Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - - Part 16

[Iceman]

I never said otherwise.

I know joblo.com has its detractors, but JimmyO gave the film a 9/10. Which is probably much more than I will give it, but if y'all want to read th review: http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/review-the-hobbit-the-battle-of-the-five-armies-976

To those who have seen the film: how long does the Smaug attack on Laketown last? 10 minutes? 5 minutes?

More like 10 than 5. A bit longer if you count the whole scene.

 

[Marvolo]

Do you know why he never did? Because he specifically said he asked some he trusted and they pointed out how it didn't fit into the story of the Hobbit. That it changed what made the Hobbit the Hobbit. So Tolkien never did it because it was wrong for the story. So we already got the answer on whether it belongs over half a century ago. The answer has and always will be no.

It was wrong for a children's book. Tolkien and that person weren't discussing this adaption which isn't the same as a 270 page children's book that must remain simplistic and have the tone of a children's tale. I agree with the why behind it not being in the book. The Dol Guldor stuff was tonally different from the rest of the book and if Tolkien wanted the book to stay simple and appropriate to young children and keep its tone then it couldn't be included. But the film doesn have those restrictions. I'm not going to take Tolkien's words about whether it belonged in the book and draw definitive conclusions about whether it should be shown in a film. Films and books are different things.

But it could have been done better tho. Jackson's handling of the plot hasn't wowed me like I hoped it would.

A new featurette discussing the 17 year journey of the Middle Earth Saga.

The last half includes new BTFA footage and new behind the scenes production stuff.

[YT]k3Jl86HCoBE[/YT]

More like 10 than 5. A bit longer if you count the whole scene.

Well that's good to hear. It's not as short as I was beginning to fear it was.
How out of place did it feel to you?

 

[Greens]

It's not extremely short, but after the build-up in the second movie I expected more. The scene itself was fine, if you don't count the horrible effects.

 

[Greens]

I never said otherwise.

I know joblo.com has its detractors, but JimmyO gave the film a 9/10. Which is probably much more than I will give it, but if y'all want to read th review: http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/review-the-hobbit-the-battle-of-the-five-armies-976

To those who have seen the film: how long does the Smaug attack on Laketown last? 10 minutes? 5 minutes?

I can't get behind this review whatsoever. The ice scene the best scene of the 6 movies together? Please.

I hear this a lot: "I can't help but like these movies because it takes place in Middle-Earth, a place I love so much." That's what makes these movies WORSE. You have this amazing film trilogy that stands the test of time. Then, you revisit that world and make a ****fest out of it. Like someone said before, it's comparable to Star Wars.

 

[regwec]

This was a blatant money-grab by WB. Shame on them. Also, shame on Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens for agreeing to take on a book they clearly had no interest in adapting. They've proven to me beyond all doubt that they were absolutely the worst possible choices for this.

It would be bad enough if the money grab ended there, but the consensus seems to be that this installment has been created both bloated and threadbare in order to entice people to buy the extended editions to see what was left out.

There is a lot in these films that didn't need to be there. Dwarf/elf plot being the most obvious of them. But the necromancer plot belonged in the films. Tolkien himself retroactively placed it in the Hobbit narrative during LOTR and wanted to add it to an updated version of the Hobbit but it never came to fruition. So that plot belongs in the story. And you can't have a film where Gandalf disappears for long stretches with no explanation cause then it looks like he is just abandoning his friends randomly for no apparent reason. His absences have to be addressed in some capacity. Now granted he could just tell Bilbo "I had urgent business to attend to away in the South." Which could have worked if necessary, but there is no denying that the audience memberz who haven't read the books would be wondering Wtf is so important in the South that would make Gandalf abandon our characters and their important quest. So the only options were to have Gandalf never leave the Company throughout the story, or have the film show what he is getting up to. Am I saying Jackson handled that part of the plot in the best possible way? No. But the necromancer stuff belonged in the films.

Funnily enough, I don't think the book is harmed by Gandalf's disappearance. That's because it's about Bilbo, and Gandalf's disappearance requires Bilbo to grow as a character.

In any case, I can't see what was ever wrong with the idea of a compact two-part movie following the story of The Hobbit, followed by an appendixes/fan fiction "bridging" movie between them and FOTR. The battle against the Necromancer could have been covered in that. It wouldn't have mattered if it was out-of-sequence: Gandalf's escape from Orthanc and his duel with the Balrog were both shown out of sequence in the LOTR movies, to great effect.

The whole thing just screams "Eh, **** it! I have to finish this drawing in the next 10 minutes before I get out of this ****ing class. Whatever!"

I'm feeling the same way. If, five years ago, you had presented me with a list of every stupid, lazy, greedy or downright inexplicable decision taken with these movies that now so piss me off, I simply would not have believed you.

I can't believe PJ and friends are really being deliberately destructive of the story, but it feels that way.

I hear this a lot: "I can't help but like these movies because it takes place in Middle-Earth, a place I love so much." That's what makes these movies WORSE. You have this amazing film trilogy that stands the test of time. Then, you revisit that world and make a ****fest out of it. Like someone said before, it's comparable to Star Wars.

It shows a complete lack of objectivity in the reviewing process. This is all too common these days, and the result is the compounded inflation of the score metric for big, blockbuster movies. I don't want to start an argument about this, but I feel the same thing happens with a lot of comic book movies. I doubt corruption can be to blame; instead I think it is a matter of light-weight reviewers simply writing what their readers want.

EDIT-

I recommend this 1968 interview with JRRT to anyone who wishes to draw an inference about what he would have thought of it all.

 

[ThePhantasm]

At least there is one good thing left about this franchise... the soundtrack. Listening to that Howard Shore awesomeness now.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I have one question, for people who have seen the film:

[BLACKOUT]Does Bard use that stupid arrow-turret thing to shoot down Smaug, or does he use a legit longbow like in the book?[/BLACKOUT]

 

[Greens]

I have one question, for people who have seen the film:

[BLACKOUT]Does Bard use that stupid arrow-turret thing to shoot down Smaug, or does he use a legit longbow like in the book?[/BLACKOUT]

[BLACKOUT]Smaug breaks Bard's longbow. He then ties a rope to something and something else (I forgot) and uses his son's shoulder to rest the big metal arrow on.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[Boom]

*Sigh*

 

[terry78]

You thought they were gonna leave out that big ass chekov's gun? Come on, son.

 

[Herolee10]

A new featurette discussing the 17 year journey of the Middle Earth Saga.

The last half includes new BTFA footage and new behind the scenes production stuff.

[YT]k3Jl86HCoBE[/YT]

It's so sad to see on how this vid makes it look like that the third hobbit film is going to be great when we've been hearing the opposite by quite a few people.

I wonder why we can't seemingly get a director in cinema that wouldn't lose their quality when it comes to the filmmaking of original and prequel trilogies.

Peter Jackson, George Lucas, and even Steven Spielberg went crazy with digital cgi in the latter part of their franchises after doing so many practical effects in the old days.

 

[Schlosser85]

Yea, Indy IV was full of bad unnecessary CGI. CGI prairie dogs, seriously? You couldn't find some real prairie dogs?

 

[Boom]

Going back to an earlier discussion for a moment.

If Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens were committed to telling a faithful adaptation of The Hobbit, both literally and spiritually, then the Necromancer subplot is wholly unnecessary. And I say that as someone who loves Gandalf.

The Hobbit is Bilbo's story. The narrative is structured around this tiny, seemingly insignificant person being swept up from the comfort of his ordinary life and into journeys both physical and emotional. That's ultimately what helps The Hobbit achieve its sense of wonder and adventure. We, the readers, are witnessing these fantastic events through the eyes of a character who also is experiencing and seeing these things for the first time.

You don't need to worry about developing each and every dwarf when you frame the story around Bilbo. We should see the dwarves the same way that Bilbo does. At first, a loud, overwhelming group where you struggle to remember who's who. Further driving home that initial feeling in the narrative that Bilbo is in way over his head, out of his elements, and flatly the odd man out. It makes you uncomfortable.

And when Bilbo later assumes more command and authority within the group, again, the dwarves themselves aren't the focus (especially on an individual level). It's the fact that this little hobbit, initially overwhelmed by everything, has the respect and attention of this large group. Following the fight with the spiders, these thirteen dwarves, as a collective, are immediatey looking to him for suggestions and guidance. That's what's important. And the main dwarf characters that do get more to do in the book (Thorin, Balin, Gloin) are developed through their specific interactions and relationships with Bilbo.

Now, enter Gandalf.

You can call it whatever you want. The "mentor," the "guide," the "safety net," the "plot device." That is Gandalf's purpose in the book. And just as with anything else in the book, we see Gandalf from Bilbo's point-of-view. We see this mysterious wizard who comes and goes as he pleases. We see a character who has other businesses and workings in Middle-earth that we aren't privy, because we aren't intended to be. They are bigger than Bilbo, they are bigger than the dwarves, they are bigger than the quest, they are bigger than us. And all the while you have Bilbo and the dwarves asking (repetitively):

"Where's Gandalf?"
"How could he possibly leave us like this?"

We as readers are asking these questions too. And that's what makes Gandalf that much more compelling. Frankly, Gandalf is the most wizard-y in The Hobbit, in part because of the mysterious nature of his role and now he steps out of the narrative without an explanation besides "I have other matters to attend to." You show what Gandalf is off doing, and you lose that mysterious, almost omnipotent quality. In a weird way, taking the time to break away from the main narrative to show what he's up to almost normalizes him. And again, it detracts from Bilbo's story.

Then, of course, there is the simple fact that not once does the Necromancer or Dol Guldur or The White Council come up in LotR. Not a single mention. There is no necessity for it in the cinematic narrative. And really, when you've got Gandalf and the White Council combatting Sauron and the Ring Wraiths (the main antagonists of the following trilogy) and basically making a play that could have an impact on the bigger-picture of Middle-earth as a whole, how is Bilbo's glorified treasure hunt with thirteen dwarves supposed to compete with that. In my opinion, all Gandalf's subplot accomplishes is upstaging and undermining the main narrative.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Actually, Boom, the Necromancer and Dol Goldur are mentioned in the Hobbit, and Gandalf says that's the reason he's been absent...

but I agree with your broader point.

EDIT: Sorry, misread your post. I think the Necromancer is mentioned once in FOTR. I may be mistaken, however.

 

[Victarion]

Wasn't Sauron the necromancer? Since he is the big bad of the LOTR trilogy, (and if he is the necromancer), that particular element does come up. Otherwise, I can agree with everything else in your post.

 

[Boom]

Actually, Boom, the Necromancer and Dol Goldur are mentioned in the Hobbit, and Gandalf says that's the reason he's been absent...

but I agree with your broader point.

EDIT: Sorry, misread your post. I think the Necromancer is mentioned once in FOTR. I may be mistaken, however.

The Necromancer business is mentioned in passing at the tail-end of the book, after Bilbo's adventure had essentially concluded. We only learn about the Necromancer's true nature and the full story of Gandalf's business later on in LoTR (once during the Council of Elrond, and again in Minas Tirith once the Ring had been destroyed).

To my knowledge, the Necromancer isn't mentioned once in the LoTR films.

 

[Boom]

I should clarify that when I say the Necromancer doesn't get mentioned in LoTR, I mean the films. There is literally nothing said, shown, or suggested in those films that requires this subplot to be fleshed out in The Hobbit.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Agreed on that point.

 

[Vartha]

anyone have this in a Hi Res?

 

[Herolee10]

Someone mentioned here awhile back on how PJ said that it would be revealed in BOFA on how one of the reasons why Legolas's dad is so uptight is because of the fact that he lost his wife.

Was this ever brought up in the theatrical cut of BOFA?

 

[ares834]

Movie Gandalf is kinda an idiot.

He isn't much better in the books.

 

[ThePhantasm]

He's a lot better in the books...

 

[Marvolo]

Someone mentioned here awhile back on how PJ said that it would be revealed in BOFA on how one of the reasons why Legolas's dad is so uptight is because of the fact that he lost his wife.

Was this ever brought up in the theatrical cut of BOFA?

I brought it up but forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me. I too would like to know whether it survived Jackson's wanton butchery.

 

[Herolee10]

I brought it up but forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me. I too would like to know whether it survived Jackson's wanton butchery.

Whether it made it cut or not, I wouldn't be surprised if it's revealed later that the intent was to establish that the reason why, in the films at least, Legolas's dad was so interested in obtaining the white gems in the mountain was because his wife had once owned it or something like it...

 

[Marvolo]

Whether it made it cut or not, I wouldn't be surprised if it's revealed later that the intent was to establish that the reason why, in the films at least, Legolas's dad was so interested in obtaining the white gems in the mountain was because his wife had once owned it or something like it...

I remember a reviewer or someone saying what Thranduil wants from Erebor is a necklace. The necklace is somehow connected to his wife.