Kevin's Watch

Zarathustra wrote:I like that the Troll scene looks to be updated somewhat. I heard the same sounds that Trolls make in LOTR, so hopefully this means they don't argue about Burrahobbits and call each other names like "Bill."



7...

Why the freak not?? I love that scene in the book. Should they grunt back and forth all night till dawn, and how would Gandalf keep the argument going?

Northern trolls could be different from cave trolls; the stone trolls visited by the Fellowship looked nothing like the cave trolls in Moria or at the Morannon.

deer of the dawn wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:I like that the Troll scene looks to be updated somewhat. I heard the same sounds that Trolls make in LOTR, so hopefully this means they don't argue about Burrahobbits and call each other names like "Bill."



7...

Why the freak not?? I love that scene in the book. Should they grunt back and forth all night till dawn, and how would Gandalf keep the argument going?

Northern trolls could be different from cave trolls; the stone trolls visited by the Fellowship looked nothing like the cave trolls in Moria or at the Morannon.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that scene can happen in a Jackson movie. Tolkien didn't write the Hobbit with LOTR in mind, but Jackson will have to make this movie with his previous movies in mind. If Trolls all of a sudden start talking in Cockney accents and having silly arguments, it would be such a drastic change from the LOTR I don't think most movie audiences would accept it.

Tolkien himself later regretted much of the silliness and immaturity of the Hobbit, specifically the parts that later ended up being incompatible with the more mature tone of LOTR. He did not hesitate to revise The Hobbit in order to make it compatible with LOTR in terms of plot (especially Riddles in the Dark, and matters concerning the Ring). I think revising the Troll scene--and others like the "tra la la" Elves--would be entirely consistent with Tolkien's own feelings and revisionist efforts.

Dang, I didn't know Tolkien revised the Hobbit! Now I want to read the original version!

dANdeLION wrote:Dang, I didn't know Tolkien revised the Hobbit! Now I want to read the original version!

The whole story of Bilbo lying to the dwarves was invented as a means of retconning the story. The original pretty much follows his tale of winning the ring in a riddle contest; but when writing TLotR, Tolkien realized that Gollum would never have given the ring away, so he came up with Bilbo's deception.

I believe Tolkien resisted the temptation to revise The Hobbit even more, due to the problems involved (time, effort, etc), and the fact that The Hobbit was already an established story. In a perfect world, I think he would have completely rewritten it to suit the LOTR. He was an obsessive revisionist, never finishing the Silmarillion in part because of this tendency (as well as the narrative problem of stringing together such a diverse work into one tale). He even wrote a story which dramatizes his own obsessive revisionist/perfectionist approach to writing: Leaf by Niggle, in The Tolkien Reader.

Well, didn't he write LOTR by starting until he got stuck, then starting over from the beginning again until he finally got through it all? It certainly explains why Fellowship is the best book of the three.

Zarathustra wrote:He even wrote a story which dramatizes his own obsessive revisionist/perfectionist approach to writing: Leaf by Niggle, in The Tolkien Reader.

One of my favorite stories by Tolkien. I even had a GT character named for Niggle going for awhile.

However, I thought Leaf by Niggle was written as an example of allegory in response to Lewis' Narnia? Or did I totally get that impression on my own?

Cagliostro wrote:Well, didn't he write LOTR by starting until he got stuck, then starting over from the beginning again until he finally got through it all? It certainly explains why Fellowship is the best book of the three.

There were several "waves" of revision for Fellowship, especially the first half. He'd get a few chapters in, and then go back to the beginning and revise it in light of the new stuff. This kept happening all the way to Rivendell. However, the first chapter itself--especially Bilbo's party--was rewritten dozens of times. [I know the feeling. ] As for the journey itself, he included and/or contemplated many different numbers of Hobbits to accompany Frodo (Bingo). The original Fellowship had no Dwarf or Elf, all the way to Moria.

Menolly wrote:I thought Leaf by Niggle was written as an example of allegory in response to Lewis' Narnia? Or did I totally get that impression on my own?

I never heard that. Could be. He was influenced by Lewis in the beginning, and they planned on writing a large story together ... something about time and space. But I believe it was in Tolkien's Letters (an excellent book!) that he acknowledges Leaf by Niggle to be autobiographical allegory for his own writing process ... concentrating on the individual leaves so much that he couldn't finish painting the tree. He knew he was going to die before he finished his entire vision.

I didn't realize that either, although I understood that JRRT always knew his vision was larger than himself... I think he did well in getting down what he did. Such a vision would paralyze a lesser soul, or bring it to despair (think of V. Van Gogh).

Not sure where I would display this if I won, but it strikes me as an awesome movie promotion.

I'm a little worried about this: 'Hobbit film wizardry left us feeling sick’: Cinema-goers complain camera speeds and 3D effects caused headaches and queasiness

My wife is prone to migraines. I thought the higher frame rate was supposed to be smoother and cause less motion sickness. I guess we'll have to see for ourselves. Most people won't have to worry about it, because hardly any theaters have the technology to show the higher frame rate. We're lucky enough to live a couple miles away one of two in our state. Ordering our tickets today!

If that's because of the frame rate, rather than just the effects and speeds possible to see in any case, then maybe just watching it without the higher frame rate tech can be helpful - though that may be not the only problem.

Yeah, it's definitely the higher frame rate that's the problem, if there really is one. That's the only version that has been screened so far. I realize I could avoid this by seeing another version, but we're going to try our luck with the HFR first, and if she has a problem we'll try another version. She's planning on taking her migraine medicine (some strong prescription stuff) beforehand as a preventive measure.

I've read that the problem is that there is so much detail, so much clarity in this version, that people's eyes dart around too fast in order to take in as much as possible. I think if we sit back far enough from the screen and make a conscious effort to relax and not do the eye dart thing, we'll be fine.

I've read lots of mixed and downright negative reviews for The Hobbit. But many of the same criticisms were made about LOTR, so I'm still optimistic.

Zarathustra wrote:I've read lots of mixed and downright negative reviews for The Hobbit. But many of the same criticisms were made about LOTR, so I'm still optimistic.

I lost a lot of optimism when they decided to split the movie in two. I lost nearly all of it when they decided to turn it into a trilogy.

I really can not see how this can turn into anything but a CGI popcorn fest.

But hey, I did enjoy the Avengers, and I really had my doubts on that one

I'm looking forward to the "fleshed out" parts. It's all still based on Tolkien. So the length doesn't bother me. However, I have read that too much CGI is one of its problems.

Release date for local cinemas is 26 December. Is this the same worldwide?

Ours is on the 14th I believe. Quite excited! Went to the premier but was too late to get a glimpse of the red carpet due to the crowds.

[Minor spoilers]

I saw the Hobbit yesterday in high frame rate 3D and it was awesome! I don't understand any of the criticisms I've read. I didn't have a single problem with movie (except the one line, "That'll do it.").

At times, the movie was exactly like the book. Even parts which I wished they had updated--like the Roast Mutton trolls scene--was very much like the book in spirit and tone (with a dash of more action). Sometimes the dialog was word-for-word from the text. The subplots and extraneous material didn't feel like bloat at all, but instead served the plot and the characters. It moved them to Rivendell in a way that actually squeezed some tension and character development out of that decision.

Spoiler

The Radagast subplot was very cool, quirky, and creepy. The White Counsel meeting covered necessary information that connects the Hobbit with LOTR. I've read that it went on too long, but it's barely enough time for a sprinting pee break. I thought it was a natural, organic addition.

If you can, you've got to see this in HFR. You've never seen anything like it. It was startling at first. The action scenes in HRF are just astonishing. There is no motion blur. For the first time in cinematic history, you can see everything that it happening. And oh my god is there a lot happening!!