Why I'm Not Watching The Hobbit movie

[Polaris]

The LOTR movies were a superb adaptation of the LOTR books. It was apparent that, not only Jackson, but Fran Walsh and Phillippa Boyens and much of the brains behind the films were obsessed with Tolkien. It was big business, and I did have some misgivings with the third film, but all-in-all, it was an excellent adaptation. Besides that, it was well acted, well cast, had beautiful music, incredible locales and was a landmark in modern cinema. Those who haven't seen it on the big screen have missed one of the spectacular films of all time.

With that record, I am unconcerned and in fact eager to watch The Hobbit. If there was one director who could make the film, then Jackson has shown with LOTR that he is the one. In the reading, The Hobbit seems much more playful than LOTR, and I suspect that this will be the case with the movies as well.

That said, I can understand where the OP is coming from. I recently finished Midnight's Children which is more ridiculously awesome than a book has any right to be, and am really not enthused about watching the film version coming out this year, even though Rushdie helped with the screenplay. I want to protect the story in my head for a little longer.

[max]

Originally Posted by r2473

Was it worth the time and effort?

FWIW, I've read it twice over the past 5 years. Took me about 3 months each time. Well deserved of the title "greatest novel of all time".

If you are interested in a "screen version", this is FOR SURE the one to watch. I liked it so much I bought it (well, I copied it from the library actually):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and...972_TV_series)

By the way, your decision to not watch the new Hobbit film is a good one IMO. But I'm not normally a fan of Hollywood versions of books. The BBC can often be counted on for "good" dramatizations.

If you like Shakespeare by the way, the BBC (released on Ambrose video) made THE DEFINITIVE collection (which I also copied from the library):

http://www.ambrosevideo.com/items.cf...TOKEN=80778860

Yeah, it's worth the time and effort. I'm a bigger fan of George Elliot's work: Middlemarch is outstanding. I kept comparing Tolstoy to Dostoeyevsky and this might be the wrong thing to do, since I liked Dostoevsky so much as a teen.

The one classic I've read several times has been Moby Dick. I'm amazed by it's sheer language force and its philosophical sweep. And I like boats.

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

Originally Posted by Polaris

It was big business, and I did have some misgivings with the third film, but all-in-all, it was an excellent adaptation. Besides that, it was well acted, well cast, had beautiful music, incredible locales and was a landmark in modern cinema. Those who haven't seen it on the big screen have missed one of the spectacular films of all time.

yes, either finish it at the weddng or go ahead and scourge the shire, don't just meander off into the west over interminable minutes...

GoT is a fine job, imho. Actually bringing the wonderful Tyrion Lannister to life is an amazing achievement in itself.

[Rui]

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

yes, either finish it at the weddng or go ahead and scourge the shire, don't just meander off into the west over interminable minutes...

GoT is a fine job, imho. Actually bringing the wonderful Tyrion Lannister to life is an amazing achievement in itself.

Great trilogy.

Although, I found Jackson's Faramir much more believable than the book's. In the book Faramir never once considered taking the Ring and using it, even though Gondor was failing. I'm glad Jackson gave him gave him some angst.

[Avles]

I was absolutely crazy about the Tolkien books when I was younger. I don't feel the same fervor now but I'm still moved by JRRT's love of language and of landscape. His painstaking descriptions of his settings are so beautiful (and so British somehow).

I was pretty excited when the movies were announced but I ended up never watching them-- in part because, while I realized that Tolkien's dialogue would never work as it was, I didn't really want to hear Jackson's / Boyens' attempts at movieizing it.

For those who enjoy Russian novels I'd recommend Turgenev's Fathers and Sons. Great book, less ponderous than Tolstoy or Dostoevsky.

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

You have really missed out, Avles. As a lifelong Tolkien fan I was delighted by the way Jackson and co did very little to modify the dialogue but excised a lot of Tolkien's rather overblown and awkward poetry.. (while still keeping essentials like 'not all those who wander are lost" etc etc)

And the acting!!! Oh my, the first time you see Aragorn the hair rises on the back of your neck...

So much better than it had any right to be.

[kalic]

I just don't understand all the hype about kids books/movies among adult people...

[Mongolmike]

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

yes, either finish it at the weddng or go ahead and scourge the shire, don't just meander off into the west over interminable minutes...

Exactly.... I thought in the books the change and growth in the Hobbits when they get back to the Shire and find it despoiled and how they react to that is a significant part of the story... and to not include 5 minutes towards this was negligent. That, and the running plot of making the dwarf comic material bugged me a lot. Jackson hates dwarfs.

[max]

Originally Posted by kalic

I just don't understand all the hype about kids books/movies among adult people...

This is an interesting point. Perhaps it's because we're not very unified as a people---very individualized, very self-developed---and perhaps the kids' stuff is the stuff we can relate to as a group, without raising loud voices about "whose values," social hypocrisies, preferential treatment, injustice and so forth. Perhaps.

Or perhaps we have attention spans of gnats.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by Avles

I was pretty excited when the movies were announced but I ended up never watching them-- in part because, while I realized that Tolkien's dialogue would never work as it was, I didn't really want to hear Jackson's / Boyens' attempts at movieizing it.

Agree 100%. The "dialogue" in hollywood movies is just too much to bear.

Originally Posted by Avles

For those who enjoy Russian novels I'd recommend Turgenev's Fathers and Sons. Great book, less ponderous than Tolstoy or Dostoevsky.

I didn't care for the book. Maybe I'm just "nihilism-ed" out?

It probably did speak to the time when it was written, but it has really lost a lot of its relevance.

The book does have some very interesting and well written scenes. But on the whole, it wasn't that interesting IMO.

[max]

It might be my sensitive old ears, but I really resent it when I start believing that the movie dialogue is written to propagandize various political points or ideas.

Thanks, I just paid $10 to get your politics in my ear.

And so many of these movies are formulaic, from top to bottom.

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

Originally Posted by kalic

I just don't understand all the hype about kids books/movies among adult people...

oh dear, LOTR a 'kids book'

all those scholars who have devoted their lives to the thing will have kittens!

I won't try and explain, Kalic has clearly made up his mind for whatever reason and either hasn't ever read the books or just doesn't understand metaphor, allegory and craft...

perhaps he thinks Dan Brown writes 'adult books'?

[Chezbeeno]

I know this isn't a popular position to take, but I think Jackson butchered the LOTR movies, with the exception of perhaps the first one. I think him making the Hobbit into 3 separate movies is just further proof that he really only cares about profits, and not doing Tolkien justice. Needless to say I won't be going to see any of the 3 Hobbit movies.

[Mongolmike]

Originally Posted by Chezbeeno

I know this isn't a popular position to take, but I think Jackson butchered the LOTR movies, with the exception of perhaps the first one. I think him making the Hobbit into 3 separate movies is just further proof that he really only cares about profits, and not doing Tolkien justice. Needless to say I won't be going to see any of the 3 Hobbit movies.

You are 100% entitled to your point of view. Why/what do you think was butchered specifically? You must've read the books, was it the way he presented things that differed from your vision of things after reading the books? Or was it his focus on extended action scenes that bothered you? Things/characters/events he left out?

[Chezbeeno]

Originally Posted by Mongolmike

You are 100% entitled to your point of view. Why/what do you think was butchered specifically? You must've read the books, was it the way he presented things that differed from your vision of things after reading the books? Or was it his focus on extended action scenes that bothered you? Things/characters/events he left out?

I think he spent entirely too much time focusing on intense, entirely unnecessary action sequences. He took time away from some of the less action-related, but equally as important bits of the books, so that he could add more scenes of a hopped up elf taking down elephants in impossible ways. I'm all for good action, in fact I just posted how I loved the new James Bond movie, but it's different when you're basing the movies off a series of books that weren't entirely action-centered. I also think Frodo got excessively douchy in the last movie, more so than in the book, and that bothered me to no end.

[WildVolley]

Originally Posted by Chezbeeno

I know this isn't a popular position to take, but I think Jackson butchered the LOTR movies, with the exception of perhaps the first one. I think him making the Hobbit into 3 separate movies is just further proof that he really only cares about profits, and not doing Tolkien justice. Needless to say I won't be going to see any of the 3 Hobbit movies.

There are some scary rumors that extra characters have been written into the Hobbit movie version to be more politically correct and appeal to modern audiences. Sort of like making the dwarves into jokes in TLOTRs, I'm guessing I won't be pleased.

I probably won't rush out to see it, but I will eventually see it - perhaps just on blu-ray. I'm down to seeing about 3 movies a year in the theater at the moment.

[max]

re the Lord of the Rings movies. Just MY take:

I didn't think the sequence of movies worked; the entire last one was kind of anticlimactic, just a battle.

Gollum was overly ugly.

The dwarf (Gimil?) just didn't look the part. Too hairy, too scary, too rough. The elf was effeminate.

I guess overall I think there were too many hard visual contrasts between men, elves, dwarfs, hobbits.

I also think one MAJOR reason for the book's success was simply its descriptions of landscapes and natural settings. I'm not sure enough of this came into the movie. ALSO, one big reason for Tolkein's overall success is the whole language and history developed for the books; this needs to be brought out somehow.

I also dislike battle scenes looking as if they're from some unreal computer game (this happens a lot in movies, where people can magically jump 20 feet).

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

So, it's ok for Gandalf to command elemental force and Sauron to have vast dark powers, but non-humans can't jump a bit higher than the plods?

You lost me, Max...

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by max

re the Lord of the Rings movies. Just MY take:

I didn't think the sequence of movies worked; the entire last one was kind of anticlimactic, just a battle.

Gollum was overly ugly.

The dwarf (Gimil?) just didn't look the part. Too hairy, too scary, too rough. The elf was effeminate.

I guess overall I think there were too many hard visual contrasts between men, elves, dwarfs, hobbits.

I also think one MAJOR reason for the book's success was simply its descriptions of landscapes and natural settings. I'm not sure enough of this came into the movie. ALSO, one big reason for Tolkein's overall success is the whole language and history developed for the books; this needs to be brought out somehow.

I also dislike battle scenes looking as if they're from some unreal computer game (this happens a lot in movies, where people can magically jump 20 feet).

Did you also read the LOTR books, Max? I'm asking because I'm surprised that you don't remember "Gimli's" name and refer to Legolas as "the elf".

And, did you watch the films on the big screen? I'm asking this because I thought Jackson's take on New Zealand's locales was pretty darn breathtaking. Having read the books, I felt that Jackson's landscape sets were quite competent. I can imagine that watching those films on a TV screen could rob them of their grandeur.

That said, Hobbit has quite a different tone from LOTR. The "scale" seemed somehow smaller, and the intended readership was also younger. So, I'm hoping Jackson kept that in mind.

[mikekelley]

Originally Posted by max

I also think one MAJOR reason for the book's success was simply its descriptions of landscapes and natural settings. I'm not sure enough of this came into the movie.

Um, what? That is definitely one of the reasons for the success of the movies for sure. The landscapes are simply breathtaking.