Three Times The Hobbit?

[Nerwen]

I mean, I'll stand by what I've said already, that some posters here are excessively negative towards Peter Jackson– but the TORN readership seems to be the mirror-image of that. So many of the comments are basically variants on, "how dare you suggest PJ could be wrong about anything..."

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I mean, I'll stand by what I've said already, that some posters here are excessively negative towards Peter Jackson...

Define "excessive".

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Define "excessive".

syn.: "Morthoron".

[Nerwen]

You know, if I were P.J., I'd be getting nervous of those fanboyz right about now. The way these things usually play out, they're the ones who'll turn on him hardest if the films don't meet their expectations.

[Bêthberry]

Charlie Ross's one-man Lord of the Rings (70 minutes) was a hilarious spoof of the movies. He even was able to work in a line or two from the books for those of us at RotR who might recall the books.

I must say that the video greeting from Peter Jackson, Alan Lee, and John Howe was a gracious touch, too. Rather like marching virtually into a dragon hoard of book treasures.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

I made reference to the "One Ring dot Net" article above, by Ostadan, because I thought the author did a credible job of raising some disturbing questions about the long-delayed-and-now-deliberately-inflated-and-extended "Hobbit" movie project. For example, Ostadan quotes Peter Jackson saying:

"In the novel, Gandalf disappears for various patches of time. In 1936, when Tolkien was writing that book, he didn't have a clue what Gandalf was doing."

Ostadan then offers what I consider a trenchent rebuttal, supported by an appropriate reference to Tolkien's letters:

Since Gandalf does tell us what he was doing, though without unnecessary details, this is an extremely odd thing to say. The storytelling purpose of Gandalf’s absence, of course, is explained by Tolkien in a letter (Letters, #257, 1964): “[The Necromancer’s function] … was hardly more than to provide a reason for Gandalf going away and laving Bilbo and the Dwarves to fend for themselves, which was necessary for the tale.” Tolkien had a good sense of what was necessary in his story.

I only wish that Ostadan had included the following text from The Hobbit, Chapter 10 in further support of his argument:

So you see Bilbo had come in the end by the only road that was any good. It might have been some comfort to Mr. Baggins shivering on the barrels, if he had known that news of this had reached Gandalf far away and given him great anxiety, and that he was in fact finishing his other business (which does not come into this tale) and getting ready to come in search of Thorin's company. But Bilbo did not know it.

Now obviously, from this passage alone, one can glean that Tolkien knew a great deal about Gandalf's whereabouts, specifically (1) that he had gone far away, (2) that he had gotten news of Bilbo's progress, (3) that this caused him some anxiety, (4) that he had finished his other business, (5) that he planned on going in search of Thorin's company, and -- most importantly -- (6) that this other business of Gandalf's "does not come into this tale." I count six clues, not zero.

It seems to me, therefore, that Peter Jackson does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to making comments about what J. R. R. Tolkien knew of of his own tale, why he wrote it the way he did, and why leaving Gandalf and his "other business" out of the story at critical junctures occurred not out of any accident or oversight, but by a well-considered understanding of how to tell a hero's tale without diminishing the hero (Bilbo) by making the supernatural helper (Gandalf) the hero instead. Tolkien knew his business -- mythic literature -- and for Peter Jackson to claim that Tolkien "didn't have a clue" has to rank as one of the dumbest and least-defensible things the director/producer has ever said.

Now I've got to get about the business of sending Ostadan a congratulatory "thank you" for a job well done.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

You know, if I were P.J., I'd be getting nervous of those fanboyz right about now. The way these things usually play out, they're the ones who'll turn on him hardest if the films don't meet their expectations.

Like the natives of Hawaii who murdered Captain Cook when they realised he wasn't a God?

Many do seem to have asimple faith in PJ's vision even though he seems to be making it up as he goes along or according to the availability of his favourite actresses.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

You know, if I were P.J., I'd be getting nervous of those fanboyz right about now. The way these things usually play out, they're the ones who'll turn on him hardest if the films don't meet their expectations.

Yes, indeed. You've really got to watch it with those infantile fanboys. Some of them eventually become President of the United States. Then they get to play with real armies and weapons and fighting and stuff ...

http://themisfortuneteller.com/Poetr...ightlight.html

[Galendor]

Warner Bros has released the Titles and dates for the 3 Hobbit movies:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. December 14th, 2012
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. December 13th, 2013
The Hobbit: There and Back Again. July 18th, 2014

http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/thi...les-confirmed/

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Urrrrgh.

It seems very clear- to me at least- that what was good about PJ's Rings trilogy were precisely those scenes where he stayed very close to what Tolkien described and, if possible, using actual Tolkien dialogue (in fact it's miraculoous how much the tone elevates with a passage of Genuine Tolkien Text(tm)).

Where OTOH the movies generally suck harder than a Phattaya Beach transvestite hooker is where PJ & Co simply inject their "low-grade fan-fic" (perfect phrase). It's as if some accident had wiped out half of the Sistine Chapel, and the Vatican hired Frank Frazetta to replace the missing parts.

So what is there to anticipate from little Mr Baggins inflated like the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man? It's pointed out that there is material in the Appendices which lets on some of what happens- but not really, not much more than a skeletal framework. There are no scenes, no dialogue, no narrative: none of the solid Tolikien foundations which propped up the non-crappy segments of PJ's Rings.

Instead we will get unending made-up invention regarding the White Council and the Necromancer, with Saruman looking evil and Legolas looking hawt for the fangirlz. Expect lots of gratuitous zapcasting, and comic-book-grade "character" material as puerile as the film-Denethor vs film-Faramir travesty. Certainly expect PJ, the most selof-indulgent and incapable of self-eiiting of directors, to give us lots and lots more of the sort of silliness added back into the RK EE (cascading skulls, hammy death-by-arrow.

More than anything, expect this low-grade fan-fic to be set in the world of the Battle For Middle-Earth video games, because if there's one thing proven irrefutably by the Rings trilogy, it's that Boyens may have read Letters and HOME but she never, ever understood them, nor Tolkien.

Hobbit trilogy = 1/3 Tolkien, 2/3 PJ filler (which almost by definition is always crap).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I mean, I'll stand by what I've said already, that some posters here are excessively negative towards Peter Jackson– but the TORN readership seems to be the mirror-image of that. So many of the comments are basically variants on, "how dare you suggest PJ could be wrong about anything..."

It's part of the 'culture' on this forum, though I know that not everyone is a vocal critic, so it might just be a part of the culture that it's OK to be highly critical here while others haven't much to say about it. On some other Tolkien sites, the other extreme prevails. I don't feel part of either extreme though. I'm excited/nervous about the films (just as I was with the Lord of the Rings films) and I will make my judgement once I have seen them. Seems fair to me!

[Kath]

My cinema (it's weeny) is starting to get posters and merchandise in. As a loyal customer I have already demanded a share in the spoils! And now I get them three years running.

On another note, did we ever do a poll? Members who had joined as a result of reading the books vs members who had joined as a result of watching the films. Might be interesting!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Kath

My cinema (it's weeny) is starting to get posters and merchandise in. As a loyal customer I have already demanded a share in the spoils! And now I get them three years running.

On another note, did we ever do a poll? Members who had joined as a result of reading the books vs members who had joined as a result of watching the films. Might be interesting!

I'd like some of that spoil!! I've already started on the tat/collectibles, having snapped up the Hobbit Annual (very silly, definitely for kids, big and small, ahem) as soon as I saw it in Waterstones.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It's part of the 'culture' on this forum, though I know that not everyone is a vocal critic, so it might just be a part of the culture that it's OK to be highly critical here while others haven't much to say about it. On some other Tolkien sites, the other extreme prevails. I don't feel part of either extreme though. I'm excited/nervous about the films (just as I was with the Lord of the Rings films) and I will make my judgement once I have seen them. Seems fair to me!

I was perusing the TORn forum and a comment on this thread caught my eye. Betwixt all the wallowing fanboy blather, a perceptive poster named JWPLatt brought up an interesting idea:

Jackson could provide a seamless branching option on The Hobbit disks, when released, that allows viewers to see only the "substory" of The Hobbit which entirely omits The White Council story that follows Gandalf when he is away from the company of the dwarves. We would see Gandalf go away for a while and come back, just like in The Hobbit.

A "seamless branch" would prove most interesting don't you think? Rather than sit there with your remote and self-edit PJ's tedious fan-fiction, one merely chooses a "purist" version of the film from the DVD menu that eliminates all the extraneous material.

As I mentioned in a post there, I have nothing against PJ's cinematography, the set and costume designs by Lee, Howe and Weta, nor the parts of the films when PJ actually adhered to Tolkien's story, rather than having Aragorn french his horse. When PJ used Tolkien's original dialogue, there were actually quite a few moving sequences in the films, and it didn't matter if a different character than the one in the book spoke the words.

If there were a way to eliminate all the spurious flights of fancy and PJ's penchant for B-grade horror flick devolutions (like the Nazgul in "Alien"-like suspended animation, as we have heard), then it may be worthwhile to watch.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Morthoron, I like your brand of curmudgeonliness.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

If there were a way to eliminate all the spurious flights of fancy and PJ's penchant for B-grade horror flick devolutions (like the Nazgul in "Alien"-like suspended animation, as we have heard), then it may be worthwhile to watch.

You've already answered that one. Your remote!

What's this about the Nazgul though???

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Morthoron, I like your brand of curmudgeonliness.

It has taken many decades to cultivate such a grim vintage.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

You've already answered that one. Your remote!

What's this about the Nazgul though???

Remotes are for changing the channel, not picking through a movie piecemeal. If I have to resort to a remote, I'm going to be viewing something else.

There is a screenshot somewhere of the Nazgul in a state of suspended animation somewhere in Dol Guldur. Obviously, Gandalf stumbles upon them and the pods that contain Ringwraithlets.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

There is a screenshot somewhere of the Nazgul in a state of suspended animation somewhere in Dol Guldur. Obviously, Gandalf stumbles upon them and the pods that contain Ringwraithlets.

This makes me apprehensive...

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

There is a screenshot somewhere of the Nazgul in a state of suspended animation somewhere in Dol Guldur. Obviously, Gandalf stumbles upon them and the pods that contain Ringwraithlets.

Did they not state in the Fellowship of the Ring (even in the film version) that the Nazgul appearing was a surprise because they hadn't appeared since the last time that Sauron had a lot of power? Gandalf basically told Frodo that this event was the worst thing that had happened in a long time. I didn't just imagine that, right?

If the Nazgul hadn't reappeared for ages, then having the Nazgul appear in TH would even be contrary to the Movie Canon. Would it not?

[Inziladun]

According to this, a Stephen Colbert cameo in either the second or third movies is confirmed.

If it's occurring later in the story, maybe he'll be Roac the raven. A cgi bird with Colbert's face...genius!