|
On June 28 2011 05:37 fishjie wrote:
In the LOTR extended edition appendices, Peter Jackson specifically states that Tom Bombadil scenes could have happened, they just weren't shown. With the way the screenplay was written, Frodo and gang could easily have run into Tom.
So who knows, maybe in some future super extended version, they can film a Tom Bombadil scene for the lulz.
Whereas Scourging of the Shire could not have happened, with Sarumon getting killed off in the earlier scenes of ROTK. It's a shame they didn't put the Old Forest and Bombadil in, really.
|
^^ Doesn't really need to be in there to further the story.
Although great scenes ... would have liked to see the Barrow Downs parts.
Reading LOTR recently again, Jackson did the movies properly. The books can be so overwhelming to someone who's never seen anything about that universe. It needed to be made a little bit less niche for a movie ... and i think the Bombadil scenes would have just confused and disconnected more casual audiences.
|
I sure hope so, LotR was such a good trilogy and so well made.
|
I dont understand why so many think it was huge that Tom Bombadil was cut out? That was the most obvious part to not include tbh!!
And as for the scoring of the shire. Sure its a good part in the book but tbh, its a big difference between a book and a movie. I mean you have spend 9hours over 3 movies with the singel goal to destroy the ring. you have this huge ending were the entire force of middle earth walk up to the black gate to give frodo a chance to destroy the ring. And Frodo does in an epic moment with gollum. Are you then gonna keep the movie going and have a smaller ending? That would be so weird tbh and it would only drag out the movie.
In a book it works but for this film focus needed to be on the ring and when that was destroyed there was no need to keep the story going, beside telling how the rings affect on Frodo led him to leave Middle Earth.
As for Faramir I also think its a shame he was shown as wors the he is. But its also due to those who have not read the book. I mean you have spent so much time explaining that the ring is evil och curropts men so easy. The it would make no sens if Faramir comes along and just can let it by so easy. In a book you can understand this much better but on film its freaking impossible to explain without dragging it out to much.
the worst part in the movies was the fact that Gandalf get wtf owned by the WK. That does not happen and tbh the part in the book were the WK enters minas tirith and face Gandalf on the court yard is by far the most epic moment. To bad PJ fucked that one up.
|
I agree with some of the complaints that people in this thread have mentioned
Legolas and especially Gimli were reduced to comic relief at times, which did kind of annoy me. It wasnt enough for me to really care in the grand scheme of things though
The Witch King of Angmar was not supposed to be able to defeat Gandalf so easily. That part REALLY annoyed me
I agree that there was a lot of back story that significantly helped immerse the readers into the plot which didnt get portrayed on film. However, this is the case with any book to film adaptation. Unless there is a narrator telling us exactly what is going on and why its significant, we wont get the same effect watching a movie as we do reading a book. Considering this inevitability, I think Peter Jackson did an incredible job creating Middle Earth on the movie screen.
As for the Scouring of the Shire, I completely understood why they cut that side plot along with Tom Bombadil. Tom Bombadil was almost completely insignificant in terms of the overarching storyline. Unless Im mistaken, besides the original side story involving him he was only ever mentioned in the books during the meeting at Rivendell as a possible bearer for the One Ring. They decided not to give it to him because he wouldnt care enough and might eventually lose it. For me, Tom Bombadil was just a some magical grandpa who didnt care about anything except singing and banging his wife. He was absolutely unimportant
As for the Scouring of the Shire, it might have been good except for the fact that it would have ruined the movie flow completely. They just came home from a journey of epic proportions. 2 hobbits escaped capture from elite orcs, rallied an army of walking trees to topple a powerful wizard's tower, then went to fight against the armies of Mordor twice before emerging victorious, etc etc. The other 2 went into the heart of the enemy lands with a guide who was as much their enemy as their ally, battled and defeated a giant spider, escaped capture from elite orcs, and finally defeated the Dark Lord Sauron (pretty much the source of all suffering during this age for Middle Earth) before being barely rescued in time from an exploding volcano, etc etc....
Now they come home and have to deal with some old dude who has no magic powers, his bitch, and a band of bottom feeders? How anticlimactic would that be? In a book it might bring closure to the quest. In a movie it would just be a moment where the entire audience has to rethink why theyre actually staying in the movie theater. I mean, Sauron already died. Any new challenge proposed afterward would just seem trivial and, again, anticlimactic
|
On June 28 2011 14:51 Supamang wrote:
For me, Tom Bombadil was just some magical grandpa who didnt care about anything except singing and banging his wife.
What a hero.
What I didn't like about the movies was the diminished role 2 of the hobbits,Legolas and Gimli had.
And we're going to see a lot of that happening with the dwarves this time too. There gonna be ''the funny one'',''the angry one'' etc and it's gonna kill me.
|
I always considered LOTR to be one of the better book to movie transitions.
The books were incredibly vast and to transfer enough of that to a movie must have been a daunting task. Considering the amount of fans this book series has I must say that it was a well done job.
It could always have been done better but really, who expected them to make 9 hours worth of film? They did the books justice at least.
|
I was disappointed that Tom Bombadil wasn't in the The Fellowship Of The Ring. Although his role was minor in the book he was still a very important/interesting character.
|
Hell yes :DD the book as so good so much happens it would be such a sick movie even if it had to be put in two parts :D
|
Sweet, I've been waiting for this a long time. There was really no series that rivaled LOTR. I remember being so excited to see the next one each time it came out in theaters. Really cool to see them finally starting to work on the Hobbit. There's a lot in that book that they could really turn into a 3 part trilogy and I wouldnt mind.
|
On July 02 2011 05:08 Jayme wrote:
I always considered LOTR to be one of the better book to movie transitions.
The books were incredibly vast and to transfer enough of that to a movie must have been a daunting task. Considering the amount of fans this book series has I must say that it was a well done job.
It could always have been done better but really, who expected them to make 9 hours worth of film? They did the books justice at least.
Well, I just hope that the rumored 14-15 hour Director's Cut ends up eventually getting released then. If there was something that bothered me in the movies, it was the crucial mistake of not having the Dawnless Day and the darkness from Mordor hiding the Army of the Dead and the lack of non-ghostly reinforcements from southern Gondor. I seriously wanted to see a Gondorian force defending Pelargir then have the Three Hunters do battle there (and to create tension; have it end with Aragorn shouting: "By Isildur I summon you!") then cut back to Minas Tirith starting to be besieged.
|
+ Show Spoiler +QUOTE] On June 27 2011 21:37 Mithrandror wrote:On June 27 2011 20:32 SpeCiaL.. wrote:
honestly peter jackson will probably massacre the hobbit the same way as he massacred the LOTR trilogy, the only good one from that was the 1st movie. Seriously what a load of crap, I've read the Hobit 2x, LOTR 3x times and made an entire movie dedicated to the silmarillion so I know the lore and I can honestly say that the LOTR movies were great. People who say otherwise are just begging to get attention. Of course its not perfect and things were cut, that's what you get when you turn a book into a movie. Compare other adaption (f.e. Harry Potter) and you can't deny how superior LOTR was in every single way. If you're not convicend by this argument go watch the 'making off' bonus on the extended edition version. The effort and detail that is put in this movie is just amazing. So saying the movies were bad is just ludicrous.
No its not a load of crap, i didnt like the movie adaption from the books. dont tell me i say so because i want attention, you know people can have other opinions than yours... so fking deal with it
User was warned for this post
|
On July 03 2011 08:24 SpeCiaL.. wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 27 2011 21:37 Mithrandror wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 20:32 SpeCiaL.. wrote:
honestly peter jackson will probably massacre the hobbit the same way as he massacred the LOTR trilogy, the only good one from that was the 1st movie. Seriously what a load of crap, I've read the Hobit 2x, LOTR 3x times and made an entire movie dedicated to the silmarillion so I know the lore and I can honestly say that the LOTR movies were great. People who say otherwise are just begging to get attention. Of course its not perfect and things were cut, that's what you get when you turn a book into a movie. Compare other adaption (f.e. Harry Potter) and you can't deny how superior LOTR was in every single way. If you're not convicend by this argument go watch the 'making off' bonus on the extended edition version. The effort and detail that is put in this movie is just amazing. So saying the movies were bad is just ludicrous. No its not a load of crap, i didnt like the movie adaption from the books. dont tell me i say so because i want attention, you know people can have other opinions than yours... so fking deal with it
Then elaborate WHY you don't like it. Going into the thread and saying that the movie adaptations sucked without saying anything as to why is very trollish. You're rattling off your opinion and not providing reasons to defend it, which doesn't go down well with people; also, it's irresponsible posting, TBH.
|
|
|
The Hobbit, Production video #3
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150326323406807
Added news:
Good news and bad news today. Bad news is that we won't be doing any Hobbit presentation at Comic Con in San Diego this year. New Line and Warner Bros were very happy to support a presentation, but I declined, simply because I felt it was too early. There's so much more of the films still to shoot. I just wanted to get that out there, because I've seen various references to the possibility of something Hobbity at Comic Con. Hate to disappoint anyone. But something tells me we will be there in force next year.
Now for the good news...
We've just finished a new video blog, covering a little more of the first block of shooting. So please enjoy this—at least you don't have to travel to San Deigo to see it!
I've been on the go since wrapping the first shooting block, but I'm about to settle down and get into the much delayed 20 Questions. I've a few half-written and will get those done very, very soon! I promise!
Cheers,
Peter J
|
Most of the Dwarves dont look like Dwarves.
James Nesbitt is already pissing me off.
Creating new characters are you Mr Jackson?
Fucking about with the story again?
I'm un-surprised that hes managed to get Frodo into at least one of the movies, i'd be even less surprised if he managed to get god damn Arwen into the films.
|
On July 21 2011 18:27 Grettin wrote:The Hobbit, Production video #3http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150326323406807Added news: Show nested quote +Good news and bad news today. Bad news is that we won't be doing any Hobbit presentation at Comic Con in San Diego this year. New Line and Warner Bros were very happy to support a presentation, but I declined, simply because I felt it was too early. There's so much more of the films still to shoot. I just wanted to get that out there, because I've seen various references to the possibility of something Hobbity at Comic Con. Hate to disappoint anyone. But something tells me we will be there in force next year.
Now for the good news...
We've just finished a new video blog, covering a little more of the first block of shooting. So please enjoy this—at least you don't have to travel to San Deigo to see it!
I've been on the go since wrapping the first shooting block, but I'm about to settle down and get into the much delayed 20 Questions. I've a few half-written and will get those done very, very soon! I promise!
Cheers,
Peter J
hehe, the third video is pretty good. The dwarf playing guitar cracked me off.
|
Ok, so Mr. Jackson is making the Hobbit, wonderful! The LOTR adaptations were the best of any book-->movie adaptations I've ever seen, sure I'm disappointed he cut out Tom, and some scenes weren't given their full justice, but he did well. The Hobbit should be even better, I'm just sad that the actor for Bilbo in LOTR can't do it. :/
NEXT: The Silmarillion. You know you want it, just be prepared to sit in the theatre for 16+ hours. :D
|
^The Silmarillion would be almost impossible to render in a satisfying way. Much like the Iliad is.
I'm really pumped for The Hobbit, though. I hope the soundtrack lives up to the one in LoTR.
|
They could take parts of it and make into a movie though. For example the story of Beren & Luthien, or Turin Turambar's story (which has a standalone book: The Children of Hurin).
My dream is The Silmarillion to be made into a bigass-budget miniseries. All those huge battles with balrogs vs uberelfs duking it out would be amazing to see. Fingolfin vs Morgoth, etc. Never gonna happen though. =/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
)
