THE HOBBIT MOVIE!

[jcb231]

MGM, working with New Line, mentioned a Hobbit movie (or possibly a two-part movie) as one of their possible tentpole projects. They mentioned wanting to get Peter Jackson to direct.

Awesomeness. Just a vague notion at this point, but still awesomeness.

Go to cinescape.com for some info....I'm sure intrepid webbers can find even more.

[Kepler]

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Uprising]

That would be awsome. I want me some Beorn.

[Jandars_Hope]

I still haven't gotten round to reading the book! But i loved the lord of the rings!!!

[Agent Minivann]

That would be awsome. I want me some Beorn.

:word:

Abso-freekin-lutly. It better have Beorn in it, or I'll demand my money back.

[Fl0ydski]

I heard some rumors way back when that he (Peter Jackson) would be doing the Hobbit after King Kong...

Gosh I hope it is true...

I'd like to know more about how the Hobbit would be 2 parts... not that I am complaining...

~Floyd

[reapersaurus]

I was wondering how long this'd take to get posted :lol:
After Slashdot featured it from OneRing.net, I knew it wouldn;t be long..... :D

[Havokscry]

It's easier said than done though. MGM owns the rights to The Hobbit, yet the Lord of the Rings movies are distributed by New Line, which Peter Jackson has a relationship with. To further complicate things, Peter Jackson filed a lawsuit against New Line for a share of the profits from the Lord of the Rings movies.

[Karkadinn]

I don't really crave a Hobbit movie. There was already a cartoon one that was incredibly awesome. All I need is an unedited version of it on dvd. :) (The version currently on dvd has had some sounds edited, blech.)

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

There was already a cartoon one that was incredibly awesome. All I need is an unedited version of it on dvd. :) (The version currently on dvd has had some sounds edited, blech.)
Yep. That was my first encounter with Gollum - the Hobbit cartoon. I like the songs in that cartoon. The artwork is very "Arthur Rackham" which is a good thing.

The HObbit is going to need a film adaptation of course. When it's made I'll look forward to Smaug, the Gollum encounter, the battle of the five armies, and of course Beorn! How could I forget about Beorn (he wasn't in the cartoon IIRC)?!?
http://ewancient.lysator.liu.se/pic/art/s/t/stebar/beorn.jpg


OH heck, I'll be enthralled by the whole darned movie!

[Grungebob]

It's easier said than done though. MGM owns the rights to The Hobbit, yet the Lord of the Rings movies are distributed by New Line, which Peter Jackson has a relationship with. To further complicate things, Peter Jackson filed a lawsuit against New Line for a share of the profits from the Lord of the Rings movies.I have heard rumors that Tim Burton is going to be doing The Hobbit.

[netherspirit]

It's easier said than done though. MGM owns the rights to The Hobbit, yet the Lord of the Rings movies are distributed by New Line, which Peter Jackson has a relationship with. To further complicate things, Peter Jackson filed a lawsuit against New Line for a share of the profits from the Lord of the Rings movies.I have heard rumors that Tim Burton is going to be doing The Hobbit.

Claymation Smaug!!!

[fejkl]

Peter Jackson slaughtered the spirit of LoTR. I hope he doesn't do "The Hobbit". I don't want that destroyed as well.

I enjoy LoTR movies he did as movies, but I just can't accept MANY of the changes he and Phillipa Boyens made...sickening.

[Grungebob]

It's easier said than done though. MGM owns the rights to The Hobbit, yet the Lord of the Rings movies are distributed by New Line, which Peter Jackson has a relationship with. To further complicate things, Peter Jackson filed a lawsuit against New Line for a share of the profits from the Lord of the Rings movies.I have heard rumors that Tim Burton is going to be doing The Hobbit.

Claymation Smaug!!!More in the style of Sleepy Hallow, not animated.

[netherspirit]

It's easier said than done though. MGM owns the rights to The Hobbit, yet the Lord of the Rings movies are distributed by New Line, which Peter Jackson has a relationship with. To further complicate things, Peter Jackson filed a lawsuit against New Line for a share of the profits from the Lord of the Rings movies.I have heard rumors that Tim Burton is going to be doing The Hobbit.

Claymation Smaug!!!More in the style of Sleepy Hallow, not animated.

I was being facetious. :P

[Hahma]

Peter Jackson slaughtered the spirit of LoTR. I hope he doesn't do "The Hobbit". I don't want that destroyed as well.

I enjoy LoTR movies he did as movies, but I just can't accept MANY of the changes he and Phillipa Boyens made...sickening.

Which changes really bothered you?

[Joah]

Peter Jackson slaughtered the spirit of LoTR. I hope he doesn't do "The Hobbit". I don't want that destroyed as well.

I enjoy LoTR movies he did as movies, but I just can't accept MANY of the changes he and Phillipa Boyens made...sickening.
Wow. I've NEVER heard anyone, ANYONE, who has read the books say that.
I'm just a little suprised.

The Tim Burton thing, I really don't see that happening.

If it happens, Jackson will get the first chance.
Now, wheter or not he wants to do it is anther matter.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/24456

This is a great site, that made great connections with Jackson & Co.
If they report on it down the road, it will be a fact.

[Grungebob]

Peter Jackson slaughtered the spirit of LoTR. I hope he doesn't do "The Hobbit". I don't want that destroyed as well.

I enjoy LoTR movies he did as movies, but I just can't accept MANY of the changes he and Phillipa Boyens made...sickening.

Which changes really bothered you?Ya I am mistified here. I think that it is just the oposite. He captured the spirit quite well and it was just some of the nonessential details that were lost.

[Joah]

Tom Bombadil?

I sure as heck didn't miss that.

[Grungebob]

Tom Bombadil?

I sure as heck didn't miss that.Yah!! They would have had to completely overhaul that zany loon to have it match the rest of the work.

[fejkl]

Let's see if I can resurrect my list of grievances.

1. Arwen. I understand that introducing Glorfindel would have been a dead end. I just hated the fact that PJ gave her such a big role. The Flight to the Ford sucked. Too many fast camera shots. Besides, Elrond caused the flood. Not Arwen.

2. Aragorn NOT wanting to become king. This is exactly the opposite of Tolkien's Aragorn. He wanted more than anything to have Arwen stay so he could marry her. The only thing holding him back from marrying her was Elrond. He wouldn't let them get married unless Aragorn was king and Sauron was defeated. He didn't want her living in a Middle Earth where Sauron still existed.

3. Faramir. He EXPLICITLY states to Frodo in "The Two Towers" that if he saw the ring lying for the taking on the side of the road and knew what it was, that he still would leave it and not be tempted to take it even to guard it. PJ once again comes through and ruins another highly noble character. Instead, we have him take Frod hostage (?!) and return him to Osgiliath (?!), where he offers the ring to a flying Nazgul (!!??), only to return him on his way through the sewers (!?). Yeah, that needed to happen. :roll: That waste of time could have been spent on Gandalf, Theoden, and Co. taking care of Saruman to finish him off from the movies. Instead, his storyline gets dragged out into the third movie.

4. Less importantly, Gandalf vs. The Witch King. This is my absolute favorite scene from the book. The rooster crowing. Pippin cowering in fear. The horns of the Rohirrim blowing. Blech! What comes through the gate instead? Armored trolls and tons of orcs. This one is more a personal preference, though.

5. Gandalf beating the crap out of Denethor. Gandalf was much too noble to strike a Steward of Gondor with his staff. Man that was just cheesy and a bit foolish.

I have many more minor issues. I am not a purist, but when too many major themes are hacked to bits, I lose respect for the hackers, and am unfortunately forced to view the movies not as LoTR, but as movies based on LoTR.

I love these movies. It's just that there are many parts in them that bother me. I have overcome that enough to watch them time and again, because there are some simply amazing parts (Boromir's last stand. I often well up when I watch that...MUCH better than the book. Gandalf's in-flight fight with the Balrog. The Ents mashing Isengard to bits. The Shire. Gandalf's charge at Helm's Deep. Minas Tirith (!). The soundtrack. Just to name a few).

If you care, there's a sight called MinasTirith.com. Many fans post their thoughts and such there. Someone was saying that they've never seen anyone say anything like I did in my previous post about PJ's LoTR. You will probably see people who share my feelings (to some degree at least) there.

My apologies for the excessive length.

[Nwojedi]

you do realize how much had to be changed in order to make the movies, shootable. Right? Those issues are trivial at best. Name one trilogy better than LOTR? Giveup, it's because there isn't one. You set your standards to high.

What about the FOUL things from the book? Why didn't you miss those? the changes for the better. Like the fact that the white wizard doesn't die on the two towers, and instead starts a gang of unrulely hobbits. FOUL.

[Uprising]

(Boromir's last stand. I often well up when I watch that...)



Me too.
"I would have followed you my brother, my captain, my king!"
Pretty much everytime during this line. I get a little wet in the eyes.

[Grungebob]

you do realize how much had to be changed in order to make the movies, shootable. Right? Those issues are trivial at best. Name one trilogy better than LOTR? Giveup, it's because there isn't one. You set your standards to high.

What about the FOUL things from the book? Why didn't you miss those? the changes for the better. Like the fact that the white wizard doesn't die on the two towers, and instead starts a gang of unrulely hobbits. FOUL.Ya it was a good idea to cut the Battle for the Shire scenes. Rubbish and one of the most criticized parts of the books.

[Nwojedi]

well if you ask me then. The movies are better than the book. Cuz they completly changed a utterly stupid aspect of the books and made it cool. and added other things and changed things that are trivial at best.

My vote goes for the movies are better. and perfect the way they are.

[Grungebob]

well if you ask me then. The movies are better than the book. Cuz they completly changed a utterly stupid aspect of the books and made it cool. and added other things and changed things that are trivial at best.

My vote goes for the movies are better. and perfect the way they are.Plus they didn't include any of the rampant singing that the characters in the books always seemed to do.. :down:

[Karkadinn]

Personally my least favorite parts of the movies were A) The removal of the Scouring, B) Gimli reduced to a one-note joke, and C) Legolas turned into a surfer bishounen. Though one could make strong arguments for the first point, the second two are simply gratuitous pandering, things that firmly cement the movies in the current decade and will be outdated and quaint as years pass.
Though the movies did improve on some things, they certainly aren't perfect, or even better than the books. Just about equal with them, being worse and better in different areas.
Also, I would contend that the Godfather Trilogy is better than the LOTR movie trilogy, period. :)

[Kepler]

1. Arwen. I understand that introducing Glorfindel would have been a dead end. I just hated the fact that PJ gave her such a big role. The Flight to the Ford sucked. Too many fast camera shots. Besides, Elrond caused the flood. Not Arwen

I didn't mind these changes. It probably kept the "no major female characters" stuff to a minimum.


3. Faramir. He EXPLICITLY states to Frodo in "The Two Towers" that if he saw the ring lying for the taking on the side of the road and knew what it was, that he still would leave it and not be tempted to take it even to guard it. PJ once again comes through and ruins another highly noble character. Instead, we have him take Frod hostage (?!) and return him to Osgiliath (?!), where he offers the ring to a flying Nazgul (!!??), only to return him on his way through the sewers (!?). Yeah, that needed to happen. :roll: That waste of time could have been spent on Gandalf, Theoden, and Co. taking care of Saruman to finish him off from the movies. Instead, his storyline gets dragged out into the third movie.

4. Less importantly, Gandalf vs. The Witch King. This is my absolute favorite scene from the book. The rooster crowing. Pippin cowering in fear. The horns of the Rohirrim blowing. Blech! What comes through the gate instead? Armored trolls and tons of orcs. This one is more a personal preference, though

These are the biggest negatives to the movie IMO. Faramir was a much better character in the book.

I also really missed the Gandalf vs the Witch-King scene. The one filmed for the extended version was bad. It had Gandalf cowering before the Witch-King. I really wished they had kept that one.

The movies also missed the sense of time that the book had. The book was very precise on how much time passed as the story moved along. The movies paid absolutely no attention to it.

The pluses for the movies were the elimination of Bomadil and the Shire thing.

Overall I would say that the two were equally good, just different.

I still rank the Classic Star Wars Trilogy as the best movie series.of all time.

[fejkl]

nwojediwrote:

What about the FOUL things from the book? Why didn't you miss those? the changes for the better. Like the fact that the white wizard doesn't die on the two towers, and instead starts a gang of unrulely hobbits. FOUL.

I stated that there were other things about the movies that I was unhappy with. My post weas getting long, and it was getting late here, so I opted to not include certain aspects in my post.

and:

Name one trilogy better than LOTR? Giveup, it's because there isn't one. You set your standards to high.

Back to the Future. Star Wars. I dunno. There are probably more. And yes, I agree. I set my standards too high. I expected The Great Professor's work to be treated with dignity and respect.

The book is called "The Lord of the Rings", of course, but its focus is on the Hobbits. The movie took that focus off them and put it on the Ring. This works, of course, for filming purposes, but I have issues with it.

Call them trivial if you want, but they're my feelings, and I'm sticking to them. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I also stated that there are many parts of the movies that I absolutely love. I don't hate the movies, just certain parts.

[Kepler]

Also, even though I did love the LOTR movies we could have done without Sam's cheesy and overly dramatic speeches.

[Grishnakh]

Just to join in here: I too have a love/hate relationship with these films. I've read the books way too many times to count and what I saw on film was not what Tolkien wrote.

I know all of you have these movies on DVD. Look at the credits and you will see the words "Based on the book by JRR Tolkien". So there it is. The film makers are admitting right up front that they are only using the concepts and ideas from the book and crafting their own story out of it. Personally, once I realized that, I was able to enjoy these three films independently from the books. Because they are definitely not Tolkien. My only complaint is simply this. It will be many years before we get a remake that is closer in tone, spirit and overall theme of the books. By that time all of us will be long gone. I'm glad to have seen Jackson make this supreme effort in filming this story in my lifetime. Tolkien himself knew and hoped that his books would someday be filmed. I just can't shake the feeling that he is rolling in his grave over the way his book was translated to the silver screen.

By the way the BBC radio drama production of LOTR comes closer to capturing the essence of the book. I only wished they had simply used that as the script for the film.

[dra(gon)]

lotr from pj miss manny things and thre were many changes. but if pj was so a huge fan why did he not use message from middel earth toa expansion? and cut cot that lombardi and his daughter the tomb.

he had all and some cgi could make in years so easy. he had all and 3 year of produuction some actors could act the missig parts(just for fun)

the hobbit is a child book and it canot work if you send it after the lotr. and if i wish to see gandalf and the other talk about saurron.

[jcb231]

It's easier said than done though. MGM owns the rights to The Hobbit, yet the Lord of the Rings movies are distributed by New Line, which Peter Jackson has a relationship with. To further complicate things, Peter Jackson filed a lawsuit against New Line for a share of the profits from the Lord of the Rings movies.

Go to cinescape.com

They specifically mention some sort of deal between New Line and MGM.

With the profitability of LOTR and the recent struggles of MGM it only makes sense for MGM to want to partner up on a sure thing.

[jcb231]

It's easier said than done though. MGM owns the rights to The Hobbit, yet the Lord of the Rings movies are distributed by New Line, which Peter Jackson has a relationship with. To further complicate things, Peter Jackson filed a lawsuit against New Line for a share of the profits from the Lord of the Rings movies.

Go to cinescape.com

They specifically mention some sort of deal between New Line and MGM.

With the profitability of LOTR and the recent struggles of MGM it only makes sense for MGM to want to partner up on a sure thing.

[jcb231]

Tom Bombadil?

I sure as heck didn't miss that.Yah!! They would have had to completely overhaul that zany loon to have it match the rest of the work.

True.

I can't find a link to it, but I recall an article where they mentioned Tolkien's distaste for Bombadil and his regret at including him in the story. Am I just totally imagining that or is that true? I recalled reading it years and years ago in college, before the movies even came out.

[Vette71]

Also, even though I did love the LOTR movies we could have done without Sam's cheesy and overly dramatic speeches.
:word:
Thankfully Bombadil and all the musical numbers were cut from the films though.
Gimli should NOT have been turned into comic relief.
Legolas the surfer elf...what? That alone should earn someone a dumb@$$ award!

[BilboAtBagEnd]

I can't find a link to it, but I recall an article where they mentioned Tolkien's distaste for Bombadil and his regret at including him in the story. Am I just totally imagining that or is that true? I recalled reading it years and years ago in college, before the movies even came out.

I think it was more that he regretted how he started out the trilogy---as a continuation of the tone of The Hobbit which, while being a great book in and of itself, does not lend itself to the epic scope that the work eventually ended up being. As a result, the first half of The Fellowship of the Ring contains items that jar uncomfortably with the rest of books, which includes Tom Bombadil.

As for the movie adaptation... I rather like the books, and one must understand that the books and the movies can never be the same. I had my share of scenes that make me cringe, but they were modified for understandable reasons, some better than others. (Glorfindel's absense doesn't disturb me at all, and neither does Faramir's "change of heart" nor Aragorn's increased uncertainty. I am glad they didn't, in the end, decide to reverse the roles of Arwen and Eowyn. I'm not too fond of Denethor's death scene, but I suppose that a more defiant and suicidal scene would not have played well with the audience, so can understand that change. etc. And I really hate what they did with the Ent scenes, apart from how they looked, but it's hard to think of a better solution in the scope of a movie timeframe.)

Few people are as into the books as Christopher Tolkien is. He hated the movies with a white hot burning hatred... and I believe stopped talking to one of his sons for getting a bit part in the movie, with rumors of disownment and suchlike.

[Joah]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30014

Looks like "The Hobbit" might be going someplace else.

Have any 'Scapers read this series?
I feel as though I've heard of them, but know very little about them.

[Nwojedi]

how can you say back to the future is better than LOTR? BTTF 2 wasnt' very good. and kinda brought a comic tone to the trilogy. I love BTTF, don't get me wrong, but 2 was cheesy. And For the star wars trilogy. It's damn good, i've been a star wars fan for 26 years, and had one of the biggest collections in WI, but even I have to say LOTR is superior to SW. The first SW is dragged out and boring and dated. 25 years from now, i'm sure something will surpass even LOTR.

[Jotun]

From Wikipedia:

Peter Jackson, director of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, stated in March 2005 that a motion picture version of The Hobbit was being considered, but that it would be at least 2008 or 2009 before filming would start. [1]Jackson reported being "burned out" from the filming of the trilogy, and wanted to work on other things beyond The Lord of the Rings. Despite his comments, MGM reported on September 11, 2006 that they were going ahead with the production of The Hobbit and it will be released over the next few years. MGM will be making the film in cooperation with New Line Cinema, but Jackson has thus far not signed on to the project. [2] Jackson responded on AICN that he is surprised that MGM didn't actually approach him, but would nonetheless like to, though he has other projects such as The Lovely Bones and Halo to attend to. However, he would certainly like to expand on the original story with the White Council subplot. New Line and MGM have considered Jackson as the director and have also talked of adapting The Hobbit as two movies. [3]

It's nothing concrete but at least they seem to be moving out of the legal battle for now.

[netherspirit]

Merging.

[Jotun]

Thanks for the merge. my bad.

If PJ had done the books enough justice to make everyone happy then there would be probably need to be a few more movies which would be great for me but the movies would probably never have been financed.

The best case scenerio would have been for The Hobbit to have been made first and for it to do so well that studios would have wanted to stretch that out Harry Potter style over many movies. But then it would have taken six years and directors would probably change. Then it would have sucked. At least PJ pulled off three good movies instead of two great movies and a turd stuck at the end.

[Cave-2]

The 1st movie was good, 2nd one Ok, 3rd made me want my money back.

The Merry and Pippin became scene dressing in fact even Frodo and Samwise NEEDED MAN to save them by the end of the movie in the Book they were Warriors.

Arwen's life "tied to ring" so she was going to die to make the movie more of a love story- was nonsense

The 3rd movie was a shadow of the book, The Shire scene was needed and what I wanted to see from the begining - IT WAS A FULL CIRCLE MOMENT with the hobbits leaving as "scared of their Shadow" and returning with courage and honor- I had hoped that maybe in the Extended cut they would have included it--NOPE.

Also would have prefered no elf archers at the Deep. Especially since in the Book that MANY Elvan Archers would cut the Man-Orc army down.

The Dwarf being the butt of sight gags was not very flattering to the Character.

Faramir - why even put him in the movie- the way that character was treated by the hack writers

I was expecting from them to cut the Eagles and Ship scene as well

As action movie ROTK was Ok as a Tolkien it gets a "why bother" or should have stopped at right before the Deep"

MUSIC was very predominant in the Book - should have had a least a "Tip of the hat" to the poems and songs

[noodles]

The 1st movie was good, 2nd one Ok, 3rd made me want my money back.

The Merry and Pippin became scene dressing in fact even Frodo and Samwise NEEDED MAN to save them by the end of the movie in the Book they were Warriors.

Arwen's life "tied to ring" so she was going to die to make the movie more of a love story- was nonsense

The 3rd movie was a shadow of the book, The Shire scene was needed and what I wanted to see from the begining - IT WAS A FULL CIRCLE MOMENT with the hobbits leaving as "scared of their Shadow" and returning with courage and honor- I had hoped that maybe in the Extended cut they would have included it--NOPE.

Also would have prefered no elf archers at the Deep. Especially since in the Book that MANY Elvan Archers would cut the Man-Orc army down.

The Dwarf being the butt of sight gags was not very flattering to the Character.

Faramir - why even put him in the movie- the way that character was treated by the hack writers

I was expecting from them to cut the Eagles and Ship scene as well

As action movie ROTK was Ok as a Tolkien it gets a "why bother" or should have stopped at right before the Deep"

MUSIC was very predominant in the Book - should have had a least a "Tip of the hat" to the poems and songs

Wow, I really need to read the trilogy.

[Hahma]

Well I read the LOTR trilogy before seeing the movies and while there were changes and omissions, I still loved the movies. I looked at them separate from the books and let myself enjoy them.

It's amazing that the movies were ever even made b/c whoever did them would be scrutinized to the nth degree. Considering the massive undertaking that it took to create the movies, I'd say that PJ did a fantastic job and I'd like to see somebody else try and make them better as to appease everyone, but I don't think it could be done.

Ever since I was a kid, I've always heard that the books were better than the movies, whenever a movie was produced from a book. It's nothing new and I was actually pleased that the trilogy came as close as it did, it could have been much worse. While there were some minor things that could have been done differently, I look at the big picture and over all it turned out great.

If you ever get a chance to see the travelling LOTR museum (or whatever it was called), check it out. My wife and I took the kids down to Indianapolis last Christmas time to check out the LOTR displays at the museum in Indy. It was amazing to see the detail and craftsmanship that went into making every one of the costumes and props etc. Seeing that stuff should really make people appreciate even more all that went into making the movies.

[Jotun]

Hey Cave, I understand and I doubt I could sway you over to the PJ fanclub, but I would like to point out that there are a few times that Tolkien's poems and songs are used. The first time we see Gandalf he is singing a song. Treebeard does a few poems. And while they made up some songs for people to sing (at least one - Pippin's song), there is tons of singing in that movie. I can't remember how much is from Tolkien and how much they made up themselves, but these are the songs:

1) at the Green Dragon, 2) Gandalf's song, 3) Aragorn's song by the fire, 4+) all of Treebeard's stuff, 5) the hobbits singing again at Edoras after the Deep, 6) Eowyn singing at Theoden's son's funeral, 7) Pippin's song for Denethor, and 8 ) Aragorn's song at the wedding, and of course 9) the essential One Ring poem.

That's quite a hat tip.

[Nooblar]

Gandalf's song is actually Bilbo's Road Song:

The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
Pursuing it with eager feet,
Until it joins some larger way
Where many paths and errands meet.
And whither then? I cannot say.

[Nwojedi]

and pippins song from ROTK was probably the most emotional and well done scene in all of ROTK. Those movies just kick so much azz as a whole, it's not even funny. There are such great scenes from every single movie, great acting, dialouge, and cinematography, it's just awesome. I don't think anyone else could have pulled these movies off as well as PJ and team did. Just what they had to go through to disect the book enough to even make it filmable, you should be happy 95% of the book stayed true in the movies. It could have easily been the biggest piece of crap ever. Thankfully lucas gets that award.

[eldurand]

I re-read the trilogy every two or three years, the books are THAT good! In all I have probably read them more than 15 times. And I still LOVED the movies. They were not perfect depictions of everything that happens in the books, but taking into account the difficulty of making an EXACT version of the books, as well as the fact that the movies could not be (as much as I'd like to see them) 7 hours long apiece, I think they did a masterful job.

I love the books. I love the movies. They are not exactly the same. So what?

Just my $.02.

[Joah]

well if you ask me then. The movies are better than the book. Cuz they completly changed a utterly stupid aspect of the books and made it cool. and added other things and changed things that are trivial at best.

My vote goes for the movies are better. and perfect the way they are.Plus they didn't include any of the rampant singing that the characters in the books always seemed to do.. :down:

I agree with both sentiments here.

What the Hardcore Tolkien fans aren't seeing is, if slight changes aren't made, the films don't get made. As well as they were, that is.
PJ stayed as true to the material as possible I think.
I really wasn't all that crazy about the books.

I read the books, and with exception of the Hobbit, didn't really care for any of them. I loved the Middle-Earth "Universe", and I wanted to see where it went.
I didn't even read the series until eight or nine years ago.
I pretty much read them back to back, with a couple of exceptions.
I have to say I was pretty happy reading the last few pages of ROTK.

I put it down with Heller's "Catch-22".
Which, to me, is the "ultimate" example of said phrase.
"Catch-22" is an incredible book.
Amazing really.
But, it was kind've painful to read.
Does that make any sense?

[deadeyedan42]

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

HEY!!! no spaming! and a Hobbit movie? Sweeeeeet! Can't wait!

[Finrod]

I'm a hardcore Tolkien fan. Have been since 3rd grade. I've read the books 25+ times. I'm reading them out loud to my 8-year-old daughter right now, which will be the third time I've read them out loud.

I was mostly happy with the movies. I was annoyed with a few things (Aragorn's silly "fall" in TT and the characterization of Faramir, for two examples), and very disappointed in a couple of things (the mangling/elimination of the Gandalf/Witch-king confrontation and the climax inside Mount Doom). But on the whole, they were very, very good. I have all the tie-in books, the DVDs (except the latest money-grab attempt), the soundtracks, etc.

But I'm NOT at all happy about PJ's proposed plan for making TWO movies out of The Hobbit.

The Hobbit is a different kind of story. It's focused more at children and should be handled that way. Instead, PJ wants to turn it into a darker story by focusing more on Gandalf, Galadriel, etc., and the confrontation with the Necromancer (Sauron) which took place while Bilbo & the dwarves were traveling through Mirkwood. That's barely mentioned in the book, as an explanation for where Gandalf goes, but PJ wants to make it a major focus of the movies. Instead of making a movie about "the hobbit," he wants to make two movies about "the wizard."

And splitting it into two movies is just silly. It's a straightforward "there and back" adventure. There's no good place to split it and you'd have to really pad it to make it last that long.

[CupidsArt]

Though I can't say I'm excited to here this I'll still go see it. This has always been one of those books I just wanted left alone, :(

But hey if Jackson is doing the movie than I'm not so sad, because there are three things I'd love to see Beorn, Smaug and the Trolls turn to Stone, :D

[Jandars_Hope]

I doubt i'll get as excited over The Hobbit as i did over Lotr but i will still go and see it!

[brigade101]

I thought I read somewhere where the Tolkien family passed on letting PJ do The Hobbit because of the way he changed The LOTR [ for no good reason too. ] I was actually hoping that would be the case unless they [ the family ] got final word on the final cut of the film.

[Joah]

BTW: What's a Hobbit?

[jcb231]

The family won't get a cut approval. That wouldn't make good sense. The rights have been secured for two studios to share I believe....MGM and New Line.

[Pattar007]

I thought the movies were great. (Maybe I should read the trilogy again)

[Zealot]

I thought I should add my own .02 here.
I've read all the books through once and "The Two Towers" twice (it was my favorite of the three as a whole).
That may not seem like much compared to some of the other die hard fans but I know what I like and dont like in comparison to the movies.

I really really liked the movies, helms deep was awesome, moria was brilliant, and the ride of the rohirrem into the armies of mordor gave me chills (in a good way) at the theatre.
There were only two things in the entire trilogy that I was disappointed in enough to note.

1. Faramir
Others have already said this but its worth noting again, Faramir was a very very noble character, on par with Aragorn in the books, he also (in the books) went on to have a romantic relationship with Eowyn, and as said earlier, Faramir was never tempted by the ring, he pushed it aside not wanting it the way they made Aragorn do it in "The Fellowship of the Ring" movie.
2. Shelob
This is the scene that I have the biggest problem with. Shelob was the big and suspensful finale to "The Two Towers", in the movies, she appears in the middle of "The Return of the King" greatly diminishing her omonous character. Not only that but the entire scene as a whole was completely different. Sam and Frodo never split up, Shelob's cave wasn't a web filled labyrinth but a pitch black tunnel that wreaked to the point of nearly smothering Frodo and Sam. The fight between Shelob and Sam was overly dramatic with less realism to it (it happened inside her cave, not outside in the daylight) and one of the best parts of the Shelob fight was cut, in the book when sam held the phial of galadrial and sting at the same time against Shelob, the phial shined like a star (on par with Gandalf's staff) and Sting burst into blue flames.

These two scenes aside I loved the movies and the lack of a good Shelob scene was balanced by the absolute brialliant and terrifying depiction of my other favorite character, the Balrog.
PJ's team made the absolute best Balrog I could have ever imagined for the books. Best scene in the first movie in my opinion.

Sorry about the length of the post guys, I started soap-boxing

[dra(gon)]

tow movies seems not bad, but it will be not the hobbit. if pj takes things fron news from middel earth.

or used the simarillion to explain the world. but the book the hobbit has somes holes then you count with lotr(there were many parts that i want see)

but the better way as a dvd feature 240 minutes long and not so expensiv in picture form)

[truth]

It'll be interesting to see if and how they keep continuity with the LOTR movies. Will they have the trolls talk?

[hextr1p]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but right now the "The Hobbit" story itself isn't going to be broken up into two movies. Rather, there is going to be one movie based on the book. The second film with be be crafted using "footnotes and source material connecting The Hobbit with Lord of the Rings."

And the way Peter Jackson does Tolkien, I think the idea for the second film sounds awesome. :D

[deadeyedan42]

Acctualy that would be the 5th movie :D I'm such a nerd!

[auralerogeny]

When I think of books made into movies, I usually cringe. I think of Jurassic Park and The Lost World, which were absolutely spectacular novels by Michael Crichton. The movies? Oohh, they were bad, really bad. They had awesome f/x and visuals, the best I'd ever seen when they came out in the 90's, as well as really great action, but the plot? Whell the only similarity was basically that the book had dinosaurs and so did the movies. The books were very well crafted, with intricate plots and twists at every turn, while in the movie the plot was "run from the dinosaur!"

Frank Herbert's Dune. The 80's version was horrible, they crammed an intricately detailed book into a 90 minute movie, really it was like a teaser on what Dune was all about. Late 90's come around and they make a mini-series on the Sci-Fi channel which was much better, but still VERY far from what I was hoping for. Then a couple years go by and they do the mini-series of "Children of Dune." That was horrible! They crammed Children of Dune AND Heretics of Dune into one mini-series, cutting out whatever they wanted on a whim.

Peter Jackson proved me wrong. I can't think of a single book to movie adaptation that has ever seen the big screen that has been pulled off so thoroughly and successfully. They practically used the book as a script, I distinctly remember in one of the behind the scenes featurettes PJ reading one of the LOTR books on set. THAT impressed me. He's been a fan all his life and I can't imagine ANYone doing a better job than he did.

The changes he made were all minor, I would have hated to see Tom Bombadil in these movies. The action turned out much better than I ever envisioned in my head, as well as the visuals.

Legolas surfing? I laughed when I saw it, then I gave that some thought. He's an elf, and is very well balanced and dexterious. He was the first one out of the snow when Sauron blasted the mountain before they decided to go into the Mines of Moira, and in the book Legolas could literally WALK on top of the snow, he was very lightfooted. Having him "surf" a sheild down a flight of stone steps while shooting arrows, then flinging the shield into the chest of an attacker at the base of the steps? That became more believable to me the more I thought about it. He's an elf, and as such is capable of things that humans are not. If Aragorn had done that, I'd have a really big problem, but not a several hundred year old elf (I don't remember how old Legolas ACTUALLY is).

Bottom line, PJ did a better movie adaptation with these books than I think ANYONE has ever done with ANY book, and that's no small feat. And to the people that are dissatisfied with the entire movie trilogy because of a very select few minor details? Please, that's like complaining about your brand new Ferrari because it doesn't have any cupholders. They do, but if it didn't, would you denounce the car?

[jcb231]

I thought I should add my own .02 here.
I've read all the books through once and "The Two Towers" twice (it was my favorite of the three as a whole).
That may not seem like much compared to some of the other die hard fans but I know what I like and dont like in comparison to the movies.

I really really liked the movies, helms deep was awesome, moria was brilliant, and the ride of the rohirrem into the armies of mordor gave me chills (in a good way) at the theatre.
There were only two things in the entire trilogy that I was disappointed in enough to note.

1. Faramir
Others have already said this but its worth noting again, Faramir was a very very noble character, on par with Aragorn in the books, he also (in the books) went on to have a romantic relationship with Eowyn, and as said earlier, Faramir was never tempted by the ring, he pushed it aside not wanting it the way they made Aragorn do it in "The Fellowship of the Ring" movie.
2. Shelob
This is the scene that I have the biggest problem with. Shelob was the big and suspensful finale to "The Two Towers", in the movies, she appears in the middle of "The Return of the King" greatly diminishing her omonous character. Not only that but the entire scene as a whole was completely different. Sam and Frodo never split up, Shelob's cave wasn't a web filled labyrinth but a pitch black tunnel that wreaked to the point of nearly smothering Frodo and Sam. The fight between Shelob and Sam was overly dramatic with less realism to it (it happened inside her cave, not outside in the daylight) and one of the best parts of the Shelob fight was cut, in the book when sam held the phial of galadrial and sting at the same time against Shelob, the phial shined like a star (on par with Gandalf's staff) and Sting burst into blue flames.

These two scenes aside I loved the movies and the lack of a good Shelob scene was balanced by the absolute brialliant and terrifying depiction of my other favorite character, the Balrog.
PJ's team made the absolute best Balrog I could have ever imagined for the books. Best scene in the first movie in my opinion.

Sorry about the length of the post guys, I started soap-boxing

Just wanted to point out that Faramir and Eowyn do get together in the movie. It's barely hinted at in the severely abridged theatrical cut, but in the real cut of the movie on DVD it's given a bit more screen time. Not a ton, but enough to make it noticeable.

[jcb231]

It'll be interesting to see if and how they keep continuity with the LOTR movies. Will they have the trolls talk?

Good point. I'm sure they'll deal with it by saying that the Hobbit trolls are a different breed (the statues look very different in the movie from the cave trolls we see elsewhere) or by just saying "Hey, we never said the trolls couldn't talk in the trilogy, they just chose not to." :-)

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but right now the "The Hobbit" story itself isn't going to be broken up into two movies. Rather, there is going to be one movie based on the book. The second film with be be crafted using "footnotes and source material connecting The Hobbit with Lord of the Rings."

And the way Peter Jackson does Tolkien, I think the idea for the second film sounds awesome. :D

I had heard that the core Hobbit tale would be split over both movies, with the supplemental material worked in to both films as well. But news on these flicks changes everyday, so I wouldn't put much faith in anything.

Legolas surfing? I laughed when I saw it, then I gave that some thought. He's an elf, and is very well balanced and dexterious. He was the first one out of the snow when Sauron blasted the mountain before they decided to go into the Mines of Moira, and in the book Legolas could literally WALK on top of the snow, he was very lightfooted. Having him "surf" a sheild down a flight of stone steps while shooting arrows, then flinging the shield into the chest of an attacker at the base of the steps? That became more believable to me the more I thought about it. He's an elf, and as such is capable of things that humans are not. If Aragorn had done that, I'd have a really big problem, but not a several hundred year old elf (I don't remember how old Legolas ACTUALLY is).

In the movie Legolas walks on top of the snow too. Watch the mountain scene again. It's a very cool visual. Everyone else is waist deep (neck deep on the Hobbits) and Legolas is just strutting along.

[Havokscry]

This is extremely sad news. It looks like if The Hobbit movie is made, it will be without Peter Jackson. This is a letter he wrote to a fan site.

http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1163993546.html

[Finrod]

Can't say I'm all that upset.

Of course, if they hire a total hack, THEN I'll be upset...

[Havokscry]

It depends, if they go entirely in a whole new direction then I will be upset. If they cast someone to play Gandalf other than Ian McKellan, I'll be upset. I would assume if Peter Jackson was attached to the movie, he would recast Bilbo with someone younger (even though he wasn't supposed to age much from the Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings). I think the biggest hit will be in the special effects department, if Weta isn't involved.

[Nwojedi]

OMG would this blow serious azz if this happens. I have a feeling of PJ doesn't do this. You can bet that the feel and look of the other one/two movies will not mesh well with LOTR. This could fall victim to the same thing Star wars did. You have crappy prequels, and it's going to kill the ones that are awesome. Bullocks I tell you...bullocks!

[mrbistro]

I think the biggest hit will be in the special effects department, if Weta isn't involved.

Considering the fact that Weta is connected to Peter Jackson, their involvement will no longer be an option. This is going to suck.

[jcb231]

This is extremely sad news. It looks like if The Hobbit movie is made, it will be without Peter Jackson. This is a letter he wrote to a fan site.

http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1163993546.html

SON OF A *****!

Grrrr....

I am so pissed off at that.

Why even make the ****ing things then? The LOTR films WERE Peter Jackson....they weren't Tolkien, they were Peter Jackson. His ideas and his craftsmanship were the heart of those films. To make prequels without his involvement is the height of stupidity. The studio should be bending over backwards to allow him and his team to work on these films the way they want to. LOTR plus PJ equals $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

LOTR minus PJ equals suck.

Dammit. I know it's the end, but I hold out hope this is not truly the end. I hope the studio reconsiders and PJ and everyone involved can sit down and reevaluate. But I'm sure that will never happen. Stupid studio egos.

I think this is the most I've ever been pissed off by a bit of entertainment news fluff, lol.

Oh well. At least I still have my LOTR extended edition box sets.

I know of two movies I certainly won't be seeing....Hobbit and Hobbit 2. Plus I'll be quite hesitant to see anything PJ or his studio or Weta makes from now on, as I'm kinda pissed at them too for not playing the studio game to at least some extent.

[mrbistro]

Actually, there's some good news. Apparently the whole thing with PJ not directing was news to MGM who is now saying, "Hold on a moment..."

[jcb231]

Well the letter supposedly came from PJ's own mouth...er...pen....er...typewriter....whatever.

[Havokscry]

I guess the news isn't all bad. Although I don't think anyone could do it better than Jackson, this isn't a bad second option.

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/1/1164235638

[lightfight]

HOLY CRAP! That's great. I LOVE Sam Raimi. I've like all of his movies and he's done a bangup job on the Spiderman series. If Jackson had to step down this is the only guy I can see doing a good job of it right now. Actually, I kind of like the idea of Raimi doing it better than Jackson. I don't want him to have a monopoly on Middle Earth, I think we should let someone else have a shot at it. I'd like to see a different interpretation than Jackson's I mean.

[jcb231]

I'd like to see a new director's take as well, but first I want PJ's saga to get it's proper companion. Maybe ten years down the road I'll be willing to shell out for a ticket to a new director's take on the saga.

[jcb231]

I guess the news isn't all bad. Although I don't think anyone could do it better than Jackson, this isn't a bad second option.

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/1/1164235638

Ick. Still won't be seeing these. I have no interest in a Hobbit movie unless it's truly part of a series with Jackson's LOTR trilogy. If it's just some stand alone thing done by another director in a new style, what's the point? And if I recall correctly, didn't Ian MacKellen make a comment to the effect of only wanting to do the Hobbit if Jackson and co were involved? A new Gandalf would blow chunks....I mean maybe if they dug up Alec Guiness and reanimated him that would be okay but I can't think of anyone living that could do the part as well as Sir Ian. Who would they get? Ditto for Andy Serkis....he seems to have a tight bond with Jackson....I wonder if he would play Gollum without PJ's direction?

[Havokscry]

Can't you see Ted Raimi as Frodo and Bruce Campbell as Gandalf?

[lightfight]

Can't you see Ted Raimi as Frodo and Bruce Campbell as Gandalf?

That is officialy the funniest thing I've heard in months. That is going in my signature. You mind if I use it?

[Havokscry]

Actually I screwed up. It would be Ted Raimi as Bilbo, if they are doing the Hobbit, but feel free.

[Havokscry]

My guess is that this will be tied up in the courts once again. This is going to get messy.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30806

[mutantpoo]

http://movies.ign.com/articles/754/754322p1.html

Yes, yes , yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

So long PJ, you story stealing, book ruining bastid' !

JRR gets some small measure of peace in his long rest !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Havokscry]

http://movies.ign.com/articles/754/754322p1.html

Yes, yes , yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

So long PJ, you story stealing, book ruining bastid' !

JRR gets some small measure of peace in his long rest !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well that was about the dumbest thing a movie executive could have done. Within a year, Bob Shaye will be looking for work. How do you attempt to blacklist a movie director that has made movies grossing billions of dollars? It's like 20th Century Fox blacklisting George Lucas. Peter Jackson made New Line into a major movie company.

You may not like his movies, but one of Tolkien's grandsons has stated that he doesn't want The Hobbit made unless Peter Jackson's directing. It looks like the family is on PJ's side.

[Sweetcurse]

http://movies.ign.com/articles/754/754322p1.html

Yes, yes , yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

So long PJ, you story stealing, book ruining bastid' !

JRR gets some small measure of peace in his long rest !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PJ made LOTR into something worth watching. If the movie was exactly like the book, people would have walked out of the theatres in droves. The books are wonderful, and better than the movies for sure, but they are different mediums and are better kept separate. If the movies had been made like the book, you would have a Bollywood musical instead of what we got.

[jaques]

Peter Jackson knows how to film beautiful women being beautiful. And he knows how to let CGI geniuses do their thing. Beyond that ...

From Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace:

Anakin: Will I ever see you again?
Shmi Skywalker: What does your heart tell you?
Anakin: I hope so. Yes... I guess.

From The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King:
Aragorn: We have time. Every day Frodo moves closer to Mordor.
Gandalf: Do we know that?
Aragorn: What does your heart tell you?
Gandalf: That Frodo is alive. Yes. Yes, he's alive.

Why exactly would you decide to turn Gandalf, who'd literally been to hell and back wrestling a Balrog, into a tremorous 8-year-old boy? I mean, these lines weren't even good when George Lucas wrote them, but at least they were appropriate to the characters and their situation. But to Gandalf and Aragorn?

[auralerogeny]

I think that the LOTR are the BEST book to movie transfer EVER. PERIOD. No other movie has ever done the book justice, and these movies did. I do not miss Tom Bombadil, or all the singing. New Line booting PJ makes me not want to see the Hobbit, but I know that I would anyways. I believe that they are kicking him out over money, if I have this right. He want's his cut (because he get's a percentage of the movies, not just a flat rate) and they have been lying about how much they've made. They did an audit or a re-audit over the first movie, but New Line refuses to do it over the second and third, so they can keep the profits and not give it to the movies' director, who by contract recieves a percentage. Bottom line, big business screwing the not-so-little guy. Seen it done before, and still don't like it now.

[mrbistro]

Why exactly would you decide to turn Gandalf, who'd literally been to hell and back wrestling a Balrog, into a tremorous 8-year-old boy? I mean, these lines weren't even good when George Lucas wrote them, but at least they were appropriate to the characters and their situation. But to Gandalf and Aragorn?

Well first off those words are not the same. I'm sure you could find lines in Casablanca that are similar to lines in something like Dumb and Dumber. The difference? The wording will be different, the context will be different, and dear lord in heaven, the acting will be different.

[Nwojedi]

nothing lucas writes is worth a crap anymore. Ep 1, 2 and 3 were horribly written, directed and acted. They lines were cheesy and characters lacked any depth at all. Nobody could have cared less for any character in that series, whether or not they died or what happened to them. why? cuz they were poorly constructed and lacked any real properties that you could associate with.

As for LOTR, it was the direct opposite. The characters were well directed, had very good depth and you cared for them. So a character that delivers a line from one movie, which you could care less about. Isn't going to have the depth, or emotional element, that a character from a movie with characters that you actually are mentally bonded to.

you think the Green Mile would have had the emotional bonding that it did, if the characters were written and acted cheesely? No. That movie would have turned out like bill and teds excellent adventure. Lucas should get a pad and pencil and take some notes from PJ about character development.

[auralerogeny]

Lucas should get a pad and pencil and take some notes from PJ about character development.

Amen to that, brother! :lol:

[jaques]

Why exactly would you decide to turn Gandalf, who'd literally been to hell and back wrestling a Balrog, into a tremorous 8-year-old boy? I mean, these lines weren't even good when George Lucas wrote them, but at least they were appropriate to the characters and their situation. But to Gandalf and Aragorn?

Well first off those words are not the same. I'm sure you could find lines in Casablanca that are similar to lines in something like Dumb and Dumber. The difference? The wording will be different, the context will be different, and dear lord in heaven, the acting will be different.

That completely misses my point, which is that PJ felt it was appropriate to show Gandalf being fretful and anxious, and then put Aragorn in the role of mother hen to him. This shows a complete lack of understanding of both of these characters, their history as individuals, and their history together.


nothing lucas writes is worth a crap anymore. Ep 1, 2 and 3 were horribly written, directed and acted. They lines were cheesy and characters lacked any depth at all. Nobody could have cared less for any character in that series, whether or not they died or what happened to them. why? cuz they were poorly constructed and lacked any real properties that you could associate with.

As for LOTR, it was the direct opposite. The characters were well directed, had very good depth and you cared for them. So a character that delivers a line from one movie, which you could care less about. Isn't going to have the depth, or emotional element, that a character from a movie with characters that you actually are mentally bonded to.

you think the Green Mile would have had the emotional bonding that it did, if the characters were written and acted cheesely? No. That movie would have turned out like bill and teds excellent adventure. Lucas should get a pad and pencil and take some notes from PJ about character development.


I don't know where the Green Mile enters into this at all, and I haven't seen it, so I can't comment on that.

I do think it's unfair to the actors in the prequel trilogy to say that their parts were horribly acted, and unfair to the scripting to tar all of the writing with the same brush. Rather, the direction was just so awful that no one knew what to do with their lines. Lucas was too concerned with getting people on their marks so the FX guys could fit them in with the CGI, and he didn't bother to provide anyone with their motivation. I also doubt he bothered to go back for retakes when it was clear that performances in certain scenes weren't working. Thus you get wooden and clunky performances from amazing actors like Samuel L. Jackson and Ewan MacGregor.

As for PJ's character development, this is a man who felt that he needed to draw CGI fangs on the brilliant Ian Holm in order to show that the One Ring does creepy things to people. I hope to high heaven that George Lucas never takes any notes from him. (Although it would certainly be nice if GL would go back and take some notes from himself circa 1976 and Irvin Kershner circa 1979.)

Don't even get me started about King Kong.

[Havokscry]

I'm a bit confused. If you don't like Peter Jackson as a filmmaker, then why the heck would you sit through The Two Towers, Return of the King, and King Kong? You obviously should have been turned off after seeing Fellowship.

[Josef]

Bad Taste, and Meet the Feebles. Now there's some high quality Movies. Then it all goes down hill. :cry: (ok fine MtF's a little terrible) :rofl:

[jaques]

I'm a bit confused. If you don't like Peter Jackson as a filmmaker, then why the heck would you sit through The Two Towers, Return of the King, and King Kong? You obviously should have been turned off after seeing Fellowship.

Sometimes being a glutton for punishment pays off. :)

I first read LOTR when I was 12. I thought it was boring and depressing. In college, a friend whose reading tastes were phenomenal urged me to try the books again, so I did. I thought they were overblown and two-dimensional. The only parts I liked were the very beginning and the Scouring of the Shire.

Finally, a fellow rabid Star Wars fan told me how much it baffled him that I did not like LOTR, so I read the books again, and I was amazed. I'd obviously been way too young for them the first time, and apparently was still too immature just out of college, but they knocked my socks off on that third reading.

There have been great things in almost all of Peter Jackson's big-budget movies, and the fact of the matter is, even if there hadn't been, you can really only count the trilogy as one movie, since it was written and filmed all at once.

So despite being let down by the climax of the trilogy, I still had some hopes for King Kong, especially since it got such great reviews.

[Havokscry]

I'm a bit confused. If you don't like Peter Jackson as a filmmaker, then why the heck would you sit through The Two Towers, Return of the King, and King Kong? You obviously should have been turned off after seeing Fellowship.

Sometimes being a glutton for punishment pays off. :)

I first read LOTR when I was 12. I thought it was boring and depressing. In college, a friend whose reading tastes were phenomenal urged me to try the books again, so I did. I thought they were overblown and two-dimensional. The only parts I liked were the very beginning and the Scouring of the Shire.

Finally, a fellow rabid Star Wars fan told me how much it baffled him that I did not like LOTR, so I read the books again, and I was amazed. I'd obviously been way too young for them the first time, and apparently was still too immature just out of college, but they knocked my socks off on that third reading.

There have been great things in almost all of Peter Jackson's big-budget movies, and the fact of the matter is, even if there hadn't been, you can really only count the trilogy as one movie, since it was written and filmed all at once.

So despite being let down by the climax of the trilogy, I still had some hopes for King Kong, especially since it got such great reviews.

Well watch each one of them three or four times and then you'll love them. Of course it will take you about a about a month to do so.

[jaques]

Well watch each one of them three or four times and then you'll love them. Of course it will take you about a about a month to do so.

Unfortunately, the things I disliked about LOTR on my first several readings were areas in which the books were insufficient (or so I thought). The first read-through, I thought they had insufficient action, and an ending that was not happy enough. On my second reading, I thought they lacked believable, human characters. I was wrong about these things, but in each case, it was something missing that bothered me.

With the LOTR movies, it's what is there that bothers me. Characterization at odds with the books. Senseless battle strategies. Horrible use of slow motion at precisely the wrong moment in a way that undercuts the action instead of emphasizing it. Weepy, overdramatized music. Endless helicopter shots that remind me I'm watching New Zealand, not Middle Earth.

[netherspirit]

I think that the LOTR are the BEST book to movie transfer EVER. PERIOD. No other movie has ever done the book justice, and these movies did.

Shawshank Redemption and The Princess Bride do the book (novella in Shawshank's case) much justice as they were both pretty faithful to the stories.

[mrbistro]

That completely misses my point, which is that PJ felt it was appropriate to show Gandalf being fretful and anxious, and then put Aragorn in the role of mother hen to him. This shows a complete lack of understanding of both of these characters, their history as individuals, and their history together.

Eh. It comes down to interpretation. I don't see Aragorn being mother hen in that scene. I see him feeling the same as Gandalf. And I seem to recall Gandalf voicing worry in the books. Gandalf may be angelic, but he has many human qualities, including getting grouchy when he gets stressed.

[jaques]

Eh. It comes down to interpretation.

I'll certainly be the first to admit that I see these movies very differently than most people appear to.

[mrbistro]

With the LOTR movies, it's what is there that bothers me. Characterization at odds with the books. Senseless battle strategies. Horrible use of slow motion at precisely the wrong moment in a way that undercuts the action instead of emphasizing it. Weepy, overdramatized music. Endless helicopter shots that remind me I'm watching New Zealand, not Middle Earth.

Actually, aside from the music which I love deeply, I agree with you on those other things, especially the battle strategy (if not Helm's Deep, where on earth would you have him go that's defendable?) and the slo-mo (which always takes me out of the experience by reminding me it's a movie). So I can understand your feelings here. For me it's just a weighing of the good and the bad and enjoying the good stuff far more then I do the bad.

[jaques]

Actually, aside from the music which I love deeply, I agree with you on those other things, especially the battle strategy (if not Helm's Deep, where on earth would you have him go that's defendable?) and the slo-mo (which always takes me out of the experience by reminding me it's a movie). So I can understand your feelings here. For me it's just a weighing of the good and the bad and enjoying the good stuff far more then I do the bad.

I like the creepy One Ring music fine. The composer did a bang-up job on that theme. But I think that much of the time he was trying too hard to make the music sound Epic, Grand, and Dramatic. Certainly, there are places where such moods are called for -- but there are also a lot of places where the story is very human and intimate, or where the mood should simply be intense or suspenseful, not Ominous.

Music, though, is one of the most subjective elements in a film, and it doesn't surprise me when I encounter people who love the LOTR music.

As an experiment, I once took my ROTK DVD (a gift, for those of you about to ask, "Why the heck does this guy own ROTK???") and played a few scenes with the sound off and an Ennio Morricone CD on. It was a huge improvement, and made me suspect that with a different soundtrack, these might have been among my favorite movies, instead of being among my greatest disappointments.

[Loco4DaMofo]

This is what always happens with movies. They always cancel out the prequel, so they can do the movie for it AFTER they do the movie for LOTR. This makes fans go nuts about the movie. I don't really care. The LOTR trilogy was pretty good. I'd go with some friends to watch Hobbit probably. :roll:

[jbbnbsmith]

This is a very interesting discussion. I'm not sure I can add anything other than my own subjective opinion, but here goes...

I first read the books (Hobbit & LOTR) when I was in 9th grade. I had read them a few more times prior to the films being made, and then read through them again after going to see FOTR.

Let's face it, Peter Jackson had a huge challenge in front of him in trying to translate this book to the screen. I think most of the changes work well, or at least reasonable compromises in telling the story. I also think the movies gave an adequate nod to the role of song and poems in the book without having the thing become a musical. And I really like the soundtrack. The film looks beautiful and I think it captures the feel of middle earth very well, especially The Shire. Those first few scenes of FOTR are some of my favorites.

I've been long awaiting a film version of The Hobbit and I had really hoped that the same actors would be used in the appropriate roles (Bilbo, Gandalf, Elrond, etc). It would make a wonderful prequel to the trilogy.

One thing regarding the ending of ROTK. I know many people were put off by the multiple endings, but as I was watching the film for the first time, I was delighted each time the movie would continue after the previous fade-out. I didn't want it to end.

Here's an observation I had, and I wonder if anyone else thought this. In the closing shot of ROTK, Sam and his family go into their home, and close the big round door. At that point I expected to see on the screen the words "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." (the opening words of the Hobbit, which, according to legend, Tolkein scribbled on the back of a paper he was grading thus giving birth to the masterpiece). I thought that would be great to end the story exactly as it began. Just a thought.

[auralerogeny]

Actually, aside from the music which I love deeply, I agree with you on those other things, especially the battle strategy

I like the creepy One Ring music fine. The composer did a bang-up job on that theme. But I think that much of the time he was trying too hard to make the music sound Epic, Grand, and Dramatic. Certainly, there are places where such moods are called for -- but there are also a lot of places where the story is very human and intimate, or where the mood should simply be intense or suspenseful, not Ominous.

Music, though, is one of the most subjective elements in a film, and it doesn't surprise me when I encounter people who love the LOTR music.

As an experiment, I once took my ROTK DVD (a gift, for those of you about to ask, "Why the heck does this guy own ROTK???") and played a few scenes with the sound off and an Ennio Morricone CD on. It was a huge improvement, and made me suspect that with a different soundtrack, these might have been among my favorite movies, instead of being among my greatest disappointments.

I am a composer myself, have studied music all my life, am a pianist, own a modest recording studio, and read, listen to, and critique music all the time. I was completely dissapointed with the music in the entire trilogy. The only music I liked was what I think that Jaques is talking about, the creepy one ring music. I'd have to watch it again to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

The music that I am talking about is the music they play specifically when the orcs are around, I identify it as Sauron's theme. It's the evil rising theme to me. Syncopated yet simple, with a haunting brass motif. Very percussive, which is appropriate for a bunch of orcs running around with weapons, and the triplet/duplet rhythmic accents add a sense of unbalance that suits them well.

The rest of the music was very bland. I thought it was by far the least impressive thing about the entire series. It was a great story (of course), great cinematography, great action at times, great special effects, awesome costumes and props, beautiful scenery, and boring music. The music didn't add the heightened sense of apprehension, it didn't make the battle more intense, it sounded like it was "forced," not well written.

I wish that Hanz Zimmer had done the soundtrack, or John Williams, or any of a number of great film composers working today. The music was the most disappointing aspect of the entire series in my eyes. I know that I am very critical of the music that reaches my ears, however this is a trilogy that deserves the best composition, not some mediocre drabble. Everytime I hear the theme for the shire, I immediately think of Celine Dijon, not a connection I'd like to share with LOTR.

I LOVE the movies. I've loved the books all my life. I've read them over 5 times back to back.

I also wonder about all the people that say that PJ skipped over all these parts of the book, have you seen the extended special editions? I'm only wondering if you have or not, because if you haven't, then you are basing your assumption without all the data that is at hand. The movies are a little over 3 hours long each, while the extended versions are 3 1/2+ each. It's all extra tid bits and little scenes that were cut because not many people can sit through a 4 hour movie, so they saved it all for the DVD.

[jaques]

Whew! Thanks, Auralerogeny. Everytime I've brought up the subject of the LOTR music, whether online or in face-to-face discussions, people have reacted like I was crazy. It's good to know that someone else agrees!