The HOBBIT......don't bother

Yakima 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Darwin18 said:
Well your thread title says "Don't bother"...

This is going to be our Christmas Eve before Christmas Eve dinner movie. I'm not particularly attached to the book and really just hope to entertained. Would it be nice if Peter Jackson stuck to the book? Yes, absolutely. I'm not going to go in there with a copy of the Hobbit and cross reference every scene.
Click to expand...

Right, but it was directed at people like me, who have read the book more than twice and remember 90% of every detail in it.

Honestly, your plan sounds fine. the problem, if there is one, is that it is an effing violent movie. I wouldn't really want my 10 year old to see it.
 
I've read the book more than a few times. I'm currently reading it again to my 13 yo daughter. We have 2 chapters left.

I thought the film was good. Yes, it's not a word for word recreation of the book. Yes there are "extra things" in there that aren't in the book.

Remember that most of the extra stuff is stuff that was in the appendices of LOTR, The Silmarillion, or The Unfinished Tales. Jackson put them in there to complete the story, else people will ask "Where is Gandalf off to now???"

The parts I disliked the most are the extreme action scenes. Stuff that was made to look super unrealistic because that's what we moviegoers expect from films these days. Unrealism.

However, all in all I thought the movie looked very much like the LOTR films. Now I saw it in 2D because we can't get the 48fps High Frame Rate near where I live and my wife is averse to 3D films. I'll probably go back and watch again in 3D at some point, and I really hope to see it in HFR because I'd love to see that technology advance to the point where it's looks real.

Personally, though I'm glad PJ added some stuff from the extra material. It helped to add some background information and to also tie the books together. After all, they are related. It's just not as apparent when you don't read the extra material. I also think the film would have appealed to me if he had just stuck with the book. I think the movie makers underestimate people's tolerance for films without extreme action.
 
cheezydemon3 said:
Right, but it was directed at people like me, who have read the book more than twice and remember 90% of every detail in it.

Honestly, your plan sounds fine. the problem, if there is one, is that it is an effing violent movie. I wouldn't really want my 10 year old to see it.
Click to expand...

I have read the Hobbit more times than I can count, I have read LoTR even more, and I have read the Similrillion a couple times. I would classify myself just shy of LoTR nerd. I remember almost every detail and still I loved this movie. My only qualm with it was the troll scene. I understand why they gave azog a large roll and can live with it, stories need an antagonist and when the only antagonist really shows himself towards the end of the Hobbit they thought they needed to add one that perseveres through the movies. Could you imagine this movie without azog? People would have been claiming the movie had no plot and that the journey goes nowhere. With regards to Radagast, yeah it was a bit disappointing that they made him a little crazy, but IIRC he is supposed to be a bit odd and out of touch with civilization.

The Hobbit is a great book, but unfortunately it's a bit dull for a movie by today's standards (seeing as it's a children's story), and there is so much stuff that happens that Tolkien alludes to but leaves out. I was excited to find out that they were going to work in the information from the appendices and the unfinished tales, since it would add much more background to Gandalf and the LoTR trilogy. But I am disappointed that it is 3 movies. I can see 2, but 3 is just too many.

And as a side note, people need to chill with movies. Just relax and enjoy the entertainment. If you don't like it, just shut up and let others make their own opinion. Not everyone is looking for literary mumbo-jumbo in their movies, some of us like to see sh*t blow up and battle scenes. Yes some movies are better than others and those generally are the ones with better character development and plot, but RDWHAHB.
 
Homercidal said:
I think the movie makers underestimate people's tolerance for films without extreme action.
Click to expand...

I think that this is where I really got disgusted. They split it into 3 movies so as to get every detail......I guess they meant every detail of violence and ridiculous action.

Radagast's rally 500 hundered with his ridiculous rabbits was akin to Jar Jar as far as I am concerned.

If I had realized that it was meant to contain a ton of other ****, then I might not have been so harsh, but I find that idea ridiculous too. Why cram a bunch of other crap into an already rich and complete story?

It is SO busy, and misses some of my most cherished parts.

Eff off Peter Jackson.
 
cheezydemon3 said:
Right, but it was directed at people like me, who have read the book more than twice and remember 90% of every detail in it.

Honestly, your plan sounds fine. the problem, if there is one, is that it is an effing violent movie. I wouldn't really want my 10 year old to see it.
Click to expand...

That's the benefit of being married without children. I get to see the movies I want without worrying if the subject matter is too violent or mature, and my wife smuggles in outside snacks/soda in her purse. A win win!
 
cheezydemon3 said:
I think that this is where I really got disgusted. They split it into 3 movies so as to get every detail......I guess they meant every detail of violence and ridiculous action.

Radagast's rally 500 hundered with his ridiculous rabbits was akin to Jar Jar as far as I am concerned.

If I had realized that it was meant to contain a ton of other ****, then I might not have been so harsh, but I find that idea ridiculous too. Why cram a bunch of other crap into an already rich and complete story?

It is SO busy, and misses some of my most cherished parts.

Eff off Peter Jackson.
Click to expand...

Rich and complete by itself, yes. Rich and complete when combined with LoTR, not at all. I love the book, but it is centered on the company without regard to what else is happening (Gandalf disappears and reappears with little information as to why). Every time I read the Hobbit I try to see if I can figure out what Gandalf was doing, and from that standpoint it is lacking severely. The only reason we know what else was happening is because luckily Tolkien was writing a history of middle earth and has mentioned what was going on in other works and appendices.

FYI, they have been saying for a LONG time that they were adding in a bunch of other stuff. When I first heard they were splitting it into 2 movies, it was accompanied with: "They are including the stuff with the necromancer from the appendices." The fact that they were splitting it into multiple movies should have sparked many questions as to why, and all of the answers would have pointed towards the extra information. Also based on the LoTR movies, it goes without saying that the Hobbit movies are going to be more violent than the book.
 
Bummer. This was my intro into the books. I saw the Fellowship of the Ring in German (obviously in Germany) in 2002 and had previously never heard of the series or Tolkien before that. I really enjoyed the LOTR series movies, but got lost trying to read them. As stated, the Hobbit was fast paced and kept my interest. It seemed the LOTR books drug on trying to build the scenes to the point where I got lost.

I was excited about this movie, but I'm disappointed at the reviews thus far.
 
cheezydemon3 said:
Radagast's rally 500 hundered with his ridiculous rabbits was akin to Jar Jar as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you just have to take a deep breath and let it go. You can ask yourself what kind of longbottom leaf they were smoking when they decided to do this, but it won't do any good.

Same with the treetops scene. No need for the leader of the Orcs to show up. But the movie needs the main bad guy (I suppose), so there he is. In any event it doesn't really change the bottom line of the story. I'm still waiting to see Bilbo's love interest. I mean, every movie has to have a love interest, right? Well, maybe it is Galadriel and Gandalf. I know she was with Some other elves, but you know they only mate for a few hundred years before moving apart and doing other thing and finding other loves. Maybe she wants to find out if it's true that wizard's staffs have a large knob on the end.
 
Homercidal said:
Sometimes you just have to take a deep breath and let it go. You can ask yourself what kind of longbottom leaf they were smoking when they decided to do this, but it won't do any good.

Same with the treetops scene. No need for the leader of the Orcs to show up. But the movie needs the main bad guy (I suppose), so there he is. In any event it doesn't really change the bottom line of the story. I'm still waiting to see Bilbo's love interest. I mean, every movie has to have a love interest, right? Well, maybe it is Galadriel and Gandalf. I know she was with Some other elves, but you know they only mate for a few hundred years before moving apart and doing other thing and finding other loves. Maybe she wants to find out if it's true that wizard's staffs have a large knob on the end.
Click to expand...

Actually I heard that Frodo develops a gay relationship with Thorin.

Peter Jackson in his wisdom is promoting tolerance as well as creative plot additions.

Galadriel sure did seem sweet on Gandalf!!!!! Don't know about his staff, but I think there is something on page 3,463 of the Silmarillion, chapter 2.

Actually Gandalf's sheepishness was irritating too. While he was yet to come into his own, he was surely the biggest bad-ass to go on the trip. Was Saruman in the last homely house?????

I don't recall that at all, and anything in the silmarillion wouldn't have over-rode the events described in the Hobbit. One more fail (unless my memory is faulty).

Really, not having Gandalf mimic the troll's voices was the most obvious departure from the actual story with no plausable explanation......except possibly for the aforementioned lack of character development for bilbo. A poor trade if that was the reason, and another detraction from Galdalf's bad assedness.
 
When Bilbo finds the dwarves after getting the ring and losing his buttons, Balin is NOT standing watch, and Bilbo does NOT sneak among them and remove the ring. WHY NOT?? No extra budget required.
 
Just saw it tonight. Not sure what the hate is about. Sure it is not entirely accurate but I thought it was a terrific three hours.

It is about as accurate to the Tolkien universe as can be and it is as close to the book as possible why still trying to incorporate everything they want to.

I would highly recommend to anyone thirteen or older. (There was a surprising number of beheadings)
 
I will still go and see it despite your warning, I will just keep my expectations low so I won't be too disappointed. For the record, I liked starship troopers. Ok, I liked Denise Richards in a space age flight uniform ;b
 
Excerpt from the book, wherein Gandalf and Dori are discussing the fact that the Dwarves "lost" Bilbo and Gandalf is quite upset about it.

Gandalf answered angrily: "I brought him, and I don't bring things that are of no use. Either you help me look for him, or I go and leave you here to get out of the mess as best you can yourselves. If we can only find him again, you will thank me before all is over. Whatever did you want to go and drop him for, Dori?"
"You would have dropped him," said Dori, "if a goblin had suddenly grabbed your leg form behind in the dark, tripped up your feet, and kicked you in the back!"
"Then why didn't you pick him up again?"
"Good heavens! Can you ask! Goblins fighting and biting in the dark, everybody falling over bodies and hitting on another! you nearly chopped off my head with Glamdring, and Thorin was stabbing here and there and everywhere with Orcrist. All of a sudden you gave one of your blinding flashes, and we saw the goblins running back yelping. you shouted 'follow me everybody!' and everybody ought to have followed. We thought everybody had. There was no time to count, as you know white well, till after we had dashed though the gate-guards, out of the lower door, and helter-skelter down here. And here we are - without the burglar, confusticate him!"
"And here's the burglar!" said Bilbo stepping down into the middle of them, and slipping off the ring.
Bless me, how they jumped! Then they shouted with surprise and delight. Gandalf was as astonished as any of them, but probably more pleased than all the others. He called to Balin and told him what he thought of a look-out man you let people walk right into them like that without warning.
 
It is right before that Homer, when Balin is keeping watch and Bilbo is creeping, not prancing down the path.

Bilbo pops up and is looking into Balin's eyes, but the dwarf of supernatural observation powers does not see him because of the ring.

It is a little subtle, but in the film, Bilbo loses his buttons NOT on the door to the outside, but actually before leaping over Gollum.

Bilbo then runs out the door and down the path. No one is standing watch, and the group has a not unlike the book conversation and Bilbo takes off the ring and walks among them.

surprising them that he made it at all, NOT startling them that he got past Balin and appeared before their very eyes.

Subtle? Maybe. Inexplicable that they should leave that detail out but spend 15 minutes on Radagast's rabbits? YES.

This is all from memory. Read the book maybe 5 years ago. I am not infallable, but pretty fracking close to it.
 
cheezydemon3 said:
It is right before that Homer, when Balin is keeping watch and Bilbo is creeping, not prancing down the path.

Bilbo pops up and is looking into Balin's eyes, but the dwarf of supernatural observation powers does not see him because of the ring.

It is a little subtle, but in the film, Bilbo loses his buttons NOT on the door to the outside, but actually before leaping over Gollum.

Bilbo then runs out the door and down the path. No one is standing watch, and the group has a not unlike the book conversation and Bilbo takes off the ring and walks among them.

surprising them that he made it at all, NOT startling them that he got past Balin and appeared before their very eyes.

Subtle? Maybe. Inexplicable that they should leave that detail out but spend 15 minutes on Radagast's rabbits? YES.

This is all from memory. Read the book maybe 5 years ago. I am not infallable, but pretty fracking close to it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see. Well that is small potatoes IMO. I am unsure WHY Bilbo couldn't have lost his buttons at the lower door trying to escape Gollum after leaping over him. But it hardly makes a difference when you consider the story as a whole. Things like that are mildly annoying, but easy to overlook.

I hate it less when they include things that didn't happen in the book, but may well COULD have, than when they flat out change things for no good reason.
 
Tickets purchased for Saturday. We'll see how bad it is. I think of the 4 going to see it I'm the only one who has read all the books, so I doubt my movie-going peers will notice what I'm complaining about.

cheezydemon3 said:
Actually I heard that Frodo develops a gay relationship with Thorin.

Peter Jackson in his wisdom is promoting tolerance as well as creative plot additions.
Click to expand...

They tried it with Déagol and Sméagol. Sadly, it ends in death. Some underlaying message has to be there.
 
Yeah, Jackson crapped all over the book. I'll still watch the next few but I'll be pissed about it.:eek:

I was mostly just annoyed through the majority of the movie but the last 15 minutes or so of the movie had steam coming out of my ears. So pissed
 
EllisTX said:
Yeah, Jackson crapped all over the book. I'll still watch the next few but I'll be pissed about it.:eek:

I was mostly just annoyed through the majority of the movie but the last 15 minutes or so of the movie had steam coming out of my ears. So pissed
Click to expand...

I am beginning to think that only those of us who REALLY appreciate the book were so disapointed.

I hated 90% of it.

The head goblin was really off, the goblins didn't creep in from a crack in the back of the cave and bind everyone, etc.

Things not in the book that were added? Bilbo deciding to abandon the quest in the cave, Thorin's emotions both good and bad about bilbo, The mountain Giants psychotically trying to behead each other, the travelers finding themselves on the giant's knees, Saruman and Galadriel in The Last Homely respectively jumping Gandalf's **** and making sexual advances on him. Bilbo saving Thorin from Azog (or any orc for that matter) in the tree top scene. (Thorin charging the Azog/Orcs for that matter) Radagast and his rabbits, and his mushroom fetish, and the bird poop, and the scene with the necromancer, and giving Gandalf some sword "Not from the land of the Living" etc. etc.
 
cheezydemon3 said:
I am beginning to think that only those of us who REALLY appreciate the book were so disapointed.
Click to expand...

This is insulting. I am probably just as big of a fan as you are (unless you play dress up at events and movie screenings), and I enjoyed the movie. I was annoyed with a few parts, but most of it didn't hurt the story.

When I saw the first LoTR I came to the realization that movies based on books will never be close enough to compare word for word. And to be honest, what they did to the hobbit (so far) was FAR less destructive than what they did to the LoTR trilogy (no flash of light when bilbo disappears, the hobbits didn't leave the shire correctly, the green undead continued on further than they should have with Aragorn, there was no scouring the shire, and they left out the dunedain). You should never go into a movie saying "This will be exactly like the books!" You will be disappointed every time.

So stop hating on something just for the sake of hating.
 
cheezydemon3 said:
I am beginning to think that only those of us who REALLY appreciate the book were so disapointed.

I hated 90% of it.

The head goblin was really off, the goblins didn't creep in from a crack in the back of the cave and bind everyone, etc.

Things not in the book that were added? Bilbo deciding to abandon the quest in the cave, Thorin's emotions both good and bad about bilbo, The mountain Giants psychotically trying to behead each other, the travelers finding themselves on the giant's knees, Saruman and Galadriel in The Last Homely respectively jumping Gandalf's **** and making sexual advances on him. Bilbo saving Thorin from Azog (or any orc for that matter) in the tree top scene. (Thorin charging the Azog/Orcs for that matter) Radagast and his rabbits, and his mushroom fetish, and the bird poop, and the scene with the necromancer, and giving Gandalf some sword "Not from the land of the Living" etc. etc.
Click to expand...

Wait Cheezy, I just read the book last weekend so it's pretty fresh in my mind, and will be seeing the movie this Saturday so might be off a little from the movie side.... But the goblins did jump from a crack in the wall, as Bilbo dreamed it then woke to see it open, they then bound everyone as they led them to the Goblin King before Gandalf saved them. Thorin went full 180's on good and bad for Bilbo, especially after the Arkenstone and Bilbo gave it to Bard. Then asked forgiveness on his deathbed.

As for Bilbo abandoning the quest, he did multiple times wish he had never come or was back home in his Hobbit-Hole in the book. So maybe Jackson was trying to portray that?

Tree top scene, is this replacing the spiders from Mirkwood where he saves the 12 others?

Thorin did charge at the battle of 5 armies.....wait... I heard that was going to be in a different movie... nevermind.
 
SkiNuke said:
When I saw the first LoTR I came to the realization that movies based on books will never be close enough to compare word for word. And to be honest, what they did to the hobbit (so far) was FAR less destructive than what they did to the LoTR trilogy (no flash of light when bilbo disappears, the hobbits didn't leave the shire correctly, the green undead continued on further than they should have with Aragorn, there was no scouring the shire, and they left out the dunedain). You should never go into a movie saying "This will be exactly like the books!" You will be disappointed every time.

So stop hating on something just for the sake of hating.
Click to expand...

The leaving the shire correctly part bugged me a little from the original. The lack of Shire Scouring really pissed me off.

The undead I let slide cause it just seemed, well, why didn't Aragorn just tell them to march on the black gates right then? undead don't need to rest and recover from injuries. That whole part was unnecessary in both book and movie. The fact they left out Glorfindel and replaced him with Arwen is inexcusable.
 
I HAVE read the Hobbit a couple times mostly as a child. I went not remembering every detail the book had to offer but more of a fuzzy recollection.

Comparing the LOTR to The Hobbit at this point in time is odd in a way. It was not until the extended edition do we realize the Hobbits got "magical items from the elves" like the magic rope that was loosely around Golums neck while he was screaming "take it off!", the light potion and the cloaks. As for "true to the book"... FRODO LIVES! Which alters the very essence of the story!!! (Think comedy vs. tragedy)

I think the movie was great. I will go to the next 2 in the theater.
 
landshark said:
Wait Cheezy, I just read the book last weekend so it's pretty fresh in my mind, and will be seeing the movie this Saturday so might be off a little from the movie side.... But the goblins did jump from a crack in the wall, as Bilbo dreamed it then woke to see it open, they then bound everyone as they led them to the Goblin King before Gandalf saved them. Thorin went full 180's on good and bad for Bilbo, especially after the Arkenstone and Bilbo gave it to Bard. Then asked forgiveness on his deathbed.

As for Bilbo abandoning the quest, he did multiple times wish he had never come or was back home in his Hobbit-Hole in the book. So maybe Jackson was trying to portray that?

Tree top scene, is this replacing the spiders from Mirkwood where he saves the 12 others?

Thorin did charge at the battle of 5 armies.....wait... I heard that was going to be in a different movie... nevermind.
Click to expand...

this movie ends with the eagles leaving the thirteen dwarves, bilbo, and gandalf atop the carrock. presumably the passage through mirkwood and bilbo's 'betrayal' of thorin using the arkenstone will happen in the next two films.

landshark said:
The fact they left out Glorfindel and replaced him with Arwen is inexcusable.
Click to expand...

this bugged me, too. i always liked glorfindel.
 
I've avoid movies made from books I love, 'Dune' and 'Clan of the Cave Bear' sealed that decision. Directors just have to piss on the story, with the exception of the Harry Potter series where Rowling had very strong control over the production. I haven't seen 'The Hobbit' or any of the LOTR movies. Probably won't until they hit Netflicks, if then. My wife picks the movies, if I don't like it I go to my room and read. She has John Carter now. As I haven't read any of Barsoom in over 50 years, I should be able to take it as it comes.
 
cheezydemon3 said:
I am beginning to think that only those of us who REALLY appreciate the book were so disapointed.

I hated 90% of it.

The head goblin was really off, the goblins didn't creep in from a crack in the back of the cave and bind everyone, etc.

Things not in the book that were added? Bilbo deciding to abandon the quest in the cave, Thorin's emotions both good and bad about bilbo, The mountain Giants psychotically trying to behead each other, the travelers finding themselves on the giant's knees, Saruman and Galadriel in The Last Homely respectively jumping Gandalf's **** and making sexual advances on him. Bilbo saving Thorin from Azog (or any orc for that matter) in the tree top scene. (Thorin charging the Azog/Orcs for that matter) Radagast and his rabbits, and his mushroom fetish, and the bird poop, and the scene with the necromancer, and giving Gandalf some sword "Not from the land of the Living" etc. etc.
Click to expand...

SkiNuke said:
This is insulting. I am probably just as big of a fan as you are (unless you play dress up at events and movie screenings), and I enjoyed the movie. I was annoyed with a few parts, but most of it didn't hurt the story.
So stop hating on something just for the sake of hating.
Click to expand...

Well Ski, maybe you're not as big a fan as cheezy. :D If you were a bigger fan maybe you'd be more upset. I'm not trying to throw rocks like a stone giant but as a fan of the books and the story I have an expectation that this movie would stick with the details of the story. I expected that details were maybe going to be left out and I can handle that, but to insert the ridiculous unneeded crap into the movie that Jackson did was absurd. What's insulting is how Jackson treated this movie.

Speaking of stone giants why the hell wasn't Gandalf there with them when they were on the mountain. He and Thorin argued about the path they should have taken and he was there in the book when they were captured. He killed a goblin when they came out of the mountain to snag them. Jackson had to ignore that so he could insert some awkward face touching scene. I can put up with leaving out some details but can't put up with ignoring as many as were, inserting characters, and storylines.
 
The truth is movies and books will never see eye to eye, movie directors complain that books just don't play the same on the big screen unless changes are made and writers complain that directors miss the essence of the book. I just go and try to enjoy it without any preconceptions and can enjoy most, unless its as bad as the movie Dune, what an epic fail that was...
 
Well ****!

Too many to reply to.

The crack in back of the cave- in the book, not in the movie.

I thought the 1st Lotr was awesome. Yes arwen was 2 for 1, but I accept that kind of condensing.

It is when **** is inserted that doesn't save time or condense anything that I wonder "WHY?"
 
Man I hope your wrong... After all you like a lot of **** movies that I wouldn't watch ;) I'm going to take the wife to see it in a couple days so here's to hoping your wrong :mug:
 
passedpawn said:
I watched Hobbit in 3D last night. Thoroughly enjoyed. B+. Not a fan of the slappier characters and the burping contest, etc, but it was very close to what I was expecting.
Click to expand...

Right on! I am sincerely glad. But.....see? You "thoroughly enjoyed" a B+.

I was hoping for an A+ (like the 1st LOTR) so while I might have given it a B+, that was still a failing grade for my favorite book ever.

DIE PETER!!!!!;)
 
saw it over the weekend. the whole Radagast character is dumb and not needed and completely out of place. the meeting I`'ll let slide cause the Hobbit was written from the Hobbit's perspective. so the meeting could have taken place, just wasn't in the book. i' give it a B. decent film, horrible interpretation of the book.
 
Sounds like it would have been a lot better if Del Toro had stuck around - and not just because he was responsible for my favorite fantasy movie ever (and in all likelihood my favorite movie of any genre, period). It's amazing how some simple delays can have such an enormous impact on what should have been a historic project. Oh well...
 
Saw it yesterday, loved it!

Supposedly all the extras not in the original story were things that Tolkien embellished over the years after publishing the original story.

Either way though, I can't find much to complain about other than the rather disney-ish episode where they are falling through the caves, which then translates into the trees.

Overall though, a really good flick that honors its Tolkien roots IMO.
 
emjay said:
Sounds like it would have been a lot better if Del Toro had stuck around - and not just because he was responsible for my favorite fantasy movie ever (and in all likelihood my favorite movie of any genre, period). It's amazing how some simple delays can have such an enormous impact on what should have been a historic project. Oh well...
Click to expand...

Del Toro is awesome. His touches on Rise of the Guardians make it an amazing film. Seriously.

Which of his was your favorite?
 
Saw the hobbit movie on Christmas eve. I'm not sure what all the hate is about. I'm re-reading the hobbit as well. The movie does not strictly adhere to the book like the LOTR did, but the hobbit was written as a children's story so that's a good thing in my opinion. Compared to the other movies coming out, the hobbit is a good choice.
 

Similar threads

Revvy
RIP Ray Bradbury.
Replies
8
Views
880
Dynachrome
Dynachrome
SSBrew 300

Latest posts

Back
Top