Sorry; meant to say "extended," not "theatrical."
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
The Hobbit shoehorned too much random stuff that wasn't even in the books. Peter Jackson is just out there to make more money. I've never heard of anybody like that before.
I have to say that Sam was one of my favorite characters. Sam was underappreciated, but he really had a great deal to offer. He always seemed to ask all the right questions, and even if they seemed mundane initially, we'd know how important they were in the end. Sam was very passionate in his views and would press them in spite of anyone's contradictions. And when he really let forth his wrath, he had the ferocity of a troll! That's what I love about Sam.
the lord of the rings sucks in comparison to star wars.
Couldn't even keep up the charade for a few hours, could you?
Where were you in '77?
*sniff sniff* yeah you're right, I coulda swore I smelled something.
darth_ender said:
I have to say that Sam was one of my favorite characters. Sam was underappreciated, but he really had a great deal to offer. He always seemed to ask all the right questions, and even if they seemed mundane initially, we'd know how important they were in the end. Sam was very passionate in his views and would press them in spite of anyone's contradictions. And when he really let forth his wrath, he had the ferocity of a troll! That's what I love about Sam.
ALLOL
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
Akwat Kbrana said:
To kick off the discussion, since I've provided a positive review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey elsewhere, I thought I'd mention a few things here that I didn't like about the film. (Spoilers ahead.)
1. The portrayal of the dwarves. This is one of the things that consistently annoyed me in Jackson's LOTR trilogy. Tolkien's dwarves are not particularly crude, vulgar or gluttonous, and there is no reason to portray them as such. Jackson's dwarves come across, much of the time, as a bunch of dumb jocks that like to drink a lot, scratch themselves inappropriately, burp and fart, and generally behave in a riotous frat-boy manner. Tolkien's dwarves were much more elegant, refined, and cultured. In my own fanedits of the LOTR trilogy, I cut down significantly on Gimli's dumbness. Eventually, I plan to apply the same treatment to The Hobbit trilogy.
I found this reaction interesting. Textually, of course, you're correct: Dwarves are not depicted as being as jocular in either The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings as they are in Jackson's adaptations. Personally, however, it never occurred to me that they'd act otherwise. I must have had the same preconceptions about this race as Jackson, because I always found their gruff, uncivilized antics to be totally in keeping with my personal expectations of what a dwarf would be like.
Two things worth thinking about, however, are:
1) why object to Jackson's depiction of Dwarves but not Elves? In both TH and LOTR novels, Elves are depicted as being a very whimsical, light-hearted people, but in the films they're portrayed as serious and somber. If one is to find fault with one race's portrayal, why not the other?
2) as an in-universe explanation, one could argue that, unlike Elves and Men who were created by Illúvatar (i.e., "God"), Dwarves were made by Aulë, one of the Valar (i.e., a "lesser power"). Aulë was concerned with rock and metals (essentially the substances of Middle-earth). As such, Dwarves might be expected to be a little more a "salt of the earth"-type race than their Elven counterparts.
“It’s a lot of fun… it’s a lot of fun to watch Star Wars.” – Bill Moyers
Spoilers follow.
Eh, I thought the dwarves were all right. Though it seemed strange that I didn't learn who practically any of them were called, even after almost three hours, and I've read all the books! You'd think that PJ would have included more character bits to differentiate the dwarves.
I did not like much of the Azog bits, mostly because it felt like extra padding, but it also made most of the movie seem like one long chase scene, so there was never a break in the tension, even at Rivendell. It ended up being tiring. Also, it annoyed me that Weathertop was pointlessly shoehorned into this movie, as if we didn't see enough familiar scenery. If I was to do a fanedit, I'd take out all scenes of Azog except for the final one, only because you couldn't really excise that without damaging the story. That way, we would hear about the Azog vs. Thorin relationship, and later it would be a surprise even to LOTR fans that he had survived.
Also a problem with Azog: Having a creepy robot hand. Oh, we're done with that.
I liked the character of Radagast, despite being a bit too cutesy, but there was little reason to have him in the movie. Same with Sauruman, and Galadriel (apparently she can teleport?!) and the stone throwing giants. In fact, any time that the story wasn't solely about Bilbo, they should have cut it. There is something that has been called the Off-Screen-Movie, which is all of the implied events that happen while the actual scenes of the movie are playing, and these implied scenes can make a movie seem more dense, more fast paced, or more dramatic. In the Hobbit, everything about the story is shown onscreen, and this to me makes it seem like there is less story, ironically.
Here's an example. We see three characters that we have just met (Saruman, Elrond, and Galadriel) discuss with Gandalf at length about some place we haven't been (Dol-Guldur) and a character we know almost nothing about (the necromancer). Through this dialogue, we get no impression about what effect it will have on Bilbo, the dwarves, or their quest to go to Erebor. In their discussion, a sword from a ghost that we haven't met yet is revealed, and used to make a subtle argument about the technical nature of magic in Middle Earth, something that we don't know much about. This scene must be absolutely bizarre for a newcomer, and for someone who has seen the LOTR movies, it is pointless collection of references for the sake of linking the two narratives together.
All of this, and they still don't explain the character and philosophy of the eagles, which have probably caused more casual fan confusion than any other element of the movies.
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
xhonzi said:
CP3S said:
I knew you did, because I am pretty sure we've talked about them before. I just followed Ender's lead without thinking, then right after making my post, I read yours saying you have, realized of course you have, and edited my post. Must have missed my edit.
*AHEM* I made my post at 4:00 XDT. You made your edit at 4:02 XDT.*
Maybe I didn't hit refresh on the page before clicking "edit", didn't see your post until after I made my edit.
2. I learned about the revised chapter many years ago, perhaps on this very forum. What I didn't realize until the other day was that it was part of a larger rewrite effort that went unpublished. I see Tolkienites mention often the revised chapter, but I've not read about the total rewrite before.
We have discussed them a lot, often drawing comparisons between Tolkien's tinkering with The Hobbit and George's tinkering with the OT.
3. I'm not a Tolkienite. I consider myself a casual LotR fan... probably know more about it than the average bear, but not compared to actual Tolkienites. But it doesn't mean I haven't read teh books, seen the movies, bought some action figures, etc...
There are Lord of the Rings action figures? It seems obvious there would be with how popular the films were, guess I just hadn't thought of it before.
Fixed.
Oh yeah, and the appendices are fun too.
And then, and only then, I will be a Jedi Knight? Okay, I guess I'll go home and read the forward. Then I can be a cool kid again.
The forward will educate you on some of The Hobbit changes, but it actually confuses a lot of people. When Tolkien wrote it, the changes had yet to be made to The Hobbit. For the target audience, those who had read the 1937 version before beginning LOTR, it was basically a big retcon they were reading, explaining that the previous book they had read contained omissions and inaccuracies on account of some dishonesty on the part of Bilbo, and then it goes on to explain what really happened.
If you've read the modern printing of The Hobbit, then reading that part of the forward is really unnecessary. When I first read LOTR, I remember being a little puzzled, I had read The Hobbit before, and it was basically telling me the exact same story I had read in that book, only while making the claim that what I had read in it before wasn't what really happened. Years later when I found out there had been changes made to The Hobbit, a light bulb came on and it all made since. Ah, if only the internehts had been then what they are today, I could have powered up the ol' NES, loading up its web browser, and got on wikipedia and learned all I could have wished to know.
NeverarGreat said:
Spoilers follow.
Eh, I thought the dwarves were all right. Though it seemed strange that I didn't learn who practically any of them were called, even after almost three hours, and I've read all the books! You'd think that PJ would have included more character bits to differentiate the dwarves.
I agree. Saw the film for the second time yesterday and during the dwarf introduction scene kept thinking, "I don't even remember seeing that guy, that guy, and that guy throughout the rest of the movie the last time I saw it." Of course they are there in the background, they just don't get much screen time nor are given any/many lines. Many of the dwarves in the film were more or less just props.
But in the book it was pretty much the same way. Even over multiple reads throughout the years, I could never keep straight who all the dwarves were, there are a few that stick out and are given more to do than others, and those are the ones you remember. The others are kind of just there.
That way, we would hear about the Azog vs. Thorin relationship, and later it would be a surprise even to LOTR fans that he had survived.
Wait, but that was a surprise to even LOTR fans. He doesn't survive in the books, Jackson and Co brought him back for the movies.
I liked the character of Radagast, despite being a bit too cutesy, but there was little reason to have him in the movie. Same with Sauruman, and Galadriel (apparently she can teleport?!) and the stone throwing giants. In fact, any time that the story wasn't solely about Bilbo, they should have cut it. There is something that has been called the Off-Screen-Movie, which is all of the implied events that happen while the actual scenes of the movie are playing, and these implied scenes can make a movie seem more dense, more fast paced, or more dramatic. In the Hobbit, everything about the story is shown onscreen, and this to me makes it seem like there is less story, ironically.
I feel like they really messed up the giants. In the book they are just playing around tossing rocks around during a rain storm for kicks playing some sort of game, in the movie they are violently fighting each other, ending with one decapitating the other.
I would have been cool with them cutting it. But I actually do really like the depth and detail they are going into with this film. In the end, it is still going to make loads of money and pull large audiences in, and when it is old and the masses don't care about it anymore, the fans will still have films that cater to them.
Here's an example. We see three characters that we have just met (Saruman, Elrond, and Galadriel) discuss with Gandalf at length about some place we haven't been (Dol-Guldur) and a character we know almost nothing about (the necromancer).
Through this dialogue, we get no impression about what effect it will have on Bilbo, the dwarves, or their quest to go to Erebor. In their discussion, a sword from a ghost that we haven't met yet is revealed, and used to make a subtle argument about the technical nature of magic in Middle Earth, something that we don't know much about. This scene must be absolutely bizarre for a newcomer, and for someone who has seen the LOTR movies, it is pointless collection of references for the sake of linking the two narratives together.
It is called foreshadowing. And it is for much more than connecting the two trilogies together. In one of the next two films the Necromancer will play a much greater role. What you are saying is pretty much like saying having the character of Anakin Skywalker in the prequels is a pointless reference for the sake of linking the two SW trilogies together. They are very closely connected stories and one leads right into the other.
I don't think you seem to realize that there are two stories being told in these films. It isn't just the tale of the dwarves on their quest to retrieve their gold, which is really just a short little children's story that could easily be fit into a single film. You said anything that wasn't part of Bilbo's story should have been cut, well that is all the book is. But these movies are also the story of Sauron's rise back to power and Gandalf's detective work of piecing together the puzzle of Sauron's plans, which eventually leads to the importance of the forming of the fellowship and the destruction of the ring. These films are basically an adaption of The Hobbit and major parts of The Lord of the Rings: Appendices A and B, merged together and playing out in chronological order.
It is clear you are one of the casual fans you mentioned and you aren't familiar with the books. I think you should just sit back and see how things pan out before getting too worked up. I think what's to come is going to be a lot of fun. I look forward to the stuff about the Necromancer far more than the rest of The Hobbit story, which really is quite anticlimactic. To me the peak of excitement in The Hobbit has always been the goblins in Misty Mountains and Bilbo finding the ring.
All of this, and they still don't explain the character and philosophy of the eagles, which have probably caused more casual fan confusion than any other element of the movies.
Why so?
Tolkien always used the Eagles as his last minute jump in and save the day thing. A very obvious and blatant deux ex machina. I feel they have always been more than a bit of a cop out. There is really no deep "character" and "philosophy". They aren't confusing, they are just lame.
Wait, but that was a surprise to even LOTR fans. He doesn't survive in the books, Jackson and Co brought him back for the movies.
I guess that wasn't very clear. I meant that it would be more of a surprise for everyone when he showed up at the end, instead of revealing him before the halfway point like they did.
It is called foreshadowing. And it is for much more than connecting the two trilogies together. In one of the next two films the Necromancer will play a much greater role. What you are saying is pretty much like saying having the character of Anakin Skywalker in the prequels is a pointless reference for the sake of linking the two SW trilogies together. They are very closely connected stories and one leads right into the other.
I don't think you seem to realize that there are two stories being told in these films. It isn't just the tale of the dwarves on their quest to retrieve their gold, which is really just a short little children's story that could easily be fit into a single film. You said anything that wasn't part of Bilbo's story should have been cut, well that is all the book is. But these movies are also the story of Sauron's rise back to power and Gandalf's detective work of piecing together the puzzle of Sauron's plans, which eventually leads to the importance of the forming of the fellowship and the destruction of the ring. These films are basically an adaption of The Hobbit and major parts of The Lord of the Rings: Appendices A and B, merged together and playing out in chronological order.
Oh, I know what PJ is trying to do; however, after seeing the first installment, I just don't think that it's working. Maybe I'll eat my words after seeing the next two.
It is clear you are one of the casual fans you mentioned and you aren't familiar with the books. I think you should just sit back and see how things pan out before getting too worked up. I think what's to come is going to be a lot of fun. I look forward to the stuff about the Necromancer far more than the rest of The Hobbit story, which really is quite anticlimactic. To me the peak of excitement in The Hobbit has always been the goblins in Misty Mountains and Bilbo finding the ring.
Them's fightin' words. Granted, my Tolkien shelf is missing the Silmarillion, but that's only because I'm lending it to a friend. Which of the two versions of the Hobbit on my shelf am I not familiar with? Or perhaps it's The Lord of the Rings, Unfinished Tales, or The Children of Hurin that I'm rusty on?
I jest.
Tolkien always used the Eagles as his last minute jump in and save the day thing. A very obvious and blatant deux ex machina. I feel they have always been more than a bit of a cop out. There is really no deep "character" and "philosophy". They aren't confusing, they are just lame.
I agree with that, partially. I'm talking about those casual viewers that think that Gandalf summons them with his magic, and they disappear afterwards, or other such confusion. They don't talk in the movies, they just have Gandalf find a moth and whisper to it for some reason, as if that's enough time for the moth to find the eagles and for them to come like trained animals in search of a reward. In the Hobbit, it is established that the Lord of the Eagles was helped by Gandalf when the wizard removed an arrow from him, and the eagles helped Gandalf and company partly in payment of this debt, and partly because they don't like the goblins either. They would not, however, go near any towns of men, for the men would shoot arrows at them. The ancient race of Eagles are described as "proud and strong and noble-hearted", so they clearly have some character. I just think that showing this would clear up the misunderstandings with casual viewers, and would be an addition to the movie which wasn't made up by PJ. But yes, their continual aid at convenient moments is rather lame.
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
As someone who's never read LOTR (I honestly cannot tell you why), I must say I'm happy with all of the changes PJ and co. made. I think they all work rather well. Now, I'll admit that it's hard for me to judge, as like I said before, I have not read LOTR, but I wonder if people dis the changes simply because they're changes.
There is one change I'm not okay with, and that's having the elves in Helm's Deep. Hurts the narrative in my opinion. The other ones help, I think.
What I have read is the Hobbit, and I'd like to say that, so far, I'm liking the changes quite a bit.
Well, cyberspace ate my last post. These were the relevant points.
NeverarGreat, it was obvious to me from your first post that you probably are pretty hardcore. That's cool. Too bad you didn't enjoy the film as much as I did, as I was okay with the changes.
I feel we get to know the dwarves far better in the film than in the books, and while I can't usually put a name to each face, I can remember at least 8 of their faces and what made them unique. It's harder to do a better job than that with so many minor characters involved simultaneously, but perhaps a better move would have been to focus on three or four of the dwarves (plus the constant focus on Thorin) per film, thus leading to greater familiarity with a different bunch each time.
As for the eagles, they are hardly different from the books, but the lack of development and the very "convenient" deus ex machina that they are makes me wonder if doing the films in the proper order instead of Star Wars order might have helped things make more sense with them and perhaps a number of other points as well.
1) why object to Jackson's depiction of Dwarves but not Elves? In both TH and LOTR novels, Elves are depicted as being a very whimsical, light-hearted people, but in the films they're portrayed as serious and somber. If one is to find fault with one race's portrayal, why not the other?
Yeah, I see where you're coming from, but here's the difference between the two cases, as I see it. First, Tolkien moved steadily away from the whimsical portrayal of the elves as his thinking on Arda developed and evolved. The elves of LOTR are considerably less happy-go-lucky than the elves of the Hobbit, and that trend continues through his other writings, too. So the films' more somber portrayal has some textual basis. Second, where the films do depart in portraying the elves from the source material, it is done in a respectful manner. Making the dwarves into a bunch of crude jocks strikes me as a very disrespectful decision. Just because comic relief is sparse is no reason to turn Tolkien's noble dwarves into a race of Gungans.
As for the eagles, they are hardly different from the books, but the lack of development and the very "convenient" deus ex machina that they are makes me wonder if doing the films in the proper order instead of Star Wars order might have helped things make more sense with them and perhaps a number of other points as well.
You may be right, but I suspect that, from a purely pragmatic perspective, it never would've worked. The Hobbit is doing so well, in large part, by riding the coattails of LOTR. If the production order had been reversed, I suspect we never would have made it to the second trilogy.
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
Time for some SILMARILLION FANTASY CASTING!!!!
Obviously Benedict Cumberpatch as Young Sauron/Glorthaug/Annatar or whatever.
Phillip Quast as voice for Morgoth
Matt Berry as Feanor
corellian77 said:
1) why object to Jackson's depiction of Dwarves but not Elves? In both TH and LOTR novels, Elves are depicted as being a very whimsical, light-hearted people, but in the films they're portrayed as serious and somber. If one is to find fault with one race's portrayal, why not the other?
Seriously. They cut "Tra La La La Lee Down In The Valley" from the Hobbit. Screw Peter Jackson's beard!
I have uncovered the definitive adaptation of The Hobbit. Enjoy.
At first glance, it looks like they filmed a stage play version or something. (Or else this is the Middle Earth version of Turkish Star Wars.) I wonder if they had permission from the Tolkien estate?
Where were you in '77?
Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here
Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here
ALLOL
I wrote a reply to NeverarGreat's post shortly after he posted it, and was surprised to see it wasn't posted. Must have gotten distracted then closed my browser without clicking "post" or something.
NeverarGreat said:
Oh, I know what PJ is trying to do; however, after seeing the first installment, I just don't think that it's working. Maybe I'll eat my words after seeing the next two.
I thought it seemed to be working well, but of course that is entirely dependent on how the next two installments turn out.
Them's fightin' words. Granted, my Tolkien shelf is missing the Silmarillion, but that's only because I'm lending it to a friend. Which of the two versions of the Hobbit on my shelf am I not familiar with? Or perhaps it's The Lord of the Rings, Unfinished Tales, or The Children of Hurin that I'm rusty on?
I jest.
Clearly I was mistaken. I have the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and The Children of Hurin as well. The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales I've never managed to read cover to cover, and have treated them more or less as reference works over the years; Children of Hurin I was extremely excited about and got my copy the first day it was released, started reading, then got bogged down with some academic obligations and never managed to get back around to finishing it. I should do that sometime soon.
My favorite stuff by Tolkien are his children's stories. I love Roverandom, The Father Christmas Letters, and stuff like Leaf by Niggle and Father Giles of Ham. It is a shame the man wasn't a published children's author during his day, I feel like he really excelled at it, but of course, it wasn't really his thing and just fun stories he wrote for his own children. I am sure he would have much rather been well known for his academic works and for his Middle Earth stories.
Tolkien always used the Eagles as his last minute jump in and save the day thing. A very obvious and blatant deux ex machina. I feel they have always been more than a bit of a cop out. There is really no deep "character" and "philosophy". They aren't confusing, they are just lame.
I agree with that, partially. I'm talking about those casual viewers that think that Gandalf summons them with his magic, and they disappear afterwards, or other such confusion. They don't talk in the movies, they just have Gandalf find a moth and whisper to it for some reason, as if that's enough time for the moth to find the eagles and for them to come like trained animals in search of a reward. In the Hobbit, it is established that the Lord of the Eagles was helped by Gandalf when the wizard removed an arrow from him, and the eagles helped Gandalf and company partly in payment of this debt, and partly because they don't like the goblins either. They would not, however, go near any towns of men, for the men would shoot arrows at them. The ancient race of Eagles are described as "proud and strong and noble-hearted", so they clearly have some character. I just think that showing this would clear up the misunderstandings with casual viewers, and would be an addition to the movie which wasn't made up by PJ. But yes, their continual aid at convenient moments is rather lame.
I see what you mean now. I didn't really put much thought into it before, but now that my mind is on it, the fact that we never hear one of the eagles speak is annoying and a wasted opportunity. They are kind of like glorified magical taxis in the films, plucking characters out of the midst of disaster, dropping them off to safety, and never uttering a word. In Lord of the Rings it wasn't a big deal because we only see them pick up Gandalf, then later Frodo and Sam at the end, and both times they are at parts where exposition or dialogue wouldn't flow too well in the films. But in The Hobbit, there was no reason not to have them speak, and it was a little awkward they just plopped them off and left without any communication.
Balrogs don't have wings.
CP3S said:
My favorite stuff by Tolkien are his children's stories. I love Roverandom, The Father Christmas Letters, and stuff like Leaf by Niggle and Father Giles of Ham. It is a shame the man wasn't a published children's author during his day, I feel like he really excelled at it, but of course, it wasn't really his thing and just fun stories he wrote for his own children. I am sure he would have much rather been well known for his academic works and for his Middle Earth stories.
I've never read any of this, in fact I haven't even heard of it except for Father Giles of Ham. More for my reading list!
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
TheBoost said:
Balrogs don't have wings.
QFT
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!