Amph One Thread To Rule Them All: The Rings of Power + The Hobbit & Lord of the Rings Trilogies

Sorry Mar. It's common knowledge that I'm a terrible proofreader. But I have a big heart: enlarged and diseased, with failure imminent.

Two more weeks!

 

Whatever you say, Mars.

What if I fit in all four categories?

 

In exactly two weeks time I'll be sat in a cinema waiting for the film to start.

Also, .

 

I won't.
The school changed the exam schedule, so I can't go....

 

I'll watch it for you!

 

I'll be at a midnight showing at Graumann's Chinese with over a dozen friends, including Tunick, Lowbacca, and a few others from here. Feel free to scream with jealousy.

 

Well, I will be watching it with Everton, so there's nothing I need to be jealous about.

 

Well I'll be watching it with, uh, the lads, actually. The lads being the two-three friends I live close enough to to associate with in RL. Right, I don't think I have anything to brag about. All by myself...

 

Ahhhhhhh! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
You told me to.
Mar, that was directed at me, because I said I can't go. And I'd been planning for years, too.

 

TV spot #9 - with a hint of Smaug! And the Battle of Azanulbizar!



That hug at the end...

 

The filmmaking techniques look more and more precise compared to what we saw/heard in LOTR. Those films, especially the first two, have an endearingly sloppy, low-budget quality to them in comparison to this extremely high-key, painstakingly art-directed Hobbit film. I'm not putting a value judgement on that yet, 'tis simply an observation.

 

Bilbo/Thorin bromance at its best! Gotta love men who are unafraid to show emotion... Manly Tears and all.

Cheers,
Lauré

 

I really hate to be a voice of negativity, but that's almost a negative for me. Some of the shots, especially showcasing lighting and time of day, just don't seem right to me. It's beautiful, great cinematography and is gorgeous to look at, but it just takes me out of any sort of reality. It looks too fantastical, and obviously not as it was shot.

I feel like I'm constantly a downer on this movie, because of the frame rate, the split into three parts, and now the visual style they're going with. I am really looking forward to it and want it to be good, but I also want it to fit with the visual grammar of the original movies.

The people who claim that the Star Wars saga IS one film are insane. LotR does work as one, but I'm not sure visually these two trilogies are going to fit together as nicely as they should.

 

Smaug!

And was that Radagast or Gandalf entering Dol Goldur at the end?

 

I'm not sure I disagree with you, but just to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, it's not completely clear that these movies need or should fit nicely together. The Hobbit is a children's book. LOTR is more young adult/adolescent literature. There are potentially strong artistic justifications for giving the two trilogies distinctive styles.

 

Disagreement for the sake of disagreement is one of the noblest actions possible.

I would argue that the split off to three movies is quite possibly going to be to directly to tie it into LotR. Eru knows there's not enough story just in the Hobbit, so they're implanting parts of the appendices and I'm sure tons of other stuff. They're also bringing Elijah Wood back to play Frodo, I would presume in some sort of flash forward role to establish that this is one his Uncle's book he's reading. The inclusion of Saruman (I haven't read any of the ancillary material, just The Hobbit and LotR, I'll get to the Silmarillion one day) and Legolas speaks volumes. They're trying to remind you that these are some of the characters you knew from the previous movies, see how they all fit in!

 

I won't speak about Saruman, but when you think about Legolas being in The Hobbit, it's not that far-fetched. I mean, Bilbo does at some point get to Mirkwood, and sees King Thranduil (i.e. Legolas's father), so it would be normal that we'd at least see him around the court there, unless there's the oh-so-convenient excuse that he's doing a mission somewhere else. Also, it makes sense narratively for us to see someone we already care about doing stuff and showing us around, as it were, instead of a generic "band of Elves" we don't know. I admit it's a bit of a shorthand, but it's an effective one which leaves more space for other, more important/plot relevant information to be given, so it doesn't bother me too much.

Cheers,
Lauré

 

I can't disagree with caedus. Two movies from a book seems to be the latest thing in Hollywood (HP, Twilight, Hunger Games). Three seems like a lot, given the amount of material. LOTR was three books from three movies.

I think Jackson does have good intentions, and I really hope this trilogy is amazing, and I'll be in theaters for all three no matter what ... but I'm still skeptical that the quality is going to be as good as LOTR.

 

Three movies from three books...

 

That's what I meant. Long day

 

I think that Saruman's presence is in part explained by the Saruman content in the Third Age portion of The Silmarillion ( despite the fact that Jackson & Co. don't have the rights to adapt that book ) but mainly reflects the fact that the "White Council" is supposed to be involved in Dol Guldur. It's not just "let's use a LOTR character".

 

It's also mentioned in the LOTR Appendices, which means Jackson & Co. are allowed to use it.

 

It also takes place in Mirkwood, which was Legolas's home.

 

That glimpse of Smaug is enough to confirm that yes, he's still a dragon in this adaptation. That's a good start.

I was initially doubtful about the expansions made to "The Hobbit" for these films, but you know what I've decided? I've decided to trust PJ et al enough to believe they have split the tale into three for good reasons. To trust that they felt the material they shot, and planned to shoot, would be better on the screen than dropped or cast aside. That you and I would love to see it. I trust that Legolas and Saruman are included not only because they are familiar faces, but because long conversations deep into the night before principal photography began lead PJ et al to the conclusion it would not seem like tokenism or pandering to the fans. That there is solid justification, and that Orlando and Sir Chris would help round out this cinematic adaptation of Tolkien's works and not diminish it. I suppose there's a slim chance this might not be how I feel after actually seeing AUJ, but right now this creative team has (for very good reasons) my trust and to be honest, I don't see them losing it come December 14th. Of all the book adaptations we have seen put to screen, an expanded Hobbit crafted by the same people who gave us the LotR trilogy simply has to be given the biggest chance. I'm just too excited, and too thankful for it, to settle into my seat with anything other than great expectations.

And I'll be watching it with you.

 

I just hope I don't come out of the theater saying, well that was a good third of a movie.

As much as these movies should all work as one, each individual movie should work on its own. And I'm afraid it won't because they're stretching it out so thin.

The Hobbit is a great story on its own. But if I were to pick up the book, read a third of it, then pick it up again in a year, I'm not sure I'd feel the same way about it if I had read the whole thing. I know the analogy doesn't work, but we'll just have to see how they play this first one, see if it really does fill its own space as its own movie, or is merely the first part of a three part film.