He hadn't even been thought up when the Hobbit was written, but his father is the Elf King that captures them in Mirkwood, so I assume he'll be in there somewhere.

That was really good.

Gandalf and Galadriel do NOT have a romance in the movie. They're showing the stuff with the White Council, which is why they have her visiting Rivendell -- she needs to be reestablished before those scenes. People on other boards have theorized that the reason she's brushing his hair is because she had a vision of him someday becoming Gandalf the White with white hair.

The White Council really should be in Lothlorien IMO. There is no reason for them to go back to Rivendell.

Well some things do have to be changed for the screen, cut, and shortened. Unless they wanted to do 2 films per movie or something to get all the little details in there. Though it's a matter of prioritizing what needs to stay, and what has to go. The Tom Bombadil thing is the perfect example, as much as I love him as a character he doesn't really add anything to the plot. Let's hope this isn't a romance added in, but I have a very bad feeling.

Jackson can't defend cutting Bombadil due to time constraits if he's seriously considering adding a Gandalf/Galadriel romance to pad the Hobbit out to two films.
And I hope Stephen Fry doesn't play the mayor of Lake-town for laughs.

If they add a romance between G&G they are smoking crack. Although there were all kinds of mistakes in the LotR movies, I can't see them being dumb enough to do that.

I don't mind Tom Bombadil being cut out of the movies... what I care most about is changing the personality of the characters they kept in. Tolkien has a very clear message to give in the books that I don't like to see muddied.

Oh my gosh. Nothing is being muddied, nothing is being ruined. If Jackson were to go to into the books and change up Tolkien's writing, that would be muddying up the story, but making a completely separate work and changing the characters does nothing to affect the true, original work. Jackson can do whatever he wants with the Lord of the Rings. He can make it into a fairy tale and change Sauron into the Big Bad Wolf, it doesn't matter. The books in their original form will remain completely unharmed. Books and movies are two completely different mediums of story.

The solution to all dissenters is to become world-famous movie directors and make your own LOTR movies.

Barring that:

• Don't watch Jackson's movies
  
• Quit whining

I think they're wonderfully done, as accurate as you can expect a Hollywood blockbuster adaptation to be, and as any movie goes they're extremely well made. It's the most consistently high quality movie trilogy in recent memory. If I want all of the lore, I can read the books.

To be clear, I am just speaking about my own reaction, not what I think the Jacksons should do. They are free to create whatever art and whatever story they want. I've been a fan of PJ since I saw "Bad Taste" in the cinema when it first came out.

I've read the books about a million times, and I've thought about exactly what Tolkien was getting at for years, going back to Chesterton and all that stuff. If I watch the movies, every time something clashes with that, I get an automatic negative emotional nerd-rage reaction. Fran may have gotten an Oscar, but as far as I am concerned she doesn't have the first clue. She doesn't understand the emotional and religious impulse that makes the characters what they are. (BTW I am an atheist.)

This is just me, I get that.

Bourne. =)

They're good, but I never thought they were that special. I'll need to watch them again soon.

And Damon's face is weird. I should go post that in the "what weirds you out" thread.

I love\ G Grey! I hate G White!

I'm sooo looking forward to this!

I'm a bit on the fence about this one. I loved the book, and desperately want a live action made, but on the other hand, I'm kind of upset that Peter Jackson is doing it. Sure, it'll be good when watched in succession with the trilogy, as they all will have the same look/feel, but that's a little bit of what upsets me about it. While I liked the LotR trilogy, there was something that didn't feel "right" about it, and from looking at the trailer it's going to be presented in the same vein. I'm still not sure what puts me off from calling it the quintessential epic that it should be, but when I finally find a word to describe it, I will surely tell you what I mean by saying that it feels "off."

Well other then the fact that they actually do go to Rivendell in the book.
The reason why Tom Bombadil was cut is the same reason why Old Man Willow was cut. When he made the movies Peter Jackson had to find one phrase that described the plot of the LotR which would be his guidestick for what stayed in the movies. The phrase he chose to be most relevant was "Frodo's journey to destroy the ring". What does Old Man Willow really have to do with that, what does Tom Bombadil really have to do with that? There is ring stuff in the Bombadil part, but its not really moving anything forward.

My point is that Tom Bombadil wasn't cut due to time constraints and I really didn't get romance at all out of that short clip that has no context.

By that logic you aren't qualified to say they are good films unless you are also a world renowned director.

Don't worry, I misread

Not to my knowledge, but I am always happy to be corrected.

I think he just means that Bilbo & company went to Rivendell in the book. I don't think the White Council will be in Rivendell. I think they're just setting up Galadriel's character so they can show her again later when they have the White Council scenes. The White Council doesn't come until later when Bilbo & the dwarves are in Mirkwood, so it will probably be in the second movie.

My recollection about where Gandalf goes off to when the rest of them enter Mirkwood is that it's implied he goes to Lothlorien, but it isn't stated explicitly. I mean, that would be the most logical place for them all to gather, not too far from Isengard and right next to Dol Guldur.

I'm interested in seeing it, as The Hobbit was the only one of Tolkien's books that I actually enjoyed reading. Then again, I didn't finish half of the LotR series, so maybe I am missing out on something.

I couldn't even get through Fellowship, just could never deal with Tolkien's style of writing. He was either over-describing something or throwing out a bunch of info with no description to it at all and it became very confusing.

Almost exactly like George R.R. Martin. Perhaps that's why I'm having such a hard time with A Feast For Crows after breezing through the first 3 books. Martin really started falling in love with himself with this book.

Loved it, and If it's as good as Jackson's Trilogy i'll be chuffed.
Tolkein's LoTR and Hobbit are/will be in my top 5 books/movies.

I'd thought i'd revive it instead of starting a new thread.
Let the discussion continue...

Great, just what we need. More movies with the Peter Jackson version of Jar Jar Binks.

Who would that be?