|
Post by charliebrown on Dec 27, 2013 18:31:54 GMT
I went to the cinema with my boys for the Hobbit and we all enjoyed it. I like it better than the 1st, I think because there is a strong female character and inter racial romance! And Legolas is always good to look at
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Dec 27, 2013 18:40:58 GMT
I went with Swimmer, her stepdaughter and younger son, and their courtship units. I thought it was fine, as I fully expect Jackson to be reinterpreting materials to suit his own tastes. This is how mythology is made. My unstepdaughter nattered through much of the film about the many 'wrong' aspects. A purist, she is. Still, I thought the rendering of Smaug wonderous. Very good, very taut writing with a smarmy dragon braggin'. For that scene alone, I loved it. Visually awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Dec 27, 2013 19:20:44 GMT
What in the world is Legolas doing in the Hobbit?!? Looks like I'm going to hate this one as well as the first...
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Dec 27, 2013 22:30:33 GMT
I take it that Legolas was not written in to _The Hobbit_? Given my paltry understanding of the relative lifetimes of elves to that of humans and hobbitses is such that it would seem to be well within credibility of the storyline, sixty years on to the events of the Fellowship. No? I don't remember any nemesis orc, either.
I think that what happened was that Jackson wanted to do justice to the Hobbit story, but found it too long for one film, but too short for three, so he padded a lot...from the _Silmarillion_ source, from my understanding.
Keep in mind that although having read all the tomes but the last, once, I have no vested interest in maintaining some kind of purity in the storyline by Tolkein. He may well have writ something that was not readily transferrable to the big screen, or something which the person with control of the big screen can adapt to their liking...that's mythology, baby. Just check out the New Testament...four separate storylines, and who knows how many reinterps that died (or were murdered, more like) along the way to now.
I liked the 'little man' meets with the mighty dragon...great scene...Archetypal.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Dec 28, 2013 0:44:45 GMT
It's just that the Hobbit is a completely different story compared to the Sil and LotR. The Hobbit was written as a children's story and you can read it separately. By mixing all books together you completely take out the lightness and childmindedness that is only present in the Hobbit and not in the other two. Though LotR builds on the Hobbit, the Hobbit is not as set in allegiances and war. Jackson is dragging that all into his version of the Hobbit though and that's what I hate about it. He's even inventing enemies so he can have the group chased by goblins in a computer game-like animation. It reeks of 'writing it into the story because we want to try the technology' while it should always be the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Dec 28, 2013 0:54:26 GMT
I honestly don't see this childmindedness to which you refer. The original obliviousness of Bilbo doesn't make it a children's story at all...it is a story of how evil comes to dwell amongst even the most innocent, I'd say. The hero is a thief; Smaug is right about that, thief that he is himself. And portents...the ring, for crepe's sake. That's adult matter, not child's play. It is a tale set amidst and astride the worlds before and after and thus, denying the setting to make it some kind of stand-alone child's tale seems to deny its very purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Dec 28, 2013 1:04:16 GMT
It was written as a children's story. The language and imagery is understandable for children. They see it as an adventure. Not every children's book has to be about 100% moral. Besides, Bilbo certainly runs into his fair share of karma for his lies. You may see the matter as adult, but do you really think children will read that much into it? I sincerely doubt it. Also, the tone of the book is just very different, less serious. Bilbo's internal monologue is at times very childish even. He often reacts like a child "you say I can't do it? I'll do it just to prove you're wrong, ladidadida". That aside, even if you can't see it as a children's book, its tone is just very different. Heck, racial differences mean far less here and alliances exist. The Ring hasn't got it's dark aura as it does in LotR. It's just a magic ring, nothing as serious as the thing that could lead to the world's destruction.
Anyway, that's my opinion. I just don't like the purity of this book to be touched in this manner.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Dec 28, 2013 6:40:18 GMT
I knew after watching the first hobbit movie that Smaug is going to be a far cry from the original, so I just see it as an adventure movie with astounding visual effects and action sequences. I agree with Goat that mythology can be retold in many different fashions, and that's the beauty of it. What Peter Jackson did with the Hobbit series has turned them a good prequel to the LOLR movies. I like the depiction of the Elves in this movie because it shows how their selfishness leads to the strengthening of the dark force.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Dec 28, 2013 18:15:13 GMT
I've not seen it yet but looking forward to it. I liked the first, despite the fact that it wasn't entirely what I had expected
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Dec 28, 2013 18:47:54 GMT
I'm planning on seeing it today at some point.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Dec 28, 2013 19:07:11 GMT
*beams*
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Dec 28, 2013 20:25:07 GMT
Boy...with this crowd, there is no need to worry about 'spoilers'. More likely, 'warnings' are in order for the zealous.
So...Legolam was not supposed to be in it. And Azog and the goblin posse weren't in the Hobbit, right? So, what else? It's been near forty years since I read The Hobbit, and I don't intend to read it again.
It also seems quite clear that Bilbo knows Smaug's weakness, even though he may not have yet processed that information aright. I saw it, so it was presented to the audience.
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Dec 29, 2013 0:56:45 GMT
I saw it and liked it.
I think it's true that the original book was not as tightly connected to the LotR, but I had nothing against the 2 stories being more interwoven.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2014 8:33:02 GMT
We liked it as well, although it is a bit strange, that a short book like the Hobbit is made into 3 movies when LOTR was made into three movies.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jan 16, 2014 23:23:08 GMT
I saw it this evening and enjoyed it far more than the first one. And, (as my friend pointed out) no shortage of, er, eye candy for the ladies.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Jan 17, 2014 9:30:33 GMT
One of the dwarves I thought looked alright but being so short is kinda off putting for me. Haven't seen number 2 so can't comment but the elves usually don't do it for me.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jan 17, 2014 11:17:55 GMT
One of the dwarves I thought looked alright but being so short is kinda off putting for me. Heightist! Haven't seen number 2 so can't comment but the elves usually don't do it for me. Racist! You're quite fussy aren't you.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Jan 17, 2014 11:25:09 GMT
I love eye candies for ladies! Dwarf/elf/human flavors all welcome!
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Jan 17, 2014 11:28:37 GMT
One of the dwarves I thought looked alright but being so short is kinda off putting for me. Heightist! Haven't seen number 2 so can't comment but the elves usually don't do it for me. Racist! You're quite fussy aren't you. Yes indeed.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jan 17, 2014 14:11:00 GMT
Well, let's see. There's Kili and Thorin (left and middle): Thranduil: Bard (a human that plays an important role in Hobbit 2): And of Legolas, of course: No need to thank me, ladies
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jan 17, 2014 14:22:36 GMT
I'm so glad it's okay for women to objectify men!
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Jan 17, 2014 14:25:16 GMT
Mmm, mmmm.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jan 17, 2014 14:36:57 GMT
I'm so glad it's okay for women to objectify men! Not objectifying. Just admiring.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jan 17, 2014 15:12:39 GMT
Okay... that'll be my defence in future!
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Jan 18, 2014 0:15:00 GMT
It's not like they have their shirts off.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jan 18, 2014 10:02:09 GMT
No, but I believe Smaug gets desolated!
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Jan 18, 2014 10:09:17 GMT
Talk about a spoiler alert! Who picks a movie title like that?
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jan 18, 2014 10:58:52 GMT
I think they work on the principal that a lot of people know the story already and don't care about those that don't. Personally, I thought it was an awful title for a film, regardless.
It's a bit like when they show trailers with Gandalf in, after he's apparently fallen to his death (which I still think is never adequately explained)!
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Jan 18, 2014 13:16:35 GMT
I always thought it referred to the desolation that Smaug made around him.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jan 18, 2014 17:00:06 GMT
I always thought it referred to the desolation that Smaug made around him. It does.
|
|