The One Ring
http://wap.one-ring.co.uk/

Hobbit Movie news
http://wap.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16165		 Page 3 of 4
Author:  DM [ Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:28 am ]
Post subject: 
Their talking about doing it in 3D now!
Author:  Ukfreddybear [ Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:30 am ]
Post subject: 
I was afraid that would happen. 3D is the latest craze it seems, although I can't stand it. Two and a half hours wearing those silly glasses gives me a right headache.

It'll be the 2D version for me.
Author:  General Elessar [ Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sir Spamalot wrote:
tirno.alyanorno wrote:
General Elessar wrote:
Selorian wrote:
I'm really looking forward to the Hobbit films however, I would feel a little more comfortable if it was Peter Jackson directing.



Peter Jackson? He didn't do a good job directing LotR. But perhaps that is a little harsh...

I'm afraid you're probably in a minority of one with that opinion.


I gotta agree. I think Jackson brought across Tolkeins world brilliantly!


I think you'll find most devoted Tolkien fans agree with. I'll admit PJ did a good job, but it could of been much better if the films had agreed with the books more.
Author:  Lord Hurin [ Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
General Elessar wrote:
I think you'll find most devoted Tolkien fans agree with. I'll admit PJ did a good job, but it could of been much better if the films had agreed with the books more.


I consider myself a "devoted Tolkien fan" and I've read most of his Middle-earth related works. I still think PJ did an excellent job.

Could the films' story have been more true to the books? Absolutely, but perhaps not without losing some of their appeal to Joe Public.

Could the props, costumes and weapons have been more true to the books? Sure, but 99% of the stuff was accurate and all of it was beautiful. A lot of Tolkienites harp on the few gaffes. Aragorn, Boromir and Faramir were said not to have beards, Gondorian soldiers wore plate armour, Cirdan didn't have a beard. Those were little nagging things at the back of my mind, but I didn't let them ruin the films for me as some other people allowed.

Elves at Helm's Deep; did I like it? Not really. I don't think there was enough time in the films to go into the entire history of the Elven race and why they were not meddling in the affairs of Middle-earth anymore. Certainly not enough time to make it understandable to an average movie-goer.

The thing we can't forget about those movies or these upcoming ones is that they have to appeal to a broad range of people, otherwise they'll fall flat. Each of the LoTR films and each of The Hobbit ones could easily be in the 4-5 hour range if the books were followed exactly. Heavy voiceovers and narration would be required and millions more dollars would need to be spent. In the end, no one wants to sit in a cinema for 5 hours. Enough people complained about the "slowness" of Fellowship. :roll:
Author:  whafrog [ Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Lord Hurin wrote:
I consider myself a "devoted Tolkien fan" and I've read most of his Middle-earth related works. I still think PJ did an excellent job.


I think he did an amazing job visually. Where it fell down (IMHO) is when they tried sooo hard to include lines from the book, often shuffling where the lines were said and who said them...it was most ridiculous in TTT. Speaking for the female members of my family, they could have used less battles and more intense dialog. And I have to admit, at this point I just fast forward some of the battle stuff...it's really boring by now. We could have lost 15 minutes of Helm's Deep, and gained a better understanding of the history...and it wouldn't have needed to be dry and boring, it could easily have played into the story. Example:

In the book, Aragorn looks into the Palantir, contests with Sauron, and wrests control of it. That's how he learns of the corsairs attack, but that's also why Sauron attacks sooner than he would have. Similar scenes would have made the movie a lot richer.

As for narration...what was wrong with the very opening scene, the last alliance, the ring, isildur, etc? That was exciting, tense, informative, all in one. I could handle more of that, interspersed.
Author:  General Elessar [ Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Lord Hurin wrote:
General Elessar wrote:
I think you'll find most devoted Tolkien fans agree with. I'll admit PJ did a good job, but it could of been much better if the films had agreed with the books more.


I consider myself a "devoted Tolkien fan" and I've read most of his Middle-earth related works. I still think PJ did an excellent job.

Could the films' story have been more true to the books? Absolutely, but perhaps not without losing some of their appeal to Joe Public.

Could the props, costumes and weapons have been more true to the books? Sure, but 99% of the stuff was accurate and all of it was beautiful. A lot of Tolkienites harp on the few gaffes. Aragorn, Boromir and Faramir were said not to have beards, Gondorian soldiers wore plate armour, Cirdan didn't have a beard. Those were little nagging things at the back of my mind, but I didn't let them ruin the films for me as some other people allowed.

Elves at Helm's Deep; did I like it? Not really. I don't think there was enough time in the films to go into the entire history of the Elven race and why they were not meddling in the affairs of Middle-earth anymore. Certainly not enough time to make it understandable to an average movie-goer.

The thing we can't forget about those movies or these upcoming ones is that they have to appeal to a broad range of people, otherwise they'll fall flat. Each of the LoTR films and each of The Hobbit ones could easily be in the 4-5 hour range if the books were followed exactly. Heavy voiceovers and narration would be required and millions more dollars would need to be spent. In the end, no one wants to sit in a cinema for 5 hours. Enough people complained about the "slowness" of Fellowship. :roll:


In general, I agree with all that. However, I'll give a few examples about what I meant about not following the book.

Frodo dismissing Sam before entering Shelob's Lair was wrong. Frodo would never have done that, and even if he had Sam was too loyal to Frodo to abandon him.

Faramir was portrayed in the films as, well, weak. In the books he figures out for himself that Frodo had the Ring, but in the films he tortures Gollum into telling him. Also, in the book he turns back to rescue his men during the retreat from Osgiliath; this doesn't happen in the films.

In the films, right from the start, Denethor is crazy. In the books he doesn't really go crazy at all, he just falls victim to his pride.
Author:  Jamros [ Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'd say for the most part PJ did an amazing job with LotR. He actually did a better job IMO with the entire character of Gollum.

However, as mentioned, there were some things I would have preferred not to have seen altered. The elves didn't need to show up at Helm's Deep. Arwen was in TTT a little too much. Sam should not have been sent home. Boromir, Faramir, and Denethor were handled well, but they were so obvious in the films that they sort of lacked depth; I like their respective characters quite a lot in both medias (I love the theme of failure, redemption) but the book 'versions' are better. I wish the Grey Company had shown up in the movie; the impact of the victory at Pelennor is undermined when a horde of unbeatable dead slaughter your enemies. Scenes like the Scouring and Tom Bombadil were missed but understandably absent.

I have very high expectations for The Hobbit, very high. They've made three films of the like, so the fourth should be stupendous. But is it really going to be 3D? I'm already disappointed by Ian Holm's absence (one of my pet peeves is the replacement of actors, and in this case, Holm appeared in that prologue scene and was described by Gandalf as to have not "aged a day", but with his age its understood), but I hope the significance of such a great piece of literature isn't undermined by unecessary ploys at grasping audiences.
Author:  Dorthonion [ Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
A snippet from Gandalf himself:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/18/hobbit_update/

Wonder if they would need a Looney for the cast? I'm their man!
Author:  theOneRider [ Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
PJ did a very good job. My only complaint is that I felt he hammed it up a bit in a few places in ROTK, though maybe that couldn't be helped. :roll:
Author:  General Elessar [ Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Jamros wrote:
Arwen was in TTT a little too much.


Arwen was in the whole thing far too much. Ditching her and having Glorfindel find Strider and the hobbits would have been much cooler. And the whole thing about the Evenstar doesn't happen in the books at all.
Author:  spuds4ever [ Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Can't wait for it to come out! :D Will they still be using Ian Holm?
Author:  CaptainOfTheWolfRiders [ Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
spuds4ever wrote:
Can't wait for it to come out! :D Will they still be using Ian Holm?


No. They are casting a new (younger) actor for him, which I personally endorse. Bilbo should look younger in the Hobbit, and Ian Holm is 10 years older now than when he was when he filmed LotR.
Author:  Jamros [ Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
CaptainOfTheWolfRiders wrote:
spuds4ever wrote:
Can't wait for it to come out! :D Will they still be using Ian Holm?


No. They are casting a new (younger) actor for him, which I personally endorse. Bilbo should look younger in the Hobbit, and Ian Holm is 10 years older now than when he was when he filmed LotR.


Ah, but see, the ring maintained his age, so he should actually look the same. Ian Holm was in the portion of the prologue scene that pertained to The Hobbit. I understand why they are going to replace him, though it disappoints me.
Author:  spuds4ever [ Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Same :(
Author:  chulupe [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:17 am ]
Post subject: 
i just hope this isn't as big of a let down as modern warfare 2 ( gamer humor). seriously the movie sounds pretty cool. i'm getting a vibe of smaug's fire breath coming out of the screen.
Author:  mitch_rohan [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:17 am ]
Post subject: 
at the time of the hobbit bilbo wouldve been around 58 to 60 years of age at the time so i dont want to see some 20 year old playing bilbo, i think a well talented older british actor should take the part. i think some of the hardest parts would be finding some more actors for the dwarves
Author:  Longbottom Leaf [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:42 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes, but Hobbit life spans are different then ours. Although he may be in his 50s at the time of the Hobbit, that is actually equivalent to a 30 year old in our human life spans.
Author:  BilboOfTheWhiteTower [ Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
mitch_rohan wrote:
at the time of the hobbit bilbo wouldve been around 58 to 60 years of age at the time...

51
Author:  DM [ Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
A little update on the hobbiton set building with a nice pic from our local news website.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/fi ... rning-home
Author:  Shortshanks [ Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:44 am ]
Post subject: 
Building Hobbiton all over again? Such a waste of money. Why didn't they keep the old one? You mean to tell me that 10 years ago they had no idea that they would be raking in billions of dollars and might have needed the set for the obligatory sequels. Ay, ay ay. Such shortsightedness. :roll:

Man, I still vividly remember seeing the grainy, low-quality pics that were leaked from the first Hobbiton all those years ago. Boy, did I feel giddy then.
Page 3 of 4 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/