Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Deadline.com: Orlando to reprise Legolas in 'Hobbit'
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next page Last page  View All

tumhalad
Bree


Dec 10 2010, 12:58am

Post #126 of 269 (13824 views)
Shortcut
     My two cents [In reply to]  

I'm afraid, for the moment, it feels like "Arwen will replace Glorfindel", or even "Arwen will fight at Helm's Deep" time again - egregious changes appear to be afoot that have nothing to do with the Hobbit at all. I'd like to address some of the arguments that are croping up in defense of these needless flights of fancy, because 1. I think they are misguided, and 2. They have not been addressed fully yet.

1. The Hobbit films are just that: films. They are a different medium to the books and should therefore be treated differently (OK, I'm kind of with you so far). Ergo, characters like Legolas can be transplanted full scale into the movie to add coherence, or allow for the audience to better engage with the films, or something vague like that. This is related to the second argument which says that:

2. The Hobbit films form a part of the continuum with the already produced LOTR films. Audiences will be expecting some kind of visual/spatial/character continuity. Ergo, characters like Legolas and Galadriel who are not mentioned in the book should be included in the films to aid this sense of continuity with audiences who have only ever seen the films.

These seem to be the main arguments in favour of treating the Hobbit films like an excuse to revel in gimmicky play, so allow me to address them both. To begin with, I can't believe I'm hearing the first argument again. It was (and is) used to somehow condone the "character shifts" and other silly "shifts" indulged in by the LOTR crew. Needless to say, it has well and truly been discredited, if you go read boards like Minas Tirith forums, and the great defenders of the book who artuculately take down the "philes'" arguments. There is simply no good reason to think that because films and books are different, you much make egregious and out-of-context changes that serve to distort the plot and the message. Take, as one salient example, the "radioactive Galadriel scene in the book". Archer commented on this in the Minas Tirith forums:

"The "radioactive Galadriel" scene (as it was put so well by another MT citizen ) is one of the scenes where a film elf departs most markedly from the mirthful elves of the books. This terrifying banshee scene really destroys the beautiful-interwoven with-the-terrible image that Galadriel conveys in the books. I always envision her like a terrifying but strikingly awesome thunderstorm. What the film turns her into is just terrifying, more Green Goblin than Goldenwood elf. And the film fails (doesn't even try really) to convey that very haunting "mirthful yet sad" quality that the elves of Lorien possess. Even though there is a deep sadness in them, they retain the ability to laugh. Galadriel often does so, even when she is tempted beyond all desire.

'You are wise and fearless and fair, Lady Galadriel,' said Frodo. 'I will give you the One Ring, if you ask for it. It is too great a matter for me.'
Galadriel laughed with a sudden clear laugh [emphasis mine]. 'Wise the lady Galadriel may be,' she said, 'yet here she has met her match her match in courtesy.
""


It is this kind of attention to detail that lacks in the films, regardless of all the embosed emblems that-we-can't-see-on-screen in the world. There is no reason, however, for it not being included - instead we are left with two dimensional elves who possess little of the ethereal quality found in Tolkien's book. Often, when I go back to read the book, I have to disabuse myself of the images and associations the film conjures for me in order to emerse myself back into Middle-earth as it was originally written. Granted, this is not a particularly inspiring example, but there are myriad others, from the changing of characters' sensibilities, to the central metaphysical/ideological ideas that give the ring its metaphorical power. In short, characters, landscapes, the plot, every element of the book is shifted in some way that detracts from its original grandeur, power, or scope. There are rarely good excuses for these changes, and the general "but its a film, it can't be the same" is certainly disqualified as a good excuse. No-one, I repeat, no-one, has ever argued that you either have PJ's version OR a kind of ultra-purist word-for-word redaction (OMG, that would be sooo long, they say). If you think that's what I want, you would be wrong and stupid. But PJ's version is no where near optimal. It distorts, shifts, and changes egregiously, without basis, without reason. Legolas appearing in the Hobbit is just the latest example of that team's mad envisionings, which brings us to the second argument.

But the Hobbit is a prequel, whether you like it or not! People with think of it that way! It has to have some characters in it from LOTR otherwise people will...what? Go mad? collapse in their seats? Have a seizure? If you haven't noticed, Bilbo and Gandalf, two central characters in the LOTR, also appear in the Hobbit, as does Elrond, and Gollum. No one with half a brain will be in any doubt about the universe we're in, we're just in a more fairy tale like, less historical version of it, which brings me to my next point. Legolas would have been AT Mirkwook at the time, surely! OMG, he should be there, its LOGICAL! Well, no, and for one simple reason. Middle-earth is not real history, it is a fantasy land fleshed out in some books. These books are discrete and each stands alone, despite the "historical" connections that link them. Others have pointed out that Tolkien tried revising to the Hobbit to make it more like LOTR. Essentially what this means is that he tried to historicise the work, to "make it fit" into the scheme of history he had developed for LOTR. Thankfully, he gave up, and saw the wisdom of allowing the Hobbit to stand on its own literary merits. The filmmakers should take a leaf from Tolkien's book and learn from some of his mistakes: The moment you try to historicise something that is fundementally amourphous in terms of time and space, which the Hobbit is (it is interesting that many natural features are merely named generically: The Water, The River Running etc, pointing toward a world-view that is fundementally more fairy-tale like, less historically/politically bounded than the world in the Lord of the Rings) you lose a great deal of its poignancy, its power to move.

LOTR works for other reasons, and readers have often noted its creation of a sense of historical verissimilitude. The Hobbit is a different beast - it features talking animals (which, by God, should be included) Beorn, a shape shifter, talking eagles, mysterious and not-all-together friendly elves, Men from myth, and for god's sake, a Talking Dragon. These are all elements of fairy tale. Its geography is never centred or bounded, instead, we are to imagine "Wilderland" as a part of some ill defined greater landscape of which we, and the characters, have no knowledge (I know, I know, in LOTR we see it in its "true" context - as a part of Middle-earth. Well yes, okay, it is, but as readers of the Hobbit, we're no quite sure about that. Naturally, many film goers will have already seen the LOTR films, but that is no good reason to mention "Gondor" or "Rohan" egregiously - we should feel like we in some myseterious, far more faery like place). It is the tension between the fairy-tale and the historical sensibilities that seem to me to motivate many of the responses on this board. Many wish to include it as a kind of series linking to LOTR, and therefore make it a kind of historical romance. Others argue for its different, more fairy like atmosphere. This brings us to the crux of the issue: Should the Hobbit be treated as a prequel, or as a stand alone work? Firstly, I think we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that audiences will be in any doubt about the world wherein the film takes place, something I've addressed above. Secondly, it is necessary to change our mindset. There is no cosmic law that dictates we include characters in the Hobbit merely because they occur in the historical timeline in the Appendices. Once again, we return to the notion of the Historical vs. the Literary. The Hobbit is a novel in its own right, there is no a priori reason to historicise it. It should be adapted as a literary, not as a historical, piece of fiction. Rest assured, audiences will not balk at talking animals, or feel drousy at the absense of Galadriel. Galadriel, and Legolas, and Saruman - these characters should not be in the Hobbit at all, because they do not occur in the literary work that is the Hobbit which the filmmakers say they are adapting for screen. Notice I am not arguing that they should make no changes. Don't make that silly argument. I'm merely advocating adherence to the text insofar as is possible given the differences between film and novel, differences that are widely known, obvious and unsurprising even to the most ardent purist, of which I am one.

Alas, it is not to be. We shall not see the Hobbit. Instead, we shall see The Hobbit: and Gandalf's Adventures with Galadriel, and Legolas Falls In Love. But that's okay, because a film these days must have a romance, you say. Why? Plenty of films don't. Plenty of those films work. The success of a film does not depend, or should not depend, on its adherence to certain codes or models; it depends on the skill of the filmmakers. The Hobbit can work on film. There is absolutely no good reason why it should not, in the general form the story takes in the book. But what about Gandalf's adventures!!! Surely we need to SEE them, you say, to keep the audience interested!!. No, why not just do what the book does: keep the focus on Bilbo, and keep Gandalf in the background. This is not his story. It's not called "The Wizard", but perhaps the films should be. The vague little mention of Gandalf taking out someone called "the Necromancer" at the end of the book should also suffice in the film. Once again, why assume that audiences will keel over in dismay if we don't know, down to the precise detail, what Gandalf is doing? Sure, it might build some suspence, but once again - the FOCUS should always be on Bilbo as it is in the novel. If the film is made well, audiences shouldn't be too concerned about what Gandalf has been up to. Like readers of the book, they will be curious, but like readers of the book they will also see that Bilbo's adventure is far more central and forms the moral heart of the tale. That curiosity can be sated at the end with a few words, not a whole pointless subplot, the details of which are pretty fuzzy even in Tolkien's writings. Perhaps they will do it well. Perhaps. Even if they do, it still constitutes nothing more than fan fiction, and a dangerous fan fiction at that. Sure, the films may inspire more readers to take up Tolkien, but when they do they shall be confused, and once again the yawning and ever widening gap between the films and the books will rear its ugly head.


TheGoblinKing
Rohan

Dec 10 2010, 1:11am

Post #127 of 269 (13787 views)
Shortcut
     They Left It Open In Fellowship. [In reply to]  

When Gandalf says to Frodo. If your refer to the incident with The Dragon. I was Barely Involved. That told me if a Hobbit was made that we see Gandalf being fully involved for Gandalf never states full truths when it comes to wizard matters. Him saying wasn't much involved in Gandalf terms means was involved.


gilgalad80
The Shire

Dec 10 2010, 1:27am

Post #128 of 269 (13847 views)
Shortcut
     Don't get carried away people.. [In reply to]  

Let's see the movie first before we make all kinds of assumptions as to how they may or may not change the story..
I'm sure the focus won't be on Legolas.. OR Galadriel.. These are accompanying characters who make perfect sense being included in the locations and events taking place in story. I'm confident they'll stick pretty close to the original story maybe only with minor changes for the sake of the medium of film.
Personally I think they captured the mirthful yet powerful quality of Galadriel very well in the films.. the "Galadriel temptation" scene included.


tumhalad
Bree


Dec 10 2010, 1:33am

Post #129 of 269 (13765 views)
Shortcut
     To clear things up [In reply to]  

Might you then elaborate on why you think the Galadriel scene captured the "mirthfull" quality of the elves? For I do not see it. Anyway, I was not arguing that either Legolas or Galadriel would be the focus; if you read my post I'm clearly talking about their mere presense in the film, regardless of the role they play. As for my getting carried away, well it is definite that Legolas is in the film, therefore regardless of the role he plays my argument has merit. Notice I'm making a focused argument about particular points, I'm not merely speculating, so what I'm hoping is that people read my post carefully and don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm fully aware the film hasn't been released yet, but already Cate Blanchette and Orlando Bloom have been revealed as cast members. As such, their characters will be present in the film. Moreover, we can be near certain that the textually vague "Dol Guldur", "Galadriel laid bare its pits" (ok, that does sound cool) storyline will be included. My argument follows from taking these things to be true, and then mountain a critique of their inclusion.


(This post was edited by tumhalad on Dec 10 2010, 1:38am)


JWPlatt
Grey Havens

Dec 10 2010, 1:35am

Post #130 of 269 (13786 views)
Shortcut
     Four Cents Worth [In reply to]  

Two cents? Heh.

1. The James Cameron Law of Filmmaking demands the inclusion of romance to gather a marketable audience and successful film (two different concepts, but they work together) to create favorable conditions to get the film made at all. Cameron has been relentless is proving it, and other filmmakers notice, or ignore it at their peril.

2. Most fans (the norm) *want* to see what went on with Gandalf. We like him. And we like Galadriel. A lot. We even like Legolas. They *want* to be found.

3. Camelot. How many books are faithful to the original story? Some might say there really is no "original" story of Camelot and authors just take the loose framework of myth and make it their own. Well, someone was the first person to inspire that story. Come back in as many years as we've put between the origins of the Camelot story and now to see what has been done with Middle Earth and you're not likely to recgnize it so well. "So it begins," as they say. It's the dynamic nature of storytelling to evolve the story to your contemporary audience. I think Tolkien even said he had hopes for something like that.

4. The self-consistent telling of the story of Middle Earth (in our times) leaves open the possibility for even more movies from all the other Tolkien writings. Some day.


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Dec 10 2010, 1:37am)


tumhalad
Bree


Dec 10 2010, 1:55am

Post #131 of 269 (13721 views)
Shortcut
     A response [In reply to]  

W1. James Cameron? Well, I'm not familiar with his "Law" but it seems rather fatuous to me. If the Hobbit were to be executed well, there are a great plethora of events, incident, character and plot that do not involve romance that would nonetheless draw a marketable audience. I see no reason whatsoever to think otherwise - and if you want to argue this don't just cite some questionable authority figures, field some kind of case.

2. Ah yes, the old "what fans want" argument. On face value, it's difficult to refute. Nonetheless, I see no reason to suppose that merely because people *like* these characters, they should be included. People like Glorfindel, and Feanor, and a host of other Middle-earth characters. Should we include them too. Ah, you say, but Galadriel et al. are familiar from the LOTR films. Well, just re-read my post above. The Hobbit should be treated as a literary creation, and the fact of some characters' 'presence' in the Appendix timeline does not warrant their inclusion in the Hobbits. Most viewers, the (norm) as you say, will be aware of the land we're in, what with Gandalf, Elrond and Gollum. If PJ et al. were to make a great film based on Bilbo's adventures, there should be no reason to include these extraneous characters. The story and its characters should stand on their own merits.

3. Another old argument. Two words: False analogy. The Arthur myths do not possess some kind of acknowledged authoritative "version" written down by one author. LOTR and the Hobbit are essentially romantic novels, and they are, and should be, considered *the* versions of the story. You never hear people argue that Jane Austin's books are akin to the Matter of Britain (i.e. the Arthur cycle); they are discrete works of fiction that should be recognised as such. Another way to put it: you are confusing medieval and modern fiction. Tolkien, for all the swords and sandals (or breeches) wrote modern fiction, he is the acknowledged author, it is his story, his creation, and the filmmakers are adapting a film from the book he wrote. Once again, they are not adapting a folk legend, they are adapting a literary work of fiction. There is every reason to think they therefore have an obligation to this work and that they should acknowledge its primacy.

4. Ummm, yeah, so?


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Dec 10 2010, 2:11am

Post #132 of 269 (13758 views)
Shortcut
     You have the high moral ground [In reply to]  

and I do honestly agree with most of all of what you say but...The opposition has the the rights and the budget.
I think we, as a large community of Tolkien Enthusiasts, must try to guide the production within the framework of what is likely to be produced.
We are not going to see The Hobbit in its literary pristine form. We know this from statements made by those making the movies. So this makes total opposition moral but foolish. Now I don't want to look like a"booby"(see other thread for reference) so i have chosen the path of trying to throw light on possible sins that might be prevented by our criticism of the idea, Probably wont work either but it has a slightly better chance.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


tumhalad
Bree


Dec 10 2010, 2:15am

Post #133 of 269 (13749 views)
Shortcut
     I agree [In reply to]  

Smile Yep, I agree with you totally. I realise that many of the changes are going to go ahead, what with Galadriel etc, I suppose I'm just interested in taking down the arguments for why this should happen, as well as minimise the fallout from these changes through criticism. It seems to me that many of the arguments made in defence of these ideas just treat them as normal and to be expected, when in fact they can and should be criticised. That does not, of course, deny the fact that I am powerless to prevent them.


TheGoblinKing
Rohan

Dec 10 2010, 3:51am

Post #134 of 269 (13748 views)
Shortcut
     Why Is It So Hard To Figure For People [In reply to]  

PJ is mixing Unfinished Tales and The Hobbit book into one film in order to more or less at least link things up to LOTR. For it is a Prequel and Galadrial and Legolas make since to me being in it. If gonna Have The White Council then Galadrial is needed as well as Eldrond.


Lindele
Gondor

Dec 10 2010, 3:53am

Post #135 of 269 (13741 views)
Shortcut
     Perhaps you are right... [In reply to]  


In Reply To
Let's avatarize it-3D. Let's Harry potterize it-2 films. Let's twilightize it- romance novel in a fantasy setting


Peter Jackson, the indie filmmaker from New Zealand, gets his filmmaking techniques from Twilight and Avatar. It has been his grand scheme to commercialize The Hobbit as much as possible, and remove all artistic merit from the story.
One would think that after his brilliant translation of LOTR from book to screen that he would have more sense than that, but no, after he saw Twilight he realized that The Hobbit film must contain a love story!
Silly us for trusting a brilliant filmmaker.


(This post was edited by Lindele on Dec 10 2010, 3:58am)


Lindele
Gondor

Dec 10 2010, 4:09am

Post #136 of 269 (13692 views)
Shortcut
     Just want to clarify [In reply to]  


In Reply To

In Reply To
Let's avatarize it-3D. Let's Harry potterize it-2 films. Let's twilightize it- romance novel in a fantasy setting


Peter Jackson, the indie filmmaker from New Zealand, gets his filmmaking techniques from Twilight and Avatar. It has been his grand scheme to commercialize The Hobbit as much as possible, and remove all artistic merit from the story.
One would think that after his brilliant translation of LOTR from book to screen that he would have more sense than that, but no, after he saw Twilight he realized that The Hobbit film must contain a love story!
Silly us for trusting a brilliant filmmaker.


That all of the above was said with the utmost sarcasm


tumhalad
Bree


Dec 10 2010, 4:13am

Post #137 of 269 (13734 views)
Shortcut
     You miss the point [In reply to]  


In Reply To
PJ is mixing Unfinished Tales and The Hobbit book into one film in order to more or less at least link things up to LOTR. For it is a Prequel and Galadrial and Legolas make since to me being in it. If gonna Have The White Council then Galadrial is needed as well as Eldrond.




Okay, I fully realise that if the filmmakers decide to include the White Council sequence, they shall (and have been) forced to include the character of Galadriel. The problem is that the inclusion of the White Council sequence is out of place and unnecessary to begin with, for reasons that I've already elaborated upon. It all stems from this fatuous idea that the Hobbit films need to "link" to the Lord of the Rings films. As I've already made a case for, there is not good reason for why we should think this. Personally, it seems that this philosophy is linked to a set of baseless assumptions, the most prevalent of which is the notion that, due to the fact that the LOTR films were made first, the Hobbit has some kind of obligation to "fit" to its historical and visual aesthetic. As I am not a fan of LOTR films, I cannot conceive of a worst fate for the Hobbit films, and I hope that despite all the silly inclusions of Legolas and Galadriel they maintain something of its fairy-tale charm. As I discussed in my post above, the Hobbit films should be treated as literary adaptations; that is, the Hobbit's story as it is conceived in plot and atmosphere should as faithfully as possible be duplicated on film. As I also stressed, this does not mean I am against all change, obviously the translation from one medium to another requires some shifts in plot direction etc. But I fear the kind of wholesale disregard for the characters as they were written displayed in the LOTR films will be duplicated in the Hobbit.


(This post was edited by tumhalad on Dec 10 2010, 4:20am)


Lindele
Gondor

Dec 10 2010, 4:29am

Post #138 of 269 (13717 views)
Shortcut
     Wow... [In reply to]  

Well I can't say that I agree with absolutely everything you said, but I can say that I cannot, and will not, argue with you. You make some very good points.
But the reality is that PJ did create a version of LOTR and Middle-earth, and I'm guessing that to him, adding the historical relevance to the "fairy tale" may be an important part of HIS translation. Creating in a more visual and literal way those "hints" of what Gandalf was doing may be an important addition to HIS story. I understand that The Hobbit as told by Tolkien did not include that, but I think deep down he wanted it to.
This is an opportunity for us to see those behind the scenes moments, and the historical timeline of the ring and the rise of Sauron. If you are really interested in keeping The Hobbit "fairy," and the way it is in the book, then I think your best bet is to stick to the book, and not look for it in PJ's film adaptation.
Having said that, I have no idea what the two films will ultimately look like, and I could be proven very wrong. And maybe I just did argue with you when I said I wouldn't. Oh well.


duats
Grey Havens

Dec 10 2010, 4:36am

Post #139 of 269 (13629 views)
Shortcut
     I would say... [In reply to]  

That there is already enough of a link between The Hobbit and LoTR, without the need of all these reunions and additions.

The Hobbit has Bilbo, and establishes the Shire.
The Hobbit has Bilbo finding the One Ring.
The Hobbit has Gandalf, and establishes his friendship with Bilbo and love for the Shire. The Hobbit has Gollum.
The Hobbit has Elrond, and establishes Rivendell.
The Hobbit shows Bilbo getting the mithril vest.

Need I go on? There are plenty of links to LoTR, within the actual Hobbit text, without the need to delve into the Unfinished Tales.


(This post was edited by duats on Dec 10 2010, 4:38am)


Mooseboy018
Grey Havens


Dec 10 2010, 4:48am

Post #140 of 269 (13628 views)
Shortcut
     ruined forever! [In reply to]  

"I always envision her like a terrifying but strikingly awesome thunderstorm. What the film turns her into is just terrifying, more Green Goblin than Goldenwood elf."

Translation: That scene wasn't exactly how I envisioned it when I read it, and that makes it bad.

Laugh

But I do get where you guys are coming from. The elves aren't exactly like they were in the books, but I think they worked well for the films.


(This post was edited by Mooseboy018 on Dec 10 2010, 4:49am)


tumhalad
Bree


Dec 10 2010, 4:49am

Post #141 of 269 (13701 views)
Shortcut
     Some bad assumptions [In reply to]  


In Reply To

... the reality is that PJ did create a version of LOTR and Middle-earth, and I'm guessing that to him, adding the historical relevance to the "fairy tale" may be an important part of HIS translation. Creating in a more visual and literal way those "hints" of what Gandalf was doing may be an important addition to HIS story. I understand that The Hobbit as told by Tolkien did not include that, but I think deep down he wanted it to.
This is an opportunity for us to see those behind the scenes moments, and the historical timeline of the ring and the rise of Sauron. If you are really interested in keeping The Hobbit "fairy," and the way it is in the book, then I think your best bet is to stick to the book, and not look for it in PJ's film adaptation.
Having said that, I have no idea what the two films will ultimately look like, and I could be proven very wrong. And maybe I just did argue with you when I said I wouldn't. Oh well.

Okay, I appreciate where you are coming from, but once again, this is an old argument, the "But it's PJ's version" argument. You appear to assume that there is some kind of "Hobbit" story beyond the text (i.e. outside of what is written in the Hobbit) so that while Tolkien didn't go there, it is PJ's right to give us the "opportunity" to see what Gandalf really did while he was away. Unfortunately for your argument, there is no "hobbit" story outside the text. Yes there are Tolkien's other jottings, like those included in UT, but they are not "The Hobbit" - they are later revisions designed in part to harmonise the "political" elements of the story contained in the Hobbit with those in LOTR. As I explained in my initial post, this tinkering, while kind of interesting, ultimately serves to lessen the poignancy of the story if one assumes that it stands on an equal footing with The Hobbit itself. So to assert that we should just say that it's PJs vision, and that's that, is kind of defeatist, as well as missing the point. Of course it's PJ's vision, but what I've been trying to argue is that PJ is not the ex nihilo creator of this universe, and that he therefore has a duty to adhere to the literary text (as opposed to Tolkien's vague notes or his own imaginings). He is adapting the Hobbit. If he wanted to make a fantasy film with his own ideas, I'm all for it, but it should not be called the Hobbit.

There is no "Hobbit as told by Tolkien" as opposed to "Hobbit as told by Jackson". This kind of phrasing makes it seem as if the Hobbit story is some kind of amourphous legend that can adapted by either Tolkien or Jackson, adding and leaving out elements according to their personal whims. Indeed, this is a fatal misunderstanding. There is only the Hobbit as told by Tolkien. Then there is "Hobbit as adapted by Jackson" - which changes the argument considerably. Jackson therefore has an obligation to remain faithful to the text, which is the only Hobbit story that there is. Jackson's "vision" is not equal to Tolkien's, a point unfortunately made obvious by some of the travesties that infect the LOTR movies.


hutch
Rohan


Dec 10 2010, 4:56am

Post #142 of 269 (13685 views)
Shortcut
     with Leggy here the dwarves can remain dwarves without having to be eye candy [In reply to]  

i'm happy to see old friends-esp. when they make sense. i'm baffled by the backlash. we owe PJ the benefit of the doubt. i don't see a reason to doubt someone who made the impossible happen so well the first time-(yes i know not everyone enjoyed his version of ME, but the majority did).
i can't say i liked everything he did to LOTR but he did so much of it right or better than i'd hoped that his mishaps were very slight.
if any 'cameo' could be argued to be okay, i'd wager it's Leggy.
and personally i'd love to see Aragorn (VM) back doing some searches for Gollum with Gandalf. i always wish those adventure had been expanded upon. here's a chance. i wish there was still a bridge film so all the TH purists could be appeased and those of us who want a more expanded vision could have the bridge film.


(This post was edited by hutch on Dec 10 2010, 4:59am)


Lindele
Gondor

Dec 10 2010, 5:01am

Post #143 of 269 (13670 views)
Shortcut
     I totally understand [In reply to]  

what you are saying, and I absolutely respect it.
I just don't personally have a problem with making a "The Hobbit +" film. I understand that you do, and I think that is an honorable quality.
Maybe you are right, and it shouldn't be called The Hobbit, but it will be.
I don't think I could ever come to your side (who knows, maybe!!), because I thrive off of continuity. But I do feel for those who hate to see these films adapted in a way that is not true to the book.
As a writer, and filmmaker, myself. I find it easy to believe that Tolkien would have wanted to include history and continuity. But there will always be two sides to the argument. And you have every right to feel the way you do, and dislike the films.
But I love what PJ did with LOTR (different and often tragic though that may be!), and I have complete faith that I will enjoy what he does with The Hobbit.


tumhalad
Bree


Dec 10 2010, 5:09am

Post #144 of 269 (13682 views)
Shortcut
     hmmmmm [In reply to]  


In Reply To
i'm happy to see old friends-esp. when they make sense. i'm baffled by the backlash. we owe PJ the benefit of the doubt. i don't see a reason to doubt someone who made the impossible happen so well the first time-(yes i know not everyone enjoyed his version of ME, but the majority did).
i can't say i liked everything he did to LOTR but he did so much of it right or better than i'd hoped that his mishaps were very slight.
if any 'cameo' could be argued to be okay, i'd wager it's Leggy.
and personally i'd love to see Aragorn (VM) back doing some searches for Gollum with Gandalf. i always wish those adventure had been expanded upon. here's a chance.


Baffled by the backlash?

-People are allowed to express their opinions, even when they baffle you, thank god.

We owe PJ the benefit of the doubt?


-I'm not sure we "owe" PJ anything. He is the filmmaker, it is his duty to produce a good movie, one that reasonably adheres to the text he is supposedly adapting for the screen.

someone who made the impossible happen...

-LOTR was never impossible; it is this kind of thinking and fawning over PJ that inhibits proper criticism. There is absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be criticised for valid reasons.

yes i know not everyone enjoyed his version of ME, but the majority did


-the old "majority loved it" argument. Basically, so what? If the focus was pleasing an audience why adapt LOTR at all? Why not just make a fantasy adventure like Willow. No, the reason LOTR was adapted was because it was already popular, as a book. There are no good reasons for some of the changes PJ made.

he did so much of it right or better than i'd hoped that his mishaps were very slight.

-No, they were not slight. He fundementally changed the characteristics of the protagonists, shifted scenes egregiously, and made mince meat of the central messages of the book.

if any 'cameo' could be argued to be okay, i'd wager it's Leggy.


-Unfortunately "Leggy" is slated for more than a cameo Mad

and personally i'd love to see Aragorn (VM) back doing some searches for Gollum with Gandalf. i always wish those adventure had been expanded upon. here's a chance

-
No, this is a chance to film The Hobbit, not to engage in gimmicky absurdities with little or no basis in the text.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Dec 10 2010, 5:12am

Post #145 of 269 (13643 views)
Shortcut
     The Hobbit can not use the material only in Unfinished Tales but [In reply to]  

the writers can (and I would say did) use the appendices to the Lord of the Rings.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


tumhalad
Bree


Dec 10 2010, 5:17am

Post #146 of 269 (13684 views)
Shortcut
     I appreciate your position [In reply to]  


In Reply To
what you are saying, and I absolutely respect it.
I just don't personally have a problem with making a "The Hobbit +" film. I understand that you do, and I think that is an honorable quality.
Maybe you are right, and it shouldn't be called The Hobbit, but it will be.
I don't think I could ever come to your side (who knows, maybe!!), because I thrive off of continuity. But I do feel for those who hate to see these films adapted in a way that is not true to the book.
As a writer, and filmmaker, myself. I find it easy to believe that Tolkien would have wanted to include history and continuity. But there will always be two sides to the argument. And you have every right to feel the way you do, and dislike the films.
But I love what PJ did with LOTR (different and often tragic though that may be!), and I have complete faith that I will enjoy what he does with The Hobbit.


Cool. Smile I respect your position as well. I'd just like to say that I am looking forward to it: it is exciting, even if it's beginning to sound all gimmicky like the LOTR films were to a great degree. I'd just like to address one point: that of continuity. Even if the Hobbit were adapted well, i.e. as faithfully in tone and plot to the written text as possible, there would still be plenty of continuity. Elrond, Gollum, the Ring, Elves, Rivendell, giant spiders; these are all aspects of Middle-earth that we are familiar with. As it stands, I'm sure lots of this will be included, and it seems to me that the filmmakers and aiming for some kind of equilibrium. I think this is the wrong approach, but hopefully we'll still see many of the elements we're familiar with from the book, as well as some of the tone, which I think is central.


duats
Grey Havens

Dec 10 2010, 5:23am

Post #147 of 269 (13675 views)
Shortcut
     To clarify [In reply to]  

I don't mean to suggest that I've already made up my mind about The Hobbit.

All I'm saying is, plenty of continuity exists within the actual text of The Hobbit without having to include the White Council, the Seige of Dol Guldur, and Frodo's parents in order to "bridge the gap." See my earlier post for examples.

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I am becoming concerned about this "two films" idea, with these added storylines and expanded roles. Would it be cool to see the White Council, and the expulsion of the Necromancer from Mirkwood? Sure. I'm not denying that. But it would've also been cool to see Tom Bombadil. These scenes are just not necessary to the story of The Hobbit. And because Tolkien never fleshed out the White Council and Seige of Dol Guldur events in detail, most of what PJ and Co. come up with will be pure fan-fiction. And I am of the opinion that the less fan-fiction, the better.

Plus, these scenes run the risk of up-staging Bilbo's journey. I can imagine few things worse than the audience becoming bored with Bilbo and the Dwarves' journey and wanting to get back to the Wizards and the Elves and their attack against the dark Necromancer.

Having said that, the only thing that really bothers me about Legolas returning is the fact that I dislike Orlando Bloom. But the fact of the matter is, Legolas is Thranduil's son, so it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that he was present in his father's hall when the Dwarves arrived. It is also perfectly reasonable to suggest that he took part in the Battle of the Five Armies. Anything beyond that, though, is too much. His role should be nothing more than a cameo, a simple nod to the fans.

Despite my misgivings, I will be at the midnight premiere all the same. Just expressing my concerns, is all.


(This post was edited by duats on Dec 10 2010, 5:27am)


hutch
Rohan


Dec 10 2010, 5:25am

Post #148 of 269 (13589 views)
Shortcut
     yeah. baffled. [In reply to]  

as in: 'what's the hubub, bub?' didn't say anything about censoring other people's opinion so i'll thank you not to even bring that up. it's an insult.

secondly, if LOTR wasn't impossible why hadn't it been done before? you ask any number of filmmakers about making LOTR into a film years ago they would said something along the lines of 'impossible'. then they would've looked at the mess of the cartoon version and added 'absolutely' to 'impossible'.

yes we 'owe' him some respect to do his thing. do you know much about film making? it's a painstaking process with lots of hard work and tough decisions. and stress. lots of it. it's like leading an army and a good film is victory.
once a leader leads his army to victory under seemingly impossible odds-when no one else steps up to the plate we 'owe' it to that leader to chill out next time he plans a move because he's already proven himself to the most qualified one to do the task.

no basis in the text? if you're basing your idea of worth according to number of words Tolkien lent to any situation then Helm's Deep would been a minute long. Gandalf and Aragorn searching for Gollum is hardly a 'gimmick'-otherwise Tolkien wouldn't have written about it.

central characters were hardly changed. characters pretty much did what they were supposed to do. most of the changes were superficial and didn't change any motives. i'd like some examples on that. Frodo was a bit wimpy and Denethor died stupidly but changes in attitudes and deeds? i think not.

and Lastly, pleasing the majority of folks who love LOTR is nothing to sneeze at.


(This post was edited by hutch on Dec 10 2010, 5:28am)


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Dec 10 2010, 5:28am

Post #149 of 269 (13181 views)
Shortcut
     You have my axe! [In reply to]  

A very strong defense. But remember there are at least two ways to look at this. And in the end The Commercial Property wins.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Dec 10 2010, 5:33am

Post #150 of 269 (13621 views)
Shortcut
     Recall GdT saying that The Hobbit as written was too long for a single movie but [In reply to]  

too short for two. This was used as the "reason" that the Necromancer story was being brought in and expanded. This may be only part of the truth but it is true.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.