Join 3,363 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The Hobbit Movie, It's Offical
April 25, 2008 8:35 AM   Subscribe

It's official, Del Torro is on board for the new Hobbit move and it's...um..sequel. Anyway, he seems to be adamant in keeping the as much as the original creative team on board which is a encouraging sign, roll on 2010?
posted by Mintyblonde (91 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
Gah. Fuck your hobbits. Mountains of Madness!
posted by Artw at 8:47 AM on April 25, 2008


Hobbit 2: Hobbit Harder? I had no idea...
posted by gc at 8:48 AM on April 25, 2008


This has been in the works for some time; it may only be "official" now, but it's been a done deal for months now. Some interesting details in the interview though.
posted by [NOT HERMITOSIS-IST] at 8:49 AM on April 25, 2008


The reference to a sequel in the first article is a mistake. See note at the end of the corrected article. And thank god for that.
posted by SirNovember at 8:49 AM on April 25, 2008


A corrected Yahoo article, I should say.
posted by SirNovember at 8:52 AM on April 25, 2008


He understands that the fantastic must be grounded in the real and that all stories are only ever a reflection of ourselves,” say Jackson and Walsh.

Oh great a period piece, in 50 years they'll look back and say "it was a reflection of themselves," and be largely forgotten. I hope not, but such is the case for the vast majority of art that doesn't age well.
posted by stbalbach at 8:52 AM on April 25, 2008


Del Toro, just one "r" (as in bull in Spanish).
posted by dov3 at 8:53 AM on April 25, 2008


Hobbit 2: Bilbo Goes Wild
Hobbit 2: Ringbearer Boogaloo
Hobbit 2: Gandalf Goes a'Courtin
Hobbit 2: Over the Top
Hobbit 2: The Prequeling
Hobbit 2: The Labyrinth of the Golden Army and Also Blade 2
posted by robocop is bleeding at 8:56 AM on April 25, 2008 [5 favorites]


SirNovember: "The reference to a sequel in the first article is a mistake. See note at the end of the corrected article. And thank god for that."

OH FUCK YES. There's a lot of time between The Hobbit and Fellowship, but I'd been scared since I had first heard the news (rumor?) of trying to make that time into a movie. There's no story there. Aragorn Growing Up? The White Council vs. The Necromancer? Ents Not Doing Much? It'd be a stretch, and it'd be 80% non-Tolkien at best. Splitting the Hobbit into two movies (as the party enters Mirkwood might be a good point, or maybe just as they leave the Misty Mountains) would be a better idea if New Line feels that need for additional cash infusion.
posted by Plutor at 8:56 AM on April 25, 2008


My halfling just went to full orc.
posted by ColdChef at 8:59 AM on April 25, 2008 [12 favorites]


...the original creative team on board

ZOMBIE TOLKEIN DEMANDS LENGTHY ELF DRINKING SONGS
posted by DU at 9:01 AM on April 25, 2008 [23 favorites]


It sounds like they're talking about bisecting The Hobbit into two movies. I can see this working, with the mid point being arriving at Bjorn's Farm. The pursuit out of the mountains would make a nice climax. It would be difficult to fit that and the Battle of the Five Armies into one movie.

Del Toro is an interesting choice. He's more light-hearted than Jackson, I think. The Hobbit needs that. He's certainly at the top of his game right now. I hopeful.
posted by bonehead at 9:06 AM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


Del Toro is an interesting choice. He's more light-hearted than Jackson, I think.

Uh, Pan's Labyrinth?
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 9:10 AM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


Yay! Just no eyeless monsters. /shudder
posted by cowbellemoo at 9:11 AM on April 25, 2008


The real question is not how to bisect the book into the movie, but what has he got in his pocketses? Hmmm, precioussss?
posted by never used baby shoes at 9:12 AM on April 25, 2008 [2 favorites]


Here's hoping they do split it in two, and that it sets a precedent for films in general to be longer and more marathon-like.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 9:16 AM on April 25, 2008 [2 favorites]


Uh, Pan's Labyrinth?

Right, but also Hellboy. Hardly a perfect movie, but better than good for what it was. One of the reasons it was what it was was Del Toro's ability to play with a camp sensibility and allow a bit of comedy to salt the mix.
posted by bonehead at 9:17 AM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


If they need to pad out some prequels, they should focus on Tom Bombadil! Everyone loves Tom Bombadil, right?
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:17 AM on April 25, 2008


Oh, snap! Del Toro > Peter Jackson, no question. That said, I want my At the Mountains of Madness too.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:19 AM on April 25, 2008



Del Toro is an interesting choice. He's more light-hearted than Jackson, I think.

Uh, Pan's Labyrinth?


Not to mention Chronos and The Devil's Backbone.

Great stuff, though.
posted by Dr-Baa at 9:19 AM on April 25, 2008


I have fond memories of The Hobbit; it was assigned reading in 8th grade, and yet for some reason, every day we had story time in class. The teacher would turn off the lights, put on one of those lightbulb-and-cellophane campfires, and play a tape of him reading last night's assigned chapter, in which he clearly took great joy. I have no explanation for this, but it was fun, and memorable. The experience, not the book. I have no idea what happened in the book, although I read it, possibly more than once.

God help us all, though, if this adaptation is as dry, tedious, or long as the Lord of the Rings movies. I have faith in Del Toro. I think.
posted by uncleozzy at 9:19 AM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


Until then, we'll have to settle for the trailer.
(You've been Bil-Bo'd)
posted by hal9k at 9:25 AM on April 25, 2008 [2 favorites]


More interestingly to me, he's also got Hellboy 2 coming out. Which, if you look at the trailers, you can clearly see that Del Toro's current stuff has been heavily influenced by his work on Pan's Labyrinth, which I suspect is going to be a Good Thing, in terms of creature design and special effects.
posted by quin at 9:27 AM on April 25, 2008


Something tells me Executive Producers Jackson and Walsh will not be hands-off. So "del Toro is kinda light-hearted" or "Hellboy made me cry blood" probably won't impact the end product a hell of a lot. Not to mention The Hobbit is a more light-hearted story than the rest. There are a few scary moments, and a giant battle, but it's not a war movie. The end isn't bitter-sweet, it's cheerful.
posted by Plutor at 9:28 AM on April 25, 2008


Honestly, I was trying to picture Benicio Del Toro as a hobbit.
posted by medium format at 9:30 AM on April 25, 2008 [13 favorites]


I don't know. I get the feeling that Del Toro's too beholden to producers sometimes. I'm a huge, squealing fanboy for Pan's Labyrinth, Devil's Backbone, and Cronos. But Hellboy abd Mimic both felt like they had ten different drivers all fighting for control of where the movie was going. I hope that Del Toro's confident enough in himself and his vision to see Mountains of Madness and The Hobbit the movies they have the potential to be.
posted by lekvar at 9:31 AM on April 25, 2008


I wonder if Jackson and Walsh will let Del Toro bring his posse with him. Ron Perlman as Bjorn, perhaps, and Doug Jones miming Smaug inside a 4 ton latex armature...
posted by Iridic at 9:38 AM on April 25, 2008


On Mimic I think Del Toror said something along the lines of “The producers wanted me to make something like Aliens, and I wanted to make Mimic”, and what you see on the screen is the result.

Hellboy I loved. The story was a bit all-over-the-place (at least one of the deleted scenes would have to be reinserted to for it to make complete sense, IMHO), and it has too many endings, but it captured the characters perfectly. I’d even concede that the boring gateway character is kind of necessary. Very much looking forwards to round two.

The Hobbit, well, as I said it’s not Mountains of Madness, and we already have three long-ass boring movies set in that world, do we need two more?

I really miss the indy Jackson that would do clever cheap productions, let’s hope this doesn’t effect Del Toro the same way.
posted by Artw at 9:40 AM on April 25, 2008


If Doug Jones and Andy Serkis meet, they will have to fight.
posted by Tenuki at 9:44 AM on April 25, 2008 [2 favorites]


Don't fuck it up - Don't fuck it up - Don't fuck it up
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 9:45 AM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


The Hobbit, well, as I said it’s not Mountains of Madness, and we already have three long-ass boring movies set in that world, do we need two more?


Those of us who loved those movies--despite their faults--would say yes. Oh, and your favourite movie sucks.

Don't fuck it up - Don't fuck it up - Don't fuck it up

That's what I'm saying. PJ did a decent job with LOTR, which as a book is largely unfilmable. He managed to hit most of the salient points, and made a decent movie. I hope they do as well or better with The Hobbit--I think TH will actually be a lot easier to transfer from book to screen. It's more of a 'story' where LOTR is more of a 'saga' or 'history'.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:56 AM on April 25, 2008


Hobbit 2: 2 Ringz 2 Rule Them All
posted by Parasite Unseen at 9:57 AM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


but it captured the characters perfectly.

I'm going to have to disagree.
posted by lekvar at 9:57 AM on April 25, 2008


If Ron Perlman painted red is good enough for Mignola it’s good enough for me.
posted by Artw at 10:04 AM on April 25, 2008


Hobbit 2: Bilbo Boogaloo
posted by quin at 10:08 AM on April 25, 2008


Stylistically, yes, Hellboy was spot-on. But I didn't think the characters reflected the comic very well, and the plot as a whole was a poorly-stiched-together quilt of Seeds of Destruction and a half-dozen short stories.

Ron Pearlman certainly was born to play the part though, wasn't he?
posted by lekvar at 10:12 AM on April 25, 2008


we already have three long-ass boring movies set in that world, do we need two more?

uhh, you could just not go see them.
posted by acid freaking on the kitty at 10:12 AM on April 25, 2008


Second film a mistake? So this comment was a mistake too?
Fans are all abuzz about ‘The Second Film’, can you tell some of your plans for it?

GDT: You know, I traveled to New Zealand just a little while ago, and one of the main reasons for going was to sit down and talk about the second film. ‘The Hobbit’, the book, is really one self-contained film, so for the second movie we sat down and worked it out. When we did this we got really excited because this second film is not a ‘tag on’, it’s not ‘filler’, it’s an integral part of telling the story of those 50 years of history lost in the narrative. There will be certain things that we will see from the first movie but from a different point of view, but it will feel like a volume, in the 5 volumes of the entire story. It will not feel like a bridge, I’ve been hearing it called ‘a bridge film’, it’s not, it’s an integral chapter of the story, and I think we’re all on the same page.
posted by lyam at 10:14 AM on April 25, 2008


ZOMBIE TOLKEIN DEMANDS LENGTHY ELF DRINKING SONGS

and that someone fetch him some pipeweed and brains!!! Also, he will subject the next miscreant to misspell his name to a reenactment of Beowulf in the original Old English before trying to feed on them, so watch out!

I fear to learn how they will depict dear old Bilbo. I'm not sure I can bear to watch.
posted by Tehanu at 10:37 AM on April 25, 2008


So lyam, in other words, the second film is fan-fiction?
posted by JHarris at 10:44 AM on April 25, 2008


Hobbit 2: Bilbo Goes Wild

Hobbit 1: In which Bilbo is uncharacteristically adventurous and develops a non-canonical love interest to "keep viewers engaged." Featuring the Lovably Cranky Dwarves and the return of Huggy Gandalf, who wears his heart on his wizardly sleeve!

Hobbit 2: In which Bilbo saves the day in ways just as unlikely as the original text but lacking all of the charm and subtle humor. Smaug's true scariness will hinge on his CGI awesomeness, plus there will be many stabbings and beheadings of orcs. Legolas makes an appearance. Yay!
posted by Tehanu at 10:45 AM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


Nthing the skip this and give me my Lovecraft!
Mountains of Madness FTW, dammit.
posted by willmize at 10:46 AM on April 25, 2008


God, Hobbit 2 sounds like even more of a waste of MoM time the more he describes it. Hopefully back-toback filming will mean he gets it out of the way quickly.
posted by Artw at 11:00 AM on April 25, 2008


BEORN. He's not in ABBA, for cryin' out loud, he's a werebear!
posted by dragstroke at 11:01 AM on April 25, 2008 [3 favorites]


So lyam, in other words, the second film is fan-fiction?
posted by JHarris at 1:44 PM on April 25 [+] [!]
Yes. Wait. What? I'm getting confused. GTD is directing two movies. One is based on the Hobbit and the other based on some writers ideas about what took place between the Hobbit and LOTR. Right? So... The correction in the Yahoo article is a mistake in and of itself. Or, GTD is himself mistaken in that he is only directing one movie?
posted by lyam at 11:06 AM on April 25, 2008


The greatest little hobbit of them all!
posted by stevil at 11:08 AM on April 25, 2008 [4 favorites]


Hobbit 2: Shire Drift
posted by Godbert at 11:09 AM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


One of the werebear bunch, you might say.
posted by bouncebounce at 11:16 AM on April 25, 2008


The Card Cheat,

Tom Bombadil makes sense if you've read the Silmarillion, not that I would do that.......

Try making that into a movie, gahg......:-P

Remember everyone, if you read the LOTR three times in one year, you magically regain your virginity.

Cheers
posted by dibblda at 11:28 AM on April 25, 2008 [2 favorites]


I love Tom Bombadil. (so there!)

I was also glad they left him out of the movies because they would have just wrecked him.

My enjoyment of the first three movies is increased exponentially when I have a fast forward button in my hand, so I can skip all the parts that have Frodo, Sam, Gollum, or that annoying Isengard theme music.
posted by small_ruminant at 11:44 AM on April 25, 2008


Hobbit 2: Second Breakfast
posted by stet at 11:45 AM on April 25, 2008 [4 favorites]


/me busts New Hobbit move
posted by tommasz at 11:46 AM on April 25, 2008


Oh, come on guys--the split between the movies is obvious:

Hobbit 1: There
Hobbit 2: Back Again
posted by LionIndex at 11:48 AM on April 25, 2008 [15 favorites]


So if he's not going to include Lobster Claw Johnson in any of the Hellboy movies, maybe he could fit him into the Hobbit?
posted by P.o.B. at 12:14 PM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm waiting for the third movie in the series.

Hobbit 3: Tokyo Drift
posted by cazoo at 12:23 PM on April 25, 2008


Tom Bombadil makes sense if you've read the Silmarillion, not that I would do that.......

Wait, so could you put him in context for me because I tried to read the Silmarillion and got maybe 5 pages deap before having a confusion seizure. Also known in some parts as a conniption.
posted by nola at 12:28 PM on April 25, 2008


OMG. Don't you get it, guys? Hobbit + At the Mountains of Madness = At the Misty Mountains of Madness. What is Smaug, but an elder thing? Dagon...Dragon...coincidence? I think not.
posted by juv3nal at 12:30 PM on April 25, 2008 [2 favorites]


Meh. Better he should film Bored of the Rings.

Seriously, though, this could be good. I hope it is. Beorn would be fun... the real problem is that the last chunk of the book sort of peters out, and I don't mean Jackson. But I love it anyway, always did. I pray the film(s) will be good.

Smaug, the trolls... (turned to stone, they do show up briefly in Jackson's epic).

Ian Holm for Bilbo? Please? Pleeeease?
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 12:31 PM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


Lifes too short for reading the Silmarillion.
posted by Artw at 12:35 PM on April 25, 2008 [2 favorites]


Nola,

Bombadil and his wife are probably one of the Maiar, at least that's my take on it. Too bad the Silmarillion reads like a bible, there are some potentially good stories in there if the were fleshed out a bit more....
posted by dibblda at 12:37 PM on April 25, 2008


they were fleshed out that is....
posted by dibblda at 12:38 PM on April 25, 2008


I always thought Bombadil and his wife were Middle Earth in some way- he was the earth and she was the water. Put them together and you get life.
posted by small_ruminant at 12:44 PM on April 25, 2008


dibblda: "Bombadil and his wife are probably one of the Maiar, at least that's my take on it."

The fact that The One Ring has no power over Tom (and in fact he has significant power over it) stands in stark contrast to how the ring manipulates every Maiar in the book (well, besides Radagast). If he's one of the Maia, he's far an away the most powerful.

The Encyclopedia of Arda's article on Bombadil has a great discussion about what he is. I like the idea that he's Iluvatar, but Tolkien himself said there's no personification of the creator in Middle Earth. Eru is purposely remote.
posted by Plutor at 12:54 PM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


Did anyone see Blade II? That's the kind of martial arts Bilbo does.
posted by rusty at 12:55 PM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


Every time someone mentions Mimic I am compelled to note that their set designer visited the lab where I worked to take notes on what entomology labs look like. Our lab did not look like the one in the movie.
posted by sevenyearlurk at 1:20 PM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


Sorry! I don't want any adventures, thank you. Not today. Good morning!
posted by loquacious at 1:21 PM on April 25, 2008 [5 favorites]


Plutor,

thanks for the link.....looks like he is a mystery
posted by dibblda at 1:41 PM on April 25, 2008


Too bad the Silmarillion reads like a bible

That wasn't really a mistake. Tolkien and Lewis both wrote allegorically.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:50 PM on April 25, 2008


Artw writes "The Hobbit, well, as I said it’s not Mountains of Madness, and we already have three long-ass boring movies set in that world, do we need two more?"

I never really associate Tolkien with Lovecraft, and I hadn't thought to compare them. IMO they're completely different types of writers, both great for completely different reasons.

That said, I'm getting a bit burned out on the movies. I'd love to see Lovecraft done in cinema, but not done badly.
posted by krinklyfig at 1:55 PM on April 25, 2008


Hobbit 2: Thorin Sits Down And Starts Singing About Gold.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 2:19 PM on April 25, 2008 [2 favorites]


He'll flip ya. Flip ya for real.
posted by stenseng at 3:13 PM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


dirtynumbangelboy: "Tolkien and Lewis both wrote allegorically."

Tolkien hated allegory.
posted by Plutor at 3:13 PM on April 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


That said, I'm getting a bit burned out on the movies. I'd love to see Lovecraft done in cinema, but not done badly.

I am forced into speech because dwarves from under the mountain have refused to follow my advice without knowing why. It is altogether against my will that I tell my reasons for opposing this contemplated invasion of the Lonely Mountain - with its vast dragon hunt and its wholesale looting and fencing of the ancient dragon hoard. And I am the more reluctant because my warning may be in vain.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:19 PM on April 25, 2008


I have mixed feelings about all of this.

You need to understand that I love Tolkien's work. Fucking love it. I have pretty much all of his books, even Tree & Leaf, so I'm pretty hardcore about this stuff. To hear the news that The Hobbit was being made into a film was as joyous a moment as when I heard that LOTR was being made into a trilogy all those years ago. But as only a hardcore Tolkien nerd can do, I have a love hate relationship with the LOTR trilogy.

Loved Fellowship. After seeing that I thought that all my Christmases had come at once. Obviously there was stuff in there that had been changed and cut, Bombadil being the most obvious example, but even as a hardcore Tolkien nerd I knew that this was inevitable. I rationalised that even in a 3 hour film, stuff was going to need to be cut, and I accepted and agreed that Bombadil was one of the things that probably needed to be cut. Other major changes, such as Aaragorn leaving without the reforged Narsil were more egregious to me, but frankly I was just so happy to see my favorite book on the big screen that it didn't matter. When the extended edition came out on DVD later that year featuring the Gifting scene that had been sorely missing from the theatrical version, I was ready to worship at the feet of Peter Jackson for ever.

And then came The Two Towers. I cannot explain to you just how disappointed I was with this film. I have come to realise that there are two kinds of people when it comes to the big screen version of The Two Towers. Those who love it and those who despise it. Those who like it are, for the most part, people who have never read the book. Those who despise it, a group which includes me, are people who have either read the book or are people who can see that the changes Jackson made to the narrative of the book don't make sense even within the self contained universe that the film-version of LOTR takes place in.

Obviously there's the Battle of Helms Deep, where the fucking elves show up, which stands as the greatest sin committed by Jackson in translating the book to film. I could go on at length about the reasons why this is a horrible, horrible move that would have Tolkien rolling in his grave (and I have done so elsewhere on the internets) but I won't. Then there's that stupid Warg battle, where a main character appears to 'die' once again (my friends and I have a drinking game when watching these films where you take a swig every time a main character appears to die but then turns out never to have died at all). And then there's changes like Frodo offering the ring to the Nazgul at Osgiliath, something that dosen't happen in the book at all, which flies in the face of Gandalf's assertion that their only chance of success is for 'the ring and its journey to be kept secret from Sauron.' But instead we have a scene where the Nazgul sees the ring, the one thing he's been searching for since his masters return... the one thing his master needs to win the war, but instead of killing Frodo where he stands and just taking it he kind of just stares at Frodo for a while instead before flying away after his winged beast is shot with one lousy arrow. And then we're expected to believe that he goes back to Mordor and says "Hey guys, I saw the ring at Osgiliath. Uhh... do you think there's anything we should be worried about? Y'now... given it was originally in The Shire and now is pretty damn close to the one place it can be destroyed?" You're telling me that upon learning that The One Ring is in a poorly defended human town on the edge of his territory Sauron dosen't send every single troop that he has, dosen't send all nine riders at once to ensure that he takes the ring he should now know is there? I could continue to go on but I won't. Sufficed to say after The Two Towers I lost a lot of faith in Jackson to deliver this book in movie form without fucking it up any further than he already had.

Return of the King was, in my opinion, a return to form. Obviously Jackson had heard or read the fan reaction to The Two Towers and decided to stay as faithful to the book as he could. Time was devoted to rectifying some of the non-book plot threads from Two Towers and once that had been dispensed with the film stayed largely on track. Again there were changes and things that had been cut, but like Fellowship before it, these were either acceptable or understandable. The only qualm I really had with the film (and this applies only to the extended edition, really) is that my favorite scene from the book, Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch King at the gates of Minas Tirith, was not as kick ass as it should have been. It was good, but not as good as I had hoped. Return of the King as a whole, however, was a thoroughly enjoyable experience and made me forgive Jackson to a great extent (though forget, I never shall).

So this takes us to The Hobbit and this apparent sequel. I liked The Hobbit as a book. Not as much as LOTR, but I still like it enough to be excited about seeing it on film. And with Del Torro taking directorial duties, my hopes that another Two Towers style travesty will be avoided are high. But Jackson is still involved, so who knows? It could go either way. It could be both a curse and a blessing.

And what's this about a sequel? I read Del Torro's answer about that in the interview, but it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It seems to be saying it's going to be a story we've never seen before that takes place between The Hobbit and Fellowship, which is as abhorrent an idea to me as it no doubt is to Tolkien's estate, who have always steadfastly refused to allow anyone to write new material based in Tolkien's universe. I would definitely rather see them do a 'sequel' based on the best parts of The Silmarillion (the tragic story of Beren and Lúthien on film would be particularly nice to see on film) or even a film adaptation of The Children of Hurin. Either would be more preferable to something that sounds as though its basically going to be fan fiction.

So yeah. I'm excited definitely, and eager to see The Hobbit on the big screen. But I'm worried for all the reasons I stated above and more, especially where this 'sequel' is concerned. But I suppose ultimately I'm just going to have to wait and see what the finished product delivers us, and until then I won't pass any judgment. Just please Guillermo, whatever you do, please don't fuck this up. Please.

Hey, this is my 1000th comment. Wheeeee!
posted by Effigy2000 at 3:27 PM on April 25, 2008 [5 favorites]


Tolkien and Lewis both wrote allegorically.

I don't think either of them did, actually. True, Lewis was willing to club a reader over the head with a symbol for good measure, and I think his work left less moral ambiguity than Tolkien's, but I don't think Middle-earth or Narnia were allegorical at all.

Obviously there's the Battle of Helms Deep, where the fucking elves show up

That was so obviously different that it was sort of funny. I was kinda waiting for Bombadil to come riding in on Fatty Lumpkin too after that. It was when Faramir went all batshitinsane that I lost it. And yeah, all the stuff after that was just terrible for awhile.
posted by Tehanu at 3:48 PM on April 25, 2008


Did anyone see Blade II? That's the kind of martial arts Bilbo does.
posted by rusty


You just blew my mind, Traveller From the Past.
posted by DU at 3:59 PM on April 25, 2008


Tehanu: "That was so obviously different that it was sort of funny. I was kinda waiting for Bombadil to come riding in on Fatty Lumpkin too after that."

According to the DVD special features on the Two Towers disk, we almost had Arwen fighting alongside Aaragorn during the battle. Might as well have had Bombadil there too if that had actually ended up being put in the film.

Tehanu: "It was when Faramir went all batshitinsane that I lost it."

Indeed. The wholesale character assassination of Faramir was yet another unforgivable sin in The Two Towers. I decided not to mention it in my rant up there because it was already getting too long as it was.
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:18 PM on April 25, 2008


Tom Bombadil is the Jar Jar Binks of LOTR.
posted by pantufla_milagrosa at 6:49 PM on April 25, 2008 [2 favorites]


I read TTT and still enjoyed the movie (with the exception of what they did to Faramir - that still pisses me off)

but I'm excited about The Hobbit, not so much about a dreamed up sequel.
posted by Julnyes at 7:07 PM on April 25, 2008


When they're done with The Hobbit then Farmer Giles of Ham ought to be worth, what, a good 4 movies?
posted by Artw at 7:42 PM on April 25, 2008


Did anyone see Blade II? That's the kind of martial arts Bilbo does.

Wow, so Bilbo really took the ring from Gollum by kicking his ass in a Hobbit-Fu smack-down? I can't wait to see that in the movie!
posted by homunculus at 8:02 PM on April 25, 2008


Bjorn

Iluvatar damn all you stupid fucking nerds, it's Beorn. He's a bear man, for fuck's sake!
posted by A dead Quaker at 10:52 PM on April 25, 2008


I don't think Middle-earth or Narnia were allegorical at all

Read the Silmarillion (I'll lend you my copy if you like). Read Genesis. Then tell me it's not allegory.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:40 PM on April 25, 2008


Re: Frodo offering the ring to the Nazgul at Osgiliath.

I didn't mind this much. Sauron knew the ring was on the move; as I understood it, the thought that anyone would attempt to destroy the ring simply didn't occur to him: he was blinded by his obsession with it and believed that his enemies were equally obsessed. Instead, he would have believed that they would try to use it against him, and would do so by taking it to Gondor, which was the center of resistance against him. After all, he did send all his armies against Minas Tirith. It just took them some time to get there.

One thing I missed in the movie was the approach of the black sails filling everyone in Minas Tirith with despair, followed by the unfurling of the flag of the king, which no one was expecting at all.

The other scene I was disappointed with was the one immediately before the destruction of the ring. After Frodo puts on the ring, Sauron suddenly understands the extent of his error, and the Nazgul immediately turn away from the battle to fly to Mount Doom. In the book, however, this leaves the armies of Mordor bereft of Sauron's will and so they falter and become afraid. Aragorn wants to use this opportunity to rally and counterattack, but Gandalf stops him and says that "this is the hour of doom" and that the situation is now out of their hands. In the movie, the battle just kept going in slow motion.
posted by alexei at 4:04 AM on April 26, 2008


Effigy2000: "And then came The Two Towers. I cannot explain to you just how disappointed I was with this film. ... Those who despise it, a group which includes me..."

You despise it so much that you and your friends have created a drinking game you play when you re-watch it? I despise reality TV and I've never made a drinking game centered around watching it. Because I don't.
posted by Plutor at 6:52 AM on April 26, 2008 [1 favorite]


I can't help wondering at the reaction to Hobbit 2. A guy ad-libbing on Tolkien's material? I thought Mefites liked (big-budget) trainwrecks.
posted by ersatz at 8:52 AM on April 26, 2008


This reminds me: I really need to remix the Jackson LoTR trilogy so the whole thing is about two hours long.
posted by mecran01 at 9:48 AM on April 26, 2008


The LOTR movies, like the Godfather and Star Wars movies, are big, fun Saturday afternoon events made by people who know how to tell a story and entertain. I've tended to appreciate them and enjoy them because I'm open to that experience. But the thing is: any experience like this can be ruined by rigidly imposing your expectations or by taking the event as being more important than it really is. If obsessive over-analysis of popular entertainment is what gets you off, then go for it; it's nerdy, but it's cute, and it keeps you off the streets. But if you're going to go as far as feeling disturbed or betrayed or upset or indignant as a result, you have only yourself to blame, and it would be great if you did the rest of us the favor of not whining and discouraging those who create and enjoy projects like this. For fuck's sake, you are complaining that fiction is being fictionalized, and that is wholesale silly.
posted by troybob at 9:58 AM on April 26, 2008


So... The correction in the Yahoo article is a mistake in and of itself. Or, GTD is himself mistaken in that he is only directing one movie?

The correction's been pulled from the article, so I think it was a mistake. I remember being confused by it appearing because the Interwebs were told several months ago it was going to be two movies, right? I didn't understand why they'd ninja-announce going back to 1 while announcing Del Toro as the director.
posted by sparkletone at 10:25 AM on April 26, 2008


Plutor: "Effigy2000: "You despise it so much that you and your friends have created a drinking game you play when you re-watch it? I despise reality TV and I've never made a drinking game centered around watching it. Because I don't."

You misunderstand. The drinking game only gets pulled out when we have a 'movie marathon' day and the LOTR trilogy is on the menu. I may despise The Two Towers but you have to watch it if you plan on watching the trilogy as part of a movie marathon.

troybob: "But the thing is: any experience like this can be ruined by rigidly imposing your expectations or by taking the event as being more important than it really is. If obsessive over-analysis of popular entertainment is what gets you off, then go for it; it's nerdy, but it's cute, and it keeps you off the streets. But if you're going to go as far as feeling disturbed or betrayed or upset or indignant as a result, you have only yourself to blame, and it would be great if you did the rest of us the favor of not whining and discouraging those who create and enjoy projects like this. For fuck's sake, you are complaining that fiction is being fictionalized, and that is wholesale silly."

I take your point but I respectfully disagree. If you read my comment again (and I assume you're referring to my comment), I can see why some small changes were needed in translating the book to film. I can understand some omissions of whole scenes would be needed also. But what really irks me is when the changes are wholesale changes that don't even end up making sense within the self-contained universe/plot of the universe the film portrays. By keeping plot elements of the book but then adding new scenes of his own creation into the film, you get a sort of mish-mash of plots that do, at times, end up contradicting one another (the Osgiliath scene being the most striking example of this).
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:07 PM on April 26, 2008


Read the Silmarillion (I'll lend you my copy if you like). Read Genesis. Then tell me it's not allegory.

What exactly do you think is allegorical? Obviously the beginning of the Silmarillion is a (beautiful) retelling the Biblical creation story, but I don't see either as being allegorical.

Lewis, however, is totally allegory
posted by jpdoane at 9:19 AM on April 27, 2008


« Older Steve Carrell on how to act brilliant:I've learned...  |  Silver Bookmarks... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments