Will The Hobbit end up "rotten"?

[Lief 🗽]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Literary purity is not even a concept.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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.

My thoughts exactly.

[afleitch]

afleitch, if your definition of literary purity is related to perceived originality then it's not really meaningful.

I never said anything about literary purity; as Al said it doesn't exist. Everything is farmed, Tolkien as well. As was Gormenghast. I'm just very much against people who pine that what Tolkien wrote was 'pure' and that Jackson has somehow tainted it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Everything is farmed

That's not what I think.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Rambling and incoherent this will be, the last post on the subject... it will not...

Anyway, the issue is a fairly standard one with the adaptation of anything; all adaptations will inevitably change many things. Scenes must be cut. Characters must be cut. Some scenes probably have to be added - the grammar of film - and television - is different to that of the novel - sometimes characters will pretty much have to be added as well. Many important plot details will change, at least a little bit. Most people understand this, at least up to a point.

The main issue is always whether the feel - I'm tired and can't think of a better word at the moment - of the source material is kept or at least respected. Because if it isn't, then it's questionable whether the finished product is even really an adaptation at all. And people are absolutely entitled to be annoyed when that kind of thing happens; the idea that there's anything wrong in being so is ludicrous.

Influences on the source material itself are irrelevant to this point.

[afleitch]

Everything is farmed

That's not what I think.

Never said you did

[opebo]

Well, I just got back from watching it... in '3D'.

The film I found mostly quite boring - I hadn't found the Lord of the Rings films boring for the most part.  That despite having enjoyed the Hobbit more than the trilogy as a young teenage reader.

Also I really hate 3 D.  I wish they'd leave off with it, its very annoying and stupid.

[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.... 

[Lief 🗽]

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 spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well, I just got back from watching it... in '3D'.

The film I found mostly quite boring - I hadn't found the Lord of the Rings films boring for the most part.  That despite having enjoyed the Hobbit more than the trilogy as a young teenage reader.

Also I really hate 3 D.  I wish they'd leave off with it, its very annoying and stupid.

Did it have Thai subtitles?

I don't like 3D either but luckily it's a gimmick kind of dying out, nowhere near as common as it was 2-3 years ago. The fact that The Dark Knight Rises wasn't in 3D is something I'm quite thankful for. Even The Avengers had at least as many standard as 3D showings (I saw in standard.)

[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.    

[Fritz]

I can't decide if I am excited or disappointed about this.  The production itself was magnificent, as is to be expected.  I did think it was too long, and the story dragged.  There seemed to be more time devoted to combat scenes than advancing the story.  There were three or four points toward the end of the film where I thought, this is the end of it, and the movie continued on.  Jackson's alterations and additions to the story sometimes seem to make it more interesting, other times seem to be adding just for the sake of making a longer movie.  The bad news is, Jackson is trying to make The Hobbit into something that it is not- an epic saga comparable to LOTR.  The good news is, same.

I can see one more movie out of this, but two more is a stretch.

[opebo]

Did it have Thai subtitles?

I don't like 3D either but luckily it's a gimmick kind of dying out, nowhere near as common as it was 2-3 years ago. The fact that The Dark Knight Rises wasn't in 3D is something I'm quite thankful for. Even The Avengers had at least as many standard as 3D showings (I saw in standard.)

Yes, it had Thai subtitles.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Having taste is not being a snob.

That's just the sort of thing a snob would say, snob!

[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.  

 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Did it have Thai subtitles?

I don't like 3D either but luckily it's a gimmick kind of dying out, nowhere near as common as it was 2-3 years ago. The fact that The Dark Knight Rises wasn't in 3D is something I'm quite thankful for. Even The Avengers had at least as many standard as 3D showings (I saw in standard.)

Yes, it had Thai subtitles.

That'd be kind of weird to me. Sometime I should watch a movie with some weird foreign subtitles on just to see what it's like.

[Gustaf]

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.  

 

The comment was obviously tongue-in-cheek which is why it had a TONGUE smiley in it. Do Americans really not do sarcasm at all?

Still, yeah, if one likes crap it sort of does reflect poorly on your judgment. I'm so sorry about that. Don't shoot the messenger! 

[minionofmidas]

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.  

I strenuously deny the last of these allegations.

[opebo]

Yes, it had Thai subtitles.

That'd be kind of weird to me. Sometime I should watch a movie with some weird foreign subtitles on just to see what it's like.

It wasn't nearly as distracting as the ridiculous 3-D.

[John Dibble]

I saw it yesterday. It was good enough to be entertaining.

[MaxQue]

The movie was good, through it wasn't able to focus on one thing, it's going a little bit everywhere left and right, for obscure reasons.

[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.

[minionofmidas]

Some of the stories that were published in Unfinished Tales may have been contemporaneous with The Hobbit

Actually, that's only 10 pages (twice; in two versions) of it. And all they do is try to explain away the inconsistency of / reconcile the opening of the Hobbit with the remainder of it and LoTR, ie give some kind of reasoning why the hell they'd take a fat hobbit along now that Dwarves aren't the funny buffoons the first book makes them out as, and why they consider Bilbo a burglar.
There's also a similarly motivated essay on how the Nazgul come to Hobbiton.

I had somehow thought that Tolkien ever wrote some kind of narrative text about what went on at Dol Guldur during the Hobbit, and that this might be where to find it, but apparently he never did. (Yeah, I've read... sizable part of... the Unfinished Tales yesterday and the day before.)