Three Times The Hobbit?

[Forlong the Fat]

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

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

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

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Forlong the Fat

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

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

[Forlong the Fat]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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

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

[Mumriken]

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

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

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

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

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

Weta digital
Howard shore

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

[Bêthberry]

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

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

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

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/31/pete...or_geek_opium/

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

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

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

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

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

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/31/pete...or_geek_opium/

I love this line from that story...

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

[Boromir88]

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

http://www.theonion.com/video/final-...-be-spl,20528/

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

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

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

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

[Ninde Lossehelin]

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

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

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Ninde Lossehelin

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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

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

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

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

[Galadriel55]

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

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

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

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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

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

I do still love the soundtrack, though.

[Mithalwen]

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

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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

Potter wins.

Originally Posted by skip spence

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

Great point of view.

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

[Mumriken]

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

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

[Legolas]

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

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

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

As Jackson himself asks in his Facebook announcement, "do we take this chance to tell more of the tale?" His answer "was an unreserved ‘yes.'"

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

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Legolas

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

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

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Legolas

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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

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

[Mithalwen]

Greedy is the word that springs to mind

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

[Kitanna]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Greedy is the word that springs to mind

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

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

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Kitanna

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

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

Originally Posted by Kitanna

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

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

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Kitanna

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

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

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

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Kitanna

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

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

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

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

[Mithalwen]

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