Hall of Fire Reviews - Post Them Here! [SPOILERS!]

[yovargas]

Considering that I seem to be in the complete minority in finding even the prologue and Bad End stuff mostly dull and uninspired, my odds of having a turn-around opinion seem pretty low. I'll wait till the bluray is out to check it out again. I do think there's a small chance that the odd, distracting effects of the HFR were responsible for me feeling so emotionally disconnected from nearly all of it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yov, I would say that reaction to the prologue has been pretty mixed. Reaction to the Bag End stuff I do think has been largely positive among Tolkien fandom, although not among the critics, and there is a certain segment of Tolkien scholarship that hates everything and anything that Jackson has done in adapting Tolkien, and so they would be with you.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Why a teleporting Galadriel, WHY?

I'm sorry, I must have missed that part. What teleporting Galadriel?

[Primula Baggins]

After her conversation with Gandalf, she vanishes. We don't see it happen on screen (I'm pretty sure), but he looks down and then looks up and she's simply not there.

I don't know. I don't remember thinking she blinked out, just that she moves in mysterious ways.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I thought that was wonderful. I didn't remotely think of that as "teleporting Galadriel", just appropriately mysterious.

I did think that Gandalf was somewhat too deferential to her, but I did not have a big problem with that.

[anthriel]

I'll bet ax is going to say something about U2, here in a minute.

[axordil]

she moves in mysterious ways

I now have U2 in my head. Which isn't as bad as it could be, that song's got a killer bass riff.

[Stranger Wings]

Don't worry, yov, SA will still be doing plenty of grousing! I guarantee it.

That's a wise man right there.

Don't worry, yov. I don't love the film. As I said, I don't think it's a very good movie, and I always wanted enduring classics out of these films, not just "campy action adventures" mixed with melodrama.

So, I still have lots to grouse about. The 2nd time, I saw it with a friend who really liked it the first time. Since I respect this person, I might have been hyper-open to giving the film a chance in a way that I would normally not be.

For example, I convinced myself that I liked PJ's ROTK. Then I watched it alone, at home on DVD, and thought it was mostly unforgivable trash.

So, stay tuned for a rollercoaster from me that will probably end in despair.

However, I will never turn back from my love of the Bag End material. All those linguistic jokes, straight from Tolkien, and the wonderfully evocative dwarf song, calling Bilbo into the wild. It's pure Middle Earth, and I have teared up watching it both times.

[JewelSong]

I think the comments about certain scenes being like video games and interesting. Since I have never played any video games, I really don't know what is meant by the "big boss" scene (or whatever it was!). I don't think any of the movie looks like a video game, mainly because I have never played a video game...well, like V-man, I played Pong. And PacMan. And...well, that's about it!

[Inanna]

I thought that was wonderful. I didn't remotely think of that as "teleporting Galadriel", just appropriately mysterious.

She *vanishes* in THIN AIR. As if she can just move around ME here and there, at will. As if she is not an Elf, she is a... a.... Maiar or something.

And Gandalf acted like an ass in front of her.

GAH. I was so looking forward to the White Council scene.

[Holbytla]

My Mom, who has never read the book and is completely unfamiliar with the story, had no problem figuring out that they were all dwarves.

Your mom is a pretty smart lady. And I wasn't trying to say it was impossible to parse it out; I was saying that there was a really wide disparity in the way the dwarves looked (fact), and in at least one case (not in your mom's case!), that caused confusion. I'll bet mr. anth wasn't the only one confused, at least for a while. Even Inanna got momentarily sidetracked.

So now I believe I have paid enough for one simple observation. I'll shut up now, at least about this.

I, obviously, am familiar with the story. And I was paying attention when all of those "dwarves" fell into Bilbo's hallway. I saw what PJ portrayed and how he attempted to differentiate the "dwarves" and how he attempted to portray that they were all "dwarves". I just didn't buy it.

It would be one thing to set Thorin apart, and to an extent Kili and Fili, but setting them apart and turning them into small versions of Hollywood studs isn't the same thing. I liked Armitage, but wasn't too happy about his elf hatred. It was really more petty than hatred, and while I know all about the dwarf/elf disdain over the eons, it just didn't feel correct. Half of the dwarves didn't feel correct. Anthy is right. They are either hott or buffoonish for the large part.

You're being a really good sport about this, Anthy.

I think I'm going to see it again, but in 2D at a $4 matinee. Sometimes I don't absorb a film (or book) completely at first encounter and need another look to, well, digest it (obl. Goblin King ref.). Something tells me I might have an easier time without all the bells and whistles. Then maybe I'll really know what I think of the story and how it's told. There's a reason manuscripts are traditionally black type on white in a boring font. . . .

The parts I definitely love (Riddles, the dwarf song, Bilbo's departure, some other things) keep surfacing in my mind. The parts that wore me out (I so hear you, Inanna) or frustrated me have receded. I'm curious to see what happens when I see it again knowing what's coming.

I didn't find that it got better with subsequent viewings. I just feel like PJ missed the Tolkien boat again. He was close again too. It's like Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football. He gets it, then insists on infusing the film with bloat, nonsense, and formulaic baloney. He seems to get wrapped up with what will look cool on film, to him, as opposed to trusting the story to carry the film where it needs to go.

I have read these reviews and I appear to hold the singular distinction of being the only one here who actually fell asleep during the movie. Twice.

You aren't alone. The second time around I let my chin hit my chest during the rabbit sled ride of disaster as to rest my eyes and brain for the rest of the show. Three hours in a dark and comfortable theater is far too much of a temptation for someone who would rather nap twice a day, than pretty much anything else.

I liked the Bilbo pitying Gollum scene and I think it was pulled off as well as could be. I just like the written version better.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

She *vanishes* in THIN AIR.

Um, no she doesn't.

[yovargas]

He seems to get wrapped up with what will look cool on film, to him...

Which I didn't mind too much in LOTR cuz a lot of it did look really, really cool. IMO most of the new stuff in AUJ looked kinda dumb, not cool at all.

[axordil]

I am reminded of the scene with the coin in Moby Dick, and possibly Rashomon.

[tinwë]

I think Richard Armitage did a wonderful job portraying a character in a Peter Jackson movie, but I think his portrayal had little to do with The Hobbit, Thorin or Tolkien. I don't know how to put my finger on it except that I recall book Thorin being more haughty but less brooding.

I disagree with this, although my image of Thorin is strongly influenced by the Quest of Erebor, Appendix A, and the overall characterization of dwarves in 'The Silmarillion' (of which I consider Thorin to be the culmination, much as I consider Aragorn to the culmination of the Edain/Numenorians). Armitage's Thorin was very close to "my" Thorin.

I think Richard Armitage did a wonderful job portraying a character in a Peter Jackson movie, but I think his portrayal had little to do with The Hobbit, Thorin or Tolkien. I don't know how to put my finger on it except that I recall book Thorin being more haughty but less brooding.

I agree with this very much. The fan-girl glower is beguiling, I must agree, but it is a bit overdone for the way I pictured Thorin. In my impression from reading the book, he was a proud dwarf, VERY haughty, and stubborn and prideful and selfish, as well. The movie made him seem quite regal, which, in fairness, may have been the way I was supposed to read him way back when. I don't remember having much respect for him in the book, but then I am also remembering the things that come after this movie's storyline ends. He was not too fair with the Lake Town people, if I remember clearly, and was not too wonderful to Bilbo, either. He wanted it all, and did not want to share.

These two comments get at my main issue with this film. And I say “issue” because it is not that I don’t like it per se, I suppose it is at least entertaining, and there are certainly parts that I loved, the ones everyone else liked - the Bag End scenes, Riddles, Martin Freeman’s Bilbo, and even as I said Richard Armitage plays a good character in this movie.

No my issue, my concern all along was that this was never going to be The Hobbit, this was always going to be Peter Jackson’s Hobbit. But you have made me realize, V, that I was wrong about that. This movie does contain a lot of what Tolkein wrote about the subject. Just not so much what he wrote in The Hobbit!

I believed from the beginning, and I mentioned this to Wampus the night we saw the film, that I thought most die-hard Tolkien fans would like this movie more, or at least be more forgiving of it, the the LOTR films. The reason is because I think when we are totally honest with ourselves most of us will admit that the thing we love the most about Tolkien is The Lord Of the Rings. Yes, many of us are in awe of the depth of his creation found in the Silmarillion and the extra-canonical material in the HOME volumes. And many of us have fond sentiments towards The Hobbit. But in the end it is always the original trilogy that brings us back.

And that is why so many of us were so critical of the changes made in the LOTR films. The story is not just dear to us, the words themselves are important to us in a way that The Hobbit is not. How often has it been said that The Hobbit is not written in the same tone as the LOTR? It doesn’t have the same depth, the same grandeur, the same gravitas as LOTR. I was reading in another thread here about Tolkien’s abandoned attempt at re-writing The Hobbit to match the tone of LOTR and noticed that several posters mentioned they would have loved to read such a version of the story. Heck, I would have loved it too! I have read the Quest of Erebor, and the Appendices and the Silmarillion many times and loved all of them.

But they are not The Hobbit. I have always believed that even though The Hobbit and LOTR share some characters and vaguely take place in the same world, the differences between them separate them in a way that cannot be resolved without destroying the book as it was originally written. And I think that would be a shame because I really think The Hobbit is a fine book just the way it is. It is, as Jewel said, a simple story simply told. And while the HOME and the Appendices and The Silmarillion provide a wonderful glimpse of the back-story for the LOTR, they do not, for me at least, do anything to inform the story of The Hobbit.

For me, when I try to relate that back-story information to The Hobbit I find that it transforms the story in a way that I am not entirely comfortable with. It is the exact same thing as what happens with Myths Transformed in Morgoth’s Ring. The attempt to remake the story in a different mold changes it in a very unsatisfying way for me. Again, don’t get me wrong, I like the back-story info as it relates to the LOTR, but when I read The Hobbit (and I admit it has been a while, but I have read it many times) I tend not to take that information with me. I try to let the story be as it is.

Which brings me back to the movie. I realize now that this is not just a product of PJ’s over-active imagination, although much of it is. No, much of what Jackson changed or added does in fact come from Tolkien’s own re-imagining of the story. Which is fine if that is what you like, but I like the book the way it was written and would love to see a decent movie made of that. This wasn’t it, and that is why I just can’t get that excited about it. And I assure you, had I been excited about it I never would have fallen asleep, despite it being late and being plied with wine by Wampus (although in all fairness the wine was my idea, so I guess I was plying myself, if that is possible).

[Elentári]

After her conversation with Gandalf, she vanishes. We don't see it happen on screen (I'm pretty sure), but he looks down and then looks up and she's simply not there.

I don't know. I don't remember thinking she blinked out, just that she moves in mysterious ways.

Since I'm fresh from seeing it again, I can confirm that she doesn't vanish, although PJ is cheekily trying to make us think that at first. When the camera pulls back from the close up of Gandalf and Galadriel's hand clasp, if you look at Gandalf's face you can clearly see him following her movement away off screen with his eyes. Very cleverly done....

[Pearly Di]

In praise of PJ's Dwarves .... the thing is, I was really hoping that our dear PJ wouldn't do a Gimli number on all of them, and he didn't. I love JRD as Gimli, it's a great performance. But I dislike the prosthetics, especially as they made poor JRD suffer. And I dislike some of the lines given to Gimli. Admittedly, there was some typical PJ daftness going on with the Thirteen, but for me the positives far outweighed the negatives.

So here are the positives!

- No prosthetics that make the actor suffer. (Poor JRD!) That's why we have a mixture of Dwarves in The Hobbit where not every Dwarf actor is made up with prosthetics.

- We don't have time to get to know all the Thirteen in the film, which is a shame, but here's the point ... we hardly know all of them in the book either. At least, in PJ's film, some of the Company have distinct personalities besides Thorin, one of the principal characters. Who remembers Nori and Ori's personalities from the book? I don't! Only their names. Yet, as a friend of mine said, she and I and a group of others were merrily discussing Ori's jumper (that is 'sweater', to the Americans) and his obsession with salad.

- Let's hear it again for Richard Armitage. UK folk already know that Armitage is good at portraying characters with an 'edge'. Thorin is revealed to have a thunderous temper in the book ... he also does in the film. It will be heartbreaking when he turns on Bilbo over the Arkenstone business. Armitage's Thorin would agree with me even if Richard were not so good-looking as he is. The personality is right, IMO. Thorin is proud, noble, haughty and he does NOT forgive easily. Well, all that came across in spades. I am also influenced by the portrayal of Thorin in the BBC's 1968 radio adaptation of The Hobbit, in which he is definitely very proud and noble (he and Bilbo are the two best things in that production, which is full of charm but also has some clunky moments).

- Ken Stott as Balin is already rightly receving high praise: let's also hear it for James Nesbittt, an actor from Northern Ireland who is well known to UK folk from his TV work. I love what PJ is doing with the character of Bofur.

Tinwë, I too love LotR more than The Hobbit, but not because I look down on The Hobbit, it's a wonderful classic, a gem. I am just in awe of Tolkien's incredible skill as a storyteller. LotR just takes it all to the next level, and then some.

I approve of tying The Hobbit to the wider mythos. I just do. I appreciate the simplicity of the original story, but Tolkien himself gives us hints of the wider mythos beyond.

I don't always like PJ's 'padding' - lots of chases and goblins and what-not - but I don't disapprove, in principle, of tying The Hobbit to the wider mythos.

ETA: Yes, PJ does seem to treat Galadriel as if she were a Maia. I ... have no problem with that.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Since I'm fresh from seeing it again, I can confirm that she doesn't vanish, although PJ is cheekily trying to make us think that at first. When the camera pulls back from the close up of Gandalf and Galadriel's hand clasp, if you look at Gandalf's face you can clearly see him following her movement away off screen with his eyes. Very cleverly done....

Exactly. A welcome bit of subtly from Captain Obvious.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

These two comments get at my main issue with this film. And I say “issue” because it is not that I don’t like it per se, I suppose it is at least entertaining, and there are certainly parts that I loved, the ones everyone else liked - the Bag End scenes, Riddles, Martin Freeman’s Bilbo, and even as I said Richard Armitage plays a good character in this movie.

No my issue, my concern all along was that this was never going to be The Hobbit, this was always going to be Peter Jackson’s Hobbit. But you have made me realize, V, that I was wrong about that. This movie does contain a lot of what Tolkein wrote about the subject. Just not so much what he wrote in The Hobbit!

I believed from the beginning, and I mentioned this to Wampus the night we saw the film, that I thought most die-hard Tolkien fans would like this movie more, or at least be more forgiving of it, the the LOTR films. The reason is because I think when we are totally honest with ourselves most of us will admit that the thing we love the most about Tolkien is The Lord Of the Rings. Yes, many of us are in awe of the depth of his creation found in the Silmarillion and the extra-canonical material in the HOME volumes. And many of us have fond sentiments towards The Hobbit. But in the end it is always the original trilogy that brings us back.

And that is why so many of us were so critical of the changes made in the LOTR films. The story is not just dear to us, the words themselves are important to us in a way that The Hobbit is not. How often has it been said that The Hobbit is not written in the same tone as the LOTR? It doesn’t have the same depth, the same grandeur, the same gravitas as LOTR. I was reading in another thread here about Tolkien’s abandoned attempt at re-writing The Hobbit to match the tone of LOTR and noticed that several posters mentioned they would have loved to read such a version of the story. Heck, I would have loved it too! I have read the Quest of Erebor, and the Appendices and the Silmarillion many times and loved all of them.

But they are not The Hobbit. I have always believed that even though The Hobbit and LOTR share some characters and vaguely take place in the same world, the differences between them separate them in a way that cannot be resolved without destroying the book as it was originally written. And I think that would be a shame because I really think The Hobbit is a fine book just the way it is. It is, as Jewel said, a simple story simply told. And while the HOME and the Appendices and The Silmarillion provide a wonderful glimpse of the back-story for the LOTR, they do not, for me at least, do anything to inform the story of The Hobbit.

For me, when I try to relate that back-story information to The Hobbit I find that it transforms the story in a way that I am not entirely comfortable with. It is the exact same thing as what happens with Myths Transformed in Morgoth’s Ring. The attempt to remake the story in a different mold changes it in a very unsatisfying way for me. Again, don’t get me wrong, I like the back-story info as it relates to the LOTR, but when I read The Hobbit (and I admit it has been a while, but I have read it many times) I tend not to take that information with me. I try to let the story be as it is.

Which brings me back to the movie. I realize now that this is not just a product of PJ’s over-active imagination, although much of it is. No, much of what Jackson changed or added does in fact come from Tolkien’s own re-imagining of the story. Which is fine if that is what you like, but I like the book the way it was written and would love to see a decent movie made of that. This wasn’t it, and that is why I just can’t get that excited about it. And I assure you, had I been excited about it I never would have fallen asleep, despite it being late and being plied with wine by Wampus (although in all fairness the wine was my idea, so I guess I was plying myself, if that is possible).

Excellent post, tinwë. But this again goes back to why I consciously get as much information as I can as soon as I can. I have long processed the decision to go with an expanded universe, and reset my expectations to that. I actually think that that, for all of the things about the film that I didn't like (and they were a lot; more than with the LOTR films), Jackson and friends did a good job of straddling the line between capturing the more lighthearted tone of the book (or at least their version of it) and fitting it into the broader legendarium.

[Stranger Wings]

When did we all agree that the Hobbit is a lesser book than LOTR? I must have never gotten the memo.