The Hobbit: An Extraneous Journey

[William Cloud Hicklin]

In my case, how the heck can I pan a movie I haven't seen? It's not much of an argument to say "I haven't seen it, but I know it stinks."

[Annatar]

Er...

Erebor is now so grandiose a dwarvish kingdom, so ornately gilt and overlaid, that Moria looks like a shabby tin shack in comparison.

Of course - we only see Moria after it's long been deserted and abandoned, and we only see Erebor (in this film) at the zenith of its wealth and grandeur shortly before Smaug shows up. Of course one is going to look prettier than the other.

And Goblin Town? There is a half-hour long movie version of “Chutes and Ladders” underground, with more bridgework than that completed by every dentist in recorded history.

I have a video game of the Hobbit (made in 2003) that looks very much like the Goblin Town of the film. It's not like they made it out of nowhere.

The GoblinKing is larger than a troll (why have Uruk-hai when Sauron could breed an army of pachydermic GoblinKings?)

Because he's immensely old and fat and being so doesn't really make a good soldier for your war?

and the elephantine goiter swinging about its neck is probably due to Jackson’s inherent need for over-the-top accoutrements (like the WitchKing’s ridiculously oversized mace).

Really? I thought it was to show how old and fat he was and to better distinguish him.

The stone giants (primeval Transformers) make an appearance with so much destructive mayhem that one wonders how the Misty Mountains were not renamed the Misty Rubble Quarry.

They appeared in the book, people! What do you think a 'stone giant' is if not a giant made out of stone?

Never accused of subtlety, Jackson hammers the audience with an onslaught of combat scenes and then hits them upside the head with slapstick comedy: belching dwarves, snotty trolls, and psychedelicized wizards addled by mushroom ingestion. The clever nature of the humor imbued in the story with philological care by Tolkien can only be seen in brief snatches in Jackson’s film, before it is buried in tumbling dwarves, collapsing bridges and skewered orcs.

That's what Bilbo Baggins Hates appeared in the book! The trolls appeared in the book! The Great Goblin appeared in the book! How can you say that the (pretty good) comedy was all made up?

Ergo, Jackson, a fan-fiction writer at heart and prone to sanguine bouts of dizzying violence, has decided to completely rewrite The Hobbit in his own image and likeness, relying on scripting culled from back when he was a struggling director spitting out B-grade horror flicks with plenty of camp, buckets of blood and enough gore to fill an abbatoir.

Really? That's all in the film?

Where did my buckets of blood and gore go to? That's what the trailers were all about!

Oh, and how dare Jackson not make his own interpretation of The Hobbit. He should have copied it word by word and not, y'know, lovingly turned single lines into detailed scenes.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Annatar

I have a video game of the Hobbit (made in 2003) that looks very much like the Goblin Town of the film. It's not like they made it out of nowhere.

A video game from 2003, eh? Gosh, it doesn't get much more authentic than that! Morthoron, I think you owe Peter Jackson an apology.

[Annatar]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

A video game from 2003, eh? Gosh, it doesn't get much more authentic than that! Morthoron, I think you owe Peter Jackson an apology.

What I'm saying is that he wasn't the first to portray Goblin Town like that.

Was there even a description of it in the book?

[Boromir88]

I would have been quite disappointed if in making any book-to-film adaptation the director didn't leave his own creative stamp on the story. To not do so, would seem like regurgitation and the person completely unable to use a source material as inspiration and then bring out a new and fresh look. Similar to how Tolkien drew from many different sources, and in adding the ingredients, putting in some of his imagination, was able to create a beautiful and enjoyable story.

Having said this, I still reserve the right to feel the way I do (either positively, negatively, ambivalent) about stuff from Jackson's own creations and inventions. The majority of which didn't work for me, some was too crude and cheap humor which I don't care for...and I think unfortunately, with the first Hobbit film, we saw a lot of regurgitation, not from the book to film, but from Jackson's history as a director, and in particular in directing the LOTR films.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"lovingly turned single lines into detailed scenes"

A practice known as "fan-fiction." Or, alternatively, "pulling stuff out of his arse."

------------

It's one thing to say a director can and ought to put his personal stamp on an adaptation, and quite another to say that a particular effort by a particular director must therefore be good. Most would I think agree that the "personal stamp" of the hack who directed the Mike Meyers 'Cat in the Hat' was abysmally bad. In this case it's the "personal stamp" of a ham-handed and adolescent-minded director with no sense of self-restraint who has never understood the atmosphere or themes of the originals (neither LOTR nor Hobbit).

The result, therefore, is not an expanded or fully-realised Tolkien universe, but rather something akin to, some catastrophe having demolished half the Sistine Chapel, the Vatican hiring Frank Frazetta to paint the new part. Or, perhaps, Mozart's unfinished Requiem 'completed' by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra.

[Annatar]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

"lovingly turned single lines into detailed scenes"

A practice known as "fan-fiction." Or, alternatively, "pulling stuff out of his arse."

------------

It's one thing to say a director can and ought to put his personal stamp on an adaptation, and quite another to say that a particular effort by a particular director must therefore be good. Most would I think agree that the "personal stamp" of the hack who directed the Mike Meyers 'Cat in the Hat' was abysmally bad. In this case it's the "personal stamp" of a ham-handed and adolescent-minded director with no sense of self-restraint who has never understood the atmosphere or themes of the originals (neither LOTR nor Hobbit).

The result, therefore, is not an expanded or fully-realised Tolkien universe, but rather something akin to, some catastrophe having demolished half the Sistine Chapel, the Vatican hiring Frank Frazetta to paint the new part. Or, perhaps, Mozart's unfinished Requiem 'completed' by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra.

God, why must you hate on everything that isn't a 100% accurate rendition of the book? Can't you acknowledge it as a good film without ranting about how Erebor looked too nice or how soul-murderingly awful it was that characters that appeared in the books weren't exactly how you pictured them when the film came around?

I for one felt it was a good, exciting and well-paced film with plenty of humour and a nice whimsical atmosphere about it. But those trivial facts clearly mean nothing compared to the grievous, all-important issue of how 'burrahobbit' was pronounced.

I have my complaints as well - Azog certainly felt a bit too computer-generated to me, for instance - but clearly any attempt to defend what has already been decided as wretchedly abysmal for the crime of not matching your mental pictures is doomed to failure.

[Ruscundil]

Originally Posted by Annatar

Was there even a description of it in the book?

Why not open the book and find out? Failing that, you may want to email Peter Jackson and ask him for his take on this intriguing mystery, to which there is clearly no straightforward answer.

Personally, I suspect, once taken by the goblins from the cave, Bilbo found all to be "deep, deep, dark". I further imagine the "passages there were crossed and tangled in all directions... and the way went down and down, and it was most horribly stuffy." Then, as I picture it, "there came a glimmer of red light before them... [and] the walls echoed... [before] they stumbled into a big cavern... lit by a great red fire in the middle, and by torches along the walls...". I also seem to envisage the place being "full of goblins", though the place-name is, of course, suggestive of such a characteristic.

Honestly, I had no problems with the aesthetics of Jackson's Goblin Town for the purposes of cinema, but I have major issues with the arbitrary and baseless suppression of valid criticism and well-researched or well-informed personal opinion. What's even more frustrating is that you haven't been bothered to get off your backside and collect your own evidence with the resources you should have to hand if you're to publish such strong objections.

Was there a description of Goblin Town in the book? Yes. There can be no doubt about that. Was the description extensive? I don't think so - it's a children's book. Did Jackson heed Tolkien's description? No. Did he ruin the whole film because of it? No. Did other things, that he did indeed pull out of his arse, ruin the film? They certainly damaged it significantly and made me anticipate more eagerly a complete fan-edit in 2014/5. It can be argued that a Tolkien fan, who is by no means a purist, should not leave the cinema having seen The Hobbit thinking these things if the creative team behind the big-budget adaptation are worth their salt.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Annatar

Er...

"Er"? As in "I shouldn't hold the opinions that I do?" or is it you are grasping for straws as you are sinking? Never start a rebuttal with "Er" as it sets a bad tone quite quickly. I am not very polite to begin with, and I may lose my civility altogether by the end of the post.

Originally Posted by Annatar

Of course - we only see Moria after it's long been deserted and abandoned, and we only see Erebor (in this film) at the zenith of its wealth and grandeur shortly before Smaug shows up. Of course one is going to look prettier than the other.

It doesn't matter that Khazad-dum was abandoned. The pyramids at Giza, the Acropolis and Roman Coliseum were all abandoned, but they are still grander structures than what came after. Khazad-dum was the greatest of all dwarven kingdoms, imposing and huge. If you read The Hobbit (and based on your replies, I am uncertain you have), Erebor is a kingdom in exile, like the dwarven mansions in the Iron Hills. There is a sizable treasure room, but that doesn't mean that Midas lived there and gilded the urinals. We have drawings by Tolkien himself that show what the interior and exterior of the Lonely Mountain look like.

Originally Posted by Annatar

I have a video game of the Hobbit (made in 2003) that looks very much like the Goblin Town of the film. It's not like they made it out of nowhere.

If I were researching an adaptation of a Tolkien novel, an out-of-date video game is the first place I'd study. Very canonical, I am sure.

Originally Posted by Annatar

Because he's immensely old and fat and being so doesn't really make a good soldier for your war?

Fat people grow outwards, they do not grow several feet taller. The GoblinKing was larger than a troll by comparison. That, my friend, is either bad research or Jackson going to ridiculous and exaggerated lengths to make monsters. Take your pick.

Originally Posted by Annatar

Really? I thought it was to show how old and fat he was and to better distinguish him.

He was already five feet taller than the rest of the orcs. Do you really think he needed a feedbag around his neck to differentiate him?

Originally Posted by Annatar

They appeared in the book, people! What do you think a 'stone giant' is if not a giant made out of stone?

Are you some kind of Jackson sycophant? His mum perhaps? If you watched the movie, the amount of damage done to the mountain in the brief encounter between the stone giants was near catastrophic. I am surprised the United Nations didn't cite them for damaging that specific ecosystem. A week's worth of such destruction and they'll make molehills out of mountains.

Originally Posted by Annatar

That's what Bilbo Baggins Hates appeared in the book! The trolls appeared in the book! The Great Goblin appeared in the book! How can you say that the (pretty good) comedy was all made up?

Because I have read the book numerous times and can easily differentiate what Tolkien wrote and what Jackson wrote. I don't find Jackson's sophomoric attempts at comedy very funny. In this movie or in the LotR trilogy. But hey, if you think belching, snot and farting are funny, then you obviously are quite subtle.

Originally Posted by Annatar

Really? That's all in the film?

Where did my buckets of blood and gore go to? That's what the trailers were all about!

Have you seen the movie? Have you read the book? Did you count the amount of deaths, decapitations and dismemberments in the movie? Or were you too busy fawning over your Peter Jackson(TM) plush toy?

Originally Posted by Annatar

Oh, and how dare Jackson not make his own interpretation of The Hobbit. He should have copied it word by word and not, y'know, lovingly turned single lines into detailed scenes.

Turning single lines into detailed scenes is what is called fan-fiction. Peter Jackson is not a good fan-fiction writer, he's not even a mediocre fan-fic writer. I know, I've read some very good fan-fiction; unfortunately, Jackson's delves waist-deep into the Mary-Sue category. But instead of pink ponies, he had sled bunnies.

Here's a suggestion: read the book before replying again.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Annatar

They appeared in the book, people! What do you think a 'stone giant' is if not a giant made out of stone?

Glancing at Stone giants - Finally a Credible Source opened my eyes to so much that I hadn't realized before!

• stone giants = giants made of stone
• wood elves = Entings?
• high elves =
• fair elves = highly employed as referees
• Horsemen of the North = thick-coated centaurs?
• half orcs = right, left, top, bottom...?
• mountain trolls = If they were to lie down, would it create a new mountain range?
• nameless things = kind of an oxymoron
• cold drakes = probably should stand closer to 'children of the sun' as not to shiver

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

Glancing at Stone giants - Finally a Credible Source opened my eyes to so much that I hadn't realized before!

• stone giants = giants made of stone
• wood elves = Entings?
• high elves =
• fair elves = highly employed as referees
• Horsemen of the North = thick-coated centaurs?
• half orcs = right, left, top, bottom...?
• mountain trolls = If they were to lie down, would it create a new mountain range?
• nameless things = kind of an oxymoron
• cold drakes = probably should stand closer to 'children of the sun' as not to shiver

So...

... does this mean you can finally tell us what, exactly, a 'Tom Bombadil' is?

hS

[William Cloud Hicklin]

So, if wood-elves are made of wood, that means they weigh the same as a duck... so BURN THEM!

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

So...

... does this mean you can finally tell us what, exactly, a 'Tom Bombadil' is?

hS

Hello Huinesoron!


Two 'well reasoned' theories:

• Captain James T. Kirk
• Eru
• Think that I wrote a thesis about Tom actually being Fatty Bolger, but...

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

So, if wood-elves are made of wood, that means they weigh the same as a duck... so BURN THEM!

Witch...I mean which elves, as surely sea elves would come to their brethren's rescue?

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

Hello Huinesoron!

Two 'well reasoned' theories:

• Captain James T. Kirk
• Eru
• Think that I wrote a thesis about Tom actually being Fatty Bolger, but...

Excellent as those theories are, neither of them make the least mention of bombs ordill (or, indeed, TomToms). Alas, I can only give them a Stone Giant Credibility Rating of 3.7.

hS

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

In my case, how the heck can I pan a movie I haven't seen? It's not much of an argument to say "I haven't seen it, but I know it stinks."

So you went into The Hobbit intending to hate it.