Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

Seen it twice, enjoyed it both times, so will certainly be going on the blu-ray shelf at some point this year.

 shrike wrote:

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 shrike wrote:

 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.

edit: double post

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!

Well, in the fight scenes, the battle of the hornburg it's just a couple pages long and it's what? 1/3 of The Two Towers?

Fight scenes can be given more importance on movie because of the visual dynamic aspect.

 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.

Don't forget... it was a children's book...

 whembly wrote:

 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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

Ech, its been so long since I read the book I must have forgotten that chapter was in there.

 Dark wrote:

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?

What was the point of the wizards again?