Xhonzi said:
Part of the rumour I heard was that Jackson & Co. had access to the partial rewrite (as far as I know, it's not publicly available) when formulating the new movies. It makes me wonder what parts of the movie come from there, especially Bilbo's reasoning with the trolls. But if he were rewriting it, why would he leave the silliness in?
I was under the impression pretty much anything anyone could want to see/read of the two versions of The Hobbit was covered and published in the nifty two volume History of the Hobbit released a few years back, but I could very well be mistaken.
darth_ender said:
Anyway, yes, I'd heard he had been at least planning for a rewrite, though I didn't know he'd made much progress. Interestingly, another thing I'd read was that he planned on changing all references to "goblins" in the Hobbit to "orcs," as they are supposed to be the same creatures. However, many have interpreted them to be smaller and less fearsome, given their more childish nature in the books. But initially the distinction is not so clear.Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_(Middle-earth)#Orcs.2C_Goblins.2C_and_Uruks
Thanks for the link!
Right after seeing The Hobbit I mentioned to my three friends I saw it with that I thought it was interesting that the film split orcs and goblins into two different creatures, when in the books they are the same thing, having been called goblins in The Hobbit, and changed to orcs in LOTR (including Tolkien's forward, which recounts events of The Hobbit, now using the term orc in place of goblin). Upon mentioning this, all three of my friends slowly turned their heads toward me, eyebrows raised, and two of them in unison said, "No they're not! They've always been different!" They then explained that the Uruk-hai were a cross breed between goblins and orcs, and that goblins are stronger than orcs, but die when exposed to sunlight, and that the significance of the uruk-hai were that they had the mixed strength of goblins along with the orcs ability to walk in daylight.
What??? Where did they get this from? Their sureness and detail on the matter made me highly doubt what I thought I knew on the subject, but Ender's link confirms I was correct. Is this alternative take on the two species and origin of the Uruk-hai explained in the LOTR movies or something? I've read the book numerous times, but I have only seen the movies a couple of times, and the only extended edition I have seen is Fellowship, meanwhile my buddies are LOTR film fans and have never read Tolkien's works.
I encourage you to read the books, xhonzi.
Seconded, though you've already read them. I'd encourage anyone who hasn't read them to give them a shot.
For years you had two kinds of people, those who have read LOTR, and those who hadn't. The films have created a kind of annoying frustrating situation where you have thousands of of die hard "LOTR fans" who have never read the books and admit they rather hate them.
You might enjoy the differences and the resulting approaches Jackson and Co. took to the different films. I think splitting it (as Kbrana said) was the right choice for Jackson, and the only childishness that really did bug me was the bird poop on Radagast.
That annoyed me a bit too, seemed a little over the top. I also hated the inclusion of the anachronistic golf and croquet references. I think the golf joke worked fine for the book, but in a film made to be a prequel to the Lord of the Rings movies, it was really out of place.
Another specific complaint I had was the "good morning" conversation between Gandalf and Bilbo. It was such a fun little conversation in the book that really setup the quirkiness of Gandalf's character, and they absolutely butchered it.
Bit of trivia: Gandalf can't remember the names of the two blue wizards in the film. This is likely because their names were not completely consistent, and the only sources for their names are from incomplete stories. It was a joke based on the two different versions of their names.
Source: http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Blue_Wizards
That was my assumption too, but maybe Akwat's take on them not owning the rights is accurate, I hadn't even thought of that myself.