Looked up what all Peter Jackson has directed. I’ve only seen “The Frighteners” and his version of “King Kong”. “Frighteners” was a decent movie. “King Kong” was ok.

Anyone know if any of his other movies were any good? Or is he one of those “Oooh, it’s Peter Jackson, so it must be good” type Directors? (Like some other “name” Directors who are certainly capable of garbage as well as great movies.)

@Profzed
Watch the LOTR trilogy they were fantastic especially return of the king. but i wouldnt watch them until you’ve seen the hobbit trilogy which will end next year

I liked King Kong, but it’s one of those movies that you can only watch once in a while when you feel up to it.

I mean, it has a running time of three hours.

I think if Peter Jackson did direct an episode of Doctor Who, I can imagine it perhaps being a two-parter and probably very stylistic.

Films like Lord of The Rings and King Kong have a distinct look and feel to them that I can imagine he’d want to bring to Doctor Who too.

I think whatever happened though, Peter Jackson directing Doctor Who would be a massive gimmic, for better or worse, and would probably boost Steven Moffat’s ego because he could say that he got Peter Jackson to direct an episode of his era in charge.

“Lord of the Rings” was excellent, though I will note that he started running into problems of including too much as it went on and he gained more artistic control. “Fellowship of the Ring” was a lot tighter than “Return of the King”. But it’s still very much worth seeing. I haven’t seen “Hobbit” yet, even though it has Sylvester McCoy in it; I’ve heard mixed things, and the fact that they decided to make it into a trilogy has me very concerned because of “second system effect” where you jam in everything you wish you could’ve done in previous systems, resulting in a monstrosity.

He tends to lean more towards horror than fantasy, though, and is a massive Whovian; I suspect we’d get a very scary Dr Who episode from him. (How massive a Whovian? If he did direct for the fee of one Dalek, it would be just the latest entry in his collection of memorabilia. His house is jammed full of mostly horror movie memorabilia, but the story is told of the day he had Sylvester McCoy come by for dinner while they were filming “Hobbit”. He arranged it so that McCoy would surely see the prized element of his collection: the Seventh Doctor’s question-mark jumper. Not a reproduction; an actual one that McCoy had worn on the show.)

@Calli Arcale

The reason for The Hobbit being made into a trilogy was despite the book being small you couldn’t make it into one movie but definitely 2 which originally was going to be. The reason for that change from 2 to 3 was because of extra content like the White Council scene and the storyline regarding Dol Guldur and the Necromancer and I won’t spoil it if you don’t know who the Necromancer is :) but I think it just adds more to the movie and not just being about the quest of Erebor.

You totally can make the Hobbit into one movie. It’s already been done that way, and it worked fine. I’ve also seen it done as a play, twice, and both times it worked fine. You pretty much have to leave some stuff out in order to do it, though, like Radagast, and the Bolgers. Heck, just go read the Wikipedia summary; it doesn’t mention those things either. They’re really digressions, and not critical to the story.

I know what Dol Guldur is and who the Necromancer is, BTW. ;-) I appreciate you not spoiling it for those who don’t. There’s a lot of fabulous extra material that Tolkien created, and which, through his son, eventually got published. But trying to jam it all into “The Hobbit” strikes me as a bit misguided. It doesn’t have to all be in there. I would’ve preferred the “Hobbit” as one or maybe two movies, and then get into what I *really* want: a lavish TV series that would explore all the many other stories of Middle Earth. The Silmarillion, the Lost Tales, Unfinished Tales, the History of Middle Earth….there’s tons and tons of material, and I don’t think jamming it all into “The Hobbit” does it justice.

Plus, I’m still miffed he took Tom Bombadil out of “Fellowship of the Ring”. He can have the White Council when he puts Tom Bombadil back! Nyah!

@Calli Arcale
well even if you took away the white council, radagast, the scene with old bilbo and frodo which isnt in the book i still think u couldnt make it into one movie. we’d still have the scene with beorn, the spiders, mirkwood, dale, erebor, smaug and battle of 5 armies and the journey home

On the above debate about the Hobbit being 3 films and LOTR’s being 3. Someone tell me how the Hobbitt= (one book) can be made into 3 but LOTR (6 books over 3 volumes) can only be 3 films……….

@Steve
Because of the extra content that has been added in the film like as I’ve mentioned Dol Guldur/ The Necromancer and the White Council not to mention that we could see in the 3rd film how Dol Guldur fell. And as for LOTR it was always only going to be 3 there was never any talk of them following the books and took a timeline of events and spread them out in the last 2 films. Like the scene in Shelobs lair is actually in fact in the two towers. They decided just to do it like that.

@Patrick

When it’s been done as a single movie or play, Beorn generally is omitted. In the animated adaptation, we get the trolls, Rivendell, the goblins under the Misty Mountains and Gollum (obviously; that’s one of the most crucial bits), the spiders in Mirkwood, the elves, floating down the river in beer kegs, Erebor, Smaug, and the Battle of Five Armies. And it works. It *can* be done as one movie, and we know that because in fact it has. ;-)