DoS extended edition recommendations

Tinuviel wrote:Did you buy the EE bungo, or did you find it online???

Bought it, but let me be honest, it was one of the worst decisions of my entire life. But some of the extra material is really interesting, especially the stuff about Smaug. And they actually bring back Tom Shippey for interviews about Tolkien and dragons and sources he would have drawn from. Very interesting stuff, albeit much too short in the context of 9 hours of extras.

I have no interest in the commentary (last year it was just PJ and Boyens slapping each other on the back and making generally stupid remarks) so I didn't see a point to wait for blu-ray, plus iTunes is cheaper than getting the blu-ray.

Mrs Figg wrote:try going over to TORn and listening to the squeeing Thorins Hair/Thandy fans for more than 5 minutes without barfing.

It's impossible! I've tried!

Mrs Figg wrote:

BN.filmz wrote:
"someone who loved the source material"? ... So you're able to conclude,  that Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Guillermo del Toro don't love the source material, just because they have not made ​​the films the way you want it??

That's one of the most unfounded and unfair allegations I've ever seen, when it comes to Peter Jackson's adaptation of 'The Hobbit'.

No. I dont conclude that Jackson & co dont love the source material because they havent made the films as I want it, but because if they loved the source material they woudnt have made the films they did. Nobody who really loved the source material would have shunted Bilbo out of his own story, or made up increasingly absurd made up computer game exploits and characters, nobody who really loved Tolkien would have included the crass humour, the abysmal dialogue, the shoddy music score, the OTT use of green screen, and above all the corruption of Bilbos character arc in favour of spectacle and cheap drama. Its glaringly obvious that Jackson did not love the source material and only used the Hobbit to show off his new dubious technology and when nobody was too impressed he just got bored and made the films as shallow and as spectacular as possible.

Bravo! Hear, hear!

malickfan wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:If the pro-film folk make a statement I dont agree with, do I have to remain silent? surely they can engage in constructive discussion?judging by other forums, it often seems they can't

Certainly not! Just musing on when their was last any enthusiasm about the films here (not saying I miss it, just might make things more interesting/amusing)...it must have been long before I joined...

Must have been sometime back in 2010 or 2009..

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Welcome to Forumshire BN.filmz.

Thank you very much.

But I do have a point or two in response some of your points.

Yes, let's have a look at them.

"One can also dream of a film trilogy that improves the Hobbit book and includes Tolkien's own additions to the story ... and guess what: Peter Jackson has made that dream come true."

Not quite sure how you can justify this.

It's my PERSONAL opinion or taste - it's how I feel about Tolkien's book and Peter Jackson's adaptation. It doesn't have to be justified on the basis of nothing more than my personal preference. ... BUT I do believe, that it also can be justified on the basis of Tolkien's books (The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, among others).

The films bear only a superficial resemblance to the book they are based on. Major plot points are it on (although often for different reasons) but everything else, the events which happen, in particular the character arcs and development are all different and beyond recognition.

As I said: One can also dream of a film trilogy that improves the Hobbit book.

In my opinion Tolkien's book 'The Hobbit' is a very good story filled with great ideas or elements. But I think, that Peter Jackson and his co-writers have improved these ideas; these elements. Some of the stuff in the book are too childish for my taste (for instance there's too many speaking animals and I don't like the way Tolkien speaks to the reader). Besides that, some of the dialogues are unnecessarily long and too explanatory.

The escape in barrels down the river is somewhat boring in the book - I prefer Peter Jackson's version, because he includes the elves and the orcs, which makes the escape more dramatic. And by having these three races - dwarves, elves and orcs - clash in a minor battle, he makes a better build-up to the Battle of the Five Armies. I'm not very fond of the episodic style of the book: in most of the chapters we're introduced to new characters or new creatures, which are left behind as soon as we move on to the next chapter. I think, it's much better with at least some recurring characters besides Bilbo, Gandalf and the dwarves. I agree with Michael Martinez, who wrote:

"I think the story flows better when all these perils share connections with each other rather than if they are just apparently random events that are quickly tied up in Bolg’s sudden attack on Erebor as in the story."

Source: http://middle-earth.xenite.org/2012/12/18/why-did-peter-jackson-change-azog-from-the-book/

You claim, that "the films bear only a superficial resemblance to the book", and that "in particular the character arcs and development are all different and beyond recognition".

"A superficial resemblance?? That's only true, if you choose to completely ignore the many additions Tolkien himself made retrospectively - and even then it's only true to some degree.

"Beyond recognition" is a gross exaggeration.

And the additions available to PJ in the appendices are not what are in the film.

Yes, they are. The additions are: the finding of the One ring (which is no longer just an innocent and helpful ring, but a dangerous ring, that can corrupt and mislead it's bearer) the backstory of the dwarves and Erebor, Gandalf in Dol Goldur, the meeting of the White Council and the revelation of the Necromancer's identity, plus Gandalf and Thorin's meeting in Bree. Each of them can be found in the Appendices of 'The Lord of the Rings', and there's also a bit of information in the chapters "The Shadow of the past" and "Council of Elrond".

The dwarf battle is all wrong

I assume, that you're referring to the battle of Azanulbizar before the gates of Moria. Well, the outcome of that battle and of the events leading up to it is basically almost the same (except that Azog survived): Thror was beheaded by Azog, the dwarves won the battle but suffered much loss, and Thorin found his oakenshield.

the history is all wrong and it makes no sense.

That's not true. It definitely makes sense within Peter Jackson's adaptation and in the context of his six-film series. He has just compressed the backstory of the dwarves and the Dol Goldur sideplot, among other things by changing the chronology. After all, 'The Hobbit' first and foremost focuses on one dwarf, namely Thorin. So it's a logical choice, that everything is about him and his family - not about Nain and Dain.

The events being depicted at Dol Guldur constitute much film time from a few lines of text in the appendices, with no descriptive details.

The lack of descriptive details is not a problem. If it was, Peter Jackson would have to refrain from showing us

Spoiler:

in the third Hobbit movie, cause all that Tolkien says about the matter, is:

Spoiler:

... which reminds me of what Peter Jackson said some time ago:

"The book is written in a very brisk pace, so pretty major events in the story are covered in only two or three pages ... "

Or in this case: in only one sentence.

Source: [url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/peter-jackson-ian-mckelle n-defend-398281]http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/peter-jackson-ian-mckelle n-defend-398281[/url]

Shouldn't major events be covered in an adaptation, as long as it is true to (1) the main lines of the story and (2) the underlying themes?

Characters not in the book have been created and added.

Besides inventing a name for the Elvenking, Tolkien also added 3 characters, that definitely were alive during the quest of Erebor:

Legolas, Arwen and Aragorn

And while you probably could explain the absence of one or two of these people by saying that they were visiting other places in Middle Earth, it would seem incredible that all three should be away, when Bilbo and the dwarves visited Rivendell and were held as prisoners in the Woodland Realm.

So why is it a problem, that Legolas is present in Peter Jackson's adaptation?

There is an over reliance on over the top spectacle that undermines the threats in the narrative and PJ inserts action sequences throughout that were never there or intended by the author.

The important thing is, that the basic elements are there: the trolls, the goblins/orcs, Gollum, the spiders, the wood elves, the barrels, the dragon, the Necromancer/Sauron, Bolg, the orc army. ... Peter Jackson has just expanded the story.

You are of course free to love the film as much as you like. But the claim that if you are a book and Tolkien fan who wanted to see Tolkien's work adapted to the screen, that PJ has made that dream come true is provably wrong. As most of the material in the films is not adapted from anything Tolkien ever set down.

When I said "One can also dream of a film trilogy that improves the Hobbit book and includes Tolkien's own additions to the story", I meant that I consider the movies to be better than the books, and that all of the additions and changes (of which many was made by Tolkien's own) have improved the story overall.

"it should begin with the title character Bilbo being alone in his cosy home. This is, after all, the story about Bilbo's adventures."

Except it is not. These films are as much, arguably more, the story of Thorin and of Gandalf and the rise of Sauron.

Excuse me for saying so, but to me that's pure nonsense. It seems like something people would only say for the sake of argument. But if that's really how you perceive these movies, then it's a total mystery to me how your mind works. And just to avoid misunderstandings: I'm not saying, that you're stupid or something like that - I'm just saying, that your approach to movies must be completely different than mine.

Having said all that its good to hear a voice from the other side of the fence on these films. They are a lot rarer, Pj supporters, than they were back in the LotR's days. I suspect the LotR's films are easier to defend even if they do still display all thats wrong with PJ''s understanding of Tolkien.

The Hobbit movies are just as easy to defend, because it's really just a matter of taste. The book has many flaws and weaknesses. I think, it's quite a good book, but the movies are better in terms of narrative, character development and tension.

An adaptation can be absolutely wonderful, even when it deviates from the book. The movie does not have to follow the book strictly in order to be good.

I know, that some purists would like to have us believe that, but it is simply not true.

What I love most about Peter Jackson's 5-6 Middle Earth movies, is:

- the way he makes these adventures feel like real ancient history
- the calm, melancholic and thoughtful atmosphere, which is heavily supported by the wonderful cinematography, the beautiful landscapes and Howard Shore's beautiful music
- the characters and the fact that so much screentime is set aside for character scenes, emotions and conversations

I do think, it's a bit arrogant to say, that there's something wrong with Peter Jackson's understanding of Tolkien. Each of us has a personal benefit of reading Tolkien's books, and there is no universal truth when it comes to this. It would be wrong to say, that any of us are right or wrong.

bungobaggins wrote:

Tinuviel wrote:Did you buy the EE bungo, or did you find it online???

Bought it, but let me be honest, it was one of the worst decisions of my entire life.

It sounds like you should practice a bit, before you make any more decisions in your life!

An exaggeration, clearly. But I am enjoying the special features on the designs and what not. Pretty much anything where PJ and Boyens aren't trying to justify their changes to the story is interesting.

azriel wrote:Hi BN. filmz  It is actually nice to hear others ideas & views from the sunflower side of the garden !  I really loved LOTRs, I watched it over & over & over. Why could peejers not keep a grip of his sentiment & create The Hobbit in a similar tone

But he DID!

It seems to me, that there are two things that make some people make people say, that the tone is different:

1) the humor
2) a few over-the-top action sequences

But the humor in the Hobbit movies is just the same as it was in the LOTR movies ... or have you forgotten all the funny scenes? Let me refresh your memory: Bilbo's description of life in the Shire - the old guy smiling because of Gandalf's fireworks, but pretending to be grumpy - Bilbo hiding from the Sackville Baggins's - Merry and Pippin stealing Gandalf's fireworks and later on the farmer's vegetables - Bilbo's birthday speech - Aragorn throwing apples to Merry and Pippin. so they can't get their second breakfast - Gimli's and Legolas' body count - Merry and Pippin finding food and drink in Isengard - Merry and Pippin singing and dancing on a table)

And there was also over-the-top action stuff in LOTR:

- Legolas surfing down some stairs on a shield in 'The Two Towers'
- the way Legolas mounts a horse in 'The Two Towers'
- Gollum surviving a fall into a deep abyss in 'The Return of the King' (after his fight with Frodo in Shelob's cave)
- Legolas mounting and surfing an oliphant in 'The Return of the King'

Didn't notice we had a new member, welcome! Didn't read all of your post, BN, I don't have the time right now. I read parts of it, and it didn't take much more than that to know that you're of a different opinion than most around here Nothing wrong about that, though, it's just fresh A few thoughts on your last points there:



- the way he makes these adventures feel like real ancient history

The books, and to some extent FotR, did this (in my opinion). As much as I love TT and RotK, they never gave me the feeling that I was watching something that actually could've happened once.


- the calm, melancholic and thoughtful atmosphere, which is heavily supported by the wonderful cinematography, the beautiful landscapes and Howard Shore's beautiful music

This description fits LotR, not the Hobbit (again, my opinion). TH stops being calm the minute they leave the Shire, and TH isn't beautiful like LotR was, there's way too much CGI that makes everything look like a computer game (yes, I know that's a TH cliché by now), which takes away all sense of reality from it. 


- the characters and the fact that so much screentime is set aside for character scenes, emotions and conversations

LotR has some great character moments, especially the EEs - the Hobbit? Really? I'm tempted to watch DOS all over again and time the character scenes, because I really can't remember too many.

I hoped that TH would be as great as LotR, but so far it has been one huge disappointment, and DOS was nothing but an insult to the source material. The book was childish, you say? It's a children's book, it's not LotR. What Jackson has done to The Hobbit is comparable to making an adaptation of Puff the Magic Dragon in the style of A Game of Thrones.

bungobaggins wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:

BN.filmz wrote:
"someone who loved the source material"? ... So you're able to conclude,  that Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Guillermo del Toro don't love the source material, just because they have not made ​​the films the way you want it??

That's one of the most unfounded and unfair allegations I've ever seen, when it comes to Peter Jackson's adaptation of 'The Hobbit'.

No. I dont conclude that Jackson & co dont love the source material because they havent made the films as I want it, but because if they loved the source material they woudnt have made the films they did. Nobody who really loved the source material would have shunted Bilbo out of his own story, or made up increasingly absurd made up computer game exploits and characters, nobody who really loved Tolkien would have included the crass humour, the abysmal dialogue, the shoddy music score, the OTT use of green screen, and above all the corruption of Bilbos character arc in favour of spectacle and cheap drama. Its glaringly obvious that Jackson did not love the source material and only used the Hobbit to show off his new dubious technology and when nobody was too impressed he just got bored and made the films as shallow and as spectacular as possible.

Bravo! Hear, hear!

Ehh ..... wasn't it YOU who just complained about "PJ and Boyens slapping each other on the back"?

One could easily get the impression that this forum is basically just a place for people, who slap each other on the back.

Ringdrotten wrote:Didn't notice we had a new member, welcome!

Thank you! Nice of you.

there's way too much CGI

Personally I think, it's looks fantastic. ... But besides that, I think that many of you have forgotten how much CGI they used for LOTR.

Let's just focus on 'The fellowship of the Ring' for a moment:

the prologue: most of the elves and orcs were CGI, and so was Mordor
Weathertop: when seen from the outside it was all CGI
the Mines of Moria: almost everything was CGI, including the Balrog and most of the goblins and even the nine members of the Fellowship, when we watched them from above
Lothlorien: almost everything was CGI

LotR has some great character moments, especially the EEs - the Hobbit? Really? I'm tempted to watch DOS all over again and time the character scenes, because I really can't remember too many.

'The Desolation of Smaug' has been accused of being one action scene after another. I find this accusation very strange and unjustified, since there's basically only five action scenes in entire movie. The first one (Bilbo being attacked by spiders and fighting back with his sword) doesn't occure before we're 26 minutes into the movie (and it's 6 minutes long). After that we have to wait about 15 minutes for the second action scene (the river chase, which is 8 minutes long). And the third action scene (Gandalf vs. Azog and Sauron in Dol Goldur) doesn't come until 49 minutes later (and it's 3 minutes long). The fourth scene (elves and dwarves vs. orcs in Laketown) and the fifth scene (Bilbo and dwarves vs. Smaug the dragon) are both played out within the last 30 minutes of the movie.

So the question remains: Since there are only a total of 47 minutes action in "The Desolation of Smaug", what happens in the other 104 minutes (end credits not included) of the movie? The answer is: We get conversations, character scenes, scenes where our heroes just sit and talk or are walking and talking about their thoughts, their worries and their intentions.

So it's a totally unreasonable statement, that is inconsistent with the actual movie.

The book was childish, you say? It's a children's book, it's not LotR.

No, I said, that it was "too" childish for my taste.

BN.filmz wrote:

Ehh ..... wasn't it YOU who just complained about "PJ and Boyens slapping each other on the back"?

One could easily get the impression that this forum is basically just a place for people, who slap each other on the back.

Figgs and I don't agree on everything, especially when it comes to the LOTR films. But at least this isn't an environment where a member with a differing opinion will be labeled as a "hater" or "troll" and chased off the board.

Welcome to Forumshire.

BN.filmz wrote:

An adaptation can be absolutely wonderful, even when it deviates from the book. The movie does not have to follow the book strictly in order to be good.

I know, that some purists would like to have us believe that, but it is simply not true.

What I love most about Peter Jackson's 5-6 Middle Earth movies, is:

- the way he makes these adventures feel like real ancient history
- the calm, melancholic and thoughtful atmosphere, which is heavily supported by the wonderful cinematography, the beautiful landscapes and Howard Shore's beautiful music
- the characters and the fact that so much screentime is set aside for character scenes, emotions and conversations

I do think, it's a bit arrogant to say, that there's something wrong with Peter Jackson's understanding of Tolkien. Each of us has a personal benefit of reading Tolkien's books, and there is no universal truth when it comes to this. It would be wrong to say, that any of us are right or wrong.

Hi BN, and welcome!
I agree with many of your generalities, and I'm eagerly looking among your comments for specifics that I agree with, because I sincerely want to like these movies.

The thing that charmed me with FotR when it first came out was just what you say. The atmospheric use of big location shots, together with HS's score created a sense of a World that really existed in another time and place. It didn't matter to me (much) that it wasn't  the way I'd imagined it when I read the books.  It seemed to have an internal consistency that made it easy and comfortable to slip into the story.  

On the other hand, I wasn't fond of the style of constantly cutting back and forth within the narrative. To me, watching LotR it's like listening to an intelligent person with ADHD try to tell a story. It's all interesting, but you just want to take them by the shoulders, look them in the eyes and say, "Focus! FOCUS!!!"

Let me ask you this, BN. Do you think something was gained or lost by the choice in TH to film actors separately in front of a green screen rather than shooting together on real locations?
I'm sure you can guess my thoughts, but I'm interested in yours.

BN.filmz wrote:'The Desolation of Smaug' has been accused of being one action scene after another. I find this accusation very strange and unjustified, since there's basically only five action scenes in entire movie. The first one (Bilbo being attacked by spiders and fighting back with his sword) doesn't occure before we're 26 minutes into the movie (and it's 6 minutes long). After that we have to wait about 15 minutes for the second action scene (the river chase, which is 8 minutes long). And the third action scene (Gandalf vs. Azog and Sauron in Dol Goldur) doesn't come until 49 minutes later (and it's 3 minutes long). The fourth scene (elves and dwarves vs. orcs in Laketown) and the fifth scene (Bilbo and dwarves vs. Smaug the dragon) are both played out within the last 30 minutes of the movie.

So the question remains: Since there are only a total of 47 minutes action in "The Desolation of Smaug", what happens in the other 104 minutes (end credits not included) of the movie? The answer is: We get conversations, character scenes, scenes where our heroes just sit and talk or are walking and talking about their thoughts, their worries and their intentions.

So it's a totally unreasonable statement, that is inconsistent with the actual movie.

The book was childish, you say? It's a children's book, it's not LotR.

No, I said, that it was "too" childish for my taste.

did you forget about Beorn chasing the dwarfs into his home? that was in the first 10 minutes of the film. there are way more than 5 action sequences. Beorn, the spiders and elves, the barrel escape, the dwarfs trying to steal weapons in Laketown and getting caught, bard being chased around by the masters guards, tauriel and Legolas fighting orcs in Laketown, Gandalf at DolGuldur, Smaug being antagonized by the dwarfs (a scene which still sucks) and all these scenarios run on and on much longer than they should.

So that's at least 8 action sequences which were long and drawn out for the most part taking up a great deal of the film.

I get that you like the films I'm happy you did, but some of us can't stand PJ's made up garbage. We feel had he stuck to Tolkien and merely embellished it, while keeping it more based in realism the films would have been much better. I mean my opinion is they can't get much worse. They could have been great films rated right up there with LOTR which will be timeless where as the Hobbit films are simply disposable and will not stand the test of time

- the way he makes these adventures feel like real ancient history

with LOTR i would agree yes they felt realistic and historical. The Hobbit just feels like another generic D&D film. Nothing different than we got in Dragonheart, or Willow, or any other generic film of its type. All the OTT antics just detract from the feeling of realism. The CGI doubles for the dwarfs movement is jerky and obvious if you look at it. Things that for me completely take me out of any realism. Unlike Jackson's own LOTR which I thought were fantastic.

the finding of the One ring (which is no longer just an innocent and helpful ring, but a dangerous ring, that can corrupt and mislead it's bearer)

well sadly though at the time of the Hobbit that's what it was even in Tolkiens revised version of the ring. Yes Jackson already made LOTR but a good storyteller would have let the audience make that assumption and follow the journey without hindering it. pushing what the ring was all the time, the audience knows just let it flow. when we get to FOTR we all know what it is anyways. BUT in Bilbos time it was not the same evil thing only a physical shell

I assume, that you're referring to the battle of Azanulbizar before the gates of Moria. Well, the outcome of that battle and of the events leading up to it is basically almost the same (except that Azog survived): Thror was beheaded by Azog, the dwarves won the battle but suffered much loss, and Thorin found his oakenshield.

Thror was beheaded well before that battle, he was beheaded by Azog which started the dwarf and Goblin war. Thror was only with a small group of dwarfs as well by the way. The battle of Azanulbizar was the last battle in that war. Which the events of the story Tolkien wrote make much more sense and delivers us Dain Ironfoot showing up as the hero shoving the bag of coins that Azog threw to Thrors companion in Azogs beheaded mouth. Also foreshadowing the Balrog in Moria or Durin's bain, all much more interesting than watching Azog lose an arm (whos really dumb enough to believe that would have killed him) and then wanting to end the line of Durin with no explanation at all

It's my PERSONAL opinion or taste - it's how I feel about Tolkien's book and Peter Jackson's adaptation. It doesn't have to be justified-BN

Of course. And I have no problem with the first part which you quote- that is indeed your own opinion and needs no justification nor is it a matter up for debate.
However I found the last part- ' Peter Jackson has made that dream come true.; Sounded more like a blatant statement. As if you were decreeing a self evident truth.
I can assure you they did not make my dreams come true unless you are counting nightmares.

'Some of the stuff in the book are too childish for my taste (for instance there's too many speaking animals and I don't like the way Tolkien speaks to the reader). Besides that, some of the dialogues are unnecessarily long and too explanatory.'

No one is advocating a word for word adaptation. The mediums are different the material requires different treatment. And there will always be differences of opinion about how far those needs merit an alteration.
The problem here is its all altered, and not a little but significantly. To the point where not one major character, character arc, or plot thread has not been utterly altered and rewritten. Not just in terms of all the dialogue, but in how they act, how they develop, how they relate to each other and the story and how the plot unfolds.
PJ has not adapted TH he has written a different story hung on the skeletal framework of the books plot.

Therefore I stand by the claim the films likeness to the book is superficial. How else can you describe an adaptation which has has altered every significant factor of the book its based on?


'The additions are: the finding of the One ring (which is no longer just an innocent and helpful ring, but a dangerous ring, that can corrupt and mislead it's bearer) the backstory of the dwarves and Erebor, Gandalf in Dol Goldur, the meeting of the White Council and the revelation of the Necromancer's identity, plus Gandalf and Thorin's meeting in Bree. Each of them can be found in the Appendices of 'The Lord of the Rings', and there's also a bit of information in the chapters "The Shadow of the past" and "Council of Elrond".'

The Ring is a major problem. It should not be the big bad evil One Ring yet, that revelation is for FotR. At this point it is a handy burglars tool.
Over emphasis on the Ring and on Sauron is one of the many things which distract from the simple tale of the Hobbit as told in the book.
The back story of the dwarves is all wrong, and what PJ replaced it with is a poorer tale than the one in the appendices.

The WC as presented by PJ consists of Galadriel worship in slow motion, Saruman being so boring he is literally tuned out whilst spouting some truly atrocious dialogue about Radagast, mushrooms and yellow teeth. And the whole thing hinges on the Morgul blade invention and the Nazgul tombs, in complete contradiction to everything Tolkien every wrote about them.

So whilst it is true references to some things happening can be found in the appendices, the actual details of each event, the reasons for it, the outcomes and what happens are all made up by PJ, not adapted from Tolkien. And in many cases, such as the Nazgul, outright contradict Tolkien.

'"Well, the outcome of that battle and of the events leading up to it is basically almost the same (except that Azog survived)'

Only if by 'basically same' you mean utterly different.
In PJ's the person whose death is the spark which ignites the war dies in the battle which ends it. The person who kills him Azog also dies in the book but lives and goes on to play a prominent role in a story he was never in- namely TH.
The reason for the war, the amount of time it lasted, and important parts of the outcome and the participants are wrong.

'It definitely makes sense within Peter Jackson's adaptation and in the context of his six-film series.'

I am glad to hear you say that because you can then answer some of my questions about it.

If they have just lost Erebor prior to the battle taking place why are there so many dwarves taking part in it? It is clearly more than the survivors of Erebor. But that would mean the dwarves were united (as they were in the war in the book) but in filmverse only the Arkenstone can unite the dwarves. Thats why Thorin needs it, thats why he couldn't rally the dwarves for his quest.
So how did they all rally without is, as Smaug now has it, for the battle we see?

What was the dwarves plan? According to Balin they did not expect orcs there for some reason, and he says the orcs got there first.
But if they did not expect orcs were they going to fight the Balrog?
How could the dwarves not be rallied to go take on Smaug and get Erebor back, yet could be convinced to go retake Moria and fight a demon of the ancient world that wiped out their greatest civilization many times the power of Erebor? That doesn't make any sense at all?

What was the orcs plans? If they didn't already live in Moria why were they going there to fight the dwarves for it? If the Balrog was inside why not just let the dwarves march right in and get killed? Why fight them at all?

Why does Throin think Azog was killed when he never saw him die, never dealt him a mortal blow, and never saw a body and why does no one else think he is dead?

'The lack of descriptive details is not a problem. If it was, Peter Jackson would have to refrain from showing us'

The difference in the examples you give is that in one case the description gives you more than enough to go on and the events described to not require the invention of a much if any dialogue.
The WC assault on Dol Guldur in which they drive out the Necromancer/he feigns defeat is hardly described at all and has vague allusions to things like the 'devices of Saruman' which could mean anything. It requires a lot of explanation, a lot of invented dialogue and material and entire invention to draw a coherent filmable series of events from.

If you can only present 1% of truth from the book and have to invent 99% to realize it, and the scenes not even in the book you are adapting in the first place, maybe it shouldn't be in the film either.

'So why is it a problem, that Legolas is present in Peter Jackson's'

It is not. A cameo, standing there by his fathers throne, or at the feast in Mirkwood had PJ bothered to show it, would have been great. A nice touch.
Giving him prominence, stunts even more over the top than his worst LotR's offenses, making him look like a zombie with the personality of a racist and then sticking him in a love triangle with a female guard and a dwarf is however an entirely other matter. And none of it has a fig to do with Bilbo.

'the basic elements are there'

As I said, PJ has taken the basic structural form, the main events- trolls, rivendell, mountains, Beorn, ect but he hasn't expanded the story he has written his own stories and hung them on the framework. They connect to all the dots but everything in between is his own. Nothing to do with Tolkien or the book or with Bilbo.

'Excuse me for saying so, but to me that's pure nonsense. It seems like something people would only say for the sake of argument. But if that's really how you perceive these movies, then it's a total mystery to me how your mind works.'

Well one of the ways my mind works is by noticing. I edit purist version out of Pj's films, and having edited the first two hobbit films I know how much material can be removed entirely without having a single effect on the supposed main character. Over half of the running time has nothing to do with Bilbo, has no effect on his character, or he is simply not present for as they are separate story threads entirely.
However if you look at Thorin as a character, he features prominently, we get his back story and his motivations, we get the history of Erebor, we get a flashback to his meeting with Gandalf before Bilbo even joins, and unlike book Thorin, film Thorin is heroic and young with a noble cause.

Bilbo on the other hand is even reduced to just a cipher for seemingly more important events- at Rivendell his conversion with Elrond is just an excuse to overhear about Thorin dragon sickness. In the Eleven Kings Halls he is used as an excuse to overhear the more important matter of Tauriel and Thranduil discussing Legolas.
Unlike the book which is seen entirely through Bilbo's eyes, the film is less than half of the time with Bilbo, and often in that time he is either just there, or he is doing the oppoiste of in the book (as in saving Thorins life, killing a warg ect) or he is an excuse to introduce stuff thats not about him and not from the book.

'The movie does not have to follow the book strictly in order to be good.'

As I said near the beginning you won't find anyone here advocating a word for word adaptation. But there is a difference between not following the book at every point and deviating from it at every point.

'I do think, it's a bit arrogant to say, that there's something wrong with Peter Jackson's understanding of Tolkien. Each of us has a personal benefit of reading Tolkien's books, and there is no universal truth when it comes to this'

I don't think he does understand Tolkien. I don't think he ever has or desired to. I don't think understanding Tolkien on a critical literary level mattered to him, the themes and such were not what attracted PJ.

That to me is clear from the handling of LotR's central theme of death in RotK.
The author himself states this as the theme, in Letters he expouses clearly on how that theme comes together in the events on Mt Doom. And in every way the theme comes together in the book PJ undermines it in the film.
He fumbles, in fact deliberately throws away the books central theme.
So no I don't think he does understand Tolkien.

I am enjoying this debate however. Good to stretch my legs again.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:It's my PERSONAL opinion or taste - it's how I feel about Tolkien's book and Peter Jackson's adaptation. It doesn't have to be justified-BN

Of course. And I have no problem with the first part which you quote- that is indeed your own opinion and needs no justification nor is it a matter up for debate.
However I found the last part- ' Peter Jackson has made that dream come true.; Sounded more like a blatant statement. As if you were decreeing a self evident truth.
I can assure you they did not make my dreams come true unless you are counting nightmares.

'Some of the stuff in the book are too childish for my taste (for instance there's too many speaking animals and I don't like the way Tolkien speaks to the reader). Besides that, some of the dialogues are unnecessarily long and too explanatory.'

No one is advocating a word for word adaptation. The mediums are different the material requires different treatment. And there will always be differences of opinion about how far those needs merit an alteration.
The problem here is its all altered, and not a little but significantly. To the point where not one major character, character arc, or plot thread has not been utterly altered and rewritten. Not just in terms of all the dialogue, but in how they act, how they develop, how they relate to each other and the story and how the plot unfolds.
PJ has not adapted TH he has written a different story hung on the skeletal framework of the books plot.

Therefore I stand by the claim the films likeness to the book is superficial. How else can you describe an adaptation which has has altered every significant factor of the book its based on?


'The additions are: the finding of the One ring (which is no longer just an innocent and helpful ring, but a dangerous ring, that can corrupt and mislead it's bearer) the backstory of the dwarves and Erebor, Gandalf in Dol Goldur, the meeting of the White Council and the revelation of the Necromancer's identity, plus Gandalf and Thorin's meeting in Bree. Each of them can be found in the Appendices of 'The Lord of the Rings', and there's also a bit of information in the chapters "The Shadow of the past" and "Council of Elrond".'

The Ring is a major problem. It should not be the big bad evil One Ring yet, that revelation is for FotR. At this point it is a handy burglars tool.
Over emphasis on the Ring and on Sauron is one of the many things which distract from the simple tale of the Hobbit as told in the book.
The back story of the dwarves is all wrong, and what PJ replaced it with is a poorer tale than the one in the appendices.

The WC as presented by PJ consists of Galadriel worship in slow motion, Saruman being so boring he is literally tuned out whilst spouting some truly atrocious dialogue about Radagast, mushrooms and yellow teeth. And the whole thing hinges on the Morgul blade invention and the Nazgul tombs, in complete contradiction to everything Tolkien every wrote about them.

So whilst it is true references to some things happening can be found in the appendices, the actual details of each event, the reasons for it, the outcomes and what happens are all made up by PJ, not adapted from Tolkien. And in many cases, such as the Nazgul, outright contradict Tolkien.

'"Well, the outcome of that battle and of the events leading up to it is basically almost the same (except that Azog survived)'

Only if by 'basically same' you mean utterly different.
In PJ's the person whose death is the spark which ignites the war dies in the battle which ends it. The person who kills him Azog also dies in the book but lives and goes on to play a prominent role in a story he was never in- namely TH.
The reason for the war, the amount of time it lasted, and important parts of the outcome and the participants are wrong.

'It definitely makes sense within Peter Jackson's adaptation and in the context of his six-film series.'

I am glad to hear you say that because you can then answer some of my questions about it.

If they have just lost Erebor prior to the battle taking place why are there so many dwarves taking part in it? It is clearly more than the survivors of Erebor. But that would mean the dwarves were united (as they were in the war in the book) but in filmverse only the Arkenstone can unite the dwarves.  Thats why Thorin needs it, thats why he couldn't rally the dwarves for his quest.
So how did they all rally without is, as Smaug now has it, for the battle we see?

What was the dwarves plan? According to Balin they did not expect orcs there for some reason, and he says the orcs got there first.
But if they did not expect orcs were they going to fight the Balrog?
How could the dwarves not be rallied to go take on Smaug and get Erebor back, yet could be convinced to go retake Moria and fight a demon of the ancient world that wiped out their greatest civilization many times the power of Erebor? That doesn't make any sense at all?

What was the orcs plans? If they didn't already live in Moria why were they going there to fight the dwarves for it? If the Balrog was inside why not just let the dwarves march right in and get killed? Why fight them at all?

Why does Throin think Azog was killed when he never saw him die, never dealt him a mortal blow, and never saw a body and why does no one else think he is dead?

'The lack of descriptive details is not a problem. If it was, Peter Jackson would have to refrain from showing us'

The difference in the examples you give is that in one case the description gives you more than enough to go on and the events described to not require the invention of a much if any dialogue.
The WC assault on Dol Guldur in which they drive out the Necromancer/he feigns defeat is hardly described at all and has vague allusions to things like the 'devices of Saruman' which could mean anything. It requires a lot of explanation, a lot of invented dialogue and material and entire invention to draw a coherent filmable series of events from.

If you can only present 1% of truth from the book and have to invent 99% to realize it, and the scenes not even in the book you are adapting in the first place, maybe it shouldn't be in the film either.

'So why is it a problem, that Legolas is present in Peter Jackson's'

It is not. A cameo, standing there by his fathers throne, or at the feast in Mirkwood had PJ bothered to show it, would have been great. A nice touch.
Giving him prominence, stunts even more over the top than his worst LotR's offenses, making him look like a zombie with the personality of a racist and then sticking him in a love triangle with a female guard and a dwarf is however an entirely other matter. And none of it has a fig to do with Bilbo.

'the basic elements are there'

As I said, PJ has taken the basic structural form, the main events- trolls, rivendell, mountains, Beorn, ect but he hasn't expanded the story he has written his own stories and hung them on the framework. They connect to all the dots but everything in between is his own. Nothing to do with Tolkien or the book or with Bilbo.

'Excuse me for saying so, but to me that's pure nonsense. It seems like something people would only say for the sake of argument. But if that's really how you perceive these movies, then it's a total mystery to me how your mind works.'

Well one of the ways my mind works is by noticing. I edit purist version out of Pj's films, and having edited the first two hobbit films I know how much material can be removed entirely without having a single effect on the supposed main character. Over half of the running time has nothing to do with Bilbo, has no effect on his character, or he is simply not present for as they are separate story threads entirely.
However if you look at Thorin as a character, he features prominently, we get his back story and his motivations, we get the history of Erebor, we get a flashback to his meeting with Gandalf before Bilbo even joins, and unlike book Thorin, film Thorin is heroic and young with a noble cause.

Bilbo on the other hand is even reduced to just a cipher for seemingly more important events- at Rivendell his conversion with Elrond is just an excuse to overhear about Thorin dragon sickness. In the Eleven Kings Halls he is used as an excuse to overhear the more important matter of Tauriel and Thranduil discussing Legolas.
Unlike the book which is seen entirely through Bilbo's eyes, the film is less than half of the time with Bilbo, and often in that time he is either just there, or he is doing the oppoiste of in the book (as in saving Thorins life, killing  a warg ect) or he is an excuse to introduce stuff thats not about him and not from the book.

'The movie does not have to follow the book strictly in order to be good.'

As I said near the beginning you won't find anyone here advocating a word for word adaptation. But there is a difference between not following the book at every point and deviating from it at every point.

'I do think, it's a bit arrogant to say, that there's something wrong with Peter Jackson's understanding of Tolkien. Each of us has a personal benefit of reading Tolkien's books, and there is no universal truth when it comes to this'

I don't think he does understand Tolkien. I don't think he ever has or desired to. I don't think understanding Tolkien on a critical literary level mattered to him, the themes and such were not what attracted PJ.

That to me is clear from the handling of LotR's central theme of death in RotK.
The author himself states this as the theme, in Letters he expouses clearly on how that theme comes together in the events on Mt Doom. And in every way the theme comes together in the book PJ undermines it in the film.
He fumbles, in fact deliberately throws away the books central theme.
So no I don't think he does understand Tolkien.

I am enjoying this debate however. Good to stretch my legs again.

I'll be back ... tomorrow. Here in Denmark it's just before midnight, and I'm going to bed. See you

It's interesting to have a Petty counterpart around!

In case you don't know, B.N., Petty has done re-editing of all the LotR films, so can argue in encyclopedic detail.  It tickled me to see you bandying about numbers and timings for the Hobbit films: Petty finally has met his mirror image, and a possibly photonic anti-matter explosion is in the works.  Should be exciting to watch....

bungobaggins wrote:Figgs and I don't agree on everything, especially when it comes to the LOTR films. But at least this isn't an environment where a member with a differing opinion will be labeled as a "hater" or "troll" and chased off the board.

Welcome to Forumshire.

I think BN is right that this place sometimes gets too circle-jerky when it comes to The Hobbit films.  This is extremely common with forums, and there's only so much you can do to counter it when a majority opinion exists, but the siege mentality re: TORn doesn't help matters.

I am happy with our policies regarding posting conduct.

halfwise wrote:It's interesting to have a Petty counterpart around!

In case you don't know, B.N., Petty has done re-editing of all the LotR films, so can argue in encyclopedic detail.  It tickled me to see you bandying about numbers and timings for the Hobbit films: Petty finally has met his mirror image, and a possibly photonic anti-matter explosion is in the works.  Should be exciting to watch....

But the thing is Petty uses stuff from Tolkien and most people who defend Jackson come up with arguments based on things Jackson or Boyens has said or their interpretation of what they think Tolkien said and not facts from Tolkien or his works. Facts from Tolkien is something Jackson halfassed took, threw into a blender added a bunch of crap, and made into his own for his own ulterior motives, and not in anyway to present something of Tolkien like on the screen.

I'm glad someone likes Jackson's Hobbit films ... I don't but I'm glad someone does. I will say I do like the bits that are directly from Tolkien, that said with LOTR they were fine, not perfect but for me acceptable, with the Hobbit Tolkien is so muddied in Jackson's made up nonsense, that its confusing and terrible. When Jackson lets Tolkien breath and tell the story it should its rather good but again its far and few between which is a shame for me.

It's interesting to have a Petty counterpart around!- Halfy

I hope by counterpart you dont mean BN is teetotal!

Eldo I think there is a consensus on TH films on this forum- nobody was a a big fan, so anyone arguing the contrary is going to get a lot of counter argument. Hard to see how to avoid that when people want to respond.

But at the same time we have a wide gulf on the LotR's films between say my perfectly correct view on them and Figgs misguided one.

But I think having a wider spread of stuff to talk about than just the films we disagree on here allows folk to feel more at home when they find other subjects they may have agreement on with people they disagree over TH films with.

BN.filmz wrote:
I'll be back ... tomorrow. Here in Denmark it's just before midnight, and I'm going to bed. See you

Aha, a dane! You lot always were a funny bunch

(En spøk, selvsagt )

Eldorion wrote:I think BN is right that this place sometimes gets too circle-jerky when it comes to The Hobbit films.  This is extremely common with forums, and there's only so much you can do to counter it when a majority opinion exists, but the siege mentality re: TORn doesn't help matters.

Actually, looking at the upswing in activity when someone offers a contrary opinion, I'm not so sure. If anything I'd say it shows people around here value the debate.

The major problem I have with the movies is that while you on the one hand have Tolkiens original story book, you don't have Jacksons story in the movies. You have Tolkiens story with Jacksons alterations and additions. Now, can altering and adding to a story work if it's done in the same style as the original? Sure, though Jackson and co have never struck me as very competent writers. Their alterations in the LotRs movies seldom failed to create paradoxes and plot problems that didn't exist in the original. But Jacksons style is widely divergent from Tolkiens, so in the altered and added to versions you get story parts conflicting and dragging in the completely opposite directions.

Now, none of this is opinion in my opinion. Jacksons style differes widely from Tolkien and to me it makes the movies feel conflicted and uncohesive.

Though if you like the Jackson stuff and not the Tolkien stuff, or vice versa, maybe you can pull through and like it. Or perhaps you like both and don't mind. It doesn't work for me anyway, pushed together in the same movie.