The Hobbit movies discussion

[Faefrost]

I suspect that when PJ releases the inevitable Extended Edition of this movie we will find it in particular has some major additions to Beorn's scenes and Thranduil's. Probably even a flashback sequence involving Thranduil and dragons. I think the original planned run time for this one was probably at or over 3 hours, but it got sliced back after all the pushback about how long TUJ was in theaters.

[Fives]

I bet they'll show some stuff during the Feast of Starlight. There was a whole other costume and crown designed for Thranduil that didn't make an appearance, so I bet it was for that scene. And I'd like to see Beorn address Bilbo directly. It'd be fun to hear his opinion on a Hobbit.

[CMP]

I too thought the Beorn scene was weird. It was the perfect setup for a (very brief) recap of what was going on, if they did it like the book.

[Fives]

The Beorn scene was short, but in the book its not that much different. He hosts them, gives them food and fresh supplies, and keeps the path safe up till the gate of Mirkwood. I think he'll have an expanded role in TABA, and they'll pay off the whole 'Azog and his orcs killed my family' story (which of course is in the book), but also maybe give him involvement even more. I'd love to see a scene with Beorn and Radagast, since both are very much in tune with nature and animals. They'd likely have an interesting friendship. Doubt that'll happen, though.

[BrickBob Studpants]

@Fives: That would be great, I'd love to see the two interacting Now I'm wondering who's going to be part of the whole Dol Guldur battle in TABA According to Christopher Lee, Saruman is going to be there and both AUJ and DoS heavily imply that Galadriel will join the fun as well (and in the books it's her who demolishes the fortress). Elrond should participate too and if TLG got it right, Radagast and Beorn will be there as well And I think there's one other character that might show up, and that would be Legolas since he's last seen chasing Bolg in DoS (and where else should Bolg be headed?)...

[Fives]

@Fives: That would be great, I'd love to see the two interacting Now I'm wondering who's going to be part of the whole Dol Guldur battle in TABA According to Christopher Lee, Saruman is going to be there and both AUJ and DoS heavily imply that Galadriel will join the fun as well (and in the books it's her who demolishes the fortress). Elrond should participate too and if TLG got it right, Radagast and Beorn will be there as well And I think there's one other character that might show up, and that would be Legolas since he's last seen chasing Bolg in DoS (and where else should Bolg be headed?)...

I think the final fight will be between the White Council and Radagast and Beorn against Sauron. The orcs will have already left, so it should be a battle of powers rather than swords and arrows.

Bolg should regroup with Azog and the army while they head to Erebor, and Legolas should give up his chase when he realizes that Smaug is headed for Esgaroth and Tauriel is still in the city.

[Ultron]

I think the final fight will be between the White Council and Radagast and Beorn against Sauron. The orcs will have already left, so it should be a battle of powers rather than swords and arrows.

Bolg should regroup with Azog and the army while they head to Erebor, and Legolas should give up his chase when he realizes that Smaug is headed for Esgaroth and Tauriel is still in the city.

But what good would beorn be against sauron? Beorn is only brute strength and has no magic or powers really at all. And if he does it's never mentioned in the book.

I suspect that when PJ releases the inevitable Extended Edition of this movie we will find it in particular has some major additions to Beorn's scenes and Thranduil's. Probably even a flashback sequence involving Thranduil and dragons. I think the original planned run time for this one was probably at or over 3 hours, but it got sliced back after all the pushback about how long TUJ was in theaters.

I hope there is more in mirkwood such as bilbo enticing the spiders more and him leading them away. That'd make me very happy :) Maybe even the enchanted river with bombur. I'm still waiting for him to have a line...

[fred67]

Spoilers ahead...

My take on The Desolation of Smaug; I'm a fan of the book, and this movie strayed way too far from the book to be called anything like a "faithful" adaptation.

I liked the movie - it was a really good movie - not great, but I liked it a lot - a lot more than the first movie. But it depresses me to think that, after all the money is spent and all the work is done, that it'll be a long time, if ever, that we actually get a faithful adaptation. Sometimes changes don't bother me, but other times I feel like they fundamentally betray the story; Kili and Tuariel, for example, and leaving behind dwarfs in Laketonw at all. There's a reason that, in the books, the dwarfs did not venture far into the mountain, instead letting Bilbo do it... there was supposed to be a bit of cowardice and greed in there. Thorin's somewhat crazed lust for the stone was done really well, though.

But on it's own, the movie was quite good. During both movies I felt like it was just dragging on way too long. I have nothing against long movies as long as there's a point to it; I had no problems with any of the Lord of the Rings movies, even the extended editions, but both Hobbit movies had me feeling like it was just dragging on for the sake of dragging it on... a lot of padding going on. At least some of the padding was interesting. Much of it was, unfortunately, gratuitous, and added nothing.

The characters for the Master of Laketown and Alfrid were too cartoony and unbelievable. Otherwise I think the characters and acting were quite good. I felt pretty neutral about Martin Freeman's Bilbo the first movie, but he really sold me in this one.

That they exposed Sauron was just terrible... I mean, I think we're supposed to realize it's Sauron, but the characters are not. At the beginning of the LOTR, Gandalf would have had no question about the ring or it's origins - I do not even think they'd let 60 years go by without doing ANYTHING in between The Hobbit and LOTR if Gandalf and the council knew is was Sauron. Maybe they'll take care of this in the next movie, but then I think it would be, as they might put it, "folly" to think the problem was solved if Sauron is able to come back in mere decades.

It was visually beautiful, as usual with these movies. The pacing was uneven - as I said, sometimes it really felt like it was dragging on for the sake of being a long movie, but that may be "book bias."

Like I said, although it feels like I'm being overly critical, I enjoyed the movie a lot. On the whole it was really well done. I would suggest that's just a fan talking, but my wife (the only one in the family who hasn't read the book) liked it a lot, also, and especially the deviations (which is why the Tuariel/Kili plot is added - the same reason Arwen/Aragorn was over done in the LOTR movies - it's more interesting for a lot of people to have a romantic interest involved).

I gave it 8/10 on IMDB ratings.

Edited December 16, 2013 by fred67

[Faefrost]

Spoilers ahead...

My take on The Desolation of Smaug; I'm a fan of the book, and this movie strayed way too far from the book to be called anything like a "faithful" adaptation.

I liked the movie - it was a really good movie - not great, but I liked it a lot - a lot more than the first movie. But it depresses me to think that, after all the money is spent and all the work is done, that it'll be a long time, if ever, that we actually get a faithful adaptation. Sometimes changes don't bother me, but other times I feel like they fundamentally betray the story; Kili and Tuariel, for example, and leaving behind dwarfs in Laketonw at all. There's a reason that, in the books, the dwarfs did not venture far into the mountain, instead letting Bilbo do it... there was supposed to be a bit of cowardice and greed in there. Thorin's somewhat crazed lust for the stone was done really well, though.

That they exposed Sauron was just terrible... I mean, I think we're supposed to realize it's Sauron, but the characters are not. At the beginning of the LOTR, Gandalf would have had no question about the ring or it's origins - I do not even think they'd let 60 years go by without doing ANYTHING in between The Hobbit and LOTR if Gandalf and the council knew is was Sauron. Maybe they'll take care of this in the next movie, but then I think it would be, as they might put it, "folly" to think the problem was solved if Sauron is able to come back in mere decades.

I gave it 8/10 on IMDB ratings.

Trimmed down a bit for space.

What would constitute a "faithful adaption"? The Hobbit is a much more problematic work than LotR's. And it changed and evolved greatly over time. Heck it's original published version is not the one you likely read, unless you did some deep research. It was a series of short tales about Bilbo and the Dwarves. It was not a part of the overall Tolkien Middle Earth originally. Tolkien himself went back and rewrote much of it to include it into the LotR's chronology and mythology. This is the version that we commonly know.

And let's not forget that in the Hobbit, the bulk of the characters are just things. Heck the only personalities or purpose given to most of the Dwarves is the color of their cloaks. If you want a faithful take on the characters than check out the Rankin Bass animated version from the 70's. While charming it does kind of highlight the problem with faithfully adapting them. As written they don't even qualify as cartoons. And even then, at almost a 3 hour televised run time, it still chopped out vast swaths of the book (Beorn, anything to do with the Arkenstone, etc). (And yes if you have it on DVD or have watched a more recent televised airing, the original broadcast was a bit longer. The DVD release was a later cut edited down to fit in 2 hours broadcast time. Several originally aired scenes have been lost to posterity.)

When Tolkien sold the movie rights of the Hobbit and LotR to United Artists in 1968 it also included all the appendices and all of his notes regarding the stories. Would it help you feel better about Tauriel and the whole Tauriel Kili thing to know that she comes (un named) from those notes regarding Legolas's backstory? Tolkien had thought up the idea of a female elf that Legolas had known who had fallen in love with a dwarf. And which ended tragically, as something that had shaken Legolas's prejudices and preconceptions regarding dwarves. And thus left him open to forming his close friendship with Gimli.

I do kind of agree with you regarding Sauron. And it was less the reveal as giving him a voice and purpose. One of the more distinctive things in LotR's is the big villains voice and motivation is never actually seen. You just know it's this unstoppable evil. You never hear it directly voiced. Doing so here made Sauron feel more like a comic book villain.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Faefrost

[BrickBob Studpants]

That they exposed Sauron was just terrible... I mean, I think we're supposed to realize it's Sauron, but the characters are not.

I haven't read the books, but as far as I know, the appendices mention that Gandalf did some investigation around that time in Dol Guldur, found out about Sauron and reported back to the White Council who then drove him away and destroyed the fortress, causing him to return to Mordor

Edit:

Here's what I found in the LOTR wiki:

"Gandalf the Grey made a second intrusion into Dol Guldur in TA 2850, and finally discovered that the Necromancer was indeed Sauron. Eventually, the White Council put forth their might and drove Sauron from Dol Guldur permanently in TA 2941. Without the Ring in his possession, Sauron could draw on only the smallest fraction of its strength, so that his enemies were able to drive him from Dol Guldur with relative ease. However, the Dark Lord, having had ample time to prepare, was willing to abandon Dol Guldur, and returned to Mordor, where he openly declared himself in TA 2951, and began preparations for his final war against the free peoples of Middle-earth."

Source: http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Sauron

Edited December 16, 2013 by Lego-Freak

[The Legonater]

Trimmed down a bit for space.

What would constitute a "faithful adaption"? The Hobbit is a much more problematic work than LotR's. And it changed and evolved greatly over time. Heck it's original published version is not the one you likely read, unless you did some deep research. It was a series of short tales about Bilbo and the Dwarves. It was not a part of the overall Tolkien Middle Earth originally. Tolkien himself went back and rewrote much of it to include it into the LotR's chronology and mythology. This is the version that we commonly know.

And let's not forget that in the Hobbit, the bulk of the characters are just things. Heck the only personalities or purpose given to most of the Dwarves is the color of their cloaks. If you want a faithful take on the characters than check out the Rankin Bass animated version from the 70's. While charming it does kind of highlight the problem with faithfully adapting them. As written they don't even qualify as cartoons. And even then, at almost a 3 hour televised run time, it still chopped out vast swaths of the book (Beorn, anything to do with the Arkenstone, etc). (And yes if you have it on DVD or have watched a more recent televised airing, the original broadcast was a bit longer. The DVD release was a later cut edited down to fit in 2 hours broadcast time. Several originally aired scenes have been lost to posterity.)

Which is the exact issue of the whole 'why is the Hobbit a trilogy' question. You can either make it one movie and trim down a lot of stuff, or you can make it three and add a lot of stuff. Doing it in two probably wouldn't work either way.

What's your source on the note of the love triangle? It sounds interesting if it's true.

[Faefrost]

Which is the exact issue of the whole 'why is the Hobbit a trilogy' question. You can either make it one movie and trim down a lot of stuff, or you can make it three and add a lot of stuff. Doing it in two probably wouldn't work either way.

What's your source on the note of the love triangle? It sounds interesting if it's true.

My source is my buddy the Historian and professional researcher, who dug up and read much of the supporting LotR documents a few years ago. he came back from the movie thrilled and raving about that point yesterday. I am not sure exactly what bundle of text it appears in.

[Fives]

So I've been thinking more and more about the inevitable extended edition of DOS, and I've been trying to figure out what scenes would make sense to be expanded. Here are my ideas:

Beorn: add at least one little scene, perhaps with either Beorn talking alone with Bilbo, or talking alone with Gandalf about Dol Guldur.

Perhaps some more bits added to the Mirkwood scene. I remember seeing a bit from the production clogs that showed Thorin being filmed shooting something with a bow. That would be neat to see.

In the Woodland Realm, I'd love to see the Feast of Starlight. There was a completely different costume and crown designed for Thranduil, and I think it may have been for that scene. It just makes sense. Plus, it would bring the whole 'These Elves like their wine' part of the book more into the movie.

At Dol Guldur, we gotta see Thrain. The Citadel Miniatures company that makes the LOYR and Hobbit strategy games have a new Thrain the Broken figure, which confirms that Gandalf should've fought an insane Thrain at Dol Guldur.

In Laketown, I'd like to see the celebration that caused Bofur to sleep in and miss the boat to Erebor. They could perhaps expand on the Master's motives in that scene.

Past that, I can't think of anything that needs to be added.

[The Legonater]

Yeah, I was surprised of the lack of Thrain. Seeing more of the Dwarves against the Spiders would be cool, considering that's all we get of their weapons this movie. Still not really sure how that'll work out.

[fred67]

No... there wasn't even supposed to be a love triangle, they went back and added it in... they actually reshot scenes (almost always a bad omen) and tacked it on, which is exactly how it felt. The captain of the guard was a male in the book... it doesn't matter that Tolkien may have mentioned some female elf somewhere along the way. The movies would have been fine as a two parter, as originally planned.

Again, I liked this movie... just could have been better. I understand why filmmakers change the source material, I'm not a purist whiner, but sometimes it doesn't work.

[The Legonater]

How is reshooting scenes a bad omen? Literally every movie does reshoots.

As for the duology, I just don't see that working. There isn't enough in the book to make a full two-movies, and the Necromancer arc wouldn't fit in two either.

[Haltiamieli]

What would constitute a "faithful adaption"? The Hobbit is a much more problematic work than LotR's. And it changed and evolved greatly over time. Heck it's original published version is not the one you likely read, unless you did some deep research. It was a series of short tales about Bilbo and the Dwarves. It was not a part of the overall Tolkien Middle Earth originally. Tolkien himself went back and rewrote much of it to include it into the LotR's chronology and mythology. This is the version that we commonly know.

Err... Tolkien did indeed update The Hobbit a bit to make it agree with LotR better, true, but only in one case he did considerable rewriting: The Riddles in the Dark, which played out quite differently in the original. Of course the book started as stories told to Tolkien's children, but even the first published version of 1937 was quite the same thing we have today. He did contemplate bigger rewrite, but in the end decided it wasn't worth it - the end result would have been a completely different and possibly less enchanting tale. As to whether it was part of overall mythos, that's debatable. All of the legendarium was still unpublished and thus in a fluid state, changing constantly and without clear borders. The story had some loose elements from his earlier stories from very early on, even if it took The Lord of the Rings to put the book definitely in its place in Middle-earth history.

When Tolkien sold the movie rights of the Hobbit and LotR to United Artists in 1968 it also included all the appendices and all of his notes regarding the stories. Would it help you feel better about Tauriel and the whole Tauriel Kili thing to know that she comes (un named) from those notes regarding Legolas's backstory? Tolkien had thought up the idea of a female elf that Legolas had known who had fallen in love with a dwarf. And which ended tragically, as something that had shaken Legolas's prejudices and preconceptions regarding dwarves. And thus left him open to forming his close friendship with Gimli.

I'd like to know a bit more of that (before I believe you). "my buddy the Historian and professional researcher" "who dug up and read much of the supporting LotR documents a few years ago" is quite too vague for my liking, considering this is something I have never heard of or even hinted about. Maybe you mean Tolkien's comments on Zimmerman's screenplay sketch from the late 50s? That I haven't read in its entirety, though I find it odd that no one would have publicized such a juicy and unique bit.

[Masked Builder]

I got to see it in Imax HFR 3D, it was amazing. (Also the first time I saw the movie.) I really enjoyed it, and the Gimli mention made me cheer.

I was expecting to see a whole lot less of Smaug, but was presently surprised when we got so much time with him. I have no problem sitting through long movies, in fact I'd like most movies to be 2.5+ hours. More chance for story and character building.

Can't wait until next year!

[BrickBob Studpants]

I have no problem sitting through long movies, in fact I'd like most movies to be 2.5+ hours. More chance for story and character building.

Exactly The usual complaints about the length of movies (Hobbit/LOTR, POTC, Lone Ranger etc etc) annoy me to no end. Do people really have such a short attention span? Take a look at Bollywood, those films usually have a running time of 3-4 hours if not longer, and no complaints there Have you ever heard a person complaining about how long a book, a TV series or a videogame was? In the latter case, it's even the exact opposite

[fred67]

No, no, no.... you guys aren't getting it... people don't complain about long movies if they're justified in being long movies, but they can't be long for the sake of being long. Character development would be great, but extended barrel riding scenes for the sake of padding the movie, and extended cat-and-mouse scenes with dwarfs and dragons just make the movie seem tedious. I had no problem with even the extended versions of ALL of the LOTR movies - but the Hobbit movies come off as tediously long with gratuitous action and fighting scenes.

Whereas in LOTR I wanted more, while watching both Hobbit movies I wanted less... the Goblin chase scenes in the first movie, the barrels and in the mountain in the second. The tacked on love story

How is reshooting scenes a bad omen? Literally every movie does reshoots.

Every movie does RETAKES, they don't keep rewriting the material because some producer or production company executive says "you know what these needs? A love triangle!" after watching rough cuts of the movie. It reminds me of Homer Simpson telling Mel Gibson what "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" needed.

And I'm not a purist... I know they change things to make it work better on the screen; usually this means cutting or condensing stuff. I remember watching some Harry Potter and thinking "the way they condensed those three things in the book to one short scene was genius!" I can respect and appreciate changes from the books if they fit.

But that's not what's happening here.

I don't "mind" Tuariel. I LIKE Tuariel. I don't "mind" tension between Tauriel and Legolas. I LIKE the tension. And I'll give the ladies their Orlando Bloom in exchange for getting some Evangeline Lily any day of the week! Everything else seemed tacked on, added for the sake of adding it. Romances between elves and other races is EXTREMELY RARE in Middle Earth. Tolkien only wrote about it, as far as I can tell, 3 times. I don't mind Peter Jackson taking liberties with the stories, padding them with things that seem in place in Middle Earth. This seemed WAY out of place.

And, frankly, if we're going to get character development, it shouldn't be for ostensibly secondary and tertiary characters (like most of the dwarfs were). Why is Kili more important than Oin or Gloin, or any other dwarf except Thorin?

It's arbitrary and tacked on.

I like Peter Jackson. I think he did a great job with LOTR. I think he's getting too much production company input on this one. I liked it, I did... I should have loved it, though, and I didn't.

[Floundie]

Alright, so I finally got to see DOS, and honestly I have mixed feelings about it. It's really sad how much CGI was used in this movie, that was a really big letdown for me.

Sometimes there was no reason why the story should stray from the book so much. The love triangle was bad and added nothing to the plot. As soon as I saw the big Jell-O dwarf statue I wanted to burst out laughing.

I think that last sequence between the dwarves and Smaug could have worked, if only it was toned down a little. Too drawn-out and too over-the-top, and overall it detracted from my enjoyment of the movie.

About the soundtrack, I think it's really great. Smaug's theme is excellent.

[BrickBob Studpants]

The two scenes people complain about the most are actually some of my favorites in the film (namely the barrel escape and the extended Smaug scene). If they did the barrel scene exactly like in the book, it would have been incredibly boring with having closed lids on the barrels (so you couldn't even tell who's supposed to who) and no-one to follow them. It also makes the elves look pretty incompetent (letting the prisoners escape and not even noticing it). The prolonged Smaug scene I love because of two things: 1) We get to see more of the magnificent Smaug and 2) I found it incredibly disappointing that the dwarves had ZERO interaction with him in the book. I mean with that set-up you'd think them facing off is the main goal of the entire quest, right? IMO, it also builds character because the dwarves only rush in to help Bilbo (which shows the friendship they have forged), they at first stick to the original plan (sending in Bilbo to steal the Arkenstone). In the book, they seem way too selfish and greedy The only thing I didn't care about that much was the "love-triangle". I put that in quotes because it's not really a lovestory IMO, to me it seemed very one-sided (Kili simply having a crush on Tauriel). Tauriel seemed to be more intrigued by him and his story rather than being in love, but maybe that's just me

[Fives]

I think you're right about the love story, LEGO-Freak. I think that Tauriel's compassion towards Kili was more of a way to show that she is younger and therefore has experienced less of the feud between dwarves and elves. She realizes that the dwarves and elves have a common enemy, and that the feud is pointless.

[fred67]

I disagree; even Evangeline Lily complained about the "love triangle." Link.

We came back for reshoots in 2012 … and they were like, 'Uh, the studio would really like to see…' And I was like, 'Here we go. Here we go' And sure enough I'm in another love triangle.”

[The Legonater]

About the soundtrack, I think it's really great. Smaug's theme is excellent.

I can't stop humming the Lake-Town theme. If nothing else, I watch these movies for Howard Shore.