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:
should the hobbit have even been made into these films?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Yngwulff
Gondor


Jun 21 2013, 3:59am

Post #76 of 91 (271 views)
Shortcut
Me either [In reply to] Can't Post

I didn't say cut out White council/Barad Dur/Radaghast completely just streamline them a bit ... I like that inclusion. That and omitting Azog would allow ample time for the actual book events. As I said before there was material for about 2 and 1/2 films IMHO. Azogs subplot may or may not have been a late addition, but we won't know til PJ finally spills the beans about it.


Take this Brother May it Serve you Well
Vote for Pedro!

(This post was edited by Yngwulff on Jun 21 2013, 4:03am)


Fredeghar Wayfarer
Lorien


Jun 21 2013, 4:45am

Post #77 of 91 (263 views)
Shortcut
What Salmacis said [In reply to] Can't Post

If there was a "Like" feature on this board, I'd be all about your post, Salmacis81. There was no need to do this story as three movies. As Rankin-Bass's adaptation proves, it's possible to do The Hobbit in one film. That was an animated movie so, by its nature, it was shorter than a live action film. A single live-action Hobbit could have included even more of the story. If you wanted to extend it to a two-parter, then you would need very few cuts and could perhaps even include the Necromancer plotline. But stretching it to three just results in a whole lot of invented fan fiction. I for one am not crazy about that.

I don't understand why some fans think it's impossible to do justice to The Hobbit in one or two films. Each volume of Lord of the Rings fit into a single film each. Yes, there were cuts but the main bulk of the story was represented. You don't think it would be possible to do the same with a book that's shorter than any of the LOTR novels?


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Jun 21 2013, 5:42am

Post #78 of 91 (254 views)
Shortcut
POV [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I don't understand why some fans think it's impossible to do justice to The Hobbit in one or two films.


Kirk (to Saavik): Well, now you have something new to think about.


In Reply To
Each volume of Lord of the Rings fit into a single film each. Yes, there were cuts but the main bulk of the story was represented. You don't think it would be possible to do the same with a book that's shorter than any of the LOTR novels?


It is often dismaying to find out there are alternative points of view, such as The Lord of the Rings was six movies too short for the very reason you mention.


Yngwulff
Gondor


Jun 21 2013, 6:11am

Post #79 of 91 (256 views)
Shortcut
I disagree [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
It is often dismaying to find out there are alternative points of view, such as The Lord of the Rings was six movies too short for the very reason you mention.



A lot of whats in the book does not translate into movie materiel. I've heard mention for instance that the Council of Elrond was cut too short on ocasion. It was, but in movie terms it was just right ... any longer and the audience loses interest.

How much of the book was the various characters trudging along endlessly ... its OK in the books, but would make for a really boring movie. Thus PJ used snippets and highlights of these journeys during important parts.

Tom Bombadil (sorry bomby), the Old Forest, and the cleansing of the Shire while good parts, were also not condusive to a flowing and paced movie and add no real significance to the main plot ie destroying the Ring and defeating Sauron or overcomplicate the story in a way that would not be time effective to expand upon.

The Barrow Wights and the pre-Moeia warg attack should have been included.

One change PJ did that made sense to me was when Saruman caused the storm as opposed to the evil of Caradras as it was more simple to show and explain the storm which stopped them from crossing the mountain that way.


Take this Brother May it Serve you Well
Vote for Pedro!


dormouse
Half-elven


Jun 21 2013, 10:44am

Post #80 of 91 (236 views)
Shortcut
So..... [In reply to] Can't Post

How would you have included the Barrow Wights but not Bombadil? Just curious....


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Jun 21 2013, 12:33pm

Post #81 of 91 (231 views)
Shortcut
Okay... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I didn't say cut out White council/Barad Dur/Radaghast completely just streamline them a bit ... I like that inclusion. That and omitting Azog would allow ample time for the actual book events. As I said before there was material for about 2 and 1/2 films IMHO. Azogs subplot may or may not have been a late addition, but we won't know til PJ finally spills the beans about it.



Although I was responding to jimmyfenn, not to you. So, what happens at Barad-dur that you would include? We know that (SPOILER ALERT!) Sauron returns to Mordor after he abandons Dol Guldur (SPOILER ENDS), but he doesn't announce himself until ten years later.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Jun 21 2013, 3:08pm

Post #82 of 91 (208 views)
Shortcut
Sensibilities [In reply to] Can't Post

A lot of that assumes sensibilities on behalf of the viewer that might be wrong and sounds a lot like Boyens dictating to us what we like, such as a "dramatic reversal," "feminine energy," or the name "Azog The Impaler" (or whatever it is) as partial justification for misrepresenting Dwarven history. I would have liked all the little adventures along the way, such as Tom Bombadil (without the falala and skipping around) and The Scouring. I don't care if someone else's arbitrary rules says they don't "translate into movie materiel." I am not unique in this. Very often, someone says things like "this book is unfilmable" and it is passed down through Cinema 101 courses as dogma. It could be right, but it shouldn't be blindly accepted as fact.

By the way, the "pacing" dogma, as if movies should be driven to a beat, is another pet peeve of mine.


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Jun 21 2013, 3:13pm)


Yngwulff
Gondor


Jun 21 2013, 3:53pm

Post #83 of 91 (198 views)
Shortcut
yup [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
How would you have included the Barrow Wights but not Bombadil? Just curious....







Treebeard could save them


Take this Brother May it Serve you Well
Vote for Pedro!

(This post was edited by Yngwulff on Jun 21 2013, 3:58pm)


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Jun 22 2013, 12:32am

Post #84 of 91 (171 views)
Shortcut
Treebeard? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

In Reply To
How would you have included the Barrow Wights but not Bombadil? Just curious....



Treebeard could save them



That doesn't seem feasible. There is no way to justify moving Treebeard outside of Fangorn (considering that he essentially IS Fangorn). I suppose that you could make Fangorn into the Old Forest, but then you have problems after Merry and Pippin are caught by Orcs and with resolving the Isengard issue and Helm's Deep.

Without Bombadil, the only solution to including the Barrow-downs sequence would be to introduce Aragorn differently by having Strider save the Hobbits from the Barrow-wight.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


Yngwulff
Gondor


Jun 22 2013, 2:40am

Post #85 of 91 (165 views)
Shortcut
sarcasm ... I love it [In reply to] Can't Post

Cool


Take this Brother May it Serve you Well
Vote for Pedro!


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Jun 22 2013, 6:29am

Post #86 of 91 (161 views)
Shortcut
It would be interesting [In reply to] Can't Post

to know the heirachy of responsibility for textual changes as it apperas to be Phillipa that spouts most of the justification for changes. Was LOTR the first film script she worked on? If this is true, which I don't know for sure, what experience did she have to base her opinion for such changes on. I hate what I consider weak justifications such as keeping Azog because he had a good journey to go on. It annoys me completely especially because Azogs treatment of Thror was not of the same degree, it was a battlefield slaying, no capture and defilement, no great cause for the dwarves to rally to. As others have said why include a back story and completely change it.


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Jun 22 2013, 12:09pm

Post #87 of 91 (134 views)
Shortcut
I wasn't being sarcastic... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
sarcasm ... I love it Cool



If you were using sarcasm then I missed it. Unsure

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


arithmancer
Grey Havens


Jun 22 2013, 2:14pm

Post #88 of 91 (134 views)
Shortcut
Boyens [In reply to] Can't Post

LotR was indeed the first film script she worked on.Before that, she worked in theater as a playwright, teacher, producer and editor., according to an interview with her you can read here:

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/12/philippa-boyens/

She has since worked on screenplays for Jackson's post-LotR films including King Kong and The Lovely Bones.

She has a college degree in English and History (1994) according to Wikipedia. In conclusion, it would seem likely to me that writing is something she has had a long-standing interest in.


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Jun 23 2013, 1:20am

Post #89 of 91 (92 views)
Shortcut
Thanks arithmancer [In reply to] Can't Post

I find some of her comments nonsense and some of the things they added or changed such as Azog and Aragorn equally so. But then I also find some changes very good such as Boromirs death and the words between him and Aragorn. The hobbit films should have been made but I would have preferred a lot greater subtlety whether sticking to the books or not.


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Jun 23 2013, 4:14am

Post #90 of 91 (87 views)
Shortcut
Agreed [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with all that. Another good line is the oft quoted Gandalf speech to Frodo about "...the time that is given us." It's overuse among fans makes it trite, but it was a good line. There are quite a few more. I'd have to watch The Hobbit again to recall any from that movie.


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Jun 23 2013, 4:15am)


Yngwulff
Gondor


Jun 23 2013, 5:49am

Post #91 of 91 (120 views)
Shortcut
sarcasm [In reply to] Can't Post

Treebird saves them from old man willow in EE ... could save them from Barrow wights too, thus excluding Tommy B.


Take this Brother May it Serve you Well
Vote for Pedro!

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.