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] >>

Or perhaps Jackson's Necrodancer turns out to be... Tauriel!

Haha, you aren't underestimating the power of P. Jackson's imagination - that's for sure! Wink Smilie

Well, I just stumbled upon a survey about "Hobbit" movie on the biggest movie forums (kind of IMDB substitute) in my country and the results are quite interesting. Majority declared that they read the book. I thought I'll share some of the answers with you.

Most of the people voted Kili, Fili, Ori and Nori as the worst looking dwarves (based on trailer and available photos). Thorin, Oin, Balin and Dwalin were chosen to be the best looking. Thus being said I see that people wouldn't want to see many experiments and prefer the Dwarves to be similar to Gimli from LOTR (shall we say "classic" Dwarf?).

When it comes to particular scenes in the movies - most people look forward to The Battle of Five Armies, Bilbo meeting Gollum and the events in Mirkwood. Necromancer, Dol Guldur,  White Council - those keywords were often voted the most interesting. So we can say that people want to link "The Hobbit" story with the events from LOTR and would like to see some affiliation. I guess the trailer had some impact on the answers - people are curious about the additional scenes that weren't in the book (70% declared an interest). More than 80% of voters is looking forward to see many great batalistic scenes.

There was a question about various aspects of the movie and their importance (music, screenplay, costumes, actors' skills, CGI, landscapes, sound and LOTR atmosphere). Majority (73%) chose "LOTR atmosphere" to be very important for them, with screenplay and music being second and third most popular. The least popular was CGI - computer effects were chosen to be one of the most important aspects for 30% of voters.

100% of voters said that the expectations are very high or high.

Great stats Indis.  Im expecting that the atmospherics will be as good if not better than the first film.  What Im really looking forward to is the dark v light, white council stuff.  Its always intrigued me.... perhaps because we have had to piece it together from the Appendices, letters and HOME. 

100% said expectations were high! I like that stat, Indis! My expectations are definitely high. I think I might even dress up as a hobbit-maid when I go see it 

Hi everyone.  There are some amazing high res new pix over at theonering.net

Looks to me that the first images we saw some time ago of the company have changed somewhat.  Oin, there are rune tattoos on fingers and battle scars, they really look like a group of toughies.

Also there is the most beautiful photo of a view from the Bradywine up into Hobbiton.  Just lovely.

Just saw the full Hobbit trailer and only now calmed down enough to post!!!!

Wonderful, Trolls, Goblins, Stone Giants, Quotes......

Yes I had a little cry.

Cannot wait to see Radagast, with all my heart i mean that. I guess I don't have a problem with the way that any of the characters look, to me that is not important. In a stage play you have people playing parts that are as far as the east is the west from what they are supposed to look like; yet they mesmerize because they have got the character's deep down personality like a hand in a perfect fitted glove.

Leelee the wonderful Radagast is in the new trailer.  He is grubby and dirty with a floppy shapeless hat and wears a very raggy coat.  There is a very brief glimpse of him on a sled being pulled by what looks to be giant rabbits or could be dear.  His home looks like it maybe inside a huge hollow tree and he has badgers with him. His home is full of living things and potions.  I must say I had a little cry when I saw Raddie stroking a tiny badger who is laying on his back.....

Hedgehogs not badgers; unless there aregers also badgers somewhere in one of the shots.

For an English badger (and talking too) remember Trufflehunter from Narnia.

 

 I does look lik

I saw the trailer, I had trouble making much sense of it though, too scattered. He does indeed drive a sled pulled by what looks like jack rabbits and he has an adorable hedge hog for a pet.

He does look filthy and unlike the majestic creature he was when he came from the High Place like Olerin and Sauraman.But I think that can be explained because he did not fulfill the purpose for which he was sent over , and if I know our Tolkien who borrowed heavily from Christian-Judeo writings, he would have in fact faced a smaller but definite consequence as those that completely betrayed Eru, namely losing some of the majestic 'spirit' or aura surrounding those that kept word with Eru like did Gandalf the grey. He moved up to Gandalf the White and was for the most part gloriously clean and lovely. He lost stature  and showed it being preoccupied with creatures instead of the loftier things. So much of wht I could glean from the trailer though was not what i remember in the book at all, but I have decided to love the books. and look at the movies as movies, not really that much endowed with the spirit of Tolkien, more the techno spirit of Peter and co. I leave it at that as the two will never be reconciled.

Aahhh Hedhogs. Yes hedgehogs not badgers. Good way to think about it Leelee.

When reading the hobbit there was amid the humor always the slight undertone of something very serious a tad like a great hall lighted by a few candles. It seems bright but you can sense the darkness. This was absolutely missing from the trailer much to my dismay but I am reserving my final judgement.

Tolkien's books are after all very difficult to portray accurately in modern cinema since the limitations regarding film length are strict Smile Smilie

 

I just now saw the trailer and it instantly got my fires burning.  I do understand that some devoted and strict followers of the Professor’s work may be deeply bothered or even outraged by liberties (deviations?) taken by Peter Jackson.  I, for one, adore the books and keep the whole set by my bedside… oftentimes they are the last thing I read before sleep, and the first upon awaking: good for dreams, better for facing the day.  However, I have enjoyed PJ’s films on Tolkien works enormously, especially the extended versions, and I’m hopping on one foot to see The Hobbit 1; one must never forget that PJ is, according to his own words, a devout fan of the Professor… and I believe he is, and the members of his crew also.  If they deviate, well, that’s what fans do sometimes.  Just check out entire libraries of fan fictions!  

I have also seen some criticism regarding what on earth they can put into three films.  Really, that makes no sense to me, because precisely the things that got left out are usually what pains us most.

Let’s enjoy, and compare, and consider…          

Agreed dearest Marghana. We all in our mind have an idea Of the visuisation of the stories. This is PJ's and no matter what it is we will always have our own version in our minds, unchangeable. And as I've always argued if I filmed my version it would differ entirely from everyone else's on PT. I found the trailer full of humour, honour and action all of which is include in the original story. Let's wait and see. But I for one was so excited upon the first second and third viewing was in tears. Everyone will have their critiques, bouquets, brickbats and that's ok. Just loved hearing Sir Ian's voice again as Gandalf m

There are a number of alternate ending choices (for this new trailer) as well.

I've even see. to interpret t  He would be if he claime.d

I think from what I've seen so far,Part one landing with the Eagles at Beorn's Carock. Could be wrong but after the action and escape from Goblin Town it would seem that the escape and rescue via the Eagles would be a good ending to part 1.
Just saw a pic of the Goblin King ( Barry Humpries aka Dame Edna Everage ). He is revolting, huge and fat and looks like the Animated character from the old Animatied version of the Hobbit. Could be paying homage to this beautiful but flawed film.
Just read that we may get a glimpse of The Goblin Wars in the first Hobbit film. PJ may use this as a lead into the history of the Dwarves, as we saw The Last Alliance, in The Lord Of The rings. Sounds exciting.

Brego, really? With every bit of information I get more excited! I can't wait for that movie. Just hope I'm not disappointed.

Rukain, as with the firsts films, best to not expect an exact replication. Its the stylistic interpretation, scenic beauty, music and acting I enjoy. I was more perplexed by some of the changes in the first films rather than upset or annoyed. From what Ive seen so far, well be in for the same again. And for me thats enough. I am counting the days until we get to see ME again.

I did not expect an exact replication with the films of The Lord of the Rings, but I was still greatly disappointed with those films as adaptations.

I never expect a movie to be an exact replica, because I know if I do I will be disappointed. And most differences between the movies and books don't faze me that much or put me off. Of course, I have some moments in certain books' film adaptations that make me irritated. But not enough to make me angry (normally) For example, the Lord of the Rings film trilogy was amazing in my opinion. I loved it, even the scenes that were added (often needlessly) But I could watch those movies over and over. The music, the scenery, and just the feel of it is enough. That's what I'm expecting: not a replica of the book, but an understanding of it, almost like a retelling. One could view it as a version of the story after it had been passed through generations. I want something unique, but able to match the LotR movies. Hopefully, that's what I get.

I agree Rukain. Loved the first films, even with the changes, and am truly looking forward to The Hobbit films From what Ive seen so far looks as tho we are in for some hisrory.

Hear hear Brego.like you I so look forward to these movies .can't hardly wait

I never expect a movie to be an exact replica, because I know if I do I will be disappointed.

As I expected, and that was my point above: I don't know anyone who did or now does expect an exact replication in the first place.

That said, I'm a bit perplexed by those Tolkien fans who say or imply that good music, nice scenery, and good acting is enough, however, with no mention of being faithful to the books.

Well Galin, for us its not only about words and or exact word, it is about scenery, music and acting...

Its called art and it makes my heart soar, even now on the occasional viewing of the first films.  Of course the writing of Tolkien makes my heart and brain soar, but in a different way.

I know, as you have mentioned many a time how you feel about the films and many times have retorted. Now I say to you I respect your opinion.

Galin

I can see how my wording implied what you seem to have gotten. Let me say, that I did not mean to say that goo music, in and of itself, makes a good movie. Nor does only good acting, only good writing, or only good scenery. All of these things, together and working well, along with an at least somewhat accurate presentation of the storyline and characters make a remarkable film. Of course, each of us is entitled to our own opinion, and to the right to make that opinion shown. I respect yours, and actually would like to ask, what is it about the films that disappointed you? Can you place it, or is it just some general dissatisfaction? If you need to rant a bit, feel free, I'll listen. All of what Brego said above I agree with. The films are a mixture of talents and arts, music and acting, writing and more, that all work together to present a tale.

One way I feel helps to view a film apart from the book, is, as I believe I stated berfore, watching the movie as the story, the real version of which Tolkien recorded, after it had been exchanged from father to son, mother to daughter, and grandchildren, and great grandchildren, as well as from place to place, from farmer to merchant to buyer to traveling bard. Some things may have been distored from the original, but it's still a good tale.

This is my own opinion. As I have said, we each are entitled to our own.

May you be well,

Namarie

Brego wrote: Well Galin, for us its not only about words and or exact word, it is about scenery, music and acting...

But hold on Brego, you are now (in this post) adding 'words' as if to maybe imply faithfulness to the books does matter to you. Does it or doesn't it? Your earlier post did not include this, and you implied the things that you listed were enough.

Nor did I say (for the record) that a film is only about words, exact words or not.

 

Rukain wrote: I can see how my wording implied what you seem to have gotten. Let me say, that I did not mean to say that goo music, in and of itself, makes a good movie. Nor does only good acting, only good writing, or only good scenery. All of these things, together and working well, along with an at least somewhat accurate presentation of the storyline and characters make a remarkable film.

I was referring to people in general but a bit more specifically to Brego's post above (although he had also noted 'stylistic interpretation' specifically, which is still not necessarily about faithfulness to the source texts in any case). And for clarity I wrote: '... that good music, nice scenery, and good acting is enough, however, with no mention of being faithful to the books.'

... which means all of these things together, or separately, but excepting faithfulness to the books. And as I wasn't actually sure what you meant by an 'understanding' of the book, again I was not including you necessarily.

And considering the last part of your statement above, it appears that faithfulness to the books matters to you in some measure -- again as expected, as in my opinion it's only natural for those who love the books. You may only require a 'somewhat accurate' adaptation but it's still about faithfulness to Tolkien in general.

(...) All of what Brego said above I agree with. The films are a mixture of talents and arts, music and acting, writing and more, that all work together to present a tale.

Ok, and one can say that about very many films of course. And given your earlier statement I'm going to assume you include that these films have another component with respect to your reaction to them: faithfulness to the books -- the very same thing Peter Jackson and Company are claiming they strive for.

I've heard that the film Lawrence of Arabia takes liberties with things, for example, but if true I can honestly say I don't care. Not a bit. And plenty of audience members won't care if The Hobbit is very unlike the book, as long as they enjoy the films for other reasons. But again, if people love Tolkien's tales enough to come to the web to chat about them, I tend to guess that faithfulness to the source is a component for them.

One way I feel helps to view a film apart from the book, is, as I believe I stated berfore, watching the movie as the story, the real version of which Tolkien recorded, after it had been exchanged from father to son, mother to daughter, and grandchildren, and great grandchildren, as well as from place to place, from farmer to merchant to buyer to traveling bard. Some things may have been distored from the original, but it's still a good tale.

Ah but here's the thing: generally speaking a film can be so distorted from its original source as to hold but a superficial connection to that source.

And even if so, this film can still (at least according to some) be deemed a good tale.

As earlier mentioned, with respect Galin, to each their own. Im not getting into another drawn out boring argument with you.

Rukain, I just became friends with Sir Ian on Facebook.  He is such a wonderful man.  I thanked him for all his great works, Politically and Artistically and told him about P.T.  Cant wait to see Mithrandir on the big screen again.

Have you seen the poster of all of the Dwarves bunched together with Bombur eating a pie?  I have it on my desktop at work and laugh everytime I see it.

As earlier mentioned, with respect Galin, to each their own. Im not getting into another drawn out boring argument with you.

It was a yes or no question Brego (or could have been).

The simple question is (for anyone): do you care if the films are faithful to Tolkien? And if you answer 'no' then that does not mean that you don't care about the books.

If you do, then fine of course, so do I... but the point is: the people who criticize the films care about the very same thing (something that Jackson himself says he cares about too)...

... the further point here being that Jackson Unfans are not being unreasonable as far as their general approach to film adaptation is concerned -- again they (not unnaturally) desire faithfulness to the books, just like other film fans do.

In my opinion no one, not even Jackson's most ardent critics, expected an exact replication of the books, or a 'page by page' adaptation, or some unreasonably long film that tries to get 'everything' from the books into the films -- and this goes for any of the (in my opinion) exaggerated phrasing that rather consistently enough finds its way into threads about the films.

And when people seem to post as if they really don't care whether or not the source material has been faithfully adapted (posting that style, acting, music, scenery, is enough for example), then yes, I tend to ask them directly. Seems a fair and simple enough question to me, in any case.

As I say, I truly don't care about faithfulness to the source as it concerns a number of films, like Lawrence of Arabia for one, or any of the Harry Potter films (it would be hard for me to care here, having never read the books), but then again I don't post on any Harry Potter message boards.

blush

You could make an argument out of "what colour is the sky today?"

Not playing Galin, we have been warned and Im not getting sucked into another Dogmatic argument with you.

C'mon Brego, you don't know how much everyone else likes reading these debates. Seriously, I find them very thought provoking and interesting. I say, " Good for you!" to anyone who can keep an honest debating going about anything. You guys are just a part of the atmosphere of PT and it is great.

So, Galin, as for your simple question of whether you will or will not be disappointed if PJ does not follow the books closely, than my answer is a simple yes. I will be disappointed.

Cheers,

Wen

Wen you miss my point, we have had this debate/argument, a number of times and I have been scolded, as has Galin.

My short answer is I fully expect there to be many changes.  I wont like some of them, I will like some of them.

Ill restate what I have a number of times.  The books are with us always, perfect and beautiful, sitting in our book shelves, or in my case laying around on tables and side stands in my house.  They are untouchable.  You need to be able to detach the books from the films.  If you cant, your bound for disappointment.

I love both, and am amazed at how, even on this very site, that at first most people simply loved the films.  Then year by year picked them apart, argued, became hostile about PJ, even evoked awful language regarding him and his writers.  I simply cannot understand it myself.

But there you are.

Well, all I will say is what I intended to say in the first place: I enjoyed watching the Lord of the Rings film trilogy, and I hope I will enjoy the Hobbit just as much.

Brego, I still haven't seen that poster. I've seen several others. My internet has been touchy lately, so loading any pictures or videos has been impossible. it's getting better now, I might look around for it. And, I love Sir Ian as Gandalf. I can't believe you've become Facebook friends! I do have an account on Facebook, but I never use it. It's been months since I checked it last. Sir Ian is amazing, and I too can't wait to see the return of Mithrandir on screen.

Get this straight...Sir Ian plays Gandalf better than he plays himself. I don't care much for the man. He has ideas that make me cringe. (Such as the fact that he is openly gay). Can't say his actual person is horrid, he is quite a nice man from what I know, just mixed up in his ideas. Anyway.....

Wen

Brego wrote: You could make an argument out of "what colour is the sky today?"

So instead of simply answering a question Brego, you would add some personal and exaggerated insinuation about me.

Wen you miss my point, we have had this debate/argument, a number of times and I have been scolded, as has Galin.

I don't recall being scolded for having any debate a number of times. And what is there to be scolded about here? It's really quite simple Brego, you listed a number of things about the films that you implied were 'enough' for you, and you left out faithfulness to the books, so I asked you about it directly. 

If you don't want things drawn out then why not clearly answer, as others have, or simply not respond.

My short answer is I fully expect there to be many changes. I wont like some of them, I will like some of them.

If you are now going to answer, this is still a bit unclear, as one cannot tell why you dislike some changes. You might dislike them because you think they are poor filmmaking for some reason -- or that you think they are poor as far as faithfully adapting Tolkien is concerned -- and if this is the reason, then in my opinion you are not detaching yourself from the books.

Ill restate what I have a number of times. The books are with us always, perfect and beautiful, sitting in our book shelves, or in my case laying around on tables and side stands in my house. They are untouchable. You need to be able to detach the books from the films. If you cant, your bound for disappointment.

But are you, Brego, truly detaching yourself from the books? I am truly detached from the Harry Potter books, as I must be. I might sill find a scene in the films as poor or wanting in some way. I might dislike some scenes, but this will not be because they simply deviate, in a bad way (subjective as that is), from something in the books.

I love both, and am amazed at how, even on this very site, that at first most people simply loved the films. Then year by year picked them apart, argued, became hostile about PJ, even evoked awful language regarding him and his writers. I simply cannot understand it myself.

Well that doesn't describe me at least (not that you said it did). I have never loved Jackson's films, nor have I (in my opinion) ever used 'awful language' on this site, or any other.

And the sky is mainly a kind of blue today, by the way, where I live at least indecision

Rukain we'll count the days together!

Wen, lets not discuss sexual politics here. BTW there are several Gay people on this site and you are talking to one of them.

Galin, again what colour is the sky? You keep on proving my point and don't you remember Leelee's post.... Lets move on.

Galin, again what colour is the sky? You keep on proving my point and don't you remember Leelee's post.... Lets move on.

And how am I proving your point Brego, by tossing in a lighthearted comment about the sky?

Obviously not. What this thread is proving (once again) is that when I ask you a simple question --  noting others have clearly answered the same question here -- you yet refuse to answer, while still posting some sort of response however. 

And if you are referring to the recent thread in which Leelee interjected as a moderator, she was not calling for a halt of discussion between anyone.

Brego, in my opinion you are not entitled to make assertions and implications in the same post as you then ask me (or anyone else) to 'move on'. Do you think you have no part in drawing out this discussion by making these assertions, or by adding unnecessary personal insinuations?

Should they go unchallenged because you want to move on after you make them?

I happen to believe films can be faithful to their source material. And Peter Jackson himself appears to agree. And why try to adapt a book, all the while claiming the films will be faithful to them, if one knows going in that it can't be done? 

And I have yet to find many fans of the books who, when it comes to reacting to the films, are truly 'detaching' themselves from the books.  

As I said, not playing.

 

Rukain, heres a line to the official poster.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/09/27/62320-new-dwarf-centric-movie-poster-debuts-on-facebook/

Haha! Great poster Brego Smile Smilie I really laughed hard at that one. The look on Oin's face is hilarious.

The sky, in my part of the world, is a hazy, grey-white combonation.

Love to laugh with you guys....lighten things up Smile Smilie

 

Wen

The sky, in my part of the world, is a hazy, grey-white combonation.

 And I would not argue, nor want to argue, that it is not so

I have a friend who says that I can't separate the books from the films, while he can. Well, first of all, as he is not a fan of the books that's relatively easy for him to do -- but the point is, regarding the films, I can separate myself from the books...

... yes I believe I have the mental power to do so! But my answer to this friend is: why should I? or to put it another way, why should I care about some director's version of The Lord of the Rings if (in my opinion) it is so removed from the books as to be, in too much measure, that person's work, not Tolkien's.

And plenty of films have great scenery, great acting, nice music and interesting style (which does not necessarily mean I think Jackson's films include these things, although some of the scenery is very nice and well done in my opinion, for example). For myself I get excited when there's a story and characters I care about, to go along with these things.

And films are not books. How many times have the Unfans been reminded of this obvious fact. Changes will be made, yes, and I expected plenty, and plenty of cutting (even more cutting than was done) -- but it's the measure of these many changes, and not just quantity, that will determine whether or not one can say enough justice to the books has been done.

Don't think I will disagree with anything said above!

Galin said it all Couldn't have said it better (:

 

Wen

So back to the actual thread topic. Not long to wait now. Now will try avoid too much online regarding the film. Having said that New York Comicon is on and there is a Tolkien inpired pavilion. It looks wonderful and the pic I saw featured fans in costume. Wouldlove to go to an official Comicon.

Greetings to all!

I've been really busy these some days, and largely absent from this dear Planet.  Today I have some time off so I naturally turned my footsteps this way.  And lo! I come upon the classic discussion of books versus movies, and today the issue of faithfulness to the source as one of the values of a film.

I am reminded of what my literary mentor used to say: write your own story, don't mess up mine.

Or words of that sort, perhaps more emphatic.  To be precise, this beloved dramatist could tolerate scenes being deleted from his plays, but drew an impassable line when it came to adding anything.

Chekhov also said it: the stage is the gallows where playwrights are put to death.

This is, I believe, where the difference is between a tribute and opportunism.  As much as I love the LotR films, there are things that I will never swallow gracefully: Glorfindel dumped to make way for Arwen, for instance.  The details, I'm sure, go into the hundreds.  But there were also precious things preserved and made justice to, which ultimately balances things out.  Maybe.  I hope. 

I must say, I can and do still watch the films, and anxiously await The Hobbit; but as the years have gone by since I saw them for the first time and fell in love, now I see them and find them growing a bit naive, passé.  The books, however, never grow old, never become less than what they always have been for me.  On the contrary, no matter how many times I go drink at that fountain, I know I will always find a new bit of treasure, a new word, a new line (no reference intended).  

Then again, I must say that there are films made upon the rape of a book which make my hackles rise: this is not the case with Peter Jackson and his populist adjustments.  I mean works like "Bram Stoker's Dracula", that could have been one more take-off on the nasty old count if it hadn't dragged Stoker's proper name into the title.  Why?  Whoever has read the novel and seen this movie knows what I'm talking about: revolting deviation and treason to the spirit the writer sought to imbue in his long, hard work.  Another dreadful case was a Mexican film version of "A Doll's House", that surely caused playwright Ibsen to twist into knots, even in faraway dramatists' heaven.  See Chekhov quote above.

The bottom line is that Peter Jackson's films will be blessed in the measure that they lead viewers to the true pages of Tolkien himself.  

Namarië, my brothers and sisters.

Nice to hear feom you Marghana and thank you for your words of wisdom. I agree with you also regarding Dracula. I honestly beleive, as Ive said before to create a film of a beloved book which will satisfy fans and lovers of any book is impossible. I dont see the point of getting upset about it. There is no point. Just air you grievences and discuss without getting upset. I hope you are well and happy dearest. And im hoping we soon get a sequel to your wonderful Journal.

I honestly beleive, as Ive said before to create a film of a beloved book which will satisfy fans and lovers of any book is impossible.

Does Jackson agree I wonder: did he think going in that no Tolkien readers would be satisfied with his adaptation. And aren't there fans of the book who are not only satisfied with his adaptation, but even a few who think it couldn't have been done better?

I thought there was at least one who was satisfied Wink Smilie

I dont see the point of getting upset about it. There is no point. Just air you grievences and discuss without getting upset.

Well, who was upset in any case?

Well Galin I was 90% satisfied regarding book to film adaptation. But was actually 100% satisfied with the films as stand alone entities. My hope is that I feel the same about the next trilogy. Messages of peace and the fight for peace and the fight against the dark, evil powers which dog us even today. I think PJ is a Tolkien fan and creates what he thinks pushes Tolkiens messages of hope and purity in nature and humanity and or in this case Dwarfidity. I simply dont understand your adverse reaction to every positive thing anyone ever says regarding the films. And Im simply not interested in arguing with you, or as you say debate.

Brego wrote (with my emphasis here): 'I simply dont understand your adverse reaction to _every positive thing anyone ever says_ regarding the films. And Im simply not interested in arguing with you, or as you say debate.'

You say you're not interested in debating, within the same post as you once again respond to something I write, and add untrue exaggerated comments about me.

Well Galin I was 90% satisfied regarding book to film adaptation.

And as such a consideration is not detaching oneself from the books, can we assume that you do, in fact, care if the films are faithful to the books? and that you agree that this type of consideration or criticism of the films is not wrongheaded in itself.

And above you wrote that it's not possible to satisfy book readers, and now you're introducing a percentage, which to my mind implies that what you really meant was that it's not possible for a book reader to be '100 percent' satisfied. Is that what you meant above?

I just have a question and it is this one: how can it be that for this book someone had could made 3 films?

Can anyone imagine how will the story be divided?

The filmmakers appear to be adding stuff from the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings...

... along with some wholly invented material I would guess, possibly based on something in the Appendices in general. Tauriel is obviously an invented character for example, so any scene with her will be invented in some measure at least.

There's stuff I could guess at, or imagine; but for myself I would rather they had stuck to just the tale in The Hobbit itself, generally speaking.

Yes Elbereth, as Galin, with his usual positive slant put it, they have used materials from the Appendices and from what I've read online also from the Silmarillion.

I imagine we will see how Frodo came to live with his Uncle at Bag End.

Perhaps some History on the Goblin Wars in which the Dwarves tried to destroy all remaining Orcs after the 1st fall of Sauron and ultimately take back Moria.

Perhaps even some history of King Thranduil and his relationship in the scheme of things with Lorien and Imladris. (historically)

We know there will be White council stuff as PJ has already talked about it.  Wher Gandalf kept disappearing to etc, etc.

All of these things are mentioned by the Professor in various places throughout all of his books.

  << [1] [2] [3] [4] >>