The Hobbit Trailer

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Frodo isn't human.

Hobbits are particularly resilient to the ring, precisely because they're not human and not interested in power. That's why Bilbo was able to avoid total corruption after so many years.

That's pretty much the entire point of that race and its key role in the war.

Agreed, but it isn't portrayed that way in the movie, the reason being to portray the power of the ring.

You really didn't get the point of the books, did you?

Yeah, I got it. Elf chicks are hot!

Faramir a minor character?

Ehm, ok, sure.

He's not as minor as Tom Bombaldi for sure, but ultimately he is compared with the Fellowship.

While on the subject of characters who were portrayed differently in the films, I'm shocked that no one has uttered a single word about Saruman yet. He was by far the most disappointing character in the movies for me.

It had nothing to do with Christopher Lee, who I think is a great actor, it was just the way the character was written. Almost completely different from the Saruman in the books.

I too was VERY disappointed by Faramir's giving in to please his father by delivering the ring that was at odds with his more pristine portrayl in the book. I was mostly disappointed by the treatment of Saruman's demise and the removal of the Scouring of the Shire, than Saruman's on-screen characterization, though.

Saruman's demise was filmed, but cut from the final release. I was also disappointed about the Scouring of the Shire, but I can understand why they didn't include it in a film version.

Still, those things are of a smaller significance than the character himself.

I was ok with them leaving out the scouring, because you really couldn't include it in a theatrical release without cutting something somewhere else (and RotK was pretty long for a theater), but I had hoped it would appear on one of the extended editions.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Saruman's demise was filmed, but cut from the final release. I was also disappointed about the Scouring of the Shire, but I can understand why they didn't include it in a film version.

Still, those things are of a smaller significance than the character himself.

Well that's your opinion, which I disagree with.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
Well that's your opinion, which I disagree with.

Yeah.. I think we got that already.

But you state your opinion as fact, surprisingly, since movie critiques are just about as subjective a subject as any.

If you really want to believe that a single scene being altered/cut is more significant than a major character being portrayed differently throughout the story, then you're more than welcome to do so. Let's please not turn this into one of those redundant debates though. We'll just agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by blatantninja
I was ok with them leaving out the scouring, because you really couldn't include it in a theatrical release without cutting something somewhere else (and RotK was pretty long for a theater),

But that´s a bit circular logic - "because they´ve made the film this way, it wouldn´t make sense" - well, they could do the film differently in the first place.
The major battles in TTT and RotK both took way too much screen time, cut some of that and you get the space for Scouring easily .

One of the most powerful sequences in the book was the confrontation between Saruman and Gandalf the White - and not only did they cut it from the theater release entirely - the filmed version was also a bland totally inferior scene.

Don't even get me started on how they turned the fantastically tense and slow-building Shelob sequence into an action sequence with crappy music.

Not filming the Scouring had nothing to do with screen time. I clearly remember them stating that they felt it was too "anticlimactic" for the film version.

I don't agree, but I can understand that opinion.

Originally Posted by JDR13
If you really want to believe that a single scene being altered/cut is more significant than a major character being portrayed differently throughout the story, then you're more than welcome to do so. Let's please not turn this into one of those redundant debates though. We'll just agree to disagree.

Where did I say a "single scene"? Really, JDR , you are going way out of line again.

Also you have provided no evidence or explanation that Saruman "was portrayed differently throughout the story". What? His hair was slightly more black than it should have been?

Originally Posted by Thrasher
Where did I say a "single scene"? Really, JDR , you are going way out of line again.

Also you have provided no evidence or explanation that Saruman "was portrayed differently throughout the story". What? His hair was slightly more black than it should have been?

You were complaining about The Scouring of the Shire and Saruman's demise, which were part of the same chapter in the original story. So yes, it's basically one scene. In the films, they omitted the scouring and showed him dying in the extended edition of The Two Towers instead.

If you seriously need me to explain how Saruman was portrayed differently in the films then I have to wonder if you've ever actually read the books.

Originally Posted by DeepO
But that´s a bit circular logic - "because they´ve made the film this way, it wouldn´t make sense" - well, they could do the film differently in the first place.
The major battles in TTT and RotK both took way too much screen time, cut some of that and you get the space for Scouring easily .

I didn't mean that it wouldn't make sense, I meant that the film would have stretched over 4 hours, and that simply wasn't going to happen in the theater.

Of course, maybe if they'd just filmed each book as a Part1/Part2, we could have had a lot more content and better overall (and they would have made twice the money)!

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Don't even get me started on how they turned the fantastically tense and slow-building Shelob sequence into an action sequence with crappy music.

Yeah, that one wasn't great (though it didn't bother me too much), but the one that got me was in RotK (I think it was in that) where Gollum is arguing with himself. In the book, its a serious inner struggle between his two halves manifested in split personalities. In the movie theater, everyone was laughing.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Not filming the Scouring had nothing to do with screen time. I clearly remember them stating that they felt it was too "anticlimactic" for the film version.

I don't agree, but I can understand that opinion.

I guess I can see that, but then they didn't have a problem filming basically three endings, each of which was a bit anti-climatic too!

Originally Posted by blatantninja
I guess I can see that, but then they didn't have a problem filming basically three endings, each of which was a bit anti-climatic too!

That reminds me… ever seen this?

It explains where the logical closure point should have been.

That's awesome!

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Don't even get me started on how they turned the fantastically tense and slow-building Shelob sequence into an action sequence with crappy music.

Yeah, that may as well be the single most disappointing sequence in the whole trilogy for me. No doubt partially because I´ve found it the most compelling part of the last two books.
I was glad it was moved into RotK - makes sense timeline-wise and, from my standpoint, in the saving-the-best-for-last way, but in the end it certainly didn´t add good points to my perception of RotK.
I may be wrong, but adjustments to Faramir´s character seem quite likely to have stemmed from the move.

Originally Posted by blatantninja
I didn't mean that it wouldn't make sense, I meant that the film would have stretched over 4 hours, and that simply wasn't going to happen in the theater.

But it wouldn´t be stretched if the film was planned differently with some different priorities, that was my point.