Hobbit Forming

[grav_ity]

Okay, so for the most part I'm avoiding negative reviews because, frankly, I don't care. But I would like to offer this for the record and then get on with my life.

I'm incredibly amused at the people who are complaining about the pacing and the filler and the "stretching of one book into three movies". It's like they're not paying attention, and haven't been paying attention since 2001. They're all "Man, it's too bad this Peter Jackson guy has never made a movie before and therefore we have no idea what to expect from him! I was expecting something totally different from this unknown dude. And I got a slightly odd movie." When, in fact, we got exactly the same sort of thing we got from LotR. WHY ARE YOU SURPRISED, MOVIE-GOERS? Yes, the pacing is kind of weird. But it's not one movie, and it shouldn't be written as such. It's not a flaw. It's the genre.

And, for the last time, it's NOT ONE BOOK. It's a major moment in history that Bilbo misses entirely because he's busy being the distraction. I can't even begin to tell you the number of times in THE HOBBIT that Gandalf says something like "Oh, yeah, I've got this thing to do. Be back later. Um, if I survive." And, yes, that's not part of THE HOBBIT, but that's only because Bilbo is very much inside his own head (for a book that's written in 3rd person, it has a very 1st person focus). Again, I invite complainants to PAY ATTENTION.

What really sells it for me is that the fans are happy. I have yet to come across a post or comment from my LotR peeps that's super negative. It's not like that time George Lucas made us cry. So yes: it's a big, convoluted, kind of random, sort of directionless story. And it's not over.

And that's exactly how it is supposed to be.

In related news, I could have gone to the 10:15 Cheap Tuesday screening, but opted to come home and sleep (by which I mean "read") instead. I'm a little annoyed with myself, but I'll probably be happier about it tomorrow morning.

Comments

[lizardbeth-j.livejournal.com]

Gandalf: later, gator. *poofs*
Dwarves + Bilbo = WTF?
(adventure)
Gandalf: I'm back!
Dwarves + Bilbo: Where u go?
Gandalf: blahblah Sauron whatev. NBD Cool dragon dude.

Or when Bilbo misses the end of the battle because HE GOT HIT ON THE HEAD. (yeah, I never felt cheated by that. at all. TOLKIEN).

EUGH ALL MY FEELS. I've been unearthing (un-middle-earthing?) old fic. (which had nothing to do with the Hobbit, but fifty pages of the freaking fall of Minas Ithil is preying on my brain. DAMN YOU WITCH-KING)

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

I totally googled an Elrond/Celebrían fic I wanted to re-read only to discover I had written it. ;) I forsee muuuuuuuch unmiddle-earthing in my future.

Thing is, battle scenes don't make good BOOKS, but they make excellent MOVIES. So, OBVIOUSLY.

[melyanna.livejournal.com]

Well, I consider myself a fan, and I can't say I was terribly happy with it. If it had just been a fantasy-adventure movie, fine, it was enjoyable, but as an adaptation it was pretty awful.

I get bringing in what Gandalf's really up to. I object rather strenuously to the Thorin plot. Because what the world really needed was another story about a guy and his father. But what bothered me most was the tone. It just... made me kind of sad that they went with epic instead of fun. Jackson did not trust the audience to believe that it was the same universe unless every five minutes there was some explicit reference to the LotR movies, and I really don't appreciate it when directors treat their audiences like children.

And I'm not entirely looking forward to the next two (!) movies. There was a ridiculous amount of action in this one, and I fear the other movies are just going to be two long slogs.

I came out of Fellowship excited for the next one. My friends and I walked out of this one tonight dissecting all the things that were wrong with it.

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

I guess I always love the little callbacks and links to other source material, so every time there was a line or a cue that reminded me of LotR, it made me happy and...connected. Plus, I felt like I had to be paying attention to catch them all, and that is also something that I really enjoy. It felt like a letter to me, and I loved it.

I thought I was going to object to the Thorin plot, but...I don't? Perhaps because I saw his issues as trust issues and not daddy issues? Time will tell, I guess, and if he ends up with the same character development as Aragorn, I'll be annoyed. Maybe I'm not objecting because this time they're not screwing with a romance, but I understand why they did it. Thorin needs a bad guy he actually fights.

Also, I'm an action girl. So. You know. :)

I certainly don't mean to suggest that "real" fans aren't impressed with the movie, and I hope I didn't come across like that!

[melyanna.livejournal.com]

I think I would have objected less if there had been fewer callbacks and if they had been less literal. Possibly the combination of visual and musical cues was what did it in for me. It felt... lazy. Like they could have just cut in a scene from whichever LotR movie. When Bilbo caught the ring on his finger I actually said out loud "you've got to be kidding me."

And, well, much as I loved Shore's soundtracks for LotR, it would have been nice if there had been less of that music in this movie and more dwarf-specific music.

Also, I'd argue that Thorin doesn't need a bad guy he actually fights, because he's not the hero of the story. Bilbo is. Ironically, I don't really mind what they did with Aragorn in LotR. I think the difference here is that this book didn't lend itself to emo, whereas Aragorn's history kind of did. The Thorin plot felt artificial to me. I guess that's what really bothered me here. The changes they made just felt artificial.

(It's also worth noting that one of the friends I was dissecting this with has not read any of the books, and he was just as put off by the things that were bothering me. So I don't think it's a "fidelity to the text" issue.)

There were things that were perfect, Gollum in particular. But in the end, I just felt like they were making a movie like The Hobbit and not a movie of The Hobbit. Apparently we can't have fantasy that isn't an action movie, or that isn't about avenging somebody, or that isn't huge and complicated.

[shadadukal]

I have read some critics and most of them seem to come from non Tolkien fans. Though I also came across the rare few of those who were disappointed.

I almost made a similar post and may yet, with different examples.

One thing I want to staple to people's forehead: page number =/= density. E.g. The Silmarillion, to stay in Tolkien, is a short book but you'd probably need 12 3-hour-long movies to adapt it because battles which last hours get only a paragraph int he writing. And it's not fair to say PJ managed to adapt each LOTR book in one film just fine. I mean, they were great adaptations faithful to the spirit of the books but there was a lot cut out. People seem to either forget or not realise that.

As you said though, it's the genre too. You need time to establish the world and everything. You couldn't adapt The Hobbit in one film without cutting a lot of things, which is something fans don't like. And if you're going to explain where Gandalf disappears to for most of the book, you need three. Simple as that.

I don't think fanservice is a good thing when it comes to on-going TV series but when it comes to film adaptations, they would be fanservice. The Hobbit is a film by fans for fans and it's fantastic to see this.

I keep thinking of "Pride and Prejudice" adaptations, especially the contrast between the mid 90s BBC 6-episode miniseries and the Keira Knightley film of the mid 2000s. The former is pretty much considered perfect because pretty much everything from the book is in it and the film suffers from that comparison. Personally, I love both because I think there are things the film did better than the mini-series. But the key thing here is that fans of the book want everything from the book in the adaptation.

PJ had the opportunity and the time to adapt a book faithfully on the big screen because of his previous success and he took it. As a fan, I am glad. The reverse is my problem about the HP films. While I love a lot of things about them, ultimately, to me, they didn't have the magic from the books. I think each book should have been spilt into two films starting with GoF. And while the films were successful and many fans of the book like them for many reasons, I don't think they are good adaptations. But there is something telling. Critics didn't particularly like the DH1 film whereas book fans loved it because ALL THE CHARACTER MOMENTS AND IT'S LIKE THE BOOK. See a theme? ;)

(I think that for Star Wars, many fans are actually happy about 1-3, or at least apathetic. It's just that the vocal minority is VERY VOCAL. But you know how I see this.)

I keep trying to decide when to go again because I'm on four times already but by Saturday I'll be at my parents until January so I only have 3 days left to see it more until next year. So while I could wait to see it a 5th time, I think I'll go because otherwise the withdrawal time will be much longer.

[vjs2259.livejournal.com]

You know the line in The Rocky Horror Picture Show? "I didn't make him for YOU." Jackson is walking a tightrope between making a popular movie anyone can watch and enjoy and a treat for Tolkien fans. After the insane success of LOTR, I think he might veer a little towards the treat.
It's interesting to see how people either love the callbacks or hate them. Are they lazy or loving, referential or repetitive? There's a lot in the Jackson movies I kinda skip over in my mind when I watch. What's left is very much worth it.
Part of me hopes that rather than an extended version of The Hobbit, Jackson makes a trimmed version for DVD release; one that is all the fun bits and tells the simple(r) children's story without the epic backdrop. Wouldn't that be interesting?

[emmaorgana.livejournal.com]

Whenever someone asks me what I thought of the Hobbit, I always tell them that I loved it and that I understand how people might find the pacing odd or that it's too long or whatever the hell it is that people are complaining about, I don't agree at all. :p

I *liked* the context that was added. I liked how Thorin's trust issues were brought up. If those things (and the others) hadn't been brought up, people would probably be complaining about how nothing made sense and how they didn't understand WHY any of this was happening and WHERE DID GANDALF GO?

[threerings.livejournal.com]

My main problem (as a lifelong Tolkien fan and fan of the LOTR movies, thank you very much) with the three movies thing is that yes, there is material for three movies in The Hobbit, if you add a bunch of stuff to it.

But not three THREE HOUR LONG movies. Three two hour long movies, or two three hour long movies. But this film had at least 45 minutes that could easily have been cut from it without losing any plot. I will NOT accept that The Hobbit has just as much material that needs to be on screen as the entire LOTR. That's a ridiculous statement.

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

THE HOBBIT, no.

The Appendices that coincide with THE HOBBIT, yes.

But I've always been the sort who loves things, and especially loves things I've been looking forward to, so I'm not exactly a reliable source for answers on this topic. I was all "MORE! MORE!", as soon as the lights came up at the end. :)

[hiddencait.livejournal.com]

Gah I am so so with you here! Especially with the massive amount of history that the book just completely glosses past and is only mentioned in the Appendices. To me The Hobbit was written for children, and Tolkein added the Appendices for all the adults who were reading it to children.

There's a comment above about how Thorin's story annoyed them as much because "he's not the hero" and I about did a spit take. ALL of the company are heroes, or so I've always thought - the line by Thorin about how it comes down to loyalty really made that clear to me or so I'd thought. 12 dwarves, a wizard, and a hobbit are trying to TAKE BACK A MOUNTAIN. How is that not heroic???

And really (not that it will surprise you with my Thorin-babble earlier), I like that we're seeing Thorin-the-leader now. As much as it will hurt me, it'll make his descent into a very real madness so much more vivid later on. He'll fall into the same trap that his grandfather and father (in the books which I noticed they switched in the movie but hey handwave) did with the Arkenstone, and that is just heartbreaking to me because he could be such a great king if he can get past the greed and the hate. But he won't and that just hurts me!

...but then I often seem to immediately crush on 1. the guy who dies, or 2. the bad guy, and considering Thorin manages to be bothish eventually? Yeah I was going to have a problem. Action/fantasy/sci-fi movie issues - I have them.

[grav-ity.livejournal.com]

I got the impression that Thror had the typical ring-and gold related Dwarf madness (which even Gimli has, to a degree), and Thrain had the "I got captured by the necromancer and tortured" madness. As you do.

Also, I noticed that at the end, Azog says "Your father reeked of it" when he meant "your GRANDFATHER reeked of it", but I'm handwaving that by a) Blackspeak not having a large vocabulary and b) he did CAPTURE Thrain, and that probably made him scared?

GOD, I hope Gandalf actually gets to rescue Thrain in the next movie. That would be awesome. Also, maybe then I'd be able to remember which of Thrain and Thror are which, without looking it up.