|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Aug 15, 2013 22:53:40 GMT
Finally got round to watching this on Netflix. I'm assuming you've already seen it, so spoiler alert I suppose.
Plot-wise it's a complete mess. I really liked the book (although I never got past page 150 of LotR), but this film is a bit of a disaster in terms of story-telling.
I knew in advance the over-arching plot wouldn't get very far, due to the whole trilogy thing. When Azog the Defiler was mentioned (whom I don't recall from the book, but he may have been elevated from a minor role I've forgotten) I presumed he would be the main villain for this film and would be defeated at the end (perhaps leaving the Necromancer for the second film and Smaug for the third). But then there is no resolution at all to that storyline. Azog lives, no one with a name is killed and even to achieve that non-outcome there was a total cop-out with the eagles.
It's a very pretty film with some nice acting by the guy playing Bilbo, but it's one of the worst I've ever seen when it comes to putting a coherent story together.
Were your views any more charitable?
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Aug 16, 2013 16:34:42 GMT
WARNING: Serious spoiler alert!!!
Having read basically everything related to the LoTR universe, inconsistencies that the movies create with the books can really tick me off. Stuff like the Elves coming to Helm's Deep in TT and Saruman dying at Isengard in RotK (thereby eliminating the Scouring of the Shire at the end of RotK) are changes made by the movies that I love to hate. But that small level of inconsistency is not enough to turn me off (I still love LotR movies as much as the next guy).
However, about a year and a half back, Peter Jackson announced that The Hobbit trilogy would not only cover the Hobbit itself, but also much of the material from the appendices of Tolkien's books and other tales and footnotes. Naturally, I was stoked. The limbo between the Fall of Angmar and the War of the Ring is quite mysterious, and it's great that they want to put that into film. If Christopher Tolkien (J.R.R.'s son) is helping out, then all the better, since after J.R.R. died, Chris finished the Silmarillion (would be awesome if they made films out of that) and several other stories.
As accuracy goes, Hobbit 1 was pretty good. But Tolkien wrote The Hobbit before LotR, and it was meant to be a children's story. No characters were inherently evil, the most malicious character was Smaug, the dragon who was in no way evil, simply greedy. All the stuff about Sauron and the One Ring had not been conceived yet- greed was the only motivator of evil. So I'm guessing to spice the story up a bit, Jackson and Co. decided to add in all this other stuff, since some parts of the Hobbit can be kinda boring- there's a lot of long walks.
So there was born the greatest inaccuracy of the movie: Azog himself. The appendices in RotK tell us that Azog was indeed slain in Moria long ago by Thorin in the flashback scene when Thorin is forced to defend himself with a oak log. So according to canon, Azog is long dead. Of course, that leaves the movie with little drive behind the several warg attacks, etc. And Elves never appeared in the nick of time to rescue Gandalf and Co. from wargs. Radagast was never in The Hobbit either. However, this is okay because the meeting in Rivendell and several other Gandalf scenes took place when he had temporarily left Bilbo and the Dwarves (again, drawing from the appendices). The real villain of the part of the book covered by the first movie is the Goblin King, and the encounters with the trolls and warg attacks (Gandalf actually does light pinecones on fire and throw them at the wargs), but the Goblin King is an obese oaf and an absolute joke in the movie. The climax of Part I in the book is Bilbo's riddle game with Gollum and Gandalf's slaying of the Goblin King, which has dire consequences later on in angering Bolg, the Goblin King of Gundobad and of some relation to the previous Goblin King. Bolg leads a huge army towards Erebor and is a key belligerent in the Battle of Five Armies. However, the use of Azog thus far leads me to believe that he will replace Bolg altogether.
The Necromancer is really Sauron of course, and plays no role at all in The Hobbit (book), except that Gandalf tells the company to avoid Gundobad in the north and Dol Guldur in the south when passing through Mirkwood. I doubt he will have any role to play with regard to Bilbo and the Dwarves, though two things are revealed in the appendices of RotK:
1) The Necromancer (Sauron) had Thorin's father Thrain captive in Dol Guldur and had tortured him to insanity to make him give up his Ring of Power (one of the 7 dwarf rings). Gandalf found Thrain when he went to investigate Radagast's claims, and there recovered the key to the secret door in Erebor that he gives Thorin in Bilbo's house (clearly, Radagast had contacted him before the events of The Hobbit started).
2) After the council meeting in Rivendell (Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel, Elrond, Radagast, etc), Gandalf goes and chases the Necromancer from Dol Guldur (this will likely be during the events of the second film), so not much to go there.
The appearance of the Eagles at the end actually happened in the book, so can't blame them on that end. Agreed though that it was a poor way to end that climactic scene. The problem with the Eagles is that everybody always asks "Why couldn't the Eagles just take Gandalf and Co. to Erebor?" or "Why didn't they take Frodo and Sam straight to Mordor in LotR?" and the only answer is so that there could be a story, and that "it is about the process (journey), not the result."
Smaug's villainy and role is also quite minor in the book, so you might be a little disappointed. We'll see if Jackson enhanced his role a bit.
Agreed on the great job by Bilbo's actor. Also a shoutout as always to Ian McKellen as Gandalf (one of the greatest character-actor combinations/results ever imo) and Richard Armitage as Thorin. I had watched all 3 seasons of the BBC Robin Hood series, where Armitage played Guy of Gisbourne, and loved his work there, but as a result had gotten used to seeing him as a villain, and it was great to see him as a good all-around actor. I actually was quite pleased by all the acting in the film so kudos there. However, the story is quite patchy as you said. I thought overall it was still a great movie with some memorable moments ("Bilbo Baggins Hates" song, riddles with Gollum, Trolls, and anytime Gandalf starts fighting he's pretty badass). Looking forward to the next two!
|
|
Matt
Stormwind Member
The Come And Go Man
Monsieur Mercredi
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by Matt on Aug 19, 2013 2:42:25 GMT
Meh, you really have to wait until all three films are done. The Two Towers was hurt a lot on release because it had no beginning and no end, but it's a lot less noticeable as part of a trilogy. The lack of hobbit resolution will be taken care of I presume. The hobbit isn't a book with any natural breaking points, so I figured this would be an issue.
I mean, I liked the film a lot, but mostly because it would have to be just awful for me to not like it. It's not close to the LOTR trilogy though in quality.
Also, if you didn't see it in 48 fps 3d, it's kinda like watching Avatar on your home tv. Ruins the experience. But yeah, it's an average movie I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Aug 19, 2013 14:09:43 GMT
That's a good assessment, and I agree. I'll be interested to see what other "outside" material they will add in.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Aug 19, 2013 15:26:03 GMT
I heard enough bad/mediocre assessments of it that I couldn't be bothered to go to watch it in the cinema. If it were a truly good film this would not have made a difference. I may not have seen it at its best visually (although the fps thing got a lot of criticism), but it's visual quality was very good regardless and had nothing to do with its weaknesses.
LotR is massive, so dividing into a trilogy was virtually inevitable. The Hobbit on the other hand is small, and could certainly have been done in a single film. The decision to make it a trilogy instead could only be justified (I mean justified creatively, obviously it makes financial sense) by making each part a reasonable story in its own right, presumably by adding new material that actually reaches a resolution. Two Towers on the other hand was quite a lot better, because there was that whole Helm's Deep and Isengard storyline that was resolved in the space of that film.
The closest this film got to a complete storyline was Thorin deciding Bilbo is okay after all. That isn't really enough payoff for the three hours viewing time.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Aug 19, 2013 15:37:18 GMT
True, but they had relatively little to work with in terms of story there. The entire portion of the book that is covered by the first movie is rather uneventful, so imo they did better with adding the extra plot details. There were more action scenes to make up for it too, which I didn't mind.
The story really starts to blossom in the part of the book that will be covered by the second movie.
|
|
|
Post by Mashek on Aug 25, 2013 8:39:16 GMT
I really enjoyed it, but I certainly get where everyone is coming from. For me three hours wasn't long enough and I understand it's part 1 of 3, so a bit of open loose story telling was always to be expected. I didn't think too much of the Azog storyline to be honest, but I suppose they needed an extra arc to be driving the company along the way. The eagles scene toward the end in 3D was amazing and beautiful. However, the film does rely too much on coincidences and things coming together miraculously for the company to escape danger, which is a little bit of a let off. But in all I found the film to be enjoyable and entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Aug 25, 2013 14:39:57 GMT
In the book, many of the "coincidences" were totally orchestrated by Gandalf. But definitely it's overused in the film, what with the elves killing that warg pack (never happened in the book) among other events. And it seems that in the book itself, whether or not it was orchestrated by Gandalf, everything always seems to happen in the nick of time I'm also quite excited to see how Beorn is portrayed in the 2nd film.
|
|
|
Post by Mashek on Aug 26, 2013 1:25:06 GMT
I just can't wait to see more of the dragon. EDIT: As for Julius' suggestion that the movie could easily have been fit into one, I'm not quite sure it could be. With all the detail I would suspect two movies would have been fine, which was originally planned. It now seems a little over-wrought to draw it out to three, and I hope it doesn't become too telling.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Aug 26, 2013 4:07:28 GMT
I certainly think there's enough material in the appendices to fill 3 movies, which is what Jackson apparently had planned.
What is quite amazing of course is the difference between the aesthetics of the LotR movies vs the Hobbit movie. All the new effects they have access to now make the Hobbit movie seem to be in an almost surreal landscape, whereas I liked the more realistic-looking settings of the LotR movies.
That being said, the new effects make incredible scenes like that introduction with the arrival of the dragon possible, which was truly a sight to see.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Aug 26, 2013 6:24:52 GMT
The thing is, you just don't need to include all the detail from the book. If they can make Tolstoy's Anna Karenina into a single film they can damn well do it with The Hobbit. Three hours is plenty. If, on the other hand, you decide to expand it so much you have to break into three parts, there has to be a significant resolution in each part.
It's a bit like TV shows. Even if you buy into the over-arching storyline of the show, you still expect a climax towards the end of each season.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Aug 27, 2013 3:58:33 GMT
Very true.
|
|
Matt
Stormwind Member
The Come And Go Man
Monsieur Mercredi
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by Matt on Dec 23, 2013 2:21:14 GMT
Anyone seen the second one yet? It's significantly better paced, though I'd have to admit that again there's little resolution. FOTR was frodo's story, leading with the conclusion he must do his task alone. TTT was Isengard's story largely; and Rotk concludes the story as a whole.
The Hobbit part one was largely without a conclusion, as is part two. Additionally, there's a lot of drama kind of muted by the fact none of the dwarves can die in the first two movies. And, because of the vastly smaller scope of the Hobbit to the LOTR, I can't help but feel I'm watching the less important story. The Silmarillion would work better for being it's own powerful tale. The Children of Hurin would make a fantastic 3 hour self contained story for one.
All the inherent problems aside, I think its a pretty solid movie. Definitely had a lot of fun watching it, but then I'm predisposed to loving it.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on Dec 23, 2013 10:07:32 GMT
I saw it on the premiere, and I basically agree with you. It's a lot more intense than the first one, and it doesn't feel nearly as long. There were some problems in it that I didn't notice in the first one, though. For one thing, the first 30 minutes or so felt rather rushed: the dialogue didn't sound as fluent and natural as it did in Part 1, and the rest of Part 2 for that matter, and some of the props (the gateway to the Mirkwood particularly) looked very fake. The fight scene on the river was also a bit of a hit and miss: a lot of fun in itself, but the action camera shots were very obvious and kind of took me out of the experience; and at least once you would see one of the dwarves land a blow on an orch, and in the next shot the orch had somehow just disappeared.
All in all it was still a lot of fun, though, and definitely worth watching on the big screen. And that's coming from someone whose only experience with the books was reading The Hobbit at age 12 or so.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Dec 23, 2013 15:27:24 GMT
I just saw it two nights ago. I liked it a lot, and have similar gripes to you both- but the pacing was much better. Then of course I had issues with the stuff that was outrageously inaccurate (Gandalf getting beat up by Sauron, Legolas and Tauriel following the dwarves along, etc) despite all of those scenes being really cool (loved the revealing of Sauron). The pace was far better, though, if a little too fast. Some of the portrayals have been hit-and-miss in both movies. In the first movie, the jokes about the vegetarian elves were funny but a little oversimplistic. The description of Mirkwood matched that of Doriath in the books but was more like Lorien in the movie. And especially Esgaroth, which looked fittingly like a coastal Viking fishing town (with some changes and embellishments), but the culture and people reminded me of a port town in the New World during the early age of exploration. As somebody who really loves the books, certain deviations and fabrications bother me a bit. That being said, I really liked the scenes inside the mountain with the dwarves fighting Smaug. I also like that it is left up to the viewers to decide whether or not Bilbo has nicked the Arkenstone shortly before when Thorin holds him at swordpoint. And Thorin insulting Smaug was classic. Richard Armitage is already one of my favorite actors, but the moment he called Smaug fat had me in stitches I'm waiting for Gandalf to have a chat with Thrain in Dol Guldur. There's a deleted scene in the first film during the White Council where Gandalf talks about the disappearance of Thrain and his ring, which I hope is foreshadowing for such an encounter, even if it is taken out of context (Gandalf in the book got the key and map from Thrain in Dol Guldur). Cumberbatch did an incredible job as Sauron and Smaug. His performance alone raises the stock of the movie manyfold. I agree with Matt that they should make a movie about the Children of Hurin, and they should reprise Cumberbatch as Glaurung and maybe Morgoth.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Jan 31, 2015 22:42:56 GMT
So, I eventually saw the second one today (it wasn't a priority). If anything, it had even less resolution than the first one. It was enjoyable while watching though.
|
|
Matt
Stormwind Member
The Come And Go Man
Monsieur Mercredi
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by Matt on Feb 1, 2015 1:41:26 GMT
I saw the third one around christmas. I was disappointed.
Parts of it are genuinely good. What's frustrating is the hard stuff was all nailed. The characters were all bang on, the lighter tone of the hobbit was mostly captured, etc. It's really the fact they made three movies. They added so much crap. If they had stuck to the book, we could have had like 4.5 hours worth of material, no more. All the Legolas and Tauriel stuff takes so long to resolve in the third movie and takes away from the real resolution, and it doesn't even need to be there.
I feel like a fan made cut of these movies might be awesome actually.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Feb 1, 2015 13:44:31 GMT
I think I read somewhere that someone produced an amateur cut that was about 4 hours, cutting out all material that wasn't in The Hobbit book. A professional could surely have got it down further, by shortening the dinner party scene near the start and similar reductions.
I imagine I will eventually see the third one once it makes its way to Netflix.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Feb 4, 2015 19:00:52 GMT
Pretty much agree with the above posts. What angers me the most is that it seems that it is a cardinal sin in the modern movie industry to not have a central romantic plotline. Please, Tolkien's stories are good enough without that stuff anyway. There was none of that in the Hobbit book (duh, Tauriel was made up), and in the LoTR books there is little-to-no time given to the Aragorn-Arwen relationship, which actually has their marriage at the end coming out of nowhere by modern literature standards since their relationship is outlined as an accepted fact early on/in the appendices and not given much time in the actual books because it's not really important to the storyline. The LoTR movies had some BS too, but there was little enough of it that people didn't really care. If you look at the Hobbit: -The first movie was way too slow. They could have solved this by getting rid of/cutting down on some of the extraneous scenes. I still like it as a movie, but stuff like the absurdly long intro between the Erebor backstory and the troll scene should have been trimmed down. The Gandalf-Galadriel semi-romantic subplot should have been scrapped entirely- it's not part of the canon at all (she's already long married), and even the scene in Rivendell was too long. At the end of it all, there was too much walking and dilly-dallying. -The second movie was better, but still suffered from a lot of the same flaws. I feel like I'm critiquing an average FF scenario at the AoKH Blacksmith - too much walking and the story was too drawn out and undeveloped in the wrong places. I must admit, I liked the barrel-chase scene even though it was made up (just the battle, not the actual barrel-riding), but I didn't really even see a need to have Legolas (and definitely not Tauriel) in the movies. Some of the Lake-Town scenes were excruciatingly drawn out and long, and the battle inside the mountain (made up, again) should have at least been shortened. I think that if they had made 2 movies and ended the first once the Dwarves opened the mountain door (and thus having the majority of the cuts be from the first 2 movies), it would be better. Shorter battle scene inside the mountain but it leads immediately into Smaug attacking Esgaroth. It's pretty clear that the directors drew out both of those scenes because they wanted to split them to give a cliffhanger at the end of the second movie. Boo. -The third was my favorite, though Matt was spot-on here. Give Legolas and Tauriel the boot, give Alfred the boot (honestly the scenes with him were the only thing that absolutely pissed me off about the 3rd movie), cut down a little on the scenes emphasizing Thorin's sickness (and the long, drawn-out exodus from Lake-Town/meeting with the Elves), and you've got a pretty good movie. I have mixed feelings about the ending. Nonetheless, the wave of nostalgia that the final lines brought me won me over, I think EDIT: I would really like to see a movie on The Children of Hurin, or at least based of some parts of the Silmarillion, but apparently Chris Tolkien is kinda mad about some of the stuff regarding the Hobbit films (probably the extraneous/made-up/blown up from appendices stuff) that it's doubtful that would happen :/
|
|
Matt
Stormwind Member
The Come And Go Man
Monsieur Mercredi
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by Matt on Feb 4, 2015 19:31:15 GMT
Christopher Tolkien won't even watch LOTR, so I doubt he'd have much good to say of the Hobbit. However his son Simon has been sort of restored to the Tolkien Estate recently and has a much more modernistic view on adaptations and promoting Middle Earth merchandise etc. So possibly when he is in charge they may sell the film rights to the Silmarillion.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Feb 4, 2015 20:34:47 GMT
Gotcha, there's some hope then
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Feb 6, 2015 18:27:59 GMT
Isn't the Silmarillion the super-boring appendix that no one ever reads? I don't think I've ever met anyone in real life who has (admitted they have) read it.
|
|
Matt
Stormwind Member
The Come And Go Man
Monsieur Mercredi
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by Matt on Feb 6, 2015 19:00:46 GMT
Haha, I've actually had two or three conversations about it in real life. But yeah, it's a bit niche. It's actually the story of the First Age (LOTR being the third age), but It's a bit more like reading fictional history than a novel. The reading level isn't accessible at all though. Though if you can get past that, it's pretty great IMO. I actually think I prefer it to the LOTR.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Feb 6, 2015 19:28:24 GMT
The style of writing reminds me of archaic or direct translations of old Germanic poetry (think Beowulf, Siegfried, etc). I like the stories a lot, but the problem is that it is basically a collection of stories about various events spanning thousands of years, so it's not really a single cohesive story, more a collection of short epics.
One of the epics (The Children of Hurin) was turned into a full book, and that is the one I'd expect them to make a movie out of next. One could theoretically attempt a movie out of the Silmarillion or Akallabeth, but with so many characters and time differences it would be impossible to keep things straight without simplifying (and brutalizing) the plot. A TV series might be conceivable, though.
I think the writing is more concise and direct than LoTR, which helps a lot for sure (a development that probably came over the years). Since I enjoy Nordic and Germanic literature I find this style enjoyable as well, but I can totally understand it being a little too enigmatic, frustrating, and dense for the majority of readers.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Feb 6, 2015 19:58:36 GMT
I think I've recently figured out one of the reasons why I'm not a big fan of fantasy: fictional history always seems so shallow. I realise that a thread about Tolkein's work is an ironic place to say this, since he probably came closer than anyone else to creating the sense of a vast world. But a few years ago I read the first three (or four? I think one was a two-parter) Game of Thrones books, and was struck by how empty the world was and how little seemed to have happened in its history, especially given how much the series seems to be praised for its rich depth.
Maybe GoT has vast amounts of backstory written for it, but when I read it I didn't feel like the story was taking place in an infinitely detailed world. Whenever I read anything about real history it is different, and I know that a throwaway reference to the "Khazar Empire" (which I had never heard of) could be fully fleshed out if I cared to look it up. And nothing remains the case "for a thousand years".
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Feb 6, 2015 20:40:14 GMT
I've personally found that the worldbuilding in GoT is vastly inferior to that of LoTR. I've read the first 5 books of that series, and while enjoyable, the author's attempt to create a canonical world and flesh out the history of his realm seems to have fallen short of his zeal in crafting gruesome torture scenes and vivid sex scenes :/
It's tough to match real history, I agree with you. I think Tolkien's canon has an edge as well because of how deeply studied it is (heck, there are a few courses at my university focusing solely on Tolkien's literature). I find fantasy quite enjoyable, but perhaps it has been easier for me (as a history student) to understand its limitations. It should definitely not be judged on the same canonical pedestal as (even) historical fiction.
|
|
Matt
Stormwind Member
The Come And Go Man
Monsieur Mercredi
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by Matt on Feb 6, 2015 21:03:48 GMT
This is really true. One of the authors you might like is Guy Gavriel Kay. He's Canadian actually, but he writes historical fiction fantasy, sort of. Essentially each fantasy novel he writes is standalone (no massive series), and each one is an analogue to a time and place in real history. Tigana is roughly Italy. Lions of Al Rassan is roughly the story of El Cid and the Moors in Spain. He writes them on a two year cycle. One year he spends in the country in question researching the actual history, the next year he writes his 'fantasy' novel. It's different, but I'm kind of a fan.
This. Really this. He's also good at characterization. Not so great at worldbuilding.
|
|
Matt
Stormwind Member
The Come And Go Man
Monsieur Mercredi
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by Matt on Feb 6, 2015 21:09:01 GMT
Also, sam, what's your opinion on WoT? Read it?
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Feb 6, 2015 21:19:21 GMT
I'll bear that recommendation in mind.
Game of Thrones does have some weird and annoying quirks that mean I'm a bit surprised it's so phenomenally popular (as well as the serious structural problems which caused me to stop reading the books). Having the knightly title be "ser" is just as excruciating as would be having a race of small humanoids called "bobbits", although at least in the television show the pronunciation means you can forget about it. Other pointless tweaks to the language are almost as bad. Little verbal tics like describing multiple characters as being "kegs", and constantly using "half a hundred" instead of "fifty" or "dozens", are irritating. Having characters called Jeor, Jory, Jorah and who knows what else is simply insane.
|
|
|
Post by HockeySam18 on Feb 6, 2015 21:31:51 GMT
This is really true. One of the authors you might like is Guy Gavriel Kay. He's Canadian actually, but he writes historical fiction fantasy, sort of. Essentially each fantasy novel he writes is standalone (no massive series), and each one is an analogue to a time and place in real history. Tigana is roughly Italy. Lions of Al Rassan is roughly the story of El Cid and the Moors in Spain. He writes them on a two year cycle. One year he spends in the country in question researching the actual history, the next year he writes his 'fantasy' novel. It's different, but I'm kind of a fan. Also, sam, what's your opinion on WoT? Read it? This sounds really cool, actually- I should check it out sometime. I've actually never read, WoT, though it's on my reading list. It's been recommended to me more than once, but I seem to have just never found the time :/ I honestly think he's looking for some way to be creative and unique, given that his plot is based off a mashup of historical events and mythological and fictional stories. Take a cursory look at the history of the Wars of the Roses, for example, and you'll see what I'm talking about ("Lannister" and "Stark" even sound blatantly similar to "Lancaster" and "York"). In the end, the absurd tweaks just exacerbate the poor attempt at hiding the parallelisms between his books and preexisting works, and his books would be far better off without them. I think he's actually not great at character development either (though some exceptions- Arya, Dany, Jon, Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion say otherwise) so he kills off characters and makes up new ones in order to hide that. It's not a terrible solution actually, but it's confusing as hell
|
|