The Hobbit – I have seen the film. (no spoilers)

[Hammers]

Did anyone else notice that they have made Dori a bit dainty, almost camp, in this version of the film? I wonder if they intended for him to be a lady dwarf.

[Funghy-Fipps]

Not very impressed with the whole affair, to be honest. I've calmed down somewhat now, but I vented my spleen in a rather hysterical fashion on my blog here. If you read it you'll appreciate that I'm not especially interested in seeing the sequels.

[tnjrp]

Did anyone else notice that they have made Dori a bit dainty, almost camp, in this version of the film? I wonder if they intended for him to be a lady dwarf

Can't say, I was sorta expecting they'd do a gender swap on one them tho. I was also hoping they'd hire Cecily Fay to play the role, tho she wouldn't have been such a pussy I'm sure

Many of the dwarves are more than a little campy. It still works with Bofur (OK so he mostly just has an atrocious accent and a silly hat for camp value) because James Nesbitt gets a chance to also make him an actual character but the likes of Dori and Bombur seem to be there only to act silly and get into pratfalls.

[Doomhippie]

Let's face it: in the novel you can't really distinguish between any of the dwarves: they are all portrait as simpletons, clueless and clumsy. In fact, if Tolkien didn't mention once in a while that there are 13 of them we would just plain forget about them. Or does any of you remember without checking which color Bifur's hat was? There is no character development in any of them and Bombur is in there for comic relief (of course it had to be him falling into the enchanted stream and dwarves grumbling about carrying the fattest of them through the woods). So what did you expect? How can you differentiate between 13 dwarves that are virtually interchangable as characters in a movie? I think they have done a rather great job to help the viewer distinguish between the dwarves.

Yes, they have a tendency to have too little facial hair - but then again Thorin is introduced as a still fairly young dwarf prince - and he and Fili are the eye candy for the ladies. So less beard. Absolutely understandable from a movie makers point of view.

As to the beard style of the other dwarves: in a society where beards are so important there is probably going to be a variety of beard styles in fashion. Just think about hair style of our society. I don't like all of those beards and some are too short for my taste but it's a legitimate way of reading dwarves.

I agree that PJ has a way of going over the top with dramatic pictures. It's still entertaining to me. And remember, this is not the book. It's the film: a completely different medium and an interpretation by somebody who hasn't written the book.  A book which; I have to admit even though I am a complete Tolkien nerd, I found not that great as a teenager and still find rather tedious today. I hated the childish atmosphere of the story and the movie has to balance between this childishness and trying to tie the book into the more grim LotR background to make it fit to those moves without completely losing the Hobbit's lighter tone.

All in all it was an enjoyable movie and even though I didn't like all the changes in the story and found some of the design questionable it is still a great adventure movie with plenty of action.

[joe5mc]

I agree totally, Doomhippie.  Well, not quite totally, I don't find the book tedious at all.  I though the movie had its flaws, but was still a very enjoyable retelling of the tale in a different medium.

[Oldben1]

I just saw the movie this weekend, and I reread the book in the fall.  I am not a Tolkien nut although I have read the quadrilogy a few times.   When I see a film adapted from a book I always give the movie room to breathe.

I really loved certain aspects of this film, even some of the additions like the white council, and others not so much (Radagast).

My major issue was that Jackson seemed to miss out on some of the aspects of pacing and style.  The fight sequences were cartoony and unrealistic.  Some of the characterizations were a miss as well.  I didn't like the characterization of the dwarves.   A little comedy is welcome, but stupidity is just boring.   The Hobbit should be a much quieter film, it's not Return of the King, and that's okay.

This is going to sound crazy but it felt to me like the movie had less heart.


Last but not least why three films?  The story could easily be finished in two.  How many slurpee cups do we need?


Just my opinion.

[Conquistador]

Today is the day I see it.

Getting prepared now.

One funnel
One length of hose
One recepticle for the catching of urine
One hip flask of vodka
One taser (for helping the 7' tall guy with an afro who always seems to sit infront of me decide to sit somewhere else.)

Ok now I am ready for a 3 hour movie with no intermission.

3D or 2D?

Gracias,

Glenn'

[tnjrp]

Let's face it: in the novel you can't really distinguish between any of the dwarves: they are all portrait as simpletons, clueless and clumsy. In fact, if Tolkien didn't mention once in a while that there are 13 of them we would just plain forget about them

I agree completely.  I suppose Tolkien was making some sort of a private joke when he doubled the traditional 7 dwarves into 14 (well one of which was a Hobbit because they apparently couldn't find one more dwarf) and then didn't know how to run with it. The sad thing is that...

How can you differentiate between 13 dwarves that are virtually interchangable as characters in a movie? I think they have done a rather great job to help the viewer distinguish between the dwarves

... the Hobbit movie team couldn't really pull it off in a way that has any real point either -- something like half of them are still excess package. Maybe they'll get something to do in the rest of the trilogy tho but I wouldn't bet on that, given how much time PJ seems to want to devote to overblown action scenes.

[Funghy-Fipps]

I don't really see why all the dwarfs need 'personalities' (or, rather, stupid hairdos). In fact trying to do so does and will compromise the 'flow' of the films. Bring a few to the fore and leave the rest as dressing.

'Do you think they have chips?'

Jesus...

I am now going to shut my trap viz. 'The Hobbit: At World's End'.

[tnjrp]

I don't really see why all the dwarfs need 'personalities' (or, rather, stupid hairdos). In fact trying to do so does and will compromise the 'flow' of the films. Bring a few to the fore and leave the rest as dressin

Sure they could've had a bunch of redshirt dwarf troopers to bulk up the adventurer party. But I don't think that's how they are intended to be in the source material and in the case of good old professor T, you always get hard flak when messing with the source material.

[Conquistador]

Let's face it: in the novel you can't really distinguish between any of the dwarves: they are all portrait as simpletons, clueless and clumsy. <snip>

What book did you read?

Clumsy?  I would like to know where they are represented as clumsy.  Bilbo complains about dwarvish racket but the JRRT points out that normal people would not have noticed their passing.  It's noisier than a hobbit but most everyone is in the book.

Clueless?  Gandalf likes to make everyone look a bit foolish (personality flaw) by surprising them with information only he has acquired. 

Simpletons?  All of them?  Please.

Gracias,

Glenn

[Doomhippie]

What book did you read?

Clumsy?  I would like to know where they are represented as clumsy.  Bilbo complains about dwarvish racket but the JRRT points out that normal people would not have noticed their passing.  It's noisier than a hobbit but most everyone is in the book.

Clueless?  Gandalf likes to make everyone look a bit foolish (personality flaw) by surprising them with information only he has acquired.  

Simpletons?  All of them?  Please.

Well, I might be bit harsh but let me see: a bunch of tough dwarves setting out on a perilious journey through the wild to reclaim their old treasure guarded by a dragon. Only... they forgot their weapons. Thorin has to use a branch from the fire to fight the trolls... Where were their axes?

The troll scene: hm, one dwarf goes to investigate, doesn't return, another single dwarf goes off, doesen't return etc. Even village idiots would have the sense to come in force. In Mirkwood they are tumbling about in the darkness without any strategy to make sure they are all there, there's no trying to hold hands, no signalling except to shout names and run off in whatever direction and getting caught by spiders.

There is no single moment when the dwarves are willing or able to come to a decision on how to proceed with the adventure. I call that clueless. There is absolutely no character development in any of them.

Clumsy as in all dwarves fall on Bilbos doormat (sorry, you can't just push open somebody's door), Bombur falling into the river, they are more a troop of handicapped people in the wood ( I know, spider poison, but of course it had to happen to all the dwarves thus underlining the clumsy aspect). Dwarvish racket in the dragon's lair. Okay, we know that hobbit's are especially good at sneaking but this drastic choice of words (racket) leaves us with a very good idea as to the amount of noise they make (after all, Tolkien doesn't write "occasional sounds of footsteps, muffled breathing etc." but speaks of racket). Even if that is only compared to Bilbo it is the word he uses.

So all in all the dwarves are one continous catastrophe: unprepared, unable to learn and hopelessly lost without either Gnadalf or Bilbo taking care of them. I thought they were presented in a lot more positive way in the movie.

As to the tedious book... well, I exaggerated. It's a sweet little book but honestly not one that really made me want to get into fantasy. Okay, I have to admit I've read the LotR before I read the Hobbit and it's really tough standing up next to that one. And honestly I had my problems taking the book serious with those silly dwarves in it.

I'm not trying to sing a hymn to PJ's movie but I personally find he gives the dwarves even in their rediulous design a lot more dignity than the book does. But that's of course just my opinion.

[Verderer]

You do know it's a story primarily for children? Hence the tone and the antics.

[Johnno]

I saw it yesterday in 3D 48fps. Didn't need to be in 3D but the 48fps was interesting.

I'm a Tolkien purist so I was very nervous. I actually somewhat enjoyed the film.

There were scenes that were fairly accurate and others (Radagast) that were entirely made up but for the purpose of advancing the story somewhat did an ok job. I guess once I have seen this trilogy then I can comment overall on the actual story but currentlythe first third was ok.

I will say that the pursuit through Goblin Town was eeriely similar to the pursuit through Moria, albiet longer.

I was initially appalled by the character design of the dwarves but it has perhaps grown on me and in the chaos of the movie (Goblin Town, running from Wargs etc) the individualized dwarves are easy to pick out. Although beardless dwarves still irk me.

I think this movie will grow on me and the glaring errors/made up scenes will fade as they (mostly) did with the LOTR trilogy.

[Doomhippie]

You do know it's a story primarily for children? Hence the tone and the antics.

Certainly. But the movie is not so there is bound to be a huge discrepancy between book and movie. Anyway, all I'm saying is that the movie was rather entertaining for me and turned out to be better than I feared.