Review: The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey

[Mister Ed]

Don't know why the word "farming" appears in my post. When I go to edit it, it show exactly what I typed, "to be still", but then goes back to "farming" when I finish editing. Odd.

EDIT: Even odder. Apparently b e s t i l l, shows up as farming wherever I type it.

[buriedbybricks]

bestill

[buriedbybricks]

Ha, that's weird. I'll alert the moderators...

Oh, crap.

[dWhisper]

You wanted to say "I'll alert the admins and make them actually do some work"

It was caught up in the word filter for a word that is synonymous with "Friday night date" in certain places in the South. I've made a slight change to it, and "bestill" should show up properly now...

[Oky Wan Kenobi]

In all seriousness though, it was just an example. Though if you think Azog is a small change, that explains a lot since it only adjusts the tone of the climax, the story progression and Thorin's motivations as a character.

I was simply trying to point out that you heap all the praise on the filmmakers for the things they did make up, but blamed the book for the things they didn't.

What I meant is that the change they made to the source material (the fact that he is alive instead of dead) is small. The effect that this change has on the movie is a completely different story. And those effects were positive in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I like the book in all its simpleness just fine. I just don't think it translates into a movie too well, especially one that walks in the footsteps of LotR (no pun intended).

[buriedbybricks]

[Flynn]

Don't get me wrong, I like the book in all its simpleness just fine. I just don't think it translates into a movie too well,\

It already did.

[Oky Wan Kenobi]

Good news Everyone! That's not a pun!

It already did.

But that film wasn't even popular, was it? I for one have never been a Rankin Bass fan. I think it's very debatable whether that movie qualifies as "translated well".

[buriedbybricks]

I film doesn't have to be good to be popular and likewise it doesn't have to popular to be good.

What you're really saying is you wanted an epic blockbuster made from a simple story and you're happy with the result.

Others are not.

[Oky Wan Kenobi]

I film doesn't have to be good to be popular and likewise it doesn't have to popular to be good.

True, but if a popular book gets adapted into an unpopular movie, that means that it didn't translate well to me.

And no, that's not what I'm trying to say. I never wanted it to be turned into a giant blockbuster trilogy, but apparently Jackson did, and considering what he was going for, I think he did a decent job. At the very least, it's an entertaining movie, and it could have been much worse. That's all I'm trying to say.

So, regardless of what we want it to be, it's Peter Jackson's vision of the Hobbit. If that's not what you want to see, don't watch it. I for one try to be open-minded towards a different take on the story.

[buriedbybricks]

I'm open minded, but just not as easy to please I guess.

[Flynn]

But that film wasn't even popular, was it? I for one have never been a Rankin Bass fan. I think it's very debatable whether that movie qualifies as "translated well".

I can't find the ratings/AI figures for it (which would be the best to determine if it was popular), but the script did win a Peabody that year, implying it did something right (and I've read quite a few positive things from various sources, and it's one of the more well-liked R/B specials).


And in terms of how it's paced as a film it works extremely well and captures the spirit of the novel in terms of tone, visual look, and spirit. It objectively works extremely well as an adaptation and is lovely as a telefilm on its own (seriously, the way it condensed a good 20 pages of the book into about 5 minutes is brilliant (just see the link), and something the Jackson films really need to take a page from). Songs are wonderful as well.