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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is an interesting article

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...-movies-2012-8

That does not surprise me at all, Mith.

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

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

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

Getting Cold Feet
 

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

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012...bbit-too-much/

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

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

Courageous indeed, considering the abundance of vacant fanbois cluttering up that site. I decided to congratulate Ostadan on a well-written and researched article, and add a few curmudgeonly paragraphs of my own, found in discussion of the article here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Define "excessive".:D

syn.: "Morthoron". :p

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

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

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

What Tolkien knew that Peter Jackson doesn't
 

I made reference to the "One Ring dot Net" article above, by Ostadan, because I thought the author did a credible job of raising some disturbing questions about the long-delayed-and-now-deliberately-inflated-and-extended "Hobbit" movie project. For example, Ostadan quotes Peter Jackson saying: Ostadan then offers what I consider a trenchent rebuttal, supported by an appropriate reference to Tolkien's letters:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fanboy Fascists
 

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

http://themisfortuneteller.com/Poetr...ightlight.html

Titles and release dates
 

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

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

http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/thi...les-confirmed/

Urrrrgh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was perusing the TORn forum and a comment on this thread caught my eye. Betwixt all the wallowing fanboy blather, a perceptive poster named JWPLatt brought up an interesting idea:

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

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

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

Morthoron, I like your brand of curmudgeonliness.

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

What's this about the Nazgul though???

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

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

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

This makes me apprehensive...

Did they not state in the Fellowship of the Ring (even in the film version) that the Nazgul appearing was a surprise because they hadn't appeared since the last time that Sauron had a lot of power? Gandalf basically told Frodo that this event was the worst thing that had happened in a long time. I didn't just imagine that, right? :confused:

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

According to this, a Stephen Colbert cameo in either the second or third movies is confirmed.

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

Holy Angband, now there's this. :rolleyes:

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

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


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...and-visit.html

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

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

Here's the best line in that article:

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

A Bishop Brennan moment?
 

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

They have got to be kidding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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