Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 9

[ThePhantasm]

I thought you were gone for the night. Stick to your uppity morals like Tolkien.

I was gone for almost four hours. And I'm going away again right now.

I'm like Gandalf. I pop in and out of the story.

 

[Infinity9999x]

It's not that Chris Tolkien hates the very idea of a film version of LOTR, but I suspect he would've preferred a more deliberately paced film that didn't spend so much time on its action sequences and more time with its characters and world. As much as I like the trilogy, it does "commercialize" Tolkien's narrative and expand action sequences that are described in two pages to full fifteen minute set pieces for more "mainstream" value. But then again, if it didn't, Jackson would never have secured the budget required to even film it. While I could overlook the changes done to the lore to make it more accessible to the general public and appreciate if for the marvelous overall achievement that it is, it's understandable that someone like Tolkien who has poured his entire being into his father's work might not take those adolescent changes as gladly.

That's kind of how I looked at it. Especially since some moments in LOTR were very "80's action here esque" like at the end of FOTR where Aragorn is literally taking on about thirty Orcs by himself. That even made me kind of go "okay...really?" when I was 12.

Still, it's something I've come to expect in hollywood. Right when I finished reading the 7th Harry Potter book for the first time, I knew that when the movie was filmed, the climax with Voldermort would be exapanded into a large fight between him and Harry, despite the fact that Harry never would have been able to last longer then a few minutes in a hard one on one duel with Voldermort.

However, I do think Chris Tolkien may have overlooked the fact that the films still managed to be very true adaptations to the books in many cases, despite the dangers of having to be commercialized to make money. It really was a deftly done balancing act by Jackson.

 

[jmc]

You can't blame directors or even Hollywood, people just wouldn't take to it if the films were even more like the books, it's got to be entertaining and frankly parts of LOTR are a very slow read. I'm surprised Jackson made so much of LOTR actually work to be honest, hell if anything Chris Tolkien would have hated the films even more if the original two-film plan had come to fruition with TTT and ROTK condensed into one movie. I honestly don't care how much of his soul Tolkien has poured into his old man's work, if he cannot objectively see that Jackson and co placed a great deal of care and had just as much respect for the source material given the restraints place upon them by film, even if the films weren't to his taste, then frankly he's a pretentious snob.

 

[Marvolo]

That's kind of how I looked at it. Especially since some moments in LOTR were very "80's action here esque" like at the end of FOTR where Aragorn is literally taking on about thirty Orcs by himself. That even made me kind of go "okay...really?" when I was 12.

Still, it's something I've come to expect in hollywood. Right when I finished reading the 7th Harry Potter book for the first time, I knew that when the movie was filmed, the climax with Voldermort would be exapanded into a large fight between him and Harry, despite the fact that Harry never would have been able to last longer then a few minutes in a hard one on one duel with Voldermort.

However, I do think Chris Tolkien may have overlooked the fact that the films still managed to be very true adaptations to the books in many cases, despite the dangers of having to be commercialized to make money. It really was a deftly done balancing act by Jackson.

Harry could have lasted however long it took to kill Voldemort. The Elder Wand was Harry's and wouldn't kill him no matter how many AK curses he through at him.

And the only reason Aragorn charged that mob of Uruk was to allow Frodo time to escape. It wasnt about being a macho 80s action star.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Harry could have lasted however long it took to kill Voldemort. The Elder Wand was Harry's and wouldn't kill him no matter how many AK curses he through at him.

And the only reason Aragorn charged that mob of Uruk was to allow Frodo time to escape. It wasnt about being a macho 80s action star.

It was really more of the fact that in the movie battle, Voldermort would occassionally stop and punch/kick Harry, which made no sense, seeing as how Voldermort was wayyyyy past the "I'm going to toy with you before you die stage" and just wanted Harry dead. Which is why Voldermort just straight up AK'ed Harry in the forest. I understood it was drawn out for more action, but it just didn't really fit.

The Elder wand ownership thing is a good point, though still, Harry never would have had a climatic, drawn out battle in that case, because the Elder wand shouldn't have worked against him. And it was working against him in the film battle.

Basically, they made Voldermot attack Harry with non-leathal spells in the film for a while to draw out the action. Which I understood, but I thought was a bit silly. And not in keeping with Voldermort's character. But it is what it is.

In terms of Aragorn, I understand the reason he charged the Orcs, it was the fact that he actually held off about thirty of them by himself that made me roll my eyes. But it's a movie, and a fantasy at that, so it's not like it ruined anything for me. It just was one of those, "oh, lets watch one of the heroes take out fifty minions just because he's that amazing" moments.

 

[Doctor Jones]

God, I loved that moment when I was 10. It just showed Aragorn's fearlessness and determination to protect Frodo at all costs and to show he would be prepared to die if need be.

 

[Doctor Jones]

That's what I said in one of my earlier posts. That some of the family members are getting(or giving their dad/grandfather)an Alan Moore complex. To where they think the work is high art and too good for this or that.

Moore is actually worse where he is completely hypocritical.

I don't see why Christopher Tolkien has to be vilified because he has a more high brow opinion of his father's work than the general populace has. He disagrees with you guys. Okay. He isn't a monster.

I'm grateful for all the massive contributions he has made to Middle Earth and to Tolkien fans over the years. Massive.

The films have been made. He isn't out publicly campaigning against them. Enjoy them for what they are and let the guy have his opinion without ripping him a new one all the time.

Why are we even discussing this at such length? Eh, have at it if you want guys. I'm outta here for now. Its Christmas.

That's an overreaction. I wanted to state my view and how I've felt which hasn't come about yet. I'm fine with him disagreeing with me. What I have a problem with is that he comes off as above the audiences who actually likes the films and dismisses them for being popular and its audience that makes them popular.

I'm sure all of us are grateful for what he has contributed. He's done a great thing, sure. We're not "ripping him a new one." He says a quote, and we all voice our views on it. Like you said, it's not like he campaigns against it regularly, therefore I can't recall a time where we regularly go against him in these threads. But now would be the time to do it. None of us think he's a monster for his ideas, we're just turned off by his condescending remarks to some of us. Because some of us are actually apart of that audience who made his father's works more popular thanks to the movies.

I get you're a fan of the literature and what he has done for it so you might take it to heart more and be more defensive, but can you understand where I'm coming from?

 

[ThePhantasm]

I get you're a fan of the literature and what he has done for it so you might take it to heart more and be more defensive, but can you understand where I'm coming from?

I'm tired of discussing Christopher Tolkien at this point. The discussion has played out for me. But in the interest of clarifying the comment you are responding to:

My comment wasn't just directed at you. And yes, people have been ripping him a new one. Let's recap... he's been called "idiot," "snooty, pretentious ********," "a pretentious git," among other things. I don't think I'm overreacting, and certainly not to your view... if I was, I would have quoted you point by point.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm tired of discussing Christopher Tolkien at this point. The discussion has played out for me. But in the interest of clarifying the comment you are responding to:

My comment wasn't just directed at you. And yes, people have been ripping him a new one. Let's recap... he's been called "idiot," "snooty, pretentious ********," "a pretentious git," among other things. I don't think I'm overreacting, and certainly not to your view... if I was, I would have quoted you point by point.

That is my major problem with it. I get disagreeing, but the need to insult and vilify him is poor form at best.

 

[Infinity9999x]

God, I loved that moment when I was 10. It just showed Aragorn's fearlessness and determination to protect Frodo at all costs and to show he would be prepared to die if need be.

Don't get me wrong, the choreography is great and I love the intention behind the scene, I just get a little annoyed at seeing the one on thirty thing. I prefer slightly more realistic fights, and I always have. I would have preferred we saw Aragorn going at maybe ten Orcs. Still tall odds, but not quite as nuts as what we saw.


Still, it's only about a thirty second clip in the entire film. It didn't ruin anything for me by any means. That's just more a personal quirk for me.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Well, to change the topic: did anyone notice that this was in the teaser trailer but not in the film?

and on another note:

 

[Doctor Jones]

That is my major problem with it. I get disagreeing, but the need to insult and vilify him is poor form at best.

Well I guess Christopher gets a free pass from insulting audiences who actually enjoy the films he doesn't. My reasononing calls him for acting pretentious when his comments come off as if he's above audiences who like the films. None of us here have a problem with him not liking them, it's strictly the attitude of his statements that rub off the wrong way.

I've known about his distaste for them and it's something that doesn't bother me. I understand he may be more protective of his father's work. But does he have to come off as someone who looks down upon people who actually enjoy the films he doesn't?

 

[Doctor Jones]

Well, to change the topic: did anyone notice that this was in the teaser trailer but not in the film?

I think these will be moved to the second film.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Or the extended cut we will inevitably get.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Think this is between Rivendell and Goblin Town?

 

[RoboAmish]

Think this is between Rivendell and Goblin Town?

I think that might be him in Dol Guldur encountering Thrain before meeting the dwarves (where he got the key and map to give them).

 

[Marvolo]

It was really more of the fact that in the movie battle, Voldermort would occassionally stop and punch/kick Harry, which made no sense, seeing as how Voldermort was wayyyyy past the "I'm going to toy with you before you die stage" and just wanted Harry dead. Which is why Voldermort just straight up AK'ed Harry in the forest. I understood it was drawn out for more action, but it just didn't really fit.

The Elder wand ownership thing is a good point, though still, Harry never would have had a climatic, drawn out battle in that case, because the Elder wand shouldn't have worked against him. And it was working against him in the film battle.

Basically, they made Voldermot attack Harry with non-leathal spells in the film for a while to draw out the action. Which I understood, but I thought was a bit silly. And not in keeping with Voldermort's character. But it is what it is.

In terms of Aragorn, I understand the reason he charged the Orcs, it was the fact that he actually held off about thirty of them by himself that made me roll my eyes. But it's a movie, and a fantasy at that, so it's not like it ruined anything for me. It just was one of those, "oh, lets watch one of the heroes take out fifty minions just because he's that amazing" moments.

But the Elder Wand wasnt working in the film battle. Voldemort was shooting AK at Harry all through the film battle but Harry kept blocking it. On the grand starcase that is pretty much all he was shooting at Harry. AK is an unblockable spell so the fact he was able to block it meant the wand wasnt working properly throughout the fight. Dont get me wrong the fight wasnt great, but I think they were on the right track. It could have been grander and larger imo. I know why JK did what she did in the book, but it was anticlimactic as hell.

With aragorn Im pretty sure Gimli and Legolas show up almost immediately and Aragorn was mostly just whacking at the uruk willy nilly to hold them off long enough for frodo to get away. I dont think he killed that many.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Plus he ran up that ruin to evade them.

 

[Marvolo]

I think that might be him in Dol Guldur encountering Thrain before meeting the dwarves (where he got the key and map to give them).

That is correct. It is Thrain at Dol Guldor. What is odd tho is that Gandalf has Glamdring in the scene which means in the films it happens after the troll cave which eould mean Gandalf doesnt get the map and key in this scene because he already has them. In the book Gandalf encounters Thrain and gets the map and key 100 years prior to the journey to defeat Smaug. In the film Gandalf must run into Thrain a second time.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Gandalf seemed surprised when Radagast spoke of evil reappearing in Dol Guldur. I think he hasn't been there yet, and got the map and key from Thrain elsewhere.

I don't know... it is confusing.

 

[Marvolo]

Gandalf seemed surprised when Radagast spoke of evil reappearing in Dol Guldur. I think he hasn't been there yet, and got the map and key from Thrain elsewhere.

I don't know... it is confusing.

The timeline is kind of a mess now.

 

[ThePhantasm]

The timeline is kind of a mess now.

Yeah. I would have rather the Wise have already known about the Necromancer, due to Gandalf investigating Dol Guldur and discovering Thrain, per the book. Instead they gave the investigating to Radagast, threw in some nonsense about the Nazgul Witch-King being buried deep underground (I'm pretty sure the Nazgul were never directly defeated prior to LOTR, but merely disappeared / reappeared whenever their Master did?), and called it a day.

I guess we'll just have to see how it pans out...

 

[Marvolo]

Yeah. I would have rather the Wise have already known about the Necromancer, due to Gandalf investigating Dol Guldur and discovering Thrain, per the book. Instead they gave the investigating to Radagast, threw in some nonsense about the Nazgul Witch-King being buried deep underground (I'm pretty sure the Nazgul were never directly defeated prior to LOTR, but merely disappeared / reappeared whenever their Master did?), and called it a day.

I guess we'll just have to see how it pans out...

Wiki says this:

The Appendices of The Return of the King explain that the Nazgûl first appeared around S.A. 2251, some 700 years after the rings were forged, and were soon established as Sauron's principal servants. They were dispersed after the first overthrow of Sauron in S.A. 3441 at the hands of the Last Alliance of Elves and Men, but their survival was assured since the One Ring survived.

They re-emerged around T.A. 1300, when the Witch-king led Sauron's forces against the successor kingdoms of Arnor: Rhudaur, Cardolan and Arthedain. He effectively destroyed all the successor kingdoms, but was defeated in 1975 and returned to Mordor. There he gathered the other Nazgûl in preparation for the return of Sauron to that realm.

In 2000, the Nazgûl besieged Minas Ithil and, after two years, captured it and acquired its palantír for Sauron. The city thereafter became Minas Morgul, the stronghold of the Nazgûl. Sauron returned to Mordor in 2942 and declared himself openly in 2951. Two or three of the Nazgûl were sent to garrison Dol Guldur, his fortress in Mirkwood.

So, no, the Witch King was never buried. I have absolutely no idea why Jackson would change that.

 

[lime]

I just watched the movie for the second time, this time in HFR 48fps. I loved the 48fps. The 3D was much clearer and the CGI was so much believable.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Wiki says this:



So, no, the Witch King was never buried. I have absolutely no idea why Jackson would change that.

Completely unnecessarily change, but I love the imagery. Can't kill him, so bury him so deep that he could never return. Chill down my spine when he showed up.

I don't like the idea that the Necromancer "resurrected" him, however. After all no man can kill him.

Gandalf seemed surprised when Radagast spoke of evil reappearing in Dol Guldur. I think he hasn't been there yet, and got the map and key from Thrain elsewhere.

I don't know... it is confusing.

I think you are exactly right. And I think when Gandalf travels there he will either get the evidence he needs to call on the White Council to act or the White Council will be forced into action to rescue an imprisoned Gandalf. I also think this will be where Bolg makes his entrance.