The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

That's a serious danger: as those who watched the supplemental DVD's know, Boyens has no respect for the integrity of the book, and has a very odd interpretation of some of the author's ideas, and consequentially is very proud of her revisionist tendencies, (probably Walsh, too, but she never gets on camera to blather on about how great her revisions are, like Boyens does). She could easily wreck The Hobbit.

MJB, now you've got me *really* worried, because I thought I was the only one who picked up on all that from the LOTR bonus features.

[Ernest Rister]

Rister, you have no idea how much her involvement worries me... on second thought, maybe you're the only one who has any idea how much her involvement worries me. I think you and I are on the same page regarding an impression that the fundamental problem with Boyens's (and probably also Walsh's) screenwriting is that they have no understanding or a very shallow understanding of the book they are attempting to re-write.

I won't say 'no understanding', but I have to admit being floored listening to her commentary track on Fellowship where she began to criticize Tolkien and brag about how much she improved Boromir's death scene...it was disrespectful and in poor taste, not to mention revealing of an out of control ego.

You read the first paragraph of the Silmarillion and you realize you are in the hands of an exceptionally gifted writer and fantasist. It's a bit off putting to hear Tolkien's writings criticized by the author of the line "No one tosses a dwarf."

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I won't say 'no understanding', but I have to admit being floored listening to her commentary track on Fellowship where she began to criticize Tolkien and brag about how much she improved Boromir's death scene...it was disrespectful and in poor taste, not to mention revealing of an out of control ego.

You read the first paragraph of the Silmarillion and you realize you are in the hands of an exceptionally gifted writer and fantasist. It's a bit off putting to hear Tolkien's writings criticized by the author of the line "No one tosses a dwarf."

lol.She said that?Not much of a fan of listening to commentary tracks,but that is really funny.It's like Tom Clancy criticizing Tolstoy,and say he could really improve the scenes in his books

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

It's a bit off putting to hear Tolkien's writings criticized by the author of the line "No one tosses a dwarf."

I bet that you are not too fond of Legolas surfing down the steps of 'Helm's Deep' during the battle either.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

I bet that you are not too fond of Legolas surfing down the steps of 'Helm's Deep' during the battle either.

Anyone who actually likes Bloom's performance in LOTR?

[Darkhawk9587]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Anyone who actually likes Bloom's performance in LOTR?

I didn't mind Bloom. I thought he and Rhys-Davies competitiveness was pretty funny. Could they have done better? Probably, but the entire cast was well selected in my opinion.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

I bet that you are not too fond of Legolas surfing down the steps of 'Helm's Deep' during the battle either.

That doesn't bother me *half* as much, actually. I'm not a purist on this stuff, I believe when someone adapts a book, they really mean "adapt a story", because there's no way one can translate a reading experience into a sensory visual and aural experience. So I expect story changes and what not - but dwarf tossing? Really?

I'm generally pleased with the films as a whole, because I take them for what they are, but I am also conscious of the fact that the weakest parts of all three films are the scenes Boyens and Walsh added to the tale, not what they cut out (such as Denethor sending Boromir to take the ring for Gondor, Frodo sending Sam home, Arwen losing life while Sauron becomes stronger - seriously, what was that about, except a cheap way to motivate Aragorn into accepting his destiny? It goes nowhere in the movie, and it makes no sense in the mythology). This is why I'm worried about the Hobbit. If Boyens and Walsh were a bit out of control *before* people started throwing Oscars at them and calling them geniuses, and if the weakest parts of the LOTR are the scenes they invented -- well, they are looking to pad out The Hobbit with huge sections of material that Tolkien never wrote, only described or alluded to. We're going to be seeing entire story threads created by Boyens and Walsh, with dialog by Boyens and Walsh -- They complained about the difficulty of trimming Tolkien's mammoth tale down to three films. I'm worried about them taking a simple tale and bloating it into two three-hour movies. It could be a perfect storm that doesn't end well for anyone.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Darkhawk9587

I didn't mind Bloom. I thought he and Rhys-Davies competitiveness was pretty funny. Could they have done better? Probably, but the entire cast was well selected in my opinion.

I thought the cast was uniformly excellent, all across the board (well, except for that burping wet drunk walking down the street in Bree in front of the Prancing Pony - who cast that guy - clearly can't act...)

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Anyone who actually likes Bloom's performance in LOTR?

I do.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Darkhawk9587

I didn't mind Bloom. I thought he and Rhys-Davies competitiveness was pretty funny. Could they have done better? Probably, but the entire cast was well selected in my opinion.

Sorry to dissagree,but when looking at Sean Bean,you saw that there was a world of difference between him and the others.But that is as always my opinion.I don't know why I bought them on DVD,and FoR on BD since I think the movies to be terribly bad,but the effects and cinematography was second to none.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Sorry to dissagree,but when looking at Sean Bean,you saw that there was a world of difference between him and the others.But that is as always my opinion.I don't know why I bought them on DVD,and FoR on BD since I think the movies to be terribly bad,but the effects and cinematography was second to none.

I think Howard Shore's score is going down in history as one of the finest ever recorded for a major motion picture. The art direction is endlessly absorbing, and Jackson's visual imagaination is startling and thrilling. As awkward as some of the "contributions" to the story are by the screenwriters, they nail the core elements, although I have a nagging feeling the bulk of the intellectual heavy-lifting was spent on Fellowship of the Ring, making sure that film knocked the series out of the park, leaving the creative team gasping in mental fatigue under the challenge of meeting that standard for the second and third installments - hence the re-shoots, aborted storylines, awkward beats, loss of control, confused ideas. One can almost sense a feeling of editorial panic and frayed story tension in the second and third film, while Fellowship (being more linear) is far more assured in almost every other way (which is why the 'dwarf-tossing' moment seems so shocking in its lack of taste of control).

Perfect? No. Exceptional? In many areas. Disappointing? In some areas. "Terribly bad"? Nah. Not as films taken on their own terms.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I think Howard Shore's score is going down in history as one of the finest ever recorded for a major motion picture. The art direction is endlessly absorbing, and Jackson's visual imagaination is startling and thrilling. As awkward as some of the "contributions" to the story are by the screenwriters, they nail the core elements, although I have a nagging feeling the bulk of the intellectual heavy-lifting was spent on Fellowship of the Ring, making sure that film knocked the series out of the park, leaving the creative team gasping in mental fatigue under the challenge of meeting that standard for the second and third installments - hence the re-shoots, aborted storylines, awkward beats, loss of control, confused ideas. One can almost sense a feeling of editorial panic and frayed story tension in the second and third film, while Fellowship (being more linear) is far more assured in almost every other way (which is why the 'dwarf-tossing' moment seems so shocking in its lack of taste of control).

Perfect? No. Exceptional? In many areas. Disappointing? In some areas. "Terribly bad"? Nah. Not as films taken on their own terms.

Think the score was good-although abit repetetive.Listen to Dvorak's 9th symphony to see where he got some inspiration

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Think the score was good-although abit repetetive.

Yea, I kinda agree with you there. There are parts in it that I really like, and the main 'Fellowship theme' kinda irritates me now.

But, 'to each his own'.

[Witch King of Angmar]

IMO LOTR > Overrated Star Wars Saga

u jelly Mahatma?



Can't wait for hobbit films.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Witch King of Angmar

IMO LOTR > Overrated Star Wars Saga

u jelly Mahatma?



Can't wait for hobbit films.

Que? Not english,so didn't understand that one.You mean jealous,or wimp. . . . .Or were you refering to me not being overly impressed with LOTR trilogy?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I'm worried that the project is going to pander to Boyens and Walsh's worst instincts for bloat and revisionism. The Hobbit tale works wonderfully as an introduction to the worlds of Middle-Earth, with Bilbo as your stand-in. The more they get away from Tolkien's tale by throwing in all these story strands that exist as little more than annotations in Tolkien's ROTK Appendices, the more I fear they are going to muddle up the whole story.

I am convinced that they are going to treat this, not as a adaptation of the book, but as a prequel to his LoTR films. I will still go see it and probably enjoy it but I am not expecting it to turn out in the same tone as the book. Interestingly, I recently got a book that had Tolkien's attempt to re-write The Hobbit in the style of Lord of the Rings. Tolkien stopped because he thought it would ruin the story.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

That doesn't bother me *half* as much, actually. I'm not a purist on this stuff, I believe when someone adapts a book, they really mean "adapt a story", because there's no way one can translate a reading experience into a sensory visual and aural experience. So I expect story changes and what not - but dwarf tossing? Really?

I'm generally pleased with the films as a whole, because I take them for what they are, but I am also conscious of the fact that the weakest parts of all three films are the scenes Boyens and Walsh added to the tale, not what they cut out (such as Denethor sending Boromir to take the ring for Gondor, Frodo sending Sam home, Arwen losing life while Sauron becomes stronger - seriously, what was that about, except a cheap way to motivate Aragorn into accepting his destiny? It goes nowhere in the movie, and it makes no sense in the mythology). This is why I'm worried about the Hobbit. If Boyens and Walsh were a bit out of control *before* people started throwing Oscars at them and calling them geniuses, and if the weakest parts of the LOTR are the scenes they invented -- well, they are looking to pad out The Hobbit with huge sections of material that Tolkien never wrote, only described or alluded to. We're going to be seeing entire story threads created by Boyens and Walsh, with dialog by Boyens and Walsh -- They complained about the difficulty of trimming Tolkien's mammoth tale down to three films. I'm worried about them taking a simple tale and bloating it into two three-hour movies. It could be a perfect storm that doesn't end well for anyone.

Well put. And you can add another scene to the list. The EEs were supposed to be for "lovers of the books". Then they proceeded to have The Witch-King knock Gandalf off his horse at the gates of Minas Tirith. I hate that scene more than any other.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by radagast

I am convinced that they are going to treat this, not as a adaptation of the book, but as a prequel to his LoTR films. I will still go see it and probably enjoy it but I am not expecting it to turn out in the same tone as the book. Interestingly, I recently got a book that had Tolkien's attempt to re-write The Hobbit in the style of Lord of the Rings. Tolkien stopped because he thought it would ruin the story.

That's what I'm hoping for personally. I view the films and books seperately, and care more about the Hobbit fitting the existing films than the book.

Plus, I'm not much of a fan of the book anyway. If LOTR was writting like the Hobbit I'd have little interest in the series. Just re-read the whole series (Silmarillion, Children of Hurin, The Hobbit, LOTR) a few months ago and easily enjoyed the Hobbit the least. I just don't dig the tone and writing style, and most of the stuff that would be most interesting (the white council, expelling Sauron from Mirkwood) etc. isn't in the book.

So I hope they match the tone of the LOTR movies, but just a bit more light hearted, and also cover all the other stuff that's very important as a prequel to the LOTR story that was not included directly in the book.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

This is why I'm worried about the Hobbit. If Boyens and Walsh were a bit out of control *before* people started throwing Oscars at them and calling them geniuses, and if the weakest parts of the LOTR are the scenes they invented -- well, they are looking to pad out The Hobbit with huge sections of material that Tolkien never wrote, only described or alluded to.

I agree with you concerning LotR, in which Jackson & Co. were more or less applying an approximate literal interpretation of the text. Although I was satisfied with the overall product, there were many specific parts of the movie that bothered me; Faramir being corruptable when in fact he was (along with Aragorn) closest to the ideal Numenorean character ("I would not pick up this thing [The Ring] if it lay along the highway..."); Theoden's conversation with Eowyn before he died instead of Eomer ("Hail, King of the Mark!"); the bloated Helm's Deep sequence that occupied merely a few pages in the book, and of course many, many more.

"The Hobbit" is different. There is little or no chance that Jackson will attempt a literal interpretation of a children's story. The Elves will most likely not be singing "Tra-la-la-lally", nor the Goblins singing in Goblintown (or with the wargs), etc., though I could imagine for humor Jackson throwing in something like Bilbo's ridiculous quip, "It smells like Elves", to capture at least some of the lighter atmosphere. But it will have to match the overall mood of the LotR movies if it is to retain any continuity. As for the historical parts that were not part of The Hobbit story proper - since these are more or less vaguely alluded to in the Appendices and auxilary material (e.g. Unfinished Tales), I think Jackson can enjoy a relatively high degree of artistic license. This will only be under the condition that the actors portray the primary characteristics assigned to them by Tolkien. Although somewhat apprehensive, I am looking forward to seeing what Jackson does with this material.

[Darkhawk9587]

Originally Posted by radagast

I am convinced that they are going to treat this, not as a adaptation of the book, but as a prequel to his LoTR films. I will still go see it and probably enjoy it but I am not expecting it to turn out in the same tone as the book. Interestingly, I recently got a book that had Tolkien's attempt to re-write The Hobbit in the style of Lord of the Rings. Tolkien stopped because he thought it would ruin the story.

Isn't that what the second film is for. The first is mostly based on the Hobbit book while part two is a tie in between that and LotR?