quote:

---

I just don't see how someone can claim to have loved the LOTR movies and yet never read the Hobbit.

---

Doesn't seem that difficult a concept to me...

I hate reading. Back when Jurassic Park came out and I like it everyone told me that the book was way better. I'm sure it was but there's that whole reading thing which is just boring so half way through I just quit reading it.

Movies are 2 to 3 hours and over quick. And the visual elements make them fun.

quote:

---

As someone who hasn't read any of the books and loved the LOTR movie trilogy, I have to admit that trailer doesn't make me too excited. I'm guessing it's meant more for people who know the books and the characters and are happy to see them finally represented on screen.

---

If we're talking about the first 30 seconds or so, I can see your point. But how can that last minute of the trailer, with the epic music and amazing landscapes, not get you pumped? And as a lotr fan, you've gotta love the glimpses of the ring and Gollum at the end.

I saw the trailer and bought the book on iBooks so I could read at work. I finished it over the break and DAMN. That was a great book, and I can't wait for the movie!

quote:

---

ChipFTAC01
posted 11:02p, 12/25/11



I can't figure out where Gandalf would have been walking through ruins like he was in that trailer


sharkenleo
posted 10:24a, 12/26/11



Gotta be Dol Goldur.

---

Dol Goldur was my first thought as well, but it could also be Moria. Gandalf went through both looking for Thorin's father/grandfather and the Dwarven ring they possessed.

Can't wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trailer is cool.

I guess they could cut after Bilbo finds the ring, but I'm guessing they will get out of the mountains (and maybe saved by the Eagles?) .

Still concerned about them making up new material. You can't really deviate from the story without ****ing something up (See: Two Towers, The)

Which part? The elves at helm's deep didn't really bother me, and faramir holding up frodo was necessary in order to hold shelob back until ROTK.

[This message has been edited by sharkenleo (edited 1/5/2012 12:33p).]

kinda curious about that too amercer

I did not like Faramir holding Frodo up because they completely changed his character per the books.

quote:

---

I did not like Faramir holding Frodo up because they completely changed his character per the books.

---

That's one half of the problem. I'd say what they did to Théoden was worse. He wasn't ****ing possessed. He wasn't under a spell. He was an old man who had grown weak.

For reasons that escape me (and did NOTHING to help the plot) PJ robs both Théoden and Faramir of their humanity and destroys one of the basic themes of TTT.

Humans are different than all the other creatures in Middle Earth. Faramir is the oppisite of his brother in every way and changing his story kills the contrast that is so vital to the story. Likewise making Théoden's weakness the result of a magic trick absolves him of the all to human failings which he represents, and thus robs him of the redemption that comes from overcoming that failing.

I suppose you could make the same argument about Liv Tyler saving the Hobbits in FOTR, although that didn't bother me as much.

These all are pretty minor changes, yet they can really effect the overall intent of the story. That's what really freaks me out about the idea of new material just being pulled out of thin air. It could be an absolute train wreck.

Themes in novels don't always translate well to film. I can understand the change to Theoden so it was clear to everyone that he was not in his right mind. In the book this is due solely to Grima, but in the movie you need something more extreme, since you don't have a half hour to develop that story.

As for Faramir, I do agree that it changes his character significantly, but the contrasts between him and his brother are made abundantly clear, especially in ROTK, imo.

I'm not hugely worried, because I think most of the changes they made worked pretty well. The big changes were more of what they left out, like Tom Bombadil or the Scouring of the shire, both of which weren't vital to the main story.

I will trust PJ and the othe writers on this one.

Both Tom and the socuring woulda made good additions though, imo.

Tom's part was pretty unimportant in my opinion. I think they covered it fine passing off the tree scene to Treebeard.

One thing I like in the extended versions was that they showed the trees moving towards the orcs at Helm's Deep.

quote:

---

In the book this is due solely to Grima, but in the movie you need something more extreme, since you don't have a half hour to develop that story.

---

Visuals are important to keeping the story moving on screen of course, but the Gandalf/exorcism scene is the exact opposite of what actually happens. It's dumbing down the story and I don't think I was necessary. In the same amount of screen time you could have had Théoden come to the truth and turn on Grima, without the silliness that he was magically possessed by Saruman.

quote:

---

As for Faramir, I do agree that it changes his character significantly, but the contrasts between him and his brother are made abundantly clear, especially in ROTK, imo

---

Faramir is one of three(ish) people who in all of middle earth lets the ring go, and does so despite the fact that he could use it to save his people. Having Frodo slip away from him instead of following the story in the book completely changes his character. Boromir isn't a bad guy, in fact he is a strong, heroic figure. Yet, Faramir is something else altogether.

quote:

---

Tom Bombadil or the Scouring of the shire

---

Bombadil was just impossible to do. I also agree that 30 min of Shire after the climax on Mt Doom wouldn't have worked, but seeing as how they already had 7 montage ending sequences, an 8th wouldn't have been a big deal.

I love PJ, and I don't see how anyone could have done a better job at making a LOTR movie. Still, there are these curious, unnecessary, little changes which impact the story. That was with 10 times more source material than you could ever film. Now we have two movies which (unless you just film a ton of 10 min action sequences) are based on about a film and a half's worth of source material.

IMO, the worst thing was making Gondorians out to be a bunch of pansies.

While the flying Ring Wraiths did scare them and Gandulf acted as de-facto general; the biggest reason they holed up was because the bulk of its army was fighting across its borders.


Substituting the Army of Dead in for the Gondorian forces from the outer cities was Jackson's biggest disservice to the books.

Amercer, I can damn near guarantee the battle of five armies will last a good half hour, if not more. I'm guessing the second movie will be mostly centered around the battle, much like ROTK. And considering how great the battles are in the trilogy, I am excited to see it on film. It will be epic. Armies of dwarfs and elves? Beorn kicking ass? Can't wait.

While we are talking about changes in The Two Towers (or the trilogy) I'd like to submit Aragorn. Having it seem as if he was going to die when he fell over the cliff and toying with a relationship with Eowyn was dumb. Also, making him doubt his true identity and fight it for 2.5 movies pissed me off. Not once did he ever act like that in the books.

quote:

---

And considering how great the battles are in the trilogy, I am excited to see it on film. It will be epic. Armies of dwarfs and elves? Beorn kicking ass? Can't wait.

---

100% agree. Actually, I figure everything once they get to the Lonely Mountain will be awesome.

Frankly The Hobbit should be an easier movie to make because it really is one action scene after another without too much Council of Elrond type exposition. Unlike LOTR you could do the Hobbit shot for shot. That they aren't going to that, and that they intend to force some LOTR characters in, is what gives me worries.

naming of Sting?


[This message has been edited by sharkenleo (edited 1/16/2012 12:12a).]

fixed

[This message has been edited by sharkenleo (edited 1/16/2012 12:12a).]

Saw this the other day. Awesome.

I think The Hobbit, combined with the Lord of the Rings, is one of the most incredible stories ever put to paper. I don't even mind if a lot of the Hobbit is changed in the movie, as long as the appropriate characters, plot points, and memorable moments are in there, which I'm sure they all will be.

The Lord of the Rings movies, in my opinion, are the three best movies ever made (Fellowship being my favorite). And when I say ever made, I mean EVER made. Jackson is brilliant, and I can't wait to see what he does with The Hobbit

Downloaded and read the Hobbit again for the first time in a long time. I lost or loaned out my copy long ago. Probably the 7th or 8th time I've read it.

Such a great story. And for the most part it should all translate very well to the screen.

My only real concern is a real pipe-hitting Smaug. I can't think of a CGI dragon that didn't underwhelm me.

Tauriel (the new elf character) will be a warrior.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/01/25/53105-evangeline-lilly-tauriel-is-a-warrior/

Not to mention hot!

As for Smaug, I expect nothing less than the best, most awesome, and definitive film dragon. Think avatar flying beasts, only more awesome.

Never doubt weta.

Weta has enough money that they might be able to actually, biologically make a dragon.

New production video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7dvPKrHf3SY

Man, New Zealand is beautiful.

Edit: Better quality version.

[This message has been edited by sharkenleo (edited 3/1/2012 3:03p).]

Pictures of the Dale (aka Lake Town) set.













Looks like it has a very Mediterranean flavor. Not what I expected, but very excited to see the final set.

jackson's crews always build the most amazing sets

I thought Lake Town was supposed to be made entirely of wood and built over the lake?

Just watched The Hobbit video on the 3ality website.
http://3alitytechnica.com/