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.
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
That's actually not true. Jackson changed many characters. Making Gimli comic relief so the dwarf would be more likable, making the hobbits fools and cowards so you could see them evolve, and making Aragorn the reluctant Hero. Not to mention that they had Narsil on a podium in Rivendell, not carried by Aragorn as it happened in the book, and Andruil was forged before the fellowship left Rivendell, not before he goes into the City of the Dead.

I could tell you at least 2 or 3 dozen more changes they made as far as straying from the book and pretty much every character was changed in some way.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. It started bad for me. I was pissed when I realized Tom Bombadil was omitted. This is a good article: http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Tolkien_vs._Jackson:_Differences_Between_Story_and_Screenplay

What really pissed me off was in the release of the unedited version, I believe in the Two Towers. Saruman breaks Gandalf's staff. Total f'ing BS. Never watched those versions again. Makes my blood boil. From what you guys are saying I guess the Hobbit is even worse. What a shame.
 
I have nothing against leaving out Tom Bombabil, then you'd have to explain the Barrow Wights and Tom Bombadil as well. Tom Bombadil is probably the biggest mystery in middle earth and I could understand leaving him out to not just have a random loose end.

Only think Jackson did that truly pissed me off was the Elves at Helmsdeep. Pissed me off.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
While I disliked the mini White Council (stated earlier) it's easy to understand why it happened because during the events of the Hobbit the White Council did convene and eventually chased the Necromancer from Dol Galdur.

So I can understand Jackson's plan of a mini White Council as a convenience (already in the House of Elrond) before their attack on the Dol Galdur.

As far as Frodo goes, that's a silly little thing that I agree is to tie the books with the movie as Bilbo started writing the Hobbit long before his party. Could have tied it in in a better fashion. Because in LOTR he talked about finishing his book, and you could have very well done the same Frodo tie in but start with Bilbo reading the beginning then end the trilogy with Bilbo in Rivendell finishing the book.

Legolas is another easy to explain as far as logic goes. He's the son of King Thranduil. SO he almost certainly would have been involved or at least seen in the events of the Dwarves capture by the elves of Mirkwood and the Battle of the Five Armies.
Click to expand...

I understand your points, but I don't think PJ added the White Council meeting/those characters, all the additional action, Frodo and Legolas to make the movie more like what Tolkien intended after writing LOTR - he's doing it to tie this trilogy to his movies and because those additional actors and all the action will sell more tickets, merchandise, and DVDs/Blu Rays because it appeals to a mass audience of casual fans/viewers that have never read any Tolkien.

Essentially what I'm saying is that he sold out and it's disappointing as a fan of the book. I like the book for what it is, not what it COULD or SHOULD have been from PJ and team's standpoint.

Also, there is no reason this should be 3 movies - that was clearly a $$$$ decision.
 
Well the movie had a gigantic budget and really needed one to be of the quality we'd want so you have to expect some curtailing to the mass market.

I like what he's doing to the Hobbit though I disagree with some of things (Azog, how will you explain Blog later unless they kill off Azog next movie. Radagast and the rabbit sled, Elves in Helmsdeep, sorry that last one just irks me too much) I like the idea of presenting the Hobbit with some mythology of middle earth that many people who only read the Hobbit and not LOTR and the appendices and the Silmarillion and any other Tolkien books.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
Well the movie had a gigantic budget and really needed one to be of the quality we'd want so you have to expect some curtailing to the mass market.

I like what he's doing to the Hobbit though I disagree with some of things (Azog, how will you explain Blog later unless they kill off Azog next movie. Radagast and the rabbit sled, Elves in Helmsdeep, sorry that last one just irks me too much) I like the idea of presenting the Hobbit with some mythology of middle earth that many people who only read the Hobbit and not LOTR and the appendices and the Silmarillion and any other Tolkien books.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Im ok with making it more cinematic (more action, having a villain), but just think they took some things a bit too far. Like I said in my original post, I didn't dislike the movie as a whole and I'll see the next 2 in 2D :mug:.
 
JonK331 said:
I totally agree. It started bad for me. I was pissed when I realized Tom Bombadil was omitted. This is a good article: http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Tolkien_vs._Jackson:_Differences_Between_Story_and_Screenplay

What really pissed me off was in the release of the unedited version, I believe in the Two Towers. Saruman breaks Gandalf's staff. Total f'ing BS. Never watched those versions again. Makes my blood boil. From what you guys are saying I guess the Hobbit is even worse. What a shame.
Click to expand...

hoppyhoppyhippo said:
I have nothing against leaving out Tom Bombabil, then you'd have to explain the Barrow Wights and Tom Bombadil as well. Tom Bombadil is probably the biggest mystery in middle earth and I could understand leaving him out to not just have a random loose end.

Only think Jackson did that truly pissed me off was the Elves at Helmsdeep. Pissed me off.
Click to expand...

I understand leaving out Tom. He really does make no sense in the entire books. A complete mystery. Barrow Wrights go sort of hand in hand, but are also not explained in the book unless you really dig as to who/what they are. There isn't even anything I can find in any other stories about Middle Earth about Bombadil. It's like Tolkien just said, "Ha, this will really throw some people off, let's add a character who makes no sense, talks in riddles, and sings. Oh, and has a babe for a wife/GF. Oh, and the one ring which scares everyone and the basis for my whole book has no effect on him. This should really get some people". Complete nonsense.

Gandalf's Staff was taken by Saruman in the movie, not broken, it was destroyed in Return of the King by the Witch King of Angmar. Which every time I watch I'm like bull-****. Scene I hate as well.

Elves at Helm's Deep was pretty pointless. Added nothing to the story. Another item that I hated.
 
landshark said:
I understand leaving out Tom. He really does make no sense in the entire books. A complete mystery. Barrow Wrights go sort of hand in hand, but are also not explained in the book unless you really dig as to who/what they are. There isn't even anything I can find in any other stories about Middle Earth about Bombadil. It's like Tolkien just said, "Ha, this will really throw some people off, let's add a character who makes no sense, talks in riddles, and sings. Oh, and has a babe for a wife/GF. Oh, and the one ring which scares everyone and the basis for my whole book has no effect on him. This should really get some people". Complete nonsense.

Gandalf's Staff was taken by Saruman in the movie, not broken, it was destroyed in Return of the King by the Witch King of Angmar. Which every time I watch I'm like bull-****. Scene I hate as well.

Elves at Helm's Deep was pretty pointless. Added nothing to the story. Another item that I hated.
Click to expand...

Tolkien himself said Bombadil is a mystery, similar to Entwives where he just never cared to 100% explain them or didn't really know how they fit in or something like that. What most suspect Bombadil is the physical incarnation of the land of middle earth. Others think that he's not effected by the ring because he woudln't be effected by the War of the Ring.

Gandalf's staff being broken I agree is dumb. Doesn't the Witch King Break his staff in the extended version of ROTK as well?

CURSE THE ELVES AT HELMS DEEP!!!
 
Actually after some research (because I genuinely forgot) The Witch King didn't break Gandalf's staff. That was something new in the movie. Makes my comment about staffs growing on trees much funnier.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
Do wizard's staffs grow on trees?
Click to expand...

AnchorBock said:
Its been too long, does he even confront the witch king?
Click to expand...

Yes after Grond breaks through the gates the Witch King comes through and they have a slight dialogue and he does call him a fool and his blade does turn to fire, but Gandalf's staff doesn't break.
 
I liked it- movies always are different than the books- if you go in understanding that you won't be all pissy when the story changes a little- who cares? it is fiction- it is all good- I have read Tolkein repeatedly for years and know the stories well... didn't bother me that The Hobbitt was a little different- it is a good movie- go see it...
 
roymullins said:
I liked it- movies always are different than the books- if you go in understanding that you won't be all pissy when the story changes a little- who cares? it is fiction- it is all good- I have read Tolkein repeatedly for years and know the stories well... didn't bother me that The Hobbitt was a little different- it is a good movie- go see it...
Click to expand...

Agreed.

As has been stated.....:

The First LOTR had people like me shedding tears. It was so effing true to the book (for a movie) exceeded my wildest hopes. That set a bar which could have been maintained. I like to think that it also proved that you don't have to inject a bunch of fillers and contrived BS just to the BMC (BIG crappy movie) crowd happy.

That is why The Hobbit was a disapointment. PJ had shown that he could follow the actual book amazingly............alas, he had also demonstrated that he could swing pretty smurfing wide also.

We die hard fans were overly optomistic, hoping that PJ would return to the style of Fellowship of the Ring.
 
Let me suggest something that worked for me. Go read about 6 professional reviews. Most, if not all, will eventually say "It's not LOTR but it's still worth seeing, especially if you like Tolkien". Plus you will be prepared for it to stray from the book and scenes like the first 20-30 minutes were the dwarfs party like it's 1999 at Bilboe's man-cave (obviously I found it amusing...but I was expecting it too). Then find it at iMax 3D and get there early enough to sit in the middle about 2/3 of the way up. All in all a very enjoyable experience and the time actually flew by...I was surprised when I realized this installment was about to end. Oh, and seriously consider bringing hearing protection if you are at all sensitive...my local theater was right on the edge of painfully loud.
 
cheezydemon3 said:
Agreed.

As has been stated.....:

The First LOTR had people like me shedding tears. It was so effing true to the book (for a movie) exceeded my wildest hopes. That set a bar which could have been maintained. I like to think that it also proved that you don't have to inject a bunch of fillers and contrived BS just to the BMC (BIG crappy movie) crowd happy.

That is why The Hobbit was a disapointment. PJ had shown that he could follow the actual book amazingly............alas, he had also demonstrated that he could swing pretty smurfing wide also.

We die hard fans were overly optomistic, hoping that PJ would return to the style of Fellowship of the Ring.
Click to expand...

I think there were as many departures from Middle Earth and as the book was written in the Fellowship as there was in the Hobbit.

As I stated early there were several major character changes, small changes that added to the movie feel (Gandalf's staff not breaking in Moria) hell pretty much the entire opening scene is slightly changed from the book. Not to mention moving battles around, and for more details: Gandalf not being able to touch the ring of power was also stupid since it has no power unless it's put on, there's no mention of selling Bag End, not to mention that Jackson distorted the way the ring worked at the beginning for Frodo. No letter from Gandalf about Strider, explaining why to trust him, the whole Narsil thing I already explained, Strider starting the fire on weathertop, not the hobbits starting it to eat (again a major change in the character of the hobbits), how Frodo reacted to the Nazgul when he put on the ring (he actually attacked them instead of cowering in fear), Glorfindel, Frodo rides alone to Rivendell (no Arwen, she's barely mentioned in the book but she's pimped out by PJ), the whole scene with Saruman and the Palentir, Snow on the pass, no Warg attack before Moria, Gandalf championed going through Moria he wasn't afraid like he was in the movie, Boromir threw the stones into the lake and Frodo warned him against it, Balin's chamber having only 1 door (effects the entire escape scene) Boromir is the one who doesn't want to go into Lorien, not Gimli, Galadriel telling Frodo the Ringbearer must go to mountain and someone will try to steal the ring never happened, GIFTS OF GALADRIEL, barely mentioned even in the extended version (which wouldn't have been the one to have originally brought you to tears), and lastly aside from moving the battle with the Uruk-hai from the second book to the first movie, Jackson also changed the helmets of the Uruk-Hai from an S Rune (confusion of S for Sauron and S for Saruman, IIRC they didn't figure out they were Saruman's Uruks until they marched towards Isengard instead of Mordor, they knew immediately in the movie though because of the white hand)
 
By the way, I don't expect anyone to ready my entire post and that's not every change that was made, I just think the myth that Fellowship was so tight to the book should be busted.
 
I loved it and love the books as well. I'm not a movie critic but it was nice to take an afternoon off and head to the movies and watch the book come to life.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
By the way, I don't expect anyone to ready my entire post and that's not every change that was made, I just think the myth that Fellowship was so tight to the book should be busted.
Click to expand...

I know what I felt. The changes, mostly minor but duely noted, in the Fellowship were acceptable to me or "in bounds" (if PJ were playing a ball game or coloring with crayons)

An Unexpected Journey was too far out of bounds. If PJ were coloring a picture with crayons, he not only went wildly out of the lines, he actually drew a new little picture next to the one being colored.
 
To me there wasn't a massive difference if you understand the concept. He was telling the Hobbit but with the added mythology of the Appendices of Lord of the Rings.
 
Perhaps with the simplicity of the Hobbit, the departures are more stark.

Azog completely changed, Bilbo completely changed, Thorin, Balin, etc.,etc.

Gandalf sheepish and cowering, not tricking the trolls, not throwing colored flaming pine cones.

Goblin King suddenly a 3 story British Genius with a dark slap-stick sense of humor.

None of these changes make any sense to me.
 
One item I did actually enjoy from the movie was the white council. In the book Gandalf simply disappears. The fact he was in a white council even while in the last homely house could make sense as later the white council runs the Necromancer out. They would need to meet before they decide to act. There PJ makes some liberties I liked. However, the whole Radagast part, well, No.
 
cheezydemon3 said:
Perhaps with the simplicity of the Hobbit, the departures are more stark.

Azog completely changed, Bilbo completely changed, Thorin, Balin, etc.,etc.

Gandalf sheepish and cowering, not tricking the trolls, not throwing colored flaming pine cones.

Goblin King suddenly a 3 story British Genius with a dark slap-stick sense of humor.

None of these changes make any sense to me.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of Azog, and I dont' think he drastically changed Bilbo too much, certainly not any more than he changed characters in LOTR.

I don't get Gandalf as being sheepish at all, but rather wise to the dangers of the world.

Goblin King was a stupid change, but it is what it is. He wanted to add levity so they could attract the average movie goer.

I think people are in general too cruel to the Hobbit when LOTR was basically the same, I think that either more people read the hobbit and had their own idea of it, or hadn't read LOTR in a long time.
 
my wife & I watched it last night. we both liked it & disliked the single eye opening at the end. we both could've called it if we thought they'd do such a thing.
 
Billy-Klubb said:
my wife & I watched it last night. we both liked it & disliked the single eye opening at the end. we both could've called it if we thought they'd do such a thing.
Click to expand...

It was a little cliche, but appropriate considering what they're trying to do with the film.
 
One thing we all need to consider. At least it ain't Les Miserables!

Wife practically dragged me to see that. I think I enjoyed it more than she did in the end. And that ain't sayin much.
 
cheezydemon3 said:
Perhaps with the simplicity of the Hobbit, the departures are more stark.

Azog completely changed, Bilbo completely changed, Thorin, Balin, etc.,etc.

Gandalf sheepish and cowering, not tricking the trolls, not throwing colored flaming pine cones.

Goblin King suddenly a 3 story British Genius with a dark slap-stick sense of humor.

None of these changes make any sense to me.
Click to expand...

How did Azog change?
 
TxBrew said:
How did Azog change?
Click to expand...

In the Book: Azog claimed rulership over Moria. He started the War of the Dwarves and Orcs in TA 2790 by beheading Thrór, who came to revisit the ruins of Khazad-dûm. In the following years, he was the common enemy of all dwarves, and the war he started had its climax in the Battle of Azanulbizar, where he killed Náin, only to be himself slain by Náin's son Dáin. His son, Bolg, inherited the reign in Moria and continued it for decades until his death at the Battle of the Five Armies. In fact,Azog is mentioned briefly in the novel The Hobbit by Gandalf, who says to Thorin, 'Your grandfather Thrór was killed, you remember, in the mines of Moria by Azog the Goblin,' to which Thorin responds 'Curse his name, yes'. Incidentally, this is the only place that Tolkien refers to Azog as a "goblin"; in other books such as The Lord of the Rings Tolkien describes him as a "great Orc."


In the Movie: well, everything is different.

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Azog
 
TxBrew said:
How did Azog change?
Click to expand...

He wasn't dead. The making him white was also an embelishment but Azog was a great orc who killed Thror when Thror went to visit Khazad Dum and then started a 9 year war resulting in him killing Nain then Dain killing Azog (which IIRC Dain killing Azog was why the Moria Orcs marched to battle in the Battle of the 5 armies, hearing that Dain was on the march)
 
Azog just wasn't white, didn't have a spike arm, didn't ever see Bilbo, wasn't in 95% of the place PJ put him.

That alone would have been fine with me. I was more put out by the unnecessary changes to Gandalf. The mountain troll scene could have been one of the best scenes in moviemaking history. Instaed we settle for a circus-like scene straight out of PJ's imagination.

Considering that there are 3 movies, and only so much that happened in the Hobbit, why change great scenes like that?
 
cheezydemon3 said:
Azog just wasn't white, didn't have a spike arm, didn't ever see Bilbo, wasn't in 95% of the place PJ put him.

That alone would have been fine with me. I was more put out by the unnecessary changes to Gandalf. The mountain troll scene could have been one of the best scenes in moviemaking history. Instaed we settle for a circus-like scene straight out of PJ's imagination.

Considering that there are 3 movies, and only so much that happened in the Hobbit, why change great scenes like that?
Click to expand...

Well, you don't know if Azog was white or not. Nothing was mentioned of his appearance other than he was a great orc. So that that as it's definition. You are right he never met Bilbo. It was added movie jazz.

I don't think there were massive changes to Gandalf in all honesty. I mean yeah there were some but compared to the book there were massive changes in LOTR as well. I did not like the Troll scene but I don't think that it would have changed much more if it went the way of the book, it would have left some more mystery though and that would have been nice.

As far as the 3 movies, it's been touched on a few times. There will certainly be a fight for Dol Galdur which took place during the time of the Hobbit where they chase Sauron out and he flees to Mordor. Also I'm sure they will greatly expand on the Battle of the 5 armies, as you may or may not remember Bilbo gets knocked out relatively early in the fight. And I imagine they'll tell the whole tale of that. The next movie should be action packed. If it's chronological you should see Dol Galdur, you will meet Beorn (who I'll be interested in seeing how he is portrayed in the movie), then there's all the things that happen in Mirkwood, Giant Spiders, Elven palace, then the staying in Laketown, then of course going to the Lonely Mountain, and you haev to imagine since it's called the Desolation of Smaug that there will be the scene with Smaug and Bilbo which will be massively intense.

Then for the third movie at the very least you'll likely have the standoff with the Elves and man vs the Dwarves leading to the battle of the 5 armies later occuring which will probably be epic. After that I guess it will tell of Bilbo's return home, and who knows what else.
 
I sincerely respect your opinion hhh, but I can sum it up like this:

In The HOBBIT the book, Gandalf was a mysterious, powerful, secretive BADASS.

Unquestionably the one that saved them again, and again, again.

In this movie, he was sarcastic, at times simpering and fawning, NOT the guy in charge in much of ANY scene, and seldom the one who saved them.
 
I guess there's some truth to that. The problem with the mystery of Gandalf is that the LOTR came out. And since the movies came out first we know that Gandalf is a powerful wizard (if you know ME history a Maiar) and we know (at least if you read the book) he's a powerful ringbearer as well. So in comparison to the Hobbit which none of those facts were really known to the reader, they are known now. It's the issue when you have a book, then years later you write another book that totally changes the gravity of the original work. The Hobbit is a children's story, but LOTR brought Middle earth to a whole different level. Because of that, the Silmarillion, etc. you have all kinds of different issues with characters, history, and gravity. Gandalf going off an a mission or whatever in the books where he's gone from Beorn's house until right before the Battle of the 5 Armies has no real significance if you don't know the world around it and that they were meeting to ultimately decide if they are to chase the Necromancer out of Dol Galdur.
 
Homercidal said:
One thing we all need to consider. At least it ain't Les Miserables!

Wife practically dragged me to see that. I think I enjoyed it more than she did in the end. And that ain't sayin much.
Click to expand...

Sound like loads of fun! Possibly only topped by a shoe shopping trip to the mall (where one might even be lucky enough to hold the purse)!:eek:
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
I guess there's some truth to that. The problem with the mystery of Gandalf is that the LOTR came out. And since the movies came out first we know that Gandalf is a powerful wizard (if you know ME history a Maiar) and we know (at least if you read the book) he's a powerful ringbearer as well. So in comparison to the Hobbit which none of those facts were really known to the reader, they are known now. It's the issue when you have a book, then years later you write another book that totally changes the gravity of the original work. The Hobbit is a children's story, but LOTR brought Middle earth to a whole different level. Because of that, the Silmarillion, etc. you have all kinds of different issues with characters, history, and gravity. Gandalf going off an a mission or whatever in the books where he's gone from Beorn's house until right before the Battle of the 5 Armies has no real significance if you don't know the world around it and that they were meeting to ultimately decide if they are to chase the Necromancer out of Dol Galdur.
Click to expand...

I agree. Tolkien wrote the Hobbit, then had to go back and tweak a few thing as it didn't line up with the whole story of Middle Earth once it was outlined. Overall the Hobbit is very weak on details and as mentioned earlier, is only from Bilbo's view, so while he is knocked out for Battle of 5 Armies, a huge epic battle occurs. No point in skipping the battle just because he was unconscious. Then sum the battle up in a paragraph. This is early Tolkien. Not the dedicate first 3 chapters to describe a coffee table Tolkien. It allows liberties to be taken when going to a movie.

They should just be more true to the book where they exist. Looking at you Radagast. Get out of my Hobbit.
 
in the beginning of the movie, Bilbo's narration said he was going to tell the story "how it really happened...". classic movie makers way of telling the audience "this is not the book".
 

Similar threads

Revvy
RIP Ray Bradbury.
Replies
8
Views
883
Dynachrome
Dynachrome
Williams Brewing 300

Latest posts

Back
Top