The Hobbit movies discussion

[Fives]

The part where they were sliding down the abyss on the wooden bridge that was somehow still intact was absolutely awful though...that needs to go. And I grew up watching the cartoon version of the hobbit on VHS so that's how I always pictured the goblin king so I wasn't too pleased with PJ's rendition of the misty mountain goblins. I was hoping they looked more like the Moria ones seeing as how they're in the same mountain range. Especially the one Bilbo was fighting before they both fell into Gollum's hole. That one looked like an asian person mated with a goblin and had a deformed baby that was gross and had hair. It was just revolting to look at and really doesn't fit with what PJ created in LOTR

I think the choice to avoid the Moria Orc design was partially Del Toro's influence. But also, while they live in the same mountain range, they aren't necessarily related. They wanted to make Goblin Town a gross, sickening mockery of a town, which the Moria orcs weren't like at all.

Also, the orcs in Moria (we can assume) are descendants of Azog's folk. They have a sense of organization about them, and even went out of their way to forge armour that matched. They adapted and evolved in the halls of Moria, and thus looked drastically different than how they were back during the Battle of Azanulbizar. It makes more sense that the Moria orcs and the Gundabad orcs are the same, and that this is just an example of a creature adapting and evolving due to its surroundings.

I personally love the 1977 cartoon version of The Hobbit, just the same as how I love the Ralph Bakshi LOTR. But is never really let one version or another become the one I envision. I never really had a decent idea of how the Great Goblin should be because he really lacked a personality or any real character development. He was just an obstacle that the dwarves had to get past. PJ successfully made the Great Goblin a memorable character with a unique personality, while not making him feel like too prominent of a villain.

Sorry if I'm rambling and not making sense.

[Deathleech]

Personally, the Goblin sequence was a lot like how I envisioned it in the book, so I have no complaints.

How so? In the book there is little detail and I envisioned the dwarves just kind of making a b line for the exit, hacking the few goblins that got in the way. I didn't picture it AT ALL like the film. In the film they are using ladders and planks of wood to brush mass amounts of goblins off the bridges like they are dust, swinging and jumping about like trapeze artist, and using entire chunks of Goblin Town to slide down mountain sides like they are on some giant snow board. Then at the end they have a 500+ pound Goblin King fall from a few hundred feet on top of them and get up like it's nothing? I am pretty sure most of the dwarves would of died from that.

I'm all for PJ spicing things up because quite frankly, the Hobbit book was pretty boring and lacking a lot of detail when it came to the action sequences. But PJ just takes it too far in the Hobbit films. I feel like everything is so over the top and ridiculous. Legolas feels like he is a skate boarder grinding down almost anything he can get his feet on. It feels more like a cartoon than a live action movie. Sure there are more small skirmishes than huge battles but look at the LotR. The Moria Orcs scene, Riders of Rohan vs Uruk-hai carrying Merry/Pippin, and the Wargs vs Riders of Rohan are all great examples of how to make small fights exciting while not completely ridiculous. You don't see Legolas hoping Warg to Warg shooting them in the head as he goes, or Gimli doing barrel rolls into hundreds of Moria Orcs and killing them.

As for the Goblin King, I get he is deranged and twisted but I never in my wildest dreams pictured ANY goblin or orc as having a flamboyant personality. I imagine them more like Azog is portrayed. Instead the Goblin King comes off more like the Joker from the animated cartoon series. A silly comic book villain.

[Scorpiox]

I imagine them more like Azog is portrayed. Instead the Goblin King comes off more like the Joker from the animated cartoon series. A silly comic book villain.

And where's the problem with that?

Peter Jackson has openly made it clear multiple times that he intended The Hobbit trilogy to be more light-hearted and 'fun' than the comparatively heavy LotR. It's the same situation with the books. One was deliberately written for children, the other, not so much.

Then at the end they have a 500+ pound Goblin King fall from a few hundred feet on top of them and get up like it's nothing? I am pretty sure most of the dwarves would of died from that.

I'm over fifty years old and I thought it was funny, and isn't that really the point? Of course, it isn't sophisticated humour but everything can't be Pythonesque or half the audience would walk out of the cinema not understanding any of the jokes, and that is a bad thing for a family film.

[Fives]

Something a lot of people seem to forget is that PJ purposely made AUJ a bit funnier because he wanted to use the first film to get through the sillier, lighthearted quality of the story, so the second and third films to focus more on the darker sides of the story. His plan worked well. Sure, some things seemed like a bit much, but it is a fantasy adventure film. The suspension of disbelief is key when watching these movies.

[Deathleech]

I dunno, I just don't view light-hearted as synonymous with comical I guess. When reading the Hobbit I never really got the vibe it was a hilarious comedy. I would be fine with things not being so serious, but a lot of the stuff in the Hobbit film just struck me as plain dumb. It was not even funny. I mean PJ often uses Gimli as a comical character in LotR, but I was fine with that because it wasn't so over the top and ridiculous. I did like some of the comical stuff, like the scene in Mirkwood when Legolas is searching Gloin's possessions and finds the pictures of his wife and young Gimli and makes the comments about them. That was amusing and something hard core fans AND casual movie goers could get a kick out of even if they didnt totally understand the relevance.

I will say I liked that PJ made the dwarves more combative rather than push overs like they are in the book (they don't fight the trolls at all, do very little fighting in Goblin Town, don't kill any Mirkwood Spiders, etc.). He also expands on some stuff that was extremely vague in the book which is nice. I just could do without so much of the slap stick comedy and over the top action. It's great in small doses but not when it's in almost EVERY action scene.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Deathleech

[Ardelon]

I must say I was actually pleasantly surprised with the Great Goblin in the movie. Being an Orc/Goblin with actual speaking lines in the book, he was already intriguing, but sadly undeveloped. And I never knew how to picture him with his huge head without him looking comical in my mind, like a bobble-head figure or something. The move version gives us a version that works, both i looks and in personality.

I actually find him a more menacing villain than Azog. Azog just appears to be a big dumb brute, with a "Hulk smash!" mentality. I see nothing that would make him a suitable candidate to lead Saurons armies. He fights almost in the nude, without any armor, so naturally he gets a limb chopped off. Wearing no armor mioght be prestigious, but putting honor over reason is not a mark of a good commander IMO. Whbats worse, he knows exactly where the Dwarves are headed, but it doesnt seem to occur to him to cut them off (Bolg, on the other hand, surprisingly knew that the Dwarves would escape by way of the river gate...). He kills his top lieutenant for failing to capture the/kill the Dwarves, even though Yazneg had a good reason to withdraw, as his Orcs were hunters, not soldiers equiped to to fight Elvish cavalry.

The Great Goblin on ther other hand, actually captured the Dwarves and his slick and deceptively jovial manner (even asking their opinion on his song!) makes him seem like a more developed and intelligent character. This is actually more like how I pictured Azog and Bolg from the books - the way Azog killed Thror and taunted Nár, the Dwarf that was with him, showed that Azog had a taste for political theatrics, and Bolg was genre-savvy enough to surround himslef with a very effective bodyguard, what actually casued the death of Thorin, the deuteragonist of the book.

Otherwise, yeah, I thought the stunts, especially in Goblin Town, were over the top, sometimes crossing over into slapstick. Its one thing that the Dwarves are immortal because the story requires it, but that didnt have to mean the Goblins were made into such a pathetic non-threat. But I cant really complain, we all know that the book, and thus the movies, are meant to be more light-hearted, and so far Im ok with hown the movies are playing out.

TL/DR: Azog sucks (btw, so does Bolg). The Great Goblin is boss. Over the top stunts and slapstick are annoying. Otherwise, the movies are neat.

[InvincibleEagle]

I can analyze these movies forever. But I don't have much time right now, so I'll just give my briefest opinions on these two movies.

I thought AUJ was almost perfect. I thought the swashbuckly action scenes fit the book's tone well enough, and it had plenty warmth and wisdom from Gandalf, keeping the Tolkien spirit that made Lord of the Rings so great. I also greatly enjoyed the world building; references to things like Ungoliant and the Blue Wizards reminded me that the world was much more ancient and vast than what we were presented. What I loved most perhaps was the clash of cultures, seeing the neat and mild mannered hobbits and elves react to the rugged dwarves' behavior was so charming. The main thing I didn't like was in the long run was the Azog subplot. Are the mountain trolls and Misty Mountain goblins with an arcing man vs. nature conflict just not antagonistic enough? If they wanted a revenge subplot, Azog's son Bolg would have had the exact same effect only more believeable.

Desolation of Smaug was dazzling, yet hollow. Smaug was by far the best part. While the movie never got boring, it never reached greatness either. The pacing was too fast for its own good. Just about every problem solved by strategy and wit in the book is solved by sheer brute force in this movie; I don't even feel like listing them all. Brute force mainly dealt out by the elves. There we way way way too many elves in this movie. Part of what made AUJ so great to me was that we saw cultures we didn't get to see much of in LotR. In LotR, we got plenty of elves and men, but we knew almost nothing about dwarves. In AUJ, we got plenty of dwarf culture. We also got to see how orcs live their lives when not at war. However, DoS just piles on the Elves way too much, hogging screentime when we could get to know the dwarves better. Don't get me started with the Kili/Tauriel subplot. The writing was bad enough, but its mere existance alone cheapens so much of what made Lord of the Rings so powerful (Arwen & Aragorn's marraige, Legolas & Gimli's friendship, and Gimli and Galadriel's courtly love). Overall, Desolation of Smaug would have made a great standalone fantasy adventure (we need a lot more of those too), but as a Tolkien adaptation, it just leaves too much to be desired.

I think the problem here is that Lord of the Rings had to please the book's fans because they were the built-in audience of that time. But now, LotR film fans are the built-in audience, so these movies are made to please the Legolas lovers and action fanatics. I know that sounds elitist. I hope TaBA will be a balance between the hardcore fan appeal of the first one and the casual movie goer appeal of the second.

[Palathadric]

-snip-

[Floundie]

I wanted to share this awesome DOS poster I happened across today, and MAN is it ever glorious! What I wouldn't give to have this hanging on my wall...

Edited February 2, 2014 by Floundie

[InvincibleEagle]

That's so tight! But it does kinda spoil the best part of the movie.

[Deathleech]

This review pretty much hits the nail on the head when it comes to how I feel about the first two Hobbit films. The over use of CGI, dragging scenes out but not focusing on character development, etc. Pretty much the only thing I disagree with are the critics solutions to handling the dwarves. His first solution would of been fine, but killing off dwarves throughout the movie who didn't die in the book, or only starting with seven would of been terrible. Edited February 2, 2014 by Deathleech

[InvincibleEagle]

The CGI goblins did get terribly out of hand in the Misty Mountains. The extended edition's bonus footage shows amazing practical goblins with some of the most elaborate prosthetics I've ever seen. It sure is a pity you don't notice them in the movie because there are way too many CGI goblins cluttering every frame of that scene.

That DVD also shows a lot of awesome practical Azogs ditched in favor of the most boring orc design to date.

Edited February 2, 2014 by InvincibleEagle

[CMP]

That DVD also shows a lot of awesome practical Azogs ditched in favor of the most boring orc design to date.

I have the Desolation of Smaug art book. There are roughly a dozen or more amazing sketches for Bolg/Azog designs. The design of Azog didn't bug me all that much before, but looking at what we could've had...

Edited February 2, 2014 by CallMePie

[Haltiamieli]

This review pretty much hits the nail on the head when it comes to how I feel about the first two Hobbit films.

"[T]aking the audience for a ride when in fact they were promised a journey" is probably the best critical summary of the films I've yet seen. On the whole the article is a bit tedious read with the overuse of allegory, but there's a lot of good points. The writer does, however, appear strangely uncritical of the LotR trilogy. Maybe it's for the sake of argument.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Haltiamieli

[Ardelon]

This review pretty much hits the nail on the head when it comes to how I feel about the first two Hobbit films. The over use of CGI, dragging scenes out but not focusing on character development, etc. Pretty much the only thing I disagree with are the critics solutions to handling the dwarves. His first solution would of been fine, but killing off dwarves throughout the movie who didn't die in the book, or only starting with seven would of been terrible.

He raises several good points, but writing the whole thing off as a "flatulent mess of a film"? Not cool. And yes, his proposed changes sound pretty cringeworthy. I assume the individual movies will look somewhat better when watched as parts of a whole trilogy. In any case, I anticipate the extended edition.

[Floundie]

There's this great behind the scenes video on the making of Smaug, check it out here. You can even briefly see at the 30 second mark that at one point his design included four limbs and two wings.

[Cammo]

The 3rd movie has been renamed:

Instead of The Hobbit: There and Back Again; it's:

The Hobbit: Into The Fire

Source:

http://www.movieweb.com/news/the-hobbit-is-there-and-back-again-getting-renamed-into-the-fire

[Floundie]

The 3rd movie has been renamed:

Instead of The Hobbit: There and Back Again; it's:

The Hobbit: Into The Fire

Source:

http://www.movieweb....d-into-the-fire

Not quite, the name has been registered but not confirmed to be a new title for the film. I don't see why they would do that anyway. We've already known the sub title of the final film to be There and Back Again for years now. Why would they change it this late in the game to something as ill-fitting as Into the Fire? It's most likely for a tie-in of a sort, I'm predicting a video game.

[Lord Rahl of Clannad]

I would be disappointed if they changed the name of the final film now, seeing as There and Back Again is such a fitting title for the final film in the trilogy. Into the Fire really does not fit as the title for the final film. It may have fit for the second film, but it's probably just a title for a video game or something rather than a new title for the final film, or at least I hope it is.

[Scorpiox]

I hope not, There And Back Again is the perfect title.

[The Legonater]

I was under the impression it was confirmed that final title would be 'Battle of the Five Armies'? I'll grant either of those titles are better, that's just what I had heard.

[Leo604]

I was under the impression it was confirmed that final title would be 'Battle of the Five Armies'? I'll grant either of those titles are better, that's just what I had heard.

Don't think I ever that being the case, I assumed it was TABA right from the start.

[Faefrost]

It seems late in the marketing cycle to change the title? Granted when it was two movies it was supposed to be "an Unexpected Journey" and "There and Back Again". With the split to three they may not fully work. I mean think about it. Given where the second movie ended what would "there and back again" even mean? TABA implies the journey there. But by the start of film 3 the journey is over. They are already "There"

[General Magma]

It seems late in the marketing cycle to change the title? Granted when it was two movies it was supposed to be "an Unexpected Journey" and "There and Back Again". With the split to three they may not fully work. I mean think about it. Given where the second movie ended what would "there and back again" even mean? TABA implies the journey there. But by the start of film 3 the journey is over. They are already "There"

They are "There" and going "Back Again".

[Scorpiox]

It seems late in the marketing cycle to change the title? Granted when it was two movies it was supposed to be "an Unexpected Journey" and "There and Back Again". With the split to three they may not fully work. I mean think about it. Given where the second movie ended what would "there and back again" even mean? TABA implies the journey there. But by the start of film 3 the journey is over. They are already "There"

It's the name of the book that Bilbo writes to recount his adventures, that's why it works as the name of the film. Everything goes full-circle.