MovieChat Forums > The Hobbit (1977) Discussion > Who else thought this was more faithful ...

Who else thought this was more faithful to the book?


Than Jackson's Hobbit trilogy? now Jackson was faithful to the other 3 books of LOTR.

"If this is torture, chain me to the wall"-Oliver and Company

reply

The animated version was WAY more faithful, and captured the mood of this little humble party of lucky adventurers much better. Jackson's trilogy ramps up the battles so much that you can't believe EVERYONE lives through the first movie. The animated one moves at a nice pace and has more of that Tolkien feel. I'll always love it!

reply

Yeah, even if it's noticeably compressed. I don't dislike Jackson's trilogy but it does feel stretched and padded out compared to the book, and less focused on the title character.

reply

I think the list of who doesn't feel this way would be shorter.

reply

LOL!
Right?
Hey Jackson...that story only needed two 90 minute movies!

reply

I still consider this to be one of the most faithful fantasy adaptions I ever saw. I wasn't that impressed with the Jackson version.

reply

I could not even finish the Jackson version, it was a very big let down

The Rankin Bass version was awesome, faithful to the source material and had one hell of a soundtrack (i had the VHS tape, the novel and the Record and wore them all out)

On a side note, BBC/Netflix are releasing a CGI version of Watership Down this 12/23/18...I'm really looking forward to it!

reply

It's astonishing how faithfully this animated adaptation captures all the important parts of the book in just under 90 minutes. I kept around my worn out VHS copy for years even after purchasing the DVD because they bungled the sound mix on the latter. Some years ago I was able to rip the correctly mixed audio from the VHS and sync it with the DVD's higher quality video to get the best of both worlds.

reply

I rewatched this after seeing the Jackson movies and this is better by far. The pacing and tone are consistent and tell the story succinctly and with a clear goal in mind (children's fantasy film - Bilbo is the protagonist) instead of getting lost down length-padding cul-de-sacs.

The cartoon has several weak spots. The lack of the Arkenstone and Beorn hurts the world of the story a bit, particularly the Arkenstone, which greater forwards Bilbo and Thorin's stories. The design of the wood elves is also deplorable. They look like the California Raisins on cocaine.

But the positives outweigh the negatives. The vocal performances are, on the whole, excellent, and of particular excellence is Brother Theodore as Gollum. His strange creature of the caves I still find to be a match for Serkis' excellent performance, and I kinda prefer Theodore. If he had been using Jackson's script, I think his tone would have been superior.

reply

Brother Theodore never got the praise he deserved. He's the stand out role in this movie.

reply

He crushes it.

reply

In some ways the cartoon followed the book exactly, but I was not pleased with its portrayal of Smaug or the wood elves. Smaug was not supposed to look like a cat, dammit! And who came up with the idea of making the Elves of Mirkwood look like mutants? Otherwise, it was a very good cartoon, and my brother loved it when we were kids.

Peter Jackson's films did a much better job portraying the elves properly, as well as delivering a spectacularly terrifying dragon. Some parts of the narrative, we could have done without, and they really didn't have to stretch it out to three films. In fact, I don't know why they waited until the third film to kill Smaug. They could have had the battle with him end in the second one. But no, they had to have that made-up chase between him and the Company in the old Dwarven halls, and then leave us hanging with the dragon going off to take his revenge on Lake Town, and Bilbo saying "What have we done?"

However, the third film delivered the Battle of Five Armies that the novel and the cartoon both denied us, though I really think it was stretched out a lot.

reply

I didn't mind Smaug's cat-like design. I think it's an original take on dragon looks and it's unique and original.

Smaug is, in my opinion, scarier in this version. The cartoon shows the terror of the dragon, his nigh-indomitable power, and his fury. The sequence you mention, Bilbo and the dwarves fighting Smaug in the Lonely Mountain, he winds up looking like he can't manage fourteen assailants. I'm also not clear why he goes to Lake Town. In the book, he thinks Bilbo is stealing from him on their behalf and he can't quite find him. He chases Bilbo out, smashes the second entrance, and goes off to exact revenge. In the film, there are dwarves come to reclaim his treasure and he leaves them with his hoard. Why?

While there is some good stuff in the battle, I found the whole thing too riddled with CGI (Billy Connelly's character, for instance) and, worse, just incapable of delivering real stakes, a sense of gravity, or anything interesting.

I did really like the pipe smoking scene after the battle, though. (I'm not being facetious, I thought McKellen and Freeman do some amazing work as Bilbo tries to psychologically cope with the aftermath of real warfare.)

reply

This is Tolkien's own drawing of Smaug. I don't think the movie did too bad with the concept art.

https://artasillumination.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/tumblr_meu43tnudb1qd6gqco1_1280.jpeg

reply

I preferred this version

reply

Gotta love the cartoon's depiction of the battle sequence, it's just a bunch of random dots moving around and colliding into each other, LOL

reply