The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Duffy12]

.

You guys can bad mouth and call Christopher Tolkein names all you want. However without him there is a hell of a lot of unreleased Tolkien material that NEVER sees the light of day.

.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

.

You guys can bad mouth and call Christopher Tolkein names all you want. However without him there is a hell of a lot of unreleased Tolkien material that NEVER sees the light of day.

Like what?

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Like what?

Here you go.

From Loxley over at Neogaf-

After Tolkien passed away in 1973, his eldest son Christopher took over responsibility for The Middle Earth Legendarium, as well as his father's other writings. Ever since, using his father's enormous amount of unpublished documents and manuscripts, he has worked tirelessly to flesh out what his father started - a comprehensive history of Middle-Earth and The Lord of the Rings. To this day Christopher Tolkien remains a staunch protector of his father's legacy and his writings, to the point where many have considered him to be a tad over-protective - however that is obviously up for debate. As a result, he has been on the receiving end of both high praise and harsh criticism from fans and academics alike.


~ The Silmarillion - Published 1977


~ Unfinished Tales - Published 1980


~ Unfinished Tales - Published 1980
- The Book of Lost Tales 1 - Published 1983
- The Book of Lost Tales 2 - Published 1984
- The Lays of Beleriand - Published 1985
- The Shaping of Middle Earth - Published 1986
- The Lost Road and Other Writings - Published 1987
- The Return of the Shadow (The History of The Lord of the Rings v.1) - Published 1988
- The Treason of Isengard (The History of The Lord of the Rings v.2) - Published 1989
- The War of the Ring (The History of The Lord of the Rings v.3) - Published 1990
- Sauron Defeated (The History of The Lord of the Rings v.4) - Published 1992
- Morgoth's Ring (The Later Silmarillion v.1) - Published 1993
- The War of the Jewels (The Later Silmarillion v.2) - Published 1994
- The Peoples of Middle Earth - Published 1996


~ Bilbo's Last Song - Published 1990


~ The Children of Húrin - Published April, 2007


___________



~ Mr. Bliss - Written Post-Hobbit, Published 1982


~ Letters From Father Christmas - Published 2004


~ The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún - Published 2009


~ The Fall of Arthur - Published 2013

.

Thanks again goes to Loxley.


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511392

.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Here you go. From Loxley over at Neogaf-

.

That makes me sad

[Tony208]

Originally Posted by Cook

It looks like some ridiculous theme park ride.

yeah the Hobbit is supposed to be the more kiddie book but cmon now

[Brightstar]

The Children of Húrin is allready out anyway if only Lord of the Rings can be converted to 3D

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Here you go.

From Loxley over at Neogaf-

Thanks again goes to Loxley.


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511392

.

So. Let me get this right; Christopher Tolkien doesn't mind the BBC full-cast radio dramatisations of his fathers work (including The Hobbit, made in 1968 and LotR in 1982) but does object to film adaptations? I notice he nevr makes negative comments about those... (Note: i have both adaptations on cd and they are absolutely first class. LotR in particular couldn't be better, though some may take to task Peter Woodethorpe's totally schizo Gollum. Mr Woodethorpe previously played the same character in the animated film.)

[NYorker]

I think it was a big mistake to show the dragon...people have high expectations from it. Why expose it already in the trailer...?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

From an interview with Christopher Tolkien in the French newspaper Le Monde:

Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book [The Lord of the Rings] by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

This divorce has been systematically driven by the logic of Hollywood. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

I know I have pointed this out prior, but my thoughts about one scene in particular really pissed me off, in how Jackson "eviscerate" the death of the Witch King - there's some great dialogue between Eowyn and the Witch King before he meets his demise that is just gone ... hell, the animated film of the 'Return of the King' even managed to retain what was in the book to excellent effect. The animated film even put greater importance of the Palantier which is but used minimally in Jacksons version. [off my soap box]

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by NYorker

I think it was a big mistake to show the dragon...people have high expectations from it. Why expose it already in the trailer...?

yes, that was rather a dumb move on the folk in the WB trailer department.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Devil's advocate but Christopher Tolkien has never actually watched any of the films. So his opinions of what they are, what they contain and what they mean might be slightly skewed by his own bias more than first-hand knowledge.

(And yes, I know, the guy with the Smaug avatar is of course going to back the films. But, as much as I love Christopher's writings and work with Middle-Earth, I think it's a decent point.)

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Here you go.

From Loxley over at Neogaf-





Thanks again goes to Loxley.


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511392

.

Releasing this stuff doesnt make his biased close minded comments any less biased and close minded.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by NYorker

I think it was a big mistake to show the dragon...people have high expectations from it. Why expose it already in the trailer...?

I had a little rant about this on page 285, post #5695.

Basically, I assumed piracy may have something to do with it. Not all of the world is as smart, patient and loving of art as the good folks at blu-ray.com, so I think, THINK, it may have been the best decision WB could make for the trailer from a mainstream perspective.

At least we didn't see his entire body, hear him talk or see him in full action.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I've read numerous things about what Christopher Tolkien thinks about the Lord of the Rings films and, to be completely honest, I don't think he's even watched them; he condemns them as "action movies" when it's pretty obvious they're much more than that, and in another piece about him, it mentioned that he thought Peter Jackson didn't care about his family name and was out to ruin it, which seems completely stupid and hyperbolic.

Tolkien's books are much deeper than the movie portrays, yes, but everyone involved in the Estate should have understood that since they all must know that books cannot just be translated to the screen 100% and things must be changed or re-ordered to make it work. Besides, this whole "commercialization" aspect isn't as bad for them as they make out -- I'm going out on a limb here and I'm going to assume that sales of both The Lord of the Ring books and The Hobbit have increased tenfold because of the films.

First of all Christopher Tolkien doesn't need the money and to suggest that he would put money or commercial success over his father's literary legacy is crass and an insult. There are more important things than money.

And I've said it many times before - with all the positive things that can be said for the movies, the scripts could have been a LOT better. Just listen to the radio adaptation the BBC did of LOTR. It was condensed but kept the tone and the feel of the books MUCH better than Jackson and company did.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Constitution 101

Not to mention he wouldn't meet w/ Jackson. What is he, nine years old? Sit down man to man and hash it out if you must. It's not like Jackson had some sort malicious intent or sinister motives. "Purists" never seem to understand what works for a book doesn't necessarily work for a film. They're completely different mediums. The books are simply enormous, as is their depth. The number of movies required to be faithful to the books is simply impractical at best and darned near impossible at worst.

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.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by MoulinBlu

Now I see why Jackson didn't want to direct The Hobbit. It sounds like Christopher Tolkein is the one without due respect. I understand the artistic fear of Hollywood decimating the soul of one's work, but Jackson clearly did no such thing.

There are plenty of people who disagree with you.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by TheWildWhelk

So. Let me get this right; Christopher Tolkien doesn't mind the BBC full-cast radio dramatisations of his fathers work (including The Hobbit, made in 1968 and LotR in 1982) but does object to film adaptations? I notice he nevr makes negative comments about those... (Note: i have both adaptations on cd and they are absolutely first class. LotR in particular couldn't be better, though some may take to task Peter Woodethorpe's totally schizo Gollum. Mr Woodethorpe previously played the same character in the animated film.)

Yes that's right. Christopher doesn't object to the BBC adaptations because they didn't radically re-write the story.

[spanky87]

Originally Posted by radagast

There are plenty of people who disagree with you.

You sound like you don't enjoy these movies much. And sounds like you will be watching Hobbit part 2 in theaters waiting to pick out all the changes instead of trying to enjoy it.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Galactus

That makes me sad

What makes you sad? That he proved his point or that you were unaware of what Christopher has accomplished?

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by radagast

What makes you sad? That he proved his point or that you were unaware of what Christopher has accomplished?

Oh you gonna start on me now? Dude relax! I didn't know about those books I just started getting into The Lord of the Rings movies back in April so I've yet to read any of the books jeez