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

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.

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.

:(

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

Fat fucking chance of that.

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

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

Yeah, he's all puffy.

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

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.

English, please.

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.

English, please.

Dude with staff does a thing against dude with eye.

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."

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.

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.

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

they do now. After some lengthy lawsuits

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 :)

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.

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

lol otm

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.

maybe bilbo will be in the next one

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

they did the dishes

FUCKING POD RACING aka jackson goes full-on lucas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgNNb8bm_b8

Methinks Game of Thrones increasingly makes this look like child's play, because, well ...

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:36 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That title is gonna be a let-down for anyone expecting an actual five-army free-for-all.

this whole trilogy is still the worst, most ridiculous thing in cinema and jackson should've just left it to ratner so no one would've ever gotten any ideas about its usefulness as anything other than a clear cash grab

Still planning on angrily watching the third one at Cinerama, just like the first two, can't really account for it.

it's amazing at how peter jackson is dutifully attempting to recreate the LOTR formula and hitting a lot of the same notes (cheerful hobbit at the center, gandalf, portentous hints of future doom, etc) but it feels stretched so thin and false and there's no richness to the story or the setting, it feels strictly video game. i mean the LOTR films had the feel of a lived-in decaying world, this has zero of that sense despite attempts at recreating it. also i'm getting tired of those shots he uses every five minutes now (only every forty minutes in the LOTR films): a group of bros scampering across a plains or a bridge or a marsh or a rocky outcropping or a mountain while a camera swoops above and past them or in the opposite direction.

anyway the main point is they're just wrong in so many ways but i can't exactly hate them, PJ clearly loves the material. too much, which is why he's making three films instead of one super-long one.

Funny how the progression of the entire LOTR related movies and culture parallel so well with Star Wars.

xpost -- yeah coming in with these Hobbit films with the view that it's only a ridiculous indulgence is the way to go. It didn't fully hit me until I saw the first one, even if I already had bad vibes when they went from two to three films, but after that first viewing, it was clear that's how to treat them.

martin freeman is very good i think. and i think the gollum stuff in the first film was solid.

i forgot the worst thing in the trilogy, though, which is basically creating an even worse character than that orc from the final battle in ROTK and making him the central (non-ethereal smoke) villain of the whole story.

pretty sure he's making three films full of tiresome rube goldberg set pieces and oh boy big battle scenes because $$$

martin freeman is very good i think...

not enough information. was he even in the second one?

The fact that Evangeline Lily is in this is something I find especially irksome, I don't know why.

PJ clearly loves the material. too much, which is why he's making three films instead of one super-long one.

i wish i still had your childlike naivete

I think he clearly loves absurd runtimes as well as $$$$

spoiler alert

http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/5253/18/original/640.jpg

Fuckin' eagles, man.

i had more fun itt than i have done on the rest of ilx put together in the interim i think

http://blog.gambrinous.com/wp-content/uploads/coyote_foolproof_plan.jpg

ONE LAST...

...trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVAgTiBrrDA

WAR BATS

Hobbit 3: Prince of Thieves at 1:16

#onelasttime

Odds on PJ trilogising the Simlmarillion in ten years time, after directing a couple of underperforming films in the interim?

Cut Scene: The Movie.

That looks absolutely unwatchable. For comparison's sake, I rewatched the "Return of the King" trailer, and check out how much more chill it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIrRJ8bCZYQ

Well that wasn't about the defining moment of Middle Earth, was it?

Very little actual hobbit in that trailer.