ughh, triple post. OK, here are some Hobbit pics to make up for it:
And the edition of The Hobbit (and LoTR) that I grew up with:
That’s the edition I have too! The pages are all yellow and the cover is hanging on by a thread (almost literally) – it is VERY well-loved.
And you’re right about having to think about these films as a prequel trilogy to LOTR. I’m not sure how I feel about that, though. I also wonder if it only became that because Jackson is directing. Would Del Toro (who was an AMAZING choice to direct The Hobbit, DAMN him and his million other projects) have done the same thing?
The key theme that is lost is the beauty of nature.
Hmm, I shouldn’t respond as I haven’t seen the films or read the books in a while, but…I never felt like that was a key theme or at least not the main theme. And I’m not sure I’d agree that the film diminish this aspect significantly from the novels.
This essay lists changes to Frodo, Aragorn, Faramir, Gimli, Denethor, Treebeard/Ents, Arwen, and Elrond.
Oh, I agree there are changes. I’ve mentioned some myself, but I’m not sure I would say they’re dramatic changes.
I don’t think the walking scenes create the sense that the reader is on an adventure. In the books you feel like you’re on an adventure for the journey from Hobbiton to Bree. After that, you’re in a desperate struggle. The movies try very hard to make this feel like the great epic magical adventure and the book is more about Christian themes.
I think I said “epic adventure,” and by that I mean an adventure that involved a long journey (among other things). And that’s the sense I got from reading the books and watching the films. It doesn’t just end after Bree. What about Frodo, Sam and Gollum’s journey to Mordor? They’re basically walking and talking with very little action.
That’s an interesting point and something I’m going to pay attention to when I re-watch the films (and maybe re-read the books).
FWIW, I think you’re approach to the Hobbit movies is really helpful (It makes me a more interested in seeing the films now).
As for the Gandalf issue, doesn’t Gandalf mention somewhere that he had a feeling that Bilbo would be significant in some way? I recall reading or seeing somewhere that Gandalf didn’t just randomly choose Bilbo, that he had a reason for choosing him, but he wasn’t quite clear the reasons. Am I just imagining this?
Personally, I don’t the audience has to have an explicit reason for him showing up though.
“I’m sure the studios see it that way, but I think the cast and crew really don’t want to stop making these movies because they love the experience so much.”
House of Leaves, was that a joke? The filming was plagued with walkouts, long hours, shit pay, 6 day work weeks and a bitter union dispute.
I was talking about the primary cast and crew, and I stand by my statement. I know about those other things, but they aren’t the primary drivers behind getting the film made.
I’m going to see this tonight.
My objection to the film now that I’ve seen it has more to do with low quality of writing and casting than purism.
Most adaptations of books reinterpret the major plot points into a modern cultural context. That’s not inherently wrong, nobody wants to see a period portrayal of gender and racial roles in an adventure story or melodrama. But to make it a good film you need good pacing and compelling dialog. If you want to cut out lengthy talking heads scenes, replace them with other ways to get to know the characters better, don’t just make your cast spend half the film falling off things.
If they’re not, why did Jackson throw such a hissy fit about them going on strike then? I know this site is all about thinking the sun shines out of the director’s arse, but the unglamourous truth of cinema is without the entire film crew you’d have big money actors (loving the experience all the same no doubt) standing about on an empty set.
Jirin, your comment about low-quality casting has piqued my interest. Which roles did you think were poorly cast?
(For the record, I’m with you 100% on the writing part. 13 dwarves is too many to keep track of, let alone develop into meaningfully complete characters!)
It’s over, Jackson is finished.
My old man liked it….
We have a buck fifty theatre so I will watch it when it gets there in a few months.
Exacly, 3 hours feet very well, FU PJ.
Exacly, 3 hours feet very well, FU PJ.
All the dwarves and Bilbo, the goblin king, Radagast. Pretty much every cactor who was not also in Lord of the Rings. Maybe I’m just unfairly comparing them to Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen and Orlando Bloom from the LOTR movies. But all those characters make me feel like I’m watching a BBC television show. Thorin is decent, I guess.
Also, why should Bilbo look younger than he did in Fellowship? The ring froze his aging. He’s 51 and looks like he’s 30.
It seems like instead of acting and expanding their characters they spend the entire movie falling off things and almost falling off things.
I feel this way too. I wrote an angry purist critique against the LOTR movies in one of these threads but my problems with The Hobbit don’t have to do with there being too many changes to the source material. I just think the movie was too ridiculous, had no logic, was overproduced, had way too much action, had too many cheap jokes, saved-in-the-nick-of-time moments, extraordinary coincidences, bad wisdom, …
But then I think almost all of this applies to the LOTR movies too.
^^ Yep, Radagast made me particularly mad too. What a dumb direction to take for one of the freaking Istari. That was almost Star Wars Episode 1-level dumb in my opinion.
The whole movie was pretty Star Wars Episode I in my opinion.