The Hobbit: A Long-Expected Spoiler Movie Thread

[mormont]

I quite liked this scene. Unlike other posters I think the absence of any kind of danger is quite deliberate and not a mistake.

I'm prepared to bet quite a large sum that you're wrong. Without any sense of danger for the company, the scene is simply tedious. I'm willing to gamble that PJ did not intend the sequence to be tedious.

The trolls are entirely different. The scene works as comedy without the danger. Even the goblin scene works without the danger as entertainment: the problem is simply that it's too long. The stone giant scene, without the danger, is just pointless. A shorter shot of the giants fighting each other without the company getting involved would have been more faithful to the book and would have worked better. The only reason to involve the company was to try to create a sense of peril.

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.

Well, I don't, because I think Indy 4 doesn't fail at all. ;) But that's a whole other discussion.

[Darth Visenya]

Sneaky Hobbitses, I don't know how but Gollum is incredibly annoying but I manage to like him at the same time.

[Maithanet]

The stone giant scene, without the danger, is just pointless. A shorter shot of the giants fighting each other without the company getting involved would have been more faithful to the book and would have worked better. The only reason to involve the company was to try to create a sense of peril.

The Stone Giants scene would have worked well if it was just a quick scene with the company seeing the stone giants fighting, and then someone makes a quip like "I don't like the look of that". Then they all scurry into the safety of the cave. 30 seconds, boom, done. A bit of humor, a bit of fantasy wierdness and it's on with the story.

The longer it's been since I've seen Hobbit, the more pissed off I am at what a missed opportunity it was. It actually reminds me of the Watchmen movie in that regard. There's a good movie in there, but for some reason they wanted to have a bunch of overlong action scenes and pointless distractions that cut away from the overall impact.

[Roose Seal]

Well, I don't, because I think Indy 4 doesn't fail at all. ;) But that's a whole other discussion.

You and I have nothing left to discuss then !

;)

(I kid, Indy 4 was not nearly as bad as tPM, but I consider it very similar to The Hobbit in what it did right and what it did wrong, YMMV)

[baxus]

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

surely, you jest...

[Sixshells]

Sneaky Hobbitses, I don't know how but Gollum is incredibly annoying but I manage to like him at the same time.

As much as I liked the Riddles in the Dark scene that was the high point of the movie, I think in this one Gollum is even more over the top and far gone than he was in LOTR. This is problematic because, obviously, the loss of the Ring and being captured and tortured by Sauron is what contributes a lot lot to the imbalances and quirks in his character in LOTR, so why would he already be like that. That's probably another one of those instances where Jackson (and Sirkis) being overindulgent without anyone to keep him in check.

[Darth Visenya]

As much as I liked the Riddles in the Dark scene that was the high point of the movie, I think in this one Gollum is even more over the top and far gone than he was in LOTR. This is problematic because, obviously, the loss of the Ring and being captured and tortured by Sauron is what contributes a lot lot to the imbalances and quirks in his character in LOTR, so why would he already be like that. That's probably another one of those instances where Jackson (and Sirkis) being overindulgent without anyone to keep him in check.

Thinking on it now, he was even more over the top yes, I can't remember his back story exactly now but I think he has spent 500 ish years in that cave with the ring?, enough to drive anyone mad, I've always enjoyed him as a character at the same time though, part of me wants to strangle him and part of me wants to give him a hug.

[Roose Seal]

Not being a LOTR buff, I wondered... how come Gollum didn't know what a hobbit is? Has he been corrupted for so long that he forgot his own race?

[Sixshells]

From what I understand, in the first version of The Hobbit, Gollum was a sort of sort-of-malevolent imp-ish character like you can find in fairy tales. He was keeping the ring like a lot of magical creatures do keep a precious or magical item and surrenders it to Bilbo when he wins the riddles. But that story of how Bilbo got the ring didn't work well in LOTR so when Tolkien wrote the second version of The Hobbit he changed it to the way we now know and changed Gollum accordingly, to make it a less fantastic entity and more of a simply basically malevolent character, someone that has lived so long in the caves he forgot who he is.

But when Gollum really becomes over the top crazy is after: after Bilbo took his ring, Gollum left the caves to look for it, but was eventually captured by Sauron who interrogated him and learned from him that the ring was at the hand of a Baggins, of the Shire. Thus why the nazguls were so close to the Shire at the beginning of LOTR. Gollum was eventually able to leave but the experience left his mind profoundly deranged. Which is why he whould not seem more crazy in The Hobbit movie than in the LORT movies. At least that's how I understand it.

[Arataniello]

Not being a LOTR buff, I wondered... how come Gollum didn't know what a hobbit is? Has he been corrupted for so long that he forgot his own race?

Gollum's family/clan dwelt on the banks of the Anduin before hobbits moved to the Shire and generally though of themselves (or were referred to by others) as "hobbits".

[Arataniello]

As much as I liked the Riddles in the Dark scene that was the high point of the movie, I think in this one Gollum is even more over the top and far gone than he was in LOTR. This is problematic because, obviously, the loss of the Ring and being captured and tortured by Sauron is what contributes a lot lot to the imbalances and quirks in his character in LOTR, so why would he already be like that. That's probably another one of those instances where Jackson (and Sirkis) being overindulgent without anyone to keep him in check.

I can't say that I saw Gollum being more over the top in this movie than in the LotR ones.

In LotR (book), the Smeagol side of the character is more in control, or prominent, in all of his outwards dealings with Sam and Frodo - this clearly happens in the chapter "the Taming of Smeagol", when Gollum first uses the name "Smeagol" to refer to himself. By that time, he has also been without the Ring for 50 (?) years or more.

In the Hobbit (movie) (since the whole Smeagol/Gollum split is not really evident at all in the book at this stage), the Smeagol/Gollum sides of his personality are much more noticeable, which could be for several reasons -

- he is much more under the influence of the Ring than in LotR, since it left him only very recently;

- his split personality is reacting in a very pronounced manner to the first thing he has spoken to in Eru knows how long;

- other reasons that I am sure others can come up with.

Given time, I am sure we will see Andy Serkis explain it in terms of his whole approach to the character, which was a drugs user (I paraphrase from how he explains it in the DvD exras).

[Happy Ent]

surely, you jest...

I do not.

[smegma]

I liked the movie, but hated certain aspects of it-

In some ways it felt like it wasn't as imaginative as the LOTR trilogy. I feel like Peter Jackson could use a freshening up with regards to the action scenes especially. I don't mean get more over the top - the ladder scene with the orcs was god-awful, and tunneling through thousands of villains just irked me in a way that it didn't in the first three films. It just rang more hollow than the other movies, but I will see the subsequent films because I know a lot more interesting things are yet to come.

STOP MAKING ACTION SCENES WITH NOTHING AT STAKE, PLEASE!

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I thought the CGI in this film was ATROCIOUS. Like, SciFi channel movie bad. What a huge step back in the production quality. I also despised that so many of the characters were CGI unnecessarily. It took me right out of the movie and almost ruined it for me. Maybe if I had seen it at a different theater? I haven't heard as many people complain about it as I thought I would.

Despised the stone mountain scene. I actually groaned and rolled my eyes. One of the worst executions of a scene that was wholly unnecessary anyway. YUCK

I did not mind the inclusion of Radagast or the White Council, although I feel like there were some sloppy edits in a lot of the scenes, especially these.

Loved the dwarves singing, the casting is spot-on. Armitage and Freeman are excellent, but I have never had issue with any of the casting in the films.

I actually thought that Riddles in the Dark had less impact than I was hoping for - the moment he stays his sword didn't carry as much emotional weight as I think it should have for the viewer.

Overall I'd give it a 6.5 out of 10, but I do expect the subsequent films to be better with a longer time to refine the editing and special effects.

[Galactus]

I do think the "Gandalf saves the day" is deliberate though, serving as a contrast to the fact that the dwarves and hobbit will have to do without him for a while.

[andrew_]

I do not.

The movie deviated from the book quiet a bit dude, i can think of an hours worth of film that had either been changed or simply created by the filmmakers for the movie. Not that it was all bad, some of the extra plot points and scenes were really interesting and added to the narrative, others were just like why....PJ why?

[williamjm]

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.

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.

I think I did imagine them as being similar to the Trolls in The Hobbit, although larger and possibly less unpleasant. Instead in the film they're more like figures made out of living rock who split off from the mountainside, which does have some similarity to the Norse mythology you quoted since they are definitely personifications of the mountains although the Norse giants also sound more like The Hobbit film's trolls rather than the giants.

[niamh]

I think I did imagine them as being similar to the Trolls in The Hobbit, although larger and possibly less unpleasant. Instead in the film they're more like figures made out of living rock who split off from the mountainside, which does have some similarity to the Norse mythology you quoted since they are definitely personifications of the mountains although the Norse giants also sound more like The Hobbit film's trolls rather than the giants.

Yerah, that sounds really nice, on paper. It could have been given a very frightening twist, so long as they were kept at a distance, I suppose, as they actually are in the book.

A glimpse in the howling dark, as it were, boulders crashing in thunder and lightning, the shadow of a face, a glimpse of an eye (is it? is it not?), mad windy laughter, the mountain groaning, an avalanche in the distance....

That's not not how he did it though, is it?

Middle-Earth is all atmosphere.

I can't wait to read about the spiders next year, this is shaping up to be a massively tasteless CGI gorefest on an epic level. (replace dinosaurs stampede with spiders, I foresee a 20 minutes scene at least) Lay people will genuinely start wondering soon why Bilbo Norris wasn't elected to directly fly up to Mordor on an Eagle and roundhouse kick Sauron in the face while flipping the ring into the fire at the same time :lol:

[cseresz.reborn]

Overall I'd give it a 6.5 out of 10, but I do expect the subsequent films to be better with a longer time to refine the editing and special effects.

http://www.vulture.c...the-hobbit.html

Jackson said he's just finished editing The Desolation of Smaug ("We've shot it, we've cut it, and we just need to refine it") and anticipates a trailer by the middle of next year.

[Paladin of Ice]

The Stone Giants scene would have worked well if it was just a quick scene with the company seeing the stone giants fighting, and then someone makes a quip like "I don't like the look of that". Then they all scurry into the safety of the cave. 30 seconds, boom, done. A bit of humor, a bit of fantasy wierdness and it's on with the story.

Thank you for perfectly expressing my own feelings about that scene. This sort of scene, or the one niamh suggested, would have been fine. The one we saw onscreen was just too much for me, and I see it as a moment where Jackson gave in to his inner childishness, and not in a good, childlike wonder sort of way.

[Guest]

30 seconds, boom, done. A bit of humor, a bit of fantasy wierdness and it's on with the story.

This pretty much sums up every critique I have of the movie.

Like Elrond with the map...I wanted to smack everyone because that scene was taking so long. Just hold it up to the moon already!! You're already standing outside. Why go to a completely different room with a fancy table?! I don't have ADD, but this film made me feel like I do.