The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
26,417
Location
UK
Can't find a dedicated thread on this, but watched it last night.

I loved The Hobbit as a book when I was younger, but watching the film, it seems like they've tried to turn a fun children's story into a fully integrated prologue to Lord of the Rings: padded with events probably from the Silmarillion, and lots of unnecessary and completely boring fight scenes.

I can understand why they might have done this, but somewhere along the way, the fun part seems to have disappeared.

Instead we have a film that is far too slow, labours far too long on the grim background, adds complete silliness for the sake of modern entertainment, and is filled with pointless grim fighting.

Oh, and we end up with a wearying "pale orc" who feels like a Hollywood attempt to fixate the the adversity of the dwarves into a single silly machismo figure, which goes so against the grain of the book. And - wtf - Radaghast appears with belly cramping non-hilarity, turning what should be an enigmatic figure into a silly slapstick one of no real consequence.

Perhaps I'm a heretic - I never really got much out of the Lord of the Rings films, and always preferred The Hobbit book over Lord of the Rings (Which I found inconsistent in tone and pointlessly grim).

But this film - it's supposed to be the story of Bilbo Baggins, but instead has been turned into a bigger montage about the grimness of Middle Earth and a celebration of male machismo among the dwarves and orces.

This isn't a film about The Hobbit book - it's one over-running cutscene from the beginning of the Lord of the Rings films.

Am I the only one to feel I wasted money buying the disc?
 
How weird -- there is a thread about this, I'm sure, with many others discussing these points and more, but I can't find it now either! Did I dream it?
 
I cant wait to get the blu ray. I love this move dare i say more than the LOTR trilogy? It flowed better, the sfx was better and the acting was better. I havent read the books but PJ did a fantastic job
 
I didn't even realise there was a featured films section! Disappointed, I thought I knew every bit of the Chrons.

As to the film, I saw it in the cinema and really enjoyed it, especially the Dwarves' theme tune that was used throughout and the storm giant bit was just spectacular. Though it felt Bilbo-lite and turning him into a sword-swinging hero was a bit problematic (in fact, was it here or somewhere else that I read a really good discussion about that?)
 
I saw all the problems that everyone else does, but some of them didn't bother me as much as they do others, and there was enough left over that I enoyed to make up for it. We had seen it a couple of times at the theatre, so my husband and I knew what we were getting into when we bought the disc, and I also paid ten dollars to buy it in digital format for my Kindle. (And watched it again there.)

So while I didn't love it as much as LOTR, it's something I know I will revisit over the years, and I am glad to own it.

But I understand why some people were disappointed.
 
I've never read the book. But I completely agree with the OP. This was a sub-par "Hollywood" endeavor. I think the box office results would have been very different if it wasn't for the book and LOTR's association.
 
I quite enjoyed it. But when I saw it, it had been years since I read the book so I wasn't really comparing. I did read the book shortly after seeing the film, and it didn't diminish it for me. It is definitely a little different from the book, but I thought overrall it was well done and I'm looking forward to the next one.

And as Hoopy said, I really enjoyed the new dwarf theme music.
 
I din't fast forward, but more or less agree with Brian's assessment. More of a LOTR follow up. Which is fine, fine...
A lot of fighting, which is probably better than if they had done all the songs and speeches and whatnot. Gonna wartch it again tnite and look for whatever. The rabbits sled is very cool, I want one.
 
Well it's a decent action movie. If one watched it with no prior knowledge of any Tolkien, the characters would hold it together.
The battle scene under the mountain is ludicrous. 13 of them kill off about 200 baddies and dodge a million projectiles, then fall a long way and everyone is fine. Same on the mountain when the stone giants are fighting, nobody gets a scratch. Their clothes all hold together nicely too.
The visuals are spectacular on the bluRay copy I have.
 
Well it's a decent action movie. If one watched it with no prior knowledge of any Tolkien, the characters would hold it together.
The battle scene under the mountain is ludicrous. 13 of them kill off about 200 baddies and dodge a million projectiles, then fall a long way and everyone is fine. Same on the mountain when the stone giants are fighting, nobody gets a scratch. Their clothes all hold together nicely too.
The visuals are spectacular on the bluRay copy I have.
If the stone giants were Tyranasaurs and the dwarves were Naomi Watts you'd have the silliest scene from Jackson's King Kong. The difference here was this was set in middle earth rather than the South Pacific and maybe all the laws of Physics aren't exactly the same here. I noted the scene but it didn't make me loose my suspension of disbelief as it did in King Kong . I still enjoyed this one. Based on the ideas in the book, I didn't expect it to be a real world with a few oddities.
 
Brian I am with you all the way. I had such big hopes for this film. Jackson knew his way around Middle Earth so well in LotRs I trusted him to do The Hobbit justice. Even hearing about adding a third film at the last minute, though sounding warning bells, I thought "this is Jackson. Give him a chance".

He completely and utterly let me down. The adventure of The Hobbit is a side story in its own film! Everything Jackson did right in LotRs, he did wrong this time. I have never felt so let down by a movie as this one. I'm not sure what to even call it because whatever it is, it isn't The Hobbit!
 
I loved the movie, I just dont over analyse them or else I will never enjoy a movie for what it is even if it is based on a book.
 
The Hobbit was intended as a novel for children of all ages; the film adaptation is not. It feels more like LOTR part 4, which isn't how it was supposed to be. Where LOTR was an almost impossible task to get 100% accurate on screen (and Jackson did a pretty good job), The Hobbit was not. I can imagine why many who loved the novel would go away disappointed, but for others they may just be grateful that it got to the big screen at all.
 
I posted a long-winded review in the other thread, here.
It now strikes me that I can sum up my thoughts on the movie with a lot more brevity:

They've taken one of the world's most popular children's books (the second most sold, after The Little Prince) and turned it onto a brutally violent action comedy for adults.

Even more simply, I could quote my father's dismissive opinion on the Lord of the Rings movies, which is equally fitting for The Hobbit, although I wish my translation could convey the extra crudeness that comes with our dialect:

"Men with deformed faces whacking each other".
 
To be fair they did originally say that this was The Hobbit as a Prequel film to the Lord of the Rings films not the adaptation of the Hobbit the childrens book. So some of the design choices and story twists I think do work well to preserve the overall feel and flow so that these 3 new films will seamlessly flow into the Lord of the Rings films as a set.


For me though there were a few things that really stood out:

1) The council. I don't know what they were thinking but when they did their long talking scene in the council what I found most annoying was that every so often the camera would shift; not to show a new speaker or to move around the speakers; but to give me a scenic view with a small river and waterfall flowing past. The waterfall and river set very strongly so that THEY were the focus. So instead of me being able to focus on the speakers and their lines, I was instead every so often pulled away and forced to ignore the speakers and focus on RIVER

2) The Eagles - they should not have ended the film there. They should have added another 10 mins or 5 mins discussion with the birds because darn it right now Gandaulf has "summon birds" as a spell for auto saving him from impossible to escape points in the films. It's an annoyance that I feel devalues the eagles and falsely represents them in the world setting.

3) the creation of the generic enemy creature; sadly this is one of those "we've got rules about films and you gotta follow them" mechanics and lacking a natural single enemy they've created one. It feels odd and wrongly placed in the film and sits next to the dwarf humour in that it can feel somewhat forced into the setting.


Overall I still really liked the film and I'm one of those who doesn't mind slow pacing or story building.
 
I am not the least bit worried that the film expanded on and altered The Hobbit, because the book is a silly children's story, never even intended to be set in the world Tolkien had created, and had it been adapted faithfully the juxtaposition beside the LOTR films would have been both awful and hilariously bizarre at the same time.

Having said that, the film does suffer from some pretty shocking over indulgences (as did King Kong), and an excess of spectacle at the cost of story.
 
...because the book is a silly children's story, never even intended to be set in the world Tolkien had created...
That's a pretty bizarre statement. Tolkien set all his future world building around the world of the Hobbit, which he wrote first... how can it not be intended to be there?? "Silly children's story" is also a bit dismissive of one of the greatest children's books written.

Its not surprising that many fans of the book are disappointed in the film. I was, I must say. I agree with everything 'I Brian' wrote at the start of the thread. But I think these criticisms are more far-reaching than simply suggesting "its not the same as the book so its poor". The difference between book and film that is most relevant is simply that the book is very good, and the film is not very good. The Hollywood/Jackson treatment of the book changed the pacing, mood, humor and magical qualities of the original material in a negative way for many people. I'm still holding out for the book "The Hobbit" to be made into a film, I think it could be excellent, in contrast to this movie.
 
I enjoyed this one as a prequel to the LotR trilogy. However, I think that it could have been condensed somewhat, possibly not quite into just one film, but two rather than three should suffice. That said, I enjoy learning more about Middle-Earth. I guess I'll have to wait to see the rest of this trilogy to judge.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top