Skip to comments.'The Hobbit' Part 3..Richard Armitage Teases Ending of Film Being Different from Tolkien's Version?
Posted on 04/01/2014 3:33:57 PM PDT by Perdogg
In a recent interview, Richard Armitage revealed that he was quite emotional about the completion of the trilogy.
The 42-year-old actor spoke with BANG Showbiz about finally wrapping the trilogy and how now that the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogy was completed, he was very moved.
"It will be 15 years of Peter Jackson's work, there'll be six movies to watch, but it could be the final time. There's something moving about that," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at enstarz.com ...
Why on earth (or Middle Earth) would you make a move from a classic story that millions love & CHANGE it???!!!
Well, at least I don’t have to spend time or money watching it.
Once Christopher has passed, the Silmarillion will be filmed.
Enough material for multiple billion dollar movies.
I can see how since the last movies ended pretty much near the end. I am wondering if the “Battle of the Five Armies” will be skipped in favor of a battle in Mirkwood’S Dol Guldur against the Necromancer - as hinted about in the novel, but was more of an after thought.
The Silmarillion is too confusing to film. It’s even “written” more in pastiche form.
You can bet that a lot of people would find the Ainulindalë offensive (Tolkien’s version of a “Creation myth”).
The Battle of Five Armies is too central, ultimately. It’s too akin to major battles like those fought at Helm’s Deep or Minas Tirith, or even at Mordor’s Black Gate.
They changed the end of LOTR also.
Don’t give away the book, I am just at the beginning of the “Treebeards” in the second novel. ;) I saw the movies.
Yea, made the mistake of watching that one. Never again.
Don’t worry. I’ll be dead by the time you finish the third! lol
Uh... In what material way?
Sounds like anger over the omission of the Scouring of the Shire. (redux.)
Ahh "The Scouring of the Shire"...
Which is a fairly big part of the Hobbits' story.
I would like to see a couple of the movies dealing with the second-age and ending with the battle in Mordor where Isildur recovers the ring. I want to have more screen time with the Witch king of Angmar.
It took me only a month to get through the first one.
Iirc Frodo, Sam, Merri and Pippin showed back up to a very different/changed Shire. Then kicked some serious a** fixing it.
Think Arnold Schwartzenegger as Hamlet in the only good scene from Last Action Hero,
The story doesn’t say anything like the headline suggests. Nothing seems changed from the book story.
I had forgotten how dark the ending to The Hobbit was. It had been years since I read it... And just damn... It goes to some dark places.
They changed a lot of things in all three of the LOTR movies. One example: Arwen was not such an active character in the books, but emerged as such in the first moviein the book, it was an elf called Glorfindel that met Strider and the Hobbits when the Nazgûl were pursuing them en route to Rivendell, and it was Elrond and Gandalf that “commanded” the flood at the ford of the river Bruinen that washed the Nazgûl and their horses downstream, not Arwen.
(The cartoon directed by Ralph Bakshi replaced Glorfindel with Legolas, BTW.)
I get the feeling the former Deputy Secretary of State's take on this might be more interesting than that of some obscure English actor.
Digging in the weeds there. Give an old man a break, I read the books in 1976! lol
“The Hobbit, Part 3”
Sounds like it might come up a little short.
Actually, if you read the article the actor says nothing of the sort, the interviewer just “wondered” about it, and then the actor shot the idea down.
Hamlet? Then Roseanne Barr could be his Juliet.
They left out the whole “Scouring of the Shire”, except for hints of it in a nightmare.
Well, that's the difference between writing a good book and making a watchable movie. If you'll recall... The main story is about a ring and the ring bearers and the mission to rid middle Earth of its evil. Side story was the restoration of the King to his rightful place. As a movie it was already plenty long and the main story was already told. The scouring would have been small in scope by comparison... But a lot of screen time. It was enough movie already. And Jackson didn't ignore it completely... He gave space to the scouring when Frodo was using Galadriel's mirror.
Wait, scratch that. The Shire is saved. I'm still working on the screenplay.
Guessing from the second film, Legolas saves the day by shooting Smaug.
Oh yeah "the evil" like "the evil" that moved right into the Hobbits' home and took over in the guise of one of Sauron's minion's Saruman A.K.A Sharkey...
yeah just minor little bits of the story... [/sarc]
I never thought that the Scouring of the Shire was as central a portion to the story as some apparently did. For me, the most inexcusable variation from the book was having Frodo push Gollum into the Crack of Doom instead of Gollum having his own obsession with the Ring cause him to become off balance in his infatuation with evil and topple over to meet his death.
I would wonder who the Secretary of State would like to see Khun Sa play the role of.
Some of the changes maybe didn’t need to be done... But I understand why they were done. There’s Sooo many characters in LOTR. Lots of strong roles in the book that would frankly be confusing in the movie. The pace of a movie has to be faster, and introducing too many one-appearance characters makes a movie choppy and hard to follow. The movie already had several strong male and female roles to develop and just didn’t need any more.
The whole point of the “scouring if the shire” is that it IS world as it exists in the forth age compared to the third age. The last of the elves are leaving middle earth, the last of the ancient good and evil that have been around since the first age - the world is VERY different now. The point is that man and man-kind are on their own. They have to do things for themselves. The scouring of the shire was the first crisis that the returning hobbits had to handle completely on their own.
It sets the bridge between the magical world of old, and a world that will transition to one like our own. The events will fade away to legend, myth, and eventually become simply unbelievability.
The movie was a complete rip off and a bastardized “Americanized” sickeningly sweet ending that ruins the movie, IMHO.
Peter Jackson is a New Zealander, so, if anything, it was Kiwi-ized.
I hear that there might be another "Terminator" movie.
I LOVED it when he was our "Governator"--loved it.
Yes, I was bummed by the ending of The Hobbit as well. Thorin I could understand, I guess; but, Kili and Fili as well. I guess I have grown to used to the "heroes" always surviving.
Well, Tolkien lost almost every friend he had during WWI. He was at the Somme and lucky to get out alive. He knew that war means loss.
Again... Great for the book. Not for a movie.
One of the more glaring changes/additions, to me anyway, was the appearance of the Elves at the Battle of Helm’s Deep.
That and the elimination of the Ents’ contribution to the end of the battle.
The latter (Huorns wiping out the Uruk-Hai) reappeared in the extended edition.
Good point, I do recall that. (and yes it was the Huorns, not Ents, couldn’t recall their name offhand, thx)
As did another glaring omission from the theatrical release, the gift giving as the Fellowship was leaving Lothlorien.
Lol, I’m reading the Hobbit to my son right now and I can’t wait to get to that part.
Just finished “Mount Doom” - on to “The Field of Cormallan” about 50 pages to go.