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

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

I think we're on the same page, then. The overall feel of the story was much the same, which is what I said (pages back) was missing from The Hobbit. It really doesn't even feel like the same story.

Part of the problem with the Hobbit and feeling like the same story is that it's not. We already know that Tolkien himself changed what happened in the Hobbit to a degree with what he created in the mythology of Middle Earth and I think if he had to redo it he would change some things and make the gravity of events a little heavier. The writers took many liberties with LOTR and they're taking even more in the Hobbit, but considering the Hobbit left way more details to the imagination I think it's a little more forgivable to do that.

When I heard they were doing 3 Hobbit movies, I knew there'd be some stuff I didn't like. Azog being a big one, hell, the biggest one. Also I have a few continuity issues. Jackson's clearly intent on tying the hobbit to the LOTR universe which I'm cool with. But never in the LOTR movies as I recall did the Orcs speak Orcish. or any languages but the common language, but Azog speaks something different. The bigger one that bothers me though is goblins. Goblins are the English name for Orcs, and calling them Goblins I think is an attempt ot not piss off people who are complaining about the amount of changes to the book, but to me it's one change that makes too much sense not to make.

 

[mchrispen]

Hoppyhoppyhippo (you know I feel silly typing that right? :O) - I agree that it is a separate telling of the same story - the difference is that Tolkien has the right in my book to change his creation (and begrudgingly so did Lucas with Star Wars - HAN SHOT FIRST!) to fit a larger and more complex story - and he himself explained it as part of the oral to written tradition in the real world. Details change, but the core and important story remained more or less true. This is not really what is happening here.

Jackson created an alternative Middle Earth to fit turning that epic into a visual story telling event (movies). He did a more or less respectful job in my book - I can live with many of the errors as I see the movie distinct from the books. However, with the Hobbit - it is an error, as I have stated in the past, to make this integral into LOTR, but in the Jackson-alternative Middle Earth - I guess Jackson sees it as necessary to over commit the franchise connections. The Hobbit stands alone as A) a book written for children, and B) a tale written by the protagonist that is likely to exaggerate a bit! and no witnesses specifically to refute anything. It is not a prequel, rather the progenitor of LOTR... fortunately the sum of Tolkien's work is much greater than the sum of its parts...

Goblins and Orcs - if you read Silmarilion and some of Tolkiens letters and so-called unpublished notes - there is ambiguity, and orc is a made-up word based on early guttural Old English and Latin phonetics. Some people wish to make them completely separate perversions of elves (orc) and dwarves (goblins) consistent with the creation stories in Silmarillion, others claim they are the same thing. I kind of prefer the distinction as that is how I read the Hobbit. Goblins were used in The Hobbit, Orc in LOTR books... and ultimately I don't think Tolkien distinguished the two - LOTR really trumps the lore in The Hobbit, as the Silmarillion and other tales sort of trump LOTR. Also consider "The Hobbit" was Bilbo's first book, while LOTR was really Frodo's broader and more experienced version of events - two different historical perspectives and they should have slight disagreements.

I also found the language thing a bit bizarre and inconsistent.

 

[FlapjackAM]

I will also say this- and others may disagree- but I think the casting and acting for LoTR and the Hobbit was stellar. Some of the writing may be a little off, but the acting is fantastic.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

Hoppyhoppyhippo (you know I feel silly typing that right? :O) - I agree that it is a separate telling of the same story - the difference is that Tolkien has the right in my book to change his creation (and begrudgingly so did Lucas with Star Wars - HAN SHOT FIRST!) to fit a larger and more complex story - and he himself explained it as part of the oral to written tradition in the real world. Details change, but the core and important story remained more or less true. This is not really what is happening here.

Jackson created an alternative Middle Earth to fit turning that epic into a visual story telling event (movies). He did a more or less respectful job in my book - I can live with many of the errors as I see the movie distinct from the books. However, with the Hobbit - it is an error, as I have stated in the past, to make this integral into LOTR, but in the Jackson-alternative Middle Earth - I guess Jackson sees it as necessary to over commit the franchise connections. The Hobbit stands alone as A) a book written for children, and B) a tale written by the protagonist that is likely to exaggerate a bit! and no witnesses specifically to refute anything. It is not a prequel, rather the progenitor of LOTR... fortunately the sum of Tolkien's work is much greater than the sum of its parts...

Goblins and Orcs - if you read Silmarilion and some of Tolkiens letters and so-called unpublished notes - there is ambiguity, and orc is a made-up word based on early guttural Old English and Latin phonetics. Some people wish to make them completely separate perversions of elves (orc) and dwarves (goblins) consistent with the creation stories in Silmarillion, others claim they are the same thing. I kind of prefer the distinction as that is how I read the Hobbit. Goblins were used in The Hobbit, Orc in LOTR books... and ultimately I don't think Tolkien distinguished the two - LOTR really trumps the lore in The Hobbit, as the Silmarillion and other tales sort of trump LOTR. Also consider "The Hobbit" was Bilbo's first book, while LOTR was really Frodo's broader and more experienced version of events - two different historical perspectives and they should have slight disagreements.

I also found the language thing a bit bizarre and inconsistent.

I'm not saying that Tolkien didn't have the right to change the story. Afterall it wouldn't have made sense for Gollum to so casually part with the ring knowing it's power to consume everything. My point is that unlike readers of the hobbit 90% of the time, we know what will happen in the end. We know the gravity of the ring of power, we know of Sauron and Sarumon's ways, etc. So I can understand taking some changes to the movie's tone because sometimes it's needed because of known information.

I'll skip down to the goblin orc thing cause i don't really disagree with you. Goblin's tolkien used because it basically is the English name for Orcs. There is no distinction by Tolkien and I think the best known example is in the Hobbit he calls Azog a Goblin, but in the LOTR Appendices he calls him a great orc. I don't belive that is a mistake.

 

[mchrispen]

Maybe that is a real part of the problem in the translation. Many people have no idea how deep and far that Tolkien went in defining and crafting Middle Earth. He felt that it was a shell without the legends and myths to fill it with "reality" and motivation for the races and kin groups. Remember we don't have an idea of how EVIL and seductive Sauron really is until a good way through LOTR in the books. Visually it is hard to miss, although I would suggest that they missed the whole seductive part... somehow I don't see even the most greedy dwarf taking anything from a bloody demon.

I have to agree with Flapjack on the casting (with just a few exceptions).

So all of this made me watch The Hobbit 1 again yesterday. I tried to watch it from a screen writing and story telling perspective. Despite some of the objections to the "blunt the knives" songs - it flowed well, until the troll scene. It fits naturally into the book, yet is a bit jarring in the movie, and sort of comedic and scary at the same time. I never really did get a sense of real danger however - and it is there in the book. Same with the storm giants - didn't fit into the fantasy-scape properly, and is one of the most poorly conceived elements visually.

 

[HoppyDaze]

I've tried watching this movie like three times now; it's sooooooooooo boring!

 

[cheezydemon3]

IN THE END.....(motherfukker)....

I will go and see all 3 damned movies not because of the 90% that they fukk up, but just to see the r2d2blasted 10% that the incompetent ******* get RIGHT.

In the end, I will bother. but I am FAR less than happy.

I have enjoyed the discussion and insights so far here more than I would have dreamed!

*If I ever got 10% on a test right/90% wrong...I got a big ol' F- *******!!!!!*
Thanks all!

 

[headbanger]

Yeah! That's right!!

:rockin:

 

[GuldTuborg]

 

[cheezydemon3]

Gandalf the Gay!!!

(lest anyone misunderstand, while I am not gay, I am a champion of tolerance and equality I just couldn't pass that one up!)

 

[Billy-Klubb]

Yeah! That's right!!

:rockin:

the only reason I quoted you is to say that I like your avatar. maybe they should have written Lobo in to the whole series... nah, you'd end up with 30 minutes of entrails & "The End".

 

[headbanger]

the only reason I quoted you is to say that I like your avatar. maybe they should have written Lobo in to the whole series... nah, you'd end up with 30 minutes of entrails & "The End".

Haha, yep, sub Lobo for Azog and the series ends at the trees with orcs dining on roasted giant eagles and dwarf stew.

:rockin:

 

[Homercidal]

Watched Disc 1 of the Blu-Ray 3D last night. My eyes were getting tired by then, but the movie looked fantastic! I could see all of Radagast's bird poop face in glorious 3D 1080P!

 

[cheezydemon3]

Radaghast is my FAVORITE character.

Ahh....the BROWN.

 

[TxBrew]

Watched Disc 1 of the Blu-Ray 3D last night. My eyes were getting tired by then, but the movie looked fantastic! I could see all of Radagast's bird poop face in glorious 3D 1080P!

I appreciated the attention to detail as well.

 

[Billy-Klubb]

Radaghast is my FAVORITE character.

Ahh....the BROWN.

what can brown do for you?

that guy was 100% disturbing. running around the woods all covered in crap... literally. suppose he gets the pink eye a lot?

 

[Homercidal]

I don't think he gets Pink Eye very often, if at all.

Oh wait! Sorry. I know what you mean now.

Ha! Maybe that's why he's called Radagast "The Brown".


(My apologies to J.R.R.Tolkein)

 

[cheezydemon3]

Pink eye, and he needs an exterminator BAD.

Are those supposed to be the same spiders that talk?????

I can feel myself getting pissed again.......the spiders better effing talk.

 

[Homercidal]

Yes, as I recall the evil of Sauron pervaded a fortress (Goldugur or some such) near the Greenwood and decendents of Shelob invaded the woods. This Greenwood slowly became Mirkwood from the poisoning effects. It's in the Silmarillion IIRC.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

Yes, as I recall the evil of Sauron pervaded a fortress (Goldugur or some such) near the Greenwood and decendents of Shelob invaded the woods. This Greenwood slowly became Mirkwood from the poisoning effects. It's in the Silmarillion IIRC.

The Spiders I don't believe were specifically mentioned as being descendents of Shelob but I could be wrong of course. There were many Giant Spiders in ME, some descendents of Ungoliant (like Shelob) some are just Giant Spiders.

 

[cheezydemon3]

The Spiders I don't believe were specifically mentioned as being descendents of Shelob but I could be wrong of course. There were many Giant Spiders in ME, some descendents of Ungoliant (like Shelob) some are just Giant Spiders.

Who would bang Shelob but Ungoliant?

 

[GuldTuborg]

Who would bang Shelob but Ungoliant?

OK, enough with the spider incest jokes. Icky on several levels.

 

[cheezydemon3]

The spiders better effing talk, that is al I am saying.

 

[TxBrew]

I'm sure it will. Why wouldn't it? The Eagles talked right?

 

[cheezydemon3]

I'm sure it will. Why wouldn't it? The Eagles talked right?

As has been discussed: the eagles, in fact, could talk. They were just so disgusted with the changes PJ made for the screenplay, they kept their beaks shut and quietly wondered who the huge albino was.

 

[headbanger]

You know something, if I lived closer to town I'd drive over to denny's and get myself a Smaug's fire burger right now.

 

[cheezydemon3]

You know something, if I lived closer to town I'd drive over to denny's and get myself a Smaug's fire burger right now.

......so glad I am not subjected to television commercials.......



(on so many levels )

 

[headbanger]

Sometimes they're not bad but in general I agree with you on that whole-heartedly.

 

[headbanger]

Back OT…

 

[HoppyDaze]

finally watched the rest of this...pretty good actually