My general opinion of the first part of the trilogy is that The Hobbit was great, especially Sylvester McCoy as Radagast and Martin Freeman as Bilbo. Definitely worthy of best picture and best soundtrack, with a good few quotes from the book- "what's a Burrahobbit?", "he knocked the head clean off him, and it sailed 100 yards and went down a rabbit hole, which ended the battle and invented the game of golf in one swing", "are you wishing me a good morning, or saying that is a good morning, whether I like it or not? Or that it is a morning to be particularly good on?", as well as a good dose of light humour, especially from Radagast and Bilbo. One thing Jackson is to be commended for, of all things, is altering the book to be exciting enough for film, without actually interfering with the story or making it too action-packed, as well as throwing in some of the songs like the "that's what Bilbo Baggins hates" back in bag end or the goblin town song (can't remember the main chorus, but the one as they lead them to the goblin king), without it breaking up the feel of the film.
I do so love all the unique little tidbits they added in that sums up the hobbit beatifully- Bilbo overcoming fear and protecting his friends, and the camaraderie between the dwarves. My favourite scenes are the escape from goblin town and "out of the frying pan, into the fire", but not simply for the fights- The way the dwarves seamlessly switch tactics to suit what they're facing is wonderful, such as using a ladder to shove goblins away and then using it as a ramp to run onto another platform in Goblin Town, and Bilbo charging up to and killing a warg rider to save Thorin's life. Ultimately my best film of 2012, and the nine-year wait since the Lord of the Rings has been well worth it.
Stating you're a fan of the series, then stating it's probably the best film of 2012 for you doesn't exactly paint a good picture. Since you like the series, you obviously will like the movie more than someone who has never been introduced to it.
That said, at least a fan likes it, so it can't be all bad.
juraigamer wrote: Stating you're a fan of the series, then stating it's probably the best film of 2012 for you doesn't exactly paint a good picture. Since you like the series, you obviously will like the movie more than someone who has never been introduced to it.
That said, at least a fan likes it, so it can't be all bad.
Not necessarily a lot of fans can also be on the other end of the spectrum, like this is garbage it's nothing like the book or wow you actually liked that the book is way better.
juraigamer wrote:Stating you're a fan of the series, then stating it's probably the best film of 2012 for you doesn't exactly paint a good picture. Since you like the series, you obviously will like the movie more than someone who has never been introduced to it.
That said, at least a fan likes it, so it can't be all bad.
well, me stating I'm a fan is kinda my way of saying I might be biased towards it, but I was beyond my hopes, especially when I heard the telegraph rate it 2 out of 5.
plus, Peter did alter quite a bit from the book, so saying I'm a fan of the book is also letting you guys know it's not a bad change.
not in this one, no. Though there probably will be in the next one, if not definitely the last.
I quite like Orlando as an actor (great casting on PJ's part), but I don't really like Legolas as a character- too "perfect". If PJ would have toned down his hand-to-hand combat prowess, or even just gotten rid of the unrealistic cool stuff (like surfing the shield at helm's deep or swinging onto the horse during the warg ambush), I'd like Legolas a whole lot more.
Unrealistic cool stuff?
In a world with giant elephants, magic rings, wizards, dragons, goblins, orc and massive walking trees that hold grudges?
Hell pretty much all of LotR is unrealistic cool stuff.
shrike wrote:plus, Peter did alter quite a bit from the book, so saying I'm a fan of the book is also letting you guys know it's not a bad change.
Not really, not on this occasion, which surprised me a lot. There is a grand total of one scene left out, which spans two pages in the book and that was all that was left out. Appendices were added in as everybody knew already they were going to be (and what an addition they were, the scene at Dol Guldur was amazing). One scene was changed rather drastically but had the same result, and there were two character swaps that went hand in hand to add to the story (by character swap I mean they took out a character that appears in one scene in the book and replaced them with a character who is central to the story, and also the opposite whereby a character with one scene in the book was given some more; one of these was rather minor in my opinion also). Any other changes where small things that you either would expect or didn't really notice. I would say this movie was about 90% accurate to the book, which is a lot more than can be said for any of the LoTR movies.
Action sequences were very well put together; very fluid and well paced and they didn't drag on. Graphics were as good as people expected them to be, and though there were a lot of aesthetic changes, the world was still obviously Peter Jackson's Middle Earth.
Without giving anything away as well, how they handled the creation of Smaug for this movie was simply amazingly done, and will add so much to the later movies.
The Telegraph review astounded me as the only part of the movie I found to be slow was the beginning, and that was pretty much 99% faithful to the book, so when the same guy also starts waffling about faithfulness to the book, I start to wonder. Still, that was the only negative review I saw, and when it comes to critics, the best way to make some money is to completely pan what everyone else is praising.
To summarise, the movie exceeded my expectations quite a bit with its ability to remain mostly faithful while also providing an entertaining 3hrs for a general movie goer. However I felt it was the tip of the iceberg, and that what's in store for us next is going to blow it away. The battle at Dol Guldur and the Battle of Five Armies are easily going to be the top two moments of this trilogy. I will certainly be going to see it again.
purplefood wrote: Unrealistic cool stuff?
In a world with giant elephants, magic rings, wizards, dragons, goblins, orc and massive walking trees that hold grudges?
Hell pretty much all of LotR is unrealistic cool stuff.
you know what I mean- if boromir were to be shot 50 times in the chest and still kill a dozen more uruks, would that be fine because there's magic and giant elephants? No. It's unrealistic within the physical boundaries of a human (or elf). Elves, physically, are basically meant to be more graceful men. Surfing an iron shield down a steep stone stairway in the pouring rain, shooting 4 men dead and then leaping off, killing another with the shield's momentum itself, then impaling one straight through the throat with an arrow is just not right.
Same with the horse-climbing:
does that look realistic? Assuming it was physically possible for an elf, it'd still make more sense to swing over the right of the horse.
If it was, in the background, possible to do all that stuff, it just ruins the feel of it for me. Sure, he should be the best at seeing and shooting etc., but making him be perfect at seeing, shooting, fighting, drinking, balancing and running, it makes Legolas too Mary-Sue.
purplefood wrote: Unrealistic cool stuff?
In a world with giant elephants, magic rings, wizards, dragons, goblins, orc and massive walking trees that hold grudges?
Hell pretty much all of LotR is unrealistic cool stuff.
you know what I mean- if boromir were to be shot 50 times in the chest and still kill a dozen more uruks, would that be fine because there's magic and giant elephants? No. It's unrealistic within the physical boundaries of a human (or elf).
purplefood wrote: Unrealistic cool stuff?
In a world with giant elephants, magic rings, wizards, dragons, goblins, orc and massive walking trees that hold grudges?
Hell pretty much all of LotR is unrealistic cool stuff.
you know what I mean- if boromir were to be shot 50 times in the chest and still kill a dozen more uruks, would that be fine because there's magic and giant elephants? No. It's unrealistic within the physical boundaries of a human (or elf).
It'd be fine because Boromir is damn awesome.
true, has to be one of the most badass deaths ever.
back OT, has anyone else seen it?
I expect this'll get more comments by the evening, once it hits the cinemas for the majority of dakka.
I was pretty optimistic until I saw a clip of the dwarves in goblin town. The action just looked absolutely awful, like something about of an action film aged at 12 year olds.
tuiman wrote: Not seen yet but am going this weekend for my 21st haha. Reviews from my mates have been mixed so interested to see how it pans out
well, all I can say is don't go expecting lord of the rings: the prequel, because it isn't.
it has a similar start, with a battle in the first few minutes in the form of a flashback, but generally there's a lot less at stake, and so the mood as a whole is much more comic between the group of heroes.
I think the main reason some might not like it is because either they're expecting a follow-up to lord of the rings rather than it's own film, or are hoping for the children's bed time story. What you have to think about in that sense is how PJ would ever have made the hobbit that true to the book without it being really watered down- fighting in books is much more child-friendly than fighting in films- he did, in my opinion, hit the middle ground, where the mood is lighter and more fun, but the fighting is still relatively brutal (not really so far, only a few scraps here and there, but I'm sure that'll come to play with the necromancer and the battle of five armies.
you know what I mean- if boromir were to be shot 50 times in the chest and still kill a dozen more uruks, would that be fine because there's magic and giant elephants? No. It's unrealistic within the physical boundaries of a human (or elf). Elves, physically, are basically meant to be more graceful men. Surfing an iron shield down a steep stone stairway in the pouring rain, shooting 4 men dead and then leaping off, killing another with the shield's momentum itself, then impaling one straight through the throat with an arrow is just not right.
Same with the horse-climbing:
does that look realistic? Assuming it was physically possible for an elf, it'd still make more sense to swing over the right of the horse.
If it was, in the background, possible to do all that stuff, it just ruins the feel of it for me. Sure, he should be the best at seeing and shooting etc., but making him be perfect at seeing, shooting, fighting, drinking, balancing and running, it makes Legolas too Mary-Sue.
That shot was added as Mr. Bloom had broken a rib and wasn't able to mount up on a horse in the usual manner.
It is possible to do various flips and the like into a saddle but yes putting the full weight of an adult in armor on the neck of a horse is fairly silly, as is swinging to the right and up as opposed to the left and back.
I always thought that, along with all of Legolas's other feats of nigh superhuman strength, speed and balance were almost the point. "No, he's not human, he's not remotely close" I do see where the sue accusations could come in though.
reds8n wrote:That shot was added as Mr. Bloom had broken a rib and wasn't able to mount up on a horse in the usual manner.
yeah, I saw that, but I think they could've made it more realistic- you barely see his face, couldn't they have had a stunt double do it, and just use orlando for the close-ups of him shooting beforehand?
Gitkikka wrote:Down down to Goblin-town
You go, my lad
Ho, ho my lad
yup, they stick that in the hobbit, and doesn't make it seem childish too!
The movie was what I expected... perhaps a little worse.
As soon as I heard that Peter Jackson was making it three movies I cringed. Two is bad enough.
Spoiler:
I didn't appreciate a number of things in the movie. They made the movie a lot more about Biblo's development than was in book. In the books the dwarves were never really that doubting of him, and though Bilbo thought of his home, he would have never left the dwarves.
The part with the goblins was terrible. The scene when the goblin king was slain was absurd. I understand the Hobbit was partially a children's tale, but it was still a little stupid at times. This section of the movie was the worst part for me, if it had been truer to the book and less childish, the movie would have been a lot better for me.
Something else I didn't like was them following Gandalf around. In the book, he was mysterious, and no one knew what he was up to. I wish they kept it the same way in the movie. Showing everything he is doing kind of degrades the charm and mystery of him being a wizard.
The Bringer wrote:I didn't appreciate a number of things in the movie. They made the movie a lot more about Biblo's development than was in book. In the books the dwarves were never really that doubting of him, and though Bilbo thought of his home, he would have never left the dwarves.
Why's it a bad thing Bilbo's character gets more detail?
and the dwarves do doubt Bilbo, the quote about being more a grocer than a burglar and gandalf having a go at them for doubting his decision are taken straight from the book, and bilbo's constantly thinking of home the whole way through (though I do admit, he never tried to leave.)
The Bringer wrote:The part with the goblins was terrible. The scene when the goblin king was slain was absurd. I understand the Hobbit was partially a children's tale, but it was still a little stupid at times. This section of the movie was the worst part for me, if it had been truer to the book and less childish, the movie would have been a lot better for me.
why was it childish? The "that'd do it" before he dies thing a bit too comic for your liking?
The Bringer wrote:Something else I didn't like was them following Gandalf around. In the book, he was mysterious, and no one knew what he was up to. I wish they kept it the same way in the movie. Showing everything he is doing kind of degrades the charm and mystery of him being a wizard.
PJ could hardly have added the necromancer stuff in there without showing what Gandalf was up to, could he?
Plus, there's plenty of mystery around him in the film, just because we know he was talking to the white council doesn't mean we know everything he was doing- it pretty much just shows what he said was doing in the book apart from that bit.
To me, part of the Legolas stuff was just PJ being PJ. There are lots of small goofy silly scenes in there that seem to go back to his earlier campy B-movie days.
Olympic torch running Orcs to blow up a bomb?
Burning Ent runnin and diving into the water?
So it really didn't bother me too much.
He can also walk on snow without sinking in, so I think he horses neck would have been fine.
The Bringer wrote:I didn't appreciate a number of things in the movie. They made the movie a lot more about Biblo's development than was in book. In the books the dwarves were never really that doubting of him, and though Bilbo thought of his home, he would have never left the dwarves.
Why's it a bad thing Bilbo's character gets more detail?
More detail or change? Yes, the movie was more detailed for it, but it was different than in the book. Biblo and Thorin were the only ones who really doubted him in the book, but even Thorin wasn't as blunt as he was in the movie.
The Bringer wrote:The part with the goblins was terrible. The scene when the goblin king was slain was absurd. I understand the Hobbit was partially a children's tale, but it was still a little stupid at times. This section of the movie was the worst part for me, if it had been truer to the book and less childish, the movie would have been a lot better for me.
why was it childish? The "that'd do it" before he dies thing a bit too comic for your liking?
Precisely.
They also made the scene with gollum much too comical for my liking. That part of the Hobbit was very dark.
The Bringer wrote:Something else I didn't like was them following Gandalf around. In the book, he was mysterious, and no one knew what he was up to. I wish they kept it the same way in the movie. Showing everything he is doing kind of degrades the charm and mystery of him being a wizard.
PJ could hardly have added the necromancer stuff in there without showing what Gandalf was up to, could he?
Plus, there's plenty of mystery around him in the film, just because we know he was talking to the white council doesn't mean we know everything he was doing- it pretty much just shows what he said was doing in the book apart from that bit.
PJ shouldn't have added the necromancer stuff at all imo. This is the hobbit. Not, the Hobbit and Gandalf dealing with some necromancer. It would suck even more if in the next two films the decide to tie Bilbo and the Dwarves in with gandalf's adventures.
The part with the trolls was both ok, but kind of stupid at the same time. So the dwarves lay down their weapons to save Bilbo, but full well knowing that they will all be eaten anyways if they do. Why lay down your weapons knowing that you will all die, instead of fighting so that some might be spared? Their decision didn't make any sense at all.
d-usa wrote: To me, part of the Legolas stuff was just PJ being PJ. There are lots of small goofy silly scenes in there that seem to go back to his earlier campy B-movie days.
Olympic torch running Orcs to blow up a bomb?
Burning Ent runnin and diving into the water?
So it really didn't bother me too much.
He can also walk on snow without sinking in, so I think he horses neck would have been fine.
Well, I quite liked the little jokes (like the orc tripping and falling off the siege tower at Minas Tirith, or generally everything Gimli says, but I think there's a line between silly in a funny way and just plain OTT, and Legolas' stunts cross that line for me.
Plus, yes, Legolas is very light, but it'd be far easier to swing the other way round- momentum etc.
shrike wrote: why was it childish? The "that'd do it" before he dies thing a bit too comic for your liking?
Precisely.
Well, fair enough, each to his own
The Bringer wrote: They also made the scene with gollum much too comical for my liking. That part of the Hobbit was very dark.
I'm inclined to agree with you there, but I have to say at least the humour was well done, if would've been ten times worse if it wasn't actually funny.
shrike wrote: PJ could hardly have added the necromancer stuff in there without showing what Gandalf was up to, could he?
Plus, there's plenty of mystery around him in the film, just because we know he was talking to the white council doesn't mean we know everything he was doing- it pretty much just shows what he said was doing in the book apart from that bit.
The Bringer wrote: PJ shouldn't have added the necromancer stuff at all imo. This is the hobbit. Not, the Hobbit and Gandalf dealing with some necromancer. It would suck even more if in the next two films the decide to tie Bilbo and the Dwarves in with gandalf's adventures.
I doubt very much PJ would attempt that, it'd never work- but the necromancer stuff adds another film into middle earth, which I'm not gonna complain about, plus when PJ meshed together the storyline from Frodo & Sam, to Rohan, to Aragorn and to Gondor, it was all pretty well done, so the white council storyline shouldn't ruin the hobbit side of the films.
The Bringer wrote: The part with the trolls was both ok, but kind of stupid at the same time. So the dwarves lay down their weapons to save Bilbo, but full well knowing that they will all be eaten anyways if they do. Why lay down your weapons knowing that you will all die, instead of fighting so that some might be spared? Their decision didn't make any sense at all.
so if you had a sword, and a bad guy had one of your friends with a sword to his throat, you'd charge at him?
no good guy would be willing to sacrifice a friend for the greater good. They might be willing to die, but not for someone else to.
The only thing that bugged me was that they didn't do the darkness riddle (Cannot be seen, cannot be felt, etc.)
Honestly, I was very impressed with the movie. PJ did a great job of padding the film out with extra plot (the white orc, all the backstory of Erebor, all the Lord of the Rings foreshadowing) without going too far from the book. It's been years since I read it, but I recall it being entirely from Bilbo's point of view (which makes sense), and the shift from focusing on multiple characters felt very natural. The action was great, as were the visuals. Sometimes it's hard to believe that the various landscapes of Middle-Earth actually exist in New Zealand.
It was quite a bit better than I expected, all things considered. I was iffy on the idea of turning one book into three movies (two felt like it would have been right), but given some of the extra plots that were introduced, I think PJ can pull off 3 of them.
Locclo wrote: The only thing that bugged me was that they didn't do the darkness riddle (Cannot be seen, cannot be felt, etc.)
Honestly, I was very impressed with the movie. PJ did a great job of padding the film out with extra plot (the white orc, all the backstory of Erebor, all the Lord of the Rings foreshadowing) without going too far from the book. It's been years since I read it, but I recall it being entirely from Bilbo's point of view (which makes sense), and the shift from focusing on multiple characters felt very natural. The action was great, as were the visuals. Sometimes it's hard to believe that the various landscapes of Middle-Earth actually exist in New Zealand.
It was quite a bit better than I expected, all things considered. I was iffy on the idea of turning one book into three movies (two felt like it would have been right), but given some of the extra plots that were introduced, I think PJ can pull off 3 of them.
In it's own right, it was a good movie but following on from LOTR it was difficult to pull of. I however enjoyed it, like the book it was different, less epic, more adventure. I liked how the movie touched on a lot of the backstory, a lot of the foreboding of Sauron's return, such as the appearance of the Necromancer Sauron and the Witch King. I found some of the scenes made me cringe slightly, it didn't flow as well as the other movies, the story seems more stretch, which it is a lot of it is filler.
Despite any drawbacks i did enjoy going to see it and didn't regret it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, despite being filmed in Eastern Europe, Middle Earth still looked just right.
Locclo wrote: The only thing that bugged me was that they didn't do the darkness riddle (Cannot be seen, cannot be felt, etc.)
Speaking of riddles, they also missed the one about man. (walks on 4 legs, then 2, then 3)
I loved the locations, I must admit. Absolutely every scene of the movie (except the goblin one) had absolutely stunning scenery. Were the locations constructed or found? If they are real places I swear I will go live there.
kamakazepanda wrote:Also, despite being filmed in Eastern Europe, Middle Earth still looked just right.
The Bringer wrote:Were the locations constructed or found? If they are real places I swear I will go live there.
mostly found, the vast majority of it being filmed in new zealand.
also for the hobbit, they built the shire (40 hobbit holes) out of proper brick and mortar, so the landowners have opened it for tourists
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kamakazepanda wrote: I found some of the scenes made me cringe slightly, it didn't flow as well as the other movies, the story seems more stretch, which it is a lot of it is filler.
any particular moments? For me it seemed leisurely, sure, but not stretched out to the max, and I can't think of many cringe-worthy things in it (though I might have blocked them out while watching it).
shrike wrote:if boromir were to be shot 50 times in the chest and still kill a dozen more uruks, would that be fine because there's magic and giant elephants? No.
Except that's what happens seemingly in the books. His death is incredibly vague in the books, but what it does tell us is that they find him with many Orc arrows in him and a pile of dead Orcs around him. All that's seemingly different in the movie is that Lurtz kills him, but then again nothing in the book says it wasn't a Captain that shot him several times, because we don't actually see it happen.
shrike wrote:but the fighting is still relatively brutal (not really so far, only a few scraps here and there
Disemboweling and decapitating; are you saying that isn't brutal?
Testify wrote: I was pretty optimistic until I saw a clip of the dwarves in goblin town. The action just looked absolutely awful, like something about of an action film aged at 12 year olds.
That was actually my favourite action sequence in the movie. Seeing a clip isn't enough. It was incredibly fluid, and well put together, and it really fulfilled what it supposed to do for the story; show the moment when the dwarves truly measure up their courage and show us what they are capable of. And yet it remained effective and showed them as skilled warriors while not turning them into epic heroes the likes of Aragorn.
shrike wrote:PJ could hardly have added the necromancer stuff in there without showing what Gandalf was up to, could he?
Plus, there's plenty of mystery around him in the film, just because we know he was talking to the white council doesn't mean we know everything he was doing- it pretty much just shows what he said was doing in the book apart from that bit.
To add to this, the book didn't make him mysterious at all, in fact all it showed was Tolkein had no idea what he was doing with Gandalf at those points. Essentially Gandalf kept disappearing because they needed to face some challenges without him, and in the end when it got to the LoTR Tolkein chinned up and filled in the blanks with the appendices. But at the time of the Hobbit no, Gandalf wasn't mysterious and it wasn't to keep us guessing what he was doing, because Tolkein himself hadn't a clue.
kamakazepanda wrote:Also, despite being filmed in Eastern Europe, Middle Earth still looked just right.
I really hope this is a joke and you don't seriously think New Zealand is part of Europe.
shrike wrote:if boromir were to be shot 50 times in the chest and still kill a dozen more uruks, would that be fine because there's magic and giant elephants? No.
Except that's what happens seemingly in the books. His death is incredibly vague in the books, but what it does tell us is that they find him with many Orc arrows in him and a pile of dead Orcs around him. All that's seemingly different in the movie is that Lurtz kills him, but then again nothing in the book says it wasn't a Captain that shot him several times, because we don't actually see it happen.
well, I think it's safe to say it happened relatively like what happened in the film- he took on loads of them, got shot, killed a handful more, got shot again, maybe killed another one or two, then got shot again and died (maybe a few more arrows in him, just to make sure).
shrike wrote:but the fighting is still relatively brutal (not really so far, only a few scraps here and there
Godless-Mimicry wrote: Disemboweling and decapitating; are you saying that isn't brutal?
well, it isn't on such a large scale as LotR is what I meant
Testify wrote: I was pretty optimistic until I saw a clip of the dwarves in goblin town. The action just looked absolutely awful, like something about of an action film aged at 12 year olds.
Godless-Mimicry wrote: That was actually my favourite action sequence in the movie. Seeing a clip isn't enough. It was incredibly fluid, and well put together, and it really fulfilled what it supposed to do for the story; show the moment when the dwarves truly measure up their courage and show us what they are capable of. And yet it remained effective and showed them as skilled warriors while not turning them into epic heroes the likes of Aragorn.
agree completely, I loved how fluid they switched tactics and moved around each other without having to say a word.
shrike wrote:PJ could hardly have added the necromancer stuff in there without showing what Gandalf was up to, could he?
Plus, there's plenty of mystery around him in the film, just because we know he was talking to the white council doesn't mean we know everything he was doing- it pretty much just shows what he said was doing in the book apart from that bit.
Godless-Mimicry wrote: To add to this, the book didn't make him mysterious at all, in fact all it showed was Tolkein had no idea what he was doing with Gandalf at those points. Essentially Gandalf kept disappearing because they needed to face some challenges without him, and in the end when it got to the LoTR Tolkein chinned up and filled in the blanks with the appendices. But at the time of the Hobbit no, Gandalf wasn't mysterious and it wasn't to keep us guessing what he was doing, because Tolkein himself hadn't a clue.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It is possible to do various flips and the like into a saddle but yes putting the full weight of an adult in armor on the neck of a horse is fairly silly, as is swinging to the right and up as opposed to the left and back.
I always thought that, along with all of Legolas's other feats of nigh superhuman strength, speed and balance were almost the point. "No, he's not human, he's not remotely close" I do see where the sue accusations could come in though.
You say putting the full weight of an adult around the horses neck however Legolas is an elf and ,in Tolkeins world, elves are very light and dainty. You can clearly see this in Fellowship when they are on the Caradhras mountain and everyone is wading through the snow and Legolas is walking on top barely leaving a footprint.
I just came back from the movie in imax 3D. The new frame rate really crippled my ability to enjoy the movie. Some of the graphics looked like a step back from Lord of the Rings.
On the other hand, some of the scenes looked fantastic and looked better for being in 3D. I was also more entertained by the characters in this movie, with Bilbo being a much more likeable character than Frodo IMO.
My wife and I just got back and we really loved the movie. It had just the right amount of stuff added into the original story without feeling "off" and makes me very eager to see what they do with the White Council and the Necromancer in the next movie.
Without saying anything that's a spoiler, I especially liked the added scene describing how the Dwarves try to take Moria and Thorin becomes a hero (and gains his surname), and the scene in the mountains was a surprisingly intense artistic direction from the book, without giving too much away.
Decent movie, but you can really see them struggling to make this moderately sized book into a a trilogy each of 3 hour films. The whole albino orc subplot (struggling to find an identifiable villain and flesh out the movies action) and showing every last detail (like the dwarves signing about washing dishes) come to mind.
I just got back from watching the movie and while I don't believe it measures up to LOTR, it is still a supremely enjoyable movie. The world is not as dark as LOTR. It is a different time and while I don't believe this trilogy will surpass the LOTR trilogy, I don't believe it is meant to. I hope that they continue to delve into the backstory of the dwarves and Elves.
I would like them to include snippets of the earlier lore of Middle Earth. Seeing the... contemporaries of Gandalf the Grey was great. Throw in some stuff from the Silmarilion since that was the one book I found to dense and disjointed to really get into.
Harriticus wrote: Decent movie, but you can really see them struggling to make this moderately sized book into a a trilogy each of 3 hour films. The whole albino orc subplot (struggling to find an identifiable villain and flesh out the movies action) and showing every last detail (like the dwarves signing about washing dishes) come to mind.
I quite liked the scene with the dish washing song and I thought the albino Orc plot device to show how Oakenshield comes to be the hardened leader that he is was a good bit of creative license. Loved the end though with Smog finally giving us some eye.
Just got back from it in Imax 3D, glad I skipped out on the HFR. Looked gorgeous, the costumes and characters were great and everything was nicely fleshed out. The nods to the books like the Dwarves singing "That's what Bilbo Baggins hates" and the "Down to Goblin Town" song were very organic and well done.
I didn't see the length complaint, could have done with a bit more, though it was a good stopping point. Smaug seems to be a bit of a tease eh?
Mr Nobody wrote:I just came back from the movie in imax 3D. The new frame rate really crippled my ability to enjoy the movie. Some of the graphics looked like a step back from Lord of the Rings.
On the other hand, some of the scenes looked fantastic and looked better for being in 3D. I was also more entertained by the characters in this movie, with Bilbo being a much more likeable character than Frodo IMO.
I didn't think it was bad, but then again, I've never been great at noticing which things are in more detail...
and I agree, Bilbo is far, far more likeable- more british, I guess. Frodo generally spent his time moping around with the worst orgasm face in existence- I know it's because of the ring's influence, but it could have been done better IMO.
Harriticus wrote: Decent movie, but you can really see them struggling to make this moderately sized book into a a trilogy each of 3 hour films. The whole albino orc subplot (struggling to find an identifiable villain and flesh out the movies action) and showing every last detail (like the dwarves signing about washing dishes) come to mind.
How are they going to struggle? Have you read the appendices on the White Council? There is a lot of that to go into the movies, with more than enough to fill them. This film paced well and managed to not take out anything from the book, and finished pretty much at the perfect spot to conclude it. The next has to cover Beorn, Mirkwood, Dol Guldur, and the coming to Erebor. The last then has to cover to finish at Erebor, Dale, the matter of the gold, and the Battle of Five Armies. I'm not seeing how that's not enough material.
The Dwarves doing the dishes; it's the last scene in the book where the truly fun comradery of the dwarfs is on the surface as from there on in it is all about the mission. It is important in that sense; consider it the 'last night on earth' scene if you will. Sure the very next scene is the Misty Mountains song.
How is it you can say they struggled to flesh out the action? The action scenes were applenty (some say too many) and fluid. They flowed together well and weren't forced. Besides, it's not exactly something you can struggle with as a film maker; if you need action you add action.
As for Azog, yes they didn't have an identifiable villain for the first movie straight from the book, but that isn't a fault with the movie at all, that's an issue in the book.
Spoiler:
In the book Azog's son Bolg has a beef with Dain Ironfoot, and the book ends with Bolg just showing up and a big battle ensuing so him and Dain can settle that score, even though they have no other part in the story. It's a story about Thorin and Bilbo, so why is it finishing about two other characters? Giving Azog more scenes as the main villain and fleshing out Thorin's background so they didn't need Dain was a much better call than what Tolkein wrote, with all due respect.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: Throw in some stuff from the Silmarilion since that was the one book I found to dense and disjointed to really get into.
Decent movie, but you can really see them struggling to make this moderately sized book into a a trilogy each of 3 hour films......and showing every last detail (like the dwarves signing about washing dishes) come to mind.
Wow, I think that's one of the first times I've heard someone complain about a movie using too much of the book it was based on!
Both explained because The Hobbit is, first and foremost, a book meant for children.
The issue people are having is they're seeing this as a direct prequel to LOTR, which initially it wasn't intended as such. It's supposed to be happy (initially) and silly.
Am I the only one who goes into films while leaving my expectations at the door?
Lord of the Rings is about war, and the scramble to get ahead of the Great Enemy. The Hobbit is an adventure, in a time that was more "innocent" where only vague shadows of that war were beginning to surface. As such, the feel of the two sets of material and how they are handled on the screen feels perfectly appropriate, and so far I think The Hobbit stands up stringly to LOTR.
The parts added to the Hobbit about Dol Guldur bring just the right amount of foreshadowing from the source material, even if they weren't found between the actual covers of the Hobbit.
It's worth noting that The Hobbit was written for children at a time when children's literature was a hell of a lot more mature than adult literature today.
MrScience wrote:A lot of the criticisms I hear are:
-It's not as mature as LOTR.
-It's too silly.
Both explained because The Hobbit is, first and foremost, a book meant for children.
The issue people are having is they're seeing this as a direct prequel to LOTR, which initially it wasn't intended as such. It's supposed to be happy (initially) and silly.
Am I the only one who goes into films while leaving my expectations at the door?
exactly, it's not a prequel to LotR, it's it's own book, just set in the same universe, with some interlinking characters.
AegisGrimm wrote: Lord of the Rings is about war, and the scramble to get ahead of the Great Enemy. The Hobbit is an adventure, in a time that was more "innocent" where only vague shadows of that war were beginning to surface. As such, the feel of the two sets of material and how they are handled on the screen feels perfectly appropriate, and so far I think The Hobbit stands up stringly to LOTR.
The parts added to the Hobbit about Dol Guldur bring just the right amount of foreshadowing from the source material, even if they weren't found between the actual covers of the Hobbit.
I couldn't put it better, well said.
Testify wrote: It's worth noting that The Hobbit was written for children at a time when children's literature was a hell of a lot more mature than adult literature today.
Lol, this is actually a pretty accurate statement.
I liked the Hobbit book as a child, tried to re-read it as an adult and made it through two chapters. I really disliked Tolkien's way of telling stories, as I felt it was poorly written for adults. That said, like the LOTR movies, I felt this movie was far better than the book. The Dwarves being captured was ridiculous in the book-they were ill-prepared and often shown to be foolish and pathetic. However, in the movie, they were captured due to their nobility in refusing to see Bilbo ripped limb from limb. I wasn't too big on Bilbo deciding to leave, as it felt kind of like he just decided "okay, why not?" Overall though, it was great fun.
timetowaste85 wrote: I liked the Hobbit book as a child, tried to re-read it as an adult and made it through two chapters. I really disliked Tolkien's way of telling stories, as I felt it was poorly written for adults. That said, like the LOTR movies, I felt this movie was far better than the book. The Dwarves being captured was ridiculous in the book-they were ill-prepared and often shown to be foolish and pathetic. However, in the movie, they were captured due to their nobility in refusing to see Bilbo ripped limb from limb. I wasn't too big on Bilbo deciding to leave, as it felt kind of like he just decided "okay, why not?" Overall though, it was great fun.
pretty much my thoughts too (minus the disliking the book). I said before release I hoped (and expected) PJ would have the dwarves fight the trolls rather than go one-by-one.
but I agree, I'd rather see him mutter to himself or tell gandalf how he sometimes wanted to be at home rather than actually try to leave.
Decent movie, but you can really see them struggling to make this moderately sized book into a a trilogy each of 3 hour films......and showing every last detail (like the dwarves signing about washing dishes) come to mind.
Wow, I think that's one of the first times I've heard someone complain about a movie using too much of the book it was based on!
It can be an issue, yes. A cinematic experience is not the same as a literary one and translating it page from page doesn't automatically make it a good narrative on screen. The movie could have been an hour shorter without any effect on what it was trying to do, imo.
Decent movie, but you can really see them struggling to make this moderately sized book into a a trilogy each of 3 hour films......and showing every last detail (like the dwarves signing about washing dishes) come to mind.
Wow, I think that's one of the first times I've heard someone complain about a movie using too much of the book it was based on!
It can be an issue, yes. A cinematic experience is not the same as a literary one and translating it page from page doesn't automatically make it a good narrative on screen. The movie could have been an hour shorter without any effect on what it was trying to do, imo.
I can't really see that- maybe 30 minutes.
there weren't really any large chunks of film which could be cut out completely, though some were a bit drawn out (not stretched ridiculously, though).
3 films might be a stretch with the hobbit, but with the white council stuff mixed in, it really shouldn't be that bad.
Loved it, and as a kiwi, loved it even more. Very well done, well put together. And agree with what godlessm has to say. The escape from goblin town was so well down.
Thought it was very good. Almost as good as FOTR. I still think FOTR was the best film of the series , even though ROTK won the oscar.
Spoiler:
The dwarves were treated better than what I thought in that, they were actually heroic and not foolish, which is what I was expecting...good thing I was wrong. Radagast was great, Saruman was dissapointing. The opening back story of Smaug vs the Dwarves was awesome, wish they showed more Dragon though, I know it was a tease.
Only had a few complaints:
1) Goblin King voice, what's the deal... were they summoning Daniel Day Lewis's portrayal of Lincoln?
2) Didn't like Bilbo attacking the orcs at the end, just not part of the character IMO.
3) Not enough Bilbo..was hoping for more comic relief from Bilbo.
generalgrog wrote: Thought it was very good. Almost as good as FOTR. I still think FOTR was the best film of the series , even though ROTK won the oscar.
Spoiler:
The dwarves were treated better than what I thought in that, they were actually heroic and not foolish, which is what I was expecting...good thing I was wrong. Radagast was great, Saruman was dissapointing. The opening back story of Smaug vs the Dwarves was awesome, wish they showed more Dragon though, I know it was a tease.
Only had a few complaints: 1) Goblin King voice, what's the deal... were they summoning Daniel Day Lewis's portrayal of Lincoln? 2) Didn't like Bilbo attacking the orcs at the end, just not part of the character IMO. 3) Not enough Bilbo..was hoping for more comic relief from Bilbo.
Besides that I thought The Hobbit was Brilliant.
Spoiler:
Have to agree with you on the Saruman being dissapointing, could've been done better. TBF though, Christopher Lee is now, what, 90? 1) Goblin King was a bit... different, quite hit and miss. I didn't mind it- the voice played along with the part of an evil, grotesque, boastful ruler. 2) Admittedly, he only really wins their admiration properly in the book after rescuing them from the spiders (and then from the elves), but it needed to end on a bit of a high note (no pun intended), and doing that on the eyrie was a good way to end the first film. Though, admittedly, it might have made more sense for Fili and Kili to charge in with him (maybe having them fighting the warg riders, with Bilbo saving Thorin) 3) Eh, I think Bombur and generally the camaraderie between the dwarves made up for that.
one thing I forgot to say in my review was I loved the little speech Bilbo gave for why he chose to stay- very british and/or hobbity in the way he kind of muttered it rather than making a grand announcement. A tad hypocritical after trying to leave beforehand, but I think Bofur's response to that kind of made him realise.
generalgrog wrote: Thought it was very good. Almost as good as FOTR. I still think FOTR was the best film of the series , even though ROTK won the oscar.
Spoiler:
The dwarves were treated better than what I thought in that, they were actually heroic and not foolish, which is what I was expecting...good thing I was wrong. Radagast was great, Saruman was dissapointing. The opening back story of Smaug vs the Dwarves was awesome, wish they showed more Dragon though, I know it was a tease.
Only had a few complaints:
1) Goblin King voice, what's the deal... were they summoning Daniel Day Lewis's portrayal of Lincoln?
2) Didn't like Bilbo attacking the orcs at the end, just not part of the character IMO.
3) Not enough Bilbo..was hoping for more comic relief from Bilbo.
Besides that I thought The Hobbit was Brilliant.
GG
Spoiler:
I'd have to say shrike got it right about Saruman; it's hard to expect a 91 year old man to have the same charisma he once had, and to give him credit, age caught up with him a lot later than most.
1) That's just Brian Humphries.
2) Remember the true heart of the story is the courage of Hobbits, and that had yet to be shown in the first part of the trilogy, so I suppose it was a case of 'well we had better do it now'. It was a nice touch, and remember even if he was foolish, he is a Took.
3) I can see your point; I think like in LoTR PJ was just conscious of the story not focusing on one single character too much.
generalgrog wrote: Thought it was very good. Almost as good as FOTR. I still think FOTR was the best film of the series , even though ROTK won the oscar.
Spoiler:
The dwarves were treated better than what I thought in that, they were actually heroic and not foolish, which is what I was expecting...good thing I was wrong. Radagast was great, Saruman was dissapointing. The opening back story of Smaug vs the Dwarves was awesome, wish they showed more Dragon though, I know it was a tease.
Only had a few complaints:
1) Goblin King voice, what's the deal... were they summoning Daniel Day Lewis's portrayal of Lincoln?
2) Didn't like Bilbo attacking the orcs at the end, just not part of the character IMO.
3) Not enough Bilbo..was hoping for more comic relief from Bilbo.
Besides that I thought The Hobbit was Brilliant.
GG
Spoiler:
I'd have to say shrike got it right about Saruman; it's hard to expect a 91 year old man to have the same charisma he once had, and to give him credit, age caught up with him a lot later than most.
1) That's just Brian Humphries.
2) Remember the true heart of the story is the courage of Hobbits, and that had yet to be shown in the first part of the trilogy, so I suppose it was a case of 'well we had better do it now'. It was a nice touch, and remember even if he was foolish, he is a Took.
3) I can see your point; I think like in LoTR PJ was just conscious of the story not focusing on one single character too much.
OK.....we are far enough into the thread were we don't need spoilers anymore...
I just think that having Bilbo attack the wargs to "save" Thorin, was just unbelievable. I went from thinking this is cool,you know where Thorin is like..."This is enough, I'm not going to take this anymore!!! and he does the slow badass walk down from the tree towards Azog ready, to go Mano E Mano with him and his white warg.
I went from that cool factor to..an "Oh brother" moment. When Bilbo charged in all by himself without the dwarves...I don't know, it just felt so contrived. I was like "What the.....?"
I think it would have been better to let Thorin beat Azog and his warg to a pulp....and at the end hear Bilbo say something like "I knew you could do it all along... ole chap".
Bilbo is not Swarznegger's Conan, or Willis's, John Mclean....Bilbo is the reluctant hero, the guy that outwits his way into winning.
It's just a small gripe I have, just thought it could have been done better.
1) The whole goblin king scenes was "meh", but the fights was great.
2) Remember, the whole goblin encounter in the cave was really a vehicle for seperating Bilbo from the dwarves.
3) Loved... LOVED how Thorin "Oakenshield" got his namesake. Richard Armitage as Thorin is epic.
4) Loved why/how Bilbo explained why he's sticking with the group... they whole "dwarves don't have a home now".
5) Being back in this world... just too awesome. GOing to see it again in 48 HFR soon.
I think that Bilbo's heroism at the end would have been best supported by Fili and Kili heading out first, and then Bilbo following their lead. Then he could had diverted from behind them to save Thorin.
But still, it showcased very well that Hobbits are supposed to be the masters at being overlooked out of hand by the other "stronger" races, but then suddenly doing something surprising when they are backed into a corner.
Seen it today, now my favourite film so far. It was beyond amazing.
HFR- Loved it, you do feel more immersed however, my personal nit-picking felt actually the 3D made some scenes just look un-natural but this was a few seconds and the when the camera pans the scenery shots, god damn..... I already knew what 48fps looked like so it instantly set in for me. Dont think I can watch The Hobbit again actually in normal 24fps.
The film- Adored the prologue, magnificent. There was one scene in the film which just brought back all the memories of Lord of the Rings, almost made me shed a couple of man tears, thinking back to when I was a child, glorious. I really did feel like going up to Peter Jackson, shaking his hand and telling him what a magnificent he is.
Loved seeing the dwarves more in film and gotta say I have a new found love for elves..
You know I think I might have to request a second edition of the Hobbit now, with all the extra bits Jackson's giving us thrown in, especially Armitage grade Thorin. While he's changed from who he was in the book I cannot say that change is bad at all.
I'm glad I chose to watch the film in 2d. Saying that, I did find the mountain views (top down from above), really heard to see what was happening as I felt it was ott for the sake of making it look better in 3d...
Saw it this afternoon and loved it... All in, a great start to the trilogy, hope the second installment can keep the momentum going,just not happy we have to wait a year for it ...
Didn't like the annoying child behind me kicking my chair and talking to it's parent the whole way through...
Didn't like the annoying child behind me kicking my chair and talking to it's parent the whole way through...
That's why you should bring a knife to the cinema
I brought an axe, does that count?
well, a plastic one...
I'd rather that the parents of said children had some fething control over them. No doubt their little 'angels' are always well behaved in their eyes. TBH, I thought they were too young for the film really
My kids (12 & 8) sat and watched the film without annoying anyone else...
Watched the Hobbit yesterday in 3D in the High Frequency Rate theater or whatever it's called.
My eyes were fatigued, something I don't recall happening after my last few 3D movies, but then, I have never watched a 3 hour 3D movie before!
I liked it. The Gollum/Bilbo scene was the best part of the movie. Don't go in expecting the Lord of the Rings. Just like the Hobbit is more of a children's book than LotR, so too is the movie. I'll wait for the extended DVD and buy it, like I did with LotR. Radagast was too silly, I felt.
Ruglud wrote: I'd rather that the parents of said children had some fething control over them. No doubt their little 'angels' are always well behaved in their eyes. TBH, I thought they were too young for the film really
My kids (12 & 8) sat and watched the film without annoying anyone else...
true, it does get really annoying, especially in a film like that. I might actually have resorted to shushing them if I couldn't move away *gasp*
Oh god I feel some of your pain, there just had to be a group of brats near us who kept talking throughout the film and the parents would do nothing. Felt like pimp slapping them for potentially ruining a past childhood experience, I mean Jesus, you go to the movies to watch the movie, not to talk through it.
My favourite part was the big battle when the lines clash, something I havent seen in ages.
Damn I need to watch it again so badly, cant wait for the EE.
unmercifulconker wrote: Oh god I feel some of your pain, there just had to be a group of brats near us who kept talking throughout the film and the parents would do nothing. Felt like pimp slapping them for potentially ruining a past childhood experience, I mean Jesus, you go to the movies to watch the movie, not to talk through it.
My favourite part was the big battle when the lines clash, something I havent seen in ages.
Damn I need to watch it again so badly, cant wait for the EE.
Yeah I saw a few Dwarven Troll slayers in that battle!
Akirakill wrote: I am a fan of the books love the first 3 movies but must say this first hobbit movie sucked balls!
Just felt that the pace was off ... And the dwarfs pretty week... And almost forgot the movie was about the hobbit...
The Dwarves didn't really have a big chance at fighting- there was Goblin town, where they killed the king and god knows how many goblins without anyone dying, then the wargs where they we heavily outnumbered and basically just ran, and then in the forest, where it was just Thorin vs a huge ruler of Orcs on a huge warg.
The hobbit isn't just about Bilbo- it's mostly just his perspective of the journey at this point. He had plenty of time in the spotlight, saving Thorin, pickpocketing and then talking to the trolls, Gollum's cave...
brainscan wrote: I'm glad I chose to watch the film in 2d. Saying that, I did find the mountain views (top down from above), really heard to see what was happening as I felt it was ott for the sake of making it look better in 3d...
Aye, I remember looking at that and thinking what the is going on here?
kronk wrote:Don't go in expecting the Lord of the Rings. Just like the Hobbit is more of a children's book than LotR, so too is the movie.
This is something I've found alright; those that had not read the book mostly didn't like it because they expected LoTR all over again, whereas those who did read the book and thus knew what to expect and didn't go in with those expectations mostly loved it.
generalgrog wrote:Yeah I saw a few Dwarven Troll slayers in that battle!
Yup spotted those. Guess he couldn't resist.
Akirakill wrote:Just felt that the pace was off ... And the dwarfs pretty week... And almost forgot the movie was about the hobbit...
The pace was the same as the book. The dwarves were stronger than they were in the book, so I don't understand that complaint (in fact some of those dwarves aren't actually fighters). And the movie (and book) are not about the hobbit, they are about the company. If anything it's more about Thorin than Bilbo, Bilbo is just the narrator for us really.
In the end most of these things come straight from the book, so if there's a problem it is there, and I know there is the argument to deviate, but if you were PJ what would you do after getting slated so hard for changing stuff in LoTR?
I had no problem with Bilbo showing his growing courage at the end. This isn't a transliteration of the book after all, and nor should it be. I like giving Thorin a nemisis to hound them and to help add a through-line for the trilogy; he was well done and makes for quite a formidable foe.
Overall, I was very happy and enjoyed the experience.
I just saw the movie and thought it was great. Well worth the 35 years I needed to wait for it. The beginning story of how the Dwarves lost Erebor was fantastic, especially how they tied Dale in for those who never read the books before. Old Bilbo preparing for the party scene with Frodo was smartly done. Then we have the Dwarves invading Bilbo's home and I was laughing but more from enjoyment than slapstick, well done.
I has reservations about the Dwarves from the pictures, Thorin, Fili and Kili just didn't look right, but in the film, with others to create the illusion that they were Dwarves pulled it off nicely. I loved how they worked as a team, each using his skills to set an opponent up for another to attack, using objects and terrain to fight.
No children to bother me, that's what Living Room Theater at Cinetopia is for.
I was a happy geek leaving the theater and will probably see it in #D high rate next time to see what that is like.
I saw the HFR 3d version tonight and really, really enjoyed it. My wife wasn't a fan of the HFR, said it looked like a tv show. I think the reason I liked it so much is that there was no point in the fighting where I couldn't follow the characters. There is no skipping or jumping where you can't follow the action. It's just plain smooth. It was a bit diconcerting at first but I really liked it. I hope they start doing more action movies in HFR.
MadEdric wrote:I has reservations about the Dwarves from the pictures, Thorin, Fili and Kili just didn't look right, but in the film, with others to create the illusion that they were Dwarves pulled it off nicely.
I agree, I didn't think they looked dwarven enough, but the others kind of make up for that.
Dreadwinter wrote:My favorite line of the movie is where Gandalf is asked the names of the blue wizards and he says he cannot remember.
Is it a three hour drag or does the film fly in? A lot of reviewers have flagged the fact that it takes Bilbo 50mins to get out the front door! I'm still 50/50 about seeing this. I'll probably wait for the DVD.
Na the movie flew by for me, I mean its middle-earth how could anyone be bored by it. Was waiting with me pa for my ma from the toilets and heard some guy go past and claimed it was "too long."
Me and my dad felt like slapping him just for that unbelievable piece of trash that just came from his mouth, let alone the fact that you should know how long it is suppposed to be and should be thankful the book isnt getting crammed into a 2 hour film. Idiots
I didn't feel like it was to long. It does take Bilbo a while to get out the door but that also includes the intro showing the loss of Erebor and the tie in of Frodo and Old Bilbo which I thought was well done.
I think Peter Jackson is looking at this as a full standing 6 movie series and tying things in appropriately. Anyone else notice the music around the ring was the same as used in LOTR? I thought that was a nice touch.
Oh, and I like that the Dwarves aren't crazy killers of doom like Gimli, Legolas, and Aragorn. Those three, and Boromir, were suppose to be basically the greatest warriors of their race. The comparison is most noticable in the fight with the trolls. Only Thoren and one or two of the Dwarves are actually brawlers. In fact, Ol' Gandalf makes even the "brawlers" look bad.
My wife and I saw it this weekend and really enjoyed it. I flet like they could have done a better job "flattening" it for 2D, but the rest of it was so strong that I can overlook that.
It did feel a bit long for me, but that's only because I got four hours of sleep and spent all day driving home from Atlantic City. Had I not been exhausted, it would have flown by. Now I kind of want to go back and watch LotR again...
When that familiar piece started playing, tears were almost shed, a truly beautiful moment.
you know when people say an old, nostalgic song gives them a shiver down their spine? I never really understood what they were on about until that and "misty mountains cold" started playing. I spent half the film grinning like an idiot at little things like that, or Gandalf not remembering the names of the blue wizards...
Saw it tonight in 2D and thought it was amazing. Yes long, but that just meant you fell into the world of it, never rushed it had a lovely pace to be immersed.
The only criticism I can think of is that it didn't seem to have a strong newly identifiable theme in the music. It took lots from the original films, like the hobbit music, themes for the ring and the elves and similar reminders. But new music seemed sparse and I can't think of anything I could hum afterwards, unlike when I left after Fellowship with the main theme still ringing in my ears.
Still, everything else about it was wonderful. It's length will test the impatient, but treat it like a three course meal of a film rather than your usual meal. You wouldn't want every film like this, but the hobbit deserves it. It long and slow at times, but it doesn't seem padded to me and you're just sucked in.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The only criticism I can think of is that it didn't seem to have a strong newly identifiable theme in the music. It took lots from the original films, like the hobbit music, themes for the ring and the elves and similar reminders. But new music seemed sparse and I can't think of anything I could hum afterwards, unlike when I left after Fellowship with the main theme still ringing in my ears.
What about "misty mountains cold"? I've had that stuck in my head since I watched it...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Is it a three hour drag or does the film fly in? A lot of reviewers have flagged the fact that it takes Bilbo 50mins to get out the front door! I'm still 50/50 about seeing this. I'll probably wait for the DVD.
I wish it could have been 10 hours.... Peter Jackson has done, and is doing, Tolkien's work perfectly proud.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Is it a three hour drag or does the film fly in? A lot of reviewers have flagged the fact that it takes Bilbo 50mins to get out the front door! I'm still 50/50 about seeing this. I'll probably wait for the DVD.
admittedly, it does take Bilbo a while to get going, but that's all setting up the story, introducing the characters and the plotline etc., and it all just flies past.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Is it a three hour drag or does the film fly in? A lot of reviewers have flagged the fact that it takes Bilbo 50mins to get out the front door! I'm still 50/50 about seeing this. I'll probably wait for the DVD.
The reviews I've read on another forum say pretty consistently that most scenes feel about 20% too long.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Is it a three hour drag or does the film fly in? A lot of reviewers have flagged the fact that it takes Bilbo 50mins to get out the front door! I'm still 50/50 about seeing this. I'll probably wait for the DVD.
The reviews I've read on another forum say pretty consistently that most scenes feel about 20% too long.
Well, reading all these different points of view and with me probably going to see it again, I'll look out for those things and tweak my original review of it. (Also gonna see it in 2D rather than 3D, so I'll write what difference that makes to the feel of it, too).
The reviews I've read on another forum say pretty consistently that most scenes feel about 20% too long.
Absolutely not, in my opinion. When I saw it for the first time on Friday (I saw it once with the wife, and then took the parents to it as a christmas present), I was originally thinking the movie would end upon getting saved by the eagles, which wasn't all that far into the book, really. But I was consistently surprised with how much the movie contained, even though I knew a bit about the added Dol Guldur scenes.
I will see it again at the IMAX in HFR as soon as the crowds die down.
The running time of the film is readily available. Why dont those who feel it is too long just wait for the DVD instead of bitching about it.
Mrs. Snurl was rivited to the screen, and she is not a big fan of fantasy in general.
snurl wrote: The running time of the film is readily available.
The running time is not itself the problem. It's how the running time is used. And for the record? My local cinema does not mention that the Hobbit is going to have a nine hour running time for the entire book.
Why dont those who feel it is too long just wait for the DVD instead of bitching about it.
Why are you even on a forum if you don't want to hear people discuss things?
snurl wrote: The running time of the film is readily available.
The running time is not itself the problem. It's how the running time is used. And for the record? My local cinema does not mention that the Hobbit is going to have a nine hour running time for the entire book.
Why dont those who feel it is too long just wait for the DVD instead of bitching about it.
Why are you even on a forum if you don't want to hear people discuss things?
When the run time for a movie is readily available ahead of you watching it, it makes no sense to complain about its length.
Dreadwinter wrote: When the run time for a movie is readily available ahead of you watching it, it makes no sense to complain about its length.
The running time is not itself the problem. It's how the running time is used.
How can you read that and not comprehend that I am not complaining about the length in and of itself. An episode of a TV show can feel bloated at 25 minutes, while a movie can be well paced despite being five times longer. This is not a contradiction, it's a question of the content that fills the running time.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The only criticism I can think of is that it didn't seem to have a strong newly identifiable theme in the music. It took lots from the original films, like the hobbit music, themes for the ring and the elves and similar reminders. But new music seemed sparse and I can't think of anything I could hum afterwards, unlike when I left after Fellowship with the main theme still ringing in my ears.
What about "misty mountains cold"? I've had that stuck in my head since I watched it...
Yep. The fight sequences and/or motivational points in the movie (for lack of a better term) with the dwarves played variations on misty mountains cold which I though was excellent.
Watched the film last night and loved it. From the trailers I thought I was going to hate the dwarves because the only scene I remembered was them throwing dishes around. I could have sworn in the trailer they were breaking one here and there too. I was pleasantly surprised to find out they were just doing it to mess with bilbo.
Nothing felt drawn out, every set piece was pretty cool. I'm as ADD as they come when dealing with movies and games these days, but even after drinking a large coke in the theater (and feeling the creeping piss crisis coming) it didn't feel like 3 hours at all.
Can't wait to see the next two, then all three back to back with extended content.
Frazzled wrote:Everyone here loves it, yet reviews are not great. Its almost like we're a weird fantasy oriented subset of folk....
To be fair to us, most of the bad reviews about the actual film (rather than the technology) is it's not following the book enough, which, us being wargamers and thus more of us will probably like the book, it's not incredibly unfair.
Plus, you get much more views slating something than praising it.
Frazzled wrote:Everyone here loves it, yet reviews are not great. Its almost like we're a weird fantasy oriented subset of folk....
To be fair to us, most of the bad reviews about the actual film (rather than the technology) is it's not following the book enough, which, us being wargamers and thus more of us will probably like the book, it's not incredibly unfair.
Plus, you get much more views slating something than praising it.
As an adult, I hate the book. I did enjoy it as a child though. That said, I can't wait to go back and see it again on Christmas Eve, taking my mom and sister to it. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is just like the LotR movie trilogy-it's far better than the book (series) it was made from.
timetowaste85 wrote: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is just like the LotR movie trilogy-it's far better than the book (series) it was made from.
Just a bit assertive there Though I do agree, I prefer the films over the books (and if the hobbit carries on the way it started, same there), though I do enjoy the book too.
I saw the movie this afternoon and I thoroughly disliked it. The problems with the film were myriad and too fundamental to be saved by quality acting and exciting visuals. The film needed a tighter screenplay, a ruthless editor, and a director self-assured enough to avoid making too frequent homages to his own films.
The film was bloated, pure and simple. It started off dull and ham-handed. I actually laughed out loud at the full frame shot of a burning dwarf doll. The pacing was seriously flawed. 10 full minutes of flashbacks provided the type of exposition that could easily have been delivered through a bit of brief dialogue. In fact, if the dwarves had simply sung the entire song about Smaug, the whole story would have been right there.
A good editor would have kept more of the song (I won't believe PJ did not shoot the whole thing), and cut in some of that flashback footage, which would have had far more emotional impact when backed up by the mournful tone of the singing scene.
All of that overblown nonsense was apparently supposed to build up Thorin as a main character...in a movie titled The Hobbit, not Blood and Fire: The Revenge of Thorin. The Hobbit did not know what movie it wanted to be.
Parts of it were light-hearted, like a children's movie. That's fine. Some of the combat was comical, lightening the seriousness of an otherwise frightening scene. A++ good for a kids' movie. But at other times the movie was extremely serious and very frightening. Either way would have been fine, but not both. With both, it pisses on parents who bring their kids thinking the movie is going to be fine for them to watch, and ruins the tone of the film for mature viewers. It is self-defeating.
Gandalf, Bilbo, and Thorin were in stiff competition for the audience's attention. Who was the main character? Who is the viewer supposed to identify with? It is supposed to be Bilbo, and that's an easy answer, but think about the movie for a minute. Bilbo is mostly just there, along for the ride, not unlike Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace.
Bilbo decides, for example, to go on the journey for no apparent reason. He says no, explains precisely why he does not want to go in spite of Gandlaf's encouragement, and goes to bed. In the morning he has a snap decision to rush out and catch up to the dwarves, who, by the way, never tell him where they will be.
In the book, Bilbo traps himself into going on the journey. He is indignant about not being wanted. His Tookish side gets him into trouble, and Gandalf arrives in the morning to remind him of his commitment and give him "a little nudge out of the door." Perhaps that was a LotR movie reference PJ should have made.
In the film, Bilbo simply makes the decision for no reason that the audience is aware of. We don't even see the guy pack. He just runs out the door with contract in hand yelling about going on an adventure that when last we saw him he was not even conflicted about avoiding entirely.
From then on he's just around while Thorin is being hounded by his old nemesis. Bilbo has a bit more agency in the cave troll scene than in the book, which is fine. It builds up his role in the film, but it does little to disguise the fact that the actual movie is not really about Bilbo at all.
There's a lot more to go into but this is way too long already.
Seen it today (yesterday) with a few mates, 11:30 start, pint and a tequila or 4 to get wormed up. Its good, realy good. Its a LOTR film you have not seen, thats the feel you get throught the whole film. If you like the LOTR films you will like this, any one who says different is just being a dick for the sake of Trolling. For the fact it makes Dwarfs look like hard arss mo-fos its worth it alone.
weeble1000 wrote: In the film, Bilbo simply makes the decision for no reason that the audience is aware of. We don't even see the guy pack. He just runs out the door with contract in hand yelling about going on an adventure that when last we saw him he was not even conflicted about avoiding entirely.
Eh?
Spoiler:
During the intro scene after the dwarves asked him to sign the contract and he storms off, gandalf approached him and asked about what happened to the person he used to be, always wanting to explore and adventure. Over time he just started to get comfortable not having adventure and not doing anything, but Gandalf brought forth the old bilbo who would have done that sort of thing. After having some inner conflict he wakes up and realizes that everyone is gone, and his chance for adventure is fading. He finally makes up his mind that he wants to go on an adventure and does. This makes perfect sense to me.
I'm also not sure what you're expecting Bilbo to do to play a larger role than what he did. Just like the book he was sort of dead weight until after he found the ring. He just sort of tagged along for the journey while everyone else lead on. Whenever he branched off it gave a little screen time to the rest of the party while fully following what happened to him.
weeble1000 wrote:a director self-assured enough to avoid making too frequent homages to his own films.
dude, it's set just 60 years before the war of the ring, in the same place, with several overlapping characters and plotlines- how could it not mention stuff in the lord of the rings?
10 full minutes of flashbacks provided the type of exposition that could easily have been delivered through a bit of brief dialogue. In fact, if the dwarves had simply sung the entire song about Smaug, the whole story would have been right there.
There has to be that bit of background as for why they'd go, which goes into a little more detail than in the full song (where it basically says "dragon killed dwarves, stole gold, destroyed Dale. We want gold back", including the Azog protagonist thing)
All of that overblown nonsense was apparently supposed to build up Thorin as a main character...in a movie titled The Hobbit, not Blood and Fire: The Revenge of Thorin. The Hobbit did not know what movie it wanted to be.
The hobbit isn't solely about Bilbo, you know- in fact, almost everything apart from the ring and the theft of the Arkenstone could be from Thorin's point of view. And that is the whole point- it's read in the form of Bilbo's book. A dwarf's hardly likely to write some memoirs, is he?
Parts of it were light-hearted, like a children's movie. That's fine. Some of the combat was comical, lightening the seriousness of an otherwise frightening scene. A++ good for a kids' movie. But at other times the movie was extremely serious and very frightening. Either way would have been fine, but not both. With both, it pisses on parents who bring their kids thinking the movie is going to be fine for them to watch, and ruins the tone of the film for mature viewers. It is self-defeating.
that's the thing- the hobbit is a mature children's book. So far, I can't see much a mature child would be frightened of- I watched the fellowship when I was five, and I loved it. It has several battle scenes, whether they're written in the book or altered to make the film more exciting, and there was no way to do that full-on child friendly.
Gandalf, Bilbo, and Thorin were in stiff competition for the audience's attention. Who was the main character? Who is the viewer supposed to identify with? It is supposed to be Bilbo, and that's an easy answer, but think about the movie for a minute. Bilbo is mostly just there, along for the ride, not unlike Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace.
People often make the mistake of thinking the main character is Bilbo, when it isn't. There is no main character, but several. Gandalf is the main character in the Necromancer stuff, Bilbo and Thorin are both main characters in the main storyline- it's like Aragorn and Frodo in the lord of the rings.
Bilbo decides, for example, to go on the journey for no apparent reason. He says no, explains precisely why he does not want to go in spite of Gandlaf's encouragement, and goes to bed. In the morning he has a snap decision to rush out and catch up to the dwarves, who, by the way, never tell him where they will be.
In the book, Bilbo traps himself into going on the journey. He is indignant about not being wanted. His Tookish side gets him into trouble, and Gandalf arrives in the morning to remind him of his commitment and give him "a little nudge out of the door." Perhaps that was a LotR movie reference PJ should have made.
In the film, Bilbo simply makes the decision for no reason that the audience is aware of. We don't even see the guy pack. He just runs out the door with contract in hand yelling about going on an adventure that when last we saw him he was not even conflicted about avoiding entirely.
I thought it was quite clear Bilbo's tookish side won over and he made a last-minute decision. Plus, it was the old days- I doubt there's more than one road going out in any one direction. Plus, he even mentions he packed in a hurry.
My review of The Hobbit is that it's far far too good, I feel depressed that I've only seen it once and not sure when I can next g. And the thought of having 3 or so months before the DVD release isn't fair. And even longer until the sequel. I think they should just release the other two now, and let everyone see them for free as many times as they want at the cinema, that might not even be enough
On and I agree with everything you just said in reply to that guy shrike, can't believe some of the stuff he was saying, but I suppose not everyone will like it, for some reason. The background at the beginning with Smaug was great,would have been very very disappointed if they had just sung about it and not shown it. They need to set up the mountain, the dragon, Dale, the dwarfs lust for gold, Thorin etc. and Bilbo is not the main character, like Frodo isn't in LOTR. There are many main characters, well three in this case, less than LOTR, I can't believe you don't get that?
It's even more complicated when they are trying to add in more side stories, you don't have to like it of course. But some of those comments just seem really really ignorant. Hopefully you will at least appreciate shrike's reasonings, because I think he's got it all right.
weeble1000 wrote: In the film, Bilbo simply makes the decision for no reason that the audience is aware of. We don't even see the guy pack. He just runs out the door with contract in hand yelling about going on an adventure that when last we saw him he was not even conflicted about avoiding entirely.
Eh?
Spoiler:
During the intro scene after the dwarves asked him to sign the contract and he storms off, gandalf approached him and asked about what happened to the person he used to be, always wanting to explore and adventure. Over time he just started to get comfortable not having adventure and not doing anything, but Gandalf brought forth the old bilbo who would have done that sort of thing. After having some inner conflict he wakes up and realizes that everyone is gone, and his chance for adventure is fading. He finally makes up his mind that he wants to go on an adventure and does. This makes perfect sense to me.
I'm also not sure what you're expecting Bilbo to do to play a larger role than what he did. Just like the book he was sort of dead weight until after he found the ring. He just sort of tagged along for the journey while everyone else lead on. Whenever he branched off it gave a little screen time to the rest of the party while fully following what happened to him.
Yes, Gandalf said what Bilbo was like, instead of the audience seeing what Bilbo was like through his interactions with other characters. It is called bad writing, which is odd because Bilbo acts in a way that reveals his character in the same part of the book.
And if the main character of a movie is "dead weight" for the entirety of a film, that is a problem. It may have been an artifact of splitting a short book into, oh, three movies, but that does not excuse the inherent problem with the filmmaking. Imagine a viewer who has never read the book or seen the LotR trilogy. You'd be wondering why the hell the movie is called The Hobbit. You should never assume knowledge on the part of your audience, especially not in the first installment of a trilogy. In the second or third...well, it is one thing to assume that the audience has seen the previous films, but even then it is risque. Movies should stand on their own.
In the books you wouldn't know it either if they didn't have the author explaining it, as it isn't told to us through actions or dialogue in the book. The movie handles sliding the information in quite well without battering the audience over the head with it. I honestly can't tell if you actually saw the movie or not. It is certainly open to criticism, but the ones you are laying at its feet (bad director, bad editior, bad storytelling, not exactly the same as the book so it is bad) don't seem reasonable. The only one that holds up is that it has tonal shifts, and one can read a movie review or two and come up with that as well. It is to awash in venom to feel sincere, and more about provoking responses by being sensational.
weeble1000 wrote:a director self-assured enough to avoid making too frequent homages to his own films.
dude, it's set just 60 years before the war of the ring, in the same place, with several overlapping characters and plotlines- how could it not mention stuff in the lord of the rings?
10 full minutes of flashbacks provided the type of exposition that could easily have been delivered through a bit of brief dialogue. In fact, if the dwarves had simply sung the entire song about Smaug, the whole story would have been right there.
There has to be that bit of background as for why they'd go, which goes into a little more detail than in the full song (where it basically says "dragon killed dwarves, stole gold, destroyed Dale. We want gold back", including the Azog protagonist thing)
All of that overblown nonsense was apparently supposed to build up Thorin as a main character...in a movie titled The Hobbit, not Blood and Fire: The Revenge of Thorin. The Hobbit did not know what movie it wanted to be.
The hobbit isn't solely about Bilbo, you know- in fact, almost everything apart from the ring and the theft of the Arkenstone could be from Thorin's point of view. And that is the whole point- it's read in the form of Bilbo's book. A dwarf's hardly likely to write some memoirs, is he?
Parts of it were light-hearted, like a children's movie. That's fine. Some of the combat was comical, lightening the seriousness of an otherwise frightening scene. A++ good for a kids' movie. But at other times the movie was extremely serious and very frightening. Either way would have been fine, but not both. With both, it pisses on parents who bring their kids thinking the movie is going to be fine for them to watch, and ruins the tone of the film for mature viewers. It is self-defeating.
that's the thing- the hobbit is a mature children's book. So far, I can't see much a mature child would be frightened of- I watched the fellowship when I was five, and I loved it. It has several battle scenes, whether they're written in the book or altered to make the film more exciting, and there was no way to do that full-on child friendly.
Gandalf, Bilbo, and Thorin were in stiff competition for the audience's attention. Who was the main character? Who is the viewer supposed to identify with? It is supposed to be Bilbo, and that's an easy answer, but think about the movie for a minute. Bilbo is mostly just there, along for the ride, not unlike Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace.
People often make the mistake of thinking the main character is Bilbo, when it isn't. There is no main character, but several. Gandalf is the main character in the Necromancer stuff, Bilbo and Thorin are both main characters in the main storyline- it's like Aragorn and Frodo in the lord of the rings.
Bilbo decides, for example, to go on the journey for no apparent reason. He says no, explains precisely why he does not want to go in spite of Gandlaf's encouragement, and goes to bed. In the morning he has a snap decision to rush out and catch up to the dwarves, who, by the way, never tell him where they will be.
In the book, Bilbo traps himself into going on the journey. He is indignant about not being wanted. His Tookish side gets him into trouble, and Gandalf arrives in the morning to remind him of his commitment and give him "a little nudge out of the door." Perhaps that was a LotR movie reference PJ should have made.
In the film, Bilbo simply makes the decision for no reason that the audience is aware of. We don't even see the guy pack. He just runs out the door with contract in hand yelling about going on an adventure that when last we saw him he was not even conflicted about avoiding entirely.
I thought it was quite clear Bilbo's tookish side won over and he made a last-minute decision. Plus, it was the old days- I doubt there's more than one road going out in any one direction. Plus, he even mentions he packed in a hurry.
Normally I wouldn't requote such a large bit of text, but your responses need little reply.
Mature children's book? Have you read the thing? And it is not about the book it is about the muddled tone of the film.
Bilbo is the main character of the book. There is no other main character. Bilbo is the only character that develops through the story. The Hobbit is a coming-of-age tale wherein Bilbo is the hero. There and back again. Every character in the book is flat and serves as a backdrop for Bilbo's development. And again, it is about the movie. When a movie does not have a clear protagonist there is a problem.
In LotR, everyone's actions support Frodo. The movie starts with Frodo, Frodo makes his own decisions. He decides to carry the ring to Bree. He decides to carry the ring to Mordor. He decides to utilize Golum, etc. etc. The other characters support a quest that he embarked on. That he accepted responsibility for, knowing the dangers. Aragorn has a storyline, sure, but like Han Solo, Arogorn's story arc supports and drive forward the main character for the most part. And one can actually criticize the Star Wars trilogy for having progressively more complex plot lines.
weeble, The Lord of the Rings, is that not Sauron? The film isn't about him now is it..
Bilbo is one of three main characters, the film is not just based on the book.
And the last time we saw Bilbo before he left
Spoiler:
was when the dwarfs were winging, after Bilbo had declined, he was clearly paying close attention to the song, and I knew at the point he was reconsidering his decision
Oh and yes, you should assume knowledge from the audience. Films are made for a target audience, the main target audience for The Hobbit is not people who have never read the book or seen LOTR. Not everyone who sees it will have read The Hobbit or seen LOTR, but that majority of the audience the film is targeted at, will have. Like a comic book film is aimed at the people who read the comics, like any films adapted from a book is aimed at those who read the book in the majority of cases. They obviously want as big an audience as possible, but they still have a priority target audience.
If you do get a viewer like that, then they will adjust. Not every single film title makes perfect sense. Not every single film has one main character. Go watch a Hitchcock film, he kills his main characters off after half an hour. You don't appear to like the film, fine, but everything you have said about it just seems silly.
And The Hobbit does stand on its own. You are re-introduced to Bilbo, and Gandalf. Given background on the dwarfs (something you also moaned about), what the quest is, why they are doing it. Bilbo is very very important n this, but they are also trying to show the importance of Gandalf and Thorin, who from the title you wouldn't know are main characters, but they are. If you fail to understand this then I don't quite know what film you have seen, because it certainly isn't The Hobbit.
Ahtman wrote: In the books you wouldn't know it either if they didn't have the author explaining it, as it isn't told to us through actions or dialogue in the book. The movie handles sliding the information in quite well without battering the audience over the head with it. I honestly can't tell if you actually saw the movie or not. It is certainly open to criticism, but the ones you are laying at its feet (bad director, bad editior, bad storytelling, not exactly the same as the book so it is bad) don't seem reasonable. The only one that holds up is that it has tonal shifts, and one can read a movie review or two and come up with that as well. It is to awash in venom to feel sincere, and more about provoking responses by being sensational.
Ummm...yes you would. Have you read the book? Screw it, I'll go get the book and quote it.
Spoiler:
"Very well then," said Thorin, "supposing the burglar-expert gives us some ideas or suggestions." He turned with mock-politeness to Bilbo.
"First I should like to know a bit more about things," he said, feeling all confused and a bit shaky inside, but still Tookishly determined to go on with things. "I mean about the gold and the dragon, and all that, and how it got there, and who it belongs to, and so on and further."
"Bless me!" said Thorin, "haven't you got a map? and didn't you hear our song? Haven't we been talking about this for hours?"
"All the same, I should like it all plain and clear," said he obstinantly, putting on his business manner...and doing his best to appear wise and prudent..."Also I should like to know about risks, out-of-pocket expenses, time required and remuneration, and so forth"
...
"Hear, hear!" said Bilbo, and accidentally said it aloud.
"Hear what?" they all said turning suddenly towards him, and he was so flustered that he answered "Hear what I have got to say!"
"What's that?" they asked.
"Well, I should say that you ought to go East and have a look round. After all there is the side-door, and dragons must sleep sometimes, I suppose. If you sit on the doorstep long enough, I daresay you will think of something. And, don't you know, I think we have talked long enough for one night, if you see what I mean. What about bed, and an early start, and all that? I will give you a good breakfast before you go."
"Before we go, I suppose you mean," said Thorin. "Aren't you the burglar? And isn't sitting on the door-step your job, not to speak of getting inside the door."
Bilbo does not let events pass him by, which is how he gets stuck going on the journey. He has pride, and wants to appear wise and professional, so he interjects himself. He takes on the role of a professional burglar, if only for a while, and he asks about the deal. He makes suggestions about the journey and how to solve the problems. He even suggests bed and an early start. These actions not only help the reader understand the background of the quest, but reveal Bilbo's character and provide a reasonable reason for how he puts himself into trouble, that he later regrets. Bilbo drives the story forward and has agency in it because Bilbo is the main character.
I daresay you will not bother to read all of that, but it is there.
Your quoted passage doesn't in anyway address the issue that you brought up and I responded to, which was about the book going into detail about the nature of the Tooks and such, which isn't ever uttered out loud, but by written by the author. Even in the passage it isn't said out loud or done through action, but stated by the author as a bit of internal conflict within the character:
feeling all confused and a bit shaky inside, but still Tookishly determined to go on with things
As before I find your arguments petty, specious, and and almost wholly without merit, and nothing you have said has done anything to convince me otherwise.
From reading your opinion of the movie Weeble, it sounds like you don't like the movie because it's too unlike the book.
I mean we could discuss your various points about why it was bad, but we'll never really get anywhere. I didn't experience the same issues you did, nor have I met anyone yet who felt the same. Not to say that I'm calling you out for being wrong, it's just I don't quite feel qualified to argue because I flat out can't see or understand where your problems with the film are originating from.
weeble1000 wrote:a director self-assured enough to avoid making too frequent homages to his own films.
dude, it's set just 60 years before the war of the ring, in the same place, with several overlapping characters and plotlines- how could it not mention stuff in the lord of the rings?
10 full minutes of flashbacks provided the type of exposition that could easily have been delivered through a bit of brief dialogue. In fact, if the dwarves had simply sung the entire song about Smaug, the whole story would have been right there.
There has to be that bit of background as for why they'd go, which goes into a little more detail than in the full song (where it basically says "dragon killed dwarves, stole gold, destroyed Dale. We want gold back", including the Azog protagonist thing)
All of that overblown nonsense was apparently supposed to build up Thorin as a main character...in a movie titled The Hobbit, not Blood and Fire: The Revenge of Thorin. The Hobbit did not know what movie it wanted to be.
The hobbit isn't solely about Bilbo, you know- in fact, almost everything apart from the ring and the theft of the Arkenstone could be from Thorin's point of view. And that is the whole point- it's read in the form of Bilbo's book. A dwarf's hardly likely to write some memoirs, is he?
Parts of it were light-hearted, like a children's movie. That's fine. Some of the combat was comical, lightening the seriousness of an otherwise frightening scene. A++ good for a kids' movie. But at other times the movie was extremely serious and very frightening. Either way would have been fine, but not both. With both, it pisses on parents who bring their kids thinking the movie is going to be fine for them to watch, and ruins the tone of the film for mature viewers. It is self-defeating.
that's the thing- the hobbit is a mature children's book. So far, I can't see much a mature child would be frightened of- I watched the fellowship when I was five, and I loved it. It has several battle scenes, whether they're written in the book or altered to make the film more exciting, and there was no way to do that full-on child friendly.
Gandalf, Bilbo, and Thorin were in stiff competition for the audience's attention. Who was the main character? Who is the viewer supposed to identify with? It is supposed to be Bilbo, and that's an easy answer, but think about the movie for a minute. Bilbo is mostly just there, along for the ride, not unlike Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace.
People often make the mistake of thinking the main character is Bilbo, when it isn't. There is no main character, but several. Gandalf is the main character in the Necromancer stuff, Bilbo and Thorin are both main characters in the main storyline- it's like Aragorn and Frodo in the lord of the rings.
Bilbo decides, for example, to go on the journey for no apparent reason. He says no, explains precisely why he does not want to go in spite of Gandlaf's encouragement, and goes to bed. In the morning he has a snap decision to rush out and catch up to the dwarves, who, by the way, never tell him where they will be.
In the book, Bilbo traps himself into going on the journey. He is indignant about not being wanted. His Tookish side gets him into trouble, and Gandalf arrives in the morning to remind him of his commitment and give him "a little nudge out of the door." Perhaps that was a LotR movie reference PJ should have made.
In the film, Bilbo simply makes the decision for no reason that the audience is aware of. We don't even see the guy pack. He just runs out the door with contract in hand yelling about going on an adventure that when last we saw him he was not even conflicted about avoiding entirely.
I thought it was quite clear Bilbo's tookish side won over and he made a last-minute decision. Plus, it was the old days- I doubt there's more than one road going out in any one direction. Plus, he even mentions he packed in a hurry.
Normally I wouldn't requote such a large bit of text, but your responses need little reply.
Mature children's book? Have you read the thing? And it is not about the book it is about the muddled tone of the film.
I mean it as in, it's hardly in the style of proper children's books like Thomas the Tank engine- it's got wars, fighting and death in it. It's meant for children, but more for parents to read to them.
Bilbo is the main character of the book. There is no other main character. Bilbo is the only character that develops through the story. The Hobbit is a coming-of-age tale wherein Bilbo is the hero. There and back again. Every character in the book is flat and serves as a backdrop for Bilbo's development. And again, it is about the movie. When a movie does not have a clear protagonist there is a problem.
Every character in the book is flat- yes, because it's a children's book. They don't really care how in-depth the characters are.
Plus, I already pointed out, it's not all about Bilbo. He's just one of the gang, Thorin is really the main character, it's just told from Bilbo's point of view, like the lord of the rings. (Aragorn could easily have been the main character)
In LotR, everyone's actions support Frodo. The movie starts with Frodo, Frodo makes his own decisions. He decides to carry the ring to Bree. He decides to carry the ring to Mordor. He decides to utilize Golum, etc. etc. The other characters support a quest that he embarked on. That he accepted responsibility for, knowing the dangers. Aragorn has a storyline, sure, but like Han Solo, Arogorn's story arc supports and drive forward the main character for the most part. And one can actually criticize the Star Wars trilogy for having progressively more complex plot lines.
TBH, frodo spent almost the entire trilogy wanting to be home, and almost all of it after amon hen was decided on the fly. and of course everyone supported Frodo- if he dies, the world ends and all the free peoples of middle earth will be destroyed or enslaved. If Bilbo dies, all the dwarves know is they'll need another burglar.
Plus, I have to say, I agree with just about everything rogers and ahtman said- it's mostly aimed at those who read the book who know what's going on, but PJ does a pretty good job making it accessible for those who haven't.
Necroshea wrote:From reading your opinion of the movie Weeble, it sounds like you don't like the movie because it's too unlike the book.
I mean we could discuss your various points about why it was bad, but we'll never really get anywhere. I didn't experience the same issues you did, nor have I met anyone yet who felt the same. Not to say that I'm calling you out for being wrong, it's just I don't quite feel qualified to argue because I flat out can't see or understand where your problems with the film are originating from.
Srs doe. Frodo nor Aragorn nor any of the Fellowship are the main characters of LOTR. The main character, is quite aptly, the ring itself. Even Tolkien acknowlegded this in several of the biograpies of him I have read. However, providing a source is beyond me as this is on my phone and I am lazy.
weeble1000 wrote:a director self-assured enough to avoid making too frequent homages to his own films.
dude, it's set just 60 years before the war of the ring, in the same place, with several overlapping characters and plotlines- how could it not mention stuff in the lord of the rings?
10 full minutes of flashbacks provided the type of exposition that could easily have been delivered through a bit of brief dialogue. In fact, if the dwarves had simply sung the entire song about Smaug, the whole story would have been right there.
There has to be that bit of background as for why they'd go, which goes into a little more detail than in the full song (where it basically says "dragon killed dwarves, stole gold, destroyed Dale. We want gold back", including the Azog protagonist thing)
All of that overblown nonsense was apparently supposed to build up Thorin as a main character...in a movie titled The Hobbit, not Blood and Fire: The Revenge of Thorin. The Hobbit did not know what movie it wanted to be.
The hobbit isn't solely about Bilbo, you know- in fact, almost everything apart from the ring and the theft of the Arkenstone could be from Thorin's point of view. And that is the whole point- it's read in the form of Bilbo's book. A dwarf's hardly likely to write some memoirs, is he?
Parts of it were light-hearted, like a children's movie. That's fine. Some of the combat was comical, lightening the seriousness of an otherwise frightening scene. A++ good for a kids' movie. But at other times the movie was extremely serious and very frightening. Either way would have been fine, but not both. With both, it pisses on parents who bring their kids thinking the movie is going to be fine for them to watch, and ruins the tone of the film for mature viewers. It is self-defeating.
that's the thing- the hobbit is a mature children's book. So far, I can't see much a mature child would be frightened of- I watched the fellowship when I was five, and I loved it. It has several battle scenes, whether they're written in the book or altered to make the film more exciting, and there was no way to do that full-on child friendly.
Gandalf, Bilbo, and Thorin were in stiff competition for the audience's attention. Who was the main character? Who is the viewer supposed to identify with? It is supposed to be Bilbo, and that's an easy answer, but think about the movie for a minute. Bilbo is mostly just there, along for the ride, not unlike Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace.
People often make the mistake of thinking the main character is Bilbo, when it isn't. There is no main character, but several. Gandalf is the main character in the Necromancer stuff, Bilbo and Thorin are both main characters in the main storyline- it's like Aragorn and Frodo in the lord of the rings.
Bilbo decides, for example, to go on the journey for no apparent reason. He says no, explains precisely why he does not want to go in spite of Gandlaf's encouragement, and goes to bed. In the morning he has a snap decision to rush out and catch up to the dwarves, who, by the way, never tell him where they will be.
In the book, Bilbo traps himself into going on the journey. He is indignant about not being wanted. His Tookish side gets him into trouble, and Gandalf arrives in the morning to remind him of his commitment and give him "a little nudge out of the door." Perhaps that was a LotR movie reference PJ should have made.
In the film, Bilbo simply makes the decision for no reason that the audience is aware of. We don't even see the guy pack. He just runs out the door with contract in hand yelling about going on an adventure that when last we saw him he was not even conflicted about avoiding entirely.
I thought it was quite clear Bilbo's tookish side won over and he made a last-minute decision. Plus, it was the old days- I doubt there's more than one road going out in any one direction. Plus, he even mentions he packed in a hurry.
Albatross wrote: I loved it. I even got quite emotional in places. Childhood memories, and all that.
aye, same here- quotes from the book- "in a hole in the ground..."
Yes mate! That was the exact part! I was literally choked up, remembering sitting with my sister as my mum read us it by candlelight when we were tiny...
Hey ya'all, went to see The Hobbit last night with my wife, her sister and her sister's husband. Now obviously i was looking forward to it as a fan of fantasy and sci fi so i'm probably biased, the others are not, in fact my wife only semi understands/tolerates our hobby but they all wanted to go see it as a pre christmas treat and a night away from the kids.
I loved it, my wife and her sister thought it was great, even my brother-in-law who is all about cars and engines and other obviously manly things and who had previously claimed before we went in to the cinema that he didn't like the LoTR movies and would take a 3 hour long nap came away saying, and i quote, ''yeah, you know what, i quite liked that''
High praise indeed
Yeah OK after the flashback start showing Erebor getting invaded by Smaug which was well cool, the movie slowed way down, i thought the introduction of the dwarfs part a tad overlong, but with that out of the way the movie got back on track. I loved the aerial shots of the company out on their journey, so reminiscent of the LoTR and showcasing NZ great landscapes. Now its been about 15 years or more since i last read The Hobbit but to my mind it was pretty faithfull to the book, yes i know some scenes have been re-arranged for purposes of fluidity and dropping hints as to what might occur later in the story but thats for the benefit of the layman who has no knowledge of Middle Earth.
Some parts were mildly humorous, there was nothing too cringe worthy or completely unrealistic (its fantasy remember, lets take it with a pinch of salt), the action was cool, especially the escape from Goblin Town which i suppose is the stand out 'movie action sequence', all in all i thought it was all i thought it would be; a good fantasy genre movie.
One thing that made me laugh though was when it ended my wife turned to me and was like ''what, is that it?'' she didn't realize it was part 1 of 3 even though i had told her told her previously that was the case, but then she was like ''och but i want to see what happens next'' and thats coming from someone who would rather go see a chick-flick so there you go...
VikingChild wrote: One thing that made me laugh though was when it ended my wife turned to me and was like ''what, is that it?'' she didn't realize it was part 1 of 3 even though i had told her told her previously that was the case, but then she was like ''och but i want to see what happens next'' and thats coming from someone who would rather go see a chick-flick so there you go...
Same thing happened with my wife. She forgot this was just part 1 and was thinking "The movie is almost over, how are they going to wrap this up so fast?"
Albatross wrote: I loved it. I even got quite emotional in places. Childhood memories, and all that.
aye, same here- quotes from the book- "in a hole in the ground..."
Yes mate! That was the exact part! I was literally choked up, remembering sitting with my sister as my mum read us it by candlelight when we were tiny...
The Hobbit and Redwall books can still get those reactions from me...
aye, seeing it in 2D, mostly it's the same, but a couple of shots (Bilbo's buttons, Gandalf's moth, Gollum's ring) looked a tad forced to look good in 3D, but you'd only really notice it if you were looking for it.
Generally the same experience, even looking at it after hearing you guy's C&C, and I love even more the little touches (like Ori trying to listen to Thorin with his ear-horn thing after being dropped off by the eagles, despite it being flat after being crushed by a goblin)
One, was the humor--most times it appeared so intentionally injected into the story--that it reminded me of a joke that needs to be explained or somewhat artificial (After the dinner scene, I was waiting for a fart joke). The dinner aside--as an example, the Goblin King's punchline death just seemed strange and out of place with the music/scene--and it made it hard to take the moment serious. The campfire fight scene echoed this as well.
Second--and I'm unsure what the term is--but several scenes 'appeared' to be scenes. It was almost like you could hear Jackson yelling "Action!" as the camera zoomed in--with everyone sitting/standing in their assigned spots. I think I might have noticed this as the Fellowship always seemed so natural to me. You just happened to have glimpse at something exciting happening--but it didn't feel like someone intentionally set the table for you.
And perhaps that's the overall disappointment I felt. Seemed like everything was being force fed to me (the humor, the reiteration on how morally altruistic hobbits are, how fun loving/courageous the dwarfs were, etc). Oh well--as someone that has had the Hobbit read to them as a small child and done the same with my own--I'm sure I'll buy the darn thing when it gets released.
To end on a good note--gah was it a gorgeous film or what? I think it's set the standard for CGI--just jaw dropping scenes (the cave riddles for example). Wowzer.
AgeOfEgos wrote:One, was the humor--most times it appeared so intentionally injected into the story--that it reminded me of a joke that needs to be explained or somewhat artificial (After the dinner scene, I was waiting for a fart joke). The dinner aside--as an example, the Goblin King's punchline death just seemed strange and out of place with the music/scene--and it made it hard to take the moment serious. The campfire fight scene echoed this as well.
I have to agree with you there, to some extent- some of the humourous moments were a bit forced, but I thought the trolls were okay, kind of stupid slapstick, three-stooges style. Plus, I felt the fighting there was really well put together and fluid- dwalin rolling to a crouch to avoid a troll, Fili running and jumping off his back to hack at a troll's arm as he held Kili up, little snippets like that really brought it together, and kind of made it it's own style- with the full-on armies, it's mostly wide, aerial shots, and with one-on-several it's normally side-on from medium distance- with the dwarves it was kind of met in the middle, with a bit of both, especially in goblin town.
Second--and I'm unsure what the term is--but several scenes 'appeared' to be scenes. It was almost like you could hear Jackson yelling "Action!" as the camera zoomed in--with everyone sitting/standing in their assigned spots. I think I might have noticed this as the Fellowship always seemed so natural to me. You just happened to have glimpse at something exciting happening--but it didn't feel like someone intentionally set the table for you.
Eh, I didn't really mind that- they make for the more iconic snapshots of the film which stick in your mind- in a circle in Rivendell, Thorin on the tree trunk, the dwarves around the table etc.
^Please use actual quotes instead of injecting bright blue words into other peoples' quotes.
Does anyone else think the introduction of the pale orc was contrived and unnessesary? Seems pointless to add in an antagonist for no good reason, and someone that we know will fail and die anyway.
Testify wrote:^Please use actual quotes instead of injecting bright blue words into other peoples' quotes.
Does anyone else think the introduction of the pale orc was contrived and unnessesary? Seems pointless to add in an antagonist for no good reason, and someone that we know will fail and die anyway.
It's far easier and quicker to just write inside the quote, and also uses less space on the post.
How many antagonists do you know which win in the end? Of course he will fail- it even says Azog dies in the book (or maybe in the appendices)
It makes Thorin more of the fighting guy- basically the Aragorn of the hobbit, and giving him a nemesis lets him show that.
I saw the movie in 3d last week and was blown away,my mate came along and even though he isn't really into this kind of movie he said it was class.I can't wait till the next part comes out.
I have one issue with that, it's not a realistic film, it's a fantasy film...
Yes the landscapes are real because the made up world is fairly earth based, it's not some alien planet with weird things.
And you can't really complain at the dwarfs not getting hurt in the film, it's like that in the book. S you should just complain about the book. Because its not a dark film, it's not too perilous (if that's a real word) but there is some real danger built up worth he trolls, in goblin town and on the trees, especially with the addition of Thorin going after that orc and Bilbo saving him. Also one moment with Radagast in his house. I think it's darker/not as child friendly as some make out, the main difference to LOTR in that way for me, is that it's not an end of the world kind of situation so it's not going to be as constant in its danger.
I have one issue with that, it's not a realistic film, it's a fantasy film...
Yes the landscapes are real because the made up world is fairly earth based, it's not some alien planet with weird things.
And you can't really complain at the dwarfs not getting hurt in the film, it's like that in the book. S you should just complain about the book. Because its not a dark film, it's not too perilous (if that's a real word) but there is some real danger built up worth he trolls, in goblin town and on the trees, especially with the addition of Thorin going after that orc and Bilbo saving him. Also one moment with Radagast in his house. I think it's darker/not as child friendly as some make out, the main difference to LOTR in that way for me, is that it's not an end of the world kind of situation so it's not going to be as constant in its danger.
There is a difference between fantasy and unrealistic stuff. The genre fantasy is not an excuse for unrealistc scenes.
And as I said in the review, in the books defence, it's just like that at times. So.... maybe the effort of making such an enormous film is a little wasted on it.
And if it's not meant for children, why does childish humor seem to pop up several times, and why are the fighting scenes made pg on purpose?
I found the movie ok, quite good at times, but some things just don't work.
Saw it yesterday (for some reason it came out over a week later in Oz... I don’t understand why) and here are my random thoughts:
1. I thought it was great fun. I enjoyed it all the way through. 2. I like the Dwarves, even if I couldn’t tell you who half of them were. I did eventually memorise all the Pod Racers from Episode 1, and every trooper from Aliens, so I think I’ll be able to learn the Dwarves after three films. 3. I love all the other ‘stuff’ that isn’t part of the main Hobbit book. I can’t wait to see where they go with the Necromancer/White Council plot. 4. Tied to the last one, I’m tired of all the reviews saying that the scene with the White Council should have been left out as it’s not important to the film. It is important to the film. Cutting the White Council would be like cutting Gandalf’s imprisonment in Orthanc in FOTR. You need to introduce your concepts before you expand upon them, and that’s exactly what the White Council scene did! 5. Martin Freeman is perfect as Bilbo. He is without a shadow of a doubt the best casting choice they made in this film. Richard Armitage as Thorin ‘Kill Joy’ Oakenshield is pretty cool too. His slow-mo walk through the fire (to the theme of the Nazgul, of all things) was amazing. 6. Radagast’s bunny sled was awesome! “I’d like to see them try!”. Never thought there’d be a LOTR film with what was essentially a car chase in it. 7. The Rock Giant bit was cool. 8. The riddles in the dark bit was great. I feel proud that I got the riddles myself!!!
The only two things I didn’t like were that a few of the long sweeping shots of NZ with the Dwarves just walking around became gratuitous. Some of them were unnecessary. And the Goblin King. He was too talkative for my liking. Didn’t strike me as a threatening bad guy. The way he died was funny.
And it’s kinda sad having Balin in the film, knowing his eventual fate.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Saw it yesterday (for some reason it came out over a week later in Oz... I don’t understand why) and here are my random thoughts:
Because the idiots here saw that lots of people go see movies on Boxing Day, and so decided that not letting people go see movies before Boxing Day would improve their bottom line. After all, it's not like their cinemas have a finite seating capacity, is it?
4. Tied to the last one, I’m tired of all the reviews saying that the scene with the White Council should have been left out as it’s not important to the film. It is important to the film. Cutting the White Council would be like cutting Gandalf’s imprisonment in Orthanc in FOTR. You need to introduce your concepts before you expand upon them, and that’s exactly what the White Council scene did!
That's only a compelling argument if you want Jackson to expand upon them. If you wanted to watch The Hobbit and not Jackson's nine hour Frankenhobbit, adding unwanted filler to set up more unwanted filler isn't much good.
AlexHolker wrote: Because the idiots here saw that lots of people go see movies on Boxing Day, and so decided that not letting people go see movies before Boxing Day would improve their bottom line. After all, it's not like their cinemas have a finite seating capacity, is it?
Or that the Internet doesn't exist.
When will the people responsible for these decisions in Australia (and this includes television stations) get it through their skulls that the Internet is a real thing, and the most passionate people are often the most impatient. When you air a new episode of Television Show X 7 days after its aired in the states, that's not 'fask tracking'. That's 'missing your window'. It's got to be on within 24 hours or it might as well not air at all.
Same applies to movies. You can hold them back for a few weeks so you can do a big boxing day release. The country the movie was filmed in, which is a few hours plane ride away, had it two weeks before us. There are LOTR fans crazy enough to go to NZ to see the film (and then go to Hobbiton before coming back). That just hurts the cinemas here.
That's only a compelling argument if you want Jackson to expand upon them. If you wanted to watch The Hobbit and not Jackson's nine hour Frankenhobbit, adding unwanted filler to set up more unwanted filler isn't much good.
But it's not filler. Nor is it padding, or whatever other euphemism you want to use. It's part of the story. Sure, it wasn't when the book was original written, but Tolkien went back and re-wrote the Hobbit to make it fit with the later LOTR books, and then he went and wrote the appendices to explain what Gandalf was doing during the moments he wasn't around in the Hobbit. It makes a more complete story, and allows it to breathe and cover two films (now three films).
I think stretching it to three films was a studio mandated bit of nonsense to ape what all the other studios are doing (splitting the final Harry Potter, Twlight and The Hunger Games books into two movies each), but in the case of the LOTR films, I don't see more of it as being a bad thing, especially when it gives PJ & Co. room to bring in all the extra material that would otherwise be left out.
Critics are all (insert appropriate naughty word)...
Well some of them are good, but too many just seem to be very pompous, over the top and some other word I can't think of. Too many reviews I have read just put me off the reviewer and not the film, after all it's the film you are going to enjoy not some guys review.most film reviewers probably get their job because they know a fair bit about film but are very articulate but not good enough to be proper journalists, I do a film course and I'd rather get the opinion of any of my lecturers than most reviewers. I think most people are smart enough to make their own sections about films, and I don't think reviewers probably do too much to put people off (or on) a film, sure some people might be 50/50 read a couple reviews and decide its not worth it, but I could have read 100 negative Hobbit reviews, I'd have still gone to see it.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:Luckly I am a big enough nerd that I was able to whisper the last few lines to my brother much to his annoyance.
same here, but to my friends
Also, to all those who are whining about extra white council stuff- this is PJ's last chance at entering middle earth. He's including all the stuff about the hobbit, then throwing in lots of other parts from Tolkien's lesser known works. If you want just the hobbit stuff, it's there anyway. This is expanding upon the lord of the rings in a way, giving more background to both the wizards and Sauron, and I don't see how you would complain about extra stuff.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:Luckly I am a big enough nerd that I was able to whisper the last few lines to my brother much to his annoyance.
same here, but to my friends
Also, to all those who are whining about extra white council stuff- this is PJ's last chance at entering middle earth. He's including all the stuff about the hobbit, then throwing in lots of other parts from Tolkien's lesser known works. If you want just the hobbit stuff, it's there anyway. This is expanding upon the lord of the rings in a way, giving more background to both the wizards and Sauron, and I don't see how you would complain about extra stuff.
He'll be back, they always come back... But this time it will probably just be a vacation or some such thing.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:Luckly I am a big enough nerd that I was able to whisper the last few lines to my brother much to his annoyance.
same here, but to my friends
Also, to all those who are whining about extra white council stuff- this is PJ's last chance at entering middle earth. He's including all the stuff about the hobbit, then throwing in lots of other parts from Tolkien's lesser known works. If you want just the hobbit stuff, it's there anyway. This is expanding upon the lord of the rings in a way, giving more background to both the wizards and Sauron, and I don't see how you would complain about extra stuff.
He'll be back, they always come back... But this time it will probably just be a vacation or some such thing.
There isn't really much else to come back to. The rest of the books edited by his son are collections of short stories that can't really be tied into movie series. Middle Earth is done on the big screen until the inevitable sci fi reboot in 5 years.
I absolutely love the end credits 'The Lonely Mountain Song'.
As for the appendicies material that was added. I loved it. It really helps to tie these films into the Lord of the Rings.
Sure the movie isn't 100% accurate to the books, but then this is Pete Jackson's version, just as HBO's Game of Thrones is DB Wiess' & David Benoiff's version of those books.
Books overall don't translate exactly onto the big screen. At least The Hobbit hasn't been butchered like the final Potter film/s were!
^ Completely agree, there. I'm deliberately not going to listen to that song, just so that when I do in however many year's time, I'll get all nostalgic about the time when I went to see it at the cinema
Well, one thing that the Hobbit did for me. It made me pull the Dwarves out of storage after watching those great scenes. I was practically picking out the Hammerers/Ironbreakers with the King in the opening scene, Miners with candles on their heads, Balin the Long-as-its-going-to-get-Beard, one Dwarf with a Slayer Mohawk and two weapons before he shaved it - just loved it. If LotR made people fall in love with elves, then I can hope the same for Dwarves. Now if only GW will update the Dwarf book, then I will be one happy camper.
I am definitely glad that a friend told me that it would be better to not think of the LotR in terms of comparison between the movies, and judge it based upon its own character. Probably was the best advice going into the movie.
Goldshield wrote: Well, one thing that the Hobbit did for me. It made me pull the Dwarves out of storage after watching those great scenes. I was practically picking out the Hammerers/Ironbreakers with the King in the opening scene, Miners with candles on their heads, Balin the Long-as-its-going-to-get-Beard, one Dwarf with a Slayer Mohawk and two weapons before he shaved it - just loved it. If LotR made people fall in love with elves, then I can hope the same for Dwarves. Now if only GW will update the Dwarf book, then I will be one happy camper.
I am definitely glad that a friend told me that it would be better to not think of the LotR in terms of comparison between the movies, and judge it based upon its own character. Probably was the best advice going into the movie.
I completely agree here- One thing I can't wait for is now GW's gonna have to release the dwarves with shields and spears- you see, though I like just about everything about the dwarves apart from the models- the dwarves' whole aesthetic is angularity- runes, axes, stone carving. Then the models are all circle shields and rounded helmets. These dwarves I love- all octagonal shields and gimli-style helmets.
AlexHolker wrote:That's only a compelling argument if you want Jackson to expand upon them. If you wanted to watch The Hobbit and not Jackson's nine hour Frankenhobbit, adding unwanted filler to set up more unwanted filler isn't much good.
Am what? Clearly you know nothing of Tolkein if you think the White Council stuff is filler. If you weren't into the books even that's fine, but don't talk about them then like you know them. I would suggest reading all of the appropriate material, and then you will see how fundamentally important the White Council appendices stuff is.
Why do you think Gandalf is helping Thorin out on this quest? Do you think an uncorrupted Maiar has an interest in gold? Initially Gandalf turns down Thorin as he thinks the quest is just dwarven greed, but changes his mind later after Sauron returns. Gandalf is there solely to kill Smaug so he cannot join forces with Sauron, and Gandalf has been planning this for a long time; he pushes the council at that time specifically so that Smaug and the Necromancer cannot come to each others' aid at the time of the joint assaults on them. If the audience, like readers of the book, have no knowledge of Sauron as the Necromancer, then this makes no sense (which was fine for 6yr olds way back when). Even in the book Thorin pushes to go after the Necromancer also, but Gandalf rejects the idea as he has his plan already laid out. It is also important because otherwise you have one of the main characters disappearing randomly without any explanation throughout the film, which has red flags all over it (and did in the book as well). Basically without all of that, Gandalf has no purpose in the story whatsoever, and comes across as nothing but their get out of jail free card, which obviously gets annoying unless he has another purpose to be there.
And that's the short version of the explanation.
Not wanting to see this stuff is your opinion and you are very entitled to it, but calling it filler and acting like it doesn't belong in the film is ignorant at best.
I stick by my original analysis that it is the fans of the book that really have enjoyed this movie mostly, and that those who didn't read it but saw Lord of the Rings that mostly didn't, which is amusing as adaptations usually get the reaction the other way around.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:Luckly I am a big enough nerd that I was able to whisper the last few lines to my brother much to his annoyance.
same here, but to my friends
Also, to all those who are whining about extra white council stuff- this is PJ's last chance at entering middle earth. He's including all the stuff about the hobbit, then throwing in lots of other parts from Tolkien's lesser known works. If you want just the hobbit stuff, it's there anyway. This is expanding upon the lord of the rings in a way, giving more background to both the wizards and Sauron, and I don't see how you would complain about extra stuff.
He'll be back, they always come back... But this time it will probably just be a vacation or some such thing.
There isn't really much else to come back to. The rest of the books edited by his son are collections of short stories that can't really be tied into movie series. Middle Earth is done on the big screen until the inevitable sci fi reboot in 5 years.
Sorry, it was more of a comment that Peter Jackson would travel to New Zealand...
Overall rather enjoyable. Best movie I have seen this year. Some corny stupid parts that I would only expect to see in the next "Scary Movie" but I digress.
Some funny parts, great steady flow of action, great music, great work on all the details in the movie scroll work on the wood frames and joint work. They must have had someone with obsessive compulsive behavior to be in charge with all the details. Enjoyed and appreciated the background stuff, such as Oakenshield's name.
The one thing that really disturbed me was the troll king's chin. They looked liked testicals.
Good film, probably could have been better if the girl next to me didn't start crying when she thought Thorin died.
Downright amazing movie. 48 fps is breath-taking. The troll scene was too goofy and the scene where Gandalf killed the Goblin King by poking his eye with his staff was gak. The amazing down-ride scene made up for it though.
The Hobbit was a great movie, but did it live up to the hype?
No.
I thought it was a good film all and all and Peter Jackson uses a combination of CGI and real life to his advantage to create a nice scenery that rivalled any other uses of CGI I have seen up to this point. The plot was great and Peter Jackson knew how to adapt and took time to make this film. The writing was really fascinating and it felt quite good. The Soundtrack was to die for (I loved how Jackson used the theme song off of Age of Empires and made it even better) and Golem scene was some of the best acting I've seen to date. The actors knew their job was to create a Fantasy element and I thought that they did a marvellous job of pulling it off and almost captured the Fantasy element.
But this is where the positive stops. As hard as it is, from my perspective it didn't capture that fantasy element. It didn't focus on the main element of the film: The Hobbit, Gandalf and the Dwarfs, but instead I thought they were drowned out by the actual scenery and the feel of the movie and I felt as if it diluted the plot and story.
It also didn't take that time to study the characters and their interactions, instead Jackson used too much fighting and not enough story and developing the characters.
There's a line between Real-life Fantasy and non-believable Fantasy and I think Jackson crossed that line a fraction. A way he crossed the line was when the Dwarf (Oaken Shield guy) got smashed beyond the point of life and died, and yet he came back. Another is when they found themselves in the middle of a Stone Giant battle and not one of them died and the same with Goblin Town.
Other than that, it was a great movie.
My rating system is with 3 stars for scenery, plot, characters, atmosphere and believability giving me a rating of 15 overall.
I give it 3 for scenery, 2 for plot, 2 for characters, 3 for atmosphere and 2 for believability, giving me a rating of 12/15
I was hoping after one of my favourite movie trilogy Peter Jackson would once again live up to the hype but it just wasn't there and it really has got to be a movie seen in the cinemas to have the best experience.
The part where they slid down the caverns on some wood and the rock giants bit stood out as stretching credulity a bit too far for me actually. They are heroes, and we don't expect them to come to harm, but they'd have to both be nearly indestructible and insanely lucky not to have suffered any injuries at all from either. The bit in the caves was just an extended part of the action, it didn't need to be that overblown. The bit with the rock giants just seemed to be there to show off the CGI and could be cut from the film entirely.
baxter123 wrote:The actors knew their job was to create a Fantasy element and I thought that they did a marvellous job of pulling it off and almost captured the Fantasy element.
from my perspective it didn't capture that fantasy element.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The part where they slid down the caverns on some wood and the rock giants bit stood out as stretching credulity a bit too far for me actually. They are heroes, and we don't expect them to come to harm, but they'd have to both be nearly indestructible and insanely lucky not to have suffered any injuries at all from either. The bit in the caves was just an extended part of the action, it didn't need to be that overblown. The bit with the rock giants just seemed to be there to show off the CGI and could be cut from the film entirely.
Okay, having read a couple pages of this thread, I don't know what movie people were watching, but I think it was one that only resembled the one I watched...
The script felt like it was (and probably was)written by committee: no sense of flow; kids' comedy followed by gratuitous violence; ridiculous archetypes.
There's absolutely no reason a 3-hour movie should feel padded: you bring 1.5 hours up to 2, not 2 up to 3. The pacing dragged interminably, and, as with all (recent) Peter Jackson movies, it's 3 hours long, and will likely have a 4th on DVD.
The additions were, by and large, groan (or, occasionally, laugh)-worthy. Suffice to say that I could have died happy never having seen a rabbit sled pulling a hackneyed drug reference through a disney forest.
The film was neither consistent with the feel of (the book) the Hobbit (too dark and combat-oriented) nor the original movie trilogy (too technicolor and silly).
Which brings me to the next point: 3D gives me a headache, so I watched it in ol' fashioned 2D, which made it clear how much it's just meant for 3D- the muted tones and brooding feel of the first trilogy (a step shy of "Look out, Bilbo! yo-yo's!")
One good thing came out of it, though-- my earlier moderate dissatisfaction with the LotR adaptation has become moderate respect. After seeing this, I look back and see what could have been done to books I like more than the Hobbit. I didn't agree with some of the choices in LotR, but that's not the same as watching this soulless shell of a movie.
Oh, and, yes, there were about 10 minutes of the movie I genuinely liked, and Martin Freeman did a solid performance, but that's not enough for me to sit through the rest of those 3 hours of garbage
spiralingcadaver wrote:The film was neither consistent with the feel of (the book) the Hobbit (too dark and combat-oriented) nor the original movie trilogy (too technicolor and silly).
wow, it's really not that bad- sure, it has it's flaws, but you have to understand with your complaints of too much grimdark and violence, or too childish- it's a children's book, adapted for film. Now, there's no way the hobbit can be 100%, U-rated and child-friendly with the killing of goblins and a dark evil necromancer threatening to destroy all that is good in the world, just like there's no way it can be 100% brooding and dark, what with it being a children's book.
I'm not even going to dignify the other points about 3D and padding with a response, seeing as it's been talked about numerous times before.
and, again, I've already said several times, if you go into the cinema expecting lord of the rings: the prequel, you're not going to like it- it's as simple as that. It's completely different- the only way they're the same is a few characters (Gollum, Gandalf, the ring) and the world it's set in (middle earth). The lord of the rings is an adult book, so of course it's going to be more serious than a children's book, which, by necessity, needs humour and light-heartedness.
spiralingcadaver wrote: Okay, having read a couple pages of this thread, I don't know what movie people were watching, but I think it was one that only resembled the one I watched...
The script felt like it was (and probably was)written by committee: no sense of flow; kids' comedy followed by gratuitous violence; ridiculous archetypes.
There's absolutely no reason a 3-hour movie should feel padded: you bring 1.5 hours up to 2, not 2 up to 3. The pacing dragged interminably, and, as with all (recent) Peter Jackson movies, it's 3 hours long, and will likely have a 4th on DVD.
The additions were, by and large, groan (or, occasionally, laugh)-worthy. Suffice to say that I could have died happy never having seen a rabbit sled pulling a hackneyed drug reference through a disney forest.
The film was neither consistent with the feel of (the book) the Hobbit (too dark and combat-oriented) nor the original movie trilogy (too technicolor and silly).
Which brings me to the next point: 3D gives me a headache, so I watched it in ol' fashioned 2D, which made it clear how much it's just meant for 3D- the muted tones and brooding feel of the first trilogy (a step shy of "Look out, Bilbo! yo-yo's!")
One good thing came out of it, though-- my earlier moderate dissatisfaction with the LotR adaptation has become moderate respect. After seeing this, I look back and see what could have been done to books I like more than the Hobbit. I didn't agree with some of the choices in LotR, but that's not the same as watching this soulless shell of a movie.
Oh, and, yes, there were about 10 minutes of the movie I genuinely liked, and Martin Freeman did a solid performance, but that's not enough for me to sit through the rest of those 3 hours of garbage
Yeah it's like a really long bedtime story; First, it's obviously for kids (childish humor, ridiculous combat scenes with not a drop of blood), second it doesn't really make sense all the time (those dwarfs should have been dead a dozen times each from all the beating they took) and third the story is really simple, not at all complex. They're just going on an old fashioned adventure, walking through some pretty scenery, killing the bad guys and trying to be funny. No complex character development, moral questions, anything!
Sure it's pretty to look at, but it's nowhere near the masterpiece people are making of it!
MrMerlin wrote: Yeah it's like a really long bedtime story; First, it's obviously for kids (childish humor, ridiculous combat scenes with not a drop of blood), second it doesn't really make sense all the time (those dwarfs should have been dead a dozen times each from all the beating they took) and third the story is really simple, not at all complex. They're just going on an old fashioned adventure, walking through some pretty scenery, killing the bad guys and trying to be funny. No complex character development, moral questions, anything!
Sure it's pretty to look at, but it's nowhere near the masterpiece people are making of it!
well, I admit, it is childish in the fight scenes and the main plot's quite simple, but there's also the white council stuff, which complicates it, and the cast isn't 100% two-dimensional- Thorin, Gandalf and Bilbo spring to mind, and I'm sure we'll have a couple more (Beorn maybe?).
MrMerlin wrote: Yeah it's like a really long bedtime story; First, it's obviously for kids (childish humor, ridiculous combat scenes with not a drop of blood), second it doesn't really make sense all the time (those dwarfs should have been dead a dozen times each from all the beating they took) and third the story is really simple, not at all complex. They're just going on an old fashioned adventure, walking through some pretty scenery, killing the bad guys and trying to be funny. No complex character development, moral questions, anything!
Sure it's pretty to look at, but it's nowhere near the masterpiece people are making of it!
well, I admit, it is childish in the fight scenes and the main plot's quite simple, but there's also the white council stuff, which complicates it, and the cast isn't 100% two-dimensional- Thorin, Gandalf and Bilbo spring to mind, and I'm sure we'll have a couple more (Beorn maybe?).
Ok maybe I'm being a bit overly critical (subconciously, to compensate for all the overkill praise it's received) It's an okay movie, with a few flaws, and I might see it again if I don't have to pay for it, because the visuals were nice. But I'm more than a little annyoed by the large amount of people who say it's the best movie of all time... which it really, really isn't. I gave it a 6/10 on imdb, and imho it doesn't deserve an average of 8.6
MrMerlin wrote: Ok maybe I'm being a bit overly critical (subconciously, to compensate for all the overkill praise it's received) It's an okay movie, with a few flaws, and I might see it again if I don't have to pay for it, because the visuals were nice. But I'm more than a little annyoed by the large amount of people who say it's the best movie of all time... which it really, really isn't. I gave it a 6/10 on imdb, and imho it doesn't deserve an average of 8.6
Well, I don't think it's the best film of all time (not even my favourite), but I'd give it a solid 8 out of 10- if it didn't have the little moments like the riding down the slope in goblin town, cut out the rivendell knights or made the goblin king a little more frightening (he just seemed like an obnoxious ruler, rather than an almighty warlord), then it'd be a 9. To me, those parts seem like they should be in the extended edition- they're quite nice and all, but don't really add anything).
MrMerlin wrote: subconciously, to compensate for all the overkill praise it's received
I didn't realize 65% on Rotten Tomatoes was considered 'overkill praise'. Plus isn't, essentially, being mean because others are being nice a bit of an odd reason to slam something?
MrMerlin wrote: subconciously, to compensate for all the overkill praise it's received
I didn't realize 65% on Rotten Tomatoes was considered 'overkill praise'. Plus isn't, essentially, being mean because others are being nice a bit of an odd reason to slam something?
Maybe I was kidding? Don't worry, I'm not slamming it because so many others are loving it, dude.
I don't think it was the best movie of the year, hell, Avengers was better (the best this year!). Batman too, even though the third Batman was overshadowed by Ledger's role/death in the second. I did think that The Hobbit was better than LOTR pt 1 though. I've seen both, and The Hobbit is superior. Which makes a degree of sense, as The Hobbit is Jackson's 4th Tolkien movie, while FOTR was his first. It should get better with time.
timetowaste85 wrote: I don't think it was the best movie of the year, hell, Avengers was better (the best this year!). Batman too, even though the third Batman was overshadowed by Ledger's role/death in the second. I did think that The Hobbit was better than LOTR pt 1 though. I've seen both, and The Hobbit is superior. Which makes a degree of sense, as The Hobbit is Jackson's 4th Tolkien movie, while FOTR was his first. It should get better with time.
I'm kind of on the fence about whether I prefer the fellowship or unexpected journey- I think Jackson introduced the story better in the hobbit, but the fight scenes, though awesome, are just a tad too unrealistic for my liking (plus Boromir's death is badass as hell), but I'm a sucker for camaraderie, and there is spades of it in the hobbit (plus I much prefer Martin to Elijah, much more likeable and three-dimensional (no joke intended).
One, was the humor--most times it appeared so intentionally injected into the story--that it reminded me of a joke that needs to be explained or somewhat artificial (After the dinner scene, I was waiting for a fart joke). The dinner aside--as an example, the Goblin King's punchline death just seemed strange and out of place with the music/scene--and it made it hard to take the moment serious. The campfire fight scene echoed this as well.
Second--and I'm unsure what the term is--but several scenes 'appeared' to be scenes. It was almost like you could hear Jackson yelling "Action!" as the camera zoomed in--with everyone sitting/standing in their assigned spots. I think I might have noticed this as the Fellowship always seemed so natural to me. You just happened to have glimpse at something exciting happening--but it didn't feel like someone intentionally set the table for you.
And perhaps that's the overall disappointment I felt. Seemed like everything was being force fed to me (the humor, the reiteration on how morally altruistic hobbits are, how fun loving/courageous the dwarfs were, etc). Oh well--as someone that has had the Hobbit read to them as a small child and done the same with my own--I'm sure I'll buy the darn thing when it gets released.
To end on a good note--gah was it a gorgeous film or what? I think it's set the standard for CGI--just jaw dropping scenes (the cave riddles for example). Wowzer.
Saw it last night (normal 3D). It was good but not great. I didn't really like any of the injected portions that were nonHobbit related. I didn't get the Azog thing, and kept wondering why the ork/goblins looked so different than LOTR. The Azog thing REALLY undercut the Hobbit stuff. You could tell they were all computerized. I really did like the initial scene with Dwarves and Smaug, and gollum was excellently done.
Although I liked Radagast in LOTR I didn't like him much. Too much comic relief.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: ^Please use actual quotes instead of injecting bright blue words into other peoples' quotes.
Does anyone else think the introduction of the pale orc was contrived and unnessesary? Seems pointless to add in an antagonist for no good reason, and someone that we know will fail and die anyway.
btr75 wrote: The series should have been one movie, or two tops, and shorter movies.
I felt like the chase through the goblin caves was too cartoonish. Then when they fight bigger orcs it gets all serious.
However, overall I liked the movie well enough. The beginning with Erabor and the Shire was cool imho.
Well, if you add in the white council and the in-depth stuff about Erebor and Thorin, 3 films isn't really that much- Jackson had to cram in lord of the rings to 3 films, and could have easily made it 5 or 6 films- with the hobbit, he has the same amount of time and budget money with a much smaller book, so he can afford to take his time doing it all, which is, to me, not only fine, but a good thing.
the whole goblin town scene wasn't cartoonish- I think by that you mean childish- and I'll say this as many times as I have to- the hobbit is a CHILDREN'S BOOK. Having 100% realism and blood and guts spilling everywhere isn't suited to the target audience, which is younger than the lord of the rings was.
The comparison between the goblin and the orc fights isn't bad directing, or trying to be two things at once- the goblins are shown to be weaker, but make up for it with sheer numbers, while the orcs are kind of shown as being an even match for the dwarves, and so the fights are more serious. Plus, Thorin is mortally wounded. He can hardly get that badly hurt by the main antagonist in an almost comically childish fight, can he?
If you are complaining about the Hobbit having too much light humor you obviously havn't read the book. Its quite a lighthearted book.
I think it perfectly captured the book's feel and everything.
I liked the addition of Azog. Yes its a change but a good one. Its the addition of more of the background fluff that you really have to dig deep for normally.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: The part where they slid down the caverns on some wood and the rock giants bit stood out as stretching credulity a bit too far for me actually. They are heroes, and we don't expect them to come to harm, but they'd have to both be nearly indestructible and insanely lucky not to have suffered any injuries at all from either. The bit in the caves was just an extended part of the action, it didn't need to be that overblown. The bit with the rock giants just seemed to be there to show off the CGI and could be cut from the film entirely.
Except the Storm Giants were a part of the book that was totally awsome.
Grey Templar wrote: Except the Storm Giants were a part of the book that was totally awsome.
well, in the book the stone giants were throwing the boulders playfully, while in the film they're having a full-on fight, though that's a good thing- having ridiculously huge monsters messing around is going a bit too far into kid's territory.
I just went to see it with my girlfriend. I originally read the Hobbit when I was nine or ten and read the Lord of the Rings soon afterwards. They were my introduction to fantasy.
I enjoyed PJ's LOTR trilogy, though I felt the first film was the strongest, keeping the essentials of the story and the characters while converting it for screen by cutting things that wouldn't work. I hope I am not a rabid fanboy who expects it to be word for word the same as the book, I just expect the same essential message or tone to be set.
For that reason, I hated the Two Towers when I saw it first, and only was able to like it after a few re-watches. To my mind, the changes to Faramir, the addition of elves at Helms Deep, and the cutting of the excellent cliffhanger ending were big mistakes.
I expected some mistakes to be made with the Hobbit, and I expected some padding. But what really got me: - Platformer fight scenes- so many times I was watching these ludicrous platform game style fight scenes and thinking "I am totally out of the movie now, this is stupid". - Gandalf having "set" powers. So, Gandalf breaks rock in FOTR and summons an Eagle for help using a moth, and can be big and scary and make bright lights. Okay. But now, he has Break Rock, Level 2 and Summon Plot Device, Level 6. They seem to have tried to jam in ways to make his magic more codified and linked to what was in LOTR. I felt that was pretty lazy writing and I wasn' impressed. - Padding. Well, I was expecting the white council stuff and I'm happy for it to be there, to provide a wider context. I have an issue with how it was done. The bunny sled was too far, for me. Radagast showing up in the middle of the dwarves trek and the benny hill chase scene was awful. Just in general, the way it was handled was ham fisted. Likewise, Azog was a pretty terrible bad guy and the way he was involved was really pretty bad. - Character changes: The alterations to Bilbos character are irritating, making him pointlessly more indecisive and also pointlessly more aggressive and fighty to add "drama". It could have been done much more subtly, if they had to do it. As it was, it was incredibly ham fisted and groan-worthy. Thorin was also altered, and not in a good way, as were the dwarves, in a more subtle way. Freeman was largely wasted as he was underused and made to act in nonsensical ways.
My last point is about tone. This film didn't know if it was an action romp along the lines of pirates of the Caribbean, a comedy, or a serious drama. It chopped and changed way too much and ruined any semblance of flow or coherence the film might have had.
All of this is a shame because they did a lot right. The costumes and casting is great, making the dwarves visually distinctive was a great move, the idea of including the council plotline is not bad if it were handled well. I just feel like they've taken flaws and hubris from their adaption of the LOTR and magnified them massively. Not impressed.
I don't recall them all clinging onto their legs when the stone giants were 'playing' though. I thought it was seen from afar rather than posing a direct and serious threat.
Da Boss wrote: But what really got me:
- Platformer fight scenes- so many times I was watching these ludicrous platform game style fight scenes and thinking "I am totally out of the movie now, this is stupid".
kinda covered this before- it's appealing to the younger audience, but it's pushing it a bit too much.
- Gandalf having "set" powers. So, Gandalf breaks rock in FOTR and summons an Eagle for help using a moth, and can be big and scary and make bright lights. Okay. But now, he has Break Rock, Level 2 and Summon Plot Device, Level 6. They seem to have tried to jam in ways to make his magic more codified and linked to what was in LOTR. I felt that was pretty lazy writing and I wasn' impressed.
I prefer to see that as nods back to the lord of the rings rather than PJ not being bothered to come up with something new, though the "big and scary" thing did seem unnecessary.
- Padding. Well, I was expecting the white council stuff and I'm happy for it to be there, to provide a wider context. I have an issue with how it was done. The bunny sled was too far, for me. Radagast showing up in the middle of the dwarves trek and the benny hill chase scene was awful. Just in general, the way it was handled was ham fisted.
Again, younger audience, but, to some, too far.
Likewise, Azog was a pretty terrible bad guy and the way he was involved was really pretty bad.
I quite like how he was introduced, though him hanging out with his cronies at night and killing the messenger was clichéd and kind of shoving "THIS GUY IS EVIL" down the audience's throat.
- Character changes: The alterations to Bilbos character are irritating, making him pointlessly more indecisive and also pointlessly more aggressive and fighty to add "drama". It could have been done much more subtly, if they had to do it. As it was, it was incredibly ham fisted and groan-worthy. Thorin was also altered, and not in a good way, as were the dwarves, in a more subtle way. Freeman was largely wasted as he was underused and made to act in nonsensical ways.
I loved Bilbo the whole way through- he's exactly like how I'd imagined him. If the hobbit was one film, I don't think he should have saved Thorin from Azog (eagles should have came instead), but as a divide, Thorin thanking Bilbo was a good note to end the first film on.
My last point is about tone. This film didn't know if it was an action romp along the lines of pirates of the Caribbean, a comedy, or a serious drama. It chopped and changed way too much and ruined any semblance of flow or coherence the film might have had.
Well, that's it- it's an adventure, and of course with Bilbo and 13 dwarves (and appealing to a younger audience) it has to have some comedy- action's there because of two reasons- one, there are fight scenes. How else is Jackson going to film a fight scene apart from filming, well, a fight scene? And two, there has to be something to keep the audience watching- sometimes, trekking around a beautiful landscape with a few laughs thrown in just doesn't cut it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't recall them all clinging onto their legs when the stone giants were 'playing' though. I thought it was seen from afar rather than posing a direct and serious threat.
true, they did see them do it, rather than be directly involved- it's more an excuse to add some epic shots and add more peril to the adventure (and also gives Bilbo a kind of "last straw" which makes him want to leave.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't recall them all clinging onto their legs when the stone giants were 'playing' though. I thought it was seen from afar rather than posing a direct and serious threat.
They were seen from afar but they were definitly a danger. Thats why they took shelter in the cave IIRC.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't recall them all clinging onto their legs when the stone giants were 'playing' though. I thought it was seen from afar rather than posing a direct and serious threat.
They were seen from afar but they were definitly a danger. Thats why they took shelter in the cave IIRC.
Being on their legs was a fine alteration.
not a huge danger though- they were already annoyed about the wind and rain, then when the giants started hurling rocks at each other, the kind of went "feth this, let's go find a cave somewhere."
I have to say, though, when you realize that the mountainside you were just on was actually the legs of a sitting stone giant, you'd be a little cautious when entering any large holes.
infinite_array wrote: I have to say, though, when you realize that the mountainside you were just on was actually the legs of a sitting stone giant, you'd be a little cautious when entering any large holes.
infinite_array wrote: I have to say, though, when you realize that the mountainside you were just on was actually the legs of a sitting stone giant, you'd be a little cautious when entering any large holes.
necrovamp wrote: good film, shouldn't be called the hobbit though, they changed the story.
and what would you have called it? "14 guys go on an adventure to kill a dragon while their wizard friend discovers a malicious being risen from the dead and plots to stop him with his other wizard friends?" Somehow, not as catchy. The film is like 80% the hobbit, with a side plot (which is also canon) thrown in to both flesh out the film and the storyline. It isn't changing the storyline- it's adding a second one.
necrovamp wrote: good film, shouldn't be called the hobbit though, they changed the story.
and what would you have called it? "14 guys go on an adventure to kill a dragon while their wizard friend discovers a malicious being risen from the dead and plots to stop him with his other wizard friends?" Somehow, not as catchy.
The film is like 80% the hobbit, with a side plot (which is also canon) thrown in to both flesh out the film and the storyline. It isn't changing the storyline- it's adding a second one.
it's changing the hobbit to something else, i can understand dropping something, but the whole chase thing with the white ork, i would have preferred one or 2 films and cut that bit out. it sounds like their milking it dry as it is.
necrovamp wrote: good film, shouldn't be called the hobbit though, they changed the story.
and what would you have called it? "14 guys go on an adventure to kill a dragon while their wizard friend discovers a malicious being risen from the dead and plots to stop him with his other wizard friends?" Somehow, not as catchy.
The film is like 80% the hobbit, with a side plot (which is also canon) thrown in to both flesh out the film and the storyline. It isn't changing the storyline- it's adding a second one.
it's changing the hobbit to something else, i can understand dropping something, but the whole chase thing with the white ork, i would have preferred one or 2 films and cut that bit out. it sounds like their milking it dry as it is.
It really isn't- it's taking a character who, in the book, only appears late on (maybe last third of the book), and put him in earlier. It gives Thorin more room to flesh out his character (as well as the whole storyline) and more opportunities for fight scenes which, by necessity, have to be in there.
necrovamp wrote: good film, shouldn't be called the hobbit though, they changed the story.
it's like doing war of the rolds then not actually following the story...oh wait, that happened too
To be honest, they really did need to change the story round a bit, although I have to admit that stretching it out into something the length of the LotR trilogy does seem a little excessive but still. The Hobbit, is, at its heart, a children's book - Tolkein wrote it for his grandkids after all and you can really get the sense of that when reading the book in comparison to the LotR trilogy. I think if Peter Jackson had stuck directly to the book the film wouldn't have been nearly as good, it would have appealed to less people, been taken less seriously and certainly not been up to the original standard. I think incorporating a lot of extra action, in the form of the extra fights and pursuits, the extra threat in the form of the necromancer and setting up the rivalry with Thorin and Azog was really beneficial to the film and the latter does leave you wondering how things will turn out. And, at the end of the day, Jackson hasn't made up all this extra stuff by himself, he's taken it all from Tolkein's works, like the Sillmarillon, so, really, he's just fleshed out the story line with some extras, most of which were going on at the time anyway.
necrovamp wrote: good film, shouldn't be called the hobbit though, they changed the story.
it's like doing war of the rolds then not actually following the story...oh wait, that happened too
To be honest, they really did need to change the story round a bit, although I have to admit that stretching it out into something the length of the LotR trilogy does seem a little excessive but still. The Hobbit, is, at its heart, a children's book - Tolkein wrote it for his grandkids after all and you can really get the sense of that when reading the book in comparison to the LotR trilogy. I think if Peter Jackson had stuck directly to the book the film wouldn't have been nearly as good, it would have appealed to less people, been taken less seriously and certainly not been up to the original standard. I think incorporating a lot of extra action, in the form of the extra fights and pursuits, the extra threat in the form of the necromancer and setting up the rivalry with Thorin and Azog was really beneficial to the film and the latter does leave you wondering how things will turn out. And, at the end of the day, Jackson hasn't made up all this extra stuff by himself, he's taken it all from Tolkein's works, like the Sillmarillon, so, really, he's just fleshed out the story line with some extras, most of which were going on at the time anyway.
necrovamp wrote: good film, shouldn't be called the hobbit though, they changed the story.
and what would you have called it? "14 guys go on an adventure to kill a dragon while their wizard friend discovers a malicious being risen from the dead and plots to stop him with his other wizard friends?" Somehow, not as catchy.
The film is like 80% the hobbit, with a side plot (which is also canon) thrown in to both flesh out the film and the storyline. It isn't changing the storyline- it's adding a second one.
it's changing the hobbit to something else, i can understand dropping something, but the whole chase thing with the white ork, i would have preferred one or 2 films and cut that bit out. it sounds like their milking it dry as it is.
It really isn't- it's taking a character who, in the book, only appears late on (maybe last third of the book), and put him in earlier. It gives Thorin more room to flesh out his character (as well as the whole storyline) and more opportunities for fight scenes which, by necessity, have to be in there.
Say you went to buy a hobbit model, and got a white orc instead. What would you do?
Say you went to see a film called the hobbit, and it should have been 'thorin gets chased by an orc for 3 hours'
I wanted the hobbit, jackson did good witht he LOTR, i was hoping he would with the hobbit, but it's not the hobbit according to the author, it's the hobbit according to corprate money making machines.
necrovamp wrote: good film, shouldn't be called the hobbit though, they changed the story.
and what would you have called it? "14 guys go on an adventure to kill a dragon while their wizard friend discovers a malicious being risen from the dead and plots to stop him with his other wizard friends?" Somehow, not as catchy.
The film is like 80% the hobbit, with a side plot (which is also canon) thrown in to both flesh out the film and the storyline. It isn't changing the storyline- it's adding a second one.
it's changing the hobbit to something else, i can understand dropping something, but the whole chase thing with the white ork, i would have preferred one or 2 films and cut that bit out. it sounds like their milking it dry as it is.
It really isn't- it's taking a character who, in the book, only appears late on (maybe last third of the book), and put him in earlier. It gives Thorin more room to flesh out his character (as well as the whole storyline) and more opportunities for fight scenes which, by necessity, have to be in there.
Say you went to buy a hobbit model, and got a white orc instead. What would you do?
Say you went to see a film called the hobbit, and it should have been 'thorin gets chased by an orc for 3 hours'
I wanted the hobbit, jackson did good witht he LOTR, i was hoping he would with the hobbit, but it's not the hobbit according to the author, it's the hobbit according to corprate money making machines.
Of course it isn't the hobbit according to the author, it's a film. Jackson didn't make any more changes from the author's work than he did with the lord of the rings. He added Azog earlier to give an antagonist straight away (as opposed to smaug who comes in after, what? 5 hours?), which wasn't necessary in the book, but is in the film. He added in the white council stuff to add to the plotline as to why gandalf's helping them, and ease the transition between the hobbit and the lord of the rings. Both additions are tweaking existing work, not mutilating it to fit onto the screen and earn a little extra cash.
Essentially, Tolkien added the material about the Necromancer to the Hobbit all by himself, not Peter Jackson. It's material that is firmly established as "this happens during the adventure in the Hobbit".
I refuse to see the White Orc as anything approaching misdirection about what is supposed to be in the Hobbit, or as some sort of underhanded mis-labelling of the title of the movie. It actually makes more sense to me than if the movie was made verbatim from the beginning-to- Eagles part of the book.
And as for arguments about other stuff, like the beginning scenes about the dragon, well, movies can't do what books can do, which is describe everything succinctly in a paragraph of background subtext.
i quite liked the beginning bit, it was well done, i wouldn't have minded the white orc bit, i enjoyed that, radaghst the brown irritated me, but i doubt i could warm to that character.
My bone of contention is that they sacked the first director and got jackson in. fair enough, maybe he wasnt doing a good enough job.
The produces told the actors there would be 2 films, and then state that there is enough material for 3 films. Sounds like they are trying to fit a 2 film story into 3 films just to make the money, or a trilogy, mmm
They then bring a case against little london pub for using the LOTR and the hobbit trademarks (aprently you cant name your beer gandalf beer, even if you have been using the name waay before the someone else)
Even some of the actors are anoyed at the produces making the film, most notably Stephen Fry.
all this basically tells me they are going trying to milk 'a franchise' instead of actually producing something that upholds the integrity of the orginal book.
I'm not saying it's a bad film, because I enjoyed it, but i don't think it is the direction that the hobbit films should have taken, they should have followed the real story closer.
necrovamp wrote:i can understand dropping something, but the whole chase thing with the white ork, i would have preferred one or 2 films and cut that bit out.
necrovamp wrote:i quite liked the beginning bit, it was well done, i wouldn't have minded the white orc bit, i enjoyed that
contradictory much?
necrovamp wrote:My bone of contention is that they sacked the first director and got jackson in. fair enough, maybe he wasnt doing a good enough job.
del Toro is a very good director, but it just wouldn't have gotten the same feel if Jackson hadn't done it (Plus, del Toro's the assistant director or some such- still involved, just not spearheading it).
necrovamp wrote:The produces told the actors there would be 2 films, and then state that there is enough material for 3 films. Sounds like they are trying to fit a 2 film story into 3 films just to make the money, or a trilogy, mmm
we've already covered this- they might have made two films but had to squeeze it a bit, but had the opportunity for three and having the leisure of pacing it (which they didn't have in LotR), so it's definitely not certain they're stretching it out for a quick buck (though, admittedly, that probably was a factor- just not the one and only reason).
necrovamp wrote:They then bring a case against little london pub for using the LOTR and the hobbit trademarks (aprently you cant name your beer gandalf beer, even if you have been using the name waay before the someone else)
Even some of the actors are anoyed at the produces making the film, most notably Stephen Fry.
not heard that story, but I can't blame Fry, that sucks. But just about every major copyright name has done similar- apple with samsung, the london olympics with various cafes and restaurants (the olympic cafe, little chef). I'm not saying that's an excuse "but everyone else is doing it!", I'm just saying people shouldn't solely target the hobbit, because they're not the only ones.
necrovamp wrote:I'm not saying it's a bad film, because I enjoyed it, but i don't think it is the direction that the hobbit films should have taken, they should have followed the real story closer.
I've already said, they did follow the story closer, and I've explained why the changes they did make were necessary.
I liked this movie a lot. Well worth the money spent. Can't wait to buy the extended edition DVD to watch and listen to while I paint warhammer 40k miniatures.
kronk wrote: I liked this movie a lot. Well worth the money spent. Can't wait to buy the extended edition DVD to watch and listen to while I paint warhammer 40k miniatures.
necrovamp wrote: My bone of contention is that they sacked the first director and got jackson in.
Del Toro wasn't sacked, he quit because the project was stuck in production purgatory and he didn't want to waste years waiting for it to get beyond that. As was stated above as well, he is still contributing to the film even so. I suppose this means no more bone of contention?
Da Boss wrote: I just went to see it with my girlfriend. I originally read the Hobbit when I was nine or ten and read the Lord of the Rings soon afterwards. They were my introduction to fantasy.
I enjoyed PJ's LOTR trilogy, though I felt the first film was the strongest, keeping the essentials of the story and the characters while converting it for screen by cutting things that wouldn't work. I hope I am not a rabid fanboy who expects it to be word for word the same as the book, I just expect the same essential message or tone to be set.
For that reason, I hated the Two Towers when I saw it first, and only was able to like it after a few re-watches. To my mind, the changes to Faramir, the addition of elves at Helms Deep, and the cutting of the excellent cliffhanger ending were big mistakes.
I expected some mistakes to be made with the Hobbit, and I expected some padding.
But what really got me:
- Platformer fight scenes- so many times I was watching these ludicrous platform game style fight scenes and thinking "I am totally out of the movie now, this is stupid".
- Gandalf having "set" powers. So, Gandalf breaks rock in FOTR and summons an Eagle for help using a moth, and can be big and scary and make bright lights. Okay. But now, he has Break Rock, Level 2 and Summon Plot Device, Level 6. They seem to have tried to jam in ways to make his magic more codified and linked to what was in LOTR. I felt that was pretty lazy writing and I wasn' impressed.
- Padding. Well, I was expecting the white council stuff and I'm happy for it to be there, to provide a wider context. I have an issue with how it was done. The bunny sled was too far, for me. Radagast showing up in the middle of the dwarves trek and the benny hill chase scene was awful. Just in general, the way it was handled was ham fisted. Likewise, Azog was a pretty terrible bad guy and the way he was involved was really pretty bad.
- Character changes: The alterations to Bilbos character are irritating, making him pointlessly more indecisive and also pointlessly more aggressive and fighty to add "drama". It could have been done much more subtly, if they had to do it. As it was, it was incredibly ham fisted and groan-worthy. Thorin was also altered, and not in a good way, as were the dwarves, in a more subtle way. Freeman was largely wasted as he was underused and made to act in nonsensical ways.
My last point is about tone. This film didn't know if it was an action romp along the lines of pirates of the Caribbean, a comedy, or a serious drama. It chopped and changed way too much and ruined any semblance of flow or coherence the film might have had.
All of this is a shame because they did a lot right. The costumes and casting is great, making the dwarves visually distinctive was a great move, the idea of including the council plotline is not bad if it were handled well. I just feel like they've taken flaws and hubris from their adaption of the LOTR and magnified them massively. Not impressed.
O good God yes!
You've written exactly what ive been thinking....literally, i barely even need to type a response now as this covers it perfectly, thank you Da Boss!
As an addition, i kept having to lean over to my mate to reassure him that Thorin wasnt this much of a d**k in the book, and hopefully will turn out to be decent as soon as possible (so by the end of the film).
As someone who never seen the other 3, Its Can hold its own. Granted, I hate that they didn't kill the dragon. I hate how movies set up a villain and then he doesn't get defeated, But that's just me
hotsauceman1 wrote: As someone who never seen the other 3, Its Can hold its own. Granted, I hate that they didn't kill the dragon. I hate how movies set up a villain and then he doesn't get defeated, But that's just me
How can you say it holds its own against the other 3 when you havent seen them...?
And you are aware theres another 2 films based on this book and the dragon comes back into it right?
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean that you can enjoy it without haveing Prior Knowledge of LOTR.
And I know. I just really want to see the fight with the dragon.
Thats not how your post comes across, it seems like you are comparing with no knowledge of the other films...which would be odd
You werent really expecting to see that were you? While it is something to look forward to, i went to see the film complete in the knowledge that this was only the first third of the book (plus extras)...
Revenent Reiko wrote: As an addition, i kept having to lean over to my mate to reassure him that Thorin wasnt this much of a d**k in the book, and hopefully will turn out to be decent as soon as possible (so by the end of the film).
He spent most of the book doubting and belittling Bilbo, and wasn't very nice to him once they had the mountain either. His stubborn attitude also was leading him to war with the humans and elves, until the goblin army shows up and threatens them all. It seems was that much of a spank in the books, and the filmmakers got that all out of the way a third into the story instead of at the end.
Revenent Reiko wrote: As an addition, i kept having to lean over to my mate to reassure him that Thorin wasnt this much of a d**k in the book, and hopefully will turn out to be decent as soon as possible (so by the end of the film).
He spent most of the book doubting and belittling Bilbo, and wasn't very nice to him once they had the mountain either. His stubborn attitude also was leading him to war with the humans and elves, until the goblin army shows up and threatens them all. It seems was that much of a spank in the books, and the filmmakers got that all out of the way a third into the story instead of at the end.
aye, he's about as much of a d**k in the book as he is the film, but in the film he's kind of given an excuse for most of it, what with him having a personal vendetta and him not wanting the most important thing he'll ever do compromised by a bumbling hobbit (up until he realises Bilbo has certain... useful qualities).
Well, movie arriving late here (and according to IMDB, part 2 will arrive in Jan 2014, dafuq), ahd actually having read The Hobbit and TLotR (and The Silmarillion, and Lost Tales, and Unfinished Tales and the 12 volumes of History of Middle Earth, but oh well) I can say I really enjoyed the movie.
The added scenes from the Appendices were nice and make sense since TLotR was made before and we already know all the involved characters (Saruman, Galadriel, Gandalf and Elrond), and while some things seem to be there to appeal kids, well the book was made with that target in mind. The way Radagast is portrayed is a funny and nice artistic license.
I also understand why they put Azog right from the beginning
Spoiler:
He's only mentioned when they recound the recovering of Moria, and only actually appears by the end, at the battle of the five armies.
If I should "complain" on one thing, it's Balin's character design, and it's not an actual complain, but while he's shown younger and armoured on the flashback, the "current time" Balin looks like a "cool grandpa", and I don't really imagine him 50 years later in Moria weilding the 2-bladed axe Gimli takes from his tomb.
On a side note, kudos to local progessional reviewers who claimed that the scenes from the appendices were obiously invented by PJ since they're not in The Hobbit's book (note: the appendices are kinda hard to come by, though, as the pocket edition lacks them here)
Second side note: when the gobling king gets killed, did it count as throat slit or castration? xD
Dark wrote: If I should "complain" on one thing, it's Balin's character design, and it's not an actual complain, but while he's shown younger and armoured on the flashback, the "current time" Balin looks like a "cool grandpa", and I don't really imagine him 50 years later in Moria weilding the 2-bladed axe Gimli takes from his tomb.
I agree, Balin is a good character, but he doesn't fit in with the Balin pictured in the lord of the rings- he's too much the old storyteller, less the aged warrior- when I imagined "Balin, Lord of Moria, who led an army of dwarves in retaking a goblin-infested kingdom and only died when he was taken by surprise and shot in the back", I don't see the same guy who I see in the hobbit.
Revenent Reiko wrote: As an addition, i kept having to lean over to my mate to reassure him that Thorin wasnt this much of a d**k in the book, and hopefully will turn out to be decent as soon as possible (so by the end of the film).
He spent most of the book doubting and belittling Bilbo, and wasn't very nice to him once they had the mountain either. His stubborn attitude also was leading him to war with the humans and elves, until the goblin army shows up and threatens them all. It seems was that much of a spank in the books, and the filmmakers got that all out of the way a third into the story instead of at the end.
Really.....?!! Huh, i definitely remembered that completely wrong then, my apologies....
Personally, it plodded and the Dwarves were badly designed. Although when one of my friends compared Bombur to Fat Bastard from Austin Powers, the actor playing Bombur favorited it- so I can't be too wrong.
The three hours was not a good feature for me. With LOTR it was fine, but not for one third of The Hobbit. YMMV.
Dark wrote: If I should "complain" on one thing, it's Balin's character design, and it's not an actual complain, but while he's shown younger and armoured on the flashback, the "current time" Balin looks like a "cool grandpa", and I don't really imagine him 50 years later in Moria weilding the 2-bladed axe Gimli takes from his tomb.
I agree, Balin is a good character, but he doesn't fit in with the Balin pictured in the lord of the rings- he's too much the old storyteller, less the aged warrior- when I imagined "Balin, Lord of Moria, who led an army of dwarves in retaking a goblin-infested kingdom and only died when he was taken by surprise and shot in the back", I don't see the same guy who I see in the hobbit.
Well just because he looks old doesn't mean he isn't a fit guy.
Dwarves remain strong and hale well into their 200th year.
Dark wrote: If I should "complain" on one thing, it's Balin's character design, and it's not an actual complain, but while he's shown younger and armoured on the flashback, the "current time" Balin looks like a "cool grandpa", and I don't really imagine him 50 years later in Moria weilding the 2-bladed axe Gimli takes from his tomb.
I agree, Balin is a good character, but he doesn't fit in with the Balin pictured in the lord of the rings- he's too much the old storyteller, less the aged warrior- when I imagined "Balin, Lord of Moria, who led an army of dwarves in retaking a goblin-infested kingdom and only died when he was taken by surprise and shot in the back", I don't see the same guy who I see in the hobbit.
Well just because he looks old doesn't mean he isn't a fit guy.
Dwarves remain strong and hale well into their 200th year.
true, but look at him- even his model is hunched over, clutching a sword, rather than standing tall and proud like all the others. He even admits that he's not a warrior any more. I just can't see him as a great warrior 50 years on from that.
Was i the only person that thought the movie was long? Sorry i don't want to read through about 9 pages to find out. I mean it was a good movie. I felt it was different from the book by a lot but i heard it took parts from the silmarilion so that could be why.
I honestly felt they could've shortened the movie by about an hour and left out some things. Maybe it was because it was new years eve and i was tired considering it was about 2 AM but during the last hour of the movie i kept tapping my foot wondering when it'd be over and then just saw the movie continue on and on.
The book never had that many fight scenes by that point if i remember. All i remember is they ran away from the goblin horde rather than fought them and i don't think they ever had the dwarves battle the orcs.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Was i the only person that thought the movie was long? Sorry i don't want to read through about 9 pages to find out. I mean it was a good movie. I felt it was different from the book by a lot but i heard it took parts from the silmarilion so that could be why.
I honestly felt they could've shortened the movie by about an hour and left out some things. Maybe it was because it was new years eve and i was tired considering it was about 2 AM but during the last hour of the movie i kept tapping my foot wondering when it'd be over and then just saw the movie continue on and on.
The book never had that many fight scenes by that point if i remember. All i remember is they ran away from the goblin horde rather than fought them and i don't think they ever had the dwarves battle the orcs.
Yes it could have been shorter. I could have lost all but 20% of the Azog chasing nonsense actually, and reduced the supper down by half. We didn't need the fight between Azog and the dwarves at the end. If you wanted that storyline, keep little snippets of the orks following them or such and have that being more of an event in the next two books. Lose Radagast in a fire!
flamingkillamajig wrote: Was i the only person that thought the movie was long? Sorry i don't want to read through about 9 pages to find out. I mean it was a good movie. I felt it was different from the book by a lot but i heard it took parts from the silmarilion so that could be why.
I honestly felt they could've shortened the movie by about an hour and left out some things. Maybe it was because it was new years eve and i was tired considering it was about 2 AM but during the last hour of the movie i kept tapping my foot wondering when it'd be over and then just saw the movie continue on and on.
The book never had that many fight scenes by that point if i remember. All i remember is they ran away from the goblin horde rather than fought them and i don't think they ever had the dwarves battle the orcs.
several people thought it was too long, but me and a few others have addressed why: -the whole white council storyline is going to take up at least 2 hours total from the trilogy, probably closer to 3. -extra fight scenes to make the film more interesting -going into the background which wasn't necessary in the book -giving more detail to some characters like Thorin and Azog to add an antagonist in the first film, rather than waiting for smaug in the second (and then having no one again in the third).
The fight scenes are- the warg chase outside rivendell, which is a way of showing the antagonist's minions so the "out of the frying pan" part didn't seem so "Oh look, here's a load of evil guys you don't know led by the nemesis you never met". Then there's the trolls, which is perfectly understandable because no dwarf in his right mind would go and investigate something one-by-one like in the book. Then there's Goblin town (which they did fight their way out of, just not as much), then there's the "out of the frying pan" scene, which is pretty much the same as in the book except Thorin and Bilbo don't go down to fight the pale orc, they just hide in the trees until the eagles come- that scene was necessary to show a bit of personal conflict between Thorin and Azog, and as an opportunity for Bilbo to show he's useful after all.
to put it simply, the fight scenes are added because they look cool
I diodn't think the extra fight scenes made the film more interesting especially. I thought the radagast chase scene was just stupid. I thought radagast was stupid actually.
Frazzled wrote: I diodn't think the extra fight scenes made the film more interesting especially. I thought the radagast chase scene was just stupid. I thought radagast was stupid actually.
Frazzled wrote: I diodn't think the extra fight scenes made the film more interesting especially. I thought the radagast chase scene was just stupid. I thought radagast was stupid actually.
Don't forget... it was a children's book...
At least on lots of local people, I can translate their complains into a "why this movie based on a children's book aimed to 10 years old kids won't be dark and mature?
Frazzled wrote: I diodn't think the extra fight scenes made the film more interesting especially. I thought the radagast chase scene was just stupid. I thought radagast was stupid actually.
well, not for you maybe, but quite a large chunk of the audience like fight scenes, hence more audience, hence more sales. (Plus three hours is quite a long time to go in a film without any kind of battle).
and radagast's meant to be stupid. Well, maybe not outright stupid, but definitely odd and eccentric, and I thought Sylvester McCoy did really well at conveying that.
I havent read The Hobbit for years, and when i go to watch a movie of a book, i watch it for what it is and try not to get to critical as long as it entertains and is not to far off the story.
I have to say I thought the movie so far is excellent was entertaining, and will be adding it to my collection, i am looking forward to the next one far more than i looked forward to any of the LOTR movies.
I noticed the differences to the books but they were very well done and did not detract from the overall story and lead up. Loved the glimpse of Smaug at the end.
BaronB3 wrote: I havent read The Hobbit for years, and when i go to watch a movie of a book, i watch it for what it is and try not to get to critical as long as it entertains and is not to far off the story.
definitely good advice for those yet to see it- it'd stop 90% of the negative views expressed on here if everyone bore that in mind
Will there be an extended version like he did with the LotR? I don't want to buy the Hobbit when it comes out if there's going to be a Hobbit 1.5 a few months later!
kronk wrote: Will there be an extended version like he did with the LotR? I don't want to buy the Hobbit when it comes out if there's going to be a Hobbit 1.5 a few months later!
Same here. The Extended Versions on LOTR filled in a few holes nicely. Wonder if there will be any 'collectibles' with the movie sets as well.
Two things: (Edit, four actually, I got carried away )
- None of the extra material is from the Silmarillion, which deals with the first and second ages, primarily with the Elves and some mention of Men. Hobbits and Dwarves are barely mentioned (in fact I'm not sure Hobbits are mentioned at all, but it's a very boring book and it's been ages since I read it). The extra material is from the appendices of the Lord of the Rings, which I actually really enjoyed reading (and still enjoyed re-reading), so I was happy that it was included. I just wasn't happy with how it was shoehorned into the plot.
-The Radagast bunny chase scene is silly on it's face, and "it's a kid's movie" doesn't justify that to me. Kids movies should be a mite shorter than two and a half hours if they're going to rely on that sort of crude humour, which is more appropriate to a 5 or 6 year old who would find the Hobbit hard to sit through. Even if it is a kid's movie, there's no need for it to be stupid to appeal to kids.
-The chase scene annoyed me more because it gave the impression of them being dogged at every step by Orcs from the word go, which is a significant difference from the books, where the goblins only start chasing them after the death of the Great Goblin. To me it is a bad scene and I would have been just as happy with them just walking to Rivendell and meeting Radagast there rather than a very contrived sequence like the one that's actually in the movie. I guess I'll learn to ignore it like the parts of the Two Towers that really grate on me, but I don't think "it's a kid's movie!" is a good excuse for needless clumsy alteration to a perfectly good part of the story.
-That and Bilbo's "I'm going back to Rivendell" moment and his "MUST CHARGE AZOG" moment are the three lowest points of the movie for me. Everything else I can put up with as changes for the screen but those changes change central characters and motivations beyond what I think is acceptable for an adaption in a ham fisted and overly in-your-face way.
I am not surprised though. Jackson's production is very good but the screenwriting can take very wild swings in his films often in ways that betray the intent of the author. One of Tolkien's essays on the LOTR noted that the Elves were a spent force in the third age, not helping significantly in the wars of the time. The appearance of Elves at Helm's Deep seemed like a slap in the face to that sentiment and intention, and it was needless. Similarly, the changes to Faramir's character, Aragorn's breech of decorum in beheading the Mouth of Sauron, these felt like betrayals of the characters rather than effective screenplay writing (for example, cutting the sequences where they are leaving the Shire down as much as possible, cutting minor characters, cutting the Tom Bombadil and Barrow Wight's scenes because they would not work on screen (similarly the talking Eagles.)
But hey. I know PJ does a better job on these than pretty much anyone else would, and I'm sure I'll go buy the DVD.
Da Boss wrote:- None of the extra material is from the Silmarillion, which deals with the first and second ages, primarily with the Elves and some mention of Men. Hobbits and Dwarves are barely mentioned (in fact I'm not sure Hobbits are mentioned at all, but it's a very boring book and it's been ages since I read it). The extra material is from the appendices of the Lord of the Rings, which I actually really enjoyed reading (and still enjoyed re-reading), so I was happy that it was included. I just wasn't happy with how it was shoehorned into the plot.
I thought the way it was added was quite smooth (if it weren't for Radagast's finding them in mirkwood rather than at rivendell as you said)
-The Radagast bunny chase scene is silly on it's face, and "it's a kid's movie" doesn't justify that to me. Kids movies should be a mite shorter than two and a half hours if they're going to rely on that sort of crude humour, which is more appropriate to a 5 or 6 year old who would find the Hobbit hard to sit through. Even if it is a kid's movie, there's no need for it to be stupid to appeal to kids.
well, I saw the fellowship when I was five, and that's around three hours. Though I admit, most kids aren't as patient as I was...
-The chase scene annoyed me more because it gave the impression of them being dogged at every step by Orcs from the word go, which is a significant difference from the books, where the goblins only start chasing them after the death of the Great Goblin. To me it is a bad scene and I would have been just as happy with them just walking to Rivendell and meeting Radagast there rather than a very contrived sequence like the one that's actually in the movie. I guess I'll learn to ignore it like the parts of the Two Towers that really grate on me, but I don't think "it's a kid's movie!" is a good excuse for needless clumsy alteration to a perfectly good part of the story.
It probably would have worked better if the orcs had only begun after goblin town, but Azog is meant to already have a vendetta against Thorin, so he wouldn't need to be provoked as in the book.
-That and Bilbo's "I'm going back to Rivendell" moment and his "MUST CHARGE AZOG" moment are the three lowest points of the movie for me. Everything else I can put up with as changes for the screen but those changes change central characters and motivations beyond what I think is acceptable for an adaption in a ham fisted and overly in-your-face way.
I admit, I didn't like Bilbo's attempt to leave- throughout the book his Tookish side was meant to keep him on board, however reluctantly. But charging Azog gave Thorin a reason to finally start to like Bilbo, which is a good note to end the first film on. (I suppose his "you don't have a home, but I'll do whatever I can to help take it back." speech might have done, but there needed to be a final fight scene and being saved was a good way to go about it.
I am not surprised though. Jackson's production is very good but the screenwriting can take very wild swings in his films often in ways that betray the intent of the author. One of Tolkien's essays on the LOTR noted that the Elves were a spent force in the third age, not helping significantly in the wars of the time. The appearance of Elves at Helm's Deep seemed like a slap in the face to that sentiment and intention, and it was needless. Similarly, the changes to Faramir's character, Aragorn's breech of decorum in beheading the Mouth of Sauron, these felt like betrayals of the characters rather than effective screenplay writing (for example, cutting the sequences where they are leaving the Shire down as much as possible, cutting minor characters, cutting the Tom Bombadil and Barrow Wight's scenes because they would not work on screen (similarly the talking Eagles.)
here's not the place to go onto the fellowship, but Tom Bombadil, though significant in the book, would've broken up the film's sense of danger (plus some stuff needed to be cut, and 50 odd pages of not-vital story was a good way to go).
I hated Tom Bombadil in the books and am glad he wasn't in the movies. That chapter was the "Let's experiment with peyote while I write a book" chapter.
Da Boss wrote: Two things: (Edit, four actually, I got carried away )
- None of the extra material is from the Silmarillion
I thought some of the White Council, Necromancer, and Dol Guldur info came from the Silmarillion. There is so much written on Middle Earth it can easily get jumbled at times so it wouldn't surprise me that it was almost all from the appendices.
I could be wrong, you know. But I am almost completely sure that it's from the appendices. The Silmarillion is a history book of the first and second age.
Edit: And don't misunderstand me, I am 100% glad Bombadil was cut. I kind of enjoyed that as a kid because he reminds me of a particular crazy uncle I have, but no way would it have been good on film.
shrike: We'll agree to disagree, then, I suppose. I don't think the film needed to follow the "formula" which demands a last fight scene, I would have thought the escape from the wolves would have been exciting enough as it was written.
Da Boss wrote: Two things: (Edit, four actually, I got carried away )
- None of the extra material is from the Silmarillion
I thought some of the White Council, Necromancer, and Dol Guldur info came from the Silmarillion. There is so much written on Middle Earth it can easily get jumbled at times so it wouldn't surprise me that it was almost all from the appendices.
Nope, its all appendices. The Silmirilian is the first and second ages. Nothing remotly close to the LotR or the Hobbit happens. Event he Fall of Arnor is ahead of the Silmilrillion.
Lads, there is a whole "Of the Third Age and the rings of power" chapter at the end of The Silmarillion.
Still, they didn't held the rights on The Silmarillion, so they couldn't even quote stuff from there (like the Blue Wizard's names, Allatar and Pallando), but they still held rights over The Lord of the Rings, and that made the appendices fair game.
Edit: I wouldn't mind, some years after The hobbit it's fully released, to see a "The sons of Húrin" movie in the make.
Da Boss wrote: Two things: (Edit, four actually, I got carried away )
- None of the extra material is from the Silmarillion
I thought some of the White Council, Necromancer, and Dol Guldur info came from the Silmarillion. There is so much written on Middle Earth it can easily get jumbled at times so it wouldn't surprise me that it was almost all from the appendices.
Nope, its all appendices. The Silmirilian is the first and second ages. Nothing remotly close to the LotR or the Hobbit happens. Event he Fall of Arnor is ahead of the Silmilrillion.
Not in the visual narrative presentation, but wasn't much of the history of the Necromancer/Sauron and his connection to Dol Guldur from the Second Age? This isn't the first time they've had trouble in the area.
Still, they didn't held the rights on The Silmarillion, so they couldn't even quote stuff from there (like the Blue Wizard's names, Allatar and Pallando), but they still held rights over The Lord of the Rings, and that made the appendices fair game.
So that's why Gandalf conveniently forgot their names I was wondering why that was, because it doesn't strike me as being much like Gandalf to forget something like that....
Well, I guess it may be believable to a point if we keep in mind that while incarnated, the Istari had limitations (like memory lapses and the need to eat and sleep), and as far as I've understood, the blue wizards set up to the far east as soon as they reached Middle Earth, and that was around 3000 years before the events of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.
^ related to this yet off-topic: it always bugged me that in the book's description, Círdan had a long beard... elves with facial hair?
The Powers knew that Sauron and other evil beigns were still around, so they sent the Istari to lend a hand to the sons of Ilúvatar.
Thing is, they weren't to make displays of their divine power, so they were incarnated in the bodies of old men and were forbade to use their full powers until it was fully needed.
Still, they didn't held the rights on The Silmarillion, so they couldn't even quote stuff from there (like the Blue Wizard's names, Allatar and Pallando), but they still held rights over The Lord of the Rings, and that made the appendices fair game.
So that's why Gandalf conveniently forgot their names I was wondering why that was, because it doesn't strike me as being much like Gandalf to forget something like that....
I'm guessing it was more of a joke, since Tolkien couldn't seem to decide on the names of the blue wizards (he gives them different names in a couple different works). Not having the rights to other books shouldn't prevent them from referring to the two other wizards by name if they wanted to, as character names cannot be copyrighted.
Still, they didn't held the rights on The Silmarillion, so they couldn't even quote stuff from there (like the Blue Wizard's names, Allatar and Pallando), but they still held rights over The Lord of the Rings, and that made the appendices fair game.
So that's why Gandalf conveniently forgot their names I was wondering why that was, because it doesn't strike me as being much like Gandalf to forget something like that....
I didn't even know they were named- most of the time they're just referred to as the blue wizards, and in the works Tolkein released when he was alive, they weren't named, so it's more of an in-joke.
Frazzled wrote:What was the point of the wizards again?
to lend a hand to the free folk of middle earth against any and all evils.
What are they going to add to these films to make 3 movies at nearly 3 hours each?
I'm guessing the next one will have beorn, mirkwood, dale and then the misty mountain (ending with smaug's death), then the second will have the necromancer vs the white council about an hour in, then the lead-up to the battle of five armies. Not sure what they'd have as filler, but mirkwood has enough fight scenes to keep the audience interested long enough for smaug.
What are they going to add to these films to make 3 movies at nearly 3 hours each?
-Some battle with the necro after more evil forboding.
-Legolas will appear and kill a troll, and maybe Smaug. In fact I'm sure of it. He will be the one that shoots Smaug, after wasting 437 orks.
-four more ork battles in the second book as Azog pursues them. Indeed, its Azog's invasion of the woods that frees them from the elves.
And why do these computer orks look so different (and less scary) than the LOTR orks?
What are they going to add to these films to make 3 movies at nearly 3 hours each?
I'm guessing the next one will have beorn, mirkwood, dale and then the misty mountain (ending with smaug's death), then the second will have the necromancer vs the white council about an hour in, then the lead-up to the battle of five armies.
Not sure what they'd have as filler, but mirkwood has enough fight scenes to keep the audience interested long enough for smaug.
interesting. If they whack Smaug in the 2nd movie I've no real interest in the 3rd...
Frazzled wrote: -Some battle with the necro after more evil forboding.
-Legolas will appear and kill a troll, and maybe Smaug. In fact I'm sure of it. He will be the one that shoots Smaug, after wasting 437 orks.
-four more ork battles in the second book as Azog pursues them. Indeed, its Azog's invasion of the woods that frees them from the elves.
I doubt very, very, very much Legolas will kill smaug. Unless you're being sarcastic, of course.
...what about the barrel riding?
FOUR orc battles? They already have the spiders and the necromancer- I was thinking one, maybe two.
Frazzled wrote:And why do these computer orks look so different (and less scary) than the LOTR orks?
I didn't really notice, though remember- they're Gundabad orcs, as opposed to Mordor- same with the wargs. Plus, the hobbit's more lighthearted generally, maybe it was deliberate.
Frazzled wrote:interesting. If they whack Smaug in the 2nd movie I've no real interest in the 3rd...
well it is called the desolation of smaug... and you're willing to miss out on the battle of five armies?
I doubt very, very, very much Legolas will kill smaug. Unless you're being sarcastic, of course.
...what about the barrel riding?
I was being sarcastic. There will only be two.
FOUR orc battles? They already have the spiders and the necromancer- I was thinking one, maybe two.
They won’t hit the necromancer until three. In fact, Legolas won’t whack Smaug until three.
So it will be spiders scary! Complete with Radagast and the vorpal bunnies to the rescue. Then they will get trapped by the elves and freed by the Ork Attack. Along the way they will meet up with Legolas, (who can be seen doing his hair in the background when they are first captured by elves). Legolas will almost singlehanded wipe out the second attack. Special guest star Don Henley as the head eagle, Peter Jackson as a young Mouth of Sauron.
I didn't really notice, though remember- they're Gundabad orcs, as opposed to Mordor- same with the wargs. Plus, the hobbit's more lighthearted generally, maybe it was deliberate.
Seriously for a moment, please clarify. Whats the difference?
What do you even mean legolas whacking smaug? If i remember some gaunt human that was noted as 'brooding' shoots some lucky arrow into smaug's underside and he dies (as given through a note or 'whisper speech BS' sent by a bird from bilbo). Apparently you should never mess with a guy that whispers to birds.
flamingkillamajig wrote: What do you even mean legolas whacking smaug? If i remember some gaunt human that was noted as 'brooding' shoots some lucky arrow into smaug's underside and he dies (as given through a note or 'whisper speech BS' sent by a bird from bilbo). Apparently you should never mess with a guy that whispers to birds.
No no thats the Book. Who reads books? Legolas will slide down the steps we send at the end of the first movie, on a shield. As he lands the thrush will tell him what to do. He'll pop an arrow and Smaug will come crashing down. Later he will get into a drinking contest with Gloin and his fingertips will start to tingle.
I hate elves anyway. I think Tolkien supposedly secretly wanted to be an elf and maybe had it as a fetish he used to get in the mood. Was the part where they have to speak the elvish word for 'friend' to open up the doorway to Moria a part of the books too? I never read the LotR trilogy (only 'the hobbit') but the dwarves and elves hate each other so why is some secret passageway that dwarves made opened only in the elvish tongue. It's kind of dumb to me.
Ugh somebody should totally change how elves are. They are just so hippie-like and arrogant. It's really disgusting to go through.
One thing peter jackson did i really liked was that he avoided almost all the songs. Dear god did i hate those songs. A friend said there was 20 pages of Sam singing about gandalf's fight against balrog in LotR even though they never witnessed it or something. How does he even know what happened?
I was kind of bothered by the one song the dwarves sing in bilbo's hobbit-hole during 'The Hobbit'. Dude the dwarves were a bunch of d**chebags by eating all of bilbo's food, mishandling all his stuff and then making fun of him. Then gandalf laughs at all this merriment. I half expected some *sshole to jump out and say "You go Punk'd!" to bilbo's face or something. God poor Bilbo. What a bunch of fantasy d**chebags.
I hate elves anyway. I think Tolkien supposedly secretly wanted to be an elf and maybe had it as a fetish he used to get in the mood. Was the part where they have to speak the elvish word for 'friend' to open up the doorway to Moria a part of the books too? I never read the LotR trilogy (only 'the hobbit') but the dwarves and elves hate each other so why is some secret passageway that dwarves made opened only in the elvish tongue. It's kind of dumb to me.
Dwarves and elves didn't hated each other since day one, and the noldor had busissness with them. If I recall later, things went ill when Fingon didn't payed a proper price for a couple dwarves that crafter the nauglamir, and in response they killed Fingon.
Ugh somebody should totally change how elves are. They are just so hippie-like and arrogant. It's really disgusting to go through.
You would have totally loved the (cut from the movie) song the elves sing when the company reaches Rivendell.
One thing peter jackson did i really liked was that he avoided almost all the songs. Dear god did i hate those songs. A friend said there was 20 pages of Sam singing about gandalf's fight against balrog in LotR even though they never witnessed it or something. How does he even know what happened?
To each their own, I would have loved to hear the previously mentioned song, and the cruel song sang by the orcs when the company was on the blazing pines.
I was kind of bothered by the one song the dwarves sing in bilbo's hobbit-hole during 'The Hobbit'. Dude the dwarves were a bunch of d**chebags by eating all of bilbo's food, mishandling all his stuff and then making fun of him. Then gandalf laughs at all this merriment. I half expected some *sshole to jump out and say "You go Punk'd!" to bilbo's face or something. God poor Bilbo. What a bunch of fantasy d**chebags.
Didn't they cleaned everything while they sang that? And after that adventure Bilbo was gonna be either dead or rich, so in both case it wouldn't matter :p
I doubt very, very, very much Legolas will kill smaug. Unless you're being sarcastic, of course. ...what about the barrel riding?
I was being sarcastic. There will only be two.
FOUR orc battles? They already have the spiders and the necromancer- I was thinking one, maybe two.
They won’t hit the necromancer until three. In fact, Legolas won’t whack Smaug until three.
why's the second one called the desolation of smaug? If the necromancer and smaug are both killed in three, what will the finale for the second film be? Sorry, but I reckon both deaths will be in the second.
Frazzled wrote:So it will be spiders scary! Complete with Radagast and the vorpal bunnies to the rescue. Then they will get trapped by the elves and freed by the Ork Attack. Along the way they will meet up with Legolas, (who can be seen doing his hair in the background when they are first captured by elves). Legolas will almost singlehanded wipe out the second attack. Special guest star Don Henley as the head eagle, Peter Jackson as a young Mouth of Sauron.
they escape in the barrels- it's shown in the production video and mentioned in several interviews "oh the barrel seen is going to be good", or "my favourite part is when we all went down the river in the barrels". Legolas (and some elf chick) will be fighting orcs in mirkwood, but that won't be how they are freed.
I didn't really notice, though remember- they're Gundabad orcs, as opposed to Mordor- same with the wargs. Plus, the hobbit's more lighthearted generally, maybe it was deliberate.
Seriously for a moment, please clarify. Whats the difference?
as in, they might look different because they're from a different area of middle earth, just like the wargs.
flamingkillamajig wrote:Yeah i wasn't sure if you were joking or not.
I hate elves anyway. I think Tolkien supposedly secretly wanted to be an elf and maybe had it as a fetish he used to get in the mood. Was the part where they have to speak the elvish word for 'friend' to open up the doorway to Moria a part of the books too? I never read the LotR trilogy (only 'the hobbit') but the dwarves and elves hate each other so why is some secret passageway that dwarves made opened only in the elvish tongue. It's kind of dumb to me.
Elves used to have a strong friendship with dwarves, and they often visited each other. It only really went downhill for Thorin after Erebor got taken (though there was hostilities before that with the dwarves of Khazad Dum). Anyway, Tolkein likes elves. Doesn't mean he gets off on the idea of them.
Ugh somebody should totally change how elves are. They are just so hippie-like and arrogant. It's really disgusting to go through.
that's the point- elves have to have flaws- when you're immortal and just about the best at everything (minus mining and metalwork), arrogance tends to fester.
One thing peter jackson did i really liked was that he avoided almost all the songs. Dear god did i hate those songs. A friend said there was 20 pages of Sam singing about gandalf's fight against balrog in LotR even though they never witnessed it or something. How does he even know what happened?
your friend seems to be pulling that out of somewhere other than the book, if you catch my drift- frodo sings six verses about him, and sam adds another about gandalf's fireworks.
I was kind of bothered by the one song the dwarves sing in bilbo's hobbit-hole during 'The Hobbit'. Dude the dwarves were a bunch of d**chebags by eating all of bilbo's food, mishandling all his stuff and then making fun of him. Then gandalf laughs at all this merriment. I half expected some *sshole to jump out and say "You go Punk'd!" to bilbo's face or something. God poor Bilbo. What a bunch of fantasy d**chebags.
...dwarves are stubborn, grouchy, blunt people who don't make time for formalities or politeness, especially when they think they've been invited. There are 14 of them- you think they're going to nibble a couple of scones and sip some tea? They made fun of him for him fretting about his dishes when they were completely fine, and gandalfs knows they're fine so he laughs too- have you never made a harmless joke at someone else's expense? I suggest you re watch it, adding in their natural bluntness, hunger from a long travel to the shire, camaraderie between the dwarves and them having a laugh at their worrysome friend.
@dark: Woah they killed some dude for not paying a 'good price'? How totally harsh and uncool not to mention over-reacting to something. Sheesh just throw the guy in jail or prison or something, demand payment, bar trade or similar but straight up killing somebody is a lot. Who is this Fingon anyway? I'm very clueless about anything outside of 'The Hobbit' book and the LotR movies which as i hear horribly portray the books.
Except i read 'The Hobbit' so i already read that stupid song the elves sang grudgingly.
Doesn't matter that they cleaned everything as they still barged in unwelcomed and then proceeded to eat his food and completely disregard any respect in the least to bilbo or his property. Not to mention they make fun of him and eat all his food. At the very least if you are going to show up regardless if somebody wants you to or not you should at least let them know you're coming first....except in wars. That'd be mighty odd to let them know you're coming. It's not like they'd warm up a spot by the fire for you...or in the fire. Also being dead is generally not favorable. It's a good thing nobody looted bilbo's house when he was gone. You never really know when you're gone for months at a time.
@shrike: You have to understand man. I am joking when i say most of the stuff i say. You're supposed to take it in a humorous way. That's why i mentioned bilbo getting "Punk'd" and the dwarves being fantasy d**chebags.
My hatred of elves extends beyond tolkien's fantasy. I'm just so sick of hearing their loot playing, hippie tree-hugging and arrogance every time they're involved. Like most fantasy races they follow a specific path. They're a dying species even though they live forever and ever having magical and martial prowess and are excellent shots with the bow not to mention have fantasy creatures on their side. They generally try to leave the fate of the world (galaxy in the case of eldar) in others' hands while they try to distance themselves from it so they pretend they're not a part of it or it doesn't matter anyway (at least not to them). Also despite dying out this doesn't take away their superiority complex even though they realize in most fantasy worlds they are slowly becoming more and more irrelevant as they are nearly wiped out. I mean sure being super good at everything is cool but if your species is dying out that sort of starts to eliminate your view of being the superior race.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Doesn't matter that they cleaned everything as they still barged in unwelcomed and then proceeded to eat his food and completely disregard any respect in the least to bilbo or his property. Not to mention they make fun of him and eat all his food. At the very least if you are going to show up regardless if somebody wants you to or not you should at least let them know you're coming first....except in wars. That'd be mighty odd to let them know you're coming. It's not like they'd warm up a spot by the fire for you...or in the fire. Also being dead is generally not favorable. It's a good thing nobody looted bilbo's house when he was gone. You never really know when you're gone for months at a time.
let me break this down for you:
- They thought Bilbo was expecting them, and didn't find out because of their natural bluntness and lack of politeness.
- There were 13 dwarves, tired from several day's (more likely week's) travelling.
- They don't care for the niceties Bilbo has- the doily, the chest, the fine ale.
So that covers:
- "barging in"
- "eat all his food"
- "let them know you're coming first"
- "disregard bilbo's property"
- "make fun of him."
I think an extreme simplification might be that the wizards in Middle Earth are a mix between Arch-Angels and Demi-Gods. I want to say that in the background Gandalf and Sauron are basically the same kind of being.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Doesn't matter that they cleaned everything as they still barged in unwelcomed and then proceeded to eat his food and completely disregard any respect in the least to bilbo or his property. Not to mention they make fun of him and eat all his food. At the very least if you are going to show up regardless if somebody wants you to or not you should at least let them know you're coming first....except in wars. That'd be mighty odd to let them know you're coming. It's not like they'd warm up a spot by the fire for you...or in the fire. Also being dead is generally not favorable. It's a good thing nobody looted bilbo's house when he was gone. You never really know when you're gone for months at a time.
let me break this down for you:
- They thought Bilbo was expecting them, and didn't find out because of their natural bluntness and lack of politeness.
- There were 13 dwarves, tired from several day's (more likely week's) travelling.
- They don't care for the niceties Bilbo has- the doily, the chest, the fine ale.
So that covers:
- "barging in"
- "eat all his food"
- "let them know you're coming first"
- "disregard bilbo's property"
- "make fun of him."
They did also do the dishes and left the place very nice and clean.
Whoops, typo, Fingon wasn't the right elf, this was Finrod, also known as Felagund (or Felakgundû by the dwarves) which meant "cave digger" (or so, I've only read the books in Spanish) and he was a noldor prince.
Said dwarves were also killed on their escape, and things became bitter between the two species.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Doesn't matter that they cleaned everything as they still barged in unwelcomed and then proceeded to eat his food and completely disregard any respect in the least to bilbo or his property. Not to mention they make fun of him and eat all his food. At the very least if you are going to show up regardless if somebody wants you to or not you should at least let them know you're coming first....except in wars. That'd be mighty odd to let them know you're coming. It's not like they'd warm up a spot by the fire for you...or in the fire. Also being dead is generally not favorable. It's a good thing nobody looted bilbo's house when he was gone. You never really know when you're gone for months at a time.
let me break this down for you:
- They thought Bilbo was expecting them, and didn't find out because of their natural bluntness and lack of politeness.
- There were 13 dwarves, tired from several day's (more likely week's) travelling.
- They don't care for the niceties Bilbo has- the doily, the chest, the fine ale.
So that covers:
- "barging in"
- "eat all his food"
- "let them know you're coming first"
- "disregard bilbo's property"
- "make fun of him."
Yeah i read your post after i already answered to the other person's. I can understand some of this but it is still humorous to think of them as fantasy d**ches. I suppose in this case it's more gandalf at fault.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Yeah i read your post after i already answered to the other person's. I can understand some of this but it is still humorous to think of them as fantasy d**ches. I suppose in this case it's more gandalf at fault.
he always meddles, but never without a reason- if he hadn't all but forced Bilbo to go, he wouldn't have found the ring, or saved the dwarves from the trolls/spiders/elves, and so smaug would have lived, sauron might have found the ring, and all of middle earth would have fallen... butterfly effect
Grey Templar wrote: My guess is they will kill Smaug in the second movie. The third movie will focus on the Battle of Five armies.
Smaug gets killed a fair distance from the end of the book and there is quite a bit of story afterwards.
aye, I hope they do a bit of follow-up after the battle, with Bilbo walking home with that Martin Freeman charm about him, with a pocket handkerchief and a good walking stick
flamingkillamajig wrote: Yeah i read your post after i already answered to the other person's. I can understand some of this but it is still humorous to think of them as fantasy d**ches. I suppose in this case it's more gandalf at fault.
he always meddles, but never without a reason- if he hadn't all but forced Bilbo to go, he wouldn't have found the ring, or saved the dwarves from the trolls/spiders/elves, and so smaug would have lived, sauron might have found the ring, and all of middle earth would have fallen... butterfly effect
Oh come on even a force wielding (star wars) wizard of power level 9000 couldn't forsee all that BS. It just so happened they found the ring and then gandalf found out about it's power. It's not like he could forsee all that. He only mildly assumed once the power was used and the writing on the ring was viewed through flame. It's not like Gollum's presence in a cave in the middle of nowhere beneath a goblin lair would be noticed by the forces of good. It was basically right under evil's nose the whole time just like frodo's trek all the way through to mordor. Geez guys we couldn't throw a few guards around the huge freaking volcano within our own fortress walls? You know just on the off chance they sneak their way in even with a small covert force or you know 2 traveller's on a journey through time and space and....well self-exploration of each other ;O. Yes i am hinting at the odd close bond Sam and Frodo got the second they went off on their own away from the fellowship. I know quite a few that joke about the closeness those two shared on their journeys.
he is. 
