tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6654162646301256777.post2448885805826804522..comments2023-12-14T05:31:08.422-05:00Comments on TolkienBritta.com: The Hobbit: A Long-Expected DisappointmentBritta Siemenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08416519823032365698noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6654162646301256777.post-27295198303604351792013-02-11T08:32:08.922-05:002013-02-11T08:32:08.922-05:00Late, but better late than never. Great review! I ...Late, but better late than never. Great review! I didn't stop to think about the Merle Dixon part haha... so true! and we can trace it back to Darth Vader and other villans... Captain Hook? (no, going to far hehe). But yes... what is going on with arm amputated villans?<br /> <br />No doubt Peter Jackson, as expected, used a lot of today's trends in The Hobbit. Come on, we were all expecting a more comercial movie with this one after the initial preasure about the lore was consumed almost to zero with The Lord of the Rings. <br /><br />Anyway the visuals, effects and the atmosphere were amazing and immersive. Following the line in LotR with updated sharpness and the use of purples and blues (specially in Rivendell) were amazing.<br /><br />I wasn't able to see the 3D version but I think I didn't miss anything... I've read the guest reviews in this blog and thought about those added (invented) epic fights in Goblin Town not only to serve an adventure seeking audience but the 3D consumers also. So just funny and action movie-moments there.<br /><br />I agree that Bilbo's character is not like the one in the book, anyway this guy Martin Freeman has created something there. For some reason, while watching his performance, the movie "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" crossed my mind a couple of times.<br /><br />All in all is a great movie and new classic, I think. It is an adaptation... more than the LotR. Maybe overfilled with hollywood constants but in a sober way.Ramironoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6654162646301256777.post-67562864035920401492012-12-23T12:53:12.301-05:002012-12-23T12:53:12.301-05:00I agree, the riddles between Gollum and Bilbo was ...I agree, the riddles between Gollum and Bilbo was absolutely outstanding. Generally, a great film. I really enjoyed it.David Burrowshttp://davidburrows.org.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6654162646301256777.post-73314826535395160032012-12-23T00:57:43.913-05:002012-12-23T00:57:43.913-05:00Azog LOOKS like Merle Dixon!Azog LOOKS like Merle Dixon!Ron Leightonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16601390062709042769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6654162646301256777.post-46613399729478645372012-12-16T20:46:51.374-05:002012-12-16T20:46:51.374-05:00Tyler, you're absolutely right: had they made ...Tyler, you're absolutely right: had they made the Necromancer the main antagonist in the film, rather than Azog, I would have been okay with it - after all, he's the main antagonist in The Lord of the Rings, so why not build him up in The Hobbit? I didn't have much of an issue with the White Council, but I'd love to see them continue with it throughout the next two films so we can really get a feel for Saruman's treachery. <br /><br />Radagast bothered me as well. I LOVED the way he was depicted in The Lord of the Rings Online - completely devoted to his animals, but not riding around on a bunny sled, ingesting "too many mushrooms," and walking around with bird poop in his hair and beard. While he wasn't necessarily the "Jar-Jar Binks" of The Hobbit, I agree that Jackson and Co. seemed to take one minor comment and go crazy with it. Brittahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11727418710904313638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6654162646301256777.post-63027375109412866392012-12-16T20:39:30.476-05:002012-12-16T20:39:30.476-05:00Overall, it was an enjoyable film. There were part...Overall, it was an enjoyable film. There were parts I absolutely loved, such as all the initial scenes at Bag End, and the riddle game in particular. I couldn't have asked for anything better for those scenes. However, I had three issues with it. Fix these three, and I think you go from a good film to a great film.<br /><br />1) Azog was completely unnecessary. The journey itself is enough of an antagonist. Cold, rain, hunger, trolls, wolves, goblins, mountains, forests, etc. I also thought he was just too cliche, a cookie-cutter villain. I would have liked to see the Necromancer portrayed as the main villain, a mysterious power calling all the evil forces out of hiding to trouble the world. This would make the work of the White Council more of a critical part of the story, rather than an afterthought. I really enjoyed seeing the interaction and politics of the White Council, by the way.<br /><br />2) Radagast was just all wrong. Yes he's described as a foolish bird-tamer by Saruman, but I feel they just took the character off the deep end in that direction. I just found him rather hard to watch. And I hated the rabbit-sleigh. I mean, really? And how convenient was it for PJ to forget that for Radagast to travel from his home in Mirkwood to where he met Gandalf, he would have had to cross the Misty Mountains? He's a bird-tamer; why not just send a bird to tell Gandalf what was up? I would have preferred a quiet, serious, thoughtful Radagast instead of one that dashes around like a madman everywhere he goes. This point goes along with my next one.<br /><br />3) Pacing. It is VERY fast. You get the sense that the characters are simply sprinting from one hectic battle to another. I want to get a sense of the journey. Walking along singing traveling songs, sitting around the campfire, dealing with the weather, etc. We should see Bilbo longing for his chair by the fire and second breakfasts. Having a climax in the action is good, but when you make the whole movie a climax, it's just exhausting. And the constant attacks by Azog and a rabbit-powered Radagast don't help.<br /><br />But despite these things, it was great being back in Middle-earth, and I'll probably end up going to see it again. I usually like movies better the second time anyway :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950222145772579989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6654162646301256777.post-58432896116548590372012-12-16T20:37:02.800-05:002012-12-16T20:37:02.800-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950222145772579989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6654162646301256777.post-65469338789317960522012-12-16T17:55:15.241-05:002012-12-16T17:55:15.241-05:00Very nice review, Britta- as well thought out and ...Very nice review, Britta- as well thought out and as clearly articulated as are all of your pieces. Nicely done.<br /><br />I liked it more than you did, it appears. Although somewhat a Tolkien purist myself, I also understand that telling the same story in two different media will of necessity result in changes. For the most part, I believe these changes to be relatively harmless and not a detriment to the story as a whole. (Felt the same way about the first trilogy, too.)<br /><br />I, too, was hoping for a more gradual and clearly delineated transformation from Baggins to Took, though I did think it was clear that Bilbo listening to the song (SO hauntingly done, my daughter and I have been humming and grumbling it all weekend, adding serious gravitas to all of our household chores!) was the turning point for him, and what finally pushed him out the door.<br /><br />Azog is more troublesome for me. Like you describe, I feel sure that the writers want to include all the required elements of an individual movie - protagonist, antagonist, conflict, resolution, etc. - while maintaining the overall arc in the entire trilogy, too, and so felt the need for more of a villain in this first one than the shadowy form of the Necromancer, but it's one of the few core changes that actually alters the History as laid out by John Ronald. I know, for example, that Dain Ironfoot is to be played by Billy Connolly (really looking forward to that!) and unless I missed him at the Battle of Azanulbizar I wonder what role he'll play now? And how he'll get his name unless he does end up stepping on Azog's neck after all?<br /><br />But that one big area aside, I thoroughly enjoyed it and can live with the other deviations, especially when describing scenes that had either been glossed over or which had taken place "offstage" in the original story. That being said, though, there was something lacking in the White Council scenes for me, but I need to see it again in order to put my finger on what it was, exactly. And while Radagast was fun, he wasn't really necessary to advance the story, in my opinion, except in showing that the influence of the Necromancer is spreading. <br /><br />Being back in Middle-earth was glorious, and if a few of the scenes felt a little forced or crammed into the "oh, yeah, it started as a children's story..." almost as an afterthought by the writers and directors, I can forgive them. I know my daughter loved it as much as I did, and that we'll be seeing it again later this week with my oldest girl- I think she'll like it just as much.<br /><br />And, as you rightly point out, all of the other elements were transportive - the score and the sweeping vistas and even the other songs, so prevalent in the book - all of these were reminiscent of the immersive qualities of the LOTR movies, for me. Likewise, the riddle scene was one of my favorites, too, and was deftly handled.<br /><br />So, again, valid points all, but I'm not worried. I trust PJ to treat the canon with the tender care it deserves, and to deliver again on helping us visualize a tale well told, one that's been close to our hearts for a long, long time. (Though more changes will likely be coming, too...)mmdavis23https://www.blogger.com/profile/16038403023970255086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6654162646301256777.post-6325556955113338392012-12-16T17:41:27.396-05:002012-12-16T17:41:27.396-05:00I just saw it. Your review is spot on. I may have ...I just saw it. Your review is spot on. I may have liked it less than you, however; apart from a couple of scenes and its stunningly gorgeous depictions of Middle-earth, I thought it was a shit film. I know that's not a very thoughtful review, but I'm so disappointed in how it turned out that I don't want to dwell on it. Jack Elmyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729887919886773155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6654162646301256777.post-63356433090383305992012-12-16T16:21:18.904-05:002012-12-16T16:21:18.904-05:00(don't know why this says Anonymous on the pre...(don't know why this says Anonymous on the preview, it's still me)<br /><br />Oh hey, I remember that passage. Well, the book's version does sound more interesting now that you mention it, and I'm a little concerned with how they're going to handle Bilbo and Thorin's characters and their relationship in the next two, since they seem to have reached mutual amiability a bit prematurely by the end. But still, I loved what I saw, and I definitely want to see it in IMAX next. Just wish I had some Tolkien friends who lived nearby.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6654162646301256777.post-87054301984985036332012-12-16T14:36:21.033-05:002012-12-16T14:36:21.033-05:00It just seemed silly that what may have taken only...It just seemed silly that what may have taken only a few lines to tell in the book or in the Lord of the Rings appendices were turned into lengthy scenes, while things that should have been more fully explained were overlooked.<br /><br />I didn't feel that they had fully explored Bilbo's sudden change of heart. In the book, the narrator tells us that as he heard the Dwarves' song, "the hobbit felt the love of beautiful things made by hands and by cunning and by magic moving through him, a fierce and a jealous love, the desire of the hearts of dwarves. Then something Tookish woke up inside him, and he wished to go and see the great mountains, and hear the pine-trees and the waterfalls, and explore the caves, and wear a sword instead of a walking stick." <br /><br />However, that Tookish thought doesn't stick: "very quickly he was plan Mr Baggins of Bag-End, Under-Hill, again." He did not suddenly change his mind and turn into an eager adventurer, as the film suggests; rather, it was Gandalf who arrived the next morning and scooted him out the door. <br /><br />In the film, however, they make one reference to Bilbo being Tookish, as if that makes all the difference.<br /><br />Essentially, it's a matter of "show" vs. "tell." With the narrator ("tell") absent, I would have liked to have seen the writers compensate by "showing" us more.Brittahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11727418710904313638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6654162646301256777.post-75449421299664920722012-12-16T14:22:56.681-05:002012-12-16T14:22:56.681-05:00Interesting, I'm thinking maybe I had a more p...Interesting, I'm thinking maybe I had a more positive reaction to the movie because it has been a while since I read the book, since your issues mainly seem to be tonal and character differences, and my memories of such things are more hazy.<br /><br />Azog is an interesting case. Because it really seems like he's there just to be this installment's "final boss." And that is an unfortunate film convention I think, that when you have a multiple part saga, there is always this need to have a primary milestone antagonist who will be fought and defeated at the end of each of the installments, even if he wasn't in that part of the source material. It was the same in Fellowship with that Uruk-hai commander, wasn't it? I mean, they did fight Uruks in the book, but I think that commander was just an original creation for the film, to give a clear, identifiable face to the enemy, simultaneously personifying and personalizing them for both protagonists and audience. And, of course, so Aragorn could have a little boss battle with him at the end :p<br /><br />I'm no film expert; maybe there is a legitimate reason they need to make this change when adapting a source that might lack that type of centralized final villain for each of its entries. Maybe Azog really is a necessary evil born of film conventions. I don't know, but at the very least I do wish he'd looked less CG.<br /><br />I am surprised though, that you didn't like the White Council gathering. Sure it wasn't in the book, but it still happened, didn't it? It wasn't necessary to the main plot, but I thought it was an enjoyable glimpse of Sauron's return to power. I had always wondered how Peter Jackson might handle Dol Goldur and the Necromancer, and I liked seeing the result. Plus, seeing Galadriel and those other three together was pretty cool.<br /><br />I also wasn't too much a fan of the Radagast parts. The actor was good, but the character himself and the situation felt out of place, like extra comic relief when we already had a whole company of dwarves to fill that role.<br /><br />One last bit, you said "With the narrator who explained much of Bilbo’s behaviour within the book absent from the film, the writers should have made up for that loss by really setting the scene at Bag End." I'm curious what you mean by that. Obviously, when you're going from written word to screen, it's going to be harder to get a character's private thoughts, since you don't want them randomly monologuing and explaining how they feel all the time. I think Jackson was aware of that here, though, and the way I saw it was that their attempt to circumvent this in this situation was by having Gandalf talk to Bilbo about how he wasn't the same fearless adventurous spirit he'd been when he was younger, or mentioning his Took blood. I think that was the point of that conversation, to try to provide some basis for Bilbo's change of mind later, since we couldn't directly hear his thought process for ourselves. Still, though that might have been good groundwork, there wasn't really a resulting trigger that effected his desire to go with the dwarves, so it did seem a little abrupt. Although, now I'm wondering if the book itself had a trigger...? You'd know that probably.<br /><br />Those are my thoughts on it anyway. I forget if I had others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6654162646301256777.post-64188881586073456882012-12-16T14:00:35.405-05:002012-12-16T14:00:35.405-05:00Even though I had a totally different reaction to ...Even though I had a totally different reaction to the film than Britta (I loved it) I think this is an excellent analysis of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Some of the liberties Peter J & Co. took with the film were just plain idiotic and unnecessary. Writing a screen adaptation, however, is ridiculously hard. And if you read Tolkien's letters you get a glimpse at the atrocious Disney-esque screenplay written for The Lord of the Rings in the fifties. A treatment that infuriated Tolkien with its stupidity and lack of respect for his story. Now, I'm sure Stephen Colbert does have a deeper knowledge of Tolkien's universe than most people in the world, but I'll bet you he wouldn't have been able to create a better screenplay. I guess I'm saying that the Wingnut Films people approached this with a lot of respect and enthusiasm. Some of their efforts failed. But the parts that work rise far above almost all other movies getting made. I think when all three pictures are done we'll all be hailing it as a masterpiece.Noble Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08114508532250917636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6654162646301256777.post-49827902819004736982012-12-16T13:25:18.812-05:002012-12-16T13:25:18.812-05:00Wow, the best review I have read so far, you'v...Wow, the best review I have read so far, you've just nailed it! I completely agree with you: the movie by itself is great, but they took too many liberties, and changed too many things, and what's most bugging me is how most Tolkien fans positively accepted these changes!<br /><br />First of all, Bilbo as you say takes the decision of joining the Dwarves on his own, which is utterly contrary as in the Book! Some may see it as a small change, but Bilbo's reluctance is central in The Hobbit, the novel! Also Bilbo saving the Dwarves by outwitting the Trolls heads into this direction. Terrible decisions, in my opinion.<br /><br />Azog's inclusion, the hatred and fear the Dwarves have when they arrive at Rivendell, the Dwarves leaving Gandalf behind, Bilbo saving Thorin, Radagast, Orcs and Wargs before Rivendell, unDwarvish Dwarves... all of this is nonsense to me, and let's hope the rumours of Tauriel in the second movieare not true at all, but by the taste of the first movie, I think we can fear for the worse. They even changed the scene of the finding of the Ring!!!!<br /><br />I've been thinking of writing a review myself, but your opinion summarizes mine! I'm glad I found someone who shares my thoughts about this movie.Ligandilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03196438778777211059noreply@blogger.com