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

[cheezydemon3]

The FIRST LOTR made a couple of changes that I believed made sense. 2 elven characters were merged into one. There is only so much you can put into such a film, and consolidation of minor characters makes some sense.

From there it went downhill, but the first one was FANTASTIC.

That fuels some of my anger. Obviously, it is possible to get it right.......enough.

Unfortunately, it went from necessary, logical changes to: making up utter BS, changing things for no apparent reason, and leaving out things that true fans would have loved that wouldn't have taken too much time.

Clearly, the scene where Gandalf tricks the mountain Trolls by mimicing their voices HAD to be changed into Gandalf NOT saving the dwarves and hobbit, in order for AZOG to have a chance to leap into the forest scene and for the Goblin King to gain 4000 lbs and polish up his bizarre british monologues, which therefore made it necessary for the eagles NOT to talk, for the eagles would have cried "BULLSH!T" so loudly it would have damaged peoples' hearing.

 

[GuldTuborg]

Agreed again, although I don't remember Eagles talking until they were well in the air and away from the goblins. You're right though; if the Eagles could talk, they would have taken one look at Azog and cried "who the hell is this motherfloccer?"

I didn't mention this earlier, except as included in the comment about the whole feel of the film being vastly different from the book, but the lack of songs and music was incredibly disappointing. The songs Tolkien crafted for this book were pretty central to its atmosphere. With all but two removed so far, it's just missing so much of what makes it unique. I'm set to be disappointed further in the next couple films.

 

[cheezydemon3]

Agreed again, although I don't remember Eagles talking until they were well in the air and away from the goblins. You're right though; if the Eagles could talk, they would have taken one look at Azog and cried "who the hell is this motherfloccer?"

I didn't mention this earlier, except as included in the comment about the whole feel of the film being vastly different from the book, but the lack of songs and music was incredibly disappointing. The songs Tolkien crafted for this book were pretty central to its atmosphere. With all but two removed so far, it's just missing so much of what makes it unique. I'm set to be disappointed further in the next couple films.

Ooooh, I can see too many songs making the film into a musical

You are so right. THE HOBBIT (the book) was optimistic, then terrified, then exhalted, then terrified, but overall light.

The movie was straight up ACTION.

 

[RhodySeth]

I didn't love the Hobbit when I saw it in the theater but I enjoyed it more on HBO once I accepted it for what it is. I've always enjoyed the LOTR books but I've never been super-protective of them so I loved the movies. It's hard to believe it's already been 10 years since the LOTR movies. I've mellowed a bit in the last 10 years and so I'm more accepting of the problems with the Hobbit.

Thorin's beard is weak-sauce though. I've got a more full and kingly dwarven beard, for chrissakes.

 

[mchrispen]

Cheezy, I think we are in violent agreement, minor changes to the "canon" of Tolkien are one thing... but the butterfly effect creates a downstream story decision/challenge that open wide into new interpretation, building fiction upon fiction. Some times it will work, most times it will not. Having more rabid fans in with the writers might have resulted in getting it "right" - at least I would like to hope.

I attribute the "making up utter BS, changing things for no apparent reason.." to the economics and poor priorities. Clearly after the success of the first LOTR movie (agreed it was the best of the series), more voices/studios/funding came into play to exploit the franchise, chase rewards and accolades, grab credit for technical advances and optimize the dollar coming from the films and chochkeys. Enter the studio and distribution MBA's and the cash engine they drive.

Imagine two rooms full of test audiences, one with us and our rabid understanding of Middle Earth, and the other with a mix of teens, tweens and others used to Grand Theft Auto and uber-gory remakes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and the compromise is writing to best attract both audiences. The result is Star Wars all over again - drive the lowest common denominator to make the most money. "Meza making lottssa moneys, me do me do."

The Hobbit 1 cost ~$180 million to make, and made over $1 billion in the box office alone worldwide, not including discs and toys... Warner Bros is producing, providing distribution and funding about $200 million for the next two movies each. This spun out of Jackson's control a long time ago.

At that rate of return, I am guessing us True Fans are less and less important than the sheeple that provide a 5:1 return on investment to the machine. They know us well. We have been weighed in the balance, analyzed, and found unworthy and inadequate as the sole audience for The Hobbit. And it couldn't have been successful on our backs and cash alone.

Seriously, it could be worse... remember that Ralph Bakshi animated monstrosity?

 

[mchrispen]

Ooooh, I can see too many songs making the film into a musical

You are so right. THE HOBBIT (the book) was optimistic, then terrified, then exhalted, then terrified, but overall light.

The movie was straight up ACTION.

Perfectly stated!

 

[cheezydemon3]

Lol. Well put.

Alas, what I already knew to be true is proven once again:

Hollywood is the WORST thing to ever happen to movies. (Not always so, but it is now)

Just as huge music labels became the worst thing to happen to music, etc.

Huge disgusting WAL MART became the worst thing to happen to FOOD (among other things)

 

[mchrispen]

I still feel that The Hobbit trilogy should be able to stand on it's own, not as a prequel to LOTR, but as a great adventure story about a little hobbit, with some luck, that finds his world opened up as he steps across the threshold of his hobbit-hole.

The music could have (should have) taken a much lighter tone - as much as I liked the LOTR music. Seriously, Sauron has not yet risen as a threat, Saruman is still "The White Wizard" - and trolls turn out to have a keen interest in culinary skills. And Bilbo still thinks he is on a casual walk to see elves...

That musical contrast was missing in the film - very good point!

 

[cheezydemon3]

I would love it if some small time film maker made a better 1 movie verision of An UNEXPECTED JOURNEY and releases it 6 months before the third installment hits screens. Completely upstaging it!

 

[GuldTuborg]

I would love it if some small time film maker made a better 1 movie verision of An UNEXPECTED ADVENTURE and releases it 6 months before the third installment hits screens. Completely upstaging it!

Can we keep the Great 'toon Goblin, complete with scrotum chin, and a 30 minute scene where the dwarves and hobbit fall through the tunnels? Please? That was my favorite part, too.

 

[cheezydemon3]

Can we keep the Great 'toon Goblin, complete with scrotum chin, and a 30 minute scene where the dwarves and hobbit fall through the tunnels? Please? That was my favorite part, too.

All claims of "including things Tolkien would have wanted, silmarillion, etc., etc." falls apart in the face of such ridiculous bullsh!t. He wasn't even a goblin!!!! (assuming that the million or so things running around were goblins)

and his slapstick death and the subsequent ladder/bridge ridiculousness was reminiscent of "Episodes 1,2, and 3" which, not surprisingly has already been mentioned in this thread, lol. "Meesa NOT HAPPY"
durrrrrrrrr.........

 

[FlapjackAM]

I thought all of Jackson's adaptions have been great, and I'm a pretty diehard fan of the books. There were a few head scratchers, like Azog, and elves at Helm's Deep. But to say Hobbit 2 isn't worth seeing is crazy! The beautiful views alone make it worth it. I just stopped comparing movie adaptions to books long ago and look at it alone. No frustration. As for the hobbit having a more childish feel... Well it was a children's book.

To each their own.

 

[cheezydemon3]

I thought all of Jackson's adaptions have been great, and I'm a pretty diehard fan of the books. There were a few head scratchers, like Azog, and elves at Helm's Deep. But to say Hobbit 2 isn't worth seeing is crazy! The beautiful views alone make it worth it. I just stopped comparing movie adaptions to books long ago and look at it alone. No frustration. As for the hobbit having a more childish feel... Well it was a children's book.

To each their own.

That makes sense, but they kicked it off with the 1st LOTR with such integrity. They set the bar high and then instead of shooting for said bar, they evidently went to a bar and got drunk while warner brothers or whoever made a mess of things.

 

[GuldTuborg]

There were a few head scratchers

By a few, do you mean most of the film?

I agree, the vistas were beautiful, the costumes and such mostly good, but the film itself was distressful from beginning to end.

Maybe it's just a question of expectations. With most book adaptations, you figure it will leave out a lot, maybe change a few things, stuff to make it work in a shorter and different format. I get it. But when you take a short book like The Hobbit, and say you're going to make it into a 8-9 hour film (split, yes, so what?), and you've developed a reputation for sticking to the books reasonably well from past works, then it creates the expectation that you will really capture the plot, dialog, pacing, feel, and the details of the work really, really well. Well, that expectation got flushed down the sh!tter when this film came out. I'm glad you liked it, but I was thoroughly disappointed.

 

[cheezydemon3]

by a few, do you mean most of the film?

I agree, the vistas were beautiful, the costumes and such mostly good, but the film itself was distressful from beginning to end.

Maybe it's just a question of expectations. With most book adaptations, you figure it will leave out a lot, maybe change a few things, stuff to make it work in a shorter and different format. I get it. But when you take a short book like the hobbit, and say you're going to make it into a 8-9 hour film (split, yes, so what?), and you've developed a reputation for sticking to the books reasonably well from past works, then it creates the expectation that you will really capture the plot, dialog, pacing, feel, and the details of the work really, really well. Well, that expectation got flushed down the sh!tter when this film came out. I'm glad you liked it, but i was thoroughly disappointed.

exactly.

 

[FlapjackAM]

exactly.

I hear you, don't get me wrong. I guess I just like escaping to Middle Earth in some capacity once and awhile. I think the thing that bothered me the most was Azog, because it was worked in as an active part of the plot. I felt the rest of the things thrown in, like the foreshadowing for LOTR, could reasonably be accepted as having taken place though not mentioned.

And I hated when Haldir died at Helm's Deep.

 

[mchrispen]

Is it racist to hate albino orcs?

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

By a few, do you mean most of the film?

I agree, the vistas were beautiful, the costumes and such mostly good, but the film itself was distressful from beginning to end.

Maybe it's just a question of expectations. With most book adaptations, you figure it will leave out a lot, maybe change a few things, stuff to make it work in a shorter and different format. I get it. But when you take a short book like The Hobbit, and say you're going to make it into a 8-9 hour film (split, yes, so what?), and you've developed a reputation for sticking to the books reasonably well from past works, then it creates the expectation that you will really capture the plot, dialog, pacing, feel, and the details of the work really, really well. Well, that expectation got flushed down the sh!tter when this film came out. I'm glad you liked it, but I was thoroughly disappointed.

The problem is that he changed so much with the LOTR movies. The difference is that there's so much more stuff in LOTR that remembering the details is harder.

There's massive blogs you can read about the differences between the movies and the books and there are a ton. It's just easier to pick out in the Hobbit because of the simplicity.

Though I agree 3 movies is way too much. could have been a decent 6 hour movies with the added stuff from the appendices.

 

[GuldTuborg]

The problem is that he changed so much with the LOTR movies. The difference is that there's so much more stuff in LOTR that remembering the details is harder.

I think you're half right. Yes, many of the details changed, some of them in a major way. Elves at Helm's Deep? One of the few changes that bugged me. The fleshed out and added to temptation scenes with the Ring? It sort of makes sense, as all of that was implied, but not explicit in the books. Gimli changed from badass warrior to comic relief drunken fool? Didn't sit well with me, but I understand the need for comic relief, so I begrudgingly accept it. Other changes were primarily ones of omission or ones that served the format as a film. LOTR movies were about as accurate and well done as you can reasonably expect a movie adaptation of a book to be. I'm sure I missed out on plenty, an may have more gripes if I freshly reread the books and went straight into the films. Even so, for a movie adaptation, they were pretty good.

Here's my beef, a bit more explicitly. When I think of the '77 animated Hobbit, if you asked me "what could have been done differently to make it better?" given the constraints (budget, running time, etc.), my answer would have been "not much." No, it was far from perfect, but it captured the story pretty well given the circumstances.

If you ask me the same question about LOTR, I can list more, but still, it wouldn't be all that much. It got much more right than it got wrong, for what it was or could have been.

Now, if you ask me that question about the new Hobbit movie(s), I could write a damned book. Come to think of it, I wouldn't need to, as someone else already has. It's a little book called "The Hobbit."

 

[HoppyDaze]

So I watched the scene where the dwarves stacked the dishes while singing and being gay. It made me want to kick my own ass after ripping my eyes out with a spoon

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

I think you're half right. Yes, many of the details changed, some of them in a major way. Elves at Helm's Deep? One of the few changes that bugged me. The fleshed out and added to temptation scenes with the Ring? It sort of makes sense, as all of that was implied, but not explicit in the books. Gimli changed from badass warrior to comic relief drunken fool? Didn't sit well with me, but I understand the need for comic relief, so I begrudgingly accept it. Other changes were primarily ones of omission or ones that served the format as a film. LOTR movies were about as accurate and well done as you can reasonably expect a movie adaptation of a book to be. I'm sure I missed out on plenty, an may have more gripes if I freshly reread the books and went straight into the films. Even so, for a movie adaptation, they were pretty good

There's a lot more than that. The hobbits as a unit were changed. In the book they had an underrated wisdom, in the movie they went from dumb comic relief who were cowardly to nothing.

Aragorn was totally changed in the book to the movie from man witha destiny of reuniting Gondor and claiming the crown to reluctant hero.

Gifts of Galladriel played such a massive part in the books and I don't believe they were mentioned in the theatrical release outside of maybe the light of Galladriel.

They basically gutted the 2 towers taking the fight with the Urukhai, the siege on Isengard and Cirith Ungol from there into the first and third movies.

Not to mention Faramir was a bigger leap from character than anything in the Hobbit movie.

 

[headbanger]

 

[Homercidal]

Changing a beloved classic fantasy while making a movie gives nerds something to do.

 

[passedpawn]

I'm really looking forward to Hobbit 2. My 2 cents. I liked #1.

 

[GuldTuborg]

There's a lot more than that.

You're absolutely right. The changes to the characters of the Hobbits and Faramir (in particular) were striking. Wisdom and mercy were either left out (Faramir) or changed to be something other than they were (hobbits). Faramir turned into Boromir Jr., which took away from the story. Gandalf was stripped of some of his authority, knowledge, and decisiveness before his change. The Hobbits never really got a chance to grow and develop in the right ways.

And yes, there were other big changes. No Scouring of the Shire? Unfortunate, but how does one tie that into a film? There was a nod to it when in Lorien, which is something, I guess. The whole Pelanor Fields scene was disappointing, aside from the appearance of the Mouth. Oh, and the Witch-King breaking Gandalf's staff? Horsesh!t. No, I'm not denying there were other changes, far too numerous to mention, and many I have no doubt forgotten or overlooked. With the exception of some of the changes to the personalities and roles of the characters and few others mentioned above, they still strike me as just part of the process of adaptation. I don't know. I'm just repeating myself at this point. I suppose I'll have to go back and reread them right before watching, and see if my mind changes at all.

 

[GuldTuborg]

My eyes glow much brighter than this silly fool's when I'm talking Tolkien. Whuss.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

You're absolutely right. The changes to the characters of the Hobbits and Faramir (in particular) were striking. Wisdom and mercy were either left out (Faramir) or changed to be something other than they were (hobbits). Faramir turned into Boromir Jr., which took away from the story. Gandalf was stripped of some of his authority, knowledge, and decisiveness before his change. The Hobbits never really got a chance to grow and develop in the right ways.

And yes, there were other big changes. No Scouring of the Shire? Unfortunate, but how does one tie that into a film? There was a nod to it when in Lorien, which is something, I guess. No, I'm not denying there were other changes, far too numerous to mention, and many I have no doubt forgotten or overlooked. With the exception of some of the changes to the personalities and roles of the characters and few others mentioned above, they still strike me as just part of the process of adaptation. I don't know. I'm just repeating myself at this point. I suppose I'll have to go back and reread them right before watching, and see if my mind changes at all.

I should preface this by saying I love the LOTR movies. Much more than the Hobbit part 1 and probably any other Hobbit.

What I think Jackson's team did so well and why LOTR was beloved was it created a universe that seemed like Middle Earth. I imagine there isn't a soul out there who doesn't picture Gandalf as Ian McClellan (sp?)

But they made a ton of changes. Sure they didn't add as much stuff as they did in the Hobbit that isn't ME Lore (Radagast's bunnies and Azog being the 2 biggest) but they made big storyboard and character changes. To the point of making some characters totally different and changing objects. Like in reality was there ever a reason that Aragorn couldn't have left Rivendell with Andruil. Why couldn't he have been the same character he was in the novel not the reluctant king?

And heck, the very start of the film. When we're first introduced to Frodo he's 33, when we're reintroduced he's 50, same age about Bilbo was when he stated the Hobbit, can't tell me that ELijah wood looks anything like 50 even in a slow aging race.

I'm gonna go on some short list of changes because I love Nerd Raging

Giving Sauron no form. When Gollum in the books says he had a form.

Gandalf not making a flash to aid in Bilbo's disappearance.

The entire reworking of the Farmer Maggot scene.

No letter from Gandalf at Bree stating that if he's not there to seek out Aragorn.

Weathertop

The exclusion of Radagast who was the reason Gandalf went to Orthanc and the reason he was rescued from Orthanc.

Orc pods. Changing the idea of how a whole species is created.

The trolls.

Arwen taking the place of Glorfindel. Arwen causing the river to flood, which was actually Elrond and Gandalf adding the illusion of the horses. Hell I think everything involving Arwen in the movies is made up. Could be wrong on that but off the top of my head I can't think of too much that's the same.

Saruman causing the snowstorm atop Moria.

Warg attack before moria

Gandalf not Gimli suggested going through the mines and Aragorn was the one who was wary.

Frodo solving the riddle of the door.

The change of the sequence of events in Moria, in the book Pippindrops a rock down a shaft or something like that and then they hear for a few days the hammering or the drumming before the conflict at Balin's tomb.

Spider orcs

Sam sees the destruction of the shire in the book, not Frodo.

I'll stop there before I get too into it and burn out on my nerd rage

 

[GuldTuborg]

What I think Jackson's team did so well and why LOTR was beloved was it created a universe that seemed like Middle Earth. I imagine there isn't a soul out there who doesn't picture Gandalf as Ian McClellan (sp?)

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.

But since we're nerd raging on changes that bugged us a little:

-Gandalf sets off the firework at Bilbo's party, not Merry & Pippin

-Scenes with Farmer Maggot. The whole feel of the book was low tension at this point, which the film changed. The hobbits were relatively unaware of the danger they were in. Made for a bit of suspense which the film created in a different way.

-No Tom Bombadil or Barrow Wights, of course.

-Aragorn had Narsil the whole time - it was not in Rivendell.

-Sam never threatened to beat up "Strider," but he had his own encounter elsewhere at that time.

-Actually, Bree changed quite a bit in a lot of ways.

-Radagast has Gandalf rescued from Orthanc.

-Gimli is smart enough to know the Ring can't be destroyed by an axe.

-Council attendees.

-Watcher "battle."

-Orc Cheiftan stabs Frodo, not the troll.

-Frodo and Aragorn do not meet as he decides to leave.

OK, that's just the first movie. My brain hurts. More, later, if I care enough.

 

[GuldTuborg]

Rumored changes from the book storyline in the upcoming movie. This is not a full list, but just the recently "confirmed" changes. Doesn't look good.

Full disclosure - I pulled this from another forum. Can provide details if needed.

- The company is chased to Beorn's house by Beorn himself (Beorn doesn't like dwarves, but when he discovers they're running from Azog he helps them instead).

- 'Beorn is the last shape-shifter in the whole of Middle-earth. Most of his kind were killed by Azog, so when Beorn finds out that The Company are fleeing from Azog, he agrees to help them.'

- Beorn tells Gandalf that the rumours of 'a great evil' in Dol Guldur are true, which is what makes Gandalf decide to go there himself and leave Thorin & co to face Mirkwood alone.

- Thranduil has ordered that his elves are not to leave the forest, and they're not to have anything to do with any other race (especially the dwarves).

- When Thorin & co are captured, Thranduil guesses they're going to the Lonely Mountain and will release the dwarves to go on their way, for a promise of a cut of the gold. But Thorin refuses, so he imprisons them.

- Legolas isn't as set in his ways as his Dad.

- Tauriel is at odds with Thranduil and doesn't understand, or agree with, his segregation. She's 'very headstrong' and 'doesn't always follow orders'.

- Tauriel is 'quite unlike other Elves' and it's hinted that she quite likes the dwarves (or is, at least, intrigued by them).

- The wood elves give chase through the forest when the dwarves escape in barrels, but don't follow them out of the forest.

- Except for Tauriel, who does follow then to Lake-town (defying Thranduil) and Legolas who decides to follow Tauriel (because he's 'very protective of her').

- Bilbo may get separated at some point in the escape.

- Bard discovers the dwarves as they wash up in their barrels (because he's a 'great hunter and often spends his time in the hills around the river leading from Mirkwood into the Long Lake'), and eventually decides to trust them and take them to Lake-town.

- Bard has three children: Bain, Sigrid and Tilda (which explains the 'injured girl' in the piece above and is possibly part of his motivation for helping the dwarves?)

- Gandalf may do some of the following in Dol Guldur: unlock a gate; see things that aren't really there/things appear other than they are; cast a spell making it look like there's more than one of him; cast a protection spell; have to work out where to walk as there are trick stones that lead to traps.

- Lastly, there's a suggestion that Smaug is also looking for the Arkenstone.

 

[mchrispen]

/sigh

so sad... it better be a damned great ride... that's all I can say. AND beautiful. AND no Gollum performance to carry it...

Interesting about Smaug... so little in the Tolkien lore about them dragons. I am really worried about the dialogue between Bilbo and Smaug... "Oh Smaug the magnificent..." had better be a BOLD BRASH statement, not a squeeky deferential comment.

Gollum, the little bugger everyone falls in love with. Pretty Woman syndrome: The story about a WHORE that falls in love with a JOHN. Not romantic, just nasty. Gollum, the poor little victim of the Ring, who MURDERED his friend out of GREED to steal the Ring. No sympathy required, just nasty. Still Andy Serkis is brilliant - and probably really has a split personality.

Cheers!

 

[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 retards 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- bitches!!!!!*
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!)