The stars of Lord Of The Rings have given director Peter Jackson a promise they'll return for The Hobbit if he is prepared to make it.
Jackson has hinted that he would be interested in adapting the pre-Lord of The Rings story into a movie, and now his Hobbit stars are pushing him to go for it.
Billy Boyd, who played Pippin in the Lord of The Rings films, said: "People want it so much. There was talk of us playing our characters' relatives. I'm sure we'd all make ourselves free for that."
And Jackson would be able to cut down on the on-set costs if his Hobbits returned - they're considering buying a communal property in New Zealand.
Elijah Wood said: "A lot of us are actually thinking about going in on property in New Zealand."
I've already seen a trailer for it a long time ago.
If he makes the Hobbit I won't make the mistake of seeing it like I did with the lord of the rings. I really liked the books but he did a horrible job. It makes me sick to hear his fellow writers say how they improved Tolkien's writing. Atleast one of them did anyway. I didn't think he would do lotr justice (injustice as I now think), but I thought I'll go see the movie and I might be surprised, and if it is bad it is no big deal. But it is a big deal to me because now when I am picturing something from the books all I can see is Peter Jackson's mass marketed movie.
On December 13 2004 05:26 Servolisk wrote: I've already seen a trailer for it a long time ago.
If he makes the Hobbit I won't make the mistake of seeing it like I did with the lord of the rings. I really liked the books but he did a horrible job. It makes me sick to hear his fellow writers say how they improved Tolkien's writing. Atleast one of them did anyway. I didn't think he would do lotr justice (injustice as I now think), but I thought I'll go see the movie and I might be surprised, and if it is bad it is no big deal. But it is a big deal to me because now when I am picturing something from the books all I can see is Peter Jackson's mass marketed movie.
Please explain your opinion because you just sound like you're trying to be negative or disagree with everyone for some reason.
For me I'm able to distinguish in my mind the memories from watching the movie and my creative imagery from reading the book(only read fellowship so far).
I understand perfectly well what he is talking about. I feel pretty much the same way, except I can still enjoy the movies when I don't compare them to the books.
On December 13 2004 05:26 Servolisk wrote: I've already seen a trailer for it a long time ago.
If he makes the Hobbit I won't make the mistake of seeing it like I did with the lord of the rings. I really liked the books but he did a horrible job. It makes me sick to hear his fellow writers say how they improved Tolkien's writing. Atleast one of them did anyway. I didn't think he would do lotr justice (injustice as I now think), but I thought I'll go see the movie and I might be surprised, and if it is bad it is no big deal. But it is a big deal to me because now when I am picturing something from the books all I can see is Peter Jackson's mass marketed movie.
Please explain your opinion because you just sound like you're trying to be negative or disagree with everyone for some reason.
For me I'm able to distinguish in my mind the memories from watching the movie and my creative imagery from reading the book(only read fellowship so far).
wtf? Trying to disagree with everyone? It doesn't take long to find people who didn't like the movies.
Hm if you want me to further explain why I didn't like it, the acting was full of generic drama. Their performance was to movies is like what "A dark and stormy night" is to books.
Things were changed for no reason, not just things edited out for time constraints. Such as making Arwen a big character when she had 2 paragraphs written about her in the books, at the expense of a more interesting character. That shows they don't care about the integrity of the books and were just pandering. And if they were going to do that, I don't see why they didn't get a hotter elf. There are tons of stupid changes, and Jackson and his writers say they improved on Tolkien.
You might be able to seperate book and images well, but I am pretty sure 90% or so will not, especially the people who didn't read the books. I will too if I ever read the books again. This wasn't a real complaint of mine but I do worry it might corrupt the books in this way, but I'm not sure.
I have 2 very serious beefs with the movies. 2 scenes MAKE that trilogy the best thing that has ever been written. The first is the confrontation between Gandalf and Gothmog at the gates of Gondor after grond smashes them in. The second is the confrontation between Eowyn and Gothmog after Gothmog slays Theoden. Those 2 scenes are the best things in the history of literature. Jackson scrapped the first and pissed all over the second. Every other decision they made in the movies was understandable/justifiable/forgivable, but those 2 scenes were begging to have a movie made about them. They were the entire justification for making those movies in the first place. And they got shit on. I can't understand it.
On December 13 2004 10:02 Hautamaki wrote: I have 2 very serious beefs with the movies. 2 scenes MAKE that trilogy the best thing that has ever been written. The first is the confrontation between Gandalf and Gothmog at the gates of Gondor after grond smashes them in. The second is the confrontation between Eowyn and Gothmog after Gothmog slays Theoden. Those 2 scenes are the best things in the history of literature. Jackson scrapped the first and pissed all over the second. Every other decision they made in the movies was understandable/justifiable/forgivable, but those 2 scenes were begging to have a movie made about them. They were the entire justification for making those movies in the first place. And they got shit on. I can't understand it.
That and the invincible ghost army that kills everything within 2 seconds
well that was retarded but for time reasons I can see why they did it. There was no reason, not even from a time standpoint, to not get the aforementioned scenes right though.
I hated how they took out like the MAJOR encounter with Tom Bombadil in the 1st book -_- And I agree with making the female elf big was stupid. The Elf Lord guy who really helped them owned. The movies where good however. And if one of the writers said they improved on his writing he is a fucking moron.
oooooooooh, really want to see this shit, altho i dont think it'll be as good as The Lotr trilogy. It is more action packed, but the story is rather shallow imo.
On December 13 2004 10:51 Slaughter)BiO wrote: I hated how they took out like the MAJOR encounter with Tom Bombadil in the 1st book -_- And I agree with making the female elf big was stupid. The Elf Lord guy who really helped them owned. The movies where good however. And if one of the writers said they improved on his writing he is a fucking moron.
hm. i think it's pretty understandable that they didn't include the tom bombadil thingy. it's more of a side story anyway - it's not major in any way, it doesn't give anything to the main plot, and since you cannot cover the whole content of this trilogy in about 10 hours of film it only makes sense to leave this sort of thing out. it would probably only have confused the part of the cinema audience that hasn't read the books anyway, since they would have wondered why tom doesn't become invisible when he puts on the ring..., even in "pro"-tolkien forums people are discussing a lot why he is quasi immune to the ring's influence. some people claim it might even be eru himself -_-
The first hour of the fellowship was awesome. Then it just become massively cliched and overacted. Did any1 else spend the whole time watching the 3rd one squirming and embarrased at Hollywoodised it was?
I've been a big fan of the books since forever, and never had any real expectations regarding the movies. But I absolutely loved them. Sure, I wanted to see Tom and some other things, but as it is there is no way they could have been any better. People should stop bitching and simply enjoy the fantastic work Peter did on this impossible task.
On December 13 2004 04:50 kaz wrote: would be nice, after jackson finishes up king kong. i liked the story of the hobbit more than the lord of the rings trilogy.
nice to see, that im not the only one who likes the hobbit more than lotr
On December 13 2004 04:50 kaz wrote: would be nice, after jackson finishes up king kong. i liked the story of the hobbit more than the lord of the rings trilogy.
nice to see, that im not the only one who likes the hobbit more than lotr
Second that, but unfortunatly the movie probably won't be what I expect if he does make it. The book is always better than the movie imo.
On December 13 2004 04:50 kaz wrote: would be nice, after jackson finishes up king kong. i liked the story of the hobbit more than the lord of the rings trilogy.
nice to see, that im not the only one who likes the hobbit more than lotr
I liked The Hobbit more too =]
Just seemed more magical and epic to me. LotR had all these complications and stuff. The Hobbit just kept things simple.
On December 13 2004 04:50 kaz wrote: would be nice, after jackson finishes up king kong. i liked the story of the hobbit more than the lord of the rings trilogy.
nice to see, that im not the only one who likes the hobbit more than lotr
Second that, but unfortunatly the movie probably won't be what I expect if he does make it. The book is always better than the movie imo.
I don't see the point of putting imo at the end of that. EVERYBODY says the book is better than the movie. Everybody you ever meet that can actually read anyways..
The only better part of the movie is that it takes 2 hours. I won't even say that it is your opinion as you've had every teacher through every grade repeat a similar thought to you.
ah, ive been tryin to find info on this, i heard about this like almost a year ago now, but i thought it was just something i was hoping would happen, but im glad to see it's true.
On December 13 2004 09:08 LTT wrote: Yeah, that would be great because the Hobbit + LotR + King Kong would forever be known in history as the Jackson Five.
On December 13 2004 05:26 Servolisk wrote: I've already seen a trailer for it a long time ago.
If he makes the Hobbit I won't make the mistake of seeing it like I did with the lord of the rings. I really liked the books but he did a horrible job. It makes me sick to hear his fellow writers say how they improved Tolkien's writing. Atleast one of them did anyway. I didn't think he would do lotr justice (injustice as I now think), but I thought I'll go see the movie and I might be surprised, and if it is bad it is no big deal. But it is a big deal to me because now when I am picturing something from the books all I can see is Peter Jackson's mass marketed movie.
I guess you weren't really paying attention during the movies, seeing as the "trailer" for The Hobbit is just scenes from the films editted together by a fan, with the song used in the trailer for TTT. Ok, so the films didn't pander to your notions of the importance of certain elements, I'm deeply sorry for your loss. I don't think you can fully conceive how much Peter Jackson staked his career on a hunch with these films. He convinced a studio to do something that had never been done before, and to invest such an enormous ammount of money in a relatively unproven director and unfinished scripts speaks volumes about his dedication. A director looking to make a blockbuster gets $80M to make Bad Boys II, not $300M to adapt a piece of fantasy literature.
On December 13 2004 09:08 LTT wrote: Yeah, that would be great because the Hobbit + LotR + King Kong would forever be known in history as the Jackson Five.
On December 13 2004 10:02 Hautamaki wrote: I have 2 very serious beefs with the movies. 2 scenes MAKE that trilogy the best thing that has ever been written. The first is the confrontation between Gandalf and Gothmog at the gates of Gondor after grond smashes them in. The second is the confrontation between Eowyn and Gothmog after Gothmog slays Theoden. Those 2 scenes are the best things in the history of literature. Jackson scrapped the first and pissed all over the second. Every other decision they made in the movies was understandable/justifiable/forgivable, but those 2 scenes were begging to have a movie made about them. They were the entire justification for making those movies in the first place. And they got shit on. I can't understand it.
That and the invincible ghost army that kills everything within 2 seconds
seriously, they all looked like fuckin caspers(translucent blobs flying around), when i read the pook i pictured them as killable walking skeletons with real swords, not a huge green swarm that flew 100 miles per hour, it was almost comical to watch.
On December 13 2004 05:26 Servolisk wrote: I've already seen a trailer for it a long time ago.
If he makes the Hobbit I won't make the mistake of seeing it like I did with the lord of the rings. I really liked the books but he did a horrible job. It makes me sick to hear his fellow writers say how they improved Tolkien's writing. Atleast one of them did anyway. I didn't think he would do lotr justice (injustice as I now think), but I thought I'll go see the movie and I might be surprised, and if it is bad it is no big deal. But it is a big deal to me because now when I am picturing something from the books all I can see is Peter Jackson's mass marketed movie.
I guess you weren't really paying attention during the movies, seeing as the "trailer" for The Hobbit is just scenes from the films editted together by a fan, with the song used in the trailer for TTT.
I realized that was what it mostly was, but there were additions, so I guess you weren't paying attention or saw a different trailer. Smog definitely wasn't in the movies.
Ok, so the films didn't pander to your notions of the importance of certain elements, I'm deeply sorry for your loss. I don't think you can fully conceive how much Peter Jackson staked his career on a hunch with these films. He convinced a studio to do something that had never been done before, and to invest such an enormous ammount of money in a relatively unproven director and unfinished scripts speaks volumes about his dedication. A director looking to make a blockbuster gets $80M to make Bad Boys II, not $300M to adapt a piece of fantasy literature.
No need for your sarcasm. Is that really the best you can say for him? He got people to invest in his film? Really I don't care how hard it was, and I doubt many people care about that aspect either.
I dont really like the Lord of the Rings. The story is way to linear. The hobbit is the same. Peter Jacksons movie is better than the book but if the script is too lousy even the best of directors will fail(not saying that Peter Jackson is that great but he did quite well with this script).
Hollywood should look into more dynamic books with people who actually have some feelings. George Martin with a Song of Ice and Fire is an excellent example.
ps. If you know any good writers who write fantasy please post.
On December 15 2004 17:00 Jim wrote: I dont really like the Lord of the Rings. The story is way to linear. The hobbit is the same. Peter Jacksons movie is better than the book but if the script is too lousy even the best of directors will fail(not saying that Peter Jackson is that great but he did quite well with this script).
Hollywood should look into more dynamic books with people who actually have some feelings. George Martin with a Song of Ice and Fire is an excellent example.
ps. If you know any good writers who write fantasy please post.
I'd support it but i sincerely doubt an Ice and Fire movie or series of movies would come close to capturing the perfection that the books possess
the fantasy genre is pretty laden with crap unfortunately. You won't find anything near as good as Song of Ice and Fire, and the distant seconds are talentless hacks who make it readily apparent as their respective series progress (terry pratchett, that fuckbrain who writes about rand althor or whoever)
your best bet is to just re-read Ice and Fire and pray George Martin actually gets the rest of the books out
On December 15 2004 17:00 Jim wrote: I dont really like the Lord of the Rings. The story is way to linear. The hobbit is the same. Peter Jacksons movie is better than the book but if the script is too lousy even the best of directors will fail(not saying that Peter Jackson is that great but he did quite well with this script).
Hollywood should look into more dynamic books with people who actually have some feelings. George Martin with a Song of Ice and Fire is an excellent example.
ps. If you know any good writers who write fantasy please post.
The lord of the rings story is...... linear? If by linear you mean the most thought out, developed, compelling story ever then yes it is.
On December 15 2004 17:00 Jim wrote: I dont really like the Lord of the Rings. The story is way to linear. The hobbit is the same. Peter Jacksons movie is better than the book but if the script is too lousy even the best of directors will fail(not saying that Peter Jackson is that great but he did quite well with this script).
Hollywood should look into more dynamic books with people who actually have some feelings. George Martin with a Song of Ice and Fire is an excellent example.
ps. If you know any good writers who write fantasy please post.
I'd support it but i sincerely doubt an Ice and Fire movie or series of movies would come close to capturing the perfection that the books possess
the fantasy genre is pretty laden with crap unfortunately. You won't find anything near as good as Song of Ice and Fire, and the distant seconds are talentless hacks who make it readily apparent as their respective series progress (terry pratchett, that fuckbrain who writes about rand althor or whoever)
your best bet is to just re-read Ice and Fire and pray George Martin actually gets the rest of the books out
I dont agree with you about some of your taste (although robert jordan lost his way long ago..), but song of Ice and Fire is simply the best.
Yeah that Jordan fellow. I somewhat liked the story in the first 2-3 books, but after that it went downhill. And now its just pathetic. Filled with boring sideplots and plottered with useless adjectives.
edit. I have had the fourth book of a Song of Ice and Fire preordered for I dont know how long time.
I really hope no hollywood director EVER puts the silmarillion into a movie. As it's not a story going into details but rather a history book, it's impossible to make a movie out of it. It would suck ass...
And Hautamaki, Gothmog is the first of the Baelrog of Morgoth, right? It's been 6 months since I last read the silmarillion and lotr, but...
i dont understand how some people absolutely hate the lotr or how some people think it is the alpha and omega of storytelling and moviemaking. i mean, it was a really good movie, i can understand you didnt think it was that good, but if you like the fantasy genre, you mustve like something about it, you cant have thought it was complete and utter crap, anyone who has voices this opinion just fakes it imo, trying to make himself interesting by taking a stance no one else takes. same thing for everyone who think the lotr movies/books completely own, stop kidding yourself, they werent perfect
People should never compare a movie to a book. The book will always be so much better. Its just not fair to compare it to a book. What you have to do is compare the LOTR movies to other movies. When you do that it is fairly clear LORT is 3 classic films. Its the Star Wars of this generation. Its a set of films that will be watched for years to come.
Actually I think mostly, the thing that comes first is best...
iirc, Star Wars was a movie at first and later made a book as well and the movie was soo much better than the books.
But when the book is first, it will be so rich, full of details and if a movie follows it just can't follow up, it can't be 20 hours long and it will just never be as good as the book.
Uhm, i dunno if its ok they begin to do all this stuff with LOTR. When they exploit sthg too much it loses its charm. And Im still mad cause they didnt had Tom in the trilogy. I remember that the part in which he is going to put the ring on was one of the most expectant moments i had reading the trilogy.
Peter Jackson has announced, via a post on his official Facebook page, that he will be shooting his adaptation of The Hobbit at the higher rate of 48 frames per second.
The usual rate is 24fps, and has been since its introduction to cinema in 1927. The Hobbit will be the first major motion picture in history to feature the upgrade
Jackson thinks, "after nine decades", it's time for a change.
In the post, he addressed the inevitable backlash from "film purists" by saying that audience will "get used to this new look very quickly" as it will bring about a "much more lifelife and comfortable viewing experience."
He also said that films will become "easier to watch, especially in 3-D", with audiences being able to sit through "two hours of footage without getting eyestrain".
Jackson went onto claim that the difference between 24 and 48 fps is "significant", likening the technological evolution to when "vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs".
The Lord of the Rings director also thanked Warner Bros for their support in the advancement, before predicting over 10,000 screens would be capable of projecting 48fps by the time of The Hobbit's release.
Jackson, who won an Academy Award for his work on The Return of the King, took over the directing chair after Guillermo del Toro left. He had become frustrated with the constant production delays that had thwarted the project early on.
The Office's Martin Freeman has been announced to be playing Bilbo Baggins in the film, a role originally played by Sir Ian Holm in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, while Sir Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis will be reprising the characters of Gandalf and Gollum respectively.
Serkis will also act as Second Unit Director on the project.
The Hobbit will be split into two parts, with the first being released in December 2012.
Read more: Peter Jackson is shooting The Hobbit at 48 frames per second | TotalFilm.com
It will be the first movie ever shooted in 48 fps. What do you guys think? If im right, this will affect somehow blue-ray watchers though. Some blueray standard wont support 48fps or smthn.
Bring it home Peter! I don't know how Martin Freeman's Bilbo will turn out but I'm looking forward to it. It's also great to see a lot of the old faces return (Cate Blanchett, Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, Andy Serkis). Oh and it's split into 2 movies right? I wonder if we'll see Aragorn (Viggo) in the 2nd part.
They would have a new bilbo, since pre LOTR would be when bilbo was frodo's age. Maybe frodo can play bilbo? I would be sooo happy if this happened, assuming quality is maintained.
I have full confindence in The Hobbit if Peter Jackson directs it. If anyone else does it, it could be a shattered childhood story turned movie (Dragonball anyone?).
I can see Martin Freeman as a great Bilbo. He has the quality acting like he doesn't belong in new places, something which i think is necessary for any hobbit. Plus I liked him in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I am guessing most of the actors from the other movies will only have bit parts, and I am hoping that John Rhys Davies doesn't play one of the dwarves in the group. It's not that i don't like Davies, it's just that i can't see him being the lone group member playing a different character to be in most of the movie.
On April 14 2011 00:00 toBe wrote: I've never seen a movie or even a short clip in the 48fps-format. So I think it's quiet interesting how that's going to be.
And The Hobbit as a movie - AWESOME.
Because it has never been done before. This movie will be the first, and not all cinemas support this increase in FPS either so there will have to be some refitting of screens and projectors as well.
After looking at the cast, I can't wait for this. I hope some of the rumored people join, like Nimoy and Brian Blessed commit. Brian Blessed just makes sense as a Dwarven King.
Hahaha oh god, it's incredibly funny to read posts you made 7 years ago when you were 15.
I'm still excited for this, although I hope Jackson will go back to the great things he did with the first movie instead of butchering the story like he did in movies 2-3, trying to add in even more action where it's not needed and dumbing down the story.
After looking at the cast, I can't wait for this. I hope some of the rumored people join, like Nimoy and Brian Blessed commit. Brian Blessed just makes sense as a Dwarven King.
1000000 times this! Brian Blessed would be awesome. Also i hope they make Smaug the bad ass mofo I remember him being from the book. I thought Jackson did a decent job with the LOTR movies, hopefully this will live up to the hype.
On April 14 2011 00:29 PolSC2 wrote: Time to watch all extended versions of LOTR and read the books before this hits (plenty of time!).
We so excited.
We gonna have a ball today
Tomorrow is Saturday And Sunday comes after...wards I don’t want this weekend to end
[Rap Verse]
R-B, Rebecca Black So chillin’ in the front seat (In the front seat) In the back seat (In the back seat) I’m drivin’, cruisin’ (Yeah, yeah) Fast lanes, switchin’ lanes Wit’ a car up on my side (Woo!) (C’mon) Passin’ by is a school bus in front of me Makes tick tock, tick tock, wanna scream Check my time, it’s Friday, it’s a weekend We gonna have fun, c’mon, c’mon, y’all
[Chorus]
It’s Friday, Friday Gotta get down on Friday Everybody’s lookin’ forward to the weekend, weekend Friday, Friday Gettin’ down on Friday Everybody’s lookin’ forward to the weekend
Partyin’, partyin’ (Yeah) Partyin’, partyin’ (Yeah) Fun, fun, fun, fun Lookin’ forward to the weekend
It’s Friday, Friday Gotta get down on Friday Everybody’s lookin’ forward to the weekend, weekend Friday, Friday Gettin’ down on Friday Everybody’s lookin’ forward to the weekend
Partyin’, partyin’ (Yeah) Partyin’, partyin’ (Yeah) Fun, fun, fun, fun Lookin’ forward to the weekend
On April 14 2011 00:07 Byrdman wrote: I have full confindence in The Hobbit if Peter Jackson directs it. If anyone else does it, it could be a shattered childhood story turned movie (Dragonball anyone?).
It's gonna be Martin Freeman. I saw him as Dr. Watson in the recent english series Sherlock as Watson and he really looks like a perfect choice.
SO EXCITED! This is going to be awesoommmmme. The only part I'm worried about is with the trolls turn into stone. Their argument that gets them in that predicament works in a book, I just hope it doesn't end up super lame in the movie.
On April 14 2011 00:03 CrimsnDragn wrote: They would have a new bilbo, since pre LOTR would be when bilbo was frodo's age. Maybe frodo can play bilbo? I would be sooo happy if this happened, assuming quality is maintained.
In b4 total confusion about "You haven't aged a day", Bilbo being 50 at the time, Frodo 33, what's mentioned and not mentioned in the book vs the movie and "But that's just as silly as asking How did Gandalf get his first staff"
On April 14 2011 00:39 Saturnize wrote: Are these movies going to be split up into two movies? Or just one long film :p
last info was the it will be in 2 parts, however, the first part would be The Hobbit, and the second part would be what happened between The Hobbit and LOTR
I am genuinly afraid that it won't reach the same quality as the LOTR trilogy itself(as each was pretty much as masterpiece), I still am really hyped though.
On April 14 2011 00:29 PolSC2 wrote: Time to watch all extended versions of LOTR and read the books before this hits (plenty of time!).
We so excited.
How much extended material there was overall? I've seen them once but so long time ago. Should definitely watch it all again.
I believe (I'm in class right now, but I'll check when I get home) Fellowship had 30 minutes extra, Two Towers had 45 minutes extra, and Return of the King had 1 hour of extra footage, plus all the bonus content and other crap. This is just me relying on memory though, as I haven't actually popped them in my DVD player for like 3 years.
Time to remedy that + read the books again in preparation for this!
This fucking amazing... I've waited so... long for information of this to be released.. Going to be fucking epic.. Lets hope he does a good job as he did on the other three
So cool, again! If anything is worth splitting in two, it's the hobbit! I remember watching the old cartoony movie from like '79 of the Hobbit and Return of the King haha!
Jackson went onto claim that the difference between 24 and 48 fps is "significant", likening the technological evolution to when "vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs".
Anyone else find this line funny? As I recall vinyl records actually had superior audio quality to CD's which were compressed to shit.
Jackson went onto claim that the difference between 24 and 48 fps is "significant", likening the technological evolution to when "vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs".
Anyone else find this line funny? As I recall vinyl records actually had superior audio quality to CD's which were compressed to shit.
That was actually the first thing i thought of when i read that. Really was a bad metaphor to make. Should have used mp3 to FLAC or something, but i guess that isn't as widely known or something. I've listened to Roy Buchanan on vinyl and then on FLAC, through the same sound system, and it really couldn't compare. Hope that quote doesn't make people hold back from converting though. I could do with less eye strain.
Jackson went onto claim that the difference between 24 and 48 fps is "significant", likening the technological evolution to when "vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs".
Anyone else find this line funny? As I recall vinyl records actually had superior audio quality to CD's which were compressed to shit.
Bit funny, yea. I guess Jackson has a lot of old and well-played vinyls
PS: edit to above poster, a mint condition vinyl of perfect quality (or any mint analog recording) is even better than a FLAC recording, or any digital recording. Not that we'd be able to tell the difference. Maybe dogs can.
On April 14 2011 00:24 Starscreamed wrote: Movie 2 was just a filler movie really. IMO RotK was the best one.
Really? I mean, even if you look past the things they unfortunately had to change to fit everything into a movie (grey havens not making much sense if you look at the movie alone and the shire being perfectly ok when they get back), I thought some of Jackson's decisions made it the worst of the 3 by far. Gimli and Legolas were pretty much reduced to comic relief, he tried to fit in battles wherever he could just to have more action (like the battle for Osgiliath, which doesn't even appear in the book) and he completely butchered Faramir's character.
Ah well, LotR's one of my favourite childhood books, so I guess I'm going to look at the movies differently than if you've never read the books themselves.
I'm just worried that the style and mood of the movie will be similar to LotR. I trust Jackson, but The Hobbit is such a light-hearted, fun book and I hope that is represented in the film.
On April 14 2011 00:24 Starscreamed wrote: Movie 2 was just a filler movie really. IMO RotK was the best one.
Really? I mean, even if you look past the things they unfortunately had to change to fit everything into a movie (grey havens not making much sense if you look at the movie alone and the shire being perfectly ok when they get back), I thought some of Jackson's decisions made it the worst of the 3 by far. Gimli and Legolas were pretty much reduced to comic relief, he tried to fit in battles wherever he could just to have more action (like the battle for Osgiliath, which doesn't even appear in the book) and he completely butchered Faramir's character.
Ah well, LotR's one of my favourite childhood books, so I guess I'm going to look at the movies differently than if you've never read the books themselves.
On April 14 2011 00:24 Starscreamed wrote: Movie 2 was just a filler movie really. IMO RotK was the best one.
Really? I mean, even if you look past the things they unfortunately had to change to fit everything into a movie (grey havens not making much sense if you look at the movie alone and the shire being perfectly ok when they get back), I thought some of Jackson's decisions made it the worst of the 3 by far. Gimli and Legolas were pretty much reduced to comic relief, he tried to fit in battles wherever he could just to have more action (like the battle for Osgiliath, which doesn't even appear in the book) and he completely butchered Faramir's character.
Ah well, LotR's one of my favourite childhood books, so I guess I'm going to look at the movies differently than if you've never read the books themselves.
Denethor was even more butchered than Faramir :<
Hm yeah, but I can forgive than seeing as the movie's already ridiculously long and they couldn't have fitted every character into one movie. :p
Faramir's story though is actually longer by the ridiculous change of story for no reason, just so they could show the battle at Osgiliath.
I'm just worried that the style and mood of the movie will be similar to LotR. I trust Jackson, but The Hobbit is such a light-hearted, fun book and I hope that is represented in the film.
This has been rumoured for a long time but still unconfirmed.... Just saying bro!
Jackson went onto claim that the difference between 24 and 48 fps is "significant", likening the technological evolution to when "vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs".
On April 14 2011 02:59 cca1ss1e wrote: John Noble was pretty cool as Denethor!
:D
John Noble is cool
Can't wait for The Hobbit Movie, been waiting a long time for this. It was the first book i read at quite young age actually, and i loved it so much i read LoTR immediatly afterwards and reread them all a couple of times!!
Actually, seeing this topic appear here, think i'll read The hobbit again, starting tonight!
Also worth noting is the huge amount of money that is being budgeted for these films. 250 million dollars each, compared to the 97million per LoTR film. Going to be pretty much the best day of 2012.
I'm really looking forward to this. Normally, I'm afraid of people continuing a great movie (or trilogi) after a few years, but it seems to be most of the old crew and Peter Jackson.
Oh man, I loved the hobbit, my whole lord of the rings reading experience started and ended there lol. So happy they're making a movie on it, but i'll probably be let down by like other book inspired movies (eragon...)
Ah mah god. I love these types of films and have had a void since the LOTR films finished. I didn't exactly love the translation from book to screen, but the movies were still very good. I read both The Hobbit and all LOTR books back when I was younger and can't wait to see a new version of the Hobbit on screen.
Anyone watch the old, old Hobbit movie? Or the LOTR cartoon movies?
For anyone inspired to reread The Hobbit, note there are multiple versions of the book, as Tolkien revised it years later. The revised version is more in line with the style for the LotR books, but some think it lost some of its original light-hearted nature.
ps. I seriously think Peter Jackson is by far the best guy for this (of course we saw it already with LOTR..). I like him alot. He can make this to be as sick as LOTR was.
The Hunt For Gollum is a prequel to The Lord of the Rings made by british director Chris Bouchard. The film was faithfully based on appendices written by J.R.R. Tolkien as a serious homage to the material.
Since release in 2009 it has been embraced by millions of fans and garnered international press acclaim, numerous festival screenings and awards. The film was funded by the film-makers and made with very limited resources, costing less than £3,000 to shoot. It is available online for free.
Production
Filming took place in North Wales, Epping Forest and other sites around London. The film captured the imagination of the fan community, drawing a small army of film-makers, fans and volunteers who all contributed to the final film. More than 140 people worked on the project which took two years to make.
Availability
The Hunt for Gollum is viewable online for free here on www.thehuntforgollum.com as well as Youtube and Dailymotion. Subtitles in 14 different languages are available on the Dailymotion version.
It's a fan-made film (excellent quality at that) about the events between The Hobbit and LotR. It's free, it's in HD, it's awesome.
Ok I hope this link hasn't been posted, I didn't see it but you never know, its from "The World According to Jon":
You can more or less skip the first bit about racism, but what interests me is the orgasmic sounding cameras (which I realize has probably been covered in the thread, but this is more info at any rate).
Also I've heard rumors of David Tennant playing the elven king, all I know is there are two men I would go gay for: TLO and David Tennant....and I'm a homophobe
With modern action sequences doing things like zoom-ins, shaky cam, camera panning through action sequences as opposed to fixed camera views, split second cuts to explosions then back to the actors, usage of cgi, usage of 3D, etc. I'd say the switch from 24fps to 48 fps has come about 5-10 years late. I generally don't have problems following the action in a game of Starcraft 2, MvC3, CoD4, or any number of games that assumes a high framerate. But movies like Transformers or one of the Bourne movies I sometimes lose track of what the hell is going on. And those movies aren't that new anymore. Old films like Once Upon a Time in China had Jet Li move like lightning, but none of the crazy camera work they do nowadays so it wasn't that bad to follow. The same could be said for a lot of old kung fu movies that had a lot of action but more fixed camera views. Hopefully more movies follow suit with the upgrade because 24 fps is just ridiculous with the way action sequences are filmed now.
i highly doubt peter jackson can fuck up any of the tolkien books (iirc from the dvd behind the scene stuff him and his staff literally worshiped the book, not to mention alan lee was a fucking visionary in terms of design).
Now if Peter Jackson was making The Silmarillion, I would be worried because I just can't imagine how they will ever fucking make people like the movie aside from the fans. I mean considering the majority of the book is about elves and gods, I can't see any general public liking the movie due to "we couldn't relate to it at all"
On December 13 2004 09:08 LTT wrote: Yeah, that would be great because the Hobbit + LotR + King Kong would forever be known in history as the Jackson Five.
ps. I seriously think Peter Jackson is by far the best guy for this (of course we saw it already with LOTR..). I like him alot. He can make this to be as sick as LOTR was.
On April 15 2011 02:38 MrHoon wrote: i highly doubt peter jackson can fuck up any of the tolkien books (iirc from the dvd behind the scene stuff him and his staff literally worshiped the book, not to mention alan lee was a fucking visionary in terms of design).
Now if Peter Jackson was making The Silmarillion, I would be worried because I just can't imagine how they will ever fucking make people like the movie aside from the fans. I mean considering the majority of the book is about elves and gods, I can't see any general public liking the movie due to "we couldn't relate to it at all"
I dont know if I even would like them making Silmarillion, atleast not the whole book. Majorly because the book is made from alot of small stories and it wouldnt really work to make a movie from that tbh. It would be alittle bit to much of jumping around for me to like it. Rather have them make a part of the book like the one about Beren and Luthien or something. But as I said the book is to much spread although its about Melkor becoming Morgoth throughout the book is made of small stories and thats what makes it bad movie material.
On April 15 2011 02:28 reQ wrote: Not sure if anyone has posted this yet but the first video blog for the hobbit is up on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfesknLk5uI Im pumped :D
On April 15 2011 02:38 MrHoon wrote: i highly doubt peter jackson can fuck up any of the tolkien books (iirc from the dvd behind the scene stuff him and his staff literally worshiped the book, not to mention alan lee was a fucking visionary in terms of design).
Now if Peter Jackson was making The Silmarillion, I would be worried because I just can't imagine how they will ever fucking make people like the movie aside from the fans. I mean considering the majority of the book is about elves and gods, I can't see any general public liking the movie due to "we couldn't relate to it at all"
I'm not sure I'd want to see Peter Jackson tackle Silmarillion simply because I don't want to see him become a one trick pony like George Lucas. Having said that, there is a lot of material that could be mined for stories if you took them individually. Turin Turambar would be an amazing movie- pretty gritty/ anti-hero type too which would appeal to modern movie sensibility.
I'm sure it would be harder, but I'd actually like to see the rebellion of the Noldor told through the perspective of perhaps Maedhros and Fingolfin or else some later period in time. I think people could relate to it as elves are human-like. Also it firmly establish that elves are not necessarily pansies but were just as backstabbing.
Beren and Luthien would also work. Somehow I'd love to see the fall of Gondolin though.
On April 15 2011 02:38 MrHoon wrote: i highly doubt peter jackson can fuck up any of the tolkien books (iirc from the dvd behind the scene stuff him and his staff literally worshiped the book, not to mention alan lee was a fucking visionary in terms of design).
Now if Peter Jackson was making The Silmarillion, I would be worried because I just can't imagine how they will ever fucking make people like the movie aside from the fans. I mean considering the majority of the book is about elves and gods, I can't see any general public liking the movie due to "we couldn't relate to it at all"
I'm not sure I'd want to see Peter Jackson tackle Silmarillion simply because I don't want to see him become a one trick pony like George Lucas. Having said that, there is a lot of material that could be mined for stories if you took them individually. Turin Turambar would be an amazing movie- pretty gritty/ anti-hero type too which would appeal to modern movie sensibility.
I'm sure it would be harder, but I'd actually like to see the rebellion of the Noldor told through the perspective of perhaps Maedhros and Fingolfin or else some later period in time. I think people could relate to it as elves are human-like. Also it firmly establish that elves are not necessarily pansies but were just as backstabbing.
Beren and Luthien would also work. Somehow I'd love to see the fall of Gondolin though.
I would love to see 'The Children of Hurin' adapted into a screenplay. The story is much darker and more mature than LOTR & The Hobbit so it would provide a fresh challenge to someone like Jackson.
hopefully its better than lord of the rings books.
the hobbit was on another level when it came to reading the book, LOTR books were filled with fluff and entire chapters dedicated to describing one person. not something you want to read. might as well read the bible if you want that kind of boredom
On April 15 2011 04:05 SaviorSelf wrote: hopefully its better than lord of the rings books.
the hobbit was on another level when it came to reading the book, LOTR books were filled with fluff and entire chapters dedicated to describing one person. not something you want to read. might as well read the bible if you want that kind of boredom
You take that back sir, I'll not have you insult that magnificent piece of art.
On April 15 2011 04:05 SaviorSelf wrote: hopefully its better than lord of the rings books.
the hobbit was on another level when it came to reading the book, LOTR books were filled with fluff and entire chapters dedicated to describing one person. not something you want to read. might as well read the bible if you want that kind of boredom
The hobbit was a childrens book . If you can't take the ammount of exposition that lotr has then I assume you dont read that much.
On April 15 2011 04:25 SaviorSelf wrote: I read A LOT actually. LOTR was just terribly written, where as the hobbit was a masterpiece.
you know much about literature i see
lots of people into literary criticism have said that lord of the rings is a poorly written book in comparison to the hobbit, which i can agree with because i read the hobbit in fifth grade and can't even get into lord of the rings in my 20s, despite loving the story.
Can't wait for the movies, read both the hobbit and lord of the rings. Hobbit is more straightforward and linear in my opinion, where as lord of the rings takes the time to explain everything. I enjoy both books, but probably enjoy lotr more. Theres just so much within those novels, i must read again to really catch everything.
I understand that not everyone doesn't like LotR, and yet I don't understand because it is my favourite trilogy/ 3 part book. Poorly written? I doubt it as it was written by a linguistics professor.
If you have the time, these lectures are interesting: http://www.tolkienprofessor.com/ (A current professor analyzing Tolkien's works.)
I love Peter Jackson's end quote: If someone came up to me ... that we could carry on pre-production for six week, I'd say no, no. Hell no. Let's just start shooting.
It's not surprising that The LOTR's heavy descriptive style throws many people off. It can be a little slow-paced here and there but to say they're poorly written is a farce. I personally loved every little detail that was in the books and it really brought middle-earth to life in my imagination. It's just down to personal taste like most things in this world.
lotr heavy? Hrmm I read those when I was 15 and loved them, have not read since. The hobbit is my favorite book in the bunch though I read it right after lotr.
The book "The Silmarillion" by Tolkien (put together after his death) however was impossible for me to get into
I remember trying to read Silmarillion like 5 times, giving up after just 10 pages or so everytime. Then I finally forced myself to keep on reading, and it's an awesome book. Wouldn't work as a movie though, oh no.
Can't wait to until the Hobbit comes out, this Vlog made me so hyped! ^__^
On April 15 2011 04:53 Patriot.dlk wrote: lotr heavy? Hrmm I read those when I was 15 and loved them, have not read since. The hobbit is my favorite book in the bunch though I read it right after lotr.
The book "The Silmarillion" by Tolkien (put together after his death) however was impossible for me to get into
I personally loved The Silmarillion. I've always been facinated by fictional worlds and its histories and to this date, I've not seen one more imaginative or richer than what Tolkien has created. The complexity and sheer scope of his universe truly boggles my mind.
On April 15 2011 04:56 Holgerius wrote: I remember trying to read Silmarillion like 5 times, giving up after just 10 pages or so everytime. Then I finally forced myself to keep on reading, and it's an awesome book. Wouldn't work as a movie though, oh no.
Can't wait to until the Hobbit comes out, this Vlog made me so hyped! ^__^
Silmarillion I'd actually suggest people skip the first third if they start for the first time. (It was the only way I got through.) I later went back and just skipped the first chapter and read everything else. Now I read and appreciate everything. However, it's really hard to jump into if your expecting the Hobbit or LotRs- the last two thirds is much more LotR' esque.
On April 15 2011 04:57 SaviorSelf wrote: it is poorly written because it does not capture the readers attention as well as it could have. hence, poorly written.
If i say it captured my attention as much as it could have, would your theory be wrong?
People read different books. Some people like different books than others. If it isn't your cup of tea it doesn't make the book poorly written.
I've read the hobbit (like 4 times) and all the LOTR books. tolkien is the one who started it all. everyone who came after are just posers. For those complaining about how "poorly written" LOTR was, remember it was written like 60 years ago. the writing style was a lot more different back then and that is what makes it seem so dense and hard to read.
peter jackson better direct the hobbit because all other directors will fuck up the movie, just like the way 99% of hollywood movie adaptations are.
On April 15 2011 04:57 SaviorSelf wrote: it is poorly written because it does not capture the readers attention as well as it could have. hence, poorly written.
If i say it captured my attention as much as it could have, would your theory be wrong?
People read different books. Some people like different books than others. If it isn't your cup of tea it doesn't make the book poorly written.
I agree with the Silmarillion movie talk.
NEver!!! we need to streamline the books and appeal to the lowest common denominator!
CONSOLISE THE BOOKS!
I would say that Lotr atleast got it done right. Sure the book will forever remain better than the movie in many peoples eyes but ATLEAST IT IS NO phantom menace.
I loved the Hobbit and LOTR. The other stuff was just way too dense for me. They practically read like textbooks :[ If you were really into the whole Middle Earth stuff then it's definitely really well done seeing how in-depth Tolkien went into describing Middle Earth lore. One thing you definitely have to credit to Tolkien is his incredible imagination and attention to detail.
The Hobbit movie would be so sick to see though...
On April 15 2011 05:28 Ryuu314 wrote: I loved the Hobbit and LOTR. The other stuff was just way too dense for me. They practically read like textbooks :[ If you were really into the whole Middle Earth stuff then it's definitely really well done seeing how in-depth Tolkien went into describing Middle Earth lore. One thing you definitely have to credit to Tolkien is his incredible imagination and attention to detail.
The Hobbit movie would be so sick to see though...
Yeah some of the stuff is really dense, and to be honest, I felt like I was reading it like a textbook when i read a lot of it, since I didn't pull too much information out of it. There are some really awesome story's that happen and a lot of cool stuff about Middle Earth to be found.
Not too sure how excited I am about the Hobbit to be honest, though it's more for very sad personal reasons than me thinking it will be an exciting movie, I am going to go see it in theater's and hopefully it will be a blast.
sick. There's so much in the The Hobbit that kicks the crap out of the LOTR storyline.
In particular I loved the Battle of the Five Armies, so epic. The way the events lead up to the outburst of this battle and the reemergence of previous characters onto the scene was so awesome. Especially Beorn. Fuck yes Beorn is a BAMF. They better not screw this part of it up, at least.
Yeah, and The Hobbit has something LOTR can't top : A dragon. Hell yeah.
On April 15 2011 05:42 Ghost151 wrote: sick. There's so much in the The Hobbit that kicks the crap out of the LOTR storyline.
In particular I loved the Battle of the Five Armies, so epic. The way the events lead up to the outburst of this battle and the reemergence of previous characters onto the scene was so awesome. Especially Beorn. Fuck yes Beorn is a BAMF. They better not screw this part of it up, at least.
Yeah, and The Hobbit has something LOTR can't top : A dragon. Hell yeah.
and alot more dwarves. Cant all be used for comic relief and be mutilated beyond belief when compared with their book based characters now can they? >BD
'Problem' with Tolkien's writing style is the HUGE descriptiveness of it. I think that's the part that throws a lot of people off, although I myself absolutely LOVE it. Just because you don't like the style of LotR doesn't mean it's poorly written.
And for gods sake I hope the movie stays true to the original story.
On April 15 2011 05:42 Ghost151 wrote: sick. There's so much in the The Hobbit that kicks the crap out of the LOTR storyline.
In particular I loved the Battle of the Five Armies, so epic. The way the events lead up to the outburst of this battle and the reemergence of previous characters onto the scene was so awesome. Especially Beorn. Fuck yes Beorn is a BAMF. They better not screw this part of it up, at least.
Yeah, and The Hobbit has something LOTR can't top : A dragon. Hell yeah.
There's no way you have even read The Lord of the Rings. The Battle of Five Armies is nothing compared to certain parts of LotR like Theoden's charge at the Battle of the Pelennor fields. But you probably don't even know what that is.
Personally I've read the Hobbit twice and The Lord of the Rings three times, both are great books but The Hobbit obviously had a younger audience in mind. LotR isn't for everyone. There is a lot of description and "slower" moving parts, yes, but for those of us who can deal with it it is an amazing book. Not even just a book, but an adventure.
The magic of all of Tolkien's words are the sheer depth of it all. The freaking characters sing songs about shit that happened ages ago that Tolkien also wrote! (Or had in his head to write)
On April 15 2011 14:14 MrHoon wrote: maybe the silmarillion can work as a huge budgeted miniseries for HBO just MAYBE MAYBE
Silmarilion is a bit hard. I think they should start with something simpler, like The Unfinished Tales. Some stories there would fit nicely into LotR, I bet a lot of people would be eager to learn about the origins of Gandalf, Celeborn and Galadriela etc.
On April 15 2011 04:50 Falling wrote: If you have the time, these lectures are interesting: http://www.tolkienprofessor.com/ (A current professor analyzing Tolkien's works.)
This website is absolutely dreadful. Horrible, tiled light background with fonts defaulting to system colours (which in my case is light grey instead of black, making it unreadable) etc. Can't believe that the site has been created in 2010. It looks as if someone created it in MS Office back in the 90's...
I am sad to report that Rob Kazinsky, who was cast in the role of Fili, is having to leave The Hobbit and return home, for personal reasons. Rob has been terrific to work with and his enthusiasm and infectious sense of humour will be missed by all of us. I should say that Rob's departure will not affect ongoing filming of The Hobbit, nor will it impact work done to date, as we had yet to film much of Fili's storyline. At the moment we are shooting scenes featuring Bilbo without the Dwarves, which will give us time to find a new Fili. I'll keep everyone posted with updates as they come. Cheers, Peter J
It appears the an actor has dropped out of The Hobbit less than 2 weeks in. Hopefully this doesn't delay it much if at all
Just to add to the genius of Peter Jackson, if you didn't know how they did frodo appear so small and gandalf so big, it didn't have any digital change. It was all just optical illusions
If you can get a copy of this edition of the hobbit audiobook, you will fall in love. my mum copied a set onto casettes way back when I was like 6 or 7, and I literally wore them through, I must have listened to it 40 or 50 times, often back to back. I bought a digital version of it recently just so I could listen to it again. Shaw has the most incredible voice for reading tolkien, he does a better gandalf than ian mckellen. It really is spellbinding, I wish I could find a sample for you but I can't. If anyone more resourceful could do so that would be awesome
On April 24 2011 21:45 Apolo wrote: Just to add to the genius of Peter Jackson, if you didn't know how they did frodo appear so small and gandalf so big, it didn't have any digital change. It was all just optical illusions
Not in all of the scenes, though, and it wasn't Peter Jackson who did that, it was his team.
On April 24 2011 22:03 Thereisnosaurus wrote: If you're having trouble getting into the hobbit, or you're a diehard tolkien/fantasy fan, there is one experience above all others:
If you can get a copy of this edition of the hobbit audiobook, you will fall in love. my mum copied a set onto casettes way back when I was like 6 or 7, and I literally wore them through, I must have listened to it 40 or 50 times, often back to back. I bought a digital version of it recently just so I could listen to it again. Shaw has the most incredible voice for reading tolkien, he does a better gandalf than ian mckellen. It really is spellbinding, I wish I could find a sample for you but I can't. If anyone more resourceful could do so that would be awesome
Ahh I listened to those in my tent while we were camping every year when I was a little kid. We had all of the Hobbit and I think LOTR on audio tapes.
On April 15 2011 05:42 Ghost151 wrote: sick. There's so much in the The Hobbit that kicks the crap out of the LOTR storyline.
In particular I loved the Battle of the Five Armies, so epic. The way the events lead up to the outburst of this battle and the reemergence of previous characters onto the scene was so awesome. Especially Beorn. Fuck yes Beorn is a BAMF. They better not screw this part of it up, at least.
Yeah, and The Hobbit has something LOTR can't top : A dragon. Hell yeah.
There's no way you have even read The Lord of the Rings. The Battle of Five Armies is nothing compared to certain parts of LotR like Theoden's charge at the Battle of the Pelennor fields. But you probably don't even know what that is.
Personally I've read the Hobbit twice and The Lord of the Rings three times, both are great books but The Hobbit obviously had a younger audience in mind. LotR isn't for everyone. There is a lot of description and "slower" moving parts, yes, but for those of us who can deal with it it is an amazing book. Not even just a book, but an adventure.
Yeah! His opinion is different and is thus a product of a lack of knowledge! Yes, the books are downright boring sometimes, but because we're so incredible, people like you and me are in on the adventure.
On April 15 2011 05:42 Ghost151 wrote: sick. There's so much in the The Hobbit that kicks the crap out of the LOTR storyline.
In particular I loved the Battle of the Five Armies, so epic. The way the events lead up to the outburst of this battle and the reemergence of previous characters onto the scene was so awesome. Especially Beorn. Fuck yes Beorn is a BAMF. They better not screw this part of it up, at least.
Yeah, and The Hobbit has something LOTR can't top : A dragon. Hell yeah.
On April 15 2011 05:42 Ghost151 wrote: sick. There's so much in the The Hobbit that kicks the crap out of the LOTR storyline.
In particular I loved the Battle of the Five Armies, so epic. The way the events lead up to the outburst of this battle and the reemergence of previous characters onto the scene was so awesome. Especially Beorn. Fuck yes Beorn is a BAMF. They better not screw this part of it up, at least.
Yeah, and The Hobbit has something LOTR can't top : A dragon. Hell yeah.
Too bad Beorn is gonna be played by a terrible actor =/
I wish i didnt read this post until next year.... first part not out til Dec. 2012 =/.
I already knew this was coming out tho, i know a person who knows who a person who knows a person who read something somewhere. Lol.
but seriously cannot wait. Read and loved the LotR books and have the entire extended collection of the LOTR movie trilogy that i have watched in its entirety about 30 time...cant wait for this. With 2 movies for 1 book it makes me even more excited, because as I now watch the Game of Thrones miniseries (whatever it is) all I can think is: THIS is how books should be done. When you try to squeeze 1500 pages into 2 hours, sooooooo much gets left out, and with the Game of Thrones leading the way, I hope to see more fantasy books adapted to film following in its footsteps. Because anyone who is capable of doing basic math can understand that 10 hour long episodes = 5x as much content as a 2hour movie.
So I kinda wish the Hobbit would be done similarly to Game of Thrones, in that way, but at least we are getting 2 movies = 4 hours of content at least so even less will be cut out than if they tried to do it in one film
Peter Jackson answering some questions people made on facebook about the frame rate.
Your comments on 48 fps by Peter Jackson on Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 9:20am
The news about us filming The Hobbit at 48 frames per second generated a lot of comments. Of course, it's impossible to show you what 48 fps actually looks like outside of a movie cinema, but there were several interesting and insightful questions raised.
We will be completing a "normal" 24 frames per second version—in both digital and 35mm film prints. If we are able to get the Hobbit projected at 48 fps in selected cinemas, there will still be normal-looking 24 fps versions available in cinemas everywhere.
Converting a film shot at 48 fps down to 24 fps is not a hugely difficult process, but it requires testing to achieve the best results. Some of this involves digital processes during post-production. We are also shooting the film a slightly different way, which is a question several of you asked. Normally you shoot a movie with a 180-degree shutter angle. Changing the shutter angle affects the amount of motion blur captured during movement. Reducing the shutter angle gives you the stroby (or jerky) "Saving Private Ryan" look.
However, we're going the other way, shooting at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter angle. This gives the 48 fps a lovely silky look, and creates a very pleasing look at 24 fps as well. In fact, our DP, Andrew Lesnie, and I prefer the look of 24 fps when it comes from a 48 fps master.
I wonder what kind of tone the movie is gonna take. I know The Hobbit was lighter in tone than the trilogy. I personally hope itll feel like the other LotRs, but Im sure theres a lot of others who would prefer to keep it as close to the book as possible.
On April 15 2011 05:42 Ghost151 wrote: sick. There's so much in the The Hobbit that kicks the crap out of the LOTR storyline.
In particular I loved the Battle of the Five Armies, so epic. The way the events lead up to the outburst of this battle and the reemergence of previous characters onto the scene was so awesome. Especially Beorn. Fuck yes Beorn is a BAMF. They better not screw this part of it up, at least.
Yeah, and The Hobbit has something LOTR can't top : A dragon. Hell yeah.
The battle of the five armies is one of the weakest part of the book ... it feels rushed and i think Tolkien did a way better job to depict epic battles in LOTR. The main character isn't even conscious during the battle :/
Anyway the Hobbit isn't about epic heroes and battles, it is the story of a little guy becoming an adventurer ( involuntarily ).
I guess its interesting&good to keep the thread updated with all the news and posts related to the movie. You can of course read all of this on Peter Jackson's facebook page, but heres some:
Some more HOBBIT casting news today. As we near the end of our first shooting block (we have a break in less than three weeks to get some editing and visual effects work done, plus prepare for very big scenes coming up), we are looking at characters featuring in sequences that take place a little later in the story.
We are thrilled to confirm that Stephen Fry will be playing The Master of Laketown. I've known Stephen for several years, and we're developing a DAMBUSTERS movie together. In addition to his writing skills, he's a terrific actor and will create a very memorable Master for us.
The Master's conniving civil servant, Alfrid will be played by Ryan Gage. Ryan is a great young actor who we originally cast in a small role, but we liked him so much, we promoted him to the much larger Alfrid part.
Last, and certainly not least, is Conan Stevens, who will be playing an Orc called Azog (Orcs are never called Roger or Dennis for some strange reason). And yes that's his name—Conan! Isn't that cool? Azog is played by Conan! Here's a photo of Conan and I together... I'm pretty tall, probably at least 6'5" or 6'6" I would guess, so that gives you some clue how tall Conan is! You can learn all about him at www.conanstevens.com.
Got a busy day's shooting ahead, so I'm about to jump in the car—but look out for the beginning of the 20 questions answers very soon. Thanks for the questions, many are very insightful. I've been through all of them and have a list ready to go.
stuff.co.nz is saying that Hobbit spokesperson Melissa Booth has confirmed that Hugo Weaving is back as Elrond!
“Hugo Weaving will reprise his role as Elrond the elf for the two-part Hobbit movie now being shot in Wellington. The Hobbit spokeswoman Melissa Booth confirmed that Weaving would feature in Jackson’s 3-D prequel to The Lord of the Rings trilogy.”
Official Film Titles Announced – March 2nd Titles confirmed
“THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY” AND “THE HOBBIT: THERE AND BACK AGAIN” ARE ANNOUNCED AS TITLES OF PETER JACKSON’S EPIC TWO-FILM ADAPTATION OF J.R.R. TOLKIEN’S TIMELESS CLASSIC THE HOBBIT"
First film slated to open on December 14, 2012 and second film to be released on December 13, 2013
New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures and MGM have announced the titles and release dates for filmmaker Peter Jackson’s two-film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s enduringly popular masterpiece The Hobbit. The first film, titled “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” will be released on December 14, 2012. The second film, titled “The Hobbit: There and Back Again,” is slated for release the following year, on December 13, 2013.
Both films are set in Middle-earth 60 years before Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings,” which Jackson and his filmmaking team brought to the big screen in the blockbuster trilogy that culminated with the Oscar®-winning “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.” The adventure of “The Hobbit” follows the journey of title character Bilbo Baggins, who is swept into an epic quest to reclaim the lost Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor from the fearsome dragon Smaug.
Under Jackson’s direction, both movies are being shot consecutively in digital 3D using the latest camera and stereo technology. Filming is taking place at Stone Street Studios, Wellington, and on location around New Zealand.
Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf the Grey, the character he played in “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy, and Martin Freeman, who just won a BAFTA TV Award for Best Supporting Actor for his role in the BBC series “Sherlock,” takes on the central role of Bilbo Baggins. Also reprising their roles from “The Lord of the Rings” movies are: Cate Blanchett as Galadriel; Orlando Bloom as Legolas; Ian Holm as the elder Bilbo; Christopher Lee as Saruman; Hugo Weaving as Elrond; Elijah Wood as Frodo; and Andy Serkis as Gollum. The ensemble cast also includes (in alphabetical order) Richard Armitage, Jed Brophy, Adam Brown, John Callen, Stephen Fry, Ryan Gage, Mark Hadlow, Peter Hambleton, Stephen Hunter, William Kircher, Sylvester McCoy, Bret McKenzie, Graham McTavish, Mike Mizrahi, James Nesbitt, Dean O’Gorman, Lee Pace, Mikael Persbrandt, Conan Stevens, Ken Stott, Jeffrey Thomas, and Aidan Turner.
The screenplays for “The Hobbit” films are by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson. Jackson is also producing the films, together with Fran Walsh and Carolynne Cunningham. The executive producers are Ken Kamins and Zane Weiner, with Philippa Boyens serving as co-producer.
“The Hobbit” films are productions of New Line Cinema and MGM, with New Line managing production. Warner Bros Pictures is handling worldwide theatrical distribution, with select international territories as well as all international television licensing being handled by MGM.
Yikes! I can finally get back to some postings! We've finished our first block of shooting and moved straight into location scouting. More on that soon... But today, I'm thrilled to announce two new cast members who will be joining us for our second block of shooting.
Evangeline Lilly will be playing a new character—the Woodland Elf, Tauriel. Her name means 'daughter of Mirkwood' and, beyond that, we must leave you guessing! (No, there is no romantic connection to Legolas.) What is not a secret is how talented and compelling an actress Evangeline is; we are thrilled and excited she will be the one to bring our first true Sylvan Elf to life.
I'm also highly excited that Barry Humphries will be portraying the Goblin King, in much the way Andy Serkis created Gollum. Barry is perhaps best known for his business and social connections as the long-time manager of Dame Edna Everage. He has also been an ardent supporter of the rather misunderstood and unfairly maligned Australian politician, Sir Les Patterson. However, in his spare time, Barry is also a fine actor, and we're looking forward to seeing him invest the Goblin King with the delicate sensitivity and emotional depth this character deserves.
Evangeline and Barry, along with Welsh actor Luke Evans as Bard and Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug, just about rounds out the major casting. I cannot wait to get stuck into these new scenes!
More soon, including a flurry of answers to your questions. Sorry for the delay!
One part of me wants to see how this book will translate into a movie, especially with Peter Jackson on deck.
The other part of me doesn't want to tarnish the memory of my favorite book. I have my own vision of what the world looks like and the characters and the interactions and seeing the movie would completely take that away from me.
I don't know much about the storyline of Bilbo Baggins and The Hobbit but I enjoyed every LotR movie I've seen so I would probably watch this one too if they made it.
Call me anal, but I'm glad how many people are not calling the Hobbit a prequel (a prequel is a work made after the base work but occurring before). LotR is a sequel, and I'm excited to see the original work get its own big-budget adaption. Call me crazy but I loved the animated Hobbit, silly songs and all.
On June 20 2011 13:12 Shai wrote: Call me anal, but I'm glad how many people are not calling the Hobbit a prequel (a prequel is a work made after the base work but occurring before). LotR is a sequel, and I'm excited to see the original work get its own big-budget adaption. Call me crazy but I loved the animated Hobbit, silly songs and all.
That's not silly dude, I loved that movie haha. I even had the "movie book" as a kid, which was basically a shorter version of the full story filled with images from the animated movie
On June 20 2011 13:12 Shai wrote: Call me anal, but I'm glad how many people are not calling the Hobbit a prequel (a prequel is a work made after the base work but occurring before). LotR is a sequel, and I'm excited to see the original work get its own big-budget adaption. Call me crazy but I loved the animated Hobbit, silly songs and all.
I love you.
I can't stand thinking about them bringing more attention to LotR. It's my childhood. I reread all four books every summer. It's something special to me and seeing half of it cut out in favor of a simplified hollywood story hurts me. The Hobbit will do nothing good for me.
But you just made me glad to have read this thread. That animated hobbit movie was so damn creepy and awesome. Oh, sweet childhood.
Yikes! I can finally get back to some postings! We've finished our first block of shooting and moved straight into location scouting. More on that soon... But today, I'm thrilled to announce two new cast members who will be joining us for our second block of shooting.
Evangeline Lilly will be playing a new character—the Woodland Elf, Tauriel. Her name means 'daughter of Mirkwood' and, beyond that, we must leave you guessing! (No, there is no romantic connection to Legolas.) What is not a secret is how talented and compelling an actress Evangeline is; we are thrilled and excited she will be the one to bring our first true Sylvan Elf to life.
I'm also highly excited that Barry Humphries will be portraying the Goblin King, in much the way Andy Serkis created Gollum. Barry is perhaps best known for his business and social connections as the long-time manager of Dame Edna Everage. He has also been an ardent supporter of the rather misunderstood and unfairly maligned Australian politician, Sir Les Patterson. However, in his spare time, Barry is also a fine actor, and we're looking forward to seeing him invest the Goblin King with the delicate sensitivity and emotional depth this character deserves.
Evangeline and Barry, along with Welsh actor Luke Evans as Bard and Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug, just about rounds out the major casting. I cannot wait to get stuck into these new scenes!
More soon, including a flurry of answers to your questions. Sorry for the delay!
Ugh, 3D bullshit. I stop noticing the 3D 5 minutes in, its just a scheme to jack up ticket prices. Probably going to torrent this because I hate supporting 3D garbage.
On April 15 2011 05:42 Ghost151 wrote: sick. There's so much in the The Hobbit that kicks the crap out of the LOTR storyline.
In particular I loved the Battle of the Five Armies, so epic. The way the events lead up to the outburst of this battle and the reemergence of previous characters onto the scene was so awesome. Especially Beorn. Fuck yes Beorn is a BAMF. They better not screw this part of it up, at least.
Yeah, and The Hobbit has something LOTR can't top : A dragon. Hell yeah.
Too bad Beorn is gonna be played by a terrible actor =/
Hold your tounge heathen! You're talking about a giant of swedish cinema.
Peter Jackson has announced, via a post on his official Facebook page, that he will be shooting his adaptation of The Hobbit at the higher rate of 48 frames per second.
The usual rate is 24fps, and has been since its introduction to cinema in 1927. The Hobbit will be the first major motion picture in history to feature the upgrade
Jackson thinks, "after nine decades", it's time for a change.
In the post, he addressed the inevitable backlash from "film purists" by saying that audience will "get used to this new look very quickly" as it will bring about a "much more lifelife and comfortable viewing experience."
He also said that films will become "easier to watch, especially in 3-D", with audiences being able to sit through "two hours of footage without getting eyestrain".
Jackson went onto claim that the difference between 24 and 48 fps is "significant", likening the technological evolution to when "vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs".
The Lord of the Rings director also thanked Warner Bros for their support in the advancement, before predicting over 10,000 screens would be capable of projecting 48fps by the time of The Hobbit's release.
Jackson, who won an Academy Award for his work on The Return of the King, took over the directing chair after Guillermo del Toro left. He had become frustrated with the constant production delays that had thwarted the project early on.
The Office's Martin Freeman has been announced to be playing Bilbo Baggins in the film, a role originally played by Sir Ian Holm in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, while Sir Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis will be reprising the characters of Gandalf and Gollum respectively.
Serkis will also act as Second Unit Director on the project.
The Hobbit will be split into two parts, with the first being released in December 2012.
Read more: Peter Jackson is shooting The Hobbit at 48 frames per second | TotalFilm.com
It will be the first movie ever shooted in 48 fps. What do you guys think? If im right, this will affect somehow blue-ray watchers though. Some blueray standard wont support 48fps or smthn.
On June 23 2011 11:04 Subversion wrote: Sigh, 3D..
I despise 3D =/
Movies should be great though.
I wonder if Evangeline Lily got the role though her relationship with the other hobbit, I forget his name, the bassist on Lost.
Yeah really. I never understood why the filmmakers themselves agree to do 3d. Talk about destroying the vision of the cinematographer - forcing people to only focus on one part of the overall composition.
I guess it's a cool gimmick for some extra studio dough.
On June 23 2011 11:00 Psychobabas wrote: Yes he will be Smaug. It's confirmed. Also the Necromancer.
The Necromancer gets a speaking role? Wasn't he just referred to by Gandalf and people in the book, and never actually featured in the story? And wasn't the Necromancer actually Sauron?
Damn I can't wait so long for the movies to come out
If they stay true to the story this time and don't fuck things up with bad actors (*cough* Merrin and Pippin and Aragorn *cough*) this could turn out to be fantastic.
The Necromancer gets a speaking role? Wasn't he just referred to by Gandalf and people in the book, and never actually featured in the story? And wasn't the Necromancer actually Sauron?
On December 15 2004 17:00 Jim wrote: I dont really like the Lord of the Rings. The story is way to linear. The hobbit is the same. Peter Jacksons movie is better than the book but if the script is too lousy even the best of directors will fail(not saying that Peter Jackson is that great but he did quite well with this script).
Hollywood should look into more dynamic books with people who actually have some feelings. George Martin with a Song of Ice and Fire is an excellent example.
ps. If you know any good writers who write fantasy please post.
I'd support it but i sincerely doubt an Ice and Fire movie or series of movies would come close to capturing the perfection that the books possess
the fantasy genre is pretty laden with crap unfortunately. You won't find anything near as good as Song of Ice and Fire, and the distant seconds are talentless hacks who make it readily apparent as their respective series progress (terry pratchett, that fuckbrain who writes about rand althor or whoever)
your best bet is to just re-read Ice and Fire and pray George Martin actually gets the rest of the books out
Slightly off topic, but 6.5 years later, boy am I glad you were wrong about an adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire. Fantasy adaptations don't have to be bad after all! Rejoice!
On June 26 2011 08:21 Thorakh wrote: Damn I can't wait so long for the movies to come out
If they stay true to the story this time and don't fuck things up with bad actors (*cough* Merrin and Pippin and Aragorn *cough*) this could turn out to be fantastic.
The Necromancer gets a speaking role? Wasn't he just referred to by Gandalf and people in the book, and never actually featured in the story? And wasn't the Necromancer actually Sauron?
On June 26 2011 08:21 Thorakh wrote: Damn I can't wait so long for the movies to come out
If they stay true to the story this time and don't fuck things up with bad actors (*cough* Merrin and Pippin and Aragorn *cough*) this could turn out to be fantastic.
The Necromancer gets a speaking role? Wasn't he just referred to by Gandalf and people in the book, and never actually featured in the story? And wasn't the Necromancer actually Sauron?
Yeah, the Necromancer was Sauron.
...Bad actors? How so, I thought they were great.
Aragorn was really bland and just mumbled the whole time and Merrin and Pippin made me want to stab my eyes out with their over the top bad acting.
On June 20 2011 13:12 Shai wrote: Call me anal, but I'm glad how many people are not calling the Hobbit a prequel (a prequel is a work made after the base work but occurring before). LotR is a sequel, and I'm excited to see the original work get its own big-budget adaption. Call me crazy but I loved the animated Hobbit, silly songs and all.
I love you.
I can't stand thinking about them bringing more attention to LotR. It's my childhood. I reread all four books every summer. It's something special to me and seeing half of it cut out in favor of a simplified hollywood story hurts me. The Hobbit will do nothing good for me.
But you just made me glad to have read this thread. That animated hobbit movie was so damn creepy and awesome. Oh, sweet childhood.
i'm halfway through the 2towers atm, it's at least the 5th time i'm reading the series. I can't tell you how many awesome things were left of the movies. like the entire end of return of the king + Show Spoiler +
when they're back in shire fighting saruman, and how pippin and merri were the tallest hobbits ever b/c they drank the ent water,
so much was left out...
the hobbit movie will indeed be epic if made correctly, if they decide to leave too much out i'll be mad but not surprised.
On June 20 2011 13:12 Shai wrote: Call me anal, but I'm glad how many people are not calling the Hobbit a prequel (a prequel is a work made after the base work but occurring before). LotR is a sequel, and I'm excited to see the original work get its own big-budget adaption. Call me crazy but I loved the animated Hobbit, silly songs and all.
I love you.
I can't stand thinking about them bringing more attention to LotR. It's my childhood. I reread all four books every summer. It's something special to me and seeing half of it cut out in favor of a simplified hollywood story hurts me. The Hobbit will do nothing good for me.
But you just made me glad to have read this thread. That animated hobbit movie was so damn creepy and awesome. Oh, sweet childhood.
i'm halfway through the 2towers atm, it's at least the 5th time i'm reading the series. I can't tell you how many awesome things were left of the movies. like the entire end of return of the king + Show Spoiler +
when they're back in shire fighting saruman, and how pippin and merri were the tallest hobbits ever b/c they drank the ent water,
so much was left out...
the hobbit movie will indeed be epic if made correctly, if they decide to leave too much out i'll be mad but not surprised.
They can't put it all in, if you can't appriciate that you HAVE to cut things out then just don't watch it.
On June 20 2011 13:12 Shai wrote: Call me anal, but I'm glad how many people are not calling the Hobbit a prequel (a prequel is a work made after the base work but occurring before). LotR is a sequel, and I'm excited to see the original work get its own big-budget adaption. Call me crazy but I loved the animated Hobbit, silly songs and all.
I love you.
I can't stand thinking about them bringing more attention to LotR. It's my childhood. I reread all four books every summer. It's something special to me and seeing half of it cut out in favor of a simplified hollywood story hurts me. The Hobbit will do nothing good for me.
But you just made me glad to have read this thread. That animated hobbit movie was so damn creepy and awesome. Oh, sweet childhood.
i'm halfway through the 2towers atm, it's at least the 5th time i'm reading the series. I can't tell you how many awesome things were left of the movies. like the entire end of return of the king + Show Spoiler +
when they're back in shire fighting saruman, and how pippin and merri were the tallest hobbits ever b/c they drank the ent water,
so much was left out...
the hobbit movie will indeed be epic if made correctly, if they decide to leave too much out i'll be mad but not surprised.
lol the 3 LotR movies were already massively long as it is. Adding on the Saruman part would have made Return of the King a 4.5 hour movie.
As much as it sucks, that's the thing with movie adaptations. You have to cut out some stuff because of time constraints.
On June 20 2011 13:12 Shai wrote: Call me anal, but I'm glad how many people are not calling the Hobbit a prequel (a prequel is a work made after the base work but occurring before). LotR is a sequel, and I'm excited to see the original work get its own big-budget adaption. Call me crazy but I loved the animated Hobbit, silly songs and all.
I love you.
I can't stand thinking about them bringing more attention to LotR. It's my childhood. I reread all four books every summer. It's something special to me and seeing half of it cut out in favor of a simplified hollywood story hurts me. The Hobbit will do nothing good for me.
But you just made me glad to have read this thread. That animated hobbit movie was so damn creepy and awesome. Oh, sweet childhood.
i'm halfway through the 2towers atm, it's at least the 5th time i'm reading the series. I can't tell you how many awesome things were left of the movies. like the entire end of return of the king + Show Spoiler +
when they're back in shire fighting saruman, and how pippin and merri were the tallest hobbits ever b/c they drank the ent water,
so much was left out...
the hobbit movie will indeed be epic if made correctly, if they decide to leave too much out i'll be mad but not surprised.
Most disappointing to me was that they never showed the death of Saruman in Hobbiton. Instead I think they made him fall off Orshank or something in one of deleted scenes?
Its too bad they spent half of each movie zooming in on people's faces and having terrible/awkward conversations then actually telling the story and making the movies good
On June 20 2011 13:12 Shai wrote: Call me anal, but I'm glad how many people are not calling the Hobbit a prequel (a prequel is a work made after the base work but occurring before). LotR is a sequel, and I'm excited to see the original work get its own big-budget adaption. Call me crazy but I loved the animated Hobbit, silly songs and all.
I love you.
I can't stand thinking about them bringing more attention to LotR. It's my childhood. I reread all four books every summer. It's something special to me and seeing half of it cut out in favor of a simplified hollywood story hurts me. The Hobbit will do nothing good for me.
But you just made me glad to have read this thread. That animated hobbit movie was so damn creepy and awesome. Oh, sweet childhood.
i'm halfway through the 2towers atm, it's at least the 5th time i'm reading the series. I can't tell you how many awesome things were left of the movies. like the entire end of return of the king + Show Spoiler +
when they're back in shire fighting saruman, and how pippin and merri were the tallest hobbits ever b/c they drank the ent water,
so much was left out...
the hobbit movie will indeed be epic if made correctly, if they decide to leave too much out i'll be mad but not surprised.
lol the 3 LotR movies were already massively long as it is. Adding on the Saruman part would have made Return of the King a 4.5 hour movie.
As much as it sucks, that's the thing with movie adaptations. You have to cut out some stuff because of time constraints.
I might buy that explanation if it weren't for all the extra scenes they put in (especially in The Two Towers). They added a lot of their own stuff that was not very good, and took out some really good parts.
No, please don't do it....I love all of Tolkien's middle earth books. Read the books and leave the Author's world and characters unmolested. Very little makes me more sad than hearing a discussion about Tolkien's ring stories and subsequently realizing they know only Peter Jackson's stories. Peter Jackson's stories would have been forgotten 2 years after their writing if they were even published. Using Tolkien's famous story names and character names with a new story and new character traits has ruined some of the greatest literature of the 20th century for generations to come who will never pick up the true books.
when they're back in shire fighting saruman, and how pippin and merri were the tallest hobbits ever b/c they drank the ent water
Actually in the extended cut of it they referenced it with them drinking the ent Drought and had Treebeard read Bombadil's passage to let them go and put old man willow to sleep.
On June 26 2011 09:12 pi_rate_pir_ate wrote: No, please don't do it....I love all of Tolkien's middle earth books. Read the books and leave the Author's world and characters unmolested. Very little makes me more sad than hearing a discussion about Tolkien's ring stories and subsequently realizing they know only Peter Jackson's stories. Peter Jackson's stories would have been forgotten 2 years after their writing if they were even published. Using Tolkien's famous story names and character names with a new story and new character traits has ruined some of the greatest literature of the 20th century for generations to come who will never pick up the true books.
More people will read the books now than if the movies were never made.
On June 20 2011 13:12 Shai wrote: Call me anal, but I'm glad how many people are not calling the Hobbit a prequel (a prequel is a work made after the base work but occurring before). LotR is a sequel, and I'm excited to see the original work get its own big-budget adaption. Call me crazy but I loved the animated Hobbit, silly songs and all.
I love you.
I can't stand thinking about them bringing more attention to LotR. It's my childhood. I reread all four books every summer. It's something special to me and seeing half of it cut out in favor of a simplified hollywood story hurts me. The Hobbit will do nothing good for me.
But you just made me glad to have read this thread. That animated hobbit movie was so damn creepy and awesome. Oh, sweet childhood.
i'm halfway through the 2towers atm, it's at least the 5th time i'm reading the series. I can't tell you how many awesome things were left of the movies. like the entire end of return of the king + Show Spoiler +
when they're back in shire fighting saruman, and how pippin and merri were the tallest hobbits ever b/c they drank the ent water,
so much was left out...
the hobbit movie will indeed be epic if made correctly, if they decide to leave too much out i'll be mad but not surprised.
lol the 3 LotR movies were already massively long as it is. Adding on the Saruman part would have made Return of the King a 4.5 hour movie.
As much as it sucks, that's the thing with movie adaptations. You have to cut out some stuff because of time constraints.
I would've gone for that. I've been noticing a lot of 4 star classic black and white movies that are like 4 hours long. I know they wouldn't get all the kids going in droves to see it but it might do the book more justice. Long movies have been done before and have succeeded
On June 26 2011 09:12 pi_rate_pir_ate wrote: No, please don't do it....I love all of Tolkien's middle earth books. Read the books and leave the Author's world and characters unmolested. Very little makes me more sad than hearing a discussion about Tolkien's ring stories and subsequently realizing they know only Peter Jackson's stories. Peter Jackson's stories would have been forgotten 2 years after their writing if they were even published. Using Tolkien's famous story names and character names with a new story and new character traits has ruined some of the greatest literature of the 20th century for generations to come who will never pick up the true books.
What kind of bullshit is this, after i saw the movies in cinema 8-10 years ago i now, i eargerly bought silmarilion, The Hobbit and Lotr 1-3 books right after in the book shop and got myself reading them because i simply love the writing and i wanted to read all the small details PJ had not included in the movies, i read the hobbit 8 years ago when i was only 13 and i've just read through the 2 towers for the 2nd time and now on my way to enjoy return of the king.
And how the hell do you know if PJ wrote a book it would be forgotten 2 years after. What a disgrace you are of a fan of tolkiens world.
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.
I did like all of them, but I have to agree, only the first was good, TT and RotK were way too focused on the massive battles at the expense of the story :/
On June 26 2011 08:21 Thorakh wrote: Damn I can't wait so long for the movies to come out
If they stay true to the story this time and don't fuck things up with bad actors (*cough* Merrin and Pippin and Aragorn *cough*) this could turn out to be fantastic.
The Necromancer gets a speaking role? Wasn't he just referred to by Gandalf and people in the book, and never actually featured in the story? And wasn't the Necromancer actually Sauron?
Yeah, the Necromancer was Sauron.
...Bad actors? How so, I thought they were great.
Aragorn was really bland and just mumbled the whole time and Merrin and Pippin made me want to stab my eyes out with their over the top bad acting.
Aragorn was fine, imo. Merry/Pippen were there just for comic relief, aka, over-the-top ridiculousness, so them acting retarded didn't bother me in the least. I am an avid fan of the series, and read the books before I watched any of the movies, and I definitely can't understand all you, "OMG THEY MURDERED THE SERIES!!!! STOP PJ FROM RUINING ANOTHER GREAT BOOK!!!!!!!! LESS ACTION MORE TOM BOMBADIL SINGING!!! STORY!!! OMG!!!" people.
I think they did an amazing job with the series considering how massive the story is, and seeing as how the movies are only about 9-10 hours total including the extended versions. Every time I see stuff like that, and people wanting to see the cleansing of the Shire and such at the end of RotK....I just want to facepalm. The movie was 3.5 hours long as it was, and the storyline they went with still felt rather sparse.......and you want to add another hour onto the movie? And a rather anticlimactic hour at that.
On June 27 2011 21:15 zatic wrote: Didn't they have the cleansing of the Shire or do I remember the movies wrong?
I agree the adaptation was very very good overall. Except for Gimli. I won't forgive them making my favorite character a retarded clown.
They showed a scene of the shire being burned briefly by the Palantir but didn't make it clear if it was the corruption of Sauron trying to twist the power of the Palantir that caused this or if it was actually happening. But, in general, the movies stepped neatly around it by having Saruman killed in Orthanc.
Something to keep in mind is that the Shire was being pillaged at Saruman's behest despite him not being there, so even if he wasn't there for a final confrontation in the Shire it still could have been under attack by him.
as long as they show me some arguing baddies turn to stone , some kick ass eagles , a mountain side murky hole in which bilbo is clambering about until finding some shiny , some dark woodz , some treasure, some smaug, some arrow shootin bard , then ill be satisfied. thats all im asking for here. the production and peter jackson have already done extremely well at JAMMING so much content into the trilogy, though they may have adjusted and left out certain transitions and events for length, and well, overall impossibility of putting it all in. I dont expect to be disappointed, and with the HUGEmongous box office and dvd$$$ i dont foresee it not to be a worthy and as expected, over the top, production. <--- (double nergative)
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.
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.
I did like all of them, but I have to agree, only the first was good, TT and RotK were way too focused on the massive battles at the expense of the story :/
Massives battles were, after all, what prevented an earlier movie. They tried once before but didn't manage to get the third episode out. Jackson's innovation was the software MASSIVE capable of generating... massive battles. No wonder they used it extensively.
i see people every once in a while complain about the movies, but no one really gives a good reason why. can anyone give me some good reasons?
(please dont mention Tom Bombadil. that side story was completely pointless and very corny. it was, in fact, my least favorite part of the entire series and I read the books long before the movies came out)
Tbh PJ and his crew did an amazing job with the LOTR films. Sure there are plenty of stuff that could have been better and I also hate the fact that its a kids movie with to much joke and messing around. I wanted it darker and more serious.
BUT lets be real here. A project this massive has to make money, and then you cant turn down the key audience, you just cant.
And LOTR is a 1500page story that to alot of people are just plain boring because its to long, to many parts are just walking, running or freaking singing.
how are you supposed to get that much details into 3 movies? PJ had to have a focus and he had to be able to tell the story to people who had not read the books. And so anything that does not really bring the story of the ring closer to mordor, that just had to go.
Can anyone tell me what purpose the chapter of Tom Bombadil fill? Sure to fans yes, but honestly, what super important things got lost in the movies due to Tom not being in the movie? Yes thats correct nothing. Tom is an amazing chapter but tbh its more of a sidestory that does not really play any part in the real journey towords mount doom.
Same goes for alot of other stuff that got cut out.
On June 27 2011 21:51 Supamang wrote: i see people every once in a while complain about the movies, but no one really gives a good reason why. can anyone give me some good reasons?
I love the movies, but it's not hard to find things to complain about. Some examples:
Too much focus on boring human characters in TTT and ROTK. They could have easily fit the Scouring of the Shire by giving some of the human characters less screen time (including Aragorn). Denethor was a total waste of character.
Poor presentation of some major story elements. For example in ROTK, the heroes are camping at some arbitrary place when they suddently see a hole in a rock. They enter the hole and find a cave full of ghosts that decide to join the heroes. The green ghosts float over the enemy army to auto-defeat it. WTF? I don't exactly remember if the books had the same problem, but I don't think the presentation was quite that poor.
Occasional cringeworthy dialog and poorly done action sequences (can't think of a specific example right now.... well, Legolas surfing, for example).
On June 27 2011 21:51 Supamang wrote: i see people every once in a while complain about the movies, but no one really gives a good reason why. can anyone give me some good reasons?
(please dont mention Tom Bombadil. that side story was completely pointless and very corny. it was, in fact, my least favorite part of the entire series and I read the books long before the movies came out)
Because it's not a perfect adaption which contains all things. You mentioned Bombadil. From the top of my head just from the beginning (until leaving for the Old Forest): Random timeframe between the birthday party & Frodo leaving the shire (it's years in the book). Preperation of the journey (selling Bag End to the Sackville-Bagginses), Journey to Buckland (and some stuff on the way, like meeting the elves). Farmer Maggot & his dogs. Stuff happening at Crickhollow.
There's a lot of deviation from the books. I personally dont care, and I see that a movie adaptation needs to change things (or it would be a boring & bad movie) - but purists might be offended. It's basically a hardcore vs casual debate topic.
I personally liked the movies though - my only problem is that Gimli got the comic relief part, while he was an equal to Legolas in the books. It was a good movie & a good adaption. But not a perfect adaption
On June 27 2011 21:51 Supamang wrote: i see people every once in a while complain about the movies, but no one really gives a good reason why. can anyone give me some good reasons?
(please dont mention Tom Bombadil. that side story was completely pointless and very corny. it was, in fact, my least favorite part of the entire series and I read the books long before the movies came out)
Because it's not a perfect adaption which contains all things. You mentioned Bombadil. From the top of my head just from the beginning (until leaving for the Old Forest): Random timeframe between the birthday party & Frodo leaving the shire (it's years in the book). Preperation of the journey (selling Bag End to the Sackville-Bagginses), Journey to Buckland (and some stuff on the way, like meeting the elves). Farmer Maggot & his dogs. Stuff happening at Crickhollow.
There's a lot of deviation from the books. I personally dont care, and I see that a movie adaptation needs to change things (or it would be a boring & bad movie) - but purists might be offended. It's basically a hardcore vs casual debate topic.
I personally liked the movies though - my only problem is that Gimli got the comic relief part, while he was an equal to Legolas in the books. It was a good movie & a good adaption. But not a perfect adaption
On June 26 2011 08:21 Thorakh wrote: Damn I can't wait so long for the movies to come out
If they stay true to the story this time and don't fuck things up with bad actors (*cough* Merrin and Pippin and Aragorn *cough*) this could turn out to be fantastic.
The Necromancer gets a speaking role? Wasn't he just referred to by Gandalf and people in the book, and never actually featured in the story? And wasn't the Necromancer actually Sauron?
Yeah, the Necromancer was Sauron.
...Bad actors? How so, I thought they were great.
Aragorn was really bland and just mumbled the whole time and Merrin and Pippin made me want to stab my eyes out with their over the top bad acting.
So, inspired by this thread and the eventually to be released movie: The Hobbit, I shall once again attempt to read Tolkien. Ive tried before but failed miserably, it just takes too long to get going for my immature and impatient nature to handle. I loved the previous movies and they are the only movies I own (the extended versions with the documentaries). I was most impressed by the passion and methods with which the movies was made.
Now I ask you, is there a "softer landing" to Tolkien than the trilogy? Should I first read The Hobbit?
Also, has anyone here read Kalevala (due to Tolkien)?
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.
100% agree, I have issues with the movies sure (most of them revolving around the amount of time spent on Arwyn as well as how Faramir was portrayed), but they were a blast to watch and I thought they caught a lot of what made LOTR so great for me. I have never seen a movie take so much care creating the world of the movie, such that everything felt like it belonged there instead of springing out of of nowhere. This ability was also what endeared me to the books, and to Tolkien's approach to the Middle Earth mythos as well.
I love the movies, but it's not hard to find things to complain about. Some examples:
Too much focus on boring human characters in TTT and ROTK. They could have easily fit the Scouring of the Shire by giving some of the human characters less screen time (including Aragorn). Denethor was a total waste of character.
Poor presentation of some major story elements. For example in ROTK, the heroes are camping at some arbitrary place when they suddently see a hole in a rock. They enter the hole and find a cave full of ghosts that decide to join the heroes. The green ghosts float over the enemy army to auto-defeat it. WTF? I don't exactly remember if the books had the same problem, but I don't think the presentation was quite that poor.
Occasional cringeworthy dialog and poorly done action sequences (can't think of a specific example right now.... well, Legolas surfing, for example).
What the hell? Do you even know what you're talking about? The LOTR story is about the age of men washing away the prior ages of Elves, Wizards, etc... Denethor's intransigence in the face of man's greatest hour of need and his attitude of throwing away what was left of the kingdom of Numenor simply because he felt slighted by Aragorn's ancestors was essential to the story of Minas Tirith.
And I won't even go into the ghosts of the men of the hills, because you must have missed that chapter of the book.
Nice that theyre improving the frame rate. That being said I think that unless you watch it on your computer the TV is most going to be a bottle neck anyway. Not to speak of the cinemas.
I love the movies, but it's not hard to find things to complain about. Some examples:
Too much focus on boring human characters in TTT and ROTK. They could have easily fit the Scouring of the Shire by giving some of the human characters less screen time (including Aragorn). Denethor was a total waste of character.
Poor presentation of some major story elements. For example in ROTK, the heroes are camping at some arbitrary place when they suddently see a hole in a rock. They enter the hole and find a cave full of ghosts that decide to join the heroes. The green ghosts float over the enemy army to auto-defeat it. WTF? I don't exactly remember if the books had the same problem, but I don't think the presentation was quite that poor.
Occasional cringeworthy dialog and poorly done action sequences (can't think of a specific example right now.... well, Legolas surfing, for example).
What the hell? Do you even know what you're talking about? The LOTR story is about the age of men washing away the prior ages of Elves, Wizards, etc... Denethor's intransigence in the face of man's greatest hour of need and his attitude of throwing away what was left of the kingdom of Numenor simply because he felt slighted by Aragorn's ancestors was essential to the story of Minas Tirith.
Sure. It's just one aspect of the story that the movies did a relatively poor job reflecting (with characters such as Denethor being done poorly).
And I won't even go into the ghosts of the men of the hills, because you must have missed that chapter of the book.
I don't think I did when I read the book, although it's too long ago to remember. My point is that the movie did a poor job turning this into whatever part of the story it was supposed to be (or failing to do so, it should have left it out). Even Peter Jackson hated the ghost army thing... so I don't think I'm alone on that one.
According to a magazine article, Peter Jackson hated the Dead Men; he thought it was too unbelievable. He kept it in the script because he did not wish to disappoint diehard fans of the books. Nevertheless, he expanded their use as a deus ex machina, and CNN.com criticized his use of the Dead Men as such.[2]
[2] "This spectacular whirlwind of CGI, distorted sound and awesome scale [Battle of the Pelennor Fields] stunned audiences, and was rightly hailed as a movie milestone. Then it all goes horribly wrong. ...the staunch resistance of the Men of Gondor and the Rohirrim's endeavors on the battlefield are all rendered utterly pointless when the Army of the Dead swoop in at the end. Couldn't they have turned up a bit earlier? An oversimplified cop out."
I love the movies, but it's not hard to find things to complain about. Some examples:
Too much focus on boring human characters in TTT and ROTK. They could have easily fit the Scouring of the Shire by giving some of the human characters less screen time (including Aragorn). Denethor was a total waste of character.
Poor presentation of some major story elements. For example in ROTK, the heroes are camping at some arbitrary place when they suddently see a hole in a rock. They enter the hole and find a cave full of ghosts that decide to join the heroes. The green ghosts float over the enemy army to auto-defeat it. WTF? I don't exactly remember if the books had the same problem, but I don't think the presentation was quite that poor.
Occasional cringeworthy dialog and poorly done action sequences (can't think of a specific example right now.... well, Legolas surfing, for example).
What the hell? Do you even know what you're talking about? The LOTR story is about the age of men washing away the prior ages of Elves, Wizards, etc... Denethor's intransigence in the face of man's greatest hour of need and his attitude of throwing away what was left of the kingdom of Numenor simply because he felt slighted by Aragorn's ancestors was essential to the story of Minas Tirith.
Sure. It's just one aspect of the story that the movies did a relatively poor job reflecting (with characters such as Denethor being done poorly).
And I won't even go into the ghosts of the men of the hills, because you must have missed that chapter of the book.
I don't think I did when I read the book, although it's too long ago to remember. My point is that the movie did a poor job turning this into whatever part of the story it was supposed to be (or failing to do so, it should have left it out). Even Peter Jackson hated the ghost army thing... so I don't think I'm alone on that one.
According to a magazine article, Peter Jackson hated the Dead Men; he thought it was too unbelievable. He kept it in the script because he did not wish to disappoint diehard fans of the books. Nevertheless, he expanded their use as a deus ex machina, and CNN.com criticized his use of the Dead Men as such.[2]
[2] "This spectacular whirlwind of CGI, distorted sound and awesome scale [Battle of the Pelennor Fields] stunned audiences, and was rightly hailed as a movie milestone. Then it all goes horribly wrong. ...the staunch resistance of the Men of Gondor and the Rohirrim's endeavors on the battlefield are all rendered utterly pointless when the Army of the Dead swoop in at the end. Couldn't they have turned up a bit earlier? An oversimplified cop out."
So....lets get this straight. You're criticizing the movies for not portraying certain aspects of the story well, while simultaneously admitting you don't even remember a major part of the story in the books.
I'll go out on a limb here, and say your opinion is pretty irrelevant.
On June 27 2011 21:51 Supamang wrote: i see people every once in a while complain about the movies, but no one really gives a good reason why. can anyone give me some good reasons?
(please dont mention Tom Bombadil. that side story was completely pointless and very corny. it was, in fact, my least favorite part of the entire series and I read the books long before the movies came out)
All in all I think they did a great job, but these are the complaints I have:
The portrayal of Gimli and Legolas in movies 2 and 3. They're funny in the books too at times, but Jackson pretty much reduced them to comic relief.
The huge amount of battles in 2 and 3. Of course the battles have to be an important part of the last 2 movies, but they seemed to try to fit in every battle they possibly could. Besides showing the battles they had to (Helm's Deep, Pelennor fields, Isengard and battle before the black gate) in extreme detail, they fitted in a battle that's described only very briefly in the book (the one where Faramir's company attacks the Southrons in Ithilien) and even altered the story so they could show the battle at Osgiliath, which isn't described at all in the book. They could've had much more time to develop the story, explain Denethor's story better for example or even include the scouring of the shire if they just hadn't been so fixated on having half the movie be some battle.
Faramir's story. This might be my biggest complaint, I think it's absolutely appalling how much they botched Faramir's character. Whereas in the books, he's an extremely interesting character and the story of how contrary to his brother, he's able to resist the temptation of the ring, in the movies he randomly drags Frodo back to Osgiliath, then even more randomly decides to let him go after all. It just makes no sense and the only possible reason is that it allows them to show the battle for Osgiliath.
The grey havens. I realise it's hard to show the significance of the end of the book and Frodo and all the rest departing in the movie, but I feel like it would've been worth it to sacrifice some of the more useless scenes (ie. battles) to make it clearer to the audience who hasn't read the books why exactly Frodo's going away and where they're going.
Those are my biggest complaints. Some others would be the Nazgul in the journey to Isengard (in the books they're a subtle and constant fear looming over the Hobbits, nourished more by their absence than anything, while in the films they feel more like normal dudes with swords and horses) and overuse of special effects (wtf was that Legolas running around the Oliphaunt thingy?).
So I'm also a fan of the movies, but I do think that the critics' position isn't being treated fairly; most criticism I've heard from fans of the books isn't about what parts got left out, everyone knows that the books had to be abridged a bit to fit in a movie. The criticism usually focuses on how specific characters were mis-represented in the movies to fit the simplified plotlines. Examples I've heard were Faramir, who was made into a douche, and Denethor, who had redeeming qualities in the book but none in the movie.
That said, it seems like most of the anti-movie posts in this thread are, like mine, from a "devil's advocate" or "I like the movies but this is one argument against them" point of view. Y'all should probably read this part of the thread less as an actual attack on the movies and more as a discussion of the arguments on both sides; it seems like there are only one or two posters who actually oppose the Hobbit movie because they didn't like the first set.
On June 27 2011 21:15 zatic wrote: Didn't they have the cleansing of the Shire or do I remember the movies wrong?
I agree the adaptation was very very good overall. Except for Gimli. I won't forgive them making my favorite character a retarded clown.
If memory serves me right, they included a version of the scouring of the shire in the extended edition of the movies, but cut it out of the theatrical release.
On June 27 2011 23:12 Sm3agol wrote: So....lets get this straight. You're criticizing the movies for not portraying certain aspects of the story well, while simultaneously admitting you don't even remember a major part of the story in the books.
This argument makes no sense. Why would I need to remember the details of the story *in the books* to have an informed opinion on the quality of the story *in the movies*? I'm criticizing the way the movies portray the story in the movies, the end result of the adaptation from the books, not the accuracy relative to the source material (which I frankly don't care much for since the mediums are completely different).
It should go without saying that the movies should stand on their own. The Balrog in the first movie was awesome because of the buildup and cinematic presentation, not because of the wording in the book.
On June 27 2011 21:51 Supamang wrote: i see people every once in a while complain about the movies, but no one really gives a good reason why. can anyone give me some good reasons?
(please dont mention Tom Bombadil. that side story was completely pointless and very corny. it was, in fact, my least favorite part of the entire series and I read the books long before the movies came out)
While I did really enjoy the movies, Tolkien's work is so overwhelmingly rich in backstory and details that it's almost impossible to carry that over to the movies. Of course, I perfectly understand the reasoning for that, you can't make a 100 hour long movie and I'm fine with that, but still, the movies didn't have that special 'feel' of the books. Tolkien's work is so masterfully created, every little piece connects to the story and when you botch some parts of the story and leave out some others it just doesn't make 'a whole' if you get what I mean.
Plus Merrin and Pippin ruined every scene they were in with their horrible acting.
I'll stress it again though, I found the movies entertaining and they certainly weren't bad.
in comparison to other film adaptation of other series, LOTR did a great job.
Go read the Harry Potter series and then watch the movies. It is almost unbearable to watch the movie. You can tell the director was just incompetent sometimes and just hashed and threw shit together at the last second ( Prisoner of azkaban: in the book Harry gets a new broomstick for his match but in the movie he gets the broom at the end of the movie when he is heading home). At least PJ didn't just throw shit together at the expense of the storyline.
Tom Bombadil was awesome. I never quite fully understood that guy. Reading the books at that moment was a succession of "WTF".
And no, battles weren't useless cutscenes. You don't understand that it was the introduction of a new technology with a huge commercial potential. Let's be realistic for a moment...
On June 27 2011 23:45 strongandbig wrote: So I'm also a fan of the movies, but I do think that the critics' position isn't being treated fairly; most criticism I've heard from fans of the books isn't about what parts got left out, everyone knows that the books had to be abridged a bit to fit in a movie. The criticism usually focuses on how specific characters were mis-represented in the movies to fit the simplified plotlines. Examples I've heard were Faramir, who was made into a douche, and Denethor, who had redeeming qualities in the book but none in the movie.
That said, it seems like most of the anti-movie posts in this thread are, like mine, from a "devil's advocate" or "I like the movies but this is one argument against them" point of view. Y'all should probably read this part of the thread less as an actual attack on the movies and more as a discussion of the arguments on both sides; it seems like there are only one or two posters who actually oppose the Hobbit movie because they didn't like the first set.
On June 27 2011 21:15 zatic wrote: Didn't they have the cleansing of the Shire or do I remember the movies wrong?
I agree the adaptation was very very good overall. Except for Gimli. I won't forgive them making my favorite character a retarded clown.
If memory serves me right, they included a version of the scouring of the shire in the extended edition of the movies, but cut it out of the theatrical release.
No, there was no cleansing of the shire in the extended versions+ Show Spoiler +
(remember saruman died in return of the king
). There were two parts of the book that were significant that were not included at all or even mentioned in the theatrical or extended versions.
The first was the Barrow downs and Tom Bombadil.
The second was the cleansing of the shire from Sarumon and his brigands.
Personally I cant wait, I loved the first set and I think the hobbit will be great. My only concern is they have announced a ton of characters who were never actually in the book that are appearing in the movie.
Legolas, Frodo, Aragorn, ect.
The only one that makes sense is legolas, given his father led the elves in the battle of 5 armies, so there is a fairly good chance he was actually present at the battle but not mentioned.
Well I've been looking for years for a decent place to gripe about Peter Jackson's LotR. Now he overall did a great job and got most of the important stuff right but:
In the extended edition the Witch King (head Nazgul) breaks Gandalf's staff in RotK when Gandalf is trying to run back to save Faramir from crazed Denethor. No, just no. Gandalf was more powerful than any of the ringwraiths, although not necessarily all 9 combined. For that matter, he didn't use quite enough magic in the 2nd and 3rd film, although I'm aware his generally didn't use it unless as a last resort and his specialty was actually as the "mover of great deeds" and "steward of the 3rd Age," etc.
Gimli and Legolas=too much comic relief focus and less friendship development, other than through their counting heads in battle. I really did like the scene after Helm's Deep when Legolas shoots the orc Gimli's perched on and Gimli's like, "that's 'cause MY AXE is embedded in his nervous system." But overall they were left undone.
I read someone say it wasn't serious and scary enough, and I'm like wtf? Did you see when they spawned the orc in FotR? That was completely disgusting. Then they're talking to him naked and still dripping with mud and waste and the orc's being about as scary and disgusting as possible. I thought that was too far and would turn off LotR virgins.
The representation of Sauron was kind of interesting at first but by RotK he should have had a corporeal body. In the books he had it the whole time ever since Gollum was captured by Sauron. Gollum specifically said there are only 4 fingers on Sauron's black hand. So I kind of understand them wanting to make a giant eye fireball, but Sauron should have eventually returned to humanoid form. I was almost expecting him to look up in the sky and make a Nazgul outline a la Gordon messaging Batman with the light over the city.
Tom Bombadil--sure leave him out, I used to think he was boring (I actually enjoy that part a lot nowadays <3). But the Scouring of the Shire is one of the best and funniest parts. Total failure by PJ not doing that. He should have scrapped all that extra Faramir BS in Two Towers and for that matter ended that one where it ended in the book.
I realize that might have looked lame since good ol' Harry Potter had some relatively pathetic giant spiders come out the same year as The Two Towers in Chamber of Secrets, but screw that and do LotR right. Shelob's lair was a massive disappointment. It was supposed to feel like hours of traveling through utter dark and in increasingly unbearable stuffy blackness. I realize it's hard to show complete dark in a movie, but a friggin' blue cave of wonders with spider webs is not the answer. Shelob herself looked about right at least, and when she re-emerged over the pass that was actually quite well done.
At the end of The Two Towers, there was no drama over Frodo being alive but in the hands of the enemy, instead all of that was somewhat rushed in RotK, just like much of RotK was rushed in order to omit Scouring of the Shire. Alright, it probably wasn't for that reason, but the story was so accelerated and they felt they had to please movie critics more than fans at a certain point.
What is possibly the saddest thing besides no Scouring of the Shire, was looking at how small Mordor, and Middle-Earth felt, compared to how it feels in the book. With the lighting of the beacons scene, I held out hope because that did actually make Gondor<->Rohan look pretty far. But then it took 1 1/2 days to cross the plains of Mordor. In the book it took about 10 days from the time Frodo and Sam escaped the tower of Cirith Ungol until the climactic scene at Mount Doom, I believe. I realize that could be boring to the new viewers and non-hardcore LotR fans, but they could have done a little more to convey the length of the journey and time it really took. Instead they made it look like a half day's journey from Cirith Ungol to the Black Gate, with the length of the Eye of Sauron searchlight reaching anywhere within a 15 mile radius. Mordor basically looked to be about 1/3 as large as it was supposed to be and that just kills the intimidation factor, imo.
I suppose that's a fundamental problem of the battle of the Pelennor fields...it's rather climactic in feel and they wanted to keep the pace going and basically shortened the duration of anything that happened between that and Mount Doom.
Sauron's final army was way more than 10,000 orcs, they should have left that line out of the movie, even though it was just a rhetorical comment. The book clearly states that the one in the attack on Gondor was just one "finger" of the hand of Sauron. They were implying it was about a fifth of Sauron's army, although a "fifth" isn't as important as, "this isn't nearly his full strength." They were also considering using the human/dark lord form for Sauron to fight Aragorn in this final battle, which probably would have been a bad thing, but it shows they were clearly considering whether or not to represent Sauron as the giant fiery eyeball until the very end.
Once again, I really did like the movies overall, but some things did and continue to drive me nuts.
TL;DR Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff. Gimli and Legolas development. Sauron the Eye in the Sky. The grossness of orcs got too much screen time. No Scouring of Shire, 2 minute Shelob's lair, no "cliffhanger" ending with Frodo in hands of enemy, and worst of all, Mordor was smaller than Denver. The final journey through Mordor felt totally rushed as well as the march north of the 6,000 led by Aragorn.
Here is a brief anecdote of me visiting my brother-in-law's brother in Washington state a couple weeks after RotK came out in theaters. We're driving home from restaurant and the movie comes up in discussion. I'm chillin' in the back with nerdy thoughts, as some of you may understand, but anyways the remark from my bro-in-law's bro was something like this: "Well, I guess we're done with that now, the big eye ball was destroyed, everyone's happy. We can all get on with our lives" This painful remark has stayed with me for years. He didn't understand I'm like a fanatic (I never met him before), and even more embarrassingly I think my bro-in law told him later it was a big deal to me. I don't really care about that anymore but the fact that newbies to LotR may have seen those movies and the end result for them was that the big eyeball was destroyed, can I stop caring now? That just makes me sad for them and anyone else who didn't get anything more from those movies.
Now to be fair, this was just one guy who probably has to put on macho airs like many men do. Crying at movies and hobbit goodbye scenes is most likely not his "style." But I'm still haunted by the fact that people might not read the Lord of the Rings because of Peter Jackson's portrayal being too focused on the battles, evilness of the orcs and the scary eyeball. It seriously bothers me and probably will until I'm dead, because there will very likely not be any initiative to re do these movies in my lifetime. Yes, they were that good on the whole, and the special effects aren't exactly going to improve enough. Gollum basically looked real, etc.
And back to my original first gripe, why the heck would the With King break Gandalf's staff in the "FOR FANS" Extended Edition. Hellooooo!? Fans are the ones who know Gandalf is more powerful than said Witch King.
Please do the Hobbit even better. I still consider LotR as my "favorite movies" based on the fact they are representations of my favorite book. So they're my "cop-out favorite movies," if you will.
Oh, and Sam loves rope, not daggers thank you. Give him his magic elf-earth miracle gro soil box too please. I guess you'd have to have Scouring of the Shire to make that fit properly. Woops. So yea, I really shouldn't get started on this issue or I'll be attempting to beat Artosis's Zelda rant.
On June 28 2011 00:24 Kukaracha wrote: Tom Bombadil was awesome. I never quite fully understood that guy. Reading the books at that moment was a succession of "WTF".
And no, battles weren't useless cutscenes. You don't understand that it was the introduction of a new technology with a huge commercial potential. Let's be realistic for a moment...
Google up Tom Bombadil. There's some mind boggling articles about him. Some people argue he is Aule, one of the Valars. Some other say he can't be categorized in Tolkien's legendarium. Anyways, I read those articles a long time ago, not so fresh in my memory right now, so I can't say more.
Pretty much agrees with most of the Lotr gripe of Ansinjunger, but I still enjoyed the movies a lot while taking them for what they are, and I am seeing forward to the next movies.
On June 28 2011 00:24 Kukaracha wrote: Tom Bombadil was awesome. I never quite fully understood that guy. Reading the books at that moment was a succession of "WTF".
And no, battles weren't useless cutscenes. You don't understand that it was the introduction of a new technology with a huge commercial potential. Let's be realistic for a moment...
Google up Tom Bombadil. There's some mind boggling articles about him. Some people argue he is Aule, one of the Valars. Some other say he can't be categorized in Tolkien's legendarium. Anyways, I read those articles a long time ago, not so fresh in my memory right now, so I can't say more.
I always thought he was an ancient Maiar (the lesser race of Valars) whose story was just never told. He would have to have been one of the first to ever come to Middle-Earth (from Eru) and simply made his home and kept to himself. Or perhaps he has a disturbed backstory from the first Age or before and decided not to involve himself anymore. Him being Aule doesn't make sense when you consider Aule's power>>>Sauron's, in theory. Any of the original 14 Valar should be stronger than Sauron, even tho Sauron was originally one of, if not the strongest Maiar.
Or I've also wondered if he indeed is some separate creature that is neither Maiar, Valar, Elf, or Man. I don't think we'll ever really know. I wonder why there was a theory he was Aule, when Aule's specialty was essentially the same as that of dwarves (blacksmithing, mining, metal and stone working, etc.), the race he created.
So who is really older, Tom Bombadil or Fangorn (Treebeard)? I don't mean Treebeard after the elves "woke up the trees" and taught them to speak but rather the implication that he was alive as a tree for a very long time before Elves. Gandalf refers to Treebeard as the "oldest of all living things" while Tom Bombadil calls himself "Eldest" and says he was "here before the river and the trees" and that he remembers "the first raindrop and the first acorn." I think if it came down to it, Bombadil would end up being older than Treebeard.
On June 28 2011 00:24 Kukaracha wrote: Tom Bombadil was awesome. I never quite fully understood that guy. Reading the books at that moment was a succession of "WTF".
And no, battles weren't useless cutscenes. You don't understand that it was the introduction of a new technology with a huge commercial potential. Let's be realistic for a moment...
Google up Tom Bombadil. There's some mind boggling articles about him. Some people argue he is Aule, one of the Valars. Some other say he can't be categorized in Tolkien's legendarium. Anyways, I read those articles a long time ago, not so fresh in my memory right now, so I can't say more.
I always thought he was an ancient Maiar (the lesser race of Valars) whose story was just never told. He would have to have been one of the first to ever come to Middle-Earth (from Eru) and simply made his home and kept to himself. Or perhaps he has a disturbed backstory from the first Age or before and decided not to involve himself anymore. Him being Aule doesn't make sense when you consider Aule's power>>>Sauron's, in theory. Any of the original 14 Valar should be stronger than Sauron, even tho Sauron was originally one of, if not the strongest Maiar.
Or I've also wondered if he indeed is some separate creature that is neither Maiar, Valar, Elf, or Man. I don't think we'll ever really know. I wonder why there was a theory he was Aule, when Aule's specialty was essentially the same as that of dwarves (blacksmithing, mining, metal and stone working, etc.), the race he created.
So who is really older, Tom Bombadil or Fangorn (Treebeard)? I don't mean Treebeard after the elves "woke up the trees" and taught them to speak but rather the implication that he was alive as a tree for a very long time before Elves. Gandalf refers to Treebeard as the "oldest of all living things" while Tom Bombadil calls himself "Eldest" and says he was "here before the river and the trees" and that he remembers "the first raindrop and the first acorn." I think if it came down to it, Bombadil would end up being older than Treebeard.
I believe that Tom is some sort of representation of Eru, who doesn't know it himself, Treebeard is just a really really old Ent.
I also secretly believe that Tolkien didn't actually wrote the story himself, but merely retold real events that happened in another dimension/distant past/universe/other planet. I'd be surprised if I'd be the only one to think that
On June 28 2011 01:02 Bibdy wrote: I consider Peter Jackson's cutting out of the parts with Tom Bombadil from the movies, as a blessing.
in a strange way me too.... Bombadil was awesome in the books, but it would have slowed the film down sooooooo much and they didnt really cut him out, hes kind of seen in treebeard - having alot of his lines and stuff
im happy that they picked peter jackson for this, he did an increible job with LotR i think
On June 27 2011 23:45 strongandbig wrote: So I'm also a fan of the movies, but I do think that the critics' position isn't being treated fairly; most criticism I've heard from fans of the books isn't about what parts got left out, everyone knows that the books had to be abridged a bit to fit in a movie. The criticism usually focuses on how specific characters were mis-represented in the movies to fit the simplified plotlines. Examples I've heard were Faramir, who was made into a douche, and Denethor, who had redeeming qualities in the book but none in the movie.
That said, it seems like most of the anti-movie posts in this thread are, like mine, from a "devil's advocate" or "I like the movies but this is one argument against them" point of view. Y'all should probably read this part of the thread less as an actual attack on the movies and more as a discussion of the arguments on both sides; it seems like there are only one or two posters who actually oppose the Hobbit movie because they didn't like the first set.
On June 27 2011 21:15 zatic wrote: Didn't they have the cleansing of the Shire or do I remember the movies wrong?
I agree the adaptation was very very good overall. Except for Gimli. I won't forgive them making my favorite character a retarded clown.
If memory serves me right, they included a version of the scouring of the shire in the extended edition of the movies, but cut it out of the theatrical release.
No, there was no cleansing of the shire in the extended versions+ Show Spoiler +
(remember saruman died in return of the king)
. There were two parts of the book that were significant that were not included at all or even mentioned in the theatrical or extended versions.
The first was the Barrow downs and Tom Bombadil.
The second was the cleansing of the shire from Sarumon and his brigands.
Personally I cant wait, I loved the first set and I think the hobbit will be great. My only concern is they have announced a ton of characters who were never actually in the book that are appearing in the movie.
Legolas, Frodo, Aragorn, ect.
The only one that makes sense is legolas, given his father led the elves in the battle of 5 armies, so there is a fairly good chance he was actually present at the battle but not mentioned.
Legolas will probably appear in the second movie, being the son of the Elven King Thranduil as (most likely) a captain in the army during the Battle of the Five Armies. Possibly Gimli as well, as he was already 62 and probably present with Dain Ironfoot's force as well when the Battle occured. Aragorn MIGHT have a cameo appearance as a ten-year-old boy in Rivendell while Bilbo and the Dwarves are there; maybe Elladan and Elrohir as well (who appear as extras during Arwen's marriage in RotK). Frodo is still unborn as of 2941 T.A I however fully expect Galadriel, Radagast AND Saruman to appear among the people that will be clashing with the Necromancer Sauron along with Gandalf when they film that part.
On June 27 2011 23:45 strongandbig wrote: So I'm also a fan of the movies, but I do think that the critics' position isn't being treated fairly; most criticism I've heard from fans of the books isn't about what parts got left out, everyone knows that the books had to be abridged a bit to fit in a movie. The criticism usually focuses on how specific characters were mis-represented in the movies to fit the simplified plotlines. Examples I've heard were Faramir, who was made into a douche, and Denethor, who had redeeming qualities in the book but none in the movie.
That said, it seems like most of the anti-movie posts in this thread are, like mine, from a "devil's advocate" or "I like the movies but this is one argument against them" point of view. Y'all should probably read this part of the thread less as an actual attack on the movies and more as a discussion of the arguments on both sides; it seems like there are only one or two posters who actually oppose the Hobbit movie because they didn't like the first set.
On June 27 2011 21:15 zatic wrote: Didn't they have the cleansing of the Shire or do I remember the movies wrong?
I agree the adaptation was very very good overall. Except for Gimli. I won't forgive them making my favorite character a retarded clown.
If memory serves me right, they included a version of the scouring of the shire in the extended edition of the movies, but cut it out of the theatrical release.
No, there was no cleansing of the shire in the extended versions+ Show Spoiler +
(remember saruman died in return of the king)
. There were two parts of the book that were significant that were not included at all or even mentioned in the theatrical or extended versions.
The first was the Barrow downs and Tom Bombadil.
The second was the cleansing of the shire from Sarumon and his brigands.
Personally I cant wait, I loved the first set and I think the hobbit will be great. My only concern is they have announced a ton of characters who were never actually in the book that are appearing in the movie.
Legolas, Frodo, Aragorn, ect.
The only one that makes sense is legolas, given his father led the elves in the battle of 5 armies, so there is a fairly good chance he was actually present at the battle but not mentioned.
Legolas will probably appear in the second movie, being the son of the Elven King Thranduil as (most likely) a captain in the army during the Battle of the Five Armies. Possibly Gimli as well, as he was already 62 and probably present with Dain Ironfoot's force as well when the Battle occured. Aragorn MIGHT have a cameo appearance as a ten-year-old boy in Rivendell while Bilbo and the Dwarves are there; maybe Elladan and Elrohir as well (who appear as extras during Arwen's marriage in RotK). Frodo is still unborn as of 2941 T.A I however fully expect Galadriel, Radagast AND Saruman to appear among the people that will be clashing with the Necromancer Sauron along with Gandalf when they film that part.
Thats exactly my point, but Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortinson have both been confirmed for reprising their roles (albeit short) in the movies. Aragorn would still be a grown man at that point would he not? the Hobbit took place 50 years before Lord of the rings, which would put Aragorn in his late twenties, early thirties. Gimli on the other hand might be with Dain Ironfoot, but it would simply be for the cameo appearence. Gimli's line is not from the Iron hills east of River town (where Thorin and Dain are). His family resides in the blue mountains west of the shire (at least I thought from the andex at the back of RotK. Correct me if I'm wrong).
On June 27 2011 23:45 strongandbig wrote: So I'm also a fan of the movies, but I do think that the critics' position isn't being treated fairly; most criticism I've heard from fans of the books isn't about what parts got left out, everyone knows that the books had to be abridged a bit to fit in a movie. The criticism usually focuses on how specific characters were mis-represented in the movies to fit the simplified plotlines. Examples I've heard were Faramir, who was made into a douche, and Denethor, who had redeeming qualities in the book but none in the movie.
That said, it seems like most of the anti-movie posts in this thread are, like mine, from a "devil's advocate" or "I like the movies but this is one argument against them" point of view. Y'all should probably read this part of the thread less as an actual attack on the movies and more as a discussion of the arguments on both sides; it seems like there are only one or two posters who actually oppose the Hobbit movie because they didn't like the first set.
On June 27 2011 21:15 zatic wrote: Didn't they have the cleansing of the Shire or do I remember the movies wrong?
I agree the adaptation was very very good overall. Except for Gimli. I won't forgive them making my favorite character a retarded clown.
If memory serves me right, they included a version of the scouring of the shire in the extended edition of the movies, but cut it out of the theatrical release.
No, there was no cleansing of the shire in the extended versions+ Show Spoiler +
(remember saruman died in return of the king)
. There were two parts of the book that were significant that were not included at all or even mentioned in the theatrical or extended versions.
The first was the Barrow downs and Tom Bombadil.
The second was the cleansing of the shire from Sarumon and his brigands.
Personally I cant wait, I loved the first set and I think the hobbit will be great. My only concern is they have announced a ton of characters who were never actually in the book that are appearing in the movie.
Legolas, Frodo, Aragorn, ect.
The only one that makes sense is legolas, given his father led the elves in the battle of 5 armies, so there is a fairly good chance he was actually present at the battle but not mentioned.
Legolas will probably appear in the second movie, being the son of the Elven King Thranduil as (most likely) a captain in the army during the Battle of the Five Armies. Possibly Gimli as well, as he was already 62 and probably present with Dain Ironfoot's force as well when the Battle occured. Aragorn MIGHT have a cameo appearance as a ten-year-old boy in Rivendell while Bilbo and the Dwarves are there; maybe Elladan and Elrohir as well (who appear as extras during Arwen's marriage in RotK). Frodo is still unborn as of 2941 T.A I however fully expect Galadriel, Radagast AND Saruman to appear among the people that will be clashing with the Necromancer Sauron along with Gandalf when they film that part.
Thats exactly my point, but Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortinson have both been confirmed for reprising their roles (albeit short) in the movies. Aragorn would still be a grown man at that point would he not? the Hobbit took place 50 years before Lord of the rings, which would put Aragorn in his late twenties, early thirties. Gimli on the other hand might be with Dain Ironfoot, but it would simply be for the cameo appearence. Gimli's line is not from the Iron hills east of River town (where Thorin and Dain are). His family resides in the blue mountains west of the shire (at least I thought from the andex at the back of RotK. Correct me if I'm wrong).
No, Aragorn would be 10 years old during the Battle of the Five Armies. The Hobbit takes place in T.A. 2941, LotR takes place in TA Autumn 3018 - Spring 3019, which is 77 years later. Yes, my mistake, a quick look at Gimli's history (Quest of Erebor - Unfinished Tales) shows him to have been left behind by Thorin Oakenshield's expedition in Ered Luin. The likeliest explanation for a Frodo appearance would be his presence in Balin's last visit to Bag End at approximately T.A. 2984, at age 16, he was living in Bag End with Bilbo after his parents drowned four years prior. This makes me wonder how they'll shoehorn in Aragorn's appearance, maybe in a few scenes showing his leadership of the Dunedain of Arnor in protecting The Shire, or meeting Gandalf and commencing the Hunt for Gollum.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
[/QUOTE]
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
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.
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!
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.
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. =/
This looks like it is going to be a great movie. The LotR trilogy did a great job of following the storyline of the original book while making all the action so epic, IMO. The Hobbit will most likely be a success also.
On July 21 2011 22:39 OKMarius wrote: 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. =/
While they could break it in parts, I think it is the very vastness of the chronicle, encompassing eons, being midway between a creation myth and an homeric epic, that makes the Simarillions such a unique work of literature. A miniseries might do it better justice, in an ideal world, but I don't think miniseries are there yet, seeing what they did with the Dune miniseries, for example. They just don't make enough money with those things.
On July 21 2011 22:39 OKMarius wrote: 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. =/
While they could break it in parts, I think it is the very vastness of the chronicle, encompassing eons, being midway between a creation myth and an homeric epic, that makes the Simarillions such a unique work of literature. A miniseries might do it better justice, in an ideal world, but I don't think miniseries are there yet, seeing what they did with the Dune miniseries, for example. They just don't make enough money with those things.
I actually would not like to see a miniseries of the silmarillion. it has much to small an audience and there is just no way that tv could do justice to the stories.
On July 21 2011 22:39 OKMarius wrote: 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. =/
While they could break it in parts, I think it is the very vastness of the chronicle, encompassing eons, being midway between a creation myth and an homeric epic, that makes the Simarillions such a unique work of literature. A miniseries might do it better justice, in an ideal world, but I don't think miniseries are there yet, seeing what they did with the Dune miniseries, for example. They just don't make enough money with those things.
The game of thrones miniseries was huge, so we can always hope some executive will take a risk!
Thanks for the #4th, i would have missed it. I wonder if there is anyway to "subscribe" so i would get some kind of email or other message whenever a new production video is up. ^_^
If someone knows a youtube channel or something other that has all of these three and seems that they are uploaded fairly fast the newer ones, share it with me. I don't like to use Facebook.
I just read the Hobbit (finally, started it in 1996 lol) so my opinion of this movie coming out has changed significantly, I guess. I'm not that eager to see it though since I just read the book XD
BUMP, i think this thread should be remade with a new title,
this thread is at first glance almost a 8 years old..
[Movie] THE HOBBIT
anyways, i just wanted to say to anyone with the idea that books are better than movies. the truth is movies are movies, and a book is a book.
you get two different emotions from them.
with a book it can take an hour to read a chapter. and sooo much imagery is left out. i tell you ive never read any of these books, so i decided last night to DL the hobbit. wow 1300+ pages took me 11 hours straight.
that being said, im glad i saw all the LOTR movies first because i was able to picture things sooo much more clearer. in my opninion, if there was no bias, a movie should make the book better. so go out and watch movies before you read the books, this way while you read each characters lines you can hear their voices so much clearer. and you can see everything the author depicts so much clearer. its amazing what a movie can do for a book being read.
but this is the opinion of a man who loves to watch movies rather than sit down with a book. (i watch everything from chick flicks, to horror, to action, to fantasy) I LOVE MOVIES
but for those who love books the same can be said in vice versa.
my point is that a movie can give a book so much more color, even if parts are left out. i hope thats ok to say.
Every time I see something made by Peter Jackson, I get him mixed up with Lakers coach, Phil Jackson. Then I get confused and wonder why or when he became a director...
On November 05 2011 06:05 Erasme wrote: Elija Wood is a baller name for a baller actor. I'll definitely see that movie ! Hope they'll do the silmarillion aswell !
Haha Silmarillion as a movie would be all CG and a 10 part series like Band of Brothers. Would still watch it though :D
I never managed to watch Lord of the Ring until the end. As much as I like Tolkien novel, and although some image were really strong and some passages really successful, I really thought Peter Jackson did overall a terrible job.
Don't think I will bother watching him slaughtering The Hobbit, which is my favorite Tolkien book.
On November 05 2011 06:05 Erasme wrote: Elija Wood is a baller name for a baller actor. I'll definitely see that movie ! Hope they'll do the silmarillion aswell !
Haha Silmarillion as a movie would be all CG and a 10 part series like Band of Brothers. Would still watch it though :D
Could be totally badass ! It could also be a fail ... but in Peter Jackson I trust!
On November 05 2011 05:51 wishbones wrote: BUMP, i think this thread should be remade with a new title,
this thread is at first glance almost a 8 years old..
[Movie] THE HOBBIT
anyways, i just wanted to say to anyone with the idea that books are better than movies. the truth is movies are movies, and a book is a book.
you get two different emotions from them.
with a book it can take an hour to read a chapter. and sooo much imagery is left out. i tell you ive never read any of these books, so i decided last night to DL the hobbit. wow 1300+ pages took me 11 hours straight.
that being said, im glad i saw all the LOTR movies first because i was able to picture things sooo much more clearer. in my opninion, if there was no bias, a movie should make the book better. so go out and watch movies before you read the books, this way while you read each characters lines you can hear their voices so much clearer. and you can see everything the author depicts so much clearer. its amazing what a movie can do for a book being read.
but this is the opinion of a man who loves to watch movies rather than sit down with a book. (i watch everything from chick flicks, to horror, to action, to fantasy) I LOVE MOVIES
but for those who love books the same can be said in vice versa.
my point is that a movie can give a book so much more color, even if parts are left out. i hope thats ok to say.
NOW SOMEONE MAKE A NEW THREAD! <3
So, I'm sorry but, I wholeheartedly disagree with your post. The best part about reading a book is using your imagination. Taking the authors details, descriptions and ideas and using them to create your own unique view of a world. In that respect I love reading a good novel way more than a movie for this exact reason. The setting, the nuances, behavior and portrayal of characters are done by the authors words but in my own image. I can make whatever I want of the world, it can be as colorful and vibrant as I want it or it can be as gloomy and dreary as I imagine.
From reading your post I get a single impression "I can't be bothered to use my imagination, so I'll let Peter Jackson's brain do it for me". How can watching the movie, which has limitations in time constraints, visual technology and lack of detail (in comparison to the book) be better that using the most powerful tool at our disposal, our brain (imagination, creativity).
Don't get me wrong, watching the movies is a great experience. Being able to see how a different person visualized the same world differently is very interesting. In some cases I enjoyed Peter Jackson's take on parts of the book, but overall nothing compared to reading the book first hand. Being able to see myself along the characters for the ride, feeling their joy, pain and sorrow.
I like the movies for putting a face on the characters. I never manage to imagine faces for characters I'm reading. As for the surroundings I usually have a mixture of my own imagination and scenes from the movies when I'm reading anything LotR related.
I CAN'T WAIT FOR THIS MOVIE. IT'S STILL SO LONG AWAY T_T
Films > books, but this is my opinion because the whole litterature/language, to me, is a joke in terms of making a story. Call me dumb but thats me...
Edit: On topic: I can't wait to see Smaug and the random orc tunnels and the 15,000 Dwarves or whatever
Off topic (high school essay tiem):
I love the LotR books, and I've re-read them all 5 times (the Hobbit only twice). I also really enjoyed the movies, for somewhat different reasons.
I like the books better, even though the writing is not nearly as good as some people seem to think. In fact, by today's standards, Tolkien's writing was mediocre at best, especially The Hobbit. A lot of scenes, description, and even a few subplots were awkwardly done, poorly placed or simply too long. Rivendell, Tom Bombadil and the long, dull, boring, gritty, dull, long trek to Mount Doom stand out as weak points.
The movies fixed a lot of problems in Tolkien's storytelling but, of course, had the problem of being a movie. Pandering to the masses, the idiotic implementation of the dead road subplot, the bland representation of the already-bland elves, removal of several great scenes, etc.
What the books and movies both had was... sheer epicness. Has there ever been any fictional world created so thoroughly and consistently? I mean, damn. The amount of random stuff, lore, culture, and continuity in the books is what makes them awesome. If you can't get completely into the world, you probably wouldn't even like the books. But most can, and do. You feel like you're there, watching history happen, learning about the world along with your naive, oblivious hobbits. You understand the import of the battles, the confrontations, the difficulties and the ever-present threat of failure and complete destruction just as viscerally as the characters do. Useless (plot-wise) bits like Tom Bombadil and the scouring of the Shire (wtf was that anyway lol) don't bother you much because they're part of the experience of the world. Because that's what the books are: an experience, and not just a story.
The movies are just a pretty good and very entertaining approximation of the books. I find myself having no trouble keeping the books separate from the visuals in the movies. I can apply the stuff I know from the books to the movies and enjoy the beautiful Shire and the sweet fight scenes and the "I-am-a-total-boss" Balrog.
TLDR: I love everything, books and movies and kittens and stuff! All for what they are! :3
I remember when I first read the hobbit... It was the single best book I've ever read as a child, hands down. I loved the characters and when the book ended I wanted to learn more and more about bilbo and his adventures
When I got a bit older I finally got around the Lord of the Rings I was shocked to see the story will now revolve not around bilbo but some douche named frodo. Not to mention the Lord of the Rings was substantially harder to read than the Hobbit. As a young guy, I was turned off immediately by the Lord of the Rings book. Maybe I was a bit too young to appreciate the book
I'm so pumped for this movie. Yes there are alot of criticism to Peter Jackson saying how he took some liberties with his movie, but tbh I have no other director anywhere in the world who I want to direct the hobbit.
On November 05 2011 06:06 Rkie wrote: Every time I see something made by Peter Jackson, I get him mixed up with Lakers coach, Phil Jackson. Then I get confused and wonder why or when he became a director...
lol never in a million years would Phil Jackson make a movie.... I doubt he knows how to work a camera
On November 05 2011 06:56 MrHoon wrote: I remember when I first read the hobbit... It was the single best book I've ever read as a child, hands down. I loved the characters and when the book ended I wanted to learn more and more about bilbo and his adventures
When I got a bit older I finally got around the Lord of the Rings I was shocked to see the story will now revolve not around bilbo but some douche named frodo. Not to mention the Lord of the Rings was substantially harder to read than the Hobbit. As a young guy, I was turned off immediately by the Lord of the Rings book. Maybe I was a bit too young to appreciate the book
I'm so pumped for this movie. Yes there are alot of criticism to Peter Jackson saying how he took some liberties with his movie, but tbh I have no other director anywhere in the world who I want to direct the hobbit.
On November 05 2011 06:08 Biff The Understudy wrote: I never managed to watch Lord of the Ring until the end. As much as I like Tolkien novel, and although some image were really strong and some passages really successful, I really thought Peter Jackson did overall a terrible job.
Don't think I will bother watching him slaughtering The Hobbit, which is my favorite Tolkien book.
Now the thing here is, the trilogy was butchered because Jackson had to fit six books each worthy of a three-hour movie into just three movies. Now we have one book being split to two movies, which I predict will involve a lot of scenery shots.
I'm sort of worried about Galadriel showing up, and I hope to hell Frodo will only show up in a framing device.
On November 05 2011 06:51 turnip wrote: Edit: On topic: I can't wait to see Smaug and the random orc tunnels and the 15,000 Dwarves or whatever
Off topic (high school essay tiem):
I love the LotR books, and I've re-read them all 5 times (the Hobbit only twice). I also really enjoyed the movies, for somewhat different reasons.
I like the books better, even though the writing is not nearly as good as some people seem to think. In fact, by today's standards, Tolkien's writing was mediocre at best, especially The Hobbit. A lot of scenes, description, and even a few subplots were awkwardly done, poorly placed or simply too long. Rivendell, Tom Bombadil and the long, dull, boring, gritty, dull, long trek to Mount Doom stand out as weak points.
The movies fixed a lot of problems in Tolkien's storytelling but, of course, had the problem of being a movie. Pandering to the masses, the idiotic implementation of the dead road subplot, the bland representation of the already-bland elves, removal of several great scenes, etc.
What the books and movies both had was... sheer epicness. Has there ever been any fictional world created so thoroughly and consistently? I mean, damn. The amount of random stuff, lore, culture, and continuity in the books is what makes them awesome. If you can't get completely into the world, you probably wouldn't even like the books. But most can, and do. You feel like you're there, watching history happen, learning about the world along with your naive, oblivious hobbits. You understand the import of the battles, the confrontations, the difficulties and the ever-present threat of failure and complete destruction just as viscerally as the characters do. Useless (plot-wise) bits like Tom Bombadil and the scouring of the Shire (wtf was that anyway lol) don't bother you much because they're part of the experience of the world. Because that's what the books are: an experience, and not just a story.
The movies are just a pretty good and very entertaining approximation of the books. I find myself having no trouble keeping the books separate from the visuals in the movies. I can apply the stuff I know from the books to the movies and enjoy the beautiful Shire and the sweet fight scenes and the "I-am-a-total-boss" Balrog.
TLDR: I love everything, books and movies and kittens and stuff! All for what they are! :3
Burn the witch! Seriously though, you can't present your own opinion as a fact. Many people (and I'm one of em) love the Tom Bombadil mini arc and find the journey to Mount Doom anything but tedious. Also you might want to consider how you phrase your opinion, about Tolkien's knowledge of how to write a book, since he was an academic legend in the field of philology and linguistics. I also can't comprehend your view on modern fantasy. Imo 99.9% of the new books are complete and utter trash.
*Sorry if I'm coming off a bit too aggressive, but I'm a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge fanboy.
Sigh* Okay, I'm good. Still pumped, still gonna go see this opening night all dressed up and shit. But I really fucking hate 3-D.
That being said...anyone else planning on dressing up?
It's likely, in fact it's almost definite, that you don't have to go see it in 3D. There will probably be 2D showings as soon as opening day (although if you go to a midnight showing they might only have it in 3D).
On November 05 2011 13:04 Suvorov wrote: Deard lord, no, stay away from the Hobbit jackson, you mcfailed LOTR.
LOTR obviously had to cut out a huge amount from the books but that's the reality of modern cinema. People still complained that they were too long. I think he did about as good a good as he could have and I'm a huge fan of the books. The casting was completely spot-on (Viggo Mortensen was perfect as Aragorn) in my opinion and the battles looked just as they should have.
Imagine if it had been Michael Bay or one of his ilk directing. *shudder*
has anyone played it, was it fun!???? i remember playing on ps2 but i never heard of anything about hobbit/lotr so i just threw the game away as the controls were really hard, that and i never played sc1 at the time, so i had no real GAME SKILLS. now when i play games i adapt to them like they are ilk. since in comparison to sc any game is easy to get used to.
On November 05 2011 13:04 Suvorov wrote: Deard lord, no, stay away from the Hobbit jackson, you mcfailed LOTR.
LOTR obviously had to cut out a huge amount from the books but that's the reality of modern cinema. People still complained that they were too long. I think he did about as good a good as he could have and I'm a huge fan of the books. The casting was completely spot-on (Viggo Mortensen was perfect as Aragorn) in my opinion and the battles looked just as they should have.
Imagine if it had been Michael Bay or one of his ilk directing. *shudder*
I was glad they announced The Hobbit as two movies, it means the material will be more true to the base material. As it is, to fit everything cut from LOTR, they would've had to make 4 movies in total instead of 3.
On November 05 2011 06:08 Biff The Understudy wrote: I never managed to watch Lord of the Ring until the end. As much as I like Tolkien novel, and although some image were really strong and some passages really successful, I really thought Peter Jackson did overall a terrible job.
Don't think I will bother watching him slaughtering The Hobbit, which is my favorite Tolkien book.
Now the thing here is, the trilogy was butchered because Jackson had to fit six books each worthy of a three-hour movie into just three movies. Now we have one book being split to two movies, which I predict will involve a lot of scenery shots.
I'm sort of worried about Galadriel showing up, and I hope to hell Frodo will only show up in a framing device.
Well, I also don't like the way Peter Jackson films. I don't find his movies that interesting in general. That's a pity because there are some amazing visual moments in his LotR. The Hobbit will be another action packed super fast and violent movie that look for efficiency and uses super basic (vulgar?) way of filming.
The other thing Jackson really fails at for me is the general tone, and that's the most worrying. In Lord of the Ring you would go in one minute from a ridiculously sentimental death scene (obviously in slow motion with muted sound) to an "epic" battle where 3 knights fight successfully twelve zillion orcs and trolls (if you are lucky it may be in slow motion too), to a scene of goofy humor with Legolas doing skateboard on a shield or Gimli doing obvious dwarf jokes, to a fairy Arwen or Galadriel moment that will always look like a shampoo commercial where you are supposed to be like "whoaaa", to a "cute hobbit" thing with Merry and Pippin being brave or whatever, and the tone was never stable more than a dozen of seconds in a row, which made that the whole thing was desperately boring. In a way this way of trying to please all audiences at every moment in every way possible without any integrity to the story he is saying really reminds me the new Star Wars films.
Now that really worries me, because The Hobbit is great precisely because of its amazing tone which is very homogeneous. It is a children book, with naive humor, never too serious, and that's what makes its charm and its quality (because, as a literary work, I think it has a much higher quality than the LotR). I don't see at all Jackson succeeding to do anything with this naivety.
On November 05 2011 18:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: The other thing Jackson really fails at for me is the general tone, and that's the most worrying. In Lord of the Ring you would go in one minute from a ridiculously sentimental death scene to an "epic" battle where 3 knights fight successfully twelve zillion orcs and trolls, to a scene of goofy humor with Legolas doing skateboard on a shield or Balin doing obvious dwarf jokes, to a "cute hobbit" thing with Merry and Pippin being brave or whatever, and the tone was never stable more than a dozen of seconds in a row, which made that the whole thing was desperately boring. In a way this way of trying to please all audiences at every moment in every way possible without any integrity to the story he is saying really reminds me the new Star Wars films.
Yes! That bothered me so much in the LotR films. Especially the Legolas scene you mention, or the numerous terrible jokes from Gimli.
It's not that I want a super dark film with no light hearted parts, the books have plenty of bits that were funny and not too serious. It's just that I don't want the characters making dumb jokes about how dwarves are short 20 seconds after someone just got an arrow in the throat.
On November 05 2011 18:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: The other thing Jackson really fails at for me is the general tone, and that's the most worrying. In Lord of the Ring you would go in one minute from a ridiculously sentimental death scene to an "epic" battle where 3 knights fight successfully twelve zillion orcs and trolls, to a scene of goofy humor with Legolas doing skateboard on a shield or Balin doing obvious dwarf jokes, to a "cute hobbit" thing with Merry and Pippin being brave or whatever, and the tone was never stable more than a dozen of seconds in a row, which made that the whole thing was desperately boring. In a way this way of trying to please all audiences at every moment in every way possible without any integrity to the story he is saying really reminds me the new Star Wars films.
Yes! That bothered me so much in the LotR films. Especially the Legolas scene you mention, or the numerous terrible jokes from Gimli.
It's not that I want a super dark film with no light hearted parts, the books have plenty of bits that were funny and not too serious. It's just that I don't want the characters making dumb jokes about how dwarves are short 20 seconds after someone just got an arrow in the throat.
Well, if you remember The Hobbit, it was not dark at all. It was light-hearted and had a charming simplicity. Lord of the Ring should have been dark. The problem with Lord of the Ring, and I mean the book, is that it has a really mild tone. In a way, I would make the opposite critic to the book and the movie. The movie jumps from one tone to another at a hysterical speed and everything becomes forced and boring, but the book is just plainly monotone. You never even have a single moment where you could smile since it takes itself so seriously from the top to the end. I still like it, but it's not very well written and definitely not a masterwork. I think The Hobbit is.
I personally don't think there could be a better person for the job. Peter Jackson's passion and the sheer commitment he has to creating the best film possible is inspirational.
Regarding the LOTR films, as an ex-film student I am often caught analysing scenes or continuity issues, pacing issues between scenes etc. One thing often mentioned is the switching between fighting, jokes, sad/serious scenes - I feel like this is absolutely necessary for: excitement, you can't show a whole battle at once, you'd get bored of just fighting for more than a minute or so; and juxtapositon, a common technique in film, happiness cut to sadness cut to fighting into epic effects, all serve to manipulate viewers and provoke emotional response. LOTR, imo, allows almost perfect timing for each scene - especially Return of the King.
I will concede that I found some of the dialogue within the battle scenes was completely unneeded (legolas counting kills???? come on), and there was a lot of continuity errors surrounding some of the later fights (orcs going missing between shots etc).
I just finished watching Return of the King (was bored, wanted a medival/fantasy movie to tide me over while I wait for Skyrim) and I'm not ashamed to say the final 20-25 minutes was probably the most emotional I've ever been from watching a film; tears in my eyes almost the whole time!
If The Hobbit is even close to the level of epicness of the trilogy I'll be 100% satisfied.
Alright no trailer yet, but Andy Serkis (Gullom and second unit director) said in an interview to expect a trailer around Christmas, so yah. Surprised that they will have a trailer out about 1 year before release, but still so damn excited. Can't wait to finally see how Martin Freeman looks as Bilbo and getting a first look at all the dwarves.
On November 15 2011 16:24 feanor1 wrote: Alright no trailer yet, but Andy Serkis (Gullom and second unit director) said in an interview to expect a trailer around Christmas, so yah. Surprised that they will have a trailer out about 1 year before release, but still so damn excited. Can't wait to finally see how Martin Freeman looks as Bilbo and getting a first look at all the dwarves.
Well.. There will be two movies anyway, so i think a trailer/teaser year before the first movie is somewhat expected. But glad to see it this early. Thanks for the info!
I'm think there are probably other people like me who liked The Hobbit a lot more than the LotR novels (which I didn't finish). I really like the movies for the epic battle scenes nonetheless, so news of a The Hobbit movie is good news either way.
Thanks for posting that. The video blog by Peter Jackson is really cool. Not a huge 3D fan in general for movies but The Hobbit was one of the books I read repeatedly from 8-14. Loved re-reading that book and tbh was a bigger fan of The Hobbit than LoTR. Video #4 shows some possible shooting of the dwarves trapped and wrapped up by the carnivorous spiders. Also at 5:05 the Editor of the films has a sweet Filco Majestouch Keyboard with a rainbow-style keycap set up. Pretty nice, maybe should mosey on over to the mechanical keyboard thread...
So much Peter Jackson hate lol. Honestly, I never had a problem with the way he did LotR. Could it have been better? Of course; movies are worse than books 99% of the time. Personal imagination is just fucking amazing and people can never capture that. Did Jackson do a good enough job to make the movie enjoyable for me? Fuck yes.
I'm kinda disappointed that Hobbit is ognna be in 3D, but i expected as much. The producers probably really knuckled Jackson into doing it in 3D. It should be amazing regardless tho.
Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I've loved Peter Jackson since I watched Braindead in my girlfriends Film class.
Peter and Weta will do an amazing job with the Hobbit, they will have learned from the few mistakes made in LotR and will create another piece of film history.
Not only are they wildly successful in a difficult business but they are also excellent ambassadors for New Zealand overseas.
I emplore all who are critcising him on his handeling of LotR to watch other movies of his, Heavenly Creatures, The Frighteners, Braindead, Meet the Feebles and The Lovely Bones
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote: Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote: Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
No way. Every time a good movie/ music band comes out people always brand it eventually as "too commercial" "too cookiecutter" "not a real masterpiece" etc etc etc. In my opinion, a film doesn't need to have 50 subliminal messages to be great. And the more special effects a film may have, it doesnt have to mean it's shittier. Just my view anyway.
I hope it remains faithful to the mood of the literature. I dont mind if they make any narrative adjustments to it as long as they retain the tone Tolkien set for Hobbits
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote: Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
No way. Every time a good movie/ music band comes out people always brand it eventually as "too commercial" "too cookiecutter" "not a real masterpiece" etc etc etc. In my opinion, a film doesn't need to have 50 subliminal messages to be great. And the more special effects a film may have, it doesnt have to mean it's shittier. Just my view anyway.
I'm just saying that the way LOTR is filmed, the purely artistic level of the movie is completely uninteresting and that therefore it's probably not appealing to what one would call a cinephile.
What one can like is the content; for everything that is related to cinema as an art, Jackson goes for speed, efficiency, effect. It has nothing to do with subliminal messages, just of creativity from a director.
Again, that doesn't mean it's bad. It's just a style, very commercial, appealing to global audience of action packed blockbuster. I find that deadly boring and repetitive, but that's just my taste.
I would also add that in order to make a superproduction with thousand of actors, big battles and everything and still do something artistic, you better be a fucking genius (and I really don't think Jackson is a genius at all). The only one that come to my mind is Kurosawa. And although he filmed the most epic and incredible battles that I have ever seen, in comparison on which LOTR looks like a boring and mindless video game (I think of Kagemusha in particular), he has never been super popular among american teenagers and young people, which is the condition to make a movie as expensive as the ones Jackson does.
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote: Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
That's pretty fair to be honest.
I used to think pretty highly of Sir Peter. It was mandatory for all Kiwis to after all. After the disgraceful way he handled the union dispute during the filming of the hobbit. Acted like a prissy little bitch and got his buddies in the government to sort the mess out for him, funneling a large sum of taxpayer money into some hollywood fat cats pockets as he did so. Such a disgrace.
With my blinkers off after the entire debacle, I could see the LOTR films for what they were: Great score, great costumes, scope, depth etc etc. Great entertainment to be sure, but not masterpieces.
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote: Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
But who reads books because of the style? Oh wait, my dad...
Most people only care about the story and in that regard Tolkien is the master.
As for Peter Jackson, I don't like what he did to LotR, he basically murdered everything great about the book, but hey, the Hobbit is a lot shorter and it's coming out in two parts so I hope he manages to stay true to the story.
I don't think it's necessarily hate on PJ and LOTR, just saying that compared to other literary works and films it is not as good. I think the reason why most people think the books are amazing is because they don't actually read very much. When the movies were announced/came out A LOT more people read the books than had read them before, and I know for a fact that a lot of the people I know personally read them even though they don't normally read much, so of course they will think they are epic and amazing books, but they don't have much experience with truly great novels. I enjoyed the books, I read them once many many years ago, don't think I'll ever read them again.
Just because people don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean the are "haters". I too think that the LotR movies are very lackluster and fail to capture what was great about the books. And the books in themselves are far from perfect, some parts are great but the pacing is pretty aweful at times.
My biggest gripe is why they turned Gimli into a comic sidekick? Is it beause of the PG-13 rating? Is it because they thought the movie would be to serious without a comical character? Watching Fellowship is great up until the Moria fight where Gimli stumbles around like a tard while Legolas is portrayed as the awesome superhero. Sucks when your favorite character is butchered like that...
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
Yea, what does the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences know....
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
Right, Tolkien was a terrible storyteller. Didn't take me to another universe with its own history, mythology and feel at all. I can understand some film hipster not liking those films, but not the novels.
Just because a few academics don't like LOTR doesn't mean it's worthless.
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote: Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
I can see your point but I don't think people call LOTR good literature because its stylistic like charles dickens or whatever. I think people like him because of his imagination. The middle-earth culture, history, language...I mean he made up a whole world all by himself. I think thats why people like him. And he's the guy who first came up with the idea of high fantasy genre. Almost every fantasy novel/series these days is basically ripped off of tolkienesque characteristics.
I find his writing style pretty dense but his book was written 60 years ago..other text from that time was like that too
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
Yea, what does the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences know....
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
Right, Tolkien was a terrible storyteller. Didn't take me to another universe with its own history, mythology and feel at all. I can understand some film hipster not liking those films, but not the novels.
Just because a few academics don't like LOTR doesn't mean it's worthless.
The Oscars isn't really the best argument as they more or less represent Hollywood and blockbuster cinema.
Also why do people get so defensive just because people speak their mind about Tolkien. I love Arthur C Clarke but i don't demand that everyone has to like his work.
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
Yea, what does the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences know....
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
Right, Tolkien was a terrible storyteller. Didn't take me to another universe with its own history, mythology and feel at all. I can understand some film hipster not liking those films, but not the novels.
Just because a few academics don't like LOTR doesn't mean it's worthless.
The Oscars isn't really the best defence as they more or less represent Hollywood and blockbuster cinema.
Also why do people get so defensive just because people speak their mind about Tolkien. I love Arthur C Clarke but i don't demand that everyone has to like his work.
the criticism lacks a proper comparison or standard to judge by. well worded as it may be, it is nothing more than shitting all over books and movies that i happen to like very much, only because expectations i cannot quite understand were not met, what would one that would be called a cinephile consider to be of artistic value or as artistic value in general?
it feels like "hey i watched the newest stallone movie and he does not even stop once to question himself if violence really is the only answer, and after that, i went to a bar, and the people there drank alcohol, it was horrible!"
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote: Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
How can you seriously say the lotr trilogy has low artistic value? Hundreds of people worked on those movies for 6+(?) years, and if you'd seen some of the backstage content you would realize how much artistic work is needed to make a movie based on a book. Plus it was made by a pretty much unknown director, crew and actors (Orlando Bloom for example they picked up straight out of acting school). So to sum it up: - Unknown crew - Unknown actors - World built from scratch based on books - Unique location - Revolutionizing technology
Can it get more artistic than that?
I know the cinephile type, and they only praise movies in foreign language with 50 subliminal messages and an upset ending. Movies like Old boy, Jacob's ladder, Let the right one in etc. And dont get me wrong I love those movies as well, but lotr trilogy will always be superior for what it is.
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote: Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
Well I don't agree with how "unimaginative" tolkien was. I will agree that LOTR the movies were somewhat butchered. Left out ALOT, would have love to see LOTR done as a 10 part miniseries per book, like the way game of thrones is being done. They left out nothing from the book in that show.
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
Yea, what does the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences know....
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
Right, Tolkien was a terrible storyteller. Didn't take me to another universe with its own history, mythology and feel at all. I can understand some film hipster not liking those films, but not the novels.
Just because a few academics don't like LOTR doesn't mean it's worthless.
The Oscars isn't really the best defence as they more or less represent Hollywood and blockbuster cinema.
Also why do people get so defensive just because people speak their mind about Tolkien. I love Arthur C Clarke but i don't demand that everyone has to like his work.
the criticism lacks a proper comparison or standard to judge by. well worded as it may be, it is nothing more than shitting all over books and movies that i happen to like very much, only because expectations i cannot quite understand were not met, what would one that would be called a cinephile consider to be of artistic value or as artistic value in general?
it feels like "hey i watched the newest stallone movie and he does not even stop once to question himself if violence really is the only answer, and after that, i went to a bar, and the people there drank alcohol, it was horrible!"
You come of as kind of a fanboy.
For example, the guy you quoted said he found Tolkiens writing monotone and unimaginative. Those are valid complaints and i kinda feel the same way, his imagination is awesome but the actual writing is pretty bland and slow paced to me. You retaliate by putting words in the guys mouth AND talk about the history and mythology thereby totally missing the actual point.
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote: Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
No way. Every time a good movie/ music band comes out people always brand it eventually as "too commercial" "too cookiecutter" "not a real masterpiece" etc etc etc. In my opinion, a film doesn't need to have 50 subliminal messages to be great. And the more special effects a film may have, it doesnt have to mean it's shittier. Just my view anyway.
I'm just saying that the way LOTR is filmed, the purely artistic level of the movie is completely uninteresting and that therefore it's probably not appealing to what one would call a cinephile.
What one can like is the content; for everything that is related to cinema as an art, Jackson goes for speed, efficiency, effect. It has nothing to do with subliminal messages, just of creativity from a director.
Again, that doesn't mean it's bad. It's just a style, very commercial, appealing to global audience of action packed blockbuster. I find that deadly boring and repetitive, but that's just my taste.
I would also add that in order to make a superproduction with thousand of actors, big battles and everything and still do something artistic, you better be a fucking genius (and I really don't think Jackson is a genius at all). The only one that come to my mind is Kurosawa. And although he filmed the most epic and incredible battles that I have ever seen, in comparison on which LOTR looks like a boring and mindless video game (I think of Kagemusha in particular), he has never been super popular among american teenagers and young people, which is the condition to make a movie as expensive as the ones Jackson does.
Everytime I see someone write something like that I can't help but to think that if we were living in other times they'd probably be saying the same thing of Victor Hugo or Shakespeare...
The "commercial" aspect doesn't have anything to do with its quality. Some (a lot of) commercial films are pure shit, tLotR isn't one of them. Honestly if you can't tell the difference between Peter Jackson and Michael Bay I don't think you can call yourself a cinephile...
Also "the purely artistic level of the movie is completely uninteresting" doesn't mean anything...
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I disagree with this so heavily, and I think it's ridiculous to compare Tolkien's work with Harry Potter. >___<
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote: Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
How can you seriously say the lotr trilogy has low artistic value? Hundreds of people worked on those movies for 6+(?) years, and if you'd seen some of the backstage content you would realize how much artistic work is needed to make a movie based on a book. Plus it was made by a pretty much unknown director, crew and actors (Orlando Bloom for example they picked up straight out of acting school). So to sum it up: - Unknown crew - Unknown actors - World built from scratch based on books - Unique location - Revolutionizing technology
Can it get more artistic than that?
I know the cinephile type, and they only praise movies in foreign language with 50 subliminal messages and an upset ending. Movies like Old boy, Jacob's ladder, Let the right one in etc. And dont get me wrong I love those movies as well, but lotr trilogy will always be superior for what it is.
From what i see this whole argument started by someone hailing Jackson as one of the best directors comparing him to the Coen brothers and del Torro. I really don't agree as imo LotR to me was just another big budget blockbuster movie and both the Lonely Bones and King Kong were average/below average at best.
Saying "I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile" is more or less an invite for these kinds of discussions.
On December 12 2011 21:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 12 2011 21:07 Psychobabas wrote:
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote: Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
No way. Every time a good movie/ music band comes out people always brand it eventually as "too commercial" "too cookiecutter" "not a real masterpiece" etc etc etc. In my opinion, a film doesn't need to have 50 subliminal messages to be great. And the more special effects a film may have, it doesnt have to mean it's shittier. Just my view anyway.
I'm just saying that the way LOTR is filmed, the purely artistic level of the movie is completely uninteresting and that therefore it's probably not appealing to what one would call a cinephile.
What one can like is the content; for everything that is related to cinema as an art, Jackson goes for speed, efficiency, effect. It has nothing to do with subliminal messages, just of creativity from a director.
Again, that doesn't mean it's bad. It's just a style, very commercial, appealing to global audience of action packed blockbuster. I find that deadly boring and repetitive, but that's just my taste.
I would also add that in order to make a superproduction with thousand of actors, big battles and everything and still do something artistic, you better be a fucking genius (and I really don't think Jackson is a genius at all). The only one that come to my mind is Kurosawa. And although he filmed the most epic and incredible battles that I have ever seen, in comparison on which LOTR looks like a boring and mindless video game (I think of Kagemusha in particular), he has never been super popular among american teenagers and young people, which is the condition to make a movie as expensive as the ones Jackson does.
Everytime I see someone write something like that I can't help but to think that if we were living in other times they'd probably be saying the same thing of Victor Hugo or Shakespeare...
The "commercial" aspect doesn't have anything to do with its quality. Some (a lot of) commercial films are pure shit, tLotR isn't one of them. Honestly if you can't tell the difference between Peter Jackson and Michael Bay I don't think you can call yourself a cinephile...
Also "the purely artistic level of the movie is completely uninteresting" doesn't mean anything...
So now you are comparing Jackson to Shakespeare? What's with your constant "if you don't think X then you can't call yourself a cinephile", it's not like your opinion on movies and cinephiles is some kind of universal truth.
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
Yea, what does the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences know....
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
Right, Tolkien was a terrible storyteller. Didn't take me to another universe with its own history, mythology and feel at all. I can understand some film hipster not liking those films, but not the novels.
Just because a few academics don't like LOTR doesn't mean it's worthless.
The Oscars isn't really the best defence as they more or less represent Hollywood and blockbuster cinema.
Also why do people get so defensive just because people speak their mind about Tolkien. I love Arthur C Clarke but i don't demand that everyone has to like his work.
the criticism lacks a proper comparison or standard to judge by. well worded as it may be, it is nothing more than shitting all over books and movies that i happen to like very much, only because expectations i cannot quite understand were not met, what would one that would be called a cinephile consider to be of artistic value or as artistic value in general?
it feels like "hey i watched the newest stallone movie and he does not even stop once to question himself if violence really is the only answer, and after that, i went to a bar, and the people there drank alcohol, it was horrible!"
You come of as kind of a fanboy.
For example, the guy you quoted said he found Tolkiens writing monotone and unimaginative. Those are valid complaints and i kinda feel the same way, his imagination is awesome but the actual writing is pretty bland and slow paced to me. You retaliate by putting words in the guys mouth AND talk about the history and mythology thereby totally missing the actual point.
i quoted you because you did not understand why me and others disagreed with the criticism, i think my response is perfectly fine as an answer, furthermore the guy that talked about tolkiens writing style was also the same guy that uttered that nonesense about artistic value and cinephiles, apart from that i did not put words in anyones mouth, i simply tried to find a comparison for weird expectations not met, and i really fail to see where i talked about history and mythology.
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote: Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
I couldn't disagree more. What is "artistic value" in your sense???
Also I can see how Tolkien's writing could be considered unusual and such purely from a literary standpoint, but in the end it made little difference because it was simply a story taking place in a world with its own history and dynamic, as you said.
It's all based on what you're considering "good". Tolkien's writing may not be "good literature" in the same sense that some cinephiles would say the films aren't good cinema, but I think both arguments are based in similar "monocle logic." LOTR (films) might not have many layers of depth and complexity that gives film tryhards a boner but to call it a cinematographic blockbuster compared to most film of the past 5-10 years is simply arrogant. They are masterpieces.
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
Yea, what does the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences know....
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
Right, Tolkien was a terrible storyteller. Didn't take me to another universe with its own history, mythology and feel at all. I can understand some film hipster not liking those films, but not the novels.
Just because a few academics don't like LOTR doesn't mean it's worthless.
The Oscars isn't really the best defence as they more or less represent Hollywood and blockbuster cinema.
Also why do people get so defensive just because people speak their mind about Tolkien. I love Arthur C Clarke but i don't demand that everyone has to like his work.
the criticism lacks a proper comparison or standard to judge by. well worded as it may be, it is nothing more than shitting all over books and movies that i happen to like very much, only because expectations i cannot quite understand were not met, what would one that would be called a cinephile consider to be of artistic value or as artistic value in general?
it feels like "hey i watched the newest stallone movie and he does not even stop once to question himself if violence really is the only answer, and after that, i went to a bar, and the people there drank alcohol, it was horrible!"
You come of as kind of a fanboy.
For example, the guy you quoted said he found Tolkiens writing monotone and unimaginative. Those are valid complaints and i kinda feel the same way, his imagination is awesome but the actual writing is pretty bland and slow paced to me. You retaliate by putting words in the guys mouth AND talk about the history and mythology thereby totally missing the actual point.
i quoted you because you did not understand why me and others disagreed with the criticism, i think my response is perfectly fine as an answer, furthermore the guy that talked about tolkiens writing style was also the same guy that uttered that nonesense about artistic value and cinephiles, apart from that i did not put words in anyones mouth, i simply tried to find a comparison for weird expectations not met, and i really fail to see where i talked about history and mythology.
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
Right, Tolkien was a terrible storyteller. Didn't take me to another universe with its own history, mythology and feel at all. I can understand some film hipster not liking those films, but not the novels.
Just because a few academics don't like LOTR doesn't mean it's worthless.
It's right there. The guy clearly says that he disliked the writing and your counterargument is that Tolkien took you to another universe with it's own history, mythology and feel. What does that have to do with the actual writing? A book can have horrible writing and still have it's own universe with great history, mythology and feel.
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote: Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster.
The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
lol i disagree first 2 movies were amazing I dont think you know what your talking about
On December 12 2011 20:53 frantic.cactus wrote: I emplore all who are critcising him on his handeling of LotR to watch other movies of his, Heavenly Creatures, The Frighteners, Braindead, Meet the Feebles and The Lovely Bones
You're forgetting his best one: Bad Taste definitely his most funny and creative
I really don't think that ANYONE who writes on these boards needs to be criticizing JRR Tolkien's writing ability.
I mean, really. Come back to me when you've written one of the most influential books of all time, the single most influential fantasy of all time, and countless other books that have been on multiple bestseller lists in multiple languages.
What next?
"I think Tolkien was severely lacking in the linguistics dept. He was a good writer, but his understanding of language is juvenile at best..."
I feel like the people that are criticizing Tolkien's writing ability are the same people that got bored reading because it takes 200+ pages for the hobbits to get to Rivendell.
While the books may not be as action packed right of the bat like the movies are, Tolkien really shows his mastery of language. He has a way of evoking the feel of hobbit culture (and elf, dwarf, etc) merely through syntax. I think its genius.
On December 13 2011 03:29 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I really don't think that ANYONE who writes on these boards needs to be criticizing JRR Tolkien's writing ability.
I mean, really. Come back to me when you've written one of the most influential books of all time, the single most influential fantasy of all time, and countless other books that have been on multiple bestseller lists in multiple languages.
What next?
"I think Tolkien was severely lacking in the linguistics dept. He was a good writer, but his understanding of language is juvenile at best..."
Just because no one here is a globally known author doesn't mean we cannot criticize literature -_-
Because no one here comes close to being half the writer that Tolkien was; or has even a fraction of his understanding of the use of language; means that they cannot criticize his skill in writing, or the quality of his books.
Especially not when the criticism is about as well-written as the average forum post.
On December 13 2011 04:00 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: Because no one here comes close to being half the writer that Tolkien was; or has even a fraction of his understanding of the use of language; means that they cannot criticize his skill in writing, or the quality of his books.
Especially not when the criticism is about as well-written as the average forum post.
How do you know that the people criticizing are not well read people?
You do not need to be a world class X to criticize another X.
I'm reading some good points here but you guys are trying to convince each other that YOUR opinion is the right one. Focus on explaining your view instead of emphasizing its importance. (LOTR sucked BECAUSE, instead of LOTR SUCKED!)
It's like saying Red is better than Blue, and then explaining by saying that Blue sucks.
I don't claim to know much about film or what it is that makes something "good" or "bad" in terms of high-level film-making so I will just come out and ask:
What is it about the LotR movies makes them "bad" or "meh" as people are saying here? I'm not interested in what makes them average because of the book - I mean what as a film makes them seem poorly done to those cinephiles here?
What films would you point me to as something "done right" or "done exceptionally well" for comparison.
Not trying to start a flame war or anything. I just realize I have no idea what makes a movie "great" in terms of execution and wouldn't mind learning a bit about what to look for.
On December 13 2011 03:29 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I really don't think that ANYONE who writes on these boards needs to be criticizing JRR Tolkien's writing ability.
I mean, really. Come back to me when you've written one of the most influential books of all time, the single most influential fantasy of all time, and countless other books that have been on multiple bestseller lists in multiple languages.
What next?
"I think Tolkien was severely lacking in the linguistics dept. He was a good writer, but his understanding of language is juvenile at best..."
Fame doesn't make a good book or a good writer. Nor do you need to be an engineer to identify a broken bridge.
Are people actually saying the LOTR films are bad? I'll agree the later half of helms deep was boring [just endless fighting], but the LOTR trilogy as a whole was amazing, especially fellowship. I'm both shocked and angered by any opinion that differs from mine in that respect.
Been listening to the LOTR audio books while driving to work for the last month. Nearly done with TT. Read the books a while ago and haven't watched the movies in a while. Its been fun listening to the old tale. Looking forward to the hobbit
On December 13 2011 04:24 sGs.Kal_rA wrote: Been listening to the LOTR audio books while driving to work for the last month. Nearly done with TT. Read the books a while ago and haven't watched the movies in a while. Its been fun listening to the old tale. Looking forward to the hobbit
I'm interested to see if the Hobbit movie is going to be aimed at a younger audience than the LOTR movie, as was the case with the two novels.
Fame does not make someone a good writer, but most good writers are famous. That isn't coincidence, either.
Suffice it to say, when you've written a book as influential and prolific as LotR, you can rest reasonably assure that you've written a very good book.
If someone who could barely build a Lego house was talking to a world renowned architect about how they are "mediocre" you would laugh at them, rightly so. If I went and told MVP that I thought his Starcraft 2 skills are highly overrated when compared to truly (and unnamed) good players, he would rightly ask me for my credentials. If he found out I was barely out of silver league, is he not going to instantly ignore me?
Insight can come from anywhere, and even the most foolish of idiots can say the sun is hot and be correct. It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true, popular opinion doesn't define truth.
However, criticisms need to be detailed, not just stated. "tLotR is terrible" is bad. "tLotR (books) often have a dry, description filled, slow writing style that doesn't resonate with modern audiences. While it may have been enjoyable in his day, much of the current writing industry focuses on delivering as much emotional punch in as small a space as we can. When defined by that goal, tLotR doesn't excel. Still, it does so many things well that I can't dismiss it on that fact alone, it just makes it much harder for me to appreciate, considering my immediacy-trained tastes," is a good criticism. Describe by what measure it is bad, and why that measure is important.
So yeah, I agree a lot with what MasterBlasterCaster is saying, I'm just saying that even a silver leaguer can give great advice if it is well reasoned and well informed. Dismissing base on credentials instead of flaws in the argument itself leads to dangerous closemindedness.
On December 13 2011 04:24 sGs.Kal_rA wrote: Been listening to the LOTR audio books while driving to work for the last month. Nearly done with TT. Read the books a while ago and haven't watched the movies in a while. Its been fun listening to the old tale. Looking forward to the hobbit
I'm interested to see if the Hobbit movie is going to be aimed at a younger audience than the LOTR movie, as was the case with the two novels.
well then you read the kids version. There is a normal one too.
Um, no, the Hobbit was a children's novel back in the day. That is the "normal one". The publisher was quite shocked when JRRT came back with tLotR as the requested sequel for the children's book, ha ha ha.
On December 13 2011 04:24 sGs.Kal_rA wrote: Been listening to the LOTR audio books while driving to work for the last month. Nearly done with TT. Read the books a while ago and haven't watched the movies in a while. Its been fun listening to the old tale. Looking forward to the hobbit
I'm interested to see if the Hobbit movie is going to be aimed at a younger audience than the LOTR movie, as was the case with the two novels.
well then you read the kids version. There is a normal one too.
Uhh, you're going to have to explain this to me...There's a "kids version" of what now?
Here's just one of my biggest gripes with the movie:
Gimli didn't have much to do in the FOTR, but never came off too bad (except for the "tosses" bit) and in the extended version is quite good. In the new movie, he never does anything but act in a completely stereotypical, non-Tolkien D&D dwarf way. The first part of the book, to me, was about the three heroes chasing across the plains of Rohan. But here, it becomes the two heroes and an idiot who falls down and complains all the time, and is always lagging behind. Then, for the rest of the movie he is just comic releif--burping at a serious council meeting? Falling off a horse--Gimli never even wanted to ride one! The too-big mail shirt (he brought his own!), etc. At least he did a bit of good fighting, and laughed along with Legolas's "box" joke to save a little dignity, but the depth of his character was sacrificed for Hollywood comic relief, and I hated it.
Also there's the fact that they changed Legolas into this action super hero when he and Gimli should be equals and Aragorn should be the strongest fighter. I feel like there's way to little character development, there's just not room for enough talk and socialising for me to care about the characters. I guess the book is kinda similar in this regard. I like how the original Star Wars movies made you really like the characters just by injecting some banter and dynamics. LotR took the easy way out and just turned Gimli into a comic sidekick (Jar Jar Binks of LotR) instead.
I recently watched Fellowship again and it's great until the cave troll where a poorly made CG Legolas rides on the trolls back and kills it while Gimli is saved only by the fact that he trips over something just as the troll swings at him...
On November 05 2011 07:13 SoulSever wrote: A Silmarillion movie would be mind blowing and epically long
You could just take one story from Silmarillion and make a epic movie e.g. The story about the hidden city of Gondolin.
Beren and Luthien, such an awesome story. I'd totally watch a movie about that shit.
Or a movie about Turin killing dragons and being Doomed, or the tale of Numenor. Either of those would be epic beyond belief. Hell, they made 8 movies for Harry Potter, which is far inferior to LOTR, let's just get someone to adapt every chapter of the Silmarillion into a full-length blockbuster. I can just imagine some of the huge battle scenes now O.O
On November 05 2011 07:13 SoulSever wrote: A Silmarillion movie would be mind blowing and epically long
You could just take one story from Silmarillion and make a epic movie e.g. The story about the hidden city of Gondolin.
Beren and Luthien, such an awesome story. I'd totally watch a movie about that shit.
Or a movie about Turin killing dragons and being Doomed, or the tale of Numenor. Either of those would be epic beyond belief. Hell, they made 8 movies for Harry Potter, which is far inferior to LOTR, let's just get someone to adapt every chapter of the Silmarillion into a full-length blockbuster. I can just imagine some of the huge battle scenes now O.O
Yes the battles are awesome in Silmarillion. And Sauron is just a piece of shit to the real evil Morgoth aka Melkor.
On December 13 2011 05:19 Skilledblob wrote: hm ok you guys are right. No idea how I got this idea that there was a kids and a normal version.
Well in one sense...
Tolkien didn't really like how different the styles of The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings were and was actually going to go back and rewrite The Hobbit in the LotR's style. However, his publishers convinced him not to. Although, I wonder if he would've done it anyways had he lived longer even if it wasn't going to get published. The style and form was very important to him. He later reasoned that The Hobbit was a surviving tale passed down from the Hobbits as kids version of the story. (Which I think is partly what's going on in the Appendices where he's detailing which copy and version got passed down to which descendants of Sam, Merry, and Pippen. There's always the mention of The Red Book aka his first version of the story with a substantially different Gollum.)
It's so amazing this thread is from 2004. Can't wait for this film to come out.
On December 13 2011 10:29 ZiegFeld wrote: Bilbo is one thing, but Ian McKellen is 72 already. Peter's gotta be realistic, if he's going to do it, he can't wait too long.
? They are already filming, first film has a set release date of like dec 14 2012
The Silmarillion would make for some awesome movies/scenes. Who knows, maybe down the road it will happen.
Cant wait for The Hobbit. Along with the LOTR trilogy, The Hobbit made up my earliest "deep" novels and fantasy books, it really is one of the most captivating and engaging things I found as a child, it's definitely stuck with me. I've only recently picked up Game of Thrones (A song of ice and fire) and Wheel of TIme (Greatest fantasy series ever) which I certainly hope will be adapted to the big screen sooner or later.
Gimli didn't have much to do in the FOTR, but never came off too bad (except for the "tosses" bit) and in the extended version is quite good. In the new movie, he never does anything but act in a completely stereotypical, non-Tolkien D&D dwarf way. The first part of the book, to me, was about the three heroes chasing across the plains of Rohan. But here, it becomes the two heroes and an idiot who falls down and complains all the time, and is always lagging behind. Then, for the rest of the movie he is just comic releif--burping at a serious council meeting? Falling off a horse--Gimli never even wanted to ride one! The too-big mail shirt (he brought his own!), etc. At least he did a bit of good fighting, and laughed along with Legolas's "box" joke to save a little dignity, but the depth of his character was sacrificed for Hollywood comic relief, and I hated it.
Also there's the fact that they changed Legolas into this action super hero when he and Gimli should be equals and Aragorn should be the strongest fighter. I feel like there's way to little character development, there's just not room for enough talk and socialising for me to care about the characters. I guess the book is kinda similar in this regard. I like how the original Star Wars movies made you really like the characters just by injecting some banter and dynamics. LotR took the easy way out and just turned Gimli into a comic sidekick (Jar Jar Binks of LotR) instead.
I recently watched Fellowship again and it's great until the cave troll where a poorly made CG Legolas rides on the trolls back and kills it while Gimli is saved only by the fact that he trips over something just as the troll swings at him...
Even in the book, the strength of LotR was definitely not in its character development but rather in its detailed descriptions of a vast world and the epic events taking place within it. A lot of the characters are not well developed at all and change very little throughout, but again, that is not the focus. Though from what little the book does provide, Legolas was indeed changed quite a bit. In the book, he was somewhat detached, unconcerned even, but in the movies, he is much more serious and grim.
On December 13 2011 10:29 ZiegFeld wrote: Bilbo is one thing, but Ian McKellen is 72 already. Peter's gotta be realistic, if he's going to do it, he can't wait too long.
Uhh... You clearly haven't been following the movie's progress, and thus don't really have any footing to make such an argument.
Peter Jackson has been posting Production videos/vlogs on Facebook - They are definitely worth watching for those that don't mind "spoiling" themselves a little bit. I expect most people posting here have already read the book though. http://www.facebook.com/PeterJacksonNZ
On December 13 2011 04:51 FoxyMayhem wrote: Insight can come from anywhere, and even the most foolish of idiots can say the sun is hot and be correct. It doesn't matter how many people believe something to be true, popular opinion doesn't define truth.
However, criticisms need to be detailed, not just stated. "tLotR is terrible" is bad. "tLotR (books) often have a dry, description filled, slow writing style that doesn't resonate with modern audiences. While it may have been enjoyable in his day, much of the current writing industry focuses on delivering as much emotional punch in as small a space as we can. When defined by that goal, tLotR doesn't excel. Still, it does so many things well that I can't dismiss it on that fact alone, it just makes it much harder for me to appreciate, considering my immediacy-trained tastes," is a good criticism. Describe by what measure it is bad, and why that measure is important.
This is why it is so hard to find good books to read these days.
On topic, The Hobbit was my favourite book, so I hope they make the movie. The only reason why they shouldn't make it is if they can't do it really well. No one wants another disaster like Aragorn. I thought the book was good, but the movie was the worst, most retarded take I've ever seen.
On December 13 2011 13:57 Achilles306 wrote: This is why it is so hard to find good books to read these days.
What about that makes it hard to find a good book?
On December 13 2011 13:57 Achilles306 wrote: On topic, The Hobbit was my favourite book, so I hope they make the movie. The only reason why they shouldn't make it is if they can't do it really well. No one wants another disaster like Aragorn. I thought the book was good, but the movie was the worst, most retarded take I've ever seen.
They are making the movie, you can see the production diaries on Youtube. Do you mean Eragon? Aragorn is a the returning king of LotR, Eragon is the hero in a dragon-centric YA novel.
On December 13 2011 04:27 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: Fame does not make someone a good writer, but most good writers are famous. That isn't coincidence, either.
Suffice it to say, when you've written a book as influential and prolific as LotR, you can rest reasonably assure that you've written a very good book.
If someone who could barely build a Lego house was talking to a world renowned architect about how they are "mediocre" you would laugh at them, rightly so. If I went and told MVP that I thought his Starcraft 2 skills are highly overrated when compared to truly (and unnamed) good players, he would rightly ask me for my credentials. If he found out I was barely out of silver league, is he not going to instantly ignore me?
Stephanie Meyer is a famous author. Just throwin' that out there. I'm sure plenty of people would say she deserves the fame, too.
If you went and told [oh god I dont want to offend anyone... insert pro player here] that they were a mediocre player, and they asked for your credentials, and you said "silver", they don't have a very compelling argument that your statement is wrong.
Especially if you base your argument around, "Jjakji/Leenock/HerO/PuMa beat [unnamed pro gamer] consistently; therefore, in relation to the pro scene, [unnamed pro gamer] is mediocre". That's a fair assessment, and good on your silver butt for using evidence beyond, "I try his builds on ladder and they don't work". To extend our analogy to the Tolkein stuff, I would trust a reader to be able to recognize a good writer, and given the mean level of erudition on Team Liquid, and that we're in a Tolkein thread, I trust one or two readers got in here somehow : ].
Maybe this should be resolved with "different strokes for different folks"; it's not like writing can be compared competitively as easily as Starcraft. But there's my best shot at explaining why I think that your argument doesn't work.
--
All that aside, HOBBIT MOVIE YAYYYY! I'm pumped. Finally, something to salve the scars I bear from The Hobbit cartoon. One more year! And then another year! We so, so excited.
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote: Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster. The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
One thing on that. Literary fictionists as a rule have dismissed Tolkien specifically and fantasy/ sci-fi generally as being incapable of good literature as it is "genre fiction." Nevermind that that the concept of genre is categorization and so literary fiction has managed to create a category outside all the other categories... the height of vested interest definitions. But far more troublesome is quite often literary fictionists have dismissed these works without actually reading them. Imagine calling Chaucer's work rubbish, but then quite happily saying one has never read it. Whereas many 'serious literature' types in one breath say Tolkien is rubbish and in the next breath take great delight in saying they've never read it.
If you've never come across him, I'd strongly encourage you to check out Professor Corey Olsen aka The Tolkien Professor who has developed several classes studying Tolkien's work. He has created both podcasts and recorded his lectures and discussions. Your best bet to start with is How to Read Tolkien and Why Even if you don't listen to it- believe me he is a pretty good communicator- I would argue that despite prejudice to the contrary there is scholarly work being done by people that are convinced of its literary merits. There are several others like Tom Shippey and the like.
On December 13 2011 13:57 Achilles306 wrote: On topic, The Hobbit was my favourite book, so I hope they make the movie. The only reason why they shouldn't make it is if they can't do it really well. No one wants another disaster like Aragorn. I thought the book was good, but the movie was the worst, most retarded take I've ever seen.
They are making the movie, you can see the production diaries on Youtube. Do you mean Eragon? Aragorn is a the returning king of LotR, Eragon is the hero in a dragon-centric YA novel.
Either he was refering to Eragon or he's going to be hugly disappointed when The Hobbit comes out.
On December 12 2011 21:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On December 12 2011 20:47 MilesTeg wrote: Peter Jackson is to me the greatest contemporary director with del Torro and the Coens, there is no doubt in my mind it will be a masterpiece like many of his other films. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can dislike what he did with LotR and call himself a cinephile.
I understand you like Jackson, but I don't know any real cinephile who liked his LOTR. It may be great entertainment, it has very low artistic value in my opinion. In cinematographic terms it's just a fat ass blockbuster. The same way, people who are hardcore into literature usually have very low opinion of Tolkien. I think he did great because he has incredible imagination, but you can't say that it's very very good literature simply because stylistically it's basically awful (same would be said of Harry Potter, or any super big fantasy bestseller).
I used to looove LOTR, but last time I read a bit of it, I was super disappointed by how monotone and unimaginative Tolkien's writing is.
One thing on that. Literary fictionists as a rule have dismissed Tolkien specifically and fantasy/ sci-fi generally as being incapable of good literature as it is "genre fiction." Nevermind that that the concept of genre is categorization and so literary fiction has managed to create a category outside all the other categories... the height of vested interest definitions. But far more troublesome is quite often literary fictionists have dismissed these works without actually reading them. Imagine calling Chaucer's work rubbish, but then quite happily saying one has never read it. Whereas many 'serious literature' types in one breath say Tolkien is rubbish and in the next breath take great delight in saying they've never read it.
If you've never come across him, I'd strongly encourage you to check out Professor Corey Olsen aka The Tolkien Professor who has developed several classes studying Tolkien's work. He has created both podcasts and recorded his lectures and discussions. Your best bet to start with is How to Read Tolkien and Why Even if you don't listen to it- believe me he is a pretty good communicator- I would argue that despite prejudice to the contrary there is scholarly work being done by people that are convinced of its literary merits. There are several others like Tom Shippey and the like.
I wouldn't be surprised if Tolkien's writings were actually underrated. He was a linguist after all, and has an extensive knowledge of grammar and syntax theory. His style might not be the cutest of them all, but it probably is pretty accurate and well-thought.
On December 21 2011 12:31 Jeremyy wrote: Looks like a cool movie but sorta sucks that they're just re-using many of the same characters from the original movies...
I hated how they took out like the MAJOR encounter with Tom Bombadil in the 1st book -_- And I agree with making the female elf big was stupid. The Elf Lord guy who really helped them owned. The movies where good however. And if one of the writers said they improved on his writing he is a fucking moron.
THIS.
Tom Bombadil was by far my favorite not major character in the entire LOTR series. Well, him and Beorn from the hobbit. If they took him out i would be a sad panda.
I hated how they took out like the MAJOR encounter with Tom Bombadil in the 1st book -_- And I agree with making the female elf big was stupid. The Elf Lord guy who really helped them owned. The movies where good however. And if one of the writers said they improved on his writing he is a fucking moron.
THIS.
Tom Bombadil was by far my favorite not major character in the entire LOTR series. Well, him and Beorn from the hobbit. If they took him out i would be a sad panda.
Tom Bombadil is awesome in the books, I am not convinced that he would of come off well in the big screen. Beorn is most def in "the hobbit' rest assured though. I mean he is a wizard bear how the fuck could that not be awesome
EPT
![[image loading]](http://potsofclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/martin-freeman-bilbo_320.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/230195_10150257181011558_141884481557_9176109_2621771_n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BJlRS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://a323.yahoofs.com/ymg/ukiemovies__7/ukiemovies-334651361-1308918053.jpg?ymlUhOFDyPwW6Zog)
