The Sword and Laser discussion

Am I the only one feeling some reluctance about the next installment of the Hobbit series? I've seen the trailer and about half of the content does not come from the book. I mean, Legolas? Really? My friends think I'm being too critical, but they are non readers, and thus I cant discuss why I'm grumbling about the changes I've seen. I so badly want to be excited about these movies. I've wanted a hobbit movie since I was ten when I first read the book. But after Radagast and the bunny sled and a Frodo cameo for no reason... What does everyone else think? Does anyone else dislike the inclusion of LOTR characters that did not appear in the Hobbit? Let me know what you think.

It's not the book. If that bothers you don't see it. Me, I've not seen the first one and might see this one. I understood splitting it into two movies (there... and back again). but three means too much crap gets put in.

Yeah, you're right. I'm probably being too critical about this.

Honestly, my interest in the PJ adaptations diminished rapidly at about the mid-point of the second LoTR film. By the third film, I'd lost any interest in his adaptations, and most interest in him has a film maker. (I sat through King Kong too... didn't like it.) I really tried to watch the first Hobbit installment, but I just couldn't find any pleasure in the liberties taken with the original material, or the interpretation of the materials that remained. In the long run, they're just not my cup of tea. If people like them and want to see them, that's fine.

So... I guess that means I'm not trepidatious as much as uninterested.

I really liked the first Hobbit Movie, but I'm not a purist. I read the Hobbit right before I saw the movie and kind of cringed and thought your making a movie based on this?

I basically thought of it as The 13 stooges and a Hobbit. Then I saw it and after cringing a little more at the Goblin King and the Wargs and the long chase scenes, I nodded and thought, when you add a little realism it works alright.

I thought they nailed the Unexpected Party and Riddles in the Dark scenes. I liked the additions of the White Council scene and the Ringwraiths. I don't what everyone hates about the rabbit sleigh, it seemed very Tolkein-y to me. I don't agree with Jackson's obsession with CGI, and felt Hobbit was probably too cartoony to be a classic like LotRs.

The book was fun and clever especially considering the time it was written, but I don't understand the desire to copy and paste it onto the screen. As a 100 year old faerie tale, there is no way it would have made its money back in the box office.

As for Legolas, I've heard Toliken professionals argue there is no reason he wouldn't be in a Hobbit movie. He simply didn't exist when the Hobbit was written and lets face it, besides the dwarves, only what...ten other characters had names that weren't just titles.

I was eager to see Unexpected Journey, and with Smaug as a main character, I don't see how I could be disappointed with DoS. But I understand why purist have and will continue to hate it.

Radagast is far better than JarJar.

Dustin - I think the problem is the wholesale inserting of a lot of material that's just not in the book. There's always change when adapting a book to a movie, but much of the change here seems to have been padding so they can get a trilogy out of what was, to be honest, a kid's novel. The story of the Hobbit is a rather fun little adventure story. It could have made a nice movie and I can even see it being two movies especially if you pad a little to show things that, in the book, happen off page. Stretching it to three movies is basically just a cash grab. Given that the first movie made $1 billion, I can't really fault them (who among us would pass up a fairly easy way to make $1b??).

Interestingly, I've heard that the extended edition of the first movie actually works better that the theatrical release.

Rick wrote: "Interestingly, I've heard that the extended edition of the first movie actually works better that the theatrical release. ..."

True. There's a fifteen second scene they cut from the beginning that everyone seems to scream, WHY DID THEY CUT THAT? Where the dwarf king teases the elf king with jewels before snatching them away. Then there's some talk about the dwarven rings of power which is kind of interesting and sort of funny. And some talk of how Thorin's family is infected with gold madness.

The general opinion is that if your a purist, you'll probably wished you passed. If you don't mind Jackson taking some freedoms, then there's a good chance you'll at least be entertained. As one reviewer said.

"But if I may paraphrase a certain grey wizard, I don’t get to decide which adaptation of The Hobbit makes it to the screen; all I get to decide is what to do with the adaptation I am given. And that Hobbit is Peter Jackson’s, not J. R. R. Tolkien’s."

Dustin wrote: "'But if I may paraphrase a certain grey wizard, I don’t get to decide which adaptation of The Hobbit makes it to the screen; all I get to decide is what to do with the adaptation I am given. And that Hobbit is Peter Jackson’s, not J. R. R. Tolkien’s.'"

Nice.

One Film to fool them all, One Film to grind them, One Film to lure them all and in the dark theaters combine them. In the Land of New Zea where the Jacksons lie.

Well, having people in the family that works in edition, and therefore are related to the movie industry, not this particular movie, just in general.
You get the insight that maybe this movie attracts new public because of some familiar faces, as a lot of people have read the lord of the rings butno t the hobbit.
So that would explsin Tauriel, the love triangle, and all this stuff brought from mars but not present in the book.
Personally, i liked the movie, its technically awesome, special effects, animation and all.
I though i wasnt gonna like tauriel, but i like the addition of a badass female character, with all those elegant moves and all. Worse liberties have been taken before.

What im curious about is...SPOILERSSS!!!!

What is gonna happen in the third movie when Kilin dies, I mean the fandom shippers are just gonna eat the man alive, what is he thinking. Maybe hes got plans to absolutely screw up the material???

Gary wrote: "Honestly, my interest in the PJ adaptations diminished rapidly at about the mid-point of the second LoTR film. By the third film, I'd lost any interest in his adaptations, and most interest in him..."

I'm so glad to see this because I feel exactly the same. I too lost interest at the second LoTR film and am skipping all the Hobbit films. Good to know I'm not alone. Thank you, Gary. I just got tired of saying "That never happened" after every scene. Call me a purist.

Gary wrote: One film to fool them all...
Perfect. I love it.

How Faithful Are ‘The Hobbit’ Films to Tolkien’s Books?

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/1...

Carmen wrote: "Well, having people in the family that works in edition, and therefore are related to the movie industry, not this particular movie, just in general.
You get the insight that maybe this movie attra..."

I think he is trying to build up the character a little. In the book apart from Thorin, Bilbo and Gandalf no one is actually developed and the only thing we know about the dwarves is: Bombur is fat, Fili and Kili are young. This way, killing Kili (hmm) have no impact in the audience, so creating a parallel story will make people care thus add some depth to his death (at least that's what I hope).

Jackson is including materials in the story from the appendices of the Lord of the Rings. For instance, what Gandalf was up to after he left at the edge of Mirkwood. He has also included some things that most likely happened. The army of the Wood Elves did march to the Lonely Mountain. Legolas, as the son of the king, was most likely there, even if he didn't get mentioned.

The book, The Hobbit, is a story told by Bilbo Baggins from his point of view. No doubt after his retirement in Rivendell he could have included much more information. He chose to keep it as he wrote it fresh from his adventure.

Jackson's Hobbit is a prelude to the Lord of the Rings. It includes the White Council, Sauron, and the like. It is not the book Bilbo wrote. OK. Adding things from other Tolkien writings and making reasonable assumptions is fine, for me.

I did thoroughly disliked the movie. Bilbo's single handed defense of Thorin makes him much more a warrior that he ever became in the book. SPOILER Bilbo never becomes a warrior. He doesn't kill the dragon and doesn't even participate in the Battle of the Five Armies. The main theme of the story is that friendship and the comforts of home are more valuable than the heroic code. Jackson made this mistake in his Lord of the Rings movies too. In the books a few chapters out of the whole are devoted to the great battles. I'd guess less than 10%. In the movies the battles take up most of the time, more than 50%? The emphasis is all wrong.

The gross things were unnecessary, Bilbo being used as a hanky, bird droppings in Radaghast's hair. The fight scene under the Misty Mountains was too much like a video game. I felt like I should be pushing the right button combo to make the next jump. I didn't even bother with the 2nd movie.

I go into movies that are adaptations of books/plays/comics like this...

I read the book. I loved the book. I will see the movie but I cannot compare the book and the movie.

I expect it to be standalone from the original form of art. I expect it to be different (if it were exactly the same - spoilers?) and I expect to like it differently. The movie will never be the exact same as the book. It will never be "as good" as the book, it will be different and its own. A movie is a different art form than a book and thus you cannot compare the two the way that many people do.

Example: X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Great action movie- but it did so many things "wrong" from a comic standpoint. Does it matter? No. It was entertainment. It had action, good acting, and great characters. I know that Sabertooth was never Wolverine's brother in the comics (once he was Wolverines father in a spin-off) and I know that Gambit was ALL wrong- but if you can take a step back and just enjoy it for what it was... it was a good movie.

And at this point there are far many more people that have watched the Lord of the Rings trilogy than have read the books. For those people adding in Legolas and the drawing and mention of Gimli helps tie them in to the world. It brings in things that are familiar and helps hook them. From a storytelling standpoint where the Hobbit is being shown as a "prequel" movie it makes sense.

Also- In the Hobbit, the book there were no women. PJ added women. Thanks PJ- we do exist!

I was skeptical that three movies were needed, but i am enjoying them nonetheless. I don't want an exact adaptation of the book any ways that would have been boring. I loved the orc/elf fight over the dwarves in the barrels.

I couldn't make it past the 1st hour of the first movie, I was so bored. And I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy (books and movies). I also like The Hobbit book, but not as much.

I dunno, I think I would have liked it better if he had stuck to the "feel" of the book, more child-oriented, less backstory and...pretentiousness? Like he's taking it way too seriously or something. I can't seem to find the words, but it annoyed me right away.

I'll try again eventually, when they're all out on dvd and I'm in a different mood.

It's not about whether the movie is the same as the book. Only a naif would expect that. However, a movie that feels vastly different than the source book is a let down to the fans of the book.

The book is an adventure yarn with relatively little battling in it and only one large battle (the Five Armies battle). Much of it is Bilbo, a stay at home, very content little hobbit being dragged into an adventure and both discovering that there's much more to the world that he suspected and that there is much more to himself that he suspected. It has moments of scariness in it but they're the scariness of a kid's book - we know Bilbo isn't going to be killed by Gollum, etc. Changing this to important, big setpiece battles alters it quite a lot from the book not only in material but in feel and purpose.

I'm another LotR fan who found the first Hobbit film intolerable. You don't get to make a movie that terrible and get my money for the next one, especially not at current ticket prices. I hear the second one is a substantial improvement, but I'll see it on DVD. If I like it, then I will likely see the third one in the theater

I didn't like the first movie. I was terribly bored by it and like Michele, I think Jackson made it too serious. The Hobbit isn't as dark as LOTR. It's supposed to be as Rick said, "a stay at home, very content little hobbit being dragged into an adventure and both discovering that there's much more to the world that he suspected and that there is much more to himself that he suspected.". I didn't get that sense in the first film at all. It dragged terribly in places as well. So overbloated. So I'll be skipping DoS until its on Redbox or HBO.

I think much of the dissatisfaction comes from calling these movies The Hobbit when they are, in fact, prequels to the Lord of the Rings. In the book, the only clear tie to what became LotR was that Bilbo found a magic ring. There was no indication that this was the One Ring. We didn't even know there was a One Ring or other rings of power. We had no idea of the mythology of Middle Earth at all, really. As I note above, the book was really a simply adventure book where our heroes get into scrapes, get out of them and Defeat The Dragon. Then they go home...

Now, as the appendices and other ancillary material from Tolkien make clear, there were other things happening. The Necromancer mentioned only in passing in the book was, in fact, Sauron and many other events were happening at the same time as the events in The Hobbit that were to move Middle Earth toward the events in LoTR. But those events are NOT part of The Hobbit. It's perfectly valid to make a series of movies around all of this... but that larger fiction isn't The Hobbit, it's The Hobbit plus a lot of other stuff, much of which alters the feel of the book's events. Trying to hang everything on the frame of a kid's adventure story feels like a mismatch.

Well said, Rick.

I saw it on Saturday, and I felt like it needed way more Bilbo.

I have little trepidation about seeing the second Hobbit. I can't possibly end up more dissapointed than I was after the first one.

I like the movies, but they're well into ridiculous territory at this point. There are some adaptation choices that made me roll my eyes. E.g., apparently the Black Arrow has been changed from Bard's unique heirloom to some sort of mass-produced dragon-slaying harpoon you could probably look up in the Dungeon Master's Guide.

But it's not like I hold the book in any special regard--and these films are far from the worst book adaptations I've seen. There's not a lot of decent sword and sorcery films out there to begin with, and these ones are among the best, even if they fall short as adaptations.

David wrote: "The fight scene under the Misty Mountains was too much like a video game. I felt like I should be pushing the right button combo to make the next jump...."


So happy to see someone else felt the same way! I'm pretty good at taking things separate from each other and enjoyed (not loved) the first Hobbit movie. But the fight scenees definitely had me feeling like I was watching someone play my XBox instead of watching a movie.

And I like the prequel aspects, particularly knowing that things are going on simultaneously. I think too often things are viewed in different microcosms, without seeing how things overlap and develop at different times and sometimes the same time.

Maclurker wrote: "I'm so glad to see this because I feel exactly the same. I too lost interest at the second LoTR film and am skipping all the Hobbit films. Good to know I'm not alone. Thank you, Gary. I just got tired of saying "That never happened" after every scene. Call me a purist."

You're welcome.

For me, it's not so much that I'm a purist. As a general rule, I don't think it's a good idea to take a piece of fiction that has been successful for as long as JRRT's work has been and tinker with it unless one has a very good reason to do so. However, even when one has that reason, it just seems like the majority of the choices made by PJ and his team are all weird, mediocre additions based loosely, if at all, on Tolkien's work. At this point, The Hobbit movies are like watching a fanfilm with a couple of million dollars backing it up. That's all well and good... but I just don't have a big need to see something so amateurishly written when there's an expertly written product that could be used.

But, hey, if it amuses people then that's fine. It's hard to see these films as anything other than a missed opportunity to me. I'm convinced they could do something better and still make the same money, and it wouldn't cost any more to make.... (Other film adaptations have done that.) Probably less, really. I'm sure one of these days somebody will write me a check for a half a billion dollars and I'll make my own versions. :)

Matt wrote: "For me it doesn't really have anything to do with the adaptation of the book and how faithful it is; I'm just not interested in sitting in a theater for 3 hours. I'll happily wait for the blu-ray ..."

It does give a whole new definition to the terms "movie butt" and "theater butt." In fact, we could just call it "Hobbit butt" or "Jackson butt" if those weren't already taken by actual (imaginary) hobbits and various entertainers....

The other benefit of watching those movies at home is that you can MST3K them without making the fans cry.

Saw the second movie yesterday. I thought it was entertaining, although some of the ridiculous physics (heat transfer, anyone?) were enough to bother me in the bloated finale. I actually thought the best parts of the film were the Gandalf parts. I appreciate that Jackson chose to adapt significant episodes from the LotR appendices. The White Council meeting in the first film was a high point as well.

I echo the complaints about the unnecessary length. Many of the actions scenes were just too long. They took up over half of the movie. That is ridiculous. I was tired by the end.

Indifferent about the addition of Tauriel. The superpowered elf protagonists (are Tauriel and Legolas really that much more overpowered than the rando elves who die in the background?) bothered me some. Also, when Tauriel is healing Kili, her slowed-down facial expressions were hilariously narmy. I had to suppress my laughter.

I saw it yesterday too. Legolas' acting bothered me for a while until I realized that Orlando Bloom is considerably older now than in LOTR and makeup can't quite conceal it.

I hesitated going to see it because I did keep saying 'they left that bit out?!' and 'where did that come from?' Talking dragons=okay, talking birds=not? Then I play the game of guessing why the scriptwriters made those particular changes.

FYI I pulled out my LOTR to check the appendices, apparently Sauron had left Dol Guldur by this point in the book, Gandalf's encounters there were in the past.

That Tauriel is one smoking hot she-elf!

Fresno Bob wrote: "That Tauriel is one smoking hot she-elf!"

Don't forget she did it with Merry on Lost, and dated him from 2004-2009.

I had a problem that they went all Mat from the second and third Wheel of Times on us.

http://www.tolkienprofessor.com/rss_f...

This podcast has yet to disappoint me on insight into these movies. Bottom of the list is the most current.

Dustin wrote: "This podcast has yet to disappoint me on insight into these movies. Bottom of the list is the most current."

Thanks for the link. Always interested in that kind of material.

I saw Hobbit II yesterday, and maybe it was the lowered expectations, but I enjoyed it.

At this point, I've come to the conclusion that this is a Peter Jackson film that occasionally features characters from The Hobbit. And I'm sort of okay with that.

The Gandalf/Necromancer stuff does absolutely nothing for me. There's no way that storyline can resolve in any way that's satisfying (since it's all just wank leading into LOTR), so I wish he hadn't bothered.

Smaug was awesome. Plain and simple. He's probably (definitely) the best dragon ever put on screen. And I do love a good dragon.

Tauriel, even if she does have a name that immediately conjures up raids in Stormwind, is very easy on the eyes. No complaints from me there.

My favorite parts of the movie were those few scenes where Jackson took something from the book and expanded on it. Like the barrel sequence. I actually enjoyed the barrel scene as ridiculous action shot. It was fun!

Anyway, if you can check your Hobbit-fanishness at the door (I did) I think there's fun to be had here.

But I think I'll always prefer the cheezeball Rankin-Bass animated version.

I saw it yesterday and opted to see the 3D High Frame Rate 4k res version. This was certainly an eye opener as the clarity of some parts was a very different experience from watching a 'normal' film. I saw the first Hobbit movie in just the regular format, not even 3D, so this was an interesting contrast.

Unfortunately what this does highlight is that HD and Blu Ray are going to be DOA in a very short time. Most manufacturers are already rolling out 4K TVs.

All I have to say is part 2 is not as good as part 1.

AndrewP wrote: "I saw it yesterday and opted to see the 3D High Frame Rate 4k res version. This was certainly an eye opener as the clarity of some parts was a very different experience from watching a 'normal' fil..."

I haven't seen the second film yet, but did see the first one in 3D HFR... I hated the format. It looked like a home video, and there was no way to direct the attention of the viewer. I ended up staring at beautiful landscape and ignoring the dialog of the film.

I have heard that in the second one the HFR was done differently so it wouldn't be so glaring, but I won't see it that way. I'll go 2D, normal frame rate and see if I can enjoy the film and not the technical "achievement" of the film!

I also saw the movie yesterday. I had low expectations; and I knew it would be much different from the original story. I still found it to be veeeery long and mostly boring. I couldn't find any entertaining stuff in it except for Smaug. I especially hated the scenes in the lake town.

Kathryn wrote: "I go into movies that are adaptations of books/plays/comics like this...

I read the book. I loved the book. I will see the movie but I cannot compare the book and the movie.

I expect it to be st..."


An awesome scene but for some reason Abercrombie doesnt like it. Novels are a subjective thing

Jason wrote: "I saw Hobbit II yesterday, and maybe it was the lowered expectations, but I enjoyed it.

At this point, I've come to the conclusion that this is a Peter Jackson film that occasionally features char..."

Must agree with ya. I have never seen a dragon as cool as Smaug. In film that is.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even OSC.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) Ratings: 8.1/10
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) Ratings: 8.2/10

I agree

I'd give it something like

Hobbit 1: 6/10 (most of those points come from the opening and the Gollum scene and Martin Freeman's acting. I subtracted a whole point for the rock giant scene, and another for Radagast.)

Hobbit 2: 7/10 I found it genuinely entertaining, despite the (yet again) superfluous orc scenes, and fake looking Legolas. From the additions I really liked the expansion of Bard and the Elven king's character and scenes. Also Smaug was majestic.

What bothers me most about both of them, and this is IMO mostly caused by the White Orc storyline, is the pacing. The Lotr films were majestic, epic with wide overview shots that gave a sense of scale and time passing as they journeyed. The Hobbit films are all action, action, rush, rush to the point where it feels that a journey that is supposed to take weeks went by in days. The whole thing just feels off.

i hate to say it, but maybe $$ has an influence...

actually bugger that of course it does. Ride on the success of LOTR movies and split a smallish book into 3 massive mainstreamish movies and make a mint. I'm in. I love this stuff, I'd rather Jackson made more. Also loved the books.

While we are at it lets make a movie for Hyperion, the commonwealth saga, Magician, ALL of Abercrombies's books, Reamde, proceed to list every book i like...

Excuse me, this is a delicious muscat.

I haven't seen any of them because of the same trepidation. The only way I can deal with "adaptations" like this is to think of them as completely separate things from the books. So I'll probably watch them eventually but in my mind they won't be at all connected to the book.

Lukus wrote: "Lukus Coffey | 1 comments I haven't seen any of them because of the same trepidation. The only way I can deal with "adaptations" like this is to think of them as completely separate things from the books. So I'll probably watch them eventually but in my mind they won't be at all connected to the book."

Your powers to compartmentalize are superior to mine. I can't manage that if I've already read the book first. They're always side by side in my head.

Finally watched this film. Didn't bother at the cinemas after being disappointed by the first film, and wasn't rushing for the dvd either, but I was curious about how it turned out, so...yeah...seen it.

Actually, I was surprised to find myself enjoying the wood elf bit. From the trailer, it looked terrible, what with the unnecessary insertion of Legolas and all, but, no, it actually worked for me. I mean, it bloated things a little, but there were enough cool/funny bits for it to be enjoyable.

Then that whole Kili thing got going, and that was annoying. My attention wavered quite a bit.

Then there was Smaug, and that was awesome...and then that whole section just went on and on. It was great until the dragon went on full attack mode, and then I was twiddling my thumbs, thinking to the dragon 'hadn't you better be off now? People to kill, towns to burn etc', but he hung around and the dwarves did whatever stuff they did that I stopped paying attention to, and I was day-dreaming to myself about being teleported into a fantasy world, and having an imaginary conversation with a mercurial being when Bilbo said 'what have we done' and I looked up and noticed the credits start rolling.

I do not think the problem is the diversions from the book. The problem is the bloated, uninteresting nonsense they have allowed to make a good little film into three really long films. I can only imagine how much pointless, uninteresting action is going to inflate the next one.

I dunno. Whenever I watch a movie, I engage in a different sort of suspense of disbelief. I love Peter Jackson's work (the recent stuff maybe not as great as King Kong, but is still wonderful!). I don't try to compare it with the books; they are separate pieces of art. I doubt anyone out there would do a better job, to be honest. :-)

Ruth wrote: "Finally watched this film. Didn't bother at the cinemas after being disappointed by the first film, and wasn't rushing for the dvd either, but I was curious about how it turned out, so...yeah...see..."

I understand why they did the chase scene. Smaug didn't have a reason to attack Lake town until they'd worked him into a rage. The problem was it was a barrel scene rehash except without even some red shirt orcs to kill off. We knew Smaug wouldn't die and suspected no dwarves would die, so I saw it as a very expensive Tom and Jerry cartoon. I did like some of the chase, but I became tired of the near death escapes.

I did like the plan to kill Smaug, it was a clever answer to the age old question, how do you kill a dragon? But the gold looked odd and to have him just walk off having molten gold poured on him seemed strange.

I didn't dislike the Kili scenes but it was a tad long and having it constantly interrupt other scenes was annoying. The fact that Kili seems to have a crush on every elf he meets kind of undermined what little romance their was.

They also needed a reason for the elves to show up at the mountain. To say they came for gold makes them seem flat and shallow. If they are chased out by the orcs or if the King wants the white jewels he's been drooling over, it makes more sense.

I think it's hard to judge the movie until the third one. I think there is a lot of build up that won't paid off until the series is complete. In comparison, each Lord of the Rings movie was more self contained.