[Suzerain of Sheol]

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.

[Quiet Man Cometh]

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.

[Suzerain of Sheol]

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.

[Quiet Man Cometh]

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.

[Kotetsu]

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.

[Quiet Man Cometh]

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.

[Kotetsu]

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

[Quiet Man Cometh]

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.

[Suzerain of Sheol]

Ian Holm will be in it, somehow. I imagine they'll do an intro or something of him and Frodo reading the Red Book.

@Ven: I don't think you're incapable of understanding my position. I said, from what you posted so far, I get the impression that you don't, as I've encounter people who treat the films the way you complained about, but I don't consider myself one of them.

I 'll need some time to type up my issues with the movies, but I'll get working on it.

Also, Tom Bombadil had no business even being in the book; Tolkien himself admitted that in a letter later on. Cutting him should never have even been a question. He's totally out-of-tune with the rest of the world and story.

And Frodo was in his early 50s, I believe, though he was young when the ring actually passed to him. Granted, Hobbits age slightly slower than humans, but having him played by an 18-year-old really stretches the story, and, ultimately, changes his character (or at least sets a precedent that Jackson follows up on many times throughout, of making Frodo less heroic and more of a wimp.)

[Kotetsu]

Wasn't Frodo 30 when he got the ring and didn't age since then?
Elijah Wood looks like 25 to me in the movies, so it does seem really fitting for me. Although I don't really like him.

I am curious to read your reply since you seem to know what you are talking about.

[Suzerain of Sheol]

He had the ring for... I want to say 17 years (my copy of the book is loaned out at the moment) before the quest began, and he was, I want to say 52, which would leave his halted aging at 35. So, you do have a bit of a point, but casting someone that young is really a head-scratching moment for me, especially since they cut out most of Frodo's more youthful moments (like dancing on the table, singing "The Cow Jumped Over the Moon" at Bree....)

And... this is a bit crazy, but I'm thinking of starting another thread where I'd review the films one scene per post, since I have a lot to say on the subject, and I would need to watch the films again to give a really thorough analysis, as it's been a while, but they're a bit long, in case you never noticed. :p

[Kotetsu]

I'd read that thread! xD

Yeah, I guess they didn't want another all too cheerful hobbit when they already had Merry and Pippin? It might have seemed too much in the movie.
I know that happened in Transformers 2 and it was annoying. :<
Of course Transformers can't be compared to LotR but you get what I mean. xD

[Suzerain of Sheol]

Okay, I'll add that to my growing list of thins I need to get on task with, then. Luckily, I actually want to do that one. :p

And, I, for one, am very happy they cut out Frodo's song-and-dance show. That would have looked ridiculous.

And... uh... don't bring up Transformers with me. Seriously, don't. :p

[Kotetsu]

Huh, I guess you don't like popcorn movies.

[Suzerain of Sheol]

I don't actually many movies, as a rule, actually. I blame TVTropes.

[Kotetsu]

Oh well, I like many many movies. Crank, Matrix, Inception, Hangover, Transformers, A Knight's Tale, LotR, Harry Potter, X-Men: First Class, and so on and so on. But that doesn't matter here. xD
I'm looking forward to your thread, though.