Il Lady Fawn Il
barrl
Il Lady Fawn Il
barrl
Il Lady Fawn Il
I am a huge fan.... the film was a complete disappointment for me.... and the fact they are stretching one book into three films? can someone say cash cow? T^T sigh peter jackson... you used to have your heart in your work.
I agree with the feeling that they are splitting the book into a trilogy, but Peter Jackson said that he was doing that for the fans who enjoyed his original LotR trilogy.
I have to say that while i understand what you are saying about him wanting to please his fans who enjoyed LOTR, the fact he even compared the Hobbit to LOTR is in part (and in my opinion) where he went wrong with the Hobbit Film. The Hobbit and LOTR while they are related in some way mainly by bilbo and the ring. The connection is very watered down (similar to the way Bilbo and Frodo are related: Distant and almost non related.) The Hobbit while admittedly a pre-cursor to the LOTR series is other than that, A COMPLETELY SEPARATE TALE. The tale is simpler as is the plot (Company of 14 Vs. A dragon). Compared to LOTR it is a childrens tale and a memorable light-hearted adventure with moments of peril and intrigue in between. LOTR is essentially Good vs. Evil (which is altogether a more grave and rewarding tale.) My point is this; that in peter Jackson attempting to create the Hobbit in the same style as he did LOTR he failed to recognize the Hobbit as a completely separate entity. The Hobbit should have never been over shadowed by it's younger distantly related counterpart. For me it cheapened the story... and to add insult to injury i completely detested Radagast and the modern references made during the film. I wanted so desperately to like it. I even waited 5 hours in line for the midnight showing as i have for the LOTR Tril in the past... T^T. Even critics gave it a 6.5. And i'm sure you can agree with me on this... Jackson is a 9-10 scale director. I just wished he hadn't of dropped the ball on one of the most beloved books of all time.
Ah, I see now. Thank you for explaining. I can definately follow that way of thinking of the two. To be honest, I've always thought of The Hobbit an LotR one in the same. But I will say that Jackson followed the book better than what he did with LotR. Don't get me wrong, I found both works outstanding, but I suppose since I've already read The Hobbit it had more of an impact. I've actully just started reading The Fellowship of the Ring a few weaks ago and never realized how much detail and effort was put into the writing. I'm honestly a bit upset with myself that I hadn't read it before.. sweatdrop
you believe the hobbit to be more accurate than lotr? O.O I disliked the hobbit film because it is so far off of what the book is really like.
I have found that while reading The Fellowship of The Ring, many details and parts that had happened to the four hobbits are not the same as they are in the movie Jackson made. For example, there was no mention mention of Merry joining the group until page 104 or so, after they had gone into Farmer Maggot's house and when they had already met the high elves along the road. I understand that it is a lengthy book and why everything couldn't have possibly be part of film. Heck, it's said that Tolkien's works would most likely not even sell because of the style in which they were written and how people are reading and seeing things nowadays. In The Hobbit I found that they stuck relatively closer to the story, most likely because it might have been easier to understand, after all it was written to be a children's book. I was very impressed that Jackson even included the silly dwarvish songs. It enlightened me to see that they took that route, as they did in the LotR trilogy (Pippin's Song, Aragorn's Coronation, etc.). I find both works, film and literature, to be truly beautiful in their own way and definition. I'm in no way knocking down one or the other, although I do admit to spotting differences and other ways that they could be looked at, depending on the person.
