Three Times The Hobbit?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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..."

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!

[Kath]

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.

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!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Kath

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.

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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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!

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:

Jackson could provide a seamless branching option on The Hobbit disks, when released, that allows viewers to see only the "substory" of The Hobbit which entirely omits The White Council story that follows Gandalf when he is away from the company of the dwarves. We would see Gandalf go away for a while and come back, just like in The Hobbit.

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.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Morthoron, I like your brand of curmudgeonliness.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

You've already answered that one. Your remote!

What's this about the Nazgul though???

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Morthoron, I like your brand of curmudgeonliness.

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

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

You've already answered that one. Your remote!

What's this about the Nazgul though???

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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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...

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

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?

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?

[Inziladun]

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!

[Inziladun]

Holy Angband, now there's this.

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