New Lord of the Rings movie in the works centered around Tom Bombadil

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I didn't like the Hobbit movies.... But a lot of people did. I'm not going to say they or the movie makers are wrong, bad, evil. Different people like different things. Role players are the last people who should do this.....

I dunno, I think Buddhist monks probably hold themselves to a higher standard than roleplayers do. I certainly have far fewer Buddhist monks on my ignore list.

 

[ART!]

Aragorn and Gandalf are the ones hunting for Gollum. I'm pretty sure people are excited to see both of them on the big screen again.

I will take more of McKellan's Gandalf for as long as he's able to give us those performances.

I think they're casting someone as younger Aragorn, and we'll see Viggo as post-ROTK Aragorn/Elessar? I haven't been paying super-close attention to the rumors and info on the HfG movie.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think they're casting someone as younger Aragorn, and we'll see Viggo as post-ROTK Aragorn/Elessar? I haven't been paying super-close attention to the rumors and info on the HfG movie.

I hadn't heard that, but they probably need to. Viggo is clearly showing his age at this point, which makes sense, given that it's been 23 years since Return of the King was filmed.

 

[Parmandur]

I didn't like the Hobbit movies.... But a lot of people did. I'm not going to say they or the movie makers are wrong, bad, evil. Different people like different things. Role players are the last people who should do this.....

They are not bad movies, but I just couldn't get past how bad as adaptations they are. My wife was able to say to herself "wow, for a Warhammer Fantasy movie, this is fantastic!" and enjoy the movies pretending they were not evem trying to be Tolkien.

 

[Zaukrie]

They are not bad movies, but I just couldn't get past how bad as adaptations they are. My wife was able to say to herself "wow, for a Warhammer Fantasy movie, this is fantastic!" and enjoy the movies pretending they were not evem trying to be Tolkien.

I'm the opposite. I don't care about faithfulness, and I didn't like the movies.

 

[ART!]

I almost feel bad comparing The Hobbit films to the LOTR films, because the latter is such a high bar.

The Eye of the Duck podcast did a series on epic fantasy films, in which they covered the LOTR movies in depth, and then looked at The Hobbit movies. They take a pretty dim view of the latter, and I can't disagree with their many reasons. The LOTR movies were made at kind of the perfect time, when digital effects were up to the challenge but hadn't become overused like they are now. Jackson made a decision to do everything physically and only use digital effects when there was no other way. The Hopbbit movies were made with pretty much a reverse philosophy.

AFAIC, a blockbuster film trilogy adaptation of The Hobbit is just ill-conceived, and it's down hill from there.

The Hunt for Gollum is vaguely interesting to me as a film project, and I feel about the same about this newly-announced one. I just think the further they get from what Tolkien wrote, the riskier the proposition is. I would happily watch a movie about Sam, Merry, and Pippin just doing hobbit-y things, so I'm not opposed to the idea of this. With Elanor in there, we get family stuff with Sam, a female lead, and a younger hero to do younger hero things.

 

[Mannahnin]

The thread appears mis-titled. As far as I can tell from Colbert and Jackson's comments, the idea is to cover the chapters skipped in Jackson's version of Fellowship, and use a flashback framing device. This would mean that Bombadil would necessarily be included, but the story wouldn't be centered on him.

It'd be about the more gradual first steps of adventure and danger the Hobbits encountered before meeting up with Aragorn. Including Old Man Willow, the Barrow Wights, and Bombadil's help. Encountering the Barrow Wights would also close a tiny plot hole from the movies, in terms of where Merry got the blade that was able to wound the Witch King and create that opening for Eowyn.

 

[GreyLord]

They are not bad movies, but I just couldn't get past how bad as adaptations they are. My wife was able to say to herself "wow, for a Warhammer Fantasy movie, this is fantastic!" and enjoy the movies pretending they were not evem trying to be Tolkien.

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were terrible adaptations. Like...horrifically bad adaptations. I'm a Tolkien Loyalist I suppose.

However, after I separated the movies from the Books, I saw the movies as iconic pieces of art in and of themselves.

As I had already realized that the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was a Travesty if one wanted to say it was an adaptation from the Books, I was not bothered by the Hobbit films doing the same thing. All they did was make it more apparent that they deviated from the source material than the LotR movie trilogy did, but they both did the same thing (and I thought the character assassination of such heroes such as Faramir, Sam, and Frodo [Sam would have NEVER left Frodo, and Frodo at that point would not have believed Gollum over Sam in that aspect for example] was worse in the LotR trilogy than it was in the Hobbit Trilogy).

Seeing the LotR and TH as merely inspired by the books, I can see that they are artforms in and of themselves. In that way, the LotR is a masterpiece just like many see them as. The Hobbit trilogy doesn't quite match the masterpiece, but it is an okay movie as well in that regards.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

The LOTR movies had some big deviations that I did not care for, but as for movie adaptions I think they were fine on their own merits and worked well as movies, though I only watch the EEs these days. The Hobbit movies were honestly awful, and as said above the seemed like the Hobbit movies a WHFB fan would make. They felt more like a video game to me than a movie, and there were parts I was thinking "this would be the set piece part for this phase of the game". I have little hope for the new adaptions other than being a fantasy geek seeing fantasy stuff on a screen. The story will have little to no drama since we all know how things play out, though one could say the same for a fan of the novels watching the older movies as well. But they need to keep stuff coming out. I'm sure I'll see it when its on some kind of home streaming.

 

[Parmandur]

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were terrible adaptations. Like...horrifically bad adaptations. I'm a Tolkien Loyalist I suppose.

However, after I separated the movies from the Books, I saw the movies as iconic pieces of art in and of themselves.

As I had already realized that the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was a Travesty if one wanted to say it was an adaptation from the Books, I was not bothered by the Hobbit films doing the same thing. All they did was make it more apparent that they deviated from the source material than the LotR movie trilogy did, but they both did the same thing (and I thought the character assassination of such heroes such as Faramir, Sam, and Frodo [Sam would have NEVER left Frodo, and Frodo at that point would not have believed Gollum over Sam in that aspect for example] was worse in the LotR trilogy than it was in the Hobbit Trilogy).

Seeing the LotR and TH as merely inspired by the books, I can see that they are artforms in and of themselves. In that way, the LotR is a masterpiece just like many see them as. The Hobbit trilogy doesn't quite match the masterpiece, but it is an okay movie as well in that regards.

You see, I broadly agree thst the LotR adaptation is extremely problematic...but the movies are good enough to transcend their sins.

One of the key differences is that the LotR is losing stuff by trying to cram too much into too little time. Whereas the Hobbit films are mostly original, to the point where it is in the same vein of adaptation as Pride & Prejudice & Zombies.

The Hobbit "trilogy" is over nine hours long. The 70s Rankin-Bass carton is about 90 minutes and covers everything in the book except for the Beorn episode comfortably. There is no reason for a Hobbit movie to be over two hours even with the songs, let alone nine.