Hobbit incoming!!!

[Soras Teva Gee]

How do we know he isn't one of the elves singing when Thorin & Co. enter The Last Homely House?

I can see Glorfindel singing "Tra la la la"

Sure and far as I can tell so could Arwen, Elrohir, Elladan, Gildor and heck while were at it little "Estel" might have joined in at that age.

All don't appear in The Hobbit.

[Cavelcade]

I think you're underestimating the scope of Saruman's voice-powers. Yes, Elrond is coated in awesome, but Saruman at his peak was still a Maiar, not just some conjuror.. and the effects of his voice aren't "insta-charme" and that's it.. they are deep and long lasting, and they hold sway over the hearts of men...just as much if not even more so than the words of Gandalf inspire courage and strenght that don't fade away as soon as Gandalf walks out of the door.

yes, it could have been done better, yes, it may be part of a larger "deviation from the plot" to accomodate the upcoming war on the necromancer/fall of Saruman (let's not forget that he considers himself to be better than the races of middle earth, or at least a better suited ruler.. it's not so out of character for him to want to impose his will even on Elrond), no, it's not such a big breach of canon-lore as it seems.

The voice of Saruman is described very precisely, and while it could certainly have an effect on him, it is only on the weak-willed that it has any lasting affect. If there is some obvious flaw with it, a wise and powerful creature (such as...Elrond?) will see it when removed from the immediate influence of the voice, or, more likely, when the will behind the voice is no longer focused on him. It is not invalid for Saruman to want to influence and guide (and, ultimately, rule) Elrond, but it is a pretty large deviation to suggest what you're suggesting.

Elrond makes it reasonably clear in the movies and extremely clear in the book that his force is as an advisor almost exclusively, and a resistance against evil.


As for the effects of their words - the difference is that Saruman seeks to dominate and suppress their will, whereas Gandalf seeks to inflame that person's will. Since a person's will naturally tries to escape suppression, it requires a much weaker person and much more effort on the part of the speaker - although Saruman certainly has the potential, except against the very great. Certainly, Gandalf was very rarely taken in by him, especially in the books.

The same one that was mentioned, not wanting them to go looking for a trouble with a great dragon that has kept to itself for decades and risk upseting their peaceful world. It's not an unreasonable one, even without taking into account Saruman's way with words.

It is actually quite unreasonable - what right do they have to stop them? It is a completely unreasonable suggestion, they are not rulers of the world, or even a large part of it anymore, and have no right to stop the dwarves from doing anything that they want, without admitting that either they or the dwarves are evil.

They'd have to be convinced, not only that it isn't the best idea for the dwarves to try and do what they're trying, but also that they, for some reason, have a right to do the stopping. Given the type of people involved, it would be incredibly unlikely to happen, even taking account of Saruman, and particularly taking account of the fact that Gandalf is there (especially in the books, he is suspicious of Saruman).

[Jallorn]

Glorfindel isn't in the Hobbit. At all.

???

I'm aware of that, but since he wasn't in the LotR, I was hoping he'd get a little mention in The Hobbit.

[Reverent-One]

It is actually quite unreasonable - what right do they have to stop them? It is a completely unreasonable suggestion, they are not rulers of the world, or even a large part of it anymore, and have no right to stop the dwarves from doing anything that they want, without admitting that either they or the dwarves are evil.

That's not a question of whether or not Elrond can be convinced whether the dwarves need to be stopped, as we were previously discussing, but whether he's capable of doing so. But even on that note, the dwarves are in his domain, they are currently guests, but that can change. As you're familar with the rest of the Hobbit, I'm sure you're aware that that justification is used later, with less motivation to keep the land safe from a dragon. If Elrond thinks the dwarf's actions could be a danger to the safety to middle-earth, why would he do nothing? And if he thinks that they danger they pose is from unintentional consequences, neither he nor they are required to be evil.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I'm aware of that, but since he wasn't in the LotR, I was hoping he'd get a little mention in The Hobbit.

He wasn't in the film LotR because he's a bit part that appears once and is mentioned once more. He's frankly unimportant and that's why he vanished in favor of someone who in the books comes out of nowhere at the end and supposed to be important. Heck I think I used to get Glorfindel and Gildor confused all the time. (I broadly speaking approve of all the Fellowship vintage changes, the latter two films are another matter)

Now the Hobbit is clearly going with cramming more in... but Glorfindel would still add little as he'd be just another elf lord. So we are literally down to cameo which become a bit silly to expect and then be disappointed over.

[Cavelcade]

Where is it used? Spoilers for the story, for those who care:

Spoiler

Show

The dwarves are kept by the elves for wrecking their party and then for refusing to tell them the purpose of their journey - they escape with the help of Bilbo without telling Thranduil anything. They appear to be hostile to the elves and refuse to cooperate, which is why they're held there.

The only time it comes up after that is in Laketown, where the dwarves actually get supplies and aid for their quest. There's nowhere, in the book, that I can think of where that reason is used.

[Jallorn]

He wasn't in the film LotR because he's a bit part that appears once and is mentioned once more. He's frankly unimportant and that's why he vanished in favor of someone who in the books comes out of nowhere at the end and supposed to be important. Heck I think I used to get Glorfindel and Gildor confused all the time. (I broadly speaking approve of all the Fellowship vintage changes, the latter two films are another matter)

Now the Hobbit is clearly going with cramming more in... but Glorfindel would still add little as he'd be just another elf lord. So we are literally down to cameo which become a bit silly to expect and then be disappointed over.

I wasn't exactly expecting it, so much as hoping for it. And I'm fully within my rights to be disappointed, I like Glorfindel. Did I really expect him to be there? No. Am I still disappointed about it? Yes.

[Reverent-One]

Where is it used? Spoilers for the story, for those who care:

Spoiler

Show

The dwarves are kept by the elves for wrecking their party and then for refusing to tell them the purpose of their journey - they escape with the help of Bilbo without telling Thranduil anything. They appear to be hostile to the elves and refuse to cooperate, which is why they're held there.

The only time it comes up after that is in Laketown, where the dwarves actually get supplies and aid for their quest. There's nowhere, in the book, that I can think of where that reason is used.

Spoiler

Show

So for simply being in Thranduil's domain and not telling him their business, he thinks he has the right to imprison them (which is what I was referring to), and you're alright with that. But if Elrond thinks they may be a danger to significant portions of middle-earth, he's out of line for taking any action to stop them. I think the latter is more serious than the former.

[Cavelcade]

Spoiler

Show

No, I didn't mean to imply or say I'm alright with that it was done (though, given the history of the elves and dwarves it is, perhaps, understandble, if still wrong). I'm saying that the circumstances are completely different - as well, simply by existing, the dragon is a danger to all of middle earth. Elrond is old enough and wise enough to know this. He was there when the first winged dragons came forth, after all, and saw how they threatened the victory of the Vala against Morgoth, for a short time. He knows the dragon won't stay dormant forever, or possibly even for very long - and knows it has great potential for destruction. If Gandalf thinks this is the best course of action, Elrond, who has been his ally and knows him well, is unlikely to side with Saruman for very long.

I got sidetracked from the main point, though, which is that Thranduil is holding people hostage who he has little enough knowledge of, other than they upset his gatherings. He was quite willing to let them go if they explained themselves. Otherwise, there is the possibility they are spies - Thranduil is, at least in the 'most' official timeline (ie, published in the Silmarillion), kin to Thingol - he wouldn't lightly forget that the dwarves slew his kinsman in halls not unlike his own.

[Reverent-One]

Spoiler

Show

No, I didn't mean to imply or say I'm alright with that it was done (though, given the history of the elves and dwarves it is, perhaps, understandble, if still wrong). I'm saying that the circumstances are completely different - as well, simply by existing, the dragon is a danger to all of middle earth. Elrond is old enough and wise enough to know this. He was there when the first winged dragons came forth, after all, and saw how they threatened the victory of the Vala against Morgoth, for a short time. He knows the dragon won't stay dormant forever, or possibly even for very long - and knows it has great potential for destruction. If Gandalf thinks this is the best course of action, Elrond, who has been his ally and knows him well, is unlikely to side with Saruman for very long.

I got sidetracked from the main point, though, which is that Thranduil is holding people hostage who he has little enough knowledge of, other than they upset his gatherings. He was quite willing to let them go if they explained themselves. Otherwise, there is the possibility they are spies - Thranduil is, at least in the 'most' official timeline (ie, published in the Silmarillion), kin to Thingol - he wouldn't lightly forget that the dwarves slew his kinsman in halls not unlike his own.

Spoiler

Show

Except as was pointed out, Smaug hasn't been seen for years. Could he come back in the future? Certainly, but that doesn't mean going around poking the sleeping bear dragon is a wise idea.

And if Thranduil thinking the dwarves might be spies is an understandable reason why he would imprison them, the dwarfs causing trouble by stirring up Smaug is also an understandable reason to hold them. Each are potential threats.

[Cavelcade]

Spoiler

Show

But in completely different ways - one is a threat to your kingdom, of which you are a notoriously proud (if not ingenerous) leader, and one is that they might fail and wake up a sleeping dragon, who is no different to the other dragons who already exist and are a threat in the world. The best case scenario is he dies.

As well, in one you have complete authority because you are a king - Elrond is lord of Rivendell, but is not a king, and does not want that kind of authority. Nor is he interested in imprisoning anyone, or holding them against their will. He will advise and resist and that is all. It is about the temperament and the situation, and both are completely different.

[Reverent-One]

Spoiler

Show

But in completely different ways - one is a threat to your kingdom, of which you are a notoriously proud (if not ingenerous) leader, and one is that they might fail and wake up a sleeping dragon, who is no different to the other dragons who already exist and are a threat in the world. The best case scenario is he dies.

As well, in one you have complete authority because you are a king - Elrond is lord of Rivendell, but is not a king, and does not want that kind of authority. Nor is he interested in imprisoning anyone, or holding them against their will. He will advise and resist and that is all. It is about the temperament and the situation, and both are completely different.

Spoiler

Show

And I would say a threat to the world is greater than a threat to your kingdom.
While not called a king, he is certainly in authority at Rivendell. It does not seem unlikely for him to be even less interested in Smaug being disturbed and wreaking havok on Middle-earth than he would be in imprisoning the dwarfs (or perhaps finding another way to prevent their quest).

[Cavelcade]

Spoiler

Show

But Smaug, even if angered, wouldn't be a threat to middle earth - he'd need an extremely good reason to leave his treasure unguarded, given the priceless artifacts there are there. It is unlikely he'd cross even the Misty Mountains (the distances are really quite large, even for a dragon).

However, this is still ignoring the type of person who Elrond is - he is the type to advise and then let people do as they think is best. This is shown more than once, even when it is to his great personal loss (Arwen and Aragorn, particularly in the books).

Why should Elrond, specifically the character Elrond, do what you're suggesting?

[Reverent-One]

Spoiler

Show

But Smaug, even if angered, wouldn't be a threat to middle earth - he'd need an extremely good reason to leave his treasure unguarded, given the priceless artifacts there are there. It is unlikely he'd cross even the Misty Mountains (the distances are really quite large, even for a dragon).

However, this is still ignoring the type of person who Elrond is - he is the type to advise and then let people do as they think is best. This is shown more than once, even when it is to his great personal loss (Arwen and Aragorn, particularly in the books).

Why should Elrond, specifically the character Elrond, do what you're suggesting?

Spoiler

Show

Because he doesn't like evil going around and running roughshod over middle earth. He's not new to taking action, he's participated in wars before, lead armies. Letting your child make their own decisions in their relationships doesn't mean you'll never take action in anything yourself.

[Cavelcade]

Spoiler

Show

He's never been shown to be one who will withhold a person from doing what they believe is right, though. There is a colossal difference between going to war with the lieutenant of the greatest Evil the world has ever known and stopping people who are going to go and try and stop that evil, however harebrained and half thought out their scheme may be, as the dragon isn't going to go away, and is going to be a threat as long as it lives, and is going to become a worse threat as time goes on (dragons tending to become more powerful, or at least more cunning with age).

Elrond is never shown to be the type of character who would do that, anywhere that I know of. If you look at his past, given that he was captured and held by the sons of Feanor it seems even less likely he'd be the type of person to engage in such activities himself.

What characteristics of Elrond's would make you think he would be open to that course of action?

[Reverent-One]

Removing spoilers since we've gone back to just discussing Elrond at this point.

He's never been shown to be one who will withhold a person from doing what they believe is right, though. There is a colossal difference between going to war with the lieutenant of the greatest Evil the world has ever known and stopping people who are going to go and try and stop that evil, however harebrained and half thought out their scheme may be, as the dragon isn't going to go away, and is going to be a threat as long as it lives, and is going to become a worse threat as time goes on (dragons tending to become more powerful, or at least more cunning with age).

And yet, no one except some homesick dwarves does anything to end that growing threat. Stopping the greatest living dragon would be no easy feat (at least, not without Bilbo discovering his one weakness), and would be costly. I don't anyone would think "oh well, if they aggravate the situation, we can just saunter on over and take care of it". That much is said during the White Council scene, and even Gandalf is only arguing that it would be worth it to keep him off Sauron's team. There is also the question on if he sees the dwarf's quest as "doing what they think is right", or indulging in pride, greed, or revenge.

Elrond is never shown to be the type of character who would do that, anywhere that I know of. If you look at his past, given that he was captured and held by the sons of Feanor it seems even less likely he'd be the type of person to engage in such activities himself.

What characteristics of Elrond's would make you think he would be open to that course of action?

His work in fighting evil and lack of uncaring nature that would be required to ignore the potential collateral damage to innocents to just let the architects of that event to just walk away, mainly.

[Telok]

So I haven't read all 14 or so pages of this but...

Am I the only one who notices that one of the dwarves is a classic WFRP Trollslayer?

Other than that the only bits that ever bothered me were the white orc and the close-up shouted "Nooooo"s that kept cropping up. Now I can understand the white orc as an immediate villain but his inclusion does bork up the trees and flaming pine cone scene. That scene was a deviation from the original that I'm not yet comfortable with. But the Big No bits are just wrong. It's overdone, it's a trope, and it's bad. You're a making big boy money on this Jackson, just slap the script writers untill they give you something that isn't a cliche.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

There was a dwarf in the battle scene in front of Moria who had a mohawk. Not bright orange, but it was definitely a reference to that, I think.

[Cavelcade]

And yet, no one except some homesick dwarves does anything to end that growing threat. Stopping the greatest living dragon would be no easy feat (at least, not without Bilbo discovering his one weakness), and would be costly. I don't anyone would think "oh well, if they aggravate the situation, we can just saunter on over and take care of it". That much is said during the White Council scene, and even Gandalf is only arguing that it would be worth it to keep him off Sauron's team. There is also the question on if he sees the dwarf's quest as "doing what they think is right", or indulging in pride, greed, or revenge.

Gandalf isn't"only" arguing it would be worth it to keep him off Sauron's team - he's arguing that if Sauron uses him, the North is likely kaput. He's basically arguing they should do what Sauron always does - don't let their enemies have time to sit around and unite. It is, in fact, an extremely potent argument, particularly from Elrond's point of view - if the north falls, so does Rivendell, and everything he's worked for.

For the dwarf's, it's clear that they think of Smaug (accurately enough) as a thief and usurper of their right to their home and treasure. And it is clearly the desire for that homeland - and revenge, yes - which is their primary driver, with the gold representing a nice reward at the end. If greed was the driver, you'd have expected a lot of other dwarves to return with them, given the scope of the treasure there.

His work in fighting evil and lack of uncaring nature that would be required to ignore the potential collateral damage to innocents to just let the architects of that event to just walk away, mainly.

But his work in fighting evil has been primarily through his wisdom. Also it's not that he needs an uncaring nature to ignore the potential collateral damage, but to see a) does he have a right to stop them, given he welcomed them into his realm, and his realm doesn't include Erebor (he doesn't and, given how his personality is shown to be at this stage, he wouldn't just do it "The might of Elrond is in wisdom, not in weapons" - he is an advisor, not an aggressor -and b) what are the potential positives and, given that the potential negatives are likely to happen anyway, given the nature of dragons, what are the potential negatives that would be exclusively caused by this.

[CowardlyPaladin]

I came in with extremely low expectations and I found myself really enjoying it, its my favorite Jackson film other than Fellowship. Speaking as a massive Tolkien Fan, I've never been a huge fan of the LOTRS movies, and the Hobbit wasn't nearly as needlessly melodramatic as Two Towers or Return of the King, and the Editing wasn't as awful. Had the same problems with dialogue and the issue that Jackson cannot show more than one emotion at a time on screen, but that isn't any different from any other LOTRS movie.
Some general points

1) While I was a little miffed that the orcs are not CGI, I thought it did help make them distinguished from the Orcs of the other movies, adding a whole new visual style to these enviroments. It makes sense that orcs living in a different location will look different

2) I thought that Azog was a nice touch, yes I know he is suppose to have died in the War of Dwarves and Orcs, but honestly once he was in the movie I was like "huh, i'm honestly curious to see how this is going to play out" and having an intelligent orc villian is interesting to me. Its like Lurtz in Fellowship, the character gives a sense of challenge to the story.

3) Honestly, I am still rather mixed about splitting it into three movies, but if your going to do that, adding a bunch of secondary plots is extremely interesting. I liked the Giants in taht they were not actively antagonistic to the Dwarves, they were just doing their own thing, and I like the spiders making an early apperence. Ragagadist was stupid and the white Council was kinda dumb and didn't really make much sense, but overall I really enjoyed it.

Minor detail, I like that the orcs look much bigger because are seeing the film from a Hobbit's perspective