T
tomarin
Guest
I’m reluctant to go see “the Hobbit” movies, based on the poor reviews.
- Status
J
Joe_5859
Guest
If you go see them and it turns out you agree with the poor reviews, you have lost but a few hours of your life.
If you do not go see them and it turns out you would have enjoyed them, you’ll never know.
T
tomarin
Guest
True, but another factor in this is I would like to see them with my children (it makes it a lot easier) and according to the reviews Jackson has somehow taken this beloved children’s story and made it into something too scary for children. That irks me somewhat.If you go see them and it turns out you agree with the poor reviews, you have lost but a few hours of your life.
If you do not go see them and it turns out you would have enjoyed them, you’ll never know.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Ah. Yes, these movies are definitely firmly in “PG-13” territory, just as the Lord of the Rings trilogy was.
D
Della
Guest
I believe the only character liberties PJ took in TH were the love triangle between Legolas, Kili and a character Tolkien never mentioned–Tauriel, and adding Azog and his son into the mix.
But, I’m okay with it because Azog and his son were Tolkien characters, if in another story. The same with Legolas who was never mentioned in TH. Still, he was the son of the Wood Elves King, so I’m fine with putting him in the story.
As for some of the plot differences, it’s okay. This is an adaptation, after all, not a word-by-word rendering of Tolkien’s original tale. The extra material PJ used came from the appendexes Tolkien wrote that he had planned to integrate into TH, but never got the chance. So, Tolkien’s final version would have been more in line with LOTR and less childish in tone.
Some of the things that people complain about the most, I like the most, such as spending time in Bag End to introduce the characters and the basic plot. I relished every minute of it, including the songs. I only wish PJ would have included more of the Dwarfs’ song–the melody is haunting beautiful–I could listen to it all day.
Again, PJ’s movies are adaptations. He was true to most of the characters in LOTR except for Faramir. I didn’t like changing him from a resolute Renaissance man who knew what was important and what wasn’t to a man trying to please his demanding father. Otherwise, everything was fine, even letting Arwen rescue Frodo instead of having him ride alone against the Black Riders. It gave her character a bit more to do, and let modern audiences know that although she could kick butt with the boys, she chose to wait for Aragorn to let him fulfill his own destiny while she kept hope alive in her father.
Anyone who wishes to read the books still have them available. The movies are more of a treat for readers and a visual representation for those who would never otherwise read Tolkien’s great works.
But, I’m okay with it because Azog and his son were Tolkien characters, if in another story. The same with Legolas who was never mentioned in TH. Still, he was the son of the Wood Elves King, so I’m fine with putting him in the story.
As for some of the plot differences, it’s okay. This is an adaptation, after all, not a word-by-word rendering of Tolkien’s original tale. The extra material PJ used came from the appendexes Tolkien wrote that he had planned to integrate into TH, but never got the chance. So, Tolkien’s final version would have been more in line with LOTR and less childish in tone.
Some of the things that people complain about the most, I like the most, such as spending time in Bag End to introduce the characters and the basic plot. I relished every minute of it, including the songs. I only wish PJ would have included more of the Dwarfs’ song–the melody is haunting beautiful–I could listen to it all day.
Again, PJ’s movies are adaptations. He was true to most of the characters in LOTR except for Faramir. I didn’t like changing him from a resolute Renaissance man who knew what was important and what wasn’t to a man trying to please his demanding father. Otherwise, everything was fine, even letting Arwen rescue Frodo instead of having him ride alone against the Black Riders. It gave her character a bit more to do, and let modern audiences know that although she could kick butt with the boys, she chose to wait for Aragorn to let him fulfill his own destiny while she kept hope alive in her father.
Anyone who wishes to read the books still have them available. The movies are more of a treat for readers and a visual representation for those who would never otherwise read Tolkien’s great works.
P
patrick457
Guest
I’m not a Tolkien ‘purist’. Well, I was back when I was an annoying brat (and I still am an annoying brat), but eventually I did come to realize that the transition from book to film is not an easy process - some things will be left out, and some things will be changed. It’s inevitable. So that’s not really my major gripe with PJ’s films. (Besides, it’s just someone’s interpretation of the story, so if you don’t agree with this interpretation, you’re better off not watching it.) What I do disagree though is some of the decisions PJ et al. made. I could understand why some of them were made, but the others strike me as either pointless in the long run or even contradicting elements from the source material.
For example, the Paths of the Dead scene in RotK. I will accept the initial hostility of the ghost army towards Aragorn and company as something that builds up drama and tension. In fact, IMO the theatrical version is fine enough as it is. But the extended version of that sequence - featuring an avalanche of skulls - struck me as being nothing more than a misguided attempt to stretch out the suspense even further. “Oh look! The ghost army hurls a pile of skulls at Aragorn! Does that mean they don’t accept his offer?” At best, I thought it was just pointless eye candy. (I actually think that out of the LotR films, the extended version of RotK is probably the worst. The extended versions of FotR and TTT actually improved those two films in my opinion, but in RotK much of the ‘additions’ should have stayed on the cutting room floor.)
Same goes for The Hobbit. Some elements are arguably understandable (such as keeping Azog alive - though I do wish he had been killed in the second film, y’know so his son could step over; the Tauriel-Kili subplot), others are either just eye candy (Thranduil having this big scar on his face that he hides with…I don’t know, Elven ‘magic’ or something; most everything featuring Legolas
) or plain “wut?” (The idea of the Nazgul being buried/sealed in tombs; the whole thing about the golden Dwarf statue.)
All in all, I think PJ tried to tie in The Hobbit with LotR a tad too much. There’s nothing wrong with this approach of course, but I do think something is lost when you forget that The Hobbit is a story that can stand on its own feet. After all, The Hobbit itself was originally pretty much a stand-alone story - it is only with LotR that Tolkien tried to graft it further into his preexisting mythos.
BTW, you know my biggest gripe with the films are? It’s their playing up to post-Tolkien fantasy stereotypes of Elves as this long-haired, dandy folk who can never get dirt on their clothes or on their persons and Dwarves as a bunch of rough, boorish, Nordic barbarians. Must be the beards’ fault.
(To be honest, I did love Stephen Fry’s portrayal of the Master of Laketown.
)
For example, the Paths of the Dead scene in RotK. I will accept the initial hostility of the ghost army towards Aragorn and company as something that builds up drama and tension. In fact, IMO the theatrical version is fine enough as it is. But the extended version of that sequence - featuring an avalanche of skulls - struck me as being nothing more than a misguided attempt to stretch out the suspense even further. “Oh look! The ghost army hurls a pile of skulls at Aragorn! Does that mean they don’t accept his offer?” At best, I thought it was just pointless eye candy. (I actually think that out of the LotR films, the extended version of RotK is probably the worst. The extended versions of FotR and TTT actually improved those two films in my opinion, but in RotK much of the ‘additions’ should have stayed on the cutting room floor.)
Same goes for The Hobbit. Some elements are arguably understandable (such as keeping Azog alive - though I do wish he had been killed in the second film, y’know so his son could step over; the Tauriel-Kili subplot), others are either just eye candy (Thranduil having this big scar on his face that he hides with…I don’t know, Elven ‘magic’ or something; most everything featuring Legolas
) or plain “wut?” (The idea of the Nazgul being buried/sealed in tombs; the whole thing about the golden Dwarf statue.)All in all, I think PJ tried to tie in The Hobbit with LotR a tad too much. There’s nothing wrong with this approach of course, but I do think something is lost when you forget that The Hobbit is a story that can stand on its own feet. After all, The Hobbit itself was originally pretty much a stand-alone story - it is only with LotR that Tolkien tried to graft it further into his preexisting mythos.
BTW, you know my biggest gripe with the films are? It’s their playing up to post-Tolkien fantasy stereotypes of Elves as this long-haired, dandy folk who can never get dirt on their clothes or on their persons and Dwarves as a bunch of rough, boorish, Nordic barbarians. Must be the beards’ fault.
(To be honest, I did love Stephen Fry’s portrayal of the Master of Laketown.
)
I
InNomineDomini
Guest
I watched the first two installments at the movies with my fiancee and her father, and if I go to see this final movie, it will only be to finish off our little two-year-old December “tradition.”
I think the films were generally quite poor, and I didn’t enjoy the humor or the blockbusteresque battle scenes or the additions to the story. The films in fact struck me as being geared for young teenage boys, and the main goal seemed to have been to create a spectacle for the sake of cash.
Also, it’s certainly to be expected that a book is going to be quite different from a movie version of a book. But I think it’s true that these particular movies are really more about riffing off of a book simply to tie them in with the success of the Lord of the Rings films.
Frankly, December is filled with enough cheap commercialization already.
I think the films were generally quite poor, and I didn’t enjoy the humor or the blockbusteresque battle scenes or the additions to the story. The films in fact struck me as being geared for young teenage boys, and the main goal seemed to have been to create a spectacle for the sake of cash.
Also, it’s certainly to be expected that a book is going to be quite different from a movie version of a book. But I think it’s true that these particular movies are really more about riffing off of a book simply to tie them in with the success of the Lord of the Rings films.
Frankly, December is filled with enough cheap commercialization already.
P
pensmama87
Guest
My husband and I watched the second one last night. We are big Tolkien fans, but we’ve both grown up a bit (I think?) and out of our “fangirl”/“fanboy” attitude about his work. As time goes on we actually like the LotR films less than we did as teens when they first came out. The Hobbit films have the same problems those did, IMO, but they’re much more glaring.
Anyway, as the end credits began rolling, they said, “Based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien.” I snorted and said, “That’s a stretch,” and DH said, “More like ‘inspired by characters and situations in.’” I think that’s it for me. It’s a completely different story, just sharing locales and character names and a few plot points. The narrative and themes are completely different (and inferior, IMO) than the source material.
I will probably see the third one at some point, but I’m not going to pay admission for it. I like the “look” - the settings, the costuming, and although I disliked the script I did like the casting of almost everyone. I thought the Riddle scene in the first one was fantastic, and I liked Smaug in the second. But there was less I liked in the second than the first, and there’s not much more story left for the third to cover so who knows what awful filler will be included.
But there may be a few sequences worth watching. 
Also, regarding The Silmarillion, IIRC the Tolkien estate has not released film rights and does not plan to. PJ has had to use other source material for his “supplemental” material in the films so far, and considering how much he’s displayed that he doesn’t “get it,” for all his statements on what a big fan he is, I’d really prefer it to stay that way.
Anyway, as the end credits began rolling, they said, “Based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien.” I snorted and said, “That’s a stretch,” and DH said, “More like ‘inspired by characters and situations in.’” I think that’s it for me. It’s a completely different story, just sharing locales and character names and a few plot points. The narrative and themes are completely different (and inferior, IMO) than the source material.
I will probably see the third one at some point, but I’m not going to pay admission for it. I like the “look” - the settings, the costuming, and although I disliked the script I did like the casting of almost everyone. I thought the Riddle scene in the first one was fantastic, and I liked Smaug in the second. But there was less I liked in the second than the first, and there’s not much more story left for the third to cover so who knows what awful filler will be included.
But there may be a few sequences worth watching. Also, regarding The Silmarillion, IIRC the Tolkien estate has not released film rights and does not plan to. PJ has had to use other source material for his “supplemental” material in the films so far, and considering how much he’s displayed that he doesn’t “get it,” for all his statements on what a big fan he is, I’d really prefer it to stay that way.
I
InNomineDomini
Guest
A really cute Eye of the Tiber spoof: eyeofthetiber.com/2014/10/07/peter-jackson-announces-plans-for-72-part-movie-series-of-the-silmarillion/
J
Joe_5859
Guest
The “filler” will be a very, very long Battle of Five Armies.My husband and I watched the second one last night. We are big Tolkien fans, but we’ve both grown up a bit (I think?) and out of our “fangirl”/“fanboy” attitude about his work. As time goes on we actually like the LotR films less than we did as teens when they first came out. The Hobbit films have the same problems those did, IMO, but they’re much more glaring.
Anyway, as the end credits began rolling, they said, “Based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien.” I snorted and said, “That’s a stretch,” and DH said, “More like ‘inspired by characters and situations in.’” I think that’s it for me. It’s a completely different story, just sharing locales and character names and a few plot points. The narrative and themes are completely different (and inferior, IMO) than the source material.
I will probably see the third one at some point, but I’m not going to pay admission for it. I like the “look” - the settings, the costuming, and although I disliked the script I did like the casting of almost everyone. I thought the Riddle scene in the first one was fantastic, and I liked Smaug in the second. But there was less I liked in the second than the first, and there’s not much more story left for the third to cover so who knows what awful filler will be included.
Also, regarding The Silmarillion, IIRC the Tolkien estate has not released film rights and does not plan to. PJ has had to use other source material for his “supplemental” material in the films so far, and considering how much he’s displayed that he doesn’t “get it,” for all his statements on what a big fan he is, I’d really prefer it to stay that way.
That’s right, I recall that about the Silmarillion film rights now. I understand the Tolkien estate’s wishes in that regard, but I do sort of wish that Jackson would have been allowed to draw from that material. I think it would only have helped the movies to be better than they are.
I guess I just look at all the additions as fan fiction weaved into the actual story.
D
Della
Guest
Although, when I read LOTR and TH I thought the best way to adapt them would be a TV mini-series, so that all the elements we Tolkien fans love so much could be included, such as Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, and the Barrow Wights. And altthough Viggo Mortensen did a serviceable job as Aragorn, I had pictured him less handsome, and with more ability to be tough than PJ portrayed him. I didn’t like his Aragorn agoniziing over being king or not wanting it. Aragorn knew his destiny was tied up with the ring and its destruction, he didn’t doubt his right to be king nor his abilities, only his judgments at certain moments in the story. Anyway, I too found the protracted battle scenes annoying and unnecessary. You could tell they got carried away with the CGI just because they could. It seems no one had the guts to tell PJ that he was going way over the top. Too bad, because the films would have been so much better without all the pointless running and fighting. They could cut 30 minutes from the first two films and not damage the stories one bit.
P
pensmama87
Guest
That’s a good way to look at it, if you want to save your sanity.The “filler” will be a very, very long Battle of Five Armies.
That’s right, I recall that about the Silmarillion film rights now. I understand the Tolkien estate’s wishes in that regard, but I do sort of wish that Jackson would have been allowed to draw from that material. I think it would only have helped the movies to be better than they are.
I guess I just look at all the additions as fan fiction weaved into the actual story.
For me, The Hobbit really didn’t need much extra source material. Yes, if you want to fill 3 2.5+ hour movies, but it could have even been one very good feature length film without cutting much and still having a few good battle scenes.
I do wish sometimes more filmmakers who wanted to adapt longer books would consider doing a miniseries like Della suggested. The BBC production of Pride and Prejudice is still IMO one of the best literary adaptations for the screen I’ve ever seen, and I’d say that even if Colin Firth never did jump into that pond.
I think in general I’ve grown to like the writing on television much more than film, anyway. I don’t know if that’s me growing up, changes in the genres, or both, or what.
P
Phil502
Guest
I’m looking forward to it. I liked the other films, LOTR and first 2 Hobbits. Sure there’s a few things I was dissappointed with but overall, they were very good and I watched them several times on DVD and cable.
D
Della
Guest
Yes, even with the overly long battles scenes, I think PJ captured the essence of what makes Middle Earth so compelling to readers of the books. I loved the White Council in TH. Tolkien mentions this Council in passing–he probably meant to fill it in after writing LOTR. Anyway, the way Galadriel quietly directed things without pressuring anyone or making any demands impressed me. And her relationship with Gandalf, as his counselor and mentor put me in mind how Our Lady does the same for us–something that Tolkien apparently had in mind when he wrote about her in LOTR. In some ways PJ got some very important things right, but he just can’t resist all the overly long action scenes. He seems to be a little boy at heart, and we know how little boys love playing cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, pirates, and so on.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Back in college, one of my floormates was enamored with the cheesy horror flick “Dead Alive”. That was also written and directed by Peter Jackson. Having seen that goes a long way towards helping me understand Jackson’s tendency towards extravagance in the action sequences (as well as some of the more low-brow moments). Some of that I appreciate (Legolas taking down one of the Mumakil single-handedlyYes, even with the overly long battles scenes, I think PJ captured the essence of what makes Middle Earth so compelling to readers of the books. I loved the White Council in TH. Tolkien mentions this Council in passing–he probably meant to fill it in after writing LOTR. Anyway, the way Galadriel quietly directed things without pressuring anyone or making any demands impressed me. And her relationship with Gandalf, as his counselor and mentor put me in mind how Our Lady does the same for us–something that Tolkien apparently had in mind when he wrote about her in LOTR. In some ways PJ got some very important things right, but he just can’t resist all the overly long action scenes. He seems to be a little boy at heart, and we know how little boys love playing cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, pirates, and so on.
). Other stuff, not so much.
P
patrick457
Guest
I consider the films to be fanfiction really.The “filler” will be a very, very long Battle of Five Armies.
That’s right, I recall that about the Silmarillion film rights now. I understand the Tolkien estate’s wishes in that regard, but I do sort of wish that Jackson would have been allowed to draw from that material. I think it would only have helped the movies to be better than they are.
I guess I just look at all the additions as fan fiction weaved into the actual story.
Exactly. I think that’s why the BBC Radio adaptation of LotR worked IMO. The Lord of the Rings is a very long work to begin with, and simply making three theatrical movies out of it I think does not do it justice enough.
Although, when I read LOTR and TH I thought the best way to adapt them would be a TV mini-series, so that all the elements we Tolkien fans love so much could be included, such as Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, and the Barrow Wights. And altthough Viggo Mortensen did a serviceable job as Aragorn, I had pictured him less handsome, and with more ability to be tough than PJ portrayed him. I didn’t like his Aragorn agoniziing over being king or not wanting it. Aragorn knew his destiny was tied up with the ring and its destruction, he didn’t doubt his right to be king nor his abilities, only his judgments at certain moments in the story. Anyway, I too found the protracted battle scenes annoying and unnecessary. You could tell they got carried away with the CGI just because they could. It seems no one had the guts to tell PJ that he was going way over the top. Too bad, because the films would have been so much better without all the pointless running and fighting. They could cut 30 minutes from the first two films and not damage the stories one bit.
Guess what? The live-action films span over 9 to 12 hours (depending on which version you watch) while the BBC LotR spans somewhere over 13 hours (26 half-hour installments later combined into 13 hour-long episodes). There’s only a difference of an hour, but I think the BBC version manages to be far more faithful to the book (the only glaring omission is well, the oft-forgotten Tom Bombadil - though to be fair the writer also adapted it later as a stand-alone two-part series), thanks in part due to it being a radio drama. When you’ve only got voices, you really cannot insert bloated battle sequences or whatever eye candy you want. I think this goes back to what I’m saying: had PJ cut down a bit on the eye candy I think the films could have been better, so to speak.
(I’ll admit I loved Ian Holm’s Frodo and Bill Nighy’s Sam. And Michael Hordern’s Gandalf.
)I actually would say that FotR is the ‘best’ film in the live-action LotR trilogy precisely because they don’t do as much running and fighting as they did in TTT or RotK.
W
winrobee
Guest
I think Christopher Tolkien is an upstanding sort of Oxford professor for bringing his father’s main life central fictive narrative into public view. Whatever he thinks to do with the Silmarillion should be his affair (Within a month of The Battle of Five Armies coming out he turned 90).
As for future Tolkiens who may be guardians of his estate, I hope that, the Silmarillion being what I would argue is the fantasy field’s most influential work’s background material, they will see the opportunity to introduce this kind of more heavy fantasy to the non-literarily oriented fans of the current wave of PJ movie popularity, and take more of J.R.R. Tolkien’s imaginary world into ken of the general public. I really don’t think Peter Jackson gets enough credit for the effort he took (and for managing the expense involved) to bring Middle Earth to global theaters with more beauty and accuracy of Tolkien imagery than anybody really had a right to expect (that description is only fair).
As for future Tolkiens who may be guardians of his estate, I hope that, the Silmarillion being what I would argue is the fantasy field’s most influential work’s background material, they will see the opportunity to introduce this kind of more heavy fantasy to the non-literarily oriented fans of the current wave of PJ movie popularity, and take more of J.R.R. Tolkien’s imaginary world into ken of the general public. I really don’t think Peter Jackson gets enough credit for the effort he took (and for managing the expense involved) to bring Middle Earth to global theaters with more beauty and accuracy of Tolkien imagery than anybody really had a right to expect (that description is only fair).
D
Della
Guest
I agree. PJ truly captured the beauty as well as the dark side of ME that JRRT created. I too am grateful that he made the effort and did such a fine job. I can’t understand those who become abusive to the point of filthy language (that I have read on other websites) who have neither the talent nor the inclination to put forward such an effort but feel free to write the most terrible things just the same. Like the trolls in JRRT’s stories they seemingly have no conscience and care nothing for others. They are dogs in the manger who cannot enjoy the sublime achievement that PJ created, but who are determined to spoil it for those who can.
S
Scottgun
Guest
Viggo Mortensen nailed my position pretty close. Like him, I was rather impressed by The Fellowship of the Ring. It was organic and the deviations from the book, while not something I would have chosen, were digestible. As the movies progressed however, the over-reliance on CGI and even wonkier deviations from the story meant that by the third installment, I was watching a mess of overwrought eye-candy that I sometimes compare to the little girl that had a little curl right in the middle of her forehead. That is to say, when the movies are good, they are really really good, and when they are bad they are horrid.
The Hobbit seems to be following the same tack. The first installment was watchable, if a little disappointing. The second was wretched. I’m only going to the third because my son wants to close it out. The problem is that every time there is even a bit of action, the movie turns into a video game. Blech!
Do yourself a favor and read John C. Wright’s The Hobbit: The Desolation of Tolkien.
The Hobbit seems to be following the same tack. The first installment was watchable, if a little disappointing. The second was wretched. I’m only going to the third because my son wants to close it out. The problem is that every time there is even a bit of action, the movie turns into a video game. Blech!
Do yourself a favor and read John C. Wright’s The Hobbit: The Desolation of Tolkien.
D
Della
Guest
I could carp like this man did too, but I won’t. Do I approve of all the choices PJ made? Not at all. But, did his choices “ruin” the story, the essence of Tolkien’s intent? No, they didn’t. Sure, PJ emphasized some things I wouldn’t have, took some shortcuts (it’s an ADAPTION not the BOOK), and the films were padded with too much CGI and chase scenes, I admit. But a bit of patience (a seemingly forgotten virtue these days) to simply letting one man’s vision interpret another’s does yield much to like and even love in these films. Martin Freeman’s performance alone, understated and sincere lifts one above the craziness around him, making it all believeable, and worth a ticket. I simply won’t pick at the films nor can I call them bad, horrible, ruinuous or any other overly exaggerated description. If people want to pick at the films let them. It won’t spoil my enjoyment of them one little bit.
- Status