The Hobbit Movie Thread.

Caliban wrote: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?

It's the same person responsible for the changes made for the LOTR films. Do you disagree that the changes I mentioned were for the worse?

I'm not saying that he should have stayed 100% faithful to the books. If he had, we wouldn't have got Bean's excellent portrayal of Boromir. I'm not too fussed about Haldir at Helm's Deep or Glorfindel replaced with Arwen. The first is fine because making the Lothlorien elves so passive wouldn't have made much sense if Galadriel was so wise, and showing them destroying Dol Guldur would have messed up the flow of the films (though on that note, a word in passing about the Lonely Mountain would have been nice), and the second because Glorfindel was such a minor character and they needed to pull in a demographic with more women having an active role instead of sitting home and sewing a banner however magical. Cutting Bombadil was understandable, though regrattable, and doubly so for the Barrowdowns, with Frodo being tempted for the first time. I realise that cutting down the Council of Elrond makes sense. What i pointed out in my earlier post were changes made that were wholly unnecessary.

I'm saying that many of the changes he made were gooseberry fool and plain unnecessary. It's not gooseberry fool because changes were made, it's gooseberry fool because the changes were gooseberry fool.

Perhaps I would have liked the films more if I hadn't read the book, because there sure are some great points in it. Ian McKellen's Gandalf was for me almost worth the three entrance fees alone, not to mention Gollum (both the tech and Andy Serkis' portrayal) or seeing places like Rivendell or Minas Thirith for on the big screen.

Want to see an adaption done really well? HBO's Game of Thrones. Some of the best scenes in the series so far have been unique to the show.

Changes that you believe to be wholly unnecessary. But firstly, the films are amongst the largest grossing of all time - the large majority of the changes would have been made to maximise profit and let a wider audience enjoy it, surely? Everything for a reason in an industry like that, especially where the percentages are worth so much. And secondly, as I already said; why let it bother you? You've already mentioned that there were several moments that you enjoyed in the films, and let's say even if the film would have grossed more without the changes you've talked about, what does it matter? Isn't it enough that it's a fantastic piece of media? Why always do these things have to be compared to the content of the parent as grounds for whether or not they're worthy of merit?

Caliban wrote:And as directors go, it's Peter strawberry floating Jackson. Come on people, a little hope here at least?

Yeah, a post-Lovely Bones Peter Jackson. Start worrying.

Caliban wrote:Changes that you believe to be wholly unnecessary. But firstly, the films are amongst the largest grossing of all time - the large majority of the changes would have been made to maximise profit and let a wider audience enjoy it, surely? Everything for a reason in an industry like that, especially where the percentages are worth so much. And secondly, as I already said; why let it bother you? You've already mentioned that there were several moments that you enjoyed in the films, and let's say even if the film would have grossed more without the changes you've talked about, what does it matter? Isn't it enough that it's a fantastic piece of media? Why always do these things have to be compared to the content of the parent as grounds for whether or not they're worthy of merit?

Because I personally don't think it's a fantastic piece of media?

I already admitted that some of the changes were to make the film an easier sell. But many of them weren't. They were changes made because of Peter Jackson's personal choices of what he thought would make a better film. And he failed more often than not. The changes he made didn't make it just a lesser film adaptation of LOTR, it made it a lesser film, period. That's what I'm arguing.

Wouldnt be to confident in old peter. One of his sets/workshops caught fire the other day. But it didnt crash and burn so idk. I predict the first film to be okay and the second film better, yet not as good as LOTR.

As for LOTR, you have to remember this was 10 years ago. Also they couldnt put all the content in because it would be to long. Yes i would of liked to see some things, especially when the hobbits battle at the end, but it just wouldnt be possible. And they had to make weird crap up to make sure the story still flowed.

I actually agree with almost all of the points that Bigerich made and yet disagree with him overall. There are some really really strawberry floating annoying things in the LoTR movies. Aragorn going over the cliff and then snogging a horse is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen.

But I still love those movies and trust that I will love the Hobbit films just as much.

Going by some of the negative lotr film comments on here I am glad that I haven't read them yet, but it almost always seems the case for book to movie translations.

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.

I thought Aragorn was about the same age as Bilbo..?

I loved the LOTR films. I'm glad they changed bits and pieces in the interest of making a great set of films rather than attempting to get an incredibly accurate representation if the books to the screen. That would have been dull.

As I said, Im reading the books at the moment, and having also seen the films too; there are obviously some changes, but none too grevious, and it hardly affects the story (there are a few things omitted which would have cleared a few things in the movie up).

I think its important to remember that movies != books.

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.

Aragorn would have been about 26 when the Hobbit was set.

Thats only on the film time line though - which neglects the 17 or so years between Bilbo birthday and Frodo setting out.


Aragorn was actually only about 9 when Bilbo finds the ring and would be about 69/70 at the start of Lord of the rings.

I think you have to expect changes from book to film in order for it to work in the different medium, but a balance has to be struck in that change too much and it stops being related to the book.
Even as a huge fan of the books, I find most of the cuts and changes to the LOTR books acceptable for the films, but some of BigErichs points (or intentions at least) are valid in that not every single change is for the better or that all credit to the success of the films should be given to those changes (as Caliban seemed to suggest). The 'stupid Ents' is my personal biggest gripe, in that it was a change that didn't benefit the pacing of the movie or make things more sensible. Turning the second and third films into more 'action blockbuster' type affairs undoubtedly helped it's success, yet at the same time go slightly against the spirit of the books and are probably why I think I prefer the first film...

However, onto the Hobbit, and I think the changes that are implied by the suggestions of two films and the integration of characters from the LOTR could seriously change the whole thing into something too different. If the tale is 'told' to a young Frodo, and they bump into Legolas briefly at Rivendell, that's ok...if they tag along for the adventure then it's not the same adventure. They'll also undoubtedly turn the battle of the five armies into a humongous event throughout the second film and it will end up as the focus of the films, when in the book it's not the main thing at all.

Dwarves!

JED BROPHY as Nori, ADAM BROWN as Ori and MARK HADLOW as Dori in New Line Cinema’s and MGM's fantasy adventure THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY, a Warner Bros. Pictures release. Photo by James Fisher.

DORI, NORI & ORI
These three brothers, all sons of the same mother, could not be more different from each other. Dori, the oldest, spends much of his time watching out for Ori, the youngest; making sure he’s not caught a chill or got himself killed by Wargs or Goblins.

Nobody quite knows what Nori gets up to most of the time, except that it’s guaranteed to be dodgy and quite probably, illegal.

Dori, Nori and Ori are intensely loyal to each other – and whilst they are perfectly happy fighting amongst themselves, woe-betide anyone who means harm to one of these brothers.

Number 1 looks ok, 2 and 3 look like CGI or photoshopped to strawberry float.

The first one looks really constipated. The second one reminds me of Rodney from Only fools.

Are they the action figures? Or is this a CGI movie?

Looks about right to me. The Hobbit is more of a kid's book, and these dwarves look, dare I say it, whimsical as strawberry float, compared to Gimli anyway.

The three wise men?

I didnt picture them looking quite so old

Oin and Gloin: