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

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

Just got back from the Hobbit. I enjoyed it. didn't like some of the stuff, but I thought it was well done. I won't say what I don't like because most of it happens in the end. But yeah, not a massive fan of some things, But I do think that he does a good job blending the appendices with the Hobbit.

 

[ryanmmill]

Just got back from the Hobbit. I enjoyed it. didn't like some of the stuff, but I thought it was well done. I won't say what I don't like because most of it happens in the end. But yeah, not a massive fan of some things, But I do think that he does a good job blending the appendices with the Hobbit.

I agree with your opinion. Overall I thought it was a pretty decent flick that followed the basics of the book pretty well. One thing to add, I saw it in Imax 3D then 3D HFR version. If you are going to see the 3D, the HFR is MUCH better. Takes a few minutes to get used to but I thought it made the 3D much more real and not so noticeable.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

I saw it in HFR as well, I love IMAX myself, and IMAX 3D is way better than regular.

 

[cheezydemon3]

I just watched the trailer. She is gorgeous. And it seems she sings very well too.

Hypocrite.

Meh.

200 pages into The Hobbit and you're at the final scene.

200 pages into The Fellowship of the Ring, and you haven't even left The Shire yet.

I read the hobbit in less than 8 hours as a child. What can they possibly fill three movies with? :\

WEEEEEEEELLLLLLL......................

Evidently everyeffingthing he could find in the silmalrillion.

It is JAM packed. Never a dull moment....even when there clearly should be.

 

[lowtones84]

People won't accept a humble, shy Bilbo that ends up being heroic. We need it thrown in our face. ie: Troll scene, Saving Thorin from goblin. All of this changes Bilbo's hidden courage/bravery into an in-your-face-now kind of character(!= Hobbit!).

This is exactly my problem with the movie. The charm and the message of the Hobbit lie in the fact that none of the characters are typical fantasy characters. Even Gandalf is pretty mild in the book, one of his biggest tricks is throwing flaming pine cones at the wolves...wow. I knew it would be a problem because The Hobbit just is not suited for a Hollywood movie. To make a really good interpretation of the story one would have to make something other than profit their #1 goal.

I really don't care that some of the details were changed, or even that some things were completely fabricated and added. It's just that the stuff that was changed did not even suit the character of the original book, which is what I love. To me the book has the message that every day people can be brave and overcome great odds. The dwarves weren't even really fighters. I think there is about 10 times more fighting in the first movie than the entirety of the original book.

I still didn't hate it, but I had to push aside -any- expectation of it living up to the book to enjoy myself in the movie theater, which I shouldn't have to do. I understand that other people did legitimately enjoy it and I'm not going to jump on them for it.

 

[jonmohno]

All the comments just remind me of how gay Hollywood is was and still is.

 

[emjay]

The charm and the message of the Hobbit lie in the fact that none of the characters are typical fantasy characters.

You're kidding, right? The shy, unlikely hero that develops the inner courage to overcome incredible odds is probably the biggest archetype in fantasy.

 

[lowtones84]

Example?

Regardless, my point is that Bilbo isn't hopping around slinging fireballs at dragons or riding a horse into the enemy's front lines. The Hobbit is much more down to earth than even Lord of the Rings or most other fantasy novels I've read.

I mean, the kids in Harry Potter are more powerful than anyone in the party except for Gandalf.

 

[cheezydemon3]

SO.

Result is:

I WILL frigging pony up for the next 2 movies JUST IN CASE they get a wonderful part perfectly right.

EXAMPLE: If the giant spiders in mirkwood aren't the ones that crawled over the house of Radaghast while he used his fantastiacal powers to revive an effing gerbil (WOW!!! didn't that add a TON of value?????? good thing they left out the flaming pine cones and time consuming talking eagles) and instead match what I imagined........(damned attercops with expressive faces and bodies large, but small enough for STING to bother) then I will probably tear up and forgive all, as I did in the first LOTR when the horses of the river in Rivendell swelled up and washed the ringwraiths away.

 

[HoppyDaze]

All the comments just remind me of how gay Hollywood is was and still is.

What do you expect from a town full of entitled aholes who don't even respect their consumers? Hollywood types are the worst people in the world.

 

[emjay]

You'd hate if if you don't like musicals or at least seen the broadway run of the show.

Read the book. If you're not a big reader you might not like that either.

Saw Les Mis today. It was good, but it's a bit odd as a movie.

 

[bottlebomber]

Saw Les Mis today. It was good, but it's a bit odd as a movie.

C'mon.. I know you can do better than that oh one of many words.

 

[emjay]

C'mon.. I know you can do better than that oh one of many words.

Honestly, I can't. I love the play so much that I am somehow simultaneously both thrilled by the movie and disappointed by it.

 

[bottlebomber]

Honestly, I can't. I love the play so much that I am somehow simultaneously both thrilled by the movie and disappointed by it.

I think that's how a lot of people felt about The Hobbit, but with significantly lower stakes. I'm sure I'll be viewing it soon enough.

 

[highgravitybacon]

I don't like hobbits. I would like the minutes to reflect that. Thank you.

 

[emjay]

I think that's how a lot of people felt about The Hobbit, but with significantly lower stakes. I'm sure I'll be viewing it soon enough.

Which was lower stakes?

 

[bottlebomber]

Which was lower stakes?

Well, the Hobbit of course. As brilliant as a fantasy piece as it is it is hardly Les Mis

 

[emjay]

Well, the Hobbit of course. As brilliant as a fantasy piece as it is it is hardly Les Mis

Ah, okay. As much as I like The Hobbit and LOTR, I'd agree. The way it was written was a bit ambiguous though.

 

[whoaru99]

To make a really good interpretation of the story one would have to make something other than profit their #1 goal.

Why would they do it otherwise?

 

[Homercidal]

One of these days I'm going to actually look up what Les Miserables is about.

 

[WesleyS]

One of these days I'm going to actually look up what Les Miserables is about.

It's about sitting in the theater listening to people sing dialogue for three hours till you want to hang yourself!
Oh, you mean the story?

 

[AnchorBock]

I haven't read this all yet, but just saw The Hobbit the other night. I hadn't read the book for about 10 years, but the movie did not have that fun, adventurous feel to it that I remember from the book.

Seems like they are trying to make it heavier and more grandiose like the LOTR trilogy, when it really has no need to be.

I also HATED the HFR 3D, the only shots that looked remotely good were the 100% digital ones like with the eagles and such. Anything live action looked like it was in fast motion and the 3D did NOTHING for me. I can't wait for the 3D fad to go away like it always does.

They also added a ton of action, which I can understand, they need to make it a bit more cinematic so whatever, but bringing Saruman and Galadriel added almost nothing to the story except to make it seem more epic and dire unlike the book.

I wouldn't say I disliked the movie, I'm a bit too biased as I love the LOTR universe, but I think they did a piss-poor job adapting it and took far too many liberties with the story.

 

[CGVT]

One of these days I'm going to actually look up what Les Miserables is about.

It's about three hours of your life that you will never get back...

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

It's about three hours of your life that you will never get back...

:rockin:

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

I haven't read this all yet, but just saw The Hobbit the other night. I hadn't read the book for about 10 years, but the movie did not have that fun, adventurous feel to it that I remember from the book.

Seems like they are trying to make it heavier and more grandiose like the LOTR trilogy, when it really has no need to be.

I also HATED the HFR 3D, the only shots that looked remotely good were the 100% digital ones like with the eagles and such. Anything live action looked like it was in fast motion and the 3D did NOTHING for me. I can't wait for the 3D fad to go away like it always does.

They also added a ton of action, which I can understand, they need to make it a bit more cinematic so whatever, but bringing Saruman and Galadriel added almost nothing to the story except to make it seem more epic and dire unlike the book.

I wouldn't say I disliked the movie, I'm a bit too biased as I love the LOTR universe, but I think they did a piss-poor job adapting it and took far too many liberties with the story.

I'm gonna say one thing that probably will make me sound like a dick but I don't care, if you don't care for 3D the why did you pay basically double for the movie to go see it in 3D?

I don't like the direction comedy has gone for most TV and cinema, so I don't support them(I'm looking at you Seth Macfarlane)

I thought it looked awesome in 3D, some of the things were weird, but that's was 48 FPS is supposed to do at times because that's faster than your eye can process. So you're bound to have some choppiness but overall I enjoyed it.

They did add a ton of action, but for those who don't know after writing the Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien went back and changed the Hobbit. Gollum originally let Bilbo go without a struggle or care in Riddles in the Dark, but when he made the Ring of Power and so on so forth he changed the chapter entirely so Gollum was all consumed by the ring. Jackson took a similar liberty with the movie. Some stuff I didn't care for (the mini White council was lame, as was Galadriel just vanishing/teleporting) I also wasn't a fan of just throwing radagast in there for comic/kid friendly purposes. I think they could have accomplished the same thing better with Gandalf telling flashback tales as both times the Necromancer was in Dol Galdur he was found by Gandalf, and the second time before they chased him out for good he got the map and key from Thrain, wonder how they plan on changing that one.

I prefer this sort of hybridization of the Hobbit with the Appendices of the Lord of the Rings as I think it opens up the tale more for people who don't know the LOTR universe.

 

[AnchorBock]

I'm gonna say one thing that probably will make me sound like a dick but I don't care, if you don't care for 3D the why did you pay basically double for the movie to go see it in 3D?

You're such a dick! Kidding.

It's the first feature length film made in HFR 3D and PJ shot the entire thing with HFR 3D in mind, it seemed stupid not to see it in the intended format even if I don't really like 3D. I do have to admit that the trailer for Epic (animated movie) looked pretty cool in 3D, but I think I'm done with live-action 3D.

 

[cheezydemon3]

..They did add a ton of action, but for those who don't know after writing the Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien went back and changed the Hobbit...........

Hold the phone!!!!!!!

The original author changed what he had written??????????

Oh holy hell, well then anyone is justified when they change it!!!! I am surprised that Peter Jackson didn't invent flying elephants and a talking lemur for added drama.

This changes EVERYTHING!!!

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

Haha. My point is that knowledge of the whole universe changes the perspective of the Hobbit. The creation of the Ring of power and Sauron changed what the Ring and the Necromancer were. From a magic ring to the all powerful ring of power, and from a dark sorcerer to the bane of middle earth in disguise. And so on so forth

I think this writeup is very solid

www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/dislike-peter-jacksons-em_b_2342591.html

I agree in principle. I'm a person who had my critiques of the LOTR movies as I do of the Hobbit because of being a LOTR nerd in my own right, but they made a kids version of the Hobbit it was an animated movie made in 1977 and it was kid friendly and a lot like the book. This isn't supposed to just be a retelling of a hobbit but a branch of middle earth folk lore before the Lord of the Rings. Shame they don't have the rights to other Tolkien material cause then this could be even more expansive in what they covered.

 

[lowtones84]

Why would they do it otherwise?

Y'know, for like artistic integrity and stuff. Making something meaningful, perhaps. But hey, I guess it's American cinema we're talking about here I should just throw that expectation right out the window.

 

[cheezydemon3]

Y'know, for like artistic integrity and stuff. Making something meaningful, perhaps. But hey, I guess it's American cinema we're talking about here I should just throw that expectation right out the window.

aaaaaaaaahhh well......

Peter Jackson is on a short list that includes Guillermo Del Toro and a few others who make AWESOME movies that defy the crapola hollywood norm.

That said, no one is infallable.

Hell, even Spielberg has cranked out some stinkers.

 

[0verdrive]

I'm glad to see this bugs other people. The first LOTR movie was amazing. It didn't stray from the book, and was true to the characters. It made some minor changes that were necessary for the movie format, but that was about it.

But then it was like Peter Jackson said "I've proven that I can make a good adaptation to the movie - now I'm going to f*ck with the rest of the story/characters just to put my mark on it." Essentially, Jackson's ego took over and he decided that he knew more about story-telling than Tolkien.

For example: he completely destroyed Faramir's character who, while he had a smaller role, was incredibly important. When contrasted with his brother Boromir, Tolkien showed that humans have a hunger for power, but that we as a species are capable of seeing the bigger picture and the pitfalls therein. But Jackson wanted a cool battle scene with the wraiths, so he made up an entire (large) battle in Osgiliath, destroying Faramir's character to get there. That was unforgivable from my perspective, and completely ruined the series for me. I own the Fellowship of the Ring, but haven't watched the second two movies since they came out in theaters.

Unfortunately, having read your account of the Hobbit adaptation, I doubt I'll even bother seeing it now. What Jackson did seems cruel to me - to show that he could do it right -- he just won't.

 

[AnchorBock]

Haha. My point is that knowledge of the whole universe changes the perspective of the Hobbit. The creation of the Ring of power and Sauron changed what the Ring and the Necromancer were. From a magic ring to the all powerful ring of power, and from a dark sorcerer to the bane of middle earth in disguise. And so on so forth

I think this writeup is very solid

www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/dislike-peter-jacksons-em_b_2342591.html

I agree in principle. I'm a person who had my critiques of the LOTR movies as I do of the Hobbit because of being a LOTR nerd in my own right, but they made a kids version of the Hobbit it was an animated movie made in 1977 and it was kid friendly and a lot like the book. This isn't supposed to just be a retelling of a hobbit but a branch of middle earth folk lore before the Lord of the Rings. Shame they don't have the rights to other Tolkien material cause then this could be even more expansive in what they covered.

All that article does is attempt to justify the liberties that PJ and team took. I don't think most people would deny PJ and team brought characters like Frodo, Galadriel, Saruman, and Legolas (in one/both of the next films) to sell more tickets (big names) and to shamelessly tie The Hobbit directly to the LOTR movies that they made.

I love how the author basically criticizes film critics for not having a PHD in all things (books) Tolkien.

 

[cheezydemon3]

I'm glad to see this bugs other people. The first LOTR movie was amazing. It didn't stray from the book, and was true to the characters. It made some minor changes that were necessary for the movie format, but that was about it.

But then it was like Peter Jackson said "I've proven that I can make a good adaptation to the movie - now I'm going to f*ck with the rest of the story/characters just to put my mark on it." Essentially, Jackson's ego took over and he decided that he knew more about story-telling than Tolkien.

For example: he completely destroyed Faramir's character who, while he had a smaller role, was incredibly important. When contrasted with his brother Boromir, Tolkien showed that humans have a hunger for power, but that we as a species are capable of seeing the bigger picture and the pitfalls therein. But Jackson wanted a cool battle scene with the wraiths, so he made up an entire (large) battle in Osgiliath, destroying Faramir's character to get there. That was unforgivable from my perspective, and completely ruined the series for me. I own the Fellowship of the Ring, but haven't watched the second two movies since they came out in theaters.

Unfortunately, having read your account of the Hobbit adaptation, I doubt I'll even bother seeing it now. What Jackson did seems cruel to me - to show that he could do it right -- he just won't.

They took NOBLE, WISE Faramir from the book, and made him SLEAZY, GREEDY Faramir.

Wholeheartedly agree, WTF??

 

[lowtones84]

aaaaaaaaahhh well......

Peter Jackson is on a short list that includes Guillermo Del Toro and a few others who make AWESOME movies that defy the crapola hollywood norm.

That said, no one is infallable.

Hell, even Spielberg has cranked out some stinkers.

Well, that's debatable in my opinion but I'll give it to you. I'm more talking about the typical standard.

 

[cheezydemon3]

Well, that's debatable in my opinion but I'll give it to you. I'm more talking about the typical standard.

Seen District 9? Unbelieveably original moviemaking. Fantastic movie.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

I'm glad to see this bugs other people. The first LOTR movie was amazing. It didn't stray from the book, and was true to the characters. It made some minor changes that were necessary for the movie format, but that was about it..

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.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

All that article does is attempt to justify the liberties that PJ and team took. I don't think most people would deny PJ and team brought characters like Frodo, Galadriel, Saruman, and Legolas (in one/both of the next films) to sell more tickets (big names) and to shamelessly tie The Hobbit directly to the LOTR movies that they made.

I love how the author basically criticizes film critics for not having a PHD in all things (books) Tolkien.

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.

 

[0verdrive]

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.

You're right - I didn't mean to come across quite so strongly that the first movie didn't have any flaws. The first movie did stray from the book, but (in my opinion) it was in ways that primarily made it easier to tell the story in a movie format.

So I agree that Gimli was made into a comic relief, and the hobbits started as fools and cowards. I disagree about Aragorn, but it's been quite a while since I've read the books, so I might be wrong. I always felt that Aragorn was a bit of a reluctant hero in the books as well - our first introduction to him was as "Strider," a ranger from the North. The fact that a King by all rights was out acting the part of a ranger (to me) indicated that he had little to no interest (or didn't feel worthy) of being a King.

However, my initial point wasn't that the first movie was flawless, but that I thought it was a good attempt at the herculean task of adapting an intricately enmeshed story to a movie. When I watched the first movie, I remember dreading the many pitfalls he could have fallen into, and was amazed to find that (I thought) he did an overall decent job with it.

So I expected the same from the next two movies, and felt betrayed - I think he either decided it wasn't worth the effort or (more likely) he wanted to make his mark on the story. A director "leaving his mark" on a story isn't uncommon, but when it's done to something that's already considered a masterpiece, the modifications are almost sure to damage the original story, as Jackson demonstrated.

 

[0verdrive]

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.

On a side-note: while some of the exact details weren't completely faithful to the first book, it's worth mentioning one thing I thought they got absolutely right: the part of Sam. I always loved Sam as the unsung hero, and I think Jackson did a good job with that aspect. The scene where Frodo tries to sneak away in a canoe, and Sam comes running after him was fantastic. He didn't just wade in to his knees and call ineffectively to Frodo - he leaped off a "dock" into water that he knew he couldn't swim in. It was a wonderful way of showing his loyalty and willingness to sacrifice all to follow and aid his friend to the bitter end.

(Since I typically bash Jackson for his botchery in the last two movies, I try to come up with examples where he got the characters right in the first movie.)

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

So I agree that Gimli was made into a comic relief, and the hobbits started as fools and cowards. I disagree about Aragorn, but it's been quite a while since I've read the books, so I might be wrong. I always felt that Aragorn was a bit of a reluctant hero in the books as well - our first introduction to him was as "Strider," a ranger from the North. The fact that a King by all rights was out acting the part of a ranger (to me) indicated that he had little to no interest (or didn't feel worthy) of being a King.

Rangers were the Dunedain which were descendents of Numenoreans. Rangers was just a localized name. Same way that Gandalf is called Gandalf, Odorin, Mithrindir and Tharkun.

As far as his introduction as Strider that was what Bill Furny (sp) of Bree called him, so he went with it. Explaining his whole backstory to the hobbits would have been too time consuming.

He was very proud of his heritage, it was explained in Appendix A in the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen that he had to reclaim the throne to Marry Arwen. So he wouldn't be reluctant at all to reclaim his throne.