The Hobbit Movie

[thecynic]

Any one excited to see this? I wish someone other than Peter Jackson was doing it. I feel like he does evil and dark well, but he missed the lighter moments of TLOR. The Hobbit has such a different, lighter, more campy(?) feel to it, I'm afraid he's going to make it a dark and sinister movie. The characters I've seen look pretty cool though.

[Peach Fuzz]

When and where did you see this? Also what were you wearing?

[thecynic]

Time magazine had the pics of the characters.

pretty sure it was a wife beater, jorts and crocs

[Peach Fuzz]

Bout friggin time! been waiting for this movie like a child for christmas. I didn't know Jackson took over once again as directing, I too fear he might make it too dramatic and not enough 'happy times'. Good call on the crocs, sexy.

[pphilfran]

I read The Hobbit in the 5th grade...it was magical...

[soonerbub]

Your title needs an s at the end. It's gonna be 2 movies of Bilbo kickassery

An Unexpected Journey 2012 set for December 14 1 week before Mayageddon

There and Back Again 2013 (if we survive that calendar reset thingy)

[thecynic]

Your title needs an s at the end. It's gonna be 2 movies of Bilbo kickassery

An Unexpected Journey 2012 set for December 14 1 week before Mayageddon

There and Back Again 2013 (if we survive that calendar reset thingy)

haven't paid enough attention. didn't know that.

[TUSooner]

Did he get the hobbits' feet wrong in this movie, too?

[rekamrettuB]

Was one of my favorite books as a child. I never read LOR nor watched the movies but loved Bilbo and Smaug.

[tbl]

The Rankin and Bass version will prove to be better than the PJ version will... He hates JRR.

[SicEmBaylor]

JM is going to neg the **** out of me for this, but these books and movies are not good. They suck. They suck major major hairy hobbit ***.

It doesn't matter who directs this crap. Steven Spielberg could direct and it'd be like trying to put lipstick on a pig.

[pphilfran]

JM is going to neg the **** out of me for this, but these books and movies are not good. They suck. They suck major major hairy hobbit ***.

It doesn't matter who directs this crap. Steven Spielberg could direct and it'd be like trying to put lipstick on a pig.

You hold a grudge cause a baby Hobbit is bigger than you....

[StoopTroup]

They suck major major hairy hobbit ***.



lol

[Chuck Bao]

I loved all of the J. R. R. Tolkien books. As a kid on the farm, that was my escape. I vividly remember using my farm income to buy the box set and how after reading and re-reading them, they would go back in the box until the box fell apart. And, I love the Peter Jackson version of the LOTR. I think he does the humor justice. I think any more humor would make it campy.

Okay, now I have 2 new movies that I will venture into the theaters to see. Thanks for the heads up on the first movie, thecynic. Spek.

[TUSooner]

JM is going to neg the **** out of me for this, but these books and movies are not good. They suck. They suck major major hairy hobbit ***.

It doesn't matter who directs this crap. Steven Spielberg could direct and it'd be like trying to put lipstick on a pig.

You have every right not to like them for any reason or no reason. But what qualifies you to say, or causes you to say, they are "not good"? Serious question, not a challenge to a politcal-type smackfest. ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

You have every right not to like them for any reason or no reason. But what qualifies you to say, or causes you to say, they are "not good"? Serious question, not a challenge to a politcal-type smackfest. ;)

My problem with the books is that I simply do not like the "fantasy" genre in any shape, form, or fashion. The movies (sans the Hobbit which obviously hasn't been released yet) were too long, too boring, and had lousy acting.

[EnragedOUfan]

I'm glad that no one other than Peter Jackson is producing/directing this movie. I was upset when I heard that the producer of Del Toro was originally going to produce this movie. But when I heard he gave it up to Jackson, I was thrilled.......

http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/del-toro-leaves-the-hobbit-and-evidently-peter-jackson-wont-be-next/

No one other than Jackson should be in charge of the Hobbit. The Lord of the Rings movies were some of the best if not the best movies of all time...

[TUSooner]

My problem with the books is that I simply do not like the "fantasy" genre in any shape, form, or fashion. The movies (sans the Hobbit which obviously hasn't been released yet) were too long, too boring, and had lousy acting.
Ah so. I'm generally not a fantasy fan either, but these books appealed to my linguistic side. I liked the movies but didn't love them.

[cccasooner2]

They suck major major hairy hobbit ***.

The thing that separates hobbits from humans is that they grow hair on their toes and not on their a**. Maybe you omitted a fourth star or an s?

[SicEmBaylor]

The thing that separates hobbits from humans is that they grow hair on their toes and not on their a**. Maybe you omitted a fourth star or an s?

I bow to your superior knowledge. I confess that I'm not an expert on the relative hairiness or attractiveness of a hobbit's ***.

[LosAngelesSooner]

They are on hiatus right now, but from what I saw when I was down there, they are doing it RIGHT.

This film's gonna rawk.

[sappstuf]

I'm glad that no one other than Peter Jackson is producing/directing this movie. I was upset when I heard that the producer of Del Toro was originally going to produce this movie. But when I heard he gave it up to Jackson, I was thrilled.......

http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/del-toro-leaves-the-hobbit-and-evidently-peter-jackson-wont-be-next/

No one other than Jackson should be in charge of the Hobbit. The Lord of the Rings movies were some of the best if not the best movies of all time...

I'm happy that PJ is doing the movies, but Guillermo del Toro is a fantastic director. Pan's Labyrinth is an outstanding fantasy movie. He would have done a good job with The Hobbit.

[picasso]

Any one excited to see this? I wish someone other than Peter Jackson was doing it. I feel like he does evil and dark well, but he missed the lighter moments of TLOR. The Hobbit has such a different, lighter, more campy(?) feel to it, I'm afraid he's going to make it a dark and sinister movie. The characters I've seen look pretty cool though.

Have you not read up on the project? Guillermo del Toro was originally going to do the job.

Doh! my bad.

[Chuck Bao]

My problem with the books is that I simply do not like the "fantasy" genre in any shape, form, or fashion. The movies (sans the Hobbit which obviously hasn't been released yet) were too long, too boring, and had lousy acting.

I think your problem, SicEm, is that you take things way too literally. Do you also hate poetry and myths or any literature that is allegorical? I would think that it would be sad if you did and missed out on part of our human experience and history. The Hobbit and the LOTR draws heavily on the ancient Northern Europe lore and that is most of our heritage.

[GottaHavePride]

Yeah, it's totally valid to say you don't like them because you don't like fantasy of any sort. But the overwhelming majority of intenational opinion would rank it respectably near the top of any ranking of English-language fiction.

As an example, I ****ing HATED Catcher in the Rye. I thought the story and characters had no redeeming qualities, and will never read it again. But a lot of people out there consider it a masterpiece.

Me, I live in the real world, I want books to get me out of it for a while. ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

I think your problem, SicEm, is that you take things way too literally. Do you also hate poetry and myths or any literature that is allegorical? I would think that it would be sad if you did and missed out on part of our human experience and history. The Hobbit and the LOTR draws heavily on the ancient Northern Europe lore and that is most of our heritage.


Yeah, it's totally valid to say you don't like them because you don't like fantasy of any sort. But the overwhelming majority of intenational opinion would rank it respectably near the top of any ranking of English-language fiction.

As an example, I ****ing HATED Catcher in the Rye. I thought the story and characters had no redeeming qualities, and will never read it again. But a lot of people out there consider it a masterpiece.

Me, I live in the real world, I want books to get me out of it for a while. ;)

I think it's an issue of how I was raised. My parents were really big on reading to me a LOT as a kid. They had my room completely decorated in a Paddington Bear theme. My mother especially pushed all of the old Fairy Tales on me. The issue though is that my family was very very very history oriented. All of our vacations centered around historical locations of some sort or another. My dad would throw me into his truck most weekends and we'd drive around Oklahoma and he'd point out every historical marker along the road and we'd visit historical sites in the state and western Arkansas. I have a lot of fond memories of going on those historical day trips with my dad and having the windows rolled down listening to stuff like "Roam" by the B-52s as we hunted down important historical sites while eating fast food burgers and drinking shakes.

So pretty early on, I got to where I was no longer interested in fiction. History fascinated me, and I couldn't understand who would want to read about a fantasy world when the real world was so damned interesting. I was a kid who, in 8th grade, read Winston Churchill's wartime memoirs on the way to Florida. My freshman year in HS we had to do a report on an autobiography...I chose Field Marshall Erich von Manstein's "Lost Victories." We had an Honors English assignment once that required us to do a project on a James Fenimore Cooper book. Well of course our teacher expected it to be from the Leatherstocking Tales, but she never specifically said that. So, I did it on his phenomenal book "The American Democrat."

I read a hell of a lot. I always have, but I just almost never read fiction of any kind. There are a few exceptions. I loved Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series, and I like the Mitch Rapp series by Vince Flynn. As far as fantasy goes, I never did like it with the exception of Harry Potter which I enjoyed a great deal.

My favorite fiction book, however, is The Great Gatsby. I truly love that book, and it's one of the few books that I've read multiple times. The point of fiction though really eludes me. No, the real world doesn't have dragons or sorcerers, but it's pretty interesting nonetheless.

[C&CDean]

Sicem's never read any of the Harry Potter books. This much is painfully obvious. Poor, POOR fellow.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sicem's never read any of the Harry Potter books. This much is painfully obvious. Poor, POOR fellow.

Actually, if you read my previous post, you'd know that I not only read all of the Harry Potter Books but I absolutely loved them. Even the movies are great.

There are exceptions to every rule. Harry Potter is one of those exceptions. I'm a Slytherin man.

[C&CDean]

Heh. Froston Malfoy, Esq. I can see it now. Skinny white dude with a Zima and a cigar. I love it!

[MR2-Sooner86]

As an example, I ****ing HATED Catcher in the Rye. I thought the story and characters had no redeeming qualities, and will never read it again.

So you decided to then write your own book...

http://theinternettoday.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/scrotie.png

[JohnnyMack]

I think it's an issue of how I was raised. My parents were really big on reading to me a LOT as a kid. They had my room completely decorated in a Paddington Bear theme. My mother especially pushed all of the old Fairy Tales on me. The issue though is that my family was very very very history oriented. All of our vacations centered around historical locations of some sort or another. My dad would throw me into his truck most weekends and we'd drive around Oklahoma and he'd point out every historical marker along the road and we'd visit historical sites in the state and western Arkansas. I have a lot of fond memories of going on those historical day trips with my dad and having the windows rolled down listening to stuff like "Roam" by the B-52s as we hunted down important historical sites while eating fast food burgers and drinking shakes.

So pretty early on, I got to where I was no longer interested in fiction. History fascinated me, and I couldn't understand who would want to read about a fantasy world when the real world was so damned interesting. I was a kid who, in 8th grade, read Winston Churchill's wartime memoirs on the way to Florida. My freshman year in HS we had to do a report on an autobiography...I chose Field Marshall Erich von Manstein's "Lost Victories." We had an Honors English assignment once that required us to do a project on a James Fenimore Cooper book. Well of course our teacher expected it to be from the Leatherstocking Tales, but she never specifically said that. So, I did it on his phenomenal book "The American Democrat."

I read a hell of a lot. I always have, but I just almost never read fiction of any kind. There are a few exceptions. I loved Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series, and I like the Mitch Rapp series by Vince Flynn. As far as fantasy goes, I never did like it with the exception of Harry Potter which I enjoyed a great deal.

My favorite fiction book, however, is The Great Gatsby. I truly love that book, and it's one of the few books that I've read multiple times. The point of fiction though really eludes me. No, the real world doesn't have dragons or sorcerers, but it's pretty interesting nonetheless.

My dad drug me everywhere between here and The Little Big Horn when I was a lad and I still managed to develop a love for fantasy and sic-fi. I think all your rant proves is that you're a gigantic ninny.

[hellogoodbye]

PJ's interpretation of the books has this geek's approval. Lots of stuff he didnt get right, but didn't outweigh what he did get right. I hope his isnt the only interpretation we see.

And, now that CGI has caught up, looking forward to a 3 movie Silmarillion gig. Much more epic and interesting IMO.


They are on hiatus right now, but from what I saw when I was down there, they are doing it RIGHT.

This film's gonna rawk.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURN.

This movie will be awesome. LotR wasn't bright and light because Tom Bombadil is a frickin' butt pirate. May translate on the page, but in my opinion, not to the screen. And besides, the War of the Ring IS a dark, scary circumstance. The world is absolutely effed in the A. Nothing can stop the coming wave of doom. All except this one lone shot in the dark, a hobbit of all people.

I thought Jackson nailed the overall theme. Hit it right on the screws.

[tbl]

The problem I had is Jackson changing key traits of the characters, notably Gandalf and Aragorn.

In the books, Aragorn knows he is the heir of Elendil and isn't scared to admit it. He owns it and takes his reforged sword before they even leave Rivendell. In the movies, he's freaking out about it, scared to take the throne, and an overall pussbag when it comes to being the king, at least up until the 3rd movie when they finally reforge the sword and make him stop being such a sissy. LAME

Gandalf doesn't become awesome until he becomes Gandalf the White in the movies, but in the books Gandalf is just slightly less awesome as the Grey, but still plenty awesome. I know PJ did that to show the contrast, but he didn't have to have Gandalf bumping his head and unable to pull himself up off a cliff (among other things).

[S.PadreIsl.Sooner]

but he didn't have to have Gandalf bumping his head and unable to pull himself up off a cliff (among other things).

Actually, the Bridge at Khazad-Dum was quite accurate. PJ had Gandalf hold long enough to deliver his line.

The only real part that pissed me off was in the entended version of ROTK. During the battle, the Witch-King is able to "break the staff" of Gandalf in a brief head to head. Not a chance could that occur. Gandalf was a Maia and could stomp on any human, at any time.

There were other things altered, but that was just for the flow of the movie.

I guess I just revealed how much of a nerd that I am.

[SicEmBaylor]

My dad drug me everywhere between here and The Little Big Horn when I was a lad and I still managed to develop a love for fantasy and sic-fi. I think all your rant proves is that you're a gigantic ninny.

Well, you all can keep your Warlocks and Hobbits. I'm going to go re-read The Great Gatsby. ;)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Ho ho ho. That Gatsby. He sure was great, huh?

AND GAY.

[SicEmBaylor]

Ho ho ho. That Gatsby. He sure was great, huh?

AND GAY.

:sigh:

It was Nick, not Gatsby, that may or may not have been gay. It's ambiguous.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Closet, meet Gatsby. Gatsby, meet... Wait, you've already met Closet.

The only thing he's stabbing is the chocolate starfish, unlike many many people in the LotR books.

[Chuck Bao]

Actually, the Bridge at Khazad-Dum was quite accurate. PJ had Gandalf hold long enough to deliver his line.

The only real part that pissed me off was in the entended version of ROTK. During the battle, the Witch-King is able to "break the staff" of Gandalf in a brief head to head. Not a chance could that occur. Gandalf was a Maia and could stomp on any human, at any time.

There were other things altered, but that was just for the flow of the movie.

I guess I just revealed how much of a nerd that I am.

I see your nerd bat signal very clearly, S.PadreIsl.Sooner. I am going to put out my own little flare.

Gandalf was indeed very powerful and had power that he refused to use and he refused to touch the ring as he knew it would corrupt him and make him all powerful with the absence of the Valar.

The thing that always troubled me in the books is why he allowed others to suffer and die because he could have very easily led Frodo (holding the ring) on the back of those giant eagles to Mount Doom and destroy the damn thing. We find out later that Gandalf the White can use his staff to ward off Nazgûl or Ringwraiths. Well, hell dude, what was holding you back? The elves surely knew that and probably decided that they are not going to stand in the of good story telling. I guess that man had to suffer to get to "the age of men and the one true king".

Silmarillion really shouldn't be made into a movie because it starts bordering on the religious, like the LOTR did at the end. Maybe they can take a part of it and embellish to make an interesting story. There is probably a built in market for it, but a prequel may not be a commercial success.

[Chuck Bao]

I think it's an issue of how I was raised. My parents were really big on reading to me a LOT as a kid. They had my room completely decorated in a Paddington Bear theme. My mother especially pushed all of the old Fairy Tales on me. The issue though is that my family was very very very history oriented. All of our vacations centered around historical locations of some sort or another. My dad would throw me into his truck most weekends and we'd drive around Oklahoma and he'd point out every historical marker along the road and we'd visit historical sites in the state and western Arkansas. I have a lot of fond memories of going on those historical day trips with my dad and having the windows rolled down listening to stuff like "Roam" by the B-52s as we hunted down important historical sites while eating fast food burgers and drinking shakes.

So pretty early on, I got to where I was no longer interested in fiction. History fascinated me, and I couldn't understand who would want to read about a fantasy world when the real world was so damned interesting. I was a kid who, in 8th grade, read Winston Churchill's wartime memoirs on the way to Florida. My freshman year in HS we had to do a report on an autobiography...I chose Field Marshall Erich von Manstein's "Lost Victories." We had an Honors English assignment once that required us to do a project on a James Fenimore Cooper book. Well of course our teacher expected it to be from the Leatherstocking Tales, but she never specifically said that. So, I did it on his phenomenal book "The American Democrat."

I read a hell of a lot. I always have, but I just almost never read fiction of any kind. There are a few exceptions. I loved Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series, and I like the Mitch Rapp series by Vince Flynn. As far as fantasy goes, I never did like it with the exception of Harry Potter which I enjoyed a great deal.

My favorite fiction book, however, is The Great Gatsby. I truly love that book, and it's one of the few books that I've read multiple times. The point of fiction though really eludes me. No, the real world doesn't have dragons or sorcerers, but it's pretty interesting nonetheless.

Dude and fellow Baylor fan, do not listen to these preverts.

That is extremely great that your dad to you to the historical sites of Oklahoma and Western Arkansas.

My dad bragged that he never wanted to leave Marshall Co., which just happens to be the smallest county in Oklahoma.

Real life may be more interesting to you. I think you do romanticize history. It really may not have been as great as you imagine back in those times. Still, you are using your imagination and I can't fault that. By the same token, I assume that you can appreciate our own use of imagination on great fiction.

[hellogoodbye]

Silmarillion really shouldn't be made into a movie because it starts bordering on the religious, like the LOTR did at the end.
Good points, I guess for me no more religious than Clash of the Titans and whatnot




The problem I had is Jackson changing key traits of the characters, notably Gandalf and Aragorn.
that - and the Army of the Dead green swarm ,,.

[King Crimson]

and turning Elrond into kind of a dick. Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wights?

[hellogoodbye]

Radioactive Galadriel

[hellogoodbye]

Should be seeing a lot of E and G and Saruman in action in these movies from what Ive learned (White Counsel)

[tbl]

and turning Elrond into kind of a dick. Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wights?

I didn't mind excluding Bombadil or the Barrow Wights, but yes, Elrond was another big character change that was completely unnecessary. Like I said, it was changing the nature of the characters that bugged me. No reason to do that at all, and he did it a lot. Faramir as well...

[tbl]

The thing that always troubled me in the books is why he allowed others to suffer and die because he could have very easily led Frodo (holding the ring) on the back of those giant eagles to Mount Doom and destroy the damn thing. We find out later that Gandalf the White can use his staff to ward off Nazgûl or Ringwraiths. Well, hell dude, what was holding you back? The elves surely knew that and probably decided that they are not going to stand in the of good story telling. I guess that man had to suffer to get to "the age of men and the one true king".

I think all of that would have simply got in the way of the awesome story telling, and the end around would be "they had to learn it for themselves". but whatever...


Silmarillion really shouldn't be made into a movie because it starts bordering on the religious, like the LOTR did at the end. Maybe they can take a part of it and embellish to make an interesting story. There is probably a built in market for it, but a prequel may not be a commercial success.

There's no way they could do that as one movie. It'd have to be multiple movies or a TV miniseries... In that case, I say leave it be. It's WAY too ambitious to cheap out on, and extremely difficult to bring to life accurately.

[hellogoodbye]

not many happy endings, granted. But what a story!

There's no way they could do that as one movie. It'd have to be multiple movies or a TV miniseries... In that case, I say leave it be. It's WAY too ambitious to cheap out on, and extremely difficult to bring to life accurately.

[tbl]

Beren and Luthien would be awesome... The whole saga of Feanor and the curse... The trees... Melkor... Turin... Tuor and Gondolin... A TON of material, no doubt, and I'd be the first in line, even if the JRR rapist directed them. ;)

[hellogoodbye]

The tale of why they no longer get involved would be the perfect tie-in with the Silm movies. Broke the world! Istari was the most they could do (sure, you could tie TB on to an Eagle and suicide them in to Mt Doom but that was not the way by then).

I think all of that would have simply got in the way of the awesome story telling, and the end around would be "they had to learn it for themselves". but whatever...

[hellogoodbye]

Another age.... where Sauron was a mere Lieutenant ..

[S.PadreIsl.Sooner]

I see your nerd bat signal very clearly, S.PadreIsl.Sooner. I am going to put out my own little flare.

Gandalf was indeed very powerful and had power that he refused to use and he refused to touch the ring as he knew it would corrupt him and make him all powerful with the absence of the Valar.

The thing that always troubled me in the books is why he allowed others to suffer and die because he could have very easily led Frodo (holding the ring) on the back of those giant eagles to Mount Doom and destroy the damn thing. We find out later that Gandalf the White can use his staff to ward off Nazgûl or Ringwraiths. Well, hell dude, what was holding you back? The elves surely knew that and probably decided that they are not going to stand in the of good story telling. I guess that man had to suffer to get to "the age of men and the one true king".

Silmarillion really shouldn't be made into a movie because it starts bordering on the religious, like the LOTR did at the end. Maybe they can take a part of it and embellish to make an interesting story. There is probably a built in market for it, but a prequel may not be a commercial success.



Remember, Manwe(King of the Valar) sent the 5 Istari (Maia wizards) to Middle Earth under the instructions that they could not directly confront Sauron (who was another Maia himself). They were supposed to get the remaining peoples to defeat Sauron. So Gandalf isn't allowed to use all his power.

When fighting the balrog, however, that's a different story. Since the balrog was another fallen Maia, Gandalf can open up the full can of Whoop-axz!

Furthermore, when JRR was first writing the LOTR his original intention was to make it another children's story like The Hobbit. Thus you get the silly Bombadil character. He then changed his mind and wrote the trilogy as a much darker story. Frodo's original name was Bingo before the change! BTW, if you read between the lines during the Bombadil part, he is probably a Maia himself.

[SoonerDude]

Bret from Flight of the Conchords is going to be in it. If they'd get Jemaine too, I'd definitely see it.

[tbl]

BTW, if you read between the lines during the Bombadil part, he is probably a Maia himself.

Some people have implied he was possibly Illuvatar himself...

[hellogoodbye]

there better be talking animals, or there will be hell to pay