Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote:Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic to the level of romantic fairy-story... The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd.

That looks like gak aimed at 12 year olds. Could be anything really; Strong Female Charecter, quips, bs acrobatics. Yawn.

Now, I'm a massive LotR fanboy, and managed to overlook the majority of an unexpected journey's... alterations to the book (with the exception of some aspects of radagast and the orcs), but I am dreading seeing the elves. I mean, Legolas was at least just one really skilled elf, but with the whole, as previously mentioned, "monkey elves" jumping between branches... too much.
also, Tauriel/Legolas concerns me, for all the obvious reasons.

Of course, I'll reserve judgement until I've seen the actual film, but yeah. Not looking good. Here's to hoping the dwarves can compensate for the elves.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Pretty sure thorin never told the elves where he was going or why in the book.

He didn't say anything, but they found out from the men of Dale. (IIRC)

I agree. I don't like the fleshing out of the Elves in the story, but I think they're going to be necessary. Don't forget that we're also supposed to see the cleansing of Dol Guldur, which I believe Legolas was at (I'm not sure).

Looks pretty good.

Also, I'm still wondering if Khamul the Easterling is going to be in the Hobbit series, since I remember seeing somewhere him being in the cast list. It might of been mistaken for the Witch King, who seems to have his background ret-conned for the movies, because I'd of really liked to see the movies take on Khamul.

 Imposter101 wrote:
Looks pretty good.

Also, I'm still wondering if Khamul the Easterling is going to be in the Hobbit series, since I remember seeing somewhere him being in the cast list. It might of been mistaken for the Witch King, who seems to have his background ret-conned for the movies, because I'd of really liked to see the movies take on Khamul.

don't know about khamul (though I doubt he'll be in), but the witch-king definitely is.

I read Tolkien's work in college, and I'm not greatly attached to it. I've enjoyed all the movies so far, except for The Two Towers. Frankly, I liked it when Jackson deviated from Tolkien's Hobbit because it meant he was leaving out the boring parts or else he was giving us something new, which is gravy.

 Dr. What wrote:
I agree. I don't like the fleshing out of the Elves in the story, but I think they're going to be necessary. Don't forget that we're also supposed to see the cleansing of Dol Guldur, which I believe Legolas was at (I'm not sure).

Legolas never featured in the Hobbit itself, but as the Wood Elf king's son he would have to be around simply for continuity. His presence is implied simply by his station and the circumstances of the Hobbit itself. As a character he didn't exist when the Hobbit was written, so in the book he'd just be one of the nameless Elves in the story.

Likewise, he would have been at the assault on Dol Guldur simply because of who he is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Imposter101 wrote:
Looks pretty good.

Also, I'm still wondering if Khamul the Easterling is going to be in the Hobbit series, since I remember seeing somewhere him being in the cast list. It might of been mistaken for the Witch King, who seems to have his background ret-conned for the movies, because I'd of really liked to see the movies take on Khamul.

I didn't see any Witch King retcon. We never really had much background info on the different Nazgul.

Khamul is cool, but aside from his name we have very little to go on.


Thats for when we start getting speculative movies. Extrapolations of what Tolkien wrote down and how it might have been.

Surprised they haven't shoe-horned Gimili into the hobbit considering he is 61ish around the time of the 'hobbit' and his dad is one of the 13 Dwarves. I suspect we may see him become a major cameo in the 3rd movie as one of the smelly dwarves who is fighting for stuff.

The Legolas shenanigans don't bother me... a lot of the stuff they are making up is not actually wrong, simply unsaid due to a lot of stuff being unsaid. It does make sense that he would have been right there in the hobbit if the book had been written POST LotR.

I enjoyed the hobbit, I still enjoy LotRs when it is on for no reason on TBS and I sit there and watch it as I paint figures. It is enjoyable. I think even the bloated 3 movie hobbit trilogy will be mostly good and enjoyable.

Actually IIRC Gimlii is still just a wee dwarf lad of about 15. He's in his 60s at the time of the LotR, and there are 50 years between the events of the Hobbit and the LotR.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Wells theres a hot elf girl killing things - so thats a good thing

I'll forgive them making up their own stuff simply because Evangline Lilly is in it.

 -Loki- wrote:
I'll forgive them making up their own stuff simply because Evangline Lilly is in it.

Did you know Tolkien also made up his own stuff?

 Ahtman wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
I'll forgive them making up their own stuff simply because Evangline Lilly is in it.

Did you know Tolkien also made up his own stuff?

A writer making up stuff for fantasy writing?

Perish the thought, good sir. Nothing of that nature could ever happen.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Actually IIRC Gimlii is still just a wee dwarf lad of about 15. He's in his 60s at the time of the LotR, and there are 50 years between the events of the Hobbit and the LotR.

Bilbo was 50 at the tome of the Hobbit and was born 2890

Gimli was 139 years old (born in 2879 of the Third Age) when the Fellowship of the Ring set out from Rivendell, making him 52 years older than Aragorn.

This makes Gimil 11 years older than Bilbo which makes him 61 at the time of the Hobbit.

 Dr. What wrote:
I agree. I don't like the fleshing out of the Elves in the story, but I think they're going to be necessary. Don't forget that we're also supposed to see the cleansing of Dol Guldur, which I believe Legolas was at (I'm not sure).

I was unaware the cleansing of Dol Guldur was going to be in this, that's actually pretty exciting. It's one of my favourite parts of Tolkein's world, and I was happy when they included references in the first Hobbit.

Beorn's going to be interesting... Hopefully the dwarves don't seduce him with their previously hidden womanly charms to let them stay the night or anything silly like that.

 Gutsnagga wrote:

 Dr. What wrote:
I agree. I don't like the fleshing out of the Elves in the story, but I think they're going to be necessary. Don't forget that we're also supposed to see the cleansing of Dol Guldur, which I believe Legolas was at (I'm not sure).

I was unaware the cleansing of Dol Guldur was going to be in this, that's actually pretty exciting. It's one of my favourite parts of Tolkein's world, and I was happy when they included references in the first Hobbit.

Beorn's going to be interesting... Hopefully the dwarves don't seduce him with their previously hidden womanly charms to let them stay the night or anything silly like that.

You assume Beorn is into "womenly" charms

Things will get hairy, very very hairy...

welshhoppo wrote:
I like the Hobbit book, it's short and too the point.

These three films are bloated dribble. I believe that the last film is only about the battle of the Five Armies and what happens after, that is like fifteen pages of book.

Short and to the point? What version were you reading? My copy is a decent sized novel, about 400 pages, and it's a bore to get through. The movies, so far, have brought life back into the prequel of LotR for me. I liked The Hobbit when I was a child. As an adult, reading it only for myself, it's horrible. It's written to be a children's book. Tolkien repeats himself over and over in it, and makes it painful to get through. I love to read, and I especially love to read fantasy. But the book just irritates me. The movie kept me excited the whole way through.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Gutsnagga wrote:

 Dr. What wrote:
I agree. I don't like the fleshing out of the Elves in the story, but I think they're going to be necessary. Don't forget that we're also supposed to see the cleansing of Dol Guldur, which I believe Legolas was at (I'm not sure).

I was unaware the cleansing of Dol Guldur was going to be in this, that's actually pretty exciting. It's one of my favourite parts of Tolkein's world, and I was happy when they included references in the first Hobbit.

Beorn's going to be interesting... Hopefully the dwarves don't seduce him with their previously hidden womanly charms to let them stay the night or anything silly like that.

You assume Beorn is into "womenly" charms

Things will get hairy, very very hairy...

Woolly mammaries...

It will remain PG-13 because the hair will be covering everything offensive.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

welshhoppo wrote:
I like the Hobbit book, it's short and too the point.

These three films are bloated dribble. I believe that the last film is only about the battle of the Five Armies and what happens after, that is like fifteen pages of book.

Short and to the point? What version were you reading? My copy is a decent sized novel, about 400 pages, and it's a bore to get through. The movies, so far, have brought life back into the prequel of LotR for me. I liked The Hobbit when I was a child. As an adult, reading it only for myself, it's horrible. It's written to be a children's book. Tolkien repeats himself over and over in it, and makes it painful to get through. I love to read, and I especially love to read fantasy. But the book just irritates me. The movie kept me excited the whole way through.

Yes, exactly, the Hobbit is a kid's book. If the film appeals to kids it's because the subject matter was written for kids. Why do people think there are thirteen dwarves with silly names?

Can anyone really imagine a faithful film adaptation of the Hobbit? Because I can't. It's not a long book but the pacing and structure is all over the place. It drags on in some places and quickly jumps between major scenes in others. There's so much material in Middle-Earth outside of Tolkien's books that I don't see any reason why some of the really good stuff, like Mirkwood and Dol-gudur, can't be added in with the main hobbit story line since most of its connected in some way. It's all about making money in the end but that in and of itself is not a bad thing. Seems like Hollywood's greed is producing three very good films, and it can't be denied that regardless of the motivation behind the funding, Peter Jackson is good at visualizing Middle-Earth and clearly puts a great deal of effort and passion in.

I like the Bakshi Hobbit. I grew up on it, watched it before I ever read the book. I'll always like it better than these new ones. Jackson lost me when he made the entire battle of the Pelennor Fields an irrelevant joke. I forgave him most of his foibles in the first two movies, but really, Pelennor Fields killed the whole trilogy for me.

Should have just hid out somewhere Rohan, everything you did could have been accomplished by the ghost army in roughly thirty seconds. Which made me look back at everything else in the trilogy with a more critical eye.

 iproxtaco wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

welshhoppo wrote:
I like the Hobbit book, it's short and too the point.

These three films are bloated dribble. I believe that the last film is only about the battle of the Five Armies and what happens after, that is like fifteen pages of book.

Short and to the point? What version were you reading? My copy is a decent sized novel, about 400 pages, and it's a bore to get through. The movies, so far, have brought life back into the prequel of LotR for me. I liked The Hobbit when I was a child. As an adult, reading it only for myself, it's horrible. It's written to be a children's book. Tolkien repeats himself over and over in it, and makes it painful to get through. I love to read, and I especially love to read fantasy. But the book just irritates me. The movie kept me excited the whole way through.

Yes, exactly, the Hobbit is a kid's book. If the film appeals to kids it's because the subject matter was written for kids. Why do people think there are thirteen dwarves with silly names?

Can anyone really imagine a faithful film adaptation of the Hobbit? Because I can't. It's not a long book but the pacing and structure is all over the place. It drags on in some places and quickly jumps between major scenes in others. There's so much material in Middle-Earth outside of Tolkien's books that I don't see any reason why some of the really good stuff, like Mirkwood and Dol-gudur, can't be added in with the main hobbit story line since most of its connected in some way. It's all about making money in the end but that in and of itself is not a bad thing. Seems like Hollywood's greed is producing three very good films, and it can't be denied that regardless of the motivation behind the funding, Peter Jackson is good at visualizing Middle-Earth and clearly puts a great deal of effort and passion in.

The story itself is just fine. IN fact there was an excellent film adaption already done, replete with excellent singing.

Trying to mix in more serious stuff is what makes it jarring. Its meant to be a light hearted fantasy adventure - a fantsy Indiana Jones as it were, not Game of Thrones with Dwarves.

I guess I am one of the few who thought the first Hobbit move was just fine. I thought it was paced far better than the events of the book it covered, actually. The Orcs are entirely non-canon, true, but they add some pacing that was entirely lacking.

I am eager to see Beorn and Mirkwood in the next installment. I am a big fan of adding all the material about Dol Guldur, as I never liked how Gandalf simply leaves them and then suddenly reappears.

I could barely describe the plot of the Hobbit movie, i had no idea what was going on most of the time. Also the film felt unsatisfying and unresolved in a way the Fellowship of the Ring or any other start of a great trilogy didn't. It's like they were holding back on any payoff to any Arc for the subsequent movie(s). Also it's good to see that the one piece of character development; Moody Head Dwarf coming to trust Bilbo has been completely undone judging by the trailer.

The film also looked kitsch and fake in a way the LOTR trilogy (Better than Star Wars IMO) didn't. Even Without the cute Hedgehogs and Rabbit Chariot I'd have still described everything as looking like the bloody Sylvanian Families!

My idea for a 'Modern' Hobbit movie would have been a Heist. Oceans 11 but with Dwarves, yes the tone would be lighter than LOTR but not in the weird uneven way it is in these films. Also it would'nt have that ill-conceived Israelite subtext for the Dwarves' motivation (I'm not sure if the whole Reclaim Erebor thing was Tolkein's intent but it just seems too Unsubtly Allegoric for him). The Dwarves would be after the Hoard the Dragon is sitting on.

I, like everyone else still loved the Gollum scene (Flawless execution Imo) and the Necromancer story needs to be told but i just did not enjoy the movie and it's Vacillating between Goblin-Rope-Ladder Hijinks and Ill conceived serious subject matter. Also That 'Oaken Shield' looks stoooopid, it's just a log.

Funnily enough, attempting to speak completely objectively, the trailer looks decent. Really Like Bendybatch Cumberdick's Voice.

EDIT: Don't know if i'll get used to saying Sm-aOww-g rather than Sm-Aww-g like i am used to.

I thought this trailer was fantastic. Can't wait to see the film.

Its always amusing how upset people get when films don't match the book. Something that happens with 95% of adaptations. Yet some people never seem to learn?
Of course its fine to be a bit disappointed when stuff you loved from a book is changed/missed for a film, but realistically its very difficult to make that book as good on screen in the same sense as it was in the book. You can make a film thats just as good, but not necessarily for the right reasons.

 rodgers37 wrote:
I thought this trailer was fantastic. Can't wait to see the film.

Its always amusing how upset people get when films don't match the book. Something that happens with 95% of adaptations. Yet some people never seem to learn?
Of course its fine to be a bit disappointed when stuff you loved from a book is changed/missed for a film, but realistically its very difficult to make that book as good on screen in the same sense as it was in the book. You can make a film thats just as good, but not necessarily for the right reasons.

Apart from a couple silly Legolas action Scenes i think every important change Fran Walsh (i think) and Stephen Jackson (plus whoever helped with the writing) Made to LOTR was an improvement. I don't think The Hobbit is bad because they diverted from the source text, i think it is bad for a number of other reasons.

 Perkustin wrote:
I could barely describe the plot of the Hobbit movie

I find that strange, considering how simple and straight forward it was.

 Perkustin wrote:
Also it's good to see that the one piece of character development; Moody Head Dwarf coming to trust Bilbo has been completely undone judging by the trailer.

If you recall from the book part of "Moody Head Dwarf"s character flaw is that he is so narrowly focused on getting back his swag that by the end he is almost the main antagonist. It isn't that he doesn't trust Bilbo, it is just that he is prone to xenophobia, grandstanding, and pettiness in the pursuit of what he sees as his rightful place. It has to be contextualized into the larger character arc for the character so that when he goes full on donkey-cave near the end it makes sense, and takes something really shocking (Bilbo stealing away with the Heart and an army of Orcs) to wake him from his stupor and realize he is being a massive jerk and forgetting to help others.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Perkustin wrote:
I could barely describe the plot of the Hobbit movie

I find that strange, considering how simple and straight forward it was.

The book was straight forward. The movie was not.

Book:
1. Hey lets go get rich and get our place back. Tally ho!

Movie:
1. mmm...we've got to go back, kill the dragon, and get our kingdom back, with 13 guys.
2. Oh yea there's a deranged ork wannabe (that guy's not an ork, he's too cute) with a pack hunting us.
3. Ork pack guy doesn't seem to attacking much, must be afraid of 13 guys m..ok...
4. Oh and there's like this dork with a little two much fascination with a ferbie.
5. This dork is being attacked by spiders, or not.
6. Dork is now investigating a castle.
7. Dork is now pursued by the ork guy...er what? why?
8. Elves in cool armor attacking orks. Ok I get that.
9. Mmm.. Queen Elizabeth ork...drooool what was I talking about again?
10. Menacing ork dude!
11. adventures hurray
12. Ork Dude attacks!

what er eh what?

Am I the only one who misses guys in ork makeup and not video game orks?

 Frazzled wrote:


Am I the only one who misses guys in ork makeup and not video game orks?

No. I miss them too.

Because with then gone, this won't ever happen again:

I just wish that they had stuck to the origional story line. And used alot less CGI. I cannot stand the stupid amount of CGI crap that has been stuck in this series. There is a limit to how much i can actually take.
And then there is the whole deviation. G2G-class is over. Ill post more when i get home.