The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Darkhawk9587

If you guys are arguing about the simplicity of LotR, I can't wait to hear what you have to say about this, given that The Hobbit was originally intended for children.

We've already discussed that.

I like the LOTR books, never cared that much for The Hobbit.

Only interested in the movies as Jackson in directing them and I have faith he'll make it more as a solid prequel to the LOTR movies vs. trying to faithfully adapt the book.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I didn't like those books for just that reason personally. Just didn't appeal to me as an atheist.

Well, Tolkien hated allegory - I can only imagine the conversations he had with Lewis re: the Narnia series. That being said, why would an atheist be upset by religious parallels in the Narnia series -- for you, it should be the exact same pointless mythology as Tolkien's fantasy world, or the world of Batman, or Mickey Mouse. Why would reading a fantasy myth in one context bother you while you have no issue or failure of tolerance in others? If I follow your point, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but your take sounds more like...well...you have a beef with Christianity, as opposed to being a raw atheist.

[Member-115369]

Well, being an American (and unfortunately stuck in the deep south for work currently!), yeah I'd say I have more of a beef with Christianity than other religions. But really I'd just say parallels to any real religion in fictional works bother more than the made-up religion/mythology in something like LOTR. I mean I'm not offended or anything, I just don't dig stories that are basically pushing a real world religion on readers under a fantasy guise. Just not my cup of tea.

The Narnia book was just too full of religious overtones from Christianity for my liking. It was much more upfront and central to the story than just all the mythology and stuff in LOTR that's more in the background. But again I'd say the same thing if it was Islamic undertones etc.

And again, nothing wrong with such books etc. Just not my cup of tea, and I wouldn't have read Narnia if I new what I was getting into before hand.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Well, Tolkien hated allegory - I can only imagine the conversations he had with Lewis re: the Narnia series. That being said, why would an atheist be upset by religious parallels in the Narnia series -- for you, it should be the exact same pointless mythology as Tolkien's fantasy world, or the world of Batman, or Mickey Mouse. Why would reading a fantasy myth in one context bother you while you have no issue or failure of tolerance in others? If I follow your point, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but your take sounds more like...well...you have a beef with Christianity, as opposed to being a raw atheist.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Well, being an American (and unfortunately stuck in the deep south for work currently!), yeah I'd say I have more of a beef with Christianity than other religions. But really I'd just say parallels to any real religion in fictional works bother more than the made-up religion/mythology in something like LOTR. I mean I'm not offended or anything, I just don't dig stories that are basically pushing a real world religion on readers under a fantasy guise. Just not my cup of tea.

The Narnia book was just too full of religious overtones from Christianity for my liking. It was much more upfront and central to the story than just all the mythology and stuff in LOTR that's more in the background. But again I'd say the same thing if it was Islamic undertones etc.

And again, nothing wrong with such books etc. Just not my cup of tea, and I wouldn't have read Narnia if I new what I was getting into before hand.

I find it curious when I hear an atheist talk about "morally ambiguous characters" or good and evil themes in movies. Historically, many prominent anti-religious follks were adamant about rejecting any notion of moral standards. That, at least, is logical, since you can't have a basis for a standard of right and wrong if you have 5 billion people with 5 billion different opinions about what is right or wrong. That is amply demonstrated by a previous post here about a book showing the LOTR events from Mordor's point of view.

And what, then, do you think about anti-Christian allegory like Pullman's stories?

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

Why? No one had a problem with C.S. Lewis who's books had blatant Christian themes in them...(personally I think the idea that God is just a big cuddly lion would be awesome!)

Ever read what Philip Pullman thinks about Lewis and Narnia?

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by radagast

I find it curious when I hear an atheist talk about "morally ambiguous characters" or good and evil themes in movies. Historically, many prominent anti-religious follks were adamant about rejecting any notion of moral standards. That, at least, is logical, since you can't have a basis for a standard of right and wrong if you have 5 billion people with 5 billion different opinions about what is right or wrong.

That's a bunch of hogwash IMO. Religion is useless. You don't have to have religion to have notions of right and wrong. Things like murder, theft, rape etc. are nearly universal wrongs. People can live moral lives, doing good for society and never harming others without being religious.

The only place it really plays in is differences purely moral/value things like premarital sex, views on homosexuality, abortion etc. and that's all negatives of religion IMO that make people concerned about things in other's private lives that should be none of their concern. Pushing those kind of morals is pretty unique to religious folks. But most other moral things (most of the 10 commandments etc.) are just basic human decency that most atheists uphold in their daily lives despite not having religious motivation for doing so.

And what, then, do you think about anti-Christian allegory like Pullman's stories?

Never read them. Probably wouldn't like them. I have little interest in reading pro or anti-religious crap. I'm an atheist, and I respect other's rights to have the same or different views. But I don't care about hearing about them.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

But again I'd say the same thing if it was Islamic undertones etc.

Now *there's* a controversial idea...imagine if someone re-wrote the Chronicles of Narnia, only swapping out the Judeo-Christian allegory for an Islamic point of view.

But anyway, we're getting waaaay off topic, so I'll drop the line of discussion.

In other news, my wife began reading The Fellowship of the Ring last night. She's brilliant, and a voracious reader, but has never read any of Tolkien's work. You guys may think this is square, but we actually read novels to each other, out loud. After I read the salient portions of Tolkien's 2nd Edition note, she began with 'Concerning Hobbits'. Now I get to watch her try to pronounce all of Tolkien's imaginative proper nouns.

This is going to be fun.

[Ernest Rister]

Hey - can anyone help me out? I just saw this:

http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Fel...8561108&sr=1-1

I've long puzzled over why I*Tunes has the 'Complete Recording' version of the Return of the King soundtrack, but not the other two films. So I go to amazon looking for the complete recording version of Fellowship, only to find it's $200 dollars.

Now, I love Howard Shore's score - as I've said, I think it is one of the greatest achievements in cinema music - but $200?

Is there another release or boxset that contains the complete score for Fellowship? Just can't justify laying down $200 smackers on a CD right now.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Hey - can anyone help me out? I just saw this:

http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Fel...8561108&sr=1-1

I've long puzzled over why I*Tunes has the 'Complete Recording' version of the Return of the King soundtrack, but not the other two films. So I go to amazon looking for the complete recording version of Fellowship, only to find it's $200 dollars.

Now, I love Howard Shore's score - as I've said, I think it is one of the greatest achievements in cinema music - but $200?

Is there another release or boxset that contains the complete score for Fellowship? Just can't justify laying down $200 smackers on a CD right now.

I was able to pick it up for $50 when it was released, so it must be out of print. That is unfortunate, because it is much better than the watered-down mass-production release. In addition to more music, there are lots of details such as a cut of Ian McKellen singing "The Road Goes Ever On and On" as he does at the beginning of the movie before it fades into the main theme, a comprehensive book of notes describing Howard Shore's motivation for the music for each scene, etc. But $200? Wow.

[Ernest Rister]

I'm almost tempted to play "let's make a deal", but even the $50 you paid for it is pushing it. Good call on picking it up when you did. Well played.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I'm almost tempted to play "let's make a deal", but even the $50 you paid for it is pushing it. Good call on picking it up when you did. Well played.

I want to get Gandalf's sword but even just the scabbard is too expensive for me, maybe they will create new weapons when the Hobbit finally comes out.

[Ernest Rister]

I just paid $38 for the Original "Illuminations" CD from Epcot, and damn if the thing isn't a bootleg. You can tell just by looking at the CD, where the CD burner only used half of the available space on the disc to lay down the tracks.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

That's a bunch of hogwash IMO. Religion is useless. You don't have to have religion to have notions of right and wrong. Things like murder, theft, rape etc. are nearly universal wrongs. People can live moral lives, doing good for society and never harming others without being religious.

The only place it really plays in is differences purely moral/value things like premarital sex, views on homosexuality, abortion etc. and that's all negatives of religion IMO that make people concerned about things in other's private lives that should be none of their concern. Pushing those kind of morals is pretty unique to religious folks. But most other moral things (most of the 10 commandments etc.) are just basic human decency that most atheists uphold in their daily lives despite not having religious motivation for doing so.

There are people who believe that the right thing is to kill certain people. There were Nazis that believed they were doing the right thing. My point is that everyone can claim that their beliefs about right and wrong are the correct ones, but without an objective standard, it all becomes one person's opinion against another. And C.S. Lewis raised the question as to where does a sense of right and wrong come from in the first place.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by radagast

There are people who believe that the right thing is to kill certain people. There were Nazis that believed they were doing the right thing. My point is that everyone can claim that their beliefs about right and wrong are the correct ones, but without an objective standard, it all becomes one person's opinion against another. And C.S. Lewis raised the question as to where does a sense of right and wrong come from in the first place.

Yeah, but it's a bullshit point as it's promoting that the christian notion of right and wrong is the proper one, just like any other bullshit piece of religious propaganda from any religion. Calling religion an "objective" standard is ethnocentric bullshit as it assumes your religion is the "right" one and the right set of morals etc.

Religion is just BS people use to try to justify their world view and value systems and argue why there's is superior. That and a way for people to try to explain the unexplainable and deal with death and losing loved ones (afterlife).

But we're getting way off topic, and religion is something I try to stay away from discussing since I don't like to be actively intolerant of other's beliefs as I think religion/spirituality (or the lack thereof) should be a personal matter.

In terms of the evil/good in LOTR, it is simple as there is no nuance to it. The orcs are pure evil. They didn't want to kill just a certain group(s) of people like Nazi's etc. They wanted to kill anything in their sight, often even other orcs. You don't need any objective standards of good and evil when you're dealing in polar extremes like Tolkien mostly does.

[drichter33]

OK, wow. Can someone flag the title of this thread when actual movie news gets posted? Day after day I come on here and find it is one non stop discussion of the books and history and enough to put me to bed. I am a tax accountant- I have plenty of reading material to do that via the IRC.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Yeah, but it's a bullshit point as it's promoting that the christian notion of right and wrong is the proper one, just like any other bullshit piece of religious propaganda from any religion.

Religion is just BS people use to try to justify their world view and value systems and argue why there's is superior. That and a way for people to try to explain the unexplainable and deal with death and losing loved ones (afterlife).

But we're getting way off topic, and religion is something I try to stay away from discussing since I don't like to be actively intolerant of other's beliefs as I think religion/spirituality (or the lack thereof) should be a personal matter.

Sure thing. It's just interesting to pick people's minds now and then.

[frogmort]

It seems like a lot of people on here have argued about whether The Hobbit movie should be based more on The Hobbit book, or treated more as a prequel to the LOTR movies.
This seems kind of odd to me, because The Hobbit is the prequel to the LOTR, in both the books, and the movies.
The book is written in a more simple style than the LOTR was, but everything that happens fits right in line with the LOTR.
I really don't understand the argument. It can and should be based off the book and fit in well with the LOTR movies.
I understand that they are doing some tie-ins that weren't specifically mentioned in the book, and I don't have a problem with that to some degree. I mean Legolas is the son of Thranduil, so it would not be weird for him to be there, and the White Council would be an awesome addition, I just hope they don't bog the movie down with "Hey, look! It's me!" stuff too much.
I've also heard that Frodo is going to be in it. Since The Hobbit happened like 60 years before the LOTR, the only way I can see him being there is maybe an intro at the beginning with Ian Holm reading or just telling his story to Elijah Wood etc. and then fading to the past with Martin Freeman as a younger Bilbo. I think that would be okay!

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I just hope they don't bog the movie down with "Hey, look! It's me!" stuff too much.

Ah, the old Boba-Fett winking into the camera scene in 'A New Hope'.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by frogmort

It seems like a lot of people on here have argued about whether The Hobbit movie should be based more on The Hobbit book, or treated more as a prequel to the LOTR movies.
This seems kind of odd to me, because The Hobbit is the prequel to the LOTR, in both the books, and the movies.

The problem is that the only event in The Hobbit that directly has anything to do with the LOTR part is Bilbo getting the ring, and they already showed most of that in the flashbacks in LOTR.

The quest to get the Dwarves treasure back etc. has nothing directly to do with the events of LOTR--other than the unreferenced (even in the LOTR text--but elsewhere in some of the unfinished tales or something apparently) getting rid of Smaug so Sauron couldn't use him.

The other event of the Hobbit timeline was Gandalf and the white council expelling the Necromancer(Sauron) from Mirkwood. That happens off page in book, but it hopefully happening on screen in the movies as that's very directly relevant to LOTR and will tie the two together well.

I agree that we don't necessarily need cameos from Legolas, Frodo etc. But that said, they were alive during the time of the Hobbit, so I don't see much harm in it, and it is a simple way to help tie the movies together for the majority of viewers who've probably never read the books and will likely never read them. And if it's minor, it shouldn't be annoying to anyone other than the purists.

The other thing I hope is that they film it in the tone of LOTR. More serious and dark than the Hobbit book. Not some more light hearted adventure that matches the tone of the book--which is a big reason I don't like that book anywhere nearly as much as I do the LOTR books.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I agree that we don't necessarily need cameos from Legolas, Frodo etc. But that said, they were alive during the time of the Hobbit, so I don't see much harm in it, and it is a simple way to help tie the movies together for the majority of viewers who've probably never read the books and will likely never read them.

Frodo was not born yet. The Hobbit takes place T.A.2941-2942. Frodo was born T.A.2968, 26 years after The Hobbit.

Also, during the time of The Hobbit, things had yet to get so serious and dark as they did when Sauron began to rise to power again. It was a happier, more simple time.

I personally think that the LOTR movies could've been much darker and scarier, but I still love 'em!

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I've also heard that Frodo is going to be in it. Since The Hobbit happened like 60 years before the LOTR, the only way I can see him being there is maybe an intro at the beginning with Ian Holm reading or just telling his story to Elijah Wood etc. and then fading to the past with Martin Freeman as a younger Bilbo. I think that would be okay!

I would be surprised if Jackson includes Frodo in this movie. He played no part in the story, and there is more than enough material in the book and associated events related to that timeframe in Middle-earth to occupy two movies.