CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
Exciting stuff.
The J.R.R. Tolkien Topic (publications and adaptations)
- Thread starter Forostar
- Start date
Saapanael
Ancient Mariner
Extended version of Five Armies is out so I can now finally watch all 6 extended movies in a row. Not all in one day though
Should do it meself sometime.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Cool:
Tolkien's annotated map of Middle-earth discovered inside copy of Lord of the Rings
A recently discovered map of Middle-earth annotated by JRR Tolkien reveals The Lord of the Rings author’s observation that Hobbiton is on the same latitude as Oxford, and implies that the Italian city of Ravenna could be the inspiration behind the fictional city of Minas Tirith.
The map was found loose in a copy of the acclaimed illustrator Pauline Baynes’ copy of The Lord of the Rings. Baynes had removed the map from another edition of the novel as she began work on her own colour Map of Middle-earth for Tolkien, which would go on to be published by Allen & Unwin in 1970. Tolkien himself had then copiously annotated it in green ink and pencil, with Baynes adding her own notes to the document while she worked.
Blackwell’s, which is currently exhibiting the map in Oxford and selling it for £60,000, called it “an important document, and perhaps the finest piece of Tolkien ephemera to emerge in the last 20 years at least”.
Tolkien's annotated map of Middle-earth discovered inside copy of Lord of the Rings
A recently discovered map of Middle-earth annotated by JRR Tolkien reveals The Lord of the Rings author’s observation that Hobbiton is on the same latitude as Oxford, and implies that the Italian city of Ravenna could be the inspiration behind the fictional city of Minas Tirith.
The map was found loose in a copy of the acclaimed illustrator Pauline Baynes’ copy of The Lord of the Rings. Baynes had removed the map from another edition of the novel as she began work on her own colour Map of Middle-earth for Tolkien, which would go on to be published by Allen & Unwin in 1970. Tolkien himself had then copiously annotated it in green ink and pencil, with Baynes adding her own notes to the document while she worked.
Blackwell’s, which is currently exhibiting the map in Oxford and selling it for £60,000, called it “an important document, and perhaps the finest piece of Tolkien ephemera to emerge in the last 20 years at least”.
Over a year later and I've finally started reading The Hobbit. I'm enjoying it so far, just got past the bit where they're rescued from the Goblins by eagles.
I intend on seeing the movies, is there a recommended viewing order? Do I just watch The Hobbit movies first and then LOTR or is it better to watch in the order that they were made (like Star Wars)?
Watch LotR before Hobbit.
In fact, just watch LotR, and skip Hobbit.
In fact, just watch LotR, and skip Hobbit.
Figured someone would say this.
I remember even when the first Hobbit movie came out finding it odd that they split such a small book into 3 two hour movies. Over 100 pages into that book now and I still feel that way. Given how far into the book this is and the high action potential of the stuff with the goblins, I'm assuming the first movie ends around here. It works as a self contained story for sure but not sure if I can see how it's stretched out into a full 2 hour movie, not to mention an expanded version. So I'm definitely curious about this.
Actually, the first Hobbit movie was very good. It stuck pretty close to the book, and the whole Unexpected Party sequence at Bag End is superbly done.
When you watch the second movie, it's also more-or-less right along with the book until about the halfway point. It's the second half of the movie trilogy that really takes major liberties with the story.
The big flaw in the Hobbit movies is that Peter Jackson filmed them like LotR: like a wide-spanning story featuring an ensemble cast. What makes Tolkien's book so charming is that it's the opposite: it's Bilbo's POV, including when that POV is wrong. The omniscient POV in the movies makes the Hobbit seem like "just another quest story".
Example, spoilered for Mosh's sake...
When you watch the second movie, it's also more-or-less right along with the book until about the halfway point. It's the second half of the movie trilogy that really takes major liberties with the story.
The big flaw in the Hobbit movies is that Peter Jackson filmed them like LotR: like a wide-spanning story featuring an ensemble cast. What makes Tolkien's book so charming is that it's the opposite: it's Bilbo's POV, including when that POV is wrong. The omniscient POV in the movies makes the Hobbit seem like "just another quest story".
Example, spoilered for Mosh's sake...
In the book, Bilbo gets knocked out in the Battle of Five Armies, and we resume the narrative when he wakes up and finds the battle over. Jackson treated Bilbo's KO like any other injury, and showed us the battle that we were never meant to see while Bilbo was out.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Read:
1st: Hobbit, then LOTR
Read all before watching: first shape your own imagination of Middle Earth!
Watch:
First I wanted to say: 1st LOTR, then The Hobbit. However....
Most of us cannot know how it is to first watch The Hobbit, since we have seen LOTD first. Mosh, why not give it a try. Even if you would like the LOTR films more, then you will be rewarded by having the best as the last.
I am under the assumption that you have not seen the LOTR films? Interesting.
Both The Hobbit and LOTR have their flaws. But The Hobbit films have more factors working against them:
Lord of the Rings - the film
A large chunk of people were ultimely satisfied by Jackson's LOTR. "Lord of the Rings was fantastic, nothing else can match this". With such an attitude, it's going to be hard to be satisfied indeed by a second Jackson production. Lord of the Rings was a first in many ways, when it comes to techniques, but also epic proportions.
Lord of the Rings - the book
This works two ways: The LOTR books are much more popular and they are more suited for film.
So, it's 3-0 for LOTR already before Jackson recorded the first Hobbit film scene. Jackson tried to make The Hobbit a more darker film, and he added lots of drama and epicness, but also storylines that do not appear in the Hobbit book, to make an exciting film. But it works against him: A critic that's often heard: "Too much, it's not like the book".
Best advice I can give is this:
Try to see the films, try as much as you can, as a different thing. The Hobbit films can be very entertaining (stunning even, if you care about the visual aspects!) on their own. In the end, still, the book means more to me. Probably because of nostalgic reasons and its connection with what is still to come in Middle Earth. But that didn't stop me from enjoying most of what happened in the films as well.
1st: Hobbit, then LOTR
Read all before watching: first shape your own imagination of Middle Earth!
Watch:
First I wanted to say: 1st LOTR, then The Hobbit. However....
Most of us cannot know how it is to first watch The Hobbit, since we have seen LOTD first. Mosh, why not give it a try. Even if you would like the LOTR films more, then you will be rewarded by having the best as the last.
I am under the assumption that you have not seen the LOTR films? Interesting.
Both The Hobbit and LOTR have their flaws. But The Hobbit films have more factors working against them:
Lord of the Rings - the film
A large chunk of people were ultimely satisfied by Jackson's LOTR. "Lord of the Rings was fantastic, nothing else can match this". With such an attitude, it's going to be hard to be satisfied indeed by a second Jackson production. Lord of the Rings was a first in many ways, when it comes to techniques, but also epic proportions.
Lord of the Rings - the book
This works two ways: The LOTR books are much more popular and they are more suited for film.
So, it's 3-0 for LOTR already before Jackson recorded the first Hobbit film scene. Jackson tried to make The Hobbit a more darker film, and he added lots of drama and epicness, but also storylines that do not appear in the Hobbit book, to make an exciting film. But it works against him: A critic that's often heard: "Too much, it's not like the book".
Best advice I can give is this:
Try to see the films, try as much as you can, as a different thing. The Hobbit films can be very entertaining (stunning even, if you care about the visual aspects!) on their own. In the end, still, the book means more to me. Probably because of nostalgic reasons and its connection with what is still to come in Middle Earth. But that didn't stop me from enjoying most of what happened in the films as well.
Last edited:
I've seen Fellowship and bits of the other two, don't remember anything about them though.
This is a good point, I suppose I'd rather save the best for last.
The main argument for watching LotR movies before Hobbit, if you've never seen any of them, is that Hobbit viewers are expected to recognize some characters from LotR. But this isn't a big deal, I suppose.
)
The way the films work, I feel, is that LOTR generates intrigue and The Hobbit fills in the gaps.
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Not many like to talk about it anymore (since giving a dig at The Hobbit is cooler to do) but several scenes in LOTR do drag.
E.g.
the Arwen scenes. Basically, the emotions are getting over the top, a bit often. Bilbo and Sam are dramaqueens, frequently staring at each other in slow motion. Less of that shit in The Hobbit. The last LOTR film: the endings kept coming. At least two times I thought: when is this ever going to end? Okay, the battle in the last Hobbit film was long. But most of it was awesome, with brilliant action (loved that duel!). Edge of your seat stuff.
Last edited:
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
This is the correct answer.
Giving a dig at The Hobbit is in vogue because it is by far the inferior set of films. While there are certainly moments in LOTR that drag -- I recall reading a website that advised timing bathroom runs in the theater for whenever you saw Liv Tyler on the screen -- it isn't even close to stretching a relatively compact book into three films. Absurd, and an offensive money grab. Just watch the animated version of The Hobbit by Rankin/Bass instead.
This is precisely the problem with the films.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
The Hobbit films are fine action films that do "a bit" more than literally following the book. If the book was followed, we'd have a short and not so dark film. A lot of people would say that's predictable, dull and lighthearted. Can you imagine if that battle scene would only take a few minutes? Ridiculous. People would have expected more. The action is so cool, that you don't want a trailer length version of it.
Now this is offending:
Now this is offending:
Yes it's a parody, but this is what such a tedious scene does generate, if people are trying to fight their impatience:
And that terrible Celine Dion music....
Last edited:
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
I would have been perfectly happy with a single 2-and-a-half-hour long Hobbit film. Totally doable, and probably would have been much better.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Doable to make for sure. But I honestly wonder how the scenes would be distributed over the passages in the book. I'd know which scenes I would make different or even cut out completely, but to be honest, I did like some of the "outside The Hobbit book scenes". They provided more ground for some extra dark touch. Not sure if I would like to have all that out.
Let's take the riddle scene with Gollum. How long did that take? It did follow the book pretty well didn't it? But that passage itself is a highlight in the book as well. Some of the other shorter passages in the book are probably not that good to do in that same literal manner. I guess Jackson (but probably also other directors who have own ideas of what suits film) saw these passages as opportunities to do more with it.
In the end I guess I really don't mind having lengthy films (more than one) if they are largely exciting or just impressive (again: Erebor and Dale and the surroundings are so stunning!)
I rather enjoy these elements than mutter about how other Tolkien work was used in the film, instead of only the Hobbit.
Let's take the riddle scene with Gollum. How long did that take? It did follow the book pretty well didn't it? But that passage itself is a highlight in the book as well. Some of the other shorter passages in the book are probably not that good to do in that same literal manner. I guess Jackson (but probably also other directors who have own ideas of what suits film) saw these passages as opportunities to do more with it.
The Fraggle Rock scene with that Goblin King (and the escape) was annoying. He did too much with that. A ridiculous rollercoaster-like scene. But other scenes, like Mirkwood, were too short. So if the Mirkwood scene was made longer, the film would have been longer as well.
In the end I guess I really don't mind having lengthy films (more than one) if they are largely exciting or just impressive (again: Erebor and Dale and the surroundings are so stunning!)
I rather enjoy these elements than mutter about how other Tolkien work was used in the film, instead of only the Hobbit.
Last edited: