No, it isn't just you. I think because it's such a beloved story we're all a bit emotionally attached to our viewpoints. Like others have said, I, too, don't mean to direct my frustration at other members here, even though we may have differing viewpoints, but rather any is across the miles to PJ in NZ. I hasten to add, though, that a lot of is also aimed at PJ.

Exactly! That's where my frustration is intended to go too (however, my aim has never been the best. I try to throw a cat toy through the door way and hit the frame )

I do wish PJ had asked our opinion before making these films.

Yes! The same goes for who ever is making the Narnia movies. People making films based on books should have to put their changes before a panel of fans and have a majority vote before they can be done. *realizes that that will never happen*

EDIT. I just have to add this:

I rant and rant over Prince Caspian, which underwent a complete restructuring.

Don't get me started on the PC movie. (And I'm not referring to the wonderful BBC version.)

I know this technically isn’t the place for this, but I just had to ask for clarification. I wasn’t sure as to the meaning of the part in the parentheses and the smiley. Is the wonderful meant seriously or sarcastically? I can read it either way.

I'm working on trying to understand why the changes were made, but it almost seems to be like I'm selling out on my views if I understand why changes are made. Really though, I'm a lot better than I was in the past. I need to work on convincing myself that I can understand why they changed things without agreeing with the changes.

I know what you mean. Some of the changes I can truly understand, but the ones I'm okay with having little to do with the characters, themselves. It's those differences I can't abide, despite the argument that a movie is a different medium and therefore there have to be larger, longer, and more dramatic character arcs to accommodate the viewing audience.

I thought I'd mention a little more here. Don't sell out your views! It's good to be faithful to the source material. I really am myself, I just usually attempt to give the filmmakers "an amount" of a creative license. But what would it be like if everyone said "Who cares about Tolkien's writing? Redo it this way or this way!" But changes to characters are the hardest to accept, especially when they seem much more noble in the book. As I said before (I say that a lot don't I? ) I really don't have any intention of starting a discussion on 'Prince Caspian' on this thread, and I shall attempt to not start anything big but I had a really hard time with the changes in Peter's personality. (This just seems to be a really fitting comparison that I can't resist!) It may have been more 'realistic,' (and I can certainly see that) which was the filmmakers' intentions, but I think it really made Peter more immature to start a street fight, be 'enemies' with Caspian, etc....even if it was 'touching' (as I refer to Aragorn in ROTK) in the end when he gives Caspian his sword, and so on. That seems to be about the way you all feel about Aragorn, isn't it? Even if the character turns out more heroic in the movie, and having grown over the course of time, they're still a shadow of the character in the book.

I won’t really sell out my views. It’s more about acknowledging that they had a reason for changing what they did and did not just say “Who cares about Tolkien’s writing?” In many cases, I still disagree with the reason. It was a good idea comparing Peter and Aragorn in the way people feel about it. I think Faramir’s change was worse than Aragorn’s however. *is biting tongue not to get into Peter here*
I thought it would be helpful to list the different ways that I see that people can look at movie adaptations. This is adapted from something I typed up for the old NarniaWeb. (That’s way many of the examples use the Narnia movies).
Strictly purist: Everything in the book should be in the movie and everything in the movie should be in the book. (Of course some small changes in dialogue would be necessary)
Realistic purist: Would like things to be like the strictly purist but understands that some minor changes (omissions and additions are necessary). An example of this would be the scenes in England showing why the children had to leave. Many modern viewers would have trouble understanding why the children were sent away without that. Also, as much as I enjoy the part where Trumpkin has to treat the children to breakfast and they have to use Edmund’s hat as a basket for fish, it really isn’t necessary to put in movie.
Themeist (I know that isn’t really a word): The themes are the most important part of the book and as long as the plot is recognizable, it is okay.
Characterist (I’m making up words again): The characters are the most important. They need to act in a manner consistent to how they are described in the book. They can be put in other situations but should act in a way they would in the book. The plot also should be recognizable. An example of this would be Lucy in PC. She is put into different situations, such as being in the How, but she always has her faith in Aslan.
Plotist (another new word): The plot and scenes from the book are the most important. As long as the scenes and plot of the book have the same outcome, it doesn’t matter if they are carried out differently (ie by different characters). An example of this would be that as long as Miraz is killed by someone on his own side it does matter that it was Sopespian and not Glozelle who did it.
“I don’t care how close it is as long as it is a good movie”ist: The special effects, acting, plot, etc. need to be good.

I am a realistic purist with an emphasis in characterist. (sounds like I’m describing a major ) I would absolutely love a movie that was strictly accurate to the book, but I know that isn’t always possible. I don’t mind occasional additions or omissions as long as they don’t really detract from the main ideas, plots, or change the characters’ personalities. I don’t like it when they try to make movies more exciting than the books. The movies ought to stress what was important to the writer and not what the reader /adapter feels is the most important. I’ve left out examples for my beliefs because, well, I think I’ve given those other places and probably more than once.

Although the character changes can be seen as showing internal conflict and making the characters more human, it could also be seen as people trying to get out of their responsibilities and commitments.

Excellent way of putting it, PP! And good, solid fleshing out of your thoughts here. Your Scale is basically identical to mine.

Yeah, that really is a good way of putting it. *nodding agreeably*

Thanks! At least it only took me two tries to get it right. Try to forget about the first way I said things. Glad you liked my scale, johobbit.

One of the many things I admire PJ and his crew for is that they did put a lot of careful thought into each aspect of the films; it's just that I don't always agree with the end result of those thoughts. These movies are truly a phenomenal accomplishment! I often wonder what Tolkien would have thought ...

Me too, me too! And I absolutely LOVE the movies.

I agree with both of you.

Edit: Sorry for being so repetitive. I just keep saying the same things in different ways!

No problem. I think I’ve been doing the same thing.
For some odd reason, I had this urge to watch the LotR again … I have the theatrical version so that is what I watched. I tried to look for positives.
Here is my attempt to list more positives. I will put any negative or slightly negative comments in parentheses so people can skip those because I know some will just have to sneak in. I’m trying not to repeat myself from previous posts, but I don’t remember exactly what I have and haven’t said.
(Argh! Poor Faramir, Sam wouldn’t leave Frodo! )
[list=1]

As for my favorite book out of FotR, TTT, and RoK, I like FotR best although it is very hard to separate them. I like it because it spends a lot of time with the hobbits. I like the conspiracy a lot and Pippin’s getting too into his singing while taking a bath. The journey from Bagend to Rivendale is good too. As for other books by Tolkien, I really like the Hobbit. I’m reading it right now. I had forgotten how good it was. That is probably my favorite. It is more upbeat, and I like the style it is written in.

I guess that makes me a themist, characterist, plotist . (though I guess some might dispute me being a characterist )

GB

I won’t really sell out my views. It’s more about acknowledging that they had a reason for changing what they did and did not just say “Who cares about Tolkien’s writing?”

Exactly! I meant that if they had said that, it would not be a good thing.

Hmm...I would be realistically purist, then.

Just a quickie, although I do have more to say, not surprisingly.

Pattertwigs Pal, you were asking about this comment:

Don't get me started on the PC movie. (And I'm not referring to the wonderful BBC version.)

That tongue smiley shouldn't have been there; sorry for the confusion. I dearly appreciate the BBC Narnia films because they stay so close to the books and I much prefer them to the two recent Disney movies. I hope with a new director and studio (and even composer, hurrah!) Voyage will follow the book a good deal more than *groan* Prince Caspian did (or didn't ).

But, back to Tolkien: here is some Hobbit movies news. Why is it, though, that I just can't get used to PJ being so ... thin?

Looking back a page, I'm thrilled about this rumour Fantasia posted! I hope it comes to pass.

I am so behind on Hobbit news. I didn't know Peter Jackson wasn't directing. Oh, well, at least he's still involved with the screenplay.

pp, I think I'm the same as you, a realistic purist/characterist.

Actually, daughter of the King, Jackson isn't directing (Guillermo del Toro is), but he is still very much involved; PJ is an executive producer, as well as being one of the screen-writers. And from all I've read it sounds like they're working very well together, as they try to maintain cohesiveness and continuity between PJ's LotR films and The Hobbit films.

[ Why is it, though, that I just can't get used to PJ being so ... thin?

I know how you feel. He needed to trim down, get fit etc, for his health, but he was very loveable as a big hobbit.

Oops, It occurs to me that as a Mod at the forum attached to that link you posted Johobbit, that I ought to have posted it myself .

Thank Goodness the scrpt for film 1 of the Hobbit is completed. Now maybe we'll start getting some real news about casting and the like. I hope the Brian Cox as Thorin rumour is true.

Given the debate "raging" at The Hobbit Movie forum, I have to ask how folk here feel about the inclusion of Gandalf's adventures, i.e. The White Council and Dol Guldur etc. Personally I am thrilled. I have always thought Gandalf's story should have been included since I was a kid. But many "purists" do not.

GB

Given the debate "raging" at The Hobbit Movie forum, I have to ask how folk here feel about the inclusion of Gandalf's adventures, i.e. The White Council and Dol Guldur etc. Personally I am thrilled. I have always thought Gandalf's story should have been included since I was a kid. But many "purists" do not.

How I feel about it depends on how they do it. I know Hobbit is going to be two movies, but how are they dividing the two movies up? Are they just going to have the entire story go over two movies, or is one movie going to have Bilbo's adventures and the other have Gandalf and everything else that happens? I think I'm okay with Dol Guldur being added, it is part of the story, but I don't want it in if it takes away from Bilbo and his adventures.

I love LOTR! wow! I can't remember if I have posted on this thread at all so I will say:
I have read all of the books (I have lost count how many times!)!!!!
I have seen the movies a million times (extened versions included)!

Exactly, coracle!

Welcome, Liberty! I'm glad you found this thread. It's only going to become more active over the months as the Hobbit movies ramp up. (Surely, they must be ready to announce who is portraying Bilbo soon! )

Given the debate "raging" at The Hobbit Movie forum, I have to ask how folk here feel about the inclusion of Gandalf's adventures, i.e. The White Council and Dol Guldur etc. Personally I am thrilled. I have always thought Gandalf's story should have been included since I was a kid. But many "purists" do not.

I consider myself to certainly be more on the purist side than not—'though not as much as some—and I'm thrilled alongside you, GB. I can hardly wait for The White Council and Dol Guldur to be re-enacted on the big screen. Oh my! I'd love to see Gandalf discover the dwarf in the dungeons of Barad-dûr, and then figure out it was Thráin after the oppressed and dying dwarf gave the wizard the key of Erebor. Re the White Council: I have trouble imagining anyone else besides Christopher Lee playing Saruman, yet Lee is already quite elderly now and has said 'no' to the Hobbit movies. Who else could do such a bang-on job, I wonder? ...

daughter of the King, they're planning to span the story of The Hobbit over two movies, and intertwine it with the backstory (around 100 years earlier and forward) of the Council and Dol Guldur. I believe that's the latest news. I know there was talk at one time (and maybe still) of having a third 'Hobbit' movie, which would span the time period between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, about sixty years.

It's only going to become more active over the months as the Hobbit movies ramp up.

Yes!

(Surely, they must be ready to announce who is portraying Bilbo soon! )

I heard a rumor that it might be James McAvoy? Anybody have any ideas about that?

Given the debate "raging" at The Hobbit Movie forum, I have to ask how folk here feel about the inclusion of Gandalf's adventures, i.e. The White Council and Dol Guldur etc. Personally I am thrilled. I have always thought Gandalf's story should have been included since I was a kid. But many "purists" do not.

Any way it goes, I think I'll be fine with it. Even if it's not in the book itself, it's still true to what happens in the Middle-Earth story arc as a whole, right?

I consider myself to certainly be more on the purist side than not—'though not as much as some—and I'm thrilled alongside you, GB. I can hardly wait for The White Council and Dol Guldur to be re-enacted on the big screen. Oh my! I'd love to see Gandalf discover the dwarf in the dungeons of Barad-dûr, and then figure out it was Thráin after the oppressed and dying dwarf gave the wizard the key of Erebor.

Maybe they'll do something like the prologue of FotR (for when Gandalf discovers the Dwarf and those events) Somebody could narrate (Bilbo, Gandalf, Galadriel, Thorin....)

Re the White Council: I have trouble imagining anyone else besides Christopher Lee playing Saruman, yet Lee is already quite elderly now and has said 'no' to the Hobbit movies. Who else could do such a bang-on job, I wonder? ...

Ian McKellen perhaps? No, I'm joking; I know he's playing Gandalf and I wouldn't want anyone else to! That's too bad Christopher Lee won't be playing Saruman I thought he was awesome!

*makes note to self to run off to Google and find those Hobbit movie websites*

As far as I know, Christopher Lee has remarked that he's too old to travel, but if his scenes were filmed in London (probably Pinewood Studios) he would be delighted to reprise his role. So I don't know if he is definitively "out". Perhaps Del Toro and Jackson will make accommodations and film Lee's parts in England. If anyone has something more definitive, can you please post a link.

Personally, I had hoped that Bilbo's adventure up through the would be covered in the first film, and Gandalf's story told in flashback in the first half of the second film, leading up to the . I felt this would have been the best way to preserve the "Children's Story" tone of the Hobbit while leading into the more "Grown Up" elements in the seond movie.

However Del Toro and Jackson have decided to interweave The White Council, Dol Guldur and the Necromancer throughout the story. But given DT's track record, I have confidence he can find the right balance of tone.

Below is a link to The Hobbit Movie Forum. Please introduce yourself in New Members if you decide to participate (or just jump right into an ongoing discussion). But Fair Warning, the rules are less strict than Narniaweb. There are really only two, No Spam and Be Nice, hence there may be some content that hews to an older demographic (though "language" is definitely restrained). It's also good to be aware that there are many more non-Christians there than at Narniaweb .

http://the-hobbit-movie.com/forum/

And here's the Website and Blog the forum is attached to.

http://the-hobbit-movie.com/

GB

yes, I have been wondering what exactly is going on with the making of The Hobbit! I wish they wern't trying to drag it out through two movies.....

I hope they find someone that looks enough like Ian Holm for Bilbo! I know who looks a lot like him: Bob Hoskins! the only movie I ahve seen Bob Hoskins in is the BBC TV version of David Copperfield (he played Mr Mcauber!)!!!!
what do ya'll think?

Lady Galadriel, awhile back James McAvoy himself said it was only a rumor and he was not participating in the Hobbit.

As for the two movie thing, I am kinda against it. I am glad that they are adding the stuff with Gandalf that is only hinted at, I think that's great as long as they do it right, which would be still to keep Bilbo in focus.

And as strange as this is for me to say, I was totally against having Aragorn/Arwen in the Hobbit. As much as I love Aragorn, this event would have come from the original plot far too much. Aragorn was only app. 12 at the time of the Hobbit.