The Hobbit - starts filming March 21

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

Forrest Gump?

Yep. It's written in such a genius way whether you like the film or not. Forrest doesn't change AT ALL yet everything around him changes dramatically. It's a character study.

 

[EyeofSauron]

Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

comparing fantasy to drama movies is weird.

i also laughed at generic evil eye

 

[NAZGÛL]

Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

Sure, but really hard to compaire the two.

While I can agree that FG is great in many ways, a lot of the characters are quite simplified and generic, and others while having some depht (like Dan) have pretty obvious progressions. It works well in the film though.

Thing is, to me, the LOTR characters mirror the ones in the books really well, and Im glad PJ didnt decide to make up a lot, or shoe horn in something.

 

[CelticRuins]

Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

Actually, I believe the characters change, and in a BIG way in some cases.

*cracks knuckles* Let's see here...

Aragorn: Why doesn't he want to be king? Because men are idiots. Especially those who are temporarily running Gondor. He was raised by elves when his father died young and his mother feared for his safety. Gondor was the strong hold of the human race. He was the next inline for the throne. He would be hunted his entire life and forced to make a HUGE decision for the fate of an entire world.

You'd be reluctant too.

Frodo - This is basically how he's written, save he wasn't nearly as useless in the book. But he was a hobbit nonetheless. As a hobbit, it's hard to get them to change unless they're faced with tough choices that don't involve the type of cheese they'd like with their bread. They're very much English.


Gandalf* - Hmm, except when he becomes Gandalf the WHITE?! And prior to that battles A BALROG? Significant changes in character here.

Gimli - More of opinionated and stubborn, he actually falls deeply in love with an elf; Galadriel. That alone is a huge change for a dwarf. They've vehemently hated the elven race for 100's of years due to not being able to see eye to eye. To the point both races would take prisoners and treat each other like crap.

Legolas - He's an elf. He's more of a silent sentinel. He does show a small range of emotions, but the elven race was written that way. They are passionate, loving people, but don't project emotions the way the human race does.

Pip & Merry* - Hmm, but not. You watch them both grow up. Especially Pippin. Too adventurous hobbits in terms of the Shire, but in the open world? They are but ants. They've known nothing but the Shire, family, friends...safety. They're thrown into battles, have to make war-like decisions, persuade an Ent to march towards their secondary adversary, and deal with death.

Sam - He probably changes the most. From eavesdropping on Gandalf and Frodo's private conversation and being scared out of his wits by an old man, to fighting a GIANT SPIDER and a group of Uruks and orcs with near flawless courage.

Saruman* - Atleast spell it right . He's the most dangerous in the game at this point. Someone from the Valar who knows everyone, sees everything, and has everyone fooled. He's the left fielder here. He's taken down MANY a notch from being an all-powerful wizard, then in with Sauron, to a pawn and then to nothing.

Sauron - Now you're just repeating yourself . The eye is a very powerful form. The "window to the soul" as it were. A giant eye that sees everything, can reach out past time and space to see your deepest, darkest thoughts. Scary if you ask me. Regardless if he's just a body-less eye, this eye still commands thousands upon thousands of evil beings.

Let this be known that this is a FANTASY, and can not be compared to any of those stories above.

Not going to change the fact that it's my all time favorite story that teaches you about love, courage, friendship and hope. It's there, even if you don't see it .

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

Sure, but really hard to compaire the two.

I don't think so. Subject matter is completely aside to plot & character.

Get ready for the next post... :lol

 

[FSURobbie]

Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

As I said: Beautifully shot, loads of content, but light on substance. It's "D&D Plus" which is a damn shame. It seems PJ put more emphasis on getting as much from the books as he possibly could into the film than good story and character growth.

If it makes you feel any better, I agree with your opinion completely. I will not be seeing the Hobbit.

 

[NAZGÛL]

*really tries not to let the LOTR nerd nerve in him get provoked* :lol

I love that PJ put an effort into staying true to the books.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: The Hobbit made viewers sick?!!!

Actually, I believe the characters change, and in a BIG way in some cases.

*cracks knuckles* Let's see here...

Woo hoo! Rational debate. I love it. :thumbsup

A preface for the debate though. I LOVE the books. I will only be talking about the films, which I feel failed to represent depth and growth in the characters.

Aragorn: Why doesn't he want to be king? Because men are idiots. Especially those who are temporarily running Gondor. He was raised by elves when his father died young and his mother feared for his safety. Gondor was the strong hold of the human race. He was the next inline for the throne. He would be hunted his entire life and forced to make a HUGE decision for the fate of an entire world.

You'd be reluctant too.

A lot of this you can easily miss in the film because it isn't portrayed through situation, or acting, but rather dialogue. In Twin Towers you never once get the honest feeling like he may leave his love for a human. That should be a tortured soul who doesn't know what his path should be. In the film we just get a pretty generic "reluctant hero". The difference in his character from start of film one to end of film three is minimal at best.

Frodo - This is basically how he's written, save he wasn't nearly as useless in the book. But he was a hobbit nonetheless. As a hobbit, it's hard to get them to change unless they're faced with tough choices that don't involve the type of cheese they'd like with their bread. They're very much English.

Indeed. Still though, in the book there's growth. In the film you see him at the end finishing up the Red Book and, based on the film, you're sitting there thinking "WTF is THIS guy writing it? He was unconscious for half the thing? Sam should be on that boat". In the film he's portrayed as the guy who was carried across the finish line yet celebrated for doing it all. In the book it's similar but he's a much more likeable character.

Gandalf* - Hmm, except when he becomes Gandalf the WHITE?! And prior to that battles A BALROG? Significant changes in character here.

Was waiting for this one. :lol

In the book there's a huge difference between the two. In the film? Pretty much just a costume change. Battling a Balrog is not character development.

Gimli - More of opinionated and stubborn, he actually falls deeply in love with an elf; Galadriel. That alone is a huge change for a dwarf. They've vehemently hated the elven race for 100's of years due to not being able to see eye to eye. To the point both races would take prisoners and treat each other like crap.

Indeed! However, in the film? He gets a bit of a crush and then they move on. Character development lost to the script.

Legolas - He's an elf. He's more of a silent sentinel. He does show a small range of emotions, but the elven race was written that way. They are passionate, loving people, but don't project emotions the way the human race does.

And portrayed as VERY stoic on screen. Doesn't change that there's no character development in Legolas in the film at all.

Pip & Merry* - Hmm, but not. You watch them both grow up. Especially Pippin. Too adventurous hobbits in terms of the Shire, but in the open world? They are but ants. They've known nothing but the Shire, family, friends...safety. They're thrown into battles, have to make war-like decisions, persuade an Ent to march towards their secondary adversary, and deal with death.

All of which is portrayed through dialogue in the film so it has no impact. The most emotional they get is when Pip sings but at that point the impact is lost because we haven't developed these guys past mere comic relief.

Sam - He probably changes the most. From eavesdropping on Gandalf and Frodo's private conversation and being scared out of his wits by an old man, to fighting a GIANT SPIDER and a group of Uruks and orcs with near flawless courage.

Hands down one of the best represented and portrayed I'll give you that. However it's established pretty early on that he's the brave responsible one (comparatively). It's nowhere near the gradual development we see in the books.

Saruman* - Atleast spell it write .

lollol

He's the most dangerous in the game at this point. Someone from the Valar who knows everyone, sees everything, and has everyone fooled. He's the left fielder here. He's taken down MANY a notch from being an all-powerful wizard, then in with Sauron, to a pawn and then to nothing.

In the books yes. In the film? He's just the boogeyman. REALLY weak and nowhere near the menace that he should be.

Sauron - Now you're just repeating yourself . The eye is a very powerful form. The "window to the soul" as it were. A giant eye that sees everything, can reach out past time and space to see your deepest, darkest thoughts. Scary if you ask me. Regardless if he's just a body-less eye, this eye still commands thousands upon thousands of evil beings.

However in the films we only ever get that impression when the ring is on which is rare. There's no feeling in the film of a constant menace or watchful eye. The tie between this creature that's pulling the strings and what actually happens is poor in the film.

Let this be known that this is a FANTASY, and can not be compared to any of those stories above.

It absolutely can because it's a SCRIPT. Fantasy can have the exact same character development that The Godfather had. Just with cool dragons & stuff. The problem with most fantasy films (not fantasy books you'll note) is that they focus on all the cool stuff at the expense of the basics.

Not going to change the fact that it's my all time favorite story that teaches you about love, courage, friendship and hope. It's there, even if you don't see it .

It's absolutely there in the books. In the films? Meh. Weakly presented.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

*really tries not to let the LOTR nerd nerve in him get provoked* :lol

I love that PJ put an effort into staying true to the books.

:lol

To be completely fair to him he had a VERY difficult task. LOTR fans demand the full story and he knew that so he crammed as much as he could in.

 

[NAZGÛL]

We are talking about the LOTR triology by Peter Jackson, right? Just checking. :lol

Its interesting that we can interpret the character development so different. So, how is, say Saruman or Gandalf described differently in the books, during the events?

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Its interesting that we can interpret the character development so different. So, where in the book is say Saruman or Gandalf described differently in the books, during the events?

It's not that they are portrayed differently, it's that they don't have nearly the same feeling of impact. ESPECIALLY Saruman who in the film really is regulated to a generic "bad guy" wizard you would expect from a D&D story.

In the books his betrayal is deep rooted and menacing because of his knowledge and influence. That isn't felt in the films at all. He's just the guy barking orders.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Here's what it really comes down to in the end and I'll pretty much stop here because they AREN'T bad films I just don't think that they're great films and I feel I may be angering some die hard fans.

"In the end do you care about the characters based on ONLY the films?"

It took me a long time to come to this conclusion because it's very difficult to separate the films and the books. I was a die hard LOTR defender until I took my fan glasses off and looked at the films objectively.

Almost to a tee the answer is no.

EXCEPTIONS: Sam and Gandalf the Grey. They are the only two that the films successfully made me care about.

The rest I needed my knowledge from the books to support the films.

 

[NAZGÛL]

Gollum is the character that got me most interested.

Could it be that by reading more than the actual books, like the expanded stuff, you felt a stronger character impact? Ive read alot about Sauron and the nazgûl, and I can see that my enjoyment of the films are greater because of this. But in the LOTR books alone, I cant see them or other characters being that much more fleshed out or stronger described, Saruman is pretty much a powerhungry, manipulating wizard, much like he is in the film.

 

[nwjedidave]

Those asking where the material is coming from that will make these three movies - here is a nice 13 minute video that explains what others here have already pointed out.

can't get the direct link to work so here:

http://www.movieweb.com/news/the-ho...ney-13-minute-featurette-with-all-new-footage

 

[Guri]

Micheal - I think Celticruins said it well, but I have to add my own take too.

As someone who saw the films first and then read the book, I don't agree at all that there was less development in the movies - it was different, but in some cases more. Especially Aragorn.

But first the Hobbits - All of them start off as small as their stature. Sam scared of Rosie, Frodo care free and in wonder of his uncle, Merry and Pippin complete idiots.

They take the adventure, Frodo because there is nobody else to do it, Sam because he is a good friend and Merry and Pippin because they fall into it and aren't about to let others go off and have more fun.

Over the course of the three movies we have some amazing dialogue from these characters that is lifted from the books, I think mostly, and it goes along with what we are seeing from their development.

Frodo: from wanting to kill Gullum in FOTR to defending him in ROTK - his growth in understanding the power of the seduction of evil and his own frailty in standing up to it is incredible. He was judgmental in his carefree innocence and an independent nephew of a fairly rich uncle - but he becomes compassionate through his deep understanding and sorrow and learns he too depends on others.

Elijah does this transition beautifully.

Frodo obviously has no idea what he was getting into when he volunteered, doesn't even know which way to go, doesn't know what he's giving up, and you can see that in his face. Over the course of the movies we see him slowly realize this and he goes from overwhelmed to deeply burdened.

Sam: Basically a good friend but a coward in the face of failure. He slowly over the movie starts to understand the importance, not just of what he wants to do for a friend, but the overall picture. His monologue about the past stories and heroes and how they never give up was excellent writing! Celticruins said the rest about the spider and all, but also, the way Sam goes after and wins Rosie... it's all there. He changed - he is no longer a bumbling fool, he is a confident and like his name 'wise'.

Pippin: He is much more than comedy relief in the end. He just about gets them killed in Moria by giving up where they are through his curiosity, but when his curiosity gets him eye to eye with Sauron, he does NOT giving away Frodo... Very strong mind to resist that! In the end he is willing to try to make up for losing Boromir by swearing allegiance to his father and then is able to figure out what's about to happen to Faramir and getting Gandalf to stop it while all the other men stand around and let it happen. Fool of a Took is no more by the end.

Merry: His biggest growth is in Fangorn. He is still the brains between the cousins obviously, but between tricking an Ent to comforting Eowyn and assisting in bringing down the witch king, by ROTK he is so more than the sneaky fire works stealing hobbit in FOTR.

Now, Aragorn - when I watched the movie I had very little knowledge about who he was going to become. I think Jackson did a great job introducing him as a mysterious, dark figure who is, as Frodo says, 'not very fair'.

In the book he is described as kingly when they ran into Eomer, Eomer could see just by looking at him how majestic he was. But the movie held off on that development slightly... We do see an Aragorn who doesn't want to be king or to lead people, and doesn't seem to feel worthy of Arwen... We see that she believes in him and the others around him see something, but he doesn't believe in himself.

The change comes at Helm's Deep.

The conversation between Aragorn and Theoden was amazing... Here we see Aragorn running off at the mouth about his true feelings - the people are not prepared for this situation... too old or too young etc. And Theoden models for him what a king is - puts him in his place and from that point on we see a different Aragorn.

Something starts to come over him when he sees what a good king can do for the people, inspire them, motivate them and that it makes a difference. His mission becomes less about saving Middle Earth and more about caring about the people who need him as a good king.

I don't think he's reluctant to be king in the end at all. His speech that precedes the famous 'for Frodo' is epic. The height of his leadership, a total turn around from mocking the Hobbits for not being afraid enough of what hunts them.

I could go on... but I will only concede Legolas. He was so highly underused in the movies and in the book. He's basically the pretty face that gets to say the obvious that everyone else already knows. And he's not even that good with the bow, it turns out: Reinventing the fastest forgotten archery. - YouTube

:lol

 

[Zcoberly]

Here's what it really comes down to in the end and I'll pretty much stop here because they AREN'T bad films I just don't think that they're great films and I feel I may be angering some die hard fans.

"In the end do you care about the characters based on ONLY the films?"

It took me a long time to come to this conclusion because it's very difficult to separate the films and the books. I was a die hard LOTR defender until I took my fan glasses off and looked at the films objectively.

Almost to a tee the answer is no.

EXCEPTIONS: Sam and Gandalf the Grey. They are the only two that the films successfully made me care about.

The rest I needed my knowledge from the books to support the films.

Well why don't we ask someone that question who truly never did read the books and in all honesty had ZERO knowledge of the books before seeing these 3 movies? Oh works out great...cause that person would be me...I will go ahead and answer it for you...hahahahhahaha

"In the end do you care about the characters based on ONLY the films?"
YES!!!! yes I do!!! I really didn't like the character Frodo in the movies...yet at the end I found myself scared that he really did just fall off the cliff into the lava... I was soooo shocked and sad that Theoden dies in the end, I believe these characters, they felt like real people...

 

[Astrokid248]

Well why don't we ask someone that question who truly never did read the books and in all honesty had ZERO knowledge of the books before seeing these 3 movies? Oh works out great...cause that person would be me...I will go ahead and answer it for you...hahahahhahaha

"In the end do you care about the characters based on ONLY the films?"
YES!!!! yes I do!!! I really didn't like the character Frodo in the movies...yet at the end I found myself scared that he really did just fall off the cliff into the lava... I was soooo shocked and sad that Theoden dies in the end, I believe these characters, they felt like real people...

Fellowship came out in 2001, right? That means I was 8 when I first slogged through the Hobbit and all three LotR novels. I honestly forgot almost all of the story besides the very basic plot outline when I actually watched the films. I purposely did not reread the books until after King came out (except for the Hobbit) and I have to agree with you. The movies alone made me care about the characters. Just as the books are rightfully the epitome of fantasy literature, the movies, for the time being, are the epitome of fantasy in film. Good dialogue, good special effects, good action, good emotion. The fact that the films get me crying every single time is a testament to that alone. Sure, there were some parts I'd consider off. As much as I enjoyed watching Arwen the Badass Horselady, it made the rest of her characterization absolutely painful. They should've stuck to the books and her cousin with it. On the other hand, I like that Strider doesn't have his birthright with him through the whole journey. I like that he doesn't accept his responsibility as king until the second wisest guy he knows tells him that the world needs a new leader. It fits in better with the ideal platonic leader that Aragorn is supposed to be. The reforging of Narsil into Andruil also serves as a nice focal point for the elves passing the torch to men. It was a great cinematic moment, and while the books work fine without Andruil changing hands, the film would've lost a bit of the history in translation. In the end, the only way we'll ever get a product better than what Jackson has created is if we go back in time and ask Tolkien himself.

 

[CelticRuins]

I believe the actors portrayed their characters beautifully. The cast was spot on and made me feel compassion, hatred, sadness; a wide range of emotions all within the span of 3 hours.

You can't tell me certain scenes weren't powerful or moving. The fear the Ringwraiths instilled, the mystery of Aragorn, the powerful blue eyes of Frodo welling up with tears...My first tears that fell during these movies was in FotR when Gandalf fell. When the group left Moria and Sam fell to his knees...Gimli desperately trying to run back and keep fighting. Pippin and Merry holding each other in hysterics. The stoic elf with a shadow of grief across his face, and when Aragorn calls to get them up, you see him try to register what the human is saying to him; it barely clicks. The loss of Gandalf, their leader, resonated so deep. Yes this happens in the books, but actually SEEING a group act it out in front of you...it was beyond powerful. The same goes for when Merry and Pippin are kidnapped, Frodo tries to go alone and realizes he has the most faithful companion in the world...Boromir dying and the 3 warriors realizing they must keep up courage and hope. LET US HUNT SOME ORC! I felt chills run down my spine and a smile stretch across my face.

These movies made me believe in characters with a purpose.

The same goes for Two Towers. And honestly, I didn't stop weeping like a baby after Arwen saw her son run across the road in RotK. I wasn't alone on Trilogy Tuesday in 2003 either. I remember looking down the aisles during the opening night and seeing grown men crying their eyes out, people holding each others hand and passing around tissues.

I know countless individuals deeply touched by these characters that have little to no knowledge of the books. And to be honest, you can relate the books as a separate entity. I actually see different scapes and faces of the characters when I read the books. When I watch the movie I'm engulfed by the actors' performances.

Maybe us Ringers have big, dumb, hobbity hearts, but these movies and the books...they resonate and have meaning to many. Regardless if they resonate with you.

 

[Timmythekid]

Reviews are starting to pop up, and there's a hillarious trend I'm seeing. Reviewers are saying 'mmm...meh...wasn't terrible, but I didn't care for the bad pacing, the over-use of questionable CGI, and the fart jokes.". To which LotR fans are apoplepticly screaming back "YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND! IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A KIDS STORY!!!!". Now where, oh where have I seen that before?

 

[NAZGÛL]

:lol But to be fair The Hobbit is way more a kids story compaired to LOTR.