Hobbit (spoilers, with tags)

[Bedlam]

Saw it today

So, The Ring leaves Gollum right at the point where there is someone who wants to leave the mountain.
Coincidence? Also, The Ring lands on Bilbo's hand right when he falls. Echoed later by Frodo in Bree.
Damn Ring is semi-sentient

I'd say its fully sentient really, it seems to know that Sauron is back and on the move so it jumps to the nearest 'host' to be on its way to him. Is hobbits weren't corruption resistant and Bilbo wasn't very lucky it would have been back in the Dark Lords hand in a few months then the White council would have been in for a suprise when they tried to Evict the Necromancer.

[Terralthra]

I'd like to know if Jackson is going to include Sauron somehow declaring himself openly upon his return to Mordor. It happened some years after the whole Erebor business as I recall, but Jackson has already made some other changes and having Sauron becoming a visible ruler of Mordor would probably tie this movie trilogy better to the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, since now the main villain is ready for action.

Don't several high-ranking people during the LotR trilogy express doubt that Sauron has returned? His public rule of Mordor would make that seem highly unlikely.

[Tiriol]

I'd like to know if Jackson is going to include Sauron somehow declaring himself openly upon his return to Mordor. It happened some years after the whole Erebor business as I recall, but Jackson has already made some other changes and having Sauron becoming a visible ruler of Mordor would probably tie this movie trilogy better to the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, since now the main villain is ready for action.

Don't several high-ranking people during the LotR trilogy express doubt that Sauron has returned? His public rule of Mordor would make that seem highly unlikely.

I can't recall anyone, in movies or in books, expressing doubr about Sauron, besides the Hobbits and the Bree-folk, who are very much ignorant about the world around them. Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, Denethor, Theodén, Treebeard, Saruman etc. all openly express acceptance that Sauron has returned. Theodén in the movies is a borderline case, since he was possessed by Saruman's magic, but I don't remember anyone else being doubtful (actually, Frodo thought that Sauron had been destroyed, but yet again he is a Hobbit and lives in the Shire far away from Mordor).

[madd0ct0r]

saw it again yesterday.

it was quite fun watching for the details - such as the array of weapons the dwarves carry.

I'm also liking they're playing up the 'jewish' displaced people side of the dwarves more then the 'short viking' side. There certainly seems traces of east european going as far as mongolian (which also matches what we see of Daletown)

[Ted C]

Saw it today

So, The Ring leaves Gollum right at the point where there is someone who wants to leave the mountain.
Coincidence? Also, The Ring lands on Bilbo's hand right when he falls. Echoed later by Frodo in Bree.
Damn Ring is semi-sentient

Was that not obvious from the beginning of The Fellowship? As Gandalf noted, the ring wants to get back to Sauron.

[Ziggy Stardust]

My only real complaint about the movie was that the fight scenes seemed to lack drama. I can't really put my finger on exactly why, I would have to see the movie again and pay closer attention, but I just didn't feel particularly tense during any of the fight sequences. The Mines of Moria scene in the Fellowship, for example, even though I knew exactly how it would turn out, had me on the edge of my seat (heck, even rewatching that movie it puts me on the edge of my seat).

I did like the slightly lighter tone, and some of the slapstick routines during the fights were well done, I just never really felt like there was any real drama to the battles.

And did anyone else feel like Ian Holmes was really phoning it in during that opening sequence? I mean, he didn't get a lot to screen time, but in the original trilogy he was still stand out as one of the best actors in the film with only a handful of lines (the scenes with him in Gandalf in the Fellowship probably feature the best acting in any of the films, to be honest, with the masterful way the two Ians transition seamlessly from oblivious, to sinister, to friendly). In this movie, though, Ian Holmes really seemed to not give a crap.

[JLTucker]

And did anyone else feel like Ian Holmes was really phoning it in during that opening sequence? I mean, he didn't get a lot to screen time, but in the original trilogy he was still stand out as one of the best actors in the film with only a handful of lines (the scenes with him in Gandalf in the Fellowship probably feature the best acting in any of the films, to be honest, with the masterful way the two Ians transition seamlessly from oblivious, to sinister, to friendly). In this movie, though, Ian Holmes really seemed to not give a crap.

Yes. He is the reason why I detest the opening. He drones on with no conviction while we see the Dwarves. The same for Elijah Wood. It's kind of hard to live up to Galadriel's narration in Fellowship, though.

[Zinegata]

I watched it yesterday, and I really enjoyed it. While some of the bits did feel stretched out (the initial Dwarven home invasion felt very awkward for instance), the movie nonetheless pays the audience off with sudden moments of realization as to why the scenes were there.

My only real complaint about the movie was that the fight scenes seemed to lack drama. I can't really put my finger on exactly why

Being a prequel, it falls into the problem of the audience already knowing that Bilbo's not going to end up dead. Plus the ability of dwarves to take ridiculous amounts of punishment tends to let the audience think that none of the good guys will die anytime soon.

I suspect that many of the action scenes were actually written with this premise, which is why there's a lot of crazy (but funny) moments in the combat sequences.

[PainRack]

I went into the movie with as few spoilers as possible, didn't reread the novel and such...


As such, I was.... horribly surprised when I realised that it was 2 hours long and the story hadn't ended..... before it became extremely clear that it was a two parter..... then on checking out the internet while the credits was rolling, a 3 parter........


Wonderful. My arse hates you Peter Jackson.


To be honest, minus away that expectation of it being a single film, the movie pacing would probably have felt much better. At least when compared to ROTK 10 minutes lighting of the beacon. At least the scenery padding didn't detract from the tension, and indeed, probably added to it here although........


There was some fantastic fan service, although in the interest of making a faster paced movie/SHORTER one, I would had removed all except the riddling scene. Didn't really mind the changes and felt that unlike the book, the movie made the dwarves look more like heroes than before.

I await the ineveitable fall of the dwarves with glee. It has been properly set up in this film and was.... much better than the one off "Its my JEWEL!"

[Block]

I
I await the ineveitable fall of the dwarves with glee. It has been properly set up in this film and was.... much better than the one off "Its my JEWEL!"

Really? Did you miss the Arkenstone falling into the pile of treasure at the beginning then? That part is unlikely to change.

[PainRack]

I
I await the ineveitable fall of the dwarves with glee. It has been properly set up in this film and was.... much better than the one off "Its my JEWEL!"

Really? Did you miss the Arkenstone falling into the pile of treasure at the beginning then? That part is unlikely to change.

Thorin Oakenshield initial fall from grace in the Hobbit novel was...... simply disconnected. It required a lot of additional reading into the backstory of LOTR to understand his fall from grace and the Arkenstone backstory became more of a deux ex machina than anything in the standalone novel.

The movie simply gave me a reason to.... be emotionally hit by Thorin fall from grace and his 'redemption' in the story. Something the Hobbit novel didn't.

[Vendetta]

My only real complaint about the movie was that the fight scenes seemed to lack drama. I can't really put my finger on exactly why, I would have to see the movie again and pay closer attention, but I just didn't feel particularly tense during any of the fight sequences.

Well, they're all essentially made up for the movie because The Hobbit doesn't have anything recognisable as an action scene, and any time anything exciting is happening it's all told from Bilbo's perspective, and he's perenially scared and confused by it all.

So, they needed to make up action scenes from scratch which can't possibly have any stakes, because nothing happens to any of the characters. So they're not dramatic or good.

[Block]

I
I await the ineveitable fall of the dwarves with glee. It has been properly set up in this film and was.... much better than the one off "Its my JEWEL!"

Really? Did you miss the Arkenstone falling into the pile of treasure at the beginning then? That part is unlikely to change.

Thorin Oakenshield initial fall from grace in the Hobbit novel was...... simply disconnected. It required a lot of additional reading into the backstory of LOTR to understand his fall from grace and the Arkenstone backstory became more of a deux ex machina than anything in the standalone novel.

The movie simply gave me a reason to.... be emotionally hit by Thorin fall from grace and his 'redemption' in the story. Something the Hobbit novel didn't.

Thorin didn't exactly "fall" in the novel. He acted hard headed after reclaiming what was by all rights, his. That is not an uncommon or particularly unreasonable trait, especially considering Thorin being written as a stubborn and proud dwarf.

[Mr Bean]

Watched the movie again with a cousin and friends who had not seen it yet. I watched again to pay attention specifically to the dwarves.

Bifur had more development that just the hat. He tells Bilbo about Dragons and has a few other morose jokes about death. Bombor the fat one is still just the fat one but Fili and Kili had a lot more lines than I remember. Dwalin and Balin being brothers I forgot the first time or just missed and I noticed Dwalin and Balin are both in lots of the flashbacks and intro and you can see Dwalin losing his hair in the flashbacks. Ori the young one has a few more lines than I remember. As well as he's got lots of little bits to ID him as the "young dwarf" that I forgot.

Nori and Dori still had zero impact anywhere, and one more Golin did not even speak common/English. They fought, they had no lines, I did not miss anything there.

[Crazedwraith]

Nori and Dori still had zero impact anywhere, and one more Golin did not even speak common/English. They fought, they had no lines, I did not miss anything there.

Again its "Gloin" not Golin and he does have an line in Rivendell in Englidsh:- when they're surrounded by Elrond.

[Zinegata]

Isn't Gloin the father of Gimli?

[Crazedwraith]

He is. He's also one of the Dwarves in the Hobbit. Lord Of The Rings (the book) references this is the same character and that Gimli's father was part of Bilbo's adventures.

[JLTucker]

Isn't Gloin the father of Gimli?

I always thought the same too, which is why I kind of wish the dwarves were modeled off of the ones in Fellowship for consistency. I recall when the first images of them were published. I thought they looked absolutely ridiculous. But somehow it works in the movie.

Speaking of Fellowship, does anyone else think the Hobbit's opening is inconsistent with the beginning of Fellowship Extended? In The Hobbit, Frodo tells Bilbo he's going to wait for Gandalf. Yet in Fellowship, when there's a knock on the door, Bilbo tells Frodo to get it. Perhaps this is just a symptom of being an old man?

[fgalkin]

This is Gloin from the LotR movies:



This is Gloin from the Hobbit



It's clearly the same character, just different age.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[CaptainChewbacca]

And they clearly patterned Gloin on Gimli's look.

[Knife]

Watched it, was vastly different than the book, so still deciding if I liked it. The whole beginning with Bilbo and Frodo just seemed useless. Have no idea why they put in Azog in there, having just reread the Hobbit lately in anticipation of the movie, it was Dain who killed Azog, not Thorin. I liked the Orcs and goblin's as depicted in LOTR more than the Hobbit, the ones in the Hobbit being seriously bad CGI. Not sure if I like how the Trolls went down, totally different than the book. Didn't mind the extra stuff with Rivendel and Kate Blanchet though. Riddles in the Dark was a bit different but not bad.

[Channel72]

If my memory is correct, it seems like the Hobbit used a lot more CGI than LOTR. In LOTR, closeups of orcs and goblins were mostly actors with prosthetics (consider the realistic-looking deformed Orc general at Pelennor Fields), whereas in the Hobbit they were all CGI. Even Azog was CGI, if I recall correctly. He really should have just been an actor in prosthetics, like the more realistic orcs in LOTR.

I still think CGI sucks for closeups of organic beings. You really need to alternate between models or prosthetics for closeups, and CGI for far-away shots (like in LOTR or Jurassic Park.) Of course, Gollum is a noteable exception because they really put effort into that.

[JLTucker]

Watched it, was vastly different than the book, so still deciding if I liked it. The whole beginning with Bilbo and Frodo just seemed useless. Have no idea why they put in Azog in there, having just reread the Hobbit lately in anticipation of the movie, it was Dain who killed Azog, not Thorin. I liked the Orcs and goblin's as depicted in LOTR more than the Hobbit, the ones in the Hobbit being seriously bad CGI. Not sure if I like how the Trolls went down, totally different than the book. Didn't mind the extra stuff with Rivendel and Kate Blanchet though. Riddles in the Dark was a bit different but not bad.

Does the book just do it better than the movie?

[Knife]

Watched it, was vastly different than the book, so still deciding if I liked it. The whole beginning with Bilbo and Frodo just seemed useless. Have no idea why they put in Azog in there, having just reread the Hobbit lately in anticipation of the movie, it was Dain who killed Azog, not Thorin. I liked the Orcs and goblin's as depicted in LOTR more than the Hobbit, the ones in the Hobbit being seriously bad CGI. Not sure if I like how the Trolls went down, totally different than the book. Didn't mind the extra stuff with Rivendel and Kate Blanchet though. Riddles in the Dark was a bit different but not bad.

Does the book just do it better than the movie?

Depends. Again, having just read it again, there are times it seems Tolkien just rushed through a particular point and had the narrator go back and explain which sometimes worked and sometimes didn't. For the movie, they added a bunch of things in there, as a history lesson that didn't work as well as it did in LOTR. I think it might have worked better if the history lesson was in the beginning instead of the 'special guest appearances by Frodo and Bilbo'. I went in thinking the extra bits with Gandalf and Radegast were going to annoy me more, but came out thinking the extra bits about Thorin and Dwarves in general actually annoyed me more. In the end, the book just had a better flow to it, A to B to C etc... than the movie. There were parts of the book I was excited to see and Jackson changed them for seemingly no good reason.

Still not sure why he changed the Trolls and who and why they stalled long enough for sunlight. Not sure why they changed who killed the Great Goblin. Still not sure why Azog was in there as a protagonist chasing them, the original reason for goblins and wargs makes better sense.

Rather liked the Gandalf and Galadriel's parts with Elrond. Radegast was amusing and while I think his bits in the first movie were... not really needed, I saw it as set up for the next two. Dul whatever the name was in Mirkwood was pretty cool, didn't mind the bit with Sauron's shadow and calling forth the Witchking. Was a bit surprised they didn't cheese out and have the flaming eye and instead had a human shaped shadow in the door.

Anyway, I did enjoy the movie, just a bit disappointed at some, what I think are iconic moments, that were changed for seemingly nothing. Riddles in the Dark worked well though.

[JLTucker]

Is Azog the crippled orc? If so, I'd guess they had Thorin kill Azog to make him a hero and someone to relate to in the movie. He is obviously the more important dwarf and the others look to him for leadership.Spoiler

It also adds a bit of drama to his battle with Azog.