ulymsca quddus amiram
Quinton Hebenstreit
But what do you do if you, after having watched and enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies, assumed that The Hobbit movies would be worthwhile as well? What if THEN maybe you told your kids who also watched and enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies that if they read the book (or you read it to them) they could watch The Hobbit? What then?
But The Lord of the Rings is a Big Important Story involving self-sacrifice and the triumph of good over evil and literally
saving the world, while The Hobbit is a fun adventure story about a fish-out-of-water hobbit who goes on a quest with some hapless, scaredy-cat, gold-crazy dwarves to get their treasure back from a dragon. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson, who did such an admirable job on his Lord of the Rings movies, has tried to make The Hobbit into the same sort of movie that those are, and in doing so The Hobbit has lost its heart AND its moral center.
In trying to make The Hobbitmore Big and Important, Peter Jackson has robbed the story of all of its besthappenstance. So many things, good and bad, just happen to Bilbo in TheHobbit book, but in the movie everything is purposeful and the story haslost its feel of providential-ness.
Oh my goodness, The Hobbit was so very violent and way too long. My husband and son are big LOTR fans and I enjoyed the trilogy. But, I could not wait for The Hobbit to end. You could not pay me to go see the remaining 2 movies. Thanks for the honest movie review. Cindy
I had told my 7 year old son I would take him to see the Hobbit when it came out. Luckily, my wife suggested she and I see it first. As soon as Pale Orc and his minions were on screen, and the over the top violent battle scenes, I knew that I couldn't take my son, who still likes watching Thomas the Tank Engine. I've just begun letting him watch the old Star Wars movies, and he hasn't seen the LOTR movies yet. It will be a few years for those, and these new Hobbit films.
I'm about as a big of a Tolkien fan as one can imagine, have been since childhood. His Middle Earth books are in a class by themselves. The LOTR films were good for what they were, but they had very little, if any, of the charm, poetry and beauty that I love in the books.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this all plays out over the next 2 movies, but I can see how at the drawn-out storytelling pace it will fill 2 more long movies: there is so much to cover from the book even after the dragon is confronted. (BTW, I'm looking to see how they actually show the dragon speaking without it seeming completely fake and hokey).
Thanks for the long comment Todd. I did enjoy the LOTR movies, as an adaptation, of course, and in a different way than I enjoyed the books. I almost wish that they would have just let Peter Jackson make a nine episode version of LOTR. Clearly his heart is not in The Hobbit. But, like you, I plan to see the next two. I'm wondering how in the world they will do Beorn's animals walking about on two legs and serving at table. It worked in Up, I guess!
Nice review, Kendra. I especially value your point about the killing. I think in the book up to the rescue by eagles the body count was only three trolls and a few goblins. With so much killing going on, how will they keep the Battle of the Five Armies from being an anti-climax?
I agree Kevin. The problem for a filmmaker, is that The Hobbit is enjoyable to read as much for what doesn't happen to Bilbo as for what does. The episodes with the trolls AND the wargs both end up being mostly a waiting game in the book (and a battle of wits) rather than the bloodfest they are in the movie.
Was perusing your blog, and just had to add my 2 cents to this old post. I will admit that I enjoyed the movie, though there were things that I didn't enjoy (Bilbo finding the ring, etc.) however I wanted to put out there that this was PJ's attempt to make a children's book (albeit a children's book set in Tolkien's complex mythology) into an adult movie.
Instead PJ made a version of The Hobbit that is meant to a prequel to his LOTR (which is why we have the emphasis on the Necromancer, who is Sauron, etc.). I think in the next movie we'll start to see more on how PJ shows us how Sauron and the Ring are already starting to shape the world for their return (the spiders, the massing of the orcs and goblins, etc.)
P.S. In the book Azog is mentioned by Gandalf as the murderer of Thror, though he is killed by Dain (Thorin's Cousin). Azog's son, Bolg, is the one who leads the army of orcs in the Battle of Five Armies in the book.
I'm guessing that, even though Bolg is a casted character in the movies, Azog will replace him as the leader of the final Army which will lead up to a fantastic final battle scene between him and Thorin (and Fili & Kili) since that tension has been building for 3 movies.
I feel like we are in agreement. That feeling that it was a children's book being made into an adult movie is what dissapointed me, and I think it lost its charm in the translation, but I still overall enjoyed it. I have to admit that we STILL haven't seen it as a family, but the kids aren't likely to let that go for much longer. So, I'll get to watch it with fresh eyes.
Oh Kendra, I think you're right on in your estimation that it was a children's book made into an adult movie. It was trying to be an epic when The Hobbit is just a whimsical tale. This is inspiring me to write my own review. I knew I wouldn't like it as soon as the dwarves showed up without their hoods. Daniel and I didn't show the kids (dodged that bullet) but spent the whole movie screaming at our TV, haha.
C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien were close friends that each had an enormous impact on the fantasy genre. And, the huge success The Fellowship of the Ring movie (2001) paved the way for a film adaptation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005). So, it is not surprising that these two amazing works of literature are often compared. And, it is about time we did that on this podcast.
(Since Glumpuddle joked that the comments section should try to convince Rilian that the Narnia books are the best, I'd like to say that this comment isn't to change the mind of any Tolkien fans. I doubt I'd want to do so even if I could. I'm just expressing my opinion.)
I felt like the characters' dialogue sounded the same. (Can anyone tell which is Merry and which is Pippin?) The only character who I thought were memorable were Gollum (I was actually kind of sad when he died), Sam (though I think I mainly like him because he reminds me of Joe Gargery,a character from one of my favorite books, Great Expectations) and maybe Gandalf. The writing style was fine, I suppose. There are individual quotes that I like. But the description didn't really stand out to me as great. I feel like the world of Middle Earth isn't as fun as Narnia because the only fantastical races in it are hobbits, elves and dwarves. (Well, OK, there are a few other things but those are the ones that mostly come into the story.) I feel that a really long book needs characters with interesting personalities, a really good prose style, or an interesting world. All those things tend to be OK at best in The Lord of the Rings.
P.S.
Not to start a fight about the BBC miniseries of The Chronicles of Narnia (I know some fans are sensitive about it) but I really agree with Glumpuddle. I feel like I should like it because it's close to the books which I love. But somehow the notes are there but not the music. Some adaptations are like that. I feel like I should enjoy them because they take so much straight from the source but whether it's because of the actors or the sets or the music, they just bore me.
Come on, people! As quoted by Madeleine L'Engle, comparisons are odious. The Narnia books are for children, while the Lord of the Rings was written for adults. That said, I love them both, but the Lord of the Rings will always have a special place in my heart. It's such a deep, humane, and tragic vision.
This is probably going to start a big fight but I'll say it anyway. I don't understand people, men or women, who feel that there has to be a certain number of characters of their sex in a story for them to relate to it. Men and women both experience hunger, pain, loneliness, boredom, lots of things. We can empathize with people of the opposite sex. If someone wants to write a story where all the characters are women or all the characters are men, that's their privilege. In fact, sometimes when they try to put a few obligatory male characters in a female dominated story or a few obligatory female characters in a male dominated story, it feels pathetic.
Col. Klink, I am not sure if you have listened to BBC Narnia music separately from the series (not just in the background), which I think is essential. Here it is from YouTube with newer recordings from Geiffrey Burgon's CD:
The scripts for the BBC Narnia were great, and they could even be used (with the right permission) if the BBC would ever decide to make another Narnia TV series. However, they would be better if they would include all seven books with at least two or three hours for each one. At least the BBC/Wonderworks got something right about thirty years ago.
I actually never read Tolkien, so I can't really compare it with Narnia or anything. I will say this, though; J.R.R. Tolkien, though he was a very good friend of Lewis, strongly disliked the Narnia stories because he thought they were too great a hodge-podge of different mythical elements (Greek centaurs and fauns alongside Nordic dwarfs/dwarves and giants.) A strange objection, in my view. This big blend of historical myth actually adds to the books' appeal for me. Sorry, J.R.R.
I think Narnia versus LotR is more of personal preference. Both are good stories that are well written and make us better people for having read them. (Let's not forget that C.S. Lewis even dropped references to Middle Earth in his Space Trilogy).
c01484d022