The Hobbit Film Trilogy Thread

[crocodile 8,012]

I looked into his heart, too. And what I saw... was beautiful.

Karol

[crocodile 8,012]

I had one quiet evening and decided to skim quickly through The Hobbit book, reading more interesting bits and not paying much attention to others. The story seems identical to that of film, but tone and meaning of different things are completely lost. Oh dear, now this is how you don't adapt a simple children story (which in itself is quite amusing and cute). After reading it, I think they didn't get Smaug right at all. It's more of a psychopathic monster on a film, instead of a vain archetypical embodiment of greed that you find in the book. It's more of a fairy tale than anything else, really.

One thing that came to mind while reading is that they should have given this book to Wes Anderson or someone like that and completely abandoned Rings prequel angle. Doesn't make much sense. But then again, it's too valuable of a franchise to just go in a completely different direction.

Karol

[BloodBoal 7,538]

The funny thing is that the story of the book is about greed, and the story of the making of these films is ultimately about greed as well. Quite ironic (or is it fitting?).

[crocodile 8,012]

So true.

Karol

[Brónach 1,302]

I've seen two scenes of the second film and I was like uuugh.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

You're doing it wrong, Chaac. It's:

Ugh!

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[crocodile 8,012]

As you can probably tell, I'm neither Tolkien, nor Jackson (nor Shore, for that matter) fanatic. I read the trilogy when I was 12 and not revisited it as a whole since. The Hobbit I just got somewhat familiar with last week.

The films I just take as they are. And the truth is... they are just bad films. Adaptations or not. Why, you ask? Because very few things in them actually advance the main story in any significant way. Few good sequences and lot of pointless nonsense around. Peter Jackson has lost his grip as a storyteller after The Two Towers.

Karol

[gkgyver 1,645]

I had one quiet evening and decided to skim quickly through The Hobbit book, reading more interesting bits and not paying much attention to others. The story seems identical to that of film, but tone and meaning of different things are completely lost. Oh dear, now this is how you don't adapt a simple children story (which in itself is quite amusing and cute). After reading it, I think they didn't get Smaug right at all. It's more of a psychopathic monster on a film, instead of a vain archetypical embodiment of greed that you find in the book. It's more of a fairy tale than anything else, really.

One thing that came to mind while reading is that they should have given this book to Wes Anderson or someone like that and completely abandoned Rings prequel angle. Doesn't make much sense. But then again, it's too valuable of a franchise to just go in a completely different direction.

Karol

Have you seen The Hobbit animated film? Are you happier with that? There's plenty of opportunity in the future for more faithful adaptations, so I don't see the point in complaining about the trilogies style now. PJ made it clear from early on he wanted to approach the book differently and make it in a similar style to LOTR.

We won't see new adaptions of these films in our lifetime. Not without severe legal troubles for the executing studio.

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

I had one quiet evening and decided to skim quickly through The Hobbit book, reading more interesting bits and not paying much attention to others. The story seems identical to that of film, but tone and meaning of different things are completely lost. Oh dear, now this is how you don't adapt a simple children story (which in itself is quite amusing and cute). After reading it, I think they didn't get Smaug right at all. It's more of a psychopathic monster on a film, instead of a vain archetypical embodiment of greed that you find in the book. It's more of a fairy tale than anything else, really.

One thing that came to mind while reading is that they should have given this book to Wes Anderson or someone like that and completely abandoned Rings prequel angle. Doesn't make much sense. But then again, it's too valuable of a franchise to just go in a completely different direction.

Karol

Have you seen The Hobbit animated film? Are you happier with that? There's plenty of opportunity in the future for more faithful adaptations, so I don't see the point in complaining about the trilogies style now. PJ made it clear from early on he wanted to approach the book differently and make it in a similar style to LOTR.

You don't see the point in complaining about it now because they can always do it again later? That's beyond stupid. I'm already invested in this series because of the music and the returning cast members from LOTR. The least Jackson can do is show some respect for the source material. But no, the book wasn't good enough. Too happy. Not enough elves or orcs or hook-shaped prosthetics! These Hobbit films aren't even in a "similar style to LOTR." They're just big, stupid blockbusters without even a hint of heart.

[KK 3,307]

As you can probably tell, I'm neither Tolkien, nor Jackson (nor Shore, for that matter) fanatic. I read the trilogy when I was 12 and not revisited it as a whole since. The Hobbit I just got somewhat familiar with last week.

The films I just take as they are. And the truth is... they are just bad films. Adaptations or not. Why, you ask? Because very few things in them actually advance the main story in any significant way. Few good sequences and lot of pointless nonsense around. Peter Jackson has lost his grip as a storyteller after The Two Towers.

Karol

RotK still rocks!

I had one quiet evening and decided to skim quickly through The Hobbit book, reading more interesting bits and not paying much attention to others. The story seems identical to that of film, but tone and meaning of different things are completely lost. Oh dear, now this is how you don't adapt a simple children story (which in itself is quite amusing and cute). After reading it, I think they didn't get Smaug right at all. It's more of a psychopathic monster on a film, instead of a vain archetypical embodiment of greed that you find in the book. It's more of a fairy tale than anything else, really.

One thing that came to mind while reading is that they should have given this book to Wes Anderson or someone like that and completely abandoned Rings prequel angle. Doesn't make much sense. But then again, it's too valuable of a franchise to just go in a completely different direction.

Karol

Have you seen The Hobbit animated film? Are you happier with that? There's plenty of opportunity in the future for more faithful adaptations, so I don't see the point in complaining about the trilogies style now. PJ made it clear from early on he wanted to approach the book differently and make it in a similar style to LOTR.

You don't see the point in complaining about it now because they can always do it again later? That's beyond stupid. I'm already invested in this series because of the music and the returning cast members from LOTR. The least Jackson can do is show some respect for the source material. But no, the book wasn't good enough. Too happy. Not enough elves or orcs or hook-shaped prosthetics! These Hobbit films aren't even in a "similar style to LOTR." They're just big, stupid blockbusters without even a hint of heart.

Yeah, you're right. You can't even put these films under "similar style to LotR" anymore. They're a different beast altogether now.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

No sorry I didn't quite mean that. That 'so' I wrote last minute kind of changed what I meant. What I meant was PJ's intentions for these films have been made for quite a while now, so it's a bit late to say we he should have done a faithful fairy tale adaptation. This whole respect argument is not very fair, they're just making films they want to make and are comfortable with, they're not shitting on the book. OK there's no point arguing, you seem to passionately hate this thing. Just remember there are people who enjoy the films, and see a lot of heart in them. This forum appears to be rather biased in the opposite direction.

Eh, no worries about the last minute post editing. I do it a lot too. And you're right JWFan is definitely biased against the new trilogy. Makes for a nice contrast with sites like TheOneRing, where posters are more often than not heavily biased in favor of the films. I'm just incredibly sick of people telling me I'm wrong to criticize these films. Such posters seem to exist for the sole purpose of rejecting any and all criticism of their favorite fantasy films and the worst part is that they never give me reasons why they think I'm wrong. I'm just told a film was "epic" and or that I'm an idiot for not liking it; that I'm a "hater" or a "troll," just because I dared to critique something. God forbid those of us who don't like a movie could ever have a good point. *End rant.*

SUH, I may disagree with you on just about everything Hobbit-related, but even I can see that you're articulate enough to get a point across -- unlike those people I just described!

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Jay 37,363]

So that's how Beorn shape-shifts!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

I'll just leave this here.

http://collider.com/the-hobbit-3-title-into-the-fire/

[Glóin the Dark 1,221]

If true, they really ought to go back and rename the second film accordingly.

Back in the two-film days, my preferred title for part one was The Hobbit: There.

[KK 3,307]

They should name it "I See Fire". I'm sure Pete's daughter would love that.

[Glóin the Dark 1,221]

The Hobbit: Into the Misty Eye of the Mountain Below and Back Again.

[gkgyver 1,645]

If true, what a crappy title.

[Jay 37,363]

They probably just registered it because it's the name of some game coming out

[gkgyver 1,645]

I hope. It sounds terribly un-Tolkien.

[Harmsway 6]

It sounds terribly un-Tolkien.

Which makes it rather appropriate, I'd say.

[gkgyver 1,645]

We can at least keep the shiny fassade intact, can't we?

[Incanus 5,714]

There is no hope for the world of men. The film makers are scatterbrained, divided, leaderless. There was one who could have united them but he has turned from that path long ago. His castle of money lured him from his true purpose.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Incanus 5,714]

Pffff! More PJ bashing!

PJ was right to make a third film. You can't tell the story of the Hobbit in just two films. The book is so dense! Every line is like the beginning of the new story. I mean, when I read something like "In a hole in the ground, there lived a Hobbit", I'm like: "Who built that hole? Why? How? And how did Bilbo ended up there? Did he buy Bag-End, was it part of an heritage?". Tolkien's writing is a bit fuzzy in that regard and you need to make that clear for the audience, else they won't be involved in the story.

That was actually a bit awkward example (even as a joke) as in the novel Tolkien goes into a lengthy almost gossipy discussion on who built Bag End and what is Bilbo's heritage.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Incanus 5,714]

Make better jokes so I don't have to ruin your weak ones to save people from your inaccuracies! You can be both scholarly and funny you know.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Incanus 5,714]

I know, I know. I would be upset too if I had so many identity thieves spring up left and right one day. Distressing and distracting.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Incanus 5,714]

What the hell happened here?

Wow. I'm sorry, Inky. I did NOT write those posts above. They were made by one of these BloodBoal copycats, who somehow managed to end up with the exact same username and the same number of posts. I'm guessing it was Stiff.

I obviously would have never made such a blatant mistake regarding one of Tolkien's writings.

Nice try BloodBoal!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Incanus 5,714]

Each and every Boal in existence on this MB!

[KK 3,307]

It's time to kick the Boals out of JWFan!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Faleel 5,348]

I hope. It sounds terribly un-Tolkien.

Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire (I do agree though)

[gkgyver 1,645]

You could take any line from the book and make it the movie title, which doesn't mean you should.

Otherwise we could rename Fellowship "Fool of a Took".

[Incanus 5,714]

You could take any line from the book and make it the movie title, which doesn't mean you should.

Otherwise we could rename Fellowship "Fool of a Took".

The Lord of the Rings: Fool of a Took: A Pippin's Tale.

[Faleel 5,348]

Fool of a Took, Where Do We Get Bed and Breakfast, and The Hasty Stroke Oft Goes Astray.

[gkgyver 1,645]

The Hasty Stroke Oft Goes Astray.

We have a winner for the title of the Hobbit trilogy.

[Incanus 5,714]

The Hasty Stroke Oft Goes Astray.

We have a winner for the title of the Hobbit trilogy.

I would go with "I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread".

[Glóin the Dark 1,221]

When the extension to three films was announced, I conjectured on another message-board that the third part would consist entirely of Bilbo in Bag End trying to prepare a huge tray of sandwiches with just one small knob of butter to go round them all.

[gkgyver 1,645]

That would have been captivating. Desplat could have scored it.

[Incanus 5,714]

That would have been captivating. Desplat could have scored it.

With timpani and flutes. Something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRabz_rXNe0

[gkgyver 1,645]

Is there a Flute theme for sliced bread?