Hobbit concerns.... - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

TheLostPilgrim · 09-28-2012, 10:54 AM

I have some big time concerns about The Hobbit:

1) I worry a lot of the central story of Bilbo's adventure will be lost in the shuffle of PJ's additions. That he's spreading the original, core story too thin by spreading it over three films.

2) That the tone will be all over place--That it will jump between too dark and too light and childish. That it will come off really inconsistent.

3) The second trailer REALLY worries me...The CGI looks HORRIBLE, as compared to PJ's LOTR films (which had GREAT effects). A lot of the film looks very fake and overly bright and shiny...As compared to his "Rings" adaptations which at least look like a fantasy world grounded in reality...The lighting and general look of this film reminds me of Tangled by Disney or a Narnia film.

4) He took the scene with Gollum, it seems, and has turned it into a comedic moment. Bringing back the cutesy, sympathetic Gollum from The Two Towers. I always pictured the Riddle Game as being intense and very eerie and creepy the whole way through...Bilbo alone in a dank, dark cavern near a turgid underground lake with a strange, mad creature that talks to itself, which wants to eat him. The '77 animated version got the "feel" of the Riddle Game at least partially correct.

5) Too much juvenile humor. Too many goofy jokes, whether it be about Goblins falling on the party or the Dwarves' weight. Tolkien is humorous to be sure, but it's a very dignified, old fashioned sense of humor. This seems like typical road movie, juvenile modern day humor. Like humor you'd see in a typical comedy film. The Hobbit--Tolkien's Hobbit--has comedic moments, but it's more an enchanting adventure. Which is what I was hoping for here--an adventure film with the grandness of a classic Disney film (but not the tone), with the visuals and whatnot of PJ's Rings. A faithful adaptation which could enchant as much as the books did.

6) The Dwarves don't look very...Dwarf-ish. I can't explain it. Perhaps I'm too used to the typical depiction in Fantasy of Dwarves (IE, like Gimli--short fellows who seem older than they are, with a bit of a temper or a humorous sort of personality). But these guys just seem like Game of Thrones characters miniaturized. Some of them don't even have full beards, just light scruff. Kind of sacrificing the characters for the sake of attractive leading characters.

7) Too many call backs to the LOTR films. I think shoehorning Frodo, Legolas, Saruman and Galadrial into The Hobbit is just fan service but it doesn't work. Frodo would be fine to frame the story and is justifiable but the other three have no place in The Hobbit, they were never in the book. I worry it'll be overdone fan service--the way Lucas connected every character in the Prequel trilogy to every character in the original trilogy. Gandalf and Elrond's presence alone should be enough of a reminder that this film is in the same "series" as Lord of the Rings.

8) The Three Trolls don't look anything like how I pictured them, to be honest. They just look like dumb monsters out of an RPG game, to be fought.

9) The Bunny Sled? REALLY?

I just worry that with all these various elements, the film is going to be really crappy, that a lot of the subplots are going to seem crammed in there and detract from the core story, that with the story being split in two, the first movie will end in an utter anticlimax which will alienate the audience. I just think a Hobbit film had potential to be even BETTER than the Rings because The Hobbit story is a thinner, quicker, pure fantasy adventure.

To be honest, I'm worried about a flop (in terms of reception) on the scale of Phantom Menace. I'm worried about this being considered just a bad movie overall.

It's the last period of time where there is a spark of innocence, magic and light in Middle Earth, without the fate of the world hanging in the balance. Really in some ways it's last magical adventure of Middle Earth before the world is mired in darkness and history goes into the Fourth Age, when magic beginz to fade.

William Cloud Hicklin · 09-28-2012, 02:11 PM

I wouldn't say I'm precisely "concerned" that PJ won't make a good adaptation. That's sort of like being "concerned" that the Cleveland Indians won't win the World Series this year.

Mithalwen · 09-28-2012, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

To be honest, I'm worried about a flop (in terms of reception) on the scale of Phantom Menace. I'm worried about this being considered just a bad movie overall.

It's the last period of .

I am not concerned per se. The films have always been peripheral to my involvement in Middle Earth - though I can understand that others feel differently and may feel the affection I do for the Radio Series and the Jackanory reading of the Hobbit - so it is no skin off my nose if it is a flop. I am not planning on going. I think there are enough people who are convinced that PJ is the only person who can "bring ME to life" that they won't admit it is bad even if it is. I do think you are right about the hobbit being lost. The fact that Galion doesn't seem to feature and that this Tauriel character does in combination with the released footage of the dwarves travelling in open barrels suggest that she will play a part in liberating the dwarves rather than their escape being down to the ingenuity of Mr Baggins.. rather as Arwen replacing Glorfindel made Frodo rather more helpless than in the book.

William Cloud Hicklin · 09-28-2012, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

To be honest, I'm worried about a flop (in terms of reception) on the scale of Phantom Menace. I'm worried about this being considered just a bad movie overall.

Oh, one can only hope!

Morthoron · 09-28-2012, 09:16 PM

Whether it is successful or a flop matters little to me - although, I might enjoy an irritable "I told ya so" if Tauriel and Legolas surf Smaug. In any case, people will still be reading the books a century from now, while movies will be an extinct pastime, like listening to a wax cylinder on a Victrola. In a hundred years one may well be able to put on some cyber-helmet space-age thingy and actually walk through a Middle-earth hologram. Then again, no one may be able to read in a hundred years. Bah!

Draugohtar · 09-28-2012, 09:55 PM

I'm confident of one thing, and reasonably sure of a second.

1) If I base my enjoyment of the film 'adaptation' of The Hobbit on its faithfulness to the book, then I will hate it and begin making my list of complaints to beat P.J. over the head with should I ever have the misfortune to meet him.

2) If I enjoy 'The Hobbit' as a film on its own rights, I will probably think the films are highly entertaining and better than a great deal of what graces the cinema screen in the coming years.

I think there is absolutely no room to hope for P.J. to be faithful to either the specifics of character/plot or more broadly to the spirit of Tolkien's middle earth. For all his self-proclaimed fandom, he subverts anything written at the hand of the maestro to his least 'artistic' whim.

The man who couldn't understand how vital it was that Elessar, Imrahil and Eomer win the battle of the Pelennor fields by force of will and arms and not via 'magic green dead people,' certainly won't understand the magic of the Hobbit as written work.

However I'm sure he'll make something quite fun out of Hobbits, Dwarves, some PMS elves and a dragon. It just won't be the Hobbit, it will be Peter Jackson's Hobbit.

Glorthelion · 09-29-2012, 01:17 AM

I have a feeling the hobbit trilogy will be great but not along the lines of LOTR trilogy. The introduction of old and new characters was not necessary, like others said.

Galendor · 09-29-2012, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

I have some big time concerns about The Hobbit:

2) That the tone will be all over place--That it will jump between too dark and too light and childish. That it will come off really inconsistent.

5) Too much juvenile humor. Too many goofy jokes, whether it be about Goblins falling on the party or the Dwarves' weight. Tolkien is humorous to be sure, but it's a very dignified, old fashioned sense of humor. This seems like typical road movie, juvenile modern day humor. Like humor you'd see in a typical comedy film. The Hobbit--Tolkien's Hobbit--has comedic moments, but it's more an enchanting adventure. Which is what I was hoping for here--an adventure film with the grandness of a classic Disney film (but not the tone), with the visuals and whatnot of PJ's Rings. A faithful adaptation which could enchant as much as the books did.

It's the last period of time where there is a spark of innocence, magic and light in Middle Earth, without the fate of the world hanging in the balance. Really in some ways it's last magical adventure of Middle Earth before the world is mired in darkness and history goes into the Fourth Age, when magic beginz to fade.

You should be concerned; what you are concerned about is exactly what Jackson will do to the Hobbit story. Peter Jackson is a dullard. The beauty and magic we see in Tolkien's writing is invisible to Jackson. When he reads Tolkien he might as well be flipping through a cheap comic book. The movie will be chock full of cringe-inducing "juvenile modern day humor", and will jump back and forth between childishness and seriousness with accompanying musical score inserted to inform the core audience precisely how they should feel about what they are observing at that moment. Anachronisms will abound. All one can do is take comfort in the fact that Jackson and the modern movie industry cannot undo the beauty of Tolkien's books, despite their efforts.

Galendor · 09-30-2012, 06:18 PM

In retrospect, I was a bit to harsh in my above criticism of PJ. Parts of the LOTR movies were well done, as I'm sure will be the case with the Hobbit movies. But I do share your concerns.

Rune Son of Bjarne · 09-30-2012, 08:32 PM

Do we know what it is PJ is adding to the original story?

Will it be stuff from other parts of Tolkiens work, or just pure fanfiction?

Mithalwen · 09-30-2012, 11:38 PM

The Evangeline Lily charater is fan fic (all hail Mary Sue!), the rest is Tolkienif on the level that events such as the White Council are known to have happened but fan fic because we don't have much detail of what happened at White Council meetings or when Gandalf entered Dol Guldur. There is a little in UT I think but I don't think PJ is allowed to use UT.

Morthoron · 10-01-2012, 11:10 AM

Evangeline Lilly
As an elf is quite silly,
But given PJ's predilection
For scripting fan-fiction,
It's all we can expect till he
Writes with conviction,
Or gets convicted -
Whichever the case may be.

Morsul the Dark · 11-28-2012, 09:34 PM

Ok I do have one concern.

after reading each Isatari had their own mission in Book

What if PJ tries to force the answer of what happened to the blue wizards?

It's the sort of plot hole a movie audience would hate...

He does after all plan on having the council in

09-28-2012, 10:54 AM	#1
TheLostPilgrim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 72	Hobbit concerns.... I have some big time concerns about The Hobbit: 1) I worry a lot of the central story of Bilbo's adventure will be lost in the shuffle of PJ's additions. That he's spreading the original, core story too thin by spreading it over three films. 2) That the tone will be all over place--That it will jump between too dark and too light and childish. That it will come off really inconsistent. 3) The second trailer REALLY worries me...The CGI looks HORRIBLE, as compared to PJ's LOTR films (which had GREAT effects). A lot of the film looks very fake and overly bright and shiny...As compared to his "Rings" adaptations which at least look like a fantasy world grounded in reality...The lighting and general look of this film reminds me of Tangled by Disney or a Narnia film. 4) He took the scene with Gollum, it seems, and has turned it into a comedic moment. Bringing back the cutesy, sympathetic Gollum from The Two Towers. I always pictured the Riddle Game as being intense and very eerie and creepy the whole way through...Bilbo alone in a dank, dark cavern near a turgid underground lake with a strange, mad creature that talks to itself, which wants to eat him. The '77 animated version got the "feel" of the Riddle Game at least partially correct. 5) Too much juvenile humor. Too many goofy jokes, whether it be about Goblins falling on the party or the Dwarves' weight. Tolkien is humorous to be sure, but it's a very dignified, old fashioned sense of humor. This seems like typical road movie, juvenile modern day humor. Like humor you'd see in a typical comedy film. The Hobbit--Tolkien's Hobbit--has comedic moments, but it's more an enchanting adventure. Which is what I was hoping for here--an adventure film with the grandness of a classic Disney film (but not the tone), with the visuals and whatnot of PJ's Rings. A faithful adaptation which could enchant as much as the books did. 6) The Dwarves don't look very...Dwarf-ish. I can't explain it. Perhaps I'm too used to the typical depiction in Fantasy of Dwarves (IE, like Gimli--short fellows who seem older than they are, with a bit of a temper or a humorous sort of personality). But these guys just seem like Game of Thrones characters miniaturized. Some of them don't even have full beards, just light scruff. Kind of sacrificing the characters for the sake of attractive leading characters. 7) Too many call backs to the LOTR films. I think shoehorning Frodo, Legolas, Saruman and Galadrial into The Hobbit is just fan service but it doesn't work. Frodo would be fine to frame the story and is justifiable but the other three have no place in The Hobbit, they were never in the book. I worry it'll be overdone fan service--the way Lucas connected every character in the Prequel trilogy to every character in the original trilogy. Gandalf and Elrond's presence alone should be enough of a reminder that this film is in the same "series" as Lord of the Rings. 8) The Three Trolls don't look anything like how I pictured them, to be honest. They just look like dumb monsters out of an RPG game, to be fought. 9) The Bunny Sled? REALLY? I just worry that with all these various elements, the film is going to be really crappy, that a lot of the subplots are going to seem crammed in there and detract from the core story, that with the story being split in two, the first movie will end in an utter anticlimax which will alienate the audience. I just think a Hobbit film had potential to be even BETTER than the Rings because The Hobbit story is a thinner, quicker, pure fantasy adventure. To be honest, I'm worried about a flop (in terms of reception) on the scale of Phantom Menace. I'm worried about this being considered just a bad movie overall. It's the last period of time where there is a spark of innocence, magic and light in Middle Earth, without the fate of the world hanging in the balance. Really in some ways it's last magical adventure of Middle Earth before the world is mired in darkness and history goes into the Fourth Age, when magic beginz to fade.

09-28-2012, 02:11 PM	#2
William Cloud Hicklin Loremaster of Annúminas Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,321	I wouldn't say I'm precisely "concerned" that PJ won't make a good adaptation. That's sort of like being "concerned" that the Cleveland Indians won't win the World Series this year. __________________ The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it.

09-28-2012, 09:16 PM	#5
Morthoron Curmudgeonly Wordwraith Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Ensconced in curmudgeonly pursuits Posts: 2,509	Whether it is successful or a flop matters little to me - although, I might enjoy an irritable "I told ya so" if Tauriel and Legolas surf Smaug. In any case, people will still be reading the books a century from now, while movies will be an extinct pastime, like listening to a wax cylinder on a Victrola. In a hundred years one may well be able to put on some cyber-helmet space-age thingy and actually walk through a Middle-earth hologram. Then again, no one may be able to read in a hundred years. Bah! __________________ And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision.

09-29-2012, 01:17 AM	#7
Glorthelion Haunting Spirit Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 58	I have a feeling the hobbit trilogy will be great but not along the lines of LOTR trilogy. The introduction of old and new characters was not necessary, like others said. __________________ What did Aragorn say when Gandalf died in Moria? Damn Gulf

09-30-2012, 06:18 PM	#9
Galendor Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Mirkwood, NC Posts: 66	In retrospect, I was a bit to harsh in my above criticism of PJ. Parts of the LOTR movies were well done, as I'm sure will be the case with the Hobbit movies. But I do share your concerns. __________________ Time is the mind, the hand that makes (fingers on harpstrings, hero-swords, the acts, the eyes of queens).

09-28-2012, 09:55 PM	#6
Draugohtar Pile O'Bones Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 23	I'm confident of one thing, and reasonably sure of a second. 1) If I base my enjoyment of the film 'adaptation' of The Hobbit on its faithfulness to the book, then I will hate it and begin making my list of complaints to beat P.J. over the head with should I ever have the misfortune to meet him. 2) If I enjoy 'The Hobbit' as a film on its own rights, I will probably think the films are highly entertaining and better than a great deal of what graces the cinema screen in the coming years. I think there is absolutely no room to hope for P.J. to be faithful to either the specifics of character/plot or more broadly to the spirit of Tolkien's middle earth. For all his self-proclaimed fandom, he subverts anything written at the hand of the maestro to his least 'artistic' whim. The man who couldn't understand how vital it was that Elessar, Imrahil and Eomer win the battle of the Pelennor fields by force of will and arms and not via 'magic green dead people,' certainly won't understand the magic of the Hobbit as written work. However I'm sure he'll make something quite fun out of Hobbits, Dwarves, some PMS elves and a dragon. It just won't be the Hobbit, it will be Peter Jackson's Hobbit.

09-30-2012, 11:38 PM	#11
Mithalwen Pilgrim Soul Join Date: May 2004 Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle... Posts: 9,458	The Evangeline Lily charater is fan fic (all hail Mary Sue!), the rest is Tolkienif on the level that events such as the White Council are known to have happened but fan fic because we don't have much detail of what happened at White Council meetings or when Gandalf entered Dol Guldur. There is a little in UT I think but I don't think PJ is allowed to use UT. __________________ “But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.” Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace

10-01-2012, 11:10 AM	#12
Morthoron Curmudgeonly Wordwraith Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Ensconced in curmudgeonly pursuits Posts: 2,509	Evangeline Lilly As an elf is quite silly, But given PJ's predilection For scripting fan-fiction, It's all we can expect till he Writes with conviction, Or gets convicted - Whichever the case may be. __________________ And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision.

11-28-2012, 09:34 PM	#13
Morsul the Dark Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 3,448	Ok I do have one concern. after reading each Isatari had their own mission in Book What if PJ tries to force the answer of what happened to the blue wizards? It's the sort of plot hole a movie audience would hate... He does after all plan on having the council in __________________ Morsul the Resurrected