1. Galadriel says:

    I actually think he might have sneaked a few pages from Unfinished Tales too… especially regarding the Istari and the White Council. But maybe that’s just me.

  2. I haven’t read Unfinished Tales or seen the movie, so I’ll take your word for it Galadriel. I’ve been looking forward to seeing the movie and Paul’s review only makes my anticipation greater. It always seems iffy when movie makers take on the assignment to produce a classic book. Look what happened to Narnia. The fact that Peter Jackson did so well with Lord of the Rings certainly gave me hope that he’d pull off The Hobbit, too, but then there’s the idea that it would be two movies, which this year changed to three. So the questions grew.

    Truly, reading what Paul says makes me so excited! I wonder what others who saw it think.

    Becky

    • Becky, definitely see the film. I also recommend seeing it in the standard format. Regardless of one’s views (ha!) on 3D, and whether the high-frame-rate truly does mess with the look of realism (as some critics have said), I think it’s best not to let even the stigma of a different film format interfere with the experience. My wife and I anticipate seeing the new format for ourselves, but only now that we have seen the “regular” film and enjoyed it immensely.

      Most people who fault the adaptation seem to imply the film should have pretended that neither the Lord of the Rings books or film versions exist. I respectfully disagree: there is no way to see the story of The Hobbit without also referring to Tolkien’s greater universe. (More on this in my reply to LadyArin.)

      Speaking of which: no, they couldn’t legally use Unfinished Tales, only The Appendices to The Return of the King, to which Jackson and Co. already have rights.

  3. LadyArin says:

    I loved it. It wasn’t what i would call a good adaption, but it was certainly a good film. 
    [spoilers ahead!]
    The book is clearly written as a children’s story, “genocidal war and cynical realpolitik” aside. How well that would translate to a movie isn’t something i’m going to speculate on, but it certainly wouldn’t translate well as the prelude to The Lord of the Rings films, and i don’t blame Peter Jackson for choosing the route he did. I would have a hard time picturing a director like him doing a comedic children’s adventure movie, anyway.
    I think, on the whole, i would agree with Paul that the film benefits from its deviations. Bilbo’s motive for helping the Dwarves is so hobbit-like: not for honor, or glory, or great deeds, or money, but because they have no home. Thorin’s quest is more relatable than pure greed, and the Dwarves as individuals are more interesting.
    I’m not sold on three movies, i wish Elrond didn’t always look like a semi-jerk, Azog’s expanded role doesn’t seem necessary, and there are numerous bits i wish they’d kept in, but on the whole, i loved it, and i want to see it again. 

    • I loved it. It wasn’t what i would call a good adaption, but it was certainly a good film.

      Sounds like everyone shares the view that it was a good film — except some critics who felt they were enabling their previous fantasy enjoyments by saying it was more-Serious.

      However, the adaptation was a solid one, with some seeming “changes” either:

      1. Drawn in from Tolkien’s own extra-Hobbit material (such as Galadriel and Radagast);
      2. Amplified/enhanced from the book’s own themes (such as Bilbo’s resourcefulness);
      3. Derived from the books’ materials or themes (such as Radagast’s amusing behavior or, dare I say it, the line of Azog’s hatred for the line of Durin).

      The book is clearly written as a children’s story, “genocidal war and cynical realpolitik” aside.

      Yes, but as I noted above, it’s impossible to isolate that original intent from what Tolkien himself later wrote (and also what the filmmakers have already done). Given those limitations, I was impressed by the whimsical, fairy-tale tone of The Hobbit, with just enough other elements to connect it to The Lord of the Rings. They even worked in a certain line about “the game of golf”! Even better: Bilbo repeating a very famous introduction.

      I think, on the whole, i would agree with Paul that the film benefits from its deviations. Bilbo’s motive for helping the Dwarves is so hobbit-like: not for honor, or glory, or great deeds, or money, but because they have no home.

      Agreed. This is an organic “addition,” based not on modern-import notions, but the heart of the book and the nature of Hobbits. This is why I didn’t mind so much Bilbo’s spontaneous, “Tookish” change of mind, rather than being (as in the book) pressured by Gandalf.

      Thorin’s quest is more relatable than pure greed, and the Dwarves as individuals are more interesting.

      Did you notice that some viewers kept saying “the Dwarves were underdeveloped”? Some even said, “the book developed them better”! I’m not sure which book they read. If people complain about the Dwarves’ “extra” nature, they must first raise the complaint against Tolkien. As I’d hoped, the film showed all the Dwarves as delightful, distinct individuals.

      Even in the book Thorin’s and the party’s true motivations were not simply greed. Tolkien drew this out later, in describing why the Dwarves undertook their quest, and especially why Gandalf backed it: to block a possible advance of evil in the North.

      It could be argued that the White Council’s action, along with the Dwarves’ success and the Battle of Five Armies, prevented Sauron from doing even worse things. What they did drove him out of his Dol Guldur fortress and into Mordor, forced to lie dormant until the finding of the Ring finally gave him a chance at reclaiming that ultimate power.

      I’m not sold on three movies, i wish Elrond didn’t always look like a semi-jerk, Azog’s expanded role doesn’t seem necessary, and there are numerous bits i wish they’d kept in, but on the whole, i loved it, and i want to see it again.

      Considering the expanded adaptation — we got to spend 45 whole minutes in The Shire and Bag End! — and the fact that film 1 literally covers a third of the book, I’m sold.

      As for Elrond, he actually looked happier: how he is when all Middle-earth is not at stake.

    • DD says:

      I was wondering how they would turn this into three films, but after seeing it, I can see how and I like the direction they are going. This film is only the first six chapters of the book and I thought they were able to include more material and not worry about pacing as much.
      <i>The Hobbit</i> (the book) did have a different feel than the later LOTR, probably because JRRT did write it for kids (kids lit was apparently quite different back then). However, virtually all of its story is an important prologue for LOTR. So I was pleased the movie brings it more in line to what comes later as far as look and feel go. Still, you have these dwarves going through a lot of trials and coming out unscathed. 
      Mining the appendicies to bring out more backstory for the dwarves was a wise path to take. Two reasons for this: The dwarves are obviously central to this book and their part was largely left out of the LOTR films.  We’ve already learned a lot of the races of men and elves in the first three films (we will be seeing more of them in the rest of Hobbit films, especially 3). We’re also seeing the orcs as having leadership and some semblance of being a race or nation of sorts.
      After the Hobbit is completed, I hope they consider <i>The Children of Hurin</i> to adapt. Hopefully it won’t be another nine years.
       
       

  4. To lack a home is to be restless and alone—a universal experience that the Bible affirms is true and rooted in our spiritual homelessness in this world.

    I love this aspect of the film. It’s what makes Tolkien so timeless — and this aspect of the adaptation respectful of the book. After all, only when Tolkien had learned more about Middle-earth and the reasons for the Dwarves’ quest would he have himself said something like: It’s not really about getting the gold, but recovering an anestral homeland.

    For Christians, the only true home is heaven.

    As many SF readers know, I always like to clarify statements like this.

    Earth will be our home — but only after Christ has resurrected His creation and purged it of all the effects of sin. That will make the New Heavens and New Earth (Isaiah 65; Rev. 21). So in one way, Heaven is our only home, yet in another way, the present Heaven is not our home, at least not until God’s dwelling is with men (Rev. 21:1), and as the final verse of the hymn “This Is My Father’s World” says, “and heaven and earth be one.”

  5. D.M. Dutcher says:

    In the movie, Jackson wisely foregrounds the political motive, turning The Hobbit into a story of national liberation by an aggrieved and stateless people.
    I don’t think this is a good idea. Greed is the entire focus of the Hobbit. Thorin’s greed turns him into a mini-Smaug, willing to bury himself under the mountain rather than give a fair share to those that help him. Gollum’s greed over his precious is what confined him underneath in a dank cave sea, before the ring was expanded on in LOTR. Trying to burgle from the cave trolls causes no end of problems. The irony of the book is that the least greedy person is the professional burglar, Bilbo. Trying to ignore this is going to make the movie ridiculous when it comes to things like the Arkenstone.
    Bilbo’s “I’m helping you to get it back” strikes me as ridiculous. The point of him being there is to do more than that. Once Thorin comes into his own, Bilbo robs him of one of the most prized thing he owns, the Arkenstone, in order to force him to concede. Bilbo is there to save the dwarves from their folly, not be their cheerleader. 
    Going to be an interesting second and third movies, no doubt. Ugh.

What do you think?