The Hobbit

[Sennex 1,903]

So, someone that loves the book decided to take all 3 movies, edit them down to remove all the shit that no purpose being in a movie (as most of it wasn't in the book, or was so jacked up, it should have been editted out), and has recompiled it all to be a single 4 hour movie

 

The result is The Hobbit: The Tolkien Edit

 

Some of the biggest cuts include:

-The investigation of Dol Guldor has been completely excised

-The Tauriel-Legolas-Kili love triangle has also been removed

-The Pale Orc subplot is vastly trimmed down

-Several of the Laketown scenes have been cut, such as Bard's imprisonment and the superfluous orc raid.

-The prelude with old Bilbo is gone.

-Several of the orc skirmishes have been cut.

-Several of the action scenes have been tightened up, such as the barrel-ride, the fight between Smaug and the dwarves (no molten gold in this version), and the Battle of the Five Armies.

-A lot of filler scenes have been cut as well.

 

Direct link to post: https://tolkieneditor.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/i-have-recut-peter-jacksons-hobbit-trilogy-into-a-single-4-hour-film/ tolkieneditor's website: https://tolkieneditor.wordpress.com/

 

Also, this is honestly how The Hobbit should have ended:

 

[phil bottle 9,776]

So, someone that loves the book decided to take all 3 movies, edit them down to remove all the shit that no purpose being in a movie (as most of it wasn't in the book, or was so jacked up, it should have been editted out), and has recompiled it all to be a single 4 hour movie

 

The result is The Hobbit: The Tolkien Edit

 

Some of the biggest cuts include:

-The investigation of Dol Guldor has been completely excised

-The Tauriel-Legolas-Kili love triangle has also been removed

-The Pale Orc subplot is vastly trimmed down

-Several of the Laketown scenes have been cut, such as Bard's imprisonment and the superfluous orc raid.

-The prelude with old Bilbo is gone.

-Several of the orc skirmishes have been cut.

-Several of the action scenes have been tightened up, such as the barrel-ride, the fight between Smaug and the dwarves (no molten gold in this version), and the Battle of the Five Armies.

-A lot of filler scenes have been cut as well.

 

Direct link to post: https://tolkieneditor.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/i-have-recut-peter-jacksons-hobbit-trilogy-into-a-single-4-hour-film/ tolkieneditor's website: https://tolkieneditor.wordpress.com/

 

Also, this is honestly how The Hobbit should have ended:

 

That is epic, sometimes it's good to irk the purists but sometimes the purists come good. I couldn't face watching all three after the first one.

[Drifter 851]

I read all the books back in the 80's when I was a kid and loved them, I also have seen the first two movies (and plan to see the third soon) and I for one enjoy the movies. Things don't always have to be exactly as they are in books. Truth be told the good majority of movies are based on books, and yet hardly any of them follow the script of the book they are based on to a tee.

[Sennex 1,903]

I partially agree with you Drifter.

 

 

Sadly, the hobbit should have stayed closer to the books. Other movies/ books benefit, this one suffers

[Drifter 851]

Just wondering because I don;t see it...In what way do you feel it suffers?

[Sennex 1,903]

Not really sure you want me to write a list.

 

I can though, if you are seriously interested.

 

When you have time, give the book a read again, and then watch the movies. (Hell read the book anyway, not as a comparison, its just such a solid classic)

[Drifter 851]

Was just a simple question because I seriously wondered in what way you felt it suffered was all. NM though.

[JsinOwl 644]

I love, LOVE the LotR movies, watched all the extended cuts as well as Pete Jackson commentary. I have not seen the Hobbit yet, but when I first heard that it was going to be three movies, I couldn't even comprehend it.

 

The Lord of the Rings in total is about 1,400 pages.

The Hobbit, less than 300.

 

So they took a story nearly 5 times shorter and made a series of movies of roughly the same length... 

 

Now my brother who is incapable of criticizing anything Peter Jackson does (along with Christoper Nolan and Kevin Smith) says oh but they include all the stuff from the appendices. Have you read the appendices Joe? No. 

 

I have, and I've read the Silmarillion. The vast majority of this material is not movie worthy. So consider me extremely skeptical.

[Drifter 851]

The problem is if you compare a movie to a book then nine times out of ten you will be quite disappointed. Which is only natural because think of it this way, if you decide to read a book then it's because you either really enjoy the subject matter, or you really like the style the author writes in. So the fan base for a certain book is much smaller, is very keyed into the details of the book, and very much in tune with the way the book is written and the message the author is trying to convery. Plus it doesn't cost 75 million dollars to publish a book.

 

Now when it comes to movies it's totally different. Movies have to appeal to a much wider base of people from various age groups, genders, and basically a wide range of people including some that go to see the movie just because they had a free couple hours and the trailer lookied interesting. So naturally they have to add various things into the movie that are not in tune with the book they are based on. Doesn't make it a poor movie nor take away from it, it's just the way things have to be done to appeal to a broader spectrum of people. Movies like the hobbit don't follw the books 100% that's for sure, mainly due to the reasons I just touched on. IMO they are still enjoyable movies to watch, and are much better than sitting through some of the other mindless garbage starring no talent actors like Seth Rogan and people that pass for actors these days

 

It's a movie, not a documentary, enjoy it for what it is is my take on it.

[JsinOwl 644]

I actually prefer the Lord of the Rings films to the books. I find Tolkien to be too wordy and the books drag at times, becoming progressively more exciting as you go. Of the three, only the Return of the King was a can't stop page turner for me. I think Peter Jackson distilled the books down perfectly into a more concentrated form of awesome.

 

My fear (again, I'm kind of speaking out my ass here because I haven't seen any of the Hobbit films, but hey, discussion is fun) with the Hobbit is the opposite of what you're suggesting Steve. I'm not worried that PJ changed the story or didn't stay true to the book, I'm worried that he stayed too true, not to the Hobbit, but to the peripheral stuff. The Hobbit is like a pamphlet, you can read it in a day. There's not enough there for three movies. But Tolkien wrote and wrote and wrote all kinds of history, lore, fables, myth, short stories, sketches, poems and on and on. Stuff that never appeared in any proper book, but published as a view into the history and lore of middle earth. That stuff wasn't in the books because it wasn't good enough, or didn't belong. So why is PJ bringing it in the movies?

 

Again, speaking out my ass. I may end up finding them to be the best things ever.

[Baabcat 1,646]

I agree with Jason on LOTR, films did a fantastic job of trimming out the boring bits of the books (which I read a few times when I was a kid)

 

I've seen the three Hobbit films and really enjoyed them all as entertainment, but there is a small part of me whinging about them as a pretty cynical money making exercise. However there is enough about the story for two films maybe, so its interesting the Tolkien cut referred to above comes in about 4 hours, which to me is two films. Probably best to just enjoy, and try and ignore the elf/dwarf love angle

[Sennex 1,903]

I also agree.

 

The LOTR movies, the uncut versions, are superior to the books. At one point I counted it out and Tolkien spent easily 2 pages describing Galadriel's hair and how it was perfect. Thats a shade excessive. (although, I seriously am peeved at there not being a Tom Bombadil in the movies. I'll grant you that it makes sense though)

 

To expand upon Mr Owls point though, if you were to take the Hobbit book and rip out the extra bits where Tolkien, you'd have somewhere around a 200-250 page book. Not really sure where that warrants about 9 hours of movie. Hell, it does't take 9 hours to read the hobbit as it stands right now.

 

But anyway, here is my list:

 

1. When Bilbo finds the ring, its merely a trinket, its just some bit of treasure, there was no foreboding sense of Evil/ doom around it. 
2. The Arkenstone. Why was Bilbo able to find it, not once, but twice, in a treasure hoard that literally filled the main hall of Erebor  and then some. All while Smaug sat there and ran with his villain monologue.
3. Mirkwood - all of it was just wrong, and far to fast. It was (I believe) 3 chapters in the book, but its like 10 minutes in the movie. Mirkwood was huge, and honestly, they should have dropped the Barrel sequence and added more to Mirkwood. 
4. Mirkwood Spiders - Bilbo kills a spider by dropping it to the ground. Then he turns and cuts the dwarves from the webbing, they drop to the ground and live? If its high enough to kill a spider, its high enough to kill a dwarf.
5. Tauriel - nuff said
6. Legolas - Nuff Said
7. Love Triangle - it was forced, for literally no reason. 
8. Elf super powers are insane. Okay so I get the Elves are badasses, that makes sense, but Tauriel might as well of been Wonder woman for some of the crap she pulls in the movies. Legolas was nothing compared to her.
9. Eagles - The Maiar Eagles only flew Gandalf and the dwarves halfway to the Lonely Mountain. Tolkien never explained why the Eagle lords wouldnt' fly closer, it was always left as some nebulous reason.
10. Smaug's sense of smell - Smaug wakes up because he smells Bilbo. Even though he cannot see him. Then, all of a sudden he can't smell the 13 dwarves that climbed through a toilet to get where they are? 
11. All the Orc crap more or less - Seriously, Azog was completely unnecessary
12. I can sort of argue for the White Counsel, however, it was added in the Appendix and wasn't part of the original book.
13. Orc fight in LAketown
14. Dragon Hide and Seek/ Molten gold attack thing
15. Barrel fight...... honestly, what the fuck. This sequence felt like it was 2 hours long
16. Gandalf see's Sauron at the Nazgul Tombs?????? Really? And then he has a showdown with him????? So what you are telling me is that before LOTR happens, Gandalf knew the significance of Bilbo's ring, knew Sauron was coming back, and that Saruman was evil? And then he just fucking forgot?????? Are you shitting me? I mean honestly it completely changes how Elronds Council should have gone in the Fellowship. Not to mention that Gandalf would have NEVER survived a fight with Sauron. The Silmarillion was quite clear on this.
17. Radagast the brown. I call him Jar Jar for a reason. They took what was a really interesting Maiar character, and turned him into this absolutely retarded character that has a sled pulled by rabbits. I get they did it for the kids, but come the fuck on.
18. The majority of the Dialogue.

This is all I can come up with off the top of my head

 

I'll grant you that visually the movie is impressive, but thats it. 

 

I can name another movie that was visually really impressive for its day, but it fell flat on telling a story and was nowhere near the source material, that movie is "Starship Troopers"

[Baabcat 1,646]

I hate Tom Bombadil, nearly put it in my post but thought no one would remember him - but you liked him. That whole fangorn forest thing, god how dull.

[JsinOwl 644]

I rather like Tom Bombadil.

[Baabcat 1,646]

Somehow Jason, I figured you probably did!

 

16 On Sennex's list is so true - Peter Jackson must have forgotten that this is a prequel to LOTR, its crazy

 

Although I still enjoyed the films - 3rd on is great, ie one huge battle for most of 3 hours. Whats not to like about that?

[deterioration 443]

I really appreciate the level of nerd in here.

 

Secondly, having never read past the first few pages of The Hobbit (fuck all those stupid names), I can't stand the Hobbit movies. I don't know what it is but they are insanely boring. *shrugs*

[Sennex 1,903]

I hate Tom Bombadil, nearly put it in my post but thought no one would remember him - but you liked him. That whole fangorn forest thing, god how dull.

 

Tom should have never been in the movies, thats for certain. Way to many questions would pop up that would never be answered.

 

I like Tom for many reasons, most of which didn't start taking shape until after I read the Silmarillion and the appendices

Some interesting things about Tom

• He is the oldest creature in Middle earth. He literally predates every thing else. Even the Shadow under the Stars, arguably even Eru, (I did say arguably)

   

• The Ring had no power over him, he puts it on at one point, doesn't turn invisible, he then laughs at it, and hands it back.

   

• He can see through the rings power. He literally spots Frodo and talks to him, even though he is wearing the ring

   

• He confined himself, on purpose, to the Old Forest, no one knows why, but he admits to it. Within that space he is pretty much god.

   

• His main weapon is singing. Which sounds odd, but it is the source of all of his power. Now it is easy to skip over it, unless you have read all of tolkiens other works, but the power of the Ainur (The power of Creation, and by that I mean the power of the Gods) was music. The Universe and everything in it sprang from music. Many characters in Middle earth use song for things, but their songs have no real power, or its power to a limited degree. Tom had no limitations, he was able to anything with his music. Which leads many to theorize that he is the physical embodiment of the Music of Ainur.

   

• Everyone changes once they meet Tom and rest at his home.

   

• Gandalf has some pretty funny dialogue about Tom. Gandalf, wisest of the Maiar (Angels), states a few times that the Ring has zero power of Tom; Tom would never understand the Ring, or the need to hide it; and that even though the Old Forest is the one place where the Ring would be totally safe from Sauron, Tom would eventually misplace it and lose it.

 

IDK, there are loads of theories about Tom, some of which have Merit based on letters Tolkein wrote to fans, and poems written by Tolkien.

 

For me, Tom is one of the more interesting characters because of how Tolkien wrote him, and what Tolkien based him off of before writing him.

[Sennex 1,903]

This is actually my #1 favorite fan theory concerning Tom Bombadil being the most evil mutha in the Middle Earth.

(Also, it is easily disproven, but that doens't lesson my enjoyment of this guy putting a new angle on the Tom Bombadil argument)

 

http://km-515.livejournal.com/1042.html

 

(This is another of my speculative pieces and nothing to do with Star Wars. This one is for an older trilogy.)

 

Old Tom Bombadil. Possibly the least liked character in The Lord of the Rings. A childish figure so disliked by fans of the book that few object to his absence from all adaptations of the story. And yet, there is another way of looking at Bombadil, based only on what appears in the book itself, that paints a very different picture of this figure of fun.

What do we know about Tom Bombadil? He is fat and jolly and smiles all the time. He is friendly and gregarious and always ready to help travellers in distress.

Except that none of that can possibly be true.

Consider: By his own account (and by Elrond’s surprisingly sketchy knowledge) Bombadil has lived in the Old Forest since before the hobbits came to the Shire. Since before Elrond was born. Since the earliest days of the First Age.

And yet no hobbit has ever heard of him.

The guise in which Bombadil appears to Frodo and his companions is much like a hobbit writ large. He loves food and songs and nonsense rhymes and drink and company. Any hobbit who saw such a person would tell tales of him. Any hobbit who was rescued by Tom would sing songs about him and tell everyone else. Yet Merry – who knows all the history of Buckland and has ventured into the Old Forest many times – has never heard of Tom Bombadil. Frodo and Sam – avid readers of old Bilbo’s lore – have no idea that any such being exists, until he appears to them. All the hobbits of the Shire think of the Old Forest as a place of horror – not as the abode of a jolly fat man who is surprisingly generous with his food.

If Bombadil has indeed lived in the Old Forest all this time – in a house less than twenty miles from Buckland – then it stands to reason that he has never appeared to a single hobbit traveller before, and has certainly never rescued one from death. In the 1400 years since the Shire was settled.

What do we know about Tom Bombadil? He is not what he seems.

Elrond, the greatest lore-master of the Third Age, has never heard of Tom Bombadil. Elrond is only vaguely aware that there was once someone called Iarwain Ben-Adar (“Oldest and Fatherless”) who might be the same as Bombadil. And yet, the main road between Rivendell and the Grey Havens passes not 20 miles from Bombadil’s house, which stands beside the most ancient forest in Middle Earth. Has no elf ever wandered in the Old Forest or encountered Bombadil in all these thousands of years? Apparently not.

Gandalf seems to know more, but he keeps his knowledge to himself. At the Council of Elrond, when people suggest sending the Ring to Bombadil, Gandalf comes up with a surprisingly varied list of reasons why that should not be done. It is not clear that any of the reasons that he gives are the true one.

Now, in his conversation with Frodo, Bombadil implies (but avoids directly stating) that he had heard of their coming from Farmer Maggot and from Gildor’s elves (both of whom Frodo had recently described). But that also makes no sense. Maggot lives west of the Brandywine, remained there when Frodo left, and never even knew that Frodo would be leaving the Shire. And if Elrond knows nothing of Bombadil, how can he be a friend of Gildor’s?

What do we know about Tom Bombadil? He lies.

A question: what is the most dangerous place in Middle Earth? First place goes to the Mines of Moria, home of the Balrog, but what is the second most dangerous place? Tom Bombadil’s country.

By comparison, Mordor is a safe and well-run land, where two lightly-armed hobbits can wander for days without meeting anything more dangerous than themselves. Yet the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs, all part of Tom’s country, are filled with perils that would tax anyone in the Fellowship except perhaps Gandalf.

 

Now, it is canonical in Tolkein that powerful magical beings imprint their nature on their homes. Lorien under Galadriel is a place of peace and light. Moria, after the Balrog awoke, was a place of terror to which lesser evil creatures were drawn. Likewise, when Sauron lived in Mirkwood, it became blighted with evil and a home to monsters.

 

And then, there’s Tom Bombadil’s Country.

 

The hobbits can sense the hatred within all the trees in the Old Forest. Every tree in that place is a malevolent huorn, hating humankind. Every single tree. And the barrows of the ancient kings that lie nearby are defiled and inhabited by Barrow-Wights. Bombadil has the power to control or banish all these creatures, but he does not do so. Instead, he provides a refuge for them against men and other powers. Evil things – and only evil things – flourish in his domain. “Tom Bombadil is the master” Goldberry says. And his subjects are black huorns and barrow wights.

 

What do we know about Tom Bombadil? He is not the benevolent figure that he pretends to be.

 

Tom appears to the Ringbearer in a friendly, happy guise, to question and test him and to give him and his companions swords that can kill the servants of another evil power. But his motives are his own.

 

Consider: it is said more than once that the willows are the most powerful and evil trees in the Forest. Yet, the rhyme that Bombadil teaches the hobbits to use in conjuring up Bombadil himself includes the line, “By the reed and willow.” The willows are a part of Bombadil’s power and a means of calling on him. They draw their strength from the cursed river Withywindle, the centre of all the evil in the Forest.

 

And the springs of the Withywindle are right next to Tom Bombadil’s house.

 

And then there is Goldberry, “the river-daughter”. She is presented as Bombadil’s wife, an improbably beautiful and regal being who charms and beguiles the hobbits. It is implied that she is a water spirit, and she sits combing her long, blonde hair after the manner of a mermaid. (And it is worth remembering that mermaids were originally seen as monsters, beautiful above the water, slimy and hideous below, luring sailors to drown and be eaten.) But I suggest the name means that in her true state, Goldberry is nourished by the River – that is, by the proverbially evil Withywindle.

 

In folklore and legend (as Tolkien would know well) there are many tales of creatures that can take on human form but whose human shape always contains a clue to their true nature. So what might Goldberry be? She is tall and slender - specifically she is “slender as a willow wand”. She wears a green dress, sits amidst bowls of river water and is surrounded by the curtain of her golden hair. I suggest that she is a Willow tree conjured into human form, a malevolent huorn like the Old Man Willow from whom the hobbits have just escaped. If she is not indeed the same tree.

 

So, if this is true, then why does Bombadil save and help the ringbearer and his companions? Because they can bring about the downfall of Sauron, the current Dark Lord of Middle Earth. When Sauron falls, the other rings will fail and the wizards and elves will leave Middle Earth and the only great power that is left will be Bombadil.

 

There is a boundary around Bombadil’s country that he cannot or will not pass, something that confines him to a narrow space. And in return, no wizard or elf comes into his country to see who rules it, or to disturb the evil creatures that gather under his protection.

 

When the hobbits return to the Shire after their journey to Mordor, Gandalf leaves them close to Bree and goes towards Bombadil’s country to have words with him. We do not know what they say. But Gandalf was sent to Middle Earth to contend against Sauron and now he must depart. He has been given no mission to confront Bombadil and he must soon leave Middle Earth to powerless men and hobbits, while Bombadil remains, waiting to fulfill his purpose.

 

Do I think that Tolkien planned things in this way? Not at all, but I find it an interesting speculation.

 

To speculate further and more wildly:

 

The spell that binds Bombadil to his narrow and cursed country was put in place centuries ago by the Valar to protect men and elves. It may last a few decades more, perhaps a few generations of hobbit lives. But when the last elf has gone from the havens and the last spells of rings and wizards unravel, then it will be gone. And Iarwain Ben-Adar, Oldest and Fatherless, who was ruler of the darkness in Middle Earth before Sauron was, before Morgoth set foot there, before the first rising of the sun, will come into his inheritance again. And one dark night the old trees will march westward into the Shire to feed their ancient hatred. And Bombadil will dance down amongst them, clad in his true shape at last, singing his incomprehensible rhymes as the trees mutter their curses and the black and terrible Barrow-Wights dance and gibber around him. And he will be smiling.