The Hobbit: A Peter Jackson Trilogy

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
featofstrength said:
Saw it last night...pretty frustrating experience. The Hobbit is overblown geek-pandering at its best...Loved the book, liked the LOTR movies, but there's a definite line I must draw between the fan and film critic inside me: it's just not a good "film."
The Lord of the Rings is a high fantasy saga that covers roughly 1500 pages. In order to adapt it to three three-hour movies, Jackson & co had to cut stuff Tolkien described in loving detail. Fans are still debating whether they cut the right things despite the films arguably being some of the best book-to-movie adaptations ever made.

The Hobbit is a novel covering 300 pages. In order to adapt it into three three-hour movies, they had to add tons of stuff, either original or borrowed from Tolkien's extended Middle Earth works. It shows.

The fact that they decided to turn the Hobbit into a full trilogy just stinks of a cash grab to me so hard that even these strong northern winds can't dispense it.
 

Dr.Sartorius

New member
I saw it and enjoyed myself. I would have preferred a 3 hour Hobbit that told the whole story. Could have rivaled LOTR IMO but oh well. I wish they would have saved all the side story elements for a Silmarillion film series or something.
 

roundshort

Active member
Dr.Sartorius said:
I saw it and enjoyed myself. I would have preferred a 3 hour Hobbit that told the whole story. Could have rivaled LOTR IMO but oh well. I wish they would have saved all the side story elements for a Silmarillion film series or something.


How about 2 hour and half or hour and 45 minutes movies woudl be my vote. Still thought it was more fun than LOTR
 
all that extra junk is fun for the Tolkien diehard, but it really hurts the Hobbit in taking away from the storyteller perspective of Bilbo.
 

roundshort

Active member
There might be a spoiler here, but I don't think so - so you might not want ot read...


Why not just use the birds in the first place?
 
Besides not appreciating the (CGI aspect of the )wolves, there was one thematic point that was irritating.

I enjoyed the dialog in Rings between Frodo and Gandalf regarding Bilbo not killing Gollum especially the phrasing and delivery of Gandalf's "see all ends" line. I liked how it hinted at the resolution and a few other reflections in the film. The "reprise" in The Hobbit felt ham handed though, and I felt like it robbed Bilbo of his moment. That it didn't originate from him, rather Gandalf had planted the seed. That kind of cheapened an inspired concept.


I did like how they referenced Tolkien's rewrite of how Bilbo found the ring...
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
The Lord of the Rings is a high fantasy saga that covers roughly 1500 pages. In order to adapt it to three three-hour movies, Jackson & co had to cut stuff Tolkien described in loving detail. Fans are still debating whether they cut the right things despite the films arguably being some of the best book-to-movie adaptations ever made.

The Hobbit is a novel covering 300 pages. In order to adapt it into three three-hour movies, they had to add tons of stuff, either original or borrowed from Tolkien's extended Middle Earth works. It shows.

The fact that they decided to turn the Hobbit into a full trilogy just stinks of a cash grab to me so hard that even these strong northern winds can't dispense it.

Making The Hobbit into a trilogy, presumably to match the revenue potential of LOTR, was the first thing that struck me as odd.

Has Peter Jackson gone George Lucas? Are his best days already behind him? Is this The Hobbit: An Unexpected Failure?

So many questions!

When the film was announced I had high hopes of something continuing in the vein of LOTR. But when it became a trilogy, and when the adverts started playing I lost interest.

However, not only is The Hobbit a shorter tale, but it was written in the form of a bedtime story for children. That may be where the problems and divergence from the LOTR films arise.
 
roundshort said:
There might be a spoiler here, but I don't think so - so you might not want ot read...Why not just use the birds in the first place?
I think there was an animosity, (like almost each race holds for the other, this case species) regarding hunting practices.

I was waiting for the wolves to speak...pretty sure they did in the book, when they had them stuck in the trees.

Maybe it was wolf-tongue.
Montana Smith said:
Making The Hobbit into a trilogy, presumably to match the revenue potential of LOTR, was the first thing that struck me as odd.
With the bar set high by The Rings I was hopefull for the extra material, which isn't half bad.

Montana Smith said:
Has Peter Jackson gone George Lucas? Are his best days already behind him? Is this The Hobbit: An Unexpected Failure?
There's still time. You waiting for the DVD?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
There's still time. You waiting for the DVD?

Yes, definitely a disc of some form will end up in the library. I'm just not motivated enough to buy it at retail yet. I still have a huge backlog to get through which will keep me occupied until then.
 
roundshort said:
There might be a spoiler here, but I don't think so - so you might not want ot read...


Why not just use the birds in the first place?

well, in the hobbit book, the eagles say that they wont go near any kindom of men for fear of being shot down...In the movie, who knows? since they apparently dont talk!(and that really bothers me)
 

oki9Sedo

New member
Much as I hated the idea of a Hobbit trilogy, since it could only be made out of either creative self-indulgence or financial reasons, I came out of the film thinking it was very, very good.

Not as good as any of the LOTR films thanks to unnecessary scenes that slowed the pace to a halt without contributing much to story or character, but still very, very good.

My main issue with the idea of a trilogy remains that the story doesn't have enough range or depth to justify a trilogy. LOTR did, its about a war encompassing much of Middle-earth. The Hobbit is about dwarves reclaiming their kingdom and treasure, I'm not sure there's enough weight in that.

And yes, I've read all the books.
 

oki9Sedo

New member
Finn said:
The Lord of the Rings is a high fantasy saga that covers roughly 1500 pages. In order to adapt it to three three-hour movies, Jackson & co had to cut stuff Tolkien described in loving detail. Fans are still debating whether they cut the right things despite the films arguably being some of the best book-to-movie adaptations ever made.

The Hobbit is a novel covering 300 pages. In order to adapt it into three three-hour movies, they had to add tons of stuff, either original or borrowed from Tolkien's extended Middle Earth works. It shows.

The fact that they decided to turn the Hobbit into a full trilogy just stinks of a cash grab to me so hard that even these strong northern winds can't dispense it.

I do get the sense creative self-indulgence was more at play than money, at least from Peter Jackson and co.

My main issue is not the amount of content in "The Hobbit + the appendices" vs. the amount of content in LOTR as it relates to making three three hour films, my main issue is that a story has to have importance to it as well as a sufficient amount of content to justify a trilogy.

Even if the Hobbit trilogy covered as much as LOTR did, none of it is nearly as important: dwarves reclaiming their treasure and land from a dragon vs. the beginnings of war gradually building up to every race in Middle-earth amassing against Sauron and an army of hundreds of thousands.
 

kongisking

Active member
MinnesotaJones said:
Err...I liked it better than LOTR :eek: ...because LOTR left stuff out from the books but The Hobbit added more so there were more surprises...

Mmm, that's a decent point.

Personally, I was pleased to see that I could actually remember the personalities of some of the minor dwarves, which was a worry of mine that the other dwarves besides Thorin would get short-shrift. The ones that stood out most were Balin, Bofur, Kili, Fili, and Dwalin. The others will hopefully get their times to shine in Part 2 and 3.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Montana Smith said:
Yes, definitely a disc of some form will end up in the library. I'm just not motivated enough to buy it at retail yet. I still have a huge backlog to get through which will keep me occupied until then.

I chanced upon a very cheap DVD of this yesterday, so it has made its way into the library. I'm not enthused enough yet to actually watch it yet, though.

Seeing as this was released on DVD less than a month ago, it appears it wasn't much of a 'keeper' for the seller.

Saying that, I also got Prometheus from them as well...and Bourne Legacy...and Lawless, but I can understand the last one as it unfortunately features Shia LaHam. Guess I'll find out whether he's become an actor yet. ;)

The first installment of The Hobbit runs to 163 minutes, with two more to follow?

The Hobbit was a bedtime story of under 96,000 words. The Lord of the Rings was a tale lasting over 468,000 words. To have given as much detail to LOTR it would have needed to have been made as fourteen separate films. The final part would be due to be released in December next year. :p
 

Djd1

New member
I was hugely disapopinted in with this film to be honest. I loved the book and I loved the LoTRs films. There were too many added fight scenes, too much CGI, the goblin tunnels should have been tunnels, instead we were treated to something like a platform video game.... I would have much prefered something of the pace of The Fellowship of the Ring which I thought would have suited the Hobbit perfectly. Also why mess with the Troll scene? Possibly one of the best bits of the book. I was expecting this to be my film of the year for last year. Instead I won't even bother with the dvd (Dredd turned out to my favourite of 2012).
 

kongisking

Active member
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Really? No thread on this one yet (yes, I did check)? For shame...

The first two trailers to be released, with the second one having only come out just this week:


 

Spurlock

New member
I think it looks really good, while I like UJ trailer more, this movie looks like it has more action and cooler places. I'm excited to see Smaug and their escape in barrels.

It doesn't look like it'll be such a weak like the Two Towers is said to be, even an improvement. Now that Jackson has the first step of the journey out of the way, all the interesting stuff is to come.
 

Dr. Gonzo

New member
kongisking said:
Really? No thread on this one yet (yes, I did check)? For shame...

Well we don't have "Fellowship of the Ring", "Two Towers", or "Return of the King" threads... we do have a "Lord of the Rings" thread.

Point being I think people on the forum probably think that one general "The Hobbit" thread is sufficient...

And no matter what anyone says to justify it, I still don't think the short novel "The Hobbit" warrants three '3 hour' films...
 

kongisking

Active member
Dr. Gonzo said:
Well we don't have "Fellowship of the Ring", "Two Towers", or "Return of the King" threads... we do have a "Lord of the Rings" thread.

Point being I think people on the forum probably think that one general "The Hobbit" thread is sufficient...

Huh. Never really looked at it like that. Oops. :eek:

I suppose this thread should be merged with the existing Hobbit one, then?

Dr. Gonzo said:
And no matter what anyone says to justify it, I still don't think the short novel "The Hobbit" warrants three '3 hour' films...

Of course it's not warranted! But for losers like me who want to see as much of this world on screen as possible, it's a treat! (y)
 
Top