Will The Hobbit end up "rotten"?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

My dad just told me they're doing a trilogy with this? I thought it was only 2 parts.  How on earth are they turning this into a 9-hour trilogy?  Yikes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Inability to edit, plus a belief that they can get away with anything and still end up with a commercial success.

[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.

[Eraserhead]

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)?

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My dad just told me they're doing a trilogy with this? I thought it was only 2 parts.  How on earth are they turning this into a 9-hour trilogy?  Yikes.

It was two parts.  As I understand it, the added third part will mainly cover material from the LOTR (mainly in the Appendices) as to what was going on elsewhere at the same time and what happened between Bilbo returning from his journey and Frodo leaving for his journey.  So the third Hobbit film will actually be more of a zeroth LOTR film.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Frodo]

It's now at 76% with 79 reviews in.  

[Lief 🗽]

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).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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).

People who care about even relatively devout adherence to the source material's storytelling style would care about the warg thing.

What was done to Faramir is indeed worse, however.

[Frodo]

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).

People who care about even relatively devout adherence to the source material's storytelling style would care about the warg thing.

What was done to Faramir is indeed worse, however.

The distortion of Faramir's character is indeed disturbing, which is why it is one of my main grievances against Peter Jackson -that, and the army of the dead being loosed upon the Fields of Pelennor when they only took the Corsairs' ships outside Pelargir in the book. 

Apart from those two examples, I didn't have any issue with the LOTR trilogy alterations.  Some of them actually enhanced the story, like the substitution of Arwen in place of Glorfindel in rescuing Frodo from the Black Riders. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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).

People who care about even relatively devout adherence to the source material's storytelling style would care about the warg thing.

What was done to Faramir is indeed worse, however.

The distortion of Faramir's character is indeed disturbing, which is why it is one of my main grievances against Peter Jackson -that, and the army of the dead being loosed upon the Fields of Pelennor when they only took the Corsairs' ships outside Pelargir in the book. 

Apart from those two examples, I didn't have any issue with the LOTR trilogy alterations.  Some of them actually enhanced the story, like the substitution of Arwen in place of Glorfindel in rescuing Frodo from the Black Riders. 

I will agree I thought that was a sensible alteration. Some of what goes on with Arwen later on, on the other hand...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The distortion of Faramir's character is indeed disturbing, which is why it is one of my main grievances against Peter Jackson -that, and the army of the dead being loosed upon the Fields of Pelennor when they only took the Corsairs' ships outside Pelargir in the book. 

Having the army of the dead come to Pelennor makes sense for a movie tho.  First off all, it simplifies some of the plot, but more importantly it provides a visual explanation why the army of Mordor is routed there as opposed to the cerebral explanation of their leader is dead so the orcs and such go all goofy.

[Frodo]

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).

People who care about even relatively devout adherence to the source material's storytelling style would care about the warg thing.

What was done to Faramir is indeed worse, however.

The distortion of Faramir's character is indeed disturbing, which is why it is one of my main grievances against Peter Jackson -that, and the army of the dead being loosed upon the Fields of Pelennor when they only took the Corsairs' ships outside Pelargir in the book. 

Apart from those two examples, I didn't have any issue with the LOTR trilogy alterations.  Some of them actually enhanced the story, like the substitution of Arwen in place of Glorfindel in rescuing Frodo from the Black Riders. 

I will agree I thought that was a sensible alteration. Some of what goes on with Arwen later on, on the other hand...

Like what, exactly?  The only scene I can possibly think of that you're referencing is her following her father's wishes in departing to Valinor along the old road before turning back suddenly out of love for Aragorn.  And that doesn't bother me in the least. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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).

People who care about even relatively devout adherence to the source material's storytelling style would care about the warg thing.

What was done to Faramir is indeed worse, however.

The distortion of Faramir's character is indeed disturbing, which is why it is one of my main grievances against Peter Jackson -that, and the army of the dead being loosed upon the Fields of Pelennor when they only took the Corsairs' ships outside Pelargir in the book. 

Apart from those two examples, I didn't have any issue with the LOTR trilogy alterations.  Some of them actually enhanced the story, like the substitution of Arwen in place of Glorfindel in rescuing Frodo from the Black Riders. 

I will agree I thought that was a sensible alteration. Some of what goes on with Arwen later on, on the other hand...

Like what, exactly?  The only scene I can possibly think of that you're referencing is her following her father's wishes in departing to Valinor along the old road before turning back suddenly out of love for Aragorn.  And that doesn't bother me in the least. 

It struck me as out-of-place, and frankly a little out-of-character, more so for Elrond than for her.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Down to 68% now, but I think it has too many positive reviews in to fall below 60.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

Also, he characterized the Ents, as a people, both poorly and unevenly. Treebeard individually I thought was done rather well, but still wasn't really the Treebeard from the books.

[milhouse24]

The footage looks weird with the details.  But the movie shoudl be good, except its too "family safe and cartoonish"

[Cobbler]

I saw it. It is very long and its hard to sit through without getting restless, but its still very well done and I think its ultimately getting hit way harder than it should be by critics.

[Frodo]

I'll see it next weekend since I am still recovering from a head-cold (had it since Monday), and I don't want to infect anyone in the audience.  

[Eraserhead]

Down to 66%. This is gonna be close but it should hang on. Most of the reviews are in now.

[Frodo]

Down to 66%. This is gonna be close but it should hang on. Most of the reviews are in now.

The main reason for the ratings drop (from what I've read) is that the critics are bitching and moaning about how long this film is.. 

[CatoMinor]

I thought the movie was good. It shouldn't be below 75%