The Hobbit

[knapplc]

For those who have read the book, is this movie going to be more like Fellowship of the Ring where there isn't a ton of action or Return of the King with some cool fighting scenes? Just trying to get a feel for how much fighting will be in this movie.

 

It's going to depend a lot on how Jackson lays out his background story. The reason this movie is two parts is that he wanted to tell a much broader story than what Tolkien put into The Hobbit, and that could entail any number of things, from Gandalf's work against the Necromancer when he leaves the party at the gates of Mirkwood, or if he wants to provide some background on Thorin that could include The War of the Orcs and Dwarves, including the bloody final Battle of Azanulbizar.

 

I believe Jackson wants to flesh out the Aragorn character, including his relationship with Arwen and possibly some of his work in defense of the West in his earlier life, so that could include some of the battles he fought with the Rohirrim and the Gondorians back in the day.

 

There are a lot of possibilities for action, but of course, the Big Action comes late in the story. So expect the grandest battles in the second movie.

[Enhance]

For those who have read the book, is this movie going to be more like Fellowship of the Ring where there isn't a ton of action or Return of the King with some cool fighting scenes? Just trying to get a feel for how much fighting will be in this movie.

 

It's going to depend a lot on how Jackson lays out his background story. The reason this movie is two parts is that he wanted to tell a much broader story than what Tolkien put into The Hobbit, and that could entail any number of things, from Gandalf's work against the Necromancer when he leaves the party at the gates of Mirkwood, or if he wants to provide some background on Thorin that could include The War of the Orcs and Dwarves, including the bloody final Battle of Azanulbizar.

There's a strong possibility that this movie will have a different feel than the Lord of the Rings because of the production process this time. Peter Jackson did not play as integral of a role in the script creation and story boarding of The Hobbit. In fact, Jackson wasn't the original director - Guillermo del Toro was.

 

Personally, I think Jackson did an excellent job making correct cinematic choices in the LOTR trilogies to help the books transition to film, but I'm interested to see how this one plays out. I think I'll enjoy it regardless.

[Ratt Mhule]

For those who have read the book, is this movie going to be more like Fellowship of the Ring where there isn't a ton of action or Return of the King with some cool fighting scenes? Just trying to get a feel for how much fighting will be in this movie.

 

It's going to depend a lot on how Jackson lays out his background story. The reason this movie is two parts is that he wanted to tell a much broader story than what Tolkien put into The Hobbit, and that could entail any number of things, from Gandalf's work against the Necromancer when he leaves the party at the gates of Mirkwood, or if he wants to provide some background on Thorin that could include The War of the Orcs and Dwarves, including the bloody final Battle of Azanulbizar.

 

I believe Jackson wants to flesh out the Aragorn character, including his relationship with Arwen and possibly some of his work in defense of the West in his earlier life, so that could include some of the battles he fought with the Rohirrim and the Gondorians back in the day.

 

There are a lot of possibilities for action, but of course, the Big Action comes late in the story. So expect the grandest battles in the second movie.

 

So do you think these movies will have anything to do with how the ring came into being and the rise of Sauron? Or is it a completely different story that has nothing to do with the ring?

[The Dude]

I haven't read it since I was a kid, but I don't remember it having too much to do with the ring. It was definately my favorite children's book, I plan on reading it again closer to the movie's release.

[Enhance]

For those who have read the book, is this movie going to be more like Fellowship of the Ring where there isn't a ton of action or Return of the King with some cool fighting scenes? Just trying to get a feel for how much fighting will be in this movie.

 

It's going to depend a lot on how Jackson lays out his background story. The reason this movie is two parts is that he wanted to tell a much broader story than what Tolkien put into The Hobbit, and that could entail any number of things, from Gandalf's work against the Necromancer when he leaves the party at the gates of Mirkwood, or if he wants to provide some background on Thorin that could include The War of the Orcs and Dwarves, including the bloody final Battle of Azanulbizar.

 

I believe Jackson wants to flesh out the Aragorn character, including his relationship with Arwen and possibly some of his work in defense of the West in his earlier life, so that could include some of the battles he fought with the Rohirrim and the Gondorians back in the day.

 

There are a lot of possibilities for action, but of course, the Big Action comes late in the story. So expect the grandest battles in the second movie.

 

So do you think these movies will have anything to do with how the ring came into being and the rise of Sauron? Or is it a completely different story that has nothing to do with the ring?

Bilbo finds the Ring in The Hobbit, but it's not how The Fellowship of the Ring movie depicted it. If I'm not mistaken, Bilbo wins it from Gollum in some kind of game.

[knapplc]

How Bilbo acquired The Ring:

 

 

Bilbo found the ring after getting separated from Gandalf and the Dwarves in a goblin tunnel. It was dark and he just stuck his hand on it as he crawled along, and without thinking (the power of the Ring in action) he just stuck it in his pocket. Later he made his way down to Gollum's lake, and that's where they had the famous riddle contest. Then Bilbo used the Ring to escape from Gollum, and it played a bit part in the rest of the story. The Ring is a very small part of The Hobbit.

 

[Apathy]

I don't know how I feel about the Hobbit cause I had a love/hate relationship with LOTR movies....but I can almost guarantee that it'll be over 3 hours long. I'll probably skip out on this one....the trailer has a "wow" and "meh" feeling but I guess you have to be a fan of the LOTR movies to enjoy this.

[knapplc]

As a fan of the books, I'll watch. I have HUGE gripes about the LOTR movies. Too many to list here. But that doesn't mean I won't watch.

[HUSKER 37]

Man...This is almost as confusing as walking by a Star Trek convention.

 

Almost made me google "Hobbit"

[Enhance]

As a fan of the books, I'll watch. I have HUGE gripes about the LOTR movies. Too many to list here. But that doesn't mean I won't watch.

Having seen the movies before I read the books, I probably bring a different perspective to this. Cinematically speaking, I think they made good choices for the most part. There are several things you can't realistically include from a time stand point, or things that don't make sense according to the feel Peter Jackson was going for (aka the complete lack of Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest chapters). Or with Saruman's lordship over the shire, viewers already griped about the movie's length and this would have added an entirely new element to the whole situation.

 

Jackson made a really bold move including the spider scene in the third movie as opposed to the second. But, if he hadn't, the entirety of Frodo and Sam's journey in the third would have been numbing, and a lot of people get bored easily enough every time Frodo and Sam are cut to.

 

All that said, I know I read all the Harry Potter books before seeing their respective movies, and therefore have much larger problems with the films. I don't know if this is your case or not. But I do know that cinema and literature are two different beasts, and successful movies that attract the masses require a certain touch. Which, in the end, that's what a movie like this was all about - a paycheck.

[knapplc]

Copypasta'd from a post I made on another board:

 

 

The Battle of the Pelennor Fields didn't need the Dead one bit. The story as written by Tolkien was perfect - the coastal people were freed from the necessity of defending their shores by Aragorn and the Dead, who fulfilled their oath by routing the Corsairs at Pelargir. They captured the ships and sailed upriver along the breeze from Valinor, sent to push back the Darkness of Sauron. As they arrived at the quay, the joy of the forces of Mordor are energized as the reinforcing ships they looked for arrived. That turned their joy to dismay as they realize who mans those ships, concurrently turning the grimness of the Rohirrim and the men of Gondor to newly strengthened resolve, and the tide turned.

 

There is no need to show six hours of battle to describe the ensuing rout - jump-cuts suffice nicely. Jackson used them throughout the lengthy Battle of Helm's Deep, and there was no reason not to use it here. Instead, Jackson relied on the deux ex machina of the Dead to abruptly end what should have been an epic battle. Jackson focuses on Legolas and his Oliphaunt parkour, a childish and silly deviation that wastes way too much screen time. Use of the Dead in the battle obviates the valor of the Rohirrim and Gondorians, a central tenet to LOTR. Tolkien held the warrior mythos in high regard and infused it into his central warriors Aragorn, Eomer, Imrahil and even Theoden, who rises from dotage and dishonor to regain his manhood and die a hero. Using the Dead to sweep the foe from the field in mere minutes diminishes the struggle and triumph of these warriors. Theoden's sacrifice in particular is rendered moot - had he just waited, "skulking in the hills," the deliverance of Gondor would have been affected anyway. Jackson either doesn't grasp the warrior mythos or chooses to ignore it in favor of cheap theatrical tricks, and that is unacceptable

 

Further, throughout the LOTR Tolkien minimizes the use of magic. This is not an accident, since he wasn't writing a wizard's story, but the story of commoners doing uncommon things. Gandalf, especially after the Balrog and his rebirth, is the second most powerful creature on Middle-Earth. In another version of the story a Gandalf-like character could have, perhaps, stormed the very tower of Barad-Dur and alone challenged Sauron. But Tolkien's Gandaf doesn't do this. Instead he acts as a catalyst, working from behind to motivate the resistance. It was never Tolkien's intent to have Gandalf conjure his way out of trouble, the story is about strength of heart and character and loyalty and love. Jackson didn't - or couldn't - portray this, so he trundles out the easy fix, and the Dead do all the work.

 

But Jackson's laziness goes beyond all of this. Jackson actually had the forces of Mordor inside the city walls. Wholly unnecessary, and frankly it was the cheap way out. Jackson wanted to portray the sense of hopelessness and despair the Gondorians faced in the siege, so he had the gates fall and the foe enter. This is entirely not in keeping with the tenor of the book, and further diminishes the character and valor of the Gondorians. Minas Tirith, the citadel of Gondor, had never before been breached - no foe had passed its walls. Yet Jackson throws this away just so he can show the panic and terror of his version of Gondorians.

 

Jackson's Gondorians are a rude, mean people. There was zero subtlety in Jackson's Denethor, from his ragged robes to the disgusting way he ate. Jackson's intent was to demean the character, again an unnecessary change. Tolkien's Denethor was a lordly man, wise and powerful, a veritable king - but in the dignity of Gondor, still merely a Steward. Denethor was honorable and strong, but his respect of strength was his flaw, and his undoing. It is not impossible to create a film character so wise yet so mistaken, it just takes work. Work Jackson was unwilling to put in.

 

The walls of Minas Tirith represent not only a physical but a psychological barrier as well. They are the limit to which evil can progress. They are the boundary where the reader can see that, though evil is strong and its forces clamor, the brave can withstand them. There is a place, no matter how beleaguered, where resistance is capable of halting them. The walls of Minas Tirith are no different than the loyalty of Sam Gamgee or the courage of Faramir. Jackson's decision to put the forces of Mordor inside those walls means he entirely misunderstood these themes - or that he didn't care, and intentionally trampled them for the sake of putting his stamp on the story.

 

 

 

Similarly, the Frodo/Shelob scene was entirely mishandled. As in the Siege of Gondor, the forces of Good are beset by an Evil entirely too strong for them. Evil can't not triumph, it is so strong. But - BUT! - through courage and valor and self-sacrifice, Evil - Shelob - was thwarted. Not, this time, by some great warrior or mighty wizard, but by a common man, a gardener, unvaliant, terrified, but bound to do what he does merely out of love for his comrade. This theme is born from Tolkien's brief time in the trenches of the Somme in WWI, where he discovered a respect for the common Englishman that as an educated man pf England's upper caste he had never before held. Sam Gamgee is an amalgamation of those desperate, anonymous heroes who fought and died in WWI no less valiantly than the "upper crust" of England's gentry.

 

The story, as written by Tolkien, allows the reader time to grasp the fact that the greatest hero in LOTR isn't Aragorn, it isn't Gimli or Legolas or Gandalf or even Frodo - it's Sam, the uneducated, untrained, "unworthy"bumpkin who simply refuses to give up, whose loyalty remains steadfast throughout all trials, and without whom the Quest of the Ring would never, ever have been accomplished. We come to understand this not simply because Sam bravely (and stupidly) challenges a creature more terrible than any he's ever seen or dreamt of in his worst nightmares, but through the tireless self-sacrifice and dogged perseverance Sam displays throughout the trek across Mordor.

 

It is that time to develop the character of Sam that Jackson tosses aside in his decision to cram Shelob and the entire stage across Mordor into RotK. Instead we're given more adventure in the form of Shelob, and adventure for the sake of adventure is exactly what Tolkien did NOT write. Jackson succumbed to the pressures of Hollywood and turned what should have been a time of enlightenment into a "rollicking good time."

[The Dude]

Peter Jackson Definitely Wants To Make ‘The Hobbit’ A Trilogy And Talks Have Accelerated To Do So

 

 

 

 

 

It looks like Peter Jackson will be making a third Hobbit film after all. At least, that’s what he’s decided he wants to do, according to The Hollywood Reporter. In the past few days, logistical talks have “accelerated” between the director, his producing partners and Warner Bros., who would be open to the idea if the finances worked out.

 

Further reading.

[knapplc]

That article has at least one thing wrong - The Hobbit: There and Back Again is set for release in 2013, not 2014. I would be down for a third film, six total.

 

In fact, once he's done with The Hobbit, I think Jackson should dive into some of The Silmarillion, too. There's some fantastic stuff there. He could do a movie of Narn i Hin Hurin, focus specifically on Turin/Gondolin, he could tell the tale of Beren & Luthien, or he could do a movie or two on the Fall of Numenor. Tons of stuff there.

[The Dude]

Apparently, over half of the material from the second hobbit movie was going to come from The Silmarillion anyway.

[Landlord]

Knapp, personally speaking, my biggest impression out of the last two movies before having read the books ages ago was that Sam's character was the heart and embodiment of the entire story being laid out - so perhaps you're looking for it a bit too much? Because without any foreknowledge or people directing my thought, of my own accord, from watching the movies, I arrived at the position that you think the movies SHOULD have led the viewer.