Close
One second...

Tolkien would be turning in his grave

Finally got to see the latest Hobbit film last night...!


They have turned a subtle and beautiful children's story into a roller coaster action movie with added romance and poor humor - puke!

Watch this
P0ckets
P0ckets profile pic Alumni
2 designs submitted - Score now!

Tolkien actually wrote in a lot more sexy music scenes in the original, but his dad made him take them out. True story!

I agree there's a lot of unnecessary stuff in there, and that it doesn't entirely do justice to the book, but I still really enjoyed the film. I might just have low standards though!

The Paper Crane
The Paper Crane profile pic Alumni
2 designs submitted - Score now!

Well yes I enjoyed the film too, from an entertainment point of view but as a bit of a purest was also very disappointed.

Milan_

Well it's all true. But it's all about expectations. After all it's a hollywood blockbuster movie so it's obvious that some unnecessary romance and action scenes (like legolas surfing on orcs) will take place. I look at it as a whole different entity than the book, so i also enjoyed it. Here is a awesome illustrated book cover by Croatian comic book artist Igor Kordej for comfort

Milan_

melmike
melmike profile pic Alumni

Yes, I too had a similar feeling on the way out. Felt a bit too much like a Pirates of the Caribbean movie. In contrast, I caught a bit of the Two Towers the other day and the differences between these two series are vast.

Everyone remembers the scene in Return of the King where Legolas kills the giant elephant. It's a great scene, and a short, lighthearted escape from the heaviness that marked almost all the rest of the films. But the reason it worked there is because the sequence was so short. Like Legolas, at no point in the Hobbit films do you feel as though any of the Dwarves are in any real danger, and even if one of them did die, who would really care? I can't even remember a single one of their names.

Wharton
Wharton profile pic Alumni

The Hobbit is one of my favourite books, I love reading it in the run up to christmas, its a great winter read. I'm trying to be even minded about the films, on one half I'm naturally cynical that they're just teasing the book out to make 3 films and therefore increase profits but on the other then appendices are full of information and stories that would go untold if they didn't expand them into the film.

I thought the spiders scene and Beorn's were woefully short in comparison to the book as was their weary wandering in the forest. But the development of Bard as a character was great as he's barely touched upon in any detail in the book. I guess its swings and roundabouts.

Morkki
Morkki profile pic Alumni
1 design submitted -

Ehhh, the Hobbit is a children's book, not a historical document. The truth is that it would have made a crappy movie as a faithful adaptation.

I liked it. You just have to look at it as a prequel to the LOTR trilogy.

The Paper Crane
The Paper Crane profile pic Alumni
2 designs submitted - Score now!

Personally I think a faithful adaption would have been much better, but I am usually in the minority. I dislike most blockbuster movies, mainly because they all follow the same formula and treat their audience as a bunch of morons where everything is spelled out for you, destroying all subtly along the way. It is all so gender orientated - boys like violence, girls like romance.

I feel the industry needs to be more creative and take more risks.

The Paper Crane
The Paper Crane profile pic Alumni
2 designs submitted - Score now!

Like Wharton the Hobbit is one of my favorite fiction books so I just feel a bit precious about it!

Wharton
Wharton profile pic Alumni

I think an art-house Hobbit remake is in order. Black and white, no dialogue, dynamic screeching sound track with ominous warbling, fruit based metaphors and a clown.

The Paper Crane
The Paper Crane profile pic Alumni
2 designs submitted - Score now!
Morkki said:

Ehhh, the Hobbit is a children's book, not a historical document. The truth is that it would have made a crappy movie as a faithful adaptation.

I liked it. You just have to look at it as a prequel to the LOTR trilogy.

Personally I think LOTRs was much better at staying true yet still appealing to the masses. The Hobbit has just gone too far.

The Paper Crane
The Paper Crane profile pic Alumni
2 designs submitted - Score now!
Wharton said:

...I thought the spiders scene and Beorn's were woefully short in comparison to the book as was their weary wandering in the forest. But the development of Bard as a character was great as he's barely touched upon in any detail in the book. I guess its swings and roundabouts.

Agreed! One of the most enchanting bits was with the following of the lights in the woods. So was sad that was not included.

Pyne
Pyne profile pic Alumni

I haven't seen it… got a little bored with the LOTR trilogy style by the end, so I'll probably wait till it's on TV or something.

However, I love the Rankin/Bass version (although it scared the crap outta me when I was a kid- to be honest, still a little unsettling).

NDTank
NDTank profile pic Alumni
The Paper Crane said:
Wharton said:

...I thought the spiders scene and Beorn's were woefully short in comparison to the book as was their weary wandering in the forest. But the development of Bard as a character was great as he's barely touched upon in any detail in the book. I guess its swings and roundabouts.

Agreed! One of the most enchanting bits was with the following of the lights in the woods. So was sad that was not included.

This

Morkki
Morkki profile pic Alumni
1 design submitted -

In a faithful adaptation of the book the dwarves would have been cowardly gits who made zero attempt to kill Smaug, Bard would have only been introduced as a handy deus ex machina just in time to deal with Smaug and Gandalf would have buggered off at the edge of Mirkwood without any explanation where he was going and why. And the Ring would have just been an invisibility ring.

The Paper Crane
The Paper Crane profile pic Alumni
2 designs submitted - Score now!
Morkki said:

In a faithful adaptation of the book the dwarves would have been cowardly gits who made zero attempt to kill Smaug, Bard would have only been introduced as a handy deus ex machina just in time to deal with Smaug and Gandalf would have buggered off at the edge of Mirkwood without any explanation where he was going and why. And the Ring would have just been an invisibility ring.

I understand and respect the decisions to tie the two trilogies together - makes sense and still remains faithful. Expanding on the existing characters and including other elements from the history of middle earth are perfectly acceptable. However inventing characters like the Pale Orc and the she elf just to please the audience or new line Cinema share holders seems really weak and unimaginative to me.

TheInfamousBaka
TheInfamousBaka profile pic Alumni
Milan B said:

Does that dwarf have nipple covers?

Wharton
Wharton profile pic Alumni

Nips are a Dwarf's only weak spot. D&Ad 101 Tiff.

Musarter
Musarter profile pic Alumni
1 design submitted -
TheInfamousBaka said:
Milan B said:

Does that dwarf have nipple covers?

Apparently, that is why he was cropped off the cover.

Milan_
Musarter said:
TheInfamousBaka said:
Milan B said:

Does that dwarf have nipple covers?

Apparently, that is why he was cropped off the cover.

Haha, everyone knows that nipples are dwarfs achilles heel. Bear in mind that's an old book cover. And it's cropped only on front, this larger image is at the back cover :P

melmike
melmike profile pic Alumni

I have no problem with the extension of the films, going more into the back stories, in fact I'm all for that. As oppose to LOTR, I never really enjoyed the Hobbit book. What I do have a problem with is the Disneyland factor. Imagine a lengthy, rollicking barrel-ride in the LOTRs films, where no one is ever in any real danger, (expect of course orcs)... it wouldn't have happened, because that kind of shit belongs in the Pirates of the Caribbean movie.

BeanePod
BeanePod profile pic Alumni
7 designs submitted - Score now!

Somebody just went on the greatest adventure...

Twiggyhall
Pyne said:

I haven't seen it… got a little bored with the LOTR trilogy style by the end, so I'll probably wait till it's on TV or something.

However, I love the Rankin/Bass version (although it scared the crap outta me when I was a kid- to be honest, still a little unsettling).

Was gonna suggest the Rankin/Bass version, too..that's my hubby's fave :D

*fist bump

The Paper Crane
The Paper Crane profile pic Alumni
2 designs submitted - Score now!
melmike said:

I have no problem with the extension of the films, going more into the back stories, in fact I'm all for that. As oppose to LOTR, I never really enjoyed the Hobbit book. What I do have a problem with is the Disneyland factor. Imagine a lengthy, rollicking barrel-ride in the LOTRs films, where no one is ever in any real danger, (expect of course orcs)... it wouldn't have happened, because that kind of shit belongs in the Pirates of the Caribbean movie.

My daughter loves POTC and I don't mind it as far as Disneyland block buster entertainment goes. The big difference is POTC was never a classic piece of fiction.

I agree, LOTR was pretty unrealistic with regards to Orc deaths verses the fellowship members but The Hobbit was ridiculous. One of the best scenes for me in LOTRs was when Boromir meets his courageous end. Am I right in remembering that Fili and Kili die in the Hobbit book? I hope they stick to that in the film at the very least, and they should kill off that elf tart too.

Morkki
Morkki profile pic Alumni
1 design submitted -

I would have been annoyed with Tauriel if she was a badly written or acted character but she wasn't. It was the bitchy and jealous Legolas that got on my nerves.

Morkki
Morkki profile pic Alumni
1 design submitted -

Although, I liked that bit where Legolas briefly interacted with Gloin, foreshadowing his meeting with Gimli 60 years later.

Except the word "mutant" was a nasty anachronism.

Thomas Orrow

I haven't watched it yet and not really too bothered about watching it. I watched the first trilogy in the cinema with my Dad and my brother as my Dad is a fan of the LOTR books. I watched the first Hobbit film at home and felt slightly nonplussed about it.

I will probably get round to watching it eventually.

I read the trilogy and the hobbit when I was a kid and didn't like all the elf stuff and wizards etc. It was all a bit too fanciful, but I liked the hobbit a lot; much more than the other books. Yep. people rightly say The Hobbit could have just been one amazing 4 hr film instead of stretching it into three films. Tbh I don't really like any of the films, although I enjoyed the walking tree scenes.

I have to re-watch the animated version of LOTR as I think it was quite good, although a bit slow? but v. atmospheric.

kyleidoscope

I much prefer it when they take liberties with a book when adapting it to film. The film should stand alone as something different rather than purely an attempt to capture the exact details of a novel. While a movie should have the same feel I never think it should follow the book exactly.

When I read a book i imagine it a certain way and a movie will never do that justice so in my mind its better if the movie offers its own surprises and makes itself something slightly different from the book, so I can keep my version and still enjoy someone elses interpretations.

I also think the liberties they took in the hobbit were clever. They wove in a lot of stories that came from the other lord of the rings books that tolkien's sons published after his death. They also made an effort to better connect the story in the hobbit to the events in lord of the rings, the book itself isn't so clear beyond bilbo finding the ring.

kyleidoscope
melmike said:

I have no problem with the extension of the films, going more into the back stories, in fact I'm all for that. As oppose to LOTR, I never really enjoyed the Hobbit book. What I do have a problem with is the Disneyland factor. Imagine a lengthy, rollicking barrel-ride in the LOTRs films, where no one is ever in any real danger, (expect of course orcs)... it wouldn't have happened, because that kind of shit belongs in the Pirates of the Caribbean movie.

In all fairness the Hobbit as a book has a far lighter tone than lord of the rings does, it's about as funny as tolkien got

Morkki
Morkki profile pic Alumni
1 design submitted -

It's also good to remember that JRR himself edited the Hobbit several times trying to make it fit with the more serious stuff he wrote later.

The Paper Crane
The Paper Crane profile pic Alumni
2 designs submitted - Score now!

I bet he never made any 'in my trousers" type jokes though! My head was buried in my hands at that point.

The Paper Crane
The Paper Crane profile pic Alumni
2 designs submitted - Score now!
Morkki said:

...It was the bitchy and jealous Legolas that got on my nerves.

Morkki
Morkki profile pic Alumni
1 design submitted -

Oh lord the dick joke. That was awful.

The Paper Crane
The Paper Crane profile pic Alumni
2 designs submitted - Score now!

So, so, so 'Carry On' bad!!!!

For all their talents the Hobbit team can not do humor! I remember in the first film when the goblin king had his belly sliced and his last words were "That'll do it". I thought that was bad enough but...

BeanePod
BeanePod profile pic Alumni
7 designs submitted - Score now!

i thought Tolkien didn't die...he just became something else.....

Musarter
Musarter profile pic Alumni
1 design submitted -
Thomas Orrow said:

Yep. people rightly say The Hobbit could have just been one amazing 4 hr film instead of stretching it into three films. Tbh I don't really like any of the films, although I enjoyed the walking tree scenes.

Totally agree with this. Maybe two films to include the extraneous Silmarillion stuff. But don't add crap to Hollywood-ize it. I have not seen the second film; I am just saying this based on how overlong the first film was.

No account?