Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 9

[DarthSkywalker]

One thing that I think really tends to color people's views on this film is that we've already all seen LOTR. Had this come out first, I doubt people would be as hard as they are on it. That said, that is the nature of cinema, and we do judge on what comes before.

Secondly, in response to Matt Mortem, well obviously it feels like the first part of a story, because that's all it is. You could use the exact same critique on FOTR. It felt incomplete...because it was only the first part of the story. Though I think it did a slightly better job at feeling self contained (and I say slightly) it still very much felt like the first part in a very long movie. And it essentially was.

Which is the same reason I don't really count LOTR as a trilogy when I have the "what are good film trilogy's? " discussion, since LOTR is essentially just one long film. Not three seperate self contained films within a larger universe.

Don't agree. It is the first film in a trilogy. It is self-contained, edited masterfully with a true beginning, middle and end. The reason this even comes up is how dependent RotK is. Both FotR and TTT work on their own merit.

 

[Marvolo]

Don't agree. It is the first film in a trilogy. It is self-contained, edited masterfully with a true beginning, middle and end. The reason this even comes up is how dependent RotK is. Both FotR and TTT work on their own merit.

I still dont understand how you think FOTR has any kind of ending. Frodo and Sam are just beginning their trek, Aragorn Gimli and Legolas are beginning to chase Merry and Pippin's captors. That isnt an ending. That is a beginning. It is the beginning of the rest of the story. And in the books it literally is how TTT begins. There is no end to FOTR in the book nor in the film.

It isnt a complete film with an ending. If it was you could stop right there and all the major plot points would be complete. They arent. At all. It is an episode in an ongoing story.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I still dont understand how you think FOTR has any kind of ending. Frodo and Sam are just beginning their trek, Aragorn Gimli and Legolas are beginning to chase Merry and Pippin's captors. That isnt an ending. That is a beginning. It is the beginning of the rest of the story. And in the books it literally is how TTT begins. There is no end to FOTR in the book nor in the film.

It isnt a complete film with an ending. If it was you could stop right there and all the major plot points would be complete. They arent. At all. It is an episode in an ongoing story.

And episodes are self contained, like any good television show. You clearly watch GoT. It is the perfect example of this. In fact it kicks LotR in the nether regions in terms of multiple continuing plots over 18 hours of television. Another 9 are coming in a matter of months. The ultimate juggling of a continuous plot.

But lets look at GoT. Both seasons end on cliffhangers. More things unresolved then resolved, and yet they are complete because while each season finale could be considered the start of something, it also the end. The next season starts with the characters taking these new find ideas and motivations and using them to move forward, the introduction of new characters, new immediate conflicts that take hold of the main point and new locations unique to that season. The same will happen in season 3.

Sound familiar? Yeah, that is because the LotR films do the exact same thing.

You keep are talking about how things "start" at the end of FotR, without acknowledging the resolution in the very same scenes. With Aragorn, Boromir, Frodo and the Fellowship as a whole. The Fellowship dissolving is resolution for the Fellowship of the Ring. They are no more. The focus of the film is the Fellowship. Just like The Two Towers is the focus of The Two Towers.

You don't have to have mastered the Crane Kick at the end of the first movie for it to have resolution.

 

[CGHulk]

Found this.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That is a great caption.

 

[C. Lee]

I still dont understand how you think FOTR has any kind of ending. Frodo and Sam are just beginning their trek, Aragorn Gimli and Legolas are beginning to chase Merry and Pippin's captors. That isnt an ending. That is a beginning. It is the beginning of the rest of the story. And in the books it literally is how TTT begins. There is no end to FOTR in the book nor in the film.

It isnt a complete film with an ending. If it was you could stop right there and all the major plot points would be complete. They arent. At all. It is an episode in an ongoing story.

I understand exactly what you are saying. TLOTR is one giant book broken down into three by the publisher....and TLOTR is one giant movie broken down into three movies by the production team.

I remember hearing many times at the theater during the first couple days of FOTR (I was able to go several days straight back then) from people who really had no idea what Tolkien or the rings were - "What?! That's the ending? That's not an ending!" and then people around them would have to tell them that this is just the first of a three part story.

 

[Marvolo]

And episodes are self contained, like any good television show. You clearly watch GoT. It is the perfect example of this. In fact it kicks LotR in the nether regions in terms of multiple continuing plots over 18 hours of television. Another 9 are coming in a matter of months. The ultimate juggling of a continuous plot.

But lets look at GoT. Both seasons end on cliffhangers. More things unresolved then resolved, and yet they are complete because while each season finale could be considered the start of something, it also the end. The next season starts with the characters taking these new find ideas and motivations and using them to move forward, the introduction of new characters, new immediate conflicts that take hold of the main point and new locations unique to that season. The same will happen in season 3.

Sound familiar? Yeah, that is because the LotR films do the exact same thing.

You keep are talking about how things "start" at the end of FotR, without acknowledging the resolution in the very same scenes. With Aragorn, Boromir, Frodo and the Fellowship as a whole. The Fellowship dissolving is resolution for the Fellowship of the Ring. They are no more. The focus of the film is the Fellowship. Just like The Two Towers is the focus of The Two Towers.

You don't have to have mastered the Crane Kick at the end of the first movie for it to have resolution.

You clearly have a much more loose defintion of what constitutes an ending. I see no resolution in FOTR to the main narrative or to the character's journey so it cant be a self contained movie. A self contained movie is Gladiator, ANH, inglorious basterds etc. You can not possibly take someone who knows nothing about LOTR and show them FOTR never show them the other two and expect them to have any kind of resolution. That isnt a self contained movie.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You clearly have a much more loose defintion of what constitutes an ending. I see no resolution in FOTR to the main narrative or to the character's journey so it cant be a self contained movie. A self contained movie is Gladiator, ANH, inglorious basterds etc. You can not possibly take someone who knows nothing about LOTR and show them FOTR never show them the other two and expect them to have any kind of resolution. That isnt a self contained movie.

How can Star Wars be self-contained when they make it clear Vader survives and the Empire is very much the force in the galaxy? Did Luke learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi Knight? That is what his goal was leaving that sad desert planet.

You are avoiding my points. You seem deadset on "well if you don't show them the others they won't get the entire story", but it doesn't matter. Being apart of some larger series does not preclude film from being its own story, its own film. You used the word episode, and it is important to the entire point. Just because the same person directed and wrote all the episodes in the LotR film series, does not change their nature. It is no different then GoT, where there are more writers and directors who shape different episodes, which are apart of a larger whole.

You seem to think just because a film works on its own, that means it can't be apart of a series. I think that is so far off. Each entry is apart of something bigger, but each is still its own beast. Each has its own immediate focus.

The Fellowship of the Ring is about The Fellowship of the Ring. At the end of the film it is no more. If they are one huge story without any breaks, why are there so many shifts in focus and characters between films? It is the very reason why the Fellowship is the at the core of FotR and the conflict between Orthanc and Rohan is at the heart of TTT. Gondor and the destruction of the ring in RotK.

 

[CGHulk]

MAX 60 Seconds with Martin Freeman (The Hobbit)
[YT]hNZCSGcU1MA[/YT]

MAX 60 Seconds with Richard Armitage (The Hobbit)
[YT]eLIK-DREmJA[/YT]

Hobbit cast on Anderson Cooper Live December 14, 2012
[YT]6uosdXw[/YT]

'The Hobbit' Unscripted: Complete Interview
[YT]hHV32oqF-mg[/YT]

 

[Marvolo]

How can Star Wars be self-contained when they make it clear Vader survives and the Empire is very much the force in the galaxy? Did Luke learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi Knight? That is what his goal was leaving that sad desert planet.

You are avoiding my points. You seem deadset on "well if you don't show them the others they won't get the entire story", but it doesn't matter. Being apart of some larger series does not preclude film from being its own story, its own film. You used the word episode, and it is important to the entire point. Just because the same person directed and wrote all the episodes in the LotR film series, does not change their nature. It is no different then GoT, where there are more writers and directors who shape different episodes, which are apart of a larger whole.

You seem to think just because a film works on its own, that means it can't be apart of a series. I think that is so far off. Each entry is apart of something bigger, but each is still its own beast. Each has its own immediate focus.

The Fellowship of the Ring is about The Fellowship of the Ring. At the end of the film it is no more. If they are one huge story without any breaks, why are there so many shifts in focus and characters between films? It is the very reason why the Fellowship is the at the core of FotR and the conflict between Orthanc and Rohan is at the heart of TTT. Gondor and the destruction of the ring in RotK.

Star Wars A New Hope is a self contained story, or it was until they got the greenlight for ESB. And if youve watched Empire of Dreams or read the Making of Book you know it was made to be a self contained film if that was the only one. Lucas has said it was the easiest to do and had the most traditional hero story. Luke's story could have ended at that film. He went from being a farm boy to a hero, he rescued the princess, he turned a scoundrel into an ally of the rebellion and he destroyed the Empires most feared weapon and Vader is left spinning on deep space . The story of ANH, which is Luke going off to rescue a princess is wrapped up in that film. That is the main narrative and it is wrapped up in that film. The film was shot by itself and had it tanked or a sequel not gotten a greenlight ANH would have went on as a perfectly singular stand alone film about a farm boy becoming a hero and rescuing a princess.

Frodo's story isnt wrapped up at all in fotr. Sam's story is not wrapped up. None of the threads started are finished in FOTR Etc. FOTR was shot similtaneously with the other two parts it was never intended to be a stand alone film. It is part 1 of a 3 part story. And all 3 parts were always going to be released becaise they do not function without all the parts. I still dont see where you are getting this notion from. If TTT and ROTK had never been made FOTR wouldnt stand on its own at all which is why it cant be viewed as a stand alone film.

And it isnt that a self contained film cant be a part of a series.I never said that. It can but FOTR isnt a self contained film. And ive pointed out repeatedly why it isnt. No one involved in the making of that film intended it to be, and Tolkien sure didnt consider FOTR to be self contained. And no one that I know and have ever encountered in life and online other than you has ever said they walked out of FOTR feeling it was a self contained film with total resolution. Quite the opposite.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Found this.

Lol, that is too funny.

 

[Marvolo]

Found this.

This kind of defies logic for me. Why would you march a large army hundreds of miles to a battle then decide " Im not feeling it today. Time to go home." Are elves that well off that they can waste days and supplies marching to a battle then not fight? And how did Thranduil get his army there so fast? It should have taken a message a day or two to reach him then the time to prepare and mobilizing the army would have taken a day or more and then there is the time it takes to actually get to the battle. And one would think that during that time of preparing his army he would have thought, "I really dont feel like helping these dwarves fight a dragon." saving him the trouble of going there. Or did he do it just to spit in the dwarves face in their time of desperation? Either he occupies a level of smugness not known to man or he is an entirely incompetent general/king.

 

[HowardStark]

I have a question does Bifur speak cause I am wondering if that weapon in his head keeps him from talking for he seemed like he has not the ability to speak.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

Not sure...well I mean...I think when he stopped in front of Gandalf in the earlier scene, he spoke something in dwarfish. *shrugs*

 

[Marvolo]

I have a question does Bifur speak cause I am wondering if that weapon in his head keeps him from talking for he seemed like he has not the ability to speak.

Jackson said due to the ax chip being stuck in his head he can only speak in dwarvish and grunts. He cant speak english. He spoke a little bit to Gandalf at bagend and gandalf looked at him like "wtf" lol.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

Did Gandalf really have that 'WTF' expression on his face? lol.

 

[John Locke]

This kind of defies logic for me. Why would you march a large army hundreds of miles to a battle then decide " Im not feeling it today. Time to go home." Are elves that well off that they can waste days and supplies marching to a battle then not fight? And how did Thranduil get his army there so fast? It should have taken a message a day or two to reach him then the time to prepare and mobilizing the army would have taken a day or more and then there is the time it takes to actually get to the battle. And one would think that during that time of preparing his army he would have thought, "I really dont feel like helping these dwarves fight a dragon." saving him the trouble of going there. Or did he do it just to spit in the dwarves face in their time of desperation? Either he occupies a level of smugness not known to man or he is an entirely incompetent general/king.

The elves are well off they can waste days and supplies on a journey. One small bite of their bread can fill the stomach of a grown man. They probably heard word of a dragon flying towards Erebor. They had every intention of helping the dwarves but they saw that Smaug had already claimed Erebor and they didn't want to loose any lives taking back a mountain that's not their own.

 

[HowardStark]

I notice him grunting at Bilbo too and doing some sort of sign language or jesture to him.

 

[HowardStark]

The elves are well off they can waste days and supplies on a journey. One small bite of their bread can fill the stomach of a grown man. They probably heard word of a dragon flying towards Erebor. They had every intention of helping the dwarves but they saw that Smaug had already claimed Erebor and they didn't want to loose any lives taking back a mountain that's not their own.

Elves are a bit snobbish and Only fight if it effects them. This I think is true and yet Dwarfs are the same way. I think its why Gandalf likes Hobbit and Humans. Because they are more willing to help there fellow man.

 

[Boom]

I wish they'd give this franchise it's own board so I could make my Beorn Anticipation Thread and finally be able to vent my obsession with that character without derailing this topic .

 

[Marvolo]

Did Gandalf really have that 'WTF' expression on his face? lol.

Lol Ive only seen it once, but I remember Gandalf's reaction being a he stares at him turns around and kind of shakes his head like "ok whatever he said" lol. I could be misremembering or have read into it wrong.

 

[Marvolo]

Elves are a bit snobbish and Only fight if it effects them. This I think is true and yet Dwarfs are the same way. I think its why Gandalf likes Hobbit and Humans. Because they are more willing to help there fellow man.

Humans and hobbits seem to be more emapthetic than dwarves and elves. They will relate to someone's pain and desire to help them even if there is nothing or very little to gain from doing so.

 

[HowardStark]

I thought it was funny that when Gandalf gets tired of a person not listening to his plane he seems to make everything go dark. Oddly enough it happens both times at Bag End.

The Dwarfs start to make him mad and he does what he does to Bilbo when Bilbo says to Gandalf you want The Ring For your self.

 

[HowardStark]

Humans and hobbits seem to be more emapthetic than dwarves and elves. They will relate to someone's pain and desire to help them even if there is nothing or very little to gain from doing so.

Truth be told Boromirs death effected me more then any other in Rings because he showed sarrow for Gimli's pain

Legolas looked confused and thus like most elves are not comforting in tragedy.

 

[John Locke]

Not to mention it was Boromir who wanted to give the hobbits time to mourn for Gandalf's death.