The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by Col. Zombie

Have you not seen the new trailer for it? It was just released.

The Hobbit - The Desolation of Smaug Trailer - YouTube

EPIC I CANT WAIT !!

[MoulinBlu]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I thought I read and it was assumed that the Tolkien Estate pretty much has not allowed Peter Jackson anywhere near to what's in the Silmarillion and film it.

I wonder what Jackson was reportedly pooling from then, as I know this trilogy is supposed to incorporate more than just The Hobbit.

Was the Tolkien Estate not happy with Jackson's portrayal of LotRs?

[Coach81]

My 11 yo and I are really pumped about this also!!!

[Groge511]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

You have the home theatre and collection of a 30-40 year old. Good job!

Thanks man. I've lived on my own since i was 18 so I've been building my collection for a while and i'm constantly trying to make my living room look better. Love displaying my blus!

[radagast]

Originally Posted by MoulinBlu

I wonder what Jackson was reportedly pooling from then, as I know this trilogy is supposed to incorporate more than just The Hobbit.

Was the Tolkien Estate not happy with Jackson's portrayal of LotRs?

The material in the appendices at the end of LOTR is allowed.

And no, Christopher doesn't like the movie versions.

[MoulinBlu]

Originally Posted by radagast

And no, Christopher doesn't like the movie versions.

Really? Despite all the money that was put into it, all the money they made off of it, and how well it was received, not to mention the renewed attention it brought the books? I know it's not verbatim, but as movie adaptations go, it's about as close to the original work as movies come. I'd love to hear his thoughts on it.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by MoulinBlu

I assumed you were referring to the tech, as that's the only part of Crighton's writing that seemed like it might be hard to follow.

Yep, goes over my head, and in the two I've tried it's mostly biology. My area is theoretical propulsion, quantum physics and astronomy. If I don't understand the tech, I simply can't enjoy the story cause I spend too much time thinking about the science and start ignoring the paragraphs I'm reading.

Great writer, not for me though!

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I thought I read and it was assumed that the Tolkien Estate pretty much has not allowed Peter Jackson anywhere near to what's in the Silmarillion and film it.

Originally Posted by radagast

And no, Christopher doesn't like the movie versions.

Originally Posted by MoulinBlu

Really? Despite all the money that was put into it, all the money they made off of it, and how well it was received, not to mention the renewed attention it brought the books? I know it's not verbatim, but as movie adaptations go, it's about as close to the original work as movies come. I'd love to hear his thoughts on it.

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."

[SethRex]

Wow...if The Lord of the Rings is an action trilogy for 12-25...then wow.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by SethRex

Wow...if The Lord of the Rings is an action trilogy for 12-25...then wow.

What would he say if Michael Bay did these movies?

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by SethRex

Wow...if The Lord of the Rings is an action trilogy for 12-25...then wow.

I think that Jackson did an excellent job for the most part. The Lord of the Rings was an extremely difficult novel to film, and comparing any movie adaptation to the book would be commensurate to comparing apples to oranges. Tolkien's goal for creating his Middle-earth saga was to provide a mythology for his beloved England, and he put forth an effort worthy of an Oxford professor of Anglo-Saxon and the English language. A self-proclaimed "philologist", he carefully considered every word, phrase, concept, and context used in the book, and rewrote every chapter, some of them many times, over a period of about 12 years.

Even with three movies, Jackson did not have the luxury to develop all of the subplots and details of the book, nor would have any movie producer. He was correct to omit many of the scenes, for example the trip to Tom Bombadil's house and the Scouring of the Shire. Where Jackson and Boyen erred (IMO), was not so much with excessive action as with deviation from the basic ideals and concepts presented in the novel. The use of their own dialog often seems handicapped or excessively rudimentary compared to Tolkien's thoroughly considered verbage, and the personality traits of some of the characters have been distorted, in some cases almost 180 degrees. Jackson's trademark amplified action scenes are for the most part welcome, but (without going into detail) occasionally the excessiveness begins to wear on the viewer. I believe the success of the LotR movie trilogy is due to his keeping the storyline more or less close to that of the book.

On the other hand, with The Hobbit movie, based on a much less serious novel, Jackson seems to have thrown caution to the wind. There is no point in addressing individual scenes, as they have been discussed many times in the Hobbit movies threads. But the greater deviation from the novel - and the LotR Appendices, on which the additional length is supposedly justified - has made the first of the Hobbit movie installments very uneven. The hope of advocates of the novels (such as myself) is that Jackson gets back on track with the second and third Hobbit movies, and brings them up to the level of his LotR productions.

Originally Posted by Galactus

What would he say if Michael Bay did these movies?

I like most of Bay's work, but I don't think this subject matter would have been up his alley. It is probably best that Jackson is at the helm.

[Brightstar]

The movies will never be as good as the books but i would love to have a six movie maraton

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I think that Jackson did an excellent job for the most part. The Lord of the Rings was an extremely difficult novel to film, and comparing any movie adaptation to the book would be commensurate to comparing apples to oranges. Tolkien's goal for creating his Middle-earth saga was to provide a mythology for his beloved England, and he put forth an effort worthy of an Oxford professor of Anglo-Saxon and the English language. A self-proclaimed "philologist", he carefully considered every word, phrase, concept, and context used in the book, and rewrote every chapter, some of them many times, over a period of about 12 years.

Even with three movies, Jackson did not have the luxury to develop all of the subplots and details of the book, nor would have any movie producer. He was correct to omit many of the scenes, for example the trip to Tom Bombadil's house and the Scouring of the Shire. Where Jackson and Boyen erred (IMO), was not so much with excessive action as with deviation from the basic ideals and concepts presented in the novel. The use of their own dialog often seems handicapped or excessively rudimentary compared to Tolkien's thoroughly considered verbage, and the personality traits of some of the characters have been distorted, in some cases almost 180 degrees. Jackson's trademark amplified action scenes are for the most part welcome, but (without going into detail) occasionally the excessiveness begins to wear on the viewer. I believe the success of the LotR movie trilogy is due to his keeping the storyline more or less close to that of the book.

He could have given the movie a different pace and emphasized different aspect of the books.I know this is ,but the LotR movies are basicly actionmovies sprinkled with some popcorn dramatics.

I know this has been discussed ad-nausum.Am eagerly awaiting the next Hobbit movie though.Trip through mirkwood will be epic me thinks

[legendarymatt92]

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'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.

[Grand Bob]

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.

I agree with this and wish that Christopher had at least given the LotR films a chance. Despite some plot and character misgivings, they are great movies and represent a tremendous effort of the production crew, perhaps the greatest ever in film. The LotR movies successfully combine the "feel" of the book (particularly "The Fellowship of the Ring") with the action that movie audiences crave. Although this is not as true with The Hobbit AUJ, the remaining two movies may steer the production back on track.

[Constitution 101]

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.

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.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I think that Jackson did an excellent job for the most part. The Lord of the Rings was an extremely difficult novel to film, and comparing any movie adaptation to the book would be commensurate to comparing apples to oranges. Tolkien's goal for creating his Middle-earth saga was to provide a mythology for his beloved England, and he put forth an effort worthy of an Oxford professor of Anglo-Saxon and the English language. A self-proclaimed "philologist", he carefully considered every word, phrase, concept, and context used in the book, and rewrote every chapter, some of them many times, over a period of about 12 years.

Even with three movies, Jackson did not have the luxury to develop all of the subplots and details of the book, nor would have any movie producer. He was correct to omit many of the scenes, for example the trip to Tom Bombadil's house and the Scouring of the Shire. Where Jackson and Boyen erred (IMO), was not so much with excessive action as with deviation from the basic ideals and concepts presented in the novel. The use of their own dialog often seems handicapped or excessively rudimentary compared to Tolkien's thoroughly considered verbage, and the personality traits of some of the characters have been distorted, in some cases almost 180 degrees. Jackson's trademark amplified action scenes are for the most part welcome, but (without going into detail) occasionally the excessiveness begins to wear on the viewer. I believe the success of the LotR movie trilogy is due to his keeping the storyline more or less close to that of the book.

On the other hand, with The Hobbit movie, based on a much less serious novel, Jackson seems to have thrown caution to the wind. There is no point in addressing individual scenes, as they have been discussed many times in the Hobbit movies threads. But the greater deviation from the novel - and the LotR Appendices, on which the additional length is supposedly justified - has made the first of the Hobbit movie installments very uneven. The hope of advocates of the novels (such as myself) is that Jackson gets back on track with the second and third Hobbit movies, and brings them up to the level of his LotR productions.

Well said. Despite some small and large errors in the LOTR films, I feel Jackson did his best, and those 3 films will always be considered groundbreaking epics of cinema. Three behemoths that revitalized, and changed the faantasy genre and much more.

The Hobbit on the other hand is off to, as you say, an uneven start, and I don't see that changing. You've seen what they've done with the Barrels out of Bonds scene. Based on the filming I was expecting a simple river ride similar to the scene in FOTR when the fellowship is leaving Lorien. Some rapids, btu for the most part just a ride down the river culminating in the reveal of the Lonely Mountain. Instead we are getting some action monstrosity with tree running arrow shooting elves and orcs and barrels being thrown around. It looks like some ridiculous theme park ride. I get the feeling that this is one of those sequences that was filled out when they decided to do 3 films. I just don't know. The Hobbit could have been so much more than this, another epic, an epic that would more appeal to all ages. Instead it has turned into a schizophrenic bloated trilogy. When it's all done, if it has turned itself around and reached the heights of LOTR then I will of course admit I was wrong, but so far this trilogy is heading down a bad road. My hope is that down the road someone else wrestles the rights back from the Tolkien estate, and does a new adaption of the Hobbit.

[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. And pigeonholing the LotRs trilogy as some mindless action series? That's so unjustified, so far out of left field, I can't even comprehend it.

As for The Hobbit, I don't know what others expected, but I had rather low expectations considering the length and scope of the story was so much smaller, yet still being spread over three films of comparable length to the LotRs films. Granted, I've only read The Hobbit once, and that was at least 15 years ago, but I feared it would be like The Deathly Hallows, where they obviously were just milking the fanbase, stretching it out, unnecessarily. But, Jackson proved me wrong with the first, providing a constantly engaging story arc that went by faster than most 90 minute movies. And everyone I was with concurred.

The books aren't slow, methodic, melodramas; the films shouldn't play out like 2001 or Solaris. As they were originally children's stories, naturally Tolkein would include a lot of action. So, I don't understand why his grandson might imply otherwise. Sure, some of the bigger battles can be rather tiring, but considering the length of the narratives driving us there, to condense them too much would have crippled their significance in the film format. The LotRs was one of the least compromising film adaptations I've ever seen. It's almost amazing that a studio like New Line would/could bankrole such an endeavor, much less leave it to someone who, at the time, wasn't regarded among the ranks of Cameron, Spielberg, etc.

[LynxFX]

I'm surprised how little talk there is about the actual trailer. I was surprised to see it attached to Man of Steel. I didn't even know the trailer was coming yet. I'll admit that the Hobbit has taken a little bit longer to grow on me, but after seeing it a couple times now I am really enjoying it. It is a tad goofy at times, like the troll scene, but it is still a beautiful epic in Middle Earth. Part 2 looks to be even more intense.

I could give a shit what Christopher Tolkein thinks. He just comes off as a pretentious ass. The books will always be there for those that want them. I, however, love the films and will enjoy them as such.

[Galactus]

Is there a longer version of the song they were signing by the fireplace?


EDIT: Nevermind I found it.