Jackson bids farewell to The Hobbit

The Times ^ | November 21, 2006 | Adam Sherwin

[MadIvan]

Without Jackson, I have my doubts it will be as good as the Lord of the Rings.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Ping!

[nutmeg]

I agree... this is a shame.

[nutmeg]

ping!

[monkapotamus]

Who knows. We might be surprised. I loved the LOTR films (aside from the elimination of the crucial scouring of the shire portion).

[Sam Gamgee]

I would be very much into a TV miniseries done by a different director covering all the material in the Lord of the Rings.

[Talking_Mouse]

I agree with you. I seriously doubt that anything with The Silmarillion will be worth watching on a full screen without Jackson at the helm.

[Talking_Mouse]

I agree with you. I seriously doubt that anything with The Silmarillion will be worth watching on a full screen without Jackson at the helm.

[radiohead]

Who knows. We might be surprised.

Yeah. Heavenly Creatures is pretty interesting, but it gave no idea that Jackson was capable of the LOTR's marvels. Maybe there's someone just as good in the wings. I doubt it, but maybe... It does seem that you'd want to carry thru the same vision in the related movies, so I'm not sure what New Line is thinking (or smoking).

[Prost1]

Who knows...there were several deficiencies in LotRings...

When Strider, Legolas and Gimli greeted the Riders of Rohan, there was no mention from whence they came, yet they were clad in Elven garb. And 3 different Sorts trailing a company of Uruk-hai for 4 days without rest! The book has a wonderful line that was omitted.

And the War of Ents. We see Gandalf showing up at Helm's Deep but the Ents destroyed much of Saruman's army and this is unnoticed.

It is a good film, but so much is lacking. And Frodo always seems so so queer...much of the cast seems the same...

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

I agree; I have serious doubts as to whether someone besides Jackson can do THE HOBBIT justice. Jackson did cut some things that were important to the LOTR as a whole (for instance, the whole Tom Bombadil section is actually very important to the meaning of the books, but it is rather long and talky and so got the axe).

But Jackson had the *feel* of the books, and translated that beautifully into film. And we know he does wonderful battle scenes, so I was hoping for great things from the Battle of the Five Armies. But ... we shall see what we shall see. Hopefully there is indeed someone else in the wings who can do THE HOBBIT justice.

[kenth]

Michael Bay! Michael Bay!



So, is everyone shuddering now?

[WestVirginiaRebel]

New Line is messing with a good thing here. They've fallen prey to the Ring...of cash registers...

[WestVirginiaRebel]

What about Sam Raimi? He's done a great job with the Spiderman movies.

[Rembrandt_fan]

I guess I'm a decided minority, but I thought Jackson butchered the Ring Trilogy--specifically the ending, where--in the novel--the Hobbits defeat the fallen wizard Saruman in a final battle and liberate the Shire. By eliminating the genuine ending, Jackson glossed over one of the central points of the trilogy--or so it seemed to me. The Shire is untouched by all that has gone on, at least in the film version, while in the book, the evil has permeated even that gentle place. The war came home, affecting everyone. It was important to Tolkien, and since those books were so important to my childhood, it was important to me.

What I saw on the screen, while entertaining, was not a faithful adaptation. The books had real moral weight. The film was a long-winded ordeal.

And in spite of a budget bigger than the GNP of most of the countries in the world, Shelob, the giant spider, was the lamest screen monster since those guys in zippered rubber suits walked around the back lot in 'Horror at Party Beach'.

[glorgau]

Actually, I think the movies could have been done differently. While Gollum was the great "creation" of the movies, I thought that whole huge sections of meaning were lost in the films translation from the books. It was a strongly Catholic work and much of that got left out.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

Explain to me Tom Bombadil. Seriously, I want to know who he is. Thank you!

[singfreedom]

meg, I'm afraid you are right. One of the great things about LOTR was its faithfulness to the books and Jackson's deft touch with necessary "special effects".

I'm certain "The Hobbit" is going suffer without Jackson performing the directorial duties.

[James Ewell Brown Stuart]

Yet, wouldn't Tolkien disagree with your assessment of it being a "strong Catholic work." He wrote over and over that it was not an analogy for Christianity or World War II or even nature versus machinery.

[irishjuggler]

Explain to me Tom Bombadil.

http://www.tolkienonline.de/etep/B/bombadil.html