Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Hobbit Trailer

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Hobbit Trailer   [1] [2] [3] [4] >>
Just heard that the Trailer for the Hobbit Film is to be shown before Tin Tin around the world. Some lucky fans have already seen it!! More details on TORN....

Ahh man i have to wait till the 21st. If anyone can actually confirm this that would be awesome.

Hi Mim & All more pics and more info on theonering.net! Looking good Getting excited

I am very curious to see the trailer. I have to wait until tomorrow

Trailer has been released! Just watched it twice. Lush and beautiful!! Galadrial is back!

I watched it and feel absolutely... nothing. I doubt I'll ever be able to muster enough enthousiasm to even watch this movie.

i love the trailer also the music

Ah Virumor, aren't you at least a bit interested as to how Bifur got that axe stuck in his head? or what Galadriel is doing with Gandalf's hair?

 

 

Maybe she gives him the Nori hairdo!

Obviously Peter Jackson is going to improve the Hobbit by introducing a romantic relationship between Galadriel and Gandalf.

I seem to remember that in the movie adaptation of FotR, she was quite distressed upon realizing the old man had stumbled into the abyss.

There also the fact that while the LotR trilogy had only Gimli, it is up in the air how palatable a movie with none less than twelve comic reliefs will be.

I watched the trailer!!! I wish December 2012 would rush long here!

I found it to be wonderful. Re Galadrial and Gandalf, lol Vin- your a crack up. I found it touching, they would be greatly familiar with each other as through the many years of friendship and the foreknowledge of the trials ahead, why would they not be comfortable with each other? No one said that Galadrial had a thing for Frodo when she kissed him or indeed Aragorn and Boromir were in to each other because of the kiss they shared. Obviously the White Council members should have had great respect and love for each othe (excepting Saruman). Tolkien obviously had a very effectionate heart as his writtings are full of examples like this. I think it's too early to write this off as an example of PJ changing things too much.

I agree with Brego on the the Galadriel and Gandalf discussion. And Vir I think it might be difficult with all those dwarfs, but not all of the dwarves are goofing off the whole book. Another thing that could either be really bad or be really awesome is I think the movie will follow Gandalf and his path as he deals with the necromancer. At 1:56-1:57 it show him fight who I think is the necromancer. I don't know why people think it to be spot on because its not ever going to be. Its not going to be purist.

In my opinion Galadriel's (-riel) gesture is more intimate-seeming that the other examples Brego raised above -- and it's being discussed already at various web sites, but has anyone ever brought up Aragorn kissing a dying Boromir, for example, as controversial in some way, or 'unTolkienian'?

 

There are various kinds of kisses, and a kiss can easily be less intimate than this gesture. And even a kiss between lovers can be arguably unTolkienian -- case in point, in my opinion (concerning which I'm not alone): Aragorn's 'attack' on Arwen in Gondor.

 

Can more context really turn this moment into something 'mutually agreed upon as uncontroversial' as far as capturing Tolkien goes (being faithful to the source material)? 

Galin your a crack up! Frustrating but Amazing. I love reading your extremely informative posts and threads. I know where you coming from on this and respect your worry that PJ may take this in a direction which none of us would like it to go. I am 100% sure that it's not going there. I only see the Love of two ancient friends who we know thanks to Tolkien had reverence towards each other. I am so interested in the members of the White Council and have for years run through scenarios in my mind while reading various books. What I saw in the Teaser is not far from what I had in my minds eye. Only more beautiful. Hi Mim, nice comments, have you noticed the Dwarves hands and fingers?

I was reading on mythgard.com, Corey Olsen's first thoughts on the trailer and he pointed out that instead of following the latest published book version of the hobbit, this seems to rely heavily on Tolkien's later "re-writing" of the Hobbit (that he wanted to do to take the story more up in the style of LoTR, but which was not published in his lifetime?)  

So now I have to go look up "The Quest of Erebor" in the book of Unfinished Tales...

Brego what is different about the dwarve's fingers and hands

(...) (that he wanted to do to take the story more up in the style of LoTR, but which was not published in his lifetime?) 

 

 

Tolkien began a rather notable revision that has been called the '1960 Hobbit', but he abandoned it quite early on the advice of someone (someone unknown to date) -- seemingly agreeing with this person that it was too destructive to the story as it stood.

Part of the revision was to sort out continuity problems with The Lord of the Rings, and the few things JRRT got around to are interesting anyway. But as far as I am aware, the 1960 Hobbit (as least this text specifically I mean, with notes) has only been published in J. Rateliff's two volume History of The Hobbit.

Tolkien seems to have had difficulty sorting out the moon here!

Hi Mim, the Dwarf hands and feet seem to have been scaled up to make their bodies look smaller. You can clearly see Bombur's hand in one shot in the trailer.

I'm both excited and nervous for this film.  It could either be really good, or just flop like a dying trout.  I can't see there being any middle ground.  I just hope PJ stays true to the storyline as much as possible and doesn't romanticise parts for any reason, be it personally creativity or merely a way of increasing the potential fan base.   

Quote:
I was reading on mythgard.com, Corey Olsen's first thoughts on the trailer and he pointed out that instead of following the latest published book version of the hobbit, this seems to rely heavily on Tolkien's later "re-writing" of the Hobbit (that he wanted to do to take the story more up in the style of LoTR, but which was not published in his lifetime?)
Sounds better at least than the "re-inventing" of roughly half (if not more) of the books' content, like he did with the LOTR movies.

Some things never change do they!

I started reading this thread then halfway got tired with the whole Gandalf-Galadriel thing. What the hell was PJ thinking? I was watching the trailer for the first time with my dad and there goes Elven-Lady-icicle playing with Gandalf's hair? My dad was like.."can you explain that bit?" And I just stared absolutely clueless and feeling kind of betrayed. I mean even if he gets weird ideas like that, is it necessary to put that in the very first trailer? It puts people off.

But apart from that disturbing bit I adore what they have done to the song. Can't get it out of my head, humming and whistling it all the time haha. And I think the rest of it is sort of in place. I enjoyed the trailer.

Has anyone been following the production videos because they are just awesome. Real fun.

Odette, I'm glad you mentioned the song. As fans and avid readers of the hobbit book, we all have our own way of how the song should go, it was a major worry for my friends and I, we all wanted PJ to do a good job... And he did. Thank goodness!

Yes Master Shaw has done it again Its stuck in my head already! Perfect representation of a Dwarf song. Beautiful and simple words regarding the virtual genocide of a Dwarf line. Love it

The more times I hear the song in the trailer, the more I like it.  

I'm choosing to see the whole Galadriel pulling Gandalf's hair away from his face thing as a NOT romantic gesture.  Loving, yes.  But not all loves are romantic.  This could be as the love of brothers in battle, as the love of mothers for children, as the love of children for parents, as the love of those who choose and administer and equip and send for those who go (out to the field, of battle or work or whatever kind of field it is), as the untainted love of a favorite niece to a beloved uncle.  Touching someone's hair shows a closeness, but not all such touch is erotic, despite what some advertisers and romantic chick flicks would have you believe.

In fact, insofar as the order of being is concerned, Galadriel, having lived in Valinor, may have known Gandalf as Olorin in his unincarrnated Maia form - perhaps even as her mentor or teacher - or even as a senior peer... Galadriel goes back to middle earth in questionable company for dubious motives (she wants to be in charge of something of her own), and after many many long years, after countless battles against evil in all forms (not just orcs and dragons and trolls and balrogs and evil overlords, but also in other elves and men), after she may have despaired ever of seeing any Valar or Maia again, then do the the Valar send 5 Maia (Olorin included) to middle earth, clothed rather more permanently than usual in the bodies of old men - to help fight the last remnants of a battle begun before the song of the Valar was seen.

With such a backdrop in mind, is it not possible that Galadriel, upon recognizing the 5 Maia and having already begun the change of mind that will lead to her ultimate rejection of ruing power (which was the dubious motive that led her to leave Valinor in the first place) - upon recognizing Gandalf as Olorin - upon convening the White Council to bring the wizards together with the other Wise of middle earth and - upon realizing that she was sending an old friend, long sundered from her by her own doing, and now recovered by some grace of the Valar - upon realizing that she sends him into a battle that she could not win, and which he might not win - which he might not return to middle earth from (and she still knowing that while he may return to 
Valinor, she is not yet quite welcome to return) - 

and upon realizing that he might himself be unsure about what to do here in middle earth to accomplish the fight against evil - 

might she not be forgiven a little brushing of the hair out of his face?

 

 

(Of course, if PJ does turn out to make a movie with some sort of wierd romantic vibe between Galadriel & Gandalf, I will be utterly disgusted with him and his movie).

 

BTW, here is the website address for the Corey Olsen post that refers to the Quest of Erebor in Unfinished Tales: http://www.mythgard.org/2011/12/the-tolkien-professor-weighs-in-on-the-hobbit-trailer/

OK, one more thing... As Thorin begins to sing the song, it reminds me of Aragorn singing - although they tend to sing on completely different subjects...

Anways the song, in combination with the clip of Thorin saying that he won't be responsible for Bilbo's fate nor guarantee his safety - reminds me that Thorin is a great warrior in his own right - probably got his name in battle with plenty of the orcs of the Misty Mountains - When you think of Thorin as the Oakenshield - and what kind of feats in battle would garner such a title that it become synonymous with your name? - A shield of Oak, surely, but also a stance, an eye, a gaze, an arm, a heart and living soul willing itself as shield as steadfast and unmoving as the old oak in the backwoods, should you try to uproot it with your hands - 

And surely his 13 kinsmen and companions are near as tried and steady and wise in the ways of the world as he is, and definitely more so than Bilbo.

So we know Gandalf is not stupid.  Yet, what in his previous dealings with hobbits - what in Gandalf's relationship with the Old Took, for example, led him to think that putting a hobbit into an adventure led by Thorin Oakenshield would ever work out for the greater good?  Obviously Gandalf was right, but one does wonder.  Especially I've got to think: I wonder how desperate and/or how much trust Thorin has in Gandalf that he's willing to take on such a truly un-tried person as Bilbo...

That is really well said Elanorraine.

I have often thought the same too. The whole party of such obviously decorated and powerful soldiers turning up at Bilbo's door to ask for his help. Even though we think the whole thing very abrupt, I'm sure Gandalf saw some kind of quirkiness, if you will, in Bilbo. I believe he was a very private hobbit, he would mingle and all but generally kept to his business. And he was kind of stealthy and perhaps a hoarder too. In many ways he seems to me very similar to the Dwarves. And perhaps Gandalf knew, by sheer wizardry, that Bilbo would be of immense help to the gang being to some extent very sharp-witted and practical.  But all in all it is strange. But their friendship I guess counted for something.

And I find Richard Armitage's Thorin as mean as I'd imagined when I'd read the book. I never quite liked Thorin or the Elves in The Hobbit.

I'm choosing to see the whole Galadriel pulling Gandalf's hair away from his face thing as a NOT romantic gesture. Loving, yes. But not all loves are romantic.  

 

I agree, of course; but certain gestures are appropriate given the kind of love involved and the people involved.

 

This could be as the love of brothers in battle, as the love of mothers for children, as the love of children for parents, as the love of those who choose and administer and equip and send for those who go (out to the field, of battle or work or whatever kind of field it is), as the untainted love of a favorite niece to a beloved uncle. Touching someone's hair shows a closeness, but not all such touch is erotic, despite what some advertisers and romantic chick flicks would have you believe.

 

You have illustrated contexts in which such a gesture is clearly not erotic, as the love between parent and child  -- but I note the illustrations here are largely familial, or set within a notably 'grave' situation like a battle -- arguably because the gesture is notably intimate.

Although I'm not sure exactly what relationships you mean when you refer to 'those who choose and administer...' and so on, so I'll leave that alone for now.

But to state the obvious, Galadriel is not Gandalf's mother, nor is she Gandalf's daughter, nor favorite niece, nor are we here on a battlefield with a dying Gandalf at Galadriel's side, for instance -- and concerning the niece and uncle example, I think there are plenty of uncles who love their nieces, who would yet not dream of doing this -- at least not within the context of very many conversations, and even then I think it depends greatly upon the actual relationship involved (noting that the two people involved in the film are full grown adults). 

 

 

In fact, insofar as the order of being is concerned, Galadriel, having lived in Valinor, may have known Gandalf as Olorin in his unincarrnated Maia form - perhaps even as her mentor or teacher - or even as a senior peer... Galadriel goes back to middle earth in questionable company for dubious motives (she wants to be in charge of something of her own), and after many many long years, after countless battles against evil in all forms (not just orcs and dragons and trolls and balrogs and evil overlords, but also in other elves and men), after she may have despaired ever of seeing any Valar or Maia again, then do the the Valar send 5 Maia (Olorin included) to middle earth, clothed rather more permanently than usual in the bodies of old men - to help fight the last remnants of a battle begun before the song of the Valar was seen.

With such a backdrop in mind,...

 

Not that you claimed otherwise, but I note that you have here basically invented parts of this backdrop in order to suggest a closeness based on a history that is not actually illustrated in the books. And if Galadriel once despaired of help from Valinor, is this the reaction one would expect? The two things hardly necessarily connect in my opinion.

 

...  is it not possible that Galadriel, upon recognizing the 5 Maia and having already begun the change of mind that will lead to her ultimate rejection of ruing power (which was the dubious motive that led her to leave Valinor in the first place) - upon recognizing Gandalf as Olorin - upon convening the White Council to bring the wizards together with the other Wise of middle earth and - upon realizing that she was sending an old friend, long sundered from her by her own doing, and now recovered by some grace of the Valar - upon realizing that she sends him into a battle that she could not win, and which he might not win - which he might not return to middle earth from (and she still knowing that while he may return to Valinor, she is not yet quite welcome to return) - 

 

 

Again, do such thoughts and actions ('actions' as in convening a Council, no matter how important) lead one to such a gesture? Especially considering that I disagree we can easily characterize Galadriel as sending Gandalf into battle -- she isn't personally sending Gandalf into battle in any case, and certainly not as a mother or daughter of course. And 'long sundered' friend is only if one accepts the invented back history in the first place.

 

and upon realizing that he might himself be unsure about what to do here in middle earth to accomplish the fight against evil - might she not be forgiven a little brushing of the hair out of his face? 

 

Hmm, it seems to me that you are piling a notable amount of emotion onto Galadriel in this moment, and 'writing between the lines' to do so, given the sheer possibility of your descriptions -- all in order to raise a scenario in which Galadriel could be 'forgiven' this gesture. Interesting!

 

I don't think Jackson will dare add a romantic element here. I do think he has purposely shown this moment -- knowingly without context -- in order to cause chatter and interest in his film, but for all we know this shot won't even make the final cut.

 

But if it does, arguably context will help, at least in some measure, to cast, or try to cast this gesture in a non-romantic light (again assuming Jackson hasn't actually gone there). The question is, will this gesture truly fit the context provided in the film, whatever it is, especially given these two characters as Tolkien drew them.

 

Would JRR Tolkien have countenanced such a moment between these two major characters? Emotion is one thing, possibility another, faithfulness to Tolkien yet another thing.

 

I've nothing against emotion in films obviously, but for example I've read (on the web) that Aragorn's beheading of the Mouth of Sauron showed his great love for the Hobbits.

But what it showed me is that Jackson is willing to toss aside Tolkien's version of Aragorn for his 'movie moment'. Even if emotion was truly the reason (rather than 'action and gore' or at least a combination of these things), then to my mind Jackson has still notably stepped on Tolkien for his own concerns. 

And all it takes is a seemingly small step: Tolkien's Gimli did not blubber at Balin's tomb, Jackson's did. And I'm reminded again of Tolkien's objection concerning a different film treatment of course: that Gandalf should not splutter! Obviously people do, so it's certainly possible that Gandalf might, and what (some might ask professor Tolkien), is so wrong with 'humanizing' Gandalf just a bit?

But in general even a seemingly small detail can greatly colour a character other than the author has purposely drawn him...

 

... or her.

Well, of course we know that PJ is willing to change Tolkien for the sake of the movie moment.  He wouldn't be a very good filmmaker if he weren't willing to do some translation from book to film...

And I think most of us here would agree that he sometimes goes too far, making translation into transformation at some points.

And Galin you're right, I'm going pretty far in trying to "rationalize" what might have been... in any case, we'll all wait and see (Lord willing and the creek don't rise...) 

(Although, if the creek did rise, metaphorically speaking, perhaps we'd get to see a version of the Hobbit film in the next world.  Leaf by Niggle...)

I see Galin's point of view and agree and that is the whole problem of any of Peter's work .Unhappily we who are more or less purists want to view something that totally, not partially honors the work and labour of a gentle genius over a life time. Like the persons who did A man for all seasons, with Paul Scofield, wherein real authentic manuscripts were used and practicallly word for word was spoken and it was a triumph of the human heart. Integrity and beauty shone forth and strangely the Motion Picture Academy concurred and duly awarded actor and movie with numerous awards. And in Pride and Prejudice, the one only with Colin Firth you could open your Jane Austen and read along practically; again you saw justice and honor done to the author and you went away with a feeling of peace and understanding, nothing missing.

But in most of the real world it is money and power and public adulation that mattter, period. And Peter, backed up with Fran and the actors who while perhaps having qualms are swept under a 'spell' as Legolas said when Gandalf whistled in the movie for the king of the white horses. And the whole world, save some, also get caught up in the smoke and mirrors, the breathtaking action and the author , I mean who is he, Peter has not only done justice in their eyes with all the changes, he has indeed surpassed Tolkien in treatment of the characters.

I pray that not Peter nor anyone else that does not truly understand what John Ronald was trying to do would undertake any more. Although it may sound dull as dishwater, I personally would rather see a toned down version of anything, Silmarillion, whatever, and see it put together by even fellow Catholics who have the same understanding of the world as JRR, the same appreciation of things, like some of his fellows who were steeped in philology and the same love of language, of maps, of principle and such. I mean if someone from Wales pens something, although the rest of the world might cheer, still others from the same district of Wales would glean ever so much more , understand ever so much more. Just once I should like to see that. Someone without the same background, faith, approach to things in a physical as well as spiritual mode would destroy in my opinion such a fragile and deep work as the Silmarillion and especially leaf by niggle. We simply cannot mix the two, for as a wise person said 'you cannot serve two masters, either you will love the one and hate the other, or hate the one and love the other. period. We can see which master peter has chosen and I don't belittle him for it . It is a business thing and he has chosen the most lucrative way.

We are forgetting Galadrials reaction in TLOTR in Loth Lorien when she finds out that he has fallen into shadow. To me her reaction speaks of someone who is incredibly close and is indeed held in high esteem both as an age old friend and respected power of good and light. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the scene in the trailer at all as stated earlier.

Brego wrote: We are forgetting Galadrials reaction in TLOTR in Loth Lorien when she finds out that he has fallen into shadow.

 

I'm not forgetting this moment in the books: 'At these words all the Elves in the hall cried aloud in grief and amazement. 'These are evil tidings' said Celeborn...'

 

I don't suppose that all the Elves present were so incredibly close to Gandalf that fiddling with his hair during a conversation in Imladris would seem quite natural. Galadriel speaks later, but I'm not sure your opinion is necessarily supported by her noting that none of the deeds in Gandalf's life were needless, or that: 'Those who followed him knew not his mind and cannot report his full purpose.'

 

Leelee wrote: I see Galin's point of view and agree and that is the whole problem of any of Peter's work . Unhappily we who are more or less purists want to view something that totally, not partially honors the work and labour of a gentle genius over a life time. Like the persons who did A man for all seasons, with Paul Scofield, wherein real authentic manuscripts were used and practicallly word for word was spoken and it was a triumph of the human heart. 

 

 

While I would agree that Jackson is significantly off the mark with respect to faithfulness to Tolkien, I would like to again be clear that I don't think a practically word for word adaptation is necessary. Although...

... I'm not even sure it's your view that it is 'necessary' Leelee, rather than it can work, and has.

Saw the trailer...goose bumps everywhere.....so excited!!!  now I want to run home and have an LOTR marathon...havent done one in a while.  18hours of non-interrupted Tolkien with pop and chips...fantastic....

   Galin Wrote: I don't suppose that all the Elves present were so incredibly close to Gandalf that fiddling with his hair during a conversation in Imladris would seem quite natural. Galadriel speaks later, but I'm not sure your opinion is necessarily supported by her noting that none of the deeds in Gandalf's life were needless, or that: 'Those who followed him knew not his mind and cannot report his full purpose.'

Well Galin I guess its up to the individual reader to decide whether or not Galadrial had this kind of close connection with Mithrandir. By the way we are not discussing "all the other Elves present"  obviously if these Elves were upset enough to mournfully sing of his fall imagine how effected Galadrial would have felt.  In my mind and obviously PJ's, Elves are an extremely emotional folk for whom Sex or Sexual acts hold no other form of meaning other than to procreate.  I believe that this theme is used in the first films and perhaps the next.  For goodness sake its an old friend moving some hair from the face of another old friend, nothing more, nothing less.


 

you are correct Galin, but honestly if  one cannot do right, then let them do word for word. Its rather hard to go wrong then! 

Brego wrote: Well Galin I guess its up to the individual reader to decide whether or not Galadrial had this kind of close connection with Mithrandir. 

 

And decide based upon reading the text? Or decide based upon Peter Jackson's fan fiction?

 

By the way we are not discussing "all the other Elves present" obviously if these Elves were upset enough to mournfully sing of his fall imagine how effected Galadrial would have felt. 

 

You raised this text to try to illustrate something about Galadriel (spelled Galadriel by the way) but actually I see nothing here to indicate that she should be imagined as having some sort of reaction beyond any of the Elves present. It's about matching 'supporting' text with the idea being suggested. ..

Moreover this is a reaction to hearing about Gandalf's death, a rather major note of sad news, which of course is a quite specific and notable context, just as, I would argue, is Aragorn kissing Boromir upon Boromir's death...

... so while mournfully singing of Gandalf's fall is perfectly Tolkien, as I say I doubt anyone would argue that the Elves who sing about Gandalf should all be imagined as having an 'incredibly close' personal relationship with him -- which could then, in another context, arguably explain this gesture in Rivendell. 

 In my mind and obviously PJ's, Elves are an extremely emotional folk for whom Sex or Sexual acts hold no other form of meaning other than to procreate. I believe that this theme is used in the first films and perhaps the next. 

 

I'm concerned with a film being faithful to Tokien's Elves and Tolkien's characters. And for one thing, in Tolkien's world physical union between Elves meant marriage actually, which I wouldn't characterize as 'no other form of meaning other than to procreate'. 

Hmm, on the one hand you claim that Elves are extremely emotional as a people, and in the next you seem to claim that for them sex is simply an otherwise meaningless way to create more Elves. 

 

And can you please refresh my memory as to where the films illustrate that for Elves, sex or sexual acts hold no form of meaning other than to have children.

Well Galin I guess for you and other Super Purists its simple.  Dont see the film....

Any now for those who love both books and films I just relished that there seems to be a quick glimpse in the trailer of Gandalf using is staff in a similar way to the "You shall not pass!" moment.

Im guessing that its either on the Goblins back door or against the Goblin King inside the tunnels.    

Well Galin I guess for you and other Super Purists its simple. Dont see the film.... 

 

I don't accept the tag purist; and especially 'Super Purist' -- and actually I'm not sure such an animal even exists.

He seems at least as rare as the beast Glatisant, to my mind  

 

Nor do I understand this labeling really, especially after I repeatedly note that I would not be against certain wholly invented scenes, as long as they echo the tone and feel of Tolkien's story and characters (including the dignity of certain of his characters). 

I've even posted that one of Jackson's invented scenes (in his second film), in my opinion happens to capture Tolkien better than the way he chose to interpret certain other scenes taken from the books! so it's not impossible, even if some Super Purist (again, if any actually exist) might point out that a broken clock is yet correct twice a day.

 

And as 'don't see the film' is not a response to anything in my last post, it seems you don't wish to explain your statement regarding the Elves and sex, so for anyone wondering about my statement concerning the Elves and marriage, I refer to description found in Tolkien's Laws And Customs Among The Eldar (short title), published in Morgoth's Ring.

Well that's the beauty of books Galin.  The reader creates a unique world which is all their own and which cannot be touched or altered by anyone with the exception of the Author.  We can all express our understanding of Middle earth and its people on this wonderful sight and of course debate the differences as understood by our fellow Tolkienites.  How boring it would be to have  everyone have the same idea of the imaginings of the writer.

Brego wrote: Well that's the beauty of books Galin. The reader creates a unique world which is all their own and which cannot be touched or altered by anyone with the exception of the Author. 

 

Well I asked a slightly more specific question in any case 

(also noting that it is the author who wrote that marriage between the Eldar is achieved through physical union)

 

We can all express our understanding of Middle earth and its people on this wonderful sight and of course debate the differences as understood by our fellow Tolkienites. 

 

Well yes we could actually debate things -- so if you care, at some point, to debate the recent matters you raised here, my challenge and question still stand.

Peace Galin, I think I've answered your querie and I don't want to get into a film v book drama yet again. My point regarding a readers idea and image of a world created means that it's a personal belief in what you are reading and without being analytical it also means that one has the right to believe what they believe the writer meant in the first place.

Peace Galin, I think I've answered your querie and I don't want to get into a film v book drama yet again.

 

Well you didn't respond at all to the fact that physical union between the Eldar equals marriage (given your earlier claim about Elves and sex).

But moreover you didn't attempt to answer my rather specific question about this same matter with respect to the films, and considering that you stated it was obviously Jackson's opinion I would think that this at least would have been easy enough.

 

And incidentally I find this 'peace' unnecessary here. You raised these things in the thread, and I simply challenged them -- happens every day on the interweb, and there is nothing not peaceful about it when done with courtesy. And I'm not here challenging them again, but rather responding to your latest statement above, and the following...

 

My point regarding a readers idea and image of a world created means that it's a personal belief in what you are reading and without being analytical it also means that one has the right to believe what they believe the writer meant in the first place. 

 

One has the right to believe Hobbits have proportionally overlarge feet, for example, or that Tolkien's Elves are androgynous looking (or that sex for Tolkien's Elves holds no other form of meaning other than procreation), or for a hopefully obvious extreme: even that blue unicorns can be found in the wild lands of Middle-earth...

... that doesn't mean any of these things actually hold true for Middle-earth however. And these sort of statements (like 'everyone has different opinions' or your 'the reader creates a unique world' and so on) do not function as some sort of coverall defense of, or 'support' for, every idea or perception that readers think prevail for Tolkien's world. 

 

In my opinion it's not debate to post an assertion about Tolkien or his world and respond that you have the 'right' to believe in it. And of course you have the right to simply post your opinions about Tolkien's Elves, or whatever, and not debate them...

 

... and I (or anyone else) certainly have the right to challenge them and ask for supporting argument, and/or supporting citation from the author.

I have seen the trailer and I liked it very much!

I am very curious about the movie!

I do like the choice of actor for Bilbo; and that's important of course! And in general anyway, I like the actor playing Thorin, and the inclusion of a Tolkien-based (at least) song in the trailer!

And on a different note about the film version of Nerwen Artanis, I keep in mind (in the back chambers) that it's not a given that this 'hair fiddling' scene will certainly be in the film!

Quote:
you are correct Galin, but honestly if  one cannot do right, then let them do word for word. Its rather hard to go wrong then!

It is rather ironic that in many cases in the LOTR films, PJ did use excerpts from the book word for word, but then attributed them to entirely different characters and/or entirely different situations.

For instance, Wormtongue using Gandalf's "thatched barns" speech against Éowyn.

Yes Vir you are entirely correct. Only yesterday I was bitterly complaining of that very thing,,. Why on earth did they do that? I am sorry but when someone spends part of his or her life, the only one we get on this earth, creating something dear and expending the very breath and heart into it, that author has a right to expect that his or her creation shall not be trashed, misinterpreted on to the screen, nor the integrity of the piece thrown to the wind. That to me is absolutely evil. period.

It DOES matter in my opinion, which I admit carries no weight, it does matter if Galadriel touched Gandalf's hair in an obviously intimate way, IF it in any way goes against the integrity of JRR Tolkien's characters HE  created in the world HE  created. It does matter. If that , upon careful study and research is not in keeping with the way his characters acted from the beginning, and he would, considering his own beliefs which he poured into the book  never have them do so, it is WRONG WRONG WRONG. period.

I don't care how much money anyone has, if they mean to do this to someone's creation, and especially someone who is no longer here to defend his work, then I believe that person is no more than a self serving egotist who , not being able to write anything of value his or herself, sucks the blood out of the works of true geniuses with the ability to write a wondrous piece, all for his or her own glory , power and almost worship of fans , many who have never cracked open the book and think forever after the movie represents the heart of the author. I am quite positive , if someone down the road took any work these people did and butchered it and gave a sort of credit to them, they would launch law suits for the next decade. Let them write their own stories and do as they please. But don't take a work of genius and lower it in morality and integrity and call it a tribute or adaptation of another's work.

I remember once in The Letters, Tolkien was despairing of the wordliness that had crept into the church, one of the things being the wearing of trousers by women, something he found disgraceful. That sort of thinking flooded his works, they were not the sort you commonly read if you bother, in which on the first or second page already there is smut, sexual innuendo, no morals to find anywhere and everyman to himself. Not a WORD of such will you ever ever ever find in anyone of character in JRR Tolkien's books. Not even the off color words and jibes that were evident by the actors in the extended editions would have been the least appreciated by our professor. He was no prude, he was like Aragorn, a man of high standards, deep beliefs and someone who lifted up and never tore down..So then this is my last diatribe on this subject. I don't call it being purist, I call it honoring the work, the whole work of a man that deserved my highest praise and treating his dna, his life'sblood as it were , left behind to tell his story, the beliefs of his heart in work, with the respect due. I appreciate anyone's opinion, everyone has one, but I simply don't agree to this butchering and playing around with greatness anymore than I would approve someone coming forth and rearranging the mouth of the Mona Lisa because that one had a slightly different take on what she may have been thinking at the time of the painting.

Thorin Oakenshield looks exactly like a Klingon (more in particular, Chancellor Gowron) from Star Trek. Not very dwarf-like at all. Hopefully, PJ won't introduce an(other) invented subplot about Thorin's apparant soiled pedigree...

Well that's just what we need, Klingons in the picture, next it will replicants of Dr Who, it is so tiring I think for a person that simply uses other people's characters and plots and genius and then tries to air brush it and make everyone believe it is from that new person's genius. But in the end, no matter how cool the digital and how cool the actors and the scenery, if it is to be a true adaptation it ought to be more than the emperor who wore no clothes. I have seen the last two blogs by Peter, and whlle it is terribly impressive, all that crew and all that money being spent on it all, I keep getting the feeling they are all pixie mazed, all under as Legolas warned under a spell so there is no disenssion whatsoever.

Thorin Oakenshield looks exactly like a Klingon (more in particular, Chancellor Gowron) from Star Trek. Not very dwarf-like at all.

As usual you are so right! Oh dear, oh dear...

Funny you should mention pedigree though. We were watching Underworld: rise of the lycans or whatever, and he looks a lot like Lucian (the werewolf) as well.

I really loved when the dwarves were singing, gave me hope that at least that bit will be right. All though it technically isn't, but I can live with the instruments being cut out. Martin Freeman makes a nice Bilbo and some of the dwarves do look remotely like dwarves. 

At last, I have found my way to the appropriate place for expressing both my delight and outrage regarding The Hobbit trailer. So many of you have made such excellent points that I hardly need to make any more (especially you Galin. I could not have said it better myself).

Yes, I agree the Galadriel-Gandalf thing was a little weird. In our household, it led to quite a lengthy discussion regarding Galadriel's alleged fetish for men with silver hair. PJs Galadriel seems to be a very tactile character - recall her little chat with Aragorn on the extended version of FOTR? An odd charactaristic for a millenia-old princess of the Noldor.

Somewhat surprised by the appearance of the dwarves. Kili and Fili are clearly intended to be the eye-candy for the adoring tween audience, but I have to say that I just never pictured them that way. Dwarves seem to vary in appearance from almost elf-like to something out of a children's picture book. They just don't look like the same race to me.

I liked Bilbo though. Spot on. Can't wait to see his performance. I am also intrigued to see the return of the characters of Legolas, Saruman and Frodo, who, as I recall, were not in the book. Also a few extras? Should be interesting...And Radagast played by a former Doctor.

But of course, for me the most urgent question is the identity of the horse-riders circling the dwarves in Rivendell. Any guesses?

  [1] [2] [3] [4] >>