Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Announcements Posted on
  • View Poll Results: How did you find the first Hobbit film?
    Excellent
    55.90%
    Good
    31.00%
    Average
    6.55%
    Poor
    3.06%
    Awful
    3.49%

    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    It could have been time, a dislike of the scene, a change in the pacing that they didn't feel was appropriate, extra baggage that they felt wouldn't keep the story tight, any number of contextual reasons really that only the editor, director and producer would probably know.



    Yes, nearly every great scene that has ever been cut from a film has been done so for financial reasons.

    You're becoming both increasingly know-it-all (such as the above quote, where you claim to understand the reasoning behind a vast amount of editorial decisions) and ignorant (such as when you called Jamie Selkirk "your Selkirk chap" - forgive me, but I always thought it was good practice to attribute the work of someone to their name) in such a way that it's nigh-on impossible to converse with you, hence why I didn't bother addressing your last quote.
    Fine. I was a bit scathing admittedly, but it's foolish to think that the film editor decides which actors are in or out, or on major plotlines. Editors make each scene look impressive. I think you are confusing editorial and directorial roles. You also continue to ascribe meanings to me which i did not imply - for example i did not say at any point that all cuts are financial - i assumed we were discussing the existing thread of the conversation. I'm not even sure why you've picked on me in this way, there must be some misunderstanding on your part.
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    To be quite honest, I don't think faithfulness to the book should be his first priority. The Lord of the Rings films were excellent because Peter Jackson and his team had the confidence to sacrifice elements that were superfluous or would compromise the movie.
    Um, completely changing the whole issue with the dead from the Paths of the Dead was not superfluous and changing it changed the entire meaning of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

    Or how about the Scouring of the Shire? How was that superfluous? The movies were excellent, yes, but considering the book is so damn popular for a reason, Jackson should've been more true to it, especially at the end.

    And that whole Arwen bit in the second movie?! ****ing superfluous. In fact, the entire addition of her was superfluous and helped ruin parts of the movies.


    (Original post by Phalanges)
    I don't think that he would make such a decision as to split the book into two films unless he thought it would make for better films because of it. This is a director who cast a relative unknown as the lead actor in a trilogy that cost almost $300m to make. He doesn't put people into his films just so that he can advertise their placement, and it's very insulting to suggest that.
    So, why else does he have Woods, Holm, Bloom and Blanchett in them? Are you saying there is a valid reason to include them or to expand the book into two movies for unneeded material other than the promise of financial reward at the end?

    The book is loved by millions the world over and messing with the story is just silly. It doesn't need tinkered with. I'm sure the movies will be great, but that doesn't mean I can't bitch about "fixing" something that ain't broke.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Shame Guillermo del Toro is not directing. The man is awesome it would have been nice to see a different interpretation of Tolkien's world.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Auchtermuchty)
    Shame Guillermo del Toro is not directing. The man is awesome it would have been nice to see a different interpretation of Tolkien's world.
    Yes, it would have been interesting. We're all so used to seeing the "Jackson version" (it's not just him of course, but the result of the work of his whole huge team) that there is a risk it will all be just a bit too familiar and perhaps even rather boring or stale as a result of that. Time will tell.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmanottinghil)
    Yes, it would have been interesting. We're all so used to seeing the "Jackson version" (it's not just him of course, but the result of the work of his whole huge team) that there is a risk it will all be just a bit too familiar and perhaps even rather boring or stale as a result of that. Time will tell.
    I certainly agree that there is a risk it could be stale if Jackson fails to differentiate clearly between the style of Lotr and the Hobbit. I personally believe the Hobbit is far more childlike and magical in substance. Talking spiders, dragons, men who turn into bears... it certainly merits a totally different approach which would have been far easier to create with del Toro.

    The cast is looking quite good. The chap who plays Kili was very good in the BBC series 'Being Human'. Could have done without Fry though... I don't mind the addition of the lady elf, who has to be said looks quite pretty, as long as they don't put any made up romance in. Sceptical as to the need of some characters Frodo ect to create a link with Lotr. It just doesn't bode well to setting up films of contrasting style.

    Seeing their interpretation of the necromancer and Radagast will be my highlights
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Auchtermuchty)

    Seeing their interpretation of the necromancer and Radagast will be my highlights
    Me too! Not having more of Radagast and the other Istari always made me feel a little sad when reading LOTR - i longed to know what they were like, where they lived, etc. Radagast always sounded like a really decent type.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmanottinghil)
    Me too! Not having more of Radagast and the other Istari always made me feel a little sad when reading LOTR - i longed to know what they were like, where they lived, etc. Radagast always sounded like a really decent type.
    Have you read "Unfinished Tales"? I think there is something there. My copy is upstairs and I cba right now but yeah, check that.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Lyceum)
    Have you read "Unfinished Tales"? I think there is something there. My copy is upstairs and I cba right now but yeah, check that.
    Oh cool, thanks for the info. I remember he lived at Tharbad or was it on the borders of Mirkwood? Something like that.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmanottinghil)
    Oh cool, thanks for the info. I remember he lived at Tharbad or was it on the borders of Mirkwood? Something like that.
    Hm I can't remember actually. I did like Radagast and I know the appendices/UT furnishes extra information on the Istari in general, like what happened to the two Blue wizards dun dun dun!!

    This thread makes me want to re-read the Tolkien corpus. If only I had time...
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Lyceum)
    Hm I can't remember actually. I did like Radagast and I know the appendices/UT furnishes extra information on the Istari in general, like what happened to the two Blue wizards dun dun dun!!

    This thread makes me want to re-read the Tolkien corpus. If only I had time...
    Yes - if only! A spare two years just to devote to Tolkers, how lovely that would be!

    I'd forgotten the Blue Wizards, they sound interesting too. I know some wizard or wizards were "emissaries to the East", perhaps it was them.

    I once read a hilarious mock-academic paper about the "Economy of Middle Earth", which had lots of critiques in it, like for example how come the Shire is so non-organised yet apparently has a Central Bank (it has money, a post office, etc) and how the Palantiri represent an under-utilised Economic Good (they could have been used for example to arrange trades or the Spot Price for Mithril) and how Mordor's communism was always going to fail against free-market Gondor, so no need for the war.
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    How are they fitting Radagast into The Hobbit? He doesn't appear, but rather is only mentioned as far as I can remember.

    The two Blues disappeared into the East, yes.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Oh my god! Not too sure if I'd bother to see the film, but I loved the book. I had the one with all the pictures. :teeth:
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    How are they fitting Radagast into The Hobbit? He doesn't appear, but rather is only mentioned as far as I can remember.

    The two Blues disappeared into the East, yes.
    He gets a mention in both the Hobbit and LOTR. I think it says somewhere in Tolkien's letters that he always meant to make Radagast more of a character and he liked the sound of him, so i suppose there is some literary justification from that.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    How are they fitting Radagast into The Hobbit? He doesn't appear, but rather is only mentioned as far as I can remember.

    The two Blues disappeared into the East, yes.
    They're including the attack on Dol Guldur by the White Council so it makes sense for him to be there. He also lived right next door to the place for some crazy reason so they can fit him in there too.

    (Original post by Hylean)
    So, why else does he have Woods, Holm, Bloom and Blanchett in them?
    Bloom is in it because he is mentioned in the book just not by name, Blanchet is also part of the White Council and Wood, well I suppose it helps to make the Hobbit and the Trilogy feel part of the same story.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Is anybody else disappointed by the look of the Dwarves? I know having spent the vast majority of my life around swords and various forms of swordplay have given me skewed expectations now and then but I hate how cartoonish their gear looks. I mean LOTR didn't exactly set a high standard, but ok, as I got older I started to imagine them as sort of Landschneckts (sp) only armed with small axes and arming swords.

    I also can't wait to see Thorin.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Lyceum)
    Is anybody else disappointed by the look of the Dwarves? I know having spent the vast majority of my life around swords and various forms of swordplay have given me skewed expectations now and then but I hate how cartoonish their gear looks. I mean LOTR didn't exactly set a high standard, but ok, as I got older I started to imagine them as sort of Landschneckts (sp) only armed with small axes and arming swords.
    Eh? I thought that was one of the things LOTR did really well. Decorative but functional for the most part. Landschneckts would be completely the wrong period imo and if we're honest they look pretty goofy.
    (Original post by The Lyceum)
    I also can't wait to see Thorin.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Logi)
    Eh? I thought that was one of the things LOTR did really well. Decorative but functional for the most part. Landschneckts would be completely the wrong period imo and if we're honest they look pretty goofy.
    Functional? Not at all they look for the most part like random fantasy blades imo. I also don't understand why they refer to the "bladesmiths" at WETA as such, I've handled some of the more expensive replicas of their swords and they feel completely different to all the actual period pieces and better modern made swords.

    Aragorn's looked good, basic, functional looking but most of them turned out looking like wallhangers I think.

    You're right, wrong period but I was just throwing that out there in general to get my idea across in regards to gear. I suppose something like Saxon or Frankish would be better suited. I didn't mean in regards to fluffy pants etc lool.

    I don't supposed you've ever read the old graphic novel version of the Hobbit have you? I loved the look of there Dwarves there...
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Lyceum)
    Is anybody else disappointed by the look of the Dwarves? I know having spent the vast majority of my life around swords and various forms of swordplay have given me skewed expectations now and then but I hate how cartoonish their gear looks. I mean LOTR didn't exactly set a high standard, but ok, as I got older I started to imagine them as sort of Landschneckts (sp) only armed with small axes and arming swords.

    I also can't wait to see Thorin.
    The dwarves strike me as very Klingon for some reason, and I don't like it. They just don't seem Tolkien to me.

    The dwarves, especially with their Norse names, have always struck me as a mixture of Scandinavians from the Viking era and Jews.


    (Original post by emmanottinghil)
    He gets a mention in both the Hobbit and LOTR. I think it says somewhere in Tolkien's letters that he always meant to make Radagast more of a character and he liked the sound of him, so i suppose there is some literary justification from that.
    So he goes from a mention, with very little characterisation, to a full-blown character? There's no justification for that, not really. I mean, they might be using the info in Unfinished Tales, but that can't really be considered "canon" in regards to characters or even plot points.


    (Original post by Logi)
    They're including the attack on Dol Guldur by the White Council so it makes sense for him to be there. He also lived right next door to the place for some crazy reason so they can fit him in there too.
    Assuming Radagast took an active part in the attack. He is described as having abandoned his quest in favour of looking after animals and plants. Even his message from Saruman to Gandalf was considered a burden. I don't really see him being there.


    (Original post by Logi)
    Bloom is in it because he is mentioned in the book just not by name, Blanchet is also part of the White Council and Wood, well I suppose it helps to make the Hobbit and the Trilogy feel part of the same story.
    Legolas isn't in the book at all. Don't talk crap.

    Galadriel may be part of the White Council, but she's nothing to do with Mirkwood. Obviously, if they're dealing with the attack on Dol Guldur, they can include her, but that part is only alluded to in The Hobbit, which is half the point. It's not relevant to the story, not even for a Lord of the Rings tie-up. The two books are popular precisely because Tolkien mentions happenings elsewhere and doesn't clarify, it gives the notion of depth. Jackson is robbing the tales of that depth and needlessly complicating the narrative by including all these extra details.

    As for making them feel part of the same story, no one has ever complained about such things with the books.

    Like I said before, it's all about getting more money at the end of the day.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    The dwarves strike me as very Klingon for some reason, and I don't like it. They just don't seem Tolkien to me.
    I knew there was something I didn't like but I couldn't put my finger on it. Thats exactly it!
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Assuming Radagast took an active part in the attack. He is described as having abandoned his quest in favour of looking after animals and plants. Even his message from Saruman to Gandalf was considered a burden. I don't really see him being there.
    I could see him being involved if only because the necromancer is messing things up for his squirrels but even if he's not directly involved in the attack he lived right on the border of mirkwood and would have had valuable intel for the council.
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Legolas isn't in the book at all. Don't talk crap.
    He's Thranduils son. The dwarves are in his caves for quite a while so it seems plausable enough that they might see each other there. If not then every elf in the area is involved in the battle of five armies including Thranduil so I don't think it's unreasonable for him to make an appearance there either. As long as he's not skateboarding on a shield this time I don't see the issue with him making a cameo.
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Galadriel may be part of the White Council, but she's nothing to do with Mirkwood. Obviously, if they're dealing with the attack on Dol Guldur, they can include her, but that part is only alluded to in The Hobbit, which is half the point. It's not relevant to the story, not even for a Lord of the Rings tie-up.
    I disagree. While it works in the books I do think it would seem strange for the audience if Gandalf just buggered off for one of the most dangerous sections of their journey without any explanation.
    (Original post by Hylean)
    As for making them feel part of the same story, no one has ever complained about such things with the books.
    Books and films are quite different. I expect most people who go to see the films won't even have read them so having tie-ins is going to be important for them.
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Like I said before, it's all about getting more money at the end of the day.
    Of course moneys important but I would still rather they make two films and include as much of the canon as they can than try to squash everything into one film.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: January 15, 2013
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Useful resources

Articles:

TSR wiki film section

Quick link:

Unanswered film threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.