Hobbit Trailer

[Matthean]

[stevew]

Thought this looked homemade until I saw Ian Mcclelland.

[Alan T]

I can't wait for this movie to come out!

[sterlingice]

Well, I'm officially excited. I don't know how you stretch out 300 pages into 2 movies, but I guess they'll do it.

SI

[CrimsonFox]

I'm excited but apprehensive now. This had such a feel of LotR movies of it. And I've always felt the Hobbit was SUCH a different story, a different structure and different feel.

A more sprawling adventure story that of Alice and WONderland.
NOne of the superpolitical and war stuff that abounds in lotr.

And seeing Galadriel in there REALLY worries me. Did Fran and Phillippa and Peter fuck up the story and add a bunch of other stuff in (ala Faramir changing and Arwen galore)?

I really really hope not. Granted I AM excited.

[PilotMan]

After all this time, I can't imagine that Peter Jackson is going to let you down. That said, I'm not as familiar with the story of The Hobbit, I just loved LOtR so much, that I am super excited for this on principle alone.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

I'm excited but apprehensive now. This had such a feel of LotR movies of it. And I've always felt the Hobbit was SUCH a different story, a different structure and different feel.

A more sprawling adventure story that of Alice and WONderland.
NOne of the superpolitical and war stuff that abounds in lotr.

And seeing Galadriel in there REALLY worries me. Did Fran and Phillippa and Peter fuck up the story and add a bunch of other stuff in (ala Faramir changing and Arwen galore)?

I really really hope not. Granted I AM excited.

From what I remember of The Hobbit, and it's been ages and ages since I've read it, over 25 years likely, I think it could use some changes.

I think almost everything Fran, Phillippa and Peter changed in the LOTR actually improved upon the source material. I find the movies to be superior to the books in almost every way. The Faramir thing is the only niggling thing that bothered me. Arwen's increased role and pretty much everything else, was an improvement to me.

[Warhammer]

I'm going to see it since it is The Hobbit and all, but I don't have extremely high hopes.

After seeing what Jackson did to LotR, I have no doubt he is going to butcher some things. Galadriel should NOT be in this, unless they expand on some of the White Council stuff and show Gandalf going off to Dol Guldur. Also, unlike LotR, where they nailed the casting, this seems a bit off.

So, I'm going to see it, but with very little in the way of expectations.

[Izulde]

My guess is, like Warhammer suggests, they'll include some of the things that occur off-text, but are alluded to in-text and are very much contemporaneous to The Hobbit's timeline.

Personally, what I'd love to see Peter Jackson and Co. do is tackle The Silmarillion.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

I'm excited but apprehensive now. This had such a feel of LotR movies of it. And I've always felt the Hobbit was SUCH a different story, a different structure and different feel.
.

The different feel comes from the fact that The Hobbit is written as a children's story, which accounts in large part for the Alice in Wonderland echoes.

A different story and structure? Not so much. At the most fundamental level, both of them fall in the quest romance tradition and everything attached to it.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Izulde

My guess is, like Warhammer suggests, they'll include some of the things that occur off-text, but are alluded to in-text and are very much contemporaneous to The Hobbit's timeline.

Personally, what I'd love to see Peter Jackson and Co. do is tackle The Silmarillion.

An EXCELLENT suggestion. The Hobbit is a complete story in itself. They'll probably cut some encounters but I HOPE they keep as many as they can, especially Beorn. Wonder if they'll keep the Arkenstone in it too.
I just want them leaving things alone.

But you're totally right about Silmirrhion since its a history lesson as opposed to a story. They can make a dozen films out of that and select the bits that they want and embellish the rest.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Izulde

The different feel comes from the fact that The Hobbit is written as a children's story, which accounts in large part for the Alice in Wonderland echoes.

A different story and structure? Not so much. At the most fundamental level, both of them fall in the quest romance tradition and everything attached to it.

By different structure I mean that The Hobbit definitely echoes AiW as it moves from one encounter to the next seemingly unrelated encounter. Some loop back but some do not and in the end the hero erturns to the origin point but has grown.

Lotr is about more than one hero and features many sideplots and stories and intrigues and more adult themes of war and politics.

That's what I meant

[Peregrine]

One thing to keep in mind, with seeing Galadriel etc in the trailer, is that PJ has written additional material, based on other Tolkien writings, so we'll be seeing that as well as the Hobbit.

Description of this from CinemaBlend

We know that Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Hobbit will actually contain more than just The Hobbit. He's written a bunch of new material, not in the book, but based on ancillary Tolkien works to pair with it. That extra material will involve a side quest in which Gandalf, Galadriel, and other great powers go to confront a dark and rising power in Mirkwood. What we didn't know until this trailer is whether that extra material would be confined to the second movie of the two being released, allowing them to focus on simply telling the story of The Hobbit here, or if they'd somehow weave it in with the other things which are supposed to be happening. The trailer though makes it clear that we're getting it all at once. Galadriel appears numerous times in the Unexpected Journey trailer, though she's not in the book version of The Hobbit at all. She'll no doubt be one of the main characters in that new, side story, and here she is in the very first film.

[Draft Dodger]

hadn't really been following along. Did not expect to see the dude from the Office

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

One thing to keep in mind, with seeing Galadriel etc in the trailer, is that PJ has written additional material, based on other Tolkien writings, so we'll be seeing that as well as the Hobbit.

Thats a shame - I thought the Hobbit was a very well put together story and quite complete as it was tbh ...

That being said, the trailer looks promising imho.

[Izulde]

So it is the White Council and and the cleansing of Mirkwood and all that they'll be including. Hmm, I wonder if that means they'll also be including the part from the LotR appendices that has Gandalf ruminating on how to keep Smaug from joining forces with Sauron.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I'm going to see it since it is The Hobbit and all, but I don't have extremely high hopes.

After seeing what Jackson did to LotR, I have no doubt he is going to butcher some things. Galadriel should NOT be in this, unless they expand on some of the White Council stuff and show Gandalf going off to Dol Guldur. Also, unlike LotR, where they nailed the casting, this seems a bit off.

So, I'm going to see it, but with very little in the way of expectations.

You're in the extreme minority about Jackson "butchering" LOTR. To each his own opinion, but I've read LOTR about a half dozen times now and the Silmarillion about 10 times and I love Jackson's take. He was smart enough to adjust the story to adapt for the change in medium. LOTR told "as-is" wouldn't work well for movie audiences.

As Izulde said, they'll be doing the White Council stuff in Mirkwood, hence we'll see Galadriel, Elrond, Saurman and Legolas again. That stuff helps bridge the audience to the LOTR tales they're already familiar with.

[Autumn]

I think they had two ways to go here - go with a very different feel and appeal to the "children's book" side of things, or create something that resonates with the earlier movies. Obviously they're doing the second. Given that, layering in some plot that will mean a lot to those who watched the earlier movies makes sense, as does doing the movies in this order. There will be a layer of awareness of what's to come that can add to it.

That said I'm not at all a fan of many of the changes they made to the original movies. The whole Warg chase thing with Strider falling off the cliff? Legolas snowboarding down an oliphaunt? I'm glad they're doing something interesting with this movie but A) I don't know it was necessary, B) I expect much of it to pander to Hollywood.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Autumn

That said I'm not at all a fan of many of the changes they made to the original movies. The whole Warg chase thing with Strider falling off the cliff? Legolas snowboarding down an oliphaunt? I'm glad they're doing something interesting with this movie but A) I don't know it was necessary, B) I expect much of it to pander to Hollywood.

I will take both of those scenes over Tom Bombadill and the scouring of the shire.

Jackson and company did a fantastic job at bringing those characters to life. Most of the characters in the book are pretty paper thin. They are archetypes more than characters and I think some of the re-writing, casting and scenes really helped make the characters seem more alive and gave them quite a bit of depth that was absent or merely hinted at in the original texts. Some things I wasn't a huge fan of. I didn't like Gimli being so much of a "comic relief" character.

I didn't mind Legolas snowboarding down the oliphaunt. Him taking that thing down by himself was one of the highlights even with that added flair at the end. In fact, I don't think any character benefitted more from the transformation from page to screen than Legolas. He is much, much cooler in the movies.

I read the books once when I was young and again right before the first movie came out. I have no interest in going back and reading them again. I will pretty much watch the movies anytime.

[Autumn]

I agree they made good decisions about what to edit out, for the most part. But editing out Galadriel giving the gifts to the Fellowship, but then adding in a scene with a Warg car chase is ridiculous. And frankly Saruman and Gandalf having a staff battle was pretty silly too. I think when they tried to Hollywood-ize the movies they made some blunders.

I'm certainly not claiming they did a bad job at the movies, but it often showed that they were employing Hollywood writers to 'improve' on the books.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I agree they made good decisions about what to edit out, for the most part. But editing out Galadriel giving the gifts to the Fellowship, but then adding in a scene with a Warg car chase is ridiculous. And frankly Saruman and Gandalf having a staff battle was pretty silly too. I think when they tried to Hollywood-ize the movies they made some blunders.

I'm certainly not claiming they did a bad job at the movies, but it often showed that they were employing Hollywood writers to 'improve' on the books.

They definitely did add some scenes to make it more action oriented. I think the biggest example is Helm's Deep. In the books, the whole battle takes place over, what, 5 pages or so? There's not much to it. On screen, however, it's one of the most epic battles filmed.

By this time, I've sort of forgotten what was in the theatrical releases and what was in the extended versions. I am pretty sure Galadriel giving gifts to the Fellowship is in the later, unless I am just making that scene up in my head.

[Autumn]

Yeah they added it to the extended. It just drives me crazy in adaptions when they cut great stuff from the books (which is always necessary) but then add in something lame (not like Helm's Deep, but like the war chase).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Personally, what I'd love to see Peter Jackson and Co. do is tackle The Silmarillion.

Fuck me that would be amazing.

[Subby]

I loved the Trilogy and that trailer looks like more of the same goodness. Let's not overthink this.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I agree they made good decisions about what to edit out, for the most part. But editing out Galadriel giving the gifts to the Fellowship, but then adding in a scene with a Warg car chase is ridiculous. And frankly Saruman and Gandalf having a staff battle was pretty silly too. I think when they tried to Hollywood-ize the movies they made some blunders.

I'm certainly not claiming they did a bad job at the movies, but it often showed that they were employing Hollywood writers to 'improve' on the books.

Some additions made the movie stronger, some made them weaker.

I entirely agree about the Warg scene. By Jackson's own admission, they hadn't done much planning on that scene and it shows. It falls pretty flat for an action scene and is the worst scene in all 3 movies IMO.

The Galadriel giving gifts scene is in the extended cut. I can see why they cut it (need to get on with the story), but the extended edition has my favorite Gimli scene when he's talking about her gift to him. So while I personally hate that was cut, I understand why.

An example of an addition making the movie stronger IMO is one of the most controversial decisions - the addition of the elves in Helm's Deep. In the book, they spend many pages building up to the battle and while it's a desperate battle, it's not entirely hopeless. It's extremely difficult to convey those subtle shades of grey to a movie audience and there really wasn't any time to do so. So it was better for a movie audience to make the battle seem entirely hopeless and then provide just a glimmer of hope at the very end when the elves march in. I saw it in the theatre multiple times and every time the crowd erupted in cheers when the elves showed up - that shows it worked. Ultimately it doesn't change the story in any significant way, but it was a great addition for the medium and keeps the audience on that emotional roller-coaster.

Of course, thank goodness that some of the proposed changes were removed, including having Arwen at Helm's Deep and the Aragorn/Sauron battle during the end scene.

[flounder]

A lot of the decisions made sense, but leaving out the Scouring of the Shire is inexcusable. It's only the whole point of the trilogy.

[Autumn]

I agree.

That reminded me of the one change i really despise though. When Aragorn meets the Mouth of Sauron and just cold cuts off his head. I thought they really stepped out of character there in a way that was jarring just for some cool? action.

I hope the Hobbit is fun. I'm surprised they squeezed two films out of it, and I hope the end product feels distinct from the trilogy. It seems they've used much of the same music here in the trailer. I think with a bit of a change in the cinematography to make things younger and brighter, and some distinct music, it could be great.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

One thing to keep in mind, with seeing Galadriel etc in the trailer, is that PJ has written additional material, based on other Tolkien writings, so we'll be seeing that as well as the Hobbit.

Description of this from CinemaBlend

We know that Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Hobbit will actually contain more than just The Hobbit. He's written a bunch of new material, not in the book, but based on ancillary Tolkien works to pair with it. That extra material will involve a side quest in which Gandalf, Galadriel, and other great powers go to confront a dark and rising power in Mirkwood. What we didn't know until this trailer is whether that extra material would be confined to the second movie of the two being released, allowing them to focus on simply telling the story of The Hobbit here, or if they'd somehow weave it in with the other things which are supposed to be happening. The trailer though makes it clear that we're getting it all at once. Galadriel appears numerous times in the Unexpected Journey trailer, though she's not in the book version of The Hobbit at all. She'll no doubt be one of the main characters in that new, side story, and here she is in the very first film.

So in other words, I was right!

The Two Towers was more or less fine. I enjoyed the changes they made in that film, substituting Eomer for Erkenbrand was a good and actually built Eomer's character in this format.

I even did not have too many issues with the warg chase previously mentioned. It worked with the medium and kept the story moving. Plus, it heightened the tension about the move to Helm's Deep.

The big issues I had were in the 1st and 3rd movies. The whole, "Let's destroy the ring with an axe!" scene was laughable after they had talked about what to do. The tension of jumping from stair section to stair section in Moria (would have been much more impressive to have a rapid shot of them running through different parts of Moria to the bridge, would have kept tension and a frantic pace.). Also cannot leave out Aragorn kicking the Nazgul's ass on Weathertop and everyone being terrified of them.

The RotK had the previously mentioned oliphaunt surfing, plus, Frodo telling Sam to go home because he was picking Gollum over him, etc., etc. The skulls flying out of the Paths of the Dead was: 1) Stupid and 2) Completely over the top.

My biggest issue with the trilogy was changing all the themes and characters. Aragorn did not need to be a weenie, "I never wanted to be king" personality. Gandalf was way too cautious. Yes, he cared about the races of Middle Earth, but he was by no means Mr. Cautious in the books. Legolas was not a bad ass in the books, and the fact that he achieved the least of the Fellowship (minus Boromir I guess), highlighted the fact that the elves of Middle Earth were waning. You miss all this in the movies and figure that if they had a regiment of Legolases they could storm Barad-dur with no problem. Also, there was no reason why they had to change Faramir as dramatically as they did. However, based upon the other changes, that one made the most sense to me.

EDIT: Also I hated the way they portrayed Denethor. The books have him as a haughty, yet noble character who is broken emotionally by the deaths (perceived in the case of Faramir) of his sons. In the movie, he is a completely unsympathetic character and you have to wonder how he is Steward of the most powerful free nation.

[Autumn]

Yes, I was thinking of Denethor too, and the sort of hamhanded characterization, him eating while the battle rages on. Clearly they felt they didn't have the time to develop nuance, but yes it is much more powerful if you sympathize with Denethor, respect him, and thus realize the danger of looking into the Eye of Mordor, and losing hope. He and what's his name, the other King who has fallen under Wormtongue's spell, are great symbols of the danger of forgetting hope.

But a set of books this size, there are so many themes you could seize on for a movie adaption, you have to pick and choose. It says something about the variety of characters in Tolkien's work that Jackson & Co. had a hard time knowing how to deal with some of them in a film setting, as they didn't fall into our movie character molds.

[Abe Sargent]

I reread the LOTR trilogy after seeing the movies a few times, and I recall Tolkein specially mentioned that, unlike freakin' Saruman, Denethor was so noble and good that Sauron could NOT corrupt him when he used the Palantir, so all he did was so him scenes of Gondor's fall and other things to depress him, rather than turn him evil. He was a good man who simply lost hope. You don;t get that in LotR film. I'm not sure that you could easily though. How would you write him to say the same lines but deliver them in a tragic hero sort of way. I'm not sure what was needed.

[JediKooter]

Dang. I thought this was a documentary about Dan Snyder.

[Rizon]

I think they got the casting right

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I reread the LOTR trilogy after seeing the movies a few times, and I recall Tolkein specially mentioned that, unlike freakin' Saruman, Denethor was so noble and good that Sauron could NOT corrupt him when he used the Palantir, so all he did was so him scenes of Gondor's fall and other things to depress him, rather than turn him evil. He was a good man who simply lost hope. You don;t get that in LotR film. I'm not sure that you could easily though. How would you write him to say the same lines but deliver them in a tragic hero sort of way. I'm not sure what was needed.

I'll disagree with you guys. I got the sense from the movies that Denethor was just totally broken. Broken and a bit nuts (and he clearly has issues with Boromir/Faramir), but just a man who's totally broken by having the weight of the world on his shoulders.

Maybe more nutty then I would have wanted him played, but broken.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

My biggest issue with the trilogy was changing all the themes and characters. Aragorn did not need to be a weenie, "I never wanted to be king" personality. Gandalf was way too cautious. Yes, he cared about the races of Middle Earth, but he was by no means Mr. Cautious in the books. Legolas was not a bad ass in the books, and the fact that he achieved the least of the Fellowship (minus Boromir I guess), highlighted the fact that the elves of Middle Earth were waning. You miss all this in the movies and figure that if they had a regiment of Legolases they could storm Barad-dur with no problem. Also, there was no reason why they had to change Faramir as dramatically as they did. However, based upon the other changes, that one made the most sense to me.

The flip side:

RE Aragorn: So, you think the character having no story arc or growth would improve the film? It's a weakness of the books that Aragorn doesn't grow or change, not a strength. I like seeing Strider's character arc much more than the absolute stiff he is in the books.

RE Gandalf: Cautious? When was he cautious?

RE Legolas: Need action and humor in movies. Legolas was chosen as the action hero, Gimli as the humor. Not true to the books, but it makes the movie more enjoyable.

RE Farimir: Absolutely they had change him because in this particular case, the books are moronic. They spend hundreds of pages building up the evil of Sauron, only to have Faramir look at the ring and say "meh". It makes no sense whatsoever. If Faramir can easily resist (and therefore control) the ring, then there's really nothing to be scared of because Sauron isn't all that powerful. By greatly tempting Faramir, they maintain that the ring must be feared AND they still give him the opportunity to show there's strength in men to resist Sauron.

RE Denethor: I remember him being a devious and broken man when Gandalf met him in the books and not some heroic king-like figure. It's only been a year or two since I read them, but maybe I remember incorrectly.

RE Frodo/Sam/Gollum: Again, a weakness of the book is that Gollum never gets a chance to "win". By parting them, it adds drama to the movie and Gollum gets his brief moment in the sun. It adds drama to the later Shelob scene as well. Again, the audience cheered when Sam showed back up - it works in the movies. Remember, the original Sam/Frodo relationship was really one of servant/master based on the class system of the English military in WWI. That doesn't play well to modern audiences, so changes had to be made.

[Warhammer]

I like a hero. I take that back, I love a great hero. Aragorn is that hero in the books, he is what we aspire to be. With the amount of time they spent in some areas, they could easily have worked that into him. I'm not looking for a ton of character growth in a span of 6 months (which is what the books more or less represent in detail). He has spent 80 some odd years preparing for this, I don't need to see any additional character development in what amounts to less than 1% of his life.

Gandalf was cautious in the movies, let's try the pass, let's not rashly move out with the army. In both cases, his role was usurped by Aragorn (which really made no sense).

Regarding action, they set Aragorn up to be the action hero. That's great, you don't need Legolas to do that. Gimli was fine as the comic relief. Again, this is completely changing some of the themes of the books.

Faramir never sees the Ring. He tells Frodo to keep it hid. The whole temptation of the ring is about human nature. How often can we resist temptation once, but fail when subjected to repeated temptations? This is the vein I see Faramir in. I look at him as a lesser sort of Aragorn. He knows what the Ring is and realizes the danger there, so the temptation can be resisted.

Denethor was full of pride and sparred with Gandalf in the books, but it was not due to his being evil. It was difference of responsibility. Denethor is responsible for Gondor, Gandalf for Middle Earth. Again, I can draw real world comparisions to Denethor. However, once Faramir gets severely injured, he certainly is overthrown mentally.

Gollum does get his win. He gets the Ring in the end. He plays his part, Frodo would not have cast the Ring into the Fire at the end, and Sam would never have made him.

Another thing, it is possible to have some movies work the first time you see them, and not hold up under additional viewings. Attack of the Clones is a great example for me. When I first saw it in the theatre, it was great fun. Got to see Yoda whipping ass, a huge Jedi battle, what's not to like. Then you watch it again, and the romantic dialog is terrible, Anakin is a whiny little bitch, etc., etc. Now, it is probably the one Star Wars movie I can't watch. Even TPM is not a terrible movie in my eyes (sure it doesn't measure up to the first three, but it is not as bad as many make out).

[Peregrine]

To be honest there are a lot of changes in the movies, but there had to be - there's pretty much no way you could make those movies and keep every character exactly the same as they were in the books. I do miss certain things from the books but overall I appreciate the movies for what they are - a great attempt to put very difficult books on film.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Even TPM is not a terrible movie in my eyes (sure it doesn't measure up to the first three, but it is not as bad as many make out).

Given this statement, there's no hope for you at all.

[Buccaneer]

I love the books, having read it twice (just got into LotR recently), listened to the awesome unabridged reading, as well as the BBC dramatization. I think the movies were great, despite some silly scenes (as already mentioned). I haven't read the Hobbitt but I may after I see the movie.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

The flip side:

RE Aragorn: So, you think the character having no story arc or growth would improve the film? It's a weakness of the books that Aragorn doesn't grow or change, not a strength. I like seeing Strider's character arc much more than the absolute stiff he is in the books.

But Aragorn *does* change in the book. He goes from the same lack of desire to be King to accepting his role that he does in the movie. The changeover is just much less dramatic in the book, because it occurs via his boast to Eomer when they meet the Riders of Rohan, rather than Elrond's bad ass "Become who you were born to be!" in the movies.

RE Gandalf: Cautious? When was he cautious?

A good percentage of the time in the book IMO.

RE Legolas: Need action and humor in movies. Legolas was chosen as the action hero, Gimli as the humor. Not true to the books, but it makes the movie more enjoyable.

Agreed. And even in the books, there's something of the racial competition (albeit on a much less noticeable scale) that finds its resolution in Gimli's description of the caves of Helm's Deep.

RE Farimir: Absolutely they had change him because in this particular case, the books are moronic. They spend hundreds of pages building up the evil of Sauron, only to have Faramir look at the ring and say "meh". It makes no sense whatsoever. If Faramir can easily resist (and therefore control) the ring, then there's really nothing to be scared of because Sauron isn't all that powerful. By greatly tempting Faramir, they maintain that the ring must be feared AND they still give him the opportunity to show there's strength in men to resist Sauron.

The Ring is problematic for several reasons in the books, not least of which is the fact that Isildur and Co. already defeated Sauron with the Ring, so the anxiety over it is undermined from the beginning if you're playing close attention.

By the way, Faramir is the only one who can resist the temptation of the Ring. Galadriel and Tom Bombadil both do.

The reason Faramir was able to resist the ring was because Faramir is the closest character in the books to Tolkien himself.

RE Denethor: I remember him being a devious and broken man when Gandalf met him in the books and not some heroic king-like figure. It's only been a year or two since I read them, but maybe I remember incorrectly.

Correct. More specifically, he is the Bad Steward, as opposed to the faithful and loyal steward in Orfeo, one of the texts that had a strong influence on the LotR.

RE Frodo/Sam/Gollum: Again, a weakness of the book is that Gollum never gets a chance to "win". By parting them, it adds drama to the movie and Gollum gets his brief moment in the sun. It adds drama to the later Shelob scene as well. Again, the audience cheered when Sam showed back up - it works in the movies. Remember, the original Sam/Frodo relationship was really one of servant/master based on the class system of the English military in WWI. That doesn't play well to modern audiences, so changes had to be made.

It's also very much a homoerotic relationship in addition to the numerous representations of master/servant relationships that it's drawing upon.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

An example of an addition making the movie stronger IMO is one of the most controversial decisions - the addition of the elves in Helm's Deep. In the book, they spend many pages building up to the battle and while it's a desperate battle, it's not entirely hopeless. It's extremely difficult to convey those subtle shades of grey to a movie audience and there really wasn't any time to do so. So it was better for a movie audience to make the battle seem entirely hopeless and then provide just a glimmer of hope at the very end when the elves march in. I saw it in the theatre multiple times and every time the crowd erupted in cheers when the elves showed up - that shows it worked. Ultimately it doesn't change the story in any significant way, but it was a great addition for the medium and keeps the audience on that emotional roller-coaster.

Having the elves show up at Helm's Deep was definitely a masterstroke in terms of cinematic storytelling, and I'm in favor of it as well.

I know the purists will bitch that the elves were actually fighting off Sauron's forces (Llothlorien was attacked three times) and on other fronts, as outlined in the appendices, but the change is simply better.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I will take both of those scenes over Tom Bombadill and the scouring of the shire.

Lord knows I am not the biggest Lord of the Rings fan, but this denigration of the Scouring is ridiculous. As stated before, it is absolutely inexcusable that it is left out because it is the entire point. The idea that evil will eventually find you, justifies taking the risk to venture out and combat evil (it is no coincidence that Tolkein is British and lived during World War II).

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Izulde

But Aragorn *does* change in the book. He goes from the same lack of desire to be King to accepting his role that he does in the movie. The changeover is just much less dramatic in the book, because it occurs via his boast to Eomer when they meet the Riders of Rohan, rather than Elrond's bad ass "Become who you were born to be!" in the movies.

In the movie, his acceptance of his fate started when Boromir died. By the time Elrond showed up in ROTK, he had already come to grips with it. Personally, I though the character progression was much better in the movie than in the books. We just don't have 1,500 pages to get to know Aragorn in the movies, so the only option is to increase the arc of his character.

It's just the difference in the mediums. You can paint in detail in a long book, but you have to use broader brush strokes in a movie.

Originally Posted by Izulde

A good percentage of the time in the book IMO.

Exactly. I didn't see Gandalf being more tentative in the movie than in the books. I'm not sure where Warhammer is coming up with that.

Originally Posted by Izulde

The Ring is problematic for several reasons in the books, not least of which is the fact that Isildur and Co. already defeated Sauron with the Ring, so the anxiety over it is undermined from the beginning if you're playing close attention.

By the way, Faramir is the only one who can resist the temptation of the Ring. Galadriel and Tom Bombadil both do.

The reason Faramir was able to resist the ring was because Faramir is the closest character in the books to Tolkien himself.

We agree on a lot.

Galadriel is an elf queen and Tommy isn't in the movies. In the movie, we see Galadriel barely resist it, again reinforcing to the audience the power of the One Ring. As an aside, I love that scene...it was extremely well done.

As for Faramir, how do you explain to a movie audience that this guy is exceptional for his ability to resist temptation by having him turn it down immediately? Remember, in the books he said he wouldn't pick it up, "not even if I found it by the side of a road". That just neuters the ring's power. Hence the need to change the story a bit to actually show he was *almost* corrupted, but managed to resist it in the end - unlike his brother. To me, it's just a different way to show that he is exceptional.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Lord knows I am not the biggest Lord of the Rings fan, but this denigration of the Scouring is ridiculous. As stated before, it is absolutely inexcusable that it is left out because it is the entire point. The idea that evil will eventually find you, justifies taking the risk to venture out and combat evil (it is no coincidence that Tolkein is British and lived during World War II).

I entirely disagree. The Scouring of the Shire is shown in the Galadriel/Frodo scene, so it's understood that it would happen if they don't act. The "entire point", as you phrase it, has already been made. So there's no reason to hang around for 30 minutes to see the Scouring and a broken-down "Sharkey" when that point was made 6 hours ago.

[ISiddiqui]

It is far more of effective and powerful when you see your own home be subjected to what the forces of evil can do.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It is far more of effective and powerful when you see your own home be subjected to what the forces of evil can do.

But remember that Bag End was no longer Frodo's home.

Again, they already showed the Scouring of the Shire in Frodo's vision - does the audience need to see it again? Do you think that for the general movie-going public having the Hobbits come back to the Shire to find out that Saurman ruined it would be a satisfying ending? Furthermore, with ROTK already at 3 hours (with nothing that can be cut), do you think that audiences would have had the patience to sit through it and the rebuilding of the Shire?

I understand the importance for the books, but I can't see if in the movies. IMO, it's anti-climatic and makes the story stretch far too long in that medium.

[Izulde]

Jack Nicholson walked out of Return of the King screening and at the after party, Elijah Wood asked him why. Nicholson looked at him and said, "Too many endings, kid. Too many endings."

So it's another ending stacked on to the ones already present within the films. I also thought the Scouring of the Shire made for a tedious conclusion to the book.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey32

So Frodo is the hobbit? Is it about his adventure before LOTR?

Stop causing problems.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Furthermore, with ROTK already at 3 hours (with nothing that can be cut)

I'd quibble with that point, especially concerning the never-ending ending.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Izulde

But Aragorn *does* change in the book. He goes from the same lack of desire to be King to accepting his role that he does in the movie. The changeover is just much less dramatic in the book, because it occurs via his boast to Eomer when they meet the Riders of Rohan, rather than Elrond's bad ass "Become who you were born to be!" in the movies.

I don't think we read the same book. Aragorn was humble, sure. "All that is gold does not glitter," etc., etc. However, he was preparing for the War of the Ring his entire life. He knows that in order for him to win Arwen's hand, he has to become the High King of the Dunedain or whatever you want to call the Reunited Realm. He never once says he does not want to be king, that he would prefer to be in exile. He is grim. He realizes dark days are ahead, and thus rarely shows mirth.

Originally Posted by Izulde

A good percentage of the time in the book IMO.

Gandalf is the one who wishes to go through Moria. He is the one who advocates destroying the Ring. He pushes to get Sauron out of Dol Guldur (backstory and The Hobbit). He is the one who advocates sending the army to the Black Gate to keep Sauron occupied.

Originally Posted by Izulde

The Ring is problematic for several reasons in the books, not least of which is the fact that Isildur and Co. already defeated Sauron with the Ring, so the anxiety over it is undermined from the beginning if you're playing close attention.

True, but it is also mentioned that the ability of the Elves to resist was much greater in the Second Age and the power of the Dunedain was much greater as well. Sauron also surrendered when Numenor first came against him at the end of the Second Age. Also, both powers were essentially broken during the War. Arnor crumbles after few centuries, and Lindon is no longer the main stronghold of the Elves in Middle Earth.

The difference between the Second and Third Ages were Sauron had essentially the same power base whereas the Elves of Lindon, Rivendell, and Mirkwood were essentially non-existant. Rivendell to my knowledge takes no active part in the war. Lorien and Mirkwood snuff out Dol Guldur. Men and Dwarves fight at Erebor. In the South, Men fight in Gondor and at Helm's Deep. So Men are bearing the brunt of this war for the Free People.

Originally Posted by Izulde

Correct. More specifically, he is the Bad Steward, as opposed to the faithful and loyal steward in Orfeo, one of the texts that had a strong influence on the LotR.

I agree with this. Gandalf calls him out on it when he asks what he would wish and Denethor says he wants things to remain as he has known them.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Lord knows I am not the biggest Lord of the Rings fan, but this denigration of the Scouring is ridiculous. As stated before, it is absolutely inexcusable that it is left out because it is the entire point. The idea that evil will eventually find you, justifies taking the risk to venture out and combat evil (it is no coincidence that Tolkein is British and lived during World War II).

Maybe it's because I am not a huge fan of the hobbits and didn't really care too much about them, but when I got the end and the Ring was destroyed and the book went back to a bunch stuff dealing with the shire, I was completely bored and disinterested.

It'd be like adding 30 minutes to the end of "Return of the Jedi" after they blew up the Death Star with the ewoks fighting off the remenants of the Empire's forces.