BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

For some reason I thought you meant a LOTR marathon that involved running so I never opened the thread; if you have any other nerdy marathons, I would encourage you to post again; that would be cool

these are going to be a running thing with me. I am hoping to do them fairly often and will make topic more descriptive. this one was very last minute as we went ot see hobbit tonight and wanted to squeeze it in beforehand. would like to do bike based one once weather gets nice again. but only bike movie I have is line of sight. which come to think of it would be a good end for an alley cat race.

I'd love to come out sometime - Penn Hills, hell getting there, a breeze getting home. You might want to post farhter in advance.

BTW, since we're OT anyway, I found The Hobbit to be pretty disappointing. Way overwritten, and Tolkein's book is not solely about action sequences. It's about building community among friends. What happened to Tom Bombadil? Also, the HFR 3D at Loew's was disappointing -- the higher frame rate was good but the color was visibly off, seemingly too limited in dynamic range and TV-like. Definitely not worth the extra money.

Tom Bombadil was in the book version of LOTR, not The Hobbit. Unless the new movie revisits that period (haven't seen it yet), Tom doesn't belong in it.

I liked the hobbit a lot. It was worth nearly staying up all night to see it at midnight. We didn't have 10 minutes of Star Trek before though. I thought there was supposed to be one.

I'm pretty sure I remember Tom Bombadil from The Hobbit, too. But it has been a while since I read it.

Edit: @Steven, I guess you're right. I have a memory of the dwarves showing up one by one at Tom's. But the Internet doesn't mention it. I must be confused.

My memory says it was in FoTR too, and they almost got eaten by trees during about the same time. Now was it on their way to Rivendale or was it before getting to the Prancing Pony?

Before prancing pony, they met tom in the forest just outside of buckland. then they ended up in the mounds, then they found road to bree.

being eaten by the trees was moved to the return of the king (extended edition) as an homage to the fact that tom was removed.

Peter jackson said that tom was cut because while it was an interesting part of the book it did nothing to move the story forward.

as far as the hobbit went I think it is a good movie. I do not think it should of been three movies. two very nice 2.5 hour - 3 hour movies would of been much better. I will say that if peter took the same view with the hobbit that he did with the LOTR the story would of fantastic.

just did a search on my nook of the entire hobbit book, no bombadil was found.

it'd be interesting to compare the amount of extra material wedged into the new series with the amount of material dropped from the LotR movies.

I really think that if instead of trying so hard to spread a 200-page book into 9 hours, maybe they had tried less hard to mash a 2100-page book into 9 hours... both movie series would have ended up better off.

It would have been nice if Peter Jackson could have used Tolkien's original conception for LOTR: six books. The publisher decided to combine them into three long volumes to make them easier to sell, retaining Tolkien's divisions into separately titled books within each volume.

But getting the studio to finance six very expensive films by a semi-obscure director was just not going to happen. Jackson had enough trouble finding a studio that would do three.

I understand some of the material added for his Hobbit trilogy (especially in the final film) is from the various appendices in The Lord of the Rings. So he's rebalancing the films a bit.

You mean he wasnt well known for dead alive, meet the feebles, or bad taste?!

Dead alive is one of my favorite movies ever. I was very confused when I heard Peter Jackson was doing LOTR

Dead Alive & Meet the Feebles, nice. He did Heavenly Creatures, too btw.

I'd say Heavenly Creatures is what elevated him to merely semi-obscure.

But that's from a mainstream Hollywood perspective. Within the horror-zombie-gore-comedy genre, he might well have been generally acknowledged as a master filmmaker by that point.