The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
discussion
Did you like the Desolation of Smaug movie?
Na'ama wrote: "That it is a super-packed special effects movie with a lot of CG stuff, but that the Hobbit it is not. :( What do others think?..."
See entire thread except comment on how to make italics.
Kerry wrote: "Na'ama wrote: "That it is a super-packed special effects movie with a lot of CG stuff, but that the Hobbit it is not. :( What do others think?..."
I guess I missed your comment, Kerry, below my quote. What do YOU think, Kerry?
Is it "A HOBBIT" movie with some special effects or is it a basically a CGI extravaganza that does not do justice to the book (and was just using the book's name while being a mere platform for Peter Jackson's love affair with fight sequences and over-drawn plots)?
I'm glad you liked it. Maybe it needed three movies...though in reality, many movies are made of books (even good movies) that manage to keep a story interesting even with one installment... Three is quite unusual. Personally, I found there to be quite a lot of excitement in the story in the book without needing to add to it. That said, to each his own. Glad it worked for you.
It was an ok movie I just don't see how you make 3 movies of a small book like The Hobbit
Well, I just HATED the movie and think that Peter Jackson should have his head cut off with a morgul blade immidiatetly! I wonder if the movie really is to be seen as part 2 of the Hobbit trilogy? I think it is more like the final sequel of "Bad taste" and "Braindead"!
I was surprised the giant gold statue inside Smaugs castle wasn´t of Peter Jackson himself, since it is obvious the maniac has some severe megalomania.
There is one true "Defouler" in this movie series; and that is Peter Jackson himself!
well, Peter, you are helping me solidify my decision to not run to see it in the theaters... I'll keep hold of my very fond memories and imagery of the Hobbit as read in the book. Tolkien did a more than good enough job painting pictures in my mind. No need for Jackson to come in and try to bulldoze new ones with overkill CGI and overlong movie (TRIO, no less).
The movie was terrible and should not be allowed to be called by the same name as the book. *headdesk*
Na'ama wrote: "well, Peter, you are helping me solidify my decision to not run to see it in the theaters... I'll keep hold of my very fond memories and imagery of the Hobbit as read in the book. Tolkien did a mor..."It is a fine production. Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Ian McKellen are fine actors. The second movie would have benefited from more of their craft and less running about the place. Benedict Cumberbatch does wonderful voice work. Orlando Bloom looks more manly and is more naturally commanding after a few years of aging since LOTR. The dwarfs are all well cast. Too bad they couldn't get more face time. Luke Evans is a great Bard the Bowman. My complaint, see above, was that Jackson can't seem to decide whether he's making, THE HOBBIT, the children's book or The Hobbit - LOTR prequel. That said, I would recommend this big budget picture over most any other big budget fantasy or science fiction movie of late.
I was expecting to hate Tauriel, and I did going in--no need far a fake character!! But I wound up really liking her despite myself :) and I mean its totally fathomable--there are dozens of unnamed wood-elves living in the king's dominion, and some of whom certainly would have come into contact with the dwarves. Jackson just added a sub-plot involving one of them, and it's alright, he just wanted to bring in female energy (there are exactly ZERO girl characters in the hobbit) and of course romance. What I didn't like was Kili's injury. I also didn't like that he essentially butchered the story from Laketown on! Like totally twisted around. For instance, the dwarves were supposed to be honored like legends come to life in Laketown. Not so mch, huh? And it went downhill from there :/
I enjoyed the movie, but it had several flaws that I had a hard time getting my head around.1. The love triangle subplot. This was just silly. It wasn't in the book, and it added nothing in my opinion. The romance felt tacked on. They'd only just met, for crying out loud. The whole healing thing had me palming my face with both hands and wishing I had more since a double face palm was not enough to express my displeasure. Kili's lines like "she walks in starlight" etc were jaw dropping on how bad they sounded. Plus the whole Tauriel surrounded by light thing was just lame looking.
2. I don't mind some of the changes to the barrel scene. I understand it would have been boring to go completely by the book. But it came off as cartoonish (it reminded me of Donkey Kong on Super Nintendo, but not in a good way). I can understand this though since it's clearly aimed at kids.
3. Does no one have eyes and ears? There are orcs climbing on top of buildings - Bolg even rides out of town on a warg - and no one seems to notice. Are there no watchmen, no guards? Does nobody even look out the window?
4. I like Zelda. I like the Hobbit. I do not like the Hobbit turning into Zelda. Honestly, the whole "cover Smaug with molten metal" subplot came off like it was from a video game (a Zelda game, in particular).
5. The pacing. The last film felt like it had a firm conclusion while still setting up the next film. This film lacks that definitive feel to it. I actually thought they would kill Smaug at the end of this film, setting up the overthrow of Dol Goldur and the Battle of Five Armies in the next film. Now that Smaug is still alive, Jackson is going to have to cram in everything into the last film. Is it going to be even longer than Return of the King? Or is he going to just make it all action?
Don't get me wrong - this is an enjoyable film. But I know Jackson can do better (e.g., the LOTR films), which is why I hold him to a higher standard than someone less accomplished. When adapting from a book to a film, changes are almost always necessary. Book and film are the not the same media. But such changes should always be motivated by sound reasoning, and I don't think all the changes in this movie were made for good reasons.
I watched the first part and im going to the cinema to watch it later so I hope its good.
Thanks for elaborating Kerry! I appreciate you taking the time and energy to detail the best and less so in the movie. Maybe I'll need to watch it without prejudice and not expect for it to be the "Hobbit" but something with a "hobbit flair"...and just enjoy the things you wrote about. Too bad Jackson could not focus on one goal and tried to catch all--sometimes when you try for too much you end up with too little... Thanks!
I like to think of the book and the movie series as being two separate entities, and I enjoy both. The whole "elf/dwarf love triangle" wasn't great, but it was kind of cute. At least the elf love-interest was a fairly badass and a competent warrior, and not just some vapid pretty-face.
And it was great seeing Legolas have an actual personality instead of just being the guy who stares into the distance and occasionally states something redundant.
The only part that genuinely bothered me was the mere glance-over of the segment with Beorn. It just seemed like "Hi, Beorn...Bye, Beorn." That, and I didn't care for the design of his human form. He looked less like a mountain-man and more like a random dude wearing cheap wolf-man makeup.
Still, other than that, it's a fun movie. They did Smaug justice.
L.G. wrote: "I enjoyed the movie, but it had several flaws that I had a hard time getting my head around.1. The love triangle subplot. This was just silly. It wasn't in the book, and it added nothing in my op..."
Lol, great review, L.G.!
L.G. wrote: "I enjoyed the movie, but it had several flaws that I had a hard time getting my head around.1. The love triangle subplot. This was just silly. It wasn't in the book, and it added nothing in my op..."
Great review, L.G.; I think you nailed some key issues many of us have with the movie. Plenty others here have raised important points as well.
It's almost mindboggling how a movie can be so spectacular in some respects and fail so abjectly in others. Nor is there anything new about it. Today's great filmmakers know quite well what they put in their movies, the good and the bad - it's not a question of random chance. I assume there's an expected...ah, 'payoff' for everything.
Perhaps our reviews here might sometimes sound one-sided and harsh, but the opinions aired are really not nitpicking about little things, but valid and glaringly obvious points. That so many of us agree about what they are is evidence of that.
In comparison. Saw the movie "47 Ronin." A movie I wanted to like despite poor reviews. But alas, it's a true big budget movie fail. CGI was good and I liked Rinku Kikuchi who plays the witch. K Reeves can do a good fight scene. But the rest...Pacing- fail, romance chemistry- fail, bad guy- fail, Japanese speaking choppy English - fail, ending- fail, majesty- fail, okay there was nice colorful costumes but most everybody's acting was stiff. The Japanese didn't even show up to watch it and it is their tale. In comparison, The Hobbit is best film ever.
I really enjoyed it. I saw it twice. Once with my grandma a few days after it came out, and then again the day Christmas Day. I saw it IMAX 3D the second time, and it was awesome! The movie was just as awesome the second time around. I felt bad for Kili when he got shot in the leg by that poisoned Orc arrow. He tried so hard to be brave for his brother and Uncle. Whatever that arrow was poisoned with must have been very painful from the way Kili was carrying on. I liked the part where Bofur was getting ready to go and get the kingsfoil and he told Kili not to move. One thing that irritated me though was Tauriel really should have washed the kingsfoil first before putting it on Kili's leg so the bacteria from the pig wouldn't be transferred to Kili, but she seemed to have taken care of the pig spit issue when she mashed it up and was holding it her hands. It looked like applying the kingsfoil really hurt, the way Kili was carrying on.
Hm. About that "weed" called Kingsfoil, you guys know why Athelas is called that? It's because it only has healing capabilities in the hands of a king. Legolas might have done some good with it, and he was on hand but went to chase Orcs because that was more fun than playing doctor. Tauriel shouldn't have been able to use Athelas to any effect, because she's not royalty. I don't really mind Tauriel being good with herbs; as a Wood Elf she's bound to know everything there is about them. But perhaps she could have used a different crop? Okay, this is a very minor point, and it doesn't really bother me, but it would've been the work of a few minutes to dream up a fictional herb that Tauriel could actually use. :P
Some excellent comments. Great movie to watch. Peter Jackson has gone so far beyond Tolkien in overlaying the Lord of the Rings on the Hobbit that it really loses the charm of the original tale. So, something of a speculative work of art based on the book and the private notes of the author as though the author had intended to write the Lord of the Rings - which he did not. I like it, but it's not Tolkien's Hobbit.
Petter wrote: "Hm. About that "weed" called Kingsfoil, you guys know why Athelas is called that? It's because it only has healing capabilities in the hands of a king. Legolas might have done some good with it, an..."Perhaps Tauriel is a Royal Wood Elf and could be right for Legolas after all. Tongue in cheek. Don't care for that whole set up on many levels.
What really bothers me is that PJ has stolen the title "The hobbit" and the author name "Tolkien" and made a completely different story out of it. NOT OK! This is really "Disneyfying" at its worst. 1. -Hey, we steal the name from some famous book or so to get lots of people to the cinema.
2. -Oops, we cant make a Disney movie out of THAT story.
3. -No problems. We change everything but some of the names in it.
4. -YES! Now what to do with all the MONEY?!
If he wanted to do some story about elves, dwarves and a dragon with mostly actors stumbling around and falling off things; fine, but DON´T SMERGE THE LEGACY OF TOLKIEN, YOU ILLITIRATE BASTARD!
Peter wrote: "What really bothers me is that PJ has stolen the title "The hobbit" and the author name "Tolkien" and made a completely different story out of it. NOT OK! This is really "Disneyfying" at its worst...."Harshly worded, but I have to agree. There is something about the original Tolkien that feels almost sacrosanct, while this movie in particular seemed out to defile it. Every tweak was for the worse, everything subtracted from the original story was an outrage, and everything added was just...cheesy. More cringeworthy scenes than in all the preceding LOTR movies combined.
I mostly liked it, but I think the Tauriel thing was just to broaden the audience, and I didn´t like that some dwarves get left behind. I liked the first one better.
Kerry wrote: "Petter wrote: "Hm. About that "weed" called Kingsfoil, you guys know why Athelas is called that? It's because it only has healing capabilities in the hands of a king. Legolas might have done some g..."Would you like to launch a "Tauriel for Queen of Mirkwood" campaign with me? I think we could get quite some support!
Actually, some disturabances has been reported suggesting that JRR Tolkien does NOT like the film. Please read the following:http://getalifesucker.wordpress.com/2...
The movie was okay. Better than the first installment but still nowhere near the original trilogy. The new character was cool. The CGI was bad though... What happened to the days of practical + CGI effects? And I hated where they cut it off. Right when the story started the credits began to roll. I just don't think this book deserved three movies. One would have been fine. Two if you really wanted to draw it out. But three? This is just a bloated mess...
The film was just listless. The action lacked a central character to care about and the dragon, touted as being unlike any seen before, looked just like every previous dragon animated before.Honestly, I can wait for part 3 as a home rental
Thanks, Sandyboy. With all the input about the movie(s), I think I may just as well wait to see all three in DVD...In the meanwhile, the book is pure delight.
(Na'ama Yehuda, Author "Outlawed Hope")
They had to add a female character; they did the same to Lord of the Rings when the book's second most important female character was Shelob. I expected them to add things, but not remove things. I still don't understand why they left the characters in Laketown.
Na'ama wrote: "Thanks, Sandyboy. With all the input about the movie(s), I think I may just as well wait to see all three in DVD...In the meanwhile, the book is pure delight.
(Na'ama Yehuda, Author "Outlawed Hope")"
Au contraire mon ami Na'ama, now you must go see The Desolation of Smaug so you can add your informed opinion as to whether it is, or is not, the Desolation of Hobbit. :-)
I hear you, Kerry! :)Isn't life full of lovely options? :)
Na'ama wrote: "Isn't life full of lovely options? :)" Vacillation, Na'ama?
Be advised, life's 'lovely options' require mindfulness, curiosity and risk. If your biggest impulse was to NOT see it, your best options is to see it.
Because....
erroneous certainty is to become enamored with a path that seeks only to affirm preconceived notions. (Like if you give greater credence to discouraging reviews, or, like when Sauron never conceived that someone might want to actually destroy the One Ring and therefore remained blind to that option.)
Subtext...you don't want to be like Sauron do you?
So you must see The Hobbit on the big screen just like the Elves meant it to be seen in order to best enjoy your life's full options. :)
I guess I must then at the very least consider my options carefully...surely I do not want to end up a dark lord or any of his minions or followers... far better go seek sn adventure with the elves (and maybe some trolls and dragons and a certain fallen hobbit with a precious ring...):)
As a general remark - I do not lend more credence to negative reviews - I SO want this to be a good movie and a fun thing to see ...that I actually kept looking more for the positive reviews... which is more of my disposition generally (hard to dampen and easy to make happy)
:)
Vacillations rock!!
I think some of the major complaints about the movie, like the extended, Zelda-like barrels in th water with jumping elves and orcs (and c'mon, throwing weapons around like they're soccer balls) can be put down to entertainment bias for 3D film. In fact, ALL the stuff I fidgeted over were 3D effects. Cut those out, make the scenes in normal view, it'd be acceptable at the very least..But filmmakers now want to make the kids pee their pants. And as long as the 3D craze lasts, it's going to become more common. Unfortunately.
(Just in case you didnt know already: I very much enjoyed the movie and I watched it in 2D. )
It's a real shame, I think, because story becomes subservient to eye-play.
(as for watching it NOW vs watching it later on Netflix or cable... There's nothing like the big screen for picking up on all the little background stuff that's fun to see. The Dark Crystal had all these little critters in it that can't be seen on tv screens... Unless you have a 6 footer. AND a better copy of the movie that'll show well at hi def :) )
Good point on the kingsfoil, Petter!Maybe Tauriel has a hidden from us bloodline? Could be a clue ;)
Na'ama wrote: "I guess I must then at the very least consider my options carefully...surely I do not want to end up a dark lord or any of his minions or followers... far better go seek sn adventure with the elves..."My advise is - see it. Come on, you're already committed since you discuss the movie with us. Join the Fellowship - we have Lembas! But naturally we all want you to be comfortable with your choice, whichever it may be. :)
Petter wrote: "Hm. About that "weed" called Kingsfoil, you guys know why Athelas is called that? It's because it only has healing capabilities in the hands of a king. Legolas might have done some good with it, an..."I think Tauriel was a Silver Elf, not a Wood Elf - she makes that comment when she is talking to the King and says how he would never let his son fall for a lowly Silver Elf
Dee wrote: "Petter wrote: "Hm. About that "weed" called Kingsfoil, you guys know why Athelas is called that? It's because it only has healing capabilities in the hands of a king. Legolas might have done some g..."
Tauriel is a "Silvan" Elf, and that's a Wood Elf in the common tongue. Easy to hear wrong in the movie, I guess, and the main reason I know is because I've consumed more than my share of LOTR literature. :)
Meran wrote: "Good point on the kingsfoil, Petter!Maybe Tauriel has a hidden from us bloodline? Could be a clue ;)"
Tauriel for Queen of Mirkwood! Down with Thranduil! Fanfiction writers of the world, unite! =D
Join the Fellowship, eh? I will, but only if there's Lembas... :)
There will be! I'll bake you some, if you like. *dashes off into the kitchen*
The movie wasn't bad but had nothing to do with the book. Shouldn't even be allowed to share the same title. Also felt cheated at the end. No resolution. It was like they were saying, "We'll tell you the end if you give us more money."
Na'ama wrote: "Join the Fellowship, eh? I will, but only if there's Lembas... :)"
Yes, and you'll be like the great and adventurous Belladona Took. Belladona before she became Mrs. Bungo Baggins, the kept Hobbit who remained in her luxurious hole in the ground. Resigned to asking about other people's adventures.
I really liked the Desolation of Smaug, yes I know it doesn't follow the exact plot of the book, but I find the added scenes add to the movie, not take away from it like so many other films have failed at. The only thing I didn't really like was the elf/dwarf romance they tried to add into this movie. But overall I really enjoyed it and I can't wait to see the next one!
Sue wrote: "The movie wasn't bad but had nothing to do with the book. Shouldn't even be allowed to share the same title. Also felt cheated at the end. No resolution. It was like they were saying, "We'll tell y..."but in the scheme of things, I think they left it the best place possible to continue the story because really after the dragon heading towards lake town its relatively non-stop, and then the trip home
Dee wrote: "Petter wrote: "Hm. About that "weed" called Kingsfoil, you guys know why Athelas is called that? It's because it only has healing capabilities in the hands of a king. Legolas might have done some g...""Silvan" elf, not "Silver" elf. Anyways, all of the wood-elves, even of Lothlorien, were Silvan elves. Including Legolas and Thranduil.
Petter wrote: "Hm. About that "weed" called Kingsfoil, you guys know why Athelas is called that? It's because it only has healing capabilities in the hands of a king. Legolas might have done some good with it, an..."Even Legolas shouldn't have been able to use it. I think by "king" it meant one of the Dunedain of Numenor, not just any king.
Petter wrote: "Na'ama wrote: "I guess I must then at the very least consider my options carefully...surely I do not want to end up a dark lord or any of his minions or followers... far better go seek sn adventure..."Lembas! :)
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Fire Light (other topics)The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (other topics)
But having read the book........... a lot of things in it that others here have pointed out that bothered me. I understand the whole "there were no female characters in The Hobbit, so we should add one." But I mean, come on... it was ONE book, not three like LotR. If there were no female characters in the LotR, I can understand it more. But this?
I think overall Peter Jackson tried waaaaay too hard to make it like LotR.