Movie: The Hobbit

[ACertainStark]

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

There's not a single mention of Smaug in the trailer? Other than the burning of Laketown.

Well... He'll definitely be there. Has to be since he was in the teaser... and they built him up quite a bit.

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

Well it's kinda critical that he is there since without certain events the entire movie would be "The Hobbit : Dwarves Relax in Mountain and Gandalfs Exciting Side Adventure."

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Mr Hat and Clogs

He says that, but he also said he wouldn't do the Hobbit as well IIRC. If his studio wants him to do it, he'll most likely end up doing it. That said I think the Silmarillion is a little too big to be a series of movies. It'd be like stringing a bunch of the old Bible epics like Moses and Ben Hur together.

But there are a couple of stories that would make awesome standalone movies - but I'm stuffed if i can remember the character names. The Elf and the Human romance one? I'd like to see the Fall of Gondolin with the dragons and balrogs and so on.

I believe there was intense friction between Christopher Tolkien and him. Christopher is largely disdainful of the movies, as far as I can recall, and has been blocking more attempts to turn his father's works into movies.

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

I don't think I have ever heard anything positive about Christopher Tolkien.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Mr Hat and Clogs

I don't think I have ever heard anything positive about Christopher Tolkien.

He's an oldie, but he did edit his father's papers to the best of his ability, as far as I can gather.

[Renegade334]

Well, Christopher Tolkien is easily the best person to know what exactly his father was thinking when it comes to patching together JRRT's incomplete/unfinished writings (and thus the best to "fill in the blanks", though in certain cases he was forced to make guesses and ad-lib), but when it comes to family affairs and all that, he does comes off as an unpleasant, straitlaced -if not domineering- individual. He even disowned his own son, when the latter chose to give the LotR trilogy's staff some assistance, then proceeded to marginalize/neutralize him in the Tolkien trust board.

[ToMOEto]

I just hope this one won't be as garbage.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by ToMOEto

I just hope this one won't be as garbage.

If you're looking for a movie that isn't bloated and follows the hobbit closely.. keep hoping buddeh

[BPD Renegade]

My expectations were not high after the last film (fuming book reader), but after that trailer, they just shot up again.

One of my biggest peeves from the first two movies (I will continue to pretend the elf-dwarf romance never happened) was the overly sympathetic portrayal of Thorin. I'm glad that it looks like we're finally going to see some conflict going on. It also helps to consider the trilogy as glorified fanfiction, separate from the actual LotR lore.

[ACertainStark]

I loved both movies and like it as much as LOTR. But I know I'm alone on that.

[BPD Renegade]

^ Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the first movie and am probably one of the few who liked it better than the second. However, having read the book first, I couldn't help but be disappointed with the gratuitous changes made with some of the characterizations and with Beorn, whose scene happened to be one of my favorites and one I had been looking forward to. Admittedly, if I hadn't read the book first, I would have liked the movies a lot more.

One thing that did annoy me in the trailer was that it looks like the elf-dwarf romance is going to be emphasized again. I have a rabid hatred for needless romance in any medium. The vomit-inducing "puppy love" was what mainly killed the second movie for me, so it's disappointing seeing that Jackson's still gunning for it.

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

It might not be his choice, since a lot of things get added to movies to appeal to different audiences to eck out that extra dollar. A hight fantasy movie with swords swinging and orcs dying might not appeal to the some, so they put the romance in to make it more palatable, thus it equates to more tickets. The downside is the movie runs the risk of being a homogenized mess.

[Ithekro]

What is the addage? Sex and violence sells a movie. Even if it is the slightest thing as a romance is enough (not actual sex mind you). The violence is covered quite well in the original novel.

[Magin]

So I hate to ask... but since I've never read the Hobbit, just how much was changed for the movie? Obviously the elf-dwarf romance should be non-existent, and I guess even Legolas shouldn't be anywhere in here.

However, I liked the second movie because I'm going to have to agree with what was said about the first one- it had too much of Two Towers walking syndrome (seriously, at points the Hobbit: Unexpected Journey felt like it was just dragging along)... but if much of what was added isn't in the book, how dry will the book itself be?

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

The elves should have been limited to Mirkwood, and the Five Armies battle. Gandalfs Super-Side Adventure wasn't even referenced beyond "Necromancer to the North, don't go there we'll fix it later" IIRC. Radagast wasn't in it at all I think, he should have been in LOTR, right at the end. Some things have been needlessly dragged out, such as leaving the Shire, and Goblin Town in the Misty Mountains. There are lots of other little things that could have been skipped that were added, and some things from the book have been altered to play out differently enough to be noticeable, yet similar enough to be recognised. But it's been so damn long I can't remember it. Oh yeah, Smaug is wrong.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by Magin

So I hate to ask... but since I've never read the Hobbit, just how much was changed for the movie? Obviously the elf-dwarf romance should be non-existent, and I guess even Legolas shouldn't be anywhere in here.

However, I liked the second movie because I'm going to have to agree with what was said about the first one- it had too much of Two Towers walking syndrome (seriously, at points the Hobbit: Unexpected Journey felt like it was just dragging along)... but if much of what was added isn't in the book, how dry will the book itself be?

Oh the book isn't dry at all, it's quite a romp of good fun, and is fast paced. If anything the Lord of the Rings is much drier, much darker; there is a real sense of dread and hopelessness in large swathes of the lord of the rings, along with a lot of superfluous content. It's also quite a humorless book, as opposed to the hobbit, which feels like the ye old childrens book adventure . The thing about the hobbit is, it's only about 300 pages long, ~430 or so with the appendices. They've made 10 hours of movie with 300 pages, so there is obviously a lot of nonsense in the movies

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

Yeah, it should have been one movie really, even if the Necromancer side story is a little interesting. The Hobbit is a children's story, he wrote it to read to his grand kids... Or he wrote it after telling it to his grand kids, one or the other.

[ACertainStark]

Expectations might have been big since it's coming from the guy who directed the LOTR trilogy. Hence, the trilogy it became in the movies. Plus, money.

Originally Posted by BPD Renegade

^ Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the first movie and am probably one of the few who liked it better than the second. However, having read the book first, I couldn't help but be disappointed with the gratuitous changes made with some of the characterizations and with Beorn, whose scene happened to be one of my favorites and one I had been looking forward to. Admittedly, if I hadn't read the book first, I would have liked the movies a lot more.

One thing that did annoy me in the trailer was that it looks like the elf-dwarf romance is going to be emphasized again. I have a rabid hatred for needless romance in any medium. The vomit-inducing "puppy love" was what mainly killed the second movie for me, so it's disappointing seeing that Jackson's still gunning for it.

I know what you mean. Admittedly, I would be too if I didn't just put aside that the Jackson-verse is different from the books. To be fair to him, he said himself he wasn't at his best for the last two movies and is confident of this one.

I'm not a fan either. Everytime I see a trailer, I'm expecting that inevitable "passionate kiss" for one and roll my eyes. Since it's never good nor does it fit unless it's romance genre.

[Renegade334]

Thing is, it's often the studios/production companies that demand that subplots such as character romance and/or humorous scenes be inserted into the movies so as to broaden the audience's demographic range and maximize the revenue potential. Those companies are quite wary of movies targeting a certain niche only and thus prefer them to be more family/common man-friendly, even if it means watering down the content or sugarcoating it.

If my memory serves me well, Guillermo del Toro (of Pan's Labyrinth and Pacific Rim fame; briefly attached to the production of the first Hobbit movie) had trouble convincing studios (Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox) to finance his At the Mountains of Madness film project because it was too dark, too niche-y and he was quite reluctant to include, at the studios' request, a romantic thread and a happy ending (which, obviously, does not play well with the Lovecraftian worldview). Eventually, the entire thing fell by the wayside.

There's a price to success when it comes to certain movies. Lots of concessions and compromises.

[Flower]

Originally Posted by Magin

So I hate to ask... but since I've never read the Hobbit, just how much was changed for the movie? Obviously the elf-dwarf romance should be non-existent, and I guess even Legolas shouldn't be anywhere in here.

However, I liked the second movie because I'm going to have to agree with what was said about the first one- it had too much of Two Towers walking syndrome (seriously, at points the Hobbit: Unexpected Journey felt like it was just dragging along)... but if much of what was added isn't in the book, how dry will the book itself be?

Hard to say since some of the material that Jackson took and added in is from other "canon" books outside of the Hobbit. Like the meeting up between Thorin and Gandalf in Bree that started the whole quest.

Other things could be absolutely inferred and seen as quite reasonable even if not spelled out in the books, like Legolas (being the Prince of the Wood Elves and all that) being around in the episode when the dwarves were captured in Mirkwood. Perhaps even the lengthy, dramatic escape from Goblin Town or the Stone Giant sequence to a degree (the Great Goblin was killed dead by Gandalf when he appeared to save the dwarves once Orcrist was found, not later on - but still, no damage done by having him slain later on in the escape in my opinion).

But yeah - there are lots of extra things added that are not in the source material, which I will wrap in spoiler tags just in case.

Spoiler for just in case:

Radagast only shows up in Gandalf recounting his meeting with him in the LotR books, though he is mentioned in passing before the dwarves met the trolls, I believe.

The Necromancer showing up anywhere other than in passing mention (and the White Council had no idea it was Sauron until LotR, I think).

No chasing of the dwarves from Smaug in Erebor - frankly the dwarves were much more cowardly (and with good reason) regarding the dragon.

No side trip to examine the Witch King of Angmar's tomb either.

Now ... Gandalf DID check out the dungeons of the Necromancer, but that was all before the Hobbit story proper took place - it was there that he found Thorin's father Thrain, and got the map and the key from him. Thrain had tried to get back to Erebor on his own, but was captured by the Necromancer/Sauron in Mirkwood because Thrain happened to be wearing the last of the Dwarven rings of Power (it had been given him by his father Thror - which was also the main source of Thror and Erebor's prosperity and "gold greed/madness" which brought Smaug to the mountain from the North to begin with).

And on, and on, and on....