The Hobbit movies discussion

[Mandate]

Actually, yes, they did do things with the Barrow-blades. According to the LoTR Wiki, it was because of the enchantments in the blade that allowed Pippin to wound the Witch King in the end. That's a pretty critical usage for them. Also, they did fight before Rivendell. Frodo's blade broke at Weathertop during the attack by the Ring Wraiths. Also, this is why Bilbo gave Frodo Sting. Which was another critical part of the trilogy, because Sting was the only reason Frodo and Sam survived Shelob's attack, and why the Ring did not go to Sauron. That's an entire critical character to the entire pot that can be removed by Aragorn giving the Hobbits the Blades, and yet you still insist that Beorn must remain because he slays Bolg or someone else. Why can't Bard kill him? Why can't a random soldier kill him? What about Thorin and co.? That's one critical character that can be completely removed by doing a simple change.

The movies changed even some of these plot points I've mentioned. In the movie version of FoTR, Frodo simply drops his blade, and they never recover it. Pippin is given a new blade by Denethor in the movie for RoTK, thus making Pippin's blade's fate unknown.

[The Legonater]

He meant in the movie they do nothing with them, creating the issues you mentioned.

[Deathleech]

Actually, yes, they did do things with the Barrow-blades. According to the LoTR Wiki, it was because of the enchantments in the blade that allowed Pippin to wound the Witch King in the end. That's a pretty critical usage for them. Also, they did fight before Rivendell. Frodo's blade broke at Weathertop during the attack by the Ring Wraiths. Also, this is why Bilbo gave Frodo Sting. Which was another critical part of the trilogy, because Sting was the only reason Frodo and Sam survived Shelob's attack, and why the Ring did not go to Sauron. That's an entire critical character to the entire pot that can be removed by Aragorn giving the Hobbits the Blades, and yet you still insist that Beorn must remain because he slays Bolg or someone else. Why can't Bard kill him? Why can't a random soldier kill him? What about Thorin and co.? That's one critical character that can be completely removed by doing a simple change.

The movies changed even some of these plot points I've mentioned. In the movie version of FoTR, Frodo simply drops his blade, and they never recover it. Pippin is given a new blade by Denethor in the movie for RoTK, thus making Pippin's blade's fate unknown.

Giving the Hobbits weapons is one thing, participating in a battle completely turning the tides are another. Spoilers ahead...

Beorn is pretty much the whole reason the good peoples win the Bo5A. They are actually losing the battle until Beorn comes. Why doesn't Bard or someone else kill Bolg? The book specifically mentions no one else being able to get close to Bolg because of his guards, but Beorn in bear form is powerful enough to break their ranks and kill Bolg. I believe it even mentions Thorin trying to get to Bolg but that's how he gets heavily wounded (and ends up dying) before he can kill him. It's at this point, where Beorn kills Bolg, that the entire battle shifts and the goblins are leaderless and without direction. They start scrambling and fleeing and the elves, dwarves, and men are able to win the battle. You act like Beorn had a minor role in the book and only killed a few unimportant goblins or something but he literally won the battle. Without him being there it's quite possible everyone would of died. Who does that include? Well Gandalf for one, and also Bilbo. Gandalf was important enough in the destruction of Sauron but what was Bilbo carrying? Oh right, the one ring. If they all died the evil forces would of taken the ring to Sauron and that would of been it. Sauron would rule without question once more. Gandalf was also injured at the battle so it's not like he could of just killed everyone uncontested himself.

Sure if PJ really wanted to remove Beorn he could of. It seems he already down played his role in DoS though. In the book the dwarves are at his house for several days recovering and getting supplies. In the movie (the theatrical version at least), the dwarves are only at Beorn's what appears to be one night. We don't see the feast or animals as they are described in the book. How is this much different than the part with Tom Bombadil supplying the hobbits with their blades being cut? Tom didn't actually use the blades to hurt the Nazgul at Weathertop. I am sure if Beorn only gave the dwarves supplies there is a good chance he would of completely been cut from the film too.

Really I am not sure why you are harping on this though? Beorn is a cool shape changer that turns into a bear and people seem to love. Tom Bombadil on the other hand is viewed more as weird, annoying, or his presence doesn't make sense. Really ANY secondary character could be replaced so I dunno what your point is? PJ could of easily removed Faramir from his films and it wouldn't of changed much. Denethor would of still been depressed about Boromir dying, would of still let the city get sacked, and still killed himself. Faramir literally does nothing in the movies that another character couldn't of done. Catching Sam, Frodo, and Gollum? Madril could of done all of this. The whole love scene between Eowyn and Faramir could of been cut. It's easy to remove or replace secondary characters and that doesn't just go for Beorn and Tom. Heck, even look at the 13 dwarves in Thorin's company. Over half of them have little to no role in the book and could of easily been removed. They are mentioned even less than Beorn and have a smaller role. Some are barely ever even mentioned again beyond their introduction at the beginning of the book.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Deathleech

[CMP]

I don't consider who gives the hobbits their weapons a central plot point is all. Out of everything PJ had to cut to make the FotR fit into movie form, I thought Tom Bombadil was the most reasonable removal.

Actually, yes, they did do things with the Barrow-blades. According to the LoTR Wiki, it was because of the enchantments in the blade that allowed Pippin to wound the Witch King in the end. That's a pretty critical usage for them. Also, they did fight before Rivendell. Frodo's blade broke at Weathertop during the attack by the Ring Wraiths.

I'll give you that Merry used his sword in the book (interestingly that was changed in the movie, perhaps for this reason?) but I don't consider four hobbits vs. five unkillable Ringwraiths a fight.

Just checked my copy of the book and Frodo's sword breaks because "all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King"....despite the fact he was using his Barrow-blade.

[Palathadric]

A big thing of course is the fan reaction. I know that Beorn was personally one of my favourite characters, if not my favourite character from the Hobbit. He was is awesome and the sequence with them coming in two at a time was pretty fun. I know I would have been horribly disappointed and would have felt very cheated if they hadn't included Beorn in the movie and I think an awful lot of Tolkien fans would have felt the same way. Tom Bombadil is a character that many if not most Tolkien fans find more disturbing than anything else. I found him great fun, but he just seemed completely out of place in the Lord of the Rings. I was perhaps a bit disappointed not to see him as I enjoyed his randomness, but he wouldn't have fit at all in the movie. If they were going to cut out a character I think it was always going to be him.

[Deathleech]

Also note the LotR was condensed quite a bit to make it fit three films where as the Hobbit is being expanded. Obviously PJ isn't going to cut a secondary with a pretty big role and who is really cool when he is trying to ADD material to fit three films...

[Mandate]

I think people misunderstood what I said regarding Merry using his blade. I was referring to The Battle of Pelennor Fields, not the Ring Wraith fight on Weathertop. If Merry hadn't wounded the Witch King of Angmar, Eowyn couldn't have killed the Witch King. And thus, they would have lost Minas Tirith. Even with the support of the Ghost Army, it's ghosts VS ghosts then. Rohan would be without a king (or queen), Merry would almost certainly be dead after that, and many things would have gone wrong. This is because of the enchantments in the Barrow-Blades. Saying that no-one could get near Bolg because his guards were protecting him too well is a weak excuse. Bard is an archer, aim it right and no amount of guards will stop his arrow. Elves are also deadly-accurate with a bow, and considering there's an entire army of them in the Battle of Five Armies I think there's quite a fair bit of leeway in regards to random-guy-kills-the-bad-guy plot. May I also remind you that by this point Sauron has been crippled once-more and currently had no "residence" at Mordor or Mirkwood? Bilbo was also wearing the Ring anyway, and that's a big plot point in itself anyway. What my point is, is that nothing depends on Beorn. Nothing whatsoever. Random archer uses his bow, it goes up in the air in a huge arc and pins the dead body of Bolg to the ground. Enemies are leaderless and run away, end of story, removal of useless character who doesn't even fit into the Tolkienverse (not even Vampires and Werewolves change shape in Middle-Earth, and yet this guy can? Why does Sauron have no use for him whatsoever in his army? Why doesn't he order the Orcs to execute him on the spot if he's useless to them?). Tom Bombadil, according to The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien describes him as the living embodiment of the countryside that is the Shire. He came to Middle-Earth before the Elves did, and for all anyone knows he could be Illuvatar, a Maia, who knows what? He adds context to the story, he's impervious to the Ring's powers. He perfectly illustrates exactly how crazily complex the Tolkienverse is and of its origins. He shows that it's more than pretty elves and evil Rings and Dark Lords and orcs.

Beorn however, similarly to Tom, adds nothing to the story that is too crucial to change. Tom gives them the Blades? Make someone else do it. Beorn kills Bolg? Make someone else do it. I've already said how that can be done. Saying that The Hobbit is an expansion is rubbish.The Hobbit was originally a two-movie thing was because the Hobbit cannot be condensed into three hours without it becoming too fast-paced. An Unexpected Journey was a perfect example. Unfortunately there was too much stupidity in its changes, but if it weren't for that it would have been paced perfectly. The times they did stray from the book weren't terrible, unlike what they have done with Beorn. That might sound like hypocrisy, but it isn't. Because I have a feeling no one here realizes that I don't want Beorn gone, I want them to make him stay the minor character he is. Otherwise what's the point? As I've demonstrated, Beorn could have easily been removed. He had no need for an expanded role. And regardless of a scene being cut out of the movie it's clear that Beorn will take part in the battle of Dol Guldur. It's ridiculous to cut one character because of being "useless" and expand another character out despite them being even more useless.

[CMP]

It's ridiculous to cut one character because of being "useless" and expand another character out despite them being even more useless.

Lord of the Rings is three books, The Hobbit is one book, but they're both getting three movies.

[Mandate]

Nope. That is false. LoTR is not a trilogy. It is a single novel divided into three separate parts for easier reading. Like the Bible. There are 66 Books to the Bible yet the Bible itself is one book. But these books are short enough that it would be easier to condense them all into one big book. Tolkien himself stated this was how LoTR was done, and I suspect it was because he wanted to get the "basic foundation" done so he couldn't change it so easily. Like the Silmarillion, containing any books. The work itself changed all throughout his life and we will never know if his son got it right in the end as to what Tolkien had in mind.

This is getting really off-topic, isn't it?

EDIT: whoops, stuff-up on the part about the Silmarillion. Changed it

Edited January 21, 2014 by JayWalker

[CMP]

Then the Lord of the Rings is at least three times as long as the Hobbit. My point is that more stuff had to be cut out of LotR than the Hobbit to fit in the movies. That's why we have Beorn and not Bombadil, like Deathleech said.

Edited January 21, 2014 by CallMePie

[Deathleech]

Beorn however, similarly to Tom, adds nothing to the story that is too crucial to change. Tom gives them the Blades? Make someone else do it. Beorn kills Bolg? Make someone else do it. I've already said how that can be done. Saying that The Hobbit is an expansion is rubbish.The Hobbit was originally a two-movie thing was because the Hobbit cannot be condensed into three hours without it becoming too fast-paced. An Unexpected Journey was a perfect example. Unfortunately there was too much stupidity in its changes, but if it weren't for that it would have been paced perfectly. The times they did stray from the book weren't terrible, unlike what they have done with Beorn. That might sound like hypocrisy, but it isn't. Because I have a feeling no one here realizes that I don't want Beorn gone, I want them to make him stay the minor character he is. Otherwise what's the point? As I've demonstrated, Beorn could have easily been removed. He had no need for an expanded role. And regardless of a scene being cut out of the movie it's clear that Beorn will take part in the battle of Dol Guldur. It's ridiculous to cut one character because of being "useless" and expand another character out despite them being even more useless.

I'm not really sure why you keep saying Beorn's role has been expanded so much. As far as I know, Beorn has actually had his role reduced (at least in DoS where he does less with the dwarves when they visit his house). If he is in Dol Guldur so what? DG is literally one sentence in the entire Hobbit book. If PJ made Beorn's role bigger only in a scene he added entirely himself I see no problem? He expanded Galadriel's role too. She wasn't even in the Hobbit. Expanding Beorn's role in an expanded scene is fine? We don't even know this for sure though? I don't think Beorn will appear at DG, it sounds like the cut scene was just him exploring the area (much like Radagast) before everything in the DoS went down. He was ambushed by orcs and escaped. I see no reason or indication he will appear there again in TABA. Do you have ANY evidence he will?

As for Tom, he GAVE the hobbits there weapons, he didn't kill the Witch King himself or do anything with the blades. Beorn actually killed Bolg. Surely you can see the difference here? Yes someone else could of killed Bolg, but someone else could of killed the Witch King, cut the ring off Sauron's finger, killed Saruman, etc. All these things were done by secondary characters. Heck, why even make the Witch King immune to normal blades in the first place or add Tom at all? It seems like you are arguing just to argue points in the books/films. If you are going to complain about Beorn being added and killing Bolg then why not complain about ALL the secondary characters who have only one or two major parts in the films/book? Why aren't you complaining about Eowyn? Faramir? Eowyn could of been removed, the line about no man killing the Witch King removed, and the Witch King killed by someone else. Why did Frodo have to walk to ring all the way to Mt. Doom instead of taking an eagle? Why didn't Isildur throw the ring in the lava when he had the chance and end it there? Things could of been written way differently for a LOT of stuff but they weren't. Maybe Bolg has some heavy armor on preventing him from simply being shot down by an arrow? We already saw Legolas fight him and he wasn't able to kill him there so...?

Nope. That is false. LoTR is not a trilogy. It is a single novel divided into three separate parts for easier reading. Like the Bible. There are 66 Books to the Bible yet the Bible itself is one book. But these books are short enough that it would be easier to condense them all into one big book. Tolkien himself stated this was how LoTR was done, and I suspect it was because he wanted to get the "basic foundation" done so he couldn't change it so easily. Like the Silmarillion, containing any books. The work itself changed all throughout his life and we will never know if his son got it right in the end as to what Tolkien had in mind.

Regardless if LotR is three books or one, it is still MUCH longer than the Hobbit. My version of LotR (which coincidentally is one book) is around 1120 pages long. The Hobbit? Not even 320. If you add the 120 pages or so from the LotR appendices to the Hobbit it is still WELL under half the total length of the LotR. How does a book half as long have the same number of movies and almost the same run time? Plus I doubt all the appendix material will be in the Hobbit so really it's under 400 pages, almost 1/3 the length of LotR. Beorn's role has been expanded because the movies were expanded, Tom was cut because the LotR films were condensed. It's as simple as that.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Deathleech

[Mandate]

I'm not really sure why you keep saying Beorn's role has been expanded so much. As far as I know, Beorn has actually had his role reduced (at least in DoS where he does less with the dwarves when they visit his house). If he is in Dol Guldur so what? DG is literally one sentence in the entire Hobbit book. If PJ made Beorn's role bigger only in a scene he added entirely himself I see no problem? He expanded Galadriel's role too. She wasn't even in the Hobbit. Expanding Beorn's role in an expanded scene is fine? We don't even know this for sure though? I don't think Beorn will appear at DG, it sounds like the cut scene was just him exploring the area (much like Radagast) before everything in the DoS went down. He was ambushed by orcs and escaped. I see no reason or indication he will appear there again in TABA. Do you have ANY evidence he will?

As for Tom, he GAVE the hobbits there weapons, he didn't kill the Witch King himself or do anything with the blades. Beorn actually killed Bolg. Surely you can see the difference here? Yes someone else could of killed Bolg, but someone else could of killed the Witch King, cut the ring off Sauron's finger, killed Saruman, etc. All these things were done by secondary characters. Heck, why even make the Witch King immune to normal blades in the first place or add Tom at all? It seems like you are arguing just to argue points in the books/films. If you are going to complain about Beorn being added and killing Bolg then why not complain about ALL the secondary characters who have only one or two major parts in the films/book? Why aren't you complaining about Eowyn? Faramir? Eowyn could of been removed, the line about no man killing the Witch King removed, and the Witch King killed by someone else. Why did Frodo have to walk to ring all the way to Mt. Doom instead of taking an eagle? Why didn't Isildur throw the ring in the lava when he had the chance and end it there? Things could of been written way differently for a LOT of stuff but they weren't. Maybe Bolg was some heavy armor on preventing him from being shot down by an arrow?

Regardless if LotR is three books or one, it is still MUCH longer than the Hobbit. My version of LotR (which coincidentally is one book) is around 1120 pages long. The Hobbit? Not even 320. If you add the 120 pages or so from the LotR appendices to the Hobbit it is still WELL under half the total length of the LotR. How does a book half as long have the same number of movies and almost the same run time? Plus I doubt all the appendix material will be in the Hobbit so really it's under 400 pages, almost 1/3 the length of LotR. Beorn's role has been expanded because the movies were expanded, Tom was cut because the LotR films were condensed. It's as simple as that.

Ah ah ah, if Tom Bombadil didn't exist in the books the Hobbits would have died multiple times over. In the Old Forest, Pippin and Merry, and if by some miracle they all got away, when they reached the Barrow-Downs then they would all surely be dead. As I have said before, changing their course changes what happens. Tom was made redundant by going straight to Bree. Peter Jackson has already stated that they are expanding Beorn's role further. Just because Bombadil gave the Hobbits the Blades doesn't mean he had nothing to do with the death of the Witch King. You also seem to be forgetting the prophecy regarding the Witch King that "no man can kill him". Right now it seems like you're arguing just for the sake of it. No one killed Saruman in the movie version. Even then, if you count the deleted scene it was just Grima. I fail to see how Saruman of all people is relevant here. Grima played a big role with Rohan even if a small one. You're making a lot of stupid mistakes, mate. You very well know there would be no LoTR movie if Isildur threw the Ring into Mt Doom, so that entire point is invalid.

But you know what? You just made my point all together. If The Hobbit is an expansion, then why, as you said, has Beorn's role been condensed? How do we know that he will even make an appearance at the Battle of Five Armies whatsoever? And if this is the case, then why was he put into the movie in the first place when they could have saved money and time by not having to hire an actor and create the sets for Beorn's house. Which obviously disproves the idea that he won't appear at BoFA. Which further proves my original point. If he's not going to be at Dol Guldur, then what was the entire point in going to the trouble of finding a voice actor, making him learn the lines, giving him hairdressers, make-up artists, etc if all he is ever going to do is be a CGI bear in a battle, and all he does is rip through orcs and kill their leader?

Don't bother responding, because I'm not going to bother to respond to your response. I'm tired of arguing with you, especially when any and all answers to your arguments can be found in previous posts.

[CMP]

If The Hobbit is an expansion, then why, as you said, has Beorn's role been condensed? How do we know that he will even make an appearance at the Battle of Five Armies whatsoever? And if this is the case, then why was he put into the movie in the first place when they could have saved money and time by not having to hire an actor and create the sets for Beorn's house. Which obviously disproves the idea that he won't appear at BoFA. Which further proves my original point. If he's not going to be at Dol Guldur, then what was the entire point in going to the trouble of finding a voice actor, making him learn the lines, giving him hairdressers, make-up artists, etc if all he is ever going to do is be a CGI bear in a battle, and all he does is rip through orcs and kill their leader?

To prevent people like you being upset that a 'significant' part of the story has been completely cut out? Again?

I'm kind of disappointed in his smaller role too, but he fits into the whole Dol Guldur narrative PJ is deciding to tell a lot better this way.

[Deathleech]

Ah ah ah, if Tom Bombadil didn't exist in the books the Hobbits would have died multiple times over. In the Old Forest, Pippin and Merry, and if by some miracle they all got away, when they reached the Barrow-Downs then they would all surely be dead. As I have said before, changing their course changes what happens. Tom was made redundant by going straight to Bree.

...I understand that. Without the blades the hobbits would of died. I never said otherwise. What I DID say was Tom Bombadil was indirectly responsible because he simply supplied the blades. Beorn on the other hand was directly responsible for Bolg's death because HE HIMSELF killed Bolg and turned the tides of the Bo5A.

Peter Jackson has already stated that they are expanding Beorn's role further. Just because Bombadil gave the Hobbits the Blades doesn't mean he had nothing to do with the death of the Witch King. You also seem to be forgetting the prophecy regarding the Witch King that "no man can kill him". Right now it seems like you're arguing just for the sake of it. No one killed Saruman in the movie version. Even then, if you count the deleted scene it was just Grima. I fail to see how Saruman of all people is relevant here. Grima played a big role with Rohan even if a small one. You're making a lot of stupid mistakes, mate. You very well know there would be no LoTR movie if Isildur threw the Ring into Mt Doom, so that entire point is invalid.

How much further will his role be expanded though? PJ expanded a TON in the Hobbit to make it into three films so this really shouldn't come as a surprise. Just look at the barrel escape scene, in the book they float down the river and end up at Lake-town in a few pages but in the movie it's a 45 minute long sequence with orcs and elves chasing the dwarves, doing acrobatics, and Bard finding them and smuggling them to Lake-town. As for the part about no man killing the Witch King, I DID say that part would have to be removed if Eowyn was taken out (or have another female character kill the Witch King...). I brought up Saruman because I was pointing out how a lot of secondary characters only have one or two big scenes and could easily be removed or replaced with other main characters. Grima could of been removed. I thought that point was pretty clear. And yes if Isildur had thrown the ring in the lava when he had the chance there would of been no LotR. THAT IS MY POINT! You keep saying Bolg could of been killed by anyone besides Beorn and I am saying that same stance holds true for a NUMBER of characters and sequences in the film/book. It's not a stupid mistake, it's pointing out how ridiculous your logic is.

I am making this point because you are dwelling on Beorn being in the film with an expanded role, how he could be replaced with someone else killing Bolg, and keep comparing him to Tom who was removed. Beorn's role is arguably bigger because he is directly engaging the enemy and killing their leader. Tom isn't, he is just giving the hobbits weapons (which are a big part, yes). More importantly though, as I have said numerous times, Tom was cut because the LotR was condensed while Beorn may have more screen time because the Hobbit is being expanded. A lot of Hobbit scenes were expanded while LotR ones were cut. That's what happens when you turn a 300 page book into three movies and a 1200 page book into three movies.

But you know what? You just made my point all together. If The Hobbit is an expansion, then why, as you said, has Beorn's role been condensed? How do we know that he will even make an appearance at the Battle of Five Armies whatsoever? And if this is the case, then why was he put into the movie in the first place when they could have saved money and time by not having to hire an actor and create the sets for Beorn's house. Which obviously disproves the idea that he won't appear at BoFA. Which further proves my original point. If he's not going to be at Dol Guldur, then what was the entire point in going to the trouble of finding a voice actor, making him learn the lines, giving him hairdressers, make-up artists, etc if all he is ever going to do is be a CGI bear in a battle, and all he does is rip through orcs and kill their leader?

You seem to be confused. Bo5A and the Dol Guldur are COMPLETELY separate fights in different areas. Dol Guldur happens at Dol Guldur. Battle of Five Armies (Bo5A) happens in and around Erebor near the ruins of Dale. Beorn will almost certainly be at the Bo5A since he plays a huge role there in the books, what with killing Bolg. I am not sure if he will be in DG though since that material is mostly coming from PJ's imagination. Just because the films are longer than the book doesn't mean every last aspect is going to be expanded. Bilbo leaving the Shire was cut much shorter than the book, the Mirkwood Spiders encounter was shortened, etc. I don't know what Beorn's role will be since I haven't seen TABA, I am just saying if his role is expanded like you seem to believe, that is probably why and also why Tom Bombadil was cut in LotR. It's due to the length of the films and all the material needing to be expanded or cut.

I just don't understand why you are so hell bent on this Beorn change out of all the ones in the film though. Why aren't you complaining about Galadriel being in the Hobbit film when she was literally not even in the book? Or what about Radagasts' expanded role (he was only mentioned in a single sentence in the book). Why not complain about the Necromancer? Or Azog who is dead before the book even starts yet in the film he is pretty much there until the end?! There are so many changes PJ has made it's not even funny. This is generally what happens in movie adaptations though. I just don't understand why you are harping on the Beorn change when there are at least half a dozen other characters in the film that PJ expanded their role FAR more.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Deathleech

[SandMirror38]

oh my gosh

Shut up!!!!

Beorn is one of my favourite characters of ALL TIME.

Why?

Because he's interesting, menacing, changes into a fricking bear!!!!

How is that not an awesome character???

Tom bombadil...... Ummm Blade supplier?

Lookmy point is that Beorn is more of a Peter Jackson kinda guy. He's all about strength and action.

Tom not so much. I barley remeber what he did.

And as stated before TLotR was condensed. Hobbit? Bloody hell it's expanded sooo much you can barley tell its the same story

On a side note, I'm doing a Fan Edit of the Hobbbit movies. So if anyone has anything they'd like cut out or such don't be affrid to tell me!

[General Magma]

oh my gosh

Shut up!!!!

Beorn is one of my favourite characters of ALL TIME.

Why?

Because he's interesting, menacing, changes into a fricking bear!!!!

How is that not an awesome character???

Tom bombadil...... Ummm Blade supplier?

Lookmy point is that Beorn is more of a Peter Jackson kinda guy. He's all about strength and action.

Tom not so much. I barley remeber what he did.

And as stated before TLotR was condensed. Hobbit? Bloody hell it's expanded sooo much you can barley tell its the same story

On a side note, I'm doing a Fan Edit of the Hobbbit movies. So if anyone has anything they'd like cut out or such don't be affrid to tell me!

For the first film, if extended edition... cut out the naked dwarf scene. Loved both Hobbit films (although the LOTR films are a lot better) but I hated that scene. Totally uncalled for, should've been left out as was done originally; we already know the nature of the company's dwarves by that point but that scene was a bit... too much.

Edited January 21, 2014 by General Magma

[Ultron]

On a side note, I'm doing a Fan Edit of the Hobbbit movies. So if anyone has anything they'd like cut out or such don't be affrid to tell me!

I think the side-plot with gandalf and the white council/dol guldur should be kept because it did happen. (Minus the stupid azog&co hiding out there..) Also when bilbo stabs that warg in the head should be cut. That was dumb. Bilbo's defining moment where he actually did something wasn't supposed to be until he slayed the spiders and rescued the dwarves. I'm interested to see how long this movie would be without all of the unnecessary crap PJ added in.

[The Legonater]

It would be very awkwardly-sized. I've done the math on this. The base story is not enough for two whole movies, and the Necromancer arc gives too much for two whole movies. A trilogy really was the best way to go.

[SandMirror38]

Well majority of Azog has been cut and its around 2 hrs 30 mins...

Radagast is a problem. I've been trying to figure out how to cut him out but am not having a lot of succsess.

As for entering Rivendell we leave Radagast as he says to Gandalf.

That is not from the world of the living..

Straight to Thorin and co on their way again. Multiple lines are cut and Wargs don't appear!

Hopefully this version will appeal to more people.

And yes General Magma it will be the extended edition

[Mr Man]

On a side note, I'm doing a Fan Edit of the Hobbbit movies. So if anyone has anything they'd like cut out or such don't be affrid to tell me!

I'm not sure how to, but the escape from goblin town really lets down the film

[Cammo]

Parody on the events of the Desolation of Smaug:

(HISHE series)

Edited January 22, 2014 by Cammo

[Deathleech]

I'm not sure how to, but the escape from goblin town really lets down the film

Probably because everything about it was just... wrong. For starters the Goblin King is suppose to be this huge disgusting leader of malformed goblins. You would expect a harsh, ruthless leader but instead he is flamboyant? Give me a break. His personality doesn't fit his appearance or stature AT ALL. Then to make matters worse it seems like any action scene in the Hobbit PJ wants to add as much CGI as possible and make it over the top. Lets have the dwarves fall 100 feet and bounce up like they are fine and run through Goblin Town like it's the octagon. The scenes with Legolas are even worse, apparently everything in Middle Eath is waxed down so he can slide and flip off it. Just because you can add CGI doesn't mean you need to go over the top with it. It makes the movies film cheap, almost like cartoons or something in live action.

[Fives]

Probably because everything about it was just... wrong. For starters the Goblin King is suppose to be this huge disgusting leader of malformed goblins. You would expect a harsh, ruthless leader but instead he is flamboyant? Give me a break. His personality doesn't fit his appearance or stature AT ALL. Then to make matters worse it seems like any action scene in the Hobbit PJ wants to add as much CGI as possible and make it over the top. Lets have the dwarves fall 100 feet and bounce up like they are fine and run through Goblin Town like it's the octagon. The scenes with Legolas are even worse, apparently everything in Middle Eath is waxed down so he can slide and flip off it. Just because you can add CGI doesn't mean you need to go over the top with it. It makes the movies film cheap, almost like cartoons or something in live action.

I think criticizing the Goblin Town scenes is kinda weird. Sure, the Great Goblin is this big leader of terrible creatures, but he's never really had anything to do with the outside world for who knows how long. His eccentric personality comes from the fact that he probably lost his marbles hundreds of years prior. He's cruel, but he has fun with his cruelty (singing songs about mutilating and torturing the dwarves, that's pretty evil). He's a psychopath, having fun with his messed up evil mind.

Also, the action scenes, while over the top, are just plain fun! The Hobbit is a much more lighthearted story than LOTR, so PJ obviously wanted to take advantage of the fun side of the story and use it to lighten the mood from LOTR. The action scenes are the best place for this. Unlike LOTR, there are less battle and more little confrontations between smaller groups, usually including all the heroes. If they made Goblin Town more like Moria, then it would've felt too heavy. Gandalf dies in Moria, so it makes sense to have a heavy mood during those scenes. But everyone survives everything in The Hobbit until the end. We know they'll be fine, so let's have some fun and be entertained a bit!

I thoroughly believe that the barrel scene is one of the most fun and exhilarating action scenes I've ever seen.

[Ultron]

I think criticizing the Goblin Town scenes is kinda weird. Sure, the Great Goblin is this big leader of terrible creatures, but he's never really had anything to do with the outside world for who knows how long. His eccentric personality comes from the fact that he probably lost his marbles hundreds of years prior. He's cruel, but he has fun with his cruelty (singing songs about mutilating and torturing the dwarves, that's pretty evil). He's a psychopath, having fun with his messed up evil mind.

Also, the action scenes, while over the top, are just plain fun! The Hobbit is a much more lighthearted story than LOTR, so PJ obviously wanted to take advantage of the fun side of the story and use it to lighten the mood from LOTR. The action scenes are the best place for this. Unlike LOTR, there are less battle and more little confrontations between smaller groups, usually including all the heroes. If they made Goblin Town more like Moria, then it would've felt too heavy. Gandalf dies in Moria, so it makes sense to have a heavy mood during those scenes. But everyone survives everything in The Hobbit until the end. We know they'll be fine, so let's have some fun and be entertained a bit!

I thoroughly believe that the barrel scene is one of the most fun and exhilarating action scenes I've ever seen.

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

[The Legonater]

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