Can't Quite Kick the Hobbit

chappy · 2012-12-15, 06:38

The Hobbit Pt. the First doesn't suck.

ergo: Peter Jackson > George Lucas

henryzz · 2012-12-15, 09:32

I've not exactly heard glowing reports.

chappy · 2012-12-15, 16:03

I don't know if my review is 'glowing' but I will say that this movie is still head and shoulders above most of the fodder foisted upon us by filmmakers.

I avoided as much pre-publicity as I could so I only had the sound track to guess how much the movie would differ from the book. And it differs a great deal. I think it works, obviously others will not.

This book is not an adaptation of the book The Hobbit, it is a telling of the story told in the Hobbit, in the context of the larger War of the Rings. It goes much more into the background and fills in many of the holes in the book (such as what the heck was Gandalf doing all those many times he was away from the group.)

There is a great use of build up to narrative, like a story told from a perspective 60 years later that still isn't quite truthful. (odd elements and impossible escapes still abound--I often go to the local VFW to enjoy the cheap cold beers and these are the kinds of stories one hears from drunk Vets, not exactly lies, but exaggerations of the truth, or conflations of the truth, or even misremembering the actions of others and attributing them to oneself. These aren't lies, it is just how the human brain works.)

Having said that, I could have done without dwarf tossing antics and mountain giant battles leading to impossible acrobatics.

And damn! but Cate Blanchett is fine. Her half smile raises her up to about 900 millihelens.

Strong B or Weak B+ On par with what I though of Return of the King (the weakest of the original three IMO)

henryzz · 2012-12-19, 23:00

Just watched it. Great film

Possibly not on the level of the LotR films but very good.

ewmayer · 2012-12-26, 03:40

Jackson had already lost this curmudgeonly critic by the third LOTR installment - I recall watching the trailer for that and saying to myself, "hyperactive CGI elves swinging Tarzan-like from ropes attached to CGI elephants ... really?" - so it would have taken some really glowing reviews (and the ones I read are at best tepid) of this latest opus to get me interested. Mainly I could not believe that Jackson & Co. are shamelessly milking this much-smaller story for yet another three installments, the first of which is nearly three hours long. Sheesh ...

The SF Chronicle review echoes the "three frickin' installments ... really?" theme:

Quote:

First came the original trilogy, a popular success and critically acclaimed. Then, some years later, a second trilogy began, a prequel to the original, and the first installment of this second trilogy turned out to be awful. We saw this pattern play out once, with "Star Wars," and now, alas, it begins again, with "The Hobbit," a movie that is exactly one Jar Jar Binks away from being as bad as "The Phantom Menace."

The problem may be built into the design. The previous "Lord of the Rings" films were each based on a single book. "The Hobbit" - more like a children's novel than the other three, a kind of "Tom Sawyer" to their "Huckleberry Finn" - is just one book, smaller than any of the other J.R.R. Tolkien books, and yet it is being blown out into three enormous films. This first installment runs 169 minutes.

This puts a lot of pressure on a simple story, especially when you consider that director Peter Jackson and his screenwriters really can't take liberties with the tale, not without incurring the wrath of millions. They must work with what they have, and what they have is quite enough for one pleasing and inventive two-hour movie - or a nine-hour disaster stretched over three years.

Now, to be fair, Andy Serkis as Gollum is light-years removed from the aforementioned Jar Jar Binks, but still, I think I'll stick to the book and my own imagination for this one, thanks.

Dubslow · 2012-12-26, 03:51

To be fair, they are inflating it with material from the Silmarillion. My friends (who I went to see it with) are big fans of the LOTR books (one of them is reading the Silmarillion at the moment) and while they said that some things occurred that didn't happen in the book, on the whole it was still faithful. The one who's reading the Silmarillion right now said that it's the most faithful book adaptation he's ever seen (admittedly not saying much, but still).

Batalov · 2012-12-26, 05:12

~~Bilbo~~ Freeman was pretty good in Greenaway's Nightwatching. As for the shameless milking, I won't participate. Will have a look when the disk is out. Or not.

rogue · 2012-12-26, 15:33

I have to somewhat agree with Ernst. Although I did enjoy LOTR (haven't seen Hobbit yet), Jackson spends way too much time visualizing things that get less attention in the books. One example is with the battle of Helm's Deep in the second movie. This battle is a single chapter, but in the movie it feels much longer. Some of his creative changes to the story left me feeling disappointed. Although I didn't mind (too much) the loss of Tom Bombadil from the first book, the leaving of the Shire happens too quickly. I did mind that the Ents were downplayed so much in the second film and in fact were removed from whole sections of the movie. The third film somehow lost the feeling of "epicness" that the books have when the ending occurred so quickly after the destruction of the ring. Jackson could have made each of those movies into two because of the wealth of material. IMO, too much time was spent on battles and not enough on the story. Nevertheless, I think the movies were very good overall. I re-read the Hobbit and LOTR a few months ago which is why some of the changes he made were so glaring.

I have to believe that many of you have seen Jackson's version of King Kong. I didn't like the movie. It is way too long and over the top, IMO. Two examples from the film are Kong's battle with the dinosaurs and scene with the insects in the pit.

If the Hobbit does show stuff from the Silmarillion, then that wouldn't be terrible. I don't see how the Silmarillion could be made into a movie, but I do see how parts of it could be told as stories in the Hobbit.

ewmayer · 2012-12-26, 20:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogue

I didn't mind (too much) the loss of Tom Bombadil from the first book

Yes, losing "the most annoying literary character ever" from the movie was one of the LOTR story-edits Jackson did which I agree with. OTOH, the character is so obviously a "WTF was he thinking?" on the part of Tolkien himself, any movie director/producer who didn't axe him in 10 milliseconds flat would have been a complete idiot.

I recall when the first details about LOTR started hitting the web, one blogger wrote a funny bit of doggerel about the exclusion of Herr Bombadil, roughly to effect of

Hey, hey, Tom Bombadil,
Hey ho Tom Bombadil-lo,
Should've got yourself an agent,
'Cause your onscreen time was nil-lo.

henryzz · 2012-12-26, 21:50

Not sure how much I am against the hobbit being 3 films. Maybe 2 would have been better. We will wait and see.

I would have loved more than 3 films for the LOTR trilogy. Even with the extended dvds there was a lot of material left out.

rajula · 2012-12-26, 22:15

IMO they should make it four films.*

*As a kid I found Hobbit to be excellent read when compared to LOTR (and when compared to my second reading of LOTR ten years later.) LOTR was a nice looking movie but it got boring towards the end. Hobbit should work best as one film (if one were to make it based on the book). But if one is aiming at maximizing profit, I am not sure 3 is the optimal number of parts. Five would already be more like a mini series with less attraction. Four might still sell.

2012-12-15, 06:38	#1
chappy "Jeff" Feb 2012 St. Louis, Missouri, USA 13·89 Posts	Can't Quite Kick the Hobbit The Hobbit Pt. the First doesn't suck. ergo: Peter Jackson > George Lucas

2012-12-15, 09:32	#2
henryzz Just call me Henry "David" Sep 2007 Cambridge (GMT/BST) 2³×3×5×7² Posts	I've not exactly heard glowing reports. Last fiddled with by henryzz on 2012-12-15 at 09:33

2012-12-15, 16:03	#3
chappy "Jeff" Feb 2012 St. Louis, Missouri, USA 13×89 Posts	spoiler tags for even the most minor of details :) I don't know if my review is 'glowing' but I will say that this movie is still head and shoulders above most of the fodder foisted upon us by filmmakers. I avoided as much pre-publicity as I could so I only had the sound track to guess how much the movie would differ from the book. And it differs a great deal. I think it works, obviously others will not. This book is not an adaptation of the book The Hobbit, it is a telling of the story told in the Hobbit, in the context of the larger War of the Rings. It goes much more into the background and fills in many of the holes in the book (such as what the heck was Gandalf doing all those many times he was away from the group.) There is a great use of build up to narrative, like a story told from a perspective 60 years later that still isn't quite truthful. (odd elements and impossible escapes still abound--I often go to the local VFW to enjoy the cheap cold beers and these are the kinds of stories one hears from drunk Vets, not exactly lies, but exaggerations of the truth, or conflations of the truth, or even misremembering the actions of others and attributing them to oneself. These aren't lies, it is just how the human brain works.) Having said that, I could have done without dwarf tossing antics and mountain giant battles leading to impossible acrobatics. And damn! but Cate Blanchett is fine. Her half smile raises her up to about 900 millihelens. Strong B or Weak B+ On par with what I though of Return of the King (the weakest of the original three IMO)

2012-12-26, 15:33	#8
rogue "Mark" Apr 2003 Between here and the 18CB₁₆ Posts	I have to somewhat agree with Ernst. Although I did enjoy LOTR (haven't seen Hobbit yet), Jackson spends way too much time visualizing things that get less attention in the books. One example is with the battle of Helm's Deep in the second movie. This battle is a single chapter, but in the movie it feels much longer. Some of his creative changes to the story left me feeling disappointed. Although I didn't mind (too much) the loss of Tom Bombadil from the first book, the leaving of the Shire happens too quickly. I did mind that the Ents were downplayed so much in the second film and in fact were removed from whole sections of the movie. The third film somehow lost the feeling of "epicness" that the books have when the ending occurred so quickly after the destruction of the ring. Jackson could have made each of those movies into two because of the wealth of material. IMO, too much time was spent on battles and not enough on the story. Nevertheless, I think the movies were very good overall. I re-read the Hobbit and LOTR a few months ago which is why some of the changes he made were so glaring. I have to believe that many of you have seen Jackson's version of King Kong. I didn't like the movie. It is way too long and over the top, IMO. Two examples from the film are Kong's battle with the dinosaurs and scene with the insects in the pit. If the Hobbit does show stuff from the Silmarillion, then that wouldn't be terrible. I don't see how the Silmarillion could be made into a movie, but I do see how parts of it could be told as stories in the Hobbit. Last fiddled with by rogue on 2012-12-26 at 15:34

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Could someone kick the PSP server on 8100?	John Galt 007	Prime Sierpinski Project	1	2013-05-13 20:17

2012-12-19, 23:00	#4
henryzz Just call me Henry "David" Sep 2007 Cambridge (GMT/BST) 2³·3·5·7² Posts	Just watched it. Great film Possibly not on the level of the LotR films but very good.

2012-12-26, 03:51	#6
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 3×29×83 Posts	To be fair, they are inflating it with material from the Silmarillion. My friends (who I went to see it with) are big fans of the LOTR books (one of them is reading the Silmarillion at the moment) and while they said that some things occurred that didn't happen in the book, on the whole it was still faithful. The one who's reading the Silmarillion right now said that it's the most faithful book adaptation he's ever seen (admittedly not saying much, but still).

2012-12-26, 05:12	#7
Batalov "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 2²×23×103 Posts	~~Bilbo~~ Freeman was pretty good in Greenaway's Nightwatching. As for the shameless milking, I won't participate. Will have a look when the disk is out. Or not.

2012-12-26, 21:50	#10
henryzz Just call me Henry "David" Sep 2007 Cambridge (GMT/BST) 2³×3×5×7² Posts	Not sure how much I am against the hobbit being 3 films. Maybe 2 would have been better. We will wait and see. I would have loved more than 3 films for the LOTR trilogy. Even with the extended dvds there was a lot of material left out.

2012-12-26, 22:15	#11
rajula "Tapio Rajala" Feb 2010 Finland 13B₁₆ Posts	IMO they should make it four films.* *As a kid I found Hobbit to be excellent read when compared to LOTR (and when compared to my second reading of LOTR ten years later.) LOTR was a nice looking movie but it got boring towards the end. Hobbit should work best as one film (if one were to make it based on the book). But if one is aiming at maximizing profit, I am not sure 3 is the optimal number of parts. Five would already be more like a mini series with less attraction. Four might still sell.