Hobbit incoming!!!

[Aragorn_cro]

Hobit is soon to be released! What are your feelings about it :)? Me, personally cannot wait to watch it on the big screen.

[Eakin]

Whatever this "Hobit" movie is, I suspect it will be vastly inferior to "The Hobbit" which is also coming out soon :smalltongue:

Even if it weren't well, The Hobbit, which I've read cover to cover well over a dozen times (and incidently find vastly superior to the main trilogy) I'd probably go see it just because of how much I enjoyed Sherlock.

Wish it weren't getting stretched into three movies, though, that seems excessive.

Also, you might wanna tweak your avatar image.

[Killer Angel]

You can even enjoy the soundtrack (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757)!
(all credit for the link, goes to Trixie. After all, she's Great and Powerful)

[Tev]

I'm a little worried - stretching it out, new story lines and trying to make fairy tale EPIC sounds like they're going to make yet another cluster****.

But hey, I thought movie with premise like Avengers can't be good . . .

edit: oh and 48 FPS . . . :smallconfused:

[GloatingSwine]

I'm fairly convinced it will suck, to be honest.

The extra backstory they're crowbarring in has no place in the story of The Hobbit, doesn't impact or affect it in any way other than explaining where Gandalf went in the last third, which isn't really relevant to anything, he's not there, deal with it, and is only going to slow down the pace of the story because it's not actually a very long story, and could easily be done in one Peter Jackson Arse Number or two normal movies.

[Drakeburn]

But Peter Jackson has done a good job with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, so who knows how well The Hobbit turns out.

I've read the entire book, and I've actually seen another Hobbit movie that was made in 1977 (I accidentally stumbled onto the movie while listening to "Misty Mountains Cold" on youtube).

What I hate about that movie was that they left out Beorn (if I spelled it right), the skin - changer.

So students, your homework today is to watch The Hobbit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vn9Bn16uN0)(the old movie)

And don't forget to watch the new Hobbit movie when it comes out!

[Scowling Dragon]

What I AM worried about is that each movie only has a 1 year distance between each other.

[Aotrs Commander]

What I AM worried about is that each movie only has a 1 year distance between each other.

Why? LotR did exactly the same thing. They've done all the major filming already, bar any reshoots (that's why it's in three not two, because PJ went over all the stuff they'd done and decided there was enough to do three films).

[GloatingSwine]

But Peter Jackson has done a good job with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, so who knows how well The Hobbit turns out.


The Lord of the Rings is 1200 pages long or thereabouts and has maybe even too much content for a trilogy of films (given that much of it would break the pace of a movie), The Hobbit is barely more than 300 and could likely be made in a single film without significant loss.

Peter Jackson has caught the Epic Fantasy Disease (see also: pretty much all western fantasy), he can't cope with the idea that a story can be short and self contained, so he's shoving in all this bull**** that really doesn't belong in the story of The Hobbit.

Everything that doesn't come from the book The Hobbit should not be in the film, this should not be a trilogy of films, and making it into one is going to be bad.

[Traab]

The Lord of the Rings is 1200 pages long or thereabouts and has maybe even too much content for a trilogy of films (given that much of it would break the pace of a movie), The Hobbit is barely more than 300 and could likely be made in a single film without significant loss.

Peter Jackson has caught the Epic Fantasy Disease (see also: pretty much all western fantasy), he can't cope with the idea that a story can be short and self contained, so he's shoving in all this bull**** that really doesn't belong in the story of The Hobbit.

Everything that doesn't come from the book The Hobbit should not be in the film, this should not be a trilogy of films, and making it into one is going to be bad.

The thing is, the stuff he is putting into the hobbit? It was pretty much all at least referenced there. Thats why i can forgive its inclusion. I remember REALLY wanting to know wtf happened with the necromancer as just one example. I mean come on! That was SAURON! (I think, right?) Thats the kind of tale that shouldnt be glossed over with a quick, "Yeah, we won."

[GloatingSwine]

The thing is, the stuff he is putting into the hobbit? It was pretty much all at least referenced there. Thats why i can forgive its inclusion. I remember REALLY wanting to know wtf happened with the necromancer as just one example. I mean come on! That was SAURON! (I think, right?) Thats the kind of tale that shouldnt be glossed over with a quick, "Yeah, we won."

Yeah, but it's referenced as literally about two lines because it's not relevant to this story. It is the kind of tale that should be glossed over because it's not part of The Hobbit and it doesn't affect anything which happens in The Hobbit in any way whatsoever at all.

And trying to insert it into this story will massively extend what is actually a pretty short story into something massively long and drawn out that keeps cutting to another completely unrelated story (mostly in the last third when the climax of the story is supposed to be occurring) and therefore has an utterly terrible pace.

[Dr.Epic]

Let's give three cheers for Saved from Development Hell everybody!

[Androgeus]

Hobbit? that's like one eighth of a hobbyte right?

[Tebryn]

I'm fairly convinced it will suck, to be honest.

The extra backstory they're crowbarring in has no place in the story of The Hobbit, doesn't impact or affect it in any way other than explaining where Gandalf went in the last third, which isn't really relevant to anything, he's not there, deal with it, and is only going to slow down the pace of the story because it's not actually a very long story, and could easily be done in one Peter Jackson Arse Number or two normal movies.

Tolkien seemed to think it was important. He wrote it all after all.

[Gnome Alone]

I'm with GloatingSwine (heh), bloating up The Hobbit is ridoodoodiculous. It's not like LOTR where there's no way to adapt it all; it's self-contained. I expect to be disappointed, though not as much as I was by the exclusion of The Scouring of the Shire.

[Traab]

Yeah, but it's referenced as literally about two lines because it's not relevant to this story. It is the kind of tale that should be glossed over because it's not part of The Hobbit and it doesn't affect anything which happens in The Hobbit in any way whatsoever at all.

And trying to insert it into this story will massively extend what is actually a pretty short story into something massively long and drawn out that keeps cutting to another completely unrelated story (mostly in the last third when the climax of the story is supposed to be occurring) and therefore has an utterly terrible pace.

It is relevant, otherwise gandalf comes off as looking like some schmuck who barely gives a damn about the entire quest and keeps wandering off to go do whatever. I am also hoping, (though not holding my breath) to see if they bother to go into WHY gandalf insisted the dwarves come to the shire and pick up blibo. I mean yeah it turned out to be the right choice, but there is no way he could have forseen it. Or at least, none that was mentioned in the book. Oh sure, he kept aying cryptic comments about how useful he could be, but none of that ever explained how he knew this stuff. It seems like a bit of a stretch that he knew they would be captured by goblins, escape, drop bilbo down a cliff, have him steal the one ring, and use it to save the day on many occaisions. I mean, yeah it turned out bilbo did have what it took to kick ass and take names, but it seems a little odd to insist 13 dwarves drag along a hobbit so he can grow into a better halfling. A quest to kill a dragon seems an odd time to insist they help a hobbit proceed on the path to personal growth.

[Parra]

I find it amusing that one of the biggest gripes about the LotR trilogy was about the stuff they left out (I'm looking at you Tom Bombadil) and now that The Hobbit is becoming a trilogy so they can include a lot of the more minor parts that the main gripe people seem to have is that its putting too much 'extra' stuff in.

[Ravens_cry]

I find it amusing that one of the biggest gripes about the LotR trilogy was about the stuff they left out (I'm looking at you Tom Bombadil) and now that The Hobbit is becoming a trilogy so they can include a lot of the more minor parts that the main gripe people seem to have is that its putting too much 'extra' stuff in.
Yeah, because there is no difference between the amount of material in a novel that is easy to fit in ones pocket and a doorstopper the size of a good dictionary or large Bible.
In case you couldn't guess, the above is sarcasm.

[Avilan the Grey]

Well I for one will see all of them. And I am convinced they won't suck, since well LOTR trilogy is my favorite movies of all time. Honestly.

[GloatingSwine]

Tolkien seemed to think it was important. He wrote it all after all.

You'll note that he didn't actually publish any of it.


I mean The Hobbit wasn't, at the time it was written, even supposed to be set in Tolkien's metafiction, it was a completely standalone story that was actually even retconned to make it fit with Lord of the Rings.

The things that are being added are not part of The Hobbit, Tolkien certainly did not intend for them to be told alongside the story of The Hobbit, and probably hadn't even written most of it at the time. Gandalf did just bugger off and leave them to deal with the end of the quest on their own, he reckoned they could handle it.

[Avilan the Grey]

You'll note that he didn't actually publish any of it.


I mean The Hobbit wasn't, at the time it was written, even supposed to be set in Tolkien's metafiction, it was a completely standalone story that was actually even retconned to make it fit with Lord of the Rings.

The things that are being added are not part of The Hobbit, Tolkien certainly did not intend for them to be told alongside the story of The Hobbit, and probably hadn't even written most of it at the time. Gandalf did just bugger off and leave them to deal with the end of the quest on their own, he reckoned they could handle it.

First and second arguments are invalid, since Tolkien himself later retconned this, and the notes he wrote for himself does not mean they are less canon just because they were never published during his lifetime.

Third argument... I fail to see how this is a problem.

[Lord Tyger]

Has anyone read "Leaf, By Niggle," the short story by Tolkien? It's about an artist who begins by painting a single leaf and winds up painting an entire vast landscape, sometimes in fairly broad strokes, sometimes in extreme detail on a single part of it. It works really well as an allegory for the process of creating the whole Lord of the Rings universe. The Hobbit may or may not originally have been intended to fit with Tolkien's mythopoeia, but it certainly was included in it and incorporated into it.

[Aotrs Commander]

Well I for one will see all of them. And I am convinced they won't suck, since well LOTR trilogy is my favorite movies of all time. Honestly.

I'm with you, though I don't rate the LotR films quite that high (but only just, being in my top two or three!), and LotR is still my favourite book (and BBC Radio adpation!)

[Dienekes]

I'm cautiously optimistic. The LotR movies were really good, and while not a completely faithful adaptation remained enjoyable. I expect the same from this. Also, while I admit 3 movies is a bit of a stretch, I think that the Hobbit could have easily have been divided into two, despite it's relative shortness as a book. I'm curious how it ends up, and I am interested in seeing the confrontation with the Necromancer. Though I have a feeling it'll involve a fight with Gandalf, which will make the Necromancer loose and suddenly turn into a giant eye. But I've made my peace that Jackson's Sauron actually was a giant eye.

[GloatingSwine]

First and second arguments are invalid, since Tolkien himself later retconned this, and the notes he wrote for himself does not mean they are less canon just because they were never published during his lifetime.

Third argument... I fail to see how this is a problem.

The point isn't that it's not canon, the point is that it's not relevant. Sauron being forced out of Dol Guldur does absolutely nothing to affect the story of Bilbo and the dwarves' journey to the lonely mountain, the defeat of Smaug, or the Battle of the Five Armies.

Nothing.

At all.

And see there's this concept called pace, a story has to continue moving at a certain rate because otherwise the audience grows disinterested and stops following it. And inserting a massive chunk of completely irrelevant bull**** from some other story, which is what all the added content to The Hobbit is, breaks the pace and flow of the story. And to get three movies out of a fairly short book it will have to be a massive chunk.

The actual story of The Hobbit will be spread too thin and too frequently interrupted by things which do not affect it.

If you can't see that this is bad, you really do need to step up your involvement in decent narratives.

[Scowling Dragon]

Well maybe this can work if each movie is an hour and a half? Cause each one being 3 hours is ridiculous.

[Androgeus]

Well maybe this can work if each movie is an hour and a half? Cause each one being 3 hours is ridiculous.

The first one is apparently going to be the shortest at about 2 hours 40 minutes. (sauce (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a433091/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-running-time-revealed.html))

[GloatingSwine]

Well maybe this can work if each movie is an hour and a half? Cause each one being 3 hours is ridiculous.

No, it won't work at all. If they were going to make three hour and a half movies cut out the irrelevant **** and make two movies.


But no, Peter Jackson has literally no ideas any more other than Moar Hobbitses, so he's going to drag it out as long as possible by crowbarring in things that absolutely fail to impact the actual story.

Really, I think it's the fact that here's a guy who got started making zero budget gorefests and struck lucky with a monkey film, and now he doesn't know what to do, he can't step back from the "ZOMG epic" brink, but he doesn't know how to make anything else now he's there (given that any other epic fantasy he could try is already basically Lord of the Rings in different hats anyway, and early hollywood has already been thoroughly plundered for remakes).

[SoC175]

What I AM worried about is that each movie only has a 1 year distance between each other.Which is what #### me off. They should release them with 6 month between them.

[Scowling Dragon]

No, it won't work at all. If they were going to make three hour and a half movies cut out the irrelevant **** and make two movies.


Well yeah I know. I was just saying how to make 3 movies work.

[Dienekes]

No, it won't work at all. If they were going to make three hour and a half movies cut out the irrelevant **** and make two movies.


But no, Peter Jackson has literally no ideas any more other than Moar Hobbitses, so he's going to drag it out as long as possible by crowbarring in things that absolutely fail to impact the actual story.

Really, I think it's the fact that here's a guy who got started making zero budget gorefests and struck lucky with a monkey film, and now he doesn't know what to do, he can't step back from the "ZOMG epic" brink, but he doesn't know how to make anything else now he's there (given that any other epic fantasy he could try is already basically Lord of the Rings in different hats anyway, and early hollywood has already been thoroughly plundered for remakes).

You have a lot of vitriol over a couple of movies that haven't even come out yet. I'll admit, I even agree with you that I think the 3 movie thing is pushing it, but it seems more reasonable to me to at least wait and see how bad it ends up being rather than proclaiming it definitively will not work before the first one even comes out. That way lies madness, and sets yourself up for hatred whether the product is deserving or not.

[Astrella]

The point isn't that it's not canon, the point is that it's not relevant. Sauron being forced out of Dol Guldur does absolutely nothing to affect the story of Bilbo and the dwarves' journey to the lonely mountain, the defeat of Smaug, or the Battle of the Five Armies.

Nothing.

At all.

Eh, I wouldn't say nothing. The main reason Gandalf even decided to help them out was because Smaug being around was a huge threat for the North with regards to Sauron gathering power. It's in unfinished tales I think? A bit where Gandalf tells the Hobbits in Minas Tirith post Sauron's demise about his motivations with regards to the events in the Hobbit. He didn't want Smaug being around to be used by Sauron.

[GloatingSwine]

Eh, I wouldn't say nothing. The main reason Gandalf even decided to help them out was because Smaug being around was a huge threat for the North with regards to Sauron gathering power. It's in unfinished tales I think? A bit where Gandalf tells the Hobbits in Minas Tirith post Sauron's demise about his motivations with regards to the events in the Hobbit. He didn't want Smaug being around to be used by Sauron.

An obscure and significantly removed motive does not affect how the events occur. Gandalf leaves them at the edge of Mirkwood, he doesn't return until the Battle of the Five Armies. As far as the story of The Hobbit is concerned that's all you need to know.


You have a lot of vitriol over a couple of movies that haven't even come out yet

I have a lot of vitriol in general. But the thing is I'd really like to see a good movie of The Hobbit, and that's not what's going to come out, for reasons which are depressingly predictable.

[JoshL]

For me, what matters is this: we are getting 3 big budget fantasy films (my favorite genre) set in one of my favorite worlds by a director who I've enjoyed since he was doing low-budget splatter. Not to mention actors I like, a score by one of my favorite composers, etc, etc.

No, it won't be The Hobbit: the book. Neither was the old cartoon. But no matter how good or bad the film is, the book will always be right there on my bookshelf. If the movie is bad, I never have to watch it again. However, I expect I'll enjoy it for the reasons listed above, and enjoy it for what it is, not for what it's not. But that's just my perspective. I'd much rather think about things I like than things I don't!

[1dominator]

The thing is, the stuff he is putting into the hobbit? It was pretty much all at least referenced there. Thats why i can forgive its inclusion. I remember REALLY wanting to know wtf happened with the necromancer as just one example. I mean come on! That was SAURON! (I think, right?) Thats the kind of tale that shouldnt be glossed over with a quick, "Yeah, we won."

That tale is told in the Silmarillion. He legged it back to Mordor when the white council finally decided to root him out.

[Avilan the Grey]

The point isn't that it's not canon, the point is that it's not relevant. Sauron being forced out of Dol Guldur does absolutely nothing to affect the story of Bilbo and the dwarves' journey to the lonely mountain, the defeat of Smaug, or the Battle of the Five Armies.

Nothing.

At all.

It IS however VERY relevant if you DO consider The Hobbit the canon prequel to LOTR. Which it is, according to Tolkien.

And just like Traab I remember being very disappointed as a kid not getting to read about the battle with the Necromancer.

[Traab]

An obscure and significantly removed motive does not affect how the events occur. Gandalf leaves them at the edge of Mirkwood, he doesn't return until the Battle of the Five Armies. As far as the story of The Hobbit is concerned that's all you need to know.



I have a lot of vitriol in general. But the thing is I'd really like to see a good movie of The Hobbit, and that's not what's going to come out, for reasons which are depressingly predictable.

You should also consider the fact that while to tolkien the stories were at first unconnected, in our case, this is like watching the star wars prequels. We get to see how things got to the state they were in during episode 6, escape from the shire. So including all this extra stuff that doesnt directly effect the hobbit story itself is needed to help link it to the lotr trilogy better than by just bilbo picking up a ring he has no clue about. But if it bothers you so much, when those scenes pop up, put in some ear plugs, close your eyes, and hum "Thats What Bilbo Baggins Hates" to yourself, cautiously opening your eyes every 10 minutes to see if its over yet.

[GloatingSwine]

You should also consider the fact that while to tolkien the stories were at first unconnected, in our case, this is like watching the star wars prequels.

Yeah, about that... (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111208042122/starwars/images/4/42/JarJarHS-SWE.jpg)


We get to see how things got to the state they were in during episode 6, escape from the shire. So including all this extra stuff that doesnt directly effect the hobbit story itself is needed to help link it to the lotr trilogy better than by just bilbo picking up a ring he has no clue about.

The point I'm making is that that isn't needed. We don't need The Hobbit to be a prequel to Lord of the Rings, and attempting to make it into one will make it worse.


But if it bothers you so much, when those scenes pop up, put in some ear plugs, close your eyes, and hum "Thats What Bilbo Baggins Hates" to yourself, cautiously opening your eyes every 10 minutes to see if its over yet.

Errr, why do you think I'm going to be validating an adaptation I can tell already is going to suck by watching it? I mean I can read The Hobbit in less than three hours, let alone watch movies of it.

[Traab]

Yeah, about that... (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111208042122/starwars/images/4/42/JarJarHS-SWE.jpg)



The point I'm making is that that isn't needed. We don't need The Hobbit to be a prequel to Lord of the Rings, and attempting to make it into one will make it worse.



Errr, why do you think I'm going to be validating an adaptation I can tell already is going to suck by watching it? I mean I can read The Hobbit in less than three hours, let alone watch movies of it.

Well it must be nice to be able to see the future. Of course, you remind me of my niece now, refusing to eat some new food, sight unseen, already deciding that she is going to hate it, so it could be the greatest food in the world and she would make a disgusted face just out of spite and determination to be right. Just because it adds in extra elements of tolkiens own world to expand on the story, and make it have a connection, doesnt mean it will be bad. Not that I will convince you, you have already seen the future and determined it will be an unmitigated horror that will frighten children, bruise fruit, and send our worlds economy into a death spiral.

[GloatingSwine]

Well it must be nice to be able to see the future. Of course, you remind me of my niece now, refusing to eat some new food, sight unseen, already deciding that she is going to hate it, so it could be the greatest food in the world and she would make a disgusted face just out of spite and determination to be right. Just because it adds in extra elements of tolkiens own world to expand on the story, and make it have a connection, doesnt mean it will be bad. Not that I will convince you, you have already seen the future and determined it will be an unmitigated horror that will frighten children, bruise fruit, and send our worlds economy into a death spiral.

It is nice being able to see the future. It's pretty easy too, you just have to look at the past and take notes.

See, I've read, watched, and played a lot of stories, and I actually think about them, what makes them work and what makes them good. And one of the things that invariably doesn't make a story good is attempting to jam in a bunch of cruft that has nothing to do with the story, especially when your actual intent is to service some other story.

Now, it's pretty obvious that a lot of people are blinded by adulation of the lore and setting and don't actually want the story to be good as long as it includes loads of Lord of the Rings fanservice. They're silly people, and sadly Peter Jackson is one of them, but there's always the book and BBC radio drama, which do it properly (hilariously, pretty much all of the things taken out of the Lord of the Rings movies fall squarely into the category of "things that don't help the story", hell, even Tolkien admits that Tom Bombadil didn't fit the story).

[snoopy13a]

It IS however VERY relevant if you DO consider The Hobbit the canon prequel to LOTR. Which it is, according to Tolkien.

And just like Traab I remember being very disappointed as a kid not getting to read about the battle with the Necromancer.

Semantically, The Lord of the Rings is a sequel to The Hobbit rather than the other way around. Although, The Hobbit can be a called a "prelude" to The Lord of the Rings (it even says so on the cover of my copy).

My issue is that The Hobbit is a children's book. Thus, any movie adaptation should have a lighter, more whismical tone--think the first few chapters of The Fellowship of the Ring. I don't believe that Jackson respected the tone of the book in his adaptation. So, we'll likely see The Lord of the Rings-lite rather than a different vision of Middle-Earth.

Driving the necromancer out of Mirkwood is "canon*." However, it doesn't fit in The Hobbit because it is out of the scope of a silly hobbit's adventures. In The Lord of the Rings, we don't follow Fatty Bolger's small rebellion against Sharkey's ruffians or the battle between the dwarves of Erebor and the the men of Dale agaisnt the forces of evil--even though both are "canon." That's because those narratives wouldn't fit in the story. Likewise, a detour of Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond, and Galadriel, among others, into Mirkwood to fight the necromancer doesn't fit in a children's story like The Hobbit.

* I hate this word. Defining concrete rules and facts in a fictional setting seems particulary odd to me.

[GloatingSwine]

My issue is that The Hobbit is a children's book. Thus, any movie adaptation should have a lighter, more whismical tone--think the first few chapters of The Fellowship of the Ring. I don't believe that Jackson respected the tone of the book in his adaptation. So, we'll likely see The Lord of the Rings-lite rather than a different vision of Middle-Earth.



Well, yes. How they're going to cope with the fact that trolls, last seen by moviegoing audiences as snarling incoherent beasts, actually talk like members of the British labouring classes ca. 1930 in their off time I don't know.

[Traab]

Well, yes. How they're going to cope with the fact that trolls, last seen by moviegoing audiences as snarling incoherent beasts, actually talk like members of the British labouring classes ca. 1930 in their off time I don't know.

"These are hill trolls, smarter than their mountain brethren, but have a fatal weakness to sunlight."

When in need, make some stuff up. This is a plot hole from tolkien, not something introduced by jackson.

[Avilan the Grey]

The point I'm making is that that isn't needed. We don't need The Hobbit to be a prequel to Lord of the Rings, and attempting to make it into one will make it worse.

1. LOTR IS the sequel to the Hobbit. According to Tolkien. Telling yourself otherwise is not making it so.

2. To claim this will automatically make it worse is odd, to say the least.


"These are hill trolls, smarter than their mountain brethren, but have a fatal weakness to sunlight."

When in need, make some stuff up. This is a plot hole from tolkien, not something introduced by jackson.

To be fair, for people who has only seen the movies:

1. The mountain troll is supposed to be a child. Also, it was always under ground and therefore not in sunlight.
2. The other trolls we see in LOTR are busy killing puny humans and protected by the thick cloud Sauron sent with the army.

[Dr.Epic]

I really hope they don't show Smaug in the first installment. You can't just show him off the bat. You have to build up to him. Though that would make Thorin's story of his homeland being destroyed difficult to translate to the big screen if it's done in flashbacks.

[GloatingSwine]

1. LOTR IS the sequel to the Hobbit. According to Tolkien. Telling yourself otherwise is not making it so.[quote]

A prequel is a story written afterwards but set before, it's a specific concept because a prequel has story elements specifically included to set up the story set after it. The Hobbit (book) is not a prequel, it's a story that comes before Lord of the Rings but includes nothing specifically included to enable to the story of LotR. Even the retcon, the finding of the ring, is onlt a change in specific details.

[quote]2. To claim this will automatically make it worse is odd, to say the least.

Not really. The Hobbit is 310 pages long, in order to make three movies out of that the bodged in content would have to be at least 50% of the runtime, and that means the pace of the actual story will be leaden, with the interruptions being mostly backloaded into the last film where the climax of The Hobbit is supposed to be taking place.

That means that yes, it will be worse.


1. The mountain troll is supposed to be a child. Also, it was always under ground and therefore not in sunlight.
2. The other trolls we see in LOTR are busy killing puny humans and protected by the thick cloud Sauron sent with the army.

The fact is more that they were mindless roaring monsters, not comedy poor people, which is what the trolls in The Hobbit are.

[Dr.Epic]

Not really. The Hobbit is 310 pages long, in order to make three movies out of that the bodged in content would have to be at least 50% of the runtime, and that means the pace of the actual story will be leaden, with the interruptions being mostly backloaded into the last film where the climax of The Hobbit is supposed to be taking place.

That means that yes, it will be worse.

Woah! You're psychic!? Quick! Give me tomorrow's lottery numbers. I mean how else could you know and explicitly state a film is going to be bad if you've never seen it without psychic powers?

[Traab]

How about if its a pov kind of flashback to the attack. We never see the actual dragon, just shadow silhouettes and fire flickering.

[oblivion6]

My issue is that The Hobbit is a children's book. Thus, any movie adaptation should have a lighter, more whismical tone--think the first few chapters of The Fellowship of the Ring. I don't believe that Jackson respected the tone of the book in his adaptation. So, we'll likely see The Lord of the Rings-lite rather than a different vision of Middle-Earth.

while i'm sure it wont be a completely faithful adaptation in terms of tone, i did recently see a commercial for it and it did seem rather whimsical to me. atleast compared to LOTR.

with that said, i am looking forward to it and will hopefully be going to the midnight premiere.

[Traab]

while i'm sure it wont be a completely faithful adaptation in terms of tone, i did recently see a commercial for it and it did seem rather whimsical to me. atleast compared to LOTR.

with that said, i am looking forward to it and will hopefully be going to the midnight premiere.

I dont know how the hell it can be all that whimsical. Maybe im remembering a different story, but didnt they get to listen to a bunch of trolls debate on the best way to kill and cook them? Didnt they get to slowly starve half to death in a forest, get caught and nearly eaten by giant spiders, then get imprisoned for the crime of being dwarves by a bunch of xenophobic elves? (Honestly, it doesnt really matter why they got arrested, or the long history between them, we dont know any of that while reading the hobbit) Lets not even mention smaug and the half dozen different ways he spread pain death and misery, or the gigantic battle of 5 armies where it seems like half the main characters died.

Light hearted? Not hardly. Maybe lighter in tone than lord of the rings, but that doesnt make it whimsical, despite thats what bilbo baggins hates. Possibly the best song ever.

[GloatingSwine]

Woah! You're psychic!? Quick! Give me tomorrow's lottery numbers. I mean how else could you know and explicitly state a film is going to be bad if you've never seen it without psychic powers?

Look, if you've read a few books and seen a few movies it's not hard to figure out the average rate at which pages transfer into film. And, frankly, there isn't enough in The Hobbit to come up with three full length movies, let alone three Peter Jackson movies (post King Kong, anyway, when he got addicted to length).

I mean the BBC radio adaptation, which is pretty complete, is still only three and a half hours (even 90 minutes each would make the runtime four and a half hours), and that has to spend time with narration because it was a radio play and couldn't just show you things.

[oblivion6]

whimsical was the wrong word...i was mainly referring to the commercial i saw anyways...

[Traab]

Look, if you've read a few books and seen a few movies it's not hard to figure out the average rate at which pages transfer into film. And, frankly, there isn't enough in The Hobbit to come up with three full length movies, let alone three Peter Jackson movies (post King Kong, anyway, when he got addicted to length).

I mean the BBC radio adaptation, which is pretty complete, is still only three and a half hours (even 90 minutes each would make the runtime four and a half hours), and that has to spend time with narration because it was a radio play and couldn't just show you things.

I have a 52 hour long audio book version of lotr. Its freaking awesome. They add in extra stuff, stuff that isnt in the bbc adaptation, (I have that one too) Its full of stuff like stretched out scenes, additional scenes that add more background details, for example, we get to hear a long scene involving gollum being captured and tortured for info on where the ring is. Way more than, "AAAAHHH! SHIRE! URGH! BAGGINS!" And you know what? Its great stuff. I get to hear more of the background information that explains certain things. Some that I had questioned before, others that I hadnt even thought of, but was glad they did. Extra stuff being added can make a story even better. Yes, it is very easy to bloat a story and ruin it, but its also doable to make the story even better by including more stuff that otherwise ended up on the cutting room floor.

But then, I have always enjoyed that sort of thing. Raymond Feists Magician series, Apprentice and Master? I have the authors preferred edition, which has something like an extra 40k words overall. Entire scenes that were cut from the original version due to size constraints, truncated conversations expanded upon, and its AWESOME.

[Nekura]

My current big issue with it? I saw a clip of Bilbo running of shouting I’m going on an adventure. He seemed very happy and excited to be going on the adventure. This is The Hobbit where he got kind of dragged off against his will not the latter books where he was old and longing to see Rivendale again.

[Xondoure]

My current big issue with it? I saw a clip of Bilbo running of shouting I’m going on an adventure. He seemed very happy and excited to be going on the adventure. This is The Hobbit where he got kind of dragged off against his will not the latter books where he was old and longing to see Rivendale again.

He left of his own accord though. Bilbo always had a heart for adventure, just wrapped up in Hobbit sensibilities.

[Balain]

I personally think I will enjoy The Hobbit movie.

The common issue I heard from the beginning, is people complaining a book a tad shy of 300 pages is going to be 3 movies and LOTR was 3 movies and it was 1200 pages. so if I take my LOTR book which is 1069 pages (with out the appendices) compared to the movies each page is .67 minutes of movie time. Which would make Jonathan Livingston seagull a 20 minute movie, but it's actually about 120 minutes long. Using those numbers all the Shakespeare plays would be 759.78 minutes, but in fact they would be about 3,330 minutes, give or take 10 to 20 minutes a play, some being longer, some shorter

The thing is you can't say x number of pages in a book is equal to y number of minutes of a movie. The way you represent a story visually in a movie is not the same as you do in a book.

Now granted there is the stuff that is just mentioned in a couple of lines in the book the is expanded on greatly. I again personally welcome the expanded stuff. The whole thing with the necromancer is a good story and it will be cool to see it included. This could change the pace of the movie.

The thing is the pace of movies changes all the time. Look at the pace of some of the best movies from the 40's 50's and 60's. The pacing is much slower than movies now. Movies now are all about fast paced action with story as an after thought(That's a totally different topic). I don't even know where I am going with this one.

Anyways after all that I can say I think I will enjoy The Hobbit as a movie.

[Avilan the Grey]

Look, if you've read a few books and seen a few movies it's not hard to figure out the average rate at which pages transfer into film. And, frankly, there isn't enough in The Hobbit to come up with three full length movies, let alone three Peter Jackson movies (post King Kong, anyway, when he got addicted to length).

So you claim, and I still say you are dead wrong. Let's agree to disagree... I am sure Peter Jackson will make enough money out of this without you :smallbiggrin:

[Traab]

So you claim, and I still say you are dead wrong. Let's agree to disagree... I am sure Peter Jackson will make enough money out of this without you :smallbiggrin:

Nope, the movie will be a terrible flop, only grossing 799, 999, 995 dollars world wide. (Ok, so I dont know how much a ticket costs anymore. Sue me!) :smallbiggrin:

[SmartAlec]

My current big issue with it? I saw a clip of Bilbo running of shouting I’m going on an adventure. He seemed very happy and excited to be going on the adventure. This is The Hobbit where he got kind of dragged off against his will not the latter books where he was old and longing to see Rivendale again.

Should be alright. If I remember the book right, Bilbo overslept and almost missed the departure of the Dwarves from Hobbiton - and ran out of the gate and down the road to make sure he caught them.

[oblivion6]

Should be alright. If I remember the book right, Bilbo overslept and almost missed the departure of the Dwarves from Hobbiton - and ran out of the gate and down the road to make sure he caught them.

that he did. i believe i remember something about a note on top of his cupboard/clock/wherever.

[Traab]

that he did. i believe i remember something about a note on top of his cupboard/clock/wherever.

Yeah, basically, he didnt even oversleep too much. He woke up, started cleaning everything, had his breakfast, then spotted the note. Gandalf was chiding him for missing it, because he placed it in a spot that normally blibo cleans every day. But due to the events of the previous day, im pretty sure bilbo was taking a break from his routine.

[Corvus]

For some idiotic reason, Australia is not getting the movie until two weeks AFTER pretty much the entire rest of the world. Croatia, Argentina, Thailand, even Armenia are getting it well before us.

Honestly, it is little wonder that Australia is one of the countries with the highest rate of pirating going on.

[oblivion6]

For some idiotic reason, Australia is not getting the movie until two weeks AFTER pretty much the entire rest of the world. Croatia, Argentina, Thailand, even Armenia are getting it well before us.

Honestly, it is little wonder that Australia is one of the countries with the highest rate of pirating going on.

Its times like these I wished I was in New Zealand. They have already gotten it I believe.

their PM actually temporarilly renamed their capital "the Middle of Middle-Earth" the month of its premeire over there.

[Aotrs Commander]

For some idiotic reason, Australia is not getting the movie until two weeks AFTER pretty much the entire rest of the world. Croatia, Argentina, Thailand, even Armenia are getting it well before us.

Honestly, it is little wonder that Australia is one of the countries with the highest rate of pirating going on.

That's... ridiculous doesn't even cover it. I mean, just why? It's filmed practially next door, and if New Zealand has indeed gotten it... I just don't...

That's so stupid.

All I can wonder is if there's some sort of additional screening process or something that it has to be passed through; from what I've seen around, you do have some rather unfortunately heavy censorship procedures over there (which presumably require a more lengthy examination.)

I can only commiserate, and we can hope for better times.

(If it's any conslation for all your other media-related ills, Austraila appears to have one of the best cartoon-to-DVD markets out there; more than one DVD cartoon show (e.g. Earthworm Jim) I've had literally flown in from the other side of the world because only you guys were smart enough to release it...)

[oblivion6]

I'm glad they brought back Howard Shore for the music of the Hobbit.

Anyone listened to the song during the credits of The Return of the King? "Into the West" its called. I have always liked it but just recently, every time I hear it, my eyes tear up. Probably because I now know the inspiration behind the song now...Something about one of PJ's friends passing away during the filming or something I think.

[Mutant Sheep]

Its times like these I wished I was in New Zealand. They have already gotten it I believe.

their PM actually temporarilly renamed their capital "the Middle of Middle-Earth" the month of its premeire over there.

But did they rename Auckland Orcland? :smalltongue:

[oblivion6]

But did they rename Auckland Orcland? :smalltongue:

Haha, I would have renamed every city in the country. I am honestly suprised their capital got renamed temporarily. PJ and the Hobbit must be like a national commodity or something.

[Mutant Sheep]

Haha, I would have renamed every city in the country. I am honestly suprised their capital got renamed temporarily. PJ and the Hobbit must be like a national commodity or something.

It CREATED their tourist industry. :smalltongue: Before, it was just mini Australia with more deadly creatures per capita. :smallamused:

@v I must disagree. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0779982/):smallwink:

[Corvus]

It CREATED their tourist industry. :smalltongue: Before, it was just mini Australia with more deadly creatures per capita. :smallamused:

Sheep arent deadly ;)

[TheLaughingMan]

So what does the forum think about the uneasy reviews the film's been getting as of late?

[snoopy13a]

So what does the forum think about the uneasy reviews the film's been getting as of late?

I'm not surprised. But I'm still going to watch the movie. I don't think it'll be great, but "ok" will be fine with me.

[oblivion6]

So what does the forum think about the uneasy reviews the film's been getting as of late?

I have not seen any reviews myself, but I am not worried. I have seen MANY bad reviews that had absolutely no idea what they were talking about.

[Dienekes]

I have not seen any reviews myself, but I am not worried. I have seen MANY bad reviews that had absolutely no idea what they were talking about.

The one that I read, posted these negative qualities.
1) Not as epic as LotR (no duh)
2) They overused CGI, which is what all the goblins/orcs are (Seriously? The makeup and costuming of the original movie made the orcs feel alive, why the decision to go CGI?)
3) Too much time taken before the actual adventuring begins
4) There are only 4 or so dwarves that feel developed. (honestly, kind of a problem with the source material. I remember reading the Hobbit and knowing who Thorin was, as well as Bofur, but the others just became a blur)

So nothing really that gets me worried. Mildly disappointed by the CGI goblins thing, but I'll get over it.

[oblivion6]

The one that I read, posted these negative qualities.
1) Not as epic as LotR (no duh)
2) They overused CGI, which is what all the goblins/orcs are (Seriously? The makeup and costuming of the original movie made the orcs feel alive, why the decision to go CGI?)
3) Too much time taken before the actual adventuring begins
4) There are only 4 or so dwarves that feel developed. (honestly, kind of a problem with the source material. I remember reading the Hobbit and knowing who Thorin was, as well as Bofur, but the others just became a blur)

1. Wow, big suprise there.*rolls eyes*

2. We shall see...

3. Nothing wrong with that. It just gives me more time to look at the beautiful landscape of the Shire. Honestly, I would live there.

4. Yeah, I knew their names but for most, I didnt get to really know their personalities. Not that suprising considering theres 13 of them...

[snoopy13a]

Here's a review that is critical of the new camera technology (the critic thought it was distracting) and that the length of the movie was too slow placed:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2012/12/the_hobbit_reviewed_peter_jackson_s_new_tolkien_mo vie_is_too_long_and_looks.html

You may enjoy the comment section, if you like reading comments by angry Tolkien fans :smalltongue: . In my view, many Tolkien fans are pedants, which is why I stay away from Tolkien fansites.

The review did reinforce my fears; I'm still afraid that Jackson's interpretation will lose the silliness and whismy that separates The Hobbit from The Lord of the Rings (early chapters excluded) and most certainly The Simillarion. The Hobbit is, to me, a special book, and deserves a lighter touch and more delicate hands than that of Jackson. My fear is that it'll be The Lord of the Rings: The Prequels!!!!

[Traab]

Honestly? I think the guy who wrote that review was kind of unaware of what actually happened in the hobbit. It really was a slow starting story. Lots of long pony rides where nothing happens, interrupted now and then by a single event, followed by more pony rides. (or walking, i think they lose their ponies a lot lol) As for the long intro explaining how the dwarves lost their home, I havent seen it yet, but that sounds like a needful thing. It lets us know why these guys are going dragon hunting. Otherwise, we are supposed to memorize their over the misty mountains song to get the backstory. And yes, it was a very long song. That isnt jackson, thats tolkien, that song had a lot of verses. Ah well, whatever. I am sure I will still enjoy watching it.

[TheLaughingMan]

Honestly? I think the guy who wrote that review was kind of unaware of what actually happened in the hobbit. It really was a slow starting story.

As a point in the reviewer's favor, I should say that not every aspect of The Hobbit needed to be adapted for film, or at least as much as it sounds. The Lord of the Rings movies did well with this, because whenever we were on the road with the Fellowship their goal was in sight; perhaps it took some time to get there, but there was certainly something to do on the way to Mordor. When there wasn't, we got only enough of the traveling life as we needed to. Just enough to get the state of things, or to take a breather. Anything more than necessary feels bloated.

[Arcane_Secrets]

Hobit is soon to be released! What are your feelings about it :)? Me, personally cannot wait to watch it on the big screen.

I'm really looking forward to it, although it'll be a while until I see Smaug (who I really want to be impressed by).

[Traab]

As a point in the reviewer's favor, I should say that not every aspect of The Hobbit needed to be adapted for film, or at least as much as it sounds. The Lord of the Rings movies did well with this, because whenever we were on the road with the Fellowship their goal was in sight; perhaps it took some time to get there, but there was certainly something to do on the way to Mordor. When there wasn't, we got only enough of the traveling life as we needed to. Just enough to get the state of things, or to take a breather. Anything more than necessary feels bloated.

Yeah, but the thing is, the lotr series had so much stuff going on that jackson had to cut some of it to make it all work. The hobbit was a more laid back story, where sometimes the "adventure" was just him and the dorfs trying to not starve to death in the forest. No trolls, no giant spiders, (yet) no large scale battles, just them going through a near dark forest trying to not get lost and to not starve. There was action sure, and several scenes of it, but nothing on the scale of the lotr trilogy. So going into the hobbit thinking you will watch the lotr prequel is just unrealistic. Thats why it had such an unprepossessing title as "There and Back Again, A Hobbits Journey" Not, "How Blibo kicked 50 flavors of ass and saved the world through epic battles and awesome encounters!!!!" Or even the actual title, "The Lord of the Rings, And the Return of the King." That sounds way more epic than there and back again, thats what I say when someone asks me how my trip to the grocery store went! "Oh, you know, it was there and back again, nothing special."

[Scowling Dragon]

Something can still be boring even when not comparing it to anything.

Point is, does your grocer trip need a 9 hour long series of movies?

[Traab]

Something can still be boring even when not comparing it to anything.

Point is, does your grocer trip need a 9 hour long series of movies?

Only if the person giving me a lift had to take a side trip to overthrow an evil necromancer.

[Scowling Dragon]

So its not just a boring old trip then is it? :smallconfused:

So therefore it makes sense NOT to focus on the boring stuff. :smallwink:

You can't have it both ways.

[Traab]

So its not just a boring old trip then is it? :smallconfused:

So therefore it makes sense NOT to focus on the boring stuff. :smallwink:

You can't have it both ways.

Sure I can, my trip was boring, HIS side trip was awesome. Not my fault jackson wants to cover both stories. :p From what I can gather thats the real reason its three movies long. In the book we focus pretty much 100% on bilbo and what he experiences. From the trailers and such, it would seem we also get to experience the story that gandalf is going through.

[kpenguin]

Point is, does your grocer trip need a 9 hour long series of movies?

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Lonely Mountain :smallbiggrin:

[Aotrs Commander]

Point is, does your grocer trip need a 9 hour long series of movies?

Depends on how far you have to go for groceries...



Seriously, though, a "journey" itself can be an interesting story (Around the World in 80 Days, famously), as can exploration. However, if people are expecting an more action-y sort of story, they are not likely to enjoy as much; it all depends on what you find "boring", of course.

[Xondoure]

Stephen Colbert loves it. That's about all the approval I need. (Man is a huge Middle Earth fan. Beat the Middle Earth Consultant for the films level fan.)

[Scowling Dragon]

Sure I can, my trip was boring, HIS side trip was awesome.

Thus making YOUR trip even MORE boring by comparison. It doesn't HAVE to be actiony. It just has to be interesting. Its one thing if we find out about your secret mole person backstory whilst your taking the trip. Its another if we learn about the magical world of your favorite newspaper.

[Drakeburn]

Only 5 or 4 days (if you include today) before the Hobbit comes out.

I just wish there was a nearby store where I can get Middle Earth merchandise (The One Ring of Power, Sting, Bilbo Baggins' walking stick, etc).

I am really, really, really excited for this film.

[oblivion6]

I just wish there was a nearby store where I can get Middle Earth merchandise (The One Ring of Power, Sting, Bilbo Baggins' walking stick, etc).

I am really, really, really excited for this film.

Yeah, go walking into the theater, walking stick in hand, Sting at your side and the One Ring hanging on a chain underneath your Mithral Shirt.

I know what I'm ordering myself for Christmas:smallwink:

[Aran nu tasar]

2) They overused CGI, which is what all the goblins/orcs are (Seriously? The makeup and costuming of the original movie made the orcs feel alive, why the decision to go CGI?)

This actually worries me a bit. Weta Workshop did such an incredible job with costume and makeup in LoTR that it feels like a bit of a cop-out to go completely to CG. The few shots where I actually noticed CG orcs in Lord of the Rings (admittedly, maybe three shots in 12 hours of film) were somewhat jarring. It was inevitable, however, that the Hobbit would get mediocre reviews, given what it is inevitably compared to.

But we'll see. In one day.

[Runestar]

Just watched it, personally found it a bit dull and draggy.

The scenery was great, so was the cinematography, the props, everything. Just there was mostly just talking and very little action. Trolls speaking in perfect English prose was a bit of a paradigm shift though. Everyone seemed to suck at fighting.

Very little surprises, and this is coming from someone who hasn't read the book. It's really the sheer charisma of the actors and the "Hey, there's that guy from the 1st 3 films" moments that keep me entertained.

But at 3 hours, you can't say I didn't get my money's worth. :smalltongue:

[Fragenstein]

The scenery was great, so was the cinematography...

Did your theater show it at 48fps? I'm curious to know how well that's working out.

Pulling 48 frames per second through a standard projector is a really bad idea. Simulating that along with digital adjustments to correct for the shoddy detailing of 3D cinematograhy might actually work.

I've almost universally detested films shot in 3D because of the lack of background clarity. If they managed to fix that, well, I probably still won't see anything in 3D but at least the standard projections won't be forced to suffer.

[Runestar]

Did your theater show it at 48fps? I'm curious to know how well that's working out.

Pulling 48 frames per second through a standard projector is a really bad idea. Simulating that along with digital adjustments to correct for the shoddy detailing of 3D cinematograhy might actually work.

I've almost universally detested films shot in 3D because of the lack of background clarity. If they managed to fix that, well, I probably still won't see anything in 3D but at least the standard projections won't be forced to suffer.

I have no idea. But now that you mention it, I thought the screen seemed a little 'blur' and flickery at times. I actually had to blink and rub my eyes a few times because I thought there was something wrong with my vision. :smallconfused:

[Aotrs Commander]

Just there was mostly just talking and very little action. Trolls speaking in perfect English prose was a bit of a paradigm shift though. Everyone seemed to suck at fighting.

Pretty faithful to the source material, then, in all those regards; the Hobbit was not nearly as action-heavy as LotR.

[Aran Thule]

The one that I read, posted these negative qualities.
1) Not as epic as LotR (no duh)
2) They overused CGI, which is what all the goblins/orcs are (Seriously? The makeup and costuming of the original movie made the orcs feel alive, why the decision to go CGI?)
3) Too much time taken before the actual adventuring begins
4) There are only 4 or so dwarves that feel developed. (honestly, kind of a problem with the source material. I remember reading the Hobbit and knowing who Thorin was, as well as Bofur, but the others just became a blur)
So nothing really that gets me worried. Mildly disappointed by the CGI goblins thing, but I'll get over it.
Saw the London Premiere last night and just thought i would comment on the above issues:
1) it does seem to have been made more child friendly and there are several comedy bits that are quite silly, but saying that we have to remember that the hobbit was a children's book whereas LotR was for adults.
2) I did think that it was a bit obvious with the CGI in places, some of it wasnt really needed.
3) True but the time is used for some character development and also to tell you a bit of the history and the reason for the quest.
4) Was always going to be different getting 13 dwarves to each have their own personality, i think they do it well but some have precious little screen time.

On the positive side, the riddles in the dark scene is absolutely brilliant and worth the ticket price alone.
It does look very pretty and the 3D has been used well.

[comicshorse]

So somewhat embarassing question but

speaking as an utter Archnaphobic do they get to the giant spiders in Mirkwood in this one :smalleek:

[ShadowFireLance]

Going to go see it tomorrow....Hoping its good.

[Runestar]

So somewhat embarassing question but

speaking as an utter Archnaphobic do they get to the giant spiders in Mirkwood in this one :smalleek:

Yes, though they are never really shown. The show alternated between a horror movie and a comedy for this scene. :smalltongue:

[afroakuma]

Alright, having just come back from seeing this movie, I feel that I must tell anyone and everyone who might be interested in my opinion:

This is a very bad movie.

The acting is very good. So is the score.

And that's the line.

If you want to see The Hobbit onscreen, Tolkien's vision is more accurately depicted - and in far, far less time, to boot - by the animated version. It's also less terrible.

If you disagree with this opinion, more power to you, but don't expect me to recant it.

[Avilan the Grey]

Alright, having just come back from seeing this movie, I feel that I must tell anyone and everyone who might be interested in my opinion:

This is a very bad movie.

The acting is very good. So is the score.

And that's the line.

If you want to see The Hobbit onscreen, Tolkien's vision is more accurately depicted - and in far, far less time, to boot - by the animated version. It's also less terrible.

If you disagree with this opinion, more power to you, but don't expect me to recant it.

So... can you go into more detail.

[Runestar]

So... can you go into more detail.

I think I am understand where he is coming from.

It's basically the same issue I had with Iron Man and Iron Man 2. The characters just spend too much time standing around and bantering around with one another, when what people really want to see is fighting and explosions.

The plot is really thin; they may very well be just standing in a line and painting a fence while reading their lines.

You have dwarves that suck at fighting, and it seems the only reason they actually make it through the film is because their enemies are even more inept. Goblins stand around like dominoes waiting to be bowled over. The goblin king, for all his size, just stands there waiting to die. Wizards don't really do wizardy stuff. That druid guy spends most of his on-screen time zipping around in a sled pulled by rabbits. When faced with a life and death situation, Gandalf's trump card is to...set fir cones on fire?

In all fairness, you can't blame the film because it is supposed to be a faithful adaptation of a book, which may not jive with today's population bred on WoW and DnD.

It's like you go in expecting the JRR version of Avengers, you get Sesame Street.

[Avilan the Grey]

I think I am understand where he is coming from.

It's basically the same issue I had with Iron Man and Iron Man 2. The characters just spend too much time standing around and bantering around with one another, when what people really want to see is fighting and explosions.

The plot is really thin; they may very well be just standing in a line and painting a fence while reading their lines.

You have dwarves that suck at fighting, and it seems the only reason they actually make it through the film is because their enemies are even more inept. Goblins stand around like dominoes waiting to be bowled over. The goblin king, for all his size, just stands there waiting to die. Wizards don't really do wizardy stuff. That druid guy spends most of his on-screen time zipping around in a sled pulled by rabbits. When faced with a life and death situation, Gandalf's trump card is to...set fir cones on fire?

In all fairness, you can't blame the film because it is supposed to be a faithful adaptation of a book, which may not jive with today's population bred on WoW and DnD.

It's like you go in expecting the JRR version of Avengers, you get Sesame Street.

So in other words, since I like the book, I will like the movie. And to people actually ignorant enough to expect JRR Avengers... *pointing and laughing at them*

Also, WoW and DnD? DnD is what, 30 years older than WoW? or are you talking about DnD 4.0 specifically?

[afroakuma]

Certainly.

Here be spoilers.

Peter Jackson (or whatever executives are behind this film) has apparently decided that the source material is not to be trusted on its own merits and that the audience contains too many idiots.

The film begins with an overlong narration by Old Bilbo of the fall of Erebor, Thror's greed and the wanderings of the dwarves. This covers the weighty, fifteen-minute backstory in a way that didn't seem so much necessary as tacked-on.

Martin Freeman does an admirable job of portraying Bilbo Baggins, but he comes off well more sour and stolid than his counterpart in the novel - being confrontational and even rude to a few dwarves and just generally a poor host. It's a shame, since I think Mr. Freeman would have been fun to see trying to politely contain a whirlwind in Bag End, but what can you do.

"Far Over The Misty Mountains Cold" was never going to be included in its full form, but one reviewer's complaint about the length of it led me to believe that they were going to have enough of it for a beautiful scene full of gravitas and wonder. Certainly it starts that way - and many people in the theatre, myself included, began to softly sing along - it's just that it's only two lines longer than what was in the trailer. This scene is supposed to depict the dwarves' longing for their home, its splendors, and the magic of words that fires in Bilbo his watered-down Took blood. Instead, it cuts away rather fast. Awkward, as it provides the main theme of Dwarf Awesome for the whole film.

I'll pause here to say that I saw the film in 48 FPS and 3D. The 3D in use here, coupled with the 48 FPS, makes landscapes and panning shots thereof majestic and breathtaking. Unfortunately, it spoils everything else - everything moves too fast, causing some of the CGI characters to look noticeably jerky (and some of the non-CGI characters, too), and the heightened realism actually makes the efforts of the production team look more fake. I found it quite distracting and off-putting and would consider it a reason to avoid a film in the future.

There's comic relief in the film... not the mild sense of good cheer pervading the early parts of the novel, but jokes about Bombur's weight, the size of Bilbo's sword, and of course, Radagast.

There is something to be said of Jar Jar Binks - he serves as a fixed example of what to never do in a film. Radagast, an oft-crosseyed animal lover with bird poop coating the side of his head, rides about in a makeshift sled pulled by overlarge rabbits, is accused of partaking in too many mind-affecting shrooms, and has a befuddled, calamitous emergency that seems to be trying for equal parts comedy and horror. Unlike Binks, he's not a major fixture in the film, but that makes him stick out like a sore thumb even more.

Worst of all, Radagast is here to provide us with context about the Lord of the Rings - warned by his animal friends of a dark magic creeping through the Greenwood, he comes upon Dol Guldur, investigates it, gets attacked by a white, wraithlike Witch-King of Angmar and sees a ridiculous shadowy Necromancer about whom too much is spoken in a film with little bearing on him. Galadriel and Saruman confer with Elrond and Gandalf regarding putting a stop to the dwarves' quest, and Saruman believes that the Necromancer is just some mortal making claims on the realm of the dead. I appreciate Gandalf's assertion that the quest to vanquish Smaug is in fact linked to the plot of the Lord of the Rings, but I don't think so much of the first film needed to be spent on it.

Speaking of Smaug, he's apparently just not enough villain for this film, as in addition to the wraithlike Necromancer's appearance in Radagast's side story, we get backstory on Thorin Oakenshield and his new archenemy, Azok the Pale Orc, who slew his grandfather. Azok is rather goal-oriented for an orc, with designs on snuffing out the line of Durin. Shame we have no context for why he should care or even who Durin is (from the film. I've read the books.) Instead, we get the painful, obvious "you're being chased... by who?" "Can't be this guy, he died years ago" "OH LOOK WHO IT IS" arc. It's not even resolved at the film's end, as might be an expected excuse for this being brought into play.

Other additions are also unnecessary: storm giants, or stone giants, or some kind of rocky giant, decide to be the mountains and wage war on one another as the heroes are passing through. This is purely an action scene that lets people hang from ledges and leap around, and quite silly and seemingly out-of-place in the Middle-Earth we know. Leading as it does into the goblin trap - itself a long, complex and partially mechanical chute depositing the assembled heroes into a cage on an underground Tree Top Town of goblinkin, it provides a truly unneeded encounter. The encounter with the goblins persists much too long and involves Dwarf Awesome and more silly leaps beyond any level of audience interest. The pursuit beyond the mountains, rather than seeing fire used to get the dwarves out of their trees, turns into a climactic battle scene with wargs knocking the trees down, forcing dwarves to leap - there goes that eternal leaping again - from tree to tree until the last one standing is perched precariously - of course - on a cliff.

Viewers are idiots again as Gollum, in his first appearance, drops his ring in plain sight of Bilbo. The ring, of course, needs to bounce slowly, with rumbling gravitas, because subtlety is overrated. Bilbo knowingly takes the possession of this dangerous-looking creature who drags off goblins... then approaches same. He doesn't find out the ring has any magic until he's fleeing Gollum, who by the way is still doing his split-personality gag to the point of trying to guess at his own riddles but did elicit some real tension when realizing just what the Baggins had in its pocketses. Bilbo of course discovers the magic of the ring in true Frodo fashion - incompetence plus coincidence.

Why is this an issue? Well, it makes the (shortened) riddle game conclude with a really stupid move on Bilbo's part - the answer to his riddle is one of his foe's only two known possessions, and the one his foe is likely to miss more (being a shiny golden object). Had Gollum checked for his ring at that point, Bilbo would have been quite out of luck. In the novel, Bilbo went into that one with a good certainty that the object was something Gollum did not know of, leading to the horrible realization that Gollum was after the ring and murderously possessive of it. Here, Bilbo stares down a psychopath going frantic while knowing exactly what his foe is looking for because he knows that Gollum dropped it.

There are extra beats added to the movie; Bilbo hearing about Thorin's backstory; Bilbo being told he's worthless by Thorin and considering turning back for Rivendell; Thorin's hatred of elves; Azok's group hunting the dwarves and camping on Weathertop; Gandalf's exploding pinecones. The kicker comes in the major confrontation at the cliffs beyond the Misty Mountains, where when cornered, Thorin charges down a conveniently open path free of flames to take on Azok, and gets mashed in the head for his troubles. As Azok's lieutenant advances to chop off Thorin's head, Bilbo gets an uncharacteristic moment of berserker mode and tackles the orc, viciously and rapidly stabbing it dead with the ease of a pro. This is so that Thorin can give a speech about how Bilbo saved his life, and being wrong about the burglar, etc. Characterization slipped to provide this artificial moment, which disappointed me. Characterization of Thorin "His fate is not my concern" Oakenshield also slips in the troll encounter, where the trolls get the upper hand by seizing Bilbo and threatening to rend him limb from limb unless the dwarves all volunteer to be dinner alongside him. This is never a good deal, and Thorin knows that, and more importantly has been very clear that he considers dismemberment by trolls just one of the many things he is not mandated to protect Bilbo from. So that rang hollow to me.

The film works to set up its successors and the Lord of the Rings film trilogy. I appreciate the efforts brought forth to hint at Sauron's rise, but they're not integral to the story being told - in fact, they are ultimately incidental to it. I would have vastly preferred these as adjuncts to THAT film trilogy, rather than appearing in this one.

Ultimately, I found the film visually distracting, burdened by clichéd and manipulative emotional arcs, interfered with by ridiculous "action" scenes, fettered by solemn shout-outs to the depths of Tolkien's canon that are not in their proper place, and unwilling to place trust in its source material. I smell executive meddling all over this film, and I find it lacking the best qualities of the wonderful tale on which it is based. To expect six more hours of same wears at me already.

Runestar's comments above should not be taken as having any bearing on my actual feelings. I very much like the book.

[Avilan the Grey]

Certainly.

Here be spoilers.

(Lots of Stuff)

The two things that worries me there are the 48Fps, which seems to be a bad idea in general, reports say that even in 2D it game a lot of audiences motion sickness, and the secondary invented villain.

The giants, and their fight, are in the book btw.

[Jan Mattys]

Azog, the secondary invented villain, is actually in the appendices of the Lord of the Rings, probably the single most awesome war story about Dwarves, so it's not "all invented"

I don't know if its story arc is invented and just the name remains, but Azog was slain by Dain in the great battle before the gates of Moria.

[Killer Angel]

Just watched it, personally found it a bit dull and draggy.

What a surprise! I would have never imagined that.

Seriously, to develope a 300 pages book in 3 (long) films, is a bad idea.

[Dienekes]

I enjoyed it, not as well as the LotR movies, but not terrible. The beginning took too long to get going, and it only seemed to find an appropriate pace the last 3rd of the movie.

Some of the designs were weird and the CGI was noticeable. Not all of it, some were good, but oddly the two characters that were obvious and focused upon (Goblin King and a Pale Goblin Chief) just looked fake. Pity because I liked the design of Pale Goblin Chief.

Also, on Azog, or Pale Goblin Chief. He is changed, he serves the same purpose that Lurtz did in Fellowship of the Rings, giving us a recognizable face of villainy before we get to the dragon.

[Jayngfet]

I think I am understand where he is coming from.

It's basically the same issue I had with Iron Man and Iron Man 2. The characters just spend too much time standing around and bantering around with one another, when what people really want to see is fighting and explosions.

The plot is really thin; they may very well be just standing in a line and painting a fence while reading their lines.

You have dwarves that suck at fighting, and it seems the only reason they actually make it through the film is because their enemies are even more inept. Goblins stand around like dominoes waiting to be bowled over. The goblin king, for all his size, just stands there waiting to die. Wizards don't really do wizardy stuff. That druid guy spends most of his on-screen time zipping around in a sled pulled by rabbits. When faced with a life and death situation, Gandalf's trump card is to...set fir cones on fire?

In all fairness, you can't blame the film because it is supposed to be a faithful adaptation of a book, which may not jive with today's population bred on WoW and DnD.

It's like you go in expecting the JRR version of Avengers, you get Sesame Street.

I really don't get where this idea of the movie being slow is coming from. The characters tend to pause for effect or enunciate clearly when talking, but when action happens it's always fast and awesome, and there's plenty of fighting to go around.

Besides, I LIKED Gandalf not being a level 20 tippy wizard. His magic was low key, but it WORKED. That's the entire point of his character. As in, that's pretty much literally what he says at one point while facing the camera directly, which is a scene largely lifted from the book.


Radaghast was a little ...eeeeh though. His scenes don't really flow well with the rest of the movie. He's this zonked out cross eyed weirdo who names every individual forrest critter that's high on magic mushrooms and he seems to go cross eyed and make funny faces way too often. He's just kind of jarring.

[The Succubus]

Hobbit? that's like one eighth of a hobbyte right?

/applauds


I have a very old and hard to come by version of the Hobbit on LP, read by a chap called Ian Richardson. He gives each of the characters a unique voice and narrates with passages from the book. This will always be my favourite version because it takes a delight in the linguistics of the book:


"The ponies were laden with baggages, packages, parcels and paraphenalia."

Or for a slightly less obscure bit, the goblin song where they sing in short, sharp words.

The problem is that a film cannot convey things like this because you're describing things, you're just seeing them. I'm hopeful but doubtul.

[Runestar]

Well, coming from one whose first introduction to dnd (and wizards in particular) was elminster....:smalltongue:You are facing hordes of goblins and orcs. Who cares about being low key. Bust out the lightning bolts and fireballs already. Instead, his feats involve cracking a rock into 2, a force-wave (fair enough), speaking to a butterfly (which flew pretty fast actually) and setting some cones on fire.


What a surprise! I would have never imagined that.

Seriously, to develope a 300 pages book in 3 (long) films, is a bad idea.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic there, but like I said, I am not a Tolkein fan, never read the book, and only watched it chiefly because I still quite liked the 1st trilogy. :smalltongue:

[Scowling Dragon]

Also Im reminded of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_344060&feature=iv&src_vid=LF5kgkI6ags&v=jENtrbt790c).

[Corvus]

Well, coming from one whose first introduction to dnd (and wizards in particular) was elminster....:smalltongue:You are facing hordes of goblins and orcs. Who cares about being low key. Bust out the lightning bolts and fireballs already. Instead, his feats involve cracking a rock into 2, a force-wave (fair enough), speaking to a butterfly (which flew pretty fast actually) and setting some cones on fire.


Except the fundamental laws of middle-earth dont work that way. Magic was always very low key, to the point of not really existing, and there were limitations places upon the Istari (wizards). As someone who is not a fan of the over the top magic of dnd I like the way magic works in middle-earth.

[Dienekes]

@afroakuma

For the record
The stone giants, Thorin's hatred of elves, and Gandalf's pine-cones were all in the book.

Also, I thought the point of Thorin's character was that he talks the game about not caring, but in actuality he puts himself in danger for Bilbo all the time. Now admittedly, jerk with a heart of gold is an old cliche, but one I kind of enjoy.

[Scowling Dragon]

I don't mind low key magic, but Im bugged by the peoples reactions to Gandalf. People are almost tripping over when they hear his name. It should be like "Oh that guy that knows a few party tricks.....OK I guess"

[Killer Angel]

Not sure if you are being sarcastic there, but like I said, I am not a Tolkein fan, never read the book, and only watched it chiefly because I still quite liked the 1st trilogy. :smalltongue:

Of course I was, the blue is for sarcasm. :smallwink:

Since the beginning of the rumors about The Hobbit, I declared (not that I was alone) that imo was a bad idea to have THREE films on it. There’s not enough material in the book, to fill 8-9 hours in a satisfying way. Also PJ told that they needed more source material than just The Hobbit.
So, when someone like you, that doesn’t know the original material, finds that the film is draggy, I feel it’s time for a “I called it!”.

edit: nonetheless, I'm gonna give it a try. :smallsmile:

[Dienekes]

I don't mind low key magic, but Im bugged by the peoples reactions to Gandalf. People are almost tripping over when they hear his name. It should be like "Oh that guy that knows a few party tricks.....OK I guess"

What? He was on the white council with Sauron, Galadriel, and Elrond. He can create fire, and above all is recognized as one of the wisest men in the world whose advice can change the course of nations. Why shouldn't he be given respect?

[Scowling Dragon]

Well cause he mostly comes off as wise as everybody else is incompetent as hell.

And I can create fire too. :smallwink:

I think even the alchemical process for explosives has been discovered. So yeah. Time for explosive lobbed bombs.

[Fragenstein]

Well cause he mostly comes off as wise as everybody else is incompetent as hell.

And I can create fire too. :smallwink:

I think even the alchemical process for explosives has been discovered. So yeah. Time for explosive lobbed bombs.

I have to admit that I've never gotten the Gandolf worship, either. Maybe it's because Tolkein was breaking new wizardly ground out of an age where Wizard meant Knowledgeable. Fireballs, lightning bolts and prismatic spheres weren't really part of the culture just yet.

Having a lot of political connections and a deep understanding of history seemed to be his bigger tricks. Knowing how the world ticked just went along with that. Being able to blow up large parts of it did not.

Ian McKellen, during his interview with Colbert, claimed that Gandalf could easily take Magneto in a fight. Really? With what powers? Would Magneto have been chased up a tree by a pack of wolves?

I honestly doubt it.

[The Succubus]

In fairness, they're not making this stuff up out of thin air. However, "The Hobbit Plus A Few Bits And Pieces We Picked Out From The Appendix of The Silmarillion" isn't quite as catchy as a title.

Also, once you get past the rambling gumph about the Valar and Maiar, the Silmarillion is actually a pretty good book.

[Eldan]

Middle Earth just does not really have that kind of magic. Even Morgoth doesn't do much of it. He mutates creatures, he has a singing duel that generates enough despair in his opponent that he gives up, he raises a fortress and he curses the line of Hurin. He never threw a single fireball.

[Dienekes]

Well cause he mostly comes off as wise as everybody else is incompetent as hell.

And I can create fire too. :smallwink:

I think even the alchemical process for explosives has been discovered. So yeah. Time for explosive lobbed bombs.

Actually the implication is that explosions were largely controlled by the wizards while Saruman was one of the first to really implement them in warfare. And I don't see anyone as incompetent so much as flawed, mostly through pride. In any case, Gandalf still is the one who consistently gives the best advise and has the blessing of the gods as well as centuries of experience on his side, and the uncanny ability to perceive the untapped potential of people. Also, the surprisingly useful ability to talk to animals.

Basically on top of being immortal, wise, without the superiority of elves (or at least the closed-offedness), magic ability beyond anyone except maybe 5 people, he has helped the rulers or at least the ancestors of rulers in every nation. So he is well known as being basically one of the best guys to have on your side ever. The only place of some exception in this is the Shire, mostly due to their general suspicion of all things outside the normal, relative relaxed state of stagnation, and the fact they really don't care about the outside world. And even there he's noted as a pretty swell guy.


Middle Earth just does not really have that kind of magic. Even Morgoth doesn't do much of it. He mutates creatures, he has a singing duel that generates enough despair in his opponent that he gives up, he raises a fortress and he curses the line of Hurin. He never threw a single fireball.

Actually, Morgoth always really disappointed me. The Silmarillion can be retitled as watching the Lord of Darkness continually lose, get bested, outsmarted, and cowardly running away.

His underlings were much more interesting. Gothmog the Killer of Feanor (this makes him a hero in my book), Glaurung the awesomely deceiving, and of course Sauron.

[Fragenstein]

Middle Earth just does not really have that kind of magic. Even Morgoth doesn't do much of it. He mutates creatures, he has a singing duel that generates enough despair in his opponent that he gives up, he raises a fortress and he curses the line of Hurin. He never threw a single fireball.

Yeah. This is kind of my impression. It's a much more subtle, old-world magic born of superstition and nature worship. The sort of thing people believed in before Hollywood discovered special effects.

Which, of course, limits Gandalf in what he can do to directly enforce his own influence. You're going to see things based on belief systems rather than spell formulae. Any modern-day, half competent sorcerer's apprentice should be able to disintegrate Gandalf's head.

I know that's not what the character is supposed to be about. But for a godlike being descended from a higher plane, he doesn't seem as formidable as fanboys like to describe.

[Scowling Dragon]

It just feels like everybody SAYS he is a mega genius when hes just mostly lucky and everybody else is an idiot.

In all likelihood he should have been shot dead YEARS ago.

[Jayngfet]

I have to admit that I've never gotten the Gandolf worship, either. Maybe it's because Tolkein was breaking new wizardly ground out of an age where Wizard meant Knowledgeable. Fireballs, lightning bolts and prismatic spheres weren't really part of the culture just yet.

Having a lot of political connections and a deep understanding of history seemed to be his bigger tricks. Knowing how the world ticked just went along with that. Being able to blow up large parts of it did not.


This is the thing really. The modern wizard trades wisdom for power.

Gandalf, in and of himself, is pretty darned cool by older standards. He has a touch of whimsy, but he's wise on a level unreachable by mortals. He's connected and powerful politically, but he still cares about the little, human things that even powerful mortals often forget. He's knowledgeable, but he knows to at least once in a while apply that knowledge rather than sit in some floating crystal tower making scrolls.


Gandalf isn't just respected out of power, though he has some of that, but out of intelligence and wisdom unmatched by anyone except the handful of people on his level.


It just feels like everybody SAYS he is a mega genius when hes just mostly lucky and everybody else is an idiot.

In all likelihood he should have been shot dead YEARS ago.

I think you're looking for the wrong things in middle earth, bro. It's not that kind of setting or story, judging by your previous posts and what you expect to be realistic.

[Killer Angel]

This is the thing really. The modern wizard trades wisdom for power.

And sacrifices the familiar for flavor! :smalltongue:

[Scowling Dragon]

Which again I have a problem with. He is totally a guy I would have a beer with (If I drank alcohol), but I just get this impression that he has this forced sense of "whimsy" to him. Like in order to make him look wise he just doesn't explain most of his actions.

I enjoy the story though, and I think hes a cool character.....So I have no idea what Im complaining about.

[SmartAlec]

I like this Bilbo. There's quite a few moments that show why it is that although Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin have their moments, It's Bilbo who is usually considered the Hobbit.

Movie in short: It's Fellowship of the Ring with a bit more singing and a lot less crying.


In all likelihood he should have been shot dead YEARS ago.

He did die, once. And it didn't take. If that doesn't say 'we underestimated this guy', nothing does.

[Runestar]

It just feels like everybody SAYS he is a mega genius when hes just mostly lucky and everybody else is an idiot.

In all likelihood he should have been shot dead YEARS ago.

That's the issue. Everyone makes him out to be such a great wizard.

He is wise yes. But the people are also supposed to be respectful and fearful of him for his prowess as a wizard, yet we rarely ever see him use magic. You could take away the wizard part and make him some smart-talking hamster and I think the effect would still be the same.

So what exactly distinguishes him from say, some long-lived sage?

I still remember how anticlimatic it was when in the first film, when Gandalf was fighting the balor, he simply used his weapons to smash the ground below him (somehow, the trailer made his shouting 'You shall not pass!' sound like him chanting some arcane spell). :smallmad:

[SmartAlec]

He is wise yes. But the people are also supposed to be respectful and fearful of him for his prowess as a wizard, yet we rarely ever see him use magic.

That's because he is wise. He keeps a low profile and tries to seem human and approachable so he can accomplish his mission: to unite the Free Peoples of Middle-Earth against the Shadow, whilst respecting their free will. If he used his power casually, being a high-profile, easily-tracked threat that everyone was frankly terrified of, he couldn't do the job he's trying to do.


So what exactly distinguishes him from say, some long-lived sage?

Mostly because he can use magic. He might not use it all the time, but when things get serious, you'll be glad it's Gandalf you have with you and not just some book-smart librarian. The dude can crack huge stones with a single strike, flatten a whole room of goblins with one blast, fight an ancient demon in a battle of wills, infuse pinecones with napalm and deflect arrows when he absolutely really has to.

[Scowling Dragon]

He ISN'T low profile. He WAS generally pretty easily trackable.

Again, like the guy but either:

A: He DOES'NT have the power, and hes mostly wise

or

B: He just doesn't want to use them out of laziness.

[Avilan the Grey]

B: He just doesn't want to use them out of laziness.

He is FORBIDDEN to use most of them by his superiors. As archangels tend to be when interacting with mortals (yes, that is basically what he is).

Gandalf has always been my favorite wizard because well.. he acts like a wizard and not a DnD spazmonkey.

[Fragenstein]

He is FORBIDDEN to use most of them by his superiors. As archangels tend to be when interacting with mortals (yes, that is basically what he is).

Gandalf has always been my favorite wizard because well.. he acts like a wizard and not a DnD spazmonkey.

So what really happened at Isengard? The movies reduced the duel between Gandalf and Saruman to just some mediocre displays of telekinesis. Please tell me the whole affair was more impressive in the books themselves.

[SmartAlec]

He's low-profile compared to what he could be. He never sticks his neck out as a leader; he doesn't seem to directly lead expeditions. He always attaches himself to them, instead. He doesn't lead Thorin and Company; instead, he joins them once they get going, and says he'll help them and arrange a burglar. He doesn't lead the Fellowship, exactly; Frodo volunteers, and Gandalf volunteers to help him. Gandalf tries to be in the background, or at the side of someone else, rather than right out in front.

As for the tracking thing, there's a point in the book, Fellowship of the Ring, in which Gandalf is forced to use magic to light a fire to keep folk alive while going over the snowy pass. He's not happy about doing it, saying that with that one spell, he's 'written GANDALF IS HERE in signs that some people can read for miles around'. If you read it as if he's not using magic so as to stay off the radar of those things powerful enough to take him on, that makes sense to me.


So what really happened at Isengard? The movies reduced the duel between Gandalf and Saruman to just some mediocre displays of telekinesis. Please tell me the whole affair was more impressive in the books themselves.

There is no duel in the book; we never see what happens, it's all told through Gandalf's exposition. He simply says that Saruman 'took him and set him upon the pinnacle of Orthanc'. It's not made clear if Gandalf fought, or simply surrendered.

Duels between wizards and the like tend to be more battles of wills in Lord of the Rings, in any case; the equivalent is the showdown between the two wizards after Saruman has been defeated, in which Gandalf shows he has the stronger will by making Saruman's staff break, effectively making Saruman not a wizard any more.

[Telonius]

That's the issue. Everyone makes him out to be such a great wizard.

He is wise yes. But the people are also supposed to be respectful and fearful of him for his prowess as a wizard, yet we rarely ever see him use magic. You could take away the wizard part and make him some smart-talking hamster and I think the effect would still be the same.

So what exactly distinguishes him from say, some long-lived sage?

I still remember how anticlimatic it was when in the first film, when Gandalf was fighting the balor, he simply used his weapons to smash the ground below him (somehow, the trailer made his shouting 'You shall not pass!' sound like him chanting some arcane spell). :smallmad:

In Tolkien's world, "magic" isn't typically something you use, it's something you know, or something you are. The modern concept of magic as more of a "fantastic science," something to be studied and taken apart and used and made bigger, is something Tolkien resisted pretty heavily. The one Wizard to approach it that way was Saruman, and that didn't turn out too well.

Magic in Tolkien is more about knowing the real nature of things. When Sam asks the Elves about their "magic," they're confused - to them, there's nothing magical at all about what they do. They're just more in tune to their own true nature, and the nature of the world and the materials they work with. A Wizard takes that to the next level, not just with the physical world around them but with his own actions and inspiring those around them. The best part of a Wizard is to be exactly where he's meant to be, doing exactly what he's meant to do. It's kind of zen, but the less he resists and the more effortless he is, the closer he is to the will of Iluvatar. That's the whole point of the "A wizard is never late..." quote.

That's also why Morgoth and Sauron were such powerfully evil adversaries. Not necessarily because they commanded armies, though they did that. But for Morgoth, his entire work was to suffuse the fabric of Middle-Earth with the seeds of evil. Sauron's angle was to inspire such fear, despair, hate, pride, and greed that people turned away from their own true natures.

[Fragenstein]

Duels between wizards and the like tend to be more battles of wills in Lord of the Rings, in any case; the equivalent is the showdown between the two wizards after Saruman has been defeated, in which Gandalf shows he has the stronger will by making Saruman's staff break, effectively making Saruman not a wizard any more.

This is something I can at least appreciate. An unseen showdown between spirit and will is something I'd have expected. The "I Dream of Genie" level tossing each other around was just weak.

Even if Jackson didn't want Gandalf throwing fireballs, you'd have to think there was still a better way of representing that encounter. Saruman washing Gandalf over with darkness only to have him resolve at the top of the tower, perhaps.

I'll admit that shooting Gandalf straight upwards until he seems to slam through the roof was nifty, but bouncing him around for a while first was just... meh.

[Avilan the Grey]

As for the tracking thing, there's a point in the book, Fellowship of the Ring, in which Gandalf is forced to use magic to light a fire to keep folk alive while going over the snowy pass. He's not happy about doing it, saying that with that one spell, he's 'written GANDALF IS HERE in signs that some people can read for miles around'. If you read it as if he's not using magic so as to stay off the radar of those things powerful enough to take him on, that makes sense to me.

Indeed. There is also two instances where he is even less subtle (not counting the battle with the Balrog):

1. The battle at Weathertop (which we don't see, we only see a lot of explosions and fire and lights from far far away, and the Hobbits don't know what it is) where he singlehandedly holds off a number of The Nine using fire magic.

2. The battle with the wolf pack, where he sets the whole group of trees ablaze with his mind (and sets fire to Legolas' arrows midair, too, to turn them into magic burning arrows).

[Scowling Dragon]

The reason why most New wizards are spazzmonkies is that just wise people doesn't impress anybody.

We have google for that.

Now what impresses us, is what we can't do, which is very little. So Wizards have to pull out all the stops.

[SmartAlec]

1. The battle at Weathertop (which we don't see, we only see a lot of explosions and fire and lights from far far away, and the Hobbits don't know what it is) where he singlehandedly holds off a number of The Nine using fire magic.

Yup. That one is is a rare case of Gandalf trying to achieve the opposite of his normal modus operandi - trying to actually attract the attention of powerful and dangerous beings, in order to draw them off from pursuing someone else.


The reason why most New wizards are spazzmonkies is that just wise people doesn't impress anybody.

We have google for that.

Now what impresses us, is what we can't do, which is very little. So Wizards have to pull out all the stops.

Even then, those characters or even those players who make the most efficient use of their powers, knowing how to achieve the most with the least, tend to get respect.

[Scowling Dragon]

I mean. I liked the Low magic Sorcerer from the First Connan movie (I don't care what you say. Just call it a different name. There. Its still one of the best fantasy movies).

Mako was useful, and the snake guy was shown to be powerful and cool, without that much flashy magic.

My problem with Gandalf is that he is inconsistent. Hes either "McKickass mc killyou all" or just annoyingly secretive.

[afroakuma]

With regards, to people's comments:

• Aye, the giants were in the book, but their depiction - and specifically, their role here as treacherous platforms that force more leaping about - threw me off. I recall them as a potential threat, rather than this living ledge thing.

• Thorin's dislike of elves is indeed in the book, though I don't remember it being anywhere near so bad that he or his party would be rude and hostile to Elrond. As I recall it, that reaction was reserved for its proper target, Thranduil.

• I am familiar with where this extra material came from, and read in advance that they planned to incorporate such extra material in the film. That does not mean they did it well, or that they should have done it at all. To do so was a deliberate attempt at wringing more money out of a book one third the size of the Lord of the Rings, and I found the asides and "added action" very distracting.

There's something wonderful and rich in the story of The Hobbit, there really is. I don't need so much action, or as someone suggested, some form of blatant sorcery. I like the character, the way he interacts with this big world he's dared to venture into, and the obstacles he faces on the journey. What was added to the movie reduced that context, greatly reduced the central character's screen time, and added elements to the tale that did not need to be there. That it did so in 48 fps made the entire experience worse. People have suggested to me that 48 fps is superior, cleaner, the way of the future once we all acclimate to it. As someone who enjoys the dreamlike quality of cinema, I can't see it happening. Someone else suggested that if Mr. Jackson had reserved the 48 fps for the scenes it truly does enhance - sweeping vistas, or panning over large action scenes - the impact would have been better felt. As is, if you haven't seen it yet, expect to wonder why someone hit fast-forward on Bilbo Baggins as he walks around his house.

[GloatingSwine]

Hey look, film sucks in all the ways I spent a page telling you it would suck.

Who could have forseen that.

Apart from, well, me.

Also, only 66% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is pretty low for Big Budget Shiny. The LotR movies hit 92, 96, and 94 respectively.

[Reverent-One]

With regards, to people's comments:


• I am familiar with where this extra material came from, and read in advance that they planned to incorporate such extra material in the film. That does not mean they did it well, or that they should have done it at all. To do so was a deliberate attempt at wringing more money out of a book one third the size of the Lord of the Rings, and I found the asides and "added action" very distracting.

Everything's about making money, even the LoTR films or any potential shorter version of the Hobbit.


Hey look, film sucks in all the ways I spent a page telling you it would suck.

Who could have forseen that.

Apart from, well, me.

Hey look, some people like a film and others don't. Who could have forseen that? Oh, everyone who know anything about people.


Also, only 66% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is pretty low for Big Budget Shiny. The LotR movies hit 92, 96, and 94 respectively.

And a lot of the reviewers who don't like it complain about it not being as epic as LoTR, which anyone that read the book knew it was never going to be.

[Alejandro]

Did anyone notice the shards of Narsil are in the trailer, but not the film? I know that the trailers have multiple shots from the later films, but Bilbo doesn't go back to Rivendell, except on his way back to the Shire. Maybe a flashback?

[GloatingSwine]

And a lot of the reviewers who don't like it complain about it not being as epic as LoTR, which anyone that read the book knew it was never going to be.

A lot of the complaints are that it's trying to be as epic as Lord of the Rings, but isn't and shouldn't have been, and most of the complaints about content are about how the story has been padded to fit a runtime that could, at a clip, have held the entire book.

I mean on a good day with a pot of tea and no distractions I could probably read The Hobbit in three hours, let alone watch a movie of one third of it.

Oh wait, those are the reasons I was telling you it would suck. I just had sufficient foresight and cynicism to anticipate them in advance.

[Reverent-One]

A lot of the complaints are that it's trying to be as epic as Lord of the Rings, but isn't and shouldn't have been, and most of the complaints about content are about how the story has been padded to fit a runtime that could, at a clip, have held the entire book.

One man's padding is another man's attempt to show more of the world that wouldn't otherwise be seen. Which looks like one of the main dividers on people's opinions on the movie, whether one just wants to see material from the Hobbit, and just the Hobbit, or if one wants to see the other material as well.


Oh wait, those are the reasons I was telling you it would suck. I just had sufficient foresight and cynicism to anticipate them in advance.

Too bad for you not everyone thinks it sucks then. Some do, certainly, but that's always the case.

[SmartAlec]

most of the complaints about content are about how the story has been padded to fit a runtime that could, at a clip, have held the entire book.

I don't think this is at all realistic. A lot of stuff happens in the Hobbit, a lot of stuff. And the pacing is all over the place. The Battle of Five Armies alone - in the book it takes five pages, plus about a page of exposition. And it comes out of nowhere. There's no setup, there's no hints, an entire Orc and Warg army just suddenly appears. No matter what you might think of the book, playing that straight is bad cinema.

The Hobbit movie seems to be playing it a different way. Establishing the spiders in Mirkwood long before we get there, building up the threat of Orcs right from the beginning; it's threads that'll come together towards the end. That's good cinema.

And that's the least example. The encounter with the Trolls on the way to Weathertop is eight pages, the unexpected party is fifteen. By comparison, Smaug's attack on Esgaroth is barely two pages. But Smaug's attack on Esgaroth would likely demand at least as much screen time as the trolls, unless you showed it in fast-forward.

This is because the book is a narrative told (mostly) from one character's perspective. You can't get away with that in a movie. (EDIT: At least, not this kind of movie, an adventure story.) It's a visual medium, you need interactions with other characters, visual setpieces and secondary plotlines to fill the gaps left by the main character's internal voice and the narrator's exposition and descriptive prose.

As for 'not as epic as Lord of the Rings', eh. Of course it's not. We've seen all three Lord of the Rings movies. "This third of a story is not as epic as this complete one." You don't say? I felt There and Back Again compares well to Fellowship of the Ring, certainly.

[Telonius]

After a few hours for the movie to settle...

The pacing is a problem, especially in the first twenty minutes. Too much Old Bilbo sitting around in the Shire while flutes played in the background. I think I understand what Jackson was going for - establish Bag End as where Bilbo really loves to be - but the way he tried to achieve that, just didn't work for me. You can't take twenty minutes to find your plot and expect all the audience to stay with you.

After it got rolling, I wasn't bored. The inside of Erebor was astounding. The Unexpected Party had some excellent acting. They made a wise decision to focus on only a few of the Dwarves (Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili, and to some extent Bofur) - trying to introduce everybody would have just been too much. Some excellent character acting all around.

I did like the decision to play the Troll encounter straight, rather than the half-vaudeville routine in the book. It gave Bilbo a chance to start developing his "quick thinking" traits.

I think the decision to insert Azog between the Trolls and Rivendell made sense for film. It's not like the book where each chapter is (more or less) self-contained. It would just have been more footage of dwarves walking through the wilderness until, hey, Elves! Magical in the book, would not have translated to the screen. The chase kept the action going and provided some real emphasis that Thorin really does not trust Elves.

I did enjoy the Radagast scenes. He came off as just goofy enough that it made sense why some people ignored him, but determined enough that he was a believably powerful character. (Prior experience as the Seventh Doctor probably helped an awful lot there). D&D thought while watching the Dol Guldur scene, even before it moved: "There's no way my players would have seen that statue and not attacked it immediately."

The White Council scene was good, but a little bit problematic to me. It really didn't seem to make sense to me that Gandalf didn't think put the Morgul-blade on the table to begin with, or at least when Saruman started to doubt Radagast. Interesting alliance between Galadriel and Gandalf. The way they portrayed the relationship between Gandalf and Saruman impressed me, though - it really came across like Gandalf was a schoolkid who got caught passing notes in class. I like that they chose to play up the difference in rank like that.

The Stone Giants were amazing. The Great Goblin was slightly too goofy for my taste, but good otherwise. Gollum was excellent as always, but I'm surprised at how understated the scene felt. The Dwarves' fight out of the Goblin lair was eye candy, but still awesome. D&D thought #2: apparently Tolkien Dwarves get Improved Bull Rush as a bonus feat.

I saw the movie in 3d, 48 frames/second. No visual problems or blurriness - biggest issue was the glasses fitting on my nose over my regular glasses.

[LaughingLemur]

Thoughts anyone?

I found the first hour of the film so unwatchable that I was at times tempted to walk out. Only the fact that I had driven an hour from home to catch a midnight viewing kept me in my seat.

The high speed film was awful. The lighting was so harsh and technical that I felt like I was watching "The Making of The Hobbit" instead of the film. Instead of transporting me to Midearth I felt like I was in the studio.

The details were good. But good in a bad way. I could see the actors's makeup at times, the scenery which was beautiful in LOTR looked like well made props. I thought it made the costuming look cheap.

[afroakuma]

Everything's about making money, even the LoTR films or any potential shorter version of the Hobbit.

I don't dispute that. But there's "making" and there's "wringing." I went with the latter. "Making" could be argued for two films out of the one book; when you hit three, it gets into "wringing" territory.

In any event, this is in the end not an argument about facts, but about opinions. Mine and yours are equally valid, and I don't begrudge anyone their position on the quality of the film or the impact of 48 fps.

[Eldan]

He ISN'T low profile. He WAS generally pretty easily trackable.

Again, like the guy but either:

A: He DOES'NT have the power, and hes mostly wise

or

B: He just doesn't want to use them out of laziness.

Honestly, neither of those. It's two things. First of all, you never know how much power he uses. Middle Earth is a world explicitely watched over by gods (and one all-powerful, but likely non-interfering God), and Gandalf is directly sent by them. It is a world that has things like Blood, Doom and Destiny with capital letters.
As has been said: a wizards power can just manifest as being at the right place at the right time and saying the right few words to a Hobbit, so he goes out with some dwarves, finds the ring and gives it to his nephew who then goes on to destroy it. Or it can be whispering words into the ear of a king so he won't send his armies against Isengard.
Morgoth cursed an entire bloodline by thinking about it. It made their lives miserable, but the curse didn't manifest as a black lightshow and being regularly hit by lightning. The Silmaril are the world's greatest artefacts, but for all purposes just seem to be shiny gems that everyone wants to have.
Again, that is just how magic works, here. The Istari are sent to guide mortals, not solve their problems for them. To give them a little push on the right path, so that things turn out a bit better than they might otherwise. Their power is knowing who, where, when and how to push.

[Androgeus]

Hey look, film sucks in all the ways I spent a page telling you it would suck.

Who could have forseen that.

Apart from, well, me.

Also, only 66% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is pretty low for Big Budget Shiny. The LotR movies hit 92, 96, and 94 respectively.

Your name is very apt for this post :smalltongue:

[Mystic Muse]

Hey look, film sucks in all the ways I spent a page telling you it would suck.

Who could have forseen that.

Apart from, well, me.

Also, only 66% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is pretty low for Big Budget Shiny. The LotR movies hit 92, 96, and 94 respectively.

Except I don't think it sucks at all, so it's purely a matter of opinion.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The Hobbit movie seems to be playing it a different way. Establishing the spiders in Mirkwood long before we get there, building up the threat of Orcs right from the beginning; it's threads that'll come together towards the end. That's good cinema.

This.

I was very pleased by how PJ is weaving together a whole tapestry, incorporating the story of The Hobbit into a larger Middle-Earth canvas. After watching it, I was moved by the desire for there to have been more LOTR movies--six, for instance, mirroring the six-book structure of LOTR.

I would have been very pleased with the level of lore detail found in TH:UJ. Big touches, little touches, things that tied stuff together. I loved the little bits of foreshadowing that got snuck into it.

I also have a hankering to hunt down episodes for the Seventh Doctor, now that I've seen Radagast. :smallbiggrin:

[LaughingLemur]

Oh nobody is commenting on my Hobbit thread?

[PersonMan]

I rather enjoyed it, actually. I just got back from watching it (even got it in original English, which is nice) and it was quite a treat. I will mention, though, I haven't read the book, as in my opinion the best order is film -> book, rather than the other way around.

The scenery is one of the things I really liked, as I've been in some similar places and it reminded me of that.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Threadmerge is probably imminent, there's already a less-obvious Hobbit thread ("Hobit incoming") on the front page.

I also feel like this movie is gonna be a major Split Fanbase deal...

[Ragnar Lodbroke]

Well, my two cents.

I liked the movie, despite its shortcomings. The slower pace is necessary (THE BOOK had a slower pace, and I felt it was ok), I liked the background at the beggining of the film (Necessary for those who have not read the material).

And most of the fight scenes were fine. I don't get why everyone says the dwarves can't use weapons.

It's not like they were of any use in the book.

SPOILER AHEAD
The dwarves in the book were Saori Kido all over the place, and Gandalf/Bilbo had to save them ALL THE TIME


Now, the things I didn't like (Nerdrage incoming, take into account that I liked the movie despite this; SPOILERS AHEAD):

1 - THE WHITE COUNCIL:Cool of them to include it, and tell a broader story. The fight against Dol Guldur is interesting, and I'm looking forward to see more of the Great Mages. But I disagree with thee whole Gandalf-Saruman exchange.
Saruman looks like he is denying/hiding the obvious.

It's a bleeping Morgul Blade, surely Radagast is not consuming enough mushrooms to materialize things???

And seriously. Did they had to make Saruman say that? And give Radagast that "birdie haircut" and the bunny sledge... He looks so Narnia.

But going back on track; Saruman shouldn't be corrupted yet. He is supposed to be proud, maybe arrogant; but he is not supposed to just deny everything that is thrown on his table.

They are the wise men (And women), and Saruman is supposed to be the best. They know Sauron is not gone. They know about the Rings, they know of the faith of Isildur (And the faith of Eriador, which wasn't that great, for the matter).

Saruman shouldn't just ignore something like that.

2 - AZOG. It's fine they include him in the backstory (Specially since that story exists in the source material).
But did they need to show him in this film? They had already established him as an enemy, that could wait.

Instead, no. Let's blow everything out of the window, make him appear to kick Thorin just to rub it in a little.

3 - Again, Azog.
Why, in the name of Morgoth, you send Wargs to attack the trees when you have some perfectly good, two-armed, opposable-digits-bearing, better-tree-climbers-than-wolves goblins???

Oh, right, in the book it was only the wolves, the Goblins arrived later.It doesn't make sense in other way.

4 - The escape from the Goblin lair looked like Temple of Doom for a moment. Other than that, it was a fun sequence, I enjoyed it.


That being said, I'm trying to think of this as a Children's movie, just as the Hobbit was a Children's book.

[tiercel]

I'm curious to see how opinion falls out. I would like, in principle, to go watch The Hobbit -- I'm just not sure if I really want to see _this_ The Hobbit.

I grew up with the book (and LotR) and the primary advantage of The Hobbit, the book, is that it is a cleaner, more tightly edited work than LotR (the books). Don't get me wrong -- I like the LotR books as well, but there are some stretches that feel a little more like encyclopedia entries than adventure story. The Hobbit manages to convey Tolkien's world no less effectively, just a smaller, more focused piece of it.

Thus, bloating the one tightly-written book of The Hobbit into a movie trilogy more or less the same size of LotR isn't just "too much bloat" but would seem to fundamentally alter the difference between the two stories. Yes, I know, these are Peter Jackson's movies and not JRR Tolkien's, but I felt like the LotR movies were mostly "Lord of the Rings, as envisioned by Peter Jackson" where I can't help but worry that The Hobbit movies are going to be a little more "Peter Jackson's Tolki-verse, as inspired by The Hobbit."

tl;dr -> Does The Hobbit Part I suffer from "padding" and not sticking to what gives the book its strength, or does are the movies enriched by added Tolkien lore?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

tl;dr -> Does The Hobbit Part I suffer from "padding" and not sticking to what gives the book its strength, or does are the movies enriched by added Tolkien lore?
In my opinion, no. I was utterly delighted, it felt like Middle Earth had been given "breathing room" compared to LOTR. The expansion isn't so much tacking stuff on and padding stuff out as it is fleshing things out. It all dovetails well into the pre-existing books. Generally, it's just extension.

[SmartAlec]

Now, the things I didn't like (Nerdrage incoming, take into account that I liked the movie despite this; SPOILERS AHEAD):

1 - THE WHITE COUNCIL:Cool of them to include it, and tell a broader story. The fight against Dol Guldur is interesting, and I'm looking forward to see more of the Great Mages. But I disagree with thee whole Gandalf-Saruman exchange.
Saruman looks like he is denying/hiding the obvious.

It's a bleeping Morgul Blade, surely Radagast is not consuming enough mushrooms to materialize things???

And seriously. Did they had to make Saruman say that? And give Radagast that "birdie haircut" and the bunny sledge... He looks so Narnia.

But going back on track; Saruman shouldn't be corrupted yet. He is supposed to be proud, maybe arrogant; but he is not supposed to just deny everything that is thrown on his table.

They are the wise men (And women), and Saruman is supposed to be the best. They know Sauron is not gone. They know about the Rings, they know of the faith of Isildur (And the faith of Eriador, which wasn't that great, for the matter).

Saruman shouldn't just ignore something like that.

Saruman wasn't working for Sauron at this point, no, you're right there. But if I remember my unfinished Tales right, Saruman was trying to play for time and waiting to see if the One Ring would resurface and an opportunity to grab it would arise, while Sauron was gathering himself.

He's not a servant of Mordor, is Saruman, but he is being deliberately obstructive for his own reasons, I think.

[Dienekes]

In my humble opinion. The beginning is all padding. Beautiful padding, cool padding, but padding. We're given a stunning and long sequence of Smaug's attack on the Lonely Mountain, followed by a detailed visual on the history of the dwarves after they fled the mountain. And a little later we get a retelling of Thorin's personal history as well. It's really cool on it's own merits, and all of it is in the appendix, but it makes the beginning feel long, plodding, and stops the ball from rolling forward quickly.

Some of the added details are rather interesting, in my opinion, such as getting to see the White Council in action, unfortunately it has other problems in terms of characterization. Also, Jackson is tying up the threads to make a more cohesive narrative, we're getting a specific goblin leader as a villain whom I'm pegging my money will return during the Battle of Five Armies, as well as explanations on the rise of Sauron. I like both of these in concept, but again there's a problem. Goblin king looks fake and obviously CGI to the point of distraction, and Radigast is the focus of the rise of Sauron side story in this bit, and he's basically a cartoon character.

On a whole I think it balanced the whimsy and the serious rather well. Yes there are dark moments, but we get the dwarves singing about smashing plates, and the cockney trolls as well. Parts of it, according to a friend of mine who has not read the book, felt too silly when compared to the LotR movie. And I agree, especially when it comes to Radigast and some goblin designs. So if you're worried about darkening the story, I don't think that's the problem, in many ways the opposite is shown. But it's not a perfect retelling and I'd have changed a few things if I were making it. Cutting some stuff here and there to make it flow easier.

Also, it looks gorgeous. Now, maybe those who saw it in IMAX or 3D have complaints about the framerate, and they would know. But I saw it in normal theaters and it was beautiful.

[Dr.Epic]

Oh nobody is commenting on my Hobbit thread?

Dude, give it time. You posted this comment only a few hours after your first post. No reason to bump it so soon.

Back on topic, I highly enjoyed the film. I thought the action and characters were done well, and this is redundant to say at this point, but New Zealand is really the prefect place you could have chosen to make these films.

They did change some stuff from the book, but I didn't mind it and it was really minor:
It's Bilbo who stalls the trolls, and not Gandalf. I understand why, he is the protagonist and it shows his usefulness.

Also, the scene with the wargs, it's been awhile since I read the book, but it happened differently right? I don't remember Thorin or any dwarf climbing down to fight them. Again, I understand why: to give Bilbo some character development and save Thorin.

I'm also glad they keep in "That's what Bilbo Baggins Hates!" I love that song. But they took out "Fifteen Birds," that made me sad.:smallfrown: At least the animated film has that.

[Runestar]

Saruman wasn't working for Sauron at this point, no, you're right there. But if I remember my unfinished Tales right, Saruman was trying to play for time and waiting to see if the One Ring would resurface and an opportunity to grab it would arise, while Sauron was gathering himself.

He's not a servant of Mordor, but he is being deliberately obstructive for his own reasons, I think.

By this point, I believe pretty much every moviegoer knows he ends up being the villain, but not everyone is aware that he is not yet in cahoots with Sauron. I think rather than try to point this out, it was easier to just make Saruman seem like he was trying to dissuade the others so as not to draw attention to his plans with Sauron. IE: Let people make their own links with the first film.

It may not be as the book intended, but it moves the plot ahead and gets the job done.

[Traab]

Dude, give it time. You posted this comment only a few hours after your first post. No reason to bump it so soon.

Back on topic, I highly enjoyed the film. I thought the action and characters were done well, and this is redundant to say at this point, but New Zealand is really the prefect place you could have chosen to make these films.

They did change some stuff from the book, but I didn't mind it and it was really minor:
It's Bilbo who stalls the trolls, and not Gandalf. I understand why, he is the protagonist and it shows his usefulness.

Also, the scene with the wargs, it's been awhile since I read the book, but it happened differently right? I don't remember Thorin or any dwarf climbing down to fight them. Again, I understand why: to give Bilbo some character development and save Thorin.

I'm also glad they keep in "That's what Bilbo Baggins Hates!" I love that song. But they took out "Fifteen Birds," that made me sad.:smallfrown: At least the animated film has that.

Funny thing is, every time I read the words to the various songs, I hear them as they went in the animated version. "Down down to goblin town, you go, my lads! Yo ho, my lads!" Badass song, way better than the version I have on cd. Even though the version i have on tape rules in every other way.

[Telonius]

Funny thing is, every time I read the words to the various songs, I hear them as they went in the animated version. "Down down to goblin town, you go, my lads! Yo ho, my lads!" Badass song, way better than the version I have on cd. Even though the version i have on tape rules in every other way.

Glad I'm not hte only one... :smallcool:

[afroakuma]

Oh yes, the melodies from the animated movie stick out. I maintain that given a three-hour running time, it was a mistake to put the backstory in a narration by Old Bilbo instead of in a full performance of "Far Over The Misty Mountains Cold." Especially since it sounded great, and the one over the credits sounded lame.

[Dr.Epic]

"Down down to goblin town, you go, my lads! Yo ho, my lads!"

I didn't even remember that song. They cut that out too. Well, they better have "Rollin' Down the Hole" in the sequel.

[Traab]

I didn't even remember that song. They cut that out too. Well, they better have "Rollin' Down the Hole" in the sequel.

Gorramit. So they cut out all the fun songs but thats what bilbo baggins hates? We already know they didnt include Where Theres a Whip in the lotr trilogy. :smallbiggrin:

[Dr.Epic]

Well, maybe the extended editions will have those songs. I forgot about that. There's only so much you can fit into 3 hours.

[Xondoure]

All in all I thought it was very good. Quite incredible in fact. And everyone complaing about the pacing seem to have no appreciation for the Shire. :smallbiggrin: Complaints below. :smalltongue:

It seemed to me that Radagast should have met Gandalf when he left for the day.

The goblin caves weren't anywhere near dark enough. And I know it can be done because Moria felt dark. So what gives?

Bilbo had a little too much courage. Part of that I think is not hearing his internal monologue. But I'm sad that the ring scene was done as it was. The scrambling fear of not being able to see, lost beneath the mountains. A hand running across a golden circlet. "what's this?" (Which was /in/ the Lord of the Rings films so Peter's now screwing with his own bloody canon)

The CGI was awful in places. I'm very upset they stopped using people for the goblins and orcs. Really robs them of all of their menace, and instead they just look plastic.

Some of the dialogue I felt could have been handled better. Not that it wasn't great, but there were little things I thought could have been handled better. I'll be honest, this is mostly because Gollum never once said "My birthday present!"

[ShadowFireLance]

Just got back from seeing it...
Wow, I personally thought it was an amazing film, I really thought it was done right, Everything seemed good...

Oh yeah.

SmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaug SmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaug SmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaug SmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaug SmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaug SmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaug SmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaug SmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaugSmaug SmaugSmaugSmaugSmaug

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I didn't even remember that song. They cut that out too. Well, they better have "Rollin' Down the Hole" in the sequel.
Hm? I'm pretty sure that at least portions of the Goblin-town song were in there, sung by the Gobbo King himself.

[snoopy13a]

I watched it tonight, and I thought it was ok. If you see some of my prior posts on this thread, you'll find that this means I was somewhat pleasantly surprised.

First, Martin Freeman is very good as Bilbo. The riddle-game was very good as was the part with the trolls. I would have preferred if Gandalf would have tricked the trolls, but I suppose having Bilbo be more assertive is good for the narrative.

I didn't like the scenes with Radagast, and I didn't like the meeting of the White Council. This was the extra padding that I thought was unnecessary. I'd have preferred it if the movie concentrated on Bilbo and the Dwarves. I believe they should have cut the whole Dol Gulder business (and the presumed second movie). A mention of the necromancer would have been enough--all they need to do is provide a reason for Gandalf to leave the party before they enter Mirkwood.

The business with the Goblin-King was good. The escape was entertaining. Again, Bilbo's riddle-game with Gollum was very good.

Azog the "defiler" was tiresome. It created a character that wasn't really necessary. Plus, it bugged me a little that in the source material, Azog was killed well before the events in The Hobbit (by Dain, Thorin's kinsman).

Overall, I thought it was ok, but I didn't care for the extra material.

Additionally, if anyone wants an arguably funny (as in, I thought it was funny) take on The Hobbit by two people who aren't familiar with Tolkien, then here's an article:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/im/2012/12/the_hobbit_movie_reviewed_by_tolkien_virgins_does_ the_peter_jackson_film.html

[fergo]

As a massive fan of the Hobbit and someone who's been looking forward to the film since... well, a long, long time...

I absolutely bloody loved it.

Seriously, I thought it was amazing.

I wasn't expecting it to stick dogmatically to the books. I wasn't expecting for it to be better than the book; that would be impossible. I've read that book dozens of times since I was very, very young. The film will never replace the images I have in my head.

I knew it would be different, but I hoped it would still be very, very good. And I was not disapointed.

[Traab]

Well, maybe the extended editions will have those songs. I forgot about that. There's only so much you can fit into 3 hours.

Thank god, the 12 hour extended trilogy might have my songs. I wonder what the collectable item will be? I have my gollum and minas tirith statues. Maybe a nice statue of bag end?

[Astrella]

Some of the added details are rather interesting, in my opinion, such as getting to see the White Council in action, unfortunately it has other problems in terms of characterization. Also, Jackson is tying up the threads to make a more cohesive narrative, we're getting a specific goblin leader as a villain whom I'm pegging my money will return during the Battle of Five Armies, as well as explanations on the rise of Sauron. I like both of these in concept, but again there's a problem. Goblin king looks fake and obviously CGI to the point of distraction, and Radigast is the focus of the rise of Sauron side story in this bit, and he's basically a cartoon character.

There already was a specific goblin leader in the books at the Battle of the Five Armies: Bog, son of Azog. (Azog being the one who started the whole War between Dwarves and Goblins thing.)

[Mutant Sheep]

There already was a specific goblin leader in the books at the Battle of the Five Armies: Bog, son of Azog. (Azog being the one who started the whole War between Dwarves and Goblins thing.)

I thought it was Bolg (I always added Wolfrider to his name. Badass titles are like, awesome.:smallbiggrin:). Hmn... *spends hour searching for Hobbit in his room to find it's Bog*

[hamishspence]

It is indeed Bolg-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolg#Bolg

[OhJohnNo]

Just saw the movie, I very much enjoyed it. It was certainly very long, but I was still disappointed when it ended. And now I have to wait a whole year for the next one? :smallfrown:

I've seen lots of complaints about the special effects, but I thought they were excellent. They looked seamless, and I didn't get the feeling that the Dwarves' blows "lacked impact". Gollum in particular was very well done.

The music wasn't quite as good as the first 3 movies, though. It was certainly great, but it was best when it riffed off of the old trilogy's melodies.

Also, Galadriel... sheesh. My eyes felt unworthy.

[thorgrim29]

I generally liked it, but the orcs and goblins look lame as hell and that's a big issue. Also, Bilbo's fighting skill is wildly inconsistent (I wave a sword around like an idiot and then I suddenly one-shot a warg and duel a goblin). The bit with the rock giants was silly. All in all, I'd say that before Rivendell: super cool film, Between Rivendell and the battle with the wolf riders: felt like a silly cartoon (other then the gollum scenes, those were great), and the ending was pretty cool. And I didn't mind the white council scene as such (other then I don't like Galadriel all that much), but I couldn't take it seriously because I kept imagining Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman planning it (Saruman:Ok, once Elrond goes to fetch him, you stand there looking out the window, when he comes in, greet him and make him think you're alone, then when he's comfortable I come out of the back room and surprise him, it'll be great). And Radagast was ok and I'll leave it at that.

Oh and I was disappointed the rings never came up, the dwarf rings are the reason thror and Thrain went crazy after all, and if memory serves the elf rings were all in Rivendell for a moment

[Hopeless]

So somewhat embarassing question but

speaking as an utter Archnaphobic do they get to the giant spiders in Mirkwood in this one :smalleek:

Yes and if it helps Radagast the Brown also doesn't like them but necromancer scares him even more!

Hope that helps!

[Hopeless]

Middle Earth just does not really have that kind of magic. Even Morgoth doesn't do much of it. He mutates creatures, he has a singing duel that generates enough despair in his opponent that he gives up, he raises a fortress and he curses the line of Hurin. He never threw a single fireball.

So you're saying Morgoth was a type of Bard?

[Hopeless]

That's the issue. Everyone makes him out to be such a great wizard.

He is wise yes. But the people are also supposed to be respectful and fearful of him for his prowess as a wizard, yet we rarely ever see him use magic. You could take away the wizard part and make him some smart-talking hamster and I think the effect would still be the same.

So what exactly distinguishes him from say, some long-lived sage?

I still remember how anticlimatic it was when in the first film, when Gandalf was fighting the balor, he simply used his weapons to smash the ground below him (somehow, the trailer made his shouting 'You shall not pass!' sound like him chanting some arcane spell). :smallmad:

I thought he bound the creature so it couldn't fly or use its varied and terrible abilities like wipe the rest of the fellowship out in a heartbeat, well thats what i thought Balor's could do...the bit about him falling down the same chasm and pretty much beating the fiery creature until it hit the water and became the bedraggled creature before he chased it back up the interior of the mountain before killing it and then seemingly dying... I'd call that epic don't know about you!

Maybe he took a few too many levels of fighter along the way...:smallwink:

[Hopeless]

Yeah. This is kind of my impression. It's a much more subtle, old-world magic born of superstition and nature worship. The sort of thing people believed in before Hollywood discovered special effects.

Which, of course, limits Gandalf in what he can do to directly enforce his own influence. You're going to see things based on belief systems rather than spell formulae. Any modern-day, half competent sorcerer's apprentice should be able to disintegrate Gandalf's head.

I know that's not what the character is supposed to be about. But for a godlike being descended from a higher plane, he doesn't seem as formidable as fanboys like to describe.

Disintregrate's a Fortitude save and given what he did to the Balor or how he snuck inside the mountain to rescue the dwarves before helping to fight their way out kind of indicates he would have not just past it but probably would have slapped it straight back unless he wanted to smack the unfortunate around the head first!:smallbiggrin:

[snoopy13a]

So you're saying Morgoth was a type of Bard?

In a way he was. Alternatively, song in The Silmarillion could be a metaphor.

Sauron is also a master of song. He and Finrod had a sing-off--which Sauron won. But all was not lost; although Finrod is slain, Huan--the talking dog--rescues Beren from Wolf-Sauron. Yes, before The Lord of the Rings becomes The Lord the Rings, he is defeated by a dog :smallsmile:

Perhaps Sauron should have tried defeating Huan through song instead of changing into a wolf? Granted, Huan could talk, but could he sing?

It's too bad that Huan dies later. Otherwise, The Lord of the Rings would have been simple. Frodo could have simply rode Huan into Mordor and Huan would have whupped everyone--including Sauron.

[Hopeless]

In a way he was. Alternatively, song in The Silmarillion could be a metaphor.

Sauron is also a master of song. He and Finrod had a sing-off--which Sauron won. But all was not lost; although Finrod is slain, Huan--the talking dog--rescues Beren from Wolf-Sauron. Yes, before The Lord of the Rings becomes The Lord the Rings, he is defeated by a dog :smallsmile:

Perhaps Sauron should have tried defeating Huan through song instead of changing into a wolf? Granted, Huan could talk, but could he sing?

It's too bad that Huan dies later. Otherwise, The Lord of the Rings would have been simple. Frodo could have simply rode Huan into Mordor and Huan would have whupped everyone--including Sauron.

What if someone persuades Peter Jackson to turn his sights on that next?:smallsmile:

[snoopy13a]

What if someone persuades Peter Jackson to turn his sights on that next?:smallsmile:

He'll probably never get a chance. Tolkien's family still holds the movie rights to The Simarillion. The current decision-makers aren't fans of the movies. Until more receptive people are running the Tolkien Estate, no movies based off of The Simarillion will be made.

[oblivion6]

Who holds the right to the books of David Eddings? PJ could try his hand at the Belgariad and the Mallorean:smalltongue:

[Corvus]

Sauron is also a master of song. He and Finrod had a sing-off--which Sauron won. But all was not lost; although Finrod is slain, Huan--the talking dog--rescues Beren from Wolf-Sauron. Yes, before The Lord of the Rings becomes The Lord the Rings, he is defeated by a dog :smallsmile:



Technically Huan isn't a dog - he is The Dog. The size of a small horse, he was a wolfhoud of Valinor and was given to Celegorm by Orome, the Hunter. He was a badass prophesided never to die until he faced the greatest wolf that ever lived.

[turkishproverb]

Who holds the right to the books of David Eddings? PJ could try his hand at the Belgariad and the Mallorean:smalltongue:

Actually, since he seems to think he has to milk middle earth for all it's worth, but can't get mroe tolkien, shouldn't he be going for The Iron Tower Trilogy and The Silver Call? :smallwink:

[Corvus]

The Hobbit is off to a great start - the highest ever December opening day (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3586&p=.htm) (at $37.5 million.)

Seems to be a disconnect between critics and audiences (but that is hardly new)

[Hopeless]

The Hobbit is off to a great start - the highest ever December opening day (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3586&p=.htm) (at $37.5 million.)

Seems to be a disconnect between critics and audiences (but that is hardly new)

Well given this is the first movie I'd actually like to see more than once in a cinema I suspect thats just the start!

Not so sure about the critics though, have they actually read the Hobbit or are they basing their reviews on what they saw in the Lord of the Rings I am assuming they actually read, listened or saw anything Middle Earth related for that matter?

[Traab]

Actually, since he seems to think he has to milk middle earth for all it's worth, but can't get mroe tolkien, shouldn't he be going for The Iron Tower Trilogy and The Silver Call? :smallwink:

Ugh, I like the iron tower, but that ripoff of a novel never should have seen the light of day. God allmighty, I was able to overlook the similarities with the various races, changes were there and it was more an influence than a source. But then they went into kraggen cor when the mysterious creature in the black lake outside the secret door attacked them, and it was such a total and complete ripoff that it made me want to tear my hair out. How the HELL did that make it past the editor? He stepped way past the line of influenced by and went straight into ripoff territory. Thank god he stepped back again after that and returned to influenced by.

The Belgariad would be awesome though. A full and massive series with all the trimmings and tropes that make fantasy great. If it was a success, then there is the mallorean, and after that the elenium and tamuli. He could spend the next 3 decades working through those series.

[snoopy13a]

Well given this is the first movie I'd actually like to see more than once in a cinema I suspect thats just the start!

Not so sure about the critics though, have they actually read the Hobbit or are they basing their reviews on what they saw in the Lord of the Rings I am assuming they actually read, listened or saw anything Middle Earth related for that matter?

Some have read The Hobbit, maybe about half. A common complaint from those who have read The Hobbit is a perceived disconnect from the movie and the children's book it is based on. Rotten Tomatoes gives a 65% critic approval score (on that site, it means good but not great), but some of the "positive" review are lukewarm. The critics are across the board in their reviews.

[Tvtyrant]

I think this movie would have been better served as a mini-series.

Here me out! The movie is cut into a few rather large breaking points, with what comes before and what comes after different enough that you could simply split it into episodes.

Up through the trolls: Episode 1.
Up until they get to Rivendale: Episode 2.
Goblin caves up to Gandalf jumping in: Episode 3.
Up until end of movie: Episode 4.

Not sure they are equally long, but those were so clearly marked out in tone from each other that I felt that they should be separate while I was watching them.


I also have a complaint!:

Ragamuffin the Brown would have been better as a serious character. No beards nest on head, no derp eyes, no looking confused constantly. I would have loved the rabbit chariot/sled if they had taken his character more seriously; here is a man who lives a strange and wonderous life.

[Ragnar Lodbroke]

SmartAlec: You are right; I had forgotten about that. Thanks for pointing it out, my bad :smalltongue:
I was reading the Silmarillion again, and found that part of the story.

That being said, they could have tried to make it less obvious.

And by God, did they have to include the mushroom comment?? It felt so out of place.... It was so Jar Jar.
Why in the world did they make Christopher Lee say that?

He has killed people you know.

Tvtyrant: In my opinion, this movie could have been split into two very awesome movies: One of them would be the classic "The Hobbit"; the other one would be centered in the White council and the fight on Dol Guldur.

I'd like to see more of Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman; and in that movie they would get much more screen time (With Gandalf being mostly away, babysitting Thorin & Company).

I just don't think there is enough material for a miniseries here.


Now, the Silmarillion.... there is no way to put that into a movie. It's just too long. It would end up with more cuts than a Count of Monte Cristo adaptation (It has always bothered me the way that characters are erased in most Count of Monte Cristo adaptations).

I think the Silmarillion would be one awesome miniseries. I'd love it.

But I am already imagining the groans: "Oh, no, NOT ANOTHER ELF!" "That elf is just like the other one!" "When is the Dragon going to kill everyone?"



"Are the Elf and Sauron singing? When did this become Tenacious D?"

"TURIN!!!! NOT WITH YOUR SISTER!!!!!! WAIT!! Oh well, that's it. Worst.Hero.Ever."

[Eldan]

So you're saying Morgoth was a type of Bard?

It's based on Nordic and Saxon and some Finnish mythology. Of course singers are crazy powerful. The Valar sang the world into existence. Music is magic, and they are all able singers.

[Ragnar Lodbroke]

It's based on Nordic and Saxon and some Finnish mythology. Of course singers are crazy powerful. The Valar sang the world into existence. Music is magic, and they are all able singers.

Yep. Luthien's Magic is mostly song-based, and if I'm not mistaken is one of the most powerful magical displays of a non-Power character in the entire LORT mithology.

[Squark]

My Comments

1) The opening exposition: I, personally, loved it. It felt very epic-ish- that is, it felt like we were being told about the beginning of an epic. I admit, though, that the parts back in the shire felt rather drawn out- On the other hand, I do feel the tie in back to the Lord of the Rings here was a good idea. I wish it was shorter, but I don't know where to actually cut it.

2) The party scene was wonderful. I recall liking how quasi-magical the dwarves seemed when I first read the Hobbit, and I think this did a reasonable job, although I think fitting in the bit where Bilbo hastily invited Gandalf to tea might have made him seem less of a jerk there.

3) I felt the scene with the trolls was very well done. You get some moments for the Dwarves to do some fighting (I personally thought they were doing a fairly good job before Bilbo got captured), plant the seeds of Thoren's frustation with Bilbo, and also get to show Bilbo developing the silver tongue he'll use in the conversation with Smaug.

4) Azog. I'm torn here. On the one hand, I feel the goal here is obvious; Azog is supposed to be the villian who ties all three films together. And, admittedly, the Hobbit can be a bit episodic, so keeping a threat at the Dwarves' heels isn't a horrible change, at my opinion. I reserve judgement until the later films.

5) Radghast. I found Radghast somewhat poorly executed. I wish he'd seemed more eldritch, aloof and mysterious, instead of goofy. He is, at the end of the day, an archangel after all. The CGI animals were somewhat jarring here.

6) The White Council: I was in the bathroom at the beginning of this, but my personal feelings are this is a setup for the second films conflict. I do wish Sauroman had felt less boneheaded; If he's supposed to be plotting arround here, find some way to convey that, but as is, he just came off as foolish. His title was "The Wise" (Well, among others), for crying out loud!

7) The Stone Giants: Yes, they were mostly implied threats in the novel. But that doesn't work in a movie, I feel. If you talk about Stone Giants, I want to see them, and I suspect a lot of other people would have felt the same way if they were just mentioned off hand.

8) Bilbo departing scene: I think this was a good idea. Bilbo's going to be carrying us through 2-3 films- He needs some character development It's very trope-esque, but I felt it was well executed.

9) The goblins: In hindsight, I can notice that they were all CGI, but not knowing that going in it didn't really cross my mind. Execution wise, I feel the goblin king's fight with Gandalf should have been more drawn out.

10) Finding the ring: Thinking about it, yeah, it should have just been found randomly. Also, Bilbo's internal monologue felt missing here, although the point where he actualyl asks the question, "What have I got in my pocket," worked well. I really, really, really wish they had cut away from this scene at one point. I have no real fondness for riddles, and I know far more than that. We don't need to see all the riddles exchanged, but there should be an idea of there being many of them, and giving Bilbo's mind time to wander.

11) The Final scene: I felt this was really well done, for the most part. Honestly, my biggest issues here were the fact that the Chief Warg didn't lose his ear like he did in the book, and that, for the sake of those who haven't read the books, we didn't get an explanation of why the Eagles come when called. Because if I didn't know this was just Gandalf calling in a debt, I'd be wandering why the Eagles just came simply when called but didn't stick around.


Overall: I enjoyed myself a lot. I went in expecting the film to be somewhat slow paced, so there's that. Didn't notice any motion sickness issues on my very motion sickness prone mother, though I'm not sure what the fps was (We did not see it in 3D). I personally love the idea of weaving more of the surrounding world into the narrative, but I suspect that's going to be a controversial issue. I almost feel like Peter Jackson wanted to tell a seperate story here about Gandalf, but only had the rights to make movies that were under the title, "The Hobbit," and starred Bilbo. Definately looking forward to the next film; They're building up to the appearance of the Necromancer in the next film- Actually, that's one issue here. This felt a bit like a multi-part TV special that would have been shown 1 part a day. Not necessarily a bad thing on it's own, but it's atypical for a film and somewhat jarring to some people.

[TheEmerged]

Saw it today, and loved it. It struck me that Peter Jackson might be overcompensating for the complaints about taking too much out of LotR by adding things to this story, but I'm okay with that if he can keep this quality up.

In particular, I feel that they did a good job capturing the fact that The Hobbit is a more whimsical, boisterous tale than LotR.

I don't get the complaints about it being overlong. That was perhaps the shortest three hours I've experienced in years. The only real basis I can see is saying that they should have done the Hobbit in one movie the same as the other three books. The problem with that complaint, I feel, is that frankly there's more story to The Hobbit than any one of the other three (again, in my opinion).

[Squark]

On the topic of dwarf incompetency: I don't see it- If anything, the dwarves here are more competant than in the novel- These dwarves didn't get caught by the Trolls by wandering in one by one, after all. And as for the goblin fight- Well, the thing is, they all did get out relatively unscathed. Up until the big climactic battle at the end, none of the dwarves come out with any long term injuries.

[Runestar]

Regarding the eagles, I am amazed they came as quickly as they did. I assumed Gandalf used the butterfly to summon them, but I would assume such a feat would take hours, unless the eagles were given orders to follow them from up in the sky and render aid when required.

That's an interesting disconnect I always find in comics and films. They are somehow always able to zip halfway around the globe in minutes and arrive always in the nick of time. :smalltongue:

[oblivion6]

I think I'm gonna go watch it tomorrow. Cant wait!

Where does the first movie leave off?

[Dienekes]

There already was a specific goblin leader in the books at the Battle of the Five Armies: Bog, son of Azog. (Azog being the one who started the whole War between Dwarves and Goblins thing.)

Hmm true, but I can see why they'd changed it. Having it be Azog adds some direct weight to the confrontation between him and Thorin, as well as removes the need for "Azog was my father!" exposition. As far as changes go, that doesn't really bother me.


Also, Galadriel... sheesh. My eyes felt unworthy.

I have to admit, when we see Galadriel slowly turn for the first time with her dress flowing all around her, my first thought was "If you take a step in literally any direction you are going to trip. That was silly, lady."

[SaintRidley]

Watched it today. Very enjoyable.

[Muz]

Did anyone notice that Glamdring and Orcrist didn't glow? Could've sworn they did in the book. Sting glowed. F/X bumble?

[SmartAlec]

Did anyone notice that Glamdring and Orcrist didn't glow? Could've sworn they did in the book. Sting glowed. F/X bumble?

In the book, they did glow. But Glamdring has already been established as not glowing in the Lord of the Rings movies; Jackson said that he wanted to keep the glowing effect limited to Sting only, as 'he didn't want it to look like Star Wars, with lightsabers'.

I guess he had a point?

[Laura Eternata]

I thought I saw Orcrist glow a little bit in Goblin Town.

Anyway, I saw it the other night and adored it. It wasn't perfect - I thought the bunny sleigh was stupid, I didn't like the CG orcs replacing the disgusting makeup ones from the Trilogy, Goblin Town was too cartoony, and the dwarves were more effective fighters than the entire Fellowship - but I still really enjoyed it. The acting was superb all around, and the sets (the ones that weren't full of CGI) were as beautiful as they were ten years ago.

(Big spoilers for this movie as well as the book)
What I liked most about it, though, was that it serves as as a bridge between The Hobbit book's world and the Middle Earth we saw in Lord of the Rings. Since Tolkien hadn't planned out the Rings trilogy when writing The Hobbit, there was a drastic change in tone between books. Middle Earth went from being a fairly happy place where 'adventures' are common and elves are happy and magic rings are novelties to a pretty grimdark place, especially when it was portrayed in the films. With The Hobbit movie, we actually see that happy-go-lucky world changing with the return of Sauron without being full on Warhammer yet. Dwarves can still have impromptu song and dance numbers and Gandalf can still snap off sassy one liners, but the hints of darkness are definitely creeping in. I have a feeling that the next two movies will get darker in tone, culminating in Thorin's death at the end of The Battle of Five Armies to bridge the gap in tones. This series honestly feels more like the end of an age than Return of the King ever did.

So yeah, I liked it a lot.

[Muz]

In the book, they did glow. But Glamdring has already been established as not glowing in the Lord of the Rings movies; Jackson said that he wanted to keep the glowing effect limited to Sting only, as 'he didn't want it to look like Star Wars, with lightsabers'.

I guess he had a point?

I can see the point about the lightsabers, I suppose. Though I really thought Glamdring glowed in Moria, but I haven't seen it in a while...

I keep seeing people complain about the CG orcs, but I confess I didn't notice any problems at all.

[Mutant Sheep]

Hmm true, but I can see why they'd changed it. Having it be Azog adds some direct weight to the confrontation between him and Thorin, as well as removes the need for "Azog was my father!" exposition. As far as changes go, that doesn't really bother me.



I have to admit, when we see Galadriel slowly turn for the first time with her dress flowing all around her, my first thought was "If you take a step in literally any direction you are going to trip. That was silly, lady."im sure we'll still get Bolg to go "You killed my father. Prepare to die", and be all half-troll looking and 8feet tall and stuff.:smalltongue:


I can see the point about the lightsabers, I suppose. Though I really thought Glamdring glowed in Moria, but I haven't seen it in a while...

I keep seeing people complain about the CG orcs, but I confess I didn't notice any problems at all.His staff did the glowstick flashorb thing at least.:smallconfused:

Well, it'll make the behind the scenes interviews with the crew less interestimg.:smallamused: But I didnt see any glaring issues in trailers except in the escape from Goblin town bridgerun. (And personally, i hated how the orcs looked in Rotk. Fellowship orcs were beautifully slimy and the 'Moria maggots' were beautifully done. Mordor orcs were... Dry. Even the Urukhai changed from fellowhip to Towers. :smallsigh: I dunno. Rant about how more orcs should have looked like the one in Palintir-Shire?)

[Kindablue]

I was shocked watching this to find how much I remembered from having read the book at eleven. The trolls, the goblins, most of the riddles, the hawks... One of the things I must have forgotten is how every important discussion and detour and contemplative thought in the moonlit night takes place on a perilous ledge over a four hundred foot drop. Maybe Sauron is really the last health and safety inspector in the world, and he's just gone a little sour because no one takes his warnings seriously.


I liked the movie.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think I'm gonna go watch it tomorrow. Cant wait!

Where does the first movie leave off?
The part where they get trapped in the trees by wargs, and the eagles rescue them. However, this part is altered a good bit into a climactic first confrontation, and the dwarves wind up being not quite so trapped in the trees. The "Fifteen Birds in Five Fir Trees" song is regrettably also cut.

[Muz]

I'm curious at the thinking behind a minor change in the troll scene:
In the book, the dwarves are tired, soaked from days of rain, and hungry because one of the ponies carrying most of the food had washed away in a river, and it's because of this that they send Bilbo off to check out the trolls' fire. In the movie, he's going to try to get back their stolen ponies.

Incidentally, the ponies that did NOT get stolen are really quite mellow, aren't they? Usually horses tend to react a bit to large smelly predators in their midst taking their fellows away...

I can't really figure out why they went and changed this.

Also -- and I really don't mean to sound like I'm complaining, because I did enjoy the movie -- did anyone feel like Rivendell just came out of nowhere? Geographically speaking, I mean. The terrain they were in just prior to finding the cave really did not seem like it was 100 yards from the valley.

Goblin scribe: Evil Yoda. :smallwink:

[Dumbledore lives]

Well I saw it, comments in spoiler.

I felt the pacing was just... off. It was too fast in some parts, too slow in others, and just seemed kind of weird. Of special notes is the scene with the brown wizard which just broke off from the main characters completely to show something that had no relevance to this film, even if it will play into something later.

The action all felt far too cartoony, with even the decapitations being accompanied by laughter. Pushing the goblins at the end especially it was like a freaking Tom and Jerry cartoon. That drove me completely out of what the film was trying to do, with the epic feel and big bag it just all kind of fell apart with the comedy. Much of the comedy throughout the film actually felt this way, it was decent but just didn't sit well with the tone.

Overall I guess I enjoyed it but there were a lot of little things like de-mystifing Gandalf and adding things to the story which just didn't seem necessary, I still think two movies is unnecessary, and three is really too excessive.

[Reverent-One]

Saw it. Liked it. The 48 fps was generally a good thing, and they did a good job weaving the supplementary material into it (in some cases in ways that probably won't be obvious into later if I guess correctly). I approve and want to see the next one.

[OhJohnNo]

I have to admit, when we see Galadriel slowly turn for the first time with her dress flowing all around her, my first thought was "If you take a step in literally any direction you are going to trip. That was silly, lady."

Ah, but she's MAGICK. Also, elven. It wouldn't surprise me if her dress possesses some sort of innate ability to magically flow out of her way any time she wants to move anywhere.

[Saph]

I just saw it and really enjoyed it.

Watching it reminds you of just how dense the book was. It might be shorter than LotR, but there's loads and loads of material in there.

[Traab]

I'm curious at the thinking behind a minor change in the troll scene:
In the book, the dwarves are tired, soaked from days of rain, and hungry because one of the ponies carrying most of the food had washed away in a river, and it's because of this that they send Bilbo off to check out the trolls' fire. In the movie, he's going to try to get back their stolen ponies.

Incidentally, the ponies that did NOT get stolen are really quite mellow, aren't they? Usually horses tend to react a bit to large smelly predators in their midst taking their fellows away...

I can't really figure out why they went and changed this.

Also -- and I really don't mean to sound like I'm complaining, because I did enjoy the movie -- did anyone feel like Rivendell just came out of nowhere? Geographically speaking, I mean. The terrain they were in just prior to finding the cave really did not seem like it was 100 yards from the valley.

Goblin scribe: Evil Yoda. :smallwink:

Yeah, the thing is, in the hobbit, iirc, rivendell was called "The Last Homely House" And it was treated more as an outpost of the elves than their capitol frigging city. In game terms it was the last save point before you enter a long and dangerous dungeon map. :p

[SmartAlec]

Thought that occurred to me - Bilbo's calling out to a puzzled Hobbit as he ran past them - "I'm going on an adventure!" - might actually be a call-forward to Bilbo's words at the Grey Havens in Return of the King movie - "I'm quite ready for another adventure."

[Squark]

Regarding the eagles, I am amazed they came as quickly as they did. I assumed Gandalf used the butterfly to summon them, but I would assume such a feat would take hours, unless the eagles were given orders to follow them from up in the sky and render aid when required.

That's an interesting disconnect I always find in comics and films. They are somehow always able to zip halfway around the globe in minutes and arrive always in the nick of time. :smalltongue:

To be fair, the eagles of the book were able to come to everyone's rescue because their nest was nearby.

[Cavelcade]

Overall, I liked it, but a lot of the changes frustrated me. Instead of making it feel more 'epic', they just left me thinking of how much more epic the original lore is. Even going back to the start - the actual dwarf-orc war is so much more interesting than what we were given. This is just "let's go see what Moria's like" whereas in that it's more "For this crime, we will wipe out every orc we find until we find Azog " - and they do.

The White Council annoyed me on many levels. For a start, it's certainly implied to be a bigger affair than the four of them, wise as they may be. And, well, more important, it just wrecked Gandalf. No-one in the council is actually beholden to any decisions made, rather, they come together to share wisdom and try and move in a union, to have more strength that way. And, while Gandalf does have an admiration for Saruman, he doesn't revere him. This was a problem I had with the LotR movies, as well, though. Also him forgetting that he had the sword of the dead was just...confusing? I agree with the posters who have complained about Radagast being so cartoonish, as well.

The most annoying part for me, personally, was the butchering of the lore of Angmar though. Not so much because they did it - but it has no meaning for anyone who hasn't, as a bare minimum, read the appendices of LotR. And it's just...so incredibly wrong, it's like a slap in the face. And, in any case, the same effect could very easily have been accomplished without that butchering that the reasoning behind it just baffles me.


Other than Gandalf, though, the characterisation was strong. I don't particularly think Thorin needed to have his realisation now - I think the book had the placement right. The songs were great, and the riddle scene was thoroughly enjoyable. Martin Freeman makes a wonderful Bilbo. While I mostly had no problem with the goblins, the only line I found kind of jarring was "That'll do it.", it just made it feel...meh.

Also, them fighting their way out instead of just plain running was kind of silly, and reminded me of Moria from the Fellowship. I mostly liked it - except for the bit with the swaying piece of stair and the point where they were surrounded by orcs who fled at the approach of the balrog. That scene was just silly - essentially, Peter Jackson loves set pieces and puts them in where they don't belong.




My overall conclusion is that it was padded, and the next two movies would want to be very tight to justify it being three instead of two.

[grimbold]

Hmm true, but I can see why they'd changed it. Having it be Azog adds some direct weight to the confrontation between him and Thorin, as well as removes the need for "Azog was my father!" exposition. As far as changes go, that doesn't really bother me.


it was more like an itch :P

maybe he'll kill azog in film 2 and we'll get to see bog?

[Zevox]

Saw it today. Pretty darn good, though I have some criticisms.

Okay, being a fairly big Tolkien geek, I can't help but spot quite a few changes from the book, even though I haven't read it in a while. Some I can kind of understand, others just leave me confused.

I don't recall any of this business with Azog, for instance. Oh, the battle outside Moria where Thorin earned his name I recall (though whether it was from The Hobbit or supplementary material I don't recall), and the whole "chased up some trees" bit, but I'm fairly certain the Orc attacks before they reach Rivendell were invented whole cloth, and if there was a named Orc King at the battle outside Moria, I'm pretty sure Thorin was supposed to have killed him there. The Orcs that chased them outside the Misty Mountains were supposed to be the same ones that they were fleeing from the caverns, too, not a separate group.

Now, all that isn't necessarily a bad addition or anything, but I can't help but worry that it was added solely to pad the story out to more movies, as it wasn't really necessary. And on that note, this one ended pretty much where I would've expected for the story if it were being done in two movies, so I'm now very curious how it ends up as three. There's really no other logical stopping point I can think of for the second movie unless they stretch the Murkwood sequences out way too long and end at Dale, before they head up to Erebor.

Now, on to other changes, more the ones that bug me as they seem pointless:
The way the Dwarves are captured in the Misty Mountains. Trapdoors that spill them into a bucket-like cage instead of a hidden door in the back of the cave that Orcs use to sneak up on them while they sleep? Um, why?
The whole White Council sequence. There's a number of parts to this:
It gives the impression that the White Council was not a thing that existed before, that this gathering is solely because Saruman is concerned about Gandalf encouraging the Dwarves to go after Smaug. Why?
Saruman denies that Sauron could possibly return. Even though that's the whole reason he and the other Istari were sent to Middle-Earth in the first place. Um, what? I mean, I know he was starting to contemplate seeking the ring and betraying his duty at this point, but denying that the whole reason he's even in Middle Earth could possibly be a concern seems like a pretty dumb way to go about it, and should be ringing all sorts of alarm bells with everyone else present.
The whole deal with the Necromancer seems to have been altered substantially. Originally he had been around for quite some time, and Gandalf had discovered that he was Sauron some time ago - in fact, it was at the same time as he found Thorin's father, Thrain, locked up in Dol Guldur, and was given the key and map that play such an important role in this story. Now the Necromancer is just turning up - which is going to make how Mirkwood gets into the state it's supposed to be in so fast very strange - and Radagast discovered this instead? I mean, I understand the desire to get Radagast into the movie, particularly since the goofy version of him they went with fits well into the Hobbit's lighter tone, but couldn't they have done that with him as a part of the White Council instead? Also, he didn't find out that the Necromancer is Sauron, which is kind of important information. And if Gandalf didn't get the key and map from Thrain at Dol Guldur, where did he get them?
The Morgul blade stuck out to me. This may be overly nitpicky, but I can't help it. When that's brought up, they say that it was buried with the Witch-King... but he was never killed. In fact, it was when he escaped after the fall of Angmar that one of the Elves present at that battle made the prediction that he would not be felled by the hand of any man, which was important in LotR. Sorry, not really important when you get down to it, since when the prediction was made doesn't matter for viewers of the movie who aren't Tolkien geeks, that one just bugs me personally.
It also seems like they might be trying to imply some romantic interest between Galadriel and Gandalf. Big problem with that: Galadriel is married (heck, her husband should probably be part of the White Council). I hope I'm just misinterpreting there, and they're only trying to imply a strong friendship, which would make sense, but given the prevalence of romantic subplots in media today I can't help but be worried they're trying to shoehorn one in here.
The Giants. Now yes, there is mention of Giants in The Hobbit - the only mention of them anywhere in Tolkien's writings, in fact - but they're just said to stand atop the mountains throwing rocks at each other, making it dangerous, not to be made of rock and seem to be part of the mountain. Again, not important, but I get the feeling that change was made solely to show off some 3D effects given the way some of those scenes were shown. (I did not see the movie in 3D. 3D is not worth any extra cost in my opinion.)

Now, on the flip side there, I should mention that there are changes that didn't bug me, and I readily acknowledge were a good move. Like with the Trolls, for instance. The removal of the talking purse was obviously a good call, and having the Dwarves try to rescue Bilbo and get captured when the Trolls threatened to kill him instead of stumbling in and being captured one by one like idiots was as well. And actually, I kind of wish they had made one more change there - alter the Trolls' design, so that their turning to stone in daylight when the Trolls in LotR don't becomes a matter of them being a different species of Troll. Also would explain their ability to talk instead of just grunt like animals like the LotR ones. Oh well, missed opportunity.

I also liked how they managed to make the Dwarves look different and mostly distinct. While I didn't manage to get all of them down, I can certainly recognize Thorin, Balin, Bombur, and Fili and Kili (though I can't tell those two apart) on sight now, as well as one other whose name I don't recall ever putting to his face (the one that Bilbo talks to in the cave in the Misty Mountains before the Dwarves are captured). I could have done without the cliché fat jokes with Bombur though (and yes, I know he was fat in the book). And there is still about half of the company that don't stand out, but I can't fault them there, as thirteen such characters is a bit much even for a lengthy movie adaptation of the story.

Anyway though, as I said, on the whole, I liked it. Aside from what I've said so far, my main criticism would be that the beginning drags on too much, but once the adventure gets started, it's genuinely quite good throughout, aside from a couple of hard-to-follow action sequences. I am definitely looking forward to the remaining movies, and I do think there is ample proof here that multiple movies were called for... though as I said earlier, I don't know about three instead of two. We'll see how the second turns out before I pass any judgment on that though.

[LordHavelock]

it was more like an itch :P

maybe he'll kill azog in film 2 and we'll get to see bog?

Azog won't die until film number 3 at the battle of five Armies I imagine.

[Silkspinner]

...wow, really? I was expecting a lot of negative criticisms for this film, especially considering the general consensus on these forums for the LOTR trilogy.

The Trilogy is amongst my top ten fave films.

The Hobbit was unapologetic crap once the journey began. I consider everything after Bilbo woke up to find the dwarves gone to be all a bad dream.

I could go into details but doubt it'd be well received here.


Let's just say wasn't me, but every Tolkien fancier I went to see it with. None of us are even interested in seeing it a second time, and we could do so for free.

[snoopy13a]

...wow, really? I was expecting a lot of negative criticisms for this film, especially considering the general consensus on these forums for the LOTR trilogy.

The Trilogy is amongst my top ten fave films.

The Hobbit was unapologetic crap once the journey began. I consider everything after Bilbo woke up to find the dwarves gone to be all a bad dream.

I could go into details but doubt it'd be well received here.


Let's just say wasn't me, but every Tolkien fancier I went to see it with. None of us are even interested in seeing it a second time, and we could do so for free.

Would you mind going into detail? I'm just curious to see how you thought it fell short. For example, did you think it wasn't epic enough? Or did you think that Jackson betrayed the source material? Did you think that he tried to do both and made a muddled mess? Did you find the film technique used distracting? Too long?

Also, what is your favorite Tolkien work versus your least favorite Tolkien work? (I have a little theory that people who really like The Hobbit tend not to like The Simarillion very much and vice versa.)

As I've written previously, I enjoyed the movie but I didn't think it was great. It is in the B-/C+ range for me.

[Zevox]

Also, what is your favorite Tolkien work versus your least favorite Tolkien work? (I have a little theory that people who really like The Hobbit tend not to like The Simarillion very much and vice versa.)
That's not necessarily the case. The Silmarillion is my favorite of Tolkien's books, but I still like The Hobbit. Some parts of it that just don't gel with the rest of Tolkien's writing do bug me, but not badly since I know the reason for them is that The Hobbit was originally a children's story not necessarily meant to fit in with the rest of Tolkien's mythos.

[Silkspinner]

Well, just off the top of my head...

- The CGI was pretty horrible. In the Trilogy they used prosthetics for everything. In this one they used mostly computers and the orcs look absolutely fake and unlike the trilogy. The Goblins were a travesty, especially that stupid King. He was merely a remake of that fat diner-owner from Star Wars II, and even used the same voice actor.

In fact, the whole thing had the feel of the latest Star Wars films, which brings me to...

- The lame, childish humor. Not bumbling slapstick like in The Hobbit which can be done in an adult manner, but simply corny and/or agonizing. Lines like with the Goblin King 'And what can you do to kill me' or whatever, followed by -slash-, "Oh, that'll do it." X_X

Reminiscent of ThreePO in Star Wars having his severed head hauled along and going, 'This is such a drag'.

Then you had the snot flinging and fart blowing. I mean, really?

As someone mentioned above, it was like a live-action cartoon. This isn't really a film for children, yet they throw in stuff that is suited to pre-teens.

- It veered wildly from the book, far more than the trilogy, adding in parts that were completely unnecessary and rather uninteresting, like that stupid pale orc arc. Could have left him out and extended on other scenes or parts of the book that weren't even added.

- It had a generally rushed, sloppy, unprofessional feel once the Shire was left. Like they just wanted to hurry and get it over with. It's as if The Hobbit was the cheap intro, and the Trilogy the masterpiece made with all the money they made from the Hobbit, instead of being the other way around.

And while it didn't need to feel 'epic', it had very little magic to it either. I didn't feel I was seeing the book. The actual old cartoon film felt closer to it.


I left feeling disappointed and disheartened. It was not even the same league. LOTR was nominated, and won, many awards. I could never see The Hobbit doing the same.


And I'm pretty much equal with all of Tolkien's works. Can't really say I prefer one over the other.

[Ragnar Lodbroke]

Also, what is your favorite Tolkien work versus your least favorite Tolkien work? (I have a little theory that people who really like The Hobbit tend not to like The Simarillion very much and vice versa.)

Probably not directed at me, I'm only answering because It's not my case and I enjoy debunking theories :smalltongue:

I think that the Hobbit in one of my favourite Tolkien works; but I love the Silmarillion. The Fellowship of the Ring is probably my least favourite one.

Yet I feel it is an unfair question. I mean, every book had its awesome moments, and I love the Fellowship.
I just love the rest more.

I think that the only regret I have over the Silmarillion is that, since many of the stories in it are not completely developed due to Author Existance Failure (And the fact that most of those stories were not meant to be originally published, but to work as background), it's only a shadow of what it could have been.

Which is a very Tolkienesque thing, since we are talking about it.


- The CGI was pretty horrible. In the Trilogy they used prosthetics for everything. In this one they used mostly computers and the orcs look absolutely fake. The Goblins were a travesty, especially that stupid King. He was merely a remake of that fat diner-owner from Star Wars II, and even used the same voice actor.

You know, I was thinking "Gungan King... Gungan King" through that entire scene



Then you had the snot flinging and fart blowing. I mean, really?

That is actually a good point.

I'd add the bird droppings on Radagast.


- It veered wildly from the book, far more than the trilogy, adding in parts that were completely unnecessary and rather uninteresting, like that stupid pale orc arc. Could have left him out and extended on other scenes or parts of the book that weren't even added.

Not in all cases... The pale Orc did exist in the books (Died years before, true...) But it's not a completely awful change. It could work to have an enemy following throughout the series, besides Smaug.

The dialogs between the dwarves and Bilbo were necessary. How do you establish their relationship without that?
How do you give the dwarves a personality without that?

And the White council thing has potential. I mean, real epic potential.

[Ragnar Lodbroke]

Double post, sorry.

[Helanna]

I saw it and loved it (I also love the book, but I haven't read it for quite a few years). I don't really have anything to add that hasn't been discussed already. Yes, some parts dragged a bit but I found I didn't mind, and it was nice to see so much of the world and its history.

[navar100]

Yeah, because there is no difference between the amount of material in a novel that is easy to fit in ones pocket and a doorstopper the size of a good dictionary or large Bible.
In case you couldn't guess, the above is sarcasm.

Ah, but what is in one's pocket can be quite important.

Personally, I have so far not even read Lord of the Rings nor The Hobbit. Maybe one day I will, but free from the burden of being offended of what is or is not in the movies I can judge the movie on its own merits. It is a great adventure.

[Tavar]

Just saw the film, and I thought it was pretty good.


Also, Bilbo's fighting skill is wildly inconsistent (I wave a sword around like an idiot and then I suddenly one-shot a warg and duel a goblin).
His one shot of a Warg was a Warg impaling its head on Sting, and his duel with the Orc was him blindsiding it and then repeatedly wildly chopping at it. Not exactly moments showing off his skill.

As for the Rings, they might be brought up in the next movies. Considering how rarely the rings are brought up in the Lord of the Rings, it didn't feel odd that people didn't mention them.

[Telonius]

"Are the Elf and Sauron singing? When did this become Tenacious D?"


This is not the greatest story Tolkien ever wrote. This is only a tribute.

[Wardog]

I've just got back from seeing it. (High-speed 3D version).

Overall, I liked it, a lot. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if - as with LotR - all the problems start to grate on future viewings).

The special effects looked fine to me. It took me a little while to get my "eyes in" on the 3D (at first all the foreground characters seemed to be floating infront of the background), but I all 3D movies do that to me, including Avatar. Apart from that, I didn't have any problems with the effects, and didn't notice any of the issues I've seen complaints about.

I didn't have too much problem with the filler, apart from the bit right at the start that's imported from the first chapter of LotR. (Why, for Eru's sake? It was completely unnecessary, and was a bit of a drag even in the original novel, where it was at least mostly relevent to the plot).

I was a bit off-put by the portrayal of Rhadagast at first (especialy his rabbit sled). But after thinking for a bit, I decided it probably wasn't too much "out of tone" with the original book. And then when I considered that the story is essentially "Bilbo's account of his adventures", which canonically was embellished for effect/to conceal certain events, then all the dafter bits suddenly make perfect sense.


As for the actual changes to the story:
For the most part, I think they work. Having Azog alive and persuing them adds a degree of urgency to the story, and a bit of structure as well, compared to the novel which was more of a string of wacky adventures.

Having the dwarves get involved in more fights I think was also a good change, as it makes them much more involved in the story. (A lot of the episodes in the novel seemed to be variations of "stuff happens to the dwarves, Gandalf saves the day, and Bilbo acts as the audience surrogate").

Similarly, having Bilbo prove himself sooner was probably necessary given the structure of the films. (By which I mean, it needed to be done in the first film). As an aside, I'm very glad that Film!Bilbo, despite his own sense of unworthyness, i a more competent and engaging character than Film!Frodo. (Which is ironic, because if I remember the books right, Bilbo started out quite pathetic before undergoing character development, whereas Frodo started out a lot more adventurous and competent, got even more so over the course of the story, and didn't go "soft" until the end when he had been broken by his experiences).

I have a bit more of a problem with Jackson's tendancy (previously demonstrated in the LotR trilogy) to mess around the the background story and the timeline. (Simplifying the War Between the Dwarves and the Orcs, and more notably, making The Necromancer's takeover of Mirkwood a current event). On the one hand, I'm not sure it harms the plot of the film, and people unfamiliar with the lore won't have any complaints. But on the other hand, it seems completely unnecessary, and will potentially annoy/confuse those lore fans.

And reducing the eagles to moth-summoned air-taxis (again) cheapens their role in the world, loses a good opportunity for some useful exposition (and, if I remember correctly, an opportunity for Gandalf to show his importance by essentially discussing world politics with the agents of the gods. Which is far more impressive than casting "talk with moth", which should really be more of Rhadagast's thing).


So overall, I enjoyed it. It was a good film, and enjoyable to watch especially if you can switch off the Lore Purity part of your brain (and remember that The Hobbitt, or There and Back Again is Bilbo's not-entierly-accurate autobiography, and a more light-hearted tale than LotR*. I'll definitely be going to see the next part when it's out. (Whether I'll still enjoy them on the second or third re-watch, I'm not so sure).



* Or the Silmarillion. Or The Children of Hurin. Dear God, The Children of Hurin. It could be subtitled "or, How Everyone Screws Up, and the Bad Guys Basically Win. And then Everyone Dies Alone."

[Wardog]

He ISN'T low profile. He WAS generally pretty easily trackable.

Again, like the guy but either:

A: He DOES'NT have the power, and hes mostly wise

or

B: He just doesn't want to use them out of laziness.

Or C: Because when Ainur use their full power to directly intervene in the world, the world breaks.

[Zevox]

Or C: Because when Ainur use their full power to directly intervene in the world, the world breaks.
Well, continents do, anyway. The world breaking thing was actually Eru, as they temporarily turned over governance of the world to him because of the magnitude of that situation.

But their struggle with Morgoth at Utumno was said to send the surrounding land into the sea, and the War of Wrath did the same to northern Beleriand despite only Maiar, Elves, and mortals taking part, so close enough. No doubt that's why the Ainur had forbid the Istari from using their power against Sauron directly.

[JoshL]

- The CGI was pretty horrible. In the Trilogy they used prosthetics for everything. In this one they used mostly computers and the orcs look absolutely fake and unlike the trilogy. The Goblins were a travesty, especially that stupid King. He was merely a remake of that fat diner-owner from Star Wars II, and even used the same voice actor.

That's actually not (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0266193/) true (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0402032/).

I actually didn't mind the CG goblins as much as I thought I would. Don't get me wrong, I love the Moria goblins in LOTR, but I liked that these had a distinctly different style. Furthermore, more than anything else, they're del Toro's style, rather than just old Howe/Lee designs. I personally really love del Toro's style, wasn't sure how much of a stylistic impact he was going to have.

[Mutant Sheep]

This is not the greatest story Tolkien ever wrote. This is only a tribute.OH MY GOD YOU ARE AWESOME. :smallbiggrin:



You know, I was thinking "Gungan King... Gungan King" through that entire scene...I was reminded of (oh god why did I watch that) MiB 2's "He's a ball-chinian." :smallsigh:



Not in all cases... The pale Orc did exist in the books (Died years before, true...) But it's not a completely awful change. It could work to have an enemy following throughout the series, besides Smaug.

The dialogs between the dwarves and Bilbo were necessary. How do you establish their relationship without that?
How do you give the dwarves a personality without that?

And the White council thing has potential. I mean, real epic potential.I think it would have taken a bit too long to manage the whole "bwhaha, I cut off his head and gave you gold MASSIVE WAR OF DOOM", but I found the flashback fight lacking.
*bunch of incoherent and inane questions*How did Azog cut off his head, he only has a giant maceclub? Why was Thorin the only one to notice and do the classic "stop fighting at look at the big dramatic thing"? And how did cutting off Azog's arm reverse the rout so thoroughly? Why do all the Gundabad Orcs were so many leather armor pieces on their upper bodies but then Azog runs around wearing nothing when he has prior experience of "no armor=missing limbs"? Why do the orcs look like Spiderwick Chronicle orcs? THEY SHOULDN'T!:smallannoyed: I think that's where the CGI hurt the movie the most. When it's a human underneath makeup, they had to keep the eyes in a reasonable place. Azog already looks strange, making all his minions wear a ton of clothes and weird eyes didn't help me take him seriously. (But I was already griping when he got dragged into Moria by other orcs because he should be deaaaaaaaaaaad.:smallfrown:
Also, there was one too many scenes of "oh no wolv-I mean wargs" THEY ARE WOLVES YOU ALREEADY SHOWED US WARGS IN LOTR.:smallannoyed::smallsigh: They turn around and kill them easily after the wolves catch up to them anyways. I loved Radagast though. The moss/bird on the side of his face was weird, but the hedgehog was adorable and spiders were menacing. And also, he completely smacked down Khamul. Like, bad. And in the face. But the blade was the *Insert BFME2 made up lore argument* argh. HE DIDNT DIE. ARGH.
*end incoherence*

[Ragnar Lodbroke]

Well, continents do, anyway. The world breaking thing was actually Eru, as they temporarily turned over governance of the world to him because of the magnitude of that situation.

But their struggle with Morgoth at Utumno was said to send the surrounding land into the sea, and the War of Wrath did the same to northern Beleriand despite only Maiar, Elves, and mortals taking part, so close enough. No doubt that's why the Ainur had forbid the Istari from using their power against Sauron directly.

There was a similar discussion in a LOTR thread somewhere in this forum...

I always had the impression that the World had changed due to the "world-breaking thing".

That somehow magic, and magical powers didn't work in the same way.

It could be an explanation of the reasons behind the Rings of Power: A way to stop the passage of time, of keeping Magic in middle earth for a while longer.

(Of course, personal impression not backed at all by canon)

Telonius; you rock.


I was reminded of (oh god why did I watch that) MiB 2's "He's a ball-chinian." :smallsigh:


I think it would have taken a bit too long to manage the whole "bwhaha, I cut off his head and gave you gold MASSIVE WAR OF DOOM", but I found the flashback fight lacking.

*bunch of incoherent and inane questions*How did Azog cut off his head, he only has a giant maceclub? Why was Thorin the only one to notice and do the classic "stop fighting at look at the big dramatic thing"? And how did cutting off Azog's arm reverse the rout so thoroughly? Why do all the Gundabad Orcs were so many leather armor pieces on their upper bodies but then Azog runs around wearing nothing when he has prior experience of "no armor=missing limbs"? Why do the orcs look like Spiderwick Chronicle orcs? THEY SHOULDN'T!:smallannoyed: I think that's where the CGI hurt the movie the most. When it's a human underneath makeup, they had to keep the eyes in a reasonable place. Azog already looks strange, making all his minions wear a ton of clothes and weird eyes didn't help me take him seriously. (But I was already griping when he got dragged into Moria by other orcs because he should be deaaaaaaaaaaad.:smallfrown:

*end incoherence*

- Good question.

- Thorin was the guy's grandson, I believe. He was also not engaged in battle at the moment. The rest of his army was trying very hard not to die.

- By defeating the leader, Thorin broke the morale of the Goblins and they retreated. Goblins lack discipline and can only remain together when ruled by a stronger chieftain, so it's not impossible. Finally, the goblins only retreated, they weren't destroyed. It was implied to be a Pyrrhic victory, after all. The dwarves won by not dying completely.

- I would say Rule of Cool, and there are probably some tropes about Barbarians Not Wearing Armor.
It makes him look badas and primitive.
And on his previous experience; this is a guy who sends wolves to climb trees. He is not precisely the brightest apple in the basket.

- Never watched Spiderwick. The orcs looked different, but not so bad to me.

- Finally; yes, he SHOULD be dead. Only time will say if they make that change a meaningful one, thereby justifying it, or if they just destroy the canon for Hollywood fandom.

[Zevox]

There was a similar discussion in a LOTR thread somewhere in this forum...

I always had the impression that the World had changed due to the "world-breaking thing".

That somehow magic, and magical powers didn't work in the same way.

It could be an explanation of the reasons behind the Rings of Power: A way to stop the passage of time, of keeping Magic in middle earth for a while longer.

(Of course, personal impression not backed at all by canon)
Can't say I recall anything implying that in the books. There was talk of the Elves' influence and power in Middle-Earth fading, but that didn't date from the Sundering, but from the end of the Second Age, when Gil-Galad's death ended the line of Finwe and the last of the great Elven kingdoms in Middle-Earth, leaving only the straggler realms we see in The Hobbit and LotR. At that point there was this sense that there was little left to the Elves but to return to Aman.

[snoopy13a]

Can't say I recall anything implying that in the books. There was talk of the Elves' influence and power in Middle-Earth fading, but that didn't date from the Sundering, but from the end of the Second Age, when Gil-Galad's death ended the line of Finwe and the last of the great Elven kingdoms in Middle-Earth, leaving only the straggler realms we see in The Hobbit and LotR. At that point there was this sense that there was little left to the Elves but to return to Aman.

The Elf rings were designed to prolong Elf realms. The rings allowed "the bliss and beauty of the Elves [to] remain[ ] still undiminished" in Lorien and Rivendell during the Third Age. (Of the Rings of Power in the Third Age in The Silmarillion)

[Ragnar Lodbroke]

Can't say I recall anything implying that in the books. There was talk of the Elves' influence and power in Middle-Earth fading, but that didn't date from the Sundering, but from the end of the Second Age, when Gil-Galad's death ended the line of Finwe and the last of the great Elven kingdoms in Middle-Earth, leaving only the straggler realms we see in The Hobbit and LotR. At that point there was this sense that there was little left to the Elves but to return to Aman.

Yes, that is right. But I took into account that all of that happened right after the sinking of Numenore.

It's not really supported by canon. I just like to picture it like that :P

The Sinking happened in 3319, the Last Alliance in 3441, so not that far apart.

The Change could have had long-term effects.


The Elf rings were designed to prolong Elf realms. The rings allowed "the bliss and beauty of the Elves [to] remain[ ] still undiminished" in Lorien and Rivendell during the Third Age. (Of the Rings of Power in the Third Age in The Silmarillion)

Yeah, that was as I remembered it.

[Zevox]

The Elf rings were designed to prolong Elf realms. The rings allowed "the bliss and beauty of the Elves [to] remain[ ] still undiminished" in Lorien and Rivendell during the Third Age. (Of the Rings of Power in the Third Age in The Silmarillion)
Yes, there's that too. But again, there's that reference to the Third Age specifically, while the Sundering occurred about a century or so before the end of the Second.

Though really, when you get down to it, the decline of the Elves in Middle-Earth was a theme throughout basically the entire history of Arda. To try and trace its start point would require going back at least to the Dagor Bragollach in the middle of the First Age, when Morgoth's forces finally broke the Elven siege of Angband. From that point on it was all downhill for the Elves in Beleriand, and what realms they were able to carve out in the Second and Third Ages were nothing compared to what they lost by the end of the First. So perhaps it's best to say that the Third Age was merely the end of a trend.

[Silkspinner]

That's actually not (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0266193/) true (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0402032/).
-shrugs-

Listen to them together. They sound 'exactly' alike, and they resemble the same characters.

[Traab]

With that head removal by club question. I seem to vaguely recall some odd anecdote told to bilbo about how some goblin got his head knocked clean off by a club. It flew 100 yards and went right into a hole. And thus the game of golf was born. (Either the dwarf, the goblin, or someone involved had a named like that apparently) It may have been some strange homage to that scene. . . unless I imagined it entirely, which is quite possible. I AM quite mad you know.

[Reverent-One]

Gandalf did indeed tell Bilbo that story when he was trying to convince him to join the party.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

The only bit of the movie that I didn't really like was the goblin king. That was just stupid. like, unbelievably stupid. The rest I was fine with. It's a much lighter movie, a more conventional adventure story, and most of the changes made reflect that.

As for the Pale Orc, arguments made solely on the basis of "butbutbutbut loooore" I don't really like. As someone said early in the thread (sorry, can't be bothered to go back searching), it allows them to introduce a larger Goblin/Warg threat earlier so the Battle of the 5 Armies doesn't come outta the blue.

Any other complaints I have are just minor and nitpicky.

I felt the more cartoony goblin style for goblin-town fit the tone generally, excepting King Fatso the WhyAreYouInThisMovie, though I admit I would have preferred something more similar to Moria orcs... And the Pale Orc's CGI is distracting.


Can we take one moment to appreciate Thranduil? I'm excited to see more of him, he looks proper otherworldly, like I always think Elves should look... Less human.

[Zevox]

Can we take one moment to appreciate Thranduil? I'm excited to see more of him, he looks proper otherworldly, like I always think Elves should look... Less human.
Honestly, the only thought that crossed my mind when seeing him was: "why is he riding a moose?" (Or Elk, or whatever the heck that thing was.) I'm almost completely certain that Elves always rode normal horses just like everyone else.

[Killer Angel]

Honestly, the only thought that crossed my mind when seeing him was: "why is he riding a moose?" (Or Elk, or whatever the heck that thing was.)

...'cause we're near Christmas? :smalltongue: