PJ admits he's not actually making The Hobbit

In fairness Sin, there are quite a few purist Tolkien nut jobs who post on TORn (Tolkien Scholars Jason Fisher, Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull, and Douglas Kane all have accounts)-The Reading Room and Off Topic sub forums are wonderful, much less biased places, so I wouldn't tarnish everyone there (perhaps the majority though!) with the same brush, even If I do sympathies with your views.

What I certainly don't agree with is their rampart peddling of tacky Film props and toys, frankly it's annoying to read and nauseating to think about given the Tolkien Estate's views.


I've said it before I'll say it again...many people at TORn have a superiority complex about LOTR 'It's High class literature so all complaints are merited, The Hobbit is a crappy kids book and not fit to lick LOTR's boots, Jackson can do what he wants with it, and Tolkien would agree' is something I have read far too often.

In fact I've put myself on a temporary hiatus from the place...I'm not missing it!

The thing ToRN lacks for me, and its not a reflection on the folks there, just on that type of forum, is it lacks levity and distraction.

The other off Tolkien topics here allow folks to express themselves in lots of different ways and everyone is encouraged to take part- that in turn makes it harder, even when serious arguments happen (ok Mrs Figg and I arguing!) to be really mad at anyone for any amount of time as you can be happily talking about something else in a non Tolkien forum with them- it lends perspective.

  here to help

 If you go look in the snow outside you will find I have left you a present, a bottle of buckie chilling that you can bring in to me    

*so romantic*   

(((((  )))))

so I got you a present too..I made a    in the snow with my wee wee.

Who says romance is dead.   

  its alive and kicking

 

My takes on this revealing interview will be posted in pieces as I find time to write my thoughts...

(His words basically) ...Because I saw no easy way to adapt The Hobbit (TH) to film I decided - to take the project and then... After I took the project I chose an angle of approach towards them to use these three Hobbit films as a way of connecting the older Hobbit story with the later to come LOTR... in one way by "making use of the appendices" and "notes of Tolkiens" where he was connecting TH and LOTR, and to treat these basically like three movies that were going to lead into the LOTR Films. Because, that was really the point, that is what I really was doing. That is why I am doing it really, because after these next couple of years I wouldn't be releasing one of these movies every year anymore. So for the future it will be six movies that have an overriding arc ... so it was the connecting of TH with the LOTR. I decided that TH would not be told in the style of Tolkien but in the "style" of the film makers of LOTR.

Really? So because he saw no easy way to portray the Hobbit as a film he decided to Take the gig and then basically not do the hobbit story but create a new story which is aimed at connecting this story (TH that he never even portrays) with his other movies by use of these "appendices and notes" and other things.

Really? I wonder how many minutes of these films are actually taken from the appendices or the nebulous notes he refers to, other than in the most loose and abstract use of the word "taken". Perhaps words like "inspired by" or "used as a jumping off point" would be far more accurate.

I believe very few minutes could be claimed as being accurately adapted from these appendices or notes. I have read and re-read all the appendices for decades and I can't find but the bare shadow of them in TH so far and what is supposedly "taken" is warped nearly beyond recognition.

No indeed. He did not use "the style" of the writer or indeed many of his WORDS, The Spirit of, or even the books Content all that much. Indeed why should he let The Hobbit's content get in the way of the story he wanted to sell or rather "the bridge" he wanted to build to connect the Hobbit story, (that he never even tells), with the LOTR. ??? Three long movies- damn that is a long bridge- a bridge as long as that he aimed to be connect with.

Sinister71 wrote:

malickfan wrote:Sinister, oh how I miss your brutal honesty on TORn...

Yeah my permanent ban is a tribute to that honesty    The thing is I would always back my stuff up with facts and they would all just come back with Jackson worship and hostility... Funny huh?    there are too many sheep in the ranks of   places who just follow the leaders who should know better      but don't because it's not in their best interest   

Well, I am not one to post many places about anything but I have set my sites on that TORN site, seems full of robot Jackson worshipers indeed. I suspect a good many to be on the payroll of the Jackhole inc. I don't care if they ban me but I will spout some thoughts there for as long as they permit me to I guess since they ban people who don't agree with them.

I wonder what sacrilege you dared to utter to get banned?

Romance is alive and well in middle earth esp with Kili telling Tauriel there might be something in his trousers and her telling him or nothing at all

I wonder how many minutes of these films are actually taken from the appendices or the nebulous notes he refers to, other than in the most loose and abstract use of the word "taken". Perhaps words like "inspired by" or "used as a jumping off point" would be far more accurate.

the answer would be NONE!!!! any scenes included from the appendices do not resemble them or they completely contradict what Tolkien actually wrote. The only section of those appendices that is worth anything to the Hobbit as a film are the 6 and a half pages of "Durin's Folk" all the rest is so vague even if they did use it it wouldn't make sense

Sinister is this a response to my question or unrelated? surely this isn't what got you banned. 

Sinister my "I wonder how many minutes of these films are actually taken from the appendices or the nebulous notes he refers to" statement was just an attempt at being polite. I haven't seen the second film yet. I know full well that the first installment was nearly void of any thread of being faithful. Perhaps there were seconds of accuracy that I missed while cringing.

my apologies then MOTA but no you didn't miss anything and the second installment is even less faithful to the actual story and script that Tolkien wrote than AUJ was. There are hints at things from the appendices in DOS but Jackson takes them rewrites them and completely contradicts the source material.

Eldorion:

I must say that my experience there, or here for that matter is very small. But in just reading a small number of threads there it seems there is a large amount of PJ worship and I myself am not a fan of PJ. I will do my small part in shouting from the rooftops how inaccurate and off spirit the Jackhole versions of the stories are.

I have loved JRR's work for over 40 yrs and it bugs me to see it revised to the point of it becoming something I hardly recognize in spirit let alone form.
It makes me ill nearly to see him cash in on Tolkiens amazing tales while misrepresenting them and warping the perception of them to a new generation.

I am sure I am a bit of a Tolkien whacko by some peoples standards of measure. I have very few sacred cows that I feel compelled to defend but I suppose Tolkiens good works are in that short list.

I can't imagine how he would feel in the pit of his stomach if he was alive still and helpless to change the PJ method of portraying his work.

I doubt Tolkien would be happy about the films, but his own opinion about adaptations was that he wanted either a guarantee of artistic control or a very large sum of money.  When he sold the rights, he went for the money option, and accordingly his descendants got paid handsomely.  (Though New Line tried to cheat them out of it, but they also tried to cheat PJ and several actors out of their pay as well.)

I find it rather distasteful to refer to people who enjoy a film as "worshiping" it in such a derogatory manner.  Same with the "clever" little alternative names, although at least in the case of PJ he's a public figure who has been himself out there.  (I do make an exception for Coven though, since that amuses me and feels more tongue-in-cheek. )

Music of the Ainur wrote:Eldorion:

I must say that my experience there, or here for that matter is very small. But in just reading a small number of threads there it seems there is a large amount of PJ worship and I myself am not a fan of PJ. I will do my small part in shouting from the rooftops how inaccurate and off spirit the Jackhole versions of the stories are.

Can't we all get along?



((( If I post this enough times, it'll stick    I know it    )))

I don't have a problem with TORn (never actually been there more than twice very briefly) but I wouldn't appreciate being called a purist with a chip on his shoulder by them; I'll pay them the same courtesy by not calling them any names.

I apologize to everyone for using such labels. It is ignorant of me I admit. I was not targeting any individual nor do I see myself ever using name calling directed towards any one in a personal way. I am not a person who has participated in web forums much at all in fact and am ignorant perhaps as far as how to temper my strong opinions. I should probably write my thoughts in word pad and read them later before I post them and with that space I could discriminate better as far as what could be seen as rude. If I have offended anyone I am sorry.

I do feel passionately about what I perceive to be the horrible warping and misrepresentation of my favorite tales by PJ. I do abhor how people who have not read these books will have a tainted perception of the beautiful and noble works of Tolkien. PJ diminishes the power and decency of these tales that I have always been moved by in an almost spiritual way.

I don't feel like I am smarter or better than anyone else. I just find it hard to grasp how anyone who truly loves these tales could be a big Jackson fan as well. Probably a personal flaw in me.
To Jacksons credit he does do a lot of things right. The look of his scenes are brilliant often times, casting is very good as a rule, but what I just can't get around is his diminishing revisions in dialog and tone which are unnecessary and sucks out the powerful goodness which flows through Tolkiens work in my opinion. Not to mention his substitution of inferior invented story lines for the great ones that he was handed.

I waited nearly 40 yrs. for these stories to be made into film, and with Jacksons wide acclaim and successes I see very little probability that I will live long enough to ever see someone else do them the justice they deserve.
So there is a well of bitterness inside of me towards this guy. He was handed a gem of a story with an opportunity to make perhaps the greatest movie of all time but instead he fell pray to his own ego and decided to rewrite and go far off the track and lose the spirit of the stories.

He isn't a devil, just human I suppose but it sucks none the less. I had such high hopes for these films and in my opinion TFOTR was the best by far, although it was full of problems as well...and since then each movie has gotten progressively worse and further and further from the spirit of the books I love.

However, I should be adult enough to not fall prey to labeling people or being rude. I meant no offense to anyone here. I will make a greater effort to temper my angst and disappointment and I invite the community to feel free to correct my bad etiquette if it is offensive.

I feel the same as you MOTA, but, have never put it so eloquent. Trouble with me is, I am a reactionary, I open my big trap before actually thinking what weight words can carry, Words are like weapons sometimes & can hurt just as much, but unlike a mark, some wounds go deep & never really heal. Id rather get a slap round the chops than be hit with a barrage of offense. But thinking that, maybe you have to be a sensitive soul ? for it to hurt so much ? more in tune with a world others cannot see ? Or refuse to ? I said this before but, If The Bible was released as a film, (this is hypothetical,!) Would you really chop it up like lambs liver to suit you ? Chop it so bad that the people who truly believe in it are so incensed ? & then have the gall to claim "artistic License "... "Well, its an adaptation" ?.......(anyway, Jesus & co are not here, I can portray it how I like)   

azriel wrote:(anyway, Jesus & co are not here, I can portray it how I like)

  

It's all good, MOTA.  I know that I am a little touchier about certain things than others.  I wasn't trying to single you out though; there seems to have been a fair amount of anti-TORn sentiment lately.  Not surprising since the movie just came out but I'm trying to do my part to keep things not too serious. ELE!

Recoveryanonymous wrote:

azriel wrote:(anyway, Jesus & co are not here, I can portray it how I like)

  

yep, JC needs to be recast as an action figure decked with some bling to reach the younger, game playing crowd. He was already pretty good with sound bites, but let's just tweak them a bit here and there...

"Blessed are the dumbfucks..."

 
Seeing as how LOTR is considered a "Nerd Bible" I find that a very accurate analogy, though I think millions of more people would throw the fit we're throwing if they screwed up The Bible...
Though I feel quite strangely that I'd throw the same type of fit for both Bilbo and Jesus Christ.