I wish I could go back to the late 80's in high school to remember every thing read and discussed in a few semesters in class about the book,it was truely cool and an inspiring book(s) to read. Although this Reminds me of how disapointed in lord of the flies movie years later I seen after loving the book in school, but I do remember liking the Lord of the rings pretty much on the big screen.
The HOBBIT......don't bother
- Thread starter cheezydemon3
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
headbanger
Well-Known Member
What?
OP
OP
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
So there was no Elven Guard? I'll have to reread the book again. I could have sworn the dwarves, or most of them, were captured by elves.
Man it bugs me when I am so sure of something and then it turns out I was wrong altogether! I have this recurring vision in my memory of the dwarves being captured and held prisoner for a time by the elves. Ok, so I don't distinctly remember the name of every guard the elves had keeping an eye on them, so I could be wrong after all.
Man, it just seems strange to have these memories of Bilbo arranging an escape by stuffing the dwarves into barrels and sending them downriver to the Men, all while avoiding ELVEN GUARDS...
Yep, I'm going to have to definitely go back and reread that chapter, since it now appears that there were no elven guards after all. It was just something PJ dreamed up for the movie.
Fair enough Homercidal, but you had better re-read the chapter where this^ happened too!!! I think it is right after the chapter where Rhadagast the retard taught his rabbits to herd sheep.
"That'll do RABBIT"
Im officially old now at 40? The Hobbit- the book .I read . Iwas a teen. I liked. The movie. It sucked? I dont know I didnt watch it yet. Will I watch it? Yeah, If i remember to rent it. Will I like it? I dont know. Will my memory serve me well to know if it the movie sucks,I dont know. Ill go back to H.S. in the 80's to remember in my Dolorian. What? what. what what. Whatcha whatcha, whatcha want!, whatcha want.?
I haven't seen Ender's Game yet, but THAT truly looks like a butchering of the book I loved as a kid. The overall story doesn't even seem to be the same.
Does that mean I'll hate it, though? No. I'll be disappointed because this was a movie I've been anticipating for over 15 years, but it doesn't mean it won't still be worth watching. It'll just be different... and the reason that's disappointing is simply because there was a movie I wanted made and now, sadly, it probably never will.
Same deal with the Hobbit, which incidentally doesn't seem to be anywhere close to the same level of changes as Ender's Game. I can mourn the loss of the movie that should have been, and still enjoy the movie that eventually was.
Does that mean I'll hate it, though? No. I'll be disappointed because this was a movie I've been anticipating for over 15 years, but it doesn't mean it won't still be worth watching. It'll just be different... and the reason that's disappointing is simply because there was a movie I wanted made and now, sadly, it probably never will.
Same deal with the Hobbit, which incidentally doesn't seem to be anywhere close to the same level of changes as Ender's Game. I can mourn the loss of the movie that should have been, and still enjoy the movie that eventually was.
![Craft A Brew - Safale S-04 Dry Yeast - Fermentis - English Ale Dry Yeast - For English and American Ales and Hard Apple Ciders - Ingredients for Home Brewing - Beer Making Supplies - [1 Pack]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41fVGNh6JfL._SL500_.jpg)
headbanger
Well-Known Member
Yes, it's called middle-aged but bears no similarity to middle-earth.
OP
OP
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
If it was just a book I liked, then so be it. The powers that be decided to butt fukk every Stephen King movie ever made until...what? The Green Mile?
Cujo was decent, but how do you fiddle with a plot that takes place in 1 car and a few shots of surrounding areas?
My point being: When it is just a good book, so be it. When it was one of my favorites? I will bother to get pissed.
hoppyhoppyhippo
Well-Known Member
I've come to terms with the hobbit as movies. As long as it doesn't egregiously change middle earth lore too bad I won't be pissed. I think most people who're getting pissed about the revisions are speaking their concerns early because they're stretching a relatively short tale to 3 movies. Wish jackson could have done 2 for each LOTR volume. Then Pelenor Fields could have been as epic as it was in the books. Could have spent more time on Frodo and the weight of the ring as he was in Mordor, could have touched on Tom Bombadil or a number of other left out characters.
That said, I'm gonna see all 3 hobbit films.
That said, I'm gonna see all 3 hobbit films.
DudeAbides
Active Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 8
I get the annoyance at having Legolas in a love story, but I'm all for him being in the movie. Had the Hobbit been written after LOTR, he likely would have been in it (he is the son of Thranduil who has a big role in the Hobbit). So it only makes sense to have one of the many nameless and descriptionless Mirkwood elves in the Hobbit be a character that is known and loved (not to mention also a Prince of the realm).
Fair enough Homercidal, but you had better re-read the chapter where this^ happened too!!! I think it is right after the chapter where Rhadagast the retard taught his rabbits to herd sheep.
"That'll do RABBIT"
I will hold off judgement until I see that scene.
As far as the Radagast and Rabbits, that was just utter BULLSHT! But I simply erase that from my memory.
I think my main point was that there are things that are barely mentioned that have import in the books and I don't think that it would be wrong for PJ or the filmakers to "fill in" where necessary such as when the wizards held a meeting.
As far as the barrels, that part WAS written in the book and it shouldn't be difficult to film the scenes as written, but if it's done well, it really doesn't change the story at all.
Not like the bad dude from the first film who was actually in the books and was not portrayed properly.
And that damn Radagast crap! It's about 10x worse than when Legolas kills an Oliphant with a couple of arrows and then slides down the thing's truck as it collapses!
Rabbit sled?? Radagast himself was just the filmaker's vision based on very little information from the books, but this "action sequence" is just utter
headbanger
Well-Known Member
OP
OP
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
The dwarves slipped into barrels quietly, were sealed in, and opened peacefully later. NO CHASING ELVES. Capiche?
Yes, I reread my post and it's not clear. I mean that the barrels were written, and they need to keep it in the story, but altering it in a small way won't hurt the story.
It's hard to know when adding an element of action or suspense is necessary, or unnecessary for a successful movie. I generally don't mind a movie slowing down sometimes. If it's written right and filmed right it will work.
Sealing dwarves in barrels and later finding them half (or mostly) drowned still makes for compelling viewing. I think filmmakers today don't do a good job of making slower scenes just as exciting as action scenes.
I'll have to wait to see it before I pass judgement, but it's not a change that is critical to the story.
Just like Legolas being in the movies. He wasn't mentioned in the books, but being related to some of the elves from the story makes his appearance very feasible.
Oh, and I forgot to mention: I'm not watching trailers.
I hesitate to weigh in... but a huge Tolkien fanatic since I was old enough to read "The Hobbit"
If I learned anything at all from TLOTR movies, it's that my beloved fictional world, elegantly described by Tolkien, is very open to interpretation. There were, in my opinion, large missing elements and some botched character development, yet for the most part the movies remained true to the books. I really expected to be highly disappointed, but was not. Irritated at times, but the movies remain some of my favorites.
For the Hobbit, I went in with higher expectation, but understanding that they MUST develop the characters further to make 2-3 movies out of this - they missed. And I generally liked the movie - just hated (A) the blatant attempts to connect LOTR with The Hobbit and (B) Radagast and (C) Azog. I can only speculate that someone on Mr. Jackson's writing team felt it necessary to DRIVE the otherwise bumbling dwarves along, which plays down their greed motivation, and somehow further connect the Hobbit to LOTR franchises by reprising everyone's old roles. There should have been a more elegant way to drive this - but at the end of the day - special effects sells tickets and franchises sell plastic doo-dads.
I will, of course, see the second movie, like the first a couple of times. It will certainly veer more to a thrill ride and special effects feature than an accurate rendering. I suspect if I knew nothing about Middle Earth, I would be happily following along. I can only hope that like the first series, this will grow on me as a separate work and interpretation that more or less supports the original writings. Now that I think about it - that probably makes me part of the problem huh.
Now - talk about crappy book to movie making - "Battlefield Earth" - that was a great Hubbard book that got slaughtered onscreen. At the least the movie got what it deserved... a major loss in the theaters.
If I learned anything at all from TLOTR movies, it's that my beloved fictional world, elegantly described by Tolkien, is very open to interpretation. There were, in my opinion, large missing elements and some botched character development, yet for the most part the movies remained true to the books. I really expected to be highly disappointed, but was not. Irritated at times, but the movies remain some of my favorites.
For the Hobbit, I went in with higher expectation, but understanding that they MUST develop the characters further to make 2-3 movies out of this - they missed. And I generally liked the movie - just hated (A) the blatant attempts to connect LOTR with The Hobbit and (B) Radagast and (C) Azog. I can only speculate that someone on Mr. Jackson's writing team felt it necessary to DRIVE the otherwise bumbling dwarves along, which plays down their greed motivation, and somehow further connect the Hobbit to LOTR franchises by reprising everyone's old roles. There should have been a more elegant way to drive this - but at the end of the day - special effects sells tickets and franchises sell plastic doo-dads.
I will, of course, see the second movie, like the first a couple of times. It will certainly veer more to a thrill ride and special effects feature than an accurate rendering. I suspect if I knew nothing about Middle Earth, I would be happily following along. I can only hope that like the first series, this will grow on me as a separate work and interpretation that more or less supports the original writings. Now that I think about it - that probably makes me part of the problem huh.
Now - talk about crappy book to movie making - "Battlefield Earth" - that was a great Hubbard book that got slaughtered onscreen. At the least the movie got what it deserved... a major loss in the theaters.
Yep.
But in this case there is ZERO reason for anyone not to be familiar with Tolkein's Middle Earth. I take a hard stance on that fact.
But in this case there is ZERO reason for anyone not to be familiar with Tolkein's Middle Earth. I take a hard stance on that fact.
Now that made me laugh out loud!
landshark
HMFIC
This image just makes me mad.
I mean, the entire part about him being invisible riding the barrels, not knowing which barrels held dwarves, if anyone had drowned. Then hiding and catching a cold with someone almost catching him. I'm excited. Yet I feel I'll be mad with this scene in particular.
I mean, the entire part about him being invisible riding the barrels, not knowing which barrels held dwarves, if anyone had drowned. Then hiding and catching a cold with someone almost catching him. I'm excited. Yet I feel I'll be mad with this scene in particular.
This image just makes me mad.
I mean, the entire part about him being invisible riding the barrels, not knowing which barrels held dwarves, if anyone had drowned. Then hiding and catching a cold with someone almost catching him. I'm excited. Yet I feel I'll be mad with this scene in particular.
Oh, man. That does not bode well.
Hey, you know what would be totally sweet!? Tom Bombadil!
headbanger
Well-Known Member
This image just makes me mad.
I mean, the entire part about him being invisible riding the barrels, not knowing which barrels held dwarves, if anyone had drowned. Then hiding and catching a cold with someone almost catching him. I'm excited. Yet I feel I'll be mad with this scene in particular.
And the best part is, once Disney buys the rights in a few years, you'll be able to go to Disneyland and ride the hobbit barrel water ride!
TxBrew
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 9,305
- Reaction score
- 2,112
Nerd Rage!!!!!!!! Why no Tom in stupid Trilogy? Stupid Peter Jackson is stupid.
OP
OP
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
OH SH!T.
Gonna step in it now.......
I thought leaving Goldberry and Bombadillo out was a good move.
The whole "not affected by the ring, not following any of the rules or connecting to anything else, 1 and done appearance, evil living tree but not an ent" left me wondering why the eff it was in the book, much less the movie.
That said, PJ left that out, and also left out important parts of the Hobbit, yet feels he needs to make up other BS that is irrelevant to the plot, and ram it into the film.......
NERD ALERT!
Whatever! I hates what I hates, but i can still hate a lot more
hoppyhoppyhippo
Well-Known Member
Bombadil's inclusion in the books was very important to Tolkien Mythology. Tolkien had more in mind for the LOTR Universe than was written down so there will be mysteries. Bombadil is certainly one of the biggest of them.
Well, if we want to get more esoteric, what about the Barrow Wights chapter? That freaked me out as a child - very scary.
Bombadil has long been a Tolkien Nerd polarizer - and I agree, a good decision to leave out. However I think that portion of the book was very important to the development of the hobbits, especially as they went from their closed little world into such a dangerous place. Their world perspective was very different, and the rest from the trauma of the ring wraiths was critical. Still one of the most bizarre mystical bits.
As much as I want a very precise rendering of The Hobbit, I just cannot imagine how to put that onto screen and make money. I work for a company that services the industry - and I can tell you these are run in a brutal, cash grubbing way, with every scene and business angle analyzed. Jackson's teams are some of the best at this, perhaps second only to Disney/Pixar. This series is for the masses and designed to make at least 3X the spend, not for me to worship as a true rendition of The Hobbit. Not sure how to be angry at that - perhaps just disappointed?
Since TXBrew insists on spitting moonshine into the Nerd Rage fire -
Personally I would like to gut the writer(s) who decided that a washed up Dr. Who should play a blithering wizard that lets birds crap down his face, but can turn and face a Ring Wraith? Or the writer that decided to intimate that "Old Toby" - which Tolkien has been very specific is tobacco, has some other drug-like properties. Or that Mirkwood forest and the Necromancer's castle is even close enough for Radagast to encounter the company before Rivendell? I am less worried about the barrels scenes than how they depict Beorn, or make Bilbo (silly or brilliant or vicious) singing "Attercop" - that should be a very dark and frightening sequence, and not the poorly conceived comic skit with the trolls.
I now have visions of TXBrew laughing maniacally, and wringing his hands!
Like many - trying like hell to avoid the trailers and marketing hype.
Bombadil has long been a Tolkien Nerd polarizer - and I agree, a good decision to leave out. However I think that portion of the book was very important to the development of the hobbits, especially as they went from their closed little world into such a dangerous place. Their world perspective was very different, and the rest from the trauma of the ring wraiths was critical. Still one of the most bizarre mystical bits.
As much as I want a very precise rendering of The Hobbit, I just cannot imagine how to put that onto screen and make money. I work for a company that services the industry - and I can tell you these are run in a brutal, cash grubbing way, with every scene and business angle analyzed. Jackson's teams are some of the best at this, perhaps second only to Disney/Pixar. This series is for the masses and designed to make at least 3X the spend, not for me to worship as a true rendition of The Hobbit. Not sure how to be angry at that - perhaps just disappointed?
Since TXBrew insists on spitting moonshine into the Nerd Rage fire -
Personally I would like to gut the writer(s) who decided that a washed up Dr. Who should play a blithering wizard that lets birds crap down his face, but can turn and face a Ring Wraith? Or the writer that decided to intimate that "Old Toby" - which Tolkien has been very specific is tobacco, has some other drug-like properties. Or that Mirkwood forest and the Necromancer's castle is even close enough for Radagast to encounter the company before Rivendell? I am less worried about the barrels scenes than how they depict Beorn, or make Bilbo (silly or brilliant or vicious) singing "Attercop" - that should be a very dark and frightening sequence, and not the poorly conceived comic skit with the trolls.
I now have visions of TXBrew laughing maniacally, and wringing his hands!
Like many - trying like hell to avoid the trailers and marketing hype.
As I keep trying to get across, it's impossible to have EVERYTHING from the books (and/or the entirety of Middle Earth Lore) in the movies. Likewise, there are things that are hinted at, assumed, or simply not mentioned, even though they HAD to have happened in some way. This is where the arguments come from. People enjoy different aspects of the books. People understand the books somewhat differently. People take from the books different things when they are done reading them.
Personally, I don't really care if the dwarves are riding in open barrels fighting elves. Yes, it would be NICE to follow the book a bit more, but a lot of people would see a scene like that and just be bored. It's one of the problems of making films these days. People are impatient. But it doesn't change the story at the end of the day.
I personally liked the character of Tom Bombadil in the books, but I did not miss him from the movies. However, I did miss the Barrow Wights. IMO this is one thing cut from the movies that I think room could have been made for. It's not that long of a scene and could have been included.
I'm still going to enjoy the movie, even if I have to shut my eyes for a couple of crap scenes like Radagast's rabbits etc. I just think some of the tying-together elements mentioned in the extra books could have been worked into the movies more, like using dialogue, or cut scenes. If you havne't read the Silmarillion and the other books, you are missing out on a lot of information that really conveys how massive and detailed the story was.
I should actually go back and read those again...
Personally, I don't really care if the dwarves are riding in open barrels fighting elves. Yes, it would be NICE to follow the book a bit more, but a lot of people would see a scene like that and just be bored. It's one of the problems of making films these days. People are impatient. But it doesn't change the story at the end of the day.
I personally liked the character of Tom Bombadil in the books, but I did not miss him from the movies. However, I did miss the Barrow Wights. IMO this is one thing cut from the movies that I think room could have been made for. It's not that long of a scene and could have been included.
I'm still going to enjoy the movie, even if I have to shut my eyes for a couple of crap scenes like Radagast's rabbits etc. I just think some of the tying-together elements mentioned in the extra books could have been worked into the movies more, like using dialogue, or cut scenes. If you havne't read the Silmarillion and the other books, you are missing out on a lot of information that really conveys how massive and detailed the story was.
I should actually go back and read those again...
How did I not see this until now? Swinging swords out of barrels does not bode well at all. I'll probably see the second film in the theater, but like the first, that may be my only viewing of it. I can't see wanting to see it again.
Basic reasoning, like others above, included too much non-canon stuff (I like the way certain elements were fleshed out that only got alluded to in the book, so long as it's accurate to the histories), changed major plot elements for no good cinematic reason, and used addition of BS to cut short on scenes that were in the book.
I mean, really? The last and best riddle in the dark, and you have to cut it short by two lines and make it senseless because of too much Azog? And Bilbo turns into a sword swinging warrior already? Details aside, it has nothing of the feel and progression of the book. There's just too much to bother going into detail about.
I used to count how many times I've read The Hobbit. I lost count at 14, and that was around 15 years ago, so yes, I get to nerd rage.
Basic reasoning, like others above, included too much non-canon stuff (I like the way certain elements were fleshed out that only got alluded to in the book, so long as it's accurate to the histories), changed major plot elements for no good cinematic reason, and used addition of BS to cut short on scenes that were in the book.
I mean, really? The last and best riddle in the dark, and you have to cut it short by two lines and make it senseless because of too much Azog? And Bilbo turns into a sword swinging warrior already? Details aside, it has nothing of the feel and progression of the book. There's just too much to bother going into detail about.
I used to count how many times I've read The Hobbit. I lost count at 14, and that was around 15 years ago, so yes, I get to nerd rage.
OP
OP
cheezydemon3
Well-Known Member
Oh man!!! Why didn't they? Good point. Not esoteric.
Nicely said!!!!
I want more of your insights.
Maybe helpful to focus on some of the positives... which I think are well balanced against movie making budget issues.
Hiring, full time for the past 15 years Alan Lee and John Howe, who long ago established a visual image of Middle Earth that is quite striking. And allowing them influence in set making, costume design, etc. Without them, I don't think we would have recognized Middle Earth at all. Casting was pretty amazing, I think. And really - I like Martin Freeman as a young Bilbo. The dwarves, while a bit goofy, more or less fit the Tolkien descriptions - although I would prefer Thoren to be a bit more "dwarvish" - he just seems like a little badass to me, maybe too kingly, untrusting? I guess he fits the "new" story better than the real one. The scenery, epic, sweeping and just plain beautiful plays such an important role in transitioning scenes, along with the music. I do wish The Hobbit had a bit more distinct personality musically, something less heavy handed, again the over obvious connection to LOTR.
The story is where I am getting very frustrated - for all of the points discussed previously. I wonder how one can really distill the Hobbit story to it's core and reconstruct into three compelling sequenced movies, and still develop the characters to a respectful point. Really Hobbit 1 SHOULD be about the journey, but gets lost in those LOTR connection moments. In Tolkein's mind - LOTR came out of exploring the implication of the ring, while the Hobbit was a kids story in the vein of a fairy tale. I think this is the biggest mistake Jackson has made - The Hobbit can stand on its own (IMHO) and that certain characters cross over, cultural connections should be enough franchise connection. We didn't need the Radagast & Rivendell confrontation to foreshadow the return of evil to Middle Earth. God help us all if he decides to make the Silmarillian or portions of the Lost Tales.
My opinion is that Jackson got caught in a movie tech arms race with Cameron... pride and one-ups-manship (sp?) had his focus on the 48 FPS 3D release, and less on the actual storytelling, character development and editing that MAY have made Hobbit 1 a better movie. I saw the movie in each of the release forms, and the good old 24 FPS 2D was the most cohesive visually... both 3D versions just had terrible gags and massive quality issues between the CGI and "real" cinematography. It was so distracting. FYI - I saw some scenes in 48 FPS 2D, and they were very stunning. Alas, projection for that is an expensive proposition. Also consider the cost burden of quadrupling the frame count (24 x 2 for each eye) which makes every frame 4X + more expensive than a normal film release. Imagine the creativity that extra budget could have allowed. Between the release technology and the special effects bonanza expectations - we still got a visually stunning VFX extravaganza. If you have that technology to drive and the need to justify it - then you are going to make scenes like the barrel escape more visually exciting and throw in all the 3D gags you can, just like the goblin cave. I guess wet dwarves and arrow shooting wood elves are much more exciting visually, like giant blue people with tails possessed by humans defending a special tree.
More and more I think of the LOTR/Hobbit franchise as an alternative universe like the new Star Trek movies. I still have high hopes, just not sure what authority any of us have to ensure our desired accuracy, other than buying (or not buying) tickets, toys or the endless Disc Sets.
Hiring, full time for the past 15 years Alan Lee and John Howe, who long ago established a visual image of Middle Earth that is quite striking. And allowing them influence in set making, costume design, etc. Without them, I don't think we would have recognized Middle Earth at all. Casting was pretty amazing, I think. And really - I like Martin Freeman as a young Bilbo. The dwarves, while a bit goofy, more or less fit the Tolkien descriptions - although I would prefer Thoren to be a bit more "dwarvish" - he just seems like a little badass to me, maybe too kingly, untrusting? I guess he fits the "new" story better than the real one. The scenery, epic, sweeping and just plain beautiful plays such an important role in transitioning scenes, along with the music. I do wish The Hobbit had a bit more distinct personality musically, something less heavy handed, again the over obvious connection to LOTR.
The story is where I am getting very frustrated - for all of the points discussed previously. I wonder how one can really distill the Hobbit story to it's core and reconstruct into three compelling sequenced movies, and still develop the characters to a respectful point. Really Hobbit 1 SHOULD be about the journey, but gets lost in those LOTR connection moments. In Tolkein's mind - LOTR came out of exploring the implication of the ring, while the Hobbit was a kids story in the vein of a fairy tale. I think this is the biggest mistake Jackson has made - The Hobbit can stand on its own (IMHO) and that certain characters cross over, cultural connections should be enough franchise connection. We didn't need the Radagast & Rivendell confrontation to foreshadow the return of evil to Middle Earth. God help us all if he decides to make the Silmarillian or portions of the Lost Tales.
My opinion is that Jackson got caught in a movie tech arms race with Cameron... pride and one-ups-manship (sp?) had his focus on the 48 FPS 3D release, and less on the actual storytelling, character development and editing that MAY have made Hobbit 1 a better movie. I saw the movie in each of the release forms, and the good old 24 FPS 2D was the most cohesive visually... both 3D versions just had terrible gags and massive quality issues between the CGI and "real" cinematography. It was so distracting. FYI - I saw some scenes in 48 FPS 2D, and they were very stunning. Alas, projection for that is an expensive proposition. Also consider the cost burden of quadrupling the frame count (24 x 2 for each eye) which makes every frame 4X + more expensive than a normal film release. Imagine the creativity that extra budget could have allowed. Between the release technology and the special effects bonanza expectations - we still got a visually stunning VFX extravaganza. If you have that technology to drive and the need to justify it - then you are going to make scenes like the barrel escape more visually exciting and throw in all the 3D gags you can, just like the goblin cave. I guess wet dwarves and arrow shooting wood elves are much more exciting visually, like giant blue people with tails possessed by humans defending a special tree.
More and more I think of the LOTR/Hobbit franchise as an alternative universe like the new Star Trek movies. I still have high hopes, just not sure what authority any of us have to ensure our desired accuracy, other than buying (or not buying) tickets, toys or the endless Disc Sets.
