The J.R.R. Tolkien Topic (publications and adaptations)

LooseCannon said:
The ghosts bothered me too. A lot. Why did everyone die again? Ghosts can just save the day.

Their purpose in the book was to signify that Aragorn is appropriately king, a philosophical point that had been in contention since the death of Ondoher.

It's difficult to explain, but in the books, Aragorn isn't the rightful king of Gondor just because of his descent from Elendil, but because Ondoher's only child was Arvedui's wife, and should have been allowed to take the crown. However, they chose to break the line of Kings and give the crown to a lesser sire of the family of Anarion.

The ghosts swore their allegiance to the King of Gondor, not the King of the West (Elendil).
Click to expand...

Nicely put.

It would have benefited the film immensely if they used the ghosts simply as additional troops that shifted the battle to their favor instead of a deus ex machina that instantly won it for them.
 
They should have taken the extra 10 minutes to add in discussion of the western Gondor forces that failed to arrive because they were busy battling the Corsairs.
 
national acrobat said:
They should have made the whole thing into a 20 minute short film, in which the ghost army defeats the orc armies and a giant eagle takes Frodo direct to Mount Doom. ;)
Click to expand...
:lol:

Big brave eagles AFTER the eye of Sauron was defeated. If I were Frodo, I'd have been really angry with them ;)
 
Any of you saw the trailer yet? I didn't. I am kind of afraid it will spoil some things. On the other hand, the wait is still terribly long. Maybe I should comprise and see it without sound. :)
 
I watched it. What is there to spoil? There's a song, and some magnificent costuming, and not much in the way of special effects.
 
LooseCannon said:
What is there to spoil?
Click to expand...

Well this is for me the most anticipated film, for a couple of years already. So anything I might see now and recognize later could be a bit of a spoiler. Though I must admit that a few costumes wouldn't hurt much. And I can already imagine the music as well.
 
I saw the trailer and I must say I'm terribly excited. Not sure about the look of the dwarves, but everything does seem to be consistent with the look of the later LOTR stuff while still making allowances for the fact that The Hobbit is really a children's book in every sense of that word.
Also, Forostar, if you do watch it, be prepared because there are spoilers in there about why the film is going to be as long as it is :P.
Just give yourself the belated Xmas gift and watch it already ;).
 
It's only a spoiler if you think it will ruin the movie for you. I don't see how that can be possible. There are some hints...of course, they are making it more than just the book, in some aspects.
 
And in other aspects, not really. I think it'll be a treat for those of us who have read a bit more extensively than simply LOTR and The Hobbit.
And yeah I don't see how the trailer can ruin the movie...if anything it just whets the appetite. Oooo I'm so excited. :yey:
 
I saw it at the cinema yesterday. Impossible to say anything substantial based on it, but... uh, the dwarves looked pretty good.
 
Ruining is not exactly what will happen. Just think the more something is new, the more I could enjoy it completely. Good to know it only makes people more exciting though.
 
Just saw it but the scenes with the Dwarves were more like a slapstick.
I get a Jar Jar Binks feeling. :S

Were they really that "funny" in the book? No they weren't.
Was Gimli like this in the film? Yes he was.
Is that why these Dwarves are also portrayed like morons? Probably yes.

Nice song though and the landscapes were brilliant. This trailer didn't ruin the film for me. Just a bit worried. ;)
 
I wouldn't be worried. I didn't see much in the way of slapstick from the dwarves - other than Bombur crushing a seat. And that *was* in the book, and his weight was often used as humour.
 
Natalie said:
And yeah I don't see how the trailer can ruin the movie...if anything it just whets the appetite. Oooo I'm so excited. :yey:
Click to expand...


Trailers can definitely ruin movies. Too many times they put the best jokes, the most "exciting" scenes and one-liners out of context. This tends to ruin the watching of the actual movie, because by the time you watch it you are sick of the jokes or the point of the movie is skewed. A good example and I don't care about spoilers, because it was a stupid movie anyway, is Good Luck Chuck with Dane Cook. It was portrayed in the previews as Dane falling in love with a clumsy klutz (Jessica Alba). The REAL plot of the movie was that Dane Cook's character was cursed as a child by the goth girl in his class and whoever he dates will find true love AFTER they date him. Jessica's clumsiness becomes useless, pointless and just plain stupid the more the movie goes on.

Or how about the last Daniel Craig movie? The one in which he moves into a house with his family and it has a "dark secret."The preview gives away what I consider to be the BIGGEST twist and the whole point of going to watch the movie! Fuck trailers.
 
Yes, true. A bad trailer is bad for the movie...but those often tend to be bad movies, Onhell. The Hobbit? I think most of us already know what was going to happen there!
 
Bad movie or not, I don't want the experience ruined, but yeah, cannot wait for The Hobbit :)
 
I agree with you Onhell in general but in this case I refer to Loosecannon's post: it's The Hobbit and we all pretty much know whats going to happen. The only thing the trailer reveals is what the "look" of the film will be like, and its the only thing it can possibly reveal because...its all already been revealed :).
 
This topic will be 5 years (minus one week) old when the first film comes out. :D
Man, I am really hyped for it. Just four months to go!

Just read the book again and I was disappointed when it was over. Such a nice adventure.

Not sure what to think of plans for a third film, using the appendices that Tolkien wrote to expand the story of Middle-Earth (published in the back of The Return of the King). The footage will consist out of material that was shot for the first two films (sounds like left-over to me) plus some new filming.

This is a pretty interesting article, I thought:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...-third-movie-jackson-20120724,0,2208206.story

Read it completely, but this is the end:
...
Breaking a single book into multiple movies has come into vogue in recent years as studios seek to wring value out of popular material. The “Harry Potter,” “Twilight” and “Hunger Games” franchises all split a single book into two pictures. But there is no known precedent for turning one book into three films.

What’s more, in all of those instances, the decision to create an additional movie out of an existing book was made before production began, not after it wrapped.
 
I think the third movie is symptomatic of what is probably Jackson's greatest fault as a filmmaker: the inability to realize when enough is enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top