The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Trailer
- Thread starter Kramodlog
- Start date
Zombie_Babies
First Post
Meh, I think the book itself was mostly needless padding. Honestly, to me it was like reading a fantasy version of Clancy. Like, if all I can think about what an author has to say when he's describing something is 'Oh my f'n god I don't f'in care' then he's doing something wrong. Tolkein was totes down with the 'more is better' thing when that's really not the case with writing.
Anyhoo, that said I do get where you're coming from. The book wasn't all that long so the decision to go money grab mode an make it a trilogy was, well, awful. I can see how that would rub fans the wrong way. It's sad, really. I mean, I'm obviously no fan but that's still doing a disservice to the work.
Kramodlog
Naked and living in a barrel
I have to agree with ZB. For a children's book, the Hobbit is rather boring. Too long,dry and academic for kids, too childish for grown ups. Tolkien wasn't a mature writer when he wrote it. The Lord of the Ring is another matter. That is a master piece of the fantasy genre.
RangerWickett
Legend
I do hope someone produces the 'Concise Edition' of The Hobbit, that condenses the trilogy into maybe 180 minutes total.
trappedslider
Legend
not that anyone cares but...
The film trilogy primarily covers the events from The Hobbit, but also features various elements derived from or inspired by Unfinished Tales and the Appendices of The Lord of the Rings. Such examples respectively include Gandalf's true motivations for helping the Dwarves retake Erebor from Smaug, and a sub-plot involving the White Council taking action against the Necromancer in Dol Guldur, which is hinted at in the book, but expanded upon in the aforementioned Appendices.
The reason why the film has been split between 3 films is in order to show the events mentioned in the 120 pages of appendices for The Lord of the Rings which give more information on the gap between this trilogy and the next one. (I think I've already stated this)
The film trilogy primarily covers the events from The Hobbit, but also features various elements derived from or inspired by Unfinished Tales and the Appendices of The Lord of the Rings. Such examples respectively include Gandalf's true motivations for helping the Dwarves retake Erebor from Smaug, and a sub-plot involving the White Council taking action against the Necromancer in Dol Guldur, which is hinted at in the book, but expanded upon in the aforementioned Appendices.
The reason why the film has been split between 3 films is in order to show the events mentioned in the 120 pages of appendices for The Lord of the Rings which give more information on the gap between this trilogy and the next one. (I think I've already stated this)
delericho
Legend
Indeed. And that's where they've gone wrong, IMO - they're caught between two stools.
As an adaptation of "The Hobbit", these films fail by being too long, by being too full of padding, by including too many needless cameos of the previous cast, by adding too much material, and by significantly changing the tone. Plus, splitting a single novel into two films (never mind three) should be outlawed as an offense to good taste - it never works well.
As a prequel to "The Lord of the Rings", these films fail because of that pointless subplot with the dwarves and that dragon.
Or, mostly, because Peter Jackson and his team are having to invent too much stuff to flesh out the narrative, and they're just not Tolkien. Plus, prequels suck.
RangerWickett is right - the best thing for these films would be for someone to strip out everything that isn't in "The Hobbit", re-edit what remains, and turn it into a single 3-hour film.
As an adaptation of "The Hobbit", these films fail by being too long, by being too full of padding, by including too many needless cameos of the previous cast, by adding too much material, and by significantly changing the tone. Plus, splitting a single novel into two films (never mind three) should be outlawed as an offense to good taste - it never works well.
As a prequel to "The Lord of the Rings", these films fail because of that pointless subplot with the dwarves and that dragon.
Or, mostly, because Peter Jackson and his team are having to invent too much stuff to flesh out the narrative, and they're just not Tolkien. Plus, prequels suck.RangerWickett is right - the best thing for these films would be for someone to strip out everything that isn't in "The Hobbit", re-edit what remains, and turn it into a single 3-hour film.
trappedslider
Legend
so instead of The Hobbit...it should be a movie about a bunch of guys going to get treasure form a dragon?
Here's a trick: try reading The Hobbit aloud. Instead of treating it as a book for children, think of it as a book meant to be read to children, and the picture changes. The story comes across much differently if you put a human voice to it.
Kramodlog
Naked and living in a barrel
I actually did read it to one of my niece. It quickly became obvious the book was boring and long.
It is an interesting read if you're into fantasy literature "archeology" or if you want to know more about Tolkien's universe, but it is not a good read for those who just want a good book.
It is an interesting read if you're into fantasy literature "archeology" or if you want to know more about Tolkien's universe, but it is not a good read for those who just want a good book.
