Yes, it is subtle bragging to say I am going to be dragged to a movie so my friends can perv over some dude in a wig.Littlee300 said:
What.
Peter Jackson Writes Legolas Into The Hobbit
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
What.
Why did I expect better?
Yeah I'm going to be kind of pissy about this, The Hobbit was the first book I ever read off my own back as a kid, and one my Dad used to read to me and my little brother at bedtime, so I have a lot of sentimentality attached to the story, and changes like this are always going to irk me. The editorial changed Jackson made to The Lord of the Rings trilogy of films was ok, thay had to keep the length down on already quite long films, and simplify some matters to engage a viuewership that may not have read the books, or even been interested in them at first.
But making a role that wasnt there for an actor that Jackson liked working with? That's pretty much bullshit in my opinion.
It wont stop me going to see the film in theaters and enjoying it, and buying it when it's released, but it is going to niggle at me in the same way some of the changes in LOTR did.
Ho-Hum i guess.
Yeah I'm going to be kind of pissy about this, The Hobbit was the first book I ever read off my own back as a kid, and one my Dad used to read to me and my little brother at bedtime, so I have a lot of sentimentality attached to the story, and changes like this are always going to irk me. The editorial changed Jackson made to The Lord of the Rings trilogy of films was ok, thay had to keep the length down on already quite long films, and simplify some matters to engage a viuewership that may not have read the books, or even been interested in them at first.
But making a role that wasnt there for an actor that Jackson liked working with? That's pretty much bullshit in my opinion.
It wont stop me going to see the film in theaters and enjoying it, and buying it when it's released, but it is going to niggle at me in the same way some of the changes in LOTR did.
Ho-Hum i guess.
People seem to be forgetting that Jackson took A LOT of liberties with LoTR. And you know what? For good reason. The changes he made drastically helped the pacing for the medium he was working with - film. Even with Arwen, his justification of this inclusion makes sense - she replaces another character that we see very little of (and therefore don't connect with all that much), and Jackson wanted another female to balance out the INCREDIBLY male cast (seriously, we only have Arwen, Galadriel, and Eowyn). These changes make sense for a more modern audience. Even the changes in Faramir make sense to me - in the book, he isn't tempted by the ring, but the movie is framed around the idea that the ring corrupts. If Faramir weren't interested in the ring at all, the ring would be rendered powerless - which is the antithesis of what the movie was going for.
As others have stated, Legolas' inclusion is not that much of a stretch - logically, it works perfectly fine, if he does in fact appear in Mirkwood. What we need to keep in mind is that these films are simply adaptations - they don't HAVE to be completely faithful (and indeed, it would be impossible to make them completely so without making far more movies than there already are). The spirit of the source material is ever-present and revered by Jackson - that's the most important thing. If a few details are adjusted to help improve the material for a different medium, this is perfectly okay, and not the end of the world.
As others have stated, Legolas' inclusion is not that much of a stretch - logically, it works perfectly fine, if he does in fact appear in Mirkwood. What we need to keep in mind is that these films are simply adaptations - they don't HAVE to be completely faithful (and indeed, it would be impossible to make them completely so without making far more movies than there already are). The spirit of the source material is ever-present and revered by Jackson - that's the most important thing. If a few details are adjusted to help improve the material for a different medium, this is perfectly okay, and not the end of the world.
i don't understand. as soon as someone VALIDLY points out that Legolas had a place in the book, you can't go 10 posts without someone who just dropped right in to say "SKROO YOO PEDUR JAKSUN! YOU MAKING MESS! YOU RONNNG!" even people that READ the book are unable to connect the justifiable inferrence to the character's NOT AT ALL SILLY place in a few scenes in the movie. IT FITS. read above you, just a few posts.
Rolling 20 said:
^THIS. and i'm not even a "LOTR nerd". mebbe read each book twice, i don't own any more than the theatrical versions of the dvds. just able to connect dots without ALL the dots being numbered. i do, however, color outside the lines still.
It's wrong it's wrong it's wrong. The lack of Legolas (or rather, Jackson's portrayal of him) was one of the things I looked forward to in the Hobbit over LoTR... Why does Jackson think he knows better than Tolkien?
Probably just a bit part, where he MIGHT have like one line. And maybe a bit of battle footage in the Battle of Five Armies. Nothing to get all jumpy about.
The fact you said "u guise" makes me not take you seriously at all and think you're just some omg elves are so purty!!1!1! fan person.Ekonk said:
I could have gone on to list everything that got left out of the original movies, but I clearly said it was understandable due to time constraints. Please, if you're going to specifically target me, read and understand what I said.
Yes, Tom Bombadil was an important character in the books for the portion he was in. No, he should not have been cut out of the movie. However, it would have meant cutting out a half hour of the movie somewhere else, which would not have worked seeing as everything was already down to to it's core. Tom Bombadil, overall in terms of the story, is not an important person.
Remaining on topic, adding Legolas into the Hobbit movie, I maintain is a bad plan. It seems to me to be nothing more than catering to the "omg elves are so purty!!1!1!" fans who were fans of Legolas, not of the actual Lord of the Rings trilogy. Yes, he was alive in the books, it has been stated that he is a few hundred years old. Obviously, the Hobbit and the LotR aren't set a few hundred years apart. However, he is never once mentioned in the story. I admit, it is plausible that he would be a background character without any lines.
...lol as if i would go an see those two movies after what jackson did to the lotro books. so much potential, so little love. jackson, once more your money making attitude sickens me. orlando is only there, to have women go to the theatres. so fucking disgusting.
In what capacity is Orlando making an appearance?
If he escorts Bilbo the whole way and then single-handedly wins the Battle of 5 armies, then yes, I call foul. If he shows up in Mirkwood, which is his home, alongside his father, then its no big deal.
We seem to be making a mountain out of a mole-hill. We only know that he is in the film. We don;t know if he will play an role larger than a cameo.
If he escorts Bilbo the whole way and then single-handedly wins the Battle of 5 armies, then yes, I call foul. If he shows up in Mirkwood, which is his home, alongside his father, then its no big deal.
We seem to be making a mountain out of a mole-hill. We only know that he is in the film. We don;t know if he will play an role larger than a cameo.
One of the facebook responses (to this article) said the same thing. Except for the facebook people being stupid, of course.To_Sirius said:
But yeah. The group runs into the elfs (elves?), meet the king (Legolas' father), and then the elves show up for the final battle. Legolas just didn't have a name originally.
