The Hobbit: An Unexpected Chore
But the many battles with orcs and trolls and goblins seem redundant after the ten or so hours of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. They don’t have nearly the impact of the war scenes in the earlier films, particularly the magnificent ones in the final installment. And in The Hobbit, the many episodes of comic relief (such as a lengthy scene in which trolls threaten to eat our heroes but are easily defeated by a blast of sunlight) are awful, and there are even a couple of musical numbers that could have been cut without anyone protesting. It’s hard not to get the sense that director Peter Jackson is milking the clock in order to sucker the public into spending another $3 billion or so on what was originally a modest little children’s story that Tolkien didn’t even intend to publish. Only the first six chapters of Tolkien’s 19-chapter book are covered in this film.
Worse, for technical reasons Jackson chose to make the 3-D movie at 48 frames per second rather than the usual 24, which is supposed to allow him to speed things up but leads to oddly jerky character movements. Some early viewers have reported being nauseated by this new technique (though the 2-D version is being shown in 24 frames per second). Moreover, Jackson has overcompensated for the sometimes dim nature of 3-D film by over-lighting everything, and the expensively-wrought images may remind you of a modestly-budgeted TV production — a look that is more I Claudius than Game of Thrones. To say the least, this is a disappointing detail in a movie for which you may be paying as much as $20 a ticket.
Mainly The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey seems aimed at obsessives who (without cracking a book) want to know exactly how Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Saruman (Christopher Lee) and Elrond (Hugo Weaving) first enter the story, but then again, how many people do you know who came out of The Return of the King demanding answers to these questions? The Hobbit should have been subtitled, An Unexpected Chore.
*****
More new release movie reviews from John Boot at PJ Lifestyle:
All the President’s Concubines
Silver Linings Playbook: David O. Russell’s Syrupy Sprint for Oscar
Spielberg’s Boring Lincoln Like Cramming for the Oscar Final
Related at PJ Lifestyle:
i did not know about the film being in three parts
i was almost going to try to see it today thinking it would be a 3 hourish flick and a nice way to enjoy a rare little time off in the early afternoon
think i might have to pass
thanks for the heads up
This review is full of BS.
The pacing was excellent and the action was not repetitive. Sure, the fight scenes are not as epic as in LOTR but that is because they are minor skirmishes that take place in the beginning of the journey. The epic stuff comes later, the climax never happens in the first act. Every movie doesn’t have to end with a big battle between good and evil with the fate of the world at stake.
The reviewer seems to be stuck in the mindset that a story has to be told in two hours or less but this is a story that takes longer and is a more richer and rewarding experience overall. Why should any story be limited to two hours or less? Having a short attention span is not necessarily a good thing. Putting these arbitrary restrictions on stories doesn’t make any sense.
The reviewer doesn’t seem to have any knowledge of the source material when he advocates for chopping things out. His opinions about what makes a good movie or what should not be in a movie represent everything wrong with the movie industry today and is the mentality that leads to nothing but remakes.
Also, the technology gripes by the reviewer are totally overblown. It looked like he just copy/pasted what some other reviewers said. Pretty much this whole review was an unoriginal take on the movie. Did he watch the movie? We don’t really know but we do know he read other people’s reviews…
Go see the movie, it was great. Excellent acting, costumes, and set design. The first movie is very enjoyable on its own but it also plays into the larger story that takes place over the next two movies. At the end you will feel that things just got started and you will be left wanting more, just what Peter Jackson wants you to feel.
I never got that book. Why the hell do we need THAT many midgets to go on the trip? It’s absurd. And do we get individual character development for all of them? Nope. Just rhyming names.
And it reminds me of “The Wizard of Oz”: a super-powered being needs a clumsy everyman (who has no desire to be in danger) to do something his/her magic could do in five minutes. It would be like Superman saying to Jimmy Olson, “I need for you to defeat Braniac.” Jimmy: “Golly, Superman! You mean you want my help?” Superman: “No, I’m just going to make you do the whole thing. But, hey, I’ll show up when you’re all done and ask you if you learned anything.”
13 travelers comes from Nordic myths, though the details about it are fuzzy. Supposed to be a lucky number for a major undertaking. Aside from that, one of the dwarves is a descendant of the king who was driven out of their old home. He’s basically going back with his loyal retainers to reclaim it.
As for Gandalf, the “super power,” he probably is far more powerful than he is seen to be in the books and movies. However, that’s not the point. The point is that the mortals have to do things for themselves for them to have meaning. If Gandalf had cleared out the dwarf’s home for them, what would they think about that (then there is the matter of the treasure)? That’s not even counting all he could have done in Lord of the Rings, but again, what would the people have gained if he had? It would be like Superman taking out the British army and navy and saying “here’s your country.” I really think superheroes are overplayed in that regard, that everyone would love them when more likely people would treat them as community property, something to do things for them while being secretly hated.
Gandalf was, essentially, an angel. He was an immortal sent by the Creator to help in the fight against evil.
(As was Radagast, who bailed rather than fight, and Saruman, who let power corrupt him.)
He was something on that order. But you said it yourself: he was to help, not do all the work for them.
Remember that Tolkien was a learned man and a Catholic Christian. In that belief system, “Free Will” means just that: that humans possess “Free Will” to be weak and strong and evil and good. Therefore, the angelic Gandalf cannot do anything but help the peoples of Middle Earth.
Gandalf the Grey, did not have that much power. He could not have beaten off Smaug by himself. In LotR, it took him 7-8 days to kill the Balrog, and he still died (and was reborn as Gandalf the White).
As to why Bilbo was chosen, it was plainly stated. Smaug wouldn’t smell him like the Dwarfs or Men along with a hobbits inherent nature to go unseen when need be.
Also, Gandalf told Galadriel that he wasn’t even quite sure why he chose Bilbo, except that he was afraid and Bilbo gave him courage.
ordinary people around to rescue him from all those kryptonite traps.
Maybe the trouble is that the story starts as a simple children’s tale and ends as the Middle Earth Iliad. In the first part, Tolkien polishes off the dragon and has the dwarfs reclaim their underground city and their treasure – which was the whole point of the journey. Quest fulfilled, end of fairy tale. But then he adds the business with the Arkenstone, Thorin’s Pride, a lot of Middle Earth mytho-politics, and the Battle of the Five Armies – a whole new, serious plot that could have filled out a second book if Tolkien had gone that way.
For that reason, I can see two movies’ worth of The Hobbit but not three. I don’t think the story naturally divides into three parts. Maybe Jackson just wanted to make another trilogy to bookend LOTR. I agree that he’s probably stretching it a bit.
“Maybe the trouble is that the story starts as a simple children’s tale”
There are a lot of deep adult themes in Tolkien’s books. It isn’t really a children’s book, at least by today’s standards, although children do enjoy reading it.
Exactly. Neither LotR or the Hobbit was targeted to children or young adults (a genre which didn’t even exist at the time). The purpose was to deal with the struggle of good and evil in a series of epic tales.
Tolkien would disagree with you. The Hobbit was specifically written for children, apocryphally his own children. It’s generally accepted that a publisher submitted the text to her 10-year old son to get his thoughts.
You seem to mistake being a children’s story with some kind of insult.
It is being used as an insult to dismiss away any themes or subtext as being superficial, juvenile, shallow, and unworthy of serious thought or making a long trilogy because its kid’s stuff.
A better term would be young adult, children’s books are about Thomas the Train and Tolkien’s work is a giant step up from what is termed a children’s book today.
I think you misunderstand the use of the term. You are applying a lot of meaning to “children’s story” that simply isn’t there. It’s not an insult, you’re just taking it as such and foolishly so.
You’re misinterpreting the argument, I think. The Hobbit IS a kid’s book (still my favorite, regardless) and the Lord of the Rings trilogy is NOT a kid’s book. It’s not that Tolkien’s works are for kids, it’s that the Hobbit IS for kids. It is not an insult. It is rather to say that it is awkward that all this mature themed back story stuff has been injected into what was otherwise a fun and silly little adventure story. I would have preferred Jackson had kept it a silly little adventure story; that’s what made it my favorite of the series.
Well, CNN posted an article about five ways the movie differs from the book. According to it, Jackson took a lot of material from Tolkien’s appendices to LOTR, which explained the connection between the two stories. Like where Gandalf went when he disappeared, who the Necromancer really was, what was wrong with the Mirkwood, etc. So if you believe CNN, although Jackson’s “extra” content wasn’t in The Hobbit proper, it is all legitimately part of Tolkien’s mythical creation.
As for the “great themes” – The Hobbit had little to do with vast issues of good vs. evil, unlike LOTR. It was about Bilbo’s development as a character (fat, comfy hobbit finding his inner strength and bravery) and Thorin’s pride leading to his downfall. Also, I particularly remember the lesson of Bard of Lake Town – handsome is as handsome does.
It’s only when Tolkien “back-fills” the connection between Hobbit and LOTR that the “true significance” of certain events in the earlier story become evident. This was hidden in the original story. If you believe CNN, Jackson makes them explicit his movies.
So…er… the author says that three and half million words in four books is a simple, juvenile, children’s book? It wasn’t written by one of the best scholars in the last hundred years?
Totally meaningless? No value at all, to anyone, anywhere?
Gotchya.
No, he said The Hobbit (one book) was a children’s book.
Which is what it is and what it was intended to be.
You might want to re-read the book from a lit crit point of view.
What about literary criticism prevents it from being a book intended for children?
If you’re such a great critic of literature, how can you not see the glaring contradictions, mistakes and general broken nature of Jackson’s adaptations? You need to separate the films from the source materials. The novels are tremendous achievements of narrative structure and imagination. The movies are, at best, a perversion.
Oh no, the movies are different from the books! The horror, the horror.
You realize there are also strengths and limitations between the two mediums don’t you?
I’m glad you like the books better, so do I, but that doesn’t mean the movies are not also good. Describing them as bastardized perversions is more than a little over the top.
Actually, Warren, The Hobbit was originally intended to be a child’s story. It was only later that Tolkien integrated it into the rest of the LOTR story. That’s what the author was referring to.
I’m sure your brilliance caused you to misunderstand that.
Rob, Brian, please … haven’t you followed any of Warren’s comment on other columns? Surely you know that he’s never wrong – in his on mind, of course.
So…we’re trash talking a story by one of the best christian scholars of the last one hundred years, then.
In trash-talking the movie based on the story, we’re saying that we hate capitalism, scholarship, and stories about the triumph of good vs evil and freedom vs tyranny.
We’re saying that we think that one of the best scholars of the last one hundred years was writing simple children’s books. A totally useless story about nothing. Only kids would be interested in it. We hate it when christian scholars actually tell positive stories about our values to children and juveniles.
We also hate the very idea of Peter Jackson creating new industries in New Zealand, giving thousands of people work and new opportunities, from janitors to cafes to mechanics to you name it, and thereby increasing the tax revenues of an entire nation by several billion dollars per year…each and every year, for decades into the foreseeable future. We hate that sort of capitalism, now.
Not that we ever hollered about the film industry not telling stories that reflect conservatives or American values, even christian values. …’cause when they actually do that, we hate it.
‘Cause that is, in essence, what you’re all saying here. The Hobbit is a totally worthless story, and the movie is utter crap.
…but you can’t see that, and anyone who disagrees with you is nuts. Sounds like a liberal’s counter-argument to me.
No, we are trash talking a story by an erratic writer-director-producer with a questionable record.
In trash-talking the movie based on that story, we’re saying that we hate cheap effects substituting for quality movie making, weak hackjobs masquerading as creative writing, a lack of scholarship leading to said lousy adaptation in the first place, and the loss of an epic story of the triumph of good vs evil and freedom vs tyranny to one man’s ego and one corporations cheap marketing tie-ins.
We’re saying that one of the best scholars of the last one hundred years was so remarkable that he deserves to have even the least of his efforts, a truly remarkable children’s book, treated so shabbily. Further, in acknowledging that he was capable of writing children’s books in addition to adult books, not to mention the entire range of purely scholarly work, that he was indeed a great scholar, much like his good friend and fellow writer of both scholarly treatises on Christianity and adult fiction with Christian themes as well as children’s book with overtly Christian themes, C.S. Lewis. Or do you for some reason feel he was irrelevant because he wrote the Naria books in addition to his other works?
As for what the egotistical hack in question may or may not have done for New Zealand in terms of employment, that is utterly irrelevant to the artistic criticism of the movies in question. If I were to pay 10,000 people $10,000 dollars each to slop paint on a canvas would that make it not merely inherently superior to the Cistine Chapel, but beyond any criticism?
So we have strawmen, non-sequiters, an absurd standard of judgment, and a complete absence of evidence of actual content as opposed to inferred intent.
Those are supposed to be conservative arguments according to you?
Warren, you should probably consults Christopher Tolkien’s statements about the films. It might be eye-opening to you; that is, if you can handle being wrong.
Actually, Warren, you’re just putting words into people’s mouths.
Wow! You are more succinct than I am: exposition, walk (or run), battle, repeat.
Knowing that it’s a three-hour film, I looked up the hundredth page of the book to find “Out of the frying pan, into the fire” – so I knew the Eagles would have to make their appearance.
And you’re correct again: too many battles deaden the emotional impact on Bilbo and Thorin & Co.
Plus, STOP HITTING ME OVER THE HEAD with the message that seemingly “small packages” (ie, Hobbits) hold far more courage and moral character than given credit.
If I wanted a message, I would’ve watched James Cameron’s “Avatar.”
The first part of your statement complains that its all action with no substance and the last part complains that there is a message and all you want is action.
I haven’t seen it yet but I can’t wait I’m one of the lonely geek purest that would have been happy if the LOR trilogy had included another entire movie worth of stuff that happened those books. IE Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest, and what happened back in Hobbiton post war.
It’s like reading the abridged version then the unabridged its still the same story but your missing out on some the geekdom that comes takes JRR Tolken’s story from a good tale into a complete world.
I like that the Hobbit is going to be three movies. the book itself is broke up into them. Getting over the Misty Mountains, Getting though Merkwood then all the stuff with the Dragon and battle of 5 armies. It’s Awesome that they are willing to go into this level of detail! And some of the songs and such are are included only makes it better
The more I think about this, the more it bothers me.
We have a tale about good vs evil, about tyranny vs freedom, about individuls, even the least among the population, coming together to protect themselves, gain or regain their freedom and their property. ….and once the ‘mission’ is accomplished, going their separate ways, returning to their homes and their lives to enjoy their freedom and their property, in pursuit of their own happiness.
I thought conservatives liked that kinda stuff and wanted to see more of it out of the film industry?
Keeping in mind of course, that most of the actual work on the film(s) was done in New Zealand, where Jackson created or jump-started several new industries, giving the people of New Zealnad new opportunites to become employed and start new businesses. An example of the good things that capitalism can do for a country.
…but you don’t like LOTR or Jackson…or even the genuis who wrote the orginal story???
Ok. Fine, then.
Are you people nuts????
…or stupid?
Yes, Warren, we’re all in lock-step agreement with the author of this piece.
Gawd, your geenyus is stunning.
Dude, you are again confusing The Hobbit with LOTR. Not the same thing.
If the movies had actually been about any of that, rather than the puerile revisionism the Kiwi hack foisted off on an unsuspecting public, then sure.
Instead we got a pair of mindless frat boys who manage to come out of their pot haze a staggering two times to manage something useful, a pretty boy to flash his boyishly smooth cheeks, another pretty boy to flash his “rugged”, and perpetual, 48 hour stubble, comic relief, Sean Bean dying AGAIN, and a smarmy bromance, interspersed with whining, angty, emo, guilt-ridden, jealous, power-mongering, angry white men and women, wandering around aimlessly beyond the vague stringing together of the plot by the main “characters”, who somehow triumph when enough deus ex machinas are thrown about with abandon.
Oh, plus a New Zealand Travelogue.
New Zealand definitely got the better part of that deal, especially since the revisionist has to spend so much time overseas hawking his piece of junk.
For the rest of us, who were, I don’t know, maybe expecting a movie about faith, hope, perseverance, maturity, and all those other old-fashioned concepts, we got . . . CGI mucous flowing across a model of a castle to save the day.
Stupid and nuts is as knee-jerk nerdgasm does.
Ok. Lemme get this straight…
Many of you are trash talking a movie, which is based upon a book by a recognized scholar. Said scholar was also a devoted and life-long christian.
A story, btw the way, that is based upon known and acknowledged christian and conservative values and shows and reflects those values in no uncertain terms.
But, you’re trash talking it, instead of promoting the hell out of it.
…and you wonder why you’re losing the cultural war?
If they can’t see on their own what Tolkien was saying in his books, you will never be able to convince them those themes exist. Reading comprehension isn’t for everyone.
It is sad that some people lack an appreciation of Tolkien’s intellectual accomplishments and are so dismissive of his work.
You would think that conservatives would appreciate a movie about a group of people forced to wander the world because their homeland was taken from them and their efforts to reclaim it. Very similar to what Jewish people went through last century.
Really there is no hope for anyone who reads the Hobbit and misses out on how all the themes and subtext relate to events over the last century or even events as they play out today. Fantasy and Science Fiction are often used to explore complex social issues and readers should look beyond the hairy feet to what the author is trying to tell them.
What Jewish people went through “last century” ??? So, not only are you unable to separate a hack-job film adaptation from the quality found in the novels, your history of the Jewish peoples begins in 1900?
Your fanboy moronics and impish rants are probably doing more to drive viewers from Jackson’s work than the actual text of the article. Do us all a favor and keep your idiocy to yourself.
Are you familiar with the time period in which Tolkien lived and what Europe went through during that time?
I am perfectly able to separate the movies from the books as I have been encourageing everyone to do. Accept them as two different works in two different mediums. They are both enjoyable and well made and the movies are hardly hack jobs.
You also might want to brush up on the founding of the current state of Israel and how long the Jews were without an autonomous homeland.
Yeah, it was a lot more than “last century”, try millennia.
Who ever said it wasn’t?
Pretty cool in a thread about a hobbit movie we get a troll.
The movie Starship Troopers was, theoretically, based on the book Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein.
The book was unabashed homage to the grunt, the groundpounder, the poor bloody infantry, the ordinary fighting man.
The movie was an action flick spiced up with soft porn and overlaid with a pseudo-fascist denunciation. Or something.
The movie A Boy and His Dog was based on the short story A Boy and His Dog by Harlan Ellison.
Except for the very last scene, the movie is about 90% of a line by line adaptation. Because of that last scene however, Harlan Ellison despises the movie so much he feels it ruined the characters he created, and he abandoned plans he had for a sequel to the story.
Just because a movie is allegedly based on a book does not in any way, shape, or form prove that the movie contains anything even vaguely like the contents of the book, and in particular does not guarantee that the movie conveys the same message as the book.
J.R.R. Tolkien the man and his books are one thing.
Peter Jackson and the hackfests he made are a completely different thing.
By demanding that people treat one, which makes an utter mockery of the message of the other, as the other, it is you who are contributing to the degradation of the culture and advocating for a loss in the cultural war.
The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings are inarguably some of the finest celebrations of human strength in the face of pure published in the modern age.
The movies completely missed the point. Completely and utterly missed the point. Peter Jackson inserted far too much modern cynicism and destroyed some of the morality at play, not to mention the mythic quality of the story. And now, with the Hobbit, he’s done little more than shot his own fanfiction version of the tale. And, since he has no real grasp of Tolkien’s worldview, that was always going to cause these movies to be little more than offensive shlock.
The first product is amazing, and should be required reading in high school literature classes. The second is entertaining dreck that my children will only be watching after I read them the books.
You say you want us to support conservative movies? I wholeheartedly agree. What I won’t support are cynical cash-grabs that could care less about those themes.
Why does disliking the movie have to translate into disliking books?
Don’t be so one track minded.
For the record, the books have been my favorite series since I was 13 years old (20 years ago) and I still like the films, including the Hobbit. However, there are things I disapprove of in regards to the film. It took way too many liberties with the story. It added all that background from the appendices of the Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion, which was unnecessary. It added that odd scene with Radagast. It added a new “villain” for the book, in Azok, when the only Orcs that chased them were the same orcs that they tangled with under the mountain. (It added the Necromancer, which I actually approve of, since it was only hinted at in the books). It added a little more hostility between the Dwarves and the elves than existed in the book (the battle at the end was over greed and jealousy, not enmity). It shows Saruman as ALREADY corrupted and I do not believe he had supposedly become corrupted at this point.
Now, I actually LIKE the movie, but there’s problems with it. They’re not as glaring as the Starship Troopers adaptation (which satired the book, rather than paid it tribute), but they’re there.
Even as one who reread each of the three LOTR episodes just before seeing it in the theater, I think I’ll pass on this latest made-for-money series. I still haven’t forgiven Jackson for dropping the book’s “Cleansing of the Shire” from “Return of the King” (and the “Healing House” episode as well, except for a brief appearance in the Extended Edition).
If you were upset Jackson left stuff out of LOTR, then you should be happy he included more of the back story in the Hobbit right?
You mean, like a love affair between Gendalf and Galadriel?!
“The Scouring of the Shire” was likely left out of the film due to time constraints. The theatrical release was about 200 minutes. Adding that chapter would have required another 10-15 minutes at least. Few people are willing to sit through a 3.5-hour film without an intermission.
The problem with what you say, “Strider” is that what happened with the LOTR trilogy is the exact opposite. A minor chapter – Helms Deep – is a major part of the second movie, while other parts – The Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, The Scouring of the Shire – are totally ignored. It’s hard to escape the conclusions that many of Jackson’s choices were commercial and not artistic.
Scouring of the Shire and Tom Bombadil were left out for 2 completly different reasons.
The Scouring was left our because in a movie setting, you had these 4 hobbits go on a adventure and do more then any hobbits have ever done, yet when they get home they then have to clean up the shire. It would have been a drag and also would have required introducing additional hobbits from the shire in order to lend credence to the idea that the shire would go to crap.
As to Tom Bombadil, he serves no purpose in moving the movie narrative forward. He’s a enigma in middle earth, a pacifist, and according to Tolkein, not important to the narrative. Additionally, Tom is essentially Tolkein writing himself into the story.
Agreed.
PS – I think Tom Bombadil appears in the Hobbit ala an amalgamation with Radagast.
However, Ill never forgive the swirling ghosts of Return of the King. And I can forgive a lot.
Ill state it again. These Tolkien books would best be done in the vein of a high production value TV series…as Game of Thrones clearly does. In fact you could even have more detail and episodes (of Game of Thrones) IMO.
Most High Fantasy that would similarly be very well suited to that treatment. Even if Terry Goodkind’s Sword of Truth series was too low budget to pull it off, it had the right idea going.
I saw that it was going to be a trilogy and my first thought was, “Why?”
My second thought was, “Gawd, it’s a good thing Jackson didn’t break LOTR into 6 films!”
Then, “Meh.”
God help us all if he decides to make “The Silmarillion” and all the accompanying tales from the First Age.
Jackson can make a great movie; he can also get a little overblown.
Thanks for the laugh. And yep, I would not put it past Jackson to make the Silmarillion, with, of course, The Children of Hurin… oh my!
And I don’t think Jackson is so tied to ‘commercialism’ that he put so much time into the Battle of Helms Deep. I think that he just likes battles, huge battles.
It is a pity he missed the Scouring of the Shire and Tom Bombadil and the Barrowdowns. Oh Well.
Three movies is a bit much. Two movie or one longer movie with an intermission (like they used to do with long movies back in the day) would make more sense. I know that would mean leaving out a lot of material Jackson might want to include, but that’s just how it goes.
Exactly. I’m deeply sick of Peter Jackson and his bloated mutations of Tolkien. Go to hell, philistine. And Frodo wasn’t in “The Hobbit.”
Not to mention Galadriel!
I’ll stick with the animated original.
AGREED! Although I have a son named Jonathan, he is not you and you are not he, but I think you are a fine addition to the Sanders clans.
The animated version still resides in the front of my mind and I do spend some time during the plowing season replaying the movie in my mind.
I don’t get it you people. How can this not work?
You have a magnificently popular and creative fantasy trilogy beloved by millions, so it seems the next step is obvious –
Why not do a PRE-quel to such a great trilogy, and why not stretch a fairly small prequel story into a full-blown trilogy itself?
I mean…. what could possibly go wrong? Ya can’t lose!
Guess it is a good thing the source material is better than what Lucas was using.
Bilbo: Gandalf, why are you poking me with that needle?
Gandalf: Just checking for Midichlorians.
My biggest complaint with the lord of the rings was the changing of the story at places. Removing Tom Bombadil, skipping much of how Frodo even really got into that whole mess, making the first 30m of the first movie look like it took place over a day rather than the YEARS it actually took place over. Then of course them leaving out a lot of stuff in the third movie towards the end to just rush it to the conclusion
I’m glad they’re taking the time to tell the whole story this time and not gloss over large parts of the story. I’m sorry if your attention span only lasts 90 minutes.. maybe you shouldn’t be choosing to watch movies based on novels hrm? Or go back to watching “twilight” movies.. I’m sure those are more up your alley
I’ll probably p*ss off everybody, but while Tom Bombadil was interesting, leaving him out of Jackson’s LoTR didn’t bother me in the least. Elves at Helm’s Deep, Elrond in Rohan, Elwin rescuing Frodo, Gandalf confronts Saruman at Isengard, Frodo splits with Sam, etc? No, they weren’t things in the books but a movie and a book are not the same.
I think Jackson did a pretty good job of keeping as much of Tolkien’s story without it becoming too obtuse for the non-Tolkien reader. I went to Ralph Bakshi’s LoTR with a non-Tolkienite, and he said he was completely lost. The box-office showed that catering to the fan base doesn’t always sell tickets (he left Bombadil out as well, btw).
Some things have to be left out of a novel like this. And yes, movie people do want to make a profitable movie. I won’t deny that some of the changes disappointed me too. My biggest disappointment was relegating the Scouring of the Shire to a possible future in Galadriel’s mirror. I must have read that chapter 20 times. I enjoy both the books and the movies.
I’ve always thought it was like the book/movie The Shining. The book was great, the movie was pretty good. But if you compared the movie to the book, the movie sucked. You have to look at these adaptations as different tellings of the same story. Kind of like Tennyson and Mallory and their different takes on the legend of King Arthur.
Bombadil would not have gone over with modern audiences unless Jackson had altered the character beyond recognition. Nobody wants to watch a silly man in a silly hat dancing around bellowing “Hey come merry dol, ring-a-ding-dillo!” like some brain-damaged madrigalist at the local Renaissance Festival.
Yes, Bombadil was interesting – he was immune to the Ring and could command some of Middle Earth’s less savory denizens to behave themselves. But Tolkien admitted that he stuck Bombadil in the story for all sorts of cryptic personal reasons and never explained just who or what the character was supposed to BE. And Bombadil had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the tale. In short, he was a sideshow.
Words in a book are cheap, minutes in a movie are not. I totally forgive Jackson for not wasting the audience’s time with this mysterious, powerful, completely disposable loon.
Bugs, have you never read “Bored of the Rings”?
Tim Benzedrine was the most contemporary character in the book.
So he (getting back to Bombadil) had nothing to do with the epic main plot, but that’s going to be true of virtually every scene in The Hobbit, just Adventures in a Journey.
Though it’s true, there just wasn’t TIME.
Heck, Jackson could have played Bombadil, for that matter.
Excellent parody “Bored of the Rings”. I remember getting in trouble in high school for laughing out loud in class while reading it. A hilarious book if you don’t mind your Tolkien being satirized.
Toke-a-lid! Smoke-a-lid! Pop the mescalino!
Stash the hash! Gonna crash! Make mine methedrino!
Hop a hill! Pop a pill! For Old Tim Benzedrino!”
Yeah, I remember Tim and his girlfriend, Hashberry. I guess Tom might work today if his “hey-nonny-nonny” crap were played entirely for laughs. I don’t think that was Tolkien’s intent – he thought “hey-nonny-nonny” sounded pretty cool. Tom’s house and Goldberry would have been interesting to see on film.
I get the general disdain for Tom Bombadil (who first appeared as a poem for JRR’s kids)… but what about the Barrow Downs and the Wights… especially since this adventure was the source of Meriadoc’s sword which was the only one that could actually kill the Head Nazgul. Hummm?
Now, if Peter Jackson could splash out and do some back story on the 9 Rings and the men who wore them until they became Wraiths… and the hardy Dunedain who fought against them for all those years. Well.
Galadriel does not appear in The Hobbit book version.
The trailers already show what look like other departures from the book’s content and context, much moreso than the LOTR movies. And in general one expects any such departures to fail.
The thing is, I don’t see any satisfying stopping places in The Hobbit, which is already to some extent a pastiche of episodes such as a storyteller might create from night to night, with only the loosest connection in the first place. There is no payoff in the book until the end.
Plus, I really don’t like the look of the dwarves here, waaay too busy.
Also, one will note, that in The Hobbit Gandalf’s origin and powers are barely touched, other than motivating Bilbo out of his hole with, in retrospect, no Earthly reason to do so.
For all the critics. Read the book! It is worthy of a two-part film. In fact, in terms of pacing and story it is in many way superior to LoTR. And by the way, The third part of Jackson’s film is not even going to deal with the Hobbit per say. It is the story of the in-between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings: the rise of the Necromancer in southern Mirkwood and how Gandalf discovered that the Necromancer was in fact Sauron returned to Middle-Earth. How the Necromancer was “driven” from Dol Guldur by the Councel of the Wise. Radagast, Saruman and Gandalf, oh my!
Tarnsman, thanks for the info on the 3rd movie. I was always more interested in the narrative of Middle Earth than Hobbits. I read LoTR at least six times, the Silmarilian at least that many, but the Hobbit about half that. I think anything about the Necromancer of Dol Guldur and the White Council would be excellent.
In the Hobbit, Gandolf disappears for several weeks. He travels to Mirkwood because of talk of a Necromancer living there. Gandolf knew from the beginning who the Necromancer is.Gandolf forces Sauron to leave Mirkwood and Sauron flees to Modor. This all happened during the Hobbit.
In the book, the Dol Guldur bit is where Gandalf got the map and the key, but there is no further discussion of what it all might mean, … though it is somewhat cleared up in LOTR at the Council of Elrond (in the book, not mentioned in the movie).
… but if that is the subject of the third movie, it might be a good one, and Galadriel does come into that … though IIRC she doesn’t throw down its foundations until after LOTR, but what the heck, we can be a little flexible there if need be.
Interesting! I agree about two movies and I wondered how Jackson could squeeze out enough material for a third. One one hand, it sounds like another distraction from the main story – Bilbo, the dwarfs, and the dragon – but like the episode with Gollum, it will tie these movies to LOTR. Sounds like a good idea, anyway. We’ll see…
Thanks for that information. The Necromancer/Sauron is quite a story, and will provide a nice bridge to the LoTR!
Considering the dismal stuff that Tinseltown has been putting out lately, no doubt The Hobbit will stand head and shoulders above most of the rest… irregardless of our author and some of our posters comments.
Popcorn, anyone…?
First, let me admit right off that I am not and do not claim to be as smart as Warren Bonesteel. These are just my ignorant opinions.
I have been looking forward to seeing this for some time. I enjoyed LOTR and I hoped that Peter Jackson could once again make us think that fantasy was actually history.
I have read the Hobbit and LOTR. I see the Hobbit as a challenging children’s book: It is certainly a quicker read than LOTR, but not every pre-teen is going to find it easy to read.
I will probably see the Hobbit, but I am disappointed that Peter Jackson thought it was necessary to create a trilogy out of a shorter, simpler book. The decision to make a trilogy was probably a matter of simple economics: The audience willing to pay to see all three movies is probably smaller than the audience willing to pay to see just one movie, but as long as the potential audience doesn’t drop by 67%, Peter makes more money in the end.
It obvious that the producers wish to squeeze every last cent of The Hobbit. The problem is that the many Tolkien fans out there will just not see it. The book isn’t that long; the plot isn’t that complicated. Best to avoid the theatres and wait until The Hobbit is in the bargain bin at WalMart.
The fans were pretty excited last night. A lot of them were dressed up and all the theaters in my small town had at least 2 sold out shows per theater. Not a bad turn out considering people wouldn’t be getting home until after 3am on a weeknight.
Tolkien fans will enjoy the movie.
Sure there are differences between the book and the movie but so what? Has there ever been an adaptation that didn’t? Just go enjoy it for what it is, a well made entertaining movie.
Fanboys dressing up in lines at theatres aren’t fans of Tolkien, they’re fans of Jackson and his films. Enjoying the films is fine, the films are decent on their own, but they are not Tolkien.
Wow, what’s with the hate toward fans? Anyone who dressed up for the movie can quote you lines from the books.
It is possible to enjoy the books and the movies.
Darling, I’ve seen packed midnight showings for everything from Dredd 3D to Transformers 2. It means nothing anymore, other than those are the best shows to go to for the crowd reactions.
And the above commentor is right. The real Tolkien fanboys are at home, rereading the books (and besides, The Lord of the Rings doesn’t really have a fandom like Star Trek or Twilight, and never has). Just because a bunch of bored teenagers and a few die-hard geeks show up for completeness sake does not mean the fans are loving it. Heck, I went to the X3 midnight showing, knowing full well it had butchered the best X-Men storyline ever told, just because it was the thing to do.
I was responding to a comment that Tolkien fans would not go see the movie. That is demonstrably false.
There is nothing wrong with people liking the books and the movies, liking one is not mutually exclusive to the other.
My view is— I really get lost in another world when ever I watch LOTR. Can’t wait. It’s just fun and something I really enjoy. Besides I haven’t been to a movie in over two yrs.
“Simple”? Nothing about J.R.R.’s creative works was simple. I love the LoR, having read it several times over the decades. I thought Jackson did a stunning job with his cinematic trilogy, and I am not reading ANY reviews until I see The Hobbit for myself. But I do find it kind of weird to see such a fuss being made of it, especially on sites like PJM, NRO, etc. And frankly, I hope the movie rocks, because I could use some good fantasy about now. Frodo lives!
The movie rocks. It’s am action packed adventure with lots of cool stuff. It’s a visual steamroller. The story elements were strong too. I can nit-pick Peter Jackson but not on this film.
A family of 4 next to me left at the start. The Mom did not like the hobbit smoking and dwarfs burping.
I will see it again before the weekend is over.
Who cares if it is three movies as long as all the movies are good. The first one was good and the last two probably will be also.
All of the people saying things like one book means one movie need to get a grip.
Let the man tell his story and then judge it by how well he does.
Also, who cares if Jackson wants to make money. I think his focus is on telling a good story and that the money will come regardless but when did PJM readers turn into Obama voters getting upset when people make money.
Jackson isn’t telling “his story”; he’s ostensibly telling Tolkien’s story. He did a very poor job. The Godfather is a faithful adaptation of a novel. Jaws is a faithful adaptation. These films maintained the same feel, pacing and intent of the original tales. Jackson fails on all these counts.
“Differences” aren’t the issue, and aren’t necessarily problems on their own. Jackson’s LOTR adaptations break the story structure and fail to communicate the same themes. Mistakes made in Fellowship compound through Two Towers and inevitably lead to the mess that is Return of the King. They are not substantively the same stories, they only follow similar, superficial, plot devices.
Jackson has taken a single novel, shorter than any of the LOTR texts, and made as much movie out of it as he did the full LOTR trilogy. This can’t be done with good pacing, it’s necessarily stuffed with filler in order to pad the length of the films. It’s assumed he did this in a cynical attempt to extract more cash from the easily entertained. You may enjoy mindless action, but don’t confuse that with Tolkien’s literature. The books and the movies are not the same thing. Equating and conflating the two seems to indicate grave misunderstanding on your part.
There’s nothing wrong with making money, the problem comes from a bastardization of one of the greatest works of literature of the 20th century. Elevating that adaptation and equating it with the original work is very frustrating to actual fans of Tolkien. Jackson himself mistakenly describes portions that were changed for the sake of the films in the LOTR commentaries. During a changed scene he explains why the differences are there and what happens in the original text; unfortunately he’s simply, objectively wrong about what happens in the original text.
Enjoy the films if you do, I don’t begrudge anyone’s entertainment; but don’t tell me it’s a faithful adaptation.
The pacing was great. The hours flew by. The end came naturally and is the perfect jump off point for the next movie.
This was hardly a bastardization of Tolkien’s work. Guess what, this isn’t Tolkien’s book but a movie based on it. Accept it for what it is, a separate work in a different medium.
It is a well made movie.
I’d like to see The Tower of the Elephant as a 10 part miniseries. There’s that interesting backstory about the pig-sized spider.
I loved “The Hobbit” when I was a young teen, have read it several times since, and look forward to seeing the first film and having fun!
The Hobbit + LOTR appendix material
I LOVE IT!!!
One thing not touched on so far in this discussion is that The Hobbit was clearly a tale written to be read aloud, and the unabridged audio version by Recorded Books Inc featuring the narrator Rob Inglas is simply superb and worth every penny.
Thanks, Ill check it out.
I thought it was a great movie, at first. But I never really got into taking the story seriously, and in time it was just a special effects visual show. That works for a while for me, but not for hour after hour.
For those who get off in it, I can appreciate why. But not for me.
“I never really got into taking the story seriously”
That’s precisely the tragedy of Jackson’s films. Tolkien’s stories are a masterwork of narrative and the story itself should be exalted, not reduced to an excuse for empty effects and popcorn films. Rather than driving people to the novels in order to get even greater depth and understanding of Tolkien’s work and themes, the films target shallow minds and convince them they’re deep. Jackson’s work convinces more people they shouldn’t be reading.
Jackson’s adaptations are more like a Romeo and Juliet porno than actual Shakespeare.
You are wrong if you think the movies didn’t drive more readers to the books.
I don’t think you understand the natures of books and movies. They are two totally different mediums and some things that are conveyed well in books are not as easy to translate to the big screen. For one books rely a lot on the imagination of the reader but movies less so. What is scarier, the Gollum you imagine on your own or the one portrayed on screen? You might want something that matches your imagination but so might every other reader who imagined things differently than you. It is an absurd standard to hold the movies too. It is impossible to recreate what you think movies of the books should be much less the millions of other fans who all have slightly different takes.
Look at all the troubles adaptations of Romeo and Juliet have faced and this was even written to be acted out on stage, a much closer medium to film than novels.
It’s too bad you don’t like the books and the movies, they are both good and this probably means you don’t like Phish covers of Snoop, The Walking Dead, or Game of Thrones which is too bad… for you.
Some people read the books because of the movie, but many were also driven away from them because the story was stupid.
I notice you avoid the substantive critiques and stick to the shallow. I haven’t said the movies and books need be identical; as I wrote above, having differences isn’t the problem. The problem is that the adaptation breaks the story structure and ultimately tells a different tale. They are obviously different mediums with different strengths, but stories require structure in both and both can tell the same stories in different ways. Jackson doesn’t do this, the films are all spectacle. There’s much more there, or at least there should have been.
If you think the movies are as deep as the novel or communicate the same themes, I suspect you don’t understand the text as well as you believe. You seem to have difficulty understanding the meaning of text as evidenced by your behavior on this board. I also wrote that the films are decent on their own, they just aren’t Tolkien. Tolkien deserves better storytelling and more depth.
“I notice you avoid the substantive critiques and stick to the shallow.”
Ok…
There were no substantive critiques in this review. Arbitrarily declaring something too long or that a single book cant possibly be three movies is not substantive.
“If you think the movies are as deep as the novel or communicate the same themes”
Well, I don’t and never stated that. But I do think the books are worthy enough to have their own movies.
“You seem to have difficulty understanding the meaning of text as evidenced by your behavior on this board.”
Your comments jumped the shark a long time ago son.
TLDR
except for the first few of which WODUN is spot on.
If your not into Tolkien, don’t go and then especially
DON’T COMMENT!
Amen.
I read “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy back in the early/middle 60′s while at college. It was a captivating story. I tried reading “The “Hobbit” but it seemed to pale in contrast to “The Lord of the Rings”. In the 70′s, I read a short book titled “Bored of the Rings”. I never laughed so hard in my life! Recently, I downloaded and read a delightful piece called, “Wobbits”. Again, laughed my butt off. When I saw that a short story “The Hobbit”, maybe about as thick as 1/3 to 1/4 of just one of the three books in the trilogy, it became apparent to me the main goal of this new movie(s) is money. They managed to wring 3 movies out of this? Good lord, someone has learned how to get blood out of a turnip. I seriously doubt I will waste my hard earned money to go see it. After all, I will have new and burdensome tax and healthcare debt to take care of.
We haven’t been to the movies in 5 or 6 years. Movies have become either computer generated orgies or another damn remake of a previously released movie and generally, the first movie was better than it’s remakes.
The best way to do these Tolkien books (and many others especially in the fantasy genre) is by chapter or several chapters at a time (whichever may be more appropriate), in a high production value television serial.
I avoided the 3D and saw it non-3D and the 3D cutouts were easy to see, and the dizzying camera pans and weird angles for 3D effects were distracting and nausea inducing. 3D cant die fast enough, to prevent other productions of major works from getting this production gimmicks over plot and character development treatment.
The 48 FPS was fine though.
I do think young Bilbo was well cast, and so was Balin. But not Thorin Oakenshield, who was a disaster, having nothing to do with the actor himself (it wasnt his fault). And Radagast seemed to be some weird conglomeration of Tom Bombadil (a character from Fellowship).
And I never like Alan Lee’s/Peter Jackson’s Rivendell.
That being said, I can forgive a lot, but I cant forgive what 3D did to story.
If the 3D bothers you, there are still black and white films made before 1939 available on youtube, netflix, and elsewhere.
3D wont last long. I just hope that we dont have to have many more Western Classic adaptations ruined or seriously crippled by it.
Im an A/V guru, by the way. I get paid to write about A/V technology.
I do think there is a future for 3D in remote drone control systems.
I took my nephew to see the movie this afternoon, and loved it.
He liked it too, but he was a little tweaked when it ended. He didn’t realize it was a series of films. I’m glad it is, because I wasn’t really prepared to spend nine straight hours in the theater…but, my nephew would have.
Peter Jackson’s films are as superior to everything coming out of Hollywood these days as, well, eating at a 5-star chef’s restaurant is over some place along County Road A26 labeled “Eats”.
The fact that certain reviewers don’t like Tolkien is evident. The author displays this by leaving out critical details of the well-known (to many) story. There are a great many characters to meet yet. There are a great many challenges to overcome. There are a great many battles to fight. And there are the silver spoons to be recovered from Lobelia Sackville-Baggins.
The movie was long; but the only advice I have for the author is to stick to TV. Those episodes are generally over more quickly.
The rest of you should avoid bringing large drinks into the film. If you need to leave, you will miss something. And then you’ll need to watch it again. Or you might just want to do so. It is a delightful story and will be worth eight to ten hours of extended DVD marathon viewing (with friends, snacks, and seasonally-appropriate beverages) when it’s all available.
On second thought, perhaps I might direct the author’s attention to the Harvard Lampoon’s old book “Bored of the Rings.” That might suit him better.
It was wonderful. I loved every minute of it. HFR is an amazing experience as well. Don’t listen to the critics. Judge it for yourself.
HFR is good. 3D, not so much.
Did you notice the inordinate amount of sweeping pans in the film? This is to show off the HFR.
It is striking to see the cacophonous nature of the complaints here–sometimes contradictory complaints in the very same post–sometimes several times. Does this render a post an aiti-post? A space where information, enjoyment and interest go to die?
We see complaints that Jackson didn’t include enough in LotR, coupled with complaints that there will be more than one Hobbit movie–why? Because Jackson is including more.
We see self professed fans with a complete lack of understanding what’s going on–’how can you stretch 3 movies out of one, thin(?) volume?’ Have you not read Tolkien?
And the author of this piece should be ashamed of himself–
“And in The Hobbit, the many episodes of comic relief (such as a lengthy scene in which trolls threaten to eat our heroes but are easily defeated by a blast of sunlight) are awful,”
Awful? The troll scene? The one fans have been dying to see enacted ever since the stone troll scene in FotR? I don’t think you’re a fan at all.
“… and there are even a couple of musical numbers that could have been cut without anyone protesting.”
The audience clapped when those songs showed up. More from Tolkien and an homage to the cartoon. Or did you miss that? A fan wouldn’t.
I appreciate this review, but I have to see I disagree with it nearly 100%. I went and saw the movie on Saturday, and was surprised by how quickly it passed. When I checked the time for the first time, two hours had flown by. It finished and I was ready to see more. I didn’t want it to end yet! So needless to say, I did not find it a chore at all.
That’s because the first 30 minutes were promos/trailers.
Thus comes a review from a generation with the attention span of gerbils. Great day, must EVERYTHING be condensed down short enough so that your popcorn doesn’t get cold before the end?
The movie was a delight, and it’s a genuine demonstration of Peter Jackson’s art as a director. He actually manages to incorporate this prequel into the mythos of the LOTR trilogy— something Tolkien himself admitted to making a bit of a kludge.(The original transition from the Hobbit to Lord of the Rings was far more jarring, and came across as something of an afterthought to any in depth reader. It almost seemed to have taken place in an entirely different Middle Earth.) The man actually manages to both flesh out the original story, and to bridge one story into the next AND spackle over long-standing plotholes in the original writing. Is it stretched to a trilogy? Hells yes, do you think anyone who was rabid for the LOTR movie trilogy would settle for anything less than three MORE movies?