilogy doing sweet F.A., descriptions of flora and fauna and the creatures in Middle Earth and stuff, if that had gone into the films they would have been unwatchable. The Hobbit doesn`t beat around the bush quite so much, though I agree it *is* a bit cheeky stretching it to three films.
0
Reply
Female 4,359
duh, whad ya think he was doin?
0
Reply
Male 3,612
hobbit had a lot of filler to mak it a prequel
0
Reply
Female 519
They are using other books by Tolkien to make the "hobbit." So technically it was improperly advertised.
0
Reply
Male 390
Would have made more sense to make 9 LOTR movies and one The Hobbit IMO.
0
Reply
Male 20,196
Link: Peter Jackson`s Philosophy On His Trilogies [Pic] [Rate Link] - Why should Peter Jackson be any different?
0
Reply