Concerning The Hobbit... I saw King Kong today.

Compa_Mighty

Compa_Mighty

Tol Eressea
It wasn't all that great, you know? At one point it had me thinking whether lightning could strike twice or if Jackson really did the directorial work of his life with LotR.

Don't get me wrong, I have been one of those strongly supporting the Jackson cause, but after seeing Kong, it got me thinking how much of the beauty of the Ringsmovies actually comes from a wonderful story in itself and the whole ensemble who worked on them, rather than personal directorial merit from Jackson.

I do not intend this to become a thread of how "Jackson is terrible" or how he "did a mess with the movies", but the viewing of King Kong did give a sense of satisfaction that Del Toro was chosen.

Apparently, PJ's greatest ability is his charisma and his capacity to create cohersion. He can still do that in the Executive chair. Along with the same team, which looks likelier and likelier (it's been posted at thehobbitblog forums that Shore has ALREADY been contacted), it seems as if the background will indeed be the same: Middle Earth will look and sound the same, but with some new conceptions in Del Toro's mind.

It is increasingly looking to me as a promising deal. I'll try and rent Hellboy this weekend... maybe I can further elaborate on this "hunch" that The Hobbit is going to be great.
 
the significant participation of Fran and Philippa in the LOTR movies that was missing in King Kong. I loved King Kong, and it had many wonderful elements, but as a story it didn't grab me. There are many reasons for that, mostly due to my long-time love of Tolkien that isn't present for the King Kong story, but King Kong also didn't grab the attention of the normal movie-goer like LOTR did.

And I really think the difference is Fran and Philippa. They kind of let Peter do his thing with King Kong because it was a life-long dream of his, but they weren't nearly as involved in that movie. WETA was heavily involved, and the only key difference in the entire team was Fran and Philippa

We tend to forget how collaborative movie-making is, and many, many people deserve credit for the success of LOTR. Peter deserves an enormous amount of credit, but I think Fran and Philippa's contributions were what put LOTR over the top. I think the three of them created a dynamic that allowed them to bring out the best in each other, and that dynamic was missing from King Kong.
 
For me, one of the things I missed most in 'Kong' was hearing Howard Shore's score. The score that was used, to me, just didn't fit with the film, and pulled me out of it many times. The music in the 3 'LotR' films just fit SO perfectly, and set exactly the right tones.
 
the fact that the composer was chosen so late in the game for King Kong. Even Howard Shore might have had trouble getting the music written to match the movie in such a short time. Of course, the composer was so late in starting because Peter removed Shore from King Kong.....
 
When it comes to 'The Hobbit', though, i've come to associate Howard Shore's music with Middle Earth, and i'm not sure I could get use to hearing anyone else's interpretation.
 
Howard Shore's scores for LOTR were just wonderful in all senses of the word. All the musical elements fit perfectly and he seems like the best choice for "The Hobbit" and proposed second film.
 
People tend to forget how much those two also worked on the LOTR script. I myself hope at least Philippa will have some input for the script in the Hobbit.

I myself never saw King Kong. I was never interested in the story. I am planning to go see the Lovely Bones, and I'm hoping that it will be a good film.
 
I have said many times what Compa The Mighty is saying now. One of the primary reasons LOTR is such a great film is because the Novel is amazing. I don't say this to discredit Peter, but he was sitting upon the shoulders of a giant. Peter did a good job with a Great work. It was not a perfect job, there were gaffs, and goofs, alterations and ommissions that the film would have been better without. What many of us are really praising Peter for is that he didn't screw things up. Because that is what it comes down to.

In the beginning, especially when we learned of many of Peter's prior "contributions" to cinema, we were terrified that he was going to take our favourite work and completely trash it. And ( while some will disagree here) in the main, he did not. He was reasonably respectful of the material, and largely faithful to it. I will not say that he ommited only what needed to be ommitted, like Bombadil. He did ommit things that would have improved the film had he left them as they were. . . and in some places he added bits that really didn't add anything in the value or clarity department.

But in general, he managed to effectively capture the granduer and wonder of the work. And the problem for many of you is that, having dodged one potentially paralyzing blow, you are right back to wear you started from. But the real fear is not (for most anyway) that the films will not be Peter's films, but that they will fall short of Tolkien's vision.

It isn't that Peter filmed "unfilmable" films. The fact that Tolkien himself called them that loses much of its power, when one considers that Tolkien, a luddite of sorts to begin with, died in 1973, years before even Star Wars came out. If we use the technology of The Wizard of Oz and The Ten Commandments as our measure. . . then no, LOTR is not filmable. lol Also (again, his death predated Starwars) a film Trilogy had never been done, and certainly not Trilogies filmed back to back or in close sequence. In 1973, Tolkien was likely right, and Neither Peter nor any other director could have filmed LOTR with anything approaching propriety, unless it was animated, which Bakshi attempted, but even his vision was limited in part by how much leeway the studios were willing to afford him. By 1999, with enough funding, and a studio willing to do a three film project, I do not think we can be so bold as to say that NO other director could possibly have done justice to these films.

As to the FILM fans who were not book fans. . . they had no basis of comparison. They did not know of the epic scope, and power and sweep of LOTR, and so they were hardly prepared for even a competent adaptation of Tolkien's work, let alone for a pretty good adaptation. The did not have the images already ingrained in their minds. Their only basis of comparison were crap mystic/epic films like Beast Master, or films like Willow, Labryinth, The Wizard of Oz and The Neverending Story, which, while good, were much less in scope and complexity. Of Course they were bowled over by it, and they attribute its greatness to the director, whom they are acquainted with, rather than with the novels, which many of them STILL have not read.
 
I thought Pete did a great job on King Kong, and I thought it was a great film. Maybe what you were experiencing was just a shift in style, afterall, LOTR and KK are completely different worlds, but I could be wrong. There's usually a time in life when a director makes something great, and after that, his movies aren't as good. Personally, I still think Pete's doing great, we'll just have to wait and see when The Hobbit is released.
 
The main reason is that the story of King Kong is not as good as the Lord of the Rings. Pales in comparison actually IMO.
It wouldn't have made a difference who directed Kong, it's had it's day in the sun and people in general were not that excited in the first place to have another KK movie made.
It was more of a pet project for PJ. A dream that he wanted to fulfill since his childhood.
Having said this, I'm surprised how much praise KK got from the critics and also the amount of money it made.
 
Narnia and King Kong both came out the same year. Tell me this, who did you feel sadder for, more emotion towards, when they died, King Kong or Aslan(the lion)? Just about everyone I ask says King Kong, they were sadder when he died. Thats impressive, because Aslan talks, he's more humanistic than Kong, Kong is brutal, yet the audience(now this is PJ's Kong) comes to care for and feel more sad for Kong than Aslan. Thats an impressive directorial accomplishment!
 
just to have The Hobbit adapted and filmed by the people who made LotR is enough. I'm really not concerned with Jackson outdoing what he (and his filmic family) accomplished with LotR. I want him (by him, I mean everyone involved with the creation of the films) to have is the opportunity to finish the job because he's earned it, imho. Even he said that he wouldn't want to feel he had to equal or outdo what he's achieved with LotR. It's magical, and that's enough. Whatever comes from his involvement with The Hobbit and film 2, it's going to be a great satisfaction for me. I hate to think of what almost happened to these films not that long ago. I'm counting my blessings... no matter how it turns out.
 
And I hope it didn't come out wrong... I'm not against PJ with my comment, it only occurred to me than the recent turn of events *could* actually gives us an even better movie than that of Jackson alone.

Some part of me tells me that the actual reason why PJ won't do these movies is that he isn't emotionally prepared to do so. He invested so much in LotR, and he said several times between 2004 and 2007 that he would actually enjoy sitting back and watching someone else's version of The Hobbit, though it would be weird.

It seems as if he got away with everything. Someone else's version with enough control over the production as to assure it turns out as he wants it to. He won't have to be as emotionally invested as he would have to in the directtor's chair.

As you say gramma, and as I have also said in other threads, for us, Tolkien fans, I believe Peter Jackson has become a collective name for a team that brought us the wonderful portrayal of Middle earth we have come to know and love. Now we have Peter Jackson back, meaning we'll have Phillippa, Fran, WETA, Lee, Howe, Shore, Serkis, McKellen... everyone, and even PJ himself in a modified role.

It now feels to me as if we really don't need Peter Jackson, the person, behind the camera, and that an addition like Del Toro, to Peter Jackson, the team, could not only be necessary, but a great upgrade, even.

As Sunflower said in another thread, let's hope Del Toro is the Irvin Kershner of Middle Earth, bringing a great movie series to even greater heights!
 
I think Peter's definitely happy with being free from the responsibility of directing yet still retains control or he would never have agreed to the arrangement. He has said he would enjoy watching another's version of The Hobbit. I still chuckle when I hear him say he wishes he could have amnesia and experience LotR at the theatre without knowing anything of how they were filmed. *snigger* Poor geek ;)

Nah... I knew where you were coming from [;)]
 
Narnia and King Kong both came out the same year. Tell me this, who did you feel sadder for, more emotion towards, when they died, King Kong or Aslan(the lion)?
Click to expand...

Actually, I think I felt sadder for Kong because I knew he was well and truly dead and Aslan, I knew, gets resurrected. I couldn't be sad for him when I knew he was coming back, although the sight of torturing any creature always makes me wince no matter who it is (and whether or not it's CGI).

Funnily enough, I don't feel quite the same about graphic brutality on human characters. Hmm.
 
Del Toro seems to be the hottest thing in Hollywood right now--EVERYONE is fighting over him. Praise the Film Gods for Howard Shore, who succeeded in "getting" him. But Del Toro still seems to be involved in 3 or 4 different things.

I wonder if Del Toro understands that he isn't just going to be going to "heaven" (as he calls it) in NZ for 4 yrs. It may take longer than that. Adapting Tolkien is a singular, all-encompassing experience. I HOPE if he has anything on his plate--anything at all, that he is even so much as executive-producing---he NEEDS to have it all wrapped up and cleared off the table. Nothing else has to exist for those 4 yrs, NOTHING, it will not be possible, but the world of Tolkien, and he needs to be singularily obsessed with it the next 4-5 yrs. It is going to consume his whole life and be unlike anything he has done before or will do after, and the eyes of the whole world, not just Hollywood, will be scrutinizing him and his project. . I wonder if he fully appreciates this.

I HOPE he is boning up on Tolkien's works and world right now, and coming to appreciate what a mammoth task this will be and how knowlegable he needs to be. Knowing that he will be filming the Bridge Film as well, will pre-requisite an enormous jump in ME knowledge, and makes me feel better, but he needs to be a walking Tolkien computer like Our Three were--he can';t just begin the day on set with a "HELP!" conference call to Peter wherever.

Pointless worries, i know, but reading the new threads about the "Hobbit Prologue" and discussion of plot points I'd forgotten about, makes me appreciate what a horrendously difficult task this may turn out to be.
 
Last edited:
PJ seems to have had a hand in getting him, and I'd expect him to tell GDT just *what* it means to make Tolkien movies, and even more so what it means to film two (or three) back to back! He truly has to realise that it's not something he can do besides other things, but has to spend his whole time with Tolkien.

As for the ME knowledge, here I hope Fran and Philippa will tell him everything he has to know and then some until he even dreams of it in the night [evil]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top