Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - - - - - Part 14

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]469859[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]467629[/split]

 

[regwec]

Can't read the spoiler, as there is still a lingering chance I might see this at some point.

Agree about the Arwen/Aragorn echo being a problem, but that seems like a problem with any other inter-species romance, anyway. If we had a romantic subplot with Bard and a human woman, there would be less echoes of Man/Elf than there is in Dwarf/Elf.

 

[RichardMoore]

Also calling the innuendo in DoS a "penis joke" is like calling "sticking dwarvish iron up his jacksie" in AUJ a rape joke.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Agree about the Arwen/Aragorn echo being a problem, but that seems like a problem with any other inter-species romance, anyway.

As one of the dwarves, I think Kili is less likely to be viewed as a proxy for Aragorn. Bard is maybe a bit too close to the mark (the gritty, dark-haired human warrior companion to a company of undersized fairy creatures).

If we had a romantic subplot with Bard and a human woman, there would be less echoes of Man/Elf than there is in Dwarf/Elf.

Yes, but that would involve creating a second woman character in a Tolkien film. One that might actually meet and interact with the other woman character! And of course, we know that's just madness. Pure madness!

 

[regwec]

Not it we don't have the ginger Elf.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Not it we don't have the ginger Elf.

I think Tauriel was a very necessary addition to the movie to pry film funding out of men with big wallets and small minds. I think if you started including more original elf content in the movie, a character like Tauriel would almost be mandatory.

 

[Quasimod0]

Tauriel ended up being a fantastic, enjoyable character. So I'm glad they added her to the story.

 

[Tony Stark]

I didn't mind Tauriel, I didn't even mind the love triangle. I didn't like the mourgal arrow, and the rehashing of Frodo getting stabbed by the witch king with Arawen healing him.

Killi is going to die anyway, so we know how the love triangle is going to end up. They're probably going to do something sappy where Tauriel sacrifices herself for Killi and dies leaving Legolas heartbroken.

 

[The Lizard]

I'm afraid to wonder what role Kili and Tauriel could play in "helping" Bard do his black arrow thing.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I'm afraid to wonder what role Kili and Tauriel could play in "helping" Bard do his black arrow thing.

Kili and the other three dwarves can do an entertaining, action-comic jailbreak to kick off the third movie. I guess Tauriel would be the one who beats the crap out of the guards and the master.

 

[jonathancrane]

Since I logged on too late, I cannot quote the post responses to my previous one. I know the texts were written for children; hence the lack of sexuality. I did not see it as a problem, nor Tauriel's joke a problem. I was commenting on the nature of the material; heck, a large percentage of the audience at the theater laughed at it.

 

[Pink Ranger]

If anything takes the film into adult territory, it's Thranduil alone! He looks and acts like a character imported directly from a Ken Russell movie!

 

[Man in the Suit]

Spoiler

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?

Spoiler

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.

Yeeeessss.


I saw it in 48fps and it was weird.

 

[BlackFox]

Just got back from seeing it and its a bit of a mixed bag really, equal parts brilliant, average and some WTF moments. Overall I think its better than TABA but it seems like Jackson is almost trying a bit too hard in some areas and not nearly enough in others and my god is it too long. Its just not got enough decent quality about it to warrant LOTR style length and some bits just get lost in the mix, it feels like Jackson needs someone to edit for him to reign him back a bit. If this sounds a bit negative its because I really think there is a great film of 2 hours in here and 45 minutes of fat that could be cut out and its just a bit frustrating.

The Good
Smaug - Just brilliant and pretty much saved the film for me
Bard and Laketown in general
Most of the barrel action scene and action in general
Bilbo was excellent again

The Bad
Way too much Legolas
Dat luv triangle
Some WTF moments - Tauriel healing Kili, Legolas balancing on heads, too much LOTR linking
Several wasted elements - Beorn, Stephen Fry, Elf king

So overall it looks like Im complaining about a lot but its just that there is a lot of really good stuff in here but its hidden by a lot of chaff that could have been removed to make way for the better elements. If your film is nearly 3 hours long then that does mean there is more scope for things to go wrong but its worth seeing for Smaug alone at least but its just not quite as good as it could and perhaps at some stage was.

7.5/10

 

[Vartha]

Originally Posted by 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?

Depends on the person actually lol. For example, THAT wouldn't have made my Mom throw a fit, but, Bad Grandpa would give her a Heart attack lol

 

[Vartha]

I agree with the Smaug. He was just amazing in my eye's. Like a dream come true. Which Reminds me I gotta ask Greg Hildebrandt what he thought of Smaug

Just got back from seeing it and its a bit of a mixed bag really, equal parts brilliant, average and some WTF moments. Overall I think its better than TABA but it seems like Jackson is almost trying a bit too hard in some areas and not nearly enough in others and my god is it too long. Its just not got enough decent quality about it to warrant LOTR style length and some bits just get lost in the mix, it feels like Jackson needs someone to edit for him to reign him back a bit. If this sounds a bit negative its because I really think there is a great film of 2 hours in here and 45 minutes of fat that could be cut out and its just a bit frustrating.

The Good
Smaug - Just brilliant and pretty much saved the film for me
Bard and Laketown in general
Most of the barrel action scene and action in general
Bilbo was excellent again

The Bad
Way too much Legolas
Dat luv triangle
Some WTF moments - Tauriel healing Kili, Legolas balancing on heads, too much LOTR linking
Several wasted elements - Beorn, Stephen Fry, Elf king

So overall it looks like Im complaining about a lot but its just that there is a lot of really good stuff in here but its hidden by a lot of chaff that could have been removed to make way for the better elements. If your film is nearly 3 hours long then that does mean there is more scope for things to go wrong but its worth seeing for Smaug alone at least but its just not quite as good as it could and perhaps at some stage was.

7.5/10

 

[Slushy]

I also hated the "angelic Tauriel" scene. Sh** was too damn bright and actually hurt my eyes!

 

[Drz]

Haha yeah that was damn annoying.

 

[vinsanity]

Haha yeah that was damn annoying.

true,

 

[ares834]

Several wasted elements - Elf king

You thought Thranduil was wasted? Honestly, despite only being in the film for a few minutes they did a great job with him. He is ancient and regal yet wild and fey just as he should be. Beyond that they alluded to a very interesting back-story that he had.

 

[flickchick85]

I saw it in 48fps and it was weird.

I officially hate 48fps. HATE IT.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I need to see what Cameron does with it before wiping it off. I didn't see DOS in 48fps but I did see AUJ, which, needless to say, made me almost barf.

 

[ravn0s]

I need to see what Cameron does with it before wiping it off. I didn't see DOS in 48fps but I did see AUJ, which, needless to say, made me almost barf.

isn't cameron doing 60fps?

 

[Pink Ranger]

I think Albert Pyun is doing 6 fps.