The Hobbit or A Hobbit Movie ? [spoilers inside]

[Hialmar]

So what do you guys think about the first movie ?

As the title suggest I'm not that pleased with it.

Jackson put way too much things to milk the cow with three movies where one good movie would have been way better.

Let's start the stupid addition list:
- Radagast the looney (remember Jar Jar Binks or whatever his name was...)
- Azog the super Orc (Uruk Hai ???)
- The Goblin King size (or is that a malformed Uruk Hai ?)

And I'm sure I'm missing some of it.

I really need to re-read the book to get it wash over the bad mouth impression that the movie left to me.

Don't get me wrong, the movie was entertaining and the 3D and HFR are good but my problem is that it is supposed to be based on the book... Very very loosely based...


Edit: apparently the stone giants battle is in the book (I really need to read it again)

[CloudDancing]

My friend, who is not a fantasy aficionado stated that she was fine except for the 10 minutes they spent yammering on expositionally in Rivendell which put her to sleep.

I can stand looking at his hawtness Elrond in his bitchin' armor, but dragging out things so that we can learn more about Gandalf and Galadriel's mysterious relationship was a bit of obivous time stretching.

[Swift]

Isn't out until December 26 here in Australia.

Edit: In regards to the length, you can blame the studios for that. Back before Jackson was signed on, it was only going to be two movies, but they pushed for 3 once Jackson was on board because Lord of the Rings was so successful.

[gonz.0]

I have just finished reading the book through twice to my 7 yr old son over the last 6 weeks in preparation for the movie, and we both noticed many changes.

A) I think there were several points that could have been made longer but were glossed over, or changed entirely.
1) The dealing with the map and dwarves for tea then staying for dinner, then breakfast etc was changed and I think the flavor that was in the book was changed and Mr Baggins was portrayed as an entirely different character because of it.
2) The point at which Bilbo takes the contract and runs to catch up gives the impression that he was suddenly taken over with the Tookish side of him and wanted the adventure. When by the book he had been quite upset waking and seeing the mess, taken significant time to clean up, do his dishes and was just setting himself down to breakfast when Gandalf came calling again wanting to know why Bilbo wasn't yet ready, and basically pushed him out the door on the adventure before Bilbo realized he was going. He was not excited or happy about it, and again, I think this portrays a different character than was in the book. As a side note, I honestly think that someone thought of him running through the shire screaming about going on an adventure with an excitement on his face as a good movie trailer and that's why they changed it. It made me sad.
3) The encounter with the Trolls did not go that way at all in the book. In fact, they were all cold, miserable and nearly out of supplies. After all having just lost a pony in a rain storm on a muddy riverbank to drown in the river, that just happened to be packed with most of their food. They were looking to the fire as a source of relief for their troubles, not bravely trying to rescue ponies after only a few days on the road. Bilbo again had to be pushed into that, because of his role a burglar, not eagerly rushing off to investigate and help. Portrayed the character they are building up as a hero, not the reluctant normal person that finds the hero in himself that I loved the book for. Further, they managed to add the whole bit of combat choreography for that battle with the trolls, and build disappointment as it was because of Bilbo that they all got caught in the movie. Whereas in the book, he had managed to slip away and it was the dwarves bumbling into the situation that got them all caught. In the book it was Gandalf throwing his voice in the clever wizard way that stalled for time, not a clever hobbit.
4) Gandalf giving the elvish blade to Bilbo and declaring it was an elvish blade, encouraging him to take it... it seemed to me that they were trying to portray Bilbo as a pacifist type, when in the book he had picked up the dagger because by his eyes, it seemed to be the least of the serviceable weapons there, and he thought that it was something he needed, this adventure had become more dangerous than he expected. A dynamic change to the character that showed his hardening and becoming more worldly and stepping up. Again I was sad, because I thought that was a subtle but important moment in the book.
5) The escape of the dwarves from the goblin king, was IMHO too glossed over, but I think that was done to lend visual excitement. The book would have had you watching a nearly black screen the whole time, as that was the conditions they were fighting through to escape. There was several bits of good dialogue that was removed to make that escape scene make sense, but here is where I take issue with it. The hobbit was with them in the book, after they were captured, not slipping away, but having been knocked out and lost it the running battle. There was a reason why Gandalf was angry at Durin, as he was to be carrying him and was responsible for losing him. That was missed in the movie, but not the angry accusation after they were outside. Also, I think the escape of Bilbo after he put on the ring, was too glossed over, there was supposed to be the escape out the back door, guarded by a score of goblins... and him making it out on his own, and past the lookout Balin was that was supposed to win the respect of all the dwarves, even if Thorin was still a little less than fully impressed yet. Balin by that was supposed to have taken a liking and respected Bilbo because of the feat.

B) The addition of the white orc, while it was fine in my mind to give Thorin a more prominent role in the movie, more importance, even thought he movie and book were called the Hobbit, not the Dwarf King and I don't think it was needed... it did give them more of a breadth of a story to tell for 3 movie stretch without making it horridly slow. But in doing that they managed to make it possibly more exciting in the script, but not in my mind for the screen. Yes, they were pursued, and would still be probably the whole way to the lonely mountain now as part of that, but seriously... other than the kingly way Thorin stalked down the burning tree to face him, and then the hobbit being the one to step in to save the king and win his favor.. I didn't see any point. That scene, and that part was again important in my mind for the dynamic of the story. Gandalf didn't call the eagles, he was preparing himself for a final suicide attack on the wargs and goblins that had them trapped and they were saved by the eagles as another example of the great luck of the hobbit coming to their side again.

C) The stripping away of any of the time with Eagles at their eyrie and the discussions and such, was sad to me, as there was a good amount of the character shown there of several of the dwarves and Mr Baggins. That scene where Thorin recognizes the value of the Hobbit could have just as well been done later, it did not have to be in the first movie.


There is more.. but I just realized how long this has become, so I will sum up.

The movie managed to keep most of the feel of the book, but sacrificed a lot of the value of the story itself in order to tie in all the elements that are needed to:
A) Make a successful stretch of a story possible to tell in 2 hours into a 9 hour trilogy
B) Make sense and bring this trilogy successfully into being a full on prequel to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. And as such, it is a major marketing successful move.

Did I like it, hell yes, as a movie it was good. Did I think it was true to the book, absolutely not.

[Hialmar]

*nods to what qonz.0 said*

I think the thing that disappointed me the most is that The Lords of the Rings movies are way more accurate to the books and I was expecting this kind of quality in The Hobbit.

I have thought about it more yesterday and think I'll buy the Blu-rays when they are out and fast forward some of the scenes I don't like. After all it is a good movie.

I tried to make a parallel with the prequel trilogy of Starwars but I think so far The Hobbit is way better than Starwars 1. Which is easy...

[Swift]

While not having seen the hobbit to see where it moves away from the book, I am not so sure the Lord of the Rings movies will be any better in the faithfulness stakes. Make no mistake, as movies they are great but I know when I first saw them I was constantly saying "that's not how it happened" to myself.

[Rumple C]

You should all be grateful that PJ had the sense to make a movie based upon LOTR and the Hobbit, not faithful word for word movie treatment.

Else you would all have been exposed to Tom B.

[Swift]

Fog on the Barrow Downs remains my favourite chapter from the 3 books so the axing of Tom B meant the axing of that chapter as well, which was extra annoying because that is where they got their weapons! They carried them to the end of the story (barring Frodo who was given Sting).

[Rumple C]

"Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!"

No price is worth that.

[Hialmar]

I agree that TLoR movies where not faithful and definitely miss a few interesting characters and scenes but the books were way too long (for doing movies) and they had to choose what to show.

On the other hand, The Hobbit, is a short book and they could have filmed it as was presented but they chose for financial reasons to add in things in order to lengthen the movies. This is way more of a problem IMHO.

Read here: http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/The_Hobbit:_ ... ed_Journey
the part on "Deviations from the Book".
The most important being:

At the White Council meeting, Elrond relates how the Witch-king of Angmar, after his defeat near Fornost, had been killed and sealed in a tomb in that could not be opened. This is a serious departure from canon (Tolkien's writings), in which the Witch King had not died, but fled. In fact, Glorfindel had stopped pursuit of the Witch King and prophesied, "Do not pursue him! He will not return to these lands. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall." This prophecy, of course, was the basis for the later dramatic moment in The Lord of the Rings in which Éowyn was able to kill the Witch King because she was not a man. This prophecy no longer makes sense if the Witch King had already been killed and is now (as Radagast implies) just a spirit raised by a necromancer who could "summon the dead." Furthermore, per Tolkien the White Council knew the Witch King had not been killed because he and the rest of the Nazgul had previously been fighting with Gondor and had captured (and presumably killed) the last king of Gondor at Minas Morgul in TA 2050, long after he had fled Fornost.

[Veilan]

I don't mind "unfaithfulness" to a book. After all, the medium of a movie has certain requirements and conditions that need to be kept in mind. There's a certain mode of translation that could and should be applied when turning a book into a movie. A great example of this is "The Hunt for Red October", which deviated quite a bit from the book - but always in a fashion that was very justifiable with the medium, and made it a better film than had it staid true.

The Hobbit... was not a good example. It was rambly and disorganised, instead trying to fill in short-term story arcs and pretty/pathetically moving/funny images, seemingly aimed at a short-attention-span audience that would be overwhelmed even by the little depth and requirement in patience that a children's book had?

Overall, I could have done with a lot less americanised slapstick and action in the movie, and a bit more fantastic credibility. The film really was lacking the charm and wit of the book while not adding or developing any of its own... a bit of a disappointment, especially considering how good (well, in many parts) the Lord of the Rings movies were.

There, I tried to be reasonably balanced, alright.

Cheers,

[dergon darkhelm]

Saw the movie on Wednesday. The references to Episode 1 and Jar Jar Binks were dead on. I leaned over to my wife while Radagast was in that chase scene with the ewoks and the land speeders ..... err .... rabbit drawn sleigh ..... and said "I didn't know this was Lucas films".

The movie was built much more as a LoTR prequel.

My wife who has never read the book actually liked it quite well.....so..... *shrugs*

[Ithildur]

I can live with and even enjoy many additions/departures from every detail in the novels; it's impossible to make everything the same. However, significant changes of the personality of the main protagonist is what really ticked me off in LOTR; sounds like there's more of the same in the Hobbit, no surprise.

[Heero]

Well I enjoyed it despite its inaccuracies and inconsistencies and additions to the happenings of the book.

I disliked the thing in Rivendell with Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman, and Gandalf. I also disliked the escape from the goblin town where they must have killed 700 goblins a piece, all while rope swinging, tumbling, and leaping incredible distances like a pack of spider monkies.

Overall, I thought it was que fun. Maybe Ill think of more stuff tomorrow, but I cant hardly wait for the next.

[puny]

mmmmm hawt dwarfsies! didnt know they existed! *gleeful*