digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at thedeadbolt.com

Seven Things We Want From The Hobbit

thedeadbolt.com — It's gotten us at The Deadbolt thinking about what we really want to see from a film version of The Hobbit. The Hobbit transcends the fantasy genre and is, unquestionably, the most universal work Tolkien ever wrote. With that in mind, we have a whole different set of expectations for Guillermo Del Toro's The Hobbit than we had for LOTR.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Huangism, on 05/21/2008, -43/+2buried for "top whatever" and inaccurate
    the title should say 7 things you want from the hobbit
    • Masterful1, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5am I missing something or is that not what it says?
    • Huangism, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1no the title says we, i don't want what this guy wants. ***** that who is he to say what i want
  • sterntastic223, on 05/21/2008, -5/+27man, I think this will be great... Del Toro is one of the best directors in sci fi/fantasy probably ever.
  • fullofbugs, on 05/21/2008, -17/+1remember playin the game on zx spectrum - n e s w could never do the goblin mines - we all been waitin for this film release should have been the first - damm how many of us read it in english class - thou shall be judged - the guys old scool - lot to live up 2 - thumbs up from me
  • DeepFriedFetus, on 05/21/2008, -4/+71Or it can be summarized into one thing we want: for it to not suck.
  • 533n, on 05/21/2008, -14/+2I loved LOTR, but I find it really hard to imagine how they could make The Hobbit into an interesting movie, especially after LOTR has already been made.
    • garvallagh, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2you loved the movies but you dont love Lord of the Rings... thats your prob.
  • SeventhSon, on 05/21/2008, -2/+180One thing I want from the internet: lists on one page.
    • Mootabolife, on 05/21/2008, -6/+2White on gray text... especially for high contrast screens.. ouch.
    • jellyfishes, on 05/21/2008, -0/+9You'd think with an internet page being unrestricted in length (especially compared with print media) that they would do keep one article on one page... but we all know that advertisements are way too important to properly make use of the medium.
    • Greenkayak, on 05/21/2008, -0/+6This is the greatest quote I have read in weeks! Bully!!!!
    • sp1keNARF, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2if i could digg you up more than once i would.
    • Fxer, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1One thing I want from the internet: for it to remain low cost. Advertisements are the only revenue for content based pages. Deal with it.
      That's why I don't use Ad Block.
  • Sornos, on 05/21/2008, -2/+41I agree with all points. The most important one, however, is that the Hobbit is not Lord of the Rings 4. The Hobbit is more fun, and more light hearted. I'm really just repeated what the author has said, but I think it should be stressed.
    • TVarmy, on 05/21/2008, -1/+7The Hobbit is Lord of the Rings Episode 1. Yippie!
    • greytfriend, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3The Hobbit really was for a wider audience than LOTR. I read it as a kid 25-years-ago while my brother was reading LOTR in his high school English class (cool, eh?). It was dark without being frightening, suspenseful but still funny, and even occasionally silly. No silliness in LOTR! It can and should be a movie with a wider audience appeal that introduces people to fantasy adventure film the way the Hobbit book did for print.
    • Stormwern, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4Lord of the Rings is a fantasy epic, The Hobbit is a fairytale, good choise to switch director.
  • B08ama, on 05/21/2008, -3/+108. The Hobbit's supposed to be fun, not glorious.
    I'd say that the scariest part of that book was the trolls had caught the dwarves, and remember that NO ONE (important) DIED.
    • RobbleRobble, on 05/21/2008, -4/+6Hey! Spoilers!
    • danwallace, on 05/21/2008, -1/+39It's been out for over 70 years. We're past the point of spoilers.
      • TVarmy, on 05/21/2008, -10/+1I'm too appathetic to read it. You TOTALLY spoiled it for me, B08ama, if that is your real name.
        • GeneralCopper, on 05/21/2008, -1/+21. It's "apathetic"
          2. If you're too lazy to read a book that's been out for 70 years, no one cares if they spoil the plot for you. Plots for movies based on books aren't supposed to be secret, you know.
    • StonedFetus, on 05/21/2008, -2/+6read a book newb.
    • EntropyFan, on 05/21/2008, -1/+6Well, the trolls got turned to stone, so yes, folks died.
      Don't be talking down about trolls...

      On a more serious note, I think it would be awesome if they included more of the history described in the appendix of 'The Return of the King' into the story. The arrival of the Istari, Cirdan giving the Elvish 'ring of fire' to Gandalf, and not Saruman (which was the start of Saruman's turn to evil), a little illumination into the First and Second Age...

      Ah well, I can hope
    • jugglingjon, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Some of the dwarves (and one important one) do die, but I guess the dwarves in the Hobbit are kind of like the red shirts in Star Trek. You don't remember their names and everybody forgets them after they die in the end.
      • nobelief, on 05/21/2008, -1/+4Oakenshield isn't forgettable
      • korvan504521, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5Well, without looking: Thorin, Balin, Dwalin Gloin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur

        Damn it. I suck. =(
      • dslartoo, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, Gloin, Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, and Thorin.

        Clearly I have read The Hobbit far too many times for my own good.
    • Fxer, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1"What you mean what accent is dis? Dis be a Troll accent. Mon, ja makin' me crazy!"
      • GreatSunJester, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1LOL -- creative consulting by Blizzard!
  • FizzanoMatrix, on 05/21/2008, -11/+4I'd personally like to see more shading modulation on the CGI attenuation components.
    • TVarmy, on 05/21/2008, -0/+9They totally needed to tighten up the graphics on LOTR 3...
    • osrevad, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2 Come on everyone: Fizzano is being sarcastic.
  • R0l0, on 05/21/2008, -2/+60What we need is a few good taters.
  • Flashypoo, on 05/21/2008, -22/+4THERE'S NO WORDS ON IT!

    WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, A MOVIE?

    ***** THING SUCKS!
    • TVarmy, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Someone hasn't had their pipeweed :-o
      • StonedFetus, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1OLD TOBEY! *bong toke *cough 'finest pipeweed in all the Shire.'
    • cheeselord, on 05/21/2008, -2/+0wat?
  • Breticus07, on 05/21/2008, -2/+8I don't know if I want songs in it but as far as how the story and mood of the movie should be I think this guy has it figured out
  • KerrAvon, on 05/21/2008, -11/+4Hobbit porn!
  • blackgrape, on 05/21/2008, -101/+7Not making it would be a good first step.

    The LOTR movies sucked. And this will, too.
    • gryphon50, on 05/21/2008, -3/+30you are going to be pretty lonely holding that opinion.
    • wacomwacoff, on 05/21/2008, -3/+17Have fun watching Saw VIII while the rest of us are enjoying ourselves!
    • cnot3, on 05/21/2008, -4/+22They sucked so bad they won 17 academy awards.
      • TheKingInYellow, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3academy awards are given out based on the quality of blow jobs received...not on how good a movie is. get a clue.
    • DWalla, on 05/21/2008, -11/+4Academy Awards is hardly any meter for a great film that represents Tolkien's works.

      I too thought the movies blew monkey chunks... and it's not because they cut Bombadil. Read further down to see some of my reasons.
    • blackgrape, on 05/21/2008, -12/+4Don't get me wrong - I'm sure the movies appealed to dungeons and dragons virgins, as they were clearly the target audience.

      Winning Academy Awards is nothing to be proud of. Doing so indicates a commercial success, not an artistic one.
      • wacomwacoff, on 05/21/2008, -1/+7Ah, now I understand. You didn't watch them. You just assumed they were for "dungeons & dragons virgins" and sat at home trolling on Ain't It Cool News while theatres filled with fans of the most popular fictional book in 20th century literature.

        Aren't you superior?
        • blackgrape, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1I watched them. Endured would be a more accurate phrase.

          Tolkein is vastly over-rated. He invented a "language"? So bleedin' what? He's qualified to be a Star Trek script writer.

          Simplistic story draped in pseudo-intellectual ***** and really bad poetry. Appeals to try hard Trekkie-obsessed undergraduates, who fantasize about becoming warriors who battle Orcs and hump hot Elves. In reality, they'll soon become computer service technicians for Dell.

          Dig me down, virgins....
      • DWalla, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I've read the books dozens of times AND seen the films. There were elements to the films that were fantastic. But overall I was disappointed with them.
    • cowsgonemadd3, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2Oh no you didnt!
    • porkdanish, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3If I had never read the books I probably would have liked the movies but I like the books too much to look past the ways that PJ ***** them up.
  • ramd3z, on 05/21/2008, -9/+14I want Smog to be amazing and the Trolls to be HUGE.
    • CaptEnder, on 05/21/2008, -1/+25It's "Smaug".
    • Peck3277, on 05/21/2008, -6/+1It's a giant cloud of smog from Mel Gibsons acceptance speech
    • dyckdownunder, on 05/21/2008, -0/+6thats what she said
    • bubba9999, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3It's Smug - all the dwarves drive Priuses.
  • Dubbie04, on 05/21/2008, -13/+2But will there be a suckfest at the end of this one?
  • gabrielbeug, on 05/21/2008, -7/+42They better not cut out Beorn like they did with Tom Bombadil...
    • GorfTron, on 05/21/2008, -0/+32Bombadil was something of an interesting chapter but did not propel the story enough to warrant time in the already 3 hour movie. He had to be cut. Beorn is integral to the Hobbit and also a chance for some awsome effects and battle carnage.
    • RebelReform89, on 05/21/2008, -1/+11Ditto to that. I missed Bombadil quite a bit (Ho, Tom Bombadil! Tom Bombadillo!) in the LotR movies, but to cut out Beorn would be utterly tragic.
    • exscind, on 05/21/2008, -0/+11They won't cut Ron Perlm-- er, Beorn.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/21/2008, -1/+5Tom Bombadil had to go. I was even personally a big fan of him, but there was no way he would've worked in the movie. Time constraints aside, he was just ***** up - hell, even Tolkien himself didn't know what the ***** was up with Tom Bombadil, and he created the bastard. There's a goddamn challenging task for you right there - trying to bring to life a character that no one, not even the original creator of the character, really understands.
      • korvan504521, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Yeah, Bombadil was kinda like walking down a road through a forest and then seeing a naked tattooed midget come bounding out of one side while being chased by a woman in a cat suit and then they dissapear into the bushes.
        I seriously think he just got high when he wrote that chapter and forgot to take it out.
      • Arcesius, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think it would have been an awesome sidelight to show a character that wasn't effected {effect/affect.... gah} by the ring... like showing that the ring isn't the be-all end-all pinnacle of creation (middle earth creation), and that there are some things (granted not many) that don't depend upon the fate of the ring...
    • LexisNexis, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Bombadil could have walked through the background for two seconds humming and I would have been happy. A Stan Lee-esque cameo.
    • b0m8ad1l, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Made me cry.
  • TVarmy, on 05/21/2008, -5/+46#1: Pipeweed
    • DWalla, on 05/21/2008, -12/+3OK.. Pipeweed = Tobacco... gads... it's amazing how many people are ignorant of this and think Pipeweed = Pot.
      • actionscripted, on 05/21/2008, -2/+5Pipeweed = Tobacco? Prove it.
      • Ragecloak, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5In the book perhaps but the movies definitely alluded to weed
      • maelstromwar, on 05/21/2008, -1/+8"Your love for the halfling's leaf has clearly slowed your mind."

        Saruman to Gandalf
        • DWalla, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Read the books and study up on his works... sheesh... unreal. Maybe in PJ's mind it's Maui Wowie... but Tolkien clearly referred to tobacco.
      • RexxxMaster, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Pipeweed(or leaf) is a general term of smoking. It seem that tolkien talk about many way of smoking, even goes to the extent to calling it a art. It even seem he wrote about foul stuff, herbs and sweet stuff like Herbal Molasses. But, he puts more emphases longbottom...
    • gettempapa, on 05/21/2008, -6/+1you smoke pot? the marijuana pot?
  • GorfTron, on 05/21/2008, -43/+16What I want from the Hobbit?
    Hardcore, Hobbit Sex(I mean penetration - on screen(including money shot)).
  • Apocalyptic0n3, on 05/21/2008, -1/+10Agreed. 100% agreed. I am a huge Tolkien fan and I am really hesitant about this film even though del Toro is directing and Jackson producing. It's a great combo but I think they might try going too big with this film. Then again, del Toro is the king of making big films feel small. Look at Blade II. Definitely a big film but he gave it this feel of a film that only you were going to be seeing. Same thing with Hellboy. Granted, Hellboy II seems to have gone the other way but I still have high hopes for that feeling. It's what made Hellboy one of my favorite movies. Here's to hoping this goes well.
    • bendeclerck, on 05/21/2008, -1/+0you seem to be forgetting 2 of the lord of the rings movies were sequels
  • gradivus, on 05/21/2008, -9/+5My prediction for this movie: The first movie will be universally hailed as a masterpiece,the second will be scorned by those very same people as a failure,the same as EVERY other big budget movie with a sequel made to date. I can hear the trendy haters now........
    • jugglingjon, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2I'd agree in most cases, but the Lord of the Rings was an exception; and with a lot of the same people involved hopefully the hobbit will go down the same path.
    • execute85, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3Every other movie besides LOTR:TFOTR, HAKEFQB, Spider Man 2, Toy Story 2, Indy, Empire, etc etc.

      Surprising, that such an absolute statement is incorrect.
    • Deatheragenator, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1i don't thing so because they are shooting them at the same time, so if the hobbit sucks then the sequel to, but if not they it will be good
  • estvir, on 05/21/2008, -4/+6Don't make it short, please. I couldn't stand to have parts of the story cut out.. well, maybe /some/ smaller parts but if you start cutting out thinks for time constraints you're butchering the story and all the things that happen along the way are what make the book. I hated when they cut out Tom Bombadil from the LOTR movie and when they cut out Sauron going back to the Shire (Though I believe that's in present as a bonus on the DVDs..).

    To be honest, I'm incredibly excited to see the battle done in CGI.
    • TVarmy, on 05/21/2008, -11/+1I actually hope it to be short. The main reason I couldn't get behind the LOTR movies was because they were too long and had too many characters with hard to remember names. What I would rather have is a short movie that captures the spirit of the book that children loved. The Hobbit is apparently the book to do that, as the story wasn't quite as muddled as it was in the following books.

      An hour and thirty minutes would be like Christmas for me, but 2 hours is fine. Have a director's cut for people who want all the minutia carried over.
      • estvir, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5I'm not sure if you've read the book, but there's a million little stories in their long journey that I'm sure wouldn't ultimately harm the movie, especially to those who haven't read it, but I'm also sure that those of us would not want Beorn being cut out, their trouble crossing the river in the forest, etc.

        It all just flows and is part of the book many of us loved as children and in our later years..
    • paulysan, on 05/21/2008, -0/+8You are thinking of Saruman going back to the Shire, not Sauron. Sauron is dead, he died when Frodo dropped the ring into Orodruin (Mt. Doom).

      To be honest though, I was also disappointed by the cut, but I have a good feeling about this movie with Del Torro and Jackson working on it.
      • estvir, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Ah, yup, you're right, I have no idea how I made that mistake, hah. D: Thanks.
      • Angostura, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1There's no evidence that Sauron is dead, just that he has lost all of his powers and will be unable to take shape or rise again in the future.

        He might still be able to rattle a lampshade or two, though.
    • Hoogs, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Hopefully it will be a classic three-hour-Jackson film.
  • smacksaw, on 05/21/2008, -14/+3I'm not going to read the article, only reply to the headline.

    #1. Oral - because a Hobbit is the perfect height for that.
    • estvir, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3Well, Beorn is in the book and there's the part where he's described as being tall enough for Bilbo to walk between his legs IIRC.
      • smacksaw, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1So you're saying Beorn would need to wear stiletto heels? Nice. Extra wide...
  • crowbar77, on 05/21/2008, -5/+5This is one "prequel" i'm not worried about, Jackson and Del Toro are basically a dream team. Now all they need is George Lucas doing the script, Jar Jar Binks lotr style anyone?
  • jellyfishes, on 05/21/2008, -3/+1Did anyone else notice that the second page of the list is titled, "Seven Things We Want From Iron Man 2"?
  • pat0neill, on 05/21/2008, -2/+8one thing i don't want from the blog community: lists
  • brownrecluse888, on 05/21/2008, -16/+1Hopefully an endorsement of Obama.......how else could a story make it to digg??
  • brownrecluse888, on 05/21/2008, -17/+3OBAMA!!
    • leetninja, on 05/21/2008, -4/+4RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      i used more !!! so therefore i must be better ... and win ... you lose ... like hillary ...
  • brownrecluse888, on 05/21/2008, -13/+1More Cowbell!! I mean More Obama!!
  • tarv2, on 05/21/2008, -4/+10dugg for the han solo comment at the end
    • BenRoth, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1damn, I was going to say that. instead I just dugg the article and you.
  • NeoCortex, on 05/21/2008, -1/+45Wouldn't the explanation of the Bilbo being able to wear the ring for an extended period simply be that Sauron was not yet powerful enough to exert an influence on it? Frodo only got more "emo" as both Sauron grew in power and as Frodo and Sam got closer to Sauron. I don't really think you need more of an explanation that that.
    • shcforward, on 05/21/2008, -2/+20Yeah. But there is more.

      1. Sauron was not so powerful at that time.
      2. Sauron didn't realize the ring had been found, so he wasn't using any of his power trying to get the ring back.
      3. Biblo didn't know the ring was evil.
      4. Bilbo didn't use the ring for evil.
    • dn11, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4only problem I see is them coming up with a way to explain that without some clunky out of place exposition dialog. in the book nobody knows what the ring is. sadly, I see them butchering the Hobbit in an attempt to tie it more closely to the LOTR movies.
  • Gudlyf, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Good points, though not sure about that whole explaining the ring thing. I see what they're getting at, but how could they pull of explaining the ring's power when, really, the ring was a relatively minor character in The Hobbit.
    • rentmitchum, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1It doesn't need explained, if you pay attention, they make it clear in the beginning of Fellowship that Sauron is gaining power. It's sorta presumed he didn't have the power to watch over everything until around that time.

      So yea, I agree with all of it but explaining the ring. If someone actually hasn't read the books, loved the trilogy, then goes to the Hobbit, then wants to know the answer to that question (assuming they actually thought it) then they should read the books or just look it up on these tubes.
    • Jektal, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1I think they'll leave it completely unexplained in the Hobbit, and then do their explanations in the bridge film. Which will create an ugly period of "hey wait a minute, WTF is this?" from people before the difference gets explained, but will keep the story "true" for anyone who watches all 5 films starting with The Hobbit
  • itsgotyou, on 05/21/2008, -11/+2I want the little hobbit to mount a large mammal, like pamella anderson. That would be exciting.
  • stack3r, on 05/21/2008, -11/+1I only want 1 thing, for it to not come out.

  • Vegiemaster, on 05/21/2008, -1/+18If I could, I would digg this article many times over.
  • brhees, on 05/21/2008, -11/+6"...we happily mocked any nerds who claimed that Fellowship of the Ring was ruined by the exclusion of the karaoke-loving Tom Bombadil (one of the best decisions Jackson ever made)"
    haha -- I agree 100%!
  • Yoness, on 05/21/2008, -4/+3I can't wait to see Del Toro style goblins and orcs. I thought the LOTR ones were just so-so.
  • FoxMcCloud, on 05/21/2008, -0/+7I haven't read this book since the 5th grade but I agree with all of these topics. This is a separate story line which should be uniquely different from LOTR and Jackson's imagining of the universe
  • absurdist, on 05/21/2008, -6/+8I want hobbits that look like ***** HOBBITS, not teen heartthrobs.
    • m1zl3d, on 05/21/2008, -1/+2Apparently you didn't see their feet.
    • Abomonog, on 05/21/2008, -2/+3Err. The Hobbits looked almost exactly as described in the books. Couldn't get any closer without genetically creating one yourself.
  • megalaser, on 05/21/2008, -9/+1I want Paris Hilton to be in it
    • UnarmedHippo, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1why are you being dugg down?

      i loled
  • Ryan166, on 05/21/2008, -7/+4Action. *****. and Dragons.
  • Wolfgarden, on 05/21/2008, -4/+2Wizard. SHALL NOT PASS!!!!
  • m1zl3d, on 05/21/2008, -2/+4I can't wait to see what Del Torro has planned for The Hobbit. I think I'm more excited about The Hobbit than seeing The Dark Knight which is saying a lot.
  • nesum, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3I hadn't thought about it too much (because once I go down the road of thinking about THE HOBBIT . . .), but, yeah, this is pretty much what I want. The special effects are going to be great, obviously, but the movie is going to live or die on the characters and mood of the film. If we go down the dark road of LOTR, it'll be lost.

    Someone has already mentioned it, but seriously, what ever happened to having an article all on one page? Scrolling is your friend!
  • blankoboy, on 05/21/2008, -0/+13I (we?) need both Sir Ian's (Holm and McKellan) to be in this film. Yes, I know Bilbo is much younger in the Hobbit but I'm certain Holm can pull it off. Bilbo would not be Bilbo and Gandalf would not be Gandalf without these two men IMO.
  • Greenkayak, on 05/21/2008, -9/+2Oh my GOSH!

    Get a life, people! LOTR was excellent. No movies are going to make all fans happy - especially OCD, freakishly devoted to a book like you were BORN from it - and posts like this telling the Producers and Directors what they BETTER do is just PATHETIC. If you want to truly enjoy the story again, please go read the book. Then you let your mind make up all the cool details that you remember you enjoyed so much. And when the movie comes out, understand that it is a MOVIE, and that it won't be 'all things to all people'.

    And if you were that good of a movie critic or consultant, you would be making movie scripts and directing scenes instead of posting empty blogs and opinions on the internet. Nuff said.
  • brownrecluse888, on 05/21/2008, -8/+0If it doesn't star Obama I'm not going....
  • HouseofEl, on 05/21/2008, -2/+2I understand the concern for this movie, but if LOTR didn't prove to you that all will be OK, then you really need to get a life. Also, I know a lot of fans want this to be faithful, but you're not the director. Let the man do his job.
    • DWalla, on 05/21/2008, -6/+2LOTR had major failings overall. Significant changes to the story and characters that didn't fall within the boundaries of simply editing for time or illustrative reasons. Many of the changes had no logical reason. Things such as Gimli being relegated to the comic sidekick (you know.. dwarves are SUPPOSED to be funny... not), the Council of Elrond turning into a dorky shouting match, Elrond being portrayed as a bitter man-despising elf, Aragorn being reluctant to take up the kingship, the destruction of Faramir's character, Galadriel the wide-eyed shape-shifting elf, Celeborn the stoned husband of Galadriel, Arwen ruining Frodo's denial of the Nazgûl at the Ford of Bruinen, Aragorn riding a warg (WTF!!??), the elves showing up at Helm's Deep (are we SURE PJ actually read Tolkien's works?), the break-dancing...errr.... battle scene with Gandalf and Saruman (I kept on waiting to hear Herbie Hancock's RockIt while Gandalf was spinning on the floor), Saruman joining up with Sauron, Frodo staring endlessly in shock at the Ring in his hand, and... can I say Lurtz?... ugh!
  • Nessal, on 05/21/2008, -0/+21The elves really need to be more lighthearted than in LOTR....
    • RadiatedAnt, on 05/21/2008, -7/+1If you wan't nick at night watch cable, we need more man eating elves.
  • ZenMojo, on 05/21/2008, -6/+1Yeah, why do people keep linking to Deadbolt.com? They almost have something constructive to say, and then I realize they're the worst sort of film geeks ... film geeks with bad taste in movies who know nothing about anything except movies. Really? More songs? Less combat? *****, with less combat Narnia:LWW would have been a ***** satyr in a hearth and a scarf cracking wise.
    • DWalla, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4More story... less brainless action. This is one of the failings of PJ's version of LOTR. Although much of it was brilliantly executed, much of the richness of the story was lost.
      • Abomonog, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Not really. Despite ROTK (the book) actually being shrunken down to the last half of the 3rd movie, Jackson did a wonderful job of balancing out action and story. Many times the story played right through the action. EG: Theoden queens his daughter (Eowin) in an attempt to keep her our of battle but later realizes that she is the key to victory and attempts to assist her.

        There are many elements of plot that happen in the thick of battle in those movies. That's why PJ could do a battle that lasted for 2 hours and still keep you interested.
        • DWalla, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Kind of how he did a 10 minute dinosaur running scene in King Kong and kept me... oh wait... I got bored with that.
    • wacomwacoff, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Well yeah, but that's LWW, one of the most bloodless and castrated fantasy stories out there. It was a stretch to get as much razzmatazz combat in there as they did. Whereas with Hobbit, you've got so many great action sequences... the spider battle, the orc escape, the goblin escape, Smaug, Gollum.... but you've also got a massive five-army battle to cover, and it's a lot to pack into a three-hour movie.

      If PJ can stretch a paragraph that says "and there was a battle" into a twenty-minute sequence, it's going to be way too tempting to make the big battle sequence a half hour long, and that's just too much.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.