The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Grand Bob]

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).

My optimistic side wants to believe that Jackson has matured over the past decade, and having proved to be successful beyond the wildest dreams of most people, will not feel the need to over-dramatize or distort this story. My realistic side agrees with your assessment.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

So, I simply disagree that The Two Towers is inferior to Return of the King.

Well stated, and I would also add that although the movies were undeniably well-done, the overwhelming emphasis on action at the expense of "substance" marginalized the experience. Granted, big battles with cool monsters bring in the crowds, but eventually a saturation point is reached. Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith were getting close to that limit, with the Return of the King EE possibly exceeding it. As I have stated previously, if twenty Riders of Rohan on their horses getting trampled by mumakil is good, is forty better? A hundred? At some point it all becomes yawn-inducing and one yearns for something more in such an epic. Perhaps The Hobbit movies will address this? For example, how about including the "real themes" of LotR, such as the problems of death and immortality as witnessed respectively by Men and the Elves. Certainly a token short conversation between the two races would have been at least as interesting as Sam not being able to sleep because of a tree root bothering him, Eowyn making soup, hobbits repeatedly falling or crying, or a few dozen additional men or orcs being killed?

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

My optimistic side wants to believe that Jackson has matured over the past decade, and having proved to be successful beyond the wildest dreams of most people, will not feel the need to over-dramatize or distort this story. My realistic side agrees with your assessment.



Well stated, and I would also add that although the movies were undeniably well-done, the overwhelming emphasis on action at the expense of "substance" marginalized the experience. Granted, big battles with cool monsters bring in the crowds, but eventually a saturation point is reached. Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith were getting close to that limit, with the Return of the King EE possibly exceeding it. As I have stated previously, if twenty Riders of Rohan on their horses getting trampled by mumakil is good, is forty better? A hundred? At some point it all becomes yawn-inducing and one yearns for something more in such an epic. Perhaps The Hobbit movies will address this? For example, how about including the "real themes" of LotR, such as the problems of death and immortality as witnessed respectively by Men and the Elves. Certainly a token short conversation between the two races would have been at least as interesting as Sam not being able to sleep because of a tree root bothering him, Eowyn making soup, hobbits repeatedly falling or crying, or a few dozen additional men or orcs being killed?

The strength of cinema is the weakness of cinema -- it is a visual medium. People sitting down for conversations - if not handled properly -- can be pure death. So you'd have to visualize these concepts, not simply have someone talking about them, and that's the trick, isn't it...

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

My optimistic side wants to believe that Jackson has matured over the past decade, and having proved to be successful beyond the wildest dreams of most people, will not feel the need to over-dramatize or distort this story. My realistic side agrees with your assessment.



Well stated, and I would also add that although the movies were undeniably well-done, the overwhelming emphasis on action at the expense of "substance" marginalized the experience. Granted, big battles with cool monsters bring in the crowds, but eventually a saturation point is reached. Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith were getting close to that limit, with the Return of the King EE possibly exceeding it. As I have stated previously, if twenty Riders of Rohan on their horses getting trampled by mumakil is good, is forty better? A hundred? At some point it all becomes yawn-inducing and one yearns for something more in such an epic. Perhaps The Hobbit movies will address this? For example, how about including the "real themes" of LotR, such as the problems of death and immortality as witnessed respectively by Men and the Elves. Certainly a token short conversation between the two races would have been at least as interesting as Sam not being able to sleep because of a tree root bothering him, Eowyn making soup, hobbits repeatedly falling or crying, or a few dozen additional men or orcs being killed?

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one TBH.Nothing in PJ's resume after LotR suggest an increase in maturity of his subjectmatter to leave me optimistic in that matter.Only thing I can remember him doing is King kong,and again it seems like he's going through the motions.On that matter:anyone else feel that the intro was a homage to Shadow of the vampire?Either that or just blatant copycat.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The strength of cinema is the weakness of cinema -- it is a visual medium. People sitting down for conversations - if not handled properly -- can be pure death. So you'd have to visualize these concepts, not simply have someone talking about them, and that's the trick, isn't it...

Don't quite agree with you on that one,if by weakness you mean instant gratification.The social network was a movie which was very dialoguedriven,and there was nothing boring about it.You need substance and to handle that correctly.You could say that about most artform just slightly refrained to be honest,so maybe it was a goobledygook answer...

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The strength of cinema is the weakness of cinema -- it is a visual medium. People sitting down for conversations - if not handled properly -- can be pure death. So you'd have to visualize these concepts, not simply have someone talking about them, and that's the trick, isn't it...

That is true, and I thought Jackson handled some of the other major themes well, such as power used for dominance -represented by the Ring - being "evil" (which Tolkien equated to politics). Another theme he touched on moderately (in a round-about fashion) is what Tolkien described as:

"... without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless."

Of course there are others, but why not tackle the "big one" - Man's biggest problem is mortality (which applies to the audience, since it is also their problem), and the Elves biggest problem is immortality? A conversation between, say Aragorn and Gandalf, or Aragorn and Elrond, might add some validity to the story, would not have to occupy excessive time, and would certainly not be any less interesting than Legolas' unexplained (and pointless) despair at Helm's Deep, or the ridiculous sidetrack of Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath at the end of the Two Towers?

Note: For those ready to insert the standard disclaimer, "the director's vision takes precedence over all, and the opinions of others are therefore meaningless", rest assured I am well aware of that and the fact that these movies will be among the highest-grossing ever made, with or without my speculations or desires.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Don't quite agree with you on that one,if by weakness you mean instant gratification.

No, I mean from the moment the art form was born, it was a visual art form. Soundless. Textless. Text came into it, and then sound, and then color, and then wide-screen, and then surround sound and IMAX and ATMOS etc.

But the foundation of cinema is visual storytelling. Narrative cinema and TV news are not the same thing. A guy can stare and talk to you for a hour on TV. Try that in a cinema, you might provoke a riot.

The social network was a movie which was very dialoguedriven,and there was nothing boring about it.You need substance and to handle that correctly.You could say that about most artform just slightly refrained to be honest,so maybe it was a goobledygook answer...

I don't think you and I are on the same page. Cinema communicates with moving pictures. That's what it is. Sound and dialog are embellishments. I'm not doubting the ability to dramatize anything in film. I'm just saying there are issues when adapting long discussions into a work of cinema.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

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.

That's one of the things I don't like in ROTK - it's stupid, it's silly and it's pointless. The stakes are high enough already and the whole connection between Arwen's weakness and the fate of The Ring is odd. The same point could have been made with Elrond telling Aragorn that yes, Arwen will stay in Middle-Earth but her fate now lies with those of everyone else's. Still not needed but it at least doesn't try and make it all mystically connected.

But I just ignore that moment in the film and never think of it for the rest of the story! I never, ever feel that Aragorn is fighting for her specifically. His "For Frodo" moment is proof if it were ever needed that his motives to do right and his willingness to sacrifice himself for the greater good are the right ones. Thank goodness they never thought to have "For Arwen" there instead.

(I will say though that his reunion with her at Minas Tirith is a beautiful moment, well played by all three. Especially Weaving - his look of pride and happiness twinged with anguish and grief is perfect)

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

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).

This is it exactly - fits and starts. And I love the material it's covering so it doesn't reflect badly on the film for me, it's just why I feel it's a tad lower than FOTR and ROTK for me (though ROTK can be a bit fitty-starty as well). I understand the motives for the Warg attack and Aragorn going off a cliff, it's not a bad scene at all. It just sticks out as unnecessary in the grand scheme of things plot-wise, especially if you know the plot. I'm not against Jackson and co. adding their own material and I understand the need for the scene. Maybe if the Wargs just looked a bit better? But yes, it was always the most tricky book to adapt and, considering the challenges faced, they did an incredible job overall.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

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.

Not at all - just as I hope you don't think I'm saying TTT is a bad film! Just that, if I had to put them in order, it would be the third on the list for me. But I still love and admire it. It's an incredible movie. I don't want you to think I somehow look down upon it as the bastard child of the trilogy.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

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.

I think the summer release of the final film is (to a degree) so they can get the Blu-ray release out of the holiday rush. If the film is in theaters during the holiday season, that means the video release wouldn't be until the next spring, when you're trying to score Easter sales.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Josh

I think the summer release of the final film is (to a degree) so they can get the Blu-ray release out of the holiday rush. If the film is in theaters during the holiday season, that means the video release wouldn't be until the next spring, when you're trying to score Easter sales.

I'm sure that had something to do with it - it's never bothered them with the other films being released theatrically at Christmas but I guess if Warners were banking on Hobbit/LOTR Complete Collections for Christmas 2014 then this is a way to still ensure that. I think that's just a bonus though - I think they chose the release date because they were worried they'd get lynched if they said fans would have to wait another year to see the conclusion they were promised to see in December 2013. It seems a fair compromise and Warners, who seem happy about the summer release potential and will benefit from having the blu-ray out in time for Christmas, do well out of it as well.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

I'm sure that had something to do with it - it's never bothered them with the other films being released theatrically at Christmas but I guess if Warners were banking on Hobbit/LOTR Complete Collections for Christmas 2014 then this is a way to still ensure that. I think that's just a bonus though - I think they chose the release date because they were worried they'd get lynched if they said fans would have to wait another year to see the conclusion they were promised to see in December 2013. It seems a fair compromise and Warners, who seem happy about the summer release potential and will benefit from having the blu-ray out in time for Christmas, do well out of it as well.

The only danger being a single sentence..."What if they suck?" Matrix Revolutions and Back to the Future III were both hurt by the fact that everyone saw Matrix Reloaded and Back to the Future II, but few people were crazy about them, and the third films came out relatively soon after the second (which then hurt the third films). Lucas gave everyone three years to calm down and re-build hype between each of his prequel films, if you need contrast. The people who put Arwen at Helm's Deep better have their heads screwed on straight for this.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The only danger being a single sentence..."What if they suck?" Matrix Revolutions and Back to the Future III were both hurt by the fact that everyone saw Matrix Reloaded and Back to the Future II, but few people were crazy about them, and the third films came out relatively soon after the second (which then hurt the third films). Lucas gave everyone three years to calm down and re-build hype between each of his prequel films, if you need contrast. The people who put Arwen at Helm's Deep better have their heads screwed on straight for this.

Back to the Future Part II was ahead of its time!

I agree about Matrix though - even if Reloaded is a huge step above Revolutions (it failed in its ambition but at least it had ambition) the dip in quality between that and the first meant a huge drop by the third, box office-wise . But then if they did suck then would the extra few months between Hobbit II and III have made much difference? I mean if it had been a December release rather than a July one?

I guess if it was just the two films then at least it'd be over with as soon as possible but, should Hobbit I now be awful, it'll be a sliding scale of box office retuns and public interest for two more films. Either way's bad but splitting the three does risk prolonging the agaony.

Of course, Lord of the Rings only had a year part each one (though, interestingly, the original plan was every six months - FOTR Christmas 2001, Towers summer 2002, King Christmas 2002) and it worked out pretty well for them as they didn't suck so all we can do is hope history repeats itself. Mind you, as much as I love Lord of the Rings, I would be morbidly curious in seeing an alternative universe where Fellowship came out, was reviled by critics, fans and the publis alike, and absolutely flopped, just to see what happened with the other two.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

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?

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

the whole connection between Arwen's weakness and the fate of The Ring is odd. The same point could have been made with Elrond telling Aragorn that yes, Arwen will stay in Middle-Earth but her fate now lies with those of everyone else's. Still not needed but it at least doesn't try and make it all mystically connected.

I believe we will see more of the same in The Hobbit, as there are essentially no female characters in the original story. Therefore, Jackson and Boyens will have some leeway with any minor female characters that they will undoubtedly put into the film to fill that gap. Unfortunately, Arwen was a known character and her amplified role in the LotR movies was particularly confusing. Since she never possessed the Ring (and the Rivendell and Lothlorien Elves were well aware of the deceptions of Sauron), its influence over her would have been minimal, or more likely zero. As the daughter of Elrond, she was one of the Half-Elven, consequently (similar to her brothers Elrohir and Elladan) her fate was of her own choosing. Her dropping the book and commencing the dying process was a big "WTF?" moment in the films.

[Ernest Rister]

You know, I just realized something, and I guess I'm silly for thinking otherwise...but I just re-read The Hobbit a few months ago (my wife and I read to each other at night instead of watching TV, she picks a book, then I pick one, etc...yeah, we're square, whatever)...and it has dawned on me that we're not going to experience this story from Bilbo's point of view. We're going to be going all over the map. We're going to see certain people mortally wounded. Going to see every clanging step of the Battle of Five Armies. Going to see what Beorn is up to. Everything Gandalf is up to. It's going to be a multi-story thread film, similar to Towers and Return of the King. The best film of the prior trilogy is Fellowship, because they mostly stay with Frodo, and exclude all the terciary things that have nothing to do with Frodo's quest. It was concise, it flowed great, no one reasonable felt terribly aggrieved about passages left behind. It worked splendidly.

They are taking a property that by all common sense *should* work like that, but they are now doing the exact opposite of what they did with Fellowship, and throwing in all these terciary bits. I'm halfway expecting to see Tom Bombadil show up. I'm concerned, friends. Remember what a devastating moment it is in the book, when Bilbo comes into a certain place and sees what has happened after certain battle, and visits the side of a certain someone who "must now leave the world"? I bet you my right leg that instead of seenig this through Bilbo's eyes, we're now going to see exactly how that person receives the mortal wounds, probably in slow motion while a boy's choir chants in the background. And the entire movie is going to be like that. All the things that happened off stage, will now be on stage, even though we didn't need to see them for the story to work.

I'm concerned, friends.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

You know, I just realized something, and I guess I'm silly for thinking otherwise...but I just re-read The Hobbit a few months ago (my wife and I read to each other at night instead of watching TV, she picks a book, then I pick one, etc...yeah, we're square, whatever)...and it has dawned on me that we're not going to experience this story from Bilbo's point of view. We're going to be going all over the map. We're going to see certain people mortally wounded. Going to see every clanging step of the Battle of Five Armies. Going to see what Beorn is up to. Everything Gandalf is up to. It's going to be a multi-story thread film, similar to Towers and Return of the King. The best film of the prior trilogy is Fellowship, because they mostly stay with Frodo, and exclude all the terciary things that have nothing to do with Frodo's quest. It was concise, it flowed great, no one reasonable felt terribly aggrieved about passages left behind. It worked splendidly.

They are taking a property that by all common sense *should* work like that, but they are now doing the exact opposite of what they did with Fellowship, and throwing in all these terciary bits. I'm halfway expecting to see Tom Bombadil show up. I'm concerned, friends. Remember what a devastating moment it is in the book, when Bilbo visits the side of a certain someone who "must now leave the world"? I bet you my right leg that we're now going to see exactly how that person receives the mortal wounds, probably in slow motion while a boy's choir chants in the background. And the entire movie is going to be like that. All the things that happened off stage, will now be on stage, even though we didn't need to see them for the story to work.

I'm concerned, friends.

I had the same concern when I read it earlier this year. I'd second your guess about the demise of the person "who must now leave the world". Among the many alterations, we can also imagine that the destruction of 'a-certain-animal', which occupied one chapter in the book (Fire and Water), will now fill the majority of one of the three movies (with the mandatory grotesque deaths), the "short rest" at Rivendell (a brief chapter in the book) may no longer be short or a rest, etc. What was once a children's book may not be suitable as a children's movie.

[Witch King of Angmar]

The Avengers has grossed over 1.5 billion worldwide and Dark Knight Rises, 1 billion. Hope Hobbit Part 1 beats them both.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Witch King of Angmar

The Avengers has grossed over 1.5 billion worldwide and Dark Knight Rises, 1 billion. Hope Hobbit Part 1 beats them both.

That is a reasonable hope if the popularity of the book and the success of the Lord of the Rings movies are an indicator. According to the wiki list of best-selling books, only A Tale of Two Cities, The Little Prince, and The Lord of the Rings have sold more copies than The Hobbit (over 100 million copies - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books), and of course many more copies will be sold as the release of the first film approaches. International popularity should also be assured, as the LotR movies did very well internationally and the The Hobbit book has been published in over 40 languages.

[Duffy12]

.

Possible leaked pics of the Great Goblin-

[Show spoiler]

And one of his minions-

[Show spoiler]

The stuff NIGHTMARES are made of.

.

[stvn1974]

OK, I am not a Hobbit or LOTR expert so bare with me. Do you think these films will tie in with the theatrical LOTR releases or the extended versions?

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

OK, I am not a Hobbit or LOTR expert so bare with me. Do you think these films will tie in with the theatrical LOTR releases or the extended versions?

both. The EE simply adds more to the story but regardless it would all fit in

[kjacobs03]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

.

Possible leaked pics of the Great Goblin-

[Show spoiler]

And one of his minions-

[Show spoiler]

The stuff NIGHTMARES are made of.

.

One word. Grotesque!

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

.

Possible leaked pics of the Great Goblin-

[Show spoiler]

And one of his minions-

[Show spoiler]

The stuff NIGHTMARES are made of.

.

The Goblin King looks a bit like a messed-up Vogon for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

[Show spoiler]

And his minion looks like a mutated version of The Flukeman from The X-Files:

[Show spoiler]

But they both look awesome. Grotesque and mangled. Brilliant. Not what I was expecting - in my mind they were much more humanoid but this is much better. Just horrible things, as they should be.