|
Oh boy oh boy oh boy. Thanks Mr Jackson! Finally justice for The Hobbit! I was concerned with this being only one movie. Though the LOTR trilogy was in fact much longer then the single installment Hobbit, It is equally iconic to the readers of Tolkien. With so much in the books Im looking forward to them being able to cover the books most important parts and there is a lot of them.
Do we know who is playing Radagast at all?
|
With three movies, it will be interesting to see if they can explain the whole Necromancer ordeal in more detail. Perhaps wiith a flashback showing the mages uh... paying him a visit.
It was annoying how Tolkien only mentioned that situation once, then nada.
|
On August 02 2012 03:43 MapleFractal wrote:
Oh boy oh boy oh boy. Thanks Mr Jackson! Finally justice for The Hobbit! I was concerned with this being only one movie. Though the LOTR trilogy was in fact much longer then the single installment Hobbit, It is equally iconic to the readers of Tolkien. With so much in the books Im looking forward to them being able to cover the books most important parts and there is a lot of them.
Do we know who is playing Radagast at all?
Sylvester McCoy
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/fullcredits#cast
|
|
|
Just a general question. If, way back in the 1990s or whenever planning for the LotR movies started, Peter Jackson announced that he had a plan to adapt the works of Tolkien for film, and that his blueprint / outline was to have 3 movies on The Hobbit and miscellaneous details, and then 3 movies on the actual Lord of the Rings trilogy itself with one movie per book, would anyone have thought this was well laid out?
I think that's my biggest problem with it - the pacing doesn't seem consistent. But then again, it might be better to see these as two separate trilogies like Star Wars, the prequel trilogy of which takes place over the span of two decades I think and the original trilogy taking place over a manner of years, and NOT like the Harry Potter movies, the chronology and pacing of which was pretty much consistent over all 8 movies.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 02 2012 02:46 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 06:45 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:On August 01 2012 05:54 Kaien wrote:On August 01 2012 05:10 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:
I don't understand.. A trilogy? Maybe two movies at most. There was only ONE book. Everyone in film knows that a page of a book usually equates to about one minute of film. For the other three books, there was not enough time in the movies for every little part of all the books. Not having enough material means only one thing, they are going to add in what was not in the book to fill gaps. Something like this will please some and absolutely ruin it for other hardcore fans. Have you actualy read any of the above posts? There is more then enough material written by tolkien for at least 3 movies. Yes I have. Like I said, one page of a book equates to about one minute of film. This is the major reason when books are used to create movies there is almost always material that gets cut, including the extended version of LotR. There simply is not enough time. However, The Hobbit is about three hundred pages depending on the edition so that is really about two movies. No matter how you edit the film, there is going to have to be at least some new material which gets added in that was not in the original book or expect to see many stretched scenes of traveling, etc. Don't get your hopes up if you expect a 2.5/3 hour film with an extended version for all three of them, it simply can't happen without major additions or reaching back into the other books. I am not saying it is impossible, as in the other LotR movies they had many long scenes and still did not use all of the material, the same may be true for The Hobbit. 100 pages per movie, with drawn out scenes and a couple additions could work fine, but I cannot see it being nearly as long as the other movies. I don't think 1 min per page necessarily holds up. For one thing descriptions always take much shorter in a movie as you just see it rather than describe if for half a page or multiple pages. On that alone, LotR's get's much shorter and The Hobbit stays pretty much the same. Furthermore, battle scenes always take longer. And Tolkien's battle descriptions were usually a pretty eagle eye view or not very long. I can pretty much guarantee they're NOT going to skip the entire Battle of Five Armies just because Bilbo gets knocked out in the beginning. But The Hobbit is replete with battle scenes that will take much longer on film then on the page. It looks like the 3 Trolls is going to have a semi battle, the Great Goblin cave, the 5 Fir Trees, the spiders, Smaug's attack, the siege, and the 5 Battle of 5 Armies. Those will all take considerable more time. Then you have all the White Council stuff, which I presume they'll show some big battle at the end of all that. @Whitewing Totally agree about Dol Amroth. Imrahil was the first time I actually liked a prince as most other stories they're some pansy stuck-up do nothing running around in tights. Imrahil and his knights were badass. And Beregond  Without him, you don't quite get the loyalty that Faramir inspired of his men. Of all the scenes they missed Return of the King, I think one that stands out is when the companies are maching into Minas Tirith from the outlands. It's such an iconic scene, sets the mood and is great for rising tension before the major battle. Excerpt Show nested quote +"Forlong!" men shouted. "True heart, true friend! Forlong!" But when the men of Lossarnach had passed they muttered: "So few! Two hundreds, what are they? We hoped for ten times the number. That will be the new tidings of the black fleet. They are sparing only a tithe of their strength. Still every little is a gain."
There's so much hope and despair mixed up in that chapter as they are reinforced and yet never enough.
I was also really disappointed they left out sam looking up at the stars in Mordor in Return of the King, that was such a powerful scene in the book. My favorite lines in the entire series in fact:
"There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
Leaving out the part of the king's hands being healing hands, and Aragorn healing Eowyn also bugged me, there was so much more in terms of character development and so much more that could have been added to show the real power of the characters, rather than just swinging swords.
No Mouth of Sauron was saddening too. They also had the white tree pictured a couple times but completely skipped over the significance of it.
Let alone the Scouring of the Shire.
When you really think about it, they left out a TON of the LOTR films, and like Nazgul said before, they really could have made 10 movies out of it.
|
Mouth of Sauron was in the extended version of ROTK.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 02 2012 06:11 Tennet wrote:
Mouth of Sauron was in the extended version of ROTK.
Well, I never saw the extended version, and it wasn't in theaters, which is what most people saw.
|
3 films is fine. Don't compare these films to Lotr. You could very easily have made those 3 into 6 movies by putting more stuff into the movies that was in the book.
There is more than enough content to make 3 movies. Yes this means there will be slower parts, since EVERYTHING will be included, but it won't make the story any less epic.
If anything 3 movies = can be more true to book imo.
|
http://io9.com/5931001/everything-peter-jackson-added-to-the-hobbit- -with-proof
Some interesting read about what Peter Jackson is adding to the Hobbit movies now that there is 3.
Reading this makes me think the 3rd movie is justified, fleshing out back story and adding the appendix seems like something I can get on board with
Things like The Battle of Five Armies being more than just Bilbo knocked out makes sense
|
On August 01 2012 06:55 Telcontar wrote:
It's not whether there's enough Tolkien material to use, but whether expanding so much from The Hobbit itself will sideline and overshadow Bilbo's story. A lot of people just wanted the focus to be on Bilbo, and his journey as it is in the book. Jackson can always prove those people wrong by pacing & editing it well, but no matter how he does it, there can be no argument that Bilbo's adventure will be very thinly spread across 3 films.
<snip>
Those were my thoughts as well. It seems strange to say I don't want The Hobbit films to be like LotR, considering how fantastic it was - but I would like to see a slightly more personal film, more focused on the characters and the adventure! It's been a long time since I read The Hobbit, but what stands out to me now, is Bilbo's meeting with the dwarves, the stone trolls, Mirkwood and Bilbo in Smaug's cave... Not so much the fact that it's a prequel to LotR.
That's why I thought Guillermo del Toro was a great choice as director. Pan's Labyrinth managed to create a sense of adventure and imagination, despite a pretty dark backdrop/backstory. He might also have chosen a slightly different visual style. The colour palette (as little as we've seen in the trailer), looks very similar to that of LotR. I wouldn't mind a little more colour - the story is lighter after all, and more colours would reflect that. Slight tangent here: I absolutely love the use of colour in Legend (1986, yeah, the one with Tom Cruise) - the glittering forest was pretty terrible, but other than that, very beautiful. Too many new films are afraid to use strong colours/lights. They can really set the mood.
Well, I can't say I'll be disappointed with just "more LotR", so either way.. I'm still super excited.
|
On August 02 2012 05:36 Whitewing wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2012 02:46 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 06:45 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:On August 01 2012 05:54 Kaien wrote:On August 01 2012 05:10 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:
I don't understand.. A trilogy? Maybe two movies at most. There was only ONE book. Everyone in film knows that a page of a book usually equates to about one minute of film. For the other three books, there was not enough time in the movies for every little part of all the books. Not having enough material means only one thing, they are going to add in what was not in the book to fill gaps. Something like this will please some and absolutely ruin it for other hardcore fans. Have you actualy read any of the above posts? There is more then enough material written by tolkien for at least 3 movies. Yes I have. Like I said, one page of a book equates to about one minute of film. This is the major reason when books are used to create movies there is almost always material that gets cut, including the extended version of LotR. There simply is not enough time. However, The Hobbit is about three hundred pages depending on the edition so that is really about two movies. No matter how you edit the film, there is going to have to be at least some new material which gets added in that was not in the original book or expect to see many stretched scenes of traveling, etc. Don't get your hopes up if you expect a 2.5/3 hour film with an extended version for all three of them, it simply can't happen without major additions or reaching back into the other books. I am not saying it is impossible, as in the other LotR movies they had many long scenes and still did not use all of the material, the same may be true for The Hobbit. 100 pages per movie, with drawn out scenes and a couple additions could work fine, but I cannot see it being nearly as long as the other movies. I don't think 1 min per page necessarily holds up. For one thing descriptions always take much shorter in a movie as you just see it rather than describe if for half a page or multiple pages. On that alone, LotR's get's much shorter and The Hobbit stays pretty much the same. Furthermore, battle scenes always take longer. And Tolkien's battle descriptions were usually a pretty eagle eye view or not very long. I can pretty much guarantee they're NOT going to skip the entire Battle of Five Armies just because Bilbo gets knocked out in the beginning. But The Hobbit is replete with battle scenes that will take much longer on film then on the page. It looks like the 3 Trolls is going to have a semi battle, the Great Goblin cave, the 5 Fir Trees, the spiders, Smaug's attack, the siege, and the 5 Battle of 5 Armies. Those will all take considerable more time. Then you have all the White Council stuff, which I presume they'll show some big battle at the end of all that. @Whitewing Totally agree about Dol Amroth. Imrahil was the first time I actually liked a prince as most other stories they're some pansy stuck-up do nothing running around in tights. Imrahil and his knights were badass. And Beregond Without him, you don't quite get the loyalty that Faramir inspired of his men. Of all the scenes they missed Return of the King, I think one that stands out is when the companies are maching into Minas Tirith from the outlands. It's such an iconic scene, sets the mood and is great for rising tension before the major battle. Excerpt Show nested quote +"Forlong!" men shouted. "True heart, true friend! Forlong!" But when the men of Lossarnach had passed they muttered: "So few! Two hundreds, what are they? We hoped for ten times the number. That will be the new tidings of the black fleet. They are sparing only a tithe of their strength. Still every little is a gain."
There's so much hope and despair mixed up in that chapter as they are reinforced and yet never enough. I was also really disappointed they left out sam looking up at the stars in Mordor in Return of the King, that was such a powerful scene in the book. My favorite lines in the entire series in fact: "There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach." Leaving out the part of the king's hands being healing hands, and Aragorn healing Eowyn also bugged me, there was so much more in terms of character development and so much more that could have been added to show the real power of the characters, rather than just swinging swords. No Mouth of Sauron was saddening too. They also had the white tree pictured a couple times but completely skipped over the significance of it. Let alone the Scouring of the Shire. When you really think about it, they left out a TON of the LOTR films, and like Nazgul said before, they really could have made 10 movies out of it.
LOL, the extended edition of return of the king had all those scenes, albeit some of them are different from the book and excluding the scouring of the shire, but they were still there. Go watch some extended scenes on youtube 
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 02 2012 08:29 Pleiades wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 05:36 Whitewing wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2012 02:46 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 06:45 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:On August 01 2012 05:54 Kaien wrote:On August 01 2012 05:10 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:
I don't understand.. A trilogy? Maybe two movies at most. There was only ONE book. Everyone in film knows that a page of a book usually equates to about one minute of film. For the other three books, there was not enough time in the movies for every little part of all the books. Not having enough material means only one thing, they are going to add in what was not in the book to fill gaps. Something like this will please some and absolutely ruin it for other hardcore fans. Have you actualy read any of the above posts? There is more then enough material written by tolkien for at least 3 movies. Yes I have. Like I said, one page of a book equates to about one minute of film. This is the major reason when books are used to create movies there is almost always material that gets cut, including the extended version of LotR. There simply is not enough time. However, The Hobbit is about three hundred pages depending on the edition so that is really about two movies. No matter how you edit the film, there is going to have to be at least some new material which gets added in that was not in the original book or expect to see many stretched scenes of traveling, etc. Don't get your hopes up if you expect a 2.5/3 hour film with an extended version for all three of them, it simply can't happen without major additions or reaching back into the other books. I am not saying it is impossible, as in the other LotR movies they had many long scenes and still did not use all of the material, the same may be true for The Hobbit. 100 pages per movie, with drawn out scenes and a couple additions could work fine, but I cannot see it being nearly as long as the other movies. I don't think 1 min per page necessarily holds up. For one thing descriptions always take much shorter in a movie as you just see it rather than describe if for half a page or multiple pages. On that alone, LotR's get's much shorter and The Hobbit stays pretty much the same. Furthermore, battle scenes always take longer. And Tolkien's battle descriptions were usually a pretty eagle eye view or not very long. I can pretty much guarantee they're NOT going to skip the entire Battle of Five Armies just because Bilbo gets knocked out in the beginning. But The Hobbit is replete with battle scenes that will take much longer on film then on the page. It looks like the 3 Trolls is going to have a semi battle, the Great Goblin cave, the 5 Fir Trees, the spiders, Smaug's attack, the siege, and the 5 Battle of 5 Armies. Those will all take considerable more time. Then you have all the White Council stuff, which I presume they'll show some big battle at the end of all that. @Whitewing Totally agree about Dol Amroth. Imrahil was the first time I actually liked a prince as most other stories they're some pansy stuck-up do nothing running around in tights. Imrahil and his knights were badass. And Beregond Without him, you don't quite get the loyalty that Faramir inspired of his men. Of all the scenes they missed Return of the King, I think one that stands out is when the companies are maching into Minas Tirith from the outlands. It's such an iconic scene, sets the mood and is great for rising tension before the major battle. Excerpt Show nested quote +"Forlong!" men shouted. "True heart, true friend! Forlong!" But when the men of Lossarnach had passed they muttered: "So few! Two hundreds, what are they? We hoped for ten times the number. That will be the new tidings of the black fleet. They are sparing only a tithe of their strength. Still every little is a gain."
There's so much hope and despair mixed up in that chapter as they are reinforced and yet never enough. I was also really disappointed they left out sam looking up at the stars in Mordor in Return of the King, that was such a powerful scene in the book. My favorite lines in the entire series in fact: "There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach." Leaving out the part of the king's hands being healing hands, and Aragorn healing Eowyn also bugged me, there was so much more in terms of character development and so much more that could have been added to show the real power of the characters, rather than just swinging swords. No Mouth of Sauron was saddening too. They also had the white tree pictured a couple times but completely skipped over the significance of it. Let alone the Scouring of the Shire. When you really think about it, they left out a TON of the LOTR films, and like Nazgul said before, they really could have made 10 movies out of it. LOL, the extended edition of return of the king had all those scenes, albeit some of them are different from the book and excluding the scouring of the shire, but they were still there. Go watch some extended scenes on youtube
An extended edition isn't really good enough though, even if they were there in it. It's not shown in theaters so it's not a part of the story that most people get to see, and it takes a long time after the DVD release to even have the extended edition released, which means a lot of people don't feel like spending the money for a few extra scenes. I'll watch them on youtube, but the point I was making was that there is tons of material that isn't in the theater release film that could have been, or have been in different films.
Hell, the wikipedia page lists tons of things that were left out or altered that could have added tons of time.
|
On August 02 2012 09:56 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 08:29 Pleiades wrote:On August 02 2012 05:36 Whitewing wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2012 02:46 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 06:45 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:On August 01 2012 05:54 Kaien wrote:On August 01 2012 05:10 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:
I don't understand.. A trilogy? Maybe two movies at most. There was only ONE book. Everyone in film knows that a page of a book usually equates to about one minute of film. For the other three books, there was not enough time in the movies for every little part of all the books. Not having enough material means only one thing, they are going to add in what was not in the book to fill gaps. Something like this will please some and absolutely ruin it for other hardcore fans. Have you actualy read any of the above posts? There is more then enough material written by tolkien for at least 3 movies. Yes I have. Like I said, one page of a book equates to about one minute of film. This is the major reason when books are used to create movies there is almost always material that gets cut, including the extended version of LotR. There simply is not enough time. However, The Hobbit is about three hundred pages depending on the edition so that is really about two movies. No matter how you edit the film, there is going to have to be at least some new material which gets added in that was not in the original book or expect to see many stretched scenes of traveling, etc. Don't get your hopes up if you expect a 2.5/3 hour film with an extended version for all three of them, it simply can't happen without major additions or reaching back into the other books. I am not saying it is impossible, as in the other LotR movies they had many long scenes and still did not use all of the material, the same may be true for The Hobbit. 100 pages per movie, with drawn out scenes and a couple additions could work fine, but I cannot see it being nearly as long as the other movies. I don't think 1 min per page necessarily holds up. For one thing descriptions always take much shorter in a movie as you just see it rather than describe if for half a page or multiple pages. On that alone, LotR's get's much shorter and The Hobbit stays pretty much the same. Furthermore, battle scenes always take longer. And Tolkien's battle descriptions were usually a pretty eagle eye view or not very long. I can pretty much guarantee they're NOT going to skip the entire Battle of Five Armies just because Bilbo gets knocked out in the beginning. But The Hobbit is replete with battle scenes that will take much longer on film then on the page. It looks like the 3 Trolls is going to have a semi battle, the Great Goblin cave, the 5 Fir Trees, the spiders, Smaug's attack, the siege, and the 5 Battle of 5 Armies. Those will all take considerable more time. Then you have all the White Council stuff, which I presume they'll show some big battle at the end of all that. @Whitewing Totally agree about Dol Amroth. Imrahil was the first time I actually liked a prince as most other stories they're some pansy stuck-up do nothing running around in tights. Imrahil and his knights were badass. And Beregond Without him, you don't quite get the loyalty that Faramir inspired of his men. Of all the scenes they missed Return of the King, I think one that stands out is when the companies are maching into Minas Tirith from the outlands. It's such an iconic scene, sets the mood and is great for rising tension before the major battle. Excerpt Show nested quote +"Forlong!" men shouted. "True heart, true friend! Forlong!" But when the men of Lossarnach had passed they muttered: "So few! Two hundreds, what are they? We hoped for ten times the number. That will be the new tidings of the black fleet. They are sparing only a tithe of their strength. Still every little is a gain."
There's so much hope and despair mixed up in that chapter as they are reinforced and yet never enough. I was also really disappointed they left out sam looking up at the stars in Mordor in Return of the King, that was such a powerful scene in the book. My favorite lines in the entire series in fact: "There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach." Leaving out the part of the king's hands being healing hands, and Aragorn healing Eowyn also bugged me, there was so much more in terms of character development and so much more that could have been added to show the real power of the characters, rather than just swinging swords. No Mouth of Sauron was saddening too. They also had the white tree pictured a couple times but completely skipped over the significance of it. Let alone the Scouring of the Shire. When you really think about it, they left out a TON of the LOTR films, and like Nazgul said before, they really could have made 10 movies out of it. LOL, the extended edition of return of the king had all those scenes, albeit some of them are different from the book and excluding the scouring of the shire, but they were still there. Go watch some extended scenes on youtube An extended edition isn't really good enough though, even if they were there in it. It's not shown in theaters so it's not a part of the story that most people get to see, and it takes a long time after the DVD release to even have the extended edition released, which means a lot of people don't feel like spending the money for a few extra scenes. I'll watch them on youtube, but the point I was making was that there is tons of material that isn't in the theater release film that could have been, or have been in different films. Hell, the wikipedia page lists tons of things that were left out or altered that could have added tons of time.
There were many reasons why Peter had to leave them out and he was justified in doing so. RotK was already around 3.5 hours and the extended added nearly another 30 minutes on that. Can you honestly imagine a 4 released as a mainstream movie?
About the Scouring of the Shire, while it was an incredibly powerful chapter, it would also detract from the overall flow of the story for normal cinema goes that haven't read the story.
|
On August 02 2012 10:13 Dakkas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 09:56 Whitewing wrote:On August 02 2012 08:29 Pleiades wrote:On August 02 2012 05:36 Whitewing wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2012 02:46 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 06:45 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:On August 01 2012 05:54 Kaien wrote:On August 01 2012 05:10 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:
I don't understand.. A trilogy? Maybe two movies at most. There was only ONE book. Everyone in film knows that a page of a book usually equates to about one minute of film. For the other three books, there was not enough time in the movies for every little part of all the books. Not having enough material means only one thing, they are going to add in what was not in the book to fill gaps. Something like this will please some and absolutely ruin it for other hardcore fans. Have you actualy read any of the above posts? There is more then enough material written by tolkien for at least 3 movies. Yes I have. Like I said, one page of a book equates to about one minute of film. This is the major reason when books are used to create movies there is almost always material that gets cut, including the extended version of LotR. There simply is not enough time. However, The Hobbit is about three hundred pages depending on the edition so that is really about two movies. No matter how you edit the film, there is going to have to be at least some new material which gets added in that was not in the original book or expect to see many stretched scenes of traveling, etc. Don't get your hopes up if you expect a 2.5/3 hour film with an extended version for all three of them, it simply can't happen without major additions or reaching back into the other books. I am not saying it is impossible, as in the other LotR movies they had many long scenes and still did not use all of the material, the same may be true for The Hobbit. 100 pages per movie, with drawn out scenes and a couple additions could work fine, but I cannot see it being nearly as long as the other movies. I don't think 1 min per page necessarily holds up. For one thing descriptions always take much shorter in a movie as you just see it rather than describe if for half a page or multiple pages. On that alone, LotR's get's much shorter and The Hobbit stays pretty much the same. Furthermore, battle scenes always take longer. And Tolkien's battle descriptions were usually a pretty eagle eye view or not very long. I can pretty much guarantee they're NOT going to skip the entire Battle of Five Armies just because Bilbo gets knocked out in the beginning. But The Hobbit is replete with battle scenes that will take much longer on film then on the page. It looks like the 3 Trolls is going to have a semi battle, the Great Goblin cave, the 5 Fir Trees, the spiders, Smaug's attack, the siege, and the 5 Battle of 5 Armies. Those will all take considerable more time. Then you have all the White Council stuff, which I presume they'll show some big battle at the end of all that. @Whitewing Totally agree about Dol Amroth. Imrahil was the first time I actually liked a prince as most other stories they're some pansy stuck-up do nothing running around in tights. Imrahil and his knights were badass. And Beregond Without him, you don't quite get the loyalty that Faramir inspired of his men. Of all the scenes they missed Return of the King, I think one that stands out is when the companies are maching into Minas Tirith from the outlands. It's such an iconic scene, sets the mood and is great for rising tension before the major battle. Excerpt Show nested quote +"Forlong!" men shouted. "True heart, true friend! Forlong!" But when the men of Lossarnach had passed they muttered: "So few! Two hundreds, what are they? We hoped for ten times the number. That will be the new tidings of the black fleet. They are sparing only a tithe of their strength. Still every little is a gain."
There's so much hope and despair mixed up in that chapter as they are reinforced and yet never enough. I was also really disappointed they left out sam looking up at the stars in Mordor in Return of the King, that was such a powerful scene in the book. My favorite lines in the entire series in fact: "There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach." Leaving out the part of the king's hands being healing hands, and Aragorn healing Eowyn also bugged me, there was so much more in terms of character development and so much more that could have been added to show the real power of the characters, rather than just swinging swords. No Mouth of Sauron was saddening too. They also had the white tree pictured a couple times but completely skipped over the significance of it. Let alone the Scouring of the Shire. When you really think about it, they left out a TON of the LOTR films, and like Nazgul said before, they really could have made 10 movies out of it. LOL, the extended edition of return of the king had all those scenes, albeit some of them are different from the book and excluding the scouring of the shire, but they were still there. Go watch some extended scenes on youtube An extended edition isn't really good enough though, even if they were there in it. It's not shown in theaters so it's not a part of the story that most people get to see, and it takes a long time after the DVD release to even have the extended edition released, which means a lot of people don't feel like spending the money for a few extra scenes. I'll watch them on youtube, but the point I was making was that there is tons of material that isn't in the theater release film that could have been, or have been in different films. Hell, the wikipedia page lists tons of things that were left out or altered that could have added tons of time. There were many reasons why Peter had to leave them out and he was justified in doing so. RotK was already around 3.5 hours and the extended added nearly another 30 minutes on that. Can you honestly imagine a 4 released as a mainstream movie? About the Scouring of the Shire, while it was an incredibly powerful chapter, it would also detract from the overall flow of the story for normal cinema goes that haven't read the story.
I could imagine the scouring of the shire perfectly.. Just cut the 30 min or whatever long "ending"...
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 02 2012 10:13 Dakkas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 09:56 Whitewing wrote:On August 02 2012 08:29 Pleiades wrote:On August 02 2012 05:36 Whitewing wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2012 02:46 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 06:45 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:On August 01 2012 05:54 Kaien wrote:On August 01 2012 05:10 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:
I don't understand.. A trilogy? Maybe two movies at most. There was only ONE book. Everyone in film knows that a page of a book usually equates to about one minute of film. For the other three books, there was not enough time in the movies for every little part of all the books. Not having enough material means only one thing, they are going to add in what was not in the book to fill gaps. Something like this will please some and absolutely ruin it for other hardcore fans. Have you actualy read any of the above posts? There is more then enough material written by tolkien for at least 3 movies. Yes I have. Like I said, one page of a book equates to about one minute of film. This is the major reason when books are used to create movies there is almost always material that gets cut, including the extended version of LotR. There simply is not enough time. However, The Hobbit is about three hundred pages depending on the edition so that is really about two movies. No matter how you edit the film, there is going to have to be at least some new material which gets added in that was not in the original book or expect to see many stretched scenes of traveling, etc. Don't get your hopes up if you expect a 2.5/3 hour film with an extended version for all three of them, it simply can't happen without major additions or reaching back into the other books. I am not saying it is impossible, as in the other LotR movies they had many long scenes and still did not use all of the material, the same may be true for The Hobbit. 100 pages per movie, with drawn out scenes and a couple additions could work fine, but I cannot see it being nearly as long as the other movies. I don't think 1 min per page necessarily holds up. For one thing descriptions always take much shorter in a movie as you just see it rather than describe if for half a page or multiple pages. On that alone, LotR's get's much shorter and The Hobbit stays pretty much the same. Furthermore, battle scenes always take longer. And Tolkien's battle descriptions were usually a pretty eagle eye view or not very long. I can pretty much guarantee they're NOT going to skip the entire Battle of Five Armies just because Bilbo gets knocked out in the beginning. But The Hobbit is replete with battle scenes that will take much longer on film then on the page. It looks like the 3 Trolls is going to have a semi battle, the Great Goblin cave, the 5 Fir Trees, the spiders, Smaug's attack, the siege, and the 5 Battle of 5 Armies. Those will all take considerable more time. Then you have all the White Council stuff, which I presume they'll show some big battle at the end of all that. @Whitewing Totally agree about Dol Amroth. Imrahil was the first time I actually liked a prince as most other stories they're some pansy stuck-up do nothing running around in tights. Imrahil and his knights were badass. And Beregond Without him, you don't quite get the loyalty that Faramir inspired of his men. Of all the scenes they missed Return of the King, I think one that stands out is when the companies are maching into Minas Tirith from the outlands. It's such an iconic scene, sets the mood and is great for rising tension before the major battle. Excerpt Show nested quote +"Forlong!" men shouted. "True heart, true friend! Forlong!" But when the men of Lossarnach had passed they muttered: "So few! Two hundreds, what are they? We hoped for ten times the number. That will be the new tidings of the black fleet. They are sparing only a tithe of their strength. Still every little is a gain."
There's so much hope and despair mixed up in that chapter as they are reinforced and yet never enough. I was also really disappointed they left out sam looking up at the stars in Mordor in Return of the King, that was such a powerful scene in the book. My favorite lines in the entire series in fact: "There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach." Leaving out the part of the king's hands being healing hands, and Aragorn healing Eowyn also bugged me, there was so much more in terms of character development and so much more that could have been added to show the real power of the characters, rather than just swinging swords. No Mouth of Sauron was saddening too. They also had the white tree pictured a couple times but completely skipped over the significance of it. Let alone the Scouring of the Shire. When you really think about it, they left out a TON of the LOTR films, and like Nazgul said before, they really could have made 10 movies out of it. LOL, the extended edition of return of the king had all those scenes, albeit some of them are different from the book and excluding the scouring of the shire, but they were still there. Go watch some extended scenes on youtube An extended edition isn't really good enough though, even if they were there in it. It's not shown in theaters so it's not a part of the story that most people get to see, and it takes a long time after the DVD release to even have the extended edition released, which means a lot of people don't feel like spending the money for a few extra scenes. I'll watch them on youtube, but the point I was making was that there is tons of material that isn't in the theater release film that could have been, or have been in different films. Hell, the wikipedia page lists tons of things that were left out or altered that could have added tons of time. There were many reasons why Peter had to leave them out and he was justified in doing so. RotK was already around 3.5 hours and the extended added nearly another 30 minutes on that. Can you honestly imagine a 4 released as a mainstream movie? About the Scouring of the Shire, while it was an incredibly powerful chapter, it would also detract from the overall flow of the story for normal cinema goes that haven't read the story.
I know, the point I was making was that they could have made another movie if they had wanted to instead of cutting everything out, because there was enough material to do so.
|
On August 02 2012 09:56 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 08:29 Pleiades wrote:On August 02 2012 05:36 Whitewing wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2012 02:46 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 06:45 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:On August 01 2012 05:54 Kaien wrote:On August 01 2012 05:10 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:
I don't understand.. A trilogy? Maybe two movies at most. There was only ONE book. Everyone in film knows that a page of a book usually equates to about one minute of film. For the other three books, there was not enough time in the movies for every little part of all the books. Not having enough material means only one thing, they are going to add in what was not in the book to fill gaps. Something like this will please some and absolutely ruin it for other hardcore fans. Have you actualy read any of the above posts? There is more then enough material written by tolkien for at least 3 movies. Yes I have. Like I said, one page of a book equates to about one minute of film. This is the major reason when books are used to create movies there is almost always material that gets cut, including the extended version of LotR. There simply is not enough time. However, The Hobbit is about three hundred pages depending on the edition so that is really about two movies. No matter how you edit the film, there is going to have to be at least some new material which gets added in that was not in the original book or expect to see many stretched scenes of traveling, etc. Don't get your hopes up if you expect a 2.5/3 hour film with an extended version for all three of them, it simply can't happen without major additions or reaching back into the other books. I am not saying it is impossible, as in the other LotR movies they had many long scenes and still did not use all of the material, the same may be true for The Hobbit. 100 pages per movie, with drawn out scenes and a couple additions could work fine, but I cannot see it being nearly as long as the other movies. I don't think 1 min per page necessarily holds up. For one thing descriptions always take much shorter in a movie as you just see it rather than describe if for half a page or multiple pages. On that alone, LotR's get's much shorter and The Hobbit stays pretty much the same. Furthermore, battle scenes always take longer. And Tolkien's battle descriptions were usually a pretty eagle eye view or not very long. I can pretty much guarantee they're NOT going to skip the entire Battle of Five Armies just because Bilbo gets knocked out in the beginning. But The Hobbit is replete with battle scenes that will take much longer on film then on the page. It looks like the 3 Trolls is going to have a semi battle, the Great Goblin cave, the 5 Fir Trees, the spiders, Smaug's attack, the siege, and the 5 Battle of 5 Armies. Those will all take considerable more time. Then you have all the White Council stuff, which I presume they'll show some big battle at the end of all that. @Whitewing Totally agree about Dol Amroth. Imrahil was the first time I actually liked a prince as most other stories they're some pansy stuck-up do nothing running around in tights. Imrahil and his knights were badass. And Beregond Without him, you don't quite get the loyalty that Faramir inspired of his men. Of all the scenes they missed Return of the King, I think one that stands out is when the companies are maching into Minas Tirith from the outlands. It's such an iconic scene, sets the mood and is great for rising tension before the major battle. Excerpt Show nested quote +"Forlong!" men shouted. "True heart, true friend! Forlong!" But when the men of Lossarnach had passed they muttered: "So few! Two hundreds, what are they? We hoped for ten times the number. That will be the new tidings of the black fleet. They are sparing only a tithe of their strength. Still every little is a gain."
There's so much hope and despair mixed up in that chapter as they are reinforced and yet never enough. I was also really disappointed they left out sam looking up at the stars in Mordor in Return of the King, that was such a powerful scene in the book. My favorite lines in the entire series in fact: "There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach." Leaving out the part of the king's hands being healing hands, and Aragorn healing Eowyn also bugged me, there was so much more in terms of character development and so much more that could have been added to show the real power of the characters, rather than just swinging swords. No Mouth of Sauron was saddening too. They also had the white tree pictured a couple times but completely skipped over the significance of it. Let alone the Scouring of the Shire. When you really think about it, they left out a TON of the LOTR films, and like Nazgul said before, they really could have made 10 movies out of it. LOL, the extended edition of return of the king had all those scenes, albeit some of them are different from the book and excluding the scouring of the shire, but they were still there. Go watch some extended scenes on youtube An extended edition isn't really good enough though, even if they were there in it. It's not shown in theaters so it's not a part of the story that most people get to see, and it takes a long time after the DVD release to even have the extended edition released, which means a lot of people don't feel like spending the money for a few extra scenes. I'll watch them on youtube, but the point I was making was that there is tons of material that isn't in the theater release film that could have been, or have been in different films. Hell, the wikipedia page lists tons of things that were left out or altered that could have added tons of time.
How is an extended edition not good enough?
It does not matter what is shown in theaters or if most people do not get to see it, what matters is that is out there and was done. Theater release is not end all be all as it is geared towards more casual auidences. The extended eddition is there to fill in the gaps left from the orginial in order to appease hardcore auidences. Some people not seeing it (who probably do not want to see it) doesnt make "not good enough."
|
On August 02 2012 11:23 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 10:13 Dakkas wrote:On August 02 2012 09:56 Whitewing wrote:On August 02 2012 08:29 Pleiades wrote:On August 02 2012 05:36 Whitewing wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2012 02:46 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 06:45 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:On August 01 2012 05:54 Kaien wrote:On August 01 2012 05:10 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:
I don't understand.. A trilogy? Maybe two movies at most. There was only ONE book. Everyone in film knows that a page of a book usually equates to about one minute of film. For the other three books, there was not enough time in the movies for every little part of all the books. Not having enough material means only one thing, they are going to add in what was not in the book to fill gaps. Something like this will please some and absolutely ruin it for other hardcore fans. Have you actualy read any of the above posts? There is more then enough material written by tolkien for at least 3 movies. Yes I have. Like I said, one page of a book equates to about one minute of film. This is the major reason when books are used to create movies there is almost always material that gets cut, including the extended version of LotR. There simply is not enough time. However, The Hobbit is about three hundred pages depending on the edition so that is really about two movies. No matter how you edit the film, there is going to have to be at least some new material which gets added in that was not in the original book or expect to see many stretched scenes of traveling, etc. Don't get your hopes up if you expect a 2.5/3 hour film with an extended version for all three of them, it simply can't happen without major additions or reaching back into the other books. I am not saying it is impossible, as in the other LotR movies they had many long scenes and still did not use all of the material, the same may be true for The Hobbit. 100 pages per movie, with drawn out scenes and a couple additions could work fine, but I cannot see it being nearly as long as the other movies. I don't think 1 min per page necessarily holds up. For one thing descriptions always take much shorter in a movie as you just see it rather than describe if for half a page or multiple pages. On that alone, LotR's get's much shorter and The Hobbit stays pretty much the same. Furthermore, battle scenes always take longer. And Tolkien's battle descriptions were usually a pretty eagle eye view or not very long. I can pretty much guarantee they're NOT going to skip the entire Battle of Five Armies just because Bilbo gets knocked out in the beginning. But The Hobbit is replete with battle scenes that will take much longer on film then on the page. It looks like the 3 Trolls is going to have a semi battle, the Great Goblin cave, the 5 Fir Trees, the spiders, Smaug's attack, the siege, and the 5 Battle of 5 Armies. Those will all take considerable more time. Then you have all the White Council stuff, which I presume they'll show some big battle at the end of all that. @Whitewing Totally agree about Dol Amroth. Imrahil was the first time I actually liked a prince as most other stories they're some pansy stuck-up do nothing running around in tights. Imrahil and his knights were badass. And Beregond Without him, you don't quite get the loyalty that Faramir inspired of his men. Of all the scenes they missed Return of the King, I think one that stands out is when the companies are maching into Minas Tirith from the outlands. It's such an iconic scene, sets the mood and is great for rising tension before the major battle. Excerpt Show nested quote +"Forlong!" men shouted. "True heart, true friend! Forlong!" But when the men of Lossarnach had passed they muttered: "So few! Two hundreds, what are they? We hoped for ten times the number. That will be the new tidings of the black fleet. They are sparing only a tithe of their strength. Still every little is a gain."
There's so much hope and despair mixed up in that chapter as they are reinforced and yet never enough. I was also really disappointed they left out sam looking up at the stars in Mordor in Return of the King, that was such a powerful scene in the book. My favorite lines in the entire series in fact: "There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach." Leaving out the part of the king's hands being healing hands, and Aragorn healing Eowyn also bugged me, there was so much more in terms of character development and so much more that could have been added to show the real power of the characters, rather than just swinging swords. No Mouth of Sauron was saddening too. They also had the white tree pictured a couple times but completely skipped over the significance of it. Let alone the Scouring of the Shire. When you really think about it, they left out a TON of the LOTR films, and like Nazgul said before, they really could have made 10 movies out of it. LOL, the extended edition of return of the king had all those scenes, albeit some of them are different from the book and excluding the scouring of the shire, but they were still there. Go watch some extended scenes on youtube An extended edition isn't really good enough though, even if they were there in it. It's not shown in theaters so it's not a part of the story that most people get to see, and it takes a long time after the DVD release to even have the extended edition released, which means a lot of people don't feel like spending the money for a few extra scenes. I'll watch them on youtube, but the point I was making was that there is tons of material that isn't in the theater release film that could have been, or have been in different films. Hell, the wikipedia page lists tons of things that were left out or altered that could have added tons of time. There were many reasons why Peter had to leave them out and he was justified in doing so. RotK was already around 3.5 hours and the extended added nearly another 30 minutes on that. Can you honestly imagine a 4 released as a mainstream movie? About the Scouring of the Shire, while it was an incredibly powerful chapter, it would also detract from the overall flow of the story for normal cinema goes that haven't read the story. I know, the point I was making was that they could have made another movie if they had wanted to instead of cutting everything out, because there was enough material to do so.
On August 02 2012 10:57 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 10:13 Dakkas wrote:On August 02 2012 09:56 Whitewing wrote:On August 02 2012 08:29 Pleiades wrote:On August 02 2012 05:36 Whitewing wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 02 2012 02:46 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 06:45 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:On August 01 2012 05:54 Kaien wrote:On August 01 2012 05:10 NuttyFudgesicle wrote:
I don't understand.. A trilogy? Maybe two movies at most. There was only ONE book. Everyone in film knows that a page of a book usually equates to about one minute of film. For the other three books, there was not enough time in the movies for every little part of all the books. Not having enough material means only one thing, they are going to add in what was not in the book to fill gaps. Something like this will please some and absolutely ruin it for other hardcore fans. Have you actualy read any of the above posts? There is more then enough material written by tolkien for at least 3 movies. Yes I have. Like I said, one page of a book equates to about one minute of film. This is the major reason when books are used to create movies there is almost always material that gets cut, including the extended version of LotR. There simply is not enough time. However, The Hobbit is about three hundred pages depending on the edition so that is really about two movies. No matter how you edit the film, there is going to have to be at least some new material which gets added in that was not in the original book or expect to see many stretched scenes of traveling, etc. Don't get your hopes up if you expect a 2.5/3 hour film with an extended version for all three of them, it simply can't happen without major additions or reaching back into the other books. I am not saying it is impossible, as in the other LotR movies they had many long scenes and still did not use all of the material, the same may be true for The Hobbit. 100 pages per movie, with drawn out scenes and a couple additions could work fine, but I cannot see it being nearly as long as the other movies. I don't think 1 min per page necessarily holds up. For one thing descriptions always take much shorter in a movie as you just see it rather than describe if for half a page or multiple pages. On that alone, LotR's get's much shorter and The Hobbit stays pretty much the same. Furthermore, battle scenes always take longer. And Tolkien's battle descriptions were usually a pretty eagle eye view or not very long. I can pretty much guarantee they're NOT going to skip the entire Battle of Five Armies just because Bilbo gets knocked out in the beginning. But The Hobbit is replete with battle scenes that will take much longer on film then on the page. It looks like the 3 Trolls is going to have a semi battle, the Great Goblin cave, the 5 Fir Trees, the spiders, Smaug's attack, the siege, and the 5 Battle of 5 Armies. Those will all take considerable more time. Then you have all the White Council stuff, which I presume they'll show some big battle at the end of all that. @Whitewing Totally agree about Dol Amroth. Imrahil was the first time I actually liked a prince as most other stories they're some pansy stuck-up do nothing running around in tights. Imrahil and his knights were badass. And Beregond Without him, you don't quite get the loyalty that Faramir inspired of his men. Of all the scenes they missed Return of the King, I think one that stands out is when the companies are maching into Minas Tirith from the outlands. It's such an iconic scene, sets the mood and is great for rising tension before the major battle. Excerpt Show nested quote +"Forlong!" men shouted. "True heart, true friend! Forlong!" But when the men of Lossarnach had passed they muttered: "So few! Two hundreds, what are they? We hoped for ten times the number. That will be the new tidings of the black fleet. They are sparing only a tithe of their strength. Still every little is a gain."
There's so much hope and despair mixed up in that chapter as they are reinforced and yet never enough. I was also really disappointed they left out sam looking up at the stars in Mordor in Return of the King, that was such a powerful scene in the book. My favorite lines in the entire series in fact: "There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach." Leaving out the part of the king's hands being healing hands, and Aragorn healing Eowyn also bugged me, there was so much more in terms of character development and so much more that could have been added to show the real power of the characters, rather than just swinging swords. No Mouth of Sauron was saddening too. They also had the white tree pictured a couple times but completely skipped over the significance of it. Let alone the Scouring of the Shire. When you really think about it, they left out a TON of the LOTR films, and like Nazgul said before, they really could have made 10 movies out of it. LOL, the extended edition of return of the king had all those scenes, albeit some of them are different from the book and excluding the scouring of the shire, but they were still there. Go watch some extended scenes on youtube An extended edition isn't really good enough though, even if they were there in it. It's not shown in theaters so it's not a part of the story that most people get to see, and it takes a long time after the DVD release to even have the extended edition released, which means a lot of people don't feel like spending the money for a few extra scenes. I'll watch them on youtube, but the point I was making was that there is tons of material that isn't in the theater release film that could have been, or have been in different films. Hell, the wikipedia page lists tons of things that were left out or altered that could have added tons of time. There were many reasons why Peter had to leave them out and he was justified in doing so. RotK was already around 3.5 hours and the extended added nearly another 30 minutes on that. Can you honestly imagine a 4 released as a mainstream movie? About the Scouring of the Shire, while it was an incredibly powerful chapter, it would also detract from the overall flow of the story for normal cinema goes that haven't read the story. I could imagine the scouring of the shire perfectly.. Just cut the 30 min or whatever long "ending"...
Ask yourself this. What would the 4th LotR movie be called and do you honestly expect it to sell for audiences?
The thought that goes through their head is "Why is there a 4th movie? Didn't they destroy the ring?". Also if you watch the RotK extended edition then you'll see why they can't do a Scouring of the Shire. Truth, the both of you are thinking as purely a fanboys (and I don't mean that in a negative way), you cannot release a blockbuster movie purely for fanboys.
|
United States7483 Posts
Again, I didn't say the films were better if they'd released a fourth movie, simply that they had enough material to do so if they wished. If you put everything that was cut out of all 3 movies into them, you could have made 9 or 10 films if you'd really wanted to.
The only point is that there is easily enough material in the hobbit for 3 films, and the argument "well, isn't it 1/3 as long as LOTR?" is a bad argument.
|
On August 03 2012 01:26 Whitewing wrote:
The only point is that there is easily enough material in the hobbit for 3 films, and the argument "well, isn't it 1/3 as long as LOTR?" is a bad argument.
Personally I think 3 films is too much. I know there was lots going on in the background, with Gandalf, and Sauron in Dol Guldur and Thrain and so on, but it wasn't actually in the book. It's only in the Lord of the Rings appendices - The Hobbit doesn't have any appendices itself.
I think this is because the books are very different in tone and content. LOTR is an epic tale, with the background and lore playing a major part in what's going on. The Hobbit, however, is written in a very different style, and focussed on Bilbo Baggins (hence the title), his limited view of events. It's not so much an epic fantasy, as an homely adventure story, where the protagonist isn't necessarily handsome, strong and heroic, but an ordinary bloke longing for an interesting life who gets a bit more than he bargained for. There's even a kind of moral at the end, where standing up for common sense and reason pays off in the face of great peril.
I think that's a great deal of what makes the Hobbit special, and by including all the background that wasn't actually in the book, the films will lose sight of that. That's not to say the films will necessarily be bad. I just don't think they'll really represent the nature of the book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
