Ok fellow nerds, what did you think of the movie? Did you enjoy the direction Peter Jackson is taking it? There are minor changes in the story, but the most interesting parts in my opinion are that of a bridge to The Lord Of The Rings movies, alot of the stuff in the film can be found in the appendices, and also in the Silmarillion and unfinished tales, and also alot is pure speculation. Any other Tolkien nerds here?
I haven't seen it, yet. I have to teach The Hobbit each year to 7th grade honors students. I'll be honest. I don't love Tolkien's narrative; he's really verbose, though there are plenty of clever pieces that season up the story, as well. Obviously, without The Hobbit, there is no ring of power for Frodo to destroy because it would've still be lost in a dark cave. For the life of me, I don't think The Hobbit should've been made into multiple movies, though. There just really isn't all that much to the story.
See that's the thing, when Tolkien wrote the Hobbit I don't think at first he intended to branch it out and tie it in with other stories. You can see many differences in the way the hobbit and the ring series are written. For example, Elves in the Hobbit seem to be a more playful and almost goofy race. Drinking and as Tolkien would say "merry making" a whole hell of alot, where in the rings they seem to be more serious and angelic almost. I think Peter Jackson does a very nice job of bridging the stories better. Tolkien is hard to read at times, very detailed, sometimes overly detailed, and the songs I could do without. What grade do you teach Stacey?
I've always thought that Tolkien wrote The Hobbit almost as a children's story, then wrote the others much darker for the adult audience that enjoyed his work. The songs are a beating of epic proportions, though I did have 4 boys in one of my classes last year that liked to perform them for the class any time there was one. Good times... I teach 7th and 8th grade. I used to teach high school down in Louisiana. I took a middle school job just to get my foot in the door in Texas. 16 years later, I'm still at that same middle school.
The Hobbit is a short children's book and they are really stretching out the story to make three movies. The first film is all about character development and ends before the plot really picks up steam. As such it really isn't very exciting. Conceptually, they are trying to keep the lighthearted humor of the book but keep the look and feel of the much darker sequel The Lord of the Rings. I'm not sure if that is working. Casting is very good and the scenery and special effects are exceptional. It is good filmmaking, just not a lot of substance, much of which will fall into the second and third films, no doubt. They are using elements from the appendices of LOTR but absolutely nothing from the Silmarillion, which has never been licensed by the Tolkien family. You can tell. When Gandalf mentions the other two wizards that don't appear in Hobbit or LOTR, he says "but I can't remember their names". In fact their names are only mentioned in the Silmarillion and so can not be used in Hobbit. It's a good movie, but not a great one. Like LOTR, all three films will have to be taken as one to assess.
This makes sense, as there simply is little substance in The Hobbit, period. Bilbo's biggest worries (aside from being eaten by trolls, goblins, Gollum, and Smaug) are missing too many meals and the comfort of his hobbit hole. He's a very shallow character, and the book is also very shallow. For instance, I find it laughable that the journey to Smaug's lair took about a very long time and was fraught with deadly danger, but Bilbo returned back home in mere weeks with nothing much worthy of mention happening to him (Tolkien wrapped up the entire trip home in less than a chapter.)
Children's stories can only be so deep. but the timid Bilbo character develops tremendously in the adventure and is not shallow at all by the time he returns. He ends up being cleverer, bolder and braver than the audacious dwarves. He fights adversity with luck and determination and replaces Gandalf as the Dwarves rescuer and champion. Moreover in the end he denies the selfishness and greed of Thorin and does the right thing by forcing the dwarves to honestly share the hoard with its rightful partners. Bilbo declines to take his entire share himself yet becomes a patron of the Shire upon his return. He appeared to be a frivolous person on the surface but turns out to be a Hobbit of immense but unpretentious character. Perhaps the only being in Middle Earth that the One Ring could not corrupt. Until Frodo.
Not true Red, some of the stuff they are using is mentioned briefly in the Silmarillion in the final chapter, of the rings of power and the third age.
Interesting you bring up the journey home. I believe Tolkien himself realized this because in The Return of the King, the journey home takes alot longer than Bilbo's own journey home. I think it's pretty bad ass that Jackson is using the Necromancer story as a bridge, however I'm not really convinced Galadriel was ever a part of the white council, although she was a ring bearer.
