Comments on: Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit, or “Been There, Done That, and Back Again”

By: fatpie42

fatpie42 — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:57:42 +0000

“there’s clearly not enough material in “The Hobbit” to comprise three film”

I think Tolkien has already proven you wrong on that one…

Though I think he also proved that LOTR couldn’t possibly be reasonably compressed into just three movies.

By: fatpie42

fatpie42 — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:55:42 +0000

“Tolkien himself is on record as saying that his book, “The Hobbit,” was stylistically always intended to be a backstory for LOTR.”

That is impossible, since Tolkein wasn’t originally intending to write “The Lord Of The Rings” at all. He originally intended to write a book just explaining the language of the elves and the history of the various creatures in Middle-Earth. He then came to be informed that no one would actually be interested in that, and would much rather have more actual stories.

If he originally wasn’t even going to write LOTR, how could he have originally intended “The Hobbit” as a prologue to it? Rubbish!

By: E. Lee Zimmerman

E. Lee Zimmerman — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:48:05 +0000

@tehashi: Good grief, where to start … Tolkien himself is on record as saying that his book, “The Hobbit,” was stylistically always intended to be a backstory for LOTR. IIRC, he wrote “The Hobbit” for his grandchildren b/c he believed it’d be more accessible to them. Also, of course they’re supposed to be different — all one has to do is read them to know that they’re different — so, if that’s the case, why does so much of The Hobbit film FEEL and LOOK like the LOTR? Plus, my article is not directly about the filmed version of “The Hobbit” so much as it’s intended to speak to the decisions Peter Jackson made in adapting it … hence the title of the article. Methinks you missed my point.

@monstrinho: for the most part, I think you’ve hit on the problem many Tolkien fans have with Jackson at this point — there’s clearly not enough material in “The Hobbit” to comprise three film, though two are quite possible.

@GrandYoohoo: when you learn to actually read what I wrote, I’d be happy to engage you. All you need to do is check out my first two paragraphs to see how far you are in left field. And by left, I do mean ‘left.’

@beorach: agree entirely with what you wrote.

@trashcanman: uh … based on my count, I see five paragraphs dealing with The Hobbit film. I’m talking about “thematic” similarities and not “literal” similarities, hence the “been there, done that” of my title. And, no, I’m not blaming Tolkien — I’m blaming Peter Jackson. If you’re read The Hobbit and LOTR, then you’d have to agree that “thematically” they’re two very different tales; why shouldn’t the films be “thematically” different? If I wanted a ‘been there, done that,’ then I could just sit down and watch LOTR. My point — in short — is that I wished Jackson had done something different in telling this story than revisiting so much of territory he’d already plumbed.

As always, thanks for reading, those who did!

By: trashcanman

trashcanman — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:25:49 +0000

Great write-up about the novel, but not much of anything about the actual film here. Two short paragraphs actually touching on the content of the film after such a massive build up of backstory is kind of jarring. And really, your complaints are as much Tolkien’s fault for writing similar situations. A ggroup off heroes including a hobbit, dwarves, and a wizard in a cave battling goblins. Yeah, there are bound to be some visual similarities. And the final battle actually had nothing whatsoever to do with Boromir seeing that it took place at night with an apocalyptic forest fire surrounding him and was largely a one-on-one affair where Thorin was intent on selfishly avenging his father whereas Boromir was selflessly redeeming himself by taking on an army single-handedly, giving the hobbits time to escape and itt took place in the middle of the day. How can you see any similarities there other than that there was a guy fighting with orcs? If that scenario is off the table then I’d say no Tolkien film after Fellowship was going to work for you.

By: beorach

beorach — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 18:52:17 +0000

W/r/t the latest movie release, I disliked what I have always disliked about PJ’s adaptations of Tolkien. Nobody should go see them if they’re expecting marked improvement from the trilogy. If I had to make one broad statement regarding one thing that did disappoint, it’s that PJ’s trying too hard to make this adventure story tie in with the trilogy. I understand that’s what you’re getting at above. I don’t think it allowed for any improvement on the narration of the story. I’d have preferred the spirit being more akin to that of the book. What I told myself before going to the theater, though, was that I should just be happy these are being made and that George Lucas wasn’t in charge.

By: GrandWazoo

GrandWazoo — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 18:43:11 +0000

@monstrinho

That’s a good sentiment, but you do realize that you are in the extreme minority of people who aren’t paying money to see the films, right? So instead of maknig 3x the money, they’re making 2.999999999999x the money without you paying for tickets.

@E Lee

You say you read The Hobbit starting in middle school. Did you ever read anything beyond that one condensed chapter? It doesn’t sound like you know what you are talking about in the least. I have to agree with everything tahashi said. It really sounds like you’ve either never read The Hobbit, or you read it immediately before starting LoTR.

By: monstrinho

monstrinho — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:24:05 +0000

I haven’t seen the hobbit in the cinema despite being a fan of LotR and that is because like an American drama series, it’s too damn long with too much filler. It could have been a tight, pacey film, but instead i hear it’s a baggy, saggy, exhausting 3 films. life’s too short. Instead of making 3 times as much money from me, they’re made none. Sorry Mr Jackson, less is more.

By: tehashi

tehashi — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:05:32 +0000

So instead of judging The Hobbit (the book) as it was made, which was a children’s book, you look at it as backstory for LotR?

The Rings books came out 16 years after the Hobbit book and were made to be a sweeping epic, so of course they don’t have the same tone.

Same goes for the movie, it is not intended to be the epic that LotR is, but to be a good adaptation of the Hobbit book, with extra story filled in to tie it into the greater world that the Rings movies introduced.

Now, i am not saying you are wrong in your thoughts on the movie, i just ask that it be judged as it was, not against another book/movie that was drastically different stylistically.