THE HOBBIT Trailer HD

[gears]

Looks pretty damn good.

If they ever make The Silmarillian I will literally crap my pants. That's my favorite Tolkien book - one of my all-time favorites ever.

[Richie61]

Hell Yeah

[jandri]

Saw the trailer when i woke up this morning and i liked it. I was waiting for it, since i had seen some making of videos. But i didnt like when i saw the release date . December 14 2012. Usually trailers are released a couple of months before, not a year.
Anyways, it looks good. I want to see the movie .

Here you can see the other videos. In that site you can see many trailer and interviews if you are interested.
http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=40304

[ep16]

Can't wait!!! ...still a year to go... Can't wait!!! ...still a year to go... Can't wait!!! ...still a year to go... Can't wait!!! ...still a year to go... Can't wait!!! ...still a year to go... Can't wait!!! ...still a year to go... Sorry got abit excited!

[freejrs]

Looks pretty cool.

Let's hope they don't butcher the book as they did so unashamedly with the LOTR trilogy. I guess they will be able to cover most, if not all that is in the Hobbit as it is obviously no where near as long as the LOTR books.

Is the Hobbit going to be two movies?? I was under that impression.

Don't like the look of Thorin though........he looks nothing like a dwarf at all. Just looks like a random bloke......he's the same size as Gandalf for heaven's sake!!!!

Also the clip with Bilbo and Gollem..................er........it's mean to be almost totally dark hence that is why Bilbo can't find his way out of the mountain. BEHOLD!!!! It is now light as a summer's day!!!! I guess that Smaug's chamber will be well lit as well........sigh.......oh for a decent director.

Peter Jackson, you better not crap all over the Hobbit like you did with LOTR!!!! Or I will find you!!!!

As for making a Silmarillion film...........will never happen. Although I enjoyed reading it, I can't see any movie in it and doubt anyone would want to see it other than fans of the original books. There is some awesome stuff in Unfinished Tales that would perhaps be better suited to a motion picture than the Silmarillion but I think the Hobbit will be the last film of J.R.R.'s work. Thank God.

Personally I just wish they had made the LOTR into 6 films so they could follow the correct story without missing half of each book out and adding random rubbish.

[Totenkopf]

That's really really great! After so many years from "The Lord of The Rings" I thought that this movie would remain just a dream and a chimera.
Thanks Peter Jackson!
(wow, I just realized I'm a nerd, but at least I have a real girlfriend....)

Originally Posted by gears

If they ever make The Silmarillion I will literally crap my pants. That's my favorite Tolkien book - one of my all-time favorites ever.

Then I think we will meet at the laundry, because I will have to clean my pants too....

[Zoxx]

It's cool But where is Smaug

Originally Posted by gears

If they ever make The Silmarillion I will literally crap my pants. That's my favorite Tolkien book - one of my all-time favorites ever.

Yes, it's my favorite too But now i'm reading "Black Book of Arda" by Vasilieva. It flipped my understanding of Middle-earth, and especially of Melkor.

[LeSunTzu]

Peter Jackson slaughters our childhood memories. What he did to LOTR is a crime and this new work looks equally horrific. There is more poetry in 5 minutes of E.T. than in his whole "trilogy". I pray Beren and Luthien are not on his serial-killer agenda.

[KittX]

Great! I love Martin Freeman & Benedict Cumberbatch duo since Sherlock (here Benedict will be Necromancer)... btw season 2 of Sherlock will start in January 1st

[freejrs]

Originally Posted by LeSunTzu

Peter Jackson slaughters our childhood memories. What he did to LOTR is a crime and this new work looks equally horrific. There is more poetry in 5 minutes of E.T. than in his whole "trilogy". I pray Beren and Luthien are not on his serial-killer agenda.

Agreed.

Will hold off watching the Hobbit for a while until reviews surface........The LOTR films were so poorly executed and took such a big dump on the books that I have had to re-read them about 6 times through since watching the films in order to banish the foul stench of Jackson's work from my mind.

I cannot believe he totally left out the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs. What about the Wild Men and Ghân-buri-Ghân?? Most incredibly The Scouring of the Shire was dumped and Saruman killed off (or not depending on the version, extended or not) randomly.

Terrible.

[Leper Messiah]

Originally Posted by freejrs

Agreed.

Will hold off watching the Hobbit for a while until reviews surface........The LOTR films were so poorly executed and took such a big dump on the books that I have had to re-read them about 6 times through since watching the films in order to banish the foul stench of Jackson's work from my mind.

I cannot believe he totally left out the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs. What about the Wild Men and Ghân-buri-Ghân?? Most incredibly The Scouring of the Shire was dumped and Saruman killed off (or not depending on the version, extended or not) randomly.

Terrible.

I'm a huge LOTR fan and thought the films were pretty good. I agree that those bits you mention are big omissions, but considering the "execs" probably had fits every ten seconds with the films (not being 1 hour 20 mins long). You forgot a couple more bits though Arwen helping Frodo escape the 2nd nazgul attack instead of Glorfindel (but that's just pure wimmins lib gurl power reasoning for that I think). Then it didn't explore the love of Faramir and Eowyn.

[LeSunTzu]

He butchered Faramir's character as a whole and was very close to the same fail with Eowyn. We should rejoice he did not even try with Tom Bombadil.

The worst part is that he totally lost the magic of the book, turning it into a video game on screen.
Edit: that is not even fair for video games, I was more scared to see a boss in Castle Wolfenstein than his balrog.

[Leper Messiah]

Originally Posted by LeSunTzu

He butchered Faramir's character as a whole and was very close to the same fail with Eowyn. We should rejoice he did not even try with Tom Bombadil.

The worst part is that he totally lost the magic of the book, turning it into a video game on screen.
Edit: that is not even fair for video games, I was more scared to see a boss in Castle Wolfenstein than his balrog.

Yeah but that WAS a Balrog IMO, as described by Tolkien. Demon thingy of flames etc. What else could Jackson have done? The last time a movie character scared me was the "Alien" and before that the "Thing".

I'm actually pretty glad Tom Bombadil was left out as I thought he was too much like the characters in the Hobbit i.e. a tad childish (all that singing leaves me cold<--I hope the Hobbit has no singing (or at least not much)).

Books NEVER transfer all that well to the big screen, Especially books that are just completely epic in what they describe. I think all things considered Jackson did a good job (apart from the omissions already mentioned (minus Tom Bombadil ))

[Totenkopf]

I don't think Jackson made something "wrong" making The Lord of the Rings; I explain (is a bit long story, sorry):
when I was younger I never liked the "fantasy" genre in literature and movies. When the first chapter of the movies came out in the cinemas, all my friends went to see it, and so for the 2nd and the 3rd. They already read the book before watching the films, and they were happy about Jackson's work, apart for the Bombadil stuff and some other things. I was the only one among my friends which never read the book or watched the movie.

When the movies came out in DVD, I had the curiosity to watch them, and I borrowed them from a friend, but still I didn't read the book.
Well, I was amazed by the movie, and I bought all three chapters in extended version, before any of my friends; after that, I decided to read the book, then re-watched the movies.

I enjoy them both a lot, and I have to give my congratulations to Jackson, because he made a "new story" using as a base the book, without leaving out too much of the original story, as it's "physiological" for a movie (I'm already surprised how much budget freedom left him the productors....); I see the book and the movie as to separated entities and I learnt that watching a movie before reading the book on which is based, avoids you to be disappointed about one or another because you already "know" how to imagine the characters of the book and their voices, and, in the other way, you can't be disappointed by the actors choosen (as an example, if I'd read the book before the movie, I'd imagine Arwen as Liz Hurley instead of Liv Tyler....).

It's more or less the same story as Star Wars: the movies don't (can't) say all, that's why there are the books of the so called "Extended Universe".

P.S. Now (thanks to the LOTR of Jackson), I love almost anything related to the fantasy world; I would never discover books like Lord of the Rings, Silmarillion, The Hobbit, Children of Hùrin etc.... if I didn't watch that movie before.

[LeSunTzu]

Jackson illustrated the book on screen. But that is not what great film makers do. Alien is a good example of what a film maker can do. It scares you off but you hardly see the beast. It suggests more than shows.

It should not matter if the Balrog looks true to Tolkien's description. When it is on screen it should convey the feeling of an old, powerful, immense, evil, menacing creature coming from the bowels of Earth. I remember in the book that Gandalf should look like a little weak light in the darkness when he faces the balrog. Is this what we get on screen? No, we get some sort of Diablo fighting scene, with Frodo making faces in the middle, followed by a ridiculous dive fighting that is not in the book iirc.

[Leper Messiah]

Originally Posted by LeSunTzu

Jackson illustrated the book on screen. But that is not what great film makers do. Alien is a good example of what a film maker can do. It scares you off but you hardly see the beast. It suggests more than shows.

It should not matter if the Balrog looks true to Tolkien's description. When it is on screen it should convey the feeling of an old, powerful, immense, evil, menacing creature coming from the bowels of Earth. I remember in the book that Gandalf should look like a little weak light in the darkness when he faces the balrog. Is this what we get on screen? No, we get some sort of Diablo fighting scene, with Frodo making faces in the middle, followed by a ridiculous dive fighting that is not in the book iirc.

I see what you mean, but thats how hollywood is now (sadly).

IIRC correctly there was one scene from a distance which showed Galdalf as tiny compared to the Balrog. But yeah it could have been better, but it could have been a LOT worse!

Regarding the dive fighting, well I can't remember what is said verbatim in the book but Galdalf did fall with the Balrog and fight him.

[Tkrau]

The additional discs from the extended-version DVD releases include explanations, and regrets, from Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Barrie Osborne as to why they (for example) left out Bombadil - I too was disappointed by that but, as they explained, there was a budget they had to work with and the truth of the matter is that Bombadil is not critical to advancing the story in general.

I've read the trilogy at least 20 times since first discovering The Hobbit in high school, and IMO the LOTR film series is a REMARKABLY well-done presentation by people who obviously love the books...and both Moiria and Helm's Deep, as presented in the films, are so close the what I had pictured in my head that it's scary!

Originally Posted by Leper Messiah

Regarding the dive fighting, well I can't remember what is said verbatim in the book but Galdalf did fall with the Balrog and fight him.

The beginning of the second film (Frodo's dream) is a visual representation of the description Gandalf gave, in the book, about his defeating the Balrog.

[freejrs]

Originally Posted by Leper Messiah

You forgot a couple more bits though Arwen helping Frodo escape the 2nd nazgul attack instead of Glorfindel (but that's just pure wimmins lib gurl power reasoning for that I think). Then it didn't explore the love of Faramir and Eowyn.

I could go on for quite a while about things that are wrong with the films. I was barely scratching the surface with those examples.

Faramir trying to take the ring to his father??? No. Didn't happen. Faramir is my favourite character in the books and he is totally different in the films. Such changes to a character's personality and behaviour is totally unacceptable.

Wormtongue spitting on Aragron's hand at Edoras??? Pure fantasy.

Moving to Buckland before leaving for Bree? Not covered.

Aragorn being thrown over the cliff into the river by a Warg rider in a battle which was not even in the books.

The whole Mines of Moria bit in the films lasted about 3 mins. In the book it is two epic chapters of darkness and dread.

Also the Paths of the Dead is totally wrong in the films......In the book Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli, together with a host of Dunadain rangers, set out from Edoras to seek the paths of the dead with Eowyn pleading with Aragorn to stay. In the films it is just Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli who leave the rest of the Rohirrim while they are already on their way to Minas Tirith to aid Gondor.

I could go on and on. The very worst thing he took a massive dump on was this.....

In the books when Frodo sets out from the Shire for Buckland he is the same age as Bilbo was when he left for his adventure with Gandalf and the dwarves. So imagine my horror when in the films Frodo leaves the Shire when still in his Tweens!??!?!! They are not boys...........they are all fully grown Hobbits in the books.

And lastly Elijah Wood and Orlando Bloom totally soil the whole project. Being Talentless, wooden and lacking in charisma is the least of their crimes in what might loosely be described as acting.

Granted there are bits that are quite well done in the films and some charcters are really exceptionally realised but on the whole it is a massive failure considering the oppourtunity they had.

[Tkrau]

In your opinion.

[LeSunTzu]

But one that is shared

[Leper Messiah]

Originally Posted by Tkrau

The beginning of the second film (Frodo's dream) is a visual representation of the description Gandalf gave, in the book, about his defeating the Balrog.

I thought so, havn't read the books for a few years so I may delve into them again soon. God I'd LOVE a Bethesda RPG set in Middle Earth!!

freejrs...yeah I agree Faramir is crap in the films, probably because of time/budget constraints and he isn't central to the main plot. Most periphery characters got ommitted or reduced roles for that reason. Nice in a book but crap for a major film I'm afraid. As you say to do the books justice each film would be in excess of 6-8 hours long!!

So with what he had to work with (agree about Wood and Bloom), regarding the usual budget and time constraints of the film industry and the executive knob wits of said industry I think the films were damn good representations. Bear in mind you will ALWAYS get the directors INTERPRETATION and bias of a book to a movie situation.

On a whole the MAIN plot is followed rather well IMO. But as you say some bits fall short.

[Leper Messiah]

Hang on......Dec 20TWELVE??? Why a year till release?

[freejrs]

Yeah I understand and expected there to be ommisions but the ommisions require changes to the story and even the inclusion of additional material not present in the books.

Like the whole battle at Osgiliath when Faramir decides to let Frodo and the ring go to Mordor...........Not in the books, totally pointless and taking up valuable screen time that could have been used elsewhere to better effect.

The best thing that came out of the films was the score. Some of the music is absolutely fantastic.

Originally Posted by Leper Messiah

Hang on......Dec 20TWELVE??? Why a year till release?

Do you know if it will be two films??

[Leper Messiah]

I forgot about Osgiliath, hmmmm yeah adding bits its crappness. But overall I still say good films.

ah so one out now and the other next year, that explains it then!

[TheRealJohnRob]

I think some of this is just blatant nit picking. some of the arguments here are valid but I can't agree with saying Peter Jackson butchered the LOTR trilogy.

I agree there are omissions, and really, who wouldn't want 18-24 hours of LOTR feature film, but given the time and budget constraints as well as trying to appeal to a wider audience, I think Jackson did as well as was possible. Most of the scenery was just about as perfect as you could ask for, and pretty much fit my imagination exactly.

Think about the people that had never read LOTR before the movies came out, mostly kids but some older people as well. Tolkein has an entirely new audience now, and the movie generated tons of interest in his work, I think that alone makes the movies worth it.

And I think the clip the trailer shows of the caves of the misty mountains looks alright to me. It's as dark as it would be feasible for a movie to be. If it was just a completely black screen that would be no use to the audience what so ever. it would just be a bunch of sounds and words happening with no context. In movies like this the narrator gets replaced by the viewer's interpretation of the scenery and how the cast interacts with it. Also having narration here over a black screen would make very little sense contextually, so I think it all looks pretty good.

[freejrs]

Originally Posted by Leper Messiah

I forgot about Osgiliath, hmmmm yeah adding bits its crappness. But overall I still say good films.

Yeah good films for sure but almost completely removed from the books they were meant to represent.

As you said before it is rare for a book to translate well on the big screen but if done correctly the true spirit of the original material can and should be maintained.......

The best book to film adaptation I have ever seen is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. It totally captures the essence of the original HST book and somehow manages to leave almost nothing out. Johnny Depp is masterful as is more often than not the case.

The worst is probably LOTR.

Although incredibly rare, there is one case where IMO the film is better than the book it was based on!!!!!!!!

First Blood

The book was absolutely terrible. Poorly written and hugely over elaborate and gruesome. The film took a decent idea and made it into the Legend that is RAMBO!!!

Originally Posted by TheRealJohnRob

I think some of this is just blatant nit picking. some of the arguments here are valid but I can't agree with saying Peter Jackson butchered the LOTR trilogy.

I would say Jackson actually used copies of LOTR to wipe his humongous posterior while filming the trilogy.

[Tkrau]

Originally Posted by Leper Messiah

Hang on......Dec 20TWELVE??? Why a year till release?

Gotta be sure that the Mayan calender thingy isn't actually true.

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by Tkrau

Gotta be sure that the Mayan calender thingy isn't actually true.

Nah! The film will be out on 14th December, the last day of the World will be the 20th, with the death of all us on 21th.

So, we will have time to see the movie, with an entire week of time to write our reviews about the movie...

[fisheracing]

A couple of anti Peter Jackson 'whiners' on the thread page I see. Hmmm, I guess that's to be expected. Either his version of LOTR trilogy, or NADA's version. Be thankful for something at the very least.

[samuelsss]

Maybe I'll watch it when it comes out

[Tkrau]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Nah! The film will be out on 14th December...

That's right...I was thinking that the world ends on the 12th. Never mind.

[freejrs]

Originally Posted by fisheracing

A couple of anti Peter Jackson 'whiners' on the thread page I see. Hmmm, I guess that's to be expected. Either his version of LOTR trilogy, or NADA's version. Be thankful for something at the very least.

Rather have nothing to be honest pal.

Why do you think Tolkien didn't want any movie to be made until after he passed away???

Because he knew no matter who made the film it would be rubbish and any alterations that would have to be made would be unbearable to him whilst he was still alive.

And he was right. Thankfully he did not have to endure this soiling of his masterpiece.

[fisheracing]

Originally Posted by freejrs

Rather have nothing to be honest pal.

TBH m8, I really don't feel much up to suiting up and meeting you out in the battlefield. Kind of weary from that sort of pastime. I'll just throw my couple of quid out on the table and we'll see how that pans out.

My age says it all, I read the 'Trilogy' during my high school years and was swallowed up whole by it. Now having said that, I guess I'm in a pretty good position to be comparing 'apples to oranges' I should think.

After seeing the movie production of the trilogy in recent years, I experienced the same feelings of awe and wonderment as I did those many, many moons ago. And up to present, I've viewed it more times than the total amount of fingers on my two hands (including thumbs) and I haven't suffered an industrial accident or anything, so they're all present and accounted for.

Having said all that, and peeling back the layers, I'm very confident that I could not be the only one that exists on the planet that has these sentiments towards the movie trilogy in question.

If we all take it at face value for what it represents: entertainment purposes only, and don't treat it as an ideology for a way to base someone's life on, there would be a lot more happy campers out there.

I'll leave it at that m8. Peace.

[Tkrau]

Well said!

[rookiedaz]

Originally Posted by fisheracing

After seeing the movie production of the trilogy in recent years, I experienced the same feelings of awe and wonderment as I did those many, many moons ago.If we all take it at face value for what it represents: entertainment purposes only, and don't treat it as an ideology for a way to base someone's life on, there would be a lot more happy campers out there.

This.


Facts are pretty straightforward, there is no way to do the whole of the books and get it a cinema release, no matter how much we as fans think the whole thing deserves to be shown in the fullest extent as you get in the books, most audiences just wouldn't wear it......don't forget, mulititudes of people on seeing The Fellowship Of The Ring walked out saying 'What a crap ending, that was rubbish'. You can only imagine the way it would have gone down if it had been split the way I and others here would have liked it, ie each book as it's own film.....

As for The Hobbit, I first read this at the age of 10, and it was the best book I had read at that point in my life. I thoroughly enjoyed Jacksons version of The Lord Of The Rings, and am very much looking forward to The Hobbit. Lets not forget, it's only supposed to entertain....

[davehenrie]

To summarize, Yes, there will be two films and lots of singing. Heck there are a couple of songs in the preview. They will show not only the quest of the 13 dwarves and their hired burglar, but also the machinations of the White Council against the Necromancer.(The reason Gandalf suddenly abandoned the party at the borders of Mirkwood)

Aragorn's additional story bits like falling off the cliff were solely written to allow him to make the dramatic entrance by throwing open the doors of Medulseld,(sp?) It was a bit of theatrical imagery and certainly didn't deter from the main plot of getting Rohan ready for War. Saruman didn't die at Orthanc, but Dracula(Christopher Lee) did fall from a great height to be impaled upon a Cross. Consider that a tribute from Jackson to one of his actors.

Did these changes dilute from the story? Nope, unless you were reading page by page as the story unfolded. Last I remembered, the Riders of Rohan reached Minas Tirith and blew their horns.

Jackson never claimed to completely follow the story of the trilogy and I'm sure the two Hobbit films will also have scenes and characters not even hinted at by JRR.

With the possible exception of some week long mini-series, rarely has any director included so much from over 1000 pages of text. Bombadil was paid homage in the extended version of the Two Towers, Aragorn's mother speaking with Elrond was also included, but her dirge was given to other characters to speak. The extended versions included many little bits from the Appendices. Aragorn's Grey Company of Rangers didn't make the film, but their story did when Elrond rode into the camp with Anduril instead of Arwen's banner. Again, changing things but not eliminating the plot.

Who spent that much and included that much story in any film project prior to the Trilogy? And any argument against the films just simply falls apart whenever Ian McKellan's Gandalf the Grey is on screen. I cannot even imagine another actor filling that role. Finally, watch the extended version of FOTR, during the preparations for the Party, watch a hobbit swing a massive(for a Hobbit) wooden sledge hammer at a tent stake, only to completely miss. The resulting earthy thud confirms the Hobbityness of the film.

Piss and moan all you want, there won't be a better adaption of such a massive work.

dh
Merfor of Bree on Crickhollow

[davehenrie]

Originally Posted by freejrs

Rather have nothing to be honest pal.

Why do you think Tolkien didn't want any movie to be made until after he passed away???

Because he knew no matter who made the film it would be rubbish and any alterations that would have to be made would be unbearable to him whilst he was still alive.

And he was right. Thankfully he did not have to endure this soiling of his masterpiece.

Go read Christopher Tolkien's histories of his father's writing of Middle Earth, Jrr tore his own work apart over and over. Names, places, characters, were repeatedly mixed, compressed, expanded, reforged etc. The fact a set of films did the exact same seems almost Tolkienesque.

[Eurostc]

read the books when I was real young......had too in school in Oxford....LOL
Loved 'em.....!!

Movies were well done considering the Budget and the fact that a large percentage of
the audience had not read the books and never will....lazy...

I belive it "The Hobbit " will be well done and the fact it is given 2 movies to complete
this show me the effort will be there....just read the book again few weeks back

@ Freejrs...................don't bother going...................

no movie has ever met the imagination of my mind

[gears]

Hehe

[davehenrie]

Originally Posted by gears

Looks pretty damn good.


If they ever make The Silmarillian I will literally crap my pants. That's my favorite Tolkien book - one of my all-time favorites ever.

The scope of the Silmarillian is too vast for normal movies I fear. But PJ could perhaps hire those Clone War Animators and stretch the story of the Noldoli over 5 years. I think I read somewhere that the main reason for Christopher Tolkien printing a re-tooled...(*oh wait NOBODY is supposed to do what was done to the Sil, & the Ring books*)title of the Children of Hurin, was to cull the last stand alone subject that possibly could be optioned into a movie.

[Tkrau]

Originally Posted by gears

Hehe

OK, there's something to bitch about...

[Leper Messiah]

Originally Posted by davehenrie

To summarize, Yes, there will be two films and lots of singing. Heck there are a couple of songs in the preview. They will show not only the quest of the 13 dwarves and their hired burglar, but also the machinations of the White Council against the Necromancer.(The reason Gandalf suddenly abandoned the party at the borders of Mirkwood)

Aragorn's additional story bits like falling off the cliff were solely written to allow him to make the dramatic entrance by throwing open the doors of Medulseld,(sp?) It was a bit of theatrical imagery and certainly didn't deter from the main plot of getting Rohan ready for War. Saruman didn't die at Orthanc, but Dracula(Christopher Lee) did fall from a great height to be impaled upon a Cross. Consider that a tribute from Jackson to one of his actors.

Did these changes dilute from the story? Nope, unless you were reading page by page as the story unfolded. Last I remembered, the Riders of Rohan reached Minas Tirith and blew their horns.

Jackson never claimed to completely follow the story of the trilogy and I'm sure the two Hobbit films will also have scenes and characters not even hinted at by JRR.

With the possible exception of some week long mini-series, rarely has any director included so much from over 1000 pages of text. Bombadil was paid homage in the extended version of the Two Towers, Aragorn's mother speaking with Elrond was also included, but her dirge was given to other characters to speak. The extended versions included many little bits from the Appendices. Aragorn's Grey Company of Rangers didn't make the film, but their story did when Elrond rode into the camp with Anduril instead of Arwen's banner. Again, changing things but not eliminating the plot.

Who spent that much and included that much story in any film project prior to the Trilogy? And any argument against the films just simply falls apart whenever Ian McKellan's Gandalf the Grey is on screen. I cannot even imagine another actor filling that role. Finally, watch the extended version of FOTR, during the preparations for the Party, watch a hobbit swing a massive(for a Hobbit) wooden sledge hammer at a tent stake, only to completely miss. The resulting earthy thud confirms the Hobbityness of the film.

Piss and moan all you want, there won't be a better adaption of such a massive work.

dh
Merfor of Bree on Crickhollow

Spot on. But we should all cut freejrs some slack, it's only opinions.

[freejrs]

Originally Posted by fisheracing

TBH m8, I really don't feel much up to suiting up and meeting you out in the battlefield. Kind of weary from that sort of pastime. I'll just throw my couple of quid out on the table and we'll see how that pans out.

You're the one coming in here trolling about "whiners" and then you say you don't want a war of words?? If you don't want a response don't try and provoke people. Pretty simple really.......I have not time for hypocrites.

Having said all that, and peeling back the layers, I'm very confident that I could not be the only one that exists on the planet that has these sentiments towards the movie trilogy in question.

Well done. You identified your own opinion as one that is shared by others.........guess I must be the only person who doesn't like the movies then?? Oh wait......

I'll leave it at that m8. Peace.

Have a decidedly average festive period.

Originally Posted by davehenrie

And any argument against the films just simply falls apart whenever Ian McKellan's Gandalf the Grey is on screen. I cannot even imagine another actor filling that role.

Not really no.

Ian McKellan is an actor who was paid to play Gandalf. He did a very good job.....excellent infact. He did not direct the films and his excellence sadly does not fully detract from the butchering witnessed elsewhere in the films.

Piss and moan all you want, there won't be a better adaption of such a massive work.

You can eulogise all you want. Luckily there won't be a worse adaptation of such a massive work.

Originally Posted by davehenrie

Go read Christopher Tolkien's histories of his father's writing of Middle Earth, Jrr tore his own work apart over and over. Names, places, characters, were repeatedly mixed, compressed, expanded, reforged etc. The fact a set of films did the exact same seems almost Tolkienesque.

Yeah read them already, thanks for the suggestion though dave. Tolkien made many changes to the books throughout his life for many reasons........continuity errors.....back story......etc. etc. Guess what???? He wrote the books.......they're his life's work.......he made the changes to better his work not to compress it down to the bare skeleton for a hollywood movie.

As I said before Tolkien didn't want the rights for a movie released until after he died as he knew it would be rubbish. He must've had the gift of foresight.

Anyway if Tolkien had lived to see Peter Jackson pissing all over his work it would've probably killed him.

The trouble here is once a person has seen the movies the books are soiled forever and you will never be able to experience quite the same magic again. I find it almost impossible to read the chapters with just Fordo and Sam now because the movies did them so poorly.

Lastly this is just my opinion (trust me, it is shared by many, many others). The movies nearly ruined the books for me. Does this offend people in some way I am unaware of?? Sorry if that is that case but I don't see the need for people to roll out the high horse and talk as if they bloody well knew Tolkien.

[Tkrau]

OK, we get it...you don't like the films. I'd suggest that you give The Hobbit a pass as well.

[freejrs]

Originally Posted by Tkrau

OK, we get it...you don't like the films. I'd suggest that you give The Hobbit a pass as well.

No, no, no. Not a mild dislike sir. I am of the opinion that Jackson is a sputumous wretch sent unto this earth to soil as many movies as possible. His asinine portrayal of what is possibly one of the greatest literary works ever produced in the English language is unforgivable and bordering on the vulgar.

Glad you all enjoyed it so much!!

Seeing the Hobbit trailer was enough for me. Total rubbish. Thorin is the same size as Gandalf for smeg's sake!!! What a bad joke.

Enjoy your blockbuster movie!!!

Merry Non religious Pagan festival everyone!!! Lighten up a bit yeah?

[redi]

Keep posting opinions guys but leave the personal attacks out of it please.

[rookiedaz]

Originally Posted by freejrs

His asinine portrayal of what is possibly one of the greatest literary works ever produced in the English language is unforgivable and bordering on the vulgar.

Lol, quite amusing prose fella, but a bit off the mark.....

Originally Posted by freejrs

Glad you all enjoyed it so much!!

I certainly did, thankyou for your thoughts on our behalf.

Originally Posted by freejrs

Seeing the Hobbit trailer was enough for me. Total rubbish. Thorin is the same size as Gandalf for smeg's sake!!! What a bad joke.

Is he? Now I'm going to have to watch it again to check the veracity of your claim....was probably too busy laughing at the the fact he looks distinctly less dwarvish than the others to notice his height....

Originally Posted by freejrs

Merry Non religious Pagan festival everyone!!! Lighten up a bit yeah?

And there was me thinking it was all about the presents....but many thanks on your wishes for the season. The same back to you and yours!

[davehenrie]

So all the artwork, even the horrid Brothers Hildebrant calendars(much too 'real'for my taste, give me the fuzzy Naismith images any day), must have also soiled your image of Middle Earth. After all, JRR made numerous drawings, paintings etc. No-one should be allowed to interpret Middle Earth via charcoal, paints, inks or any other medium because he never wanted to see others impressions of such things? Nobody should have recorded the shouldn't-have-been-produced BBC-stage play because it wouldn't meet the Professor's Mustard Gas induced original concepts?

Yes, Ian is an actor, filling a role, we could have had Jean Luc Picard shouting in Bag End, or James Bond, or Darth Vader, but we got Gandalf. Who's to blame for that fubar? The 'sputumous wretch' who hired and directed him?

As to the canard about others sharing your opinion, certainly true, my own brother didn't like the movies as much as the books. But what does that PROVE? Just that everyone has different tastes, Not that some point must be UN-assailable.

And as to Thorin being equal to Gandalf's height, where? at 30 seconds into the preview, he towers over the Dwarves gathered at the entrance of Bag End(no view of Thorin at this point, but certainly Oakenshield is closer in ht to Fili etc than Gandalf), around 56 seconds into the trailer, is an image of Gandalf sitting(in a hobbit sized chair) in front of a standing Thorin, which gives an impression of equal height, a little further into the trailer, several of the Dwarves are standing and Thorin does appear to be taller than the other Dwarves but not even close to the mannish height of the wizard. Find something else to complain about. What about those two paintings shown in the hallways of Bag End? Those should be a good target to anyone who adores the books, I don't recall reading about paintings adorning the walls of Bag End, obviously those must prick the underside of the skin. And was that really the correct type of cheese that Bilbo offered Gandalf in the first film? C'mon man. I'm beginning to agree with you.


toodles

dh

[gears]

I think you all need to lay off freejrs. I completely understand where he's coming from.

While there's no comparison literature-wise, I have the same reaction whenever I see a Stephen King movie. The make me physically ill and angry... very angry.

Not even the Great Stanley Kubrick (whom I love) could make me like "The Shining" having read the book first. I felt violated. I felt pain for the author, as I do for all Stephen King movies.

I won't go as far as to say the movies ruined the books for me, I still read every new one that comes out and I read the old ones over and over again. But I completely understand freejrs point of view.

So let him have his opinion and stop trying to convince him he's wrong.

[Eurostc]

I don't he being told he's wrong , as he has an opinion
but he has pushed a conversation to an agument
we all have an opinion



I judge the books on the books
I judge the movies on the movie
no movie has done a book justice """"in my mind"""

get it....