MovieChat Forums > The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) Discussion > Good but almost totally misses the point...

Good but almost totally misses the point of the book.

posted 8 years ago by BrickNash
18 replies | jump to latest

Just finally finished watching all three films and did a nine hour back to back viewing.

Hugely enjoyably but totally unnecessary trilogy. The Hobbit was a simple children's book and that was it's charm but they managed to bloat a lovely little story in to this huge spectacle, half of which never happened. The Hobbit was never meant to be an epic, just an adventure.

Other things like the terrible pantomime make up, handsome dwarves (What?) and absolutely everything being totally over stylised with CGI just brought it down even further.

I did enjoy the ride as it was very well made but it almost totally resembles nothing like the lovely little book I used to read as a child.

One simple 2-3 hour drama would have done beautifully but they pumped it full of steroids and sent it out with an axe in it's hands.

Highlights were the songs and quieter sections in the first film and a brilliant Smaug in the second.

The rest was tacked on trash. Enjoyable trash but trash nonetheless.

[–] broc_2000 8 years ago

Your mention of the songs in the first film as a highlight is a very underrated and overlooked point. I also think the musical themes used in the first film were great and was mystified that the themes (or some closer variant) were not used again in the second and third films.

[–] isabel_pink 8 years ago

I understand your points. The hobbit is fun to read and we can see that Tolkien had a good sense of humour, but it looks like somebody thought that he didn't and it was needed to insert some jokes, like Alfrid's.

[–] Conan-1982 7 years ago

"One simple 2-3 hour drama would have done beautifully "

You have those, they're called "fan-edits" and they are all better than the original mess we got.

The next marathon will be a lot shorter and way more enjoyable if you have one of those.

[–] soneil12 7 years ago

I've got one of those edits that I intend to watch sometime.
I watched the first hobbit movie and thought it was rubbish with all the pointless padding that was given to the story. From what I've heard the other 2 are even worse.
I'm hoping a version that cuts all the pointless additions will make it a better movie more worthy of the book it's based on.

[–] Otaku-sempai 7 years ago

Expanding on the book using Tolkien's additional material from The Lord of the Rings and the Appendices made perfect sense and would have sufficed to change the tone of the story enough to appeal to a general audience. It was when Jackson went off on his own tangents that the movies went off the rails. I didn't mind new characters such as Tauriel, who are sometimes needed to flesh out an adaptation, I just thought that they could have been written better. Tauriel was fine as originally conceived; it was the added romance with Kili that hurt her character the most.

"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella

[–] infracaninophile 7 years ago

Tauriel was fine as originally conceived; it was the added romance with Kili that hurt her character the most

Yes, I would agree with that. I was initially quite looking forward to Tauriel as we were given to understand she would be presented - a strong female character.

Unfortunately, she turned out a stereotypical paperback romance character, depending on men, weepy and indecisive and showing lack of commitment to her soldierly duties. I never re-watched the movie so can't recall the specifics too well but I was very disappointed. She really could have been much better written. I thought the healing scene in particular was just too over the top. Ugh.

And I didn't like that Bilbo's journey got mostly lost in the morass, especially given the excellent performance of Martin Freeman.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GoldenEye 7 years ago

Ooof, nine hours is a lot of Hobbit to sit through. Your feelings seem to echo the opinion of many others about the Hobbit trilogy. The first film was actually really good and also relatively faithful to the book, but by the third film it feels like you're watching a cruel parody of Middle Earth.

I highly recommend you take a look at one of the many fan edits of the Hobbit films. I made one called JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit, and I cut the trilogy down to a single 4-hour long film split by an intermission. It's closer to the spirit of the book and jettisons most of the ridiculous stuff you (and many others) have complained about. There are multiple clips and things you can watch via the link below.

J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit
www.maple-films.com/the-hobbit-fanedit

[–] lookthisway 7 years ago

I enjoyed the fan edits very much.

[–] zinabaggins 7 years ago

Your fan edit is by far my favourite. But still, I can't rewatch that crap again, even with all your amazing changes. There is no soul in this trilogy. Everything has been twisted beyond recognition. This is no Tolkien and will never be.

[–] bn_filmz 7 years ago

I disagree. Peter Jackson and his co-writers actually managed to improve the Hobbit story and make it much more interesting; much more riveting.

The Hobbit book contains some wonderful ideas: the basic story, the characters and the universe. But it also contains a lot of silly, childish stuff (a talking purse, singing elves, Gandalf being a voice imitator ... just to mention a few things), and I think the narrative is too thin and episodic, with new characters coming and going in almost each new chapter.

I love Peter Jackson's changes and additions, because they make The Hobbit fit the style and tone of his own Lord of the Rings films.

[–] broc_2000 7 years ago

"But it also contains a lot of silly, childish stuff (a talking purse, singing elves, Gandalf being a voice imitator ... just to mention a few things),"

But BN, these things Jackson incorporated AREN'T silly and childish?

- Alfred dressed as and imitating the voice of a woman? (at least when Gandalf imitates a voice, it's strategy to help defeat trolls)

- The Dwarves having a burping contest and Ori's super burp?

- Alfred....doing anything?

- Radagast having a bird nest in his hair and talking to animals like they are children?

- Alfred

- Radagast

- Alfred

- Radagast

I don't disagree with the book's narrative being episodic to a degree (that is kinda how books for younger audience tend to go), but I disagree that Jackson's story is more riveting. You are confusing "expansive" with "riveting". Yes, Jackson, expanded on the roles and importance of many characters that appear briefly in the book (or not at all in the book), but that doesn't mean the extra material was riveting (or even mildly interesting). I think what Jackson added was a detriment to the story's quality as Alfred and Radagast in particular brought nothing to the story other than the same silly, childish comic relief you lambast Tolkien's narrative for...

I will always agree with your general point that the movies were entertaining and something I'll watch again...but you are always off the mark as soon as you try to make Jackson seem superior to Tolkien. I think books are a much harder medium than movies, so I will always take the side of an author over a adaptation director any day of the week...

[–] bn_filmz 7 years ago

But BN, these things Jackson incorporated AREN'T silly and childish?

No, I don't think so. The problem with a talking purse is that feels like something that belong in a Harry Potter film - not in a Middle-earth film by Peter Jackson. And the elves singing "tra-la-la-lally, Fa-la-la-lally" feels like something from a musical.

Alfred imitating the voice of a woman feels natural, because Alfred is a jerk; a coward. Gandalf imitating the voice of a troll is ridiculous and feels out of place, since Gandalf is a person of dignity and a wizard who has better ways of solving problems.

And concerning Radagast: He has become a bit odd or eccentric because of his solitude, but you seem to forget that there is another side to him; a more serious side.

You are confusing "expansive" with "riveting". Yes, Jackson, expanded on the roles and importance of many characters that appear briefly in the book (or not at all in the book), but that doesn't mean the extra material was riveting (or even mildly interesting).

I'm not confusing anything at all. To ME the extra material was both interesting and riveting. That's how I experience the Hobbit trilogy.

I think books are a much harder medium than movies, so I will always take the side of an author over a adaptation director any day of the week...

And I think that movies are a much harder medium than books, so I will always take the side of a director over an author any day of the week!

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] broc_2000 7 years ago

Agree to disagree, then. I know I can't lose the "silliness" argument since you are forgetting that the Hobbit is a book meant for a young audience, so all of the examples you give of Tolkien's are MEANT to be "silly" to a certain point. To your side of the discussion: I'd also argue you are downplaying Jackson's examples of silliness with rationales that don't support your argument...so because Radagast has a serious side and Alfred has a jerk side, that somehow makes their childish sides no longer childish? That just doesn't make much sense. If you watch the play Hamlet and in one scene added by an eccentric director, Claudius decides to burp the alphabet, does that mean that burping scene doesn't qualify as childish and silly because the Claudius character and the rest of his actions are all so serious and because he's a jerk?? Labored analogy but do you see where I'm going with that? Maybe? not so much? Eh, all good either way as neither of us will change our minds. The internet is typically a forum for demonstration, not inspiration...

Okay, to YOU, things that were not necessarily riveting were, in fact, riveting. Just a difference in taste which is fine.

Agree to disagree on the medium as well.

[–] Otaku-sempai 7 years ago

And concerning Radagast: He has become a bit odd or eccentric because of his solitude, but you seem to forget that there is another side to him; a more serious side.

Radagast having a more serious side does NOT excuse smoke literally coming out of his ears. It might--barely--be enough to excuse the bunny sled.

"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago

I just watched this for the second and last time. It sucks all the joy out of the actual story of The Hobbit, and replaces it with fighting for the sake of fighting. My goodness! is it boring. It’s an Avengers movie in disguise. That’s not a good thing.