Desslock
1641
what they really need is Neil Marshall to do the Silmarillion.
I’ve loved the books since I was a kid. When I was 10 or 11 I think I checked out the school library coly of The Hobbit about 20 times in a row and must have read it over and over again countless times. That one book is the root seed of my entire lifelong fascination with everything fantasy.
So with that said, I absolutely love these Hobbit movies. When Jackson brought The Lord of the Rings trilogy to screens, it was practically a religious experience for me. I’m not joking. As an adult, to see these books I had loved since childhood brought to the big screen with such care and attention to detail, to see scenes I had imagined in my head hundreds of times suddenly splashed on the screen looking EXACTLY as I had imagined, only even more incredible…I’m not ashamed to admit that there were tears in my eyes at times during each of the three LOTR films. It was that good.
Now, with the Hobbit, I’m not tearing up and I’m not awestruck with the sheer power of what I’m seeing, but instead I am having a great time experiencing a retelling of a familiar and well-loved tale in a new way and frankly I’m more than comfortable with it. Yes, I shook my head at Radaghast and his bunny sled, but for the most part I am totally cool with the changes and think that overall they make the movies far more exciting, interesting and most importantly accessable for everyone. My kids LOVE these movies, as do many other non-fantasy people I know, and that in turn is leading to a revival of sorts for not just Tolkien’s works, but fantasy in general. That’s a good thing as far as I am concerned.
Bottom line is that The Hobbit, as written, would make one long and very boring movie. Take the Mirkwood Elves for example. In the book, Bilbo and company escape the spiders by stumbling into the elves party hoping to find someone who can help. Instead they are taken captive, and Bilbo eventually gets them out via the barrels, but with each dwarf sealed into his respective barrel. They float downriver and are picked out of the water by men from Laketown, where the barrels are collected and the dwarves simply wait for nightfall to come out and sneak away. The entire sequence from spiders to Lonely Mountain would take about 15 minutes on screen and have virtually no action or suspense. Jackson’s over-the-top adaptation is far more entertaining on film than the actual written passages would have been. As a huge fan of the original works, I’m totally cool with it.
z22
1643
I saw this yesterday. Couple my dislike of Peter Jackson’s films with my admiration for Tolkien’s work and I knew there was little chance of me liking the film as much as I would hope for the works I read often and hold dear to heart. Not unlike all Peter Jackson films I thought it was typical Peter Jackson template. Goofball Jackson chase scene? Check. Overly dramatic forced tension IN EVERY SCENE? Check. Sappy music throughout every second of the film? Check. Overly long film? Check.Check.Check.Check.Check! In short, this film was not for me. I don’t like Jackson’s direction, filmography or vision. The Hobbit as 3 long movies is an obvious money-grab by everyone involved, nothing more.
Like others, I do feel this movie and all the others, and I’m sure the 3rd installment, are great for those who have not read the books or never will. They would otherwise never get to experience Tolkien and the genre that gave breathe to nerdism as we know it today.
As I have done after every Jackson Tolkien movie, I reread the LoTR and The Hobbit again and also watched the animated Hobbit by Rankin/Bass. Even though it’s a little over an hour, i feel the Rankin/Bass version captures The Hobbit much more than Jackson’s films. Jacksons’s movies are missing the innocence and magic of the book that led to the writing and expansion in LoTR.
D+
Focus on Beren & Luthien’s story, which tells a fairly tight narrative yet also includes the war against Morgoth as the backdrop, yet also foreshadows the lives of Elrond and Aragorn and thus ties it, albeit loosely, to the first trilogy of films.
rshetts
1645
I have to ask quite seriously, if you truly feel this way, WHY THE FUCK DO YOU EVEN BOTHER TO GO SEE THESE? Because after that many hours of experiencing Jackson style, I would think you would get a clue. Dont watch them any more and if you do, dont bother bitching about it because you have no one but yourself to blame. With that much hate and derision for Jackson adaptations, why even watch them?
I can think of a couple of reasons: 1) to see personally how and in what ways he fails the source material so you can comment first-hand, 2) because a group of friends want to you to come, and you don’t want to be a Grinch by refusing to go, 3) because sitting through an unsuccessful Hobbit is preferable to, say, taking the kids to see Justin Bieber’s Believe, 4) because, like the curate’s egg, parts of it might be excellent.
What I missed most in this installment is a clearer sense of episode. It’s one long chase scene—mainly by orcs where they shouldn’t be—punctuated by spiders and wood elves and Englishmen. Especially after Thorin and Co. find the side door in Erebor, there’s no respite. Jackson turns the knobs up to eleven and leaves them there for what seems like a solid hour. He’s aware that some scenes “need” relative quiet, but he doesn’t appear to have any real notion of the value of silence. Too much action to follow. Every now and then there was something evenly measured—Smaug’s gradual reveal from under his hoard was great—but overall just too much, and much of it needless.
Enidigm
1647
Well Sam and Bilbo are strong because of, essentially, good old fashioned English rural pluck and common sense, more or less. The Hobbit always was in a sense a tale of An Englishman’s Adventure, going off into the wild Eastern world, where people aren’t sensible and grounded, where the land isn’t pleasant, green, and civilized, into the throws of Big and Old Problems, with grey enemies and grey friends. It’s why it’s a children’s book of the same sort as Wind in the Willows and Narnia.
In the wider Tolkien world however i always assumed that Biblo resisted the ring because he wasn’t as close to Mordor, wasn’t actually trying to handle the ring constantly, lived in that pastoral, common sense English land, and was a “right sort of chap” that didn’t covet wealth or power, not because he was intrinsically stronger. It actually seems his overall naivety protected him, where Frodo ends up more scarred and tested during his quest. Frodo ends up being more self aware, more a “veteran” of the wider world, exposed to a greater perspective, and so loses his English Pluck. It’s why Frodo returns basically into a retirement while his companions take prominent positions of authority among the Hobbits.
Smaug is really quite an impressive creation. That reveal of Smaug and the sequence with Bilbo was pure awesome. I really wish they’d have toned down the crazy elf combat, though. That sequence in the middle with the barrels pretty much had me giggling throughout it was so over-the-top.
As someone who disliked the first Hobbit movie, I have to say that I really enjoyed this one. Part of it was going in with a better idea of what to expect, sure. But I think this movie nailed the tone so much better. It’s hard to describe except to give examples like how the Misty Mountains chase scene was ridiculous and annoying (the rabbit sled was even worse of course), but the barrels were great. Over-the-top a bit but in a way that wasn’t as jarring. Finally, this may have been the only movie I’ve seen where the reactions and commentary of the kids in the audience actually added to the experience. To see them so engaged with a story that I loved at that age … it brought a tear to me eye it did.
I have a chance to see this today, but they’re only showing it in 3D. If we wait we’ll probably miss it at the theater altogether. Any opinions on the 3D version? (considering that I usually select the 2D version whenever possible, although I’ll make an exception if it’s actually done well)
I thought the 3D was far less distracting this time around. (With the exception of a few bees flying at the screen right at the beginning.)
The 48fps thing was similarly handled much better this time around, and thinking back, I can tell it really did make the action that much smoother, all without ever making me notice it this time.
marxeil
1652
Just came back from this. I liked the first movie (cave and sled chase notwithstanding), and liked this one more. Great fun.
Well probably see the last one in 2D. Three hour 3D I’d getting harder to go through.
SlyFrog
1653
These movies are pretty bad. Not terrible enough that I’ll refuse to see them, but definitely disappointing.
Jackson is pulling a Lucas here, and is worse by far in the second series than the first. It is way too long, and filled with the worst parts of the first series (super elves, slapstick dwarves). I keep expecting Chewbacca to swing in with a Tarzan yell. Perhaps the love-smitten dwarf can complain to the elf hottie about how he doesn’t want to go back to his homeland, because he hates the feeling of sand … I mean stone.
z22
1654
I take my niece and nephew. They enjoy seeing them and afterwards they come over for some great RPG adventures and/or boardgames. Also, there’s always the hope Jackson will learn how to write and direct film, unlikely, but possible.
Granath
1655
I generally agree. I liked the first one somewhat, but it struggled to find the correct tone. I also disliked the Mountain Giant scene and the rabbit sled but greatly enjoyed the barrel scene. It was fun. The tension between Bilbo and Smaug was excellent.
I understand purists may dislike what Jackson is doing with this since he really diverts from the book in the 2nd half of this movie. But I understand what he is trying to do. The book is wildly inconsistent with the universe and tone of the later Ring books. Motivations are paper thin or nonexistent and things are often poorly explained. For example, the Men of Laketown marching on the Lonely Mountain and then the whole situation escalating into a full-scale war does not make much sense. Bard is just the man who shot the arrow at Smaug and there is little more said about him in the book. The goblin army just happens to chose that time and place to attack. There are a bunch of these types of things in the book but they are dismissed because it is Tolkien and it is also supposed to be a childrens book. Jackson has to fit this into the Rings universe and I think he is doing a good job of building characters, motivations and fleshing things out. He has given more of a role to Bard, set up the situation in Laketown and giving a better reason for the Orc invasion. As always, his style is bloated and occasionally over the top but overall I think these are in good fun. The setup on the 3rd movie is excellent and Jackson should be in his sweet spot - fantasy action - with the invasion of Dol Guldur, Smaug vs. Laketown and the entire battle of the Five Armies. It should be great. Truthfully though, I hope he leaves the Eagles out of it but I doubt he will.
Someone should make a conversion and scenario for Total War based on the Battle of the 5 Armies. What fun that would be!
Also, for the majority of the time that Bilbo possessed the Ring, it was my impression Sauron himself was more covert about his actions and his presence. That ends with the start of the Lord of the Rings and the call between Ring and Master becomes much louder and thereby much more difficult for Frodo to resist. While everyone in the Fellowship and of course the Hobbits were tested, Frodo had to endure a constant battle of will, and in the end his wounds are far deeper, hence his trip to the Undying Lands.
Also, didn’t Merry and Pippin have familial reasons behind their involvement as well?
Headed out to see this later today, hope its good as I’ve avoided almost every post about it. :p
They do, yes. Frodo is related to Merry through his mother, Primula Brandybuck, and Merry is a member of the Brandybuck clan. Frodo is also related to Pippin through his father, Drogo Baggins, since the Baggins and Tooks have some family ties as well.
More to the point, weren’t the Brandybuck’s known for being… adventurous?
The Brandybucks were just considered “outlandish” by the Shirefolk. The Tooks were the adventurous ones.
