The Hobbit

[Amnorix]

The movies will stand or fall on their own. The movies don't have to precisely track the books, no matter what the purists think. If he adds new material (which he CLEARLY is doing, since there's all kinds of stuff that happen but are completely off-scene in the book but are being shown in the movie), then that's fine as long as the tone and tenor is consistent with Tolkien's world.

Changes only bother me when they literally make no sense. The Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff and blowing him off his horse in the extended version of RotK REALLY pisses me off. It makes no sense and seems to show that the Witch King is clearly more powerful than Gandalf. WTF is that about?

But otherwise, judge the movies for what they are. Jackson has earned a fair bit of latitude I think, given past success, and I hope he makes three really great, enjoyable movies.

[wilas101]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

The movies will stand or fall on their own. The movies don't have to precisely track the books, no matter what the purists think. If he adds new material (which he CLEARLY is doing, since there's all kinds of stuff that happen but are completely off-scene in the book but are being shown in the movie), then that's fine as long as the tone and tenor is consistent with Tolkien's world.

Changes only bother me when they literally make no sense. The Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff and blowing him off his horse in the extended version of RotK REALLY pisses me off. It makes no sense and seems to show that the Witch King is clearly more powerful than Gandalf. WTF is that about?

But otherwise, judge the movies for what they are. Jackson has earned a fair bit of latitude I think, given past success, and I hope he makes three really great, enjoyable movies.

replacing glorfindel with arwen burned my ass.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by wilas101

replacing glorfindel with arwen burned my ass.

Why? Look, I really like Glorfindel. He's a very cool character. In fact, for years I've had this idea that in the far recesses of his mind, during the Council of Elrond, when Gandalf is saying "even if you were to give us an Elf Lord of your house, he could not open the road by the power that is in him", Frodo was over there thinking "shut up Gandalf -- I love Merry and Pippin, but I'll take Glorfindel thanksallthesame."

But the plot is already complicated enough to squeeze it into the timeframe he had, letting Arwen do it reduces the number of characters in the series and also introduces a strong female character to help connect with the women in the audience. Let's face it, women do NOTHING in Lord of the Rings. Nothing on-stage anyway.

What Arwen does is also consistent with Tolkien's other works, so it's not absurd in the context of his world either. Luthien faced off Sauron (with Huan doing the grunt work) and then Morgoth himself in the Lay of Lethian. Frankly, all she really does is help partially heal Frodo (very consistent with Luthian and Arwen's own father (Elrond) and grandmother (Galadriel)'s abilities, and then steal a bit of Gandalf's thunder with the horses.

Would I personally have preferred to just stay true to the books? Yes. But I get why he made the changes and frankly, they're just not that big a deal to me.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Would I personally have preferred to just stay true to the books? Yes. But I get why he made the changes and frankly, they're just not that big a deal to me.

I have a friend that absolutely loathes the LOTR trilogy simply because they cut out the Tom Bombadil section of FOTR. I love the books too but I'm not that big of a purist.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Frosty

I have a friend that absolutely loathes the LOTR trilogy simply because they cut out the Tom Bombadil section of FOTR. I love the books too but I'm not that big of a purist.

Ditto, though my friend doesn't "loathe" the trilogy, he's just really upset about leaving out Tom Bombadil.

As if he's integral to the story or would be worth the extra half-hour they'd need (at least) to cover all that stuff. Seriously, what was Jackson supposed to do? Be completely faithful and make three five hour movies??

[otherstar]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

But the plot is already complicated enough to squeeze it into the timeframe he had, letting Arwen do it reduces the number of characters in the series and also introduces a strong female character to help connect with the women in the audience. Let's face it, women do NOTHING in Lord of the Rings. Nothing on-stage anyway.

I hope your being sarcastic here. Did you NOT see who killed the Witch-King of Angmar during the Battle of Pelennor Fields? Um, Eowyn...Shieldmaiden of Rohan. The movie-adaptation did not use the books dialogue, but the spirit of the scene is the same: no MAN can kill the Witch King, but a WOMAN did (with help from a Hobbit).

[Chiefspants]

Originally Posted by otherstar

I hope your being sarcastic here. Did you NOT see who killed the Witch-King of Angmar during the Battle of Pelennor Fields? Um, Eowyn...Shieldmaiden of Rohan. The movie-adaptation did not use the books dialogue, but the spirit of the scene is the same: no MAN can kill the Witch King, but a WOMAN did (with help from a Hobbit).

Meh, they sort of left the part out about the special abilities of the "hobbit's" sword. But whatevs. (I still see your point, though.)

/fanboi

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by otherstar

I hope your being sarcastic here. Did you NOT see who killed the Witch-King of Angmar during the Battle of Pelennor Fields? Um, Eowyn...Shieldmaiden of Rohan. The movie-adaptation did not use the books dialogue, but the spirit of the scene is the same: no MAN can kill the Witch King, but a WOMAN did (with help from a Hobbit).

You're absolutely right -- Eowyn gets one shining moment in the book, and in the movie.

But aside from that, there's very little that women do in the book that is particularly active. Galadriel's contributions are absolutely invaluable, but they're indirect and/or off-screen. He wanted a stronger female character. He ditched Glorfindel to give Arwen more screen time. Hardly worth going bananas over.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by otherstar

I hope your being sarcastic here. Did you NOT see who killed the Witch-King of Angmar during the Battle of Pelennor Fields? Um, Eowyn...Shieldmaiden of Rohan. The movie-adaptation did not use the books dialogue, but the spirit of the scene is the same: no MAN can kill the Witch King, but a WOMAN did (with help from a Hobbit).

that part was super gay

[Bump]

I'm excited for it. I should have a LOTR marathon before this comes out.

[Tribal Warfare]

Originally Posted by Bump

I'm excited for it. I should have a LOTR marathon before this comes out.

that's 12 to 13 hours out of the day

[Fish]

I really liked Bombadil in the book. But it would have been really hard to project that character into film. He was impossibly confusing and mysterious even in the book. It would have taken 30 minutes of explanation for viewers unfamiliar with the book to understand Tom in the film...

[QuikSsurfer]

Originally Posted by Frosty

I have a friend that absolutely loathes the LOTR trilogy simply because they cut out the Tom Bombadil section of FOTR. I love the books too but I'm not that big of a purist.

Originally Posted by KC Fish

I really liked Bombadil in the book. But it would have been really hard to project that character into film. He was impossibly confusing and mysterious even in the book. It would have taken 30 minutes of explanation for viewers unfamiliar with the book to understand Tom in the film...

It didn't bother too much that they left him out of the movies. At the same time, I would've really liked to have seen come out, bouncing around in yellow boots singing "Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!" -- mostly for comedic purposes.

[morphius]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

I really liked Bombadil in the book. But it would have been really hard to project that character into film. He was impossibly confusing and mysterious even in the book. It would have taken 30 minutes of explanation for viewers unfamiliar with the book to understand Tom in the film...

I saw the movies before reading the book, and I could completely understand why they cut him. That whole section just seemed like the hobbits fell into an acid trip that didn't belong with the rest of the story other than to show that there was more powerful things out there.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by morphius

I saw the movies before reading the book, and I could completely understand why they cut him. That whole section just seemed like the hobbits fell into an acid trip that didn't belong with the rest of the story other than to show that there was more powerful things out there.

Ha ha... exactly..

The whole "Kinda omnipotent tree hugger Cheshire cat lumberjack with a penchant for silly poetry" really doesn't fit with the rest of the story...