So I read a Youtube comment once and it said that Peter Jackson managed to turn a 1930's children book into a 2010's children film. That nearly blew my mind, because it makes so much sense. All the extra absurd scenes with action, all the nonexistent interactions that he created, the whole thing about extending a short story into three films... I personaly didn't like the first film, and it was the only one I watched. I skiped the second and only caught up by watching short scenes in Youtube, and I speak for myself when I say that this trilogy is deviating a long way from the LOTR series in terms of character behaviour and the way magic works in the world (I'm talking about the whole Gandalf in Dol-Gundur thing). I watched the 1970's cartoon version of it, and their Thorin was much more convincing (and he had an actual beard, so +1 to Rankin & Bass). What I find the weirdest about these movies is that most of the stuff that is actualy in the books are in the extended versions (such as the dwarves trying to negotiate with the goblins), while the films themselves are most of the times consisting of pure filler and sub-plots that were all made up.
I think the biggest problem PJ actually has with this project is the name- if he didn't call it The Hobbit (maybe even There and Back Again, or something like that), it would be more accurate (but would garner less attention). I'm fine with it in general, although there are a few other things I take issue with
I have found the Hobbit films to be enjoyable. They aren't at the level of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but they are fun adventure series. They are at least better than the Star Wars prequels.
Then again, if you'd set the original trilogy as the standard you wouldn't be into much films now would you?
The original trilogy had its fair share of issues so far as lore--film went, but in fairness I can't see a real translation from LotR to film working, and I think what ended up happening was good enough
This is exactly my thought as well. Reading LotR, Tolkien does an excellent job at creating a stunning visual experience for the reader while minimizing actual dialogue. The vast majority of the series is descriptive in nature, and rightly so I believe, as there is no way to better capture the feel of Middle Earth than through such thorough imagery. Dialogue in this case only serves to support the text and carry to story along. The Hobbit is similar, but since it is, first and foremost, a children's book, things needed to be a lot simpler in form. In either case however, a more exact translation of either text into movie format would not only force the films to be significantly longer, but also cause greater confusion among those not familiar with LotR (yes, those people still exist, unfortunately). It helps that PJ's main reference material when he did wish to add/remove something was the appendices from book 3. Therein lies much of the background material that is not necessary to know when reading the books, but provides solid foundations to draw on when making an "abbreviated" video version. I feel that The Hobbit (both parts) stayed as close to the original work as possible while trying to incorporate present day cinematography and visual effects into a book written in the 1930s, something not at all easy to do, especially within the fantasy genre.
Watched the hobbit to see dwarves in action! Regardless, the dwarves in the hobbit seems like underclassed after their exile. They got stepped on, rediculed and prejudiced. I want to see them on their glory days. Hammer it Euan!
