Subject for the Second film?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

However one can't exclude the possibility of the 'Bridge' film tanking. Part audience fatigue, but largely because I've seen no evidence at all that Jackson is capable of inventing remotely acceptable fan-fic: those portions of the LR trilogy which were any good were good as a direct function of the proportion of actual Tolkien therein. Conversely, those elements created out of whole cloth pretty uniformly sucked. I suspect that this 'bridge' movie will be as lame as Eragon.

PJ's name is not automatic boxoffice magic: vide King Kong.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

However one can't exclude the possibility of the 'Bridge' film tanking. Part audience fatigue, but largely because I've seen no evidence at all that Jackson is capable of inventing remotely acceptable fan-fic: those portions of the LR trilogy which were any good were good as a direct function of the proportion of actual Tolkien therein. Conversely, those elements created out of whole cloth pretty uniformly sucked. I suspect that this 'bridge' movie will be as lame as Eragon.

PJ's name is not automatic boxoffice magic: vide King Kong.

You're right, this 'bridge' film is very risky indeed. Much of the audience of LotR will have been made up with people who couldn't/wouldn't read the books ("Long buks iz 2 ard 4 uz 2day" or "I haven't got time to read Tolkien. Reading long books cuts into my time watching four hours of soaps a day" and all that). That may hold up a little for The Hobbit but a lot of people won't be bothered by a bridging film if they know it's "all made up". And if Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson are involved with the script then I really don't hold out much hope as they are not good at creating narrative, and that's what holds any story, whether written or visual, together.

Of course they could just go for something which was just an "Art" film, which would negate the need for a narrative structure

[William Cloud Hicklin]

PJ *did* have a 'Tolkien expert' on set. Many of them, starting with Philippa Boyens and going on through many or most of the nerds at Weta, and eventually including McKellen, who came late to the books but became a total convert.

That didn't matter. If PJ isn't interested in 'accuracy' the availability of expertise is irrelevant.

StW has pointed out that more people have seen the movies in five years than read the books in fifty. Sad, but true. I'm afraid that as a result Jackson's ego has grown in proportion. "Tolkien's tale was long and boring. I think I did better." Although he's a savvy enough businessman to appeal to/ appease the 'fans', at this point it's Peter Jackson fans rather than Tolkien fans: the monstrous success of the trilogy simply ratifies, in his mind, his self-indulgences. I expect were any 'expert' to be provided, PJ's attitude would be much the same as StW and others: "What the hell do you know about making movies?"

[zxcvbn]

i would like to point out that many of the radical changes in the plot can be credited to Fran Walsh and the 'Tolkien expert' Phillipa Boyens, who handled most of the script writing. And as much as I like the LOTR films, I hope Boyens is unable to collaborate on the Hobbit script and PJ gets his friend Steven Sinclair instead.

[Sauron the White]

I expect were any 'expert' to be provided, PJ's attitude would be much the same as StW and others: "What the hell do you know about making movies?"

That is certainly a very blunt way of putting it. And it could turn out that way. My take on this is yes, you can be a Tolkien expert and not know beans about the process of film and how they make them and what the demands are. That is undeniable. During the first trilogy of films, Jackson and company learned something about Middle-earth. They probably did not learn enough to make it perfect. But it looks like they learned enough to earn enough and please the public.

I would hope the second time around they could improve on that record and go a little further in making the films more authentic. People here seem to think that I apologize for everything Jackson did in the films and am ignorant of the books.
Not so. I have read them many many times since my first effort way back in 1971. I love those books. And I can watch the films and cringe at things like the scrubbing bubbles of the Dead and kicking the pathetic behind of Gollum or making jokes about bodily gasses. Believe me folks, I sure wish none of that were in there.

I do get tired of rehashing all the same tired disputes year after year. But I still engage in them. Just canot resist the lure of the ring I guess. It would be nice if this next batch of films did not repeat that pattern. Do any of us want to be doing this over and over again five and ten years from now? One way to prevent that and have something we all can be proud of would be to have an expert from the Estate in on the entire process to advise. It would help if that person had some experience in film and understood that its a lot more than just pointing out that "it did not happen that way in the books".

Right now the slate is clean and fresh and there is opportunity. Lets all hope that steps can be taken in the right direction.

[Lalwendë]

Sadly, being an uber-fan does not guarantee that you are the best person to add to or remove from Tolkien's text and create something new. Efforts by members of the Tolkien Society in re-writing are sometimes proof of that

I just hope for someone who understands narrative and plot.

[zxcvbn]

I've noticed that threads on this forum tend to get off topic. The topic of this thread is to discuss Middle Earth stories that can potentially be told in the second, unnamed prequel film. I'll start off by recommending the tale of the Fall of Arnor at the hands of the Witch King. With Max Von Sydow as Malbeth the Seer and Liam Neeson as Arvedui.

[Galendor]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

"Tolkien's tale was long and boring. I think I did better."

Is this an actual quote from Peter Jackson? He said this?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yes.

[Sauron the White]

...somehow, someway, I missed the source of that quote with your post.

[Galendor]

Wow. . . if Jackson really said that, it just disgusts me. Until now, I had assumed that he actually had reasonable appreciation for the books he was trying to adapt to film. Such a statement indicates a deplorable ego and lack of intelligent perspective - without those "long and boring" books his films could not exist. What a crappy thing to say.

WCH, not that I doubt you, but I wish I could find more proof that Jackson made this statement. I haven't been able to find further reputable evidence for it using Google...