The Hobbit movies discussion

[RaincloudDustbin]

I thought it was pretty decent although the action sequences were far too comical plus it was 20minutes too long. I think the third film will be the end of the hobbit and some bridge things.

[Calanon]

Well I personally thought that it was pretty awesome.

Didn't seem to be enough music variety for my liking. Too much recycled LotR music. And I didn't like that they didn't have Gandalf throwing his voice.

[piemaster1446]

I liked the movie a lot but I think that they should have had explained the Necromancer more. Also they only mentioned two of the troll's names they forgot William!

[Masked Builder]

Well I personally thought that it was pretty awesome.

Didn't seem to be enough music variety for my liking. Too much recycled LotR music. And I didn't like that they didn't have Gandalf throwing his voice.

Yeah, they gave that part to Bilbo, and I think it worked rather well.

I liked the movie a lot but I think that they should have had explained the Necromancer more. Also they only mentioned two of the troll's names they forgot William!

They're getting there.

[The Legonater]

I haven't seen it yet, still need to find a babysitter for the little one. Although she did watch LOTR with me..

But I will probably see it in regular format, so I won't be able to comment on the 48 fps. However, I love Gollum. He is one of my favorite characters, so I would imagine I will like that Riddles scene very much then. I am more than okay with these 3 hour movies involving Middle Earth. I don't feel like LOTR was long at all. I have only watched the Extended editions and I never get bored during them. I would imagine I will feel the same with this movie.

Agreed. I got the Extended Editions a while ago, and I intend to do the same for the Hobbit Trilogy. The only one I get bored during is RotK, mainly because the first half has little to nothing in terms of action. Not that that's Peter's fault, though.

Edited December 15, 2012 by The Legonater

[RaincloudDustbin]

Agreed. I got the Extended Editions a while ago, and I intend to do the same for the Hobbit Trilogy. The only one I get bored during is RotK, mainly because the first half has little to nothing in terms of action. Not that that's Peter's fault, though.

. Don't forget, Tolkien never wanted any adaptations- same goes for the hobbit.

[Vindicare]

Finished reading the book for the first time. I'm a bit lost on something, maybe I read too fast at some points and just missed it. Where do Legolas and Tauriel come into the picture?! A love triangle....wha... I don't remember reading their names in the Hobbit. And why are they in the Mirkwood Spiders set? I'll definitely be reading this again soon, I'll have to be sure to read slower.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Legocrazy81

[Darth Lurtz]

Finished reading the book for the first time. I'm a bit lost on something, maybe I read too fast at some points and just missed it. Where do Legolas and Tauriel come into the picture?! A love triangle....wha... I don't remember reading their names in the Hobbit. And why are they in the Mirkwood Spiders set? I'll definitely be reading this again soon, I'll have to be sure to read slower.

Neither character appears in the book and are exclusively in the movie. Legolas is the prince of Thranduil who is in the book and Tauriel is a new character altogether.

[Leo604]

And neither do Galadriel or Frode; New Line just put them there to boost popularity. It's what happens to all movie-literature adaptations, with the exception of none.

[Vindicare]

Ah, ok. I thought I completely missed something. As for Frodo in the movie, when I first heard that he would be in there I thought how are they going to do that?! But, I think(and like) the way they did it. It was a neat set up for the telling of the story. I didn't mind Galadriel either, it was nice for some familiar faces.

[HawkLord]

With Peter Jackson tying LOTR to the Hobbit so extensively, those characters were just added to help bridge the gap and add to audience appeal. Tauriel was added because the Hobbit is missing the quinessential "hot fighting chick" that is popular in today's fantasy stories.

Which is funny because I still have to remind people that Arwen didn't raise the water that took out the Ringwraiths in the LOTR movie and that she played a much smaller role in the book.

[Leo604]

Just on a side note (haven't seen the movie yet), but does anyone else think Thorin as portrayed by Armitage is a little...young? In the Appendix in ROTK talking about the Dwarves, it says 'When Thráin was lost [Thorin] was ninety-five, a great dwarf of proud bearing.' The next paragraph then says that Thorin met with Gandalf leading to the events of The Hobbit, so that would make him 100-110 years old.

I do realize Dwarves have a lifespan of up to 300 years, but it still throws me off a bit.

[Fives]

Just on a side note (haven't seen the movie yet), but does anyone else think Thorin as portrayed by Armitage is a little...young? In the Appendix in ROTK talking about the Dwarves, it says 'When Thráin was lost [Thorin] was ninety-five, a great dwarf of proud bearing.' The next paragraph then says that Thorin met with Gandalf leading to the events of The Hobbit, so that would make him 100-110 years old.

I do realize Dwarves have a lifespan of up to 300 years, but it still throws me off a bit.

I think the reason they decided to make Thorin look a little younger is he would seem more like Aragorn in LOTR. If they had the main dwarf hero as much older, it would've looked less cool to have an old dwarf running around and fighting. I like how Thorin is portrayed because, although the believability isn't there as much in relation to years, he looks like a more believable hero.

[The_Chosen_1]

The film does make reference to Thorin's age, if you pay close attention. I think we can assume that dwarves, like the Dunedain, age rather slowly and don't show the physical effects of age quite as rapidly.

[Vindicare]

Just on a side note (haven't seen the movie yet), but does anyone else think Thorin as portrayed by Armitage is a little...young? In the Appendix in ROTK talking about the Dwarves, it says 'When Thráin was lost [Thorin] was ninety-five, a great dwarf of proud bearing.' The next paragraph then says that Thorin met with Gandalf leading to the events of The Hobbit, so that would make him 100-110 years old.

I do realize Dwarves have a lifespan of up to 300 years, but it still throws me off a bit.

Also, going with the numbers you posted here. Say they live on average to be 300. 100-110 would only be a third of his life, which to us normal folk I'd say that's a mid 30's age, not very old looking. So, I'd say they got it just about right.

[The Legonater]

Well I personally thought that it was pretty awesome.

Didn't seem to be enough music variety for my liking. Too much recycled LotR music.

After watching the movie I have to disagree. They didn't recycle music, they used themes that should naturally appear in the Hobbit. The Shire/Hobbits theme in LotR should be the Shire/Hobbits theme in the Hobbit, and that's what they did. The only case of this that bothered me was when they used the Black Rider/Sauron theme, but I think in context it worked okay.

[Fives]

They music, for the most part, was original, but they did reuse some FOTR music during Gandalf and Galadriel's talk and when Gandalf wakes up Thorin on the Carrock they used some Two Towers music, but these two instances are so unnoticeable that it isn't that big of a deal.

[Bricktooth]

I just came back from the cinema, it was just as good as I expected it to be. I really liked the little things that connect this to LotR, like when they show Frodo going to read in the woods, which is where the Fellowship of the Ring starts. Radagast was portrayed pretty good, I assume he will turn up again in the other films. Loved the part where Gandalf says that he forgot the names of the two blue wizards, it's a great way of disguising how little we know about them. Overall it's a great start to the trilogy, let's hope the others will be at least as good as this.

[Leo604]

Just finished watching it, pretty pleased overall.

Good:

1. The changes made from the book material worked out decently, imo (eg. Thorin having beef with Azog, emotional bond forming between Bilbo and Thorin, etc.)

2. If I’m not mistaken, Witch-king cameo. Win.

3. Saruman’s reference to Radagast getting high on ‘shrooms. Nice.

Bad:

1. A little too much

2. Too much CGI; would’ve been nice if they had done the sort of stuff in ROTK or at least Two Towers with real actors.

3. Way too much humour added with the Great Goblin/Goblin King and Misty goblins in general; didn’t make them intimidating at all.

Just what I can remember off the top of my head, might add more later.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Leo Crimson

[Fives]

Just finished watching it, pretty pleased overall.

Good:

1. The changes made from the book material worked out decently, imo (eg. Thorin having beef with Azog, emotional bond forming between Bilbo and Thorin, etc.)

2. If I’m not mistaken, Witch-king cameo. Win.

3. Saruman’s reference to Radagast getting high on ‘shrooms. Nice.

Bad:

1. A little too much

2. Too much CGI; would’ve been nice if they had done the sort of stuff in ROTK or at least Two Towers with real actors.

3. Way too much humour added with the Great Goblin/Goblin King and Misty goblins in general; didn’t make them intimidating at all.

Just what I can remember off the top of my head, might add more later.

I get what you're saying about the Great Goblin being humorous, but I think that when you have Barry Humphries playing that character, it's difficult to not have humour. And sure, some of the stuff was pretty comical which suspended some of the believability of it, it needs to be remembered that PJ wanted to make the Hobbit have a lighter tone. The Hobbit, unlike LOTR, is not about saving the world. The stakes aren't that high, so to make things seem really dark and brooding kinda takes that childish fun that was in the book. And I also think that the Great Goblin was treated the same way he is in the book: a minor threat in a much larger journey. So to make him seem like this immensely evil threat would take something away from both his character and the threat of Smaug or the Gundabad orcs.

[Leo604]

I get what you're saying about the Great Goblin being humorous, but I think that when you have Barry Humphries playing that character, it's difficult to not have humour. And sure, some of the stuff was pretty comical which suspended some of the believability of it, it needs to be remembered that PJ wanted to make the Hobbit have a lighter tone. The Hobbit, unlike LOTR, is not about saving the world. The stakes aren't that high, so to make things seem really dark and brooding kinda takes that childish fun that was in the book. And I also think that the Great Goblin was treated the same way he is in the book: a minor threat in a much larger journey. So to make him seem like this immensely evil threat would take something away from both his character and the threat of Smaug or the Gundabad orcs.

Well hopefully they'll make them at least a little more threatening for the Battle of Five Armies; otherwise the whole thing is gonna look like a pushover.

Also, does anyone know the extent of how Jackson's going to use the ROTK appendices in the next two films?

[Palathadric]

Where are the dwarves' colourful beards!!!

Yeah, none of the dwarves looked like what I pictured them to look like, I would have made them all much more Gimli-like. It's not like they shave or keep trim countenances on purpose, but for the movie and for distinguishing one from another it makes sense.

Tauriel was added because the Hobbit is missing the quinessential "hot fighting chick" that is popular in today's fantasy stories.

Yeah, it seems all the rage these days. Gets a bit redundant, especially when they add such characters to classics for no apparent reason. I guess it must boost sales.

[CMP]

Yeah, it seems all the rage these days. Gets a bit redundant, especially when they add such characters to classics for no apparent reason. I guess it must boost sales.

I half agree. I don't think there was a single female character in the entire book, but they did already throw in Galadriel, so Tauriel's inclusion doesn't really seem necessary.

[Fives]

I half agree. I don't think there was a single female character in the entire book, but they did already throw in Galadriel, so Tauriel's inclusion doesn't really seem necessary.

I like her inclusion. It now gives us a notable female elf from the three most important Elvendoms during the Third Age (Rivendell, Lorien, Mirkwood). The other two are Galadriel and Arwen.

[Hannguard]

My family went and saw it. They said it was awful Havent seen it myself, so I dont know.