Three Times The Hobbit?

[Inziladun]

I just saw this article (http://social.entertainment.msn.com/movies/blogs/the-hitlist-blog.aspx?feat=129be8cf-3379-4305-b96e-8abfd2d81da0) today, which states that there is apparently a desire to have The Hobbit be released as a trilogy, rather than the expected two films.

The idea is said to be to add in data from the appendices in ROTK to "bridge the narrative gap" between TH and LOTR.

As the article also states, though:

Ever since the Warner Brothers (wisely) decided to split the seventh and final "Harry Potter" film into two, stretching out the final installment of similar adaptations has become de rigueur in Hollywood. The "Twilight" gang was the first to jump on the bandwagon, eagerly splitting up "Breaking Dawn" into two films. Did the story warrant such a treatment? Hardly. But the film made $700 million worldwide, so they're not complaining.

there may be another motive to it, if it happens. Cynic that I am toward the film industry, I suspect the second quote is right as to the driving force behind the notion of a trilogy. :rolleyes:

[alatar]

I just saw this article (http://social.entertainment.msn.com/movies/blogs/the-hitlist-blog.aspx?feat=129be8cf-3379-4305-b96e-8abfd2d81da0) today, which states that there is apparently a desire to have The Hobbit be released as a trilogy, rather than the expected two films.
I could see having The Hobbit as two films, as it'd have to be one long film to get a decent story across (and shorter films make more money).

But three? :eek:

I've read the Appendices, and am not sure what's got Jackson all excited. What? The Battle of Nanduhirion? How 'bout just sticking to the story at hand?

[Kuruharan]

I too saw this story.

I reacted to it with the only two means I have at my disposal...increasing the level of despair I feel for the human race and increasing the level of hatred I feel toward Peter Jackson to levels of seething venom even I didn't know were possible.

The only way he can get three films (or for that matter two) out of The Hobbit is to make it up in his silly head...and from our experience in the LOTR trilogy it is firmly established that is what he prefers to do anyway.

[Inziladun]

I've read the Appendices, and am not sure what's got Jackson all excited. What? The Battle of Nanduhirion? How 'bout just sticking to the story at hand?

You know, I've got a radical solution for those who want to "fill in the gaps": read the books and get straight from the original author, not spoon-fed, watered down and / or unnecessarily changed.

I reacted to it with the only two means I have at my disposal...increasing the level of despair I feel for the human race and increasing the level of hatred I feel toward Peter Jackson to levels of seething venom even I didn't know were possible.

The only way he can get three films (or for that matter two) out of The Hobbit is to make it up in his silly head...and from our experience in the LOTR trilogy it is firmly established that is what he prefers to do anyway.

If PJ really was concerned with simply telling the story and enlightening moviegoers as to the great experience that is Tolkien's work, I have to seriously question why he'd allow an extra film that seems so obviously tacked on for profit.

[Galadriel55]

And I thought we've had it when PJ made that little book into two films... :rolleyes:

[alatar]

He's moreMoreMORE PJ!

"Make the Witch-King's mace preposterous sized!" :rolleyes:

[Lalwendë]

Relax. This tale was doing the rounds at Comic-Con. Jackson has already filmed more material than he needs and he has said it is really good material. He was asked about whether they would stretch it into three shorter films but he said it would be used on the DVD release to create extended editions.

To go back and film whole new chunks from the Appendices would require re-hiring people, not least actors with other commitments, all over again and getting the filming infrastructure set up again.

It's possible that some media outlets are keeping the story alive in order to see what the reception for such a film might be, but hopefully, it's just that some of them haven't properly caught up with the geek news from Comic-Con. I'm a bit tired with this stretching of material which might already be weak. The final Harry Potter novel could take it as they are books generally packed with incident and detail. In fact I wish some of the other books had been divided between two films. However The Hunger Games novels cannot handle it, and as for Breaking Dawn, the only splitting that should have happened to that book was to rip it into little pieces and bury it (I thought the Twilight books were enjoyable teen escapism until that one, which was like really bad fan fiction).

[Inziladun]

It's possible that some media outlets are keeping the story alive in order to see what the reception for such a film might be, but hopefully, it's just that some of them haven't properly caught up with the geek news from Comic-Con.

If that's the case, and it is all just hot air, I only hope this forum ends up being one of the places checked for "reception". ;)

[alatar]

Relax. This tale was doing the rounds at Comic-Con. Jackson has already filmed more material than he needs and he has said it is really good material. He was asked about whether they would stretch it into three shorter films but he said it would be used on the DVD release to create extended editions.
Ah come on...I need something to keep the criticism fire burning until I actually see the movie(s). ;)

[Morthoron]

Drat! And I had the perfect title...

THE HOBBIT III: MILKING THE FRANCHISE

[Kuruharan]

Ah come on...I need something to keep the criticism fire burning until I actually see the movie(s).

Try rewatching the original film trilogy...

[Bêthberry]

Any word on when he's going to use Tom Bombadil and Goldberry?

[Kuruharan]

Who? ;)

[Lalwendë]

If that's the case, and it is all just hot air, I only hope this forum ends up being one of the places checked for "reception". ;)

It's likely. Almost all Government policy is 'leaked' or issued in advance ramped up so that they can gauge public perception and/or then actually do something slightly milder (but still rubbish and nasty) - it's called Managing Expectation.

Oh I'm a cynic. But it's true.

Ah come on...I need something to keep the criticism fire burning until I actually see the movie(s).

I know. The moaning and the criticism and worry is part of the fun. We'll all still go and see it, no matter what. It reminds me of us Brits moaning about the Olympics. We enjoy the moaning and if we grudgingly say about the ceremonies and games "Yeah, was alright I s'pose" then that's generous heaps of praise ;)

[Bêthberry]

It reminds me of us Brits moaning about the Olympics. We enjoy the moaning and if we grudgingly say about the ceremonies and games "Yeah, was alright I s'pose" then that's generous heaps of praise ;)

yes, I noticed that a certain visiting American stoked this British reserve. ;)

And speaking of Olympics, do you folks know that the Return of the Ring conference is having a dwarf tossing competition? Yes, with knitted dwarves. :D

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

He wants money. I'm able to understand two movies, though I don't like it, and I don't like having to wait for two-part movies, but I get it. A trilogy for the Hobbit, though?

Jackson's being a money-grubbing greedy @$$hole.

[Lalwendë]

yes, I noticed that a certain visiting American stoked this British reserve. ;)

And speaking of Olympics, do you folks know that the Return of the Ring conference is having a dwarf tossing competition? Yes, with knitted dwarves. :D

I am expecting something similar in an hour on BBC1. Danny Boyle has built Hobbiton as London's newest urban farm in the middle of the stadium, complete with sheep, cows, geese, bees and a shire horse. There are even some wee Samwises wandering about.

Just hoping the BBC actually show this unlike the unwatchable fiasco that was the Jubilee river pageant that was just a parade of rubbish presenters and celebrities. Speaking of money grabbing celebrity.....



P.S. That was epic. Don't miss it.

[alatar]

And speaking of Olympics,
Caught a glimpse of the opening ceremonies. Though this 'Merican doesn't understand the British obsession with the stovepipe-hatted Abraham Lincoln (vampire hunter though he may have been), I did like that, in the end of that one sequence, the One Ring is forged...at least that's what I saw. ;)

[Coppermirror]

I'm glad to hear that the three films rumour is fake. Three films for The Hobbit would be over the top, much as I like The Hobbit.

[Boromir88]

Unfortunately, Coppermirror, it is no longer fake. Jackson's announced on his facebook page, confirming a 3rd Hobbit film:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/an-unexpected-journey/10151114596546558

[Inziladun]

Unfortunately, Coppermirror, it is no longer fake. Jackson's announced on his facebook page, confirming a 3rd Hobbit film:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/an-unexpected-journey/10151114596546558

In that case, I reiterate everything I said before.

We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.


Or if "the full story" is insufficient to pad three full films, you'll just make it up as you go, no doubt. Thanks anyway. I'll stick with the books.

[Lalwendë]

Caught a glimpse of the opening ceremonies. Though this 'Merican doesn't understand the British obsession with the stovepipe-hatted Abraham Lincoln (vampire hunter though he may have been), I did like that, in the end of that one sequence, the One Ring is forged...at least that's what I saw. ;)

Tch. That was Isambard Kingdom Brunel :D

It looks like I am wrong about the third film. However, I am quite pleased. :p

[Kuruharan]

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=746962

The line in this that really gets me is:

"there was more story to tell than could be contained in the originally planned two films"

I assume this must translate to, "I threw out almost all of the original material (because let's face it, Tolkien was a horrible writer and he wasn't PJ) and made up as much junk as I possibly could to service and worship my own ego (PJ be praised!) because...I mean gosh, who else but me could deserve this much mone...I mean adoration!!!! Next week, I shall announce that for no other reason than to service and worship my own ego (PJ be praised!) the trilogy will be doubled! Huzzah!!!!!"

[Nogrod]

My first worry is this though: they have wrapped filming and realised they had moore footage they could fit in two films... then one night after too much wine and in frenzy after looking at required cutting-choices they thought, goddammit, let's make three films with this material! All is required is a speedy re-cut for film one, and then they have time to make tricks to make the two latter films to work... maybe a few additional shoots then next year?

But OMG what will the quality of that sudden remodelling of a two-part movie turned into a trilogy be? I'm not too optimistic... (especailly when it is a PJ movie :rolleyes:)

[Bêthberry]

Caught a glimpse of the opening ceremonies. Though this 'Merican doesn't understand the British obsession with the stovepipe-hatted Abraham Lincoln (vampire hunter though he may have been), I did like that, in the end of that one sequence, the One Ring is forged...at least that's what I saw. ;)

I find it quite funny that most fans immediately read a Tolkien context into much of the ceremonies, but I've also read non-Tolkien fans ask why there wasn't any recognition of Tolkien. :D

[alatar]

It's simple math:

LotR is three books (or one very long one), and yet with three long films, PJ found the need to insert PJisms to...what? Increase everyone's love of the author's work, make the story more understandable, scare the audience, tick off the fan base, prolong the agony? Go rewatch the scenes like Aragorn falling off the cliff, Gollum falling off the cliff, Denethor diving off a cliff, the need to have the sewers of Osgiliath, the bad bouncing scene...:rolleyes:
3 Tolkien books = 3 PJ movies + filler
The Hobbit is one smaller book, was written more with children in mind, and yet from this material we're going to have three even average length films? :eek: How many Dwarves will need to fall off cliffs in this trilogy?
1 Tolkien book = 3 PJ movies + ?

[Coppermirror]

Oh well, it'll at least be interesting to see the extra footage without having to get special extended edition DVDs. I am a bit concerned that The Hobbit won't suit the three long films format, but I suppose we'll have to wait and see how it turns out. It ought to have quite a different feel to it from the Lord of the Rings.

[Morthoron]

I'm going to wait till it comes on cable. That way, I have a bathroom nearby to vomit in. The wife would be upset if I threw up on the Persian rug.

[Nerwen]

My first worry is this though: they have wrapped filming and realised they had moore footage they could fit in two films... then one night after too much wine and in frenzy after looking at required cutting-choices they thought, goddammit, let's make three films with this material! All is required is a speedy re-cut for film one, and then they have time to make tricks to make the two latter films to work... maybe a few additional shoots then next year?

But OMG what will the quality of that sudden remodelling of a two-part movie turned into a trilogy be? I'm not too optimistic...

Yes– it's awfully, awfully late in the day for them to be making such a radical change, isn't it? Not that it's the first time P.J. & Co have given the impression they're not quite sure what they're actually trying to do with "The Hobbit". *sigh*

[Kuruharan]

How many Dwarves will need to fall off cliffs in this trilogy?


Stop it, alatar! You are going to give me nightmares! ;)

Yes– it's awfully, awfully late in the day for them to be making such a radical change, isn't it? Not that it's the first time P.J. & Co have given the impression they're not quite sure what they're actually trying to do with "The Hobbit". *sigh*

Sadly, I suspect they know exactly what they are trying to do, milk as much money out of this as possible. What I think they are unclear about is the best means to get the milk out of the cow, because obviously something faithful to the text and spirit of Tolkien's original writing is not up to the task.

[Kitanna]

Three movies isn't necessary. Too bad they're going to milk it like this. Two movies made sense, three is overkill. I'm still excited about The Hobbit movies, though. I won't go into them expecting to see a true, accurate adaptation of the book. I will be going in expecting to see a well-done, visually appealing movie with some of the best music a movie has ever been blessed with.

[Boromir88]

Basically, I think Jackson has lost all sense of restraint, which was originally one thing I admired in the making of the 3 films. By restraint I mean the "We can't shoot LOTR line by line attitude." What happened to this attitude for The Hobbit films? Oh right, Hollywood sees big-time cash.

I mean if the Deathly Hallows can be split into 2-films, then surely we can take such a large and expansive story as The Hobbit and make it 3! Take that Potter!

[Forlong the Fat]

I will reserve judgment about whether it's overkill until I see the movies.

I don't really understand the attitude most are expressing, though. Personally, I enjoyed the LOTR movies a lot, though they of course had their flaws. I fully expect that I will enjoy these, but disagree with some of the choices and additions. Three movies give me 33% more to enjoy.

Will they replace the book? Of course not. But I will look forward to them more than I will look forward to another movie featuring an intimate portrayal of the unfortunate choices of homosexual Muslim beekeepers.

[Inziladun]

I don't really understand the attitude most are expressing, though. Personally, I enjoyed the LOTR movies a lot, though they of course had their flaws. I fully expect that I will enjoy these, but disagree with some of the choices and additions. Three movies give me 33% more to enjoy.

Here's my issue with PJ and his movies in a nutshell. Tolkien's works mean more to be than any other fiction books I've read, and that's saying a lot. Since I put the books on a pedestal, I don't like seeing them treated like the standard printed dross when it comes to movie adaptations. I expect a superior, faithful live-action adaptation, if one is to be made. Now, I don't think it's possible to fully capture the spirit and other chimerical qualities on film that make the book so special, so PJ had nothing to offer me to start with. Now he's proving that he cares nothing for pleasing the irascible, vocal, book-centered folks like me, and that's fine. I don't need him or his movies.

[Mithalwen]

Greedy is the word that springs to mind

Self indulgent to the point of incontinenceis the phrase. It is a short children's book. It should have been a sunday afternoon tv serial or a romp of a single film.

[Kitanna]

Greedy is the word that springs to mind

Self indulgent to the point of incontinenceis the phrase. It is a short children's book. It should have been a sunday afternoon tv serial or a romp of a single film.

I'd have shelved my love of Tolkien and put aliens into Middle-Earth if it kept me from my crushing debt. PJ made FOTR accessible to me when I was 14. I fell in love with Middle-earth thanks to him. Either see the movie or don't. At least reserve some judgement for when it actually comes out. /rant

[Inziladun]

PJ made FOTR accessible to me when I was 14. I fell in love with Middle-earth thanks to him.

I can certainly see how one in your situation would view the matter quite differently.
For that matter, there are obviously those who have known and loved the books far longer than I, and yet enjoy the movies. I don't disparage them. A fundamental aspect of my criticism though, is that I'm just not much of a movie fan to begin with. People are always discussing the hot film of the day in front of me, asking my opinion, then acting astounded when I say I haven't seen it. I can take movies or leave them, and the latter is usually the course of action.

Either see the movie or don't. At least reserve some judgement for when it actually comes out. /rant

Where's the fun in that? ;)
I really don't mean I won't ever see it, but it's going to have to be from a borrowed copy or something. I will not pay for it.

[Boromir88]

I'd have shelved my love of Tolkien and put aliens into Middle-Earth if it kept me from my crushing debt. PJ made FOTR accessible to me when I was 14. I fell in love with Middle-earth thanks to him. Either see the movie or don't. At least reserve some judgement for when it actually comes out. /rant

Well, really, what's the reason to not call this 3rd film what it is? It's to milk a cash cow for all it's work, or at least, it's hard not to see it as such. PJ stretching The Hobbit out like this, "for the story" or "for art" really starts going out the window when there actually isn't enough for 2 movies (until you include the White Council and Dol Guldur)...now they want to take it further?

And from the statements released, The Hobbit story will comprise all 3 films, there won't be a "bridge" film. There can't be a bridge film, because all the additional info PJ wants to use from the Appendices, there is no plot, no singular story; just scattered bits of extra background information.

[Forlong the Fat]

Here's my issue with PJ and his movies in a nutshell. Tolkien's works mean more to be than any other fiction books I've read, and that's saying a lot. Since I put the books on a pedestal, I don't like seeing them treated like the standard printed dross when it comes to movie adaptations. I expect a superior, faithful live-action adaptation, if one is to be made. Now, I don't think it's possible to fully capture the spirit and other chimerical qualities on film that make the book so special, so PJ had nothing to offer me to start with. Now he's proving that he cares nothing for pleasing the irascible, vocal, book-centered folks like me, and that's fine. I don't need him or his movies.

This is all subjective, of course, but I just don't view one as supplanting the other. If PJ made god-awful terrible movies out of the books, I would view them as terrible movies, but that would relate only slightly to what I think about the books. I'm glad I can have both. And if someone would make a Game of Thrones style series out of the books, I'd gladly watch that as well.

[Mumriken]

The only reason I'd like to watch these movies are because of the following:

-Best special effects
-Great music
-Ian mckellen
-Mikael Persbrandt
-Budget

I doubt they will be deep great interesting beautiful movies. They will be shallow holywood summer blockbusters. If you would like to have faithful adaptions of the lord of the rings and hobbit book you'd have to create the movies outside holywood.

I think someone like Ingmar Bergman or Akira Kurosawa would be able to that. Akira would handle all the action scenes and character dynamics/personalities. Bergman would concentrate on the camera angles and story/cutting the story together. Writing the script etc...with Allan Lee doing the designs for the movie. Sadly two of the three are dead...

Peter Jackson is quite a crappy director I have to say...what made the lord of the rings so great were:

Weta digital
Howard shore

EDIT: You watch the movies maybe two times in your life...one time in the cinemas and one time by downloading it and check it out when you're bored...or you watch some shorts on youtube. They're not that great...just like Avatar wasn't that great. Soo much hype around these movies...

[Bêthberry]

None of the Tolkien trilogy movies made any of the lists of "Ten Greatest Movies" of the last decade.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Film critic Andrew O'Hehir of Salon.com weighs in:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/31/peter_jacksons_hobbit_trilogy_terrible_idea_or_gee k_opium/

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

As most informed persons know, Tolkien re-wrote sections of The Hobbit -- especially the "Riddles in the Dark" chapter -- so as to make the earlier book conform to the Lord of the Rings as it developed later. So Peter Jackson certainly has grounds for thinking that Tolkien wanted the two works to seamlessly merge into the larger mythology of Middle Earth. Still, everything hinges on preventing the inclusion of so much background history -- especially Gandalf's geopolitical grand strategy vis-a-vis Sauron -- from submerging and marginalizing the individual story of Bilbo Baggins, "the" hobbit. Another danger lies in the temptation to prevent this marginalization by making Bilbo Baggins more significant to the larger story than his natural character and essential innocence will bear. Creative opportunities exist, certainly, but just as many for bloated, commercial disaster as for refined enhancement of an already good and sufficient story.

I have other hopes and fears, but these will do for the present.

[Mithalwen]

I'd have shelved my love of Tolkien and put aliens into Middle-Earth if it kept me from my crushing debt. PJ made FOTR accessible to me when I was 14. I fell in love with Middle-earth thanks to him. Either see the movie or don't. At least reserve some judgement for when it actually comes out. /rant

i fell in love with Middle Earth thanks to Bernard Cribbens reading the hobbit in five short instalments. One voice in an hour or two. This seems like overkill. If I were vto go it would be to take my godson but I can not imagine it will hold his attention span over o long.

For me Jackson demeans my favourite books. first the rings then the lovely bones. If he gets his hands on film rights to The Snow Child I may have to form a posse.

apogies for typos using kindle as puter jiggered and this is in about threepoint type

[Mithalwen]

Oh and i dont see why the sceptics must reserve judgement while the if jackson does it of course it must be wonderful crew are not. if there is to be a moratorium it should be across the board!

[Kuruharan]

Film critic Andrew O'Hehir of Salon.com weighs in:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/31/peter_jacksons_hobbit_trilogy_terrible_idea_or_gee k_opium/

I love this line from that story...

It sounds a bit – just a bit, mind you – like a case of someone who has held the Ring in his hands and now wants it back.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Profit over quality - you'll hardly see a clearer example. I was very interested to see Del Toro's Hobbit; my enthusiasm waned somewhat when Jackson was brought back in; and it really dropped when they decided they were going to split it into two separate films.

Now this. Fantastic. I'll no doubt borrow the DVDs a few years from now and complain about them on here.

[Lalwendë]

EDIT: You watch the movies maybe two times in your life...one time in the cinemas and one time by downloading it and check it out when you're bored...or you watch some shorts on youtube. They're not that great...just like Avatar wasn't that great. Soo much hype around these movies...

Hmmm, I went to see all the films at least twice at the cinema, and have the 'plain' and the extended versions on DVD. I've probably seen each film a couple of dozen times. I enjoy them more than I hate them - I simply treat them as films, and I don't watch films for Art, I watch for Fun. Speaking as someone with a thirty year history of being a Tolkien nut. Who has read all of the books (including the Histories and just about any essay about Tolkien laid down on paper) more times than is good for me. I don't get the impression that Tolkien Society members get especially aereated about the films either, and you always see old timers happily wandering about in film inspired costumes at Oxonmoot etc.

I think if the criticism centres around the making of more cash (which is entirely valid a criticism) then we should look at Tolkien fandom as a whole, which I've had my eyes opened to as being a massive cash cow. After collecting probably 30-40 different editions of the books I twigged that the reason the publishers seem to release a new edition every 18 months is because of sad saps like me ("Ooooh, it has a new cover!"). And that's before I even get into things like Tolkien Studies which always retails at about £5,000 per edition. Jackson isn't any more greedy than the publishers. But...there's no going back now. It will be a rip roaring success, just as much as a new edition with one new illustration is.

[Boromir88]

I knew HP was going to try to one-up The Hobbit! :p

http://www.theonion.com/video/final-minutes-of-last-harry-potter-movie-to-be-spl,20528/

Boom! Ball is back in your court now Mr. Jackson. :D

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Sounds like "Final" Destination 6 to me. You've just got to love that "finality" thing, formerly known as "ending."

"Glad to have you with me, Samwise Gamgee, here at the continuation of all things."

[Mumriken]

The triology isn't bad...but it's not really good either. I really enjoyed the small hints of the history of middle earth we get to see. The whole Balrog scene was handled beautifully, I also really liked the black riders chasing Eowyn. Or like 10 seconds of that chase maybe...the ents marching against Isengard for like 10 seconds was also quite amazingly done. Of course all the props and the look of it all was great, but most of the scenes and script/camera work were badly handled. Most of it's just action and battle...I watched them like 5 years ago and recently watched them again and they are starting to look dated in terms of special effects and when the special effects aren't shining...one sees much clearer what a overrated piece of work it is. (As a movie)

[Galadriel55]

I used to think that despite all my complaining I would still be running to the movie theatres when TH comes out, and would, despite all the plot and character changes, enjoy the film, least of all because of the music and scenery.

Now I think I would join Inzil in passing the movie theatre hype and all that. I mean, I still haven't watched the latest Harry Potter. I'll survive the Hobbit hype. Maybe possibly potentially perhaps I'll get it at the library in another couple years...

Except that I would be bugged every day by hearing all those Downers who have seen the movie discuss it...

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Now I think I would join Inzil in passing the movie theatre hype and all that. I mean, I still haven't watched the latest Harry Potter. I'll survive the Hobbit hype. Maybe possibly potentially perhaps I'll get it at the library in another couple years...

I've become a right grouch when it comes to film adaptations. Thought the Harry Potter films were severely lacking in any sort of spark. Wouldn't bother watching Game of Thrones if it was up to me (although since the DVDs are in my house I'll no doubt have to see them sooner or later). And though I did enjoy them when they first came out, I can't really imagine sitting down and watching the LotR films again.

I do still love the soundtrack, though.

[Mithalwen]

Oh I liked the soundtrack in the cinema but I don't think it transfers well to a domestic setting. To me it sounds well, soupy but not in a good way. But then I feel that about the films in general that it doesn't work on TV. I have only managed to sit through FOTR in its entirety more than once continuously. ~I just get bored and annoyed to the point that washing up looks more fun and if you knesw what a slattern I am...

[Mumriken]

I really liked this scene, especially if you contrast it with our current society. I'd love to see ents just walk into our suburbs and cities and just rid the world of all the filth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=FL7iNOLPoUQq9vRlUzytuS8g&v=opykS-JrXhc (Not in a hippie way)

[Glorthelion]

I know I'm certainly saying some Tolkien blasphemy, but I think it is an interesting idea to have the hobbit divided into 3 parts, instead of just one whole movie. Some source said they would include some material from the appendices. I consider that interesting. Taking a look the last book of some teenage fiction books are being divided into 2 parts like HG, HP, and Twilight. I know I'm the black sheep here but it's just my opinion.

[Inziladun]

I know I'm certainly saying some Tolkien blasphemy, but I think it is an interesting idea to have the hobbit divided into 3 parts, instead of just one whole movie. Some source said they would include some material from the appendices. I consider that interesting. Taking a look the last book of some teenage fiction books are being divided into 2 parts like HG, HP, and Twilight. I know I'm the black sheep here but it's just my opinion.

No "blasphemy". You've got your own view, that's all.

The article I referenced makes a connection between PJ's decision and the recent trend in cinema to divide adaptations of single books into multiple movies.

My question for PJ is this: would three movies be necessary if he didn't put in bits that aren't in the book? (*cough*, Tauriel)

[Bêthberry]

I'm still holding out for Tom and Goldberry, but I'm not holding my breath.

[skip spence]

As a principle I don't mind there being three films with lots of original plotting and characters, as opposed to more straight-forward adaptation that follows closely to the narrative in the book. I mean, I've already read the book and know what's in it, and prefer going to theatre not knowing exactly how every event will play out.
You may see it as a very ambitious and extremely well-funded fan-fiction project. They are going to make up a lot of new stuff based on snippets or out of thin air. That's how it was always going to be, with three films or not, and I don't see anything inherently bad in that. It may be bad, but not necessarily so. You know, like that old poster Sauron something always said, a big-budget (Hollywood) film is something altogether different to a book, like it or not.

Hopefully I will be positively surprised. At least in a technical sense I expect improvements. More than ten years have passed since FOTR came out, and the SFX people surely have learnt a few new fancy tricks. Not so hopeful when it comes to the scripting and story-telling, which is all the more important. And with three films, what will be the climax of each? One should think that defeating the dragon is a fabulous end to a film. But you can you end the second film with that, and then directly go to the aftermath with the battle of five armies as the grand finale? Will the first end with Sauron defeated in Dol Guldur? And what appendices material will get most screen-time? Well, I'm actually pretty curious to find out. If the first instalment turns out crap, I'd probably sit out the rest. But let us at least wait until we see it before we trash it, eh?

[alatar]

I mean, I still haven't watched the latest Harry Potter.Potter wins. :p

You may see it as a very ambitious and extremely well-funded fan-fiction project. They are going to make up a lot of new stuff based on snippets or out of thin air. That's how it was always going to be, with three films or not, and I don't see anything inherently bad in that. It may be bad, but not necessarily so. You know, like that old poster Sauron something always said, a big-budget (Hollywood) film is something altogether different to a book, like it or not.
Great point of view.

The Star Wars prequels had tons of money to use/throw at the entire project, and yet the story falls flat. Hopefully any new 'Hobbit' material, regardless of source, will tell an even better story than what we find in the book's pages.

[Mumriken]

I'm still holding out for Tom and Goldberry, but I'm not holding my breath.
Peter would never be able to give the characters justice. Goldberry and Tom doesn't belong in a action movie, in order to give them and much of the interesting non action parts of middle earth justice one would need another director. I have always wondered what a Ingmar Bergman movie would look like if it had a proper budget and the technology of today backing it up. Imagine the scene when the knight is talking to death but with today's CGI and colour grading etc...it would be quite incredible...

[Kuruharan]

I have something of an issue with the idea that it is "ok" for Jackson to be making a glorified bit of fan fiction with all kinds of original characters and events. My problem is Tolkien's name will be attached to it. Jackson is taking his own characters and ideas and then attaching the name of Tolkien to them when Tolkien didn't have anything to do with it. I consider this worse than normal fan fiction because most fan fic authors have the honesty and humility to not pass their work off as some kind of representation of what Tolkien wrote. Jackson is trying to do this.

If Jackson wants to do his own fantasy series, by all means, more power to him, let him do it! But, the catch with that is he would have to put his own name on it and the odds are Peter Jackson's Mayor of the Foozles is not going to attract the attention, the respect and most importantly the revenue of J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. These movies are not just a glorified piece of fan fiction. He is claiming the mantle of Tolkien in order to make himself buckets and buckets of money because he knows nothing that could come out of his own brain could be nearly as successful. Maddeningly he is trashing Tolkien's stories in the process. Jackson would be nothing without Tolkien. Most likely comparatively few people in the world would have heard of him as I am firmly convinced he is only a middling storyteller, at best, on his own.

I don't have a problem in the world with someone trying to make something of themselves (I will admit to a certain level of unhappiness that he did it by virtue of pulling himself up by Tolkien's bootstraps). However, I do have serious problems with the grandiose levels of greed, cynicism and outright and blatant manipulation in which Jackson is currently indulging himself. I find it disgusting and revolting.

[Zigûr]

He is claiming the mantle of Tolkien in order to make himself buckets and buckets of money because he knows nothing that could come out of his own brain could be nearly as successful. Maddeningly he is trashing Tolkien's stories in the process. Jackson would be nothing without Tolkien.
While these are quite strong terms they do reflect some of my own frustrations, mostly with the incredible hysteria which surrounds the films. It is almost as if at some point Professor Tolkien became the background figure while Peter Jackson is the "genius bringing Middle-earth to life" or what have you. I feel like more praise is owed to the Professor; it is as if the filmmakers have snatched his life's work out of his hands and run off with it to gather all the kudos while he gets left behind. Yes, the films were very successful, but at the end of the day it's Professor Tolkien who should be praised moreso than them. I don't know if this is the case, but I really hope that Jackson and co regularly express their gratitude to Professor Tolkien for being the origin of their success.

[Bêthberry]

My problem is Tolkien's name will be attached to it. Jackson is taking his own characters and ideas and then attaching the name of Tolkien to them when Tolkien didn't have anything to do with it. I consider this worse than normal fan fiction because most fan fic authors have the honesty and humility to not pass their work off as some kind of representation of what Tolkien wrote. Jackson is trying to do this.

Sadly, Kuru, I'm not sure this time they are acknowledging Tolkien at all. The poster that was released for Comic Con 2012 says that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is "from the director of the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy. But it doesn't any where mention the name Tolkien. :eek: :( :rolleyes: (I don't think I've ever used three smilies in a row here on the Downs.)

Hobbit movie poster (http://screencrush.com/comic-con-poster-the-hobbit/)

[Kuruharan]

I don't know if this is the case, but I really hope that Jackson and co regularly express their gratitude to Professor Tolkien for being the origin of their success.

I certainly agree with you in spirit. However, I fear I am so jaded that I would probably think they were just saying the politically correct thing rather than having actual respect for Tolkien's works.

To me, the best way for them to show respect for Tolkien is make a movie that reflects what Tolkien wrote.

Alas, Bethberry's point is relevant to this very issue.

Sadly, Kuru, I'm not sure this time they are acknowledging Tolkien at all.

[Snowdog]

Sadly, its what its come down to. The original is swamped in the movie and gaming hype. One can't talk Tolkien books without someone bringing the movies or even that games into it. The movies killed the Tolkien story legacy, and now is only a cult following. As for myself, I'm not even interested in these so-called Hobbit movies. PJ the usurper is using The Hobbit to pad his coffers, an the PJ movie worshippers are loving him for it. Me, I'll likelywatch the movies at some point, but I'm not getting sucked into the hype that got me interested in the Fellowship. I'm with Christopher on this one (http://sedulia.blogs.com/sedulias_translations/2012/07/was-first-felt.html).

[Lalwendë]

Sadly, its what its come down to. The original is swamped in the movie and gaming hype. One can't talk Tolkien books without someone bringing the movies or even that games into it. The movies killed the Tolkien story legacy, and now is only a cult following.

I'd like to see stats on how membership of sites like this took off following the films, and I suspect it would have boomed. And I don't know of any members here who first came to Tolkien via the films who disregard Tolkien's writing, quite the opposite! And in the UK, one unexpected bonus has also been the boom in SF literature, TV and film. The films may have made SF 'cool' or it may be that media types realised that the geek market was huge and hungry for more fun, but I strongly suspect that we'd have been without the Doctor Who revival or series like Being Human and Life On Mars without that sea-change.

I think Tolkien's writing is more than strong enough to weather any mere film ;)

[Mithalwen]

I don't know.. maybe the ones who come here are the ones who might have found the books anyway - it is often forgotten that LOTR was the book of the century by popular vote before the films came out by those who seem to think Tolkien owes Jackson (seriously how many wnent to FOTR because they were mad about Heavenly Creatures compared to those because they were Tolkien fans?). The Hobbit is according to an article I kept but never got round to posting one of the handful of books all booksellers have permanently in stock and have had since it's publication.

I have met several people who have told me that they love Lord of the Rings and then said of course they haven't read the books... :( And everytime they say that an elf dies.....

[Lalwendë]

I doubt anyone would have gone to see FotR on the back of Heavenly Creatures, the audience is very different! I should imagine that many went because they wanted to see whether Jackson had managed to 'film the unfilmable'. But before the films came out there was an acknowledgement that they would have to secure the Tolkien fans' buy in if the films were to be a success.

Fan buy-in is always a known factor with this kind of film. And why these types of films which come on the back of a book with a massive cult following are incredibly hard to make. Look at the various films of Alan Moore's work (he famously refuses to have anything to do with them, he takes the Chris T approach!) - Watchmen secured the fans' approval and was a success, whereas The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was not, despite being a decent film if you were not already a fan of the comic book.

Then you also get the kinds of fans who will go and see them whether they are keen or not, it's just something they need to appraise for themselves. I'll go and see them even if they are bad films (and I think they will be very enjoyable, so I don't have that worry), just as I lap up Doctor Who even though I'm really not very keen on what Moffat is doing with it - it's just that I prefer RTD's work, much as I prefer the books to the films.

As for people who have only seen the films and think they speak with authority, that's just an ideal chance for me to spread the gospel :D

[Ninde Lossehelin]

I love the trilogy and can't wait for the Hobbit come december... I hope to read the whole entire trilogy very soon

[Bêthberry]

I love the trilogy and can't wait for the Hobbit come december... I hope to read the whole entire trilogy very soon

I hope you are referring to the "trilogy" of the three books of the Lord of the Rings, as The Hobbit exists in book form as only one book, despite what Peter Jackson may be doing.

But be that as it may, I welcome you to the Downs. If you are seriously in need of Tolkien discussion, this be the place to come! Enjoy being dead.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I have met several people who have told me that they love Lord of the Rings and then said of course they haven't read the books... And everytime they say that an elf dies.....

I was introduced to a friend of a friend once, like so: "Come and meet ______, he's a LotR fan too!"

So obviously I said "Hey man! Nice to meet you. So, did Balrogs have wings?" *slight chuckle*

"What's a Balrog?"

:(:(:(

[Alcidas]

I'd like to see stats on how membership of sites like this took off following the films, and I suspect it would have boomed. And I don't know of any members here who first came to Tolkien via the films who disregard Tolkien's writing, quite the opposite! And in the UK, one unexpected bonus has also been the boom in SF literature, TV and film. The films may have made SF 'cool' or it may be that media types realised that the geek market was huge and hungry for more fun, but I strongly suspect that we'd have been without the Doctor Who revival or series like Being Human and Life On Mars without that sea-change.

I think Tolkien's writing is more than strong enough to weather any mere film ;)

Very good point. I have been "into" the fantasy genre from the time I first started collecting Conan the Barbarian comics in the 1970s. In the 1980s and 90s, fantasy was not widely popular, and you did not have the kind of large-scale interest in it that there is nowadays. I think the LOTR trilogy did increase interest in the fantasy genre. Yes, there are problems with the films, but they are certainly of better quality than most other fantasy films out there.

[Kuruharan]

Yes, there are problems with the films, but they are certainly of better quality than most other fantasy films out there.

In my view, this is more of a sad indictment of the fantasy film genre than anything else.

[Lalwendë]

Very good point. I have been "into" the fantasy genre from the time I first started collecting Conan the Barbarian comics in the 1970s. In the 1980s and 90s, fantasy was not widely popular, and you did not have the kind of large-scale interest in it that there is nowadays. I think the LOTR trilogy did increase interest in the fantasy genre. Yes, there are problems with the films, but they are certainly of better quality than most other fantasy films out there.

I always think of the period between the end of the 70s and 2000 as the Dark Ages of Fantasy, because it was seen as deeply uncool to the point of ridicule to be a fantasy fan (even though lots of us still were). There's something to be said for being non-mainstream, but it went beyond that during that period. And aside from rare examples, the films that were made during that period were also bad.

I almost feel like an old geek veteran with me war wounds having weathered being a Tolkien fan all through those dark years. :D

[Mumriken]

Yeah Fantasy in general was popularized with the coming of the internet. It's not geeky to be a fan of fiction. That is just stupid, just like people say it's geeky to be steve jobs or geeky to be an author or geeky to be an artist or a scientist. The geek label has been put on smart people by dumb people...as we all know there are more dumb people than smart people in this world. It's quite likely that some of you reading this reply are above average when it comes to intelligence in your neighborhood.

I think the internet should be a like puttin on a piece of classical music, you start it up and voila you're in the company of sophisticated artists and then one could exchange information and improve the world. However this might actually happen if the people who currently use the internet keep using it as much as they do now into their 70s 80s. I'm very curious what the internet will look like when the people who are young today use it when they're old. Like if I ever get a child there is no way I'd allow him/her to use it freely. I think adults today don't really understand the internet...with time it will probably change.

Sorry off topic.:)

[Boromir88]

There is off topic and then there is egregiously off topic. Simply saying "Sorry off topic" is not a reason to go on a ramble and make an off topic post. Especially, since there are many religious members who use this site and probably don't like being lumped in with people you believe should not be on the internet.

[skip spence]

Even if the internet has recognized fiction and people who like fiction to be the greatest and most creative people in our society. Sadly even the stupid people have now gained access to the internet. The internet was predicted to be a place of high culture, but no it's not. I actuall think one should introduce some kind of license for people that want to use the internet. You can be anonymouse but some way to make sure you're not a complete retard. Like for example I'd be very happy if these people could take a break from the internet:

-Pedophiles
-Religious people
-People who dress up and pretend they are animals
-People who dress up as their favorite characters in manga comic books
-People who watch sports
-People who listen to rap, pop, punk all that stuff
-People who are "nerdy" or "geeky" in a stupid way. (Watching manga porn, or posting bad drawings of their imaginary characters etc.
-People who have blogs...


You seem awfully sure you'd pass that retard-filter yourself. To be honest, if we'd come to that there are many who'd call for the inclusion of this category too, I wager:

-People who think they are better than other people without any discernible justification.

Really, are you serious? :eek:

[Mumriken]

I don't think I'm better than anyone else, I just recognize high culture while many don't. I'd pass for sure, since I actually enjoy much of what one would put in the "high culture" category. There would be a place for serious discussion on Tolkien that is for sure. But all these fans that dress up as the characters and like pulls Tolkien's work down with all the people who dress up as pokemon and who knows what else. Well the best way to kill off this sillyness is to simply ban it. I'm for some degree of control on the internet.

Just like I'd be for banning all unhealthy food in the supermarkets...however it's in human nature to enjoy unhealthy food...I don't know I just think there has to be some way to simply tame the human condition. You know slap some of your people in the face a bit?:smokin: The internet is anarchy, we need to introduce some order on here. Start by banning religious people and pedophiles ;)

[alatar]

Someone perhaps dressing up like a troll, hmmm? ;)

[Inziladun]

Someone perhaps dressing up like a troll, hmmm? ;)

Apparently even William, Tom, and Bert are getting excited about the movies and are showing it by joining 'net forums! I just hope they don't find this guy (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/member.php?u=43). :eek: ;)

Anyway, from the start, I'd have been a lot more forgiving of PJ and ready to believe his "artistic" intentions, if not for the glut of merchandising around the LOTR franchise. And it shows no (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/category/merchandise/) signs of slowing down now.

[Morthoron]

Start by banning religious people and pedophiles ;)

How sad. If Tolkien were alive today and on the Internet, you'd have him banned for his devout Catholicism. I am not a religious person, but I know several on this forum that are. I am certain that linking "religious people and pedophiles" would be highly insulting to them.

And do not ask for restrictions on the Internet. You might not care for what you get. After all, the people that set the guidelines might not have your tact, your magnanimity and your obvious modesty.

[Mumriken]

If Tolkien lived today he wouldn't have been religious.

[Inziladun]

If Tolkien lived today he wouldn't have been religious.

You cannot know that, and this is not the place in which to discuss the matter.

[Morthoron]

If Tolkien lived today he wouldn't have been religious.

Are you channeling Tolkien presently to make such an unsubstantiated claim? One would think the transmission of spectral waves would be blocked by your tinfoil hat.

[Boromir88]

At this point, I'd say let the troll...troll. So, we don't have this thread be cluttered up by feeding it mutton. I'm sure the sun-rise is coming soon for this one.

[Mithalwen]

If Tolkien lived today he wouldn't have been religious.

Evidence for this claim?

Tolkien was devoutly religious throughout his life. He was committed to Catholicism enough to insist his wife converted which wasn't a prerequisite for their marriage. He remained religious through being orphaned as a child, serving through the Somme, losing all but one of his childhood friends in WW1 and seeing two of his sons serve in WW2. His third son was a priest. I cannot see what has happened in the forty years since his death that would undermine the rather more difficult and traumatic eighty odd years of his life span.

[alatar]

Speaking of merchandizing, I still have (and recently rediscovered) my two FotR goblets that we got via Burger King. Haven't found the light-up bases yet.

So I'm not saying that all merchandizing is bad.

[Mumriken]

Evidence for this claim?

Tolkien was devoutly religious throughout his life. He was committed to Catholicism enough to insist his wife converted which wasn't a prerequisite for their marriage. He remained religious through being orphaned as a child, serving through the Somme, losing all but one of his childhood friends in WW1 and seeing two of his sons serve in WW2. His third son was a priest. I cannot see what has happened in the forty years since his death that would undermine the rather more difficult and traumatic eighty odd years of his life span.
I said if he was born like maybe in the 90s he would not have been religious today. You're talking about the tolkien that lived back in the day. Today it's common sense that there is no god and thank goodness it is! Anyway if you want to talk more about this make a topic and redirect me to it.

[Inziladun]

I said if he was born like maybe in the 90s he would not have been religious today. You're talking about the tolkien that lived back in the day. Today it's common sense that there is no god and thank goodness it is! Anyway if you want to talk more about this make a topic and redirect me to it.

It ought to be "common sense" that you have only your opinion on that matter, and it isn't suitable for debate here. Even a devoted thread on the topic of whether a "modern" Tolkien would have been Catholic is pointless.
For one thing, despite your words, many millions of people even in this day believe in God, and you can bring absolutely no evidence to support your claim that Tolkien would have been any different in that respect.

I suggest you lay the matter to rest. Or, if you like, make a topic about it and leave it up to the forum Administration to judge the appropriateness.

[Mumriken]

Tolkien proved that anyone can make themself a religion. It's not very common for people who haven't been born into a religious family to believe in a god. Tolkien was a slave to the times, his mind was however sharp and if he had been born today. I assure you he would not believe in virgin births.

It's common sense that there is no god and if somebody reading this disagree with me then...well you're probably from America so I don't blame you lol. Anyway it's fun arguing a argument I can't lose, but even if my fingers are itching to break your world view apart I'll leave this topic.

[Mithalwen]

I said if he was born like maybe in the 90s he would not have been religious today. You're talking about the tolkien that lived back in the day. Today it's common sense that there is no god and thank goodness it is! Anyway if you want to talk more about this make a topic and redirect me to it.

I don't. You brought it up and unsubstantiated opinion isn't fact and liable to be challenged. There are many intelligent, sincere believers around now. some of them post on this board.

Whether you, or I agree with them is irrelevant to whether Tolkien would be among their number. And not agreeing with people doesn't mean it is acceptable to treat them discourteously. It is a discussion board. The point is to discuss and if applicable, persuade by force of argument not ranting prejudice.

[Mumriken]

And not agreeing with people doesn't mean it is acceptable to treat them discourteously. It is a discussion board. The point is to discuss and if applicable, persuade by force of argument not ranting prejudice.
Well thing is, there is no argument. People who still believe that any of their holy books are true, are by definition ignorant. This debate on wether or not god exists was settled a long time ago. That is why whenever someone says they are a a christian or a muslim, or a tolkienist or a star warsinist. Well they simply don't get it you know :) Only thing one can do is to laugh or ridicule them.

However I'd get banned if I do that, another problem with forums and many social sites. The admins often would be in no position to teach, govern or hold any authoritative positions within the real society. Whatever I don't actually care to win this argument, because I have already won it. (He just doesn't know it) If you ban me you're revealing your true colours and by doing that what a moron you are.
PEACE

[Bêthberry]

Speaking of merchandizing, I still have (and recently rediscovered) my two FotR goblets that we got via Burger King. Haven't found the light-up bases yet.

So I'm not saying that all merchandizing is bad.

I suppose we could speculate on what new merchandising will be available. Mugs like barrels? Warg and spider suffies? Jools? They will have to be working overtime to come up with stuff for three films that is different from the stuff for the first three films.

[Inziladun]

I suppose we could speculate on what new merchandising will be available. Mugs like barrels? Warg and spider suffies? Jools? They will have to be working overtime to come up with stuff for three films that is different from the stuff for the first three films.

A talking wallet like William's, that speaks when it's touched by the wrong person? Now that, I'd actually buy.

I think I'd avoid Gollum*™ brand suishi though. ;)

[alatar]

I suppose we could speculate on what new merchandising will be available. Mugs like barrels? Warg and spider suffies? Jools? They will have to be working overtime to come up with stuff for three films that is different from the stuff for the first three films.
One of the reasons I liked the goblets were that they were reasonably priced and made (or is that two reasons?). I still can use them, unlike T-shirts that wear out and that bric-a-brac statuey stuff that stays on your desk only until your children decide to use it to mix paint.

And the other reason is I'd acquired the goblets before I saw FotR...;)

[Lalwendë]

I suppose we could speculate on what new merchandising will be available. Mugs like barrels? Warg and spider suffies? Jools? They will have to be working overtime to come up with stuff for three films that is different from the stuff for the first three films.

They should just ask me what to make, seeing as I'll probably buy most of it ;)

The earliest merch is always the best quality though, thinking about my Green Dragon pottery drinking....err...pot. I still kick myself that I didn't get the matching Prancing Pony one because not even years on eBay has found me one. It's a good quality item though. Very handy for hiding pens and glue sticks from the nipper in. As is the metalwork keyring which is so heavy I daren't put car keys on it or the ignition system might fall out (this might say more about French cars though), though it would make a superb offensive weapon.

The same went for the action figures, with the early ones being in the best packages (which I have destroyed in my lust to get at the goods) and with the best accessories/sculpts etc. The later ones got so bad you could even buy them in Poundland.

I'm hoping for a Bag End cake tin, a dress-up Thorin and a Radagast dog whistle. ;)


EDIT - I forgot about the pair of nodding Gollums I've got - probably the worst collectible you could think of but ruddy brilliant in the back of the car!!!!

[Morthoron]

However I'd get banned if I do that, another problem with forums and many social sites. The admins often would be in no position to teach, govern or hold any authoritative positions within the real society. Whatever I don't actually care to win this argument, because I have already won it. (He just doesn't know it) If you ban me you're revealing your true colours and by doing that what a moron you are.

I think you've just about reached critical mass for banishment. And if you do get banned, it will likely be for your own antisocial and antagonistic manner. You know, the type of thing that has gotten you thrown out of any number of decent establishments in the past.

It's common sense that there is no god...

Is it "common sense"? I would say there is a lack of direct evidence to support it, but then again there was no evidence to support the basic tenets of bacteriology 200 years ago. You may disagree with a belief, but there is no reason to denigrate it. Because for all the lack of evidence for a supreme being, there is no conclusive counter-argument that one cannot or does not exist. Therefore, to each his own. The real ignorance lies in those who wish to force their beliefs on someone else, or demean someone's beliefs in order to make themselves feel superior and hide their own inadequacies.

...and if somebody reading this disagree with me then...well you're probably from America so I don't blame you lol.

Let's see, first you insult devout people on this forum, then the forum moderators, next the Americans, and basically everyone who doesn't agree with your purposefully crude, decidedly narrow and inarticulate stance. You see, I tend to discredit anyone who makes arrogant statements of allegedly superior intellectual quality ending with Internet slang like "lol".

[Bêthberry]

I have an R2D2 cookie jar so I suppose a Hobbit cake tin would fit in.

Oh, inflatable plastic barrels for summer swim play.

And I'll skip the Gollem sushi too.

[Morthoron]

I have an R2D2 cookie jar so I suppose a Hobbit cake tin would fit in.

Oh, inflatable plastic barrels for summer swim play.

And I'll skip the Gollem sushi too.

I have a gen-you-wine Gandalf staff carved about 12 years ago at the local Renaissance Festival. But I don't think big hunks of wood are necessarily kid safe. And, like Al, I have some of the requisite Burger King Gandalf glasses and a few figurines still in the plastic. I gave them to my daughter, who yawned. :rolleyes:

[alatar]

Be sure to verify that your figurines are pudding-safe. :eek::D

Lalwendë's Legolas-in-pudding experiment (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=203&d=1128630231)

[Nerwen]

At it again, Mumriken?:rolleyes: "I'm right because I'm right and anyone who disagrees is a moron lol".:rolleyes: Well, I tried reasoning with you last time, but it's now pretty clear this is simply your stock response to opinions other than your own. Charming.

[Nerwen]

Anyway, from the start, I'd have been a lot more forgiving of PJ and ready to believe his "artistic" intentions, if not for the glut of merchandising around the LOTR franchise. And it shows no (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/category/merchandise/) signs of slowing down now.

Oh, how wonderful! I do hope to see someone wearing "Middle-earth" 3-d glasses "with a uniquely designed folding arm frame and hammer forged steel look" (and they look even goofier than they sound)!:smokin:

[alatar]

Thinking back on the other trilogy makes me even more sad for this one: With (what seemed like) 4000 hours of footage, PJ didn't have time to show the relationship between Eomer and Aragorn, who don't even draw swords together. In fact, Eomer is just some horse captain related to Eowyn.

What a great way to waste Karl Urban's talent. :(

[Boromir88]

Thinking back on the other trilogy makes me even more sad for this one: With (what seemed like) 4000 hours of footage, PJ didn't have time to show the relationship between Eomer and Aragorn, who don't even draw swords together. In fact, Eomer is just some horse captain related to Eowyn.

What a great way to waste Karl Urban's talent. :(

Well, the "We shall draw swords together" is actually transferred to Theoden and Aragorn at Helm's Deep. Although, Jackson, Walsh and Boyens seemed to have the impression if they switched parts of the books to different places, and different characters than they were still faithful and had the same meaning.

What I really missed was Theoden's obstinance and defiant attitude at Helm's Deep. I badly wanted to hear "I will not be taken like an old badger in a trap." One of my favorite lines from all the books. Yet, cut out for Theoden sulking despair to sudden change of heart as soon as Aragorn says "Ride out with me!" (Not to mention the continued whining "What did Gondor do for us!?" that goes on in ROTK...ugh)

I'm actually ok with Eomer's role in TTT, there isn't a need to introduce someone like Erkenbrand in the films. So having Eomer be the "exiled" knight, brought back by Gandalf to save Theoden at Helm's Deep is fine for the movies. Although, they did nothing with him in ROTK, except make a joke about the Merry's reach (at least that's the one thing I remember...oh the EE scene where he cries over Eowyn's presumably dead body was was well done).

[Mumriken]

Biggest mistakes he did with the lotr trilogy:


No Old forest, the entire part of the first book was shorted down to 15 min or so. (This is where one should get to know the hobbits.)
Casting of merry. (I didn't like the choice.)
Glorfindel. (As great as it was to see Arwen save Frodo from the riders it wasn't a good idea.)
The 2 min sections leading up to 10 min fighting scenes throughout Moria and beyond. (Now it became a action movie)
Casting of Haldir. (A bit baby faced and one could see he had taken a shave)
Lothlorien, I did not like the design here at all. Looked like something out of Star Wars.
Gimli's jokes. (Just annoying, this character was raped)
Legolas, he did not seem natural and if one contrasts him with Elrond or Haldir he looks fake.
The camera angles throughout the entire movie. (Whenever there is personal up close action the cameras change every 2 sec. Where is the clint eastwood up close action scenes? Also in some chasing scenes it felt like watching a car chase.
Gandalf the white, he did not live up to his title. Christopher Lee however did.
The two towers movie in general, quite awful. Had some nice moments with the ents and Gollum but other than that horrible.
The return of the king is one big fight, and while impressive a time waster.
No confrontation between Gandalf and With king and the one they made was horrible horrible!
Denethor, I hated everything about him and also Faramir's accent.
Merry and Pippin at his point make me sick.
The black gate, here would be a great oppurtunity to create some great emotionally loaded moments. But what we get is not that, but just another fight that couldn't live up to the first one that lasted what about an hour?
Frodo's voiceover work at the end, I'd prefer Galadriel's and some actual explanation and not some slimy corny OHHH Saaam..voice.


Now here is what they managed to pull of:


10 sec of the Eowyn/Nazgul chase. To be more specific when she rode on the open road and the horse's speed matched the tempo of the song perfectly and of course when the Nazgul referred to her as she-elf. That might actually have been lost if they'd use Glorfindel instead.
Elrond, I really liked this guy. Even though he looked like he had a massive headache most of the time he was a good choice for the noble elf.
The little deep dialouge Gandalf has, like in Moria for example when he speaks of to follow your nose and about Gollum.
The Balrog. (Not necessarly the scenes but the design)
Galadriel. (Perfect chioce)
Frodo & Sam. (I liked the actors and suprisingly most of their scenes)
Gollum. (Only reason one would watch the second and third movie a second time)
Ents and orcs who want to eat merry and pippin. Two orcs to be specific, these should get some kind of award for how they presented the orcs. (What about their legs, they don't need those...probably best line in the second movie)
Saruman's reaction to the ents...ohhh yes got to love that.
Aragorn speaking to the dead. (Great dialouge and design on the ghost thing)
Scenes with Gollum...
Frodo/Gollum fight at the Volcano.
Eagles coming to save them.
Cirdan, Elrond, Gandalf and Galadriel together and old Bilbo and the little dialouge the movie ends with.


There is some good stuff but most of it's bad, if the movies are all in all 9 hours long. I'd say 30 min or so is watchable. Overall a failure:

2/5

[Lalwendë]

Be sure to verify that your figurines are pudding-safe. :eek::D

Lalwendë's Legolas-in-pudding experiment (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=203&d=1128630231)

I'm looking forwards to doing this with a Tauriel figure. She can only prove herself as a genuine Elf if she can walk on custard. Though I might be vindictive and use onion gravy.

I have a gen-you-wine Gandalf staff carved about 12 years ago at the local Renaissance Festival.

I made my own, from a Beech branch I found in the woods, and then sat by a moorland stream whittling it with my penknife! The best part about this was that passing hikers thought this was all perfectly normal behaviour and even looked fairly impressed. :cool:

[Morthoron]

I made my own, from a Beech branch I found in the woods, and then sat by a moorland stream whittling it with my penknife! The best part about this was that passing hikers thought this was all perfectly normal behaviour and even looked fairly impressed. :cool:

I have another staff that I carved myself from the branch of a corkscrew willow (very cool tree if you've ever seen one) from one of my properties. It's over 6 feet long (nearly as tall as me!), but willow wood is exceedingly light but strong, so I've actually hiked with it. And the convoluted twists of the wood as it winds from top to bottom makes it look...ummm...twisted. Serpentine even.

[Mumriken]

I made my own, from a Beech branch I found in the woods, and then sat by a moorland stream whittling it with my penknife! The best part about this was that passing hikers thought this was all perfectly normal behaviour and even looked fairly impressed.
I have another staff that I carved myself from the branch of a corkscrew willow (very cool tree if you've ever seen one) from one of my properties. It's over 6 feet long (nearly as tall as me!), but willow wood is exceedingly light but strong, so I've actually hiked with it. And the convoluted twists of the wood as it winds from top to bottom makes it look...ummm...twisted. Serpentine even.
-__- I wonder...if this was what Tolkien had in mine writing his books, grown men carving walking sticks. loool

[Lalwendë]

I have another staff that I carved myself from the branch of a corkscrew willow (very cool tree if you've ever seen one) from one of my properties. It's over 6 feet long (nearly as tall as me!), but willow wood is exceedingly light but strong, so I've actually hiked with it. And the convoluted twists of the wood as it winds from top to bottom makes it look...ummm...twisted. Serpentine even.

You should plant it, because it grows even after being cut - my dad made a fence out of old Willow and it turned into a hedge.

I've got a Twisted Hazel, but I don't think it would be strong enough for a staff (not that I want to cut it down because it's started producing...no way to say this without it sounding painful...twisted nuts). I fancy making some rope from Honeysuckle though because apparently it was used in ritual by the ancient Britons and it's extremely strong - and I have quite a lot of it. That would look really cool wound around a staff.



-__- I wonder...if this was what Tolkien had in mine writing his books, grown men carving walking sticks. loo

Dunno, but I'd lay money on him not expecting ladies to be carving sticks, let alone owning their own utility knives :D

[Morthoron]

-__- I wonder...if this was what Tolkien had in mine writing his books, grown men carving walking sticks. loool

It is "had in mind", not "mine". Oh, the poor spelling and grammar habits of children these days.

[Boromir88]

-__- I wonder...if this was what Tolkien had in mine writing his books, grown men carving walking sticks. loool

Probably more highly than grown ups who decided they could find the real treasure of Smaug if they Blockbustered Tolkien's books into Hollywood movies. After all, Jackson read it once and it was a "cool" story...must be a "cool" film too.

And it's not like Tolkien wasn't himself a bit of an eccentric personality, especially to the students who had him and recalled some of his famous readings of Beowulf.

[Rumil]

So, three films huh!

Regardless of your fears and forebodings of PJ-isms.

What should be in them, and what do you think will be in them?

With Lal's scrolly zoomy thing here http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=18011

it looks as if the first will be 'The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey' following the plot of The Hobbit reasonably well, judging by the images, from the start up to 'Barrels out of Bond'. The only bit not in the book so far is a meeting between Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond, likely a meeting of the White Council. So far so good. I'm happy to see wolves that look like wolves and the 'G for Grand' rune on Bilbo's door at any rate.

This also means that The Hobbit Trilogy doesn't start before The Hobbit (which sounds odd but it might have done if the appendices were really strip-mined) though no doubt there will be all sorts of flash-backs to Smaug devastating Erebor, Galadriel being portentous etc.

So what is left for the second and third films? From The Hobbit it's Esgaroth (though exactly where film 1 ends I don't know) the Lonely Mountain, the death of Smaug and the Battle of the Five Armies. This could all be fitted quite neatly into one film. How can it make two?

I'd bet on the White Council getting some more time on screen and the assault on Dol Guldur featuring heavily. Note that the books don't make at all clear whether this was a military assault or not, but knowing PJ I'd guess it will be. This will likely be in film 2.

Film 3 being some sort of bridge to LoTR is going to be really tricky, the logical place to end The Hobbit is surely at the end of the Battle of Five Armies or Bilbo's return home.

Some things that occur in the Tale of the Years between TH and LoTR are-
- Gollum searches for the ring
- Sauron declares himself in Mordor
- Aragorn and Arwen
- Last meeting of the White Council, Saruman spies on the Shire
- Journeys of Aragorn
- Balin and Moria
- Saruman ensnared by Sauron via the Palantir

So how would you do it? What would you like to see in the three films?

[Mumriken]

Some things that occur in the Tale of the Years between TH and LoTR are-
- Gollum searches for the ring
- Sauron declares himself in Mordor
- Aragorn and Arwen
- Last meeting of the White Council, Saruman spies on the Shire
- Journeys of Aragorn
- Balin and Moria
- Saruman ensnared by Sauron via the Palantir

So how would you do it? What would you like to see in the three films?
I think if he had to include any of that it would be interesting to maybe see Gollum captured in Mirkwood together with the dwarves. Gollum contrasted with elves would be interesting to see, his reaction to them. Aragorn and Arwen ABSOLUTELY NOT...white council meeting probably will occur. No aragorn isn't necessary at all...Yes I think Saruman's corruption would be interesting to see. However I think Lee's week of shootin or whatever it was isn't enough to dwelve into that.

I think the additional material will probably be about dwarf history and political stuff. Maybe something about Beorn, I mean he seems not really to fit into the story. I think they would have to include him a bit more.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Well, I'll play the 3 Hobbits game (although given PJ and
friends abysmal rewriting in TTT and RoTK) there will
probably be many foolish improvs.

Part 1- ends with Thorin and Co. entering Mirkwood and Gandalf
riding off to join the attack (another PJ extravaganza) of the
White Council. Meeting of the White Council spliced in (this could
get interesting if the implied interactions of Gandalf, Saruman, and Galadriel
in the book are handled well).

Part 2-Mirkwood to the Death of Smaug, with orcs, elves, and Laketowners
shown converging on Erebor with they and the dwarves beginning to lay
out their conflicting claims, and Gandalf racing up to meet them.

Part 3- The rest of the book, with an allusion to The Scouring of the Shire,
with Bilbo straightening out the mess at Bagend. Then Bilbo recounting to
a tweenage Frodo the tale and instructing Sam in his letters (generally to
the Gaffer's disapproval).

[Rumil]

Interesting!

Didn't know Lee was only shooting for a week - probably not much apart from White Council scenes then.

Tuor, I think your 3 stage plan sounds quite reasonable. The thing that surprised me about the '10 scenes' images was that they end at Barrels, which seems not to leave much for the next 2 films.

While generally encouraged by the '10 scenes' a little googling has found this thread about the 10min preview http://www.thehalloffire.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3212&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

So Radagast on a sled pulled by rabbits and Dain riding a pig - I rather hope someone is taking the michael, but you never know in a book with Beorn's animal servants etc.

Other content mentioned:
- Gandalf in Dol Guldur to find Thrain - fair enough and quite right too
- Gandalf and Radagast discovering that the Nazgul have escaped from their tombs - noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

It was all going so well until then....

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

The Hobbit movie:
One film can tell the story.
Three films? Not so much.

[Ninde Lossehelin]

I am so excited for the release of The Hobbit (the trilogy mind you)
I hope it stays close to the book and that there will maybe be a dedication maybe or a thanks to Sir J.R.R Tolkien

But i do wonder how they will divide one book into 3 movies.. hope PJ doesn't try to 'drag' it on
Anyhoo... glad to see the greatest fantasy epic of our time become a major motion picture

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

But i do wonder how they will divide one book into 3 movies.. hope PJ doesn't try to 'drag' it on
Anyhoo... glad to see the greatest fantasy epic of our time become a major motion picture

You answer your own question, I'm afraid: it will be dragged on and on.

Your last comment, I don't understand. They already made the LotR films.

[Legolas]

I will still enjoy as many films as they make, despite personal grievances over certain deviations. Much worse films could be made in their place.

There is less dialogue, less landscape description, and more of a linear action/episodic feel to The Hobbit, so this must mean he is not skipping anything. I'm curious about where the divisions will be.

It is peculiar to see each volume of Lord of the Rings - themselves each longer than the whole of The Hobbit - spliced down into a single three-hour movie, while The Hobbit is being split into three movies on its own. Surely two two-hour movies for each of these volumes would've resulted in a more evenhanded experience.

As Jackson himself asks in his Facebook announcement (https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/an-unexpected-journey/10151114596546558), "do we take this chance to tell more of the tale?" His answer "was an unreserved ‘yes.'"

If so, then where's Tom Bombadil and Old Man Willow? Radagast, and the Barrow-Wight? The Scouring of the Shire, Saruman's real demise? Why devote precious moments to the silly fan fiction sequences of Arwen, Aragorn, and his horse when there's a tale to be told?

[Morthoron]

Why devote precious moments to the silly fan fiction sequences of Arwen, Aragorn, and his horse when there's a tale to be told?

Yes, Aragorn falling off a cliff and then French-kissing his horse. One of the defining moments of bad fan-fiction!

[Boromir88]

If so, then where's Tom Bombadil and Old Man Willow? Radagast, and the Barrow-Wight? The Scouring of the Shire, Saruman's real demise? Why devote precious moments to the silly fan fiction sequences of Arwen, Aragorn, and his horse when there's a tale to be told?

I think with The Hobbit films, I'm going to miss that "we can't film the books line by line" attitude though. I mean, every rational person understood stuff was going to be cut for the films. I can appreciate a certain restraint in knowing you can't film everything. And even inventing your own material to improve the story you're telling on screen, is in and of itself not evil, or tarnishing of the books. What those inventions are and whether films are improved is of course a different matter.

Unfortunately most of Jackson's inventions were major, major differences, and just turned out to be closer to Morthoron's description...bad fan-fiction (Aragorn's "reluctant king" archetype, Frodo sending Sam home, Gimli's entire character...etc). Where the more subtle inventions are so minor, but I believe are actually good, they get overwhelmed by the refuse. Boromir sword-training Merry and Pippin comes to mind. An invention, but still simple and revealing the bond between Boromir, Merry and Pippin, that is present in the books.

The true disturbance, for me, wasn't what was cut and what was changed, but the perception that Jackson and company were being faithful when adapting Tolkien. It's really my big problem with the film Appendices, because you have Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens up there beating on about "we're doing this in the spirit of Tolkien" and "we're not interested in putting our on garbage in the films."...In the words of Lumbergh...rrrrriiiight.

Reading Jackson's announcements was pretty much the last "thanks, but no, I'll wait to bum the dvd off a friend." The attitude of "we finished watching the two films and there is so much more we want to show! We can't leave out these important parts to further flesh out the dwarf characters and Gandalf and Dol Guldur! The agony of having to make decisions of what to CUT!"

Serious? If you can't make convincing characters and tell a story like The Hobbit in two films, you just can't direct. Maybe WETA can make a visual masterpiece and Howard Shore can cover up even some of Jackson's most aggrivating fails, because it's impossible not to feel something with Shore's music, but as far as a story-telling ability? I'll pass.

[Zigûr]

The true disturbance, for me, wasn't what was cut and what was changed, but the perception that Jackson and company were being faithful when adapting Tolkien. It's really my big problem with the film Appendices, because you have Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens up there beating on about "we're doing this in the spirit of Tolkien" and "we're not interested in putting our on garbage in the films."...In the words of Lumbergh...rrrrriiiight.
This perplexes me as well; sometimes their assurances of the need to "modernise" Professor Tolkien's work for Hollywood seems to contrast rather drastically with their protestations of faithfulness. On the other hand, however, I consider things like the Zimmerman treatment and others with Galadriel's fairy castle and Gimli being beaten with a blanket and what not and I am reminded of how truly bad things could have been.
What disturbs me in regards to The Hobbit Part 3 quite a bit is all this talk of the use of the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings flying around. I'd got the impression that something of Durin's Folk had already been incorporated into the existing material (the alleged casting of Azog, for instance, although did he end up actually being Bolg?). Unless they're planning on taking a cinematic diversion to detail the history of the Dúnedain and the House of Eorl or wax lyrical on the subject of Hobbit family trees I'm not sure how meaningful Peter Jackson's statement about the Appendices is beyond a potentially misplaced effort to placate fans. There is, I suppose, a little material in The Tale of Years which might be useful but hardly enough to stretch things out to a third film without enormous amounts of invention. I don't really approve of this misrepresentation of the Appendices as the "notes to The Hobbit" or however Peter Jackson has described them, although plenty of people online seem to be trying very hard to convince themselves that the Appendices are indeed some unimaginable treasure trove of supplementary material which specifically relates to The Hobbit. A lot of people online also don't seem to realise that they do not have the rights to Unfinished Tales or The Silmarillion.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I'm worried that by the time December 14 rolls around we'll get a film that is barely recognisable as The Hobbit, which is distracted from Bilbo's story and which does not give the original text the huge amount of credit it is due on its own. I fear that it will make any changes or additions to The Lord of the Rings seem uniformly minute and reasonable by comparison.

[Mithalwen]

Here is an interesting article

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-real-reason-mgm-needs-the-hobbit-split-into-3-movies-2012-8

[Inziladun]

That does not surprise me at all, Mith.

I wonder whether PJ put up any resistance. Judging from LOTR and his obvious propensity to insert "extra" material there, I rather doubt the idea of padding out TH got him much flustered.

[Boromir88]

That does not surprise me at all, Mith.

I wonder whether PJ put up any resistance. Judging from LOTR and his obvious propensity to insert "extra" material there, I rather doubt the idea of padding out TH got him much flustered.

It doesn't sound like he did reading the the end of the article:

The first two Hobbit films are estimated to have cost $500 million. A third Hobbit film thus provides a safety net, especially since it would cost next to nothing to produce: "Hobbit" director Peter Jackson admitted he already had enough source material and left over footage from the first two films to expand into a third, cutting production costs.

[Mithalwen]

He may have suggested it but no doubt it was grasped with both hands. After all if the stuff is largely shot and most of the actors no doubt on percentages then they aren't going to have to cough up so much upfront. I suspect it isn't a question of telling more of the story but indulging his fondness for special effects and battle sequences even when they don't progress the story. Think of how in the Lord of the rings the Faramir, Eowyn love story was reduced pretty much to a single glance while the paragraph long cave troll battle was expanded to fill about ten minutes.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Someone at The One Ring site chipped in an opinion on all this:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/08/23/61133-jacksons-hobbit-too-much/

I hope the link works. If not, those interested can surely find the article with little effort.

[Nerwen]

MT, the link works– and thank you, as that is a very interesting article. And, perhaps, a rather courageous thing to publish on TORN.:rolleyes:

[Morthoron]

MT, the link works– and thank you, as that is a very interesting article. And, perhaps, a rather courageous thing to publish on TORN.:rolleyes:

Courageous indeed, considering the abundance of vacant fanbois cluttering up that site. I decided to congratulate Ostadan on a well-written and researched article, and add a few curmudgeonly paragraphs of my own, found in discussion of the article here (http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=484887;page=1;sb =post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;):

The revisionism and muddle-headed thinking of Jackson, Boyens, et al, was evident in the LotR movies to anyone who a) had no interest in pandering to get their name in the screen credits, b) knew the story and didn't require Wiki to get their facts, and c) were more interested in dialogue and plot than special effects and explodey things.

Tolkien quickly realized that a rewrite of The Hobbit would remove the essential nature of a classic children's story. This is what made The Hobbit great. That adults of all ages cherished the story as well as they read it to their children (or read it for themselves for their own delight), is indicative of the generational reach of the tale -- as is, without embellishment, superfluous storylines, character denigration and dumbing down the story with perceived but spurious Hollywood demographics.

It is quite obvious that things have gotten out of hand with Jackson's production of the story. Del Toro leaving early on was disquieting enough, now Jackson is stretching the proceedings into three films, and I think if any of the well-read posters on TORn were honest about The Hobbit movie(s), they would come to the conclusion that three movies is not necessary to tell the story. Not at all. Not in the least.

If Jackson could fit The Lord of the Rings into three movies, what the hell is he putting into filming The Hobbit, a book less than a third of the size? A 'convoluted mess' comes to mind as a definor, an amalgam of poached appendical permutations rendered with fan-fictional flourishes, as the screenwriters sit around Jackson's office with half-eaten bags of Doritos, stale donuts and lukewarm cups of coffee making up ludicrous subplots quicker than you can say "milking the franchise dry".

I may be wrong, but I don't think so. There is a history of depridations already available for anyone's perusal. Squeezing every last penny out of the fanbase requires flights of fancy, revisionism and half-baked plots that could possibly render The Hobbit unrecognizable. One may watch the movies, get a fleeting glimpse of Bilbo Baggins (ostensibly the hero of the story, remember?) and yearn for a few brief seconds more before they are whisked away to some absurd fan-fic about Nazgul in suspended animation, scimitar-waving elfesses and photogenic model dwarves (hawt dorfs!) riding about on bristling piggies (perhaps the pigs will have violet eyes and ribbons on their snouts as a sop for the more sophomoric fan-fictioners in the audience).

[Nerwen]

I mean, I'll stand by what I've said already, that some posters here are excessively negative towards Peter Jackson– but the TORN readership seems to be the mirror-image of that. So many of the comments are basically variants on, "how dare you suggest PJ could be wrong about anything..."

[Morthoron]

I mean, I'll stand by what I've said already, that some posters here are excessively negative towards Peter Jackson...

Define "excessive".:D

[Nerwen]

Define "excessive".:D

syn.: "Morthoron". :p

[Nerwen]

You know, if I were P.J., I'd be getting nervous of those fanboyz right about now. The way these things usually play out, they're the ones who'll turn on him hardest if the films don't meet their expectations.

[Bêthberry]

Charlie Ross's one-man Lord of the Rings (70 minutes) was a hilarious spoof of the movies. He even was able to work in a line or two from the books for those of us at RotR who might recall the books. ;)

I must say that the video greeting from Peter Jackson, Alan Lee, and John Howe was a gracious touch, too. Rather like marching virtually into a dragon hoard of book treasures. :D

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

I made reference to the "One Ring dot Net" article above, by Ostadan, because I thought the author did a credible job of raising some disturbing questions about the long-delayed-and-now-deliberately-inflated-and-extended "Hobbit" movie project. For example, Ostadan quotes Peter Jackson saying: "In the novel, Gandalf disappears for various patches of time. In 1936, when Tolkien was writing that book, he didn't have a clue what Gandalf was doing."

Ostadan then offers what I consider a trenchent rebuttal, supported by an appropriate reference to Tolkien's letters:

Since Gandalf does tell us what he was doing, though without unnecessary details, this is an extremely odd thing to say. The storytelling purpose of Gandalf’s absence, of course, is explained by Tolkien in a letter (Letters, #257, 1964): “[The Necromancer’s function] … was hardly more than to provide a reason for Gandalf going away and laving Bilbo and the Dwarves to fend for themselves, which was necessary for the tale.” Tolkien had a good sense of what was necessary in his story.

I only wish that Ostadan had included the following text from The Hobbit, Chapter 10 in further support of his argument:

So you see Bilbo had come in the end by the only road that was any good. It might have been some comfort to Mr. Baggins shivering on the barrels, if he had known that news of this had reached Gandalf far away and given him great anxiety, and that he was in fact finishing his other business (which does not come into this tale) and getting ready to come in search of Thorin's company. But Bilbo did not know it.

Now obviously, from this passage alone, one can glean that Tolkien knew a great deal about Gandalf's whereabouts, specifically (1) that he had gone far away, (2) that he had gotten news of Bilbo's progress, (3) that this caused him some anxiety, (4) that he had finished his other business, (5) that he planned on going in search of Thorin's company, and -- most importantly -- (6) that this other business of Gandalf's "does not come into this tale." I count six clues, not zero.

It seems to me, therefore, that Peter Jackson does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to making comments about what J. R. R. Tolkien knew of of his own tale, why he wrote it the way he did, and why leaving Gandalf and his "other business" out of the story at critical junctures occurred not out of any accident or oversight, but by a well-considered understanding of how to tell a hero's tale without diminishing the hero (Bilbo) by making the supernatural helper (Gandalf) the hero instead. Tolkien knew his business -- mythic literature -- and for Peter Jackson to claim that Tolkien "didn't have a clue" has to rank as one of the dumbest and least-defensible things the director/producer has ever said.

Now I've got to get about the business of sending Ostadan a congratulatory "thank you" for a job well done.

[Mithalwen]

You know, if I were P.J., I'd be getting nervous of those fanboyz right about now. The way these things usually play out, they're the ones who'll turn on him hardest if the films don't meet their expectations.

Like the natives of Hawaii who murdered Captain Cook when they realised he wasn't a God?

Many do seem to have asimple faith in PJ's vision even though he seems to be making it up as he goes along or according to the availability of his favourite actresses.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

You know, if I were P.J., I'd be getting nervous of those fanboyz right about now. The way these things usually play out, they're the ones who'll turn on him hardest if the films don't meet their expectations.

Yes, indeed. You've really got to watch it with those infantile fanboys. Some of them eventually become President of the United States. Then they get to play with real armies and weapons and fighting and stuff ...

http://themisfortuneteller.com/Poetry/Batman%20Sleeps%20with%20a%20Nightlight.html

[Galendor]

Warner Bros has released the Titles and dates for the 3 Hobbit movies:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. December 14th, 2012
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. December 13th, 2013
The Hobbit: There and Back Again. July 18th, 2014

http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/third-the-hobbit-movie-to-arrive-july-2013-final-titles-confirmed/

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Urrrrgh.

It seems very clear- to me at least- that what was good about PJ's Rings trilogy were precisely those scenes where he stayed very close to what Tolkien described and, if possible, using actual Tolkien dialogue (in fact it's miraculoous how much the tone elevates with a passage of Genuine Tolkien Text(tm)).

Where OTOH the movies generally suck harder than a Phattaya Beach transvestite hooker is where PJ & Co simply inject their "low-grade fan-fic" (perfect phrase). It's as if some accident had wiped out half of the Sistine Chapel, and the Vatican hired Frank Frazetta to replace the missing parts.

So what is there to anticipate from little Mr Baggins inflated like the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man? It's pointed out that there is material in the Appendices which lets on some of what happens- but not really, not much more than a skeletal framework. There are no scenes, no dialogue, no narrative: none of the solid Tolikien foundations which propped up the non-crappy segments of PJ's Rings.

Instead we will get unending made-up invention regarding the White Council and the Necromancer, with Saruman looking evil and Legolas looking hawt for the fangirlz. Expect lots of gratuitous zapcasting, and comic-book-grade "character" material as puerile as the film-Denethor vs film-Faramir travesty. Certainly expect PJ, the most selof-indulgent and incapable of self-eiiting of directors, to give us lots and lots more of the sort of silliness added back into the RK EE (cascading skulls, hammy death-by-arrow.

More than anything, expect this low-grade fan-fic to be set in the world of the Battle For Middle-Earth video games, because if there's one thing proven irrefutably by the Rings trilogy, it's that Boyens may have read Letters and HOME but she never, ever understood them, nor Tolkien.

Hobbit trilogy = 1/3 Tolkien, 2/3 PJ filler (which almost by definition is always crap).

[Lalwendë]

I mean, I'll stand by what I've said already, that some posters here are excessively negative towards Peter Jackson– but the TORN readership seems to be the mirror-image of that. So many of the comments are basically variants on, "how dare you suggest PJ could be wrong about anything..."

It's part of the 'culture' on this forum, though I know that not everyone is a vocal critic, so it might just be a part of the culture that it's OK to be highly critical here while others haven't much to say about it. On some other Tolkien sites, the other extreme prevails. I don't feel part of either extreme though. I'm excited/nervous about the films (just as I was with the Lord of the Rings films) and I will make my judgement once I have seen them. Seems fair to me!

[Kath]

My cinema (it's weeny) is starting to get posters and merchandise in. As a loyal customer I have already demanded a share in the spoils! And now I get them three years running. :D

On another note, did we ever do a poll? Members who had joined as a result of reading the books vs members who had joined as a result of watching the films. Might be interesting!

[Lalwendë]

My cinema (it's weeny) is starting to get posters and merchandise in. As a loyal customer I have already demanded a share in the spoils! And now I get them three years running. :D

On another note, did we ever do a poll? Members who had joined as a result of reading the books vs members who had joined as a result of watching the films. Might be interesting!

I'd like some of that spoil!! I've already started on the tat/collectibles, having snapped up the Hobbit Annual (very silly, definitely for kids, big and small, ahem) as soon as I saw it in Waterstones.

[Morthoron]

It's part of the 'culture' on this forum, though I know that not everyone is a vocal critic, so it might just be a part of the culture that it's OK to be highly critical here while others haven't much to say about it. On some other Tolkien sites, the other extreme prevails. I don't feel part of either extreme though. I'm excited/nervous about the films (just as I was with the Lord of the Rings films) and I will make my judgement once I have seen them. Seems fair to me!

I was perusing the TORn forum and a comment on this thread (http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=493567;page=1;sb =post_time;so=DESC;mh=25;) caught my eye. Betwixt all the wallowing fanboy blather, a perceptive poster named JWPLatt brought up an interesting idea:

Jackson could provide a seamless branching option on The Hobbit disks, when released, that allows viewers to see only the "substory" of The Hobbit which entirely omits The White Council story that follows Gandalf when he is away from the company of the dwarves. We would see Gandalf go away for a while and come back, just like in The Hobbit.

A "seamless branch" would prove most interesting don't you think? Rather than sit there with your remote and self-edit PJ's tedious fan-fiction, one merely chooses a "purist" version of the film from the DVD menu that eliminates all the extraneous material.

As I mentioned in a post there, I have nothing against PJ's cinematography, the set and costume designs by Lee, Howe and Weta, nor the parts of the films when PJ actually adhered to Tolkien's story, rather than having Aragorn french his horse. When PJ used Tolkien's original dialogue, there were actually quite a few moving sequences in the films, and it didn't matter if a different character than the one in the book spoke the words.

If there were a way to eliminate all the spurious flights of fancy and PJ's penchant for B-grade horror flick devolutions (like the Nazgul in "Alien"-like suspended animation, as we have heard), then it may be worthwhile to watch.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Morthoron, I like your brand of curmudgeonliness.

[Lalwendë]

If there were a way to eliminate all the spurious flights of fancy and PJ's penchant for B-grade horror flick devolutions (like the Nazgul in "Alien"-like suspended animation, as we have heard), then it may be worthwhile to watch.

You've already answered that one. Your remote! :p

What's this about the Nazgul though???

[Morthoron]

Morthoron, I like your brand of curmudgeonliness.

It has taken many decades to cultivate such a grim vintage. :D

You've already answered that one. Your remote! :p

What's this about the Nazgul though???

Remotes are for changing the channel, not picking through a movie piecemeal. If I have to resort to a remote, I'm going to be viewing something else.

There is a screenshot somewhere of the Nazgul in a state of suspended animation somewhere in Dol Guldur. Obviously, Gandalf stumbles upon them and the pods that contain Ringwraithlets.

[Lalwendë]

There is a screenshot somewhere of the Nazgul in a state of suspended animation somewhere in Dol Guldur. Obviously, Gandalf stumbles upon them and the pods that contain Ringwraithlets.

This makes me apprehensive...

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

There is a screenshot somewhere of the Nazgul in a state of suspended animation somewhere in Dol Guldur. Obviously, Gandalf stumbles upon them and the pods that contain Ringwraithlets.
Did they not state in the Fellowship of the Ring (even in the film version) that the Nazgul appearing was a surprise because they hadn't appeared since the last time that Sauron had a lot of power? Gandalf basically told Frodo that this event was the worst thing that had happened in a long time. I didn't just imagine that, right? :confused:

If the Nazgul hadn't reappeared for ages, then having the Nazgul appear in TH would even be contrary to the Movie Canon. Would it not?

[Inziladun]

According to this (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/stephen-colbert-make-hobbit-cameo-381423), a Stephen Colbert cameo in either the second or third movies is confirmed.

If it's occurring later in the story, maybe he'll be Roac the raven. A cgi bird with Colbert's face...genius! :D

[Inziladun]

Holy Angband, now there's this (http://www.businessinsider.com/dennys-hobbit-menu-2012-10). :rolleyes:

"Gandalf's Gobble Melt". Need I say more? :eek:

[Mithalwen]

Havind had to goggle Denny's I am now morbidly fascinated by their breakfast menu and why anyone would want sausages with a caramel and banana french toast unless they were having weird pregnancy food cravings.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/9626524/Tolkien-fan-Prince-Charles-to-meet-Peter-Jackson-in-The-Hobbit-film-studios-on-New-Zealand-visit.html

Anyway here is a little snippet for you. I wonder if the Prince of Wales identifies with Aragorn since he may well be nearly ninety before he becomes King too... though maybe Aldarion would be another option ..:Merisu:

[Inziladun]

Havind had to goggle Denny's I am now morbidly fascinated by their breakfast menu and why anyone would want sausages with a caramel and banana french toast unless they were having weird pregnancy food cravings.

I stay away from Denny's personally, having a preference for actual food. ;)


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/9626524/Tolkien-fan-Prince-Charles-to-meet-Peter-Jackson-in-The-Hobbit-film-studios-on-New-Zealand-visit.html

Anyway here is a little snippet for you. I wonder if the Prince of Wales identifies with Aragorn since he may well be nearly ninety before he becomes King too... though maybe Aldarion would be another option ..:Merisu:

Here's the best line in that article:

“He and the Duchess have seen Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings films and the Prince has said he is very much looking forward to seeing Bilbo Baggins’s foot.”

Such a singular, classic tale, and that's where his prime interest lies? :rolleyes:

[Mithalwen]

Maybe he wants to apply it to Peter Jackson's rump ...I am sure there must be some royal prerogative or a provision in the treaty of Waitangi... something...

[Inziladun]

They have got to be kidding (http://now.msn.com/peter-jackson-appears-in-air-new-zealand-safety-video).

[Galadriel55]

They have got to be kidding (http://now.msn.com/peter-jackson-appears-in-air-new-zealand-safety-video).

The video is actually better than the article makes it sound. It's quite funny. Personally, I wouldn't mind if my school morning announcements went in that fashion... :D

[Inziladun]

The video is actually better than the article makes it sound. It's quite funny. Personally, I wouldn't mind if my school morning announcements went in that fashion... :D

What next, though? Gollum giving a public service message about the need to cook fish properly? :rolleyes:

They're really milking the publicity aspect this time around, it seems.

[Galadriel55]

What next, though? Gollum giving a public service message about the need to cook fish properly? :rolleyes:

I sure won't trust a word he has to say on that topic! :D

But, when it comes down to it, you're completely right about milking the publicity aspect, as you well put it, and I absolutely agree with you. Just sometimes I think that if I can't prevent them from doing it, I might as well enjoy some of it, as long as it's not totally over the top. Personally, I think that this message was not over the top and actually rather funny. So why not.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, I can't get very upset about PJ making a PSA- he is after all probably the most famous Kiwi since Edmund Hillary.

[Inziladun]

Well, I can't get very upset about PJ making a PSA- he is after all probably the most famous Kiwi since Edmund Hillary.

*sigh* The message itself is admittedly a positive one, but it still irks me to see the characters commercialized. And the cynic in me finds it difficult not to ascribe the ulterior motive of movie hype to everything of that sort I see. Whether it's the case in this instance or not, other recent instances (http://www.businessinsider.com/dennys-hobbit-menu-2012-10) of eye-rolling marketing gimmicks make it hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[elbenprincess]

Hi,

I havn´t read the entire topic, I just wanted to know how many of the three movies are finished (or is only the first part "An Unexpected Journey" finished?) and if Cate Blanchett will be in all parts, if this is known at all.

Thanks

[malickfan]

Cate Blanchett will probabaly be in all three films (she filmed for around two weeks I believe), the bulk of all three films has been filmed, but they have yet to film The Battle of Five Armies, and a few other things from the appendices-presumeably framing/ bridging sequences to tie it togther with LOTR

[Mithalwen]

I think that the originally planned two films were scheduled to be filmed back to back which makes sense since Shire sets and extras for example would only be needed at the beginning and end. The three films wer decided on so they didn't have to edit much out. So not much extra filming require making the decision potentially very profitable.

[LordPhillock]

Hello everyone,

this is kind of my third post on this forum, and before I start - could I say that I have never met a more opinionated throng concerning the LOTR & upcoming 'Hobbit' films. For that, I am very, very thankful to discover that there are many more people here who actually aren't heedless peasants that get so explosively excited for one-third of a story that isn't even out yet, and blindly forgive the filmmakers for every little questionable creative decision these "hobbit movies" are being submitted to.

I love to make movies, and would like to consider myself a filmmaker, and this particular story has been in my head for the good sum of almost seven years. I'm a bit ashamed to say that I was thinking of a movie version of this for so long, but in context, it should - a fraction of a tiny bit - justify some of my opinions on further criticism concerning these upcoming movies.

Sorry to bog down this thread: I just want to say that I agree with most of you about the gigantic notion of overkill this book is experiencing, and - from my knowledge about this particular project - The Hobbit's production has been in trouble since the beginning. In 2004, after ROTK came out, Jackson was fairly indifferent to anything Tolkien-Related (who can blame him?). Sure, he said they'd try to help make "the Hobbit", but after many years of a bit of bad blood between him and New Line Cinema, and MGM holding the rights to the movie (and going through bankruptcy), I'm pretty sure Jackson and his group were less and less interested in doing something they've already done for over seven years.

Back when they were initiating the project in 1996/7, it was something new and natural. They really went out to make a statement for themselves and did a really good job for the most part on this really daunting project. Afterwards, Jackson was able to do whatever he wanted in terms of filmmaking, and KING KONG was his dream-project.

After years and years, in 2007, they finally made peace and started this "Hobbit" movie as two parts, and Jackson had no intention of directing since he already made LOTR and what else is there to do? He even said he had no interest in directing it at all. They got Guillermo Del Toro to do it (who once said the idea of 'elves, hobbits, and dragons' didn't interest him much to begin with), and later on after some New Zealand labor problems and location complications, the studio pushed for Jackson to direct after all. He always says for him the challenge was to find out a way to make the process "enjoyable" rather than what it should be: "a faithful adaptation of the book". So, with that in mind, you can see that this isn't really a project anyone was particularly "passionate" about, and to me it definitely shows. It's really just a movie that had to be made because of LOTR's success. Jackson might be in the swing of things by now (directing and whatnot), but it's definitely not the same drive that made him and his crew work so hard on LOTR, regardless if you thought the movies weren't up to par or not.

To me, the results are pretty apparent. "The Hobbit" didn't have to be three movies, and it certainly didn't have to be made the way it is. It definitely feels like that "LOTR" prequel trilogy that was made simply because it just had to be made.

Again, so sorry for my long-winded speech. I thought it would be the best to summarize on this thread.

[littlemanpoet]

Yeah, I agree with most of the spirit of the criticisms regarding PJ.

But.....

I'm really looking forward to seeing the White Council attack Dol Guldur and send the Necromancer fleeing,
the exchange between Gandalf and Thrain, and I'm sure there's more. :D

[Inziladun]

Apologies if someone else has already put this up somewhere, but I found this (http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2012/11/7-minute-hobbit-trailer-for-the-ocd-crow.php) mishmash of several TH trailers edited together chronologically.

On a side note, I would have sworn I saw a fleeting glimpse of a sled of some sort pulled by rabbits. :rolleyes:

[alatar]

On a side note, I would have sworn I saw a fleeting glimpse of a sled of some sort pulled by rabbits.It's in the Appendices...you just have to look really hard (and it helps if you've had a drink or two). ;)

I don't hear the Hobbit in my head, like I did LotR, and so I figure, let's just sit back and have some fun.

Bring on the bunny sled!

[alatar]

By the by, why do we have to have 3? Why isn't 2 or 4 more frequent? LotR was split into 3 books. Oddly we had only 3 movies from the same ;). Star Wars (you may have heard of it) was a trilogy, and then the prequels were again the magic 3. Same with the X-Men and Spiderman arcs (not including spin-offs and reboots).

[Formendacil]

By the by, why do we have to have 3? Why isn't 2 or 4 more frequent? LotR was split into 3 books. Oddly we had only 3 movies from the same ;). Star Wars (you may have heard of it) was a trilogy, and then the prequels were again the magic 3. Same with the X-Men and Spiderman arcs (not including spin-offs and reboots).

Well, as far as X-Men and Spiderman went, I think the Rule of Three has a lot to do with "the Third One Sucked," thus killing the franchise as it then-stood.

Beyond that, however, trilogies work for telling a longer story because stories are naturally and easily broken into three: beginning, middle, and ending. Of course, each story within a trilogy may have a beginning, middle, and ending (the Star Wars movies do, but the constituent parts of the LotR do not--because the LotR is only a trilogy through the happenstance of separated binding) but in the context of a trilogy the first part sets up the story (beginning), the second thickens the plot and generally leaves something big hanging, and the third wraps up the overarching story.

Extending that to four-plus increments generally means more than one "middle" and depending on how well things advance from one to two to three to four, could fall prey to a sense of being stuck or not moving along. If planned from the beginning to have four parts, that's as much a problem, but if you're making up parts as you go along (Star Wars) or dividing a single work into pieces (LotR) I suspect that would be harder to get right.

[littlemanpoet]

Well, as far as X-Men and Spiderman went, I think the Rule of Three has a lot to do with "the Third One Sucked," thus killing the franchise as it then-stood. :D

LotR is only a trilogy through the happenstance of separated binding)By that reasoning, LotR should have been 6 movies since Tolkien originally split it into 6 books. Therefore, I eagerly await the next ambitious director, a generation from now, who insists on doing it all over again in 6. :p

[Mänwe]

If we don't have Legolas's red sky divinations, swinging through Mirkwood on vines or down fallen trees upon shields i'll be disappointed. I'll also enjoy watching contingents of glittering remote faced elves appearing when they aren't needed or wanted while Aragog will also make an appearance as head Attercop.

Despite it all, i've enjoyed and will enjoy whatever is released.

[Mithalwen]

Now now Manwe you must wait tol it is released to decide if you will like it :Merisu::smokin:

Have to be fair apparently and not decide on basis of pastexperience and trailers..

Before I run away and hide does the three thing have anything to do with the guide for food presentation and horse mane plaiting received wisdom that odd numbers look better.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

I believe I've posted this elsewhere, but again, regarding the so-called "thing about threes" in tales of heroic (mis)adventure:

The standard path of the mythological adventure of the hero is a magnification of the formula represented in the rites of passage: separation—initiation—return: which might be named the nuclear unit of the monomyth.

A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man. – Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces

In the case of J. R. R. Tolkien's telling (The Hobbit) and retelling (The Lord of the Rings) of the standard three-part monomyth, a Hobbit leaves the little world of the shire, has adventures along the way to a mountain where a great battle happens, and then returns home to the Shire determined to live the life of a reclusive bachelor. Same story. Similar hobbit. Bigger mountain.

As a practical business matter, with a half-a-billion dollar budget spent lavishly producing Tolkien's first, rather bare-bones telling of the monomyth in terms of hobbits -- his singular literary creation -- Peter Jackson requires at least three marketing cycles in order to have a hope of recouping that enormous sunk investment, much less make a profit. A pecuniary strategy of dribbling out parts of the rather slim tale over two-and-a-half years -- by any and every possible commercial gimmick -- accounts for the so-called "trilogy" and not any fealty to the standard formula for a heroic adventure.

[Inziladun]

Or so says this article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241758/Hobbit-film-wizardy-left-feeling-sick--Cinema-goers-complain-camera-speeds-3D-effects-caused-headaches-queasiness.html). And it wasn't even the script! ;)

[davem]

Very interesting piece over on Salon, commenting on Jackson's 'ironic' approach to the story, & why its alien to the spirit of Tolkien's work

There’s a sequence in the most recent trailer for Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit” that worries me. It’s at the very end: The dwarves are tentatively emerging from the debris of some colossal battle or other, and one of them says, “Well, that could’ve been worse” — and then a Volkswagen-size goblin carcass crashes down on them. This is more Chuck Jones than J.R.R. Tolkien, and if there’s more of the same in the coming feature film — whose scope, as we already know, has expanded far beyond that of the original novel — it may not be just Tolkien’s lovely little picaresque adventure that gets swallowed whole, but its plucky, whimsical tone as well, consumed by modern irony.......... There’s another scene in the trailer in which Gollum, responding to Bilbo’s proposal of a game of riddles, hisses, “If the Baggins loses, we eats it whole,” and Bilbo thinks for a moment, then says, “Fair enough” — but in that “Fair enough,” we don’t hear Hobbity reasonableness, we hear ironic resignation. We hear modernity.http://www.salon.com/2012/12/02/the_hobbit_was_not_nor_should_it_ever_be_imbued_wi th_irony/

Perhaps that's the real danger of expanding the original story to the extent they have - not that you end up with Bilbo's journey being swallowed up in the epic sweep of the movies, till it just becomes one tale among many, & Bilbo just one character among many, but that it becomes too grown up & ironic & rather than celebrating the simple Hobbit values of the original story it ends up winking at them knowingly & then goes charging back into the 3D decapitations. Certainly there is 'irony' in TH, but its the irony of, for example, having a build up to a massive battle only for the pov character to get knocked unconscious at the start, miss all the 'heroic', bloody carnage & wake up among the corpses of his friends.

[Nerwen]

Thanks for the link, davem– and a good point about there being different forms of irony, of which the ubiquitous (and increasingly tiresome) "wink wink" routine is only one.

[Mithalwen]

Or so says this article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241758/Hobbit-film-wizardy-left-feeling-sick--Cinema-goers-complain-camera-speeds-3D-effects-caused-headaches-queasiness.html). And it wasn't even the script! ;)

To be fair I feel ill with any 3d being astigmatic but I can imagine that improving it might increase the nausea.

[Morthoron]

To be fair I feel ill with any 3d being astigmatic but I can imagine that improving it might increase the nausea.

To be even fairer, I get nauseous from most Peter Jackson films.

[Mithalwen]

There is that factor.

[davem]

Its interesting how both LotR & TH end with an anti-climactic battle - LotR doesn't end (as with the film) with the epic battle & the fall of Sauron, but with the Scouring, which is a nasty, brutal fight between ordinary Hobbits & a bunch of thugs - and as SF writer China Mieville put it, you end up with a broken Saruman only capable of doing a little mischief in a mean way (as Mieville put it, 'You can't even get a decent Dark Lord any more').

Of course, the Battle of Five Armies is a devastating conflict, but it happens off-stage so the heroics go mostly unnoticed, & the main impression we are left with is of carnage & loss as Bilbo is lead through the corpse-strewn field to the dying Thorin, whose final words are to tell Bilbo that he was right after all, & that its the Hobbit's values that really matter, not battles or treasure. And yet, its fairly clear that what Jackson cares about are those very things - battle (on-screen) & treasure (profit).

If you re-tell LotR without the ugly brutal wastefulness of the Scouring, or depict the Battle of Five Armies on screen, then you don't get Tolkien. The Scouring shows us the ugly reality of war - not glorious battles, where heroes fall in noble self sacrifice to save the world from evil personified, but where ordinary people die in the streets & fields they grew up in, in front of their spouses & children, in order to make their little corner of the world a bit better for those they love.

Bilbo's lying senseless through the BoFA & only awakening after its all over, to then pick his way through the blood, stench & hacked up corpses, to watch his friend die an agonising death while telling him that, after all, it was all a bit bloody pointless when all was said & done, & that Bilbo's way is better, is to give the reader the death without the having given him even a glimpse of the glory. As far as Bilbo is concerned the dead might have been killed in an eruption of the Mountain, or by mass suicide. Death without glory is the way both books end when it comes to war.

And that is clearly what Jackson misses. Still, I'll be going to see the spectacle, because as with the LotR movies, I reckon something of Tolkien will come through. What is sad is that many people will see the film & not read the book, or if they do go on to read it, they will do so in the light of PJs take on it.

[Morthoron]

Its interesting how both LotR & TH end with an anti-climactic battle - LotR doesn't end (as with the film) with the epic battle & the fall of Sauron, but with the Scouring, which is a nasty, brutal fight between ordinary Hobbits & a bunch of thugs...

...And that is clearly what Jackson misses. Still, I'll be going to see the spectacle, because as with the LotR movies, I reckon something of Tolkien will come through. What is sad is that many people will see the film & not read the book, or if they do go on to read it, they will do so in the light of PJs take on it.

Very well said, davem.

Additionally, I think that movie-goers didn't get to see the growth and maturation of the hobbits in Jackson's LotR, particularly because the Scouring of the Shire was omitted. The brilliance of Tolkien's original story is that the hobbits must fend for themselves once they return home. They must become the leaders, without the aid of wizards, dwarves, elves, glorified Anglo-Saxon horsemen or legendary kings.

Likewise, the enemy is no longer a Dark Lord with demonic orkish minions, wargs and balrogs; instead, as you said, they must face mercenary thugs, mannish brutes and vagrants, and Sharky, wounded, old and treacherous, bereft of divine power, but still able to commit appallingly petty acts of vengeance. And they must overcome the evil inherent in even unassuming but greedy hobbits. Thus, Tolkien offers a foreshadowing of the wars of the 4th age and onward, where the foe we fight is ourselves and not a supernatural enemy.

Jackson caught the cinematographic spectacle of the story, the huge sweep of vast armies and the marvelous edifices of lost empires, but he failed utterly in capturing the heart of the story and the nobility of the individuals involved. How else can one explain Frodo abandoning Sam, the savaging of the tragic hero Denethor, the befuddlement of Treebeard, and the trivialization of Aragorn's peer, Faramir?

Aragorn commits an ignoble act of treachery by beheading an ambassador under a flag of truce merely for a cheap one-line pun, and simply for the sake of added spectacle and CGI overkill a legion of undead scrubbing bubbles destroys Sauron's army, all but eliminating the need for the valorous and lethal charge of the Rohirrim. Frodo whines throughout the movie, Merry and Pippin never progress past boorish louts, Elrond is cynical and bitter, Gimli is a walking dwarf joke, and the character with the most depth isn't even human but a CGI replication.

I know Tolkien eschewed allegory, but woe to all of us if Jackson decides to make a movie about the Bible: Jonah would be swallowed by a CGI leviathan of Jurassic proportions, Noah's ark would be nuclear-powered, Moses would not inflict ten plagues on Egypt (he'd have at least twenty, including zombies, dragons, spiders and flying monkeys), and a wise-cracking Jesus, ably assisted by his 12 ninjas, would call down the heavenly host to smite the Romans. Because, after all, one must use creative license, and the original scripture needs tweaking to appeal to modern audiences.

[davem]

Just a quick acknowledgment and thanks for all the positive rep for what was a very rushed post. :) There are certainly numerous points in the films where you get the sense that Jackson just doesn't get Tolkien's point, where the story becomes for him so completely unintelligible, that all he can do is invent an alternative. I so wish the Hobbit movie would follow the book and build up to the BOFA, with the audience expecting another Pelenor Fields, only for the screen to go black when Bilbo is knocked unconscious and the viewer to see nothing of the battle at all. That would be being faithful to Tolkien. But it won't happen, obviously. We'll basically get rehash of PF, a 'glorious' epic battle, with eye popping effects (and probably some few pratfalls to lighten the mood), which will overwhelm and undermine Bilbo and Thorin's final farewell. Anyway, too rushed again - and typed on a phone ( I was tempted to leave in the 'eye pooping effects' that the predictive text threw up back there.....)

[Bêthberry]

On the other hand, there's this perspective.


The ‘bad guys’ are not quite horrible monstrosities that cause death and destruction but instead are similar to villains in an episode of the A-Team. You know, where no matter how many times they shoot at our heroes, they never actually hit their mark. It ultimately makes for exciting confrontations, but no real concern the heroes will meet their doom. Some who are not familiar with the childish nature of The Hobbit might find this a bit odd when they compare the drama to the LOTR films.

Folks at TORN are getting busy: mumble mumble funny frames mumble (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/12/04/66330-the-hobbit-an-expected-masterpiece-in-a-distracting-frame/?fb_source=pubv1)

[Nerwen]

I so wish the Hobbit movie would follow the book and build up to the BOFA, with the audience expecting another Pelenor Fields, only for the screen to go black when Bilbo is knocked unconscious and the viewer to see nothing of the battle at all. That would be being faithful to Tolkien.
*coughs* Let's not get carried away here. At the risk of sounding like all the people bleating "But films and books are different mediums!" (which is for some reason supposed to demolish any criticism of the films whatsoever)– I really *don't* think that could work at all on screen.

Besides, the battle *is* described in the book– just not from Bilbo's point of view.

[Inziladun]

The reviews (http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117948867/) are starting for the first installment. That one seems in line with a lot of what has been said here. Discount the author's obvious unfamiliarity with the source material (such as when he refers to the "troll-infested forest of Mirkwood" :rolleyes:). Here's a snippet:

With few exceptions, these insights bog down a tale already overtaxed by a surfeit of characters. The film introduces Radagast (Sylvester McCoy), a comical brown wizard with an ordure-streaked beard, and an unsatisfying subplot involving a Necromancer that's clearly an early form of Sauron, out of place in this story. It also makes room for cumbersome reunions -- or "preunions," perhaps -- with Galadriel, Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and Saruman (Christopher Lee) in the elf city of Rivendell, hinting at the greater roles they will play in "The Lord of the Rings."

PJ was so intent on making the "bridge" between TH and his previous trilogy so obvious it looks like a troll in the living room, he just had to throw in a glut of characters that have no business making personal appearances in this story. Tolkien didn't think a ton of exposition about the side matters of the White Council was necessary in The Hobbit, but leave it to Big Hollywood to always consider they know best.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

After a quick skim of the most recent discussion on this thread, I must throw out my two cents (or one cent, perhaps, because it is a trifle?). Bilbo did not fight in the Battle of Five Armies, no. As was pointed out earlier, he was unconscious during most of the duration. We will get Bo5A in the movie, whether we want it or not; there is no question. That would not really be a blight to the film, in fact, I think that I might actually enjoy it. It is keeping with the narrative of the book. The trouble I would have with the battle being an epic fifteen minutes of running time (as it will inevitably be), is if they decided to make Bilbo some war hero in it. In LotR the hobbits had a fair amount of battling. They did that in the books, though. I didn't see a big problem with that. I would, however, have a problem with Bilbo fighting in the Bo5A. That would be contrary to the book and to the essence of the story.

And that is clearly what Jackson misses. Still, I'll be going to see the spectacle, because as with the LotR movies, I reckon something of Tolkien will come through. What is sad is that many people will see the film & not read the book, or if they do go on to read it, they will do so in the light of PJs take on it.

I will close this post by stating that this is exactly what my mother will do and so will my brother. I hear so many cries of "I don't have the time to read The Hobbit before I see it!" The fact of the matter is, TH isn't a very long book. I read it in a day, if given an hour or two here and there I think that it could be finished in a week or two. That is not taxing. Every time I hear someone -- who is usually close to me -- say that they cannot or will not read TH before they see it, I cringe. I am bitter or saddened because of it. When we spend three hours every day watching television, shouldn't we have time to read?

[Morthoron]

Critics are starting to chime in over on Rotten Tomatoes:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/

Currently, the rating is a 75% (out of 100%). Much of what I read as I waded through the reviews is consistent with what I was concerned with all along: taking a linear mock-epic and weighing it down with superfluous subplots like so many carbuncles on the hull of a ship. Jackson (and his cronies at Warner) insisted on dragging this out to three movies in what is either a) a money grab, or b) a descent into megalomania on the part of Jackson and the twits he writes with.

[Glorthelion]

The last time I checked at Metacritic or some other site, the rating was at 78%. I'm very willing to see the film since it is better than the crap that comes out of Hollywood these days. Still the Hobbit film, no matter how good it is can never beat the LOTR trilogy.

[cellurdur]

Just a quick acknowledgment and thanks for all the positive rep for what was a very rushed post. :) There are certainly numerous points in the films where you get the sense that Jackson just doesn't get Tolkien's point, where the story becomes for him so completely unintelligible, that all he can do is invent an alternative. I so wish the Hobbit movie would follow the book and build up to the BOFA, with the audience expecting another Pelenor Fields, only for the screen to go black when Bilbo is knocked unconscious and the viewer to see nothing of the battle at all. That would be being faithful to Tolkien. But it won't happen, obviously. We'll basically get rehash of PF, a 'glorious' epic battle, with eye popping effects (and probably some few pratfalls to lighten the mood), which will overwhelm and undermine Bilbo and Thorin's final farewell. Anyway, too rushed again - and typed on a phone ( I was tempted to leave in the 'eye pooping effects' that the predictive text threw up back there.....)

As has been pointed out we do get a description of the battle from: from Thorin's death, his nephews valiant stand around him to Beorn's appearance. This was a great battle.

Personally I don't care if the films are true to the events only described in the Hobbit, as long as they are true to the Legendarium. I would go as far as saying I don't even mind if things are added to the Legendarium, which likely happened, but were never explicitly stated. For me it is fine to have Legolas with his father at Mirkwood, why not show a young Aragorn playing in Rivendell or even have Gandalf mention how Elrond's great grandfather wielded Glamdring.

[Nerwen]

Critics are starting to chime in over on Rotten Tomatoes:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/

Currently, the rating is a 75% (out of 100%).
And when I last checked all the fanbrats there were *screeching*. Apparently now, not only is no-one allowed to criticise a film they like, they're not allowed to criticise one they *think* they might like. It's not like the critics are panning it, either, by any means, they're just pointing out flaws in the usual way.

[Kuruharan]

Therefore, I eagerly await the next ambitious director, a generation from now, who insists on doing it all over again in 6. :p

Given the current state of the movie industry...why wait a generation?!

Let's reboot the entire series the moment The Hobbit trilogy is done!!!!

And let Jackson be the one to do it again!!!!

I'm sure the Witch-King's mace could be even larger!!!!!

[Glorthelion]

I want to see Michael Bay direct LOTR. He does a good job with big films.

KIDDING!

Jokes aside, I'd like to see Christopher Nolan reboot the LOTR franchise. His Batman films were nothing less than outstanding.

[Kuruharan]

Speaking of reviews...

This (http://blogs.indiewire.com/carynjames/hobbitreview) is a rather childish one.

The opening paragraph in particular was a doozie.

"I spent a fair amount of time during Peter Jackson’s latest installment in his Tolkien franchise comparing it to the Harry Potter movies, thinking how savvy J.K. Rowling’s approach to magic has been, how successful in the broadest way those films are."

Rowling's approach to magic was...savvy?

I don't think that word means what the critic thinks it means.

[Boromir88]

And when I last checked all the fanbrats there were *screeching*. Apparently now, not only is no-one allowed to criticise a film they like, they're not allowed to criticise one they *think* they might like. It's not like the critics are panning it, either, by any means, they're just pointing out flaws in the usual way.

A couple of them seemed more of a rant against the faster frame speed, more than the actual film. But the criticisms about the length "You can read book out loud quicker than the time it will take to watch all three films" or Jackson's apparent refusal to understand trimming and editting films are a part of wearing the director pants are undoubtedly spot on.

The consistant favorite seems to be Gollum's appearance and encounter with Bilbo, which is refreshing that the memorable part of the first movie is a great chapter in the books. Those compliments are probably more appropriately given to Serkis and Freeman though.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Without getting into the narrative aspects of The Hobbit -- that will come later, he says -- Salon critic Andrew O'Hehir focuses on just the technical aspects of HFR/3D in his review, "Why does 'The Hobbit' look so weird?":

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/06/why_does_the_hobbit_look_so_weird/

I think I'll see the film in standard 2D at 24 frames-per-second. I have enough issues -- namely, inane narrative and CGI bloat -- to deal with already. Simply trying to extract the first third of The Hobbit from Peter Jackson's video-game concept of Middle Earth: Episode I will no doubt prove challenging enough without continuously having to ask myself why this film looks the way it does while trying to remember whatever has happened to Bilbo Baggins, ostensibly the subject of interest in this film.

[Morthoron]

Speaking of reviews...

This (http://blogs.indiewire.com/carynjames/hobbitreview) is a rather childish one.

The opening paragraph in particular was a doozie.

"I spent a fair amount of time during Peter Jackson’s latest installment in his Tolkien franchise comparing it to the Harry Potter movies, thinking how savvy J.K. Rowling’s approach to magic has been, how successful in the broadest way those films are."

Rowling's approach to magic was...savvy?

I don't think that word means what the critic thinks it means.

Aside from the Inigo Montoya quote, yes, teenagers waving about twigs and shouting in mangled Latinate is savvy, meaning Professor Mandingus Savvy, the first headmaster of Hogwarts, who initiated the whole prepubescent twig-waving, Latin-shouting fad among school-age witches. Voldemort turned him into a newt, but he got better.

[Nerwen]

A couple of them seemed more of a rant against the faster frame speed, more than the actual film. But the criticisms about the length "You can read book out loud quicker than the time it will take to watch all three films" or Jackson's apparent refusal to understand trimming and editting films are a part of wearing the director pants are undoubtedly spot on.
Well... I 'd prefer to say that, in the case of this particular film, they're *probably* spot on. That's sort of the point I'm making: none of these fanbrats have seen the film yet, any more than we have, and yet they've already decided it "must" be a flawless masterpiece, such that no valid criticism is even possible.

As for the frame rate issue, and whether that should be a factor... hmmn, I don't know. Thing is, it *was* made quite a selling point.

[Kuruharan]

Aside from the Inigo Montoya quote

Inigo: Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You ruined my favorite fantasy setting! Prepare to die!

[Bêthberry]

A review from TORn about the regular film (24 fps) screening without the technical gewgaws.

Warning, spoilers!

Happy with Hobbit (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/12/09/66895-torn-staffer-arwen-reviews-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/?fb_source=pubv1)

[Morthoron]

A review from TORn about the regular film (24 fps) screening without the technical gewgaws.

Warning, spoilers!

Happy with Hobbit (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/12/09/66895-torn-staffer-arwen-reviews-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/?fb_source=pubv1)

Hmmm...it's not so much a review as it is a divine recapitulation. ;)

But aside from the flattering characterization of the movie (I, myself, was almost moved to tears :rolleyes:), one does pick up that it takes a damn long time for Bilbo and the Dwarves to get going on their adventure, which is consistent with many reviews I've read that state the movie doesn't really pick up speed until Bilbo meets Gollum.

And even with superfluous subplots, the first movie ends at the Carrock on the verge of Mirkwood; so one can easily see that two more movies would not be necessary in telling the remainder of the story. Which presupposes, of course, that the final two movies will center on the original plot of The Hobbit at all.

This leads me to believe that Guillermo del Toro's original scripting of a two-movie version of The Hobbit would have eliminated much of the extraneous flab that hangs like jowls off the head of a hog, and would be best served as additional fodder on an extended edition blu-ray.

[SonofUgluk]

New review in from The Telegraph , and it's not good , I will however make up my own mind in a week or so ;)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/9730525/The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-movie-review.html

[Kuruharan]

Like butter that has been scraped over too much bread” was how JRR Tolkien described the supernatural world-weariness of Bilbo Baggins in the opening chapter of The Lord of the Rings.

What a great opening line for the review, especially the way it was used.

The stuffing is required because Jackson and Warner Bros have divided Tolkien’s fairly short story into three incredibly long films, which will mean vastly inflated box office revenues at the small cost of artistic worth and entertainment.

Way to go for the jugular! I don't think there is any better way to sum up this mess.

Here, Gandalf has an interminable conversation with Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Saruman (Christopher Lee) and Elrond (Hugo Weaving), which gets so boring that Bilbo and the dwarves leave without them.

Ah ha ha ha ha!

I have decided I like this critic!

Thus spake Kuruharan. :cool:

[Inziladun]

This is to me the most interesting:

This film is so stuffed with extraneous faff and flummery that it often barely feels like Tolkien at all – more a dire, fan-written internet tribute. The book begins with the unimprovable ten-word opening sentence: “In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit.” Jackson, by contrast, starts with an interminable narrative detour about a mining operation run by a team of dwarfs, involving magic crystals, orc armies and details of dwarf family trees that are of interest, at this early stage in what is supposed to be a family film, to almost nobody.

The first sentence could well apply to Jackson's previous efforts at Tolkien. :rolleyes:

As for the rest, it's pretty much what we "unjust" critics here have been ruminating about for some time.
At any rate, I may end up seeing it despite my misgivings. I am matched against a power too great for me (my wife), who has said she wants to go. :eek:

[davem]

Guardian bit more positive http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/dec/09/hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-review

So Tolkien's gentle tale is going to be a triple box-office bonanza, occupying the same amount of space as the mighty Rings epic, an effect achieved by pumping up the confrontations, opening out the backstory and amplifying the ambient details, like zooming in on a Google Middle Earth.

They also have five-odd minutes of clips http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/video/2012/dec/07/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-watch-six-clips-video which, for me, show the problem with the movie - it starts out nicely, apparently quite faithful to the book, but by the final couple of clips - the Warg attack & particularly the fight in the mines, it seems to have lost the plot completely & to be letting the technology lead & to just be putting stuff in there because they can. Oh, it looks exciting enough, but its all been done before (principally by Jackson himself in LotR) so it looks familiar as well.

Its odd that they justify extending the story over three films by claiming that there was too much material for just two films, when all the extra material is stuff they've just (unnecessarily) made up. Its like a cook serving up a 15 course banquet when you only asked for a nice 3 course meal & justifying it by claiming that he had LOADS of food there which would have gone to waste otherwise, & your first thought is 'Well, why did you make so much then? Nobody asked you to.' You get the feeling that Jackson & his writers are incapable of any kind of discrimination when it comes to their ideas - if they think of something they just film it & stick it in there. Got the same feeling about their King Kong.

Interestingly I just finished listening to Nicol Williamson's reading of TH on You Tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggm7XM-3dF8 & while its an abridged version it is an absolutely beautiful & faithful re-telling, which comes in around the same length as this first movie.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Han Solo doesn't think much of PJ's Hobbit:

"I've got a bad feeling about this."
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lytZ7fYOlgU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Kuruharan]

At any rate, I may end up seeing it despite my misgivings. I am matched against a power too great for me (my wife), who has said she wants to go. :eek:

Same boat I'm in...except its a bit worse for me as my wife's vessel the good ship Drag Kuru into going to The Hobbit has as its First Mate my Mom and the engineer is my Dad.

Oh well.

I found this line from the Guardian review utterly hilarious...

a seraphic and almost immobile Cate Blanchett

[davem]

Metro a bit noncommittal http://metro.co.uk/2012/12/10/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-is-decent-enough-but-its-no-lord-of-the-rings-3310069/

* my favourite line from the movie so far - I hope the reviewer isn't joking about it being in the film. I want it on a tshirt.

[Inziladun]

Metro a bit noncommittal http://metro.co.uk/2012/12/10/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-is-decent-enough-but-its-no-lord-of-the-rings-3310069/

* my favourite line from the movie so far - I hope the reviewer isn't joking about it being in the film. I want it on a tshirt.

While the Tolkien lover in me screams in outrage, my sense of humor also demands a t-shirt. ;)

[Mithalwen]

"the rubber noses look a great deal more rubbery than nosey. " snork...

[davem]

We are off to see it (in 3D) on Friday aft. Personally I'd have preferred to wait for the DVD and take the edges off it with a couple or five glasses of madeira ...... Noticed the reviews on the sfx and Mail sites are a bit half hearted as well.

[Galadriel55]

I decided I am going to see it, but at least a couple weeks after the 14th. I'm not the one to go stand all day in line waiting to get the tickets, just to spend the next couple hours in an overcrowded room full of overexcited fans.

[Rumil]

Hmm, well, initial reviews and clips don't really seem like The Hobbit I remember reading, I hope they've managed to keep some of the charm of the tale. Fingers crossed!

As in LoTR the scenery looks great, and if all else fails perhaps someone can edit it all down into a decent film in a few years time - there should certainly be enough footage.

Giant rabbits are a bit of a stretch for me I must say, though not absolutely unthinkable in a book with Beorn's serving-sheep, I have no issue with comedy hedgehogs,

But SEBASTIAN!!!!!!

Nonononononononononono NO! Is there anything resembling such a name in all the tongues of elves, men, dwarves or orcs, or even hobbits, ents and chatty ravens???

[Galadriel55]

As in LoTR the scenery looks great, and if all else fails perhaps someone can edit it all down into a decent film in a few years time - there should certainly be enough footage.

Right. The only 2 things I am hoping for at the moment regarding TH are scenery and music. My motto about the film: expect the worst and never be disappointed. However, I do believe the music and scenery will be better than the worst. :)

[davem]

Giant rabbits are a bit of a stretch for me I must say, though not absolutely unthinkable in a book with Beorn's serving-sheep, I have no issue with comedy hedgehogs,

But SEBASTIAN!!!!!!


Possibly a reference to St Sebastian????: On being informed of (Sebastian's) pro-Christian advocacy, Diocletian reproached the saint for his supposed betrayal. The furious emperor then "commanded him to be led to the field and there to be bounden to a stake for to be shot at. And the archers shot at him till he was as full of arrows as an urchin [hedgehog] is full of pricks."Their appointed task (apparently) completed, the guardsmen left him there for dead. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Saint_Sebastian I've read a few references to Boromir as a St Sebastian figure given the similarity of their deaths. Can't think of any specific references to St Sebastian in Tolkien's letters or other writings though.

EDIT I know Sebastian sounds a bit out of place - just so long as they don't give the Trolls silly names :P

[Pomegranate]

I am looking forward to this. I'm pretty excited about seeing a continuation of the Peter Jackson Middle-Earth - for me different from the Tolkien Middle-Earth, but still well-beloved. I was perhaps more excited about seeing a Guillermo del Toro Middle Earth, for it would've been fun to have several different 'canon to the movie-goers' worlds; Now it's just Pete's view, which is sad, but which is still such a big part of my childhood and my Tolkien experience that I'm excited.

However, what I will miss, what I think PJ could've never produced due to his image of Middle-Earth leaning to such an opposite direction, but what for me is a very intrinsic part of The Hobbit, is the lack of too much destiny and doom. This is represented in a quote by Frodo in LOTR.

"Of course, I have sometimes thought of going away, but I imagined that as a kind of holiday, a series of adventures like Bilbo's or better, ending in peace."

The forthcoming movie with "Why the hobbit, Gandalf"'s and "You didn't promise that I would come back"s and "Nor will I be responsible for his fate"s feels way too grand and massive. I was fine with the idea that they'd put some of the Necromancer-stuff in, but including the silly adventure of the dvarves in this greater scheme of things, in this talk of dooms and fates and you will never be the sames, just feels a bit wrong. I guess this is the situation of it being a children's book but definitely not a children's film. I guess it has to be accepted, given how this was clearly made as a prequel to the LOTR movies, and how it thus needs to have a similar mood in order to attract the same group of fans. But I'll miss it, and I hope that one day the filming rights will be released and someone makes a good, and a not too doomy children's film out of The Hobbit. The book deserves it.

[littlemanpoet]

I hope that one day the filming rights will be released and someone makes a good, and a not too doomy children's film out of The Hobbit. The book deserves it.It was done years ago, but not as live action. Google "Rankin Bass Hobbit".

[Mithalwen]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/12/new-film-hobbit?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/an_unexpected_disappointment

[Inziladun]

Sounds like a familiar refrain.

The trouble starts when Mr Jackson starts to shoehorn in the back story. Many wondered how the director would get three films out of a 272-page book. Now they know. It makes some sense to put the dwarves’ quest into the larger context of the gathering storm in Middle Earth—the parallel activities of elves and wizards are sprinkled throughout the book and Tolkien indulged his imagination further in a lengthy appendix to “The Lord of the Rings”. But Mr Jackson has avidly seized on this material and dropped it in rather clunkily.

You know, why couldn't they have started the tale by taking a cue from UT's The Quest of Erebor? Just have Frodo, Sam, and Gimli talking together in Minas Tirith after Sauron's fall, and have someone ask why Bilbo was chosen by Gandalf. Gimli and Gandalf could have quickly set the stage, and then cut to Bilbo at Bag End.
Too simple for the likes of PJ? :rolleyes:

[radagastly]

Originally posted by Inziladun:
You know, why couldn't they have started the tale by taking a cue from UT's The Quest of Erebor? Just have Frodo, Sam, and Gimli talking together in Minas Tirith after Sauron's fall, and have someone ask why Bilbo was chosen by Gandalf. Gimli and Gandalf could have quickly set the stage, and then cut to Bilbo at Bag End.
Since the Tolkien estate still owns the film rights to all of the books published after Tolkien's death, any scene like that, or even remotely similar, might well open up P.J. and New Line to law suits for copyright infringment, quite different from the "creative accounting" lawsuits previously imposed on them, especially considering the contentious relationship they already enjoy with the Tolkien estate.

[Inziladun]

Since the Tolkien estate still owns the film rights to all of the books published after Tolkien's death, any scene like that, or even remotely similar, might well open up P.J. and New Line to law suits for copyright infringment, quite different from the "creative accounting" lawsuits previously imposed on them, especially considering the contentious relationship they already enjoy with the Tolkien estate.

True, that. Maybe that's an instant when co-operation by the Estate could have made all the movies better. But then they'd have expected some concessions from the filmmakers too. Irresistible force, meet immovable object. :rolleyes:

[davem]

True, that. Maybe that's an instant when co-operation by the Estate could have made all the movies better. But then they'd have expected some concessions from the filmmakers too. Irresistible force, meet immovable object. :rolleyes:

My feeling is that both sides have been too bloody minded. The Estate could have given more & been less 'precious' about the works - the films have meant a great deal to a great many people & its not as if the film-makers have bought up every copy of the books & torched them. At the same time the film makers seem to have revelled in their belief that they know better than Tolkien & gone ahead & made changes in both storyline & tone which they must have known would antagonise CT. CT has shown himself very willing in the past to help out with dramatising his father's work. My suspicion is that if the film-makers had approached him for help he would have been willing - but then they would have had to give way to him in certain aspects of the adaptation.

For those interested in the part CT played in helping the adaptors of the BBC Radio series of LotR back in the early 80's, here's Brian Sibley (one of the adaptors along with Michael Bakewell) discussing Christopher's help (including allowing them to use material from UT in their adaptation) as well as an excerpt from a tape CT sent them to help with pronunciations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5spIPrF_PPE&feature=plcp

[Bêthberry]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/12/new-film-hobbit?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/an_unexpected_disappointment

"The LotR trilogy was close to perfect" :eek: :( :rolleyes:

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

"The LotR trilogy was close to perfect"
"fiasco."

:)

[Kuruharan]

You know, why couldn't they have started the tale by taking a cue from UT's The Quest of Erebor? Just have Frodo, Sam, and Gimli talking together in Minas Tirith after Sauron's fall, and have someone ask why Bilbo was chosen by Gandalf. Gimli and Gandalf could have quickly set the stage, and then cut to Bilbo at Bag End.
Too simple for the likes of PJ? :rolleyes:

Aside from the (rather more serious and important reasons already listed) you could never have gotten John Rhys-Davies back into his Gimli makeup.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Someone else may have already done this. If so, I apologize for any redundancy. Otherwise, a much younger Mr Spock (who had his own pointy-ears issues) sings all one needs to know about The Hobbit. Someone in the comments section of the Economist review posted the link. Economical in the extreme, and absolutely horrible as music, it nonetheless succinctly summarizes the essential narrative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2HQ1K7YyQM

Somehow, I suspect that when I get around to seeing Peter Jackson's impression of George Lucas doing Middle Earth: Episode I (with Chinese subtitles here in Kaohsiung, Taiwan), I'll wish I had seen a movie version of the song instead.

Three years of insufferable marketing and celebrity/fan-fiction hype to endure, only to spend nine hours having to figure out just what happened to Tolkien's coherent little two-and-a-half hour story about the hobbit Bilbo Baggins. On the positive side, I understand that Andy Serkis as the schizoid Smeagol/Gollum comes in about two hours into the movie and somewhat rescues the floundering enterprise. So I guess I'll have to content myself with that. What Middle Earth: Episode II and Middle Earth: Episode III will do without the tortured little freak, I have no idea. Something awful keeps suggesting to me that Prince Legolas and the elf chick security guard Itaril/Tauriel may try to fill the void. The action-figure elvish Ken and Barbie dolls now on sale only seem to corroborate this dreadful prospect.

Oh, well ...

[Nerwen]

"The LotR trilogy was close to perfect" :eek: :( :rolleyes:
It seems pretty much *all* critics who have reviewed The Hobbit are major fans of the Lord of the Rings movies– which has already led many an aggrieved fanboy to accuse them of bias on account of "unrealistic expectations". (Can't win, really.)

[alatar]

"The LotR trilogy was close to perfect" :eek: :( :rolleyes:Hoot! Maybe this is PJ's plan to make us all much fonder of LotR.

[Morthoron]

Hoot! Maybe this is PJ's plan to make us all much fonder of LotR.

Peter Jackson: Lord of the Revision.

[Aeglos]

I have seen the movie. Not sure if this is the right place to post. But i think it was really good. Its not as epic as lotr, but its more down to earth and more fairytale-ish. Some things are changed in the story to make a more "hollywood" movie, but its rly close to what i imagined when i read the book. Its pretty close!

PJ made some changes and added something aswell, and i rly dont think he failed it was a nice "try" to expand tolkiens world, and people will critizise him for it, but i think its good that someone tries atleast. Blown away by the film, the music wasnt all that. But ok.

[Mithalwen]

It seems pretty much *all* critics who have reviewed The Hobbit are major fans of the Lord of the Rings movies– which has already led many an aggrieved fanboy to accuse them of bias on account of "unrealistic expectations". (Can't win, really.)

And of course the expectations couldn't have been raised by the Jackson cultists who decreed that whatever PJ decided would be all for the best in the best of all possible Middle Earthes.

My own expectations seem to being confirmrd. And since I loathe SerkisGollum and find the music soupy.... don't think I will be making the trek to the multiplex yet.

[Kuruharan]

This (http://news.yahoo.com/hobbit-one-bad-video-game-173813922.html;_ylt=AniiWmQfYSGHOAyOYkXybajBXV5H;_ ylu=X3oDMTVwNWsxZjI5BGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2 lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDTkZVIEJ1Y2tldCBBcnRpY2xlIENvcmUg TkZVIHdpdGhvdXQgTW9yZSBMaW5rBHBrZwNhNjQyYjQwOS1jMT czLTMyMzctOGQxMS0xYjVlZjcxODUwOTEEcG9zAzMEc2VjA25l d3NfZm9yX3lvdQR2ZXIDMDc2ZDhhMDAtNDQ4My0xMWUyLWFmZm YtYTY3MDU0YTE0NTcy;_ylg=X3oDMTM0MGs2aHVsBGludGwDdX MEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDOTY1YWNhOTItYzZhZS0zMjll LWI3Y2QtYWJkODNkNjRlYjc1BHBzdGNhdAN1LXMEcHQDc3Rvcn lwYWdlBHRlc3QDTjRVX2NvcmU-;_ylv=3) is one of the most scathing reviews I have seen yet. The critic pulls no punches and is direct and blunt, even though I completely disagree with his assessment that the LOTR film trilogy was a marvel of cinematic triumph.

[edit] Its...uhh...actually the Atlantic Wire...and I am hoist yet again by the inability to edit headings :o

[alatar]

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, is such a sullenly, basely commercial and junky affair, a movie that feels not crafted with Jackson's seemingly divine inspiration...
Melkor perhaps?

[davem]

Guardian reckons its too long http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/dec/12/is-the-hobbit-too-long

I'm being 'taken' to see it & one thing I'm not looking forward to is the three hour running time. I'd be less bothered by it being made into three movies if they were three 90 minute movies. I'm old enough to remember when most films were 90 minutes (apart from the odd Gone With the Wind/Laurence of Arabia) & most books were around the 200 page mark, & I enjoyed them much more. Seems like the advent of the word processor did for reasonable sized novels & computer graphics & video did for reasonable length films.

[Bêthberry]

[edit] Its...uhh...actually the Atlantic Wire...and I am hoist yet again by the inability to edit headings

Kuru, if you go to "Advanced Edit" you can change the title. :)


Hoot! Maybe this is PJ's plan to make us all much fonder of LotR.

I do like eternal optimists. :D


I'm being 'taken' to see it

Do remember you can vent here if not domestically. ;)

[Inziladun]

I'm not looking forward to is the three hour running time. I'd be less bothered by it being made into three movies if they were three 90 minute movies. I'm old enough to remember when most films were 90 minutes (apart from the odd Gone With the Wind/Laurence of Arabia) & most books were around the 200 page mark, & I enjoyed them much more. Seems like the advent of the word processor did for reasonable sized novels & computer graphics & video did for reasonable length films.

Three hours? Seriously? All other critiques aside, I honestly don't know if I can handle that. I'm absolutely riddled with ADD, and it especially rears its head when I'm faced with a task I don't enjoy. ;)

[davem]

Three hours? Seriously? All other critiques aside, I honestly don't know if I can handle that. I'm absolutely riddled with ADD, and it especially rears its head when I'm faced with a task I don't enjoy. ;)

Two hours and fifty minutes. In the past they'd have an intermission with long films. I suspect its about getting you to go twice to see the bit you missed when your bladder gave out during the first viewing.

[alatar]

I'm being 'taken' to see it
Sorry; can't help seeing visions of a trussed and gagged davem in the theater. :D

Two hours and fifty minutes. In the past they'd have an intermission with long films. I suspect its about getting you to go twice to see the bit you missed when your bladder gave out during the first viewing.I remember similar discussions for LotR run times. Movies with longer run times can generate less revenue as they can be shown fewer times during the day.

Surely the industry knows this and has somehow compensated (bigger theaters, more showings, some other plan).

[Kuruharan]

Kuru, if you go to "Advanced Edit" you can change the title. :)

Huh...I didn't know that.

I'll leave it as it is now since everyone has seen it. :)

[TheLostPilgrim]

I've seen a lot of comparisons with The Phantom Menace...

[Inziladun]

I've seen a lot of comparisons with The Phantom Menace...

Hardly a ringing endorsement. Who gets to be Jar Jar? My money's on Bombur. :rolleyes:

[TheLostPilgrim]

Hardly a ringing endorsement. Who gets to be Jar Jar? My money's on Bombur. :rolleyes:

Actually, people have compared Radagast to Jar Jar. Apparently, PJ has Radagast driving a sled pulled by bunnies and has his hair and beard literally covered in birdsh*t. No lie. Radagast literally has a bird's nest in his hair. I am not joking.

[Inziladun]

Actually, people have compared Radagast to Jar Jar. Apparently, PJ has Radagast driving a sled pulled by bunnies and has his hair and beard literally covered in birdsh*t. No lie. Radagast literally has a bird's nest in his hair. I am not joking.

While in the books "Radagast the Simple" did indeed seem to be of a less lofty mold than the other Istari we see, I hate to think of him reduced to that level. What is this? A parody (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bored_of_the_Rings)? :rolleyes:

[davem]

With LotR they were restricted in what they could do - there was just so much they had to include from the books. Certainly they played around with episodes in the book but there was little stuff they actually invented outright. The problem with TH is you've got enough material for a good three hour movie but its stretched over 9 hours. To do that you either massively over-extend each episode to the point almost of filming it in slo-mo, or you invent six hours of stuff & insert it at various points in the three hour story. Actually, from many of the reviews I've read they've gone for a mixture of the two. Eru knows what we'll get in the extended editions.

Too much of the new stuff seems to smack of loss of control, not knowing what to do with the time they have to fill, & frankly of boredom on the part of the writer/director. I don't pick up the same level of 'excitement' coming from Jackson/Boyens this time as I did back in the LotR days.

I think its a foregone conclusion that the first movie will be a mega hit, but I wonder about the second..