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

Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 30 2013, 6:42pm

Post #51 of 221 (520 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 (508 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 (507 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 (524 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 (529 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 (509 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 (494 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 (476 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 (469 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 (469 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 (463 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 (514 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 (442 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 (418 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 (417 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 (402 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 (422 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 (408 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 (408 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 (386 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 (358 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 (353 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 (342 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 (344 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 (330 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.


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

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

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

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

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