The Hobbit

It seems like Peter Jackson is going to do it again.

I actually liked the first LotR movie and I think Peter Jackson got the look right but I was seriously disappointed by the two sequels. It seems to me that the sequels were moving away from the book.

Jackson completely raped Faramir and betrayed the spirit of the book with the ending. Judging by the way the mount Doom scene was treated I'm convinced that he didn't understand what the book was about. I won't mention the ents or the dwarf tossing. Dumbing down a great story has nothing to do with adapting it to the screen. Also when you know that Tolkien spent 12 years writing this book and paid attention to every details you can't help wondering why Jackson had to change dates and places (taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath didn't make sense at all).

Anyway, it's going to get harder and harder to avoid the hype about the new movies so we may as well discuss them here.

I'm really glad Martin Freeman is going to star in this movie. He is a great choice and can really bring something likeable to the character on the screen.

What I don't get is how can they possibly justify the introduction of a new character named Tauriel who is rumored to be a female elven warrior... That is just preposterous. In LotR Arwen replaced Glorfindel and that was already kinda iffy but introducing a new character?!!

We can only assume that Peter Jackson decided to please the masses who want badass warrior princesses à la Xena or that he felt that the Hobbit didn't present enough eye candy/female hotness. In any case that seems to be a very misguided way to handle a story that already features a large number of characters.

I expect that it will cheapen the whole thing and while I was getting interested in seeing what they could get out of the Hobbit on the screen I really doubt that I'm going to like all those changes. Especially if we're to expect Mary Sues and fanfiction instead of Tolkien's writing.

I've found a site that lists all the differences between Jackson's movies and the original book. It is worth a read for anyone who believes that the movies are true to the Lord of the Rings.

The Fellowship of the Ring

The Two Towers

The Return of the King

The worst thing is that the changes that were introduced in the movies never improved on the material but only demonstrated the lack of subtlety of the movie compared to the film -and I'm not even getting into all the "cool" additions that cheapen the whole thing (Gandalf's kungfu when he kicks Denethor's backside, Legolas and Gimli's wrestling with Théoden's guards among other things).

I think I'm going to watch Willow again instead of getting all riled up. By the way it seems obvious to me that Jackson's movies have a few scenes in common with Willow. The inn scene and the Gandalf/Saruman fight in the first movie can remind a viewer of the inn scene in Willow and the Bavmorda fight scene.

Tolkian had a power that can't be translated into a movie. He made the world come alive. I read those books years ago but I was an adult and I remember getting the shivers at his description.

Have you seen this? I like the statement "Keep calm the Mayans were simply counting down to The Hobbit."
The Hobbit movie

Such pretentiousness is something I've noticed before. Peter Jackson was reported saying that they should make a book out of his movie (the Lord of the Rings). The guy seems to think he is funny.

I find it hard to believe he actually said that. Is it fact or just a rumour?
I am both shocked and laughing.

I read it in the official booklet for the first movie. To be honest it was meant as a quip.

One of those quips that can be easily misunderstood. Some things do not translate well to print.

I like to think of the Lord of the Rings books and the Lord of the Rings movies as two separate things. That is, when I read the books, I pretend the movies don't exist, and when I watch the movies, I simply pretend the books don't exist.

Although, there will always be that one thorn in my side when it comes to the movies.

They didn't have Tom Bombadil.

I salute your ability to separate the book and the movies, it's a wise way to look upon this subject.

Being able to apprehend the movies as "something else" would certainly help me.

I wonder who could have been cast as Tom Bombadil or how they could have pulled that off. It's not like this character would translate that well on screen and it would probably have introduced many questions for the audience (some of which are asked by Frodo in the book when he suggests giving the ring to Bombadil).