saw the Hobbit tonight
Dec. 21st, 2013 09:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kareinaWhile by far most of the people I know have already seen it, there could be some of you reading who have not and who prefer not to read reactions to specifics before you do. Therefore the rest of this post is behind
I have heard others complain about the parts the film makers added to the story--bits of plot and characters who are simply not mentioned in the book form of The Hobbit. Oddly enough, that part doesn't bother me. It may be added fluff, but it doesn't actually contradict the story as I know and love it.
However, What were they thinking when they got so damned many details so very, very wrong?
Why did they take away one of the best scenes in the book? (where Gandalf introduces Beorn to the Dwarves only one or two at a time, and manages to capture his interest by telling the story with regular interruptions, followed by the delightful bit of good food and good comfort in the safety of his home.) The movie version has Gandalf and the Dwarves breaking and entering and abusing the hospitality of a good man, and I did not appreciate it one bit. The original story segment would have made such a beautiful movie sequence, with naught more than snippets of Gandalf spinning his tail (+/- flashbacks in tiny details to show how far along he was in the narrative), and a glimpses of a steady stream of Dwarves arriving, and the fun of the actor slowly having his interest and attention won over. I feel that letting the Dwarves enjoy their peaceful retreat at that house would have been a far better way to begin the story, and, if the film makers really must pander to the adrenaline junkies in the audience they could have given us glimpses of Beorn patrolling his borders and being certain that the orcs were well driven off, as he did in the book.
Why did they choose to show Bilbo the forest edge and lake from the tree top and let him think he knew where to go? He saw naught but forest in all directions because they were at a low point in a very broad valley.
Why did they let Bilbo get wrapped up in spider web before cutting himself free--that never happened! Why did they not show him taunting and leading away the spiders so that he could rescue the others? Why did they not show the interrupted feast scenes? That would have made for beauty on the screen, and huge disappointment for the hungry Dwarves (why didn't they show that the Dwarves had been wandering long enough to be hungry?. Why did they choose to let all the Dwarves all get captured at once? Thorin was captured first, and didn't know of the others also being caught till Bilbo told him.
I really do not appreciate the way they turned pretty much everyone who knew how to hold their tongue in the book into a blabbermouth just to fill the watcher in on politics. Get a narrator if you need the audience to have facts, it is far better than making people so stupid they spout secrets in public places. Thorin never said all that stuff to the Elven king--his pride kept him silent and imprisoned--there was no deal offered and refused!
And what is all this stuff about them knowing when Durin's day is, and saying loudly and often and publicly that they needed to find the door before then? It is an important part of the story that they DID NOT KNOW exactly when it would fall, and thus had no idea how long they would need to sit on the door step.
I don't like their choices with the barrel scene either--I think it would have been much better to have done it correctly, and shown glimpses of tightly packed Dwarves inside their sealed barrels bobbing along--it isn't difficult to make it look like we are looking inside a closed barrel. Am I the only person who was bored by the painfully long, drawn out battle with the orcs as the Dwarves rode their barrels down the river and the Elves showed off?
Did any see Bilbo actually return the keys to the jailer? That part slipped by just quick enough that I can't tell if they forgot it, or just didn't focus on it.
I am not happy with the major changes of how things went in lake town, either.
Why did they change things so that Bilbo was sent to find the Arkenstone? I think it makes a far better story that he accidentally finds and pockets it before he knows of its existence. To have him know how important it is to Thorin before he first sees it changes everything in the dynamics of the interactions that will follow from here. I feel it is crucial that the decision to pick it up was innocent, and only the decision not to mention it when he later learns why it matters is him choosing to be deceptive.
And why do film makers so enjoy making people drop important things on edges of cliffs, only to have someone unexpectedly rescue the item at the last moment before it goes over the edge? Clumsiness isn't amusing, and I get no pleasure from their attempts to introduce that sort of stress into my day.
Ok, that is more than enough whining for one movie.
What did I like? The scenery was mostly stunning. The Dragon wonderfully convincing. Once in a while they actually followed the real story, and all of those bits I really enjoyed.
I have heard others complain about the parts the film makers added to the story--bits of plot and characters who are simply not mentioned in the book form of The Hobbit. Oddly enough, that part doesn't bother me. It may be added fluff, but it doesn't actually contradict the story as I know and love it.
However, What were they thinking when they got so damned many details so very, very wrong?
Why did they take away one of the best scenes in the book? (where Gandalf introduces Beorn to the Dwarves only one or two at a time, and manages to capture his interest by telling the story with regular interruptions, followed by the delightful bit of good food and good comfort in the safety of his home.) The movie version has Gandalf and the Dwarves breaking and entering and abusing the hospitality of a good man, and I did not appreciate it one bit. The original story segment would have made such a beautiful movie sequence, with naught more than snippets of Gandalf spinning his tail (+/- flashbacks in tiny details to show how far along he was in the narrative), and a glimpses of a steady stream of Dwarves arriving, and the fun of the actor slowly having his interest and attention won over. I feel that letting the Dwarves enjoy their peaceful retreat at that house would have been a far better way to begin the story, and, if the film makers really must pander to the adrenaline junkies in the audience they could have given us glimpses of Beorn patrolling his borders and being certain that the orcs were well driven off, as he did in the book.
Why did they choose to show Bilbo the forest edge and lake from the tree top and let him think he knew where to go? He saw naught but forest in all directions because they were at a low point in a very broad valley.
Why did they let Bilbo get wrapped up in spider web before cutting himself free--that never happened! Why did they not show him taunting and leading away the spiders so that he could rescue the others? Why did they not show the interrupted feast scenes? That would have made for beauty on the screen, and huge disappointment for the hungry Dwarves (why didn't they show that the Dwarves had been wandering long enough to be hungry?. Why did they choose to let all the Dwarves all get captured at once? Thorin was captured first, and didn't know of the others also being caught till Bilbo told him.
I really do not appreciate the way they turned pretty much everyone who knew how to hold their tongue in the book into a blabbermouth just to fill the watcher in on politics. Get a narrator if you need the audience to have facts, it is far better than making people so stupid they spout secrets in public places. Thorin never said all that stuff to the Elven king--his pride kept him silent and imprisoned--there was no deal offered and refused!
And what is all this stuff about them knowing when Durin's day is, and saying loudly and often and publicly that they needed to find the door before then? It is an important part of the story that they DID NOT KNOW exactly when it would fall, and thus had no idea how long they would need to sit on the door step.
I don't like their choices with the barrel scene either--I think it would have been much better to have done it correctly, and shown glimpses of tightly packed Dwarves inside their sealed barrels bobbing along--it isn't difficult to make it look like we are looking inside a closed barrel. Am I the only person who was bored by the painfully long, drawn out battle with the orcs as the Dwarves rode their barrels down the river and the Elves showed off?
Did any see Bilbo actually return the keys to the jailer? That part slipped by just quick enough that I can't tell if they forgot it, or just didn't focus on it.
I am not happy with the major changes of how things went in lake town, either.
Why did they change things so that Bilbo was sent to find the Arkenstone? I think it makes a far better story that he accidentally finds and pockets it before he knows of its existence. To have him know how important it is to Thorin before he first sees it changes everything in the dynamics of the interactions that will follow from here. I feel it is crucial that the decision to pick it up was innocent, and only the decision not to mention it when he later learns why it matters is him choosing to be deceptive.
And why do film makers so enjoy making people drop important things on edges of cliffs, only to have someone unexpectedly rescue the item at the last moment before it goes over the edge? Clumsiness isn't amusing, and I get no pleasure from their attempts to introduce that sort of stress into my day.
Ok, that is more than enough whining for one movie.
What did I like? The scenery was mostly stunning. The Dragon wonderfully convincing. Once in a while they actually followed the real story, and all of those bits I really enjoyed.