Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 8

Hobbit An Unexpected Journey.

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gave it a 6. The movie just dragged for me. I don't mind that I saw essentially an extended cut, but I'd much rather watch that at home after having seen the theatrical a few times. I sincerely hope Warner reigns Peter in on the next two. He's lost all self control when it comes to wearing the big-boy editing pants.

I thought the 3D was fantastic. My only complaint was the physical presence of the glasses after 3 hours, but I didn't really have any eye strain.

The acting was serviceable. I'd like to see more from Thorin besides glaring and bellowing. The highlight was certainly Riddles in the Dark. Phenomenally directed and acted. If the movie had been only that, I'd be happy.

I'm thrilled I went and saw it. I understand the challenge to coming back after a decade to this world is a difficult task for the filmmakers. Andy Serkis touched on this when discussing Gollum, that he had to not do an impression of others doing impressions of him. I imagine that applies to every aspect of familiarity in this new trilogy. Replicating the lightning-in-a-bottle of The Lord of the Rings is impossible. I think the potential is still there in the remaining films, but this one missed the mark. Though it only missed by a near-infinitesimal amount, it makes a big difference.

That being said, it's good to have Middle Earth in the theaters at Christmas once again.
Being that i wear glasses every day the 3D glasses don't bother me since have to wear them over my regular glass. Kinda like those sun glass you wear over your regular glasses deal.
 
you know...that look that Gandalf exchanged with Balin after Balin told the tale of how Azog defeated the Dwarf King by beheading him, it made me think that they both knew that Azog was still alive.
 
People forget this question was answered during the LOTR days. The Eagles are not pets and do things for there own reasons. In the case of the Hobbit they are saving the day more then in LOTR mostly do to the fact I think Saurons powers effect them somewhat to gathering no more then a couple at a time.

The Eagles are the heralds of the Vala Manwë, and they are in fact either Maiar (beings of the same "race" as the Valar (Ainur), but of lesser stature in terms of actual power) like Gandalf and Saruman, just with the bodies of giant Eagles, or simply eagles that have been raised up in stature and knowledge by the Valar/Maiar.

The Valar are the appointed "Powers" of the world. Men misunderstand them as "gods" but they are actually more akin to archangels, serving the actual God-figure, Eru Ilúvatar.

At the end of the Second Age with the destruction of Númenor, Valinor (the kingdom of the Valar) was physically removed from the circles of the world, and the earth itself was made round. But Manwë commanded the Eagles to stay, so he would always be able to watch over Middle-earth.

That being said, they do not follow any "command" from any corporeal being in Middle-earth (ie Galadriel or Gandalf), and only emerge from their Eyries in times of great need or by command of Manwë himself.
 
you know...that look that Gandalf exchanged with Balin after Balin told the tale of how Azog defeated the Dwarf King by beheading him, it made me think that they both knew that Azog was still alive.

Yeah, they knew...or suspected he hadn't died. They both probably just let Thorin believe it so he wouldn't obsess.
 
Lol it was like a boxer entering the ring to his theme music and then BAM goes down after the first hit. It was even worse considering how badass he was in the flashback, but I guess he wasnt in the best mindset when he decided to take on a warg and its roided up rider. Still cant figure out why they didnt have him kill Azog. It would have been such a badass ending. Its really weird too because Azog specifically says "He is mine." But then he doesnt go after Thorin. Idk I think they changed Azog's fate when they expanded this to three films.

I cant wait for the Extended Edition commentaries and documentaries. I wanna know what went on during this films production and why they did the things they did.
The whole point of Thorin losing was to show The Hobbit risking his life and earning everyone's respect. At some point Thorins gonna kill Azog and I think it has a great build to it.
 
The Eagles are the heralds of the Vala Manwë, and they are in fact either Maiar (beings of the same "race" as the Valar (Ainur), but of lesser stature in terms of actual power) like Gandalf and Saruman, just with the bodies of giant Eagles, or simply eagles that have been raised up in stature and knowledge by the Valar/Maiar.

The Valar are the appointed "Powers" of the world. Men misunderstand them as "gods" but they are actually more akin to archangels, serving the actual God-figure, Eru Ilúvatar.

At the end of the Second Age with the destruction of Númenor, Valinor (the kingdom of the Valar) was physically removed from the circles of the world, and the earth itself was made round. But Manwë commanded the Eagles to stay, so he would always be able to watch over Middle-earth.

That being said, they do not follow any "command" from any corporeal being in Middle-earth (ie Galadriel or Gandalf), and only emerge from their Eyries in times of great need or by command of Manwë himself.

Horrible excuse. They're just a terrible plot device in both book and movie. There's no excuse for why they couldn't fly 5 more minutes and bring them to the Lonely Mountain. There's no excuse for when the entire middle earth is about to be destroyed including them that they can't help out and fly Frodo there. They're dumb and a holes and there's no reasoning out there that can justify that
 
Last edited:
Horrible excuse. They're just a terrible plot device in both book and movie. There's no excuse for why they couldn't fly 5 more minutes and bring them to the Lonely Mountain. There's no excuse for when the entire middle earth is about to be destroyed including them that they can't help out and fly Frodo there. They're dumb and a holes and there's no reasoning out there that can justify that

It's not an excuse. When Valinor was removed the Valar decided to never again directly influence the beings of Middle-earth in their affairs. It's why they sent the Istari (Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast and the Blue Wizards Alatar and Pallando), so that they would be able to guide men and elves in the war against Sauron. The Eagles are forbidden to directly interfere with the affairs of men and elves, but are allowed to eucatastrophically aid them in times of dire need.

Eucatastrophe- the sudden and unexpected turn from "bad" to "good"
 
People complaining about this movie are leaning to heavily on it. You're not supposed to lean on movies, books, video games, and other such things to the point that you can cite out and complain about every damn specific detail that the people who made it didn't even know about. I mean, how much a damn free loading piece of crap are you trolls? Probably just a bunch of idiots with delusions of their selves or their daddies being mighty lumberjacks and their mommies being the most beautiful woman in the whole world.


There's nothing wrong with this movie and that makes it at least a 7 of 10, by my logic that 7-10 means it has no really noticeable flaws. Personally, I'd go so far to say that it is, at least, an 8 of 10 because it managed to not anger me one bit for nearly three hours. In my book, that is quite an accomplishment for a movie when you consider I can watch watch a 30 minute episode with a 19 minute run-time of almost any show on television and want to never watch it again afterwards due to a personal offense against me.

So, if someone want's to complain because this movie didn't offend them enough then perhaps we should all collectively offend them right off the face of the planet.

Some people just don't like the same things you do. :whatever:
 
Yeah, they knew...or suspected he hadn't died. They both probably just let Thorin believe it so he wouldn't obsess.

I didn't get why he didn't just kill him. He just like Azog sit there.
 
I didn't get why he didn't just kill him. He just like Azog sit there.

I didn't get that either! All they did after Thorin sliced the hand off was drag Azog away somewhere. Thorin should have slain him right then and there. I would understand if Azog had somehow managed to escape right before Thorin got a chance to kill him, but it's almost like the Dwarves wanted Azog to survive. :o
 
People forget this question was answered during the LOTR days. The Eagles are not pets and do things for there own reasons. In the case of the Hobbit they are saving the day more then in LOTR mostly do to the fact I think Saurons powers effect them somewhat to gathering no more then a couple at a time.

It was "answered" on a commentary track if I remember correctly. Don't think that counts.
 
Actually, Tolkien himself answered this. Long before commentaries :o

And that isn't in the movie.

This may come as a shock to some of you, but audiences aren't required to do homework before they see a movie. If someone has a problem with the eagles, you can't fault them for it. The onus is on the film to properly explain itself.
 
I wouldn't fault them for it. But for myself as someone in the know about the subject, it doesn't bother me in the least. Though I wish they had included the scene where Gandalf thanks the lord of the eagles for their rescue and Gwaihir explains that he owed Gandalf a debt for caring for him when he had been brought down by an arrow years before. Not sure if that is in the book or just the cartoon but it would have helped the situation regardless.
 
The only parts of the movie that really entertained me were the foreshadowing scenes towards the LOTR movies. Also, the "meeting" scene where the 4 talk about a "darker power rising" felt really forced.
 
And that isn't in the movie.

This may come as a shock to some of you, but audiences aren't required to do homework before they see a movie. If someone has a problem with the eagles, you can't fault them for it. The onus is on the film to properly explain itself.

The problem is that even if it may be in the book or other sources of Tolkein, that same idea remains.

It is indeed a problematic one. For all we know, they could have just been concocted for plot purposes of getting his characters out of sticky spots.
 
It's a Deus ex machina, pure and simple.
 
Im guessing Thorin went into the fight with rage and close mindedness so that is why he lost and when he fights azog again he will learn from the first ass beating and fight like he has some ****ing sense.

Oh and Honest Trailers does Lord of the Rings.:)

[Yt]AOIi9SjJvgU[/MEDIA]

It's a Deus ex machina, pure and simple.

Pretty much. It's something I never had a problem with. But in fairness people, if you're gonna have a problem with it, take it up with Tolkien and his choice for using them in the plot in the books in the first place.
 
Pretty much. It's something I never had a problem with. But in fairness people, if you're gonna have a problem with it, take it up with Tolkien and his choice for using them in the plot in the books in the first place.

I like how Jackson is allowed to change things all he wants in these films, and has shown he is willing to, but when he leaves a potentially bad idea in, it is Tolkien's fault. :hehe:
 
Last edited:
Thorin is kinda jerk and it takes his freinship at the end to make him likable. Has no one seen the 1978 Hobbit animated film for Thorin is like that in the book there and here.

I read the book a long time ago. I get what they're trying to do with thorin, but I really didn't like him much more in the end book or not. That said, the actor did a good job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"