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

Right. Because pages from the LOTR appendices are part of The Hobbit. Must have gotten confused there.

And are you seriously suggested 100 pages=3 hours? I'm glad apparently nobody besides the director of the hobbit thinks like that. Interesting how many 3 to 4 hundred page books have clocked in at, oh, two and some changes. And your presumption that less running time for less source material is somehow my stance is ridiculously irrelevant given that a massive chunk of this film is not in the novel at all.

These changes do not "honor" anything besides corporate greed and a director who seems to think hours of pointless added scenes are somehow good. They definitely don't honor a light children's novel and the idea that they somehow do is absurd.

as for your accusations that I'm somehow not a tolkien fan 1) what? and 2) seriously? I shouldn't go see the movie if I'm not a fan? Wow.

 

Clearly I have to concede the 11-hour run-time for LOTR:EE (3.5 + 3.5 + 4 = 11). But the Hobbit movies are (and will continue to be, per Jackson) shorter than their 10-year-old counterparts, so it stands to reason the EEs will be shorter too.

However long they wind up being, it's still preferable because a longer run time equals more of the book on screen. If you're a fan of the book, that's a good thing. How not? If you're not a fan, why bother seeing it or discussing a property you dislike?

And can we conclude from your silence that you concede my point regarding the Appendices and the cinematic realization thereof?

 

Except that the LOTR appendices have never been part of The Hobbit. Seriously. If Tolkien wanted to rework the Hobbit to include scenes he developed over twenty years of writing LOTR he had plenty of time and opportunity to do so. Claiming that they equal 'seeing more of the book onscreen' is ridiculous because they're not part of the book. They're a concurrent storyline, but that doesn't make them the same story.

 

Wha-huh? Oh, I see, you're exaggerating theatrically and using sarcasm to belittle me! Ha hee hoo hoo. Meanwhile, in case you missed the tweet, The Lord of the Rings (c.1955) contains references to events that occurred during, but not necessarily described in, The Hobbit (1937). In these "Appendices" at the end of the novel, the White Council, certain dwarven lore, etc. is discussed in an encyclopedic tone. Any objection or complaint (read: "belly-aching") as to the inclusion of this material in the live-action movie seems to derive from a tiny, fractious minority of audience members -- as it turns out, precisely four people on the planet. You're one of them, and you should be proud.

My "presumption is ridiculous"? Your statement, "turning what's a pretty light novel into a 9-hour trilogy... killed any chance of me thinking Jackson respects the source material", means you think the movie should be shorter, does it not?; and that Jackson's expansion into a lengthy epic comes as a disappointment for you and indeed, is the very gist of your complaint. I phrased this, which I understand to be your position, "less running time [should] be devoted to less source material". But now you're protesting my phrasing, expecting me to accept that your "pretty light novel" is not equivalent to my "less source material"; that "killed my thinking Jackson respects the material" does not equate to your saying the movie should be shorter, IE "less running time should be devoted". At least one of us is confused, and I'm beginning to suspect it's both of us.

You seem angry for some reason. I've returned your veiled snark in kind, but can we tone down the aggrieved rhetoric a notch? Please point to the exact passage where I levelled an "accusation that [you're] not a Tolkien fan". I asked if you are -- an inquiry is not an accusation, DarthBoba, -- and suggested that if not, you're not going to enjoy the film. "Wow" and "seriously" indeed; the non-stop avalanche of cynicism and personal aggrievement -- I believe the kids call this "butthurt" -- I'm getting from your direction is causing discomfort on my end as well. You want to hate the movie and spend your time railing against it, be my guest. But I'll be here arguing against your sarcastic and exaggerated vitriol at every turn.

 

just got back. surprisingly, i actually mostly really liked it. some of the added stuff was annoying, but i see that's already being beaten to death so i'll just go.

 

I think 'If you're not a Tolkien fan you're not going to enjoy the film' is a pretty damning indictment of the movie, actually.

 

Anti-literary hogwash. Tolkien scholars and fans agree -- universally in my experience so far -- that whereas The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are stylistically distinct books, they belong to the same continuity, the same "canon" of characters, events, settings, etc. Adapting the first book after the sequel has been filmed, and incorporating the clarifications and expansions written into that sequel by the author of both works, into the "prequel" adaptation, seems totally natural, organic, advisable, comprehensible and indeed, as a fan of the material, desirable to me.

Your reaction is the first of its kind I've encountered among Tolkien fans. I find it contrarian and sour-grapes-ish, but that's probably just because I don't understand it.

 

If you don't like the fantasy-adventure setting or characters or genre, and/or if you're not a fan of the material, why would you see, never mind enjoy, a movie like this? I fail to take your point.

 

There's a difference between being a fan of fantasy and being a fan of Tolkien. A movie shouldn't necessarily require being a fan of the source material to enjoy it, though obviously active dislike is different.

 

Not really. It could have been a little less madcap in places, but it wasn't the end of the world ( literally ).

 

the tolkien fan part of me was actually the most annoyed part.

 

I enjoyed it immensely even though I haven't read the book since 2002.

 

I saw it today. While I consider LOTR one big movie, and while I will consider all 3 parts of The Hobbit one big movie, I think this first part was the weakest, although good. Some parts blew me away. Some parts made me think, 'What in the world is PJ thinking?' Overall, considering it is hard to a film adaptation of the Hobbit as it is, it was better then I thought it'd be.

I must admit Gandalf's explanation of how the game of golf was invented was something I wasn't expecting but was excited to see.

 

I certainly think at times this film suffered from an attempt to be much more epic than it was. This tendency was pretty well exemplified by the narration about the city of Erebor, in particular the line "Where sickness grows, bad things often happens." First, just facially, it's a mind-numbingly stupid statement. It's a tautology, because progressive sickness is a bad thing in and of itself, not merely a harbringer of bad. Then on a metaphorical level, it's not really clear how the King's greed was connected to the dragon. The dwarves achieved what they did because of the gold and jewels that were already in that mountain. Why would excavating them without even removing them from the mine be such a crime? Or rather, how does this become a character flaw? I don't see where they made that case.

 

I assumed that greed caused the King to build and keep that wealth in one area (under his possession), and word of said-wealth spread so far and wide that it captured the attention of Smaug.

 

I can't disagree with this in the least. I think I was using a broader definition of "fan" than my interlocutors; I meant it not in the strict sense of "fanatic" but generally, as in "someone who enjoys a given activity". In short, if you don't like Tolkien or fantasy adventure, you probably won't like The Hobbit, movie or book. On the other hand, "purist" fans might defend Tolkien's work as being inviolable and off-limits to expansions or adaptations. My question to DarthBoba was looking for his place on that continuum (from not-a-fan to purist fan).

 

its because dwarves are jews and smaug is hitler

i would also submit that JRR Martin's claimed dislike of allegory was, itself, an elaborate allegory

 

So but I mean. . .he shouldn't have developed the natural resources of his city? I mean what should he have done differently?

 

I saw it today. I think its a pretty stupid movie and I don't think I'll be bothering to see the next two in theaters if at all.


Though I do think the 48 FPS was fine, and the 3D was mighty fine.

 

Ralph Bakshi filmed "Lord of the Rings".

Rankin-Bass did the animated "Hobbit", as well as "Return of the King".

 

seeing this again tomorrow morning. It'll be my 4th time watching it.

 

There is the fact that Thror had one of the seven Dwarf-rings, but that was left out of the film.