transward (imported) wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:07 am I think a lot of the problem is the different tones of the two books. LOTR is epic drama, nearly high tragedy

transward (imported) wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:22 am ; the Hobbit is much closer to a fairy tale.

I believe Tolkien wrote it as

a children's book; LOTR is for adults. In the Hobbit t

transward (imported) wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:07 am he tone is much lighter, the impending calamities are but a small cloud on the distant horizon. Jackson's style suited LOTR; I don't think it suits the Hobbit. I would like to see a Tim Burton/Johnny Depp version of the Hobbit. a la the Corpse Bride.

Transward

That is a good analysis. I love Tolkien. No film would do the books justice and I think you have to detach yourself from the books to watch the movies.

jcat (imported) wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:42 am That is a good analysis. I love Tolkien. No film would do the books justice and I think you have to detach yourself from the books to watch the movies.

I think that was my point, enjoy the books for the books and the movies for the movies and don't be upset because something happened in the book and not in the movie or the other way around.

Enjoy each for what it brings.

River

I'm just back from New Zealand where they wish, apart from the monies spent there, that these films had been made anywhere else.

As for myself, these books were suggested to me decades ago but, even then I had little taste for metaphorical fantasy wrapped around an every man morality play. I found them trite, boring and very appealing to those of that time who found "meaning" in every comma, in every character, in every situation. They embraced this too heartily and too foolishly. Remember Water Ship Down? Or Jonathan Livingston Seagull? All got the "deep meaning' treatment much as The Hobbit did. I have no idea what Tolkien had in mind nor is it worth my time to find out. From the bits and pieces of the film I've seen, it looks spectacular but then that's a routine word to describe New Zealand. For those who slather over this, enjoy all the faux philosophy and non-trenchant parallels to "real life". Just, please, don't get red faced when I say it's utterly devoid of anything other than some occasionally pretty images and oddities masquerading as anthropomorphized life.

I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I was quite excited when I heard that Jackson was back to do The Hobbit. I was not quite as excited when they were going to do the book as 2 movies. I thought that the book wasn't really big enough to do as 2 movies. Then they made the decision to make it as 3 movies instead of 2...and I lost a LOT of interest. I did record it on HBO the other night, but I have no great interest in watching it. Just knowing how much filler it would take to stretch it to 2 movies, let alone 3 was depressing.

It doesn't take much to make a movie exciting or boring.

Years ago when the first BABYLON 5 (two hour special movie titled THE GATHERING) was shown. I watched it and it seemed slow and I was bored. The scenes went on interminably and dragged the concept into sleep inducing stuff..

Several years later after the series took off and changed channels, the new network repeated the THE GATHERING. The show's creator J. Michael Stracynski and the directors added 14 minutes and recut the movie. The new and longer version was exciting and the action paced well.

So the pacing of a movie, be it filler or necessary story, is quite a delicate thing.

Take a chance on THE HOBBIT.

And here I thought that brown wizard had hijacked Watership Down.

I have never read a word of Tolkien that I liked and I can not imagine that an acceptable movie could be made of any of these stories. --FLO--

Uncle Flo (imported) wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:22 am I have never read a word of Tolkien that I liked and I can not imagine that an acceptable movie could be made of any of these stories. --FLO--

I enjoyed the LOTR movies as pure entertainment. I forgave any attempt at "meaning" or philosophy right at the beginning. Couldn't stand the first book, didn't finish it, left the others to collect dust. OTOH I actually read the Dune Trilogy. Again I forgave the pholosophy; enjoyed the movie too.

I enjoyed the LOTR series. I have seen The Hobbit but prefer the animated version. I enjoyed the new one but not as much as the animated version. Actually, toi me it did not need to be 3 hours long and does not need to be a three parter.

Of course, I like the Percy Jackson books also....but I am a fan of Fantasy and Sci-Fi. Cannot say I like the series that are on TV. Don't watch them.

gandalf (imported) wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:52 pm I enjoyed the LOTR series. I have seen The Hobbit but prefer the animated version. I enjoyed the new one but not as much as the animated version. Actually, toi me it did not need to be 3 hours long and does not need to be a three parter.

Of course, I like the Percy Jackson books also....but I am a fan of Fantasy and Sci-Fi. Cannot say I like the series that are on TV. Don't watch them.

I just had to see what "Gandalf" had to say.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes the Hobbit is written in a different style then the LOTR, but Jackson did such a good job following the books in the LOTR's movies it was disappointing to see Jackson go his own way on "The Hobbit".

Am I The Only One Who Laments The Absence of The Scouring Of The Shire ?

The last section of LOTR.

That was such a MAJOR point of the story.

Moi