MGM and Warner Near On Deal For Hobbit Films 222
Jamie found an NYT story that says "After months of negotiation and delay, Warner Brothers and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer are on the verge of an agreement that would allow the director Peter Jackson to begin shooting a two-part version of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit early next year." The production has struggled recently with issues with unions, and a fire.
The cartoon was better (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing can ever beat that cartoon.
Re: (Score:2)
That all depends on how much pot you smoke right before you watch it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hate?
Re:Peter jackson... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll agree with that...
Other than about 20 seconds worth of film, I think the LOTR films were a far better adaptation of the books than I thought possible.
When I heard that the story was coming out on film, I was expecting a treatment like "I, Robot" got - schlock only vaguely related to the book. Instead, we got a movie that captured the feel of the books almost perfectly, and told the same story. The movie was better for the visuals - it fleshed the world out much better than my puny imagination had been able to do.
I've never quite understood the haters, either.
Re:Peter jackson... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Peter jackson... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Peter jackson... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That is interesting. I always just thought Tom was JRR Tolkien.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Peter jackson... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bad Theory. Frodo gave the ring to Bombadil to look at and Bombadil showed that he had power over the ring, something the Witch King would not have, so Bombadil is not the Witch King. If he was then he would have taken it immediately back to his master, Sauron, but he didn't, he gave it back to Frodo, something the Witch King would never have done. Elrond's refusal to let Bombadil keep the ring is more out of his understanding that Bombadil, though powerful, could not be trusted as he would just as easily misplace it as keep it safe. (An alternative no better than throwing it in the deep ocean hoping it lost forever. Elrond wanted the ring destroyed and guided the council to that purpose.)
Bombadil is an enigma that Tolkien purposefully never wanted explained. The theory I prefer is that he and Goldberry are one of the Aniur that was appointed to do a task, probably by Manwë, in that area of Middle Earth in the Third Age.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Peter jackson... (Score:5, Informative)
I was always under the impression that the hobbits were not so easily corrupted by the ring, because their race had never wielded rings of power nor had any made for them, unlike the elves, dwarves and men.
Gollum was a Hobbit [cro.net]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And did he use it to seek power? No. He crawled into a hole in the earth and ate cave fish.
Re:Peter jackson... (Score:4, Interesting)
The lesser Rings weren't (exactly) related. It was apparently an innate property of Hobbits - even Gollum should have faded away a long time before the story began. Speculations on why the Hobbits should have such a property I think everyone else in this thread explained better than I could.
The Rings for the other races are an interesting question, though. The Elves alone made their three rings, so it's understandable they wouldn't corrupt the Elves, and there's no reason why the Ring of Power wouldn't corrupt Elves, especially High Elves like Galadriel. Men need no explanation. But Dwarves...we learn in the Lord of the Rings that Dwarves could not be corrupted by the rings Sauron gave them, and they would not fade away. The only thing Sauron could get them to do was inflame the Dwarves' natural greed for wealth, which Sauron could then manipulate (if he was lucky) to bring about their demise. But as far as we are told, it's a perfectly natural Dwarven greed, not the evil corrupting greed we would expect. So to what degree would Dwarves be affected by the One Ring, anyway? Unlike Elves and Men, Dwarves were designed by their creator Aule to specifically have a lot of endurance and incorruptibility. So would they have the same kind of Hobbit One Ring-resistance?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So would they have the same kind of Hobbit One Ring-resistance?
No. Even the lesser rings they had did corrupt them and brought Evil to the Dwarves. Sauron could not control them, the way he could Men so his plot "failed'. But research what happened to each of the 7 Ring Bearers of the Dwarves...
In Letters, JRRT says there are only a few beings in Arda that can control and use the 1 ring - pretty much Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel.
You had to have Great Power yourself to master the One Ring. No mortal could do it and dwarves are technically mortals.
Every one else att
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's fantasy so take your pick:
1. It was guarded by the Nazgul. Only after the destruction of the ring are the eagles able to reach the mountain.
2. Their half-animal minds lack the strength of character and will to subdue the ring.
3. If the eagles could not resist using the ring near Sauron then he would sense it and send his minions.
If you look at the other members of the fellowship, they're pretty much all driven by some sort of ambition. It might be that Frodo isn't *that* special, but none of the o
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Peter jackson... (Score:5, Informative)
What I got from both the books and the movie on that was simply that Hobbits don't really give two shits about power. Tolkien hammered on this concept until it hurt, and Jackson remained pretty true to that concept. They intentionally choose a simple life, they have little interest in controlling (or, let's be honest, even helping) anyone outside their borders, so the whole concept of a ring that gives absolute power has little meaning. The Ring can corrupt them (see Smeagol/Gollum and Frodo). Hell, even Bilbo got corrupted by it to an extent, but he managed to hold out for quite a while because he didn't know what it was.
The only people who could bear the Ring are those who could wield it (limited to a population of one, named "Sauron") and those to whom it would not occur to try.
Bilbo never had a clue what the Ring was, or what it represented. At least not until long after it was out of his hands, and I'm not sure he really knew anything other that it was a burden to Frodo, then forgot about that soon after. To him, it was a magical little shiny that allowed him to avoid unpleasant encounters and skulk around. He didn't have buttons the Ring could have pushed to seek absolute power. He didn't know about it, and didn't care, other than the small and insignificant uses he put it to. Even so, it took threats from Gandalf to get him to set it aside, and it still gnawed at him.
Frodo knew what he had from fairly early on, but lacked the sort of desire for power the Ring could leverage. Even so, the Ring did work on Frodo at the end. He was unable to cast it into the fires and actually started to try and wield it, and it fell on Gollum and a bit of clumsiness and happy chance to finally destroy the Ring.
Hobbits are also insignificant to the powerful to the point of near invisibility. Give the Ring to an Eagle, and he'd be spotted and intercepted, probably before he crossed the border into Mordor, if his own sense of power didn't turn his purposes to that of the Ring's first. No one could wield it without Sauron being aware of it (and eventually being subverted by it), and no one could openly fight past Sauron and into Mordor without wielding it. It was only through stealth that Frodo managed to get the Ring into Mordor without being immediately caught.
Remember, all of the people who understood the ring and understood power (Gandalf, Elrond, Aragorn, Faramir, Galadriel, etc) were strong enough to reject the ring but wise enough to understand that they were not strong enough to control it or even handle it. Boromir was weak enough to be unable to reject the ring, and though he managed to reject it briefly it was really only Saruman's orcs killing him off that saved him from eventually succumbing to its appeal and attempting to wield it. Denethor was weak enough that the mere concept that it slipped through Faramir's fingers was enough to drive him batshit crazy.
No one who was strong enough to understand what the Ring truly was would be strong enough to carry it for any length of time. Its power was too appealing.
Re: (Score:2)
The basic premise is that lesser races (from a magic affinity perspective) have less power over the rings(ie - Elrond's ring in the hands of a human would be probably 1/5th as effective) and if you go far enough down the line, you get to Hobbits and the like, which are about as magical as a doorstop. But that's good as well, since they are less likely to be corrupted by them. It's the classic story of the everyman outwitting the elite and powerful. Just a thousand pages or so long ;)
As for the movie's vi
Re: (Score:2)
The movie was better for the visuals - it fleshed the world out much better than my puny imagination had been able to do.
Agreed, my favorite scene was Argonath, which looked way better on screen then it ever could in my head.
I think most of the appropriate criticism lies in the character depictions. I'm not sure that humanized and angry Elves or a bumbling dwarf is what Tolkien had in mind. Its hard for me to watch as Elrond gets worked up and emotional about things, or when Gimli plays a part in dick and fart jokes.
However, the films remain in my library and get watched as they are still pretty amazing. Its hard to
Re: (Score:2)
I don't hate the movies - they definitely look cool and were cool to watch - but I strongly disagree that they captured the feel of the book. The book had completely different themes and characters that acted and felt much differently. There were some things changed just for cheap dramatic reasons - Treebeard was determined to march to Isenguard in the book, and he held an Entmoot to convince as many other Ents as possible to come along, which wasn't hard. As
Re: (Score:2)
The themes of the book are lost in translation.
And in place of them we get... environmentalism as the main theme. :-\
Re: (Score:2)
I've never quite understood the haters, either.
Dwarf tossing? Skateboarding elves...? Ick.
(But yeah, it's a pretty damn good representation of the book even if it isn't true to the details)
Re:Peter jackson... (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't what was cut so much as what was changed:
Merri and Pippin weren't bumbling fools who accidentally kinna tagged along, they were dear friends who wanted to help and wouldn't let Frodo go without them.
There were no elves at Helm's Deep.
Faramir was a better man than his brother and didn't try to take Frodo or the ring back to Minas Tirith.
Shelob was a fabulous ending to the Two Towers but lost drama in the middle of RotK.
Aragon wasn't hiding from his heritage, he carried the broken blade with him as a reminder of his destiny (although he was cynical about it).
Arwen wasn't a bad-ass who could out-class the wraiths, Glorfindal was the bad-ass warrior who afforded the hobbits some protection so they could get to Rivendell.
Just a few examples off the top of my head, the main thing was how many character that were fundamentally "wrong" when compared to the books.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Neither of those chapters contribute to the story as a whole. Remember that (in the movies) Saruman died at Isengard, so the episode of the Shire wouldn't make sense. Also Tom Bombadil IMHO doesn't make sense with the darkish setting of the story.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Scourging of the Shire is a _major_ point of the LoTR story--it's not only that you must stand up against evil, but that once your innocence is lost in the fight, you can never go home again. The hobbits have been changed by their adventures and are no longer who they were when they left home, and their home has changed too... none of them (though most poignantly Frodo) can have the life they had in the way it was when they left.
Hollywood is forever getting this wrong. When I was a youngster, I walked o
Re: (Score:2)
I can sort of see skipping past Tom, since he confuses a lot of readers too. He was mostly a tie-in to earlier stories and difficult to understand in a movie setting without a lot of background info. The Barrow Downs would have been nice to see t
Re:Peter jackson... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to mention that the undead army never made it to Pelannor Fields. They defeated the Corsairs of Umbar, were released from service, and the reinforcements came from the freed slaves and the now un-besieged coastal region.
Allowing Saruman his final chance of redemption (to wait out the war & think about why he (and other Istari) was sent to middle earth), show that even Fangorn was susceptible to Saruman's final evil skill (voice), and show the damage which can still be caused by a hollowed out "powerless" voice set loose among a good-natured group such as the Shire, cheats Gandalf and Saruman of character and Tolkien of some of his more subtle points. Not to mention cheating the Shire of it's endurance before and hard-will after the rising sparked by the returning hobbits.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, If you think Tom doesn't belong, that's fine. But you're missing a whole depth to the story by thinking that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And in The Shining [1980], Kubrick left out the explosion of the boiler. God that movie sucks.
The books are good, the movie adaptations are good. The movie doesn't suck because a character that isn't integral to the plot is missing.
Yeah, you liked Tom Bombadil like a favourite uncle but he didn't contribute to the story.
What was more annoying was the Aragorn/Arwen angle that took away from the momentum of the story. Still not worth the hate.
Re:The cartoon was better (Score:5, Informative)
I need glasses (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I swear I read that as "The production has struggled recently with issues with Unicorns"
I know it's the ultimate paradox. On one hand the original story didn't have unicorns on the other hand they are totally awesome.
I can totally see how that would hold up production. If you're going to do unicorns you want to do them right and not just CG them in after the fact because you changed your mind and decided the movie would be that much more awesome with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe. My first reaction was "That's a strange way to spell Onions, is this some reference from LOTR that I have forgotten?"
Re: (Score:2)
let's wait (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We already know how it ends (Score:5, Funny)
With the producers, director, actors, production crews, and distributors facing off in a lawsuit -- a great Battle of Five Armies over a huge pile of gold.
Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to throwing my $10 on the pile. I'm sure the film itself will be great.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to get mauled for this... but I really enjoyed reading The Hobbit and think it will make a great movie.
The LoTR movies were good, and so were the books. The problem I had with the LoTR movie is the same problem I have with any massive chronicle. Namely, special effects -- no matter how great -- cannot even really compare with imagination. Plus, there's so much happening in LoTR movie that my small brain got a little lost. The same thing happened with Transformers, X-Men, The Mummy, etc..
The Hobbi
Oooooh, anonymous sources! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Outlook not so good. MY EYES!
Two parts? (Score:5, Insightful)
ie. They're going to milk this for all it's worth.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup... and I will refuse to see the first part until the second part comes out and I can watch them back to back.
Re: (Score:2)
Why buy the cow when you can milk the bull for free?
Re: (Score:2)
> Why buy the cow when you can milk the bull for free?
Methinks you (pardon the pun), butchered that...
"Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" - FTFY
Anyways, the answer is: To keep the other bulls away so you have a monopoly on the milk... and the heifers...
But I digress.
Soooo, bringing this back ON topic, when have the movie studies NOT tried to screw the public out their money with all the [crappy] sequels.
Re: (Score:2)
A large group of people throw money at a franchise and it's lame that they're 'milking' it?
Re: (Score:2)
I still remember putting my first LOTR DVD into the player and being greeted by an advert for the extended edition - "Available next month!!"
There's milking, and there's ripping off.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you look into it at all before you made a purchase? I ask because every time I've seen a complaint about this the announcement was made before the release of the lite DVD.
Re:Two parts? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the Silmarillion would be fine - it's a set of short stories, many of which would make fine movies. No one needs to see Genesis on the screen, but there's great movie material past the begats.
Re: Two parts? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
> God forbid anyone ever try and read the silmarillion.
>
Actually, i have tried a few times - but always seemed to black out. All I can remember is some sort of historic summary, that goes like
18xx - King Foo does Bar
19xx - King Foo dies
20xx - Elf X does Y
and so on and so on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It took me about 4 tries but it was worth it.
Once you read it a few times you start remembering who is who and then the significance of the story emerges.
Even the names of swords are important and it's easy to forget 100 pages earlier that you already were introduced to character.
It also helps to understand the structure of the story: The first page is the entire story. The 1st chapter is the entire story and then it decompresses exponentially from there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think they should do an entire HBO vignette series out of the Silmarillion. There's lots of good fodder in there that would distill down nicely to a 3-story episode, or a multi-part story arc or two. Plus they can bring on multiple actors, directors and writers to suit the individual stories.
And can you seriously tell me that you don't want to see an epic battle against a horde of Balrogs? Or an invasion of an armada so vast that the only way to defeat t
Re:Two parts? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or cool Elves! By the time of the Lord of the Rings, the only remaining Elves are the uncultured types (Legolas) and the aging hippies laying around and doing nothing but reminiscing about better days (Elrond and Galadriel). The Silmarillion is like, their Woodstock with fire and demons. Take Feanor, the greatest Elf ever to live. You know the Palantir? Those were like, one of his weekend projects he did when he got bored one day. When he wasn't making cool stuff, he was standing up to the Man. And by that, I mean when the most powerful god in Middle-Earth came knocking, the guy who could take on all the other gods alone in the beginning, the guy who kept Sauron around as a pet, Feanor slammed his door in the dude's face and told him to gtfo. This dude's last words were basically "DO IT BIG, GUYS. DO IT BIG."
And you know how all the Elves in LotR are goody-two-shoes pansies? Not in The Silmarillion. Do things like "the Kinslayings", "the Curse of the Noldor", the "Oath of Feanor", and "The Grinding Ice" sound like pansy crap to you? When these Elves showed up, the Big Bad had to invent dragons because Orcs were completely and utterly outmatched. When they saw Balrogs, these Elves didn't call out for Gandalf. Feanor took on multiple Balrogs and their troll-guard at once. Glorfindel - the same dude who got cut from the LotR movies - fights and kills a Balrog. And dragons, oh man, were there dragons. Smaug in the Hobbit is like a baby dragon. Ancalagon the Black crushed mountains (plural) when he fell from the skies.
The Silmarillion - if you take the time to get past Genesis, which is important backstory - is not a story for the faint of heart. It's full of incest, treachery, gods, treachery, and much more. You'll recognize a couple characters from the Lord of the Rings. The Silmarillion is a very, very intricate story, and it does take time to understand, but once you've got a grasp on it, it's pretty mindblowing.
Also, you get to see Sauron put to shame by a man, his girlfriend, and their loyal dog.
Re: (Score:2)
For one Peter Jackson is not George Lucas, also I doubt he's had any deciding power in the DVD/BluRay release schedule which is an insult to all the fans. He had to fight hard enough to get his own money. If you're going to stay true to the book then I'd say one movie leading up to and ending in the climax of Smaug's defeat is a good first movie. Making that a little "middle climax" and the battle of five armies the final climax doesn't do it justice at all. Remember that the LotR movies were much, much lon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Hobbit is a pretty slim book compared to The Lord Of The rings. Padding it out two two movies isn't a decision being made by the director, you can bet on that.
It's a bean-counting decision, the director is being ordered to pad it out with fluff. Expect plenty of jolly japes (ie. more dwarf tossing and skateboarding elves)
Plus there's the time lag. I'd be OK with two parts if they released them a couple of months apart but what are the chances of that...? Slim and none.
Sigh (Score:2)
You know, with Duke Nukem Forever actually looking like it's going to come out, it's a shame that we're losing such a great internet meme, because I was just about to say how The Hobbit is starting to look like the Duke Nukem Forever of the film world. :(
Re: (Score:2)
What happened... (Score:2)
Oh goody... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet another opportunity to wear funny glasses for three hours and have pointy objects thrust at me repeatedly.
Maybe he'll buck the trend and NOT do it in 3D?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This was the first thing I noticed. If they subscribe to the gimmick that is 3D in movies I'll have lost all respect for the crew that brought us LOTR.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen documentaries filmed in IMAX 3D. 3D isn't a gimmick, it's absolutely phenomenal. Or at least it was 20 years ago. The gimmick is their desire to look "cool". Home Improvement made fun of it when all of the other stations were doing their 3D episodes, with glasses in the newspaper, what, 10 years ago now? (Third Rock from the Sun and many other shows all did it the same night, get glasses from paper, see episode in stunning 3D). So, Tool Time had it's own 3D episode, and Tim, Al, and Heidi s
Re: (Score:2)
How do you see it in 3D? To me it all just looks stereoscopic...
Re: (Score:2)
The options (and outcomes) are:
1a: Film it in 3D. 3D dies before the movie comes out, and it is displayed in 2D.
1b: Film it in 3D. 3D is still alive before the movie comes out, and it is displayed in 2D and decent-looking 3D.
2a: Film it in 2D. 3D dies before the movie comes out, and it is displayed in 2D.
2b: Film it in 2D. 3D is still alive before the movie comes out, and some hack executive forces a godawful 3D conversion.
Filming in 3D might take a little more time, but you do cover your bases.
Re: (Score:2)
What really happened. (Score:5, Funny)
It began with the forging of the Great Rings. Three were given to the artists and writers; wisest and most creative of all beings. Seven, to the union actors, great visionaries and craftsmen of the stage. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the studio execs, who above all else desire power. For within these rings was bound the strength and the will to govern over each group. But they were all of them deceived, for a new ring was made. In the land of New Zealand, in the fires of Mount Cook, the Dark Lord Peter Jackson forged in secret, a master ring, to control all others.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, they tried to bilk Jackson out of LOTR $ (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting#Examples [wikipedia.org]
I'd suspect that they must have come to some sort of an agreement with Jackson. Either setting up payment on what they owe in LOTR, or sweetening the $ from the Hobbit in some way in order to make up for it.
What's even more interesting to me, is that the article doesn't mention this at all. The article reads so much like a press release that I wonder if it's cribbed directly from a couple of different press releases.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know the specifics of the deal but I understand Jackson did not agree to percentage of profits. He agreed to percentage of gross revenue. My understanding was of the disagreement had to deal with licensing rights [nytimes.com]. Jackson was to get revenue based on the licensing. NewLine Cinema is part of Time Warner. Jackson is alleging that NewLine sold the rights to other Time Warner subsidiaries in a closed system for far less than what they should have gotten. This way on paper NewLine gets less revenue
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kind of shocked Jackson actually fell for a cut of the net. I know his clout currently stems from the LOTR movies, but Hollywood Accounting is as old and straightforward a rule as you will find in LA these days. First year acting students are told not to take a cut of the net. How did he fall for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he really didn't think they would cut off their nose to spite their face with the further possible movies he could make?
Re: (Score:2)
Enough already! (Score:2)
two-part version of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit early next year
The Hobbit was the shortest book in the series. It was a much easier read then the actual Lord of the Rings series. Why does it need to be TWO movies? I bet I could read The Hobbit in less time then it'll take to watch this movie!
I'm getting so sick of Jackson's super-extended movies that I think I'm just going to pass on this one. I don't need to watch Bilbo fly on the back of a bird for 20 minutes because Jackson just can't bear to cut any frames out.
The Cliff's Notes version is an even faster read (Score:2)
Maybe that's the version you need.
Some of us like the fact that instead of trying to stuff the entirety of the Lord of the Rings into a single movie, or two movies, or even three short movies, Jackson went all the way and immersed us in Middle Earth for several hours. I dislike that Saruman's demise was altered, and the departure at the end of RotK went on too long, but I am happy that Jackson gave us a full, meaty interpretation of the books.
The Hobbit is a shorter work, but it's easy to envision it as a t
Lost movies of the 21st century... (Score:2)
ack! Too late! "The Hobbit" directed by Guillermo Del Toro is now the great lost films of our generation. I really hope there's a chance of re-attaching him to the project. His lightness of touch with fantasy would have suited this material so well.
Last time I felt like this was the canning of Darren Aronofsky's "Batman: Year One"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Year_One#Canceled_film [wikipedia.org]
which would have been pretty awesome too....
Two parts? (Score:2)
> two-part version of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit
Huh? He fit the Ring books into a film each, yet the Hobbit, smaller than any of them, needs two parts? Uggg.
Re:bummer (Score:5, Funny)
I'd almost forgotten the skateboarding elf, thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hash, Boo, Valvoline
Clean, Clean, Clean for Gene
First, Second, Neutral, Park
Hie thee Hence, you leafy Narc!
(always wanted to do that)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gimli died?
Sure you're not confusing him with Trinity?
Re: (Score:2)
Dude - spoiler alert!
I'm sure there's got to be someone interested in nerdy tech news (and how it pertains to movies) who hasn't seen...
...never mind, I concede the point.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the least-concerning change for me. While the dwarf-tossing jokes were a bit 4th wall breaking (as anachronisms) and could have been done without, that was only a few seconds of film. As for the rest, Gimli always struck me as someone with unshakable self confidence, and an awareness of morale on long campaigns. It seemed fitting to his character that he'd be willing to lighten the mood at his own expense from time to time, not "destroying" his character at all.
While the growth of his friendship
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As I recall... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with Darkness404 (post above yours)... The Hobbit was a fairly easy, entertaining, and fast paced read compared to LOTR.
Reading the Silmarillion, though, was like reading a cross between a bible and the world's most boring history book.
Sure, packed with details and interesting tidbits of Middle Earth history... but boring as sin.
Re:As I recall... (Score:4, Insightful)
I had a similar experience, but I did eventually get through the Silmarillion. I think I read it twice, eventually.
The first half is basically the Middle Earth version of Genesis. Most of it could probably be compressed into a genealogy chart without losing too much. The second half is a lot more interesting. But you have to slog through the first half so you know who everyone is. Otherwise you'll just get lost of in a sea of near-identical names.
If you're a big LotR fan, it's probably worth the effort.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Hobbit was the most boring of the Tolkien books, but hey, I'm all for a movie!
Isn't that like saying the Pacific Ocean is the most wet of the oceans?
Sure... if you're illiterate ;p
Re: (Score:2)
He did a better job than almost anyone else I can think of, except perhaps Guillermo Del Toro; but his version of LOTR still misses the mark IMHO.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tolkien wrote LoTR as one large book. His editors made him break it into six sub-books, which were then combined and edited into the three books.
They couldn't have done this with LoTR because there wasn't enough movie-ready material in there. LoTR is a deeply complex story with a lot of subtle subplots going on. Jackson chose the destruction of the Ring as the primary thrust of his story. Bombadil was not a part of that storyline. Bombadil would have been (to a movie-going audience) a complete non-seq
Re: (Score:2)
Well in a nutshell you got the gist but not much of the details. First it is set in world of magic and fantasy. If you don't like reading or watching this genre, you'd never like it. Second, there is a longer backstory. But the basics of what you glossed over or missed: There is one major evil in this world, Sauron. Centuries ago other rings of power were made that gave their wearers some magical powers. However Sauron indirectly contributed to their making and secretly made his one ring that would