Bunny sled reminds me of the rather silly "Father Christmas" scene in the first Narnia movie. What a sight this must be, Radagast with birds on his head sitting on a sled with bunnies. Oh how I wish Del Toro back right now.
Looks like Jackson picked up right where he left with Return Of The King as far as design and deviations are concerned. But that didn't have fucking bunnies. What the fuck?
Oh, boy! I'm gonna love seeing all the reactions from people learning about those bunnies! Can't wait for K.K.'s reaction!
About "Father Christmas" in Narnia: well, even if that was a bit weird, at least it somehow felt "right" in this universe. But giant bunnies in Arda... Well...
About you wishing Del Toro had stayed: what the fuck, man? For all we know, the "bunnies pulling the sled" was his idea!
I guess you people would also dislike animals serving tea?
And I guess you wouldn't? You're weird, Shaky Chaac!
Yes, it's silly.
BUT, the big question wasn't asked: any new Howard Shore music in there?
Apparently, all the footage had tracked music from The Dark Knight
I always assumed that, as the LOTR trilogy progressed, Peter Jackson took more and more sole control over the movie, which resulted in a significant raise of typical PJ-isms. Looks like The Hobbit is supporting that theory a bit ...
the TORn article said "fluting howard shore music"
There is so little of that in the original trilogy that I'm sure it must be new music!
"You think they wear those tight-fitting clothes just so some other bride can say 'Gee your hips look succulent'? The good-looking ones know we're looking, they love us to be looking, and god bless 'em, they're carrying the rest of their sex!" - Al Bundy
Looks like Jackson picked up right where he left with Return Of The King as far as design and deviations are concerned. But that didn't have fucking bunnies. What the fuck?
About you wishing Del Toro had stayed: what the fuck, man? For all we know, the "bunnies pulling the sled" was his idea!
I was about to post the same thing. Don't forget that he worked on the movie for the better part of two years. He still has screenplay credit, and the reason they were still able to get the movie off the ground extremely quickly after he left is because a huge amount had already been prepared. So I would guess that the finished product will have a lot of his ideas, although there's no knowing if bunny sleds and starfish hairdos were among them.
And Sauron summoning the spirits of the Nazgūl at his side once he took physical form in Middle Earth takes place nearly 1700 years before. It has nothing to do with the Hobbit.
But is there any thematic problem with this? They're just moving up the timeline and adding a cool horror movie bit about resurrecting corpses.
The Lord of the Rings films were wildly different than the books. I for one am still excited by this.
Recently Purchased CDs: 1. Nightwatch/Killer By Night - Johnny Williams and Quincy Jones 2. Diamond Head/Gone with the Wave - Johnny Williams/Lalo Schifrin 3. Mass - Leonard Bernstein 4. Bernstein with the New York Philharmonic - Leonard Bernstein
You needed to change a bunch of stuff in the LOTR books to make a viable film (series).
The Hobbit is different, it's already had a film-like narrative. They didn't need to change anything. And for all I know they didn't - they merely added other stuff.
I would say they turned some of the existing stuff into something really stupid.
"You think they wear those tight-fitting clothes just so some other bride can say 'Gee your hips look succulent'? The good-looking ones know we're looking, they love us to be looking, and god bless 'em, they're carrying the rest of their sex!" - Al Bundy
Location:Hoorn, The Netherlands, Europe, Planet Earth
Posted 25 April 2012 - 05:49 PM
You needed to change a bunch of stuff in the LOTR books to make a viable film (series).
The Hobbit is different, it's already had a film-like narrative. They didn't need to change anything. And for all I know they didn't - they merely added other stuff.
Obviously;y you have no idea what you are talking about.
What? The Hobbit is PERFECTLY suited for adaptation! It's like it's are already a script, it has everything you need (with some room for your own creative tweaks)
Hardly. It might be suited for a TV series, but it's waay to episodic for a straightforward movie adaptation.
Regarding the 48fps: I've not seen it, of course. But the complaints I've read so far do sound like people complaining about colour movies or stereo sound. It looks too realistic? Well, so does colour film compared to B&W. It's because 24fps film doesn't look as realistic as it "should". And not because it was a deliberate decision to limit the frame rate for an artificial look, but because of technical limitations. It looks too much like video? That's because video's one advantage is that it's had higher frame rates than film for a long time. It looks like video not because it's bad quality, but because we're used to "realistic" frame rates only from video recordings. Sounds like people complaining that CDs sound too realistic because vinyl's scratchy noises are missing.
I greatly look forward to 48 fps.
I have enough time to watch it in lower quality on DVD.
"You think they wear those tight-fitting clothes just so some other bride can say 'Gee your hips look succulent'? The good-looking ones know we're looking, they love us to be looking, and god bless 'em, they're carrying the rest of their sex!" - Al Bundy
I would say they turned some of the existing stuff into something really stupid.
Oh agreed. But they succeeded more than they failed
You needed to change a bunch of stuff in the LOTR books to make a viable film (series).
The Hobbit is different, it's already had a film-like narrative. They didn't need to change anything. And for all I know they didn't - they merely added other stuff.
Obviously;y you have no idea what you are talking about.
PS: what the film is doing seems to be keeping the whole narrative of The Hobbit but "filling in the blanks" with Gandalf's absence or more stuff on Laketown and Bard.
What? The Hobbit is PERFECTLY suited for adaptation! It's like it's are already a script, it has everything you need (with some room for your own creative tweaks)
Hardly. It might be suited for a TV series, but it's waay to episodic for a straightforward movie adaptation.
You needed to change a bunch of stuff in the LOTR books to make a viable film (series).
The Hobbit is different, it's already had a film-like narrative. They didn't need to change anything. And for all I know they didn't - they merely added other stuff.
Not all the changes in the LotR were necessary in telling the story. If I recall, the Warg sequence on the way to Helm's Deep never happens in the book.
Any how, I prefer film adaptations to be something more than a carbon copy of the book. If I want that...I'll just read the book.
Recently Purchased CDs: 1. Nightwatch/Killer By Night - Johnny Williams and Quincy Jones 2. Diamond Head/Gone with the Wave - Johnny Williams/Lalo Schifrin 3. Mass - Leonard Bernstein 4. Bernstein with the New York Philharmonic - Leonard Bernstein
It would drag. A lot. For a long time, the book has no real dramatic arc, except for the figurative mountain on the horizon. It's a nice string of separate chapters, but nothing cohesive until they get to Mirkwood at the earliest. Things only really start to come together once they arrive at the Lonely Mountain. The entire first half of the movie would be what people keep complaining about in the supposed ROTK endings (a sentiment I've never shared).
Also, Tolkien himself hints at tons of stuff (Gandalf's disappearance due to White Council business) which he only really delved into later on. And when he did, he wrote all that stuff down. At that point, The Hobbit *was* a precursor to the events of LOTR (much like LOTR only ever was a conclusion of a few millenia of history as laid out in The Silmarillion), and it's only appropriate to reflect that in the movie. Not to forget that Tolkien himself attempted a rewrite of the book after he'd finished LOTR (although it never amounted to anything as far as I know).
The One True John Williams Believer, Keeper of the Faith
Moderators
11858 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Finland the fierce land of polar bears and penguins
Posted 25 April 2012 - 07:37 PM
Well I read the description of the footage on the Theonering site. It looks like we are in for some really strange deviations from Tolkien's original plot, characters and intentions. Galadriel mentioning that Witch King was imprisoned somewhere at some point? Tombs of the Ringwraiths? I mean really? What it is this blasphemous trite they are inserting into this story? Is there even a hint of these things in any of the relevant writings that would justify their inclusion? Radagast looking like the king of the hippies and riding a sled pulled by rabbits? WHAT? WHY? WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD MAKE SUCH CHANGES? WHY? WHY?!!!!
Ars superior est vita hominum.
"We pop out and come into the world and music is there. We didn't invent it - it's all organised in the atmosphere by divinity or whatever. It's a miracle." - John Williams-
I think music is a stream of some kind. It could be blood. It could be water. It could be ether. Whatever it is it seems to be a living, organic force that’s in motion, that serves humanity and is part of humanity and part of what describes us as humans. We sing, play, dance, all the things that we do. And there is a vibrant and great literature we have been given. ... As musicians, we join the stream. We swim in the stream with all the other millions of music makers. It’s a life force, a strong one, surrounding us and we are part of it. -John Williams-
The One True John Williams Believer, Keeper of the Faith
Moderators
11858 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Finland the fierce land of polar bears and penguins
Posted 25 April 2012 - 07:45 PM
Don't dismiss rabbits. They have sharp pointy teeth.
Actually that would be the cherry on top of the whole thing, the rabbits turning out to be some red eyed cousins of the Monty Python's Killer Rabbit, decapitating foes left and right.
"he has much lore of herb and beast, and birds are especially his friends"
I guess they went overboard with that.
You can say that again. There is a difference between stark raving mad hermit of the woods with bird nest under his hat and a wizard who specializes in things of natural world. Somehow I think this is one of PJs "great ideas" which again grew out of proportion.
Ars superior est vita hominum.
"We pop out and come into the world and music is there. We didn't invent it - it's all organised in the atmosphere by divinity or whatever. It's a miracle." - John Williams-
I think music is a stream of some kind. It could be blood. It could be water. It could be ether. Whatever it is it seems to be a living, organic force that’s in motion, that serves humanity and is part of humanity and part of what describes us as humans. We sing, play, dance, all the things that we do. And there is a vibrant and great literature we have been given. ... As musicians, we join the stream. We swim in the stream with all the other millions of music makers. It’s a life force, a strong one, surrounding us and we are part of it. -John Williams-
Maybe they'll rename the film: it won't be The Hobbit, but The Rabbit. It will tell the story of Bilbo the Rabbit, and the Company Of Bunnies, led by Hare Oakenshield. They will go on a quest to defeat Radagast, whose goal is to enslave every living rabbit in Middle-Earth. Along the way, they'll be helped by amazing characters and creatures, such as Gandalf The Buck, Elrond Half-Rodent, Beorn Bunny and Bard Bunny.
The One True John Williams Believer, Keeper of the Faith
Moderators
11858 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Finland the fierce land of polar bears and penguins
Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:15 PM
Maybe they'll rename the film: it won't be The Hobbit, but The Rabbit. It will tell the story of Bilbo the Rabbit, and the Company Of Bunnies, led by Hare Oakenshield. They will go on a quest to defeat Radagast, whose goal is to enslave every living rabbit in Middle-Earth. Along the way, they'll be helped by amazing characters and creatures, such as Gandalf The Buck, Elrond Half-Rodent, Beorn Bunny and Bard Bunny.
In a hole, in the ground, there lived a Rabbit...
Tagline: It's Rabbit Season.
Cut to Radagast J. Fudd saying: Be wevy, wevy quiet. We're hunting wabbits. Hehehehehehe.
Ars superior est vita hominum.
"We pop out and come into the world and music is there. We didn't invent it - it's all organised in the atmosphere by divinity or whatever. It's a miracle." - John Williams-
I think music is a stream of some kind. It could be blood. It could be water. It could be ether. Whatever it is it seems to be a living, organic force that’s in motion, that serves humanity and is part of humanity and part of what describes us as humans. We sing, play, dance, all the things that we do. And there is a vibrant and great literature we have been given. ... As musicians, we join the stream. We swim in the stream with all the other millions of music makers. It’s a life force, a strong one, surrounding us and we are part of it. -John Williams-
What I don't get is why Radagast had to look like this.
Aren't him, Saruman and Gandalf from the same order? How come they don't look similar then? I guess I should consider ourselves lucky that Gandalf and Saruman didn't get a makeover then. Maybe they could have used the birthday cake hairdo for Gandalf that was shown in the EE of ROTK.
When the book says "birds are especially his friends", I'm just glad they didn't have his cart pulled by fucking pigeons. Or Gwaihir himself. Hey, he's in this book as well! Creative freedom, motherf .....
"You think they wear those tight-fitting clothes just so some other bride can say 'Gee your hips look succulent'? The good-looking ones know we're looking, they love us to be looking, and god bless 'em, they're carrying the rest of their sex!" - Al Bundy
BUT, the big question wasn't asked: any new Howard Shore music in there?
And, as far as I'm concerned, the only worth asking. I'm only interested in this film, because I want to hear the score.
Karol
From a storytelling point of view, from a directing point of view, there is one thing I associate with what he does, which is calm. There is such an inherent calm and inherent trust of the one powerful image, that he makes me embarrassed with my own work, in terms of how many different shots, how many different sound effects, how many different things well throw at an audience to make an impression. But with Kubrick, there is such a great trust of the one correct image to calmly explain something to audience. There can be some slowness to the editing. Theres nothing frenetic about it. Its very simple. Theres a trust in simple storytelling and simple image making that actually takes massive confidence to try and emulate.
- Christopher Nolan
Maybe they'll rename the film: it won't be The Hobbit, but The Rabbit. It will tell the story of Bilbo the Rabbit, and the Company Of Bunnies, led by Hare Oakenshield. They will go on a quest to defeat Radagast, whose goal is to enslave every living rabbit in Middle-Earth. Along the way, they'll be helped by amazing characters and creatures, such as Gandalf The Buck, Elrond Half-Rodent, Beorn Bunny and Bard Bunny.
They should just scrap The Hobbit and adapt Watership Down instead.
Repeat the JWFan pledge after me: 'I hereby recognise John Towner Williams' place in the world as the great composer there has ever been, and I therefore renounce the works of Rozsa, Korngold, Herrmann, Horner, Kamen, Giacchino (unless the prophecy is fulfilled and he becomes the heir to JTW) and Goldsmith, especially Goldsmith. I understand that if I ever refer to Jurassic Park as anything less than "a masterpiece sixty-five million years in the making" I will be resigned to living out my days at the Zimmershrine.'
From a storytelling point of view, from a directing point of view, there is one thing I associate with what he does, which is calm. There is such an inherent calm and inherent trust of the one powerful image, that he makes me embarrassed with my own work, in terms of how many different shots, how many different sound effects, how many different things well throw at an audience to make an impression. But with Kubrick, there is such a great trust of the one correct image to calmly explain something to audience. There can be some slowness to the editing. Theres nothing frenetic about it. Its very simple. Theres a trust in simple storytelling and simple image making that actually takes massive confidence to try and emulate.
- Christopher Nolan
Hello, you’ve reached KK’s voicemail. Unfortunately he is unavailable at this moment as he is immersing himself in various sequences of torture to cleanse himself of the sins of Jackson and his crew. Please leave a message after the tone.
Hey guys, I’m back. You know after reading all these updates, I decided to seclude myself for an hour in a dark corner so I could collect my thoughts. And you know what? I decided life is too short to put myself through all this pain just for a movie’s sake. So I’m going to take 5 min to calm down, relax, and let go of these trivial matters… screw it.
WTF!!!! wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf 9 wtf’s to face the 9 Wraiths of the Dark Lord who would eventually go on to face the 9 assembled members of the Fellowship of the Ring! Stupid freakin’ 9!!
Alright, when I first heard of the 10 min preview I did not expect any of this. I have a lot to say folks, and I apologize in advance for the horrifyingly abysmal and juvenile quality of the writing… You know, one of initial reactions to when I first heard that the Hobbit was being made was sheer horror. Because frankly I didn’t want a film to be made that might disappoint and fail to such a level that the greatness of the LOTR would be tarnished. In other words, I was afraid that Jackson would pull a Lucas. I mean, nobody remembers how great the SW originals were, just how awful the prequels are!
But the doubts slowly came to be forgotten. History became legend, legend became myth and for two years I was quite pleased with the progress of the film. The trailer simply eradicated my doubts and fears. Epic vistas, great characters and all that (of course I had my gripes with the starfish hairdo too!). told me that we were in for an epic film. BUT WTF IS THIS?!?
First of all. Nazgul and tombs?! I don’t like…I don’t like one bit precious…yes…cruel Jacksonses tricks us! What the hell is he doing messing with all that? Sure, we’d all like to see some nice epic White Council scenes, but that doesn’t mean you can go messing up Middle Earth timelines and reinventing the Nazgul as a bunch of zombies! The Nazgul were men…but they weren’t dead men that Sauron resurrected….They were LIVING men who were corrupted by Sauron’s rings of power….they are still ALIVE as mere shadows because of the binding power of their rings…WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY NEED TOMBS?!?!?
Oh and the bunnies….THE FREAKIN BUNNIES!!!! Is this what you wanted Peter Jackson?!? HUH?!
YES, Radagast loved his animals…but COME ON! Bunnies pullin his sled? BUNNIES?!?!?!?!?!?! What do you think this is? Narnia!? The best way I can imagine this is the Father Christmas scene, but that worked in its atmosphere. How would oversized bunnies work on Middle Earth??!!!
The nature of Legolas' appearance wasn't totally unexpected. We should have expected Jackson to pull another Leggy (isn’t that what he liked to call it?).
Its commonly accepted that LOTR as written in the novels would not have worked as a film if it had been directly translated onto screen, so the changes were understandable. But Jason, the Hobbit would not work as a direct translation on to screen either. I just re-read the book for the first time in a few years last week and it came to me how playful and silly it is at times. It’s an absolutely delightful novel that I love so dearly, but its intended as a children’s tale. What Jackson and the world wants is an epic. And considering how Tolkien himself went back to adjust a few things so it would come across as a prequel to LOTR, changes are acceptable in the film. But, now I’m really worried that Jackson might have taken things in the book too far…I mean bunnies, come on man.
NONE OF THIS MAKES SENSE TO ME!!! Having watched the LOTR appendixes, I had the impression that Jackson and his crew knew Tolkien’s work inside out; they just made the changes in LOTR for the sake of cinema. But if these reports are largely true, then what was Jackson smoking? And where was Phillipa Boyens in all this?!? Wasn’t she the set’s legitimate Tolkien nut! How could she let any of this happen!
As for the 48fps…its a bit disappointing to hear about all that. But the One Ring.net guys liked it, and its my belief that they’re still working on it, so hopefully they’ll fix that up soon.
You know what? The more I think about it, the harder it is to believe. I think the idiot who wrote that review was probably a bit irritated with the 48 fps so he just dismissed a lot of what he saw. Perhaps he knew next to nothing about Tolkien other than what he saw in the LOTR films, and maybe he just randomly put in the tombs because he thought the Nazgul were the undead…and maybe the “rabbits” were just some other creatures he couldn’t identify and in his foolish frustration with the 48fps, he dismissed them as silly rabbits. I seriously doubt that a film with one of the most intelligent crews in all film-making could make such stupid mistakes as that…
Yes…that’s my theory. Either that, or he was seriously smoking something while watching that preview.
Frankly, I’m surprised so many of you read the preview description on The One Ring. I avoided that because I don’t want anything to be spoiled in the film.
And exactly how much could you show in 10 min?! Theres talks of trolls, white council meetings, dwarf introductions and the fact that even Radagast appears makes this preview an extremely disjointed experience to me. Perhaps that reviewer really got his stuff mixed up…maybe we shouldn’t be quick to judge the entirety the film on the basis of a review that could potentially be extremely inaccurate.
Indeed, mercy is what this film needs. Jackson maybe many things, and he may have many silly PJ tendencies, but he is no Lucas. And he is not so great a fool to make the erroneous sins described in that review…I refuse to believe. Jackson is a perfectionist if there was any, and even if he screwed up, his team wouldn’t let major flaws like that get by. This all has to be a misunderstanding… so says,
I was so into this a pair of years ago, but nowadays I feel distanced from this project. In fact, all I've seen of it so far is fine by me. Maybe it's that I come to it from a different perspective.
I want to see a film that reminds me of the book and wakes up the what I felt when I went through Tolkien when I was a kid. That's all. That includes the silliness of The Hobbit. Bring on the hairdos. I'm not really a Tolkien fan, even though I studied his language creations for a while (I still like them).
If this filmmaking team want to explain Gandalf whereabouts with a fancy fantasy-horror subplot, that is also fine. That subplot was going to include catacombs and the like anyway, you might as well go all the way and get the most out of it.
You people are skipping some important stuff. Like Galadriel caring about why Gandalf chose that particular hobbit. I have good feelings about some of these details.
And no, Thorin doesn't look "too human". What's a dwarf supposed to look like? They're people too! Some of the creations of a Vala are allowed to look pretty to the eyes of men.
Edit: I want to add that when the time comes, I'll probably be among the first in line to criticize some of PJ's common traits. The ones that ruined ROTK for me.
I was apprehensive about the 48fps when it was first announced and the negative reaction to the footage has only added to that. James Cameron was championed it by saying that it is closer to reality than 24fps, but I think there's a danger in trying to make cinema so close to real life that it actually seems fake. Instead of the sets, costumes, makeup, etc. feeling like they apart of a believable fictional world on screen, you have those things appear to be phony and out of place in various locations in New Zealand. But I haven't seen the footage so I can't really comment on it; I'm still definitely giving Jackson the benefit of the doubt.
Do you like John Williams? His early work was a little too jazzy for my taste, but when Jaws came out in '75 I really think he came into his own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and an air of consummate professionalism that really gives the pieces a big boost. He's been compared to Jerry Goldsmith but I think John has a far more leitmotif-driven style of composing. In '82 John composed this, E.T., his most accomplished album to date. I think his undisputed masterpiece is "The Magic of Halloween", a theme so catchy most people don't listen to what it means. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of childhood and the importance of friendship, it's also a personal statement about the man himself. Hey Paul! - Patrick Bateman on the Maestro
Edit: I want to add that when the time comes, I'll probably be among the first in line to criticize some of PJ's common traits. The ones that ruined ROTK for me.
Seems like there are a few people here who don't like ROTK, which is something I'll never understand. Sure there are the moments of light humour, but few (if anybody) could have achieved the grandeur of this great finale. Great pacing, stunning in technical aspects and the film really sweeps you off the feet. Sure there are the multiple endings, bot those actually remained incredibly loyal to the book (with the exception of dismissal of the Scouring of the Shire, which was a wise decision). Both the score and the film are easily the best of the trilogy.
Edit: I want to add that when the time comes, I'll probably be among the first in line to criticize some of PJ's common traits. The ones that ruined ROTK for me.
Seems like there are a few people here who don't like ROTK, which is something I'll never understand. Sure there are the moments of light humour, but few (if anybody) could have achieved the grandeur of this great finale. Great pacing, stunning in technical aspects and the film really sweeps you off the feet. Sure there are the multiple endings, bot those actually remained incredibly loyal to the book (with the exception of dismissal of the Scouring of the Shire, which was a wise decision). Both the score and the film are easily the best of the trilogy.
Oh, you're misunderstanding me here. It's one of these films that somehow really moved me. I don't have a problem with the humour and the "grandeur" of the finale is well, grand. It was later that I came to certain conclusions about the pacing, what ended up in the film and what didn't, some solutions of the script (beacons, staircase) and the somewhat devoid of personality despiction of the land of Gondor, which "ruined" the effect on me so to speak. Other than that I'm fine with it. There's always the posibility that I start noticing similar things in The Hobbit given the overall success of RotK.
Oh, boy! I'm gonna love seeing all the reactions from people learning about those bunnies! Can't wait for K.K.'s reaction!
