SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Surprised there isn't already a thread on this already. So today is the day that the first in the trilogy has started screening around the world. I haven't seen it yet but will be going this evening. Unfortunately my local cinema isn't playing it in 48fps and I didn't want to see it first in 3D or Imax, I'm just going to see the straight vanilla version.

So for those who've seen it it what did you think? Was it worth it? For those who see it in 48fps was it better or worse?

This is what I wrote to the J.R.R. Tolkien group discussion (and yes, despite evrything I think it was worth it and really liked the 48fps):

SSirppi | 8 comments I was in the first midnight showing in our country on 12th and I'm still having some really mixed feelings. Someone commented that "it wasn't as good as I hoped but neither was it as bad as I feared", and that is pretty much how I feel. They had changed a lot. Lots of stuff you don't even notice if you don't know your Tolkien very well but if you do some of the stuff really didn't make sense.

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD
Some of the things that did not make sense to me:

Azog, ok he didn't die and it was Thorin, not Dain who fought him, no big deal. But logically his residence would have still been in Moria. Why does he have patrol's in Lone Lands and why is he in Weathertop? Taking into account the distance between the West gate and Weathertop, and the empty and barren nature of Lone Lands it seems weird that he would be there. Surely he does not sit around all day waiting to hear about random travelling dwarves when he probably has enough problems in his own kingdom in Moria?

The key of Thor, Gandalf and Radagast. Gandalf has not investigated Dol Guldur, because Radagast does it in the movie. Yet he has Thor's key. How?

Witch king of Angmar was sealed to tomb with powerful spells after the fall of Angmar, gives the image he was mortal at the time. Why change this? Unless they plan to explore on it more...

Teleport!! Radagast travels super fast over Misty Mountains with his bunny sled. Galadriel and Gandalf are talking, Gandalf looks away, Galadriel disappears. Azog magically goes around Rivendell and gets to the other side of Misty Mountains at the same time as Thorin and co. Gandalf does magic appearance to the middle of Goblin town.

Eagles are still Gandalf's magic pets...

Thranduil and Thorin know each other and Thorin has personal grudge. We shall see how this plays out when we reach the Halls of Thranduil.

Shouldn't Orcrist and Glamdring shine when orcs/goblins are close? (I'm not actually 100% sure)

+ Lots of lots of small things but some changes are expected...

Now before you tell me to shut up and just enjoy the movie I'm going to say that I did enjoy it, but some changes just bothered me (as you should be able to tell). But really if you don't overthink it it's a good movie. Visually very impressive, all of us (8 ppl) though the HRF worked very well and that that the 3D was used pretty much perfectly.


Oh yeah and then there is the ringwraith in Dol Guldur which is not wearing a cape and Radagast sees it with his bare eyes.

SSirppi wrote: "This is what I wrote to the J.R.R. Tolkien group discussion (and yes, despite evrything I think it was worth it and really liked the 48fps):

SSirppi | 8 comments I was in the first midnight showin..."

Haven't seen the movie but I know the Hobbit was the prequel to Lord of the Rings, which might explain some of these questions

Mona wrote: "SSirppi wrote: "This is what I wrote to the J.R.R. Tolkien group discussion (and yes, despite evrything I think it was worth it and really liked the 48fps):

SSirppi | 8 comments I was in the first..."

It really doesn't, trust me, the knowledge that I have of the book itself, LOTR and Unifinished tales (also Silmarillion thou it doesn't much comment on these events) is exactly what rises these questions in the first place. I have read The Hobbit around ten times and I know my Tolkien also otherwise fairly well. Everything I listed are changes made to Tolkien's texts and some of them just don't feel logical.

SSirppi wrote: "Mona wrote: "SSirppi wrote: "This is what I wrote to the J.R.R. Tolkien group discussion (and yes, despite evrything I think it was worth it and really liked the 48fps):

SSirppi | 8 comments I was..."

Then I must bow down to your greater knowledge.

Mona wrote: "SSirppi wrote: "Mona wrote: "SSirppi wrote: "This is what I wrote to the J.R.R. Tolkien group discussion (and yes, despite evrything I think it was worth it and really liked the 48fps):

SSirppi | ..."

Haha, please don't. I'm actually kinda hoping someone could explain these logically so they would stop bothering me :P

I think your feelings match my wife's. She has a much better memory for The Hobbit than I do and I could see her wincing at a few parts. For myself I really felt they dragged it out too much. It didn't need to be a 3 hour film. It was good but not great.

i wrote a spoilerfree review for the movie on my blog with some nice pictures. http://patricksatters.blogspot.de/201...

there i talk about the difference between lotr and the hobbit movie and a bit about the technology behind it and of course the movie itself.

SSirppi wrote: "This is what I wrote to the J.R.R. Tolkien group discussion (and yes, despite evrything I think it was worth it and really liked the 48fps):

SSirppi | 8 comments I was in the first midnight showin..."

check this link for a possible expaination for the differences

http://www.gnomestew.com/gaming-trend...

it definitely did not need to be a 3hr movie. when they got to the end, looking at the lonely mountain off in the distance, I thought, "there is no way in hell there's another 6 hrs worth of material in this."

things were awfully bloated. the onion posted an article about how the director's cut will feature a scene where bilbo takes 45 minutes to decide what to pack, and that's pretty much how I felt about the whole prologue bit...just get on with the story already!

Do they show Gandalf et al fighting the white witch? If there was anything worth expanding on in the book, that was it. Could be worth a whole movie with just that. (Did Tolkien ever write any details about it?)

It's been ages since I read the source material, but one of the appendix scenes that will be included in the remaining movies shows Galadriel rolling up and going to battle. And frankly, I'd watch three hours of Bilbo packing to get that.

David wrote: "Do they show Gandalf et al fighting the white witch?"

...What?

Shoot, I can't remember the details. Maybe the villain wasn't called the white witch. But while Gandalf is away he and others are fighting what I seem to recall to be an evil presence which may or may not have been Sauron in another form. I though the villain was called the white witch, but I may be wrong, as I don't read the hobbit on a daily basis.

David wrote: "Shoot, I can't remember the details. Maybe the villain wasn't called the white witch. But while Gandalf is away he and others are fighting what I seem to recall to be an evil presence which may or ..."

The Necromancer. The White Council supposedly drives him out of Dol Goldur but I don't think Tolkien wrote much about that part, though Peter Jackson could quite possibly add it. There's no White Witch in Middle-Earth, Narnia isn't part of that world. The only witch is the Witch-King of Angmar.

Ah, my mistake. These stories turn into a big jumble after a while. I wasn't thinking of the white witch from Narnia, but my brain must have stolen the name from there, if you follow my meaning. That is to say, the two memories got tangled up together and lost there way.

I think Gandalf should fight the Jabberwocky. After all, if Jackson can add whatever he wants, why not really get creative? Then he can make four movies instead of 3.
To be fair, The Hobbit is not LOTR, and it should not have been filmed as if it were. It was a traveling adventure, with a heavy emphasis on the traveling. Its appeal lay in its heavy travel detail, and as kids we were transported to lands that we could never visit. It is not a knock-down-drag-out war fest. Yet that is what Jackson seemed to be attempting. You can tell he does not think the story is all that interesting just by the fact that he puts the tree they all climb on a cliff, which makes no sense geographically if you read the book. But for Jackson? Well, he just felt he had to amp up the story. These types of decisions are about padding theater numbers, not making a faithful story. So if you know this, and don't mind, then just sit back and enjoy the altered ride. If it bothers you, read the book again. (And to be honest, I am not sure yet which camp I am in.)

My biggest grips was... If you're going to make it three hours why not give the dwarves a better backstory? Other than Thorin all you get for the rest is a name... and quick snippets throughout the movie. For anyone who hasn't been stalking Hobbit photos/posters/promos/trailers/etc it's hard to identify which dwarf is which. Even for those who read the books the dwarves can get confusing. And that's such a shame because there's so much more to the dwarves than what we've been shown. And before you say "We have two more movies to explore the dwarves!" the backstory and introductions should have been better/in the first one.

Just watched "The Hobbit" today. I enjoyed it, but I'm definitely going to have to go back and do some rereading. I liked the beginning with Frodo and Bilbo, which put the book nicely into context - I think this is probably for those who haven't read the book but will see the movie.

There was definitely as sense that "The Hobbit" is being set up as a proper prequel for LOTR. (Think the scenes of the white council in Rivendell).

I'm not sure what to make of the changes. It's been a while since I've read the book. I've read LOTR on and off, over and over for around thirty five years, so I was extremely familiar with that story when the movies came out, but I've really only read "The Hobbit" a couple of times, and was a bit hazy on a few points.

The cinematography was beautiful. I loved the feel of the movie, and I think they've taken a lot of care to make sure that Middle Earth was depicted in the same colour tones as it was in LOTR. I really enjoyed the increased screen time that Gandalf has in this film as well. Ian McKellen is truly wonderful.

The riddle scene with Gollum and Bilbo was fabulous, and just as I imagined it. Despite the changes that always occur when a book is turned into a movie, I think that this is one thing that Peter Jackson repeatably does well - he almost always depicts the crucial scenes of the book faithfully. The charge of the Rohirrim, Sam and Frodo on Mount Doom, You shall not pass!, etc. (With one notable exception - the characterisation of Faramir).

I'm not sure how expanding the rest of the book into two further movies will go, though. I shall await them with interest.