An Unexpected Journey, or the morning after

[Strider67]

Oh dear. Rarely have I been more disappointed by a film. It looks odd, even at 24 fps, and it's way too long. How PJ can justify spinning The Hobbit out to three films (apart from for monetary reasons) is beyond me.

One of the things that most annoys me about Jackson's Tolkien adaptations is the way he and the other writers feel the need to re-write so much of the original dialogue. So much so, in fact, that when they do use Tolkien's words, they stick out as being unlike those which surrounds them. I mean, who ever thought that they would hear a dwarf say that he was 'up for it' or that he would kick someone 'up the jacksie'?

One of the ways in which Tolkien establishes that the events in Middle Earth take place in a time very different from our own is in his use of quite archaic-sounding speech-patterns. How, then, do you expect an audience to suspend their disbelief when Gandalf talks about golf? Seriously? Unbelievably crass.

I very much doubt that I shall be going to see the second and third episodes.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Strider67

Oh dear. Rarely have I been more disappointed by a film. It looks odd, even at 24 fps, and it's way too long. How PJ can justify spinning The Hobbit out to three films (apart from for monetary reasons) is beyond me.

One of the things that most annoys me about Jackson's Tolkien adaptations is the way he and the other writers feel the need to re-write so much of the original dialogue. So much so, in fact, that when they do use Tolkien's words, they stick out as being unlike those which surrounds them. I mean, who ever thought that they would hear a dwarf say that he was 'up for it' or that he would kick someone 'up the jacksie'?

One of the ways in which Tolkien establishes that the events in Middle Earth take place in a time very different from our own is in his use of quite archaic-sounding speech-patterns. How, then, do you expect an audience to suspend their disbelief when Gandalf talks about golf? Seriously? Unbelievably crass.

I very much doubt that I shall be going to see the second and third episodes.

Though it's not Gandalf who says it, Bullroarer Took inventing golf is IN the Hobbit.

[Guinevere]

Originally Posted by Strider67

One of the ways in which Tolkien establishes that the events in Middle Earth take place in a time very different from our own is in his use of quite archaic-sounding speech-patterns.

That is the case in The Lord of the Rings, but not so much in The Hobbit.
For example, in LotR, only Hobbits and Bree folk use casual speech with contractions; ancient and cultivated races and people like Elves, Dwarves, Gondorians and Gandalf never do!

But in The Hobbit, everyone, from Gandalf to Elves uses contractions! And the language is much more casual, especially in the beginning. ( you surely remember the silly songs of the Rivendell elves!) However, towards the end the direct speech of Dwarves and Elves get much more archaic and "noble", in contrast to Bilbo's speech.

Btw, the incident about the invention of golf is in the first chapter, it is told by the narrator:

"Excitable little fellow," said Gandalf, as they sat down again. "Gets funny queer fits, but he is one of the best, one of the best-as fierce as a dragon in a pinch."
If you have ever seen a dragon in a pinch, you will realize that this was only poetical exaggeration applied to any hobbit, even to Old Took's great-granduncle Bullroarer, who was so huge (for a hobbit) that he could ride a horse. He charged the ranks of the goblins of Mount Gram in the Battle of the Green Fields, and knocked their king Golfimbul's head clean off with a wooden club. It sailed a hundred yards through the air and went down a rabbit hole, and in this way the battle was won and the game of Golf invented at the same moment.

So in the book, there is lighthearted, comical stuff too, but it's mostly in the beginning, and as the story progresses it gets more serious.

In the movie, some things appeared to me too serious, right from the beginning (Thorin's & Azog and the whole vendetta) alternating with stuff that was just too comical (Radagast and his rabbit sledge) and all those chases were just not believable. Jackson's sense of humour is not the same as Professor Tolkien's .

[Strider67]

OK, I stand corrected on the golf thing (in my defence, I'm much more familiar with LOTR and it is some time since I read The Hobbit). Another example of what I meant would be in the FotR film, where after the Coucil of Elrond, the company are leaving Rivendell and Frodo asks Gandalf if Moria is left or right. I just found it so irritating that, having gone to the effort of establishing the importance of the quest and building an atmosphere, it's then brought crashing down by such a daft piece of dialogue. If the director wants his audience to take it seriously, then he has to take it seriously too.

Perhaps the problem is that, coming after the LOTR films, The Hobbit will feel anticlimactic if it isn't done on an equally epic scale. But, of course, The Hobbit is a much slighter story, and the whole thing feels like butter scraped over too much bread.

I realise it's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction and say you don't like something merely because it doesn't tie in with your own mental picture, but I found the whole thing immensely cross-making.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I could write a lengthy review or simply post this link -- the best review I've read of the film (written, incidentally, by one of the best writers of YA fantasy).

http://philipreeve.blogspot.co.uk/20...enjoyable.html

[alatar]

This weekend, the tribe voted and so we went to see this first installment of the Hobbit.

• My little one was expecting more dwarven flatulence, and so was disappointed.
• As the previews went on for seemingly 5 hours, the long run time of the movie bored her.
• The other three (all <14 years old) enjoyed the movie.
• They liked how Gandalf cracked the stone.
• Mom liked it as well, though had a thousand questions after the movie, to many I replied, "It wasn't in the Book."
• She also wanted to know why, after almost 3 hours, we hadn't killed a dragon yet.

For me, I wasn't excited about going but knew I'd end up going eventually, so gave in.

• Hated the Brown Wizard. The bird poop was stupid.
• Did anyone think that Azog looked cat-like, much like Panthro from Thundercats? Guess that PJ was playing on our collective thinking that cats are evil.
• The goblins sure like to build platforms.
• When escaping the goblins, the sledding down the caverns was just silly and CG.
• Was there New Zealand law stating that the movie had to reference LotR in at least one short per ten?
• Didn't remember this kids' story being so violent.
• Lastly, m'eh.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Strider67

OK, I stand corrected on the golf thing (in my defence, I'm much more familiar with LOTR and it is some time since I read The Hobbit). Another example of what I meant would be in the FotR film, where after the Coucil of Elrond, the company are leaving Rivendell and Frodo asks Gandalf if Moria is left or right. I just found it so irritating that, having gone to the effort of establishing the importance of the quest and building an atmosphere, it's then brought crashing down by such a daft piece of dialogue. If the director wants his audience to take it seriously, then he has to take it seriously too.

Perhaps the problem is that, coming after the LOTR films, The Hobbit will feel anticlimactic if it isn't done on an equally epic scale. But, of course, The Hobbit is a much slighter story, and the whole thing feels like butter scraped over too much bread.

I realise it's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction and say you don't like something merely because it doesn't tie in with your own mental picture, but I found the whole thing immensely cross-making.

I agree with a lot of things, but this is the problem with making a Hobbit movie. The book as it is, is a brilliant stand alone story. However, it is not brilliant as a prequel to LOTR. Only the last 1/3 of the book really can be directly translated. A lot of foolery of the dwarves does not really fit with their later portrayal. This is precisely why Tolkien considered rewriting the book.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I agree with a lot of things, but this is the problem with making a Hobbit movie. The book as it is, is a brilliant stand alone story. However, it is not brilliant as a prequel to LOTR. Only the last 1/3 of the book really can be directly translated. A lot of foolery of the dwarves does not really fit with their later portrayal. This is precisely why Tolkien considered rewriting the book.

This is why I feel that an adaptation of The Hobbit should really have come first. The more serious tone of The Lord of the Rings feels like a logical maturation of the later stages of The Hobbit, and in my opinion story elements like Gollum, the Ring and the Necromancer are far more dramatically effective in the original order. I don't know if that would have worked in Hollywood terms, though. It probably makes more sense to wow audiences with the big extravaganza first and then cash in on the other material later.
Also why do people online still think that elements of The Silmarillion and/or Unfinished Tales were used in The Hobbit? I keep seeing this notion getting bandied about as if it a) is true, and b) somehow automatically vindicates Peter Jackson from any source-material-butchery.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Also why do people online still think that elements of The Silmarillion and/or Unfinished Tales were used in The Hobbit? I keep seeing this notion getting bandied about as if it a) is true, and b) somehow automatically vindicates Peter Jackson from any source-material-butchery.

I've seen this too, all over the place- but oddly, nobody ever seems to specify *which* elements they're talking about. A "meme", I suppose.

Anyway, it can't be true- they'd get sued.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I've seen this too, all over the place- but oddly, nobody ever seems to specify *which* elements they're talking about. A "meme", I suppose.

One's a book; the other's a book - the common elements are glaringly obvious.