The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Fish market cut? Yay, one less AICN cameo I have to tolerate.

Well someone who attended that BNAT screening claimed that Jackson said that BOTH those scenes will be included into the EE.

.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Also don't forget the scenes that he has made up that were NOT in the book. Just how many of them did he create?

There are at least two that we know of that did not make it into the film.

- Bilbo at the Hobbiton fish market.
- Bilbo viewing the 'Shards of Narsil'.

Maybe we will end up with over an hour of Hobbiton at the beginning of the EE.

.

The scene from the trailer of Bilbo looking at the shard's of Narsil is cut?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Tolkien's writings on Middle-Earth are quite vast beyond the pages of LOTR and TYE HOBBIT. There is a shit tonne more than most people realize.

But the books that are allowed to be used are The Hobbit and LOTR.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

The Hobbit is a pretty sparse book. If it had been written in the more descriptive and detailed style of The Lord of the Rings, it would most definitely have been a much larger novel. Combine that with the fact that we're going to be getting a lot of material concerning the dwarves (from the Appendices) and the White Council's preparations against the Necromancer, and I'm fine with PJ making a trilogy out of The Hobbit.

I always viewed The Hobbit as it exists within the larger scope of Tolkien's writings - as Bilbo's account of his adventures, "There and Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale". What we're getting with these films is a broader sweeping account of the events in Middle Earth during that period - the events of the mission to reclaim Erebor as they may have been set down by someone like Elrond or Galadriel, as opposed to Bilbo. For me, it's a fresh and exciting perspective on a story I know well. It may not be what every viewer wants, but it's certainly something I can't wait for.

Maybe the movie should be called "The Third Age of Middle Earth".

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Cook

The scene from the trailer of Bilbo looking at the shard's of Narsil is cut?

Apparently so.

.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by radagast

But the books that are allowed to be used are The Hobbit and LOTR.

And Peter Jackson's vast imagination too.

.

[YouGotMeFeelingBlu]

I'm actually reading the book (for the first time, believe it or not) before I see the movie. A very awesome read!

[Duffy12]

.

BTW, a reviewer that saw the film said that ONLY sting glows. So it looks like Jackson did not fix that continuity issue. The one trailer showing Glamdring shining was from another light source.

.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by radagast

Maybe the movie should be called "The Third Age of Middle Earth".

It is unfortunate that the movies are all titled to suggest they are covering only the material in The Hobbit. If an additional title or co-title like you have in your example would have been used, it might have averted many of the comments that relate Jackson's involvement in the project solely to greed. There is certainly plenty of storyline to cover apart from The Hobbit with three movies. The material in The Tale of Years would be more than enough to occupy three movies without the story of The Hobbit.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

BTW, a reviewer that saw the film said that ONLY sting glows. So it looks like Jackson did not fix that continuity issue. The one trailer showing Glamdring shining was from another light source.

Technically it's not a continuity error. They just decided to only have Sting glow in the movies.

To have the sword glowing in The Hobbit when it didn't in the other films would be creating a continuity error.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

I'm not sure what you guys are on about. It's not like Jackson is throwing in the histories of the House of Eorl or the Númenórean Kings. The history of Durin's Folk and the preparations of the White Council against Sauron do have bearing on the series of events in The Hobbit.

As a lover of Tolkien's vast mythology, I'm over the moon that we're getting this stuff in the films.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Beast

Technically it's not a continuity error. They just decided to only have Sting glow in the movies.

To have the sword glowing in The Hobbit when it didn't in the other films would be creating a continuity error.

Correct. Good point.

.

[Barbossa]

And another review ...........

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...ie-review.html

[Blu Ian]

How spoilery are the reviews?

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Well someone who attended that BNAT screening claimed that Jackson said that BOTH those scenes will be included into the EE.

.

So the EE is confirmed, then.

[TruBlu06]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

I'm not sure what you guys are on about. It's not like Jackson is throwing in the histories of the House of Eorl or the Númenórean Kings. The history of Durin's Folk and the preparations of the White Council against Sauron do have bearing on the series of events in The Hobbit.

As a lover of Tolkien's vast mythology, I'm over the moon that we're getting this stuff in the films.

I agree wholeheartedly. When I saw the clip with the White Council (which I won't divulge the contents in case there are any of you who haven't seen it) I knew that I was going to love the movie more than ever.
PS. If there isn't a prologue or a flashback, then how is the audience supposed to know what the heck is going on?

[jbig31]

When I saw The White Council clip my thoughts were

[Show spoiler]This the kind of scene that PJ could and should expand on....something evil is stirring in Middle Earth. From all my readings of The Hobbit, LOTR and Appendices and Unfinished Tales, Gandalf knew/sensed that evil (Sauon) had come back. He wasn't ignorant enough to think that he was gone. He knew that IF he (Sauron) got the services of Smaug then it would be game over for any resistance. Silently growing and gathering in strength in Dol Guldor and moving his pawns (The Ringwraiths to govern Dol Guldor and Mirkwood) he was setting the chessboard up for checkmate. Gandalf took a gamble at getting Thorin and Co. fired up to reclaim their home and treasure and through in the "wildcard" of a mister Bilbo Baggins-who I believe even surprized Gandalf himself.

I view The Hobbit as not the "prequel" to the LOTR, but part of the bigger picture of Tolkien's Middle Earth story. Sure, it has fun and adventure, but there is an underlying current that runs through the story that the casual watch may not see or get ot may not want to. It's the story of good vs, evil and the coming of age of a little "nobody" that changes Middle Earth forever.

Just my .02.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

So the EE is confirmed, then.

Yup.

Straight from the horses mouth.

.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Barbossa

And another review ...........

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...ie-review.html

That was partly what I feared.Oh,well...maybe the vista will be good.

[tommyboy81]

just about every review says it's too long, but were fine with the LotR movies. I know 10 years have passed but man. I can imagine the reviews if The LotR came out now.