The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

.

Actually now that I am thinking about it, it shouldn't really be a surprise to see a brief glimpse of Smaug in the first film. If you remember during one of the production vids, they mentioned that they built a full scale set of Dale in all it's glory before it's destruction. Meaning if they put that much money into a set they are sure to get as much use out of it as possible. Which means early shots of Smaug the Golden.

Especially since Dale was never in its glory after the destruction, when it appears in the book.
Jackson's got "Prologue" down, with both Isildur's battle and Smeagol's prologues in the LOTR trilogy, he knows the value of visualizing appendix footnotes.

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Especially since Dale was never in its glory after the destruction, when it appears in the book.
Jackson's got "Prologue" down, with both Isildur's battle and Smeagol's prologues in the LOTR trilogy, he knows the value of visualizing appendix footnotes.

Absolutely. My interest in the film perked considerably when i heard via the Production Diary's that the set of Dale was one of the biggest they had ever built, and bigger even than Helms Deep. We're going to see it in two stages, during the attack from Smaug and then later on as the party traverse the ruins. Something i have always wanted to see.

[beadelf]

Originally Posted by TheWildWhelk

Absolutely. My interest in the film perked considerably when i heard via the Production Diary's that the set of Dale was one of the biggest they had ever built, and bigger even than Helms Deep. We're going to see it in two stages, during the attack from Smaug and then later on as the party traverse the ruins. Something i have always wanted to see.

i cant wait for this!!!

[Josh]

Originally Posted by Beast

And? They still could have flown the Eagles to Mordor. Or near to it. Even if not directly to Mount Doom.

And even if the Eye did spot them... so what? Most of it's forces were pulled away at the Battle of Minas Tirith.

Judging from the movies Sauron didn't exactly seem capable of direct action in his state as the giant flaming eyeball.

That's why it needed an Agent in Saruman the White and the Nazgul. Not to mention the army it had Saruman create.

The Eagles may just be there to get the characters out of the painted corner of the narrative. But they do create a plot hole.

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Of course this question has come up many times, and the most obvious answer is "the Eagles could have to taken the Ring to Orodruin and destroyed it with relative ease." I know of no rational argument against that, other than it would have been extremely bad for the plot and reduced the thickness of the book by about a thousand pages.

I thought the whole idea (the same one Gandalf pitched in The Hobbit) was that since Hobbits are preceived to be weak and harmless, they were the only ones that could get close enough to Sauron to get the ring?

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Of course this question has come up many times, and the most obvious answer is "the Eagles could have to taken the Ring to Orodruin and destroyed it with relative ease." I know of no rational argument against that, other than it would have been extremely bad for the plot and reduced the thickness of the book by about a thousand pages.

Totally off-topic,but remember playing a game called Midwinter on the amiga,and there one was supposed to rally the troops,and do alot of strategic things which would culminate in destroying something or other (can't remember excactly it being so long ago).If that sounds somewhat similar to the Lord of the rings,the maker was (and maybe still is) somewhat of a Tolkien fan.Anyway,I found that if one rushed to the main objective using skis and snowmobiles,one could end the game in half an hour if one could dodge the bullets.Not a bad game,but a major flaw.

Taken into this context,one can see that just flying the ring to the mount of doom would be somewhat anti-climatic Guess the Hobbit movies won't be that

Sorry for rambling,carry on

[JamesKurtovich]

I also feel that Gandalf could have contributed A LOT more than he did in both Hobbit and LOTR.

I put it in the "Things you just accept" category.

[drichter33]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Maybe he will give them airplanes in this one.

Did you also complain about all the walking in Last of the Mohicans, Braveheart and Gladiator also?

.

I am just getting into this part of the thread, and i agree with those that find the nitpicking of Jackson crazy. But I also dont remember that much walking in Gladiator

[drichter33]

Originally Posted by Beast

It's Peter Jackson. You know he loves showing people walking.

I also love how they tried to make the film more epic by playing down the object of the Hobbit book.

In the book, all they really care about is reclaiming the treasure. In the trailers there's no mention of that being the goal.

It's all about the noble quest of reclaiming the Dwarf's Land. Guess Jackson realized the original story goal was too simple to satisfy 8 hours.

Or it could be that the treasure, being the end of the journey, wont happen until the second or third movie so it has no place in this trailer. Really ludicrous to make the conclusion that he is focusing on land and not treasure and changing the whole narrative of the book from that one quote.

Its one line from the movie. That moment he could have been also talking about the goblins and losing their mtn dwellings etc.

People- please relax and wait for the movie. The trailers are nice, but they are cut together snippets that are meant to build excitement for the film, not tell a short version (cliff notes) of the film so that you dont have to go see it.

After the movie, feel free to share all your thoughts if its what happened on screen and you didnt like it. But until then, it just sounds like alot of PJ haters who are starting to sound like borderline trolls.

[drichter33]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Yep. I listened to that record quite a few times.




Ahhh yea. The ONLY thing that I liked from that one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXQJS3Yv0Y

OMG- i totally remember that song now. I did live it and used to sing it as a kid. Gollum also frightened me. I used to think he was hiding under my dresser.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Rated 12A by the BBFC. Which is no surprise, it was never going to be anything else.

Running time of 166 minutes (2 hours 46 minutes).

[drichter33]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Rated 12A by the BBFC. Which is no surprise, it was never going to be anything else.

Running time of 146 minutes.

I thought it was confirmed to be a running time of 2hrs 46 mins (give or take a few for how they include credits in the total)

So should the mins be 166?

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by drichter33

I thought it was confirmed to be a running time of 2hrs 46 mins (give or take a few for how they include credits in the total)

So should the mins be 166?

Erm... yes. Whoops.

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Rated 12A by the BBFC. Which is no surprise, it was never going to be anything else.

Running time of 166 minutes (2 hours 46 minutes).

Absolutely intruiging. I know the film has been rated PG13 in the US, but i wonder what content is in the film that the BBFC feels the need to push the rating beyond a PG like the original 'Fellowship' (which had violence like a Moria Orc being beheaded in closeup). I'll be catching the film with colleagues on opening day regardless, gives me a chance to know if it's suitable for my son who has just turned 10. I wouldn't let him watch Fast 5, or Tim Burton's Batman (Jack Napier getting shot in the face, The Joker frying a fellow gangster with his Hand Zapper). Shame that there is going to be a select number of young readers of the book (and i was 9 when i first read it) that some parents may feel aren't old enough to view the film.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Josh

I thought the whole idea (the same one Gandalf pitched in The Hobbit) was that since Hobbits are preceived to be weak and harmless, they were the only ones that could get close enough to Sauron to get the ring?

That is true, particularly for the people of Middle-earth. Part of the basis for selecting Frodo was that, being meek, the Ring would take longer to affect him, just as Sam was able to cast of it's illusion while wearing it at the Tower of Cirith Ungol. The key element here is time. The evil of the Ring would affect Gandalf or Galadriel, but we may surmize that the Eagles, only be subjected to its power for a couple of days, would be unaffected enough to allow it to be destroyed. Also, as messengers and representatives of Manwe, they would not be as likely to succumb as say, politically motivated individuals such as Boromir or Denethor.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Rated 12A by the BBFC. Which is no surprise, it was never going to be anything else.

Running time of 166 minutes (2 hours 46 minutes).

I'm a bit surprised, I thought it was going to be PG.

Originally Posted by TheWildWhelk

Absolutely intruiging. I know the film has been rated PG13 in the US, but i wonder what content is in the film that the BBFC feels the need to push the rating beyond a PG like the original 'Fellowship' (which had violence like a Moria Orc being beheaded in closeup). I'll be catching the film with colleagues on opening day regardless, gives me a chance to know if it's suitable for my son who has just turned 10. I wouldn't let him watch Fast 5, or Tim Burton's Batman (Jack Napier getting shot in the face, The Joker frying a fellow gangster with his Hand Zapper). Shame that there is going to be a select number of young readers of the book (and i was 9 when i first read it) that some parents may feel aren't old enough to view the film.

The 12A rating wasn't in place before Fellowship was coming out, so they asked the BBFC for a PG so the target audience could go, but they had to place a disclaimer in front of adverts saying the film was only suitable to 9 year olds upwards (at least that's what I can remember).

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I'm a bit surprised, I thought it was going to be PG.



The 12A rating wasn't in place before Fellowship was coming out, so they asked the BBFC for a PG so the target audience could go, but they had to place a disclaimer in front of adverts saying the film was only suitable to 9 year olds upwards (at least that's what I can remember).

shouldn't u know that anyway?? were u even 9 when FOTR came out??

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

shouldn't u know that anyway?? were u even 9 when FOTR came out??

I think I was around 8

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I think I was around 8

damn young kids!!

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by TheWildWhelk

Absolutely intruiging. I know the film has been rated PG13 in the US, but i wonder what content is in the film that the BBFC feels the need to push the rating beyond a PG like the original 'Fellowship' (which had violence like a Moria Orc being beheaded in closeup). I'll be catching the film with colleagues on opening day regardless, gives me a chance to know if it's suitable for my son who has just turned 10. I wouldn't let him watch Fast 5, or Tim Burton's Batman (Jack Napier getting shot in the face, The Joker frying a fellow gangster with his Hand Zapper). Shame that there is going to be a select number of young readers of the book (and i was 9 when i first read it) that some parents may feel aren't old enough to view the film.

Originally Posted by Foggy

The 12A rating wasn't in place before Fellowship was coming out, so they asked the BBFC for a PG so the target audience could go, but they had to place a disclaimer in front of adverts saying the film was only suitable to 9 year olds upwards (at least that's what I can remember).

This is exactly right. It happened before to other films that were on the edge of a PG rating - the Jurassic Park films for example - but nowadays there's no need for the 'advisable' PG certificate now we have the 12A. Realistically, if Fellowship had been released today the BBFC would have given it the 12A - covers the slightly more extreme content without alienating the target family audience.

With regards to the bold comment, having managed two different cinemas since the 12A was introduced ten years ago (a multiplex and an arthouse, so all ranges of customers) I can tell you that 90% of parents don't give a stuff about the A in 12A standing for 'advisory'. They treat it the same as a PG anyway. Look at the Harry Potters - didn't stop the family audiences at all.

[Vashetti]

The Eagles would never agree to fly the ring to Mordor.

Gandalf doesn't do too much because his job as a Maiar is to motivate the individuals of Middle Earth to save themselves.