Print

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

[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.