Sad or Elated now the Movies are at an End?

[Faramir Jones]

Speaking of 'comedy', Galadriel55, one of the biggest disappointments for me in Jackson's adaptation of The Hobbit was the missed opportunity in not properly using the humour in the book, including the black humour. I was looking forward at the time to seeing what would be done with, for example, Bombur's talk of 'dream dinners' when he finally woke up after having been carried a long distance by his fellow dwarves, and their disgusted reaction; Bilbo trying to steal food from the village but being given away by dripping and sneezing; and Bilbo's speeches in Lake Town being restricted to 'Thag you very buch'.

Sadly, this did not happen...

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

one of the biggest disappointments for me in Jackson's adaptation of The Hobbit was the missed opportunity in not properly using the humour in the book, including the black humour.

I really think this can't be stated enough. In many ways The Hobbit is a very funny book, although I believe Professor Tolkien came to think the narrative voice was somewhat condescending.

To essentially repeat myself in early 2013:

As soon a the door was opened, he pushed inside, just as if he had been expected.
He hung his hooded cloak on the nearest peg, and "Dwalin at your service!" he said with a low bow.
"Bilbo Baggins at yours!" said the hobbit, too surprised to ask any questions for the moment. When the silence that followed had become uncomfortable, he added: "I am just about to take tea; pray come and have some with me." A little stiff perhaps, but he meant it kindly. And what would you do, if an uninvited dwarf came and hung his things up in your hall without a word of explanation?

This would have been a perfect filmic moment for comedy, Bilbo and Dwalin hovering awkwardly in the hall, neither of them entirely sure what was going on. They even had Martin Freeman, the typecast king of comic bemusement. As I've said before, I think someone on the production team with British comedy experience could have really brought these aspects to the fore.

[Faramir Jones]

I agree with you that Martin Freeman would have been superb for such a scene, Zigûr. I'm also thinking of when Bilbo and Gandalf first meet Beorn, and when Bilbo gave the Elvenking a necklace as compensation for the food and drink he stole.

But then, I feel he was sidelined in the Jackson adaptation. The book centred around one hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, and his experiences; yet the films gave too much emphasis to the experiences of others, including those of a character out of fanfiction...

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

But then, I feel he was sidelined in the Jackson adaptation. The book centred around one hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, and his experiences; yet the films gave too much emphasis to the experiences of others, including those of a character out of fanfiction...

A couple of months ago I read this statement which Peter Jackson made in an interview around the time the third film was released:

"Obviously The Hobbit is the story of Thorin Oakenshield’s quest for the Lonely Mountain, and Lord of the Rings is the story of Frodo’s journey to try to destroy the ring. But they are nonetheless connected and they feed into each other and are in the same world."

Maybe he's just being really literal about what the narrative of The Hobbit is, but assuming he's not just repeating something he's mandated to say by WB, from a thematic or narrative-focus point of view he couldn't miss the point more if he tried. It's funny that he says that "The Lord of the Rings" (I assume he's talking about his films and not the books or anything else) is about Frodo and the Quest of the Ring (which the films are and aren't) but when he's describing "The Hobbit" Bilbo doesn't garner a mention, even though he's just named the film: "The Hobbit".
"This is a story of how a Baggins had an adventure, and found himself doing and saying things altogether unexpected." No? It's about how a brooding Dwarf went to a Mountain? Oh, okay then.

[Faramir Jones]

What you put in your last post wasn't a surprise, Zigûr. He's certainly wrong about The Hobbit being 'the story of Thorin Oakenshield’s quest for the Lonely Mountain'; it's the story of one of the participants in Thorin Oakenshield’s quest for the Lonely Mountain.

[Zigûr]

I suppose you could interpret what he's saying as that his film (rather than the book) is about Thorin's quest for the Lonely Mountain but if that's the case then he and his team either badly missed the point of the source material they were adapting, or chose (or were forced) to ignore it.

In my review on my blog (again warning re some light profanity for comic effect in the blog post if anyone reads it, also sorry for plugging my own stuff) I said the following:

If the character of Alfrid, the Tauriel material and the different silly monsters were extricated it would probably be a stronger product overall, but that wouldn't change the fact that the film is fundamentally undermined by its efforts to hybridise Bilbo's narrative with that of Thorin's, when his isn't inherently important. I note that in an interview for this film Peter Jackson said "The Hobbit is the story of Thorin Oakenshield’s quest for the Lonely Mountain." No it isn't. It's the story of Bilbo's character development. The Mountain is just a plot device. Thorin is a supporting character used to explore the theme of greed. That's why these films don't work: it doesn't matter whether you do or don't alter the source material when you don't fundamentally understand the source material in the first place. Maybe it's just marketing speak and he knows it's not true, because no one could possibly read The Hobbit and think it was about anything other than Bilbo at a fundamental level.

For some reason I want to give PJ the benefit of the doubt and lay this at Warner Bros.' door. Then again considering things he's said in the past, e.g. claiming to be a Tintin fan but also saying he's never read a comic, complaining that there are too many superhero action films in Hollywood these days, it's possible that sometimes he just doesn't always know what he's on about.

[Nerwen]

Zig, I think it's his film rather than the book he's talking about- but I would also agree it's a pretty revealing statement. But then the whole interview has a certain frankness missing from earlier ones- e.g. Tauriel's inclusion is now described as "a very cold-blooded decision" [to appeal to pre-teen girls] rather than being mandated by the Spirit of Tolkien, and the action was apparently driven largely by "ways to kill orcs" and "the next cool thing [Legolas] is going do", which is pretty much what most of us thought all along.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

A couple of months ago I read this statement which Peter Jackson made in an interview around the time the third film was released:

Maybe he's just being really literal about what the narrative of The Hobbit is, but assuming he's not just repeating something he's mandated to say by WB, from a thematic or narrative-focus point of view he couldn't miss the point more if he tried. It's funny that he says that "The Lord of the Rings" (I assume he's talking about his films and not the books or anything else) is about Frodo and the Quest of the Ring (which the films are and aren't) but when he's describing "The Hobbit" Bilbo doesn't garner a mention, even though he's just named the film: "The Hobbit".
"This is a story of how a Baggins had an adventure, and found himself doing and saying things altogether unexpected." No? It's about how a brooding Dwarf went to a Mountain? Oh, okay then.

re: The lack of a Hobbit in a film called The Hobbit

I never saw the third Hobbit- (too lazy to add the numerous and various quotation marks which would be appropriate) movie and I wonder about one thing:

Is there like a final scene with old Bilbo sitting in Bag-End and finishing his journal after all is said and done? You know, like him closing the book and smiling in remembrance or something like that. Somehow I was under the impression that it was intended that the plot of the movies would (more or less) align to what Bilbo wrote in his journal/book. I think the first Hobbit movie insinuated that old Bilbo is the narrator or author of the coming story who tells it from his perspective.


If that's the case this scene would be the most ironic moment of the series.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Is there like a final scene with old Bilbo sitting in Bag-End and finishing his journal after all is said and done? You know, like him closing the book and smiling in remembrance or something like that. Somehow I was under the impression that it was intended that the plot of the movies would (more or less) align to what Bilbo wrote in his journal/book. I think the first Hobbit movie insinuated that old Bilbo is the narrator or author of the coming story who tells it from his perspective.


If that's the case this scene would be the most ironic moment of the series.

Yes it segues into a re-shot version of the scene in "The Fellowship of the Ring" where Bilbo opens the door and greets Gandalf. Gandalf no longer says "You haven't aged a day," because he very obviously has. It's fairly jarring, although in my opinion the final film keeps Bilbo in focus to a slightly better degree than the previous two films.

He ought to have scratched out "A Hobbit's Tale by Bilbo Baggins" and written "The epic love-story of a Dwarf for an Elf and another Dwarf for a huge pile of gold, in which Gandalf and a man with a bird in his hair go to a fortress, and also a scruffy man with a bow has a gaggle of victimised children, there's an annoying cowardly adviser, the Elvenking's son saves the day repeatedly, and a 150-year-old dead Orc uses giant worms to attack a mountain for no discernible reason. Oh, and I saw a bit of it, from quite far away. There may have been a dragon."

Then I suppose he ought to have scratched out "There and Back Again" and written "The Battle of The Five Armies," with the second "The" in very large script, underlined several times.

[Morthoron]

I will mirror Faramir and Zigûr's senitments regarding the humor (or lack thereof) in the films. So much of it was strained and sophomoric, and, again (for the hundredth time), the farther Jackson strayed from the original plot, the further he descended into low comedy of the most dreadful sort.

A case in point would be the character Alfrid. He was completely and utterly unnecessary to the furtherance of the plot, and annoying every time he was foisted on the audience. He was a walking cliché of the villainous-henchman archetype and given nothing but banal gags and stereotypical dialogue. The character is an example of Jackson and Boyen's inability as screenwriters to add anything of value to an existing plot. One could eliminate all the superfluity they shat on the story and none of it would be missed.

Sandworms from Arrakis? Cardboard cut-out Legolas action figure? Mary-Sue lovelorn Tauriel? Psychedelic Radagast? Out-of-context and equally psychedelic Thorin having a bad trip from gold fever? Giant ready-to-bake golden dwarf statues? Transformer rock giants? Chutes-and-Ladders Goblintown? Instead of "Where's Waldo?" spending much of the films called The Hobbit going "Where's Bilbo?" I could go and on, so I'll refrain from further vituperation.

[Faramir Jones]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Sandworms from Arrakis? Cardboard cut-out Legolas action figure? Mary-Sue lovelorn Tauriel? Psychedelic Radagast? Out-of-context and equally psychedelic Thorin having a bad trip from gold fever? Giant ready-to-bake golden dwarf statues? Transformer rock giants? Chutes-and-Ladders Goblintown? Instead of "Where's Waldo?" spending much of the films called The Hobbit going "Where's Bilbo?" I could go and on, so I'll refrain from further vituperation.

So could I, Morthron. I think it's best that we think of the future, and hope that later adaptors of Tolkien's works do a far, far better job.