SHP Forums

therogue wrote:

Rath Darkblade wrote: And who's playing Bilbo, definitely one of the most pivotal characters in the whole damn book?

Martin Freeman has been cast as Bilbo, which completes his geek trifecta as he has now/will be played/playing Dr Watson, Arthur Dent and Bilbo Baggins.

Holy crap! I read that as "Morgan Freeman has been cast as Bilbo."

I hate LOTR, but even I would go see that.

DeadPoolX wrote: I hate LOTR, but even I would go see that.

WHY do you hate LOTR???
(I kid, you don't need to answer - was spoofing our previous debate of D&D)

Tawmis wrote:

DeadPoolX wrote: I hate LOTR, but even I would go see that.

WHY do you hate LOTR???
(I kid, you don't need to answer - was spoofing our previous debate of D&D)

I knew you'd respond to that!

I like you a little less, DPX, now that I know you don't like LOTR (film, movies or both?)

From what I'm reading about it, they're planning on expanding the story, to show us all the things that the book mentions, but doesn't follow. So this includes Gandalf's business with the Necromancer (the part where he leaves the dwarves before they enter Mirkwood.) From there, I'm guessing the story splits into a second story-line involving Legolas, Galadriel and the elves battling against Dol Guldur.

Yahoo Answers wrote:The Necromancer, referred to in "The Hobbit" with terror by the dwarven company, is Sauron the Dark Lord in his spirit form.

According to the dates, Sauron reappeared earlier, and resided in his fortress of Dol Guldur. His presence there increased the evil of the place, and it remained a constant threat to the peoples of Mirkwood and The White Council. This was the "important business" Gandalf had to attend to in "The Hobbit" Gandalf was trying to move the White Council to assault Dol Guldur and drive The Necromancer, hence Sauron, out of Mirkwood. Gandalf finally accomplishes this before the Battle of Five Armies.

So watching Gandalf battle an earlier incarnation of Sauron might be cool, but I really hope that's all only in the second movie. A battle against Sauron doesn't seem to mesh in well with a story-line about dwarves looking for treasure - and would probably over-shadow the whole thing. If the first movie was actually "The Hobbit" (with the trolls, Mirkwood, Smaug, and Five Armies) and the second movie covered Gandalf's adventure - THEN I would be happy.

I'm not a hardcore Tolkien fan, but I did quite enjoy The Hobbit. I actually thought it was better suited to movie adaption than LOTR, but now I'm not so sure. Why did they have to pick at it? (Now it will never heal. )

The only way I could see Frodo making any sense at all in it, is if they did it as older Bilbo telling him the story of his adventure (like the narrative technique in The Princess Bride).

AndreaDraco wrote:I like you a little less, DPX, now that I know you don't like LOTR (film, movies or both?)

Mostly the books. I really tried to slog through them, but half-way through the second book, I just couldn't go on.

I can appreciate how important Tolkien's work was to the fantasy genre and his ideas. However, I couldn't stand his writing style.

I didn't like the first movie. I suppose it didn't help that I found it so boring I fell asleep in the movie theater. I woke up just in time to see some jerk (can't remember his name) get pelted with a million arrows before dying. I was thinking, "Just die already!"

The second movie wasn't too bad and neither was the third. The only problem I really had with the third movie is that it too FOREVER to end! Just as I thought we'd reached the ending... I find there's MORE to the movie! Seriously, it seemed like it had several endings, all of which were crammed together, one after another.

Oh and the fact Elijah Wood was in the firms just ruined it for me as well. The guy's annoying. He looks and sounds like Tobey Maguire (who is also annoying) and I'm not the only one who thinks so.

I can understand anyone's difficulty with Lord of the Rings... what about The Hobbit, DPX? Have you read and dislike that as well? It's MUCH easier reading. But I know a very good friend who swears up and down they dislike Tolkien (well his writing anyway), including The Hobbit, so despite as difficult as that is for me to believe... there's folks out there that simply don't like anything Tolkien has done.

DeadPoolX wrote:

AndreaDraco wrote:I like you a little less, DPX, now that I know you don't like LOTR (film, movies or both?)

Mostly the books. I really tried to slog through them, but half-way through the second book, I just couldn't go on.

I can appreciate how important Tolkien's work was to the fantasy genre and his ideas. However, I couldn't stand his writing style.

I didn't like the first movie. I suppose it didn't help that I found it so boring I fell asleep in the movie theater. I woke up just in time to see some jerk (can't remember his name) get pelted with a million arrows before dying. I was thinking, "Just die already!"

By "some jerk", I presume you mean Boromir. He dies protecting "the hobbits" (Merry and Pippin) from Lurtz and his "fighting" Uruk-Hai. :p

I don't know if the first movie was boring. It depends on what you were looking for. If you wanted a whole bunch of fightin' scenes (like in the second and third movies), then this ain't the movie for you. It sets up the whole adventure to start with. Granted, I hated it that a whole bunch of stuff got cut out of this movie, but it's not possible to make a movie say everything that the book says. (A lot of people were disappointed that Farmer Maggot got cut, and Bill Ferny, and Tom Bombadil. Hey dol! Merry dol!) :p To be honest, the movie would probably be twice as long as it is, if everything in the book got put in, and I don't know many people who'd watch a movie for six hours. :p

Maiandra wrote:I'm not a hardcore Tolkien fan, but I did quite enjoy The Hobbit. I actually thought it was better suited to movie adaption than LOTR, but now I'm not so sure. Why did they have to pick at it? (Now it will never heal.

There's a saying: it'll never get better if you picket.

Tawmis wrote:I can understand anyone's difficulty with Lord of the Rings... what about The Hobbit, DPX? Have you read and dislike that as well? It's MUCH easier reading. But I know a very good friend who swears up and down they dislike Tolkien (well his writing anyway), including The Hobbit, so despite as difficult as that is for me to believe... there's folks out there that simply don't like anything Tolkien has done.

Overall, I don't really care for anything written by Tolkien. That's not a knock against him, I just don't really like the fantasy genre at all. Dragon Age might very well be the one exception.

DeadPoolX wrote:The only problem I really had with the third movie is that it too FOREVER to end! Just as I thought we'd reached the ending... I find there's MORE to the movie! Seriously, it seemed like it had several endings, all of which were crammed together, one after another.

I completely agree. The third film suffered from its excessive length and those closing scenes, one after another, didn't really add anything to the movie. After the last one, I almost expected to see another scene where Legolas and Gimli were building a boat and than sailing toward Valinor.

Anyway, I took me a long time to fully appreciate the book, which I now found simply beautiful. Memserizing. Immense. But I can understand your point: Tolkien's writing style is not exactly catchy.

DeadPoolX wrote:That's not a knock against him, I just don't really like the fantasy genre at all. Dragon Age might very well be the one exception.

Have you read A Song Of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin, next to be seen on HBO starting April 17th? I bet you'd like it. A lot.

I think you mixed up the quotes between you and me.

Yes... Something's wrong there... Let me fix it!

10 minute preview video:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 7&comments

Thanks for sharing, Tawmis!