Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Is BOTFA and the Hobbit trilogy really as good as we want it to be?
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Hobbithole
The Shire

Dec 26 2014, 9:08am

Post #1 of 34 (1595 views)
Shortcut
Is BOTFA and the Hobbit trilogy really as good as we want it to be? Can't Post

It is just under two weeks since I saw the film in 3D at a Version Originale showing in Angouleme in France, so I have had time to consider my thoughts and feelings about it.

I haven't been able to get to see it again but we are heading back to the UK in January so will hope to see it again.

I have been reading loads of reviews both on this forum and other web sites and IMHO a lot of them are overly positive, when IMHO the film is clearly flawed as so much of it (last third particularly) veers away from the book and then the end is rushed and skimped over. Yes the EE may improve the rushed/skimpy feeling of the last third, but for me the films in the Hobbit trilogy do not hold together well compared to the LOTR trilogy.

Do people feel that there is a tendency to be over positive about the Hobbit trilogy amongst Tolkien fans for the very reason that we are Tolkien fans and therefore want the films to be great? Personally I feel AUJ is the best of the three and even that is not perfect.

I will never understand P.J's decision to meddle so much with the storyline or the need to bring in characters like Azog, Legolas and Tauriel? I do enjoy the films but they could have been a masterpiece and a faithful interpretation of the book.

I do get the love for these films as there is much to love,but do people deep down feel that they are nowhere near as good as they should be?


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Dec 26 2014, 9:20am

Post #2 of 34 (1028 views)
Shortcut
Well, there's a faithful adaptation and then there's an entertaining film... [In reply to] Can't Post

...sometimes they're both, sometimes they're not. These films are not faithful adaptations IMO of the novel The Hobbit - though I would argue that they fit just fine within Tolkien's mythology as dramatizations of the larger tale of the Quest of Erebor.

Now, I have a fair amount of issues with the films as films. I do not feel that they are cinematically equal to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. But they are, I believe, incredibly entertaining films in their own right, flawed or not, and worthy of praise.

"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen

(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Dec 26 2014, 9:22am)


Hobbithole
The Shire

Dec 26 2014, 9:30am

Post #3 of 34 (910 views)
Shortcut
Totally agree! [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
...sometimes they're both, sometimes they're not. These films are not faithful adaptations IMO of the novel The Hobbit - though I would argue that they fit just fine within Tolkien's mythology as dramatizations of the larger tale of the Quest of Erebor.

Now, I have a fair amount of issues with the films as films. I do not feel that they are cinematically equal to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. But they are, I believe, incredibly entertaining films in their own right, flawed or not, and worthy of praise.


I totally agree with you, there is much to love and they are massively entertaining films, but who was Jackson making them for? The studio? Himself? The Tolkien fan base? Or just trying to create a modern blockbuster to appeal to the average moviegoer?


elvish.mafia
Bree


Dec 26 2014, 9:36am

Post #4 of 34 (952 views)
Shortcut
A 'faithful' adaptation would've been boring... [In reply to] Can't Post

But I do agree, some of PJ's additions or alterations don't actually pay off.

And yes, some users overstate the greatness of these films. They'll say things like "wait till the EE comes out!". Meh. Each to their own.


mirkwoodwanderer
Lorien

Dec 26 2014, 10:20am

Post #5 of 34 (876 views)
Shortcut
yes. it is [In reply to] Can't Post

 


LoremIpsum
Lorien


Dec 26 2014, 10:28am

Post #6 of 34 (930 views)
Shortcut
They nailed the arkestone plot and Thorin and Bilbo's relationship [In reply to] Can't Post

which too me was the heart of the story and what I was really looking forward to, plus we got a mighty fine CGI dragon thrown in to the mix.

To be honest I do think the movies got a lot of flaws but even if they were much better from a purely cinematic point (pacing, effects etc) and got the above things wrong, I doubt I would enjoy them as much.


Anubis
Rivendell


Dec 26 2014, 10:37am

Post #7 of 34 (856 views)
Shortcut
Hm.. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quoting you : "there is a tendency to be over positive about the Hobbit trilogy amongst Tolkien fans for the very reason that we are Tolkien fans and therefore want the films to be great?"

You only need to read a few posts in this forum to answer yourself; being a Tolkien fan certainly does not mean that you donīt want to realize the flaws in the Hobbit movies.

Of course, we Tolkien fans, and everybody that has read Tolkien for that matter, look upon the movies with other eyes than the average audience, but if I were to see a movie based on my favorite book, the first thing I would think before seeing it is: "I hope they add This and That scene." Wouldnīt you think the same? Therefore, if said movie in the end, doesnīt feature the scenes I want, my natural reaction would be to dislike it, and not to convince myself that it was somehow good.

And I think the same goes for the rest of the people invested in these movies; we like them because we think they are well done, not because of the title.Smile


(This post was edited by Anubis on Dec 26 2014, 10:39am)


Miss-Merriweather
Bree

Dec 26 2014, 10:53am

Post #8 of 34 (861 views)
Shortcut
They are, of course, not quite as good as if I had made them myself..... [In reply to] Can't Post

... but hey, what Peter Jackson has delivered isn't all that bad either.
Evil


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Dec 26 2014, 11:11am

Post #9 of 34 (857 views)
Shortcut
I would say it was a tendency to polarisation, in both directions. [In reply to] Can't Post

At least in rhetoric if not in considered assessment. But then that's part of taking it rather too seriously in the main, I think.

One thing which does always make me chuckle is the "this film has flaws" or "this film isn't perfect" bit. I'm not sure what a "perfect" film would be, but I'm fairly sure it doesn't exist so there probably isn't that much requirement to note this!


Glorfindela
Valinor


Dec 26 2014, 11:40am

Post #10 of 34 (869 views)
Shortcut
For me [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
They nailed the arkestone plot and Thorin and Bilbo's relationship which too me was the heart of the story and what I was really looking forward to, plus we got a mighty fine CGI dragon thrown in to the mix.


These were the most important things for me – had the acting of both characters been any less, my reaction to the films may have been very different. In addition, the acting of and casting for the characters of Bard, Thranduil and Balin were spot on. I found the visuals amazing throughout.

What I didn't like were PJ's self-indulgent moments at the expense of the story, like the completely inappropriate grossness and the ninja-elf action (something we didn't get nearly as much of in LotR). The romance and the lack of Beorn were also major disservices to the film, in my view. The lack of explanation for certain issues raised in the film (like the white gems discussed in a post below), and the lack of resolution in characters/plotlines at the end, were also flaws for me. The films had enormous budgets, yet no one on set seemed to take care of ensuring that such things were dealt with and not left hanging in the air.

BoFA and AUJ in particular are great films for me, but they could have been so much greater.


Lurker in the Mirk
Valinor


Dec 26 2014, 1:25pm

Post #11 of 34 (769 views)
Shortcut
Totally this! [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for articulating this, Glorfindela.

"I'll say dark and gritty, which, with the Elvenking, translates as Hot and Sexy. Cool" - vanima ephel



I fancy myself an ME BFF (Book/Film Fan) Smile
(Aaaaand a gushy Thranduil fangurl before The Hobbit movies; still a gushy Thranduil fangurl through them. Laugh)

HeartThranduil Appreciation. Threadcount: XXX
I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI | XVII | XVIII | XIX | XX | XXI | XXII | XXIII | XXIV | XXV | XXVI | XXVII | XXVIII | XXIX



"BoFA"= The Battle || "BotFA"/"tBotFA" = The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

=======
Middle-earth dispatches out of the lurkmirk




Roheryn
Tol Eressea

Dec 26 2014, 1:46pm

Post #12 of 34 (780 views)
Shortcut
"As good as"? [In reply to] Can't Post

Nope, I'd say they're better.

I'm really not sure how anyone can judge whether a movie is "clearly flawed" or "not perfect". Is there some paradigm of flawlessness and perfection against which any and all movies can be judged? I suspect not. I see no problem with someone not liking a movie, or some part of it, and explaining why; but that doesn't mean that the movie is flawed. It just means someone doesn't like it.

We-who-know-the-book, and who are clearly the majority on this forum, may wish the end lingered a bit more, but we're not representative of the larger movie-going-public, who may well have no such wish. To them, there is no flaw with the ending. Does that make *them* right?

PJ hasn't veered from the book much differently from how he veered with the LOTR movies. Film adaptations are always going to differ to some extent from the source material. Two different mediums, two different ways to effect good storytelling. And if we don't like this particular adaptation, we always still have the books.

As for the addition of extra characters, I for one am thrilled that Legolas was in these movies: it only made sense, and I'm glad PJ was able to give us that continuity between the two trilogies. His characterization here is much deeper than we ever see in the LOTR movies; I'm looking forward to re-watching those now that we have so much more of his backstory. As for Tauriel, I think she was a great addition for several reasons, but the most important one is deeper than most people are looking: she motivates the completion of Legolas's character arc between the trilogies. As for Azog? Well, why not? The relationship between him and Azog serves as a stark counterpoint to the other father/son (or nephew/uncle) relationships that are shown so beautifully through the movies.

I truly feel these movies, especially BotFA, are not just as good as they should be, but far better -- and I for one am grateful to PJ for giving them to us.


Lindele
Gondor

Dec 26 2014, 2:03pm

Post #13 of 34 (763 views)
Shortcut
Not as much as there is a [In reply to] Can't Post

tendency for non Tolkien fans/critics and even a lot of Tolkien fans to be overly negative about it. Most people decided in the first 15 minutes of AUJ, if not before watching, it if they were going to like the trilogy.


tsmith675
Gondor


Dec 26 2014, 3:00pm

Post #14 of 34 (740 views)
Shortcut
Of course not. [In reply to] Can't Post

But that doesn't change the fact that these are good, entertaining, well-made films. And I love them just as much as I love LotR, even though they don't quite reach that level in quality.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Dec 26 2014, 3:29pm

Post #15 of 34 (736 views)
Shortcut
I can only say for myself [In reply to] Can't Post

I enjoyed the Hobbit very much so. I had quibbles with The Lord of the Rings movies, as I did with the Hobbit. However, for me the essential points of the Hobbit were done well. Thorin's quest, the Arkenstone, his relationship with Bilbo, Smaug, Thranduil, Bard. All of that was basically faithful to the story and I would even say that Thorin was a far deeper and more interesting character in the movie than in the book both due to Boyens writing as well as Armitage's acting.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


Darkstone
Immortal


Dec 26 2014, 3:37pm

Post #16 of 34 (732 views)
Shortcut
Of course not! [In reply to] Can't Post

Needs more Shieldmaidens.

******************************************
"It was a bright cold day in April, and the mantle clock was striking thirteen."


Avandel
Half-elven


Dec 26 2014, 4:08pm

Post #17 of 34 (711 views)
Shortcut
Agree with Lorem Ipsum and Hammy Sammy, among others [In reply to] Can't Post

However it came about, for me, whether by the talents of actors whose performances are so marvelous I feel privileged to have watched, and re-watched them, an often impeccable and beautiful script, scenes of exquisite beauty and pacing combined with the use of both silence and music, the fantastic use and detail of costumes and sets - whatever issues I have with the Hobbit films, (and there are a fair number of those), if I had to choose, I'd would choose the Hobbit films.HeartHeartHeart

Because for me, and I have re-watched LOTR many times, while a magnificent achievement, and there will always be that thrill of seeing something so epic as a book brought to the screen so well (especially for me TTT) there are plenty of issues tooFrown, for everything I thrill to in LOTR. Unsure

And for me there aren't the heart-piercing performances and personalities that took me from the second Bilbo looks nonplussed in the Hobbit, and says "Good morning...?" HeartHeartHeart

Because, at the end of day, after all the theater release excitement, I'll own these movies. And it's the Hobbit movies I find myself replaying, still giggling at Dwalin's arrival at Bag End, still delighted at the charm of it all, still poleaxed when Thorin arrives, still get chills when Gandalf brings the map out "Far to the East..." Now when I re-watch LOTR, I find myself restless, missing MF's Bilbo, missing the Hobbit dwarves, missing Thranduil, missing Smaug, missing Laketown and Mirkwood.

I didn't expect that, as I re-read LOTR about once a year. But that's how I feel.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Dec 26 2014, 4:15pm

Post #18 of 34 (700 views)
Shortcut
Missing characters [In reply to] Can't Post

Avandel I very much agree. With LOTR I did not "miss" the characters at the end of the film. Here I certainly did. I miss Martin Freeman's Bilbo and I mourn the loss of Armitage's Thorin. I want to see more of them. I didn't feel that way with LOTR and as much as I love it, and I do and watch it all the time, I don't know. I just had a different connection to the Hobbit characters. Well said.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


NecromancerRising
Gondor


Dec 26 2014, 4:46pm

Post #19 of 34 (746 views)
Shortcut
My personal opinion and experience. [In reply to] Can't Post

Long before,when it was officially announced that The Hobbit book would be transferred into the big screen i wasn't very excited for the plain reason that i never thought much of the children's book by Tolkien. I always considered it to be the most troubled and most poor offspring of Professor's writings. Hence, i never expected something remarkable beforehand. I always thought that it would be a nice fantasy film but nothing even remotely close to the grandiose Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Soon, an Unexpected Journey arrived and after my first viewing of the film-i have to point out that i had no primal knowledge or any insight about anything during the production process,i literally had not read any reviews,rumours etc.- i was pretty much blown away by the transformation of this cozy fairy tale into a pretty grand adventurous fantasy tale on screen(and is my least favourite of the Hobbit films). But there was also something that became instantly clear after watching AUJ. Jackson made it abundantly clear from the beginning precisely what heĒs doing by expanding on the novelĒs original storyline. Instead of having a straight adaptation which in my opinion would be nothing more than a just charming quest tale,the fantasy equivalent of a caper movie ending with a dead dragon and a big-ass battle, Jackson elevated the Hobbit narrative to its rightful place in the history of Middle Earth. For that reason, the more playful tone of the book (captured nicely in An Unexpected Journey) must inevitably give way to something grimmer, reflecting the increasing menace of the Ring. This, of course, inevitably necessitates giving the film a much more epic feel.

Finally, giving a straight answer to your questions i would definitely claim that a faithful interpretation of the book would not necessarily mean a greater set of films and the Hobbit trilogy as a whole proved to be much better than i had expected beforehand but still believe,given the path Jackson chose to his approach that it could have been even better but not for the reasons you mentioned(a more faithful adaptation). A better realisation in some parts of HIS approach would be my ideal scenario. No major complaints though.

I am still waiting for the Extended Edition of BOTFA to confirm if the opinion i stated above will be established for good as far as i am concerned.

"You cannot find peace by avoiding life"


Avandel
Half-elven


Dec 26 2014, 5:15pm

Post #20 of 34 (656 views)
Shortcut
Thank you for your reply [In reply to] Can't Post

I was glad someone/others could see what I see, and why. I read some critical reviews - not that many, but some - and while there are other threads on reviews I'll just say (again) that I find a few critics' worship - and it is THAT extreme - of LOTR to be baffling.Unsure

Seeing things in LOTR OR the Hobbit that a person feels could have been done better isn't, IMO, a denigration as much as a frustration, in a case where both sets of films are both visionary, innovative, spectacular on many levels.

There will always be things I thrill to in LOTR - like the lighting of the beacons - and moments with the actors themselves that haunt me - or a scene, as when Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas approach Edoras and Wormtongue/Eowyn.HeartHeartHeart

But I never felt so close to any of the characters, or so much PART of Middle Earth, in LOTR as I have with the Hobbit films. Wanting to jump through the screen and tell Gandalf and Thorin to stop bullying Bilbo re Bag EndCool, wanting to charge out to protect Thorin and hurting for him, wanting to just STARE at Thranduil, wishing Smaug would stick around (somehow), wanting Laketown to be real.HeartHeartHeart


Avandel
Half-elven


Dec 26 2014, 5:26pm

Post #21 of 34 (665 views)
Shortcut
Beautifully said! [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Long before, I wasn't very excited for the plain reason that i never thought much of the children's book by Tolkien.


True for me as well. It's LOTR that I have read, and re-read. Because I had not read the Hobbit in so long, my memory of it is fuzzy, and it's been kindly TORn members who have helped me with some book canonSmile, when I needed it (I didn't want to re-read the Hobbit as my brain would not shut itEvil, and still doesn't, all through LOTR re "that didn't happen in the books. He doesn't behave that way. I don't like that. He doesn't look like that...Frown"

LOL for me it's a joy, what PJ has doneHeart. Films I had been "eh" about when first hearing about are now a permanent part of life, whatever "flaws" they may have (which is subjective, of courseCool)




NecromancerRising
Gondor


Dec 26 2014, 5:43pm

Post #22 of 34 (645 views)
Shortcut
This! Exactly. [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Films I had been "eh" about when first hearing about are now a permanent part of life, whatever "flaws" they may have (which is subjective, of courseCool)


"You cannot find peace by avoiding life"


Old Toby
Grey Havens


Dec 26 2014, 6:43pm

Post #23 of 34 (659 views)
Shortcut
Is BOTFA and the Hobbit trilogy really as good as we want it to be? [In reply to] Can't Post

No. It was better! I am interpreting "we want it to be" as "expected or hoped it to be".

At least in my eyes, although there were parts that I did not find 100% to my liking, particularly in the first film, all I all I thoroughly enjoyed them and since there were far more things that surprised and delighted me than not, I can say that for myself these films were a joy to behold.

I am so glad they did not follow the book to the letter. That, I think, would have bored me: faceless gnome-like dwarves, two dimensional characters like Thorin and Thranduil, the complete absence of both Gandalf and Bilbo for large sections of the story, and the minimizing of the deaths of Thorin, Fill and Kili. All the missing blanks wre filled in for us in the films, and in ways I never expected nor thought possible.

I think that your statement that there is a tendency to be overly positive among Tolkien fans is not correct. I have found that the opposite is true, at least amongst staunch book fans who feel that every departure from the story as written is bad. I certainly consider myself a Tolkien fan, and find things I don't care for in the films not because they don't follow the book, but for other reasons.

And hey, what film is "as good as it should be"? Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)

(This post was edited by Old Toby on Dec 26 2014, 6:49pm)


Ann Kalagon
The Shire

Dec 27 2014, 12:07am

Post #24 of 34 (566 views)
Shortcut
Loved it! [In reply to] Can't Post

Avandel's and Old Toby's posts said most of what I am feeling about it. I saw the final film in the IMAX this week and was just swept away with it! I loved it, and I do agree, Old Toby, that in this case, it would have been a mistake to stick to the limits of the book.
As it was written for children and it is shorter, there is far less character development. Some of the Dwarves never even speak a line of dialogue. There are only three Elf characters in Mirkwood (the King, the jailer and one in charge of the shipping of the barrels?) Yes, it made sense to flesh out Thranduil's kingdom. Legolas was there (though not yet invented in the book). And why the heck not have a female elf captain of the guard?

I have no problem either with Kili flirting her up and later developing feelings.

In a film retelling, we did need more of a storyline surrounding the deaths of Thorin and his sister-sons Fili and Kili. It worked well. The use also of the madness that is tied to gold for the Dwarves was a logical choice to show Thorin's contradictions in life.

I was not thrilled about adding Azog and Bolg to the plotlines, initially. However, that being said, that they were added to create a greater understanding of the dangers to the Dwarves' Quest of Erebor also worked.

The showing of the White Council going to Dol Guldur to deal with the Necromancer, who is seen to be Sauron, was also really well-done considering that there is next to no book language detailing what that fight looked like, how it went down.

Smaug's attack on Laketown and the outcome was just fantastic. I was practically jumping out of my seat in excitement.

Yes, I would have liked a little more Beorn and the Eagles, but the book did not give us that much either.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Dec 27 2014, 12:19am

Post #25 of 34 (560 views)
Shortcut
In my opinion [In reply to] Can't Post

Had they just followed the book Thorin would have been a completely forgettable character as would most of the dwarves. I'm glad the changes were made that were made and I'm glad it was 3 movies, not two.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.