The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Constitution 101]

Originally Posted by radagast

So there is only two options in your mind? Either a strict adherence to the books or mangling the plot to the point that it is almost an alternate universe? As has been said over and over, by more than one person, the movies would have been better if several places in the story had been true to the books. You people who worship Jackson and these movies need to remember that there would be no movies without the books. And it still burns me that one of the script writers had the temerity to claim that they improved Tolkien's story. RUBBISH! Maybe that bothers Christopher also. It should.

Maybe it should/does bother him. All the more reason to address it w/ the person directing the film. What did he gain by refusing to meet w/ him? Maybe the very improvements you refer to could've been made beforehand, and resulted in a plot more true to the books. I guess we'll never know now, will we...or maybe I'm just worshipping Jackson and the movies again.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I didn't suggest that he needed the money at all, simply that a by-product of such 'rampant commercialization' would be the original source material selling faster. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me, since CT has said himself that he wishes more people would read his father's work.

I don't understand what this personal vengeance thing is all about -- you're just replying to people who have said negative things about the books. Here's an unpopular opinion with you, I guess: as influential and intelligent as the LoTR books are, they're frustratingly over-detailed and difficult to enjoy (for me).

I don't understand all the animosity towards CT. He has every right not to like the movies. I'm not replying about people saying negative things about the books. It seems that since CT doesn't like the movies there must be something wrong with him. All the CT haters should try putting themselves in his shoes.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by MoulinBlu

For the record, I meant no disrespect to Christopher Tolkein, just saying you don't see Rowling complaining about WB monumentally magnifying public interest in and the value of her creation, not to mention making her a billionaire, one of the wealthiest authors in the world, practically overnight. And the HP films omit a lot more from the original work than LotRs.

I can appreciate the desire for fidelity, but whether CT is completely ignorant of the films or not, he has no justification for being insultingly dismissive of all the attention they have brought to the original work. Assuming what's been posted here is true, that's about as ungrateful as a child pitching a tantrum because they're having hamburgers instead of pizza for dinner - you'd expect an adult to be a bit wiser, if not more mature.

You obviously don't understand his point of view, but that doesn't make him immature,. As far as Rowling goes, I haven't read her books, but did the movies take excessive liberties with the plot and change the personalities of the characters? The only thing I've heard is that the story was abridged and that some things were left out, not changed.

[Monolithium]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Hardly, he's just protective of his father's literary legacy.

Since Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens can't alter the original text, I think JRR Tolkien's literary legacy is completely safe.

The films are just adaptations. Nothing more.

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by Monolithium

Since Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens can't alter the original text, I think JRR Tolkien's literary legacy is completely safe.

The films are just adaptations. Nothing more.

As a huge fan of Robert E Howard's literary creation 'Conan', i have had to suffer 2 crap Conan films (Arnold) a crap television series, and another crap Conan film (2011), albeit closer to Howard's original works in the last 30 years. We should be thankfull that The Hobbit and Lord Of The Rings has passion behind it rather than being a corporate cash-grab for a motion picture property!

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by radagast

I don't understand all the animosity towards CT. He has every right not to like the movies. I'm not replying about people saying negative things about the books. It seems that since CT doesn't like the movies there must be something wrong with him. All the CT haters should try putting themselves in his shoes.

He has every right to his own opinion, yes, but, as I said in my previous post, I don't believe he's actually seen the movies -- every response he makes to them is ambiguous and vague and, to be honest, he could have gotten the information he's basing his opinions on from the plot summary at Wikipedia.

I could be wrong and, if I am, I hold my hands up, but I don't get the impression he knows quite what he's criticising.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

He has every right to his own opinion, yes, but, as I said in my previous post, I don't believe he's actually seen the movies -- every response he makes to them is ambiguous and vague and, to be honest, he could have gotten the information he's basing his opinions on from the plot summary at Wikipedia.

I could be wrong and, if I am, I hold my hands up, but I don't get the impression he knows quite what he's criticising.

I thought when the first one came out he stated that he was never gonna watch it? Is he claiming now that he has?

[MoulinBlu]

Originally Posted by radagast

You obviously don't understand his point of view, but that doesn't make him immature,. As far as Rowling goes, I haven't read her books, but did the movies take excessive liberties with the plot and change the personalities of the characters? The only thing I've heard is that the story was abridged and that some things were left out, not changed.

I'm an author and an artist, I know exactly where he's coming from, though not on the same level, obviously. But, if most of what's been said, about his feelings towards the films, in this discussion is true, it's very shallow of him.

I don't understand all the animosity towards CT. He has every right not to like the movies. I'm not replying about people saying negative things about the books. It seems that since CT doesn't like the movies there must be something wrong with him. All the CT haters should try putting themselves in his shoes.

His "right" or not, if he hasn't even seen the movies, as has been indicated in this thread, any opinion he may possess is worth about as much as some clown who says they walked out of a movie after only five minutes and rushed home to "review" how bad it was. And, if I were Jackson and had dedicated years toward bringing these stories to a broader audience, translating them to an entirely different medium the best I knew how, with the limitations imposed by budget, technology, and heavy-handed, governing studio politics, I would be deeply offended at such arrogant dismissal by a family or family member who has gained more from the films success than possibly anyone.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

I thought when the first one came out he stated that he was never gonna watch it? Is he claiming now that he has?

Exactly. He's claiming in interviews that he's seen them and they reduce his father's legacy to mindless violence or something. If he'd have seen even one, he'd have noticed much more than just violence...

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Exactly. He's claiming in interviews that he's seen them and they reduce his father's legacy to mindless violence or something. If he'd have seen even one, he'd have noticed much more than just violence...

Correction - he's never claimed to have seen them. His perceptions of what they are or represent are based on what he's heard about them.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Correction - he's never claimed to have seen them. His perceptions of what they are or represent are based on what he's heard about them.

Oh, I'm sorry then -- I thought he had said he had watched them. That makes his point of view even more invalid then, since he's just going on what he's heard on the grapevine, so to speak.

Thanks for clearing that up, mate

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Correction - he's never claimed to have seen them. His perceptions of what they are or represent are based on what he's heard about them.

b/c that will get people to take you seriously!!

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Monolithium

Since Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens can't alter the original text, I think JRR Tolkien's literary legacy is completely safe.

The films are just adaptations. Nothing more.

Yeah, but I don't think Christopher *wants* them to be adapted in the first place...he wants the focus on his father and what he created, and probably bristles when someone refers to one of the works as "Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings", the same way the P. L. Travers estate gets cranky about "Walt Disney's Mary Poppins".

[Captain Kirk]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Correction - he's never claimed to have seen them. His perceptions of what they are or represent are based on what he's heard about them.

The better question would be who is feeding him such false information?

Ronald Dahl hated Willy Wonka but at least he saw it. I'd take their dislike more serious if they would actually watch the final product and make an informed opinion about it.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

He has every right to his own opinion, yes, but, as I said in my previous post, I don't believe he's actually seen the movies -- every response he makes to them is ambiguous and vague and, to be honest, he could have gotten the information he's basing his opinions on from the plot summary at Wikipedia.

I could be wrong and, if I am, I hold my hands up, but I don't get the impression he knows quite what he's criticising.

Originally Posted by MoulinBlu

I'm an author and an artist, I know exactly where he's coming from, though not on the same level, obviously. But, if most of what's been said, about his feelings towards the films, in this discussion is true, it's very shallow of him.



His "right" or not, if he hasn't even seen the movies, as has been indicated in this thread, any opinion he may possess is worth about as much as some clown who says they walked out of a movie after only five minutes and rushed home to "review" how bad it was. And, if I were Jackson and had dedicated years toward bringing these stories to a broader audience, translating them to an entirely different medium the best I knew how, with the limitations imposed by budget, technology, and heavy-handed, governing studio politics, I would be deeply offended at such arrogant dismissal by a family or family member who has gained more from the films success than possibly anyone.

The reasoning here is faulty.
Maybe Christopher Tolkien has read about all the changes to the story. If so, he doesn't need to see the movies to know that he would get very upset by them. Maybe at his age, it's better for his health not to see the movies. I don't need to see any of the Human Centipede movies to know I would hate them and despise them. In this age where movies are regarded more highly than books, it's too bad that so many professed lovers of Tolkien's books are satisfied with Jackson's efforts and willing to overlook all the deficiencies in the script.
While I enjoy the movies to a certain degree and I have both the TE and EX versions of the movies, they just don't satisfy me very much. They don't have the "atmosphere" and "feel" of the books. It is even worse when considering that with all of the major flaws in it, the Bakshi animated LOTR did get closer to the feel of the books (at least in places). The romance in the prose is replaced by video game style action. The battles, while integral to the story, are not the main focus for me. The romance and charm in many places in the books, was replaced with cheap humor or action sequences. For instance, Merry and Pippin were very close and loyal to Frodo, and knew something was up before he left the Shire. They were determined that Frodo was not going to face his problems alone. Yet in the movie, it was an accident the Pippin and Merry ran into Frodo and Sam as they fled the Shire. That left me very dissatisfied. That was one of many places where the script is inferior to the books.
Yet, because of all the good things they did in making the movies; the props, the locations, etc. so many people are willing to turn a blind eye to the most important part of the movies - the story itself.
I think it's tragic that with all the work done to make the movies, and money spent to make it the best production possible, that the script is far below the rest of the effort, and is absolutely the weakest part of the movies.

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Exactly. He's claiming in interviews that he's seen them and they reduce his father's legacy to mindless violence or something. If he'd have seen even one, he'd have noticed much more than just violence...

Maybe CT got that impression from knowing how much of TTT was devoted to the battle at Helm's Deep, when it didn't take up that much of the book.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Ian McKellen has filmed his last shot as Gandalf.

While it's not exactly news, it surely is a momentous occasion. Ian McKellen just finished filming scenes as Gandalf for "The Hobbit" films as Peter Jackson just posted the following with this picture:

"Seconds ago we finished our last shot with Gandalf. The end of an incredible adventure that began in 1999. I'm feeling very sad right now."

We'll get to see McKellen as Gandalf two more times, this December in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and in December of 2014 in The Hobbit: There and Back Again.

Source

I'd assumed they'd have pick-ups scheduled for next year as well (as they did between each Lord of the Rings film). I guess that might have been hard to do with the actors all scheduled to only return this year before the split.

Still, end of an era.

[chris_sc77]

It's still so criminal McKellan didn't win the Oscar for Fellowship of the Ring. He will always be the perfect Gandalf.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

It's still so criminal McKellan didn't win the Oscar for Fellowship of the Ring. He will always be the perfect Gandalf.

I don't disagree with you at all, but he did look older in The Hobbit than in the LOTR. I know there are many years between shoots, but I couldn't help thinking how old he looked/moved.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Ian McKellen has filmed his last shot as Gandalf.





Source

I'd assumed they'd have pick-ups scheduled for next year as well (as they did between each Lord of the Rings film). I guess that might have been hard to do with the actors all scheduled to only return this year before the split.

Still, end of an era.

such a perfect choice for Gandalf!!

[chris_sc77]

Originally Posted by Josh

I don't disagree with you at all, but he did look older in The Hobbit than in the LOTR. I know there are many years between shoots, but I couldn't help thinking how old he looked/moved.

oh yeah he sure did. Most noticeably in the opening scenes with Bilbo in Hobbiton there is some awful and inconsistent make that tries to make him look younger but has the adverse effect and ends up making him look older. Still better to have him look older that he did in LOTR than for them to have recasted. You just kinda gotta go with it and accept it.