The Hobbit

Also thought you guys might like this. Forbes' 2012 Most Valuable 15 Fictional Estates:

On top of the list is the ancient red-golden dragon Smaug, known by hobbits and dwarves across Middle Earth as “Smaug the Tremendous” and “Smaug the Unassessably Wealthy.” Smaug’s personal fortune jumped 16% from last year to $62 billion after wyrm watchers crafted a more detailed analysis of his massive hoard of coins, jewels and antiques.
Click to expand...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2012/04/20/2012-forbes-fictional-15/

 
whatevs, this is just a huge ripoff of that lame lord of the rings movies. i heard they even tried to make books based off those movies.

 
Enhance89 said:
Po Belini said:
knapplc said:
Po Belini said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
No. Bilbo gets separated from the Dwarves in tunnels under the mountains, and blindly fumbles along until he's in a subterreanean chamber with an ice cold lake and he literally stumbles upon the ring which Gollum had lost earlier. Or rather the Ring abandoned Gollum.

From there he puts the Ring into his pocket, encounters Gollum, has the Riddle Game, and the rest is literary history.

And point of correction: The first Hobbit film is set for a December 2012 release, not 2013.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I tend to agree with Landlord regarding the direction of the movies. I think most of what knapp mentioned ended up there. Could there have been more done to make out the Gondorians and humans in general as having more strength? Potentially, but ultimately, I think it showed the strengths and failings of men in Middle-Earth all too well. And I had also read the trilogy many times before the movies came out. I actually liked the way Jackson framed much of what he left out, in that he mentioned that just because they didn't include it didn't mean it didn't happen. The biggest problem I have with the trilogy had to do with the way the ending was framed. Because the ending gave a much different meaning to what happened in the Shire than what the books did. I was okay with the death of Saruman in the extended versions (I thought the dismissal of him in the regular versions was a tad bit TOO dismissive of who Saruman was), but what got left out with the way Jackson was approached it was that it made it seem as though life in general went on in the Shire as it always had, without being touched by the war that ravaged the rest of the world. Tolkien's whole point in the books was that war touches EVERYONE, and touches ALL places. Jackson's ending fit way too neatly with today's American idea that war that doesn't personally affect us doesn't touch us. Tolkien had seen the travesties of war touch all parts of the globe, and drew an ending to fit with that belief, which I felt more accurately protrays the reality than Jackson's endings did. I know they already felt like they had too many 'endings' for the movie the way it was, but I felt, if anything, that piece drew away too much from the books. But in the end... it's not really the books on the screen, but the director's (and to a certain extent the screenwriter's) vision of the books on the screen. And every time I see a movie interpretation of a book, ultimately, that's what I have to come back to. Because there are VERY few movies that can live up to what we can create with our own imagination while reading a book. :)

 
HuskerFanChuck said:
I tend to agree with Landlord regarding the direction of the movies. I think most of what knapp mentioned ended up there. Could there have been more done to make out the Gondorians and humans in general as having more strength? Potentially, but ultimately, I think it showed the strengths and failings of men in Middle-Earth all too well.
Click to expand...

Parkour Legolas. Legolas the Oliphaunt slayer (while performing more Parkour). Denethor as this vile, disgusting creature rather than a Lord of Men. The brilliance of the Two Towers cliffhanger (Frodo was alive but taken by the enemy) tossed aside needlessly. The forces of Mordor entering Minas Tirith. Shelob in the third act rather than the centerpiece of the second's denoument. All these you're OK with? We'll have to agree to disagree.

Regarding Sam, which was a minor part of my discourse up there but which got all the focus, yes it did "end up there," but that's not the point. I simply didn't like how he handled it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogies said:
I'm OK with parkour Legolas :P
Click to expand...
yagottabekiddingme.gif


 
knapplc said:
HuskerFanChuck said:
I tend to agree with Landlord regarding the direction of the movies. I think most of what knapp mentioned ended up there. Could there have been more done to make out the Gondorians and humans in general as having more strength? Potentially, but ultimately, I think it showed the strengths and failings of men in Middle-Earth all too well.
Click to expand...

Parkour Legolas. Legolas the Oliphaunt slayer (while performing more Parkour). Denethor as this vile, disgusting creature rather than a Lord of Men. The brilliance of the Two Towers cliffhanger (Frodo was alive but taken by the enemy) tossed aside needlessly. The forces of Mordor entering Minas Tirith. Shelob in the third act rather than the centerpiece of the second's denoument. All these you're OK with? We'll have to agree to disagree.

Regarding Sam, which was a minor part of my discourse up there but which got all the focus, yes it did "end up there," but that's not the point. I simply didn't like how he handled it.
Click to expand...
Aye, I believe we will have to agree to disagree. I could argue points on all of those, but ultimately, you have your mind made up (and I had mine made up a while ago), so further discourse is probably going to avail us not. Again, for the most part, I agree with Landlord, though I can appreciate the comments you've made. (And I've heard similar before, so you're obviously not alone in that thinking.) As I stated above, ultimately, in movies made from books like these, I've taken to being content with the fact that the film is the director's concept of the book, and not necessarily a pure and accurate rendition of the book. I could go on for hours about pieces of the Chronicles of Narnia films that I have problems with... but again... I take them simply as the director's vision of CS Lewis' stories.

I did enjoy reading your comments, even though I didn't necessarily agree. To see others so passionate about early fantasy literature that I hold dear is truly a treasure every time I find it.

 
I think the reason I'm so hard on Jackson is that he got so many things right. I probably like 95% of the movies. The gripes I have are only on things that he didn't need to change, but changed anyway.

  • I think he nailed Gollum. Absolutely fantastic.
  • Loved Galadriel. I would never have cast Cate Blanchett, but she's perfect.
  • The Hobbits were not only cast well, but shot well. Cinematographically they were a huge success, as was Gimli.
  • Loved Legolas, both the actor and the look.
  • Loved, loved, loved that he relied heavily on Alan Lee for art direction. Lee's vision of Middle Earth very nearly matches mine that I formed in my head reading these books as a child.
  • I thought Shelob was tremendous (even if she was in the wrong movie).
  • Loved the Ringwraiths, the Ents, the look of Minas Tirith and really all locations - Rivendell, Lothlorien, the Argonath, Isengard, Hobbiton, Bree... it was all done very well. Looked perfect.
  • I thought Jackson's Balrog was a tour-de-force. Tremendously well done - so much so that I blew ridiculous amounts of money and I have a Balrog action figure nearly two feet tall with nearly three-foot-wide wings.
  • I thought the battles were very well-done. Liked them all, except for the Rohan refugee battle in which Aragorn was lost for a while - unnecessary and silly, and if he wanted to throw in an extra battle he should have used the "lost" chapter from LOTR written by Tolkien himself and included The Battle of the Fords of Isen from The Book of Lost Tales.
  • I didn't like Faramir. I thought both he and Boromir should have been dark-haired, not red-headed. That was very distracting to me. However, I thought Sean Bean played a very good Boromir, and the guy who did Faramir was OK.


I could go on and on. I really, really liked these movies. My gripes are those of an ultra-purist, and I acknowledge that I am greatly picking nits when I gripe about them.

 
I think Jackson's depiction of Sauron was pretty iconic, even if interpretive. I cannot complain too much about it, but I wonder if LOTR ever gets a remake, if a more complex, fallen angel Sauron would be more interesting and add a necessary dimension to the movie. 'Manifestation of all evil, giant glowing eye tower, body-less Dark Lord against the forces of light' is just too simple. Tolkien's work deserves a more nuanced treatment, I think...

I agree with you that Jackson got just so much of the movie right. It was spectacular. Realy though, Parkour Legolas kicked a$$. It was awesome. :P

I have one major gripe with the third film though. Jackson's army of the dead served a very different purpose than they did in the book, where I believe they simply scared off a contingent of human reinforcements going to the aid of Sauron's armies. In ROTK, the good guys are getting their butts kicked in an impossibly outmached fight. Until the indestructible million-man green army swarms in and demolishes everything in sight, like a termite infestation. Good guys shouldn't get to push a cheat button, "Destroy All Enemies", when the going gets tough. That battle was way too extraordinary and epic to be concluded via Deus Ex Machina. It's unforgivable.

 
NICE!!! I especially like that they got an actor to play the young Bilbo that looks so much like Sir Ian Holm. Very nice work done by casting on that. Can't wait!

 
The guy playing Bilbo is the same actor who played the sex-scene lighting double in Love Actually, right?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top