Will The Hobbit end up "rotten"?

[Frodo]

Only among top critics.

This, as well as a few grouchy fans here who seem to want the film to be absolutely faithful to the book in every respect.   

Unlike some here, I will wait until I see the movie before casting judgment on it. 

[Frodo]

I was planning to see it before this thread informed me that it is to be a trilogy. Nine hours is far too much to ask of me, especially for a book of its size. I could read the book faster than that. Is it too much to ask to get those of us who are vaguely interested but are not hardcore fantasy fans there and back again in two hours? I like 3D eye candy, but too much gives me a tummyache.

Do you seriously think The Hobbit is going to be presented to the public like that?  Did you see the LOTR trilogy all in one setting?  Obviously not -it is going to be presented in three parts in three consecutive years like the last time.  At least that's my understanding.  

[Frodo]

It's now at 76% with 79 reviews in.  

[Frodo]

So as someone who doesn't particularly care about these books or films, what was so messed up about The Two Towers in particular (according to the purists here)?

Most but not all of it can be traced back to either (a) a sequence of events in which, among other things, Aragorn falls off a cliff on a warg, (b) elves at the Hornburg, or both.

There is, obviously, more.

Right but only people who (1) are deeply attached to the books and (2) fault a movie for not following its source material strictly would care about that. (Also the whole Faramir digression is considerably worse than either of those things combined, since Jackson needlessly ruined a character there, while the worgs and the elves were mostly just cool exciting things he added).

People who care about even relatively devout adherence to the source material's storytelling style would care about the warg thing.

What was done to Faramir is indeed worse, however.

The distortion of Faramir's character is indeed disturbing, which is why it is one of my main grievances against Peter Jackson -that, and the army of the dead being loosed upon the Fields of Pelennor when they only took the Corsairs' ships outside Pelargir in the book. 

Apart from those two examples, I didn't have any issue with the LOTR trilogy alterations.  Some of them actually enhanced the story, like the substitution of Arwen in place of Glorfindel in rescuing Frodo from the Black Riders. 

[Frodo]

So as someone who doesn't particularly care about these books or films, what was so messed up about The Two Towers in particular (according to the purists here)?

Most but not all of it can be traced back to either (a) a sequence of events in which, among other things, Aragorn falls off a cliff on a warg, (b) elves at the Hornburg, or both.

There is, obviously, more.

Right but only people who (1) are deeply attached to the books and (2) fault a movie for not following its source material strictly would care about that. (Also the whole Faramir digression is considerably worse than either of those things combined, since Jackson needlessly ruined a character there, while the worgs and the elves were mostly just cool exciting things he added).

People who care about even relatively devout adherence to the source material's storytelling style would care about the warg thing.

What was done to Faramir is indeed worse, however.

The distortion of Faramir's character is indeed disturbing, which is why it is one of my main grievances against Peter Jackson -that, and the army of the dead being loosed upon the Fields of Pelennor when they only took the Corsairs' ships outside Pelargir in the book. 

Apart from those two examples, I didn't have any issue with the LOTR trilogy alterations.  Some of them actually enhanced the story, like the substitution of Arwen in place of Glorfindel in rescuing Frodo from the Black Riders. 

I will agree I thought that was a sensible alteration. Some of what goes on with Arwen later on, on the other hand...

Like what, exactly?  The only scene I can possibly think of that you're referencing is her following her father's wishes in departing to Valinor along the old road before turning back suddenly out of love for Aragorn.  And that doesn't bother me in the least. 

[Frodo]

I'll see it next weekend since I am still recovering from a head-cold (had it since Monday), and I don't want to infect anyone in the audience.  

[Frodo]

Down to 66%. This is gonna be close but it should hang on. Most of the reviews are in now.

The main reason for the ratings drop (from what I've read) is that the critics are bitching and moaning about how long this film is.. 

[Frodo]

There's quite a disconnect going on between the critics and the audience in their perception of the movie.

65% of critics rated 'The Hobbit' highly, while around 80% of moviegoers liked it.  

[Frodo]

I thought it was a fun and exciting fantasy adventure, with generally very nice visuals (though some of the battle scenes, specifically the escape from the goblins, were kind of muddling and video game-ish; on the other hand, the final battle with the burning trees was very well-done). And the score was great. Hearing the themes from the first films again was this hugely nostalgically satisfying. I didn't think it was overly long either, I would have gladly spent another few hours in the world Jackson has obviously very lovingly created. I loved the little historical scenes too, like seeing where Thorin got his epithet from and the dragon attack in the beginning.

I don't really care that's it not an exact recreation of The Hobbit either. The book already exists; if you want a faithful recreation of Tolkien just re-read the book. Let other artists make their own works. It's especially ridiculous to criticize Jackson considering that taking other works and ideas and worlds and repurposing them for your ends is basically what Tolkien did in the first place.

Have you seen the 3D IMAX version of it?  It's a whole new experience.... 

[Frodo]

I thought it was a fun and exciting fantasy adventure, with generally very nice visuals (though some of the battle scenes, specifically the escape from the goblins, were kind of muddling and video game-ish; on the other hand, the final battle with the burning trees was very well-done). And the score was great. Hearing the themes from the first films again was this hugely nostalgically satisfying. I didn't think it was overly long either, I would have gladly spent another few hours in the world Jackson has obviously very lovingly created. I loved the little historical scenes too, like seeing where Thorin got his epithet from and the dragon attack in the beginning.

I don't really care that's it not an exact recreation of The Hobbit either. The book already exists; if you want a faithful recreation of Tolkien just re-read the book. Let other artists make their own works. It's especially ridiculous to criticize Jackson considering that taking other works and ideas and worlds and repurposing them for your ends is basically what Tolkien did in the first place.

Have you seen the 3D IMAX version of it?  It's a whole new experience....  

Nah, aren't tickets like $20 each for that? I can see why it would be pretty cool though.

I don't normally see or pay for 3D, but I made an exception in this case Saturday evening.  I don't regret it.  I love Tolkien, and (unlike the snobs and purists in this thread...and elsewhere) I love Peter Jackson's rendition almost as much.  I would gladly pay extra for the remaining films of the Hobbit trilogy.    

[Frodo]

I thought it was a fun and exciting fantasy adventure, with generally very nice visuals (though some of the battle scenes, specifically the escape from the goblins, were kind of muddling and video game-ish; on the other hand, the final battle with the burning trees was very well-done). And the score was great. Hearing the themes from the first films again was this hugely nostalgically satisfying. I didn't think it was overly long either, I would have gladly spent another few hours in the world Jackson has obviously very lovingly created. I loved the little historical scenes too, like seeing where Thorin got his epithet from and the dragon attack in the beginning.

I don't really care that's it not an exact recreation of The Hobbit either. The book already exists; if you want a faithful recreation of Tolkien just re-read the book. Let other artists make their own works. It's especially ridiculous to criticize Jackson considering that taking other works and ideas and worlds and repurposing them for your ends is basically what Tolkien did in the first place.

Have you seen the 3D IMAX version of it?  It's a whole new experience....  

Nah, aren't tickets like $20 each for that? I can see why it would be pretty cool though.

I don't normally see or pay for 3D, but I made an exception in this case Saturday evening.  I don't regret it.  I love Tolkien, and (unlike the snobs and purists in this thread...and elsewhere) I love Peter Jackson's rendition almost as much.  I would gladly pay extra for the remaining films of the Hobbit trilogy.    

Having taste is not being a snob.

..........

Thanks for proving my point.

What I resent from the likes of you, Al, and others on this thread is the implication that those of us who like how Peter Jackson (for the most part) made the LOTR trilogy and the Hobbit, somehow have inferior tastes than yours.  And that anyone who loves Tolkien cannot possibly also like Peter Jackson's renditions of his books.  

 

[Frodo]

‘Hobbit’ stays atop box office with $33M; ‘Django,’ ‘Les Miserables’ open strong over holiday

By Associated Press, Updated: Sunday, December 30, 11:57 AM

LOS ANGELES — “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” continues to rule them all at the box office, staying on top for a third-straight week with nearly $33 million.

The Warner Bros. fantasy epic from director Peter Jackson, based on the J.R.R. Tolkien novel, has made $222.7 million domestically alone.

Two big holiday movies — and potential awards contenders — also had strong openings. Quentin Tarantino’s spaghetti Western-blaxploitation mash-up “Django Unchained” came in second place for the weekend with $30.7 million. The Weinstein Co. revenge epic, starring Jamie Foxx and Christoph Waltz, has earned $64 million since its Christmas Day opening.

And in third place with $28 million was the sweeping, all-singing “Les Miserables.” The Universal Pictures musical starring Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway has made $67.5 million since debuting on Christmas.