The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
discussion
What is up with Gladerial?
message 1:
by
Lynette
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Aug 29, 2012 10:14AM
Has anyone seen the trailer for the movie? What is up with Gladerial being in there? She was never in the hobbit
reply
|
flag
They're probably just adding in characters so fans of the trilogy have a sense of familiarity. I think Legolas is supposed to make an appearance as well. Kind of like Chewbacca in Star Wars Episode III.This is not necessarily a bad thing. We shall wait and see. (I'd trust Peter Jackson more than George Lucas)
Lucas has proven his inability to do anything worthwhile over and over again.
I didn't understand why Frodo was supposed to be in it, either, but I guess he's narrating? I'm hopeful due to Peter Jackson's direction that it will turn out well, but I'm a little dubious because of the addition of these characters.
Yeah, I didn't particularly care for what he did to Faramir. I'm curious to see how he handles the wood elves though. They were very frivolous and silly in The Hobbit and I think the elves portrayed in LOTR are much more ethereal and otherworldly. I think Jackson may have to stick closer to that and just make the wood elves skeptical and suspicious rather than silly and flighty.
I am a huge Tolkien fan, which I had to put to one side to watch the LotR movies. As pieces of cinema they are fantastic. As a telling of LotR they are awful. The deconstruction of the main characters was heart breaking, in particular that of Aragorn.
Jackson turned him into a reluctant hero who sort of steps up towards the end. Tolkien's version is much more dramatic - Aragorn loves Arwen if he wants to marry her he has to accomplish the following - Destruction of Sauron, Become King of Gondor, Rebuild the state of Arnor and take on the responsibility of ruling the Western world.
Aragorn's response - basically Ok and then he spends 50 years in the wilderness, spying on Sauron's allies, fighting in Gondor and Rohan (years before the time LotR is set) attempting to bring this about.
And Jackson had him crawling on all fours performing tricks. I can only hope he does not destroy the Hobbit like that. The problem is that given the Hobbit is about half the size of one book of LotR and the movie is THREE parts I'm not very hopeful.
A.K. wrote: "I am a huge Tolkien fan, which I had to put to one side to watch the LotR movies. As pieces of cinema they are fantastic. As a telling of LotR they are awful. The deconstruction of the main chara..."
seriously 3 parts? Ohhhhh noooooo
A.K. wrote: "I am a huge Tolkien fan, which I had to put to one side to watch the LotR movies. As pieces of cinema they are fantastic. As a telling of LotR they are awful. The deconstruction of the main chara..."
I very much agree. If you take them as just movies, they are great, probably one of the best trilogies around. However, as book-to-movie adaptations? Really disappointing.
It's interesting, because I watched them years before actually reading the books, and I used to love them so much. They are the reason why I started reading the books in the first place.
But I can't enjoy watching them as much as I used to anymore. I simply can't overlook all the changes. Too many to list, and most of them are pointless.
At first, I was kind of excited when I read about The Hobbit turning into 2 movies. A relatively short book getting two movies? It'll sure stay faithful to the original story, I thought. Now I'm afraid that they are just milking the franchise. Three movies for a 350 pages long book is obviously too much. This is the reason why they're adding all these new characters, I suspect. They'll probably make up new events as well.
They cannot really stay close to the books. The public is expecting a kind of a prequel to LOTR and they would be sorely disappointed by a direct transfer of what is basically a kids' book. That's why they are bringing in a lot of "more serious" material from Tolkien's other works and sources.
My understanding is that all of the extra things being added into the movies are things that Tolkien added in later on too. Such as things in the appendixes of LotR and a lot of the notes he kept that they have the rights. I read somewhere that he wants to make a movie that is as flushed out as the story was when Tolkien died, not as it was first written.
To be fair, in Galadriel's case (and Legolas and any other Elves), she was already there anyway, just not actually mentioned in the story. Somehow that makes it more ok for me.
It's difficult to film something like LOTR and not fail at some point in the story, in the character presentation and development, but overall I do believe the trilogy was wonderfuly brought to life on the screen. I will say, however, that the choice to not have Tom Bombadil appear has always been a sticking point with me since he was always one of my favorite minor characters in any book I've read.Having said that I do agree with previous commentary; stretching The Hobbit into three movies sounds like excessive cinematographic fluff, and although I fear a re-telling of the story I loved as I remember it and the addition of characters not present the first go-around, I do know this much: it will be good fluff...I will see the fluff...I will like the fluff...and I will buy the fluffy DVDs.
Why? Because I must see the precious when it's on screen. I wants it. I needs it. I'm a fan and it's that simple.
Michael wrote: "Lucas has proven his inability to do anything worthwhile over and over again."You mean Jackson? Peter Jackson is the director, not George Lucas.
Matthew wrote: "Michael wrote: "Lucas has proven his inability to do anything worthwhile over and over again."You mean Jackson? Peter Jackson is the director, not George Lucas."
He was commenting on a prior post.
Joe wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Michael wrote: "Lucas has proven his inability to do anything worthwhile over and over again."You mean Jackson? Peter Jackson is the director, not George Lucas."
He was commentin..."
My mistake! And to you Michael, allow me to take my foot out of my mouth and let you know that I agree wholeheartedly. A man is truly lost when he begins quoting George W Bush. "Not only am I the decider, I am the creator."
Who knows what Jackson &co are up to but there's a bit of backstory that Tolkien came up with well after the writing of the Hobbit and incorporated into the Council of Elrond chapter of LoTR (and in the Tale of the Years in the appendices - year 2941). There are large sections of the Hobbit where Gandalf is away on other business. Essentially this involved dealing with "the necromancer" (later known as Sauron) who was holed up in Southern Mirkwood (Dol Guldur) causing no small amount of trouble. Galadriel was part of the group, the White Council (as were Saruman, Rhadagast and our old pal Elrond amongst others) involved in this little expedition. They manage to chase him out of his lair only for him to reappear later back in his old haunt of Mordor. But you already know that story...
At any rate this is about the only Tolkien related reason to draw Galadriel into the Hobbit movie. As I said, though, who knows what Jackson &co are up to. However, if they're interested in trying to tie the events of the Hobbit in more closely to those of LoTR and just generally create a good sense of continuity between these two films and the three LoTR films it would make sense to include the White Council's battle with the Necromancer.
Just sayin'...
From what I read Jackson is drawing upon the various appendices and, apparently, some parts of the Silmarillion. When I heard it was going to be two movies long I didn't think too much of it - I thought the Lord of the Rings was a good adapation of a few peoples interpretation of the books - so figured The Hobbit movies would be the same. I am more concerned now that it has been stretched into three films but I still trust in Jacksons ability. What he is doing is making 'his' version after all and from what I saw in the extended editions he cares about the details.
I never found The Hobbit as good as I did Lord of the Rings so if he is adding in the the necromancer I would be glad as it certinaly, in my opinion, adds to the appeal of the films.
Carina wrote: "I am more concerned now that it has been stretched into three films ..."Have I missed something? Three films of The Hobbit? I'll have to go and look it up...
Ah, yes: "Upon recently viewing a cut of the first film, and a chunk of the second, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and I were very pleased with the way the story was coming together," Jackson said in a statement. "We recognized that the richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, gave rise to a simple question: Do we tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as filmmakers and fans was an unreserved 'yes'."
Well, I'm dumbfounded ... in a sort of bemused way.
I am eageryly awaiting the movie on Hobbit. However three movies on one small book, Galadriel, Legolas in traliers sometimes suggest that may be thay are including some details from history of Hobbit even, I mean they may be adding some facts from The silmarillion.....if theh do that....making three movies is explanable.
They cannot add stuff from the Silmarillion for the simple fact that they do not own the movie rights for that novel. They only have the rights for the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. That basically limits any additions to those found in the appendices of the Lord of the Rings.
Tirzah wrote: "Alana wrote: "I didn't understand why Frodo was supposed to be in it, either, but I guess he's narrating? I'm hopeful due to Peter Jackson's direction that it will turn out well, but I'm a little d..."There's no doubt he played with those characters. To the detriment of the story.
Well...they always say "Never judge a movie by the book"
Lynette wrote: "Has anyone seen the trailer for the movie? What is up with Gladerial being in there? She was never in the hobbit"She is in the movie as part of the white council, saruman will also be there.
Also, the reason for 3 movies, you cannot possible fit a dragon battle scene and a battle including 5 armies into one movie without getting a 5 hour extended edition. All 13 dwarves need there own action scenes during fights. This will take up a lot of time. Most of the third movie will probably be fighting. It isn't really a money grab, it is an attempt to make the movies shorter.
Hey, I'm all for a five hour extended edition :)
Abigail wrote: "Also, the reason for 3 movies, you cannot possible fit a dragon battle scene and a battle including 5 armies into one movie without getting a 5 hour extended edition ..."You've hit the nail on the head here: cinematic narration has a different timescale from that on the page. And in any case, audio readings of The Hobbit seem to last around the four-hour mark--that's at least two-movies worth! The 1977 animated movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfrhGX...) lasts over an hour-and-a-quarter, missing out an awful lot, and although it seems fairly faithful to the story it remains nevertheless a fairly basic retelling.
Three movies? Seriously? Talk about milking the franchise! I don't have high expectations now. Even though I love the LOTR movies.
Chris and Abigail I never thought of it that way - you are right though in that what can take you five minutes to read in a book can easily translate into 30 minutes screen time.
The same can be true vice-versa, though. Something that takes a paragraph to describe in words you can visualize in seconds on a screen, such as a physical description.
I guess it depends on how much faith you put in the WETA team. If you didn't like the adaptation of the LOTR, what they do here seems to be in the same vein.Pre-publicity suggests it isn't 3 movies worth of Hobbit, but includes material from the LOTR appendices to bridge the time period between Hobbit and LOTR.
Some will always feel a successful adaptation must be a faithful realization of the novel as written. I look for more feel, tone, and broad adherence to the story. For me, the original LOTR movies met that. I don't think they're perfect, but some of their imperfections mirror the books (the very walky/talky Two Towers) while others were created as part of the process of making the movie as they saw it (the changes in Merry and Pippin's characters and the pacing early on to make it faster and more cinema friendly are ones that stand out in my mind).
I look forward to it along with a very few other movies this fall.
I personally loved the LotR movies, they peaked my interest in fantasy. Had it not been for that trilogy I would probably never have had anything to do with Tolkien's work.I've got faith in Jackson to pull it off.
Someone mentioned the audiobook running around 4 hours...the unabridged version I listened to was 11 hours.
I sure hope they won't throw too much out there. Meaning, I'm afraid that too much "awesome" will compete for the audience's attention, and reduce the original Hobbit story to a "oh, now we're back with Bilbo and the dwarves again."I agree that adaptations from the novel have to be made in order to make The Hobbit into a working movie (or 3). However, I do not see the need to dwell very long on events that are outside the scope of The Hobbit. Bilbo is our narrator; if we do not identify to him, at least we relate to him. What feels mysterious to him will appear mysterious to us. The whispered half-guesses about the identity of the Necromancer that Bilbo hears will remain that way to us, for the duration of the movie. We are not stupid. We know the Necromancer is in fact Sauron. Thank you, we got it. No need to write it on our collective noses with silly expository dialogue, and thus take us out of narrative of our beloved protagonist.
J. wrote: "Someone mentioned the audiobook running around 4 hours...the unabridged version I listened to was 11 hours ..."Yes, I noticed there was at least one audiobook that wasn't significantly longer than four hours. Is that because the shorter versions have been edited down? Or because the eleven-hour version includes songs and dramatisations?
The one I listened to recently was four hours and dramatized. That cut down on narration that needed to be read.
Alana wrote: "The one I listened to recently was four hours and dramatized. That cut down on narration that needed to be read."Ah, that explains it, thanks!
Chris wrote: "J. wrote: "Someone mentioned the audiobook running around 4 hours...the unabridged version I listened to was 11 hours ..."Yes, I noticed there was at least one audiobook that wasn't significantly..."
I bet the four hour version is abridged. I looked on audible.com and there was only a 6 min difference between the abridged and unabridged, which can't be accurate. "We left out two sentences to save time!". The version I listened to, can't remember what site I bought it from, was dramatized, but it felt like a movie, I never felt like the story was sagging or too slow.
Marko wrote: "They cannot add stuff from the Silmarillion for the simple fact that they do not own the movie rights for that novel. They only have the rights for the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. That basica..."A great deal of The Silmarillion was based on LOTR appendices.
That seems pretty unlikely given that Tolkien had written much of the Silmarillion decades before even the Hobbit.
Merry and Pippin grew to be about four and a half feet tall, which is very tall for a hobbit. At six feet they would have been taller than most humans.
Yes given we all love Tolkien and his masterpiece middle earth and everthing there about. But you cant also argue with the fact that half the world has seen and like the jackson directed lotr trilogy. Now given those FACTS we now have to assume that those who are disappointed that there are now three hobbits instead ot two are dilusional and suffer from the disease of I think im smarter than i actually am and have forced myself to say to myself that i am so book orientaded that three movies just wouldnt be as good as tolkiens books regarding the subject. We have all read the books and most of has understood tolkien on some deeper level of our souls, but that doesnt take away the fact that a good movie is far rarer than a good book and that when now i just heard that three movies for the hobbit are now being made my excitement was clotheslined because of all the lack of enthusiasm toward three movies. So as i say to that bring on the trilogy and i will anticipate every cinematic minute of these im sure to be timeless classics as the first series was indeed
As far as I understand the three films part, The Hobbit itself will be made into two films. The third film is a film to bridge the gap between The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. The third film I think is a bad idea but as to small changes in the story such as the inclusion of Frodo as an introduction, I'm happy with them. It will help provide a sense of familiarity. In this particular case I felt Tolkien kept mentioning Bilbo's book in LOTR as a link back to the Hobbit. Since Peter Jackson is doing them the other way round, he also is attempting to link the books. I agree about the inclusion of Galadriel though. Gandalf always seemed fairly asexual in the books and I hope he stays that way.
Ofc Legolas will be included; he's a major chick magnet (if I may be so cruel, biased and envious as to mention it). Legolas = a bigger movie-going audience + more sold toys = more money.There is in fact one story-wise good reason to include Legolas. In TROTK Legolas beats Gimli (a friggin' dwarf!) in a drinking contest in order to look awesome. How did he learn to drink like that? Now let's think about that one for a sec. Bilbo used elven susceptibility to wine to free his dwarven companions from captivity. Did king Thranduil order his guards and warriors to build up their alcohol resistance by increased consumption? Or did he issue some kind of neutralizing drug? Either way, it'd be great fun to see Legolas fall asleep on guard duty in one of the upcoming movies.
Lynette wrote: "Has anyone seen the trailer for the movie? What is up with Gladerial being in there? She was never in the hobbit"I think Jackson is putting pieces of the Silmarilian in with The Hobbit. There is some history of Middle Earth that is making it's way into the movie that was not in The Hobbit. I know the Necromancer is part of the Silmarilian not The Hobbit. This should be interesting.
A.l.s. wrote: "Lynette wrote: "Has anyone seen the trailer for the movie? What is up with Gladerial being in there? She was never in the hobbit"I think Jackson is putting pieces of the Silmarilian in with The H..."
Jackson can't use any material from the Silmarillion, because the Tolkien estate hols the rights.
Abigail wrote: "A.l.s. wrote: "Lynette wrote: "Has anyone seen the trailer for the movie? What is up with Gladerial being in there? She was never in the hobbit"I think Jackson is putting pieces of the Silmarilia..."
All I know is that in interviews he has made mention of the Necromancer as it pertains to the movie. Have to wait and see.
A.K. wrote: "I am a huge Tolkien fan, which I had to put to one side to watch the LotR movies. As pieces of cinema they are fantastic. As a telling of LotR they are awful. The deconstruction of the main chara..."
Three movies out of one rather small book? I'm not anticipating an accurate telling of "The Hobbit".
Tom wrote: "A.K. wrote: "I am a huge Tolkien fan, which I had to put to one side to watch the LotR movies. As pieces of cinema they are fantastic. As a telling of LotR they are awful. The deconstruction of t..."
No, I'm not either. I have a feeling a lot of the history of Middle Earth will be added into these films. Not quite sure how I feel about that. Have to wait and see how it's done. If they do it right, it could be fun to see. The Silmarilian was a sloggish read and I never did make it past half the book. I think I could get interested in it in movie form though.
i know that characters that werent written into the book are being included, and i read somewhere that its being done so that there is a connection between the hobbit and lotr trilogy. these alterations will only destroy how well the hobbit was written and how good the story by itself was, sticking ot the original almost word for word would be so much better.
if anyone needs the likes of legolas in the movie just so they can make a connection then they clearly have no idea about lotr at all.
I think it would depend to the extent these people are used. As someone has previously commented (not sure if it was on this thread or another similar) Legolas would have been alive at the time of The Hobbit and his father was the elf who 'punishes' the Thorin et al in Mirkwood. So Legolas would have been around for those scenes.I think it would all depend on how much you trust Jackson as a director - if you like what he did with The Lord of the Rings then you will likley not enjoy The Hobbit, but considering how much Jackson draws on the appendices for scenes within Lord of the Rings I think it highly unfair to say people who would accept a connection between the series "have no idea" about the them.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Silmarillion (other topics)The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (other topics)
