h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Not sure why they didn't decide to film "the Hobbit" instead. Some possible ideas

1) Its not a trilogy so you don't get all us credulous fans trotting through the doors of three movies.

2) The Hobbit alwasy struck me as an oral work, and a children's work. I think (hope) they were aiming for an adult audience and considered the Hobbit to be a bit implausible. It has lots of coincidences which are fine in a 'fairy story' but would probably not work in a movie.

3) They are completly ignorant of it

4) With the exception of Gandalf (possibly) none of the central characters of tH are human. Movies without humans tend not to sell.

Zathras

They (whoever 'they' are) could always make a kid-geared Hobbit movie, but you're absolutely right: it's aimed at kids (who would feel more comfortable with hobbits and dwarves, who happen to be more child-sized than big, scary rangers, warriors, and wizards), and there is no potential for a sequel to get people to come back, (of course there will be LOTR pretty soon, but it's not gonna be the solid 'G' rating that kiddie movies thrive on, and I might add that conjuring up another quest for Bilbo simply for movie profits would be just plain WRONG).

I'm glad they opted for LOTR, it's time for modern technology to have a crack at retelling the story.

Yeah, but I'm not sure cheesy special effects were the ONLY thing that plagued the older version.

*Nodding in a manner as to suggest that she was angry that she did not mention that, 'cause she really hated that older version*

Out of morbid curiosity, what did anyone think of the animated version of The Hobbit? (Not that I even remember it that well...)

The Hobbit is an excellent fantasy story, but it isn't epic. Lord of the Rings is epic. It has far more magic, far more danger, and huge battles that slaughter thousands. All of my favorite fantasy tales have to be told in more than one book, and I can't count how many times I've read one and thought what a great movie it would be. Now we have the technology, let's test it out with the classic. If this series does well (and how can it not? I predict this will be the Star Wars of the current generation), it could be a watershed for movie fantasy, a genre that has always been wayyy too thin on good screenplays.

The next Star Wars? You sure are optimistic! (Especially considering that the next SW flick is due out soon) See the thing is, Star Wars was an original idea, I mean okay so Lucas got the themes from mythologies, but the movie was something new and revolutionary. LOTR was written many years ago, and already has a huge fan following, as well as an even larger group of non-fans that are aware of it. This is just the movie based on the book. It's not exactly the same. Still, it could open up the door for more fantasy movies, I'll grant that, but the Star Wars of this generation? That seems kind of far fetched to me. But I try never to condemn an idea prematurely, so who knows. I wouldn't mind eating my words in this case!

Just a quick comment:- One thing that has me worried is that because this is such a big film the bit-part actors may try too hard and end up hamming their lines. It will require one hell of a director to keep that number of bit actors in their place.

With so many people wanting in on this production, they can afford to be picky and weed through the hams... good actors will try to play their part in the story, unconsious of personal gain.

WHOA! Sorry about that contentless posting. I had intended to write something, but changed my mind and must've accidentally hit the "Post Message" button anyway.

Another quick point- I'm EXTREMELY worried that the director may go over the top in trying to present Saurons forces as evil. In particular it's the buildings that he may go to far on, and cover them with gargoyles and the like. This would be a major mistake as true evil never bothers about how it looks (In the book Mordor buildings are described as being plain towers scorning almost all decoration). if the director does go too far then Mordor may end up looking like something out of a bad American fantasy film and lose the all important credibility (not to mention reality and sense of power.)

And just WHAT is wrong with bad American fantasy films?! I'll have you know that those bad films have provided us with some of our finest episodes of "Mystery Science Theatre 3000!"

News update.

A few tantalising scenes of the upcoming LOTR triology were shown on NZ TV news tonight - Thursday, Oct 12. They looked excellent. We were also given a glimpse behind the scenes.

A further $US200 million has been allocated to the budget (now $US600 million) making it the second costliest series of films ever made. The Star Wars series cost more. Filming is scheduled to finish by the end of this year and the first film should be in a movie theatre near you by December 2001. Can't wait.

Incidently all the foreigners (Poms, Yanks) are raving about New Zealand as a country and are ecstatic about the competence of the NZ technical people, actors and extras.

"Not just world-class they are are up there with the best of them," was an American producer's comment.

Personally I think the cost is obscene. $600 Million for a movie? There are far better things that money could be spent on. As for NZ extras, won't the film seem a bit odd if everybody is talking with an australasian accent?

The American corporate backers of the film will get three movies for their $600 million investment.

The accents will only seem strange to Americans. Incidently, there is no such thing as an Australasian accent. New Zealanders and Australians have their own accents, just as Canadians and Americans do.

Whatever accents the characters speak in, their voices will not sound any worse than the 20th century American accents inflicted on to world-famous historical figures by the brain-dead Hollywood film industry.

Think most war movies including old American westerns featuring, in the main, the stories of 1st generation white Americans and European immigrants, anything by Cecil B de Mille, many costume dramas, all movies based on European folk heroes (this covers most of Walt Disney's efforts).

About the only films that should use actors speaking with American accents are ones about money, greed, corruption, drugs and poor self-image. Even in these films made about, in the main, American-originated world social issues, most parts should go to Hispanic/Black actors.

Being Scottish I can't tell the difference between American and Canadian accents, so I'd imagine most people can't tell the difference between an Austrailian and a New Zealand accent.

Being an American, *I* can't tell the difference between a Canadian and American accent. Oh, there is a Canadian accent, but it sounds a lot like a New England accent (outside of Irish-influenced Boston, of course, and Italian-Jewish-Irish-muddled New York City), and not so many Canadians sound like that anymore. Rick Moranis and that other guy parodied the accent, but even they sound like Americans when they're not doing the MacKenzie brothers. Even among hockey players, you often have to check the program to see if they're Canadians or Americans. The only famous Canadian I know who isn't of French background (which, of course, has its own accent) who speaks with that Canadian accent is Barry Melrose, a hockey analyst for ESPN.

If you've ever seriously read the beautiful works of Professor Tolkien you will understand it is impossible to transfer it into film form without completely fouling it up. It is not film material. It cannot be classed as either for adults or for children. By all accounts they are already having to make serious "alterations" to the plot to make it more pallatable for a wider audience and thus rake in more money for them. The roles of Galadriel and Arwen, small parts in the book, have been pumped up to main characters in the film in order to attract more women to come and see it. It will just be another high budget travesty against literature with a bunch of expensive and ludicrous special effects.

Some grasp of the mythic universe in which Lord of the Rings is set could be helpful. Long ago, Middle Earth was created by the one God, Illuvatar. Elves were made first, then humans, dwarves and Ents. However, Melkor {aka Morgoth) who was one of the Valar (or great angels) rebelled against the divine plan. Melkor twisted the laws of creation to make orcs, trolls and other evil creatures. After Melkor was chained and (later) cast into the Void - in the wake of many wars waged over the fate of three Silmarils, or heavenly jewels - it fell to Sauron, Melkor's chief lieutenant, to pursue the cause of evil in middle Earth.

That, roughly, is where Lord of the Rings begins. A return bout is looming between Sauron and his minions on one side, and the elves, humans and their allies on the other. Crucially, a ring found proves to be the One Ring of ultimate power, forged long ago by Sauron. The hobbit Frodo embarks on a quest to destroy this Ring before it falls into Sauron's hands again, or of anyone else willing to use it. Although the story is ripe with parallels (Melkor/Morgoth - Lucifer/ Satan, the Ring = atomic power) Tolkien firmly rejected allegorical readings. Still, as Tolkien's colleague Tom Shippey says, it seems hardly accidental that Sauron's final defeat occurs on March 25, seen in medieval times as the date of the Annunciation and the Crucifixion.

The saga of Middle Earth began as a serious game with languages, stimulated by Professor Tolkien's Oxford studies of Beowulf and other medieval texts. Tolkien intended to provide England with its own equivalent to the Norse myths. At its genesis in December 1937, The Lord of the Rings was a marriage Of convenience - something that would provide his publisher with a sequel to the surprise hit The Hobbit, while furthering Tolkien's hope that his pet project The Silmarillion (a history/philology of Middle Earth begun in 1914) might find a publisher.

At deeper levels, the trilogy furthers Talkien's belief - stated in his essay "On Fairy Stories" - that myths should satisfy our yearning for a joy beyond the walls of this world, offering a transcendence in stark contrast to the tragedy at the core of drama. For Tolkien, the Christian myth was the supreme example of the redemptive power of such stories.

To Ursula Le Guin, Tolkien's world is more morally complex than, say, C S Lewis's Narnia. While Narnia has good people and bad people - and how Lewis exults in the fall of the wicked - Tolkien consistently offers his characters (Boromir, Saruman, Wormtongue, Denethor and, especially, Gollum) a chance of repentance. Even the zombie-like Black Riders and Sauron are not evil men, Le Guin argues, "but embodiments of the evil in men ... [Similarly] the men who do wrong are not complete figures but complements: Saruman is Gandalf's dark self, Boromir is Aragorn's and Wormtongue is, quite literally, the weakness of King Theoden."

As for Gollum, compassion seems the only possible response. "Gollum is Frodo's shadow and it is the shadow, not the hero, who completes the quest." In one of his letters, Tolkein even criticised the judgmental Sam for ensuring that evil finally wins the battle for Gollum's soul. Not that the Tolkien who fought at the Battle of the Somme and whose sons fought the Nazis was at all soft-headed about evil. "Tolkien's ethic, Le Guin concluded, "like that of dream, is compensatory ... but because responsibility has been accepted, charity survives." Even so, one nagging problem for the modern reader is that Tolkien routinely links fair skin and blond hair with moral virtue, and dark skin with evil.

Other moral issues are seldom rendered in black and white. How is Boromir's desire to use the Ring to save his kinfolk to be judged? Is the Ring an irresistible force of external evil - in which case, why does it have no effect on Sam, Aragorn, Faramir, Merry, Pippin or Legolas - or does it magnify an existing tendency? Are there female orcs, or are all orcs vat-grown? Are the Dunlendings intrinsically worse than the Rohirrim,- or under ecological pressure did they just make bad tactical choices?

Unfortunately, New Zealand filmmaker Peter Jackson cannot rely on special effects to convey the moral subtleties of this tale.

Nuff said.
Well, more really.