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.