• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

The hobbit, and anything tolkien related thread

#21
I thought the movie was good, yet it didn't really deliver like I expected. I was kinda pissed about the whole trilogy thing, but also it could mean that the other two parts come out nicely. Anyone want to validate this? They're adding parts of the simarillion to the movies? If true I might have a nerdgasm.
 
#22
I liked the added material. It's a film adaptation and I don't know why anyone would go see it if it was exactly like the book--you could just stay home and read the book.

The added material covers some information on the order of the wizards, and builds on the cryptic references to a necromancer that are only made in passing in the novel. It also hints at how the wood elves' domain can suddenly be turned into a nasty place like Mirkwood when that is never explained in the novel as far as I remember. I'm looking forward to seeing how that plays out in the second movie.

My favorite part was seeing the dwarves move like clockwork in their smithing and singing; it's neat to think of them as clockwork people that all easily fall in sync with one another and the portrayal makes up for the clownishly graceless way Gimli was portrayed in the LotR.
 
#25
I haven't read The Hobbit in probably 20 years, but it always seemed more like a childrens book to me. I love the extended version of LOTR's, which is very faithful to the books. It's a little disappointing to hear that The Hobbit isn't, but since they've added more backstory that makes it better, IMO. I also didn't know it was a trilogy until a couple of weeks ago. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm looking forward to it, even though I hate waiting for sequels.
 
#26
Seen the 3d version, liked it. Probably see it again in 3d before it goes. Seems the 2d version wouldn't have the majestic scope like the 3d version. Like how it just shows the vastness of the world they are trekking thru.

But I am one who likes 3d movies. Seen Monsters Inc 3d and it definitely added to and improved upon the original.
 
#28
I saw The Hobbit two weeks ago on opening night - in 3D. Very flashy, ostentatious display of CGI. Very impressive from a technical standpoint - but very nearly over the top from an aesthetic & narrative standpoint - at least in comparison with the way it was used in the LOTR trilogy, which seemed a little more natural and organic by comparison.

For all its dramatic action, which seemed a bit contrived in places, it also seemed a little light on actual plot. But hey, who needs "plot", when you've got CGI? Right? RIGHT? :p

Then again, I haven't read any of the Tolkien books. So all I know about the story is what I've seen in the films... :hmm:

MM
 
#29
MysticMichael said:
I saw The Hobbit two weeks ago on opening night - in 3D. Very flashy, ostentatious display of CGI. Very impressive from a technical standpoint - but very nearly over the top from an aesthetic & narrative standpoint - at least in comparison with the way it was used in the LOTR trilogy, which seemed a little more natural and organic by comparison.

For all its dramatic action, which seemed a bit contrived in places, it also seemed a little light on actual plot. But hey, who needs "plot", when you've got CGI? Right? RIGHT? :p

Then again, I haven't read any of the Tolkien books. So all I know about the story is what I've seen in the films... :hmm:

MM
Click to expand...

Not that it really matters since the films are their own entity, but the difference between LotR and Hobbit that you mention is exactly representative of the books.

The Hobbit is a typical (maybe prototypical) children's fantasy novel. It's not inherently light on plot, but elements of the plot have been done to death since it was written so it may seem light these days. It's a decidedly episodic adventure (Tolkien's throwback to medieval romance) with trolls, spiders, wizards, and dragons. You can't expect narrative depth in the way of 2012 innovation or in being a single cohesive story where each segment is necessary to the whole; its value probably exists only in it being an outstanding example of the now cliche genre.

That's not to say your criticisms are unfounded for someone just looking for a great movie to watch. I'm just saying the film does pretty well on its own terms IMO. Then again, who goes to any major Hollywood release looking for a decent plot or aesthetic subtlety? :hiding:
 
#31
MysticMichael said:
I saw The Hobbit two weeks ago on opening night - in 3D. Very flashy, ostentatious display of CGI. Very impressive from a technical standpoint - but very nearly over the top from an aesthetic & narrative standpoint - at least in comparison with the way it was used in the LOTR trilogy, which seemed a little more natural and organic by comparison.

For all its dramatic action, which seemed a bit contrived in places, it also seemed a little light on actual plot. But hey, who needs "plot", when you've got CGI? Right? RIGHT? :p

Then again, I haven't read any of the Tolkien books. So all I know about the story is what I've seen in the films... :hmm:

MM
Click to expand...

It's a childrens book where a bunch of short people (and sometimes a Wizard) walk to a mountain to reclaim lost treasure.

Not designed to be deeply thought provoking :hiding:
 
#34
Love Tolkien's works. I have a 3-record set in pristine condition of J.R.R. personally reading The Hobbit. Pretty cool if I ever get a turntable again. Here is an "almost" complete list of all Tolkien works: Invalid Link Removed
 
#36
I just got home from seeing the movie. I liked it and thought it was very well done, but I agree it was long and drawn out. The pacing would have been better if they'd cut maybe 15 minutes out of the beginning. I'm having a bit of trouble imagining how in the world they're going to make 3 movies out of this. Maybe 2, which would seem about right. Three is really pushing it. You can definitely tell the improvement in CGI from the LOTR movies to The Hobbit. Gollum is particularly well done.
 
#37
Yeah, I can see two parts on this, not three. Looking through my JRRT stuff, I have a 1st edition "Tree and Leaf"" by him (with mint jacket). Maybe someday it'll be worth something.
 
#40
EagleMoon said:
I just got home from seeing the movie. I liked it and thought it was very well done, but I agree it was long and drawn out. The pacing would have been better if they'd cut maybe 15 minutes out of the beginning. I'm having a bit of trouble imagining how in the world they're going to make 3 movies out of this. Maybe 2, which would seem about right. Three is really pushing it. You can definitely tell the improvement in CGI from the LOTR movies to The Hobbit. Gollum is particularly well done.
Click to expand...

Going by the book, as a rough guide, they are about 1/3rd of the way into the story. The film ends with what is analagous to Chapter 6 in the book (19 Chapters).

Though they do bulk it out with other pieces of Tolkein lore, changing the story in a few ways.

The introduction bit at the beginning, with Frodo etc. works as a bridge to the Lord of the Rings films. The bit with the Dwarves showing up and them setting off on the journey actually came across as paced quicker in the film than in the book.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back