The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[frogmort]

Cool! Thanks for posting that Duffy12!

[JOHN MFN D.]

[QUOTE=dmaul1114;4430978]The idea is that it will start with Bilbo telling the story to Frodo, and end the same way. Not that Frodo will be actively in the movie.



I think the movies would benefit from hiring Fred Savage for the role of Frodo.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

You obviously haven't listened to the Phillipa Boyens commentary track on Fellowship. She does indeed boast about improving Tolkien's work, and takes some shots at him as a writer. Its for this reason that there is so much resentment towards her in the Tolkien fan community.

From the Fellowship of the Ring commentary track...

PETER JACKSON: This moment between Boromir and Aragorn is iconic from the book. You know, when you can read the book and imagine Boromir leaning against the base of the tree with the arrows in him and Aragorn leaning over him and --

PHILIPPA BOYENS: I think this moment is better than the moment in the book! There, I said it! I do. I think we did --

PETER JACKSON (overlapping): Well, we definitely enhanced the dialogue. We made it --

PHILIIPA BOYENS: Not just the dialog, I actually think the emotional content of this moment and the connection between the two characters. And I do think it was a failing of Professor Tolkien’s. I wanted more when I read that moment in the book.

PETER JACKSON: Yeah.

----

It should be noted that Jackson doesn't seem very comfortable when Boyens bursts in and interrupts him. He seems a bit ill at ease while she pats herself on the back and criticizes Tolkien. This (and other instances of seeming bragging and arrogance on the supplements) are why she's not a very popular figure in Tolkien fan circles. She's offended them.

What's funny is that if you read the scene in Tolkien's book and compare it to their adaptation, it's fairly close to Tolkien. They did nothing with this moment a 1st year film student couldn't have done on his first adaptation assignment.

This is *precisely* the danger of co-creativity, where you begin to confuse your ability to stand on the shoulder of a giant, and confuse your streamlined re-write with the greatness of the author you're adapting.

Nobody tosses a dwarf, indeed.

That's hardly bragging, really. If you're adapting something, you're altering it already. You can devote your time staying slavishly to the source material, or you can try to make it your own, and perhaps even improve it. If they followed Tolkien to the letter, those three movies would have been really boring. The entire first book seems as if Tolkien had no idea where the story would go (and that would be correct, if the information on the DVDs are correct) and had no editor to make him cut it down.
Jackson might seem uncomfortable to you, but since he started the entire project and had approval of everything that was done, don't you think he would agree that this change was perhaps for the best? It's still a Peter Jackson movie.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

That's hardly bragging, really. If you're adapting something, you're altering it already. You can devote your time staying slavishly to the source material, or you can try to make it your own, and perhaps even improve it. If they followed Tolkien to the letter, those three movies would have been really boring.

Notice no one is suggesting that the movies be "slavishly faithful". In fact, your post reminded me of how Boyens and Jackson talk of their "breakthrough" in making Fellowship "Frodo-centric", eliminating Bombadil and the Barrow-Downs and what not. Funny thing about this stroke of genius, it's such common sense in film adaptation that even the inept Bakshi version performed the same trick, and correct me if I'm wrong (and I might be on this point), but I think the BBC radio version also cut Bombadil and the Barrow-Downs. I loaned my copy to my best friend about 7 years ago and never got it back.

Anyhoo, no sensible person has a problem with what had to be cut for time or even altered to make themes communicate better...it's all the extraneous nonsense, ham-fisted comedy, and cheap soap-opera melodrama manipulation *added* to the tale that has Tolkien fans left dazed and exasperated.

You ever notice in the Jackson films that just about every character has a "fake death" scene, where we are led to believe they've been slaughtered, or dragged off a cliff, or killed in their bed, or trampled by a horse...and those that don't have fake death scenes suddenly have ticking clocks imposed upon them, like Arwen suddenly developing Sauronitis, a disease that apparently kills you the longer Sauron is alive. Its the cheap melodrama added to the tale that seems to annoy Tolkien fans the most, not what was cut out.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Notice no one is suggesting that the movies be "slavishly faithful". In fact, your post reminded me of how Boyens and Jackson talk of their "breakthrough" in making Fellowship "Frodo-centric", eliminating Bombadil and the Barrow-Downs and what not. Funny thing about this stroke of genius, it's such common sense in film adaptation that even the inept Bakshi version performed the same trick, and correct me if I'm wrong (and I might be on this point), but I think the BBC radio version also cut Bombadil and the Barrow-Downs. I loaned my copy to my best friend about 7 years ago and never got it back.

Anyhoo, no sensible person has a problem with what had to be cut for time or even altered to make themes communicate better...it's all the extraneous nonsense, ham-fisted comedy, and cheap soap-opera melodrama manipulation *added* to the tale that has Tolkien fans left dazed and exasperated.

You ever notice in the Jackson films that just about every character has a "fake death" scene, where we are led to believe they've been slaughtered, or dragged off a cliff, or killed in their bed, or trampled by a horse...and those that don't have fake death scenes suddenly have ticking clocks imposed upon them, like Arwen suddenly developing Sauronitis, a disease that apparently kills you the longer Sauron is alive. Its the cheap melodrama added to the tale that seems to annoy Tolkien fans the most, not what was cut out.

Right on dude! I don't really have a problem with most of what they took out, it's what they put in that didn't really help the story that bugs me.
They put in so many "tension building" scenes that eventually go back to what Tolkien did anyway: "The Ents will not go to war, oh, okay we will"/ "The Ring will go to Gondor, oh, okay it won't"/"Go home Sam/ oh, okay don't" etc.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Right on dude! I don't really have a problem with most of what they took out, it's what they put in that didn't really help the story that bugs me.
They put in so many "tension building" scenes that eventually go back to what Tolkien did anyway: "The Ents will not go to war, oh, okay we will"/ "The Ring will go to Gondor, oh, okay it won't"/"Go home Sam/ oh, okay don't" etc.

Ents having to be tricked into going to war is perhaps the best example of what you describe - in the film, one roar will summon a legion of them to the exact location, ready for battle, even though in the same exact film we witness the Ents taking hours to say 'Good Morning'...its these cheap dramatics (that belie a deep condescension towards "average moviegoers") that drive Tolkien fans up the wall. Now throw on *top* of that the "not the beard" and "don't tell the elf" business, and you come to realize the screenwriting actually smacks of blind stumbling and paranoia (understandable, and demonstrable, as John Rhys-Davies explains receiving constant re-writes that he ultimately gave up on reading), not the elevated attitude towards Tolkien accidentally revealed in Boyens outburst on the Fellowship commentary. A Journey in the Dark, as it were.

But the appearance of surety and genius must be maintained, to receive that next paycheck. That's the business. Illusion. What was shot and how - that's reality.

[frogmort]

Don't get me wrong, I love the movies. I think the locations, buildings, clothing, armor, weapons etc. are great.

At first, some of the changes really made me cringe, but I have come to except most of them. It's just that I've been a fan of the books for about 26 years, and the movies for about 9.

I do have to say that when I first listened to that commentary mentioned above, I couldn't believe that Pilippa Boyens said that. I found it offensive, and lacking respect for Tolkien.

I know a lot of people these days say that not many people care about the books, but collectively, The LOTR, and The Hobbit have sold more books than any other books in history, except for The Bible. I think that says something!

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Don't get me wrong, I love the movies. I think the locations, buildings, clothing, armor, weapons etc. are great.

At first, some of the changes really made me cringe, but I have come to except most of them. It's just that I've been a fan of the books for about 26 years, and the movies for about 9.

I do have to say that when I first listened to that commentary mentioned above, I couldn't believe that Pilippa Boyens said that. I found it offensive, and lacking respect for Tolkien.

I know a lot of people these days say that not many people care about the books, but collectively, The LOTR, and The Hobbit have sold more books than any other books in history, except for The Bible. I think that says something!

I think the movies are wonderful, but flawed, and flawed only in the writing. I thought ROTK didn't have a prayer for a screenwriting Oscar - little did I know Academy voters were going to vote straight ticket. It's too bad the best film in the series (Fellowship) lost because the Academy felt they had insulted Ron Howard in the past and now he was due...because that's the same thing that caused Return of the King to sweep the Oscars like Cinderella on crack. Boyens over Lehane?

Really?

At least Lehane was copying and pasting his own work.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

It's too bad the best film in the series (Fellowship) lost because the Academy felt they had insulted Ron Howard in the past

I agree. The first time I saw The Fellowship, when Gandalf rides his cart over the bridge and we get to see Hobbiton for the first time, I felt like I had been transported into the book!
I felt that the first movie stuck a lot closer to the books, but they seemed to get more "confident" with themselves as they went, and that's when the train started to derail.
I still love all three movies, but if you went in knowing the story in advance, you can definitely see more of their "fingerprints" all over the story as time goes on.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I agree. The first time I saw The Fellowship, when Gandalf rides his cart over the bridge and we get to see Hobbiton for the first time, I felt like I had been transported into the book!

I had the exact same feeling when I saw the hobbits reach Bree.

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I agree. The first time I saw The Fellowship, when Gandalf rides his cart over the bridge and we get to see Hobbiton for the first time, I felt like I had been transported into the book!
I felt that the first movie stuck a lot closer to the books, but they seemed to get more "confident" with themselves as they went, and that's when the train started to derail.
I still love all three movies, but if you went in knowing the story in advance, you can definitely see more of their "fingerprints" all over the story as time goes on.

It was a great scene. I love Fellowship and wish we had a bit more time in Hobbiton.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by sfmarine

It was a great scene. I love Fellowship and wish we had a bit more time in Hobbiton.

Agreed.

And fortunately we will be getting more of it in the Hobbit.




From theonering.net-


Hobbiton Set Report: ‘Perfect’

February 27th, 2011 by xoanon

frodowen writes:

I’m backpacking in NZ right now and recently did the Hobbiton set tour in Matamata. I saw a while back that you reported they were closed, but since the filmed was pushed back due to PJ being in hospital it’s been reopened. Well, because they should have been filming right now, the set is PERFECT. All the hobbit holes are complete, there is fruit on the trees and flowers in the gardens – it is like being in the Shire. They even have the (fake) tree above Bag End, and have expanded the set to include more hobbit holes than they used in LOTR. I can’t post pictures of course due to confidentiality contracts we had to sign, but I thought you might like to let other fans in the area know that now is would be a really great time to visit. It’s well worth the tour fee to see the set as it is now.


_____________________



http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011...eport-perfect/

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Agreed.

And fortunately we will be getting more of it in the Hobbit.




From theonering.net-


Hobbiton Set Report: ‘Perfect’

February 27th, 2011 by xoanon

frodowen writes:

I’m backpacking in NZ right now and recently did the Hobbiton set tour in Matamata. I saw a while back that you reported they were closed, but since the filmed was pushed back due to PJ being in hospital it’s been reopened. Well, because they should have been filming right now, the set is PERFECT. All the hobbit holes are complete, there is fruit on the trees and flowers in the gardens – it is like being in the Shire. They even have the (fake) tree above Bag End, and have expanded the set to include more hobbit holes than they used in LOTR. I can’t post pictures of course due to confidentiality contracts we had to sign, but I thought you might like to let other fans in the area know that now is would be a really great time to visit. It’s well worth the tour fee to see the set as it is now.


_____________________



http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011...eport-perfect/

My wife wants to live in Bag-End. She's an anglophile anyway, but she fell in love immediately with the Bag-End set.

[sfmarine]

Thanks for sharing Duffy12!

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Notice no one is suggesting that the movies be "slavishly faithful". In fact, your post reminded me of how Boyens and Jackson talk of their "breakthrough" in making Fellowship "Frodo-centric", eliminating Bombadil and the Barrow-Downs and what not. Funny thing about this stroke of genius, it's such common sense in film adaptation that even the inept Bakshi version performed the same trick, and correct me if I'm wrong (and I might be on this point), but I think the BBC radio version also cut Bombadil and the Barrow-Downs. I loaned my copy to my best friend about 7 years ago and never got it back.

Anyhoo, no sensible person has a problem with what had to be cut for time or even altered to make themes communicate better...it's all the extraneous nonsense, ham-fisted comedy, and cheap soap-opera melodrama manipulation *added* to the tale that has Tolkien fans left dazed and exasperated.

You ever notice in the Jackson films that just about every character has a "fake death" scene, where we are led to believe they've been slaughtered, or dragged off a cliff, or killed in their bed, or trampled by a horse...and those that don't have fake death scenes suddenly have ticking clocks imposed upon them, like Arwen suddenly developing Sauronitis, a disease that apparently kills you the longer Sauron is alive. Its the cheap melodrama added to the tale that seems to annoy Tolkien fans the most, not what was cut out.

Couldn't agree with you more. People are critical of the idea of "slavishly following" Tolkien's books. The result of not doing that, in the movie's case was to add a bunch of cheap Hollywoodish stuff, like you have pointed out. The BBC radio adaptation didn't slavishly follow the books but was still faithful to the story line much better than Jackson and company. And the BBC version was not boring.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by radagast

Couldn't agree with you more. People are critical of the idea of "slavishly following" Tolkien's books. The result of not doing that, in the movie's case was to add a bunch of cheap Hollywoodish stuff, like you have pointed out. The BBC radio adaptation didn't slavishly follow the books but was still faithful to the story line much better than Jackson and company. And the BBC version was not boring.

And the idea that Elrond and Aragorn are finally motivated more by the Sauronitis of Arwen than they are the plight of the free people of middle-earth...Ugh.

[frogmort]

According to theonering.net Ngila Dickson (costume designer) will not be returning to work on The Hobbit.

Also, John Reese Davies was asked to return, and he declined.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by radagast

Couldn't agree with you more. People are critical of the idea of "slavishly following" Tolkien's books. The result of not doing that, in the movie's case was to add a bunch of cheap Hollywoodish stuff, like you have pointed out. The BBC radio adaptation didn't slavishly follow the books but was still faithful to the story line much better than Jackson and company. And the BBC version was not boring.

The problem is that the BBC version didn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. Studio executives are happy to pay that, when they get something that'll attract audiences in return. They weren't just adapting the novels into films, they were also creating blockbusters. Now you can like it or not, but that's the case. Otherwise these movies probably would never have been made at all.

[Member-115369]

We've done the debate over changes to LOTR and what changes should or shouldn't be made in the Hobbit to death. No one will ever agree. Some love the books and want them left alone as much as possible, others are fine with some changes and not others (and people differ on what's ok and what's not), others don't give a crap about the books and just want movies they enjoy and so on.

Point being it's going in circles so maybe we should drop it and only bump the thread when there's Hobbit movie news so I don't keep clicking on it and seeing the same few people make the same arguments for the umpteenth time.

[Witch King of Angmar]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

We've done the debate over changes to LOTR and what changes should or shouldn't be made in the Hobbit to death. No one will ever agree. Some love the books and want them left alone as much as possible, others are fine with some changes and not others (and people differ on what's ok and what's not), others don't give a crap about the books and just want movies they enjoy and so on.

Point being it's going in circles so maybe we should drop it and only bump the thread when there's Hobbit movie news so I don't keep clicking on it and seeing the same few people make the same arguments for the umpteenth time.

^This