The Hobbit

[AdrianF]

Been to see The Hobbit...... what a let down was expecting the story to end where the Lord of the Rings started.
Was disappointed.

Adrian

[JohnOS]

The current Hobitt movie is a trilogy. Part two will be released at the end of this year and the conclusion in 2014.

[alocky]

The movies are based on books Tolkien wrote about 70 years ago, the Hobbit was first and aimed at a younger audience. The three-volume Lord of the Rings Trilogy he subsequently wrote is widely considered to be one of the best bits of 20th Century literature. I think it's sad that most people's exposure is only via Peter Jackson's movie adaptation. I recall watching an interview with the movie scriptwriter who claimed some of her changes had been made to 'fix' Tolkien's errors!
Anyway - read the books.
Cheers,
Andrew.

[BPO]

Way too long and way too humourless for me. Two hours is the absolute max I can take in front of a movie screen these days, and if there's not much humour (or none at all in the case of Tolkein's stuff) I won't even give it two minutes.

[AdrianF]

I was under the impression that The Hobbit was a prequel to Lord of the Rings.

Adrian

[Varangian]

Hmmm, Gimli's and Legolas' relationship throughout the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was a real comic adventure for mine. Gimli's character was written into the trilogy beautifully IMO.

Merry and Pippin smokin weed was also pretty funny I thought. Difficult to write humour into fantasy.

[Varangian]

It is, but the book (or adventure, there and back again) has been broken up into three parts. I would expect the last part to be somewhere near the start of the Fellowship of the Ring (although Bilbo does age a fair bit between the end of the Hobbit and the Start of the Fellowship). Gandalf states at the start of Fellowship that he has not seen Bilbo for many, many years.

[alocky]

Oh, I dunno- ever read any Terry Pratchett? I've only read a few but remember chuckling a lot.
There's always 'bored of the rings'...
Cheers,
Andrew.

[Varangian]

Yes read Pratchett. I guess it's all about context of the times. Humour was very different at Tolkien's time than in Pratchett's. A lot of things were more accessible (and acceptable) to Pratchett than Tolkien. I thought Tolkien gave us plenty in the Lord of the Rings, it's supposed to be a solemn story though no doubt. If you are bored by the Lord of the Rings then you are bored by Lord of the Rings. If you want comedy there are plenty of other options I suppose. There is so much feeling and meaning in Tokien that there does not seem to be any scope for comedy (and in a world like Middle Earth at the time of Lord of the Rings there is not a lot to joke about).

The Lord of the Rings are easily the best thought out of the fantasy novels I have ever read and I have read most, authored a few and been involved in module creation for Castles and Crusades and AD&D (I worked on landscape development for Yrrn: at the crucible of time). I'm pretty defensive when it comes to Tolkien as you can tell. I still haven't seen the movies so couldn't comment on the comic dialogue and whether it works, I'm referring to the books. Clear skies.

[AstralTraveller]

A Tolkien fan who hasn't seen the movies?? Wonders will never cease.

In the books what little humour there is comes from Sam. e.g. after Frodo and Sam accept the quest at the Council of Elrond "A nice mess we've landed in Mr Frodo, and no mistake" (or similar - I don't have the book here). In the movie most of the humour is done by Gimli and it works well to break up the tension and drama - something the movie needs much more than the book.

The book of The Hobbit ends 60 years before LOTR begins, but nothing much happens in that 60 years anyway. Much of the lightness of the book has been lost in the movie and is replaced by crash, bang action, which is a real loss. Overall I was disappointed by the movie, especially the end. I'm trying to remember that I liked much of the beginning and I'll give it at least one more viewing. I had to see The Two Towers a few times before I could come at some of the changes to the plot - especially wrt Faramir.

Tolkien smoked a pipe and made it clear in the prelude to the book that 'pipeweed' was some form of tobacco, but reading it as a teenager in the 70's it was hard not to see it as something else. In the movie they played with that idea in the Isengard scene. Now we have reference to Radagast eating too many mushrooms. Saruman seems the last character to deliver a joke - unless of course we get some slapstick from the Necromancer :D.

[BPO]

Maybe it helps to be a Tolkein fan and reader to appreciate any of it, and I'm neither. But my problem was less the near-complete lack of humour (although that is a major issue to me) and more about the fact that the films are just too darn long. Too long for me, anyway. Not for many millions of others, obviously.

But the thing is, even if I have the time to watch a long movie (and I never do), I don't have the inclination. Unless a film is really funny and interesting, my bum starts to fall asleep around the 90 minute mark, and by the time we're approaching two hours, I just can't wait for it all to end. I realise that's just me, and many others are happy to sit through it forever, but these marathon flicks will never get my ticket money.

[Varangian]

Yes I understand the length of the films was an issue. A friend also interested in fantasy stated emphatically that the end of Fellowship was as long as a movie in itself.

Yes it's true, I haven't seen the movies, I think I am just too intrinsically connected to the books (yes including the much maligned Silmarillion). They got me through a very difficult time in my life as a 12 year old and I created a very strong mental image of everything contained in them. The same friend gave me Fellowship extended addition :lol: about 2 years ago... I'm sure I will get around to it.

[Shark Bait]

Nothing wrong with the Silmarillion. How is your elvish these days? :D

[Varangian]

Atrocious, as is expected from all dwarven folk :lol:

My rune lore is second to none however!

[Shark Bait]

Touche John. Dr Sheldon Cooper would be pleased. :thumbsup:

I am a Tolkien fan as well. Started reading the Hobbit & LOTR when I started high school. Tried to stick with the Silmarillion but gave it away until I had finished school.

For what it's worth, I try to treat the movies as an added bonus to the books. Changes have been made along the way but it would be very difficult to make the screen adaption flow if they stuck to the books layout.

The Hobbit trilogy might be a little too long for some, but it does pick up on a lot of points from the Silmarillion. The opening scenes are brilliant.

[gregbradley]

Weed in the book refers to tobacco not drugs.
Its in the original book which is supposed to be a distant past and another location and thats how they referred to tobacco.
The Hobbit is a prequel to Lord of the Rings (Golumn has the ring and Bilbo gets it off of him). I found The Hobbit movie quite disappointing and way way too long - nearly 3 hours of what was really less than 2 hours of plot. Its stretched thin. As I recall the book
the Hobbit was good but nowhere near as good as Lord of the Rings. It was Tolkien's first creation of that whole Shire Universe so its understandable later books would be better. Still its a worthwhile read and a sensible book to use to cash in on Lord of the Rings' success. How you stretch it into a Trilogy may be tough.

Greg.

[alocky]

Sorry - I wasn't clear. 'Bored of the Rings' is a parody written in the early 60s. Good for a laugh or two, but relatively juvenile at best.
You may be offended - my wife was, as she takes Tolkien Very Seriously.
Cheers,
Andrew.

[Shark Bait]

Soddit :D

[Varangian]

Sounds like a solid citizen your wife.

[seeker372011]

just saw the movie.

LOTR it isnt.

but neither was the book.

I read LOTR in high school, oh some 35 years ago. I reread it a couple of time since well before the movies.

I read the Hobbit for the first time, much later after reading LOTR, in one one afternoon, in my Uni common room

I remember mentioning my reading the Hobbit to a true JRR fan at the time,and saying I rather liked it, and he was sort of horrified.

He thought that the Hobbit was so clearly a children's book as it to place it beyond the pale.

( I must admit that though I purchased the Silmarillion, I never managed to read it to the end, so I am far from a true blue Tolkien fan)

I think having seen the movie, the Hobbit, that it suffers from a lack of clarity of target audience. The first half hour or more appears aimed at children. The rest is more adult themed, except for the Radagast stuff which again seems aimed at the very young. For the true Tolkien fan presumably all is grist to the mill.


All in all I think this movie has done damage to the franchise. Many wont be back.

I will, I suppose, out of loyalty to Middle earth, but if the second movie of this trilogy is weak, my loyalty too, will be tested. My daughter who watched with me has already said she will not go back for the sequels;

My son is ambivalent. Neither have read LOTR or the Hobbit, which is typical of this generation, I suspect...and neither have the many millions who watched and loved LOTR.

don't see any oscars for this one. Maybe if they had tightened it to two movies rather than three..?

[andyc]

Being pernickity, The Lord of the Rings is a sequel to The Hobbit (books). A 'prequel', to me, is like in the Star Wars franchise where the wrote films after the original trilogy, but set before the original trilogy. But that's maybe just me! LOTR is much deeper and more detailed than The Hobbit ever was, and it works better for the films to have done LOTR first. The slightly simpler, more fantastical parts of the Hobbit are probably a bit easier to accept this way around.

As to the film, I really enjoyed it, actually. I went, prepared to be a wee bit disappointed (some ropey reviews), but was enthralled. I guess I just really do like the way the films have captured Middle-Earth! Probably, being a Tolkein fan, I was much less bothered by the slower parts, as I enjoy the finer details of the whole story. Am looking forward to the next two films.

[Terry B]

I read LOTR and the Silmarillion as a teenager and loved them. I re-read LOTR after the movies came out and must admit that I wasn't terribly impressed when reading it again.
Whilst it is good fantasy I found the writing style quite droll and it reads like a travel log rather than enthralling literature.
The movies were well made but did seem to be excuses for big battle scenes. The battles in the books were more of a side issue whilst the quest was occurring.
I remember being very interested with the Silmarillion as a teenager. Maybe I should re-read it as well.
I haven't seen the Hobbit yet but my kids saw it today. My daughter described it as a 3 hour introduction and was not terribly impressed.
I'll wait and see.

Terry

[DJT]

I have read LOTR to both kids as bed time reading and am sure they have never forgiven me for that.

I read The hobbit afterwards for myself and I dont believe for one minute you can get 3 movies out of it. Its a prequel? maybe..but i doubt that was the intent.

The Silmarilliion (excuse spelling) though is a great yarn..in the vein of LOTR. Now thats a good prequel I would like to see..just not necessarily in three parts (is it a sequel or prequel?)

[Varangian]

Yes Tolkien penned the Hobbit for his son Christopher when Christopher was very young. As Christopher aged the story became more complex with regard to LOTR. The Hobbit is essentially a tale for a very young child.

I have not seen the movie, but I struggle to comprehend how you derive 9 hours of movie time from a 200 page book.

[andyc]

There's a decent bit of story about the White Council's monitoring Sauron's return, and that story will probably develop to the driving of the Necromancer out of Mirkwood. Maybe there'll be further events from Middle-Earth that are only hinted at in the book? Certainly the first film was not solely Bilbo's tale.