The Hobbit: That Christopher Tolkien Did Not Like

[CreativeThinker101]

I just saw this movie today. My words to describe it? Average, mediocre, lackluster, merely good. I realize many of you will disagree with me and say, "You're wrong, CT! It was EPIC!" But this "epicness" was one of the key issues I had with the movie.

I felt as if the heart, feel, and theme of J.R.R. Tolkein's classic prequel were squeezed out of this movie with special effects and fake emotion. The novel was a simple, fast-paced, classic adventure story with loveable characters. Peter Jackson, however changed the movie to make it a full-blown epic, complete with extended battle sequences and visual stunts that you could see in any other fantasy movies.

It was almost as if the screenwriters just took the first 6 chapters of The Hobbit and lengthened them, reshaped them, and demolished them to turn them into something that completely lacks the simplicity and fast-pacedness of Tolkein's tale. For me, this strategy failed "epicly". The entire book could have been made into one 3 hour movie quite easily, and it would have been great.

I believe Jackson felt he had to make the movie a certain length (around 3 hours) and so he took the book to its absolute limits, turning it into an epic much like LOTR that it wasn't meant to be. (I realize I already said that, but I'd like to get my point across. )

As I said before, most of the special effects failed to impress me. This is probably because I haven't been impressed by any graphics or visual effects since I was around 8 years old, but also because I've seen all these ol standbys before. The battle sequences were well done for the most part, but they weren't Tolkeiny in the least bit, they were Jacksony. That's probably my biggest complaint for this movie: It was all Peter Jackson. Peter Jackson could've easily taken Tolkeins book and sticking to the heart of the story while giving it his own spin. But, alas, this is not what he did. Jackson took a plot that was crafted by Tolkein and made a movie that had almost no hint of Tolkein in it at all, only Jackson, Jackson, Jackson.

All that being said, The Hobbit is not an awful movie. It boasts great acting by everyone involved, (particularly Martin Freeman who put on a stunning performance of Bilbo and truly captured the character, even if Jackson did not capture the spirit of The Hobbit) and the party scene at the beginning was brilliant. However, the flaws are inexcusable, and so, if I were a movie critic, I would award The Hobbit 2.5/5 stars, or 5/10.

[Aeva]

Yeeaah, it was definitely unnecessary. And it got even better when Saruman showed up and they all sat down like it was a LotR cast reunion party. )

Don't hate on the White Council. They're going to obliterate Dol Guldur and engage in an epic battle with the Necromancer, and it's going to be AWESOME. (The White Council/Dol Guldur story line is actually one of the more exciting plot lines, imho. I'm glad they're working it in.)

See, you Hobbit haters are depriving yourselves of an epic adventure. You should just relax, stop being so nit-picky, and dive into the grand wave of Hobbit-ness. Just let go and smoke some East Farthing leaves. (I do agree about Azog: I like him less each time I see him. He's great in the flashback, but I do wish he had died there like he was supposed to. However, his existence does nothing to dampen my euphoria lol.)

As for you, CT, you're wrong! It was EPIC! I just couldn't resist lol. I loved the epic feel of the film so much because I have always considered the book as epic as LotR. Sure, it may seem like a simple children's story at first, but it's only simple on the surface. Once you dive into the history of Middle Earth and the context surrounding the events of the book, it loses its simplicity. I suggest you read Appendix AIII, which is the appendix about the dwarves, called "Durin's Folk." It's not long, and I think it may give you a new appreciation for the story.

[jelly]

See, you Hobbit haters are depriving yourselves of an epic adventure. You should just relax, stop being so nit-picky, and dive into the grand wave of Hobbit-ness.

Believe me, I would have loved nothing more. My complaints hinge on the fact that the movie itself hindered me from relaxing at all, much less appreciate the 'grand wave of Hobbit-ness'.

Imagine this. Fade in: Hobbiton. Slow, patient tracking shots establish life in the Shire as all the hobbits go about their daily business just as they always do. Bilbo's voicover begins with the iconic, "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit." At this point we haven't yet met the dwarves, because if we had, the 'party' featured in the next scene would be anything but unexpected (to borrow from the title of Chapter 1). Rather then wasting time with an extremely unnecessary and drawn out CGI montage, we're given time to become familiar with Bilbo and his little hole in the ground, rather then assume that everyone is already familiar with them (which they probably are, but that's no excuse for lazy filmmaking).

Then, we can observe with surprised amusement as Gandalf and company invade his comfortable little world, and we'll empathize with his anxious curiosity, because at this point we know as little about his uninvited guests as he does. Suddenly, revelation occurs as Gandalf drops the bombshell on Bilbo's unsuspecting world. As Thorin and his dwarves belt out the Lonely Mountain lyrics, we begin to feel a dark, foreboding past that warns of pearls ahead. The weight of Bilbo's decision is heavier. The anticipation of adventure is greater.

Notice the story progression. All that, and much more, would have been possible if Jackson had been willing to approach the story with patience, rather then filling in the dead spots with lots of unnecessary urgency. Why did Gandalf have to break the stone with a triumphant yell in order to defeat the trolls rather than employ subtle and clever ventriloquism to confuse them? Because the filmmakers had to give his character another You Shall Not Pass moment. Why did Bilbo have to pull out his sword and fight the rogue goblin, even though that goes explicitly against character? Because God forbid that we feature the introduction of Sting and not make it glow with special effects. Why was Radagast so awkwardly spliced into a movie where he clearly didn't belong? Because dang it, nine hours of runtime have to be filled somehow.

Moment after moment are played out for an audience that is more excited about 'Lord of the Rings: The Prequel' then for an audience that truly cares about the story. I don't blame Jackson, though. That's just what you do when you're under unimaginable pressure from Hollywood studios. If you have to choose between an excellent script and a multi-million dollar special effects budget, the special effects win out every time.

Yeah, maybe if I suspended all of my 'nit-pickyness' entirely, I might have enjoyed it. But I certainly wouldn't have been able to appreciate it. But that's okay, because apparently it was made for an audience that would rather be entertained be video game-esque chase scenes than an audience that might actually want to appreciate it.

[Taps]

I actually agree with Aeva on almost everything on this one. I see where your coming from Jelly but honestly I disagree with some of it. The special effects really added to the movie IMO. I mean "Fellowship" was advanced for it's time, but man when I came out of the theater of The Hobbit I said to my friend: THAT'S Middle Earth. I felt so immersed in it, that I was completely entertained and engaged the whole time. The second time I saw it I was still engrossed. I also thought the story was well done, and sense I have read all the Lord of the Rings and their supplementary material, I know about Azog, and the battle of Dol Gulder, and the Necromancer, and Radagast, I was happy to see Peter Jackson adding all the things that weren't included in the Hobbit novel. (Especially since I don't see a Silmarillion movie coming anytime soon.) One thing we agree on was the whole Troll scene. I was very disappointed that they didn't play it out like the book (after the dwarfs were captured by them anyway, the action sequence was well done) and have Gandalf do his ventriloquism like in his book. And when I read what you said about it being like another "You Shall Not Pass" I nodded and thought *Thats right!* However all in all I am very impressed with the film, and with what ol' P.J. Did with it. Can't wait for the second film!

[Smaug the Dragon]

Huh. You know, at first the negative comments made about this movie slightly irked me, as I felt that they were insinuating that my taste just wasn't refined enough to see all these flaws or something.

But now that I think about it, maybe that's just it. Maybe I ignore or don't notice these complaints because honestly I'm not really a movie person. In my mind, nothing can compete with the books. The movie for me is just a fun, visual and auditory aid to the story. I get a kick out of seeing the dwarves develop faces and unique personalities. I immerse myself in atmospheric music. And of course, eagerly anticipate seeing one of my favorite literary character of all time come to life. I don't want it to meander too far from the book, but basically accept that there will be changes made to appeal to less ardent fans. I guess when it comes to film, my standards just aren't high enough to be really disappointed.

[Aeva]

I definitely understand your point, Jelly, and I think you're right: had the film played out the way you described the beginning, it would have been fabulous. My opinion of the film is unchanged (because I was totally swept away despite the alterations), but I do understand why you were disappointed.

Only 340 days until The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.

EDIT: GAIS. Go check out @ElvenPartyKing on Twitter. This is one of the funniest Twitter accounts that I have ever seen. (If you haven't heard, there's a fandom about Thranduil being a party king because the Mirkwood elves prefer to drink potent Dorwinion wine, and it's HILARIOUS. The tumblr tags are equally hilarious, although some of the stuff is dirty. Read the tumblr tags at your own risk lol.)

[jelly]

Here's a rather historic and saddening interview with the author's son, Christopher Tolkien, and a collection of thoughts that basically sum up my concerns with Jackson's treatment of the literature.

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."

Full article: http://worldcrunch.com/culture-society/ ... PCFQm9QV8H

[bookworm]

In the new Hobbit movie, for example, the audience will discover characters Tolkien never put in, especially women.

Who is this referring to?

[Musical Shutterbug]

Maybe he was referring to characters in the other two (ugh ) films yet to come.

[bookworm]

That's not what it said.

[Aeva]

He must have been referring to the female elf Tauriel, who will be the captain of Thranduil's guard. I'm a bit concerned about her introduction, but I'm willing to give her a chance. As long as there's no messing about, and especially as long as she doesn't help Bilbo at all, then I don't think I will have any reason to fiercely dislike her.

I'm really hoping, since she's the captain of the guard, that she will be the elf drinking with the butler when Bilbo and the dwarves make their escape. That would make the entire film worth it for me, I think.

[~JCGJ~]

How many times can Gandalf say "RUN!!!!!" in the same movie?

(I will be making tiny little snippet here and there. )

[bookworm]

Do any of you LOTR buffs know if there is a correct way to sing Over the Misty Mountains?
I know Tolkien was very detailed about his world, but I don’t know if that included releasing an official melody to his songs.

[Blitz]

Gandalf yells run often. Even in the main series. I loved the movie it explored plots which explain the main plot better. All of the addition made sense to me and I could see them relating to the movie.

[SoccerLOTR]

Wow, I'm really surprised at the negative stuff on here. I was actually originally slightly dreading The Hobbit because I didn't want Middle Earth to be turned into a silly little-kid fairy tale if it were based upon only The Hobbit. And since it is impossible to make a movie out of Tolkein's appendices alone, it was perfect that they incorporated all the Middle Earth stories and facts into the story of The Hobbit. So perfect. So I must agree with Aeva and Taps here...if you just wanted a kid's movie based off of the kid's book, then I see not liking it. But if you were like me and wanted something epic that told the story of the rest of what was going on in Middle Earth at the time, it was amazing. The only thing (really only thing) I hated was Gandalf's story about how the game of golf was invented...because, uh, golf? In Middle Earth?? NO! And I don't get why people are acting like there is a Gandalf-Galadriel romance or something...absolutely not! I did not feel that at all. Galadriel did the telepathic thing in LOTR as well with other characters...that's just how she is. And LOTR shows how Galadriel kind of entrances everyone who come near her, so it's not weird that Gandalf would be in awe around her or something, just like the Fellowship was in FOTR. And as for the Pale Orc...yeah, they didn't really need to bring him into it for it to be a good movie, but I don't mind that they did.

[bookworm]

The only thing (really only thing) I hated was Gandalf's story about how the game of golf was invented...because, uh, golf? In Middle Earth?? NO!

That was in the book.

[Caswin]

I was actually originally slightly dreading The Hobbit because I didn't want Middle Earth to be turned into a silly little-kid fairy tale if it were based upon only The Hobbit.

This is where you lost me.

[Musical Shutterbug]

Do any of you LOTR buffs know if there is a correct way to sing Over the Misty Mountains?
I know Tolkien was very detailed about his world, but I don’t know if that included releasing an official melody to his songs.

I wondered about this as well, but haven't had a chance to do any research.

[SoccerLOTR]

The only thing (really only thing) I hated was Gandalf's story about how the game of golf was invented...because, uh, golf? In Middle Earth?? NO!

That was in the book.

Wow, really? I haven't read the book in 10 years, so I guess my memory is a bit off...but proves my point of it being less real than LOTR.

I was actually originally slightly dreading The Hobbit because I didn't want Middle Earth to be turned into a silly little-kid fairy tale if it were based upon only The Hobbit.

This is where you lost me.

The Hobbit is a book written more for children rather than adults. I never liked it as much. The way Tolkein writes his other stuff is as if it's real history...The Hobbit is still like that, but toned down for younger ages and less real.

[jelly]

The Hobbit is a book written more for children rather than adults.

Truly great literature is hardly restricted to a specific age bracket. And the Hobbit is, without dispute, truly great literature.