Hobbit movie discussion (incl merged Hobbit text deviation thread)

[Myrddin]

Were the elves hoarding it all?

Now we know the real reason behind the Battle of Five Armies. All this time, Thorin hoped he'd have enough gold to buy some conditioner, but no! The elves are selfish racists who don't let anyone else have flowy locks!

[Arthmail]

No. I really just wanted to say that tears were delicious, and I felt that yours would taste the best.

I really don't know what I'm trying to say anymore.

[Winterz]

To be fair, the Hobbit book itself is somewhat more childish than the LOTR ones, hence PJ's more immature approach of the Hobbit films.

[Nictarion]

To be fair, the Hobbit book itself is somewhat more childish than the LOTR ones, hence PJ's more immature approach of the Hobbit films.

Its not somewhat, it Is a children's book.

[The_Wolfbrother]

I think Pat Rothfuss put words on my feelings, better than I can myself. As Troy Barnes put it, it was awesome, also, it wasnt.

[Mad.Hatter]

Ser Scot A Ellison

I didn´t understand the point of the rabbit chase scene the first time I watched the movie, but if you actually pay attention to Radagast and the wargs you may notice that some warg riders actually appear from the opposite direction, if you follow me, and try to surround the wizard. So, in the end, you can see how Radagast is forced to turn around. But the they could have made it more clear to the viewer, I´ll give you that.

baxus

ok, I can understand that you didn´t like the CGI stuff (even though to me it looked great), I can understand that you thought some scenes didn´t follow Tolkien´s view of his world; but the Gandalf speech?

That scene was great in so many ways, the speech was written by Tolkien himself, albeit not in that particular scene, but I think it fits perfectly. Its underlying message was obvious: evil can be stopped by everybody, not just by great heroes or amazing warriors. Isn´t that what Middle-Earth books are all about? About powerful heroes fighting evil yet the main step to destroy it is taken by a little man, using only his will? Yet you talk about Gandalf going "emo". :dunno:

I know you were being sarcastic, but still...Didn´t you consider yourself a Tolkien fan? That is...interesting, to say the least.

[baxus]

baxus

ok, I can understand that you didn´t like the CGI stuff (even though to me it looked great), I can understand that you thought some scenes didn´t follow Tolkien´s view of his world; but the Gandalf speech?

That scene was great in so many ways, the speech was written by Tolkien himself, albeit not in that particular scene, but I think it fits perfectly. Its underlying message was obvious: evil can be stopped by everybody, not just by great heroes or amazing warriors. Isn´t that what Middle-Earth books are all about? About powerful heroes fighting evil yet the main step to destroy it is taken by a little man, using only his will? Yet you talk about Gandalf going "emo". :dunno:

I know you were being sarcastic, but still...Didn´t you consider yourself a Tolkien fan? That is...interesting, to say the least.

yeah, i'm a tolkien fan, at least enough to object when his work is being raped.

gandalf's speech was out of place, as was that entire white council scene and quite a few other things in that movie.

the fact that it happens to go along the original point of tolkien's work should not be a surprise, but a given. but then again, when you have so many discrepancies from the original material, getting the point once in a while does come as a bit of a shock.

refresh my memory, when and where does tolkien have gandalf say that the hobbit gives him courage?

[Mad.Hatter]

Maybe they aren´t raping Tolkien´s works, maybe they are just expanding it the same way we would expand GRRM works, adding stuff here and there, showing the background stories of some characters, etc...Perhaps some changes felt unnecessary, yes, but isn´t some bits added by GRRM or Tolkien himself come as unnecessary too? What I´m trying to say is, they aren´t trying to fix anything, they are trying to make it more appealing, to make the general audience (kids, parents and everyone in between) enjoy it.

Don´t watch An Unexpected Journey as a purists´ representation of the book gone wrong, watch it as some sort of visual appendix to the book, or like a "what if" scenario. Just my advice if you want to enjoy the ride.

[baxus]

@Mad.Hatter:

an unexpected journey fails all over the board - it's a bad book adaptation, it's a boring movie with all the filler they put in, its action sequences are not there to enhance the story or build up suspense - they're there to fill up 3 hours worth of film.

not at a single moment did i feel those dwarfs were in any danger whatsoever, but they were still being put in a harm's way for no reason at all - they were battling trolls, stone giants were falling on them, orcs, goblins and wargs were on their trail since the get go, they decided to go head to head with an entire goblintown and orc raiding parties and were falling off every god damn cliff in the movie in groups (one dwarf starts falling down, other grabs his hand, then he too starts falling down the cliff, the third one grabs his hand etc.)...

it had no suspense att all and was boring - plain and simple.

even if jackson wanted to make dwarves a bit more individual in the book, he damn well should've done it better than "this one has an axe stuck in his head".

as far as grrm and game of thrones show are concerned, this is not the thread to discuss that in ;)

[Mad.Hatter]

it had no suspense att all and was boring - plain and simple.

Fair enough, although Tolkien, and by extent all the works that derivate from him, was hardly known by the suspense in his books. ;)

Anyways, let´s agree to disagree and move on. :cool4:

[baxus]

Fair enough, although Tolkien, and by extent all the works that derivate from him, was hardly known by the suspense in his books. ;)

Anyways, let´s agree to disagree and move on. :cool4:

now you're confusing lotr and the hobbit.

one has dozens of pages describing frodo and sam walking through the forest mixed with the forest's description, the other is pretty much a definition of an adventure book ;)

even if you were right about the hobbit, tolkien kept dwarves out of the harms way as much as possible.

he didn't have them going into an all out battle against trolls (they were captured in the end, but they didn't go toe to toe with them), nor did he stick them in the middle of stone giant battle, have them cut their way out of goblintown, battle orc raiding parties every step of the way...

what he did have them do is avoid trouble and have bilbo bail them out when they eventually found themselves right in the middle of it.

i don't know about you, but i'd call that a major difference between the book and movies ;)

other than that, agree to disagree is fine with me ;)

[red snow]

To be fair, the Hobbit book itself is somewhat more childish than the LOTR ones, hence PJ's more immature approach of the Hobbit films.

I think part 2 was considerably less "childish" in terms of violence. There's a lot of beheadings and arrows through eyes, etc whereas the violence in part one was almost entirely cartoon like with only the goblin king showing any kind of damage when being killed. And the dwarf beheading. Thorin was bitten by a warg and there wasn't a scratch.

I watched the films with a hour gap in between so it really stood out. Basically, I get the impression they LOTR'd up part 2 because of people being annoyed by the "childish" aspects. That' s not to say there isn't silly action in part 2 and characters that appear invincible but it was a lot more balanced than part one where it seemed to flip from LOTR to Hobbit style.

I suspect the third film may be even more LOTR style but I'd be happy with the balance struck in part 2. I could see how a parent would let a child watch part 1 and not part 2 though.

[dwdark]

https://scontent-b-mxp.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10491065_10152521102786558_6318007250642602741_n.jpg?oh=46b8b267d8dcb55e99e53d1b6f8695cb&oe=544237E4

:cool4:

[Corvinus85]

https://scontent-b-mxp.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10491065_10152521102786558_6318007250642602741_n.jpg?oh=46b8b267d8dcb55e99e53d1b6f8695cb&oe=544237E4

:cool4:

Really good poster. I hope Bard does use the bow he carries rather than that ballista to kill Smaug

[Calibandar]

Looks very good. I still wonder whether Smaug will live beyond the sacking of Lake-Town in this film, seems like a crucial plot point.

[Queen of Whores]

https://scontent-b-mxp.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10491065_10152521102786558_6318007250642602741_n.jpg?oh=46b8b267d8dcb55e99e53d1b6f8695cb&oe=544237E4

:cool4:

Wait... maybe I'm a bit behind on news, but... is the third Hobbit film now called 'The Battle of Five Armies'...?

[Corvinus85]

Wait... maybe I'm a bit behind on news, but... is the third Hobbit film now called 'The Battle of Five Armies'...?

yup

[Queen of Whores]

yup

Well, that just confirms the belief the battle will be stretched out for over half the movie then -_-

[jarl the climber]

Well, that just confirms the belief the battle will be stretched out for over half the movie then -_-

Well, I guess we will also get a big battle at Dol Goldur as well, not that either one will have any suspense to anyone who has all ready read the books but the battle at Dol Goldur could be pretty cool.

[Ghjhero]

Well, either way it will be inaccurate (in context of the original text) because they named the ballista bolts ''black arrows'', although I suppose he could just use a black (regular) arrow and then we'd all be like ''Oooh, we thought he'd do that, but really he did this, great film, oooh'' and so on.

But yeah, cool poster xD

He better use his own bow. The fact that they invented that ballista was so incredibly dumb and unnecessary. I really hated that change a lot more than the other ones.