|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QuiteShocked
The Shire
Aug 4 2017, 5:56pm
Post #26 of 73
(3597 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No, I'm fairly certain I am correct.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think if anything, he probably just briefly flipped through it.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Aug 4 2017, 6:28pm
Post #27 of 73
(3587 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Jackson and 'The Hobbit' have history
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Are you aware that Peter Jackson wanted to adapt The Hobbit as a film well before he made the Lord of the Rings movies? He's read the book; he was also prepared to make any changes or additions that he thought were needed to turn it into two to three movies. Many of us might disagree with Jackson over his choices, but that is our prerogative.
"Who I am is where I stand. Where I stand is where I fall.” -- The Doctor
|
|
|
QuiteShocked
The Shire
Aug 4 2017, 6:55pm
Post #28 of 73
(3586 views)
Shortcut
|
and I must say that I find that to be quite surprising, however, I haven't seen all of the behind the scenes documentaries, so I may have missed the part that mentions this. I was just basing my assessment that he likely didn't read the book based upon the movies themselves.
(This post was edited by QuiteShocked on Aug 4 2017, 6:56pm)
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Aug 4 2017, 7:10pm
Post #29 of 73
(3575 views)
Shortcut
|
I was just basing my assessment that he likely didn't read the book based upon the movies themselves. If he hadn't read the book why are there so many faithful scenes in the films. Like the good morning scene, the dwarves introduction, the songs, the trolls, Rivendel, reading the map, riddles in the Dark, introducing Beorn, the Spiders, Inside information, the arcenstone subeplot, Thorin's death, the funeral, the return Journey and a lot more.
|
|
|
QuiteShocked
The Shire
Aug 4 2017, 7:15pm
Post #30 of 73
(3574 views)
Shortcut
|
he could have gotten those by casually skimming through the book.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Aug 4 2017, 8:36pm
Post #31 of 73
(3560 views)
Shortcut
|
PJ has read the hobbit. If you watch the appendices you will see that PJ know a lot about the book and you will see him actually reading it. Plus on the commentary track of all the films you will here PJ talking about some of his favorite part of the books.
But that's exactly what someone who did _not_ read the book might do...
... to cover the tracks he never made!
|
|
|
QuiteShocked
The Shire
Aug 4 2017, 8:55pm
Post #32 of 73
(3559 views)
Shortcut
|
He obviously knew he was on camera while the behind the scenes stuff was
being filmed, so once in a while he would pick up the book and look at
it with a thoughtful expression on his face. The book on set was more
of a prop for filming the behind the scenes extras than it was a
reference for filming the actual movies.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Aug 4 2017, 9:24pm
Post #33 of 73
(3557 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not sure if Radagast is an actual health hazard...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but seeing what PJ did with the character sure makes me feel sick! ba dum tss
"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time." -Christopher Tolkien
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Aug 5 2017, 6:32am
Post #34 of 73
(3524 views)
Shortcut
|
|
How can you be 'fairly certain' of that...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
if you haven't even show any evidence to back you up?
|
|
|
QuiteShocked
The Shire
Aug 5 2017, 10:14am
Post #35 of 73
(3514 views)
Shortcut
|
The proof is in the pudding my friend.
(This post was edited by QuiteShocked on Aug 5 2017, 10:19am)
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Aug 5 2017, 2:52pm
Post #36 of 73
(3482 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No you could not get the details of those scenes by skimming.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
he could have gotten those by casually skimming through the book.
PJ was one of the screenwriters for The Hobbit trilogy so obviously he and his co-writers had read the book; some of you just don't like how he adapted it. It's well know that back in the late 1990s Jackson and Walsh wanted to film The Hobbit and then make a two-part adaptation of LotR. But the rights to The Hobbit were virtually unobtainable so they went on LotR. Strangely, once the LotR movies were so wildly successful and made so much money, a way was found to disentangle the film rights to The Hobbit.
All of this discussion is strangely familiar.
In LotR movie discussion groups that I followed back in 2001 and after, people who didn't like FotR and its sequels often ascribed the worst of motives, ignorance of the book and disrespectful behavior to Jackson on no basis whatsoever, simply in order to heap additional insults on the movies. Their only evidence was that they didn't like Jackson's version.
Those of us who like the movies and have closely watched the numerous documentaries and interviews relating to both trilogies have a different view of Jackson, his approach and the reasons behind his choices.
Just sayin.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Aug 5 2017, 5:01pm
Post #37 of 73
(3480 views)
Shortcut
|
PJ was one of the screenwriters for The Hobbit trilogy so obviously he and his co-writers had read the book; ...
____________________
That doesn't obviously follow regarding Jackson himself, necessarily.
Just sayin 
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Aug 5 2017, 6:08pm
Post #38 of 73
(3463 views)
Shortcut
|
If you've ever seen this sitcom, there's an episode where Doug sits around with a book he pretends to read...
... until Carrie finds out -- the Boyens of this comparison?
If Boyens had read the book, that is 
|
|
|
QuiteShocked
The Shire
Aug 5 2017, 6:50pm
Post #39 of 73
(3460 views)
Shortcut
|
that the last time he read it was back in the late 90s and then filmed the movie going on memory.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Aug 6 2017, 2:37pm
Post #40 of 73
(3393 views)
Shortcut
|
Anything else is nonsensical.
Jackson is one of the writers of the screenplays upon
which the movies are based. He and his co-writers together craft the story that he wants to tell, his version of The Hobbit. PJ is the director and it's his vision that is filmed.
The fact that we Tolkien fans and movie watchers like or dislike the product, agree or disagree with the choices made, doesn't change the basic facts and realities of movie making.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Aug 6 2017, 11:13pm
Post #41 of 73
(3358 views)
Shortcut
|
Anything else is nonsensical
I disagree. If, as you yourself say (my emphasis), Jackson is crafting "the story that _he_ wants to tell, _his_ version of The Hobbit."
It's certainly not obvious to me that he needs to read the actual book, given that there are other sources, both living and written. Again, it seemed like a fact that Doug Heffernan read his book, as he stared at it day after day, probably even turning pages...
... yet the reality is that he didn't, which Carrie, of course, found out.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Aug 7 2017, 12:24pm
Post #42 of 73
(3323 views)
Shortcut
|
You do understand that King of Queens is a sitcom and not real life, yes?
Why would Jackson go to multiple sources to get information about The Hobbit when the simplest and easiest thing to do would be to read one rather slender and very accessible book? Occam's razor.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Aug 7 2017, 1:21pm
Post #43 of 73
(3319 views)
Shortcut
|
Who said Jackson went to multiple sources?
I said there are multiples sources, some of which are arguably even easier than reading the book.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Aug 7 2017, 1:22pm)
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Aug 7 2017, 9:08pm
Post #44 of 73
(3283 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What “easier” sources do you have in mind?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Because I can't think of anything easier than to pick up this little kids' book and read it. Or do you think PJ is illiterate?
I get that you and a couple of others choose to express doubt that PJ read the book, though I suspect you don't really believe it, because you resent that he could have read TH and made these movies. It seems to me to be just another way of pouring scorn on movies that you dislike, by “insulting” their writer/director. If it makes you feel better, go for it. The movies are what they are and no one is going to change their minds about them either way after all this time.
At least it's a change from the other wishfully derogatory term against PJ which appeared here from time to time in the past .
I at least am finished derailing this thread.
|
|
|
QuiteShocked
The Shire
Aug 7 2017, 10:25pm
Post #45 of 73
(3279 views)
Shortcut
|
I think he just looked up "The Hobbit" on Wikipedia and went from there.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Aug 8 2017, 12:51am
Post #46 of 73
(3252 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That would have been difficult.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think he just looked up "The Hobbit" on Wikipedia and went from there.
Jackson's first attempt (with Fran Walsh) to adapt The Hobbit in 1995 pre-dates Wikipedia by several years. Saul Zaentz owned the production rights to The Hobbit, but at that time the distribution rights were controlled by United Artists.
"Who I am is where I stand. Where I stand is where I fall.” -- The Doctor
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Aug 8 2017, 1:15am
Post #47 of 73
(3246 views)
Shortcut
|
"Because I can't think of anything easier than to pick up this little kids' book and read it."
____________________
... just asking someone who has read the book, for instance.
I mean, you didn't have to actually watch King of Queens, and yet now you know part of the tale of Educating Doug, season 1, episode 8.
"Doug, I don't understand this. You sat next to me, night after night, turning pages, nodding, highlighting with your little stupid yellow marker. What the hell were you doing?"
"Mostly planning my meals."
Classic Doug!
(This post was edited by Elthir on Aug 8 2017, 1:18am)
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Aug 8 2017, 7:20am
Post #48 of 73
(3215 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I get that you and your friend are trolls but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
what does food have to do with anything?
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Lorien
Aug 8 2017, 7:29am
Post #49 of 73
(3218 views)
Shortcut
|
there are people who cast doubt that Jackson has even read LOTR? I swear I know some.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Aug 8 2017, 12:13pm
Post #50 of 73
(3206 views)
Shortcut
|
What's odd to me would be that anyone take this thread seriously (or "too" seriously) from the get go...
... and regarding your "troll" comment, beyond my obviously silly commentary (so silly it should not have "trolled" anyone in my opinion, at least not in a negative atmosphere anyway), some of it was actually, well...
... if not serious (including this one?), at least in response to a few points raised.
I at least, took the thread from the first, as: tongue in cheek with some [intendedly blatant] humorous sparring. If others took it differently... once more, the perils of posting as opposed to actual conversation... perhaps. I guess. But anyway.
And now, back to King of Queens...
(This post was edited by Elthir on Aug 8 2017, 12:28pm)
|
|
|
|
|
