The Hobbit: A Long-Expected Spoiler Movie Thread

[direwolf_of_white_fangs]

As a long time fan of Tolkien and lord of the rings I was put down by so many gossip and criticism by the purists that I went to watch the Hobbit expecting the worst.

I was positively surprised by the film. I enjoyed it so much and would give it a 9.

The only thing that went a bit slow was in the beginning of the film, too much time wasted on hobbit costumes at the Shire and Dwarves singing. This was very boring and dull and I thought I was in for a rough ride.

But when the Dwarves, Gandalf and Bilbo leave the Shire the film catches up quickly and with a fast paced rhythm.

I also enjoyed so much the brilliantly made soundtrack.

The film is totally pre-age of man so we can appreciate the protagonists are all Dwarves, Elves, Goblins, Orcs, the less known Ishtari Radagast...

so very cool.

I thought that butchering the hobbit in three films would spoil it but Peter Jackson smartly navigates us through Middle Earth showing not only the linear hobbit story but going beyond .

[SerMixalot]

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.

How does it cheapen the whole story? You haven't explained what is actually wrong with the character or it's motivation.

I think it all comes down to how PJ executes his changes vis a vis Azog. i was somewhat shocked that he was introduced so early, (right outside the shire IIRC-or at least the warg scouts were). It just was unnecessary to introduce him that early. Though yes FOTR had the Black riders chasing the hobbits in the 1st half of that movie, perhaps PJ would have been better served with leaving the orcs out of the 1st half of the movie, settig the conflict up in the prologue, allowing the 1st half of the movie be character development, a nice troll encounter and Rivendell (we needed more character development for the dwarves), then reintroduce Azog as the dwarves enter the Misty Mountains, establishing the conflict with Thorin at that point. What we got instead is seemingly childish and not very smart-having to beat the viewer over the head regarding the conflict.

[Aemon Stark]

It's not about filming the books people read or even the books people thought they read. It's about adapting those books into a movie series. And that requires, by necessity, some changes.

The biggest change is that a short book was changed into a movie series. That doesn't so much require changes so much as it requires - in spades - some padding.

PJ chose to take the LOTR story and highlight the action-adventure elements and bring them centre stage in order to create an entertaining adaptation. And he succeeds for the most part. It's not completely true to the content or tone of the original work, but it's true to many parts of tat tone and content. But hey, that's adaptation for you. PJ wanted first and foremost to make an entertaining film, which is what you want from an adaptation.

I agree that the tone and content are generally true to the spirit if not always the text of the book. PJ got the most important things right - the casting, "Riddles in the Dark", a warmer, more welcoming Rivendell, and charismatic Elrond. I know the book very, very well and from a "purist" perspective I don't have many complaints at all.

But as a moviegoer, it has all of PJ's usual problems and issues, whether it's his inability to allow scenes set at night or in deep caverns look the least bit dark or his complete lack of subtlety. Rather than having to take shelter against a terrible storm in the Misty Mountains, the characters are subjected to a ridiculous CGI set piece featuring inexplicable stone giants that were at best a throw-away mention in the book. PJ will never let natural elements - rain, cold, isolation, the setting of a mountain precipice - affect the audience when a protracted CGI action scene is possible. It's the dinosaurs and giant bugs of King Kong all over again.

When the backstory of Azog was first presented, I knew immediately that he was being set up as a recurring antagonist for the movies. I'm not sure why this was necessary though, and from what I've read he was only inserted when the then-two-part film was bloated into a trilogy. I remain skeptical that there is sufficient narrative to hold it all together. I'm sure we'll be furnished with ample and extended action scenes and battles that will be forgettable and jarringly inconsistent in tone.

The problem is then that approaching The Hobbit, you get a book that is completely tonally different from LOTR. But the movie must, by necessity be tonally consistent with the LOTR movies. So you have to adapt the material a little more vigorously to achieve the effect.

The problem is that the tone in this movie is inconsistent. We have plenty of serious moments involving Thorin and the White Council, and then we have slapstick action scenes (pretty much the entire sequence in Goblintown) and Radagast with bird shit in his hair.

Anyway, it's just a movie. I loved "Riddles in the Dark" on screen. It would've had more import if it came in the middle of a single movie (or, at worst, near the end of a two-parter) than near the end of the first instalment of a trilogy. In the meantime, the final scene on the Carrock represents the half-way point of the book, as the characters gaze out toward the Lonely Mountain. Sadly it's going to take at least six hours to get there and back again to the Shire.

By contrast, the utterly faithful radio version is about 4 hours long. It will always be the definitive adaptation for me.

[Shryke]

I think it all comes down to how PJ executes his changes vis a vis Azog. i was somewhat shocked that he was introduced so early, (right outside the shire IIRC-or at least the warg scouts were). It just was unnecessary to introduce him that early. Though yes FOTR had the Black riders chasing the hobbits in the 1st half of that movie, perhaps PJ would have been better served with leaving the orcs out of the 1st half of the movie, settig the conflict up in the prologue, allowing the 1st half of the movie be character development, a nice troll encounter and Rivendell (we needed more character development for the dwarves), then reintroduce Azog as the dwarves enter the Misty Mountains, establishing the conflict with Thorin at that point. What we got instead is seemingly childish and not very smart-having to beat the viewer over the head regarding the conflict.

I think the point is to introduce what will be the second central conflict of the series early on so it feels natural, as well as adding some sort of tension element to the start of the movie. Without Azog, the movie is left ... well, like the book: as a random series of discrete, unrelated shit that happens. The Hobbit, plot-wise, is like 1/2 episodic and then once they hit Laketown is becomes a more cohesive story from there to the end. This works because The Hobbit is in large part a character study and whimsical journey story. The movie can't really take this route since you are adapting it action-adventure story about Bilbo and Gandalf and the Dwarves. As such, you need to establish a central conflict and give that central conflict some sort of face.

[Mack Kilimaro]

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.

Then the dwarves showed up and they started singing and I stopped caring about nitpicking. This movie was a message from Peter Jackson to everyone who ever flipped through a Dungeons and Dragons players manual, looked at dwarves in the races section, and thought, "Yep. Those are my guys." After the LOTR trilogy, where Gimli was nothing more than comic relief, here was a movie with dwarves in large numbers, kicking ass. When they are running amok in the escape from the goblin kingdom, I heard that message loud and clear: "I'm sorry."

[Shryke]

The biggest change is that a short book was changed into a movie series. That doesn't so much require changes so much as it requires - in spades - some padding.

Anyway, it's just a movie. I loved "Riddles in the Dark" on screen. It would've had more import if it came in the middle of a single movie (or, at worst, near the end of a two-parter) than near the end of the first instalment of a trilogy. In the meantime, the final scene on the Carrock represents the half-way point of the book, as the characters gaze out toward the Lonely Mountain. Sadly it's going to take at least six hours to get there and back again to the Shire.

By contrast, the utterly faithful radio version is about 4 hours long. It will always be the definitive adaptation for me.

I don't think there's that much padding though. I was surprised on that account. I was expecting alot of terrible shit when they said it was suddenly 3 movies. I mean, there's at least 2-3 scenes that just don't need to be there at all or a few that go on too long, but it seems like all that would only add up to maybe 45 minutes or so. There's still at least 2 hours of what I would call core material in there. And even some elements that could use more screentime (the necromancer plot).

I agree that the tone and content are generally true to the spirit if not always the text of the book. PJ got the most important things right - the casting, "Riddles in the Dark", a warmer, more welcoming Rivendell, and charismatic Elrond. I know the book very, very well and from a "purist" perspective I don't have many complaints at all.

But as a moviegoer, it has all of PJ's usual problems and issues, whether it's his inability to allow scenes set at night or in deep caverns look the least bit dark or his complete lack of subtlety. Rather than having to take shelter against a terrible storm in the Misty Mountains, the characters are subjected to a ridiculous CGI set piece featuring inexplicable stone giants that were at best a throw-away mention in the book. PJ will never let natural elements - rain, cold, isolation, the setting of a mountain precipice - affect the audience when a protracted CGI action scene is possible. It's the dinosaurs and giant bugs of King Kong all over again.

Agreed. It's still got all the problems LOTR had with PJ's direction, and some of it worse. In part, I think, because this time he's a Big Name and there's less people telling him "Yeah, that can be cut" and part because he's filling up 3 movies so he doesn't need to be lean.

I didn't notice any slow-motion face closeup though. Maybe without Elijah Wood looking constipated and Sean Astin yelling super-slow "FRRROOOO-DDDDOOOO", he just couldn't do it anymore.

The problem is that the tone in this movie is inconsistent. We have plenty of serious moments involving Thorin and the White Council, and then we have slapstick action scenes (pretty much the entire sequence in Goblintown) and Radagast with bird shit in his hair.

Agreed. It's just the problem is all divergence from the more serious tone the film initially establishes, which is in line with the previous movies. The movie breaks when PJ tries to go light and silly and slapstick. I'm not sure why it's even there, other then he likes that kind of stuff or something. It feels wildly out of place and doesn't really fit the tone of the book either.

[Caligula_K2]

I think that Azog (or at least any type of long running protagonist) is a fundamentally good idea. On the other hand, I'd say (especially after a second viewing) that the execution is way off. He's one note. He mainly just yells. He looks completely fake, and therefore is nowhere near as intimidating as the orcs and Uruk-Hai of the LOTR. I also think PJ made a major mistake putting all of his dialogue in Orcish. It makes all his scenes seem... Very campy and silly.

Edit to add: There is so much padding in this movie. Excluding scenes I just don't like but which are still necessary for the story PJ is telling (like the Radagast scenes), here are the worst offenders:

All the Frodo stuff. Pointless, other than to wave a giant sign in front of the audience saying "THIS IS CONNECTED TO THOSE LORD OF THE RINGS MOVIES YOU GUYS LIKED".

Cut out about five minutes from the dwarf visit, particularly at the beginning. It really starts to drag.

The orc chase scene in the plains of Rohan.

The nonsense scene where it looks like the elves are going to attack the dwarves at Rivendell. As if anyone thought that would happen.

Rivendell scenes could a lot of tightening. It takes so bloody long for them to go outside and look at a map. Not to mention the quite repetitive council scene.

ROCK'EM SOCK'EM MOUNTAINS.

Both the mountain fight scenes (escape from New Goblintown and the Battle of the Conveniently Weak and Then Strong Trees) drag quite a lot, and could stand to lose a few minutes each.

That's about a third of the movie, if not more. That's quite a lot of bloat and padding. I can't wait until someone releases a two movie version of this trilogy, because with only the fantastic and good scenes (and even some of the Radagast nonsense) these could be great movies.

[Shryke]

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.

Seriously the most bloated and pointless scene in any of the Middle-Earth movies to this point.

And I swear to god, it seems like either the extended edition will make it longer or we'll get even more of it in one of the next 2 movies.

[Jon AS]

I had thought that I wouldn't be seeing this one at the theatre, but somehow things turned out differently.

I'm actually surprised how much I didn't hate this movie. I guess having low expectations helps. I found it... mediocre. There's some good stuff in there, but it gets dragged down by the bloat, which bizarrely to me manifested itself the most in the action sequences, which should be fast paced and engaging but instead felt drawn out and tedious (with the stone giants probably being the worst offender, but the Goblin Town chase, Warg/Radagast chase and dramatic slow-mo confrontation between Azog and Thorin not far behind). Never for a single second does Jackson's directing manage to convince me that there's serious danger for any character in any scene (hell, even when they're hanging on to a tree over an abyss at the end one simply remembers that ten minutes earlier they were surviving some pretty spectacular falls unharmed while in the caves) and there's too much sillyness and every action scene simply goes on for too long.

My favourite moment might have been the eagle flying them to the Carrock at the end. Just some beautiful pictures. Maybe the film would have worked better for me if it had simply been about discovering Middle Earth through Bilbo's eyes, both its beauty and dangers. But we would have needed somebody other than Peter Jackson to direct it, then.

Seriously the most bloated and pointless scene in any of the Middle-Earth movies to this point.

And I swear to god, it seems like either the extended edition will make it longer or we'll get even more of it in one of the next 2 movies.

Wait for the special extended combi edition, where you'll start watching LOTR with this scene, thene segue into the entire Hobbit trilogy before continuing on with FOTR afterwards. The pause feature will be disabled for maximum effect, of course.

[danm_999]

yes, tolkien wrote about azog, but certainly not THIS azog we see in the movie.

THIS azog is a pure figment of jackson's imagination.

thorin cuts off his hand and now he wants revenge? that could have been written by a third-grader and it cheapens the whole story.

As could the story of a band of adventurers going off to steal a dragon treasure. The dragon has this treasure because...dragons like treasure. The main character, Bilbo has a magic ring that makes him invisible whenever he wants. There's a wizard who arrives to save the day with magic at the end.

I mean, broken down to it's simplest, this isn't heady stuff. Seriously, you're complaining a standard revenge story has ruined the complexity of this book designed for children.

[danm_999]

What makes PJ pathetic to me is that he uses the same "tricks" in all of his movies be it Dead Alive, the Frighteners, the Tolkien movies, or King Kong. Things that are just added because the director thinks they are cool (he generally says this on commentaries) but are generally just juvenile and stupid.

But isn't the fact that PJ has a distinct style that repeatedly tests well critically and commercially an endorsement of these practices? You mightn't like them, but apparently others do.

I mean, I'm not saying he's perfect, or that this movie was (it wasn't, it did have lots of problems), or even that PJ should be excluded from criticism, but you're calling him pathetic for adhering to pretty basic screenwriting principles (which in itself is pretty juvenile). You need to set up your villains. You need to set up your hereos, and their motivations, and their arcs. Filmmaking 101. The Hobbit, the book, is spectacularly bad at doing this, and stuff just sort of happens along the way, and the final villain is a total deus ex machina.

So Jackson adapts material from other Tolkien sources, and some people scream murder. Not to strawman you personally, but if you go over to the LOTR nitpick thread, people are also screaming murder he took stuff out of that trilogy, so he's sort of in a damned if you do, damned if you don't war with a very vocal crowd.

[Shryke]

I had thought that I wouldn't be seeing this one at the theatre, but somehow things turned out differently.

I'm actually surprised how much I didn't hate this movie. I guess having low expectations helps. I found it... mediocre. There's some good stuff in there, but it gets dragged down by the bloat, which bizarrely to me manifested itself the most in the action sequences, which should be fast paced and engaging but instead felt drawn out and tedious (with the stone giants probably being the worst offender, but the Goblin Town chase, Warg/Radagast chase and dramatic slow-mo confrontation between Azog and Thorin not far behind). Never for a single second does Jackson's directing manage to convince me that there's serious danger for any character in any scene (hell, even when they're hanging on to a tree over an abyss at the end one simply remembers that ten minutes earlier they were surviving some pretty spectacular falls unharmed while in the caves) and there's too much sillyness and every action scene simply goes on for too long.

Ayup. The action scenes are cartoony and slap-stick, which robs them of all their tension. And without tension, they very quickly become tedious.

[Clueless Northman]

But isn't the fact that PJ has a distinct style that repeatedly tests well critically and commercially an endorsement of these practices? You mightn't like them, but apparently others do.

I really think PJ is successful despite these obvious flaws that most people dislike - or are just indifferent to. The guy obviously has other qualities as a director, is really good with some action scenes, usually know how to make spectacular scenes - and make them loosely realistic -, and other points where he's clearly above most of the competition. And WETA has been at the top of their game for more than 10 years.

The Hobbit, plot-wise, is like 1/2 episodic and then once they hit Laketown is becomes a more cohesive story from there to the end. This works because The Hobbit is in large part a character study and whimsical journey story. The movie can't really take this route since you are adapting it action-adventure story about Bilbo and Gandalf and the Dwarves.

Indeed, this is the major flaw of the book as a book - which is understandable, since it wasn't a book at first.

Though the only logical step, when making a movie out of it, is to cut down stuff in the first part, going as far as cutting whole parts and seriously downsizing others - cutting the Giants and shortening the whole Mirkwood part would be the most logical. This way, the Hobbit could even work as a 3-hours movie.

Or if you want to tie it more to LOTR and actually bring on the Sauron / Dol Guldur bit, which would make it a 4h movie at least, you cut a little bit less, still cut the Giants, still shorten a bit the Spider parts (for instance), and make 2 movies for 5 hours at most.

But you surely don't add more stuff that is already in the book. For one obvious reason: everyone in the company will stay alive until the very end of the story, so there's simply no point of showing the dwarves bashing stuff without suffering any casualties - or even actually any wound, except Thorin when facing his nemesis. Because this isn't an epic movie (which is obviously what you aim for when you make a trilogy out of such a tiny book), you just make a joke movie filled for 2 movies of dudes with plot armor. This was already becoming pretty old when they hit the Misty Mountains, so I prefer not to think of how lame it will feel by the end of the 2nd movie.

That said, my current opinion is similar to yours: this should've been done in 2 hours. In my case, I'd cut the whole old Bilbo/Frodo part, the Giants, shortened by 1/3 to 1/2 every action scene, cut down the whole hedgehod/spider nonsense, scrapped most of Azog stuff - though kept the core of the backstory and flashbacks (though obviously I would've done them closer to Tolkien, and simply scracthed the pointless Thorin / Azog fight. If you want Azog to kill Thorin - which is obviously going to happen in the Battle of Five Armies -, you don't let them go at it for 2 or 3 times before that. You only do that if you intend Thorin to actually kill Azog later on, otherwise, just kill him at his first defeat.

Then, Lurtz, the imaginary Uruk-Hai, looked more menacing and badass than CGI Azog, so there...

And still, having gone with really low expectations, I found it mostly ok. They close to nailed the Riddles in the Dark, for instance, which isn't key for the Hobbit, but definitely is crucial for a Hobbit-as-a-sequel-to-LOTR.

[Kalbear]

I definitely think the fight scenes lacked punch. The FotR fight had both enough awesome things (Legolas stabbing an orc in the eye with an arrow, Aragorn's fight with the Urukhai captain) that the lack of direct threat was still fine - but even then, there was the problem of what was going to happen to the hobbits, Boromir getting his ass kicked, etc. Same with Moria and the cave troll - it wasn't this running fight where the orcs were getting beaten on left and right - it was a running fight where everyone was running the fuck away. By comparison the dwarves basically took on all of Moria. Really?

[Guest]

it wasn't this running fight where the orcs were getting beaten on left and right - it was a running fight where everyone was running the fuck away. By comparison the dwarves basically took on all of Moria. Really?

Yes! God, fights in Moria and when the fellowship splits were amazing...I was really expecting something like that again, where you could actually follow the action, and it wasn't like an angry mob.

Never thought I'd say this, but I felt like in the Hobbit there were too many dwarf charges.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I don't agree at all. We are given plenty of points in the film to sympathize with the dwarves. We get a good feeling for the primary dwarves involved and a good sense of their loss and their hopes and the like from the exposition and the party scenes and later ones on the road. Especially Bilbo and that one dwarves conversation in the mountains, which really serves to hammer home the issue at hand.

The dwarf in question is Bofur, who is one of the few we do get to see. But who cares about Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Dwalin, or Bombur?

It's built slowly over the course of the film because it's meant to culminate simultaneously with the end of Bilbo's arc throughout the movie and his decision to help the dwarves get their own home back rather then return to his. The audience is meant to come around to understanding and really feeling what's at stake as Bilbo does, so that his change of heart rings true. You don't need any more character moments then we got to do this.

Yes, but what is at stake is a dwarven homeland: however much you slice it, you simply aren't dealing with LOTR-level stakes. Which is why beefing up the epicness comes across as melodramatic.

Azog doesn't exist becaue of the split. Azog exists because of the way the story ends (ie - giant battle against an Orc/Goblin army). Azog is there to establish the Orcs/Goblins as another primary antagonist of the dwarves and to give that side a recognizable face when they show up at the end of the series and a leader for Thorin to heroically fight (possibly anyway, we'll see what they do with Bolg too).

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.

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.

The Necromancer plot suffers imo because of how it's introduced into the story. It's somethinh Gandalf learns about, not something he already knows about (afaik anyway). So it can't be part of his plans from the start. Which means it looks like some side-quest he's gonna get sucked into. Because it is a side-quest to the established main plot of the film (ie - kill Smaug, get mountain and treasure back). And by virtue of being a side-quest, it just feels less important and like a distraction.

Gandalf's knowledge of Dol Guldur is a bit strange in the film. He has the map and key, yet he can't have found Thrain in the dungeons of the Necromancer, since he's relying on Radagast's information.

I don't think keeping it as 2 movies would have solved any of this. You'd need a fundamental rewrite of the script to connect the Necromancer and Smaug plots together as part of the same strike at evil.

I'm not sure you can really connect them in any meaningful sense (which in the book is fine, since it only ever happens off-screen). You just have to accept that there are two different plots going on.

[Shryke]

The dwarf in question is Bofur, who is one of the few we do get to see. But who cares about Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Dwalin, or Bombur?

So just like the book then.

Hell, they one upped the book on that account.

Yes, but what is at stake is a dwarven homeland: however much you slice it, you simply aren't dealing with LOTR-level stakes. Which is why beefing up the epicness comes across as melodramatic.

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. And it establishes a relatable, sympathetic motivation for the dwarves. It's not save-the-world level, but it's more then good enough.

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.

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.

They aren't sub-antagonists when they form the enemy for the last chunk of the movie, are the enemy in the big climactic battle-scene and kill three of the main characters.

And while there's other ways to go about it, using Azog works better because it gives the party an enemy from the start (so it's not just a series of random encounters over the journey) and ties that enemy directly to one of the main characters (Thorin) and the goal of the protagonists (regain dwarven homeland). And where's the downside? What's over-the-top about any of it?

Also, Helm's Deep had well established personal antagonist: Saruman. It was his army. He may not be there in person, but he's the bad guy they defeat.

Gandalf's knowledge of Dol Guldur is a bit strange in the film. He has the map and key, yet he can't have found Thrain in the dungeons of the Necromancer, since he's relying on Radagast's information.

I'm not sure you can really connect them in any meaningful sense (which in the book is fine, since it only ever happens off-screen). You just have to accept that there are two different plots going on.

Everything about Dol Guldur is strange in the film. Hopefully part 2 does better.

[delete this account pls]

I was pleasantly surprised by this as well. Maybe it helped that my expectations were lowered? It didn't feel particularly padded out to me, certainly not anymore than any of the LOTR films. A fair amount happens in the film, it even felt a little rushed in some places (I think they rushed why Bilbo would want to go on an adventure, for example). For a film called The Hobbit, it was pretty Hobbit lite, but Freeman made the most of it, and Bilbo's character comes across pretty well.

It was flaws for sure, but some of them are from the book, and others are just Peter Jackson's foibles as a film-maker, and as such, are all over the first three films as well (like how every single action scene goes a little too long and it a little too over the top. Like, every single one)

All in all, I thought it was pretty comparable to Fellowship.

The sexy dwarves (Thorin and Kili) were disconcerting though.....

[Shryke]

The sexy dwarves (Thorin and Kili) were disconcerting though.....

My sister agrees.

[Lord O' Bones]

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?