Back To Middle Earth

[natalie_ca]

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!

 

[theimp98]

"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

 

[urbantigers]

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.

 

[rescuecatsrule]

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!)

 

[lillekat]

Originally Posted by Essayons89

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!

 

[laureen227]

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 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.

 

[forensic]

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!