the appendixes...

just curious how they expect to get another film out of the appendixes when even with whats relevant they could still tell the story in 2 films I just went thru all the appendixes at the back of ROTK and there is maybe and I do mean MAYBE 15 pages worth of relevant material and that is being generous.

Appendixes A

1. Numenorean kings
1.1 Numenor
1.2 Realms in Exile
1.3 Eriador, Arnor, and the Heirs of Isildur
1.4 Gondor and the Heirs of Anarion
1.5 Here follows a part of the tale of Aragorn and Arwen

2. The House of Eorl
2.1 Kings of the Mark

3. Durin's Folk
all of which is only 8 pages of material related to the dwarfs and only about half those pages are directly related to the Hobbit.

Appendixes B
2.1 Tale of Years/ Chronology of the Westlands
maybe one paragraph that if taken out of context could be forced into LOTR since it about the rings but nothing really Hobbit worthy

2.2 The great Years 3018
All details that were in LOTR nothing from the Hobbit

2.3 The Chief Days From the Fall of Barad-Dur To the End of the Third Age
again nothing Hobbit wise all LOTR

2.4 Later Events Concerning the Members of the Fellowship of The Ring
Again all stuff later after the events of LOTR

Appendixes C
3. all famiy tree maps about the Bagginses, Tooks, and the Brandbuck of Buckland. again I see nothing other than relatives of Bilbo's that would be of any importance.

Appendixes D
The Calendars

No real info here needed either

Appendixes E
has nothing note worthy or anything fitting into the story of the Hobbit

Appendixes F
has 4 paragraphs about Hobbit
2 paragraphs about Ents
4 paragraphs about Orcs
2 paragraphs about Trolls
and 4 paragraphs about Dwarves

Then it just goes to the index which hold nothing at all but names and what pages they are on

So I guess I am just at a loss as to what material they can be adding that is in this 125 pages that NEEDS to be told I don't get it. or I have an outdated non PJ updated version of ROTK

I was thinking about this same topic a few weeks ago. Aside from portions of the dwarf section in Appendix A, a paragraph or two from the timelines in Appendix B (most of which is repeated information from Appendix A), and maybe a couple sentences in Appendix F there's nothing of particular relevance to The Hobbit or its expansion in the Appendices. As far as I'm concerned, PJ's references to the Appendices are just his typical ass-covering justifications. It'll convince many people, but c'est la vie!

Eldorion wrote:I was thinking about this same topic a few weeks ago. Aside from portions of the dwarf section in Appendix A, a paragraph or two from the timelines in Appendix B (most of which is repeated information from Appendix A), and maybe a couple sentences in Appendix F there's nothing of particular relevance to The Hobbit or its expansion in the Appendices. As far as I'm concerned, PJ's references to the Appendices are just his typical ass-covering justifications. It'll convince many people, but c'est la vie!

Exactly I think the only section of the appendixes that even fits is what you said Eldorion, Durin's Folk and the odd sentence or paragraph here and there but nothing else

I think its his way of being able to change everything he wanted to change to make it his way. That way his loyalists will take it hook line and sinker which they obviously have and think he is making these films better, when he really isn't. He's just making them his way but better I think not. They might as well title the films, "Peter Jackson's - the Hobbit" with this underneath it "Loosely based on the book by JRR Tolkien"

Should at least be interesting in the commentaries as he tries to justify some of his changes according to bits in the appencixes. Thats going to be a strecth and a half given its frankly outright deceitful to cliam the changes have any basis in the appendices.

Maybe he has the only copy of a 1972 full edition of 'The Fall of Dol-Guldur and other interesting Hobbit era film fillers'

You never know!!

when i read the title, i thought of bowels...

I dont have any. Appendix that is not bowels- I need bowels or where else would all the deep fried food go?
But I had my appendix taken out- I heard a rumour it inhibited buckie absorption into the blood, and well you don't take chances with something like that- so out if went.

Yes Norc, it should be appendicies rather than the plural of the appendix organ.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Should at least be interesting in the commentaries as he tries to justify some of his changes according to bits in the appencixes. Thats going to be a strecth and a half given its frankly outright deceitful to cliam the changes have any basis in the appendices.

I'm looking forward to this. . It'll be really funny when after the DVD is released, I start hearing the exact same arguments from people on the Internet.

Yes. 'All 125 pages' ...

In fact, it appears Jackson's excuse has mostly achieved its goal so far. It's tricked most people into believing he's drawing from the appendice - Notice the occasional visitors in Bree citing Jackson's claim as a defense? Makes me wonder if most people even read the appendices.

I refer to Appendices quite often,when Im looking for something or I forget something. Theres plenty in "Unfinished Tales" PJ could have picked at,but...He hasnt got the rights. Do I smell a law suit coming on ? As you say, what is PJ going to say in the credits ?

Actually I think PJ will avoid a law suit as when we see the film it will not contain any of the info from UT- PJ is almost certainly lying about that at the moment to convince people his changes are in some fashion legitamte.
We already know Gandalf gives Galadriel a reason for picking Bilbo that is completely different from the reasons he gives in UT.
It will as you say though Azriel be interesting to hear the script writers commentary on the matter; 'We added in extra scenes that covered things Tolkien wrote about elsewhere but then we had to make sure what we added was the complete opposite of what Tolkien wrote to avoid getting sued, so we just made stuff up off the top of our heads instead,' might be the truth but I doubt they will have the balls to say it.

Two old farmers were digging potatoes when one pulls 2 HUGE potatoes out of the ground at once. He exclaims, "I'm taking these taters home to my wife, they look just like my balls!" The other old farmer is amazed and questions, "Your balls are THAT BIG?" The 1st old farmer says, "No, but they're that dirty!!!"

They sell dirt at Home Depot. Like I can't get that stuff everywhere.

I once saw a cat puke on the street and a fox came and ate the puke.

azriel wrote:Two old farmers were digging potatoes when one pulls 2 HUGE potatoes out of the ground at once. He exclaims, "I'm taking these taters home to my wife, they look just like my balls!" The other old farmer is amazed and questions, "Your balls are THAT BIG?" The 1st old farmer says, "No, but they're that dirty!!!"

I always wash my potatoes.

Mrs Figg wrote:I once saw a cat puke on the street and a fox came and ate the puke.

That was random.

Mrs Figg... are you Ally?


{{{Nice taters there, David! }}}

David: thanks for the visual !

yeah that was quite eye watering Dave. Thanks

Hullo RJ, JJ, Bobby, etc. I very much like the name Carly.Your wit puts me in mind of our Alley.

I have no intelligent thing to add, but I was once so addicted to the reading of the appendices I had to just walk away.

i'm still at odds as to what we have to gain from the appendices since IMO there isn't enough in them to make as much film as Jackson keeps claiming he has. I seen a interview today of Jackson claiming "125 pages of hobbit related material" in the appendices at the end of ROTK which made me chuckle. He must have a different appendices in his copy than I have in mine, because I still count about 12 pages at most that are even super vaguely thinly related to the Hobbit. The rest being calenders, family trees, 1rst, and 2nd age material. I am so looking forward to hearing Jackson and Boyens justifications for making all the changes they made and how they can say there are 125 pages of Hobbit related material they can use... I still think that they should put the term "based on" somewhere in the title or call it Peter Jackson's the Hobbit instead of just the Hobbit. Oh well i can live with the films not gonna say I like or dislike them until I have seen them. But I have seen many things in preproduction that I hate so far and seen some things I think will be interesting.

I think Jackson is lying. Simple. The same way he's lying about Tolkien toying with the idea of republishing the Hobbit to fit more with Lotr.