Peter Jackson's The Hobbit

[Mark of Zorro]

*Spoilers will no doubt appear! You have been warned!*

I just watched The Hobbit last night. Overall it was worth seeing I think.

On the plus side: It was good that it is divided into two parts. The pace was appropriate.

The settings and costumes and all visuals were stunning. It really helps one visualize everything in the books.

The plot was basically followed.

On the negative side: Waaaay too much artistic license was taken with regards to specifics and individual scenes. For example, it was Bilbo that saved the company when they were captured by trolls. He was racking is brain all night to keep those trolls distracted until dawn. But the movie makes it look like he only distracted them for a couple minutes until Gandalf appeared. This scene was where Bilbo first really shined, and it was ruined.

Some scenes were simply not in the book. I don't mind that so much. But what I do mind is the way the scenes were woven in, because that changed things in the real scenes that should not have been. Differences Between The Hobbit Movie and Book

Another thing was the over the top action scenes. I mean they were WAAAAY over the top. Jackie Chan movies are less over the top! Just absolutely ridiculous and not even amusing.

In fact, have a ton of complaints like this. I did not notice so much with LOTR. But this time PJ really mucked about too much. Still a good movie.

 

[ewww]

That movie was soooo long and soooo boooring. It's plot could be described in short: they took a horse and rode it in approximately that direction. Cheesy disney-like characters. The movie ends with big a-la Hairy Potster poopsickle 'action'.

Beyond the movie, it has horrible sound, which does not match to IMAX quality at all. Weak and cheesy soundtrack. 3D is good, but not that great: there are many scenes, which are looking weird and unfinished; looks like they had bad team of backpainters.

Conclusion: waste of time and money, will not go to next one.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It's plot could be described in short: they took a horse and rode it in approximately that direction.

An adventure is not just about the plot. The plot can be thin as paper, so long as the journey is interesting. What I liked about the book is that the journey was not a thrill-a-minute action adventure. And I don't think it needed to be for the movie.

For example, the rain was not like "Oh, well its raining. Deal with it." No. They were freezing cold and could not get a fire going because every damn thing was wet. Plus I think it was when they finally did get a damned fire going that is how the trolls found them.

I still enjoyed the movie, but the more I think about it the more I get P.O.ed at PJ for tinkering with the book.

 

[ewww]

What I liked about the book is that the journey was not a thrill-a-minute action adventure.

Exactly, and that is weakest part of movie: it focused on thrill and visual effects.

 

[Davey]

I expected a lot from this movie, but didn't like Bilbo his acting and think Frodo was way WAY better acted. The actions scenes lol, I thought dwarfs were slow, but the way the ran in the last 30 minutes of the movie haha.

I got called while I was watching it so I missed about 10 minutes of the movie... not that I regret it that much. Hopefully the second part will make the whole "Hobbit" movie itself a lot better.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

FREE The Hobbit Plot Summary | BookRags.com

The above shows just how much PJ tinkered with the book, and absolutely no need for it. I grow more annoyed.

I was wrong about the fire thing. They could not make a fire, and when they saw someone's fire, they were sorely drawn to it. It was the troll's fire, and that is how they were captured by the trolls.

Also, it seems it was Gandalf and not Bilbo who tricked the trolls. Gandalf kept mimicking the voices of the trolls and changing their cooking plans, so they never got started.

Also the cave scene was very different from the book. In the book they were directly captured by Goblins and I believe it was a crack that opened in the wall. In the movie they fall through the floor and fall an incredible height, but none get injured! Ridiculous!

Also Bilbo found the ring by chance. He did not see it drop. Only later did he ever see Gollum.

 

[nahadef]

You should look into the making of this a bit. One reason it's fatter, and different than the book is he added in the appendices from after the Lord of the Rings in, which elaborated the story a bit. I don't remember the story exactly, but it's something like Tolkien had written the Hobbit for kids, and the Lord of the Rings for adults, but afterwards wanted to rewrite the Hobbit to make it more mature. Part-way through, he decided it was a bad idea, and reworked those bits into appendices. Jackson has reworked all those parts into the story, making it veer from the original text. You're the first "purist" I've heard make that complaint.

I'm not a super-fan, after I got pretty tired during the first series, but I was a fan as a kid. I'm undecided on whether to see it or not, but probably won't, between the price and the length. Still, if the mood hits me while I'm on vacation, I might catch a matinee.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Well, I suppose you will see it when you see it.

I did not mind at all the back story being added in the beginning or even Radagast making his quirky appearance. In short, relevant additions were welcomed. I just minded the total reworking of scenes for no good reason, like shoving Radagast into scenes he had no part in.

For example, Bilbo was trying to pick a troll's pocket when he got caught, not save the ponies. He was trying to be a burglar after all.

And it was Bilbo that found Sting, not Gandalf. He did not need to be cajoled into carrying it. What ***** would hesitate to carry a sword with goblins about??

Also, there was no hesitation to go to Rivendell. Elrond was the only one who could help with the map. And they had been on the road for a while and it was no pleasure cruise. They were hungry and miserable. PJ made Thorin out to be more than just stubborn out of spite. He made him a damned idiot. I know its to set up his character for when he goes treasure happy at the end, but its not necessary. This is what you expect from a dwarf; not complete stupidity, just gold crazy.

And I really did not like the way the movie made the traveling seem a piece of cake. Hell, every movie seems to do that lately, sometimes just chopping out huge swaths of time rather than show a journey.

And the stone giants were just viewed in the distance. In the movie, they were in the middle of them, even on them! It was so completely stupid, and not one got killed or injured. That was arguably the stupidest scene in the movie. But it will be forgiven because the stone giants were neat. Well, they would have been just as neat in the distance!

What I feel is that PJ turned into a dog, and felt a need to put his peepee mark on this film. It was not quite so blatant with LOTR I think. But I read those first, long long ago, so I could be wrong.

Aside, if the Hobbit was a children's book, and was considered a children's book by many at the time, boy have we lowered the bar for kids today! No wonder everyone seems so damned thick and immature lately!

Sure, I agree it did not need quite so much attention span as LOTR, but I would hesitate to call the Hobbit a children's book, despite some childish aspects.

 

[ewww]

And the stone giants were just viewed in the distance. In the movie, they were in the middle of them, even on them! It was so completely stupid, and not one got killed or injured. That was arguably the stupidest scene in the movie. But it will be forgiven because the stone giants were neat. Well, they would have been just as neat in the distance!

Looks like it is quite common for PJ movies. Look here (You may skip first 2 minutes of clip) :

King Kong (2/10) Movie CLIP - Dinosaur Stampede (2005) HD - YouTube

Exactly the same setup. Prolly he used the same decorations.

 

[nahadef]

I did pick this up. It was awesome fun to put together, and looks awesome too. The inside is fully furnished!

 

[BrianLewis]

I liked the movie as a whole. I can't say that I liked some of the fight scenes. There were some stupid domino and Rube Goldburg moments that annoyed me quite a bit. I couldn't get myself to read the book before seeing it, so I am sure there are things left out that I am not aware of.

Personally, I think they need to hone their target audience more before making movies like this and more Star Wars movies. When they try to entertain adults and kids at the same time, it just ends up watered down and distasteful to a degree. There is no reason kids can't enjoy an adult targeted movie, however adults don't usually like childish elements in an adult movie.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

The more I think about it, the more I think PJ is getting a free pass and people are making excuses for his perversion of the book.

This may be due in part to his making LOTR a popular and mainstream movie, thereby making people who were considered "geeks" to now be considered people with taste?

I remember when I was a teenager, I named a cat Legolas. This was long before Orlando Bloom was known to anyone outside his friends and family. Everyone wondered where the hell I got that oddball name.

I am sure we can all think of other reasons why PJ gets a free pass, but the more I think about it, the more annoyed I get with his mangling of the book.

---------- Post added at 23:50 ---------- Previous post was at 23:45 ----------

You're the first "purist" I've heard make that complaint.

I don't know if I am a "purist" even in parenthesis. Or, well, maybe I am. IMHO, I have a lot of tolerance for changes here and there. But there is a point where things get changed so much, that one really should just write their own damned story.