Other than, you know, the Hobbit, the dwarves, the ring, Gollum, the riddles, the forest, the elves, the spiders, the mountain, the dragon, the hidden door, and stuff like that.
Yeah, must have been based on Stalky and Co., I guess.
First of all, that’s not actually how Tolkien presented it: He just said “when the Moon and Sun are in the sky together”. Which is almost all the time, at some time of the day or other. Second, even if it is “new moon on equinox”, that happens about once every 28 years. Third, the lunar cycle wouldn’t have any impact on where the Sun’s last light shines-- It could have just said “the last light of the equinox shines upon the keyhole”. Making moonlight the pointer instead of sunlight makes the Moon relevant.
My biggest complaint about The Hobbit is the miscasting of Martin Freeman as Bilbo. He always comes across as slightly amused by everything and I couldn’t separate him from his role in The Office (BBC version). I kept expecting him to mug for the camera. He just seemed lost and inept in the first film (haven’t seen the second film yet). The story line was so bloated in the first film that I lost interest in it, and honestly couldn’t tell you now what actually transpired. When I walked out, I knew that I would not pay to see the next two in a theater.
Yes, yes, and Disney’s Jungle Book has a boy named Mowgli adopted by a mother wolf, and a tiger named Shere Khan who is out for his blood, and a friendly black panther named Bagheera, and a friendly bear named Baloo, and an elephant called Hathi, and Mowgli gets kidnapped by monkeys at one point, and there’s a snake called Kaa. And despite all these elements it still bears no resemblance to Kipling’s stories about Mowgli (which doesn’t feature a long journey to the man-village or Kaa trying to eat Mowgli or the monkeys having a geographically confused orang-utan for a King looking for the secret of fire or a bumbling old clown of an elephant who thinks he’s an eccentric but highly decorated English colonel living under the thumb of his wife Winifred or…).
cough
Three, actually; you forgot Idril and Tuor, Eärendil’s parents.
Not that that in any way diminishes the point- elves and dwarves getting together is the stuff of slashfic, not Tolkien.
I disagree that there wasn’t time. FOTR spent way too much time on Bilbo’s farewell party that could have been used on the Old Forest. Similarly, the last movie could have cut down on Gollum’s quarrel with Sam, Pippin lighting the Gondor beacons, and some of the songs, and put in the Scouring instead.
I don’t think Elrond would have sent out Arwen at all. Glorfindel was a mighty warrior, Arwen (in the book) was just a pretty girl. Even if one Nazgul had caught her, she would have been dead.
Which was highly unlike the first installment, and arguably the high point of the series.
Drifting a bit OT; but does anybody else consider “Glorfindel” to be one of Tolkien’s less happy character-name ideas? The name has always suggested to me, a proprietary brand of furniture- or metal-polish; makes it hard for me to take the character seriously as a resplendent warrior hero.
Regardless of the frequency, Tolkien used the coincidence of “oooh, it’s just exactly the right time” twice. At Rivendell, when the dwarves show Elrond the map, wow, what luck! It’s exactly the right kind of moon for him to read the moon runes. And they get to the doorstep, and bingo! it just happens to be Durin’s Day, which occurs only every N years (I don’t care what N is, or even whether it occurs every month.) It makes perfect sense for Jackson to change the “wild coincidence” to a more careful planning with a time-urgency, for the movie.
As I’ve said before, I think many of the changes (both good and bad) were made to adapt a literary work to the screen. While hard-core fans may grouse about the change of Durin’s Day, the vast majority of film-goers would grouse harder about the cliche one-in-a-million chance that happens 90% of the time.
The Hobbit failed?
Says who?
FFS, read the thread. :rolleyes:
Agreed, this is not a change that bothered me in the least.
I’ve been pretty clear about what did bother me, so I won’t reiterate it here.
But it does apparently need to be restated that small plot point changes are NOT what those of us who feel the movie is an artistic failure are on about.
Yes, you could have made time to put Bombadil in - but then he just disappears from the story.
As somebody said “If you put a gun in the first act of the play, you have to shoot it by the last act.”
Again you could squeeze the Scouring in - but since it comes after the film’s climax (Ring destroyed) it means the film’s ending is way too long.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, that cutting both Bombadil and the Scouring was the right choice for the movies. I like both, but Jackson had to cut a lot, and those were two things that could be cut relatively cleanly, without leaving a lot of tattered loose ends.
This is not to say that I’m happy with all of the cuts he made, and I thought almost everything he added was a mistake. Just, those two cuts specifically I don’t mind.