|
|
Post by piñata on Aug 6, 2004 14:13:23 GMT -5
I went with Option 3 -- I don't want to suffer through another epic screwup.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Aug 7, 2004 7:40:33 GMT -5
Interesting story. While working on the screenplay for his 1974 book "The Terminal Man", Michael Crichton, the book's author, was fired for deviating too far from the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Belgarath on Aug 8, 2004 23:28:52 GMT -5
Of course it should happen. People making movies do it for money...If they based the movie word for word from the book...Then people who aren't real fans of fantasy won't go and see it...LoTR was changed so it could have a mass appeal and make more money.
|
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Aug 9, 2004 6:26:41 GMT -5
LoTR was changed so it could have a mass appeal and make more money. Which is inherently wrong.  Money aside, would you rather see an intact version of The Hobbit, or Peter Jackson's warped re-interpretation? |
|
|
|
Post by devo2 on Aug 9, 2004 10:33:36 GMT -5
I think that most anyone who has read the book would like to see it accurate. I think that for the most part modifications are made for time allotment and to appeal to those that haven't read the book.
Pinata, I know you're really upset about how far Jackson deviated from the book, but in reality he was probably closer than most directors are to a book. For example, go read either Clear and Present Danger or Sum of All Fears by Tom Clancy and then watch the movie...it's obscene. And if you read both books and get a good feel for the storyline of the series then you'll be even more angry. On the other hand, both Gettysburg and Gods and Generals were for the most part word-for-word out of the Michael Shaara books.
I can't see there being a hobbit movie that won't deviate from the book at least a little bit. There are too many parts where it is too "slow going" for a movie. But if they pulled it off well I would be very happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Belgarath on Aug 9, 2004 21:40:41 GMT -5
Yea...it took me 2 weeks to read the first chapter of The Hobbit because it was so incredibly boring...If it was like that in the movie, no one would really like it  |
|
|
|
Post by Wren on Sept 6, 2004 19:28:41 GMT -5
I voted yes, because it would be wonderful to see a live action version of this film. And honestly I wouldn't mind a few subtle changes if they were necessary for time constraints. But if whole scenes and specific characters were omitted that would be intolerable, and pretty disappointing. I wonder who they'll cast for Bard?  |
|
|
|
Post by eldae on Oct 13, 2004 19:28:59 GMT -5
NO MOVIE!!! at least, no by P.J. If he makes it, chances are Beorn's getting skipped.  |
|
|
|
Post by Scythe on Oct 13, 2004 20:39:12 GMT -5
I hope they make one. I think that Peter Jackson did what he did to the LOTR movies in order to make them appealing to any random viewer, not just to "pre-PJ" Tolkien fans. If this book gets cinematized, the same will happen. I quite enjoyed the LOTR movies, despite their deviations from Tolkien's storyline. If it's made too completely the same as the books, it will be boring to most people who have read the books, which isn't good either. A little deviation is good, i think. It's a breath of fresh air and it gives us something to rant about on forums. if the movie is interesting and contains the same characters and basic concept as the book, I'll be satisfied.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wren on Oct 16, 2004 14:56:32 GMT -5
NO MOVIE!!! at least, no by P.J. If he makes it, chances are Beorn's getting skipped. No way! They can't skip Beorn, he's one of my favorite characters. |
|
|
|
Post by eldae on Oct 19, 2004 20:14:02 GMT -5
yeah, well I felt the same way about Tom Bombadil in LotR, and they skipped him, so...
|
|
|
|
Post by Selvo on Dec 7, 2004 21:09:07 GMT -5
I vote yes, because no matter what it will be better than the cartoon version
|
|
|
|
Post by eldae on Aug 4, 2005 12:00:43 GMT -5
Well, in response to a comment I seem to have missed, I'd rather have no movie than an innaccurate one. With my luck, it'll probably end up being about as accurate as The Black Cauldron, and I don't think I would be able to put up with that. On a side note, somebody seems to have made their own version of the movie. Details can be found here |
|
|
|
Post by Predator-Fan on Jan 22, 2008 17:47:25 GMT -5
Well, as long as they get some okay actors in there, puh-lease no Kiera Knightly!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Feb 1, 2008 11:55:19 GMT -5
There aren't any female characters in The Hobbit if I remember correctly, so you're safe from Kiera Knightley (unfortunately for those of us, like myself, who actually like her... remind me why you don't again, please?).
|
|
Money aside, would you rather see an intact version of The Hobbit, or Peter Jackson's warped re-interpretation?
