I don't know if that trailer could have made me less excited. I mean I loved the last trailer (for the first part) and it got me excited, even though I knew almost nothing was going to really happen since it was split into 3. This one though...just awful.
Frazzled wrote: Its blocked for me at work. Is it different?
Different as in not Tolkien, yes.
Jackson is trying to add too much of his own content, sadly 'needed' in order to stretch the story over three films, to milk the cash cow to maximum. And that doesn't lead to quality, it leaves to the saga feeling thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.
Frazzled wrote: Its blocked for me at work. Is it different?
Different as in not Tolkien, yes.
Jackson is trying to add too much of his own content, sadly 'needed' in order to stretch the story over three films, to milk the cash cow to maximum. And that doesn't lead to quality, it leaves to the saga feeling thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.
I'm sorry to clarify is this the same as the trailer that shows Smaug's head coming around (epic cool) and then elven monkey people flying through the trees chasing after the dwarves after they escaped in barrels (really stupid).
I agree with your statements though. I didn't like the Hobbit. I liked bits of it: Gollum, the trolls, and the Storm Giant Battle but most of it was meh. I hated Radagast and all the ork posse nonsense.
Frazzled wrote: Its blocked for me at work. Is it different?
Different as in not Tolkien, yes.
Jackson is trying to add too much of his own content, sadly 'needed' in order to stretch the story over three films, to milk the cash cow to maximum. And that doesn't lead to quality, it leaves to the saga feeling thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.
I'm sorry to clarify is this the same as the trailer that shows Smaug's head coming around (epic cool) and then elven monkey people flying through the trees chasing after the dwarves after they escaped in barrels (really stupid).
I agree with your statements though. I didn't like the Hobbit. I liked bits of it: Gollum, the trolls, and the Storm Giant Battle but most of it was meh. I hated Radagast and all the ork posse nonsense.
Ah, in that case this trailer is basically 'Look, Legolas is back! Everyone come see, he's the reason you liked the original LoTR films right?'
I have to admit Smaug's voice sounds good to me, whoever they got was a good choice
I like the Hobbit book, it's short and too the point.
These three films are bloated dribble. I believe that the last film is only about the battle of the Five Armies and what happens after, that is like fifteen pages of book.
Gutsnagga wrote: I still don't understand what the feth Legolas is doing in the Hobbit...
They spend a fair amount of time in Thranduil's court in Mirkwood in the books; Legolas is Thranduil's son.
Most of the stuff that's been "added by Jackson" was just taken from the appendices of the other books, not actually created by Jackson. Just because it wasn't included in the original book of The Hobbit doesn't mean it didn't happen during the story, just that it wasn't covered very thoroughly.
Gutsnagga wrote: I still don't understand what the feth Legolas is doing in the Hobbit...
They spend a fair amount of time in Thranduil's court in Mirkwood in the books; Legolas is Thranduil's son.
Most of the stuff that's been "added by Jackson" was just taken from the appendices of the other books, not actually created by Jackson. Just because it wasn't included in the original book of The Hobbit doesn't mean it didn't happen during the story, just that it wasn't covered very thoroughly.
Yeah I was aware of the stuff from the appendices added to the first hobbit movie, I found that really enjoyable, l especially liked the sections with Sauron the necromancer in it.
I don't remember any references to Legolas being in contact with the Dwarves at any point in time though, it's stuff like this that annoys me.
If you can point out an appendix that contains this information I would happily read it, and I'm sorry for my ignorance in advance.
I have no problems with the White Council being added, or Saurons awakening or even Legolas, as he was almost certainly there in Thranduil's court.
However the addition of a BS subtext that isn't necessary spoils the story.
Just in case anyone misses this point, Tolkien was exciting enough with minimum acrobatics, and one doesnt need to surf on a shield or become a sword wielding traceuse for a fight or adventure to be interesting. All too often this is forgotten.
The Star Wars trilogy had minimum acrobatics, the prequels were full of it greatly to the detriment of the story. Tolkiens heroes were rarely like Spiderman. I want to see fights like we saw in the 1980 version of Conan the Barbarian, with testosterone and risk of dismemberment emphasised, not funky dance routines.
If this doesn't sound right remember whats the hottest property in fantasy right now, Game of Thrones. I think half its charm is because the combat is to the point, even if the combatants are heroes.
Gutsnagga wrote: I still don't understand what the feth Legolas is doing in the Hobbit...
They spend a fair amount of time in Thranduil's court in Mirkwood in the books; Legolas is Thranduil's son.
Most of the stuff that's been "added by Jackson" was just taken from the appendices of the other books, not actually created by Jackson. Just because it wasn't included in the original book of The Hobbit doesn't mean it didn't happen during the story, just that it wasn't covered very thoroughly.
Sorry no, he changes the story significantly. He did the same in The LOTR just not to this extent. Don’t get me started on the Helms Depp nonsense...
Gutsnagga wrote: I still don't understand what the feth Legolas is doing in the Hobbit...
They spend a fair amount of time in Thranduil's court in Mirkwood in the books; Legolas is Thranduil's son.
Most of the stuff that's been "added by Jackson" was just taken from the appendices of the other books, not actually created by Jackson. Just because it wasn't included in the original book of The Hobbit doesn't mean it didn't happen during the story, just that it wasn't covered very thoroughly.
Sorry no, he changes the story significantly. He did the same in The LOTR just not to this extent. Don’t get me started on the Helms Depp nonsense...
The only parts of LotR that sucked were the parts where Jackson deviated from the book. With possible exception of the magically appearing forest, as Tolkien was very unclear himself on what was going on.
I liked the Elves turning up at Helms Deep also don't mind the whole Elves are awesome acrobatic fighters vibe - which does reflect the novels rather than more modern rpgs -Elves in that world are just better at everything.
Adding a love interest for Legolas is interesting..............guessing she is not going to make it....
Just in case anyone misses this point, Tolkien was exciting enough with minimum acrobatics, and one doesnt need to surf on a shield or become a sword wielding traceuse for a fight or adventure to be interesting. All too often this is forgotten.
I really enjoyed the first Hobbit movie. In fact, I like it better than the LotR movies. I like that they're stretching it out. Hurr hurr, Hollywood wants to make money and we're all clearly geniuses for pointing it out ... but on the other hand Middle Earth is a big place and having three movies makes me feel like there is time to really explore it and get into it. If anything, it wouldn't have been terrible to have more than three LotR movies.
I think they should have just made one film, and stuck to the original storyline.
I mean, the necromancer bit is shaping up to be cool, and it actually happens (behind the scenes) in the books, but where the hell did Tolkien have Radagast being a dwarf-sized halfwit with a pet hedgehog called SEBASTIAN!?!
And as for adding the girl elf... urgh. At least with Legolas, you could explain it away, but that character just says to me that someone decided there needed to be a "strong female character" in there.
(Note - nothing against strong female characters - Eowyn in LOTR was well done, I thought - but again, she was intended to be part of the story, rather than an add-on.)
The Hobbit was the first book I ever red. I was 7, and I cried when, at the end, I realised the story simply wouldn't go on (I didn't know about LoTR).
It took me three sitting to get through the last gak Jackson regurgitated.
Still haven't seen the whole of the first film, and really must get round to it. Heating system in the crappy local cinema had broken and it was bloody freezing, girlfriend had had enough and that was that - got to the bit where Sylvester McCoy was racing around on the rabbit-sleigh.
J.R.R. Tolkien wrote:Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic to the level of romantic fairy-story... The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd.
Now, I'm a massive LotR fanboy, and managed to overlook the majority of an unexpected journey's... alterations to the book (with the exception of some aspects of radagast and the orcs), but I am dreading seeing the elves. I mean, Legolas was at least just one really skilled elf, but with the whole, as previously mentioned, "monkey elves" jumping between branches... too much.
also, Tauriel/Legolas concerns me, for all the obvious reasons.
Of course, I'll reserve judgement until I've seen the actual film, but yeah. Not looking good. Here's to hoping the dwarves can compensate for the elves.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:Pretty sure thorin never told the elves where he was going or why in the book.
He didn't say anything, but they found out from the men of Dale. (IIRC)
I agree. I don't like the fleshing out of the Elves in the story, but I think they're going to be necessary. Don't forget that we're also supposed to see the cleansing of Dol Guldur, which I believe Legolas was at (I'm not sure).
Also, I'm still wondering if Khamul the Easterling is going to be in the Hobbit series, since I remember seeing somewhere him being in the cast list. It might of been mistaken for the Witch King, who seems to have his background ret-conned for the movies, because I'd of really liked to see the movies take on Khamul.
Also, I'm still wondering if Khamul the Easterling is going to be in the Hobbit series, since I remember seeing somewhere him being in the cast list. It might of been mistaken for the Witch King, who seems to have his background ret-conned for the movies, because I'd of really liked to see the movies take on Khamul.
don't know about khamul (though I doubt he'll be in), but the witch-king definitely is.
I read Tolkien's work in college, and I'm not greatly attached to it. I've enjoyed all the movies so far, except for The Two Towers. Frankly, I liked it when Jackson deviated from Tolkien's Hobbit because it meant he was leaving out the boring parts or else he was giving us something new, which is gravy.
Dr. What wrote: I agree. I don't like the fleshing out of the Elves in the story, but I think they're going to be necessary. Don't forget that we're also supposed to see the cleansing of Dol Guldur, which I believe Legolas was at (I'm not sure).
Legolas never featured in the Hobbit itself, but as the Wood Elf king's son he would have to be around simply for continuity. His presence is implied simply by his station and the circumstances of the Hobbit itself. As a character he didn't exist when the Hobbit was written, so in the book he'd just be one of the nameless Elves in the story.
Likewise, he would have been at the assault on Dol Guldur simply because of who he is.
Also, I'm still wondering if Khamul the Easterling is going to be in the Hobbit series, since I remember seeing somewhere him being in the cast list. It might of been mistaken for the Witch King, who seems to have his background ret-conned for the movies, because I'd of really liked to see the movies take on Khamul.
I didn't see any Witch King retcon. We never really had much background info on the different Nazgul.
Khamul is cool, but aside from his name we have very little to go on.
Thats for when we start getting speculative movies. Extrapolations of what Tolkien wrote down and how it might have been.
Surprised they haven't shoe-horned Gimili into the hobbit considering he is 61ish around the time of the 'hobbit' and his dad is one of the 13 Dwarves. I suspect we may see him become a major cameo in the 3rd movie as one of the smelly dwarves who is fighting for stuff.
The Legolas shenanigans don't bother me... a lot of the stuff they are making up is not actually wrong, simply unsaid due to a lot of stuff being unsaid. It does make sense that he would have been right there in the hobbit if the book had been written POST LotR.
I enjoyed the hobbit, I still enjoy LotRs when it is on for no reason on TBS and I sit there and watch it as I paint figures. It is enjoyable. I think even the bloated 3 movie hobbit trilogy will be mostly good and enjoyable.
Actually IIRC Gimlii is still just a wee dwarf lad of about 15. He's in his 60s at the time of the LotR, and there are 50 years between the events of the Hobbit and the LotR.
Grey Templar wrote: Actually IIRC Gimlii is still just a wee dwarf lad of about 15. He's in his 60s at the time of the LotR, and there are 50 years between the events of the Hobbit and the LotR.
Bilbo was 50 at the tome of the Hobbit and was born 2890
Gimli was 139 years old (born in 2879 of the Third Age) when the Fellowship of the Ring set out from Rivendell, making him 52 years older than Aragorn.
This makes Gimil 11 years older than Bilbo which makes him 61 at the time of the Hobbit.
Dr. What wrote: I agree. I don't like the fleshing out of the Elves in the story, but I think they're going to be necessary. Don't forget that we're also supposed to see the cleansing of Dol Guldur, which I believe Legolas was at (I'm not sure).
I was unaware the cleansing of Dol Guldur was going to be in this, that's actually pretty exciting. It's one of my favourite parts of Tolkein's world, and I was happy when they included references in the first Hobbit.
Beorn's going to be interesting... Hopefully the dwarves don't seduce him with their previously hidden womanly charms to let them stay the night or anything silly like that.
Dr. What wrote: I agree. I don't like the fleshing out of the Elves in the story, but I think they're going to be necessary. Don't forget that we're also supposed to see the cleansing of Dol Guldur, which I believe Legolas was at (I'm not sure).
I was unaware the cleansing of Dol Guldur was going to be in this, that's actually pretty exciting. It's one of my favourite parts of Tolkein's world, and I was happy when they included references in the first Hobbit.
Beorn's going to be interesting... Hopefully the dwarves don't seduce him with their previously hidden womanly charms to let them stay the night or anything silly like that.
welshhoppo wrote: I like the Hobbit book, it's short and too the point.
These three films are bloated dribble. I believe that the last film is only about the battle of the Five Armies and what happens after, that is like fifteen pages of book.
Short and to the point? What version were you reading? My copy is a decent sized novel, about 400 pages, and it's a bore to get through. The movies, so far, have brought life back into the prequel of LotR for me. I liked The Hobbit when I was a child. As an adult, reading it only for myself, it's horrible. It's written to be a children's book. Tolkien repeats himself over and over in it, and makes it painful to get through. I love to read, and I especially love to read fantasy. But the book just irritates me. The movie kept me excited the whole way through.
Dr. What wrote: I agree. I don't like the fleshing out of the Elves in the story, but I think they're going to be necessary. Don't forget that we're also supposed to see the cleansing of Dol Guldur, which I believe Legolas was at (I'm not sure).
I was unaware the cleansing of Dol Guldur was going to be in this, that's actually pretty exciting. It's one of my favourite parts of Tolkein's world, and I was happy when they included references in the first Hobbit.
Beorn's going to be interesting... Hopefully the dwarves don't seduce him with their previously hidden womanly charms to let them stay the night or anything silly like that.
welshhoppo wrote: I like the Hobbit book, it's short and too the point.
These three films are bloated dribble. I believe that the last film is only about the battle of the Five Armies and what happens after, that is like fifteen pages of book.
Short and to the point? What version were you reading? My copy is a decent sized novel, about 400 pages, and it's a bore to get through. The movies, so far, have brought life back into the prequel of LotR for me. I liked The Hobbit when I was a child. As an adult, reading it only for myself, it's horrible. It's written to be a children's book. Tolkien repeats himself over and over in it, and makes it painful to get through. I love to read, and I especially love to read fantasy. But the book just irritates me. The movie kept me excited the whole way through.
Yes, exactly, the Hobbit is a kid's book. If the film appeals to kids it's because the subject matter was written for kids. Why do people think there are thirteen dwarves with silly names?
Can anyone really imagine a faithful film adaptation of the Hobbit? Because I can't. It's not a long book but the pacing and structure is all over the place. It drags on in some places and quickly jumps between major scenes in others. There's so much material in Middle-Earth outside of Tolkien's books that I don't see any reason why some of the really good stuff, like Mirkwood and Dol-gudur, can't be added in with the main hobbit story line since most of its connected in some way. It's all about making money in the end but that in and of itself is not a bad thing. Seems like Hollywood's greed is producing three very good films, and it can't be denied that regardless of the motivation behind the funding, Peter Jackson is good at visualizing Middle-Earth and clearly puts a great deal of effort and passion in.
I like the Bakshi Hobbit. I grew up on it, watched it before I ever read the book. I'll always like it better than these new ones. Jackson lost me when he made the entire battle of the Pelennor Fields an irrelevant joke. I forgave him most of his foibles in the first two movies, but really, Pelennor Fields killed the whole trilogy for me.
Should have just hid out somewhere Rohan, everything you did could have been accomplished by the ghost army in roughly thirty seconds. Which made me look back at everything else in the trilogy with a more critical eye.
welshhoppo wrote: I like the Hobbit book, it's short and too the point.
These three films are bloated dribble. I believe that the last film is only about the battle of the Five Armies and what happens after, that is like fifteen pages of book.
Short and to the point? What version were you reading? My copy is a decent sized novel, about 400 pages, and it's a bore to get through. The movies, so far, have brought life back into the prequel of LotR for me. I liked The Hobbit when I was a child. As an adult, reading it only for myself, it's horrible. It's written to be a children's book. Tolkien repeats himself over and over in it, and makes it painful to get through. I love to read, and I especially love to read fantasy. But the book just irritates me. The movie kept me excited the whole way through.
Yes, exactly, the Hobbit is a kid's book. If the film appeals to kids it's because the subject matter was written for kids. Why do people think there are thirteen dwarves with silly names?
Can anyone really imagine a faithful film adaptation of the Hobbit? Because I can't. It's not a long book but the pacing and structure is all over the place. It drags on in some places and quickly jumps between major scenes in others. There's so much material in Middle-Earth outside of Tolkien's books that I don't see any reason why some of the really good stuff, like Mirkwood and Dol-gudur, can't be added in with the main hobbit story line since most of its connected in some way. It's all about making money in the end but that in and of itself is not a bad thing. Seems like Hollywood's greed is producing three very good films, and it can't be denied that regardless of the motivation behind the funding, Peter Jackson is good at visualizing Middle-Earth and clearly puts a great deal of effort and passion in.
The story itself is just fine. IN fact there was an excellent film adaption already done, replete with excellent singing.
Trying to mix in more serious stuff is what makes it jarring. Its meant to be a light hearted fantasy adventure - a fantsy Indiana Jones as it were, not Game of Thrones with Dwarves.
I guess I am one of the few who thought the first Hobbit move was just fine. I thought it was paced far better than the events of the book it covered, actually. The Orcs are entirely non-canon, true, but they add some pacing that was entirely lacking.
I am eager to see Beorn and Mirkwood in the next installment. I am a big fan of adding all the material about Dol Guldur, as I never liked how Gandalf simply leaves them and then suddenly reappears.
I could barely describe the plot of the Hobbit movie, i had no idea what was going on most of the time. Also the film felt unsatisfying and unresolved in a way the Fellowship of the Ring or any other start of a great trilogy didn't. It's like they were holding back on any payoff to any Arc for the subsequent movie(s). Also it's good to see that the one piece of character development; Moody Head Dwarf coming to trust Bilbo has been completely undone judging by the trailer.
The film also looked kitsch and fake in a way the LOTR trilogy (Better than Star Wars IMO) didn't. Even Without the cute Hedgehogs and Rabbit Chariot I'd have still described everything as looking like the bloody Sylvanian Families!
My idea for a 'Modern' Hobbit movie would have been a Heist. Oceans 11 but with Dwarves, yes the tone would be lighter than LOTR but not in the weird uneven way it is in these films. Also it would'nt have that ill-conceived Israelite subtext for the Dwarves' motivation (I'm not sure if the whole Reclaim Erebor thing was Tolkein's intent but it just seems too Unsubtly Allegoric for him). The Dwarves would be after the Hoard the Dragon is sitting on.
I, like everyone else still loved the Gollum scene (Flawless execution Imo) and the Necromancer story needs to be told but i just did not enjoy the movie and it's Vacillating between Goblin-Rope-Ladder Hijinks and Ill conceived serious subject matter. Also That 'Oaken Shield' looks stoooopid, it's just a log.
Funnily enough, attempting to speak completely objectively, the trailer looks decent. Really Like Bendybatch Cumberdick's Voice.
EDIT: Don't know if i'll get used to saying Sm-aOww-g rather than Sm-Aww-g like i am used to.
I thought this trailer was fantastic. Can't wait to see the film.
Its always amusing how upset people get when films don't match the book. Something that happens with 95% of adaptations. Yet some people never seem to learn?
Of course its fine to be a bit disappointed when stuff you loved from a book is changed/missed for a film, but realistically its very difficult to make that book as good on screen in the same sense as it was in the book. You can make a film thats just as good, but not necessarily for the right reasons.
rodgers37 wrote: I thought this trailer was fantastic. Can't wait to see the film.
Its always amusing how upset people get when films don't match the book. Something that happens with 95% of adaptations. Yet some people never seem to learn?
Of course its fine to be a bit disappointed when stuff you loved from a book is changed/missed for a film, but realistically its very difficult to make that book as good on screen in the same sense as it was in the book. You can make a film thats just as good, but not necessarily for the right reasons.
Apart from a couple silly Legolas action Scenes i think every important change Fran Walsh (i think) and Stephen Jackson (plus whoever helped with the writing) Made to LOTR was an improvement. I don't think The Hobbit is bad because they diverted from the source text, i think it is bad for a number of other reasons.
Perkustin wrote: I could barely describe the plot of the Hobbit movie
I find that strange, considering how simple and straight forward it was.
Perkustin wrote: Also it's good to see that the one piece of character development; Moody Head Dwarf coming to trust Bilbo has been completely undone judging by the trailer.
If you recall from the book part of "Moody Head Dwarf"s character flaw is that he is so narrowly focused on getting back his swag that by the end he is almost the main antagonist. It isn't that he doesn't trust Bilbo, it is just that he is prone to xenophobia, grandstanding, and pettiness in the pursuit of what he sees as his rightful place. It has to be contextualized into the larger character arc for the character so that when he goes full on donkey-cave near the end it makes sense, and takes something really shocking (Bilbo stealing away with the Heart and an army of Orcs) to wake him from his stupor and realize he is being a massive jerk and forgetting to help others.
Perkustin wrote: I could barely describe the plot of the Hobbit movie
I find that strange, considering how simple and straight forward it was.
The book was straight forward. The movie was not.
Book:
1. Hey lets go get rich and get our place back. Tally ho!
Movie:
1. mmm...we've got to go back, kill the dragon, and get our kingdom back, with 13 guys.
2. Oh yea there's a deranged ork wannabe (that guy's not an ork, he's too cute) with a pack hunting us.
3. Ork pack guy doesn't seem to attacking much, must be afraid of 13 guys m..ok...
4. Oh and there's like this dork with a little two much fascination with a ferbie.
5. This dork is being attacked by spiders, or not.
6. Dork is now investigating a castle.
7. Dork is now pursued by the ork guy...er what? why?
8. Elves in cool armor attacking orks. Ok I get that.
9. Mmm.. Queen Elizabeth ork...drooool what was I talking about again?
10. Menacing ork dude!
11. adventures hurray
12. Ork Dude attacks!
what er eh what?
Am I the only one who misses guys in ork makeup and not video game orks?
I just wish that they had stuck to the origional story line. And used alot less CGI. I cannot stand the stupid amount of CGI crap that has been stuck in this series. There is a limit to how much i can actually take.
And then there is the whole deviation. G2G-class is over. Ill post more when i get home.
Yes, exactly, the Hobbit is a kid's book. If the film appeals to kids it's because the subject matter was written for kids. Why do people think there are thirteen dwarves with silly names?
The names of the dwarfs are actually found in the Prose Edda, which is a collection of three Icelandic stories and sagas written by Snorri Sturluson in the 13th/14th Century. Tolkein, of course, loved the Norse sagas.
Perkustin wrote: I could barely describe the plot of the Hobbit movie
I find that strange, considering how simple and straight forward it was.
The book was straight forward. The movie was not.
It helps to infantilize the novel while simultaneously exaggerating the film. Both are "people go on a journey, shenanigans ensue". It really isn't that complex.
Perkustin wrote: I could barely describe the plot of the Hobbit movie
I find that strange, considering how simple and straight forward it was.
The book was straight forward. The movie was not.
It helps to infantilize the novel while simultaneously exaggerating the film. Both are "people go on a journey, shenanigans ensue". It really isn't that complex.
Except of course the Radagast/Dol Guldor plotline and Ork bounty hunter revenge biker gang plotline having nothing to do with the Hobbit. Plus they were just stupid.
Frazzled wrote: Except of course the Radagast/Dol Guldor plotline and Ork bounty hunter revenge biker gang plotline having nothing to do with the Hobbit. Plus they were just stupid.
It also isn't that complicated to realize they have taken from other Tolkien sources and integrated them in to a larger cohesive narrative. Sort of like when Tolkien went back and rewrote "Riddles in the Dark" to make it fit with the Lord of the Rings.
-Loki- wrote: I'll forgive them making up their own stuff simply because Evangline Lilly is in it.
Did you know Tolkien also made up his own stuff?
Wha???
Once more for good measure:
J.R.R. Tolkien wrote:Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic to the level of romantic fairy-story... The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd.
Frazzled wrote: Except of course the Radagast/Dol Guldor plotline and Ork bounty hunter revenge biker gang plotline having nothing to do with the Hobbit. Plus they were just stupid.
It also isn't that complicated to realize they have taken from other Tolkien sources and integrated them in to a larger cohesive narrative. Sort of like when Tolkien went back and rewrote "Riddles in the Dark" to make it fit with the Lord of the Rings.
rodgers37 wrote: I thought this trailer was fantastic. Can't wait to see the film.
Its always amusing how upset people get when films don't match the book. Something that happens with 95% of adaptations. Yet some people never seem to learn?
Of course its fine to be a bit disappointed when stuff you loved from a book is changed/missed for a film, but realistically its very difficult to make that book as good on screen in the same sense as it was in the book. You can make a film thats just as good, but not necessarily for the right reasons.
Apart from a couple silly Legolas action Scenes i think every important change Fran Walsh (i think) and Stephen Jackson (plus whoever helped with the writing) Made to LOTR was an improvement. I don't think The Hobbit is bad because they diverted from the source text, i think it is bad for a number of other reasons.
It's a bit of a mixed bag, I think. Personally, I thought making Aragorn a reluctant king by pushing back his acceptance of Anduril was perhaps the most important improvement. The story is about the "return of the king," after all, and that change adds some dramatic tension around that, which leads to a better payoff.
Actually, scratch that. Getting ol' Tom Bombadillo out of the story was #1. Aragorn was #2.
Elves at Helm's Deep is the aforementioned mixed bag. I get that it kinda cheapened things in a sense. But then it also served as a tangible demonstration of the races again working together in the face of unimaginable evil. It clarifies the point.
I can't argue against the Dead Men being too much of an instant win at Pelannor. Perhaps it's a subtle thing -- how do you make it clear that they put the good guys over the top without making them seem an instant win? I think perhaps the flaw there was the visual execution. They fell in love with the CGI -- "look how we can make them crawl over everything like army ants" -- and this representation made them seem like an overwhelming force that single-handedly won the battle.
I'm with you on The Hobbit -- the issues aren't about deviation from the text. I just don't think it's a great piece of filmmaking.
rodgers37 wrote: I thought this trailer was fantastic. Can't wait to see the film.
Its always amusing how upset people get when films don't match the book. Something that happens with 95% of adaptations. Yet some people never seem to learn?
Of course its fine to be a bit disappointed when stuff you loved from a book is changed/missed for a film, but realistically its very difficult to make that book as good on screen in the same sense as it was in the book. You can make a film thats just as good, but not necessarily for the right reasons.
Apart from a couple silly Legolas action Scenes i think every important change Fran Walsh (i think) and Stephen Jackson (plus whoever helped with the writing) Made to LOTR was an improvement. I don't think The Hobbit is bad because they diverted from the source text, i think it is bad for a number of other reasons.
It's a bit of a mixed bag, I think. Personally, I thought making Aragorn a reluctant king by pushing back his acceptance of Anduril was perhaps the most important improvement. The story is about the "return of the king," after all, and that change adds some dramatic tension around that, which leads to a better payoff.
Actually, scratch that. Getting ol' Tom Bombadillo out of the story was #1. Aragorn was #2.
Elves at Helm's Deep is the aforementioned mixed bag. I get that it kinda cheapened things in a sense. But then it also served as a tangible demonstration of the races again working together in the face of unimaginable evil. It clarifies the point.
I can't argue against the Dead Men being too much of an instant win at Pelannor. Perhaps it's a subtle thing -- how do you make it clear that they put the good guys over the top without making them seem an instant win? I think perhaps the flaw there was the visual execution. They fell in love with the CGI -- "look how we can make them crawl over everything like army ants" -- and this representation made them seem like an overwhelming force that single-handedly won the battle.
I'm with you on The Hobbit -- the issues aren't about deviation from the text. I just don't think it's a great piece of filmmaking.
Honestly, the other things that bug me are the places where Tolkien had a straight forward event - the Dwarfs convince Bilbo to go with them, so Bilbo goes with them. The Ents decide to go stop Saruman, because he's being a jerk. And in the movies they get changed into these baffling contradictions that don't add anything, at all, to the stories. Oh, now the Ents don't even know Saruman has been cutting down their forest, so we are going to portray them as stupid, and passive. And somehow, even though Treebeard walked for like a day to drop the Hobbits off at the southern end of Fangorn, every single Ent is able to emerge from the forest in a giant single wave instantly. Now Bilbo decides not to go with the dwarfs and then suddenly changes his mind for no real reason. It's unnecessary and adds nothing.
Sure it is. Or at least describe why you think it's not.
Sure,
*Why is Ork boy pursuing them all this time (ala Fellowship interestingly)? Why doesn't he just wack them at the beginning or at any time. He kind of sucks and meanders in and out of the action. *How does ork boy follow them when they get through the Storm Giant fight, get kidnapped and have to fight their way through goblin town? Thats a jump the shark moment there. Better to have had them in the tree from the goblins like in the original book.
*Why exactly is Dork boy such a dork (ok thats an aside, but he's just such sad comic relief its jarring and then winging into the ork seriousness again). *Why exactly is Dork Boy involved with the Orks? *Why is the evil spiders after Dork Boy? *Why doesn't Dork Boy go talk to the White Wizard. Gandalf's not his boss.
Layer in the conflict that the movie couldn't make up its mind if it wanted to be a good kid's movie or LOTR revisited and banged jarringly one way to the next and its just blah.
Bromsy wrote: Now Bilbo decides not to go with the dwarfs and then suddenly changes his mind for no real reason. It's unnecessary and adds nothing.
I disagree. In the book, there is a lot of talk about Bilbo's Tookish proclivities, about how some latent adventurous heritage from his maternal forbears is awakened in him and conflicts with his more stolid Baggins propriety. In text, you can just write that down. The omniscient narrator can simply tell it to you. But this internal conflict has to be shown to you on screen.
@Frazzled: Who is Dork Boy? Radagast?
Radagast has a better relationship with Gandalf than Saruman. (Saruman calls him a fool or similar to Gandalf.) He's not involved with orcs. The spiders aren't after him, they're just moving into his forest as the evil of the Necromancer spreads. Also, he's not made up for the Hobbit movie. Saruman mentions him in LotR and I believe part of his role in the Hobbit movie comes from the appendices published with RotK.
As for the White Orc pursuing the Dwarves -- I think that only starts mid-movie because Thorin and the White Orc seem to think each other are dead until word spreads, via the goblins? - I can't remember exactly, that this isn't the case. By that time, the Dwarves are over/under the mountains so that should answer your question.
Frazzled wrote: *Why is Ork boy pursuing them all this time (ala Fellowship interestingly)? Why doesn't he just wack them at the beginning or at any time. He kind of sucks and meanders in and out of the action.
*How does ork boy follow them when they get through the Storm Giant fight, get kidnapped and have to fight their way through goblin town? Thats a jump the shark moment there. Better to have had them in the tree from the goblins like in the original book.
*Why exactly is Dork boy such a dork (ok thats an aside, but he's just such sad comic relief its jarring and then winging into the ork seriousness again).
*Why exactly is Dork Boy involved with the Orks?
*Why is the evil spiders after Dork Boy?
*Why doesn't Dork Boy go talk to the White Wizard. Gandalf's not his boss.
That isn't an argument against a cohesive story, just a list of things you didn't understand.
Frazzled wrote: Layer in the conflict that the movie couldn't make up its mind if it wanted to be a good kid's movie or LOTR revisited and banged jarringly one way to the next and its just blah.
That is a problem of tone, and certainly a fair criticism, but, again, has nothing to do with a cohesive narrative.
It's cohesive because Azog is shown to be the main enemy throughout the movie so it only makes sense that he will show up again in the climactic conflict.
My idea for a 'Modern' Hobbit movie would have been a Heist. Oceans 11 but with Dwarves, yes the tone would be lighter than LOTR but not in the weird uneven way it is in these films. Also it would'nt have that ill-conceived Israelite subtext for the Dwarves' motivation (I'm not sure if the whole Reclaim Erebor thing was Tolkein's intent but it just seems too Unsubtly Allegoric for him). The Dwarves would be after the Hoard the Dragon is sitting on.
Other than Thorin wanting the Arkenstone (and revenge) so badly he becomes rather of a fallen hero by the end of the story, many of the dwarves want to reclaim Erebor for their race. Ecpecially those of them that were literally driven from it as their home by Smaug.
Frazzled wrote:The book was straight forward. The movie was not.
Book:
1. Hey lets go get rich and get our place back. Tally ho!
Movie:
1. mmm...we've got to go back, kill the dragon, and get our kingdom back, with 13 guys.
2. Oh yea there's a deranged ork wannabe (that guy's not an ork, he's too cute) with a pack hunting us.
3. Ork pack guy doesn't seem to attacking much, must be afraid of 13 guys m..ok...
4. Oh and there's like this dork with a little two much fascination with a ferbie.
5. This dork is being attacked by spiders, or not.
6. Dork is now investigating a castle.
7. Dork is now pursued by the ork guy...er what? why?
8. Elves in cool armor attacking orks. Ok I get that.
9. Mmm.. Queen Elizabeth ork...drooool what was I talking about again?
10. Menacing ork dude!
11. adventures hurray
12. Ork Dude attacks!
what er eh what?
what you're saying here is completely unfair.
book:
1. mmm...we've got to go back, kill the dragon, and get our kingdom back, with 13 guys.
2. Oh yea there's a goblin army hunting us.
3. Goblins don't seem to attacking much, must be afraid of 13 guys m..ok...
4. Elves in cool armor attacking goblins. Ok I get that.
5. Menacing goblin dude!
6. adventures hurray
7. goblins attack!
the only difference to the storyline that complicates it is the dol guldur storyline (AKA "dork"), which explains what gandalf was doing (something the book didn't do) and the background of thorin (again, explaining something the book didn't cover much). With the exception of such explanations, everything you picked at with the film is also in the book.
Frazzled wrote:Sure,
*Why is Ork boy pursuing them all this time (ala Fellowship interestingly)? Why doesn't he just wack them at the beginning or at any time. He kind of sucks and meanders in and out of the action.
He does try to whack them at the beginning- with the warg riders and at the tree.
*How does ork boy follow them when they get through the Storm Giant fight, get kidnapped and have to fight their way through goblin town? Thats a jump the shark moment there. Better to have had them in the tree from the goblins like in the original book.
If they had the company against the goblins, Bolg would be meandering in and out of the action even more. This is a chance for a face-to-face. And the Goblins and Orcs are working together- it's no stretch to suggest the goblins let them through the mountain.
*Why exactly is Dork boy such a dork (ok thats an aside, but he's just such sad comic relief its jarring and then winging into the ork seriousness again).
I agree with you there, Radagast is too silly.
*Why exactly is Dork Boy involved with the Orks?
He is Gandalf's friend. He helps his friend escape against the orcs, as a friend would do.
*Why is the evil spiders after Dork Boy?
Radagast is the protector of Mirkwood. Spiders want to take over Mirkwood. He is therefore an obstacle to their plans.
*Why doesn't Dork Boy go talk to the White Wizard. Gandalf's not his boss.
Gandalf is closer by and more willing to listen than Saruman.
Layer in the conflict that the movie couldn't make up its mind if it wanted to be a good kid's movie or LOTR revisited and banged jarringly one way to the next and its just blah.
A children's book, with the majority of its followers now being adults, as well as it following up a more adult trilogy more than explains its trying to account for all ages.
Also, I think this thread is intended for discussion about the Desolation of Smaug, and comparing it to its predecessor is fine, but this has strayed completely from the upcoming film and into a debate about the previous one.
Frazzled wrote:The book was straight forward. The movie was not.
Book:
1. Hey lets go get rich and get our place back. Tally ho!
Movie:
1. mmm...we've got to go back, kill the dragon, and get our kingdom back, with 13 guys.
2. Oh yea there's a deranged ork wannabe (that guy's not an ork, he's too cute) with a pack hunting us.
3. Ork pack guy doesn't seem to attacking much, must be afraid of 13 guys m..ok...
4. Oh and there's like this dork with a little two much fascination with a ferbie.
5. This dork is being attacked by spiders, or not.
6. Dork is now investigating a castle.
7. Dork is now pursued by the ork guy...er what? why?
8. Elves in cool armor attacking orks. Ok I get that.
9. Mmm.. Queen Elizabeth ork...drooool what was I talking about again?
10. Menacing ork dude!
11. adventures hurray
12. Ork Dude attacks!
what er eh what?
what you're saying here is completely unfair.
book:
1. mmm...we've got to go back, kill the dragon, and get our kingdom back, with 13 guys.
2. Oh yea there's a goblin army hunting us.
3. Goblins don't seem to attacking much, must be afraid of 13 guys m..ok...
4. Elves in cool armor attacking goblins. Ok I get that.
5. Menacing goblin dude!
6. adventures hurray
7. goblins attack!
the only difference to the storyline that complicates it is the dol guldur storyline (AKA "dork"), which explains what gandalf was doing (something the book didn't do) and the background of thorin (again, explaining something the book didn't cover much). With the exception of such explanations, everything you picked at with the film is also in the book.
Frazzled wrote:Sure,
*Why is Ork boy pursuing them all this time (ala Fellowship interestingly)? Why doesn't he just wack them at the beginning or at any time. He kind of sucks and meanders in and out of the action.
He does try to whack them at the beginning- with the warg riders and at the tree.
*How does ork boy follow them when they get through the Storm Giant fight, get kidnapped and have to fight their way through goblin town? Thats a jump the shark moment there. Better to have had them in the tree from the goblins like in the original book.
If they had the company against the goblins, Bolg would be meandering in and out of the action even more. This is a chance for a face-to-face. And the Goblins and Orcs are working together- it's no stretch to suggest the goblins let them through the mountain.
*Why exactly is Dork boy such a dork (ok thats an aside, but he's just such sad comic relief its jarring and then winging into the ork seriousness again).
I agree with you there, Radagast is too silly.
*Why exactly is Dork Boy involved with the Orks?
He is Gandalf's friend. He helps his friend escape against the orcs, as a friend would do.
*Why is the evil spiders after Dork Boy?
Radagast is the protector of Mirkwood. Spiders want to take over Mirkwood. He is therefore an obstacle to their plans.
*Why doesn't Dork Boy go talk to the White Wizard. Gandalf's not his boss.
Gandalf is closer by and more willing to listen than Saruman.
Layer in the conflict that the movie couldn't make up its mind if it wanted to be a good kid's movie or LOTR revisited and banged jarringly one way to the next and its just blah.
A children's book, with the majority of its followers now being adults, as well as it following up a more adult trilogy more than explains its trying to account for all ages.
Also, I think this thread is intended for discussion about the Desolation of Smaug, and comparing it to its predecessor is fine, but this has strayed completely from the upcoming film and into a debate about the previous one.
Strangely the Hobbit book I read didn't have an ork biker gang hunting them throughout the book.
Frazzled wrote: Strangely the Hobbit book I read didn't have an ork biker gang hunting them throughout the book.
No- it had a goblin army hunting them throughout the book. The orcs were added in as part of Thorin's backstory, which wasn't fully explained in the book.
First off, I'll just say the trailer looks epic. Very much looking forward to seeing this one.
(by the way, none of the below is intended as a rant, just to promote discussion)
The thing is, the hobbit as a book is far closer in style to Narnia than LOTR, it was written for kids and Tolkien himself later said he admitted this was a bad idea. LOTR came later when he (and the publishers) realised there was a demand for more of the same, but more in depth and detailed. This is the line Jackson has to tread, keeping it closer in feel to LOTR than a kids story while remaining faithful to the book, for the sake of continuity as much as anything else. And given Tolkien's admission on the style of the book, you can bet it would have been far more in the vein of LOTR/the PJ films, with multiple plots, developed characters and more action. While there is a simplicity to the book, it could be said it is too basic, and is literally just 'let's go get our stuff/mountain back'.
The 'additions' are largely based on what Tolkien himself later added. At the time of writing the Hobbit, he had not even thought of the idea of Sauron and the rings of power, nor of characters such as Legolas that feature in the later books. For example, when, throughout the hobbit, Gandalf keeps disappearing at odd moments (usually followed by the dwarves getting in trouble), that was simply a plot device, it was only later that this was explained as the sub-plot with the White Council and the Necromancer. The latter is mentioned in passing at the end of The Hobbit, but only as a one-line explanation for Gandalf leaving before Mirkwood and returning late to the Erebor. Tolkien realised this was weak, and created the story of the Council to fill in the gaps. As has been already mentioned, characters like Legolas are there simply by default, the character did not exist at the time of writing the Hobbit, but as Thranduil's son, would have been present at Mirkwood, Dol Goldur and the Battle of 5 Armies.
The only real addition that Jackson has made is the Azog sub-plot, as in Tolkien's writing he is recorded as being killed by Dain at the battle of Moria (where in the film he fights Thorin and retreats). This was made for one simple reason, and that is that, aside from the brief encounter with the trolls and the escape from Goblin Town, there is really very little in terms of suspense in this early part of the book. Compare this to the Fellowship of the Ring (my personal favourite film and book), where there is the constant threat of the Nazgul hunting the Fellowship, and then the Uruks from Moria onwards. Azog fulfils a similar role, being a consistent threat throughout the film and providing an identifiable enemy with more of a motive than just 'they're dwarves, eat them/they're dwarves, kill them' that we get from the trolls and the Goblin King. The film would not work without this character or similar, as there would be very little sense of haste or pressure on the dwarves, they could just stroll to Erebor without the threat of being hunted by a character with a personal vendetta. Otherwise, it would just be dwarves plodding across fields, across a river, up and down a mountain and through a forest, which frankly, would not make amazing viewing.
As previously mentioned, it's a fine line between adding too much and leaving too much out that fans would then demand. For example, the whole Dol Goldur plot arc, had it been ignored, would have prompted just as many complaints as backflipping elves being included. In my opinion, Jackson trod this line amazingly well with LOTR (my only issue being the removal of the Scouring of the Shire) and continues to do with the Hobbit, expanding the rich universe and providing excellent films.
As a final thought, has there ever been a film that has been a truly accurate representation of the book? No.
rodgers37 wrote: I thought this trailer was fantastic. Can't wait to see the film.
Its always amusing how upset people get when films don't match the book. Something that happens with 95% of adaptations. Yet some people never seem to learn?
Of course its fine to be a bit disappointed when stuff you loved from a book is changed/missed for a film, but realistically its very difficult to make that book as good on screen in the same sense as it was in the book. You can make a film thats just as good, but not necessarily for the right reasons.
Apart from a couple silly Legolas action Scenes i think every important change Fran Walsh (i think) and Stephen Jackson (plus whoever helped with the writing) Made to LOTR was an improvement. I don't think The Hobbit is bad because they diverted from the source text, i think it is bad for a number of other reasons.
It's a bit of a mixed bag, I think. Personally, I thought making Aragorn a reluctant king by pushing back his acceptance of Anduril was perhaps the most important improvement. The story is about the "return of the king," after all, and that change adds some dramatic tension around that, which leads to a better payoff.
Actually, scratch that. Getting ol' Tom Bombadillo out of the story was #1. Aragorn was #2.
Elves at Helm's Deep is the aforementioned mixed bag. I get that it kinda cheapened things in a sense. But then it also served as a tangible demonstration of the races again working together in the face of unimaginable evil. It clarifies the point.
I can't argue against the Dead Men being too much of an instant win at Pelannor. Perhaps it's a subtle thing -- how do you make it clear that they put the good guys over the top without making them seem an instant win? I think perhaps the flaw there was the visual execution. They fell in love with the CGI -- "look how we can make them crawl over everything like army ants" -- and this representation made them seem like an overwhelming force that single-handedly won the battle.
I'm with you on The Hobbit -- the issues aren't about deviation from the text. I just don't think it's a great piece of filmmaking.
Well the army of the dead was pretty much an instant win in the book too, just not in the same location.
I think the Hobbit has some definite noteworthy film points. The 3d is amazing, its one of the few 3d films I've seen that uses it as an enhancement and not a gimmicky feature. The HFR is unnecessary IMO but its not detracting.
Manchu wrote: Israelite subtext? Don't think so. This is like the people who used to write to Tolkien asking if the Ring stood for nuclear bombs.
Yeah that's why i don't think Tolkein had it in mind. AFAIK Thorin was more keen on getting back the Treasure than Reclaiming his ancestral home. This was only a minor gripe and tbh it was more the language in the film that tried to evoke all that 'Chosen people' stuff. It's fine to have someone wanting to retake their home but i didn't like the attempts at Allegory precisely for the reason that it wasn't Tolkein's thing.
I'm really excited for more explanation on Dol Guldor. Every time I read the book I always wanted more of that side of things. Glad it's getting some light in the movie.
Beorn looks too feline, this set up would make for a good were-lion.
You need something more heavy set and ursine, also from the setting and name, let alone Tolkiens own images of Beorns hall you need something more traditionally norse looking.
I always envisaged Beorn as heavy set broad and very brawny, not just hirsute, Brian Blessed would have make the perfect Beorn, and there ought to have been a younger version of him.
This Beorn doesn't even have a hairy chest.
But seeing as Smaug the golden, there is a clue in the name, looks half blue, I can expect Jackson to come up with anything.
Orlanth wrote:Beorn looks too feline, this set up would make for a good were-lion.
You need something more heavy set and ursine, also from the setting and name, let alone Tolkiens own images of Beorns hall you need something more traditionally norse looking.
I always envisaged Beorn as heavy set broad and very brawny, not just hirsute, Brian Blessed would have make the perfect Beorn, and there ought to have been a younger version of him.
This Beorn doesn't even have a hairy chest.
But seeing as Smaug the golden, there is a clue in the name, looks half blue, I can expect Jackson to come up with anything.
Yeah, I imagined him as a really tall, brawny, massively bearded man- so basically a more grim Brian Blessed.
Just about anything with Brian Blessed is epic....
But to the OP.
I liked the trailer, even though I am quite sceptical of how good the film will be. the first film was entirely mediocre, with some great moments.
Must remember that the main goal here is to make a great film/ trilogy. I think PJ was successful with LOTR, even though there were some poor plot decisions(Elves at Helms deep, Dwarf tossing, shield surfing, saruman exorsism...etc.) these didn't totally ruin the films.
I can't say that poop eating radagast totally ruined the film, but it certainly was a detraction IMO. I would have rather seen a more serious radagast than that characture PJ turned him into. But thats just me.
I watched the hobbit film twice. First time by myself, 2nd time with my two boys, and I fell asleep during the 2nd watching, which I never do.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Beorn looks too feline, this set up would make for a good were-lion.
You need something more heavy set and ursine, also from the setting and name, let alone Tolkiens own images of Beorns hall you need something more traditionally norse looking.
I always envisaged Beorn as heavy set broad and very brawny, not just hirsute, Brian Blessed would have make the perfect Beorn, and there ought to have been a younger version of him.
Agreed....I had envisioned large and in charge..not lionel from thundercats.
Manchu wrote: I really enjoyed the first Hobbit movie. In fact, I like it better than the LotR movies. I like that they're stretching it out. Hurr hurr, Hollywood wants to make money and we're all clearly geniuses for pointing it out ... but on the other hand Middle Earth is a big place and having three movies makes me feel like there is time to really explore it and get into it. If anything, it wouldn't have been terrible to have more than three LotR movies.
My thoughts exactly.
They want to cram in extra stuff into the movie? Hell yes I'm all for it. The hobbit was genuinely fun to watch, kind of like watching a d&d adventure in movie form. I fully support them "bloating" it as much as possible.
It also isn't that complicated to realize they have taken from other Tolkien sources and integrated them in to a larger cohesive narrative. Sort of like when Tolkien went back and rewrote "Riddles in the Dark" to make it fit with the Lord of the Rings.
Cohesive narrative?
The opening of the film establishes Bilbo as the narrator. Everything that follows must be told from his POV. So any time Jackson diverges from Bilbo's POV (to tell these other stories), he automatically breaks the narrative. It has little to do with changing or adding things. Jackson is simply a garbage storyteller.
Watching Peter Jackson films is like going to Jurassic Park. At first (Fellowship) it's all ooooh and ahhhh, but after that it's running and screaming.
If we are talking about narrative, it took WELL over a year for the events of the lord of the rings to finish.
In order for the transition to screen, there are going to be trade-offs. Personally, I would've liked to have seen perhaps a little less padding with the Necromancer storyline, perhaps telling
Spoiler:
sauron's
story in another film rather than The hobbit. Radagast I felt was suitable, but needed to be slightly less silly, however one would presumably lose the sense of "mushroom addled brains"....
The newest film. I don't know....it does deviate a lot from the book, but I'll reserve my judgement for when the movie actually comes out rather than base it on a trailer.
It also isn't that complicated to realize they have taken from other Tolkien sources and integrated them in to a larger cohesive narrative. Sort of like when Tolkien went back and rewrote "Riddles in the Dark" to make it fit with the Lord of the Rings.
Cohesive narrative?
The opening of the film establishes Bilbo as the narrator. Everything that follows must be told from his POV. So any time Jackson diverges from Bilbo's POV (to tell these other stories), he automatically breaks the narrative.
Actually all that means is what we are seeing is how Bilbo believes those events to have transpired. As you say, these events are being related from the future about the past. Some of it he would have heard about later, other bits he could have invented himself.
I went back and watched the first part of the Hobbit last night again, and still enjoyed it as much as the first time. I'm excited for DoS. Radagast....yeah, a bit odd. He's better portrayed in the LotR Battle of the North game by Snowblind studios (no poo on his face). He gets taken by the spiders, but he's not a complete putz. Radagast is the only part that I'm "eh" about with the movie. If he's the only issue for me, then I consider that a damn good movie.
My copy is a decent sized novel, about 400 pages, and it's a bore to get through. The movies, so far, have brought life back into the prequel of 
