Topic: The Hobbit (2011)

[KarenX]

I haven't read very much of LOTR at all, and/but I really liked the movies. The thing about Frodo Book/Frodo Movie was the huge difference in age. I thought making the kid like twenty instead of a middle-aged reluctant man was a good movie move. It did seem heroic, and seeing someone older in the role (seeing someone, not reading about someone) took care of a lot of work. You felt very sympathetic and afraid for him for one thing. Plus it made his journey actually feel like a sacrifice, especially when the equally young Sam followed along to protect him.

I just don't think watching William Hurt or Kevin Kline or some other guy in his fifties would have had the same effect.

[Drosophila]

I think Tolkein even acknowledges that Tom Bombadil was an unecessary diversion.  Interesting, but his relation to the rest of the story is basically zero.  Especially since even in the wider mythos you never find out who or what he is, exactly.

I always kinda liked that about him. I loved when they discussed him at the council (in the book) and considered giving the ring to him to keep safe because he's pretty much indomitable in his own domain. And then Gandalf basically says it's a bad idea because he wouldn't take the ring seriously and would drop it or lose it or something. I always liked him more after that...this ultra powerful being, who basically doesn't really care about all the petty comings and goings of humanity.

Ditto for me. If I imagine how a nigh on immortal being with incredible powers would behave, I'm not imagining someone who stomps around killing things, or tries to lead a civilization. That would get boring, eventually. Better to just frolic about and be merry.

EDIT: I like the LOTR movies very much, and they are somewhat different from the books because they have to be. For example, in the book it winds down very slowly after the death of Sauron. If that had happened in the movie, people would be writhing in their seats, wanting the movie to end already. Me included. They got all the important bits covered and well done too. I hope the Hobbit will be in the same style as LOTR. But that doesn't mean I won't like it automatically if it's done differently. I can't wait to see Smaug. He'd better be fucking awesome! His must be like the result if the awesomeness of T-Rex, the awesomeness of the Balrog, and the awesomeness of the latest rendition of Batman had a triploid lovechild together.

[MikeHz]

Not gonna beat the animated one. But I thought that the LOTR movies were a disgrace. So I'm probably alone on this one.

They were well made, but bored me to tears. I have a major problem with such fantasies: Author interference. No matter what trouble the characters get into, they can always get out of it by conjuring up a bit of magic.

[Hanes]

That's really my only issue with the stories as a whole, and it's present in The Hobbit as well.  Deus ex machina is ok in small, small doses, but Tolkin writes the charecters into impossible situations (which are great), but then has to either invent some magic (or eagles) or let them die.  He usually doesn't let them die.

[MikeHz]

Once he showed the magic eagle, I couldn't help but wonder "Why not just use the eagle to fly the damn ring to the mountain?"

[DK]

Well, you guys do know there will be two films right?

One is the Hobbit, the other is based on the other writings of Tolkien and who knows whats involved.

McKellan has signed up for Gandalf.

[wastrel]

I liked the movies for the most part, and I love the books.

Books are ALWAYS better than the movie, and if you want the full story, than stick to the book.

[MisterMarc]

For example, in the book it winds down very slowly after the death of Sauron. If that had happened in the movie, people would be writhing in their seats, wanting the movie to end already. Me included. They got all the important bits covered and well done too.

I agree, they cut as much as they could and still keep the story more or less intact. Heck, as it was people lampooned the hell out of the last film for the "6 endings." But that was well handled in my opinion. I did feel that the beginning was rushed, though. You don't get the same feeling of the amount of time that it takes them to get to Rivendell, or the amount of time they spend lost in Moria. They kinda have to speed up the action to get things going. But I understand that. Film is a different medium, and there had to be concessions.

[Sabbie]

I liked the movies for the most part, and I love the books.

Books are ALWAYS better than the movie, and if you want the full story, than stick to the book.

QFT.

I'll definitely go see The Hobbit movie. Can't wait actually, it's one of my favorite books <3

[spiney]

I was also v dissapointed with LOTR. The endless cgi was too complex, and went on far too long, big yawns. Frodo and Bilbo both ok, but Gandalf was miscast, and the rest just silly.

[wastrel]

LoTR recap a la Randall.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/4KF55MVyIfQ" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/4KF55MVyIfQ</a>

[Hanes]

I was also v dissapointed with LOTR. The endless cgi was too complex, and went on far too long, big yawns. Frodo and Bilbo both ok, but Gandalf was miscast, and the rest just silly.

Most of the stuff was done in miniature and lots of extras.  Only with the huge battles did they do CGI soldiers, and for special cases, like Gollum and the cave troll.

Honestly, what huge action movie doesn't have as much or (usually) more CGI?  What did they use CGI for that they didn't have to?


Gadalf miscast... well I guess everyone's entitled to their opinion, your opinion just happens to be wrong.


If Sam and Frodo, or Merry and Pipin were gay, that's fine.  It doesn't ruin the story for me, if anything it just adds another layer that it works on.

Saying the plot of LotR was "them walking for three movies" is like saying the plot of Zulu was them standing still for two hours.

The endings have been covered, and I feel no need to add to that.

[wastrel]

Saying the plot of LotR was "them walking for three movies" is like saying the plot of Zulu was them standing still for two hours.

You have to admit, "even the trees walked in that movie" is a good line.

[Hanes]

Oh, the whole bit was very funny, and I like the movie (Clerks II) as a whole, but that doesn't mean they're accurate.

[David E.]

Yes the movies had flaws, but I cannot think of any way they could have been made any better; by any one.  All three movies had Jackson & Co's reverence for Tolkien's World in them.  Tom Bombadill was a character that would never have translated well in this day and age.  I think most of the characters were cast and portrayed well, even Arwen: all Liv Tyler had to do was look gorgeous and speak Elvish...she did both well; and was decently forceful in her scene with the Ring Wraiths.  

The Balrog was perfect.
The Battle of Helms Deep was amazing.
Boromir's noble death was done better in the film than in the book (yes I said that)  
Ian Mckellan was spot on as Gandalf.
Viggo was Kingly and Badass.