The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
discussion
One of the reviewers for The Hobbit The Desolation Of Smaug said it was "The Grandest Vision Of Middle-Earth Yet"
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Michael
(new)
-
added it
Jan 29, 2014 08:36PM
Do you agree?
reply
|
flag
No at all. I agree that Smaug himself was a grand vision but there are so many pointless bits of action and extra made up parts that it looses it's identity as the Hobbit and just becomes a Tales of Middle Earth film. I don't mind some of the extra stuff that's been added but it shouldn't detract from Bilbo and what he's there to do. There is more they could have done with him finding the dwarves and freeing them from the elves than extending the barrel ride out of the caves (not to mention Legolas standing on their heads!!!) This movie has brought out the inner purist and I will be glad when its all over. I never had that issue with LOTR. I saw each of the films about 7 times in the cinema + all the dvd viewings and I've only seen TH:DOS once and feel no need to watch it again. Okay rant over now. Carry on. :)
It's a vision of something, but just not of Middle-Earth.
I think if it's a critic announcing something like that and is part of the marketing of a film, I tend to always be wary. Sometimes people say things and give a film a lot of hype when it is a film critic, sometimes only to put their name in the spotlight.I liked the film but for some reason I felt the first was better. Some things I found too silly as it seemed it packed three action scenes in one part or just tried way too hard.
I also wish Jackson shouldn't have felt he had to add his own character Tauriel and then Legolas into the mix, quickly following that with a clichéd love triangle. Come on!
I was incredibly excited when I learned that the Hobbit would be adapted into a movie with bits and pieces left out of the LoTR movies. Less so when I learned it would be split into three. But I figured, hey, if they're going to cover what was left out of LoTR, that's still pretty cool. The LoTR movies were great, but so were the books. It's not so cool when events expire and people are introduced who have nothing to do with the story of Hobbit. I love Legolas, but he's a giant misfit. How exactly are we to make sense of his hatred towards dwarves at the start of LoTR now? I have a sinking feeling that Tauriel falling for Kili is going to be the source of his hatred. Yuck.
What I loved about Jackson's LoTR movies is that they captured the heart and soul of the books. His Hobbit movies are killing the heart and soul of the book.
Smaug was fantastic though. And his interaction with Biblo was great fun.
Elentarri wrote: "It's a vision of something, but just not of Middle-Earth."Agreed.
It's a wonderful movie "based on" a wonderful book. I see no reason not to enjoy them both. While its only been a year since last I reread the Hobbit it has been 43 years since I read the appendices. The movie made me go back and read them, for the Hobbit and the LOTR. Much of what is added to the movie is in the appendices. The only character totally out of there is Tauriel and I enjoyed her character. Although I do have anxiety about the end happiness of the relationship due to the fate of Kili in the book. There are so many times a movie/book combo has left me disappointed in one or the other but I do not feel that here. I think Jackson loves Middle Earth and did it great justice from his prospective. But I'm still bummed he left Bombadil out of LOTR.
Michael wrote: "One of the reviewers for The Hobbit The Desolation Of Smaug said ..."Well. There's a lot of simpletons out there, among the fans of this execrable blockbuster franchise.
Virginia wrote: "It's a wonderful movie "based on" a wonderful book. I see no reason not to enjoy them both. While its only been a year since last I reread the Hobbit it has been 43 years since I read the appendi..."I agree on this. it was an amazing movie and do not regret seeing it on my birthday. I think the comparisons to the book and movie should stop, let them be their own.
The book is amazing and it is a one of a kind and think that the cinema will NEVER be able to get that correctly no matter how hard they try.
i really can't recognise the Hobbit movies as bearing any relation to the book.
You can't say the shots weren't spectacular, neither the sets. In my personal off-the-top-of-my-head opinion Lotr reigns as far as continual scenery stunners. Lake-Town was gasp-worthy, Erebor was almost completely resplendent although it's difficult to envision what it would look like sans gold(N.B. that may have been their point, really).(Furthermore I pretty much made a lengthy list of contrasting-thoughts).
Smaug, was indeed, stupendous...
Michael wrote: "...The book is amazing and it is a one of a kind and I think that the cinema will NEVER be able to get that correctly no matter how hard the try."I completely agree with this. I enjoyed The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, despite the out-of-place Elf infestation. They changed parts of the storyline but we should have already come to terms with the fact that they will always change parts of the storyline, and that the cinema will never compare with Tolkien's genius.
Did that make sense to anyone else?
Made sense to me Ellen haha :-)
I'm a huge LOTR and Peter Jackson fan so it's all good to me.
Ellen, makes perfect sense. This is an adaptation after all, but not as good as it could/should have been, imho. If they had only left it as 2 films (rather than 3) I feel it would have been brilliant and no need for padding. I like PJ and have been to some of the LOTR film locations when I was in NZ and it's so gorgeous, no matter where you point the camera, the place IS Middle Earth.
Definitely not! Have you seen the Lord Of The Rings trilogy? They're a masterpiece! A thing of sheer beauty and perfection!
Sandyboy wrote: "i really can't recognise the Hobbit movies as bearing any relation to the book."I agree to that. Also, what we have seen of "The Hobbit Trilogy" as films until now shows them to be much inferior to the LOTR films. One revealing detail : the scenes in the extended version of LOTR are mostly excellent and add a lot to these films; the "extended scenes" cut from The Hobbit are embarrassing. It is sad.
When people are saying that you cannot compare the Hobbit book and movies with each other, I think they are revealing how badly Peter Jackson failed with this adaptation. In the LOTR rings movies Jackson stayed pretty close to the source material and definitely the spirit of the original books, albeit with a few deviations. I believe only the most died hard purist argue the LOTR movies were a bad adaptation and they were never going to be happy anyways. In this way I think it is fair to compare the books and the movies, because Jackson did so well for the first trilogy. The success of the LOTR makes the Hobbit all the more disappointing for me.
The LOTR movie included a heck of a lot of character assassinations. The LOTR movies make nice eye candy, but I do wish PJ hadn't mangled the main characters so badly.
I was very disappointed indeed. Loved the LOTR movies. Enjoyed the first Hobbit movie, (mostly) but this one bored me to tears with its "Raiders of the Lost Ark" action movie feel. I agree with everything said by Donna in message 2 in this thread. As I got up to leave the theatre I felt only relief that it was all over and I was free to go.If this was Tolkien, I'm an octopus. If Tolkien could have seen this he would have been very annoyed.
Tui wrote: "I was very disappointed indeed. Loved the LOTR movies. Enjoyed the first Hobbit movie, (mostly) but this one bored me to tears with its "Raiders of the Lost Ark" action movie feel. I agree with eve..."What disguises this from Tolkien. Mostly every part from this half of the book was included in this movie, the rest were add ons. Please explain.
I'm not sure what you're asking Michael. The film was so different from the original story in both mood and plot that I felt it should not have had Tolkien's name anywhere near it. It should have been called, "Elves, Barrels and a Dragon" by Peter Jackson. Leave Tolkien out of it altogether if you intend to change it that much. But they would never get the crowds along if the left Tolkien's name out if it. As far as I can see Jackson wanted to write his own story but cash in on having Tolkien's name on it.
The Hobbit is a gently-paced children's fantasy, not an adult action-thriller.
Also, the children's book is so good that I have happily read it over and over again to many children in my life as a teacher. However I spent the entire movie rolling my eyes and sighing with boredom, as I watched fight scene after fight scene after fight scene that was not ever in the book. I was thinking "If I have to watch one more ridiculous fight scene I'll scream."
Tui wrote: "I'm not sure what you're asking Michael. The film was so different from the original story in both mood and plot that I felt it should not have had Tolkien's name anywhere near it. It should have ..."
The Hobbit was not "written" for children, if you go to a bookstore it is in the adult section under science and fantasy fiction, there is only one edition in the children department. So if its to grown up for you and has to much action, well that's not a crime against Tolkien.
Michael wrote: "The Hobbit was not "written" for children, if you go to a bookstore it is in the adult section under science and fantasy fiction, there is only one edition in the children department."Sorry, but the Hobbit was written for children, specifically for Tolkien to read aloud to his own children - says so in either his Biography or his Letters and by the style of writing in the book. The fact that the book shop people just lump everything Tolkien under the Fantasy section or can't categorise books properly is not the dead author's problem. Last time I went to one of the bookstores here they had all the post apocalyptic science fiction novels stuck in amongst the bibles in the Christian books section, Lord of the Rings was under the classics with Homer and Shakespeare, and The Fall of Arthur was under the Fantasy section. These are really confused book shop people! ;)
The movie has tonnes more action than the book ever did. (view spoiler) It might make for a movie that is entertaining for today's "glued to the computer game" audience but with the huge amount of random additional material it is simply not the Hobbit.
PJ should give up adapting books for movies and just write his own fantasy script. Then he can have all the acrobatic ninja elves he likes, with as many craky dragons, non-sensical love triangles, bad-guy fight scenes, and special effects, and no-one will get miffed because he mangled the book (again!).
Thank-you Elentarri. You just saved me a lot of typing. But one thing I still have to re-emphasise is that The Hobbit was most definitely written for children. There is no doubt whatever about that.
Michael wrote: "Tui wrote: "I'm not sure what you're asking Michael. The film was so different from the original story in both mood and plot that I felt it should not have had Tolkien's name anywhere near it. It ..."
The Hobbit IS a childrens book - Tolkien always intended it to be that way and what with him being the author and the creator I think we should all choose to believe what he says and that is the fact that the Hobbit is a childrens book!
Sammy and Tui are right, it was conceived for and read to children. But Tolkien also read it to his literary peer group, the Inklings, that is a collection of Oxford dons. This is consistent with their opinion that a good "children's book" also is to be read by adults. I suppose that we now see the PJ adaptation project go to the bottom in extreme commercialism.
Elentarri wrote: "Michael wrote: "The Hobbit was not "written" for children, if you go to a bookstore it is in the adult section under science and fantasy fiction, there is only one edition in the children departmen..."Oh, I never knew that Tolkien wrote this fro his own children. And yes I agree people at book stores are very sloppy. Like once I went to borders for the release of a book and they didn't even put it out, they had to go get me a copy that was still packed away in the back. But what people don't understand is situations like the barrel scene cant work in movie format, I mean them just riding from that into lake town, it would be an anti climatic scene and boring to anyone who isn't a Tolkien reader. That is why so many thing are changed because filmmakers have to put the casual movie goer first.
If scenes like that aren't going to work for a movie then don't turn the book into a movie
Sammy wrote: "If scenes like that aren't going to work for a movie then don't turn the book into a movie"That's just the ways movies are.
Sammy wrote: "If scenes like that aren't going to work for a movie then don't turn the book into a movie"A lot of books would never be filmed, which in itself would be a shame.
This is scary as there is a film-maker now who has accepted my book for a movie and it would be impossible if he were not intending the entire thing to be animated. Animation allows greater freedom in some respects. But it costs mega money. The Hobbit and LOTR use some animation but most is conventional.
It's not the grandest vision (that praise goes to P Jackson's LotR films and Tolkien's books) of Middle-Earth, but it's pretty darn grand. I've enjoyed The Hobbit movies so far, and most of the liberties taken with the source material were either necessary for the film medium, or such small quibbles that they hardly mattered.Although I was disappointed with the portrayal of Beorn. His bear-form looked less like a bear than an obese dog with stumpy limbs, and his human-form looked like some dude wearing cheap wolf-man makeup. And his scenes weren't long enough to do him justice anyway. It was more like "Hi, Beorn. Bye, Beorn. Wow, that was easy."
Claire wrote: "It's not the grandest vision (that praise goes to P Jackson's LotR films and Tolkien's books) of Middle-Earth, but it's pretty darn grand. I've enjoyed The Hobbit movies so far, and most of the lib..."that was my biggest gripe with the movie as well. I'm hoping that with the extended edition there will be more Beorn, and hopefully more Mirkwood. I just wish they had the actual version of how they met him, idk why but that really stands out for me when I look back on the book.
Claire wrote: "It's not the grandest vision (that praise goes to P Jackson's LotR films and Tolkien's books) of Middle-Earth, but it's pretty darn grand. I've enjoyed The Hobbit movies so far, and most of the lib..."I totally agree, but there will be more of beorn in the extended edition.
Michael wrote: "Claire wrote: "It's not the grandest vision (that praise goes to P Jackson's LotR films and Tolkien's books) of Middle-Earth, but it's pretty darn grand. I've enjoyed The Hobbit movies so far, and ..."There is.
On the subject of Beorn, my wife was planning on putting me into a Beorn costume for Halloween and had been looking forward to the Desolation of Smaug to use PJ's vision as a guide. Having seen the movie now both my wife and I have nixed that idea.There was such potential, and all of it unrealized.
Grandest vision yet? Whoever wrote that probably never actually read the books. Peter Jackson should be stoned to death. Just my opinion.
Donna wrote: "There is more they could have done with him finding the dwarves and freeing them from the elves than extending the barrel ride out of the caves (not to mention Legolas standing on their heads!!!)" Thank you! Everyone points at that scene as a high point in the movie. It was comical, ill-done, and a waste of precious screen time. Any scene with Legolas felt extraneous actually. Because, of course, they were.
I will say that I enjoy Jackson's vision of Middle-earth: the sweeping shots of the landscape, the grim and dour dwarves, and of course, Smaug. But everything he shoe-horned into the story to fill out 3 movies has been uneven at best.
I think instead of an Extended version they should release a Legolasless version.
Ah well, it's a film of a book intended for children. Us greybeards might mutter into our pipeweed about the damned jumping CGI elves, but the yonkers like it.Grandest vision? Not for my tastes. A bit too uneven and silly in parts, but it had its moments. Not a classic, regrettably.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. And those opinions aren't right or wrong - they are just opinions.I went to see the film with my son (aged around 12 at the time) and a group of his friends. They enjoyed it far more than I did. In fact they enjoyed the bits that I hated - especially the CGI elves.
The Hobbit is very much a children's book - indeed the character of the hobbit is a metaphor for a child. It was written for children, marketed for children and read by children. Yes, adults enjoy it too, but that doesn't change what the book is.
You don't like the film. That's fine. It's your opinion. Other opinions are also available.
Okay, I'll bite.Bilbo - a home-loving and shy man who is prompted to go on an adventure and finds that he enjoys it more than expected.
Gandalf - an older wiser man who encourages Bilbo to go on the adventure because he knows that it will be good for him.
Gollum - a creature who has become obsessed with a magical ring to the point where he has lost his humanity.
Thorin - heir to a lost fortune who must face a physical battle to recover his fortune whilst coming to terms with his own character flaws, especially pride.
I could go on, but I'm not sure what the point is. These basic character arcs are in the book and they are also in the films. That doesn't prove anything.
Some people like the films, some didn't. There is no point in looking for some form of definitive proof that these aren't good films. It comes down to matter of opinion.
I am hereby giving up on this thread because it is only a matter of opinion when people are defending garbage. One professor has stated that one has to be able to actually defend their opinion. Chanting "matter of opinion" is not a valid defense.
Jackass' masturbatory fantasy of being an Elf, his inability to characterise characters beyond appearance, and the fact that his films make battles and violence BORING are not matters of opinion, but demonstrable facts. As I hinted earlier, the presence of people in the world chanting "matter of opinion" make me wish I could just leap off it.
(EDIT: Essential reading.)
Jackass' masturbatory fantasy of being an Elf, his inability to characterise characters beyond appearance, and the fact that his films make battles and violence BORING are not matters of opinion, but demonstrable facts. As I hinted earlier, the presence of people in the world chanting "matter of opinion" make me wish I could just leap off it.
(EDIT: Essential reading.)
Dean wrote: "I am hereby giving up on this thread because it is only a matter of opinion when people are defending garbage. One professor has stated that one has to be able to actually defend their opinion. Cha..."I totally agree. Shouting "just opinions" and all exchange of thought, as this thread and others could aspire to be, becomes meaningless. AKA booring.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
