What is up with Gladerial?

[Mary]

I think it's a good thing he's including extra things from the appendices. They wouldn't make it into a movie of their own and they add to the representation of Middle Earth on screen, so why not! I'm really excited for the movie :)

[Abigail]

Rowie_jr94 wrote: "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 alter..."

Jackson isn't trying to get people to make a connection by adding Legolas. Legolas was Thranduil's son! It would make sense that Legolas would be in Mirkwood! He was a wood elf from Mirkwood! I, myself, am excited about it. Legolas is my favorite character (movie-wise). And we should keep in mind that what Jackson is making is an adaption of Tolkien's book. And if it were word for word, there would be nothing from the appendices. We would miss a lot. He is fleshing out the story and making is more than a children's story like the book was.

[Nat]

Marko wrote: "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 ..."

That's the problem though.
Since the spectacular original movies drew the public's attention to LotR, they may cheapen the storyline to make a flick. It is starting to annoy me that so many people love crappy movies. Peter Jackson will be sure to keep some factors true to the book to please the fans, but they're definely milking it.

[Chris]

Though I doubt an adherence to the book, I'm sure it will be entertaining and I won't complain for 6+ hours of movie! Jackson and Co. have learned a lot from LotR and recent projects that I'm hoping it will be much more. The dragon scenes better be epic! OK, I'm OT now... :)

[Amy]

I'm kind of looking forward to seeing Galadriel and "the Necromancer" in The Hobbit movies. It explains why the trailer is a little dark, while the book itself is pretty lighthearted and fun. I enjoyed the Silmarillion bits they put in LOTR and look forward to seeing more in The Hobbit.

In fact, this thread has made me feel much better about turning The Hobbit into three movies (or two movies and a link film or whatever).

[Troy]

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'm a long time Tolkien fan. That's about the extent to which I agree with you :)

Tolkien's Aragorn seems very stiff to me--almost cardboard. His emotional range is very limited for someone who has lived through all he has.

I much prefer Jackson's Aragorn: His range of emotion is much greater (I think about the scene where Legolas is bragging about him at the council of Elrond, and he tells Legolas to sit down and shut up).

His approach to the world is not black and white. I think he is much more human (i.e., believable) than Tolkien's more mythological/ hieratic--in the broad sense--hero.

[Marko]

Troy wrote: "I much prefer Jackson's Aragorn: His range of emotion is much greater (I think about the scene where Legolas is bragging about him at the council of Elrond, and he tells Legolas to sit down and shut up)..."
I agree and the same goes with Boromir. Boromir became my favourite character in the movie trilogy because of the struggle that he went through with himself (and, hey, it was Sean Bean!). In the novel, he was a lot thinner insofar as characterisation was concerned.

[Marko]

Mind you, I did have problems with Jackson's Frodo when I rewatched the extended trilogy for the third time. About half of his scenes are about him holding the ring in his open palm and making puppy eyes...

[Troy]

Frankly, I find the argument about whether the film adequately portrays the book or not to be fruitless. Films never adequately portray books. The good ones try to do something entirely different. Film is its own art, with its own strengths and weaknesses. It does some things better than books ever can--and these things are usually visual. It is a rare film that succeeds better than a book in the non-visual areas. Additionally, skilled actors can bring something to a character that you never imagined while reading the book. I'd much prefer to judge the film on its own merit than in comparison to some wholly other media.

[Marko]

Well said, Troy!

[Samuel]

Hmm.. it's likely I won't even go to see it, unless I get invited to the premier in this area as a guest artist ... 3 movies for one book seems like milking to me :P

[Chris]

Sam wrote: "Hmm.. it's likely I won't even go to see it, unless I get invited to the premier in this area as a guest artist ... 3 movies for one book seems like milking to me :P"

Oh, for heaven's sake, stop being a grump! Let the damn movies come out first and stop pre-judging them! There's enough in the LOTR appendices to fill in much of 'The Hobbit' backstories, and enough in the prequel book itself to explore.

In any case, when Jackson transferred LOTR to the screen he was not only a consummate artist in the new media but also a director with a lot of control over the final outcome, and despite a few blemishes and poor judgements (Legolas versus the Opiphaunt for one) I personally rate highly the way he adapted the rambling trilogy for the screen. On top of that he will have learnt a lot from the LOTR enterprise and I have little doubt that 'The Hobbit' trilogy will be the better for it.

So, Samwise, put your prejudices aside and, whether as a guest artist (?) or a paying punter, give the first movie a go this December and then tell us your opinion.

[Peter]

Hear, hear.

[Scott]

Just to throw in my two cents, about all it's worth too, Jackson makes great movies. I very much enjoy watching the extended version of his LotR. My understanding about Galadriel is as many have mentioned here, backstory from notes and appendices. I suspect his motives for creating three films from one short novel are several: he enjoys it, they will make a lot of money, and, he can.

I like his movies but I never try to fool myself into thinking I'm reading the books. The movies are an interpretation and not the only one either. How many here have listened to Nicol Williamson's interpretation? Highly edited but a joy nonetheless.

[Troy]

Scott wrote: "Just to throw in my two cents, about all it's worth too, Jackson makes great movies. I very much enjoy watching the extended version of his LotR. My understanding about Galadriel is as many have ..."

Nicol Williamson is fantastic! I especially love his Hamlet, and his Merlin in Excalibur-the John Boorman film.

[L. L.]

Three films makes perfect sense, when you consider how many things happened in The Hobbit. They're caught by trolls before going to Rivendell. Then, they're captured by goblins, leading to Bilbo's discovery of the ring. There's also the escape from the wargs, being saved by eagles, and then meeting Beorn. No way Jackson treats these as minor events leading up to the dragon.
I could see the first movie ending with the escape from the wood elves, in Mirkwood. That would allow the second film to slightly delve into the necromancer storyline, while focusing on Smaug and the battle of five armies. The third movie could focus on driving Sauron out of Mirkwood and tying it into the LOTR movies.

[Lokischampion]

even though i haven't read the book, i thought her appearance fit. elves are immortal, so it goes well with me.