The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

And that is finally conformation of the second film's title I believe.

.

Brilliant - I'd gotten used to thinking of it like that, I'm glad they didn't throw something else in there at the last minute. I really like the title - and of course, with it being on the map, it mean's the second film's title is sneakily there in the current trailer.

[Show spoiler]

The Variety piece also says:

Warner Bros. and MGM have announced that final film in Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" trilogy -- now titled "The Hobbit: There and Back Again" -- will be released worldwide on July 18, 2014.

...which is also the first confirmation we have of the third film's title. Again, it had been assumed that it would be but there were people thinking we were getting two new titles (with that rumoured 'Riddles in the Dark' title being the other) of that 'There and Back Again' wouldn't work anymore as Biblo would be 'There' in the second film. I'm very pleased they're keeping it, it's a perfect title for a Hobbit film.

So we now officially have our trilogy!

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey December 14th 2012
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug December 13th 2013
The Hobbit: There and Back Again July 18th 2014

Yes, it's nerdy, but I like seeing all the title finally together and confirmed

[Foggy]

Yeah, Warner claimed the mid-July weekend for their own when The Dark Knight did as well as it did, and they actually delayed Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince 3/4 of the year to the mid July weekend just so they could carry it over. I'm interested to see if it's something to do with the weekend or it's the fact they've just released high-profile films each year (Pacific Rim will tell us which it is).

I guess this also shows that the 3rd part is definitely a studio decision, since they want to keep hold of their weekend.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I guess this also shows that the 3rd part is definitely a studio decision, since they want to keep hold of their weekend.

Of course it doesn't show that! It just shows the studio had a favoured release date - not that the entire plan of a third film was decided by them!

For all we know Jackson could have suggested a summer release (so as to get it out as close to the first two parts as possible and not anger the fans by making them wait another whole year) and Warners specifically chose July 18th.

[TheWildWhelk]

You know what? I just can't fathom how lean the second film is going to be with the latter content of the book stretched out to cover 2 films. We know Film One ends with

[Show spoiler] the party escaping from the elven king's dungeon

, so unless they are going to take Bilbo's narrative and make it the secondary story film two, i don't know how they can make it work.

The Dol Guldur action logically has to be the main drive of the second film. I really am bemused by how Jackson is going to make this work. Any ideas?

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by TheWildWhelk

We know Film One ends with

[Show spoiler] the party escaping from the elven king's dungeon

That was before the trilogy was announced though - the current assumed split point is

[Show spoiler]when they get capruted by the elves, leaving the imprisonment and escape for the start of the second - which I could see being the opening half hour.

I do think the White Council/Dol Guldur stuff whill be a strong focus (but not the main focus) of the second film and will conclude there, with after-effects -

[Show spoiler]Sauron fleeing to Mordor

- being dealt with in the third so as not to drop the thread two films into the trilogy. But, as well as

[Show spoiler]the elves section, I think there'll be a good amount of setting up Dale and Laketown before we go up the Lonely Mountain in the second hour, with all that the section contains (the climb, the finding of the door and, of course, Bilbo's interactions with Smaug), with Dol Guldur set-up cross-cutting between all of this, climaxing in the third hour with a huge assault by Smaug and the attack on Dol Guldur.

I think there's plenty of material to make a satisfying three hour film. I imagine it will be very much like The Two Towers which seems lean plot-wise - Aragorn and co. go to Rohan and fight a battle; Frodo and Sam meet Gollum and Faramir and carry on to Mordor - but spends time opening up Middle-Earth and showing us a new culture (Rohan here, Laketown/Dale in The Hobbit) and the new characters there (Theoden/Eowyn, Master of Laketown/Bard) before engaging them in battle, with a secondary plot (Frodo/Sam - and, to a lesser extent, Merry/Pippin, Gandalf and the White Council) breaking it up and culminating in another battle (Osgiliath/Isengard).

Now, to me The Two Towers is the weakest of the trilogy but I still think it's an incredible film, it's just not as strong as Fellowship or King - it doesn't have the exciting build-up and episodic adventure of Fellowship (which I feel An Unexpected Journey will have), nor does it have the huge, epic, exciting and emotional climax that King does (which, with

[Show spoiler]the Battle of Five Armies

and it's after-effects, I imagine There and Back Again to be similar to). It takes its time and feels no need to rush - apart from it's huge climax it's a slower and more relaxed film than the other two, especially in its middle section. I believe The Desolation of Smaug will be similar which, in my mind at least, leaves us with a trilogy similar in tone and structure to the first.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by TheWildWhelk

You know what? I just can't fathom how lean the second film is going to be with the latter content of the book stretched out to cover 2 films. We know Film One ends with

[Show spoiler] the party escaping from the elven king's dungeon

, so unless they are going to take Bilbo's narrative and make it the secondary story film two, i don't know how they can make it work.

The Dol Guldur action logically has to be the main drive of the second film. I really am bemused by how Jackson is going to make this work. Any ideas?

The Hobbit, unlike LotR, does not have as many human parts to which the audience can relate. The only humans in the story are

[Show spoiler] at Laketown - and apparently in this film at Dale, since it is clear that Jackson has created a full set of the town in its former glory.

So he can't go off on the Aragorn/Gondor/Theoden/Riders of Rohan tangent as per LotR. To fill three films Jackson almost certainly has to include former historical material. Since the film is concerned with Dwarves and must include

[Show spoiler] the enmity between the Elves and the Dwarves (Thranduil appears to figure large), I could imagine him including some of the past history, perhaps even the origin of the feud with the Dwarves killing King Thingol Greycloak (Elwe) over the issue of the Nauglamir. Also, the history of the Ring may be delved into, with the making of the Elven Rings in Hollin, Sauron's war with the Elves and his corruption of the Numenoreans, the Ringwraiths, etc. I also can't imagine Jackson not taking the opportunity to portray in detail the war between the Dwarves and Orcs at Moria.

Plenty of filler material available.

[Duffy12]

.

Harper Collins releases movie tie-in book covers!


Following the publication in the UK of THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY ANNUAL 2013 on Thursday, the publishers of the film tie-in books have today ended months of speculation and revealed the covers to the full range of official tie-ins published this November.

On Tuesday November 6, four books will be published by Houghton Mifflin in the US and by HarperCollins in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Then in December, Chronicles: Art and Design will be released.


The Official Movie Guide





Enter Bilbo Baggins’ world through exclusive interviews with director Peter Jackson, Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, and all the principal cast and filmmakers, who share film-making secrets and tales of what it was actually like making movie magic in Middle-earth. Lavishly illustrated with behind-the-scenes photos of the actors, locations, sets, creatures and costumes, the book is written by Tolkien expert and Peter Jackson’s official biographer, Brian Sibley.


The Visual Companion






Join the hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, Gandalf the wizard and the Company of Dwarves on their Quest to recover treasure stolen by the Dragon, Smaug the Magnificent. Leaving the comfort of Bilbo’s home they must face many perils before they can claim their long-lost gold – Trolls, Elves, Goblins, Wargs, and worse… Written by former Tolkien editor Jude Fisher, this hardcover is richly illustrated with colour photos from the film, and features a brand new map charting the journey from Bag End to Wilderland.


The World of Hobbits





Younger readers can discover all about Hobbits in this friendly guide to their amazing world. Packed with photos from the new film, this book will tell you all you need to know about Hobbits – their appearance, appetites, homes, friends, deadly foes, and much more.


The Movie Storybook





Relive the story of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in this fantastic photo-filled storybook. Battling against Goblins, Wargs and other forces of evil, will Bilbo Baggins and the Company of Dwarves find the strength to help recapture the lost Kingdom of Erebor? With this amazing retelling of the movie, you too can visit Middle-earth.


Then, on Friday December 14, the ultimate film companion book — Chronicles: Art & Design — will be released worldwide by HarperCollins (under the prestigious HarperDesign imprint in the USA)


Chronicles: Art & Design





This sumptuous book celebrates the creative vision of Academy Award®-winning filmmaker Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. It is packed with more than 1,000 images of concept artwork, photographs and development paintings by the artists working behind the scenes to bring Middle-earth to life, who each provide detailed and entertaining commentary that reveals the story behind the vision. Compiled by Weta Workshop senior concept designer Daniel Falconer, this is the first in a series of lavish hardback books written and designed by the award-winning team at Weta, who are working closely with the production team to guarantee that these books will be bursting with insider information and stunning visual imagery.


All five books are being published in multiple languages by many of Tolkien’s worldwide publishers, all released on the same dates, and we will to bring you more news about them as we get closer to publication.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Now, to me The Two Towers is the weakest of the trilogy but I still think it's an incredible film, it's just not as strong as Fellowship or King - it doesn't have the exciting build-up and episodic adventure of Fellowship (which I feel An Unexpected Journey will have), nor does it have the huge, epic, exciting and emotional climax that King does.

I respect what you say, but I disagree -- Jackson's handling of the Battle of Minas Tirith is, to me, very compromised. Maybe because I'm a Texan, the Two Towers climax is so filled with echoes of The Alamo, and so filled with the wish-fulfillment and the euchatrosphic ideas of Tolkien, that it moves me greatly. When the same situation sort of comes round again in Jackson's version of Return of the King, it is almost a bit rote. We're waiting for the stakes to be raised - but unlike Helm's Deep, where we have no real idea Gandalf is going to show up at dawn ("Look for me" he says, "at the coming of the dawn..." but then disappears for two hours) -- in ROTK, Jackson tips his hand. We know Aragorn and the army of the dead is coming. He shows it to us. "We fight!", etc., and we see the confrontation of the Black Fleet in the Extended, etc. -- Imagine seeing a version of The Alamo where we cut to knowledge that a supernatural army is on the way, led by the hero of the series, and in the extended version, we even see them take down the reinforcements.

It lets the air out of the pressure valve, and ruins the surprise.

The entire reason Denethor loses hope is because of despair, but in the movie, he ceases to be a tragic figure and becomes a bad daddy kook because the filmmakers -- for whatever reason -- excluded his explanation that he has looked into his Palantir and saw a Black Feet moving up from the South. In his mind, all hope was lost, all of the sacrifices of his line pointless, and he has failed them all. He believes in a lie, and kills himself. We don't know - in the book - that Aragorn has taken the Black Fleet. In the book, we can kinda sorta identify with Denethor's motivations when he explains what he has seen. Hopelessness is a human trait. With Denethor's actions, Tolkien illustrates the folly of hopelessness, but the movie version robs Denethor and the audience of having that journey. How?

In the theatrical cut, as in the book (somewhat) we know Aragorn and the fallen spirits are on the move. In the Extended, we see Aragorn and Co. take down the Black Fleet -- but the Black Fleet was never established as the reason for Denethor's madness in the movie, so the stakes of the Black Fleet are muddled to begin with. It's a BIG surprise in the book when the Black Fleet arrives, and out of the mouth of utter despair, that terrible moment is instantly transformed into salvation. Like Dernhelm, utter hopelessness becomes miraculous salvation. Neither surprises are surprises in the movie.

By contrast, and again, maybe because I'm a Texan, and actually attended the 175th anniversary pre-dawn commemoration of the fall of the Alamo in San Antonio (which was moving beyond words I can atempt here) -- the Battle of Helm's Deep is so much more harrowing, so much more personal, so much more *hopeless* than what happens at Minas Tirith in Return of the King, that I am always a bit disappointed by how that action is treated in Jackson's film version of Return of the King. As a result, the film is problematic for me -- they topped themselves in the previous movie. I think it is a big problem in a trilogy when your ultimate battles in the third film are less compelling because you jacked up the stakes so high in the second film, that the third film can't equal it. The battle of Minas Tirith is visually spectacular in ROTK, but the Battle of Helms Deep in The Two Towers is far more harrowing -- because the screenwriters pitched Helm's Deep as a battle for the entire survival of the race of Men.

Remember? In the movie, the Battle of Helm's Deep isn't just these farmers and noblemen and a horse culture trying to withstand orcs. It is pitched in the movie - numerous times - as an ultimate battle to destroy the race of Men. Completely. If Helm's Deep falls, all of mankind is doomed to genocide. That's how they pitch it. The elves even show up -- anyone ask why the Elves don't come to Minas Trith? They don't (and they didn't in the book, either) - but they come to Helm's Deep. Why? Because they needed to ramp up the stakes of the Two Towers movie. Gondor doesn't even figure into the equation in the Two Towers. They pitch the stakes that if Helm's Deep falls, all of mankind falls and will be wiped out. Now, that's smart screenwriting for a single movie, but they had to top that for the next, and instead, it plays as a repeat. In the third film, they clued everyone in that a supernatural army was going to come in at Aragorn's side to fight at Minas Tirith. So that heart-in-your-throat quality of Jackson's version of Helm's Deep in The Two Towers is somewhat lacking in the Minas Tirith battle in the film version of Return of the King. The audience should understand Denethor's despair, instead of thinking of him as insane, but we're missing the crucial information that he has looked into the Palantir and saw the Black Fleet.

They made the same choice with Eowyn. It is a hell of a reveal in the book when a lone soldier and friend of Merry named Dernhelm stands to defend the wrecked body of Theoden, and Dernhelm lifts his helmet and we suddenly learn Dernhelm is Eowyn. The movie version spills those beans the minute Pippin rides from Rohan with Eowyn ("My Lady!" *grin!*), so even that heart-in-the-throat moment during the battle of Minas Tirith designed by Tolkien is revealed and spoiled.

I know you guys have immense respect for Jackson, and so do I, but I don't think Return of the King is the best of the series, or even second best. Everytime I see it, I notice such simple flaws in their structure that it lessens the experience. The visuals are fantastic, the staging is flawless, the music, the acting, the production values -- all one of a kind. But the choices made on the screenwriting level (and I can just hear Phillippa Boyens in my ear saying they needed more female time in the movie, so they revealed Eowyn early, and that you "just can't" leave her character alone for an hour and bring her in later) -- that stuff just lessens the movie for me.

So, I simply disagree that The Two Towers is inferior to Return of the King. Trust me, Towers has issues, as well (the Ents take hours to say "Good Morning", but after - inexplicably - being tricked by Pippin, Treebeard says "Arrrgh!" and a hundered of the Ents appear out of nowhere ready for war) -- regardless, I think the battle of Helm's Deep in The Two Towers is superior in terms of emotion to the Battle of Minas Tirith in Return of the King. I think Fellowship is the best of the films, Towers second, and King third.

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Since the film is concerned with Dwarves and must include

[Show spoiler] the enmity between the Elves and the Dwarves (Thranduil appears to figure large), I could imagine him including some of the past history, perhaps even the origin of the feud with the Dwarves killing King Thingol Greycloak (Elwe) over the issue of the Nauglamir. Also, the history of the Ring may be delved into, with the making of the Elven Rings in Hollin, Sauron's war with the Elves and his corruption of the Numenoreans, the Ringwraiths, etc. I also can't imagine Jackson not taking the opportunity to portray in detail the war between the Dwarves and Orcs at Moria.

Plenty of filler material available.

In general how do you give the origin/backstory for the feud between Dwarves and Elves without completely overwhelimg the actual story at hand (the Quest for Erebor)?

Additionally

[Show spoiler]How do you begin to introduce the Númenórean's, so you can then talk about their downfall and corruption at the hands of Annatar (and then go into Annatar actually being Sauron) without side tracking the story.

While there is a wealth of storylines which are hinted at in the Appendices; without being able to pull in additional, supporting information in from the Silmarillion would is be worth it (how much would PJ and co have to invent?) Case in point... You mentioned the history of Moria... TORn had a recent article confirming a previously leaked list of miniatures from Game Workshop was false (which had some very interesting names, such as Túrin Turambar on it), but they also received confirmation that a leaked German list of action figures was correct.

[Show spoiler]The leaked German list was translated and it has some interesting names on it which I'm not yet sure how I feel about them.

Additional spoilers to follow, giving anyone who wants a chance to bail out now...






5
4
3
2
1
OK here we go:


Here are some names from the list along with their description:
AZOG: It was said that Azog the Desecrator fell many years ago in the great battle between the Orcs and the Dwarves. But now he appears again at the top of a deadly horde of killer orcs. For Gandalf begins a race against time because he has to figure out the connection between the most dangerous orc commander and the growing evil, which takes shape in the ruins of the fortress of Dol Guldur. One thing is totally clear: no one will deter Azog from his intention to destroy Thorin Oakenshield’s companions to the last dwarf.

FIMBUL: The exceedingly cruel orc Fimbul is one of Azog’s master hunters. He commands a horde of warg riders who trace their victims in the saddle of their gigantic wolf beasts. Fimbul has taken up the scent of Thorin Oakenshield & Co. and will catch the dwarves before they reach the Lonely Mountain.

BOLG: Bolg is the offspring of Azog the Desecarator - like his father, he is huge pale orc. He is the overseer in the dungeons of Dol Guldur - torturing is his hobby. He garnishes his armor with the bones and the blood of his victims. This husky Orc fears nothing and nobody - until he suddenly meets an unexpected opponent.

So may not get our actual Orc vs. Dwaves Moria history as PJ and Co look to be re-inventing Middle-Earth history -- possibly because they don't have enough rights to tell the actual story.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I respect what you say, but I disagree -- Jackson's handling of the Battle of Minas Tirith is, to me, very compromised.

[Show spoiler]Maybe because I'm a Texan, the Two Towers climax is so filled with echoes of The Alamo, and so filled with the wish-fulfillment and the euchatrosphic ideas of Tolkien, that it moves me greatly. When the same situation sort of comes round again in Jackson's version of Return of the King, it is almost a bit rote. We're waiting for the stakes to be raised - but unlike Helm's Deep, where we have no real idea Gandalf is going to show up at dawn ("Look for me" he says, "at the coming of the dawn..." but then disappears for two hours) -- in ROTK, Jackson tips his hand. We know Aragorn and the army of the dead is coming. He shows it to us. "We fight!", etc., and we see the confrontation of the Black Fleet in the Extended, etc. -- Imagine seeing a version of The Alamo where we cut to knowledge that a supernatural army is on the way, led by the hero of the series, and in the extended version, we even see them take down the reinforcements.

It lets the air out of the pressure valve, and ruins the surprise.

The entire reason Denethor loses hope is because of despair, but in the movie, he ceases to be a tragic figure and becomes a bad daddy kook because the filmmakers -- for whatever reason -- excluded his explanation that he has looked into his Palantir and saw a Black Feet moving up from the South. In his mind, all hope was lost, all of the sacrifices of his line pointless, and he has failed them all. He believes in a lie, and kills himself. We don't know - in the book - that Aragorn has taken the Black Fleet. In the book, we can kinda sorta identify with Denethor's motivations when he explains what he has seen. Hopelessness is a human trait. With Denethor's actions, Tolkien illustrates the folly of hopelessness, but the movie version robs Denethor and the audience of having that journey. How?

In the theatrical cut, as in the book (somewhat) we know Aragorn and the fallen spirits are on the move. In the Extended, we see Aragorn and Co. take down the Black Fleet -- but the Black Fleet was never established as the reason for Denethor's madness in the movie, so the stakes of the Black Fleet are muddled to begin with. It's a BIG surprise in the book when the Black Fleet arrives, and out of the mouth of utter despair, that terrible moment is instantly transformed into salvation. Like Dernhelm, utter hopelessness becomes miraculous salvation. Neither surprises are surprises in the movie.

By contrast, and again, maybe because I'm a Texan, and actually attended the 175th anniversary pre-dawn commemoration of the fall of the Alamo in San Antonio (which was moving beyond words I can atempt here) -- the Battle of Helm's Deep is so much more harrowing, so much more personal, so much more *hopeless* than what happens at Minas Tirith in Return of the King, that I am always a bit disappointed by how that action is treated in Jackson's film version of Return of the King. As a result, the film is problematic for me -- they topped themselves in the previous movie. I think it is a big problem in a trilogy when your ultimate battles in the third film are less compelling because you jacked up the stakes so high in the second film, that the third film can't equal it. The battle of Minas Tirith is visually spectacular in ROTK, but the Battle of Helms Deep in The Two Towers is far more harrowing -- because the screenwriters pitched Helm's Deep as a battle for the entire survival of the race of Men.

Remember? In the movie, the Battle of Helm's Deep isn't just these farmers and noblemen and a horse culture trying to withstand orcs. It is pitched in the movie - numerous times - as an ultimate battle to destroy the race of Men. Completely. If Helm's Deep falls, all of mankind is doomed to genocide. That's how they pitch it. The elves even show up -- anyone ask why the Elves don't come to Minas Trith? They don't (and they didn't in the book, either) - but they come to Helm's Deep. Why? Because they needed to ramp up the stakes of the Two Towers movie. Gondor doesn't even figure into the equation in the Two Towers. They pitch the stakes that if Helm's Deep falls, all of mankind falls and will be wiped out. Now, that's smart screenwriting for a single movie, but they had to top that for the next, and instead, it plays as a repeat. In the third film, they clued everyone in that a supernatural army was going to come in at Aragorn's side to fight at Minas Tirith. So that heart-in-your-throat quality of Jackson's version of Helm's Deep in The Two Towers is somewhat lacking in the Minas Tirith battle in the film version of Return of the King. The audience should understand Denethor's despair, instead of thinking of him as insane, but we're missing the crucial information that he has looked into the Palantir and saw the Black Fleet.

They made the same choice with Eowyn. It is a hell of a reveal in the book when a lone soldier and friend of Merry named Dernhelm stands to defend the wrecked body of Theoden, and Dernhelm lifts his helmet and we suddenly learn Dernhelm is Eowyn. The movie version spills those beans the minute Pippin rides from Rohan with Eowyn ("My Lady!" *grin!*), so even that heart-in-the-throat moment during the battle of Minas Tirith designed by Tolkien is revealed and spoiled.

I know you guys have immense respect for Jackson, and so do I, but I don't think Return of the King is the best of the series, or even second best. Everytime I see it, I notice such simple flaws in their structure that it lessens the experience. The visuals are fantastic, the staging is flawless, the music, the acting, the production values -- all one of a kind. But the choices made on the screenwriting level (and I can just hear Phillippa Boyens in my ear saying they needed more female time in the movie, so they revealed Eowyn early, and that you "just can't" leave her character alone for an hour and bring her in later) -- that stuff just lessens the movie for me.

So, I simply disagree that The Two Towers is inferior to Return of the King. Trust me, Towers has issues, as well (the Ents take hours to say "Good Morning", but after - inexplicably - being tricked by Pippin, Treebeard says "Arrrgh!" and a hundered of the Ents appear out of nowhere ready for war) -- regardless, I think the battle of Helm's Deep in The Two Towers is superior in terms of emotion to the Battle of Minas Tirith in Return of the King. I think Fellowship is the best of the films, Towers second, and King third.

Brilliant read Being not only not-Texan but also not-American (I'm British) I don't read anything into Helm's Deep relating to the Alamo but I really enjoyed reading how you do, it's something I'd never considered.

We seem to agree on a lot of things as well - I always thought they'd mishandled both Denethor and Pelennor fields in the film. Denethor especially - when I first saw it I thought they'd really rushed his character. He's one of my favourites in the book and is complex and understandable, here he just comes off as a raving madman. It doesn't ruin the film for me - John Noble is fantastic and, after a couple of viewings (and in the years since), I've grown to appreciate the film version very much. But he's definitely weaker than the book.

The same with The Battle of Pelennor Fields - not as much as Denethor but I do feel the lack of utter despair is lacking. Once the Rohirrim turn up - and that could possibly be my favourite scene overall, they absolutely, 100% nail that moment and Howard Shore's score there is just hair-raising, I could write thousands of words on how that moment makes me feel - it all changes and the battle is incredible (the Oliphaunt stuff is fantastic) but, as much as I enjoy the build-up and the character moments in it are pitch-perfect, it's not as dark as the book (literally - where's the darkened sky? Where?!) and it does pale compared to Helm's Deep.

Which is something else we agree on - Helm's Deep is perfect. It's incredible. I haven't got a bad word to say about any of that and I concur, it's hard to beat in terms of battle (I do disagree about the elves upping the stakes - as I recall I think they were bought in because they thought that, on film, seeing the few number of people of Rohan beating the Uruk-Hai would look unbelievable so the elves were brought in to keep the battle going in a more realistic fashion. In a way the stakes are lessened because of their arrival. That’s not a slur against it though - I know there's a lot of controversy over that - they basically end up getting used as elven shields to protect the people of Rohan – but I think it works great thematically. I love that the human and elven alliance was honoured one last time, and I also really like how it works with Theoden’s character arc – after his rant at Aragorn on how they’re abandoned, seeing his hopes rise and his strength begin to return because of their arrival is wonderful). It’s one of the defining points of the trilogy and it is stunning. Everything in that segment is – the Ents razing Isengard is another one of my favourite moments of the whole trilogy, the Nazgul attack in Osgiliath (especially I the Extended Edition with Faramir’s extended discussions with Frodo).

So when I say The Two Towers is the weakest it’s mostly to do with pacing problems in the first two thirds. Again, I love the film – Rohan are probably my favourite culture in the trilogy and Theoden is one of my favourite characters so seeing that explored is great (side note – I’ve been to where Edoras was filmed and it’s the most tranquil and stunning place you could imagine. I loved it all before that but now I have a slight favourable bias towards it). Everything that Frodo, Sam and Gollum do is strong. But it just seems to be lacking a bit of drive and focus in the first two-thirds – The Three Hunters pursuit of the Uruk-Hai is just running (fair enough), the Treebeard stuff drags slightly (much as I love the character – and the Extended Edition really helps fix the Merry/Pippin subplot problems) and the whole Warg attack/Aragorn’s fall is silly (though I don’t hate it like some do). Return of the King has its flaws but, overall, the high points of it are so well done that I can overlook the Denethor character weakness and Pelennor fields not being as hopeless as it seemed in the book (The Black Gate too wasn’t as grim as I always imagined). But The Ride of the Rohirrim, “For Frodo”, Gandalf saving Faramir, his talk with Pippin over death, Eowyn’s big moment, Theoden’s death, Shelob, “You bow to no-one”, the Grey Havens, the reuniting of the Fellowship and so many more moments just hit me so hard that, as a big, emotional, epic finale, it works wonders for me.

But I love that we can all have our own reasons for liking and loving different parts and chapters of these films and that these reasons can be so varied. And at least we both agree that Fellowship is the best of the lot.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Chronicles: Art & Design





This sumptuous book celebrates the creative vision of Academy Award®-winning filmmaker Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. It is packed with more than 1,000 images of concept artwork, photographs and development paintings by the artists working behind the scenes to bring Middle-earth to life, who each provide detailed and entertaining commentary that reveals the story behind the vision. Compiled by Weta Workshop senior concept designer Daniel Falconer, this is the first in a series of lavish hardback books written and designed by the award-winning team at Weta, who are working closely with the production team to guarantee that these books will be bursting with insider information and stunning visual imagery.

I'm sure once I see any of those books in the shops I'll be too weak to resist temptation but thiis one will definitely be mine. The Art Of... books for the trilogy are stunning, reading anything to do with Weta's work on the films is worthwhile.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I respect what you say, but I disagree -- Jackson's handling of the Battle of Minas Tirith is, to me, very compromised. Maybe because I'm a Texan, the Two Towers climax is so filled with echoes of The Alamo, and so filled with the wish-fulfillment and the euchatrosphic ideas of Tolkien, that it moves me greatly. When the same situation sort of comes round again in Jackson's version of

By contrast, and again, maybe because I'm a Texan, and actually attended the 175th anniversary pre-dawn commemoration of the fall of the Alamo in San Antonio (which was moving beyond words I can atempt here) -- the Battle of Helm's Deep is so much more harrowing, so much more personal, so much more *hopeless* than what happens at Minas Tirith in Return of the King, that I am always a bit disappointed by how that action is treated in Jackson's film version of Return of the King.

Thanks for a wellinformed response.Are you by any chance a military man?Just seems so by your take on the battle and ofcourse my clumsy editing of your text to the reference to Alamo.

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Brilliant read Being not only not-Texan but also not-American (I'm British) I don't read anything into Helm's Deep relating to the Alamo but I really enjoyed reading how you do, it's something I'd never considered.

Which is something else we agree on - Helm's Deep is perfect. It's incredible. I haven't got a bad word to say about any of that and I concur, it's hard to beat in terms of battle (I do disagree about the elves upping the stakes - as I recall I think they were bought in because they thought that, on film, seeing the few number of people of Rohan beating the Uruk-Hai would look unbelievable so the elves were brought in to keep the battle going in a more realistic fashion. In a way the stakes are lessened because of their arrival. That’s not a slur against it though - I know there's a lot of controversy over that - they basically end up getting used as elven shields to protect the people of Rohan – but I think it works great thematically. I love that the human and elven alliance was honoured one last time, and I also really like how it works with Theoden’s character arc – after his rant at Aragorn on how they’re abandoned, seeing his hopes rise and his strength begin to return because of their arrival is wonderful).

Agree with both of you on Helm's deep.Only problem as Ernest Rister alludes to is that maybe it's too epic and takes away some of the thunder of the last battle...

Just started re-reading LotR now (Have just had a visit to a farmer and his dogs ),so interesting for ER to make comparison to the Alamo-of which I know nothing.

Thanks for beautiful written responses

[Grand Bob]

[QUOTE=Velmeran;6405519]In general how do you give the origin/backstory for the feud between Dwarves and Elves without completely overwhelimg the actual story at hand (the Quest for Erebor)?

Additionally

[Show spoiler]How do you begin to introduce the Númenórean's, so you can then talk about their downfall and corruption at the hands of Annatar (and then go into Annatar actually being Sauron) without side tracking the story.

While there is a wealth of storylines which are hinted at in the Appendices; without being able to pull in additional, supporting information in from the Silmarillion would is be worth it (how much would PJ and co have to invent?) Case in point... You mentioned the history of Moria... TORn had a recent article confirming a previously leaked list of miniatures from Game Workshop was false (which had some very interesting names, such as Túrin Turambar on it), but they also received confirmation that a leaked German list of action figures was correct. [SPOILER]The leaked German list was translated and it has some interesting names on it which I'm not yet sure how I feel about them.

Of course, all Middle-earth stories are ultimately tied to the Silmarils. Jackson left them out of his LotR movies and he could just as easily leave them out of The Hobbit, but (in my mind at least) this will be his opportunity to give them at least some token acknowledgement. The fact that the feud between the Dwarves and Elves also originated as a result of a Silmaril would provide an excellent opportunity to finally include this major plot device. And, he will need to somehow explain the friction between the Elves and Dwarves, so why not provide a non-fabricated answer? Since only one movie is required to tell the actual story of the Hobbit, I think he will need additional major events from the history of Middle-earth to hold the audiences interest. Why not aim high?

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Thanks for a wellinformed response.Are you by any chance a military man?Just seems so by your take on the battle and ofcourse my clumsy editing of your text to the reference to Alamo.

My father is a Marine (long since retired, but you never really stop being a Marine, I think). I'm a history fan, and have deep and abiding respect for U.S. and Texas history. It was profound to be at the Alamo in the cold dark, at the exact moment it fell, exactly 175 years later. The State of Texas and the City of San Antonio held an extremely reserved and tasteful commemoration, and the Mexican Government participated as well (which surprised me, but I'm glad they were represented).

But back to Towers -- if you're raised in Texas and you attend public schools, you're required to learn Texas history, so you sort of can't help but become familiar with the Alamo. So when I saw the film version of the Two Towers, I couldn't help but think of the Alamo. I didn't get that sensation from the book, but the film seemed to echo it strongly. I'm sure every nation that has engaged in combat probably has their own version of an event like The Alamo in their history, so I'm not stating Tolkien or Jackson intentionally echoed The Alamo. Tolkien wanted to create a modern myth with applicability, not allegory, so that's my own example of how Towers "applied" to my history. Smart man, that Tolkien.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Tolkien wanted to create a modern myth with applicability, not allegory, so that's my own example of how Towers "applied" to my history. Smart man, that Tolkien.

Brilliant summation. And agreed, very smart man!

[Ernest Rister]

[quote=Grand Bob;6407101]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

In general how do you give the origin/backstory for the feud between Dwarves and Elves without completely overwhelimg the actual story at hand (the Quest for Erebor)?

Additionally

[Show spoiler]How do you begin to introduce the Númenórean's, so you can then talk about their downfall and corruption at the hands of Annatar (and then go into Annatar actually being Sauron) without side tracking the story.

While there is a wealth of storylines which are hinted at in the Appendices; without being able to pull in additional, supporting information in from the Silmarillion would is be worth it (how much would PJ and co have to invent?) Case in point... You mentioned the history of Moria... TORn had a recent article confirming a previously leaked list of miniatures from Game Workshop was false (which had some very interesting names, such as Túrin Turambar on it), but they also received confirmation that a leaked German list of action figures was correct. [SPOILER]The leaked German list was translated and it has some interesting names on it which I'm not yet sure how I feel about them.

Of course, all Middle-earth stories are ultimately tied to the Silmarils. Jackson left them out of his LotR movies and he could just as easily leave them out of The Hobbit, but (in my mind at least) this will be his opportunity to give them at least some token acknowledgement. The fact that the feud between the Dwarves and Elves also originated as a result of a Silmaril would provide an excellent opportunity to finally include this major plot device. And, he will need to somehow explain the friction between the Elves and Dwarves, so why not provide a non-fabricated answer? Since only one movie is required to tell the actual story of the Hobbit, I think he will need additional major events from the history of Middle-earth to hold the audiences interest. Why not aim high?

I'm hoping Jackson and Tolkien Enterprises won't wind up in court, because If Jackson touches any information that is exclusive to Tolkien's The Silmarillion, Christopher Tolkien is likely to sue. Jackson and Co. only have rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and nothing else, and that means only those parts of the backstory that are mentioned in the Appendices. If they touch anything outside of it, I'm afraid the Tolkien Estate is going to come looking for money (or worse). Christopher Tolkien is already at sword-points with the movies, and I don't think he needs much encouragement to cause some problems. The Tolkien estate sued to stop WETA from displaying props from the films (and Christopher Tolkien won, if memory serves).

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Of course, all Middle-earth stories are ultimately tied to the Silmarils. Jackson left them out of his LotR movies and he could just as easily leave them out of The Hobbit, but (in my mind at least) this will be his opportunity to give them at least some token acknowledgement. The fact that the feud between the Dwarves and Elves also originated as a result of a Silmaril would provide an excellent opportunity to finally include this major plot device. And, he will need to somehow explain the friction between the Elves and Dwarves, so why not provide a non-fabricated answer? Since only one movie is required to tell the actual story of the Hobbit, I think he will need additional major events from the history of Middle-earth to hold the audiences interest. Why not aim high?

Are you trusting PJ and Co. to come up with these fabricated answers? Given their track record I can't imagine you'd be for that.

Again, using just the characters in the spoiler I mentioned that's some pretty massive changes to Middle-Earth history and I'm scared how how it could turn out (so many ways it could go).

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I'm hoping Jackson and Tolkien Enterprises won't wind up in court, because If Jackson touches any information that is exclusive to Tolkien's The Silmarillion, Christopher Tolkien is likely to sue. Jackson and Co. only have rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and nothing else, and that means only those parts of the backstory that are mentioned in the Appendices. If they touch anything outside of it, I'm afraid Tolkien Enterprises is going to come looking for money (or worse). Christopher Tolkien is already at sword-points with the movies, and I don't think he needs much encouragement to cause some problems. Tolkien Enterprises sued to stop WETA from displaying props from the films (and Tolkien Ent. won).

One minor tweak needed.

Tolkien Enterprises (now Middle-earth Enterprises) owns the "motion picture, merchandising, stage and other rights in certain literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien including The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit".

The Tolkien Estate of which Christoper Tolkien is the sole literary executor, would be suing PJ, WB, Middle-earth Enterprises and anyone else associated with the Hobbit films, should they include materials not found within The Hobbit or LotR (appendices included)

[tvine2000]

Off subject , but it will be interesting to see how sucessful these next 3 movies will be. For die hard fans ,i'm sure they will love these Hobbit movies.

For the rest of the public , i wonder?? Not to compare the Hobbit to the last Starwars movies, for i felt a great let down as with Indiana Jones also.

It seems to me as good or bad as these movies are ,the buzz of the whole thing is never like the first 3.

I will say the Hobbit has going for it is new stories not connected i think with the last 3 movies. To me it needs to be different from Lord of the Rings, or the general public won't be in droves at the theater like in the past.

Then again its Peter Jackson and lets just say he has quite a good track record

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

John Noble is fantastic and, after a couple of viewings (and in the years since), I've grown to appreciate the film version very much. But he's definitely weaker than the book.

Noble just nailed Denethor. The LOTR might be the best-cast adaptation of a book I've ever seen, and he was as pitch-perfect as Ian McKellan and everyone else. He feels noble, he sounds noble, but looks like he's coming apart. You can see it in his eyes.

I don't want to dwell on the exclusion of the Palantir in the film which explains everything about his state of mind, except to say, I just simply don't understand the choice. I won't belabor it.

Once the Rohirrim turn up - and that could possibly be my favourite scene overall, they absolutely, 100% nail that moment and Howard Shore's score there is just hair-raising, I could write thousands of words on how that moment makes me feel

You don't need to, that paragraph is sufficient and I feel the exact same way.

I do disagree about the elves upping the stakes - as I recall I think they were bought in because they thought that, on film, seeing the few number of people of Rohan beating the Uruk-Hai would look unbelievable so the elves were brought in to keep the battle going in a more realistic fashion. In a way the stakes are lessened because of their arrival. That’s not a slur against it though - I know there's a lot of controversy over that - they basically end up getting used as elven shields to protect the people of Rohan – but I think it works great thematically.

I could be wrong, but I thought the point was to get Arwen to Helm's Deep, so that there could be more "female presence" in the movie, and also raise the stakes because now Aragorn is fighting for her, too. You notice how they pivoted and adjusted for that in Return of the King, with Elrond telling Aragorn that Arwen is dying and will continue to get weaker the longer Sauron lives? So once again, they were trying to personalize the battles for Aragorn and raise the stakes. They cut it from Towers, but then added the idea to ROTK. I don't think they needed to do any of that, Aragorn is more noble and strong and compelling if he is fighting evil because it's the right thing to do, less so if he is fighting to save his girlfriend. It's just another thing that bugs me in Return of the King. It's a small thing, though.

I love that the human and elven alliance was honoured one last time, and I also really like how it works with Theoden’s character arc – after his rant at Aragorn on how they’re abandoned, seeing his hopes rise and his strength begin to return because of their arrival is wonderful). It’s one of the defining points of the trilogy and it is stunning. Everything in that segment is – the Ents razing Isengard is another one of my favourite moments of the whole trilogy, the Nazgul attack in Osgiliath (especially I the Extended Edition with Faramir’s extended discussions with Frodo).

You're making me want to go spin the films again.

So when I say The Two Towers is the weakest it’s mostly to do with pacing problems in the first two thirds.

I'll give you that -- the Extended version adds to that problem. It moves in fits and starts. That's why the whole "Warg attack" thing is there, to give the film some more action scenes. Towers was easily the most difficult of the books to adapt, though, because it is so episodic. I'm not crazy about some of their solutions to the problem, but I understand most of their choices (more so than I do choices made in ROTK).

The Ride of the Rohirrim, “For Frodo”, Gandalf saving Faramir, his talk with Pippin over death, Eowyn’s big moment, Theoden’s death, Shelob, “You bow to no-one”, the Grey Havens, the reuniting of the Fellowship and so many more moments just hit me so hard that, as a big, emotional, epic finale, it works wonders for me.

I hear you, and I hope you don't have the impression that I think ROTK s a bad movie, I'm splitting some pretty fine hairs here. You know how people are very upset about the Faramir temptation in Two Towers and it bothers them when watching the film? I have that feeling a whole lot more in ROTK than I do in The Two Towers. All of the films have substantial adaptation alterations, I just think the changes worked better in the first two movies than they did in the third. Still admire and respect and enjoy all three, never want to give the impression that I don't by expressing some minor criticism and personal perspective.

And at least we both agree that Fellowship is the best of the lot.

I think we're actually in the majority on that one, at least, on the good ol' internet.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

Are you trusting PJ and Co. to come up with these fabricated answers? Given their track record I can't imagine you'd be for that.

Again, using just the characters in the spoiler I mentioned that's some pretty massive changes to Middle-Earth history and I'm scared how how it could turn out (so many ways it could go).


One minor tweak needed.

Tolkien Enterprises (now Middle-earth Enterprises) owns the "motion picture, merchandising, stage and other rights in certain literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien including The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit".

The Tolkien Estate of which Christoper Tolkien is the sole literary executor, would be suing PJ, WB, Middle-earth Enterprises and anyone else associated with the Hobbit films, should they include materials not found within The Hobbit or LotR (appendices included)

Thanks! Knew I should have looked that up and not relied on 9 year old memories.