The Hobbit book has a much lighter, humorous atmosphere than the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien wrote the Hobbit years before he created more of Middle-earth's history; he wanted to rewrite it after he completed Lotr, but never did.
Keep in mind that The Lord of the Rings is about the possible destruction of all of Middle Earth by an extreme evil while The Hobbit is about a bunch of Dwarves and a Hobbit going off to get back some gold and fight a dragon. There is importance to their quest, but it does not hold nearly as much weight as The Lord of the Rings.
If they fail, maybe they die, or they simply don't get their kingdom back. If they failed in LOTR everybody was going to die or become slaves and all of Middle Earth would be in ruin. I appreciate that Jackson is taking his chance to add a lot of extra info into The Hobbit from the LOTR appendices, but The Hobbit is, as many have said, written for a younger audience. Tolkien even considered going back and rewriting it in a more adult form to match LOTR, but he decided not to because The Hobbit is simply not as heavy a story. And that should not be a mark against it.
Also, another director did have the reins for a while before Jackson returned, and he is credited with that work, that's why it doesn't feel exactly like LOTR. If you know Del Toro's work (Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth) that makes a difference too.
You expected Hobbit to be like Lord of the Rings. But The Hobbit is NOT Lord of the Rings and it SHOULD NOT BE like Lord of the Rings AT ALL. Read the book.
That being said, I too found The Hobbit to be An Unexpected Failure. For other reasons, of course. Starting at the beginning, was that flash-forward to Lord of the Rings necessary? Nope, it was not and instead of random orc chases (more later on), the story about downfall of Dale could be told over some campfire in order to bring some action into the movie later on.
Next, Azog the Goblin is mentioned not even once only once or twice in the book, and Thorin hints that Goblins in the Moria were dealt with. In the movie, Azog iz apparently very much alive and wants to avenge his hand by killing Thorin and everyone that's around him. This unpleasant thing results in orcs randomly popping up because Americans can't watch a movie that contains low amounts of action (with exception of some specific genres). That "le avenger" subplot is so basic and with no work done on it... Seriously, I thought such shitty (sub)plots are gone from AAA movies, but I figure UAJ had proven me wrong.
Another side effect of that is that Goblin King is no more than a mercenary and - yeah I do know that Hobbit is not supposed to be über-serious, but the amount of fail humor in that section is too damn high! I don't have a problem with Peter turning the goblin tunnels into a cave that's big enough to contain Tyria, Tamriel, Narnia, Azeroth and three quarters of Ferelden, though, but I dislike how the pursuit in the said cave ended. There's tons of better ways to end a chase than breaking almost whole physics and cherrying that up with some more fail humor. About at that point I managed to realise that the movie won't really completely live up to my expectations, but the worst was yet to come.
The ending. It's... An unexpected letdown, failure, soap, lemon... Does anybody else recall what the book had to say on that matter? Yeah, that's right. Fellowship runs on trees, wargs surround them, Gandalf instructs them to trow some cones and goblins then torch the trees they're on with the cones. Tolkien keeps subtly inserting his Christian agenda at that point and provides them with get-out-of-jail-free card. Eagles come and take them to safety. Compare that to what happened in the movie: wargs come, jump on trees till they fall and dwarves + Bilbo + Gandalf eventually reach the last tree before the cliff. Fire cone throwing party commences and ends when the tree ends up leaning over the cliff with two dwarves almost falling off. Thorin then decides that it's a good moment to Leeroy at Azog, who then totally pwns him. He then orders one of his minions to make Thorin a head shorter. Good Guy Bilbo notices that and goes Blitzkriiiieeeeeeeg!!!! at the minion, killing him not quite softly. WHAT THE FUCK, PETER, WHAT THE FUCK!? You know what Bilbo and Columbus from Zombieland have in common? Yes, it's rule 17. Don't be a hero. And, guess you hadn't noticed, Bilbo is not a hobbit of big deeds - Congrats, Peter, you've just totally screwed Bilbo's character. Then shitstorm breaks loose, eagles manage to rescue the company later than the last moment possible and carry them away, to some place where they can see the lonely mountain. At that place, Thorin gets okay enough very soon and does to Bilbo what Stoik has done to Hiccup after he found that his son just reached a new record in bashing one's own head against the rock. For those who don't get the reference, that means: "Oh sorry Bilbo, I thought you are a piece of shit and the greatest fucktard I've ever seen, turns out I was completely wrong and you're not a fucktard after all" + a hug that lasts one eternity and a half. And this... this is where this movie fails the most.
In translated version, word 'orc' is not mentioned only once or twice (and interchangeably with word 'orc' for that part). And as far as I've come with English version of the Hobbit (pocket edition), I haven't seen word 'orc' being written yet. And Azog is/was a goblin too.
I suppose it's possible in some of the earlier drafts, but I've read everything Tolkien that I can find and haven't yet found such a thing, though I haven't yet been able to read all of the Histories of Middle-Earth. Even if they weren't quite synonymous in a few cases, though, I think they would likely still overlap some.
There were some definite detours from the book. You have to bear in mind that the Hobbit was written in a more child-friendly way than the Lord of the Rings, and also that the film went through loads of production hullabaloo (didn't it start off with Guillermo Del Toro as director?). My main complaint was that it felt fractured. Some of the scenes were great, particularly Bilbo meeting Gollum which felt ripped right out of the book. Others felt 'out of character' (what was WITH the whole Radagast scene?) or like the pacing was off (some of the talky talky scenes felt too long). Overall, it felt like a middle of the road film, and I certainly didn't get the whole 'Wow thats EXACTLY how I imagined it' thing like I did with the previous movies. I'm hoping the trilogy saves itself with the other two, but I gave it a passing grade. Nothing spectacular, but its not really fair to judge it TOO harshly.
I think the movie is amazing! I read the book and I am very satisfied with how the movie turned out. Before watching it, I was a little bit anxious concerning the movie's length, though. I imagined that almost 3 hours would be longsome since I get sleepy very easily during movies. But it was perfect! The 3 hours passed by so fast and there was no scene that bored me. So the Hobbit is really worth watching, imo.
Well "The Hobbit" was a children's story TO BEGIN WITH in the FIRST PLACE, I saw it last night with my family and......WOW!...This was my FIRST "Middle Earth" film I've seen since when the original LOTR trilogy came out, I was in elementary school and thus too young and it has been a BITCH JUST TRYING to find "Fellowship of The Ring" at the Library on DVD so I can watch them IN ORDER...I'm now HOOKED!
I have a feeling that those who went into this movie expecting The Lord of the Rings came out disappointed (like my friend who'd never even read the book), while those who went into it expecting The Hobbit (more or less anyway) were much more satisfied with the movie (that's me). Fact is The Hobbit was always a lighthearted book about a bunch of dwarves, a wizard and an out-of-place protagonist going on an adventure to kill a dragon while encountering all sorts of episodic dangers while getting there. And for that, unless PJ wanted to really deviate from the book's tone, this is pretty much what you were destined to get from it. The Hobbit's never been LOTR and it will never have its epic scope no matter how hard you try to look for that.
Well, I just got back from seeing The Hobbit and I absolutely loved it. I am a huge Tolkien fan, I read the books years before the movies came out. I was one of the big skeptics, I really thought this book couldn't be filmed. But PJ proved me wrong.
And The Hobbit is just as good. It was like going back to Middle-earth during a golden age, it seemed lighter, brighter, without the constant feeling of doom hanging over everything that LOTR (rightly) had. And I loved how close they kept to the book. It was awesome, everything I expected it to be! I had very high expectations of Riddles In The Dark especially and Andy and Martin absolutely nailed it! The introduction of Smaug was also very well done. Not showing too much but at the same time he becomes all the more threatening because we see what he's capable of.
But if you go into this movie expecting LOTR part 4, then you might be disappointed. The book was intended for children. So naturally the film's going to be less serious, have more jokes and ,especially with it being cut in three parts, it's not going to be as fast-paced.
Literally the majority of criticisms are from people who haven't read the book. It was very accurate, which is another complaint. They called the movie slow which is calling it a good adaptation considering that portion of the book was slow.
Hmmm, I watched it and I felt on a positive side it was kept in the boundaries of the book, and the production team did successfully include parts of the appendices of The Lord of The Rings into the film, which gave a nice tie-in to the much maturer trilogy. Negatively I felt the pace of the film was spread to thin. Two films yes, but not three. In regards to it being a children's novel, you'll have to remember that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote "The Hobbit" in 1937 especially for children. And the joking around was a part of the book. "The Hobbit" was essentially a lighter tale than the more darker events of "The Lord of the Rings". Still it isn't over yet. There's still "The Desolation Of Smaug" next year.
Kaida-22Featured By OwnerDec 19, 2012Hobbyist General Artist
I though the movie was great, not amazing, but great. I was waiting for it for forever and very excited to so see it opening night but I really think I need to watch it again because with the audience's laughter and it being so early in the morning, I don't think I got as much out of it as I should have.
I was really impressed with the opening sequence where they gave the history of Smaug's takeover of The Lonely Mountain and the introduction of the Dwarves to Bilbo. I also thought that Azog was very well done. There were quit a few well-timed humorous moments but also a few that made me cringe...
After the first hour, I felt that a lot of the humor gets pretty campy. I understand that this book is supposed to be light-hearted, but I don't think that humor should interrupt the action and I think that was the case more often than not here. A few examples that stick out in my mind are when Gandalf chops off a guys head and it stays on for a few moments before he shoves it off, when the fat goblin gets his belly slashed and says "well that will do" before he dies, and the "3 stooges" trolls (if I remember correctly, they don't speak much in the book). I really feel like these parts could have been done better...
That being said, I did enjoy it and plan to watch it again, but I really hope they cut down on the campy humor in the parts to come.
I haven't seen it, and I must say that I'm not in a hurry to. I wasn't in a hurry to see any of the LOTR either, but when I did, I enjoyed them. I've never been a fan of "See the movie as soon as it comes out". I prefer to wait until all the fuss has died down.
I was listening to the news this morning and apparently Sir Peter Jackson has been getting rather alot of complaints from Canada, The States, and New Zealand regarding how he chose to shoot it.
Personally, I can't wait to see it. When the LOTR movies came out, I was still too young to really care. I read the books a couple of years later after seeing the first 40 minutes or so of The Fellowship of the Ring, and absolutely fell in love with Middle Earth. I really love the tone of the Hobbit- you're aware of the "narrator" who offers funny little jokes or facts, but it's also pretty dark in some places, for what's considered a "children's book." So while I love the epic scale and masterpiece of the LOTR trilogy, I also have no trouble accepting that the Hobbit isn't exactly that. It's a wonderful story in its own right.
That said, I'm a little sceptical as to an entire trilogy based off of the Hobbit. I can definitely see two movies, and I guess three is plausible as long as the last one isn't a stretched-out three-hour-long battle.
Anyway, love the book, love how it's not exactly LOTR but something a little different, and am looking forward to seeing it.
Question to those who've seen it in 48 fps: is it really as jarring as critics have been saying? When the Hunger Games came out, a lot of people reported feeling nauseous because of the shaky cam. Is that the level of 'unusual' that it is- something that makes you physically ill? Or is it just something that you need a few minutes to get used to?
I loved it, though it could have been much better. I've read the book and it's absolutely top 3 of the best books i've read. I think Peter Jackson made it to much of a kids movie though, and he screwed up the part with the trolls really big. And the goblin king, what the hell was that!?
Everyone seems to complain that he's doing three movies of the one book, but I really think it's great, there's so much content that he whould have to skip if it was only one movie, though maybe two whould've been enough.
I loved the trolls, they had a certain Three Stooges flair I always imagined. And the stone statue of them is really incredible if you ever get the opportunity to see it in person. What did you dislike of them?
The Goblin King I found fun, since he was utterly revolting, but also a villain that obviously wasn't so evil. The goblins were shown as their own culture, not bloodthirsty and mindless, just looking out for their own interests, which I found kind of cool unlike in LOTR where I had no sympathy for any Tolkien monster.
What are you talking about, I just saw the hobbit on Saturday it was worth watching....yes it did have draw backs since it was not the full movie in general their are more parts to come...but I enjoyed it..
(I wasn't looking for something to replace what was already out for the lords of the rings - so it defiantly delivered what it promised)
I was pretty happy with it, although I expected that the first movie would be the journey to smaug's mountain, the second would be the actual interaction/ battle with smaug, and the final one would be the repercussions of his defeat
I think that they probably should have filmed LOTR and the hobbit around the same time though.... It's awkward that Frodo and gandalf are older than in LOTR (though in gandalf's case he may just be magically weak from all those years on the road... a full magical reserve can do wonders for the reflection) Releasing LOTR before the hobbit may have been a bad idea because LOTR is sort of the result of Bilbo's adventure (if the ring had stayed with golem in the crevasse in the middle of no where then it would be harder for him and the ring to have been found, and/or killing the poor wretch would have prevented him and his info on bilbo from falling into enemy hands, and it could have been dealt with more speed and secrecy with a lower body count, and frodo possibly not being scarred for life) and the LOTR's message is a follow up of the hobbit's message of the dangers of greed, and the benefits of expanding your horizons. While the LOTR is mainly about races uniting against evil, it's also about the evils of greed,and the danger of coveting objects, and how it can destroy innocence (remember how Innocent Frodo and friends were at the beginning? The ring changed that) It's also pretty much written for the adults who read the hobbit as kids (17 years is plenty of time for the kids who read it, and possibly their kids to have matured into to teens/adults)
The problem was various bouts of pre-production hell that the film went through. Jackson always intended on filming it but wanted to finish other projects first. The production companies wanted him to complete it sooner than he was able so they booted him for various other directors. They finally settled on Guillermo del Toro with Jackson as producer and consultant. However, the studios continually refused to give del Toro the green light for the project--even after he moved to New Zealand to get a feel for the environment. Finally everyone grew tired of the unnecessary setbacks: del Toro left the project as director due to the lack of support from production companies and stayed on as producer, partial screenwriter, and consultant. The studios ran back to Jackson and he accepted. So that's why it was released so long after. A bit of a Hollywood muck-up if you ask me.
PJ didn't want to take on the near impossible task of giving 13 dwarves starring roles and individual personalities, especially as most events in the Hobbit last 2 - 3 pages and none of the characters are very expanded upon save for Bilbo and Gandalf, and perhaps Thorin.
Also, I just don't think anyone in their right mind would greenlight such a project if it had been PJ's first pitch before the world saw what he did with LOTR, something that actually makes sense to be in three very long parts. The Hobbit being so lengthy has always been hilarious to me as a die-hard fan even as I eagerly waited for this. Of course now that I've seen it I think he's playing everything right and the trilogy is going to be a dream come true, but a lot of it is still fodder for fans from LOTR that wouldn't work as well without the Hobbit coming second.
i think that it was intended to come out sometime in 2008 but the company jackson was working with at the time went bankrupt. So it sat in production limbo for a few years. Then it got picked up by MGM . This could also explain why some of the special effects where worse than LTOR (studio change probably meant they were working with a smaller makeup, wardrobe and CGI budget) and why it's in 3 parts rather than the originally planned 2. (possibly the studio told him to "fluff" the movie up so that they could cut it into 3 for more profits) Although it was decent I think that if they had stuck to the two part series then it would have been better due to the fact that they wouldn't have had to add things better left for the special features dvd. Hopefully the second half will be better, as they will have Beorn the bear man, spiders, necromancers, and smaug and all the action will leave little time for them to "Fluff" the movie