Topic: Discussion of the first Hobbit film? (possible spoilerz)

[Mooning Freddy]

I watched it. Overall, it's epic. One can see a lot of effort was put into the film, and It would be a huge understatement to say I didn't enjoy it. But I'm also not the LotR fanboy who would go OMG TEH HOBBIT SO FUCKIN EPIC IM GONNA FAINT.

So my biggest criticism of the film? It's not Lord of the Rings. It's something that should be said. You can't go around it because LotR was Tolkien's most detailed, best written and most epic tale, and The Hobbit pales in comparison.
Now that is behind us, what do I have to say about the movie?

Cons:

• Physics have no effect whatsoever in the movie. I know that it's a fantasy movie so it doesn't have to be excessively realistic, but A LITTLE FRIGGIN realism would be cool. Huge free-falls and super-epic-action scenes made me sigh, thinking, there's no way ANYONE could survive that. That took away many points for me.
• Gandalf is too powerful. Yeah, I know, he's the damn strongest wizard in Middle Earth, blah blah. I don't remember him casting so many powerful spells in LotR. He practically has Deus-Ex Machina capabilities here, far exceeding the "I'm gonna leave now and return in the exact moment you need me with help" parts in LotR.
  
  (click to show/hide)

  And the part where he teleports into the goblin cave randomly made me rage. Since when can he do that?
• Too long. I know it's not exactly a con but I was becoming quite tired of watching the movie, in 3D (another minus, I think it's better to watch the regular version) after 90 minutes I really felt like leaving and watching the rest later. 2:30 hours of action is damn long and tiring without a break.
• The dwarves were awesome. They really were. Thorin? Not so much. I think he's too much like a dwarvish version of Aragorn for his own good. And maybe too young-looking for his age.[/il]
  
  • Gandalf looks the same f**king age like in LotR. Didn't bother me too much, but hell, the story happens 60 years before. Isn't he supposed to be at least a little younger? I mean, it's not like he's an elf who doesn't age.
  
  
  Pros:
  
  
  
  • Bilbo. He's a great character. A young but grumpy and brave hobbit, he's different that Frodo, which is good. Making him a second Frodo would have sucked.
  • The opening is epic. Both the amazing CGI of Arabor and the Hobbiton we know and love. Great conversations in the beginning.
  • The dwarves are so damn Scottish. I don't know if it's good or bad, but it's sure funny.
  • Radagast the brown. Great character. Love him.
  • Gollum! Gollum Gollum... Gollum. My precious!
  
  

[TheouAegis]

Gandalf looks the same f**king age like in LotR. Didn't bother me too much, but hell, the story happens 60 years before. Isn't he supposed to be at least a little younger? I mean, it's not like he's an elf who doesn't age.

Have you actually read the books? Or is your whole perception of Middle Earth based on the movies? Of course Gandalf looks the same -- he's not human. The wizards, known as the Istari by the elves, don't age. They were Maiar (angels) sent to Middle Earth to contest Sauron's growing power: Curumo (aka Saruman), Alatar and Pallando (the Blue Wizards), Olorin (Gandalf), and Aiwendil (Radagast). Saruman was banished from Valinor for his misbehavior and was forbidden from returning because he refused to repent before Grima Wormtongue betrayed him . Radagast probably stayed behind to tend to the wilds. The Blue Wizards were lost to time, possibly forming cults among the Easterlings. Gandalf was the only Istari known to return to Valinor after Sauron and the One Ring were destroyed.

And the part where he teleports into the goblin cave randomly made me rage. Since when can he do that?

The same way he did in the book. He followed Thorin's company into the cave, whipped out Glamdring, then slew the Great Goblin.


You obviously didn't read very deeply into the books. I was kinda surprised you had no qualms at all about Azog or about Thorin "defeating" Azog at Moria. Thorin was knocked aside by Azog, at which point Dain II slew Azog, forcing the orcs to retreat into Moria. Azog's son (not sure if the term was meant in the same way we think of sons) Bolg ruled the orcs of the Misty Mountains and harbored a resentment toward the dwarves. Not sure how the third movie will pan out, but as it is, it's looking like Peter Jackson intends to keep Azog in the Battle Of Five Armies.

Also, I was very disappointed that they took out the Fifteen Birds chant that the orcs sang when Gandalf's pine cone bombs set the forest on fire.

[GuyStarwind]

It seems TheouAegis knows his LotR lore. I wish I had you when there when I saw it because I was having the hardest time trying to explain lore stuff to people.

[Mooning Freddy]

Of course Gandalf looks the same -- he's not human. The wizards, known as the Istari by the elves, don't age. They were Maiar (angels) sent to Middle Earth to contest Sauron's growing power

I read Lord of the Rings, not the Hobbit, and I don't remember that ever being mentioned in the book. So I just assumed Gandalf and the rest of the wizards were just humans with great power, while Sauron was a corrupted Elf.

I do realize a lot of the scenes that made no sense were in the book; It doesn't change the fact I didn't like them. One of them was the battle of the rock giants, at that point I was "Wtf? No way that scene was in the book", to what my friend answered "it actually was". I still think friggin' mountains coming to life and fighting each other is taking fantasy too far.

Also, I read this on IMDB:

Aragorn was 87 years old when he first met Frodo in The Prancing Pony in Bree

87 years old?? He's human, dammit! Unless humans live twice as long in Middle Earth then they do on earth, that would make no sense. He's supposed to be in his forties. I know that Frodo is supposed to be 40-50 in LotR, but that makes sense, since Hobbits live longer than humans, so his "natural" age is around 20.

[Ratty]

I do realize a lot of the scenes that made no sense were in the book; It doesn't change the fact I didn't like them. One of them was the battle of the rock giants, at that point I was "Wtf? No way that scene was in the book", to what my friend answered "it actually was". I still think friggin' mountains coming to life and fighting each other is taking fantasy too far.

That's the trouble, you're thinking of the Hobbit like LotR when they're really very different books. The Hobbit was a lighthearted children's bedtime story fantasy. I've not seen the film and likely won't for a good while so it might be too early to say this, but turning it into a 3 part "epic" was just a moneygrab by Jackson and New Line.

But yeah as for another one of your complaints, I've heard that (to increase "epicness" and pad the film) they ramped up any and all action scenes as much as possible. Now it's been about 10 years since I read either LotR or the Hobbit, but I remember that while the Hobbit did have a lot more action than Fellowship of the Ring (which is hard to get through since hardly anything exciting happens for most of it, it's like "Exposition and Walking: The Book") it wasn't anywhere near what you saw in Two Towers or Return of the King.

[Phoenix7786]

Well TheouAegis pretty much summed up what I was going to say. Let me think here, about my own take.

The guy doing Bilbo is doing a fantastic job. From the completely pansy-ish way he swings the weapon (which I fully endorse because he ISN'T the fighting type), to the way he tried to shoo off Gandalf by re-reading his mail, to the way he demanded they all stop and go back for his handkerchief, to the way he's totally pulling a Kiff when they're raiding his pantry, to his interactions with Gollum and the way he is showing his true heroism., he's doing great.

Speaking of Gollum, I was really pissed at the direction Gollum was looking at when Bilbo was about to stab him. He can't see or smell Bilbo, yet by looking DIRECTLY AT THE FUCKING GUY WITH THE POISED SWORD it made it seem like he was silently pleading with Bilbo for mercy. All the over the damn theater I could hear people whispering, wondering how Gollum could see Bilo.

I really like the look of the Dwarves, except Fili and Kili. They barely even looked like a dwarf. But Dwalin, Balin, Gloin, Thror, and the B brothers looked amazing. Thorin looked a bit prim to be a dwarf but I could understand why. The guy is royalty and carries himself as such. He's going to look the most-groomed out of them all.

[PFG9000]

87 years old?? He's human, dammit! Unless humans live twice as long in Middle Earth then they do on earth, that would make no sense. He's supposed to be in his forties. I know that Frodo is supposed to be 40-50 in LotR, but that makes sense, since Hobbits live longer than humans, so his "natural" age is around 20.

Aragorn is one of the last Numenoreans (essentially the race from Atlantis), who have extended life spans.  If you watch the Extended Edition of The Two Towers, he and Eowyn have a conversation about this.

I enjoyed the Hobbit, but it's not nearly the caliber of the LotR trilogy.  It could have been fantastic if they hadn't stretched it out to three movies.  Obviously I can't judge the next two installments, but there's just not enough material to make the first part a good movie.  I thought certain parts like the rock giant battle should have been left out, as they were only in there for fanservice (and to fill out the length of the film).  I don't have a problem with certain changes like the inclusion of Azog, and bringing Saruman and Galadriel to Rivendell, since they're faithful to the spirit of the source material.  But the whole thing should have been much more condensed.  The theatrical cut of The Hobbit seemed like an Extended Edition should, except with even more filler and fanservice.

[TheouAegis]

I didn't really mind Azog either and I was glad they dropped the name, but Thorin wasn't some badass dwarven warrior. He was essentially defeated at Angband and is a total pompous douchebag. He'll honor a contract, but only because he feels he has to.

I haven't followed the progression of the movies. Has it been revealed who's playing the role of Bard?

[Phoenix7786]

The first movie ended right after the eagles save them. If they're following right on track with the books, we'll start off probably on Beorn. While the Dwarves are busy in Mirkwood they'll probably take an artistic liberty and show the wizards driving the necromancer out of Dol Guldur. Saruman will probably deduce his true identity, and probably show viewers what corrupted Saruman. The dwarves will escape Mirkwood and we'll probably leave part 2 off at Laketown. Luke Evans is the guy cast as Bard, though no sign of him.

[Shiroi Koumori]

I think I will just wait until the entire trilogy is done, then watch all in a day. hehehehe

[Super Waffle]

This trilogy is rage-inducing to people who like The Hobbit more than Lord of the Rings because it DOESN'T bog itself down in a thousand unnecessary subplots / side characters and try to constantly be bombastically epic.

[beingthehero]

And funnily enough there were people raging about even more subplots being removed like Tom Bombadil and the barrow wight.

[Super Waffle]

And thank god Peter Jackson nuked Tom Bombadil.

hey

hey guys

We're going to have a story about this lost ancient artifact that corrupts you harder than an Abicion fanfic.  It is a perverse symbol of all material wants.  It is evil incarnate.  No one can escape its influence.  Simply looking at it could potentially taint you.

But then here's this singing fruitcake motherfucker who is not only randomly completely impervious to the Ring's dominance, but we can't even trust him to safeguard the damn thing because he sooo doesn't even give a fuck about it that he'd just lose it the same way you lose loose change in your couch.

Tolkein is generally a good writer, but that was so stupid.

[Shiroi Koumori]

Well, Tom Bombadil was said to be the avatar of nature. Nature doesn't give a damn whatever happens to the races that populate it.

[Ratty]

Yep, as Shiroi just pointed out, Bombadil isn't just a child of nature, he is nature in a way. The ring wouldn't have any more power over him than it would over a rock, and there's no reason he should particularly care one way or the other what happens to it more than a rock would. You could look on it as a somewhat clumsy metaphor for the way that the universe just goes about its business not really caring despite the follies of men.

Honestly the section with Bombadil is one of the few spots in The Fellowship of the Ring that isn't achingly dull.