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

[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.

 

[JonK331]

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.

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.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

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.

 

[AnchorBock]

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.

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.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

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.

 

[AnchorBock]

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.

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 .

 

[landshark]

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.

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.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

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.

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!!!

 

[AnchorBock]

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!!!

Yes he does, worst seen in the trilogy.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

Yes he does, worst seen in the trilogy.

Do wizard's staffs grow on trees?

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

Do wizard's staffs grow on trees?

Though to add to my point, Gandalf the Grey did break his staff in Moria breaking the bridge.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

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.

 

[AnchorBock]

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.

Its been too long, does he even confront the witch king?

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

Do wizard's staffs grow on trees?

Its been too long, does he even confront the witch king?

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.

 

[roymullins]

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...

 

[cheezydemon3]

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...

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.

 

[Brewsday]

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.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

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.

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)

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

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.

 

[shoreman]

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.

 

[cheezydemon3]

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 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.