Peter Jackson's The Hobbit
 

Is anyone looking forward to this? I kind of am, if only to see how badly Jackson will maul the book's story. I hope he keeps Beorn in at least...

Who knows, though, maybe it'll actually be a good film. I doubt it, but, you never know. :p

I think I've asked this before, but who's Beorn?

I'm looking forward to it because I did enjoy The Lord of the Rings. Makes me think though, should I bother reading The Hobbit first or not? Might be more interesting to try and work through The Silmarillion first. My dad mentioned to me once that the reason behind Gandalf's getting the events with Bilbo and Thorin going was to get rid of Smaug before the war with Sauron came.

If the movie is anything like the cartoon, I think I'll be happy. I'm curious if he's going to put any of the songs in, and if he's going to make if a younger movie or keep within the age range of the LOTR trilogy.

Beorn is the were-bear who lives in a longhouse and puts the company up for a night before they head into Mirkwood. He was unjustly cut from the cartoon version, and if Jackson makes the same mistakes I refuse to even watch the rest of the moive.

And, for your second point, I don't think that's actually addressed in the Silm. That sounds more like a Book of Lost Tales/History of Middle-Earth sort of fact, to me. Gandalf doesn't get much screentime in the Silm.

I think I heard that he's trying to make it fit in with the atmosphere established in his LotR movies, so I can't see the songs making it in. That would kind of kill the persona he's established for the elves as detached stoic badasses.

I'm really more concerned about the content he decides to add, giving that he has 6 hours to play with. Since he's only legally allowed to use The Hobbit and LotR, most of the blanks will be filled in by his imagination, which... kind of terrifies me. I have this dread suspicion that these movies will barely even resemble Tolkien's work by the time he's done with them.

It's going to be another 6 hour endeavor? Seems a bit much, but I suppose I can't say since I haven't read the book.

Two movies for a 300-page book. Seems a tad excessive, to me, and I'm really leery on what Jackson's going to come up with to fill in all that time. I really hope he doesn't decide to try and fit the backstory of all LotR's characters into it. That would be a complete disaster, I think.

I didn't know about this one but I haven't been keeping up with current movies. At all. -hides-

-stops hiding-

Movies nowadays should either follow the books better or at least be written more for a movie pacing.

I thought he did a good enough job with LOTR as far as movie translations went, but then, it didn't have very big shoes to fill as far as predecessors went. LOTR is not something easily transferred to film, I'm not sure about The Hobbit but being that it's still Tolkein, I expect a good portion of it to be re-arranged or editted to suit a contained film rather than an open work with various attachments.

I'm not actually all that worried. I was frustrated by some of what was cut ut of LotR, but after learning some about screenwriting, I think that most of the changes made sense, and if they had not been cut, the movie would have been worse overall.

Yeah, I figured that myself once I had read the books. Some of what was cut was disapointing but most often it made sense from the perspective of a movie with an unfamiliar audience.

Don't get me wrong, the things he cut weren't so much of an issue (good-bye Tom Bombadil, wish I'd never met you, you crazy yellow-booted old fool) it was the things he added, which were normally in the vein of making Gimli into a blustering buffoon or having Legolas do something outrageous and unrealistic. He could have used those instances to add in things from the book that didn't make it in for time constraints, rather than... what, try to appeal to modern audiences? Um... hello, it's only the second-best-selling book of all time, I think it appeals plenty well on its own without dwarf-tossing jokes.

I won't get into the plotholes he caused with his deviations just now, though, since it's been a long day. There are some serious issues, though. Some of them change the entire meaning of the story. Granted, I'm critical, but I'm hardly the only person who noticed these things.

And I will admit, I liked the films when I was younger. I can barely even stand to watch them anymore, now, though. It's not that they're different than the book; if they were different and superior I'd laud the movies. The changes he made were changes for the worse, in my view. I don't know if there's a single character who made it out of the dumbing-down factory unscathed. Like, seriously, I'm drawing a blank here. I can't think of anyone.

Elf number three, the one that insulted Gimli! That was like his only line, and he was just as good as in the books.

Am I forgetting a scene (which is possible, I can see Jackson having more than one elf insult Gimli :p) or do you mean Haldir in Lothlorien who later comes to Helm's Deep.

As he wasn't really a character in the books, he got by okay, but he was a walking plothole in the movie. :p

Seriously, he brings word from who? There's no feasible way Haldir could have met the company in Lothlorien, rode to Rivendell to gather those 200 elves and then made it to Helm's Deep in time. Rivendell's on the other side of the Misty Mountains, for Eru's sake.

Meh, maybe Jackson's elves can telelport. :p

The elves were very light weight. In the Book Legolas went and grabbed the sun when they went over the misty mountain. The entire time, Legolas is practically waiting for the others to catch up, so it wouldn't be a problem for a battalion of elves to travel over a mountain and get to Helm's Deep. It provides no problem what so ever when compared to the books.

I'm not sure I follow. How do you mean "grabbed the sun"?

And I still think it's a problem, just for the fact that Haldir would have had to travel to Rivendell, take command of Elrond's army, and march them all the way to Helm's Deep. All in the span of time it took for the Fellowship to get from Lorien to Edoras to Helm's Deep.

I unfortunately have my book lent out, but if you have a copy, look at the map. That's a really long way.

Regardless, the whole issue could have been done away if he simply said "I bring word from Lady Galadriel of Lothlorien" which is, you know, where he's from.

And that would be two mountain-ranges to cross, by the way. Or, rather, Haldir would have to cross the Misty Mountains twice. They had no horses, so they clearly didn't ride around (which would have taken even longer), and not to mention, if they came south over the Misty Mountains, they would have run right into Isengard and passed Saruman's army on the way to Helm's Deep, which isn't at all indicated in the movie.

The insult was in Lothlorien "the Dwarf breaths so loud we could have shot him in the dark" and that was Haldir.

What did bother me where some of the changes made to the world, in particular the river and Caradras. It annoyed me that they made Arwen into saviour chikcy when nothing of the like happened. Frodo rode by himself and the river did what it did because it was spelled to do that if nastiness trid to cross.

I have to grudgingly admit though that it did make sense from the view of a new audience to Middle Earth. It's easy to say "she did it" than to explain why the river seemed to do that on it's own, and to have Sarumon casting a nasty spell rathern than say the mountain is just mean. I'm pretty sure the river bit was just an excuse to get Arwen into the show more. I remember the "lack of estrogen" was commented on when the movie hit theaters.

Yeah, that scene at the river is a complete butchering of the book. Probably one of the scenes I truly hate in the movies. It just ruins every character involved, especially Frodo. In the book, he rides across on his own and defies the Witch-King to his face. In the movie, he whimpers and falls of the horse. Come on.

And, I will grudgingly admit that, given Arwen's bloodline, she's likely powerful enough to have stood down the 9, but... damn it, I wanted to see Glorfindel. The guy took down a Balrog Gandalf-style. I object to him being cut. (Not really, I can see why they did it, and Arwen *is* a better choice than Legolas, like Bashiki's cartoon movie did.)

I just don't think Tolkien ever envisioned Arwen as a fighter. If anything, she probably had powers more akin to Luthiens, being able to Command with her voice.

I was in the play The Hobbit and I'm quite curious how the movie will turn out and I hope they don't do any drastic changes.

Just did a double-take there, I thought you said you were playing in The Hobbit. (as in, the upcoming movie)

Would have had some questions for you. :p

There's a play? Or was this an independant thing that you were part of? Like with school or something?

So... apparently Hugo Weaving is back as Elrond, which I'm happy to hear. I hate when characters get recast, and, despite the prevailing opinion, I liked him as Elrond in the trilogy. Even if his character did get butchered.

Edit: actually, that was over a year ago that that was confirmed, back when GDT was still directing. In that case, I hope he ends up getting the part still.

Looking some more, it sounds like Hugo Weaving is confirmed, which I'm thankful for.

Going by the cast list I was looking at, we'll also be seeing Galadriel, Legolas, Radagast the Brown, Drogo Baggins, Frodo, and old Bilbo, for characters who weren't in the book. I'm "meh" on the Hobbits and Legolas, but looking forward to seeing Radagast.

I like Hugo Weaving too. I think it would be a bit odd to see him as anyone else, especially since he played the guy in both past and future roles in Fellowship, so it would be really odd for a different Elrond to show up sometime in between.

I like him, though in all honesty, I still can't help but imagine the avatar I saw on another forum where an individual had a picture of Elrond wearing shades and a speech bubble that read, "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson." Add some green numbers in the backdrop.

I'd like to see Radagast. He wasn't much of a character in LOTR but I do remember the guy. I was on the lookout for more of the colour guys but there didn't seem to be any more beyond the three.

Is Cate Blanchett back as Galadriel? I know my dad griped that he didn't think she was attractive enough to play her. I thought she had the mysterious and elfy bit down pretty well, but I don't really have much of a reference to compare her to.

Yeah, I didn't see the Matrix movies until a year or two ago, so it was Elrond playing an Agent for me, not that other way around. :p

Cate Blanchett is indeed back as Galadriel. I thought she did rather well, as I've never really read book-Galadriel as being sensuously pretty and attractive so much as sublimely, almost abstractly and ethereally beautiful, almost literally inhumanly beautiful, to the point where it nearly crosses a line into disturbing or creepy, which I thought she portrayed almost perfectly.

I doubt it was generally being sensuous and pretty that he was commenting on, but I can imagine portraying that otherworldy-ness would be really difficult given we have only mere mortal actors to work with. Not without some manner of special effects anyway.

I think they did use mild CG on her in the films. :p

I think everyone had a wee bit of CG done now and then. Or a lot of make-up, but that's a given.

Huh, why do you doubt it will be a good movie?
The Lord of the Rings is one of the BEST adaptions ever. I haven't seen any movie that came as close to the feeling of the book as LotR... why would it be different for The Hobbit?

I just hope The Hobbit will be of the same quality.
Although I doubt I will like it as much because The Hobbit is REALLY written for children and I am not a fan of that style. ^^"

Ven, you just haven't read Suzerain's reactions to the LotR movies. If I remember right it's over in his "All things Tolkien" thread.. go look and you'll probably see why he feels this way ;)

Will do that.
Because I wonder who might dislike the most perfect adaptions in the history of movies! XD

It's called an opinion. And mine is so far from yours, there probably isn't much point in us even discussing it. I honestly think they completely fail as adaptations and should be called "Peter Jackson's: The Lord of the Rings, (loosely) inspired by the work of J.R.R. Tolkien".

I agree with most of Eldorion's points here, if you want a run-down of the problems I have with it, though I don't consider myself a purist. I just feel like the story Jackson told is inferior in almost every way to the story Tolkien told.

If he'd told a better story than Tolkien, I wouldn't complain.

Edit:

I just think there is no way to get the book into a movie without those changes.
It wouldn't work, no matter WHO tried it.

I wouldn't want to watch a 20 hour movie, personally.
That's what the book is for. Books and movies are just SO different that you can never compare them without being disappointed.

I think there would have been no way to make it better without making it boring as a movie.
Probably because I like slow and descriptive books but I would fall asleep if a movie was like that.

But to each their own. *shrug*

I just hope The Hobbit is better than the book. Because the style of the book was so childish, I just don't like it at all. :<

I'm wasn't even remotely "annoyed" with anything you said. I just completely disagree with you, and on top of that feel like you don't understand my position. But, I don't have any interest whatsoever in convincing you otherwise.

I can go into great depth as to why specific decisions in the design were detrimental to the films' quality in my opinion, but I'm not going to waste my time with that unless you're genuinely interested, which I can't imagine you are.

Regardless, not one of the assertions you made in the above post represents my feelings on the subject.

I liked the adaptations myself but I'm not as particular or knowledgable about the Tolkein universe as I could be. I found the movie adequate for thsoe who aren't familiar with Tolkein overall and are not inclined to go deeper into the stories. I can imagine how changes made to the LOTR story could mess with those in the Silmarillion and other books. I do agree that to a point, that can't be helped because of the choice of media. It could have been worse though. One of the earlier contracts details had worked out only two movies for the series, and then because of cost, dwindled down to the entire LOTR condensed into one two and a half hour film. That was when Miramax (I think. Might have been Universal) had the rights. It wasn't until New Line picked it up that it was returned to the original three movie format Jackson wanted to begin with.

I don't think you can chastize The Hobbit for being childish though. From what I understand, it is a child's book, so I wouldn't be surprised if the movie isn't as mature as one would like.

Did I imply I was worried The Hobbit would be childish at some point? I didn't mean to, if I did. I don't think these movies will be childish at all, given the direction Jackson seems to be taking them. Whether that will work in the films' favor, or against it, we shall have to see.

And speaking of time constraints in the movies, that's precisely the problem. When you already have to cut things left, right, and center to make the story fit into the allotted time-frame, there is no excuse whatsoever for injecting invented scenes, especially invented scenes that drastically depart from the books' story for no net gain.

Also, just as films (rather than adaptations) I still can't bring myself to like them. There are just far too many issues with pacing and plot (let alone characterization) for me to get on-board the Jackson train.

Ven made a comment about The Hobbit book being childish, so I added my two cents on it. I did hear once on a biography of Tolkein that the series was something to be read as people age, starting with The Hobbit as children and then LOTR later on. Not sure where The Silmarillion would fall, seeing as it wasn't finished by him. I suppose it could be considered a seperate but related piece since it takes place in a different age of Middle Earth than the others do.

You underestimate me if you think I will not be able to understand your position just because I disagree with it.
After all, I also assume you understand mine.
I would indeed be interested in hearing your reasons. (:
I am a huge fan of the books myself, I just never compared them to the movies.

The "All Things Tolkein" thread in the book forum is a good place to talk about general Tolkein stuff. The movie did come up of course, along with other topics on the stories if you're interested in that. The absence of Tom Bombadil from the movie came up, though I can't recall whether or not that was considered anything significant. As far as it was concerned for Fellowship I don't think it mattered all that much since he doesn't appear anywhere else in the three. Although, I do notice that some of his story was still there, Jackson just gave it to Treebeard instead.

Yeah, I noticed Tom missing of course but I think it was fine that way.
He would have been weird in the movie if you consider the overall pace of the first movie.
In the book so much more time passed anyway.
Wasn't Frodo around forty or fifty when taking the Ring?
I don't really remember those details. It's been so long since I last read the books.

Edit: I already checked the thread but it was all so in depth that it scared me off. XD

Heh. I'm no Tolkein expert (that's Suzerain's job at the moment) but I like to chat about it anyway.

I can't recall how old Frodo would have been. I only remember his little speech in the end of Return of the King where he says it was thirteen months to the day to complete the journey.

I would like to have seen Ian Holm as Bilbo again, in a bigger role this time of course, but I doubt that's really practical given he's not a young actor. Makes sense to bring in someone different I suppose.