Skip to comments.Anyone disturbed by "The Hobbit" film?
Posted on 12/26/2012 3:46:05 AM PST by LinnieBeth
We went to see The Hobbit yesterday and we thought it was awful. Been surprised that since it's release there haven't been any posts to the Hole.
Are you all disgusted with Part 1?
Yes. Too many battle scenes and movie way too lo because of this.
I’ll agree with the ‘too long’ sentiment. There was new music that I enjoyed but my absolute favorite (in 3D especially) were the extended scenes of Rivendell. I wish there was more of that. It was like watching a Maxfield Parrish painting in motion.
I’ll second the too long comment. i expected a lighter themed movie and this was way too dark. There were kids in the theater and that family had to leave because of all the violence. I don’t remember the book containing this much violence.
Tolkien and CS Lewis were close friends, indeed Tolkien helped convert Lewis to Christianity.
Tolkien's fantasy has several layers of meaning, each of which can be enjoyed by itself, or in harmony with the others.
I love them all.
My husband and son found the changes to Gandalf’s character very disturbing- the nonchalance over killing. They did enjoy the bits of the film that weren’t shoehorned in solely to achieve a pg-13. There’s actually an interview floating around out there where they explicitly state how hard it was for them to achieve that rating with the material they had to work with, but by gosh they managed it....
We'll still hit the movies, but yes, 3 hours is a long time considering we have a far superior experience at home.
Thanks for the info. Could you imagine the difficulty converting a mind like CS Lewis? I am not a big fantasy movie gal, but I am sure we will buy it when it comes out. It did say rated PG13 for long sequences of fantasy violence... Who takes their young children to a PG13 without checking out the reviews?
Lol. Too bad. Guess you’ll have to wait for the “Watcher’s Digest” version.
I’m more disturbed by watching a bunch of 5’6” short people being filmed to pretend they are 3’6”.
I enjoyed it, though I do NOT recommend anyone see it in a High Frame Rate (HFR) showing. It’s very distracting.
“I dont remember the book containing this much violence.”
What about Bilbo, sting and the spiders of Mirkwood?
The HFR is what has been keeping me from giving the movie a go. I loved The Hobbit as a child, much moreso than LotR, to be honest. But I have issues with certain video things. I can’t play most FPS video games, for example, without getting a splitting headache and/or motion sickness. I’ve read about people getting ill with Hobbit, so I’ve been steering clear of it. If there’s a “normal” version playing in my town, I might chance it.
Yeah, there should be non-HFR showings; it was only playing in selected screens around here, at least. I thought the 3D was well-done, but the HFR just made the film look sped up, not smoother. It got downright annoying at times. I don’t mind the experimentation, but it seems obvious that HFR isn’t ready for primetime, if it’s ever to be used at all.
Saw the movie yesterday. Honestly don't understand what you mean by this, I thought Gandalf was much the same as in the LOTR movie.
In fact, that's my biggest complaint about the movie. It's essentially a prequel to LOTR, rather than its own story. The characters and issues are just about the same, whereas the book was told pretty much exclusively from Bilbo's perspective, a rather innocent and naive hobbit who stumbled through great events without really understanding what was going on. That's basically what made book LOTR so different from book Hobbit. The hobbits were dragged out of their innocence and isolation and thrust with full awareness into the center of world events.
The looonnnnggg sequences that look like video games were also disturbing and did little or nothing to advance the story. The bits with the giants and the chase through the goblin caverns. Looked like Indiana Jones or something, just not as well done. Much like the similarly idiotic sequences of FOTR with the collapsing stairs.
Galadriel seemed oddly unconcerned about the Necromancer setting up shop at Dol Guldur, seeing as how its right across the River from Lorien.
Also, they make Bilbo into a bold warrior willing and able to charge an entire enemy army by himself, which he never became in the book.
In the book, Thorin never really accepted Bilbo till he was dying.
I thought PJ did an excellent job with Bilbo/Gollum. Really showed how the point where Bilbo chose to spare Gollum was a turning point in history, since it allowed Bilbo to remain basically unaffected by the evil of the Ring and pass it on freely to Frodo, whereas if he had obtained the Ring by killing he would have quickly morphed into another Gollum, overcome by the Ring's corruption.
Movie? what movie? IMO people who watch that trash are in great need of realizm and self reflection. Sorry if I offended anyone but thats just the way I see it.
No offense. Sorry.
Peter Jackson was again self-indulgent in the overly long battle scenes. The escape from Moria, in the book, is a race through black tunnels, not a "cut your way out" epic battle where a band of superheroes outduels a whole army. The fight in the forest with the pursuing orcs and wargs is also overdone; in the book, the dwarves, Bilbo, and Gandalf head straight for the trees. I don't know what it is about battle scenes and PJ, but he consistently goes over the top.
Aside from that, the movie was pretty good. Yes, it is long. That was probably driven by the decision to do a three movie set, which may not have been wise. The extra time in this film is devoted to character development (good), a surprising amount of generally successful comic byplay (good for the kids especially), and a lot of backstory imported from the rest of the Middle Earth canon.
I have mixed feelings about the latter. I am not a Middle Earth pro by any means, but I've read Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, and for me the loose ends and fragmentary hints of other, older, and lost sagas is part of the charm of the canon. This sense of mystery and slow discovery is especially important in the Hobbit, in which Bilbo is being exposed to a world that is vaster and far more complex than he ever imagined. Movies and books are different creatures, but there is a risk in too much explication short-circuiting the gradual unveiling of mysteries.
This is a POV question: does the White Council really belong in The Hobbit, which is of course Bilbo's own account, written from the perspective of a hobbit who had never ventured beyond the Shire and had not a clue about the wider world. I'm also of two minds about the inclusion of Radagast, who has a very substantial role (and who is played too much for laughs -- the same mistake PJ made with Gimli in LOTR). The unfolding discovery is part of what makes The Hobbit an excellent introduction to the larger canon. PJ may have given away too much, too soon.
But of course, Jackson filmed LOTR first, which gets the narrative sequencing backwards to begin with. Since I already knew the backstory, I enjoyed seeing it on film, but something may be lost for the next generation, who will almost certainly use the films, not the books, as their initial point of entry into Middle Earth.
Yes. You beat me to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.