Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - - - - Part 13

[Marvolo]

In which case, don't call it the Hobbit. Don't say you adapting the book.

But he is adapting the book to a degree and these events due still surround a Hobbit and him finding the ring does still lead to LOTR so the title is still fitting imo.

 

[regwec]

Because PJ wants to feed his wobbly pale paunch with the warm salty tears of your childhood.

 

[ares834]

[FONT=verdana,helevetica]
Overall, a nice improvement of AUJ, can't wait to see TABA next year 9/10[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

Good to hear.

What if Smaug survives all the way into Battle of Five armies? Bard is utterly defeated at doing anything to Smaug at the battle of Laketown and the Five Armies battle is his redemption? After all we've seen, this won't be that far fetched.

Oh god... I can see this happening.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Sauron riding him either.

 

[Marvolo]

Because PJ wants to feed his wobbly pale paunch with the warm salty tears of your childhood.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But he is adapting the book to a degree and these events due still surround a Hobbit and him finding the ring does still lead to LOTR so the title is still fitting imo.

It is false and you know it. Come on. I now image a kid reading the book after seeing the movie. They are going to be like "wtf".

 

[Boom]

But he is adapting the book to a degree and these events due still surround a Hobbit and him finding the ring does still lead to LOTR so the title is still fitting imo.

Then call it The Chronicles of Middle-earth.

The point remains that you call these movies "The Hobbit," implying that Bilbo is the main character and that his storyline, his journey, is front and center. But instead, he is side-lined for large chunks at a time by Gandalf, Thorin, Legolas, Tauriel, CGIzog, Bard, and a laundry list of other characters and their respective journeys. To call these films "The Hobbit" is a joke.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

How does Laketown get the respite from the aftermath of Smaug's attack if he is alive you ask? He leaves to see Sauron, probably to prostate himself. They share dialogue that references Sauron's days as a lieutenant and Smaug's kin. Man, I feel Jacksonific today.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Then call it The Chronicles of Middle-earth.

The point remains that you call these movies The Hobbit, implying that Bilbo is the main character and that his storyline, his journey, is front and center. But instead, he is side-lined for large chunks at a time by Gandalf, Thorin, Legolas, Tauriel, CGIzog, and a laundry list of others. To have the audacity to call these films "The Hobbit," is a joke.

Being sidelined for Thorin and Gandalf isn't a problem to me. It is their story as much as his imo. But if he is continually sidelined for another character, and another character, wth?

 

[vinsanity]

What if Smaug survives all the way into Battle of Five armies? Bard is utterly defeated at doing anything to Smaug at the battle of Laketown and the Five Armies battle is his redemption? After all we've seen, this won't be that far fetched.

Don't think so, Luke Evans and Evangeline Lilly [BLACKOUT]pretty much confirmed that Smaug will die at Laketown in a recent interview[/BLACKOUT]


[YT]lG8O7e2jHTM[/YT]

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Don't think so, Luke Evans and Evangeline Lilly [BLACKOUT]pretty much confirmed that Smaug will die at Laketown in a recent interview[/BLACKOUT]


[YT]lG8O7e2jHTM[/YT]

There is still 12 months. We could get a few edits and a whole other film out of that much time.

 

[Marvolo]

Being sidelined for Thorin and Gandalf isn't a problem to me. It is their story as much as his imo. But if he is continually sidelined for another character, and another character, wth?

Agreed.

And, Boom, Chronicles of Middle Earth is a hokey title no offense. The title The Hobbit has marketability. Its a book that many know. It sells itself regardless of how faithful the adaption is. And bilbo and pieces of the book are in the films so using the title is sensible. This is a business. You don't throw out a marketable title because you've not made a faithful adaption. See World War Z.

 

[regwec]

"This is business" isn't a valid defense of a piece of ****.

Better directors have made better films that have been extremely profitable.

 

[Marvolo]

"This is business" isn't a valid defense of a piece of ****.

Better directors have made better films that have been extremely profitable.

So this film is now a POS because it isn't a faithful adaption? And yes "business" is a valid reason for using a title when millions are being spent by a studio. They dont care about your feelings when their money is on the line. They want the path of least resistance to a profit. And besides business, this story still involves bilbo and the journey he is on. The title is still fitting.

Your second statement has lost me. Not sure what that claim has to do with the discussion.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Agreed.

And, Boom, Chronicles of Middle Earth is a hokey title no offense. The title The Hobbit has marketability. Its a book that many know. It sells itself regardless of how faithful the adaption is. And bilbo and pieces of the book are in the films so using the title is sensible. This is a business. You don't throw out a marketable title because you've not made a faithful adaption. See World War Z.

Should have just name it "The Lord of the Rings" plus random subtitles. Maybe one of them could have been The Hobbit.

Also, whenever Thorin or even Gandalf would take center stage, Bilbo wouldn't be that far behind. All of it connects. Thorin's big moments and most of Gandalf's would be seen by Bilbo. It is all interconnected because that is how it was written. But when you start adding other characters and plots that are distanced from Bilbo, it is noticeable how the story drifts away from him.

The Radagast and White Council scenes are a good example.

 

[Boom]

Agreed.

And, Boom, Chronicles of Middle Earth is a hokey title no offense. The title The Hobbit has marketability. Its a book that many know. It sells itself regardless of how faithful the adaption is.

So I trust you understand why a lot of Hobbit fans in this thread are justifiably upset? You love a book, you hear they are making an adaptation, and when you go into the theater all excited, it turns out to be a three-hour exercise of excess where the director is basically shouting at the top of his lungs, "Oh, well we called it The Hobbit but it's really not. Hope you enjoy th 2+ hours of extraneous ******** that ultimately detracts from the story you love and came to see."

 

[Marvolo]

Should have just name it "The Lord of the Rings" plus random subtitles. Maybe one of them could have been The Hobbit.

Also, whenever Thorin or even Gandalf would take center stage, Bilbo wouldn't be that far behind. All of it connects. Thorin's big moments and most of Gandalf's would be seen by Bilbo. It is all interconnected because that is how it was written. But when you start adding other characters and plots that are distanced from Bilbo, it is noticeable how the story drifts away from him.

The Radagast and White Council scenes are a good example.

Agreed. Those scenes do stick out.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

So this film is now a POS because it isn't a faithful adaption? And yes "business" is a valid reason for using a title when millions are being spent by a studio. They care about your feelings when their money is on the line. They want the path of least resistance to a profit. And besides business this story still involves bilbo and the journey he is on. Title is fitting.

Your second statement has lost me. Not sure what that claim has to do with the discussion.

I like the first movie, will probably like the second. But Peter's messing about resulted in a lesser film then as possible imo. Not just because of the original material, but what it does to the film from a flow/editing/focus pov. I don't think everything filmed is perfect or works, but that is another discussion.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

So I trust you understand why a lot of Hobbit fans in this thread are justifiably upset? You love a book, you hear they are making an adaptation, and when you go into the theater all excited, it turns out to be a three-hour exercise of excess where the director is basically shouting at the top of his lungs, "Oh, well we called it The Hobbit but it's really not. Hope you enjoy th 2+ hours of extraneous ******** that ultimately detracts from the story you love and came to see."

It hurts more because through all the muck and mire, you can see the promise. Those moments that invoke what I have been waiting to see.

 

[Marvolo]

So I trust you understand why a lot of Hobbit fans in this thread are justifiably upset? You love a book, you hear they are making an adaptation, and when you go into the theater all excited, it turns out to be a three-hour exercise of excess where the director is basically shouting at the top of his lungs, "Oh well we called it The Hobbit but it's really not. Sorry bout that, but not really."

Absolutely! I really do get the anger. Its justifiable to be upset. Yall thought you were getting your beloved book and you're not. But its the second film and Its abundantly clear this isn't Tolkiens Hobbit. Accept that and just enjoy the films as their own seperate thing. They arent hurting the book and they are pretty fun once you separate them from the book and stop expecting the book on screen. As a Harry potter fan I had grievances about the films (especially film 6 which is barely an adaption of HBP), but I just seperated them from the books. The films are there own universe. Treat them as such. It makes it so much more enjoyable.

For me, a fun film is fun regardless of how faithful it is to its source. I just wanna have fun at the cinema. This film looks like a good time of swashbuckling proportions. It ain't tolkien, but that's ok with me.

 

[Boom]

Absolutely! I really do get the anger. Its justifiable to be upset. Yall thought you were getting your beloved book and you're not. But its the second film and Its abundantly clear this isn't Tolkiens Hobbit. Accept that and just enjoy the films as their own seperate thing. They arent hurting the book and they are pretty fun once you separate them from the book and stop expecting the book on screen. As a Harry potter fan I had grievances about the films (especially film 6 which is barely an adaption of HBP), but I just seperated them from the books. The films are there own universe. Treat them as such. It makes it so much more enjoyable.

For me a fun film is fun regardless of how faithful it is to its source. I just wanna have fun at the cinema.

The mistake you're making is assuming I am only trashing these films because they aren't faithful adaptations of the book. That is but part of the problem.

The other problem is that An Unexpected Journey wasn't a very good film in my eyes. It just so happens that a lot of the problems with Journey as a film have to do with all of the additional material, and how it ultimately resulted in a bloated cluster**** of a movie with little-to-know direction.

 

[Marvolo]

The mistake you're making is assuming I am only trashing these films because they are faithful adaptations of the book. That is but part of the problem.

The other problem is that An Unexpected Journey just wasn't a very good film in my eyes. It just so happens that a lot of the problems with Journey as a film have to do with all of the additional material, and how it ultimately resulted in a cluster**** of a movie with little-to-know direction.

I'm sorry for making it seem that way. I've heard your grievances in this thread so I know you're not just having problems with the adaptation. And I agree about the problems in AUJ. I was more talking about this film. Most reviews seem to indicate its an all around better time and loads of fun. Some are gonna miss that tho cause their too busy focusing on how it was adapted or worrying that Tolkien would disapprove. Thats stuff that really shouldnt enter your mind in a theater, but it happens to often with readers.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Absolutely! I really do get the anger. Its justifiable to be upset. Yall thought you were getting your beloved book and you're not. But its the second film and Its abundantly clear this isn't Tolkiens Hobbit. Accept that and just enjoy the films as their own seperate thing. They arent hurting the book and they are pretty fun once you separate them from the book and stop expecting the book on screen. As a Harry potter fan I had grievances about the films (especially film 6 which is barely an adaption of HBP), but I just seperated them from the books. The films are there own universe. Treat them as such. It makes it so much more enjoyable.

For me, a fun film is fun regardless of how faithful it is to its source. I just wanna have fun at the cinema. This film looks like a good time of swashbuckling proportions. It ain't tolkien, but that's ok with me.

And some want more. Some want a great film.

Now Marvalo, I understand that you see a difference between having a good, fun time and something being "the best thing ever". Many don't imo. Like I said, I like the first film, but I also see it as having many problems that keep it from being a very good film. But it is Middle-Earth and has some great casting. It captures some moments I have been waiting my whole life to see.

 

[Persona]

glad to see you liked the movie, vinsanity!

 

[terry78]

After the third movie I wonder who will have the balls to take on the Silmalliron.

 

[Boom]

The Tolkien Estate has the film rights.