Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 8

[Drz]

The Dwarfs really pretty much only show courage and use when the get greedy over Gold. The Dwarfs are not the reason Gandalf cares its Bilbo he cares about and he needs the quest to get rid of Smaug and possible threat.

I like how your argument is that despite what the movie claims, Gandalf just cares about Bilbo baggings & the upcoming evil. He's friends with all the Dwarves and keeps encouraging Thorin all the time.

Well, that was pretty much how it was in the books. I dunno, perhaps they'll grow into more "useful" characters in the other films.

This is an excuse.

We fans praise Jackson for providing unique designs and giving fun elements/personality quips for each Dwarf to make them standout, but that doesn't mean he has to make the same flaws as Tolkien.

 

[spidey-dude]

the obvious thing to do would be to show that to perform great feats takes ALOT out of Gandalf and makes him weaker each time, which is why he only uses it if he has to

only part of Gandalf solving too much that annoyed me was

Spoiler

when he cracked the rock and day break came through - would have liked Bilbo to just distract them til it happened

and maybe a dwarf could have slain the golblin king instead

but it didnt bother me too much tbh - no more so than in LOTR

 

[HowardStark]

Dwarfs in Tolkien are not problem solvers. They believe in Gold Mines and cleaving Goblins if need too. In the end its a Hobbit Human or Wizard that really solve problems.

 

[HowardStark]

the obvious thing to do would be to show that to perform great feats takes ALOT out of Gandalf and makes him weaker each time, which is why he only uses it if he has to

only part of Gandalf solving too much that annoyed me was

Spoiler

when he cracked the rock and day break came through - would have liked Bilbo to just distract them til it happened

and maybe a dwarf could have slain the golblin king instead

but it didnt bother me too much tbh - no more so than in LOTR

To be honest Gandalf highlights in the Book was those 2 moments so Its likely why he still did them.

 

[Marvolo]

Lets not act like the response "according to the reviews" has been entirely positive.

And yeah it will never tarnish the book, but that doesn't mean that these films AS FILMS aren't allowed to be criticized for the direction that the filmmakers chose to take them. The Hobbit story maybe there, but the focus appears to be very much diluted.

I'll be seeing this on Saturday with an open mind, I really hope its good, but again, lets not act as if the way they chose to make these movies was the only way it could have been done or necessarily the best one.

Well I didnt say reviews were entirely positive. I said reviews are saying the hobbit narrative in the dilm is very faithful to the book. And no one is saying this is the only way it could have been done. We are saying it is the way Jackson wanted to do it and if it turns out good that is all that will matter. Jackson wasnt interested in just the Hobbit and I didnt see anyonr rlse stepping up to direct. So it was either no Hobbit at all, or do the hobbit with the extra material he was really interested Il take the Hobbit and yhe extra material.

 

[Drz]

They dont get anywhere, thats my biggest problem. It doesnt feel like they've accomplished something when it ends.

Well there is Bilbo's character progression. :b

The dwarven prologue is, even though it looks like a high end video game cut scene, gorgeous and flawless stylistic.

Hell Yeah, i loved the Dwarf Prologue scenes.

Dwarfs in Tolkien are not problem solvers. They believe in Gold Mines and cleaving Goblins if need too. In the end its a Hobbit Human or Wizard that really solve problems.

This is a movie that stars 13 Dwarves and you just said the movie needs to make one it's protagonists and supporting characters into useless because of how you perceive Tolkien's work? I'm sorry, but what? WHAT? That is not good story telling, it's like saying the female characters of classic novels should be written badly, because thats how it used to be. :S

 

[Spider-Who?]

This is an excuse.

We fans praise Jackson for providing unique designs and giving fun elements/personality quips for each Dwarf to make them standout,

I'm not making any excuses, merely pointing out that in the book, the dwarves were always getting themselves into tight spots that either Gandalf (or a bumbling Bilbo) got them out of. Would you mind giving examples of some of the issues you had (assuming its more than the Orcs, Goblin King, and spider scenes), as opposed to just saying the dwarves were only good for killing goblins (which I certainly wouldn't call useless)?

but that doesn't mean he has to make the same flaws as Tolkien.

Careful, haha, some people here might be out for blood with that comment! t: With the amount of crap Jackson has gotten and continues to get for changing things in the book, him changing MORE is just asking for trouble.

 

[HowardStark]

I am sorry its How The Dwarfs are done here. There are 13 yes but the story is About Bilbo thats why its Called The Hobbit

Not The Magnificent 13.

 

[spidey-dude]

To be honest Gandalf highlights in the Book was those 2 moments so Its likely why he still did them.

not read it for a good 10 years or more, it was my favourite book as a child though

 

[Spider-Who?]

I am sorry its How The Dwarfs are done here. There are 13 yes but the story is About Bilbo thats why its Called The Hobbit

Not The Magnificent 13.

Don't you mean Gandalf's 13?

Where's George Clooney and Brad Pitt when you need them?

 

[Marvolo]

I am sorry its How The Dwarfs are done here. There are 13 yes but the story is About Bilbo thats why its Called The Hobbit

Not The Magnificent 13.

That may be true for the book, but this is the film and it is a different beast.

 

[Drz]

I'm not making any excuses, merely pointing out that in the book, the dwarves were always getting themselves into tight spots that either Gandalf (or a bumbling Bilbo) got them out of. Would you mind giving examples of some of the issues you had (assuming its more than the Orcs, Goblin King, and spider scenes), as opposed to just saying the dwarves were only good for killing goblins (which I certainly wouldn't call useless)?

It really goes to the 3rd act of the movie with the Goblin King scenes:

Spoiler

The Dwarves are captured, they make no attempt of fightning back or anything, but then Gandalf (whom we last met in Rivendell, and knew wa ssuppose to come to the Mountains) just teleports in the middle of the Goblin spawns, dazes all the Goblins with his flashlight spell, and tells the Dwarves to arm themselves, it's really the biggest Deus Ex Machima and just makes Gandalf having to do the work for them more or less, it's less thrilling, but their escape run is really awesome, thats for sure.

and the antagonist of the film , which i think is quite a spoiler and a surprise, but here goes, spoilers on the 3rd act of the movie:

Spoiler

Azog is the main antagonist of the movie, he and Thorin go all the way back to the Moria conquest wars, with Azog going after all the Dwarves, especially Durin's descendants, so at the end of the movie we got this big climax between Thorin and Azog coming up, so what happens? Thorin gets taken down by a single blow more or less, what do Dwalin and Kili, great admirers of Thorin do? Nothing, which is even weirder because thruouth the movie Kili is the main archer of the group, but in the final battle he just goes sword fightning, one could really assume he should have used his bow, but yeah, it's Bilbo who comes to Thorin's rescue and ultimately it's the Great Eagles that Gandalf summoned it's saved Then Gandalf does this "healing hand wave" and Thorin's alive for sure, ya?

It's like, why are the Dwarves in this movie at all lol. They accomplish absolutely nothing

Careful, haha, some people here might be out for blood with that comment! t: With the amount of crap Jackson has gotten and continues to get for changing things in the book, him changing MORE is just asking for trouble.

Eh, he already makes a change regarding a certain character and his relation to another character, i don't see why he couldn't have done some good decisions instead of this "well the Dwarves we're silly and noobish in books, can't change that".

 

[HowardStark]

That may be true for the book, but this is the film and it is a different beast.

In my opinion Balin kinda stands out the most for seems to be around Bilbo the most of the Dwarfs. BTW I seceretly went to an early screening of the Hobbit but sadly was in 24 3D.
I am debating if should hold off an early review until the 14th.

 

[Victarion]

Would you be willing to disclose whether or not we get an eyeful of Smaug in AUJ?

 

[Marvolo]

In my opinion Balin kinda stands out the most for seems to be around Bilbo the most of the Dwarfs. BTW I seceretly went to an early screening of the Hobbit but sadly was in 24 3D.
I am debating if should hold off an early review until the 14th.

Id do a small spoiler free review today like give some thoughts about the film and a full one on the 14th but that's just me.

 

[HowardStark]

I know I should hold off until Friday But saw and Early screening of the Hobbit when I went to see My Uncle in Charleston who owns a theater. Anyways . I have been on my Lap Top until an Hour Ago.

Anywho I am going to give my review but not give away any spoilers the best I can. Going In I had mixed feelings for yes I was in defend Hobbit mode. I did worry that I may not be a good judge on the movie. But I will give the most honest review possible.

Now this review is based on a movie fans opinions and they are honest and not that of a fan boy nor hater.

Firstly I will comment on the facts that its definately not Fellowship Of The Ring and The Hobbit does suffer from looking to clean at times. Missed the lived in feel that made LOTR so good.

Other problems I had with the film was that Thorin looks a bit too Young and he was suppose to be older Then Balin I believe.
You almost expect to hear Meet The Creeper during flash back stuff of Thorin.

I never saw the film in its full new 3D splender so no not the issues. I just know 2D is fine enough to view it in. Maybe the 3D is why looks too clean.

Now onto the Good Parts to the film and bare In mind my faults barely effects the experiance. Yes The Hobbit is No FOTR and I expected it would not be and once my fellow fan boys embrace this. The better a time you will have

Ian McKellan was great in this movie. He certainly deserves and Oscar finally for Gandalf The Grey. He clearly is a master in the role of Gandy.

Freeman I like fine but You do miss Ian Holm as Bilbo but Freeman does a good job weither he meant too or not pretending to be Ian Holms Bilbo

The Dwarfs are good but really Only Thorin and Balin leave an impression.
The later scenes when things get more action filled are great Dwarf stuff action wise.

Some people say The Dwarfs do nothing for the story but Jackson does give you a group of brother like characters and the low key actors work well for the 13 Dwarfs.

The first hour is boring to those who must have action. But If like a long well told concept of the characters introduction then its a great part in the movie.

I am not sure where people said it seemed forced as a long movie. The Hobbit has the slower pace in the first hour yes but once Bilbo leaves its basically like the rest of the LOTR long movies.

The Hobbit is a good story and its a welcome return to middle earth. Ian is great. But its not perfect by any means. But its a great family movie and maybe its what people need.

The Effects are good in places and need more work in others. But the acting and story make up for some of that. I do think effects will be better in 2 and 3.

The Hobbit is not as good as Avengers and Skyfall but its does not dissapoint as much as TAS or TDKR.
Awe great Trailers I saw were Lone Ranger and Man Of Steel.

9/10.

 

[HowardStark]

I made a thread with a Poll on it. I gave a review but did not give away anything that wasn't mentioned by Critics already.

 

[HowardStark]

Would you be willing to disclose whether or not we get an eyeful of Smaug in AUJ?

Smaug is pretty much this if blink you will miss it. But In a way its a bit more scary not seeing him in a way. Cause it kinda is told in a way that makes Bilbo more well chicken.

 

[redhawk23]

Well I didnt say reviews were entirely positive. I said reviews are saying the hobbit narrative in the dilm is very faithful to the book. And no one is saying this is the only way it could have been done. We are saying it is the way Jackson wanted to do it and if it turns out good that is all that will matter. Jackson wasnt interested in just the Hobbit and I didnt see anyonr rlse stepping up to direct. So it was either no Hobbit at all, or do the hobbit with the extra material he was really interested Il take the Hobbit and yhe extra material.

You're free to your opinion on that, but it's clear, as Jackson himself originally agreed, that he just wasn't the one for the job on this one. He's trying to turn it into Lord of the Rings, which it never had much business being.



I digress.

 

[danoyse]

I made a thread with a Poll on it. I gave a review but did not give away anything that wasn't mentioned by Critics already.

I merged it with this thread. We don't need a new thread for reviews, they can all go here.

 

[HowardStark]

Ok thanks makes it easier to answer questions.

 

[Figs]

I have to laugh at the complaints about Gandalf using magic. He's a ****ing wizard, you're damn right he should be using magic.

 

[HowardStark]

I believe the only real problem jackson had with Wizards and Magic was he didn't care for the harry potter stuff. I think he liked it best wizards using magic but looked like it was expressing power more so then flashy trickys

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You are right about this, but it has been said ad nauseam and it still isnt sinking in for some. I get it nostalgia is powerful, yall love the hobbit, and you just wanted a hobbit movie. Well to put it bluntly that aint what you got. You got the Hobbit narrative, which is incredibly faithful according to reviews, and you got a wider story that interweaves into the tapestry of the over-arching LOTR story. Jackson didnt just want to do the Hobbit. He wanted something bigger that played into his LOTR trilogy and the Hobbit was he perfect vehicle to accomplish that with. That is perfectly fine. Anyone who has listened to Jackson knows that he doesnt hold the Hobbit to the same regard as LOTR, and should also have noticed that Jackson showed vey little interest about doing just a Hobbit story. It was only after the bridge film idea and the extra material got involved that he became really interested. Yeah, you could argue that he hi-jacked the Hobbit story to accomplish his goals but personally I dont care as long as I get three enjoyable films. The book will always be there. This trilogy wont make it vanish or in anyway tarnish it. Its late in the game to be raising this kind of hell. What is done is done and we can either see it or not. Repeating the same thing over and over and over and over makes for dull conversations and accomplishes nothing.

You assume there is enough material in the appendices to make up for the time. It is looking like not so much.

The Hobbit is kinda bit more of a fantasy then LOTR and its likely why Jackson is just letting Gandy go wild if needs too. Also knowing Peter Jackson maybe its a bigger surprise to see him do magic Gandalf and it makes the Hobbit more fun for kids.

But I thought he was making it more like LOTR? t:

Can't have it both ways.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I have to laugh at the complaints about Gandalf using magic. He's a ****ing wizard, you're damn right he should be using magic.

He's also allowed to use a tiny miniscule of his power. He is not allowed to interfere in the business of the creatures of middle earth beyond guidence and what little power he is afforded. At full power he could've taken down Sauron himself.