Hobbit (without Jackson)

[Calaen]

Just posted this in general aswell.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6167972.stm

 

[Mojo]

So New Line cut the nose to spite the face.

 

[Sparx]

gutted

 

[Urgat]

New line made a big mistake tehre i think. For two reasons....


1 - Pete jacksons vision was the main reason the LotR trilogy was so good. The guy has a passion for the books, and it showed in the films. A prequel film (hobbit / Silmarilion) made by anyone else is simply not going to be done in the same way he would do it Even if the new individual is as passionate about the books as jackson, they wont be able to get the "feel" of the films to be the same as PJ's, so the "continuaty" wont be there.

to put it simply... "it just wont be the same"


2 - the Fans of the trilogy are also fans of PJ. I seriously doubt they will treat any LotR film made by someone else favourably.



If thay have any sense, the bosses at new line will shoot the executive responsible for this descision, appologise to PJ, and say "There you go sir, make us some prequels"


i was intensly looking forward to PJ's interpretations of the Hobbit and the Silmarilion.

 

[Sparx]

not fussed tbh the movies were good but nothing to lose sleep over with PJ not doing the next ones

 

[Calaen]

huh you just posted gutted above this post

As soon as I saw the Fellowship I was talking about how great the Hobbit would be as a movie. Jackson has the vision to make the book a onscreen reality.

 

[Fana]

With any luck this means The Hobbit wont contain any ninjaelfs surfing shields down stairs or owning elephants spiderman style etc.

Then again, who am i kidding here - Without Jackson it would likely have been even worse.

 

[Huntingtons]

i missed Tom Bombadil (danish name?) in the first movie, damn i was dissapointed

 

[Lamp]

OMG he's lost so much weight

from: