Movies & TV Dec 12, 2012 at 4:00 am

Concerning Hobbits and Hamburger Helper

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY The movie so nice they made it thrice!


You know, I think I'm just gonna wait for the Blu. Sounds like the bitter parts will go down better with several beers and some pipe weed.
Is Bombadil in any of these? Since he wasn't in LOTR I think he should be. I'm thinking William H. Macy, and Lindsay Lohan in a bad wig as Goldberry.
Todd - Is this a deliberate attempt at a joke? It is hard for me to tell sometimes these days. Bombadil appears nowhere in the timeline of The Hobbit, and while much was added into Jacksons vision for the adaptation for the sake of coming out of it with a trilogy.. at least everything that occurs is within the timeline of events as they occur in Middle Earth.

As for the review, meh, it seemed like a deliberate attempt to incite NerdRage. But frankly, just in the way he invokes the word "Nerd", he loses any attempts at humor or provocation he was making. Even the most hardcore of the old guard, basement dwelling, unwashed Nerds have come to terms with the fact that the term itself has been thoroughly dulled of any effect it may have ever had as an insult and is now little more then a brand name for scores of people jumping into formerly "Nerd" waters like so many New England whiteboys buying Tommy Hilfiger gear in the 90's.
Some nerd is mad, it sounds.
Bombadil could have just held the ring and it would have been over and chill, right?
A common criticism of this film has been that, while LOTR was trimmed down, this film has been bloated with extra material. I'd like to remind people that, although the original film trilogy is great and deservedly beloved, it also threw in quite a bit of extra material and changed some events entirely while sacrificing important bits of story. The barrow wights and Tom Bombadil from Fellowship? Gone. Sam becoming a temporary Ring-bearer in Return? Gone. The Scouring of the Shire? Gone. Instead we had an over emphasis on the Aragorn-Arwen relationship, the Aragorn-Eowyn relationship, Frodo being brought to Osgiliath (never happened), Aragorn's near-death experience (never happened), and bloated battle scenes where Legolas does something cool. These could be considered detrimental to these films, but a lot of what was added was based on Tolkien material (appendices, notes, The Silmarillion) and ended up adding to the story and the emotional impact. Still, Jackson had his fun with silly moments of slapstick and battle shots that made you think "Cool!" the first time and want to slap yourself afterwards.

The difference with this film is that we're getting the whole story, no sacrifices, with all the elements from Tolkien's notes, appendices, and The Silmarillion. The Hobbit book is largely nonsensical by itself. Where does Gandalf go when he inexplicably leaved the group time and again. What is he up to? What's the deal with that Necromancer? What is everyone's real motive? Why the hell does a quest to slay a dragon and recover stolen treasure lead to the Battle of Five Armies? This movie adaptation is giving us these answers that have been clued in over years of Tolkien's writings, but were not in the original book. It is not "filler." It is not fucking "hamburger helper." Jackson and his team are giving us the whole picture of events that led up to Lord of the Rings in the span of The Hobbit's timeline.

And yes, they're having fun with it and putting in a little silliness here and there, just as they did with the original trilogy. That awful dwarf song about washing dishes, though...straight from the book. I read that scene for the first time while tripping on mushrooms. I laughed my ass off. I'd consider it an abomination for it to not be included.
So apparently, this film is kind of terrible.
@head: The Council of Elrond decided that even Bombadil might eventually be overpowered by the forces of Sauron...or that he might forget how important the ring was and flick it into a thistle patch...or that he might pawn it in Bree for cash to go on a bender.
James Watkinson++

(spoilage) I saw the movie yesterday (24 FPS) and I really liked it! And I totally agree with what James said above. The plot elements that were filled in with more details - the white orc, the necromancer - serve to enhance the overall story. And they work great here. I always wanted to know more about this necro business... and now I can (without reading)! What dead creatures is the necromancer awakening, and why?!

And in the book, after the team escapes the goblin mountain and then gets chased by wolves into the trees, the orcs randomly show up - but in the movie the orcs have been chasing them for days; there's motive behind their pursuit, and they play into a larger story. And that serves to make the scenes a little more meaningful.

Also, Radagast is great! Seeing Erebor and Dale in all their glory was awesome. The world looks beautiful. There are plenty of goofy, entertaining parts that seem very Hobbit-book-like. And the cave trolls and the goblins were, as they are in the books, silly and gross. Basically, I disagree with your second to last paragraph. Lastly, when people wonder "would Del Toro" have done a better job, keep in mind that he planned to fairly radically change the story and characters to fit his own vision.

My only mild complaint is that I found, at times, Freeman's acting to seem too... modern. His acting style just didn't totally fit into the world! (Just like how in The Two Towers, there was that assistant to Theoden, named Hama - the guy who says, "I cannot allow you before Theoden King so armed, Gandalf Greyhame... by order of Grima Wormtongue." - who came across as totally modern and out of place.)

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.