Official The Hobbit thread

[Doctor Jones]

All the changes PJ made to LOTR ended up being fine. I'm sure this will be too.

And Wood really hasn't aged at all. He looks the same, especially when he'll be a Hobbit again.

 

[craigdbfan]

Peter Jackson also seems really good at aging and de aging his actors in his movies. With the proper lighting and vfx knowhow that Jackson has we'll still get a really young looking Frodo.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Bloom hasn't really aged either much has he?

 

[The Guard]

I don't really feel this is an issue. THE LORD OF THE RINGS, after all, began with a "storytelling recap" of the events of the Ring of Power. I don't see why this one couldn't begin with Frodo telling the story of "There and Back Again".

 

[craigdbfan]

Bloom hasn't really aged either much has he?

Not really no. Guy is aging well.

 

[regwec]

I don't really feel this is an issue. THE LORD OF THE RINGS, after all, began with a "storytelling recap" of the events of the Ring of Power. I don't see why this one couldn't begin with Frodo telling the story of "There and Back Again".

It would remind me of "The Princess Bride".

 

[Sawyer]

Bloom hasn't really aged either much has he?

More so than Wood, but not really that much either.

 

[green]

I don't really feel this is an issue. THE LORD OF THE RINGS, after all, began with a "storytelling recap" of the events of the Ring of Power. I don't see why this one couldn't begin with Frodo telling the story of "There and Back Again".

There's a big difference between a prologue meant to fill in backstory and needless cameos.

It would remind me of "The Princess Bride".

Heh, that's the same thought I keep having...

 

[Boom]

I don't really feel this is an issue. THE LORD OF THE RINGS, after all, began with a "storytelling recap" of the events of the Ring of Power. I don't see why this one couldn't begin with Frodo telling the story of "There and Back Again".

the Prologue was necessary in the LoTR, to explain the history of the Ring and to fill in the blanks left by the lack of a Hobbit film at the time (Bilbo finding the Ring in Gollum's cave). And it was meant to establish the universe.

I've seen people talking about how The Hobbit needs alot of LoTR tie-ins to fit it into this universe, when the inclusion of Bilbo, Gandalf, Gollum, Elrond, and the One Ring should be enough. I really don't know why we need more than that.

Having Frodo read Bilbo's book during the LoTR timeline not only turns The Hobbit into a "flashback" narrative, but it also firmly establishes it as the "Lord of the Rings prequel" - instead of letting it by the stand-alone entity it should be.

Again, The Hobbit doesn't need Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings needs The Hobbit.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Call me crazy, but I'm going to place my trust in the guy who already has three hugely successful Middle Earth movies under his belt.

 

[Boom]

I love PJ's LoTR films too.

That doesn't mean he didn't make changes in those films that I hated.

 

[Doctor Jones]

They're probably the closest adaptation of the novels they could get to. They stayed pretty damn faithful while making it work cinematically.

 

[regwec]

I think a very different adaptation could have been made that would have been just as successful. That isn't to belittle the trilogy we have; just to say that things could have been done differently. Rather like "Batman" vs "The Dark Knight".

 

[Boom]

I agree with regwec.

Again, I love Jackson's trilogy, but there were plenty of decisions he made that had my rolling my eyes. Turning Gimli into a one-dimensional, fart-joke character being a major one.

 

[dark_b]

Call me crazy, but I'm going to place my trust in the guy who already has three hugely successful Middle Earth movies under his belt.

people change after 10 years. he is older and thinkgs different.

never trust a guy who decided to make a movie because he felt sorry for a studio

just joking

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I really wanted to see Del Toro's vision of Tolkien's words. Sigh.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I agree with regwec.

Again, I love Jackson's trilogy, but there were plenty of decisions he made that had my rolling my eyes. Turning Gimli into a one-dimensional, fart-joke character being a major one.

There really wasn't alot of time to get into the thick of all the characters.

In fact, Jackson actually made the characters have personality and made them even more likeable than from the books.

I always felt Tolkien focused more on the mythology and geography of the world and not enough on the characters. Their stories are amazing of course and without them we wouldn't have the films, but the changes that were made were for the better.

 

[Octoberist]

I kinda felt the same way..

 

[regwec]

I didn't. PJ "improved" all the characters by having them be much more touchy-feely and much less reticent of their emotions. Or just turning them into jokes. I didn't think Frodo was improved by holding the ring out in front of himself while looking constipated all the time. I didn't think Merry and Pippin were improved by being clowns. I didn't think Gimli was improved by being reduced to a recurring *********ion joke. I didn't think Aragorn was improved by being a self-absorbed *****.

The movies are great, don't get me wrong, but I think the decision to make the characters more "relatable" by making them essentially softer only lost some of the atmosphere from the book. I really didn't appreciate seeing a tearful Bilbo rush to Gandalf for a comforting hug. What happened to either's self respect and dignity?

 

[Ponyboy]

I really didn't appreciate seeing a tearful Bilbo rush to Gandalf for a comforting hug. What happened to either's self respect and dignity?

Because that's what ... lifelong friends do... who have been through so much together, who care for one another... and haven't seen each other in many years. How does that show a lack of respect and/or dignity?

 

[terry78]

I didn't. PJ "improved" all the characters by having them be much more touchy-feely and much less reticent of their emotions. Or just turning them into jokes. I didn't think Frodo was improved by holding the ring out in front of himself while looking constipated all the time. I didn't think Merry and Pippin were improved by being clowns. I didn't think Gimli was improved by being reduced to a recurring *********ion joke. I didn't think Aragorn was improved by being a self-absorbed *****.

The movies are great, don't get me wrong, but I think the decision to make the characters more "relatable" by making them essentially softer only lost some of the atmosphere from the book. I really didn't appreciate seeing a tearful Bilbo rush to Gandalf for a comforting hug. What happened to either's self respect and dignity?

Comic Book Guy: "....and that is why Lord of the Rings is unfilmable!"

 

[regwec]

It's post-modern, and no doubt acceptable nowadays. But it is un English, and it would be inconceivable for the characters that Tolkien actually wrote (in post war England) to behave in such a drippy manner.

The stiff upper lip is more applicable to TLOTR than the group hug, in my opinion.

 

[Ponyboy]

I think Sir Peter did pretty well... after all he managed to eek out roughly 12 hours of screen time for the whole book. I think you probably could've done three five hour movies and never gotten it all in there. But then the general movie going audience gets lost/bored. You gotta appeal to the mainstream unfortunately. The good thing is Sir Peter loves the material. And despite what you have heard... I know for a fact that one of the true reason Del Toro left was over creative differences. Sir Peter has a love for the material, as does Del Toro, however Del Toro's vision and Peter's was markedly different... The Hobbit, right out of the gate, felt like a different series aside from the fact that McKellen was reprising his role.

 

[Marx]

All the changes PJ made to LOTR ended up being fine. I'm sure this will be too.

And Wood really hasn't aged at all. He looks the same, especially when he'll be a Hobbit again.

It's actually very freaky to see how little Elijah Wood has changed. He doesn't like like he's aged at all.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I didn't. PJ "improved" all the characters by having them be much more touchy-feely and much less reticent of their emotions. Or just turning them into jokes. I didn't think Frodo was improved by holding the ring out in front of himself while looking constipated all the time. I didn't think Merry and Pippin were improved by being clowns. I didn't think Gimli was improved by being reduced to a recurring *********ion joke. I didn't think Aragorn was improved by being a self-absorbed *****.

The movies are great, don't get me wrong, but I think the decision to make the characters more "relatable" by making them essentially softer only lost some of the atmosphere from the book. I really didn't appreciate seeing a tearful Bilbo rush to Gandalf for a comforting hug. What happened to either's self respect and dignity?

Meh, I don't really care how accurate they are to the books, as long they do whatever they can to make them more interesting than the books then I'm fine with it. WHo cares if Bilbo rushes to Gandalf? He's an old friend who hasn't seen him in a long time. What is he going to do for that scene? Just stand there and say, "Gandalf... how are you? Come in."

It's about what pops on screen. I just put myself into the mind of the filmmaker and how he would think.

They were more interesting. I haven't read the books in a long time, but characters like Gimli and Legolas were pretty much flat in personality. Pretty much all the characters were. More focused on culture than the characters in that culture. That's why I prefer the films. You care about the characters more.

The humor wasn't really that bad. You need some humor. The movies were as hopeless and serious as they were. I get that you can still not be happy in how they handled that humor, but I liked it myself. In fact, there was alot of self doubt and negativity with the characters.