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: Off Topic: The Pollantir:
Do you wish PJ made the Hobbit first before LOTR?
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
Poll: Do you wish PJ made the Hobbit first before LOTR?
Yes
No
View Results (41 votes)
 

HOBBITFAN13
Lorien

Jun 22 2016, 12:45am

Post #1 of 33 (1401 views)
Shortcut
Do you wish PJ made the Hobbit first before LOTR? Can't Post



Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jun 22 2016, 1:18am

Post #2 of 33 (1344 views)
Shortcut
Honestly? [In reply to] Can't Post

Yeah, kinda. We certainly would have gotten a very different adaptation of The Hobbit if the LotR films were made afterwards.

However, I think that PJ would have still added Legolas to the story.


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


Jun 22 2016, 3:51am

Post #3 of 33 (1327 views)
Shortcut
No [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Omnigeek
Lorien


Jun 22 2016, 5:05am

Post #4 of 33 (1320 views)
Shortcut
Absolutely not [In reply to] Can't Post

LOTR was magical, spectacular. If I had seen this version of "The Hobbit" first, I might not even have bothered with the LOTR movies (which would have been a great loss). As it stands, I can still treasure LOTR and how I felt when seeing it open up on screen for the first time and ignore the wreck he made of TH.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jun 22 2016, 1:40pm

Post #5 of 33 (1309 views)
Shortcut
It wouldn't have been the same. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
LOTR was magical, spectacular. If I had seen this version of "The Hobbit" first, I might not even have bothered with the LOTR movies (which would have been a great loss).


My point was that we would not have had THIS version of The Hobbit. We would have had a very different film (or films) that might have been a much more satisfying adaptation for many of us--possibly including yourself.


Annael
Immortal


Jun 22 2016, 2:19pm

Post #6 of 33 (1303 views)
Shortcut
That's what I think [In reply to] Can't Post

PJ's tendency toward over-blownness came on over time. I think he might have made a lovely little movie - maybe two - of "The Hobbit" that didn't have Azog or Alfrid and maybe not even Tauriel, or if Tauriel, at least not the silly Tauriel-Kili subplot, that would have made a nice run-up to the LOTR movies. So I voted yes.


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jun 22 2016, 8:37pm

Post #7 of 33 (1278 views)
Shortcut
Kind of wish there was a third option [In reply to] Can't Post

Since I'm pretty happy with what we got, including "The Hobbit" trilogy, I wouldn't say "yes," but I'm reluctant to say "no." I believe the original plan was to make "The Hobbit" and then 2 LoTR movies - okay, now that I've said that I definitely would say "NO!"


sevilodorf
Tol Eressea


Jun 24 2016, 1:17pm

Post #8 of 33 (1244 views)
Shortcut
The Hobbit is the weaker source material [In reply to] Can't Post

It's only as the story of Bilbo fits into the bigger world that makes it important and that hadn't been developed by Tolkien at the writing of the hobbit.


Annael
Immortal


Jun 24 2016, 2:26pm

Post #9 of 33 (1240 views)
Shortcut
true . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

but PJ would have had that knowledge, so he could have made "The Hobbit" and preshadowed the other films nicely.

If only his three-movie deal had been for 1 Hobbit, 2 LOTR. I've said it often enough that PJ needs to be forced to edit.


sevilodorf
Tol Eressea


Jun 25 2016, 12:11pm

Post #10 of 33 (1211 views)
Shortcut
agree about the editing [In reply to] Can't Post

It's the same feeling I have about JK Rowling and Steven King.... once they had a megahit their editors stopped doing their job and became rubber stampers.

Though I think 2 Hobbits (given that if that was the beginning would need more background than the book held) and 3 LOTR's


zarabia
Tol Eressea


Jun 26 2016, 12:33am

Post #11 of 33 (1195 views)
Shortcut
Same reasoning but different conclusion or same conclusion but different reasoning as others [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with Omnigeek about LOTR being magical and spectacular, but I think, had PJ made TH first, it would have been been magical as well.

I also agree with Annael about PJ becoming more overblown over time, but that's the reason I'm glad he made LOTR first. I think I would have enjoyed the version of TH that he would have produced earlier more than I did what he actually came up with. But I'm afraid LOTR, coming later, would have suffered as a result. I much prefer the source material for LOTR over TH, and I might have given up on his LOTR adaptations and missed out on something that ended up meaning so much to me.

And I'm glad that LOTR was three films, it was fitting. There's not much scene-wise that I would take out (change or shorten maybe, but not remove), but I had some issues with style (especially in ROTK) that speak to that over-blowness that Annael refers to.


(This post was edited by zarabia on Jun 26 2016, 12:37am)


Gianna
Rohan


Jun 26 2016, 2:12pm

Post #12 of 33 (1180 views)
Shortcut
No. [In reply to] Can't Post

Annael said: "PJ's tendency toward over-blownness came on over time." I agree, and I'd rather have a good LOTR film and a bad Hobbit, than a good Hobbit and a bad LOTR.


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea


Aug 7 2016, 7:31pm

Post #13 of 33 (1003 views)
Shortcut
That's a good question. [In reply to] Can't Post

On one hand, he probably wouldn't have stretched it into three long films, and he wouldn't have felt the need to cram in all the LotR stuff that he did into The Hobbit trilogy (though i hope he would have still included some of the White Council/Gandalf stuff as i quite liked that).

On the other hand, i wouldn't have wanted it to influence how he made LotR. It's just fine as it is.

But if he had made one big Hobbit film, then directly jumped into LotR and made them just as they are, then yes, the series as a whole would be much better off, in my view anyway. Maybe The Hobbit would have ended up more child-like and adventurous, and less goofy and bombastic. There certainly would have been less shoddy cgi and no pointless 3D (i.e. more bigatures and prosthetics).

Interesting to think about, though.


LittleHobbit
Lorien

Aug 11 2016, 11:58am

Post #14 of 33 (998 views)
Shortcut
If you think LOTR was so ''magical'' and ''spectacular''... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
LOTR was magical, spectacular. If I had seen this version of "The Hobbit" first, I might not even have bothered with the LOTR movies (which would have been a great loss). As it stands, I can still treasure LOTR and how I felt when seeing it open up on screen for the first time and ignore the wreck he made of TH.


Then I wonder what would you have to say about the following rants, which IMO completely DESTROY the LOTR triolgy as a movie standing on its own AND as an cinematic adaptation.

Please read all of it or ar least just take a cursory look at the following, if you can or would be interested in:

http://web.archive.org/...broken_promises.html

and

http://web.archive.org/...s/promises_kept.html

I personally think much of your ''pristine'' view of the first Middle-earth trilogy will be shattered. Cool

If you happen to read these at least in part, tell me what you think of what you did read, please.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 11 2016, 12:27pm

Post #15 of 33 (995 views)
Shortcut
Differences of Opinion [In reply to] Can't Post

Unless Omnigeek himself penned those reviews that you linked to, why should they be relevant to his position? Intelligent people can have radically different views on the same film(s). And the length of a rant does not automatically correlate to its value as an argument.


Omnigeek
Lorien


Aug 12 2016, 3:28am

Post #16 of 33 (977 views)
Shortcut
Completely destroy? I think not. [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm plodding my way through the tomes you linked but halfway through the first one, it just doesn't "destroy" the LOTR trilogy as you claim. Most of what he complains about are artistic choices. While I agree with him about WETA's overuse of digital paint, it simply didn't detract enough from the visual sequences of FOTR's prologue or the introduction to Hobbiton. Mucking about with the tone and texture and coloring of the film as he rants about is a far Far FAR cry from creating story-changing plot lines. Costuming the people of Rohan as peasant serfs pales in comparison to beardless dwarves wearing pimp furs (and I didn't see them as peasant serfs anyway, I saw them modeled after the free Norsemen).

He completely loses me altogther when -- in the midst of his complaints about TTT -- he praises Titanic, possibly one of the most overrated pieces of garbage to hit the silver screen. He hates TTT but thinks Titanic had nobility and grandeur? Seriously?!?

I'll agree with his complaints about Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn -- to this day I think that was the worst casting decision of the trilogy but understand Viggo was cast at the very last minute. I don't know who else PJ was considering or who had turned him down but PJ obviously didn't envision him for the role in the same way he looked to Ian McKellan as Gandalf or Christopher Lee as Saruman. Much as I disliked VM as Aragorn, he excelled in comparison to Richard Armitage as the proud noble (and old!) Thorin or (gasp!) Aidan Turner as the beardless lewd Kili. Personally, I thought Bernard Hill did a fabulous job as Theoden and Karl Urban was perfectly satisfactory as Eomer.

As for his complaint that Merry and Pippin were mostly nonentities and interchangeable ... well, he DID write this rant before ROTK so I'll let that one slide. I agree with him that Christopher Lee might have been a better Gandalf than Ian McKellan but Sir Ian did a great job nonetheless.

I'll hammer my way through those rants just so I can say I did read them but none of it (so far) counters my assessment that the LOTR trilogy was magical and spectacular. Sure, I had loads of quibbles with them (I always did have quibbles from the first viewing of FOTR so I don't know where you get the idea that I have a "pristine" view of Middle-earth) but they fundamentally brought Tolkien's world to life and presented amazing visual spectacles. The LOTR movies largely stayed true to the books and the deviations were either understandable (e.g., combining Arwen and Glorfindel or skipping over Tom Bombadil) or minor (e.g., Haldir showing up and dying at Helm's Deep or Faramir's contemplation of taking the Ring).

On the other hand, the biggest spectacle (IMO) of the Hobbit trilogy was how much of a stinky mess PJ created from one of my favorite stories of all time. I ignored his making Smaug 20 times bigger than he should have been in the same way I ignored Haldir at Helm's Deep but the Kili-Tauriel-Legolas triangle and angst-ridden Thorin were too much. I'll say this though -- PJ's Hobbit made me appreciate the beauty and simplicity of the Rankin-Bass animated movie all the more (despite the ugly wood elves and frog-looking Gollum and lack of Beorn). I just watched it again and was struck at just how well Romeo Muller captured the book in his script (no surprise since he supposedly went through 8 revisions before getting a seal of approval from the Tolkien estate).


Ataahua
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 12 2016, 4:30am

Post #17 of 33 (974 views)
Shortcut
Reminds me of a comment from an annoyed newspaper editor: [In reply to] Can't Post

"The next person who writes 'completely destroyed' has to cover the cat show!"

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled discussion topic...
/tangent.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 12 2016, 7:02am

Post #18 of 33 (966 views)
Shortcut
Aragorn Casting [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I'll agree with his complaints about Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn -- to this day I think that was the worst casting decision of the trilogy but understand Viggo was cast at the very last minute. I don't know who else PJ was considering or who had turned him down but PJ obviously didn't envision him for the role in the same way he looked to Ian McKellan as Gandalf or Christopher Lee as Saruman. Much as I disliked VM as Aragorn, he excelled in comparison to Richard Armitage as the proud noble (and old!) Thorin or (gasp!) Aidan Turner as the beardless lewd Kili. Personally, I thought Bernard Hill did a fabulous job as Theoden and Karl Urban was perfectly satisfactory as Eomer.


Steward Townsend (born December 15, 1972) was originally cast for the part of Aragorn. I'll make no comment on his acting ability, but I thought him too young and too 'pretty' for the role.




Omnigeek
Lorien


Aug 12 2016, 2:40pm

Post #19 of 33 (954 views)
Shortcut
I try not to judge based on looks [In reply to] Can't Post

but yes, Aragorn was "seasoned" and should look the part. PJ's desire to cast Townsend as Aragorn explains a lot about making Thorin a youngish prince rather than the old proud noble Dwarf that he was supposed to be. For that matter, the entire Company seemed a bit young looking given Dwaves weren't supposed to go out adventuring they had considerable decades. To some extent, I figured that was based on non-Tolkienites not understanding how much later in life Hobbits and Dwarves and Elves achieved "maturity" and their reaction to seeing a bunch of middle-aged or old-looking guys on screen ...


LittleHobbit
Lorien

Aug 12 2016, 6:13pm

Post #20 of 33 (945 views)
Shortcut
I was just asking Omnigeek to give his thoughts... [In reply to] Can't Post

On a position that was diametrically opposed to his own. Is there anything wrong with that?

Also, I never said the lenght of any criticism is supposed to be indicative of the superiority of said criticism. In fact, I did not even comment on the lenght of these rants at all.


(This post was edited by LittleHobbit on Aug 12 2016, 6:15pm)


LittleHobbit
Lorien

Aug 12 2016, 7:17pm

Post #21 of 33 (937 views)
Shortcut
*length [In reply to] Can't Post

 


wizzardly
Rohan


Aug 12 2016, 7:39pm

Post #22 of 33 (931 views)
Shortcut
Rankin/Bass Appreciation [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm with you on how PJ's attempt has made me revisit the Rankin/Bass film and discovering a new found appreciation for it. It's interesting too that despite the detractors of this adaptation, this is the one that had the approval of the Tolkien estate, and PJ's version they wanted nothing to do with.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 12 2016, 8:48pm

Post #23 of 33 (923 views)
Shortcut
Olkay. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
On a position that was diametrically opposed to his own. Is there anything wrong with that?

Also, I never said the lenght of any criticism is supposed to be indicative of the superiority of said criticism. In fact, I did not even comment on the lenght of these rants at all.

c

That's fine. I just wonder why you found those comments especially compelling. The author raised some good points, but nothing that I haven't seen anywhere else. And some arguments were just matters of opinion based on individual tastes and perception.


LittleHobbit
Lorien

Aug 13 2016, 2:45pm

Post #24 of 33 (904 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

I can't say I am particularly informed, but some points the author raised I have never seen anywhere else. Did you read the two rants in full? A few examples of this would be:

1 - I have never seen anyone get so nitpicky to the point of complaining about the COLOR PALETTE of the LOTR films.

2 - She is the only one I know of who thinks Sir Ian did only 'okay' in his portrayal of Gandalf. On the other extreme position, I have seen people claim that Sir Ian was the PERFECT Gandalf, and no one would be better suited than him for the part.

3 - Did you ever see anyone complain about the way the freaking GREY HAVENS look on ROTK? It's IMO an absolutely beautiful and gorgeous set. Yet she dismisses it as ''look[ing] like Thomas Kinkade dipping into fantasy''. Nothing short of absurd IMO.

4 - She thinks the scene of Sam and Frodo in Mount was forced and NOT MOVING AT ALL. She complains even about Shore's music score for this scene.

5 - She does says the same of Éowyn vs. Witch-King (''not moving at all'').

6 - She claims she walked out of ROTK speechless, ''but not from awe, I fear. More like sick with horror at this travesty, this "Triumph of Death" played out on the screen, being hailed as faithful to the spirit of the books and indeed superior to the texts''.

I think this is too extreme even for a purist. I can't even imagine what she would have to say about the Hobbit movies.

So, have I answered your question/justified my surprise at these rants, or do you need more? Wink


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 13 2016, 7:07pm

Post #25 of 33 (895 views)
Shortcut
I see (kinda, sorta)... [In reply to] Can't Post

What I don't understand is: if you yourself found those rants so ridiculous and nit-picky, why would you think they would influence Omnigeek's (or anyone else's) opinion? I found them very easy to write off and ignore. And you are even mocking them.

First page Previous page 1 2 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.