The book IS Bilbo's adventure. It's not about the whole world. It's purposely not Lord of the Rings. Making into another history book like LotR misses Tolkein's point. If you don't like that, fine. But that is what the book is. I'm sure many people will love all the extra stuff that gets added into this story. Nothing wrong with liking stuff.Ed130 said:You didn't question where Gandalf went? Or who the Necromancer was if he was defeated? Or why Bolg son of Azog was a bitter enemy of the dwarves?
The book while good skimped out alot of the world and various events to focus on Bilbo's adventure. Several of the examples I mentioned got maybe one or two sentences near the end of the story which really annoyed me when I was little.
I can't help but be slightly sad at reading your post while noticing your Regular Show icon. Does it help to think of it as a stand-alone movie instead of "just another LotR movie"?RaikuFA said:Gonna skip out on this one. Was bored out of my mind with the first two films. Didn't bother with the third.
I did see all the action in all the trailors and I bet it's all cut from the film and it's all walking and talking.
This is a discussion I would like to have, and I wish more of my friends were as into Tolkien lore as I was.McShizzle said:-snip-
You know, I found all of those questions you are left with make the book better and the overall story better. They give the story reality and depth. To be fully immersed in Bilbo's tale it helps to understand things in the same way as Bilbo does (which is to say he doesn't a lot of the time) and to keep things scaled towards Bilbo's interaction in the world. As Bob eluded to in the video, and in other reviews I have seen, the exposition of other events makes Bilbo's adventure look almost inconsequential and small with the possible exception of his acquisition of the ring.Ed130 said:You have read the book right?
You didn't question where Gandalf went? Or who the Necromancer was if he was defeated? Or why Bolg son of Azog was a bitter enemy of the dwarves?
The book while good skimped out alot of the world and various events to focus on Bilbo's adventure. Several of the examples I mentioned got maybe one or two sentences near the end of the story which really annoyed me when I was little.
Reducing the story to just one movie would cut out most of the world and leave a bare bones story, doing a massive dis-service to the world Tolkien created.
I just changed it a couple of days ago and already its working! Awesome!tehpiemaker said:I'm sorry, but anyone that sports a Rosario + Vampire avatar is automatically marked off of my list of people I should listen to.
NopeRaikuFA said:Gonna skip out on this one. Was bored out of my mind with the first two films. Didn't bother with the third.
I did see all the action in all the trailers and I bet it's all cut from the film and it's all walking and talking.
A good question, I know the writings so well, and am such a big fan of Tolkien, that I may have lost the ability to be objective on the subject. The alterations I guess help to tell the story of "Peter Jackson's: The Hobbit". Peter Jackson's story is more like "The stuff that happens just before The Lord of the Rings, involving some dwarves, specifically one named Thorin (Also, a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins was along)". In my opinion the story as Tolkien wrote it was about a funny little hobbit named Bilbo who comes out of his small world and grows to be the hero of the story. The focus of the story is the character of Bilbo (as per the title "The Hobbit"), not a struggle against a single adversary (that's Sauron's job later on) which is part of the reason why the whole new Azog thing bugs me.The_State said:This is a discussion I would like to have, and I wish more of my friends were as into Tolkien lore as I was.McShizzle said:-snip-
Do you think that these alterations were to the detriment of the material, or do you think that they actually made the story feel a bit more "complete"?