Topic: The Hobbit (2011)

[Hanes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_films

The Hobbit, as directed by one Guillermo del Toro.


Thoughts?  Hopes?  Fears?

Will it live up to the hype?  Can it?

[SnarlPatrick]

Not gonna beat the animated one. But I thought that the LOTR movies were a disgrace. So I'm probably alone on this one.

[Ole Eivind]

So I'm probably alone on this one.

Probably.

I thought the LotR films were brilliant, and I'm interested in hearing what you thought was disgraceful about them.

I'm looking forward to The Hobbit.

[David E.]

So I'm probably alone on this one.

Probably.

I thought the LotR films were brilliant, and I'm interested in hearing what you thought was disgraceful about them.

I'm looking forward to The Hobbit.

I am also interested, I thought Jackson did a fantastic job of keeping the heart and soul of the tale. 

[DVMKurmes]

I was a little dissapointed with a few things that got left out of the movies, but I thought that overall Jackson did a good job, so I too am interested in why Snarl thought it was a disgrace. I have enjoyed some of Del Toro's other movies-he might do some interesting things with The Hobbit.

[SnarlPatrick]

I thought the LotR films were brilliant, and I'm interested in hearing what you thought was disgraceful about them.

Maybe disgraceful is a little far. There's no sense in beating up on Peter Jackson too badly. It was an impossible task. And going into it, adapting the LOTR, of all things, was like scheduling a cage match with a T-Rex. My main complaint was, at the end of it, it didn't stick. It was just another action/fantasy movie and forgettable.

This probably has more to do with not meeting the mood and imagery I'd created for myself while reading the books a half dozen times from say, 12-16. But as far as particulars... A lot of the casting choices really bothered me. Particularly Legolas, and Sam. Actually, the entire Elven portion of it felt too polished. Too much lens flair.

The way the dialogue was cut down left the story feeling formalized. The parts that stuck with me all these years were the gluttonous food descriptions after weeks of being on the run. Of the sheer terror, laying in the ditch outside the shire when they first encounter the nazgul. Of Tom Bombadil, who they completely cut out. Of Mithril being completely OTHERWORLDLY, which I don't know how you'd portray properly. Of just how goddamn fast Shadowfax was. Of the one ring taking everything out of him. (think Trainspotting detox meets The Passion dragging the cross.)

I was very disappointed in the sexualizing of Galadriel. In the book, they were in awe of her. No lust. That came as a real shock and seemed very Hollywoodized.

It's just not suited for live action. There's too much to fall short on when you're trying to make THE definitive visual adaptation. No matter how short your actors are, and how good your cgi is, this is always going to be closer to the spirit of the books. imo.

/Flame on! 






Here's gollum from the animated film btw. I love the part where he starts paddling with his arm.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZRz47UvOKXA&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/ZRz47UvOKXA&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1</a>

[SnarlPatrick]

ok, I got to the musical number in the animated clip and I gotta back off the support for that version now. It's been a real long time since I saw that one. Jackson's still didn't feel like the real thing though.

[DVMKurmes]

I thought the LotR films were brilliant, and I'm interested in hearing what you thought was disgraceful about them.

Maybe disgraceful is a little far. There's no sense in beating up on Peter Jackson too badly. It was an impossible task. And going into it, adapting the LOTR, of all things, was like scheduling a cage match with a T-Rex. My main complaint was, at the end of it, it didn't stick.

The way they did the end of the third movie was one of the things that I was disappointed with as well-they changed the death of Saruman and completely elimintated the scouring o the Shire. They also eliminated most of the tying up of loose ends that Tolkien did at at the end of the trilogy and in the appendix. I thought they eliminated a few things that made it a great story and more than just an action/adventure fantasy. I really enjoyed the movies overall though, I just felt a little let down at the end.

[Hanes]

I agree with your complaint about legolas, but Sam?  I thought Sean Astin did a great job.

edit:
Liv sucked bigtime too.

[Ah.hell]

I agree with your complaint about legolas, but Sam?  I thought Sean Astin did a great job.

edit:
Liv sucked bigtime too.

I agree with Hanes on this one plus the casting of Arwen, Liv Tyler just can't act.

[MisterMarc]

There's no way they could have included Bombadil and not had a 10 hour movie. It would have felt glossed over. I was annoyed with Arwen being hollywooded into the movie so that there was a romantic female lead. I found Wood's doe eyes to be really annoying after the thousanth time we had to look at them. I thought they went to far with having the ring drain him....he moped all over the place, but then the book was the same way. I disliked their handling of Saruman (major villain for two of the films and then he was just forgotten?!?) and wished they had dropped some of the Faramir/Eowin subplotting in favor of that. Didn't notice the sexualizing of Galadriel so much, but hated the cheesy evil queen effect. Sam was a titch annoying, but not too bad.

Overall, though, the good FAR outweighed the bad. They nailed Aragorn. They nailed the balrog BIG TIME. They nailed Gandalf. They nailed every single battle scene. They nailed the Ents. They nailed the black riders and the witch king. They nailed Shelob's lair. They nailed the art direction. They nailed the white city. All in all, not bad for a nearly impossible undertaking. I personally like the extended editions better than the theatrical releases...the mouth of Sauron was freakin' cool....but I can see why they would have wanted to cut them. They were long-ass movies for the average viewer. I can watch 'em over and over, though. It was a great job all things considered.

My biggest concern with the Hobbit is that Jackson's not directing. I like Del Toro, but I'm worried he'll turn it into Pan's Labyrinth II. I would really prefer it to be an extension of the world shown in LOTR, and not a new re-imagining. That, and I'd like to have seen Ian Holm as Bilbo, but I doubt that'll happen since he's supposed to be much younger. I'm concerned the casting will suck.

[whitedevilbrewing]

I think Tolkein even acknowledges that Tom Bombadil was an unecessary diversion.  Interesting, but his relation to the rest of the story is basically zero.  Especially since even in the wider mythos you never find out who or what he is, exactly.

[SnarlPatrick]

I was annoyed with Arwen being hollywooded into the movie so that there was a romantic female lead.

Crap. I think I got my elves switched around. I better watch em again before I jabber much more.

I found Wood's doe eyes to be really annoying after the thousanth time we had to look at them. I thought they went to far with having the ring drain him....he moped all over the place, but then the book was the same way.

Totally. There was something intangibly wrong with the way he played him. It's hard to describe because in the book, he is supposed to be tremendously resilient and impossibly put upon. And that's more or less how you'd describe wood in the movie, but somehow I couldn't take it seriously. There was considerably less "mugging for the camera" in the book. /roll

I guess the book has the advantage of letting your brain formulate the most compelling version for you personally. It's difficult to make an epic in film. The medium seems more suited for smaller, more personal stories. On the one hand, you've got films that could be plays... like say, "Rope". And then this, on the other end of the spectrum.

My biggest concern with the Hobbit is that Jackson's not directing. I like Del Toro, but I'm worried he'll turn it into Pan's Labyrinth II. I would really prefer it to be an extension of the world shown in LOTR, and not a new re-imagining. That, and I'd like to have seen Ian Holm as Bilbo, but I doubt that'll happen since he's supposed to be much younger. I'm concerned the casting will suck.

Are they going to try and make it a companion piece to the trilogy? By that I mean, keeping as much the same as possible? Same look, same actors where possible. Same gollum? etc...?

[MisterMarc]

I think Tolkein even acknowledges that Tom Bombadil was an unecessary diversion.  Interesting, but his relation to the rest of the story is basically zero.  Especially since even in the wider mythos you never find out who or what he is, exactly.

I always kinda liked that about him. I loved when they discussed him at the council (in the book) and considered giving the ring to him to keep safe because he's pretty much indomitable in his own domain. And then Gandalf basically says it's a bad idea because he wouldn't take the ring seriously and would drop it or lose it or something. I always liked him more after that...this ultra powerful being, who basically doesn't really care about all the petty comings and goings of humanity.

[worn light]

...will be directed by Guillermo del Toro, with... ...Peter Jackson serving as executive producer and co-writer.

I'm relieved that Peter Jackson's not directing.