The Hobbit (2012/2013)

[UnSub]

I don't know why you all bother, the scouring is going to be great.  He can tweak things to get it right and sell a directors cut blu ray box set of all 6 movies.

I just want to see Merry or Pippin shield surf down a flight of stairs while Frodo does a backflip and cuts Saruman's head off. Then Sam can deliver the zinger. "Scour that!"

Then Tom Bombadil appears and dragon uppercuts Smaug.

[Khaldun]

Saw it again with the wife who wanted to see it. I feel much less charitable towards the first hour of the film now, which is actively bad. One of the things I didn't realize as much the first time is that the padding is not just in the filming but in the pace at which the actors deliver their dialogue up to the trolls--it's all languidly spoken. There isn't anything that feels like urgency or even emphasis except in the two expositional flashbacks and Bilbo running out of Bag End in excitement. Nor is there anything even remotely like basic editing going on--from the time Dwalin shows up at Bag End, everything is almost in real-time until the end of "Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold".

[naum]

About half way through a reread of the Hobbit - don't believe I've read this in at least 15 years, but there was a dusty old paperback on nestled in the back of the bookcase.

Stone giants are actually in the book and referred back to several times after.

Some of the rearranging to the story that Jackson did, not particularly the inclusion of extra bit filler but even the action points that turn out similar but via different means (i.e., Bilbo running to join the party instead of meeting at inn) seem puzzling to me. And yet, lots of lines taken directly from the source material.

Also, this blast by Christopher, son of Tolkien, I remember reading back in the summer, but someone linked to it again recently.

Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

This divorce has been systematically driven by the logic of Hollywood. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

[Merusk]

Yeah, that commercialization is one of the reasons the estate has taken WB to court.  After seeing a Denny's "Hobbit Breakfast" commercial I can't say I'm not rooting for them.

[shiznitz]

What the estate is not saying is that book sales spike around these movies.  One of my neighbors is a senior guy at the publisher that has the Tolkein book rights.  He said digital sales of the Hobbit were over 5,000 a day in the weeks up to the release.  Digital rights were not part of the original agreement so they had to be negotiated afresh. The good news is the estate gets 70% of digital book revenues.

So as much as poor little Christoper wants to complain about the commercialization of the the works, the movies increase the number of people who actually read those works.

[HaemishM]

What the estate is not saying is that book sales spike around these movies.  One of my neighbors is a senior guy at the publisher that has the Tolkein book rights.  He said digital sales of the Hobbit were over 5,000 a day in the weeks up to the release.  Digital rights were not part of the original agreement so they had to be negotiated afresh. The good news is the estate gets 70% of digital book revenues.

So as much as poor little Christoper wants to complain about the commercialization of the the works, the movies increase the number of people who actually read those works.

This. Even a shitty shit shit movie will help an author (or his leeching descendants) make some serious bank far and above the movie rights fees.

[Samwise]

So as much as poor little Christoper wants to complain about the commercialization of the the works, the movies increase the number of people who actually read those works.

I've never gotten the sense that Christopher Tolkien is in any way motivated by truckloads of cash.

[Johny Cee]

What the estate is not saying is that book sales spike around these movies.  One of my neighbors is a senior guy at the publisher that has the Tolkein book rights.  He said digital sales of the Hobbit were over 5,000 a day in the weeks up to the release.  Digital rights were not part of the original agreement so they had to be negotiated afresh. The good news is the estate gets 70% of digital book revenues.

So as much as poor little Christoper wants to complain about the commercialization of the the works, the movies increase the number of people who actually read those works.

This. Even a shitty shit shit movie will help an author (or his leeching descendants) make some serious bank far and above the movie rights fees.

Not really in this case.  The Hobbit has global sales of 35-100 million copies since 1937, so even if the bump from the films is large it isn't particularly significant especially if you think it's going to hurt your sales long term.  

The Estate is focused on maintaining the long term value and artistic visions of the brand over a quick cash out leading to oversaturation and backlash.  The studio wants to wring every last penny from the movies while they have the rights and the publicity, and don't care if long-term that hurts the brand.

I mean, this is a brand where a fancy new hardcover edition of a 70 year old book can crack the bestseller lists...  The collected reference papers cracked bestseller lists and could jolt the main books back on.  They don't really need the publicity that much, and may even be more hurt by a mediocre attempt to film the story.


Now, on the other hand, books with small original audiences can make out really well in an adaption, even if it's a bad one, because it lets them get out of the scifi ghetto:

- The Game of Thrones tv show may have doubled the total sales for Martin's books (they sold well, but he didn't crack the top selling authors in SF/F and was way behind people like Jordan).  
- Jim Butcher said that the sales of his Dresden books doubled or tripled after the kinda crappy Syfy television attempt that only lasted like 12 episodes, and that is probably one of the main reasons the series is as big as it is now.

I've never gotten the sense that Christopher Tolkien is in any way motivated by truckloads of cash.

The Estate already has truckloads of cash, and can be assured that truckloads of cash will be delivered on a timely basis for decades even if there were never a film or an action figure or a tie-in Burger King meal.

[Lantyssa]

Waaah.

If he doesn't like the movies, he should have either not given permission, given stricter permissions, or made them himself.  They've introduced the works to a generation of people who never would have known or read them.  Maybe what they've found isn't what Tolkien wrote, but language changes with the times.  It shouldn't be surprising that adaptions do as well.

[Samwise]

I don't think JRR really knew what he was doing when he sold the rights in 1969 for a pittance.  Nowadays any author would know not to completely sign everything away like that, but this was forty years ago and he was an old guy who thought movies were a passing fad.

[Ironwood]

This page should just be excised.

[Ingmar]

So as much as poor little Christoper wants to complain about the commercialization of the the works, the movies increase the number of people who actually read those works.

I've never gotten the sense that Christopher Tolkien is in any way motivated by truckloads of cash.

The 2342 volumes of annotated Tolkien shovelware he's put out over the years make me think at least somewhat otherwise.

[Samwise]

I read that as OCD more than cashgrab, but I could be wrong.  (I've bought some of that shovelware; the amount of work put into it is ridiculous.)

[Tannhauser]

I understand him wanting to preserve the work, but Shakespeare seems to have held up to gross commercialization. 

[HaemishM]

So as much as poor little Christoper wants to complain about the commercialization of the the works, the movies increase the number of people who actually read those works.

I've never gotten the sense that Christopher Tolkien is in any way motivated by truckloads of cash.

The 2342 volumes of annotated Tolkien shovelware he's put out over the years make me think at least somewhat otherwise.

This. This is also why I say FUCK CHRISTOPHER TOLKIEN, because he and his family is starting to border on Disney-esque levels of copyright abuse bullshittery.

[Samwise]

he and his family is starting to border on Disney-esque levels of copyright abuse bullshittery.

 

[eldaec]

Saw this tonight, surprised to find I didn't mind the length at all.

I haven't read the book in 25 years and don't plan to till this is done, so any JRR raping went over my head. Only real criticism is the last hour action all got a little too Peter Jackson.


Oh and the 3d was still annoying as fuck even in imax. Also I get the impression Jackson was letting rip with the panning assuming most would see it in 48fps because I was noticing a lot of sequences affected by frame gaps. Light loss from 3d only made it worse. But didn't stop the film being good.

[eldaec]

One thing the film did need, however, was an old style interval.

Not because I was bored, but because 15 minutes to get a drink, take a piss, and discuss how much the film sucks/rocks so far would be welcome.

[Yegolev]

A piss break would have been great.  My son had to leave near the end.  Eight-year-olds simply don't believe you when you tell them that the entire cup of soda will turn to pee.

[Tebonas]

We had an interval, and man did we need it.

I enjoyed the movie, but after rereading parts of the book I also get what Christopher Tolkien means. This does not transport the same sentimentality the book does.

[Jeff Kelly]

Name me three book to movie adaptations that 100% reproduce the contents of said book and aren't bad and I come around to the argument of "modifications to the source material are bad".

The best adaptations I know all take liberties. The worst treat the source as gospel. The Shining is one of the best movies of all time, yet takes huge liberties with the source material so much so that Stephen King went on record to say just how much he hates that film.

Watchmen on the other hand is an adaptation that should have been even easier since it's an adaptation from one visual medium to another and it's reverent treatment of the source makes it rather boring by comparison. The most exciting scene is the beginning set to "the times they keep a changing" and it's the only scene where Snyder took any liberties at all.

So Jacksons Hobbit takes liberties and isn't a one on one adaptation of the books? So what? At least I don't care but I don't treat the originals as gospel.

Oh and fuck Christopher Tolkien. He might be doing it out of the best intentions for the work of his father for all I know and care (more probably though money) but still I can't stand the incessant whining of that particular professional descendant. Come back when you've done something original then at least you'll be whinging about how Hollywood mistreated your own work.

I'd bet however that if Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit were properly licensed and the Tolkien estate were to get a cut of the billions the movies made then Christopher Professional Son of Tolkien would whistle a different tune entirely.

I rather liked the Hobbit. In my opinion though Peter Jackson didn't really make a "The Hobbit" Movie adaptation and split it into three epsiodes but rather that Jackson treats the movies as a sort of "Lord of the Rings" Prequel Trilogy. Just without the bad dialogue, bad acting, trade federation embargos and thank god without Jar jar Binks.

As an adaptation of the Hobbit even that first part is about 45 minutes too long and I'd probably cut most of that from the very deliberate and slow beginning of the movie.

If you treat it as "Lord of the Rings: Episode 1" however then most of the changes and most of the movie actually make sense in how he structured it and what he added.

I would have still probably cut about half an hour and structured the parts a bit differently (start with the assault of Smaug and make that scene a little bit longer. Bring the liberation of Moria part sooner to break up the slow moving bits and make that scene a bit longer etc) but I quite enjoyed it.

The "hyper reality" of the HFR version makes sense because it seems to be entirely to beneft the 3d effects. The Hobbit was the first movie I saw where 3d seemed to be more than just a gimmick for a few scenes it actually worked most of the time. I think that you need the eerie depth of field without blur, the high frame rate and high luminescense to make 3d work as great as it did there.

That being said, the Hobbit was the best 3d experience I've ever had (better than Avatar) but it doesn't change the fact that even the best 3d experience yet largely felt like an expensive distraction and a gimmick that just "sort of" worked and cheapened what was an otherwise great movie experience.

What I especially hated was the fact that the composition, set design and camera angles of much the movie were clearly designed not to make the best out of a particular scene but to make sure that the 3d worked best. This led to some really distracting and confusing set pieces.

Conclusion:

I liked the movie very much. For me it felt more like "Lord of the Rings: Episode 1" than "The Hobbit: Part 1" though (but in a good way). My hard core LotR fan friend didn't notice the changes from the source material that much or didn't care so it might even work for LotR ultra fans.

Most of the scenes were great although you can notice in some scenes that most of the visual composition was primarily done to help the 3d effects and not to get the most out of the setpieces.

If you liked the slower pace and the stunning landscapes of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy then even the "Extended Edition" of this movie won't bore you or seem to long. If you treat it as "The Hobbit: Part 1" though the movie is probably about 30 to 45 minutes longer than it needs to be.

Best 3d experience yet, doesn't change the fact though that 3d is still expensive and pointless.

[Jeff Kelly]

Hot Dwarf kept throwing out my suspension of disbelief.  Bad mistake that, I think.

I guess it's a marketing decision.

There are basically two protagonists/heroes of the movie. Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Richard Armitage as Thorin. So I guess they made Thorin and some of the dwarves more "human-like" so that the audience can identify better with them.

I too found it to be distracting though.

Biggest unintended laugh/facepalm moment for me was the Saruman/Elrond/Gandalf/Galadriel scene.

Saruman (paraphrased): "How do we know that it's indeed a blade by the witch king?".

I don't know Saruman, maybe we could poke you with it and check if you turn into a wight. If three of your own kind don't even dare to touch the blade (nice moment when a shocked Elrond actually drew back his hand after Gandalf told him what was in the package) then it might actually be one.

But what should I expect of a Wizard that thinks Trolls and Orks roaming the lands and Necromancers squatting in old ruins is nothing that he should concern himself with because "it's just a bit of a bother, really".

[croaker69]

Hot Dwarf kept throwing out my suspension of disbelief.  Bad mistake that, I think.

I guess it's a marketing decision.

There are basically two protagonists/heroes of the movie. Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Richard Armitage as Thorin. So I guess they made Thorin and some of the dwarves more "human-like" so that the audience can identify better with them.

I too found it to be distracting though.

Biggest unintended laugh/facepalm moment for me was the Saruman/Elrond/Gandalf/Galadriel scene.

Saruman (paraphrased): "How do we know that it's indeed a blade by the witch king?".

I don't know Saruman, maybe we could poke you with it and check if you turn into a wight. If three of your own kind don't even dare to touch the blade (nice moment when a shocked Elrond actually drew back his hand after Gandalf told him what was in the package) then it might actually be one.

But what should I expect of a Wizard that thinks Trolls and Orks roaming the lands and Necromancers squatting in old ruins is nothing that he should concern himself with because "it's just a bit of a bother, really".

<Out of movie Tolkien nerd explanation incoming>

Saruman was dissembling.  He didn't want any of his "allies" poking around Dol Guldur because he knew the One Ring went into the Anduin near there and he was already searching for it. 

[eldaec]

On hot dwarf;

I can already visualise Phillipa Boyens on the DVD trying to justify making him 'heroic and relateable to a human audience', which is dumb and knowing that was the thought process will make it worse. But as part of the exaggerated differentiation between the dwarfs it wasn't so bad, and only really bothered me in closeup, where the proportions didn't work on their own and there was no reference to other dwarfs to help out.

On 3d,

Something that did help was the editing and lighting style. One of the many problems with 3d is the extra time your eyes need to adjust after each cut, slower exposition scenes and fewer cuts helped a lot. As did an aggressive approach to lighting, there were very few dark or confusing scenes, even 'ring vision' mode was designed and lit in simpler 3d friendly manner.

Jackson definitely understood the limits 3d puts on him better than I've seen in any other film.

Why he chose to accept those limits when 3d brings so little is another matter. The reflective effect in Gollum's night eyes looked bizarre in a cave that was seemingly lit with halogen bulbs.

On Saruman and the sword,

In the scene saruman seemed trite, especially as I wanted to see how he'd earned the immense respect Gandalf gave him in lotr. But on reflection it made more sense. How do we know only the witch king had the only morgul blade? How do we know he only had one? Have we even established it would be impossible or hard to make a new one? And no one except a storm crow wants to diminish the previous victory.

This is another scene where I have a suspicion the writer's thought process was much less interesting, but everyone apart from Fu Manchu was so well written that I don't mind. I really liked the interpretation of how elves would consider a matter like this. I also enjoyed Magneto playing 3 relationships with a brother in arms, a crush, and a father figure in the same room.

[Lantyssa]

There are basically two protagonists/heroes of the movie. Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Richard Armitage as Thorin. So I guess they made Thorin and some of the dwarves more "human-like" so that the audience can identify better with them.

Armitage is a good looking guy.  He made a fine dwarf.  The twins didn't bother me either.  Bloated whale guy did.

[Ironwood]

Yeah, that's why it bugged me more :  Thorin was both good looking AND dwarvish.

Hot Cousin, not so much.  And everytime he spoke, he just sounded like Boromirs brother, rather than a dwarf.

Bloated Whale guy I liked because the book made it clear that's pretty much what he looked like.

[Samwise]

Oh and fuck Christopher Tolkien. He might be doing it out of the best intentions for the work of his father for all I know and care (more probably though money) but still I can't stand the incessant whining of that particular professional descendant. Come back when you've done something original then at least you'll be whinging about how Hollywood mistreated your own work.

I'd bet however that if Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit were properly licensed and the Tolkien estate were to get a cut of the billions the movies made then Christopher Professional Son of Tolkien would whistle a different tune entirely.

One interview on the subject after forty years of generally being a recluse is "incessant whining"?  The level of nerd rage against that guy is boggling to me.  He didn't like your new favorite movie, get over it.  

The Tolkien estate does get a cut of the movies' profits, although they had to sue in order to get New Line to admit that the movies did in fact make money.  But that's pretty standard Hollywood bullshit.

[HaemishM]

This is hardly the first time Christopher Tolkien has douche-whined about the movies.

[Samwise]

This is hardly the first time Christopher Tolkien has douche-whined about the movies.

Can you point me to an example anywhere of him going out of his way to broadcast his opinion on the subject of the movies?  I dimly remember he was asked about it before the first movies were out and he said something like "I think it'll be hard to make them feel like the books, but that's just my opinion."  And then there was this interview, in which he committed the apparently unpardonable offense of admitting that he did not in fact like the movies and explaining why.  If he'd instead gushed about how great the movies were you'd probably be saying he was a douchey sellout.

It's not like he has a radio show or a newspaper column or even a blog where he regularly holds forth on this topic.  Anyone who has posted in this 25-page thread has done more "douche-whining" than he has.

[Merusk]

Yeah,   well..... you're mom!

[eldaec]

We should discuss copyright law now.

[Ingmar]

For me the biggest single thing that bugs me about the guy is that he won't license out the Silmarillion and other ancillary stuff out for *anything*, which means that for example the makers of LoTRO can't refer to things that happened in it, which in turn means that by 'protecting' the legacy of his father's work in that way, he's actually actively diminishing what people can make of it. Self-fulfilling prophecy. He has the opportunity to improve the faithfulness of derivative works and profit by them at the same time, and he won't take it, seemingly out of spite.

[Samwise]

Which is why accusations of him being in it for the money kinda boggle me.  

I think I tend to agree with him that the world doesn't need a Silmarillion MMO or movie or whatever.  I do wish that at some point before he'd died JRR had taken a crack at writing an original fantasy screenplay of some kind, because I think it'd be interesting to see what he might have put on the screen that wouldn't be a dumb action movie, but he was a language nerd (as is his son), so it's not too surprising that he wouldn't find visual mediums as appealing as the written word.

[Ingmar]

I don't think it needs a movie made out of it either, but it certainly hurts what people can do with the main properties when you can't, for example, refer to stuff that happened in ancient Númenor when building ruins in your zones that were left there by those people, etc.

[Samwise]

While I'm one of the first people to complain about the stuff the movies "got wrong" relative to the books, I don't think cramming background stuff from the Silmarillion into them would improve them any.  Heck, my main complaint with the Hobbit movie is that they didn't just stick to making a movie out of "The Hobbit".