With filming about to begin in New Zealand & with Peter Jackson at the helm what are peoples thoughts now regarding the two part Hobbit film. It seems that we will be seeing a visualisation of the period of time between the start of The Hobbit and the beginning of the Lord Of The Rings as well as some back history of The Ring, Sauron, The White Council plus probably more, all mined from the Appendices of the Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit book. As someone who can detach themselves from Film and Book in regards to changes, but can understand the infuriation of some Tolkien stalwarts I am interested in Planet Tolkien's thoughts on the matter. Are you excited at the thought of returning to Middle Earth on screen?

Lee Lee, the Money thing is disgusting, however its the way Hollywood works, it sucks I know, having said that the family will get the money eventually. The artists involved in the movies don't have anything to do you these issues. 

I found that many things disappointed me in the movies which have been released so far, but many more things I loved.  You can take what you want from them and they can never touch Tolkien, he and his master pieces will always be there for us.  They cannot be touched or altered so long as we continue to read love and talk about them them.  I look at it this way imagine how horrific it would have been should a production company like Jerry Bruckheimer had mad the first three films, it could have been so bad!

I found things in the films which truly moved me, in ways which the books did too.

Don't take it too seriously, its just one fans idea of a visualisation of our favourite stories.

I am excited having said that.....  I live in Australia and was considering trying to become an extra...

Bgo, how wonderful if indeed you could be cast as an extra, given your feelings about things that would be truly a treat.

Amm, I too am worried. It's just that I don't know what twist and turns will come about and it does worry me. I said somewhere that each night for over a week our little family has been reading the Hobbit, taking turns, just after supper. it is so wondrous and it seems to me that every new little scene is essential and so illuminating and the whole of the work just fits together one page upon the other masterfully.

I don't want that to change. Nothing else is needed, nothing else in essence should be taken away or it is NOT the work of Tolkien put down on celluloid. I saw the movies before I read the books, so I had no knowledge of what was correct or plain wrong and nonsensical. I cried for two days for the elves that died at Helms'Deep and then when I read the book I was some ticked! And why on earth they had Theodin and those of the whitecity at odds with each other is beyond me. That was so upsetting I could not get past it and therefore Two Towers is the least favorite of mine. And attributing things one character said to another, why, it is stupid to me. I think I need to lay down.

Awards and dollars mean nothing to me compared to faithfulness to Tolkien however.

Now, admittedly, they cut out bits from Tolkien's work, they added bits in - but this work has to be seen as its own masterpiece, on its own, without being constantly compared to the books. Remember, it does say 'based' on the books. 

 

Question: do you judge the films without any regard to faithfulness to the source?

I can almost guarantee everyone will feel the same way about the Hobbit as they did LOTR. I'm sure it'll be very similar in terms of quality. Just like many book-to-movie adaptations, true fans will be torn and the rest of the people will either love it or be unable to stay seated for 3 hours.

That's the point of "based on" though, to have a huge opening. The Exorcist is based on a true story. Avatar is based on a true story. If you're looking for faithfulness then those are two of the worst movies ever made.

I don't think there is a winning side to this argument. The world of Tolkien is just way too big to please everyone. One of the reasons I love the idea of movies is to spread the word of Tolkien. Just look at how many dedicated users are on this site because they saw the LOTR movies. Now, almost 10 years later, a new generation will hopefully feel the same. I would rather people love the Tolkien movies than not love Tolkien at all...

I see it as more of a disclaimer than a defense. And I wouldn't call it advertising, just spreading the word of the Professor to a newer generation who don't work quite the same as the others. I would like to discuss this sometime though, so let me know where to find that thread when it comes

I think we can all agree that the best thing would be a faithful, awesome, epic, mindblowing, and just outstanding piece of cinematic history.

*crosses fingers*

I see you've come to some agreement, but unfortunately for me I can't.

It is this "based on..." thing that I still can't figure out. Avatar is "inspired by" a recorded story, as for the Exorsist- debateble on how facts are treted.

While adaptation does mean someone's vision and understanding, some variation in view may be alowed. So my goal here is in fact a question: Do you think adaptation shall be considered a version of a story? And how far a versoin could stand to be still the same story?

Exactly a point I wanted to make, Vir. It is also my strong belief that the LotR movies did not held entirely the spirit of the books.

I wish your words become true and we see Hobbit as it is, but who knows... All most of us can do is wait and hope.

Ammornil, please describe the difference between based on and inspired by. Based on has NEVER meant a verbatim translation of one medium to another. Neither has inspired by. They're both equally as open ended as the other. I'm not quite sure how the Exorcist is debatable either. I suppose if you believe in Satan then you can look at it as a biopic, but essentially it's only based on (or inspired by) a true story. Same with Avatar. Just because it's "inspired by" the coming of the West into the New World doesn't mean that's not a true story that it's based on.

I see what you're saying, but for me, I'm looking at this issue from a different angle (similar to Fornad). There's no point in wondering what the limit of change is, the point is do the changes they make represent the themes of the book with visual elements drawn from the actual story. I thought PJ did a pretty damn good job with this. Another way to look at it is comparatively. LOTR is arguably one of the best book-to-movie adaptations. I mean, The Shining is an excellent movie, that set so many precedents, and it is COMPLETELY different from the book. Pretty much everything that movie inspired in cinematics ISN'T in the book. Point is, a movie can still be great, regardless of its faithfulness.

IF faithfulness is what you're looking for, then I can definitely completely understand not liking PJ's LOTR. However, that doesn't mean the movie itself is garbage. Hell, there were so many things in the movies that really bothered me: elves at Helms Deep? Shelob in ROTK? How lame Faramir was compared to the real Faramir? Ugh. But when it comes to film, I still thought they were extremely well done on their own. Completely different, yet the feeling was still there.

I do agree with Fornad that this movie wasn't just about action and adventure. Rather, it was a movie that revolved around typical themes of a story. I mean, the genre is technically called "epic fantasy." If the movies didn't achieve an epic scale, then surely it would have sucked. If between what Fornad and I said doesn't describe the "spirit" of the book, I would like to know its definition as well.

BTW you guys are awesome, I really hope we can continue this without any hostility. It's all about tone really, and internet sucks at translating that. This forum is incredibly unique in that aspect. I don't think I've ever been on a forum where (almost) every thread didn't have some jackass fire starter with horrible grammar. You guys rock.

I must admit LeeLee's point is much better maid than what I was able to present. Thank you! Once again you are my hero (heroine)!

I am not completely disappointed with PJ's LotR movies, but do think they (scriptwriters) did to much differences from the plot (compared to my liking and I do not want to put this as only opinion possible). The qualities of the movies as art and cast-performance I will not argue.

"Based on"- means preserved main characters and the original ideas of the author, whereas "inspired by"- "I read it and I came up with the idea of...". There is difference in this for sure and that I can stand for. So as LeeLee pointed, the movies were more like "inspired by" JRRTolkien's "Lord of the Rings", rather than "based on" it (them). Ecceptions can sometimes be found though.

My religious understandings have nothing to do with my previous statements in this and other thread's I've made. A fantasy movie can hardly be "based on a real story" in the light of the meaning I put in "based on" as I stated herein before. It is terminology that I am aware of and I beg you pardon for not presenting my "definitions" before.

By their deed you shall know them, so Great is one who does Great, and in this reference no weak people did anything grate in LotR. All great things were done by great people. And people of Rohan in this matter did not needed the help of the Elves at Helm's deep safe the one provided by Legolas (Laegolas).

The spirit of LotR (and Tolkien's Legendarium in general as I see it from Tolkien's published materials I've read so far) is about goals and means to achieve them.

War is a bad thing- true it is, but sometimes war comes upon us and we must fight back. The point is to know your priorities and hold to them, know your friends and stand for them, know your weaknesses and do your duty despite them. In most of these the movies were accurate, but not the way they were presented by Tolkien. And therefor I said the movies did not held entirely the spirit of the books.

Fonrad, you cannot guarantee for something beyond your own choices and understanding, and neither can I. I understand your position and I am sorry if anything of my sayings has been offensive personally to the actors, director or other members of the staff, or to someone in these forums. It has never been my intention to put my own opinion above all others. I am however concerned as a "book's fan" about how the narrative of the books will come up to the mass consumer. I do take J.R.R.Tolkien's books (and works in general) as masterpieces and I hope PJ will prove my worries wrong with the Hobbit.

Nai i estel nin maar naa! (May my hope be good)

Well, the point I really wanted to get across was this - imagine if Tolkien had never written the books (pause for gasp of horror) and Peter Jackson had created this story himself. Would not then the films be leagues ahead of everything else?

 

Not in my opinion anyway; but looking at these films as films could be another long digression of my opinions, so onward for the moment...

 Again, these films have to be seen apart from the books.

 

I disagree that they have to be. They can be, surely, but if ones cares about faithfulness they don’t have to be (and I'm not saying you don't care). I sometimes bring up Frank Frazetta's illustration of Eowyn because I think it represents a fairly notable injection of the artist at the expense of the source.

Sure I could look at Frazetta's take purely in terms of how good it is, or is not, as an illustration, and it's a different medium than a book of course. The artist has every right to depict a scene his way, and as 'woman fighting monster' I'll have no great cause to complain her attire is necessarily problematic.

Yet Frazetta called this particular woman Eowyn, and I'm a Tolkien fan... a Tolkien fan wondering what it is about the medium of black and white illustration that meant that Eowyn needed to be half-naked.

 

Or, what if an artist depicted Snowmane black for example, because the medium of black and white illustration arguably called for a needed contrast within a given composition  -- well, now we are dealing with a noticeable but arguably 'lesser' departure from the books, as well as a medium based reason to depart from the book to the bettering of the illustration itself.

Yet still one could argue that the needs of black and white illustration can be manipulated from the start -- that is, considering contrast, why not plan a white horse against some sort of blackness (landscape, dark cloud), and thus we would have an arguably better Snowmane -- to a Tolkien fan --  because it's more faithful to the book.

Simply because Jackson or a member of his team says something like: 'we altered X and Y because in film...' doesn't necessarily mean X or Y needed to be done, especially in the way it was done.

 

And what do people mean when they say it has too much action and fighting in it? The Lord of the Rings is a book centered around a war, specifically the War of the Ring, and Frodo's extremely dangerous quest to destroy the aforementioned trinket. It wasn't as if Tolkien had the Fellowship sauntering through Middle Earth with no fighting along the way. Wars are tough and brutal things, and I think PJ showed it well.

 

There is action and danger and battles in the books, and ‘too much’ can be, once again, a subjective or tricky perception, but if something is in the book in some sense, a given focus with respect to the film as a whole can still become an issue. 

For example, David Bratman writes: ‘Many people were perplexed by the scene of Sam nearly drowning at the end of the first movie. This is actually straight from the book, but by including it at full length where so many other things were cut, Jackson placed a strange and unwarranted emphasis on it.’

I’ve run into enough opinions that the films could have used better pacing and toned down the battles. And Jackson added action sequences that don’t actually occur in the books, or drew them longer -- the battle in the chamber in Moria for example, or the (to my mind) unnecessary falling stairs routine (also in Moria).
 

And what's the definition of the spirit of LOTR? That the weakest people can make the greatest changes? The movies showed that. The boundaries between good and evil? The movies showed that magnificently (think of Gandalf driving the Nazgul away in ROTK). That nature and magic are leaving the world and industry is taking over? The movies showed that. Think of any of Tolkien's major themes within the books, and I can guarantee that the movies displayed it.

 

I could post Carl Hostetter's list of themes for example (his comes to mind because he's already made a nice list in my opinion) -- a list of things Carl thinks were not illustrated in the films, or not illustrated there in enough measure. And if I did, you or someone will possibly disagree with him on many, if not all his points -- especially as to whether or not Jackson illustrated the themes well enough in the films to tip them towards the faithful category.

But can you guarantee that Carl or anyone who agrees with him will necessarily change their minds? not only accept all your opinions -- but as weighed against your personal tipping point of 'faithful enough'?

Peter Jackson chose to manipulate dialog with his Gandalf 'explaining' death to Pippin (and thus to the audience) in a way that Tolkien never did. To some (including me) this is a notable misstep about something important to JRRT -- others defend it as a nice enough movie moment, Gandalf trying to comfort a Hobbit.

And if we get very general about themes one could arguably raise films that have nothing to do with The Lord of the Rings as being 'faithful' to it in some sense.  

 

That's why I say this particular beastie is opinion-laden. It's a very complex thing! Not like posting whether or not Hobbits have hairy feet, for instance.

Very interesting, Galin. Again, I apologize ahead of time, but I just simply don't agree with what you said in your post to Fornad. However I FULLY agree with your very last line, which could be an explanation for my disagreement :p

I love that Tolkien quote you added. Very, very interesting to me. I can't help but wonder if PJ read that. I feel like he personally didn't, but it's not like he was the only writer. I'm sure someone on the staff was a Tolkien fanatic like us who knew what he was talking about. Also, I'm pretty sure the script was presented to good ol' Chris Tolkien for approval, and if I remember correctly, he said he doesn't see how it can be done but doesn't disapprove. I know they screwed them over about the money, but again, that's the fatcats in their suits with their contracts in control of that, not the people who made the movie.

I just don't know if "mutilate" is the word I'd use here. Alteration, however, works. If you just look at the history of book-to-movie adaptation, you'll notice similarities in what had to be taken out and replaced with something else. Like how the elves were in Helms Deep. They knew that people loved elves. They wanted to show elves in action. People loved seeing elves in action at the beginning of FOTR. They had no other way to really emphasize the pact between elves/humans without going into major backstory which could be another 3 hour movie, so to show this they just had the elves show up at the hornberg to make audiences feel special since elves like humans. That first part of the quote correlates 100% with this.

However, it's the mutilation and alteration part that turns it all into gray area. And I just think that goes back to what I said: if faithfulness is what rocks your boat, then I don't think anyone can argue in defense of the movies, other than the very beginning and the very end. I actually would like to hear your explanation of why these aren't great films though. If you're going to try and compare this to classics such as Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Misfits etc then I mean....that's just not fair. Those movies were great simply because they hadn't been done before and film was only leaving its infancy. In many cases the acting is soooo over-dramatic and would be laughable by todays general audience. The LOTR movies, however, appeal to a wider audience and, just like Tolkien said, with modern resources it could make for a very moving experience.

If you really look at it, in general, the only people who don't like the movies are the hardcore fans (and maybe the really ADD people who can't handle a 3 hour movie). Just about everybody else thought they were amazing (obviously I'm generalizing here). Coincidence? I think not. I also think my point on fan fiction stands true.

A final note I want to add about myself, but I am equally confused as to why he did certain things the way he did. Like the part with Sam drowning yet the leaving out of smaller, yet more important parts and then throwing parts of the story all over the place. I guess I've just learned how to look at the film separately since I  realize it's simply impossible to translate it completely. Faramir and Theoden still could've been way cooler though...

Question for both of you - Fan fiction. Do you support it?

 

I don't have anything against fan fiction, I just don't really care about it.

What exactly would be the difference of fan faction and PJ's movies?

 

If 'fan fiction' means anything as a whole written by a fan that takes place in the world of Middle-earth, then the films are fan fiction.

The films are a complicated mix of both using the books (in some way) and disregarding them, or altering them in ways (including major character differences in my opinion). If you're wondering if I think something that could be labeled fan fiction in some sense or measure could still be faithful enough to Tolkien -- then yes I think it's possible. 

Again, highly subjective in any case. 

 Would you both have liked it more had it been presented as "Peter Jackson presents J.R.R. Tolkiens Lord of the Rings: A fan fiction film inspired by the original trilogy?"

 

As I say I'm not really a fan of these films as films (and really don't care much for fan fiction). 

And what about fan fiction that deviates way off the plot, adds in events that really could never have happened and is written in a way not even CLOSE to Tolkien's ability etc etc. Does that mean they don't know the true spirit of Tolkien?

 

I wouldn't necessarily mean someone doesn't 'know' the true spirit of Tolkien. And, for instance...

I (and others) disagree with a notable Tolkien scholar on the issue of free will in Middle-earth. Who 'knows' Tolkien better on this point? and if a film (for some reason) explicitly noted that Elves don't have free will in the sense that their choices cannot alter external outcomes (which is this Tolkien scholar's opinion), would this film then be faithful to Tolkien on this issue? 

Did Jackson know that the Undying Lands are not the afterlife for mortals (includes Hobbits)? I don't know. Would he think this alteration significantly 'negative' even if he did? I don't know that either, but some Jackson fans don't seem to think so anyway. All I can say here is that I see nothing about film as film that demanded this tinkering, that it steps on something important to the author as expressed within his fictive world, and is thus not faithful to Tolkien on this (to me) notable point.

 

That they didn't try to simply express their love for his works in a way they know best? 

 

Again, doesn't necessarily mean someone didn't try...

If Jackson tried his very best, out of love, and still 'failed' at something in someone's opinion... then he still failed in someone's opinion.

Wow I hope this doesn't become too long, I'll do my best....(after finishing realized I failed)

Galin, as for your post towards Fornad, I suppose the parts I fully disagree with are what we've already been talking about: it's all about perspective and what you, as a devoted Tolkien fan, feel is acceptable. I also feel like nobody know's the full story here. I just highly doubt PJ and his friends sat around somewhere drinking beer, picking out parts at random to alter so they can make it an epic movie. I do not doubt for one second that every change he made had some sort of elaborate reasoning behind it; why it's so hard to find these explanations is what bothers me.

I just don't see a point in looking at it as "faithful enough," since It's an adaptation. If you expect faithfulness, ESPECIALLY when it comes to Tolkien, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. I am fully empathetic with the fact many of us have been reading Tolkien our whole lives and I think that absolutely justifies having those expectations though. Which, if you want to talk about themes, is the MAIN theme of this discussion: opinion.

I will admit I don't understand why he made certain changes, those changes definitely bother me a lot since I know the lore and I can think of MUCH better ways to have altered the story. Alas, I'm a lowly American citizen with no connection to PJs writing staff. Tragic...

Now, for your first post towards me, all I can say is this: it was a different time. Like I said, film was just leaving its infancy, back then the only people who had dreamed something like the LOTR films would be possible someday are Aldous Huxley, George Orwell and H.G. Wells. So I would probably also have said "no, I don't want these to be films since I know it can't be done and it'll just suck." But let's shift generations a bit, and this conversation happened in the mid-90s or later, after things like Jurassic Park, Braveheart, Titanic and the re-release of Star Wars (not basing on quality, only on the technology). I'm definitely not saying this would undoubtedly change his opinion, but I think one could present a much more reasonable argument as to how it could work.

I did some digging around and I think I may have found the EXACT article I read 11 years ago that created this memory. And I'm sure back then, when PJ was just raking in awards, he did many interviews talking about the same thing. But, 11 years later, they are lost in the annals of the internet. Interesting article too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1697884.stm

I suppose you could say I disagree with you about how to view the films, but I just don't like to use the word disagree, it has so many connotations. I think we both realize the complexity of this issue and there is no right or wrong. Though now I want to hear your argument as to why or why not Hobbit feet are hairy....

Going back to what I said about how the films are just bringing Tolkien to a new generation, that's because this is a completely new generation, not just a different age. These kids today aren't the same. As much as I would LOVE for them to teach LOTR in school again, let's be realistic here: that won't happen. Maybe the Hobbit soon, but it'll just be a required reading that's going to turn a lot of people away from Tolkien just because of that. I remember reading required books that I'm almost positive I would've liked if it wasn't required. *coughjaneaustencough* Most people strongly disliked King Kong and most people loved District 9. So even though some hardcore fans may feel like I'm encouraging a bastardization of Tolkien, I think this is just the inevitable and I would rather these kids know Tolkien as an author who inspired these epic movies than not know Tolkien at all.

With the fan fiction, I wasn't asking for a definition of fan fiction, I think that's generally agreed upon. But I've read some absolutely horrible FF that almost made me feel like how some of you feel about the movies. Like the person didn't even care. The LOTR movies are essentially PJ's and his writing staff's FF on film. As for the spirit of Tolkien thing, the point I was trying to make was these are fans who DO know the spirit of Tolkien and are using what's available to them to spread the love.

Also the "what if it was called" question was just bringing up the point if it was presented ahead of time, even in the title for instance, as being an alteration of Tolkien, warning people ahead of time that it's going to be different, would this have changed anything for you? These films set the standard for production quality. I'm not sure how many people on here know a lot about the subtleties of cinema, but LOTR actually renovated quite a bit. Which is visible in King Kong...PJ tried to do the same thing, but it just wasn't the same, it was obvious he was riding on the coattails of LOTR which had done it before.

You are absolutely right about your last line though, and that's just the way it is. Without good opinions, there wouldn't be a bad opinion. We'd all be the same. But that just goes back to Orwell and Huxley...

And LeeLee, I can't stress enough that these people had NOTHING to do with the money. That shouldn't even be an issue here. As Galin said, PJ sued the same people! I know you're a fan of theater, so what differentiates PJ's success and whatever his name was who made The Wiz? That production banked when it was released and I thought it was dumb as hell! And I feel like most people didn't think it would be like the works of Tolkien, as there has never been a single movie adaptation that was (EXCEPT for maybe The Hobbit and LOTR cartoon movies of the 80s). And sometimes it is put out there with an incredibly misleading name and a total butchering of the lore.

However, again, I 100% completely and totally empathize with your stance. It's just the way of life. Gotta love it...

I just don't see a point in looking at it as "faithful enough," since It's an adaptation.

 

This is why I asked if Fornad cares about faithfulness to the books. If a given person doesn't... well I don't disagree that this approach is valid, I disagree that this is the only valid approach.

Statements like: 'judge the films only as films' is one approach -- as long as people who say so realize the absolutely huge door it opens with respect to altering the story, tone, messages and characters of the source.

And how many Tolkien fans are putting the matter of faithfulness wholly aside?

The Jacksonian defense I hear is often enough along the lines of: the films are faithful enough, and the objections of unfans are often trivial or even 'nitpicking'. Or simply, within a given discussion about something actually in the film, someone defends X as faithful while someone else thinks X shouldn't have been done. Exchanging opinions is fine...

... but can these same Jackson fans also fairly say: 'don't bother about faithfulness, it's Jackson's art not Tolkien's, and one has to judge the films as films'. This wouldn't seem fair to me because to my mind they themselves are judging the films compared to the books... they just arrived at a different conclusion in the main (that they are faithful enough according to their perspective of things).

If you expect faithfulness, ESPECIALLY when it comes to Tolkien, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

But yet plenty of people do think the films are faithful to Tolkien.

Why should I think that making a faithful film of The Lord of the Rings is wholly impossible? Again, length and level of detail is not the issue. Tolkien himself knew a film could only translate so much, and so do Jackson's unfans. 

And I realize that no one is going to make a film exactly as I would make it, or desire it to be made.

Leelee, I certainly understand where you are coming from, and I agree that there's quite a few changes that were made that were completely unnecessary .

But I have to agree with BRU on this, the books are still there and they will never change, any movie goers who don't in turn read the books after are obviously not readers so who really cares? but we have several peeps on this site who were so inspired by the movies that they read the books, so isn't that a good thing? 

I feel that if you can't be bothered putting some effort into reading the books then you don't deserve the richness and extraordinary talent that is the LOTRs works.

The movie is the movie and the books are the books and never the twain shall meet, that's my 2 cents anyway.

In reply to the initial post and moving from LOTR to TH.

I am concerned about the two movie format in that by splitting the hobbit between the two and including the white council etc you lose the central overreaching story arc. This will essentially require a new arc to be 'crafted' to make the duo work as films. This means non Tolkien additions! You also change the whole atmosphere of the story and it's relative innocence from LOTR.

 

On the other hand I loved the visualizations of middle earth in the LOTR and am happily looking forward to more of that!

Eldorian, I have the very same concern. The Hobbit is not a prequel, period.  It stands alone as it's own work and should be treated as such, and I would personally like all the old faces gone, only the characters that are in the book. end of story. All new faces, totally fresh and well able to lift the characters off the page on to the screen is what I long for. I personally would like to see someone else as Gandalf, and I just loved Ian. Something brand new, fresh and with no splashes of the other body  of work. And why on earth there has to be Galadriel or anyone not in this book is beyond me. Again I come to the fact it is then merely a story, but not the Hobbit and should not be called it. Alter it drastically if needs must, add whatever and call it something different. I would enjoy it for just that.  I suppose because I am a writer, formally only in newspaper and then free lance story, I cannot tolerate others 'fiddling' as it were with anyone else's creation. To me that is abominable.

 

I mean, I guess The Hobbit isn't a direct prequel, but it's still the events that took place prior to LOTR that led up to the conclusion of The War. I have no problems with prequels as long as it doesn't suck. Case in point: Ginger Snaps.

Only thing about your post Eldorion is I'm still not sure if the official format of the movie has been OFFICIALLY laid out. The current rumors and speculation are most likely true, but it's still not 100% confirmed. There is some good new though....

From my understanding, the first movie is going to be The Hobbit and The Hobbit alone, with content taken directly from there and nowhere else; which is good because it means they won't be trying to split it between two 3 hour movies AND it should remain pretty faithful. They also don't own the rights to any other works outside Hobbit and  LOTR, so they have no choice but to take material directly from those.

 

Hm, not from what I've seen, not to mention everything is still up in the air pretty much. Plus, like I said, nothing has really been "abandoned" because nothing has ever been official! Yeah del Toro left, but a lot of concepts remained.

The Odyssey/Illiad analogy is a little sketchy because it combines real events with mythology. But, let's just put this theoretically: if LOTR had been released to the public, and they loved it and wanted to know more about the ring, then Tolkien would write The Hobbit, which would be considered a prequel. Then The Silmarillion, which would be a prequel to a prequel.

(...) we should all remember these are different storytelling media and the books, fantastic as they are cannot be made in the exact storyline as the books, can you imagine how you could show the 17 years between Bilbo's 111 birthday and Frodo leaving the shire?  

 

Welcome!

Concerning this point I think people do remember, in general. Who dislikes the films and wanted a much closer translation of the book... to the detriment of the films as films?

Also, what works (or doesn't work) on film is subjective: I think many might agree that there's no great need to try to illustrate 17 years specifically, or even 'years' here... but anyway, generally speaking, passing time is actually quite easy to get across on film, and it would be someone's opinion that a film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings must conform to Jackson's specific pacing here. 

I don't think we need to worry about the changes that may or may not be made to the original storyline. Most of the people who worked on the Lord of the Rings films are huge fans of Tolkien themselves, and changes were only made if they were necessary and didn't work well in the film. The scouring of the shire for example, to be honest i find this part in the book quite unnecessary, and imagine watching a three hour film that you think is just about to end, and then having to sit through another battle. Jackson made a good call and there will be plenty of calls like this to make in The Hobbit, will the spiders and wargs speak? will the dwarves escape by hiding in barrels? I should think there will be far more necessary changes in The Hobbit than there were in LOTR. I have no doubt that The Hobbit movie is going to be just as brilliant if not more than the LOTR movies, alterations and all.

I'm not sure either, i think in the lotr movies they call the creatures that climb down the pillars and surround then in moria goblins, which would suggest Peter Jackson sees a distinction between goblins and orcs. 

the thing im most worried about is how they will do smaug, I can't picture a dragon speaking looking and seeming believable any way they do it

I do not consider the omission of The Scouring of the Shire to be a good call by Jackson.  His big excuse for "adapting" the books to his ideas for the films was that there was not room for everything in the books.  So what happened?  He took out what Tolkien wrote and put in his own scenes, made completely from his own head!  For example, the scenes with the warg attack and Aragorn's falling into the river and getting lost.  And then he claimed to be devoted to the book?  (This is the point where I as Gandalf will show him exactly what fire is like.)  No, there was room in the LOTR movies for lots more of what Tolkien wrote till Jackson decided to change things.  So we can all hold our breath on what he will decide this time around for The Hobbit.  Perhaps we should be inundating New Line (or whatever company it is) with emails screaming for less "adaptation" and more of the author.

Gandalf