Peter Jackson's The Hobbit
 

Who knew that Galadriel, Saruman, Frodo, and Galadriel were in The Hobbit? And I don't remember the character Itaril.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/

Is he? I never knew...

Seriously, after he played silly buggers with LotR, I don't expect much from this, except that Smaug should be awesome.

FTR, The hobbit was set when Bilbo was 50, and LotR starts with Bilbo being 111 and Frodo 33, putting a 78 year gap between them. Frodo wasn't even BORN when Bilbo went off the first time.

The penalty for this should be death.

No, the penalty for this should be to be carried away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where his flesh shall be devoured and his shrivelled mind left naked to the Lidless Eye. But he probably wouldn't even get the reference. :right:

What was wrong with Lord of the Rings? Did you take issue with the fact that he changed the timing of events, combined and/or transposed plot and character elements in order to move the storyline forward in a different format, all without changing its essential nature?

By way of comparison, a SERIOUS writer like Ayn Rand, when composing the screenplay for her own novel The Fountainhead... changed the timing of events, combined and/or transposed plot and character elements in order to move the storyline forward in a different format, all without changing its essential nature. Should we gather an army of internet nerds to storm the gates and accuse Ayn Rand of selling out?

:lol2:

If the movie had been called The War of the Ring or something I wouldn't have minded so much. And I can forgive a fair bit of editing - the whole Old Forest / Bombadil section was pretty much cuttable, eg - but it was the dumbing down that pissed me off, especially in the confrontations between Gandalf and Saruman. It ended up as "ooh, orcs, kill them! Chop slash gahh... Ooohh, more orcs, kill them ... " rinse and repeat.

I actually liked the movies fairly well.

However it did bother me that they changed Faramir. "Not if I found it in the road would I take the ring". It was the reason Sam was impressed with him.

I was thoroughly impressed that the movie adaptation of such a deeply ingrained part of our culture (a literary work so influential that it has inspired an entire genre, spanning decades, of almost entirely derivative work) was so successfully translated into the cinematic format that both people who were utterly ignorant of the original books, and people who were lifelong, perpetually-obsessed fans, were in equal part able to enjoy them.

In the face of this frankly monumental achievement, some of the nit-picking criticisms I've heard are something I really just can't understand.

The concept of a static tale that is never altered, but remains forever stagnant and unchanging throughout the years, each successive teller of the tale neither adding nor taking away anything; this is something that has never existed. The invention of the printing press, and later recording technologies, have created this illusory concept of the "unchanging" tale.

Wot Flint sed.

Now somebody did make a miniseries out of Gormenghast -- and bedad, that wasn't easy. Dune, even harder -- and the two tries at it were in varied ways not quite successful. I still have the glossary sheet they handed out at the theater.

see: Qur'an

Yeah, every religion says that about everything. But we all know that's bullshit...right?

Nice to see them make the hobbit. It's the first fantasy novel I read. I got my hands on the 1946 version. From there it was about 10-15 years of addiction to fantasy novels lol