The Hobbit (without Jackson)

[ECA]

guess the amount of money it made and still makes has nothing to do with it? maybe you would have preferred an art house adaptation?

anyway, read somewhere about a prequel to LOTR set after the hobbit, correct me if i am wrong but does this even exist in book form?

Yah because HUGE overhype on the cast and a huge advertising budget with one of the biggest licenses ever - even if they had been directed by uwe boll they would have made a fucktruck worth of cash.

 

[DaveyJones]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Silmarillion-J-R-R-Tolkien/dp/0261102737

That wouldnt be set after the Hobbit would it, thats way before the Hobbit story happened.

 

[Talivar]

The LOTR trilogy was great, id like to hear what films ppl here like if they think LOTR was crap.

 

[mank!]

i feel i should probably mention that it's impossible to recreate a novel in film terms. you wouldn't try to draw a picture of a poem, would you?

i thought the lotr trilogy was entertaining and fun. i've never read the books and nor do i particularly want to.

jackson/nlc don't represent what's wrong with the worlds. lotr nerds do. they ought to be round up and shot.

i predict that the hobbit will crash and burn without peter jackson at the helm. in fairness, i don't think people could stomach another so soon afterwards regardless of who directs it.

i'd like to see david lynch's interpretaton of it

 

[Ch3tan]

Clerks 2 summed it up perfectly

They made a Clerks 2 and no one told me? Bastards!

They better not fuck up the Hobbit.

 

[Trem]

Oh my god Ch3t!!!


Years best film imo.

Watch it immediately.

 

[Skyler]

I have read the book many times and didn't always like that things were not included in the film. But after watching all 3 Extended versions (never bothered with anything shorter) multiple times and seeing the making of's on all the DVD's several times I can safely say that I am happy with almost all decisions they made on those films. There were reasons for chopping some things and reasons why they altered a few things, it created a better film and it needed that.

I did not like the change in Faramir, but you cannot have a character who is immune to the power of the ring considering how hard they have tried to build up and show that it is all powerful over all men and men are weak. Especially since he's Boromir's brother and Boromir was so taken with the ring.

Shield surfing did suck, as did Legolas and the Mumakill.. but my least liked part of the whole trilogy was the army of the dead at the end. The army was awesome until right at the end where they let them flush out everything in a big green wind that took about 10seconds, seemed a bit anti climactic and lazy considering everything that had gone before it. Still, it is not that bad when you watch it.

I don't think you could have asked for a better set of films to be made based on LOTR and everyone should be grateful these films were made the way they were. This book so nearly came to film via two films instead of three, it was so nearly made to a tight budget and even more things were so nearly cut.

The films are awesome.. they are not perfect in every way, but I could list so many amazing things they did throughout all three films that make them so good.

As for length, after watching all three Extended versions I almost wanted them to be longer, to have the bits they missed from the books. This usually happens after being immersed in something so well made and such a wonderful world, you want to enjoy more of it.

Before the films were made I was very worried that they'd mess it up, but they didn't. They did a lot better than I think anybody thought they would.

I'm very disapointed to see that Jackson wont be involved in The Hobbit as I really like that story and was eagerly waiting to see just how awesome they would make it. I thrive on attention to detail and the LOTR films had that in abundance.

I find it hard to see how people can fall asleep during any film if they went to a cinema to watch it, let alone these ones. I guess you were too tired, didn't drink enough coffee or are seriously ill

 

[ECA]

They made a Clerks 2 and no one told me? Bastards!

They better not fuck up the Hobbit.

You poontang.
WATCH NOW!

 

[Raven]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Silmarillion-J-R-R-Tolkien/dp/0261102737

yes, i know that one, tried reading it ages ago, got lost though.

Thought that was based before the hobbit?

 

[TdC]

the silmarillion is an explanation, a collection of stories, a history, an encyclopedia and more

 

[Reformed]

Lord of the Rings films? Fantastic films for sure. Still watch them at times just like I re-read the book at times too. Only thing is no-one should ever ever alter the story line. The books have been read by millions for a long time and have been discussed at university levels. Hell I went to watch a play at a uni close to where I lived. Trouble with these films - and was the director the reason for it? - was that they veered away from the story line at times. Shit I was confused as hell on a number of occasions until I realized they had the audacity to alter various parts of the book! To be honest I could have beaten the shit out of whoever decided to do such things. 'Such things' because they altered the story line on numerous occasions. I have read the damn Lord of the Rings at least 10 times. It isn't easy reading and only people like me will persevere to the very end. To think that you then know better than the author and alter scenes to suit some poxy film or other is unbelievable. If the director did this then he should have a chance to remake certain parts or bugger off entirely. Really the appeal of the films is in the remarkable film effects and acting - nothing else. Who was responsible for altering the story line? I sure would like to know. If it was the director then I for one wouldn't want him altering the Hobbit. Another book I have fond memories of.

 

[Ch3tan]

Oh my god, get over it. Artistic liscense ffs.

Oh and, "only people like me"? Arrogant twat.

 

[Skyler]

Reformed, the films quite clearly wouldn't work if made as he wrote it.

There are many reasons for this, if you look at The Two Towers and the way he wrote this originally you might understand.

He wrote it as two stories, one after the other, he did not intercut and even as an author that is a huge no no. He was asked to rewrite this when he wrote the original book but was stubborn and refused. Not intercutting is a difficult thing for a reader to deal with, as they read one entire storyline through and then have to go back in time however long to read from another perspective.

Films absolutely have to be intercut, if you don't intercut a film you will find it very hard to build suspense or feeling for part of your story.

There are many more reasons why they had to alter some things, or why they chose to. I like the book and would have been happy with a film following it to the letter with the visuals they produced. However, this would not have worked as a mainstream film and would only appeal to LOTR fans and not many outsiders. They had to construct a film that appealed to the die hard community (of which almost all of the production team were very much a part of) and one that appeals to general cinema patrons and people who have never ever read the book or even heard of it.

They did a great job.

 

[mank!]

bang on, although the narrative of a film doesn't neccesarily need to be straightforward...so it could have worked.

as i've said before, it would be physically impossible to condense a huge novel into a film. books can describe everything in as much or as little detail as neccesary. films can't. otherwise they'd go on forever. in order for it to be a sensible length, they had to cut out bits of the story.

i can't comment on individual plotlines as i've not read the books but you're just being an elitist twat.

 

[Tom]

I read The Hobbit and LOTR trilogy years ago. They're all great books although tRotK gets a bit tiresome with its semi-religious prose.

I thought the films were excellent. Of course they're different from the books, books rely totally on imagination. Films rely totally on visual and audible senses.

Now fuckoff and sing some Tom Bombadil, stupid boring LOTR nerds. You're as bad as the Star Wars "we hate George Lucas" idiots.

 

[Reformed]

Reformed, the films quite clearly wouldn't work if made as he wrote it.

There are many reasons for this, if you look at The Two Towers and the way he wrote this originally you might understand.

He wrote it as two stories, one after the other, he did not intercut and even as an author that is a huge no no. He was asked to rewrite this when he wrote the original book but was stubborn and refused. Not intercutting is a difficult thing for a reader to deal with, as they read one entire storyline through and then have to go back in time however long to read from another perspective.

Films absolutely have to be intercut, if you don't intercut a film you will find it very hard to build suspense or feeling for part of your story.

There are many more reasons why they had to alter some things, or why they chose to. I like the book and would have been happy with a film following it to the letter with the visuals they produced. However, this would not have worked as a mainstream film and would only appeal to LOTR fans and not many outsiders. They had to construct a film that appealed to the die hard community (of which almost all of the production team were very much a part of) and one that appeals to general cinema patrons and people who have never ever read the book or even heard of it.

They did a great job.

Lets get this straight. The scene changes made sod all difference to how the film was viewed. The changes did nothing but detract from the original book plot. I am pretty sure the scenes that were changed will one day be remade to be as the book. No way did they help the film in anyway wotsoever in my opinion.

Oh my god, get over it. Artistic liscense ffs.

Oh and, "only people like me"? Arrogant twat.

'Artistic license'? Well it should be requested and granted first. Am pretty sure Tolkien wouldn't have allowed any such lee-way with his book.

You ain't taking liberties with some new novel 'fresh off the press' but a novel regarded as one of the best of the genre. No-one bar the auther should mess with the story line. Arrogance in the extreme is shown by anyone that thinks they can do so. Me arrogant? Well in a way I am but there are a great many like me who have the Lord of the Rings deeply embedded in the psyche. Sorry but certain scenes need to be remade to be truthful to the book and the sooner the better.

 

[ECA]

i can't comment on individual plotlines as i've not read the books but you're just being an elitist twat.

And as we all know, being an elitist twat is MY job around here.

 

[Doh_boy]

The only thing that really irked me is the faramir stuff and not even skyler's explanation is going to make me accept it.

I would have like a little glimpse of Tom Bombadill, since he is my favorite character but I assumed it wouldn't before filming began (when I read his scenes they felt like Tolkien had put the wrong mushrooms in his soup). But as a DVD extra it would've been nice.

Also it wouldn't have been that hard to make merry and pippin that much taller and to have a tracking shot of a changed shire. It would have made the ending closer to the books.

Anyway enjoyable films and I do like re-watching the extended versions from time to time.

 

[TdC]

Tom Bombadil would just be a confusing character imo. He's the next thing to all-powerful within his realm, and that would just confuse the hell out of the non-reader crowds and would result in silly scenes just explaining why he can't go with them I guess :/

 

[nath]

I find it hard to see how people can fall asleep during any film if they went to a cinema to watch it, let alone these ones. I guess you were too tired, didn't drink enough coffee or are seriously ill

None of the above. It was just a very long film that I had 0 interest in and found quite dull. Before you ask, I was there because all my uni mates wanted to see it. Dorks.


Oh and Talivar - I assume you're asking what films people who don't like LOTR do like because you assume they must have crap taste in films to not like the trilogy. If this is the case, it's a silly question.

 

[Wij]

Tom Bombadil was a kinda dumb idea in the first place :/

 

[Overdriven]

How can you not like one of the best films ever? It's like saying you don't like Star Wars o_o

 

[nath]

Well, because it's NOT one of the best films ever. It's incredibly overrated, it's the product of a capable director, a decent script and LOADS of cash. If you can see past that you'll realise that it's actually an average film. It's by no means bad, but it's really not one of the best films ever.

 

[mank!]

Lets get this straight. The scene changes made sod all difference to how the film was viewed. The changes did nothing but detract from the original book plot. I am pretty sure the scenes that were changed will one day be remade to be as the book. No way did they help the film in anyway wotsoever in my opinion.

once again, it's neccesary to point out that the film is not the book. it was adapted from the book.

'Artistic license'? Well it should be requested and granted first. Am pretty sure Tolkien wouldn't have allowed any such lee-way with his book.

You ain't taking liberties with some new novel 'fresh off the press' but a novel regarded as one of the best of the genre. No-one bar the auther should mess with the story line. Arrogance in the extreme is shown by anyone that thinks they can do so. Me arrogant? Well in a way I am but there are a great many like me who have the Lord of the Rings deeply embedded in the psyche. Sorry but certain scenes need to be remade to be truthful to the book and the sooner the better.

oh dear.

don't hold your breath with regards to scenes being remade. actually, on second thoughts please do hold your breath and don't stop until someone remakes LOTR.

let's be honest here, the films were made and had money thrown at them - the producers weren't going to allow jackson to recreate the book page by page because not only would it be a waste of money but only hardcore lotr fans would watch it, therefore it would recoup very little of the costs.

if you had said the film was rubbish because it wasn't true to the book, then i'd be more willing to accept your opinion. but you've said you liked the films but go on to knock jackson for not recreating the book correctly enough. which is a little contradictory.

most importantly...

IT'S A FUCKING FILM, NOT A FUCKING BOOK. DON'T TREAT IT AS SUCH.

 

[TdC]

Tom Bombadil was a kinda dumb idea in the first place :/

no he wasn't. TB is a brilliant idea. there's only one other like him you know, and that's Goldberry. in fact, besides Goldberry, every other being in Middle Earth could be considered TB's servant were he but to wish it.

 

[Skyler]

The films were as close to the book as any studio is going to allow. As I've already said, appreciate the fact you got three great films, three excellent Extended cuts - the best Extended improvements of any film I've seen bar Das Boot. Be grateful they went to so much effort over so many little things that really weren't necessary to make a nice selling film.

It is a product of people who love the books, I can think of no one better to have made those films and I'm disapointed that we wont have the same team on The Hobbit, which would probably make a fantastic film.

Doh_boy, I was disapointed with Faramirs character in the films, I did not really enjoy the way he was portrayed and the way it tied in with Gollums corruption. At the same time from a film standpoint it worked well, he came good in the end and they had to have twists in the plot.

As for Bombadil.. Ring a Ding Dillo, it's Tom Bomba-dillo.. well I don't think it would have worked on screen, TdC highlighted one important one. It would require a lot of extra work to explain why he wont go with them, why some random guy is that powerful, why he is a total weirdo and other such things.

I was quite anti some parts of the film at first and very sceptical, but if you watch all three Extended editions, watch all of the extras and even the commentaries you should come to realise and learn why things are the way they are and be grateful.

I mean come on, it's the longest Trilogy ever made (Extended versions), it's got more Extras and documentaries than I've ever seen on a film, it's brilliantly produced, fantastic attention to detail, the acting in the most part is spot on, the casting is pretty spot on too.. I find it very hard to fault the overall production. Especially knowing just how bad it could have been, we've seen so many disasters over the years of things we love turned into films and people making a hash of it, be grateful fans of the book were allowed to do this properly.

 

[Reformed]

Tom Bombardill is thought of as being a character to 'overlook' by loads of Tolkien followers. Infact I don't even bother reading that part of the book and overlook it intentionally. Left out of the film? Well, yes I agree with it. I see mention of Farimir. Don't tell me that part of the book was an interesting remake under 'artistic license'. Total rubbish that upset a lot of people. When I first saw it I was flabbergasted. What the hell reasoning behind the alterations were I have no idea. There were other alterations such as when Aragorn was supposedly killed when he fell over the cliff whilst being attacked by wolves. Never happened and whatever esoteric idea the director had for that particular scene was a total waste of time. Just 2 scenes that if removed would have made all the difference. I am not talking about a total remake of the film as he stuck to the storyline through most of it - just the daft changes he did make.

 

[Tom]

Am pretty sure Tolkien wouldn't have allowed any such lee-way with his book.

Why? Have long chats with him, do you?

 

[TdC]

Tom Bombardill is thought of as being a character to 'overlook' by loads of Tolkien followers. Infact I don't even bother reading that part of the book and overlook it intentionally.

fie. you, and the hordes of people you describe, clearly have no idea who TB is

 

[Skyler]

Tom Bombardill?, who's that Revolved?