'The Hobbit'

[khalpin]

It can only get better, right?

You didn't like the first one?

Parts of it, sure. On the whole and especially following up the triumph that was LOTR, I thought it was a bit of a dud...

If LotR was Woodstock, The Hobbit was Woodstock 99.

[antelope19]

It can only get better, right?

You didn't like the first one?

Parts of it, sure. On the whole and especially following up the triumph that was LOTR, I thought it was a bit of a dud...

If LotR was Woodstock, The Hobbit was Woodstock 99.

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

:shakehead:

[antelope19]

I caught this last night. I don't think the purists are going to be too happy, but as an entertaining Hollywood blockbuster, I loved it. I'll leave it at that and comment further when others have seen the film.

[rowjimmy]

I caught this last night. I don't think the purists are going to be too happy,.

WRONG!


I loved it.
Better than the last one (which I loved) and I'll be going back during my Xmas vacation.

[antelope19]

I caught this last night. I don't think the purists are going to be too happy,.

WRONG!


I loved it.
Better than the last one (which I loved) and I'll be going back during my Xmas vacation.

Heh, I had you in mind when I typed that.

I loved it too, and yes, it was better than the first as I expected. But some are killing it for straying from the book a little too much.

[khalpin]

I caught this last night. I don't think the purists are going to be too happy,.

WRONG!


I loved it.
Better than the last one (which I loved) and I'll be going back during my Xmas vacation.

Heh, I had you in mind when I typed that.

I loved it too, and yes, it was better than the first as I expected. But some are killing it for straying from the book a little too much.

Saw it over the weekend (kids birthday party).  I enjoyed it but given the choice, I would've seen the 2D version.  Is it me, or did the movie "look" really weird?  Almost like the difference between soap operas and regular television.  I did enjoy it and thought it was better than the first one.  However, I've somewhat accepted that it's not going to be true to the book and that since they're whoring this whole thing out into three pictures, there's no way to make it without having to add a bunch of stuff.  I'm still bitter that they made it into a trilogy, though.  When you look at the LotR movies, they paid SO much attention to detail.  Stuff that you would never even notice without seeing the behind-the-scenes footage.  All of the woodwork on the set at Rohan, the handmade suits of chain mail, it goes on and on.  All of it was to make Middle Earth be as authentic as possible.  They could've saved millions but had very high ideals and wanted to stay true to the book.  Sure, there was a good amount of CGI, but mostly because there were no alternatives.  It just seems like these Hobbit movies are such a money grab...a lot of CGI and a hell of a lot of filler.  I don't know...maybe I'm just being a crotchety old man and should just accept it.

/rant

[antelope19]

******POSSIBLE SPOILER******












My biggest gripe is that there wasn't nearly enough Beorn and way too much made up love triangle.

[nitpick]Also, how does Smaug know to call Thorin "oakenshield"? Technically, he didn't get that nickname until much later. [/nitpick]

On the plus side, legolas kicks so much ass!

[Hicks]

[
Saw it over the weekend (kids birthday party).  I enjoyed it but given the choice, I would've seen the 2D version.  Is it me, or did the movie "look" really weird?  Almost like the difference between soap operas and regular television. 

Did you see the 48 high frame rate version?

[khalpin]

[
Saw it over the weekend (kids birthday party).  I enjoyed it but given the choice, I would've seen the 2D version.  Is it me, or did the movie "look" really weird?  Almost like the difference between soap operas and regular television. 

Did you see the 48 high frame rate version?

Yeah, that probably was it.

[rowjimmy]

I'm going to come out once again and defend the three-picture project against khalpin's cynicism.

When Tolkien wrote The Hobbit, it was a children's tale set in a world he'd created with dragons and elves and whatnot but it wasn't fully connected to the rest of the world. When he was subsequently asked for more from Middle Earth, he offered an early version of The Silmarillion which was rejected. He then shaped the tale of Lord Of The Rings and linked it back to the previous book. This also prompted some revisions. Originally, Gollum offers up the ring as his stakes in the riddle game and they part peacefully. Tolkien, having decided that the ring was no ordinary trinket revised this for later editions.

But Tolkien wasn't done revisiting The Hobbit.

He penned a different perspective of the story entitled Quest of Erebor which allowed him to provide some background as to why Gandalf was interested in the defeat of Smaug. It even includes Gandalf's meeting with Thorin in Bree. This to be included in the Appendices of LOTR but was not fully published (some of the data was given in the accounting of Durin's Folk) until Unfinished Tales.

So it is with Dol Guldur that the greatest Peter Jackson revisions come into play. Gandalf, in the films tells of receiving the map and the key to Erebor from Thrain II (Thorin Oakenshield's father) in a chance meeting. In the texts, this meeting occurred in the dungeons of Dol Guldur. Thrain had been taken because he possessed the last of the Dwarven rings of power and held there to rot. In this era, prior to the journey to Erebor, Gandalf made two forays to Dol Guldur the second resulting in the discovery of Thrain. Gandalf's departures from the Dwarven company is explained in the books to be to meet with the White Council, to urge them to move on the evil of Dol Guldur. They do attack but Sauron has already fled only to resurface a few years later in Mordor.

Now, with a little time-shifting (who knows when we'll see the assault on Dol Guldur) and revision to expedite film-based story-telling (Easy on the flash-backs. If we'd seen one with Gandalf in the pits of Dol Guldur, there where would be the suspense of Gandalf discovering what's up with Dol Guldur?), Jackson is doing what Tolkien had briefly sought to to do- a complete revision of The Hobbit to reflect the seriousness of the time and the events that transpired. Tolkien was talked out of this act because it betrayed the more innocent charm of the original book but Jackson is not fettered by this. He has the breadth of Tolkien's intent to draw upon and a story that is deeply connected to the previous films. I feel that if Jackson didn't take heed of this opportunity to tell the whole story he'd be missing out and so would we. Is it different from that book? Yes. Is it the story that I already know and love? Pretty much.


Additional notes for Neely:

I completely agree about Beorn. I would have loved the charming introductions and to see Beorn take on some of the wargs. Oh, well. At least he didn't get completely Bombadil'd.

As for Smaug knowing Thorin's name, there is precedent,  in Tolkien's world, for dragons having knowledge beyond what one expects. in the Silmarillion, in the tale of Turin, Glaurung when roosting in Nargothrond knows Turin and his deeds and even his sister.

[antelope19]

I'm going to come out once again and defend the three-picture project against khalpin's cynicism.

When Tolkien wrote The Hobbit, it was a children's tale set in a world he'd created with dragons and elves and whatnot but it wasn't fully connected to the rest of the world. When he was subsequently asked for more from Middle Earth, he offered an early version of The Silmarillion which was rejected. He then shaped the tale of Lord Of The Rings and linked it back to the previous book. This also prompted some revisions. Originally, Gollum offers up the ring as his stakes in the riddle game and they part peacefully. Tolkien, having decided that the ring was no ordinary trinket revised this for later editions.

But Tolkien wasn't done revisiting The Hobbit.

He penned a different perspective of the story entitled Quest of Erebor which allowed him to provide some background as to why Gandalf was interested in the defeat of Smaug. It even includes Gandalf's meeting with Thorin in Bree. This to be included in the Appendices of LOTR but was not fully published (some of the data was given in the accounting of Durin's Folk) until Unfinished Tales.

So it is with Dol Guldur that the greatest Peter Jackson revisions come into play. Gandalf, in the films tells of receiving the map and the key to Erebor from Thrain II (Thorin Oakenshield's father) in a chance meeting. In the texts, this meeting occurred in the dungeons of Dol Guldur. Thrain had been taken because he possessed the last of the Dwarven rings of power and held there to rot. In this era, prior to the journey to Erebor, Gandalf made two forays to Dol Guldur the second resulting in the discovery of Thrain. Gandalf's departures from the Dwarven company is explained in the books to be to meet with the White Council, to urge them to move on the evil of Dol Guldur. They do attack but Sauron has already fled only to resurface a few years later in Mordor.

Now, with a little time-shifting (who knows when we'll see the assault on Dol Guldur) and revision to expedite film-based story-telling (Easy on the flash-backs. If we'd seen one with Gandalf in the pits of Dol Guldur, there where would be the suspense of Gandalf discovering what's up with Dol Guldur?), Jackson is doing what Tolkien had briefly sought to to do- a complete revision of The Hobbit to reflect the seriousness of the time and the events that transpired. Tolkien was talked out of this act because it betrayed the more innocent charm of the original book but Jackson is not fettered by this. He has the breadth of Tolkien's intent to draw upon and a story that is deeply connected to the previous films. I feel that if Jackson didn't take heed of this opportunity to tell the whole story he'd be missing out and so would we. Is it different from that book? Yes. Is it the story that I already know and love? Pretty much.


Additional notes for Neely:

I completely agree about Beorn. I would have loved the charming introductions and to see Beorn take on some of the wargs. Oh, well. At least he didn't get completely Bombadil'd.

As for Smaug knowing Thorin's name, there is precedent,  in Tolkien's world, for dragons having knowledge beyond what one expects. in the Silmarillion, in the tale of Turin, Glaurung when roosting in Nargothrond knows Turin and his deeds and even his sister.

Great insight!  And thanks for that last part.  I've owned a copy of Silmarillion for a few years now, but have never gotten around to reading it.  I need to get on that.     

[antelope19]

Is it bad that I'm already looking forward to the extended versions? 

[sunrisevt]

I started watching the first film in the ongoing Hobbit trilogy on HBO a couple of months ago. The character of Radigast the Brown was grievously mistreated by the rewrites. Ruined the movie for me; I didn't finish it. I'm still hopeful the others redeem the series (I don't want Jackson to go the way of Lucas...), but I'm pretty sure American Hustle is the only film I'll see in a theater this winter.

[rowjimmy]

Radagast is a bit silly in the films but, if you take all of the text of from the screenplays involving him it would easily eclipse that which Tolkien wrote.

Radagast was concerned with the plants and animals of Middle Earth. They were his specific charge. Saruman disliked him because he didn't understand him at all. Gandalf seems to have been cool with him, though.

I think that, if you look past the rather absurd appearance of the Brown Wizard, he's shown to be pretty cool. Perhaps a little batty but it makes sense if you understand that Radagast isn't in Middle Earth to deal with Elves or Men. Talking to birds (and other animals) which the texts do suggest he can do probably has him well tuned out of the ways of other folks.

The rabbit sledge is a bit much but, what the hell, Tolkien never said he didn't have one.

[sunrisevt]

Oh yeah, I wasn't clear there. I should have said "film" instead of "rewrites" -- I mean that the presentation of Radigast's character was some lazy comic relief. (A broken-down stoner living with hundreds of woodland critters was the best Jackson, et al, could do for one of Gandalf's peers?) It's like Jackson kind of shares Saruman's perspective, if you will--he just doesn't get the character. (In interviews, Jackson implied he felt the same about Bombadil from "Fellowship," and said so explicitly about the Scourging of the Shire chapter that was just left out of "ROTK.")