Completely fair points. I still just don't think they 'got' this book at all. I'd have thought that the Silmarillion might have suited their approach better. (I did hear though they don't have the rights but could be wrong?)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Completely fair points. I still just don't think they 'got' this book at all. I'd have thought that the Silmarillion might have suited their approach better. (I did hear though they don't have the rights but could be wrong?)
Thumbs up. I didn't like the introduction of the White Orc for example, only reason I see is to create an ongoing thread to connect the two movies (assuming he's going to die next movie). I for one thought it was better than expected, but mostly because I throttled down my expectations and because I like Bilbo and Martin Freeman much, much more than Frodo and Elijah Wood. Radagast (?), too, completely unnecessary imho.
I enjoyed the hobbit. Not as much as reading it or watching The Lord of the rings though. There was just a different "magic" when I put the fellowship of the ring in the first time.
I just finished silver linings and even though its a bit predictable I really liked it.
Recently watched all the scream movies over looking for the part about Texarkana ( the town that dreaded sun down).
Kind of wanting to rent django. Anyone seen it?
I just finished silver linings and even though its a bit predictable I really liked it.
Recently watched all the scream movies over looking for the part about Texarkana ( the town that dreaded sun down).
Kind of wanting to rent django. Anyone seen it?
This LiteraryAnalysis.Net Review of the Hobbit is mostly in line with my feelings- cinematic bloatware which subtracts from the original work. BTW, I loved LOTRs movies.
My perception is that although related (Hobbit being a prequel to LOTRs), the Hobbit had a different feel, more quaint, more humor, more intimate, smaller scale as in the entire Middle Earth was not mobilized. This was not about saving Middle Earth, but about dwarves trying to rescue their ancestral home from a dragon. I really wish another director like Del Toro (who backed out) had introduced a different take, not just LOTR parts 1,2, and 3. And I think it's inexcusable that they turned this small book into 3 movies creating high points functioning as conclusions, where the book had none. Reading the Hobbit, I never imagined the Goblins' underground liar as nothing more than a hole in the ground, not this hugely intricate labyrinth of platforms and elevated walkways. And while I can't really put my finger on it, based on Tolkien's description of them, I pictured Goblins as tall and thin, with long feet that flapped on the ground when they ran. The climax of the first Hobbit movie, was fabricated in the fight between Thorin and the Goblin warlord, who was not even present at this point in the book. There were dwarves trapped in the trees by wolves. The eagles come and save them.
What I picture for goblins is more like this, tall and thin (a WoW troll):
Instead of this:
Last edited:
Is that really a Goblin in Lederhosen? I did not imagine them like that tbh. 
But yeah, the whole rollercoaster goblin lair ride was far too long and quite tedious (especially the action part, hated the funny fatality of Gandalf against the King + cooly one-liner, too. Inexcusable). I liked how they played out the riddle with Gollum, though.
But come think of it: the book really consists of let's say 10-14 different adventures, most of them contain action elements. I personally, wouldn't really know how to deal with it in one film. Ok, most probably there would be a solution (15 artsy short movies anyone?), but it would rather feel rushed or one would have to leave out 4-5 of those parts. So I for one am not that disturbed (in opposition how I thought about it before seeing the actual movie) by the split nto three in general. It's more that they now even add more stuff to make each movie overtime. 3 x 90mins max and be done with it. Or make it two movies. But three times overtime has nothing to do with the hobbit. The content of the book was epic, not the formal aspect.
But yeah, the whole rollercoaster goblin lair ride was far too long and quite tedious (especially the action part, hated the funny fatality of Gandalf against the King + cooly one-liner, too. Inexcusable). I liked how they played out the riddle with Gollum, though.
But come think of it: the book really consists of let's say 10-14 different adventures, most of them contain action elements. I personally, wouldn't really know how to deal with it in one film. Ok, most probably there would be a solution (15 artsy short movies anyone?
), but it would rather feel rushed or one would have to leave out 4-5 of those parts. So I for one am not that disturbed (in opposition how I thought about it before seeing the actual movie) by the split nto three in general. It's more that they now even add more stuff to make each movie overtime. 3 x 90mins max and be done with it. Or make it two movies. But three times overtime has nothing to do with the hobbit. The content of the book was epic, not the formal aspect.
Last edited:
Hobbit Spoilers
No, it's one adventure.
1. Recruit Bilbo.
2. Headed to Lonely Mountain: Get caught by trolls, escape.
3. Visit Rivendell.
4. Caught by goblins, escape, Bilbo finds ring.
5. Trapped by wolves, eagles save.
---------end of Hobbit Movie 1.
6. Meet Beorn (I love the Beorn part of the story.)
7. Caught by big spiders, escape with help of Bilbo.
8. Made prisoners by elves, escape in barrels down the river.
9. Bilbo enters Smaug's lair, Bilbo steals arkenstone. Smaug attacks town, and is killed.
10. Battle of 5 armies.
Last edited:
Hobbit Spoilers
No, it's one adventure.
1. - 5.
---------end of Hobbit Movie 1.
6. - 10.
Well then, let's say episodes. And see, two movies was a brilliant idea of mine.
eh, you should think of increasing font size of hobbit spoilers though! You literally spoiled the whole thing!
Last edited:
Hobbit Spoilers
Well then, let's say episodes. And see, two movies was a brilliant idea of mine.
eh, you should think of increasing font size of hobbit spoilers though! You literally spoiled the whole thing!
Done.... who has not read the Hobbit?
My guess is that the end of Hobbit Movie 2 will come in the vicinity of 8 and 9 such as Bilbo escapes with the arkenstone and the dragon roars with displeasure!!
Hobbit Spoilers
Done.... who has not read the Hobbit?
Ok, I'll end it here and give out massive spoiler alarm: movie2 will end like the book and the third one will present brandnew material as it shows Bilbos way back home!
Remember where you read it first.I thought you meant to entitle your post Hobbit Spoiled?
Agree with all that you two have said. Would too have liked to have seen someone else like Del Toro have a go with an open brief. Perhaps he might have gone much smaller scale, less overwrought visually and more "source" (Anglo-Saxon / Norse / more Wyrd if you will). Get a sense of child wonder and freshness back into it rather than just trying to smack it all into a Lord of the Rings shape with a big Weta workshop hammer!
Agree with all that you two have said. Would too have liked to have seen someone else like Del Toro have a go with an open brief. Perhaps he might have gone much smaller scale, less overwrought visually and more "source" (Anglo-Saxon / Norse / more Wyrd if you will). Get a sense of child wonder and freshness back into it rather than just trying to smack it all into a Lord of the Rings shape with a big Weta workshop hammer!
Ok, I'll end it here and give out massive spoiler alarm: movie2 will end like the book and the third one will present brandnew material as it shows Bilbos way back home!
Then there is no reason to see the 3rd movie. Actually a big battle will be required for the 3rd movie.
That would be the Battle of 5 Armies. How can he out do LOTRs with anything that matters?? I thought you meant to entitle your post Hobbit Spoiled?
Agree with all that you two have said. Would too have liked to have seen someone else like Del Toro have a go with an open brief. Perhaps he might have gone much smaller scale, less overwrought visually and more "source" (Anglo-Saxon / Norse / more Wyrd if you will). Get a sense of child wonder and freshness back into it rather than just trying to smack it all into a Lord of the Rings shape with a big Weta workshop hammer!
Sympatico!
Mulling over if I should see Oblivion Movie 2013 at the theater or wait to rent... it looks good as if you can judge anything by a preview.
Just went to the new Evil Dead. Meh. It lacked the superhero that was Ash in the original "fun" series. When I was a kid I thought it was a cool premise to have someone that could really battle horror movie monsters. And it was Campy and fun.
Currently watching the original, 1963 version of "Lord of the Flies.
So far it is far superior to the 1990 version. Once again, my strong bias toward black and white is an undeniable influence on my assessment of the film.
Almost all, if not all, of the kids are not professional actors. The director, Peter Brooks, worked with a script, just scene descriptions. He would tell the kids what the scene was about, gave them some direction, and then turned them loose in front of the camera. The dialogue was, apparently, all improvised by the kids.
Both films are a bit obvious in their message...that the veneer of civilization is wafer thin, and that we are, inherently, not such a sweet and nifty species...but this version is, imo, superior to the later version.
So far it is far superior to the 1990 version. Once again, my strong bias toward black and white is an undeniable influence on my assessment of the film.
Almost all, if not all, of the kids are not professional actors. The director, Peter Brooks, worked with a script, just scene descriptions. He would tell the kids what the scene was about, gave them some direction, and then turned them loose in front of the camera. The dialogue was, apparently, all improvised by the kids.
Both films are a bit obvious in their message...that the veneer of civilization is wafer thin, and that we are, inherently, not such a sweet and nifty species...but this version is, imo, superior to the later version.
An excellent movie, based on a disturbing but quite stunning book.
Quite a few years ago, I read an interview (must try to find the source) with the director of the movie, who suggested that if adults had not been present that the 'method acting' of the movie might have taken an even more sinister turn. Apparently, it was intimated to the youngster who played 'Piggy' (the wise, intellectual outsider who advised 'Ralph', the original 'heroic leader' of the kids before he was overthrown by the ambitious and focussed 'Jack' and his cherubic choir), that the scene of his murder might be staged 'for real'.
Certainly, when the book was first published it caused a sensation and was incredibly controversial, indeed, something approximating to a profound shock, offering, as it did, an alternative - and very subversive - vision of unsupervised childhood which sort of served to upend the ideal (found in Richmal Compton's books, as well as Enid Blyton's among countless others) that children could run their own lives in an egalitarian and civilised harmony if permitted to do so.
Worse still, was the fact that William Golding had chosen to write about British upper-middle class public school educated children - the sort of children from whom the 'cream of society' tended to be drawn, and indeed, the sort of children who had been afforded every possible advantage offered by their society at that time - and proceeded to show the disintegration of their shipwrecked society in the bleakest of terms, at a time when received wisdom was that such youngsters would instead, choose, to uphold the values with which they had been instilled since early childhood, if such conditions befell them.
As is clear from his book, Golding's view of human nature was quite bleak.
Is that really a Goblin in Lederhosen? I did not imagine them like that tbh.
I forgot to add that this comment had me in stitches.....bravo....
I'm sorry to say this, but I think Golding's pessimistic view of humans removed for the controlling influence of social restriction and inhibitions is pretty accurate. I know that's an awful and misanthropic view of humankind...but it is my viewpoint.
It does not suggest hopelessness...just that removed from the social controls that encourage, support, and reinforce more humane and altruist behavior...deep down, we're a pretty nasty bunch.
That said, with rational thought and the work necessary to control our less admirable impulses, we are capable of humane behavior. Unfortunately, ratiocination is not highly valued, at least here in the States. The "cult" of "feelings are better than thought" and the anti-scientific attitude expressed here is not encouraging.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you; rather, I wished to point out that Golding's book was enormously controversial when it appeared, as it contradicted almost all of the 'positive' view of childhood, - which had been the dominant narrative of books dealing with children since the 19th century. This was the case especially in the classic bildungsroman crossed with the 'school' novel (elements of both appeared as recently as the Harry Potter universe) - both of which - above all, when merged - were a staple of British children's writing since Victorian times.
Having said that, the interview I mentioned earlier had one quibble with the book, and that was the timeframe; apparently, the adults on set seemed to think that the social and moral collapse would have taken place much more rapidly than Golding described if they had departed from the scene.
Of course, I agree entirely re the your remarks on recent tendencies in parts of the US, and on the whole 'feelings are better than thought' and the profoundly disturbing and baleful influence of dubious sources on scientific enquiry and on the sustained attempts to undermine scientific enquiry & method as valid.
That mindset is crossing the Atlantic, unfortunately. Recently, in current affairs and news programmes, I have noticed that by-standers and witnesses/observers are often asked (by the fresh-faced youngster holding the microphone) the question 'What - or how - do you feel?' rather than 'What do you think about this?' Ugh. And, inviting political leaders to emote, rather than think, is a trend I confess I am profoundly disturbed by, and uneasy with. But that, perhaps, may well be a topic for a different thread.....
