The Hobbit Trailer

Originally Posted by JDR13
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.

It's not one scene. The Scouring of the Shire is an entire chapter. And the death of Saruman was different in the movie (although superficially caused by the same event). The whole aspect of the Shire not escaping the effects of the war was lost. But the ultimate timing of his death at the effective end of the war located in the Shire was a wasted opportunity of great symbolism.

And so rather than explain yourself about the Saruman characterization, you insult me. A clear sign that there isn't a good explanation. Not surprising.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Nobody is talking about a literal translation of the books. I'm talking about things that are obviously being done because Jackson thinks that's what the mainsteam audience wants to see.

It's called artistic license/interpretation. That is what a film maker/writer does, takes a printed story, converts it into a filmable screenplay and shoots it. If you do not like his artistic interpretation then you are of course entitled to such. But HE is entitled to bring his vision to life and he did so with the blessing of the JRRT estate. So I'd say he did the best job he could and if it wasn't for him we'd have NOTHING.

If you think you can do better then I certainly encourage you to write and film your screenplay. I'd certainly be interesting in watching it.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
It's not one scene. The Scouring of the Shire is an entire chapter. And the death of Saruman was different in the movie (although superficially caused by the same event). The whole aspect of the Shire not escaping the effects of the war was lost. But the ultimate timing of his death at the effective end of the war located in the Shire was a wasted opportunity of great symbolism.

And so rather than explain yourself about the Saruman characterization, you insult me. A clear sign that there isn't a good explanation. Not surprising.

Ok, I'll humor you and act like I need to explain it.

In the novels, Saruman was a legitimate third power in the War of the Ring. He opposed Sauron, and, other than having studied him, had no connection to him whatsoever. He was power hungry and served no one but himself. He had aspirations of eventually ruling all of Middle Earth.

In the films, Saruman was portrayed as being nothing but a servant of Sauron, and a much weaker character in terms of ambition. I don't know why Jackson & company chose to portray him that way, but my guess is that they wanted to streamline the war into having two distinct sides, and make it easier for the audience to just see "good vs evil".

It's also been suggested that they used Saruman in the films as a "substitue" antagonist for Sauron, since the latter is never seen onscreen, and that Christopher Lee's popularity contributed to that.

Regardless of how you choose to look at it, the character in the films was *much* different than the one in the books.

Originally Posted by Harlequin
It's called artistic license/interpretation. That is what a film maker/writer does, takes a printed story, converts it into a filmable screenplay and shoots it. If you do not like his artistic interpretation then you are of course entitled to such. But HE is entitled to bring his vision to life and he did so with the blessing of the JRRT estate. So I'd say he did the best job he could and if it wasn't for him we'd have NOTHING.

Well I'm glad you're able to state the obvious.

Originally Posted by Harlequin
If you think you can do better then I certainly encourage you to write and film your screenplay. I'd certainly be interesting in watching it.

Sure, let me just go to the bank and grab 280 million $.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Ok, I'll humor you and act like I need to explain it.

In the novels, Saruman was a legitimate third power in the War of the Ring. He opposed Sauron, and, other than having studied him, had no connection to him whatsoever. He was power hungry and served no one but himself. He had aspirations of eventually ruling all of Middle Earth.

In the films, Saruman was portrayed as being nothing but a servant of Sauron, and a much weaker character in terms of ambition. I don't know why Jackson & company chose to portray him that way, but my guess is that they wanted to streamline the war into having two distinct sides, and make it easier for the audience to just see "good vs evil".

It's also been suggested that they used Saruman in the films as a "substitue" antagonist for Sauron, since the latter is never seen onscreen, and that Christopher Lee's popularity contributed to that.

Regardless of how you choose to look at it, the character in the films was *much* different than the one in the books.

Well, on that point I'm not sure it is clear in the books whether Saruman feinted to be a servant of Sauron, and then planned to turn on him or not. It was certainly portrayed that Saruman was playing a dangerous game with Sauron. Further, it is never clearly revealed what communication actually transpired between Saruman and Sauron, just guesses by Gandalf, all of which were couched as such and multi-valued. The Pippin palantir scene makes it seems like Saruman was in cahoots with Sauron, since Sauron thought Saruman was presenting a gift to him. The full intent and plan of Saruman was guessed at multiple times but never absolutely determined that I can remember.

Jackson made a guess at something more explicit. We still don't know if Jackson also imagined Saruman having the intent to turn against Sauron eventually.

So all in all I wasn't greatly disturbed by Jackson's portrayal of Saruman. Just the ending (i.e. missing Scouring of the Shire) and the parlay scene at Orthanc was weak. Saruman's power of voice was not properly demonstrated….

Originally Posted by Thrasher
So all in all I wasn't greatly disturbed by Jackson's portrayal of Saruman. Just the ending (i.e. missing Scouring of the Shire) and the parlay scene at Orthanc was weak. Saruman's power of voice was not properly demonstrated….

I guess we simply place value on different things. You were more annoyed about changes to certain scenes, while I took offense to changes to a primary character. To each his own. I'm not going to beat a dead dog though, so let's just move on.

Hey guys! I am new here!

I figured since I am very stoked about the Hobbit I would just come right out and say it and it would be a good place for me to do my first post! I know, I know, there are a lot of going off the rails with the story, or taking it to other parts of the story, and it's 3 movies now and what not..

but I am generally happy and super excited to wear my Gandalf shirt and sit in a theater with my fiancé and watch it this December!

Originally Posted by QuestLord
and it's 3 movies now and what not..

Yes, apparently they've decided to try to milk as much money as possible out of this.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Yes, apparently they've decided to try to milk as much money as possible out of this.

I prefer their official explanation that they're going to include a lot of the content from the other books, that they left out. Call me naive or a positive-thinking man, but I have faith that they'll do a good job. Here's hoping I won't be disappointed.

Originally Posted by danutz_plusplus
I prefer their official explanation that they're going to include a lot of the content from the other books, that they left out. Call me naive or a positive-thinking man, but I have faith that they'll do a good job. Here's hoping I won't be disappointed.

Whatever the method, their goal is still obvious. I'll still go to the theatre for at least the first part out of curiosity, but I won't be as enthusiastic as I was prior to LoTR.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Whatever the method, their goal is still obvious. I'll still go to the theatre for at least the first part out of curiosity, but I won't be as enthusiastic as I was prior to LoTR.

What I'm more curious/worried is their use of 3D and the RED ONE cameras they're using. Apparently it is shot at double the fps that movies are usually filmed at. Meaning the frames will flow a lot smoother, but it might look weird. I'm really curious.

Oh, hey fellas, I didn't mean to bring up an old debate. I still get a huge kick out of the other LOTR movies Peter Jackson made and I was a big fan of Brain Dead/Dead Alive far before I knew he would ever make those. Sure there were a lot of things changed cut and missing but hey! It's the movies! And I think he did a far better version than Hollywood ever could have done. I especially like the extended versions. The more Peter Jackson wants to extend The Hobbit to flesh out his vision of Tolkein's world the better imo. Throw some Silmarillion in there!

I can see how you can interpret it as milking it, but I think everyone will benefit. You could like it the best since your expectations are low!

Originally Posted by QuestLord
Throw some Silmarillion in there!

Please don't give Jackson any ideas. If he ever tried to touch The Simarillion in any way, shape, or form, I would personally track him down and get medieval.

Oh, Jackson'll surely do fine, he will.

Well, I loved Fellowship of the Ring - but have grown less and less fond of TT and RotK as time has passed.

Too many unnecessary changes, and way too much needlessly burbyfarty humor and especially stupid handling of key stuff like Path of the Dead.

I forgot my conclusion

As in, I don't expect The Hobbit to match FotR. I expect it to be even more like TT/RotK - with even more liberties taken with Tolkien material. The book is already light-hearted - but with a certain measure of Tolkienesque charm and good taste. I'm not looking forward to Jackson ramping that up with extra burbs and farts, I have to say.

Still, I have to check it out in theaters - regardless. There's no way it won't be absolutely gigantic in terms of financial success.

The pointless 3D and 48 FPS crap will just add to the whole spectacle.

I get attacked in another forum by saying that The Hobbit was originally a book for children. The attack consists on pointing out that Tolkien himself re-worked parts of the book, meanwhile he wrote on LOTR, to make it considerably less "childish".

I replied that perhaps any other children's book should be then turned into a dark & gritty, bloody and dirty spectation for adult cineasts ? - In this sense.

Mr. Jackson doing Momo - he would entirely concentrate on The Grey Men - expand and invent their story drastically, perhaps even invent dungeons full of blood, dirt, nightmares and torture, and let the book's main protagonists appear in only one or two scenes, that's how my "inner cynic" sees it.

In short : I really don't like everyone seemingly wanting a "Heavy Metal Hobbit" made out of it, so I'm out. I won't be watching this movie. It will be too dark for my tste, and I won't allow Mr. Jackson to destroy my "brain cinema" I had when I was reading the book.

- And, by the way, Mr. Jackson might indeed use portions seen in the anthology published by Christopher Tolkien for this movie. There's more thn enough in them, for example the background story of what happened with The One Ring after it was lost.

I think you're confusing non-burbyfarty and respectful treatment of Tolkien with Heavy Metal Hobbit.

Then again, that's hardly a surprise

The Hobbit SHOULD be light-hearted and it SHOULD be a charming film. But I don't think it needs to involve constant comic relief and juvenile humor.

There's a place for that - but not where Tolkien is the source material. Then again, that's just me.

The way Jackson handled the Shire sequence in FotR is exactly how it should be done. There was great warmth in that sequence - and a very obvious admiration for the source material and the characters.

Not how he handled Gimli and Merry/Pippin in the later films. They were essentially comic relief first, and characters with a genuine personality second. Quite contrary to what Tolkien obviously intended for his characters.

I understand your view.

In my mind, when I was reading the book, I knew the dangers were there - but they were described in a rather light-hearted fashion.

Remember in Return Of The King the scene where Frodo looks at he fallen king' statue, which was overgrown with flowers ? Now that's a thing I don't believe many people wold have kpt in mind. For me, this is one of the greatest scenes, one ith the gretest motion in it. As I was imagining this wole scene, with a last glimpse of the sun before it went don - just in time ! enlighning the fallen statue of that former King, meanwhile noticing that flowers had been growing around the fallen head, just o that they form a crude kind of crown - and just then ! - the sun vanishes behing "the west" - this is one of the greatest moments I had when reading the book.

But I don't think that man people have remembered this scene as well. They rather remember the action, the battles, the … I don't know what. Everything but this "crown".

And this i imho what makes Tolkien so great for me : His descrptive language - but not over-descriptive - his way of laying out (pun intended ) Middle-Earth … Parts of the stories read like travelling literature. His description of everything so it makes srnse, and the hint - the mre hint ! - to something far greater lying and looming in the background …

There is something that cannot be grasped visually. Authors do write something that's "alive" only in the reader's heads. "Head-cinema", as we call it in German language.

Let me try to explain it with the words of Sir Terry Pratchett, from his novel "Hogfather" :

"What would have happened if you hadn't saved him [the Hogfather, Discworld's version of Santa Clause] ?"
"The sun would not have risen."
"Really ? Then what would have happened, pray ?"
"A mere ball of flaming gas would have illuminated the world."

"All right, I'm not stupid. You say that humans need … fantasies to make life bearable."
"Really ? As if it was some kind of pink pill ?
No. Humans need fantasies to be human.
To be the place where the Falling Angel meets the Rising Ape."

Originally Posted by QuestLord
Throw some Silmarillion in there!

Just to clarify, the rights to the Silmarillion lie with the Tolkien estate. So they can't use any of that stuff (unfortunately). I'd love to see a Beren & Luthien film, or even better, the grimdark Children of Hurin.

Originally Posted by Peter Jackson
The Silmarillion is the big volume, but that’s owned by the Tolkien estate. It’s not owned by Warner Bros. or MGM — and I don’t think the Tolkien estate are very fond of these movies, so I wouldn’t expect to see The Silmarillion any time soon.

Where the Hobbit is being fleshed out, it is using material from the LOTR Appendices. This is good, but don't expect to see any references to the Elder Days or Morgoth (who may, possibly, have been Smaug's creator - or at least was ultimately responsible for his existence).