I had booked tickets for opening day, but sadly they had a projector issue, so I'll end up seeing it this week.
From what I've heard there are major changes (some which particularly frustrate me) and sadly the Spider Sequence (my favourite of the book) is too short and because Bilbo became more courageous at the end of the first, doesn't have the emotional gravitas that the book scene has.
__________________
"You say that you are afraid. If it is so, the boldest should pardon you. But is it not really your good sense that revolts?"
- Boromir to Frodo
I went to to see it yesterday. Tolkien would turn over in his grave if he could see this. Legolas and Tauriel? Elves fighting Giant Spiders? Orcs in Laketown and in the outskirts of Thranduil's Palace? An Elf emotionally involved with a dwarf? A very badly done escape from the Halls of Thranduil and a fight on the river with orcs? Fights with the Dragon by the Dwarves, Kili getting shot at with a poisoned arrow and they found Athelas in Laketown? No sighting of the Elves, totally left out. Bilbo never got caught by the spider. HE called them name, but not in this version. Gandalf walking into Dol Guldur and getting caught and imprisoned by orcs? And instead of Bilbo finding the Arkenstone and keeping it in his pocket, he keeps loosing it or really never is able to even reach it! And don't even talk about the days and nights they spend at Beorn's dwelling and the way they got there. No serving animals. Beorn is still a bear during daytime and is trying to eat them. Not anything like the book. More like an action movie.
__________________
Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, Jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!
It's sad because it feels NOTHING like the book. I think viewing it on as just an Adventure/Action Fantasy Film it has it's merits, but it's so far away from the book. Also Bilbo has so little screen time (which is so disappointing, considering how great Martin Freeman is in the role).
__________________
"You say that you are afraid. If it is so, the boldest should pardon you. But is it not really your good sense that revolts?"
- Boromir to Frodo
Sadly, I feel that Jackson fell into a tired formula that action movie-makers have been using for decades now. Someone has to have the guts to switch it up. I think we as an audience are ready for the change.
The book was brilliant in every aspect. Bilbo's first shot at fighting came in Mirkwood forest and that part of the book (dare I say, even in the Hobbit cartoon) was perilous and chilling. They stole that from us to make it digestible for another audience, not fans of Tolkien. I suppose the movie demographic isn't as sophisticated as I had previously hoped. I blame that on films like: Bring it on, Transformers, GI-Joe, and other sensational, written by 16 year olds, filmed by people who are enamored with weak looking CGI effects.
Here's the tired formula: Make the protagonist so damned lovable and cute-ish (so we fall in love with him/her/them) Introduce bad guy (snarling and in your face on camera) Random (comical) danger Chase scene, chase scene, chase scene the quiet confrontation scene between pro and antagonist By luck hero survives, enemy hurts himself end film... If any of you out there directs a film according to the above prescribed drek, you too can have a hit movie in this sad society.
They shouldn't have had to change anything. It was formulated to be a classic by the Author in the first place. It had more gravity than the movies do. And why does everything have to be a "Roller coaster ride"? "The Barrels out of bond" scene (done correctly) would have been a very clever way to move the film forward and shown the resourcefulness of Mr. Baggins and his development as a "Burglar". I guarantee you guys that "Barrels out of Bond" will be an attraction at Disneyland. Along with the "Breaking Scaffold Ride" as seen in An unexpected Journey (when everyone escapes Goblin town) Can't have a ride without making part of the movies right? (Movie exec' B.S.).
......and......I'm......spent. LOL
-- Edited by Jaidoprism7 on Wednesday 18th of December 2013 06:47:55 PM
Absolutely^^! Tolkien often wrote unconventional things and sadly it seems like Jackson prefers to do things by the usual formula. While the LOTR films certainly had typical action movie elements, they still had something special to them. This has all disappeared with the Hobbit films. Also the lack of Bilbo was appaling, from the spiders till Smaug he is barely in the film.
__________________
"You say that you are afraid. If it is so, the boldest should pardon you. But is it not really your good sense that revolts?"
- Boromir to Frodo
Fantastic scenery all through, especially Mirkwood and the Wood-Elves' Palace, also Lake Town and The Lonely Mountain including Smaug's lair. The stay at Beorn's is all too short, but worse is to come: A love triangle involving a female elf of Peter Jackson's own invention, Legolas and Kili the Dwarf. Gandalf enters Dol Guldur and seems to confront Sauron. There are lots of orcs on the way to Lake Town which they even attack along with more strange inventions by Jackson. Interpretations of books in movies may be OK, but WHY INVENT NEW CHARACTERS AND EPISODES WHEN THERE ARE PLENTY TO CHOOSE FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE. The conversation between Bilbo and Smaug is a literary classic - here it's completely destroyed and there is ABSOLUTELY NO HUMOUR here or elsewhere in the movie. Especially annoying are those endless attacks by orcs where they have nothing to do. But I think PJ is excused - they've launched a robot computer program to write the manuscript.
Somebody should get in touch with Sir Peter. Seeing that I am in his peer group, also bearing a title, maybe he would condescend to listen to a Tolkien fan and a peer. See if I can find out how to do this.
__________________
Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, Jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!
Maybe we can persuade him to stick closer to the book in the next movie. I sincerely doubt he needs the money, so it might even insult him if somebody would offer a check of any kind, but being a student of the human psyche, you probably have more of a background in human behavior then I do my dear Bear.
__________________
Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, Jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!
I am afraid I was being cynical and sarcastic ... as I understand the third part of Jackson's Hobbit (it certainly is not Tolkien's) is already written and produced ... the most money I will send Jackson will be indirect ... for the price of a movie ticket. This is one of the worst cases of artistic exploitation I have experienced ...
-- Edited by Bear on Sunday 22nd of December 2013 02:43:42 AM
__________________
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit Called or uncalled, God is present
So many things wrong with the film from a lore perspective, 2 things which annoyed me most were the female elf character and the ethnic minority extra characters in Lake Town. The storyline of this ludicrous elf/dwarf love triangle is pathetic. I hate the way that they have basically split the dwarf company in two groups - one group actually looks like Dwarves, the other group consists of typical Hollywood pretty boys made shorter and slightly more rugged.
Either I am totally misled concerning this movie, or... Let me say it this way: This is a parallel ME loosely mirroring Tolkien's. How and why that happened is another question. I cannot look at it as a rendition of the book... Really there is just too little connection.
So the movie, in my opinion, can only be considered as a movie with a title coinciding with the book. I saw it twice, but the first time it was a late show and excess noise and violence toward the end made me fall asleep. I would say it is unnecessarily long and noisy, Thranduil creeps me out, and Smaug talks to Bilbo more like Glaurung but then in his dwarf-hunt acts sort of retarded. Tauriel with her liking for Kili, Legolas in fighting scenes, and Smaug emerging from the pool of liquid gold do add some fun. For some reason when Sauron's outline was shown, it occurred to me that what I would really like to see is his song-fight with Finrod from a totally different place and time.
-- Edited by Lorelline on Monday 30th of December 2013 05:01:33 PM
-- Edited by Lorelline on Monday 30th of December 2013 05:04:55 PM
I had planned on seeing the movie. Fortunately, I've been too busy. After reading all your comments, I think I'll save my money for my pocket instead of PJ's. And I won't waste 2 hours of my life. R&B's cartoons are looking better and better.
I haven't seen DOS either but I am happy about the input here.
I think Lorelline nails it when she says: "I cannot look at it as a rendition of the book..."(then says) "So the movie, in my opinion, can only be considered as a movie with a title coinciding with the book."
I think if I wrap my head around this series of Tolkien based movie releases being just "movies with a title coinciding with the book" and get a firm grasp that the movies are merely "a rendition of the book" I think I can sit and not squirm to the obvious disregard for literature in Wellywood or Hollywood.
I wonder what the next movie will be like. Gandalf was still imprisoned with the Necromancer. Thranduil looks too aloof, like he has no sympathy or mercy in his and and is full of sarcasm. Why couldn't they have made him more like Lord Elrond? Somebody with love and dignity? Who wants to help and not harm. How can a nice sweet Elf like Legolas have a father like Thranduil? Maybe he takes after his mother? (Whoever she is)
We went to the Matinee, still got the 3-D Glasses, and paid only $7.50 a person. I hope the next one is closer to the book.
__________________
Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, Jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!
I just saw DOS (finally) and even though I buckled down with the approach of "this is just a rendition of a story I love" I was still surprised on how unlike the book this movie was. First I will say, to PJ's credit: The fight scenes were well choreographed and inspiring, especially the Elves (very fluent and powerful) with the exception of the parts where the characters completely disregarded the world of physics.
I almost stood up at one point in the theater and screamed out the words: "CONTINUITY PLEASE" in the scene that will forever go down in the annals of my history as "The Great Barrel Fiasco of 2014". After Bombur's wild ride where he destroys his own barrel to become some bladed, killing "barrel automaton" he jumps nimbly into a 'magically' provided extra barrel.
At one point in Lake Town the story went so far out that I thought another movie started. It had so little to do with anything I remember. Kili, Bofur, Bifur, Fili get left behind???? Tauriel???? Bard has kids and is a widower???? and who the hell was the Grima wormtongue-like character tossed in. I was sooooo lost. I did, however, begin to think that we (as a movie going public) could totally handle fantasy movies of any kind that are directed as well (visually).
I had to laugh when thinking: "If his name wasn't Bard and this wasn't Lake town and those Dwarves were just random Dwarves (not the beloved characters that I have known) this would be a movie I'd watch....that's how far off PJ went from the path. I actually accepted what I was watching was an entirely separate movie....
The entire Dwarven "Scramble and Mold a Golden Statue" still makes me very angry...so I won't even go into it. The fact that Smaug (in the book) didn't play "cat and mouse" with the Dwarves only served to make his flight to Lake Town that much more regrettable and terrifying. So there was a "dropped ball" on PJ's part.
Cumberbatch was good as Smaug (very sinister). Martin Freeman was awesome... Ian Mckellen was awesome...even Radagast was cool.
I have a feeling we're going to see The White Council rescue Gandalf in part 3 which will be cool to see.
And what was that thing, where Tharaduil's face reveals some decay beneath it? Or was he burnt? Did he (in Tolkien's histories) have a confrontation with Smaug or another Dragon? If so, somebody let me in on it?
If I am not mistaken, it makes little sense for Thranduil to claim any encounter with any Dragon. Not in Doriath. Not in War of Wrath in which he took no part. And Dragons are not mentioned in the War of the Last Alliance. Well maybe he found dragons in that parallel Middle-earth that is presented in the movie.
I think PJ gave Thranduil a fake back story....it shows his claim to Erebor's treasure. He does state that his people have suffered greatly by the dealings of the Dragon over the years. And seeks to help the Lake men to get their reparations for Dale since the Elves of Mirkwood and the Lake men have a close Trade relationship. I wish that PJ had just left it at that. It's perfectly logical.
I didn't see it. After Part I's dismal adaptation I decided I wouldn't lose 2-3 hours of my life watching it. I see from the majority of the comments that people didn't love it or even like it. I was wondering if I'd get mad like I did with the first one.
It's more like an Action Movie, then a Fantasy movie, Laurelin. Peter went way off course. Who ever heard of a female Elf falling in love with a dwarf? And how in the world did Azog and his Orcs ever made it into Laketown is still a mystery to me. At least 50% is made up by PJ, its not a bad film, Laurelin, but is so not true to the book. In the book, Bilbo got the dwarves out without notice from the Elves, but in this movie, the Elves have a battle with the Orcs while stepping on the heads of dwarves as they floated down the river in Open Barrels. It is utterly ridiculous, but entertaining. Just not in the book. Not true to the Corpus. Purists would not care very much for it, to put it nicely.
__________________
Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow! Tom Bom, Jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!
