Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 17

[Roose Bolton]

I guess if Tolkien never mentioned her, she never existed!

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Finally saw this tonight, I am one of the people who has like these movies and I really liked this as well, loved the battle, and this as th tightest of them all. I thought Armitage, Freeman and Pace were great, and I thought all of the other cast were very good as well.

I loved the action and also the arc and resolution of all of the characters and storylines. No, it not as good as LOTR, but they are good films on their own and I have enjoyed all 3. 9/10.

 

[InCali]

I guess if Tolkien never mentioned her, she never existed!

Yeah, I know this can't be taken THAT seriously, but, yes, she existed in the Tolkien Universe; she was just never discussed. The thing that actually made me like the movie a little bit more was just the fact that I know it wasn't The Hobbit. I thought about it as "Peter Jackson and company making stuff up." Whatever floats your boat, huh?

They have the rights to the book and could have actually made "The Hobbit", but chose to do something else. I just see it as a missed opportunity. The thing that's weird to me is that there was so much cool stuff that they glossed over or omitted and then they add a bunch of stuff that wasn't there so people would enjoy it more??? The book was just fine as a movie and I believe people would have liked it just fine (more really). Same with the beginning of the Fellowship. The meeting with Bombadil and the Barrow-downs had real significance and could have added a lot to the story. Bombadil could have really been a fun character and the Barrows explained a lot. The more difficult part of the story would have been the Two Towers, but, still doable. IMO.

 

[InCali]

Finally saw this tonight, I am one of the people who has like these movies and I really liked this as well, loved the battle, and this as th tightest of them all. I thought Armitage, Freeman and Pace were great, and I thought all of the other cast were very good as well.

I loved the action and also the arc and resolution of all of the characters and storylines. No, it not as good as LOTR, but they are good films on their own and I have enjoyed all 3. 9/10.

I'm glad you liked it and enjoyed reading your ratings. I think Freeman in particular was just terrific, but also take my hat off to Armitage. I just happened to see Transformers AoE on Rotten Tomatoes. It got an average rating of 3.9 which I thought was generous t:

I rated it "i". For those of you who may not know "i" is the square root of "-1". It's known as an "imaginary" number and I thought Xformers was an imaginary movie.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'm glad you liked it and enjoyed reading your ratings. I think Freeman in particular was just terrific, but also take my hat off to Armitage. I just happened to see Transformers AoE on Rotten Tomatoes. It got an average rating of 3.9 which I thought was generous t:

I rated it "i". For those of you who may not know "i" is the square root of "-1". It's known as an "imaginary" number and I thought Xformers was an imaginary movie.

I thought Armitage was brilliant thought the trilogy, but this one in particular was his stand out performance he played his whole arc out brilliantly. Thorn was my favourite character in the book and Armitage brought him to life brilliantly,

 

[regwec]

I keep thinking that he would have been a seminal Boromir. Sean Bean was fantastic, but perhaps a shade too likeable and sympathetic. I found him to be preferable to Viggo's Aragorn.

 

[Octoberist]

It's weird that we have found our new breakthrough star from the Hobbit movies. I guess it would be Luke Evans? I would think that Armitage, or the two dudes who played the twins would get bombarded with high profile roles by now.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Armitage played a tough role though. Thorin is unlikeable and grumpy in the book so it's really hard to be beloved from that. He pulled off what he needed to perfectly though.

The breakout star was Martin Freeman. And Smaug of course.

They tried to make the guy who played Kili the new Orlando Bloom (breakout young star!) but it didn't really work out the same way.

 

[terry78]

I don't even know his name.

 

[regwec]

Posey McBumfluff.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It appears to be a breakout role for Evangeline Lilly.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

For what it's worth despite my thoughts on this trilogy, there are a few things different in them that I somewhat preferred over the book:

- Expanded character development
- Attempting to make the Dwarves more memorable and recognizable (even though they failed in quite a few aspects with that)
- More Bard the Bowman. Love Luke Evans in the role.
- More Thranduil
- Death scenes having more weight and not just being glossed over

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I do think the dwarves are handled better in the film. Some of them are still lost in the shuffle, but in the book they are all basically non-entities aside from Thorin. So while not perfect, it was an improvement. The expansion of some of the more minor characters is often unnecessary in the film, but I do think it is important for us to be given a reason to care about the dwarves and what happens with them since they drive most of the plot.

 

[Grabes30]

I'm working my way through the book for the first time. I'm at the point where Thorin is taken by the elves in Mirkwood, and I'm already surprised at how many changes were made before we even get into Legolas/elves territory. I understand the need to change/improve/expand upon dialogue, but it seems to me that there are a good deal of unnecessary changes by Jackson & Co.

 

[regwec]

I really don't feel that the movie improved the Dwarves. Apart from a few key figures, I think they work better collectively as a chorus, leaving Bilbo as the main protagonist.

 

[InCali]

I'm working my way through the book for the first time. I'm at the point where Thorin is taken by the elves in Mirkwood, and I'm already surprised at how many changes were made before we even get into Legolas/elves territory. I understand the need to change/improve/expand upon dialogue, but it seems to me that there are a good deal of unnecessary changes by Jackson & Co.

Ding ding ding.....

I can understand that the dialogue needs work. A book isn't a screenplay. And I can understand that there may be parts that need to be changed as it would affect pacing (but that, IMO, should be a last resort). What I don't understand are completely unnecessary changes (and I think there were plenty of them in this movie).

I would bet that if you took a poll between people who really like Tolkien's work (meaning they've read the books) and people who haven't read the books, that you would find the movie rated significantly lower by the former group. I sort of liked the movie, but basically had to consciously tell myself that it isn't The Hobbit.

And, I agree with Regwec with regard to the dwarves. They could have worked better as a chorus (though I'd never really considered the point before). I can understand people liking the individual development of the dwarves, but that's a different story than The Hobbit. As much as I like Evangeline Lilly, her part in this was just simply ridiculous. As big a screw up by PJ as Esgaroth. I like Bard and could see more character development for him in the movie, but I liked the Bard in the book. He had more of a nobility about him and was less of a.......sneak....Gollum.

 

[Lighthouse]

I am absolutely baffled by the "Strider" line in this movie. So from the entire time Bilbo goes from this....

....to this....

....Aragorn was a Ranger??? Aragorn's dad would still be in diapers!

 

[craigdbfan]

Aragorn is 87 in LOTR. He's a Dunedain meaning he lives far much longer than the average human.

 

[Lighthouse]

Aragorn is 87 in LOTR. He's a Dunedain meaning he lives far much longer than the average human.

Ooooh. Now it makes more sense. Had no idea. Should go back and read LOTR.

 

[craigdbfan]

In the extended edition of the films they mention it but it's completely cut out from the theatrical editions.

 

[regwec]

Aragorn would still have been very young- about ten years old by the chronology of the book, though the movies seem to warp this a bit. In any case, I think he would have been far too young to have earned his "Strider" monicker amongst the men of Arnor.

Subtlety is hardly one of PJ's virtues, but he could still have included the same kind of cross-reference without making a mess of the mythos if he has been less on-the-nose. Had Thranduil said something like-

"Go now- seek out the Dunedain of the North. I foresee that a great leader of men will arise from those few".

- I really wouldn't have many objections. It might even have seemed quite cool.

 

[InCali]

Aragorn would still have been very young- about ten years old by the chronology of the book, though the movies seem to warp this a bit. In any case, I think he would have been far too young to have earned his "Strider" monicker amongst the men of Arnor.

Subtlety is hardly one of PJ's virtues, but he could still have included the same kind of cross-reference without making a mess of the mythos if he has been less on-the-nose. Had Thranduil said something like-

"Go now- seek out the Dunedain of the North. I foresee that a great leader of men will arise from those few".

- I really wouldn't have many objections. It might even have seemed quite cool.

It might've been okay, but there's nothing that I can remember suggesting that Legolas and Aragorn ever even met. In fact, from all the dialogue in the book, it seems to suggest otherwise.....but, okay, I guess that might've been okay.

I know you know this, but Aragorn lived to be 210 years old. His father likely wouldn't have been quite as long lived, but could probably easily have lived well past his 150th birthday. Except one problem.....it's sort of hard to be alive when you get shot in the eye by an arrow. That sounds like it frelling hurts.

 

[regwec]

You're right. I think PJ probably decided that the line was merited in that it supports the peculiar way that he has Legolas introduce Aragorn to everyone at the Council of Elrond.

 

[DKDetective]

It might've been okay, but there's nothing that I can remember suggesting that Legolas and Aragorn ever even met. In fact, from all the dialogue in the book, it seems to suggest otherwise.....but, okay, I guess that might've been okay.

I know you know this, but Aragorn lived to be 210 years old. His father likely wouldn't have been quite as long lived, but could probably easily have lived well past his 150th birthday. Except one problem.....it's sort of hard to be alive when you get shot in the eye by an arrow. That sounds like it frelling hurts.

I'm not quite sure about the lifespan of the Dunadain before the bloodline was renewed with Aragorn becoming Elessar. A lot of the chieftains died young due to the perils of their life. Aragorn's father, Arathorn, died at about age 60, when Aragorn was a mere infant. He was killed hunting orcs with the sons of Elrond. Aragorn's maternal grandfather did not want his daughter to marry Arathorn because he foresaw that he would die young. After Arathorn's death, his mother brought him to Rivendell to be fostered.

 

[regwec]

Aragorn became Elessar, not Arathorn, unless I am missing something.