The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Review Thread (Spoilers)

[poke smot]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

I'm curious. What makes these "middle earth" stories so appealing to so many people? Is it the characters? The fantasy world? The creatures? The storytelling? I've read The Hobbit and have seen the theatrical cuts of the LOTR trilogy and really can't understand the popularity. Do some of you like it to be "part of the crowd"? Not trolling. Just curious. Why do you like these movies?

You might as well ask me why I like chocolate. If I have to explain it to someone, its already a lost cause. Come on bro. Why ask someone why they like art?

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

I'm curious. What makes these "middle earth" stories so appealing to so many people? Is it the characters? The fantasy world? The creatures? The storytelling? I've read The Hobbit and have seen the theatrical cuts of the LOTR trilogy and really can't understand the popularity. Do some of you like it to be "part of the crowd"? Not trolling. Just curious. Why do you like these movies?

Originally Posted by frogmort

I'm just into it because it's the cool hip happening thing to do.

Basically, it's just an escape from my everyday life into a wonderful fanasy world, but it is also just written so beautifully and poetically and has lots of great ideals, principles, and values that have had a profound influence on my personal philosiphies and way of life.

If you have only read The Hobbit and not The Lord of the Rings, I would highly suggest giving it a read. Although they are both in the same world, The Hobbit is a much more simple, yet highly enjoyable children's book. The Lord of the Rings goes much deeper into the different races, languages, cultures, etc. of Middle-earth.

I think that Joe (Frogmort) has nicely summed it up, the world that Tolkien has created is - for many - the perfect escape.

I have been asked that question many times and have always fallen short of an adequate explanation. The best answer I have is that Tolkien created an imaginary world that one wants to visit, complete with an interesting mix of mortal, immortal, rustic, average, and superior beings, ranging from the most evil possible (one, Morgoth, is Tolkien's equivalent of Satan) to the angelic. The stories are made more realistic with detailed geography, deep history, and strong moral thematic and philosophical content. There are other stories and sagas that also have some of these elements, but IMO, none of them are as convincing, intriguing, or as large of scope. The one element that truly distinguishes Tolkien's fiction is the wording. His peers have stated that he was one of the greatest - perhaps THE greatest expert on the English language. He was an Oxford professor of the English language and was involved with the Oxford English Dictionary. He claimed that his greatest interest was philology - the love of words. It shows, especially in The Lord of the Rings, which took over 11 years to write, with "every word considered" and every chapter re-written many times. He wrote the story primarily as a reason to use Elvish languages he had been creating as a hobby. His writing style drew me into Middle-earth, and no other writer has been able to completely imitate it or match it for its interest and eloquence. The more I read it, the more I want to read.

Peter Jackson and Phillpa Boyens were also drawn into that world, and have done a commendable job filming the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. I think that Tolkien would have, with some notable exceptions, enjoyed the movies and would be amazed at the effort put into them. But IMO, the movies, although among my favorites, will always be a notch below "the real thing", which are the books.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

I'm curious. What makes these "middle earth" stories so appealing to so many people? Is it the characters? The fantasy world? The creatures? The storytelling? I've read The Hobbit and have seen the theatrical cuts of the LOTR trilogy and really can't understand the popularity. Do some of you like it to be "part of the crowd"? Not trolling. Just curious. Why do you like these movies?

They're well-made and entertaining, what else do movies need to be appealing?
The books, I could take or leave. I was much younger when I read them so maybe I should give them another chance, but Tolkien is too self-indulgent for my taste.

[AnimalChin]

I actually wish I hadn't read the Hobbit again before watching the movie, I might have enjoyed it more

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Asking me why I like Tolkien is equivalent to asking me why I like air. lol

They are the books that taught me the joy of reading. Upon first experiencing these stories 12-13 years ago, my life changed completely. No exaggeration.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

I'm curious. What makes these "middle earth" stories so appealing to so many people? Is it the characters? The fantasy world? The creatures? The storytelling? I've read The Hobbit and have seen the theatrical cuts of the LOTR trilogy and really can't understand the popularity. Do some of you like it to be "part of the crowd"? Not trolling. Just curious. Why do you like these movies?

Seeing your avatar,and previous ones,one could ask you the same thing about Kurosawa movies

Can't speak for the movies (LotR),but the books are well written,have an epic story set in a universe made believable by the authors attention to details.Plus:who doesn't like a good tale of good versus evil?For me it is all that,and the element of escapism,or immersing myself when reading.Not every book offers that.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

I'm curious. What makes these "middle earth" stories so appealing to so many people? Is it the characters? The fantasy world? The creatures? The storytelling? I've read The Hobbit and have seen the theatrical cuts of the LOTR trilogy and really can't understand the popularity. Do some of you like it to be "part of the crowd"? Not trolling. Just curious. Why do you like these movies?

First off, of course you're trolling.

You have posed a question, to which college courses, documentaries, and much scholastic writing has been dedicated to answering. I believe that you think you just tossed a rhetorical stink-bomb on a forum full of fanboys, without realizing just how extensive the legitimate answers could be. Tolkien appreciation goes far beyond renaissance-festival dorks wearing rubber ears and playing with toy swords. You have mistaken genuine classic literature for fantasy pulp. If you really want your question answered, maybe you should turn to some of the documentaries and scholastic writing, or take a class.

To answer: truly epic writing only comes along once every couple of centuries. It's why we still read Homer, Shakespeare, and another great ancient book that I can't mention by name because a certain guardian troll will start screaming and banging on the cages if I do. I believe the great epics of history generally endure because they are a message sent to us from the past, a collection of warnings and admonitions meant for future societies.

It's not about the elves and the swords and the wizards and dragons. (Well, it is to many people, but that isn't remotely near what makes it great.) There is a great gulf between Tolkien and Dungeons & Dragons.

Underworld54 said:

It's just like films based on other worlds, it's like a fantasy. It's everything you mentioned that helps us just get away from everyday life for a few hours.

... but for me and many others, that is not quite the case. We do not use LotR to escape from the real world, we use it to better understand and relate to the real world, just as you should do with any other great classic literature.


Tolkien specifically designed his writing with that intention, to capture what was so special about ancient writings that continue to be read ages later, and he succeeded brilliantly. He was striving to make a Beowulf or a Kalevala. The magic lies in writing a story that expresses a great breadth of the moral questions, challenges, and values of a given civilization, in a way that deliberately speaks to all time and all peoples, and yet touches these ideas so personally and intimitely that those who find it there will read and re-read, the same way so many people do with that other book, that great ancient book that millions read for daily guidance.

In a nutshell, fellow, Tolkien's writing is great because he had so much more to say than other writers, so much about life and death, good and evil, love and indifference, faith and despair, courage and madness. His is the writing of an old man who has seen his world passing into the next, a young writer could not possibly have so much to say, in a way that so telescopes through time and changing culture. Among other things, his writing should go down historically as the beautiful epitaph of the British Imperial Civilization that passed from the earth during the great World Wars; I feel that is the larger story behind his writing, the passing of that world.

but really, if you even have to ask, then you're probably not that kind of reader or film watcher. You probably also wonder why we waste our time reading old books like Shakespeare, and probably think that a movie like 'The Shawshank Redemption' is just a slow movie about digging out of prison with a rockhammer.

[mjbethancourt]

OK, lemme get this straight. They stretch the first 6 chapters out into a 2:45 movie, stretch the first chapter out a full hour.

... and yet the majority of you guys think they are going to stretch basically just three chapters out into the third movie (the last two chapters are short and consist of

[Show spoiler]Thorin's deathbed and Bilbo being home again

, that's not gonna fill much screen time); but then cram eight whole chapters, really the bulk of the story, into the middle episode.

That's 105 pages for film 1, 137 pages for film 2, and a grand total of 47 pages for the final film. (I dunno, is it possible some of you guys are still stuck on the long-since abandoned idea of the "bridge-film", and think that part 3 is gonna be made up almost entirely of ROTK appendices?)

Ohhh - Kayyy

I sincerely hope you are all wrong. I truly doubt that when they decided to go with three films, that the thought process was: "Hey, we've run over six hours of screen time, let's tack the surplus on in a third film". That formula makes for a dreadful afterthought of a third episode, and words alone fail to express how much I doubt that would be the case. I think the process was the reverse of that, more like: "are we gonna go with the 3 hour buildup, or stretch it out to a 5:30 buildup", or maybe even "our three-hour beginning and our three-hour ending still leaves enough story for a film in-between". Based on information gleaned from merchandise-reveals over the last year, it is evident that the two-film version was going to break somewhere between capture by elves and escape from elves. Comparing that information to the film we got last month, it looks more to me like the first film got cut almost in half and stretched out to 2:45, and the middle film gets augmented by taking just enough from the final film to make it (part 3) more manageable, but not enough to diminish it.

Above all, I think the entire project is built around the final episode, the first two are subordinate. (Unfortunately, yet another way in which this parallels the Star Wars prequels). This isn't Twilight and this isn't Harry Potter: The Hobbit will be made with a two-film beginning, not a two-film ending; it isn't a long-enough story to have a two-film ending, and that would look pretty stupid to have a two-film ending but only a one-film beginning.

[Yojimbo68]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

First off, of course you're trolling.

You have posed a question, to which college courses, documentaries, and much scholastic writing has been dedicated to answering. I believe that you think you just tossed a rhetorical stink-bomb on a forum full of fanboys, without realizing just how extensive the legitimate answers could be. Tolkien appreciation goes far beyond renaissance-festival dorks wearing rubber ears and playing with toy swords. You have mistaken genuine classic literature for fantasy pulp. If you really want your question answered, maybe you should turn to some of the documentaries and scholastic writing, or take a class.

To answer: truly epic writing only comes along once every couple of centuries. It's why we still read Homer, Shakespeare, and another great ancient book that I can't mention by name because a certain guardian troll will start screaming and banging on the cages if I do. I believe the great epics of history generally endure because they are a message sent to us from the past, a collection of warnings and admonitions meant for future societies.

It's not about the elves and the swords and the wizards and dragons. (Well, it is to many people, but that isn't remotely near what makes it great.) There is a great gulf between Tolkien and Dungeons & Dragons.

Underworld54 said:
... but for me and many others, that is not quite the case. We do not use LotR to escape from the real world, we use it to better understand and relate to the real world, just as you should do with any other great classic literature.


Tolkien specifically designed his writing with that intention, to capture what was so special about ancient writings that continue to be read ages later, and he succeeded brilliantly. He was striving to make a Beowulf or a Kalevala. The magic lies in writing a story that expresses a great breadth of the moral questions, challenges, and values of a given civilization, in a way that deliberately speaks to all time and all peoples, and yet touches these ideas so personally and intimitely that those who find it there will read and re-read, the same way so many people do with that other book, that great ancient book that millions read for daily guidance.

In a nutshell, fellow, Tolkien's writing is great because he had so much more to say than other writers, so much about life and death, good and evil, love and indifference, faith and despair, courage and madness. His is the writing of an old man who has seen his world passing into the next, a young writer could not possibly have so much to say, in a way that so telescopes through time and changing culture. Among other things, his writing should go down historically as the beautiful epitaph of the British Imperial Civilization that passed from the earth during the great World Wars; I feel that is the larger story behind his writing, the passing of that world.

but really, if you even have to ask, then you're probably not that kind of reader or film watcher. You probably also wonder why we waste our time reading old books like Shakespeare, and probably think that a movie like 'The Shawshank Redemption' is just a slow movie about digging out of prison with a rockhammer.

Wow. You really took me out to the woodshed! I really appreciated your well thought and informative answer. In fact, I loved it. Actually, I'm impressed with all the responses from everybody.

First off, I agree with you about epic writing. I think it was Orson Welles who said, and I’m paraphrasing, “The only work of literature you need to know is Shakespeare and the Bible”. I think there is a lot of truth in that. I don’t know if I would put Tolkien toe-to-toe with Shakespeare or the Bible but your point is well taken.

I think it boils down to tone and personality. I don’t like Terrence Malick films but I don’t think they’re bad films. They just don’t work for me. I think that’s the case I encounter with Tolkien and his works.

And, for the record, I love 'The Shawshank Redemption'! I saw it in it’s initial run (when it seemed nobody was running out to see it) and have been a fan ever since.

[tommyboy81]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

I'm curious. What makes these "middle earth" stories so appealing to so many people? Is it the characters? The fantasy world? The creatures? The storytelling? I've read The Hobbit and have seen the theatrical cuts of the LOTR trilogy and really can't understand the popularity. Do some of you like it to be "part of the crowd"? Not trolling. Just curious. Why do you like these movies?

I got into the LotR based on the movies. I never touched the books before then. When I first saw the teaser and the trailers I had to see it. To me, it's the fantasy world, with the battles and bigger than life foes. (The cave troll and Balrog, the black dragons (as I call them. lol))

It felt epic to me. It wasn't the story or the characters that got me into it when I first got into it, which was from the movies first.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I have not heard that Disney ever owned the rights to The Hobbit, and have wondered why, since it always seemed (to me) that it would have been a great interest of his. I would love to have seen a Disney animated version of The Hobbit. I also have never understood Tolkien's dislike of Disney. In 1937, while writing The Hobbit and looking for illustrations, he wrote that he would:

"... veto anything from or influenced by the Disney studios (for all whose works I have a heartfelt loathing)."

He later wrote that illustrations submitted by Horus Engels for a German translation of The Hobbit were:

"... too 'Disnified' for my tastes: Bilbo with a dribbling nose, and Gandalf as a figure of vulgar fun rather than the Odinic wanderer that I think of... "
.

I think there may have just been a lot of good-old-fashioned cultural chauvinism or resentment involved.

Everything Disney from that period has a very distinctly Germanic flavor, it is all quite Bavarian or Bohemian. 'Snow White' should be served with a plate of sausages and a boot full of pilsner. I think that in full consideration of who Tolkien was, he resented the overt "Germanity" of Disney visuals.

LotR draws from a diversity of european backgrounds, celtic, nordic, finnish, flemish, danish, frankish, etc. and yet conspicuously avoids influence from the German cultures, in spite of their close linguistic and genealogical connections to English culture. I do not think this is a coincidence. I think it's just an extension of simple nationalistic resentment of that country that was England's enemy during much of his lifetime. Wouldn't surprise me if he mentally equated orcs with German soldiers.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

First off, I agree with you about epic writing. I think it was Orson Welles who said, and I’m paraphrasing, “The only work of literature you need to know is Shakespeare and the Bible”. I think there is a lot of truth in that. I don’t know if I would put Tolkien toe-to-toe with Shakespeare or the Bible but your point is well taken.

I think it boils down to tone and personality. I don’t like Terrence Malick films but I don’t think they’re bad films. They just don’t work for me. I think that’s the case I encounter with Tolkien and his works.

And, for the record, I love 'The Shawshank Redemption'! I saw it in it’s initial run (when it seemed nobody was running out to see it) and have been a fan ever since.

Only history and posterity will be able to judge whether Tolkien belongs in the company of the Great Epic Writings, but the point is that his work is intended and designed to be that type of writing.

I can wrap my brain around the Terrence Malick analogy: I don't enjoy many of his films, either, but they are undeniably momentuous. For me it's David Lean and Stanley Kubrick, where I know they're great, but it's just hard for me to get into them.

I certainly hope that you saw quite a bit more going on in "Shawshank" beyond surviving rapists and digging a tunnel. Didn't mean to imply that you were dumb, it was an example of a work of art that deserves reading into on deeper levels, which Tolkien certainly is.

[Velmeran]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Only history and posterity will be able to judge whether Tolkien belongs in the company of the Great Epic Writings, but the point is that his work is intended and designed to be that type of writing.

Considering J.R.R. Tolkien was named Author of the Century... pretty sure he stacks up with the Great Epic Writers, and writings.

(Oh and worth noting he was named Author of the Century before any of the LotR films were released).

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

I think there may have just been a lot of good-old-fashioned cultural chauvinism or resentment involved.

Something I find humorous is that, despite Tolkien's aversion to Disney's dwarves, his own depiction of dwarves (p. 107 of "The Art of the Hobbit" or p. 65 of "The Annotated Hobbit") is similar to Disney's dwarves in Snow White.

[jbig31]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I'm just into it because it's the cool hip happening thing to do.

No, seriously I've been reading Tolkien's books for about the last 30 years (I'm 42) and LotR was the first thing I ever read that really transported me to another world. It was a life altering book for me and to some extent defines who I am.

There are three things that I would include in this type of influence. The original Star Wars movie, The Lord of the Rings books, and the Rush: Moving Pictures album. I started playing drums at 10 years old, but after hearing Tom Sawyer by Rush at 11 years old, I knew that I wanted to be a professional drummer. I never quite hit the big time, but I have performed professionally and semi-professionally over the years. Star Wars is also a big part of who I am. When I first saw it at 7 years old, I had never seen anything that spoke to me so strongly, and I still consider it one of my favorite films of all time. When I first read LotR at 12 years old, it was a bit overwhelming, but it really fascinated me and was the first book that really allowed me to forget that I was just reading a book and actually felt like I was in Middle-earth. It was a magical experience for me, and I still revisit it about once a year, along with a lot of Tolkiens other books.

Basically, it's just an escape from my everyday life into a wonderful fanasy world, but it is also just written so beautifully and poetically and has lots of great ideals, principles, and values that have had a profound influence on my personal philosiphies and way of life.

If you have only read The Hobbit and not The Lord of the Rings, I would highly suggest giving it a read. Although they are both in the same world, The Hobbit is a much more simple, yet highly enjoyable children's book. The Lord of the Rings goes much deeper into the different races, languages, cultures, etc. of Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I think that Joe (Frogmort) has nicely summed it up, the world that Tolkien has created is - for many - the perfect escape.

I have been asked that question many times and have always fallen short of an adequate explanation. The best answer I have is that Tolkien created an imaginary world that one wants to visit, complete with an interesting mix of mortal, immortal, rustic, average, and superior beings, ranging from the most evil possible (one, Morgoth, is Tolkien's equivalent of Satan) to the angelic. The stories are made more realistic with detailed geography, deep history, and strong moral thematic and philosophical content. There are other stories and sagas that also have some of these elements, but IMO, none of them are as convincing, intriguing, or as large of scope. The one element that truly distinguishes Tolkien's fiction is the wording. His peers have stated that he was one of the greatest - perhaps THE greatest expert on the English language. He was an Oxford professor of the English language and was involved with the Oxford English Dictionary. He claimed that his greatest interest was philology - the love of words. It shows, especially in The Lord of the Rings, which took over 11 years to write, with "every word considered" and every chapter re-written many times. He wrote the story primarily as a reason to use Elvish languages he had been creating as a hobby. His writing style drew me into Middle-earth, and no other writer has been able to completely imitate it or match it for its interest and eloquence. The more I read it, the more I want to read.

Peter Jackson and Phillpa Boyens were also drawn into that world, and have done a commendable job filming the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. I think that Tolkien would have, with some notable exceptions, enjoyed the movies and would be amazed at the effort put into them. But IMO, the movies, although among my favorites, will always be a notch below "the real thing", which are the books.

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

First off, of course you're trolling.

You have posed a question, to which college courses, documentaries, and much scholastic writing has been dedicated to answering. I believe that you think you just tossed a rhetorical stink-bomb on a forum full of fanboys, without realizing just how extensive the legitimate answers could be. Tolkien appreciation goes far beyond renaissance-festival dorks wearing rubber ears and playing with toy swords. You have mistaken genuine classic literature for fantasy pulp. If you really want your question answered, maybe you should turn to some of the documentaries and scholastic writing, or take a class.

To answer: truly epic writing only comes along once every couple of centuries. It's why we still read Homer, Shakespeare, and another great ancient book that I can't mention by name because a certain guardian troll will start screaming and banging on the cages if I do. I believe the great epics of history generally endure because they are a message sent to us from the past, a collection of warnings and admonitions meant for future societies.

It's not about the elves and the swords and the wizards and dragons. (Well, it is to many people, but that isn't remotely near what makes it great.) There is a great gulf between Tolkien and Dungeons & Dragons.

Underworld54 said:
... but for me and many others, that is not quite the case. We do not use LotR to escape from the real world, we use it to better understand and relate to the real world, just as you should do with any other great classic literature.


Tolkien specifically designed his writing with that intention, to capture what was so special about ancient writings that continue to be read ages later, and he succeeded brilliantly. He was striving to make a Beowulf or a Kalevala. The magic lies in writing a story that expresses a great breadth of the moral questions, challenges, and values of a given civilization, in a way that deliberately speaks to all time and all peoples, and yet touches these ideas so personally and intimitely that those who find it there will read and re-read, the same way so many people do with that other book, that great ancient book that millions read for daily guidance.

In a nutshell, fellow, Tolkien's writing is great because he had so much more to say than other writers, so much about life and death, good and evil, love and indifference, faith and despair, courage and madness. His is the writing of an old man who has seen his world passing into the next, a young writer could not possibly have so much to say, in a way that so telescopes through time and changing culture. Among other things, his writing should go down historically as the beautiful epitaph of the British Imperial Civilization that passed from the earth during the great World Wars; I feel that is the larger story behind his writing, the passing of that world.

but really, if you even have to ask, then you're probably not that kind of reader or film watcher. You probably also wonder why we waste our time reading old books like Shakespeare, and probably think that a movie like 'The Shawshank Redemption' is just a slow movie about digging out of prison with a rockhammer.

Bravo gentlemen! Excellent and heartfelt responses, I feel like I really can't add too much more other than EVERY time I read any of Tolkien's material, I discover something new and deeper.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by jbig31

Bravo gentlemen! Excellent and heartfelt responses, I feel like I really can't add too much more other than EVERY time I read any of Tolkien's material, I discover something new and deeper.

Every single time.

How many other writings can boast that? That so many people would say the same thing about it, that they learn and discover something new and deeper every time?

Not many.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Something I find humorous is that, despite Tolkien's aversion to Disney's dwarves, his own depiction of dwarves (p. 107 of "The Art of the Hobbit" or p. 65 of "The Annotated Hobbit") is similar to Disney's dwarves in Snow White.

Yes, but prior to that were films depicting dwarfs as maypole-dancing happy nature creatures in the Silly Symphony series. "The Merry Dwarfs" in particular.

[Mandalorian]

A MOMENT WITH GARY BUSEY - THE HOBBIT - YouTube

[Kaiju]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

A MOMENT WITH GARY BUSEY - THE HOBBIT - YouTube

That guy is hilarious. He's also ****ing nuts though.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

A MOMENT WITH GARY BUSEY - THE HOBBIT - YouTube

Thanks for that RJ. What a great way to start my evening.

Originally Posted by TheMan

That guy is hilarious. He's also ****ing nuts though.