Three Times The Hobbit?

[Nerwen]

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

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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

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).

[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..."

[Morthoron]

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...

Define "excessive".

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Define "excessive".

syn.: "Morthoron".

[Nerwen]

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.

[Bêthberry]

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.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

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:

"In the novel, Gandalf disappears for various patches of time. In 1936, when Tolkien was writing that book, he didn't have a clue what Gandalf was doing."

Ostadan then offers what I consider a trenchent rebuttal, supported by an appropriate reference to Tolkien's letters:

Since Gandalf does tell us what he was doing, though without unnecessary details, this is an extremely odd thing to say. The storytelling purpose of Gandalf’s absence, of course, is explained by Tolkien in a letter (Letters, #257, 1964): “[The Necromancer’s function] … was hardly more than to provide a reason for Gandalf going away and laving Bilbo and the Dwarves to fend for themselves, which was necessary for the tale.” Tolkien had a good sense of what was necessary in his story.

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

So you see Bilbo had come in the end by the only road that was any good. It might have been some comfort to Mr. Baggins shivering on the barrels, if he had known that news of this had reached Gandalf far away and given him great anxiety, and that he was in fact finishing his other business (which does not come into this tale) and getting ready to come in search of Thorin's company. But Bilbo did not know it.

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.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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.

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.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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.

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

[Galendor]

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/

[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?