The Hobbit (the Jackson films)

[Caya]

 

 If they don't get it right, I'll boycott Jackson's twelve-part Silmarillion epic!

 

If only .

 

*sigh* Now you've made me wistful for something that'll never happen. Tidings of comfort and joy to you as well, Carol .

 

(seriously, can you imagine what Jackson would make of Gondolin or Beren and Luthien's tale, just to name one?)

[Carol the Dabbler]

Sorry, I've never actually read The Silmarillion, but I can well imagine Jackson's movie, nonetheless:  Lots of epic battles!  Lots of orcs!  And lots of sets that only slightly resemble what's in the book, because they've been designed for maximum 3-D effect.

 

Other than that, I like his movies just fine. 

 

[T.o.b.y]

I've certainly liked them so far, but then I have very fond memories in connection with The Lord of the Rings films and the books were never terribly important to me. Although I did miss the original ending. I loved how Tolkien moved back to the smaller scale of things in The Shire after all that epicness, how the Hobbits never realized what had been happening and the heroes got complaints that they had "wasted a year" and been away while there had been so many problems at home. Also, I loved the whole story with the bit of earth from Galadriel and Sam planting all those trees. And Sam coming to Frodo in distress because he didn't know what name to give to his first child, because it was a girl and he couldn't call her Frodo. It was all so lovable and peaceful and domestic again. I'm not much of a "battle" person... Also, I think it wouldn't have hurt to leave in the "healing hands" as the trait that defines the king, rather than his ability to use a certain sword. The books seemed, to me, to express a little less glorification of violence and a little more the importance of giving and maintaining life rather than destroying it, than the films did.

 

But this is a Hobbit thread, not a Lord of the Rings thread - sorry!

[aely]

There were heaps of battles in the SilmariIlion - I plotted out the Five Great Battles of Beleriand on the map that comes with the book, because I wanted to know where they were in relation to each other while I was reading it again (for the nth time - first read when I was about 10 or 11). I have a thing about maps. The Silmarillion wasn't just about battles though, the tale of Beren and Luthien is lovely.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Just got back from the midnight showing.

 

Portions of the movie were just lovely.  I like this Beorn and that whole scene much better than in the book (less fairy-tale-ish but still charming).  The naming of Sting was included, sort of (and at this point I see very little point in being picky).  The interaction between Bilbo and Smaug was delightful.  The casting and acting were all first-rate.

 

But I literally sobbed during the end credits, for the movie that this could have been but isn't.  Despite my quibbles with the first movie, it was by and large a fine adaptation of The Hobbit, and I enjoyed it.  In this second part, almost nothing happened the same way as in the book -- about the best I can say is that some parts were reminiscent of it.  And then there was all that other stuff.

 

[T.o.b.y]

Oh too bad! I have to admit I never read "The Hobbit", only "The Lord of the Rings" (by fits and starts, never really got into it). That might be my chance to enjoy this movie!

 

After I've seen it, I'd be very curious to know how it differs from the part of the book it's supposed to represent (or, if that's easier to tell, what parts were preserved at all). I could of course go to the library, cross my fingers they have it in English and sit down with the book there... or say please, please, please will somebody explain to me. Maybe both would be a good idea. If I read the original now, I predict I won't want to see the third part at all.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I suspect the third movie will be better.  Alex says I should be glad I'm not all that familiar with Lord of the Rings, because that middle movie was just as unlike the book as the middle Hobbit movie -- but the third LotR movie wasn't too bad.

 

Let me know when you've seen Desolation of Smaug, and I will happily go into detail.  (I was restraining myself earlier!)

 

[T.o.b.y]

No need to restrain yourself at all, as far as I am concerned! Why don't you vent your disappointment as soon as you feel like it and put it in a spoiler box?

 

I'm going to see the movie this coming Sunday, I had to wait until I found an OV showing. I refuse to watch this in German! I know I'm going to enjoy the dragon, no matter what. I've always loved dragons, ever since I was little. Even at my respectable present age, I have a dragon-shaped candle-holder next to my bed... Only I'll be so sad when they kill him. Why are dragons always portrayed as evil? I will have to rent that funny old "Dragonheart" afterwards, just for poetic justice.

[Carol the Dabbler]

No need to restrain yourself at all, as far as I am concerned! Why don't you vent your disappointment as soon as you feel like it and put it in a spoiler box?

 

OK, good idea.  I'll post some details tomorrow, or that is, later today, after I've had some sleep.  

 

[aely]

I suppose I have to admit at some point that although I liked The Hobbit as a book,  it never grabbed me the same way as The Lord of the Rings did - or the appendices of LOTR or The Silmarillion for that matter - and I haven't bothered re-reading it for the films. Consequently a lot of the details from the book are half-remembered  on my part and I think I'll get more enjoyment from the films because of that - I loved the LOTR films, but there were quite a few moments when I wanted to yell at the screen for certain discrepancies (we won't go into how annoyed I was that Legolas was blond when he shouldn't have been as I've got used to it now,  and at least they're being consistent.)

 

Oh and T.o.b.y. - Dragons aren't always portrayed as evil... The whole Dragonriders of Pern series has them being awesome, something like 22 novels, plus at least 5 others that I can think of off the top of my head (though they aren't as big a part of those worlds as they are in Pern).

[T.o.b.y]

Oh and T.o.b.y. - Dragons aren't always portrayed as evil... The whole Dragonriders of Pern series has them being awesome, something like 22 novels, plus at least 5 others that I can think of off the top of my head (though they aren't as big a part of those worlds as they are in Pern).

 

Of course you are right and I was overgeneralizing badly. Very badly...

 

As for Legolas, he really bothered me in the previous films and I'm not too thrilled that he'll appear again in The Hobbit... was he in the book at all?

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

The thing about dragons being evil is more of a "christian" and in some ways, an English thing, and please all those living in England....I really am not dissing anyone here. This view point comes from discussing dragon kind with at least one member of my church who is very English.

 

  I am of Scots decent, and the Celts revered the dragon as being keepers and protectors of the old  of knowledge while on the lower border lands, some people still celebrate St. George's Day which includes the hunting out and destroying "dragon's eggs".

 

 Though to be fair, a lot of European countries and in the Middle East St. George is celebrated as well, Kind of like Easter but with a darker intent. Tolkien was very much a catholic and so for him, all dragons are to be feared and considered to be in league with "ol' Dewar" and he portrayed them as such in his Middle Earth.

[Janie]

 

As for Legolas, he really bothered me in the previous films and I'm not too thrilled that he'll appear again in The Hobbit... was he in the book at all?

 

 

 

No, he wasn't in the book. But it was mainly because Tolkien invented him for the Lord of the rings and made him a son of the Elven king. So I think it's logical that he is in The Hobbit film.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I knew that Legolas would be in this movie, and assumed he'd be doing a cameo (similar to Bilbo and Frodo introducing the first movie).  It would be fitting, since as you say, he's a wood-elf (even though he was not mentioned by name in the book).  But it's not just a cameo, he's all over the place, doing his gymnastics (which I thought were kinda overboard even in LotR) and kicking orckish ass.  Too much Legolas, I think.  Then again, since it was clearly inevitable that there would be too much orcs-and-wargs (far too much, as it turns out), maybe they needed too much Legolas as a balance. 

 

One of the main things that bug me about this movie is the way they rushed through some of the scenes from the book (e.g., Beorn's house and particularly Mirkwood), apparently in order to make time for the added stuff.  I don't so much mind the actual added scenes (e.g., Gandalf's meeting with John Harrison the Necromancer) -- it's all the "excitement" they added to the book scenes.  Real excitement is fine, suspense or whatever, but I don't care for neo-excitement ("bigger, faster, louder"), which bores me silly.

 

Probably the biggest jolt, though, (and what bothered me the most last night) was how much they had changed a lot of things from the book, with the most obvious being the entire Laketown scene (which is so different that one of the surviving details now makes no sense to me).  A lot of the changes presumably make sense from a movie-making point of view, but they're still a jolt, and it surely wouldn't have been much extra work to give at least a nod to the original.  For example, instead of explicitly condensing the trek from Beorn's house to The Lonely Mountain down to just a few days (thus belittling the effort), they could have succinctly indicated that it was taking a few months.

 

But there were also some very nice touches, like Gloin's "wallet photo" of his "wee lad, Gimli."  And the Ring is starting to have an effect on Bilbo -- not mentioned at all, but very clear from some of his facial expressions (Martin Freeman is definitely earning his pay!).

 

[T.o.b.y]

I knew that Legolas would be in this movie, and assumed he'd be doing a cameo (similar to Bilbo and Frodo introducing the first movie).  It would be fitting, since as you say, he's a wood-elf

 

Oh, he's supposed to be an elf? I always thought he was just a blond man with pointy ears

 

What you call neo-excitement does not sound like the kind of storytelling I enjoy at all. Oh well, best to lower my expectations a bit, it can't hurt. Now, couldn't somebody do the same for the next Sherlock series? I'm looking forward to that so much at the moment, it just can't be as good as I'm hoping for...

[Carol the Dabbler]

I really liked Legolas in LotR -- not as much here, mostly because he seems kind of shoehorned in.

 

Yes, there's a great deal of "biff! bam! pow!" in DoS.  Doubt that you need to worry about too much of that in Sherlock, though. 

 

[aely]

The comment about Dragons being tolerated/revered/respected in those of celtic backgrounds could be one reason why I've never thought of them as the bad guys, despite being brought up as RC. While we were a catholic family, we were essentially an Irish catholic family and my dad's family is Welsh. My mum, though she's only about 5/8 Irish, would never allow anyone to call her English as the bits of her background that were English were from Cornwall so in her mind she certainly wasn't of Saxon descent  and therefore, not English.

 

As a kid, although I had the legends of George and the Dragon on the one hand, I also had the legend of Arthur Pendragon on the other. Dragons to me were tricksy beasts, intelligent and powerful and fond of riddles (it isn't just Tolkien that makes this point) but not inherently bad - they had an honour that couldn't be faulted and were worthy of respect.

[T.o.b.y]

One of the main things that bug me about this movie is the way they rushed through some of the scenes from the book (e.g., Beorn's house and particularly Mirkwood), apparently in order to make time for the added stuff.  I don't so much mind the actual added scenes (e.g., Gandalf's meeting with John Harrison the Necromancer) -- it's all the "excitement" they added to the book scenes.  Real excitement is fine, suspense or whatever, but I don't care for neo-excitement ("bigger, faster, louder"), which bores me silly.

 

Still sorry for your disappointment, but really glad your post prevented me from going to see that movie with unfortunate expectations.

 

I totally agree that it was rushed, the first half in particular. And that there was a lot of fighting for fighting's sake. There was also a general lack of emotion, in my opinion. I sat there longing more and more for The Lord of the Rings and thinking "can't they just switch the tape (or whatever it is the films are on)?"

 

But: The Dragon was great! And in the cave, Freeman finally got a chance to show off his acting powers. There were some very nice images. And I sure liked the ending...

[Carol the Dabbler]

I had not specifically noticed the lack of emotion you mention, but maybe I just lumped that in with the hurry-up pacing.  I was expecting the second movie to have a somewhat darker tone, and that made perfect sense to me -- though the first couple of scenes almost felt like they had a different director as well.  Not a bad difference, it just kinda took me by surprise.  But right about the time I decided I liked it, they switched to hurry-up mode.

 

Did you catch Jackson's cameo? 

It was when we first arrive in Bree, in the flashback scene -- very similar to his Bree cameo in LotR.

 

 

Alex and I had a bet as to when they would end the movie -- I won!  Neither of us cared for the gold-plated bit, though; we thought it was kinda silly and unrealistic.

 

[sherlockandjohn]

I'd have to say, I also felt the movie generally lacked emotion. The storylines from the first movie that caused an emotional response in me were almost completely overlooked in this one; like the relationship between Thorin and Bilbo, as well as Bilbo's personal development. Although, it was nice to see that Bilbo had become quite the hero in this, but there just wasn't any development of character, or any noticeable character conflict. Sadly.

There were several enjoyable references to Lord of the Rings, my favorite movies, but I even felt that they could have built further on the suspense in that connection.

The dragon was delightful! But all in all, I much preferred the first movie to this one.

[T.o.b.y]

Neither of us cared for the gold-plated bit, though; we thought it was kinda silly and unrealistic.

 

Unrealistic, hmmmm... that's kind of the point of this kind of film, isn't it?

 

I think I can guess what you mean, though. It appealed to me, just as a nice symbolic image, but it was rather over the top.

 

Yeah, I spotted Peter Jackson - first time I've ever noticed a cameo at all.

[Carol the Dabbler]

The storylines from the first movie that caused an emotional response in me were almost completely overlooked in this one; like the relationship between Thorin and Bilbo, as well as Bilbo's personal development. Although, it was nice to see that Bilbo had become quite the hero in this, but there just wasn't any development of character, or any noticeable character conflict.....

 

The dragon was delightful! But all in all, I much preferred the first movie to this one.

 

OK, so it's not just me that preferred the first movie.  I see what you (and T.o.b.y too, perhaps) mean by lack of emotion -- no character development -- and I must agree with you there.  I suppose when they finished the first movie, they figured, whew! we're all done with that pesky character development -- now for the real story!  Which is where Jackson and I part company, I'm afraid.

 

Oddly enough, this section of the book is where a lot of character development takes place.  Bilbo gains confidence by defeating the spiders, and then gives his sword a name in a nice little ceremonial moment.  All of that got pretty short shrift in the movie -- Bilbo didn't even get to rescue the dwarves from the spiders, because those damned elves horned in.  Maybe that's why they gave Bilbo his "hero" moment at the end of the first movie, so they wouldn't be bothered with it here.  Damn!  I was kinda joking about them getting the character development over with in the first movie, but the more I think about it, the more it sure looks like that's exactly what they did.

 

They apparently categorize character development in with the bad puns and the songs and all that other "silly" stuff.

 

 

Neither of us cared for the gold-plated bit, though; we thought it was kinda silly and unrealistic.

 

Unrealistic, hmmmm... that's kind of the point of this kind of film, isn't it?

 

I think I can guess what you mean, though. It appealed to me, just as a nice symbolic image, but it was rather over the top.

 

I knew as soon as I typed that that somebody was gonna be a smartass!      Never mind "real life" -- what I meant was, none of that scene made sense from a Middle-Earth perspective.  The dwarves come inside (which they didn't do till later in the book), and then can't figure out how to get back out -- just turn around and go back, you idiots!.  (If the dragon was blocking their way, neither Alex nor I caught that.)  All the machinery still works, after being tromped on by a dragon and/or just sitting there rusting in that steamy atmosphere for decades.  The dwarves decide to off the dragon by pouring molten gold on him, fine, I'll be generous and believe that.  But why go to all the trouble of making that liquid-center statue?  And how was Smaug able to move, let alone fly, while he was gold-plated?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 Smaug is a fire drake. Since he can generate a great amount heat, the gold coating probably wouldn't last very long. But it sounds just so unTolkien and of course it is not Tolkien. I guess I'm going to go into this movie with a lot of expectations. Except for seeing Bilbo and the Smaug interact.

[T.o.b.y]

 

I knew as soon as I typed that that somebody was gonna be a smartass!      Never mind "real life" -- what I meant was, none of that scene made sense from a Middle-Earth perspective.  The dwarves come inside (which they didn't do till later in the book), and then can't figure out how to get back out -- just turn around and go back, you idiots!.  (If the dragon was blocking their way, neither Alex nor I caught that.)  All the machinery still works, after being tromped on by a dragon and/or just sitting there rusting in that steamy atmosphere for decades.  The dwarves decide to off the dragon by pouring molten gold on him, fine, I'll be generous and believe that.  But why go to all the trouble of making that liquid-center statue?  And how was Smaug able to move, let alone fly, while he was gold-plated?

 

 

"Somebody"?

 

Oh yes, now I do see what you mean. You're absolutely right. The whole movie felt so illogical, plot-wise, to me, that by the time this scene came around I had already given up trying to make sense of anything and was just sitting there going "Nice picture. Oh, another nice picture. Oooohh, a dragon!"

 

I thought it was only me again not noticing things (I'm not good at understanding plots, anyway), but when I asked my boyfriend after the credits "what was this about, then?", I did not get a patient and lengthy explanation as usual, just "don't bother" and a smile...

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hmm, yeah, I assumed a lot of things were going over my head (it being the wee hours).  We're planning to see it again, this time in HFR 3D (and preferably in the afternoon!), so maybe I'll catch a few more details then, but I'm not optimistic that I'll change my mind overall.  I'll be interested to see how/if Jackson & Co. explain these departures in the DVD commentary.

 

I sat through most of the movie (especially the interminable fight scenes) going "yeah, whatever."

 

By the way, it seems there are three theaters in Indiana showing the HFR version this time.  For "Unexpected Journey" there was only one.  Here's the web page where I found that info -- there's a "Change Location" option on the left, though the only location I was able to find outside the US was in New Zealand.  Whether that's because the movie hasn't opened in some countries yet, or there are no HFR theaters there, or they don't call it HFR, I have no idea.