The Hobbit.

[windsurfjunkie]

I like reading opinions of Tolkien fans, and don't even bother reading any other sources because people have invested little time or passion enjoying these wonderful books and appendices. Many points here are insightful and passionate.
My opinion, after having seen the latest Hobbit a couple of times, is that if you like the central themes envisioned by Tolkien, then the movies are wonderful. These movies are all about courage, loyalty, good vs. evil, love, friendship, and perseverance. One is moved by seeing the characters face all these challenges, but in this story by Tolkien, they are epic challenges beyond any normal human experience. So by watching these movies, I easily latch onto this Tolkien experience and admire the evolution of these characters and their unique experiences.
One can nit-pick about whether this character should look a certain way, or whether the story was modified too much, but it all comes down to what Tolkien meant to achieve; and for many it was relaying a tale of interesting characters from Middle Earth suffering through great calamity, building relationships where one would assume it would be highly unlikely, and persevering against insurmountable odds.
This is Tolkien to me and this is what the movies do.

[Beran]

Ok, I'll give you those silly scenes in the movie. However, they (IMO) are separate from the point I was making about the arrow killing the dragon. The Hobbit had to be filmed as an action movie, no other way to do it. Sorry guys, but if it was made into a movie as written it would have been horrible. The Dwarves in the book have absolutely no personality. The elves are pansies and the writing itself really isn't that great (compared to LotRs). So, action scenes needed to be added in to keep the audiences attention, and as we are pretty much talking a kids story here it makes sense that those scenes would be over the top ( you might call them silly, probably do). These movies were not written for Tolkien scholars as I am pretty sure they made up very little percentage of the take. They were written to bring in the audience at large.

There was nothing in either movie that I wasn't expecting...except the (realistic) inclusion of torsion artillery to penetrate the dragons hide, and even the Windlance didn't even do it the first 3 shots. Makes sense to me, more then once armour in Tolkien has been compared to Dragon scale...now we see why. A very sensible correction in my mind.

Also, what was wrong with Bard being a smuggler? Other then naming him Bard "The Bowman" did Tolkien ever discuss what he did as an occupation? The change was probably made so he wouldn't be mistaken for a Ranger.

[Beran]

I like reading opinions of Tolkien fans, and don't even bother reading any other sources because people have invested little time or passion enjoying these wonderful books and appendices. Many points here are insightful and passionate.
My opinion, after having seen the latest Hobbit a couple of times, is that if you like the central themes envisioned by Tolkien, then the movies are wonderful. These movies are all about courage, loyalty, good vs. evil, love, friendship, and perseverance. One is moved by seeing the characters face all these challenges, but in this story by Tolkien, they are epic challenges beyond any normal human experience. So by watching these movies, I easily latch onto this Tolkien experience and admire the evolution of these characters and their unique experiences.
One can nit-pick about whether this character should look a certain way, or whether the story was modified too much, but it all comes down to what Tolkien meant to achieve; and for many it was relaying a tale of interesting characters from Middle Earth suffering through great calamity, building relationships where one would assume it would be highly unlikely, and persevering against insurmountable odds.
This is Tolkien to me and this is what the movies do.

And a very good opinion it is.

[Rich H]

Ok, I'll give you those silly scenes in the movie. However, they (IMO) are separate from the point I was making about the arrow killing the dragon. The Hobbit had to be filmed as an action movie, no other way to do it. Sorry guys, but if it was made into a movie as written it would have been horrible... yadda yadda yadda

I've engaged the film on it's own merits without the need to deconstruct it from an adaption point of view. It's a poor action film - the pacing is off (due to the need to create superfluous scenes because of the desire to make three loooooooooooong films of the story), acting and script are lacking in real tension, the editing is poor (which in turn feeds back into pacing), and the internal logic of the film doesn't hold together. I don't need to critique it as an adaption - as when compared to other [good] action films it falls short.

You, Beran, brought up that it was logical to change the arrow as the Dragon is so big and using an arrow to kill it is silly - that's why other's have mentioned separate elements of the film that are also silly. Using *your* logic, the basis for your view on Bard, then these other elements should be viewed in the same way. In other words the internal logic of the film fails - that's nothing to do with it compared to the book. On it's own merits it doesn't hold together, on the terms that *you* raised.

I can only assume that the rest of your comments aren't therefore to me, as you're trying to set up this discussion with regards to the films merits as an adaption which I'm not interesting in doing. It's simply a below average action film. That has nowt to do with it as an adaption.

Anyway, off to Stockholm now to celebrate New Year - bye all.

[Beran]

No need to shout.

Sure there were some story changes made. What I am asking is why one of them that makes sense is being questioned? So, what if Bard uses an artillery piece the end result is the same.

[poosticks7]

I do believe that Bard was a member of the Lake Town watch, not a smuggler. The reason he is known as Bard the Bowman is because he shoot down a fricking dradon with a bow.

Now I don't care how big you are, if an arrow goes through your heart - ya dead. That is what happens in the book. Smaug has a weak spot (that bilbo spots, and word is carried to Bard by a thrush).

No one is questioning fleshing out the Dwarves a bit, or making the elves less inconsistant with the elves of the Lord of the RIngs. Tolkien himself began rewritting the Hobbit to bring it more in line with the Lord of the Rings but abandoned the project. (Which is a shame because I read the two chapters he redid and it was good).

This idea that you have to make every film follow a certain formula is insulting. Why can't film makers have courage and conviction - Oh yeah I know, MONEY!

[Rich H]

No need to shout.

Sure there were some story changes made. What I am asking is why one of them that makes sense is being questioned? So, what if Bard uses an artillery piece the end result is the same.

Not shouting, didn't use upper case. Bold is for emphasis.

See above, like I stated there, I'm not questioning one bit - I'm questioning your logic. To be honest Beran, I've been here before with you on other discussions and you don't engage with the elements raised and the conversation as it develops. There's therefore no point continuing. No grudges or anything, Beran. I just don't have the time nor inclination to be arsed with such a 'meh' film.

[Beran]

See above, like I stated there, I'm not questioning one bit - I'm questioning your logic. To be honest Beran, I've been here before with you on other discussions and you don't engage with the elements raised and the conversation as it develops. There's therefore no point continuing. No grudges or anything, Beran. I just don't have the time nor inclination to be arsed with such a 'meh' film.

Sure, your choice.

Tolkien himself began rewritting the Hobbit to bring it more in line with the Lord of the Rings but abandoned the project. (Which is a shame because I read the two chapters he redid and it was good).

Pity he didn't carry through with it. If he brought up to LotRs standard then it would have been a first rate fantasy story.

This idea that you have to make every film follow a certain formula is insulting.

Was this aimed at me? Because I have no response.

Why can't film makers have courage and conviction - Oh yeah I know, MONEY!

Because, if PJ had the courage and conviction to make The Hobbit the way the critics would have liked it would have been a colossal failure as a movie. A movie is a business venture like any other to make money. Do I like it, not really. But, it sure isn't going to change.

[farinal]

I don't think so. He could have made the movie more in tone with the LOTR movies. Why wouldn't that make money, when LOTR made HUGE money?

[Beran]

For one reason the Hobbit is a kids story. Now, granted the movies aren't for young kids, but they are certainly more geared toward young adults. Which extends the audience and possible box office take.