Return of the King

[chequita guevara]

PJ's next movie is yet another remake of King Kong. Just what the world needs.

[GePap]

You can't make enough remakes of King Kong!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
PJ's next movie is yet another remake of King Kong. Just what the world needs.

King Kong is a great film. How many other films from the early 30s are still watchable?

It'll be good anyway, all PJ's films are worth watching. If you haven't seen Meet the Feebles you ought to do so.

[aaglo]

About the king kong (made in 1933), I bought it on dvd - it cost only 5 euro. A bargain, I must say.

And for the record, the version Peter Jacson is about to make is the second remake of the original (the second one was made in the early 80's).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by aaglo

And for the record, the version Peter Jacson is about to make is the second remake of the original (the second one was made in the early 80's).

Yeah, that one really sucked. Not only was Jessica Lange in it, but King Kong was so badly done that he looked like Bungle from Rainbow.

[GePap]

Actually it was 1976, with Jeff bridges I think as the scientist, and with another famous actress who's name I don;t remember in her first role..she was in Titus, the one with Hopkins. She looked good.

I think PJ plans to set his remake in the 1930's and not today.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Arrian
I stand corrected.
Aragorn's been pretty badass in the films, but I know what you mean.

He comes across as more of a badass warrior in the movie - but a lot more reluctant to take up the mantle of kingship than in the book.

11 hours for me...Counting the minutes

[Arrian]

I agree, PJ went out of his way to make Aragorn doubt himself... which I think probably lines up with his decision to make Faramir weaker. I think PJ decided that some of Tolkein's characters were too virtuous to be believable.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

It's a prequal.

Is it? I don't know the official definition of what constitutes a prequel, but I always thought that a book can't be a prequel if it was the first book written. In my view, The Lord of the Rings is the sequel to The Hobbit, not the other way around.

IIUC Tolkien conceived and outlined LOTR first, despaired of publishing, wrote and published the Hobbit, and then turned back to LOTR. So while Hobbit WAS published before LOTR, to Tolkien Hobbit was more a of a prequel.

Situation with respect to Silmarillion is just the reverse.

[Mercator]

You got it backwards. He first started with the Silmarillion, then wrote the Hobbit, then LOTR. In order of publication though, the Silmarillion was published last (J.R.R. never completed it himself):

http://www.lord-of-the-rings.org/tolkien/chronology.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

What do you know? Harry Potter fans are not one to judge good taste.

Harry Potter fans are in PRIME position to judge good taste, since those books are the prime example of good taste .

[Arrian]

Harry Potter is all well and good, but it pales in comparison to LotR.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Mercator
You got it backwards. He first started with the Silmarillion, then wrote the Hobbit, then LOTR. In order of publication though, the Silmarillion was published last (J.R.R. never completed it himself):

http://www.lord-of-the-rings.org/tol...hronology.html

Yes he WROTE the hobbit first. But he conceived of LOTR first, which your source does not note. I beleive i saw that in Tolkiens own preface to LOTR, where he talks of putting aside the "unpublishable" LOTR to write the Hobbit, then spends the next several years writing LOTR. Indeed he had extensive notes for LOTR that were written very early, some of which were changed dramatically when he wrote LOTR - thats the basis for lots of the stuff Christopher Tolkien published after the Silm - History of middle earth, lost tales, etc.

And of course Silm was written first, but published later - thats what i meant when i said silm was the reverse. sorry if my wording was unclear.

[Q Classic]

either way, the hobbit was a great read, the lotr had a lot of good moments and some parts where it really dragged, and the sil just kinda was boring.

[Arrian]

The Simarillion is only for die hards. The first time I tried to read it, I couldn't get through it, and put it aside for about a decade. I came back to it after college and now I really like it - again, it appeals to the historian in me. It's a collection of legendary tales, not a story you follow from beginning to end like the Hobbit or LotR. I went into it the first time w/o knowning that, which is what threw me.

-Arrian