• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Hobbit lives up to expectations

Sheriff Woody

Troubadour
That's because canonically he died in the battle with Thror. The movies for some reason kept him alive, even though there was the perfectly viable option of having his son Bolg go after Thorin for revenge-by-proxy. But oh well.

I think it worked better the way it was done, because Bolg means nothing to Thorin.
 

Black Dragon

Staff
Administrator
The Pale Orc, I don't remember him in the book.

Ireth and Woody already answered this, but I'll throw in my two cents as well.

Azog the Defiler, the pale orc, is from Tolkien. But as Ireth pointed out, he died in the battle at the gates of Moria, a battle which was depicted in the film.

In The Hobbit (the book), it's Azog's son, Bolg, who is out for revenge against Thorin. Peter Jackson used cinematic license to make it Azog himself. As Woody pointed out, Thorin wouldn't know who Bolg was, but having the enemy be Azog adds more resonance and menace to the story.

Jackson made similar choices in adapting LOTR. For example, rather than introducing the character of Glorfindel for one scene, he gave that part to Arwen so as to better develop her character and have one less elf for audiences to keep track of. This was a similar decision.

Still, I wouldn't go so far as to call this a new plot-line. It is a plot line from the book, although the vengeance-seeker is the father himself in the film, as opposed to the son.
 

Reaver

Staff
Moderator
Though I didn't like them messing up the troll scence.

It seemed to me that Jackson wanted to intentionally turn it into an action sequence. Maybe it was too boring for him. It's way off from what happened in The Hobbit. However, it was a pretty cool scene and I enjoyed the new twist.

*EDIT* The only problem that I have with the movie is a very small one. I was disappointed that all of the elven blades found in the troll's cave weren't glowing blue when goblins were near. Why Peter? Why?
 
Last edited:

Phietadix

Auror
As I'm rereading the book I noticed that the Necromancer is mentioned very early on. Gandalf mentions him before even leaving Bilbo's house and all the Dwarves seem to know who he is.
 

saellys

Inkling
That was a bloated mess. It wasn't good filmmaking, it wasn't good storytelling, and it wasn't the tale I've loved since I watched the Rankin-Bass cartoon before I could read.

I enjoy Tolkien lore as much as the next fantasy writer, but cramming all that additional material (canon though it may have been, to varying degrees) into a small and charming story was totally unnecessary. Jackson didn't know when to quit--even the Necromancer subplot had to be padded in order to meet some arbitrary runtime requirement, and the whole film was laden with excessive slow-mo and prolonged dramatic reaction shots. If I took a drink every time Thorin got a majestic close-up, I would have died of alcohol poisoning before the second act ended.

The entirety of The Hobbit could have fit in a three-hour film without cutting anything, and it would have been a delightful experience. As it is, I can't stomach the thought of sitting through two more of these, and I look forward to when they're all out in HD so I can get some video editing software and cut them down to the single film they should have been.
 

Black Dragon

Staff
Administrator
That was a bloated mess. It wasn't good filmmaking, it wasn't good storytelling, and it wasn't the tale I've loved

Appreciation of art is largely subjective. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion and your own taste. For myself, and many other members of this community, it was a wonderful experience.

The entirety of The Hobbit could have fit in a three-hour film without cutting anything, and it would have been a delightful experience.

The unabridged audio book of The Hobbit is 12 hours long. While the story could be told in three hours, a whole lot would have to be cut.

Of course, that's what we're used to with movies - having the story pared down to fit it into a predetermined running time. In this case, I'm very glad that this didn't happen.
 

saellys

Inkling
The unabridged audio book of The Hobbit is 12 hours long. While the story could be told in three hours, a whole lot would have to be cut.

That's a false equivalence. Movies don't tell stories; they show them. They take less time than books because they're visually immersive. The many detailed descriptions Tolkien loved to employ have transformed into lush setpieces and wardrobe and character design, which are processed by the human eye much faster than text. Two and a half paragraphs introducing Boromir in Fellowship of the Ring became a few seconds of footage in the movie, and nothing was lost because those paragraphs described Boromir. Instead of reading about him or hearing narration in the film, we saw him.

To use your own analogy, the unabridged audiobook may be twelve hours long, but all three Hobbit movies will amount to just under nine hours. So how do you explain the fact that they haven't cut anything (except Bjeorn, who will apparently be in the third film), and are actually adding things that fell outside the scope of the story Tolkien wanted to tell in The Hobbit?
 

Phietadix

Auror
The unabridged audio book of The Hobbit is 12 hours long. While the story could be told in three hours, a whole lot would have to be cut.

Just because the book takes 12 hours to read, doesn't mean it would take 12 hours to show. I've played Tabletop games where a minute long battle takes a hour to play. It's the same way with books.
 

MadMadys

Troubadour
So I got to look at a 'For Your Consideration' copy of the Hobbit last night (friends of friends that work in Hollywood) in the comfort of a couch with some beers. I still enjoyed the movie, and would very much like to see the extended cut, but the one thing I was highly aware of the entire time was how long it felt. Especially when they're in Rivendell, I was thinking of everything that was still going to happen. Some of the scenes carry on too long and the exposition is a bit overdone.

I know, odd to say I want to see the longer cut while complaining about its current length but meh.
 

Black Dragon

Staff
Administrator
That's a false equivalence. Movies don't tell stories; they show them. They take less time than books because they're visually immersive.

When transferring a story between different mediums, this goes both ways. While you save time by not having to describe appearances and scenery, you add time by showing - as opposed to telling - events that are glossed over by a few sentences in a book.

Ultimately what stays, what is cut, and what is expanded upon is an artistic decision that is made by the people doing the adaptation. And with any artistic endeavor, not everyone will have the same appreciation for the end result. It doesn't mean that one person is wrong and the other is right. It's a matter of personal taste.

Speaking of which, I hope that you can respect the perspective of those of us who went to see the film, and enjoyed it. You didn't like it. Fine, that's your right. But that doesn't mean that everyone who loved the film is somehow unable to recognize "bad filmmaking, bad storytelling," etc.

When you see a thread full of people who enjoyed a movie, and you jump in to tell us how wrong we are for liking it, labeling it as "bad storytelling," it comes across as dismissive of our opinions. You may not have liked it, but that doesn't mean that it's objectively a bad film.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I plan to see this tonight finally. I'll have my thoughts after, but will say preliminarily that not every movie has to have nonstop action from start to finish to appeal to me. I don't mind a slow pace per se.
 

Black Dragon

Staff
Administrator
I plan to see this tonight finally. I'll have my thoughts after, but will say preliminarily that not every movie has to have nonstop action from start to finish to appeal to me. I don't mind a slow pace per se.

I had an eye-opening experience when I showed Blade Runner to a class full of college sophomores.

The students complained endlessly that the film was "too slow," and called it "the most boring movie ever made."

These students, who born in the mid-90's, were so used to fast paced films and television shows that the deliberate pace of an 80's sci-fi classic was actually painful to watch.
 

Reaver

Staff
Moderator
When transferring a story between different mediums, this goes both ways. While you save time by not having to describe appearances and scenery, you add time by showing - as opposed to telling - events that are glossed over by a few sentences in a book.

Ultimately what stays, what is cut, and what is expanded upon is an artistic decision that is made by the people doing the adaptation. And with any artistic endeavor, not everyone will have the same appreciation for the end result. It doesn't mean that one person is wrong and the other is right. It's a matter of personal taste.

Speaking of which, I hope that you can respect the perspective of those of us who went to see the film, and enjoyed it. You didn't like it. Fine, that's your right. But that doesn't mean that everyone who loved the film is somehow unable to recognize "bad filmmaking, bad storytelling," etc.

When you see a thread full of people who enjoyed a movie, and you jump in to tell us how wrong we are for liking it, labeling it as "bad storytelling," it comes across as dismissive of our opinions. You may not have liked it, but that doesn't mean that it's objectively a bad film.

Thank you BD. My sentiments exactly. It's too easy to tear apart any film, let alone one adapted from a book. Perhaps a film like this is not for the cynics out there.
 

Sheriff Woody

Troubadour
I had an eye-opening experience when I showed Blade Runner to a class full of college sophomores.

The students complained endlessly that the film was "too slow," and called it "the most boring movie ever made."

These students, who born in the mid-90's, were so used to fast paced films and television shows that the deliberate pace of an 80's sci-fi classic was actually painful to watch.

I am not a fan of Blade Runner, either. It is a boring movie because the hero is so damn boring. He has little to no depth, he is not interesting or exciting or clever or funny or *anything*. He just is. He has minimal motivation, the stakes are low, the pacing is apathetic, there are gaping holes in the plot...it's just not a well-written movie at all. In fact, it's probably the single greatest example of style-over-substance the cinematic medium has to offer. If you ask me, it's little more than Ridley Scott trying to be like Stanley Kubrick and reaching new levels of failure in the process.

Not good. Not good at all.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I am not a fan of Blade Runner, either. It is a boring movie because the hero is so damn boring. He has little to no depth, he is not interesting or exciting or clever or funny or *anything*. He just is. He has minimal motivation, the stakes are low, the pacing is apathetic, there are gaping holes in the plot...it's just not a well-written movie at all. In fact, it's probably the single greatest example of style-over-substance the cinematic medium has to offer. If you ask me, it's little more than Ridley Scott trying to be like Stanley Kubrick and reaching new levels of failure in the process.

Not good. Not good at all.

I disagree. I think Blade Runner is a great movie. I was never bored by it :)
 

Reaver

Staff
Moderator
I am not a fan of Blade Runner, either. It is a boring movie because the hero is so damn boring. He has little to no depth, he is not interesting or exciting or clever or funny or *anything*. He just is. He has minimal motivation, the stakes are low, the pacing is apathetic, there are gaping holes in the plot...it's just not a well-written movie at all. In fact, it's probably the single greatest example of style-over-substance the cinematic medium has to offer. If you ask me, it's little more than Ridley Scott trying to be like Stanley Kubrick and reaching new levels of failure in the process.

Not good. Not good at all.

Can you give us an example of a movie that you think is really good?
 

Sheriff Woody

Troubadour
Can you give us an example of a movie that you think is really good?

Just one?

Well, to prove age has nothing to do with why I see Blade Runner's faults, I'll go with something older: Alfred Hitchcock's NOTORIOUS from 1946. Absolutely flawless film-making with a script sharp enough to cut diamonds.

But if you're looking for something more modern, I'll go with 2011's TAKE SHELTER. What a masterpiece that is.

Or you can look left at my avatar. ;)
 
Top