An Unexpected Journey, or the morning after

[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.

[Galadriel55]

I can only think of one reference - about the Blue Wizards. That was cleverly done and funny on two levels (haha Gandalf doesn't remember their names and haha what a nice way of avoiding saying what you have no rights to). But that's not enough to warrant the Sil claim, and - even goblins know how to count! - one is not "elements" in plural.

[Bêthberry]

I've avoided this the way undergraduates avoid essays they don't want to write. But I might as well get it over with before I forget any more of what I didn't like about it.

I saw TH the same weekend Alatar did, and with similar company, my family, whose treat it was to take me to the movie and a second breakfast (High Tea). Like Estelyn, I needed time to consider exactly what to say about it.

Let me begin by saying that I can appreciate action/adventures flicks. ET is high up there as one of my favs, as are the first three (original) Star Wars epics. I had fun watching Transformers. I thoroughly enjoyed Joss Whedon's The Avengers and thought the earlier movies in that series were a fun watch. I'm a sucker for an Indiana Jones movie. I adored Labyrinth. But I don't seem able to enjoy Peter Jackson's stuff.

I grant that every artist has the right to his or her own interpretation of a work. Usually, that means an interpretation that opens up new avenues for appreciating or understanding the original work, or seeing it in a new context which liberates thought. Jackson doesn't do that. He simply misappropriates Tolkien in a mishmash of styles and genres. And doesn't even produce a movie that is consistent. It's nothing more than a constant hit of visual images that are supposed to have an impact but which don't add up to a whole vision.

First off, TH doesn't know if it is a prequel or a sequel or a standalone. Viewers who don't know the book won't really appreciate how Bilbo grows. Yes, they will get that he must undergo change, but there's not really much to justify or explain why or what he leaves behind. Partly this is because the opening scenes are dedicated to dwarven history. I have always liked Tolkien's dwarves, whether in The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings or elsewhere, partly I think because I have a soft spot for the forsaken and the downtrodden and partly because they are simply interesting. The dwarven history is of course how Jackson attempts to link his TH with his movie trilogy and the unmentionable Legendarium. Yet it comes at the expense of explicating Bilbo's life and hobbit values. Freeman does a credible job with Bilbo but I don't think his Arthur Dent housecoat really does much to characterise him, except to link the actor with a previous role, which is a sleazy marketing ploy rather than an enlightening allusion. This really has become not The Hobbit but The Thirteen Dwarves and How They Grew Wealthy.

And it's not really the dwarves I know and love. Guinevere on Facebook pointed out that Tolkien's dwarves are tinkers and tailers, craftsmen who take up warfare only to recover their homeland. Their approach to Bilbo's home and entry is civil and their love of music is part of their craftsmanship. Jackson's dwarves are uncooth goons who run roughshod over Bilbo, almost bullies, a stereotype male adolescence. (The fact that they leave Bag End tidy is extraneous, an awkward filler inconsistent with their first presentation.) Jackson does not really understand Faramir's line about loving the bright sword not for itself but for what it defends and so all his battle scenes and action bits are little more than spectacle and gore fest. And like the final scene where the goblins--excuse me, orcs--attack the group before the eagles save them, they go on too long. Or contain such silly exaggerations that they ruin narrative coherence. So my complaint is not simply that this is hardly faithful to The Hobbit, but also it is hardly a unified, coherent story on its own.

The tone and tenor violate Tolkien. I'm not interested in watching The Hobbit turned into a computer game. But obviously I'm not in the target audience.

Like Estelyn, I was disappointed with the music, so much rewarmed. I tired very quickly of all the scenes that were supposed to allude to the movie trilogy. Again, sequel or prequel? Why not simply tell this story?

Radagast left me cold and I had wanted to like him. Again, so much of his depiction is devoted simply to cheap action shots. I'm reminded of a comment Mr. Underhill once made to me, that Whedon always starts with character and the action develops from that. Jackson starts with action and rarely gets around to character. And yet it is character that provides so much of the significance in story and narrative.

I couldn't shake my sense that Azog--who? what? where? why?--was the Michelin Man. And if I heard "Fili, Kili" one more time, I was ready to stand up and yell," okay, I get it, we are supposed to know that something is in store for them."

One person I attended with, who has not read The Hobbit, asked about 3/4 of the way through how far along in the book we were. When you start wondering how much longer you have to sit through the movie, it's too long.

Will I see the remaining two movies? I'm not sure. I certainly don't feel like giving Jackson/NewLine/whoever any more money because that simply perpetuates their ability to produce dross.