The Hobbit -- 3 films

That's not even to mention that for the longest time in human history, there wasn't a copyright. People wrote and sang and stuff anyway. In fact, a lot of the legends that come down to us are multiple stories by multiple authors woven together. The legends of King Arthur and his knights are a good example.

Doom Marine said:

Anyone who complains about this series being too long is not a true fan. I'm looking forward to the 12-hour extended edition marathons.

Avoozl said
They seem to be pulling a "Star Wars" now. :P

If Lucas ever dared to divide Episode3 into at least two parts then I would've been extremely disappointed rather than satisfied, because the rise of Lord Vader has already been done gradually enough.

But he does need to make more films to continue the story of Han Solo and Leia raising their new family. And there's plenty of novels for him to translate to the big screen now. :p
He's lagging behind from the authors.

DarkJedi188 said:

If Lucas ever dared to divide Episode3 into at least two parts then I would've been extremely disappointed rather than satisfied, because the rise of Lord Vader has already been done gradually enough.

I thought the rise of Vader was far too sudden and that most of the foreshadowing was cursory and discontinuous. My biggest gripe with Ep1-3 is that I think GL started at the wrong point. If Anakin had been about 17 when he was discovered (perhaps as a tearaway teen doing spice runs for smugglers or something that involved actual, you know, piloting), there would have been more time to do justice to his fall and also paint a better picture of his and Kenobi's friendship. It would have also served as a better parallel for Luke's story.

On the other side of things, I've read numerous stories based on the Cthulu mythos that surpass anything HP Lovecraft himself ever wrote.

There are some damned fine Sherlock Holmes stories written by people other than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, too.

And of course there are also some great Lovecraftian Holmes tales out there... ;)

neubejiita said:

I have just bought the book of The Hobbit and I will just read that instead of bothering with the movie. I am loving it so far. And it was only 14.95, so I could not turn it down.

Yeah the book is wonderful and very accessible, even for kids. I must have read it a dozen times in my early teens, sometimes restarting at the beginning immediately after finishing it. LOTR was a much harder read and completely different subject matter, even though it takes place in the same world. But I still prefer those books to the films, because I don't much like "real" live actors in that type of high fantasy setting. So in that respect, the old Ralph Bakshi animations were better IMO, even though they're technically light years behind. Btw, I'm sure you can find even cheaper prices if you look for used copies (older editions). These books were printed in the millions...

Enjay said:

I thought the rise of Vader was far too sudden and that most of the foreshadowing was cursory and discontinuous. My biggest gripe with Ep1-3 is that I think GL started at the wrong point. If Anakin had been about 17 when he was discovered (perhaps as a tearaway teen doing spice runs for smugglers or something that involved actual, you know, piloting), there would have been more time to do justice to his fall and also paint a better picture of his and Kenobi's friendship. It would have also served as a better parallel for Luke's story.

I agree with this, except I think it should have started even later.

Imagine how much cooler the prequels would have been if they'd started with or just before Darth Vader "killing" Anakin, and had been about Darth Vader flying around the galaxy wasting Jedi. With actual scenes on Alderaan. It could even be actually dramatic if it had scenes where Obi-Wan and Vader meet, with the former slowly coming to the realization that the later is beyond redemption, then going to hide his ass on Tatooine.

Or how much better ROTJ would have been if they'd stuck with their plan and had a huge battle between Wookies and AT-STs on the Wookie planet instead of god damn Ewoks. Fuck you, George Lucas!!!

Plinkett said everything I could possibly say about the SW prequel trilogy.

They're a terrible mess of a film saga which needlessly fuck around with things that have been established in the OT.

DoomUK said:

Plinkett said everything I could possibly say about the SW prequel trilogy.

I had more fun watching the reviews than when I tried watching episode 1.

No, no, no this again!

I hate song "They're taking the hobbits to Isengard!"
God please don't let these people to make more movies about freakin hobbits.

Heh, my biggest problem with the LotR films is that I don't give a damn about those annoying parochial Hobbits or their shire. Yes, I understand the symbolism and all they are supposed to represent but, to me, they just come across as small minded, mired in the past, smug, self-congratulatory, annoying bumpkins with hugely limited horizons and annoying "couthie"* songs. And they're short with hairy feet. What sort of hero is half the height of a regular person and has hairy feet?

Ask me about Hobbits. :P



couthie (Scots)
adj. Of people or their qualities: agreeable, sociable, friendly, sympathetic. Of things or places: comfortable, snug, neat. Pleasant, agreeable.

Enjay, whatever you said, i totally 100% agree with you. Stupid hobbits. :P

Mr. T said:

Or how much better ROTJ would have been if they'd stuck with their plan and had a huge battle between Wookies and AT-STs on the Wookie planet instead of god damn Ewoks. Fuck you, George Lucas!!!

I've always liked both Ewoks and Wookies equally. They're like cousin species, in a way. Almost like the Romulans and the Vulcans in Star Trek. Got the same anatomical and cultural roots deep down.
And yes, they're all more fascinating than hobbits. :p

fraggle said:
They can't use anything from the Silmarillion or any of the other writings because they don't have the rights to it.

That's unfortunate, I was hoping "The Quest Of Erebor" from Unfinished Tales could be used to link the War Of The Dwarves And Orcs as told in the Appendix of LOTR to "The Hobbit". Or at least explain why Gandalf wanted Bilbo to go with the dwarves and how he managed to convince the dwarves to take him...

Did you guys hear about Bilbo being murdered last night by the Blair Witch? Poor guy, didn't even get to play Football Manager 2012 he was downloading from Steam at the time.

True story.

LakiSoft said:

No, no, no this again!

I hate song "They're taking the hobbits to Isengard!"
God please don't let these people to make more movies about freakin hobbits.

How about some hobbit rap?
http://lordsoftherhymes.com/

Enjay said:

Heh, my biggest problem with the LotR films is that I don't give a damn about those annoying parochial Hobbits or their shire. Yes, I understand the symbolism and all they are supposed to represent but, to me, they just come across as small minded, mired in the past, smug, self-congratulatory, annoying bumpkins with hugely limited horizons and annoying "couthie"* songs. And they're short with hairy feet. What sort of hero is half the height of a regular person and has hairy feet?

For me, the hobbits in the films aren't as bad as their original book incarnations. And even they are nowhere near as grating as Tom Bombadil. Yes, I know, he appears to be the most powerful entity in Middle Earth. So powerful the One Ring has no effect on him. But everything about the character is so nauseatingly twee, and I'm not just talking about those songs of his.

The only part of his chapter I liked was the incident with the barrow-downs. It's a pity they couldn't have been worked into the films somehow, maybe giving a less saccharin version of Tom a short cameo.

DoomUK said:

For me, the hobbits in the films aren't as bad as their original book incarnations. And even they are nowhere near as grating as Tom Bombadil. Yes, I know, he appears to be the most powerful entity in Middle Earth. So powerful the One Ring has no effect on him. But everything about the character is so nauseatingly twee, and I'm not just talking about those songs of his.

The only part of his chapter I liked was the incident with the barrow-downs. It's a pity they couldn't have been worked into the films somehow, maybe giving a less saccharin version of Tom a short cameo.

The Tolkien fans would have raged even more, we're a very sensitive bunch :P although I really like the movies(unlike so many others)

DooM_RO said:

The Tolkien fans would have raged even more, we're a very sensitive bunch

Yeah I get that his absence from the films upset some people.

Honestly, if the character was portrayed anything like he's described in the books then it just wouldn't have worked.

hex11 said:

How about some hobbit rap?
http://lordsoftherhymes.com/

NO NO NO NO! PLEASE DON"T KILL ME! I HATE HOBBITS! PLZ REMOVE THAT LINK!

DoomUK said:

For me, the hobbits in the films aren't as bad as their original book incarnations. And even they are nowhere near as grating as Tom Bombadil...

Agreed, so agreed.

chungy said:

Did you guys hear about Bilbo being murdered last night by the Blair Witch? Poor guy, didn't even get to play Football Manager 2012 he was downloading from Steam at the time.

True story.

I C WAT U DID THAR. ;)

LakiSoft said:

NO NO NO NO! PLEASE DON"T KILL ME! I HATE HOBBITS! PLZ REMOVE THAT LINK!

Relax. They're not so bad, look:

chungy said:

Relax. They're not so bad.

I am just kidding. :) And that song "They're taking the hobbits to Isengard" are something funny and something crap in same time. ;)

DoomUK said:

For me, the hobbits in the films aren't as bad as their original book incarnations. And even they are nowhere near as grating as Tom Bombadil. Yes, I know, he appears to be the most powerful entity in Middle Earth. So powerful the One Ring has no effect on him. But everything about the character is so nauseatingly twee, and I'm not just talking about those songs of his.

It's not some innate or magical power, but rather his lack of character flaws that makes him impervious to the ring. Others, even powerful beings like Gandalf, elf lords, etc. all have some form of character weakness it can exploit, and they're wise enough to realize this. But Tom has no fears, ambitions, desires, etc. The ring doesn't have anything to work with. At least that's how I understand it (and it's been a long time since I read the books).

IRL nobody can completely escape corruption, and so Tom seems like an unrealistic character. But then again, so are wizards, elves, hobbits, etc... This type of character is not something to resent though, but rather strive for, as it can only bring more inner peace. It's something that religions and philosophies recognized ages ago (but of course, religions have their own corruption too, just like any other human social structure).

hex11 said:

It's not some innate or magical power, but rather his lack of character flaws that makes him impervious to the ring. Others, even powerful beings like Gandalf, elf lords, etc. all have some form of character weakness it can exploit, and they're wise enough to realize this. But Tom has no fears, ambitions, desires, etc. The ring doesn't have anything to work with. At least that's how I understand it (and it's been a long time since I read the books).

IRL nobody can completely escape corruption, and so Tom seems like an unrealistic character. But then again, so are wizards, elves, hobbits, etc... This type of character is not something to resent though, but rather strive for, as it can only bring more inner peace. It's something that religions and philosophies recognized ages ago (but of course, religions have their own corruption too, just like any other human social structure).

Yes, you're right. He's still a ridiculous character though.

DoomUK said:

He's still a ridiculous character though.

Yes,

yes he is.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/9575599/The-Hobbit-unearths-a-hoard-of-myths.html

By Christopher Howse -- 7:00PM BST 29 Sep 2012

The tale of The Hobbit will survive the film (with Billy Connolly as a dwarf warrior and Stephen Fry as the mayor of Lake-town) in the same way that the Iliad survived the film Troy (with Brad Pitt as Achilles). For The Hobbit, published 75 years ago, is not a fantasy-adventure as it is being described, but a myth, or part of a mythology.

J R R Tolkien’s telling of The Hobbit in 1937 was just one way that the story could have been told. Its narration is quite different from that of The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is joky, domestic and aimed at children. Tolkien happily illustrated it himself, unlike his more serious work, and the mysterious runes on the dustjacket are simply a transliteration of the English: “The Hobbit or There and Back Again, being the record of a year’s journey made by Bilbo Baggins…”

Peter Jackson’s film trilogy of The Hobbit – the first a royal performance in December – will iron out some of these differences. Film is only another form of story-telling. If you don’t like Tolkien’s prose (as many do not), then rewrite it in Latin hexameters if you wish. Someone once did that to Milton’s Paradise Lost in the vain hope of improving it.

People such as Billy Connolly find Tolkien “unreadable”, as he says, because they suppose it to be a fantasy of the dungeons and dragons genre. Tolkien’s aim was immeasurably higher – to provide England with the mythology it had lost. He may have been no great stylist (though his high, biblical register in The Lord of the Rings is often inattentively read, as attempts to parody it demonstrate). But he was an astonishing mythopoeist.

Tolkien’s starting point was the same as that of the Grimm brothers, whose work is in vogue once more: language. The Hobbit falls in the genre called Märchen, house-tales, or, in the misleading English translation, fairy tales. But it began with a word, Hobbit, for which Tolkien had to find an origin. For him, origins of words went to the mythic roots of the people who used them, even when those people were imaginary.