The Hobbit (film series)

Remove all ads!

I can sort of see Jackson's reasoning. He is the son of the king of the woods, so it would not be too out of place for him to appear in the movie as well. His not being in the book not withstanding. Age is not an issue for elves in the Middle Earth world, they're supposed to be immortal.

Bilbo was 33 in the Hobbit, if memory serves. Something about a birthday and coming of age in the beginning of the book, I believe (or am I mixing up Frodo and Bilbo and the respective books here?). The party at the beginning of LotR was for Bilbo's 111 (eleventy-one) birthday.

Didn't watch the movie though, so can't comment on the Action Hero level of Legolas' performance.

 

Well, can't really comment on the level of Action Hero of any of the characters in the LotR movies either, seeing as I only saw the middle one and even then was mostly distracted by how they garbled up the books in the translation to the movies. Reading the book shortly before the watching that movie probably wasn't such a great idea, either.

 

I'm with dmc. Anytime I hear that step 1 for making a movie of a beloved classic is to change the source material, I tune out.

 

As is your right, of course. I'm sort of a don't-throw-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater kind of person, at least as it relates to more trivial parts of my life such as watching movies. And further, there's so little going on in cinema these days that interests me enough to actually head to a movie theater and purchase an extremely over priced ticket along with some even more horribly over priced snacks. The Hobbit 2 was the first and only movie I've seen in a theatre in 2013, and if I write that off, I pretty much will never see the inside of a theatre in the foreseeable future. And doing that every once in a while with my boys is pretty much enjoyable for its own sake, with the actual content of the movie almost being secondary.

 

Seriously guys. You're really going to complain about a movie that's different from the book it's based on? Hope you've been boycotting The Wizard of Oz for the last 74 years then. And you don't go near anything to do with Les Miserables. Or Shakespeare.

 

Now now, Harbs, don't dis the fanboys.

 

And not to mention the evil Winnie the Pooh.

 

Granted, just about every story ever written changes when they make the movie. BUT, Jackson changes A LOT of the story. Making major changes to the story line kills it for me. Legolas as a Super-hero in the Hobbit? Arwen saving the hobbits at the Ford? Really?! ELVES at Helm's Deep? THE DEAD AT MINAS TIRITH?!....(takes a breather....)..... No Glorfindel? No Prince Imrahil?! No Tom Bombadil! No Barrow Downs! No Goldberry! Outrageous! No raising of the Shire! Oh, the Travesty!

The list of changes could go on.....Jackson makes WAY too many changes.... yes Splunge, I am a Lotr Fanboy, I admit it. The Hobbit, followed by the Lotr were the first books I ever read for fun.

 

I've read The Lord of the Rings more times than any other book. It's easily my favourite book of all time. I'm a huge fan. But I still think the movies are great.

My Wizard of Oz comparison was deliberate. The definitive 1939 movie is really different from Baum's classic book, but it's still brilliant.

 

Well, I wouldn't go near any of those anyway. My biggest problem with the first movie (didn't see the second one) is that it's so slow and nothing is happening. The Wizard of Oz and Miserables movie comparison may be apt, that way. Those old movies were slow as a snail as well.

 

You're a tough crowd.

 

Just saw the extended version of Hobbit 1 and I like it. Apparently most of the scenes that got cut were the ones that gave noteworthy scenes their value (either by adding context or, at the very least, being the "yin" to all the "yang"). The goblin king, for example, had a song number which combined with everything else now give you a sense of just how much he loves setting up grandiose entertainment, so that his death actually makes a bit more sense.
The movie also no longer feels as if it were just a sequence of CGI effects and seemingly out-of-place story sequences. You get a better sense of how badly Bilbo originally wanted to go home or leave the company, so his heroism and Thorin's acceptance of him at the end of the movie seems a bit more justified.

Overall if you never watched The Hobbit 1 or was disappointed by the big screen version I'd recommend watching the extended version. Personally I'd skip any of the "normal" versions (including the upcoming one) altogether.

 

thank you for the input. I am looking forward to it

 

Interesting. I saw LotR:Return of the King w. director's cuts and felt the movie was better with them out.

Sounds like Hobbit was better with them in.

I wished the song about the Mountain was longer.


Very different movie but some Youtubes go through Prometheus and show how some of the things cut add to the story and better explain some of the actions/situations of various characters. So, as you said happened with The Hobbit, they actually added to the movie.

 

Prometheus has so many holes in it, no amount of director's cut patching will fix that.

Watched the second Hobbit movie recently... well, it would be more accurate to say that my girlfriend was watching the movie while I was reading a book. It has more stuff happening than the first movie, but then you could probably watch a cat sleeping for two and a half hours and more stuff would be happening.

Still, there were quite a few pieces that felt rather drawn out, but I guess they have to give some backstory for the third movie as well. And did they really only take like three days to get from one side of the forest to the mountain? It seems like it was longer in my memory of the book.

On the other side of the spectrum, Legolas sliding down a slope on an orc's body was a bit much. Also, the elf girl falling for the dwarf boy was a bit much, especially since they only had half a minute of glaring at each other to make the connection. The part of the hobbit talking to the dragon I thought was pretty well done, though, I quite liked that part.

The biggest surprise for me was that the second movie ended pretty much at the end of the book. Everything that happens after the end of this movie is pretty much summed up in a few pages of the book as I recall. But I guess the intention is to draw out the battle for the mountain to epic proportions like a Return of the King but with more dwarves. And of course an hour long epilogue with trade negotiations.

Also, if they pull a few Nazgul out of their hats in the third movie, I just wanna call BS right now.

 

Well, to be fair there was mention in the book of orcish, elvish and eventually even dwarfish armies joining the fray at the mountain, including the humans from Dale.

What I want to know is why this director feels the need to make the Hobbit movies all at least two and a half hours long even with the lack of source material. Is it that hard to condense it more concisely and less boringly into something like one and a half hour movies? Or, heaven forbid, make less movies out of it.

 

As is everything else in today's society, it's driven by money and fame.