# 3 - part Hobbit



## Starbrow (Aug 2, 2012)

Is anybody else worried about what PJ will add to stretch the Hobbit into 3 movies? IMO, there isn't that much in the appendices for a 3rd movie.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Aug 2, 2012)

Wow googling info from your thread I just learned this lol I really hope he doesn't screw it up much but I can't wait to see it either!


----------



## Prince of Cats (Aug 2, 2012)

This is the first I've heard of this! I wasn't happy originally that they were using _two_ movies






Starbrow said:


> IMO, there isn't that much in the appendices for a 3rd movie.


 I agree. I suppose though that 3 movies could allow them to do a very unabridged form production of The Hobbit. Unfortunately from LOTR I have to hold my breath until it's released to see if they keep the movie(s) true to the text


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Aug 3, 2012)

Prince of Cats said:


> This is the first I've heard of this! I wasn't happy originally that they were using _two_ movies :*eek: I agree. I suppose though that 3 movies could allow them to do a very unabridged form production of The Hobbit. Unfortunately from LOTR I have to hold my breath until it's released to see if they keep the movie(s) true to the text



Also, 3 movies will allow their pocket books to fill up more too ;*)


----------



## Confusticated (Aug 4, 2012)

I've lost my enthusiasm for this. It will be interesting to see how successful this will be compared with LotR.


----------



## HLGStrider (Aug 8, 2012)

It concerns me a little bit. There are ways to draw out the narrative. A lot of modern movies suffer from too much happening too quickly, and one thing I love about the Lord of the Rings is that Tolkien took his time writing things. Everything doesn't happen instantly. The long journeys feel long and there is a sense of fullness too it, but not fullness like "OMGOSH! HOBBITS! OMGOSH! RING! OMGOSH! RINGWRAITHS! OMGOSH! STABBING! OMGOSH! ELVES! OMGOSH! MORIA! OMGOSH! GOLLUM! OMGOSH! YOU SHALL NOT PASS! OMGOSH MORE ELVES! OMGOSH! ORCS! OMGOSH! TO MODOR!" which is a little bit how the Fellowship of the Ring felt the first time I watched it, and with the amount of material they were putting into one movie, I kind of understand why the pace is so frenetic, and when I heard that the Hobbit was going to be two movies, I thought, huh, maybe they'll actually take some time and get the tone right this time. . .when I hear three and hear the reasoning given as "to include more of the appendixes" I do worry a little bit about the actual Hobbit parts getting buried under everything else, but we'll see.


----------



## Mike (Aug 10, 2012)

I'm not confident in this move to three films at all. Since Jackson apparently can't use _Unfinished Tales_ we can pretty much look forward to a great deal of Walsh/Boyens fan fiction.

But really, I'm pretty "meh" about _The Hobbit _film in general. My memory of the Jackson LOTR films have faded and I'm rather content to just forget about them at this point. I'd rather not upset my memories of reading _The Hobbit_, so... 

I guess Jackson & co. can do whatever the heck they like.

(The latest announcement does seem a bit strange, though. Didn't they recently wrap up the shoot? Does this mean they're going to drag the actors back to shoot additional material, or what?)


----------



## Confusticated (Aug 10, 2012)

It would be great if they use the extra time to better pace the story, as HLG said, but I agree it is unlikely. I'd say it is as close to impossible as something can be without actually being impossible.


I don't expect this film adaption will do The Hobbit as it deserves. 


My understanding is that the filming has been completed whether this will be 2 or 3 movies, and that it is a matter of how it is going to be treated when they edit.


----------



## Confusticated (Aug 10, 2012)

I'm sure I'll at least watch the first one, out of curiosity, to see how well Bilbo is played. If done perfectly, I'll likely watch the following movies. At there very least there will be a dragon to see, and hopefully some handsome pony tail elves in Mirkwood, (if Jackson cam refrain from feminizing them that is.)

The whole scene in Mirkwood should be pretty decent, I expect. It's all the added white council materiel and invented filler that lowers my expectations; the placement of The Hobbit as scattered into the midst of some jacksonized LoTR tell-all prequel.


----------



## Bucky (Aug 21, 2012)

Mike said:


> I'm not confident in this move to three films at all. Since Jackson apparently can't use _Unfinished Tales_ we can pretty much look forward to a great deal of Walsh/Boyens fan fiction.
> 
> But really, I'm pretty "meh" about _The Hobbit _film in general. My memory of the Jackson LOTR films have faded and I'm rather content to just forget about them at this point. I'd rather not upset my memories of reading _The Hobbit_, so...
> 
> ...



*Well. my 'no spoilers' understanding is this:

1. Best not to use UT as it is chock full of alternate endings, etc. anyhow. Not much there that applies anyhow.

2. If you go to the most popular Tolkien site online, they are still gushing daily about TLOR movie. PJ is treated like God Himself & you'd better duck quickly if you say otherwise. :*o

3. Yup.

4. My understanding is they have lots of extra footage on the cutting room floor. My guess is three movies may mean less EE's, but knowing PJ's money machine, they'll still manage some to double-dip on the folk's who need everything.

The third movie reminds me of 'Spaceballs II: The Search For More Money' :*D 

*


----------



## Sulimo (Sep 6, 2012)

I have bad feelings about this movie. The problem is that the Hobbit is a coming of age story, not an epic struggle of good vs evil. However, Hollywood wants another epic, and so that is what we will get. I'm sure it will be beautiful to watch, but a true injustice to a fun fairy tale.


----------



## Eledhwen (Oct 30, 2012)

Confusticated said:


> I'm sure I'll at least watch the first one, out of curiosity...


If you are of a curious nature, you will probably watch all three. I say this because I have studied the full cast list on IMDB and notice that Benedict Cumberbatch is listed only as Necromancer in the first film, then as Necromancer/Smaug in the second, and again as only Necromancer in the third. 

Stephen Fry, who plays the Master of Lake Town is also not listed until Film no.2, so clearly the second film will deal fully with the encounter with Lake Town/Bard and death of Smaug the dragon; which means the first film will end before the party even arrives at Lake Town. However, Thranduil is listed in the first film's cast list; so we get to see him at least. 

The question is; where is the film to be split? Elf guards are credited, so the Dwarves are captured. My guess is that "Barrels out of Bond" is the split point. I'm basing this on the above, and the fact that Fellowship of the Ring ended on a river too, and there is a point (packed into barrels and shoved down into the river) where you can end on a nice perilous cliffhanger.

What I don't understand is why Radagast has been cast. I'm curious!


----------



## baragund (Oct 30, 2012)

Eledhwen,
I agree with your prediction that Part 1 will end with Bilbo and the Gang floating to Lake Town. More tricky is guessing where Part 2 will end. The death of Smaug but before the Battle of Five Armies, perhaps? That would fit with your reasoning of who is playing which parts through the three films.

More tricky is how the filmmakers will mix into the story the goings-on of The White Council and the Necromancer and whatever other stuff from the Appendices that catches their fancy. Top it off with the role the "new" characters will play and you have a lot of moving parts. I too am very curious to see how they put it all together.


----------



## Starbrow (Oct 30, 2012)

My guess is that Radagast will be part of the White Council.


----------



## Eledhwen (Oct 31, 2012)

Starbrow said:


> My guess is that Radagast will be part of the White Council.


That makes sense - Saruman is in the cast list. I'm hoping there's a scene in Orthanc where he takes a lidded box, opens it, and lifts out the Elendilmir; but it's absence from the LotR films makes that unlikely. Through its arguments, the White Council provides a great opportunity to explain to new Tolkien fans what's going on. 

I'm also wondering exactly how much material they are permitted to use. They have the rights to the Lord of the Rings books and The Hobbit; but any part of that tale not related within those volumes might still be controlled by The Tolkien Estate. For instance, this would include how Gandalf met Thorin Oakenshield and talked him into considering Bilbo, which is in Unfinished Tales. They can, of course, make up their own filler scenes; but will they get into copyright trouble if these are too similar to tales in books not included in the film rights? If so, I would hope that The Estate would use their influence to keep the story in line with Tolkien's work, rather than to pursue a compensatory law suit.


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 31, 2012)

Eledhwen said:


> I'm also wondering exactly how much material they are permitted to use. They have the rights to the Lord of the Rings books and The Hobbit; but any part of that tale not related within those volumes might still be controlled by The Tolkien Estate. For instance, this would include how Gandalf met Thorin Oakenshield and talked him into considering Bilbo, which is in Unfinished Tales. They can, of course, make up their own filler scenes; but will they get into copyright trouble if these are too similar to tales in books not included in the film rights? If so, I would hope that The Estate would use their influence to keep the story in line with Tolkien's work, rather than to pursue a compensatory law suit.


I can't see the estate fighting that fight. If they haven't given them rights to UT and such, it is sort of in their interest to do so, financially speaking. I can't imagine the UT has made them much money where as I'm sure the licensing of the films has, and I can't see them getting in a fight to protect a "lesser" work when they've already given so much free reign over the larger, better known and loved works of the LotR and Hobbit. It would kind of be like Leonardo DiVinci telling someone he could repaint the Mona Lisa and all his best known oil paintings but omgosh, do NOT touch my sketches.


----------



## David (Oct 31, 2012)

They have the rights to Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, so I fear that to make a coherent film they're going to be adding a lot of their own stuff in during the last two films. How much relevant stuff the Hobbit is actually in the appendices anyway?


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 1, 2012)

David said:


> How much relevant stuff the Hobbit is actually in the appendices anyway?


 The Appendices, together with the snippets in Unfinished Tales, Return of the Shadow, the Treason of Isengard and The Tale of Years of the Third Age in 'The People of Middle-earth' all contain useful material.

Although pecuniary considerations may tempt the Tolkien Estate's accountants; I believe that while Christopher Tolkien still lives, that not a single piece of additional material that could be withheld would get into the film makers' hands. I remember that Christopher Tolkien disowned his own eldest son [1] for co-operating with the film-makers during Lord of the Rings filming. This is a great pity; as Christopher Tolkien's great knowledge could phenomenally enrich these latest films.


----------



## baragund (Nov 2, 2012)

That's unfortunate if the filmakers only had access to the material in the Appendices of LOTR. The additional material from UT and The Peoples of Middle-earth really enriched that part of the back story.


----------



## Sulimo (Nov 6, 2012)

I am still confused. Are the appendices at the end of The Return of the King not included in the rights to the trilogy. I honestly do not know how I feel about that. I would just love to see them actually try to capture the story, and not try to turn it into something it is not. That disappoints me more than anything.


----------



## baragund (Nov 8, 2012)

Sulimo, you are correct. The filmakers do have legal access to the Appendices of LOTR. That is how they are able to expand the film adaptation of The Hobbit to include the stuff about the White Council and their battle with The Necromancer. However, they are restricted from anything else by the Tolkien Estate.

Potentially, this expansion of Bilbo's adventure "There and Back Again" can enrich the overall story. The problem is the material in the Appendices isn't much more than an outline and can be interpreted all sorts of ways. The additional material contained in Unfinished Tales, The Peoples of Middle-earth, etc. gave more insight on what Tolkien intended in that time period. 

Restricting access to that additional material by Tolkien's estate did not accomplish anything. The films are still being made. Granting access to the material could have nudged the filmakers to creating something closer to Tolkien's vision.


----------



## crabby (Nov 9, 2012)

does anyone know - or have a reasonable supposition - as to what the politics/reasonings behind this squabble are?

it, to me, seems utterly illogical for the Estate to sell the rights to 'the Hobbit' to NLC if they were really unhappy with how LOTR turned out (assuming thats the chronology...) - and if they aren't desperately unhappy with how NLC made LOTR (not least, i assume, by the increase in sales of Tolkien books), why would they not give NLC every possible assistance in making as much of 'The Hobbit' as they possibly could?

or is this just personal stuff, with, for example, CT just bitter that while NLC may have - in his words - gutted the books - they brought them to a wider audience than he ever did, and that much of this audience has been brought into the more 'canon' works of Tolkien?

cheers.


----------



## Elthir (Nov 9, 2012)

Eledhwen said:


> (...) I remember that Christopher Tolkien disowned his own eldest son [1] for co-operating with the film-makers during Lord of the Rings filming. This is a great pity; as Christopher Tolkien's great knowledge could phenomenally enrich these latest films.



As far as I know Christopher Tolkien has denied this claim of 'disowning' his own son over the films -- which looks like an oversimplification to me in any case. 



> "We had no control over the films whatsoever," Tolkien explains. None the less, he was keen to be supportive of the project; his father, however, disagreed. "The Tolkien estate's viewpoint, which was perfectly valid, was: we've got no control over it, so let's not get involved."
> 
> You might not think this would be enough to sunder a family, yet it was. "I think what my father found really outrageous was the fact that I would cross him," says Tolkien. "He felt that was treachery. But that isn't the only reason my father has had enough of me. There are other reasons that I can't go into."
> 
> ...



I note Simon himself referencing other issues that were causing problems.

Interestingly, in an interview of 13 April 2010 -- Simon Tolkien: The Inheritance, Diane Rehm, NPR interview -- Simon Tolkien was asked about a 'dispute' concerning the Estate (at first Simon Tolkien made Diane Rehm repeat her question, saying that he didn't understand it):



> Diane Rehm: '(...) your father's and your grandfather's estate. Was there a dispute?
> 
> Simon Tolkien: 'No, none at all. There was a subsequent problem that I had, ah, back when the movies were coming, we had a bit of a falling out with my father that's now composed, but the actual inheritance from my grandfather, who died in 1973, on to my father as literary executor I think was entirely smooth, and what my father has done since 1973... (...) We had as I say a falling out...'



By the way this was an audio interview, so obviously the written form here is mine. In my opinion Simon Tolkien put an emphasis on 'I had' but in any case the interview can still be found on the web, is 51 minutes 34 seconds long, and the question above can be found at around 28:32 in.


For myself I don't believe Christopher Tolkien disowned his son over a movie, even a movie based on _The Lord of the Rings_, and I think that this 'falling out' was really the result of various issues. 

Also Royd Tolkien was actually in the films, even if a bit part: did he have anything to say about Christopher Tolkien's reaction toward him?


----------



## Elthir (Nov 9, 2012)

crabby said:


> ... it, to me, seems utterly illogical for the Estate to sell the rights to 'the Hobbit' to NLC if they were really unhappy with how LOTR turned out (assuming thats the chronology...) - and if they aren't desperately unhappy with how NLC made LOTR (not least, i assume, by the increase in sales of Tolkien books), why would they not give NLC every possible assistance in making as much of 'The Hobbit' as they possibly could?



I'm pretty sure the rights to _The Hobbit_ were sold long ago (Rankin/Bass produced a version for example). More recently the Tolkien Trust sought their share of the profits from New Line with respect to the film version of _The Lord of the Rings_. Others sued New Line if I recall correctly, including Peter Jackson himself.


I think the Estate knows going in that no filmmaker is going to let them mold the films as they would like. 

Christopher Tolkien would have no true say or control as an advisor, and considering his opinion of the films based on _The Lord of the Rings_ -- concerning which the filmmakers had full access to obviously -- I doubt he would think that selling the rights to anything else, like _Unfinished_ _Tales,_ would make a measurable enough difference for _The Hobbit,_ from his perspective.

No one is forcing the filmmakers to make three films of course, or to draw from the Appendices or any other work. Peter Jackson has _The Hobbit_ and can adapt that story on film as he wishes. I'm not sure the filmmakers have even sought additional material...


... and how would they put this appeal? Dear Christopher Tolkien, as we are purposely altering the tale of _The Hobbit_ in a significant way, we would like more material from you, so that we can alter this story in a way that is arguably better given that we have already decided to alter it.

[signed]
those guys who had full access to _The Lord of the Rings_ and gutted it according to you

P.S. we welcome your advice on how to film this material, but we may not heed much or all of it, necessarily. Having your name as advisor in the credits would really be nice though.

;*)


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 10, 2012)

Well put, Galin. Incidentally, under European (and therefore British) Law, Copyrights protecting Tolkien's works continue for another 31 years (the 70th anniversary of his death); and considerably longer for those edited by Christopher Tolkien. I suspect there will be a few more arguments yet.


----------



## baragund (Nov 16, 2012)

Eledhwen said:


> Copyrights protecting Tolkien's works continue for another 31 years (the 70th anniversary of his death); and considerably longer for those edited by Christopher Tolkien. I suspect there will be a few more arguments yet.



Aw, Man!! I'm going to be in my eighties by the time I get to see a film about Beren and Luthien... :*(


----------



## Thorin (Nov 17, 2012)

Well, I think it was pretty clear that The Hobbit had a lot of room to be fleshed out and changes needed to be made. I have no problems with this fleshing out as long as it is from Tolkien (appendices) of things that happened at the same time events of the Hobbit occurred but were not specifically mentioned in TH. I think this gives a cohesive structure to the history of Middle Earth in which TH only plays a part. My concern is with all the extra nonsense that PJ et. al. like to toss in there that usually takes away from Tolkien's dialogue or characters actions.

So seeing Galadariel or Saruman in there doesn't bother me so much. I'm sure they were around and if they are showing the White Council, they'd need to be in there. If they have something like Galadriel leading the war party or Saruman helping the goblins behind the scenes or something else atrocious like that, THAT is when the additions go far beyond the scope of Tolkien's narrative (Arwen at the Fords anyone?)

Ah, it's good to be back!  Hello to all my friends of the First Age of this forum!


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 19, 2012)

Thorin said:


> (Arwen at the Fords anyone?)
> 
> Ah, it's good to be back!  Hello to all my friends of the First Age of this forum!


Stop saying "Arwen at the Fords"; it brings on my condition! So does character assassination - as in making characters do and say things Tolkien would never have condoned (beheading the Mouth of Sauron, anyone?).


----------



## Prince of Cats (Nov 20, 2012)

Eledhwen said:


> Stop saying "Arwen at the Fords"; it brings on my condition! So does character assassination - as in making characters do and say things Tolkien would never have condoned (beheading the Mouth of Sauron, anyone?).



I saw a brief trailer for the movie last night ... Bilbo was ... excitedly yelling "I'm going on an Adventure!!" :*mad:


----------



## Thorin (Nov 20, 2012)

Prince of Cats said:


> I saw a brief trailer for the movie last night ... Bilbo was ... excitedly yelling "I'm going on an Adventure!!" :*mad:



Long live PJ and his 'Pj-isms'!  Not!!!


----------



## Starbrow (Nov 22, 2012)

I saw that trailer, too. That part felt wrong. I hope the rest of the movie is better.


----------



## baragund (Nov 27, 2012)

Prince of Cats said:


> I saw a brief trailer for the movie last night ... Bilbo was ... excitedly yelling "I'm going on an Adventure!!" :*mad:



I'm afraid.

It could always be worse: Bilbo could be excitedly yelling "I'm going to Disneyworld!!"


----------



## Mouth_Of_Sauron (Nov 28, 2012)

the trailers are starting to make the film look like a campy, corny harry potter. i understand the Hobbit being a children's book, but tolkien was anything but a children's writer. despite few moments of hearty song and celebration, dwarves are grim and take their mission quite seriously, not as a danger-free family romp with faeries and wizards


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 28, 2012)

Mouth_Of_Sauron said:


> the trailers are starting to make the film look like a campy, corny harry potter. i understand the Hobbit being a children's book, but tolkien was anything but a children's writer. despite few moments of hearty song and celebration, dwarves are grim and take their mission quite seriously, not as a danger-free family romp with faeries and wizards



I disagree with this a bit because 
A. Children's books can deal with serious subjects (I have actually only read three of the HP books, but I remember thinking that the third one was quite dark) even if they do give it a lighter touch.
B. It _is_ to me a children's book, and I kind of regret that it is going to be an adult sized epic instead of an easily digestible children's book. 

A lot of us were exposed to the Hobbit first as children, rather by being read to or watching the Hobbit cartoon, or just reading it on our own (I was eleven at the time, I think, but a lot of my friends had been recommending the book for some time before I actually picked it up and would've read it even younger). To me the Hobbit is a children's book. Obviously it is not danger free, but most of the great children's books aren't, and I personally believe it is going to be one of those movies that is rated PG 13 for "scenes of peril," possibly added in. I honestly would like this to be more like the Princess Bride which does have some death and scary moments (I know I always had to leave the room during the Pit of Despair scenes) but which my four-year-old enjoys watching with me. I know that isn't going to happen, and I understand that with most of the fans brought in being adults they are going to want to capitalize on the Lord of the Rings, but the Hobbit isn't just a prequel. It is a stand alone book with its own temperament which to me is important. I know I am not going to get the "Princess Bride" style Hobbit, so I'm just hoping they do Epic Hobbit well at this point.


----------



## crabby (Nov 29, 2012)

speaking as someone who loves the Hobbit, and who's been reading it repeatedly for 25 years, can i just say how much i'm looking forward to the exploding anurisms of the the 'socially different' amongst Tolkien fans when some elements of the films don't quite correspond to everything in the book.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...her-the-hobbit-is-loyal-to-book-2012112951061

my names Crabby, (hi Crabby) and i think learning made-up languages so as to be able to understand 0.0001% more of a boring song about made-up people wandering through a made-up forest is one of the saddest things ever, that the humour in the LoTR films brings blessed relief to the pofacedness (new word, i'll patent it later...) of the books, and that the Silmarillion and Children of Hurin are completely unreadable...


----------



## Prince of Cats (Nov 29, 2012)

crabby said:


> my names Crabby, (hi Crabby)


Okay, that part gave me a laugh  

I think it's equally outside reality though to assume that purists (I'll count myself among them as far as Tolkien is concerned) are "socially different," just as the term suggests that population of readers are. In my limited exposure to purists, they've been either 1.) a works-out-every-day, sportscar driving, party-going, considerably-compensated consultant or 2.) an ex-army medic, exceptionally personable, wear-a-suit-every-day medium-size business owner. To stray further from the misconception of our ranks, personally I've never considered wearing a Tolkein-inspired costume or learning to speak elvish (not that there's anything wrong with or that there aren't plenty of people deserving just as much respect as those who do). Regardless though I don't see how that behavior's all that different from less-esoteric sports fan-dom/worship and its associated behaviors.

While I understand the comedy of the piece you linked to, as far as I'm concerned it misses the point of discomfort with these movies for people like me entirely.


http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/tolkien-fans-not-arsed-whether-the-hobbit-is-loyal-to-book-2012112951061 said:


> There’s no way they’d ever sit in the audience of The Hobbit muttering ‘Bofur would never wear a jerkin like that’ in a smugly outraged voice, or tut at Ori the dwarf’s accent,


Obviously the point of the writing is to suggest otherwise and make quips at that audience. And while the fans who will inevitably be irked by such discrepancies (though I'm not sure how the accent could be argued upon) certainly have their right to be, those aren't my justified-by-the-previous-PJ-isms worries for The Hobbit films.

It's my assertion that several of the alterations Peter Jackson made to the stories and interactions in his first three Tolkien movies resulted in missing much of the mythopoeic storytelling and worth of the texts. Writers like Tolkien and E.R. Eddison were veterans of WWI - a war that largely shattered the ideas of gernamic and classical heroism in the new reality of chemical and trench warfare. The writing of these and similar authors took place during or was born out of the first two world wars alongside a mechanization of society, nature and the workplace. E.R. Eddison explicitly writes in his letters during WWII that he continues to produce his writing while Britain was under bombing by the Germans because the ideas and themes within them would, along with his volunteering, help the war effort. These books are not "ten-a-penny" as the quoted article jokes, but genuine attempts in the mythopoeic tradition. When brazen alterations are made to these stories there's the danger though that they can become just that.


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 29, 2012)

In today's world inhabited by pop stars who can't tell $ from letters and where Honey Boo-Boo and Jersey Shore are considered "entertainment" I am perfectly willing to embrace almost anything considered "socially different."

I have been on the internet long enough to recognize someone who posts with the intention of drawing an emotional response out of people (ie troll), so I'm not taking most of what Crabby has said all that seriously because generally the sort of discussion that comes out of these sorts of posts ends up being more of a test of who can be "clever" and that really never leads to anything more than a bunch of insult comics sniping at each other. 

I personally don't speak Elvish or haven't tried to learn, but I recognize the reason people do it and I don't see it as much more of a waste of time than playing solitaire or online scrabble or watching brainless tv or whatever other ways I or other people pass the time. I mean, if I had devoted all the hours I have spent watching crime procedural television to learning Elvish, I would probably speak it fluently by now and all I would've missed out on is a couple of hours worth of Horatio Cane taking off his sunglasses. Calling another person's hobby "sad" is hardly productive or constructive and really isn't the type of discussion we encourage on this forum. Saying you have other things you would feel would be a better use of a person's time is another, I suppose. I mean, the person could've spent that time volunteering for the Red Cross, after all, but for better or worse, we are only in charge of how we spend our own time. 

I can be guilty of this as well. Every season when any sort of sports is on I watch my friends expend time and emotional energy ranting and raving at televisions and I just don't get it. I guess they feel the same way when I make post after post referencing the latest episode of Doctor Who or doing whatever other socially different activities make me happy. Hopefully they give me as much grace as I give them by choosing not to rain on all their football parades or what not.

This was all addressing what Crabby said, not the article itself. As to the article, I don't find it dismissive but I also don't find it very well written. It seems to suggest that there are only two types of fans: those who will like the movies no matter what because they are well adjusted and those who are living in their parents basement foaming at the mouth because we all know there is no such thing as a middle ground and there can't be people who genuinely dislike certain changes but have the ability not to totally let it ruin their enjoyment of their favorite books. If you dislike anything or think the book is better you obviously only do so because you take it too seriously and have no life.

Of course, this is probably just another British humor thing that I am just not quite catching, cultural differences keep the world interesting, don't they?


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 30, 2012)

I have been thinking a bit about it, mostly because my daughter is watching the _Princess Bride_ right now and that is one of the few movies in existence that is actually better than the book (I've heard that _Jaws _and _The African Queen_ are two other examples of this rare phenomenon but neither are my genre and I haven't gotten around to them), and I think that the differences between Mouth of Sauron's hopes and expectations for the film and my personal hopes and expectations for the film show why a movie based on a beloved book will never please everybody. Even a detailed book leaves much to the imagination of the reader, and most books are painted with broad brush strokes rather than the detail that you need to put into a movie by default (a writer does not have to describe what the character is wearing in order for me to understand what is going on; a movie maker has to put them in something), so the chances of it being "just like" any one reader's imagination is impossible, and when readers see the book in ways as diverse as, for instance, one of use viewing it as a light hearted children's adventure and the other a grim and dark tale, there is never going to be a version that satisfies completely the desires of true fans. I still feel a little let down at Viggo Mortensen's portrayal of Aragorn because Aragorn was, to me, the most important element of the books and my own version of him is so different . . . but of course, my own version was based on my high school crush (and now husband, yay me! . . .that is off topic, but fighting my way out of the "friend zone" was a major victory in my life and I like to bring it up whenever possible) and my personal preference for strong, silent, alpha male protector types (If I hadn't married my husband I would be camped out in Miami waiting for the Burn Notice crew to come by so I could kidnap Michael Westen, and no, I don't care that he is fictional). 

This is why reading is so satisfying, because it does require imagination and lets you fill in blanks. I also think this is why Tolkien's style where characters can be very archetypal and not always completely fleshed out draws such devoted fans: because Tolkien fans are creatures with imagination who pour their souls into the unknown parts of those characters and make them what they need them to be. This is why we discuss every aspect of the books, ask questions and speculate about the parts that were left open to discussion (Tom Bombadil, the Entwives, classic unsolved mysteries of Middle Earth), not because we are obsessive (though some of us certainly can be) but because we are participants, not consumers; we are building this world in our souls and minds, putting ourselves into it, not being spoon fed a story where the details have been decided for us. The frame work was put down by Tolkien, but our hearts and minds have made it our own and every true Tolkien fan has their own Middle Earth inside of them.


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 30, 2012)

*spontaneous applause!* Beautifully put, Elgee.

Imagination is a form of reality, somewhat like memory which, as time goes on, exists in recorded form and in the mind far more than in the physical world.

The risk that The Hobbit films will jar against our own 'memories' of Middle-earth is high. But I am inexorably drawn towards all things Tolkien; and just plead with the film-makers (in the style of W B Yeats) to tread softly on my Tolkien dreams.


----------



## Mike (Dec 2, 2012)

Just popping in to compliment HLG Strider's lovely post.

And there's always the adage for trolls that pop up here (less frequently than in the heyday of this forum, but they still appear): if you don't like Tolkien's writing, why would join the _Tolkien _forum?


----------



## Prince of Cats (Dec 3, 2012)

Back to the movies ... I've seen three different short trailers now on TV and I don't believe any of the dialogue was sourced from the book. I also saw Bilbo having a sword fight with gollum - what? I'm beyond the point of taking the movies seriously anymore, which brought me to the idea: I have a new theory: The new movies are going to deviate so far from the book, at least in terms of dialogue, that it won't resemble the original enough to warrant comparison  FWIW I'm feeling like that might make it safe enough for me to view without having a stroke


----------



## baragund (Dec 4, 2012)

I'm starting to see TV commercials for the film and I'm worried. In the trailer, Bilbo was being snarky...:*( Bilbo was a lot of things but snarky is not one of them!

Elgee: Absolutely wonderful post! You accurately described why most of us Tolkien scholars love his writings so much and continue to love them over such long periods of time. Did that pour out of you spontaneously or did you have to draft, re-draft and mull it over?


----------



## HLGStrider (Dec 4, 2012)

Mostly just composed in my head/on the spot, though I think I edited some grammar errors I made in my haste to type it out. I spend 90% of my time answering an eternal string of "whys" and nonsense questions (Mom, how many hands do I have on my hand? I got that one yesterday, for example), so if I have a minute to think about something I amuse myself by composing a mini essay in my head. Hence the blogging and the ridiculous amount of Facebook status updates.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 5, 2012)

baragund said:


> Did that pour out of you spontaneously or did you have to draft, re-draft and mull it over?


Like a mega-brainy friend of mine who calls it a need to "swap out" - get stuff out of his imagination (largely for computer programming purposes in his case) onto a text.


----------



## Bucky (Dec 6, 2012)

baragund said:


> I'm starting to see TV commercials for the film and I'm worried. In the trailer, Bilbo was being snarky...:*( Bilbo was a lot of things but snarky is not one of them!



*Now why would PJ changing a character's personality surprise you?

In TLOR, we had:

Gandalf the Grey rising from the dead to become Gandalf the clueless a**hole
Elrond being a total grouch
Aragorn not wanting to be king
Merry & Pippin as foolish potheads
Gimli the fool
Gollum, the sympathetic one-time murderer
Denethor, the raving lunatic from the git go
Faramir the scumbag

Oh yes...

Sauron the Lighthouse :*rolleyes:

So, buckle your seats & enjoy the ride...

You know we all will anyhow. :*D*


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Dec 6, 2012)

LOL Bucky I was reading this and I thought of the dwarves....maybe they'll be like the munchkins from Wizard of Oz hahaha Follow the old dark road, follow the old dark road....


----------



## Bucky (Dec 7, 2012)

Well, my first impression, from the trailer only is:

Aren't those Dwarves awfully skinny compared to Gimli?
Aren't Tolkien's Dwarves supposed to be 'squatter'?
They almost look like over anorexic Elves from PJ's TLOR! 

So, let our axes fall where they may! :*mad:

BTW: How many times are you going to see it? ;*)


----------



## Sulimo (Dec 7, 2012)

> Back to the movies ... I've seen three different short trailers now on TV and I don't believe any of the dialogue was sourced from the book. I also saw Bilbo having a sword fight with gollum - what? I'm beyond the point of taking the movies seriously anymore, which brought me to the idea: I have a new theory: The new movies are going to deviate so far from the book, at least in terms of dialogue, that it won't resemble the original enough to warrant comparison  FWIW I'm feeling like that might make it safe enough for me to view without having a stroke



Awesome, I guess I should try this with the LOTR too . However, I did hear that the 3D can give headaches, but I wasn't planning on seeing it in 3D. I don't see why I should pay a couple extra bucks to have stuff come out of the screen at me. I also read a scathing review that said several scenes were merely padding that probably did not even need to be in the extended cut. It appeared that Jackson was desperate to try and stretch the first movie out for 3 hours. 

However, I am still on the fence about seeing it. I do have to admit I would like to see Ron Pearlman as Beorn, but as Prince said I think I'm worried about having a stroke. Maybe I will just try to forget everything I know before going to see the film.


----------



## HLGStrider (Dec 8, 2012)

I am admitting to a slight crush on both Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman due to their work on Sherlock (And Cumberbatch's upcoming appearance on Star Trek) that is going to drive me to see this even if it is a total mockery of everything Tolkien. Maybe disloyal but. . .but. . .but Sherlock is so awesome! I got all shivery just hearing Cumberbatch's voice in the new Star Trek trailer. Just like I do when Michael Westen informs me that he used to be a spy. . . (sexiest words on tv, "I used to be a spy.")



I really need to stop posting after sambuca. I love sambuca. It's like drinking licorice. It is so sweet and I end up thinking all sorts of things. I think my brain is a merry-go-round right now. It is going around and around but instead of carousel horses it is full of Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch and my cat and some more sambuca. Sambuca for everyone!!!


----------



## Greenwood (Dec 8, 2012)

Hi Elgee!!!

I hope you and your family are doing well.

I just dropped in to TTF for a look see. I expected there would be all sorts of angst (I am not referring to you Elgee) about the upcoming Hobbit movie. 

Having enjoyed the LOTR movies, I am willing to wait and see The Hobbit before I start worrying. I will point out to Prince of Cats that in the trailer they saw, Bilbo is not having a sword fight with Gollum. It was a very quick view, but I believe it was an orc - it was definitely not Gollum.

Greenwood


----------



## HLGStrider (Dec 8, 2012)

Greenwood said:


> Hi Elgee!!!
> 
> I hope you and your family are doing well.
> 
> ...


We are all doing well though I think there are more of us than the last time you were around (it has been awhile, but I'm not sure how long); we have two girls now instead of the one, anyway, and the newer girl is still pretty new (she'll be a year in January). Good to see you back!


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 10, 2012)

HLGStrider said:


> I am admitting to a slight crush on both Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman due to their work on Sherlock


Just watched a news feature on the BBC. Martin Freeman nearly wasn't Bilbo, as the filming clashed with the Sherlock series filming. However, PJ wanted him so much they agreed to suspend The Hobbit filming while he completed Sherlock. On the same feature, Sir Ian McKellen said they all believed they were acting in a 2-film epic; but when filming was complete, they were told there was enough material to make three films. I'm hoping this means that they are going to have far more of the book in the films; not that PJ is going to indulge his artistic licence to add stuff Tolkien would not have.


----------



## baragund (Dec 11, 2012)

@Bucky, you're right. I should have known better than to hope for a fairly close adherence to the book. One could always hope...

@Elgee, Sambuca IS tasty!! Especially on the rocks when it goes from clear to milky white...:*up I think I'll have a few before seeing this movie in 3D at 48 fps!! :*D


----------



## Sulimo (Dec 13, 2012)

I just read another review that said for fans of the book this film does not miss a semicolon. It opens with a prolonged battle of Erebor where tons of dwarves are killed by trolls in a massive battle, and I thought I don't remember that in the book. I thought a dragon came into the area, and killed everyone. I don't think the guy who wrote the review ever read the books, or maybe I am misremembering something. Hmmmmmmmm.


----------



## Bucky (Dec 14, 2012)

Sulimo said:


> I just read another review that said for fans of the book this film does not miss a semicolon. It opens with a prolonged battle of Erebor where tons of dwarves are killed by trolls in a massive battle, and I thought I don't remember that in the book. I thought a dragon came into the area, and killed everyone. I don't think the guy who wrote the review ever read the books, or maybe I am misremembering something. Hmmmmmmmm.



Maybe it's the Battle outside of Moria's East gate..

Can't spell it & too tired to look it up, but you know.. Throrin & Dain, to end the Dwarf & Goblin War.

Smaug descending on Erebor must be a tiny flashback in Bilbo's hobbit-hole.


----------



## Prince of Cats (Dec 14, 2012)

Sulimo said:


> I just read another review that said for fans of the book this film does not miss a semicolon. It opens with a prolonged battle of Erebor where tons of dwarves are killed by trolls in a massive battle, and I thought I don't remember that in the book.



That's pretty entertaining  

This reminds me of the hype and articles I read about Windows 8 before release - "The biggest development in Windows since Windows 95!!" If there truly is such a battle at Erebor (which I wouldn't be surprised one bit of from what else I've seen in trailers so far - I've seen a lot of ADDED semicolons) I'd assume this is either information poisoning from marketing contractors (film production *is* a profitable business) or journalists getting their information from such sources. There are firms who specialize in activities like search engine poisoning, ridiculing nay-sayer bloggers, spamming message boards, creating websites and articles of misinformation, etc. for clients. I know that might sound like a bit of conspiracy theory but it's a profitable business in its own right. To be honest that's what I suspected when I couldn't reach this forum (now I believe it was because the board was getting a software upgrade) for a day a couple weeks ago - forum taken down by a rogue advertiser for the movies/production company because we were speaking negatively of the films before their release.


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 15, 2012)

Prince of Cats said:


> I suspected when I couldn't reach this forum [that it had been] taken down by a rogue advertiser for the movies/production company because we were speaking negatively of the films before their release.


"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you!" (Ashleigh Brilliant)


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Dec 16, 2012)

I saw it and not to give any spoilers but the only thing at the beginning that was semi-battleish was when the Dragon showed up, giving the back story for the dwarves being booted from the Lonely Mountain. Also, for those that were worried, I can confirm there is no love scene between Galadriel and Gandalf ;*) though there is another mini-plot/scene that, while cool, wasn't in the books, appendices or any unfinished tale that I can recall, I won't reveal unless I create myself a review thread that has spoilers in it.

Oh and apparently Galadriel can now possibly teleport as well as telepathically communicate...


----------



## Mike (Dec 27, 2012)

> Oh and apparently Galadriel can now possibly teleport as well as telepathically communicate...



That would explain how the Lothlorien elves got to Helm's Deep so quickly in _The Two Towers_. 

(Elven teleportation, of course, would also explain how Elrond was able to get from Rivendell to Dunharrow in a fraction of a second)


----------



## HLGStrider (Dec 28, 2012)

It's the hidden Star Trek connection: Elves = Vulcans.


----------

