Who here enjoyed the movie?

[Sarumian]

I'd say I enjoyed the movie for reasons similar to others: I hadn't had high expectations but wanted to spent a bit longer time in Middle Earth For that purpose it is just ok, though I totally agree that some alterations were unnecessary and some scenes could have been dropped without any harm to the storyline.Noone it seems needed the fight with goblins and that sleigh pursuit before Rivendale, endless running in goblins' town and slicing the Great Goblin as a pack of ham could've been omitted. It also look very silly that Bilbo didn't make any use of his Ring challenging Azog for combat. Did he forgotten what saved his life just little time before?

I wonder as well how they are going to explain the way Gandalf obtained the map from Thrain II. Probably Gandalf will say he had met Thrain on the way to Moria and as everything was going suspiciously wrong, Thrain decided to handle it to Gandalf in order to pass it to Thorin.

I enjoyed Riddles and the White Council scene; I think the latter is quite appropriate in the LOTR prequel, as there appendixes are impossible in a movie (I still regret that Saruman's death did not make its way to the screen - a marvellous drama and so meaningful).

PS. Don't mind Radagast - Crazy Professor simply because in the books he is almost not given. Can we develop a different Radagast who wouldn't have been boring on screen?

[Boo Radley]

We just watched the DVD, and not having seen TH in the theatre, I was wondering if anyone had problems with the sound?
My wife and I both thought the music overpowered the dialog through the whole movie. Now, we don't have surround sound, but our stereo system is fairly good and we've never had problems with any other movies [i](with the exception of LOTR, but those DVDs allowed us to change the sound format, where TH didn't), so i was wondering if anyone else watching the DVD had problems hearing the dialog over the music.

[Snowdog]

This movie, and I suspect the next two coming, are just more nails in the coffin of J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy. I went to an advance screening (for us here in Oz) that required getting dressed up in costume. It was a fun night seeing all the different costumes and the nice photo-shoot and the free drinks and food and all. Yet it was more of a matter of getting through the movie than it was enjoying it. Listening to the chatter going in, Peter Jackson has pretty much succeeded in co-opting Tolkien's works and now in the minds of the idiot masses has been awarded them as his own. My only consolation this time is I haven't spent a cent that will go to the film company or Peter Jackson. I intend to keep it that way.

[Mithalwen]

I hope that Tolkien will survive the films. PJ has at least nullified the cheat of watching the film rather than reading the book as a time saver. And a quiz on the radio reminded me of something encouraging. Paws up if the name Nahum Tate means anything to you. I am assuming that of William Shakespeare means more ... yet Tate was the chap who took it upon himself to 'improve' Shakespeare and make it accessible to the people of the day. I believe that another Warwickshire Lad will prevail.

[Rhod the Red]

Many greats in English literature. With remakes of movies, etc. We can anticipate that maybe remakes will be attempted that might be better & more book-accurate, etc.

[malickfan]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

This movie, and I suspect the next two coming, are just more nails in the coffin of J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy... Listening to the chatter going in, Peter Jackson has pretty much succeeded in co-opting Tolkien's works and now in the minds of the idiot masses has been awarded them as his own. My only consolation this time is I haven't spent a cent that will go to the film company or Peter Jackson. I intend to keep it that way.

Though I agree with you to an extent (Of the five friends I have who whave read Tolkien, 3 only read the Hobbit becuase it was short and seemed to have lots of action and Gollum, one read C.O.H and complained there wasn't enough action, modern dialogue or hobbits, whilst the other has read many of the books-but still considers the films better because they are more conventional...*sigh*) it could have been worse-look at the James Bond film-only half are very loosely based on the books, the films have made far more money, with a much wider audience than the books, and if anything they are Bond in most peoples eyes. For all its flaws and issues at least PJ's films were reasonably faifthful to the books-he went to the effort of hiring tolkien artists and scholars to work on the films, look at the garbage Zimmerman and John Boorman were planning and tell me Jackson's films weren't a massive improvement.

Whatever happens with the films, the books still remain HUGELY popular, and will continue to do so long afterwards. Christopher and Adam Tolkien have done all they can to preserve the books, and wil continue to do so.

I'm thankful for the films introducing me to the book, and entertaining millions of people the world over, but I'm equally thankful that there won't be any more.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by malickfan

it could have been worse-look at the James Bond film-only half are very loosely based on the books, the films have made far more money, with a much wider audience than the books, and if anything they are Bond in most peoples eyes.

An interesting comparison. Fleming's books have sold "over a 100 million copies worldwide", if Wiki is to be trusted. It's been years, nay decades, since I read any of them, but I don't recall that they are particularly well written--certainly Bond does not come near the complexity and quality of George Smiley and I at least was never motivated to reread them--an effect quite different from that of reading Tolkien. Fleming referred to his books as "thrillers" but perhaps the best way to distinguish them from Tolkien's works is this comment from Fleming (again from Wiki, with all the attendant cautions).

Originally Posted by Fleming

"I write for about three hours in the morning ... and I do another hour's work between six and seven in the evening. I never correct anything and I never go back to see what I have written ... By following my formula, you write 2,000 words a day."

Not a niggler for sure. Perhaps that is why people are not much offended at what became of Bond and Fleming's spy world in the movies.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

An interesting comparison. Fleming's books have sold "over a 100 million copies worldwide", if Wiki is to be trusted. It's been years, nay decades, since I read any of them, but I don't recall that they are particularly well written--certainly Bond does not come near the complexity and quality of George Smiley and I at least was never motivated to reread them--an effect quite different from that of reading Tolkien.

Uncannily enough, I am in the midst of re-reading my Fleming-written Bond books for the first time in many years. I have just begun From Russia With Love, going in chronological order.
It may come as no surprise that I quite like the books, preferring them to the films. Bond is more "human" in the books to me, making mistakes and such, and the silly gadgetry is much more subtle. Still, I wouldn't exactly call them realistic.

I read somewhere that works like the Bond books are to men as the Gothic romances are to many women: escapist adventure that makes few demands on the reader. In that way they are quite dissimilar to Tolkien's works, which present the reader not only with characters who have depth and sometimes enigmatic motivations, but with moral and philosophical questions that engage the mind.
Those qualities are difficult to translate to a film, where one is under a time-crunch to hook the viewer and conclude the film as neatly as possible. For Bond, that isn't a big deal. For Gandalf, it's a different ball game.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Uncannily enough, I am in the midst of re-reading my Fleming-written Bond books for the first time in many years. I have just begun From Russia With Love, going in chronological order.
It may come as no surprise that I quite like the books, preferring them to the films. Bond is more "human" in the books to me, making mistakes and such, and the silly gadgetry is much more subtle. Still, I wouldn't exactly call them realistic.

I read somewhere that works like the Bond books are to men as the Gothic romances are to many women: escapist adventure that makes few demands on the reader.

Perhaps I should give them a lookover (look back?). While I am clearly outside that Bond-loving demographic you mention, I don't read Gothic romances (or any other kind) either. But I am very fond of Conspiracy Fiction, particularly the early John le Carré. Interestingly, I lost interest in his books as he began writing them as movie plotlines. They became far less complex and probing of the characters and far more predictable. ho hum

Roverandom might make a good animated film though, in the right hands.