they did in 1h17m what Jackson 'had' to do in three three hour films?
I haven't seen this. Seems interesting. I'm not whining about the film, I enjoyed them. Makes me laugh though.
Because, as with the book, the 1977 film's narrative is vague, and, with the exception of Bilbo and Thorin (and maybe Gandalf and Gollum to a lesser extent), all the characters are pretty non-descript; they're simply there to serve the plot. Each scene hits its mark and then moves on. The bits with the stone giants, the Carrock and Beorn also don't exist in this version, nor does the whole Arkenstone subplot. Let's also not forget that Jackson is trying to better connect this story with the LOTR trilogy, and in order to do so required a bit of expansion, be it from the LOTR appendices (the White Council/Dol Guldur/Necromancer business) or completely fabricated material that was nonetheless still in the same spirit as the LOTR films (the Orc pack pursuing the Dwarves [and Legolas and Tauriel in turn eventually pursuing said Orc pack], Azog still being alive and his integration into the story, Radagast's integration into the story, etc.).
Still, the Rankin/Bass film has its charm, and is by far the best of the 3 animated Tolkien adaptations. It also makes for a good introduction of the story (and Tolkien in general) to kids not yet old enough to handle the more intense live-action films. It's definitely worth a watch.
Thanks for the very detailed response! I was wondering how to introduce it to my little sisters.
shareYou're welcome. Glad I could help. Enjoy the movies.
shareI watched this cartoon when I was in Pre-school. Even then I was amazed by the atmosphere R&B managed to create. I have no idea why people dismiss it (or the book) as "vague." That dishonor is better applied to Jackson's Cliff Note characters that only exist to move the fight scenes along.
The characters in the cartoon are vibrant and interesting. Bilbo is a shy, insular person who finds his voice, and the dwarves are obsessed with a path that isn't coming back. And they managed to tell all of this without milking the audience for 3 unnecessary movies.
"We never win any ball games...but we sure have some interesting discussions."
Agreed, ClearWIntryDay. The Rankin and Bass movie told the tale that they needed to tell when adapting the novel, whereas the newer films added all sorts of nonsense that just bogged and slowed the film down. Even stuff taken from the appendixes and references in LOTR that they added to the film were pointless and unnecessary... which is why Tolkien didn't add all those subplots to his re-edited edition of 'The Hobbit' in the first place.
Formerly KingAngantyr
Can you tell me one thing about the character of Bofur from the book? Because I can from the Jackson films.
share''Let's also not forget that Jackson is trying to better connect this story with the LOTR trilogy, and in order to do so required a bit of expansion''
It didn't require anything of the sort. The latter and more familiar editions of the novel of 'The Hobbit' lead nicely into 'The Lord of Rings' without showing any of the scenes with the White Council, and the film didn't need to add any new subplots in what is a short but very full novel. We did not need the Orcs hunting the Dwarf, nor rabbit sleighs or Legolas or the framing device with other characters from LOTR. Padding 'The Hobbit' out into three movies was to gain more money not to make it less confusion or to better connect it with LOTR.
And the fact that this version omits some characters and subplots has nothing to do with this not being two or three movies. Add what this version cut out and you'd still have one movie instead of the three that Newline has given us.
To answer the question of the OP, Peter Jackson had to do three three hour books because the execs wanted to pad it out with unimportant details or added nonsense so they can get more money than one movie would give them.
Formerly KingAngantyr