Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles 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
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Let me repeat this - the Hobbit moves were GREAT!!!
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Kilidoescartwheels
Tol Eressea


Oct 27 2017, 9:54pm

Post #1 of 29 (20376 views)
Shortcut
Let me repeat this - the Hobbit moves were GREAT!!! Can't Post

Yep, right off the bat - controversy, hehe.Evil I know not everybody is going to agree with me, and that's fine. To each is own, but remember one fan's trash is another fan's treasure. I will try to keep this brief, but here are my reasons why I think these movies were great.


1. First off, PJ had an obvious vision and love of Middle-earth. He brought the world to life in his LoTR movies, and I was most happy to re-visit that world in the Hobbit. Yeah okay, he used more CGI and less models, but there were still some fantastic sets built: Hobbiton (which I toured), Mirkwood, Dale and Laketown. PLUS as I mentioned in another post, some absolutely breathtaking on-location filming: Lake Pukaki, Denise' Bluffs, and my favorite Earnslaw Burn (which I did NOT get to tourUnsure). And then there were the costumes, and the armor and weapons, and SMAUG!!! Best CGI Ever! And no matter how much someone may dislike the look of some of the Dwarves, you can't fault the talent PJ cast for his characters. That guy really knows how to cast a part! And let's not forget the fight scenes - I could write an entire post on just that!


2. Second, and probably more important, I thought the movies were an improvement over the book. Heresy, I know, but I really wasn't all that thrilled with the book. It was a good story, but it wasn't great IMO, for 3 reasons: Underdeveloped characters (e.g., most of the Dwarves), Gandalf just disappearing and reappearing with no explanation, and both nephews dying. Yeah, I felt that way long before Fili and Kili were cast. So okay, the Dwarves were still underused, and as the movies progressed this became more apparent, but they still had more personality in the movies than they were ever given in the book. And I liked that Thorin was changed from a grumpy old git to a warrior Dwarf, which really fits his history as told in the LoTR Appendices, and I like that PJ included a snippet of that in AUJ. Further, I also thought making more of the Dwarves into experienced warriors was a good move. In the book they just seemed like bumbling scardy-cats, which might work if you're filming a comedy but really not so much as a prequel to LoTR. And their plan to get the Arkenstone and reclaim their homeworld does sound a lot better than just trying to grab some gold, IMO.


As for Gandalf's disappearing act, I've been told that this was also explained in LoTR, but to see it within the story itself was to me, a great improvement. I thought the whole White Council was a great addition that helped explain the story and set up the return of Sauron in LoTR (which was also pretty close to what was relayed in the LoTR books).


Now, were the movies perfect? Well, what movie is? As much as I love these movies, there are still a few things I'd change, a few minor tweaks here and there. I would have loved a scene with Bilbo telling the Dwarves about the Riddles, but I get that not everything can be included. The biggest cannon change that I don't care for would be leaving 4 Dwarves behind in Laketown. But I understand there was a scheduling conflict with Jimmie Nesbitt that necessitated the change, and having some Dwarves in Laketown during Smaug's rampage was IMO also a good move. You got a first-hand account of the devastation from characters you've followed for two movies. But one thing the movies didn't change was that (suck-rotten) ending. (The acting between Richard & Martin was phenomenal, though.) But that ending actually helped me appreciate the book better - it helped me realize this was Bilbo's story after all - and the auction scene was HILARIOUS! So again, this is all just my opinion - just a reminder that not everyone thought the movies were awful. And I'm not alone - there's a reason the movies did so well at the box-office!

Check out my new book here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521753377


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Oct 28 2017, 12:40am

Post #2 of 29 (20260 views)
Shortcut
You’re right! [In reply to] Can't Post

...in that not everybody is going to agree with you. Tongue

Actually, in fairness, there’s quite a bit in the movies that I really like. But there’s also a lot that I really don’t.

For the record, though, I adore the book - every square inch of it. So you definitely won’t find me agreeing with you on that score.

"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


Fereth
Rivendell


Oct 28 2017, 12:46am

Post #3 of 29 (20255 views)
Shortcut
Agreed! [In reply to] Can't Post

 Cool


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Oct 28 2017, 5:38am

Post #4 of 29 (20229 views)
Shortcut
Also... [In reply to] Can't Post

...the films resulted in some other things that I'm incredibly appreciative of, i.e. three more extraordinary Howard Shore musical scores & hours and hours of amazing documentaries on the making of the films.

As for the films themselves, I'm more positive than I probably made out in my initial reply. It's just that the things I didn't care for when I first saw the films have only fallen in my esteem since then. But thankfully, there are many parts of the films that delighted me then, and continue to do so now. Smile

"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


Noria
Gondor

Oct 28 2017, 12:37pm

Post #5 of 29 (20198 views)
Shortcut
Agreed [In reply to] Can't Post

I love these movies without thinking they are perfect. As with LotR. there are things I dislike and choices made by PJ with which I disagree but those are small ripples in a sea of goodness.

I also agree with Aragorn the Elfstone about the scores. Beautiful. Listening to the soundtrack of DOS the other day inspired me to watch the movie again and then BOTFA, Enjoyed them both thoroughly!


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 28 2017, 3:43pm

Post #6 of 29 (20182 views)
Shortcut
I'll mostly (largely?) agree. [In reply to] Can't Post

The Hobbit movies have lots to recommend them, though I find none of them flawless (sorry, Kilidoescartwheels). I've gone over the issues that I have with them so many times that I don't feel the need to do so here.

"Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he."


DigificWriter
Rivendell

Oct 28 2017, 4:16pm

Post #7 of 29 (20176 views)
Shortcut
As adaptations... [In reply to] Can't Post

... the Hobbit Trilogy is every bit as good as the LotR Trilogy, with emphasis on the word adaptation.

Contrary to what some people want others to believe, the additions to/subtractions from the Hobbit novel that its film adaptations contain are not problematic in and of themselves because they represent what an adaptation is supposed to do, which is to change things from the original source in order to create something that is in some way unique and different.

Debate can and should be had as to whether the additions/subtractions made by Peter and Co. worked within the larger narrative framework of the story as they chose to tell it, but the very act of making those additions/subtractions is not and should not be considered a strike against the films.

At any rate, I agree that the Hobbit Trilogy is great,, with Battle of the Five Armies being my personal favorite because of its thematic elements and the performances of Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 28 2017, 5:27pm

Post #8 of 29 (20168 views)
Shortcut
It depends. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
... the Hobbit Trilogy is every bit as good as the LotR Trilogy, with emphasis on the word adaptation.

Contrary to what some people want others to believe, the additions to/subtractions from the Hobbit novel that its film adaptations contain are not problematic in and of themselves because they represent what an adaptation is supposed to do, which is to change things from the original source in order to create something that is in some way unique and different.


Not all changes are equal. I am often bugged by alterations that defy internal story-logic; some of those are definitely present in the three Hobbit films. Sometimes changes just don't feel right, but those are much more subjective. And I would argue that the primary reason to make changes in an adaptation is to make the story work better for the medium in which it is being told. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with putting a new spin on the story.

"Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he."

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Oct 28 2017, 5:29pm)


Bracegirdle
Valinor


Oct 28 2017, 6:03pm

Post #9 of 29 (20168 views)
Shortcut
And then there was J.R.R. Tolkien [In reply to] Can't Post

 

In Reply To
To each is own, but remember one fan's trash is another fan's treasure.


Trash is too severe a word, but agreed. And 'treasure' is too gracious a word for me. CGI is eye-candy (seems to be needed today for that "WOW" factor that often (mostly?) has nothing to do with the progress of the film). Some of the best films ever made have none - no special effects whatsoever - just wonderful character development and great camera workmanship - can make a tale worth watching.


In Reply To
He brought the world to life in his LoTR movies,

Agreed! Yet his deviations from Tolkien's masterpiece caused me to go into seizure. I'm no moviemaker but I find in many (most?) cases no practical reason for a "lover" of Tolkien to vary our tale so severely and often unnecessarily.


In Reply To
. Second, and probably more important, I thought the movies were an improvement over the book ... It was a good story

Because they were semi-totally different? Because they were filled with (book) non-existent characters? Or because they were filled with treats for the eyes? It is a wonderful children's tale and the internal imagination should overpower the physical visual treats.


In Reply To
Gandalf just disappearing and reappearing with no explanation, and both nephews dying.

Explanations were given, although they may have been, inadequate "Gandalf explanations" for some (checking the road ahead, business away south ...). Not good enough for a children's book? Yes, Fili and Kili were killed defending their uncle. A tragedy. (Did you not want this to happen? Or if I misinterpret - sorry!)


In Reply To
In the book they just seemed like bumbling scardy-cats, which might work if you're filming a comedy but really not so much as a prequel to LoTR.

Right, Tolkien wasn't filming a comedy, nor writing a comedy. He was writing of 13 Dwarves (scardy-cats), a Wizard, and one Hobbit. His intent IMO was to show the hidden intestinal fortitude of Bilbo. To do so entailed including some 'bumbling' Dwarves.


In Reply To
But that ending actually helped me appreciate the book better - it helped me realize this was Bilbo's story after all - and the auction scene was HILARIOUS!

Hip-hip! Join the few the proud the Mar . . . nevermind.


In Reply To
So again, this is all just my opinion

And mine too. *Curmudgeon off*

‘. . . the rule of no realm is mine . . .
But all worthy things that are in peril . . . those are my care.
For I also am a steward. Did you not know?'

Gandalf to Denethor




Kilidoescartwheels
Tol Eressea


Oct 30 2017, 2:44am

Post #10 of 29 (20017 views)
Shortcut
HOWDY!!! [In reply to] Can't Post

Well your reply was interesting - and I feel I might need to reply/clarify a few of your points:

In Reply To
He brought the world to life in his LoTR movies,
"Agreed! Yet his deviations from Tolkien's masterpiece caused me to go into seizure. I'm no moviemaker but I find in many (most?) cases no practical reason for a "lover" of Tolkien to vary our tale so severely and often unnecessarily."

Really? Just out of curiosity, which ones?

In Reply To
. Second, and probably more important, I thought the movies were an improvement over the book ... It was a good story
"Because they were semi-totally different? Because they were filled with (book) non-existent characters? Or because they were filled with treats for the eyes? It is a wonderful children's tale and the internal imagination should overpower the physical visual treats."

Yeah, I get that there are loads of people out there who liked the book way better than I did. Sorry, I didn't think the children's story was all that wonderful, but then again I was an adult when I read it. It occurs to me that maybe THAT is the problem? I personally didn't feel that the movies were "filled" with non-existent characters. Yes, there was Tauriel and Alfrid, and some people from Laketown besides Bard who (shock!) actually had NAMES! And Bard actually had a personality - will wonders never cease??? Anyway, I think I've already explained it - yes I thought the book Dwarves were TERRIBLY underdeveloped, and no amount of "internal imagination" could overcome that lack of anything substantial to grasp hold of. And the other two problems I mentioned had nothing to do with "physical visual treats." Which brings me to:

In Reply To
Gandalf just disappearing and reappearing with no explanation, and both nephews dying.
"Explanations were given, although they may have been, inadequate "Gandalf explanations" for some (checking the road ahead, business away south ...). Not good enough for a children's book? Yes, Fili and Kili were killed defending their uncle. A tragedy. (Did you not want this to happen? Or if I misinterpret - sorry!)"

I don't recall ANY explanation for why Gandalf had to abandon the party at Mirkwood, or where he went, or why he showed up in the middle of negotiations between Bard, Thranduil and Thorin. (Btw, I didn't feel that book Thorin was under any obligation to share the treasure, and book Bard was a jerk for demandiing a twelfth share - two other things the movies "fixed," IMO). I don't think you are misinterpreting the Fili/Kili tragedy - I really thought that sucked in the book, and that probably more than anything put me off the story. I just don't think Tolkien should have killed off both of them, so sue me. It would have been a better ending for me at least if one of them had survived. And no, I wouldn't have minded at all if PJ had gone that route, though I can just imagine all the screams and howling from the book fans if he'd done that, LOL!ShockedShockedMad


In Reply To
In the book they just seemed like bumbling scardy-cats, which might work if you're filming a comedy but really not so much as a prequel to LoTR.
"Right, Tolkien wasn't filming a comedy, nor writing a comedy. He was writing of 13 Dwarves (scardy-cats), a Wizard, and one Hobbit. His intent IMO was to show the hidden intestinal fortitude of Bilbo. To do so entailed including some 'bumbling' Dwarves."

And there were some bumbling Dwarves included in the movie - some were out of their depth (Ori), some were damaged (Bifur), and some were there for a good time (Bofur) or to try and get some gold (Nori, most likely). But they didn't ALL have to be bumbling scardy-cats, and as I said movie Thorin is closer to the Thorin described in the Appendices - a true Warrior with a plan. And why should he be the only one? It makes sense to me at least that Balin, Dwalin and Gloin would also be experienced Warriors; in fact isn't the Dwarven culture somewhat militaristic as described by Tolkien? And you can disagree with me on this, but I believe the "hidden intestinal fortitude of Bilbo" was on display throughout the movie. In fact, other critics have complained that Bilbo was "John McClained"; yeah maybe a little.


In short, we're all entitled to our opinions, and these are based more on personal preference than anything else. Plus I just like to chat with people - and I really do love these movies, eye candy included!HeartEvil



But eye candy isn't the ONLY reason, just sayin'....


Check out my new book here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521753377


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Oct 30 2017, 4:49am

Post #11 of 29 (20000 views)
Shortcut
Gandalf's Business [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I don't recall ANY explanation for why Gandalf had to abandon the party at Mirkwood, or where he went, or why he showed up in the middle of negotiations between Bard, Thranduil and Thorin.


I don't want to answer for Bracegirdle, so I'm only addressing this one question. Gandalf's business in the South is alluded to several times during the story, including a reference to his finishing up about the time that the company reached Lake-town, and beginning to think about heading back North to check up on Bilbo and the Dwarves. The explanation, though, came during Bilbo's return journey when he and Gandalf stopped at Rivendell. That is when we learned that Gandalf and "a great council of white wizards" (an early reference to what would become the White Council) drove the Necromancer out of Mirkwood Forest. Tolkien seemingly already had a pretty good idea of the identity of the Necromancer, but that wouldn't become relevant until he started writing the sequel to The Hobbit.

"Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he."

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Oct 30 2017, 4:50am)


Hamfast Gamgee
Grey Havens

Oct 30 2017, 7:07am

Post #12 of 29 (19988 views)
Shortcut
I agree up to a point [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that I do prefer the book, but then the book was also great! And I understand why Tolkien made some of the Dwarves little more than a semi-humourous note, but it was nice to see some fleshed out a little. Although some others did little more in the movies than they did in the book. One other thing I noticed about the Hobbit movies was that they had time to put back things in the films which had to be moved from the Lotr series. The Atheles scene for example. But overall, I for one quite liked the movies.


Laineth
Lorien

Nov 3 2017, 4:43pm

Post #13 of 29 (19749 views)
Shortcut
Yes! [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Yep, right off the bat - controversy, hehe.Evil I know not everybody is going to agree with me, and that's fine. To each is own, but remember one fan's trash is another fan's treasure.
[cut]
2. Second, and probably more important, I thought the movies were an improvement over the book. Heresy, I know, but I really wasn't all that thrilled with the book.


I agree completely! It's nice to know I'm not alone. Smile

I'm at work and this is an appreciation thread, so I'm not going to get into my reasons right now, but TH book is really the only Middle-earth text/book I dislike. The films went above and beyond my expectations, and literally fixed every issue I have with the original text.

They have some minor imperfections, of course (like Bilbo saying "days"); but overall they are amazing. Although they haven't outed RotK as my fav! Tongue BotFA is a close second, though.


Quote
So again, this is all just my opinion - just a reminder that not everyone thought the movies were awful. And I'm not alone - there's a reason the movies did so well at the box-office!


My personal experience has been that there are a lot of fans that love them that aren't online.


dormouse
Half-elven


Nov 9 2017, 4:19pm

Post #14 of 29 (19460 views)
Shortcut
Repeat it all you like..... [In reply to] Can't Post

... it's a joy to hear it again! Smile

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


Petty Dwarf
Bree


Nov 10 2017, 2:23am

Post #15 of 29 (19419 views)
Shortcut
Personally, I'm not these films' biggest fan... [In reply to] Can't Post

...but there are things I loved about them. Howard Shore's scores were perfect. I loved the casting and the costumes, definitely wouldn't have changed a thing about those.

"No words were laid on stream or stone
When Durin woke and walked alone."


Silmaril
Rohan


Nov 14 2017, 8:35am

Post #16 of 29 (19317 views)
Shortcut
AUJ is great, DOS and BOTFA are good. [In reply to] Can't Post

I rewatched the trilogy and I have to say that I'm more confident with the movies than some years ago. I love how Bilbo is portrayed and good old Gandalf the Grey. Their conversations are the main factor why I enjoy the films. The prologue, Hobbiton, Rivendell...wonderful. Also Thorin and Balin are well done. They won my heart.

I'm still not a fan of those overdone and unrealistic action scenes (sled chase, goblin king, barrel escape, chariot...), Alfrid, Dain and this strange love story. The lowpoint for me is still the Smaug chase and the golden dwarf statue, this doesn't fit in my opinion.

So it's still far away from LOTR for me, but there is some really good stuff!


Eruonen
Valinor


Nov 16 2017, 4:46am

Post #17 of 29 (19241 views)
Shortcut
Are you referring to the theatrical or EE editions? [In reply to] Can't Post

For me, EE really helped smooth out some choppy areas and improved the experience. There are many many things I liked but there some things that I was never a fan of and still bother me. Most are what I have referred to as PJ pushing the unbelievability factor off the scale....Goblin Town - but then we have the flip side of the brilliant Bilbo and Gollum scenes. Stone Giants scene....once again over the top. But......most of my quibbles are offset by things I really liked. At the end of the day, I would still pull LOTR out to watch more often than The Hobbit movies....except, I really enjoy the Making of Content in both, sometimes more than the movies.


elostirion74
Rohan

Nov 18 2017, 3:56pm

Post #18 of 29 (19108 views)
Shortcut
More of a mixed experience for me [In reply to] Can't Post

It´s great that you´re able to enjoy the Hobbit movies as much as you do. Although my preferences are different I appreciate that you have put some thought into expressing why you like them so much and why you prefer them to the book.

I agree with you about the obvious love for Middle Earth shown in the design of the sets, the on-location filming as well as the costumes etc. I also find that there´s a considerable degree of detail and care invested in the casting and characterization of the dwarves which for me worked almost perfectly. Utilizing the theme of the exile of the dwarves to generate backstory and motivation for the dwarves and a contrast between them and Bilbo was moreover a stroke of genius IMO.

Personally I found AUJ to be a great and very refreshing movie experience, but DoS and BOFA much less so. This comes down to many personal preferences, but also the basic fact that I enjoy both The Hobbit and LoTR more as separate stories in their own right, both in terms of theme, tone and scale. I am well aware of the connections between the two stories, but spending lots of time and additional scenes to stress and deliberately forge connections between them will IMO only make one of the stories seem like a derivative version of the other rather than a fascinating story in its own right.

I willingly admit that I very much like the more practical, down-to-earth and businesslike focus on the motivations of the various characters in the book version of the Hobbit. When such nuances are disbanded in favour of a more traditional heroic and antagonistic approach with several characters being vilified in classical fashion, I think the film version of the story loses a lot of distinctive flavour.

To me AUJ felt very much like an adaptation of the original story and it was beautiful, fun and refreshing to watch. In DoS and BoFA the main focus was just as much on setting up the story as a prequel to LoTR and deliberately imitating plot concepts and themes from the LoTR films as on actually adapting the main story. Despite some very fine individual scenes and a great dynamic between Thorin and Bilbo in both films, several parts of DoS and BoFA just felt like a rather poor and frankly boring imitation of scenes and plot ideas already seen in LoTR.


MoreMorgoth
The Shire

Nov 18 2017, 7:49pm

Post #19 of 29 (19094 views)
Shortcut
FIVE ARMIES Extended Edition [In reply to] Can't Post

Its a shame that most of the world who saw BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES did not see the Extended Edition in the theater. Its a whole different film that the original release and is in a class with the original LOTR trilogy in terms of excellence.


Kilidoescartwheels
Tol Eressea


Nov 19 2017, 3:56am

Post #20 of 29 (19050 views)
Shortcut
Well I can understand that [In reply to] Can't Post

especially where AUJ is concerned - I agree that one stayed closest to the book. It's funny, I like AUJ and DOS for almost opposite reasons. AUJ does a fine job of setting up a journey but (with a few exceptions) is a slower-paced movie. I loved the "Blunt the Knives" scene, and the time in Rivendell, and naturally the Lonely Mountain theme. To me, DOS was quite the opposite; a fast-paced roller coaster ride complete with "Barrels out of Bond," and finishing with Smaug flying off to Laketown. No, I wasn't crazy about the Dwarves v. Smaug scene but I understand why PJ did that. I've said this before, because PJ wrote the Dwarves as being both competent fighters and less cowardly, it only made sense that they would attempt to kill Smaug. But of course that attempt had to fail or the story would have been altered way too much, even for me. Like many, I just wish the plan was a little more practical & less far-fetched and physics-defying (though that scene of Thorin jumping to escape the fire was very cool!). I suppose there was a good, oh, what's the word - metaphor? - of having the gold statue of Thror, since Thror was consumed by his gold-fever. And that shot where Thorin was lined up against his grandfather's statue while saying "I am not my grandfather" was genius on PJ's part. And I also thought using the gold floor to help Thorin snap out of it was also inspired, though I understand that not everyone liked that scene. Such is life; no movie is so well-done that everyone who sees it calls it flawless.

But one thing you said that I don't quite get is this:

"I willingly admit that I very much like the more practical, down-to-earth and businesslike focus on the motivations of the various characters in the book version of the Hobbit. When such nuances are disbanded in favour of a more traditional heroic and antagonistic approach with several characters being vilified in classical fashion, I think the film version of the story loses a lot of distinctive flavour."

Who are you referring to here? I must admit it's been a few years since I last read "The Hobbit," but I did buy the electronic version on Kindle a few weeks ago. Don't know when I'll get around to reading it, but when I do I'll keep what you said here in mind.


Check out my new book here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521753377


elostirion74
Rohan

Nov 19 2017, 10:11am

Post #21 of 29 (19024 views)
Shortcut
it´s mainly about the characterization and the power dynamics [In reply to] Can't Post

In the last sentence I am referring to the Master of Lake Town and the Elvenking as characters and how the films handle the conflicts between Thorin, the Elvenking and the people of Lake Town.

The original story takes care to give the reader an understanding of the power dynamics in the region surrounding Erebor, as well as a fairly balanced understanding of the perspective of the various parties involved in the conflict. The films more or less ignore the commercial relations and bonds of interest between Thranduil and the Master of Lake Town to invent a different and much less nuanced set of conflicts. In order to set up Tauriel and Bard as heroes, the films went a long way towards vilifying both the Master of Lake Town and Thranduil from the get go. For me this weakened DOS and BOFA severely as adaptations and also made the films much less interesting to watch.

Since Bilbo actually is hired to do a dangerous job, the original story spends a lot of time commenting on how this affects the relations between the dwarves and Bilbo. In general the story involves a lot of both comedy and recognizable reasoning concerning courage, indecision, unreasonable reactions, conflicts of interest and getting a more practical understanding of the various motivations of the characters. Just look at the descriptions of the motivations of Thranduil and the Master of Lake Town in chapter 9 and 10 of the book for instance. This aspect of the original story is clearly respected in the first film (even if the dwarves are more heroic), but much less so in the last two films, and I believe the conscious decision to imitate and set up connections to LoTR is mainly to blame.


elostirion74
Rohan

Nov 19 2017, 1:59pm

Post #22 of 29 (18997 views)
Shortcut
Adaptation vs invention [In reply to] Can't Post

Even considering my disappointment with much of DoS and BoFA, both of these films show several examples of creative adaptation which I really enjoyed. The conversation between Kili and Tauriel, the scene where the dwarves enter the secret door for the first time, the scene showing the excitement about the prophecy spreading throughout Esgaroth, the "acorn scene" between Thorin and Bilbo - Bilbo and Thorin's last scene when Thorin is dying

All of these scenes adressed themes or ideas from the original story and in a way which suited film as a medium, which is after all what adaptation is about, as opposed to mere invention on the part of the director and producers. When you add something in a film, it must show a theme, idea or conflict from the original story adapted to fit film as a medium. Inventing scenes just for the sake of creating spectacle or intrigue is IMO much more difficult to defend and also risks obscuring the underlying story.

It made an impact seeing Thorin's and Balin's emotions upon entering their ancestral home and it connected perfectly with the themes shown in the first film. Both Tauriel's and Bilbo's words created a contrast between the love of riches and gems for its own sake and the love of the natural world - in a film it makes sense to show such things through intimate dialogue. In terms of how drama works in a film it made sense to have Bilbo at Thorin's side directly after his fight with Azog. I was particularly impressed with how they decided to have Bilbo talking to Thorin about the arrival of the Eagles - creating a link to the end of AUJ.


Silmaril
Rohan


Nov 20 2017, 1:05pm

Post #23 of 29 (18919 views)
Shortcut
The secret door... [In reply to] Can't Post

I also enjoy the scenes you mentioned in your post, they are really emotional, well written and executed.
Beneath this action overkill there is a great adaption of our beloved story.


(This post was edited by Silmaril on Nov 20 2017, 1:07pm)


Argonnath
Registered User


Nov 26 2017, 12:43am

Post #24 of 29 (18789 views)
Shortcut
They're a mess. [In reply to] Can't Post

Without comparing it to LOTR or judging whether or not it did the book justice, The Hobbit trilogy is a mess in terms of filmmaking. I believe An Unexpected Journey is a legitimately good film, however, flawed (coincidentally, this is the film that's most faithful to the book out of the trilogy). Desolation of Smaug has so many problems but enough good material for me to call it *decent*, thanks to Tolkien. The Battle of the Five Armies is downright bad.

I can still sit down and enjoy them, though. They're still Middle-earth, but a 300 page children's book should have never been stretched into a 9-hour long fantasy epic.

All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes, a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.


Eruonen
Valinor


Nov 26 2017, 8:03pm

Post #25 of 29 (18734 views)
Shortcut
I really enjoy the appendices [In reply to] Can't Post

 

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.