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

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

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Wired: "Why the Hobbit Trailer Creeps Me Out"
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

News From Bree
spymaster@theonering.net

Jan 13 2012, 6:26pm

Post #1 of 93 (3980 views)
Shortcut
Wired: "Why the Hobbit Trailer Creeps Me Out" Can't Post

Wired's Erik Wecks makes a compelling case for Tolkien fans to not get too excited about the Hobbit.

What's he on about? Well, he noticed something in the teaser (one that many other people did as well), but he's gone a step further and drawn some interesting parallels to one of the most controversial and bizarre changes that Walsh and Boyens made for The Return of The King. Of course, this being the internet, your mileage may vary. Naturally, there are movie spoilers.

Read the full article on Wired.


MatthewJer18
Rohan

Jan 14 2012, 12:24am

Post #2 of 93 (2301 views)
Shortcut
Really...a *compelling* case that hasn't been said on YouTube hundreds of times already? [In reply to] Can't Post

He says all of that to make a rather silly point. Gandalf shows emotion plenty of times in the material, and his moment with Galadriel seems to be nothing more than her seeking to raise his spirits some. The look on Sir Ian's face is frankly marvelous acting and shows a deep range of emotion that is perfectly consistent with what we see of Gandalf in the films, in my opinion.


duats
Grey Havens

Jan 14 2012, 12:29am

Post #3 of 93 (2243 views)
Shortcut
Oh goodie [In reply to] Can't Post

Another person looking too far into a simple gesture.


(This post was edited by duats on Jan 14 2012, 12:30am)


nobofthepony
Lorien


Jan 14 2012, 12:31am

Post #4 of 93 (2327 views)
Shortcut
PJ put that in to mess with us [In reply to] Can't Post

There is no way there is a romance between Gandalf and Galadriel. That is never going to happen. I can see Galadriel empathizing with Gandalf's weariness and McKellen's Gandalf the Grey is an underdog character, and he plays him as such. Therefore we see the glint of sadness in his eyes as Galadriel perhaps reminds him of Valinor and gives him a glimpse of the road ahead. She may even be marveling at his grey hair and appearance as an old man. But there is no romance happening.


MatthewJer18
Rohan

Jan 14 2012, 12:39am

Post #5 of 93 (2234 views)
Shortcut
Agreed. [In reply to] Can't Post

That people are even terrified of the possibility makes no sense to me, even in light of PJ's more controversial adaptations. It's clear that the gesture is meant to raise Gandalf's spirits, probably after the harrowing journey he has made on behalf of the Council. That they are both old and wise does not mean they are without emotion.


alienorchid
Lorien


Jan 14 2012, 12:57am

Post #6 of 93 (2275 views)
Shortcut
I don't get why.. [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't really understand why so many people assume that it's a romantic interaction between Gandalf and Galadriel. I suppose we're just a product of our times.

To me, it seems totally natural that two people who share similar burdens - burdens of rings, of knowledge, of fighting evil, of just being alive for so long - would share a moment of intimacy and tenderness, knowing that they both have dark times ahead.

As for the author of that article not wanting Gandalf to be needy.. I don't see that look being 'needy' but even so... why wouldn't Gandalf seek solace in one of the only other people in Middle Earth who could understand him?

It seems as though Jackson & co are continuing to boost that theme of friendship that is present in the LotR movies, and in Tolkien's writing and weave it throughout all the characters and situations.


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Jan 14 2012, 1:07am

Post #7 of 93 (2250 views)
Shortcut
This is what happens [In reply to] Can't Post

when your society had been ravaged by MTV and reality TV "culture" - or lack thereof - until it's been locked locked into a permanent state of arrested development:

"Hey, that girl just touched that's guy's hair........I guess they're Orcing!" Shocked "Gandy and Galadriel sitting in a tree, O-r-c-i-n-g", ETC and so on, and whatever.

BTW, I tried to point out this sort-of thing was happening all over the place just after the teaser came out, and several people dismissed it as "unworthy of discussion"; Meanwhile, get ready to hear conspiracy theories about the non-existent Gandriel "romance" for the next decade. Angelic

PS: Eric Wecks states in the article in question:

"I can imagine no reason the Galadriel I know from the books would ever touch Gandalf like that. More than that, I can imagine no reason the maia (demi-god) Gandalf would ever, ever look at any elf with the kind of need you can see in that clip. Uh-oh!"


Mr. Wecks doth protest too much, methinks. It seems much more likely that in fact it's Mr. Wecks who's concealing a massive man-crush on both Sir Ian and Ms. Blanchett, hmmmmm?

See, it's fun and easy to make a "revealing observation" when you've thrown fact and substance out of the window. Evil

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, with axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!

(This post was edited by Captain Salt on Jan 14 2012, 1:15am)


xxxyyy
Rohan

Jan 14 2012, 1:12am

Post #8 of 93 (2289 views)
Shortcut
One of the best momennt of the trailer... [In reply to] Can't Post

just thinking that there will be a romantic story between Gandalf and Galadriel is nonsensical.
Galadriel is the oldest elf in ME (in PJ universe) and we know she can see deep inside people minds just looking at them.
She probably sees the Undying Lands in Gandalf eyes, and that would be something, or who knows what, the evil they had to suffer...
That's why I liked it so much, because the romantic tension will be completely absent FOR SURE and there will be something we don't know, which I'm extremely curious to discover.

http://energyfromthorium.com/


Maiarmike
Grey Havens


Jan 14 2012, 1:16am

Post #9 of 93 (2139 views)
Shortcut
Exactly. [In reply to] Can't Post

No one can look into another character's eyes in films anymore, even two people of the same gender, without people wondering when they're going to shack up...it's rather disappointing, and no doubt a result of 21st century media of reality television.

"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien


Maiarmike
Grey Havens


Jan 14 2012, 1:25am

Post #10 of 93 (2194 views)
Shortcut
Ugh... [In reply to] Can't Post

Yet another article about how Jackson was "unfaithful" to the book trilogy...how original. Yes...things in the book will change for The Hobbit. People are going to have to get over that fact. It's fine to argue when the movies come out whether those changes worked, but getting worked up about how things will be ruined, or whatever is a waste of time until the films come out.

Not to mention, some of the authors claims are ridiculous and flat out wrong, namely the Gandalf/Galadriel thing, and Aragorn NEVER considers having a relationship with Eowyn in the films. He helps her and looks after her, but I don't think he ever considers a relationship with her, because he has his heart set on Arwen.

This notion that most, if not all the characters of the LotR and Hobbit films should have that steely, emotionless, superhero, infallible personality that Tolkien likes to embody in his characters is ridiculous. Critics would eat them alive for making uninteresting film characters. They have to think about dramatic tension in a way that Tolkien never had to worry about in a book, because the filmmakers only have a few hours in a film.

"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien


easterlingchief1
Rivendell

Jan 14 2012, 1:45am

Post #11 of 93 (2119 views)
Shortcut
Absolutely, Maiarmike! [In reply to] Can't Post

I've made the argument that the changes in the characters' personalities was essential for a while now. Not only would critics lambast the film for being too simplistic, but audiences would get bored watching the films if all the players were Gary Stews/Mary Sues.


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Jan 14 2012, 1:48am

Post #12 of 93 (2154 views)
Shortcut
Yes, well said... [In reply to] Can't Post

Agree completely. Smile The article in question, and its "points", are totally illegitimate, yet contain several tried-and-not-true sentiments about the "unfaithfulness" of PJ's films.

In fact, the LotR trilogy is just about the most respectful, and faithful, adaptation I've ever seen while working first and foremost as great works in their own medium.

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, with axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!

(This post was edited by Captain Salt on Jan 14 2012, 1:51am)


duats
Grey Havens

Jan 14 2012, 1:51am

Post #13 of 93 (2137 views)
Shortcut
Not only that [In reply to] Can't Post

But the author was under the impression that Arwen gave up her immortality for Frodo and Galadriel was the head of the White Council.


squire
Valinor


Jan 14 2012, 1:52am

Post #14 of 93 (2247 views)
Shortcut
that "steely, emotionless, superhero, infallible personality that Tolkien likes" in his characters [In reply to] Can't Post

I have to say I don't recognize Tolkien's writing in the above phrase. Tolkien's characters are the opposite of those terms.

The point of the Wired article is that character is character - it isn't a different thing in a movie than in a book. Yes, there is less time to bring it out in a film but then there are also more ways to bring it out because the actor is visible. The question of dramatic tension is the same in both media, and to my mind Tolkien does little with his characters that doesn't involve clear or implicit dramatic tension on a scene by scene basis. Where his writing is extended in a way that a film must compress and edit is in the areas of plot and setting: his large number of episodes and incidents, his many descriptive vistas and travelogues, and the immense back-history. His characters and their interactions, as he wrote them, would have made for excellent cinema, especially considering the cast that Jackson assembled.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Milknut
Rohan


Jan 14 2012, 1:56am

Post #15 of 93 (2132 views)
Shortcut
I wonder why so many people freak out over that clip. [In reply to] Can't Post

FACE TOUCH =/= SEXUAL TENSION.

Galadriel and Gandalf are millenia old. They are incredibly wise and powerful. The touch is simply a gesture of platonic affection. I'm 100x more annoyed by people making shipping comments than by the clip itself.

And while I too am grieved that the full dimensions of the characters did not translate to the screen I do think that the films managed to differentiate the characters and humanize them a bit. In the novels the personalities run together a bit and most lines could come from any character believably. It's the one issue I'm a bit torn on, however. Regardless I think the decisions made for a good film and I haven't lost the books because those decisions were made. So yeah, I don't know. Tongue

The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie___


Milknut
Rohan


Jan 14 2012, 1:59am

Post #16 of 93 (2137 views)
Shortcut
I think the truth lies in the middle. [In reply to] Can't Post

And I think it must be admitted that the characters as written may have not translated well to the screen. Perhaps they did go a bit far, but then again perhaps they didn't. I think fans of the book should be MUCH more upset with the Faramir decision than with Aragorn and Eowyn. Aragorn NEVER leads Eowyn on and treats her with respect and platonic affection in the films and I think it's a poorly chosen complaint. Faramir, however, is a legitimate argument.

The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie___


Milknut
Rohan


Jan 14 2012, 2:03am

Post #17 of 93 (2100 views)
Shortcut
I agree. [In reply to] Can't Post

It's hard to even read LOTR today without getting homoerotic undertones from Frodo and Sam and I can say with 100% certainty that J.R.R. Tolkein did NOT intend that. In his era platonic love was still something people believed in. Unsure

The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie___


There&ThereAgain
Rohan


Jan 14 2012, 2:31am

Post #18 of 93 (2078 views)
Shortcut
wow [In reply to] Can't Post

that was the silliest article I have ever read.

it must be a slow day over at wired.

Crazy

"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien

"Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas


redgiraffe
Rohan

Jan 14 2012, 2:55am

Post #19 of 93 (2119 views)
Shortcut
Dude is way off IMO [In reply to] Can't Post

We are all entitled to our own opinions but Pahlease. Jackson was quite true to almost every character accept Faramir in the theatrical cut. And d@mnit the movies were pretty dark close to the books.

But most importantly is Jackson stayed true to the heart, and themes of the books: love, despair, power, corruption, war, death, and above all else the power of hope especially when it is found through companionship.

Oh and yeah Gandalf is a wizard but he's not a freaking god. He's gonna have human emotions. And Galadriel is ancient and has much wisdom to give to him.

So I have to say "F" this wired guy big time.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Jan 14 2012, 4:38am

Post #20 of 93 (2040 views)
Shortcut
Hair, Not Face [In reply to] Can't Post

She's not touching his face.

Those who argue what a "face touch" is NOT still propagte the misleading term and the perception by using those words. She's touchnig a strand of his hair. That is all.


Milknut
Rohan


Jan 14 2012, 5:01am

Post #21 of 93 (2004 views)
Shortcut
Fair enough. [In reply to] Can't Post

Technically it's a wig.

The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie___


zarabia
Tol Eressea


Jan 14 2012, 5:13am

Post #22 of 93 (2072 views)
Shortcut
At the risk of incurring much wrath [In reply to] Can't Post

I take issue with the writer's characterization of the film version of Aragorn. In my very humble opinion, his moments of self doubt made him more believable. He was never unsure of himself as a Ranger, he didn't doubt himself as a leader of men when it really came to it, he only really doubted his resolve in the face of the One Ring which shows wisdom. Also, despite the small amount of self doubt, he never seemed as indecisive as the book Aragorn. Plus, film Aragorn never refers to himself in the third person the way book Aragorn does. Zarabia always thought that was a bit pompous sounding. Zarabia would question the sanity of someone who did that. Zarabia would have second thoughts about following himWink


(This post was edited by zarabia on Jan 14 2012, 5:15am)


lurtz2010
Rohan

Jan 14 2012, 5:17am

Post #23 of 93 (2024 views)
Shortcut
Erik Wecks is an idiot // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Jan 14 2012, 5:32am

Post #24 of 93 (2069 views)
Shortcut
Zathras [In reply to] Can't Post

If Zathras stay, he die. If Zathras leave, he die. Either way, bad for Zathras.


zarabia
Tol Eressea


Jan 14 2012, 5:45am

Post #25 of 93 (2046 views)
Shortcut
LOL (Okay, I had to google it first, then LOL :) )// [In reply to] Can't Post

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 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.