No way am I buying the book if it has a movie still on the front cover
The books have been better than the movies in my opinion. Tolkien really nails the movie story into a great novel.
Yeah, not like that hack C.S. Lewis, who made a right balls of the novelisations of the Narnia movies.
I’m confused
Critics are mixed about it ( 70%) while Fans/fanboys have it top of their list to see,
Duh.
Why would it be good. It’s a children’s book stretched out to an incredible length.
Absolutely, it’s a very short book, especially when compared to the trilogy of the Lord of the Rings, so I’d love to know the reasons as to why it was made into several movies, other than money.
There are no other reasons.
if hollywood can turn a 25 page picture book of ‘Where the Wild Things Are’ into a 2 hour movie. they can turn a 300 page book into a trilogy
I’m a bit skeptical myself, BUT they seem to be incorporating a lot of extra story material from various other sources, some of it more sketchy than others. There’s ample material there for a substantial prologue – Gandalf meeting Thorin’s father in Dol Guldur, the White Council, meeting Thorin in Bree – whether it’s worth losing one of the most famous openings in children’s literature is another matter. Later still, Gandalf goes off and has adventures that are barely mentioned in the book, all building up to the Battle, so there’s lots of scope there too. Again whether it’s worth doing or not, or whether Jackson does it well is another question.
Secondly, there’s Tolkien’s tendency, quite marked in The Hobbit, to give relatively short shrift to some of the more exciting occurrences, covering them in a few paragraphs or just a page or two. Jackson has shown himself a dab hand at exploiting such gaps, as in the famous ‘they run to the bridge’ bit in Fellowship. I’ll bet good cash money the fight with the goblins is orders of magnitude more epic on the screen than it is in the book.
Whether there’s three film’s worth? Dunno. Whether Jackson will do it justice? We’ll see.
If that’s as negative as they get, then I reckon I won’t be disappointed.
Well Im one of the few that thought lord of the rings sucked so I wouldn’t be surprised it will get a few negatives.
Peter Jacksons best stuff are Bad taste and Brain Dead
I always say I like director’s first films and first albums by any musician.
any musician?,don’t tempt me
Really? You should write a book about it.
+1 After the first one I was like hmm- maybe the story picks up in the others- it just continues, nothing develops, there is a big battle, Gandalf comes in at the last minute and saves our heros. zzzzzzzzzzzz
Spoiler alert!!!
Shur the Lord of the Rings movies were boring as fook.
I saw it last night in NYC. Whilst it doesn’t have the majestic high stakes plot of Lord of the Rings (and, uh, neither did the original book) I really liked the film. I thought it was an enjoyable adventure. The frame rate is a little strange but mostly it works.
I saw it in an underwater cinema in the Maldives surrounded by coked up playmates. I really liked the film experience too.
I’m definitely giving this a wide berth and I’m a big Tolkien fan. I cannot stand 3 hours of po faced grandiosity. I haven’t seen the latest Batman for the same reason.
Latest Batman is pretty good (except catwoman)
That’s the only role that Anne Hathaway is quite good in. Film was a let down after the second one.
Fans of the books will never be happy especially considering how much he messes about with the story including the key story line around Andúril and a few other small but significant plot bits left out.
That said Mr Jackson is more interested in selling NZ as a tourist destination rather than making a movie
Its about hobbits and dwarves, its bound to be rubbish, (whose interest in this stuff anyway, excepting girl/boy friendless 15 yo boys)
We’re booked to see it on Thursday (13 Dec). Was looking forward to it, but am now not so sure. The 48fps is said to induce nausea for some.
If the first movie ends at Lake-town, then there’s enough in the book that far to spin it to 3 hours.
Stephen Colbert has had Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman & Andy Serkis on so far this week. All good knockabout stuff.
I’ve watched the Colbert episodes and I have really enjoyed them, as he seems to have. I really liked the Martin Freeman interview I have to say, that was a good battle of quick wits.
They get as far as Lake Town in the first one? How on earth are they spinning out the rest of the storyline to two more films?
(I was really hoping that the Battle of Five Armies would happen offscreen as it does in the book, but I’m guessing it won’t.)
Fellowship of the Ring was relatively slow paced as well though. Helped to solidify the characters though.
Split into 2 would maybe be better than 3 but I don’t think you’d get it all in 1 film.
Wont be bothering with this. It looks like such a rip off of lord of the rings.
Have you noticed the main guy even has the same hairy feet!
More midget orienteering porn.
No wonder hobbits are so short. Their legs are worn to stumps from all the walking.
If there’s one thing in a movie I hate, it’s grandiloquence. I’m always saying that so I am.
It’s like peeing thru a lens….
This story saddens me. Can’t understand why people don’t like LOTR trilogy, it’s badass
forget the book and just watch the movie.
for those of LOTR bent then check out hunt for gollum over on youtube which is a fan made film that cost less than the rent on Jacksons trailer and it still manages to look as good as LOTR.
Surely you troll sir??
And I’ll repeat what I said after the LOTR trilogy….
Some initial negativity towards The Hobbit
huh? what are we looking at here?
I don’t get it.
When will the book be out?
No way am I buying the book if it has a movie still on the front cover
The books have been better than the movies in my opinion. Tolkien really nails the movie story into a great novel.
Yeah, not like that hack C.S. Lewis, who made a right balls of the novelisations of the Narnia movies.
I’m confused
Critics are mixed about it ( 70%) while Fans/fanboys have it top of their list to see,
Duh.
Why would it be good. It’s a children’s book stretched out to an incredible length.
Absolutely, it’s a very short book, especially when compared to the trilogy of the Lord of the Rings, so I’d love to know the reasons as to why it was made into several movies, other than money.
There are no other reasons.
if hollywood can turn a 25 page picture book of ‘Where the Wild Things Are’ into a 2 hour movie. they can turn a 300 page book into a trilogy
I’m a bit skeptical myself, BUT they seem to be incorporating a lot of extra story material from various other sources, some of it more sketchy than others. There’s ample material there for a substantial prologue – Gandalf meeting Thorin’s father in Dol Guldur, the White Council, meeting Thorin in Bree – whether it’s worth losing one of the most famous openings in children’s literature is another matter. Later still, Gandalf goes off and has adventures that are barely mentioned in the book, all building up to the Battle, so there’s lots of scope there too. Again whether it’s worth doing or not, or whether Jackson does it well is another question.
Secondly, there’s Tolkien’s tendency, quite marked in The Hobbit, to give relatively short shrift to some of the more exciting occurrences, covering them in a few paragraphs or just a page or two. Jackson has shown himself a dab hand at exploiting such gaps, as in the famous ‘they run to the bridge’ bit in Fellowship. I’ll bet good cash money the fight with the goblins is orders of magnitude more epic on the screen than it is in the book.
Whether there’s three film’s worth? Dunno. Whether Jackson will do it justice? We’ll see.
If that’s as negative as they get, then I reckon I won’t be disappointed.
Well Im one of the few that thought lord of the rings sucked so I wouldn’t be surprised it will get a few negatives.
Peter Jacksons best stuff are Bad taste and Brain Dead
I always say I like director’s first films and first albums by any musician.
any musician?,don’t tempt me
Really? You should write a book about it.
+1 After the first one I was like hmm- maybe the story picks up in the others- it just continues, nothing develops, there is a big battle, Gandalf comes in at the last minute and saves our heros. zzzzzzzzzzzz
Spoiler alert!!!
Shur the Lord of the Rings movies were boring as fook.
I saw it last night in NYC. Whilst it doesn’t have the majestic high stakes plot of Lord of the Rings (and, uh, neither did the original book) I really liked the film. I thought it was an enjoyable adventure. The frame rate is a little strange but mostly it works.
I saw it in an underwater cinema in the Maldives surrounded by coked up playmates. I really liked the film experience too.
I’m definitely giving this a wide berth and I’m a big Tolkien fan. I cannot stand 3 hours of po faced grandiosity. I haven’t seen the latest Batman for the same reason.
Latest Batman is pretty good (except catwoman)
That’s the only role that Anne Hathaway is quite good in. Film was a let down after the second one.
Fans of the books will never be happy especially considering how much he messes about with the story including the key story line around Andúril and a few other small but significant plot bits left out.
That said Mr Jackson is more interested in selling NZ as a tourist destination rather than making a movie
Its about hobbits and dwarves, its bound to be rubbish, (whose interest in this stuff anyway, excepting girl/boy friendless 15 yo boys)
We’re booked to see it on Thursday (13 Dec). Was looking forward to it, but am now not so sure. The 48fps is said to induce nausea for some.
If the first movie ends at Lake-town, then there’s enough in the book that far to spin it to 3 hours.
Stephen Colbert has had Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman & Andy Serkis on so far this week. All good knockabout stuff.
I’ve watched the Colbert episodes and I have really enjoyed them, as he seems to have. I really liked the Martin Freeman interview I have to say, that was a good battle of quick wits.
They get as far as Lake Town in the first one? How on earth are they spinning out the rest of the storyline to two more films?
(I was really hoping that the Battle of Five Armies would happen offscreen as it does in the book, but I’m guessing it won’t.)
Fellowship of the Ring was relatively slow paced as well though. Helped to solidify the characters though.
Split into 2 would maybe be better than 3 but I don’t think you’d get it all in 1 film.
Wont be bothering with this. It looks like such a rip off of lord of the rings.
Have you noticed the main guy even has the same hairy feet!
More midget orienteering porn.
No wonder hobbits are so short. Their legs are worn to stumps from all the walking.
If there’s one thing in a movie I hate, it’s grandiloquence. I’m always saying that so I am.
It’s like peeing thru a lens….
This story saddens me. Can’t understand why people don’t like LOTR trilogy, it’s badass
forget the book and just watch the movie.
for those of LOTR bent then check out hunt for gollum over on youtube which is a fan made film that cost less than the rent on Jacksons trailer and it still manages to look as good as LOTR.
Surely you troll sir??
And I’ll repeat what I said after the LOTR trilogy….
Meh…..