Peter Jackson to make The Hobbit (3 Viewers)

[NewlyRetired]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

The Hobbit was written first. It is not necessary to read first but it is so short and such an easy read (it was written as a Children's book unlike The Lord of the Rings which is more complex), you might as well go ahead and read it first.

 

[EYLive]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Two Hobbit films have just become three Hobbit films.

Better include pretty much everything from the book then, or it'll look like a money grab.Lord of the Rings trilogy (3 books)- 3 movies

The Hobbit (1 book)- 3 movies

and it's not even a long book, IIRC.

eta: the wife just saw a preview for it and thought it looked great, fwiw.

I'm reading The Hobbit now, just started last week. And it's only 300 pages in small papaerback. How are they going to extract 3 movies out of so little content? Maybe it's actually a lot of action but it looks short.

Id imagine the fight scenes alone could be extended quite a bit in a movie setting - maybe out of necessity.Also there is rumored to be a lot added to Beorn, Radagast and the Sylvan Elves.

I read somewhere that the movie(s?) will go beyond the book and bridge the time between "The Hobbit" and "Fellowship".

Correct. See my post above. The movies are going to be centered around the Hobbit story but Jackson is using all the information written by Tolkien after the Hobbit was published to add to the story.

 

[NewlyRetired]

This makes me feel the movies won't be anywhere near as long as the LOTR movies which come in over 3.5 hours in the extended editions.

 

[Amused to Death]

I read somewhere that the movie(s?) will go beyond the book and bridge the time between "The Hobbit" and "Fellowship".

Correct. See my post above. The movies are going to be centered around the Hobbit story but Jackson is using all the information written by Tolkien after the Hobbit was published to add to the story.

I saw a blurb about Elijah Wood coming back as Frodo even though Frodo doesn't appear until "Fellowship". The new movies will start with "The Hobbit" and take you right up to Bilbo's eleventy first birthday party.

 

[beer 302]

Not that I'm against more LOTR type stuff because it was so well done but 3 movies out of the Hobbit? Two at the most if he's doing the bridge between the two but three?

 

[NewlyRetired]

I read somewhere that the movie(s?) will go beyond the book and bridge the time between "The Hobbit" and "Fellowship".

Correct. See my post above. The movies are going to be centered around the Hobbit story but Jackson is using all the information written by Tolkien after the Hobbit was published to add to the story.

I saw a blurb about Elijah Wood coming back as Frodo even though Frodo doesn't appear until "Fellowship". The new movies will start with "The Hobbit" and take you right up to Bilbo's eleventy first birthday party.

I had read this completely opposite. What i read was that the new movies were going to open with Frodo and Ian Holm's Bilbo, with Holm telling the story of the book he is writing that will then shift the story into the past to tell the main story. They were doing this to immediately tie the audience into the LOTR movies. They may have changed this though as you indicate something very different.

 

[Amused to Death]

I read somewhere that the movie(s?) will go beyond the book and bridge the time between "The Hobbit" and "Fellowship".

Correct. See my post above. The movies are going to be centered around the Hobbit story but Jackson is using all the information written by Tolkien after the Hobbit was published to add to the story.

I saw a blurb about Elijah Wood coming back as Frodo even though Frodo doesn't appear until "Fellowship". The new movies will start with "The Hobbit" and take you right up to Bilbo's eleventy first birthday party.

I had read this completely opposite. What i read was that the new movies were going to open with Frodo and Ian Holm's Bilbo, with Holm telling the story of the book he is writing that will then shift the story into the past to tell the main story.

Sorry, you're probably entirely right. I just meant from the standpoint of time covered. I was surprised when I heard Wood was reprising Frodo and my first thought was that Frodo wasn't in "The Hobbit". Then I heard/read it was meant to bring you right up to the beginning of "Fellowship"

 

[NewlyRetired]

I read somewhere that the movie(s?) will go beyond the book and bridge the time between "The Hobbit" and "Fellowship".

Correct. See my post above. The movies are going to be centered around the Hobbit story but Jackson is using all the information written by Tolkien after the Hobbit was published to add to the story.

I saw a blurb about Elijah Wood coming back as Frodo even though Frodo doesn't appear until "Fellowship". The new movies will start with "The Hobbit" and take you right up to Bilbo's eleventy first birthday party.

I had read this completely opposite. What i read was that the new movies were going to open with Frodo and Ian Holm's Bilbo, with Holm telling the story of the book he is writing that will then shift the story into the past to tell the main story.

Sorry, you're probably entirely right. I just meant from the standpoint of time covered. I was surprised when I heard Wood was reprising Frodo and my first thought was that Frodo wasn't in "The Hobbit". Then I heard/read it was meant to bring you right up to the beginning of "Fellowship"

Read here for some extra info on what I was referring too. Who knows thoughhttp://www.g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/blog/post/717960/the-hobbit-elijah-woods-role-as-frodo-explained/

 

[encaitar]

If I recall correctly, The Hobbit and LOTR both occur over a year's time in middle earth. LOTR is obviously much more detailed in its description of the voyage, but the trek in the Hobbit is nearly as far(distance wise) as Frodo's. Tolkien wrote The Hobbit on a whim and in a short time as an amusing story for himself and his kids. He spent 12 years on LOTR. I think, given the chance, he would've added much more detail into The Hobbit as well. (in fact he did -- the notes Jackson referenced. 100 pages of notes to an author could literally be 1000s of pages of written story)

I have little doubt that it will be fantastic with Jackson in charge. Is it a money grab, sure. However, as long as the movies are as spectacular as the 3 LOTR movies, then I won't complain too much.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

any truth to the rumor jackson will executive produce and michael bay direct?

 

[Marvin]

Character gallery

 

[sports_fan]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

That's because The Hobbit was written as a childrens book. If you're looking for more mature (read: dry) writing, LOTR is what you want.

 

[EYLive]

Character gallery

It's like a comic-con virgin brigade.

 

[EYLive]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

That's because The Hobbit was written as a childrens book. If you're looking for more mature (read: dry) writing, LOTR is what you want.

1/3 into Fellowship and those all those idiot hobbits do is walk around and talk about how scared they are.

 

[sports_fan]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

That's because The Hobbit was written as a childrens book. If you're looking for more mature (read: dry) writing, LOTR is what you want.

1/3 into Fellowship and those all those idiot hobbits do is walk around and talk about how scared they are.

You have page long descriptions of leafs to look forward to. The LOTR movies are better than the books.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

That's because The Hobbit was written as a childrens book. If you're looking for more mature (read: dry) writing, LOTR is what you want.

1/3 into Fellowship and those all those idiot hobbits do is walk around and talk about how scared they are.

You have page long descriptions of leafs to look forward to. The LOTR movies are better than the books.

Not even a little true.

 

[sports_fan]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

That's because The Hobbit was written as a childrens book. If you're looking for more mature (read: dry) writing, LOTR is what you want.

1/3 into Fellowship and those all those idiot hobbits do is walk around and talk about how scared they are.

You have page long descriptions of leafs to look forward to. The LOTR movies are better than the books.

Not even a little true.

The books are kind of boring, too descriptive. They don't add enough detail to be worth the effort if you've already seen the movies. Then again, my opinion might be different if I had read the books first. Nothing like experiencing a great story for the first time.

 

[badmojo1006]

New Zealand Air Flight safety video, with a Middle Earth twist

Watch for the Peter jackson cameo

 

[El Floppo]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

That's because The Hobbit was written as a childrens book. If you're looking for more mature (read: dry) writing, LOTR is what you want.

1/3 into Fellowship and those all those idiot hobbits do is walk around and talk about how scared they are.

You have page long descriptions of leafs to look forward to. The LOTR movies are better than the books.

Not even a little true.

The books are kind of boring, too descriptive. They don't add enough detail to be worth the effort if you've already seen the movies. Then again, my opinion might be different if I had read the books first. Nothing like experiencing a great story for the first time.

Stupid books. Describing things.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

That's because The Hobbit was written as a childrens book. If you're looking for more mature (read: dry) writing, LOTR is what you want.

1/3 into Fellowship and those all those idiot hobbits do is walk around and talk about how scared they are.

You have page long descriptions of leafs to look forward to. The LOTR movies are better than the books.

Not even a little true.

The books are kind of boring, too descriptive. They don't add enough detail to be worth the effort if you've already seen the movies. Then again, my opinion might be different if I had read the books first. Nothing like experiencing a great story for the first time.

Stupid books. Describing things.

 

[EYLive]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

That's because The Hobbit was written as a childrens book. If you're looking for more mature (read: dry) writing, LOTR is what you want.

1/3 into Fellowship and those all those idiot hobbits do is walk around and talk about how scared they are.

You have page long descriptions of leafs to look forward to. The LOTR movies are better than the books.

Not even a little true.

I finished reading Fellowship then rewatched the movie. The movie is way better than the book.

 

[Maelstrom]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

That's because The Hobbit was written as a childrens book. If you're looking for more mature (read: dry) writing, LOTR is what you want.

1/3 into Fellowship and those all those idiot hobbits do is walk around and talk about how scared they are.

You have page long descriptions of leafs to look forward to. The LOTR movies are better than the books.

Not even a little true.

I finished reading Fellowship then rewatched the movie. The movie is way better than the book.

I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with that statement. Movies were good. Books were better, each time I've read them.

 

[Amused to Death]

The books are kind of boring, too descriptive. They don't add enough detail to be worth the effort if you've already seen the movies. Then again, my opinion might be different if I had read the books first. Nothing like experiencing a great story for the first time.

Ever read 'Dune'?

 

[EYLive]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

That's because The Hobbit was written as a childrens book. If you're looking for more mature (read: dry) writing, LOTR is what you want.

1/3 into Fellowship and those all those idiot hobbits do is walk around and talk about how scared they are.

You have page long descriptions of leafs to look forward to. The LOTR movies are better than the books.

Not even a little true.

I finished reading Fellowship then rewatched the movie. The movie is way better than the book.

I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with that statement. Movies were good. Books were better, each time I've read them.

I'm committed to reading the entire series, but so far it's not very entertaining.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

That's because The Hobbit was written as a childrens book. If you're looking for more mature (read: dry) writing, LOTR is what you want.

1/3 into Fellowship and those all those idiot hobbits do is walk around and talk about how scared they are.

You have page long descriptions of leafs to look forward to. The LOTR movies are better than the books.

Not even a little true.

I finished reading Fellowship then rewatched the movie. The movie is way better than the book.

I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with that statement. Movies were good. Books were better, each time I've read them.

I'm committed to reading the entire series, but so far it's not very entertaining.

Yeah, if you already have all the spoliers and didnt read the book first... its going to literally be spoiled.

 

[beer 302]

Try the Silmarillion if you've seen the movies and are struggling with the books.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Try the Silmarillion if you've seen the movies and are struggling with the books.

That is worthy of an Advanced Reader warning.

Most every-day people would wrestle mightily with that novel.

 

[Psychopav]

Try the Silmarillion if you've seen the movies and are struggling with the books.

That is worthy of an Advanced Reader warning.

Most every-day people would wrestle mightily with that novel.

Yeah, that was a joke. No way I'd recommend the Silmarillion to anyone other than a LotR (the books) fanatic who's read the series at least twice first.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

That's because The Hobbit was written as a childrens book. If you're looking for more mature (read: dry) writing, LOTR is what you want.

1/3 into Fellowship and those all those idiot hobbits do is walk around and talk about how scared they are.

You have page long descriptions of leafs to look forward to. The LOTR movies are better than the books.

Not even a little true.

I finished reading Fellowship then rewatched the movie. The movie is way better than the book.

I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with that statement. Movies were good. Books were better, each time I've read them.

I'm committed to reading the entire series, but so far it's not very entertaining.

The books suck. The movies are better if only by default (though the movies are pretty good).

 

[mad sweeney]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

That's because The Hobbit was written as a childrens book. If you're looking for more mature (read: dry) writing, LOTR is what you want.

1/3 into Fellowship and those all those idiot hobbits do is walk around and talk about how scared they are.

You have page long descriptions of leafs to look forward to. The LOTR movies are better than the books.

Not even a little true.

I finished reading Fellowship then rewatched the movie. The movie is way better than the book.

I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with that statement. Movies were good. Books were better, each time I've read them.

I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with you and agree with him. Books were over indulgent, meandering and overly gay (older definition of word). Took me almost 25 years to read them, never getting past halfway through book 2. And this is from an avid fantasy reader. The ONLY reason I finished them was wanting to actually finish them before the movies. The movies were technically well done, though with some annoying contrivances (like major differences in height between the actors and the children/midgets used for long shots). No matter what though, extensive use of homoerotic closeups of Elijah Wood>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tom Bombadil.That said, I liked The Hobbit.

 

[Mjolnirs]

Try the Silmarillion if you've seen the movies and are struggling with the books.

oof. Tough reading there.

The books are kind of boring, too descriptive. They don't add enough detail to be worth the effort if you've already seen the movies. Then again, my opinion might be different if I had read the books first. Nothing like experiencing a great story for the first time.

Ever read 'Dune'?

Every one of them, including the prequals.

 

[VA703]

Character gallery

wowsome of those look stupid

 

[NCCommish]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

That's because The Hobbit was written as a childrens book. If you're looking for more mature (read: dry) writing, LOTR is what you want.

1/3 into Fellowship and those all those idiot hobbits do is walk around and talk about how scared they are.

You have page long descriptions of leafs to look forward to. The LOTR movies are better than the books.

Not even a little true.

I finished reading Fellowship then rewatched the movie. The movie is way better than the book.

I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with that statement. Movies were good. Books were better, each time I've read them.

I'm committed to reading the entire series, but so far it's not very entertaining.

The books suck. The movies are better if only by default (though the movies are pretty good).

The books do not suck. They have been worldwide classics for decades for a reason. Now could he have used an editor in spots? Sure. But they do not suck.

 

[Itchy Amos]

I've never read any of the LOTR books. Should you read the hobbit first?

That's what I'm doing. After finishing A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien reads like Dr. Seuss.

That's because The Hobbit was written as a childrens book. If you're looking for more mature (read: dry) writing, LOTR is what you want.

1/3 into Fellowship and those all those idiot hobbits do is walk around and talk about how scared they are.

You have page long descriptions of leafs to look forward to. The LOTR movies are better than the books.

Not even a little true.

I finished reading Fellowship then rewatched the movie. The movie is way better than the book.

I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with that statement. Movies were good. Books were better, each time I've read them.

I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with you and agree with him. Books were over indulgent, meandering and overly gay (older definition of word). Took me almost 25 years to read them, never getting past halfway through book 2. And this is from an avid fantasy reader. The ONLY reason I finished them was wanting to actually finish them before the movies. The movies were technically well done, though with some annoying contrivances (like major differences in height between the actors and the children/midgets used for long shots). No matter what though, extensive use of homoerotic closeups of Elijah Wood>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tom Bombadil.That said, I liked The Hobbit.

+1. I read the Hobbit to my 9 year old son earlier this year. We both loved it. We couldnt wait to read the LOTR series. I wanted them to be epically great - so did my son, but the first book was very slow and we abandoned it about 2/3rds of the way through. I was relieved when he asked me if I could read something else instead. LOTR movies >>>> LOTR books, IMO.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

The books do not suck. They have been worldwide classics for decades for a reason. Now could he have used an editor in spots? Sure. But they do not suck.

I strongly disagree. I found them to be a terrible read and one of my least favorite works of literature. Beyond dull. Imo these might be the most overrated 'classics' I've ever come across.

 

[Ranethe]

People saying the books suck, that might say more about you than about the books. Not trying to be insulting, some people want more immediate gratification. The books were great, read them around 13-14 and loved them. I was bummed when I finished them.

Loved the movies as well, taken as a whole would be in my top 2-3 all time for sure. Yet even with the movies many people were complaining there was too much Hobbitt, walking around, etc. Some people want everything right away.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

People saying the books suck, that might say more about you than about the books. Not trying to be insulting, some people want more immediate gratification.

 

[Socrates11]

People saying the books suck, that might say more about you than about the books. Not trying to be insulting, some people want more immediate gratification. The books were great, read them around 13-14 and loved them. I was bummed when I finished them.Loved the movies as well, taken as a whole would be in my top 2-3 all time for sure. Yet even with the movies many people were complaining there was too much Hobbitt, walking around, etc. Some people want everything right away.

Tolkien didn't just tell a story he created a world. His books aren't boiler-plate, they're literature. And I say that as a fan of boiler-plate books.

 

[Todem]

My son and I are really looking forward to seeing this. Peter Jackson is todays George Lucas.

LOTR - All three films were amazing. I read the books (countless times) as well as The Hobbit and the films were as good as I could have imagined. I love the extended versions better than the theatrical releases. Just fantastic fantasy film making and for my money the best fantasy films ever made not named The Empire Strikes Back or Raiders of the Lost Ark.

King Kong - highly underrated and by far the best Kong movie of the three propers (1933, 1976 and Jacksons 2005 version). I am a huge King Kong fan so I am a little biased and did enjoy all of those Kong movies...yes even the 1976 version (a guilty pleasure and relving a childhood memory). I was 6 years old when I saw that one and fell in love with Jessica Lange. I waited in line with my Dad on opening night at a movie theater called the Normandy which was an old movie house on 72nd and collins in Miami Beach. The line was wrapped around the block and a giant 40 foot cardboard display of Kong was in front of the movie theater of him on top of the World Trade Center and you would go between his legs to get your ticket from the box office. Being 6 years old I was blown away. A very cool memory for me and my Dad.

Kong was very well acted by Namoi Watts. Her emotional connection with Kong was amazing and well done. I thought Jack Black was a perfect Carl Denham. Adrian Brody as Jack Driscoll.....meh. But overall a great monster movie full of visual eye candy, battles with dinosaurs and great well developed characters in Ann Darrow and the beast himself Kong.

I fully expect the Hobbit to exceed all my expectations. I can't wait to see The Battle of the 5 Armies (won't be till the 2nd or third film? I don't know how many they are making).

EPIC.

 

[Psychopav]

My son and I are really looking forward to seeing this. Peter Jackson is todays George Lucas.LOTR - All three films were amazing. I read the books (countless times) as well as The Hobbit and the films were as good as I could have imagined. I love the extended versions better than the theatrical releases. Just fantastic fantasy film making and for my money the best fantasy films ever made not named The Empire Strikes Back or Raiders of the Lost Ark.King Kong - highly underrated and by far the best Kong movie of the three propers (1933, 1976 and Jacksons 2005 version). I am a huge King Kong fan so I am a little biased and did enjoy all of those Kong movies...yes even the 1976 version (a guilty pleasure and relving a childhood memory). I was 6 years old when I saw that one and fell in love with Jessica Lange. I waited in line with my Dad on opening night at a movie theater called the Normandy which was an old movie house on 72nd and collins in Miami Beach. The line was wrapped around the block and a giant 40 foot cardboard display of Kong was in front of the movie theater of him on top of the World Trade Center and you would go between his legs to get your ticket from the box office. Being 6 years old I was blown away. A very cool memory for me and my Dad.Kong was very well acted by Namoi Watts. Her emotional connection with Kong was amazing and well done. I thought Jack Black was a perfect Carl Denham. Adrian Brody as Jack Driscoll.....meh. But overall a great monster movie full of visual eye candy, battles with dinosaurs and great well developed characters in Ann Darrow and the beast himself Kong. I fully expect the Hobbit to exceed all my expectations.

Spoiler

I can't wait to see The Battle of the 5 Armies (won't be till the 2nd or third film? I don't know how many they are making).

EPIC.

spoiler tags down?

 

[EYLive]

The books do not suck. They have been worldwide classics for decades for a reason. Now could he have used an editor in spots? Sure. But they do not suck.

Not sure what that reason would be. Was there nothing comparable when they were first published?I really want to like this series, but it's not doing much for me. Maybe reading them as an adult after the Song of Ice and Fire books made them bland in comparison.

 

[EYLive]

People saying the books suck, that might say more about you than about the books. Not trying to be insulting, some people want more immediate gratification. The books were great, read them around 13-14 and loved them. I was bummed when I finished them.

This might be why. Similar to how Star Wars fans generally love episodes 4-6 as kids, but can't stand 1-3 as adults.

 

[Amused to Death]

Try the Silmarillion if you've seen the movies and are struggling with the books.

oof. Tough reading there.

The books are kind of boring, too descriptive. They don't add enough detail to be worth the effort if you've already seen the movies. Then again, my opinion might be different if I had read the books first. Nothing like experiencing a great story for the first time.

Ever read 'Dune'?

Every one of them, including the prequals.

As much as I love the 'Dune' books (read up through the middle of book 5), they are extremely dry and descriptive at times. Took me far longer to read than LotR, which I never thought was too descriptive or boring.Not to hijack, but the Sci-Fi channel's mini-series in 2000 was far superior to David Lynch's 1984 attempt, imo. 'Dune' and later 'Children of Dune' (which covered through book 3 iirc).

 

[Psychopav]

The books do not suck. They have been worldwide classics for decades for a reason. Now could he have used an editor in spots? Sure. But they do not suck.

Not sure what that reason would be. Was there nothing comparable when they were first published?I really want to like this series, but it's not doing much for me. Maybe reading them as an adult after the Song of Ice and Fire books made them bland in comparison.

I don't think there really was anything comparable when they were published. Like Star Wars, they catapulted their genre for their medium far forward. Also, the themes tie together only in the end. Keep in mind that British readers voted these the greatest novels of the 20th century.Once you read through the series one time, you may start to get an appreciation for the depth of the back story as well as the layers of meaning. It can be analogous to several different real life world views, running the gamut from environmentalist to orthodox Christian. In addition to Tolkien's excellent writing style, his touch in deciding where to fill in the blanks, where to shade, and where to leave gaps was really quite astounding (and something you might not appreciate on first or even second reading, but after a deal of reflection).

 

[Gr00vus]

Character gallery

wowsome of those look stupid

Yikes. They're going to the final cut with that?

 

[Todem]

My son and I are really looking forward to seeing this. Peter Jackson is todays George Lucas.LOTR - All three films were amazing. I read the books (countless times) as well as The Hobbit and the films were as good as I could have imagined. I love the extended versions better than the theatrical releases. Just fantastic fantasy film making and for my money the best fantasy films ever made not named The Empire Strikes Back or Raiders of the Lost Ark.King Kong - highly underrated and by far the best Kong movie of the three propers (1933, 1976 and Jacksons 2005 version). I am a huge King Kong fan so I am a little biased and did enjoy all of those Kong movies...yes even the 1976 version (a guilty pleasure and relving a childhood memory). I was 6 years old when I saw that one and fell in love with Jessica Lange. I waited in line with my Dad on opening night at a movie theater called the Normandy which was an old movie house on 72nd and collins in Miami Beach. The line was wrapped around the block and a giant 40 foot cardboard display of Kong was in front of the movie theater of him on top of the World Trade Center and you would go between his legs to get your ticket from the box office. Being 6 years old I was blown away. A very cool memory for me and my Dad.Kong was very well acted by Namoi Watts. Her emotional connection with Kong was amazing and well done. I thought Jack Black was a perfect Carl Denham. Adrian Brody as Jack Driscoll.....meh. But overall a great monster movie full of visual eye candy, battles with dinosaurs and great well developed characters in Ann Darrow and the beast himself Kong. I fully expect the Hobbit to exceed all my expectations.

Spoiler

I can't wait to see The Battle of the 5 Armies (won't be till the 2nd or third film? I don't know how many they are making).

Spoiler

EPIC.

spoiler tags down?Sorry. The book is so old and I assumed most in this thread are quite familar with the story.

 

[Todem]

People saying the books suck, that might say more about you than about the books. Not trying to be insulting, some people want more immediate gratification. The books were great, read them around 13-14 and loved them. I was bummed when I finished them.

This might be why. Similar to how Star Wars fans generally love episodes 4-6 as kids, but can't stand 1-3 as adults.

Star Wars 4-6 are clearly the best...but I loved Episode 3 and thought it was a very good movie. Episode 1...decent. Episode 2 was not good save for the great last 30 minutes or so in the arena etc.

 

[Psychopav]

My son and I are really looking forward to seeing this. Peter Jackson is todays George Lucas.LOTR - All three films were amazing. I read the books (countless times) as well as The Hobbit and the films were as good as I could have imagined. I love the extended versions better than the theatrical releases. Just fantastic fantasy film making and for my money the best fantasy films ever made not named The Empire Strikes Back or Raiders of the Lost Ark.King Kong - highly underrated and by far the best Kong movie of the three propers (1933, 1976 and Jacksons 2005 version). I am a huge King Kong fan so I am a little biased and did enjoy all of those Kong movies...yes even the 1976 version (a guilty pleasure and relving a childhood memory). I was 6 years old when I saw that one and fell in love with Jessica Lange. I waited in line with my Dad on opening night at a movie theater called the Normandy which was an old movie house on 72nd and collins in Miami Beach. The line was wrapped around the block and a giant 40 foot cardboard display of Kong was in front of the movie theater of him on top of the World Trade Center and you would go between his legs to get your ticket from the box office. Being 6 years old I was blown away. A very cool memory for me and my Dad.Kong was very well acted by Namoi Watts. Her emotional connection with Kong was amazing and well done. I thought Jack Black was a perfect Carl Denham. Adrian Brody as Jack Driscoll.....meh. But overall a great monster movie full of visual eye candy, battles with dinosaurs and great well developed characters in Ann Darrow and the beast himself Kong. I fully expect the Hobbit to exceed all my expectations.

Spoiler

I can't wait to see The Battle of the 5 Armies (won't be till the 2nd or third film? I don't know how many they are making).

Spoiler

EPIC.

Spoiler

spoiler tags down?

Sorry. The book is so old and I assumed most in this thread are quite familar with the story.You're probably right. I've been overly sensitive to spoilers lately.

 

[NCCommish]

The books do not suck. They have been worldwide classics for decades for a reason. Now could he have used an editor in spots? Sure. But they do not suck.

Not sure what that reason would be. Was there nothing comparable when they were first published?I really want to like this series, but it's not doing much for me. Maybe reading them as an adult after the Song of Ice and Fire books made them bland in comparison.

Yeah how many hit rock songs by Led Zeppelin has Fire and Ice influenced? But seriously I read Fire and Ice. I like Martin's work. But I doubt seriously he would compare them. These are some of the best selling books of all time. Lord of the Rings has sold over 150 million copies. I am not a huge fan of Elvis. But I can recognize that he revolutionized music. Tolkien revolutionized fantasy genre literature and everyone doing it now is standing on his shoulders to some degree.