The Hobbit Film Discussion.

Jesus Christ, I cannot wait for these movies. The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy was absolutely fantastic, and it's great to know many of the creative team behind those movies have come together again for The Hobbit movies. If they're as good as the trilogy, I'll see them multiple times in the theater, like people did with Titanic.

 

I loved the trailers too, can't wait! Just got the LoTR trilogy on blue ray and have been rewatching the whole series this xmas break.

 

I've read all the books. And I got the impression that LOTR was just a retelling of the Hobbit on a grander scale.

I'm really looking forward to this movie. The Hobbit is an excellent read. And Jackson has proven to be faithful to the books in the past. I just hope he doesn't let the ghost of the awful "King Kong" movie spook him into doing something stupid in this one.

 

He wasn't entirely faithful to the original books. Some of the liberties he took were awful.

 

OK

, haven't read the books since high school. so I'm a little vague on details, what did he change?

 

It's a long list. To point out a couple of things:

1. The Two Towers: Elrond bringing the sword to Aragorn, not only didn't help the story but didn't make sense. It took the fellowship how long to get to that point in the story? And it took Elrond, what, a few days to travel the same distance? In the book, the sword is reforged in Rivendell before the fellowship leaves and Aragorn is a stronger character for it.
2. Return of the King: Using the Dead of Dunharrow to defeat the dark forces at Minas Tirith. It's a massive cheat and grossly lessens the victory of the Men of the West (which was astounding in the book).
3. Faramir: The films take one of the coolest secondary characters and turn him into Boromir part 2. In the books, Faramir appears to have much more of the blood of the Numenorean flowing in his veins. He shows great insight and resists the corrupting influence of the ring.

There are many more, but these are the three that bug me the most.

 

Now that you mention it, your right. Tolkien didn't use an army of undead to defeat the forces attacking Minas Tirith. don't really remember the part of the remaking of the sword. maybe I need to re-read the trilogy again.

 

I do understand that the book needed to be shortened to make the film. I really do. I also understood the need of beefing up the Arwen story to add some estrogen to the film (though having her decide to leave only to change her mind and stay, was kind of pointless).

I recognize the need of things like mashing Helm's Deep and Dunharrow to simplify things (though it was clumsily done).

In Fellowship, things like Gandalf's journey to Minas Tirith seem to take about a week or so. In the book, years passed before he returns to the Shire, not to mention that it took the actual Fellowship months to make the same journey in the film.

All grousing aside, Jackson did what no one else could. He brought Middle Earth to life. He was true, if not to the letter, then certainly to the spirit of the books. Taken as a whole, I forgive much but anytime I revisit the films, I have to hold my nose at certain sections.

I am looking forward to The Hobbit films.

 

the movies may have varied from the books, but some things were good to be left out. Like tom the treehugger, or whoever the character in the woods was. And as people have talked about before, the balrog really set up the success of the movie. When it appeared on screen, everyone said oh thats what a balrog looks like. The picture in my head was wrong. Hopefully Smaug is impressive as well.

 

You have some problem with Tom Bombadil? You might as well hate nature.

 

He was too gay, in the old school use of the word, but I liked him. Don't know how they could have incorporated him in the films, though.

 

My vision of the Balrog was wwaaay off, But I was impressed with their version on it. can't wait too see what they are going to do with Smaug.

 

I agree, it would have been difficult to bring him into the films and when you have a massive book that needs trimming, it's the most likely candidate. That said, it does remove the barrow downs and the equipment the hobbits get there. While it is isn't essential, it is important to note that Merry's sword, taken from the Barrow Downs, was one of the few weapons anywhere that could harm the chief Nazgul. It was a weapon forged and bound with spells to kill him when he was still human.