….I'm speechless...it's beautiful....
The Hobbit movies
-
-
Howard Shore is composing again, correct? I recognized a handful of the music cues from the Rings trilogy, which brought a big grin to my face.
~Stargazer~, ~Distance~ original stories.
3DS Friend Code: 2234-8294-8917
-
Nice. I was worried they'd to try overstuff this promotion-wise, but the teaser seems to hint just the right kind of downplayed adventure without trying to__o hard to make it seem like LotR point 2.
Which is probably all irrelevant, because no doubt I'll enjoy the film no matter how much overblown theatric melodrama Peter Jackson stuffs in.
-
Howard Shore is composing again, correct? I recognized a handful of the music cues from the Rings trilogy, which brought a big grin to my face.
I believe so. Pretty much everyone that was involved in the original trilogy staff is in on this.
-
Oh Gollum how I've missed you.
-
Ah, Shore's name is right there at the end. Good, good.
-
Youtube link for those in need of the awesome!
-
It looks amazing.
However, I'm still annoyed that this is being split into two parts. There's no reason for it.
It will have to be downright spectacular for it to be worth me spending double the money on this story. -
People don't want to sit in the theatres watching a 5-6 hour movie is probably the reason, same reason Kill Bill was split.
-
People don't want to sit in the theatres watching a 5-6 hour movie is probably the reason, same reason Kill Bill was split.
If they could fit any of the Lord of the Rings books into one film, then they could easily fit The Hobbit into one.
-
Full cuts of the LotR movies are like 4.5 hours long. Even the theatre versions were around 3. People only tolerated it because it was LotR.
-
Full cuts of the LotR movies are like 4.5 hours long. Even the theatre versions were around 3. People only tolerated it because it was LotR.
So then why wouldn't they tolerate it for The Hobbit?
-
I'm sure both of these movies will be around 3 hours long. And if they are then if they put them together the full movie would be 6 hours long, which nobody will watch in theatres. There's a limit is what I'm saying
. Of course I don't know, I could be totally wrong on the lengths. -
6 hours total for this film seems ridiculous. I could read the book in that amount of time.
Unless they plan on fitting every little thing from the book in, then I don't see the reason. And I also don't see a good splitting point in the story.
I will admit that I have a pessimistic outlook at the moment, but I'm really hoping that Jackson and Co prove me wrong.
-
Ah man, it's gonna be so awesome having the Tolkien universe back on film. Which reminds me, I never get around to buying the LotR DVDs.
And the lamb lies down on Broadway
-
Ah man, it's gonna be so awesome having the Tolkien universe back on film. Which reminds me, I never get around to buying the LotR DVDs.
If possible get the extended editions on Blu-Ray.
Not only do they look amazing, the movies are even better in the extended cuts.
-
@Nex:
If they could fit any of the Lord of the Rings books into one film, then they could easily fit The Hobbit into one.
1.They DIDN'T fit any of the LotR books into a single film. They all cut over an hour and a half of footage in each film (a movie in and of itself!) that got restored in the extended versions, and even then they still cut huge amounts of material.. and Two Towers was shuffled all the way around and was absolutely bleeding into the next film.
2.The hobbit is longer and full of more set pieces than your realize. The unabridged audio narrated version takes about 10 hours. Just because you can read it in 3 hours doesn't mean you should.
-party
-13 freaking dwarves to give screentime to throughout the movie, plus Bilbo and Gandalf
-trolls
-Elrond
-goblins
-Gollum
-wargs
-eagles
-Beorn (This is about where I assume the movie will split, since they all introduce themselves fresh to Beorn)
-mirkwood spiders
-wood elves
-lake town
-Smaug
-all the stuff between Bilbo and Thorin over the Arkenstone
-battle of the five armiesPlus they're throwing in other material from Tolkien's notes and whatnot, like the White council taking on the Necromancer. It isn't just the book material. There is a LOT of stuff there anyway, it needs to be a 5-6 hour movie. (unless you want to go the route of the rankin bass cartoon where all the dwarves are identical and completely unimportant, and the battle of the five armies is a 15 second view of dots on a map) As is the theatrical version is probably going to be much shorter than the actual final dvd films.
Smaug should be twenty or thirty minutes by himself, and the battle of the five armies alone should be pretty lengthy.
-
Teaser looks amazing … this'll be a loooong year!
-
I'm hoping PJ tries to keep closer to the books rather than going in the direction of average Hollywood film cliches.
you posts are convincing me he's actually gonna do that, but considering how many changes he made to the films I may be trying to fool myself here… -
I'm hoping PJ tries to keep closer to the books rather than going in the direction of average Hollywood film cliches.
you posts are convincing me he's actually gonna do that, but considering how many changes he made to the films I may be trying to fool myself here…Changes for pacing and storyflow are a GOOD thing. LotR are actually kind of dry books that are about the world more than the story, where the characters stop to talk about history and sing a song and have a rest break every ten pages. And you can't go for 200 pages/80 minutes of screentime without showing half your cast. Some of the added on humor was meh, (some of the banter between orcs, and the dwarf tossing are the only bits I really have a problem with) but most of the edits and reshufflings were a GOOD thing.
There's no Tom Bombadill, for instance. That is an EXTREMELY legitimate cut to make, and he's the first thing any competent director would take out. He's this random unexplained singing guy who provides a safehouse right when the tension finally starts up, undermines the power of the ring, is never fully explained, who would take 10 or 20 minutes to show… who never shows up again and never contributes anything to the overall story.
Also, there were massive massive sections of minor side characters and busywork that were cut. We don't need to see Pippin wandering about town and meeting the son of a knight and hanging out and talking and just meandering for half an hour... followed by Merry doing the same thing in another town, we just don't. (And Two Towers timeline wise IS all over the place. Frodo's story covers waaaay more time than Aaragorn's and buts into the events of RotK... that had to be reshuffled.)
Scouring of the Shire is the only edit I can really see the argument about, because it shows that war also affected the hobbits hometown... but that would be a 30 minute extra subplot set piece after the climax introducing random hobbits and having a bizarre badly choreographed battle and Saruman being a complete idiot after having been out of the story for 400 pages. No, that really didn't didn't need to be there, especially since most of the details fit into the start of RotK.
-
Oh god this looks so amazing! Now I feel the LotR vibe again.
-
Some edits I can accept. Most of the edits were in fact all right and quite understandable but there were a few too many edits I really think weren't made for any decent reason, other than drama or personal preference of PJ. For example Aragorn falls over the cliff thing when even those who haven't read the books should be able to tell he'll survive due to his plot armor as a major character. Lothien archers at Hornburg also made no sense. I seem to recall that was because PJ's wife liked elves and wanted to give them more screentime.
Every other edit I'm reasonable about and understand why they were made, but I'm not happy about them.Now to be on-topic
New Trailer is epic. I've got my hopes up for the plot to be close to the book.However if PJ tries to turn The Simarillion into your standard Hollywood film. There is no way am I letting that pass without a fight. No on second thoughts I'll fight him anyways while planing a Xanatos Gambit.
EDIT: screw that^ I don't like any changes in PJ's films
-
There's literally no way to make a full length film out of the Silmarillion.
Maybe a short animated film out of each story, but sure as hell not a full film.
-
As much as I loved Lord of the Rings, it was filled with some truly terrible additions, like everything Arwen, most of Gimli's comic relief and pretty much anything added for half-baked melodramatic effect (Frodo dumping Sam, Aragorn falling off a cliff, Faramir being tempted by the ring et al.).
The Hobbit as a story seems to lend itself to stuff like that a lot less, though, and like I said, I'll no doubt enjoy it no matter how much the writing hams it up. When it comes down to it the look, sound and feel of this world on screen is so perfectly crafted it lifts it over.
-
Lothien archers at Hornburg also made no sense. I seem to recall that was because PJ's wife liked elves and wanted to give them more screentime.
Thats because early on they were going to have Arwen there, and then went "Oh wait, no, that's a silly idea, lets stick closer to the book"… but at that point they had all this footage with elves there.
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Mog:
As much as I loved Lord of the Rings, it was filled with some truly terrible additions, like everything Arwen, most of Gimli's comic relief and pretty much anything added for half-baked melodramatic effect (Frodo dumping Sam, Aragorn falling off a cliff, Faramir being tempted by the ring et al.).
LotR is reeeally dry and has very little character interaction or growth in it. Arwen is Aaragorn's bride, but she has like 2 lines of dialogue in the entire trilogy and he never talks about her. Gimli's comic relief was pretty hit or miss… I agree on that. But things like Faramair going "Oh yeah, that's the ring of pwoer. Very nice, move on." is just... well it destroys the power of the ring, the same way Tom Bombadil does.
Not to mention Frodo and Sam don't DO anything in the second film otherwise. Its one of the BIG weaknesses the books had. Literally every other chapter the hobbits would meet another stranger who'd stop and give them a rest break, a good night's meal, be completely nice and hospitable, and they'd be safe for a while. Completely undermines the threat, menance, danger and tension.
Gimli and Legolas' friendship is a lot truer and stronger in the books, I miss some of that bonding being in there. But nearly everything else... was done for the sake of drama and pacing and I'm cool with it.
-
The primary change where Arwen was concerned was replacing Glorfindel's big scene in The Fellowship of the Ring with her. Since Glorfindel did absolutely nothing beyond that besides take up space at a Council later on, nothing was lost by replacing him with Arwen to give the latter more screentime. A major criticism for Tolkien has always been that he spent more time describing a wagon wheel than developing a female character and there's nothing wrong with jettisoning somebody like Glorfindel in favor of Arwen.
-
Really, when reading LotR, you have to keep in mind what Tolkien was emulating: classical and Anglo-Saxon epics.
-
Saw the trailer. Generally, I'm very hyped and excited for it, my only problem with it was… the book was more lighthearted and fun than the Lord of The Rings was... but the atmosphere in the trailer was very mystical and serious... I expected to see some lighthearted jokes. Hopefully we get more of that later.
Also, for the people talking about it being two movies. They're going to make a good deal of the 2nd film sort of a bridge to LotR using extras and appendices from all the books. They're going to use that to elaborate on what Gandalf did during those parts of the book where he just was like "Lol, bye guys, be back later".
I just hope they use the framing device of old Bilbo telling the story to Frodo to good effect instead of just bookending it. Kinda like how they did in Princess Bride.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1795-2519-1884 • Click Here to check out my Twitch Channel
-
So any new updates?
my sig is based on what happened to LotR and what "the company that I shall not speak of" did to One Piece and Yu-Gi-Oh.
I'll list what I can't stand about PJ's movies.
Hobbit
Orlando Bloom
EDIT: $1million sorry, not $50millon argh my memory.
Fanservice in LotR I cannot accept. Screw you PJ.
Unless he's in their for the sake of having the same actor for the same role, which I doubt.LotR
he dared to mention in one of his bibliographies he considers LotR a masterwork of literature. How dare he say that and yet turn it into average Hollywood melodrama…every single critic who can't mean their word because when praising PJ's films they called it "accurate" to the books. For no other reason than because they have to say something to make their criticism sound long and intelligent.
90% of PJ's edits. I can understand why most of them were made. I am reasonably content with that, but still dislike them.
-----New Post Merge----
I'm not going to mention PJ's faults again unless someone else brings up the topic. It isn't worth discussing that much.Can we talk about Narnia in here? Or do I have to make a new thread? or resurrect one of the old ones that have been dead for at least 3 years? one two
Oh, come on. "That still only counts as one!" is one of the best lines in the trilogy.
Except that it is based on humour, something that never existed in LotR.
-
@RobbyBevard:
LotR is reeeally dry and has very little character interaction or growth in it. Arwen is Aaragorn's bride, but she has like 2 lines of dialogue in the entire trilogy and he never talks about her. Gimli's comic relief was pretty hit or miss… I agree on that. But things like Faramair going "Oh yeah, that's the ring of pwoer. Very nice, move on." is just... well it destroys the power of the ring, the same way Tom Bombadil does.
Not to mention Frodo and Sam don't DO anything in the second film otherwise. Its one of the BIG weaknesses the books had. Literally every other chapter the hobbits would meet another stranger who'd stop and give them a rest break, a good night's meal, be completely nice and hospitable, and they'd be safe for a while. Completely undermines the threat, menance, danger and tension.
Gimli and Legolas' friendship is a lot truer and stronger in the books, I miss some of that bonding being in there. But nearly everything else... was done for the sake of drama and pacing and I'm cool with it.
I think you misunderstand me in that the reason I complain must be because I'm some sort LotR book purist.
Just to tweek story events for tension and character building doesn't mean they have to go with the most predictable, hammed-up Hollywood melodrama in almost all of the scenes I mentioned.
They were poorly written additions and could have been handled a million other ways.
I was already rolling my eyes whenever Arwen entered the screen when I saw the movie at 13 years old.
-
Paying Orlando Bloom $50m for a cameo seems to be nothing but fanservice.
I rather think you just made that up.
@Mog:
I was already rolling my eyes whenever Arwen entered the screen when I saw the movie at 13 years old.
I've watched the movies tons of times, and listened to them as background noise (and the commentaries and special fetures) more times than I can count over the years, and that material never bothered me as hamfisted or overly obvious. But if it bothered you, well. Sorry.
-
That's cool.
Like I said, though, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the films in the slightest.
But I absolutely think the films would have been better with less Hollywood in them.
-
@Cyan:
There's literally no way to make a full length film out of the Silmarillion.
Maybe a short animated film out of each story, but sure as hell not a full film.
That's true but there are some tales that actually could be made into their own full fledged movie.
Out of my head the fall of gondolin or beren and luthien could certainly provide enough material for a movie.
Heck if the fall of gondolin is not enough you merge it with the fate of hurin sons. -
It was $1million for Orlando Bloom cameo. Dunno what I was thinking when i said $50million. [Link](http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=orlando bloom gets paid cameo in the hobbit heatworld&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CEoQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heatworld.com%2FEntertainment%2FFilms%2F2011%2F01%2FOrlando-Bloom-to-net-1m-for-two-minute-Hobbit-appearance-%2F&ei=h2LzTtiGFeSPiAfEpLG4AQ&usg=AFQjCNF6NQwuYsg1MrqOXXzk99pNI5i5Vg&sig2=aftbfLtd5oLrLPDIooBl5Q&cad=rja) I'm loling at the though of $50million.
Isn't it still fanservice though?@Asthma I agree that they would make great films, but I would be happier if those films never existed.
-
Far over the misty mountains cold
To dungeons deep and caverns old
We must away ere break of day
To seek the pale enchanted gold.The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.For ancient king and elvish lord
There many a gleaming golden hoard
They shaped and wrought, and light they caught
To hide in gems on hilt of sword.On silver necklaces they strung
The flowering stars, on crowns they hung
The dragon-fire, in twisted wire
They meshed the light of moon and sun.Far over the misty mountains cold
To dungeons deep and caverns old
We must away, ere break of day,
To claim our long-forgotten gold.Goblets they carved there for themselves
And harps of gold; where no man delves
There lay they long, and many a song
Was sung unheard by men or elves.The pines were roaring on the height,
The winds were moaning in the night.
The fire was red, it flaming spread;
The trees like torches blazed with light,The bells were ringing in the dale
And men looked up with faces pale;
The dragon's ire more fierce than fire
Laid low their towers and houses frail.The mountain smoked beneath the moon;
The dwarves, they heard the tramp of doom.
They fled their hall to dying fall
Beneath his feet, beneath the moon.Far over the misty mountains grim
To dungeons deep and caverns dim
We must away, ere break of day,
To win our harps and gold from him!I so want the full version, not mere 52 seconds!
And about the Arwen and Aragorn, you could argue that Lord of the Rings was never a story about them. Therefore, there was no pressing need to include and develop their relationship. The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen does that on its own.
-
It was $1million for Orlando Bloom cameo. Dunno what I was thinking when i said $50million. [Link](http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=orlando bloom gets paid cameo in the hobbit heatworld&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CEoQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heatworld.com%2FEntertainment%2FFilms%2F2011%2F01%2FOrlando-Bloom-to-net-1m-for-two-minute-Hobbit-appearance-%2F&ei=h2LzTtiGFeSPiAfEpLG4AQ&usg=AFQjCNF6NQwuYsg1MrqOXXzk99pNI5i5Vg&sig2=aftbfLtd5oLrLPDIooBl5Q&cad=rja) I'm loling at the though of $50million.
Isn't it still fanservice though?Okay, now thats just fucking stupid. It was a cute bit of continuity to have him appear for a brief cameo to tie the world together (because Legolas should be there at the time) but… a million bucks for 2 minutes? A half day of shooting? Didn't he make less than that for the entire original trilogy? No, that's completely asinine. No reason at all to bother with it at that point.
Man should be willing to do it for a vacation trip to New Zealand and a free lunch, since he lucked into a prime role in spite of his lack of talent.
(To this day I'm annoyed he fell into both Pirates AND LotR, two huge franchises that have nothing to do with him... giving him star power right out of acting school that he doesn't deserve.)
-
All things considered, I don't see why there's soo much attacking of Peter Jackson and his adaptation of the films. Say what you will, but the adaptations are fantastic recreations of the books and I am glad Peter Jackson went through the trouble of actually making this world possible on screen by giving us hour upon hour of material to watch. Sure, some edits were strange, but in the end the trilogy is still a spectacular piece of work.
Seriously, tell me the song and the scenery just from the trailer of the hobbit don't do anything for you. W.e. they may have done with it by splitting it in two, these people already own my money.
-
you would need an essay 10 times of that length to try and convince me they are a "fantastic recreation". This is world where trust is a hard thing. Saying "I considered all things" isn't going to go very far. Despite how beautiful PJ's adaptation scenery and graphics may look the original medium was a book and that kind of medium is supposed to leave the majority of visuals to the reader's imagination. If PJ's films never existed then LotR would be less known to the general public and known as a work of literature, not some high ranking Hollywood film, which is what comes to some people's mind. Some people would rather that LotR was primarily known as a work of literature instead of average hollywood melodrama, including I.
Also keep in mind that a lot of the criticism comes from people who read the books first and prefer it over the films. Purists. Well that one word should be enough. Just so you know I'm also a purist but not an unreasonable one. That stance might have something with reading the books before watching the movies and I read the books well after the movies came out.
Simply put.
Many would rather PJ's films never existed over an "improved" version that keeps true to the books to the point of each word and definitely not the reality's version with the weird edits.I hate to reference to something many of you and I would rather forget but anyways.
What PJ did to LotR is considered by many purists and others to be equal to what "dub company I will not name" did to One Piece and any other franchises under it's licenses. It may not have been as bad but did achieve a similar effect if with a different reaction.I'm neutral here, mainly because I care little about this situation anymore.
LotR is one of the two works of literature that popularized epic/high fantasy (with the other being Narnia) and I would dare consider it a masterwork piece of literature. Read only by those with a decent understanding of English
PJ came and effectively turned it into the most profitable and arguably one of the best average Hollywood melodrama film franchise for the dumb masses which used Hollywood clichés.
That title is sad and not worthy of one of the greatest achievements of writing.Well I kinda don't wanna post this because the discussion of PJ's faults is getting old but since I already typed it I'm not inclined to let this go to waste.
PJ made an excellent adaptation (<<<< <keyword) and="" few="" could="" have="" done="" better="" given="" the="" film="" medium.="" it's="" just="" a="" version="" of="" work="" literature="" should="" not="" ever="" existed.<br="">Right now getting back on topic.
I love LotR's songs and poetry.
@silverbeard
my memory is rusty, care to tell me where that came from exactly?</keyword)> -
They're boring, lifeless, terrible books that were badly in need of editing and restructuring.
The movies did the story better.
-
Care to elaborate?
I disagree 100% here.
-
I already explained multiple times. The books are incredibly dry, lacking in characterization, constantly broke its own tension, and were written in a way only a historian would write. Tolkien was a world builder more than a storyteller.
@robbybevard:
Part of the problem might be the movies actually fixed a few problems. Jackson's version was overlong, but it was still shorter than Tolkien's, better paced, and had fewer digressions - all hallmarks of a good movie adaptation - and it corrected a bunch of Tolkien's errors, like neglecting half the cast for hundreds of pages at a time, going on for an entire book after the end of the story, and Tom Bombadil. You know, all the things that having a competent editor would have helped Tolkien fix in the first place.
I see that beauty of the world and mythology and world building and all that, and I get why some people may be allll about that. But Tolkien will go on about trees or elven language or how amazing lembus bread or elven rope is (or his apparent love affair with elves in general) for long periods of time, but Boromir has like 5 lines of dialouge in the entire book. (He had more moments of development in the movie!) The way he skimps over some scenes, or for example, the march of the Ents occurs in flashback, meh. That the entire Aaragorn/Arwen subplot is a handful of easily missed lines until a bonus story at the end of the novel.)
So. I'm a little sad. I grew up on these stories. They were books I always wanted to read. And they're very well written, no argument on that, he's a better writer than I'll ever be, but… I was bored. And that disappointed me a lot.
I wanted to love these books.
I wanted to be pulled in, and go "Oh man, the movies were missing so much, this is the definitive one, I'll be re-reading this every year for the rest of my life!" But instead I find that, there was a bunch of stuff I wouldn't have gotten without the movies. Like Saruman making hybrid orcs that can run in the daylight is a half mentioned throwaway line. Hell, Saruman is barely even in the book!
And the characters stop and break into a song or a poem every five pages. Again, I understand, that shows some of the history of the world and the poetic story loving nature of the characters, and I get why some people are all about that. But for me? Not so much.
-
Ahhh, but he was a brilliant world-builder. The man freaking invented languages for his book.
I have a friend who is a GIANT Tolkein nut, to the point where she had a giant map of Middle Earth on her dorm room wall and taught Elvish classes during January break. And she loved the movies.
-
Again, I'm never going to argue Tolkien was a bad writer. The man practically created the modern fantasy genre, and created more depth, back story, and poetry than I could ever dream of doing..
Just that he was more a historian than a writer, so his actual story flow and priorities were really unconventional. Stopping to sing songs, constantly breaking tension with rest stops, or even the "6 book+appendices" format. He wrote Lord of the Rings (and Silmarillion) more to tell the history of the world than to tell the story of the Ring.
When he did Hobbit he wasn't anywhere near as entrenched in 20 years of world building, and that was a far more conventional and straightforwards story.
-
Didn't he actually only write LotR to showcase his Elfspeak?
-
I'm guessing you're trolling, because there isn't THAT much Elven in LOTR. He wrote it because he wanted to write a sequel to the Hobbit. Originally it was going to be a lot more light-hearted, and you can see how the story evolved as he wrote it if you ever pick up the books that go over all his personal notes and rough drafts. I own the books but I can't remember what they are called, lol.
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. - Frank Zappa
-
I'm guessing you're trolling, because there isn't THAT much Elven in LOTR. He wrote it because he wanted to write a sequel to the Hobbit. Originally it was going to be a lot more light-hearted, and you can see how the story evolved as he wrote it if you ever pick up the books that go over all his personal notes and rough drafts. I own the books but I can't remember what they are called, lol.
He's not trolling actually. Tolkien himself said it.
"what I think is a primary ‘fact’ about my work, that it is all of a piece, and fundamentally linguistic in inspiration. [. . .] It is not a ‘hobby’, in the sense of something quite different from one’s work, taken up as a relief-outlet. The invention of languages is the foundation. The ‘stories’ were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse. To me a name comes first and the story follows. I should have preferred to write in ‘Elvish’. But, of course, such a work as The Lord of the Rings has been edited and only as much ‘language’ has been left in as I thought would be stomached by readers. (I now find that many would have liked more.) [. . .] It is to me, anyway, largely an essay in ‘linguistic aesthetic’, as I sometimes say to people who ask me ‘what is it all about’." "
The man was a bit obsessed with the language creation. He made, what, 20 languages? And kept revising them until he died.
-
I like to imagine that Tolkien started out writing a short three page story involving his language one night and things snowballed.
-
Hey, the man gets more respect from me after reading that. A 5000 page linguistic essay.
-
I really loved the LofR movies, and I can say my biggest complain (maybe only) was Faramir, he was one of my favorites characters in the book, and, while I understand the time issue, the movie shows him as an asshole for most part, with a really strange and quick change of heart (the extended edition did it much better)
My 3DS FC: 0361 - 7494 - 3910