|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Jan 14 2015, 12:40am
Post #1 of 55
(1418 views)
Shortcut
|
Has The Hobbit been left behind in BotFA?
|
Can't Post
|
|
So I've been very late to see BotFA. The earlier two films had a few great scenes (dwarves singing at Bag End; riddling with Gollum; Bilbo's encounter with Smaug) but had left me largely disappointed. However I eventually decided I'd give BotFA a try and see if Jackson had recaptured some of his old magic. My overriding impression was that BoTFA was flat and monotone- one very very long series of action sequences, slow-mos and boss fights. Far too close to watching someone play Skyrim or World of Warcraft. The wit, colour and magic of the book is sadly lacking. The character relationships on which the story hangs don't really get going. Thorin's dragon sickness comes straight-away, and with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Without sympathy for his character, the key relationship with Bilbo loses it's drama and pathos. Similarly the other relationships the screenwriters tried to develop like the Legolas-Tauriel-Kili love triangle were somewhat bitty and shallow (and with some seriously bad dialogue- "why does it hurt??" *cringe*). And the antagonists of Bolg and Azog struggle to be characters at all. But that's not what I wanted to ask... I wanted to ask whether Bilbo is somehow lost in this film. Martin Freeman is great casting, the film lit up whenever he came on screen. Yet his character just seemed like a minor player. With all the effort to try and turn The Hobbit story into a BIG SERIOUS EPIC of strategic battles, blood-feuds and executions, the heart of the story seems to have disappeared. They didn't even manage Thorin's funeral and a proper ending (yes I guess it will be in the EE, but I think killing ogre number 36+ could have been cut to give the film some meaningful conclusion). For me the main problem is that the three film adaptation cuts across the main character arcs between films 2 & 3. Smaug's destruction only makes sense coming straight after the Bilbo encounter (and why remove Bilbo's role spotting Smaug's weakspot?- again lessening the protagonist). And Thorin's dragon sickness needs the contrast of the earlier camaraderie to be meaningful. Leaving the third film as simply a big battle scene makes for a very incomplete story. The film for me felt more like King Kong than Tolkien. Am I being too harsh? It's strange to think the same screenwriters who made LotR could have produced this adaptation.
(This post was edited by burrahobbit on Jan 14 2015, 12:41am)
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jan 14 2015, 1:05am
Post #2 of 55
(736 views)
Shortcut
|
I thought Bilbo was very much at the centre of the film and acted, as he does in the text most vitally, as the heartbeat of the audience, making all of the "human" decisions in the midst of the strange and overwhelming. I was actually rather surprised at how well this was achieved given that Bilbo spends a fair chunk of the eponymous battle unconscious in the text (oh and the end, ironically, is all about Bilbo's perspective rather than state funerals and swords and crowns! )
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jan 14 2015, 1:09am
Post #3 of 55
(699 views)
Shortcut
|
I must say, I completely disagree with you
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
For me, BoFA is the best of all The Hobbit films, and possibly my favourite of all the ME films. And no, I don't think Bilbo has been lost in the film – in fact, I feel Bilbo and Thorin have the most prominent, and most emotional, arcs in the film. I think the whole film is beautifully done, with great acting and magnificent visuals, the like of which I have never seen before. (Which isn't to say that I wouldn't have liked to see more at the end of the film, which was cut off a bit too abruptly for my liking. I look forward to the EE very much.) Sorry you didn't like it – I've seen it seven times now, and counting.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Jan 14 2015, 1:21am
Post #4 of 55
(679 views)
Shortcut
|
Perhaps you are reacting to the pace of the film
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The film for me felt more like King Kong than Tolkien. Am I being too harsh? It's strange to think the same screenwriters who made LotR could have produced this adaptation. E.g., my first viewing I thought of the pace as "rollicking" - like watching POTC or the Mummy films. Even tho - and this type of thing has been commented on in other threads - IMO the strength of the performances for me came through, and some moments like the "look at me" moment, Thorin/Bilbo I think were given loving attention. But I expected something like the tone of TTT, and received exactly what PJ said he was going to do - a fast thriller pace. I can't say you are being too harsh, in that while I personally feel thanks to the actors' skill, both Bilbo and Thorin are film highlights, and most certainly Bilbo does not get lost - but. I did feel - over seven viewings - a sense of those highlight performances almost being flooded at times with the pace of the film, and that there is no time to "luxuriate" in them. In later viewings - one of the reasons I think this film deserves several views - I am used to it enough to "tune out the noise" and concentrate on the actors' performances more. Other places IMO like the line you reference - again IMO a scene w. Tauriel is dragged on too long, evidently to ratchet the pathos in this case - where that line should have been clipped, and the scene would have been more effective. Tauriel is not a twelve-year old girl and that's what this felt like, to me. Inappropriate for the character. So, re your post, not everything you mention bothers me, but certainly I personally am not a fan of the rapid pace, even if many critics are, and can see where I would have edited some things. And added more dwarf company interaction. I would differ with you re Azog, re for me his performance comes through, but even re BOFA it is tough for me to take Bolg "seriously" - maybe it's the dead eye and expressionless face, but I have never been able to get worked up over Bolg as a villain. The orc in DG seemed more menacing.
Hó , Það sé ég föður minn Hó , Það sé ég móður mína, og Hó, Það sé ég bræður mínir og systur mínar Hó , Það sé ég mitt fólk aftur í byrjun Hó, gera Þeir kalla til mín, og bjóða mér að taka minn stað meðal þeirra í sölum Valhallar Hvar hugrakkir mun lifa að eilífu
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Jan 14 2015, 1:23am
Post #5 of 55
(685 views)
Shortcut
|
First of all, these films are definitely not the book. They are rather a dramatic adaptation/retelling of the events in Tolkien's mythology called The Quest of Erebor. But, to my mind, they are not The Hobbit. That said, no I do not believe that the character of the hobbit - Bilbo Baggins - is left behind. I believe, especially in this last film, that he featured quite prominently. Does he remain the sole lead of the story, as in Tolkien's original book? No. I think this film is possessed of two co-leads - the other being Thorin Oakenshield. But the relationship and bond of these two characters is instrumental in the structure of the entire story, and lends to the vast majority of (what I consider to be) the emotional potency of this final installment.
"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 Jan 14 2015, 1:26am)
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Jan 14 2015, 1:23am
Post #6 of 55
(686 views)
Shortcut
|
Is Thorin's funeral not also from Bilbo's perspective?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The returning of the Arkenstone to Thorin completes the Bilbo-Thorin relationship. And then Bilbo's humble request for two small chests of treasure from all the riches sums up his character and completion of the quest. I just thought after such a long battle we needed dwarves, elves and men to stand together and mark the fallen. The lines about Bilbo returning to Erebor and Dale when it is green and rich again are important at least in the book
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jan 14 2015, 1:25am
Post #7 of 55
(656 views)
Shortcut
|
What Spriggan and Glorfindela said.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In the book we see everything through Bilbo's point of view, which keeps him on our radar. But aside from the theft of the Arkenstone, he does very little in this part of the story. IMO movie Bilbo is definitely more present and less passive.
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Jan 14 2015, 1:30am
Post #8 of 55
(650 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes he's not active in this part of the story
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But they have chosen to massively extend the part of the story where the protagonist doesn't really feature into an entire three hour film. That's what I mean about cutting the character arcs
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Jan 14 2015, 1:37am
Post #9 of 55
(646 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes it's the pace and lack of contrast
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think Tolkien's stories always have a great rhythm to them, with exciting action based chapters woven together with character interaction scenes, the sense of a journey and exploring Middle Earth. If I think back to my favourite scenes from the LotR films, I wouldn't say they were battles (although Helms Deep is superb) they'd be Moria, the Argonath, Gandalf and Pippin at Minas Tirith, encountering Gollum... By only taking these few Hobbit chapters, I felt there was very little exploring and character development, compared to what must have been at least an hour of fighting scenes.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Jan 14 2015, 1:46am
Post #10 of 55
(659 views)
Shortcut
|
Not so strongly as the screen version, I would argue.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Which is very personally Bilbo's view. The funeral in the text is, it must be said, perfunctory, and not particularly Bilbo centric - he says nothing, we hear nothing of his thoughts or feelings etc. It's primarily through the lens of the narrator, rather than the hobbit, I would suggest.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Jan 14 2015, 1:48am
Post #11 of 55
(648 views)
Shortcut
|
I think the problem is you're too invested in Bilbo...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If you only care about Bilbo and don't care about the other characters then of course you're going to think he isn't featured enough. Everytime another character is on screen, instead of thinking about that character's story arc, you're thinking "where's Bilbo?". The trick is to concentrate on and enjoy the other characters' stories. If you want Bilbo's story read the book, but the film tells the story of all the characters from the perspective of Eru. How many of your favorite LotR scenes feature Frodo? I'm sure you wouldn't say he was lost in his own story.
(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Jan 14 2015, 1:49am)
|
|
|
Annatar598
Rohan
Jan 14 2015, 2:00am
Post #12 of 55
(645 views)
Shortcut
|
These movies are meant to be viewed as parts to one story
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Thorin's dragon sickness and downfall have been foreshadowed in AUJ and begin in DOS at the hidden door. Whatever the consensus on these movies, I do believe that this trilogy of films is far more faithful to the book than LOTR. The old belief that one book strictly equals one movie is just that: an old belief. It's only books these days that feel as if they were made for movie adaptations that people still uphold this belief. I do not think classic literature can be adapted perfectly in one book. It stil befuddles me that this trilogy is made fun of on the net. I do doubt that these people circulating those memes and all have read the Hobbit or ever a book longer than 200 pages.
"[Annatar598] is an overzealous apologist [for PJ]" - Certain TORn member. Really? Alright... Well, proud to be one I guess.
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Jan 14 2015, 2:02am
Post #13 of 55
(648 views)
Shortcut
|
It's the filmmakers' job to encourage the viewer to care about characters. I'd argue that the writers failed to develop their new characters, partly because they spent the majority of the time showing action sequences of CGI orcs being hacked to pieces. And secondly because the writing is often of poor quality, with lines and plot devices repeated from LotR. I wanted to care about Thorin- Richard Armitage is a great actor. But as I said, he spends all the first half of the film being very grim with the dragon sickness. By covering so few chapters in this film we don't get the contrast of his more sympathetic earlier role. Note I'm not some complete outlier in my interpretation of this film as you imply, and certainly do not spend the film thinking "where's Bilbo?". BotFA has had by far the weakest critical reception of any of PJ's Middle Earth films. It's close to being ranked as rotten on RT. The Frodo comparison makes little sense, LotR is a very different story with multiple protagonists.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Jan 14 2015, 2:15am
Post #14 of 55
(620 views)
Shortcut
|
I didn't mean to imply anything negative, sorry...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I just meant that while other characters are on-screen, your thoughts may drift to Bilbo too much, especially if you consider him the single protagonist - as your final line implies. (I'm sure you still follow the story as much as any of us, the difference is you're expecting this to be Bilbo's tale and no one else's) The Frodo comparison fits fine because, like LotR, The Hobbit also has multiple protagonists. It's the viewers' failure to realise this that leads them to think the story is focusing on the wrong things. That is exactly why it's gotten bad reviews. IMO, critics expect this to be Bilbo's tale, when it's not. And when that surprises them they generally react badly to it because it's not what they expected or because they spent the film having no emotional investment in any of the main characters' stories - because they thought they were supposed to be concentrating on Bilbo.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Jan 14 2015, 2:38am
Post #15 of 55
(616 views)
Shortcut
|
My feeling is that once Bilbo is relegated to one character amongst many in a kind of objective telling of the story, there isn't much for him to do. In the book the story is played from his perspective; the tale never leaves Bilbo to explore other goings on. In this sense the entirety of the tale is his experience. For this to work on screen Jackson would have had to adopted an entirely different kind of storytelling, and one that may not have fit with LOTR. Should he have done that? I have no idea. But it's a film I would have loved to have seen.
|
|
|
arithmancer
Grey Havens
Jan 14 2015, 2:41am
Post #16 of 55
(599 views)
Shortcut
|
In so doing, they gave the protagonist things to do in that section of the film that the book did not. They gave him a specific role in the battle itself (warning Thorin of Bolg's army), and they wrote scenes relating to the Arkenstone decision. (Including my favorite, the one in which a suspicious Thorin catches Bilbo looking at the acorn he picked up in Beorn's garden). I thought this aided in keeping him central to the film, and gave more weight to his decision to give the stone to Thranduil/Bard (the most important thing he does in the book, in this section). It worked for me, anyway, I have walked away with a greater appreciation for Freeman's performance and a greater liking for the film Bilbo character.
|
|
|
Bladerunner
Gondor
Jan 14 2015, 2:50am
Post #17 of 55
(610 views)
Shortcut
|
It's interesting and ironic that although the producers did not have rights to, and the films actually do not reference any of the dialogue or events from The Quest of Erebor, (and it appears that the writers were obliged to change things slightly here and there to ensure that they didn't do so inadvertently), many people still associate the films with The Quest of Erebor. One telling difference is that while in The Quest of Erebor Gandalf discourages open confrontation with Smaug -
"Far away here, I wonder if you fully realize the strength of a great dragon......Open war would be quite useless and anyway it is impossible for you to arrange it. You will have to try something simpler if not bolder, indeed something desperate." .. in the film, Gandalf does the opposite and encourages open confrontation with Smaug -
"Unite the armies of the Dwarves. Together, you have the might and power to retake Erebor. Summon a meeting of the seven dwarf families. Demand they stand their oath to the one who wields the King's Jewel. The Arkenstone." It makes for an interestingly subtle yet profound difference in the portrayal of the events.
They are rather a dramatic adaptation/retelling of the events in Tolkien's mythology called The Quest of Erebor.
(This post was edited by Bladerunner on Jan 14 2015, 2:52am)
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Jan 14 2015, 2:54am
Post #18 of 55
(590 views)
Shortcut
|
Poor choice of words on my part
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I wasn't referring specifically to the tale of The Quest of Erebor, found in the appendices (the meeting between Thorin and Gandalf) - but rather the overall events depicted in The Hobbit.
"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
|
|
|
HeWhoArisesinMight
Rivendell
Jan 14 2015, 3:29am
Post #19 of 55
(591 views)
Shortcut
|
Bilbo is somewhat diminished in the film...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I agree with your points, although I enjoyed the movie. One must understand that as a follower of all thins Tolkien, one could be (slightly) disappointed in the adaptation of the film, yet still find the film entertaining and rewarding. This is what's called a mixed reaction. All that being said, there are two points I don't understand why PJ didn't use from the book that would not have been difficult to add to the movie. As you point out, Bilbo was anguished that Smaug was headed to Laketown to destroy it. This is depicted at the end of DoS. But why didn't they insert his small act of telling the thrush about Smaug's weak spot and sending that to Dale. This was CRUCIAL to Bard slaying Smaug, and has great weight. But it is surprisingly and inexplicably removed. This demonstrates how Bilbo's small acts have big repercussions. Also, when Bilbo offers the Arkenstone to Thranduil and Bard, while Gandalf is present (in the book he is, but he is not present if I recall correctly in the movie). This is a KEY MOMENT of Bilbo's growth in the film, and but Thrandruil and Bard react very tellingly. At first they do not understand Bilbo's logic, indeed Bilbo struggles with the decision to keep the stone (Martin Freeman and PJ do a good job in my opinion of showing his internal struggle). Yet, it is what they tell him at the end about his act, and how they grown in respect for this small creature who is willing to sacrifice himself to stop a war. I have to re-read the book, but I believe Gandalf has some prediction for Bilbo in that scene. Anyway, those two scenes could have been 100 times more effective in the movie than the hundreds of beheaded Orcs that we saw five times earlier in the other films. I like the battle scenes, but they drowned out some of the more poignant moments. I also think they could have spent a few minutes showing the reconciliation between the Elves, Men and Dwarves. This proves key because they form a unified front when Sauron sends his forces against the North in LOTR. Another reason this is important is because Bilbo helps bring these groups together. I won't even get into my thoughts about Beorn.... I was anticipating something great for him, but there are plenty of threads that rant about that sacrilege...
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Jan 14 2015, 3:39am
Post #21 of 55
(564 views)
Shortcut
|
and I am sorry you did not. I know it's tough especially when you really want to see something on screen you've waited to see. I didn't feel Bilbo was minimized and I thought BoT5A in particular had him very much in focus although there was a lot of stuff going on overall with Dol Guldur, the battle, destruction of Laketown etc. I was pleased that Bilbo was not knocked out for the entire battle and was present at Ravenhill and I felt the scene between him and Thorin was just spot on. I think many of us had in our head how the film should be, myself included. I guess I was able to put that aside and just enjoy it but I'm sorry you could not.
All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you, Gandalf the Grey
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Jan 14 2015, 3:46am
Post #22 of 55
(566 views)
Shortcut
|
It's hard to imagine someone following up this blockbuster with something along the lines of what we're talking about; a more quiet, Bilbo centric film seems almost impossible. Possibly an animated film or some other kind of telling could happen. Whatever the case, it certainly wouldn't be blockbuster material, at least until the general public accepts fantasy as a legitimate kind of drama. It's a bit sad in a way that the Hobbit didn't have that layer of restraint, as I would be beside myself to see a "Hobbit-centric" film with Martin Freeman in the lead. IN any case, Jackson DID legitimize the fantasy genre in a sense with his LOTR films, not to mention the incredible leaps in film making. For that he'll always be my hero. :)
(This post was edited by Bishop on Jan 14 2015, 3:47am)
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Jan 14 2015, 3:54am
Post #23 of 55
(541 views)
Shortcut
|
Not all games are action, shooting and fighting afterall. It can actually be a diverse, and useful medium for slower, character based story-telling. It would have to be very unique play style, but in the right hands, with future tech I could see a new Middle-earth adaptation happening.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Jan 14 2015, 4:12am
Post #24 of 55
(530 views)
Shortcut
|
Though the mediums are so radically different. I had a fun time playing The Hobbit game a few year back. It's an interesting take on the environments, music, and storytelling. But film is the medium that speaks to me most. Sometimes things come ridiculously close to the spirit of the source, like the renowned BBC LOTR radio adaptation; that one had me stuck for years believing that an audio adaptation was the closest we might get to greatness. But sometimes a film or films come along that prove they stand up with the best of the best. Jackson's LOTR did that for me. It might have been too much to hope for that he could repeat that monumental feat.
(This post was edited by Bishop on Jan 14 2015, 4:13am)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Jan 14 2015, 4:15am
Post #25 of 55
(577 views)
Shortcut
|
Book verses Movie - impossible on this one
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am not a book verses movie person what i want is a very good film in the spirit of Tolkien. The concluding part of the Hobbit book is one of JRRT's most challenging moments How do you finish it after the main antagonist has died. His answer was to go all geo political and Silmarillion like but he then realised he had to place the actual battle in the background otherwise presenting all of the battle in real time would have been completely out of keeping with the rest of the book and overturned its cohesion. I am perfectly cool with how Bilbo was presented in the film. However why I think people may have the perception he is devalued is because he is included in a very complicated narrative which takes your eye away from him. Put simply for some there are to many distractions There was a point in this film when it could have gone horribly wrong but it was saved by the presentation of the Ravenhill. It took the key protagonists away from the battle and let their arcs complete rather like it would have presented in the theatre with the battle being noises off. The focus at the raven hill was spot on. However Thorins fall and Bilbos arkenstone arc could have had more dramatic impact if one other plot line and its sub plots had been closed out earlier -The Lake towners and Bard and Alfrid. The Dale skirmishes, the restating of Bards heroism and Alfrid's averice were made over and over again. For me the lake towners should have remained by the Lake, Alfrid should have completed by the Lake and Bard should have been accepted by the Lake and simply be seen in the battle in front of the gate to cooperate with Thranduil and Dain as the leader he had exoffico become of men. By leaving those arcs open they distract from the core of the story what is gong on either side of the barricade. In that respect PJ should have followed JRRT.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Jan 14 2015, 4:22am)
|
|
|
|
|