The J.R.R. Tolkien Topic (publications and adaptations)

It's been almost a month since I saw this now, so I figure I should finally write something here. In a nutshell, I tried to like it, but I didn't.

As I see it, there are two main problems.

The first is that pretty much everything is excessive. I know that Jackson has never mastered subtlety or understood the saying "less is more", but large parts of the movie are way over the top, both in the execution of the scenes and the sheer amount of stuff happening all the time. You've got all these orcs and wolves and stone giants and lengthy cutaways to rabbit sleds and dying hedgehogs and in the end, none of it really adds anything to the story except running time. The best example of over the top execution is probably the battle with the goblins; the stuff happening in that sequence is so implausible that it's impossible to get caught up in the action.

The second is that I think the attempt to broaden the story is misguided, and actually undermines the main storyline. The thing with the book is that we see almost the whole thing from Bilbo's perspective, and since he doesn't know much, the reader gets to gradually discover everything about the world, sometimes getting hints of other things that are going on (such as Gandalf disappearing on mysterious wizardly business). When we get to see all these background events, we lose track of the main story - the adventure, as Gandalf puts it. The end result is a story without any clear focus, where the supposed main character feels like a bit player. Sure, Bilbo is a bit player in a sense, but this is meant to be his story, not the story of Thorin and some orc who gets absurd amounts of screentime. It feels like they're trying to make another LOTR, but they're just no foundation for that kind of story in the source material.

Maybe this post is too harsh - I did enjoy watching the film - but really, I don't think it was very good.
 
Once again Shadow darts in with a spot-on post.
I loved the movie, but your criticisms are entirely warranted.
 
I don't see any contradiction. A film can be entertaining without being good, in the sense of artistically successful.
 
I find it somewhat contradictory. Ah well, the film was at least good enough to be entertaining (and imo entertainment is important in such films). Now back to the rest of your post which was certainly interesting because it hadn't been thrown up before:
Shadow said:
It's been almost a month since I saw this now, so I figure I should finally write something here. In a nutshell, I tried to like it, but I didn't.
Click to expand...
So you enjoyed it but you did not like it? ;)
Shadow said:
As I see it, there are two main problems.

The first is that pretty much everything is excessive. I know that Jackson has never mastered subtlety or understood the saying "less is more", but large parts of the movie are way over the top, both in the execution of the scenes and the sheer amount of stuff happening all the time. You've got all these orcs and wolves and stone giants and lengthy cutaways to rabbit sleds and dying hedgehogs and in the end, none of it really adds anything to the story except running time. The best example of over the top execution is probably the battle with the goblins; the stuff happening in that sequence is so implausible that it's impossible to get caught up in the action.
Click to expand...
Agreed very much.
Shadow said:
The second is that I think the attempt to broaden the story is misguided, and actually undermines the main storyline. The thing with the book is that we see almost the whole thing from Bilbo's perspective, and since he doesn't know much, the reader gets to gradually discover everything about the world, sometimes getting hints of other things that are going on (such as Gandalf disappearing on mysterious wizardly business). When we get to see all these background events, we lose track of the main story - the adventure, as Gandalf puts it. The end result is a story without any clear focus, where the supposed main character feels like a bit player. Sure, Bilbo is a bit player in a sense, but this is meant to be his story, not the story of Thorin and some orc who gets absurd amounts of screentime. It feels like they're trying to make another LOTR, but they're just no foundation for that kind of story in the source material.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if you have read Unfinished Tales, but clearly Jackson and co did not want to make the film only based on the book The Hobbit. It is: The Hobbit + Unfinished Tales (+ appendix of Return of the King).

Yes, I agree especially with the stuff I marked in blue: with the additions of the background material the story is less mysterious. It can be argued that there is less room left for the imagination. However, the stuff (most of it anyway) is founded on source material. I recently re-read Unfinished Tales and appendix in Return of the King, and suddenly the movie made more sense. Both Thorin and Gandalf have a very prominent role in these other stories. Much bigger than when only the Hobbit book would be filmed.

A risky decision but it also provided Jackson with more source material for a darker, more grim film.
Jackson said that Tolkien had thought of re writing The Hobbit in a darker, more LOTR style way (after LOTR was finished) but later had cancelled the idea. With this film, Jackson hopes to visualize what Tolkien had in mind when having the idea of re-writing The Hobbit.
 
Forostar said:
I am not sure if you have read Unfinished Tales, but clearly Jackson and co did not want to make the film only based on the book The Hobbit. It is: The Hobbit + Unfinished Tales (+ appendix of Return of the King).
[...]
A risky decision but it also provided Jackson with more source material for a darker, more grim film.
Jackson said that Tolkien had thought of re writing The Hobbit in a darker, more LOTR style way (after LOTR was finished) but later had cancelled the idea. With this film, Jackson hopes to visualize what Tolkien had in mind when having the idea of re-writing The Hobbit.
Click to expand...
Foro, Jackson hasn't (& will not) use anything directly out of UT. The litigation problems New Line & Warner have run into, with The Tolkien Estate, even getting this film made, would have been warning enough not to touch copyrighted material that was not part of the rights Tolkien sold (LotRs + H) in the late 60's. Yes, Jackson has utilised the appendicies (of LotRs), as these are part of the book; but he hasn't used material from anything else. Instead, he's just made loads of unnecessary shit up. He's turned a simple & enjoyable classic into a fucking cartoon-action-epic pantomine-dwarf (note my spelling) filled Hollywood "franchise". A wish they'd never touched H or LotRs...
 
I'm glad Lord of the Rings was made into a decent enjoyable trilogy. The Hobbit however, that cartoon from 40 years ago was perfect. The first movie was horrible at best and to be honest I will only see the others for completion sake, but don't see them getting any better.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Jackson hasn't (& will not) use anything directly out of UT.
Click to expand...
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Yes, Jackson has utilised the appendicies (of LotRs), as these are part of the book; but he hasn't used material from anything else.
Click to expand...
Which version of UT you have that I don't have? I read UT and clearly recognized some stuff in the film, but it is possible that these moments were also present (perhaps in different form) in the appendices.
 
Last edited:
I know the books inside out, but admit I'm failing to care a great deal about the detail the film(s) cover. What in particular struck you as quite UT? I mean, stuff in LotRs (the films) skirts quite close already --but most of it, you could (or Jackson & his lawyers could) argue is firmly in the appendicies to LotRs. The Estate hate the adaptations, so I've no doubt some of this has been argued over behind the scenes. Unfortuntely for The Tolkien Estate the appendicies cover (in general terms) quite a bit of Middle-earth history (e.g. The Second Age) --& as a result there is quite a bit of give here. Did you catch (if you're interested at all) the comments Christopher Tolkien made recently in a French newspaper/magazine article interview? He does interviews & speaks in public very little, so his comments were quite interesting.
 
Really looking foward to the next part of The Hobbit, but I wish they'd just stick to the basic plot of the book. There was enough in there to make a two-parter at the very least.
 
Come on, it's fucking laughable that they've made this into three films. Another "trilogy" to match their LotRs; groan. HarperCollins had even produced a two book film tie-in edition --& Jackson turns it into three! :lol:

Unlike you Brigantium, I'm not really looking forward to watching another Tolkien hatchet job. These movies, for me, encapsulate everything that I hate about Hollywood, & the whole medium of film...
 
I have loved the Hobbit forever, and I thought the first movie was fantastically done. It may have missed a little of the LotR magic, but only a little bit of it. For the life of me, I cannot understand why people dislike the film. All I ever see is "it was terrible!" and I'm supposed to take that as a point of faith. Sorry, no.

But if you're asking why I enjoyed it so much, here's some reasons.

1. The acting is fantastic. Pretty much everyone with a major role knocks it out of the park - Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage are all just great. It was wonderful to see Hugo Weaving back - the lighthearted, more carefree Elrond was truly a joy, and put me in mind of the way elves are supposed to be, not the dourness that Elrond must wear in LotR. These people did fantastic and that's always been a major part of bringing Middle-Earth alive for me, the performances.

2. The story is very good. I felt like Jackson picked a natural point for the denoument of the first part - after the large battle against the goblins and the followup with the added orc bad guy. Which I again do not mind. Explaining why the dwarves are so few and fragmented and putting in a running enemy? Awesome addition, and a needed addition, especially when Smaug isn't around yet as a major antagonist. I thought the final shot was very reminiscent of the final shot of Fellowship. Dealing more directly with the Necromancer was something I also expected, but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the addition. I felt like some of Radagast's lines were a little rough, but again, only a little - and the meeting of the White Council was very very good.

3. Smaug looks awesome, and sounds awesome, and I can't wait to see that payoff.

4. Riddles in the Dark. If you didn't absolutely love this scene from start to finish, then, well, I can't help you. It was perfect. Andy Serkis's Gollum is as iconic as ever, and Mr. Freeman did an utterly amazing job opposite him. The entire movie could have been a crapfest and it would have been saved by this single scene.
 
I'm in the LC camp. I get what the purists are saying, but that doesn't change the fact the movie was just plain fun.
Very much looking forward to the next one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top