Our Sponsor Sideshow 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

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
All problems in AUJ are linked to the 3 movie decision.

GiantMushroomBear
Bree

Mar 30 2013, 4:23am

Post #1 of 221 (2594 views)
Shortcut
All problems in AUJ are linked to the 3 movie decision. Can't Post

-Pacing
-Azog
-Departures from Tolkien
-Filler material

Oh, why, PJ. Just why. It'd have been so easy to just leave it at two movies. You have plenty of money. Change it back to two. Please. The Hobbit is not meant to be a trilogy. It doesn't work. Change it back to two. Azog should not be so emphasized. It's not right. Don't tarnish you reputation. Change it back to two. Change it back to two. Oh god, please.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Mar 30 2013, 4:40am

Post #2 of 221 (1522 views)
Shortcut
Sorry [In reply to] Can't Post

it ain't goin' ta happen. Much too late at this point.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

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



Lindele
Gondor


Mar 30 2013, 4:45am

Post #3 of 221 (1381 views)
Shortcut
Totally disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

totally.


GiantMushroomBear
Bree

Mar 30 2013, 4:49am

Post #4 of 221 (1461 views)
Shortcut
It was much too late [In reply to] Can't Post

To include Azog as a character last-minute in production.
It was much too late to randomly split the films into a trilogy.
It's not to late to set things right. Do a re-cut of the first film, as if it were the first of two--not three. Do whatever it takes to fix this mess. Change it back to two. Oh god, please.


Magpie
Immortal


Mar 30 2013, 4:54am

Post #5 of 221 (1434 views)
Shortcut
I just can't tell sometimes, [In reply to] Can't Post

...when people are being serious... or seriously comedic.

oh goddess, please... tell me you're being comedic.


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Mar 30 2013, 5:00am

Post #6 of 221 (1381 views)
Shortcut
Oh I believe the post was serious [In reply to] Can't Post

but lacks an understanding of how the reality movie making works.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

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



GiantMushroomBear
Bree

Mar 30 2013, 5:00am

Post #7 of 221 (1390 views)
Shortcut
I'm not. [In reply to] Can't Post

This three-film decision is hurting the films. Change it back to two. What grace has given me, let it pass on to PJ's decision making.


tarasaurus
Rohan


Mar 30 2013, 5:05am

Post #8 of 221 (1356 views)
Shortcut
pretty sure... [In reply to] Can't Post

that they are in post-production for the last two movies anyhow (at least according to IMDB).


pulpfiction16
Rivendell

Mar 30 2013, 7:51am

Post #9 of 221 (1280 views)
Shortcut
Time travel? [In reply to] Can't Post

That's the only way, since, y'know, they are already released the first film, which is set up as 1/3 of the story.

Or are you implying they edit the second film to act as a conclusion to the whole thing? In which case you're expecting that somehow loading that film with footage that would've, before the split, been roughly equivalent to 2/3 of the entire story, would somehow be an improvement. From meeting Beorn to BOFA? That's absolutely ridiculous, you'd have one minute for each scene at that rate. That's more stuff crammed into one films than either of the parts would've had before the split.


(This post was edited by pulpfiction16 on Mar 30 2013, 7:52am)


emre43
Rohan

Mar 30 2013, 8:53am

Post #10 of 221 (1293 views)
Shortcut
No, I'm happy with three films [In reply to] Can't Post

It allows the Dol Guldur story and what Gandalf is up to when he runs off all the time as well as allowing characters to be fleshed out. Delighted when I heard there would be an extra film.


macfalk
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 10:17am

Post #11 of 221 (1200 views)
Shortcut
Hmm [In reply to] Can't Post

I can totally picture PJ assembling the cast & crew. "I have decided that it will now be 3 movies instead of 2. We need to give that filler material some space."

I can totally understand anyone else having a problem with the pacing but suggesting that "filler material" (whatever that means) was added just to "extend the movie" is to me ridiculous.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

(This post was edited by macfalk on Mar 30 2013, 10:18am)


tolktolk
Lorien

Mar 30 2013, 10:38am

Post #12 of 221 (1267 views)
Shortcut
Obviously the films are not going to be recut [In reply to] Can't Post

by Peter Jackson anyway, though I am sure some fans will have a go. But I tend to agree with the poster. Right up to July, the banner released for Comic-Con showed the first film was going to include Mirkwood and the barrel escape, which is a substantial amount of plot and time which had to be filled with other material, ie the awful Azog plotline, spinning out the looooong and tedious action scenes and the cheesy last scene on the Carrock (which the documentary A Hobbit's Tale showed was the very last thing to be filmed during pick-ups.)

I hope the fact that they have a long time to plan out the next two films without any last minute changes will mean better, more considered editing and pacing.


macfalk
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 10:50am

Post #13 of 221 (1194 views)
Shortcut
Azog was added because they thought it would improve their story. [In reply to] Can't Post

Whether it did or not is entirerly debatable and I fully understand that some don't like it (I don't either, to an extent). But the notion that Azog was added just to extend the running time of the movie I find ridiculous.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


DanielLB
Immortal


Mar 30 2013, 10:51am

Post #14 of 221 (1205 views)
Shortcut
I think the problems go further than that .... [In reply to] Can't Post

Final Hobbit film
...
3 split decision
...
PJ director
...
GDT director
...
"Greenlit" (kind of)
...
LOTR trilogy
...
PJ director
...
LOTR Greenlit
...
Animated movie
...
Lots of stuff in between
...
Tolkien wrote the Hobbit.

Tolkien is the reason AUJ is rubbish.


herzogian
Bree

Mar 30 2013, 11:20am

Post #15 of 221 (1193 views)
Shortcut
CGI [In reply to] Can't Post

The biggest problem isn the cgioverloud that you stuffed down your throat. Backgrounds seem fake and plastic. Rivendell is absolutly horrible. And Thorins "death scene" is no good either. Certainly if you compare it to Boromirs in FOTR. I dont like to say this but PJ has let "us" down. Also purely on a cinematic level. FOTR was realy good. It was more then your brainless actionmovie. AUJ isnt. The only thing that saves it are the endscene, smeagol and the party. Otherwise its on the same level of Jack the giantslayer or Narnia. Pitty.


dormouse
Half-elven


Mar 30 2013, 11:40am

Post #16 of 221 (1178 views)
Shortcut
Hard to tell who is being serious in here... [In reply to] Can't Post

Are you?

I know DanielLB isn't...

But if you are, they won't. The Hobbit is three films. Now and forever. And so far as I can see, since there is still interesting material missing (Gandalf meeting young Bilbo, for instance), and I can't see any way on earth they could have fitted everything up to the barrel escape into one film (Azog doesn't take that much screen time), I'm more than happy that they made three films.

I can't any problems in AUJ, I like it.


Glorfindela
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 12:21pm

Post #17 of 221 (1144 views)
Shortcut
I'm delighted that it is going to be three films [In reply to] Can't Post

The more time I can spend in Middle-Earth, the better, and so far I love what I'm seeing. Can't wait for the next film.


Loresilme
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 12:25pm

Post #18 of 221 (1164 views)
Shortcut
It was to allow more to be included [In reply to] Can't Post

than could have been included in any typical 2 or 3 hour movie, whether one or two.

What some people call 'tedious' I call leisurely and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. e.g., the good morning scene, the time they spend in Bag End, it adds to the story and that would have all been cut down or rushed if they didn't have enough time. I believe there are going to be more scenes like that in the next two and I'm looking forward to it.

I'm really glad they made it into 3 movies.


tolktolk
Lorien

Mar 30 2013, 1:01pm

Post #19 of 221 (1138 views)
Shortcut
Why would those be cut? [In reply to] Can't Post

It's an interesting exercise to consider what was not in the original film that is there now.

I very much doubt if good morning and the Bag End scenes are among them.


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Mar 30 2013, 1:06pm

Post #20 of 221 (1134 views)
Shortcut
Agreed...I think Bag End wasn't affected at all. [In reply to] Can't Post

We do know for one thing, from the Best Buy "A Hobbit's Tale" video, that the Azanulbizar flashback was originally only a brief vignette seen in the Prologue. So Balin's storytelling around the campfire was added in, as is all the subsequent Azog storyline and Radagast's warg chase.


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort






Magpie
Immortal


Mar 30 2013, 1:17pm

Post #21 of 221 (1162 views)
Shortcut
If you're serious... [In reply to] Can't Post

...then I'm sorry to say this sounds like when my kids were 4 and they thought that stomping their foot and demanding something would 'make it so'.

Does this tactic work for you in real life? It might when mom or dad can supply the chocolate easter bunny one is demanding but I can assure you it doesn't work much outside of those small family units and there are some things that - even if the world loved you to death and wanted to totally spoil and coddle you - would not happen by virtue of demanding it.

But if stomping your foot and demanding things (in public) make you happy then it doesn't violate the TOS and you get to do it. So, thanks for sharing it with us. I guess.

I guess I've just been thinking, lately, that about 60% of the internet just sounds really crazy to me. Not just that I don't agree with someone but that I can't even believe they believe what they're saying (or demanding, in your case).

I thought maybe there was this massive social experiment with 'let's all act crazy for spring break week' thing going on. Or maybe this was a new style of humor or just behavior - ala Harlem Shake - that was taking place.

Or, if this is one of those 'let's poke the wife until she yells stop at me'... then, stop.


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


MysterClark
The Shire


Mar 30 2013, 1:25pm

Post #22 of 221 (1130 views)
Shortcut
I Just Think It's Kind of Silly... [In reply to] Can't Post

If they didn't name this movie "The Hobbit" then no one would have a problem. They should have just named it "Stuff That Happened Before The Lord of the Rings"

I'm happy with the way things are. Honestly, if they decided to make three more movies after this, I'd probably have to go see those as well!

And seriously, guy? You start off sounding so excited about the next movie that you steal my contest winnings from me to see that sneak peek, and now you're acting like the entire trilogy is complete rubbish? Yes, go back in time... Maybe Peter Jackson will listen to a complete stranger and make the movies exactly like you wanted them made. Maybe he'd even step down and let you direct the movies!


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 30 2013, 2:04pm

Post #23 of 221 (1096 views)
Shortcut
yup [In reply to] Can't Post

its a great pity.


Kirly
Lorien


Mar 30 2013, 2:05pm

Post #24 of 221 (1132 views)
Shortcut
Oh for goodness sake! That is an exceptionally unbelievable request. [In reply to] Can't Post

The decision is made. There will be no changing it back to two films.

And I'm really quite shocked at the statement that it's not meant to be a trilogy. You know this how? By what authority? The hobbit is meant to be whatever those who own the rights say it shall be.

My avatar photo is Lake Tekapo in New Zealand's South Island. Taken by me in 2004 on a Red Carpet Tours LOTR Movie Location Tour. 'Twas the Vacation of a Lifetime!

pictures taken while on the tour are here:
https://picasaweb.google.com/Kirly7/LOTRNewZealandTour#


Kirly
Lorien


Mar 30 2013, 2:06pm

Post #25 of 221 (1080 views)
Shortcut
Yep. The more, the better! /// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

My avatar photo is Lake Tekapo in New Zealand's South Island. Taken by me in 2004 on a Red Carpet Tours LOTR Movie Location Tour. 'Twas the Vacation of a Lifetime!

pictures taken while on the tour are here:
https://picasaweb.google.com/Kirly7/LOTRNewZealandTour#


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 30 2013, 2:08pm

Post #26 of 221 (530 views)
Shortcut
I dont think anybody is complaining about [In reply to] Can't Post

those scenes. everybody seems to like the scenes in Bagend, I havent heard anyone call them tedious.

its all the rest thats tedious. when PJ deviates from Tolkien it gets cheesy and when they overuse cgi and greenscreen it gets plastic and fake, and when they use filler like Azog it gets boring and predictable.


Kirly
Lorien


Mar 30 2013, 2:14pm

Post #27 of 221 (517 views)
Shortcut
My sentiments exactly! Imagine that behaviour in the workforce. Gah! /// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

My avatar photo is Lake Tekapo in New Zealand's South Island. Taken by me in 2004 on a Red Carpet Tours LOTR Movie Location Tour. 'Twas the Vacation of a Lifetime!

pictures taken while on the tour are here:
https://picasaweb.google.com/Kirly7/LOTRNewZealandTour#


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 30 2013, 2:28pm

Post #28 of 221 (531 views)
Shortcut
I think the OP [In reply to] Can't Post

has as much right to express his/her opinions as anyone else without sarcastic comments about their maturity.


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 30 2013, 2:37pm

Post #29 of 221 (514 views)
Shortcut
Can't say i disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

as i agree that those are pretty big problems-- AUJ obvioulsy went through some growing pains in the jump from 2 to 3 films, and not all of those pains got resolved (especially Azog). But i still think that the move to 3 films was ultimately a good one. As for the pacing issues, i for one thought that the last third of the film felt rushed, lacking depth and character, with only Riddles in the Dark escaping unscathed. I can only imagine this being worse at 2 films, with both films feeling rushed.

I just feel(hope) that the move to 3 films might have hurt the first film the most (though not fatally), and it will actually benefit the next 2 films. They won't feel so crammed, just jumping from scene to scene with no room to catch our breath. And the growing pains of AUJ will have been worth it.

Besides, i'm fine with the first film in a six film series being the worst one. I'd much rather start with the "ok" one and then get better and better all the way to the end.


shadowdog
Rohan

Mar 30 2013, 2:42pm

Post #30 of 221 (493 views)
Shortcut
Suggest you wait [In reply to] Can't Post

until all three movies have been released before condemning the decision.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Mar 30 2013, 2:49pm

Post #31 of 221 (498 views)
Shortcut
Where is the sarcasm here?// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

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



Magpie
Immortal


Mar 30 2013, 3:08pm

Post #32 of 221 (512 views)
Shortcut
I have no problem with opinions [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't understand demanding that something be done that - let's be frank and honest - can't be done, won't be done, and none of us here can expect to have any influence over.

It's the DEMAND... the oh god please... that baffles me.

I'm not being sarcastic at all. I am facing the same welling reaction (over not just one post but many over lots of venues and forums) I felt when two teenage girls were wrestling (seriously... wrestling) on the floor of a restaurant - after 15 minutes of throwing food at each other - and everyone in the restaurant, including the wait staff, ignored them. What? Sometimes, someone's got to stand up and say 'what!?'

If the OP had expressed their disappointment with AUJ... had expressed their belief that three movies was the cause of their disappointment... had expressed a wish that the movies could even now, be reedited to suit their tastes... I would never have made a response. They have a total right to feel those things and express them.

That's not what they did. They, over a series of posts, kept saying they were unhappy and only PJ rediting the film was the solution so IT MUST BE DONE! That was the whole point of their posts.

Be very clear on the difference between the two kinds of posts and expressions of opinions.

I would even have accepted the demand had it been a joke, an attempt at humor. Notice I asked for clarification. If it were humor, I'd go... okay. I get it. But it was not humor. They sincerely were making demands that might as well have been me saying, "Make This Snow Go NOW". I can want it. I can demand it. But I have no control over the snow and I know I don't. I might joke about it (actually, I do). But if someone thought I was being serious and asked.. I'd let them in on the joke.

You can be irritated with me all you want but I am still baffled at what the heck is going on with people. And sometimes, one's got to stick one's head out the window and say so.

And let me add this just to blow minds: I don't think it should have been three movies, either. I still think that how one expresses that opinion and to what goal one starts a discussion matters.


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide

(This post was edited by Magpie on Mar 30 2013, 3:12pm)


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 30 2013, 3:43pm

Post #33 of 221 (492 views)
Shortcut
here, [In reply to] Can't Post

'But if stomping your foot and demanding things (in public) make you happy then it doesn't violate the TOS and you get to do it. So, thanks for sharing it with us. I guess'


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 30 2013, 4:00pm

Post #34 of 221 (482 views)
Shortcut
I have been told many times on this forum [In reply to] Can't Post

that you can comment on the post but not on the poster.


Bombadil
Half-elven


Mar 30 2013, 4:02pm

Post #35 of 221 (487 views)
Shortcut
Agreed...what the OP fails to realize... [In reply to] Can't Post

Over 1500 people worked on this over a long time.
As Sir Ian McKellen said about 30 of the primary people
from LOTR were back.
As well, they were even more experienced
since many worked on King Kong,
TinTin, District 9, Avatar..and
other smaller projects...So

Bomby feels they know what they are DOING?


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 4:05pm

Post #36 of 221 (484 views)
Shortcut
The Internet [In reply to] Can't Post

I've noticed the demanding nature of fans on the Internet gets worse all the time. I think that's just how the world is anymore not just one nation. It's the demanding nature of people or the beating of a dead horse by some that gets old. The sad thing is its done in the guise of "expressing their opinion".



Loresilme
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 4:46pm

Post #37 of 221 (457 views)
Shortcut
I don't think they would have been eliminated [In reply to] Can't Post

But I think they would have either been shortened, or the pacing - the leisurely, affectionate pace, which is really charming - would have been sped up.

I understand that the Azog storyline is not to everyone's liking, but until the entire trilogy is available to be seen in its entirety, it cannot be determined whether it's filler or if it serves a purpose.


Loresilme
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 4:47pm

Post #38 of 221 (457 views)
Shortcut
They wouldn't have been [In reply to] Can't Post

But IMO, I think they would have either been shortened, or the pace would have been sped up.


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Mar 30 2013, 5:07pm

Post #39 of 221 (473 views)
Shortcut
good points [In reply to] Can't Post

i agree, although i wish the High Fells were on the AUJ EE because its going to have to be a flashback now because they are beyond the misty mountains, unless Gandalf travels back to Rivendell for another white council meeting and stops by the High Fells.


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty....Oh will you please take me home!!


Skaan
Lorien


Mar 30 2013, 5:16pm

Post #40 of 221 (465 views)
Shortcut
Azog was always planned [In reply to] Can't Post

Azog was always planned to be in the movie, regardless if it were 2 or 3 movies.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/casting-news-for-the-hobbit/10150257180211558

Here you see PJ mentioning how they had cast Conan Stevens to play Azog, and that post comes from 2011. Whereas the decision to turn it into 3 movies was accounced in July 2012

So you can scratch that one from your list


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 30 2013, 5:25pm

Post #41 of 221 (447 views)
Shortcut
and I noticed that people on the 'internet' [In reply to] Can't Post

jump on the belittling bandwaggon without actually reading the OP's words. The OP did not at any point DEMAND, he or she actually said 'please dont make a trilogy' that is not a demand its a plea. and was immediately belittled and accused of not being a film maker therefore in no position to make such plea. its not people expressing their opinion thats the problem here its other peoples intolerence.


Glorfindela
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 5:30pm

Post #42 of 221 (435 views)
Shortcut
You've got it right there [In reply to] Can't Post

That's why I don't engage in Twitter or Facebook. From what I've seen of them – when directed to them to look at some piece of information – the vast majority of the comments read as though they've been posted by idiots. I don't think such sites help people when it comes to developing their minds, and they have had a dumbing down effect on 'culture'.

And what is it with people constantly posting brief comments to say they don't like a particular film? It seems to me that such people are quite unhappy and wish merely to draw attention to themselves.

There are good things about the Internet, but the above sort of thing sure isn't one of them.

It would be best to wait to pass judgement on the three-film format for The Hobbit until all three films have been released. I, for one, am very happy about the decision, and do trust PJ.


In Reply To
.about 60% of the internet just sounds really crazy to me.



(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Mar 30 2013, 5:30pm)


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 30 2013, 5:34pm

Post #43 of 221 (427 views)
Shortcut
I don't care if he was filler or not, or if he serves a purpose. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I understand that the Azog storyline is not to everyone's liking, but until the entire trilogy is available to be seen in its entirety, it cannot be determined whether it's filler or if it serves a purpose.

I just think he's a poorly concieved, written, performed, designed and executed character. And i can tell all that from the first film. I can only hope that one or more of those things improves over the next two films.


(This post was edited by sauget.diblosio on Mar 30 2013, 5:39pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 30 2013, 5:50pm

Post #44 of 221 (435 views)
Shortcut
Why [In reply to] Can't Post

question Sir Peter's judgement on this?

He was meant to direct these films.

Everything will make sense when all the films are out.

Trust PJ.

Vous commencez à m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Loresilme
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 6:02pm

Post #45 of 221 (401 views)
Shortcut
We just disagree then [In reply to] Can't Post

"I just think he's a poorly concieved, written, performed, designed and executed character."
______________________

I thought the character design and the voice acting was effectively menacing.





glor
Rohan

Mar 30 2013, 6:04pm

Post #46 of 221 (432 views)
Shortcut
Film critics and Bag End... [In reply to] Can't Post

..Quite few of the critics accused the Bag End scenes of being filler, in fact of lot of the iconic taken straight from the book scenes were derided as filler and padding by film critics; Blunt the Knives, Misty Mountains, the Good Morning scene....Crazy


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 6:06pm

Post #47 of 221 (428 views)
Shortcut
Intolerance lol [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, some fans will jump on any negative comment. That's also a sad thing about the Internet. I think people here as a whole have been very tolerant. If people weren't tolerant here I don't think 5k what's wrong with the hobbit threads. I do think at some point people get tired of reading the same negative posts by the same few people. It finally comes to we get it you don't like it for whatever reason.



Glorfindela
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 6:15pm

Post #48 of 221 (411 views)
Shortcut
Not on any negative comment in my case [In reply to] Can't Post

I like constructive criticism – I have some of my own. However, the same negative posts by the same few people do get tiresome. The limits of one's tolerance can consequently get rather stretched at times. (I have no idea why people feel the need to even visit the boards of films they don't like and waste time posting on them.)


In Reply To
Yes, some fans will jump on any negative comment. That's also a sad thing about the Internet. I think people here as a whole have been very tolerant. If people weren't tolerant here I don't think 5k what's wrong with the hobbit threads. I do think at some point people get tired of reading the same negative posts by the same few people. It finally comes to we get it you don't like it for whatever reason.



Elessar
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 6:26pm

Post #49 of 221 (395 views)
Shortcut
I agree [In reply to] Can't Post

I do as well. I welcome it actually. There are several member here who have made me think and really appreciate their pov. It does truly make for great conversations IMO. I'm with ya 110% with your post. :)



Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 30 2013, 6:39pm

Post #50 of 221 (390 views)
Shortcut
Indeed [In reply to] Can't Post

it could even be a 10 hours season.

One of the episodes dedicated to Radagast and his bunnies fighting spiders and another on Azog and his personal struggle against the house of durin. Another on the necromancer ressurecting dead orcs and goblins and instructing them on torture workshops. Riveting.

Warners, make it happen.

Vous commencez à m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 30 2013, 6:42pm

Post #51 of 221 (519 views)
Shortcut
this is definately one of the friendlier forums [In reply to] Can't Post

I once looked at a Dr Who fan site stuff and the hostility and fanatisicm put me off watching the tv show for good. it was sad.


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 6:56pm

Post #52 of 221 (507 views)
Shortcut
Agreed [In reply to] Can't Post

Zealots within a fanbase can ruin it for people. They either put people off like that or they make everyone think the entire fanbase is that way.



DanielLB
Immortal


Mar 30 2013, 7:05pm

Post #53 of 221 (506 views)
Shortcut
It put you off watching the show?! [In reply to] Can't Post

If it was Gallifrey Base, then that's understandable. Just ignore the "fans" though. Well worth watching it. Wink


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 30 2013, 7:18pm

Post #54 of 221 (523 views)
Shortcut
I was totally psyched when I heard... [In reply to] Can't Post

they would be adding in some of the appendices material, and so I was cool with the 3-film split when I first heard about it. But since all of the appendices material they've used thus far has been entirely rewritten, I now kind of wish they'd have left it at 2 films. If I'd have known how drastically they were going to alter the appendices material, I would have never supported the 3-film split to begin with. But it's too late now, so I'll just have to accept that we're getting Tolkien's story peppered with a whole lot of rushed fan-fiction. I liked AUJ, I really did, but I think they unnecessarily tinkered with some things that didn't need to be touched.


emre43
Rohan

Mar 30 2013, 8:03pm

Post #55 of 221 (528 views)
Shortcut
But Tolkien never explained what Gandalf was doing nor what exactly happened at Dol Guldur so hardly rewritten :s [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 30 2013, 8:24pm

Post #56 of 221 (508 views)
Shortcut
He never explained what he was doing? [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, he did explain what Gandalf was doing, he just didn't go into much detail about it. However, we DO know from the appendices that Gandalf found Sauron in Dol Guldur 90 years prior to the events in The Hobbit, we know that Azog was beheaded by Dain Ironfoot at the Battle of Azanubizar, and we know that the Nazgul were never sealed in tombs by the Dunedain. We know that Radagast did none of the things that he did in the film. So how can you make the claim that Tolkien's history wasn't rewritten by the filmmakers?


Glorfindela
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 8:42pm

Post #57 of 221 (493 views)
Shortcut
Basically [In reply to] Can't Post

As long as I enjoy the next two films as much as - and hopefully more than – I enjoyed the first one, that will be fine by me. The storyline makes perfect sense to me, and I love the acting and characterisation.

As I often say, the books are one thing, the films another. I would have had very little interest in a straight portrayal of The Hobbit chldren's book in film form.


IdrilofGondolin
Rohan

Mar 30 2013, 8:59pm

Post #58 of 221 (475 views)
Shortcut
Glad we have 3 Hobbit Films [In reply to] Can't Post

I would have been seriously disappointed if TH had been one or even two films. There is more material here than one might think. If PJ was going to do all the iconic stuff in TH then one movie wasn't enough. Two movies might have been but then you get this problem. Does two movies sound OK to everyone? Or does it sound unfinished? Generally people prefer things that come in odd numbers -- 3, 5, 7. Psychologically we would all have been unhappy with just two films. It would have felt incomplete.


emre43
Rohan

Mar 30 2013, 9:04pm

Post #59 of 221 (468 views)
Shortcut
No, he did not explain what Gandalf was doing [In reply to] Can't Post

How do you know Radagast did not do any of the things that he did in the film? What evidence do you have? Tolkien history was not rewritten, it was filled in.

In Reply To
Yes, he did explain what Gandalf was doing, he just didn't go into much detail about it. However, we DO know from the appendices that Gandalf found Sauron in Dol Guldur 90 years prior to the events in The Hobbit, we know that Azog was beheaded by Dain Ironfoot at the Battle of Azanubizar, and we know that the Nazgul were never sealed in tombs by the Dunedain. We know that Radagast did none of the things that he did in the film. So how can you make the claim that Tolkien's history wasn't rewritten by the filmmakers?



Elessar
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 9:32pm

Post #60 of 221 (468 views)
Shortcut
Keeping the heart [In reply to] Can't Post

I feel like as a whole Jackson has kept the tone and heart of what Tolkien created. If he continues with that over the next two films I will be one of the happiest Tolkien fans ever.



Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 30 2013, 10:20pm

Post #61 of 221 (462 views)
Shortcut
Are you saying.... [In reply to] Can't Post

that Tolkien never explained where Gandalf went to after Beorn's house? Because its clearly stated multiple times - in the appendices, and in The Hobbit book itself. Tolkien may not have gone into great detail about it, but it's well-known that Gandalf left Bilbo and the group so he could go deal with Sauron at Dol Guldur.

In the appendices, Gandalf enters Dol Guldur 90 years before the events of The Hobbit, and discovers that Sauron is there. In the film, Radagast finds the presence DURING the events of The Hobbit, and they STILL haven't yet discovered that it's Sauron. You asked how I know that Radagast did not find the Necromancer in Dol Guldur? Simple - because it's written that Gandalf found him, 90 years before the group set out for Erebor.

Here's some more. In the appendices, the sickness in Greenwood first appears in the year 1050, while the events in The Hobbit take place in the year 2941. That's a difference of 1891 years. In the film, Gandalf is just being informed of the sickness in Greenwood after the troll-hoard. That's quite a big jump forward in time, wouldn't you agree?

In the appendices, it is stated that Thror attempted to enter Moria alone, but was caught and beheaded by Azog. Azog then sent the head back to the dwarves with his name carved in the forehead. This began the War of Dwarves and Orcs, which culminated in the Battle of Azanulbizar, where Dain Ironfoot beheaded Azog. In the film, the dwarves attempt to retake Moria but find orcs there, Azog beheads Thror AT the Battle of Azanulbizar, Thorin cuts off Azog's arm, Azog retreats back into Moria, and survives until the time of The Hobbit. Compare what happens in the books, and what happens in the film, and then tell me that is "filling in" gaps.

In the appendices, it is explained that after the Witch-king was defeated and Angmar fell, he retreated back to Mordor, and then him and a bunch of other Ringwraiths attacked the Gondorian city of Minas Ithil, whcih later became known as Minas Morgul. This all happened almost a thousand years before the events of The Hobbit. In the films, the Witch-king is defeated at Angmar, and then his body is sealed in a tomb by the Dunedain. Again, compare the text lore to the film lore.

I know it may sound like I'm bashing PJ and Co, but I really did enjoy the film for what it was. I just think they should have stuck closer to the books with the appendices material they used. The whole reason for 3 films was so they could include the appendices stuff, but half of it doesn't resemble even closely what Tolkien wrote.


Glorfindela
Valinor


Mar 30 2013, 10:36pm

Post #62 of 221 (513 views)
Shortcut
Yes, me to [In reply to] Can't Post

I also don't nitpick details – as long as the story works logically within itself, it works for me. It has to be borne in mind that the films have to make sense to a general audience, after all, including children. A large proportion of those people will not have read Tolkien's work and are not immersed in it as are some people on this forum. For them, the story has to work logically, as I said within itself, and I think that was achieved in the first film.

I am not too bothered about the chronology with regard to Azog, for example. He works fine within the context of the film's story so far, and is a sufficiently menacing character – far more menacing than any of the Orcs in LOTR, including the Uruk-hai, though not more so than the Black Riders in FOTR, who were truly sinister. I would prefer it if he was disposed of fairly quickly into the next film, but that may not be what PJ has in mind. Will just have to wait and see.

I do think that overall the film has captured the essence of Tolkien's Middle-Earth very well, and as I keep saying, I love the casting and characterisation of the Company as a whole. Well pleased, I am, even though I didn't expect anything from this film before I went to see it.

It may be time for me to disengage from the film's message boards, etc., in the near future. I want to see the next film as I did the first one, with no particular expectations – I hope to be as surprised and delighted as I was with the first film.


In Reply To
I feel like as a whole Jackson has kept the tone and heart of what Tolkien created. If he continues with that over the next two films I will be one of the happiest Tolkien fans ever.



MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Mar 30 2013, 10:57pm

Post #63 of 221 (441 views)
Shortcut
the timelines between the appendixes & films make it confusing [In reply to] Can't Post

because it seems like PJ is trying to cram everything that happened in the last 90 years before AUJ into the first film. I didn't exactly understand how Saruman could be shocked about the development of Greenwood turning into Mirkwood....it wasn't like one day Radagast woke up to eat mushrooms and all of a sudden it was Mirkwood...the evil presence slowly turned the forest evil.


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty....Oh will you please take me home!!


Brethil
Half-elven


Mar 30 2013, 11:32pm

Post #64 of 221 (417 views)
Shortcut
I agree with all your points Glorfindela (and you agreeing with Elessar) [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I also don't nitpick details – as long as the story works logically within itself, it works for me. It has to be borne in mind that the films have to make sense to a general audience, after all, including children. A large proportion of those people will not have read Tolkien's work and are not immersed in it as are some people on this forum. For them, the story has to work logically, as I said within itself, and I think that was achieved in the first film.

I am not too bothered about the chronology with regard to Azog, for example. He works fine within the context of the film's story so far, and is a sufficiently menacing character – far more menacing than any of the Orcs in LOTR, including the Uruk-hai, though not more so than the Black Riders in FOTR, who were truly sinister. I would prefer it if he was disposed of fairly quickly into the next film, but that may not be what PJ has in mind. Will just have to wait and see.

I do think that overall the film has captured the essence of Tolkien's Middle-Earth very well, and as I keep saying, I love the casting and characterisation of the Company as a whole. Well pleased, I am, even though I didn't expect anything from this film before I went to see it.

It may be time for me to disengage from the film's message boards, etc., in the near future. I want to see the next film as I did the first one, with no particular expectations – I hope to be as surprised and delighted as I was with the first film.


In Reply To
I feel like as a whole Jackson has kept the tone and heart of what Tolkien created. If he continues with that over the next two films I will be one of the happiest Tolkien fans ever.





I tend to feel the need to back away a bit myself, just to preserve the expectation. Perhaps just stay in more retrospective threads instead of predicting ones, to walk in to DoS like I did for AUJ. I never expected to enjoy it this much so hoping (and expecting) for more of the same.

Hell hath no fury like a Dragon who is missing a cup.


sycorax82
Rohan

Mar 30 2013, 11:36pm

Post #65 of 221 (416 views)
Shortcut
Saruman knows what's going on all right, he's just hiding his true mind [In reply to] Can't Post

Even though Gandalf and Galadriel are having these private telepathic convos, they're not the only ones with a secret agenda. Saruman is quick to scoff at Gandalf's information, and to lay into Radagast, because he's trying to discredit them so the rest of the Council won't get involved and spoil his own plans.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 30 2013, 11:41pm

Post #66 of 221 (401 views)
Shortcut
Agreed [In reply to] Can't Post

Thats where the film is with me...

When Peter Jackson stuck to Tolkien the film was great, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Once they left Baggend though the good moments that Tolkien wrote were far and few between the OTT unbelievable spectacle shot around nonsensical rollercoaster sequences designed to show off the new cameras and 3D effects instead of telling the story of the Hobbit. Which IMO was awful when compared to the more realistic style of the LOTR films. The Hobbit film could have been SO much more entertaining by sticking to what Tolkien wrote instead of having Peter Jackson make up a bunch of stuff that IMO falls very very short of something worthy to be associated with Tolkien's name or the name of his great works.

They should have called the film "Tales from Middle Earth" at least then I could accept it as something that is as made up as it is.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 30 2013, 11:43pm

Post #67 of 221 (421 views)
Shortcut
After seeing the film and reading the book I hate to say I must disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

I think they know what Hollywood and the general public might like but have no clue on what many Tolkien fans want. Some are just more willing to accept changes because they are just happy to go back to middle earth even if the story is barely comparable to the original tale Tolkien wrote.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 30 2013, 11:50pm

Post #68 of 221 (407 views)
Shortcut
In the Hobbit book it is NOT known what Gandalf is dealing with [In reply to] Can't Post

nowhere in the Hobbit book is the name Sauron mentioned and the Necromancer is only mentioned twice for about 2 sentences each. Honestly I think they should just leave it all as vague as possible and let people find out things as they develop without giving too many details.

I agree they should have stuck closer to the book but the appendices material they used was completely ruined from what Tolkien wrote to what Jackson gave us.


cats16
Valinor

Mar 30 2013, 11:50pm

Post #69 of 221 (407 views)
Shortcut
I've been wondering about Radagast [In reply to] Can't Post

Mainly your last point, because I don't think it's ever stated when 1. he saves Sebastian and the spiders come, and 2. when he leaves Rhosgobel to find Gandalf.

For #1, I feel like the film seems to tell us that Radagast's actions and the Company's actions are happening simulaneously (more or less). But the more I think of it, I don't see this as the case. It seems like they inserted an event that happened to Radagast at x time, and that's how they would introduce him. Of course, I wish I could give definitive reasons for thinking this, but it's really hard to explain. It's just the kind of feeling I get when considering the timeline of these events. (I hope you're able to understand my thoughts here)

And #2...I have no idea. I would think that Radagast would have wanted to go find Gandalf ASAP. But, unless we're assuming his animals helped and located the Company (which is possible), it still would have taken quite awhile for him to reach them on the other side of the Misty Mountains. I wish I could estimate how long that would take, even with the rabbits lol. But either way, it would have taken a decent amount of time for him to get there assuming he knew exactly where he was going. That's also assuming he left immediately after returning from Dol Guldur.

So...I know that deviated quite a bit from your point, but I guess what I'm saying is that the film's timeline may be longer than we are giving it credit for. I agree with you, not the decades and centuries that it takes in the books. But it could be over the course of...a year?Two?? (at the longest).

I don't know, but I wanted to get those thoughts out. They were bugging me for the past few daysSmile


(This post was edited by cats16 on Mar 30 2013, 11:56pm)


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 12:23am

Post #70 of 221 (385 views)
Shortcut
I did not say that he mentioned the name Sauron, [In reply to] Can't Post

what I said was that Gandalf's disappearance IS explained, not only in the appendices, but in The Hobbit itself. Emre43 said "No, he did not explain what Gandalf was doing", to which I replied "..its clearly stated multiple times - in the appendices, and in The Hobbit book itself. Tolkien may not have gone into great detail about it, but it's well-known that Gandalf left Bilbo and the group so he could go deal with Sauron at Dol Guldur". In the last chapter of the book, it is revealed where Gandalf had gone off to, after Bilbo overhears his conversation with Elrond. As for how much was known at this time, it also states in appendix B that Gandalf and the rest of the White Council had known that the "Necromancer" was Sauron for 90 years before they did anything about it.

So while you're correct in that audience doesn't yet know of the connection between the Necromancer and Sauron (mainly because there was no connection when he first wrote the book), Gandalf himself certainly knew who the Necromancer was by this point in ME history.


(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Mar 31 2013, 12:27am)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 2:14am

Post #71 of 221 (357 views)
Shortcut
Agree [In reply to] Can't Post

But Peter Jackson has already ruined that time line... plus he has Gandalf having to prove that the necromancer is Sauron in the current time line of the Hobbit just to go against Saruman or at least prove him wrong. I love the way Tolkien wrote it and can't see where Jackson's re-imagining it improves anything or adds anything other than unnecessary change to the story.

I agree Gandalf knows but if the films were filmed properly (or at least in my opinion) nothing would really be given away about who the necromancer was nor would I include him in other details of Bilbo's adventure, like the mild fear Gandalf had of Sauron using Smaug as a tool. I think they should have just stuck to the story at hand and left Sauron and any details of his ring in FOTR where they belong. letting the story flow in a chronological timeline.( It doesn't matter about Frodo's journey at this point because all the old Bilbo stuff is before Frodo leaves the shire. So it could work chronologically.) So personally I just feel the audience should be left in the dark about Sauron, the ring and any connections, let the White Council deal with the necromancer but never give away too many details and let people come to what conclusion they may. If they are wrong, all they have to do is watch FOTR and know who and what the necromancer and ring truly are.

That and Jackson got nothing right about the appendices he did use so why should he start now?


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 3:18am

Post #72 of 221 (352 views)
Shortcut
To be honest... [In reply to] Can't Post

I was a supporter of the Dol Guldur/Necromancer stuff being included. I always wished Tolkien would have wrote that into The Hobbit, and so I was excited when I heard they were including that in the movies. They have some leeway with the actual battle and the White Council meetings and stuff, since those were never really detailed anyway. But I feel they should have been able to come up with something more in-line with canon than the Morgul blade/Witch-king tomb nonsense, and they could have at least made an attempt to show that the decay emanating from Dol Guldur in Mirkwood happened slowly over a long period, and not weeks or months like in the movie. When the movie followed the book, it was great. The appendix material could have been good if it followed what Tolkien actually wrote, but it tailed off into fan-fic territory way too often. Just my opinion though.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 3:21am

Post #73 of 221 (341 views)
Shortcut
An opinion I agree with 100% // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 4:39am

Post #74 of 221 (343 views)
Shortcut
remember Tolkien at one point was going to re-write The Hobbit [In reply to] Can't Post

which in my opinion would have been closer to PJ's adaptation.


take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty....Oh will you please take me home!!


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 6:27am

Post #75 of 221 (329 views)
Shortcut
I'm with ya [In reply to] Can't Post

There are things ill discuss for the sake of I love talking about it as a whole I roll with thing because I choose to.



Elessar
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 6:31am

Post #76 of 221 (406 views)
Shortcut
Hmmmm [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think that's correct. I think they know what Tolkien fans want to see, and do their best to give them that. They also know changes will have to be made to bring in the herbal audience. The last part of your post just reeks of "narf syndrome".



pulpfiction16
Rivendell

Mar 31 2013, 6:34am

Post #77 of 221 (398 views)
Shortcut
My comment was meant for the thread creator [In reply to] Can't Post

But that's nice. I also like the trilogy decision. My post was sarcasm.

I do feel AUJ was a bit shakey though, probably not due to the trilogy decision.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 7:03am

Post #78 of 221 (397 views)
Shortcut
I think the Original Posters hopes are a fever dream, but I do not think we should [In reply to] Can't Post

lambast him for posting them. And stamping and shouting certainly works, it is just that in the wide world, it takes a unified effort of many stamping feet and shouting voices together. And sometimes it is over essential matters. . . and sometimes it isn't. But it can be effective in massive doeses. lol Unfortunately for our OP, I don't think hundreds of thousands of feet are going to March on Warner brothers over these movies not being perfect.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


emre43
Rohan

Mar 31 2013, 7:16am

Post #79 of 221 (397 views)
Shortcut
No, that's not what I'm saying [In reply to] Can't Post

What I am saying is that what precisely Gandalf was doing whilst at Dol Guldur wasn't explained by Tolkien. Which is why the filmmakers have to fill it in.


emre43
Rohan

Mar 31 2013, 7:18am

Post #80 of 221 (394 views)
Shortcut
Oh and I didn't ask you anything like how do you know Radagast didn't discover Sauron [In reply to] Can't Post

I asked how do you know he didn't get up to what he does in the Hobbit. I.e. in Mirkwood, Rhosgobel attacked by spiders, saving Sebastien's life. Nothing says he didn't and he must have been doing something.

Can't be bothered to read the rest of your post.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 7:23am

Post #81 of 221 (398 views)
Shortcut
Didn't I warn you>?!! [In reply to] Can't Post

I remember when 3 films was announced. Aside from being sad that I would have to wait extra years, and that people might expire before seeing the final product. . . I worried that the line "we've taken alot from the Appendices" was just a cover for, "we went and completely warped and made a lot of crap up." The moment I heard Azog was going to be given new life and walkin around money.. . I said "Oh Dear God!" In truth, things for this first film were not as bad in most places (other than the near total loss of the origins of the war between The Dwarves and Orcs and the fury of ALL the Dwarven race over the desecration of Durin's Heir [also broght into perspective how truly dreadful The Balrog must have been, to have slain an incarnation of Durin himself, and proven fierce enough after that the Dwarves abandoned even the hope of vengeance]), as I had feared, and I think that the three films will give a much better treatment than one and possibly even two films could have, even if I am still nervous and unhappy about the long wait. Yet there are definitely some bad patches, and some obnoxiuosly bold and inappropriate embellishments, over which I can well understand a fair amount of stamping, yelling, fist waving and the like.

In Reply To
they would be adding in some of the appendices material, and so I was cool with the 3-film split when I first heard about it. But since all of the appendices material they've used thus far has been entirely rewritten, I now kind of wish they'd have left it at 2 films. If I'd have known how drastically they were going to alter the appendices material, I would have never supported the 3-film split to begin with. But it's too late now, so I'll just have to accept that we're getting Tolkien's story peppered with a whole lot of rushed fan-fiction. I liked AUJ, I really did, but I think they unnecessarily tinkered with some things that didn't need to be touched.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 7:33am

Post #82 of 221 (393 views)
Shortcut
Quite alot was explained as Sal says. [In reply to] Can't Post

Gandalf knew it was Sauron, and he was desprate for The Council to act, because he knew Sauron was preparing war and meant to strike The Elves as his first salvo as soon as he was able. It was this that prompted the Wizard to move on Erebor, fear that Sauron would use the Dragon against Rivendell. We know that Gandalf is an Angelic Spirit from before the world incarnated, and not a adjutant subordinate officer of Galadriel the Noldor Queen. We know that Azog's slaying of Thror, the Heir of Revered Durin, roused such a wrath in the Dwarves that they launched an attempted genocide against the orcs/goblins, laying waste to every goblin city they could find for hundreds of miles until they caught and slew Azog, though they still could not claim Moria, for The Demon who slew Durin and drove their folk forth as exiles (and many of Lothlorien's Elves through fear of his presence alone) still remained within, too dreadful for them to face. We Know that The Witch King of Angmar was driven from the north by Glorfindel the Elf Lord, after the combined armed forces of Lindon, Arnor, Rivendell and Gondor destroyed the hordes of Angmar, and that he and the other Nazgul went South, besieging Minas Ithil and turning it into Minas Morgul. . . they were NOT buried in hills by Dunedain. So there is quite a bit that we know, really. Filling in details would be explicitly showing what magic Gandalf used in fighting his way out of Dol Guldur, having him picked up by Radagast and his sled, or the slight embellishment of having him combat The Nine during his flight. They have done a lot more than fill in details, and tweak where necessary.

In Reply To


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Hanzkaz
Rohan

Mar 31 2013, 7:51am

Post #83 of 221 (406 views)
Shortcut
All problems in AUJ are linked to the 3 movie decision - ? [In reply to] Can't Post

  I would have thought that there would have been problems anyway, given the nature of the source material and the types of audiences the films were meant to cater too.


It seems to me that attempting to solve one problem would create another 'problem'. Personally, I'm more in favour of seeing a bit more of the big picture than just Bilbo's POV.

As for Azog, he is the most famous Orc in Middle-Earth, so I can understand the decision to bringing him forward in time in as additional threat to Bilbo and Co (though I still haven't quite gotten used to him no longer being a 'dead' Orc),. I just hope it's Dain who finally deals with him (I wonder if they'll do some sort of Dwarven version of the charge of the Rohirrim).


I'd like to see how the Extended Editions turn out. I've always preferred the Lord of the Rings:EEs to the shorter versions of those movies.

___________________________________________________


From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.



Hanzkaz
Rohan

Mar 31 2013, 8:07am

Post #84 of 221 (385 views)
Shortcut
I think they're using unused ideas for the LOTR movies. [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
We Know that The Witch King of Angmar was driven from the north by Glorfindel the Elf Lord, after the combined armed forces of Lindon, Arnor, Rivendell and Gondor destroyed the hordes of Angmar, and that he and the other Nazgul went South, besieging Minas Ithil and turning it into Minas Morgul. . . they were NOT buried in hills by Dunedain.



This is probably the closest we'll see to something like the Barrow-Wight scene. It could also be argued that Arvedui's descendants were responsible for imprisoning the Witch-King (probably centuries after Glorfindel chased him off). I think it's more tricky to explain to a modern audience why some of the most powerful villains in Middle-Earth were wandering around for centuries, even millennia, and apparently doing nothing,


I suppose you could say the same about the Balrog, but that demon, like Smaug, was apparently quite happy where it was, unlike Sauron and his minions who were actively trying to conquer Middle-Earth.

___________________________________________________


From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.



(This post was edited by Hanzkaz on Mar 31 2013, 8:09am)


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 31 2013, 11:04am

Post #85 of 221 (472 views)
Shortcut
nice! [In reply to] Can't Post

I demand zombie bunny sleds.


imin
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 1:21pm

Post #86 of 221 (354 views)
Shortcut
He may have given you what you want as a Tolkien fan [In reply to] Can't Post

But he didn't give me what i wanted or others so it is just as fair to say he didn't know what we wanted.

I think he went in totally the wrong direction with AUJ. Its not narf syndrome it's called having a differing opinion but it is something i have seen increasing on here recently - if people don't agree just try and belittle them.


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 31 2013, 1:26pm

Post #87 of 221 (355 views)
Shortcut
What's 'narf syndrome', Precious? [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 1:31pm

Post #88 of 221 (355 views)
Shortcut
A fan is a fan [In reply to] Can't Post

there is no arguing that. If someone liked the changes Jackson made great, but I know a ton of Tolkien fans who think the decisions they made as far as changing as many things as they did was totally unnecessary. Maybe I'm the NARF because I think they should have stuck to the book instead of changing things needlessly just to put a middle earth film on the screen. I could have waited another 10 years if they could have at least followed the book and not felt the need to change something that needed no change. The "herbal" audience was never given a chance to know if they would have liked the Hobbit as it was told because of Jackson and his changes.

There was no real reason to bring Azog back from the dead. Bolg would have served just as good a villain and NOT had to change the history of the dwarves and orc/goblins. It still would have been Orcs chasing dwarves for revenge, but this story line would have made sense instead of needless change. They obviously couldn't make up their mind about the story otherwise there would have been a more cohesive one. Azog was obviously a last minute decision that I thought the CGI was horrible. What was he straight from the god of war video game? At least a guy in a suit would have felt part of the scene instead of being painted on top of it. Heck can anyone give me a valid reason why Azog was brought back instead of using Bolg? I don't think there is a valid reason other than the lame excuse Peter Jackson wanted to.

There was no reason to make the stone giants a roller coaster ride that was OTT. It was pure spectacle and took away from Bilbo's journey. Why does Bilbo and the dwarves have to personally interact with everything on the journey. Stone giants off in the distance with the rain and thunder and lightning would have worked brilliantly and NOT been OTT.

The white council IMO was terribly written and just felt unnatural. Gandalf and Saruman seem like acquaintances who merely get along just to be polite rather than the friends they are supposed to be, as much on Gandalfs side as Sarumans. Plus IMO it just seemed like they wanted to cram in as many middle earth names during that scene to make people think they care about Tolkien's world instead of trying to come up with some dialogue that Tolkien himself would have been proud of. But NO they had to try and create tension between Gandalf and Saruman with Saruman basically daring Gandalf to go find proof in DolGuldur. They couldn't even keep the fact straight that Gandalf discovered all this information 90 years before the Hobbit it had to be something that happened in the present. I guess nothing happened before Gandalf took the dwarves on this journey, the necromancer sat around twiddling his thumbs until he realized "Ohh no Gandalf is going on an adventure we need to do something, I haven't done anything for centuries so I suppose I aught to get off my butt now that Gandalf is out and about"

Radagast is a character while I think he started out with the best intentions he was an idiot. Really, leading the dwarves away and he just keeps running in circles constantly leading the orcs closer to them instead. The bird crap to me was just OTT. and the whole getting high basically was a bit much. The bunny sled to me just looked out of place and ridiculous but that's personal opinion. The witch King showing up, stuff like that just makes it seem, to me anyways, that they are just trying to shoehorn as many tie ins to LOTR as possible instead of actually telling the story in a similar context as to what Tolkien wrote. Which Tolkien ONLY rewrote the Riddles in the dark chapter, he pondered a rewrite but abandoned it because the story was no longer the same one he originally wrote and lost the same feel of the Hobbit. Which I am quite happy with. So if Tolkien abandoned the rewrite what gives Jackson the right? IMo he should have just told the story instead of trying to invent a new one under the guise of calling it the Hobbit. Tales from Middle earth more like it. That I could have lived with, but that wouldn't have sold as many tickets as exploiting the Hobbit name now would it have?


imin
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 1:32pm

Post #89 of 221 (359 views)
Shortcut
narf [In reply to] Can't Post

narf i believe stands for not a real fan - i think it is something people who like the books said of others who they felt were not real fans though it could just as easily nowadays be labelled to people who don't like the films by those who do.

It was then turned around as a badge of honour on here as a bit of a joke - so people say things like 'i have been a narf since 1956' etc.

other golden oldies on here can probably say more, lol.

In the case of Elessar he was using it as an insult, by saying he felt the other poster was making out that only a real fan could find faults with the film where as people who are not real fans don't care and so enjoy the film more. Of course that isn't true, plenty who love the books also love the films.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 1:39pm

Post #90 of 221 (348 views)
Shortcut
Tolkien only rewrote riddles in the dark [In reply to] Can't Post

he abandoned a total rewrite which in his opinion would have destroyed the tone of the original work. I have to agree with him. They should have left it as 2 films with the DolGuldur subplot and called it a day. But then WB couldn't milk more money out of the Tolkien name then now could it? Peter Jackson's more story to tell is just a ploy to make up his own story under the guise of calling it the Hobbit, using Tolkien's characters but not the events that Tolkien wrote. Shame to because what Tolkien wrote is much better than the nonsense rollercoaster ride Jackson gave us so far.


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 31 2013, 2:02pm

Post #91 of 221 (363 views)
Shortcut
That makes sense, [In reply to] Can't Post

thanks!


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 2:12pm

Post #92 of 221 (362 views)
Shortcut
Bravo! [In reply to] Can't Post

And speaking of rivendell ....what the heck happened with the dwarves? One minute they arrive, they broke some furniture ....and then they are leaving?? Why would they leave without Gandalf?? And Bilbo would go with them without Gandalf?

Vous commencez à m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 31 2013, 2:34pm

Post #93 of 221 (346 views)
Shortcut
Good point. [In reply to] Can't Post

Surely there must be a deleted scene where the dwarves decide to leave, then convince Bilbo to go with them. Their leaving is not even hinted at, and then all of a sudden they're on the trail. It seemed like they weren't even in Rivendell a whole day (more infamous PJ time compression?). I think PJ forgot to do 'passage of time' shots for these films.

Speaking of time compression... the company makes camp at the ruined farmhouse, Gandalf disappears, the ponies go missing, the company's captured by trolls, Gandalf returns and turns the trolls to stone, they find the troll horde (and all the famous swords),Radagast arrives informing Gandalf about Dol Guldur, they're discovered by warg scouts, and the bunny sled chase begins. All in less than one day. And if the bunny sled chase happens in one afternoon, as the movie makes it seem, they then also find Rivendell later that same day. Phew! That's like half the events of the movie. And then they leave Rivendell the next morning? They must've slept well that night!


tolktolk
Lorien

Mar 31 2013, 2:41pm

Post #94 of 221 (342 views)
Shortcut
Ha ha, yes! [In reply to] Can't Post

That made no sense whatsoever, though one reviewer did put forward the theory that they decided to leave because they were as bored as everyone else with the WC droning on.

From what Peter Jackson has said, the missing scenes in Rivendell which are destined for the EE are more of the dwarves behaving badly and making fun of the elves. Oh joy.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 2:54pm

Post #95 of 221 (340 views)
Shortcut
Great!!!!!! [In reply to] Can't Post

more made up content that has NOTHING to do with the story of the Hobbit to be sure... Crazy I still don't understand why they named these films the Hobbit since the amount of made up content almost equals the stuff from the book. Still think it should have been called Tales from Middle Earth or something along those lines...





OHHH THAT'S RIGHT!!!!! It wouldn't make the kind of money it is by exploiting the name "the Hobbit".... That's right almost forgotTongue


tarasaurus
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 3:00pm

Post #96 of 221 (340 views)
Shortcut
yepp [In reply to] Can't Post

I still love the movie despite the changes, I want to see more Middle Earth come to life and I'm grateful I'm getting 3 huge movies worth.


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 3:11pm

Post #97 of 221 (335 views)
Shortcut
That's fine [In reply to] Can't Post

He may have not given you what you wanted but as a whole I'd be willing to bet he gave most folks what they wanted. All while not nailing everything for everyone.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think he did just fine with it but he did make a few mistakes. You are totally off the mark of what I meant and jumping to conclusions. The last part of that post very much comes across as if only mindless fans could be happy with what we got. That you'd have to not care about the books and just have to be happy to have a movie to enjoy it. That is what I meant. If that is not what he meant he should have chosen his words betters. I personally don't care at all if he liked the movie or not. For me personally it did and captured for the most part the story that I love. I don't care for everything about it but I love it despite his issues.

As far as people belittling I think you're exaggerating just a bit. It happens here far far less than other boards I've been on. As I said in another posts both sides can get harsh. I will say as I said earlier that I think a few posters here almost every post is some kind of pot shot (even if its tongue and cheek) towards the movie or one of 9.5k thread on this is what's wrong/ruined The Hobbit.



DanielLB
Immortal


Mar 31 2013, 3:21pm

Post #98 of 221 (333 views)
Shortcut
He re-wrote a lot more (of the beginning). Riddles ended up in the published Hobbit book. / [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 3:25pm

Post #99 of 221 (330 views)
Shortcut
But he also knew it wasn't right [In reply to] Can't Post

to do a rewrite of it. The only published part of the rewrite was RID... From my understanding of reading on the subject Tolkien realized it was a mistake to try and rewrite the whole thing and left it alone (except the riddles chapter) Which IMO Jackson should have learned something from that but didn't.


Kirly
Lorien


Mar 31 2013, 3:25pm

Post #100 of 221 (326 views)
Shortcut
We don't see them [In reply to] Can't Post

Answering the call of nature either but surely they did.

My avatar photo is Lake Tekapo in New Zealand's South Island. Taken by me in 2004 on a Red Carpet Tours LOTR Movie Location Tour. 'Twas the Vacation of a Lifetime!

pictures taken while on the tour are here:
https://picasaweb.google.com/Kirly7/LOTRNewZealandTour#


Kirly
Lorien


Mar 31 2013, 3:26pm

Post #101 of 221 (378 views)
Shortcut
As I recall, he gave it up as too difficult [In reply to] Can't Post

Notbecause it "wasn't right"

My avatar photo is Lake Tekapo in New Zealand's South Island. Taken by me in 2004 on a Red Carpet Tours LOTR Movie Location Tour. 'Twas the Vacation of a Lifetime!

pictures taken while on the tour are here:
https://picasaweb.google.com/Kirly7/LOTRNewZealandTour#


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 3:26pm

Post #102 of 221 (376 views)
Shortcut
These points I completey agree on. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
There was no real reason to bring Azog back from the dead. Bolg would have served just as good a villain and NOT had to change the history of the dwarves and orc/goblins. It still would have been Orcs chasing dwarves for revenge, but this story line would have made sense instead of needless change. They obviously couldn't make up their mind about the story otherwise there would have been a more cohesive one. There was no reason to make the stone giants a roller coaster ride that was OTT. It was pure spectacle and took away from Bilbo's journey. Why does Bilbo and the dwarves have to personally interact with everything on the journey. Stone giants off in the distance with the rain and thunder and lightning would have worked brilliantly and NOT been OTT.

instead of trying to come up with some dialogue that Tolkien himself would have been proud of. But NO they had to try and create tension between Gandalf and Saruman with Saruman basically daring Gandalf to go find proof in DolGuldur. They couldn't even keep the fact straight that Gandalf discovered all this information 90 years before the Hobbit it had to be something that happened in the present. I guess nothing happened before Gandalf took the dwarves on this journey, the necromancer sat around twiddling his thumbs until he realized "Ohh no Gandalf is going on an adventure we need to do something, I haven't done anything for centuries so I suppose I aught to get off my butt now that Gandalf is out and about"



"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Mar 31 2013, 3:29pm)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 3:29pm

Post #103 of 221 (375 views)
Shortcut
Not true [In reply to] Can't Post

Tolkien gave up the rewrite because the story of the Hobbit lost all the charm that it possessed being changed. Not ever that it was too hard. That is why he moved some of the material to the appendices of LOTR, because they fit there and did not ruin the feel and charm of the hobbit as it was written and left after the RID change. Some of that material is also if I remember correctly eluded to in UT. but it was never that writing the material was too hard for Tolkien, this was HIS world, he created.


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Mar 31 2013, 3:32pm)


Glorfindela
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 3:36pm

Post #104 of 221 (371 views)
Shortcut
I am not a Tolkien 'nerd' [In reply to] Can't Post

Although I have read LOTR and The Hobbit a few times, it was a long time ago so I do not remember details of the books. I certainly don't intend to reread the books now, before the films are finished, and risk being disappointed, as I was when I first saw FOTR having read LOTR a short while before.

Some of the things the Tolkien mega-enthusiasts on this forum are complaining about in outrage at the film-makers having left out/included/changed leave me completely baffled. I don't even know what on earth they are talking about much of the time.

The fact is that this film is an adaptation of The Hobbit book. The story needed to be simplified for a much wider audience than just the well-versed Tolkien enthusiast – much of which has never read the books. Frankly, it seems to me that if some of the suggestions that I find so baffling were incorporated, the film would be incomprehensible to a wider audience. The film story is complex enough without it being made even more complicated. Yes, you might say that The Hobbit 'should' have been exactly like the book. However, had that been the case it would have been a far less enjoyable, specifically children's film, with a lot of cardboard-cutout characters à la Tolkien, which would have been of little interest to me and I suspect to many others.

I, for one, am very pleased with how The Hobbit has been interpreted. The storyline within the film makes perfect sense – and as I said, for me the books are one thing, the films another. As long as the acting, plot line, music and visuals continue to be of as high a calibre as they are in AUJ, that will suit me fine – and I'm sure many others who do love the film. (N.B. People I know who have seen the film in the UK are generally not very well versed in Tolkien – but they all love the film.)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 3:45pm

Post #105 of 221 (362 views)
Shortcut
The film version of the Hobbit is only as complex as it is because [In reply to] Can't Post

all the made up stuff or changes to the story.

IMO an adaptation should tell you the story that is in the book, Peter Jackson has added a bunch of stuff not in the book because HE thought it was better not because it was Tolkien's lore, or it was from the appendices.(what he added is NOT from the appendices I read)

The Hobbit as a book even with the inclusion of the DolGuldur White Council subplot was at best 2 movies worth of material with being stretched thin...

For those that loved or liked the film I'm glad you do I really am. But after reading Tolkien's books for decades I find it hard to over look the OTT made up stuff, I call nonsense, that seems just added to propel these films to Hollywood blockbuster status. Instead of simply making a great film adapted from the book telling the story of the Hobbit without rewriting a vast majority of it.


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 3:45pm

Post #106 of 221 (359 views)
Shortcut
A fan is a fan for sure [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm glad you understand that. As I said that's not how the last part reads IMO. I'm sure there are fans who didn't just as there are fans who like/roll with them.
That discussion really goes no places IMO. I for one won't call you a narf and I don't think most folks would.

I agree Bolg being the main villain and we should have seen a glimpse of the Balrog at Moria. As far as Azog's look I thought he looked freaking cool. His design and the look on screen was much better than any video game. When people say that I wonder if they've actually played a video game especially God of War. I have and I can assure you that look we saw isn't achievable on any console at this time.

I didn't mind the size of the giants at all. Now, they could have had them in the distance and it would have probably worked better, but I didn't hate what they went with.

Totally disagree about The White Council. I loved that sequence and it played out sort of how I had imagined. It didn't feel crammed into me and I do believe they care about Tolkien. I think OU may be playing the drama card a bit hard with the last part. lol

I like Radagast. From the information out there I could see him being a bit goofy but I do agree that the bird poop was lame. As a whole this movie feels like the book that I love with some additions. All in it feels like the Middle-earth I love. The way I look at it Jackson has gotten a lot right and some wrong and Tolkien got a lot right and some wrong (I'm speaking of the Middle-earth sandbox).



Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 3:48pm

Post #107 of 221 (356 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think the rewrite would have definitely been more adult-friendly, as there likely would have been a lot of stuff that was altogether abandoned (the talking purse, the English names of the trolls, the "attercop" stuff, and Beorn's animal waiters spring to mind).

With that said, if the 1960 revised version were completed, I still doubt we would have seen Nazgul tombs and a resurrected Azog. I'm fine with PJ making the movie more adultish, but he could have done that without straying so far from the source. It's like I said to sinister71, the movie was great when it stuck to what Tolkien wrote, and it stumbled when it veered off-course.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 4:00pm

Post #108 of 221 (356 views)
Shortcut
Been saying this for a while now [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
the movie was great when it stuck to what Tolkien wrote, and it stumbled when it veered off-course.

Completely agree. I've said that since the first time I seen AUJ the Baggend stuff is great i don't even mind they changed it so Thorin shows up late. It adds to his stature. Changes like that I was fine with I didn't even mind the betting scene, but stuff like Azog being resurrected without proper cause when Bolg would have worked perfectly, the trolls carrying off the ponies silently under the dwarves noses and sending Bilbo to investigate something they knew was dangerous, The company riding on a stone giant and about getting killed, Bilbo killing a warg and jumping into the middle of a fight with Azog when he's never used a sword other than holding Gollum at bay. It is changes like that, that I find annoying and so untolkien.



(This post was edited by sinister71 on Mar 31 2013, 4:01pm)


tarasaurus
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 4:01pm

Post #109 of 221 (345 views)
Shortcut
i agree [In reply to] Can't Post

completely. They are 2 separate entities. Tolkien didn't create the film(s) and PJ didn't write the book, so of course it's not going to be 100% book-to-screen! No movie ever is. They can get darn close but the changes make for an interesting twist to the movies and less predictable.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 4:08pm

Post #110 of 221 (341 views)
Shortcut
The thing I think is [In reply to] Can't Post

If I wanted twists that deviate so far from the story I know and love I would rather just see something I don't know. A completely made up tale and not what should be an adaptation where almost or half of it is completely made up. I realize they are 2 separate entities but the film should to be IMO an adaptation not a rewrite with a bunch of fabricated events. The adventure for the audience who knows the story should be the presentation not the story itself, and the adventure for those who do not know the story should be in getting the adventure from the book. At least that's MY opinion on it.


tarasaurus
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 4:10pm

Post #111 of 221 (339 views)
Shortcut
I still like it [In reply to] Can't Post

for what it is, I know this is going in circles because I disagree with all the elements people hated about the film, but I agree to disagree. I just can't wait for DOS and TABA :)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 4:13pm

Post #112 of 221 (335 views)
Shortcut
I am glad you enjoyed the film [In reply to] Can't Post

and I'm glad your looking forward to the rest of the trilogy. Smile

For me its just a matter of picking out the bits that ARE the Hobbit and enjoying them since I personally don't see any reason for such drastic changes.


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 4:21pm

Post #113 of 221 (333 views)
Shortcut
Well if you HAD read the rest of the post... [In reply to] Can't Post

You'd see how wrong your claim that it's all "filling in" is. I originally said that the appendices material had been mangled, and you went and picked out the least-mangled bit to talk about in an attempt to stick up for PJ's inventions. And the only reason it's the least-mangled is because it's the least-described. All of the other appendices material that's been adapted - Azog, the Dwarf/Orc War, the pre-LOTR whereabouts of the Nazgul - none of it is even close to what was written in the appendices.

As for Radagast, every single thing to do with him was completely invented for the movie. You're right, I DON'T have proof that Radagast wasn't a bunny-sled-riding, magic-mushroom-consuming fool who walked around with bird-crap on the side of his face and had stick insects crawling around in his mouth. I don't have proof that spiders did not attack Rhosgobel and that he healed a hedgehog named Sebastian, you're correct. But that's all peripheral stuff. Radagast did not find an unknown evil presence in Dol Guldur during the time of The Hobbit (because it was already known that the Necromancer was Sauron, and it was Gandalf who had discovered it 90 years earlier), he didn't he didn't draw off orcs pursuing the dwarves (because there WERE no orcs pursuing the dwarves), and he certainly did not go with Gandalf to Nazgul tombs (because there were no Nazgul tombs).


tarasaurus
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 4:22pm

Post #114 of 221 (337 views)
Shortcut
I'm just still in shock [In reply to] Can't Post

by how many people really disliked the film, or most of it. I know the forum isn't the majority of the fans by any means, but even my good friend who proclaims to be a LOTR diehard complains about it which I didn't expect. But I feel her complaints are kinda petty, like Thorin is a ripoff or Aragorn which I highly disagree with. But I'm sad that there are more threads here complaining/bashing about TH than supporting/being excited about it. That's what I was hoping I'd be coming to when I finally started to actually post here but I'm disappointed. :( And I understand everyone has their opinions and that's cool, just wish there were more people to enjoy the film talk with that actually liked it.


(This post was edited by tarasaurus on Mar 31 2013, 4:28pm)


Glorfindela
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 4:23pm

Post #115 of 221 (330 views)
Shortcut
Fair enough [In reply to] Can't Post

I am really sorry you cannot enjoy the film – if I had your deep knowledge of Tolkien's work, perhaps I would feel the same. (I had an inkling of what that felt like when I first went to see FOTR, which initially left me baffled.) What you call the 'OTT made-up stuff' in fact fits perfectly in the film story (as far as I'm concerned).

Incidentally, the film may be financed by an American company, but creatively it is not American (in terms of acting, directing, etc.). The fact that it is making money is a good thing in my view, because that bodes well for the future two films, which I want to enjoy as much as I do the first one.


In Reply To
For those that loved or liked the film I'm glad you do I really am. But after reading Tolkien's books for decades I find it hard to over look the OTT made up stuff, I call nonsense, that seems just added to propel these films to Hollywood blockbuster status.



tarasaurus
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 4:25pm

Post #116 of 221 (332 views)
Shortcut
the only thing I didn't like... [In reply to] Can't Post

about AUJ was the line from Bofur, "if you've got the balls for it", that is so far from Tolkien era and I hated it. If it were a modern movie taking place in a modern world, it would make sense. But that is all.


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 4:26pm

Post #117 of 221 (329 views)
Shortcut
Even though I am probably one of the "mega-enthusiasts" you are talking about... [In reply to] Can't Post

I am not outraged about any of the changes - disappointed at times, but certainly not outraged. Even for all its flaws, AUJ was a good movie, and I was able to immerse myself in it once I got past the changes.

But, I still feel that the weakest parts of the movie were the parts that deviated the furthest from what Tolkien wrote.


Glorfindela
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 4:32pm

Post #118 of 221 (321 views)
Shortcut
Well, you know [In reply to] Can't Post

I know at least one person who didn't like the LOTR films, but did like The Hobbit very much.

The trouble is, whenever people start to discuss something about the film in a thread on these boards, you inevitably get one of three posters (sometimes all three) interjecting with 'it sucks'-type comments, which don't really say anything but act like a damp squib. (They may not actually say 'it sucks', but the tone is the same.) I don't quite know the motive for such comments – and I'm not talking about constructive criticism here, such as that by a few of the posters immediately above.

That's partly why I intend to disengage from further perusal of message boards relating to this film. I don't want to have my viewing experience spoiled and want to see the next film with few preconceived ideas.


In Reply To
But I'm sad that there are more threads here complaining/bashing about TH than supporting/being excited about it. That's what I was hoping I'd be coming to when I finally started to actually post here but I'm disappointed. :( And I understand everyone has their opinions and that's cool, just wish there were more people to enjoy the film talk with that actually liked it.



(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Mar 31 2013, 4:35pm)


tarasaurus
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 4:36pm

Post #119 of 221 (318 views)
Shortcut
How i feel as well [In reply to] Can't Post

It's kind of dampening my spirits not seeing a thread where we can praise the film instead, but rather I have to explain myself constantly on why I liked what others disliked. I dunno, I really wanted to post more here but I may have to go away for a bit.


Glorfindela
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 4:38pm

Post #120 of 221 (318 views)
Shortcut
I know – that's just daft :) [In reply to] Can't Post

The things I most disliked were probably the PJ favourites: the snot and Radagast's facial make-up. Even some children in audiences blanched at the former (while also laughing).

But these are really minor things, and don't affect my viewing experience of the entire film.

I too have to go away for a bit. Don't be despondent. :)


In Reply To
about AUJ was the line from Bofur, "if you've got the balls for it", that is so far from Tolkien era and I hated it. If it were a modern movie taking place in a modern world, it would make sense. But that is all.



(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Mar 31 2013, 4:39pm)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 4:39pm

Post #121 of 221 (323 views)
Shortcut
I wouldn't say I am outraged [In reply to] Can't Post

let down, disappointed, saddened, having a feeling of lacking, that the story Tolkien wrote is something great, loved for decades, by many and has been reduced to something which is only a sign of the times. Looking at the material Jackson had to work with that Tolkien wrote I feel the film was changed into something subpar in comparison IMO. Frown

I just see the potential to be SO much better than what we got while sticking to Tolkien's stories instead of Peter Jackson's that's all.


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 4:39pm

Post #122 of 221 (326 views)
Shortcut
I concur [In reply to] Can't Post

Some of the minor changes, like Thorin showing up alone at Bag-End, worked well as book-to-movie translations. But then you have minor stuff like the dwarves attacking the trolls, which then spirals into an unbelievable scenario where the dwarves lay down their arms and allow themselves to be stuffed into sacks. It just seems like every time they change something, the consequences of the changes snowball into something that makes no sense. Take Radagast finding the Necromancer - because they decided to do that instead of allowing Gandalf to explore Dol Guldur, now they have to alter how Gandalf found the map and key, or just leave it out completely.


tarasaurus
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 4:40pm

Post #123 of 221 (322 views)
Shortcut
Exactly :) [In reply to] Can't Post

I just roll my eyes at Bofur's line but it doesn't make the viewing experience any less enjoyable, or the bird crap on Radagast...in fact, I quite enjoyed Radagast! Haha, he loves animals as much as I do. I just don't have the same wardrobe as him. And I like that they presented him as such a hugely different wizard class compared to Saruman.


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 4:42pm

Post #124 of 221 (316 views)
Shortcut
Yep... [In reply to] Can't Post

At some points, it just felt like I was watching Peter Jackson rather than Tolkien.

I did enjoy the movie, but I felt some parts should have been handled much differently than they were, judging by the amount of material Jackson had to work with.


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 31 2013, 4:49pm

Post #125 of 221 (317 views)
Shortcut
Of course they don't have to show everything [In reply to] Can't Post

and i never said they did. But there are simple ways to cinematically show the passage of time. Just look at FotR for many, many excellent examples of this. AUJ could have used a bit more of that sort of thing-- it would have helped it seem more like a real journey, and not just a series of events. It just makes me wonder if the filmmakers intend for it to be just a day or two passing, or if it's supposed to be longer, and it's just sloppy filmmaking. That's all.


Altaira
Superuser / Moderator


Mar 31 2013, 4:56pm

Post #126 of 221 (379 views)
Shortcut
I don't think there are [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
But I'm sad that there are more threads here complaining/bashing about TH than supporting/being excited about it.


As I scan page one of this forum, I only see one, maybe two threads that have a negative connotation in the subject line, and even those have many positive comments in them. If you liked the movie, or loved it overall, there are many, many others here that did too! They all may not have liked the exact same things as everyone else, but that's what keeps the conversation interesting. People who didn't like the movies are welcome to post here too, the trick is to not read their posts if it's annoying or depressing. There are many positive replies and threads you can move on to and enjoy! Smile


Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.



"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower

"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase





sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 31 2013, 5:04pm

Post #127 of 221 (375 views)
Shortcut
I thought that Tolkien [In reply to] Can't Post

was actively doing the re-write, gave the first few chapters to a friend of his, she said something like "It's fine, but it's just not The Hobbit," so he gave up on it, only keeping the changes to Riddles, and a few smaller things here and there. So it's not as clear cut as "he decided it wasn't a good idea," because he thought it was a good enough idea to start, and continue for number of chapters, before heeding his friend's advice. Personally, i wish he'd kept at it, that way we'd have both-- the "kids" version and the "adult" version, so to speak.


(This post was edited by sauget.diblosio on Mar 31 2013, 5:10pm)


tarasaurus
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 5:07pm

Post #128 of 221 (372 views)
Shortcut
Oh, I know! [In reply to] Can't Post

SmileI know there are others that enjoyed the film, but a lot of the threads (at least the ones I've posted in or have been reading) have turned into more of a bashing than a supportive thread. Frown


DanielLB
Immortal


Mar 31 2013, 5:19pm

Post #129 of 221 (367 views)
Shortcut
The un-finished re-write still contained the Trolls' names, and the talking purse. / [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 5:19pm

Post #130 of 221 (368 views)
Shortcut
Well, here's something we can agree on [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
What I am saying is that what precisely Gandalf was doing whilst at Dol Guldur wasn't explained by Tolkien. Which is why the filmmakers have to fill it in.



They do have some leeway regarding how they rout Sauron from Dol Guldur. In fact, the only bit of info I can recall regarding that is that Sauron was finally driven out by the devices of Saruman, or something to that effect. I know Sir Christopher Lee is severely limited in what he can do at his age, but hopefully they find a way to make it happen.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 5:24pm

Post #131 of 221 (379 views)
Shortcut
from my understanding [In reply to] Can't Post

he wrote a couple chapters and then gave to a friend, she then said it was good but did not have the same feel tone or charm that the hobbit held. Apparently Tolkien must have agreed because he never finished the rewrite.

I guess for me the Hobbit has that childlike quality to it and I love that, since I read it at the age of 6 for the first time. I really don't need it rewritten to envision it in the same way the LOTR was. When I imagine it in my head, I have always seen it as a realistic yet at times, light hearted tale, with dark elements. And as I read LOTR it added more dark elements but I read those books as I grew older and have continued to read them. being able to see one continuous film in my head that has continuity from the start of the Hobbit to the end of ROTK. I can even picture the Dwarf and Goblin war material described in Tolkien's other writings. I really don't and probably never will see a reason to make the action and adventure in the Hobbit unrealistic and OTT when I can visualize it in my head realistically just like Jackson did with LOTR for the most part.


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 5:24pm

Post #132 of 221 (368 views)
Shortcut
Balance between the real time narrative and prologues [In reply to] Can't Post

When they sat down and wrote the screen play they could have slavishly followed the book or rewritten the story in its entirety or somewhere in between. To write a screen play which re imagines the story from an adult perspective and stick faithfully to what we know from the appendices would have meant the dimensioning of the character perspective would have toppled over the episodic core book.

Unfortunately Tolkiens writings about Thror, Thrain the Necromencer, the fall of Saruman, Galadriels role in middle earth in the second and third age and Gandalfs strategy for the north are utterly wonderful and far above the trite nature of the childrens book which he felt so bad he should re write the whole book (Humphrey Carpenter's Biography).

To produce a consistant and cohesive film screen play they went with Bag End/Riddles/Smaug-Bilbo and Thorin-Bilbo with great reverence though we have yet to see the latter two. All the other flavours from the book are there and analysis done 3 months ago puts the spine of the book items as the vast majority of time spent in AUJ. However to use the appendices material in a way that does not overun the real time narrative by wonderful endless prologues they brought some of the arcs into the real time. The rise of Sauron and Radagasts discovery and Azog are the first two , the third one will be in the next movie which I expect to be Thrain/Bolg.

You then have the other challange what were Radagast/Saruman/Galadriel and Legolas doing at the time of the Hobbit like Galadriel and the Silmarillion the latter existed without the former.

To weave these characters into the screen play as more than mere cameo's is something Tolkien did himself when rewriting the Silmarillion.

And to your specific point once you have rounded out the ingredients that you want to bring to the table you then have to offer a cohesive and understandable story within the context of the movies made 10 years ago. To place the re integration of Sauron and his deadliest servants into a clearly defined dynamic meant you could not go with 1650 years of vigorous independent action by his servants whom are in thrall to him. At a subcreative level it does not make sense to me as a deep reader, so it would be a real puzzle for film only fans. As an aside I do not think there is any evidence that Tolkien ever addressed the issue that the Nazgul's re emergence occured in 1100 T.A. followed by very public wars and the taking of Minus Ithil in 2000 to 2002 whilst Sauron was only confident to go public in 2951 T. A. If I had been the Witch King of Angmar I would have hunted for the one ring myself whilst my master was re intergrating that surely would be in the nature of evil. No Tolkien himself was not perfect in his creation everything in the narrative suggest a master slave relationship between him and the Nazgul whereas the appendices imply something else that they can act independently with their own agenda.

We can all have views about CGI/Models 2D 3D hot Dwarves and childish humour but the three film answer can only be given ... when we have seen all three





In Reply To

The fact is that this film is an adaptation of The Hobbit book. The story needed to be simplified for a much wider audience than just the well-versed Tolkien enthusiast – much of which has never read the books. Frankly, it seems to me that if some of the suggestions that I find so baffling were incorporated, the film would be incomprehensible to a wider audience. The film story is complex enough without it being made even more complicated. Yes, you might say that The Hobbit 'should' have been exactly like the book. However, had that been the case it would have been a far less enjoyable, specifically children's film, with a lot of cardboard-cutout characters à la Tolkien, which would have been of little interest to me and I suspect to many others.

I, for one, am very pleased with how The Hobbit has been interpreted. The storyline within the film makes perfect sense – and as I said, for me the books are one thing, the films another. As long as the acting, plot line, music and visuals continue to be of as high a calibre as they are in AUJ, that will suit me fine – and I'm sure many others who do love the film. (N.B. People I know who have seen the film in the UK are generally not very well versed in Tolkien – but they all love the film.)


I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 5:27pm

Post #133 of 221 (358 views)
Shortcut
I've never read the 1960 re-write... [In reply to] Can't Post

but for some reason I seem to recall reading that Tolkien regretted giving those silly names to the trolls.

I can't believe he left the talking purse in though...I'm gonna have to read that one of these days.


emre43
Rohan

Mar 31 2013, 5:29pm

Post #134 of 221 (354 views)
Shortcut
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts... [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 5:31pm

Post #135 of 221 (351 views)
Shortcut
I hear ya [In reply to] Can't Post

They just had so much material that to work with in the appendices, so much rich backstory, but they either took it and made it unrecognizable, or they just threw out the text and devised their own plots. I would love to hear what the reasons were for some of the changes, because some of it baffles me.


DanielLB
Immortal


Mar 31 2013, 5:35pm

Post #136 of 221 (355 views)
Shortcut
I'm not aware of anything like this [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
but for some reason I seem to recall reading that Tolkien regretted giving those silly names to the trolls.


I can't recall a note, or a letter, that suggests this. I'm likely to have forgotten, so if someone does remember, please point me in the right direction.

I don't really think they are silly names either. Bert and William could easily be Germanic/Westron. I like to think, however, that they aren't their "real" names. Perhaps Men gave them their names, and they took them up themselves. Tolkien doesn't provide any explanation.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 31 2013, 5:47pm

Post #137 of 221 (350 views)
Shortcut
I think some of PJs additions make things [In reply to] Can't Post

even more complicated rather than less for casual watchers who havent read the books.
1. The book starts with, 'In a hole, in the ground, there once lived a Hobbit'. its simple and to the point, it sets up the character and the place, it introduces Bilbo. In the film we have an exciting but confusing Erebor/Dale/Frodo/Bilbo everything but the kitchen sink mash-up.
2. Azog, who or what he is and what the hecks that battle? who is he killing and why, its all extra confusion for someone who doesnt know the backstory.
3. Is this story about Bilbo or Thorin? someone could be forgiven for wondering who the main hero is.
4. Radagast/Necromancer, what is this spooky castle who lives there what is that spooky thing and whats that strangely unscary shadow thing? someone might scratch their head over that lot if they didnt know about Dol Guldur and Nazguls lots of history etc etc.
5. why does Thranduil dislike helping Dwarves about to get Kentucky fried by a dragon? good question.
tis all a bit squiffy. if only it was as simple as the book.


(This post was edited by Elenorflower on Mar 31 2013, 5:48pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 5:50pm

Post #138 of 221 (342 views)
Shortcut
Well this should lift your spirits [In reply to] Can't Post

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=18216


The morning after

Vous commencez à m'ennuyer avec le port!!!

(This post was edited by Lusitano on Mar 31 2013, 5:53pm)


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 5:57pm

Post #139 of 221 (337 views)
Shortcut
Here [In reply to] Can't Post

"I might not (if The Hobbit had been more carefully written, and my world so much thought about 20 years ago) have used the expression ’poor little blighter’, just as I should not have called the troll William. "(Letter 153)

Not as much of an admission of regret as I thought, but still he regretted it nevertheless.


(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Mar 31 2013, 6:02pm)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 6:08pm

Post #140 of 221 (322 views)
Shortcut
Here is the problem with the giants. Such titanic juggernauts diminish Smaug, [In reply to] Can't Post

they diminish the Balrog, as they are evidently mountains inhabited by wild spirits, and they rather beg the question. . . why didn't Sauron just commandeer a couple of this lithotransformrs and send the to break Minas Tirith and every other enemy strong hold into rubble. King Kong size would have been great, about 50 feet per giant. These things were upwards of 500 feet tall. That is ridiculous in context with the rest of the films.

In Reply To
I'm glad you understand that. As I said that's not how the last part reads IMO. I'm sure there are fans who didn't just as there are fans who like/roll with them.
That discussion really goes no places IMO. I for one won't call you a narf and I don't think most folks would.

I agree Bolg being the main villain and we should have seen a glimpse of the Balrog at Moria. As far as Azog's look I thought he looked freaking cool. His design and the look on screen was much better than any video game. When people say that I wonder if they've actually played a video game especially God of War. I have and I can assure you that look we saw isn't achievable on any console at this time.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 6:27pm

Post #141 of 221 (323 views)
Shortcut
That didn't bother me at all. I loved much of the films, and little embellishments were no concern HOWEVER what REALLY TROUBLED [In reply to] Can't Post

me, was the slap in the face MAJOR changes to things well established in the books. . . the parts that tell lay audiences an ENTIRELY different tale from the cannon account.

It bothers me that Gandalf is instigating a quest in the hopes of counteracting the plans of a villain. . . whom he does not yet know is active in these films! It bothers me that ANY Elf, even Galadriel, is portrayed as being, to a casual observer, some kind of supervising director over Angelic Holy Spirits sent by GOD ALMIGHTY to aid counsel, guide and aid the everyone, including Men, Dwarves AND Elves, against the growing threat of Sauron. It was NOT a case of them coming to guide humans, hobbits and dwarves, while the Elves managed all their own affairs. The Elves were in the thought of Eru and The Valar as well when they sent other Ainur into Middle-Earth to resist Sauron. It bothers me that the War of Vengeance became a territorial dispute, over a place the Dwarves had ABSOLUTELY no realistic hope of reclaiming anyway, because of the horrifically powerful Maiar Demon that ruled the place. The one that killed their mightiest Ancestor-King a thousand years before and drove a larger, better armed army into exile, along with a host of Elves from Lothlorien whom even the return of Galadriel to The Golden Wood could not sufficiently calm once the presence of The Demon was felt. It bothers me that an orc who was dead before this story begins may well become a more heavily featured villain in these films than Smaug or The Necromancer. Years from now kids may be asked about who the main baddy was in these movies and answer, "The Pale Orc, Azog! And then there was also a dragon, and an evil spirit sorcerer in a, this ruined fortress somewhere, and he had some screeching ghost kings that served him, and maybe there was a glimpse of a Demon in the mountains. But mainly, there was Azog, yeah." THOSE are the things that bother me.


I loved a lot of the film, even enjoyed some of Radagast when he wasn't rolling his eyes or tasting bugs. But the fact that I enjoyed it and found it very good, doesn't mean nothing was wrong with it. And some of the wrong was VERY, VERY wrong and bad, and it is okay to say so.

Quoth an old limmerick, "There once was a girl, who had a small curl right in the middle of her forehead. And when she was good, she was very, very good. And when she was bad, she was horrid!" lol

In Reply To
about AUJ was the line from Bofur, "if you've got the balls for it", that is so far from Tolkien era and I hated it. If it were a modern movie taking place in a modern world, it would make sense. But that is all.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 6:30pm

Post #142 of 221 (314 views)
Shortcut
Knowledge of Tolkien [In reply to] Can't Post

Take heart that there are people who have spent time delving hard into Tolkien and come out loving the movies. I'm into my second decade of being a fan but I love the movies and have spent lots of hours learning about Middle-earth. So having all of that doesn't guarantee a like or dislike.



Elessar
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 6:32pm

Post #143 of 221 (310 views)
Shortcut
As was said [In reply to] Can't Post

You just have to ignore those posts. If you love both book and movie as much as I do scream it from the mountain top and don't let anyone damper that. :)



tarasaurus
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 6:34pm

Post #144 of 221 (309 views)
Shortcut
:) [In reply to] Can't Post

Haha I know, I think I've already beat my "I loved every bit of the movie" point to death so I won't say it again, but that quote disengaged me from that particular fantasy/Middle Earth era just for that split second because that is not their dialect (didn't ruin the film for me by any means though). That's one big reason why I hate Game of Thrones, to me it's a watered down LOTR (please don't flame me, I can't help it) because of the vulgarity and the language, totally takes me out of that world.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 6:35pm

Post #145 of 221 (314 views)
Shortcut
I thought that gave the book more charm, and the trolls a touch of humanity. I am glad he [In reply to] Can't Post

didn't make those changes. I would have loved an "unabridged" Hobbit with all the Council and Sauron elements added in, Heaven knows. . . but not a version in which all the charm and humour was whittled out in favour of a second epic. I think, in trying to perfectly attune it to Rings, he might have accidentally thrown the baby out with the bathwater and chocked the Life out of The Hobbit. I prefer the more organic feel we get, to a static, perfectly uniform mythology where trolls are all so categorically wicked that they never feel a moments pity, and never make funny comments or have common names.

In Reply To
"I might not (if The Hobbit had been more carefully written, and my world so much thought about 20 years ago) have used the expression ’poor little blighter’, just as I should not have called the troll William. "(Letter 153)

Not as much of an admission of regret as I thought, but still he regretted it nevertheless.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


DanielLB
Immortal


Mar 31 2013, 6:38pm

Post #146 of 221 (311 views)
Shortcut
Thanks Salmacis81! If only we could remember everything we read ;-) [In reply to] Can't Post

It is strange that he wished to change William's name. Out of the 3, I think it is the least odd. If anything, Tom stands out the most.

And to sum up on the un-finished re-write, I personally wish he had finished it, if only to read it and then decide which "version" I preferred. However much I love the current published version, a re-write in the style of the LOTR would have been splendid.


(This post was edited by DanielLB on Mar 31 2013, 6:39pm)


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 6:39pm

Post #147 of 221 (309 views)
Shortcut
I guess [In reply to] Can't Post

I didn't really take issue with them to be honest. What they are is just a short bit of screen time and in Middle-earth they're barely mentioned. Greater issues as you and I have discussed lay with the changes to The Battle of Azanulbizar and no Balrog. I get what you're saying but I have other issues for me that are bigger. I'd even say the snot, belching, and bird poop are bigger issues for me.



AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 6:43pm

Post #148 of 221 (305 views)
Shortcut
I think Game of Thrones actually gives you, in some ways, a more accurate depiction of that aspect [In reply to] Can't Post

of the ancient world. People were, as now, vulgar. People were then, as EVER, very sexual. The notion that Sam never felt an excitement rousing in his loins for one of those Elf ladies in Rivendell, or for Frodo, or for anybody until he married Rosie, or that Gimli never took notice of how closely he was positoned against the prettier than many a lass Legolas as they rode astride the same horse, or that during his stay in Rivendell Boromir, a war veteran and soilder, never even considered making a pass at one of those beautiful Elf Women . . . that is far more unrealistic than Phantom Kings, all the Dragon fire vomited onto Erebor or Rings that make you invisible.

In Reply To
Haha I know, I think I've already beat my "I loved every bit of the movie" point to death so I won't say it again, but that quote disengaged me from that particular fantasy/Middle Earth era just for that split second because that is not their dialect (didn't ruin the film for me by any means though). That's one big reason why I hate Game of Thrones, to me it's a watered down LOTR (please don't flame me, I can't help it) because of the vulgarity and the language, totally takes me out of that world.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 6:59pm

Post #149 of 221 (298 views)
Shortcut
I haven't entirely blasted them on this because I hold out hope, and there is a good chance that it may still happen. [In reply to] Can't Post

If it hasn't come up by the end of the third film, I will complain plenty. For now, I merely caution that it would be a bad oversight, not only because it overlooks the single most significant event in the history of The Dwarves of The Third Age, and the only ever recorded slaying of a Durin in the existing annals (we have already heard Durin's name half a dozen times in the first film . . . might be worth a mention that he was the Dwarves Reincarnating Ancestor-King, and that the last time he reigned he was slain by The Demon of Moria), but also because of the inconsistency of having the place feature in what are now to be films/episodes 1 - 3 of the sextet, without giving any mention to the hugely significant Dark Power who is going to prominently feature there in Episode IV, and whom the two most recognizable Wizards in the films clearly are already well aware of.

There is still plenty of time for that allusion to take place, so I will wait before I shout foul, even as I advise against overlooking it.

In Reply To
and we should have seen a glimpse of the Balrog at Moria.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


tarasaurus
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 7:04pm

Post #150 of 221 (289 views)
Shortcut
That's why [In reply to] Can't Post

I much prefer Middle Earth. But...not to get off topic to GOT...


jtarkey
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 7:18pm

Post #151 of 221 (385 views)
Shortcut
I find this painfully true for AUJs case...Not so much for LOTR [In reply to] Can't Post

One of the things that bothers me most about AUJ is; not only did PJ deviate wildly from the source material, he also deviated wildly from the way he shot LOTR. Save a few bad changes, some of which were saved for the EE anyways, I understood the reason for the changes in LOTR. I don't blame the production for attempting to simplify a very complicated story. It worked out great, and produced what is arguably the best film trilogy of all time. However, they've done the exact opposite with AUJ. They're complicating a simple story...badly I might add. PJ also turned his back on miniatures, film, and outdoor sets, He also decided that OTT video game action was a better choice than gritty, realistic action. It's actually insane how much the man contradicts himself. If you listen to the commentary on LOTR, you could probably pick out at least 10 things where he does the exact opposite in AUJ.

Lets make an alternate universe for a moment. In this universe AUJ has the same plot points it had in the original. Azog is still there, Radagast, Necromancer and all. But let's say they simply execute it differently. I think it still could have been a great film, even with all the changes (as LOTR was). However, not only is the added story not what Tolkien wrote, It's also not good in cinematic standards. So for me, It fails on both ends. It fails as an adaptation, and as a film. It could be argued that LOTR also failed as faithful adaptations, but they succeeded as films.

Given how most good films have a fairly solid script, with a pre planned beginning, middle, and end, I can only gather that PJ and Co. were entirely unsure of how they wanted to make these movies. The film reeks of cut and paste editing, which makes sense seeing as they somehow managed to turn 2 scripts into 3. It seems as if they were totally confused throughout the entire production. The Irony is that this is their own fault. If they had just stuck to The Hobbit, the way it was written, this movie probably would have turned out a lot better.

I also want to second that comment someone made about the lack of "passage of time" shots. It almost feels like the whole film takes place over the course of 2 days. Rivendell has to be the biggest offender. The company was there for less than a day. I was expecting to see some sort of panning shots of people gathered around fires, taking rest and telling stories. Instead we get dwarves breaking tables, and an exposition heavy council scene.

I'm with sinister71, if you loved the film, that's great! I honestly wish I were you. However, I can't. I see way too many problems with it that I can't brush off just because I'm a fan of the LOTR films, and Tolkien. Not to say anyone else is doing that, but If I were to say I liked it, that's what I would be doing.

"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 7:23pm

Post #152 of 221 (376 views)
Shortcut
Amen [In reply to] Can't Post

and thanks I know my views aren't the most popular Wink


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 7:26pm

Post #153 of 221 (373 views)
Shortcut
I suppose I am the prurience to your prudery. lol [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I much prefer Middle Earth. But...not to get off topic to GOT...


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 7:29pm

Post #154 of 221 (370 views)
Shortcut
I'm with ya [In reply to] Can't Post

If they skip that it's a major foul IMO.



tarasaurus
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 7:34pm

Post #155 of 221 (363 views)
Shortcut
Lol [In reply to] Can't Post

Nah it's not so much that I'm a prude, my taste of the fantasy genre is that of what we see/read LOTR/Hobbit/Middle Earth, I'm not so ignorant to think that ya know...things don't go on in the background, but I like that it's not in the foreground like GOT is with vulgarity. Don't need it to tell a story, especially when it's THAT distracting.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 7:34pm

Post #156 of 221 (362 views)
Shortcut
Love me some prurience [In reply to] Can't Post

Wink

Vous commencez à m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 7:38pm

Post #157 of 221 (361 views)
Shortcut
Well [In reply to] Can't Post

the distraction is in the eye of the beholder.Tongue


Now, excuse me, while i go and prepare my soup for the next season of Vulgarity.

Vous commencez à m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


tarasaurus
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 7:43pm

Post #158 of 221 (354 views)
Shortcut
Hahaha [In reply to] Can't Post

Yeah yeah, whatever you say!! Haha!


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 7:45pm

Post #159 of 221 (351 views)
Shortcut
Amen Brother! [In reply to] Can't Post

Lol. I LOVE my Rings. Yet don't think for a moment that seeing a hint more of Arwen in EE would have hurt my feelings a bit! Also, for everybody's information. . . Ain't no WAY all Beren and Luthien were doing was holding hands for THAT long a stretch alone together in the woods and wilderness. Just sayin.

In Reply To
the distraction is in the eye of the beholder.Tongue


Now, excuse me, while i go and prepare my soup for the next season of Vulgarity.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 7:46pm

Post #160 of 221 (349 views)
Shortcut
We are in total solidarity. [In reply to] Can't Post

Cool

In Reply To
If they skip that it's a major foul IMO.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 7:51pm

Post #161 of 221 (343 views)
Shortcut
Indeed [In reply to] Can't Post

Wink

Watching GOT in good company, may prove more fulfilling than just getting immersed in the wonderfull and back stabbing, real politik world of medieval Westeros ...Angelic

Vous commencez à m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


tarasaurus
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 7:52pm

Post #162 of 221 (340 views)
Shortcut
why of course... [In reply to] Can't Post

things happen and people get a little frisky in ME, but it's not all in your face, lol Tongue


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 31 2013, 7:55pm

Post #163 of 221 (340 views)
Shortcut
I understand your concerns [In reply to] Can't Post

one definately can't watch GOT with ones Great Aunt Mildred


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 7:57pm

Post #164 of 221 (336 views)
Shortcut
Or ones siblings [In reply to] Can't Post

.....ahem.....


Tarasaurus : if you ever happen to see a movie called The Dreamers on your television schedule...just dont watch it...Tongue

Vous commencez à m'ennuyer avec le port!!!

(This post was edited by Lusitano on Mar 31 2013, 7:59pm)


tarasaurus
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 7:58pm

Post #165 of 221 (332 views)
Shortcut
LOL [In reply to] Can't Post

Very true. I watched the first season and read ~100 pages of the second book, but decided...I'd rather re-read the Hobbit. I do like Daenerys though. I don't like talking GOT because I know a lot of people who will talk about it for hours and I'm sitting there like....can we talk LOTR? But this is pretty much the only place (the forum) where I can talk LOTR/ME/TOlkien incessantly and it's okay Smile


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 8:14pm

Post #166 of 221 (328 views)
Shortcut
Aha. I see what you did there. [In reply to] Can't Post

And I agree! lol. Funny, I often see your name as Lust iano. lmao

In Reply To
Wink

Watching GOT in good company, may prove more fulfilling than just getting immersed in the wonderfull and back stabbing, real politik world of medieval Westeros ...Angelic


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 8:17pm

Post #167 of 221 (324 views)
Shortcut
Yuck. I see what you did here too. And I DO NOT approve. [In reply to] Can't Post

Aww. . . gawww. Yes, I have seen the Dreamers. Still not as bad as those filthy heathens from Casterly. More Daenerys please. She is just one of the greatest dames since Galadriel. So Awesome, Such a boss, played by a WONDERFULLY cast actress. . . and not shy either Wink. And now, back to my issues with Azog.

In Reply To
.....ahem.....


Tarasaurus : if you ever happen to see a movie called The Dreamers on your television schedule...just dont watch it...Tongue


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 9:00pm

Post #168 of 221 (303 views)
Shortcut
Another virtual high five :-) [In reply to] Can't Post

 



Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 9:08pm

Post #169 of 221 (296 views)
Shortcut
Ouch [In reply to] Can't Post

never realised my name could be decontructed to serve the dark will and creepy pervertness of some old geeser who doesnt ablute and wears a funny hat Tongue

Vous commencez à m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 9:10pm

Post #170 of 221 (293 views)
Shortcut
Lol. [In reply to] Can't Post

You forget, I can take other forms! lmao.

In Reply To
never realised my name could be decontructed to serve the dark will and creepy pervertness of some old geeser who doesnt ablute and wears a funny hat Tongue


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 9:11pm

Post #171 of 221 (292 views)
Shortcut
*high five accepted and met* [In reply to] Can't Post

Cool

In Reply To


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 9:14pm

Post #172 of 221 (292 views)
Shortcut
Does anyone aprove? [In reply to] Can't Post

Angelic

Since i see them as twins and two parts of the same being, i dont worry much about them evil Lannisters. After all, twins have strange and deep bonds...


I agree about Daenerys. She is my team! GO D! Laugh

But last season there was no Qarthian gown!! Mad

Yes Azog, have i mentioned that when hes feeling his subjects face atop Amon Hen, you can very easily notice his CGIness and the other orc's obvious costume and make up. Like two different realities, there...


EDit : thankfully you cant take the form of a perky female shieldmaiden...Tongue

Vous commencez à m'ennuyer avec le port!!!

(This post was edited by Lusitano on Mar 31 2013, 9:15pm)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 9:51pm

Post #173 of 221 (272 views)
Shortcut
Ahh, The Dragon Queen!!! [In reply to] Can't Post

I have sent you a present in thine message vault.

That scene didn't bother me so much. . . well, aside from it existing when he is dead. lol

Ha! Thankful for us both, I bet. lol

In Reply To
Angelic

Since i see them as twins and two parts of the same being, i dont worry much about them evil Lannisters. After all, twins have strange and deep bonds...


I agree about Daenerys. She is my team! GO D! Laugh

But last season there was no Qarthian gown!! Mad

Yes Azog, have i mentioned that when hes feeling his subjects face atop Amon Hen, you can very easily notice his CGIness and the other orc's obvious costume and make up. Like two different realities, there...


EDit : thankfully you cant take the form of a perky female shieldmaiden...Tongue


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Mar 31 2013, 9:57pm

Post #174 of 221 (272 views)
Shortcut
Fascinating [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
all the made up stuff or changes to the story.

IMO an adaptation should tell you the story that is in the book, Peter Jackson has added a bunch of stuff not in the book because HE thought it was better not because it was Tolkien's lore, or it was from the appendices.(what he added is NOT from the appendices I read) He has, the Dwarves took exactly the same journey they did in the book. There are some interuptions which give the characters some thing to work off but its the first six chapters.

The Hobbit as a book even with the inclusion of the DolGuldur White Council subplot was at best 2 movies worth of material with being stretched thin... So which material would you have removed from AUJ. The huge irony of your remark is the substantial time elements were all book canon.

For those that loved or liked the film I'm glad you do I really am. But after reading Tolkien's books for decades I find it hard to over look the OTT made up stuff, I call nonsense, that seems just added to propel these films to Hollywood blockbuster status. Instead of simply making a great film adapted from the book telling the story of the Hobbit without rewriting a vast majority of it. I get it now, with a budget of 250,000,000 dollars he shouldn't have made a film for worldwide consumption just 10,000 people registered to one ring.net. So you are directing a movie which has to follow 3 of the biggest gross's of all time and you write a script for a tiny film faithful to the childrens story with no character depth except Bilbo. You really expect actors to travel to New Zealand to be bit parts in a film for 7 year olds. The Lotr is a great work of literature for any age group, what I do not get is how there is a group of people on this site that place the childrens book along side it. It does not even get close. Any film maker was going to embellish on the episodic book with its narrative collapse after Smaugs death and uneasy move to seriousness toward the end. Its a complete given that Peter Jackson would re imagine the book in the mode of the LOTR movies. You people do not have to like it nor the CGI or HFR or any other such stuff but not being able to get Peter Jackson modus operendi with these movies is a complete puzzle to me. To not like it fine but to not understand where he is coming from and understand his point of view when he has made clear his reasons for what he is trying to achieve is to have a one sided argument with yourselves.


I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.

(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Mar 31 2013, 9:58pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 10:01pm

Post #175 of 221 (262 views)
Shortcut
Pray it is not a thorny present [In reply to] Can't Post

Tongue


Ha, actually i wished it wasnt there. I was in rivendell, with the elves and Bilbo...interruption for the sake of gorka morka, no no no.

I wonder if Saruman secretly , as he of the many colours, as a recreational endevour, changes into a beautifull elven maid and practices singing atop Orthanc...Laugh

Vous commencez à m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 10:49pm

Post #176 of 221 (453 views)
Shortcut
Damned Gorka Morka. [In reply to] Can't Post

To the other matter. . . I agreed not to speak on it. lol. He was locked in that form for the time that he held it, until it perished or returned.

In Reply To
Tongue


Ha, actually i wished it wasnt there. I was in rivendell, with the elves and Bilbo...interruption for the sake of gorka morka, no no no.

I wonder if Saruman secretly , as he of the many colours, as a recreational endevour, changes into a beautifull elven maid and practices singing atop Orthanc...Laugh


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 31 2013, 11:14pm

Post #177 of 221 (447 views)
Shortcut
The hobbit as it was written [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I get it now, with a budget of 250,000,000 dollars he shouldn't have made a film for worldwide consumption just 10,000 people registered to one ring.net. So you are directing a movie which has to follow 3 of the biggest gross's of all time and you write a script for a tiny film faithful to the childrens story with no character depth except Bilbo. You really expect actors to travel to New Zealand to be bit parts in a film for 7 year olds. The Lotr is a great work of literature for any age group, what I do not get is how there is a group of people on this site that place the childrens book along side it. It does not even get close. Any film maker was going to embellish on the episodic book with its narrative collapse after Smaugs death and uneasy move to seriousness toward the end. Its a complete given that Peter Jackson would re imagine the book in the mode of the LOTR movies. You people do not have to like it nor the CGI or HFR or any other such stuff but not being able to get Peter Jackson modus operendi with these movies is a complete puzzle to me. To not like it fine but to not understand where he is coming from and understand his point of view when he has made clear his reasons for what he is trying to achieve is to have a one sided argument with yourselves.


The Hobbit as it was written was never given a chance to be liked by the mass public. changes like involving characters like Azog were totally unnecessary when there was already a character in the perfect spot to pursue the dwarves ... Bolg. Jackson chose to go against canon with those changes. I have never said the White Council/DolGuldur sub plot should never be explored. i just feel it should have been more subtle and leaving things to be discovered in the LOTR trilogy for those who have not seen those. Leave Sauron as the necromancer don't force the issue of who he is, it makes him more important than he should be to the Hobbit story. Don't keep showing slow motion shots of the ring or it falling onto Bilbo's finger mirroring the scene in Bree from FOTR. Leave some mystery to be discovered. I was fine with Radagast till he turned out to be a complete idiot The actual book of the Hobbit could have been made more mature just by taking the tone of LOTR. There is nothing wrong with embellishing but outright changing is something all together different. Heck for the money Jackson was given I could have had the Hobbit as 2 films following the book being expanded upon showing the DolGuldur/WC stuff without having to change events into nonsensical outrageous scenes and still have it be entertaining. I couldn't do any worse, I've had script writing 101 too Crazy

The hobbit comes no where near the caliber of LOTR.... having dwarfs roasting over a spit? snot covered hobbits? dwarves falling from ridiculous heights and not getting hurt? Bilbo runnning around swinging a sword in front of a orc who just handed Thorin a solid beating? Radagast running in circles around the dwarfs leading the Orcs closer to them instead of far away? An Istari covered in bird crap? Stone giants so big 2 of them would have been able to take care of anything Sauron wanted done in 5 minutes or less? The eagles dropping the dwarves within view of the lonely mountain, wasn't that another 200 plus miles away? if they could see the mountain why not just hitch a ride all the way there? thats just a few things off the top of my head and if I thought about it I could think up 100 more things changed or that don't make any sense compared to what Tolkien wrote.

People weren't given a chance to see a hobbit that falls in line with LOTR, or in line with Tolkien's works, what we got starts out good at Baggend and turns into a train wreck. Maybe had people been given that chance it would have been a much better film. But Jackson chose to make too many unnecessary changes instead of thinking things thru and giving us the Hobbit we should have gotten. What we got on film matches the book in one way it is merely a string of events one right after the other. difference being the events in the book make sense.


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Mar 31 2013, 11:15pm)


imin
Valinor


Mar 31 2013, 11:59pm

Post #178 of 221 (437 views)
Shortcut
I'm not so sure [In reply to] Can't Post

To me it says - people who are more adaptable like the films as ultimately they just want to see more M-e - there are loads of people like this - they view the film and the book as two separate entities and so can view something that is more loosely translated than others.

I think you just got a little defensive and then tried to brush his comment aside with a remark.

It is perhaps worse on other forums and is easily the worst on this board out of all on TORn but it is still increasing on here and it does seem a little worrying to me. I think it will be difficult though as there is a bigger percentage of people who dislike this film to some degree than with the lotr films.

Hopefully the next film will be brilliant both when it follows Tolkien and when it goes off on its own story, that way at least people will feel its an improvement.

Some posters do seem to post only what they felt was wrong with the movie, but then others only ever say 'it was brilliant' - no thought process as to why it was good, what they liked, what they thought could have been done even better etc. It means it's too easy for someone else to then just reply with 'no you are wrong, it sucked'.

I dunno, maybe it is just the time in the release schedule - we have all seen it but have months to wait for the next with little to go on for speculation and so people just argue about the previous film?


tarasaurus
Rohan


Apr 1 2013, 12:04am

Post #179 of 221 (433 views)
Shortcut
this is me [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
To me it says - people who are more adaptable like the films as ultimately they just want to see more M-e - there are loads of people like this - they view the film and the book as two separate entities and so can view something that is more loosely translated than others.


To a tee Smile
But as I've been saying throughout previous threads, some things i really want to stick true to the book in DOS/TABA. Otherwise, I'm very open-minded.


imin
Valinor


Apr 1 2013, 12:11am

Post #180 of 221 (431 views)
Shortcut
I think it is the best way to be in regard to the films [In reply to] Can't Post

Being adaptable means you will be happy with a greater variety of scenes where as i am less adaptable so fewer types of the same scene would work for me - leading you to have the greatest chance of liking the films - ultimately that is what we all want and this time round some got that, others didn't.

I would like to be like that (more adaptable), i think it makes sense and is just better overall but for some reason i just can't, lol.


tarasaurus
Rohan


Apr 1 2013, 12:28am

Post #181 of 221 (456 views)
Shortcut
It's weird [In reply to] Can't Post

because I would think for something I am HUGELY passionate about (LOTR/Tolkien/etc) that I wouldn't want change...but I guess it is because if I wantt o hear the original story again, I have to books to refer to. Smile


imin
Valinor


Apr 1 2013, 12:56am

Post #182 of 221 (445 views)
Shortcut
It's all a big mystery! :P [In reply to] Can't Post

I think being able to see the films as separate to the books must help for some people.

It is something i am going to try and do over the course of the year - main thing, not read the book the week before the film's release! D'oh! lol.


tarasaurus
Rohan


Apr 1 2013, 1:22am

Post #183 of 221 (438 views)
Shortcut
Hah yeah, I did the same [In reply to] Can't Post

I re-read TH about a month before the release to refresh my memory. It really does help to not expect the book to be 100% transferred to screen, it will just disappoint the reading fans, and this goes for any series of anything. I think (hope) eventually the people who are really upset about Azog will get used to it since there are 2 movies left, and we know he will at least be in DOS.

I totally understand where people are coming from being upset though, but again that's where to 2 separate identities idea comes in. I know PJ has to reach out to non-reader fans as well and he does deliver, even to readers. My parents are the movie-only fans and they thought it was wonderful, I told them what all was different and they didn't care one bit! Lol


Elessar
Valinor


Apr 1 2013, 1:28am

Post #184 of 221 (443 views)
Shortcut
All I can say is [In reply to] Can't Post

I think there are fans who are more adaptable and thankfully I'm one of them. It would suck to be honest to be so rigid that if its veers much at all it ruins it.

No, I really didn't. I can assure that was not the case. I wanted to point out that I thought his comment came off a certain way.

It's not even bad on this board. Trust me this place is so friendly compared to many many other boards. I don't know if its increasing to be honest. I haven't noticed it myself. If anything I've seen a few who continue to beat their negative opinion every chance they get. Yes, The Hobbit is probably liked a little less than The Lord of the Rings. Which makes sense in the end because it works out that way with the books.

Hopefully more people feel that way going forward. I myself already feel that way for the most part.

I agree there are all of that happens on both side.

I'm sure that plays into it as well.



imin
Valinor


Apr 1 2013, 1:37am

Post #185 of 221 (436 views)
Shortcut
Fair enough i believe you :) [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
No, I really didn't. I can assure that was not the case. I wanted to point out that I thought his comment came off a certain way.


I think people are on a spectrum of how much they are willing to see change from the books - some wouldn't mid if they changed basically everything. Others would like a literal translation of the book onto film, everyone else is somewhere in between. I think there were some things done in this film that were not good and not in keeping with the book so together that makes those scenes not very good for me. For others, it doesn't matter it wasn't in the book and at any rate they feel it is something Tolkien would have liked had he thought of it or can just see it works on film for them.

I think a lot of the reason i don't like the film is more down to i don't think it is a great film in general more than i cant adapt, though i am not great at that either, lol.

But then that is why i have higher hopes for DoS as i am just hoping i will like it as a film more this time round - which even if i don't think it stays true to Tolkien or whatever, lol, i will still think it's a decent film - e.g. LOTR go off on tangents that weren't in the book but overall as films they are very good.

Of course you feel this did happen in AUJ! So that's where the discussion lies :)


Elessar
Valinor


Apr 1 2013, 1:53am

Post #186 of 221 (426 views)
Shortcut
Fair enough :) [In reply to] Can't Post

There is a wide spectrum for sure in this or really fanbase. It's sometimes I the resting and sometimes annoying. lol I agree there are a few slip ups in this film and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

We've discussed that before. We're just on opposite ends on both.

I hope you can find the enjoyment you're looking for. The same that I've found so far in these films based on the works we both love.



Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Apr 1 2013, 4:56am

Post #187 of 221 (472 views)
Shortcut
Actually... [In reply to] Can't Post

NARF isn't about book fans looking down on movie fans. In fact, it was a quite offensive rabid newbie who accused some of our longest-term members (who had read the book yearly since before this particular newbie was born) of not being real Tolkien fans because they didn't think a particular thing he was panicking over was actually the end of the world or going to cause Tolkien to roll over in his grave. He was so over the top about it that it was amusing, and the phrase was coined as we joked about it.

Sadly, it is an attitude not singular to that person so the joke always remains relevant. It is triggered by anyone on any "side" who judges and denigrates another's fandom by comparison to his or her own. "If you loved Tolkien as much as I do (because I am a Real Fan), you would know that I am right (and be as obnoxious as I am about it)."

Silverlode






(This post was edited by Silverlode on Apr 1 2013, 5:00am)


geordie
Tol Eressea

Apr 1 2013, 9:41am

Post #188 of 221 (416 views)
Shortcut
The other phrase, of course, is 'you people' [In reply to] Can't Post

- as in, 'you people don't have to like it.' Which is true enough, as a statement; doesn't help things much, tho'.

Tongue


maximus92
Registered User

Apr 1 2013, 2:33pm

Post #189 of 221 (380 views)
Shortcut
The Story is Still There [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm a long time lurker of these forums, but this is my first post. First, I'll start off by saying, I loved AUJ. I completely expected events in the movie to be widly different than the book, for the simple fact the PJ was directing it, and I say thank God he ended up doing it. Anyone who expected a true to the book adaptation either didn't see the LOTR trilogy, or was holding out for some false sense of hope. I think being upset over whether it was Azog or Bolg is like being mad that it was Arwen instead of Glorfindel who rescued Frodo. (Actually, I believed for years that it was Legalos who rescued Frodo, until I read the books. I was a child of the semi live action animated movie.) In either case, it doesn't matter. The main storyline is still intact and all the players are there. Had PJ decided that Saruman been the wizard to lead them, and some Hobbit from the appendecies was in Bilbo's spot, then I'd be upset.

This is an adaptation of a story, and really should be treated as such. This is a story of 13 Dwarves, one hobbit, and one wizard getting from point A to point B and back. All the events surrounding the main story are open for creative license.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Apr 1 2013, 9:56pm

Post #190 of 221 (353 views)
Shortcut
As a self confessed lover LOTR and admirer of PJ [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
by how many people really disliked the film, or most of it. I know the forum isn't the majority of the fans by any means, but even my good friend who proclaims to be a LOTR diehard complains about it which I didn't expect. But I feel her complaints are kinda petty, like Thorin is a ripoff or Aragorn which I highly disagree with. But I'm sad that there are more threads here complaining/bashing about TH than supporting/being excited about it. That's what I was hoping I'd be coming to when I finally started to actually post here but I'm disappointed. :( And I understand everyone has their opinions and that's cool, just wish there were more people to enjoy the film talk with that actually liked it.



I had been waiting with great expectation and excitement for the Hobbit film, I expected to fall in love with it like I had LOTR. I didnt. I quite enjoyed while I watched it, and I quite like parts of it, like the Bag End bit, but on reflection I realized that I felt empty and let down, and that sucks, I really really really wanted to love everything, but I just cant.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Apr 1 2013, 10:04pm

Post #191 of 221 (353 views)
Shortcut
with all due respect [In reply to] Can't Post

the Hobbit is not a trite childrens book.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Apr 1 2013, 10:44pm

Post #192 of 221 (354 views)
Shortcut
Now I must disagree on the phrasing "trite". The Hobbit is a children's book, but not a trite one. [In reply to] Can't Post

Indeed, there is a GREAT wonder and power to be found in simple folktales, which the Hobbit is fashioned as. Not all things need be lofty and full of high elegance to be worthy, as much as I love the lofty and elegant themes, events and figures of Rings and The Silmarillion. They are wondrous for what they are. The Hobbit novel is, in a different way, also wonderful for what it is.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Apr 2 2013, 4:14am

Post #193 of 221 (330 views)
Shortcut
I always wonder about how often The Hobbit is called a children's book. [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't really see kids under 10 or 11 (maybe 9) reading it, unless a parent reads it to them, maybe a chapter at a time. Any younger than that i don't really see being able to tackle it, because it's a fairly substantial book. I myself read it when i was 13, and that was fine, but i immediately jumped into The Lord of the Rings, and that was much more my speed at that age (at least the first book was). But i can't imagine myself reading The Hobbit at 7 or 8-- i just think it's too sophisticated. Maybe i'm way off about this. Or maybe my defenition of the word 'children' is off-- i don't think of 10-13 year olds as being 'children'. I don't know...


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Apr 2 2013, 4:38am

Post #194 of 221 (328 views)
Shortcut
Upwards of 12 is adolescent, [In reply to] Can't Post

though people may still use the word children for various reasons (either trivialization or invocation of added pathos, generally). I agree, that is not strictly speaking a proper child, per se, though I disagree about the age at which Hobbit is appealing. Also, it is exactly the type novel a parent would read to a child (as Tolkien himself did with his children), for their enjoyment, yet I could also children who are avid readers reading it.

In Reply To
I don't really see kids under 10 or 11 (maybe 9) reading it, unless a parent reads it to them, maybe a chapter at a time. Any younger than that i don't really see being able to tackle it, because it's a fairly substantial book. I myself read it when i was 13, and that was fine, but i immediately jumped into The Lord of the Rings, and that was much more my speed at that age (at least the first book was). But i can't imagine myself reading The Hobbit at 7 or 8-- i just think it's too sophisticated. Maybe i'm way off about this. Or maybe my defenition of the word 'children' is off-- i don't think of 10-13 year olds as being 'children'. I don't know...


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Apr 2 2013, 7:48am

Post #195 of 221 (354 views)
Shortcut
Clarification and see you anon [In reply to] Can't Post

The world that Bilbo steps out into is for want of a better word wonderous. The myth making, whilst handled lightly by comparison to his other works, is at the centre of my literary interest.

However I am 57 I have a lifetime of experiences and art needs to be three dimensional to me. This weekend I have watched two beautiful small movies "A Simple Life" and Searching For Sugarman". The sense of person is utterly palpable and the result heart warming I have learnt some thing more about the human spirit.

I have also put Unfinished Tales on my KOBO (books in storage) and read the Quest for Erebor written in the same style as the lotr BUT about the matter of the Hobbit. It is exquisite far above the banal ,cliched ,hackneyed and repetitive interactions between Bilbo and Thorin up until Bilbo walks down the tunnel (which is as far as my re rereading has reached).

The over arching vision is not trite its glorious, the subcreation of the Hobbit is quite wonderful arguably the best invention by a fantasy writer ever. However the portrayal of the Dwarves and their interactions with Bilbo is trite because it is repetitive one dimensional and cliched - as you might expect if you were writing for your 7 year old children.

What I will never get is how intelligent articulate people on this board do not recognise that. So far in AUJ the Thorin Bilbo relationship has been transformed into some thing real you get a real relationship within fantasy which makes it grounded in an emotional reality. The exchange at the end is operatic and staged but it is built on a real interaction between them which had been laid down over the previous 155 minutes. I cry at the end of operas with their formuliac endings (the heroine always dies!!), I cried at the end of AUJ.

I do not expect the Thorin/Bilbo relationship to carry on now in the same way as the book. It will ebb and flow but we won't get those trite thankyou's from Thorin every time Bilbo gets them out of a fix. Indeed I think the screen play will avoid Bilbo super Hobbit constantly rescuing them it will be more mixed up, we shall see.

As to the other Dwarves some are wise and benign, some are loyal and caring, some are cranky, some are over weight some are effete indeed they are like a cross section of us. Some we like, some we think are dorks. In the book they barely exist beyond their collective sense of grumpyness.

I have deliberately responded to your good self. As I have said before I admire your love of Tolkien and the films but like me you see flaws in all of the latter rather than feel the need to offer an unwavering blizzard of criticism or cynical put downs week after week.

As for me "For about the time of year when the leaves have turned to gold and fallen and snow is on the ground, look for me in the threads of one ring.net" Wink.


In Reply To
Indeed, there is a GREAT wonder and power to be found in simple folktales, which the Hobbit is fashioned as. Not all things need be lofty and full of high elegance to be worthy, as much as I love the lofty and elegant themes, events and figures of Rings and The Silmarillion. They are wondrous for what they are. The Hobbit novel is, in a different way, also wonderful for what it is.


I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Apr 2 2013, 12:59pm

Post #196 of 221 (310 views)
Shortcut
I must disagree with this analysis [In reply to] Can't Post

''However the portrayal of the Dwarves and their interactions with Bilbo is trite because it is repetitive one dimensional and cliched - as you might expect if you were writing for your 7 year old children.
What I will never get is how intelligent articulate people on this board do not recognise that''.




You cant pick and choose between the over arching vision and the interactions between Bilbo and the Dwarves, either its all wonderous or non of it is. These interactions form and are intrinsic to the over arching vision they cannot be separated into bits you like and bits you dont. The interactions are far from cliche and one dimensional otherwise we wouldnt have such a vivid and heartfelt reaction to the death of Thorin and Kili and Fili, and we wouldnt care about Bilbo. The language used is simple but that must not be confused with trite and banality. Its simplicity is its genius, Tolkien with a few words paints a picture with more colours than lesser writers take 3 times as long and with longer winded descriptions. Tolkiens so called trite interactions have lasted the test of time and have made millions of children dream, thats not trite in my opinion.


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Apr 2 2013, 1:14pm

Post #197 of 221 (302 views)
Shortcut
The first test reader of the book said that it was appropriate for ages 5-9 [In reply to] Can't Post

Of course, at the time, Rayner Unwin was already the advanced age of ten when his father asked him to review the manuscript and say whether it should be published, and he expressed that view.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Apr 2 2013, 7:27pm

Post #198 of 221 (284 views)
Shortcut
Yet, for me at least, there was a powerful charm to be found in The Hobbit, even in [In reply to] Can't Post

those aspects which you state. The Hobbit managed to marry the familliar and almost cozily common, with the majesterial aloof, while Rings, once we are out of Bombadil's house, and certainly once Rivendell is behind us, is all full of startling beauty and poignancy, but never really becomes familiar to modern sensibilities again. I adoringly love both for what they are, even in the midst of their most blatant differences. Bag End is charming and funny because there is a great familiarity in it. We have these exotic people in the dwarves, and the mysterious presence of The Wizard, but there is so much that hearkens to our everyday experience. Bilbo's discomfort and fussiness, the dwarves grumbling and disdainful commentary. They may seem one dimensional (I would argue that Balin is not, and most of the rest we do not get to know well), but the world is full of people who behave that way. People who, if you only were able to spend the span of time with them that we spend reading about the dwarves, might indeed seem fussy, like grouses, grumpy, miserly, pompus etc. Thorin in the novel is stiff with his early thanks. . . there are, in our times, still people so proud they can hardly bend at the knee even to be seated. Though I have, and do, find the end of The Hobbit, both the novel and the animated film, deeply moving (i.e. the passing of Thorin).

I will say that some of my favourite moments in the film are when the characters are expanded upon and filled in. Though some of that hearken's to the books overall style and feel as well. I was tickled with Balin, eye rolling et al, when he pronouced, "the task would be difficult enough, even with an army behind us. But we number only thirteen! And not thirteen of our best. . . Frown nor brightest." I chuckle even now thinking upon it. Sly


And I thank you very much for the response, and for your kind words. The kind sentiment is reciprocated as well as the admiration for your lore and keen interest in these works. And I always enjoy your contemplations, even when we are not in complete agreement (though admittedly I enjoy them all the more when we are Laugh lol).

In Reply To
The world that Bilbo steps out into is for want of a better word wonderous. The myth making, whilst handled lightly by comparison to his other works, is at the centre of my literary interest.

However I am 57 I have a lifetime of experiences and art needs to be three dimensional to me. This weekend I have watched two beautiful small movies "A Simple Life" and Searching For Sugarman". The sense of person is utterly palpable and the result heart warming I have learnt some thing more about the human spirit.

I have also put Unfinished Tales on my KOBO (books in storage) and read the Quest for Erebor written in the same style as the lotr BUT about the matter of the Hobbit. It is exquisite far above the banal ,cliched ,hackneyed and repetitive interactions between Bilbo and Thorin up until Bilbo walks down the tunnel (which is as far as my re rereading has reached).

The over arching vision is not trite its glorious, the subcreation of the Hobbit is quite wonderful arguably the best invention by a fantasy writer ever. However the portrayal of the Dwarves and their interactions with Bilbo is trite because it is repetitive one dimensional and cliched - as you might expect if you were writing for your 7 year old children.

What I will never get is how intelligent articulate people on this board do not recognise that. So far in AUJ the Thorin Bilbo relationship has been transformed into some thing real you get a real relationship within fantasy which makes it grounded in an emotional reality. The exchange at the end is operatic and staged but it is built on a real interaction between them which had been laid down over the previous 155 minutes. I cry at the end of operas with their formuliac endings (the heroine always dies!!), I cried at the end of AUJ.

I do not expect the Thorin/Bilbo relationship to carry on now in the same way as the book. It will ebb and flow but we won't get those trite thankyou's from Thorin every time Bilbo gets them out of a fix. Indeed I think the screen play will avoid Bilbo super Hobbit constantly rescuing them it will be more mixed up, we shall see.

As to the other Dwarves some are wise and benign, some are loyal and caring, some are cranky, some are over weight some are effete indeed they are like a cross section of us. Some we like, some we think are dorks. In the book they barely exist beyond their collective sense of grumpyness.

I have deliberately responded to your good self. As I have said before I admire your love of Tolkien and the films but like me you see flaws in all of the latter rather than feel the need to offer an unwavering blizzard of criticism or cynical put downs week after week.

As for me "For about the time of year when the leaves have turned to gold and fallen and snow is on the ground, look for me in the threads of one ring.net" Wink.


In Reply To
Indeed, there is a GREAT wonder and power to be found in simple folktales, which the Hobbit is fashioned as. Not all things need be lofty and full of high elegance to be worthy, as much as I love the lofty and elegant themes, events and figures of Rings and The Silmarillion. They are wondrous for what they are. The Hobbit novel is, in a different way, also wonderful for what it is.



"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Apr 2 2013, 7:29pm)


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Apr 2 2013, 8:04pm

Post #199 of 221 (276 views)
Shortcut
There is a bit of difference [In reply to] Can't Post

between the changes in the LOTR films, and the changes in The Hobbit films. The majority of changes to LOTR were the result of not having enough time to film every little bit of what Tolkien wrote, so a LOT had to be omitted. We generally don't hear the word "padding" used when referring to the changes in LOTR. The Hobbit situation is completely different - there's quite a bit of stuff added, most of which is either heavily modified from what Tolkien wrote, or totally invented for the movie.

As for the creative license, I agree to an extent. I did not expect a complete word-for-word adaptation, and in some cases I think some minor changes worked quite well (Thorin arriving alone at Bag-End, Gandalf's shockwave blast in Goblin-Town). I'm completely cool with the writers fleshing out the dwarves and making them individuals. Plus, I was totally on-board for the whole Necromancer sub-plot, since I had always wished that to be covered in the book. I loved the movie myself, enough to have seen it at least 10 times already, but I just think some of the changed stuff would have worked better if he had stayed closer to what Tolkien wrote. I know there's no sense in expecting anything to be done about my gripes or anyone elses, but if we shouldn't vent our gripes here, then where?



In Reply To
I'm a long time lurker of these forums, but this is my first post. First, I'll start off by saying, I loved AUJ. I completely expected events in the movie to be widly different than the book, for the simple fact the PJ was directing it, and I say thank God he ended up doing it. Anyone who expected a true to the book adaptation either didn't see the LOTR trilogy, or was holding out for some false sense of hope. I think being upset over whether it was Azog or Bolg is like being mad that it was Arwen instead of Glorfindel who rescued Frodo. (Actually, I believed for years that it was Legalos who rescued Frodo, until I read the books. I was a child of the semi live action animated movie.) In either case, it doesn't matter. The main storyline is still intact and all the players are there. Had PJ decided that Saruman been the wizard to lead them, and some Hobbit from the appendecies was in Bilbo's spot, then I'd be upset.
This is an adaptation of a story, and really should be treated as such. This is a story of 13 Dwarves, one hobbit, and one wizard getting from point A to point B and back. All the events surrounding the main story are open for creative license.



Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Apr 2 2013, 11:13pm

Post #200 of 221 (260 views)
Shortcut
Exactly [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
but I just think some of the changed stuff would have worked better if he had stayed closer to what Tolkien wrote. I know there's no sense in expecting anything to be done about my gripes or anyone elses, but if we shouldn't vent our gripes here, then where?

I think the part that annoys me the most is they never even tried to follow the book. They set out right from the start with the idea of changing it. I felt where they stuck to the book (Baggend), those were the strongest parts of the film and where they deviated from it (Azog White Council) those parts suffered for it. I realize a word for word adaptation is impossible and I would never expect scene for scene carbon copy from the book, but at least TRY to get as close as possible. Which is something they never did.Mad



AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Apr 3 2013, 12:11am

Post #201 of 221 (413 views)
Shortcut
"For it is also in my mind." [In reply to] Can't Post

You have spoken my sentiments so well, I am going to suggest you changing your icon to Galadriel.

In Reply To
between the changes in the LOTR films, and the changes in The Hobbit films. The majority of changes to LOTR were the result of not having enough time to film every little bit of what Tolkien wrote, so a LOT had to be omitted. We generally don't hear the word "padding" used when referring to the changes in LOTR. The Hobbit situation is completely different - there's quite a bit of stuff added, most of which is either heavily modified from what Tolkien wrote, or totally invented for the movie.

As for the creative license, I agree to an extent. I did not expect a complete word-for-word adaptation, and in some cases I think some minor changes worked quite well (Thorin arriving alone at Bag-End, Gandalf's shockwave blast in Goblin-Town). I'm completely cool with the writers fleshing out the dwarves and making them individuals. Plus, I was totally on-board for the whole Necromancer sub-plot, since I had always wished that to be covered in the book. I loved the movie myself, enough to have seen it at least 10 times already, but I just think some of the changed stuff would have worked better if he had stayed closer to what Tolkien wrote. I know there's no sense in expecting anything to be done about my gripes or anyone elses, but if we shouldn't vent our gripes here, then where?



In Reply To
I'm a long time lurker of these forums, but this is my first post. First, I'll start off by saying, I loved AUJ. I completely expected events in the movie to be widly different than the book, for the simple fact the PJ was directing it, and I say thank God he ended up doing it. Anyone who expected a true to the book adaptation either didn't see the LOTR trilogy, or was holding out for some false sense of hope. I think being upset over whether it was Azog or Bolg is like being mad that it was Arwen instead of Glorfindel who rescued Frodo. (Actually, I believed for years that it was Legalos who rescued Frodo, until I read the books. I was a child of the semi live action animated movie.) In either case, it doesn't matter. The main storyline is still intact and all the players are there. Had PJ decided that Saruman been the wizard to lead them, and some Hobbit from the appendecies was in Bilbo's spot, then I'd be upset.
This is an adaptation of a story, and really should be treated as such. This is a story of 13 Dwarves, one hobbit, and one wizard getting from point A to point B and back. All the events surrounding the main story are open for creative license.



"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Ardamírë
Valinor


Apr 3 2013, 2:01am

Post #202 of 221 (404 views)
Shortcut
Thanks for the laugh :D [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I am going to suggest you changing your icon to Galadriel.


This just really made me chuckle. Laugh

"Now this babe was of greatest beauty; his skin of a shining white and his eyes of a blue surpassing that of the sky in southern lands - bluer than the sapphires of the raiment of Manwë; and the envy of Meglin was deep at his birth, but the joy of Turgon and all the people very great indeed." -The Fall of Gondolin


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Apr 3 2013, 4:44am

Post #203 of 221 (390 views)
Shortcut
*wink* [In reply to] Can't Post

Smile

In Reply To

In Reply To
I am going to suggest you changing your icon to Galadriel.


This just really made me chuckle. Laugh


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Elenorflower
Gondor


Apr 3 2013, 9:12am

Post #204 of 221 (385 views)
Shortcut
I dont mind adaptations [In reply to] Can't Post

and I dont mind changes. If they are as good or better than the original story. Unfortunately what we have is sub par not even at the level of fanfiction stuff from PJ. Azog is a huge cliche baddie, with huge cliche dialogue disguised in the form of Black Speech. What is remotely scary or original about him I fail to understand and he sticks out like a sore thumb he is so un-Tolkien. Radagast on the other hand is trying desperately to be Tolkien with all his pseudo whimsy, but something dont smell right and it isnt the bird doo doo.


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Apr 3 2013, 11:30am

Post #205 of 221 (381 views)
Shortcut
LOL [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
You have spoken my sentiments so well, I am going to suggest you changing your icon to Galadriel.



Elenorflower
Gondor


Apr 3 2013, 11:52am

Post #206 of 221 (380 views)
Shortcut
WOAH!!! [In reply to] Can't Post

Hold it buster! theres only one Me.





Elessar
Valinor


Apr 3 2013, 3:38pm

Post #207 of 221 (365 views)
Shortcut
It is. [In reply to] Can't Post

There are several changes and that's to be excpted. Expecting a page by page translation would be naive if anyone really did expect that. In the end some of the changes I loved and some I rolled with because it still felt like Middle-earth to me.



Elessar
Valinor


Apr 3 2013, 3:42pm

Post #208 of 221 (362 views)
Shortcut
Never tried? [In reply to] Can't Post

That might be a slight exaggeration.



Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Apr 3 2013, 5:02pm

Post #209 of 221 (351 views)
Shortcut
well they could always prove it by [In reply to] Can't Post

showing behind the scenes footage where the book way didn't work. Showing WHY they had to change things... But I think they set out with the notion of outright changing it right from the start.


imin
Valinor


Apr 3 2013, 5:11pm

Post #210 of 221 (356 views)
Shortcut
It does and it doesn't [In reply to] Can't Post

They have basically all the parts of The Hobbit from the book (these go into the it does pile) but then they added lots of things not in the book or appendices (this section goes in the does not pile).

There is then a balance between the it does and doesn't pile. For me lots of scenes that people say were in the book - e.g. Stone giants - were not - i mean did we get a description of them on a moving mountain that played like a Rocky movie or Rock-em-Sock-em?

I don't think many expected a literal translation of the book or want that, though I feel the inclusion of so much fan fiction is at a detriment to the story as a whole, leaving it feel not quite like the Tolkien story I know and love.


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Apr 3 2013, 5:23pm

Post #211 of 221 (357 views)
Shortcut
I loved the look of the Stone giants [In reply to] Can't Post

and to me what they did was reminiscent of the ents from TTT. Like I said where that scene went all wrong for me was when the dwarfs began riding them. Then the scene just went downhill. But I'm glad others could enjoy it , but to me it just seemed unrealistic and OTT. What I was hoping for the Hobbit was something a bit more realistic based, which was what I liked about LOTR it was based more historically than just a typical fantasy film. The Hobbit has just become a fantasy film lacking that realistic/historical feeling that Peter Jackson pushed so hard for in LOTR.


Elessar
Valinor


Apr 3 2013, 5:31pm

Post #212 of 221 (353 views)
Shortcut
I don't think we need to see it [In reply to] Can't Post

nor have anything proven to us. I don't subscribe to that mindset.



Elessar
Valinor


Apr 3 2013, 5:37pm

Post #213 of 221 (352 views)
Shortcut
You're right [In reply to] Can't Post

There are parts that are and aren't. There are parts that are fan fiction. IMO a lot of it works and some of it doesn't. As long as the basic parts are there I'm ok with the changes and as a whole the basic parts are there. I can't speak for others but when I look at the totals The Hobbit did feel like the story I love. Its not an exact match but its close enough to hold up in court if this was a DNA test.



Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Apr 3 2013, 5:57pm

Post #214 of 221 (347 views)
Shortcut
I'm cool with that, that works for you [In reply to] Can't Post

but for me I have seen too much to think that there was ever going to be anything like the book at this point. So if it ever was I would love for them to at least show those fans who were let down by the drastic changes that they at least thought about the book before making so many changes.


Elessar
Valinor


Apr 3 2013, 6:25pm

Post #215 of 221 (343 views)
Shortcut
Fair enough [In reply to] Can't Post

I do feel bad for anyone who felt let down or has felt let down by The Lord of the Rings. These films have captured so much of what I love about Middle-earth that for me its allowed me to invest so much emotional energy in the experience of seeing them on screen. For that not to have happened for anyone would be a bummer.



imin
Valinor


Apr 3 2013, 6:35pm

Post #216 of 221 (341 views)
Shortcut
It is a bummer let me tell you! [In reply to] Can't Post

Though i am really pleased you liked it and felt it was as good as LOTR and hope you will love DOS and TABA just as much - which i am sure you will Smile

I think in a way that is why it has took some people so long to kinda get over AUJ as the expectations weren't met and sometimes that is the worst part of it all.


geordie
Tol Eressea

Apr 3 2013, 6:49pm

Post #217 of 221 (343 views)
Shortcut
I agree [In reply to] Can't Post

- sorry, I know it's not thought to be good form to simply say, 'I agree' - but I'm not spamming; I really do agree with this post.
.


Elessar
Valinor


Apr 3 2013, 6:56pm

Post #218 of 221 (337 views)
Shortcut
I'm sure [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks! I really appreciate that. I hope so. I have super high expectations and always fearful a bit that they won't be met.

I bet. If the film hadn't met what I was looking for I'd have been really bummed out. So I do feel terrible that people felt let down.



Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Apr 3 2013, 7:17pm

Post #219 of 221 (334 views)
Shortcut
I wasn't let down by LOTR [In reply to] Can't Post

but the Hobbit I just feel could have been better and fit with LOTR much better. I loved that during production of LOTR Peter Jackson was prodding the staff about treating middle earth like it really happened. Like it was some sort of historical film and they were really going to the places that Tolkien wrote about seeing the things that Tolkien wrote about. I get there were changes in LOTR but it was the realism I fell in love with with those films. The thought of being transported to a place that felt real. Peter Jackson pulled it off amazingly for those 3 films, even though some stuff I wasn't overly fond of because it deviated from the books. I could accept it because of that realism.

With the Hobbit for me anyways it just feels like a cartoonish version of middle earth. While still having a similar feel for some of it. There were just too many elements that just seem SO far fetched and OTT when compared to LOTR. The dwarfs on the spit for example, its just not something that could really happen. A few minutes over the flames and the dwarfs would have been toast, literally. All the constant falling and never getting hurt. just unrealistic. At least in FOTR we think for a second Frodo gets injured... The OTT sequences like the dwarfs riding the stone giants, the excessive overuse of CGI roller coaster antics in Goblin town and nobody coming out with a scratch. The constant swooping camera shots to show off the new cameras and 3D effects, stuff like that. That I think is what I miss in the Hobbit compared to LOTR, its the lack of realism, the fact they are treating this like a fantasy film, instead of historical reenactment film. I probably could accept more changes had they kept that realistic feel like they had with LOTR. But they clearly chose to make the Hobbit a high adventure fantasy film instead of something like LOTR which they did want based on realism and have a historical feel to it.

I loved certain aspects of the Hobbit like Baggend and the more realistic scenes, but for me there was too much trying to be funny and cartoonish stuff to make it seem realistic like LOTR was. The parts where they stuck to the book for the most part, I feel they nailed it, but the deviations seem even more OTT and cartoonish in comparison to LOTR. Plus it just seemed like every time you turned around in the Hobbit they were wanting to make some reference to the LOTR trilogy with the ring or with characters, or using similar or rehashed dialogue. It was just a bit much. To be constantly reminded that these 3 films are being forced to be connected to the LOTR trilogy by events that either never happened (Bolg working for Sauron, Nazgul in tombs), things that are changed (Azog hunting Thorin and company) or are taken out of context (the whole portrayal of the ring so far)


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Apr 3 2013, 7:22pm)


Elessar
Valinor


Apr 3 2013, 7:47pm

Post #220 of 221 (325 views)
Shortcut
I'm glad [In reply to] Can't Post

I didn't mean that you were per say that was just more in general. The problem I think is The Hobbit is supposed to feel a bit more "fantasty" than The Lord of the Rings. The books are that way and I think the movies are that way all while very much feeling a part of the same universe. I agree with you the level of realism yet staying fantasty in The Lord of the Rings was amazing. Its just part of what makes those movies so special.

I don't know about that. I feel The Hobbit feels plenty real. Not quite like The Lord of the Rings but again the book doesn't have that same feel so I never expected it to be quite the same way. It for me is just enough of both to keep me happy with things. I do agree there are a couple moments that are a bit OTT with the falling but as a whole I thought the rest of the film fit just fine.

I didn't have a probelm with the two stories being tied together because they are tied together. I do wish he hadn't changed some of the Dwarven history though as a few of us have discussed but the rest of the time I never felt it was too much.



Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Apr 3 2013, 9:00pm

Post #221 of 221 (386 views)
Shortcut
This... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

I loved certain aspects of the Hobbit like Baggend and the more realistic scenes, but for me there was too much trying to be funny and cartoonish stuff to make it seem realistic like LOTR was. The parts where they stuck to the book for the most part, I feel they nailed it, but the deviations seem even more OTT and cartoonish in comparison to LOTR. Plus it just seemed like every time you turned around in the Hobbit they were wanting to make some reference to the LOTR trilogy with the ring or with characters, or using similar or rehashed dialogue. It was just a bit much. To be constantly reminded that these 3 films are being forced to be connected to the LOTR trilogy by events that either never happened (Bolg working for Sauron, Nazgul in tombs), things that are changed (Azog hunting Thorin and company) or are taken out of context (the whole portrayal of the ring so far)


I particularly agree with the description of TH as cartoonish - that is exactly the feel we got when the shots of real actors became very obvious CGI renderings of the characters after the start of many of the action sequences - the Trolls fight, Stone Giants and Goblin Town escape are prime culprits. We had hardly any of that in LotR (apart from Legolas...it was real stunt actors doing the action sequences.. I suppose those guys are now employed doing the mo-cap instead!


"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort






(This post was edited by Eleniel on Apr 3 2013, 9:01pm)

 
 

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.