Three Times The Hobbit?

[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...

[Mumriken]

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

[Glorthelion]

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

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Glorthelion

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

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

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

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

[Bêthberry]

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

[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...

[Kuruharan]

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

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

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

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

He is claiming the mantle of Tolkien in order to make himself buckets and buckets of money because he knows nothing that could come out of his own brain could be nearly as successful. Maddeningly he is trashing Tolkien's stories in the process. Jackson would be nothing without Tolkien.

While these are quite strong terms they do reflect some of my own frustrations, mostly with the incredible hysteria which surrounds the films. It is almost as if at some point Professor Tolkien became the background figure while Peter Jackson is the "genius bringing Middle-earth to life" or what have you. I feel like more praise is owed to the Professor; it is as if the filmmakers have snatched his life's work out of his hands and run off with it to gather all the kudos while he gets left behind. Yes, the films were very successful, but at the end of the day it's Professor Tolkien who should be praised moreso than them. I don't know if this is the case, but I really hope that Jackson and co regularly express their gratitude to Professor Tolkien for being the origin of their success.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

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

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

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

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

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

[Snowdog]

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

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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

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

Hobbit movie poster