The Hobbit, sans Peter Jackson.

Puck Nutty

Diabloii.Net Member
The Hobbit, sans Peter Jackson.

New Line Cinema has confirmed that they will be producing an adaptation of the Hobbit as well as a "secret prequel to The Lord of the Rings". However, they will be doing so without Peter Jackson.

Apparently, a lawsuit may be to blame for New Line's decision to "go in a different direction". This seems petty to me. I mean, business is business. If Peter Jackson is the best man for the job, then hire him. Personal issues should not get in the way of an investment that will most likely total in excess of $200 million.

Now, having said that, I am of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, Jackson is responsible for three wildly successful films. Also, switching horses in mid-stream may be ill advised as consistency may best serve the films when viewed as a whole.

On the other hand, I really have to question what the heck Jackson was thinking when he re-made King Kong. I mean, seriously, that movie was so bad it made my brain hurt. Combine that stinker with some of the issues I had with the LotR trilogy, and I have to wonder if the Hobbit might be better off in someone else's hands?

Anyway, I am curious to see what y'all have to say about it.

Linky, linky nice and stinky:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2462766,00.html
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
I thought King Kong was pretty decent. A few moments of extreme badness (ie, when he's trying to be deep and meaningful... he should stick to camp, it's what he's truly gifted at), but otherwise about as good as a King Kong movie could be. Oh, and he could've made better use of Jack Black. Frankly, Peter Jackson isn't an actor's director, not by a long shot. Which is okay in some movies, not in others.

But I'm also in two minds, is it better the devil you know? Jackson screwed up a lot of things in LoTR but no matter who takes the Hobbit they're going to have huge challenges... one of the things I'm most worried about is that whoever does it will try to make it more Lord of the Ringsy... that would be very bad. A change would be good because he really pissed me off, but they're just as likely to get someone worse.
 

Puck Nutty

Diabloii.Net Member
I thought King Kong was pretty decent. A few moments of extreme badness (ie, when he's trying to be deep and meaningful... he should stick to camp, it's what he's truly gifted at), but otherwise about as good as a King Kong movie could be. Oh, and he could've made better use of Jack Black. Frankly, Peter Jackson isn't an actor's director, not by a long shot. Which is okay in some movies, not in others.

But I'm also in two minds, is it better the devil you know? Jackson screwed up a lot of things in LoTR but no matter who takes the Hobbit they're going to have huge challenges... one of the things I'm most worried about is that whoever does it will try to make it more Lord of the Ringsy... that would be very bad. A change would be good because he really pissed me off, but they're just as likely to get someone worse.
I smell Ridley Scott on the horizon. I'm not sure why.

Also, in regards to Kong, the fact is, the CGI was shockingly bad in many sections, the acting was mediocre at best and there were plot holes you could throw a 50-foot gorilla through. I really can't think of anything about it that didn't stink. But, to each his own.



 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
I don't mind length if the movie needs it, Kong was a little long but I didn't get bored. LotR could've done with an extra nine hours to be honest, that's what you get for adapting a big book.

What did people hate so much about King Kong anyway? Compared to say, the other King Kong movies. I liked it a lot more than that 70's remake, even Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin couldn't save it for me.
 

Ash Housewares

Diabloii.Net Member
there's been plenty King Kong already

I had fun watching King Kong in theatre, but I doubt I could ever watch the thing again, too long, lacked subtlety, and alot of the effects shots were poor and drawn out
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
It certainly lacked subtlety, that's not Peter Jackson's strong suit... heh, I saw Bad Taste a few weeks ago...
 

Puck Nutty

Diabloii.Net Member
I don't mind length if the movie needs it, Kong was a little long but I didn't get bored. LotR could've done with an extra nine hours to be honest, that's what you get for adapting a big book.

What did people hate so much about King Kong anyway? Compared to say, the other King Kong movies. I liked it a lot more than that 70's remake, even Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin couldn't save it for me.
Bad special effects, huge plot holes and some scenes that were so screamingly ridiculous that you had to wonder how any director would put his name to them. I mean, shooting bugs off a guy's back with a sub-machinegun? Come on.



 

Merick

Diabloii.Net Member
It's about a giant monkey. Just that alone makes me cringe. Otherwise, everyone knows the important parts (monkey climbs building with woman, etc) and everything else is just an excuse for an action scene.
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Bad special effects, huge plot holes and some scenes that were so screamingly ridiculous that you had to wonder how any director would put his name to them. I mean, shooting bugs off a guy's back with a sub-machinegun? Come on.
You wanted realism in a Kong movie? I don't remember plot holes though, what were they?

I'm a Derek, and Dereks don't run.
Yeah, heh. That bit reminded me of you. Probably because you quoted it a few times and I never knew where it was from.

Peter Jackson should do more acting...



 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
It's about a giant monkey. Just that alone makes me cringe. Otherwise, everyone knows the important parts (monkey climbs building with woman, etc) and everything else is just an excuse for an action scene.
Well, in that case why watch a Kong movie at all?

I thought the best thing about it was Naomi Watts' performance, actually. I did also think the characterisation of Kong was pretty good, I was afraid they'd make him too human (that would suck) but they deftly avoided that.



 

Ash Housewares

Diabloii.Net Member
that line goes pretty well with my mean lookin Bogie 'tar

the shooting bugs off was totally insane, now the audience will be expected to suspend it's disbelief in regards to the existance of magic islands and giant apes, but that was a bit much. Ridiculous things can be portrayed in a realistic manner, and it shouldn't be assumed that just because an audience is willing to accept a giant ape that they will believe anything.
 

Ash Housewares

Diabloii.Net Member
*aims tommy gun at dondrei's head*

don't worry, I'm a crack shot and I can take off that danglin booger for ya

there was alot of very silly things in the movie, but to use them as an excuse not to like the movie is foolish

it's like saying that Star Wars is the worst of the original trilogy because the effects aren't as good and the lightsaber duel isn't as exciting

it's all about telling a story, and that's where King Kong failed with the oh so subtle "Heart of Darkness" discussions
 

Puck Nutty

Diabloii.Net Member
You wanted realism in a Kong movie? I don't remember plot holes though, what were they?
Well, they never accounted for how they got Kong back to the boat after they gassed him, for one. Also, how did they feed him? Clean up after him? You would think that a boat with a giant gorilla on it would raise questions with the Port Authority, wouldn't you? Kong was able to scale the Empire State building without too much trouble, but he wasn't able to get over the wall built by the natives to keep him out? Why did the natives bother to build a giant wall to protect themselves, only to add a giant wooden door that Kong (or a T-Rex) could bust through?

Thise are the main ones I can think off of the top of my head.



 

Ash Housewares

Diabloii.Net Member
Well, they never accounted for how they got Kong back to the boat after they gassed him, for one. Also, how did they feed him? Clean up after him? You would think that a boat with a giant gorilla on it would raise questions with the Port Authority, wouldn't you? Kong was able to scale the Empire State building without too much trouble, but he wasn't able to get over the wall built by the natives to keep him out? Why did the natives bother to build a giant wall to protect themselves, only to add a giant wooden door that Kong (or a T-Rex) could bust through?

Thise are the main ones I can think off of the top of my head.
SPOILER!!!!!!!!

the boat travel was essentially impossible, this is another necessary conceit that needs to be made to further the story

as far as that wall though, yea, that bugged me too, they had this giant trench and wall which we see eventually Kong could jump and climb at any time, he made it through fine at the end, so what was the point of even having it?



 
Top