The Hobbit Trailer

My ears were in heaven, but it made my eyes bleed.

It angers me, I don't think that is too strong of a word for what I feel, that the Tolkien property is in the hands of a man who loathes and despises it.

And before you go there, I've read the Lost Tales, Morgoth's Ring, The Long Road and all the other unpublished notes. He is NOT just incorporating material from the larger story. As with the LotR movies, he's deliberately fundamentally altering the meaning and focus of the story not merely because he's ignorant of the stories meaning, but because he doesn't like it. By his own admission, upon reading the stories he felt that they didn't have enough fighting or (his word) "T&A". So he's putting in what he feels they miss and taking out the parts he doesn't like.

Those are some mighty strong accusations, and think you should back them up with some citations. Although Jackson has shown he has a particular vision of Tolkien's work, I have never seen or read anything that indicates that he hates it.

Celebrim said:

My ears were in heaven, but it made my eyes bleed.

It angers me, I don't think that is too strong of a word for what I feel, that the Tolkien property is in the hands of a man who loathes and despises it.

And before you go there, I've read the Lost Tales, Morgoth's Ring, The Long Road and all the other unpublished notes. He is NOT just incorporating material from the larger story. As with the LotR movies, he's deliberately fundamentally altering the meaning and focus of the story not merely because he's ignorant of the stories meaning, but because he doesn't like it. By his own admission, upon reading the stories he felt that they didn't have enough fighting or (his word) "T&A". So he's putting in what he feels they miss and taking out the parts he doesn't like.

Click to expand...

I am not disputing your claims but I would be very interested in your sourcesf or this. While I must admit that there were a couple of things that I did not like about the Lord of the Rings Trilogy (specifically the Gimli as comic relief aspect) all in all it was quite well done. As far as I know Peter Jackson has always claimed what we are getting is a reinterpretation rather than a retelling.

Celebrim said:

It angers me, I don't think that is too strong of a word for what I feel, that the Tolkien property is in the hands of a man who loathes and despises it.

Click to expand...

I was really happy with the LotR movies and thought he did a good job bringing the books to the big screen. Certainly there are some liberties taken here and there, but portions of the books would not make for a movie that worked. I am fine with some of the tweaks he made to get the film to the big screen.

Nate Jones said:

As far as inclusion of material from the Silmarillion and other stories, I do not foresee that happening, since Warner Brothers has the rights only to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. And if I recall, the Tolkien Estate (Christopher Tolkien) holds the rights to non-Hobbit, non-LotR material very close to chest, so any adaptation, film or otherwise, is probably out of the question. However, since Tolkien Enterprises, not Tolkien Estate, holds the rights to the Hobbit and LotR, we have seen a proliferation of adaptations of these works in recent years.

Click to expand...

Well they apparently worked something out, b/c PJ has said the White Council is involved and that certainly appears to be Gandalf sneaking around in Sauron's Mirkwood fortress. They don't have the rights to make a film of say, Unfinished Tales, but getting the story where Gandalf and Thorin met in the Blue Mountains prior to the Unexpected Party to help tie things better would have likely been pretty easy. I don't recall Christopher Tolkien hating what was done w/LOTR after all.

Stormonu said:

Sadly, I have no faith in the next Batman movie; the trailer looks awful (to me).

Click to expand...

The next Batman is supposed to take place 10 years after TDK. So far it looks like Catwoman could be w/the League of Shadows or an independent, buts he seems to have the Occupy Wall Street viewpoint down pat.

IronWolf said:

I was really happy with the LotR movies and thought he did a good job bringing the books to the big screen. Certainly there are some liberties taken here and there, but portions of the books would not make for a movie that worked. I am fine with some of the tweaks he made to get the film to the big screen.

Click to expand...

Adding Aragorn being lost over that cliff for a day or 2 was pretty useless. People either loved or hated super skater slaying elf Legolas during the ROTK fights against the Haradrim. Gimli being used as comedic value didn't really fit his character, but I guess he wanted to spread it out from almost entirely Merry and Pippin.

His logic in leaving out Bombadil makes perfect sense. He's just spent a half hour creating a deep fear and distrust of the ring, that it is a very dark thing, putting it on will let Sauron know where you are, etc. In the books Bombadil shows up and saves them from Old Man Willow, then at his house can put it on w/o disappearing or being affected, makes it disappear. It would have ruined the mood entirely. Of course, not having Bombadil meant leaving out the Barrow Wights too.

I wish teh Scourging of the Shire had been left in, but considering people already complained about 4 or 5 possible end points before the actual ending, adding what would be another 20 or 30 minutes of film time at the end would have stretched it out quite a bit. It's great and it does show how the hobbits have become very different people in their year or so they were away, plus it was an allegory for how England was being changed by industrialization and war. So much of the countryside different, so many of his friends gone

Aaron L said:

And Beorn and the battle of Three Armies! Man, werebears swiping down orcs left and right will be RAD.

Click to expand...

What happened to the other two armies ?

Morrus said:

Batman will help.

Click to expand...

The Steeler cameos are worth the price of admission...well, for somebody from the Burgh.

Celebrim said:

My ears were in heaven, but it made my eyes bleed.

It angers me, I don't think that is too strong of a word for what I feel, that the Tolkien property is in the hands of a man who loathes and despises it.

And before you go there, I've read the Lost Tales, Morgoth's Ring, The Long Road and all the other unpublished notes. He is NOT just incorporating material from the larger story. As with the LotR movies, he's deliberately fundamentally altering the meaning and focus of the story not merely because he's ignorant of the stories meaning, but because he doesn't like it. By his own admission, upon reading the stories he felt that they didn't have enough fighting or (his word) "T&A". So he's putting in what he feels they miss and taking out the parts he doesn't like.

Click to expand...

I would tend to say that Tolkien himself would also be mortified by the movies...however he'd also simply take it in stride and probably remain quiet about it as he did about a great many other things through his life.

It amazes me the changes in people's attitudes towards LotR throughout the years. The Hobbit originally was a CHILDREN'S book...yes...a Children's book (though probably more in the line towards older children/Young Adult). The Lord of the Rings themselves were actually more as sequels for the Hobbit. A tad darker, but still lighter fare. They tended towards more adult enjoyment as they were directed in many ways towards his children (I imagine his original stories of hobbits were basically engendered towards his children when they were about...well...the size of hobbits! Imagine that).

I'd say for Tolkien, anything more than a PG rating was making the films about his books too dark, too violent, and too messy (note, the new LotR films were at least PG-13 in the US...so for Britain I'd say the movies would have had to e PG-12 or under at least).

His "adult" book (and by adult, I don't mean in the nasty way, I mean as in written with an adult audience in mind) was actually the Simarillion. It was one that he tried to get printed for a LOOOONG time, but the publishers didn't WANT his adult stuff, they wanted more stuff along the lines of the Hobbit and children's/Young Adult Literature.

Which is why Tolkien probably wouldn't have made any huge fuss about the films (His children probably made a larger fuss about the films when Fellowship first came out then Tolkien would have...then again, the books were originally probably written as directed towards them...so it's their vision as well), plus he had sold the rights for what he probably felt was decent compensation at the time.

I think he could have been delighted at the use of Elvish in the LotR trilogy of films though, as long as it was pronounced correctly and had correct grammar.

On the otherhand, if they ever made a movie about the Silmarillion...I think he may be a LOT more vocal and particular about it. That was more his baby, his life's work, what he truly might get involved about.

Plane Sailing said:

What happened to the other two armies ?

Click to expand...

That's what I was wondering, PS, but I dared not mention it in case my memory was failing me.

Leif said:

So, ironically, of the "Three Rings for the Elven Kings," only one was borne by a full Elf, and no [sane] one would accuse Galadriel of being a 'king.' Gandalf was neither man nor elf, but was Istari. And, of course, Elrond was half-Elven only.

Click to expand...

The original bearers of the Elven Rings were:

Vilya - Gil-galad (High King of the High Elves, ring passed to next High King on his death, Elrond)
Narya - Cirdan (Gil-galad's lieutenant, lord of the Grey Havens, gave ring to Olorin upon his arrival in Middle-earth)
Nenya - Celebrimbor (lord of Eregion, smith of the Elven Rings, gave Vilya and Narya to Gil-galad, Nenya to Galadriel when Sauron overan Eregion)

So the poem when Sauron forged the One Ring was accurate.