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:
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

AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 31 2013, 10:49pm

Post #176 of 221 (329 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 (323 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 (313 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 (309 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 (307 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 (332 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 (321 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 (314 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 (319 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 (312 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 (302 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 (348 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 (292 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 (256 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 (229 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 (229 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 (230 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 (206 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 (204 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 (230 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 (186 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 (178 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 (160 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 (152 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 (136 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


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.