The Hobbit Trailer

I'll reserve final judgment until I see it; however, one thing that continually irked me while watching the trailer was just how… human some of the dwarves looked - simply not stocky/stolid enough. Especially the lead (Oakenshield).

In regard to the somber tone of the movie, I don't doubt it had something to do with the studio wanting to keep it similar to the Lotr movies for fans otherwise ignorant of the book(s).

Originally Posted by Glyphwright
Slapstick Merry and Pippin in the movies are better than their personality-free novel counterparts.

I'm sure a lot of non-Tolkien fans agree with you, but it doesn't make it any more respectful to the source material.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I'm sure a lot of non-Tolkien fans agree with you, but it doesn't make it any more respectful to the source material.

But some Tolkien fans agree with him too.
I didn't like everything about the movies. And like others there are some things I would rather have done fundamentally different. But all in all I really enjoyed them - and looking at the earlier attempt at an LotR movie and looking at a lot of contemporary fantasy movies I think we got SO lucky with Jackson.

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
But some Tolkien fans agree with him too.
I didn't like everything about the movies. And like others there are some things I would rather have done fundamentally different. But all in all I really enjoyed them - and looking at the earlier attempt at an LotR movie and looking at a lot of contemporary fantasy movies I think we got SO lucky with Jackson.

As always, you're easier to please than I am

As for Tolkien fans agreeing, I have a hard time accepting that's the case with many - but it doesn't change that it's completely unlike the tone in the book.

Incase you have never seen it this is a finnish tv-series of Lord of the rings. Subtitles included:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Koj0V7G46fs

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
As always, you're easier to please than I am

Of course, but that's really not hard

As for Tolkien fans agreeing, I have a hard time accepting that's the case with many - but it doesn't change that it's completely unlike the tone in the book.

Judging from my own circle of friends (which of course is entirely anecdotal) it was about 50/50.

Of course, but that's really not hard

True, I have to admit.

I don't think I've met a single person in real life who preferred any representation of a character in the movie to that of the book.

In fact, I've had long talks with several of my friends - who all seem to agree that though the characters were done rather well in the movie overall, the end result is not at the book-level of quality - except for a select few. Gandalf seems to be universally liked, as well as Gollum. Some also seem to think Sean Bean was great as Boromir.

But, really, I can't think of single case of a movie character being preferred to the book - until now.

Anecdotal, of course.

Originally Posted by Glyphwright
They should have.

You should never change your avatar pic.

Out of curiousity, GBG - what characters did the people in your circle feel were better in the movies than the books?

It's strange to me, because I generally find that people conjure images/personalities of the characters in books that are almost impossible to match for an actor/director.

Thats a misunderstanding, I didn't mean that anyone thought that characters are better in the film. Just that among my Tolkien fan friends about 50% liked the movies / thought they treated the source material well.
As for me, its something I came to term with - movies cannot reproduce the experience I have with a book. I couldnt name any film I thought was better than the book, in that sense. I look at films as I look at theater performance - someones interpretation of a literary work. Its not about reproducing my personal reading, its about creating a coherent, intersting and enjoyable adaptation. Thats my approach to it, anyway.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Terry Gilliam?

Heck, I'd prefer Del Toro over that nutbag.

I think he did quite a ggood job with The Fisher King.

I hated his last movie, however.

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
As for me, its something I came to term with - movies cannot reproduce the experience I have with a book.

I call Mr. Jackson's LOTR as an "artistic interpretation of he books".
Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't like everything, but some other things were imho made quite nicely.
I only hope that he WON'T draw the conclusion from this success that everything he does is right.

(Edited with Firefox)

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
Thats a misunderstanding, I didn't mean that anyone thought that characters are better in the film. Just that among my Tolkien fan friends about 50% liked the movies / thought they treated the source material well.

Ah, ok.

But I just said that slapstick humor wasn't true to the source material - and that aspect wasn't respectful. At least, not for my part.

As for me, its something I came to term with - movies cannot reproduce the experience I have with a book. I couldnt name any film I thought was better than the book, in that sense. I look at films as I look at theater performance - someones interpretation of a literary work. Its not about reproducing my personal reading, its about creating a coherent, intersting and enjoyable adaptation. Thats my approach to it, anyway.

Oh, I think we agree on that. I'm not really asking them to do anything for me - but I do think they should have been more true to the material. For Tolkien, because he knew what he was doing - and they opted to change it because they didn't trust in the material. Omitting stuff I can understand, in most cases, but changing the core of characters I most certainly can't.

Most people I know thought Viggo played a great Aragorn. Peter Jackson got Boramir just right. Most my friends and we all have read the books multiple times loved the movies and the characters. Yes we were upset with some of the slapstick but if you can't enjoy Peter Jackson's LoTR movies I say stay out of the movies because no fantasy movie will make you happy.

Man there are so many bi-polar people on this site that are going to bitch about anything . Whoever thought that these movies would ever get made in the first place. Would you rather of had the Beatles make the movies like they tried to?

It's actually possible to enjoy something a lot, and still find faults with it.

I can consider Skyrim the best game in the world, and yet I can still find a ton of things that could be done better. I'm actually hoping Bethesda can as well, so we'll get an even better game next time.

Man there are so many bi-polar people on this site that are going to bitch about anything . Whoever thought that these movies would ever get made in the first place. Would you rather of had the Beatles make the movies like they tried to?

There are so many people on this site who can't grasp simple logic that are going to bitch about people who point out flaws. I wonder if we'd ever have any improvement if everyone was like that.

See how that works?

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
As for me, its something I came to term with - movies cannot reproduce the experience I have with a book. I couldnt name any film I thought was better than the book, in that sense.

The Princess Bride film is generally regarded as better than the book, but I agree with your basic premise: much like having an RPG's main protagonist tied to a particular voice/actor, putting forth a single interpretation of a book on the big screen leaves less room for personal (imaginative) interpretation.

In case anyone cares, my problem with the changes to Faramir is as follows:

Have you seen Serpico? The title character is based on a real character.

The gist of Faramir is that he's the LotR equivalent to Serpico. Tolkien deliberately created that character, because he truly believed there are people who're beyond the temptation of power. Beyond that, Tolkien has stated that Faramir is his own favorite character.

Faramir quote:

But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo.

Jackson and Co. changed him to someone who is VERY NEARLY corrupted at the mere sight of the ring, and for the EXACT reason he states in the above quote that he would NEVER do it for.

Why?

They were worried that people forgot about the ring and they wanted it to be ever so clear that it was still a big problem.

Yes, that's really their reason.

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
Thats a misunderstanding, I didn't mean that anyone thought that characters are better in the film. Just that among my Tolkien fan friends about 50% liked the movies / thought they treated the source material well.
As for me, its something I came to term with - movies cannot reproduce the experience I have with a book. I couldnt name any film I thought was better than the book, in that sense. I look at films as I look at theater performance - someones interpretation of a literary work. Its not about reproducing my personal reading, its about creating a coherent, intersting and enjoyable adaptation. Thats my approach to it, anyway.

Excellant take on it, and that's exactly how I feel about.

Originally Posted by booboo
I also found the slapstick element inappropriate and annoying.

Yeah, the changes to Gimli to make him humorous I thought were unnecessary, but I did not mind Merry and Pippin.

Originally Posted by Glyphwright
Slapstick Merry and Pippin in the movies are better than their personality-free novel counterparts.

I agree, plus I also thought that it made them more relatable. All of us have friends that never take things seriously.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Why?

They were worried that people forgot about the ring and they wanted it to be ever so clear that it was still a big problem.

Yes, that's really their reason.

And its a good one. Faramir is a minor character in the book, favorite of Tolkein or not. He just doesn't really matter. I think this change was to go along with the whole way they depicted the ring as well. In the book, Frodo isn't overly tempted by the ring (at least in the first two books), and nobody is that concerned with him playing with it. He puts it on and off in FotR likes it game.

But you can do that in the book because there are other ways to convey the power of the ring that simply don't translate that well to the screen. Given the comparatively shorter narrative space, they had to really show the power of the ring every chance they got, or those that had not read the books would end up wondering what the big deal was.

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.

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

Faramir a minor character?

Ehm, ok, sure.