TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › The Cat Lounge › Back To Middle Earth
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Back To Middle Earth

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
J.R.R. Tolkien's epic children's masterpiece, The Hobbit will be coming to the big screen. There will be two movies made to show the story. Peter Jackson, who directed (and butchered some of the characters and story) The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be the producer of the films.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/s...ectid=10483205
post #2 of 27
WOO HOO!!! Can't wait to see them.
post #3 of 27
Ooh i'll have to tell Tristan, he's a huge LoTR fan. I frankly couldn't sit there for 100000 hours and watch it lol, but i might watch the Hobbit
post #4 of 27


I'm over the moon about this news!!! He did such a phenomenal job with LoTR that a new Producer would not have done "The Hobbit" justice. His vision of Middle Earth is so in tune with Tolkien, that I don't believe anyone else could pull it off like Peter Jackson has.

I'm glad that The Hobbit will be 2 movies. The book was written as a children's novel and as such so much was left out. I'm sure he will be taking licensed liberty to fill in many scenes such as the time in Rivendel with Elrond, the White Council that Gandalf attended and the war to flush Sauron out of Dol Guldur. There is so much that took place that wasn't expanded on in the book.

Aragorn was in Rivendel at the time, as was Arwen. Neither of which were even mentioned in The Hobbit. Also Legolas with the elves. I hope they all resign to reprise their roles!

OMG!!! I am on the edge of my seat!
post #5 of 27
Omgomgomgomg, yes! Finally!
post #6 of 27
Thread Starter 
I would like to see more movies concerning Tolkien's world after this.

The Silmarillion is too complex for a movie but there are parts of it that could be great on the big screen. The story of Beren and Luthien, Turin, The Fall of Gondolin, etc.
post #7 of 27
Yes another movie I can see by myself.

Perhaps you felt this way too Bryan: B couldn't sit through the first of the trilogy, then after we started dating he "tried" to sit watch the second one, but left within 5 minutes, basically saying they butchered the story.
post #8 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunasmom View Post
Yes another movie I can see by myself.

Perhaps you felt this way too Bryan: B couldn't sit through the first of the trilogy, then after we started dating he "tried" to sit watch the second one, but left within 5 minutes, basically saying they butchered the story.
I won't say that Jackson butchered the story but there were important details left out and scenes that weren't right as well as parts added that were never in the story or appendices. Gandalf confronted the Witch King when the gates of Minas Tirith were broken. He also stood his ground without fear. There were no elves at Helm's Deep! There were also a few characters in the book that weren't done justice in the films. PJ made Gimli nothing more than comic relief. Denethor and Faramir were nobler than they were protrayed on screen. The two that I think he got right were Saruman and Gandalf but that may have been due to the incredible talent of Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee. They could have slapped a giant "S" on Legolas chest and changed his name to Super Elf.

I enjoyed the movies for what they were and still watch them but the purist in me thinks they could have better than they were.
post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
They could have slapped a giant "S" on Legolas chest and changed his name to Super Elf.
Yes, Legolas was suppose to be more bad-:censored: than how he was portrayed in the movies.

The key stories that were left out is what disgusted B. I.e. from the first set: Tom - the musical guy in the forest. Arwen had too much of a role, and that Farier and Ewin were suppose to be married to rule for man.

There were several others, but I stopped listening. I tried to argue that if PJ did keep that essential stuff, but cut out the rest because of the length. That's didn't stop anything...how can you argue with someone who has read the book for 24 years?
post #10 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
I would like to see more movies concerning Tolkien's world after this.

The Silmarillion is too complex for a movie but there are parts of it that could be great on the big screen. The story of Beren and Luthien, Turin, The Fall of Gondolin, etc.
I agree as well.
post #11 of 27
lol hmm, this is the third time i have seen such a story.
to many people owne the rights to the hobbit. SO unless everyone got happy with there share.

over all i was happy with the lotr movies. They did a good job in many ways. I hated the story changes, there was no need for those. Aslo the way they changed the dwarf(that one really made me mad). i would stil give them A for effort.

The Silmarillion, reads more like your history book in high school.
lol almost each chapter coule be a movie, but with lots of gussing really.
post #12 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie_ca View Post


I'm over the moon about this news!!! He did such a phenomenal job with LoTR that a new Producer would not have done "The Hobbit" justice. His vision of Middle Earth is so in tune with Tolkien, that I don't believe anyone else could pull it off like Peter Jackson has.

I'm glad that The Hobbit will be 2 movies. The book was written as a children's novel and as such so much was left out. I'm sure he will be taking licensed liberty to fill in many scenes such as the time in Rivendel with Elrond, the White Council that Gandalf attended and the war to flush Sauron out of Dol Guldur. There is so much that took place that wasn't expanded on in the book.

Aragorn was in Rivendel at the time, as was Arwen. Neither of which were even mentioned in The Hobbit. Also Legolas with the elves. I hope they all resign to reprise their roles!

OMG!!! I am on the edge of my seat!
Have you been reading the appendices at the end of The Return of the King again? To be honest, the appendices are one of my favorite sections of the book. There's a lot of good stuff in them that isn't mentioned in the main story, including a time line.
post #13 of 27
The movies are OK for what they are, but I still prefer the books.

Mez
post #14 of 27
I just watched all 3 of those movies, with my daughter, for the third time! We absolutely love those movies! And were just talking about how we would love to watch The Hobbit. I can't wait! I would love to read the books.
post #15 of 27
I loved the movies and look forward to the Hobbitt.

Generally, I MUCH prefer to read a good book over watching a movie and most of the times, I hate movies made out of my favorite books. I have to say though, I found LOTR a bit dull reading. The story was wonderful, just not the writing style I like to read.

I would have liked to have seen more of the scenes in the movie, but there is only so much time to fill after all.
post #16 of 27
OMIGOD!!!! YAAAAAAYYY!!!

The Hobbit, can't wait! I absolutely LOVE LOTR too, i've read and seen the movies infinite times

I love the animated movie of The Hobbit, I wish I could find it.
post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
There were no elves at Helm's Deep!
They could have slapped a giant "S" on Legolas chest and changed his name to Super Elf.
So true about Helms Deep, poor Haldir. And as for Legolas, I bet he wore Super Underpants!
post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
over all i was happy with the lotr movies. They did a good job in many ways. I hated the story changes, there was no need for those. Aslo the way they changed the dwarf(that one really made me mad). i would stil give them A for effort.
I disagree, somewhat.

In the books, Arwen just basically pops up at the end to marry Aragorn; all of their backstory is in the "Tale of Arwen & Aragorn" in the Appendices. Jackson basically wove the "Tale" into LOTR. His giving Glorfindel's role to Arwen eliminated one minor character. Jackson did film the relationship between Eowyn and Faramir, but he had to cut that part out for the theatrical release. I've not seen it, but I'm told that it was restored in the Director's Cut.

I do understand why people don't like the idea of the Elves coming to Helms' Deep, but that was Jackson's way of showing that ALL the Free Peoples of Middle Earth were fighting against Sauron. In the book, Gandalf talks at the end of the battles at Lorien, in Mirkwood, and at the Lonely Mountain, but film is a visual medium---Jackson had to show us, rather than tell us.

I agree that the use of Gimli as comic relief was overdone.

While I'm sorry to have lost Tom Bombadil, I understand why he was cut out. The story is long and complex enough, and the Bombadil episode doesn't really add much to it.

What I am sorry to have lost is the Scouring of the Shire. I believe that it was important to show how much Merry and Pippin had grown up during their adventures. The Shire had been, essentially, a Protectorate before, and now the Hobbits were ready to manage their own affairs, and M&P, as the heirs of the two most important Hobbit families, were in an excellent position to manage the transition--as they proved when they dealt with the ruffians.

In short, Jackson had to make changes to the story as presented on the screen. A mere transcription of the books would not have worked because film and prose are two very different arts.
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
Have you been reading the appendices at the end of The Return of the King again? To be honest, the appendices are one of my favorite sections of the book. There's a lot of good stuff in them that isn't mentioned in the main story, including a time line.
That and the HoME volumes.
post #20 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zane's Pal
What I am sorry to have lost is the Scouring of the Shire. I believe that it was important to show how much Merry and Pippin had grown up during their adventures. The Shire had been, essentially, a Protectorate before, and now the Hobbits were ready to manage their own affairs, and M&P, as the heirs of the two most important Hobbit families, were in an excellent position to manage the transition--as they proved when they dealt with the ruffians.
I was very disappointed that this part wasn't in the movie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zane's Pal
That and the HoME volumes.
Indeed. I'm close to finishing my collection. The History of The Lord of the Rings was a fun read. It was interesting to see all of the revisions the story and characters went through as it developed.
post #21 of 27
New information:

According to the New York Times, if I am reading this right:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/mo...th&oref=slogin

...it says that the first of the two films will be The Hobbit and the second "is described as bridging the 60-year gap between the end of “Hobbit” and the beginning of the “Rings” trilogy.

Interesting. That period was heavy Gandalf; he got suspicious about Bilbo's ring, the White Council met, he began his study of ring lore. There were ever-worsening events in Gondor, also. And the death of the Great Goblin (Gandalf beheaded him in The Hobbit, remember) caused a big stir in the Orcs.

In the Shire, Frodo was growing up, Bilblo was not growing older, and trouble began to find its way to the edge of the Hobbit's land.

Also, this time was the youth and early manhood of Aragon and his wooing of Arwen. (love story).

Aragorn's mother died, and he traveled throughout Middle-earth. He met Gandalf and became friends and allies and traveled together. He rode with the Rohirrim under King Thengel, and was Captain under Echthelion II in Gondor.

There is definitely a story there!
post #22 of 27
"Tale of Arwen & Aragorn"

was not even needed for the movies, that was just put in there as the love part, and there was still no need to add the horse kissing thing.

THe movies would have been much better to have left out the parts that was not part of the story, There was no Need to change it. Some of the changes made no sense at all.

lol however i will agree there was no need to put in Tom Bombadil

the Scouring of the Shire could be a stand alone movie, why not make it movie 4 i would not mind
post #23 of 27
Funnily enough, I was watching the extended vesion of FotR yesterday. Despite being a life long fan of the books, I was very hesitant about seeing the movies in case I was disappointed but I love them (and went to see them an embarrassing number of times at the cinema ). I'm fine with changing things as film is a totally different medium and has different dynamics - translating the books to screen literally would not have worked - would have made for a badly paced movie. Everything that was altered was done for a reason and within the movie universe it all made sense. The book is the book and the movie is the movie. I don't necessarily want or expect the same experience from both.

It seems that the plan for 2 Hobbit films it to make one film of the hobbit and then a second bridging film to take events up to the start of LotR. Hmm, wonder what they will put in that. I also wonder whether they will be able to use the same props etc that were used in LotR movies. I'm not sure I'd like middle earth to look different to how it did in LotR.
post #24 of 27
I've read the books and watched the movies and I really liked them!

I've read The Hobbit as well (I wasn't very keen on any of the elves!)

(In the film Legolas basically looks like a girl!)
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
J.R.R. Tolkien's epic children's masterpiece, The Hobbit will be coming to the big screen. There will be two movies made to show the story. Peter Jackson, who directed (and butchered some of the characters and story) The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be the producer of the films.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/s...ectid=10483205
Aaaaah now let's be fair Although I agree, the story was all chopped up and maybe some of the characters didn't live up to your expectations and imagination, but when you think about it - and certainly in comparison to the rest of his movies - he did a stunning job with LOTR. For the sake of keeping people awake during the movie, he pretty much HAD to chop the story up a bit because more or less the first novel in the trilogy does nothing other than set the scene. Tolkien does an awful lot of pointless descriptive writing there. Yes, Arwen arrives too soon. Yes, scenes are missing (not so many though if you watch the extended version) and yes, perhaps there was a certain amount of "artistic license". But I loved it I think the choice of actors and actresses was fantastic, with the exeption of Cate Blanchett. The costumes and scenes were utterly mind blowing and the story flowed. Let's face it, he could have "butchered" it - as you put it - so much that the story no longer made any sense. I think perhaps "butchered" was far too strong a choice of word in this instance. But then everyone is entitled to their own opinions. All a matter of taste If you've read the books, sure you're always bound to be disappointed. I was lucky enough to ahve read them at age 9, so i didn't really remember as much of it as I thought.

I've been waiting soooo long to hear that the Hobbit would be coming to the big screen and if he does as good a job of it as he did with LOTR, I'm going to be very, very happy!
post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zane's Pal View Post
What I am sorry to have lost is the Scouring of the Shire. I believe that it was important to show how much Merry and Pippin had grown up during their adventures. The Shire had been, essentially, a Protectorate before, and now the Hobbits were ready to manage their own affairs, and M&P, as the heirs of the two most important Hobbit families, were in an excellent position to manage the transition--as they proved when they dealt with the ruffians.
i also missed the 'winding down' of the story, where Sam gets married, etc. it seemed a rather sudden jump from "hey, we're home" to "i'm going on this ship", almost as if Frodo left the Shire as soon as he got home...
i know he didn't, but it sure seemed like that in the movie.
post #27 of 27
I loved the LOTR books, I loved the LOTR movies (he made good movies, I think a lot of things, if done 'right' wouldn't have been good on screen.)

Soooo bring on the Hobbits! WoooO!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Cat Lounge
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › The Cat Lounge › Back To Middle Earth