The Hobbit

[SinisterDeath]

Alright, so my thoughts are as follows.

 

 

I feel like Jackson was almost pandering to his audience this time around - he was trying to recreate the same exact formula he used with the first three, but now with a new story.  The movie itself was beautiful - the cinematography was amazing, the artistic side was good as we've come to expect.  However, that's kinda where I take issue.  We've already seen these same vistas, and they're rehashing them with the "wait, there's more" addition of 48fps.  That's why I think del Toro was the perfect choice, he would have taken the cinematography and art direction into a darker place.  The picture was crystal clear and the depth of color was astounding, but it was too....bright.  Nothing seemed dim or dark and it was hard to convey any sense of danger or even some emotions.  I would like to have seen a darker, grimmer take on a children's story, and I think Jackson's attempt to reconcile the violence of the first three with the childish humor and feel of the Hobbit didn't work incredibly well.

 

 

I can appreciate the attention to the back story, and to what seems to me an attempt to delve more into the lore of the books.  I like the direction they're going with that.  I liked the inclusion of Radagast the Brown (he was one of my favorite parts) and if he's a little silly, it's because it's a children's tale.  Radagast was awesome, and I liked the council that took place between Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, and Saruman.

Umm.. The tolkien Estate won't allow it to become darker. They  hold the reigns on everything tolkien, if they don't like it, it doesn't happen.

 

Thats why in the lord of the rings mmo, you can't play as an orc. They said NO.

 

Besides, The hobbit wasn't meant to be a dark take on a childrens tale. And the land didn't really become dark like youwant, lore wise until thet middle of the trilogy.

 

Yay, best analogy for the Sanderson v Jordan books ever :)

?

[Nolder]

You know what's funny? The stuff I didn't like was all stuff they kept from the book and basically copy/pasted

Like some of the lines ("I am Gandalf and Gandalf means me!") work really well in the book but in the movie they were cheesy at best

[Krakalakachkn]

Alright, so my thoughts are as follows.

 

 

I feel like Jackson was almost pandering to his audience this time around - he was trying to recreate the same exact formula he used with the first three, but now with a new story.  The movie itself was beautiful - the cinematography was amazing, the artistic side was good as we've come to expect.  However, that's kinda where I take issue.  We've already seen these same vistas, and they're rehashing them with the "wait, there's more" addition of 48fps.  That's why I think del Toro was the perfect choice, he would have taken the cinematography and art direction into a darker place.  The picture was crystal clear and the depth of color was astounding, but it was too....bright.  Nothing seemed dim or dark and it was hard to convey any sense of danger or even some emotions.  I would like to have seen a darker, grimmer take on a children's story, and I think Jackson's attempt to reconcile the violence of the first three with the childish humor and feel of the Hobbit didn't work incredibly well.

 

 

I can appreciate the attention to the back story, and to what seems to me an attempt to delve more into the lore of the books.  I like the direction they're going with that.  I liked the inclusion of Radagast the Brown (he was one of my favorite parts) and if he's a little silly, it's because it's a children's tale.  Radagast was awesome, and I liked the council that took place between Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, and Saruman.

Umm.. The tolkien Estate won't allow it to become darker. They  hold the reigns on everything tolkien, if they don't like it, it doesn't happen.

 

Thats why in the lord of the rings mmo, you can't play as an orc. They said NO.

 

Besides, The hobbit wasn't meant to be a dark take on a childrens tale. And the land didn't really become dark like youwant, lore wise until thet middle of the trilogy.

 

 

It was naught but a sigh for what could have been.

[Nolder]

Personally I hate Del Toro's style and would have been really sad to see it come to middle earth

[dapianoplay3r]

Alright, so my thoughts are as follows.

 

 

I feel like Jackson was almost pandering to his audience this time around - he was trying to recreate the same exact formula he used with the first three, but now with a new story.  The movie itself was beautiful - the cinematography was amazing, the artistic side was good as we've come to expect.  However, that's kinda where I take issue.  We've already seen these same vistas, and they're rehashing them with the "wait, there's more" addition of 48fps.  That's why I think del Toro was the perfect choice, he would have taken the cinematography and art direction into a darker place.  The picture was crystal clear and the depth of color was astounding, but it was too....bright.  Nothing seemed dim or dark and it was hard to convey any sense of danger or even some emotions.  I would like to have seen a darker, grimmer take on a children's story, and I think Jackson's attempt to reconcile the violence of the first three with the childish humor and feel of the Hobbit didn't work incredibly well.

 

 

I can appreciate the attention to the back story, and to what seems to me an attempt to delve more into the lore of the books.  I like the direction they're going with that.  I liked the inclusion of Radagast the Brown (he was one of my favorite parts) and if he's a little silly, it's because it's a children's tale.  Radagast was awesome, and I liked the council that took place between Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, and Saruman.

Just about everything seeming too bright. Did you see it in 3D or 2D. If it was in 2D thats cos everything is lit for the higher frame rate and 3D which need a lot more light to achieve the same visual effect as normal. So in 2D it looks over lit but in 3D it should be ok

 

(ive only seen it in 3D)

 

I agree though that this is following rings in a way. It did feel very much like the 1st movie of those too.

The goblin king was awesome. My favourite character by far

 

I liked Rivendale but there was one point when it looked like there were lights hanging from the ceiling. I couldnt figure out what they were supposed to be other than lights

I liked it though

I really wanna see the new upgraded version and see how that goes

[Rasheta Ardashir]

I have to say I wasn't impressed with the movie at all, the pros were of course Howard Shores brilliant music, he hopefully will get another academy award for it. He always does the music super well. The casting was great as usual, I wasn't sold on Martin Freeman at first and after seeing the movie yes he did good. New Zealand is of course always beautiful the vistas are a good back drop to the stories, both the Hobbit and Lotr.

 

the Cons were pretty much everything else. Jackson changes characters, character so they are all vastly different then they would be in the book. Elrond being subservient to Sarumon and Galadriel....seriously? Elrond is just as much a lord in his own right as the other two and there was no subservience to them at all. The additions were unnecessary the entire first twenty min of the movie was pointless! They could have taken two min at the dwarf council to explain what happened as they did in the book thus cutting out stupid filler with no purpose. The Elves were NOT at the destruction of dale and to suddenly put them there so Thorin has this hatred for elves was stupid...he didn't btw he didn't overly trust them but his level of hatred wasn't as high as it was in the movie, he actually respected Elrond in the books. Thorin ordering his people to attack Elrond in his own house...*sigh* It just keeps getting worse the addition of the pale orc was what really chessed me off. No purpose for it other then to add something to the movie that's unneeded.

[Nolder]

Elrond being subservient to Sarumon and Galadriel....seriously? Elrond is just as much a lord in his own right as the other two and there was no subservience to them at all.

Actually this makes sense to me. I can't recall if JRRT wrote it this way but if he didn't he probably should have. Elrond is pretty old, like 6000 years or so which gives him a lot of seniority normally. Galadriel is older by at least 1000 years. Additionally she was born in the west and is royalty both among the Noldor and the Teleri. Oh and Elrond married her daughter making her his mother in law.

When it comes to Saruman we have to remember what he actually is: a Maia. He is not merely a wizard he is basically a demigod. And he is also the leader of the White Council. Elrond and Galadriel would both be aware of this and it would only be proper to show him a certain amount of respect and deference.

 

The Elves were NOT at the destruction of dale and to suddenly put them there so Thorin has this hatred for elves was stupid...he didn't btw he didn't overly trust them but his level of hatred wasn't as high as it was in the movie, he actually respected Elrond in the books. Thorin ordering his people to attack Elrond in his own house...*sigh*

This didn't bother me. They easily could have showed up, they do basically live right next door. This had to happen to show Thorin's dislike of elves. Granted it was a specific group of elves Thorin dislikes but I think, in addition to everything else that had to be explained, that would have been too complicated. It was easier to just make him mistrusting of all elves and it helps make the story more dramatic. 

 

It just keeps getting worse the addition of the pale orc was what really chessed me off. No purpose for it other then to add something to the movie that's unneeded.

Actually this was in the books, it's just been tweaked a little. Remember the goblin army at the end of the book is led by Bolg? He's the son of Azog (the pale orc in the movie). What they did is just replaced Bolg (not the best name to say on camera) with Azog and gave him a more prominent role at the beginning of the story which helps drive it forward and give the audience a villain they can actually see and fear while the dragon just sleeps. He very much has a purpose and it is very much needed.

[Rasheta Ardashir]

Elrond was never subservient to either Saurmon or Galadriel in the books. They all of course had a certain amount of respect given but his ideas and power were also well respected. His brother found the way to the Valor at one point. He just chose humanity over the Elves. I think showing Elrond as "less of a person" in the face of the council was not in line with his character. *shrug* Clearly I'm okay with agreeing to disagree there.

 

I disagree with the more dramatic comment, it just made me more chessed off. I just don't understand why when the book was less in length then even Fellowship of the Ring it needed to be so changed, and Jackson felt the need to change the characters of the characters, as he did with Farmair, Elrond etc in LoTR.

 

I disagree with the Azog statement as well, there are enough villains in the book and enough going on that the addition of the orcs just was an addition. *shrug* Again agree to disagree I guess.

[Nolder]

I really don't see how showing respect to the leader of the White Council (on top of what else Saruman is) is being subservient. But I guess we're dropping it so whatever...

 

It has to do with the fact that it's a film. Films need characters to have some depth to them. The books are good outlines but word for word they just don't translate to a good film. Making Thorin actually hostile to all elves makes him seem more real. He isn't some perfect dwarf king he has failings and maybe by the end he'll overcome them.

 

As for Azog. Remember they are really stretching the fabric of the story to get as much out of it as possible. Take Azog out of the movie and what do you have for villains? A clip of some spiders and the Witch King, A clip of Smaug, A scene with the trolls, A scene with Gollum, and a sequence with the Goblins. It seems like a lot but if you remember the length of the movie there are long periods where you could say the party is perfectly safe...if not for the fact that Azog is hunting them. Aside from the trolls and goblins all those other threats weren't even present or actually threatening to the dwarves. Azog is badly need to keep the tension up.

[Arez Al'Loke]

I thought the movie had great entertainment value! Just how I like them, lots of intense drama with spots of humour here and there. 

 

And the way the dwarves were portrayed was amazing! Just how dwarves are supposed to be ^^! A tightknit bunch of bad-asses!

[reyler]

Further, tying in Azog and establishing the dwarf/orc war gives a stronger narrative justification for their part in the Battle of Five Armies. It feels more natural here than PJ's additions to LotR because A) it's threaded throughout the entire film rather than just suddenly dumped in like sending elves to Helm's Deep, and B) it supports the story being told rather than crashing up against it.

 

Also, I don't feel that any of the characters from the book, to the extent that there were any, got changed. The few that were given any characterization in the book were, I'd argue, expanded rather than changed. Thorin of the book, f'r instance, was written as little more than a pompous ass. Movie Thorin is still a pompous ass, but he's given more depth.

[Nolder]

Re: Sending the Elves to Helm's Deep

It was kind of random story wise but their reasoning was spot on IMO. At that point in the film you're feeling quite a bit of dread. We've seen the size of each army and we know the men have no real chance. We see King Theoden refusing to fight and instead choosing to cower in the stronghold. His men are either really old or really young. Aragorn is fighting with Legolas and IIRC around the same time Sam and Frodo have been captured by Faramir. Sending the Elves to Helm's Deep not only reaffirms that the elves are still committed to helping fight Sauron as much as they can but also gives you that little boost of confidence just before the battle. Each of those elves look like highly trained warriors and you know they must be worth dozens of orcs. It's that little lift right before the battle. You know it's still hopeless and you don't want to do it but now you feel like if you have to do it now you're as ready as you can be. It's actually my favorite part of all three films.

[RandA lThor]

I actually didn't like this movie, since I expected something better. Not saying it was bad, but it was bad compared to what I expected.  Too drawn out for me, the hobbit should not have needed one whole movie to get past the Eagles, that's just ridiculous.  Second of all, they added too many parts to it, some I liked, some I didn't.  Anyways, I will pass final judgement after seeing all of the movies.

[Nolder]

Wait...what were you expecting and how did it not live up to that image?

[Arez Al'Loke]

Wait...what were you expecting and how did it not live up to that image?

+1

[reyler]

And heck, even when they were doing two movies instead of three (which would still be my preferred option, but whatever), after the eagle rescue was still the absolute best place to split the films - structurally, it's the exhalation after the long period of tension of the goblin tunnels, Gollum, and the orc attack in the woods, and before they start in on the next sequence in the plot. They could have taken it a little farther, to the edge of Mirkwood, but that would mean leaving out Beorn, as the '77 animated film did.

 

As far as the Helm's Deep elves, that wouldn't have been necessary if they hadn't deviated so strongly from the text. Anyway, everyone knows that originally Arwen was supposed to be leading them as part of her beefed up role in the films, which would have been just as dumb, but would have been more useful to Aragorn's made-up emotional arc. As it is, it feels exactly like what it is: a bad idea that Jackson couldn't entirely get rid of without reshooting the entire sequence.

[Krakalakachkn]

Ignoring Beorn would crush me almost as much as leaving out Bombadil.

[Nolder]

Well all I can really say is I liked it and unless you're talking to a book purist I'd be willing to bet most other people liked it as well

I'm sorry if it seemed out of place to you

[reyler]

It wasn't so much a matter of book purity so much as the fact that it stuck out like a sore thumb as something PJ made up. It ended up not even mattering to the plot. That's why I was using it as a contrast against the things in The Hobbit (particularly Azog's subplot) that were more or less made up, because this time they were seeded throughout the film and felt like a more natural expansion of the story. Radagast at first feels like he belongs in column A, until you get to his second scene and you see better how he fits in, bonus if he comes back in the next film or two when the White Council attacks Dol Goldur.

 

To instead contrast it against other changes in the original films, look at the end of Fellowship, when Aragorn gets a crack of his own at the Ring and turns it down (with some effort). Made up for the films, but has the twofold effect of enhancing Aragorn's character and more clearly elaborating why Frodo had to head out on his own. Similar philosophy applies to the non-canon stuff they added in the Hobbit (to differentiate from the White Council, which did not appear in the book but is canon as having happened anyway); the Azog plotline serves to give us better insight into Thorin (although the flashback to the Battle of Azanulzibar would have been better set during the Rivendell Quiet Time, with some trimming, than the theatrical before-anything-has-actually-happened placement it got) and also gives some continuity to a storyline that is otherwise rather episodic.

 

Also, Krak, Bombadil is the biggest pointless diversion in any version of LotR and is rightly left out of all adaptations. Although, given how Jackson likes to give himself cameos in these films, if ever there were a role for him, that would be the one.

[Nolder]

I really don't think that's the case.

For someone who's never read the books the elves didn't seem out of place at all.

They came to honor the Last Alliance, like they said.

[SBoydW]

I liked it.

 

BTW for all the "the book was better they changed to much in the movie" people.... quit it.. that's been the formula for book to movie transformations for forever.  Movies will always be different, directors will take license with the characters, plots will be tweaked, things may even be added.  If you dislike it so much quit going to these types of movies, because that's what you're gonna get, and if you know that going in, you have no right to complain afterwards, because you knew it was going to happen and you still went.  Accept it for what it is, another rendition of the story.  The overall tale is still the same, Dragon takes dwarves home, some dwarves, a hobbit and wizard journey to take it back, yadda yadda yadda a shiney ring, and some other stuff a long the way.

[Agitel]

I enjoyed the movie. I was a little disappointed with the whole Azog thing, but I could see how it was important to Thorin's and Bilbo's character arcs for the split movie. I think the oddest thing was the movie seemed to try to balance the light-heartedness of the book with the heavy grandeur of LotR, and that didn't always work out successfully. Two hours and forty minutes was also longer than it needed to be.

However, that criticism aside, I did enjoy the movie a lot. But I'm a huge Middle Earth nerd. I loved the inclusion of the songs.

 

And book vs movie criticisms are fine, if done with some perspective and not by someone who's only concerned with purity.

[Krakalakachkn]

I liked it.

 

BTW for all the "the book was better they changed to much in the movie" people.... quit it.. that's been the formula for book to movie transformations for forever.  

 

 

There's only been one time I liked a movie adaptation more than the book - The Four Feathers with Heath Ledger and Djimon Hounsou.

 

 

 

As for Bombadil as a pointless diversion, I'm not sure that you can make that argument concerning the books - but you're absolutely right concerning the movie.

[Nolder]

 I think the oddest thing was the movie seemed to try to balance the light-heartedness of the book with the heavy grandeur of LotR, and that didn't always work out successfully.

totally agree

I didn't hate or love that

it was just...weird

[Agitel]

I liked it.

 

BTW for all the "the book was better they changed to much in the movie" people.... quit it.. that's been the formula for book to movie transformations for forever.  

 

 

There's only been one time I liked a movie adaptation more than the book - The Four Feathers with Heath Ledger and Djimon Hounsou.

 

 

 

As for Bombadil as a pointless diversion, I'm not sure that you can make that argument concerning the books - but you're absolutely right concerning the movie.

 

It should be noted that even Tolkien thought Bombadil should be cut from any film adaptations.