Will The Hobbit end up "rotten"?

[minionofmidas]

Probably not. My guess is that it'll hover around 75%.

The project has been rotten from the start and has only become more so. The first rule of a good adaptation is to show respect for the spirit of the source material. It might actually be the only rule. This project, however...

Meh. It still looks like the Hobbit.

That would be a LOT more than could ever be said about The Two Towers.

What I would like to see is a film of The Children of Húrin.

...but not from Jackson or anyone else involved with this thing.


No actually, the whole costume etc stuff could have been so much worse as far as the (non Dunlending) Humanoids are concerned. Guess we can keep that company on board, then.

[minionofmidas]

That would be a LOT more than could ever be said about The Two Towers.

I maintain that Faramir should consider consulting his lawyers with the aim of suing Jackson for libel. The case is overwhelming.

I'm representing the Ents in a similar case, actually. However, the case moves very slowly, since it's in an Entish court. I presumably won't live to see its resolution, but it should result in the violent dismemberment of all the earthly remains of Jackson's oeuvre.

[minionofmidas]

Also, I love the sound of the title of this thread. Just, you know, phonetically.

[minionofmidas]

Also, I love the sound of the title of this thread. Just, you know, phonetically.

Spoken like a true Tolkien fan.

Cellar door. Cellar door. Cellar door.

Tolkien was fond of quoting that and influential in popularizing it (certainly more so than Donnie Darko, since everybody old enough and not wholly clueless knew the line by then), but he didn't think it up himself.

[minionofmidas]

You know, expanding a book for Hollywood is a much better idea than shrinking it down for Hollywood. It allows directors to add bad content of their own devising, something they seem unable to not do anyways, without having to remove necessary content to make room. It makes for a much more independent work.

I swore a holy oath not to make this Jackson person richer by another cent after Towers, and will therefore not watch this before it comes along on free tv or somebody else's dvd, but from what I hear it looks as if this will suck less.

[minionofmidas]

So as someone who doesn't particularly care about these books or films, what was so messed up about The Two Towers in particular (according to the purists here)?

I'm not writing a 100,000 word essay on this issue.

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Tolkien_vs._Jackson:_Differences_Between_Story_and_Screenplay/Major_Differences

[minionofmidas]

Skimming it, that doesn't even touch on most of the lowbrow fanfic added in that movie.

[minionofmidas]

So as someone who doesn't particularly care about these books or films, what was so messed up about The Two Towers in particular (according to the purists here)?

Most but not all of it can be traced back to either (a) a sequence of events in which, among other things, Aragorn falls off a cliff on a warg, (b) elves at the Hornburg, or both.

There is, obviously, more.

Right but only people who (1) are deeply attached to the books and (2) fault a movie for not following its source material strictly would care about that. (Also the whole Faramir digression is considerably worse than either of those things combined, since Jackson needlessly ruined a character there, while the worgs and the elves were mostly just cool exciting things he added).

They were lowbrow action he added because he apparently did not comprehend the book, most of which he left out. It's like taking an overlong commercial d&d scenario and slapping the words "Lord of the Rings" on top. It should have been prosecuted as a copyright violation.
Almost all of the alterations, including the more harmless ones, are in that spirit.

[minionofmidas]

I hate Tolkein's world; always have.

Yes. Jackson movies are for people who love the Fantasy genre in general but hate Tolkien's world and always have.

[minionofmidas]

I meant the postTolkienian D&Dish fantasy stuff, of course, not all fantastic literature in the original sense.

[minionofmidas]

I thought it was a fun and exciting fantasy adventure, with generally very nice visuals (though some of the battle scenes, specifically the escape from the goblins, were kind of muddling and video game-ish; on the other hand, the final battle with the burning trees was very well-done). And the score was great. Hearing the themes from the first films again was this hugely nostalgically satisfying. I didn't think it was overly long either, I would have gladly spent another few hours in the world Jackson has obviously very lovingly created. I loved the little historical scenes too, like seeing where Thorin got his epithet from and the dragon attack in the beginning.

I don't really care that's it not an exact recreation of The Hobbit either. The book already exists; if you want a faithful recreation of Tolkien just re-read the book. Let other artists make their own works. It's especially ridiculous to criticize Jackson considering that taking other works and ideas and worlds and repurposing them for your ends is basically what Tolkien did in the first place.

Have you seen the 3D IMAX version of it?  It's a whole new experience....  

Nah, aren't tickets like $20 each for that? I can see why it would be pretty cool though.

I don't normally see or pay for 3D, but I made an exception in this case Saturday evening.  I don't regret it.  I love Tolkien, and (unlike the snobs and purists in this thread...and elsewhere) I love Peter Jackson's rendition almost as much.  I would gladly pay extra for the remaining films of the Hobbit trilogy.    

Having taste is not being a snob.

..........

Thanks for proving my point.

What I resent from the likes of you, Al, and others on this thread is the implication that those of us who like how Peter Jackson (for the most part) made the LOTR trilogy and the Hobbit, somehow have inferior tastes than yours.  And that anyone who loves Tolkien cannot possibly also like Peter Jackson's renditions of his books.  

I strenuously deny the last of these allegations.

[minionofmidas]

Some of the stories that were published in Unfinished Tales may have been contemporaneous with The Hobbit

Actually, that's only 10 pages (twice; in two versions) of it. And all they do is try to explain away the inconsistency of / reconcile the opening of the Hobbit with the remainder of it and LoTR, ie give some kind of reasoning why the hell they'd take a fat hobbit along now that Dwarves aren't the funny buffoons the first book makes them out as, and why they consider Bilbo a burglar.
There's also a similarly motivated essay on how the Nazgul come to Hobbiton.

I had somehow thought that Tolkien ever wrote some kind of narrative text about what went on at Dol Guldur during the Hobbit, and that this might be where to find it, but apparently he never did. (Yeah, I've read... sizable part of... the Unfinished Tales yesterday and the day before.)