The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Agent Bond

Why was Lord Of The Rings made before the Hobbit?

Because, once upon a time way back in the 20th century, nobody thought you COULD do an LOTR movie at all, let alone get fan anal-retentive about it and start with the kiddy Snow White one--
If you had a choice, and Peter thought he only had one...

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by TheWildWhelk

That is a question i found myself asking a good number of years ago, and even having read Peter Jackson's official biography by Brian Sibley it still isn't answered. If Newline Cinema were originally worried about the financial cost of mounting a three film adaptation of Rings then surely testing the waters with The Hobbit would have been the wiser move. Perhaps someone here can shed light on the matter...

Isn't it because the rights for The Hobbit were tied up in complicated legal knots at MGM? Whereas The Lord of the Rings rights were a much more simple affair, being held by Saul Zentz (who also held The Hobbit rights but MGM had a stake in them going back years that they weren't willing to make good on or relinquish).

[blakeyamc]

A HI-Def version of the Smaug ad.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Smaug TV SPOT [HD] - YouTube

[Will21st]

This movie just looks so epic.....

[radagast]

Originally Posted by avecha

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-sto...bbit-premiere/

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-sto...t-hype-survey/

Just some news articles use might be interested in.

Who is "use"?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

[Show spoiler]

.

Who is that?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

well yeah....

but the way Tolkien described the mountain the 1st time bilbo saw it in the book got me really excited for the movie.

i'm sure WETA isn't going to disappoint.

Fixed.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by MCT

weird. None of these things bothered me at all personally. Well, the Witch King breaking Gandalfs staff was pretty damn weird. Other than that....

Weird is not the word I would use. Abomination fits pretty well.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by blakeyamc

A HI-Def version of the Smaug ad.

You bilbo it showed some fire and the dragons backside

[Ernest Rister]

I think Jackson's LOTR is 93% fantastic, and say 7% annoys the crap of people who love and respect the source material. Sure, if all you think about is the 7%, you're going to convince yourself more and more than film series is a failure. But you have to see the whole picture, the whole 100%, and make a fair analysis based on that. Personally, I think Fellowship is the best of the lost, with some unfortunate dwarf-tossing lines. I think the series grew more bloated and dramatically unstable and unnecessarily mainpulative with each successive film, but taken as a whole, they are undoubtedly landmark film entertainments, and a wonder to experience, script problems or no. So I think the word "abomination" is a bit strong, and if you really think that, you might want to spare the strain on your blood pressure and skip The Hobbit, because I have no reason to think the films will be more restrained and reserved than Towers or King - quite the opposite. I'm wondering how far in to the movie we'll get before the first "fat Bombur" sight gag, or first Dwarf fart joke.

[tommyboy81]

Attention Hobbit fans! If you attend a midnight screening of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey at participating IMAX theatres on Thursday, December 13, you will receive this exclusive collector’s series of four character prints (while supplies last). See the full list of participating theatres here

http://www.imax.com/corporate/media-...ting-theatres/

http://www.facebook.com/#!/media/set...7016638&type=1

(Hopefully you can see the posters on the facebook page since it's IMAX's page.)

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by tommyboy81

Attention Hobbit fans! If you attend a midnight screening of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey at participating IMAX theatres on Thursday, December 13, you will receive this exclusive collector’s series of four character prints (while supplies last). See the full list of participating theatres here

http://www.imax.com/corporate/media-...ting-theatres/

http://www.facebook.com/#!/media/set...7016638&type=1

(Hopefully you can see the posters on the facebook page since it's IMAX's page.)

Yeah, but then you spend the entire movie worrying about wrinkling the poster.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I think Jackson's LOTR is 93% fantastic, and say 7% annoys the crap of people who love and respect the source material. Sure, if all you think about is the 7%, you're going to convince yourself more and more than film series is a failure. But you have to see the whole picture, the whole 100%, and make a fair analysis based on that. Personally, I think Fellowship is the best of the lost, with some unfortunate dwarf-tossing lines. I think the series grew more bloated and dramatically unstable and unnecessarily mainpulative with each successive film, but taken as a whole, they are undoubtedly landmark film entertainments, and a wonder to experience, script problems or no. So I think the word "abomination" is a bit strong, and if you really think that, you might want to spare the strain on your blood pressure and skip The Hobbit, because I have no reason to think the films will be more restrained and reserved than Towers or King - quite the opposite. I'm wondering how far in to the movie we'll get before the first "fat Bombur" sight gag, or first Dwarf fart joke.

If one would say the opposite one would be labelled troll Yeah,I know:haters will hate and all that....

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by radagast

Who is that?

Some sexpot that Jackson threw into the movie to *spice* it up a bit. (Hubba hubba)


Tauriel played by Evangeline Lilly

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I think Jackson's LOTR is 93% fantastic, and say 7% annoys the crap of people who love and respect the source material. Sure, if all you think about is the 7%, you're going to convince yourself more and more than film series is a failure. But you have to see the whole picture, the whole 100%, and make a fair analysis based on that. Personally, I think Fellowship is the best of the lost, with some unfortunate dwarf-tossing lines. I think the series grew more bloated and dramatically unstable and unnecessarily mainpulative with each successive film, but taken as a whole, they are undoubtedly landmark film entertainments, and a wonder to experience, script problems or no. So I think the word "abomination" is a bit strong, and if you really think that, you might want to spare the strain on your blood pressure and skip The Hobbit, because I have no reason to think the films will be more restrained and reserved than Towers or King - quite the opposite. I'm wondering how far in to the movie we'll get before the first "fat Bombur" sight gag, or first Dwarf fart joke.

I stand by my statement regarding the Witch-King vs Gandalf. There were things that were annoying to me in the LOTR movies, but that one scene in the EE ROTK was beyond the pale.

I'll be fine with the movies as long as there isn't a totally egregious distortion of the story or of Tolkien's legend. If Gandalf is bi**h-slapped by a troll or a giant spider or the goblin king then I will feel the same way.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Some sexpot that Jackson threw into the movie to *spice* it up a bit. (Hubba hubba)


Tauriel played by Evangeline Lilly

Mmmmmm......

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I just finished reading an interview with Peter Jackson in the Rolling Stone special edition on The Hobbit, and there were some interesting tidbits. Jackson said:

"We want to make a film that tells a story and has a little more depth to it than what Tolkien was after when he wrote the book... We haven't been indulgent in the way we've made these movies. We simply used the narrative that Tolkien laid out."

So he is starting with a clean slate and has had almost a decade since the last Lord of the Rings movie for consideration. Hopefully, lessons learned will be applied to this production, and he will avoid some of the pitfalls of the LotR films, such as:

- Oversensationalism; stumbling, falling, and perpetually crying hobbits (or other characters for that matter)

- Unnecessary plot diversions (pointless side trip to Osgiliath, etc.)

- Strange dialog (e.g. Theoden telling Gimli that he knows how to "defend his keep")

- On (rare) occasion, rinky-dink special effects, such as the battle between the Riders of Rohan with 20(?) wargs.

- Incredible character role-reversals, e.g. Faramir, or questionable use of characters (e.g. Fatty Bolger)

- Unnecessary or weird scenes; e.g. Eowyn making soup, Witch-king breaking Gandalf's staff

- Bizarre plot elements; e.g. Arwen's fate tied to the Ring

- etc.

But so far, the very few reviews I have seen have been very good, so here we go!

It appears there is a big foldout map of Middle Earth in that issue of Rolling Stone.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by radagast

It appears there is a big foldout map of Middle Earth in that issue of Rolling Stone.

Yes, it is the same one in the Visual Companion that is very good graphically, but cuts off north of Minas Tirith, Mordor, and omits several important geographical names (for example the River Anduin). If it would have been proofread, it probably would have been my favorite.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Because, once upon a time way back in the 20th century, nobody thought you COULD do an LOTR movie at all, let alone get fan anal-retentive about it and start with the kiddy Snow White one--
If you had a choice, and Peter thought he only had one...

That is probably true, in that the scope of the Lord of the Rings was enormous, but it was nice Bakshi gave it a go with the animated Lord of the Rings, which has enough good qualities to it despite the flaws. I think he was planning to make another one, and the reason for the lacking ending.

Peter Jackson also mentioned that you wouldn't be able to take the book line by line and make it into a movie, but that it had to be translated from the book into a movie format. Originally, he was planning 2 LOTRs movies, but the studio offered him 3.

Same with the Hobbit. 2 movies planned, then the studio wanted 3. Thankfully Jackson knows how to deliver on an epic scale.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Cook

Well, that sucks. Start calling them and getting anyone you can to call asking for the 2D version.

If you wear the glasses and close one eye it'll be 2D.