Uh... What happened to the REAL story?

I'll be honest guys, I was SO excited for this movie. I've read all of the Lord of the Rings, including the Silmarillion, multiple times. Okay, I take that back... I only read the Silmarillion once. Heck, I even took a Tolkien class in college!

I think the Lord of the Rings, as presented by Peter Jackson, was great. He missed a few key parts (Frodo leaves on a elven ship at the end? Um, what happened to retaking the Shire from Sarumon!) but overall I think he stuck with the plot of the book for the most part and did a fine job.

But my lord did he butcher the Hobbit. I don't think I need to point out the Hobbit is the shortest book; most of us know that. It is a lighter tale, and I couldn't wait to see what Jackson did with the story. Upon watching, I wasn't just disappointed, I was MAD. How can you take a great, classic tale, written by a deceased man, and change so much? You don't just ADD an arch-nemesis that had nothing to do with The Hobbit (I'm talking Azog). That is sacrilege to Middle Earth if you ask me. On top of that, he spent around HALF of the movie, IMO, just setting up the next movie. THE NEXT MOVIE!?!?! Each of The Lord of the Rings movies encompassed a book, what makes him think the SHORTEST one should be stretched out to three?

In my opinion, his only vision is self-serving, and greedy. He wants to follow up with another epic film-series, which would be fine, except one big problem - HE DIDN'T WRITE THE STORY. I feel that his decisions for this film were all to create another legacy. Hopefully everyone else doesn't fall into this trap.

Like I said, I'm a huge LOTR fan, and will be for life. But I refuse to go watch any of these other movies. Sorry for the rant, and the caps. It's kind of sad that I am this worked up about a fake world, but hopefully some of you can relate. I was legitimately mad when I left the theatres.
Scott Keesey
01-13-2013 09:12 PM

Thread Replies

Please log in to participate in this forum.

Ocram Immorto

Ocram Immorto

Azog was the only problem I had with this film, he was originally killed in the Battle of Moria, am I right? Other than that, Jackson brought in stories from the appendices that took place at the same exact time during the trek to Erebor. So I think Azog should be the only thing you would be pissed about. But hey, opinions are opinions.

Mar 18 - 03:02 PM

Jacob S.

Jacob Stevenson

Azog is basically his son Bolg in the movie. However, I think Azog should have died at the gates of Moria like he did in the book, and then we can have a surprise revelation about Bolg being Azog's son seeking revenge on Thorin.

Mar 17 - 09:08 PM

Andrew S.

Andrew Smith

I wasn't a fan of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. However, your arguments, Scott, aren't all there.
LotR: reclaiming the Shire can't really happen in the film by this time because Saruman is already dead instead of left to rot in his tower. At the end, Frodo does depart with the elves for Valinor - a remarkable invitation.
Using Azog as a nemesis was a great adaptation. It keeps a steady villain throughout the film. Azog was portrayed as a better villain than the monstrous Goblin King buffoon.
Introducing Radagast and the wizard council was also a great idea - it explains why Gandalf disappears during the trecherous journey through Mirkwood - eat nothing, drink nothing, don't leave the path ... seeya on the other side? For viewers who didn't decide to read The Silmarilion, it makes Gandalf's abandonment a little more clear and ties The Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings a bit tighter.
What I did not like?
I did not like Gandalf immediately giving Thorin the key and map at Bilbo's residence. I did not like Bilbo confusing the trolls. I did not like Gandalf finding Sting and giving it to Bilbo. I was not a fan of the storm giants being real. Frequently during the action scenes, I was sadly telling myself "OK, I am going to have to press the X button here if I want to beat this video game level." Bilbo did not escape the goblins - he knocked his head and got lost. Gollum admitted losing the content, but left to retrieve his ring so he could show Bilbo his "birthday present." This tricksy riddle's answer wasn't solved until after Bilbo put on the ring and Gollum deduced that Bilbo always knew the way out, and was only there to rob Gollum of his Precious.
Playing dominos with the trees at the end was about as lame as none of the dwarves suffering a scratch after falling a hundred feet, or Bilbo only having some scraped knuckles after plummeting into a chasm.

Jan 22 - 11:07 AM

Hunter Hampton

Hunter Hampton

The thing about the Scouring of the Shire was explained by Pete saying he found it anti-climatic and yes the Hobbit was different from the book extremely but I thought it had a better story, no offence to J.R.R Tolkien, but if the Hobbit was like the book we would be getting a average children's fantasy film. And yes I am aware that Tolkien aimed for a child's based story. The Hobbit was better off with Jackson's, Walsh's and Boyens treatment.

Jan 18 - 02:24 PM

Beleg72

s long

books don't translate onto film easily, PJ had to make a number of important choices, all in my opinion valid. The Hobbit maybe a short book BUT its written very simply for kids unlike LOTR which is very detailed and for adults. if the Hobbit was written in the same style it would have been nearly as long as the LOTR, as almost as much happens in it. a great example of the short Hobbit text is the final battle - in the book it lasts a few pages. compare that to the battle in LOTR (helms deep for example over 30 pages)It would have been silly to make the Hobbit film(s) in this simple style to match the book, especially after we've already seen the epic LOTR. PJ had to try and match the same sort of style (hard considering the talking trolls called Bert etc) and he did a pretty good job. As for the LOTR being 3 books- its was only published this way due to paper shortage after WW2 and the publishers not being confident over how it would sell. Tolkien always meant it to be thought of as one book.
I thought the hobbit didnt play to long, (2hr 38min of actual film)its not as good as LOTR but the source material isn't. The added thinks for the most part added to the story as we all know that Gandalf disappears before they enter Mirkwood and goes to deal with the threat in Dol Guldur, this has to be seen in the movies as it important, it wasn't in the book as that was only from Bilbos POV, which suited the simple childish style of the book. As for Azog, PJ couldn't win here. Its a simple factthat every film has a main villian(s). In FOTR and Two Towers it was Saruman, but there was also Lurtz (a made up charactor that no one seems to have a problem with) in the FOTR, and imo Azog was the Lurtz of AUJ (and he should have died like Lurtz did)We all know the main villian is Smaug but he won't appear until late in film 2 so AUJ needed a central villian and Azog fits well.

Jan 18 - 02:50 AM

Troy Hill

Troy Hill

I would also like to add that the entire point of the first movie was to establish characters and history for the next move

Jan 17 - 10:14 PM

Troy Hill

Troy Hill

I feel like you haven't read the hobbit,i have never seen a movie follow the book more closely and i loved it, i've read all the LOTR and watched all the movies regular and extended, I also am in a film class and understand what makes fantastic movies. You don't seem to. they added in Azog to make a more closely connected villain for the first movie rather than smaug who is only mentioned in the introduction. Azog also gets you to feel more on the dwarves side as they explain their enormous losses, plus an enormous amount of fantastic and decently important storyline would have found the cutting room floor, so I find the 3 movie split only just for the hobbit which sets up so much important storyline for the LOTR. The visuals, to me, are only an added bonus.

Jan 17 - 09:42 PM

Starbaby

Starbaby Miniverse

There are many Tolkien fans, scholars of his work, and Tolkien family members (who are very familiar with the work, grew up with it, and even assisted with part of the writing) that would and do disagree with you. And a 65% percent rating does not indicate it was a fantastic movie just on its own, regardless what the fanboys are saying.

Jan 17 - 11:15 PM

Sam Steel

Sam Steel

Well you say the Tolkien family are familiar with the work, but just reading a few interviews from Christopher Tolkien reveals that he isn't the best person to judge a movie of the books.

The guy condemed the lotr movies because they had action in (because apparently the war of the ring doesn't involve action) and said they were mindless action flicks to satisfy 15 year olds.

He just sounds like a grumpy old man sitting in the corner complaining at everything, it seems his preffered version of the films would just be an endless reading of the book's poetry with nothing anyone could relate to or get invested in. Being related to the writer doesn't mean anything evidently.

Mar 17 - 03:11 PM

Starbaby

Starbaby Miniverse

When you have little substance in terms of character development and all the layered elements of the plot are flattened, you don't have much to go on except over the top, dumbed-down action, which I'm sure was Christopher Tolkien's point. Action in itself is not a bad thing if done with an intelligent eye (and not in the over-bloated, corny style of a video game). Christopher Tolkien is disappointed that these kinds of things are what Jackson did to his father's stories, and he has a valid view. He was of a similar mind to his father, offered feedback while LotR was being written, and if anyone would know where the films went astray in telling the story his father wanted to tell, he would. And either Christopher Tolkien is a grumpy old man or his critics are butt-hurt fanboys; it's hard to tell which is the case.

Mar 18 - 06:43 AM

Ocram Immorto

Ocram Immorto

The only great thing Chris Tolkien has ever done was the History of Middle Earth and Silmarillion.

Mar 18 - 03:05 PM

Geovani Bennato

Geovani Bennato

Judging the entire piece only by the first act? Dangerous.

Jan 14 - 05:19 AM

Tim de Wit

Tim de Wit

The first act is of paramount importance. Imagine the Two Towers and The Return of the King without the brilliance of Fellowship of the Ring: it wouldn't have been the same. There are plenty of series that are memorable, only because of the excellence of their first acts. An example of this would be The Matrix franchise.

This series has a LOT to make up for, and reports of a possible love story between Tauriel (the invented elf-girl) and Kili (the beardless dwarf) don't make me very hopeful.

Jan 14 - 06:10 AM

Geovani Bennato

Geovani Bennato

You are right. But while the first impression counts a lot, it is not the whole piece.
From what I know, approximately the first six chapters of the book that were used in this first movie, without counting the ideias from the appendices. Everything of these six chapters was there. But none of the enemies were related to the main plot: they were only misfortunes. And that is the causa of so many disliked: they had great expectations on this first chapter, hopping that was a new FotR, but "The Hobbit" is just a "hunt for a treasure" to the Lonely Mountain and there is a dragon, but a wizard takes this event to prevent a newfound evil (something that is not in the book, but you know what happens). Many said that is classic RPG quest. There no have to be urgent, at least in the begining. But I do not say that this movie is perfect or somehow equates to any one of the first trilogy. It's a regular movie, with many exaggerations that could be avoided, but that does not commit the movies to come. It's a great prologue, in my opinion.
Now they entered the Wilderland, history tends to mature and enter the much desired urgency. This also happens in the book, but slowly: there is still Beorn (who I think that will kill Azog) and the spiders of Shelob (which became Ungoliant's in the movie). I confess that the romance between Kili and Tauriel must be something to watch and take care. But I hope that this idea works out. And if it does not work, I think it will not ruin the movie.

Jan 14 - 12:36 PM

Beleg72

s long

Spawn of Ungoliant- all giant spiders are this so Radagasts statement was correct.I agree with Azog dying soon in film 2 (should have died in 1)so Smaug can become the central villian (This was Azogs role in AUJ as it had no main villian) The Kili/ Tauriel thing upsets me and I hope that it doesn't happen (like Arwen at Helms Deep)But I'm worried that PJ will think he needs to conform to the 'every film needs a love story'. If it is done I hope its more admiration (Gimli for Galadriel style) and not full on obvious. As for the film having the 'hint' of Saurons return in Dol Guldur, it was important as it did happen at the same time as the dwarves quest and AUJ set up for film 2 or 3 for Gandalf (with the white council?) to drive Sauron from Dol Guldur. If this doesn't happen Gandalf will hardly be in films 2/3 as he doesn't return until the battle, which will not work well in a movie) My only real issues with the film were to much CGI (orcs especially) and the unrealistic action scenes (stone giants/ Goblin town escape) and the Bunny sleigh.

Jan 18 - 03:05 AM

Geovani Bennato

Geovani Bennato

I agree with you and I have nothing to add, except on the subject of Ungoliant. The spiders of Mirkwood are "grandchildren" of Ungoliant or something and not "direct descendants" of her. I mean, Radagast knew the first origin of them, the first great spider who helped Morgoth in the First Age, but the spiders of Mirkwood and beyond are not from her as this passage explains:

"Far and wide her lesser broods,bastards of the miserable mates, her own offspring, that she slew, spread from glen to glen, from the Ephel Duath to the eastern hills, to Dol Guldur and the fastnesses of Mirkwood. But none could rival her, Shelob the Great, last child of Ungoliant to trouble the unhappy world." (TLoTR - TTT / Chapter 9 - Shelob's Lair)

PS: About Beorn, I commented that Azog could die in his hand because I remember the chapter where the company finds this character and he says he killed or tortured an orc who was on the borders of his land or anything like that. If I'm not mistaken, it uses the skin of the warg where the orc was riding as a carpet.

Jan 18 - 10:32 AM

T. Bateman

T. Bateman

Pretty brave for posting this Scott. It seems that their are two groups on these threads. J.R.R. Tolkien fans who have read the books and the Psycho Peter Jackson Fanboys, who are patrolling these threads, who believe no matter what you have to support this incoherent movie. At this point I am not going to waste my money or time anymore on the Hobbit. I will read the book, which I love to read and I know its just a light hearted children's fairytale at most. Too bad I was hoping for more movies like the Lord of the RIngs, but reading these threads and psycho troll comments. I would recommend to normal people to stay away and not waste their time on this.

Jan 13 - 09:58 PM

Sam Steel

Sam Steel

Of course some of us liked the film AND the book.

Whatever anyone's opinions are, if they think the lotr movies were more true to the book than this o

Jan 14 - 12:20 AM

Sam Steel

Sam Steel

Of course some of us are fans of the book and the movie.

Frankly, whatever people's opinions are, they definatly have a screw loose if they thought the lotr were more faithful to the books than this film was.

Jan 14 - 12:23 AM

Tim de Wit

Tim de Wit

Well... Yes! LOTR was more faithful to the book. There were several changes (some of which I didn't like very much), but none of them changed as much to Middle-Earth lore as the changes in The Hobbit. In LOTR, some things were simply not shown (such as Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire) or were changed (such as Arwen saving Frodo and the elves coming to Helm's Deep instead of fighting their own war in Lorien), but in The Hobbit entire plot points/scenes were completely made up: The Necromancer's presence in Dol Guldur not being known until the timeline of The Hobbit, Radagast finding a Morgul Blade in Dol Guldur, Radagast meeting Thorin & Company in the Trollshaws, Radagast being chased by Warg Riders to save Thorin & Company, the Witch-King being buried in a tomb, Thror invading Moria without a preceding war, Azog's ressurection etcetera.

Please, name me one change in LOTR that was as extensive as these ones made to The Hobbit.

Jan 14 - 02:15 AM

Starbaby

Starbaby Miniverse

They weren't. Not remotely.

Jan 14 - 06:50 AM

Sam Steel

Sam Steel

Are you agreeing or dissagreeing with me?

Jan 14 - 01:08 PM

Starbaby

Starbaby Miniverse

It is what it says. The lotr films were not faithful to the books even remotely. This BS is nothing new for Jackson.

Jan 14 - 05:16 PM

Starbaby

Starbaby Miniverse

It is what is says. The lotr films were not faithful to the books even remotely. This BS is nothing new for Jackson.

Jan 14 - 05:15 PM

Dingbat Charlie

Dingbat Charlie

DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE FAGGOT DIE

Jan 16 - 09:28 PM

Beleg72

s long

you cannot want the Hobbit movies to be a light hearted childrens fairytale AND want more movies like the LOTR as thats chalk and cheese. As a massive Tolkien fan (read everything- including history of Middle-earth series, Children of Hurin and The Silmarillion)I thnk PJ dd a fairly good job with AUJ,the tone was simila to LOTR in alot of it, thugh he hs obviously tried to make it lighter wih someof the action and humour- some of which worked, some didnt.

Jan 18 - 06:35 AM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile