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.

So apparently Mr Jackson has decided that he has a better understanding of fantasy rules than Professor Tolkien and he is going to fix that measly British guy book.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2010/12/08/hobbit-blanchett.html?ref=rss

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/12/09/orlando-bloom-the-hobbit/

I could live with a cameo by said actors but nooooo that´s not enough to the studio and Mr Jackson, so while we are at it why not add Optimus Prime driving the Bilbo and the Dwarfs to Erebor. Or even better have Spaceship Yamato provide covering fire to the armies of good in the battle of the five armies!

M.

Yeah, Legolas and Galadriel are real head scratchers for me as well.

If you have read the Hobbit, you know that it is an amazing book, and shaped every D&D game ever played...

But also I am remembering how well Mr. Jackson did to bring the Trilogy to life.

Personally, all the fan-boy hemming and hawing is simply internet posturing. They are gonna plunk down thier cash for a ticket on opening night like the rest of us, and enjoy the hell out of the movie.

I would rather have a Hobbit movie that deviates from the book some, than no movie at all. Just my $.02

The biggest headscratcher for me is the failure to have Ian McKellan signed. I'm not really sure there's much point in the project if he isn't Gandalf.

sebster wrote:The biggest headscratcher for me is the failure to have Ian McKellan signed. I'm not really sure there's much point in the project if he isn't Gandalf.

He hasn't signed yet, as he apparently wants a staggering sum to do the role again, even though I likes playing the part.

As far as I can tell they will be adding in some stuff in that is in the books but never done in detail. For example when Gandolf heads off to go deal with the necromancer he just leaves and comes back whereas the movie will actually show the event and battle between the Necrommancer, Gandalf, and Radaghast. Things like that.

Well "tolkien dogma" didn't stop him from changing things in LOTR either. Remember the dwarf tossing incident? Or the elves at helms deep? Where was Bombadil? I mean the trilogy was still an awesome achievement despite some of the changes that I disliked. (see above)

GG

Oh there are 3 movies already? I´m afraid I just saw the 1st one and then the battle scenes

M.

If the rumours about the Hobbit including additional stff take from other bits of Tolkien's writing about the Necromancer (Sauron in disguise) being driven out of Mirkwood by the White Council is true can certainly see why they would have Cate Blanchett in a major role as the white council without Galadriel wouldn't be right.

sebster wrote:The biggest headscratcher for me is the failure to have Ian McKellan signed. I'm not really sure there's much point in the project if he isn't Gandalf.

He will be.....Although to be honest, i thought he already was, i'm sure i've seen in one of the Film Magazines i read him talking about when the Hobbit was going to start being shot....


I suppose the changes could make it an even better film, but (i've listened to the book rather than actually read it) i thought the Hobbit was really good, and would make a perfectly good 3-4 hours of film, and if they try to bring too much of LOTR in (something Del Torro probably wouldn't have done?) it might end up being a LOTR sequel rather than the prequel.....

Connor McKane wrote:If you have read the Hobbit, you know that it is an amazing book, and shaped every D&D game ever played...

I think Tolkien's brilliance can be attributed to many things, from great Zeppelin songs up through Magic: the gathering. You can see his influence throughout all facets of the gaming world

I personally really liked what he did in LOTR, so Im going to just say, cmon guys, you KNOW its going to be good. So shad up already

Connor McKane wrote:But also I am remembering how well Mr. Jackson did to bring the Trilogy to life.

I don't know what trilogy you were watching. Fellowship = Not that good. Two Towers = Good so long as you can ignore skateboarding Legolas and hoacky dialouge. Return of the King = Terrible on all counts.

That's 1 out of three. And with every other not so great movie he has made it's like 1 out of 8. I don't have high hopes for The Hobbit. The best thing that could happen to this movie is it dies in production.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:But also I am remembering how well Mr. Jackson did to bring the Trilogy to life.

I don't know what trilogy you were watching. Fellowship = Not that good. Two Towers = Good so long as you can ignore skateboarding Legolas and hoacky dialouge. Return of the King = Terrible on all counts.

That's 1 out of three. And with every other not so great movie he has made it's like 1 out of 8. I don't have high hopes for The Hobbit. The best thing that could happen to this movie is it dies in production.

Yes absolutely everyone hated the trilogy and there are no people with differing opinions

Wikipedia wrote:The Lord of the Rings film trilogy is the highest grossing motion picture trilogy worldwide of all time

Because everyone likes to hate on this trilogy over and over again

Connor McKane wrote:If you have read the Hobbit, you know that it is an amazing book, and shaped every D&D game ever played...

But also I am remembering how well Mr. Jackson did to bring the Trilogy to life.

Personally, all the fan-boy hemming and hawing is simply internet posturing. They are gonna plunk down thier cash for a ticket on opening night like the rest of us, and enjoy the hell out of the movie.

I would rather have a Hobbit movie that deviates from the book some, than no movie at all. Just my $.02

Yeah, I agree.

Jackson did an awesome job with a book that was widely regarded as impossible to film (though Ralph Bakshi's partly animated version is a very interesting try at it.)

I'm sure The Hobbit will be awesome.

Deviating from the book? It's a bit more than that.

Any ways the worrying thing is not that they are changing/adding anything from the book it's that this film is a money spinner off the back of the success of the Lord of the Rings. That's why it has been split into two parts. That's why Legolas and Galadriel are being brought into it.

whatwhat wrote:Deviating from the book? It's a bit more than that.

Any ways the worrying thing is not that they are changing/adding anything from the book it's that this film is a money spinner off the back of the success of the Lord of the Rings. That's why it has been split into two parts. That's why Legolas and Galadriel are being brought into it.

I would have to see how they are added in, if legolas starts running off on the adventure with them then something is seriously wrong XP

I enjoyed both the book and the movies. I did not miss tom Bombadil at all. Honestly, I think Tolkien wrote that part during his "reefer madness" days or something. I did miss the scourging of the shire and wish it hadn't been left out.

While I found that Gimli was basically used as a walking gag reel in the movies, you need some comedic relief in a war movie (IMHO).

Edit: I'm looking forward to The Hobbit.

And why shouldn't Legolas be in it? The party visits the wood elf kingdom and he's hundreds of years old after all.

Yep, you're right about that.

Does it matter, though, as long as they are good films?

You're never going to get a direct translation of any book to the silver screen, the whole way the media work is different.

The way I see it, Jackson is bringing in parts of Middle Earth history which occurred "off screen" in the book, not inventing wholesale new material.

Gibbsey wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Deviating from the book? It's a bit more than that.

Any ways the worrying thing is not that they are changing/adding anything from the book it's that this film is a money spinner off the back of the success of the Lord of the Rings. That's why it has been split into two parts. That's why Legolas and Galadriel are being brought into it.

I would have to see how they are added in, if legolas starts running off on the adventure with them then something is seriously wrong XP

There's no point for him to be there whatsoever. They have literally gone: 'Hmm what characters can we use from the lord of the rings in the hobbit to get the sentimentality factor covered and to tap into the success we made on those films?.... Well legolas is an Elf and would have been alive in the period of the hobbit and he's from mirkwood. ...put him in!'

whatwhat wrote:
There's no point for him to be there whatsoever. They have literally gone: 'Hmm what characters can we use from the lord of the rings in the hobbit to get the sentimentality factor covered and to tap into the success we made on those films?.... Well legolas is an Elf and would have been alive in the period of the hobbit and he's from mirkwood. ...put him in!'

I think you're being a bit overly dramatic here WW. You don't really know that what you are proposing is the real reason Galadriel and legolas are in it. For all we know legolas will be in the part where the dwarves are imprisoned. or maybe it will be part two when they fight the necromancer, or both.

GG

I'm skeptical. I think some of the changes made by Jackson were fantastic and improved things, but he also made a lot of changes and additions that just stunk, and changed the focus of the story in a very bad way. And the idea to cut the two tower's awesome cliffhanger so he could add in the whole stupid Aragorn falls off a cliff and Elrond is grumpy rubbish really annoyed me.

I'll go see it, but if it's good, I'll go see it SIX TIMES.

TV Tropes wrote:For some people, the very act of adaptation is decay. A film version of something should be a direct word-for-word transcription, with utmost care that the sets, costumes and people be reproduced in every detail. If a character who wears a homburg in the original now wears a fedora, that will be enough to ruin the character, and therefore ruin the film. It will be all you will hear about from these fans on message boards, with them going on at length to explain how his homburg visually defined his entire personality in a way that a fedora never could.

And don't you dare suggest that in changing it they made it better.

This trope is not only used in situations of Adaptation Decay. It is also applicable to ongoing series where a significant change is made between seasons.

The above is probably the best response possible to butthurt cry-babies like the OP.

Given that the events surrounding the White Council striking the Necromancer of Dol Guldur are not going to happen entirely offscreen and barely get mention, like in the book, it's not all that shocking that some of the long lived characters from the trilogy are going to be given mention.

Especially since Legolas is a prince of the Mirkwood elves, so it's not some out of the blue shoe-horning that will put him into the story, and didn't Galadriel found the White Council?

Aslong as it doesent end up like Eragon

Seriously that one scene... i think they put like 4 plot points together in a span of 2 minutes including rescuing someone / character who wasnt even there 2 seconds ago appearing randomly in the room jumping out of nowhere and getting stabbed / random character introduction. After that part there was no hope left in me for that movie.

Two points:

1) I thought it was already established that they're going to do some things to "bridge" the Hobbit with the LotR films, and that's why a skinny little book is going to be filmed as TWO films.

2) Tolkien's LotR is a classic and a pillar of fantasy fiction...but it's hardly without its issues.

Cheesecat wrote:Yeah, Legolas and Galadriel are real head scratchers for me as well.

Legolas is the son of Thranduil, the Elven King in the Hobbit. While he is not mentioned in the Hobbit unless he was away at the time then it is very likely he and Bilbo met.

Legolas was likely drinking in a high place at the Elven King's table when Thorin staggered into the light begging for food.


Galadriel had a real but distant relation to the original story. It only applies if the producer wants to asdd in what Gandalf was up to when he rode away south leaving the dwarves and Mr Baggins on the borders of Mirkwood. Gandalf had been summoned by the White Council, which means Galadriel, Celeborn, Elrond, ?Gildor?, Saruman, Gandalf and Radagast. radagast is a natural addition because he probably sent the furry or bug that informed Gandalf he was wanted.
The timing is not co-incidential either. the White Council was summoned for emergency session by Galadriel, though Saruman was its head, because the Necromancer of Dol Guldur, suspected to be Sauron, was making a move. the move he made was a feined flight followed by a return to a rebuilt Barad-dur. The timing of this is relevant to the story because in the process of this Sauron called out for his ring, which heard him and promptly abandoned Gollum......

Idunno, if you can do LOTR in three movies you can certainly do The Hobbit in one. That's the first warning sign for me.

gorgon wrote:.... and that's why a skinny little book is going to be filmed as TWO films.

Tolkien didnt usually over-describe action sequences, yet there nearly as many in the Hobbit as in the whole of the Lord of the Rings. Some excellent inspirations for cinema occur in short retrospective passages of text.

One particular gift to a good director is the briefly sketched scene where Bilbo is forced to sneak into a camp of wary elves (not exactly slow or unobservant folks) to steal food while he has an uncontrollable cold. The opportunity for comic relief and some well choreographed action, let alone the expressions on the elven hunting party (who could well have included Legolas), its just waiting on a platter begging to be fleshed out and filmed and took up a short paragraph.

Da Boss wrote:I'm skeptical. I think some of the changes made by Jackson were fantastic and improved things, but he also made a lot of changes and additions that just stunk, and changed the focus of the story in a very bad way. And the idea to cut the two tower's awesome cliffhanger so he could add in the whole stupid Aragorn falls off a cliff and Elrond is grumpy rubbish really annoyed me.

I'll go see it, but if it's good, I'll go see it SIX TIMES.

The Hobbit is my favorite Tolkien book. Thing is, a very large portion of it takes place in complete Darkness. How will they pull that off without losing it creepiness?