Hobbit Movie - Thoughts & Trailer Analysis

[Janus]

I saw it two days ago, and I was horribly dissapointed...

I can't believe intelligent members of the PF community are praising the movie. Perhaps they've never read the book or don't care for integrity.

Peter Jackson basically has completely corrupted Tolkien's work and made it into his own story. I'm so disgusted with it I doubt I'll watch either of the next two.

If you are talking about much of the extra material in the move, that, in fact, uses Tolkien's work as its source material. For instance, the story of the battle at Moria's gate and how Thorin earned the name "Oakenshield" is part of Tolkien's history of Middle Earth.

The meeting where Gandolf, expresses his concerns over the Necromancer, while not mentioned in "The Hobbit", did take place at during that time of the story according to Tolkien. In fact, this is the reason that he gives for Gandolf being absent for a good part of the book; He, and rest of the White Council have gone off to deal with that threat.

So essentially, What Jackson is doing is integrating in events that happened during the time of "Hobbit" in order to tell the larger story. Setting the dwarves and Bilbo off to deal with Smaug was in fact just one part of a plan being executed by Gandolf.

I'm not saying that Jackson hasn't taken some liberties (for instance Azog, the white Goblin was killed at the Battle of Azanulbizar, and it Gandolf and not Radagast that goes to Dul Gulder.), But I think I can understand why some of these changes were made for the film. (He did the same thing with the "Lord of the Rings"; Sometimes having one character do something that was done by another in the books.)

 

[turbo]

If you are talking about much of the extra material in the move, that, in fact, uses Tolkien's work as its source material. For instance, the story of the battle at Moria's gate and how Thorin earned the name "Oakenshield" is part of Tolkien's history of Middle Earth.

The meeting where Gandolf, expresses his concerns over the Necromancer, while not mentioned in "The Hobbit", did take place at during that time of the story according to Tolkien. In fact, this is the reason that he gives for Gandolf being absent for a good part of the book; He, and rest of the White Council have gone off to deal with that threat.

So essentially, What Jackson is doing is integrating in events that happened during the time of "Hobbit" in order to tell the larger story. Setting the dwarves and Bilbo off to deal with Smaug was in fact just one part of a plan being executed by Gandolf.

I'm not saying that Jackson hasn't taken some liberties (for instance Azog, the white Goblin was killed at the Battle of Azanulbizar, and it Gandolf and not Radagast that goes to Dul Gulder.), But I think I can understand why some of these changes were made for the film. (He did the same thing with the "Lord of the Rings"; Sometimes having one character do something that was done by another in the books.)

A well-reasoned critique. I have to hand it to film-makers that can bring complex print to screen. (Dune comes to mind.)

 

[arildno]

Just a nerdy note:
Gandalf's trip to Dol Guldur was long before he met Thorin.
On that trip, Gandalf ascertained that it was, indeed, Sauron who was lurking about in the fortress, and found a mad dwarf who had forgotten his name, but impressed upon Gandalf to give his son a key and a map. That dwarf was Thrain, Thorin's father (Sauron had taken the great dwarven ring Thror had given Thrain just before the battle at the Gates of Moria).
So, at the time of The Hobbit, the White Council was aware of Sauron's whereabouts, but due to (already corrupted) Saruman's stallings, no effective action was taken. Once Saruman found hopes to find the One Ring in the Anduin, however, Sauron had to be driven away, so that Saruman's minions, rather than Sauron's, would be the ones to find it. Thus, he consented at last, to Gandalf's insistence that an attack should be launched on Dol Guldur.
------------------------------------------------
I think Jackson has made an intelligent re-working of this part of the tale, although it most definitely changes the relative merits and roles of the different wizards involved.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I saw it today. Granted I haven't read the book in about ten years, I found the movie well done and entertaining. I think once all three are out, it will be high acclaimed. It's really hard to make three movies from one book. I can see why some didn't like it due to the setting up and the content split. But I am patient.

 

[Jack21222]

It's really hard to make three movies from one book.

That's why they're adding in a lot of stuff from things like Unfinished Tales and the Silmarillion. Even then, there is quite a bit of padding. An Ars Technica article puts it thus:

I ultimately suspect that, even with all of the added and expanded elements, Jackson had the material for perhaps two to two-and-a-half films and decided it would be easier to expand the series to three movies instead of murdering some of his darlings and cutting back. The decision was also probably driven by the studio, which stands to make roughly ten hojillion dollars from each Hobbit film released whether there's one movie or eight movies. It's safe to say that they exerted no pressure on Jackson to be more judicious in his editing

http://arstechnica.com/staff/2012/12/a-tolkien-nerds-thoughts-on-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

As others have said, the movie contains stories that are not found in the book, but rather in other books. In addition, even when the story is from the book, it is altered in various ways. However, there is one deviation in particular that I think unwise. The book is about Bilbo. The name of the book isn't "A Hobbit", it's "The Hobbit", and Bilbo is the hobbit. Gandalf tells the dwarfs (and the reader) that there is more to Bilbo than meets the eye. As the book progresses, the dwarfs come to respect him more and more. That respect is fickle though and grows in fits and starts throughout the book. How is that going to happen now that Bilbo has saved Thorin's life, a scene that is not in the book?

 

[Feodalherren]

Absolutely terrible. I didn't enjoy it at all. Way too long.

 

[strangerep]

Absolutely terrible. I didn't enjoy it at all. Way too long.

ISTM, the world is divided into people who comprehend and appreciate the towering magnitude of J.R.R Tolkien's achievements, and those who can't/don't. The former will deeply appreciate a long movie. As for the others... well, I don't care about the others... :-)

 

[Curious3141]

As the book progresses, the dwarfs come to respect him more and more. That respect is fickle though and grows in fits and starts throughout the book. How is that going to happen now that Bilbo has saved Thorin's life, a scene that is not in the book?

IIRC, the dwarves *really* started to respect Bilbo after he saved them from the spiders in Mirkwood. So, it's a little premature for Thorin to have declared his undying respect for Bilbo before they'd even set out into the forest.

And even then, they remained a bunch of ungrateful gits - for example, when Bilbo came up with his plan to get them out of imprisonment by the Wood Elf King by enclosing them in casks, they groused to no end.

And finally, Thorin and Bilbo became the worst of enemies (at least from Thorin's perspective) when Bilbo gave the Arkenstone to Bard & Co. Of course, Thorin just about forgave Bilbo before his last breath.

 

[Adyssa]

I saw it two days ago, and I was horribly dissapointed...

I can't believe intelligent members of the PF community are praising the movie. Perhaps they've never read the book or don't care for integrity.

Peter Jackson basically has completely corrupted Tolkien's work and made it into his own story. I'm so disgusted with it I doubt I'll watch either of the next two.

Here's a tissue buddy. :)

 

[dipole]

As others have said, the movie contains stories that are not found in the book, but rather in other books. In addition, even when the story is from the book, it is altered in various ways.

This I understand, but the entire plot, which is like a huge part of the movie, where Azgoth is hunting down the dwarves and they have all these battles is completely made up. Why was that neccessary? Why wasn't the actual plot good enough, without adding more "action" to it?

However, there is one deviation in particular that I think unwise. The book is about Bilbo. The name of the book isn't "A Hobbit", it's "The Hobbit", and Bilbo is the hobbit. Gandalf tells the dwarfs (and the reader) that there is more to Bilbo than meets the eye. As the book progresses, the dwarfs come to respect him more and more. That respect is fickle though and grows in fits and starts throughout the book. How is that going to happen now that Bilbo has saved Thorin's life, a scene that is not in the book?

I agree with this completely. Plus that entire scene was extremely corny and had me groaning the whole time. I'm really put off by how Bilbo is portrayed in this movie alltogether.

 

[arildno]

In the book; Bilbo IS completely useless until the Spiders.
He:
1. Makes a major mistake of not telling the dwarves that trolls are near by (instead, he fancies himself a Grand Thief, and gets promptly caught).
2. He rolls off Dori's back during the flight through the caves
3. He constantly moans about his missing handkerchiefs
4. He is too flustered by the Wargs to help hiimself into a tree; Dori is almost sacrificing himself for the sake of Bilbo's rescue.
And so on.

Clearly, PJ could NOT retain this image of Bilbo in the first part; Bilbo had to be gicven SOME scenes showing his resourcefulness, much earlier than in the books.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm glad I read the book 40 years ago, have not yet seen the movie, nor read any of the posts since Greg posted the intro-vid from October.

Skimmed them... "Sucks!", "Blows!", "Et Cetera!, Et Cetera!, Et Cetera!"

ps. Thank you Janus, for being my next door, nota"Good Golly, Miss Molly"tard neighbor.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Bilbo had to be gicven SOME scenes showing his resourcefulness, much earlier than in the books.

Agreed. Otherwise this first movie is extremely frustrating and unsatisfying. I think he had a good mixture.

 

[OmCheeto]

Agreed. Otherwise this first movie is extremely frustrating and unsatisfying. I think he had a good mixture.

Books? I only ever read "The Hobbit". I tried reading the others. Never got past page 5. Tolkein was a one trick pony for me. Thank god for Peter Jackson.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Clearly, PJ could NOT retain this image of Bilbo in the first part; Bilbo had to be gicven SOME scenes showing his resourcefulness, much earlier than in the books.

Why does the movie need it if the book doesn't? And why does the need for SOME result in the provision of TOO MUCH? It removes one of the main themes of the book from the movie unless Thorin intends to be fickle in his respect for someone who has saved his life.

 

[strangerep]

[...] but the entire plot, which is like a huge part of the movie, where Azgoth is hunting down the dwarves and they have all these battles is completely made up. Why was that necessary?

Jackson's obviously setting up a momentous fight in the 3rd film during the Battle of Five Armies where Thorin will fight and finally defeat Azog (or more likely die trying). In the original Tolkien, Azog was killed by Nain, (Dain Ironfoot's father). His son, Bolg, led the orcs in the Bo5A, but was killed there by Beorn, not one of the dwarves.

Jackson seems to be making too much of a hero out of Thorin. In the original book, he came across rather self-important, selfishly wealth-lusting and stubborn, although he did contribute to the Bo5A to some extent. One of the contrasts between Thorin and Bilbo was that, in the end, Bilbo declined a potentially vast share of the treasure and only took a small amount home.

Anyway, all this chasing around by orcs-on-wargs in BROAD DAYLIGHT is yet another betrayal of Tolkien's mythos.

Why wasn't the actual plot good enough, without adding more "action" to it?

Because then it wouldn't have been a Peter Jackson movie. :-)

Hmmm, can anyone even recall a PJ movie that succeeded by subtle mood and character development? I only seem to remember "BIG", then "BIGGER", then "EVEN BIGGER..." :-)

 

[arildno]

Why does the movie need it if the book doesn't? And why does the need for SOME result in the provision of TOO MUCH? It removes one of the main themes of the book from the movie unless Thorin intends to be fickle in his respect for someone who has saved his life.

Because a book can be amusingly told with details of Bilbo's inner world from his perspective, that the reader can at times agree with, at others laugh at.

The Hobbit, in contrast to LoTr, has an individual's inner-life as its primary focus (i.e, Bilbo's), rather than the actions and interactions between characters.

 

[Borek]

Too much cartoons, not enough Hobbit.

 

[fizipl]

For me its good film but Lord Of The Ring was better :)

 

[1977ub]

I'm not a big LOTR fan. I was extremely meh about 1st LOTR film. Other films definitely got better. I was asked to attend Hobbit in Hi-frame 3D by a huge LOTR fan. I enjoyed it, but I think mostly for the same reason that I actually enjoy looking over someone's shoulder while they play Halo or other video games. It was like seeing a breathtaking demonstration of an amazing new video game technology. I liked it about the same the 2nd time (also in Hi-frame 3D). BTW my favorite films are 2001, Alien, SW+ESB, Repo Man, Bedazzled (1967) if that lends any perspective.

 

[Fredrik]

I saw it a few days ago. It was a nice display of computer graphics. But the story was mostly rubbish. I'm tired of movies where the protagonist and his group are basically just running for their lives the entire movie. That entire group was pretty useless. Each time Gandalf left them alone, they almost got themselves killed. Why did he even bring them along?

There were also too many scenes where they simply couldn't have survived. They're walking through the mountains when the mountains suddenly decide to stand up and beat each other to death for no apparent reason. It would have been impossible to survive that. The fall they took in the cave wasn't survivable either.

There were too many scenes were we were supposed to go "oooooohh it's that character". I know that this works really well on 13-year-olds, but I'm not 13.

As others have said, it was too long. I might not have minded if there had been other things going on instead of just chase scenes and fight scenes.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

There were also too many scenes where they simply couldn't have survived. They're walking through the mountains when the mountains suddenly decide to stand up and beat each other to death for no apparent reason. It would have been impossible to survive that. The fall they took in the cave wasn't survivable either.

That was the only scene I couldn't accept. For one it felt oddly placed and yeah it was just too much.

 

[1977ub]

There were also too many scenes where they simply couldn't have survived. They're walking through the mountains when the mountains suddenly decide to stand up and beat each other to death for no apparent reason. It would have been impossible to survive that. The fall they took in the cave wasn't survivable either.

Yes I kept thinking that. This worked together with the graphics to cement the sensation of a video game taking place.

 

[Square1]

I give this movie the biggest credit in no totally fudging up the franchise as often times ends up happening in sequels and prequels and just leaves my poor soul broken hearted (I'm talking to you Lucas...). I thought the first LTORs were good. I thought this one was a bit boring. The only scene I liked was the troll scene. The rest was all just running away and stuff like others have mentioned and boring ups and downs in the plot. Nothing really new.

 

[Jow]

I must say I was quite disappointed with the Hobbit. I am a huge fan of Lotr; books and movies. The best thing about the Lotr movies was that it kept very much to the Tolkien spirit. However, the Hobbit was way to cartoony and over the top, something Tolkien never was. That is what made Lotr special, it was different from all the other fantasy stories; it's use of magic was subtle and the characters had depth. But Peter Jackson went way to over the top. I do love Martin Freeman as Bilbo (my favourite Tolkien character) and of course Sir Ian McKellen is always good and the Gollum scene was amazing but the acting can't make up for poor story telling.

 

[nitsuj]

And the candle lighting...poor shadowing, no flickering ect ect, I can handle fantasy story telling. But a candle casts shadows and flicker from the slightest breeze. That took the CGI to "over the top" imo.fun movie though, but I don't think it holds up to much scrutiny.

 

[Borg]

And then there's the candle that smolders for hours after the dwarves left.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LDhsH79jAY

 

[nitsuj]

fun movie though, but I don't think it holds up to much scrutiny.

I should add that "holding up to scrutiny" is something typically expected for lore, perhaps the story does better.

 

[StevieTNZ]

There was some questions regarding the release of The Hobbit movie on DVD in our Parliament. The questioner couldn't even say 'Hobbit' correctly. *sigh*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LpDRO0OrCGQ