Originally posted by skeaser

Originally posted by Yamota
That is the reason I have not watched Bilbo and nor will I. It is the movie equivalent of a dumbed down ThemePark.

How do you know this without watching it? This is like saying you've never tried a food because it tastes bad.

He does this a lot.

I honestly do not give a shit what christopher Tolkien has to say about the matter tbh.

I will listen to him when we are all here talking *his* works... until then? /shrug... he is just another opinion.

Originally posted by rochrist

Originally posted by Saur0n

Originally posted by strangiato2112

1.  These movies cost a shit ton of money to make.  And visually Jackson has done an astounding job with Middle Earth.  In order for the movies to be financially successful, some hollywood touches need to be made.

2.  As for the action movie claims, The Hobbit is a pretty fast moving story and in particular the goblin > wargs/trees sequence is non stop action in the books as well as the movie.  The goblin escape was handled quite poorly in the movie though, no reason at all for that huge fall then the goblin lands on top of them.

3.  The good Jackson brings to the table FAR out weighs the bad.  Again, his use of NZ as Middle Earth is stunning.  And lets not forget Gollum, no one else would have done half as well as Jackson with Gollum.  And the heart is still there.  Jackson obviously loves the source material and it shows.  I have no doubts that his adaptations are as good as we wer elikely to get, far better really.

4. Christopher is an ungrateful brat.  Jackson has brought mllions to Middle Earth that have gone on to read and appreciate his fathers writings.

Agreed.  Before the movies, Tolkien had an underground cult following.  Now everyone and their grandma is a Tolkien fan.  Don't get me wrong,  I looooved those days when not many people knew anything about LOTR but finding anything related to LOTR and the Hobbit back then was tough.  After the movies came out millions of people went and bought the books which in turn made them in to life long fans and the book money still goes to the Tolkien estate so Chri$topher Tolkien can suck it.  When I was 12 and first read the hobbit and lotr all we had were the books, 3 cartoons, and 2 DOS Interplay games.  I'd have killed to have what we have now.

Underground cult following. Yeah, if by underground cult following you mean multiple polls naming it the greatest books of the 20th century. One tha's sold well over 150 million copies.  Sheesh.

 

Yes, and before the movies was LOTR  part of the general Lexicon like it is now?  No.  That is what made it a cult following.  The same goes for Enders Game which will become even more popular when the movie comes out.  Movies sell books.  It's a fact.  Ask J. K. Rowling....

 

This man has done nothing but profit from his dad and yet he still complains.  He's an 88 year old man who is out of touch with his dad's true fans.  If he was so interested in the so-called integrity of his Dad's creation, why did he take the money and remove the legal objection to the Hobbit?  I get the feeling he's just upset and feels that he shoud have gotten an even bigger piece of the pie.

Originally posted by Saur0n

Originally posted by rochrist

Originally posted by Saur0n

Originally posted by strangiato2112

1.  These movies cost a shit ton of money to make.  And visually Jackson has done an astounding job with Middle Earth.  In order for the movies to be financially successful, some hollywood touches need to be made.

2.  As for the action movie claims, The Hobbit is a pretty fast moving story and in particular the goblin > wargs/trees sequence is non stop action in the books as well as the movie.  The goblin escape was handled quite poorly in the movie though, no reason at all for that huge fall then the goblin lands on top of them.

3.  The good Jackson brings to the table FAR out weighs the bad.  Again, his use of NZ as Middle Earth is stunning.  And lets not forget Gollum, no one else would have done half as well as Jackson with Gollum.  And the heart is still there.  Jackson obviously loves the source material and it shows.  I have no doubts that his adaptations are as good as we wer elikely to get, far better really.

4. Christopher is an ungrateful brat.  Jackson has brought mllions to Middle Earth that have gone on to read and appreciate his fathers writings.

Agreed.  Before the movies, Tolkien had an underground cult following.  Now everyone and their grandma is a Tolkien fan.  Don't get me wrong,  I looooved those days when not many people knew anything about LOTR but finding anything related to LOTR and the Hobbit back then was tough.  After the movies came out millions of people went and bought the books which in turn made them in to life long fans and the book money still goes to the Tolkien estate so Chri$topher Tolkien can suck it.  When I was 12 and first read the hobbit and lotr all we had were the books, 3 cartoons, and 2 DOS Interplay games.  I'd have killed to have what we have now.

Underground cult following. Yeah, if by underground cult following you mean multiple polls naming it the greatest books of the 20th century. One tha's sold well over 150 million copies.  Sheesh.

 

Yes, and before the movies was LOTR  part of the general Lexicon like it is now?  No.  That is what made it a cult following.  The same goes for Enders Game which will become even more popular when the movie comes out.  Movies sell books.  It's a fact.  Ask J. K. Rowling....

 

Yes, LOTR is in the top 5 best selling books of all time, vastly more than Enders game, which my have a cult following, unlike LOTR which has been a mainstream success for decades.

Someone is making an enders game movie?

Well there's no way they can make that literally with its very dodgy politics. Would have to be a satirical piss take of the source like starship troopers.

Lord of the Rings started out as a cult following as well, a little bigger than enders game but it was still a niche book until the movies started being talked about. It wasn't until -after- the first movie that every man, woman, and child knew about it. Not saying it wasn't popular before, but the movies and in some ways the game, made it a well known mega-hit.

Originally posted by Blessings
Lord of the Rings started out as a cult following as well, a little bigger than enders game but it was still a niche book until the movies started being talked about. It wasn't until -after- the first movie that every man, woman, and child knew about it. Not saying it wasn't popular before, but the movies and in some ways the game, made it a well known mega-hit.

You are wrong, facts disagree with your opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

LOTR is one of the largest selling books in the history of the written word ever, it may have been outside your sheer of knowledge before the movies came out, the movies may have introduced it to an audience unfamiliar with with books, but, it is in no way a niche product, it is one of the best selling books in history.

Originally posted by skeaser

Originally posted by Yamota
That is the reason I have not watched Bilbo and nor will I. It is the movie equivalent of a dumbed down ThemePark.

How do you know this without watching it? This is like saying you've never tried a food because it tastes bad.

I have friends who watched it and they told me that it is childish and comical. Not very unlike how Avatar was a childish version of Dances with the Wolves.

Originally posted by Saur0n

Originally posted by rochrist

Originally posted by Saur0n

Originally posted by strangiato2112

1.  These movies cost a shit ton of money to make.  And visually Jackson has done an astounding job with Middle Earth.  In order for the movies to be financially successful, some hollywood touches need to be made.

2.  As for the action movie claims, The Hobbit is a pretty fast moving story and in particular the goblin > wargs/trees sequence is non stop action in the books as well as the movie.  The goblin escape was handled quite poorly in the movie though, no reason at all for that huge fall then the goblin lands on top of them.

3.  The good Jackson brings to the table FAR out weighs the bad.  Again, his use of NZ as Middle Earth is stunning.  And lets not forget Gollum, no one else would have done half as well as Jackson with Gollum.  And the heart is still there.  Jackson obviously loves the source material and it shows.  I have no doubts that his adaptations are as good as we wer elikely to get, far better really.

4. Christopher is an ungrateful brat.  Jackson has brought mllions to Middle Earth that have gone on to read and appreciate his fathers writings.

Agreed.  Before the movies, Tolkien had an underground cult following.  Now everyone and their grandma is a Tolkien fan.  Don't get me wrong,  I looooved those days when not many people knew anything about LOTR but finding anything related to LOTR and the Hobbit back then was tough.  After the movies came out millions of people went and bought the books which in turn made them in to life long fans and the book money still goes to the Tolkien estate so Chri$topher Tolkien can suck it.  When I was 12 and first read the hobbit and lotr all we had were the books, 3 cartoons, and 2 DOS Interplay games.  I'd have killed to have what we have now.

Underground cult following. Yeah, if by underground cult following you mean multiple polls naming it the greatest books of the 20th century. One tha's sold well over 150 million copies.  Sheesh.

 

Yes, and before the movies was LOTR  part of the general Lexicon like it is now?  No.  That is what made it a cult following.  The same goes for Enders Game which will become even more popular when the movie comes out.  Movies sell books.  It's a fact.  Ask J. K. Rowling....

 

Uh, yeah, actually it was. Just because you aren't old enough to remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The idea that lotr was cult and unknown before the movies is laughable.

Fantasy was huge in the 60s and 70s and taken up somewhat by the counter culture.

Just check out the number of Tolkien references in led zepellin tracks for a start.

Originally posted by Rhoklaw
Far as I'm concerned, Peter Jackson is a brilliant director and while his movies may be more action oriented then the books portrayed, you can't tell me the movies didn't do the books justice. The amount of detail Peter went to with environment, costumes and story flow is probably as good as your going to get. Christopher is a pompous brat and I hope he chokes on his wad of money.

Somes up how I feel in a nutshell.  I love the books and I feel that Peter Jackson has stuck his soul and a ton of blood into making the films as detailed and authentic as possible.  I was blown away by the technological advances in the Hobbit and still shocked at the super quality on the screen.  In some ways I like how they have developed minor parts in the book to flesh out the story more.

When compared to other movies based on books, these are 5 star quality and personally if I was a relative I would be immensely proud to see the effort and time put into them.

Its daft to expect a movie to copy a book exactly as some scenes would be boring as hell. 

Plus I take offense at the age being mentioned. I am 40 and still loved them so its not just 15-25 year olds and in the sold out session I went to I don't think many were younger than 25!

I really could care less what his opinion is.

A movie is a movie.

A book is a book.

The two do NOT have to be the exact same thing. All that matters is that Jackson captured the HEART of the stories and nothing more.

 

He also received his father's papers after the death: 70 boxes of archives, each stuffed with thousands of unpublished pages. Narratives, tales, lectures, poems of 4,000 lines more or less complete, letters and more letters, all in a frightening disorder. Almost nothing was dated or numbered, just stuffed higgledy-piggledy into the boxes.

He's clearly in a position to make a statement of opinion (the 1st for 40yrs)!

The Letters of JRR Tolkien are iinteresting reading too (The Work, The Person & Their Influences). :)

Christopher Tolkien is right, imo.

 

Lord of the Rings has been butchered somewhat by the movie - not putting in Tom Bombardil and Prince Imrahil is a mistake imo since both are key characters in the lore and evolution of the story.

 

Also in The Hobbit the dwarves looking nothing like dwarves supposed to be. They don't not stout at all, they look frail. Dwarves are supposed to be stout folks and should like more like Gimli in the Lord of the Rings, not the skinny asses like in the hobbit. They looked too "humanized".

 

Though I don't agree with his 15-25 age bracket BS. As a movie it is perfectly fine. It is just not when you are talking in terms of relation to the book.

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

 

 Also in The Hobbit the dwarves looking nothing like dwarves supposed to be. They don't not stout at all, they look frail. Dwarves are supposed to be stout folks and should like more like Gimli in the Lord of the Rings, not the skinny asses like in the hobbit. They looked too "humanized".

 

When you allow your book to be made into film, you are assuming changes since books are simply consumed different from film. One of the biggest challenges to filming all those dwarves is making them distinctive at a glace.  If a dwarf was on screen, there could be no doubt which one you were looking at.  This is why the dwarves can't all look the same and some may not look like a'typical' dwarf.   There is a range of looks and all ends of the range were needed to make 13 unique looks.  

Anyone who listens to the PJ and the crew has no doubt of their respect ot the original material.  They also, however, feel a commitment toward a quality film as well.  Any and all liberties taken are made in respect to both of those ends.  No liberties = terrible film.  Too many liberties = butchering of the books.  Balance is needed, and PJ nailed it.

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by skeaser

Originally posted by Yamota
That is the reason I have not watched Bilbo and nor will I. It is the movie equivalent of a dumbed down ThemePark.

How do you know this without watching it? This is like saying you've never tried a food because it tastes bad.

I have friends who watched it and they told me that it is childish and comical. Not very unlike how Avatar was a childish version of Dances with the Wolves.

Anyone else take hear-say critics seriously? Yeah, me neither...

Originally posted by Roxtarr

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

 

 Also in The Hobbit the dwarves looking nothing like dwarves supposed to be. They don't not stout at all, they look frail. Dwarves are supposed to be stout folks and should like more like Gimli in the Lord of the Rings, not the skinny asses like in the hobbit. They looked too "humanized".

 

When you allow your book to be made into film, you are assuming changes since books are simply consumed different from film. One of the biggest challenges to filming all those dwarves is making them distinctive at a glace.  If a dwarf was on screen, there could be no doubt which one you were looking at.  This is why the dwarves can't all look the same and some may not look like a'typical' dwarf.   There is a range of looks and all ends of the range were needed to make 13 unique looks.

 Regardless dwarves also have a racial look that was clearly described in JRR's Silmarillion. They are not skinny and they have beards because beard is a thing that defines maturity in a dwarf. You always hear of mention, in any JRR books, that whenever a dwarf is in great sorrow they always "tear at the beards" for a reason.

 

Just because they have a racial look doesn't mean they can't have "distinctive at a glance " look. If you can tell one elf from another then I don't see the problem why you can't just because all dwarves are supposed to look stocky. If I can tell 1 orc from another in the first movie surely dwarves would be no problem. I saw Peter Jackson's justfication in the Making but I don't think it is a sounded justification.

 

I feel as if he is just trying to "humanize" dwarf to try to make it look cooler to the everyday moviegoers so that the audience can better sympathize with it. Not saying that is necessarily a bad thing but it is bastardising the lore a bit.

Originally posted by bossalinie

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by skeaser

Originally posted by Yamota
That is the reason I have not watched Bilbo and nor will I. It is the movie equivalent of a dumbed down ThemePark.

How do you know this without watching it? This is like saying you've never tried a food because it tastes bad.

I have friends who watched it and they told me that it is childish and comical. Not very unlike how Avatar was a childish version of Dances with the Wolves.

Anyone else take hear-say critics seriously? Yeah, me neither...

I thought this thread was about a Tolkien relative criticising the movie? I was just saying it was re-affirming what I thought.

The hobbit IS A CHILDREN'S BOOK, its supposed to have a light comedic touch.

that said, I think its a mistake using 3 movies to tell the story, 1 would have sufficed.