Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[2.71828.....]

As I am sure you all are aware of, the next installment of the Hobbit trilogy is about to come out.  (sooner for some of us than others)  I am just interested in what the people on this forum think about the Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit, and all things J.R.R Tolkien. 

I love the books.  I had read the Hobbit, LOTR trilogy, and the Silmarillion before The Fellowship of the Ring came out in 2001.   No movie (or series of movies) will ever be able to equal the masterpiece that Tolkien wrote.  However, when it comes to accuracy and telling the story as Tolkien told it, I found that I enjoyed the first installment of the Hobbit much more than any of the LOTR movies.  Now, it is true that there was some amount of content added to the story over what is written in the book, but I find that to be value added.  The content added helps build the story and make it suitable for the big screen.  Granted, the written style of The Hobbit definitely has a lighter feel to it (Tolkien wrote it in a tone suitable for children) than the movie, but the actual content of the book is not as light as the writing style would imply.  A lot of criticism I hear from people is that they were expecting a nice story, but when you actually look at the content of the book (dragon destroys dwarves' home, trolls, goblins, Mirkwood, Spiders, battles) it is difficult to see how you can (or would want to) make it into a nice cozy little story.  The other complaint I hear is that it is too long.  Why the trilogy.  My response: maybe this trilogy is not meant for your average movie-goer, but for your Tolkien fan.  As a Tolkien fan there are several things that I don't like about the LOTR trilogy, even though I see why they are necessary for the movie.  (Elves in Helms Deep, no scouring of the Shire, no Tom Bombadil, I could go on but those just popped up on the top of my head)  As a Tolkien fan, I found An Unexpected Journey to be quite satisfying. As a Tolkien fan, I think that The Hobbit Trilogy will be better than the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

[Watno]

I have an idea why it's a trilogy: So they can sell 3 tickets to everyone.

[2.71828.....]

I have an idea why it's a trilogy: So they can sell 3 tickets to everyone.

Well.  yeah.  they got me

[Jimmmmm]

Huge fan of the LoTR movies. I got through the books years and years ago, but I must admit, I don't really have the patience for them. Hopefully I'll have another go at them at some point. I enjoyed the first Hobbit movie, but probably not as much as LoTR. Very excited about the new one, and I'll be in LA before it comes out internationally!

[pingpongsam]

I read The Hobbit when I was far too young to comprehend or remember it.

I found the LoTR trilogy to be good entertainment but I've seen no good reason to view any of them more than once.

This Hobbit business looks like a rehash. I doubt I will bother to see any of the hobbit stuff.

Reminds me of the original Star Wars trilogy. Loved the stuff as a kid. Have never bothered to watch anything released after the first 3. From what I have seen of it I don't want to.

then there are the legions who slurp up every bit of it.

[Kuildeous]

I was concerned about the Hobbit movie because the dwarves are practically interchangeable. Who is whatsit again? And someone's name is so similar to someone else's. It was like that in the book too. I couldn't bother keeping the dwarves straight except for what's important. At least they have pretty distinctive looks in the movie, which is quite a feat when you consider that stereotypes typically make dwarves all look similar.

I liked the first installment of the Hobbit, but I hated the chase scene. It added an artificial sense of drama that did not a bit of good in the end. They still didn't get away across the plains.

Looking forward to the next one, but my extremely arachnophobic wife is going to have issues.

[Polk5440]

I love the books and the movie trilogy. Read the books multiple times. Own the movies. I think it was exceptionally well done and well deserving of all the Oscars it won and more!

I am glad they are making the Hobbit, but really, it should have just been one movie. Two at the very most if they want to add in storylines not seen on the (main) page. But not three.

As it is, The Hobbit is too safe. You know what you are going to get. I would have even liked the studio to commit to a different director to give an even lighter, more adventurous atmosphere to the movie. I don't need to see any more gratuitous Peter Jackson battle scenes. The Hobbit is not the LOTR; it should have aspired to stand apart.

Ender's Game is the model the Hobbit should have followed. Ender's Game the movie is quickly paced and adapted really well, hitting all the high points of the main story line.

But what do I know? Ender's Game did poorly at the box office, and The Hobbit is going to be three money-making blockbusters.... 

[Awaclus]

I think that the LOTR movies are very good, but AUJ is little short of a masterpiece. There's a lot of stuff that PJ did with LOTR that I don't agree with (the lack of scouring of the Shrine being the most important), but almost everything he did with AUJ improved it - the only thing that comes to mind that he shouldn't have done IMO was meddling with the timeline so that Gandalf organizes the journey and then learns about the Necromancer while he is on that journey. What on earth was Gandalf's motivation for going there in the first place then? But on the other hand, it's also understandable that PJ didn't want to have a third interlude before the story begins.

Also, I'm definitely in the "the extended edition of AUJ was too short" camp.

[AHoppy]

I hated the chase scene in the Hobbit as well (the one when they are running away from the goblins).  It was so unrealistic and overdone, and felt like it did not fit with the rest of the movie (Seriously? The one dwarf holds a ladder and it blocks all the arrows... I mean yeah creative license, but he doesn't react or anything...).  I was talking with a friend recently and he agreed, but we also came to the conclusion that that scene was added to try and give it that childhood whimsy and comic nature that is necessary because the book was geared towards a younger audience.  I feel like either they should have made the whole movie more comic and lighthearted (like the goblin scene) or the whole movie more serious (more like LOTR).  But throwing in this one scene was their attempt to do both and I think it was very bad for the movie

[Awaclus]

I hated the chase scene in the Hobbit as well (the one when they are running away from the goblins).  It was so unrealistic and overdone, and felt like it did not fit with the rest of the movie (Seriously? The one dwarf holds a ladder and it blocks all the arrows... I mean yeah creative license, but he doesn't react or anything...).  I was talking with a friend recently and he agreed, but we also came to the conclusion that that scene was added to try and give it that childhood whimsy and comic nature that is necessary because the book was geared towards a younger audience.  I feel like either they should have made the whole movie more comic and lighthearted (like the goblin scene) or the whole movie more serious (more like LOTR).  But throwing in this one scene was their attempt to do both and I think it was very bad for the movie

I feel like the comic nature of that scene adds to the distinction between orcs and goblins that PJ has been making, which is a thing that I like.

[Polk5440]

(the lack of scouring of the Shrine being the most important)

OK, fair enough. That is the one thing I was sad got changed in the trilogy. Well, the second thing. I remember thinking after seeing the Two Towers, "boy they spent a lot of time on the Battle for Helm's Deep. Are they going to have time in the third movie to get back to the Shire?" Answer: No.

I would have reduced the importance of Helm's Deep (even if it meant the Two Towers didn't have a gigantic finish -- not every Star Wars movie needed an exploding Death Star, after all) in order to include the scouring of the Shire.

I forgot where I read this, but I remember reading that PJ pitched the movie to one studio as a trilogy, it was rejected (too big of a gamble) and then reduced the script to two movies and pitched it to a second studio. The original script had the scouring of the Shire. The second did not. When the next studio approved the project, they asked, "Aren't there three books? There should be three movies." PJ chose to expand the script for the two movies into three rather than go back to his original three movie script. This is why the scouring didn't make the cut and Helm's Deep was way too long.

[AHoppy]

I hated the chase scene in the Hobbit as well (the one when they are running away from the goblins).  It was so unrealistic and overdone, and felt like it did not fit with the rest of the movie (Seriously? The one dwarf holds a ladder and it blocks all the arrows... I mean yeah creative license, but he doesn't react or anything...).  I was talking with a friend recently and he agreed, but we also came to the conclusion that that scene was added to try and give it that childhood whimsy and comic nature that is necessary because the book was geared towards a younger audience.  I feel like either they should have made the whole movie more comic and lighthearted (like the goblin scene) or the whole movie more serious (more like LOTR).  But throwing in this one scene was their attempt to do both and I think it was very bad for the movie

I feel like the comic nature of that scene adds to the distinction between orcs and goblins that PJ has been making, which is a thing that I like.

Ok, I can see that.  But at the same time, a lot of the problems I had with that scene had less to do with the actual goblins and more to do with physics if I'm perfectly honest... And while I can overlook most physics issues/implausibilities in movies, I felt like that scene went too far into the cartoon Wile E. Cyote range and I felt like it detracted from the tone of the movie.

[Witherweaver]

I think it would have felt extremely cramped as a single movie. It would feel like adventure after adventure without any long drawn-out journey.  This way the get to tell the story slowly, embellish with things that were only behind the scene and referenced to in the novel, and work on Bilbo's character development. 

The only thing I don't like is that they needed to work in a movie climax into the middle of the story, because I guess we can't see a movie that doesn't follow the generic story-telling device.  The scene with the orcs at the end felt too forced, though it did get to show Bilbo grow into more of his hero role.

I was okay with the more slapsticky feel of the action.. I chalk it up to us receiving Bilbo's rendition of the story, and I imagine as he's telling this story he exaggerates the feats.

[XerxesPraelor]

I saw the first movie, after reading all the books, of course, and wasn't very impressed. I really imagined Moria to be a ton more cramped and wasn't expecting a big cavernous inside as if the entire mountain was completely hollow. Actually, though, the main thing I didn't like about it is that they had to cut out Tom Bombadil and the entire "short cut". That was too bad.

[Awaclus]

I hated the chase scene in the Hobbit as well (the one when they are running away from the goblins).  It was so unrealistic and overdone, and felt like it did not fit with the rest of the movie (Seriously? The one dwarf holds a ladder and it blocks all the arrows... I mean yeah creative license, but he doesn't react or anything...).  I was talking with a friend recently and he agreed, but we also came to the conclusion that that scene was added to try and give it that childhood whimsy and comic nature that is necessary because the book was geared towards a younger audience.  I feel like either they should have made the whole movie more comic and lighthearted (like the goblin scene) or the whole movie more serious (more like LOTR).  But throwing in this one scene was their attempt to do both and I think it was very bad for the movie

I feel like the comic nature of that scene adds to the distinction between orcs and goblins that PJ has been making, which is a thing that I like.

Ok, I can see that.  But at the same time, a lot of the problems I had with that scene had less to do with the actual goblins and more to do with physics if I'm perfectly honest... And while I can overlook most physics issues/implausibilities in movies, I felt like that scene went too far into the cartoon Wile E. Cyote range and I felt like it detracted from the tone of the movie.

Slightly related: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-tzQahCny7TSE1ybWlpQkQtdVE/edit

[AHoppy]

I hated the chase scene in the Hobbit as well (the one when they are running away from the goblins).  It was so unrealistic and overdone, and felt like it did not fit with the rest of the movie (Seriously? The one dwarf holds a ladder and it blocks all the arrows... I mean yeah creative license, but he doesn't react or anything...).  I was talking with a friend recently and he agreed, but we also came to the conclusion that that scene was added to try and give it that childhood whimsy and comic nature that is necessary because the book was geared towards a younger audience.  I feel like either they should have made the whole movie more comic and lighthearted (like the goblin scene) or the whole movie more serious (more like LOTR).  But throwing in this one scene was their attempt to do both and I think it was very bad for the movie

I feel like the comic nature of that scene adds to the distinction between orcs and goblins that PJ has been making, which is a thing that I like.

Ok, I can see that.  But at the same time, a lot of the problems I had with that scene had less to do with the actual goblins and more to do with physics if I'm perfectly honest... And while I can overlook most physics issues/implausibilities in movies, I felt like that scene went too far into the cartoon Wile E. Cyote range and I felt like it detracted from the tone of the movie.

Slightly related: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-tzQahCny7TSE1ybWlpQkQtdVE/edit

I did read most of it, but skimmed some and that is actually very interesting.  However, my biggest problem with that was how the bridge didn't tumble.  Sliding down the side of the mountain on one side should have induced a moment in the bridge and caused it to tumble rather than slide rather gracefully down the rocks.  I don't think the article addressed that, and that was the part that made their fall look so cartoonistic to me.  But that paper does make me feel a little better about that scene

[Davio]

I'm currently reading The Silmarillion, but I'm having trouble with the part where he describes Beleriand, it's such a boring bit.

I've read The Hobbit and The Fellowship, got stuck halfway through The Two Towers, but plan on finishing everything Tolkien eventually.

I'm okay with The Hobbit, it's nowhere near as epic as LOTR, but it's also quite a different story. And it's a very weird story. With LOTR it's clear cut: The ring has to be dropped in the mountain and everyone is fighting to give Frodo a chance. With The Hobbit it's more obscure: Gandalf tells Bilbo to go battle some random dragon and Bilbo agrees. Why? And Gandalf tells Bilbo is some kind of Burglar, does he have foresight of him finding the ring? And if so, why does Gandalf need several years to confirm the authenticity of the one ring? The side story of The Hobbit is much more interesting: The return of Sauron as the Necromancer in Dol Guldur, suffering a predicted loss to retreat to Mordor. So they had to battle Smaug, because Smaug might have been recruited by Sauron? It's a bit weak.

The Hobbit has also been after-edited to fit in with the LOTR, making it make even less sense.

Don't get me wrong, I like the story and everything that Bilbo and the Dwarves come across, but it's a bit convoluted.

[Witherweaver]

I'm currently reading The Silmarillion, but I'm having trouble with the part where he describes Beleriand, it's such a boring bit.

I've read The Hobbit and The Fellowship, got stuck halfway through The Two Towers, but plan on finishing everything Tolkien eventually.

I'm okay with The Hobbit, it's nowhere near as epic as LOTR, but it's also quite a different story. And it's a very weird story. With LOTR it's clear cut: The ring has to be dropped in the mountain and everyone is fighting to give Frodo a chance. With The Hobbit it's more obscure: Gandalf tells Bilbo to go battle some random dragon and Bilbo agrees. Why? And Gandalf tells Bilbo is some kind of Burglar, does he have foresight of him finding the ring? And if so, why does Gandalf need several years to confirm the authenticity of the one ring? The side story of The Hobbit is much more interesting: The return of Sauron as the Necromancer in Dol Guldur, suffering a predicted loss to retreat to Mordor. So they had to battle Smaug, because Smaug might have been recruited by Sauron? It's a bit weak.

The Hobbit has also been after-edited to fit in with the LOTR, making it make even less sense.

Don't get me wrong, I like the story and everything that Bilbo and the Dwarves come across, but it's a bit convoluted.

Right, the story was originally a kids' tale about an adventure with wizards, dwarves, hobbits and dragons.  The story and motivations don't have to be so flushed out.  Tolkien later modified The Hobbit to fit in more with The Lord of the Rings, mainly changing Riddles in the Dark to reflect the idea that the magic ring Biblo gets is the corrupting One Ring.

The Smaug and Necromancer stories are essentially separate.  Other than a general evil-begets-evil, the journey to Smaug doesn't have much to do with Sauron.*  They're fighting Smaug because the dwarves want to retake their homeland (and their treasures).  In the background, Sauron is stirring and that has rippling effects throughout Middle Earth (more evil things in the forest, etc.).  This are referred to in passing in the book (there was a lot of "but that's a story for another time") and expanded upon later.

*You could maybe argue that Gandalf has some intuition that this course of action will eventually lead to bigger things.  He is a Wizard, after all, and essentially sent to Middle Earth by the "gods".  Maybe he had some hunches and instinct to do certain things without really knowing the details of how it would play out.

[Awaclus]

They're fighting Smaug because the dwarves want to retake their homeland (and their treasures).

The dwarves are fighting for that reason, but Gandalf's motivation is indeed related to Sauron; he fears that Sauron could use Smaug to devastate all of the North. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quest_of_Erebor

[Teproc]

Huge fan of the books (read them like ten times as a teenager, plus the Silmarilion a few times... all in French though, I'll have to read them in English someday), I like the movies well enough, but haven't seen the Hobbit yet (I was really put off by the dividing into three movies). Should I ?

[Witherweaver]

They're fighting Smaug because the dwarves want to retake their homeland (and their treasures).

The dwarves are fighting for that reason, but Gandalf's motivation is indeed related to Sauron; he fears that Sauron could use Smaug to devastate all of the North. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quest_of_Erebor

I see; I didn't read Unfinished Tales.  But, this was all after the fact, right?  As I understand it, The Hobbit was written without the greater story of The Lord of the Rings.

[Awaclus]

They're fighting Smaug because the dwarves want to retake their homeland (and their treasures).

The dwarves are fighting for that reason, but Gandalf's motivation is indeed related to Sauron; he fears that Sauron could use Smaug to devastate all of the North. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quest_of_Erebor

I see; I didn't read Unfinished Tales.  But, this was all after the fact, right?  As I understand it, The Hobbit was written without the greater story of The Lord of the Rings.

Yeah, it was after the fact.

Huge fan of the books (read them like ten times as a teenager, plus the Silmarilion a few times... all in French though, I'll have to read them in English someday), I like the movies well enough, but haven't seen the Hobbit yet (I was really put off by the dividing into three movies). Should I ?

You should, and make sure you watch the extended edition.

[Witherweaver]

Actually that link to the Quest of Erebor story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quest_of_Erebor) goes into why Gandalf chose Bilbo to accompany Thorin:

Gandalf thought Bilbo to be a suitable companion to Thorin and his Dwarves for a number of reasons. First, he had observed that Bilbo took more of an interest in the world at large than was usual for Hobbits, and was thus more likely to be adventurous. Another reason was that Smaug would not recognize the scent of a Hobbit, advantageous to a stealthy operation and likely to distract the dragon's attention. Finally, Gandalf thought that putting a Hobbit in the company would prevent Thorin, who did not think much of Hobbits and doubted Bilbo's skills, from doing anything rash, such as openly confronting Smaug.

and also Gandalf's motivation as Awaclus mentioned:

Gandalf knew that Smaug the Dragon could pose a serious threat if used by Sauron, then dwelling in Dol Guldur in Mirkwood. He was thinking about the matter when he met Thorin Oakenshield at Bree. Thorin also was concerned about Smaug, but had different motives: He wanted to reclaim the Dwarves' treasure in the Lonely Mountain. Gandalf agreed to help Thorin, though he insisted that his party must make use of stealth rather than open confrontation; for that, they would need a burglar, to whom he would take them.

To Davio's point, I think Gandalf knew/sensed that Sauron was stirring and his influence was becoming greater, but I don't think he foresaw the ring being found.

[GendoIkari]

I think that the LOTR movies are very good, but AUJ is little short of a masterpiece. There's a lot of stuff that PJ did with LOTR that I don't agree with (the lack of scouring of the Shrine being the most important), but almost everything he did with AUJ improved it - the only thing that comes to mind that he shouldn't have done IMO was meddling with the timeline so that Gandalf organizes the journey and then learns about the Necromancer while he is on that journey. What on earth was Gandalf's motivation for going there in the first place then? But on the other hand, it's also understandable that PJ didn't want to have a third interlude before the story begins.

Also, I'm definitely in the "the extended edition of AUJ was too short" camp.

I'm going to disagree with most of this. First, my LOTR background:

I read the Hobbit too long ago to remember; then after I saw the first LOTR movie in theaters, I read all 3 books before the second came out.

Anyway, first off I thought the LOTR movies were all really great, while the Hobbit was just ok. Hard to say exactly why, I just know that I didn't leave the Hobbit with the same feeling of "wow that was awesome, can't wait til the next one comes out; can't wait to go see this one again" that I had after each LOTR. I'll still see the next Hobbit in theaters though.

As for the lack of the Scouring of the Shire... I wasn't at all surprised or disappointed by it. When I was readying Return of the King, I got to the part where the ring was destroyed, and was pretty much like "wait, what? There's still almost half a book left." Then I finished reading it, and pretty much just thought it was really anti-climactic. I didn't like at all how it was done. And I remember thinking very specifically "there's no way that this whole part is going to be in the movie when that comes out. It just doesn't make for a good movie to have all these events AFTER the main climax of the film."

[Teproc]

Except Return of the King (the movie) still has a lot of screen time after the ring is destroyed. It's actually a very common criticism of the movie (the fact that it has too many endings, the destruction of the ring being the first one).

You know what, an extended Hobbit DVD might be a Christmas gift idea. I'm looking for more of those ^^.