General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA review of the Hobbit
Judging part one of Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" prelude "The Hobbit" is a bit like reviewing a film after seeing only the first act.
Yet here goes: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is stuffed with Hollywood's latest technology 3-D, high-speed projection and Dolby's Atmos surround sound system. The result is some eye candy that truly dazzles and some that utterly distracts, at least in its test-run of 48 frames a second, double the projection rate that has been standard since silent-film days.
It's also overstuffed with, well, stuff. Prologues and sidestepping backstory. Long, boring councils among dwarves, wizards and elves. A shallow blood feud extrapolated from sketchy appendices to J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" to give the film a bad guy.
Remember the interminable false endings of "The Return of the King," the Academy Award-winning finale of Jackson's "Lord of the Rings"? "An Unexpected Journey" has a similar bloat throughout its nearly three hours, in which Tolkien's brisk story of intrepid little hobbit Bilbo Baggins is drawn out and diluted by dispensable trimmings better left for DVD extras.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/review-hobbit-suffers-story-bloat
Cleita
(75,480 posts)of Lord Aragon. Since the same actor is not playing that role, I have no reason to see The Hobbit. It was required reading when I was in school and that was enough. Tolkien is an important writer in the history of literature but his stories really don't appeal to women. Not enough romance I suppose and too much battle. I'm sure the special effects are wonderful, but I really see movies for the story and this one doesn't appeal to me.
blogslut
(38,000 posts)I have no trouble finding "story" in his Middle Earth tales. For me, a narrative need not include romance to be intriguing.
If you require romance, there's plenty of it in "The Silmarrilion" and "Unfinished Tales".
Cleita
(75,480 posts)The only one who seemed real to me was Galadriel in the books, not the movies, and she was an Elf, a fantasy creature, not a human one. I really didn't see what Aragon saw in Arwyn. She was portrayed with no more personality than a Barbie doll. Even Viggo Mortensen said in real life Eowyn would have been a better fit for the King. At least she had some personality and she was a warrior like him. I get the impression Tolkien was uncomfortable around women so his romantic liaisons don't make sense. I guess that's why I didn't care for them. Just my opinion. btw I didn't say there was no story. I said there wasn't a story that appealed to me.
JI7
(89,250 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)JI7
(89,250 posts)i only remember her being mentioned at the end as marrying aragorn. but nothing else about her. i wish they would have left out many of her scenes in the films. i guess part of it was done to prepare people for the end when aragorn ends up with her rather than eowyn .
Norrin Radd
(4,959 posts)Faramir lived to be 120, Aragorn, 210.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,319 posts)The story of Beren and Luthien - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_Beren_and_L%C3%BAthien . Luthien is a proper heroine, for instance rescuing her love when he has been taken prisoner. And Tolkien based her on his wife:
Cleita
(75,480 posts)You sometimes need a bad ass like the self-involved Cersei in Game of Thrones, or the little survivor girl in Arya, who will kill her enemies, and eat bugs and rats to survive and sometimes is not able to bathe for months.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Arya is in my trinity of favorites along with Daenerys (another awesome female character) and Tyrion, but god Arya's sister is so annoying.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)perfect and proper on the outside, but not hesitant to tell lies to either advance her purposes or get out of a situation.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)You'd think the fact that he lied to his father and got her wolf killed would have clued her in to the fact that the guy is a sociopathic scumbag, but no she still thinks he's so amazing and then betrays her family for him. I have 0 sympathy.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I haven't read the fourth book yet. I requested it from the library when it comes available.
JI7
(89,250 posts)and just the overall story.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)JI7
(89,250 posts)not stuff like twilight or that shades of gray books.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)like "The Mists of Avalon". I'm reading right now "A Song of Ice and Fire" series (Game of Thrones). I'm waiting for the fourth book "A Feast For Crows" from the library. Even though the books are fairly dark, and the romances aren't that romantic, his human characters are very real, both male and female. The love matches are pretty much like real life too, not idealized.
Those Twilight books are trash for teenagers and I haven't read the shade of gray so I can't pass an opinion.
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)Bringing more of that story into the film was one of things Jackson got right considering how much it explains Aragorn's motivation.
'But Elrond saw many things and read many hearts. One day, therefore, before the fall of the year he called Aragorn to his chamber, and he said: "Aragorn, Arathorn's son, Lord of the Dúnedain, listen to me! A great doom awaits you, either to rise above the height of all your fathers since the days of Elendil, or to fall into darkness with all that is left of your kin. Many years of trial lie before you. You shall neither have wife, nor bind any woman to you in troth, until your time comes and you are found worthy of it."
Full text: http://www.henneth-annun.net/resources/things_view.cfm?THID=200
Cleita
(75,480 posts)was comfortable around women. I don't believe it would have been that unusual though for a British gentleman of his era. They really didn't spend that much time with their women except for dinner and sleeping with the wife of course. School was single sex and most of their recreation so they didn't really know much about women.
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)Tolkien should have integrated it into the trilogy. Lovely story. Well worth reading but most people overlook it because it's buried in the appendices.
I'm glad Jackson brought it into the films, more or less, although Arwen taking Glorfindel's place at the Ford of Bruinen was atrocious.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)sure there is enough material to do the same with The Hobbit. It is one relatively short book after all.
slutticus
(3,428 posts)There was some other (rather important) stuff going on during the period in which the Hobbit takes place, much of it not in the book (mentioned in passing only). Those unfamiliar with the tolkien universe are going to consider this "bloat" or "fluff", but I'm actually exited to see some of this put on film. I'm particularly exited to see Radagast the Simple.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Oh that's awesome-- is he the one fiddling with the hedgehog in the trailer?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)separate films. The Hobbit is one complete story and can be told, complete (unlike his Lord of the Rings trilogy), in one film. He has never hesitated to make a three hour film before and that is ample for The Hobbit.
This is just fucking greed-spawned stupidity. Once the last one is released, I'll be hitting the Pirate Bay, just to see if I can endure what he has done.
BTW, I bought all of the Lord of the Rings films as he did the best adaptation yet, despite the hacking of important parts and combining of characters.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx
gulliver
(13,181 posts)You have to read Tolkien's prose to actually get Middle Earth. There is just no way to recreate the language, the sense of history, the state of mind, the pacing...that Tolkien achieves. Tolkien himself is an indispensable ingredient in The Hobbit and LOTR.
I saw the Jackson LOTR movies and thought they were thin gruel. Maybe Rob Reiner could have done better, judging from The Princess Bride. Cheesy, muppety special effects beat computer-choreographed pixel torrents for fantasy IMO. (At least your sense of physics isn't grossly offended in every scene.) With Tolkien, I think you want the audience to know it's all a story so they can willingly suspend disbelief and commit.
People need to engage in fantasy, not have it shown to them. I love movies, but for Tolkien a book is the only way to go, IMO. Maybe an audio book.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I have to disagree, I loved the LOTR movies. I thought they were well done and very entertaining.
I agree that reading is the best, it almost always is.
The Audiobooks though......I listen to 3-4 hours of audiobooks a day and I just could not listen to my favorite book (the Hobbit), does not translate well to spoken work, IMHO ( or maybe it was the voice it was done in)
Game of Thrones, incidentally, also did not translate well to audiobook. To many characters talking for one actor to handle.
Omaha Steve
(99,642 posts)IMAX digital projection at 24 frames per second. No Atmos surround sound and it's 100 plus speakers.
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)It's much lighter and more cartoony than the original trilogy.
There are a fair amount of laughs and even a trio of vaguely 3 stooges like trolls.
Gollum is great in this. Better than in the original, I thought.
It wasn't very emotional, I never got very attached to any of the characters, including Bilbo, but it was a lot of fun.
Oh, and the original article mentioned that movies have always been 24 frames a second.
No. Silent movies were 16 frames a second. It was bumped up to 24 when sound arrived.
The faster speed was needed to get sufficient sound quality from optical sound tracks.
The new 48 fps system is interesting but some scenes felt almost like video instead of film which was disconcerting.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)It was published on the good review of a 10 year old boy!
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I don't much care what the critics think To many times there have been movies the critics loved that I hated and vice-versa.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)And unlike some am glad it is 3 movies, so much in the appendixes that explain things like why Gandalf chose bilbo, where he went and what he did during the time he was gone in the novel, etc.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)6 hours of Tolkien instead of 2... I don't quite understand why people are so angry about it.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)namely, the rumored first 9 minutes of the new Trek movie and the new Superman trailer.
lalalu
(1,663 posts)I never like the later versions of the series. I have to say I really liked the 2009 movie 'Star Trek' and look forward to the new one.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)He went to the seminar with some thing down his pants that peed into a bag LOL
lalalu
(1,663 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)...than the original Hobbit.
You can see they added a lot of the Silmarillion material to better connect it to LOTR; the weekend-long six film marathons will be interesting, once this trilogy is completed as well.
sometimes the 48 fps makes it look like you're watching video, and it can be a tad distracting.
It's still a very fun three hours, though.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)More than what was in the original book!