The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

Just to clarify, I think the movie is great and an insane amount of fun - but I just wanted to point out that as a Tolkien adaptation, I agree the filmmakers are off the reservation.

I still loved it, though. (even though, as I said, I'm outnumbered on this board)

It isn't the liberties taken...Carl Gottlieb had a great observation when helping write JAWS...the novel was full of stuff tertiary to the main story. Ellen and Hooper had an affair. The mafia was discussed an invovled. Gottlieb said anything that wasn't about the main plot had to go, and the result was a focused, intense, action thriller. Jackson and company seemed to know that lesson on Fellowship of the Ring...anything not related to the journey of the Ring (Tom Bombadil, the Barrow-Wights, etc.) had to go, and certain characters (Glorfindel) were compressed for time. It was outstanding. Smart.

This is the complete, 100% opposite of that philosophy. Instead of cutting and focusing, they've expanded and wandered, and the bloat leads to pointless action beats and even absurd, drama-killing buffoonery.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

It isn't the liberties taken...Carl Gottlieb had a great observation when helping write JAWS...the novel was full of stuff tertiary to the main story. Ellen and Hooper had an affair. The mafia was discussed an invovled. Gottlieb said anything that wasn't about the main plot had to go, and the result was a focused, intense, action thriller. Jackson and company seemed to know that lesson on Fellowship of the Ring...anything not related to the journey of the Ring (Tom Bombadil, the Barrow-Wights, etc.) had to go, and certain characters (Glorfindel) were compressed for time. It was outstanding. Smart.

This is the complete, 100% opposite of that philosophy. Instead of cutting and focusing, they've expanded and wandered, and the bloat leads to pointless action beats and even absurd, drama-killing buffoonery.

... as I said, I know I'm outnumbered here.

[BaerGriggs]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

... as I said, I know I'm outnumbered here.

I'm with you .

I understand MANY liberties were taken in the film but I can easily see the book and the film as separate entities. There is no way that the book was going to translate directly to events in the movie, but I personally love how much they've drawn from the Appendices for the events. And while there is a lot of fluff in the film, so what? I love all of Tolkien's writing, but I am not enough of a purist to be angry if they add a major character or make up events to make it more appealing to all audiences. Let's be real; Tolkien would have rolled over in his grave from the LOTR Trilogy. I enjoy the films and the books as separate, wonderful works of art.

[Ernest Rister]

And while there is a lot of fluff in the film, so what?

Because that's bad writing and poor storytelling?

[RaijinUT]

The Hobbit is, and will always be, my favorite book, thus my opinion my be one-sided, but I enjoyed the movie.

Here is what I disliked...

• Added Elfs- Both Legolas and Tauriel. I could have done without either of these characters.
• Tauriel's entire love at 1st sight story. Seemed so phony to me.
• How the movie made Smaug seem less frighting after the
  [Show spoiler]20 mins battle with 9 dwarfs and a hobbit. I really think that when they added a 20 mins filler battle with Smaug, that Smaug should have been been able to kill a few fat dwarves.
  . I think Peter Jackson did such a good job setting up Smaug in the 1st movie, then
  [Show spoiler]made him look stupid and clumsy during a battle with 9 dwarfs and a Hobbit... Is this really the Dragon that really conquered an entire empire and brought fear into a entire region???
  I loved the way Smaug looked and acted up until this part of the movie.
• Bilbo
  [Show spoiler]Not taking out all of spiders.
• Legolas always riding corpses like they are a skateboard. Whether the be
  [Show spoiler]Orc, Golbin, or spiders
  Just seemed so cheesy to me.
• And the
  [Show spoiler]fade to black ending right when Smaug is actually about to do something besides looking like clumsy fool.

Besides that, I loved the movie. I do think that they could have left out a lot of stuff, and just made two really epic movies though.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Hard to believe these guys made Fellowship of the Ring. I loved that so much, and felt it got robbed at the Oscars. I gave The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey some slack, because it was clearly a film setting up the exposition for what was to come, but this...can't defend it anymore. It's not that they altered the source material -- that happens for every movie based on a book, by necessity. It's the writing, the staging, the storytelling, the phony suspense around action scenes drawn out and out and out until Smaug himself becomes a bit of a joke..."I! Am Death!" Apparently not...you can stand on the guy's lips and he'll just stare at you like a cat tolerating a pet parakeet. It's like watching the shark from Jaws swimming around an Olympic swimming pool with 10 victims, not allowed to actually eat any of them because that would mess with the plot, and all the while the shark is monologging about what a bad-ass he is. Disaster is right. Really reminded me of Attack of the Clones.

I sat in a state of increasing disbelief from about Mirkwood to the end. By the final sequence, I was hoping that among the treasure, Bilbo would find a sock and stuff it in Smaug's mouth so the movie could mercifully end.

The real tragedy of all of this is the sheer amount of time, money, talent, and effort invested. With a half-billion dollar budget and perhaps the largest special effects team ever assembled, it had unequaled potential, and of course it was going to be a CGI spectular. What could have been! The legions of fans impressed by the Lord of the Rings movies, the financial success, the dozens (hundreds?) of awards, the well-deserved Oscars, and motion picture professional recognition, gave this franchise practically guaranteed success. All Jackson and Boyens had to do was stay somewhat close to the story, one of the most beloved of all time. If unable to do that - for whatever reason - they should have at least allowed someone else to write it, preferably someone like themselves about fourteen years ago that had something to prove.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

Just to clarify, I think the movie is great and an insane amount of fun - but I just wanted to point out that as a Tolkien adaptation, I agree the filmmakers are off the reservation.

I still loved it, though. (even though, as I said, I'm outnumbered on this board)

Aragorn, I'm glad you liked it, and I have recommended the movie to my family and my co-workers, because as you indicated, it would certainly be fun for most non-Tolkien fans. My nephew, who is a big-time gamer, thought it was one of the best movies he has ever seen. I just had different expectations for it and it wasn't my cup of tea.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Aragorn, I'm glad you liked it, and I have recommended the movie to my family and my co-workers, because as you indicated, it would certainly be fun for most non-Tolkien fans. My nephew, who is a big-time gamer, thought it was one of the best movies he has ever seen. I just had different expectations for it and it wasn't my cup of tea.

No, I totally get it. If I were to judge this film solely in terms of fidelity to Tolkien's book, it would get a low grade from me. The last 20 minutes or so, especially, show a complete lack of understanding of the novel.

But, as a movie, I think it's splendid. Though I don't begrudge any book fans feeling disappointed. It's completely understandable.

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

... as I said, I know I'm outnumbered here.

well, I'll back you up ;-) I agree with your initial post!.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

No, I totally get it. If I were to judge this film solely in terms of fidelity to Tolkien's book, it would get a low grade from me. The last 20 minutes or so, especially, show a complete lack of understanding of the novel.

But, as a movie, I think it's splendid. Though I don't begrudge any book fans feeling disappointed. It's completely understandable.

Dammit, this isn't about fidelity. That's a crutch against legitimate criticism of the writing. I'm disappointed Grand Bob threw that bone out there, because it's a "get out of writer-jail free" card. This is about really, really misjudged protracted writing.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Dammit, this isn't about fidelity. That's a crutch against legitimate criticism of the writing. I'm disappointed Grand Bob threw that bone out there, because it's a "get out of writer-jail free" card. This is about really, really misjudged protracted writing.

On a film (not adaptation) basis, I don't have too many issues with the writing. You're obviously free to disagree, but there's no need to get angry.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

... as I said, I know I'm outnumbered here.

I enjoyed the movie as well.....so you may be outnumbered.....but you aren't alone.

[BaerGriggs]

I don't think I've seen anyone else post about it, but who has seen this in Dolby Atmos yet? I'll be seeing it again that way in a few days and I'm really excited for it..the first film sounded fantastic in it.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Dammit, this isn't about fidelity. That's a crutch against legitimate criticism of the writing. I'm disappointed Grand Bob threw that bone out there, because it's a "get out of writer-jail free" card. This is about really, really misjudged protracted writing.

One of my problems with the Hobbit movies is the level of mentality involved. I have seen what Jackson did with the Lord of the Rings movies, and his obvious heartfelt commitment in his comments in the Hobbit EE special features, so I know what he is capable of doing. But it is seems like these Hobbit films are an order of magnitude lower, as though someone else was responsible. Instead of a product of the director of "The Lord of the Rings", it would seem more plausible that "The Hobbit" films were written by the director of "Dude Where's My Car" or "Momma's Boy". Throughout AUJ and DOS my reactions varied from "well OK, but..." to "what the ?", and far too often ended up as "WTF?" I have a hard time believing that this is the same Jackson, and that even more incredibly he actually watched the final product thinking, "that was great!" In my mind, it just doesn't add up.

When I stated that unlike all of the former Jackson-helmed Middle-earth movies, I would not go to a repeat showing of DOS, another forum poster commented that they wouldn't miss me. He is correct, and I'm sure Jackson/Boyens are laughing all the way to the bank.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by BaerGriggs

I don't think I've seen anyone else post about it, but who has seen this in Dolby Atmos yet? I'll be seeing it again that way in a few days and I'm really excited for it..the first film sounded fantastic in it.

I wish. There's no theater anywhere close to me that has it. I guess I should count myself lucky that I have at least one theater nearby that's showing the HFR.

[BaerGriggs]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

I wish. There's no theater anywhere close to me that has it. I guess I should count myself lucky that I have at least one theater nearby that's showing the HFR.

Lol well the one I'm going to isn't exactly close but I think it'll be worth it. Going to a football game before it to make the two hour drive seem like a bit more than just going to a movie.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by BaerGriggs

Lol well the one I'm going to isn't exactly close but I think it'll be worth it. Going to a football game before it to make the two hour drive seem like a bit more than just going to a movie.

I should've said "no theater anywhere far away from me" - that's how far I'd have to travel.

[Infernal King]

I'm looking forward to someone taking all three movies and editing them into a single 90 minute movie.

[BladeRunner2007]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

I'm looking forward to someone taking all three movies and editing them into a single 90 minute movie.

Haha, I feel the same in a way. Haven't seen DOS yet, but AUJ was sooooo drawn out and boring. Maybe a 2 1/2 hour epic (all 3 films edited together)

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

Haha, I feel the same in a way. Haven't seen DOS yet, but AUJ was sooooo drawn out and boring. Maybe a 2 1/2 hour epic (all 3 films edited together)

It's the only way I'd watch any of them. Should have been one movie from the start.