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.
Saw it in 3D yesterday and was prepared to hate it, but actually thoroughly enjoyed it. The length didn’t bother me, as the theater had nice overstuffed recliners.
Well I loved it - it was a little corny at times and almost jumped the shark a few times but the scenery is awesome and special effects excellent. It went too quick for me even though the film is long it mostly kept me interested.
Loved the scenerey, thought the fight scenes were too long and thus pushed the film out too long. That’s especially important for me, because I have a bum left knee and sitting for long periods of time is hard on that knee.
Having read the books years ago when I was young and not being an afficienado, one thing I picked up on was the fact that the dwarves homeless plight seems to be allegorical to the Jews without a home. I know that Tolkein was very religious and this being written in the 30’s seems to me that Zionism at that time was gaining a lot of steam. Is there any truth to what I’m saying. Was the dwarves allegorical to the Jews?
Saw the movie Christmas Eve with my family, thought it was great ... would go see part 2 tonight if it was up.
Thought the scenery was absolutely outstanding.
My wife and I both enjoyed it. Saw i in 3D, hope to see it again in 2D. She thought Gollum stole the show. I read The Hobbit and LOTR many years ago and love that they can now make movies that do them justice.
I have read the Hobbit & The Lord Of The rings yearly since I was 17. (1975) In that time I have worn out at least 4 sets of books.
I liked the movie and agree that they tried to stay true to the book. The visuals were great and I hate having to wait for the next installment.
The “banquet” scene at the meeting of the dwarves could have been cut to no more than a minute or two and the battle scenes could have been cut a bit. Altogether the movie seemed to be played for laughs rather than as a “serious” folk tale
I have read LOTR and Hobbit many times although not as many times as you. My eyes are weaker now and so I have started listening to audio books. Finaly this year they came out with unabridged (non dramatized) versions which are really very good. I say non dramatized because before all they had were abridged versions with cheesy readings by a gaggle of actors. Now it’s one reader who does change his voice a bit but not too much which is sort of like if Tolkien himself were reading it to his children. I love listening to audio books of books I’ve read. I find myself focusing on different aspects. I’m not part way into The Fellowship of the Ring. Mr. Mercat and I will probably go see the Hobbit this weekend.
Why is it that anyone who puts on the ring turns invisible EXCEPT for Sauron?
Haven’t seen it yet. I do often wonder what Tolkien would have thought about the movie versions of his writing, and how they would have turned out if he had been involved in a way similar to Stan Lee was in his own work.
I just love the story, however it is told.
Saw some of it in 2D, left after Radagast’s chase (i had forgotten that it was going to be Dr Who Sylvester McCoy — who I knew from Dr Who conventions — in that outfit!). I enjoyed the (overlong) part in the Shire then lost interest. Recently re-watched the movie Hitchhikers Guide to hear Alan Rickman — didnt realize that the guy who played Arthur Dent in that was Bilbo in this, a very similar role. I first read the Hobbit as a kid in the late 60’s when it became trendy, so am glad PJ even tried to film it.
I seem to have heard that this can cause convulsions in some people.
Sauron was fully evil - he existed in both the shadow world that Bilbo disappears into and in the “real world”.
That’s how I would answer the question, although I admit I have never really thought too much about that before! ;-P
My family saw the Hobbit over the weekend and thought it was great. Every bit as well done as the LOTR. Can’t wait to see the dragon in Part II.
The difference is, our society has become so feminized it cannot fathom violence, even to protect the good and the innocent. As Professor Tolkein's dear friend CS Lewis predicted, we are a society of "men without chests."
Other than minor changes (White Orc got killed before Battle of Moria) and additions (back story from Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion added at the beginning to continuity), I had no argument with the movie. I thought Peter Jackson did a fine job. The Hobbit was every bit as faithful to the book and as entertaining as the first Lord of the Rings movie.
To a certain extent, they HAD to make it a prequel. In The Hobbit, the elves enjoy a lot of silliness, which would be a jarring change to someone who watched LOTR. So would be their tendency to do evil things, or to be greedy, which results in the Elvish King marching an army to attack the dwarves.
OTOH, the cave chase was stupid. It was truly Bilbo Meets Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Unhappily, too many movies have conditioned audiences to spectacular chases. Dwarves running thru tunnels with an occasional arrow shot at them would seem too tame. After all, an occasional arrow wouldn’t even get a wry remark out of James Bond, so why should Gandalf be scared?
It was also wrong to change Bilbo’s character, and have him save Thorin at the burning tree. I think the biggest problem is they decided to make 3 movies. Two would have been plenty, and it would have allowed Bilbo to change at the right pace. He sees heroism, but he doesn’t ever act heroic until he is separated from the dwarves and forced to make decisions on his own. But they didn’t want the entire movie to go by with Bilbo looking meek...
In the end, I felt much like I did with LOTR: it does a good job of creating Middle Earth and making it look real, but it “King Kong”s the story while doing it. There are too many times Jackson wants to wow the audience instead of trusting them to appreciate things over time.
And goodness knows, the Hobbit movies have a LOT of time! They are turning a very good 5 hour movie into a so-so 9 hour movie...
I’ll check it out when the movie is free-
Hollywood doesn’t get a penny from me.
Because the ring WAS Sauron. He poured himself into it. In a sense, the ring was possessed by Sauron. When he had it, he was still fully himself. When someone else tried to use it, then Sauron-in-the-ring would twist and overpower their nature. And as long as the ring existed, part of Sauron was still alive and could recover.
I think they could have showed the sense of humor and fun of the elves more then they did. Bilbo sees it as silliness, but that doesn’t mean it’s all there is to elves. It could be easily portrayed as Bilbo’s perception, not objective reality.
Also, Silvan elves are not High Elves, though their leaders often were. They were very different people culturally. LOTR deals almost exclusively with High Elves, and their leaders at that. There is no particular reason to believe all elves everywhere were so deadly serious all the time.
Agree with the rest of your comment.
” T’was pity stayed his hand”
My family and I saw it and we all liked it. We saw it at the IMAX theater 3D and loved the special effects and scenery of New Zealand. The beginning scene with the dwarves was a bit too long but the 3 hours went by fast and we were not bored at all.
It seems to me that with some careful editing, they could make a PG-13, PG, R, and even NC-17 version of the movie all at once.
Along with the ratings, they could edit each one for time, so for example, the PG-13 version would be short enough so that it would not be agonizing for younger teens to sit through. The longer the movie the more graphic.
The R version would be for theater and DVD, with the NC-17 (or “unrated”) version would only be for Blu-ray.
This could be a huge marketing gimmick. Show the PG-13 version in theater matinees, PG in evening shows, and release the R version in theaters at the same time as the R rated DVD is released, and the NC-17 (”unrated”) version as the “collector’s edition”, on Blu-ray only.
I disagree with your assessment.
With all of the unbelievable trashy crap coming out of Hollywood in recent memory, The Hobbit was at least very well done and followed the book as best I can remember. I have read it several times, along with the LotR trilogy since college in the 60’s, and found it delightfully entertaining. I go to the movies to be entertained, not to be a critic. If I don’t like something, I just shrug and say, “Well, I guess should have saved my money and waited for that one to come out on HBO”.
But to say this movie was “terrible”? This movie was by no means terrible. What movies do you normally see that are so “good” in comparison? Much to do about nothing, in my opinion. It is just a movie after all. And about a fantasy world at that.
Some people aren’t happy with anything in the world. Trust me, I know several. They would find something to complain about this movie and most other things in their lives because they see the world through that prism of the glass is half empty and bemoan how it is going to be completely empty soon. Whoa is me! I see the world through the prism of the glass is half full and am thankful for the advantage of even having some water to drink and how I should count my blessings in life and not focus on all the little things to complain about. Including this movie. I enjoyed it. I wanted it to keep going. I can’t wait for the subsequent parts to be released.
It’s getting close to shark jumping time. Jackson presents a hunky Thoren, and seems one blandishments away from adding Ewoks. Jar-Jar, the Goblin King indeed.
That’s nice. Start a blog and pimp it. I’ll spend my money however I like regardless of your approval.
I agree with you about the Golbin King. I had to rationalize that one a bit. The Hobbit was written as a children's story, early in Tolkein's career and long before LOTR was published. The story got darker as Tolkein developed it. A lighter touch in The Hobbit follows Tolkein's creative arc, but it's jarring if one has seen LOTR first.
I still didn't like the Goblin King, though.
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.