Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[2.71828.....]

As I am sure you all are aware of, the next installment of the Hobbit trilogy is about to come out.  (sooner for some of us than others)  I am just interested in what the people on this forum think about the Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit, and all things J.R.R Tolkien. 

I love the books.  I had read the Hobbit, LOTR trilogy, and the Silmarillion before The Fellowship of the Ring came out in 2001.   No movie (or series of movies) will ever be able to equal the masterpiece that Tolkien wrote.  However, when it comes to accuracy and telling the story as Tolkien told it, I found that I enjoyed the first installment of the Hobbit much more than any of the LOTR movies.  Now, it is true that there was some amount of content added to the story over what is written in the book, but I find that to be value added.  The content added helps build the story and make it suitable for the big screen.  Granted, the written style of The Hobbit definitely has a lighter feel to it (Tolkien wrote it in a tone suitable for children) than the movie, but the actual content of the book is not as light as the writing style would imply.  A lot of criticism I hear from people is that they were expecting a nice story, but when you actually look at the content of the book (dragon destroys dwarves' home, trolls, goblins, Mirkwood, Spiders, battles) it is difficult to see how you can (or would want to) make it into a nice cozy little story.  The other complaint I hear is that it is too long.  Why the trilogy.  My response: maybe this trilogy is not meant for your average movie-goer, but for your Tolkien fan.  As a Tolkien fan there are several things that I don't like about the LOTR trilogy, even though I see why they are necessary for the movie.  (Elves in Helms Deep, no scouring of the Shire, no Tom Bombadil, I could go on but those just popped up on the top of my head)  As a Tolkien fan, I found An Unexpected Journey to be quite satisfying. As a Tolkien fan, I think that The Hobbit Trilogy will be better than the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

[Watno]

I have an idea why it's a trilogy: So they can sell 3 tickets to everyone.

[2.71828.....]

I have an idea why it's a trilogy: So they can sell 3 tickets to everyone.

Well.  yeah.  they got me

[Jimmmmm]

Huge fan of the LoTR movies. I got through the books years and years ago, but I must admit, I don't really have the patience for them. Hopefully I'll have another go at them at some point. I enjoyed the first Hobbit movie, but probably not as much as LoTR. Very excited about the new one, and I'll be in LA before it comes out internationally!

[pingpongsam]

I read The Hobbit when I was far too young to comprehend or remember it.

I found the LoTR trilogy to be good entertainment but I've seen no good reason to view any of them more than once.

This Hobbit business looks like a rehash. I doubt I will bother to see any of the hobbit stuff.

Reminds me of the original Star Wars trilogy. Loved the stuff as a kid. Have never bothered to watch anything released after the first 3. From what I have seen of it I don't want to.

then there are the legions who slurp up every bit of it.

[Kuildeous]

I was concerned about the Hobbit movie because the dwarves are practically interchangeable. Who is whatsit again? And someone's name is so similar to someone else's. It was like that in the book too. I couldn't bother keeping the dwarves straight except for what's important. At least they have pretty distinctive looks in the movie, which is quite a feat when you consider that stereotypes typically make dwarves all look similar.

I liked the first installment of the Hobbit, but I hated the chase scene. It added an artificial sense of drama that did not a bit of good in the end. They still didn't get away across the plains.

Looking forward to the next one, but my extremely arachnophobic wife is going to have issues.

[Polk5440]

I love the books and the movie trilogy. Read the books multiple times. Own the movies. I think it was exceptionally well done and well deserving of all the Oscars it won and more!

I am glad they are making the Hobbit, but really, it should have just been one movie. Two at the very most if they want to add in storylines not seen on the (main) page. But not three.

As it is, The Hobbit is too safe. You know what you are going to get. I would have even liked the studio to commit to a different director to give an even lighter, more adventurous atmosphere to the movie. I don't need to see any more gratuitous Peter Jackson battle scenes. The Hobbit is not the LOTR; it should have aspired to stand apart.

Ender's Game is the model the Hobbit should have followed. Ender's Game the movie is quickly paced and adapted really well, hitting all the high points of the main story line.

But what do I know? Ender's Game did poorly at the box office, and The Hobbit is going to be three money-making blockbusters.... 

[Awaclus]

I think that the LOTR movies are very good, but AUJ is little short of a masterpiece. There's a lot of stuff that PJ did with LOTR that I don't agree with (the lack of scouring of the Shrine being the most important), but almost everything he did with AUJ improved it - the only thing that comes to mind that he shouldn't have done IMO was meddling with the timeline so that Gandalf organizes the journey and then learns about the Necromancer while he is on that journey. What on earth was Gandalf's motivation for going there in the first place then? But on the other hand, it's also understandable that PJ didn't want to have a third interlude before the story begins.

Also, I'm definitely in the "the extended edition of AUJ was too short" camp.

[AHoppy]

I hated the chase scene in the Hobbit as well (the one when they are running away from the goblins).  It was so unrealistic and overdone, and felt like it did not fit with the rest of the movie (Seriously? The one dwarf holds a ladder and it blocks all the arrows... I mean yeah creative license, but he doesn't react or anything...).  I was talking with a friend recently and he agreed, but we also came to the conclusion that that scene was added to try and give it that childhood whimsy and comic nature that is necessary because the book was geared towards a younger audience.  I feel like either they should have made the whole movie more comic and lighthearted (like the goblin scene) or the whole movie more serious (more like LOTR).  But throwing in this one scene was their attempt to do both and I think it was very bad for the movie

[Awaclus]

I hated the chase scene in the Hobbit as well (the one when they are running away from the goblins).  It was so unrealistic and overdone, and felt like it did not fit with the rest of the movie (Seriously? The one dwarf holds a ladder and it blocks all the arrows... I mean yeah creative license, but he doesn't react or anything...).  I was talking with a friend recently and he agreed, but we also came to the conclusion that that scene was added to try and give it that childhood whimsy and comic nature that is necessary because the book was geared towards a younger audience.  I feel like either they should have made the whole movie more comic and lighthearted (like the goblin scene) or the whole movie more serious (more like LOTR).  But throwing in this one scene was their attempt to do both and I think it was very bad for the movie

I feel like the comic nature of that scene adds to the distinction between orcs and goblins that PJ has been making, which is a thing that I like.

[Polk5440]

(the lack of scouring of the Shrine being the most important)

OK, fair enough. That is the one thing I was sad got changed in the trilogy. Well, the second thing. I remember thinking after seeing the Two Towers, "boy they spent a lot of time on the Battle for Helm's Deep. Are they going to have time in the third movie to get back to the Shire?" Answer: No.

I would have reduced the importance of Helm's Deep (even if it meant the Two Towers didn't have a gigantic finish -- not every Star Wars movie needed an exploding Death Star, after all) in order to include the scouring of the Shire.

I forgot where I read this, but I remember reading that PJ pitched the movie to one studio as a trilogy, it was rejected (too big of a gamble) and then reduced the script to two movies and pitched it to a second studio. The original script had the scouring of the Shire. The second did not. When the next studio approved the project, they asked, "Aren't there three books? There should be three movies." PJ chose to expand the script for the two movies into three rather than go back to his original three movie script. This is why the scouring didn't make the cut and Helm's Deep was way too long.

[AHoppy]

I hated the chase scene in the Hobbit as well (the one when they are running away from the goblins).  It was so unrealistic and overdone, and felt like it did not fit with the rest of the movie (Seriously? The one dwarf holds a ladder and it blocks all the arrows... I mean yeah creative license, but he doesn't react or anything...).  I was talking with a friend recently and he agreed, but we also came to the conclusion that that scene was added to try and give it that childhood whimsy and comic nature that is necessary because the book was geared towards a younger audience.  I feel like either they should have made the whole movie more comic and lighthearted (like the goblin scene) or the whole movie more serious (more like LOTR).  But throwing in this one scene was their attempt to do both and I think it was very bad for the movie

I feel like the comic nature of that scene adds to the distinction between orcs and goblins that PJ has been making, which is a thing that I like.

Ok, I can see that.  But at the same time, a lot of the problems I had with that scene had less to do with the actual goblins and more to do with physics if I'm perfectly honest... And while I can overlook most physics issues/implausibilities in movies, I felt like that scene went too far into the cartoon Wile E. Cyote range and I felt like it detracted from the tone of the movie.

[Witherweaver]

I think it would have felt extremely cramped as a single movie. It would feel like adventure after adventure without any long drawn-out journey.  This way the get to tell the story slowly, embellish with things that were only behind the scene and referenced to in the novel, and work on Bilbo's character development. 

The only thing I don't like is that they needed to work in a movie climax into the middle of the story, because I guess we can't see a movie that doesn't follow the generic story-telling device.  The scene with the orcs at the end felt too forced, though it did get to show Bilbo grow into more of his hero role.

I was okay with the more slapsticky feel of the action.. I chalk it up to us receiving Bilbo's rendition of the story, and I imagine as he's telling this story he exaggerates the feats.

[XerxesPraelor]

I saw the first movie, after reading all the books, of course, and wasn't very impressed. I really imagined Moria to be a ton more cramped and wasn't expecting a big cavernous inside as if the entire mountain was completely hollow. Actually, though, the main thing I didn't like about it is that they had to cut out Tom Bombadil and the entire "short cut". That was too bad.

[Awaclus]

I hated the chase scene in the Hobbit as well (the one when they are running away from the goblins).  It was so unrealistic and overdone, and felt like it did not fit with the rest of the movie (Seriously? The one dwarf holds a ladder and it blocks all the arrows... I mean yeah creative license, but he doesn't react or anything...).  I was talking with a friend recently and he agreed, but we also came to the conclusion that that scene was added to try and give it that childhood whimsy and comic nature that is necessary because the book was geared towards a younger audience.  I feel like either they should have made the whole movie more comic and lighthearted (like the goblin scene) or the whole movie more serious (more like LOTR).  But throwing in this one scene was their attempt to do both and I think it was very bad for the movie

I feel like the comic nature of that scene adds to the distinction between orcs and goblins that PJ has been making, which is a thing that I like.

Ok, I can see that.  But at the same time, a lot of the problems I had with that scene had less to do with the actual goblins and more to do with physics if I'm perfectly honest... And while I can overlook most physics issues/implausibilities in movies, I felt like that scene went too far into the cartoon Wile E. Cyote range and I felt like it detracted from the tone of the movie.

Slightly related: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-tzQahCny7TSE1ybWlpQkQtdVE/edit

[AHoppy]

I hated the chase scene in the Hobbit as well (the one when they are running away from the goblins).  It was so unrealistic and overdone, and felt like it did not fit with the rest of the movie (Seriously? The one dwarf holds a ladder and it blocks all the arrows... I mean yeah creative license, but he doesn't react or anything...).  I was talking with a friend recently and he agreed, but we also came to the conclusion that that scene was added to try and give it that childhood whimsy and comic nature that is necessary because the book was geared towards a younger audience.  I feel like either they should have made the whole movie more comic and lighthearted (like the goblin scene) or the whole movie more serious (more like LOTR).  But throwing in this one scene was their attempt to do both and I think it was very bad for the movie

I feel like the comic nature of that scene adds to the distinction between orcs and goblins that PJ has been making, which is a thing that I like.

Ok, I can see that.  But at the same time, a lot of the problems I had with that scene had less to do with the actual goblins and more to do with physics if I'm perfectly honest... And while I can overlook most physics issues/implausibilities in movies, I felt like that scene went too far into the cartoon Wile E. Cyote range and I felt like it detracted from the tone of the movie.

Slightly related: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-tzQahCny7TSE1ybWlpQkQtdVE/edit

I did read most of it, but skimmed some and that is actually very interesting.  However, my biggest problem with that was how the bridge didn't tumble.  Sliding down the side of the mountain on one side should have induced a moment in the bridge and caused it to tumble rather than slide rather gracefully down the rocks.  I don't think the article addressed that, and that was the part that made their fall look so cartoonistic to me.  But that paper does make me feel a little better about that scene

[Davio]

I'm currently reading The Silmarillion, but I'm having trouble with the part where he describes Beleriand, it's such a boring bit.

I've read The Hobbit and The Fellowship, got stuck halfway through The Two Towers, but plan on finishing everything Tolkien eventually.

I'm okay with The Hobbit, it's nowhere near as epic as LOTR, but it's also quite a different story. And it's a very weird story. With LOTR it's clear cut: The ring has to be dropped in the mountain and everyone is fighting to give Frodo a chance. With The Hobbit it's more obscure: Gandalf tells Bilbo to go battle some random dragon and Bilbo agrees. Why? And Gandalf tells Bilbo is some kind of Burglar, does he have foresight of him finding the ring? And if so, why does Gandalf need several years to confirm the authenticity of the one ring? The side story of The Hobbit is much more interesting: The return of Sauron as the Necromancer in Dol Guldur, suffering a predicted loss to retreat to Mordor. So they had to battle Smaug, because Smaug might have been recruited by Sauron? It's a bit weak.

The Hobbit has also been after-edited to fit in with the LOTR, making it make even less sense.

Don't get me wrong, I like the story and everything that Bilbo and the Dwarves come across, but it's a bit convoluted.

[Witherweaver]

I'm currently reading The Silmarillion, but I'm having trouble with the part where he describes Beleriand, it's such a boring bit.

I've read The Hobbit and The Fellowship, got stuck halfway through The Two Towers, but plan on finishing everything Tolkien eventually.

I'm okay with The Hobbit, it's nowhere near as epic as LOTR, but it's also quite a different story. And it's a very weird story. With LOTR it's clear cut: The ring has to be dropped in the mountain and everyone is fighting to give Frodo a chance. With The Hobbit it's more obscure: Gandalf tells Bilbo to go battle some random dragon and Bilbo agrees. Why? And Gandalf tells Bilbo is some kind of Burglar, does he have foresight of him finding the ring? And if so, why does Gandalf need several years to confirm the authenticity of the one ring? The side story of The Hobbit is much more interesting: The return of Sauron as the Necromancer in Dol Guldur, suffering a predicted loss to retreat to Mordor. So they had to battle Smaug, because Smaug might have been recruited by Sauron? It's a bit weak.

The Hobbit has also been after-edited to fit in with the LOTR, making it make even less sense.

Don't get me wrong, I like the story and everything that Bilbo and the Dwarves come across, but it's a bit convoluted.

Right, the story was originally a kids' tale about an adventure with wizards, dwarves, hobbits and dragons.  The story and motivations don't have to be so flushed out.  Tolkien later modified The Hobbit to fit in more with The Lord of the Rings, mainly changing Riddles in the Dark to reflect the idea that the magic ring Biblo gets is the corrupting One Ring.

The Smaug and Necromancer stories are essentially separate.  Other than a general evil-begets-evil, the journey to Smaug doesn't have much to do with Sauron.*  They're fighting Smaug because the dwarves want to retake their homeland (and their treasures).  In the background, Sauron is stirring and that has rippling effects throughout Middle Earth (more evil things in the forest, etc.).  This are referred to in passing in the book (there was a lot of "but that's a story for another time") and expanded upon later.

*You could maybe argue that Gandalf has some intuition that this course of action will eventually lead to bigger things.  He is a Wizard, after all, and essentially sent to Middle Earth by the "gods".  Maybe he had some hunches and instinct to do certain things without really knowing the details of how it would play out.

[Awaclus]

They're fighting Smaug because the dwarves want to retake their homeland (and their treasures).

The dwarves are fighting for that reason, but Gandalf's motivation is indeed related to Sauron; he fears that Sauron could use Smaug to devastate all of the North. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quest_of_Erebor

[Teproc]

Huge fan of the books (read them like ten times as a teenager, plus the Silmarilion a few times... all in French though, I'll have to read them in English someday), I like the movies well enough, but haven't seen the Hobbit yet (I was really put off by the dividing into three movies). Should I ?

[Witherweaver]

They're fighting Smaug because the dwarves want to retake their homeland (and their treasures).

The dwarves are fighting for that reason, but Gandalf's motivation is indeed related to Sauron; he fears that Sauron could use Smaug to devastate all of the North. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quest_of_Erebor

I see; I didn't read Unfinished Tales.  But, this was all after the fact, right?  As I understand it, The Hobbit was written without the greater story of The Lord of the Rings.

[Awaclus]

They're fighting Smaug because the dwarves want to retake their homeland (and their treasures).

The dwarves are fighting for that reason, but Gandalf's motivation is indeed related to Sauron; he fears that Sauron could use Smaug to devastate all of the North. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quest_of_Erebor

I see; I didn't read Unfinished Tales.  But, this was all after the fact, right?  As I understand it, The Hobbit was written without the greater story of The Lord of the Rings.

Yeah, it was after the fact.

Huge fan of the books (read them like ten times as a teenager, plus the Silmarilion a few times... all in French though, I'll have to read them in English someday), I like the movies well enough, but haven't seen the Hobbit yet (I was really put off by the dividing into three movies). Should I ?

You should, and make sure you watch the extended edition.

[Witherweaver]

Actually that link to the Quest of Erebor story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quest_of_Erebor) goes into why Gandalf chose Bilbo to accompany Thorin:

Gandalf thought Bilbo to be a suitable companion to Thorin and his Dwarves for a number of reasons. First, he had observed that Bilbo took more of an interest in the world at large than was usual for Hobbits, and was thus more likely to be adventurous. Another reason was that Smaug would not recognize the scent of a Hobbit, advantageous to a stealthy operation and likely to distract the dragon's attention. Finally, Gandalf thought that putting a Hobbit in the company would prevent Thorin, who did not think much of Hobbits and doubted Bilbo's skills, from doing anything rash, such as openly confronting Smaug.

and also Gandalf's motivation as Awaclus mentioned:

Gandalf knew that Smaug the Dragon could pose a serious threat if used by Sauron, then dwelling in Dol Guldur in Mirkwood. He was thinking about the matter when he met Thorin Oakenshield at Bree. Thorin also was concerned about Smaug, but had different motives: He wanted to reclaim the Dwarves' treasure in the Lonely Mountain. Gandalf agreed to help Thorin, though he insisted that his party must make use of stealth rather than open confrontation; for that, they would need a burglar, to whom he would take them.

To Davio's point, I think Gandalf knew/sensed that Sauron was stirring and his influence was becoming greater, but I don't think he foresaw the ring being found.

[GendoIkari]

I think that the LOTR movies are very good, but AUJ is little short of a masterpiece. There's a lot of stuff that PJ did with LOTR that I don't agree with (the lack of scouring of the Shrine being the most important), but almost everything he did with AUJ improved it - the only thing that comes to mind that he shouldn't have done IMO was meddling with the timeline so that Gandalf organizes the journey and then learns about the Necromancer while he is on that journey. What on earth was Gandalf's motivation for going there in the first place then? But on the other hand, it's also understandable that PJ didn't want to have a third interlude before the story begins.

Also, I'm definitely in the "the extended edition of AUJ was too short" camp.

I'm going to disagree with most of this. First, my LOTR background:

I read the Hobbit too long ago to remember; then after I saw the first LOTR movie in theaters, I read all 3 books before the second came out.

Anyway, first off I thought the LOTR movies were all really great, while the Hobbit was just ok. Hard to say exactly why, I just know that I didn't leave the Hobbit with the same feeling of "wow that was awesome, can't wait til the next one comes out; can't wait to go see this one again" that I had after each LOTR. I'll still see the next Hobbit in theaters though.

As for the lack of the Scouring of the Shire... I wasn't at all surprised or disappointed by it. When I was readying Return of the King, I got to the part where the ring was destroyed, and was pretty much like "wait, what? There's still almost half a book left." Then I finished reading it, and pretty much just thought it was really anti-climactic. I didn't like at all how it was done. And I remember thinking very specifically "there's no way that this whole part is going to be in the movie when that comes out. It just doesn't make for a good movie to have all these events AFTER the main climax of the film."

[Teproc]

Except Return of the King (the movie) still has a lot of screen time after the ring is destroyed. It's actually a very common criticism of the movie (the fact that it has too many endings, the destruction of the ring being the first one).

You know what, an extended Hobbit DVD might be a Christmas gift idea. I'm looking for more of those ^^.

[GendoIkari]

Except Return of the King (the movie) still has a lot of screen time after the ring is destroyed. It's actually a very common criticism of the movie (the fact that it has too many endings, the destruction of the ring being the first one).

I do agree with that. But it's still not quite the same as having a completely new story line emerge and be dealt with.

Actually the thing the annoys me most in terms of where the movies differed from the books wasn't either the scouring or Tom Bombadil's absence. It was the fact that in the book they spent 17 years planning the voyage to destroy the ring; in the movie it was 17 minutes.

[Awaclus]

Anyway, first off I thought the LOTR movies were all really great, while the Hobbit was just ok. Hard to say exactly why, I just know that I didn't leave the Hobbit with the same feeling of "wow that was awesome, can't wait til the next one comes out; can't wait to go see this one again" that I had after each LOTR.

That's also a pretty accurate explanation of my feelings about the LOTR movies, except I was too young to watch them at the time they came out so when I finally was allowed to watch them, I didn't have to wait another year after each movie. But the feeling I had after AUJ was more like "I have the worst headache ever because of the 3D, but it was so awesome I don't even regret paying extra for the 3D screening instead of a 2D one".

[GendoIkari]

Anyway, first off I thought the LOTR movies were all really great, while the Hobbit was just ok. Hard to say exactly why, I just know that I didn't leave the Hobbit with the same feeling of "wow that was awesome, can't wait til the next one comes out; can't wait to go see this one again" that I had after each LOTR.

That's also a pretty accurate explanation of my feelings about the LOTR movies, except I was too young to watch them at the time they came out so when I finally was allowed to watch them, I didn't have to wait another year after each movie. But the feeling I had after AUJ was more like "I have the worst headache ever because of the 3D, but it was so awesome I don't even regret paying extra for the 3D screening instead of a 2D one".

I never did see it in 3D. Perhaps I would have liked it more?

Also, thanks for making me feel old!

[Witherweaver]

At first I was a little bit wary of the way The Hobbit was, since it was a little more cartoonish than what I was used to.  But the acting and storytelling were good (except for the artificial climax in the Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire part), and visually it was impressive.  What really made me like the movie, though, was the Riddles in the Dark scene.  I liked that a lot, and I thought the Gollum-Bilbo interaction was excellent.

And after rereading the book (which I hadn't read since I was in elementary school), I was much more comfortable with the children's feel of the movie.

[Jimmmmm]

Actually the thing the annoys me most in terms of where the movies differed from the books wasn't either the scouring or Tom Bombadil's absence. It was the fact that in the book they spent 17 years planning the voyage to destroy the ring; in the movie it was 17 minutes.

I find this comment pretty hilarious in the context of this site.

[Davio]

I didn't mind how the LOTR movies did it, they just made it appeal to a broader audience, happens all the time. I think Peter Jackson and the entire crew did a great job on the movies, regardless of the books.

You can't just be as detailed in a movie as you can in a book. They took some shortcuts and edited some stuff out.

The Hobbit movie is just a bit more wacky as the book is too, in my view.

But I would have loved to see Tom Bombadil, because he's such an odd character.

[WinterSpartan]

I always find discussion of the LotR movies interesting because of comments like the above. (Background: Huge Tolkien fan, read the Hobbit and LotR every year in high school and college, been through the Silmarillion at least 3 times, read most of the History of Middle-Earth series, etc.)

My problem with them, which was shared by most of the Tolkien fans I knew, wasn't the cuts. We expected Tom Bombadil to be gone; we weren't shocked by the absence of the Scouring of the Shire, poignant as I find that whole sequence in the books.

The real problem I have with PJ was all of the additions. In the Two Towers, in particular, he managed to ruin all three storylines not by cutting things out (which is totally justifiable) but by ADDING things that really don't make sense in the context of Tolkien's Middle-earth. The elves at Helm's Deep, Faramir dragging the ring to Osgiliath, and the ents refusing to help (and then all magically following Treebeard towards Isengard just in case he changes his mind) were all changes that added time to the film and harmed the story, in my opinion. (I have other complaints about some of Jackson's "artistic license", but they can wait for another time.)

Because of this, I cautiously enjoyed Unexpected Journey (most of the additional material was from Tolkien, not from Jackson). But some of the changes he made have made me extremely nervous about the upcoming movies. I'll still see this one first-day, if not at midnight; but I anticipate that I'll probably spend a good portion of the following day complaining about it.

[2.71828.....]

The real problem I have with PJ was all of the additions. In the Two Towers, in particular, he managed to ruin all three storylines not by cutting things out (which is totally justifiable) but by ADDING things that really don't make sense in the context of Tolkien's Middle-earth. The elves at Helm's Deep, Faramir dragging the ring to Osgiliath, and the ents refusing to help (and then all magically following Treebeard towards Isengard just in case he changes his mind) were all changes that added time to the film and harmed the story, in my opinion.

Because of this, I cautiously enjoyed Unexpected Journey (most of the additional material was from Tolkien, not from Jackson). But some of the changes he made have made me extremely nervous about the upcoming movies. I'll still see this one first-day, if not at midnight; but I anticipate that I'll probably spend a good portion of the following day complaining about it.

Yes.  I agree completely.  Elves in Helm's Deep were nice for the average movie-goer, annoying for the Tolkien fan.  Same goes for Faramir and the Ents.  And this is why I tell my friends that the Hobbit Trilogy will be better than the LOTR trilogy.    At least if Peter Jackson continues to use pure Tolkien content.  I worry about the things that are outside of what Tolkien wrote about but Peter Jackson feels he has the creative license to include.  For example, I am a little wary of the wood-elves and how he might expand their role far beyond The Hobbit (or any book) says about them.  And wary of the Laketown people.  The only extra  non-Tolkien content in Hobbit 1 was the role that Azog plays, which I find excusable there is a real connection to The Battle of Five Armies (it is actually his son Bolg who fights in that battle, but again, an excusable oversight because there is no need to add the extra character for the movie) and it is necessary to build that climactic scene up a bit before you drop it on an unsuspecting (non-Tolkien readers) audience.

[GendoIkari]

Actually the thing the annoys me most in terms of where the movies differed from the books wasn't either the scouring or Tom Bombadil's absence. It was the fact that in the book they spent 17 years planning the voyage to destroy the ring; in the movie it was 17 minutes.

I find this comment pretty hilarious in the context of this site.

I'm missing something here. And since we all know that jokes are made funnier if you explain them, explain?

[yuma]

I loved the books and the LoR trilogy movies. They are amazing. I have watched every second of footage on the special editions--interviews, the making of, commentaries, etc, etc multiple times.

But the Hobbit was just bad. Disappointingly bad. I feel asleep! And the parts I was awake for were such low level quality I was amazed that it was coming from the same group of people.

Ian McKellen was the lone bright spot (oh and the Gollum scene was quite good), everyone else was rather blahhh... The dwarves all interchangeable, the weird wizard with the bunny pathetically lame, the Elves far more boring than I ever remember and the Goblin chase scene easily one of the most ridiculous scenes I have ever watched... The animation during that sequence was fancy, but it wasn't even remotely believable. Oh... and I could go without ever seeing Eagles in one of these movies ever again...

Oh and one last thing.... I came into the movie expecting to see the dragon. Where was the dragon? We saw parts and pieces and I certainly hope we get to see more but they just teased us up to that point.

I might watch the next one, but I am certainly not on the edge of my seat to go see it.

[Davio]

I think the Silmarillion might also make for a decent movie, making the elves appear not as noble and elitist as they do in the LOTR trilogy seems like a fun exercise.

At least we can see more of Galadriel, some of the Valar, etc, and with Morgoth we even have an antagonist ready to go. And if that's not enough: How about a battle with not one, but AN ARMY OF BALROGS!?!?! 

[Witherweaver]

I think the Silmarillion might also make for a decent movie, making the elves appear not as noble and elitist as they do in the LOTR trilogy seems like a fun exercise.

At least we can see more of Galadriel, some of the Valar, etc, and with Morgoth we even have an antagonist ready to go. And if that's not enough: How about a battle with not one, but AN ARMY OF BALROGS!?!?! 

Release the Balrog!

...s

[Teproc]

The Silmarillion is my favorite Tolkien book. It would also be the worst movie of all time.

I realize people said this about LOTR before, but come on, The Silmarillion cannot be a movie.

[Davio]

It can't as a whole.

But you can take parts of it and make them into a movie.

You know, like they did with the bible?
The bible also consists of several different stories and books, yet enough movies have been made about bible stories.

[Jimmmmm]

Actually the thing the annoys me most in terms of where the movies differed from the books wasn't either the scouring or Tom Bombadil's absence. It was the fact that in the book they spent 17 years planning the voyage to destroy the ring; in the movie it was 17 minutes.

I find this comment pretty hilarious in the context of this site.

I'm missing something here. And since we all know that jokes are made funnier if you explain them, explain?

Uh, they needed to spend more time discussing strategy and going over all the edge-cases.

[Teproc]

It can't as a whole.

But you can take parts of it and make them into a movie.

You know, like they did with the bible?
The bible also consists of several different stories and books, yet enough movies have been made about bible stories.

Good one though ? But fair enough, I could see a movie about the fall of Gondolin or Feanor and his sons.

[WinterSpartan]

It can't as a whole.

But you can take parts of it and make them into a movie.

You know, like they did with the bible?
The bible also consists of several different stories and books, yet enough movies have been made about bible stories.

Good one though ? But fair enough, I could see a movie about the fall of Gondolin or Feanor and his sons.

The most obvious movie bits from the Silmarillion are probably those that have been published as self-contained stories: the Children of Hurin (the tale of Turin Turambar) and the Akallabeth (the Downfall of Numenor). The latter has the advantage that you could actually end it with a massive battle scene and the victory of the Last Alliance - lead it right into the LotR prologue.

[() | (_) ^/]

It can't as a whole.

But you can take parts of it and make them into a movie.

You know, like they did with the bible?
The bible also consists of several different stories and books, yet enough movies have been made about bible stories.

Good one though ? But fair enough, I could see a movie about the fall of Gondolin or Feanor and his sons.

The most obvious movie bits from the Silmarillion are probably those that have been published as self-contained stories: the Children of Hurin (the tale of Turin Turambar) and the Akallabeth (the Downfall of Numenor). The latter has the advantage that you could actually end it with a massive battle scene and the victory of the Last Alliance - lead it right into the LotR prologue.

I could totally see an effective movie being made of the Silmarillion -- especially if it was a composition of a bunch of short films.  Sorta like the Animatrix, but each short being longer.

Probably wouldn't garnish much for the big screen, so I'm guessing it wouldn't make it there.

And, TBH, if it isn't going to succeed on the big screen, then it probably isn't going to be made.  Except in lower-quality than what we've come to expect from the PJ movies thus far.

[Awaclus]

I feel like the comic nature of that scene adds to the distinction between orcs and goblins that PJ has been making, which is a thing that I like.

Oh well, the barrel scene in DoS just completely ruined this, but it was necessary because otherwise the first half of the movie would have been extremely intense and difficult to watch. Besides, it can be argued that Legolas was like that in the LOTR movies, too.

Excellent movie by the way. My biggest criticisms for the time being are:
 - the beginning could have been smoother (though, seeing the movie yesterday instead of next week was a result of me missing the last bus so I hadn't prepared for it by watching AUJ right before this, so maybe it's better when you do that)
 - the scenes that were actually filmed outdoors felt slightly out of place when so many of the scenes were filmed in studio (they all were visually awesome, though, the change was just pretty obvious and that broke the immersion for a while)

On the other hand, there are so many things that positively surprised me even though my expectations were already enormously high. Looking forward to the extended edition.

[jonts26]

I'm a little late to the party but thank god they cut Tom Bombadil from the movies. I seem to be in a minority of people who never liked that character in the books, and it would have been extremely out of place on the screen.

[Awaclus]

I'm a little late to the party but thank god they cut Tom Bombadil from the movies. I seem to be in a minority of people who never liked that character in the books, and it would have been extremely out of place on the screen.

Oh yeah. It also does make the ring much scarier when there isn't a random character who can just wield it without any consequences.

[Teproc]

Do people seriously complain about Tom Bombadil ? I thought that was a joke.

I mean, I actually enjoyed the chapters in the books, but yeah, they were never going to make it into the movies.

[Dsell]

Going to see the midnight premiere of Desolation of Smaug tonight!

Also going to be auditing a Tolkien lit class next semester. Woo.

[Watno]

Just watched the new hobbit movie

Comments in spoiler:
It was quite fun to watch, but I feel at some points stuff didn't make much sense. Like, did those Dwarves never play Pokemon.
Thorin uses Molten Gold on Dragon. It's not very effective.
How does that come as a surprise?

[mail-mi]

Just watched the new hobbit movie

Comments in spoiler:
It was quite fun to watch, but I feel at some points stuff didn't make much sense. Like, did those Dwarves never play Pokemon.
Thorin uses Molten Gold on Dragon. It's not very effective.
How does that come as a surprise?

I assume the plan was for the gold to solidify over the dragon. But, if it was liquid long enough to form a statue, I don't think it's going to solidify fast enough to catch a dragon that is immune to heat.

[Tables]

I'm going to watch The Desolation of Smaug tomorrow with some friends. Should be good. I'll possibly give thoughts when I get back.

[Eevee]

Just watched the new hobbit movie

Comments in spoiler:
It was quite fun to watch, but I feel at some points stuff didn't make much sense. Like, did those Dwarves never play Pokemon.
Thorin uses Molten Gold on Dragon. It's not very effective.
How does that come as a surprise?

I assume the plan was for the gold to solidify over the dragon. But, if it was liquid long enough to form a statue, I don't think it's going to solidify fast enough to catch a dragon that is immune to heat.

So.. that was the scene that didn't make sense to you in the movie? That one?

[Kuildeous]

Just watched the new hobbit movie

Comments in spoiler:
It was quite fun to watch, but I feel at some points stuff didn't make much sense. Like, did those Dwarves never play Pokemon.
Thorin uses Molten Gold on Dragon. It's not very effective.
How does that come as a surprise?

I assume the plan was for the gold to solidify over the dragon. But, if it was liquid long enough to form a statue, I don't think it's going to solidify fast enough to catch a dragon that is immune to heat.

So.. that was the scene that didn't make sense to you in the movie? That one?

I think that scene was probably one of the most egregious. There's other parts like what the hell is Gandalf doing anyway? Though, to be fair, Gandalf was not that cool in the books either. You would have expected more from a powerful wizard.

What got me about that scene was that it advanced the plot not one iota. Smaug was intending to lay waste to the town, but the dwarves' master plan caused him to abort his plan and deal with the dwarves instead.  But then he goes and does it anyway. What was even the point of that scene except to show something really cool and pretty in CGI?

And I think that people who read the book probably really got screwed by that. At least if you didn't know how the movie ends (or in terms of the book, continues) then there might be some degree of suspense as the plan might just work. For someone who read the book, you know the plan won't work because that would derail the entire rest of the story.

It's really the same thing that's been bugging me about action movies. I do like the eye candy of a good action scene, sure, but at least make it relevant to the plot. Everything with Smaug was pretty good up to a certain point. The barrel scene was pretty good—even the stupid parts (though not necessarily the Legolas parts). Those moved the story along. If the scene could be removed without notice, then there's a problem.

A great example of this was the first Hobbit movie. The chase scene with Radagast was atrocious. It just kept going. And at the end of it, what changed? The group (dare I say, fellowship) was still trapped.

Still, it could be worse (I'm looking at you, B-13).

[Witherweaver]

Just watched the new hobbit movie

Comments in spoiler:
It was quite fun to watch, but I feel at some points stuff didn't make much sense. Like, did those Dwarves never play Pokemon.
Thorin uses Molten Gold on Dragon. It's not very effective.
How does that come as a surprise?

I assume the plan was for the gold to solidify over the dragon. But, if it was liquid long enough to form a statue, I don't think it's going to solidify fast enough to catch a dragon that is immune to heat.

So.. that was the scene that didn't make sense to you in the movie? That one?

I think that scene was probably one of the most egregious. There's other parts like what the hell is Gandalf doing anyway? Though, to be fair, Gandalf was not that cool in the books either. You would have expected more from a powerful wizard.

What got me about that scene was that it advanced the plot not one iota. Smaug was intending to lay waste to the town, but the dwarves' master plan caused him to abort his plan and deal with the dwarves instead.  But then he goes and does it anyway. What was even the point of that scene except to show something really cool and pretty in CGI?

I thought about this too, and I kind of came to the conclusion that it was to show that the dwarves actually tried.  They take some responsibility for unleashing the dragon. It ultimately failed, but instead of just waking up a dragon and letting him loose on Lake Town for Bard to take care of, they try to take care of their own problem.  In the book, well, I don't remember the details of the chapter, but it feels like they kind of just ran away, Smaug leaves, and then they kind of have Erebor to themselves.

And I think that people who read the book probably really got screwed by that. At least if you didn't know how the movie ends (or in terms of the book, continues) then there might be some degree of suspense as the plan might just work. For someone who read the book, you know the plan won't work because that would derail the entire rest of the story.

It's really the same thing that's been bugging me about action movies. I do like the eye candy of a good action scene, sure, but at least make it relevant to the plot. Everything with Smaug was pretty good up to a certain point. The barrel scene was pretty good—even the stupid parts (though not necessarily the Legolas parts). Those moved the story along. If the scene could be removed without notice, then there's a problem.

A great example of this was the first Hobbit movie. The chase scene with Radagast was atrocious. It just kept going. And at the end of it, what changed? The group (dare I say, fellowship) was still trapped.

Still, it could be worse (I'm looking at you, B-13).

I guess I kind of had the "wait, why are they doing this?" reaction, too.  But I went along with it and I wasn't too unhappy.  I think the scene of Bilbo meeting Smaug was the best in this movie. (I also thought Bilbo meeting Gollum was the best in the previous one.)

[Kuildeous]

I guess I kind of had the "wait, why are they doing this?" reaction, too.  But I went along with it and I wasn't too unhappy.  I think the scene of Bilbo meeting Smaug was the best in this movie. (I also thought Bilbo meeting Gollum was the best in the previous one.)

The nice thing about the meeting of Smaug and Bilbo is that it really conveyed the arrogance of the dragon. If the scene wasn't filmed well, you'd wonder why the villain just doesn't up and kill the intruder.

But no, Smaug is a conceited villain, and he lets it dominate him as he distracts himself from his ennui. And this is pulled off without looking like a cheesy, "I will tell you my plan, Mr. Bond," moment.

Although, the fact that he couldn't kill a single dwarf in that scene disrupts the illusion that Smaug is so utterly powerful. It becomes less of an I'm-evil-incarnate-and-will-just-fucking-kill-everything moment and more of a waah-you-hurt-my-feelings-so-I'm-going-after-something-weaker moment. I think that final scene diminishes Smaug's badassery, which is too bad, because it was going so well at first. I mean, that is how you portray a dragon!

[Witherweaver]

I guess I kind of had the "wait, why are they doing this?" reaction, too.  But I went along with it and I wasn't too unhappy.  I think the scene of Bilbo meeting Smaug was the best in this movie. (I also thought Bilbo meeting Gollum was the best in the previous one.)

The nice thing about the meeting of Smaug and Bilbo is that it really conveyed the arrogance of the dragon. If the scene wasn't filmed well, you'd wonder why the villain just doesn't up and kill the intruder.

But no, Smaug is a conceited villain, and he lets it dominate him as he distracts himself from his ennui. And this is pulled off without looking like a cheesy, "I will tell you my plan, Mr. Bond," moment.

Although, the fact that he couldn't kill a single dwarf in that scene disrupts the illusion that Smaug is so utterly powerful. It becomes less of an I'm-evil-incarnate-and-will-just-fucking-kill-everything moment and more of a waah-you-hurt-my-feelings-so-I'm-going-after-something-weaker moment. I think that final scene diminishes Smaug's badassery, which is too bad, because it was going so well at first. I mean, that is how you portray a dragon!

Yes, but on the other hand, Smaug is HUGE and they are very small.  He mainly specializes as killing a hoard of things (like an entire village, or an army on an open battlefield), because he can simply lay waste to everything with his fire.  As long as the dwarves are able to take cover from his breath weapon and get into places where it would be awkward for him to claw them, they should be alright.  He also has limited maneuverability inside of a mountain.  Plus, he's been sleeping for a long time and maybe he just wanted to play around a bit (until they dumped lava on him). 

But yes we have to suspend disbelief that Smaug didn't nab a single one.  Especially Thorin swinging around on chains.  But oh well.

[Nevermind]

Just saw this thread. I am a big fan of anything LOTR. I have read the LOTR books, the hobbit, and the silmarillion. I think that the hobbit movies are pretty good, but Peter Jackson always has to have a 3-hour movie. Why? If you just left Dol Guldur and Azog (which is dead in the book), you could have a normal movie. Although, it is kind of interesting, because the guy that plays smaug also plays the necromancer/SAURON and also is the main character in a TV show with Martin Freeman co-starring, Sherlock. I liked how desolation of smaug ended, but why say you can only kill a dragon with a certain arrow and it has to be shot from a wind lance ? I remember something about a black arrow in the hobbit, but I don't think it was the only thing that could've killed the dragon.

[Witherweaver]

Just saw this thread. I am a big fan of anything LOTR. I have read the LOTR books, the hobbit, and the silmarillion. I think that the hobbit movies are pretty good, but Peter Jackson always has to have a 3-hour movie. Why? If you just left Dol Guldur and Azog (which is dead in the book), you could have a normal movie. Although, it is kind of interesting, because the guy that plays smaug also plays the necromancer/SAURON and also is the main character in a TV show with Martin Freeman co-starring, Sherlock. I liked how desolation of smaug ended, but why say you can only kill a dragon with a certain arrow and it has to be shot from a wind lance ? I remember something about a black arrow in the hobbit, but I don't think it was the only thing that could've killed the dragon.

Well, the point is his scales are impenetrable.  Or close to it.  But Bilbo notices that one scale is missing, so if Smaug gets hit there it could kill him (say,  hit some vital organ).  So arrow is the natural thing, since the dragon is flying around and such and you can't get close enough to poke him.  So it was kind of the only practical thing.  It's in the book, too, though I think Bard just shot with a regular bow.

[2.71828.....]

Just saw this thread. I am a big fan of anything LOTR. I have read the LOTR books, the hobbit, and the silmarillion. I think that the hobbit movies are pretty good, but Peter Jackson always has to have a 3-hour movie. Why? If you just left Dol Guldur and Azog (which is dead in the book), you could have a normal movie. Although, it is kind of interesting, because the guy that plays smaug also plays the necromancer/SAURON and also is the main character in a TV show with Martin Freeman co-starring, Sherlock. I liked how desolation of smaug ended, but why say you can only kill a dragon with a certain arrow and it has to be shot from a wind lance ? I remember something about a black arrow in the hobbit, but I don't think it was the only thing that could've killed the dragon.

Well, the point is his scales are impenetrable.  Or close to it.  But Bilbo notices that one scale is missing, so if Smaug gets hit there it could kill him (say,  hit some vital organ).  So arrow is the natural thing, since the dragon is flying around and such and you can't get close enough to poke him.  So it was kind of the only practical thing.  It's in the book, too, though I think Bard just shot with a regular bow.

yeah.  regular bow, regular arrow.  The trick was the thrush overheard Bilbo telling the Dwarves about the missing scale, and then since Bard was from Dale, he understood the language of the thrush, who told him about the missing scale just in time for him to shoot the big lizard down.   Kind of anti-climactic really.  I suspect adding the special bow, Bard going to jail, and the dwarves fighting Smaug was all done to just show off his dragon and add a little bit of excitement to the storyline for moviegoers.  In the book Smaug is basically just there, flies to Laketown, and dies.  Not too exciting.

[Awaclus]

yeah.  regular bow, regular arrow.  The trick was the thrush overheard Bilbo telling the Dwarves about the missing scale, and then since Bard was from Dale, he understood the language of the thrush, who told him about the missing scale just in time for him to shoot the big lizard down.   Kind of anti-climactic really.  I suspect adding the special bow, Bard going to jail, and the dwarves fighting Smaug was all done to just show off his dragon and add a little bit of excitement to the storyline for moviegoers.  In the book Smaug is basically just there, flies to Laketown, and dies.  Not too exciting.

Wasn't it still a black arrow? It's been a while since I read the book, and I'm not sure if the arrow was supposed to be somehow extra special like it is in the film, but I remember the term "black arrow".

[2.71828.....]

yeah.  regular bow, regular arrow.  The trick was the thrush overheard Bilbo telling the Dwarves about the missing scale, and then since Bard was from Dale, he understood the language of the thrush, who told him about the missing scale just in time for him to shoot the big lizard down.   Kind of anti-climactic really.  I suspect adding the special bow, Bard going to jail, and the dwarves fighting Smaug was all done to just show off his dragon and add a little bit of excitement to the storyline for moviegoers.  In the book Smaug is basically just there, flies to Laketown, and dies.  Not too exciting.

Wasn't it still a black arrow? It's been a while since I read the book, and I'm not sure if the arrow was supposed to be somehow extra special like it is in the film, but I remember the term "black arrow".

From the book:  "Arrow! Black arrow! I have saved you to the last. You have never failed me and always I have recovered you. I had you from my father and he from of old. If ever you came from the forges of the true king under the Mountain, go now and speed well!" -Bard before he shoots the dragon

From the Tolkien Gateway wiki: "Bard served as a soldier in Lake-town, and was one of the most skilled archers among Men. He was the heir of Girion, the last lord of Dale. Noted for his grim face and spirit, he was an able archer and inherited his Black Arrow from his ancestors. Considering it a lucky heirloom, he always used it last."

[2.71828.....]

[Nevermind]

So, just saw this trailer. Wow. I heard the song Pippin sang in Return of the King around the 1:00 mark. That song, just, fit the scene quite beautifully. But I must know, how could Gandalf have gotten away? Maybe Galadriel and Radagast come and save him, but they're facing Sauron. What hope do they have? I really hope there will be a beautiful battle sequence for the battle of the five armies. Do not disappoint, Peter.