The Hobbit.

[Beran]

I am not posting this to start a war or anything, but I am curious about where peoples opinions come from. I have just started reading the Hobbit and I have to ask why are Tolkien fans really down on this trilogy (movies)? To be honest I really don't see how conceptually you could do The Hobbit completely as written. Having read up to the "Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire" chapter I think Jackson and crew have done a pretty good job. I mean right from the start you have to have a large amount of artistic license with just the Dwarves. They very little individual personalities in the book...other then having different coloured cloaks. Just to make the audience give a care about any of them you have to deviate from the original story. To be honest the only thing about the new movies that I question is the whole trilogy thing; it could have been easily done in two movies.

But, as I am not a Tolkien Scholar by any means I thought I would ask what the other members of the forum thought about it. Now, remember keep it civil and back up the argument.

[Stormcrow]

It depends on whom you talk to. The Tolkien Professor, for instance, likes the movies, even while acknowledging their deficiencies.

I like what they've done with the dwarves. There's no way you could have thirteen dwarves with only a few of them having any sort of personality at all. Tolkien could do in a book by simply mentioning "the dwarves"; in a film you've got all those people to deal with.

They're also keeping remarkably close to the original themes of The Hobbit, even while moving stuff around and adding stories and characters. Bilbo's Baggins vs. Took character arc is there, albeit shortened. Thorin succumbing to dragon-sickness is there, the greed of the Elvenking, even the actions of the White Council.

Sure, they add lots of stuff. Azog hunting the dwarves is the biggest departure, but this is when you must recognize that this is a film adaptation, not the book projected on a screen. I understand why they created the character of Tauriel, even if I don't happen to like her.

And with the extended edition, it's amazing how many songs they have!

In the end, when most people complain, they're unconsciously saying, "I don't like that it's not the way I imagined it." The only thing that really bugs me is when people quote the films and think what they're quoting is also in the books.

[James Harrison]

Francesco's opinion

http://cohorsarcana.blogspot.com/

And I can see where it comes from. As a kids story I like some of he changes, but would also have liked less action.

[Beran]

"Sure, they add lots of stuff. Azog hunting the dwarves is the biggest departure..."

Yeah, hard to intro a character and then kill him off in the same 3 minute scene in a movie. A good example of a how a good scene in a book doesn't translate to the screen.

[Angelalex242]

[Spoiler alert]










I liked the movies well enough. Sure, they added stuff, but most of what was added are logical turns of events. Legolas interfering? Well, he IS prince of Mirkwood and immortal. Why wouldn't he have a say in the battle of 5 armies? Tauriel? Any number of elven maidens could've decided their king was smoking things he shouldn't and decided to help the free peoples. Falling for Kili? Well, that's a precursor to Gimli and Galadriel. Leaving 4 dwarves at Laketown? Well, it's a logical thing that Thorin might do if one of his dwarves got poisoned. Bombur taking Peppi a bit too literally when he says 'do a barrel roll!' Well, think of a semi truck rolling down a mountain side without brakes. You do not want to be between the semi with no brakes and the bottom of the mountain. The White Council? Well, Tolkien never really went into what they did much. So it was great that we get to see what they did. Radagast actually pulling his weight? Since he doesn't in LOTR, it's nice to see he's good for something. Peter Jackson remembering the ring Bilbo's got is THE ONE RING and putting lots of Eye of Sauron and corruption references in Tolkien himself did not include? That's actually an improvement, continuity wise. I can't imagine Sauron's ring is going to take time off just because Bilbo's got it.

[bigsteveuk]

I liked the first Hobbit movie, but I have to say I feel the second is the weakest of all the films, it felt to padded to me and over the top. Also since when did orcs start training ninjas, those lads seem to be able to sneak into everywhere.

Loved the barrel scene though and whats not to like about Evangeline Lilly would still give it 7.5 out of 10.

I wish they would have stuck to the original plan of Hobbit being part 1 & 2 and 3 being new material.

[Rich H]

Peter Jackson remembering the ring Bilbo's got is THE ONE RING and putting lots of Eye of Sauron and corruption references in Tolkien himself did not include? That's actually an improvement, continuity wise. I can't imagine Sauron's ring is going to take time off just because Bilbo's got it.

Tolkien left those kind of things out because in general that's not how the One Ring worked. At this point in time Sauron has not declared himself so even using PJ's logic the ring shouldn't be 'displaying intent'. Also, the One Ring works with subtlety not gonzo in-your-face-I-am-evil-you-must-be-crackers-if-you-use-me type displays. It seduces the wearer and corrupts him, ensnaring him over time, and as Sauron grows in strength. And before someone says that is difficult to adapt to the screen then, erm no, not with a good script and actors allowed to perform.

Anyway, my main issues with the Hobbit aren't necessarily deviations to the books...

* They are simply too long for the subject matter, the story has been spread out over 3 films; stretched, like butter spread over too much bread. Because of that you get a boring story, padded out with video game fight scenes in an attempt to distract those easily fooled into thinking they're watching something interesting and packed with "kewl powerz an' shit". This story should really have been one film, but then Jackson has never been able to pace any of his films (not just his Middle Earth ones) so that's not an issue for just The Hobbit.

* Add to that the generally poor acting, I switched the first Hobbit movie off about halfway through after watching the 'performances' of the White Council and only recently returned to watch the last but; I wish I hadn't.

* Many of the elements that PJ adds aren't... great... shall we say. Though again, this was evident in the LotR trilogy as well as here - eg, the Benny Hill chase when Thorin and Co are attempting to find Rivendell, the fake Aragorn death in the Warg fight from The Two Towers, Arwen dying because Sauron is getting stronger in RotK... etc. Not necessarily all bad ideas but Jackson's execution misses the mark more often than not.

There's a lot more, matrix elves and the like, but I'm trying to keep things to the point. To be honest I fell asleep twice when watching Desolation at the weekend as it doesn't even scratch the action movie itch well because it simply isn't particularly exciting - which goes back to the first comment about lack of genuine content within the film.

I'm actually not that keen on The Hobbit as a book as most of the characters are terribly under-developed and not particularly pleasant but there was a good film in there - Jackson missed the target again though; for some of the same reasons as with the LotR trilogy. The guy sets a low bar so at least you know what to expect of him.

Just for comparisons and bear in mind that 5/10 is an average score:

LotR: FotR - 8/10
LotR: TT - 6/10
LotR: RotK - 5/10
H: AUJ - 5/10
H: DoS - 4/10

... Not terrible but certainly not great. Could've been a lot better though considering the story, budget, etc. A real missed opportunity.

[James Harrison]

Yeah, hard to intro a character and then kill him off in the same 3 minute scene in a movie. A good example of a how a good scene in a book doesn't translate to the screen.

I don't agree - it's not hard at all... Elindil and Gil-galad in the LotR trilogy...

I think a lot of the changes are to make it a story children will love today, not quite for the same audience as the lord of the rings - and Gandalf's words in the first file explain what he is doing

Gandalf: Well he could! In the Battle of Greenfields, he charged the Goblin ranks. He swung his club so hard it knocked the Goblin King's head cleaned off and it sailed a hundred yards through the air and went down a rabbit hole. And thus the battle was won and the game of golf invented at the same time.
Bilbo Baggins: I do believe you made that up.
Gandalf: Well, all good stories deserve embellishment. You'll have a tale or two to tell of your own when you come back.

So while I may not agree with the embellishment, the story is embellished to be more appealing to the younger generation - and I believe they love it

[Otaku-sempai]

It is easy to be a back-seat driver. I agree that many of Peter Jackson's additions and changes were necessary to adapt the book to the screen. However, I don't have to agree that those changes and additions were done in the best way possible. Much of the material from the Appendices is fine as it is and doesn't need enhancement. The corruption of the Greenwood into Mirkwood Forest does not need to be turned into a recent event. If we need an Orc seeking revenge against the House of Durin, Bolg works fine, he has enough motive in the death of his father Azog.

While I think that The Desolation of Smaug was laregely successful, I am convinced that it could have been a much stronger film if Peter Jackson had just used a bit more restraint. His action sequences especially tend to be over-the-top.

[fbnaulin]

I mean right from the start you have to have a large amount of artistic license with just the Dwarves. They very little individual personalities in the book...other then having different coloured cloaks. Just to make the audience give a care about any of them you have to deviate from the original story.

I agree, but leaving aside the aesthetic, I feel that the film fails to produce organic characters, and instead we have a lot of humanoids doing extra-physical feats in an endless sequence of action scenes (with a lot of 'funny' decapitations!).