Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 8

[HowardStark]

Well that's just poor planning on jackson's part then. I fail to see how the man who was able to condense the 3 epic LOTR novels into 3 concise and fulfilling films couldn't manage the scope of the 1 hobbit even with appendices added.

It really feels like extravagance for the sake of it on his part, not dissimilar to lucas with the prequels. To me the only way a film warrants being near 3 hours in length is if all parts of it hold up. From beginning to end. Otherwise there's nothing wrong with short and sweet, which is probably how most would describe the Hobbit book.

People are assuming that because its based off of the Book it must be just 300 pages they can used.
All a movie has to be is an adaptation of the Book. In Jacksons Adaptation this book is fitting LOTR the movies.

People forget how fast the book is and that kind of speed is ok for a cartoon but Live action films needs it slowed down some what.

Not blaming Tolkien for he created a great book and legendary characters. I am just saying that he had no idea a movie would likely ever be made. BOTFA pretty much if done right could easily take up movie 3 with Smaug being the focus of 2. WB Gave Jackson trust and freedom and I say just maybe give the man due respect and the same chance.

 

[Angel_Faerie]

Some people seem to be forgetting that the three films are not just a straight adaptation of The Hobbit. A lot of things from the appendices have also been added. There is a lot of material there that takes place just before, during, and right after The Hobbit. More than enough to warrant three films when combined with The Hobbit.

 

[Vartha]

Wish we heard from the Admins on giving the Hobbit and LotR films their own section. NOTHING yet and this would be a great thread to discuss this in it.

 

[HowardStark]

Some people seem to be forgetting that the three films are not just a straight adaptation of The Hobbit. A lot of things from the appendices have also been added. There is a lot of material there that takes place just before, during, and right after The Hobbit. More than enough to warrant three films when combined with The Hobbit.

I am also pretty sure its Jacksons last attempt to do a movie in Middle Earth. maybe he just wanted to tell a really good 6 Movie Trilogy.

 

[Drz]

Seen Hobbit twice now, both HFR (High Frame Rate) 3D & 2D, I recommend the 2D version, because the 3D doesn't add anything to it, but i will say the high definition is pretty neat for the first hour and half, it reminded me of getting my 1st 1080p Blu-Ray experience when PS3 1st came out.

However, this movie is really stupid and dumb. It's alot more comedic, which is fun, everyones having alot of fun and so on, you can really feel the actors and Jackson having a blast and New Zealand is so gorgeous, my god is it gorgeous, the Elven Lands + Erebor, you don't see much of it, but what you see sticks to you.

My main problem with the movie however is Gandalf, i'll just incase put this on a spoiler tag:

Spoiler

He's far more proactive with magic & solving all the problems in this movie than he was within the LOTR trilogy, where in LOTR he uses magic againts Balrog + Witch King, here he does it againts Goblins and whatnot, not to mention he can teleport? Or well, there's just this big deus ex machima by him, and it is just ugh. Still, he and Bilbo really just make all the Dwarves pointless, despite how badass the Dwarves look.

Oh well, it can't get worse? I think the movie just suffers from Jackson seemingly having to rush editing the film into a 3-part story

 

[Marvolo]

Some people seem to be forgetting that the three films are not just a straight adaptation of The Hobbit. A lot of things from the appendices have also been added. There is a lot of material there that takes place just before, during, and right after The Hobbit. More than enough to warrant three films when combined with The Hobbit.

You are right about this, but it has been said ad nauseam and it still isnt sinking in for some. I get it nostalgia is powerful, yall love the hobbit, and you just wanted a hobbit movie. Well to put it bluntly that aint what you got. You got the Hobbit narrative, which is incredibly faithful according to reviews, and you got a wider story that interweaves into the tapestry of the over-arching LOTR story. Jackson didnt just want to do the Hobbit. He wanted something bigger that played into his LOTR trilogy and the Hobbit was he perfect vehicle to accomplish that with. That is perfectly fine. Anyone who has listened to Jackson knows that he doesnt hold the Hobbit to the same regard as LOTR, and should also have noticed that Jackson showed vey little interest about doing just a Hobbit story. It was only after the bridge film idea and the extra material got involved that he became really interested. Yeah, you could argue that he hi-jacked the Hobbit story to accomplish his goals but personally I dont care as long as I get three enjoyable films. The book will always be there. This trilogy wont make it vanish or in anyway tarnish it. Its late in the game to be raising this kind of hell. What is done is done and we can either see it or not. Repeating the same thing over and over and over and over makes for dull conversations and accomplishes nothing.

 

[Vartha]

Yeah I knew Gandalf could do that. The book never went into detail, but you do assume he does that when he's there one second and not the next.

 

[Boom]

Gandalf is a boss.

 

[Vartha]

MAN I hate being on stand-By for the theater lol They ALWAYS call at the last minute when the DO call for Screenings.

 

[HowardStark]

The thing Is I always felt Gandalf The Grey had different abilities then Gandalf The White we just never saw much of Grey. The Hobbit gives us a chance to see his Grey Abilities.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I find it interesting that Gandalf's lack of magic caused complaints in LOTR, but here, his use of magic is an issue. Personally, I'm excited to see what he will do in The Hobbit.

I wonder if Ian McKellen convinced Jackson to add more magic in this go round. I know he himself took issue with the lack of magic in the original films.

 

[Marvolo]

They handled Gandalf's magic well in LOTR, but it could be argued more wouldnt have hurt.

 

[Drz]

I find it interesting that Gandalf's lack of magic caused complaints in LOTR, but here, his use of magic is an issue.

You're missing the point. Gandald is the problem because he is the problem solver in dire situations alongside Bilbo, the Dwarves don't accomplish anything outside of slaughtering waves of Goblins, Orcs and so forward.

It's like whining about "why didn't they just fly to Mordor?" if Gandalf could have done these things, why didn't he? Why did he choose to be a compassionate supporter of Middle-Earth people, but still do most of the work for them?

Still, this movie makes Dwarves mainstram cool again, god did i love seeing Thror, not to mention female dwarves, who indeed have beards.

 

[HowardStark]

The Hobbit is kinda bit more of a fantasy then LOTR and its likely why Jackson is just letting Gandy go wild if needs too. Also knowing Peter Jackson maybe its a bigger surprise to see him do magic Gandalf and it makes the Hobbit more fun for kids.

 

[Drz]

The Hobbit is kinda bit more of a fantasy then LOTR and its likely why Jackson is just letting Gandy go wild if needs too.

Again, this isn't the problem of the movie. Do i really have to wait for Friday for America to catch up?

 

[redhawk23]

You are right about this, but it has been said ad nauseam and it still isnt sinking in for some. I get it nostalgia is powerful, yall love the hobbit, and you just wanted a hobbit movie. Well to put it bluntly that aint what you got. You got the Hobbit narrative, which is incredibly faithful according to reviews, and you got a wider story that interweaves into the tapestry of the over-arching LOTR story. Jackson didnt just want to do the Hobbit. He wanted something bigger that played into his LOTR trilogy and the Hobbit was he perfect vehicle to accomplish that with. That is perfectly fine. Anyone who has listened to Jackson knows that he doesnt hold the Hobbit to the same regard as LOTR, and should also have noticed that Jackson showed vey little interest about doing just a Hobbit story. It was only after the bridge film idea and the extra material got involved that he became really interested. Yeah, you could argue that he hi-jacked the Hobbit story to accomplish his goals but personally I dont care as long as I get three enjoyable films. The book will always be there. This trilogy wont make it vanish or in anyway tarnish it. Its late in the game to be raising this kind of hell. What is done is done and we can either see it or not. Repeating the same thing over and over and over and over makes for dull conversations and accomplishes nothing.

Lets not act like the response "according to the reviews" has been entirely positive.

And yeah it will never tarnish the book, but that doesn't mean that these films AS FILMS aren't allowed to be criticized for the direction that the filmmakers chose to take them. The Hobbit story maybe there, but the focus appears to be very much diluted.

I'll be seeing this on Saturday with an open mind, I really hope its good, but again, lets not act as if the way they chose to make these movies was the only way it could have been done or necessarily the best one.

 

[Spider-Who?]

the Dwarves don't accomplish anything outside of slaughtering waves of Goblins, Orcs and so forward.

That sounds good to me, haha.

It's like whining about "why didn't they just fly to Mordor?" if Gandalf could have done these things, why didn't he? Why did he choose to be a compassionate supporter of Middle-Earth people, but still do most of the work for them?

Maybe I'll just have to wait to see the movie to fully understand your stance, but that's kind of the point of Gandalf - he's a guardian/angel/whatever of Middle-Earth. He's the most powerful and wisest guy in the group, so of course he should be taking care of most of the problems. I mean, yeah there's gonna be moments of "if he can do X, why didn't they do Z", but its the nature of the beast.

Still, this movie makes Dwarves mainstram cool again, god did i love seeing Thror, not to mention female dwarves, who indeed have beards.

Had no idea we were gonna see dwarf women. That's awesome.

 

[redhawk23]

You're missing the point. Gandald is the problem because he is the problem solver in dire situations alongside Bilbo, the Dwarves don't accomplish anything outside of slaughtering waves of Goblins, Orcs and so forward.

It's like whining about "why didn't they just fly to Mordor?" if Gandalf could have done these things, why didn't he? Why did he choose to be a compassionate supporter of Middle-Earth people, but still do most of the work for them?

Still, this movie makes Dwarves mainstram cool again, god did i love seeing Thror, not to mention female dwarves, who indeed have beards.

And yet Kili does not lol.

 

[Drz]

That sounds good to me, haha.

The thing is, it's like saying "it sounds good to me, haha" if you'd all the members of the Fellowship of the Ring accomplished nothing but just being there to slaughter foes, while Frodo + Gandalf did all the important things, but the Fellowship members all accomplished something special, well maybe not Boromir, but yeah he's the guy who dies.

The Dwarves accomplish nothing in this film, when Gandalf comes pulling his magic, he just hinder's everyone else and you really have to ask why is he bothering with the Dwarves at all? Thats the problem here.

Maybe I'll just have to wait to see the movie to fully understand your stance, but that's kind of the point of Gandalf - he's a guardian/angel/whatever of Middle-Earth. He's the most powerful and wisest guy in the group, so of course he should be taking care of most of the problems. I mean, yeah there's gonna be moments of "if he can do X, why didn't they do Z", but its the nature of the beast.

Frodo, Bilbo, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Merrin, Pippin, they all accomplish amazing things without Gandalf being there for them, but you can't say this to Dwalin, Balin, Bofur, Kili, Fili or Thorin. You can however say that the Dwarves look cool and are alot of fun.

 

[HowardStark]

Again, this isn't the problem of the movie. Do i really have to wait for Friday for America to catch up?

Sadly yes. On the subject of the films. I think people assume I am totally blind and will expect perfect films. Truth is I never expected them to equal LOTR. All want is a movie that reminds me of Middle earth. That thinking is how I survived Star Wars prequels.

I like animatronic practical effects and think Jackson needs to show Cameron and Lucas the Door. My hope is for a good escape movie and if get that then am pleased.

 

[Spider-Who?]

The thing is, it's like saying "it sounds good to me, haha" if you'd all the members of the Fellowship of the Ring accomplished nothing but just being there to slaughter foes, while Frodo + Gandalf did all the important things, but the Fellowship members all accomplished something special, well maybe not Boromir, but yeah he's the guy who dies.

The Dwarves accomplish nothing in this film, when Gandalf comes pulling his magic, he just hinder's everyone else and you really have to ask why is he bothering with the Dwarves at all? Thats the problem here.

Well, that was pretty much how it was in the books. I dunno, perhaps they'll grow into more "useful" characters in the other films.

 

[Spider-Who?]

And yet Kili does not lol.

As a 27 year old short guy (5'7") who can only grow a mustache and goatee (and barely that), I find your distaste for the poor beardless Kili insulting. Not everyone is blessed with the genes to grow great bushy beards.

Spoiler

t:

 

[HowardStark]

The thing is, it's like saying "it sounds good to me, haha" if you'd all the members of the Fellowship of the Ring accomplished nothing but just being there to slaughter foes, while Frodo + Gandalf did all the important things, but the Fellowship members all accomplished something special, well maybe not Boromir, but yeah he's the guy who dies.

The Dwarves accomplish nothing in this film, when Gandalf comes pulling his magic, he just hinder's everyone else and you really have to ask why is he bothering with the Dwarves at all? Thats the problem here.




Frodo, Bilbo, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Merrin, Pippin, they all accomplish amazing things without Gandalf being there for them, but you can't say this to Dwalin, Balin, Bofur, Kili, Fili or Thorin. You can however say that the Dwarves look cool and are alot of fun.

The Dwarfs really pretty much only show courage and use when the get greedy over Gold. The Dwarfs are not the reason Gandalf cares its Bilbo he cares about and he needs the quest to get rid of Smaug and possible threat. Wizards good or bad have there own reasons for doing things.
The Dwarfs are even less useful in the Rankin and Bass movie.

 

[spidey-dude]

^Hear, hear^


surprised you didnt like it Drz - it's pushing skyfall for my fav movie of the year, I just had a big goofy smile on my face for the majority of the movie, its fun, charming and beautifuk

 

[obin_gam]

Just got back from it. A very meh, it's okay kind of movie. 6/10.
They dont get anywhere, thats my biggest problem. It doesnt feel like they've accomplished something when it ends.

On the plus side the gollum scene is fantastic. The dwarven prologue is, even though it looks like a high end video game cut scene, gorgeous and flawless stylistic.

They should have done only two movies. That would have been the best.

Also, the Radagast critique is just hyperbole. I loved his character and what he did.