Two films for The Hobbit? Invented materials to "fill in the gaps"? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Trotter · 09-30-2006, 11:57 AM

What really confuses me is when book scenes that would have transfered wonderfully to film are rewritten or cut altogether. There were many times in ROTK, during the siege of Minis Tirith, where I said, "what has he done? Why on earth didn't he keep the scene from the book? It would have been stunning, dramatic, and tense!" I have some idea about how the medium of film works, I have directed several small-scale productions myself, and through trial and error I have learned what works and what doesn't. Of course, I have never directed or written anything as big as LOTR, but from where I stand I do think that some of PJ's decisions were, to say the least, sloppy and totally uncalled for. These mistakes could have been avoided had the book been followed more closely.
My worry with The Hobbit is that PJ will make the same mistake, cutting wonderful scenes that would have transfered well in favor of scenes that he himself creates.
The bottom line is, he, and the other two writers, could have made a more faithful adaption of LOTR and it would have been just as popular as the one we got. It was like they chose LOTR as a foundation to build their own ideas upon, and as a result we got PJ's LOTR, complete with all of its plot holes, bad characterizations, pointless scenes, stupid dialogue, and bits and pieces of Tolkien's LOTR thrown in. And, no doubt, they will treat the The Hobbit in the same manner.
Don't get me wrong, PJ made good FILMS, BUT they could have been better had they been closer to the books. They most certainly would have been very different films altogether. Personally, I would like to see another director do The Hobbit, with a new cast and a different way of looking at Tolkien's works.

09-30-2006, 11:57 AM	#21
Trotter Pile O'Bones Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The South Downs Posts: 24	What really confuses me is when book scenes that would have transfered wonderfully to film are rewritten or cut altogether. There were many times in ROTK, during the siege of Minis Tirith, where I said, "what has he done? Why on earth didn't he keep the scene from the book? It would have been stunning, dramatic, and tense!" I have some idea about how the medium of film works, I have directed several small-scale productions myself, and through trial and error I have learned what works and what doesn't. Of course, I have never directed or written anything as big as LOTR, but from where I stand I do think that some of PJ's decisions were, to say the least, sloppy and totally uncalled for. These mistakes could have been avoided had the book been followed more closely. My worry with The Hobbit is that PJ will make the same mistake, cutting wonderful scenes that would have transfered well in favor of scenes that he himself creates. The bottom line is, he, and the other two writers, could have made a more faithful adaption of LOTR and it would have been just as popular as the one we got. It was like they chose LOTR as a foundation to build their own ideas upon, and as a result we got PJ's LOTR, complete with all of its plot holes, bad characterizations, pointless scenes, stupid dialogue, and bits and pieces of Tolkien's LOTR thrown in. And, no doubt, they will treat the The Hobbit in the same manner. Don't get me wrong, PJ made good FILMS, BUT they could have been better had they been closer to the books. They most certainly would have been very different films altogether. Personally, I would like to see another director do The Hobbit, with a new cast and a different way of looking at Tolkien's works. __________________ Trotter... the Hobbit ranger with the wooden shoes.