Topic: The Hobbit (2011)

[MisterMarc]

Ha....I liked that bit in clerks II.

French and Saunders really did a hilarious spoof:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/oCYbRUmzIb0&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/oCYbRUmzIb0&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1</a>

 

[Frank]

Ha....I liked that bit in clerks II.

French and Saunders really did a hilarious spoof:

Indeed, Three rings for eleven kings...!?

 

I'm a big fan of LotR. They're pretty unique as films go, in my experience. That is: Something so closely adapted to a book, an a book that isn't exactly easily adapted to film. The only thing I can think of in the same league is A Cock and Bull Story.

Pros: A beautiful film that is quite touching if you can fill in the gaps.
Cons: Obscenely long, slow and boring if you can't.

It's one of those films which ought not to be the 'greatest' ever made, but one of the most remarkable.

For me, one of the most powerful things with the films were the death of Gandalf and Shelob's Lair.

The Hobbit

I'm sceptical if they can pin it down right. The dwarves would need to be very distinctive and characterful (which is why I'm happy it's not Jackson doing this, else it'd be twelve elves, a hobbit a wizard escaping from the Dwarf King's lair in barrels...), so I'm hopeful Del Toro can do better.

In any case, I'm excited. Hesitant and reserved to a degree to, but also excited. If it's half of LotR it'll likely still be a damn fine film. I imagine The Hobbit will be easier to do correctly than LotR on the basis that it's already much more of a filmstyle plot.

[Drosophila]

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.

I'm Dros and I heartily endorse this message. And the Gandalf miscast rebuttal gave me lulz.


Edit:

Ha....I liked that bit in clerks II.

French and Saunders really did a hilarious spoof:
 

That was brilliant!

[Kessdawg]

but Gandalf was miscast

W O W

JUST

W O W

I think you may be the first person on the planet to think that.

[David E.]

but Gandalf was miscast

W O W

JUST

W O W

I think you may be the first person on the planet to think that.

Who should have plaayed him?

Friend at work told me yesterday that Sean Connery turned down the role. 

[Casper]

SCREW YOU GULLERMO!!! You promised "At the Mountains of Madness" after Hellboy 2!!!

[LeeTheAgent]

SCREW YOU GULLERMO!!! You promised "At the Mountains of Madness" after Hellboy 2!!!

Shhhhh it's ok.... he'll get to it eventually....

[hunter]

SCREW YOU GULLERMO!!! You promised "At the Mountains of Madness" after Hellboy 2!!!

That indie "Cthulhu" has been getting some decent buzz for a HPL movie, it's basically Innsmouth with a gay protagonist.  ST Joshi called it possibly the best HPL movie to date, if you're seriously into Lovecraft that should mean something.




frankly, I'm just looking forward to see what GDT does with a budget like this.  Here's hoping he just doesn't have the time to call all Spidey 3 on us.

[Drosophila]

SCREW YOU GULLERMO!!! You promised "At the Mountains of Madness" after Hellboy 2!!!

That indie "Cthulhu" has been getting some decent buzz for a HPL movie, it's basically Innsmouth with a gay protagonist.  ST Joshi called it possibly the best HPL movie to date, if you're seriously into Lovecraft that should mean something.

I've tried to read up on what the heck Lovecraft wrote about, but the wikis are too extensive. Conclusion:

TL;DR

[Louie]

I thought the LOTR movies were, all-in-all, ... alright. Had the same issues that many have already written about. The main problem I had with the movies was Jackson's choice for Whineyboy McGirlyface as Frodo, though. This made it very hard for me to sympathize with the character - which can make watching the movies a bit of a chore, as you know that cheering for him to die isn't going to help.

[teethering]

I thought the Two Towers and Return of the King were terrible.   I was psyched after watching Fellowship, but the rest of the movies were very disappointing.

I understand the need to trim stories to fit into a reasonable movie length and I completely expected and supported leaving out Tom Bombadil even though that's one of my favourite parts of the books.  What I couldn't get past is needless crude bastardization of the narrative and of the characters to either add comic relief (Gimli?? Are you kidding me?), romantic subplot or some completely strange reason I cannot fathom.  The biggest example of this is Faramir.  He was a contrast to Boromir and a symbol of redemption for men, since he's shown he could resist the power of the ring.  In the movies he basically does the same thing as Boromir, he becomes corrupt and then changes his mind at the last moment.  I still don't understand why they felt they needed to change this.

There was more but since it's been a long time since I watched those movies I don't remember the other things I felt cheapened the original story.  Well I remember Agent Smith as Elrond was a complete and utter disaster...

That being said a lot of things they did amazingly well.  My favourite casting choices were Gandalf and Sam.  I thought they did a superb job with their characters, though for different reasons.  Gollum was simply amazing.

I think the Hobbit has a chance of being a decent movie, in particular because it is a childrens book and isn't as nuanced as LOTR.  Just no more "toss me" dwarves...  Seriously, I want to throttle whoever thought that turning Tolkien's dwarves into sideshow clowns was a good idea...

[Hanes]

I understand the need to trim stories to fit into a reasonable movie length and I completely expected and supported leaving out Tom Bombadil even though that's one of my favourite parts of the books.  What I couldn't get past is needless crude bastardization of the narrative and of the characters to either add comic relief (Gimli?? Are you kidding me?), romantic subplot or some completely strange reason I cannot fathom. 

I agree that the Arwin thing felt as fake as it was.  The reason it was done in TT was so that people wouldn't forget about her by the third movie (two years later).  Gimli.... ya, some of the comic relief was ok, but they did make him seem more oafish than he should have.  Both valid criticisms.

The biggest example of this is Faramir.  He was a contrast to Boromir and a symbol of redemption for men, since he's shown he could resist the power of the ring.  In the movies he basically does the same thing as Boromir, he becomes corrupt and then changes his mind at the last moment.  I still don't understand why they felt they needed to change this.

I liked what the did with Faramir.  They did change his charecter, but he wasn't corrupted, I think, as you say he was.  I think he wanted the ring so that his father would be proud of him.  In that sense, it really adds to the family dynamic, and brings out a new, enjoyable aspect of his charecter.

There was more but since it's been a long time since I watched those movies I don't remember the other things I felt cheapened the original story.  Well I remember Agent Smith as Elrond was a complete and utter disaster...

I thought "Agent Smith" did a fine job, and no one would have said a word of complaint had he not also played the charecter of "Agent Smith," if you take my meaning.

What helped me get over some of the things I really disliked about the movie (like Arwin being, it seemed like, everywhere) was watching the commentary (cast and producer).  It helped me understand why they did some of the things they did, and also informed me of some of the things they had thought to put in the film, but latter changed their minds on (like Arwin being at Helm's Deep).

My favourite casting choices were Gandalf and Sam.  I thought they did a superb job with their characters, though for different reasons.  Gollum was simply amazing.

yup, yup, and yup.

I think the Hobbit has a chance of being a decent movie, in particular because it is a childrens book and isn't as nuanced as LOTR.  Just no more "toss me" dwarves...  Seriously, I want to throttle whoever thought that turning Tolkien's dwarves into sideshow clowns was a good idea...

Hey, at least the hobbits weren't, well,

like that.

I just hope they don't take too many liberties with The Hobbit.

[Sordid]

The biggest example of this is Faramir.  He was a contrast to Boromir and a symbol of redemption for men, since he's shown he could resist the power of the ring.  In the movies he basically does the same thing as Boromir, he becomes corrupt and then changes his mind at the last moment.  I still don't understand why they felt they needed to change this.

For the same reason they had that ridiculous collapsing staircase in Fellowship, the redundant battle with wargs in Towers, and the direct involvement of the nazgul in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields in King (edit: not to mention the laughable mumak climbing scene in the same battle) - to give the filmmakers an excuse for more flashy CGI. In this case specifically to get Frodo to Osgiliath for that face to face scene with the flying nazgul. Which by the by completely breaks the plot, since IIRC Sauron is unaware of the precise location of the ring ever since the fellowship leave Rivendell. Several characters in the book repeatedly state that the hope of the quest is not in might but in secrecy. Had a flying nazgul actually seen the ring right in front of him like that, all the nine (and all the orcs in the vicinity) would've been all over the place in minutes and Frodo would've had a snowball's chance in hell.

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.

If you don't mind a bit of fan speculation, I'm particularly partial to this interpretation: http://tolkien.cro.net/else/bbeier.html

[teethering]

The biggest example of this is Faramir.  He was a contrast to Boromir and a symbol of redemption for men, since he's shown he could resist the power of the ring.  In the movies he basically does the same thing as Boromir, he becomes corrupt and then changes his mind at the last moment.  I still don't understand why they felt they needed to change this.

I liked what the did with Faramir.  They did change his charecter, but he wasn't corrupted, I think, as you say he was.  I think he wanted the ring so that his father would be proud of him.  In that sense, it really adds to the family dynamic, and brings out a new, enjoyable aspect of his charecter

That's the power of the ring, it twists your motivations to promote its own ends.  Boromir wanted a "better weapon" to fight Sauron, that's why he wanted the ring, but the ring only played on that thought so that Boromir would claim the ring for himself.  Faramir essentially fell into the same trap of taking the ring off its path to destruction, but really it was the ring that manipulated Faramir.  I fully interpret that as corruption and weakness of men.  Which is contrary to Tolkien's Faramir story, he was a yet another outpost of hope on the Fellowship's journey.  It's a repeating pattern of despair and hope and then steeling yourself to go further because you must.  It's one of the most inspiring things to me in the novels.  And yes, Faramir did have "daddy issues" in the books as well and I thought being strong despite this conflict was another testament to his character.  The contrast between him and Boromir, who is also a good guy but his own strength, being the admired hero and great warrior was his downfall.

I completely agree with Sordid in his interpretation of why they did what they did and it felt cheap.  A lot of the narrative presented in the movies felt cheap.  I remember a scene where Aragorn (I think) is thrown of a cliff or something but then it turns out "he's ok, folks".  It was just cliche and it was completely forced for the sake of "action", like there wasn't enough of it in the original story already.  Just to re-iterate, anything to shorten the movies I would have accepted.  But taking liberties with what Jackson thought he could do better than Tolkien took a lot of hubris and it was just crudely and tastelessly done.

There was more but since it's been a long time since I watched those movies I don't remember the other things I felt cheapened the original story.  Well I remember Agent Smith as Elrond was a complete and utter disaster...

I thought "Agent Smith" did a fine job, and no one would have said a word of complaint had he not also played the charecter of "Agent Smith," if you take my meaning.

That may be so, but nevertheless I could not see Elrond in him.  In fact, if I remember right, all elves felt off, but Agent Smith was the worst.  It did not help my suspension of disbelief.

[MisterMarc]

If you don't mind a bit of fan speculation, I'm particularly partial to this interpretation: http://tolkien.cro.net/else/bbeier.html

Interesting read, thanks!