Posted on 07/21/2008 8:17:12 PM PDT by Oyarsa
Del Toro refuses to copy Jackson July 19th, 2008 by xoanon | Discuss
From Maxim and World Entertainment News: Guillermo Del Toro has promised Lord Of The Rings fans his franchise prequel The Hobbit will be very different from his directing predecessor Peter Jackson. Jackson directed the three original films, but has given up his director’s chair for Del Toro. But Del Toro has refused to follow in Jackson’s footsteps, vowing to give movie fans something new. He tells Maxim magazine, “If I thought it was about following (Jackson), I wouldn’t be doing it this way. “It’s a matter of raising on it. I think The Hobbit has a peculiar sprit in relation to not only the trilogy, but also to Tolkein’s work. “It’ll have respect for what’s been done, but also its own individuality.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uvPXTDKwWM
I did wonder why Aragorn seemed so self-doubting--"choosing" exile as the movie Elrond said. Very twentieth-century angst-ridden--
One change Jackson made was actually an improvement over the books--making Arwen a real character by switching her out with Gildor and drawing from the Appendices for her background. She was rather a cardboard doll in the books, and most readers couldn't comprehend why Aragorn would prefer Arwen to Eowyn.
I hope Del Toro keeps the look of LOTR but vastly improves on Peter Jackson’s ham-handed plot and character development.
PJ absolutely destroyed, wrecked, butchered Aragorn and Faramir.
Just a minor tweak to some minor characters?
On the other hand Del Toro is very right in the sense that The Hobbit is a very different book than LOTR.
Exactly. A lot of the blame for the butchering of Aragorn can be laid on the casting choice. No blood for oil, lolol, I mean, I'm a lover not a fighter, I mean, I'm the greatest hero of my age who's been leading armies and journeying in the wilderness for 100+ years, no wait I'm a B movie actor.
No he didn't. Aragorn was handled well and with great loyalty to the character. Faramir was not as decisive and strong as he was in the novel (though I really liked the scene in the extended version where he grabbed Smeagol by the throat) but I would not call his character "destroyed, wrecked and butchered".
My biggest problem with the movies was Arwen. It was popcorn and restroom time every time she showed up. Besides, poor Glorfindel got erased to give Arwen more screen time.
There is more screen time of Aragorn shifting his weight from hip to hip and posing for the camera than of him fighting, leading, showing nobility of character.
That's merely your opinion. Others didn't see Jackson's necessary compacting of details as leaving the characters "absolutely destroyed, wrecked, butchered". Your earlier gripe was also about Merry and Pippin who were, indeed minor characters.
Most of the complaining about this movie is from folks who clearly have no idea what goes into adapting a novel. There are simply too many characters in these books to make them all perfect. Most people accept this reality.
Compacting details has nothing to do with Aragorn. Argue away if you please, but you look like a fool trying to put words in my mouth.
PJ dramatically changed Aragorn's character from a man driven to the fulfillment of 100+ years of heroism toward a nearly impossible goal to an indecisive pansy. It was a complete joke based on the simplistic belief that every character needed to have a stilted, ham-handed character "arc" that was more like a couple of 180s.
Jeez, lighten up--I wasn't "putting words in your mouth"--but then, I didn't know you were a LOTR queen. Have fun with your Aragorn "action figure"/doll and playing Dungeons and Dragons. :)
You're posting on an online message board in a section called "The Hobbit Hole". Not a good place to be throwing stones.
Have no idea what you're talking about--The Hobbit Hole sounds like some gay Tolkien fan thing. :D This article was in Miscellaneous when I saw it.
Enjoying the movies doesn't make me one of these silly Tolkien freaks who cry because three massive books weren't transferred perfectly.
Have no idea what you're talking about--The Hobbit Hole sounds like some gay Tolkien fan thing. :D This article was in Miscellaneous when I saw it.
Enjoying the movies doesn't make me one of these silly Tolkien freaks who cry because three massive books weren't transferred perfectly.
Massive books? A lot goes on, but they're traditionally published as little paperbacks. Have you even read them? Do you read chapter books?
Don't get so mad, you'll set your elf's cap on fire.
548 pages does not constitute a "little paperback," you utter fool.
Go argue how many wizards can dance on the head of pinhead like yourself with some of your other doltish friends, who have little contact with reality and can't discuss a movie based on your fantasy without crying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.