The Hobbit: A Long-Expected Spoiler Movie Thread

[Grip]

I liked the dwarfes on the whole though I cannot understand why Fili and Thorin, say, were presented as more human like from Balin and Bombur etc, that is rather strange imo. Also if you are to bother with making them human like then atleast include Balin aswell, since he is in his own way just as important as Thorin. I certainly liked the tone he had, acting all fatherly aswell as an advisor when needed. He was my favorite dwarf besides Thorin.

As for the fight scenes I just didnt feel anything was at stake and that they were to come through unscathed. Its a bit much when Gandalf comes into the Goblinintown, an old man clad in bare clothes with no armour or helmet, and no one puts a knife in him or shoot him with an arrow. I mean sure we know he is going to survive but atleast you can try and present the goblins as somewhat formidable, again compare this scene with the one in Moria shortly after Gandalf falls and the fellowship runs away. I felt it was a much greater threat when that handful of goblin archers tried to stop our heroes then I did from essentially an army of goblins in the Hobbit.

[mormont]

Setting up the goblins as antagonists could have been done by showing their reaction to the murder of the Goblin King.

You can't really set up a film's antagonist when you're in the last quarter of the film, so no, that wouldn't work.

there was no personalised antagonist among the Orcs at Helm's Deep, after all, yet it was the best battle in the LOTR films.

But Helm's Deep was a single battle, not an entire film. Had you made an entire film about Helm's Deep, you'd have needed to insert an orc commander as an antagonist.

Realistically, the goblins are also only sub-antagonists: the key to the book is Smaug, and the dragon sickness associated with gold. The goblins are there primarily to make the dwarves, elves, and men come to their senses.

This is true of the book and the film series as a whole, but not of 'An Unexpected Journey', the film. Once you had the split, another antagonist was needed. You might have preferred not to have the split, of course, but that's another argument entirely.

So just like the book then.

No, because this is another example of something that works in the book but not in the film. In fact I pointed out back in the day, before PJ started this, that it's one of the major obstacles to filming The Hobbit. The company is exactly the wrong size for a film. If it were bigger, the dwarves would be an undefined mass with a few named characters: if it were smaller, they'd all get some screen time. As it is, most of them get little to no lines, but were any of them to die, the audience would expect that to be more significant than the death of Rohan rider #43.

In a book, you can let the dwarves fade in and out of the background - we're used to characters doing that - and take a little time when they die to visit in the other characters' heads to get their reaction. In a film, these are not options. So we need, in the film, to care a little and know a little about Ori, Nori, etc. But despite all the time he's taken, PJ didn't take a few minutes (and that's all it would need, spread through the film) to let us get to know the less important dwarves (minor miners?).

I don't think it comes across as melodramatic at all. Or no more so then anything else in any of the PJ middle-earth movies.

Which means 'it comes across as very melodramatic', of course, since the PJ middle-earth movies (indeed all his movies) have exactly two modes - comedy and melodrama - and both tend towards the over-the-top.

There's no disputing this point - PJ makes the whole dwarves-reclaiming-their-homeland plot very melodramatic. I think it's a good choice to do that, since the simple robbing-the-dragon plot wouldn't have suited his style and wouldn't have had such strong audience appeal (as you say, it engages audience sympathy effectively). But it's pointless to argue that it's not melodramatic.

[Seli]

...

Setting up the goblins as antagonists could have been done by showing their reaction to the murder of the Goblin King. their lust for the hoard of Erebor, etc. Personalising it via having Azog chasing the dwarves everywhere is over-the-top, and unnecessary: there was no personalised antagonist among the Orcs at Helm's Deep, after all, yet it was the best battle in the LOTR films.

...

Perhaps, but not after the way the dwarves were able to defeat the goblins, they do not make a good threat at any level after that. And it almost looks like those scenes belong to del Toro rather than Jackson.

[Talleyrand]

Though people have said he was unnecessary I feel Azog was needed. You need a villain with a personality (even if it is one note) and motivation for it to work in a film. In the original book all there really is to distinguished Bolg from the rest of the orcs is that Tolkien deigned to give him a name. And if Azog is killed by Thorin it could serve to give Bolg himself some motivation other than Orcs show up to kill and burn things for shits and gigs.

On an aside note I saw a picture of Bolg and christ do the prosthetics on him look good, much better than the complete cgi weirdness that his dad is. Plus he's got some kind of weird spine mace

[Merentha]

Perhaps, but not after the way the dwarves were able to defeat the goblins, they do not make a good threat at any level after that. And it almost looks like those scenes belong to del Toro rather than Jackson.

Yeah, the Battle of Five Armies is going to be interesting when you have 12 dwarves who killed about fifty billion goblins between them, even more badass warrior dwarves, elves (who after Legolas, are also all going to be be awesome hardass warriors) , men led by a man who just killed a dragon, and goblins. Yeah, unless something really changes, I don't see how they can make the goblins a credible threat at all.

[Shryke]

I expect more Orcs. They've already built up the idea of Orcs massing in the north.

[Bronn Stone]

I expect more Orcs. They've already built up the idea of Orcs massing in the north.

Oooh! Maybe they can make a green bubbly wave of eagles decide it. That would be cool!

[Shryke]

Oooh! Maybe they can make a green bubbly wave of eagles decide it. That would be cool!

Why would it be green and bubbly? We already know what the wave of eagles is going to look like.

[Caligula_K2]

Why would it be green and bubbly? We already know what the wave of eagles is going to look like.

Well, they'd have to be green and bubbly ghost eagles.

[Derfel Cadarn]

It does sound petty to care that some of the dwarves didn't have beards, but PJ did have Gimli specifically mention that dwarf women have beards and that it makes the sexes hard to tell apart. Which is silly in and of itself, but as far as continuity what the hell?

I thought Gimli just said people had difficultty differentiating dwarf men and women. It was Aragorn who (jokingly) implied it was because they were bearded. It's not as if it was a definite "every dwarf has a beard". And even if they do all grow beards, it's nothing a razer can't handle.

[Commander Jon Snow]

Movie took too long to start but it was a very good movie once it got moving. Pace was the only problem I had

[baxus]

I finally got around to seeing this today. I'm sure I am not unique in any of my comments about it, but hey. If there was one thing that bothered me, it was the beginning section with Old Bilbo and Frodo and just blatantly trying to shoe-horn in the exact moment of continuity from Fellowship of the Ring where Frodo goes off to meet Gandalf. I did not really get the point.

whenever you wonder what the point of a certain part (or parts) of this movie is, keep in mind that 2 three-hour movies needed to be turned into 3 three-hour movies.

that should help you a lot in understanding jackson's reasons for doing things he does in "the hobbit"

The orc chase scene in the plains of Rohan.

rohan?

[Zoë Sumra]

I thought Gimli just said people had difficultty differentiating dwarf men and women. It was Aragorn who (jokingly) implied it was because they were bearded. It's not as if it was a definite "every dwarf has a beard". And even if they do all grow beards, it's nothing a razer can't handle.

Quoting ROTK appendix A:

"[Dwarf women] are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like as to the dwarf men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart."

From this I'd assume that all dwarves have beards and tenor voices.

[Merentha]

rohan?

It wasn't supposed to be Rohan, but it sure as fuck looked like it.

[Slurktan]

Bolg or Azog as the antagonist is irrelevant. They both would serve the same purpose in the exact same way. I'm not sure what you think the difference here would be.

He exists to provide an antagonist to the first half of the movie, something which the book completely lacks, on top of tying the conflict at the end of the movie to shit that happens before 10 minutes before the end of the movie.

I'm not saying take away the antagonist. Just that it shouldn't be done the way it was. Azog hates the dwarves and Durin's line for really no reason given in the movie. Yes Thorin cuts his arm off but that is after we are already told that Azog has sworn to end the line of Durin. Well, why?

Whereas if Bolg was the antagonist it makes it really simple: Thorin killed his dad and so he wants Thorin and all the Dwarves of his line dead for revenge.

[Shryke]

The dwarves of the Lonely Mountain started a war against him. It's right in the film. What more reason does he need?

Taking that hatred to "I will end your entire line" just seems like the kind of shit an Orc would do.

[Bronn Stone]

I was actually totally fine with the indication from the film. The 'look' (see Balin) is an affectation, a cultural style. Dwarves may have a physiological tendency to facial hair, but wax is still wax and razors are still razors. Thorin's beard is roughly akin to Aragorn's. Any dwarf COULD trim it that way if he chooses, or shave it off completely. Or grow it into something wacky like some humans do. Their culture makes it so they are less likely to shave, and much more likely to create elaborate homages to facial hair. But they do not HAVE to. And some of the thirteen choose not to, including the King of Erebor in exile. A bit of an odd choice as a King/Prince in Exile would be more likely IMO to accentuate his cultural tradition, but Thorin does not. (PJ may have made that choice to make him more heroic looking to a general audience, but there CAN be an 'in-world' explanation - maybe he's doing it because he hasn't redeemed his line.)

I would be perfectly satisfied if the explanation was that in PJ's vision every dwarf female COULD grow some semblance of a beard, but that they do not all choose to do so. And the same would be for the younger males. Maybe you tie your beard growth to your sense of personal achievement. A dwarf with a beard to his toes is like a Khal in Westeros with a braid to his arse.

Tiny spoiler for Babylon 5

The Centauri wear wigs with crazy styles. Those with good hairlines style their hair in an exaggerated way. Their women shave their heads, though most keep a pony tail. In that culture, the higher the rank, the more outrageous his hair should be. But when Turhan takes off his wig, he's got the same thin hair the actor portraying him had.

[polishgenius]

When did Peter Jackson lose the ability to do action scenes? I was afraid it was going to be a movie that held up on the spectacle but failed miserably in the gentler, slower, or subtler bits, but it was the other way round. Most of the action was awful.

[Roose Seal]

When did Peter Jackson lose the ability to do action scenes? I was afraid it was going to be a movie that held up on the spectacle but failed miserably in the gentler, slower, or subtler bits, but it was the other way round. Most of the action was awful.

When he replaced prosthetics and costumes with CGI. It's pretty hard to direct an action scene when 90% of it is going to be added in post-prod.

[HyacinthGirl]

Only just saw this for the first time yesterday, in 2D. I'd heard dreadful things about the high frame rate so avoided that - would any of you recommend it?

I was honestly quite worried that it would be a let down because of all the mixed reviews, but I actually loved it. Apart from Radagast. I have to agree with whoever it was who dubbed him as the JarJar Binks of Middle Earth. After all the intricate work Tolkien put into naming his Middle Earth creations, there is a hedgehog called Sebastian? Sebastian? On the whole Radagast was just too in-your-face and I just... couldn't stand him. He's supposed to be quaint and earthy, not a boss-eyed mushroom-guzzling Professor Farnsworth, covered in bird crap, who saves the day on his (obviously green-screened) rabbit sleigh. And his transport-speed is akin to GoT's Littlefinger, who just casually teleports around Westeros. How did Radagast get from Mirkwood/Dol Goldur to Rivendell's borders so quickly?

But that's actually my only big complaint. It's a much jauntier, lighter tone than any of the LOTR films, as is the way with the books, but it was a great ride. I was honestly very sceptical regarding the decision to make the Hobbit a trilogy, but the film didn't feel too long for me at all, and the second half was just one great scene after another. And I loved the glimpses of Smaug. That was genius.

I didn't find any of the additions too jarring, but there was a lot of unrecognisable material there for the Tolkein purists to nerdrage about. I'm not a book purist, but Tolkien's work is very important to me, so I'm very invested in all of these films, while being able to view them as separate entities. That said, when it comes to the Hobbit, it's easier to let any changes slide, because it's a much more light-hearted story. I'm going to hold of judgement on the Azog storyline until I can see where exactly they're going with it. As long as it doesn't get too much in the way, I'm fine with it. Although, I couldn't help thinking that a more interesting backstory to throw in would be why the elves and dwarves don't get on, specifically the Thingol/Dwarves of Nogrod disaster explained in the Simarilion. There's enough focus on Thorin's grudge against the elves for that to be relevant. But I suppose digging into the Simarilion could be rather complicated, and Jackson would probably get carried away.

The dwarves were on the whole, very well handled, despite only Thorin (an amazing, powerful performance from Richard Armitage), Balin, Kili/Fili, Ori and Bofur getting notable screen time. And of course Bombur, who slays goblins with his mighty belly. Still, that was always going to be a problem with so many of them, and PJ's obviously gone to some length of trouble in distinguishing each dwarf from the others, so on my next viewing I'll probably be able to pick out a couple more notable dwarves. As a company, they really worked well. Thorin was handled very, very well, Balin's character stood out, and Kili is so, so fine. :drool:

Gandalf was given a lot more to do than he does in the book, if I remember correctly, but in the hands of Ian McKellen it all went down well. And Martin Freeman really is excellent. Bilbo is essentially a better character than Frodo at the end of the day, and was always going to make a great protagonist. They really nailed the casting again. I'm so glad PJ went to all that trouble to get Freeman, he really aced it.

Regarding the Eagles, in a way I'm glad they didn't talk. Talking animals in fantasy is usually a major turn-off of mine, and there's no way it could have come across well on screen. But when the eagles talk in the book, it really explains quite a lot of their nature, and how they are not just a Middle Earth taxi service but a proud, haughty and powerful race. What with all the "eagles save the day" criticism I noticed for ROTK, maybe a little exposition could have done some good here. But like I said. Talking animals. :stillsick:

The first half dragged a bit, but I didn't have too much of a problem with the pacing because the second half was just so much fun. I liked the Erebor prologue, both of the dwarf songs, the Troll scene and subsequent Warg skirmishes in the first half. But Radagast... :bang: Rivendell was good, and I'm very interested to see how Dol Goldur will happen. I just hope they keep the Necromancer as chilling and mystical as possible, I like him as a shapeless shadow and I don't want him showing up at the Bo5A. (Came across a very worrying Cumberbatch interview that hinted at this possibility).

The stone-giant battle was fantastic. The goblins under the misty mountains sequence was good, but it was no Moria. There was something really gripping about the use of costumes in stead of CGI for orcs in the LOTR trilogy, and there wasn't that kind of impact in this film's action sequences. Still, the Riddles in the Dark scene was superb. :bowdown: I can't even.... it was just AMAZING. And Bilbo's pity scene? Wow. I also love how the ring was handled. Audiences can recognise it as the antagonist of the LOTR films, yet it's not too dark and terrible when Bilbo wears it, completely in-keeping with the book. If the expanding of the Hobbit into a trilogy results in a couple more of the most focal scenes being handled as well and as thoroughly as the Bilbo/Gollum sequence, it'll all be worth it.

All in all, I'm a very contented nerd. I'm now really, really looking forward to the next one. And the one after.