BS: The Hobbit movie

Subject: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Nov 12 - 10:56 PM

Worth springing for the Imax, you think?

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 03:48 AM

It's a good story.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: skarpi
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 10:11 AM

Can´t wait ...:) ....

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 01:13 PM

In a weak moment my son got me to buy advance tickets for the IMAX for Dec. 14. So I guess we're going. :-)

Actually, we enjoyed the LOTR movies (the DVDs were viewed many times, and later Bluerays, too), so we're pretty confident we'll have a good time. My son basically grew up with it, like Harry Potter, but in our household we got way more engrossed with LOTR than HP.

I'm sure the IMAX experience is not necessary to enjoy it, but it'll be pretty spectacular in IMAX, and it's been a while since enjoying the that art team on a big screen. (I probably won't spring for IMAX for #2 and #3, though.)

~ Becky in Long Beach

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 03:08 PM

Here's a trailer that might help you decide:


Watch this...

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 04:50 PM

Judging from the preview and from the fact that "The Hobbit" is coming out as a trilogy, it looks to me like Jackson has expanded it quite a bit from Tolkien's original novel. But wotthehell! I'm up for it!

I'm afraid I don't go to movie theaters anymore. My wife and I prefer to watch DVDs on my laptop. 17" screen. Not exactly IMAX, but no crick in our necks and nobody kicking the back of our seats as we're trying to watch. We'll hang in until the DVDs come out.

I have the Platinum Edition of "The Lord of the Rings." A boxed set of all three movies on DVDs, "director's cut" with scenes that were deleted or abbreviated in the theatrical releases, plus "special features" including deleted scenes, how they did some of the special effects, interviews, all kindsa good stuff!

I'm trying not to drool as I wait. . . .

Don Firth

P. S. Like some books, some movies are Classics and deserve a spot in one's library. We have several movies on DVD. Two of my favorites along with the Middle Earth saga are, "The Big Country," the quintessential Western, and "To Kill a Mockingbird."

". . . real courage is when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through, no matter what."
          —Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird."

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 05:10 PM

The film will be a must for us over Chritmas but I find both iMax and 3D a bit too distracting for me. Nowt wrong with them and they give a lot of pleasure to people but I find, somehow, I am concentrating more on the effects and/or enormity rather than the film itself. Mrs G has an extra disadvantage with a hearing condition that hurts when the volume, particulary bass rumble, gets excessive. Hopefully there are no helicopter or gun battles in the Hobbit but I am worried about Smaug's fiery breath! Still - We don't get there timm 2014 do we?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 06:24 PM

I thought they were breaking it into two pieces?

The story is complex, they'll have enough material to make at least a couple of films out of it.

Let's hope they don't forget Tom Bombadil.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 07:05 PM

Tom was in LOTR, Stilly, not the Hobbit. And has never been included in any of the films :-( Beorn was a similar character and was included in the stage play so I am hopeful :-)

Dave the Geek (When it comes to Tolkein!)

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 07:38 PM

According to IMDB it will be released as two movies. One this year and one in 2013.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: fretless
Date: 20 Nov 12 - 11:41 PM

Three movies, not two. Secondary titles according to IMDB are An Unexpected Journey, Desolation of Smaug, and There and Back Again. Don't know how Jackson got three movies out of the Hobbit. LOTR, 3 volumes = three movies. Hobbit, 1 volume expanded to three movies. I suppose there's a hint of content of each in the secondary titles but that doesn't appear to be an equal, tripartite division of the book. At the least, the expansion of The Hobbit into three movies suggests this series won't be omitting major episodes in the book the way LOTR did with Bombadil, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Wesley S
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 09:29 AM

Yes - I was mistaken - three movies not two. It sounds like they will need to pad the story a bit in order to go after the big bucks.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: IanC
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 10:34 AM

Easy enough to get 3 films out of The Hobbit, I would have thought. Lord of The Rings missed out so much from the book after all.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 12:20 PM

For those of you who want more detail, see Brian Sibley's book on the making of the film with interviews with cast & crew & behind the scenes photos of part one: Hobbit: the unexpected journey, the official movie guide now out and the featured window display in Foyles' Bookshop in London this month.
Personal interest declaration: Brian (winner of the Sony Radio Award last year for his Gormanghast adaptation and a writer and broadcaster on Tolkien, Disney, Dickens and more, including the Peter Jackson biography)is a friend of both MtheGM and ...
RtS

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 12:53 PM

Yes, Tom was in the LOTR, but since they left him out of those, why not make the most of him and add him back in? Do you think they're going completely by the script?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 05:56 PM

OK, so we have: (WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD!! DISCUSSION ASSUMES YOU KNOW THE STORY!!!)


An Unexpected Journey, Desolation of Smaug, and There and Back Again.

My guess is ending the second movie at the death of the dragon, but where do you end the first? When they get out of the elves' barrels, perhaps? Maybe a better cliffhanger would be when they get INTO the barrels...

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: EBarnacle
Date: 21 Nov 12 - 06:14 PM

As I recall, There and Back Again was one of the titles of the book that Bilbo wrote.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 12 - 04:40 AM

I don't see how or where Tom Bombadil could be included. Beorn provides a similar interlude in The Hobbit and, besides, I don't think two wrongs make a right.

I think I may watch my directors cuts of LOTR this weekend. Again...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: keberoxu
Date: 13 Jun 18 - 01:30 PM

Two nights ago, on cable TV, I watched bits and pieces of
Hobbit Movie Number Three.
Damn those commercial breaks.

The Number Three subtitle is
Battle of the Five Armies.

Years past, also on cable TV,
I watched bits and pieces of the first Hobbit movie.
The song about seeking the pale enchanted gold
had a musical setting not to my taste.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 18 - 07:36 PM

As a Tolkein freak I looked forward to all the films - The Ring and The Hobbit
I thought the first was excellent - the Hobbit not qite as good but far too noisy
I introduced a couple of friends to the LOrd of the Rings, Tom was sceptical, Annette read the series through and immediately restarted them at volume one
That was what you might call getting hooked!
Must remember to shave my feet before I go to bed
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 07:10 AM

I quite enjoyed The Hobbit but tatally failed to understand why they invented a character which wasn't in any of Tolkiens books, ' Tauriel '
if I remember rightly.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 09:58 AM

"why they invented a character "
I was always disappointed by the Ents - in real life, they didn't look anything like the way they were portrayed in the film
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 11:11 AM

As a Tolkien freak, I got exactly what I expected from the LOTR movies (still haven't bothered with TH). Which wasn't a lot. I knew they'd mucked things up before the first one came out ("We've paid Liv Tyler $3M & she only appears for 3 mins in the entire Trilogy? Whut?! Make more of her part! NOW!!"). There are things I don't have an issue with. Leaving out Tom Bombadil caused a bit of an outcry amongst some, but he is entirely irrelevant to the plot. The only significance of the entire Barrow Downs episode is that that's where Merry gets the Numenorean blade that he stabs the Morgul King with at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. It would have been fun to see him, but he isn't a loss.

On the other hand... I could go on at length. Nah. Not unless y'all really want me to start dissecting the major cock ups. {evil grin} Suffice it to say that the Jacksons are a pair of muppets (I seem to remember that Peter gave Fran a considerable amount of credit for helping to adapt the book into the (bad) script. LotR regularly tops polls of the "Best ever" kind but the Jacksons decided they knew better... And buggered the films up.

What annoys me most is that they made such a pig's ear of the story, whilst creating the look & feel of the world so well. No-one in my lifetime will dare to re-make it properly. If they don't follow the Jackson look, they will be told they're not doing it right; if they do, they will be dismissed as mere imitators. The fact that they're doing the story as it should have been will be ignored...

Jackson's single achievement is that he persuaded Hollywood to stump up the finance for all 3 films up front on the clear understanding that there was a long filming schedule & nothing would be released before it was finished, etc. Frankly, he is a rubbish director anyway, from what I've seen of his work. He mucked up the greatest story published to date, and buggered up the filming as well. With apologies to Mrzzy, I've still never actually seen any of the TH. For obvious reasons! One day, I will get around to acquiring Director's Cut DVD's (if there are such things) of all of them, because it's only version I'll ever get to see. But not so far...

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 08:59 AM

One of the best productions of a Tolkien work I can remember was a BBC radio production of 'Lord of the Rings' - fourteen episodes of it, I think.
You can confidently claim that "they don't make them like that anymore" with productions like that
Tolkien is one of those writers who, in my opinion, work best on the printed page - that allows you to paint your own pictures
Sound works nearly as well, but only if it is done without using the unnecessary 'funny voices'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Raedwulf
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 09:27 AM

Indeed Jim. I have it on cassette (13, not 14, one hour episodes & you can, these days, get it on CD), and therein... Oh alright, just one example of why Jackson is an utterly crap director (never mind that he knows next to sod all about telling a story!).

Radio adaptation: "Fly, you fools. Fly!" Michael Hordern's magnificent voice recedes into the distance as he falls into the chasm of Khazad-dum.

Film: Ian McKellen does a chin-up on the broken bridge with a ton of Balrog hanging from his ankles... Absolutely clueless. And please don't anyone say "Oh, but Gandalf was..." Gandalf came to Middle Earth with his powers strictly circumscribed. He was a hale & hearty (and ageless) old man, and presumably a strong man. But he wasn't superhuman. That was the whole point!

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 09:50 AM

I also have the radio series plus the Ralph Bakshi animated film of the LOTR. Shame the latter only covers up to the battle at Helms Deep but I still find it enjoyable.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 01:50 PM

IMHO, the character of Tauriel was created for one purpose: eye candy.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 03:13 PM

Yup.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: keberoxu
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 09:42 PM

Tauriel, Schmauriel. Which is to say, I concur.

I will concede that some of the "padding" is sourced from those Tolkien writings that are appended to the LOTR cycle of books.
Much was made, certainly, of Gandalf's narrow escape from Sauron in Sauron's guise as the Necromancer, and I did remember that part;
but of course in the film it turned into a Shootout At The Mirkwood Corral or something, with metaphorical guns blazing from Galadriel,
Elrond, and Saruman. And THAT is not what Tolkien wrote.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: keberoxu
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 10:31 PM

Also in The Battle of the Five Armies,
I don't remember the settlement of men at the lake
having that weaselly fellow about.
Must go back and look at Tolkien again.
Bard, and the Black Arrow, I recall well enough.
But that troublemaking guy? Is he a Jackson invention?
Smells like one.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Raedwulf
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 04:23 AM

Sounds like it, Keb. As I said, I've not seen the films, but off the top of my head re the book, the only other specified character is the Master of Lake Town... I tell a lie, there's the captain of the guard as well - Thorin has a conversation with him when they present themselves after getting out of the barrels.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: keberoxu
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 11:00 PM

So I looked it up.

The troublemaker has a name, in the film,
and the name never appears in Tolkien;
so, strictly speaking,
the character is not in the Tolkien canon.

An argument put forward
in one account of making the recent films:
The Master of Lake Town, according to Tolkien,
converses with councillors -- is that the spelling --
and the troublemaker is such a councillor. Erm, right.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Harry Rivers
Date: 19 Jun 18 - 02:49 AM

I don't venture 'below the line' much but here's my twopennorth.

I remember going to see "Fellowship" on its first release and I sat there, all the way through, thinking: "this didn't happen in the book"; "where's Bombadil"; "this is wrong" . . . . I came away thinking it was OK but nothing like the book.

A couple of weeks later I went again with a friend and made a firm decision not to compare it with the book and it turned out to be a very good movie.

The same with subsequent LotR films and the Hobbit. Forget the books and treat the movies as a completely different telling of the history of the Ring . . . it worked for me.

My only complaints about the Hobbit were that some of the scenes were way too 'cartoonish' and Billy Connolly.

The BBC Radio broadcast in the 80s was superb. I remember waiting eagerly for it every Sunday lunchtime.

I also remember Jackanory doing the Hobbit with four actors telling the story: Bernard Cribbins, Maurice Denham and Jan Francis (who I had a huge crush one). I can't remember the name of the fourth.

The BBC also did a radio version of the Hobbit with Nicol Williamson as Gandalf. Unfortunately, Williamson chose to use a Lancashire accent which made it sound like either the Hobbits or the dwarves were from Burnley . . . . . "Bilbo Baggins, burrrrglurrr" :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Jun 18 - 02:56 PM

Does this answer the memory, Harry? And I don't remember it at all! :)

Oh, and the Nicol "I'm a looney" Williamson version! I never knew that existed either. I haven't checked how complete this version is, mind...

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: keberoxu
Date: 21 Jun 18 - 02:08 PM

Just in response to an earlier Mrrzy post:
the question was posed,
where to end Movie 2 and begin Movie 3?

The ultimate decision
is one of the few things of which I approve.

"The Desolation of Smaug,"   movie 2,
ended with the great wyrm Smaug
leaving the Mountain and heading into the open air
for the first time in how long? Anyway,
Smaug's death is imminent,
but first he has some humans to kill.

I think it fitting, actually,
that movie 3, The Battle of Five Armies,
begins with Smaug visiting ruin upon Lake Town,
and proceeds from there
to all-out war.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: keberoxu
Date: 23 Jun 18 - 03:47 PM

There is an emblematic moment,
near the end of Tolkien's Hobbit,
where Bilbo shouts,
"The eagles are coming!"

In the film, the eagles come, right enough,
but we don't get Bilbo's victorious shout.
One of many disappointments.

Subject: RE: BS: The Hobbit movie
From: keberoxu
Date: 24 Jun 18 - 06:37 PM

And about Bilbo.
One of the most gratifying things about
"The Battle of Five Armies," or Hobbit Movie no. 3,
was watching Martin Freeman's performance as Bilbo Baggins.

Particularly when he was face-to-face with any dwarf,
and particularly Thorin Oakenshield.
He has after all done some pretty spectacular burglaring
and kept it secret from everyone, in fact
he has lied about something that Thorin wants for himself.

And Freeman worked hard at the actor's business
of showing Bilbo saying one thing and thinking another,
while facial tics and twitches gave him away.
I have to concur with the Mudcat member who posted
that as characterizations go,
Bilbo is far more interesting than poor self-martyred Frodo.