FWIS3

I don't care what installment it is - Lord of the Rings, Hobbit - if Peter Jackson makes a movie based on Tolkien's Middle Earth, I'm there. In fact, I think he should make one on events before the Third Age. Let's have a movie about Gil-Gilad, Isildur, Morgoth, the Noldor. I want a movie set in the time when the rings were forged.

I'm just a Tolkien nerd, I guess. Always have been. I have a first edition copy of The Silmarillion, bought when it first came out in the mid-70's.

So you liked it?

Never mind, I was distracted and posted early.

I must admit that I love LOR stuff as well. Though the last hobit one was really long for what happened.

I agree with FZ, and I almost think I would have enjoyed the first one more if I had waited for the second and third, but I'm really looking forward to the second one.

Did you see it in 3D geonuc?

MrPi has introduced Buster to LOTR and now that's his latest obsession. They have watched part of the first LOTR movie and The Hobbit, and we play a Hobbit board game.

Heck, Russter is even joining in. She saw a preview of the movie on tv last night and when she saw Bilbo she said "Hobbit."

MrPi is thrilled that Buster is getting into his two favorites--Star Wars and LOTR. I don't mind, myself.

lol

He'll get years out of it understanding more adult topics. It'll be like watching it again.

SciFi Chick wrote:I agree with FZ, and I almost think I would have enjoyed the first one more if I had waited for the second and third, but I'm really looking forward to the second one.

Did you see it in 3D geonuc?

I haven't seen the second Hobbit yet.

geonuc wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:I agree with FZ, and I almost think I would have enjoyed the first one more if I had waited for the second and third, but I'm really looking forward to the second one.

Did you see it in 3D geonuc?

I haven't seen the second Hobbit yet.

Ohhhh... my mistake.

After now having seen it, I could rate the second Hobbit as the worst of the franchise (three LOTR, two Hobbit). Or, as I prefer to express it, the fifth most awesome Middle Earth movie. Great dragon and true to Tolkien's vision of the critters: mean and powerful, but also vain and impetuous.

Not a spoiler if you've seen the trailer and it doesn't really spoil anyway: I was originally concerned about the presence of Legolas in the movie. He wasn't in the book and I thought Jackson was just using his character to attract the female audience, Orlando Bloom being a chick magnet and all. Well, while that undoubtedly was why he was in the film, after doing a little reading I'm not concerned. Legolas would have been where the movie has him even if the book doesn't mention him.

And if you're not a Lord of the Rings fan, you don't care anyway.

So this Hobbit movie wasn't as good as the first Hobbit movie? Oh my. I was bored out of my mind during the first one, and not to be cliche, Legolas is about the only reason I want to see the second one.

SciFi Chick wrote:So this Hobbit movie wasn't as good as the first Hobbit movie? Oh my. I was bored out of my mind during the first one, and not to be cliche, Legolas is about the only reason I want to see the second one.

Unless you like dragons, you'll probably be bored most of the time with this one then. Although Legolas does have a good number of scenes.

I might be the only one here who was seriously disapppointed by the first installment of The Hobbit. I've been reading and rereading the Tolkien books since junior high so I may be too entrenched in the written version to be objective but I felt that first movie lost the story of Bilbo Baggins entirely. Bilbo was a minor character and the real center of the movie was Thorin Oakenshield. Not to say that Thorin's story isn't compelling, but the story of a simple hobbit thrown into events beyond his understanding or control and summoning his own courage and hidden strengths to meet the challenges of the world at large was the story I loved. I've been hoping that the second installment would return to the original story. Haven't seen it yet though.

gethen wrote:I might be the only one here who was seriously disapppointed by the first installment of The Hobbit. I've been reading and rereading the Tolkien books since junior high so I may be too entrenched in the written version to be objective but I felt that first movie lost the story of Bilbo Baggins entirely. Bilbo was a minor character and the real center of the movie was Thorin Oakenshield. Not to say that Thorin's story isn't compelling, but the story of a simple hobbit thrown into events beyond his understanding or control and summoning his own courage and hidden strengths to meet the challenges of the world at large was the story I loved. I've been hoping that the second installment would return to the original story. Haven't seen it yet though.

The Lord of the Rings movies were probably truer to the Tolkien books, although Peter Jackson used his share of artistic license with them, too. I think it's inevitable.

The second Hobbit strays from the path as much as the first one, although I found the basic storyline to be true. As I mentioned above, you'll find Legolas in this one and he doesn't appear in the book. The whole episode with the woodelves is considerably expanded in the movie.

I also think the LOTR books were more amenable to epic film-making.

geonuc wrote:
The second Hobbit strays from the path as much as the first one, although I found the basic storyline to be true. As I mentioned above, you'll find Legolas in this one and he doesn't appear in the book. The whole episode with the woodelves is considerably expanded in the movie.

I also think the LOTR books were more amenable to epic film-making.

I've heard that Legolas appears in the second movie, along with a female elf. Don't know how that's going to be.

I think part of the reason the LOTR books were, as you say, more amenable to epic film-making is twofold. First, there are three of them, so making the story into three movies made sense. Not so The Hobbit of course. Trying to stretch it into three movies is part of the problem, as I see it. Secondly, LOTR is told from the viewpoints of several different characters. Chapters alternated between Frodo and Sam, Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn, Merry and Pippin, and even single members of those three groups. The Hobbit was told strictly from Bilbo's point of view. He never knew what what was happening to other characters when they weren't with him and neither did the reader.

I think Peter Jackson also mined The Silmarillion for stories to work into the trilogy which, to some degree, did preserve the integrity of the original story. IIRC, there was not much in The Silmarillion that directly related to The Hobbit, but it's been a while since I read it.

I think you're the only other person I've known to have actually read The Silmarillion.

No, Bilbo's recovery of the One Ring is not mentioned other than a short paragraph stating that the ring had been found. The book is not really about the Third Age anyway. Or the Second Age for that matter.

gethen wrote:I might be the only one here who was seriously disapppointed by the first installment of The Hobbit.

I can't say I was disappointed - I didn't see it. And I love LOTR. But I felt I was being taken advantage of when I heard The Hobbit was being made as a trilogy, and so I refused. It seemed to get pretty mediocre reviews too.

I was thinking a little of seeing the second one, but given what geonuc said, I probably won't, and that's fine too.

Swift wrote:

gethen wrote:I might be the only one here who was seriously disapppointed by the first installment of The Hobbit.

I can't say I was disappointed - I didn't see it. And I love LOTR. But I felt I was being taken advantage of when I heard The Hobbit was being made as a trilogy, and so I refused. It seemed to get pretty mediocre reviews too.

I was thinking a little of seeing the second one, but given what geonuc said, I probably won't, and that's fine too.

It's a good action movie, if nothing else. Instead of stuff blowing up, you have a dragon, elves running around shooting arrows, orcs doing their orc thing, and lots of very large spiders. Lots of spiders. This is not a movie for arachnophobes.

I started this thread to basically state that I love Peter Jackson's style of Middle Earth movie-making, even if the Hobbit doesn't measure up to the LOTR and the criticisms are on-point.

I'll make one more point and then shut up unless anyone else wants to continue. I don't know about Jackson's politics or pretty much anything about him. Haven't felt the need to look it up (still don't, really). But after seeing the second Hobbit movie I had to look up a name and in doing so, I learned more than I expected. Something that convinced me that Jackson is not just making fantasy action flicks.

(This isn't a spoiler in case you're still intending on seeing the movie - the storyline is pretty much laid out in the book and what happens is already known)

The company of dwarves, with Bilbo, are captured by the woodelves of Greenwood (later renamed Mirkwood) and Thorin is brought before the elf king. I didn't catch his name in the movie, so I looked him up afterwards. This is Thranduil, a Sindar Elflord. So that's fine - the book doesn't mention him by name but his story is known. And that story is what I find interesting. Thranduil is one of the High Elves who chose not to go to the Valar homeland located on another continent, but rather went to hang out with the Silvan wood elves of Greenwood. Silvan are not High Elves (there's a class structure in elfdom). The Silvan elves up to this point didn't go for that king/lord thing but Thranduil set himself up as their lord when he arrived. Galadriel, if you remember her from the LOTR movies, did the same thing in Lothlorien.

Jackson totally makes a play on this, a play not seen in any of the Tolkien literature. He invents a female elf who is one of the low-class Silvan and for whom Legolas, who is Thranduil's son and therefore a Sindar High Elf, has the hots. But Thranduil states quite clearly that he will never allow Legolas to betroth that lowly woodelf. If that's not a political statement on class structure, I don't know what is. The whole Sindar Lord/Silvan lower class thing strikes me as a parallel to South Africa, pre-apartheid. As I said, Tolkien doesn't make it out as that - he makes it seem like it's a great thing for everyone. Why wouldn't that elven rabble living in the woods want a High Elf Lord to rule over them?

Anyway, just something I noticed.

Swift wrote:

gethen wrote:I might be the only one here who was seriously disapppointed by the first installment of The Hobbit.

I can't say I was disappointed - I didn't see it. And I love LOTR. But I felt I was being taken advantage of when I heard The Hobbit was being made as a trilogy, and so I refused. It seemed to get pretty mediocre reviews too.

That was the most amusing and sad thing for me when watching the first one. Somehow, it escaped the notice of both my mother and my husband that this had been made into a trilogy, so we're about an hour and a half in to the movie, when I pause to go to the restroom, and my mom and husband start chatting about how they don't see that it's possible to finish up the story in the time left for the movie. When I told them this was the first of a trilogy... it wasn't pretty.

geonuc wrote:I think you're the only other person I've known to have actually read The Silmarillion.

I loved The Silmarillion. For those who haven't read it, it basically the creation myth for Middle Earth. It explains the origin of elves, men, dwarves, and most of the creatures that appear in Tolkien's later works. It's full of great stories. It is, I think, Tolkien's best work. It lays the foundation for everything else. BTW, my elder son has read it too, so I now know two people who have read it.

I tried reading the Silmarillion, gave up after chapter 3. I did manage to read LOTR and the Hobbit.

Tolkien... one of nature's cures for insomnia....

brite wrote:Tolkien... one of nature's cures for insomnia....

You are hereby banned from this thread and we are now mortal enemies for one month.

gethen wrote:

geonuc wrote:I think you're the only other person I've known to have actually read The Silmarillion.

I loved The Silmarillion. For those who haven't read it, it basically the creation myth for Middle Earth. It explains the origin of elves, men, dwarves, and most of the creatures that appear in Tolkien's later works. It's full of great stories. It is, I think, Tolkien's best work. It lays the foundation for everything else. BTW, my elder son has read it too, so I now know two people who have read it.

But he never tells us what manner of critter is Tom Bombadil.

geonuc wrote:

brite wrote:Tolkien... one of nature's cures for insomnia....

You are hereby banned from this thread and we are now mortal enemies for one month.

Oh! Oh! time make a stinker

geonuc wrote:

brite wrote:Tolkien... one of nature's cures for insomnia....

You are hereby banned from this thread and we are now mortal enemies for one month.

Meh... I feel the same way about Asimov, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky ... great writers... wordy as all get out...