Why I dont think this is a great version of the tale.

[ewdioewfcnde]

Warning: Long.

To be perfectly clear: No I am not trolling and just doing this to be edgy. I grew up with this so I have strong opinions on it.

First off, as many already know, Guillermo del Toro was supposed to direct this, but dropped out after it was in preproduction limbo for so long. I was not impressed with this rendition of the hobbit so I really, really wish he did.

I felt like it ended up being the prequel to Peter Jacksons lord of the rings movies rather than the hobbit. Dont get me wrong, I did like his LOTR movies, but the hobbit is a lighter tale and if he didnt have an interest in directing it for what it was, he shouldnt have done it at all.

And just to be clear, he added the pale orc and changed thorins story, although all the dwarves did say bilbo didnt belong, there wasnt an entire subplot devoted to it and they generally trusted gandalfs judgement, and the thing with dwarves not liking the elves was blown out of proportion. While all of this went hand in hand with his rendition of LOTR, it didnt serve the story or mood of this particular tale very well.

~~~~

Also, If you read the foreword in one of the new editions of The Hobbit. It tells you in all clarity that Orcs and goblins are the same thing, and that is if you couldnt figure it out from the books. Anyone working on a film should have done extensive research so this should have been a well known fact, and should not have been ignored. This book is what the lore should be based on, which brings me to my next point.

The Hobbit is NOT a prequel. This was the first book written in this world. Lord of the Rings came AFTER not before this. The Lore should be completely based around the hobbit so anything mentioned later in Lord of the Rings should not come into play here. I do not believe you can take a book like this, that so many people have grown up on and love to this very day, and make it your own personal toy to make a "prequel."

Lets go a little more into sticking to the source material. This is a 300 page book that was written for all ages. Is it going to be a deep tale laced with intrigue and layers of detail? Probably not, it wasnt intended to be that. This is a charming book, anyone should be able to read and enjoy. It does not under any circumstances need 3 movies. I would agree to 2 reasonably long(2 hours tops) movies.

~~~~

Now lets go into the actual movie. The Goblins looked ridiculously unnatural, their skin was too shiny, and the movement was awkward thanks to the frame rate. Also, the anatomy wasnt natural enough to be believable. Which would have been fine had it been a cartoon, but when you attempt cg in live action, there needs to be as much work put into design and research as anything else on that part.

The pacing was really awkward. Instead of flowing from one situation to the next, it felt really mechanical. It was like when editing instead of "okay, this action prompts the next one. lets make this scene that transition point" they decided "Okay, that situations done, more walking and pretty scenery, then lets make this scene happen, and then more walking and pretty scenery." Anyone that has ever taken a basic film or theatre class knows better than that so I have no idea why they got away with it.

Finally, it was really disappointing that they lacked a lot of the songs found in the original tale. Dont get me wrong, Over the Misty Mountains Cold and Thats What Bilbo Baggins Hates were absolutely fantastic. But what about the elves song? or 15 bird? or the goblins song? Those make wonderful padding and they certainly had the budget for a composer.

[BlooddeliriuM]

I think you just said everything I wanted to say about this movie.

[S H E R L O C K E D]

I think Peter Jackson was walking a very thin line between satisfying The Hobbit fans and fans who watched his version of the LOTR trilogy but had never read The Hobbit. Which largely accounts for why The Hobbit just seems like a prequel to LOTR, because on one hand, he had to make the movie more accessible and interesting to people who were only familiar with the LOTR film trilogy. Does that make sense? I know it doesn't excuse Jackson from anything, but I can sort of understand why things turned out as they did. Either way, I personally did not mind the tie-ins to LOTR. I actually kind of liked it that way, but again, it's all opinion.

I think that although The Hobbit is fairly short, it's still pretty dense in source material. It doesn't cover a lot of things, such as what Gandalf was up to when he left Thorin's company, and The Battle of Five Armies is visually a good hour-long worth of material, even though it was only 6 pages in the book. Although yes, Jackson added in extraneous sub-plots from the Simillarion and the ROTK appendixes, but I rather enjoyed it. Though The Hobbit is its own stand-alone novel, it still exists in the larger story of Middle-earth, and since God knows we probably will not be revisiting Middle-earth again after these Hobbit movies (at least not for a long time), I will take anything about Middle-earth that I can get! Even if it does mean changing the timeline to include the pale orc, etc.

I agree with you on how unnatural the goblins looked. There was just too much CGI for my taste, and I wish they stuck with real people under make-up.

I'm just glad they at least included Misty Mountains and That's What Bilbo Baggins Hates. The LOTR film trilogy didn't have any songs in it, I don't think.

[ewdioewfcnde]

S H E R L O C K E D

I think Peter Jackson was walking a very thin line between satisfying The Hobbit fans and fans who watched his version of the LOTR trilogy but had never read The Hobbit. Which largely accounts for why The Hobbit just seems like a prequel to LOTR, because on one hand, he had to make the movie more accessible and interesting to people who were only familiar with the LOTR film trilogy. Does that make sense? I know it doesn't excuse Jackson from anything, but I can sort of understand why things turned out as they did. Either way, I personally did not mind the tie-ins to LOTR. I actually kind of liked it that way, but again, it's all opinion.

I think that although The Hobbit is fairly short, it's still pretty dense in source material. It doesn't cover a lot of things, such as what Gandalf was up to when he left Thorin's company, and The Battle of Five Armies is visually a good hour-long worth of material, even though it was only 6 pages in the book. Although yes, Jackson added in extraneous sub-plots from the Simillarion and the ROTK appendixes, but I rather enjoyed it. Though The Hobbit is its own stand-alone novel, it still exists in the larger story of Middle-earth, and since God knows we probably will not be revisiting Middle-earth again after these Hobbit movies (at least not for a long time), I will take anything about Middle-earth that I can get! Even if it does mean changing the timeline to include the pale orc, etc.

I agree with you on how unnatural the goblins looked. There was just too much CGI for my taste, and I wish they stuck with real people under make-up.

I'm just glad they at least included Misty Mountains and That's What Bilbo Baggins Hates. The LOTR film trilogy didn't have any songs in it, I don't think.

Yes, of course its up to the veiwers opinion and if this is someones favorite movie, Im not going to say it shouldnt be. There are just reasons why I didnt care for it and everyone perceives the world and any body of work differently, that goes without saying.

I sort of understand why he made the choices he made as well. But it really was poor handling in my opinion, and this really should be something, and is something, most people are well familiar with. I dont think it necessarily needed to be thrown in our faces that it was related to lord of the rings though, which I felt he did.

And I will agree on it is dense source material, but I guess my issue was it felt really drawn out. Which I go back to my point about poor transitioning. Im in theatre(closely related to film) and we use a lot of the same processes, the script was very, very off in pacing as well as how actions were handled and stacked. One action should prompt another and this was lacking that, it was disjointed.

And to be fair, while things may not be brought to the forefront very often, there are always mediums releasing things related to Middle earth. In Theatre, there are commonly productions being shown, particularly for family friendly plays to introduce kids to the art. There is always fan fiction and fanart, and there was even a comic released a few years ago. Video games have become a huge medium, and there was a The Hobbit game released in the early 2000s as well as a few versions of LOTR. Film isnt the only medium we need to rely on, there is plenty out there if we are willing to search. Even though not all of these will suit anyones fancy, its not fair to discount them.

And Im a makeup girl all the way, but I usually dont complain about cg unless its really distracting. Especially since Ive been watching game of thrones and they even mention doing their research on creatures to make them look natural.

LOTR did have a few drinking songs, but yes, I appreciate they included what they did. I was still disappointed a low budget 70s animated version managed to include so many songs while a Hollywood film didn't.

[S H E R L O C K E D]

Catalina_Laraway

Yes, of course its up to the veiwers opinion and if this is someones favorite movie, Im not going to say it shouldnt be. There are just reasons why I didnt care for it and everyone perceives the world and any body of work differently, that goes without saying.

I sort of understand why he made the choices he made as well. But it really was poor handling in my opinion, and this really should be something, and is something, most people are well familiar with. I dont think it necessarily needed to be thrown in our faces that it was related to lord of the rings though, which I felt he did.

And I will agree on it is dense source material, but I guess my issue was it felt really drawn out. Which I go back to my point about poor transitioning. Im in theatre(closely related to film) and we use a lot of the same processes, the script was very, very off in pacing as well as how actions were handled and stacked. One action should prompt another and this was lacking that, it was disjointed.

And to be fair, while things may not be brought to the forefront very often, there are always mediums releasing things related to Middle earth. In Theatre, there are commonly productions being shown, particularly for family friendly plays to introduce kids to the art. There is always fan fiction and fanart, and there was even a comic released a few years ago. Video games have become a huge medium, and there was a The Hobbit game released in the early 2000s as well as a few versions of LOTR. Film isnt the only medium we need to rely on, there is plenty out there if we are willing to search. Even though not all of these will suit anyones fancy, its not fair to discount them.

And Im a makeup girl all the way, but I usually dont complain about cg unless its really distracting. Especially since Ive been watching game of thrones and they even mention doing their research on creatures to make them look natural.

LOTR did have a few drinking songs, but yes, I appreciate they included what they did. I was still disappointed a low budget 70s animated version managed to include so many songs while a Hollywood film didn't.

I think you'd be surprised how little people are educated about J.R.R. Tolkien's works. The movie is far from perfect, but it does introduce the story of The Hobbit to mainstream audience. Hopefully, it will prompt them to actually read the book. Although yes, I agree that the pacing and transitions were rather awkward. I think the way they integrated in the parts with Radagast was poor, and it kept taking me out of the movie. But yeah, the overall film suffered from a lack of build-up.

I know there are several other mediums in which to enjoy Middle-earth, but for me, film (apart from books) is the most accessible and has always had the most impact because it really brings thing to life. Things like fan-fiction and fan-art never tickled my fancy, especially since you have to go through SO much filtering to find something half-way decent. So for me, this is my chance to see everything play out on screen; the more material, the merrier. I know a lot of people hated all the walking scenes, but I loved every single one because the scenery was just gorgeous.

The CG in Hobbit was kind of distracting, unfortunately. XD I don't know why they thought it was necessary to switch from make-up to CG when make-up is so much more realistic... I hope the CG for Smaug is good because I really didn't care for how the pale orc looked.

Hopefully the sequels include more songs. Including the one Bilbo sings when he provokes the spiders in the forest XD

[Hunaja-Mesi]

S H E R L O C K E D

Hopefully the sequels include more songs. Including the one Bilbo sings when he provokes the spiders in the forest XD

ee, if they left that out, i'd be so disappointed~ cat_crying
it'll be one of the highlights of the movie! cat_blaugh

[ewdioewfcnde]

S H E R L O C K E D

Catalina_Laraway

Yes, of course its up to the veiwers opinion and if this is someones favorite movie, Im not going to say it shouldnt be. There are just reasons why I didnt care for it and everyone perceives the world and any body of work differently, that goes without saying.

I sort of understand why he made the choices he made as well. But it really was poor handling in my opinion, and this really should be something, and is something, most people are well familiar with. I dont think it necessarily needed to be thrown in our faces that it was related to lord of the rings though, which I felt he did.

And I will agree on it is dense source material, but I guess my issue was it felt really drawn out. Which I go back to my point about poor transitioning. Im in theatre(closely related to film) and we use a lot of the same processes, the script was very, very off in pacing as well as how actions were handled and stacked. One action should prompt another and this was lacking that, it was disjointed.

And to be fair, while things may not be brought to the forefront very often, there are always mediums releasing things related to Middle earth. In Theatre, there are commonly productions being shown, particularly for family friendly plays to introduce kids to the art. There is always fan fiction and fanart, and there was even a comic released a few years ago. Video games have become a huge medium, and there was a The Hobbit game released in the early 2000s as well as a few versions of LOTR. Film isnt the only medium we need to rely on, there is plenty out there if we are willing to search. Even though not all of these will suit anyones fancy, its not fair to discount them.

And Im a makeup girl all the way, but I usually dont complain about cg unless its really distracting. Especially since Ive been watching game of thrones and they even mention doing their research on creatures to make them look natural.

LOTR did have a few drinking songs, but yes, I appreciate they included what they did. I was still disappointed a low budget 70s animated version managed to include so many songs while a Hollywood film didn't.

I think you'd be surprised how little people are educated about J.R.R. Tolkien's works. The movie is far from perfect, but it does introduce the story of The Hobbit to mainstream audience. Hopefully, it will prompt them to actually read the book. Although yes, I agree that the pacing and transitions were rather awkward. I think the way they integrated in the parts with Radagast was poor, and it kept taking me out of the movie. But yeah, the overall film suffered from a lack of build-up.

I know there are several other mediums in which to enjoy Middle-earth, but for me, film (apart from books) is the most accessible and has always had the most impact because it really brings thing to life. Things like fan-fiction and fan-art never tickled my fancy, especially since you have to go through SO much filtering to find something half-way decent. So for me, this is my chance to see everything play out on screen; the more material, the merrier. I know a lot of people hated all the walking scenes, but I loved every single one because the scenery was just gorgeous.

The CG in Hobbit was kind of distracting, unfortunately. XD I don't know why they thought it was necessary to switch from make-up to CG when make-up is so much more realistic... I hope the CG for Smaug is good because I really didn't care for how the pale orc looked.

Hopefully the sequels include more songs. Including the one Bilbo sings when he provokes the spiders in the forest XD

I do know a lot of people who have never so much as heard about it. But maybe its because Im in college or just surround myself with people that know about these things, I just dont come across a lot of people that werent exposed to it or at the very least didnt have to read it for school.

And I wouldnt mind the walking scenes themselves, It was how they were organized/cut that bothered me. I dont know how to explain it much further though.

I understand, for you film is what you are interested in. But you did say we so I wasnt sure if you werent exposed to other forms, or just only interested in film.

Otherwise, I agree with your other points. I think Smaug should be a little better because it isnt humanoid.