Frankly I don't really care why they're making three movies so long as all of them are really good.

I just re-watched the new trailer and something that jumped out at me was all the footage of Gollum talking to Bilbo. That's definitely not in the first quarter of the book. I wonder how they're going to jump around chronologically between three movies.

An interesting solution would be to have craploads of historical scenes intertwined with the story, thus making it possible to include stuff from distant past and to devilishly cleverly dilute the meagre story to considerable lengths. There will probably never be a Silmarillion movie, mostly due to the lack of a coherent story in the book, so putting that stuff here would be a brilliant stroke.

The story of Beren and Luthien would make a wonderful movie, though.

Honestly, I think it's both. While obviously money is a big factor and surely an incentive to stretch out the movies, I'm sure the film makers are passionate about Tolkien lore for real and aren't just cynical "mwah hah hah $$$". They're probably misguided as hell, though, much like Benioff and Weiss (who are also, in truth, often very incompetent writers).

Given the writing on LOTR's movies, my hopes are not exactly high; they had the books to just adapt them on scripts and made some terrible decisions changing, omitting and underdeveloping stuff to make the whole story easier to digest (for the non readers), now they will write completely off their own minds what Tolkien didn't? no, thanx.



What sounds more logical is to get the book, make it just like they did the trilogy enhancing the battles, leaving some minor but crucial stuff aside, chaning some interactions of the characters to fit the 'standard fantasy film', etc and they said: we can make more $$ making 2 movies. Then, they had the idea of including stuff that it's barely mentioned, just to make another trilogy, which means tons of money. Speculations.

Oh, but Christopher Lee is on it, hopefully he'll guide them well.

Also, expect the normal edition of each movie in dvd, the expanded one in dvd, the normal one in blu-ray, the expanded one in blu-ray, as well as the tons of special/deluxe boxes with it, besides the bulk of merchandising off it. Even we might get some LOTR condoms with gandalf saying 'you shall not pass'.

I thought they did a pretty good job in the commentaries of the extended edition explaining why they made certain changes, especially as it relates to how certain things would work on the printed page but just couldn't/wouldn't work in film.

I think people that complain about the LOTR trilogy's shortcomings for the reasons they do need to get their heads out of their asses. So they didn't follow the books as accurately as they good have, neither did the Shining. LOTR is no Shining, but at worst it is far, far better and engaging than most of the high-budget mass produced films of its scale. Besides, maybe I'm naive, but having closely followed the production journals for the Hobbit and the equivalent for the LOTR I have concluded that Peter Jackson and his kiwi team really are inspired by the source material and do put in a lot of work and heart into adapting the magical middle earth that we've all fallen in love with. It's still an industry, but I think Jackson holds a lot of credibility as a filmmaker. Just read about his early career, how he made Bad Taste on a zero budget, spending years to make all the props and to film by himself just out of love for filmmaking. Again, maybe I'm naive, but that shows a lot of ambition and I doubt Hollywood and New Line Cinema have transformed him into a cash-glutton.

Braindead, man. Braindead.

This... If they couldn't even adapt shit well I sure as hell wouldn't trust them with new material. Prepare for pain.



Mm, not a chance, but maybe we'll get some Charlemagne during the end credits

I think you need to pull your head out of your ass and re-read the post where I addressed this same canard on the last page.

You just hate the movies because they're different!!!1

Oh, I bet you hate Slipknot cause they're popular too!

The majority of the changes in the movies were for the better and help in the translation between book to film. Do you guys really wanna sit through a Tom Bombadil section? I know I wouldn't.

I read your post. That's the second time you have to tell someone to re-read it, and that's a silly counter-argument. I could now tell you to re-read my own post, but this time skip past the admittedly uncalled for insult (for which I apologize) because having read it you must have not taken the rest seriously.

I may be wrong in my assumption here, but I can tell how much attention you gave the films with your comment about the score, which is far from being only variations of the same two themes. Also, you are of course entitled to your opinions, the music being too melodramatic one of them, but I think most would agree that war and the potential enslavement of the world by evil calls for some melodramatic music

Now that Batman has come and gone, this is my most anticipated movie for 2012 (actually, it's the only movie I'm anticipating in 2012, at this point). I really enjoyed the LOTR trilogy, though my favorite was certainly the first one, and I'll never understand why they made Faramir covet the ring, as it was totally unnecessary for the story. But I like them for what they are: super-entertaining, beautifully epic movies. That said, I'm surprised the Hobbit is going to be three movies. I had originally heard it would be two, which makes a lot more sense to me. I think with three movies, they'll have to add in all sorts of nonsense that wasn't in the book; however, I assume it will be good fun, and if I'm dying to take in the original story, I'll just reread the book (which I actually did a few months ago; it's still awesome).

I agree with this. I have a *little* more interest in The Hobbit simply because it was originally written as a children's book, but LOTR was written as not only a story for adults, but Tolkien intended it to be a modern-day fairytale. He even said in his letters that he wanted it to be a continuation of the English-language literature that pieces such as Beowulf started and seemed to have been largely lost, while other Germanic cultures are much more connected with their folk stories. It wasn't intended as a movie, and you can't make it into one, regardless of how many awards the adaptations won. The LANGUAGE was totally lost. Tolkien spent YEARS perfecting the language in those books - every word was carefully crafted and you just can't recreate that in a popular movie in the year 2000, no matter how noble your intentions.

Basically, I'll give The Hobbit a chance because there's less for Peter Jackson to misunderstand and fuck up

I hadn't seen this reply until I posted my own, but I have to say this: no offence intended whatsoever, but you need to be an educated, native English speaker (or so close to it that it's not funny) to understand what Tolkien was doing. You can read the stories and fall in love with them, but that's only the half of it. There's a whole other dimension to his writing that flies over the heads of most (including Peter Jackson) and the adaptations lose that half. I hate sounding like such a snob, but that's the crux of it for me.

^Totally in agreement on this. The vast majority of Shakespeare productions suck ass for more or less the exact same reasons. Plus terrible direction...plus terrible acting...plus terrible casting.

I agree with you. Jackson removing events like the scouring of the shire or tweaking the friendship of Legolas and Gimli into comic relief really stripped the story of it's most central themes, removing this dimension you speak of and turning it into a very watered-down version. The one I was personally most bothered by was Frodo pushing Gollum into the crack as opposed to him falling off accidentally.

But you must understand, it's still a terrific trilogy that succeeds in doing what it tries to. A more faithful adaptation would make far too long a movie (you cannot develop EVERY character--Faramir could never be more than a supporting character in a film, hence the houses of healing were rightfully omitted). There just was no way for a film to do the novels justice, the entire language Tolkien created as you mentioned being a prime example. This doesn't mean an adaptation never should have happened! I still reacted emotionally to the scene right before Frodo and Sam are rescued by the eagles, I felt the camaraderie of the fellowship and the wind blew in my hair during the majestic shots of the lighting of the beacons. From the filmmaking standpoint, I feel the movies excelled in every department.



Is that directed at the LOTR? I thought direction, acting and casting especially were excellent!
As far as Shakespearean productions go, I don't know how you could say that since most adaptations' scripts are identical to the plays... The only reason why they may not always work is because I strongly believe you cannot capture 'that' dimension of a piece of literature in a visual medium (and vice versa). I just can't appreciate Macbeth when I watch a film and I'm sure a novelization of Sucker Punch would never work either.

It's like you almost get it, but hold yourself back for unknown reasons. That's what I was saying earlier. They reinterpreted the story by taking all the central themes and excising or inverting them where necessary to fit a standard hollywood action/soap opera mold.

"But they're still superb films! Surely that wasn't a bad decision that makes them inferior to what a less interpretive effort or (forbid) an actually creative interpretation could have resulted in!" Such is logic I do not understand. "At least they achieved their goal of watering down everything poignant and producing a script that fits in perfectly with everything else they put out!"

Er, Starmere? You know Shake Spear's plays were originally written to be visual theater with actors and all... right?

Anyway, the stuff about inspiring the right feelings isn't much for me either. Inspiring feelings isn't hard. You can inspire feelings of camaraderie in the audience by filming the cast hanging out after filming and shooting the shit. Feelings are things which we all understand intuitively and can be easily stimulated and called upon. However, expressing more complex things through the nuance of the narrative like the novels do or a good interpretation would is not so easy. Whoever wrote the script and directed these films did not attempt this so they merit no meaningful praise, especially considering how easy it should have been with the source material they were using.

I get it and I get your point of view. We differ in that I don't necessarily feel I have to judge the film based on how faithful an adaptation it is. From the point that the writers and director didn't attempt to express the complex things you speak of, I judge it from a different standpoint. No one lashes out at Chris Nolan for taking the concept of Batman and doing fuck all he pleases with it. Granted, the certain elements of the source material he omits he replaces and compensates for with his own complex artistic vision, but in the end the LOTR films compensate with the epic visual experience that is exactly what they set out to deliver. In many ways they feel like you're watching the story of the LOTR in the children's book tone of the Hobbit. You think that I am shallow because I am apparently lowering my standards and letting myself be entertained by a watered-down production, but in reality I am taking an entirely different approach to a film that took an entirely different approach. No, not the Transformers "it's just a popcorn flick, I came here for the explosions" approach--I honestly think that the films triumphed in telling a story and delivering it through a spectacular visual (and in many ways emotional) experience.This relates to the part about 'inspiring feelings'. I didn't mean it on such a basic level. By the third film I felt all the suffering the hobbits went through to finally make it into the belly of the beast, and by it's end I really got the impression of an 'epic' trilogy. It connected with the audience, it was engaging, what else can I say? This is what I got from it when I left the theater. Plus, you need to give credit where credit is due regarding the score. This you cannot deny.

Sorry it's all one paragraph, it's just chain of thought.

I live in Wellington where these films are made and know about 5 people who work out at the studio in various positions from concept art, to IT, to props. Apparently shit there is super hectic and deadlines are running over a lot there at the moment. They've just hired another 50 people out there to get some major deadlines done. Apparently the atmosphere out there is pretty stressful right now. Personally, i have no interest in the film itself.

It was more directed at Shakespeare films/theatre productions, but I'm sure LotR could've used better in all three of those departments. You know...it takes more than actors looking the part to make up a cast of convincing characters.



Sure. That's essentially what I'm saying. It's not much more than the typical "the books are better than the movies" spiel, because that's really just the way thing tend to be, though in Tolkien's case there are even more layers of subtlety and grandeur and incredibly special essence that films like these can't hope to capture.



Why yes, John. I did happen to know that. But that doesn't much change the fact that many, many, MANY Shakespeare productions fall pitifully short of portraying and transmitting all that the writing itself contains. In the course of studying Shakespeare years ago, I came to realize that the writing, the poetry itself, was really where it was at with The Speare, and that I got immensely more enjoyment out of simply reading his works than watching a cast of mediocre actors limp through their three acts with all the comprehension of a tavern swab in a tailor's shop. Not to say that an awesome Shakespeare production isn't conceivably possible, but the complex beauty of the poetry immeasurably outstrips the apparent capabilities of those that undertake to do justice to it (a fact which might well have been a great source of amusement to Shakespeare himself during his time). And I feel the same goes for Tolkien.

Do you actually think his first name is 'Shake' and his last name is 'Spear' or was that just a mistake?

When I read the books all the main characters are three dimensional, when I watch the films they are only two (a picture paints a thousand words?).
Maybe this is why films sometimes disappoint.


The film score; Summoning would've been much more interesting and varied (less dirge like throughout).

Sheesh, alright. Let's agree to disagree, I think both sides have exhausted their points of view. I for one am looking forward to the Hobbit, though not as much as I was a couple of months ago.

I'm not saying you are a bad person, poisonfume, just that they made schlock. It's ok to like that and I like a lot of that kind of thing myself, but in this particular case I don't like it. There's no point in trying to talk around the fundamental fact of the films' schlockiness.

mindshadow, what the hell are you talking about?

Huh did you confuse me with John Sunlight?

Schlock(Holmes) and Shake Spear

Spoiler: show

go on, say yes

Paintings & Drawings by Tolkien,
http://www.youtube.com/v/UZYxuA2hrAg

The only way they could make the silmarillion bearable is if Morgan Freeman narrated it (all 15 hours of it).. I tried to read that book back in 4th grade (back when I was huge into that kinda stuff) and got about halfway through and never touched it again. it's sorta like the Bible of Middle Earth... but more believable.

No. I'm not excited. I feel like the movies drained much of the imagination of the the characters and setting I had when I read the books. Although it looks like The Hobbit is doing much better, I just don't understand the hype over the LOTR movies. I feel like they are so under-par with the literature. I think I'll pass.

No worries dude, I didn't misunderstand. Just a sensible exchange of opinions.
Pic relevant

Oh c'mon dude, that's a huge exaggeration and you know it. Many of the central themes were still quite intact, such as - 1) trying to control people being inherently wrong, even if it's for good reasons (mainly seen through Saruman vs. Gandalf, also Boromir); 2) the bond forged between people in prolonged adverse conditions (such as war) being the strongest sort of personal bond there is, transcending class boundaries (mainly seen through Frodo and Samwise, keeping in mind that class distinctions were extremely important in England, especially back then, but also seen to some extent through Frodo and Gollum - Samwise only sees a wretched, twisted creature, while Frodo sees a certain kinship with him as a fellow ringbearer); 3) despair never being the proper response to a bad situation, but also that it's never too late to take up arms again (Theoden shaking off his grief over his son's death and Wormtongue's manipulations and riding to war, while Denethor succumbs to the grief over his son's death, sinking into madness and committing suicide).

It's true that some of the themes were lost due to cuts, such as the Scouring of the Shire, but to claim that none of them made it or were even inverted is just ridiculous.

Huh... I wonder how Tom, Bert, and William Huggins will be depicted in The Hobbit since all the LOTR movie trolls were a tad retarded. Unless wild trolls are different than Sauron's stock.

Finally reinforcements to the films' defense! I was all "Where was Gondor when John_Sunlight closed in around us? Where was Gon..."

@VoidApostle
I've forgotten where, maybe it was in one of the production journals, but footage of the trolls have been released and they have thick English accents, Cockney or whatever.

Regarding the previous trilogy:


To be perfectly honest, I thought the films were better films than the book was a book. It is entirely expected (and often appropriate) to criticize a film adaptation of a literary piece for changing certain aspects of the story, whether they be plot-related or thematic in nature. It is another thing entirely to then use that criticism to hold up the written work as superior or (dare I say) a flawlessly sharp pinnacle of the form, or the genre. I don't know that the film critics necessarily do it in that order, but rather start their tirade against the film on the pretext that the written work is beyond critique. In the case of LOTR, it isn't.

Tolkien's strength as a writer was in plot and more specifically history (the prologue of plot). His weakness was filling in the details, and his curse in that regard was characters. I enjoyed the twists and turns of the overarching world story as it unfolded but I never cared about most of the characters within, which is a far cry from the films. There were certain characters in the books that I acutely hated (that dancing, prancing, and altogether obnoxious idiot Tom) and others whose behavior seemed unlikely to me (Faramir), and others who seemed a little unnecessary (Faramir, again---obviously I think his film counterpart was an improvement). As for detail in general, Tolkien had this unfathomable urge to describe in detail every passing shrub that Frodo and Sam accidentally brushed up against for every one of the 700 miles they walked to Orodruin. I expect to be able to fill in some of that detail on my own when reading rather than have it shown in front of me by the author; that’s what film directors do, not authors. The films…well, a picture paints a thousand words and Jackson gave me a good idea how big the story is with just a few frames. And for that matter, Jackson implied a lot more detail than he or his special effects team is given credit for. The murals on the walls of Edoras, for example, tell the story of the foundation of Rohan. Ditto some of the decorations in Minas Tirith. It’s not like Jackson and co. were deaf to all of the details in the book, they just didn’t dwell on them.

There are other issues as well, and some criticisms of the films merit discussion. Generally though, I felt Jackson did a pretty damn good job. And I won’t countenance any criticism of the film score either, which was basically 12 hours of flawlessness.




Regarding the upcoming trilogy:

I’m excited but tempering my expectations somewhat. For one thing, the Hobbit is an entirely different type of story. I’ve said it here, I’ve said it on other forums, I’ve said it in real life and I’ve been saying it all these places for years: LOTR is a story about preventing the end of the world, global enslavement, and a Holocaust for all who resist; The Hobbit is a story about thirteen midgets and an old geezer going on a treasure hunt. I know reductionism on this scale is tantamount to parody, but boiling down the prequel even beyond that silliness reveals a children’s story. We can argue that the real purpose of the hunt is to set the forces of good on the chess board, to prepare them for what lies ahead, but there is no indication of this in the book itself because Tolkien intended it to be a stand-alone children’s story, and had no intention of fitting it into the broader story of what became LOTR.

What does this mean for the new trilogy? Jackson has already stated it will be more lighthearted than the last one, which is to be expected. I find that reasonable given the constraints of the story, but I'm sure it will be somewhat annoying to watch in a theater at times. Perhaps the third installment will have more of a serious tone to set the stage, but that raises the question of how he will make it seem like its own trilogy. It seems a tall order though.

And speaking of tall orders: they didn’t say anything about three films until a few weeks ago. They had said for years prior to that it would be two films. This is clearly a cash-grab effort on the studio’s part and it is troubling that Jackson went along with it.

On the plus side, I am absolutely ecstatic over the idea of seeing all of the White Council in action. Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee and Ian McKellan all on-screen at once? My mind might explode (honestly, I have pretty high expectations for this scene). This new guy playing Bilbo looks the part in the trailer, and it is pretty hard to go wrong with more Ian McKellan in a movie theater. This will also be the most bearded movie since Tombstone, so that’s something to look forward to.

As for the suggestions that they will include stuff from The Silmarillion to fill up space: that would actually be illegal. No film studio has the film rights to the material in that book, so unless it is something strongly alluded to in the appendices of LOTR they can’t add it in.



Sorry for the keyboard diarrea, but I actually went back and edited it considerably, removing whole swaths of text. Wouldn't want you all to suffer through Tolkien's weakness at my expense.

I might need to add an applause smiley for the above post.




Yeah right. Say what you will about Tolkien's writing, how he was a master of language and all that, okay, whatever... but the fact remains, the man couldn't write a remotely interesting, let alone complex character if his life depended on it. Even the most rabid fanboys acknowledge that.


No remotely mainstream movie is ever going to feature an Austrian black metal band as its score. Get the fuck over it already.

There's a difference between characters being three dimensional and being particularly complex. Tolkien definitely wrote three-dimensional characters; each of the Fellowship has a distinct personality, and so do a lot of others. You get to hear about their dreams, fears, desires, and backgrounds; they each have a distinctive mode of speech, relationships with each other, etc. No, most of them don't have deep internal conflicts, there's not really any angst, and there isn't a whole lot of character growth either (except for a few key characters), but it's not a character-focused book. That's not where the fundamental conflict of the books lies. Character-focused fantasy is a more modern thing, and if I want that I'll read George R R Martin or Brian Aldiss or Michael Moorcock or M John Harrison or something. If I want a richly-realized fantasy world with a deep history and culture, in which morality plays a central role, I'll reread LOTR.


I just never understood this criticism in general. I never really even noticed how much he described scenery until I heard people complaining about it on the internet. It totally blends in for me and is hardly even noticeable.

Edit: Deleted because I was wrong. ^_^

Have YOU seen that part?

Shit, I was remembering the sequence of events wrong. My bad. I still don't think Frodo really pushed Gollum though; they were fighting, and they both fell at the same time. But yeah, I'd have preferred they kept it as it was in the book.

Short version: I was wrong - sorry! =]

The movies attempted to cover the characters but ended up with plenty of shortcomings- most notably the complete lack of Tom Bombadill. Compared to Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir, Gollum and other fairly important side characters it's odd that Legolas' is background isn't touched at all and Gimli only had his short ramblings and anecdotes about dwarves (which also make up the majority of his dialogue if he isn't arguing with Legolas). I hope those two are covered extensively in The Hobbit.