Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Because it wasn’t The Hobbit. It wasn’t bad. Point of fact it’s a damn good movie and a lot of fun. I loved the hell out of it! It’s a rousing and exciting adventure. But it wasn’t The Hobbit.

Other than scenes that required him to be the focus simply because he was the only live action character in them, Bilbo is barely a supporting character in his own movie! I doubt he gets even half the amount of screentime Gandalf and Thorin are given.

It’s remarkably cynical the way they handled the material what with its needless padding in order to create a trilogy. If Pete hadn’t created such good will with the original films, this thing would be raked over the coals for all the bullshit it pulls to the source material and no, I’m not referring to the stuff that was culled from Tolkien’s other Middle Earth books.

The Hobbit was a story about a guy who went literally There and Back Again and all the stuff that happened to him on the way. That was it. A very simple adventure. This is a bloated epic meant to setup all the events that lead to it’s older brother and in doing so, sacrifices the character that started it all.

I’d probably be a lot more mad about this were it not for the fact that 1) the movie was still plenty of fun and 2) the best Hobbit movie was already made before I was even born…



This post has been edited by Narratorway on 23rd December 2012 02:26

--------------------

Arts

Farts

Twarts

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who favors the Rankin Bass telling of the tale. The new film was enjoyable, yes, but it went a bit too far into the grotesque than I was expecting. It felt like Mr. Del Toro was given a bit too much room in designing some of the characters and scenes. By all accounts Del Toro's work is wonderful but he leans a little bit too far into the 'ew' factor than I personally prefer.

Also....who replaced the Goblin King with the Baron Harkonnen? His design was close to exacting...save that he wasn't floating.

What saddened me about the film was the use (or over-use) of CG. I was hoping to see more work from Weta in the physical rather than the digital. There was much that would have had a greater impact of the viewer if they had actually built the characters, the pale orc being the greatest example.

I am looking forward to seeing how they recover from the amount of padding they put into the first film, however, without adding more fluff. Beyond these few things though, the movie was great, and I'd like to see it again.

Was anyone else creeped out by how one dimensional Galadriel was in this one, though? They needed to give Cate Blanchett a lot more room to actually perform than they did.

--------------------

I'm your Mama Terra, come hang out with me around the internet!

Retro gaming cosplayer with a focus on Terra Branford.

I have to say I enjoyed the movie, if I removed myself from saying "it's the Hobbit". You guys already hit pretty much all of my main complaints. Everything that was "wrong" with the film is summed up with the character Radagast: he's only mentioned ONCE in the entirety of the Hobbit and somehow he figures in huge in the movie version.

--------------------

kame, tortue, tortuga, schildkröte, tartaruga, turtle

"Arthur Dent?"
"Yes."
"Arthur Philip Dent?"
"Yes."
"You're a total knee biter."

^ I haven't seen the movie or read the book, but is this like one of those cases where they turned a very minor character into a villain or love interest or whatever because it's just how movies work or something?

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Before I reply... you haven't read the Hobbit!?... do it, now, before I find you!

Sorry, lol.

As for your question, not really. The Hobbit was written as a more light-hearted children's story for Tolkien's kids, and originally it wasn't part of his Middle Earth mythology that you can find in The Silmarillion. But as Tolkien began to work on The Lord of the Rings, he began to draw in the two stories into the larger Middle Earth mythology.

Coincidentally, Tolkien went back to The Hobbit to make changes in order to make Lord of the Rings make sense.

*This spoiler's for the books*

Possible spoilers: highlight to view

In the original Chapter 5, Riddles in the Dark, Gollum gives up the Ring willingly as a wager to the riddle game. But given the powers of the Ring Tolkien later established for LotR, it didn't make sense that he'd give it up openly, So Tolkien changed it to the version we know today.

But despite the changes, for the most part The Hobbit maintained its tone.

Now, why is Narratorway angry?

I don't know if this is a spoiler, because I believe it was mentioned in a trailer, but a large part of the movie is Gandalf and other leaders of the White Council are investigating the mystery of the Necromancer.

See, GMH, this is not mentioned in the Hobbit, but, it actually occurred (I believe) during the story of the Hobbit according to Tolkien's work. This was Tolkien's way of bridging the gap between the two stories.

*Spoiler for the movie*

Possible spoilers: highlight to view

Now, like in the book, Gandalf disappears and reappears at will, and I believe it's correctly shown that Gandalf for a while remains in Rivendell to take council with Elrond. In the book this is not discussed, but in the movie he is shown discussing the poisoning of Mirkwood and the return of shadow.

Look, my position is a bit complicated. In a sense, I agree with N. It's not the Hobbit, and if you want to get a more faithful retelling of the story the animation works well (or you could read it!!! Which is something I recommend for Hobbit and LotR).

But I do think it's a bit more faithful in the sense that Tolkien was intending the story to have the comedy of the hobbits and dwarves, but he also created around it the return of Sauron's power. And personally, I thought they kept, at least partially, the comedic tone of the book. But honestly, can they make these films better than LotR? No, not for me anyways, but Peter Jackson has landed on an aesthetic that is just a wonder for me to look at. It was a joy seeing Erebor, and the Arkenstone, Balin, and all the other things. Jackson's a great filmmaker, and these films I believe will be great to watch. They won't reach the heights of his Rings films, but they'll be a very solid addition to my annual marathon (which might be 20 hours before it's through!!)

But for me, I can't be angry about the changes. The best advice I can give to someone is to take the movies for what they are: well done movies that at least aesthetically captured Middle Earth. But more importantly: read the books! The books are a different experience from the films, trust me they're worth it.

This post has been edited by BlitzSage on 23rd December 2012 17:33

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (Glenn Magus Harvey @ 23rd December 2012 08:06)

^ I haven't seen the movie or read the book, but is this like one of those cases where they turned a very minor character into a villain or love interest or whatever because it's just how movies work or something?

Yes. Yes they did.

But I'm not mad at it. That was just standard internet embellishment. Like I said, I loved the hell out of it.

Yes, it may be accurate to the Tolkien works it cribs from in terms of plot, but that's only one small aspect of the storytelling experience. I was just making a point that while it is a fun adventure, it completely misses the tone and purpose of the source material.

Everything about the original book was meant to evoke the natural humor that came from applying modern British sensibilities (what hobbits represented) to a fantasy setting. Essentially, Tolkien wanted to tell a story about what would happen if a modern British citizen were given a quest to slay a dragon instead of a knight in shining armor and used the concept of Hobbits to avoid venturing into the sci-fi genre. The story was meant to be told exclusively through the perspective of this one character, hence the title The Hobbit and show how these events effected him.

Barely any of that sense of humor or tone is present because the film is too busy taking itself far too seriously, focusing on Thorin's angsty past and Gandalf's schemes. None of which is viewed from Bilbo's perspective at all.

Again, it's not a bad film per se. It's just not The Hobbit.

--------------------

Arts

Farts

Twarts

I mean, so much of this is just subjective interpretation of the novel versus what the vision for the larger story here in regards to the film actually was. I'd argue that its actually a very fair representation of what the Hobbit was in regards to its place in the Middle Earth mythos and Lord of the Rings canon. My bias may be due to having read the Hobbit only after I had already finished the larger trilogy, but I feel like keeping the theme of a strict Bilbo motif would not do a movie adaptation justice. There was just so much going on outside Bilbo's understanding that it just wouldn't make sense to do a film that way. It was the main perspective of the book, but it was not the only thing going on in that world at that time, and most importantly, this isn't Peter Jackson doing 'The Hobbit' as its stand-alone story. This is Peter Jackson doing more Lord of the Rings mythology, through the goings on of Middle Earth during the Hobbit.

I loved it, and I'm not going to nitpick because, for what it was, it was phenomenal. No, its not the books to the letter, but honestly, how could it be?

--------------------

Okay, but there was a goat!

So, basically, the original book was a humorous take on medieval european high fantasy, but was worked into a darker setting, and the movie emphasized that darker setting?

Quote

Tolkien wanted to tell a story about what would happen if a modern British citizen were given a quest to slay a dragon instead of a knight in shining armor

Now this actually makes me want to read it.

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Quote (Glenn Magus Harvey @ 24th December 2012 09:04)

So, basically, the original book was a humorous take on medieval european high fantasy, but was worked into a darker setting, and the movie emphasized that darker setting?

Pretty much. I mean, the book wasn't an outright comedy mind you, but as others mentioned it was light hearted. The first part of the movie that takes placed in Bilbo's house is the closest the movie ever gets to the tone of the book and anything in the film not directly relating to Bilbo, which was a good majority of it, was either fabricated (the 'bad guy' I don't think was ever a Tolkien creation) or lifted from Tolkien's posthumous works.

Quote (Dragon_Fire @ 24th December 2012 03:03)

I loved it, and I'm not going to nitpick because, for what it was, it was phenomenal. No, its not the books to the letter, but honestly, how could it be?

Sounds like your countering an argument that isn't being made...and there was only one book.

This post has been edited by Narratorway on 24th December 2012 19:31

--------------------

Arts

Farts

Twarts

Quote (Narratorway @ 24th December 2012 15:30)

Sounds like your countering an argument that isn't being made...and there was only one book. 

Edit:

Nevermind. I assumed you'd understand I was including the Lord of the Rings in the statement. The Hobbit was actually a seven part series, for your information. The Hobbit and the Philosopher's Stone, The Hobbit and the Chamber of Secrets, The Hobbit and the night NP decided to stop being such an insufferable douchebag, etc.

This post has been edited by Dragon_Fire on 25th December 2012 08:24

--------------------

Okay, but there was a goat!

I love you too Jav.


--------------------

Arts

Farts

Twarts

Quote (Dragon_Fire @ 25th December 2012 04:11)

Quote (Narratorway @ 24th December 2012 15:30)

Sounds like your countering an argument that isn't being made...and there was only one book. 

Edit:

Nevermind. I assumed you'd understand I was including the Lord of the Rings in the statement. The Hobbit was actually a seven part series, for your information. The Hobbit and the Philosopher's Stone, The Hobbit and the Chamber of Secrets, The Hobbit and the night NP decided to stop being such an insufferable douchebag, etc.

Actually, that's not very far from the truth. The Lord of the Rings is actually 6 books, and the Hobbit is one. So, all together, the movies will actually be a book short!

Oh, and Harry Potter can't hold Tolkien's jock strap!

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

I'm with most of you guys, liked the movie, but thought that it was trying to be too epic/serious, when it should be more funny, like the scene in Bilbo's house.

Quote

Was anyone else creeped out by how one dimensional Galadriel was in this one, though? They needed to give Cate Blanchett a lot more room to actually perform than they did.

I haven't noticed that until now. I guess that's because she is supposed to be such a powerful and grand char (being a high elf and all), so making her screentime one dimensional puts the viewer as her "gazer". I don't if that's make any sense...

--------------------

Live Long and Prosper!

Quote (Narratorway @ 22nd December 2012 22:13)

The Hobbit was a story about a guy who went literally There and Back Again and all the stuff that happened to him on the way.  That was it.  A very simple adventure.  This is a bloated epic meant to setup all the events that lead to it’s older brother and in doing so, sacrifices the character that started it all.

This is what I thought. The Hobbit was initially written, I believe, for Tolkien to read to his children.

What Jackson has created is a prequel, which I feel the book wasn't supposed to be of any necessity.

I'm a huge Tolkien junky, having read the trilogy about 10 times now, The Hobbit probably more, and the Silmarillion thrice now. That said, there were a number of parts in the movie where I was cringing and wanted to choke Peter Jackson more than I usually do. It's Hollywood, baby, and there's nothing to do for it. Still, despite knowing exactly what the film would be before seeing it, I also knew I would go see it no matter what, because I couldn't NOT go see it.

My biggest problem with the movie, I guess, is I sort of just hate Peter Jackson as a director and would have preferred almost anyone else.

What Dragon_Fire says remains mostly true though, despite my feelings towards the director.

The one thing that bugged the crap out of me though, is I understand the embellishments to the original story, where they decide to put in a bunch of battles that never happened, but why did they cut things out of the story? They're turning a 200 page book into a 3 movie trilogy, they're adding a bunch of crap that never happened, and yet for some reason they don't have time to include all of the riddles from Riddles in the Dark? It was actually so ridiculous I laughed.

Edit

Quote (Kirchewasser)

I'm with most of you guys, liked the movie, but thought that it was trying to be too epic/serious, when it should be more funny, like the scene in Bilbo's house.

Funny may not be the word, because Jackson went to great lengths to include his terrible brand of slapstick comedy inappropriately. To my way of thought it should be more "lighthearted".

This post has been edited by MogMaster on 17th January 2013 00:20

--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

Quote (MogMaster @ 16th January 2013 20:17)

I'm a huge Tolkien junky, having read the trilogy about 10 times now, The Hobbit probably more, and the Silmarillion thrice now. That said, there were a number of parts in the movie where I was cringing and wanted to choke Peter Jackson more than I usually do.

Well, I'll repeat what I told people who cried about Jackson changing around Faramir in Two Towers, and I what I said here earlier. If you want the authentic Tolkien read the books. Pick up LotR, Hobbit, 12-part History of Middle Earth, and Silmarillion because it's awe-inspiring work. But I don't get the wanting to choke Peter Jackson thing. Maybe this is because I watched the films first, but then got into the books, but the films are fantastic.

But in retrospect, I'm glad I came into it from that perspective, because I started reading with the films in mind, but I left being shocked that the movies didn't dominated my imaginings of the book. In a sense, they're separate entities, telling the same story, but differently with several inconsistencies.

I take this stance, in part, because I imagine this is the stance Tolkien would've taken. Remember, that Tolkien wrote the books--or at least justified them later--as if he were a historian translating the Red Book. This was Tolkien's justification, in fact, for the changing of Riddles of the Dark.

In other words, imagine that the Red Book of Westmarch actually exists, and that the books and movies are depictions of the actual story. Once again, this does not just come from me; this was the way Tolkien envisioned his role as the writer and narrator. That way, I can enjoy the books and movies separately (with a cool meta-storytelling trick) and Jackson doesn't have to be choked.

But I will say:

Quote

The one thing that bugged the crap out of me though, is I understand the embellishments to the original story, where they decide to put in a bunch of battles that never happened, but why did they cut things out of the story? They're turning a 200 page book into a 3 movie trilogy, they're adding a bunch of crap that never happened, and yet for some reason they don't have time to include all of the riddles from Riddles in the Dark? It was actually so ridiculous I laughed.

When that scene was happening, I was constantly bugging my cousin by answering the riddles, but then they got to the last one, and I nearly shouted "Where's the riddle about dark!?"

But let me say this lastly. The old concept of "suspension of disbelief" should be renamed "suspension of Tolkienology". The things that aren't right are outweighed by how good the movies are. Hell, they're better than the Star Wars prequels, right?

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

My hatred of Jackson may come from my familiarity with his other works before LoTR, more specifically films like Dead Alive, and Bad Taste. When I watch his renditions of Tolkien, which are supposed to be the epitome of high fantasy, and I'm getting throwbacks to his trash C-list slapstick/gore films of old, I find myself rolling my eyes and grumbling under my breath.

Also, so far as what Tolkien would have wanted, I'd say that's tough to call. See, I'd imagine someone so meticulous about his world, it's design, it's mesh, and it's history would be somewhat upset by a bastardization of it. But I don't know either, so "what the author would have liked" seems like a moot point to me.

This post has been edited by MogMaster on 19th January 2013 08:19

--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

Quote (MogMaster @ 19th January 2013 04:10)

My hatred of Jackson may come from my familiarity with his other works before LoTR, more specifically films like Dead Alive, and Bad Taste. When I watch his renditions of Tolkien, which are supposed to be the epitome of high fantasy, and I'm getting throwbacks to his trash C-list slapstick/gore films of old, I find myself rolling my eyes and grumbling under my breath.

Also, so far as what Tolkien would have wanted, I'd say that's tough to call. See, I'd imagine someone so meticulous about his world, it's design, it's mesh, and it's history would be somewhat upset by a bastardization of it. But I don't know either, so "what the author would have liked" seems like a moot point to me.

But that's nerd culture man! I guess I can see where you're coming from. I don't know what he would've liked (he probably would've felt the same). But I just like to separate them, so I don't get angry or frustrated. I liked what he did with the films.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 20th January 2013 00:44)

Quote (MogMaster @ 19th January 2013 04:10)

My hatred of Jackson may come from my familiarity with his other works before LoTR, more specifically films like Dead Alive, and Bad Taste. When I watch his renditions of Tolkien, which are supposed to be the epitome of high fantasy, and I'm getting throwbacks to his trash C-list slapstick/gore films of old, I find myself rolling my eyes and grumbling under my breath.

Also, so far as what Tolkien would have wanted, I'd say that's tough to call. See, I'd imagine someone so meticulous about his world, it's design, it's mesh, and it's history would be somewhat upset by a bastardization of it. But I don't know either, so "what the author would have liked" seems like a moot point to me.

But that's nerd culture man! I guess I can see where you're coming from. I don't know what he would've liked (he probably would've felt the same). But I just like to separate them, so I don't get angry or frustrated. I liked what he did with the films.

I mean, I can appreciate the films. They are long, mostly accurate, theatrical renditions of one of my favorite fantasy universe. I stress again I saw it on night one. Like the original poster, I also thought they were fun movies, but another part of nerd culture is bitching about things, and being a general snob by doing things like suggesting which directors you would have liked to see more .

--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

Quote (MogMaster @ 20th January 2013 20:14)

Quote (BlitzSage @ 20th January 2013 00:44)

Quote (MogMaster @ 19th January 2013 04:10)

My hatred of Jackson may come from my familiarity with his other works before LoTR, more specifically films like Dead Alive, and Bad Taste. When I watch his renditions of Tolkien, which are supposed to be the epitome of high fantasy, and I'm getting throwbacks to his trash C-list slapstick/gore films of old, I find myself rolling my eyes and grumbling under my breath.

Also, so far as what Tolkien would have wanted, I'd say that's tough to call. See, I'd imagine someone so meticulous about his world, it's design, it's mesh, and it's history would be somewhat upset by a bastardization of it. But I don't know either, so "what the author would have liked" seems like a moot point to me.

But that's nerd culture man! I guess I can see where you're coming from. I don't know what he would've liked (he probably would've felt the same). But I just like to separate them, so I don't get angry or frustrated. I liked what he did with the films.

I mean, I can appreciate the films. They are long, mostly accurate, theatrical renditions of one of my favorite fantasy universe. I stress again I saw it on night one. Like the original poster, I also thought they were fun movies, but another part of nerd culture is bitching about things, and being a general snob by doing things like suggesting which directors you would have liked to see more .

Point taken! I try to forget about that part of nerd heritage!

Let me ask you this though. Did you think the animated one was more accurate, or that it was better, both or neither? I think just from a cinematic position the Jackson films are much better. That's the viewpoint I'm coming from. For the most part, other than loving the core story of both works, I appreciate the high quality of the films. When it comes to the lore I also appreciate that they make a pretty good effort to throw homages to it. But if I want it in its glory, The Silmarillion is a treasure trove.

Another thing I would say is, though, is that I'm worried about the trilogy thing. I was expecting two films, not three. I think it may over-extend itself, especially since they're going to be 3 hrs long a piece. The Hobbit's a great book, but it's a small one, so they had to add a whole lot to make it the way it was. So I can see where people were expecting The Hobbit but didn't get it. I think that it might've been better if they had done two 3 hour movies instead. But that remains to be seen until the other films are released.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

I guess it's no great loss that I and my family and basically everyone I know are in dire financial straits right now and probably won't make it out to see the movie. But I did read the book back in seventh grade, so there is that.

Something about the book calls up memories of fresh baked bread and autumn leaves.

*Book Spoilers*

Possible spoilers: highlight to view

I remember them being caught up in the branches of a tree, with Wargs waiting for them on the ground, and eagles flew in to save them. I remember Bilbo trouncing some spiders in Mirkwood with his magic ring. I remember Bilbo being washed away in a barrel. I remember the leader of Rivertown (or was it someone else?) shooting an arrow straight through Smaug's heart.

They're good memories.

--------------------

X is blue.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 20th January 2013 22:16)

Quote (MogMaster @ 20th January 2013 20:14)

Quote (BlitzSage @ 20th January 2013 00:44)

Quote (MogMaster @ 19th January 2013 04:10)

My hatred of Jackson may come from my familiarity with his other works before LoTR, more specifically films like Dead Alive, and Bad Taste. When I watch his renditions of Tolkien, which are supposed to be the epitome of high fantasy, and I'm getting throwbacks to his trash C-list slapstick/gore films of old, I find myself rolling my eyes and grumbling under my breath.

Also, so far as what Tolkien would have wanted, I'd say that's tough to call. See, I'd imagine someone so meticulous about his world, it's design, it's mesh, and it's history would be somewhat upset by a bastardization of it. But I don't know either, so "what the author would have liked" seems like a moot point to me.

But that's nerd culture man! I guess I can see where you're coming from. I don't know what he would've liked (he probably would've felt the same). But I just like to separate them, so I don't get angry or frustrated. I liked what he did with the films.

I mean, I can appreciate the films. They are long, mostly accurate, theatrical renditions of one of my favorite fantasy universe. I stress again I saw it on night one. Like the original poster, I also thought they were fun movies, but another part of nerd culture is bitching about things, and being a general snob by doing things like suggesting which directors you would have liked to see more .

Point taken! I try to forget about that part of nerd heritage!

Let me ask you this though. Did you think the animated one was more accurate, or that it was better, both or neither? I think just from a cinematic position the Jackson films are much better. That's the viewpoint I'm coming from. For the most part, other than loving the core story of both works, I appreciate the high quality of the films. When it comes to the lore I also appreciate that they make a pretty good effort to throw homages to it. But if I want it in its glory, The Silmarillion is a treasure trove.

Another thing I would say is, though, is that I'm worried about the trilogy thing. I was expecting two films, not three. I think it may over-extend itself, especially since they're going to be 3 hrs long a piece. The Hobbit's a great book, but it's a small one, so they had to add a whole lot to make it the way it was. So I can see where people were expecting The Hobbit but didn't get it. I think that it might've been better if they had done two 3 hour movies instead. But that remains to be seen until the other films are released.

Sorry about the lateness of this reply.

I don't know if I would say the animated films were "better" or "more accurate". The Hobbit animated film, for sure, was a good movie, and I know people that prefer it vastly to the comparative Leviathan of a trilogy we're being presented with now. In my head, I consider them two different pieces of art, each trying to do something completely different with the same story. As to whether it's better, I can't say. The old animated film is certainly a simpler movie, which in a way is a more appropriate adaptation of what was a simple story, but the new movies certainly give me more to chew on, and more of the background.

--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way