The Hobbit: A Long-Expected Spoiler Movie Thread

[andrew_]

I'm also not entirely convinced what purpose Azog was supposed to serve – he was underdeveloped, I'm not sure his motivations were ever made properly clear.

Well apart from Smaug, there is no main antagonist that the company must face (I wouldn't call the wilderness a foe), Azog is driven by revenge and his lust to destroy the Dwarven line of kings, I was surprised not to see Bolg instead as SPOILER in the official canon Azog died a long time before the books is set, but after further investigation I read on the wiki the Bolg will be appearing in the next to installments (Bolg is Azog's son). Thorin cut off Azog's arm and turned the tide of the battle against him so that's reason enough imo to want him dead.

[Guest]

I hated it very much. Bloody motherfucking assholes made Bilbo into an action hero. So, it's only through an act of battle that redeems Bilbo in Thorin's eyes?! What a heinous rewrite of Bilbo's character. Bard should be the only hero in the traditional sense - I liked in the book how everyone else is a raging coward or gets by on their wits. In addition, there were long stretches where Bilbo wasn't even on screen - like he was an afterthought. I thought he should have been in 99% of the scenes...we should be seeing through his point of view, how he is trying to fit into the world (or not). His indifference to the epic bombast of the wider world was so charming in the book, like when Gandalf is going on some mighty rant about Necromancer, and Bilbo just goes meh, its to big for me, who cares. Also, the tone was completely inconsistent, vacillating between twee and heavy-handed, probably because they made it about regaining a homeland instead of stealing a treasure back from another thief (it's like Jackson doesn't distinguish between reclaiming a kingdom and pursuing stolen goods). This was "lighthearted stupid," (har har look maw, he's BURPING AND CROSSING HIS EYES!!!), whereas I was hoping for "lighthearted smart," like a tightly-plotted HEIST FILM, which is what the book reads like to me. A fantasy heist, omg it would have been soooo great.

Also, the art, sets, costumes and visuals? Not impressed. Rivendell this time around looked like a Thomas Kincaide painting. And Dale looked like it was a city inside of a snow globe.

[Corvinus85]

That scene was so weird. Gandalf looks at the rock and goes "hmmm" then runs towards it, disappears for several minutes as the wargs close in on the gang, and after a while "OH hey! there's a cave here!"

I realize Gandalf is supposed to be something of a god-like being, but his constant showing up or thinking of a plan at the 11th hour was a bit tiresome. There's no danger, Gandalf is gonna show up.

Well in the book Gandalf saves the day a couple of times, and so do the eagles. But I agree that the part with the secret pass to Rivendell, mentioned by Elrond a little later, was a stretch.

[andrew_]

Also, the art, sets, costumes and visuals? Not impressed. Rivendell this time around looked like a Thomas Kincaide painting. And Dale looked like it was a city inside of a snow globe.

Rivendell looked different because the Hobbit is set 60 years before the fellowship of the ring, Dale is supposed to be a grand city, but after the dragon attacks and in the next movie I guarantee it won't look anything like it did in this movie.

[Guest]

Rivendell looked different because the Hobbit is set 60 years before the fellowship of the ring, Dale is supposed to be a grand city, but after the dragon attacks and in the next movie I guarantee it won't look anything like it did in this movie.

Didn't we already see Smaug destroying Dale in this film? I think in film 3 we will see Esgaroth/Laketown destroyed (if they stick to the book). But I don't really care, I have no desire to see film 2 and 3.

[andrew_]

Didn't we already see Smaug destroying Dale in this film? I think in film 3 we will see Esgaroth/Laketown destroyed (if they stick to the book). But I don't really care, I have no desire to see film 2 and 3.

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I think however you might've gone into the cinema expecting the same quality of the Fellowship of the Ring (which is my favorite in the LOTR series). You have to realize that it was never going to be as good a the original trilogy, I went in expecting it to be better than most movies I've seen this year but not as good as LOTR, my expectations were definitely fulfilled.

[Guest]

haha no I'm pretty sure I disliked the film on its own merits. If I had been expecting another Fellowship (I agree, brilliant film!), wouldn't my criticisms hinge on comparisons to it? I just stated that I expected, smart, punchy heist film - Fellowship doesn't even enter into the equation. Although who can blame anyone who thinks about Fellowship while watching, since Jackson clobbers the audience with nostalgia for that film at every plot turn and incessant musical queue in the Hobbit. Best thing I can say is about it is Martin Freeman as Bilbo - he was absolutely adorable! :)

[niamh]

Something I was meaning to ask was whether any of the Tolkien experts around here know whether Tolkien clarified what the stone giants are look like in any of his other writings? I know the description of stone giants tossing boulders around in a thunderstorm is straight from the book, but I didn't interpret the stone giants in the same way Peter Jackson did, I was imagining that Tolkien meant something more like typical fantasy giants rather than creatures formed out of blocks of stone.

No, there's nothing more to it than that allusion in the Hobbit, unless you attribute them the fell voices in the air and the stones falling Boromir talk about in the Caradhras chapter. I haven't seen said stone giants so can't comment on what I think of their execution. i know PJ though, city boy, so I can imagine; let's leave it at that :P

This is from Norse mythology, so we can safely assume this fits Tolkien's giants:

To the early Norse, the giants were personifications of the towering mountain peaks that surrounded them. They were huge, uncouth creatures that turned to cold, hard stone when struck by sunlight. For this reason, they were unable to move about the countryside, except under the protection of night or a blanket of thick fog.

When not feuding with the gods of Asgard, the immensely-powerful Norse giants quarrelled and bickered among themselves, casting their massive stone axes, boulders or stones at each other in fits of rage.

------

Other English stories told of how giants threw stones at each other. This was used to explain many great stones on the landscape.*

Right, so that's where that directly comes from.

* applies to scottish(Shetland) heroes such as Herman and Saxe, irish heroes such as Bran and Finn McCool, and even Arthur who threw a boulder at Guinevere in the early legends. No mention of giants made of stone, though that could have been cool, if it had been done well which from commentaries it hasn't.

It's more likely that in the context of the Hobbit, those giants would be troll-types, the trolls themselves being based on giants in english folklore, big humans or humanoids, stupid and flesh-eating some of them, others being friendly and some heroic, with a general propensity to throw massive stones around for a lark.

[Roose Seal]

I hated it very much. Bloody motherfucking assholes made Bilbo into an action hero. So, it's only through an act of battle that redeems Bilbo in Thorin's eyes?! What a heinous rewrite of Bilbo's character. Bard should be the only hero in the traditional sense - I liked in the book how everyone else is a raging coward or gets by on their wits. In addition, there were long stretches where Bilbo wasn't even on screen - like he was an afterthought. I thought he should have been in 99% of the scenes...we should be seeing through his point of view, how he is trying to fit into the world (or not). His indifference to the epic bombast of the wider world was so charming in the book, like when Gandalf is going on some mighty rant about Necromancer, and Bilbo just goes meh, its to big for me, who cares. Also, the tone was completely inconsistent, vacillating between twee and heavy-handed, probably because they made it about regaining a homeland instead of stealing a treasure back from another thief (it's like Jackson doesn't distinguish between reclaiming a kingdom and pursuing stolen goods). This was "lighthearted stupid," (har har look maw, he's BURPING AND CROSSING HIS EYES!!!), whereas I was hoping for "lighthearted smart," like a tightly-plotted HEIST FILM, which is what the book reads like to me. A fantasy heist, omg it would have been soooo great.

Also, the art, sets, costumes and visuals? Not impressed. Rivendell this time around looked like a Thomas Kincaide painting. And Dale looked like it was a city inside of a snow globe.

I too was hoping for a Ocean's Eleven in Middle Earth type of movie. Or a Jim Henson circa Dark Crystal type of fantasy. The Hobbit wasn't lighthearted at all, it alternated between God of War FMVs and wayans brothers humor.

Unlike you though, Bilbo was pretty much the only thing I thought really stood out, mostly because of Freeman's flawless performance though.

[baxus]

I assumed that Gandalf knew the cave was nearby, it does make sense that he'd be very familiar with the land around Rivendell. What bothered me about that scene was why the dwarves didn't make any attempt to fight the wargs and instead just ran away, it seems a bit out of character for dwarven warriors to retreat unless there are overwhelming odds and they didn't really seem to be significantly outnumbered.

Something I was meaning to ask was whether any of the Tolkien experts around here know whether Tolkien clarified what the stone giants are look like in any of his other writings? I know the description of stone giants tossing boulders around in a thunderstorm is straight from the book, but I didn't interpret the stone giants in the same way Peter Jackson did, I was imagining that Tolkien meant something more like typical fantasy giants rather than creatures formed out of blocks of stone.

i imagined giants differently than they were shown in the movie, but i have no problem with that.

giants were described with very little detail and they were subject to different ways of interpretaion.

i actually liked the way jackson made them and they filled up a couple of minutes of screentime with a rather spectacular scene without compromising the original text.

[naz]

Like someone said earlier, I think the stone giants are a great example of how a filmmaker is given too much leeway after a few successful films, and not in a good way (like e.g., when Wes Anderson is basically allowed to do whatever he wants and he does so creatively). With the LOTR films, Jackson obviously had to cut out elements that weren't critical to the plot to make it fit in three movies (although how he had time for Aragorn's horsey adventure, I dunno) so clear options to cut include Bombadil and the like.

In this film, when PJ says it needs to be three films, no one questions him at all; at least, no one that matters. So when he has the chance to leave out a portion of the narrative that only takes up a line or two in the book, and fits awkwardly into the author's mythology anyway, what does he do? He makes it a 5 minute CGI orgy that has no purpose in the narrative whatsoever. Crossing the mountains are dangerous enough without requiring stone giants to make the party seek shelter. It was totally unnecessary and was put in the film purely to feed PJ's love of all things "cool".

I really think PJ has got a bit of Lucas Syndrome, although admittedly not nearly as bad.

[mormont]

i imagined giants differently than they were shown in the movie, but i have no problem with that.

giants were described with very little detail and they were subject to different ways of interpretaion.

i actually liked the way jackson made them and they filled up a couple of minutes of screentime with a rather spectacular scene without compromising the original text.

I think there's a problem when you add a scene that long to 'fill up' screen time, and not in the extended edition but the cinematic release. The aim of storytelling is to tell a story, not to fill up time. Good storytelling takes as long as is needed to tell the story, not longer.

The giant scene is pointless. I never for one second felt there was any peril or danger in it. It was dull rather than spectacular, as was some of the later extended action sequence. PJ doesn't have any truck with the idea, but sometimes, less really is more.

[baxus]

I think there's a problem when you add a scene that long to 'fill up' screen time, and not in the extended edition but the cinematic release. The aim of storytelling is to tell a story, not to fill up time. Good storytelling takes as long as is needed to tell the story, not longer.

i completely agree with you, but ever since the news came out that there is going to be a third movie we were all expecting filler, and lots of it.

it's safe to say that's the only expectation jackson managed to fullfil 100%.

[Roose Seal]

The giant scene is pointless. I never for one second felt there was any peril or danger in it. It was dull rather than spectacular, as was some of the later extended action sequence. PJ doesn't have any truck with the idea, but sometimes, less really is more.

I think the giant scene was extremely detrimental to the movie in the sense that it completely destroyed any sense of danger for the group, in the same way that Indy surviving being blown half a mile away in a fridge by a nuclear explosion at the very beginning of the movie completely killed any sense of danger for the rest of the movie. If they/he come/s out of that without so much as a scratch, how are we supposed to take seriously any sort of threat that would come after that?

In LotR trilogy, the physics felt somewhat realistic (I'll give Legolas a pass because he's an elf and whatnot), in general, characters sustained injuries and things had consequences. In The Hobbit, all the characters are thrown all over the place, fall down 300 feet mine shafts, bide their time in a falling tree as their leader does battle etc etc... and they all come out unscathed. It's just terrible from a story-telling point of view as it completely eliminates the danger... thus when they encounter yet another obstacle, the action scene is just tedious to watch because there's no suspense... It's just a matter of buying some time until Gandalf comes and saves them all.

[Prince Alexander]

In LotR trilogy, the physics felt somewhat realistic (I'll give Legolas a pass because he's an elf and whatnot), in general, characters sustained injuries and things had consequences. In The Hobbit, all the characters are thrown all over the place, fall down 300 feet mine shafts, bide their time in a falling tree as their leader does battle etc etc... and they all come out unscathed. It's just terrible from a story-telling point of view as it completely eliminates the danger... thus when they encounter yet another obstacle, the action scene is just tedious to watch because there's no suspense... It's just a matter of buying some time until Gandalf comes and saves them all.

It kind of is a children's book, unlike LOTR. So, working as intended IMO. Of course, this same argument works both ways: I don't get why the decapitated head needed to be shown, for instance, or the impaled hands in the trolls' cave.

[baxus]

I don't get why the decapitated head needed to be shown, for instance, or the impaled hands in the trolls' cave.

whenever you question why anything needed to be shown in hobbit movie(s) go with "additional 3 hours of screentime needed to be filled" and you won't be wrong ;)

[mormont]

I think the giant scene was extremely detrimental to the movie in the sense that it completely destroyed any sense of danger for the group, in the same way that Indy surviving being blown half a mile away in a fridge by a nuclear explosion at the very beginning of the movie completely killed any sense of danger for the rest of the movie. If they/he come/s out of that without so much as a scratch, how are we supposed to take seriously any sort of threat that would come after that?

The Indy comparison is a really interesting one, as for me it speaks to the issue of tone. In Indy films, there really isn't any sense that he's in danger, at least not until the climactic scenes. That's just the sort of film they are: it's the pulp influence. Indy's heritage is Flash Gordon, The Phantom, (especially) Doc Savage, indestructible two-fisted fighters who overcome the odds. That's the tone: Indy will inevitably beat the bad guys, we just want to know how. The action sequences aren't really dangerous: they're an artfully framed obstacle course on the way to the resolution. The audience accepts that. They know that going in. They'd be shocked if Indy were to be in real danger before that climactic scene.

The Hobbit is really unsure of its tone. PJ seems to want it to have that sense of life-and-death drama, high stakes, and real peril. We know Bilbo and Gandalf survive, of course, but he seems to want to create a sense that the dwarves, at least, are really at risk of dying. It's telling that the scene that everyone agrees is the best is the riddle game: the one where the stakes are clear and everyone knows the result. In one sense it's the biggest set of stakes in the Tolkien universe, of course, but we all know how it comes out, so he can just get on with telling the story.

The stone giant scene, by contrast, fails because it tries to create a deadly drama and just can't do it. (It doesn't help that Bilbo is often the one in 'danger'.) So we just get people dangling off precipices and disappearing and so on in an attempt to create tension that never actually materialises. It's pointless and boring. If it had been played with a comic edge, or just as a dramatic image of the giants battling without the main characters being put at threat, it would have worked.

[Roose Seal]

The Indy comparison is a really interesting one, as for me it speaks to the issue of tone. In Indy films, there really isn't any sense that he's in danger, at least not until the climactic scenes. That's just the sort of film they are: it's the pulp influence. Indy's heritage is Flash Gordon, The Phantom, (especially) Doc Savage, indestructible two-fisted fighters who overcome the odds. That's the tone: Indy will inevitably beat the bad guys, we just want to know how. The action sequences aren't really dangerous: they're an artfully framed obstacle course on the way to the resolution. The audience accepts that. They know that going in. They'd be shocked if Indy were to be in real danger before that climactic scene.

You make valid points.

I was saying however, that in a story, generally the threat/sense of danger should increase as the story unfolds, even if you know the protagonist is supposed to make it, you still like to have that 'how is he going to make it?!' kinda feeling.

When you start your movie with your 60 year old character coming out of a nuclear explosion without so much as a broken wrist, well any threat you'll have after that is going to be completely null, in terms of suspense.

The same scene, placed at the end of the movie would have a completely different effect. Let's say instead of flying off, the saucer explodes and Indy is thrown down the mountain and survives. In terms of storytelling, it makes much more sense, even from a physics point of view, it makes just as little.

It's not really about whether the scene is believable or not (In the Indy universe, I accept that the main character can survive jumping off a plane in an inflatable raft, I accept that he can survive a nuclear blast, I accept that there's a 1000 year old modern-english speaking knight guarding the Grail), it's about choosing the right time to impose that big a suspension of disbelief on the audience, the beginning of the movie generally being a bad spot to put your most reality stretching scene.

The Hobbit is really unsure of its tone. PJ seems to want it to have that sense of life-and-death drama, high stakes, and real peril. We know Bilbo and Gandalf survive, of course, but he seems to want to create a sense that the dwarves, at least, are really at risk of dying. It's telling that the scene that everyone agrees is the best is the riddle game: the one where the stakes are clear and everyone knows the result. In one sense it's the biggest set of stakes in the Tolkien universe, of course, but we all know how it comes out, so he can just get on with telling the story.

That's one other thing: he constantly puts the dwarves in danger for no go reason. Especially the ones with whom we have no emotional connection. For instance in the final scene in the tree, one dwarf falls and is caught by another one, then they both fall and catch Gandalf's staff, and then the action shifts for 5 good minutes on Thorin fighting Azog and we're just supposed to put everything that's happening in the tree on hold for the fight to unfold. Then right when Thorin is seemingly finish, the other dwarves are suddenly able to climb down the tree and run to his aid.

The Riddle scene works so well because the tension is palpable, there is real danger for the character. We've seen that Gollum isn't afraid of being violent, we know that Bilbo doesn't know how to use a sword. In a sense, there is much, much more tension in that single scene than in all of the other actions scenes combined because the stakes seem very real. If Bilbo loses the game, he dies. We know he won't, but the suspense is still there.

The actions scenes are just so cartoony and the suspense seems to be forced onto us with cheap "last minute" escapes and seemingly insurmountable odds.

The Rivendell cave scene is the best (worst?) example of this: the gang is surrounded by dwarves, Gandalf conveniently disappears for 5 minutes, and at the VERY LAST moment he reappears to tell them he's found a cave. It stretches our suspension of disbelief so much that from a storytelling perspective, when the trick is used time and again, it just loses its effect.

The stone giant scene, by contrast, fails because it tries to create a deadly drama and just can't do it. (It doesn't help that Bilbo is often the one in 'danger'.) So we just get people dangling off precipices and disappearing and so on in an attempt to create tension that never actually materialises. It's pointless and boring. If it had been played with a comic edge, or just as a dramatic image of the giants battling without the main characters being put at threat, it would have worked.

A simple mountain climbing scene in the storm would've been dangerous enough, the giants were extremely superfluous but I guess they didn't want to have the exact same scene as in LotR, when they try to climb the mountain before deciding to go through Moria (iirc, my memory isn't great).

Not to mention that scene is kind of poorly directed, I had an extremely hard time figuring out who was where and what part of the giant they were standing on ... and then one giant is hit in the head and the fight suddenly stops?

I've seen a lot of people compare The Hobbit to the Phantom Menace but I really don't think they fail for the same reasons at all. Phantom Menace had a stupid story, pointless and contrived political intrigue, horrible dialogue, wooden acting... The Hobbit was much better on all those aspects.

I think the comparison to Indy 4 is much more accurate.

[Slurktan]

A simple mountain climbing scene in the storm would've been dangerous enough, the giants were extremely superfluous but I guess they didn't want to have the exact same scene as in LotR, when they try to climb the mountain before deciding to go through Moria (iirc, my memory isn't great).

Not to mention that scene is kind of poorly directed, I had an extremely hard time figuring out who was where and what part of the giant they were standing on ... and then one giant is hit in the head and the fight suddenly stops?

This baffles me quite honestly as it was pretty damn clear. The two sets of dwarves were on separate knees of a giant. That giant isn't merely "hit in the head", it is decapitated and then its body crumbles to the side allowing Bilbo and his group of dwarves to survive. The fight is still going on, they just hide in a cave just as in the book.

Even more baffling though is the people who wanted a heist film out of the hobbit. Did you even read the book? It is not that even remotely. The book is Bilbo and the Dwarves stumbling from one adventure to another until the dragon accidentally (from their viewpoint) gets killed by someone else.

[Happy Ent]

Something I was meaning to ask was whether any of the Tolkien experts around here know whether Tolkien clarified what the stone giants are look like in any of his other writings?

No. (But neither do we know much about how Balrogs look, for that matter.)

After some googling and guessing I found some pages of David Wenzel’s Hobbit online. You can see his stone giants here:

http://img-fan.theonering.net/~rolozo/images/wenzel/The_Hobbit-029.jpg

http://img-fan.theonering.net/~rolozo/images/wenzel/The_Hobbit-030.jpg

The design in the film us probably Howe’s. I am not aware of an earlier image by him of the stone giants.

(I quite liked this scene. Unlike other posters I think the absence of any kind of danger is quite deliberate and not a mistake. Same goes for the three trolls and for the goblins.

I think the Hobbit movie is another almost religiously congenial and faithful book adaptation by Peter Jackson, and I applaud him for it.)