i always though Kevin Smith's point about LOTR was fucking retarded.

i dont know his point....and i was joking, it seems like a cool movie, even if i really don´t care much about it.

made the dude puke didnt it?

Sure if you go all the was back to his creation Sauron wasn't bad. Still it was implied in The Silmarillion that Sauron was working with the elves for his own ends even during the period dime was referencing(The First Age). At least thats how I took it when I read it. If we are talking the time period of the Hobbit(Third Age) Sauron had been evil for thousands of years so I was assuming you were confused by something and was letting you know Sauron wasn't a good guy in the Hobbit. I probably shouldn't have said anything I don't want spoil it for anyone.

Another earthquake in New Zealand.

So they're making the Hobbit into a trilogy. I'm a big Tolkien nut and while I want to be excited, the changes Jackson made were unforgivable but I can see this being padded out with lots of nonsensical additions and fabrication. Here's the blurb.

It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.'

We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.

It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."

Cheers,

Peter J

Yeah the changes they made in that last movies were always for the worse. Still if doing three movies for the Hobbit allows them to add in the War of the Dwarves and Orcs in some sort of flashback I would pretty happy. I must have read that section 100 times when I was a kid.

That was a pretty great story but I'm not sure it'll be placed. The battle at dol goldur to remove the necromancer and him being revealed as sauron will featureheavily as will the rise of the nazgul. After that who knows what they'll show.

What changes are unforgivable in your eyes?

Aragorn going over the cliff was ridiculous.
Elrond bringing Aragorn Anduril. Beyond ridiculous. if they had to include that scene it should have been part of the scene in the extended cut where he tells him to become the man he was born to be.
Gimli being portrayed as comic relief. He was a grim fuck as were all dwarves. Major chips in their shoulders as they see themselves as havingbeen cheated and stolen from. By just about everyone. This is the main theme with the dwarves and it won't feature at all in these new films I'm betting.
These are my big three. I have an extensively list somewhere I'll try find it.

The only change to the LOTR movies that really bothered me was when they got back to the Shire and everything was a-ok.

And that. That was a huge one but one they thought a sticks and stones battle would have looked ridiculous in light of what had gone before, I think handled right, it could have been amazing but it would have needed the threads laid early in the story of sarumans people's corruption of the shire and that, they did not have time for.

Still could have been done though.

They butchered Faramir.

I wasn't an LOTR fan before I saw the movies. I thought they were OK, pretty good in places, but years later I'm still not a fan.

I enjoyed The Hobbit as a book quite a bit. It's not stupidly bloated like the LOTR books are. The film looks much smaller in scope, and more celtic in flavour, which has me excited for it. So yeah. I think I'll enjoy this quite a lot more. Plus, there's no bloody Elijah Wood.

when I was a little kid there used to always be a Hobbit cartoon movie on TV. I loved that movie.

This thread is pissing me off.

that movie sucked.


I am a big fan of the fantasy genre (especially the literature) and I owe that to LOTR, but those books actually aren't very good. The world he created was wonderful, but it is peopled with flat one dimensional characters. In that respect I think Peter Jackson did a wonderful job giving some of these characters some depth (as much as he could with the source material and a large ensemble cast) and making the world feel real. There were a few little changes that he made that I could have done without, but nothing was a deal breaker and some of them were kind of important. Aragorn coming back from the cliff is an important moment not because of the cliff shot itself, but because it lets them mark a moment where he, at least reluctantly, embraces his heritage and his destiny. that shot in two towers where Aragorn opens those big double doors in helms deep and strolls into the room is a really critical shot. it marks the moment he changes. And he needs to be separated from the group for that entrance to work.

And I was okay with everything being okay in the Shire just because the ending is so long to begin with. The movie climaxed and winds down at a slow pace, but one it is entitled to given the 11 hour run time of the whole series. It didn't need another moment of minor tension.


I loved the Hobbit when I was a kid, but it's a children's book, one where being faithful to it is probably not a good idea, especially given the amazing operatic size and scope of LOTR, which will be defining everyone's expectations going in.

Bottom line is that Jackson did such a wonderful job with LOTR I'm going to trust him to do this right until I have a reason not to.

I actually hope that this film *does* have a smaller, more intimate children's book feel... with a nod to the bigger epicness of LOTR. Not just because TH is a "children's book", but because the books don't share that epic tone. And that's part of their beauty together. TH is an origins story, a setup for LOTR, so should not be that massive in scope. Otherwise these films will end up feeling mighty bloated (more than they do already). The *difference* between these books should be taken into account, even if he wants the films to look similar stylistically. It would be enough for me that certain settings looked similar to the other films, like The Shire. That's enough continuity for me. And of course, Gollum and the ring are brought in. That's enough. I don't want it to be epic. This is what I felt with Narnia: they ruined it in various ways, but one of them was to try to compete with LOTR. Narnia isn't supposed to, it's a children's fairytale story involving Turkish Delight, toast and sardines, tea and cake, a whole bunch of WWII English accents, etc. It's meant to be quaint, not kickass or epic.