[Movie] The Hobbit Trilogy - Page 43

On December 23 2012 15:18 Valkyriex wrote:
Tolkien just rolled over in his grave when he heard that The Hobbit [1 Book] Is going to be a movie trilology

On December 23 2012 15:41 Dfgj wrote:

There's no 1 book = 1 movie rule. LotR was published in 3 volumes but they had to cut tons of scenes/condense parts and it still ended up immensely long. The Hobbit was written with a lot of information that was barely touched on + additional appendix information from LotR itself.

On December 23 2012 15:54 Telcontar wrote:

Although there is no such rule, it's also uncommon for 1 book, as slim as The Hobbit is, to be split up and turned into 3 films. It just reeks of overindulgence. I, like some here, just wanted Bilbo's journey told as closely to the book as possible. I don't particularly mind Jackson touching on the periphery stuff like The White Council, Radagast, and etc, but to blow it up and try and make it into another 'epic' trilogy goes against what I believe to be the spirit of the book. The book is about a small, seemingly insignificant hobbit being caught up in something much bigger than himself. It's about his self-discovery of strength and wits he's always had within himself. It is NOT, at least to me, a sweeping epic akin to the LOTR.

On December 23 2012 15:57 Forikorder wrote:

you never read the hobbit have you?

On December 23 2012 16:08 Cyber_Cheese wrote:

I have, and I agree with him.
What makes you disagree?

On December 23 2012 16:10 Forikorder wrote:

because theres no way to make that book into one film and do it justice

3 might be a bit much but it definently needs 2

On December 23 2012 16:18 mierin wrote:


How can it be argued that 1 film = 1 book does the LOTR trilogy justice, but then saying the Hobbit deserves 3 books? Just doesn't compute in my book.

On December 23 2012 15:32 Zooper31 wrote:


How exactly would they do a movie on this book then if it only last 4hours max. Theres not enough time to explain everything without completely leaving out like 50% of the book and not explaining anything or giving any background.

On December 23 2012 16:47 Talack wrote:
Couldn't care less about being given the chance to be entertained on 3 seperate occasions with another of the LOTR movies.

Hobbit was...ok.

I found the movie was alot more kid orientated compared to the previous LOTR movies though, but maybe that's just me.

On December 23 2012 18:43 corumjhaelen wrote:
I completely disagree with your vision of a good adaptation. Jackson's adaptation are only faithfull in surface. 30min helm's deep battle, the changes to Sam and Faramir's characters, the manicheism, the continuous tone of the movie show that he has no understanding nor a personnal vision of Tolkien's work. He just sees it as a series of adventures without any meaning. He's a nerdy fanboy, which mean I feel sympathy toward him, but that his work is not interesting.
To do Tolkien justice, you'd probably need to make all those movies shorter, not longer. And they would be far less boring.

On December 23 2012 16:19 Forikorder wrote:

1 film to one book did not do the LoTR trilogy justice

it came close though since SO MUCH of the LoTR trilogy was about walking and stuff without much actually happening so there was a good chunk of dead weight that could be cut out

On December 23 2012 19:05 Frieder wrote:


Right! Jackosn doesn't get Tolkien's work and his philosophy. He has no understandig for the world of Middle earth, it's history and it's greater vision. Which may also be because of his lack of understanding of Christendom and Catholicism (!). People tend to forget that Tolkien was a Christian, "which, can be deduced from [his] stories and in fact [he was] a Roman Catholic". Tolkien's faith influenced massivly his life and his work. Jackson apparently has no sense for this fact and this may one of the causes, he makes weird changes.
The movies he makes may be good as movies. But his trilogy about the LoTR did not tell the story of the LoTR and the new one doesn't tell the story of The Hobbit.

On December 23 2012 19:09 corumjhaelen wrote:

There's not only his faith, but also the fact that he lived through two of the most terrible events in humanity's history. How can such terrible things happen is a question that pervade his work. And his faith makes the question all the more important, obviously.