Who here enjoyed the movie?
 

While the movie took it's share of liberties with the original work, and changed plot elements around and the tone...Did anyone else enjoy it for what it is, a cinematic adaptation?

I went into the movie with a chip on my shoulder, hearing all the early reviews and the RT score and whatnot, and I felt disappointed and felt like it was just going to be a repeat of Indiana Jones 4 (IE a movie I longed to see for a long time only to be let down by)...But I saw it and it was great!

Now, it isn't purely The Hobbit, and like I said, it strays often...But I think if you're familiar with the lore, and if you like the PJ films, you'd love the movie. Even if you totally divorce it from the books, it still makes for--in my mind--a great fantasy film, with a good feel--a much needed cinematic break from the overly realistic, dark, gritty and psychological dramas like the Batman series and the newer James Bond films.

It's simply a wonderful piece of escapist entertainment, and even if it is a poor adaptation of Tolkien, it IMO still makes for a great fantasy film. It reminded me of some of my childhood favorites like Labyrinth, Dragonheart, The 13th Warrior, and some other fantasy films.

I felt this as well but I didn't enjoy it as much as the original trilogy.

I think I would have ended it much more had it stayed two films.

I felt it was too long for a trilogy.

This is what I decided. I enjoyed watching the film, but I don't like it. Ha! :D

My feeling was that we got Peter Jackson unleashed- his self-indulgence on steroids, so that everything that was bad about the original trilogy was worse, and what was good about the first three there wasn't much of. In particular, I found TH to be suffed full of filler and padding, by the same clueless team of writers who gave us "Arwen is dying"- no understanding of what the book was about, but rather 3rd-rate fan-fic.

I enjoyed the movie - enough to see it 5 times in various formats. I always appreciated that the movies were never going to be exactly like the books. It's a different media and a different vision for how the story is presented. I love seeing favorite characters and places come to life, and I think that Peter Jackson has done a fantastic job with his sense for how middle-earth is portrayed. More than anything else he gets the 'feel' right. Hearing the first strains of Howard Shore's music or leafing through my book's title pages, I know I'm escaping to Middle-earth for the next few hours. Both connect me to Tolkien's world, and I'm grateful that I can enjoy that experience without being bogged down by the differences between the two.

Enjoyed it. As for 'taking liberties' has anyone seen World Without End yet? They made complete mincemeat (minus horse ;)) out of Ken Follett's novel, but it was still an excellent piece of TV.

I can never quite understand it when people say that film bring characters and places to life, for me they come to life as I read the books. If I see a film adaptation I think " oh so that is how x sees it" rather than "oh so that is how it is" . So I still haven't seen it ...I am sure it would have the same effect on me as reading Liz Jones has on my sister.

Stories can come to life in many ways. When I read a book, my imaginations builds up the world and characters and I'm the narrator. This is a very subjective thing. Everybody's interpretation will be different. When I watch the movie, Peter Jackson tells me the story, in his POV, but it is close enough to the book to mirror many scenes that I had in my head. Sure, the negative is it's his vision, but the extras compensate. I don'y have a soundtrack in my version ;) . I like sitting back and having the story unfold visually - having the central narrative, but being able to glimpse to the side and under a tree or at the horizon. I love watching the moments I remember from the book and filling in those hazy edges from my imagined Middle-earth.

I suspect I don't respond particularly well to visual stimuli. I do tend to find most film adaptations dissapointing. Noteable exceptions being things like Picnic at Hanging Rock and the age of Innocence. That said most of the things I liked about the LOTR films were costumes and props. And I get the impression there isn't much new on that front but a lot of the things I found annoying. And I am not sure I want my mental Images tainted. But it is very hard to get people to understand why I don't want to see them.

Last week I went to see "An Unexpected Journey" for the second time, and to my own surprise, I quite enjoyed it - but only up to the break! In the second half of the movie after the break, it got worse and worse, so that unfortunately the unfavourable impression had stayed with me afterwards. I had quite forgotten the things I had enjoyed, especially after reading, and mostly agreeing with, all the negative reviews here on the Downs.
Both my sons, and the young friend in whose company I watched the movie the second time, have read the book, but about 10 years ago, so that they remembered the contents only vaguely. They all enjoyed the movie without reservations!

All in all, it was worth watching, but I won't see it a third time. (I went to see FotR 5 times in the cinema!!)

It was just too long for me. And, regardless of how I feel about it being 'true to its source' or not (Not! :D), the film was too internally inconsistent to be great. Good maybe, but so are a lot of things.

I never got the feeling that Bilbo or the Dwarves changed, or grew, or that I cared about any of them.

In the extended edition of Peter Jackson's FotR, you get a liking for Boromir, a character I never much cared for in the Books. PJ humanized him and showed his struggle with the Ring's call. So, at the end of that movie (different from the book), I felt bad when (spoiler alert!) Boromir dies.

Had Thorin or Bilbo died (or had fallen off a cliff to show up later), I wouldn't have cared one wit.

How dare you post a spoiler! You have totally ruined the book and film for me now and also for the hundreds of users of this website! ;)

Damn!! You mean he kills off Boromir? Much better if he got rid of that bum Aragorn instead...

:eek:

Ha, I saw FOTR a staggering 7 times in the theater I loved it so much.

I really wanted to like The Hobbit as much (not 7 times in the theater as much...), but I couldn't stand it. I enjoyed the opening. The chase scene with Radagast, the Goblin King, the Defiler with his gimp arm. They turned me off to the whole experience.

I'm just rereading Fellowship now, and it's striking to what extent Boromir as Tolkien wrote him really is rather a pompous ***.

Making Less of Little
 

I enjoyed the movie when it ended. Not so much before that.

Bit off topic but that is something that comes across in the radio version ..I nearly got lynched by a diehard Boromir fan for this post in Microphones in Middle earth

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...&postcount=155

my follow up comment was : "It just struck me on listening to the tapes, which is what we are talking about that everything Boromir says is either pompous or negative, just what you want in a travelling companion."

I did. Even the parts inserted by PJ, like the White Council meeting, were joy to my eyes and ears.

I very much enjoyed "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey." Like "The Lord of the Rings," it is one of the few films which contain scenes that make me tear up.

I wouldn't agree with many die-hard book fans about the so-called liberties Peter Jackson took for the film version. I am well-versed in esoteric/occult themes in real life, and Jackson nails them in this film as well. That is to say, Tolkien employed many symbolic elements in the narrative and Jackson enlivens and expands them to a postmodern audience; themes which are timeless. The wisdom of the sages throughout antiquity. Gandalf, for myself, captures everything the sages exemplified in the film.

One of the great sayings of Gandalf in the film which epitomizes everything he is about is when he is speaking to Galadriel in Imladris: “Saruman believes that it is only great power that can hold evil in check. That is not what I have found. I have found that it is the small things, every day deeds from ordinary folk, that keeps the darkness at bay. Simple acts of kindness and love."

Gandalf is the great sage who lets everyone be who they are and steps in to show his power when it gets really serious. From Lao Tzu to the Buddha to Mithrandir. What really matters is compassion, and what stimulates a still mind is living with Nature, the simple life.

Anyway, there's more I could say, but, hello! interesting forum group here.

Hello Tidesson, Welcome to the Downs!

I liked the quote from Gandalf that you posted.

Can't say that I enjoyed the movie as much as you did. Tried watching it again while on a thousand-hour plane ride, but found uninteresting the second time around, so rewatched 'The Avengers' and the two Ironman movies instead. To me, it's just not entertaining enough. And as I've never been really excited about the Book, I'm not even interested in watching the movie to 'see what PJ got wrong.'

Completely forgettable.

I'd say I enjoyed the movie for reasons similar to others: I hadn't had high expectations but wanted to spent a bit longer time in Middle Earth :rolleyes: For that purpose it is just ok, though I totally agree that some alterations were unnecessary and some scenes could have been dropped without any harm to the storyline.Noone it seems needed the fight with goblins and that sleigh pursuit before Rivendale, endless running in goblins' town and slicing the Great Goblin as a pack of ham could've been omitted. It also look very silly that Bilbo didn't make any use of his Ring challenging Azog for combat. Did he forgotten what saved his life just little time before?

I wonder as well how they are going to explain the way Gandalf obtained the map from Thrain II. Probably Gandalf will say he had met Thrain on the way to Moria and as everything was going suspiciously wrong, Thrain decided to handle it to Gandalf in order to pass it to Thorin.

I enjoyed Riddles and the White Council scene; I think the latter is quite appropriate in the LOTR prequel, as there appendixes are impossible in a movie (I still regret that Saruman's death did not make its way to the screen - a marvellous drama and so meaningful).

PS. Don't mind Radagast - Crazy Professor simply because in the books he is almost not given. Can we develop a different Radagast who wouldn't have been boring on screen? :D

We just watched the DVD, and not having seen TH in the theatre, I was wondering if anyone had problems with the sound?
My wife and I both thought the music overpowered the dialog through the whole movie. Now, we don't have surround sound, but our stereo system is fairly good and we've never had problems with any other movies [i](with the exception of LOTR, but those DVDs allowed us to change the sound format, where TH didn't), so i was wondering if anyone else watching the DVD had problems hearing the dialog over the music.

This movie, and I suspect the next two coming, are just more nails in the coffin of J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy. I went to an advance screening (for us here in Oz) that required getting dressed up in costume. It was a fun night seeing all the different costumes and the nice photo-shoot and the free drinks and food and all. Yet it was more of a matter of getting through the movie than it was enjoying it. Listening to the chatter going in, Peter Jackson has pretty much succeeded in co-opting Tolkien's works and now in the minds of the idiot masses has been awarded them as his own. My only consolation this time is I haven't spent a cent that will go to the film company or Peter Jackson. I intend to keep it that way.

I hope that Tolkien will survive the films. PJ has at least nullified the cheat of watching the film rather than reading the book as a time saver. And a quiz on the radio reminded me of something encouraging. Paws up if the name Nahum Tate means anything to you. I am assuming that of William Shakespeare means more ... yet Tate was the chap who took it upon himself to 'improve' Shakespeare and make it accessible to the people of the day. I believe that another Warwickshire Lad will prevail.

Many greats in English literature. With remakes of movies, etc. We can anticipate that maybe remakes will be attempted that might be better & more book-accurate, etc.

What about the James Bond films?
 

Though I agree with you to an extent (Of the five friends I have who whave read Tolkien, 3 only read the Hobbit becuase it was short and seemed to have lots of action and Gollum, one read C.O.H and complained there wasn't enough action, modern dialogue or hobbits, whilst the other has read many of the books-but still considers the films better because they are more conventional...*sigh*) it could have been worse-look at the James Bond film-only half are very loosely based on the books, the films have made far more money, with a much wider audience than the books, and if anything they are Bond in most peoples eyes. For all its flaws and issues at least PJ's films were reasonably faifthful to the books-he went to the effort of hiring tolkien artists and scholars to work on the films, look at the garbage Zimmerman and John Boorman were planning and tell me Jackson's films weren't a massive improvement.

Whatever happens with the films, the books still remain HUGELY popular, and will continue to do so long afterwards. Christopher and Adam Tolkien have done all they can to preserve the books, and wil continue to do so.

I'm thankful for the films introducing me to the book, and entertaining millions of people the world over, but I'm equally thankful that there won't be any more.

An interesting comparison. Fleming's books have sold "over a 100 million copies worldwide", if Wiki is to be trusted. It's been years, nay decades, since I read any of them, but I don't recall that they are particularly well written--certainly Bond does not come near the complexity and quality of George Smiley and I at least was never motivated to reread them--an effect quite different from that of reading Tolkien. Fleming referred to his books as "thrillers" but perhaps the best way to distinguish them from Tolkien's works is this comment from Fleming (again from Wiki, with all the attendant cautions).

Not a niggler for sure. Perhaps that is why people are not much offended at what became of Bond and Fleming's spy world in the movies. ;)

Uncannily enough, I am in the midst of re-reading my Fleming-written Bond books for the first time in many years. I have just begun From Russia With Love, going in chronological order.
It may come as no surprise that I quite like the books, preferring them to the films. Bond is more "human" in the books to me, making mistakes and such, and the silly gadgetry is much more subtle. Still, I wouldn't exactly call them realistic. ;)

I read somewhere that works like the Bond books are to men as the Gothic romances are to many women: escapist adventure that makes few demands on the reader. In that way they are quite dissimilar to Tolkien's works, which present the reader not only with characters who have depth and sometimes enigmatic motivations, but with moral and philosophical questions that engage the mind.
Those qualities are difficult to translate to a film, where one is under a time-crunch to hook the viewer and conclude the film as neatly as possible. For Bond, that isn't a big deal. For Gandalf, it's a different ball game.

Perhaps I should give them a lookover (look back?). While I am clearly outside that Bond-loving demographic you mention, I don't read Gothic romances (or any other kind) either. But I am very fond of Conspiracy Fiction, particularly the early John le Carré. Interestingly, I lost interest in his books as he began writing them as movie plotlines. They became far less complex and probing of the characters and far more predictable. ho hum

Roverandom might make a good animated film though, in the right hands.

I'm a bit of a Fleming fan myself. I mean, his work isn't literature for the ages, but like Inziladun, I find that Fleming's Bond is less cartoonish, more human, sometimes quite dark, and usually a fun, quick read. I like Carré too, of course, but it's easy to wonder if there would have been Smiley without Bond. One reads like a reaction to the other. But that's not based on anything other than idle speculation. I was going to say something about how Carré can be like eating your vegetables, but I couldn't think what Fleming would be in that analogy, and anyway I like vegetables. :)

Fleming himself is an interesting character, more than a bit on the Tookish side: a man with a taste for adventure, who doesn't take himself very seriously, has a bit of a mischievous side, not very respectable, a bit cracked.

Have you read that whole how-to essay that you quoted from, Bêth? I enjoy Fleming's thoroughly unpretentious approach, which echoes Stephen King's idea of writing as a blue-collar job, like laying pipe or driving long-haul trucks. Who knows how much of it is apocryphal, but if the stories are true, Fleming built himself a pretty enviable writing life -- Jamaican estate with a private beach, write in the morning, swim in the ocean, take a nap, eat, write a little more, and supposedly he only worked a few months out of every year, at least at the beginning.

As far as questions of legacy and reputation in the long run go, as someone once said, in the long run we're all dead. I'm just glad that there are enough hardcore Tolkien fans around in the here and now to support a discussion site like this one.