So does everyone think that Peter Jackson is the generic go-to guy for fantasy movies now?
Personally, I'd like to see Guillermo Del Toro direct it
Though I like him, Guillermo,the best thing he has done as a director was 10 years ago (Pan's) Pacific Rim was a disappointment to me personally.The film was decent enough but the direction was eh. Crimson Peak was a let down as well. I think if his animated Pinocchio turns out well maybe we will see him back in form.
Heresy! Heresy!!!
Burn the heretic!!!!
I know I know! He has his fans and many of them. I am just not a big fan of most of his work. I am not convinced he would be able to do justice to the Elder Scrolls franchise. Maybe he would but I would rather have someone like Alfonso Cuaron direct it.
I thought it was generally accepted fact that Pacific Rim was a steaming pile of turd?
It had interesting robots and interesting aliens, but every other aspect of the film sucked balls. In particular, the script writer must have been autistic or something because his ability to write dialogue was shockingly bad. They had some alright actors, yet every single line of dialogue from start to finish was a nightmare.
Back on topic, like others have said, The Elder Scrolls are about the world, not the story. The stories generally suck (as do majority of computer game stories) so you'd basically have free reign to write any story within the game world.
My dream team would be as follows:
Raymond E. Feist - Get this guy to write the main story within Tamriel. His books are some of the best I've read, primarily because of the massive scope. I'd want an Elder Scrolls film to be big, so getting a writer on board who is good with large scope is crucial. Feist also has large casts of characters in all his books, rather than focusing on one or two.
Aaron Sorkin - This guy is my favourite TV and film writer (The West Wing, The Newsroom, Social Network). His speciality is high-brow, fast paced dialogue with ensemble casts. Many people love Joss Whedon for his ensemble casts but frankly, Sorkin is an order of magnitude better. So, I'd have Sorkin take Feists story and adapt it for the screen, the result of which should be a fantasy story of epic scope with amazing dialogue and characters.
Neil Blomkamp - Get this guy on board as director. His films are great and he does a great job with the whole team. He's used to working with elaborate stages, CGI etc so would be a good fit for a fantasy film.
JJ Abrams - Have JJ as producer. I wouldn't want him directing, but he now has a lot of experience with high budget films that involve a lot of CGI and stages, so I feel he'd be a good person to produce the film. He'd keep the film on track and from what I've read, he's a good person to keep around to keep peoples spirits high and keep people laughing throughout production.
Not sure who I'd have as editor. Editors often don't get much recognition but their work can make or break a film. Just need to avoid any editors who overuse shakey-cam and super-closeups.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr80 Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr5X Shaman
Maybe an interesting conversation if you didn't see The Hobbit.
Jackson was a good choice back before he made LotR - because he had the passion and will to go through with it. Essentially, he was crazy enough to attempt that project and stay true to the material. With The Hobbit, it was clearly something else. Also, I consider FotR the only true masterpiece from him, and TT/RotK became progressively inferior - even though they're both good films.
The Hobbit movies were pale imitations, full of bad CGI filler action, tasteless slapstick and fart humor. About as far away from Tolkien as you could possibly get - apart from that one excellent theme song in the first movie.
The Hobbit "trilogy" 'nough said.
LotR shows passion and dedication. Heck I'm one of those who thinks he improved on the books - a rare feat.
The Hobbit OTOH was just a shameless milking of the Tolkien cash cow by all involved.
The Hobbit should have been one 3 hour film at the most.
I couldn't stand the film, Lord of the Rings the Hobbit is not.
Movies based on games do not have a particularly poor track record. Now that the Warcraft movie appears to have completely tanked, I do not know if anyone is going to invest money into another big ticket game-to-movie effort anytime soon. It's a far bigger IP than Elder Scrolls.
And can we forget Peter Jackson as the go-to choice for fantasy films? I don't think he did LotR lore any real favors. Bey and del Toro have had enough misses, too. About the only big name directors I would want to see handle a fantasy franchise of any nature is Josh Whedon or Kenneth Branagh. Even though I love Whedon, I feel he's better with action-oriented stories. I think Branagh might work better to give depth to quieter, more introspective stories.
But rather than a movie, I'd rather see a TV mini-series (I'm looking at you, Syfy channel) as a format for the future of SF. The mini-series format can devote 10+ hours compared to the movie's 2-3 hours, and many epic stories really need that length. My favorite approach would be the multi-season epic story, as Babylon 5 did and Game of Thrones is doing. The mini-series has the advantage of presenting the story to the audience in a shorter time-frame. (Syfy, if you're still listening, forget where you put the CGU shark models, please?)
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
So does everyone think that Peter Jackson is the generic go-to guy for fantasy movies now?
Personally, I'd like to see Guillermo Del Toro direct it
Guillermo is who I'd want to direct as well. Jackson isn't a bad director, but when I think of a fantasy director it's Guillermo Del Toro that I think of.
Maybe an interesting conversation if you didn't see The Hobbit.
Jackson was a good choice back before he made LotR - because he had the passion and will to go through with it. Essentially, he was crazy enough to attempt that project and stay true to the material. With The Hobbit, it was clearly something else. Also, I consider FotR the only true masterpiece from him, and TT/RotK became progressively inferior - even though they're both good films.
The Hobbit movies were pale imitations, full of bad CGI filler action, tasteless slapstick and fart humor. About as far away from Tolkien as you could possibly get - apart from that one excellent theme song in the first movie.
The Hobbit "trilogy" 'nough said.
LotR shows passion and dedication. Heck I'm one of those who thinks he improved on the books - a rare feat.
The Hobbit OTOH was just a shameless milking of the Tolkien cash cow by all involved.
The Hobbit was a children's book. I don't think some people realize that. It was written for a younger audience. Peter Jackson did a great job for what it is.
This scene wasn't even in the original cut and is one of my favorites.
I thought it was generally accepted fact that Pacific Rim was a steaming pile of turd?
Not only did I like it but it has a 71% on Rotten tomatoes. Regardless of what one thinks of reviews I don't think that constitutes a "steaming pile of turd".
This on the other hand ...
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Maybe an interesting conversation if you didn't see The Hobbit.
Jackson was a good choice back before he made LotR - because he had the passion and will to go through with it. Essentially, he was crazy enough to attempt that project and stay true to the material. With The Hobbit, it was clearly something else. Also, I consider FotR the only true masterpiece from him, and TT/RotK became progressively inferior - even though they're both good films.
The Hobbit movies were pale imitations, full of bad CGI filler action, tasteless slapstick and fart humor. About as far away from Tolkien as you could possibly get - apart from that one excellent theme song in the first movie.
The Hobbit "trilogy" 'nough said.
LotR shows passion and dedication. Heck I'm one of those who thinks he improved on the books - a rare feat.
The Hobbit OTOH was just a shameless milking of the Tolkien cash cow by all involved.
The Hobbit was a children's book. I don't think some people realize that. It was written for a younger audience. Peter Jackson did a great job for what it is.
This scene wasn't even in the original cut and is one of my favorites.
I thought the screenplay was horrible.
I think The Jungle Book is a great example of a children's story done right for the Big Screen.
Maybe an interesting conversation if you didn't see The Hobbit.
Jackson was a good choice back before he made LotR - because he had the passion and will to go through with it. Essentially, he was crazy enough to attempt that project and stay true to the material. With The Hobbit, it was clearly something else. Also, I consider FotR the only true masterpiece from him, and TT/RotK became progressively inferior - even though they're both good films.
The Hobbit movies were pale imitations, full of bad CGI filler action, tasteless slapstick and fart humor. About as far away from Tolkien as you could possibly get - apart from that one excellent theme song in the first movie.
The Hobbit "trilogy" 'nough said.
LotR shows passion and dedication. Heck I'm one of those who thinks he improved on the books - a rare feat.
The Hobbit OTOH was just a shameless milking of the Tolkien cash cow by all involved.
The Hobbit was a children's book. I don't think some people realize that. It was written for a younger audience. Peter Jackson did a great job for what it is.
This scene wasn't even in the original cut and is one of my favorites.
I thought the screenplay was horrible.
I think The Jungle Book is a great example of a children's story done right for the Big Screen.
The new Jungle Book is awesome! Family just watched it
I saw it a few days after release back in April on IMAX. Funny thing was... there wasn't a single child in the audience, it was full of adults.
Maybe an interesting conversation if you didn't see The Hobbit.
Jackson was a good choice back before he made LotR - because he had the passion and will to go through with it. Essentially, he was crazy enough to attempt that project and stay true to the material. With The Hobbit, it was clearly something else. Also, I consider FotR the only true masterpiece from him, and TT/RotK became progressively inferior - even though they're both good films.
The Hobbit movies were pale imitations, full of bad CGI filler action, tasteless slapstick and fart humor. About as far away from Tolkien as you could possibly get - apart from that one excellent theme song in the first movie.
The Hobbit "trilogy" 'nough said.
LotR shows passion and dedication. Heck I'm one of those who thinks he improved on the books - a rare feat.
The Hobbit OTOH was just a shameless milking of the Tolkien cash cow by all involved.
The Hobbit was a children's book. I don't think some people realize that. It was written for a younger audience. Peter Jackson did a great job for what it is.
I don't know what being a children's book has to do with expanding The Hobbit into 3 movies. That was just box office milking... plain and simple. You could overlook that a bit in the first part because the characters were being introduced and there was some good acting but the 2nd and 3rd installments dragged on and were noticeably stretched.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I have no doubt that Peter Jackson could make Tamriel along with its inhabitants come to life with an incredible sense of detail. However, there would still need to be a well written story with a hero, villain, conflict, resolution, over arching plot, etc., etc..
Maybe an interesting conversation if you didn't see The Hobbit.
Jackson was a good choice back before he made LotR - because he had the passion and will to go through with it. Essentially, he was crazy enough to attempt that project and stay true to the material. With The Hobbit, it was clearly something else. Also, I consider FotR the only true masterpiece from him, and TT/RotK became progressively inferior - even though they're both good films.
The Hobbit movies were pale imitations, full of bad CGI filler action, tasteless slapstick and fart humor. About as far away from Tolkien as you could possibly get - apart from that one excellent theme song in the first movie.
The Hobbit "trilogy" 'nough said.
LotR shows passion and dedication. Heck I'm one of those who thinks he improved on the books - a rare feat.
The Hobbit OTOH was just a shameless milking of the Tolkien cash cow by all involved.
The Hobbit was a children's book. I don't think some people realize that. It was written for a younger audience. Peter Jackson did a great job for what it is.
I don't know what being a children's book has to do with expanding The Hobbit into 3 movies. That was just box office milking... plain and simple. You could overlook that a bit in the first part because the characters were being introduced and there was some good acting but the 2nd and 3rd installments dragged on and were noticeably stretched.
I agree about them being stretched though I love the start of the first hobbit movie. I really liked the entire seen with the dwarves.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Meh. What story would he tell? The source material isn't nearly as rich in storytelling. Lore and having a script basically already written for you are totally different.
It would have to be the main storyline in Skyrim - due to the number of sales.
Unless Zenimax fund it though can't see it happening. As others have said game IPs haven't done well - the reasons don't matter the impression is there. And WoW was no exception, outside of China the box office was "not good".
And given the recent downturn at the China box office ..... that would give backers pause for thought even if ES was huge in China.
TV? Its fantasy. Yes there is GoT but GRRM purposely added the magic very slowly getting people hooked with the political drama until it was "to late". Not an option for ES. So unless an Amazon say picked it up unlikely.
So will Zenimax think about funding it? Or at least approaching possible partners? Maybe this is what was behind the answers. Throw the bait out see if anyone bites.
Maybe an interesting conversation if you didn't see The Hobbit.
Jackson was a good choice back before he made LotR - because he had the passion and will to go through with it. Essentially, he was crazy enough to attempt that project and stay true to the material. With The Hobbit, it was clearly something else. Also, I consider FotR the only true masterpiece from him, and TT/RotK became progressively inferior - even though they're both good films.
The Hobbit movies were pale imitations, full of bad CGI filler action, tasteless slapstick and fart humor. About as far away from Tolkien as you could possibly get - apart from that one excellent theme song in the first movie.
The Hobbit "trilogy" 'nough said.
LotR shows passion and dedication. Heck I'm one of those who thinks he improved on the books - a rare feat.
The Hobbit OTOH was just a shameless milking of the Tolkien cash cow by all involved.
The Hobbit was a children's book. I don't think some people realize that. It was written for a younger audience. Peter Jackson did a great job for what it is.
I don't know what being a children's book has to do with expanding The Hobbit into 3 movies. That was just box office milking... plain and simple. You could overlook that a bit in the first part because the characters were being introduced and there was some good acting but the 2nd and 3rd installments dragged on and were noticeably stretched.
What i meant by it's a children's book is that the movies were a little more on the light side, with the dwarves, the comedy, etc.. not anything to do with the length of the trilogy. Just some people were disappointed with it, because they thought it would be another LOTR trilogy, with a darker more mature narrative.
I'm a big LOTR fan. The Hobbit was one of my favorite books as a child. I always dreamed of a LOTR and Hobbit movie as a child and Mr.Jackson made 6 of them. What you call milking I call drooling. But that's just me. I'd love to see Mr. Jackson continue making movies in the LOTR universe. I enjoyed every single minute of the Hobbit trilogy, especially the extended version. To each his own.
Maybe an interesting conversation if you didn't see The Hobbit.
Jackson was a good choice back before he made LotR - because he had the passion and will to go through with it. Essentially, he was crazy enough to attempt that project and stay true to the material. With The Hobbit, it was clearly something else. Also, I consider FotR the only true masterpiece from him, and TT/RotK became progressively inferior - even though they're both good films.
The Hobbit movies were pale imitations, full of bad CGI filler action, tasteless slapstick and fart humor. About as far away from Tolkien as you could possibly get - apart from that one excellent theme song in the first movie.
The Hobbit "trilogy" 'nough said.
LotR shows passion and dedication. Heck I'm one of those who thinks he improved on the books - a rare feat.
The Hobbit OTOH was just a shameless milking of the Tolkien cash cow by all involved.
The Hobbit was a children's book. I don't think some people realize that. It was written for a younger audience. Peter Jackson did a great job for what it is.
This scene wasn't even in the original cut and is one of my favorites.
I'm not sure what your point is.
I'm not talking about the book, but the movies. The book doesn't have tasteless fart jokes or endless filler action. I know, because I've read it about a dozen times - and I was around 10 the first time.
Tolkien was a writer who took his audience seriously - and treated them with respect. That's why the book, which he wrote for his son, is not littered with slapstick or filler material.
Jackson, however, is a burned-out hack who should have left well enough alone - but he didn't.
I'm a big LOTR fan. The Hobbit was one of my favorite books as a child
That part I agree with. It was one of my favorites too.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I don't know what being a children's book has to do with expanding The Hobbit into 3 movies. That was just box office milking... plain and simple. You could overlook that a bit in the first part because the characters were being introduced and there was some good acting but the 2nd and 3rd installments dragged on and were noticeably stretched.
A very long-standing complaint about The Hobbit as a book was the lack of identity for each of the dwarves. They were mostly interchangable in the books, and unrecognizable beyond Thorin. The movie attempted to give each a unique look (quite effectively, I thought) and even different weapons. Then the movie failed to 'introduce' the audience to the dwarven characters by not building a connection between a specific look and the character's name. The scene where the dwarves were running around Gandalf would have been a great opportunity to help establish this, simply by having Gandalf call the dwarf's name as they ran past. Instead, we got 'whoa there', 'look out', counting and the like; none of it helping to strengthen the book.
Generally, it takes a few associations to connect a character name with their appearance. Simple things like, 'Pass the butter, Gloin' (a direct address), with a shot of Gloin passing the butter (a reaction shot). There wasn't enough screen time, nor enough effort in the script, to clearly introduce so many characters to the audience.
This flaw isn't confined to Peter Jackson, however. Batman vs Superman was guilty of the same thing. Unless you knew the actor playing the role by sight and knew that ahead of the movie, the average viewer would never know Jimmy Olsen appeared in the movie until they saw the end credits.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I don't know what being a children's book has to do with expanding The Hobbit into 3 movies. That was just box office milking... plain and simple. You could overlook that a bit in the first part because the characters were being introduced and there was some good acting but the 2nd and 3rd installments dragged on and were noticeably stretched.
A very long-standing complaint about The Hobbit as a book was the lack of identity for each of the dwarves. They were mostly interchangable in the books, and unrecognizable beyond Thorin. The movie attempted to give each a unique look (quite effectively, I thought) and even different weapons. Then the movie failed to 'introduce' the audience to the dwarven characters by not building a connection between a specific look and the character's name. The scene where the dwarves were running around Gandalf would have been a great opportunity to help establish this, simply by having Gandalf call the dwarf's name as they ran past. Instead, we got 'whoa there', 'look out', counting and the like; none of it helping to strengthen the book.
Generally, it takes a few associations to connect a character name with their appearance. Simple things like, 'Pass the butter, Gloin' (a direct address), with a shot of Gloin passing the butter (a reaction shot). There wasn't enough screen time, nor enough effort in the script, to clearly introduce so many characters to the audience.
This flaw isn't confined to Peter Jackson, however. Batman vs Superman was guilty of the same thing. Unless you knew the actor playing the role by sight and knew that ahead of the movie, the average viewer would never know Jimmy Olsen appeared in the movie until they saw the end credits.
To me, it was always extremely obvious that Tolkien didn't intend for each dwarf to have a distinct personality. He put a bunch of dwarves in there because it was an amusing idea - and he gave a few of them enough personality to stand out.
The Hobbit isn't some deep masterpiece - it's just a really warm and well-written fairy tale. I think that's enough to to fill out 2-3 hours of a nice movie.
However, it's not enough for a 9 hour movie - which is why the result is 6-7 hours of dreck drowning out the good parts almost entirely.
Also, it doesn't exactly do the movie any favors to completely change characters in the name of "cliché Hollywood stereotypes" - like changing Thorin from an old grumpy elitist dwarf into Aragorn the insane powerhorny dwarf.
Again, Jackson failed utterly - and he should never have approached the movie in any significant role.
I thought it was generally accepted fact that Pacific Rim was a steaming pile of turd?
Not only did I like it but it has a 71% on Rotten tomatoes. Regardless of what one thinks of reviews I don't think that constitutes a "steaming pile of turd".
This on the other hand ...
I think Rotten Tomatoes 'scores' are more than a little suspect since their recent scorings of films such as Ghostbusters 2016 and Suicide Squad, all things considered, one might even consider them laughable.
I'm a big LOTR fan. The Hobbit was one of my favorite books as a child
That part I agree with. It was one of my favorites too.
One of my fondest memories was back in grade 3 at Burquitlam Elementry in Coquitlam where my elementary school principle just after the lunch hour would read us the Hobbit, followed by LotR. He was very much a Tolkien fan and he sure made one out of me
I'd imagine he's probably gone now, cheers to Mr Kennedy
I thought it was generally accepted fact that Pacific Rim was a steaming pile of turd?
Not only did I like it but it has a 71% on Rotten tomatoes. Regardless of what one thinks of reviews I don't think that constitutes a "steaming pile of turd".
This on the other hand ...
I think Rotten Tomatoes 'scores' are more than a little suspect since their recent scorings of films such as Ghostbusters 2016 and Suicide Squad, all things considered, one might even consider them laughable.
Laughable is a bit extreme. RT aggregate review scores have value and I find that I tend to agree with them more often than not.
But you have to remember that they're just an aggregate of opinions. Actually reading some of the reviews instead of just looking at the scores is always a smarter option. Who knows, you might even get to know a critic that way who shares your likes and dislikes. If you do, bookmark his site and profit.
But their scores are not gospel, they're just a handy starting point.
Hell I never would have known just how good Mr. Robot or Preacher are if it wasn't for having my interest peaked by high RT scores.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
It had interesting robots and interesting aliens, but every other aspect of the film sucked balls. In particular, the script writer must have been autistic or something because his ability to write dialogue was shockingly bad. They had some alright actors, yet every single line of dialogue from start to finish was a nightmare.
Back on topic, like others have said, The Elder Scrolls are about the world, not the story. The stories generally suck (as do majority of computer game stories) so you'd basically have free reign to write any story within the game world.
My dream team would be as follows:
Raymond E. Feist - Get this guy to write the main story within Tamriel. His books are some of the best I've read, primarily because of the massive scope. I'd want an Elder Scrolls film to be big, so getting a writer on board who is good with large scope is crucial. Feist also has large casts of characters in all his books, rather than focusing on one or two.
Aaron Sorkin - This guy is my favourite TV and film writer (The West Wing, The Newsroom, Social Network). His speciality is high-brow, fast paced dialogue with ensemble casts. Many people love Joss Whedon for his ensemble casts but frankly, Sorkin is an order of magnitude better. So, I'd have Sorkin take Feists story and adapt it for the screen, the result of which should be a fantasy story of epic scope with amazing dialogue and characters.
Neil Blomkamp - Get this guy on board as director. His films are great and he does a great job with the whole team. He's used to working with elaborate stages, CGI etc so would be a good fit for a fantasy film.
JJ Abrams - Have JJ as producer. I wouldn't want him directing, but he now has a lot of experience with high budget films that involve a lot of CGI and stages, so I feel he'd be a good person to produce the film. He'd keep the film on track and from what I've read, he's a good person to keep around to keep peoples spirits high and keep people laughing throughout production.
Not sure who I'd have as editor. Editors often don't get much recognition but their work can make or break a film. Just need to avoid any editors who overuse shakey-cam and super-closeups.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I couldn't stand the film, Lord of the Rings the Hobbit is not.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
At least the original Dishonored has a coherent, interesting story that fits its setting in the moody, atmospheric game world perfectly.
Hopefully the coming sequel won't ruin that...
And can we forget Peter Jackson as the go-to choice for fantasy films? I don't think he did LotR lore any real favors. Bey and del Toro have had enough misses, too. About the only big name directors I would want to see handle a fantasy franchise of any nature is Josh Whedon or Kenneth Branagh. Even though I love Whedon, I feel he's better with action-oriented stories. I think Branagh might work better to give depth to quieter, more introspective stories.
But rather than a movie, I'd rather see a TV mini-series (I'm looking at you, Syfy channel) as a format for the future of SF. The mini-series format can devote 10+ hours compared to the movie's 2-3 hours, and many epic stories really need that length. My favorite approach would be the multi-season epic story, as Babylon 5 did and Game of Thrones is doing. The mini-series has the advantage of presenting the story to the audience in a shorter time-frame. (Syfy, if you're still listening, forget where you put the CGU shark models, please?)
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
This scene wasn't even in the original cut and is one of my favorites.
This on the other hand ...
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I think The Jungle Book is a great example of a children's story done right for the Big Screen.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Definitely a Blue Ray purchase for me.
p.s. I adored the cartoon version as a child
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Unless Zenimax fund it though can't see it happening. As others have said game IPs haven't done well - the reasons don't matter the impression is there. And WoW was no exception, outside of China the box office was "not good".
And given the recent downturn at the China box office ..... that would give backers pause for thought even if ES was huge in China.
TV? Its fantasy. Yes there is GoT but GRRM purposely added the magic very slowly getting people hooked with the political drama until it was "to late". Not an option for ES. So unless an Amazon say picked it up unlikely.
So will Zenimax think about funding it? Or at least approaching possible partners? Maybe this is what was behind the answers. Throw the bait out see if anyone bites.
I'm a big LOTR fan. The Hobbit was one of my favorite books as a child. I always dreamed of a LOTR and Hobbit movie as a child and Mr.Jackson made 6 of them. What you call milking I call drooling. But that's just me. I'd love to see Mr. Jackson continue making movies in the LOTR universe. I enjoyed every single minute of the Hobbit trilogy, especially the extended version. To each his own.
I'm not talking about the book, but the movies. The book doesn't have tasteless fart jokes or endless filler action. I know, because I've read it about a dozen times - and I was around 10 the first time.
Tolkien was a writer who took his audience seriously - and treated them with respect. That's why the book, which he wrote for his son, is not littered with slapstick or filler material.
Jackson, however, is a burned-out hack who should have left well enough alone - but he didn't.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
A very long-standing complaint about The Hobbit as a book was the lack of identity for each of the dwarves. They were mostly interchangable in the books, and unrecognizable beyond Thorin. The movie attempted to give each a unique look (quite effectively, I thought) and even different weapons. Then the movie failed to 'introduce' the audience to the dwarven characters by not building a connection between a specific look and the character's name. The scene where the dwarves were running around Gandalf would have been a great opportunity to help establish this, simply by having Gandalf call the dwarf's name as they ran past. Instead, we got 'whoa there', 'look out', counting and the like; none of it helping to strengthen the book.
Generally, it takes a few associations to connect a character name with their appearance. Simple things like, 'Pass the butter, Gloin' (a direct address), with a shot of Gloin passing the butter (a reaction shot). There wasn't enough screen time, nor enough effort in the script, to clearly introduce so many characters to the audience.
This flaw isn't confined to Peter Jackson, however. Batman vs Superman was guilty of the same thing. Unless you knew the actor playing the role by sight and knew that ahead of the movie, the average viewer would never know Jimmy Olsen appeared in the movie until they saw the end credits.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
The Hobbit isn't some deep masterpiece - it's just a really warm and well-written fairy tale. I think that's enough to to fill out 2-3 hours of a nice movie.
However, it's not enough for a 9 hour movie - which is why the result is 6-7 hours of dreck drowning out the good parts almost entirely.
Also, it doesn't exactly do the movie any favors to completely change characters in the name of "cliché Hollywood stereotypes" - like changing Thorin from an old grumpy elitist dwarf into Aragorn the insane powerhorny dwarf.
Again, Jackson failed utterly - and he should never have approached the movie in any significant role.
I'd imagine he's probably gone now, cheers to Mr Kennedy
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
But you have to remember that they're just an aggregate of opinions. Actually reading some of the reviews instead of just looking at the scores is always a smarter option. Who knows, you might even get to know a critic that way who shares your likes and dislikes. If you do, bookmark his site and profit.
But their scores are not gospel, they're just a handy starting point.
Hell I never would have known just how good Mr. Robot or Preacher are if it wasn't for having my interest peaked by high RT scores.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED