Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

'The Hobbit: An unexpected journey' trailer released

steve2112 said:
I have just learned to treat the books and movies as completely separate entities. I usually enjoy things much more that way. Some are too blatant to ignore, though, such as "I, Robot", where the filmmakers saw the book and said "Nice title", then threw the book away.
Click to expand...

That was true of the Bourne Triology as well

I don't like it when movies change the endings - The Firm, Hunt for Red October

Most movies pale in comparison to the character development, imagery, plot and intricate storylines in the book, and instead substitute special effects

Just watch an old movie sometime
Today's generation couldn't sit still long enough to watch one, not enough action
But the depth of dialogue and plot development is staggering in comparison
Today's movies are sound bites of dialogue and require no acting
The older actors had to be on screen talking with each other for an eternity
 
I saw this when Ian McKellen tweeted it out. I am impressed. It's inspired me to go back and re-watch the Lord of the Rings films (the extended versions of course! :p)

I was pretty nervous about Martin Freeman as Bilbo. I've seen him in a couple things before and I do like him as an actor, but I just wasn't sure he'd fit. Well from what I've seen he looks like a great fit.

I just hope it ends up being as deep and detailed as the Lord of the Rings films. Please, no dumbing down that seems to be prevalent in films lately.
 
There was one movie that I thought was better than the book, and I'm sure some will disagree but that is....


....Jurassic Park....

I thought the movie was much better than the book.


Then "The Lost World" happened. The movie (IMO) was awful but the book was amazing.
 
chrono1081 said:
There was one movie that I thought was better than the book, and I'm sure some will disagree but that is....


....Jurassic Park....
Click to expand...

The only movie I have ever seen that was superior to the book is The last of the Mohicans. This is down to two critical factors:

  • James Fenimore Cooper was a hack writer of contemporary pulp fiction
  • Everything Daniel Day-Lewis touches turns to cinematic gold.

As for Jurassic Park, I would say it was a very good adaptation of the book. I would put it on par, but not superior.

The Lord of the Rings is unfilmable as written. Flat out unfilmable. So, while I was disappointed with some of Peter Jackson's choices in the way he filmed it, I have come to the conclusion that few could have done better, especially conisdering the scope of the project.

Frankly, if you tried to film the Lord of the Rings as it was written, it would be a ****-sandwich. A huge, unwieldy muddle. Nerds like me would like it, and everyone else would hate it.
 
MacDawg said:
That was true of the Bourne Triology as well

I don't like it when movies change the endings - The Firm, Hunt for Red October

Most movies pale in comparison to the character development, imagery, plot and intricate storylines in the book, and instead substitute special effects

Just watch an old movie sometime
Today's generation couldn't sit still long enough to watch one, not enough action
But the depth of dialogue and plot development is staggering in comparison
Today's movies are sound bites of dialogue and require no acting
The older actors had to be on screen talking with each other for an eternity
Click to expand...

I actually thought Hunt for Red October was pretty close to the book. At least, compared to the other Clancy books that became movies. I also thought Alec Baldwin was a better Jack Ryan than Harrison Ford. I didn't like Patriot Games and haven't even watched Sum of All Fears. I do have to admit that I loved William Dafoe as Clark in Clear and Present Danger, though.

I know what you mean about older movies. Recently, I saw someone in another forum commenting on Casablanca. They said they liked it, but it seemed long. Running time on Casablanca (according to IMDB) is 102 minutes. Ugh.
 
I had no idea Last of the Mohicans had a book. I LOVE that movie and the soundtrack, omg the soundtrack!

I have also heard that Lord of the Rings would never have worked as a movie in its original state. I've never read the books but apparently they don't skip from scene to scene like a normal book (or movie) would.
 
chrono1081 said:
There was one movie that I thought was better than the book, and I'm sure some will disagree but that is....


....Jurassic Park....

I thought the movie was much better than the book.


Then "The Lost World" happened. The movie (IMO) was awful but the book was amazing.
Click to expand...

Yep, I have to disagree
The book Jurassic Park was awesome
The movie was OK, but didn't treat all of the themes the way the book could
It was a special effects giant, but the depth wasn't the same at all
 
chrono1081 said:
I have also heard that Lord of the Rings would never have worked as a movie in its original state. I've never read the books but apparently they don't skip from scene to scene like a normal book (or movie) would.
Click to expand...

Tolkien's style is very digressionary or episodic. He follows one group of characters for a while and then jumps back (or forward) in time to follow a second group. he also has characters tell long stories that provide background or context to the broader plot arc. This style is also characteristic of one my favorite authors, Alexandre Dumas (pere).

I would think that The Hobbit will stick a little closer to the book than the trilogy did, because they have two movies to film one book, and there is less digression in The Hobbit. However, a lot of the story in The Hobbit actually takes place outside the text and is only discussed after it happens. I imagine that Jackson will film some of these "unwritten" events to make the story flow better as a film.
 
MacDawg said:
Movies are rarely, if ever, as good as the book
That said, LOTR and Harry Potter both do as good a job adapting to the big screen as I have seen

I think The Hobbit will follow that tradition
Click to expand...

Books and movies are also two completely different ways of telling a story. I've been questioning the way people (and myself) compare books and movies/TV shows lately.
 
Heilage said:
I've been questioning the way people (and myself) compare books and movies/TV shows lately.
Click to expand...

It's true, they are not an apples-to-apples comparison. Even plays can't be compared directly to movies.

That's why reviewers often call a movie based on a book a film adaptation. I think the term is apt, because any story has to be adapted to the medium used to tell it, whether it a book, play, film, or other form.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
The Lord of the Rings is unfilmable as written. Flat out unfilmable. So, while I was disappointed with some of Peter Jackson's choices in the way he filmed it, I have come to the conclusion that few could have done better, especially conisdering the scope of the project.

Frankly, if you tried to film the Lord of the Rings as it was written, it would be a ****-sandwich. A huge, unwieldy muddle. Nerds like me would like it, and everyone else would hate it.
Click to expand...

Exactly how I feel. This is why I don't compare film adaptations to the books. It's two different mediums, and usually two different target audiences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back