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!

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.

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 

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.

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.....

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 

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.  

Haha! Great poster Brego 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

Wen

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

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

Wen

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.

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 

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?

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?

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.