Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Village Voice)   IMPORTANT STUDY: The average adult can read further into The Hobbit within the movie's own running time than the movie itself actually covers   (blogs.villagevoice.com) divider line 118
    More: Asinine, The Hobbit, running time, Wilhelm scream, First Hour, Frodo, The Return of the King  
•       •       •

3588 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Dec 2012 at 12:41 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-07 12:50:38 PM  
I'm pretty much "shut up and take my money" about the whole affair.
 
2012-12-07 12:51:56 PM  
The VOICE was so much better under its previous management.
 
2012-12-07 12:52:44 PM  
Yes, but how far can the average adult read before putting the book down because Tolkein, though a creative genius, was an awful writer.
 
2012-12-07 12:56:03 PM  

NewWorldDan: Yes, but how far can the average adult read before putting the book down because Tolkein, though a creative genius, was an awful writer.


He was no E. L. James but he was pretty good.
 
2012-12-07 12:56:16 PM  
But I don't like reading. My imagination was killed after years of Nintendo. I need constant visual stimulation.
 
2012-12-07 12:57:52 PM  
So, don't go see it. Problem solved.
 
2012-12-07 12:59:46 PM  
That's due to PJ's odd decision to include each character's bathroom break in the film.
 
2012-12-07 01:01:16 PM  
Why did they decide to basically treat the theatrical release in the same way they treated the extended editions of the LOTR films? There's a reason you leave that extra 45 minutes or so to the version for the uber-fans...the average film-goer doesn't appreciate it and gets bored. Had they made those versions of the LOTR flicks the main releases, it would have gotten much harsher reviews from mainstream critics and audiences. And that is what appears to be happening here with The Hobbit.

I LOVE the added attention to detail and the thought that Jackson included additional lore from Tolkien material that isn't in the original book, but I'd be happy to leave that to an extended edition. There are gonna be a lot of malcontent non-geek spouses who will wonder why the f*ck the film is so damn long.
 
2012-12-07 01:05:23 PM  
LInked pictorial on sidebar was better: Burlesque With Stoya and Friends (NSFW)
 
2012-12-07 01:08:24 PM  
On a related note, Stephen Colbert has Peter Jackson on last night, and Colbert was schooling him on Tolkien knowledge. Anyway, supposedly Tolkien at one point was re-writing "The Hobbit" story to be more in line with the somewhat more adult tone of LOTR. After LOTR, he came to consider "The Hobbit" to be a children's book interpretation of a rather dark and complex story...a somewhat sanitized and condensed version of "the real story". So Tolkien set about re-doing it. Someone apparently convinced him that he'd just undermine his original masterpiece, and he stopped working on it.

That's Colbert's story, anyway. Very interesting if true.

I'm interested to see if Jackson maintains the lighter nature of The Hobbit, or tries to make it more consistent with the LOTR. The books definitely had different tones.
 
2012-12-07 01:10:40 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: On a related note, Stephen Colbert has Peter Jackson on last night, and Colbert was schooling him on Tolkien knowledge. Anyway, supposedly Tolkien at one point was re-writing "The Hobbit" story to be more in line with the somewhat more adult tone of LOTR. After LOTR, he came to consider "The Hobbit" to be a children's book interpretation of a rather dark and complex story...a somewhat sanitized and condensed version of "the real story". So Tolkien set about re-doing it. Someone apparently convinced him that he'd just undermine his original masterpiece, and he stopped working on it.

That's Colbert's story, anyway. Very interesting if true.

I'm interested to see if Jackson maintains the lighter nature of The Hobbit, or tries to make it more consistent with the LOTR. The books definitely had different tones.


(All that said, he DID re-write the Gollum portion to match the tone and gravity of what it came to represent)
 
2012-12-07 01:11:39 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: On a related note, Stephen Colbert has Peter Jackson on last night, and Colbert was schooling him on Tolkien knowledge. Anyway, supposedly Tolkien at one point was re-writing "The Hobbit" story to be more in line with the somewhat more adult tone of LOTR. After LOTR, he came to consider "The Hobbit" to be a children's book interpretation of a rather dark and complex story...a somewhat sanitized and condensed version of "the real story". So Tolkien set about re-doing it. Someone apparently convinced him that he'd just undermine his original masterpiece, and he stopped working on it.

That's Colbert's story, anyway. Very interesting if true.

I'm interested to see if Jackson maintains the lighter nature of The Hobbit, or tries to make it more consistent with the LOTR. The books definitely had different tones.


The Hobbit was edited somewhat after its initial release to be more in line with LotR. I think the most major change was during Bilbo's encounter with Gollum and finding the ring. For anybody interested in learning more, check out the annotated version of the book. So much info in there, including previous drafts of some of the sections.

Tolkien pretty much treated The Hobbit the same way King worked on The Gunslinger.
 
2012-12-07 01:14:08 PM  
And the movie Titanic was longer than it actually took the boat to sink, your point?
 
2012-12-07 01:15:46 PM  

NewWorldDan: Yes, but how far can the average adult read before putting the book down because Tolkein, though a creative genius, was an awful writer.


Someone on Fark once put it this way: Tolkien was a master as describing setting, but couldn't handle action or interactions for sh*t.

Three pages of describing trees and armies and setting up suspense, followed by:
"There was then a fight and a bunch of people died."
 
2012-12-07 01:16:54 PM  
I did not know that PJ cut the Hobbit into 3 movies from a 300 page book. I read slow but I know I could do roughly 100 pages in 2.5 hours.
 
2012-12-07 01:21:07 PM  

NeoCortex42: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: On a related note, Stephen Colbert has Peter Jackson on last night, and Colbert was schooling him on Tolkien knowledge. Anyway, supposedly Tolkien at one point was re-writing "The Hobbit" story to be more in line with the somewhat more adult tone of LOTR. After LOTR, he came to consider "The Hobbit" to be a children's book interpretation of a rather dark and complex story...a somewhat sanitized and condensed version of "the real story". So Tolkien set about re-doing it. Someone apparently convinced him that he'd just undermine his original masterpiece, and he stopped working on it.

That's Colbert's story, anyway. Very interesting if true.

I'm interested to see if Jackson maintains the lighter nature of The Hobbit, or tries to make it more consistent with the LOTR. The books definitely had different tones.

The Hobbit was edited somewhat after its initial release to be more in line with LotR. I think the most major change was during Bilbo's encounter with Gollum and finding the ring. For anybody interested in learning more, check out the annotated version of the book. So much info in there, including previous drafts of some of the sections.

Tolkien pretty much treated The Hobbit the same way King worked on The Gunslinger.


What Colbert was describing though was more of a completely new work...a "re-telling" of the story.
 
2012-12-07 01:26:21 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Why did they decide to basically treat the theatrical release in the same way they treated the extended editions of the LOTR films?


I recently discovered if you skip numerous scenes in PJ's King Kong, e.g. some of the NY scenes at the beginning, some of the scenes on the ship, the silly Brontosaurus stampede, etc. it is a much more enjoyable film.
 
2012-12-07 01:31:40 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Why did they decide to basically treat the theatrical release in the same way they treated the extended editions of the LOTR films? There's a reason you leave that extra 45 minutes or so to the version for the uber-fans...the average film-goer doesn't appreciate it and gets bored. Had they made those versions of the LOTR flicks the main releases, it would have gotten much harsher reviews from mainstream critics and audiences. And that is what appears to be happening here with The Hobbit.

I LOVE the added attention to detail and the thought that Jackson included additional lore from Tolkien material that isn't in the original book, but I'd be happy to leave that to an extended edition. There are gonna be a lot of malcontent non-geek spouses who will wonder why the f*ck the film is so damn long.


I blame Warner Brothers for the over-inflation of this one. Jackson originally wanted to make it in 2
parts, and it was fairly well into the production process where they announced "Hey, we're doing it in
3 films not 2!"

THE HOBBIT could have been very easily and fully adapted in 2 slightly-longer than average movies,
with a natural break where Bilbo gets lost under the mountain. I don't even know what Jackson could
do to pad it out; even if he added in Tom Bombadil, that will mean an excessive amount of tinkering
and addition, and while I think the result will be great (I happen to think Jackson did a great job of
capturing the feel of Tolkien with the LOTR movies, even if he made some changes and deletions that
got some purist's panties in a bunch), the only think Warner cares about is money.
 
2012-12-07 01:32:51 PM  

NeoCortex42: Tolkien pretty much treated The Hobbit the same way King worked on The Gunslinger.


Only the opposite because the revised version of The Gunslinger was farking terrible.

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Someone on Fark once put it this way: Tolkien was a master as describing setting, but couldn't handle action or interactions for sh*t.

Three pages of describing trees and armies and setting up suspense, followed by:
"There was then a fight and a bunch of people died."


The Battle of the Five Armies was like what, two pages? And most of that was just AND THEN THERE WERE THESE OTHER DWARVES LED BY GRUMPY SON OF GOOSEY FROM THE GREY HALLS OF AEIIOUIAIOUI VAN DEN VOWEL APPROACHING UPON THE DAYBREAK AND THEN THERE WERE...
 
2012-12-07 01:36:11 PM  
SacriliciousBeerSwiller

I'm interested to see if Jackson maintains the lighter nature of The Hobbit, or tries to make it more consistent with the LOTR. The books definitely had different tones.
You must have missed all the preview clips. Yes the books had different tones, but the bumbling and silliness the dwarves engage in make this look like something from adam sandler.
 
2012-12-07 01:39:32 PM  
NeoCortex42


Tolkien pretty much treated The Hobbit the same way King worked on The Gunslinger.
ummm No.

JRRT made bits of the hobbit more serious to fit with the tone of the entire epic.

$K on the other hand, treated "The Gunslinger" (both the re-write and the last 3 books) like George lucas treated the Original Trilogy "special editions".
 
2012-12-07 01:40:03 PM  
the time to beat, by The Hollywood Reporter's reckoning: 158 minutes

By the time I reached the end of chapter six, where the film stops, just over two and a half hours had passed -- I still had 20+ minutes to spare.


You don't say?
 
2012-12-07 01:41:53 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Why did they decide to basically treat the theatrical release in the same way they treated the extended editions of the LOTR films? There's a reason you leave that extra 45 minutes or so to the version for the uber-fans...the average film-goer doesn't appreciate it and gets bored. Had they made those versions of the LOTR flicks the main releases, it would have gotten much harsher reviews from mainstream critics and audiences. And that is what appears to be happening here with The Hobbit.

I LOVE the added attention to detail and the thought that Jackson included additional lore from Tolkien material that isn't in the original book, but I'd be happy to leave that to an extended edition. There are gonna be a lot of malcontent non-geek spouses who will wonder why the f*ck the film is so damn long.

I blame Warner Brothers for the over-inflation of this one. Jackson originally wanted to make it in 2
parts, and it was fairly well into the production process where they announced "Hey, we're doing it in
3 films not 2!"

THE HOBBIT could have been very easily and fully adapted in 2 slightly-longer than average movies,
with a natural break where Bilbo gets lost under the mountain. I don't even know what Jackson could
do to pad it out; even if he added in Tom Bombadil, that will mean an excessive amount of tinkering
and addition, and while I think the result will be great (I happen to think Jackson did a great job of
capturing the feel of Tolkien with the LOTR movies, even if he made some changes and deletions that
got some purist's panties in a bunch), the only think Warner cares about is money.


Radagast's home gets attacked by giant spiders. We can extrapolate from there.
 
2012-12-07 01:42:28 PM  

NeoCortex42: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: On a related note, Stephen Colbert has Peter Jackson on last night, and Colbert was schooling him on Tolkien knowledge. Anyway, supposedly Tolkien at one point was re-writing "The Hobbit" story to be more in line with the somewhat more adult tone of LOTR. After LOTR, he came to consider "The Hobbit" to be a children's book interpretation of a rather dark and complex story...a somewhat sanitized and condensed version of "the real story". So Tolkien set about re-doing it. Someone apparently convinced him that he'd just undermine his original masterpiece, and he stopped working on it.

That's Colbert's story, anyway. Very interesting if true.

I'm interested to see if Jackson maintains the lighter nature of The Hobbit, or tries to make it more consistent with the LOTR. The books definitely had different tones.

The Hobbit was edited somewhat after its initial release to be more in line with LotR. I think the most major change was during Bilbo's encounter with Gollum and finding the ring. For anybody interested in learning more, check out the annotated version of the book. So much info in there, including previous drafts of some of the sections.

Tolkien pretty much treated The Hobbit the same way King worked on The Gunslinger.


Great story, last book a giant steaming pile of shiat that ruined the entire thing?

I find Lotro boring as hell, and I'm a super nerd. It's just never, remotely, interested me. I've tried many a time, and I love reading (I burn through a book in a few days if I enjoy it). But Tolkien hasn't ever done anything for me.

I did however, enjoy the hobbit. Probably precisely because it was a more tightly written narrative with less 'here's a 400 page useless history' and 'here's 10 pages of song'. It was just a narrative. A well told story. I read it in HS or JH, and then tried to read lotro. Never made it past the first half of the first book.
 
2012-12-07 01:43:28 PM  
PJ made King Kong long & boring! Someone give this asshole a clock - or a least a good film editor!
 
2012-12-07 01:45:13 PM  

kroonermanblack: I did however, enjoy the hobbit. Probably precisely because it was a more tightly written narrative with less 'here's a 400 page useless history' and 'here's 10 pages of song'. It was just a narrative. A well told story. I read it in HS or JH, and then tried to read lotro. Never made it past the first half of the first book.


To be fair, the first half of the first book is the worst part of LotR. The story doesn't really get engaging until the second half of Fellowship and it gets great once you get into Two Towers.
 
2012-12-07 01:46:03 PM  

lmdemasi: the time to beat, by The Hollywood Reporter's reckoning: 158 minutes

By the time I reached the end of chapter six, where the film stops, just over two and a half hours had passed -- I still had 20+ minutes to spare.

You don't say?


Dahfuq..


60 +60+30 = 150

150+20 = 170

158-170 = -12.
 
2012-12-07 01:46:58 PM  
coco ebert: I'm pretty much "shut up and take my money" about the whole affair.

This. The Hobbit and Skyfall are the two movies I plan to see during my Christmas vacation.
 
2012-12-07 01:47:43 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: I happen to think Jackson did a great job of
capturing the feel of Tolkien with the LOTR movies, even if he made some changes and deletions that
got some purist's panties in a bunch


Please excuse me now, I must un-bunch my panties yet again. 

Frodo, of the nine fingers....and the Ring of Doom.....
 
2012-12-07 01:47:46 PM  

NewWorldDan: Yes, but how far can the average adult read before putting the book down because Tolkein, though a creative genius, was an awful writer.


The Hobbit, as the headline sort of indirectly points out, was concise verging on terse; even if you can't handle the writing conventions of epic literature used in Tolkein's other works your stunted attention span could likely still handle it.
 
2012-12-07 01:50:14 PM  

oldfarthenry: PJ made King Kong long & boring! Someone give this asshole a clock - or a least a good film editor!


As one critic put it regarding King Kong, "It was bloat killed the beast". I fear the same may hold true for The Hobbit.

/keep your expectations low
 
2012-12-07 01:52:17 PM  
"No skimming of elf songs, no matter how cutesy."

hehe, guilty...!
 
2012-12-07 01:57:07 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Why did they decide to basically treat the theatrical release in the same way they treated the extended editions of the LOTR films? There's a reason you leave that extra 45 minutes or so to the version for the uber-fans...the average film-goer doesn't appreciate it and gets bored. Had they made those versions of the LOTR flicks the main releases, it would have gotten much harsher reviews from mainstream critics and audiences. And that is what appears to be happening here with The Hobbit.

I LOVE the added attention to detail and the thought that Jackson included additional lore from Tolkien material that isn't in the original book, but I'd be happy to leave that to an extended edition. There are gonna be a lot of malcontent non-geek spouses who will wonder why the f*ck the film is so damn long.

I blame Warner Brothers for the over-inflation of this one. Jackson originally wanted to make it in 2
parts, and it was fairly well into the production process where they announced "Hey, we're doing it in
3 films not 2!"

THE HOBBIT could have been very easily and fully adapted in 2 slightly-longer than average movies,
with a natural break where Bilbo gets lost under the mountain. I don't even know what Jackson could
do to pad it out; even if he added in Tom Bombadil, that will mean an excessive amount of tinkering
and addition, and while I think the result will be great (I happen to think Jackson did a great job of
capturing the feel of Tolkien with the LOTR movies, even if he made some changes and deletions that
got some purist's panties in a bunch), the only think Warner cares about is money.


rankin-bass managed a very well-executed and faithful adaptation in ninety minutes. jackson could have done just as well in a single movie. it's a very simple story. three hours is more than enough time to tell it, unless you have 20-minute dish-throwing sequences and such.
 
2012-12-07 01:59:29 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: NeoCortex42: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: On a related note, Stephen Colbert has Peter Jackson on last night, and Colbert was schooling him on Tolkien knowledge. Anyway, supposedly Tolkien at one point was re-writing "The Hobbit" story to be more in line with the somewhat more adult tone of LOTR. After LOTR, he came to consider "The Hobbit" to be a children's book interpretation of a rather dark and complex story...a somewhat sanitized and condensed version of "the real story". So Tolkien set about re-doing it. Someone apparently convinced him that he'd just undermine his original masterpiece, and he stopped working on it.

That's Colbert's story, anyway. Very interesting if true.

I'm interested to see if Jackson maintains the lighter nature of The Hobbit, or tries to make it more consistent with the LOTR. The books definitely had different tones.

The Hobbit was edited somewhat after its initial release to be more in line with LotR. I think the most major change was during Bilbo's encounter with Gollum and finding the ring. For anybody interested in learning more, check out the annotated version of the book. So much info in there, including previous drafts of some of the sections.

Tolkien pretty much treated The Hobbit the same way King worked on The Gunslinger.

What Colbert was describing though was more of a completely new work...a "re-telling" of the story.


Read Rateliff's HISTORY OF THE HOBBIT. In the last section of the second book it contains the re-written "version" by Tolkien of the first few chapters of The Hobbit. Tolkien gave up after chapter 4/5 because he was getting too depressed by how juvenile the version was (tho he meant it to be that way in the 30s when he wrote it) but there was so much more he wanted to add and link into LOTR. He was increasingly wanting to just re-write the entire book. But the re-written versions show all the LOTR stuff he wanted to add and link - Butterbur, the Prancing pony, Rangers patrolling the roads etc -- making Frodo's journey much more of a parallel to Bilbo. It's an interesting take on Tolkien's ideas in his later years.

Hell, Tolkien would never have finished LOTR in the first place without a legal deadline to finish it. He kind of got around that my adding additions and edits in later years. He was obsessed with re-writing everything forever.
 
2012-12-07 02:04:39 PM  

devilEther: oldfarthenry: PJ made King Kong long & boring! Someone give this asshole a clock - or a least a good film editor!

As one critic put it regarding King Kong, "It was bloat killed the beast". I fear the same may hold true for The Hobbit.

/keep your expectations low


My expectations are incredibly low. Every trailer makes it look worse. Yes I'm still going to see it so don't get your nerd undies in a bunch. It was the only Tolkien book I liked.
 
2012-12-07 02:06:28 PM  

Saiga410: I did not know that PJ cut the Hobbit into 3 movies from a 300 page book. I read slow but I know I could do roughly 100 pages in 2.5 hours.


The Hobbit is only 300 pages? Then why the fark do they need 3 movies that run nearly 3 hours apiece to tell the story? I understand why Lord of the Rings needed it, because that book was freakin enormous.
 
2012-12-07 02:21:16 PM  
I said it before, and I'll say it again. If the material that makes up the third movie is the stuff in the appendices that comprised what the White Council was up to simultaneously, I'm totally okay with it.
 
2012-12-07 02:22:04 PM  

buttery_shame_cave: rankin-bass managed a very well-executed and faithful adaptation in ninety minutes.


Panties now officially UN-BUNCHED. Thank you and I'll gladly birth your Hobbiatchild.

Of course, I'll need a Lopitoffme first, but after 10yrs of marriage it's not as if I use it that much anyways, other than running a little water through it on occasion.
 
2012-12-07 02:23:37 PM  
I get it already. But you still won't kill the film's box office performance or fan reaction.
 
2012-12-07 02:23:56 PM  
should've been Hobbiatchild, but the auto correct is somewhat amusing nonetheless.
 
2012-12-07 02:24:55 PM  

stoli n coke: Saiga410: I did not know that PJ cut the Hobbit into 3 movies from a 300 page book. I read slow but I know I could do roughly 100 pages in 2.5 hours.

The Hobbit is only 300 pages? Then why the fark do they need 3 movies that run nearly 3 hours apiece to tell the story? I understand why Lord of the Rings needed it, because that book was freakin enormous.


They're going to show a "side story" that happened at the same time of the Hobbit, which is expanded upon in other books. Basically, it's about what Gandalf is running off to do, whenever he runs off from the Bilbo and the Dwarves. And from what I've read, it leads to a huge moment of awesome.
 
2012-12-07 02:25:35 PM  
My goodness, but this auto-correct thingy owns me.
 
2012-12-07 02:31:21 PM  

ClintonKun: And from what I've read, it leads to a huge moment of awesome.


Oh, it does.
 
2012-12-07 02:32:27 PM  

Strider1002: So, don't go see it. Problem solved.


Done.
 
2012-12-07 02:38:40 PM  

ristst: should've been Hobbiatchild, but the auto correct is somewhat amusing nonetheless.


ristst: My goodness, but this auto-correct thingy owns me.


That's classic filter pwnage there, ristst
 
2012-12-07 02:51:41 PM  
There's also Silmarillion stuff in the movie, so that's also a factor.
 
2012-12-07 02:55:53 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: There's also Silmarillion stuff in the movie, so that's also a factor.


ClintonKun: stoli n coke: Saiga410: I did not know that PJ cut the Hobbit into 3 movies from a 300 page book. I read slow but I know I could do roughly 100 pages in 2.5 hours.

The Hobbit is only 300 pages? Then why the fark do they need 3 movies that run nearly 3 hours apiece to tell the story? I understand why Lord of the Rings needed it, because that book was freakin enormous.

They're going to show a "side story" that happened at the same time of the Hobbit, which is expanded upon in other books. Basically, it's about what Gandalf is running off to do, whenever he runs off from the Bilbo and the Dwarves. And from what I've read, it leads to a huge moment of awesome.


I was wondering why it was broken into three movies.

This information relieves some of my concerns about how they could possibly drag out such a short novel into a trilogy.
 
2012-12-07 02:58:02 PM  

DubyaHater: But I don't like reading. My imagination was killed after years of Nintendo. I need constant visual stimulation.


May I recommend that modern day miracle called, "Internet Pornography"?

/Done wonders for me.
//Except that my hand is always sore.
///And steadily growing more hirsute.
 
2012-12-07 03:00:26 PM  

talkertopc: LInked pictorial on sidebar was better: Burlesque With Stoya and Friends (NSFW)


Stoya rly!
 
2012-12-07 03:01:45 PM  
In grade school or Jr. High a lot of my friends were reading Tolkien so I gave it a go with The Hobbit.
I couldn't stay interested and never got past a few pages.

The Jackson films have really opened up the Tolkien world for me and I've enjoyed them and reading various wikipedia tid-bits about them. Still not convinced I could manage reading that stuff, though.
I always preferred spaceships and laser beams to fairy-land and trolls.

/Will see the film sometime, not concerned when. Haven't seen any trailers yet, not concerned about that, either.
//slashie-meh!
 
2012-12-07 03:05:07 PM  

Don Piano: I always preferred spaceships and laser beams to fairy-land and trolls.


a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com

Spaceboy!
 
2012-12-07 03:08:24 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: On a related note, Stephen Colbert has Peter Jackson on last night, and Colbert was schooling him on Tolkien knowledge. Anyway, supposedly Tolkien at one point was re-writing "The Hobbit" story to be more in line with the somewhat more adult tone of LOTR. After LOTR, he came to consider "The Hobbit" to be a children's book interpretation of a rather dark and complex story...a somewhat sanitized and condensed version of "the real story". So Tolkien set about re-doing it. Someone apparently convinced him that he'd just undermine his original masterpiece, and he stopped working on it.

That's Colbert's story, anyway. Very interesting if true.

I'm interested to see if Jackson maintains the lighter nature of The Hobbit, or tries to make it more consistent with the LOTR. The books definitely had different tones.


Since he's including parts of the appendix in this trilogy, I'm guessing it's a more adult affair.
 
2012-12-07 03:13:43 PM  

ClintonKun: stoli n coke: Saiga410: I did not know that PJ cut the Hobbit into 3 movies from a 300 page book. I read slow but I know I could do roughly 100 pages in 2.5 hours.

The Hobbit is only 300 pages? Then why the fark do they need 3 movies that run nearly 3 hours apiece to tell the story? I understand why Lord of the Rings needed it, because that book was freakin enormous.

They're going to show a "side story" that happened at the same time of the Hobbit, which is expanded upon in other books. Basically, it's about what Gandalf is running off to do, whenever he runs off from the Bilbo and the Dwarves. And from what I've read, it leads to a huge moment of awesome.


Gandalf in Dol Guldur is going to be epic.


There's plenty of content for three movies. Plenty.
 
2012-12-07 03:23:10 PM  
What about the farking eagles??.?
 
2012-12-07 03:27:35 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: ClintonKun: stoli n coke: Saiga410: I did not know that PJ cut the Hobbit into 3 movies from a 300 page book. I read slow but I know I could do roughly 100 pages in 2.5 hours.

The Hobbit is only 300 pages? Then why the fark do they need 3 movies that run nearly 3 hours apiece to tell the story? I understand why Lord of the Rings needed it, because that book was freakin enormous.

They're going to show a "side story" that happened at the same time of the Hobbit, which is expanded upon in other books. Basically, it's about what Gandalf is running off to do, whenever he runs off from the Bilbo and the Dwarves. And from what I've read, it leads to a huge moment of awesome.

Gandalf in Dol Guldur is going to be epic.


There's plenty of content for three movies. Plenty.


yeah, PJ dug deep into The Silmarillion to get the additional material. So it's not like he's just making sh*t up. All the extra stuff is either expanding the writing from The Hobbit ("...and they fought" becomes a 20 minute fight scene), or taken from the additional Middle Earth stories.
 
2012-12-07 03:28:59 PM  

Jaws_Victim: What about the farking eagles??.?


i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-12-07 03:40:22 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, Galadriel, Elrond, and by luck and the grace of god Cirdan, in Dol Guldur is going to be epic.


Fixed that for ya.

"Well, there's six of us and thousands of them. We're all Eldar lords and Istari, and they're led by Nazgul and the Necromancer himself[1]. Not really much point in punching below our weight class on this one, is there?"

[1] Yeah, I know by the time the White Council attacks Dol Guldur, there were no Nazgul there and Sauron had already fled to Barad-dur. It was merely the White Council opening a can of demigod whoopass on one of Sauron's armies.

Knowing Jackson, it'll probably have at least some Nazgul and Sauron present at the fight, though. It'll be interesting if Jackson reconciles the fact by this time Sauron had regained his physical form by having it destroyed (again) at Dol Guldur by the White Council, forcing him (again) to retake the form of the Lidless Eye for the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
 
2012-12-07 03:46:10 PM  
I dont think Dol Guldur is the epic battle everyone thinks it is. Its more like a D+D dungeon crawl. Gandalf finds dwarf lords in the prisons.
 
2012-12-07 03:46:45 PM  

Dumb-Ass-Monkey: So it's not like he's just making sh*t up


You mean like the first three films? Yeah......no "made-up shiat" in those whatsoever.
 
2012-12-07 03:48:00 PM  

LL316: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: On a related note, Stephen Colbert has Peter Jackson on last night, and Colbert was schooling him on Tolkien knowledge. Anyway, supposedly Tolkien at one point was re-writing "The Hobbit" story to be more in line with the somewhat more adult tone of LOTR. After LOTR, he came to consider "The Hobbit" to be a children's book interpretation of a rather dark and complex story...a somewhat sanitized and condensed version of "the real story". So Tolkien set about re-doing it. Someone apparently convinced him that he'd just undermine his original masterpiece, and he stopped working on it.

That's Colbert's story, anyway. Very interesting if true.

I'm interested to see if Jackson maintains the lighter nature of The Hobbit, or tries to make it more consistent with the LOTR. The books definitely had different tones.

Since he's including parts of the appendix in this trilogy, I'm guessing it's a more adult affair.


I hope, but when I see stuff like this:

...I have some concerns. I mean those don't even look like they live in the same universe as the few dwarves shown in LOTR. They look Disney-fied.
 
2012-12-07 03:50:07 PM  

Clash City Farker: I dont think Dol Guldur is the epic battle everyone thinks it is. Its more like a D+D dungeon crawl. Gandalf finds dwarf lords in the prisons.


Nope, that took place several years before the Hobbit, and will be a flashback. The epic battle takes place DURING The Hobbit, around the time they enter the Lonely Mountain, I believe.
 
2012-12-07 03:50:13 PM  

LL316: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: On a related note, Stephen Colbert has Peter Jackson on last night, and Colbert was schooling him on Tolkien knowledge. Anyway, supposedly Tolkien at one point was re-writing "The Hobbit" story to be more in line with the somewhat more adult tone of LOTR. After LOTR, he came to consider "The Hobbit" to be a children's book interpretation of a rather dark and complex story...a somewhat sanitized and condensed version of "the real story". So Tolkien set about re-doing it. Someone apparently convinced him that he'd just undermine his original masterpiece, and he stopped working on it.

That's Colbert's story, anyway. Very interesting if true.

I'm interested to see if Jackson maintains the lighter nature of The Hobbit, or tries to make it more consistent with the LOTR. The books definitely had different tones.

Since he's including parts of the appendix in this trilogy, I'm guessing it's a more adult affair.


Stupid Fark really should not post if it's gonna throw out a URL, preview skipped or not...let's try that again:

I hope, but when I see stuff like this:
cdn.amctheatres.com
...I have some concerns. I mean those don't even look like they live in the same universe as the few dwarves shown in LOTR. They look Disney-fied.
 
2012-12-07 03:51:59 PM  

Clash City Farker: I dont think Dol Guldur is the epic battle everyone thinks it is. Its more like a D+D dungeon crawl. Gandalf finds dwarf lords in the prisons.


Erm...that happens almost a century before the events of The Hobbit.
 
2012-12-07 03:52:50 PM  

that bosnian sniper: EdNortonsTwin: Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, Galadriel, Elrond, and by luck and the grace of god Cirdan, in Dol Guldur is going to be epic.

Fixed that for ya.

"Well, there's six of us and thousands of them. We're all Eldar lords and Istari, and they're led by Nazgul and the Necromancer himself[1]. Not really much point in punching below our weight class on this one, is there?"

[1] Yeah, I know by the time the White Council attacks Dol Guldur, there were no Nazgul there and Sauron had already fled to Barad-dur. It was merely the White Council opening a can of demigod whoopass on one of Sauron's armies.

Knowing Jackson, it'll probably have at least some Nazgul and Sauron present at the fight, though. It'll be interesting if Jackson reconciles the fact by this time Sauron had regained his physical form by having it destroyed (again) at Dol Guldur by the White Council, forcing him (again) to retake the form of the Lidless Eye for the Lord of the Rings trilogy.


What i love about these Tolkien threads is that I'm reminded, that I've forgotton, more than I rememeber. Well now, doesn't that sound like something Bilbo would say?

From some fansites, it looks like Gandalf may have a violent run in with a crazed Thrain II in Dol Guldur. If Sauron can't be there in physical form, there's always a Palantir that can be thrown in for extra spooky resolve.

I still say it will be epic.
 
2012-12-07 03:53:48 PM  
Hollywood has been getting greedier for years.

First they split up TV seasons and movies into "parts" so they could charge 50% more.
Then they dragged out the stories unnecessarily so they could make more episodes or movies.

Now they're filming the action of the story in real time.

Next: they will include sleepy time and bathroom breaks, meals, sex, long boring travel scenes, and real time chases, which in the case of some movies will mean crossing continents and oceans.

For example, James Bond, instead of instantly teleporting from England to Kuala Lumpar, will spend 15 to 20 hours in airports and jets, reading on his pocket computer.

Movies with three or more exotic locales will take a couple of weeks to watch and as much as seven years to film.
 
2012-12-07 03:54:01 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: LL316: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: On a related note, Stephen Colbert has Peter Jackson on last night, and Colbert was schooling him on Tolkien knowledge. Anyway, supposedly Tolkien at one point was re-writing "The Hobbit" story to be more in line with the somewhat more adult tone of LOTR. After LOTR, he came to consider "The Hobbit" to be a children's book interpretation of a rather dark and complex story...a somewhat sanitized and condensed version of "the real story". So Tolkien set about re-doing it. Someone apparently convinced him that he'd just undermine his original masterpiece, and he stopped working on it.

That's Colbert's story, anyway. Very interesting if true.

I'm interested to see if Jackson maintains the lighter nature of The Hobbit, or tries to make it more consistent with the LOTR. The books definitely had different tones.

Since he's including parts of the appendix in this trilogy, I'm guessing it's a more adult affair.

I hope, but when I see stuff like this:

...I have some concerns. I mean those don't even look like they live in the same universe as the few dwarves shown in LOTR. They look Disney-fied.


Well, I'm guessing if they all looked like the Dwarves in LOTR, then we couldn't tell them apart. My guess is that the generic Dwarf look is something that noble Dwarf lords of a certain class do.
 
2012-12-07 03:55:41 PM  
Also, Bombur was a walking fat joke in the book as well.
 
2012-12-07 03:57:06 PM  

Jaws_Victim: What about the farking eagles??.?


I've had a rough night, and I hate the farking Eagles, man!
 
2012-12-07 04:02:28 PM  

ClintonKun: The epic battle takes place DURING The Hobbit, around the time they enter the Lonely Mountain, I believe.


It coincides with the Battle of Five Armies. Gandalf planned it thus that the goblins and orcs of the Misty Mountains would not come to the aid of Dol Guldur, nor would Smaug, and vice versa.

When Gandalf whacked the Great Goblin, and with Glamdring nonetheless, Bolg (who was his cousin) would rally the Misty Mountain goblins, wargs and orcs at Mt. Gundabad...keeping them from reinforcing Dol Guldur. Meanwhile, with the quest for Erebor underway, Smaug would be busy defending his mountain or dead by that time. It also happened to be the case that by pressing the White Council to attack Dol Guldur then, Sauron could not move his own forces northward to come to Smaug's aid.
 
2012-12-07 04:09:16 PM  

that bosnian sniper: It coincides with the Battle of Five Armies...


Meh, sorry for the double post. Accidentally hit me the wrong button at the wrong time.

The whole thing was a divide-and-conquer Indy ploy by Gandalf, considering prior to meeting Thorin by pure coincidence he had no idea who Thrain's heir was, nor any idea how to arrange the balance of power in Rhovanion to favor the free peoples. Especially for the fact because Saruman had blocked Gandalf's attempts to rally the White Council against Dol Guldur for a century, Sauron had consolidated power and well in Rhovanion -- Mirkwood was corrupt and surrounded, and other free holds (Beorn's home, Laketown, and the Iron Hills) isolated and equally surrounded.
 
2012-12-07 04:11:14 PM  

coco ebert: I'm pretty much "shut up and take my money" about the whole affair.


Same here.
 
2012-12-07 04:14:29 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I hope, but when I see stuff like this:

...I have some concerns. I mean those don't even look like they live in the same universe as the few dwarves shown in LOTR. They look Disney-fied.


I get where you coming from, but I can give them a bit of a pass on how they made the dwarves look. They needed some easy way for the audience to distinguish 13 short guys with beards. Plus, it makes merchandising easier.

I hope people don't complain too much about it being sillier than LotR. That just means it's being true to the feel of the book.

/We all know what Bilbo Baggins hates.
 
2012-12-07 04:14:44 PM  

that bosnian sniper: that bosnian sniper: It coincides with the Battle of Five Armies...

Meh, sorry for the double post. Accidentally hit me the wrong button at the wrong time.

The whole thing was a divide-and-conquer Indy ploy by Gandalf, considering prior to meeting Thorin by pure coincidence he had no idea who Thrain's heir was, nor any idea how to arrange the balance of power in Rhovanion to favor the free peoples. Especially for the fact because Saruman had blocked Gandalf's attempts to rally the White Council against Dol Guldur for a century, Sauron had consolidated power and well in Rhovanion -- Mirkwood was corrupt and surrounded, and other free holds (Beorn's home, Laketown, and the Iron Hills) isolated and equally surrounded.


Thanks, I didn't have time to cross-reference the timelines.

But yeah, I can totally understand the need to put this into the movie, since it adds a whole new dimension to the quest.
 
2012-12-07 04:17:54 PM  

NeoCortex42: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I hope, but when I see stuff like this:

...I have some concerns. I mean those don't even look like they live in the same universe as the few dwarves shown in LOTR. They look Disney-fied.

I get where you coming from, but I can give them a bit of a pass on how they made the dwarves look. They needed some easy way for the audience to distinguish 13 short guys with beards. Plus, it makes merchandising easier.

I hope people don't complain too much about it being sillier than LotR. That just means it's being true to the feel of the book.

/We all know what Bilbo Baggins hates.


Yeah, I was kinda expecting some grimdark fanboys to complain about the silliness in The Hobbit. It's a farkin' children's book written in the 1930s, of course, it's going to have silly parts. Though, from the looks of it, the movie will be substantially darker in parts to line it up with LotR (and Tolkien's original plans to rewrite the Hobbit after LotR). So, I'm hoping it's a good mix of silly and serious.
 
2012-12-07 04:31:16 PM  

ClintonKun: So, I'm hoping it's a good mix of silly and serious.


That's for what I'm hoping. It just wouldn't be The Hobbit without some good old fashioned dwarf slapstick. The Hobbit invented dwarf slapstick for god's sake.
 
2012-12-07 04:36:43 PM  

that bosnian sniper: that bosnian sniper: It coincides with the Battle of Five Armies...

Meh, sorry for the double post. Accidentally hit me the wrong button at the wrong time.

The whole thing was a divide-and-conquer Indy ploy by Gandalf, considering prior to meeting Thorin by pure coincidence he had no idea who Thrain's heir was, nor any idea how to arrange the balance of power in Rhovanion to favor the free peoples. Especially for the fact because Saruman had blocked Gandalf's attempts to rally the White Council against Dol Guldur for a century, Sauron had consolidated power and well in Rhovanion -- Mirkwood was corrupt and surrounded, and other free holds (Beorn's home, Laketown, and the Iron Hills) isolated and equally surrounded.


You seem to be well read into the Tolkien universe, what other books need to be read in order to be up to date on all of this?
 
2012-12-07 04:41:27 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com

Another 3 hours of walking?
 
2012-12-07 05:06:45 PM  

Saiga410: You seem to be well read into the Tolkien universe, what other books need to be read in order to be up to date on all of this?


Really, just Appendix B of Lord of the Rings, and "The Quest of Erebor" in Unfinished Tales.
 
2012-12-07 05:07:57 PM  

Apik0r0s: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x226]

Another 3 hours of walking?


I would have been more sympathetic to that argument if GL hadn't added a CGI dance number acknowledging the camera.
 
2012-12-07 05:12:39 PM  

Orgasmatron138: Apik0r0s: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x226]

Another 3 hours of walking?

I would have been more sympathetic to that argument if GL hadn't added a CGI dance number acknowledging the camera.


touche'
 
2012-12-07 05:24:51 PM  

Orgasmatron138: Apik0r0s: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x226]

Another 3 hours of walking?

I would have been more sympathetic to that argument if GL hadn't added a CGI dance number acknowledging the camera.


but that's gonna be the shiz when ROTJ is released in 3-D!!!
 
2012-12-07 05:32:07 PM  

devilEther: Orgasmatron138: Apik0r0s: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x226]

Another 3 hours of walking?

I would have been more sympathetic to that argument if GL hadn't added a CGI dance number acknowledging the camera.

but that's gonna be the shiz when ROTJ is released in 3-D!!!


I'm patiently waiting for the unrated bluray extra Oola-POV
 
2012-12-07 05:56:20 PM  
ecx.images-amazon.com

The news I keep hearing about The Hobbit is increasingly making me think it's going to wind up like this abomination. 

/Thank GOD Weis & Hickman got back the rights to Dragonlance. I'm afraid of what Hasbro is going to do with their film-concept of Icewind Dale.
 
2012-12-07 06:03:49 PM  
The Hobbit is a good story and all but there's not really a whole lot to it... Dumbledore barges in on Frodo. They venture off with a bunch of midgets. They walk for a bit, Samwise almost gets eaten by some trolls who die rather anti-climatically. So they walk some more, chill with Agent Smith for a little while. Walk some more. They get dragged underground by a bunch of goblins. Pippin finds the Ring, exchanges a few riddles with Golem, then.... um... *mumble mumble mumble* they're all back together again outside, away from the goblins. But the goblins are pissed, so they chase them up some trees. The Eagles show up and give them a lift to The Dude's house. Why did the Eagles help? Because FARK goblins, that's why. The Dude is a bit of a dick so the crew doesn't stay long. They walk some more. By now you should probably have figured out that they're all pretty ill prepared for the long walk so of course they're almost eaten by a bunch of giant spiders. But obviously they aren't. Get this, frodo saves them all by putting on the RIng and heckling the spiders. I shiat you not. So they're walking... they're walking... They get all lost in some woods and some local douchebag elves decide to take them all prisoner. So Mary uses the Ring to *mumble mumble mumble* and they're all floating down a river in barrels. They tool around some shiat hole town for a little bit, then... you guessed it! They walk some more. They get to the mountain that has the dragon all up in it. They're all pretty incompetent so they just tool around the mountain for a while. They get inside and wait for the dragon to leave or trick him into leaving or something it doesn't really matter. They frolic in the phat lootz for a while. Oh ya, the dragon got killed. So then all these creditors and long lost relatives and charities and crap come crawling out of the woodwork to get at some of grandpa smurf's treasure. But he's all, "It's MAH treasure!" There's some fighting. Everyone gets some money. The end.

/Oh, spoiler alert.
 
2012-12-07 06:38:07 PM  
The more I read about this film the more I'm convinced I will not like it. I read an article today in which Jackson discusses "filling in the gaps" of the story.

I just met you and this is crazy, but Tolkien's story is fine as is maybe.

Dear Peter Jackson: Quit farking with the material.
 
2012-12-07 06:43:08 PM  

Honest Bender: /Oh, spoiler alert.


you dick!
 
2012-12-07 06:55:51 PM  

Honest Bender: ...

/Oh, spoiler alert.


I think I love you.
 
2012-12-07 07:51:33 PM  

Honest Bender: MORE AWESOME THAN A HUMAN BRAIN CAN HANDLE


When you die, can I have your keyboard you used to type that out on? I feel it may be a Holy relic.
 
2012-12-07 07:57:43 PM  

that bosnian sniper: EdNortonsTwin: Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, Galadriel, Elrond, and by luck and the grace of god Cirdan, in Dol Guldur is going to be epic.

Fixed that for ya.

"Well, there's six of us and thousands of them. We're all Eldar lords and Istari, and they're led by Nazgul and the Necromancer himself[1]. Not really much point in punching below our weight class on this one, is there?"

[1] Yeah, I know by the time the White Council attacks Dol Guldur, there were no Nazgul there and Sauron had already fled to Barad-dur. It was merely the White Council opening a can of demigod whoopass on one of Sauron's armies.

Knowing Jackson, it'll probably have at least some Nazgul and Sauron present at the fight, though. It'll be interesting if Jackson reconciles the fact by this time Sauron had regained his physical form by having it destroyed (again) at Dol Guldur by the White Council, forcing him (again) to retake the form of the Lidless Eye for the Lord of the Rings trilogy.


Well, he did plan to have Sauron appear at the Battle of the Black Gate in RotK.

img236.exs.cx
 
2012-12-07 08:07:49 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: that bosnian sniper: EdNortonsTwin: Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, Galadriel, Elrond, and by luck and the grace of god Cirdan, in Dol Guldur is going to be epic.

Fixed that for ya.

"Well, there's six of us and thousands of them. We're all Eldar lords and Istari, and they're led by Nazgul and the Necromancer himself[1]. Not really much point in punching below our weight class on this one, is there?"

[1] Yeah, I know by the time the White Council attacks Dol Guldur, there were no Nazgul there and Sauron had already fled to Barad-dur. It was merely the White Council opening a can of demigod whoopass on one of Sauron's armies.

Knowing Jackson, it'll probably have at least some Nazgul and Sauron present at the fight, though. It'll be interesting if Jackson reconciles the fact by this time Sauron had regained his physical form by having it destroyed (again) at Dol Guldur by the White Council, forcing him (again) to retake the form of the Lidless Eye for the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Well, he did plan to have Sauron appear at the Battle of the Black Gate in RotK.

[img236.exs.cx image 850x478]


This is what pissed me off about the LotR movies. Nowhere in the book does it say Sauron is a floating eyeball. It refers to him as the Great Eye, or The Eye, but this is what is known in literature as "metaphor". How would a floating eyeball make use of a ring? Besides which, Gollum claims to have seen him in person, and not only is he NOT a floating eye, he says that his hand is still missing a finger from when Isildur cut it off. Finally, there's Aragorn's line, "Let the lord of the black land come forth, let justice be done on him." How would he expect a floating eye to "come forth"? This line, you will notice, was kept in the movie, and PJ came this close to having Aragorn engaging in combat with a fully corporeal Sauron. At the last minute, he digitally replaced Sauron with a troll, but he still kept the "come forth" line. It's like he himself wasn't sure whether or not Sauron was supposed to be an eye.

/I know, I spend way too much time thinking about this bullshiat
 
2012-12-07 08:10:41 PM  
Buncha hipsters wanking on in this thread about how incredibly boring Lord of the Rings was and how Tolkien is a kinda shiat writer if you stop and think about it.
 
2012-12-07 08:17:44 PM  
I too was ultimately a bit disappointed by the literal representation of Sauron's eye in Jackson's films, among other things, but hey, I kinda have to give the guy some room to make a somewhat accessible, commercial film, not one where Sauron's full horror was completely interior and psychological, and everyone's leaving the theatre going, "Why didn't we get to see the bad guy? Did it have one?" I mean, Sauron is basically a disembodied spirit of evil. It's hard to make an abstract thought the main antagonist of a popular adventure/fantasy movie. Sure, I would have done certain things a bit different myself. I'm not holding out too much hope for the Necromancer of Dol Guldur but I'm sure I'll see and enjoy the Hobbit many times.
 
2012-12-07 09:10:03 PM  
What did Gimli say?

"I asked her for one hair from her golden head. She gave me three."

Apparently there are a handful of people who think this is a problem. Those people are freaks.
 
2012-12-07 09:36:41 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: This is what pissed me off about the LotR movies. Nowhere in the book does it say Sauron is a floating eyeball. It refers to him as the Great Eye, or The Eye, but this is what is known in literature as "metaphor". How would a floating eyeball make use of a ring? Besides which, Gollum claims to have seen him in person, and not only is he NOT a floating eye, he says that his hand is still missing a finger from when Isildur cut it off. Finally, there's Aragorn's line, "Let the lord of the black land come forth, let justice be done on him." How would he expect a floating eye to "come forth"? This line, you will notice, was kept in the movie, and PJ came this close to having Aragorn engaging in combat with a fully corporeal Sauron. At the last minute, he digitally replaced Sauron with a troll, but he still kept the "come forth" line. It's like he himself wasn't sure whether or not Sauron was supposed to be an eye.

/I know, I spend way too much time thinking about this bullshiat


He was represented as a great lidless flame-wreathed eye in the animated Rotk, too. It may be metaphor, but it's also a cool visual, and makes for a creepy, inhuman enemy.

How would a floating eyeball make use of a ring?

The majority of his power was in the Ring. He couldn't become complete and corporeal without the Ring, and if he had gotten it back he has all of his powers and he's physical again.
 
2012-12-07 10:02:09 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: B.L.Z. Bub: This is what pissed me off about the LotR movies. Nowhere in the book does it say Sauron is a floating eyeball. It refers to him as the Great Eye, or The Eye, but this is what is known in literature as "metaphor". How would a floating eyeball make use of a ring? Besides which, Gollum claims to have seen him in person, and not only is he NOT a floating eye, he says that his hand is still missing a finger from when Isildur cut it off. Finally, there's Aragorn's line, "Let the lord of the black land come forth, let justice be done on him." How would he expect a floating eye to "come forth"? This line, you will notice, was kept in the movie, and PJ came this close to having Aragorn engaging in combat with a fully corporeal Sauron. At the last minute, he digitally replaced Sauron with a troll, but he still kept the "come forth" line. It's like he himself wasn't sure whether or not Sauron was supposed to be an eye.

/I know, I spend way too much time thinking about this bullshiat

He was represented as a great lidless flame-wreathed eye in the animated Rotk, too. It may be metaphor, but it's also a cool visual, and makes for a creepy, inhuman enemy.

How would a floating eyeball make use of a ring?

The majority of his power was in the Ring. He couldn't become complete and corporeal without the Ring, and if he had gotten it back he has all of his powers and he's physical again.


We know that Sauron was able to maintain a physical form even without his ring, although granted you have to dig beyond LotR. It's in Akallabeth, the story of the downfall of Numenor: Sauron was taken prisoner by the Numenoreans, but it was part of his secret plan to corrupt them. He turned them against the Elves and the Valar of the Blessed Realm, and they mounted a hopeless war against them for dominion of the world. Numenor was destroyed in the war and Sauron lost his body in the destruction, but his spirit somehow survived and was able to generate a new body. He had had the foresight to leave his ring behind with the Nazgul in Mordor before being taken prisoner, but he didn't become a disembodied spirit or a floating eye the whole time he was separated from it.
 
2012-12-07 10:10:41 PM  
I'm re-reading The Hobbit right now. The entire Battle of the Five Armies took about 7 minutes to read. I sure as hell HOPE the final movie gives it more screen time than that. What kind of nonsense whining is this?

Great books, great prior films, looking forward to the new movies.
 
2012-12-07 10:10:57 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: Keizer_Ghidorah: B.L.Z. Bub: This is what pissed me off about the LotR movies. Nowhere in the book does it say Sauron is a floating eyeball. It refers to him as the Great Eye, or The Eye, but this is what is known in literature as "metaphor". How would a floating eyeball make use of a ring? Besides which, Gollum claims to have seen him in person, and not only is he NOT a floating eye, he says that his hand is still missing a finger from when Isildur cut it off. Finally, there's Aragorn's line, "Let the lord of the black land come forth, let justice be done on him." How would he expect a floating eye to "come forth"? This line, you will notice, was kept in the movie, and PJ came this close to having Aragorn engaging in combat with a fully corporeal Sauron. At the last minute, he digitally replaced Sauron with a troll, but he still kept the "come forth" line. It's like he himself wasn't sure whether or not Sauron was supposed to be an eye.

/I know, I spend way too much time thinking about this bullshiat

He was represented as a great lidless flame-wreathed eye in the animated Rotk, too. It may be metaphor, but it's also a cool visual, and makes for a creepy, inhuman enemy.

How would a floating eyeball make use of a ring?

The majority of his power was in the Ring. He couldn't become complete and corporeal without the Ring, and if he had gotten it back he has all of his powers and he's physical again.

We know that Sauron was able to maintain a physical form even without his ring, although granted you have to dig beyond LotR. It's in Akallabeth, the story of the downfall of Numenor: Sauron was taken prisoner by the Numenoreans, but it was part of his secret plan to corrupt them. He turned them against the Elves and the Valar of the Blessed Realm, and they mounted a hopeless war against them for dominion of the world. Numenor was destroyed in the war and Sauron lost his body in the destruction, but his spirit somehow survived and was able to generate a new body. He ha ...


Well, it could be that something went wrong the second time, because Sauron didn't willingly part with the Ring. There's enough open space to fill in with imagination, like with the semi-contradictory statements about the Balrog's wings.
 
2012-12-07 10:13:00 PM  

Wayne 985: I'm re-reading The Hobbit right now. The entire Battle of the Five Armies took about 7 minutes to read. I sure as hell HOPE the final movie gives it more screen time than that. What kind of nonsense whining is this?

Great books, great prior films, looking forward to the new movies.


Read the Battle of Pelennor Fields. "One side got an advantage, then it swung to the other, then back to the first, then back to the second, then back to the first, the Witch King and Eowyn fought and she won, then Aragorn shows up and the fighting stops". Probably took up about 3 pages.
 
2012-12-07 10:17:55 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: LL316: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: On a related note, Stephen Colbert has Peter Jackson on last night, and Colbert was schooling him on Tolkien knowledge. Anyway, supposedly Tolkien at one point was re-writing "The Hobbit" story to be more in line with the somewhat more adult tone of LOTR. After LOTR, he came to consider "The Hobbit" to be a children's book interpretation of a rather dark and complex story...a somewhat sanitized and condensed version of "the real story". So Tolkien set about re-doing it. Someone apparently convinced him that he'd just undermine his original masterpiece, and he stopped working on it.

That's Colbert's story, anyway. Very interesting if true.

I'm interested to see if Jackson maintains the lighter nature of The Hobbit, or tries to make it more consistent with the LOTR. The books definitely had different tones.

Since he's including parts of the appendix in this trilogy, I'm guessing it's a more adult affair.

Stupid Fark really should not post if it's gonna throw out a URL, preview skipped or not...let's try that again:

I hope, but when I see stuff like this:
[cdn.amctheatres.com image 620x322]
...I have some concerns. I mean those don't even look like they live in the same universe as the few dwarves shown in LOTR. They look Disney-fied.


I don't see a problem. All dwarves look different and they match their descriptions in the book.

Bombur is an enormous fatass who is always eating. It fits.
 
2012-12-07 10:24:10 PM  

ClintonKun: stoli n coke: Saiga410: I did not know that PJ cut the Hobbit into 3 movies from a 300 page book. I read slow but I know I could do roughly 100 pages in 2.5 hours.

The Hobbit is only 300 pages? Then why the fark do they need 3 movies that run nearly 3 hours apiece to tell the story? I understand why Lord of the Rings needed it, because that book was freakin enormous.

They're going to show a "side story" that happened at the same time of the Hobbit, which is expanded upon in other books. Basically, it's about what Gandalf is running off to do, whenever he runs off from the Bilbo and the Dwarves. And from what I've read, it leads to a huge moment of awesome.


Awesome. That's what I suspected. Good to know it's true and that they're not deviating too far from the source material (just fleshing it out).
 
2012-12-07 10:31:44 PM  
The average adult can read a script a lot faster than the movie's run time. So?
 
2012-12-07 10:49:37 PM  

The First Four Katy Perry Albums: Buncha hipsters wanking on in this thread about how incredibly boring Lord of the Rings was and how Tolkien is a kinda shiat writer if you stop and think about it.


Or...they honestly don't like what you like. That's possible too you know. Tolkien is like a lot like a bunch of other things in 'nerd culture', it's assumed you read yourself to sleep with it every night, and in fact, some people just don't enjoy reading the almanac adventures.

I'm sure it happened, but I don't really see anyone calling him a hack, or anything. Just saying they don't like the series.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a hipster, or is doing it to be odd.
 
2012-12-07 11:14:56 PM  

kroonermanblack: The First Four Katy Perry Albums: Buncha hipsters wanking on in this thread about how incredibly boring Lord of the Rings was and how Tolkien is a kinda shiat writer if you stop and think about it.

Or...they honestly don't like what you like. That's possible too you know. Tolkien is like a lot like a bunch of other things in 'nerd culture', it's assumed you read yourself to sleep with it every night, and in fact, some people just don't enjoy reading the almanac adventures.

I'm sure it happened, but I don't really see anyone calling him a hack, or anything. Just saying they don't like the series.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a hipster, or is doing it to be odd.


True, but there is a very vocal minority of Farkers who hate everything in the mainstream.
 
2012-12-08 12:12:43 AM  

Saiga410: I did not know that PJ cut the Hobbit into 3 movies from a 300 page book. I read slow but I know I could do roughly 100 pages in 2.5 hours.


Interesting fact: the screenplay for an average, 100-minute film is about 110 pages. Anything more than that is considered "hard to sell".
 
2012-12-08 12:27:09 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Well, it could be that something went wrong the second time, because Sauron didn't willingly part with the Ring. There's enough open space to fill in with imagination, like with the semi-contradictory statements about the Balrog's wings.


The chief power of the Ring was that it bound Sauron's soul to it, so that in the event he were ever destroyed his spirit would not return to Aman, at which point Sauron would certainly have been imprisoned as Melkor before him and denied the ability to return to Arda forevermore. That doesn't stop him from being able to reform his physical form, given time, however weak and impotent it would be without the Ring. Sauron regained his physical form after his defeat at the hands of Elendil and Gil-galad around 1000 TA, which he retained until his ultimate defeat with the destruction of the One Ring.
 
2012-12-08 01:24:46 AM  

NeoCortex42: /We all know what Bilbo Baggins hates.


And who hates Bagginses.
 
2012-12-08 01:26:44 AM  

Jedekai: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 500x500]

The news I keep hearing about The Hobbit is increasingly making me think it's going to wind up like this abomination. 

/Thank GOD Weis & Hickman got back the rights to Dragonlance. I'm afraid of what Hasbro is going to do with their film-concept of Icewind Dale.


They made such a movie??

Lucy Lawless must have been Kitaria, right?
 
2012-12-08 01:41:18 AM  

that bosnian sniper: Keizer_Ghidorah: Well, it could be that something went wrong the second time, because Sauron didn't willingly part with the Ring. There's enough open space to fill in with imagination, like with the semi-contradictory statements about the Balrog's wings.

The chief power of the Ring was that it bound Sauron's soul to it, so that in the event he were ever destroyed his spirit would not return to Aman, at which point Sauron would certainly have been imprisoned as Melkor before him and denied the ability to return to Arda forevermore. That doesn't stop him from being able to reform his physical form, given time, however weak and impotent it would be without the Ring. Sauron regained his physical form after his defeat at the hands of Elendil and Gil-galad around 1000 TA, which he retained until his ultimate defeat with the destruction of the One Ring.


It's chief power seems to be the one that is most often overlooked, despite the quote "How with it, he cannot be overthrown."How most people asking questions of the power of the ring are of it's ability to grant invisibility or dominion over others like d & d spell effects. Magic is more subtle in tolkien's world, and having an immortal lifespan living god having created a device that prevents him from the being slain by even the mightiest of beings is a thing of ultimate power. In this world of subtle magic, having a lich phylactery that literally everyone would die to possess forthemselves is an ultimate weapon. Sauron can bide his time forever, since the strength of men and elves will fail over the generations. All of this is explicitly clear, but gets pushed to the background in discussions so often. Sauron is mighty enough without possessing the ring as long as it endures.
 
2012-12-08 04:58:20 AM  

coco ebert: I'm pretty much "shut up and take my money" about the whole affair.


My only gripe and it will be small, is that they give me a bathroom break in the middle so I can go change my pants.
 
2012-12-08 05:07:18 AM  

Alphax: Jedekai: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 500x500]

The news I keep hearing about The Hobbit is increasingly making me think it's going to wind up like this abomination. 

/Thank GOD Weis & Hickman got back the rights to Dragonlance. I'm afraid of what Hasbro is going to do with their film-concept of Icewind Dale.

They made such a movie??

Lucy Lawless must have been Kitaria, right?


(checks IMDB) Hmm, an animated movie. Lucy was voicing Goldmoon.

Direct to video, apparently. I never heard that they'd done it.
 
2012-12-08 05:48:43 AM  

Honest Bender: The Dude is a bit of a dick so the crew doesn't stay long.


images3.wikia.nocookie.net

Well that's just like, your opinion man.
 
2012-12-08 09:33:50 AM  

Alphax: NeoCortex42: /We all know what Bilbo Baggins hates.

And who hates Bagginses.


Leonard Nimoy, obviously.
 
2012-12-08 10:46:40 AM  

Xlr8urfark: coco ebert: I'm pretty much "shut up and take my money" about the whole affair.

My only gripe and it will be small, is that they give me a bathroom break in the middle so I can go change my pants.


Yeah, I like the mid-movie break idea. They do that in Europe.
 
2012-12-08 10:56:32 AM  

coco ebert: Xlr8urfark: coco ebert: I'm pretty much "shut up and take my money" about the whole affair.

My only gripe and it will be small, is that they give me a bathroom break in the middle so I can go change my pants.

Yeah, I like the mid-movie break idea. They do that in Europe.


I'm not in the habit of eating or drinking at the movies, but during my second theater viewing of the Fellowship of the Ring, I did have to make a trip out during the Council of Elrond.
 
2012-12-08 01:03:22 PM  

Alphax: Alphax: Jedekai: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 500x500]

The news I keep hearing about The Hobbit is increasingly making me think it's going to wind up like this abomination. 

/Thank GOD Weis & Hickman got back the rights to Dragonlance. I'm afraid of what Hasbro is going to do with their film-concept of Icewind Dale.

They made such a movie??

Lucy Lawless must have been Kitaria, right?

(checks IMDB) Hmm, an animated movie. Lucy was voicing Goldmoon.

Direct to video, apparently. I never heard that they'd done it.


Kiefer Sutherland plays Raistlin, Zack Morris Mark-Paul Gosselaar is Sturm Brightblade.

It had a REALLY good voice cast - but the script was terrible due to giving Hickman and Weis about 3 months to write one out.

/Pure Evil. There's murmurings that it was done to secure the rights to H&W for a proper live-action version.
 
2012-12-08 01:55:19 PM  

devilEther: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Why did they decide to basically treat the theatrical release in the same way they treated the extended editions of the LOTR films?

I recently discovered if you skip numerous scenes in PJ's King Kong, e.g. some of the NY scenes at the beginning, some of the scenes on the ship, the silly Brontosaurus stampede, etc. it is a much more enjoyable film.


The scenes where the tube worms and giant bugs eat nearly everyone still creep me out though.
 
2012-12-08 03:41:46 PM  

Strider1002: So, don't go see it. Problem solved.


I'll wait to rent.
 
2012-12-08 07:47:02 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Keizer_Ghidorah: Well, it could be that something went wrong the second time, because Sauron didn't willingly part with the Ring. There's enough open space to fill in with imagination, like with the semi-contradictory statements about the Balrog's wings.

The chief power of the Ring was that it bound Sauron's soul to it, so that in the event he were ever destroyed his spirit would not return to Aman, at which point Sauron would certainly have been imprisoned as Melkor before him and denied the ability to return to Arda forevermore. That doesn't stop him from being able to reform his physical form, given time, however weak and impotent it would be without the Ring. Sauron regained his physical form after his defeat at the hands of Elendil and Gil-galad around 1000 TA, which he retained until his ultimate defeat with the destruction of the One Ring.


The Ring is Sauron's horcrux.

Oh no I di'int...

Srsly though, that's where JKR got the idea.
 
Displayed 118 of 118 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report