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

SSBrew - 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.
In waiting for netflix after how bad the first one was, it should have been a one off movie IMO. Really to bad as I thought the LOTR trilogy, especially the extended editions are superbly done...but I can live with a few minor changes and omissions where some can't. The hobbit though, it's like watching Star Wars 1 and 2.
 
I too was saved from paying to see the dwarf/elf love story crapola. Thank you everyone!!!

DIE PJ!!! die.
 
Bensiff said:
In waiting for netflix after how bad the first one was, it should have been a one off movie IMO. Really to bad as I thought the LOTR trilogy, especially the extended editions are superbly done...but I can live with a few minor changes and omissions where some can't. The hobbit though, it's like watching Star Wars 1 and 2.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree, there were massive changes done in LOTR.

I think the general reason why people don't realize the differences has a slew of reasons, but I think the main one is the size of the literature. Lots of details are easier to miss when you're inspecting a 100 acre farm instead of your backyard garden.

I've listed massive changes in posts before. But Jackson made huge changes in characters, stories, character interactions, etc. He did them for the sake of movie making.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
I have to disagree, there were massive changes done in LOTR.

I think the general reason why people don't realize the differences has a slew of reasons, but I think the main one is the size of the literature. Lots of details are easier to miss when you're inspecting a 100 acre farm instead of your backyard garden.

I've listed massive changes in posts before. But Jackson made huge changes in characters, stories, character interactions, etc. He did them for the sake of movie making.
Click to expand...

Like where the f@#k is Tom Bombadil? THAT pissed me off more than anything...even the horribly written and acted elf dwarf googly eyes and a barrel scene that my 5 year old nephew could have done with more imagination
 
TANSTAAFB said:
Like where the f@#k is Tom Bombadil? THAT pissed me off more than anything...even the horribly written and acted elf dwarf googly eyes and a barrel scene that my 5 year old nephew could have done with more imagination
Click to expand...

I'm fine with excluding Tom Bombadil, because it's confusing. All I have to say is ELVES AT HELMS DEEP!!!! WTF!!!

There were lots of changes from Characters themselves (comic relief of Gimli and the pippinification of Merry) to story changes, to timeline changes, to what characters say what, and so on so forth.

It's best to just treat them as seperate Cannon as you should with all books and movies.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
I'm fine with excluding Tom Bombadil, because it's confusing. All I have to say is ELVES AT HELMS DEEP!!!! WTF!!!

There were lots of changes from Characters themselves (comic relief of Gimli and the pippinification of Merry) to story changes, to timeline changes, to what characters say what, and so on so forth.

It's best to just treat them as seperate Cannon as you should with all books and movies.
Click to expand...

Bless you my son! Fighting the good fight.

As we have said, LOTR is far from perfect, and we can discuss the errors as long as you want to.

At the end of the day, Let's say that my "acceptable" rating for a movie like these deviating from the books, but enough is there for me to still pay to watch it, is 60%.

I would say that:
The Fellowship of the Ring scored a whopping 85%. Changes were acceptable, maybe even necessary.

Two Towers fell to 65% with some glaringly retarded changes.

Return of the King (just off hand, I haven't watched it in 10 years) got to maybe 75%. A few glaring deviations, a little too much hollywood, but basically OK.

The Hobbit*throws up a little*.......... rates around 13%.

This piece of crap could almost have changed the names of the characters and claimed to have invented a new fantasy altogether. (then we would be howling over the glaring 13% that they did rip off from the Hobbit) It should not even be in the same conversation with LOTR.

The latest debacle makes the LOTR look like JRR himself sat on set and arranged every scene.....while THE HOBBITlooks like a retarded mole rat with half a brain accidentally ripped 3 or 4 pages from the HOBBIT, ate them, and then puked them onto PJ's laptop where they somhow made it into 30,000 pages of script.
 
I agree the 13%. And really that just comes down to the naming of characters was correct and the name of 2 of the locations was correct.

Other than that you have:
Trolls - check
Elves - check
goblins that sing - check

But that's it. You have trolls, elves, and goblins that sing; but nothing else from the book match the actions of what these creatures do in the movies. So yes. 13%

Oh, and eagles are present somewhere. but once again, the only similarity is "eagles are present". None of the interactions match. In fact, 13% may be high, I'm thinking 9% would be closer. I think Cheezy only went with 13% due to Dol Guldur making an appearance and the Witch King almost killing Radagast. However, Cheezy is a purist. So he knows it was really Gandalf who entered Dol Guldur, finding Thráin near death. So maybe he gave it a vote just hoping Radagast would get killed in the scene. Maybe he is giving a vote for Galadriel making an appearance? Not in the book so it shouldn't go towards the accuracy meter.

Serious Cheezy. 9% tops.

"What's in my pocket?" was asked, so 13% does have some weight behind it.
 
cheezydemon3 said:
Bless you my son! Fighting the good fight.

As we have said, LOTR is far from perfect, and we can discuss the errors as long as you want to.

At the end of the day, Let's say that my "acceptable" rating for a movie like these deviating from the books, but enough is there for me to still pay to watch it, is 60%.

I would say that:
The Fellowship of the Ring scored a whopping 85%. Changes were acceptable, maybe even necessary.

Two Towers fell to 65% with some glaringly retarded changes.

Return of the King (just off hand, I haven't watched it in 10 years) got to maybe 75%. A few glaring deviations, a little too much hollywood, but basically OK.

The Hobbit*throws up a little*.......... rates around 13%.

This piece of crap could almost have changed the names of the characters and claimed to have invented a new fantasy altogether. (then we would be howling over the glaring 13% that they did rip off from the Hobbit) It should not even be in the same conversation with LOTR.

The latest debacle makes the LOTR look like JRR himself sat on set and arranged every scene.....while THE HOBBITlooks like a retarded mole rat with half a brain accidentally ripped 3 or 4 pages from the HOBBIT, ate them, and then puked them onto PJ's laptop where they somhow made it into 30,000 pages of script.
Click to expand...

Fellowship was changed way more than 85%.

Hell everything they did before Rivendell is pretty much all new. For starters, the timeline, there's a 17 year gap between when Bilbo leaves and Frodo's journey begin. The selling of bag end changed, moving changed, the whole farmer maggot scene changed, many things changed. I could point further but I won't. As I said basically every character changed. Anduril is entirely different and a totally unnecessary change aside from adding movie drama.

He moved stuff around from books to movie, he took lots of stuff out of TT and put into RotK. Abbreviated many things such as the journey through Mordor, hell Shelob's Lair was abbreviated.

There were tons of changes, it was largely true to the central story, which I think the Hobbit is doing as well. Sure it's deviating more (what's the deal with the politics of Lake TOwn and the weird Elf/Dwarf love thing) not to mention Azog. Anyway, both are big deviations, sure the Hobbit is likely a bigger deviation ignoring the added stuff from LoTR Appendices as that is Tolkien cannon.

I would have done the movies totally different, but I would have made it as a Tolkien nerd, not as someone who knows how to make movies that the audience will like. Jackson has made billions in the box office, so he obviously knows what he is doing.
 
Well put Landshark.


All in favor????



AYE!!!


Hoppyhoppyhippo, you are my hero. ;)

I would love to see your version of the movies wioth PJ's budget. Alas!

Maybe if we could get all of the enraged nerds to donate, we could make it happen.
 
Since we could bring Azog back from the dead, maybe Gil-Galad will make an appearance, too, and wreck some ****. It would be so badass if he had a tank and put the hurt on those goblin scum.
 
GuldTuborg said:
Since we could bring Azog back from the dead, maybe Gil-Galad will make an appearance, too, and wreck some ****. It would be so badass if he had a tank and put the hurt on those goblin scum.
Click to expand...

As a child I honestly fantasized about showing up in middle earth with a huge machine gun and helping the cause....we drove to the grandparents a LOT. 4 hours away. Lots of time to read and think too much.
 
Kinda reminds me of:

Michael Bay: "We start by making a big CG building and then we have a meteor go CROSSHH! And it, and it's all like CRAAWW a-and motorcycles burst into flame while they jump over these helicopters, right?" from "Imaginationland"

Michael Bay: "An eighteen-wheeler spins out of control and it's all like BROSSHH! And then this huuuge tanker full of dynamite - CRRSHGHGHHG!" from "Imaginationland"
General: "Those aren't ideas, those are special effects!"
Michael Bay: "I... don't understand the difference." from "Imaginationland"
 
Lol.

Too bad they can't hook a super mind invasive displation machination....thingy to hoppyhoppyhippo's brain and just have him imagine LOTR and the Hobbit back to back and record that. Bet it would leave PJ in the dust.
 
cheezydemon3 said:
I would love to see your version of the movies wioth PJ's budget. Alas!

Maybe if we could get all of the enraged nerds to donate, we could make it happen.
Click to expand...

Would be kind of fun. I think overall the casting is still solid across the board. I mean Freeman was a great casting.

I would have done the Hobbit with a similar idea as Jackson, I love adding Dol Galdur, but I would have made them more true to the story.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
Would be kind of fun. I think overall the casting is still solid across the board. I mean Freeman was a great casting.

I would have done the Hobbit with a similar idea as Jackson, I love adding Dol Galdur, but I would have made them more true to the story.
Click to expand...

I agree, adding Dol Guldur really does make sense and seems correct for the movie. Just, story. Stick with it.

And Freeman is excellent.
 
hoppyhoppyhippo said:
Would be kind of fun. I think overall the casting is still solid across the board. I mean Freeman was a great casting.

I would have done the Hobbit with a similar idea as Jackson, I love adding Dol Galdur, but I would have made them more true to the story.
Click to expand...

Hell, I bet you would have put in all kinds of detail and we still would only end up with a 4-5 hour movie.

The 3 movie tragedy would be laughable if it wasn't trampling on beloved literature.


To date, THE SHINING is the only fine piece of moviemaking to only use 9-13% of the original work......maybe even more like 5%...and still make a good film.
 
You guys are cracking me up.

Hoppyhippo has me thinking... and I reread a few sections of The Hobbit and LOTR today, while listening to the music I listened to when first reading - funny how things come back. So a little funk, a little NOW classic rock and I am 8 years old cracking open an old tome called The Hobbit that the librarian said was way over my head. She was very wrong.

Interesting how the movies have changed my inner eye - some for the better and some for the worse.

If I was writing and remaking these movie series, both would be a lot darker - meaning hairy hobbit toes caked with mud and blood. At least the Hobbit would retain a good deal of Bilbo's charm and the sardonic and measured slyness of Gandalf. The rest would be pretty dark, hairy and very damned scary. Think new gritty Batman against the contrast of the Clooney/Keaton debacles. Seriously hardcore gnarly fantasy without the bumbling and cartoonish bits. Nothing wrong with the original written story - that could be shortened to fit the movie format - even with the Hobbit.

The Hobbit (the book) was my gateway drug into great (and some pretty lousy) fantasy fiction, like Asimov led me into science fiction, fueled by movies like Star Wars and Bladerunner. I have to agree that Jackson has lost his way as an independent visionary, just as Lucas lost his way somewhere in the middle of the first Star Wars trilogy. There are so few film story teller left that I have a shred of respect -
even Whedon is tilting toward the sellout recently. I need something in that genre soon - or I will lose all hope. At least good stories are popping back up that are palatable in written form.

And I maintain that The Hobbit is NOT a flipping PREQUEL to LOTR and should never be interpreted or rendered as anything but a story that evolves from a children's fairy tale into an epic and sweeping parable on the contrasts of innocence, greed, courage, loyalty and politics. The RING is not a character, but a plot device in the Hobbit, and is presented as a lucky trophy, not a horrible relic of evil with great power.

Great call on Kubrick - amazing visionary.
 
I agree that the Hobbit isn't a prequel to LOTR. I'm not a fan of putting LOTR stuff in there. But I do like some of what they did with the Ring so far. Making it's draw known but not making the All-Seeing eye following him.
 
cheezydemon3 said:
Time Warner Cable is owned and operated by SAURON....
Click to expand...

I didn't even have to photoshop this myself.

900
 
Well - now they are merging with Comcast to form an even more formidable customer-last mediocre content delivery system. For once, I hope this one gets shot down, I doubt it though.
 
There's been a thing passed around reddit a lot lately that's been about the Eagles and why they couldn't take the ring to Mount Doom.

http://m.tickld.com/x/this-guy-just...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The issue is that the theory is based solely on the movie, which changed some things.

For starters, Gandalf didn't summon nor did he have any control over Gwaihir or the Eagles. In the Hobbit he was rescued because he saved the life of the Lord of the Eagles. In LOTR he was rescued from Orthanc because Gwaihir was sent by Radagast to deliver a message then Gwaihir saved Gandalf instead. Elrond attempted to recruit Radagast but his messengers found his dwellings empty and that was that. without the person with the ability to "control" the Eagles, how could they have gotten them to participate. ONly way would have been to hope their mission of fighting Melkor (and later his minion Sauron) but who's to say that they wouldn't have divulged those details to Radagast who didn't know that Saruman went bad, then Saruman had the information about who had the rings and where they were going and by what means of transportation. Scramble the fell beasts and blammo Sauron gets the ring.

Not to mention a giant Eagle based out of the Misty Mountains would look very out of place flying to Mordor. Not to mention they had no clue what was waiting inside of Mordor could have been tons of things could have been nothing. Remember the Watchers at Cirith Ungol? Who's to say they aren't all over Mordor. Long story short ont he stealth side of things. An Eagle carrying one passenger would almost certainly be shot down and killed.
 
Interesting hoppy!

I am fine with all of that. What I am still not fine with are these sh!tty movies.

I wish I hadn't watched the first one.
 
Ehhh it's an enjoyable film. I still stick to my separate universes. I can get behind the films as films that aren't Tolkien cannon. As that's entirely too much. Would be amazing if there was a way financially to do LOTR like GOT where you can take your time and focus more on character development without movie tropes.
 
Loaded the Plex Media Server on at work as a quick test to see if I want to install at home. I started playing Steve Vai's Elusive Light and Sound album for background music as I play with our new ERP system and it cuts into the Crossroads movie dialogue and then Eugene's trick bag and the Head Cuttin' Duel.

Reminds me I haven't seen Crossroads (NOT Britney Spears!) movie in a long time. One of Ralph Macchio's best films!
 
With the trilogy complete I'll offer my 2 main thoughts.

As a fantasy action movie, the trilogy was a success, it's quality popcorn cinema. It works very well, it's faithful enough to the book and Martin Freeman is magnificent.

From a Tolkien standpoint, Jackson took his ****ting on the Lord of the Rings and wiped his ass 3 more times. I'm fine with certain exclusions and inclusions but some of the changes are asinine. (spoilers up ahead) why the ****s sake was Legolas leaving his dad necessary? Then add insult to injury they make **** up for him to do and meeting Aragorn. Making **** up. Legolas went to the council of the Ring to tell them that Gollum escaped. Stop making **** up Jackson just for the sake of tying in your stupid movies.

That's just a small taste as to why I don't treat them as equivalent canon, they must stay separate.
 
Well, now that I've seen the 3rd movie(the only movies I've seen in the theater the last 3 years), I'll weigh in.

I first read the books in the 70's when I was a wee lad. I've been absolutely in love with Tolkiens books ever since. I've read The Hobbit and LOTR at least 6-7 times since the 70's. They never get old to me.
When Jackson came out with LOTR I was totally stoked. I love movies and accept them for their entertainment value. A movie has to be really bad for me to call it so.
LOTR, Jackson did a great job with the adaptation. He took a lot of liberties but it worked well. The same for the Hobbit movies. He delved into many things that were barely mentioned in the book but he brought it all together quite well IMO.
Having read the books so many times, I can nitpic all the things he changed/added/strayed from the book, but I truly enjoyed this adaptation of the book.

That was my once a year movie. I'll buy the BluRay when it comes out and I'll watch them again and again. When I finish the book series I'm in now, it may be time to read the Silmarillion/Hobbit/LOTR again.
 
I refuse to watch any more of Peter Jackson's CRAP. He made a couple of movies that he called "The Hobbit," but they were NOT The Hobbit. He butchered Tolkien's story, he bastardized Tolkien's story, and he just made $hit up. His version of LOTR wasn't too bad, though he did leave out a couple of what I consider important chapters, I can live with that. What he did to The Hobbit is unforgivable IMHO. Jackson made his money, now he needs to retire & fade away without fvcking up any more beloved stories.
Regards, GF.
 

Similar threads

Revvy
RIP Ray Bradbury.
Replies
8
Views
889
Dynachrome
Dynachrome

Latest posts

Back
Top