The Hobbit

[wayfriend]

Well, I thought it was very good. There are some things a picky person could tear apart, but I have no wish to do so. It satisfies as a pay-off for the first two movies. And - and I think that this is under-appreciated - it managed to have it's titular battle in a way that was both entertaining and not a re-tread of Helm's Deep or Pelennor Fields. I was engaged the whole time, whether it was cannon material or [way] off-cannon. I also quite enjoyed Galadriel and Saruman getting all 'unleashed' on their asses.

[Fist and Faith]

It's been soooo many years since I read it that I don't remember Galadriel, Saruman, and Elrond doing that. Definitely great stuff!

[Zarathustra]

The White Council did drive Sauron out of Dol Guldur, though it wasn't depicted in The Hobbit. I didn't notice anything that was way off-cannon, except the inclusion of Tauriel and the orc subplot, but didn't affect this movie as much as the others. I think we'll see some extended scenes that bring it closer to the book, like the last movie.

[ussusimiel]

Saw the third film today. It was a decent finale to a poorish trilogy of films. Definitely a step up from the overly-long, 'Da'-filled second one.

Oddly, it was, again, the completely new character, Tauriel, that I engaged with most. Yes, the whole Dwarf/Elf love-thing seemed a bit outlandish, but at least I was able to sort of believe in it. I had serious difficulty caring about any of the other characters in the series, maybe because they seemed so far removed from the ones I knew from the book. (I didn't have this problem with the LOTR films, as they remained fairly faithfully drawn from the book.) I was never able to warm to Thorin as his character kept on shifting registers and positions, and thus I was left cold by Bilbo's 'loss' at the end.

I saw it in 3D and I found the start (in Laketown) very off-putting. I've been gaming a little bit recently and the way the characters moved through the town kept on reminding me of a video game. It was as if the greater 'reality' made it less believable. This really detracted from the cinematic experience for me. It was better during the large-scale battles and some of the action scenes (others, like Legolas fighting Bolg on the tower/bridge were like watching a video game). But I was really struck by how completely different the experience is and how non-filmic it is. I am beginning to feel that it is almost a distinctly different thing from film as I have known it.

u.

[Avatar]

I don't watch anything in 3D. Gives me headaches.

--A

[michaelm]

I didn't have this problem with the LOTR films, as they remained fairly faithfully drawn from the book.

Although there were some annoying character differences in LOTR, particuarly Faramir and Theoden who both initially acted completely opposite to their characters in the books.

I think the second of the 3 LOTR movies annoyed me most as it veered so much from the original story and characterizations.

[Zarathustra]

Don't forget Sam's weepy decent down the Stairs of Cirith Ungol after Frodo dismisses him due to Gollum's shenanigans. Also, despite the multiple endings of ROTK, it cut deeply into the end of Tolkien's story. I realize many of these changes can be defended from an adaptation standpoint, but not in terms of comparing them to the Hobbit movie.

The 1st Hobbit was pretty close to the books, closer in fact than Fellowship of the Ring, which most people consider to be closest to the book. I think this is a mistaken impression, especially compared to the Hobbit. Fellowship left out many chapters, compressing the flight from Hobbiton to Bree into about two minutes, skipping Buckland, The Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, the Barrow Downs, etc. It also compressed the time in the Shire, making Gandalf's reappearance (Shadows of the Past) seem relatively short, rather than the years it took. It also changed Arwen's role, writing her into the story when she didn't appear except in the appendix. She might as well have been another Tauriel, for all her resemblance to Tolkien's character.

The 2nd Hobbit was a lot closer in the extended edition. We'll have to wait for the extended cut of the final installment to make a final judgment.

[wayfriend]

I was spoiled this Xmas by getting The Hobbit Extended Edition Trilogy Box Set.

Oddly, there wasn't a lot of fanfare about this set. I had been waiting for it, as I didn't want to own any Hobbit movie until the Box Set was out. Which makes for a long wait. So I was worried for a while that there would not be one. However, after searching and searching, it turned up finally on Amazon, and I sent out my updated Christmas wish list.

It matches nicely with my LOTR blu ray trilogy box set. Same kind of box with the magnetic tab. Same size factor. Even the extra disks are numbered starting from 7, as if they pick up where the LOTR extra disks left off. So glad I waited.

The first extended movie was a real treat. The extra material made the movie very much better, if longer. It leaves you amazed and a bit perpexed at what they left out for the theatrical release. Dwarves raucously bathing in a beautiful elven fountain while in Rivendell! Sweet!

I'm looking forward to the other two movies.

[peter]

Sounds good WF. I think I need to rewatch the series in extended version: I never got the best of it as a piecemeal experience. With a bit of luck Netflix will have them all available soon. Wonder what Jackson will do next?

[wayfriend]

www.aintitcool.com/node/73868

Watch the video.

[peter]

now that would be a thing: I've been saying for ages a full length cinema Dr Who film was way over due!

[wayfriend]

The other extended editions were just as awesome. Nothing that felt like filler at all.

[Cagliostro]

It's been months since this was discussed, but I have to say the second movie was greatly improved with the Extended Edition. The Desolation of Smaug was probably the first Hobbit/LOTR movie I felt particularly let down by. The dull and completely unnecessary dwarf battle with Smaug at the end took so much away from what should have been the crux and the heart of the piece - Bilbo's confrontation with Smaug. I felt it was definitely a stumble, and the fall continued into the third movie with Alfred having a bigger part to try to inject some humor, which didn't amuse me, and overly long battle sequences. I remember in Fellowship of the Ring, I initially was annoyed with the inclusion of Lurtz, the big baddie Uruk-hai that kills Boromir. I remember the first time I saw it, and Aragorn starts fighting with Lurtz, I thought, "oh, this is going to be a long drawn out battle that I'm going to get bored with....oh, wait, he just lopped off his head. Yay!" Sadly, the final movie of the Hobbit is made up of a lot of those overdrawn head to head battles that I was so thankful to Jackson in Fellowship for sidestepping.
What baffles me is when seeing the Extended Edition of the Hobbit movies how much relevant information was saved for the Extended Edition to make room for more filler. Particularly in Desolation of Smaug where it feels like a lot of explanation of what felt relevant to the plot that was missing from the theatrical version.
While there wasn't much to explain in the Extended Edition of The Battle of Five Armies, the additional action pieces like the battle wagon added much better levity than stupid Alfred, and broke up the dull battle sequences much better than anything they included. It's a pity because I really wanted to like these movies as much as I did LOTR. I can't tell if it is because The Hobbit has always had a bit closer spot to my heart than LOTR, or if they botched it. I expect the latter, because through the extras (which I've been really enjoying, but still are watching, and frequently joke that they are better than the movies themselves) have implied that they didn't have very firm plans for several scenes and were floundering a lot more on the set for what to do and shoot.
Oh, and I think Peter Jackson is just directing an episode. I don't think he is filming a Doctor Who movie.

[wayfriend]

C'mon ... you had to laugh at that thing with the ogre and Gandalf's staff on the fritz.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

It's a pity because I really wanted to like these movies as much as I did LOTR.

I actually like the Hobbit films better.

LOTR is great and all. But it's so emotionally draining, so poignant and aching, that it can be overwhelming to watch. Committing to a viewing can become a daunting prospect; a real project. Also, PJ's directorial vision is somewhat burdened by the load of a legacy; by an expectation.

But with Hobbit, you can just grab some popcorn, kick back and enjoy. It still has "weighty" themes, but one which are lurking in background. In the foreground, there's just pure, joie de vivre moviemaking. The joy of a director, unburdened by stress or self-conciousness, reveling in pure cinema.

At least, IMO.

LOTR might very well be "better" in some ways. I can't dispute that. But I can certainly watch Hobbit more frequently and lackadaisically.

[peter]

That's an unusual take on it Wos, but I can see where you are coming from.

[wayfriend]

I would have to agree to a lot of that, too. But I try not to watch any of them too frequently, a couple years between viewings if I can help it. For fear of getting tired of them. So I can't really say I ever thought of watching LOTR as "daunting".

[Frostheart Grueburn]

I have the entire extended set sitting in my shelf, and would opine that no euros were wasted (especially as Azog and Smaug possess such entrancing, sexy voices ). Quite clear improvements over the theatrical releases, even if the plot does feel disjointed and the Gandalf rescue scene in TBoFA still makes me cringe.

PS. Stave churches.
No, it's not a shrine for Stave's potency.