The Hobbit/Peter Jackson

[Architect]

Entirely sucked. I saw it in 3-D and 48 frames per second, it looked more like a video game than a movie. At any rate they changed too many elements of the story including important ones, and it too much stretched a small segment of the story into an entire movie. I'm not going to see the rest of them.

I thought the Lord of the Rings was done better, but I couldn't finish those either.

 

[Niclmaki]

I enjoyed it. But I only seen it in 2D.

I never read the books though.

 

[Ink]

Nothing compared to the original LOTR trilogy, still better than most films these days imo... Cool that Bilbo was portrayed as INTP as well

 

[snafupants]

I read the book but I can't be bothered with the movie. Sounds like drudgery.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

When going to see a movie based on a beloved book, you have to (HAVE TO) put the memory of that book out of your mind as best you can or else you're just going to spend the time hummphing or gafawing through the whole thing. Unless you enjoy being a hipster about it, it's going to suck because the visualizations in the film will never match the ones in your mind.

Books can get into a characters head that a movie can't. Some scenes won't make sense if you don't know what the character is thinking at that given moment and movie makers know better than to assume the viewers read the book.

Edit: Generalizing, haven't seen the movie in question.

 

[Architect]

When going to see a movie based on a beloved book, you have to (HAVE TO) put the memory of that book out of your mind as best you can or else you're just going to spend the time hummphing or gafawing through the whole thing.

Yes clearly. I went to both with an open mind, viewing them simply as standalone movies based on the concept. Whereas LOTR kept relatively faithful to the book and seemed like a halfway decent movie, The Hobbit just sucked. All show and no substance IMO.

 

[snafupants]

Unless you enjoy being a hipster about it, it's going to suck because the visualizations in the film will never match the ones in your mind.

So I understand this - wanting fidelity makes one a hipster?

Or do hipsters, alone among all groups of peoples, inherently crave this type of fidelity?

Spoiler

I really couldn't give two shits about the cinematic representation of the shire and its lilliputian inhabitants.

 

[Jennywocky]

When going to see a movie based on a beloved book, you have to (HAVE TO) put the memory of that book out of your mind as best you can or else you're just going to spend the time hummphing or gafawing through the whole thing. Unless you enjoy being a hipster about it, it's going to suck because the visualizations in the film will never match the ones in your mind.

Books can get into a characters head that a movie can't. Some scenes won't make sense if you don't know what the character is thinking at that given moment and movie makers know better than to assume the viewers read the book.

Generally, I try to do that. It can be hard, especially when you enjoy the source material more than the derived cinematic experience, but there it is.

Sadly, I actually found this the second most palatable Tolkien movie Jackson has done. My favorite of the four is The Fellowship of the Ring. I've found the latter two LotR movies unwatchable for me... and that's after watching the expanded editions.

But some of it's because I find that Jackson either overdramatizes certain things or underdramatizes them -- most of his critters and people are WYSIWYG, he has a hard time knowing how to allude to Deep Things and instead always has to be literal. Shelob's a giant mindless spider. Durin's Bane is just a giant endgame boss from LotR XBox. The Watcher in the Water is just some giant octopus with nasty teeth. The Istari are just old AD&D mages who beat on each other with sticks. Sauron's just a big fiery eye in the sky. Galadriel has to shoot lightening bolts and sound like a male specter when she does her "Queen of the World" thing.

Meanwhile we get a lot of schlock horror crap, with ghosts and skeletons and whatever gruesome other things can be dug up. Not very evocative, although at times somewhat sentimental. And then we have overkill on various deaths -- it's not good enough for Denethor to die from self-immolation with his hands forever emblazoned in the palantir (which should be horrific enough, if done by a truly dramatic director), we get him set on fire and thrown burning off the topmost spire of Minas Tirith to watch him plummet to his doom. (Boromir, on the other hand, was well handled and well acted by Sean Bean. And the alterations to Aragorn's character never bothered me, it made him more accessible.)

The Hobbit, aside from some small issues (like mangling the troll scene by clumsily inserting Bilbo into the solution) wasn't nearly as bad to me. I could even tolerate changes like inserting a still-living Azog into the plot. But a lot of it felt like it was unnecessary. Fight. Fight. Fight. The movie should have been called "The Dwarves." And a lot of the fights seemed to just be ripped out of LotR and rather needless. The entire escape from the Goblin lair in the Misty Mountains seemed to be more of a chance for the animators and artists to show off, rather than being necessary.

I did like the riddle game. Gollum was perfect. And we see Bilbo staying his hand out of pity, thus saving the lives of millions decades later. It was a wonderful scene to see him wrestle with what to do. But I feel this was sacrificed later when he kills a goblin -- I understand why they had him do it (to gain Thorin's respect), but it runs against type, just as Frodo even more sometimes was made to do things against his gentler nature in Jackson's film, out of convenience.

Ironically, I enjoyed the 3D and had no issues with the 48fps after the Coming of Smaug scene ended. The scene itself was wonderfully done; unfortunately, the frame rate made it resemble one of those fake reenactments you'd see on Unsolved Mysteries, the lighting was too bright. I wasn't bothered elsewhere in the movie by the high frame rate, but obviously some were.

 

[joal0503]

i wonder what would have happened if they had releasedthis beforethe lotr trilogy...

id guess more people wouldnt be so picky about the film's frame rate 'issues'...

expectations are just too high, and its not the lotr people are use to.

sincerely,

somebody who didnt really care for any of those movies.

 

[Nezaros]

It may be Lord of the Rings, but Peter Jackson still created these movies for the lowest common denominator. It doesn't matter if it reflects the book the way Tolkien intended, all that matters is that it's flashy enough to appeal to the senseless masses while still remaining true enough that (some) fans of the book don't get pissed off and boycott it.

I had to reread the Hobbit after the movie came out to notice the massive amounts of crap Jackson put in, but that just confirms my point. The majority of moviegoers don't care about the plot, or accuracy, or consistency in characters, they just want to see flashy CGI and copious amounts of violence. It's the same reason Avatar was so successful.

 

[Jennywocky]

It may be Lord of the Rings, but Peter Jackson still created these movies for the lowest common denominator. It doesn't matter if it reflects the book the way Tolkien intended, all that matters is that it's flashy enough to appeal to the senseless masses while still remaining true enough that (some) fans of the book don't get pissed off and boycott it.

I had to reread the Hobbit after the movie came out to notice the massive amounts of crap Jackson put in, but that just confirms my point. The majority of moviegoers don't care about the plot, or accuracy, or consistency in characters, they just want to see flashy CGI and copious amounts of violence. It's the same reason Avatar was so successful.

Meh. I felt that Avatar actually made decent use of 3D tech and was a more cohesive and internally consistent movie. It wasn't an adaptation either, and Cameron's a better director, overall -- he's got an impressive track record.

It's just unfortunate the Avatar script could have used more work, and that he cast Sam Worthington as the lead, just like the weakest actor in the Matrix cast was Keanu Reeves. I think if they had had a decent scripter/plotter do another one-over on that script, the movie could have been tremendous but instead unfortunately ended up being a ripoff of Pocahontas in many ways.

... and now, let's talk about George Lucas.

 

[joal0503]

The majority of moviegoers don't care about the plot, or accuracy, or consistency in characters, they just want to see flashy CGI and copious amounts of violence. It's the same reason Avatar was so successful.

this is news in hollywood?

 

[Niclmaki]

I think you take cinema too seriously if you're worried about the actual story telling to such a degree that it makes you dislike the movie.

I was just looking for something that was distracting / fantastic. It could be because I'm usually a lot more meticulous normally.

 

[Architect]

Mangled scenes

• Unexpected party (too long, tedious, and Bilbo didn't volunteer! (out of character))
• Trolls (made a charming scene tedious, big battle instead of sneaking around)
• Orc fight before Rivendell (pointless)
• Radagast - just got a mention in the book, overdeveloped and stupid in the movie
• Rivendell (White Council meeting was mentioned, not shown in the book)
• Doorstep to the Goblin lair (yeah Bilbo was just going to go home at that point!)
• Goblin Lair (way too overdone)
• *** Agree with JW that riddle scene was pretty good ***
• Escape - fair
• Reunion - charming in the book and tedious in the movie with sappy emotions
• 15 birds in a tree - wonderfully charming in the book and again overdone and tedious

The last one is the worst. Now the meeting with Beorn can't have the charming 'progressive disclosure' with Bilbo and Gandalf. The Goblins weren't dancing around the trees lighting them on fire and chanting.

Bilbo and Golumn are OK characters. Gandalf is a weenie, and the Dwarves are all bumbling fools, or too falsely intense like Thorin.

The scene pattern is that wherever there was a charming scene they replaced it with a battle scene. Maybe they thought the charm would get lost for most people.

 

[joal0503]

imagination vs constrained adaptation

isnt imagination always more fun?

 

[Jennywocky]

Mangled scenes

• Unexpected party (too long, tedious, and Bilbo didn't volunteer! (out of character))
• Trolls (made a charming scene tedious, big battle instead of sneaking around)
• Orc fight before Rivendell (pointless)
• Radagast - just got a mention in the book, overdeveloped and stupid in the movie
• Rivendell (White Council meeting was mentioned, not shown in the book)
• Doorstep to the Goblin lair (yeah Bilbo was just going to go home at that point!)
• Goblin Lair (way too overdone)
• *** Agree with JW that riddle scene was pretty good ***
• Escape - fair
• Reunion - charming in the book and tedious in the movie with sappy emotions
• 15 birds in a tree - wonderfully charming in the book and again overdone and tedious

In general, those were the same gripes I would have listed. Too much was overdone, but I guess I was expecting it from Jackson so it wasn't much of a surprise.

The White Council thing didn't bother me as much since it actually did happen, it just happened off-camera, and the characters actually acted pretty much according to type (aside from Hugo Weaving's portrayal of Elrond in general). I also liked that Saruman came off as "good" but as haughty and annoying as crap. It was obvious that Galadriel and Gandalf had more humility and sensitivity.

But I would have prefered things to remain more charming, as you have highlighted them, if I had had a choice.

The scene pattern is that wherever there was a charming scene they replaced it with a battle scene. Maybe they thought the charm would get lost for most people.

Sadly, that might actually be true. Although then we get movies like "Silence of the Lambs" which are very intense and have wonderful focus on characterization more than action per se, and they ended up being very popular in the mainstream and people "get" them. Jackson's more making a popcorn movie, though.

Interestingly, my 17-year-old INTP son had the same gripes about all of these scenes.

I expect in Movie #2, we will see Beorn, the spiders, the halls of the Mirkwood elf king Thranduil (and pretty boy Legolas), and the arrival at Lonely Mountain. We might possibly see Smaug's end in this movie, or it might do a cliffhanger until movie #3. But nothing really exciting is capping the movie in #2, so we'll either need Smaug or the Necromancer thing here.

In Movie #3, we'll see whichever we previously missed (necromancer or smaug), and of course then the issue of the Arkenstone and the Battle of the Five Armies.

 

[Architect]

Yeah agree, and your INTP son has good (INTP) sentiments

My beef with the White Council was that again Gandalf is portrayed as a powerless weenie. He's the messenger boy instead of an equal member, which he was even though Saruman was the head - 'leader among equals'.

The distrust between the Elves and the Dwarves was overdone, no doubt setting up for the Battle of the Five Armies. Oh and they weirdly messed up the Eagles scene. That was pure Deus ex Machina - perfect for a movie, and they had to change it by somehow having butterflies and Eagles communicate! Why not just leave it alone, it's made for movies already.

 

[TriflinThomas]

Loved it! I watched it super baked and it still looked great (usually I have a hard time watching films high because it makes it easier for me to tell that it's acting). The only problem I had with the movie was when bilbo opened the door and the night sky was absolutely tragic ;D

 

[kora]

Just saw it today, big fan of the books. On the whole it was a decent movie, I agree that it looked video game-ish in parts but it also had some excellent scenes that were very similar to how I pictured them in the book, particularly the "Riddles in the dark" chapter (gollum/bilbo scene)

Also I suprised myself by the fact that I liked the addition of Radagast the Brown to the plot, despite the fact that he is only vaguely mentioned in the book. I was really interested in Radagast as a kid and wanted to know more about him than Tolkien wrote.

I'm generally quite harsh on movie adaptations of books and I thought LOTR series is one of the best examples of it being done successfully. Obviously it can never be perfect.

 

[Architect]

Also I suprised myself by the fact that I liked the addition of Radagast the Brown to the plot, despite the fact that he is only vaguely mentioned in the book.

The bird crap in the hair joke was lame

 

[Amagi82]

I just saw the Hobbit, and it was bloody awful. No amount of beautiful cinematic special effects can cover the fact that the movie was a dreadful massacre of proper storytelling techniques and filled to the gills with campy, corny comic relief. You can't put people 14 people in serious life-or-death situations 400 times in a movie and have them all come out of it unharmed. That reeks of bullshit, and by the end, I was rolling my eyes saying "I wonder what sort of ridiculous unlikely BS is going to swoop in and save them at the last second this time?". There were also soooo many scenes that did utterly nothing to advance either plot or character development, and just caused the movie to drag ass. The pacing was way off and made an otherwise beautiful, engaging, action-packed film boring and disconnected with reality.

I should mention that I haven't read the books. I have very little patience for books that unload a metric ton of worldbuilding right away without giving you a chance to appreciate any of the characters, and LotR was just painful in that regard. I respect Tolkien for starting the genre, but honestly, he wasn't that good a writer. (yes, I know, blasphemy!)

 

[Architect]

I just saw the Hobbit, and it was bloody awful. No amount of beautiful cinematic special effects can cover the fact that the movie was a dreadful massacre of proper storytelling techniques and filled to the gills with campy, corny comic relief.

Agree

You can't put people 14 people in serious life-or-death situations 400 times in a movie and have them all come out of it unharmed.

They were actually in four by my count. Believable too if you consider they had a high powered character with them (Gandalf), who actually is the one saving their bacon on these occasions.

There were also soooo many scenes that did utterly nothing to advance either plot or character development, and just caused the movie to drag ass. The pacing was way off

Agree

I should mention that I haven't read the books. I have very little patience for books that unload a metric ton of worldbuilding right away without giving you a chance to appreciate any of the characters, and LotR was just painful in that regard. I respect Tolkien for starting the genre, but honestly, he wasn't that good a writer. (yes, I know, blasphemy!)

You haven't read the books, but you are entitled to opine that he wasn't a good writer? Insert facepalm emoticon.

 

[Amagi82]

You haven't read the books, but you are entitled to opine that he wasn't a good writer? Insert facepalm emoticon.

I should clarify that I haven't read the books in their entirety. I got like 15-20% into LotR and gave up.

 

[Jennywocky]

I should clarify that I haven't read the books in their entirety. I got like 15-20% into LotR and gave up.

Tolkien was strong in some respects and not so good in others. I find parts of the Two Towers to be some of the most boring prose I've ever read. He wrote these stories more as a way to flesh out his world; if you read the Silmarillion, much of it is history, although then he will flesh out the more interesting stories.

However, he wrote some very excellent scenes in LotR that are among the best I've read in any book (for me personally, they were evocative); the genre didn't really exist at the time he was writing it; and if he hadn't written this, the genre as we know it would be different if it existed at all. The success of Tolkien's work encouraged publishers to support other similar endeavors.

it's a shame you missed anything good in the LotR because you couldn't get very far past Hobbiton.

Personally, as I've stated above, I found much of the LotR movies to be rather hackeyed and trivial because Jackson got caught up on surface details and look-n-feel or wandered off and got into his schlock horror junk.Segments of the movies to me are forgettable; I honestly don't understand why people think they are so great (unless they've never been exposed to anything better), as much as I don't understand why so many people liked The Dark Knight Rises (which I consider Nolan's worst movie ever). I actually laughed out loud a number of times during the original theatrical showings of the LotR movies, it was so cheesy in places. I'd rank it higher than George Lucas' SW prequels, since there were some things Jackson did successfully, but pretty much anything is better than those prequels.

 

[Architect]

Tolkien was strong in some respects and not so good in others. I find parts of the Two Towers to be some of the most boring prose I've ever read. He wrote these stories more as a way to flesh out his world; if you read the Silmarillion, much of it is history, although then he will flesh out the more interesting stories.

That's just the Council of Elrond in Rivendell? Sure it's boring, the various members are sharing their information and the groundwork is being laid for the rest of the story, but it's only a single chapter after all. Immediately afterwards they get into Moria, and the part leading up to that was certainly engaging (Weathertop to the Riders getting swept away in the river by Rivendell).

However, he wrote some very excellent scenes in LotR that are among the best I've read in any book (for me personally, they were evocative); the genre didn't really exist at the time he was writing it; and if he hadn't written this, the genre as we know it would be different if it existed at all. The success of Tolkien's work encouraged publishers to support other similar endeavors.

That and more. Tolkien worked on the OED and was a professor and lover of Engilsh. His mastery of it is a delight. Notice how each character speaks in a completely distinct voice, or compare the Hobbit talk against the Elvish. The hobbits used Old English (via Germanic roots) derived words. Single syllables and physical, such as king, gold, corn and field. The Elves used multi-sylabbic Latinate based words (which came to us via French).

It almost reads as poetry to me. He labored over the writing as poets do, and each word is the perfect one for it's place. A small example ... at the end of the book when they're taking The Shire back, the Gaffer and Frodo are talking about what to do. Compare the language between the two and the Gaffers reaction. Beautiful character portrayal

'Good evening. Mr. Baggins!' he said. 'Glad indeed I am to see you safe back. But I've a bone to pick with you, in a manner o' speaking, if I may make so bold. You didn't never ought to have a' sold Bag End, as I always said. That's what started all the mischief. And while you're been trapessing in foreign parts, chasing Black Men up mountains from what my Sam says, though what for he don't make clear, they've been and dug up Bagshot Row and ruined my taters!'

'I am very sorry, Mr. Gamgee,' said Frodo. 'But now I've come back, I'll do my best to make amends.'

'Well, you can't say fairer than that,' said the gaffer. 'Mr. Frodo Baggins is a real gentlehobbit, I always have said, whatever you may think of some others of the name, begging your pardon. And I hope my Sam's behaved hisself and given satisfaction?'

'Perfect satisfaction, Mr. Gamgee,' said Frodo. 'Indeed, if you will believe it, he's now one of the most famous people in all the lands, and they are making songs about his deeds from here to the Sea and beyond the Great River.' Sam blushed, but he looked gratefully at Frodo, for Rosie's eyes were shining and she was smiling at him.

'It takes a lot o' believing,' said the gaffer, 'though I can see he's been mixing in strange company. What's come of his weskit? I don't hold with wearing ironmongery, whether it wears well or no.'

Beautiful prose, I've known people like this. 'Weskit' and 'ironmongery' (referring to their armor), beautiful obscure words

waistcoat

(ˈweɪs(t)kəʊt; colloq. or vulgar ˈwɛskət)

For forms see waist and coat n.; also 6 wascoat, 7 waiscot, wasecoat, -cote, wascoate, -cot, -cote, -cott. In representations of vulgar pronunciation written {weskit}, veskit, etc.

 

[Jennywocky]

That's just the Council of Elrond in Rivendell? Sure it's boring, the various members are sharing their information and the groundwork is being laid for the rest of the story, but it's only a single chapter after all. Immediately afterwards they get into Moria, and the part leading up to that was certainly engaging (Weathertop to the Riders getting swept away in the river by Rivendell).

No, I'm talking about the Two Towers, not The Fellowship. I actually like the Rivendell thing, but I'm into history and big-picture cause/effect chains.

I'm talking about the all the junk in the Two Towers where nothing is actually happening, except that they are riding around the countryside trying to get all the tribes of men to join their army by showing the Red Arrow. Blah Blah blah. it's like Tolkien didn't have any specific events in mind but just wanted to push all the pieces around the board to get everyone to the Next Scene, and he wasn't a confident enough narrative writer to skip over or use other devices; instead, he tried to write it all out. Ugggh.

That and more. Tolkien worked on the OED and was a professor and lover of Engilsh. His mastery of it is a delight.

yes, he was a philologist first, actually, before he became known as a writer. I know his translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is still highly touted if not a standard, and the "cellar door" anecdote likely comes from him (as the phrase being the most beautiful sound in the English language). He was an accomplished world-known expert in his field of study; I'm not sure if some people acquainted with the movies realize that.

It almost reads as poetry to me. He labored over the writing as poets do, and each word is the perfect one for it's place. A small example ... at the end of the book when they're taking The Shire back, the Gaffer and Frodo are talking about what to do. Compare the language between the two and the Gaffers reaction. Beautiful character portrayal

Beautiful prose, I've known people like this. 'Weskit' and 'ironmongery' (referring to their armor), beautiful obscure words

Yes, and when I say I find some of his prose beautiful, it's partly his word choice, and those scenes where he really seems to transcend the page, the language and underlying idea mesh together perfectly (so scenes like Frodo on top of Amon Hen wearing the Ring, or the barrow-wight encounter, or Galadriel's little speech about what she could do with the Ring, or the encounter with Shelob, or Sam's own vision about what he might do with the Ring, or Saruman's death, or Denethor's death... so many of these scenes... they have power because of how he writes them. The lines just FLOW. The word choices are beautiful, and they are joined together beautifully. Compared to the drudgery of his more mechanical sections that are more about just getting people from place to place.)

 

[Architect]

I'm talking about the all the junk in the Two Towers where nothing is actually happening, except that they are riding around the countryside trying to get all the tribes of men to join their army by showing the Red Arrow. Blah Blah blah. it's like Tolkien didn't have any specific events in mind but just wanted to push all the pieces around the board to get everyone to the Next Scene, and he wasn't a confident enough narrative writer to skip over or use other devices; instead, he tried to write it all out. Ugggh.

I guess it didn't bother me much. If I know the part your saying that was interspersed with the wonderful Path of the Dead, the Wild Men (Ghân-buri-Ghân!) and other sweetmeats.

 

[kora]

The bird crap in the hair joke was lame

Hahahaha true, I thought the Dwarfs asking if the elves had any chips when they were eating salads in Rivendale was in poor taste as well.

 

[Lot]

I finally got around to watching it. I went in knowing it wasn't going to be exact, and that Jackson added to the story. Personally I liked the additions to the story. I enjoyed every bit of the movie. I liked how the fight scenes were slightly comical. It wasn't the greatest movie I'd ever seen, but I liked it. I did read the book, and the book was better, but not enough for me to be mad about it.

After Mass Effect 3's ending, not much, in the way of media, can upset me.

 

[LarsMac]

All I know is that it took me about 4 hours to read the book. I am not willing to waste that much time just to watch Part 1 of 3. I'll just read the book again, and save 60 bucks.

 

[duke of new york]

I actually really liked the movie for the most part. There were a few things I didn't like, but most of it was good. The main thing that detracted from my enjoyment of it was the length, but any movie over about two hours will have me getting restless, especially in the theater.

Stuff I particularly liked:
-Portrayal of Bilbo's character and the dwarves
-CGI visuals were mostly very good, I thought
-Thorin was different but a more interesting and relatable character than he was in the book; I approve of this change
-More tension between the dwarves and elves than in the book; made an otherwise somewhat dull Rivendell scene more interesting
-The troll scene departed a bit from the book, but I thought it was pretty good; I think some people forget how goofy and bumbling the trolls were even in the book

Stuff I didn't like:
-The Goblin city scene. This is one part that I think should have stuck to the book a little better: Bilbo is with the dwarves, Gandalf kills the Goblin King, then they all run through the tunnels until Bilbo gets dropped, leading to the Gollum scene. That scene was good in the book and would have been fine on the screen, so I don't see why it had to be changed so much.
-The Goblin King looked like some cartoony crap out of a Star Wars prequel.
-The one-armed goblin had too important of a role as the main antagonist. I think this was done to create a more cohesive story with a clear bad guy, but I don't think this was really necessary.
-Galadriel's telepathy and teleportation abilities: Why even invent that crap, especially for a character that wasn't even in the book?
-Radagast's portrayal. I didn't mind at all that he was inserted into the plot, but I always visualized him totally differently, as sort of a burly, jovial fellow, not a nervous little crackpot. I may have confused him a bit with Tom Bombadil when I read the books, though.
-The overall tone. The whole film seemed confused about what it was supposed to be: at times it would try to come off as epic and serious as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but then there would be some lame fart joke or cheesy one-liner. I'm OK with a lighter, more humorous tone than the LotR trilogy--in fact, it needed to be, since The Hobbit is lighter and more humorous than the LotR books--but fart jokes, snot jokes, and lines like "croquet's a fine game, if you have the balls for it" and the Goblin King's "that'll do it" (that really made me cringe) do not represent Tolkien's humor at all. They should have stuck with jokes about bumbling trolls, fat dwarves, and Bilbo's agitation. More feel-good humor than laugh-out-loud humor, but that's what The Hobbit is.

 

[Architect]

-Galadriel's telepathy and teleportation abilities: Why even invent that crap, especially for a character that wasn't even in the book?

I don't know what teleportation you are referring to. She was in Rivendell but she visits it on occasion so that didn't imply teleportation. On the telepathy that IS in LOTR. At the final White Council meeting (very last part of the book as they travel back to The Shire) the participants (Galadrial, Elrond and Gandalf) didn't say anything aloud but flicked their eyes around, but still fully communicated. He doesn't say it's telepathy, perhaps they were so 'advanced' and familiar with each other that it was enough, but telepathy is a reasonable interpretation.

Much like the description of the Balrog, Tolkien sketched him out ('smoke rose up like wings') but didn't explicitly say what he looked like, but the interpretation is pretty clear.

 

[duke of new york]

I don't know what teleportation you are referring to. She was in Rivendell but she visits it on occasion so that didn't imply teleportation. On the telepathy that IS in LOTR. At the final White Council meeting (very last part of the book as they travel back to The Shire) the participants (Galadrial, Elrond and Gandalf) didn't say anything aloud but flicked their eyes around, but still fully communicated. He doesn't say it's telepathy, perhaps they were so 'advanced' and familiar with each other that it was enough, but telepathy is a reasonable interpretation.

Much like the description of the Balrog, Tolkien sketched him out ('smoke rose up like wings') but didn't explicitly say what he looked like, but the interpretation is pretty clear.

I was referring to when Gandalf is talking to her alone. He lowers his eyes, and when he looks up, she is gone. I just found that dumb and cliched.

I did not recall the scene you described where the elves communicate voicelessly. If that is so, then I guess the telepathy part is a good interpretation.

 

[Jennywocky]

I guess it didn't bother me much. If I know the part your saying that was interspersed with the wonderful Path of the Dead, the Wild Men (Ghân-buri-Ghân!) and other sweetmeats.

Yup, that would be the general vicinity of my boredom.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I liked the movie. It looking similar to a computer game in some areas didn't bother me. Probably because I use to play a great many computer games. Goblin king was pretty awesome.

 

[Architect]

I was referring to when Gandalf is talking to her alone. He lowers his eyes, and when he looks up, she is gone. I just found that dumb and cliched.

I missed that, was probably cringing because Gandalf was such a weenie.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I thought the movie was decent as a standalone. Obviously I think the book was better. However, I do think that some of the stuff in the book would not really have worked out as well on screen, so they definitely seemed to try and market it as more of an action/adventure than a fantasy/adventure.

 

[Puffy]

All I know is that it took me about 4 hours to read the book. I am not willing to waste that much time just to watch Part 1 of 3. I'll just read the book again, and save 60 bucks.

Man, the cinema's in your area are scamming you.

 

[The 73rd Virgin]

My review is here. In short,
"Jackson had a choice: go entirely with the sole source material of The Hobbit; or infuse this movie with some of the relatively adult sense of mystery, epic struggle and sacrifice which is central to the LOTR book and movies. By opening with a few minutes of set up and the history of betrayal and distrust between dwarves and elves, he helps us get used to the notion of dwarves as the main characters, cleverly countering any human-centric prejudice of the viewer."
and,
"All is not perfect. Jackson did a miserable remake of “King Kong” a few years back, and the bad instincts that led to the dinosaur-stampede-that-simply-would-not-end show up in a few places in The Hobbit. The character of Radagast is all wrong and his sled bunny chase across mountaintops is pointless. It feels like Lucas inserting the endless racing sequence into “The Phantom Menace”, just to tie into the video game market. Also, if you are too early in the movie to kill off any of the main characters, then staging ridiculously long chase scenes where they ALMOST get killed is a waste of time and energy. Most of the chase sequences could have been cut by a few minutes."
and,
"When we finally get to where The Hobbit story begins, the introduction of the 12 dwarves and their comical intrusion into Bilbo’s settled life is almost exactly as I remember the book. And what many book fans missed most about LOTR in the movies – the sense of pastoral life, long slow travels, poetry and songs – are allowed to play out here. It is, in my opinion, beautifully done."

What can I say? I liked it.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

utter trite.
wrong demographics.

 

[Cherry Cola]

The 48fps and 3d made it watchable (once in a movie theater) because made it pretty immersive.

Other than that I agree with all the critique, stupid characters, awful pacing, the typical "hey lets almost die all the time so that no one cares and nothing brings excitement"-syndrome, too much comic relief etc etc. It really was an awful film. Avatar was decently made albeit Pocahontas this was just.. awful. I really don't know what the fuck Peter Jackson was thinking.

And it has nothing to do with whether the film follows the book or not, let SJ tards care about that crap, I don't give a damn. In fact I don't think films should follow books all too faithfully because they are different media with different limitations and possibilities.

Edit: Oh and I agree with Duke, it was confused.. typical commercial shit film into which everything is stuffed to form a grey tasteless blend. Could've worked as a matinee film if only the pacing wasn't so awful and if only Jackson knew how to put this in that part of the film and this other thing in this other part of the film. Instead he opted for everything at once. Guess he thinks his genius transcends the basic principles of dramatic stucture; a fool he is indeed. Barnum effect director with a sense for visual aesthetics and no sense apart from that. Probs got lucky with LOTR.

 

[Brontosaurie]

minor spoiler

Spoiler

the necromancer scene is fantastic

"i saw him gandalf... from out of the dark, a necromancer has come!"

overall i liked the movie reasonably well. not sure how much is due to its cuteness evoking sympathy thus inhibiting my critical thinking, and how much is in the quality of the movie itself. it was more varied and dynamic in mood than the LotR movies, but some of the comic elements and the ad hoc ridden action scenes were frankly grating. i'd say 7/10

PUMPED for the sequel lol

 

[Redfire]

No comments on the horrible second part? I don't know why I forced myself to watch it anyhow.

I see Jackson finally caved in to political correctness (anyone noticed?). And who the fuck is Tauriel?

I feel quite nerdish now. I don't usually get so angry at movies.

 

[Hawkeye]

No comments on the horrible second part? I don't know why I forced myself to watch it anyhow.

I see Jackson finally caved in to political correctness (anyone noticed?). And who the fuck is Tauriel?

I feel quite nerdish now. I don't usually get so angry at movies.

Tauriel is a fictional character that was invented by Peter Jackson as a way to add a female role into the story. The Hobbit (book) features no women.

Spoiler

The love triangle that develops between her, Legolas and Kili is ridiculous. It completely destroys the tense relationship between Elves and Dwarves.

The story should not have been stretched over three films.

 

[Redfire]

Oh, so Tauriel was added for political correctness too. Like the black people in Lake Town.

It's definitely true that such a short story shouldn't span three movies, but they still didn't have to suck that much.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I wouldn't go, wasn't I invited. Expensive glittering junk. No wonder I don't watch contemporary box office cinema.

Radegast was a joke(family cinema, jar jar binks), similarly Tauriel(generic female) and relationship with a dwarf(racial equality), political correctness indeed.

Black arrows weren't shot from a siege device, If I remember corretly it was a single artifact quality arrow! It was meant for a bow.

Scenes were cut so abruptly that I couldn't focus.
It's a stand alone series that has some names and events ripped from Tolkien's universe.

 

[Jennywocky]

I wouldn't go, wasn't I invited. Expensive glittering junk. No wonder I don't watch contemporary box office cinema.

Radegast was a joke(family cinema, jar jar binks), similarly Tauriel(generic female) and relationship with a dwarf(racial equality), political correctness indeed.

Black arrows weren't shot from a siege device, If I remember corretly it was a single artifact quality arrow! It was meant for a bow.

Scenes were cut so abruptly that I couldn't focus.
It's a stand alone series that has some names and events ripped from Tolkien's universe.

I agree, it should be called "Peter Jackson's The Hobbit" with special thanks to JRR Tolkien for world and characters.

Although I'd say the Tauriel thing didn't bother me, and was actually more interesting than much of the other shit, which is rather sad. I'm sick of Jackson not having much actual imagination and having to make everything literal/tangible. A lot of Tolkien's power comes in the abstract underlying qualities of the story (the mythos), but for Jackson, an evil necromancer involves a guy in spikey armor, a dragon has to be a giant video game monster who is part of a superfluous 20-minute action sequence and can't manage to kill 12 dwarves even though he supposedly wiped out the entire community years before, elves are just guys who dance on barrels and shoot thing, Radagast has to be stupid and quirky rather than just an istari who is lost in the natural world and has forgotten his ultimate purpose, wizards are old guys with sticks who cast AD&D spells to win fights rather than being angels with inherent power, etc. Jackson bores me, his work here has no enduring quality.

The story should not have been stretched over three films.

Yeah. Totally. We could have cut about 1/3 of the second movie without any real loss, if not more of it.