Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 9

[jmc]

Finally off to see this in a couple hours.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Finally off to see this in a couple hours.

Finally. I hope you enjoy yourself.

By the way, which format?

 

[jmc]

24fps was always going to be the first way I watched it.

 

[Sundancer]

Wiki says this:

So, no, the Witch King was never buried. I have absolutely no idea why Jackson would change that.

Well, it's a wiki so I'd find a backup source.


Came away this afternoon. Pretty good though I think the comedic aspect was bit much in part especially with Radagast and the Goblin King. I mean,

Spoiler

we can actually call Radagst a ****head.

 

[Marvolo]

Well, it's a wiki so I'd find a backup source.

JRR Tolkien's Appendices are the only source we need. The wikipedia entry was for the benifit of those who don't have access to the appendices and it is also easier to copy and paste a wiki article than manually retype what Tolkien wrote. Tolkien made it clear that the Nazgûl can not be killed or destroyed as long as The Ring survives and that the Witchking was never buried. Its an inconsequential change but it seems Jackdon changed it soley to up the creepy factor of him walking around Dol Guldor and the morgul blade being found.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

Why on earth would jackson mess up the timeline? Does jackson not understand that gandalf is the one who discovers the source of the power in dol guldur?? Also, gandalf finds thrain who gives him the map and key the second time gandalf enters the ruins. My guess is that we will see it as a flashback. As for the pic of him in teaser with glamdring.I dunno.

 

[DaveMoral]

That is correct. It is Thrain at Dol Guldor. What is odd tho is that Gandalf has Glamdring in the scene which means in the films it happens after the troll cave which eould mean Gandalf doesnt get the map and key in this scene because he already has them. In the book Gandalf encounters Thrain and gets the map and key 100 years prior to the journey to defeat Smaug. In the film Gandalf must run into Thrain a second time.

I thought Tolkien's timeline has Gandalf driving out the Necromancer around the time he encountered Thrain, before realizing the Necromancer is Sauron. He, and as a result the White Council, believed the Necromancer to be a Nazgul. And it isn't until the events of the Hobbit where he finally has evidence that convinces the Wise to move. Specifically Saruman.

Gandalf being surprised by Radagast's discovery in the movie should sync easily with that. He thought he took care of the Necromancer, but he's back and stronger than before.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Well, it's a wiki so I'd find a backup source.

The wiki is absolutely right. Glorfindel prophesied about the Witch-King: "Do not pursue him! He will not return to these lands. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall." Thus, for him to "fall" before his prophesied doom is nonsensical.

Furthermore, per the LOTR appendices A and B, the Witch-King disappeared around the time Sauron was defeated, only to return and make a few other appearances before Sauron's return. The White council knew he had not been killed because he and the rest of the Black Riders had previously been fighting against the Gondorians and had captured (and presumably killed) the last king of Gondor at Minas Morgul in TA 2050, long after the Witch-King had fled due to Sauron's defeat .

 

[THANOSRULES]

That's kind of how I looked at it. Especially since some moments in LOTR were very "80's action here esque" like at the end of FOTR where Aragorn is literally taking on about thirty Orcs by himself. That even made me kind of go "okay...really?" when I was 12.

Still, it's something I've come to expect in hollywood. Right when I finished reading the 7th Harry Potter book for the first time, I knew that when the movie was filmed, the climax with Voldermort would be exapanded into a large fight between him and Harry, despite the fact that Harry never would have been able to last longer then a few minutes in a hard one on one duel with Voldermort.

However, I do think Chris Tolkien may have overlooked the fact that the films still managed to be very true adaptations to the books in many cases, despite the dangers of having to be commercialized to make money. It really was a deftly done balancing act by Jackson.

Personally, I clearly took from the books that orcs, goblins and even Oruk-hai were weak fighters that the heroes could kill by the dozen at any given time and had far less skill than an equivilant named "heroic race" figure

 

[Infinity9999x]

Personally, I clearly took from the books that orcs, goblins and even Oruk-hai were weak fighters that the heroes could kill by the dozen at any given time and had far less skill than an equivilant named "heroic race" figure

Yeah...I still don't remember Aragorn taking on thirty Orcs by himself in the books. Because he didn't.

But again, it's not something I absolutely hate, that's more of a nitpick in the adventure genre as a whole for me. I love a good fight scene like the next guy (heck, a fight choreographer is something I'm looking into trying to be) but I've always enjoyed it more when the fights are more personal, and a little more grounded. I hated the scene in the new Three Musketeers where they're taking on 40 guys (and a lot of other things, but that's neither here nor there).

It's just a nitpick of mine. It doesn't ruin a movie for me, and it didn't ruin FOTR. It was only about a thirty second scene anyway, but it was just one of those things. Similar to how the Storm Troopers in Star Wars were built up by Obi-Wan, but when they have to shoot Luke they can't hit the broad side of a barn.

But it's just one of those things.

 

[Bruce Malone]

A question here regarding the Trolls. Why could the trolls talk in the Hobbit yet in the LOTR trilogy they were depicted as mute beasts of burden essentially?

Was it tech limitations during LOTR that they chose to depict the trolls as just mute monsters pretty much as opposed to thinking talking creatures?

 

[Brother Jack]

A question here regarding the Trolls. Why could the trolls talk in the Hobbit yet in the LOTR trilogy they were depicted as mute beasts of burden essentially?

Was it tech limitations during LOTR that they chose to depict the trolls as just mute monsters pretty much as opposed to thinking talking creatures?

I believe the answer to that is that Bilbo's trolls were different kinds. Mountain trolls to be exact, different than the cave troll the fellowship encounters.

 

[ThePhantasm]

A question here regarding the Trolls. Why could the trolls talk in the Hobbit yet in the LOTR trilogy they were depicted as mute beasts of burden essentially?

Was it tech limitations during LOTR that they chose to depict the trolls as just mute monsters pretty much as opposed to thinking talking creatures?

They talk in the Hobbit book, whereas I don't think there is ever an instance of trolls speaking in LOTR. At least, not that I can remember off the top of my head.

 

[Marvolo]

I believe the answer to that is that Bilbo's trolls were different kinds. Mountain trolls to be exact, different than the cave troll the fellowship encounters.

As far as I know you are correct.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Interesting, i thought it might have been bit of retconning on jackson's part. Where he thought now we have the tech we can make them talk or something...

 

[Marvolo]

Interesting, i thought it might have been bit of retconning on jackson's part. Where he thought now we have the tech we can make them talk or something...

Nah, it is actually a Tolkien thing. Pretty much every animal species in the Hobbit can speak their own language. Spiders, eagles, trolls, wargs etc can all speak to their own kind and can be understood if the character knows their language. In LOTR Tolkien went for a less children's story approach and there is much less of this.

 

[jmc]

So I just got back, here's my review.

My greatest fear going into this film once Jackson made the decision to split it into three films was whether the story was there to justify the almost 9 hours of cinema. Sadly it doesn't, The Hobbit is a film that at times recaptures the magic that was seen in LOTR but ultimately doesn't have the same weight story wise to demand the same amount of time. It seems to me Jackson spent way to much time trying to redo what he did 12 years ago with LOTR instead of treating The Hobbit as its own thing. Whilst The Hobbit does better than most it still suffers from a reasonably mild case of 'prequel-itis', we know what's going to happen, the needless connections to the events that will transpire 60 years later have zero impact on the story at hand, yet large amounts of time are wasted on telling us things we already know.

In and amongst the needless future connections the title character seems to get lost, that to me is the biggest issue of the film. Martin Freeman is fantastic as Bilbo, but instead of focusing on him this film feels much more like Thorin's story with Bilbo along for the ride. Whilst you can make the argument that The Hobbit has always been the Dwarves story, Bilbo's perspective of the situation was haphazardly handled here, after a fantastic introduction at Bag End with the dinner sequence Bilbo seems to get completely lost during the second act of the movie and only really comes back into the fold during the Riddles in the Dark sequence which is by far the best sequence in the movie, seeing Andy Serkis as Gollum again was a true joy. Overall it's hard to gauge exactly who this film was meant to be about and who was meant to be the focus.

Ian McKellen was great again, I always preferred Gandalf the Grey over Gandalf the White and it was awesome to see this version of the character back again. McKellen slips back into the role like and old pair of shoes, the only down side is I never really felt much of a relationship between Gandalf and Bilbo was established. Perhaps that will be explored in the next two films but I think some of the time spent in other areas could have been used in showing the friendship building between the two.

For the dwarves Richard Armitage as Thorin is good, but the rest of the dwarves seem to get lost amongst each other which isn't really a surprise given there a 13 of them in all, but I wonder if maybe Jackson could have reduced the number by 4 or 5 just to make them stand out from each other a bit more.

Some complaints about the CG are warranted, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as some have made it out to be, the action sequences are fun to watch in spite of the overly GC environments and characters. One thing I missed was the great make-up work on the Orcs, there was a texture and feel to the Orcs in LOTR that is noticeably absent here in The Hobbit, I'm not really sure why Jackson chose this route but I think this was a case of being overly reliant on the CG to achieve the same effect as makeup.

As for the changes to the book, I'm no purist by any means, but I feel as if many of the additions really don't add a hell of a lot. I can understand the need for a villain as such given Smaug isn't coming up until the next movie, but Azog just doesn't cut it in the same way that Lurtz did in Fellowship. Maybe it was the fact that he was a CG character but he felt extremely bland whilst Lurtz felt like a genuine badass. As for the LOTR reunion in Bag End and Rivendell, pretty much pointless, the former of which does nothing but slow down the beginning of the movie. Radaghast the Brown, a character I always wanted to see, is entertaining in the brief period he's on screen but I feel as if the story is altered to accommodate him and ultimately he feels wasted.

Overall, The Hobbit Part 1 is a slightly above average movie that drags out longer than it should, it feels every bit of its 169 minute run time and could easily have had 30 mins shaved off it, in fact this feel more like an Extended Edition of the film as opposed to the cinema release. A two-part movie was more than enough for the book Jackson is adapting, the fact that this first film has covered only the first half dozen chapters kinda scares me, but I'm hopeful Jackson can see the error in his ways here and tighten things up a bit more in the next two movies even if that means they have a considerably shorter run time. I don't know if overindulgence is the right word, I just think Jackson was trying to do the same thing he did 12 years ago to a completely different book.

6/10

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Personally, I clearly took from the books that orcs, goblins and even Oruk-hai were weak fighters that the heroes could kill by the dozen at any given time and had far less skill than an equivilant named "heroic race" figure

Lurtz didn't look weak to me.

 

[Marvolo]

So I just got back, here's my review.

My greatest fear going into this film once Jackson made the decision to split it into three films was whether the story was there to justify the almost 9 hours of cinema. Sadly it doesn't, The Hobbit is a film that at times recaptures the magic that was seen in LOTR but ultimately doesn't have the same weight story wise to demand the same amount of time. It seems to me Jackson spent way to much time trying to redo what he did 12 years ago with LOTR instead of treating The Hobbit as its own thing. Whilst The Hobbit does better than most it still suffers from a reasonably mild case of 'prequel-itis', we know what's going to happen, the needless connections to the events that will transpire 60 years later have zero impact on the story at hand, yet large amounts of time are wasted on telling us things we already know.

In and amongst the needless future connections the title character seems to get lost, that to me is the biggest issue of the film. Martin Freeman is fantastic as Bilbo, but instead of focusing on him this film feels much more like Thorin's story with Bilbo along for the ride. Whilst you can make the argument that The Hobbit has always been the Dwarves story, Bilbo's perspective of the situation was haphazardly handled here, after a fantastic introduction at Bag End with the dinner sequence Bilbo seems to get completely lost during the second act of the movie and only really comes back into the fold during the Riddles in the Dark sequence which is by far the best sequence in the movie, seeing Andy Serkis as Gollum again was a true joy. Overall it's hard to gauge exactly who this film was meant to be about and who was meant to be the focus.

Ian McKellen was great again, I always preferred Gandalf the Grey over Gandalf the White and it was awesome to see this version of the character back again. McKellen slips back into the role like and old pair of shoes, the only down side is I never really felt much of a relationship between Gandalf and Bilbo was established. Perhaps that will be explored in the next two films but I think some of the time spent in other areas could have been used in showing the friendship building between the two.

For the dwarves Richard Armitage as Thorin is good, but the rest of the dwarves seem to get lost amongst each other which isn't really a surprise given there a 13 of them in all, but I wonder if maybe Jackson could have reduced the number by 4 or 5 just to make them stand out from each other a bit more.

Some complaints about the CG are warranted, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as some have made it out to be, the action sequences are fun to watch in spite of the overly GC environments and characters. One thing I missed was the great make-up work on the Orcs, there was a texture and feel to the Orcs in LOTR that is noticeably absent here in The Hobbit, I'm not really sure why Jackson chose this route but I think this was a case of being overly reliant on the CG to achieve the same effect as makeup.

As for the changes to the book, I'm no purist by any means, but I feel as if many of the additions really don't add a hell of a lot. I can understand the need for a villain as such given Smaug isn't coming up until the next movie, but Azog just doesn't cut it in the same way that Lurtz did in Fellowship. Maybe it was the fact that he was a CG character but he felt extremely bland whilst Lurtz felt like a genuine badass. As for the LOTR reunion in Bag End and Rivendell, pretty much pointless, the former of which does nothing but slow down the beginning of the movie. Radaghast the Brown, a character I always wanted to see, is entertaining in the brief period he's on screen but I feel as if the story is altered to accommodate him and ultimately he feels wasted.

Overall, The Hobbit Part 1 is a slightly above average movie that drags out longer than it should, it feels every bit of its 169 minute run time and could easily have had 30 mins shaved off it, in fact this feel more like an Extended Edition of the film as opposed to the cinema release. A two-part movie was more than enough for the book Jackson is adapting, the fact that this first film has covered only the first half dozen chapters kinda scares me, but I'm hopeful Jackson can see the error in his ways here and tighten things up a bit more in the next two movies even if that means they have a considerably shorter run time. I don't know if overindulgence is the right word, I just think Jackson was trying to do the same thing he did 12 years ago to a completely different book.

6/10

Good review.

 

[Matt]

So I just got back, here's my review.

My greatest fear going into this film once Jackson made the decision to split it into three films was whether the story was there to justify the almost 9 hours of cinema. Sadly it doesn't, The Hobbit is a film that at times recaptures the magic that was seen in LOTR but ultimately doesn't have the same weight story wise to demand the same amount of time. It seems to me Jackson spent way to much time trying to redo what he did 12 years ago with LOTR instead of treating The Hobbit as its own thing. Whilst The Hobbit does better than most it still suffers from a reasonably mild case of 'prequel-itis', we know what's going to happen, the needless connections to the events that will transpire 60 years later have zero impact on the story at hand, yet large amounts of time are wasted on telling us things we already know.

In and amongst the needless future connections the title character seems to get lost, that to me is the biggest issue of the film. Martin Freeman is fantastic as Bilbo, but instead of focusing on him this film feels much more like Thorin's story with Bilbo along for the ride. Whilst you can make the argument that The Hobbit has always been the Dwarves story, Bilbo's perspective of the situation was haphazardly handled here, after a fantastic introduction at Bag End with the dinner sequence Bilbo seems to get completely lost during the second act of the movie and only really comes back into the fold during the Riddles in the Dark sequence which is by far the best sequence in the movie, seeing Andy Serkis as Gollum again was a true joy. Overall it's hard to gauge exactly who this film was meant to be about and who was meant to be the focus.

Ian McKellen was great again, I always preferred Gandalf the Grey over Gandalf the White and it was awesome to see this version of the character back again. McKellen slips back into the role like and old pair of shoes, the only down side is I never really felt much of a relationship between Gandalf and Bilbo was established. Perhaps that will be explored in the next two films but I think some of the time spent in other areas could have been used in showing the friendship building between the two.

For the dwarves Richard Armitage as Thorin is good, but the rest of the dwarves seem to get lost amongst each other which isn't really a surprise given there a 13 of them in all, but I wonder if maybe Jackson could have reduced the number by 4 or 5 just to make them stand out from each other a bit more.

Some complaints about the CG are warranted, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as some have made it out to be, the action sequences are fun to watch in spite of the overly GC environments and characters. One thing I missed was the great make-up work on the Orcs, there was a texture and feel to the Orcs in LOTR that is noticeably absent here in The Hobbit, I'm not really sure why Jackson chose this route but I think this was a case of being overly reliant on the CG to achieve the same effect as makeup.

As for the changes to the book, I'm no purist by any means, but I feel as if many of the additions really don't add a hell of a lot. I can understand the need for a villain as such given Smaug isn't coming up until the next movie, but Azog just doesn't cut it in the same way that Lurtz did in Fellowship. Maybe it was the fact that he was a CG character but he felt extremely bland whilst Lurtz felt like a genuine badass. As for the LOTR reunion in Bag End and Rivendell, pretty much pointless, the former of which does nothing but slow down the beginning of the movie. Radaghast the Brown, a character I always wanted to see, is entertaining in the brief period he's on screen but I feel as if the story is altered to accommodate him and ultimately he feels wasted.

Overall, The Hobbit Part 1 is a slightly above average movie that drags out longer than it should, it feels every bit of its 169 minute run time and could easily have had 30 mins shaved off it, in fact this feel more like an Extended Edition of the film as opposed to the cinema release. A two-part movie was more than enough for the book Jackson is adapting, the fact that this first film has covered only the first half dozen chapters kinda scares me, but I'm hopeful Jackson can see the error in his ways here and tighten things up a bit more in the next two movies even if that means they have a considerably shorter run time. I don't know if overindulgence is the right word, I just think Jackson was trying to do the same thing he did 12 years ago to a completely different book.

6/10

This sums up my view perfectly.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

Can someone make me a Bofur, Thorin, Kili, Fili, Balin, Gandalf avatar? all in one?

 

[Abudefduf]

Personally, I clearly took from the books that orcs, goblins and even Oruk-hai were weak fighters that the heroes could kill by the dozen at any given time and had far less skill than an equivilant named "heroic race" figure

You're right. In the Unfinished Tales (the Battle for the Fords of Isen chapter) it is stated that not even Uruks could stand a chance against the Rohirrim.
Not saying that I don't like PJ's Uruk-hai, because I do; but since they wanted to make them stronger than book Uruks, at least don't make Aragorn being capable of killing dozens of them all by himself. But it definitely made for a great scene.

And speaking of The Hobbit... the more I think of it, the less I like it. A wasted opportunity, really. I just hope Smaug is badass enough to make me forget about this mediocre movie.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I didn't think it was mediocre. I thought it was entertaining and enjoyable, though I saw a few places where I think it would actually be helped by more consistent pacing, which will no doubt be on the extended edition.

 

[jacobed]

So I just got back, here's my review.

My greatest fear going into this film once Jackson made the decision to split it into three films was whether the story was there to justify the almost 9 hours of cinema. Sadly it doesn't, The Hobbit is a film that at times recaptures the magic that was seen in LOTR but ultimately doesn't have the same weight story wise to demand the same amount of time. It seems to me Jackson spent way to much time trying to redo what he did 12 years ago with LOTR instead of treating The Hobbit as its own thing. Whilst The Hobbit does better than most it still suffers from a reasonably mild case of 'prequel-itis', we know what's going to happen, the needless connections to the events that will transpire 60 years later have zero impact on the story at hand, yet large amounts of time are wasted on telling us things we already know.

In and amongst the needless future connections the title character seems to get lost, that to me is the biggest issue of the film. Martin Freeman is fantastic as Bilbo, but instead of focusing on him this film feels much more like Thorin's story with Bilbo along for the ride. Whilst you can make the argument that The Hobbit has always been the Dwarves story, Bilbo's perspective of the situation was haphazardly handled here, after a fantastic introduction at Bag End with the dinner sequence Bilbo seems to get completely lost during the second act of the movie and only really comes back into the fold during the Riddles in the Dark sequence which is by far the best sequence in the movie, seeing Andy Serkis as Gollum again was a true joy. Overall it's hard to gauge exactly who this film was meant to be about and who was meant to be the focus.

Ian McKellen was great again, I always preferred Gandalf the Grey over Gandalf the White and it was awesome to see this version of the character back again. McKellen slips back into the role like and old pair of shoes, the only down side is I never really felt much of a relationship between Gandalf and Bilbo was established. Perhaps that will be explored in the next two films but I think some of the time spent in other areas could have been used in showing the friendship building between the two.

For the dwarves Richard Armitage as Thorin is good, but the rest of the dwarves seem to get lost amongst each other which isn't really a surprise given there a 13 of them in all, but I wonder if maybe Jackson could have reduced the number by 4 or 5 just to make them stand out from each other a bit more.

Some complaints about the CG are warranted, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as some have made it out to be, the action sequences are fun to watch in spite of the overly GC environments and characters. One thing I missed was the great make-up work on the Orcs, there was a texture and feel to the Orcs in LOTR that is noticeably absent here in The Hobbit, I'm not really sure why Jackson chose this route but I think this was a case of being overly reliant on the CG to achieve the same effect as makeup.

As for the changes to the book, I'm no purist by any means, but I feel as if many of the additions really don't add a hell of a lot. I can understand the need for a villain as such given Smaug isn't coming up until the next movie, but Azog just doesn't cut it in the same way that Lurtz did in Fellowship. Maybe it was the fact that he was a CG character but he felt extremely bland whilst Lurtz felt like a genuine badass. As for the LOTR reunion in Bag End and Rivendell, pretty much pointless, the former of which does nothing but slow down the beginning of the movie. Radaghast the Brown, a character I always wanted to see, is entertaining in the brief period he's on screen but I feel as if the story is altered to accommodate him and ultimately he feels wasted.

Overall, The Hobbit Part 1 is a slightly above average movie that drags out longer than it should, it feels every bit of its 169 minute run time and could easily have had 30 mins shaved off it, in fact this feel more like an Extended Edition of the film as opposed to the cinema release. A two-part movie was more than enough for the book Jackson is adapting, the fact that this first film has covered only the first half dozen chapters kinda scares me, but I'm hopeful Jackson can see the error in his ways here and tighten things up a bit more in the next two movies even if that means they have a considerably shorter run time. I don't know if overindulgence is the right word, I just think Jackson was trying to do the same thing he did 12 years ago to a completely different book.

6/10

100% agreed

 

[Boom]

Excellent review, jmc. Agreed with everything you said.

Having just reread The Hobbit the other day, as much as it pains the purist in me to say this, they could have easily cut the number of dwarves down with little-to-no effect on the story as a whole. Hell, the main reason for thirteen dwarves in the first place (to make Bilbo the "lucky number") wasn't even mentioned in the film.