The Hobbit Movie Thread.

Im looking forward to this, reading Lord of the Rings at the mo so properly into the Tolkien universe.

Fatal Exception wrote:Martin Freeman though That boy can't act.

To be fair, his face does cry out "Hobbit".

Falsey wrote:Im looking forward to this, reading Lord of the Rings at the mo so properly into the Tolkien universe.

Despite my trust of Jacko i still have reservations about this. It could easily have been done as one film and the inclusion of characters like Aragorn, Legolas and Frodo does not sit well with me.

I heard that Christopher Lee didnt want to travel to new Zealand again at his age but i think they resolved his issues with the last film and his reduced role in it.



Still can't bear the thought of freeman as Bilbo.

Yeah it seems like hes trying to bring the sucess of his actors in LOTR to the hobbit. Bad move.

Moggy wrote:

Rubix wrote:
And we should have a separate filmfolder other than Off Topic

Careful, that's blasphemy on this forum. Before you know it you will have Hexx writing essays (full of smilies) about how wrong you are.

The media folder is on the way, don't worry.

Memento Mori wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Rubix wrote:
And we should have a separate filmfolder other than Off Topic

Careful, that's blasphemy on this forum. Before you know it you will have Hexx writing essays (full of smilies) about how wrong you are.

The media folder is on the way, don't worry.

I don't really care. I just like flirting with annoying Hexx.

the addition of characters from Lord Of The Rings is annoying, but I'm prepared to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt for now as long as he promises to lay off the slow-motion in these films...

I do find it odd the film is split in 2 parts a year apart when the book is shorter than any of the individual lotr books. Cynical cash in? Oh yes.

I don't get why Frodo is in it at all.

I think they are going down the wrong path with this. I think they should have gone for a different style than LOTR and made it for a younger audience more in line with the book. The Hobbit is quite a light hearted and gentle tale compared to LOTR.

Have to say, I would have preferred the guy who played Frodo in LOTR too. His age wouldn't have been a problem as Frodo was supposed to be about 50 wasn't he? Still, I think Tim from The Office can do a good job of it.

Legolas is supposed to be in this? Really?

Having not read the book in years, I actually like the fact that they are splitting this into 2 films. It'll allow them to explore the smaller parts of the story in more detail (can't wait to see the Troll scene), whereas with The Lord of the Rings, each book was it's own film because it was the overall arc they wanted the focus on.

After reading that back to myself, it may or may not make sense ...

Lol all of this reminds me of the build up to LoTR.

"No Tom Bombadil? Sacrilidge!"

"Elijah Wood? Who the strawberry float is that?"

"That kid from the Goonies cant be Sam!"

Some of the changes from the book annoyed the gooseberry fool out of me with LoTR but I still love those movies. I trust PJ.

But Elijah Wood's performance was gooseberry fool.

And what about all the pointless changes that made it a lesser story? Why have that stupid dismissal of Sam in Cirith Ungul?

What about Faramir's character? There was enough drama in Frodo and Sam's story to begin with. The amount of time they spent trekking back towards Osgiliath would have been better spent fleshing out other scenes.
The Scouring of the Shire? I know many don't like it in the book, but to me it was pretty important in the four hobbits' journey, and how Frodo was unable to fin happiness and healing in the Shire.
The Ents refusing to help? What purpose did it really serve? As far as I can tell, the only thing they managed to do was make the Ents seem ridiculously stupid.
That stupid Eomer-is-banished subplot? Like with the Faramir thing, it only served to add time to a movie, time that could have been used elsewhere. Same with the awful "Aragorn falls of a cliff and goes missing"-subplot.
Sam and Frodo fall out on the stairs of Cirith Ungul? What was the point? It was already foreshadowed in the films and book that Gollum would betray them, so why not just follow the book and save precious time?
What about Aragorn changing Aragorn from a strong and noble man who for decades has laboured for the throne of Gondor into a wuss afraid of taking responsibility?
And I liked Bombadil, damn it! The Barrowdowns providing the swords gives them much more significance as well instead of just being a gift from Aragorn.


And that's not to mention all the stupid jokes and dwarf tossings and shield-surfing and the hilarious OTT Mumakil slaying. I didn't particularly care for The Paths of the Dead as they were portrayed either.


That's not to say I whish the films hadn't been made, it's just that I find so many of the changes they made to be without justification. Many of them stole time in films that in the theatres where pushing the 3 hour mark, and they simply either didn't make any sense, or made interesting characters less interesting. Some of this could for example have been used to show Denethor looking into the Palantir and being manipulated by Sauron. And Sauron as a big red eye? It just looked comical, and not at all sinister to me.

captain red dog wrote:I don't get why Frodo is in it at all.

I think they are going down the wrong path with this. I think they should have gone for a different style than LOTR and made it for a younger audience more in line with the book. The Hobbit is quite a light hearted and gentle tale compared to LOTR.

Have to say, I would have preferred the guy who played Frodo in LOTR too. His age wouldn't have been a problem as Frodo was supposed to be about 50 wasn't he? Still, I think Tim from The Office can do a good job of it.

Frodo is in it? Really? He's not even born yet! What are they thinking? Why not just make The Hobbit, instead of making the prequel to LOTR? As far as I know, Aragorn is a suckling babe at the time The Hobbit takes place, as well.

I'm assuming Frodo/old Bilbo will be in it as a kind of storytelling device, perhaps old Bilbo reading it to Frodo at the start and end of the movie. Or something. I don't know, I haven't really read up on it.

I'm 100% behind Jackson on this. Even it being in 2 films. There's more than enough material there.

Bigerich wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I don't get why Frodo is in it at all.

I think they are going down the wrong path with this. I think they should have gone for a different style than LOTR and made it for a younger audience more in line with the book. The Hobbit is quite a light hearted and gentle tale compared to LOTR.

Have to say, I would have preferred the guy who played Frodo in LOTR too. His age wouldn't have been a problem as Frodo was supposed to be about 50 wasn't he? Still, I think Tim from The Office can do a good job of it.

Frodo is in it? Really? He's not even born yet! What are they thinking? Why not just make The Hobbit, instead of making the prequel to LOTR? As far as I know, Aragorn is a suckling babe at the time The Hobbit takes place, as well.

Calm down dear, he's probably narrating it.

Has Aragorn actually been confirmed anywhere or is this just speculation? I can't remember seeing Viggo in any of the confirmed cast lists so far.

gamerforever wrote:I do find it odd the film is split in 2 parts a year apart when the book is shorter than any of the individual lotr books. Cynical cash in? Oh yes.

It's not just The Hobbit. There's loads of material from other Tolkien stuff in there, apparently.

Skippy wrote:

Bigerich wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I don't get why Frodo is in it at all.

I think they are going down the wrong path with this. I think they should have gone for a different style than LOTR and made it for a younger audience more in line with the book. The Hobbit is quite a light hearted and gentle tale compared to LOTR.

Have to say, I would have preferred the guy who played Frodo in LOTR too. His age wouldn't have been a problem as Frodo was supposed to be about 50 wasn't he? Still, I think Tim from The Office can do a good job of it.

Frodo is in it? Really? He's not even born yet! What are they thinking? Why not just make The Hobbit, instead of making the prequel to LOTR? As far as I know, Aragorn is a suckling babe at the time The Hobbit takes place, as well.

Calm down dear, he's probably narrating it.

If that's the only involvement, then i suppose that will do. My point about the tone and feel of the film still stands, though.

God, I really hate it when people start bitching about how film adaptations have missed out/messed up/changed in any way an aspect of a book. It's a different media. They can change it how they see fit to make it more dramatic or big selling or whatever. I saw the Golden Compass a while back. Northern Lights is one of my favourite books and afterwards all my friends were frothing at the mouth about how it didn't where it did in the books and they downplayed the Gobblers and there was no reference to The Almighty how dare they it's ruined blah blah blah blah continue ad nauseum. You know what I thought? It was a pretty gooseberry fool film. But it didn't ruin my enjoyment of the book because, here's the thing, it's not the strawberry floating book, it's a film. Same with LotR. I read the books, loved them. Saw the films, loved them. Yes, I know that plot point #79DRG doesn't follow the page reference. I don't give a gooseberry fool. For me it was a case of two different workings of the same story - an addition to the fantastic books; through an alternative media (which as I say has no obligation for staying 100% faithful to the source material) as supposed to a replacement. I really cannot fathom when people bitch about stuff like this. And as directors go, it's Peter strawberry floating Jackson. Come on people, a little hope here at least?

Eighthours wrote:

gamerforever wrote:I do find it odd the film is split in 2 parts a year apart when the book is shorter than any of the individual lotr books. Cynical cash in? Oh yes.

It's not just The Hobbit. There's loads of material from other Tolkien stuff in there, apparently.

Hmm, that's good I guess. More LOTR universe is good and I hope this is just as good as the trilogy. Consistency is good imo, so when it's all said and done we will have over 10 hours of continuous magic!