saw it last night.. still cant get it out of my mind. i dont know how people complain its not enough like the book... the book is tiny and not enough depth to cover 3 3hour long movies. what they added was great and what was from the books was well portrayed.
has no one ever heard of script adaptation? the fact of the matter is that books dont make movies. they just dont. you cant have 2 pages of description of a character be done a movie. sorry kids, but its just not how it works. two different mediums. it held true to the books as well as it could, if not better then lotr.
i suggest everyone go see it.
i get the feeling that the nay sayers are just the kinda of d bags that like to hate something main stream to be different because they dont have much else in their lives to differentiate themselves from the rest. hipsters...
i'll watch any lotr related movie that comes out. I thought hobbit was really good and I bet most people that had problems with it will still watch the rest of the series as well as anything else they make
On December 17 2012 03:24 refmac_cys.cys wrote: Not really The Hobbit at all, really. More of "Tangentially related to The Hobbit", or "Borrowed the same basic plot structure of The Hobbit, but changes a bunch of stuff and ruins it".
1. Everyone already knows about Bilbo's adventure by the time The Lord of the Rings takes place. 2.The reason the dwarves dislike the elves has nothing to do with Smaug's appearance, and goes back to the events of The Silmarillion 3. Bilbo agrees to go on the journey the night before, not decides to do so that morning. 4. Radagast makes no appearance in The Hobbit 5. The night before the Troll encounter, it's freezing cold/raining and they can't start a fire, that's what brings them to the Trolls camp, not stolen ponies. They don't lose their ponies until the Mountains. 6. Azog died looooong before the events of The Hobbit. 7. It was Gandalf, not Bilbo, who got the Trolls to keep arguing. 8. They're not attacked by orcs, goblins, or anything like that before Rivendell. 9. The meetings of The White Council are never described in the book. 10. The Witch-King of Angmar never dies. He runs away defeated, but he does not die. 11. Gandalf leaves with them from Rivendell 12. The back of the cave, not the bottom, opens up. This is where the ponies get stolen, and Gandalf disappears (in a flash of firey light). 13. Bilbo does not get lost until the Dwarves are rescued by Gandalf from the Great Goblin. 14. (Not a plot problem, but a filming gripe. Peter Jackson realizes how dark it is in caves, right? There's a reason all Bilbo could see was Gollum's eyes, except by the light of Sting). 15. The back door is guarded by goblins when Bilbo and Gollum get there. Bilbo jumps over Gollum before this point, and Gandalf and co. escape much earlier. 16. This is where Bilbo gets stuck in the crevice. The Goblins, not Gollum, see his shadow in the sunlight (weakness of the ring), and are coming after him when he loses all his buttons. 17. The Dwarves have already set up camp when Bilbo reaches them. 18. The marauding wargs and Goblins arrive separately, and are there as a simple raiding party (not specifically chasing Thorin). As mentioned previously, Azog is already dead. 19. Thorin doesn't charge the marauding Goblins. 20. The tree doesn't fall over. 21. The Goblins use the fire to start setting the tree they're in on fire, not stand back until Thorin runs stupidly at them. 22. Thorin doesn't run stupidly at the Goblins 23. Thus, Bilbo doesn't save his life. 24. Gandalf doesn't summon the Eagles, they just sort of appear. 25. The Eagles take them all back to they're Eyrie before dropping them off at the Carrack.
Yeah, how dare they have lights in the caves?! The whole movie would have been far better if the entire mountain part was pitch black with a few luminescent eyes.
Actually now that I think about it, if filmed well, it would be one of the greatest scenes in cinema history. Pitch black environment, 2 glowing eyes and a shining sword, with all them riddles and whatnot. But that would require a masterclass of a director doing his best work.
On December 16 2012 14:43 igotmyown wrote: In lotr, if the eagles tried fly them into mount doom, the Nazgul would have probably would have swarmed them and taken the Ring.
This isn't true. The Eagles are extremely powerful, and able to fight with Dragons. Not to mention there are only 9 Nazgul, and many more Eagles. And the winged beasts the Nazgul road on are nothing like actual Dragons. They could have flown Frodo there. But that wasn't what "God" intended for them to do.
No, you are forgetting one thing. Like everything else, their species has grown weaker by now. Pit some lotr/hobbit heroes against their silmarillion counterparts and they will get their asses handed to them. Aragorn vs Turin, Elrod vs Fingolfin, Gwaihir vs Thorondor? Not even a contest.
The old eagles were comparable to dragons yes, but the modern ones, meh.
Not sure how you are forming that conclusion.
By reading tolkien's books?xD
A feeling that "everything was greater, more majestic, more whatever" is everywhere in his books. Plus many characters has said so, in many many cases.
And wtf, did you just talked down Turin? That guy killed alone, the greatest dragon ever, Aragorn had trouble with some code b(sc2 reference) wraiths.
Turin is a baller. That is agreed. But when he killed the dragon it wasn't really in a glorious battle. Just stabbed him in the belly when he wasn't expecting it. Kinda meh if you ask me. But throughout the rest of his life he is awesome. Just too bad his fate was as it was
As badass as Turambar was, I don't think he would've destroyed Aragorn like the original guy was suggesting. He was the greatest man of the third age, and whatever strength his bloodline had lost through the passage of time & mixing of blood, it was clearly very strong in him. In fact, I rather think it would be a very close contest. What a sight that would be though. Turin crossing blades with his Anglachel, and Aragorn with Anduril.
Hurin and Turin are supposed to be the greatest human warriors that ever lived. I don't think Aragorn would stand much of a chance. I always got the impression that even Boromir was a better fighter than Aragorn, who was more of an allrounder kind of guy, pretty good at everything (healing, ranging, commanding, etc)
If you're getting into overly expanded stuff Tolkien wrote: "He was Aragorn son of Arathorn, the nine and thirtieth heir in the right line from Isildur, and yet more like Elendil than any before him." Aragorn was supposed to fight Sauron in the final battle of the movie, since the book never said he never manifested himself physically.
And Ar-Pharazôn went to war against Sauron, brought him back in chains, then decided to sail to the god's island by force. So he might be considered the greatest human.
---
And for those who think of the Hobbit as an epic, the battle of 5 armies is less than 4 pages long in the Hobbit, a 300 page book. Tolkien spent a lot more time describing how ugly Mordor's mountains are or how destitute the lonely mountain was than battles.
On December 16 2012 14:43 igotmyown wrote: In lotr, if the eagles tried fly them into mount doom, the Nazgul would have probably would have swarmed them and taken the Ring.
This isn't true. The Eagles are extremely powerful, and able to fight with Dragons. Not to mention there are only 9 Nazgul, and many more Eagles. And the winged beasts the Nazgul road on are nothing like actual Dragons. They could have flown Frodo there. But that wasn't what "God" intended for them to do.
No, you are forgetting one thing. Like everything else, their species has grown weaker by now. Pit some lotr/hobbit heroes against their silmarillion counterparts and they will get their asses handed to them. Aragorn vs Turin, Elrod vs Fingolfin, Gwaihir vs Thorondor? Not even a contest.
The old eagles were comparable to dragons yes, but the modern ones, meh.
Not sure how you are forming that conclusion.
By reading tolkien's books?xD
A feeling that "everything was greater, more majestic, more whatever" is everywhere in his books. Plus many characters has said so, in many many cases.
And wtf, did you just talked down Turin? That guy killed alone, the greatest dragon ever, Aragorn had trouble with some code b(sc2 reference) wraiths.
Turin is a baller. That is agreed. But when he killed the dragon it wasn't really in a glorious battle. Just stabbed him in the belly when he wasn't expecting it. Kinda meh if you ask me. But throughout the rest of his life he is awesome. Just too bad his fate was as it was
As badass as Turambar was, I don't think he would've destroyed Aragorn like the original guy was suggesting. He was the greatest man of the third age, and whatever strength his bloodline had lost through the passage of time & mixing of blood, it was clearly very strong in him. In fact, I rather think it would be a very close contest. What a sight that would be though. Turin crossing blades with his Anglachel, and Aragorn with Anduril.
Hurin and Turin are supposed to be the greatest human warriors that ever lived. I don't think Aragorn would stand much of a chance. I always got the impression that even Boromir was a better fighter than Aragorn, who was more of an allrounder kind of guy, pretty good at everything (healing, ranging, commanding, etc)
If you're getting into overly expanded stuff Tolkien wrote: "He was Aragorn son of Arathorn, the nine and thirtieth heir in the right line from Isildur, and yet more like Elendil than any before him." Aragorn was supposed to fight Sauron in the final battle of the movie, since the book never said he never manifested himself physically.
And Ar-Pharazôn went to war against Sauron, brought him back in chains, then decided to sail to the god's island by force. So he might be considered the greatest human.
---
And for those who think of the Hobbit as an epic, the battle of 5 armies is less than 4 pages long in the Hobbit, a 300 page book. Tolkien spent a lot more time describing how ugly Mordor's mountains are or how destitute the lonely mountain was than battles.
Well, if you want to get into REALLY expanded stuff:
"According to the Second Prophecy of Mandos, included in The Shaping of Middle-earth and similar versions in later volumes of the History of Middle-earth series, Morgoth will discover how to break the Door of Night, and will destroy the Sun and the Moon. For the love of these, Eärendil will return from the sky and shall meet Tulkas, Eönwë, and Túrin Turambar on the plains of Valinor.
There the forces of the Valar shall fight against Morgoth. Tulkas will wrestle with him, but it will be by the hand of Túrin that finally death and destruction will be dealt to Melkor. Túrin will run his black sword Gurthang (Iron of Death) through Melkor's heart, thus avenging the Children of Húrin and all Men."
Túrin was pretty damn badass. Morgoth was a pretty strong dude. There are also sketches where Túrin comes back from the dead to challenge Ancalagon, the greatest dragon of Tolkien's universe.
It's obviously very debatable stuff, based on unpublished papers and things that even contradict the final versions of the released books, but it really gives the impression that the heroes from Silmarillion where stronger than the ones from LotR.
One thing that I enjoyed about the film the Hobbit is that it was much more in line with the universe that I've come to know through Lord of the Rings and through the other supporting materials and mythology. I know that one of the Tolkien's desires was to go back and edit the Hobbit in such a way that it would help lead into the dire straits and doom of the trilogy. It looks like in this film they worked hard to connect them more explicitly, even having a meeting scene between Saruman, Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel that looked like it was stolen from The Phantom Menace.
On December 16 2012 14:43 igotmyown wrote: In lotr, if the eagles tried fly them into mount doom, the Nazgul would have probably would have swarmed them and taken the Ring.
This isn't true. The Eagles are extremely powerful, and able to fight with Dragons. Not to mention there are only 9 Nazgul, and many more Eagles. And the winged beasts the Nazgul road on are nothing like actual Dragons. They could have flown Frodo there. But that wasn't what "God" intended for them to do.
No, you are forgetting one thing. Like everything else, their species has grown weaker by now. Pit some lotr/hobbit heroes against their silmarillion counterparts and they will get their asses handed to them. Aragorn vs Turin, Elrod vs Fingolfin, Gwaihir vs Thorondor? Not even a contest.
The old eagles were comparable to dragons yes, but the modern ones, meh.
Not sure how you are forming that conclusion.
By reading tolkien's books?xD
A feeling that "everything was greater, more majestic, more whatever" is everywhere in his books. Plus many characters has said so, in many many cases.
And wtf, did you just talked down Turin? That guy killed alone, the greatest dragon ever, Aragorn had trouble with some code b(sc2 reference) wraiths.
No, I wasn't talking down Turin, although Ancalagon was more powerful than Glaurung, who didn't have wings. I've read the Simarillion as well. I'm asking how you came to the conclusion that the Eagles are alot weaker in the 3rd Age than they were in the 1st Age.
In LotR, we get a single Balrog, and its made out to be an almost unstoppable monster. Smaug, a single dragon, was capable of laying waste to entire cities, and Gandalf believed he was too dangerous to be left alive. In the 1st Age, we had Morgoth running around with entire legions of Balrogs and entire flights of Dragons. Of course things were grander then, I'm not disputing that. But was that single Balrog we saw in LotR "weaker" than those in the 1st Age? He might have been no Gothmog, but that didn't make him a slouch. Smaug may have been no Ancalagon or Glaurung, but that doesn't make Smaug weak compared to an average 1st Age Dragon. There is no reason to assume the "good" foil to Dragons (the Eagles) would have deteriorated in power, especially when they are divine in nature.
Both the Balrog and Smaug are from the first age. They both are very likely to be among the creatures who escaped from the last battle. The eagles, however, are descendants of the eagles of the first age, so it's not the same.
A bit of facts, Gwaihir is a descendent of Thorondor. And Gwaihir was the greatest eagle after Thorondor left for Valinor (which isn't to say that there were no stronger eagles when Thorondor was around). There's also an explicit size given for Throrondor: a wingspan of 54 meters (just a tiny bit smaller than a 747). I can indeed imagine a 747-sized eagle being able to scratch Morgoth...
On December 18 2012 20:57 Feartheguru wrote: Anyone else find the scene where the Goblin king dies and the joke he makes incredibly out of place?
I kinda felt that whole scene was a little out of place and overdone. The movie overall was great, but that scene where they bowl through 100s of goblins....while fearing a few dozen wolf riders 25 minutes earlier?
On December 18 2012 20:57 Feartheguru wrote: Anyone else find the scene where the Goblin king dies and the joke he makes incredibly out of place?
I kinda felt that whole scene was a little out of place and overdone. The movie overall was great, but that scene where they bowl through 100s of goblins....while fearing a few dozen wolf riders 25 minutes earlier?
I was kind of dissapointed when someone (I forgot who, probably Thorin) sliced his throat and his sack of fat didn't fall off and splatter ooze everywhere
Also, I realize that the whole "Oakenshield" part of Thorin's name probably came from the battle against the Pale Orc. Did either of those things actually exist in Tolkien's lore. I have only read the Silmarillion, Children of Hurin, Hobbit, And the Fellowship. Was that in some other work of Tolkien's or did the filmmakers create that to give a reason as to why he was Thorin Oakenshield and not just plain old Thorin?
Never read the book (and probably never will) but I liked the movie.
I agree with some of you who states that it was overdone at certain points. I hated the scene with the stone giants, it felt completely unnecessary and out of place. Goblin scene was also a little akward.
Overall though I think it was a great movie, especially if you liked the other movies.
As for Tolkiens books, I always felt he spent way too much time on all the things that were completely unimportant. I like more plot and less meaningless detail. It is good to have such thing in place and mention it casually, but writing page up and down about it was boring for me. I think the movies generally avoid this even though they are long.
When people are complaing about Azog being there and he shouldn't be, just remember Lurtz in the fellowship. He wasn't meant to be there but it made for a fearsome villian to keep the non diehard fans interested and allows for a heroic fight where good prevails.
Also it is a movie based on the book and as such is not tied to be exactly the same in every little detail. Seen the movie twice and I loved it and the riddle in the dark scene was excellently done.
Just saw it 3d HFR. I've read the book and have no major problems in this regard.
Although I do have some issues with this film: mainly the near-misses, cliff-hangings and other exaggerations; some jokes were awkward and not very funny, but... It just blew me away visually. I've been waiting for higher frame rates in cinema for so long. Many scenes were just so beautiful that my jaw literally dropped.
On December 19 2012 00:45 Dunmer wrote: When people are complaing about Azog being there and he shouldn't be, just remember Lurtz in the fellowship.
That's not the same. To give a random Uruk-hai, who has no influence in the story, a name is another thing than let appear Azog, an important figure in the history of the dwarfs in the 3rd age. Jackson doesn't get Middle earth and the world's history. He confuses and perverts it.
No influence in the movie story? He kills Boromir, that is pretty substantial in the storyline of the movies. ( I know he was killed my random orc archers in the novel) My point is alot of these people are comparing it to the LotR trilogy and dont seem to realise Peter Jackson has been placing things in the movie that are not exact with the novel lore. Comparing it to this and then complaining about it in the hobbit is just wrong.
Jackosn doesn't get the whole world and it's history. He makes changes as he wants. Yes, some of them are necessary to make the movie watchable, but the most of them are just idiotic and unncessary. Why do you have to change so many scenes, introduce figures etc., which are not necessary to show the story? Yeah, he may have a role in the story of the movie. But it he is not important. Boromir could have been killed by any random Uruk-hai. There is a reason for the fact that some figures are not in the book, there is a reason therefore Radagast is not in the book...
I saw it yesterday and i was expecting to be disapointed after reading a few pages of this thread. I was not.
About the critics: yes it is silly at times, but Tolkien universe is suppose to be funny. Remember fellowship where we had basically the whole first 45 minutes of partying, fireworks and hobbit dancing? Yea, not that serious. I think the second and third movie will get progressively darker just like LOTR.
The only complaint I have is the similarities with LOTR. I mean come on, some scenes just seem to be copy/paste from fellowship, for example the stone giant scene is just like the snowstorm scene on the edge of the mountain in fellowship, and the escape from the goblin cave is identical to the escape from the moria.
Overall great movie, sometimes too much references to LOTR ( we're not idiots peter), we'll have to wait till the trilogy is over to really judge it though, just like LOTR.
On December 18 2012 20:57 Feartheguru wrote: Anyone else find the scene where the Goblin king dies and the joke he makes incredibly out of place?
I kinda felt that whole scene was a little out of place and overdone. The movie overall was great, but that scene where they bowl through 100s of goblins....while fearing a few dozen wolf riders 25 minutes earlier?
I was kind of dissapointed when someone (I forgot who, probably Thorin) sliced his throat and his sack of fat didn't fall off and splatter ooze everywhere
Also, I realize that the whole "Oakenshield" part of Thorin's name probably came from the battle against the Pale Orc. Did either of those things actually exist in Tolkien's lore. I have only read the Silmarillion, Children of Hurin, Hobbit, And the Fellowship. Was that in some other work of Tolkien's or did the filmmakers create that to give a reason as to why he was Thorin Oakenshield and not just plain old Thorin?
Read the section on "dwarves" in the appendix of Lotr. It'll tell you the whole story. Dwarves begin a war to take revenge on Azog for killing (Thrain, I think?) in a very dishonourable manner (desecrates corpse, etc.). War culminates in a battle in front of Moria. At this battle, though, Thorin doesn't fight Azog, Dain does, and Dain actually kills him. Thorin loses his shield in the same battle. His company and kin retreat into a forest, and he hacks off a branch of an Oak tree to use as a shield.
PJ rewrites it, which kinda sucks, because the way Tolkein did it made more sense and was also more epic. But I actually understand the changes, as they're easier to explain in a movie form by focusing on a single character. They have 13 dwarves already, they'd need to include Dain as well and explain his character. He'll be in later movies, but it'd be too much for non-lotr fans to take in without getting confused. I just recommend reading the appendix, it'a an entertaining read and written more in the form of the Silmarillion.
On December 19 2012 06:35 Xela wrote: I saw it yesterday and i was expecting to be disapointed after reading a few pages of this thread. I was not.
About the critics: yes it is silly at times, but Tolkien universe is suppose to be funny. Remember fellowship where we had basically the whole first 45 minutes of partying, fireworks and hobbit dancing? Yea, not that serious. I think the second and third movie will get progressively darker just like LOTR.
The only complaint I have is the similarities with LOTR. I mean come on, some scenes just seem to be copy/paste from fellowship, for example the stone giant scene is just like the snowstorm scene on the edge of the mountain in fellowship, and the escape from the goblin cave is identical to the escape from the moria.
Overall great movie, sometimes too much references to LOTR ( we're not idiots peter), we'll have to wait till the trilogy is over to really judge it though, just like LOTR.
It's the opposite, the fellowship borrows a lot of the plot from the Hobbit.
EPT
