Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Peter Jackson's The Hobbit to be Made into a Trilogy


Movies

51 to 100 of 269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

CapeCodRPGer wrote:


That is the books. In the movie, Frodo leaves the Shire the same night or the next morning when Gandalf tells him about the ring. I am sure they are going to adjust the timeline somewhat to fit with the other movies.

That is one big thing that bugged me about the book. Frodo finds out how dangerous this ring is and they need to get it out of the shire ASAP.

17 years later, he leaves.

True that's the books. OTOH, I don't think we have any idea old Aragorn is in the movie continuity. He certainly acts more like 20 than 80. Was his longevity even brought up in the movies?

You can't use the book's timeline to place things and then use the movie's to smooth out any bits you don't like.

As for the 17 years. Bilbo leaves and Frodo gets the Ring in 3001. Gandalf has doubts about the Ring and spends the next years hunting down more info. He doesn't return and tell Frodo about it until 3018. Frodo does wait a few months before leaving, but not 17 years.

Cheliax

thejeff wrote:

True that's the books. OTOH, I don't think we have any idea old Aragorn is in the movie continuity. He certainly acts more like 20 than 80. Was his longevity even brought up in the movies?

You can't use the book's timeline to place things and then use the movie's to smooth out any bits you don't like.

As for the 17 years. Bilbo leaves and Frodo gets the Ring in 3001. Gandalf has doubts about the Ring and spends the next years hunting down more info. He doesn't return and tell Frodo about it until 3018. Frodo does wait a few months before leaving, but not 17 years.

I believe his age is addressed in The Two Towers, at least in the extended edition.

I am fairly sure that while it is not directly stated in the movies, In the production notes, it is indeed 17 years between Bilbo and Frodo's departure from The Shire.

Some dates are mentioned at the end of Return of the King extended edition as well, and Bilbo does age dramatically by the time he sets sail for Valinor, The Undying Lands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:

Can't believe people are disappointed by this.

Peter Jackson can make as many Tolkien movies as he wants. The boringest hour of the Lord of the Rings trilogy is pretty much better than any other fantasy movie ever, so I don't see too much in this news to complain about, personally.

Moar, plz.

Though the trilogy was stunningly filmed, the special effects amazing and generally gave one a belief that it was all real, I was so very bored. But, as previously stated, I never cared for the series of books. I appreciate how they impacted my favorite genre, but I also found them plodding. I still do not understand how my friends could watch the extended DVD's multiple times. Then again, they do not understand how I could go reread my Jack Vance novels whilst they did so.

Willow and The Princess Bride did much more for me.

I was hoping The Hobbit would fall into that catagory. But instead, I see it being a Streeetttchhhheddd out production of all the bits I do not need nor want. For me, I will not have another "great" fantasy movie, hence the sourgrapes. I realize I am a minority though.

Greg

Shadow Lodge

I really think my biggest complaint is that, as I said before, the actual story of "The Hobbit" might get lost in the shuffle. If he made one long Hobbit movie and then made a couple of "Tales of Middle-Earth" film, that might work. But instead, what we're getting is a "Tales of Middle-Earth: featuring The Hobbit" trilogy.

Qadira

Kthulhu, I agree. I want to see a "the hobbit" movie, not a "based on "the hobbit"" movie.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'll need to watch Fellowship again. But IIRC, there is no indecation of much time passing between Gandalf coming back to tell Frodo about the ring, and they leave. Looks like that night.

There is time passing eariler when Gandalf sees Bilbo has a magic ring and he goes to Minas Tiriath to look into it. But seems to me they leave pretty quick.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Tales Subscriber
CapeCodRPGer wrote:

I'll need to watch Fellowship again. But IIRC, there is no indecation of much time passing between Gandalf coming back to tell Frodo about the ring, and they leave. Looks like that night.

There is time passing eariler when Gandalf sees Bilbo has a magic ring and he goes to Minas Tiriath to look into it. But seems to me they leave pretty quick.

And in doing that, Jackson has condensed a few months, not 17 years.

Which is, I think, the point thejeff was making.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
I wish Del Toro had worked out. Although that would have probably meant loosing The Hobbit to developmental hell, as happens with most projects he's associated with.

I cannot describe how happy I was when the deal with GDT fell through. He already ruined the Hellboy movies so I was not excited to see his take on the Hobbit.


GeraintElberion wrote:
CapeCodRPGer wrote:

I'll need to watch Fellowship again. But IIRC, there is no indecation of much time passing between Gandalf coming back to tell Frodo about the ring, and they leave. Looks like that night.

There is time passing eariler when Gandalf sees Bilbo has a magic ring and he goes to Minas Tiriath to look into it. But seems to me they leave pretty quick.

And in doing that, Jackson has condensed a few months, not 17 years.

Which is, I think, the point thejeff was making.

It's hard to say. (And I haven't seen Fellowship since the extended version came out on DVD, so I'm running off of old memory.)

It felt to me like the 17 years was condensed too. The younger hobbits didn't seem to age that much between the Party and the trip and there were no real cues that so much time had passed. Obviously some, but very hard to say how much. Bilbo got old, but that also could have been due to the ring not keeping him young any longer.

That's all sort of beside the point. The original issue was Aragorn's age during the Hobbit and I'll concede that in Tolkien's timeline he was too young, Jackson has mucked with the timeline enough that Aragorn could be any age he wanted. I'm not even sure there's any movie evidence that the Hobbit was 60 years before the Party, though there might be a line in Bilbo's speech there.

I still think Aragorn's characterization in the movies fits being in his 20s or 30s better than his 80s, even with his lifespan. But then Aragorn's characterization is one of the things I liked least about the movies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The only disappointment I have with this is that the LOTR story was condensed to fit the movies while TH story is being expanded to fill them. In a perfect world, I would have preferred the exact opposite. LOTR is the greater, deeper tale that deserves the extra time and exploration in a cinematic venue. TH is the lighter, simpler tale that would suffer very little when made into a single movie. I’m glad TH is being made, but they just got the plan backwards.

In the run up to LOTR I pretty distinctly remember PJ and company explaining that you have to trim the literature for the screen; otherwise the movie doesn’t work. Now, with TH, they seem to be doing the opposite. When all is said and done one of PJs conflicting perspectives will be proved correct. I have a feeling he has learned that condensing the story for LOTR sapped some of its strength as a genre defining epic and he is making an expanded TH as a kind of apology to the spirit of the thing.

As far as GDT goes with TH, I was much pleased when he left the project. He never seemed like a good fit to me. For movies like LOTR and TH I think you have embrace and internalize the story to do justice to it. You almost have to treat the source material as a historical account of real events, not a fairy tale. GDT specializes in fairy tales. That’s why I think the Hellboy movies were so lackluster. The very soul of the Hellboy stories (and the BPRD) is that this is real stuff happening to real people; it’s not a fairy tale or superhero story. Hellboy movie 1 was about a superhero, Hellboy movie 2 was a fairy tale. TH under GDT would have been a combination of the two (Bilbo the super hero in a fairy tale setting).


In the extended version of the Two Towers there's a scene (not included in the theatrical version) there's a scene where Eowyn figures out how old Aragorn is right there on screen in front of you. From what I remember of the writer/director commentary they didn't include it because it raised more questions than it answered, and would have required another 20 minutes of expository material sprinkled through out the first and second movies.

I'm with you on discovery of the ring to Frodo and Sam leaving town, Jeff; it certainly feels like Gandalf rides to Gondor, reads up on his history, and rides straight back to the Shire.


Chen Zhen wrote:
I understand many of the changes (and agree with the reason they were made), but some completely baffle me. (The Ent scene in particular, changing it to be completely opposite...for what reason? No time saved, no change to the end result.)

Yes, many of the changes in the LotR movies were very interesting (e.g. "I can't carry the ring for you, but I can carry you!")

I can even understand changing the Ent sequence. In the books, Merry and Pippin don't seem so important, but in the movie, after emphasizing that they aren't important in these big matters, they manipulate Treebeard into fighting Saruman. (It's highly implausible that the Ents had never noticed the devastation before, but at least it makes for a good movie.)

I can even understand why Faramir was changed so much, although many fans of the book complain about that. By bringing Frodo to Gondor, Faramir adds suspense and tension to the story. By letting them go, he shows tremendous self-sacrifice. I get all that.

But some of the scenes in those LotR movies would make me go "Huh?" even if I knew nothing about the books! In the first movie, Frodo OUTRUNS A HORSE?!? What the heck?!? Yet no one complains about that scene. Am I missing something?

And what about when Frodo got hit by a spear? It was fine in the book, when he just fell and was hastily carried out, but in the movie, there's this ridiculously long slow-motion sequence with Frodo acting like he's been mortally wounded. All that drama is hard to justify, considering that he was perfectly all right!

And in the second movie, do you expect me to believe that ANYONE - especially an obvious slimeball like Gollum - could drive a wedge between Frodo and Sam?

Stuff like that turned me off about the movies.

Anyhoo, I should get back on topic.

I find it hard to believe that _The_Hobbit_ will stay interesting through three movies, especially to the casual movie-goer who hasn't read the book. I agree that if too much material irrelevant to Bilbo's story is thrown in, the movies will suffer. Admittedly, I should reserve judgement until I SEE the films.

Still, even if they're the greatest movies ever made, I have gripes about there being three of them. In the last 7 years, I've been to the movie theater once. I feel bad about leaving my wife alone to watch the kids just so I can see a movie, and from what I understand, the Hobbit movies will be a bit too violent and scary for my kids.

But _The_Hobbit_ is a special book to me, so for ONE movie, I would insist that my wife get along without me for a while. For TWO movies, I'd feel bad, but would still go. But now there are THREE movies? I think I'll probably wait until they're out on DVD.


Bwahahahahaaaaa! We're going to get toy shops and policemen in The Hobbit! You doubt me, read the book. If they make it into THREE movies, they will need precisely every word from the novel...


I cant wait and truly excited for three movies. The difference in the 3 star wars prequels was the story/dialogue wasnt that good and Anakin wasnt a very good actor.I have more confidence in Peter Jackson and the story itself. I'm fully confident i wont be disapointed like i was for star wars and matrix 2/3.

I enjoyed King Kong and not sure why the hate for it. its a giant monster movie with good special effects. The Lovely Bones is a very different kind of movie and was for a different audience. For a child abduction movie it tugged on the heart strings

I'm not that familiar with the unfinished tales and appendices but i'm assuming they take place after the ending of the Hobbit. How much of a part does Bilbo have in that material same with surviving characters?

for those of you who only want 1 or 2 movie look at the big picture. If all 3 make big money then maybe the chances get better for other great books to be made into movies/hbo series. How much credit should Game of thrones give Jackson for paving a better road.

Bring on the "Name of the wind" next


Hrmmm. 3 movies? Probably unnecessary, and probably will do more harm than good (quality-wise).

But 3 movies are better than none, so I'm just ecstatic that they're being made at all.

(And yes, one should always remember the unwatchable travesty that was King Kong when discussing the possibility that Peter Jackson may extend a movie...)

Shadow Lodge

wicked cool wrote:
Bring on the "Name of the wind" next

WANT.

SO.
VERY.
WANT.


wicked cool wrote:

I'm not that familiar with the unfinished tales and appendices but i'm assuming they take place after the ending of the Hobbit. How much of a part does Bilbo have in that material same with surviving characters?

Most of the unfinished tales and appendices are historical. Stuff that happens before, often long before, the Hobbit.

As far as I can tell, what he plans to add is the White Council driving Sauron out of Dol Gulder (otherwise known as "What Gandalf was up to when he left the dwarves and Bilbo during the Hobbit") and some stuff with Arwen and Aragorn. I assume he'll have Aragorn doing some adventurous stuff in there, not just making goo-goo eyes at Arwen. Possibly that'll be the same plotline and Aragorn will help out the White Council. Maybe there'll be something else.

The big trouble I have with this, other than that I don't trust Jackson to come up with anything good based on nothing more than a couple of lines in the appendix, is that none of it really has anything to do with the plot of the Hobbit, so it's hard to see how a coherent story comes out of it. If it's really 2 Hobbit movies and 1 movie about other stuff going on at the same time, that might work better, but I suspect it won't get divided up that way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marc Radle wrote:
Aaron Bitman wrote:
Admittedly, I should reserve judgement until I SEE the films.

I think this statement should be the final word on this subject (although, being the internet, we all know it hardly will be :/

Do I still have to see them, if everything I've heard about them suggests they'll be bad?

Does that apply to everything?
Should I watch every bad movie by every hack director to decide whether it's worth seeing or not? After all, despite the previews, the bad reviews and the director's and actor's previous work, this could be the exception.

Besides speculation can be fun.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Bitman wrote:
Admittedly, I should reserve judgement until I SEE the films.

I think this statement should be the final word on this subject - although, being the internet, we all know it hardly will be :/

Despite what a few are saying here, the vast majority of people around the word consider the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy Peter Jackson made to be fantastic, amazing movies ... perhaps even film masterpieces.

I DO trust Jackson to make these new movies every bit as great and fully expect them to break box office records AND to be extremely well regarded by the vast majority of critics and film-goers.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Tales Subscriber
Orthos wrote:
wicked cool wrote:
Bring on the "Name of the wind" next

WANT.

SO.
VERY.
WANT.

I think that's a terrible idea.

Many of the things that make Name of the Wind great are very difficult to translate onto screen. I don't think it would work as a film.


Marc Radle wrote:
Aaron Bitman wrote:
Admittedly, I should reserve judgement until I SEE the films.

I think this statement should be the final word on this subject - although, being the internet, we all know it hardly will be :/

Despite what a few are saying here, the vast majority of people around the word consider the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy Peter Jackson made to be fantastic, amazing movies ... perhaps even film masterpieces.

I DO trust Jackson to make these new movies every bit as great and fully expect them to break box office records AND to be extremely well regarded by the vast majority of critics and film-goers.

Don't go overboard with the hyperbole here. I doubt the "vast majority of people around the world" have seen the LotR much less consider them masterpieces. (I mean really, what would you consider vast majority? 5 billion?)

I also doubt they'll have the staying power to become classics, but it's too early to tell.

But, yes. They did very well and were well received by critics. While I expect these will probably do the same, I don't have the same faith you do in Jackson's ability to turn anything he touches into gold. No director can do that and his record isn't as great as it seems if you only look at the LotR trilogy.

Shadow Lodge

Arnwyn wrote:
(And yes, one should always remember the unwatchable travesty that was King Kong when discussing the possibility that Peter Jackson may extend a movie...)

I think you misspelled it. When speaking of the Peter Jackson version, it's spelled KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll say one positive thing about Peter Jackson....he directed the best scene involving a lawnmower in any zombie movie EVER!


GeraintElberion wrote:
Orthos wrote:
wicked cool wrote:
Bring on the "Name of the wind" next

WANT.

SO.
VERY.
WANT.

I think that's a terrible idea.

Many of the things that make Name of the Wind great are very difficult to translate onto screen. I don't think it would work as a film.

Is Name of the Wind actually very good? After seeing that pathetic, hideously terrible ad for it on the Goblins comic, I feel slightly sick every time I see the book.

Shadow Lodge

I haven't seen whatever ad it was, so can't comment on that. Also haven't read Goblins in years, lost interest quite some time ago.

But I enjoyed NotW very thoroughly, and highly recommend it.

Haven't been able to read the second book "Wise Man's Fear" yet.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:
Orthos wrote:
wicked cool wrote:
Bring on the "Name of the wind" next

WANT.

SO.
VERY.
WANT.

I think that's a terrible idea.

Many of the things that make Name of the Wind great are very difficult to translate onto screen. I don't think it would work as a film.

Is Name of the Wind actually very good? After seeing that pathetic, hideously terrible ad for it on the Goblins comic, I feel slightly sick every time I see the book.

I'm 450+ pages into the 600 page book and I'm still waiting for the "very good" part. It's been contrived and plodding so far. I'm not sure why this book gets the rave reviews it does. The only thing I can think of is there is some kind of M. Night type twist at the end: "They're already dead!!". If that's the case it will be one colosal waste of my time reading it. It's been pretty bad.

Shadow Lodge

Nah, no stupid twist, not that I remember anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My problem with Jackson's LotRs was that he had a way of killing dramatic scenes.

Boromir is fatally wounded while trying to save the hobbits. Instead of like in the book with Aragorn getting there too late to do anything, but speaking parting words to the dying Boromir, Jackson steals all the feeling out of the scene by having Aragorn rush in and "save" Boromir from the coup de grace (as if Saruman's orcs gave a damn about doing that versus just heading back as quickly as possible). Instead of seeing Boromir's death as a bit of redemption for his betrayal, the scene ends up being about how cool Aragorn is (because we didn't have two more movies to establish it).

Jackson did something similar in the extended version of RotK, when Éowyn kills the Witch-King. Instead of this being a dramatic scene, Jackson added in a scene where Gothmog, orc leader, starts crawling after Éowyn and she is saved by Gimli and again Aragorn.

So probably instead of Beorn coming in and dragging Thorin out and then going back in and beating the crap out of the goblins. We'll see Aragorn show up and kill all the orcs single-handedly and then carry Thorin out. Strike that, he'll toss him out.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Different strokes dude! Seldom do movies precisely follow the books. The LotR trilogy is no exception. But as movie making goes, these same scenes you mention, translated well on the big screen. I don't have any problem with Jackson making Aragorn out to be an even greater hero. The scene with the death of Boromir or the scene with Eowyn killing the Witch-King are iconic images from the movie Trilogy; and will IMHO be well remembered by fans of the Fantasy movie genre for years and years to come. And not because these scenes precisely followed the book, but because these scenes and these movies are the best ever made for the genre. Until someone comes up with something significantly better, they will be revered. And I seriously doubt anyone will come up with anything better anytime in the foreseeable future. BRING ON THREE "THE HOBBIT" MOVIES!

Cheers,

Mazra

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

My only issue with RoTK extended is how Legolas out drinks Gimli.

Its going to be a cold day in hell when an elf out drinks a dwarf at my game table.


Count me among the highly skeptical camp.

I was very excited that they managed to get the gang back together for The Hobbit, especially since I've always been a bigger fan of The Hobbit than The Lord of the Rings. I was even cool with it being two movies, with some additional "What was Gandalf up to?" stuff thrown in from the Appendices.

Suddenly expanding it to three movies just a few months before release of the first movie just feels like a mix of not wanting to make hard choices about editing and a way to squeeze extra money out of it.


GeraintElberion wrote:
Orthos wrote:
wicked cool wrote:
Bring on the "Name of the wind" next

WANT.

SO.
VERY.
WANT.

I think that's a terrible idea.

Many of the things that make Name of the Wind great are very difficult to translate onto screen. I don't think it would work as a film.

At the very least, they should wait until the third book is done.

I'd rather see a Joe Abercrombie trilogy. He gets tagged as the Tarantino of fantasy-novels, let's see if it's true.

Oh, what? This thread is about Tolkien? Yeah, I'll take whatever I can get, thank you. One movie, three movies, seventeen movies? I'll watch it.

Also, King Kong wasn't lame. Anything with Naomi Watts is worth watching.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mazra wrote:
Different strokes dude! Seldom do movies precisely follow the books. The LotR trilogy is no exception. But as movie making goes, these same scenes you mention, translated well on the big screen. I don't have any problem with Jackson making Aragorn out to be an even greater hero. The scene with the death of Boromir or the scene with Eowyn killing the Witch-King are iconic images from the movie Trilogy; and will IMHO be well remembered by fans of the Fantasy movie genre for years and years to come. And not because these scenes precisely followed the book, but because these scenes and these movies are the best ever made for the genre. Until someone comes up with something significantly better, they will be revered. And I seriously doubt anyone will come up with anything better anytime in the foreseeable future. BRING ON THREE "THE HOBBIT" MOVIES!

Tastes vary of course, but I had very different reaction. Not because the scenes weren't precisely the same as the books, but because I found many of his action scenes overdone. A general tendency to either go over-the-top with action or with extra drama irritated me throughout the trilogy. Just in the Eowyn scene, following her slaying of the Witch King with her being threatened by a single orc doesn't work dramatically. It seems like it's trying to push the tension back up, but it can't.

And then things like the Legolas/Mumakil scene are just too far over the top for me.


From the article linked below.

i09 - Everything Peter Jackson added to The Hobbit .

This is the only bit that has me worried

New Characters

On top of all the actual Tolkien appendices and notes, Jackson added new characters into the mix. Evangeline Lily (Lost) is playing Tauriel, a Mirkwood elf, who has some sort of romantic ties to Kili (played by Aidan Turner, the vampire from BBC's Being Human). As we stated before, Mirkwood elves appear twice in this story, even though Tauriel doesn't appear in the original Tolkien. It's already confirmed that Kili will be pursuing Tauriel... but on the battle field, in the woods, inside a barrel? That's another large Mirkwood plotline that doesn't appear in the books.

In fact the above s+~~s me to no end.

Will it stop me watching the movies, no. Will it stop me from enjoying the rest of the movies, no.

The entire iO9 article:

Everything Peter Jackson added to The Hobbit — with PROOF!
Meredith Woerner

Now that it has been officially confirmed that Peter Jackson will be making a trilogy out of The Hobbit, everyone is asking one basic question. How is that possible? The Hobbit just isn't as big as Lord of the Rings. But Jackson has sworn up and down that there's plenty of material in the book's appendices that allowed him to expand Middle Earth. So what material is Jackson talking about specifically, and where does that fit in with The Hobbit? We picked through the appendices, Jackson's interviews, and the recent trailer to show you exactly what we think will end up on the big screen.

More Gandalf and friends (The White Council)

Gandalf the Grey is not in The Hobbit very much. In fact sometimes the wizard just vanishes only show up later yelling orders for no discernable reason. But in this trilogy, Jackson has promised that Gandalf isn't going anywhere. In an interview with IGN Jackson reveals the first big addition to the original material from Tolkien's appendices, "In The Hobbit novel Gandalf disappears for long periods of time, you never know where. But in the appendices Tolkien explains exactly what he was doing and where he was going. So we're able to incorporate all of that together." Boom! So where is he? Meeting up with the most powerful people in Middle Earth (the White Council) and helping to reveal the true face of the nefarious necromancer character, AKA Sauron. After beating up Thorin Oakenshield's dad and then telling the awesome elf Elrond (you remember him from LOTR — Agent Smith with a crown) about his experiences at Rivendell, Gandalf calls on the White Council to get to the bottom of these recent dark deeds.

This White Council is made up of Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman and a ton of other excellent Tolkien characters. We've already seen Galadriel in the trailer, so we know she's coming back. And Christopher Lee has already been confirmed to be returning to his role as Saruman. So buckle up for some excellent bickering between Lee and Sir Ian McKellen. Of course eventually Gandalf convinces the council to invade the Necromancer's fortress at Dol Guldur. Which leads to...

The Battle of Dol Guldur

In his statement on Facebook confirming the trilogy Jackson singles out The Battle of Dol Guldur as something he couldn't capture without breaking the book into three parts. This is the battle where Galadriel kicks a lot of ass. They fight orcs who ride werewolves and giant spiders, so yeah, awesome. But Galadriel just rips down the walls. It's impressive, and helps explain why everyone is so petrified of her awesome power in LOTR.

Legolas' Backstory

We've SEEN Legolas shooting arrows in the behind-the-scenes video diaries, and it's rumored that The Hobbit will be fleshing out a bit of this character's backstory. How so? By bringing in his dad! King Thranduil appears in The Hobbit and the Mirkwood elves are a big part of the journey to Lonely Mountain (they kidnap the dwarves and combine forces in the Battle of Five Armies). It's a fairly safe bet that whatever happens to Legolas during the final battle will only motivate his character's allegiance to the Fellowship of the Ring in the future. Don't forget Gimli's father, Glóin, is also on this expedition, and there better be a joke there at some point.

Gandalf Vs. Thrain

It's no secret Jackson loves a flashback-centric prologue (the birth of Gollum continues to haunt us). So why not use a flashback from an appendix to pad out the story and strengthen the relationship between the journey to Lonely Mountain and the epic battle of Dol Guldur? The keen eye of Dizastrus revealed this image from The Hobbit of what could be Thrain (father to Thorin Oakenshield) and Gandalf fighting. One is clearly Gandalf, and the other is too short to be a human, and has the mark of a prosthetic forehead. This could be the scene where Gandalf discovers King Tharin, driven mad by Sauron and forced to hand over the dwarf ring of power (something the audience learned in LOTR). This is also how Gandalf gets the map and key to the Lonely Mountain where Bilbo and the Dwarves of Erebor eventually end their journey. It ties the two stories of Dol Guldur and the Battle of Five Armies together. Also it demonstrates the dark matters at work and excuses Gandalf from the primary mission of Lonely Mountain, because Sauron's back... b*!&$es. Even if Gandalf wasn't aware that the Necromancer and Sauron are connected, the outlandish actions of the Dwarf King and a dark stranger's interest in the rings should lead to the eventual alert of the White Council.

The Story of Smaug and his Gold Belly

We have no proof that this will happen (sorry), but wouldn't it be rad if it did? We can't imagine Jackson will show the dragon face of Smaug until (at the latest) a cliff hanger ending of the second film. And once he's been introduced, doesn't this greedy dragon deserve a bit of backstory? Hell yes he does.

New Characters

On top of all the actual Tolkien appendices and notes, Jackson added new characters into the mix. Evangeline Lily (Lost) is playing Tauriel, a Mirkwood elf, who has some sort of romantic ties to Kili (played by Aidan Turner, the vampire from BBC's Being Human). As we stated before, Mirkwood elves appear twice in this story, even though Tauriel doesn't appear in the original Tolkien. It's already confirmed that Kili will be pursuing Tauriel... but on the battle field, in the woods, inside a barrel? That's another large Mirkwood plotline that doesn't appear in the books.

General Dwarf Fleshing Out

Did you spy the remnants of a spider attack in The Hobbit trailer? If that reveal means the giant spiders will be in the first movie, the majority of the first flick will be an on the road epic with a gaggle of dwarves and Bilbo. We need more personal dialogue and action to flesh out each character, so you care if Bofur is almost sliced open by a Goblin. Oakenshield's ego can't hog the spotlight the whole time, so you can bet that there will be plenty of silly little drunk dwarf moments that will flesh out the gang. Richard Armitage even promised a bunch more dwarf drinking songs!

Big Beautiful Battles

The Battle of Five Armies is not fleshed out in the books — in fact, Bilbo spends most of it unconscious. That won't stand for Jackson. He's got to top Helm's Deep. But then again, this is a battle with five armies. Plus this is the unification of the races: it's the first time that the humans, dwarves and elves stop squabbling over money and join together to fight evil. It's a massive moment both for the characters and just with the sheer size of it. There's no way this doesn't last for at least an hour. That's a lot of fleshing out and additional writing Jackson is going to have to dream up.

Andoran

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

This is the only bit that has me worried

New Characters

On top of all the actual Tolkien appendices and notes, Jackson added new characters into the mix. Evangeline Lily (Lost) is playing Tauriel, a Mirkwood elf ...

Heh, I'm kind of thrilled that Evangeline Lily is in the films. I'm a big Lost fan and I think she is a very good actress. I trust Peter and co to make her character fit in and be faithful to the material


Marc Radle wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

This is the only bit that has me worried

New Characters

On top of all the actual Tolkien appendices and notes, Jackson added new characters into the mix. Evangeline Lily (Lost) is playing Tauriel, a Mirkwood elf ...

Heh, I'm kind of thrilled that Evangeline Lily is in the films. I'm a big Lost fan and I think she is a very good actress. I trust Peter and co to make her character fit in and be faithful to the material

An Elf/Dwarf romance? Faithful to the material?

That's going to be really hard to pull off.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Isn't Kili the one that does not have a full dwarf beard and looks a little like Aragorn?

You know, Strider, the one that romanced the elf Arwen in the movies.

At least PJ is doing something orginal.

Cheliax

CapeCodRPGer wrote:

I'll need to watch Fellowship again. But IIRC, there is no indecation of much time passing between Gandalf coming back to tell Frodo about the ring, and they leave. Looks like that night.

There is time passing eariler when Gandalf sees Bilbo has a magic ring and he goes to Minas Tiriath to look into it. But seems to me they leave pretty quick.

There are visual cues regarding the dates, for instance Gandalf travels to Minas Tirith to consult the Great Libraries there, that would have taken more than two weeks to travel there and some time doing the actual research, as well as the travel time back.

Suffice to say it was more than a few days that is never explained to the audience but fan boys can debate infinatum.

: )


baron arem heshvaun wrote:
CapeCodRPGer wrote:

I'll need to watch Fellowship again. But IIRC, there is no indecation of much time passing between Gandalf coming back to tell Frodo about the ring, and they leave. Looks like that night.

There is time passing eariler when Gandalf sees Bilbo has a magic ring and he goes to Minas Tiriath to look into it. But seems to me they leave pretty quick.

There are visual cues regarding the dates, for instance Gandalf travels to Minas Tirith to consult the Great Libraries there, that would have taken more than two weeks to travel there and some time doing the actual research, as well as the travel time back.

Suffice to say it was more than a few days that is never explained to the audience but fan boys can debate infinatum.

: )

No one claims only a few days pass between the Party and Frodo leaving the Shire. The question is how long? A few months, a couple years, 17 years?

And how much time passes between when Gandalf tells Frodo about the One Ring and when Frodo leaves the Shire?


Since the first Hobbit movie will carry the subtitle, "An Unexpected Journey" and the second one will be "There and Back Again" I think the third movie should either be called "The Hobbit, What's the Audience Members Got Left in it's Pockets?" or "The Hobbit, The Search for Curly's Gold."

In seriousness though, I think they will keep the titles they have and switch the title of the second movie and use it as the title for the last one.

I think that they could have accomplished the telling of the book in two movies, but if any group can keep the spirit of Tolkien's works and bring it to the cinema as faithfully as possible it's these very folks, let's keep speculating but try not to judge until we see the final products on film, I for one raised an eyebrow when I first heard the news but the idea has quite grown on me since.


CapeCodRPGer wrote:

Isn't Kili the one that does not have a full dwarf beard and looks a little like Aragorn?

You know, Strider, the one that romanced the elf Arwen in the movies.

At least PJ is doing something orginal.

Generally you don't go for "something original" when you're aiming for "faithful to the material".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I, GROGNARD wrote:


Since the first Hobbit movie will carry the subtitle, "An Unexpected Journey" and the second one will be "There and Back Again" I think the third movie should either be called "The Hobbit, What's the Audience Members Got Left in it's Pockets?" or "The Hobbit, The Search for Curly's Gold."

In seriousness though, I think they will keep the titles they have and switch the title of the second movie and use it as the title for the last one.

1: Unexpected Party

2: There
3: Back Again


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ugh, that Kili/Tauriel reveal doesn't impress me at all, and I always felt that two films would rob it of some of it's "There and Back Again" storybookish charm.

But man oh man, I am excited nonetheless. Dwarves, dragons and hopefully a lot more singing. If there's but one chorus of "Down Down to Goblin Town" I will be happy with these movies. The rest is just gravy. :P

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Tales Subscriber
cibet44 wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:
Orthos wrote:
wicked cool wrote:
Bring on the "Name of the wind" next

WANT.

SO.
VERY.
WANT.

I think that's a terrible idea.

Many of the things that make Name of the Wind great are very difficult to translate onto screen. I don't think it would work as a film.

Is Name of the Wind actually very good? After seeing that pathetic, hideously terrible ad for it on the Goblins comic, I feel slightly sick every time I see the book.
I'm 450+ pages into the 600 page book and I'm still waiting for the "very good" part. It's been contrived and plodding so far. I'm not sure why this book gets the rave reviews it does. The only thing I can think of is there is some kind of M. Night type twist at the end: "They're already dead!!". If that's the case it will be one colosal waste of my time reading it. It's been pretty bad.

Different people like different things, I guess.

I suppose why it is or isn't good is probably more helpful.

You've described it as contrived and plodding: plodding I understand, you're talking about the pace of the action, plot and cahracter development.
'Contrived' I don't understand, it's a fiction story, isn't all fiction invented and planned? Do you mean it has too many coincidences?

I would say that it is a very elegantly written book, which helps a lot. The prose is neither too flowery and ornate nor too simple and blunt.
The characterisation of minor characters is very effective.
The emotional development of the character rings true, to me.
The central character is set up as an extraordinary figure: we then discover that he is a precocious youth who has an extraordinary upbringing.
There is a very strong framing-device which helps to create a wistful tone.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Twigs wrote:
If there's but one chorus of "Down Down to Goblin Town" I will be happy with these movies. The rest is just gravy. :P

YES!


GeraintElberion wrote:

I would say that it is a very elegantly written book, which helps a lot. The prose is neither too flowery and ornate nor too simple and blunt.

The characterisation of minor characters is very effective.
The emotional development of the character rings true, to me.
The central character is set up as an extraordinary figure: we then discover that he is a precocious youth who has an extraordinary upbringing.
There is a very strong framing-device which helps to create a wistful tone.

So true and well-articulated! All those poetry posts are paying off!

Usually when describing TNotW, I say: Joss Whedon writes Harry Potter with a whole bunch of the first half of Saga of Old Citythrown in. Also, it's got a dragon on drugs! I loved it, loved it, loved it.

Follow-up The Wise Man's Fear I enjoyed quite a bit, but was ultimately disappointed by. But there is some way-rad shiznit, like having sex with a nymph.


Ugh you mentioned Whedon in a thread that already has Peter Jackson..thats sure to get some people frothing mmore than they already are..

Hey how about
THE BELGARIAD
Directed by Peter Jackson
Script by Josh Whedon
with additional material by Uwe Bohl

some of the regulars here on the boards would have an apoplexy at the very thought

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Personally, I would love to see Peter Jackson tackle a live action Dragonlance trilogy. Besides LotR, the first three Dragonlance books may be my favorite fantasy trilogy out there.

The BELGARIAD was good. But I didn't care for the ending.

Cheers,

Mazra

Shadow Lodge

Marc Radle wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

This is the only bit that has me worried

New Characters

On top of all the actual Tolkien appendices and notes, Jackson added new characters into the mix. Evangeline Lily (Lost) is playing Tauriel, a Mirkwood elf ...

Heh, I'm kind of thrilled that Evangeline Lily is in the films. I'm a big Lost fan and I think she is a very good actress. I trust Peter and co to make her character fit in and be faithful to the material

This confirms my theory that Peter Jackson is contractually obligated to feature at least one LOST star in any Middle-Earth movies he might happen to make.


DM Wellard wrote:

Ugh you mentioned Whedon in a thread that already has Peter Jackson..thats sure to get some people frothing mmore than they already are..

Hey how about
THE BELGARIAD
Directed by Peter Jackson
Script by Josh Whedon
with additional material by Uwe Bohl

some of the regulars here on the boards would have an apoplexy at the very thought

I guess it could be worse. It could be the The Sword of Shannara.

51 to 100 of 269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gamer Life / Movies / Peter Jackson's The Hobbit to be Made into a Trilogy All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.