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. :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 signs of slowing down now.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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. ;)

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...;)

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!!!!

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.

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.

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".

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:

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

Lalwendë's Legolas-in-pudding experiment

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.

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:

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).

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

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 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.

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

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.



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

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

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.

It takes three baby
 

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?

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.

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).

Pig hooey!!!
 

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/v...er=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....

The Hobbit: A Haiku
 

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

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

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.

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, "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?