Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - - - - Part 13

[BroadwayBenny]

They also undermine their own adaptation of the Rings trilogy as Gandalf already knows that Sauron has returned but somehow he forgets by the time TFOTR starts.

You're acting like there isn't another movie next year that takes place between this one and Fellowship.

Spoiler

Galadriel will destroy Dol Guldur and send Sauron's manifesting shadow away in the next movie.

After she does this,

Spoiler

Gandalf has every reason to believe the threat of Sauron has been pushed to the wayside UNTIL he learns for certain the truth about Bilbo's ring and Saruman's secrecy.

 

[LostSon88]

Thanks guys.

It really was a great experience and I'll be seeing it again on Friday. Everyone was laughing when [blackout]Legolas was asking Gimli's dad about the pictures in his locket. Found that absolutely hilarious.[/blackout]

I loved that part. Audience definitely dug it too.

 

[craigdbfan]

The more I think about this movie the more I fall in love with it.

I know that the main complaints have been about the additional characters/sub plots and the constant referencing to the LOTR series and Sauron and while I completely get why this doesn't work for some, I also understand that in terms of keeping up with a general narrative consistency based on what the public is aware of Jackson had to make some of these additions and changes.

Tolkien had the benefit of writing The Hobbit (a book I haven't read since I was in elementary school and which I need to read again to reassess everything) which if memory serves right had a number of issues (the most prominent ones being the lack of feeling of an emotional severance when Fili and Kili die by Thorin's side, I'm basing this off from a while back so correct me if I'm wrong to say that there was hardly a well built up emotional connection) despite being one of the best fantasy stories I have ever had the pleasure of reading. I'll never forget how much it captured my attention in elementary school to the point where my teacher ended up giving me a copy of the book as a gift due to my sheer love for the story.

I digress. The added sub plot between Fili and Tauriel I believe is Jackson trying to make Fili's demise far more poignant because it was never that well developed to begin with in The Hobbit. Tolkien got much better in the LOTR series in giving us connective depth between the characters but The Hobbit being the grandfather of "modern" fantasy tales has the pitfalls of essential development that gets ignored for the reactionary character moments to the "big acts" of the story (Riddles in the Dark, Encounter with Smaug, Mirkwood Capture, Downing at Laketown, & the Battle of the Five armies).

Now moving onto the overarching blanket that is Sauron and The Nine along with the White Council, Legolas and everything relating to the LOTR series. This is crucial in my view because we need to think from the perspective of Peter Jackson who delved his hands into this world with the "sequels". The minute he did that he had compromised the story of The Hobbit for the purists but I would like to add that Tolkien himself realized in retrospect that The Hobbit had some continuity issues so he went back and revised some events (granted they were relatively minor like changing Gollum's ferocity and other terminology).

Tolkien was always a torn man in terms of adding more connective tissue to his works and apparently even tried rewriting The Hobbit in a more LOTR type fashion but stopped early on. Even then he still pursued writing and omitting events that he saw fit to make everything work.

Jackson is no different. He tried to do the same with his adaptions. The Hobbit films are being made to fit the film versions of LOTR which they themselves diverge from the books in several parts. Jackson took a different route from Tolkien and decided to tackle something Tolkien was unable and at some point unwilling to do (understandably seeing as he spent decades trying to world build so I'm sure it would be emotionally taxing to do anything you may hold dear) The Hobbit just another portion to the bigger and grander world of the more rich developed Middle Earth in the LOTR series and that to me is a strength.

Had Jackson made a completely "faithful" adaptation without any of the connections that Tolkien never wanted to make then it would feel awfully jarring because we already got Jackson's LOTR which was different enough from Tolkien's so imagine a 100% faithful adaptation of The Hobbit with Jackson's LOTR series.

Smaug mentioning Sauron, the Dol Guldur sup plot, Tauriel being aware of the eminent changes coming to Middle Earth while also acting as a much needed emotional foil for Fili were all decisions made for the best. The intentional self blinding of the elves and the obliviousness of man and the dwarves is highlighted in such a way that gives the viewer a very fleshed out and good explanation as to how Sauron and the nine were able to resurface with almost no interference.

World building is not an easy task and I felt the melancholy and dreary foreshadowing within The Hobbit of things to come has been beneficial to the whole Third Age portion of Middle Earth history.

Sorry for the rant guys. On that note I have to say that I'm a bit saddened at the lack of discussion here.

I know this series has been divisive but I feel if given a chance and if you take a few of the points I mentioned into consideration that you may see this adaptation in a different light maybe?

 

[def28]

Much better then the first. Had a great time.

8/10

 

[Vartha]

The more I think about this movie the more I fall in love with it.

I know that the main complaints have been about the additional characters/sub plots and the constant referencing to the LOTR series and Sauron and while I completely get why this doesn't work for some, I also understand that in terms of keeping up with a general narrative consistency based on what the public is aware of Jackson had to make some of these additions and changes.

Tolkien had the benefit of writing The Hobbit (a book I haven't read since I was in elementary school and which I need to read again to reassess everything) which if memory serves right had a number of issues (the most prominent ones being the lack of feeling of an emotional severance when Fili and Kili die by Thorin's side, I'm basing this off from a while back so correct me if I'm wrong to say that there was hardly a well built up emotional connection) despite being one of the best fantasy stories I have ever had the pleasure of reading. I'll never forget how much it captured my attention in elementary school to the point where my teacher ended up giving me a copy of the book as a gift due to my sheer love for the story.

I digress. The added sub plot between Fili and Tauriel I believe is Jackson trying to make Fili's demise far more poignant because it was never that well developed to begin with in The Hobbit. Tolkien got much better in the LOTR series in giving us connective depth between the characters but The Hobbit being the grandfather of "modern" fantasy tales has the pitfalls of essential development that gets ignored for the reactionary character moments to the "big acts" of the story (Riddles in the Dark, Encounter with Smaug, Mirkwood Capture, Downing at Laketown, & the Battle of the Five armies).

Now moving onto the overarching blanket that is Sauron and The Nine along with the White Council, Legolas and everything relating to the LOTR series. This is crucial in my view because we need to think from the perspective of Peter Jackson who delved his hands into this world with the "sequels". The minute he did that he had compromised the story of The Hobbit for the purists but I would like to add that Tolkien himself realized in retrospect that The Hobbit had some continuity issues so he went back and revised some events (granted they were relatively minor like changing Gollum's ferocity and other terminology).

Tolkien was always a torn man in terms of adding more connective tissue to his works and apparently even tried rewriting The Hobbit in a more LOTR type fashion but stopped early on. Even then he still pursued writing and omitting events that he saw fit to make everything work.

Jackson is no different. He tried to do the same with his adaptions. The Hobbit films are being made to fit the film versions of LOTR which they themselves diverge from the books in several parts. Jackson took a different route from Tolkien and decided to tackle something Tolkien was unable and at some point unwilling to do (understandably seeing as he spent decades trying to world build so I'm sure it would be emotionally taxing to do anything you may hold dear) The Hobbit just another portion to the bigger and grander world of the more rich developed Middle Earth in the LOTR series and that to me is a strength.

Had Jackson made a completely "faithful" adaptation without any of the connections that Tolkien never wanted to make then it would feel awfully jarring because we already got Jackson's LOTR which was different enough from Tolkien's so imagine a 100% faithful adaptation of The Hobbit with Jackson's LOTR series.

Smaug mentioning Sauron, the Dol Guldur sup plot, Tauriel being aware of the eminent changes coming to Middle Earth while also acting as a much needed emotional foil for Fili were all decisions made for the best. The intentional self blinding of the elves and the obliviousness of man and the dwarves is highlighted in such a way that gives the viewer a very fleshed out and good explanation as to how Sauron and the nine were able to resurface with almost no interference.

World building is not an easy task and I felt the melancholy and dreary foreshadowing within The Hobbit of things to come has been beneficial to the whole Third Age portion of Middle Earth history.

Sorry for the rant guys. On that note I have to say that I'm a bit saddened at the lack of discussion here.

I know this series has been divisive but I feel if given a chance and if you take a few of the points I mentioned into consideration that you may see this adaptation in a different light maybe?

Personally Craig, I look at it this way. The Hobbit was written without the intension of a book to follow.
I see why the appendices were added to the Hobbit films, and I have no problems with THAT issue.
I still have to give Jackson and Fran a big hand to even put these films together, after basically the same stories broke Rankin and Bass.

I for one, am enjoying the films.

 

[Doctor Jones]

The more I think about this movie the more I fall in love with it.

I know that the main complaints have been about the additional characters/sub plots and the constant referencing to the LOTR series and Sauron and while I completely get why this doesn't work for some, I also understand that in terms of keeping up with a general narrative consistency based on what the public is aware of Jackson had to make some of these additions and changes.

Tolkien had the benefit of writing The Hobbit (a book I haven't read since I was in elementary school and which I need to read again to reassess everything) which if memory serves right had a number of issues (the most prominent ones being the lack of feeling of an emotional severance when Fili and Kili die by Thorin's side, I'm basing this off from a while back so correct me if I'm wrong to say that there was hardly a well built up emotional connection) despite being one of the best fantasy stories I have ever had the pleasure of reading. I'll never forget how much it captured my attention in elementary school to the point where my teacher ended up giving me a copy of the book as a gift due to my sheer love for the story.

I digress. The added sub plot between Fili and Tauriel I believe is Jackson trying to make Fili's demise far more poignant because it was never that well developed to begin with in The Hobbit. Tolkien got much better in the LOTR series in giving us connective depth between the characters but The Hobbit being the grandfather of "modern" fantasy tales has the pitfalls of essential development that gets ignored for the reactionary character moments to the "big acts" of the story (Riddles in the Dark, Encounter with Smaug, Mirkwood Capture, Downing at Laketown, & the Battle of the Five armies).

Now moving onto the overarching blanket that is Sauron and The Nine along with the White Council, Legolas and everything relating to the LOTR series. This is crucial in my view because we need to think from the perspective of Peter Jackson who delved his hands into this world with the "sequels". The minute he did that he had compromised the story of The Hobbit for the purists but I would like to add that Tolkien himself realized in retrospect that The Hobbit had some continuity issues so he went back and revised some events (granted they were relatively minor like changing Gollum's ferocity and other terminology).

Tolkien was always a torn man in terms of adding more connective tissue to his works and apparently even tried rewriting The Hobbit in a more LOTR type fashion but stopped early on. Even then he still pursued writing and omitting events that he saw fit to make everything work.

Jackson is no different. He tried to do the same with his adaptions. The Hobbit films are being made to fit the film versions of LOTR which they themselves diverge from the books in several parts. Jackson took a different route from Tolkien and decided to tackle something Tolkien was unable and at some point unwilling to do (understandably seeing as he spent decades trying to world build so I'm sure it would be emotionally taxing to do anything you may hold dear) The Hobbit just another portion to the bigger and grander world of the more rich developed Middle Earth in the LOTR series and that to me is a strength.

Had Jackson made a completely "faithful" adaptation without any of the connections that Tolkien never wanted to make then it would feel awfully jarring because we already got Jackson's LOTR which was different enough from Tolkien's so imagine a 100% faithful adaptation of The Hobbit with Jackson's LOTR series.

Smaug mentioning Sauron, the Dol Guldur sup plot, Tauriel being aware of the eminent changes coming to Middle Earth while also acting as a much needed emotional foil for Fili were all decisions made for the best. The intentional self blinding of the elves and the obliviousness of man and the dwarves is highlighted in such a way that gives the viewer a very fleshed out and good explanation as to how Sauron and the nine were able to resurface with almost no interference.

World building is not an easy task and I felt the melancholy and dreary foreshadowing within The Hobbit of things to come has been beneficial to the whole Third Age portion of Middle Earth history.

Sorry for the rant guys. On that note I have to say that I'm a bit saddened at the lack of discussion here.

I know this series has been divisive but I feel if given a chance and if you take a few of the points I mentioned into consideration that you may see this adaptation in a different light maybe?

I've stayed away from this thread all weekend and checked in to mainly see negativity. And for me to let things sink in. But I agree with all your points. Thankfully you have a very empathetic and reasonable perspective to back up your views. And yes, Tolkien always did try to make The Hobbit more LOTR like and kept revising things. Is this his vision? Well not exactly, but we can't say yes or no because we don't know what he specifically wanted in expanding The Hobbit. But the idea of expanding upon what is already there isn't new.

What I love what Jackson did was expand upon what could be conceivably there during what is alluded to in The Hobbit. Namely Legolas being around in Mirkwood if he's Thranduil's son and even Sauron being The Necromancer. And I could do without the Tauriel and Kili thing, but

Spoiler

Kili and even possibly Tauriel will die in the final battle

and what I like about this it gives us something that we didn't think possible: elves and dwarves falling in love.

Spoiler

So if they die, they'll die together as a fable as two races that hated eachother, could love

Sounds very Tolkien and fable like to me. And even to heighten Legolas's prejudice towards the dwarves in LOTR. So

Spoiler

if Tauriel dies, it's not just a simple elf/dwarf prejudice, but a pained memory of someone he was fond of, or even loved, and there's some deep seeded anger he has in himself, so he takes it out on Gimli.

It's interesting, and gives things a point of view instead of just prejudice.

Speaking of which, it enhances his character greatly in LOTR. It gives us subtext as part of another reason he feels he's at stake for Middle Earth. And why he decides to join the Fellowship and feel responsible to succeed along with the other races. So by the Council scene, he's changed. He's not just daddy's prince living under the protection of Mirkwood who goes to Rivendell to represent his race, but someone who fully recognizes the full power of the threat.

And, I'm seeing more and more why they split this up into three parts. Had they adapted it for one film, lots would be cut. As much as I love the book, it's a story blocked that feels like just that... blocked. An a to b structure that goes by big sequences to progress the narrative. Pieces too big to all fit in one film where the viewer would feel the mileage of the narrative. Separating them not only gets these all in, but also gives them all the time they need to focus on the details of them.

I mean who knows what would have been cut if this had been one film? The trolls? The Mirkwood spiders? Beorn (most likely)? We're seeing all of these things from the book, and you can bet your ass had some of these been cut, complaint would have been had anyway. People like to look at what they take out or change and not look at what they kept. Which was ALOT. Other than what's expanded on, what significant scene from the book are there that isn't in the movie?

Also I get why Jackson ended it the way he did here. To give us incentive to watch the third film. Because the main plot of this is the defeating of Smaug and the reclamation of the Lonely Mountain. If they had done all that here, the third would feel like falling action and unnecessary. So I love the idea of pushing that part into the next one so that the entire next film isn't just about the final battle, which would come off as jarring anyway. And it's even better, building up The Battle of the Five armies throughout these two films is much better than this battle that just comes out of nowhere at the tail end when the main plot had been concluded. It gives it much more significance and makes more sense to have.

Besides, had this originally been two films, where would Jackson have divided them? That's still ALOT of stuff and not just that, stuff that would have been sacrificed that we wouldn't be seeing over the course of these three films otherwise. Everything gets more time. Smaug got more time. Mirkwood got more time. Bard and his part of Laketown got more time. I was just so happy to see things that may have otherwise been glossed over or cut actually there and beefing up the narrative.

Oh, and I loved the film.

 

[regwec]

I think we probably can agree that penis jokes were not part of "Tolkien's vision", for what it is worth.

 

[jonathancrane]

Agreed.
Sexuality (in every) is absent in his works, which comes with the style and tradition he was using.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I think we probably can agree that penis jokes were not part of "Tolkien's vision", for what it is worth.

Where were there penis jokes? But come on man, that's all you can say? I'm just saying not to take Tolkien's text as absolute gospel and be open to ideas of expansion. You don't have to like what those expansions entailed, but it's common knowledge how that Tolkien wanted to make things more LOTR like with the Hobbit, and as we all know even more, revised. Yes, we all know of changing Gollum's nature in The Hobbit, but other than that, it's natural for a writer to go back and change things. With a world he created that was so large and open, and that spent so much time on to create, he never looked back to The Hobbit and wasn't at least curious of what he could change to match up to LOTR? In the point of view of a writer, is that unreasonable?

 

[Vartha]

I think we probably can agree that penis jokes were not part of "Tolkien's vision", for what it is worth.

Reg buddy, I really never had any complaint about that particular part of the film.

Tho in some kind of defense, even tho it IS Tolkien's vision, you can't really say that those types of things were outright ignored by any means, and these movies aren't aimed at Kids by any means like the books were originally.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Agreed.
Sexuality (in every) is absent in his works, which comes with the style and tradition he was using.

Despite LOTR and The Hobbit enhancing the romance, sexuality? Bit of a strong word to describe the Aragorn/Arwen romance of the films. Their scenes are just them close to each other talking lovingly (more in terms of doom than anything). Hardly anything that's meant to provide sexuality as its main provocation towards an audience

And be reasonable here. Like all books that are turned to play to a mainstream audience, if you think these films can go on and not have a romance then you'd be a fool not to know how these things work. Sorry dude, but with movies, not everything is going to coincide with Tolkien's or any author's traditional consistent style of writing.

 

[Vartha]

Agreed.
Sexuality (in every) is absent in his works, which comes with the style and tradition he was using.

Like I just stated to Reg, keep in mind that the Hobbit and LotR were aimed at KIDS originally, yes, there would be the lack of Sexuality for the most part, but these are films aimed at mostly adults.

 

[regwec]

I really don't think that the tone of PJ's movies indicates that they are more aimed at adults than were the books that they purport to adapt.

Is a willy-joke more likely to amuse adults or children?

 

[Victarion]

Where were there penis jokes? But come on man, that's all you can say? I'm just saying not to take Tolkien's text as absolute gospel and be open to ideas of expansion. You don't have to like what those expansions entailed, but it's common knowledge how that Tolkien wanted to make things more LOTR like with the Hobbit, and as we all know even more, revised. Yes, we all know of changing Gollum's nature in The Hobbit, but other than that, it's natural for a writer to go back and change things. With a world he created that was so large and open, and that spent so much time on to create, he never looked back to The Hobbit and wasn't at least curious of what he could change to match up to LOTR? In the point of view of a writer, is that unreasonable?

Tolkien intended for other authors to add to his world-myth. So Middle-Earth was the first shared world setting. Peter's earlier films were pretty crude; the penis gag was probably a throwback to those movies. And intended for brevity in an otherwise serious story.

 

[regwec]

Tolkien intended for other authors to add to his world-myth.

I didn't know this, and am surprised to hear it. Where did he say this?

 

[redhawk23]

^ Especially considering that has been pretty much the complete opposite approach Tolkien and his family have taken in regards to Tolkien's works.

 

[redhawk23]

Despite LOTR and The Hobbit enhancing the romance, sexuality? Bit of a strong word to describe the Aragorn/Arwen romance of the films. Their scenes are just them close to each other talking lovingly (more in terms of doom than anything). Hardly anything that's meant to provide sexuality as its main provocation towards an audience

And be reasonable here. Like all books that are turned to play to a mainstream audience, if you think these films can go on and not have a romance then you'd be a fool not to know how these things work. Sorry dude, but with movies, not everything is going to coincide with Tolkien's or any author's traditional consistent style of writing.

Why must romantic subplots be forced in where they were never intended and remain uneeded?

Even if a film is for adults, I hardly see why that suddenly makes that necessary.

 

[kedrell]

Why must romantic subplots be forced in where they were never intended and remain uneeded?

Even if a film is for adults, I hardly see why that suddenly makes that necessary.

Because some audience members like them and then if including them doesn't subtract from the quality of the film, I'd say then why not include the subplots?

 

[redhawk23]

Except in films as overstuffed with subplots already as these films are, and already filled with characters that the filmakers are already struggling to introduce and give proper support, the inclusion of such things actually do further distract from the central story and arguably do subtract from the quality of the film.

 

[regwec]

I haven't seen this movie, so apologies if this is wide of the mark: for me, a romantic subplot involving someone like Bard, who was little developed in the book, would be more palatable than a Dwarf/Elf thing. The latter seems to strike at the root of the Middle Earth mythology, and the book really leaves no place for it to occur.

 

[Pink Ranger]

It's important to note that the Hobbit series may have not gotten funding to be made if PJ didn't tack on Tauriel, Legolas and a romantic subplot. PJ himself might not have been thrilled about it, but it's the nature of the business.

Admittedly, a Bard/Tauriel romance might have made more sense on some levels, but the problem is that Bard basically becomes a poor man's Aragorn at that point. I like the way his character is portrayed currently: it is amazing how few action heroes in this series, or in any film franchise for that matter, have the responsibility of caring for a young family.

 

[regwec]

Why not just make him an only father? Two birds with one stone.

(Assuming he isn't already)

 

[Pink Ranger]

Why not just make him an only father? Two birds with one stone.

(Assuming he isn't already)

He is.

 

[regwec]

Well it would seem like an open goal, then.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Well it would seem like an open goal, then.

Whoa, language there! She may be nothing more than a mere sylvan elf, but she is still a child of Ilúvatar! Show some respect! t:

Seriously though, whether Bard is a single father or not, if they went with a Bard/Tauriel romance (which I am sure was discussed in the writing room at one point), it would still come across as too much like a blue-collar version of Aragorn/Arwen. A Kili/Tauriel romance, while not perfectly executed, is unexpected, and gives the storyline something new.

Also:

Spoiler

I predict a scene near the end of Hobbit 3 where Tauriel personally delivers the carved stone back to Kili's mother, and they share their grief. I think that will be a very emotional scene you would not have gotten from a Bard/Tauriel relationship.