FILM: The Hobbit (some spoilers)

[Pons]

Jackson really has to flesh it out. The thing is, it’s such an essential story for setting up Lord of the Rings.

No, it’s not really important to the story of “The Hobbit”. They could have been honest and called it “The Lord of the Rings: Origins”. It doesn’t deserve to be called “The Hobbit”, it’s almost false advertising.

Also, I’ve never actually seen the Prequel Trilogy, but I’ve heard the stories. It’s NOT set up to be like that.

Yes it is.

How do you explain the pointless inclusions of characters only for fanservice and filler? It’s exactly like C-3PO and Chewbacca. Are Frodo, old Bilbo, Saruman and Galadriel really necessary to link the movies to the previous ones? Aren’t they linked by default?

Star Wars (1977) was a standalone tale that was later part of a wider saga.

The Hobbit (1937) was a standalone tale that was later part of a wider saga.

The prequels were there just to set up the previous movies, not to tell their own stories.

The Hobbit movies are there to set up the previous movies and to show Jackson’s Middle-earth fanfiction far, far more than to tell the story of The Hobbit.

Also, he probably had people to say “No” unlike Lucas

No, he probably didn’t.

 

[Razanir]

How do you explain the pointless inclusions of characters only for fanservice and filler?

The ONLY elf mentioned in Rivendell is Elrond. If they spend any time there at all beyond “Here’s some swords and a map. Read the runes” (Which, by the way, would be an incredibly boring scene) you have to include more characters. Even if you’re talking specifically about chick elf who welcomed them, I didn’t mind that.

It’s exactly like C-3PO and Chewbacca. Are Frodo, old Bilbo, Saruman and Galadriel really necessary to link the movies to the previous ones? Aren’t they linked by default?

Saruman and Galadriel were in the Hobbit, just not part of the main narrative. They were part of Gandalf’s disappearing act throughout the second half of the book. Also, getting ready for Bilbo’s 111st birthday was a nice framing device. Remember, that book Bilbo was writing in (the Red Book of Westmarch) IS the Hobbit in-universe.

Star Wars (1977) was a standalone tale that was later part of a wider saga.

The Hobbit (1937) was a standalone tale that was later part of a wider saga.

The prequels were there just to set up the previous movies, not to tell their own stories.

The Hobbit movies are there to set up the previous movies and to show Jackson’s Middle-earth fanfiction far, far more than to tell the story of The Hobbit.

This is a really weird one because Lord of the Rings (book) is a sequel to the Hobbit (book), but the Hobbit (movie trilogy) is a prequel to Lord of the Rings (movie trilogy). The Hobbit (book) was only retroactively in the same universe. There’s even a few points where the dates are off because they weren’t originally in the same universe.

Jackson is working to tell the story of the Hobbit, just fleshing out the White Council fighting Sauron in Dol Goldur as well. I, at least, am looking forward to seeing how he does this. I already know there’s at least one difference (the Nazgûl already lived in Minas Morgul in the book. Jackson’s having them wake up during the trilogy) but I’m willing to overlook that. Finally, I realize none of the stuff with Radagast was in the book. He was actually mentioned more times in Lord of the Rings. But I really don’t care because those rabbits were too awesome!

 

[Kopratic]

Personally, I agree with Razanir. If The Hobbit {film} had been one movie that followed the book to the t, it would probably either be extremely boring or have some rather extremely boring scenes. Besides, shouting things like, “It wasn’t like that in the book!” will not change anything. Movie-from-Book adaptations involve a wide range of people, so there’s an extremely low possibility that a movie could be exactly like the book – not deviating even a little.

If you want The Hobbit exactly like Tolkien wrote it, then go read The Hobbit.
Movies are different than their book counterparts. What I’ve found in the past is that if I spend all my time comparing a movie to its book, of course I’m going to be disappointed! However, if I accept that there are going to be differences, I’m able to take the movie and book as two separate universes. There’s also the fact that film and novel are two different mediums: What works in one might not work in the other. What is only briefly mentioned in the book may have to be fleshed out in the movie.

The big point, I think, is that if you go see a film with the notion that it’s going to be bad, then it is going to be bad. You’ll be looking for all the negatives, including ones that might not even be there. Personally, I don’t think it’s fair to judge a movie based on some negative reviews you’ve found. Every movie has its share of negative reviews.

 

[Sarcelle]

Personally, I agree with Razanir. If The Hobbit {film} had been one movie that followed the book to the t, it would probably either be extremely boring or have some rather extremely boring scenes. Besides, shouting things like, “It wasn’t like that in the book!” will not change anything. Movie-from-Book adaptations involve a wide range of people, so there’s an extremely low possibility that a movie could be exactly like the book – not deviating even a little.

If you want The Hobbit exactly like Tolkien wrote it, then go read The Hobbit.
Movies are different than their book counterparts. What I’ve found in the past is that if I spend all my time comparing a movie to its book, of course I’m going to be disappointed! However, if I accept that there are going to be differences, I’m able to take the movie and book as two separate universes. There’s also the fact that film and novel are two different mediums: What works in one might not work in the other. What is only briefly mentioned in the book may have to be fleshed out in the movie.

The big point, I think, is that if you go see a film with the notion that it’s going to be bad, then it is going to be bad. You’ll be looking for all the negatives, including ones that might not even be there. Personally, I don’t think it’s fair to judge a movie based on some negative reviews you’ve found. Every movie has its share of negative reviews.

I agree. I enjoy the book and the movie on their own merits, however Peter Jackson doesn’t seem to get the concept of holiness which is quite evident in the books.

 

[BroomWagon]

I won’t see it, I am sure it has a good message but reportedly animals were killed in the making of the movie: cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57551648/hobbit-farm-had-animal-death-traps-that-killed-as-many-as-27-handlers/

WELLINGTON, New Zealand Animal wranglers involved in the making of “The Hobbit” movie trilogy say the production company is responsible for the deaths of up to 27 animals, largely because they were kept at a farm filled with bluffs, sinkholes and other “death traps.”

 

[trapper1]

Tone– I agree that the slapstick was well done. I feel like they managed to keep the lightheartedness of The Hobbit (book) while maintaining the darker tone one would expect of a prequel to Lord of the Rings (movie).

Plot– They stuck to the book fairly well, actually. Some of the stuff they added was mentioned in the book (the meeting of the White Council) and some of it was implied (dwarves v goblins). The only major change I noticed was the orcs attacking on the way to Rivendell

New material– None of the stuff with Radagast was in the book. Radagast was mentioned a single time in it. However, I really enjoyed it. Particularly the bunnies. “I’d like to see them try” (Favorite line!) My other favorite line, by the way, was “If Baggins loses we eats it whole!” “Fair enough.”

Running time– I did not mind the half hour (real time) they spent in Hobbiton. There really was a lot of backstory to introduce, and some scenes in the book were really dense. It felt no more dragged out to me than Fellowship, because both were assorted dangers while travelling with a brief stop by the elves.

The one change I didn’t like– They changed Bilbo’s answer to the time riddle! He wasn’t supposed to know the answer. In the book, he just shouted “Time! Time!” to ask for more. He got really lucky it was the answer

I wasn’t unhappy with the insertion of Radagast, but I was pretty unhappy with the Radagast we got. A Harry Potter character. I always pictured more of a St Francis type.

That aside, I enjoyed the movie greatly…and the tonal shifts (between a children’s story and a dark LOTR prequel) didn’t bother me much. The goblin town escape probably should have been handled a bit more low key, however.

 

[Kopratic]

I agree. I enjoy the book and the movie on their own merits, however Peter Jackson doesn’t seem to get the concept of holiness which is quite evident in the books.

I do agree with this.

@trapper; Part of me kept wondering where Radagast was hiding the TARDIS.

 

[louisak]

Not going to watch this ever.

It’s just not The Hobbit for me. The way they went about “adapting” the book to make it The Lord of the Rings: Origins by adding filler, fanfiction and fanservice rubs me the wrong way.

I’m with you on this.

Peter Jackson is a very talented filmmaker, but there are two things about him that drive me crazy:

1. A fixation on violence and gore. Before he made Lord of the Rings, most of his movies were gory (albeit low-budget) horror movies. Judging from all the reviews I’ve read, this new movie has a focus on battle and gory violence way beyond what is in the book.
2. A tendency to vulgarity. This shows itself in things like fart jokes (which I can’t stand), and also in an impulse to demean Tolkien’s characters. He and his co-writers did this with a number of the characters in Lord of the Rings. Examples -

Treebeard. In the book he is a character of great nobility and dignity, corresponding to his immense age. Jackson and company reduced him to little better than a buffoon. And this is not just my opinion, Jackson himself said in the director’s commentary to The Two Towers that they couldn’t stand the way Tolkien depicted the character and felt the need to bring him down a few notches.

Denethor, Steward of Gondor. In the book he is a tragic figure, not very likable to be sure, but a person of great personal strength and dignity. Only at the climax of the action, when his mind has snapped due to exposure to Sauron via use of the Palantir, does he commit the heinous act of trying to kill his own son, and then commit suicide. On the other hand, the Denethor of the movie is little more than a monster.

Eowyn. In the book she is a mysterious, cold, warrior-maiden figure. In the movies there is at first an attempt to capture this aspect of her character, but she quickly deteriorates into little better than a teenager having her first crush on a good-looking guy (witness the scene in which she offers Aragorn soup - this may be only in the extended edition, I don’t remember).

Gimli. For the most part he is depicted with dignity, so I can’t complain too much, but I think there are too many jokes about dwarf-tossing, which are demeaning.

Faramir, one of the most noble and wise characters in the book, is just a confused, immature young man in the movies.

Finally and perhaps worst of all in my mind, Gandalf himself is strangely demeaned in the movies. For the most part the filmmakers got his character right, and I give them credit for that. However there are a couple of places where they hit a wrong note. Worst of all is the moment when he physically attacks Denethor with his staff and takes over command of the city himself. It is impossible to even imagine the Gandalf of the book doing such a thing. Also, Gandalf in the movie is somewhat vindictive toward the captured Saruman - at one point (I think only in the extended edition) threatening Saruman with death if he doesn’t cooperate. In contrast, the Gandalf of the book is very concerned with Saruman’s personal well-being right up to the end, and continues to hold out hope that Saruman will repent and contribute to the building up of a better world order after Sauron’s defeat.

Well, I have said more than enough I guess - so thanks to any who have followed my post this far. No hard feelings to anyone who enjoys Peter Jackson’s movies - to each his own taste, as the saying goes.

 

[Sarcelle]

I’m with you on this.

Peter Jackson is a very talented filmmaker, but there are two things about him that drive me crazy:

1. A fixation on violence and gore. Before he made Lord of the Rings, most of his movies were gory (albeit low-budget) horror movies. Judging from all the reviews I’ve read, this new movie has a focus on battle and gory violence way beyond what is in the book.
2. A tendency to vulgarity. This shows itself in things like fart jokes (which I can’t stand), and also in an impulse to demean Tolkien’s characters. He and his co-writers did this with a number of the characters in Lord of the Rings. Examples -

Treebeard. In the book he is a character of great nobility and dignity, corresponding to his immense age. Jackson and company reduced him to little better than a buffoon. And this is not just my opinion, Jackson himself said in the director’s commentary to The Two Towers that they couldn’t stand the way Tolkien depicted the character and felt the need to bring him down a few notches.

Denethor, Steward of Gondor. In the book he is a tragic figure, not very likable to be sure, but a person of great personal strength and dignity. Only at the climax of the action, when his mind has snapped due to exposure to Sauron via use of the Palantir, does he commit the heinous act of trying to kill his own son, and then commit suicide. On the other hand, the Denethor of the movie is little more than a monster.

Eowyn. In the book she is a mysterious, cold, warrior-maiden figure. In the movies there is at first an attempt to capture this aspect of her character, but she quickly deteriorates into little better than a teenager having her first crush on a good-looking guy (witness the scene in which she offers Aragorn soup - this may be only in the extended edition, I don’t remember).

Gimli. For the most part he is depicted with dignity, so I can’t complain too much, but I think there are too many jokes about dwarf-tossing, which are demeaning.

Faramir, one of the most noble and wise characters in the book, is just a confused, immature young man in the movies.

Finally and perhaps worst of all in my mind, Gandalf himself is strangely demeaned in the movies. For the most part the filmmakers got his character right, and I give them credit for that. However there are a couple of places where they hit a wrong note. Worst of all is the moment when he physically attacks Denethor with his staff and takes over command of the city himself. It is impossible to even imagine the Gandalf of the book doing such a thing. Also, Gandalf in the movie is somewhat vindictive toward the captured Saruman - at one point (I think only in the extended edition) threatening Saruman with death if he doesn’t cooperate. In contrast, the Gandalf of the book is very concerned with Saruman’s personal well-being right up to the end, and continues to hold out hope that Saruman will repent and contribute to the building up of a better world order after Sauron’s defeat.

Well, I have said more than enough I guess - so thanks to any who have followed my post this far. No hard feelings to anyone who enjoys Peter Jackson’s movies - to each his own taste, as the saying goes.

Peter jackson does not quite get the concept of Holiness, especially where Treebeard, Faramir and Gandalf are concerned.

As with his fixation on violence and gore, he’s just going by what sells the most movie tickets.

 

[louisak]

Peter jackson does not quite get the concept of Holiness, especially where Treebeard, Faramir and Gandalf are concerned.

That seems to be true. I don’t think Jackson and his co-writers are religious people, so it’s not surprising that they don’t appreciate this aspect of the book.

On the other hand, to be fair, they do seem to have grasped the essential role of mercy in relation to Gollum - the fact that several good characters at different points in time have Gollum in their power and decide not to kill him, even though it seems to be the safest and most prudent thing to do. In the end of course, these choices of mercy are rewarded, since the quest to destroy the Ring of Power would have failed if Gollum were not there at the end. Gandalf talks explicitly about pity and mercy to Frodo in an early chapter, and the filmmakers used some of these lines in the movie, albeit in a later scene (in the mines of Moria).

You can hear Jackson and one of his co-writers discussing this in the director’s commentary DVD of Fellowship of the Ring. They mention that the prominence of the theme of forgiveness was probably due to Tolkien’s being a Christian. So I have to give them credit for having understood that much.

 

[curlycool89]

I agree. I enjoy the book and the movie on their own merits, however Peter Jackson doesn’t seem to get the concept of holiness which is quite evident in the books.

I think you need to explain this, because I’m pretty sure this is something that you are reading into the books yourself.

Denethor, Steward of Gondor. In the book he is a tragic figure, not very likable to be sure, but a person of great personal strength and dignity. Only at the climax of the action, when his mind has snapped due to exposure to Sauron via use of the Palantir, does he commit the heinous act of trying to kill his own son, and then commit suicide. On the other hand, the Denethor of the movie is little more than a monster.

It makes for a much better character arc though in the movie. It also fits better with the idea that sin corrupts people over time instead of a sudden flip to evil.

Eowyn. In the book she is a mysterious, cold, warrior-maiden figure. In the movies there is at first an attempt to capture this aspect of her character, but she quickly deteriorates into little better than a teenager having her first crush on a good-looking guy (witness the scene in which she offers Aragorn soup - this may be only in the extended edition, I don’t remember).

In a way, it does fill out Eowyn’s character a little bit.

Let’s be honest, the description that you gave of her from the book is entirely 1-dimensional. 1-D characters are boring.

Gimli. For the most part he is depicted with dignity, so I can’t complain too much, but I think there are too many jokes about dwarf-tossing, which are demeaning.

Man, do I have to do all the research here?

The dwarf-tossing hearkens back to Moria, in which Gimli almosts dies because he is too proud to ask for help from the others. If I remember the book correctly, Gimli does have to loose some of his pride (especially with regard with Legolas, an elf).

Faramir, one of the most noble and wise characters in the book, is just a confused, immature young man in the movies.

To be frank again, this makes for a better 3-D character than Tolkien wrote. Witness the recent Batman trilogy, complex characters are better than 1-D ones.

Heck, they improved Faramir’s motivation in the movie. Every son longs for a father’s approval, and Denethor’s approval always lay with the defense of the realm (and I’m pretty sure that extends to the books).

If you go into a movie of a book adaptation with the mind that it’s going to follow EXACTLY what was written, then frankly you’re always going to be disappointed. Nobody wants to watch “The Movie of the Book” because you mine as well just buy the audio version. The point of the media of film is to explore that which can’t be fit into the media of a book. In a movie you can get more perspectives outside of the protagonist (which is extremely hard to pull off in a book. George Martin is pretty much the only exception I’ve seen).

For example, the activities of the White Council are unimportant to the book, but it’s unacceptable in a movie to just announce “this is what we’ve been doing in the background btw”. The rule in movies is “show, don’t tell”. Plot exposition dumps are sometimes fine in books to fit the narrative, but they’re dreadful in movies to the point where having a character talk about plot just for the sake of telling the audience is a symptom of a bad movie (Watson characters excepted as long as it is paired with at least some “showing”).

 

[Pons]

If filmmakers approached the gospels with the same “adaptation” mentality as for LOTR, what do you get?

The Last Temptation of Christ.



And you need to re-read the books again, your assertions are wrong-headed.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I agree with many of Louis’ critiques. But the movies’ handling of the mercy shown Gollum has been, for me, enough of a redeeming good that I see the movies as worthwhile.

I got to see “The Hobbit” today. I really liked it. I enjoy the movies without expecting them to measure up to the books, and so I’m not disappointed by them.

What I do love about them movies is the great care taken with the sets, clothing and other props. To me as an artist, they’re a visual feast in rich detail. I especially loved the colossal statues guarding the river near Gondor in LOTR, and “The Hobbit” likewise has a pair of colossal archers guarding the entrance to Erebor. I appreciate fellow artists’ imaginations and creativity, even if it’s not what I pictured myself in reading the books.

 

[AbideWithMe]

In a way, it does fill out Eowyn’s character a little bit.

Let’s be honest, the description that you gave of her from the book is entirely 1-dimensional. 1-D characters are boring.

I thought Eowyn’s character was handled fairly well in the movie. I’m a pretty independent, mentally strong, resourceful woman who has ridden horses almost my entire life, so as a teenager/early twenty-something young woman reading and re-reading the books I somewhat identified with her…not willing to fall for any man until I met one I really admired; and then being quite ambivalent about it even at that point. I didn’t feel she was portrayed in a demeaning way in the movie.

 

[louisak]

curlycool89, I’m curious whether you have actually read the book, or are just reacting to my descriptions of the characters. I don’t believe they were so one-dimensional as you think. You seem to be implying (correct me if I’m wrong) that a more flawed character is necessarily more “three-dimensional” or believable than a more virtuous character. I do think that creating a truly noble character is more difficult than creating a villain, that’s why in so many stories the villain is more interesting than the hero. But I believe that Tolkien was a better author than that, although I’m not saying he was perfect in that area.

Your comments about Faramir, for example, make me suspect that you have not read the book. The character in the book was also troubled by his father’s seeming rejection; but he would not throw his principles out the window in order to try to please his father and win his approval.

Man, do I have to do all the research here?

I don’t understand your point with this question.

If you go into a movie of a book adaptation with the mind that it’s going to follow EXACTLY what was written, then frankly you’re always going to be disappointed.

I never said that I wanted to the movie to follow the book exactly. I notice that defenders of Peter Jackson often raise this objection when faced with criticisms of the films. It’s true of course, but it’s also totally irrelevant to the criticisms I made. I recognize the need for adaptation and abridgment - it’s the specific nature of the changes that I am objecting to.

 

[louisak]

What I do love about them movies is the great care taken with the sets, clothing and other props. To me as an artist, they’re a visual feast in rich detail. I especially loved the colossal statues guarding the river near Gondor in LOTR, and “The Hobbit” likewise has a pair of colossal archers guarding the entrance to Erebor. I appreciate fellow artists’ imaginations and creativity, even if it’s not what I pictured myself in reading the books.

I am no artist but I totally agree with your point about the sets and so forth. One of the things that seems unappealing to me about this first Hobbit movie is that it doesn’t seem to offer much in that area. It starts out in Bag End, which of course we have already seen in the earlier movies. There is a scene in Rivendell, which we have also seen already. Then you have episodes with the trolls, goblins/orcs and stone-giants - I’m sure there won’t be any magnificent architecture, costumes etc. in those scenes.

On the other hand, I look forward to the upcoming films in which we will see the interior of the dwarvish kingdom of Erebor, I’m sure it will be magnificent (even with all the damage done by Smaug).

 

[louisak]

I thought Eowyn’s character was handled fairly well in the movie. I’m a pretty independent, mentally strong, resourceful woman who has ridden horses almost my entire life, so as a teenager/early twenty-something young woman reading and re-reading the books I somewhat identified with her…not willing to fall for any man until I met one I really admired; and then being quite ambivalent about it even at that point. I didn’t feel she was portrayed in a demeaning way in the movie.

Maybe I am attaching too much importance to the scene with the soup. That’s the one scene I remember in which her behavior seems out of character. As I mentioned, I don’t even recall if that is part of the original film, or the extended version. It has been almost ten years, so I have forgotten some things.

 

[Razanir]

I am no artist but I totally agree with your point about the sets and so forth. One of the things that seems unappealing to me about this first Hobbit movie is that it doesn’t seem to offer much in that area. It starts out in Bag End, which of course we have already seen in the earlier movies. There is a scene in Rivendell, which we have also seen already. Then you have episodes with the trolls, goblins/orcs and stone-giants - I’m sure there won’t be any magnificent architecture, costumes etc. in those scenes.

On the other hand, I look forward to the upcoming films in which we will see the interior of the dwarvish kingdom of Erebor, I’m sure it will be magnificent (even with all the damage done by Smaug).

We get to see more of Bag End this time. The first half hour’s set there (not that I’m complaining). Also, the scene with Gollum and the scene with the stone giants were both impressive

 

[AbideWithMe]

Maybe I am attaching too much importance to the scene with the soup. That’s the one scene I remember in which her behavior seems out of character. As I mentioned, I don’t even recall if that is part of the original film, or the extended version. It has been almost ten years, so I have forgotten some things.

Well, yes, the seemingly “out of character” part is what made her character somewhat-realistic. For independent, intelligent, strong-souled young women, it can feel internally out of character to find themselves romantically drawn towards someone they admire. I think for women, we can be be very nurturing and compassionate without having a romantic attachment towards anyone in particular; but in allowing ourselves to be romantically drawn towards someone—for me at least, as a life-long equestrian—there can be an awareness that we are sort of handing over the reins (giving a degree of leadership to) the male partner in the relationship. When I was a young woman, I was careful not to give that leadership role to someone until I met someone I really respected. It seemed to me that Eowyn was likewise circumspect. Aragorn appeared to her to have a kind of character, integrity, and wise leadership ability that she admired. Hence, the “soup scene” and her nurturing given to one particular person.

Anyway, that’s my weird two cents on Eowyn.

 

[AbideWithMe]

We get to see more of Bag End this time. The first half hour’s set there (not that I’m complaining). Also, the scene with Gollum and the scene with the stone giants were both impressive

Yeah, the stone giants were awesome.

I also really liked the scene at Bag End of the dwarf song—very atmospheric.