Who has seen the Hobbit?

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

Does your argument have any more depth to it than "these are things that are different from the source material"?

That might seem like I'm patronizing you, but given your history of arguments made in treads here, I'm asking it seriously.

The only point I'm seeing you make here is (a) Lord of the Rings had changes from the book, and (b) The Hobbit has changes from the book, so (c) therefore everyone who doesn't like the changes in one should not like the changes in the other.

From reading your posts, I honestly don't think you've grasped the idea that people are complaining about what the changes are to The Hobbit and how they impact the tone and characterization of the story... which the rest of us are aware is different from complaining about changes being made period.

I'll concede that the LotR trilogy had some problems with dumb action cliches that hurt some of the changes/additions (ones that jump out to me: the collapsing stairs in Fellowship, the people-think-Aragorn-died-but-we-all-know-he-didn't fakeout in Towers and the Frodo tries to wrestle the ring back from Gollum/"Grab my hand! reach!" cliche in Mt Doom in Return), but they didn't dominate the story or fundamentally change characters the way that they do in The Hobbit, where (for example) Bilbo is already a super action hero before they even meet the Spiders (in the book, Bilbo's journey from tagalong to secret hero of the operation is a major arc, and that journey is highly minimized in the films thus far).

See what I did there? I cited examples and backed up my reasoning. Give it a shot someday.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

Does your argument have any more depth to it than "these are things that are different from the source material"?

.

See what I did there? I cited examples and backed up my reasoning. Give it a shot someday.

I was thinking I might get drawn into this, but you did a good job there.

 

[Handyman]

Does your argument have any more depth to it than "these are things that are different from the source material"?

That might seem like I'm patronizing you, but given your history of arguments made in treads here, I'm asking it seriously.

The only point I'm seeing you make here is (a) Lord of the Rings had changes from the book, and (b) The Hobbit has changes from the book, so (c) therefore everyone who doesn't like the changes in one should not like the changes in the other.

From reading your posts, I honestly don't think you've grasped the idea that people are complaining about what the changes are to The Hobbit and how they impact the tone and characterization of the story... which the rest of us are aware is different from complaining about changes being made period.

I'll concede that the LotR trilogy had some problems with dumb action cliches that hurt some of the changes/additions (ones that jump out to me: the collapsing stairs in Fellowship, the people-think-Aragorn-died-but-we-all-know-he-didn't fakeout in Towers and the Frodo tries to wrestle the ring back from Gollum/"Grab my hand! reach!" cliche in Mt Doom in Return), but they didn't dominate the story or fundamentally change characters the way that they do in The Hobbit, where (for example) Bilbo is already a super action hero before they even meet the Spiders (in the book, Bilbo's journey from tagalong to secret hero of the operation is a major arc, and that journey is highly minimized in the films thus far).

See what I did there? I cited examples and backed up my reasoning. Give it a shot someday.

BINGO! It isnt that there was changes, change can be good and make sense. It can be good or bad depending on the change. The "Aragorn Floatfest" in TT was stupid and pointless and still bugs me when I see it, not because it was a change but because it was an UNNEEDED change. Later in the same movie the Elves showed up at Helm's Deep and every time I love it! It works within the story and considering how badly the Uruk-Hai outnumber the Men of Rohan it helps me not think "crap they are dead!". Plus it goes along with the narrative that peace amongst the different people's of Middleearth is the way to defeat evil.

In the Hobbit 2 they added Tauriel...and I think it was an outstanding addition. Her character showed actual emotion and made the elves noteworthy. Also, it gives a reason why Legolas was able to befriend Gimli and be so trustworthy in LOTR, because she was unlike his douchy father. They also turned the escape from the elves into a stupid Michael Bay like chase scene which was unneeded and stupid. Just let them escape like in the book, it works and saves a lot of time.

Some changes benefit, some hurt.

You mentioned Bilbo's arc which is true (it should be closer to how Jackson handled Samwise which I thought was perfect) and I will add to it. Yes I know we all know that Bilbo is corrupted by the Ring, but the scene where he lies to Gandalf about it just made me cringe. I am not sure why and maybe I need to re-read the book to see how it goes down in the book but it rubbed me the wrong way.

I think if you edited the two films so far together, cut maybe an hour and a half out to make one 4.5 hour flick it could be an epic film.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

From what I remember from the book, Bilbo does lie to Gandalf about the ring, and only tells the truth under more intense questioning.

 

[Scott W]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

I think Randall Graves said it best. "Oh, I'm crazy? Those fu#$$@' hobbit movies were boring as hell. All it was, was a bunch of people walking, three movies of people walking to a f$%^&# volcano.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

From what I remember from the book, Bilbo does lie to Gandalf about the ring, and only tells the truth under more intense questioning.

This is true, although it might be noted that in The Hobbit, it's played as Bilbo wanting to still have some surprises in him to impress the Dwarves (he doesn't tell anyone about the ring until they have to deal with the Spiders a few chapters later), as opposed to him feeling drawn to the ring. IIRC, towards the end of The Hobbit (I'm only re-reading what I need for the movies when I need to) Gandalf does warn Bilbo that magic rings aren't to be taken lightly, but that's all we get to imply just how serious the ring is.

I can see some value in trying to play it more as Bilbo being drawn to the ring from the moment he had it and adding some weight to it, but it still felt a bit like Obvious Foreshadowing Is Obvious when I saw it in An Unexpected Journey.

Put another way: I don't know if you could watch The Hobbit films first, and still believe that Gandalf was only piecing it together in the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring.

 

[Handyman]

Put another way: I don't know if you could watch The Hobbit films first, and still believe that Gandalf was only piecing it together in the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring.

Well that is the problem with prequels...they tend to hint at things that are supposed to be mysteries in the originals. (see: every friggin thing in the Star Wars prequels) Half the time it makes characters seem like liars or complete incompetents. (see: Ben Kenobi and Darth Vader/Emperor Palapetine)

And I think of that Randall Graves quote in Clerks 2 every time I think of the Hobbit movies

 

[Priceless]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

This is true, although it might be noted that in The Hobbit, it's played as Bilbo wanting to still have some surprises in him to impress the Dwarves (he doesn't tell anyone about the ring until they have to deal with the Spiders a few chapters later), as opposed to him feeling drawn to the ring. IIRC, towards the end of The Hobbit (I'm only re-reading what I need for the movies when I need to) Gandalf does warn Bilbo that magic rings aren't to be taken lightly, but that's all we get to imply just how serious the ring is.

I can see some value in trying to play it more as Bilbo being drawn to the ring from the moment he had it and adding some weight to it, but it still felt a bit like Obvious Foreshadowing Is Obvious when I saw it in An Unexpected Journey.

Put another way: I don't know if you could watch The Hobbit films first, and still believe that Gandalf was only piecing it together in the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring.

Gandalf did kind of suspect which ring Bilbo had found but by no means was he sure. He knew the ring gave the wearer the power of invisibility - just how many rings that existed would do that? He also set the Dúnedain to watching the Shire in the years after Bilbo found the ring. But it wasn't until he saw that Bilbo hadn't aged and fought giving up the ring that he began to piece it together; and it wasn't until he researched in the library of Gondor that he was positive. I always interpreted the situation as Gandalf thinking that even if it was the One Ring, he would figure the Shire was a safe place to hide it until he knew what to do with it. He didn't start major research because Saruman (and Elrond) would have seen it as him trying to stir things up (and Saruman wanted the ring for himself). I thought Peter Jackson hinted at that in FOTR when Gandalf is talking to Frodo at the beginning and says the outside world has taken little notice of the Shire "for which I am very grateful."

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

Damm it, I want more nuh-uh, uh-huh arguing. Get on it, nerds!

 

[Priceless]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

Damm it, I want more nuh-uh, uh-huh arguing. Get on it, nerds!

Did not!

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

So, we have three main arguments.

1. Bilbo lied to Gandalf about the ring. Pretty much did that in the book so not sure what the problem there is.
2. The length of the film. Do I think there could have been cuts? Sure, but I just watched an extended part one and found it even better than the shorter version. Also, I was never bored during the two films so I'm not going out of my way saying things should be shorter. In fact I'd like to see more of what's missing to be honest.
3. The ending of part two which I've already stated I love. I love a good cliffhanger and I don't need closure. In fact some of the best films ever made have no closure at all.

Appendix. Goblin Town seems to get a lot of flack for its length and perhaps silliness. I however would not trade their fear of the Goblin Cleaver for anything else in the film and I would never trade in another chance to watch the wizard dual wielding the foe-hammer and a staff at the same time.

And despite all my love of the films I feel that I somewhat betray Tolkein by doing so. There is no question that Peter Jackson has ventured much farther into his universe than what Tolkien gave us. My superpower however is my ability to compartmentalize and I am doing so here.

 

[Handyman]

So, we have three main arguments.

1. Bilbo lied to Gandalf about the ring. Pretty much did that in the book so not sure what the problem there is.
2. The length of the film. Do I think there could have been cuts? Sure, but I just watched an extended part one and found it even better than the shorter version. Also, I was never bored during the two films so I'm not going out of my way saying things should be shorter. In fact I'd like to see more of what's missing to be honest.
3. The ending of part two which I've already stated I love. I love a good cliffhanger and I don't need closure. In fact some of the best films ever made have no closure at all.

Appendix. Goblin Town seems to get a lot of flack for its length and perhaps silliness. I however would not trade their fear of the Goblin Cleaver for anything else in the film and I would never trade in another chance to watch the wizard dual wielding the foe-hammer and a staff at the same time.

And despite all my love of the films I feel that I somewhat betray Tolkein by doing so. There is no question that Peter Jackson has ventured much farther into his universe than what Tolkien gave us. My superpower however is my ability to compartmentalize and I am doing so here.

The Bilbo lying thing was just something I mentioned because EODS I believe brought up Bilbo's storyarch...it wasnt a big deal it just kinda rubbed me wrong. I thought the book handled it better when I read it. I think that is more to do with the prequel/original dichotomy than anything. The movie made it seem heavy handed seeing as we already know what the ring is since these movies came after. Since the Hobbit was written first it just flows better the way it is written...

Tolkien isnt Shakespeare...it is ok to like changes made to the story. As decades pass things are going to get outdated and tastes are going to change. You arent betraying Tolkien because you like what Peter Jackson did. He is just interpreting the story anyways. I think about what Mike Mignola said when he was interviewed about Hellboy when it came out. At first he had issues with how Del Toro made the movie and the changes he made to characters...then he realized that even though the characters and story are based on his creations they are in fact Del Toro's vision not his and it made him appreciate the movies more.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

The Bilbo lying thing was just something I mentioned because EODS I believe brought up Bilbo's storyarch...it wasnt a big deal it just kinda rubbed me wrong. I thought the book handled it better when I read it. I think that is more to do with the prequel/original dichotomy than anything. The movie made it seem heavy handed seeing as we already know what the ring is since these movies came after. Since the Hobbit was written first it just flows better the way it is written...

Tolkien isnt Shakespeare...it is ok to like changes made to the story. As decades pass things are going to get outdated and tastes are going to change. You arent betraying Tolkien because you like what Peter Jackson did. He is just interpreting the story anyways. I think about what Mike Mignola said when he was interviewed about Hellboy when it came out. At first he had issues with how Del Toro made the movie and the changes he made to characters...then he realized that even though the characters and story are based on his creations they are in fact Del Toro's vision not his and it made him appreciate the movies more.

Been watching some of the Harry Potter movies again recently and there can be no question how incredibly Rowling kept control of her vision and how those movies were made. Kudos to her for that accomplishment. Tolkien of course never had the chance for that because he never knew technology would advance far enough for actual films to be made from his books.

 

[Handyman]

Been watching some of the Harry Potter movies again recently and there can be no question how incredibly Rowling kept control of her vision and how those movies were made. Kudos to her for that accomplishment. Tolkien of course never had the chance for that because he never knew technology would advance far enough for actual films to be made from his books.

It would be interesting to see how Tolkien would have felt...I bet he would have loved many of the changes.

Of course I still feel slighted I didnt get to see my boy Tom Bombadill in the FOTR

 

[Ralph Baer]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

It would be interesting to see how Tolkien would have felt...I bet he would have loved many of the changes.

Of course I still feel slighted I didnt get to see my boy Tom Bombadill in the FOTR

I was a bit surprised that he wasn't added to the Hobbit after it was decided to make it three films.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

Watched Pan's Labyrinth last night for the first time since seeing it in the theater.

In hindsight, I now wish that GDT had stuck with these movies. If we were gonna go off the rails, might as well have been a new vision altogether.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

While I did not see Hobbit 2, our resident film critics did, and they both were most upset about the treatment of Beorn. He could have / should have been a majestic character, not some whiny old f&rt. They also laughed at how ridiculous it was, first to try to defeat a dragon with fire, and second for Smaug merely to fly off and leave his hoard unprotected when he knew that plunderers were already there.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

This is for you Gurt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJOSAwNzyi4

I love these videos...that one is brilliant!

 

[geezer]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

It would be interesting to see how Tolkien would have felt...I bet he would have loved many of the changes.

I agree he would have enjoyed the process of revision at least. According to an intro to The Hobbit (paperback novel form) Tolkien himself made many changes and edits to the story through different editions, especially after he wrote LOTR he changed up the "Riddles in the Dark" chapter to foreshadow the later novels.

 

[owslachief]

Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

Is he in trouble?