The Hobbit films, previously to be directed by Guillermo del Toro and now to be directed by Peter Jackson again.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

Oddly enough there didn't seem to be an actual thread for these yet, so.

Peter Jackson at Comic-Con -- script for first film near completion, budgeting and casting to follow. Films due in 2011 and 2012.

I've read somewhere that Mike Mignola will be joining the general design team, along with the usual WETA suspects plus Alan Lee and John Howe again.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 00:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

hellboy/blade 2 director guillermo del toro is directing the hobbit movies under the watchful eye of peter jackson

won't be catching these then.

Bobkate Goldtwat (darraghmac), Saturday, 25 July 2009 00:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

although they will look fantastic, there's little doubt of that.

Bobkate Goldtwat (darraghmac), Saturday, 25 July 2009 00:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

I will definitely watch them.

chap, Saturday, 25 July 2009 00:42 (5 years ago) Permalink

If only to to offset darraghmac's non-watching policy

chap, Saturday, 25 July 2009 00:43 (5 years ago) Permalink

I'll definitely be seeing these, but I don't get why they need the 2 film treatment.

Moodles, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:30 (5 years ago) Permalink

Supposedly the first one is the Hobbit story and the second film will take place in the interim between Hobbit and Fellowship. Could be good.

I have more faith in the Hellboy guy than the King Kong guy, for what it's worth.

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:45 (5 years ago) Permalink

Supposedly the first one is the Hobbit story and the second film will take place in the interim between Hobbit and Fellowship. Could be good.

What, so they're just making things up now? Tolkien franchise? Sounds crass. If it's not based on a book then wtf is it?

fields of salmon, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:52 (5 years ago) Permalink

Supposedly the first one is the Hobbit story and the second film will take place in the interim between Hobbit and Fellowship.

That was an original plan but no longer -- as noted in the link above:

“There was talk about doing ‘The Hobbit’ as one movie and making an ‘Hobbit,’ and ‘Lord of the Rings,’ bridge movie. We didn’t really know ourselves but as we worked through the story line we thought ‘Well obviously we could squeeze ‘The Hobbit’ into one movie, but In a three hour movie you would be amazed at how much of the story you would have to lose.”

“The book, well the book is what the book is and we just worked through a process and included all the events that we we would like to see in the film, plus the fact that we wanted to embellish a few things and put a little extra narrative that includes Gandalf and what he was doing with the Necromancer and various side stories that are happening. So we decided really that the two movies we are doing would actually would be ‘The Hobbit.’ ”

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:52 (5 years ago) Permalink

the first one is the Hobbit story and the second film will take place in the interim between Hobbit and Fellowship. Could be good.

Not sure how the first sentence and the second one work together.

General Pubic (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:53 (5 years ago) Permalink

*cough* Um, my post? Just now?

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:54 (5 years ago) Permalink

Frankly if they can drop Tom Bombadil from the LotR movies but fit that were-bear twat into the prequels then fuck them even more than I already wanna fuck 'em.

General Pubic (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:55 (5 years ago) Permalink

I guess I just am comfortable with the fact that I read these books decades ago. So if someone wants to make a spectacular $200million fantasy film based on these properties, I'll gladly get high and watch them.

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:55 (5 years ago) Permalink

Sorry Ned. We crossed posts. Thanks for the illumination.

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:56 (5 years ago) Permalink

"Well obviously we could squeeze ‘The Hobbit’ into one movie, but In a three hour movie you would be amazed at how much of the story you would have to lose.”

Slightly heartening news, but not very heartening.

fields of salmon, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:57 (5 years ago) Permalink

x-post -- No worries etc.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:57 (5 years ago) Permalink

Really, all I want is for WETA and company to do the best dragon EVER on screen. I have a feeling they will.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:58 (5 years ago) Permalink

Everyone who clicks on this thread will pay to see this movie. Quit frontin youse nerds!

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:59 (5 years ago) Permalink

Not everybody, I can guarantee.

General Pubic (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:00 (5 years ago) Permalink

We had a discussion about D-Wars vs Reign of Fire last night (while watching the intolerably boring Sky Crawlers). I really enjoyed Dragon Wars, while Reign of Fire was hugely disappointing (88 minutes of dudes flexing, 2 minutes of dragons. WTF!).

So yeah--an epic SMAUG would be really timely.

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:00 (5 years ago) Permalink

So if they split it in two, wheredo they put the break? When Gandalf leaves them before Mirkwood, or at the end of the barrel riders?

EZ Snappin, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:11 (5 years ago) Permalink

Leaving 'em before Mirkwood makes for a perfect cliffhanger as such, so probably that.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

They could base it on the adventure game and leave them stuck in the Misty Mountains forever.

General Pubic (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:14 (5 years ago) Permalink

Fleeing the Goblins with assist from the Eagles could be an epic ending.

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:15 (5 years ago) Permalink

It just depends if they want to spend an hour on the Battle of Five Armies or not.

Part of me doesn't want this to happen because I love the Rankin Bass version, warts and all. Plus, the voice of Smaug in that still gives me shivers. Plus, "Theodore".

EZ Snappin, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:16 (5 years ago) Permalink

I hope they keep the song "15 birds, in 5 fir trees, their feathers were burned, in the fiery breeze..." I could go on and on.

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:17 (5 years ago) Permalink

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:18 (5 years ago) Permalink

Awesome Nate!

I can (and do) quote this movie all the time (and sing the songs). I've watched it every Christmas morning for the last 20-some years.

EZ Snappin, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:21 (5 years ago) Permalink

Not the right movie, but I was once in a band that did a cover of "Where There's A Whip."

EZ Snappin, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:23 (5 years ago) Permalink

We had a discussion about D-Wars vs Reign of Fire last night

where does dragonslayer fit into this

鬼の手 (Edward III), Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:26 (5 years ago) Permalink

Saw Dragonslayer at the cinema when it came out. As a 12 year-old felt a bit cheated cos it was 90 minutes of build-up and 5 minutes of dragon-slaying action, but the gore was cool when it finally happened.

General Pubic (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

d-wars is the most utter garbage!!!!!!! def watched reign of fire a lot as a kid. maybe four or five times.

ian, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:37 (5 years ago) Permalink

Hey at least D-Wars has dragons in it. Reign of Fire is a bullshit tease. Could have been the best movie ever if they'd done it right. What a premise!

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:41 (5 years ago) Permalink

"Where There's a Whip, There's a Way" -- great song! Great lyric!

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:41 (5 years ago) Permalink

xx-post - Dragonslayer - yawn. There is a boob shot though, right?

I do like the dragon from Fritz Lang's Siegfried though. An oft-overlooked fantasy classic!

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:43 (5 years ago) Permalink

(actual dragon fight takes place about 4:20 in that clip btw).

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:47 (5 years ago) Permalink

Oh I've wanted a DVD of Nibelungen for years. Think there's a bunch of sub-Wagner mythology movies from the 10s and 20s, yeah?

General Pubic (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:49 (5 years ago) Permalink

Yeah this is the only one I've seen. Really awesome. This is by no means the best part.

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:51 (5 years ago) Permalink

I had the idea that Eureka! had put out Lang's "Die Nibelungen" on DVD, but I can't find any ref to it whatsoever on their site. Kino do a 2DVD vers of it (which I got to admit I haven't got -I watched it on youtube :-/ ). The dragon is great! Best bits for me are the scenes in the primordial forest, which IIRC they built the sets for in an old Zeppelin hangar. Amazing visuals, throughout. Pt1 here:

f1f0 (Pashmina), Saturday, 25 July 2009 10:31 (5 years ago) Permalink

Just looked. Was confused in my inebriated state last night cos Amazon have the Kino release as a US import, but it seems to be Region 2.

General Pubic (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 25 July 2009 10:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

Hey at least D-Wars has dragons in it. Reign of Fire is a bullshit tease. Could have been the best movie ever if they'd done it right. What a premise!

― Nate Carson, Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:41 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Matthew McConaughey is pretty hilarious in it as the crazed baqld dragon-hunter from America

Panera - Vulgar Display Of Flour (latebloomer), Saturday, 25 July 2009 11:55 (5 years ago) Permalink

er that should be "bald"

Panera - Vulgar Display Of Flour (latebloomer), Saturday, 25 July 2009 11:56 (5 years ago) Permalink

hellboy/blade 2 director guillermo del toro is directing the hobbit movies under the watchful eye of peter jackson

won't be catching these then.

um, why? I think it's important to remember del toro is also (and more relevantly) the director of the devil's backbone and pan's labyrinth.

akm, Saturday, 25 July 2009 18:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

you say "director of pan's labyrinth" like thats a good thing...

the stain specialist (Viceroy), Saturday, 25 July 2009 20:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

I hope the vid game they make of this just involves floating in a darkened barrel.

bad-boy cartographer (Abbott), Saturday, 25 July 2009 20:37 (5 years ago) Permalink

...in your barrel, smelling your apples.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 20:46 (5 years ago) Permalink

we wanted to embellish a few things and put a little extra narrative that includes Gandalf and what he was doing with the Necromancer

stop it!

JimD, Saturday, 25 July 2009 23:06 (5 years ago) Permalink

Having a torrid affair with the Necromancer

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 23:06 (5 years ago) Permalink

Heh, yeah. I just think that it's important to the atmosphere of The Hobbit that when Gandalf disappears for big chunks of it, you don't really know where he's gone, or why, or whether he'll come back. I think filling in those gaps can only hurt the story.

(Although I've not read it for 20 years, I may be remembering wrongly - maybe he does explain all that stuff really).

JimD, Saturday, 25 July 2009 23:14 (5 years ago) Permalink

Betcha Middle-Earth has a magical creature with eyes in its hands that we won't have known about until this movie comes out.

Beanbag the Gardener (WmC), Saturday, 25 July 2009 23:16 (5 years ago) Permalink

Also, most Zappa runs too long, too, and he often confuses technical wizardry with something worth listening to.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 2 January 2014 14:55 (6 months ago) Permalink

^ Feel like some of this could apply to Donald Fagan too.

29 facepalms, Thursday, 2 January 2014 15:16 (6 months ago) Permalink

Eh, there are no epic Steely Dan compositions - Aja is about as epic as it gets. And even if you think the guys in Steely Dan are overplaying as much as Zappa's dudes do (they aren't), Steely Dan's lyrics are among the best in the biz, while Zappa's suuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 2 January 2014 15:19 (6 months ago) Permalink

No, I mean Fagan uses a contemporary aesthetic that he doesnt quite trust (La studio rock) to rescue an older aesthetic (bebop), or something.

29 facepalms, Thursday, 2 January 2014 15:24 (6 months ago) Permalink

Ah, gotcha. That's pretty accurate.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 2 January 2014 15:36 (6 months ago) Permalink

That they?re working in an effective present-time language they use well without ever being quite comfortable or happy with or entirely attuned to, in order to redeem or rescue an aesthetic and or a morality that (as far as the effective present-time language goes) is nothing but a beached and square hipster attitude of times gone by, and best forgotten.

Could someone expand upon this? I feel I've almost got what he's reaching for here, but not quite

An Android Pug of Some Kind? (kingfish), Thursday, 2 January 2014 17:14 (6 months ago) Permalink

Anyway don't worry folks, we've been holding it down on larger matters

http://gawker.com/slates-embarrassing-middle-earth-error-1493498670

Ned Raggett, Friday, 3 January 2014 00:55 (6 months ago) Permalink

Finally a use for your talents

set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Friday, 3 January 2014 00:56 (6 months ago) Permalink

Allow me to explain the difference between tengwar and cirth

Ned Raggett, Friday, 3 January 2014 00:58 (6 months ago) Permalink

If only you could work it into an EMP presentation

set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Friday, 3 January 2014 01:01 (6 months ago) Permalink

Adorno too.

the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 3 January 2014 01:02 (6 months ago) Permalink

...give me time.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 3 January 2014 01:40 (6 months ago) Permalink

I thought this was quite okay... I didn't see the previous one at cinema, because I was afraid it was gonna suck, but then I watched it on video a few months ago and found it really good, a fun and surprisingly light-hearted romp. That's what I thought was the biggest flaw in this one, things turned too grim too soon, there was all those portentous pieces of dialogue and washed out grey and brown colours (especially in Laketown), which may have been fine in LotR, because it's a darker story, but I wish this one would've avoided the gloom and doom a bit longer.

For example, I loved the ballsack-faced goblin king in the previous one, because he was so over-the-top and fitted the generally OTT tone of the film, but in this one Stephen Fry's equivalent character felt like he belonged to different movie, because at this point things have already turned grim, so broad comedy was kinda out of place. So yeah, I wished the story would've retained the comedy and lightness a bit longer, that's what made the first movie feel like a thing of it's own instead of a mere "LotR prequel", the darker stuff could've been spared for the finale.

As for the 3D/48fps, everyone who says it makes everything look unreal and like set pieces is OTM, but man is it great for action! You can have fast-paced, complex action sequences where everything nevertheless looks crisp and you can follow every bit of movement on screen, which is a total boon for visual-minded directors like Jackson. The barrel chase was the most breathtaking example, it was such a showcase for this technology that it should be preserved in a museum or something.

The Smaug finale was another goodie, and it didn't really matter he looked unreal because he's a dragon, they're not real anyway so there's no uncanny valley effect messing with your mind, so just watching him talk and move onscreen with every tiny twitch and quirk of his so exquisitely rendered was a delight. (Gotta give props for Cumbersnatcher's voice acting too, I think he found the correct tone for an avaricious and cunning beast right from the start.) I did feel the finale lasted for too long though, which kinda made the dragon machinery overstay its welcome, especially since it was obvious Smaug wouldn't die here but would be spared for the final film. If the movie had climaxed with Smaug getting killed, then the half of hour of running away from him in Dwarven ruins would've been justified, but now it felt like there was too much padding.

Anyway, instead of viewing these movies through any lens of Tolkien purism, I think it's better just to see as a amusement park ride where Jackson has an opportunity to play with some new toys, and enjoy the best things he can get out of that, like the barrel chase or Smaug or the gruesome-funny Orc decapitations. I think Jackson is very much a physical comedy & action oriented director at heart, even his earliest gore movies are more bloody slapstick than horror. It seems pretty obvious that expanding the Hobbit (which is already a pretty disjointed book) into three long movies isn't gonna produce a compelling story or well-rounded character arcs in the way LotR did, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot to enjoy here.

Tuomas, Saturday, 4 January 2014 10:53 (6 months ago) Permalink

There's a foot of snow on the ground and it's still snowing, it's about to drop down to a high of -10 with a windchill of -40, there's nothing else to see locally and the alternative is being stuck in the house with my family all day. Fuck it, I'm seeing The Hobbit. Wish me luck!

Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 5 January 2014 16:47 (6 months ago) Permalink

taking the family to see this at Alamo Drafthouse in an hour. We watched the first one on tv yesterday to have it fresh in our minds.

Ornate Coleman (Moodles), Sunday, 5 January 2014 17:10 (6 months ago) Permalink

OK, here goes:

This is better than the first one because the best bits are a bit better, but the movie is still pretty disappointing. Every time the movie came to a stop the story came to a stop, the elves were camp at best and crap at worst, and even the expertly rendered dragon I felt, er, dragged on. What's the next one going to be, a three hour fight-the-dragon battle sequence? Maybe it's all a big fake out and the third movie will be 20 minutes long.

I did finally figure out what's bugging me about the FX, sets and make-up that didn't bother me as much with the LOTR films, which I still think were (previously) inexplicably superior in terms of those aspects, and that's that having going more artificial, Jackson seems to be almost inept with the artificial lighting. Everything is just so overwhelmingly bright, even when it's dark, that he might as well be shooting day for night. I found any sort of shading, perspective or depth of field utterly phony, not just because it is, but because the virtual cinematography literally depicted it in the worst possible light, so that every wall and puddle looked fake, and most CGI creations looked horrible against the real stuff, and vice versa. FWIW, I saw it in glorious 2D and a normal frame rate, but it looked as unnatural as a Muppet movie.

Also, did I mention that the elves suck? Barrel sequence was fun, at least. As someone else observed, Jackson's gift seems not be be action but stapstick comedy. Martin Freeman appeared to be modeling his mode and mannerisms after Lou Costello.

Last, can someone more familiar with the books help me out here: this story takes place decades before the Lord of the Rings story, yet at least in the movie, Gandolf and whomever he reports to - Cate Blanchett? - clearly know the bad guy is back. So ... what's going on in the ensuing years before Gandolf gets Frodo to go on his quest? Just hanging around, like someone stuck inside during a blizzard, occasionally peeking out the window and going "yup, still snowing?"

Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 5 January 2014 21:01 (6 months ago) Permalink

i think it's like a cold war with escalating border incidents and everybody secretly trying to find the one ring iirc

Emilia Fabbo (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 5 January 2014 21:05 (6 months ago) Permalink

iirc (though this is all from the appendices at the end of Lord of the Rings, been a while since I've read it) Gandalf and the White Council fuck off the Necromancer (Sauron in disguise) from his fortress in Mirkwood - note that Sauron does not intentionally reveal himself, as per the film, but that the White Council successfully drive him out and suss for themselves that this is actually Sauron. Who then disappears for a while only to re-emerge and openly declare himself in Mordor, at which point there's not a fat lot they can do about it.

Windsor Davies, Sunday, 5 January 2014 21:08 (6 months ago) Permalink

Gandalf had suspected for ages prior to this that the Necromancer was Sauron but Christopher Lee was having none of it. I think.

Windsor Davies, Sunday, 5 January 2014 21:10 (6 months ago) Permalink

I would keep a close eye on any place called Mordor.

Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 5 January 2014 21:14 (6 months ago) Permalink

eye see what you did there

resulting post (rogermexico.), Sunday, 5 January 2014 21:51 (6 months ago) Permalink

When Sauron made his appearance, the first thing that came to mind was:

Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 5 January 2014 21:55 (6 months ago) Permalink

There's a vision.

Just came back from a matinee showing myself. As I suspected I enjoyed it more second time around just because I wasn't feeling my neck snapping keeping track of the changes from the book -- also because I knew when to take a bathroom break (namely, Kili and Tauriel being all goo-goo at each other in the prison). Spent more time just enjoying the design and all. But Thorin's last minute plan to kill Smaug still needs at least a LINE or two of setup.

Ned Raggett, Sunday, 5 January 2014 22:37 (6 months ago) Permalink

So ... what's going on in the ensuing years before Gandolf gets Frodo to go on his quest? Just hanging around, like someone stuck inside during a blizzard, occasionally peeking out the window and going "yup, still snowing?"

The thing is, Sauron (as well as Gandalf and the other Wizards) are demigods who are incredibly hard to kill, but they can be defeated in a way that diminishes their power for a looong time. This has happened to Sauron before, and presumably in the third Hobbit movie they will defeat him again in a way that makes them think he won't be able to come back for a while, which is why they're still surprised that he makes such a forceful comeback in LotR, only a few decades later. Without the One Ring it's impossible to fully defeat Sauron (and in the book at least it's implied that Sauron won't totally die even after the Ring is destroyed, but he becomes so insignificant he can't pose any threat ever again), and in the Hobbit they still think the Ring is lost, so all they can do is hope he won't come back for a while. After his biggest defeat, the one seen in the prologue of the first LotR movie, he was powerless for several hundred years (the Necromancer affair was the first time he showed up on the radar after that), so it's kinda understandable Gandalf and other the good guys don't spend all of their time on the lookout for him, but try to enjoy the times of peace.

Tuomas, Sunday, 5 January 2014 23:23 (6 months ago) Permalink

So do you think they're going to give us that big battle, as teased in the first LotR movie? Because obviously it can't be 3 hours of dragon battle. Well, I mean, I guess it could...

Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 5 January 2014 23:41 (6 months ago) Permalink

the battle of five armies is going to eat most of the time. Unfortunately.

EZ Snappin, Sunday, 5 January 2014 23:43 (6 months ago) Permalink

So do you think they're going to give us that big battle, as teased in the first LotR movie? Because obviously it can't be 3 hours of dragon battle. Well, I mean, I guess it could...

There's gonna be a big battle, but it's not the one in the beginning of the first LotR movie; like I said, that battle happened centuries before the events of The Hobbit. Plus the exact details of the LotR prologue battle are in another book (The Silmarillion), one the movie-makers don't have the rights to (for whatever reason they only have the rights to LotR and The Hobbit), so they can't do a film version of it even if they wanted to.

Tuomas, Monday, 6 January 2014 00:17 (6 months ago) Permalink

Should I worry about spoiling the third movie by talking about what happens in the book? SPOILERS AHEAD!!

If you ask me both the dragon and the battle are less interesting than the complicated fallout which happens after the dragon dies and before the battle starts. I'm hoping that they won't rush through that. Some people seem amused that it's some random Lakedude who kills the dragon, but that was smart thinking on Tolkien's part. It's to allow Laketown to make a claim on the treasure, so that the dragon can turn out to be a less significant threat than the competing claims/avarice of the friendly factions.

jmm, Monday, 6 January 2014 00:25 (6 months ago) Permalink

:(

One of the great things about The Hobbit (book) was that it skipped the endless war-text of LotR, "he knew no more" and then it's all over, was hoping Jackson might do the same

pretty krulls make glaives (flamboyant goon tie included), Monday, 6 January 2014 00:34 (6 months ago) Permalink

Fat fucking chance of that.

EZ Snappin, Monday, 6 January 2014 00:43 (6 months ago) Permalink

were you really? after everything? the man is an oaf.

i kid because i glove (darraghmac), Monday, 6 January 2014 00:43 (6 months ago) Permalink

legolas seemed like a coked-up asshole in this. what was up with his eyes?

erry red flag (f. hazel), Monday, 6 January 2014 00:52 (6 months ago) Permalink

Yeah, he's all puffy.

So movie three is going to be all "Treasure of the Middle Earth Madre?"

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 6 January 2014 01:07 (6 months ago) Permalink

After his biggest defeat, the one seen in the prologue of the first LotR movie, he was powerless for several hundred years (the Necromancer affair was the first time he showed up on the radar after that)

FWIW, in both Tolkien and via a statement by Elrond in the first LOTR film, it's established that the distance between said biggest defeat and the present was over three thousand years. Elrond's reference to a 'watchful peace' in the first Hobbit movie refers to a similar phrase in Tolkien where post-Angmar -- over 2000 years later -- Sauron establishes, then retreats from Dol Guldur after an initial incursion by Gandalf, who assumes it's another one of the Nazgul. After some centuries Sauron then returns, Gandalf revisits some time after that, finds Thrain about to die, gets the map and key, and informs the White Council Sauron is there. Everything eventually builds up to an assault on Dol Guldur but Sauron has already made his plans and departs, etc. So basically Jackson's either left a lot out or redone a lot of backstory.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 6 January 2014 03:07 (6 months ago) Permalink

English, please.

the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 6 January 2014 03:10 (6 months ago) Permalink

Also per Tuomas's question the reason why the rights are only for Hobbit and LOTR is simple -- Saul Zaentz got them in the late sixties from Tolkien directly when those were the only two books to hand, and Christopher Tolkien has refused to let any further rights go. That said I'm not sure what the estate will do after he passes.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 6 January 2014 03:11 (6 months ago) Permalink

English, please.

Dude with staff does a thing against dude with eye.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 6 January 2014 03:11 (6 months ago) Permalink

Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

This divorce has been systematically driven by the logic of Hollywood. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 6 January 2014 18:51 (6 months ago) Permalink

He turns his head away cos that's the direction you can most clearly see the ocean from the kitchen of his new seaside property.

Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 6 January 2014 19:01 (6 months ago) Permalink

No doubt the number of people that have read (or probably re-read, or re-re-re-read) the books because of these movies vs. the number of people who never would have anyways is probably in JRR's favor. Also every new movie that comes out you get to say "You crooks bastardized this wonderful thing!" thereby enhancing the brand of the books and the movies at the same time.

Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 6 January 2014 19:04 (6 months ago) Permalink

i'm sure christopher's doing fine, but the tolkien estate doesn't get any money from any of these movies.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 6 January 2014 19:07 (6 months ago) Permalink

they do now. After some lengthy lawsuits

Number None, Monday, 6 January 2014 19:34 (6 months ago) Permalink

4 months pass...

Finally saw this -- I agree with Tuomas upthread about the greys and browns, Laketown was dreary as all getout, got kinda bored with that whole thing tbh.

Smaug was beautiful. Loved the way his belly would glow like a furnace right before he'd breath fire, he moved so gracefully it was a real thrill to watch him.

The thing the Hobbit movies really miss though is the inner monologue of Bilbo...that's what makes the story on paper, it's as much about what happens externally as it is the constant doubt and shifting within Bilbo, even as he's discovering his courage. But I know there's not really a good way to capture that on film, unless you have like constant narration or something bollocks like that. But it does turn the movies into a bit of a different kettle of fish all the same

Or barrel of fish, hee hee :)

set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Sunday, 11 May 2014 00:29 (2 months ago) Permalink

oh and I was weirded out by Legolas' eyes too and I did some googling

apparently the contacts that Ornaldo Bloomps had to wear in the 3 movies irritated the hell out of his eyes and he hated wearing them, so for the Hobbit they digitally colored them in post-production. And I guess there's something about how they had to make the blue more vivid so that it would read, and that is what made it look so wacky

they kinda looked like weird dead Polar Express eyes to me, v creepy.

set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Sunday, 11 May 2014 00:31 (2 months ago) Permalink

The thing the Hobbit movies really miss though is the inner monologue of Bilbo...that's what makes the story on paper, it's as much about what happens externally as it is the constant doubt and shifting within Bilbo, even as he's discovering his courage. But I know there's not really a good way to capture that on film...

of course there is but it involves not making dwarves in barrels and rube goldberg dragon traps the center of the NONSTOP THRILL RIDE

resulting post (rogermexico.), Sunday, 11 May 2014 00:51 (2 months ago) Permalink

lol otm

set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Sunday, 11 May 2014 01:41 (2 months ago) Permalink

I felt well disposed towards the first one, but the second, while technically a better film probably, made me realise how bollocks the whole endeavor is.

the joke should be over once the kid is eaten. (chap), Sunday, 11 May 2014 03:24 (2 months ago) Permalink

maybe bilbo will be in the next one

resulting post (rogermexico.), Sunday, 11 May 2014 04:35 (2 months ago) Permalink

i don't remember anything that happened in the first one

linda cardellini (zachlyon), Sunday, 11 May 2014 17:44 (2 months ago) Permalink

they did the dishes

difficult listening hour, Sunday, 11 May 2014 17:48 (2 months ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.