"The Hobbit: There And Back Again" To be Renamed "The Battle of the Five Armies"

[LordPhillock]

this was... not unexpected for once. (https://www.facebook.com/PeterJacksonNZ/posts/10152332243996558)

in case you don't want to click the link, here's the excerpt from Peter Jackson's status update on Facebook:

Inside Information...
Our journey to make The Hobbit Trilogy has been in some ways like Bilbo's own, with hidden paths revealing their secrets to us as we've gone along. “There and Back Again” felt like the right name for the second of a two film telling of the quest to reclaim Erebor, when Bilbo’s arrival there, and departure, were both contained within the second film. But with three movies, it suddenly felt misplaced—after all, Bilbo has already arrived “there” in the "Desolation of Smaug".
When we did the premiere trip late last year, I had a quiet conversation with the studio about the idea of revisiting the title. We decided to keep an open mind until a cut of the film was ready to look at. We reached that point last week, and after viewing the movie, we all agreed there is now one title that feels completely appropriate.
And so: "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" it is.
As Professor Tolkien intended, “There and Back Again” encompasses Bilbo’s entire adventure, so don’t be surprised if you see it used on a future box-set of all three movies.
Before then however, we have a film to finish, and much to share with you. It’s been a nice quiet time for us—Jabez and I happily editing away in a dark cave in Wellington—but those halcyon days are quickly coming to an end. It will soon be time to step into the light. Expect to see and hear much about The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies in the coming months.
And there’s also The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Extended Cut, which we’re in the process of finishing, with over 25 mins of new scenes, all scored with original music composed by Howard Shore.
It’ll be a fun year!

[tom the eldest]

Really?is this true?is so,then this makes no sense.if the title is'the battle of five armies',wouldnt it mean that the films only focus on the battle,not the entire story?its like renaming return of the king to battle of pelennor fields.

[LordPhillock]

you make a good point. I'm imagining how the "Lord of the Rings" titles would sound in that very-direct-and-specific-style:

The Fellowship of the Ring --> A Long-Expected Journey
The Two Towers --> The Army of Saruman
The Return of the King --> The Battle of The Pelennor Fields

jest aside, had they read the book a little more closely, I think "The Gathering of the Clouds" or "The Clouds Burst" or something to that effect would have sounded more interesting and poetic. But in any case, oh well.

[Snowdog]

It really does't matter what one names garbage, it's still garbage.

PJ is probably forward-planning with this name change. He'll still be able to make a 'linking' movie between the end of this one and the beginning of Fellowship, and pocket even more cash usurping the Professor's fine literary works.

[Nerwen]

Really?is this true?is so,then this makes no sense.if the title is'the battle of five armies',wouldnt it mean that the films only focus on the battle,not the entire story?

Quite possibly:
...after viewing the movie, we all agreed there is now one title that feels completely appropriate.

[Galadriel55]

Really?is this true?is so,then this makes no sense.if the title is'the battle of five armies',wouldnt it mean that the films only focus on the battle,not the entire story?

Yes.

Of course, the title is completely appropriate - what else is there in the Hobbit movies but battles?

[Lotrelf]

Yes.

Of course, the title is completely appropriate - what else is there in the Hobbit movies but battles?

Yeah. I'm getting suprised in the book that there weren't really battles(not much). Bilbo doesn't experience any battle except his encounter with the three Goblins. (btw, why did they make Thorin so rude in the movies? He's not like that in the book. He respects Gandalf's decisions, and shows respect towards Elrond too!)

[Nerwen]

"After viewing the movie, we realised it's basically just the world's longest fight scene. Time for a name-change!"

[alatar]

I don't care if PJ calls Hobbit III "Romancing the Arkenstone" or "Return of the Writhe." I'm much much MUCH more interested in those extra 25 minutes of new DoS scenes! Hopefully they've extended the battle, chase and dragon snout disco scenes, as I felt that those were cut a little short. :D

[tom the eldest]

Yes.

Of course, the title is completely appropriate - what else is there in the Hobbit movies but battles?

Well,it supposed to tell not only the battle,but bilbo's journey back to shire,the selling of his house,smaug's death,and many other.and also,the attack on dol guldur.right now,pj would make them film just about the battle,but it will be longer.example:smaug join in.gondor and rohan suddenly barge in to the battle.the wise,easterling,mordor,nazgul,anything so that the battle would last for an hour and a half movie.yep,this movie will be suck as hell.

EDIT:and also,gollum will join in,sneaking to bilbo and take the ring.

[Morthoron]

I don't care if PJ calls Hobbit III "Romancing the Arkenstone" or "Return of the Writhe." I'm much much MUCH more interested in those extra 25 minutes of new DoS scenes! Hopefully they've extended the battle, chase and dragon snout disco scenes, as I felt that those were cut a little short. :D

I believe Raiders of the Lost Arkenstone would be more appropriate, Al. It has totally slipped the bounds of Tolkien and is more matinee fare, particularly since the author chose not to dwell on the combat of Battle of Five Armies, but the outcome and the characters and peoples affected, both good and ill.

[tom the eldest]

I wonder what the reaction of tolkien community when the movie is released......

[Bêthberry]

There are some interesting facts about the profit of the Hobbit movies in this blog post from Shaun Gunner, chair of the Tolkien Society, on the new TS website. Things are not spiffy in Jacksonville.

The Battle of the Five Armies is the right name for the third Hobbit movie (http://www.tolkiensociety.org/blog/2014/04/the-battle-of-the-five-armies-is-the-right-name-for-the-third-hobbit-film/)

[Mithalwen]

I have given up the the Tolkien Society. Felt I had accidentally joined the Peter Jackson society. :(

[tom the eldest]

The change of name would probably decrease the already low reception of peter jackson in the eye of book tolkienist.

[Mithalwen]

Don't see why. It is a better title and a Tolkien title and so trivial compared to what he had already done.

[Nerwen]

There are some interesting facts about the profit of the Hobbit movies in this blog post from Shaun Gunner, chair of the Tolkien Society, on the new TS website. Things are not spiffy in Jacksonville.

The Battle of the Five Armies is the right name for the third Hobbit movie (http://www.tolkiensociety.org/blog/2014/04/the-battle-of-the-five-armies-is-the-right-name-for-the-third-hobbit-film/)
This is something to bear in mind when people argue that Jackson's artistic choices shouldn't be criticised, since the films made money, and that's all that really matters. What if they would have made *more* money with a different set of choices? (Of course, I don't agree with "profitable = good" anyway- I just mean that it's a flawed argument even on its own terms.)

Honestly, though, I really do think the new title is an improvement on "There and Back Again", which doesn't make sense applied to only the last third of the story- though why didn't they think of that earlier?

[Zigûr]

Apologies for the long post. Incidentally, I don't actually care about the change of title.
I wonder what the reaction of tolkien community when the movie is released......
I imagine on places like this there'll be a majority feeling of disapproval with some who enjoy it, on places like theonering.net there will be adulation like it's the nectar of the gods, and a lot of people will get annoyed with each other's views.
Don't see why. It is a better title and a Tolkien title and so trivial compared to what he had already done.
Is it worth mentioning that "An Unexpected Journey" seems to be derived from one of Bilbo's scratched-out titles from his book in The Lord of the Rings? "My Unexpected Journey."

Now time for me to get to grips with this article.
But, these action scenes are nothing new to Jackson’s films or Tolkien’s books: ‘A Knife in the Dark’, ‘The Bridge of Khazad-dûm’, ‘The Breaking of the Fellowship’, the Battle of the Hornburg, ‘The Battle of the Pelennor Fields’ (including the powerful Ride of the Rohirrim) and the Battle of the Black Gate all feature prominently as key events in both The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and the book.
The problem is that Professor Tolkien thought violence was horrible and tried to convey it as such. Peter Jackson (and his target audience) think simulated violence is "cool" and treat it as spectacle, not horror.
‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ much better captures the focus of the film but also more accurately channels the essence of the story. The Battle of the Five Armies isn’t just simply a gratuitous fight scene, it’s about the dwarves, men and elves (with some eagles, Beorn, Gandalf, and a hobbit) coming together to fight the combined forces of the orcs and wargs. In the book, the battle is the catalyst for the reconciliation of the groups in the defeat of evil – I expect the same will be true of the film.
Yet there's a reason Bilbo gets knocked out and wakes up when it's all over: it's the consequences of the battle, and not the battle itself, which is important. But of course we will inevitably see every moment in excruciating detail.
Just because the film is named ‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ does not mean that it is just a battle... let’s not become too worried that buying a ticket to The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is paying to see a three-hour-long battle sequence.
Yet who is willing to bet that it goes for forty five minutes to an hour?
Jackson is a creative and a massive fan of Tolkien’s works – this change is the right decision for the film and the right decision to honour J.R.R. Tolkien’s literary classic.
I'm a "massive fan of Tolkien's works" too - and arguably have far more knowledge of the text than Peter Jackson even if I have none of his filmmaking experience. I don't agree with his decisions. Based on this argument, who's to say which of us is "right"?
This reeks of sheer apologism to me. Yet what purpose does it serve to be an apologist for the corporate decision making of Warner Bros.? This is not an issue of artistic integrity, as the article itself admits: "I have no doubt that executives at the studio would not have agreed to the decision unless they did believe it would boost the film’s popularity and, therefore, its box office takings."
If more people will see the final film as a result of this change I think that is emphatically a good thing. I want people to experience Tolkien’s works and if they do come to the books via the films then that is surely good news all round.
The films are symptoms of the general illness of our culture, not cures for it.

[Morthoron]

While stirring up the pot over at the OneRing.net forum (one of my favorite pasttimes as of late), I made the simple point that the change from TABA to BOFA was inevitable, as "There and Back Again" refers to the main character of The Hobbit. But there has been a diminution of the character (if a hobbit could be further minimized;)) that has been an ongoing point of annoyance in the first two films of this bloated trilogy.

As Zigur inferred, Tolkien primarily centered on a single character, Jackson on so many sundry subplots (whether canon or fan-fic) that poor Bilbo is no longer the central attraction in his own story. So, the Battle of Five Armies will take up 45 minutes to an hour of film and the Battle of Dol Guldur will hog another 1/2 hour of the movie, and dear old Smaug must get another 1/2 hour to complete his fiery swan song. Throw in the probable tear-jerking death of Tauriel in the arms of a sobbing Legolas, and you really haven't got much left for Bilbo Baggins.

[alatar]

I imagine on places like this there'll be a majority feeling of disapproval with some who enjoy it, on places like theonering.net there will be adulation like it's the nectar of the gods, and a lot of people will get annoyed with each other's views.It's...it's almost like you're psychic or something as that is just spot on (when reading this text in the future). :D

Nice post.

Regarding the title not sure why anyone cares. DoS was just the subtitle, yet the main-titled character is barely in the flick (or, at least, is inconsequential).

[Bêthberry]

I have given up the the Tolkien Society. Felt I had accidentally joined the Peter Jackson society. :(

That's neither here nor there to me. I posted the blog article because I was intrigued to see that the Hobbit movies have not made the masses of money the studios expected. I haven't seen this fact before, but then I don't roam around movie sites. I might even say it's a pleasant surprise.

Not that I use profit as a measure of quality of a movie, btw.

DoS sounds like a computer system. I want to know why it is the battle of "the five armies" and not just the battle of "five armies." Yes, I am a pedantic.

[alatar]

DoS sounds like a computer system.
That's showing your age (and mine). :p

I want to know why it is the battle of "the five armies" and not just the battle of "five armies." Yes, I am a pedantic.
Correct. Today it should be "Battle 5RMEz"...at least on the T-shirts.

[Michael Murry]

Throw in the probable tear-jerking death of Tauriel in the arms of a sobbing Legolas, and you really haven't got much left for Bilbo Baggins.

Yes. Implausibe from a Tolkien point of view, but commercially crass and predictable from Peter Jackson and the studios who gave him half-a-billion dollars to play around with. Someone apparently wants a more substantial return on their investment. Personally, though, I think I covered this whole "Mary Sue Does Middle Earth" thing in my Elf Chick Security Guard cycle of poems a few years back. Like, for example:

"Implausible Cliché Scenarios"

She thought she'd live a life of dedication
To fighting in her Woodland King's defense
But found that exercise and perspiration
Brought little in the way of compensation
And left her feeling frustrated and tense.

Yet with a youthful elvish lord's appearance
On set, the script required for her to swoon
And fantasize that with some perseverance
She might obtain her king's discharge and clearance
To consummate their love beneath the moon.

But then a hobbit and some dwarves upended
Her dreams when they came blundering on scene.
And thus she found her reveries suspended
When duty called and greedy foes contended
For treasure guarded by a dragon mean.

She suited up for fighting then, deflated,
For as her part demanded, she must die.
The writers of the script had her created
To love a young Elf Lord she never dated
While only grinning goblins said: "Goodbye!"

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2011

I'll have to go back and revist the other poems in the cycle just to check, but I think even I did not anticipate the cheesy "check in my trousers" innuendo between the incarcerated dwarf Kili and the Elf Chick trying to stir up a little jealousy on the part of Prince Legolas -- destined for his own bromance with the dwarf Gimli in the later annals of Middle Earth. Nope. The Elf Chick will just have to die after slaughtering countless orcs but failing to save Kili in the Battle of Five Battalions. It simply had to happen. So it will.

[Mister Underhill]

I was intrigued to see that the Hobbit movies have not made the masses of money the studios expected. I haven't seen this fact before, but then I don't roam around movie sites. I might even say it's a pleasant surprise.Eh, the Hobbit movies have made plenty of dough. LotR was like a tsunami of money (considering the lower budgets back then and adjusting for inflation). The Hobbit is perhaps merely a heavy downpour. Right now AUJ and DoS stand at 17 and 24 respectively on the all-time worldwide chart. Add in ancillary streams like DVD and cable and I bet Warner Brothers is already trying to figure if they can expand the appendices into movie trilogies. Appendix E - Writing and Spelling: The Quest for More Lucre. It is with regret that I report this.

That's showing your age (and mine). :p
C:\>

^Not an emoticon.

[Nerwen]

That's neither here nor there to me. I posted the blog article because I was intrigued to see that the Hobbit movies have not made the masses of money the studios expected. I haven't seen this fact before, but then I don't roam around movie sites. I might even say it's a pleasant surprise.
Oh, the first two films have made money, all right– but it is also the case that they've done less well at the box office than they were expected to do– “success" is very relative. The funny thing is seeing the author of the article you link use this to bolster up exactly the same kind of “these changes were made for sound financial reasons, so no complaining" argument that we’ve all seen used as a blanket defence of… the first two films.:confused:

But then the whole article sounds rather familiar, doesn’t it?:

“...if they do come to the books via the films then that is surely good news all round.”
“..these action scenes are nothing new to Jackson’s films or Tolkien’s books...”
“...further use of ‘The Appendices’…"
“...channels the essence of the story…”
“..Jackson is a creative and a massive fan of Tolkien’s works– this change is the right decision.."

[tom the eldest]

Massive fan of tolkien works?he even almost never read lord of the rings.he simply read it in a flash then put it down,never to read it again.

[Galadriel55]

“...further use of ‘The Appendices’…"

That's my favourite one of all time. It's in the Appendices, go read it for yourself. In which Appendices? I dunno, I never read them.

[Nerwen]

Massive fan of tolkien works?he even almost never read lord of the rings.he simply read it in a flash then put it down,never to read it again.
I’m sure Jackson is a fan– it’s not that, really, it’s the idea that this automatically makes any decision of his correct. That’s literally the extent of the reasoning here:

Jackson is a creative and a massive fan of Tolkien’s works – this change is the right decision for the film and the right decision to honour J.R.R. Tolkien’s literary classic.

Note that though this refers to the name-change, it’s a general all-purpose defence– as is a good deal of the article.

[Bêthberry]

I bet Warner Brothers is already trying to figure if they can expand the appendices into movie trilogies. Appendix E - Writing and Spelling: The Quest for More Lucre. It is with regret that I report this.

We might consider protesting such movies with signs in any variety of language that Tolkien created. It might not get the message across to many, but it would make nerd hearts feel good.


Correct. Today it should be "Battle 5RMEz"...at least on the T-shirts.

At least I suppose this means we won't get seven or eight or nine armies, the additions being made up characters of the Jackson gang.



“..Jackson is a creative and a massive fan of Tolkien’s works– this change is the right decision.."


Defending Jackson as a fan of Tolkien also ignores the fact that he is a fan of a variety of movie styles and other directors. The mix of his various fandoms doesn't mesh well.

[tom the eldest]

How many armies would you think will join in the battle?they probably would add anpther forces,just to make thing intense.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

“...if they do come to the books via the films then that is surely good news all round.”
“..these action scenes are nothing new to Jackson’s films or Tolkien’s books...”
“...further use of ‘The Appendices’…"
“...channels the essence of the story…”
“..Jackson is a creative and a massive fan of Tolkien’s works"

Amazing what some people can be conned into believing.....

[Morthoron]

How many armies would you think will join in the battle?they probably would add anpther forces,just to make thing intense.

Hmmm...I am willing to bet it will be five armies. I am prescient, you know.

[Inziladun]

Hmmm...I am willing to bet it will be five armies. I am prescient, you know.

Actually, six, Beorn is an Army of One (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106309/)! :D

They ought to call it The Hobbit: Where's the Plot Again?.

[Morthoron]

Actually, six, Beorn is an Army of One (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106309/)! :D

They ought to call it The Hobbit: Where's the Plot Again?.

With all the hours of interminable chase scenes, I still prefer The Hobbit: Raiders of the Lost Arkenstone.

[tom the eldest]

The nazgûl would most likely shows up and duel the eagle.they could count as an army too:D

[Zigûr]

Apparently it's a big deal that we haven't seen a trailer for this yet.
People's ability to work themselves up in anticipation for trash fed to them by giant faceless corporations who just want their money continues to astonish me - like the slave venerating the master who abducted him and forced him to work because he knows the master might feed him an extra scrap of mouldy bread in the future.
Here's the new poster for which I think TORN has thrown a parade or something:
http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/the-hobbit-the-battle-of-the-five-armies-poster.jpg
Sums up virtually everything wrong with the films:
1) No Bilbo even though the massive words 'The Hobbit' are right there.
2) Focus on "cool" action moments.
3) The reliance on Hollywood cliché (here the framing of a character with his back to the audience).
4) No Bilbo! Did I mention this already?
Ugh.

[Mithalwen]

Smaug doesn't look like a dragon
More like a screaming mutant monkey,

[Kuruharan]

Apparently it's a big deal that we haven't seen a trailer for this yet.


I have to admit, I have been a little surprised myself that there hasn't been a trailer yet. We got one in June of last year.

In a morbid sort of way I am looking forward to making fun of it. Yes, I'm prejudiced but at least I'm willing to admit it. :p

And I seriously doubt my expectations will be proven wrong.

Smaug doesn't look like a dragon
More like a screaming mutant monkey,

Let the mocking begin! :D

[Mithalwen]

Not mocking it is what I think - though I don't see why they had to go so far away from Tolkien's picture which is Smaug to me and no doubt to many. Though perhaps they have gone so far off piste now the less it takes, and so defiles, of Tolkien the better.

[Aganzir]

C:\>

^Not an emoticon.
^Actually a sad dwarf wearing a helmet.

Massive fan of tolkien works?he even almost never read lord of the rings.he simply read it in a flash then put it down,never to read it again.
People who write smutty fanfiction about Maedhros and Fingon are also massive fans of Tolkien's works. Still I feel they don't have much to contribute to the Tolkien community at large.

At least I suppose this means we won't get seven or eight or nine armies, the additions being made up characters of the Jackson gang.
Thanks for helping us look on the bright side, Bêth-b! :D

[Kuruharan]

...here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSzeFFsKEt4) it is.

From the "I knew those rumors were so ridiculous they had to be true" front - I see a dwarf-bearing chariot drawn by rams...which might not have been quite so bad if I wasn't instantly reminded of the silly barrel-riding sequence and at 1:22 I see what can only be an army of dwarves charging in on what can only be a horde of similar rams.

*sigh*

From the "Oh my gosh, how lazy can you get" front - I see orcs that look like they could have come straight from Isengard from The Two Towers (I guess they wanted to reuse the armor to hold down costs) and a song from the previous trilogy.

To say they appear to be phoning it in is an insult to the comparatively high standards of actual phoning it in.

And then we have the end of the trailer. I'm sure New Zealand is a lovely country...but seriously, does the entire economy of the country revolve around these movies now?

[Zigûr]

Beaten me to the punch, Kuru, I was about to post this.

Gut-punch more like.

Dwarves riding rams. For goodness' sake.

"It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing."

[alatar]

Can't wait to get into the heated discussion of which is faster: Radagast's bunny sled or this Dwarven chariot. :rolleyes:

[Aganzir]

I'm unimpressed. The amount of recycling old imagery in these films hurts as it is, and now we're even getting Galadriel's feet.

Peter Jackson shows he hasn't improved as a director one bit in these 15 years. Most of the youtube comments seemed doubtful too.

Some scenes did look visually better than the first two films in general, though. And mind you I'm not talking about the CGI and the unrealistic fighting choreographies here.

[Inziladun]

"I will have war!"

Give me a break. :rolleyes:

It all seems very much darker than the book. They're trying to build it up to a climax rivaling the big showdown at the Morannon in ROTK. "Recycled" is the best word I can think to describe it. And why does PJ have only two modes with these films: goofy slapstick and overblown dramatics?

[Aganzir]

And why does PJ have only two modes with these films: goofy slapstick and overblown dramatics?
That's the only two modes I've ever seen in PJ's films anyway. Perhaps he's like that in real life too. Now that I think of it, those modes would make for an entertaining family comedy.

If they wanted a bigger climax they should have done the War of Wrath, not the prequel to the climax of the Third Age.

[Kuruharan]

Another point that adds to the silliness of the rams; the dwarves were shown in the first movie riding large ponies. What is the need to have them riding rams?

Obviously, they do have to ride. They can't just march into battle like they did in the book. That would be silly.

We have to recreate the charge of Rohirrim from ROTK after all.

[Morthoron]

"Peter Jackson has got your goat!"
I snicker with a sheepish grin:
First coneys and sleds to rabbit on,
And just as the plot wore thin,
This new haresy to aggravate ewe --
A film-induced coma
From the barnyard aroma
Wafting above the din.

But Pete shall ram his petty view --
This parody, this jest, this mock --
Down the collective throats of those
Like lambs who wait patiently in the dock,
And blindly submit
While they sit through the sh*t
This fleecing of the flock.

[Zigûr]

And why does PJ have only two modes with these films: goofy slapstick and overblown dramatics?
I feel like that is something which has become true of all kinds of adventure and capital-r Romance media in general (which we might otherwise clinically term 'speculative fiction'). It all feels like 'soap operas and sit coms but with dragons and robots' to me these days, nothing with that "applicability" which was so valuable to Professor Tolkien.

In my opinion the modern, mainstream Western 'culture industry' may currently be at one of its lowest points in terms of anti-intellectualism and fatuousness (yes I know 'fatuous' is one of my favourite words), turning everything into this sort of homogenous cultural gruel of adaptations, reboots and revivals of older texts and properties which are chewed up and regurgitated as identical, generic slop. As a wise man once said, "I guess if you feed humanity flavourless wallpaper paste for decades then you shouldn't be surprised if that's all they want to eat now." But it's a chicken-and-egg problem really, the industry feeding the consumers and vice-versa. That being said, I think a lot of blame lies with the current intensity of the corporatocratic grip on our politics and economics: lazy, stock storytelling feeds the bottom line a lot more readily than, I don't know, dignity or meaning.

[Inziladun]

In my opinion the modern, mainstream Western 'culture industry' may currently be at one of its lowest points in terms of anti-intellectualism and fatuousness (yes I know 'fatuous' is one of my favourite words), turning everything into this sort of homogenous cultural gruel of adaptations, reboots and revivals of older texts and properties which are chewed up and regurgitated as identical, generic slop. As a wise man once said, "I guess if you feed humanity flavourless wallpaper paste for decades then you shouldn't be surprised if that's all they want to eat now." But it's a chicken-and-egg problem really, the industry feeding the consumers and vice-versa. That being said, I think a lot of blame lies with the current intensity of the corporatocratic grip on our politics and economics: lazy, stock storytelling feeds the bottom line a lot more readily than, I don't know, dignity or meaning.

And this is precisely the reason I have so little use for the vast majority of films released in the last 15 years or so. I'm only hoping a reboot won't be in the cards for LOTR ever. Noting the trend of such movies, I have no illusion it would be any sort of improvement over PJ, but I fear would instead be an even worse example of hack-and-slash Michael Beyism.

[Smug the Fabulous]

So...the mind of Peter Jackson:
"Pfft! Horses are overrated! A white horse for Radagast like in the books? Nope! Let's have him on a sled drawn by bunnies...Rhosgobel Rabbits, shall we say, eh, loyal book fans?" (wink wink) "And let's have Thranduil riding an elk, cause he's from the woods and who has ever heard of horses in a wood, am I right? And let's now give the dwarves a chariot drawn by rams...oh, Jackson, you've done it again, you masterful storyteller, you!" (Reclines on a chair and looks at the comment section on his Facebook page).

But in all seriousness, the computer effects looked...well, terrible and...
The. Attempts. At. Being. DRAMATIC!

...are still cringey. I have yet to come up with the amount of jokes I had with The Desolation of Smaug trailer. I have a feeling this might be the worst film of them all (though I've only watched An Unexpected Journey and felt like watching DOS for the sake of it, but the fan comments on Peter Jackson's Facebook seriously put me off with the whole "But books and films are different mediums" and the usual nonsense).

Sorry to suddenly barge in on the conversation. This is my first time posting on the site but I just watched this teaser and felt I really needed to say something about it.

[Aganzir]

Sorry to suddenly barge in on the conversation. This is my first time posting on the site but I just watched this teaser and felt I really needed to say something about it.
No need to apologise, this is what discussion forums are for!

DoS is ten times worse than AUJ. You've missed nothing not seeing it.

I shouldn't check this thread at work though, remembering all these horrors makes me cringe and sooner or later coworkers will start asking about the funny face.

[Zigûr]

DoS is ten times worse than AUJ. You've missed nothing not seeing it.
For me it's a dilemma. I think both films are incredibly flawed but for different reasons.

A lot of commentators online seem to be arguing that three films were necessary for the plot to make sense and so on. I think that would be more true if the screenplays trusted the source material more. One thing I will say for these films is that although both of the ones which have come out so far are about 45 minutes to an hour too long, I don't necessarily object to the different 'episodes' of the original text being given room to breathe.

If I'm to be perfectly honest I'm actually not averse to the current 'trilogy' structure as such, but for it to work it would have to hew more closely to the source material and focus more on characterisation and atmosphere than additional action. If there is one thing these films seem to get praised for with zero substantiation it's the idea of characterisation, since in my view it's either totally generic characterisation (Bilbo and Thorin) or there is no characterisation where there could be (most of the other Dwarves).

We've still got the books, though, haven't we? Books with big pictures of Martin Freeman on the cover.

[Kuruharan]

Books with big pictures of Martin Freeman on the cover.

Galling, isn't it.

[Morthoron]

Galling, isn't it.

Martin Freeman is in The Hobbit? What character does he play? I always thought he'd make an excellent Bilbo Baggins.

[Kuruharan]

What's galling is that many books now have movie imagery plastered all over them.

In my opinion he hasn't made a particularly great Bilbo Baggins.

[Smug the Fabulous]

Yeah, to be honest, Freeman's performance as Bilbo is a bit too deadpan. It's kind of difficult to imagine that this hobbit would one day be Ian Holm's Bilbo.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

I can't even judge Freeman's performances in the context of the horrible screenplays. The worst I can say for sure is that he's drowned out, where perhaps a greater actor could manage to steal or subvert the show, while the rest goes to hell in a handbasket.

"Peter Jackson has got your goat!"
I snicker with a sheepish grin:
First coneys and sleds to rabbit on,
And just as the plot wore thin,
This new haresy to aggravate ewe --
A film-induced coma
From the barnyard aroma
Wafting above the din.

But Pete shall ram his petty view --
This parody, this jest, this mock --
Down the collective throats of those
Like lambs who wait patiently in the dock,
And blindly submit
While they sit through the sh*t
This fleecing of the flock.

That's good.

[Mister Underhill]

Well I've been putting it off, but seeing the discussion here I finally watched it.

...

...

Peter Jackson shows he hasn't improved as a director one bit in these 15 years.
I guess I must be some kind of optimist at heart. When the Hobbit movies finally moved out of legal limbo and into production, I hoped that Peter Jackson had matured as a filmmaker in the intervening years. Unfortunately, it seems he has only come to fully embrace all of his worst instincts, while discarding his few directorial virtues (filming on location, practical effects when possible).

In my opinion [Freeman] hasn't made a particularly great Bilbo Baggins.
Again, I was cautiously optimistic when Freeman was cast, but now it's quite clear to me that he is wrong for the role. He has one schtick -- bumfuzzled everyman. God bless him he's working it as hard as he can and presumably socking away a nice retirement nest egg. But Bilbo ain't "everyman".

[Kuruharan]

Again, I was cautiously optimistic when Freeman was cast, but now it's quite clear to me that he is wrong for the role. He has one schtick -- bumfuzzled everyman. God bless him he's working it as hard as he can and presumably socking away a nice retirement nest egg. But Bilbo ain't "everyman".

He really lost me during the inside the mountain sequence of DoS.

I realize it was not entirely his fault, but everything about his performance was just bad. The Gollum sequence in UJ was pretty good(ish), but the Smaug sequence was just bad.

[Nerwen]

He really lost me during the inside the mountain sequence of DoS.

I realize it was not entirely his fault, but everything about his performance was just bad. The Gollum sequence in UJ was pretty good(ish), but the Smaug sequence was just bad.
I wouldn't says he's actually bad, it's more that he sort of overplays underplaying it (if that makes any sense).

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Originally posted by tom the eldest
I wonder what the reaction of tolkien community when the movie is released......

I gave up on PJ movies after the first Hobbit movie atrocity (although the Long
expected Party beginning was acceptable).

PJ has shown a long decline from the pretty good FoTR, thru worsening TTT and
RoTK. But afteer the first Hobbit absurdities (including making Goblin Town a laughably improbable scene---in the book the size of goblins, escape from them, etc, are believable in Tolkien's subcreation. PJ just has become more and more cartoonish. Exactly what Tolkien feared of "Hollywoodism".

[Kuruharan]

I wouldn't says he's actually bad, it's more that he sort of overplays underplaying it (if that makes any sense).

Knocking on a pillar in a diffident attempt to determine if Smaug is still home seems pretty bad to me.

[FerniesApple]

couldnt they at least find some nice stunt feet for Galadriel? those great flapping feet were a real turn off, no wonder Gandalf fainted. :eek:

[Aganzir]

couldnt they at least find some nice stunt feet for Galadriel? those great flapping feet were a real turn off, no wonder Gandalf fainted. :eek:
She's thousands of years old, what do you expect?

In any case, I don't think they made that scene with the intention of turning you on.

[FerniesApple]

She's thousands of years old, what do you expect?

In any case, I don't think they made that scene with the intention of turning you on.


I dont think they made that scene with the intention of making me imagine Gollum in a long White lacy dress tho. :p

[Kuruharan]

In any case, I don't think they made that scene with the intention of turning you on.

With this crew, how can you be sure?

[Inziladun]

With this crew, how can you be sure?

*cough* Legolas. ;)

[FerniesApple]

Not to mention whats down Kilis pants :Merisu:

thanks for lowering the tone Jackson.

[Smug the Fabulous]

That's one of the things I read about The Desolation of Smaug that really put me off seeing it...the "what's in my trousers" thing. One of the things I liked about the book was there was a gentle humour, which I saw in An Unexpected Journey had given way to burp and snot jokes. And then we have some penis jokes.
All very subtle...like a herd of charging oliphaunts.

[Belegorn]

From Aristophanes to Peter Jackson, penis jokes never get old.

[Smug the Fabulous]

That is true. My personal favourite example would be "The Penis Song" from "Monty Python's Meaning of Life". But if there's a time when they're really out of place and inappropriate for the material being dealt with, it's a Tolkien adaptation (even if it's being directed by Peter Jackson). Well, that and children's programmes.

[FerniesApple]

I also disliked the 'fleeting nudity' scene in Rivendell. the Dwarves looked like they were cgi generated (could be wrong) but it made me cringe. I HATED all those scenes with the Dwarves in Rivendell, they were crude, rude and totally unfunny. I hated the pained look on Elronds face, Rivendell shouldnt be besmirched by cheap humour. it cheapens the beauty of Rivendell in LOTR in a weird way. imho. :mad:

[Smug the Fabulous]

I also disliked the 'fleeting nudity' scene in Rivendell. the Dwarves looked like they were cgi generated (could be wrong) but it made me cringe. I HATED all those scenes with the Dwarves in Rivendell, they were crude, rude and totally unfunny. I hated the pained look on Elronds face, Rivendell shouldnt be besmirched by cheap humour. it cheapens the beauty of Rivendell in LOTR in a weird way. imho. :mad:

Then again, everything in the movie looked computer generated. Nothing felt believable in The Hobbit. Every place they were in, there was a sense they were either on a set or performing in front of a green screen, or both...(well, apart from some of the mountains and the place where the wargs were chasing Radagast). There's no sense that what you're seeing is there. You're just seeing some actors in heavy makeup kicking the @#$% out of a bunch of CGI goblins.
Not the most original criticism I put here, because from the reviews I have read, everyone's pretty much said it, including Viggo Mortensen. Just letting out the bitter disappointment I felt when I first watched this. :mad:

[FerniesApple]

Yeah me too. but I cant be bothered with anger any more, gone past that into weary indifference. :(
I would like to see those 'Hunt for Gollum' people have a go at The Hobbit. Low tech seems so refreshing after all this plastic Las Vagas style ME. Give me good old fashioned tramping round real forests in coloured hoods anyday. Even Martin Freeman with a good script and a chance to show what a great actor he is. He is forced to gurn his way through the movies because he doesnt have anything to say and is mostly in the background looking bewildered. :(

[Smug the Fabulous]

So a better title for this trilogy wouldn't be The Hobbit because the hobbit is more or less in the background, but instead would be:
The Grim and Serious Dwarf trying to claim back his homeland while trying to do an Impression of Viggo Mortensen at some times, but other times he's doing an impression of Sean Bean...: An Unexpected Journey
But then considering the other things going on:
The Series of Various Events which some way tie in with the events of The Lord of the Rings: An Unexpected Journey
Or...
The Hobbit...is somewhere in this film but look at all these cool action scenes: An Unexpected Journey

[Kuruharan]

And this is precisely the reason I have so little use for the vast majority of films released in the last 15 years or so. I'm only hoping a reboot won't be in the cards for LOTR ever. Noting the trend of such movies, I have no illusion it would be any sort of improvement over PJ, but I fear would instead be an even worse example of hack-and-slash Michael Beyism.

I'm using the excuse that Michael Bey has already been referenced in this thread as an excuse to share this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5KQQWlIgGc).

On a serious note, this satire does show much of what is wrong with contemporary movie making.

We now return to the regularly scheduled thread.

[FerniesApple]

I'm using the excuse that Michael Bey has already been referenced in this thread as an excuse to share this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5KQQWlIgGc).

On a serious note, this satire does show much of what is wrong with contemporary movie making.

We now return to the regularly scheduled thread.

hmm looks like Bay has already made The Hobbit :mad:

[Kuruharan]

Just think of what would happen if J.J. Abrams is tapped to do the remake of LOTR and add another notch in his belt of destroying franchises...

Although admittedly, there isn't much left of the pop culture LOTR that wasn't destroyed already.

[Kuruharan]

I'm picking up that bats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6Fv5StfAxA) are important.

We get to have a big showdown in Dol Guldur...

Lots of cheezy one-liners...

Continued march of the Arkenring through Thorin's personality...

Fili (possibly dying) gives his silly rock to elf lady (or maybe it is Kili, even I can't keep them straight)...

Bilbo attempts to recreate Aragorn's (over-rated in my opinion) inspirational speech from RotK...

Orcs somehow look worse and more cgi than ever (one of them even seemed to bend in un-natural and physically impossible ways like a stretchyorc).

Did anybody see anything that surprised them?

[Boromir88]

The Battle of Five Armies is a better title than Desolation of Smaug. After getting to the 2nd viewing of DoS, I was left wondering where is the Desolation? Of Smaug...or of anything?

[Tar-Jêx]

The Battle of Five Armies is a better title than Desolation of Smaug. After getting to the 2nd viewing of DoS, I was left wondering where is the Desolation? Of Smaug...or of anything?

I mean, we got to see Dale for about 40 seconds.

[Nerwen]

Have you all seen the new trailer?

If I weren’t so attached to my current sig, I would seriously consider replacing it with:
“These bats are bred for one purpose… [long pause] ...for war!":smokin:

If only the rest of the featured lines approached this level of inspired lunacy, but no, once again they’re courtesy of the Hack-O-Matic Dialogue Generator™. You can barely even make fun of this stuff, it’s so generic.

[Mithalwen]

And yet the bats were the only thing I recognised from the book. I don't think they were specified as specially bred mutant battlebats but hey what do I know....

[Nerwen]

And yet the bats were the only thing I recognised from the book. I don't think they were specified as specially bred mutant battlebats but hey what do I know....
I know the bats are “canon”, it’s just the line conveys so much.

–There is a special Mount Gundabad Military Chiropteran Breeding Program (or something).
–However, bats in Middle-earth are also bred for other (unspecified) purposes. This is, apparently, common knowledge.
–Still, your dedicated Warbat is more effective than a bat bred for say, war and postal delivery.
–Legolas is very well-informed about bat-breeds and can instantly tell the difference between purebred Warbats and inferior mongrels. It’s probably an important skill for Elven warriors.

[Mithalwen]

Exactly. I am just profoundly depresed having read an. Piece by an alleged Tolkien scholar claiming that becausecTolkien tweaked the Hobbit to fit with the Rings it was ok for PJ to inflict all this stuff on the Hobbit. Assuming there is a turbine roar in vicinity of Wolvercote cemetery...

[Zigûr]

Exactly. I am just profoundly depresed having read an. Piece by an alleged Tolkien scholar claiming that becausecTolkien tweaked the Hobbit to fit with the Rings it was ok for PJ to inflict all this stuff on the Hobbit. Assuming there is a turbine roar in vicinity of Wolvercote cemetery...
Yes I also see a lot of people saying "But Tolkien attempted to re-write The Hobbit!" and when people respond "But he stopped early on because it wouldn't have been The Hobbit anymore," they don't seem to have much of an answer.

This film looks unbelievably cliché, overblown and stupid but I think I was so beaten down by 'The Desolation of Smaug' that I've gone beyond the point of frustration into a space where I've actually become curious about how mind-blowingly awful it might be. I'm honestly expecting a masterpiece of awfulness where the corporate wasteland of the Hollywood imagination reaches its zenith.

[Tar-Jêx]

Yes I also see a lot of people saying "But Tolkien attempted to re-write The Hobbit!" and when people respond "But he stopped early on because it wouldn't have been The Hobbit anymore," they don't seem to have much of an answer.

This film looks unbelievably cliché, overblown and stupid but I think I was so beaten down by 'The Desolation of Smaug' that I've gone beyond the point of frustration into a space where I've actually become curious about how mind-blowingly awful it might be. I'm honestly expecting a masterpiece of awfulness where the corporate wasteland of the Hollywood imagination reaches its zenith.

I wouldn't even care about the changes at all if they made the movie fun and interesting. They don't. As well as being an absolutely terrible adaptation, the movies are also reasonably ungood. When you make changes to make an interesting movie, and they make it significantly worse, then you have done something wrong.

I would've been completely fine with Azog leading the orc army into the Battle of the Five Armies, because he makes for an antagonist figure after Smaug is dead, which I do believe was the purpose to begin with. I am not fine, however, with the weird extra plot lines with the dwarves, because they just shouldn't be there. Nobody likes them. The moviegoers find them confusing, and pointless, while the readers think it's insulting, and pointless.

Of all the unnecessary PJ changes, Tauriel was probably the worst. She creates a disgusting side plot which actually everyone (save a few) can't stand how cringeworthy it is, and accomplishes NOTHING in the overarching plot. Even this whole Sauron crap sidestory is better, because it ties into the overarching plot, and gives Ian McKellan more screentime, which is something that people demanded.

[alatar]

Oh my...those might be Morgul bats...which can be slain only by athelas arrows. :rolleyes:

Liked the Trolls with the catapults strapped to their backs. :D

[Kuruharan]

Oh my...those might be Morgul bats...which can be slain only by athelas arrows.

Fortunately, the Elves have brought a store of athelas arrows with them on campaign.

They use these arrows because the athelas is poisonous to the orcs.

[alatar]

Fortunately, the Elves have brought a store of athelas arrows with them on campaign.

They use these arrows because the athelas is poisonous to the orcs.
Be exact. Morgul orcs respond to athelas. Use DDT for Morian orcs and organic cellulosic orcicide for White Handers. :D

[Kuruharan]

Right you are!

Here I am criticizing Jackson for his slipshod work and then there I go using such lazy and general terms in my own criticisms.

I may never live down the shame. :o ;)

[Morthoron]

...organic cellulosic orcicide for White Handers. :D

Amusingly, in the States there is a pest control company named Orkin.

[Tar-Jêx]

Right you are!

Here I am criticizing Jackson for his slipshod work and then there I go using such lazy and general terms in my own criticisms.

I may never live down the shame. :o ;)

We shall write stories of how one who criticized PJ suffered mental torture after failing to use the correct terminology!

We should surely eradicate any who dares to have any ounce of 'wrong'-ness in their work! Ironically, that includes all of us, too! World purging, ho!

[Galadriel55]

Amusingly, in the States there is a pest control company named Orkin.

Evidently the founders stumbled on a chemical extracted from a common but often overlooked plant...

[Kuruharan]

My Dad, who in the past has always enthusiastically(ish) looked forward to the next Hobbit movie to come out, has as a result of Desolation changed his views and is now looking forward to the last installment with a mixture of trepidation and resignation. I'm sure he will still go see the movie but it seems almost out of a sense of obligation than any expectation that he will actually enjoy it.

What further evidence is needed regarding how badly Jackson has messed this thing up?

[Tar-Jêx]

My Dad, who in the past has always enthusiastically(ish) looked forward to the next Hobbit movie to come out, has as a result of Desolation changed his views and is now looking forward to the last installment with a mixture of trepidation and resignation. I'm sure he will still go see the movie but it seems almost out of a sense of obligation than any expectation that he will actually enjoy it.

What further evidence is needed regarding how badly Jackson has messed this thing up?

I agree with your father that I'm only going to see it out of obligationg, and also to see what PJ screws up.

He did SO WELL with Lord of the Rings, that it's unimaginable that he could do something so unfaithful to the books, and cringe worthy and painful at some points.
He certainly caught the George Lucas syndrome.

[Kuruharan]

He certainly caught the George Lucas syndrome.

In fairness to Lucas, I don't think he screwed up anything like this badly.

After J.J. finishes mauling Star Wars we will probably all look back on the prequel trilogy with fond nostalgia...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

My Dad, who in the past has always enthusiastically(ish) looked forward to the next Hobbit movie to come out, has as a result of Desolation changed his views and is now looking forward to the last installment with a mixture of trepidation and resignation.



I'm looking forward to it with great joy and excitement-- because it will be the LAST, and we will no longer have to suffer any more of PJ's use of the Tolkien name on his moronic action-adventures for retarded 12-year-olds.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

I'm looking forward to it with great joy and excitement-- because it will be the LAST, and we will no longer have to suffer any more of PJ's use of the Tolkien name on his moronic action-adventures for retarded 12-year-olds.

You haven't heard about Farmer Giles of Ham? Jackson thinks he may be able to winnow it down to a mere two three-hour installments. But it will be a near thing, what with Tolkien's notes for a projected sequel and some creative extrapolations involving romance and vampires and spunky warrior-maidens and spunky warden-maiden vampire romance.

[Tar-Jêx]

You haven't heard about Farmer Giles of Ham? Jackson thinks he may be able to winnow it down to a mere two three-hour installments. But it will be a near thing, what with Tolkien's notes for a projected sequel and some creative extrapolations involving romance and vampires and spunky warrior-maidens and spunky warden-maiden vampire romance.

You better prepare yourself for a trilogy of 3 hour Silmarillion movies, which somehow heavily involve Gandalf!

[Kuruharan]

You better prepare yourself for a trilogy of 3 hour Silmarillion movies, which somehow heavily involve Gandalf!

Thank goodness Christopher Tolkien is still alive.

[Galadriel55]

Not to mention Leaf: By Niggle - it does hint at the end that there are more adventures ahead that concern the characters present in this tale. Who cares if their fate isn't supposed to be known? Who cares that its precision isn't relevant to the story, and the whole thing morphs into a different story altogether? There's an opening for an endless sequel. You'll get at least several seasons of a TV show from that one. Heck, maybe one day, when the movie industry finally runs out of ideas and can't milk the story anymore, it will turn into a prequel for The Hobbit!

[Tar-Jêx]

Not to mention Leaf: By Niggle - it does hint at the end that there are more adventures ahead that concern the characters present in this tale. Who cares if their fate isn't supposed to be known? Who cares that its precision isn't relevant to the story, and the whole thing morphs into a different story altogether? There's an opening for an endless sequel. You'll get at least several seasons of a TV show from that one. Heck, maybe one day, when the movie industry finally runs out of ideas and can't milk the story anymore, it will turn into a prequel for The Hobbit!

I'm still waiting for the 50 episode animated version of Farmer Giles of Ham, soon to be airing on Nickelodeon, directed by our hobbit PJ.

[Mithalwen]

Thank goodness Christopher Tolkien is still alive.

May he be granted a Numenorean span.... just turned ninety though but I hope going strong.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Exactly. I am just profoundly depresed having read an. Piece by an alleged Tolkien scholar claiming that becausecTolkien tweaked the Hobbit to fit with the Rings it was ok for PJ to inflict all this stuff on the Hobbit.

An argument usually advanced by people who have never actually read the abortive 1960 revision, because it doesn't support their contention at all.

[Kuruharan]

May he be granted a Numenorean span.... just turned ninety though but I hope going strong.

I hope so too.

I hope also that Christopher's successors don't just see dollar signs (or pound signs as the case may be) when matters come into their charge.

[Tar-Jêx]

I hope so too.

I hope also that Christopher's successors don't just see dollar signs (or pound signs as the case may be) when matters come into their charge.

The thing is that Christopher has already had a great number of John's works published, so there really isn't all that much to do after he is gone. Christopher really did finish a lot of his father's work, and for that, we are eternally grateful, and he should feel very proud.

[Smug the Fabulous]

I can imagine they would get so desperate they would start a franchise around Tom Bombadil.
"Coming soon to theatres...Bombadil II: Old Man Willow's Revenge."

[Mithalwen]

Christopher's accomplishment as editor is as remarkable in its own way perhaps as his father's as subauthor /subcreator and there may not be very much more to be extracted from JRRT's papers though. There are a few pearls perhaps and some of us hope for the publication of more letters sincethe publication of HoME must surely make more of them relevant. However were the family inclined to truly cash in the opportunities are pretty much limitless.

[Tar-Jêx]

Christopher's accomplishment as editor is as remarkable in its own way perhaps as his father's as subauthor /subcreator and there may not be very much more to be extracted from JRRT's papers though. There are a few pearls perhaps and some of us hope for the publication of more letters sincethe publication of HoME must surely make more of them relevant. However were the family inclined to truly cash in the opportunities are pretty much limitless.

And we all know how Christopher wasn't a fan of the movies, and understandably so. Even Simon doesn't seem like the kind of person who wants to cash out on his grandfather's work.

I want to hear Christopher's opinions on the Hobbit movies, if he will even allow himself to merely listen to their names.

[Zigûr]

Details of the film's "creative liberties" are emerging on TORN, but they're so unbelievably and mind-numbingly awful that I'm taking them with a grain of salt for the time being.

[Tar-Jêx]

Details of the film's "creative liberties" are emerging on TORN, but they're so unbelievably and mind-numbingly awful that I'm taking them with a grain of salt for the time being.

There is only so far creative liberties can go before it's changing the source material entirely. Adding extra lines of dialogue is fine, and giving a certain character a larger role is all good, but adding main characters and changing the course of the plot is disgraceful.

[Kuruharan]

Details of the film's "creative liberties" are emerging on TORN, but they're so unbelievably and mind-numbingly awful that I'm taking them with a grain of salt for the time being.

Given the past history, I would think the more mind-numbingly awful they are the more likely they become.

*edit*

I had to go and look...even the TORN person was highly critical of the Legolas aspect of the movie.

I will add one quote to give a taste of the true horror that awaits us...

Legolas does more than shield-surfing in this movie

[William Cloud Hicklin]

A criticism of PJ on TORN???????

[Boromir88]

I'm looking forward to it with great joy and excitement-- because it will be the LAST, and we will no longer have to suffer any more of PJ's use of the Tolkien name on his moronic action-adventures for retarded 12-year-olds.

Also, when it's all said and done, I'm fairly confident anyone can read The Hobbit in less time than it would take to get through PJ's slop-fest.

[Nerwen]

Well, there's another review on TORN which goes into a bit more detail. The film sounds... interesting...:eek:

Dain’s arrival is impressive but is a little trumped by the awkward realization that Billy Connolly has been entirely replaced by a CGI character.

There is the business of giant worms, akin to those from Dune, that tunnel out massive pathways for the orcs to sneak towards Dale

Legolas grabs onto the foot of a bat and fetches a ride up the mountain, in a sequence that seems straight out of King Kong

[Beorn] arrives atop one of the eagles Radagast rides in on.

Thranduil plays the role of Nick Fury and instructs Legolas to track down a young ranger in the north, known as “Strider.”

Hoax or not? Discuss.

[Morthoron]

Hoax or not? Discuss.

I would like to think the movies were a hoax; unfortunately, I am more and more inclined to believe someone actually spent time to subvert the original plot. No, really!

In other ToRN news, a thread was locked because a poster made this observation:

Here's to Peter Jackson...
The only man in the universe that could make true Tolkien fans hate Legolas.

[Zigûr]

Hoax or not? Discuss.
Supposedly at least one of the people who's revealed these items from the film is "legit." I'll wait and see, however. Even lurking on TORN is frustrating at the moment. The self-appointed opinion police who can't abide the slightest hint of not towing the party line about lavishing undying praise upon the films are out in force. The spoilers seem to have spooked a lot of people who might otherwise have been giving it the benefit of the doubt.

EDIT: That being said, a lot of the complaints seem very petty too. I'd prefer more "it's not true to its own themes/the book's themes/ etc" and less "Nooo Beorn isn't in it enough," which isn't exactly the most compelling reason for questioning the film in my opinion.

[Tar-Jêx]

Supposedly at least one of the people who's revealed these items from the film is "legit." I'll wait and see, however. Even lurking on TORN is frustrating at the moment. The self-appointed opinion police who can't abide the slightest hint of not towing the party line about lavishing undying praise upon the films are out in force. The spoilers seem to have spooked a lot of people who might otherwise have been giving it the benefit of the doubt.

EDIT: That being said, a lot of the complaints seem very petty too. I'd prefer more "it's not true to its own themes/the book's themes/ etc" and less "Nooo Beorn isn't in it enough," which isn't exactly the most compelling reason for questioning the film in my opinion.

I know some people who criticised the 2nd movie because 'it wasn't humorous enough'.
While the Hobbit was a humorous tale at points, it's not a comedy. Also, PJ screwed up, and the humor is not how it was in the book, bringing me back to the original statement that the movies aren't true to The Hobbit's themes.

[Zigûr]

I know some people who criticised the 2nd movie because 'it wasn't humorous enough'.
Now that's an interesting opinion. Personally I think the tone is simply inconsistent, that it fluctuates wildly from farcical humour to extreme seriousness. It's one of the reasons that I actually think they needed someone with a British comedy background involved in the scripts to capture the whimsical tone. I know Professor Tolkien himself came to disapprove of that tone but I still enjoy it because I think the narrative rather suits the conversational or story-teller style.

I think over the past year or so I've become a little less bothered by these things. I still don't like or approve of them, but I feel as if I can be somewhat more dispassionate about them.

What tends to frustrate me is this: every popular film or TV show or what have you has a 'big forum.' For 'Tolkien,' particularly the films, it's TORN. Other things have their own 'big forum.' And on these places there are people who can't take criticism of whatever it is, and make that very clear: critics are often "whingers" or "whiners" who can't do it themselves and therefore should be ignored. And because these people are notionally, in their very negative way, 'likers,' which is usually the gist of the 'big forum' in general, they tend to get away with it. If however someone makes a similarly truculent claim about the 'likers' (calling them "sycophants" or "fanboys," perhaps) it's considered very taboo. This isn't something I've done, if you're worried, but I've noticed the double standard. It's completely off-putting to observe an unquestioned vocal element which is silently condoned by the authority because their opinions roughly align, which nonetheless utterly stifles certain lines of discourse. I've been guilty of making unhelpful generalisations in the past, which I try these days to avoid, but I'd like to think that at least if I take issue with the film I don't feel the need to slander the people who like it, certainly not on a forum where it's supposed to be part of a conversation.

Maybe at the end of the day that's my biggest problem with these films - the certain group of "defensives" who take it all too personally, and in doing so, in a way, make it personal.

[Kuruharan]

Hoax or not? Discuss.

We should start a betting pool on how many of the spoilers are real.

I'm all in on they are. :cool:

[William Cloud Hicklin]

This isn't something I've done

This is something I have done, which is why I'm banned from TORN.

What's especially Kafka-esque is that site's byline "made by and for fans of JRR Tolkien." Um, no. "By and for fans of Peter Jackson"* is the truth of it. Actual Tolkien fans need not apply.

------------------


*And, according to some people who would be in a position to know, considerable guidance and financing from WETA/Wingnut and Warner Brothers.

[Mithalwen]

ToRN always gives me the impression that PJ has the sort of personality cult that Kim Jong-un can only fantasize about and that dissenters will be disappeared..... I have posted there once or twice but under a different identity.... :cool:

[Tar-Jêx]

What tends to frustrate me is this: every popular film or TV show or what have you has a 'big forum.' For 'Tolkien,' particularly the films, it's TORN. Other things have their own 'big forum.' And on these places there are people who can't take criticism of whatever it is, and make that very clear: critics are often "whingers" or "whiners" who can't do it themselves and therefore should be ignored. And because these people are notionally, in their very negative way, 'likers,' which is usually the gist of the 'big forum' in general, they tend to get away with it. If however someone makes a similarly truculent claim about the 'likers' (calling them "sycophants" or "fanboys," perhaps) it's considered very taboo. This isn't something I've done, if you're worried, but I've noticed the double standard. It's completely off-putting to observe an unquestioned vocal element which is silently condoned by the authority because their opinions roughly align, which nonetheless utterly stifles certain lines of discourse. I've been guilty of making unhelpful generalisations in the past, which I try these days to avoid, but I'd like to think that at least if I take issue with the film I don't feel the need to slander the people who like it, certainly not on a forum where it's supposed to be part of a conversation.

Maybe at the end of the day that's my biggest problem with these films - the certain group of "defensives" who take it all too personally, and in doing so, in a way, make it personal.

Fanboy-ism is often disgusting to observe. Someone is defending a film, or book, despite it's clear flaws. That's like small scale (and not nearly as bad) holocaust denial. For someone to ignore all the faults and praise PJ's movies as the greatest things to man, they must either be; immature, or can't understand other opinions for some strange reason.

If all the movie lovers just accepted that the films had a series of failings and mistakes, the book-crowd would surely be more accepting of them. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a not-good movie, as long as you can understand that it probably isn't the best thing ever, and it has its issues.

[Aganzir]

"Coming soon to theatres...Bombadil II: Old Man Willow's Revenge."
I can't decide if this idea is very funny or very scary.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the spoilers were real. Going to the midnight premiere on the 10th with the other Finns and will post a review after. I'm sure we'll be a bunch of grumpy cats among the audience - will have to smuggle in more rum&coke than last year to see us through!

[Morthoron]

I was having an amusing battle on this thread (starting at post# 38):

http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=804954;page=2;sb =post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

Obviously, I am completely wrong in thinking that The Hobbit would have done just fine without the insertion of a female character, Tauriel.

And equally as obvious, an admin thinks I am being insulting. Amazing I've lasted on that forum since 2008 without banishment. Kudos to the moderators of the Barrow Downs for being...ummm...not immoderate.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, I'd come round to help you out, but seeing as I got banned for being "insulting" (you know what that means in TORN-speak), I'll have to sit tight.

[Tar-Jêx]

I was having an amusing battle on this thread (starting at post# 38):

http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=804954;page=2;sb =post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

Obviously, I am completely wrong in thinking that The Hobbit would have done just fine without the insertion of a female character, Tauriel.

And equally as obvious, an admin thinks I am being insulting. Amazing I've lasted on that forum since 2008 without banishment. Kudos to the moderators of the Barrow Downs for being...ummm...not immoderate.

Trying to stay on TORN is like living in a country with an incredibly corrupt government. I have no idea how you've done it, but that's an achievement.

I'm so incredibly glad that our moderators and admins on here are actually doing their job, rather than abusing power and banning people with opposing opinions.

[Aganzir]

Trying to stay on TORN is like living in a country with an incredibly corrupt government. I have no idea how you've done it, but that's an achievement.
That seems very masochistic though.

Here, I made a thing for tonight:

http://i.imgur.com/bMci3v9.jpg

[Aiwendil]

Fanboy-ism is often disgusting to observe. Someone is defending a film, or book, despite it's clear flaws. That's like small scale (and not nearly as bad) holocaust denial. For someone to ignore all the faults and praise PJ's movies as the greatest things to man, they must either be; immature, or can't understand other opinions for some strange reason.


I think that comparing fans of the films to Holocaust deniers is kind of crossing a line that oughtn't be crossed. I rather dislike the Hobbit films, and I have tons of criticisms of Peter Jackson's work; I may even sometimes think that those who unabashedly love the films are less sophisticated in their tastes than I am (whatever that might mean). But I do not think they are 'disgusting', nor that they are even the least bit like Holocaust deniers. Holocaust denial is, I would say, morally culpable; to deny the Holocaust is wrong, both factually and morally. To like a movie a lot despite what other people see as serious flaws? At most, I could see an argument that that is wrong artistically, but even that is questionable on semantic and philosophical grounds.

[Nerwen]

Just been revisiting these old movie threads. Ah, the nostalgia... the sweet, long lost time of innocence.... when we naively doubted the rumours...

We should start a betting pool on how many of the spoilers are real.

I'm all in on they are. :cool:
Well, congratulations! We have a winner!:cool:

However:

Originally Posted by Tar-Jex
Fanboy-ism is often disgusting to observe. Someone is defending a film, or book, despite it's clear flaws. That's like small scale (and not nearly as bad) holocaust denial. For someone to ignore all the faults and praise PJ's movies as the greatest things to man, they must either be; immature, or can't understand other opinions for some strange reason.
I think that comparing fans of the films to Holocaust deniers is kind of crossing a line that oughtn't be crossed. I rather dislike the Hobbit films, and I have tons of criticisms of Peter Jackson's work; I may even sometimes think that those who unabashedly love the films are less sophisticated in their tastes than I am (whatever that might mean). But I do not think they are 'disgusting', nor that they are even the least bit like Holocaust deniers. Holocaust denial is, I would say, morally culpable; to deny the Holocaust is wrong, both factually and morally. To like a movie a lot despite what other people see as serious flaws? At most, I could see an argument that that is wrong artistically, but even that is questionable on semantic and philosophical grounds.
I'm quoting this because it's still relevant, and is a point that should be made more often. Godwinisms aside, "anti-fans" who work themselves into rages at people for daring to like something they don't are just as bad as obsessed fanboys- in fact they're basically a mirror image of each other. It can be interesting to watch the hype-backlash cycle unfold- remember when the internet collectively tore strips off anyone who *didn't* praise AUJ?- but it's not good to allow oneself to get caught up in it, in either phase.

[Kuruharan]

Well, congratulations! We have a winner!:cool:

What do I get? :smokin:

[Nerwen]

What do I get? :smokin:
Your choice of our wide range of quality Morgul™ products! We recommend the Morgul™ Home Cinema System! Imagine watching "The Hobbit" 24/7 in 4k Ultra HD and Nazgul™ 5.1 surround sound!:cool:

(Actually you won't have to imagine it, as the Morgul™ Home Cinema System is locked to playing the "Hobbit" trilogy exclusively, on an endless loop, and cannot be turned off.)

[Kuruharan]

Your choice of our wide range of quality Morgul™ products! We recommend the Morgul™ Home Cinema System! Imagine watching "The Hobbit" 24/7 in 4k Ultra HD and Nazgul™ 5.1 surround sound!:cool:

(Actually you won't have to imagine it, as the Morgul™ Home Cinema System is locked to playing the "Hobbit" trilogy exclusively, on an endless loop, and cannot be turned off.)

Awww maaaaan! :(