The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[Psychotic]

No thread? People who are not me are slacking! Oh well, time for a thought dump.

Just got back from it and I rather enjoyed it! I had a huge raging manlove for the LotR trilogy and combined with my other huge raging manlove for Dwarves, it was only going to end one way :D

Little bit of a nostalgia trip with some of the sets and musical themes which I quite liked.

Thorin is a god among me...Dwarves. What a raw fucking presence. I loved it. I also loved the Dwarves' song which was also the main theme. Sylvester McCoy (aka the 7th Doctor!) as Radagast was also a nutty and much-loved addition. And Gandalf and Gollum were back to their best.

What a fucking opening too, the fall of Erebor, god damn. The battle outside of Moria (How Thorin got his Oakenshield back) was immense too.

Perhaps the only negative was Azog. I don't like that they went for pure CGI with him, he looks out of place. He looks like Voldemort, truth be told.

[Fuzakeru]

That song. Oh, man. That song. Something about it just chills you to the bone and makes your heart (and pants) swell with emotion!

So much swoon! :D Who knew
Dwarves were so good at singing? (http://youtu.be/NRUBe2RTq74)

I wasn't disappointed by the movie in the least and I was terrified I would be so given that I was confused how they'd make The Hobbit lives up to the expectations the LoTR brought on. It really did an amazing job!

A surprising point to me was that the 3D didn't feel corny and gimmick-y to me either. I typically dislike 3D unless it's something like Coraline but I was a fan.

I was never unhappy to see him but Gandalf being the deus ex machina three times made me go, "Sheesh....again?" slightly. It is only one slightly tiny twinge of 'ugh' I felt the entire time but I was also so wrapped up in the scene that I was never totally turned off by it.

Gollum's cat eyes haunted me last night after I got back from the theaters too!

[Psychotic]

It bloody did made something stir inside me too, it was a great song. I actually saw the movie in 2D!

Also I had the thought of "Man, Eagles are the Deux Ex Machina of Middle-Earth" myself :D The moth was a nice callback. As was Gandalf hitting his head on the chanderlier!

[Chris]

I was literally shaking at the end. I thought it was truly, truly, a masterpiece.

[Fuzakeru]

I'd totally own a pet eagle. I wouldn't even mind the giant eagle poop.

Gandalf was kinda a giant jerk though - either that or the most clever troll ever. I mean, I was a little pissed myself when the dwarves messed with his doiley! D:

Yes, Chris. That was the after glow this movie causes. :D

I walked out the theater, looked my boyfriend, and we both stood in strict silence for a few moments before just exploding in the typical, "_____ WAS THE BEST PART AND DID YOU SEE ____!?"

Who was your favorite dwarf?

[Faris]

Arrrggghhh I can't wait to see this :(

[charliepanayi]

I felt it was too long and a bit too weighed down by exposition, but I did really enjoy the final third (everything from the stone giants through to the end anyway). The Bilbo/Gollum stuff was easily the highlight of the film, just reminded me what a great character Gollum is. So not Lord of the Rings, but definitely not The Phantom Menace either.

[Chris]

Who was your favorite dwarf?

Never thought a dwarf could make me tingle so much. :love:

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-Kili.jpg

[Psychotic]

Can't go wrong with Bofur tbh.

[Cuchulainn]

I loved it. Truely epic film. If I had one slight it would be another case of an adaptations unneeded change to source material. Azog died at the battle azanulbizar at the hands of Dain Ironfoot and it's his son Bolg that goes after the dwarves and fights at the battle of 5 armies.

but that's a tiny anal wonderment more than a complaint. ive not problem with it happening but just no idea why it happened.

[Miriel]

I really enjoyed it, but I didn't LOVE it which was a bit disappointing. But only a bit. I knew going in that the chances of me falling head over heels in love with it like I did the LotR trilogy wasn't very likely. I knew that, but I still couldn't help but feel a tiny bit sad when that turned out to be true. Especially since The Hobbit was my first love. My first introduction to Tolkien and fantasy and one of the books that made me fall in love with reading.

I thought Richard Armitage as Thorin was SO amazing. I mean, I seriously think his performance was extraordinary. His eyes when he saw Erebor. Oh my god. Plus, so hot. Only minor criticism is that I wish they had added in some of Thorin's more lighthearted moments. I felt like he was really really grim the whole time. Which is badass and everything, but I liked it in the book when he was teased or knocked down a peg or two for his demeanor.

Martin Freeman was perfect as Bilbo. So SO good. Riddles in the Dark was absolutely my favorite part in the whole movie.

I loved everything about the first hour of the movie. Everything at Bag End and the Shire. Bilbo's Took side coming out. And seeing Frodo again. Jesus christ, I started crying. The EMOTIONS. Nostalgia to the max. And they did a great job with all the dwarves, which had to have been the hardest thing. To get 13 dwarves on screen and make us care.

I thought the movie worked best when it lifted straight from the books. I was beaming like an idiot for large chunks of the movie. Out of the frying pan and into the fire! Ha! Loved it. And the buttons! They showed the buttons! The parts that were the worst were when they diverged from the books. Why did they change the troll scene? I also didn't like the portrayal of the Dwarves and Rivendell. I understand they were trying to focus on the antagonistic nature of Dwarves vs. Elves but it went completely against the book. Rivendell was supposed to be a place where they found peace and rest and good food. They were supposed to love their time there and then move on packed to the brim with supplies and well wishes for their journey.

I agree that Azog was probably the worst part of the movie. Just did not work very well. Which is weird considering how effective the orcs and Uruk-hai were in LotR.

Overall, very enjoyable. And so amazing to return to Middle Earth.

[fire_of_avalon]

I saw it in 2D as well, because for something as lovely and important I refuse to sully it with cheap 3D. I hate 3D except in cases like Dredd where it works very well the the super duper duper slow-mo and the water droplets are glorious.

I didn't really think I would like the historical expositionbeing included in the movie, but the fall of Erebor was beautiful and tragic. I also thought all of the battle scenes were executed well, except for maybe the goblin Zerg rush thing. Overall I felt the worst thing was overuse of CGI. I will forever love prostheses and puppets over CG animation in live action film anyday. The CG used on the ponies was pretty distracting during the scene with the trolls.

Was also a bit disappointed that they didn't feature Bilbo the trickster throwing his voice. They really didn't demonstrate that Bilbo was a very clever hobbit and that is typically what saved his skin.



I thought Richard Armitage as Thorin was SO amazing. I mean, I seriously think his performance was extraordinary. His eyes when he saw Erebor. Oh my god. Plus, so hot.
So so so so hot. I would grow a beard to be his dwarven ladyfriend.

[Psychotic]

The CG used on the ponies was pretty distracting during the scene with the trolls. Oh yeah, I noticed that. And the thrush too.

[Bolivar]

Man I was confused as to why they were making multiple movies out of the one book but as soon as this got underway I realized I had no standing to question the brilliance of it all. What an amazing flick.

I agree about the deus ex machination... that was one thing that turned me off when I read the book... but later I read how this was a coming of age story for the child-height hobbit who goes out to see the world. So right now he's dependent on the more worldly characters to save him but later on in the next movie you'll see him start solving problems that no one else can solve all by himself.

I'm totally down with Avalon when it comes to cg. Give me one of the great puppet studios and some miniatures anyday. But the Peter Jackson movies are to cg what dragon quest Viii was for me when it came to to shading: that one project that really changes my mind on the technique and stands as the exception that I can rock with.

I even liked the expanded role of the orcs. It'll really help build up to that climax. The whole thing made me think of Game of Thrones. They totally screwed up on A Clash of Kings, they better not fail with A Storm of Swords. The fans really only get one opportunity of this and its such a relief that they got The Hobbit so right.

[Del Murder]

It was really good. I liked the exposition at the beginning as well as when they lifted dialogue and scenes directly from the book. I agree that's when the movie worked the best. Riddles in the Dark was really good as well as the 'that's what Bilbo Baggins hates' singing because all that was almost copied word for word from the source material.

The thing that bugged me is that the movie didn't have a self-contained plot. I know it's three movies but even a trilogy generally has plotlines that are self-contained in the film. Fellowship of the Ring had the forming and breaking up of the Fellowship as its plot, Two Towers had the Rohan storyline as well as the defeat of Saruman. This movie just moved the adventure along until they ran out of film. I would have liked some more resolution than Thorin telling Bilbo that he's not worthless.

[DMKA]

It was good. It made me kind of tear up in the beginning when we saw Bilbo, Frodo, and the shire, and heard that familiar score begin to play. Mainly because I recall going to see the LotR films at a time when my life was completely different than it is now, when I was living in a completely different place, and seeing them with friends I haven't talked to in years. It made me nostalgic in a way that I can't say I really experienced with any movie before.

I saw it in 3D, in the high frame rate. It looked spectacular and all, and the 3D was pretty flawless. I can't say I'm sure I'm sold on it though. Something about seeing a film on the big screen at more than 24fps just felt...wrong. :p It really made the movie look more like a video game than a movie at parts, in fact.

But yes, Gandalf was great, and Gollum was absolutely fantastic, the highlight of the film, dare I say. Some of the dwarfs were pretty sexy to boot. Man, that sounds so wrong.

[Chris]

I thought some of the dwarves were too sexy. Dwarves should you make you cringe, not turn you on.

Also, I can't believe how flawless Cate Blanchett looks.

[Cuchulainn]

I thought some of the dwarves were too sexy. Dwarves should you make you cringe, not turn you on.

Also, I can't believe how flawless Cate Blanchett looks.

She would get some and no mistake. She looked perfect in that.

[charliepanayi]

Well she is an elf, they all look absurdly pretty. Even Bret McKenzie.

[Aulayna]

IT WAS FUCKING AWESOME!

I wanted it to keep going.

[Laddy]

I think that one or two good-looking dwarves is more realistic than thirteen piss-ugly ones.

The film was fantastic. I'm a little confused as to why critics where less welcoming to this. The acting was great, the film was beautiful, and I felt the film's deliberate pace gave it a more epic feel.

I can't wait to see what they do next.

[Psychotic]

ALL the Dwarves are sexy :colbert: Especially Bombur.

[Flying Mullet]

Guess I'm in the minority here. It was okay, but nothing great. I would give it three out of five stars. Too much was forced (Blockbuster movies need a major antagonist that the stupid audience can focus on and there isn't one in this story. Let's add a big, pale orc with a scar on his eye and one hand. :roll2) and it relied too much on the success of the LoTR trilogy rather than trying to stand on its own. I agreed with one review that talked about how Peter Jackson forced this story to be a grand epic like LoTR when in actuality the books were written for different reasons and different audiences and it just doesn't work with this movie.

When the director's cut of these films are released it will be cutting out the filler and making one exceptional three hour film from over seven hours of bloated films.

[Miriel]

I do agree with you that I thought they tried to make The Hobbit too LotRish. I walked out of the theater wishing that it had more of that childlike whimsy and lightheartedness. Which is why I liked the first part of the movie so much with the singing and the Shire. I wish the whole movie had kept more in line with that tone.

[TrollHunter]

I loved the movie, with some nitpicks of course
Gandalf was awesome but hes basically superman
He shows up to save the day always knowing where the party is
The movie also has a lot of plot convenience like the moon in rivendale

I loved it though, an having watson from sherlock as bilbo was PERFECT
(writing this on an ipod, sorry for typos)

This was the book my dad read to me and my brother when we were kids, so i was so excited when they did the movie well

[Cuchulainn]

every time's there are eagles in a Tolkein film i cant help but think, fly them all the way there ya dicks! This was no exception. At least in LOTR you could argue they had theri hands full with the war in the north and had to worry about Nazgul. Here? No excuse

[Del Murder]

In the book the eagles explain that they cannot go that far because the Men will hunt them or the dragon will eat them. Something like that. They did have an excuse though. Plus, the eagles are their own tribe and they don't owe any favors to no dwarves. Quite the opposite actually!

[Flying Mullet]

every time's there are eagles in a Tolkein film i cant help but think, fly them all the way there ya dicks! This was no exception. At least in LOTR you could argue they had theri hands full with the war in the north and had to worry about Nazgul. Here? No excuse
After watching the movie we decided that birds are dicks. First, the eagles won't fly the party straight to The Lonely Mountain or show up in The Shire earlier, selfish dicks. Second, the little finch wakes up Smaug trying to eat the snail, gluttonous little dick.

Need more proof?
He must’ve tripped - Herman was apprehensive about playing “walk the plank” with James ever again. (http://animalsbeingdicks.com/post/6824333116/he-mustve-tripped)
Bird Thief - Nothing more heartbreaking than a dejected wallaby. :( (http://animalsbeingdicks.com/post/6519642818/bird-thief)
Bird’s Eye View - The recent rash of Seagull electronics thefts have community members very concerned. (http://animalsbeingdicks.com/post/9704830106/birds-eye-view)
Bird Fight Club - If it’s your first time at bird fight club, you have to fight. (http://animalsbeingdicks.com/post/6585481888/bird-fight-club)

Birds. Are. Dicks.

[McLovin']

Movie was epic. Loved the final act. Smeagol was fucking hilarious.

[Freya]

I got to see it and I'm a huge geek for movie scores (and tv shows) and I absolutely loved all the bits that were woven in from the LoTR scores. Even if they were just small snippets. You start to hear a little of Gollum's theme and a little of the sauron/ring theme. Like EEEEE that was awesome.

Oh i guess the movie was cool too BUT THE MUSIC!

And dwarves are hot? WHAT? That's not how it's supposed to be!

[Ouch!]

I've been avoiding this thread until I saw it, and I'm genuinely surprised to find out that I'm so far one of the only people here who thought this film was an utter mess. While a large part of why the film didn't settle well with me may be because I saw it in 48 frames per second (which requires some significant visual adaptation), I feel it had problems throughout, mostly related to how they've expanded a short book into three movies by bringing in all kinds of ancillary material.

I'm a Tolkien geek. I've read it all--The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, The Children of Hurin, and many of the volumes of the History of Middle Earth--and I've taken freaking classes on it. I was interested when they initially said that they planned on trying to bridge the sixty years between The Hobbit and LotR, but they've failed miserably to decide what direction they wanted to go with this movie. Is it the often whimsical and humorous storytelling characteristic of the Hobbit? Or is it the high fantasy quest with a more serious edge and grander scope. Throughout, the movie jumps back and forth between the two absolutely manically. Consequently, the movie is a mess of pacing (the whole thing plays almost episodically, which gets tiresome after nearly three hours) and tonal dissonance.

It's not a bad movie by any stretch. A lot of problems with pacing can be attributed to the fact that Tolkien was always terrible with pacing to begin with. I enjoyed myself, and I'll probably see it again if only to see how much of a difference there is between 24 and 48 frames per second. But the Lord of the Rings trilogy movies were phenomenal--easily some of the best book-to-film adaptations, well, ever. This falls well short of the mark. It's not bad, just... really disappointing.

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

And dwarves are hot? WHAT? That's not how it's supposed to be!

I know, eh?

I enjoyed it for the most part, not having read The Hobbit, yet I felt it was not worth 3D, didn't really anything to the experience.

[Pumpkin]

The sharkdogg and I went to see this movie on Monday and we both enjoyed it very much :jess:.

This was the first novel I ever read and that was a long time ago so I didn't remember many of the details. That might actually be a good thing because I don't usually enjoy movies as much if I've read the book. I get fussy about the details.

[Necronopticous]

They might as well have gone ahead and cast Jason Statham as Bilbo. This movie was basically the Transporter set in Middle Earth.

[Jiro]

Only two more days until it comes out in Australia!


What the fuck is wrong with the world

[Kossage]

My sister and I went to see it, and it turned out to be a rather enjoyable film. Not quite on LotR level, but considering the source material and how they used stuff from Unfinished Tales and such, it was still surprisingly smooth despite the somewhat episodic nature. Jackson managed to weave these different stories together well enough, and even the non-canonical additions to the story didn't quite detract from the overall narrative and actually fit in relatively well. I was also really glad how they kind of recreated an emotionally powerful scene, Thorin hugging Bilbo in earnest, near the end in LotR trilogy's style. :)

I really enjoyed Radagast the Brown: it was such a nice performance reminiscent of the famous Finnish tv character Rölli (a somewhat goofy guy living with animals and having powers). They used some of my favourite animals in the scene too (and dat music), and the whimsical nature of the character fit in really well into the overall Hobbit narrative feel. The Necromancer portions were handled quite well too much to my surprise; I was dreading that they'd feel disjointed in their rather ominous and foreshadowing nature (I also enjoyed the brief cameo of the Witch King as the ghost who attacks Radagast).

The side characters like the Goblin King and Azog the Defiler had nice designs too and left their mark, particularly Azog who was given two rather epic scenes which almost felt too epic for the Hobbit narrative. Then again, I wasn't quite expecting such an action-packed prologue with Smaug no less because I thought his takeover of Erebor would've been mentioned instead of actually shown in all the grisly and dramatic detail. I wasn't quite expecting the slight ship tease between Gandalf and Galadriel, though; I wonder if that was a tongue in cheek addition of Jackson and Boyens to "please" the fans or if it's actually based on some supplementary material about the characters in question.

One thing has to be said, though. Gandalf was utterly hilarious in this film, as was Gollum. The audience kept laughing at their scenes (particularly Gandalf's kind yet somewhat smug attitude in parts which make him all the more lovable, and Gollum's "egg" comment which has a lot more dirty connotations in Finnish than Tolkien himself intended in his native tongue).


I got to see it and I'm a huge geek for movie scores (and tv shows) and I absolutely loved all the bits that were woven in from the LoTR scores. Even if they were just small snippets. You start to hear a little of Gollum's theme and a little of the sauron/ring theme. Like EEEEE that was awesome.

Oh i guess the movie was cool too BUT THE MUSIC!

Yes, I totally agree. Sis and I were counting how many different themes from LotR showed up (when the Ring and Nature's Reclamation themes appeared, latter of which was played when the Eagles come to the rescue, it was very nice), and there were quite many. It was also pretty neat how Shore cleverly hinted at the Fellowship theme in certain parts of the film, and I was glad that even one of the elven themes got its chance to shine at some points. I was rather surprised by the different mixing of the choir; it wasn't quite as wet as in LotR, so it doesn't quite mesh with earlier soundtracks, but either way it was handled well. The two new themes that stuck to my mind were obviously the Misty Mountains theme (which became the de facto adventuring theme in this film) and Radagast's quirky yet catchy melody which brought a smile on my face every time it showed up. I just hope Shore develops his dwarven themes more now that he has the chance; if one thing was kind of lacking in LotR's complete recordings, it was how little dwarven material showed up except somewhat more prominently in Moria bits.

Overall, despite its flaws, the Hobbit turned out to be rather enjoyable as a whole. I look forward to seeing the next part and hearing how Shore develops his theme for Smaug and certain other people who will show up. The film's definitely worth a watch, but don't expect it to be similar to LotR because it does have its own feel despite Jackson's attempts to make it somewhat more epic with all those expanded details than the source material originally was. :)

[Pike]

Just got back from seeing this. Loved it. I thought it struck a nice balance between being whimsical and "high fantasy" (which is really whimsical to begin with.)

My least favorite part was those stupid CGI wolves that the orcs had, they looked so fake and it drove me insane but I loved the rest! :jess:

[Cuchulainn]

I agree with Pikey. The over-reliance on CGI to cater for 3d was an annoyance. THat'sb the future though, unless Holywood's hardon for 3d wanes we'll see more and more of this. The art that went in to posthetics in the trilogy was genius. They should have used Weta a lot more

[Shorty]

I didn't come out of this film head over heels like I had hoped to be. I was hoping for it to be a more linear telling of The Hobbit. I feel like Peter Jackson cheapened the entirety of The Hobbit, throwing in all of the extended storylines and all the business at the beginning. I feel like Jackson is so desperate to overhwhelm the rest of the world with the same love for Tolkien that he has that he overdoes it and almost completely misses the point. I thought that the beginning of The Hobbit was supposed to be where we see just how simple Bilbo's life is and that we have absolutely no idea what to expect from the world outside The Shire until Thorin & Co. arrives. Instead, the beginning of the film is filled with a mess of all of this backstory and these great ancient tales. In short, Jackson is a show off and I feel like it detracted from the experience I had hoped to have.

I hate, hate, hate, hate haaaaaaaate that we caught a glimpse of Smaug not once but TWICE before his time in the story. Absolutely mortified. The first time, it must have been thirty seconds into the start of the film! Why, why would they do that! The second appearance was more in line with traditional cinema, but it still bothered me because we had already seen him once before. Why wouldn't they save the best part? I don't understand.

I liked it for what it was. I liked the story and (most) of the events that happened and I would have liked it a lot more if it stood on it's own without having been based on a book. Martin Freeman's performance was astounding. I had just hoped for something more along the lines of the book without a bunch of extra crap added, but I suppose that was too much to ask for because Peter Jackson doesn't do "simple" when it comes to Tolkien.

Additionally, there is absolutely no need for three films to tell this story. Could have been done in two, imo.

[charliepanayi]

Well I preferred the LOTR films to the book, so I can't fault what Peter Jackson did there in adapting it. But things are obviously different with this one and not everything that attempts to turn The Hobbit into a LOTR prequel pays off.

And I seriously doubt anyone bar the film studio has ever thought three films is a sensible idea.

[Miriel]

I love Tolkien and I love seeing that world come to life. I want more and more and more!

But, I would have appreciated a faithful adaptation of the Hobbit. Just the Hobbit. Without all that other stuff.

CONFLICTING.

Given that the Tolkien estate will probably never give up the rights to Silmarillion or any of the other works of Tolkien, it's super unlikely that we would ever get another movie devoted to stories like the White Council and the Necromancer and all the backstory with the Dwarves or the fall of Numenor.

So I think that's why Jackson put SO much into the Hobbit to make it less about The Hobbit and more a general collection of pre-LotR stories and split it into 3 movies. Because otherwise, we would never get to see any of this extra stuff.

I think The Hobbit is probably more likely to be remade in the future than Lord of the Rings ever will be. And that might be nice I think.

[charliepanayi]

Coming to cinemas in 2016: The Amazing Bilbo!

[Cuchulainn]

I hate, hate, hate, hate haaaaaaaate that we caught a glimpse of Smaug not once but TWICE before his time in the story. Absolutely mortified. The first time, it must have been thirty seconds into the start of the film! Why, why would they do that! The second appearance was more in line with traditional cinema, but it still bothered me because we had already seen him once before. Why wouldn't they save the best part? I don't understand.

What a pointless thing to get so upset about

[Araciel]

The Morgul Blade.


I get why but... Ugh

[Faris]

I...I think I'm in love. It has every single movie element that makes a movie spectacular for me.

Was anyone else reminded of Dragon Age 1's dwarven area during the prologue?

[Freya]

I saw this again with my parents. This time in 3D. I did not like the 3D. I hate that it tries to make you focus on one thing when maybe I wanted to look at the pretty background, jerk 3D. I preferred the 2D for this film.

[Ouch!]

Well, when I saw it in 24 fps with my girlfriend New Years Eve, I didn't want to vomit this time around, so that's a plus!

[Mercen-X]

I didn't approve of the ending. Deathly Hallows Part 1 ended the same way but it had the excuse of being a Part 1.

[charliepanayi]

What was wrong with the ending specifically? And er...this is a part 1.

[Mercen-X]

It's not called "Part 1" at all though. I mean at the end of Fellowship, the group was heading somewhere. Not all in the same direction obviously, but there they went (I originally still had a problem with that ending too actually). The end here... not so much. Dropped on a rock. I hated that kind of ending for DH too, but as I said, they get a pass for labeling the film "Part 1".

[The Man]

Neither was The Fellowship of the Ring. Neither was Star Wars: A New Hope (although that was labelled Episode IV in the opening crawl, and A New Hope wasn't even added into the official title until later, but anyway). It's still the first part of a trilogy, and no one involved in the production of the film has been even remotely coy about that fact. The Hobbit Part I: An Unexpected Journey would be an even more unwieldy title than the one they actually used. Just because it doesn't actually say Part I in the title doesn't mean it isn't still a Part I.

[Mercen-X]

The Hobbit was released as a single book. Lord of the Rings was released originally in three volumes. That may all still count as one book in Europe but in simple America, a single book is any one draft you can read cover to cover thus the second and third volumes would be considered second and third books which is why three films is better fitting for that particular title. Not that I care Hobbit is being made into multiple movies, I just didn't prefer the ending.

As for the whole Part 1 thing... I despise it altogether. Harry Potter and Twilight were good stories, but they didn't need to expand it the way they did... they were just milking another movie out of the franchise.

[blackmage_nuke]

It had a few pacing issues imo, I probably wouldve enjoyed it more if i hadnt read the book since I knew most of the jokes that were coming. I dont like that Bilbo had a packed bag wheras in the book he just ran straight out the door with the clothes on his back. Also the last bundle of dwarves to crash through the door didnt say "at your service"

[The Man]

This isn't just an adaptation of The Hobbit. It's an adaptation of The Hobbit plus large numbers of canonical supplemental material Tolkien wrote that isn't included in The Hobbit. Again, the filmmakers haven't really been making any secret of this.

[blackmage_nuke]

The eagles cant fly the ring all the way to Mordor. The eye would have seen the eagles approaching and imediately dispatched his Nazgul on Fellbeasts to intercept them and if they lost the fight, all would be lost. It was safer the Frodo to travel on foot, where it is much harder for the Eye of Sauron to see him.

As for why the eagles dont fly the Dwarves to the lonely mountain, well the matters of Dwarves are hardly thier concern. Its not like the countries of our world would waste resources to find oil reserves for another country. They intervened to save thier lives as a request from Gandalf but they are not tools nor slaves to be called upon every time someone wants a quick ride. It's like when a relative breaks thier computer and asks you to fix it for free, you might be generous the first few times but after a while you feel it is not your problem anymore. And im sure eagles have been dealing with "hey can i get a quick ride" bulltrout from all of middle earth for thousands of years.

If anyone was a dick it was the elf who marched his entire army to the mountain then left. I get that you dont want to help but theres no need to rub your entire army in the Dwarf's faces.

[Loony BoB]

Haven't read all of the thread, but did anyone else think that the burning tree moment's music had so much Liberi Fatali / One Winged Angel going for it? :p I couldn't help but laugh at the time. I'm sure it's more that all three songs are mutually influenced by something else, but yeah, good times.

Lord of the Rings is technically six books, three volumes, one story. ;)

I found the movie wonderfully enjoyable.

EDIT: In response to Ouch! - particularly the last bit in his post - I actually found Return of the King to be embarrassing and feel The Hobbit is much, much better.

[Mercen-X]

I went in with low expectations for this movie which I think is partly why I enjoyed it so much. I'm buggered by the ending, sure, but that's mainly because we were introduced to three antagonists throughout the film and none of them were dealt with. Instead we deal with an antagonist we've never met, never heard of, and never seen until this second in the film. Then the movie ends. What the f? Couldn't even deal with the alborc before the credits rolled..? shi-



The eagles cant fly the ring all the way to Mordor. The eye would have seen the eagles approaching and imediately dispatched his Nazgul on Fellbeasts to intercept them and if they lost the fight, all would be lost. It was safer the Frodo to travel on foot, where it is much harder for the Eye of Sauron to see him.

As for why the eagles dont fly the Dwarves to the lonely mountain, well the matters of Dwarves are hardly thier concern. Its not like the countries of our world would waste resources to find oil reserves for another country. They intervened to save thier lives as a request from Gandalf but they are not tools nor slaves to be called upon every time someone wants a quick ride. It's like when a relative breaks thier computer and asks you to fix it for free, you might be generous the first few times but after a while you feel it is not your problem anymore. And im sure eagles have been dealing with "hey can i get a quick ride" bulltrout from all of middle earth for thousands of years.

If anyone was a dick it was the elf who marched his entire army to the mountain then left. I get that you dont want to help but theres no need to rub your entire army in the Dwarf's faces.

Wha... is this responding to something?

[The Man]

The antagonists in LotR weren't dealt with in the first film either. I'm not really bothered by it.

[Del Murder]

Well, Fellowship did have that one lead Uruk-hai that hunted the fellowship, and he was then beheaded by Aragorn. Two Towers had the armies of Saruman taken out at Helm's Deep and Saruman was pretty much defeated by the end of that movie.

I would have liked to see Azog taken down in this film. Then his son could lead in the battle of five armies.

[blackmage_nuke]

The eagles cant fly the ring all the way to Mordor. The eye would have seen the eagles approaching and imediately dispatched his Nazgul on Fellbeasts to intercept them and if they lost the fight, all would be lost. It was safer the Frodo to travel on foot, where it is much harder for the Eye of Sauron to see him.

As for why the eagles dont fly the Dwarves to the lonely mountain, well the matters of Dwarves are hardly thier concern. Its not like the countries of our world would waste resources to find oil reserves for another country. They intervened to save thier lives as a request from Gandalf but they are not tools nor slaves to be called upon every time someone wants a quick ride. It's like when a relative breaks thier computer and asks you to fix it for free, you might be generous the first few times but after a while you feel it is not your problem anymore. And im sure eagles have been dealing with "hey can i get a quick ride" bulltrout from all of middle earth for thousands of years.

If anyone was a dick it was the elf who marched his entire army to the mountain then left. I get that you dont want to help but theres no need to rub your entire army in the Dwarf's faces.

Wha... is this responding to something?

There were some people in this thread complainging about eagles. I didnt quote them.

[Mercen-X]

Two Towers had the armies of Saruman taken out at Helm's Deep and Saruman was pretty much defeated by the end of that movie.

Admittedly, however, Saruman showed his hand as an adversary when he tried to fling Gandalf off his tower. So, it's not really the same situation.

But your statement about the Uruk-hai holds a bit more merit. We were introduced to him much earlier and knew he'd be trouble for the group. The Goblin king was introduced mere minutes before he was eventually killed. Meh

[Kossage]

Haven't read all of the thread, but did anyone else think that the burning tree moment's music had so much Liberi Fatali / One Winged Angel going for it? :p I couldn't help but laugh at the time. I'm sure it's more that all three songs are mutually influenced by something else, but yeah, good times.

It was actually one of the many musical continuity bits which Howard Shore (the composer) used to bridge the score material in Hobbit with his work in LotR trilogy. The music heard in that burning tree scene is based on the Ring/Mordor themes in LotR (with slight variations), and I think it's interesting that Shore used such an ominous theme for such a seemingly heroic moment. I was overall very happy to hear bits and pieces of LotR's themes and variations of those throughout the film. I was glad that Gollum's material received some nice development too, and I can't wait to hear more of the Erebor theme in future Hobbit films as that place gains more prominence in the story. :)

I believe the use of Mordor material in the burning tree scene is likely musically foreshadowing some Ring/Thorin connection in the next film and how this noble character is twisted over the course of the story as we learn of his darker, greedy side (assuming they're bold enough to use the Ring instead of sticking to the canon material; then again, they already changed the dwarves' original motivations from the book, so everything's free game now). Considering that Tolkien didn't even think of the Ring as evil when he was writing the Hobbit, I wonder how Jackson is going to portray the events now that we do have the knowledge that the Ring is very much evil. Maybe we'll see it trying to corrupt Thorin, Bilbo or others. Or perhaps Jackson will be careful and not go over the line with it because the fan outrage might be too much to bear. Personally I'd be happy to see such scenes to establish the Ring's power; after all, one of the changes in LotR's film version that I liked over the book was Jackson making Faramir struggle with the Ring instead of him being an "incorruptible" person and how that helped show that not even the noble ones are beyond the Ring's power whether it's humans like Faramir or elves like Galadriel.

[Loony BoB]

(assuming they're bold enough to use the Ring instead of sticking to the canon material; then again, they already changed the dwarves' original motivations from the book, so everything's free game now). Considering that Tolkien didn't even think of the Ring as evil when he was writing the Hobbit, I wonder how Jackson is going to portray the events now that we do have the knowledge that the Ring is very much evil. Maybe we'll see it trying to corrupt Thorin, Bilbo or others. Or perhaps Jackson will be careful and not go over the line with it because the fan outrage might be too much to bear. Personally I'd be happy to see such scenes to establish the Ring's power; after all, one of the changes in LotR's film version that I liked over the book was Jackson making Faramir struggle with the Ring instead of him being an "incorruptible" person and how that helped show that not even the noble ones are beyond the Ring's power whether it's humans like Faramir or elves like Galadriel.
I don't recall the Ring giving Bilbo any trouble when he was in the Shire. It was not until they finally caught Gollum that Sauron even knew where to look for the Ring. Wearing it does draw his general attention, but I don't believe that it means that he literally sees exactly where you are (unless you're much closer). Bilbo himself was far more resistant to any feeling from Sauron, who was perhaps very weak during the times of the Hobbit. It should be remembered, The Hobbit was some 60 years before Sauron actually located the Ring in the Shire (through Gollum's information) and Bilbo did not get seen by Sauron even during the moments of his 111th birthday at the beginning of LotR. My thoughts are that Sauron, in those early times, was simply incapable of locating the Ring through the wearing of the Ring alone. At the time of the Hobbit it would not corrupt so easily, but as Sauron's strength grew through to the time of LotR, he gained the power to see through into obvious, visible areas (if I recall, Bilbo only ever wore the ring in places that would be either deep in mountains, far from Mordor or perhaps simply in places where there could be magical defences set up to avert Sauron's gaze). EDIT: Confirming my suspicions just now, Sauron gained the ability to see the ring when the Eye of Sauron was on top of Barad-dûr - which had not been rebuilt at the time of The Hobbit, thus Sauron could not see Bilbo. Sauron could still not see the Ring when it was in the Shire due to it being hidden from view even of Barad-dûr, due to being beyond the Misty Mountains.

I thought what they did with Faramir was a massive slap in the face to Faramir. He was one of the best characters in the books and deserved to show that the best of men would not be corrupted so easily. To say that only Aragorn would not be corrupted is unrealistic. There were many men who were corrupted by the idea of the Ring and Faramir was every bit as noble and strong in willpower as Aragorn. Such men deserve to be praised. Faramir in the movies was an ugly individual (I'm not talking about how he looked, but how he acted) and it left a very sour taste in my mouth. I like some changes in the films but this was one of my most hated, because Faramir was one of my favourites in the literature.

[charliepanayi]

I really enjoyed what they did with Faramir in the extended versions, he became someone desperate to win the approval of his father and he was treated rather sympathetically. In the theatrical versions that wasn't so apparent so it didn't work as well.

[Quindiana Jones]

I'm with BoB on the Faramir issue. He's one of my favourite characters in the book, and a perfect contrast to his brother. He was very Ranger-y, in every way, and I thought he was quite poorly handled in the films. If I remember rightly - which, after not having read the books for over a decade, I probably don't - Faramir gave even less of a toss about the ring than Aragorn! He was a great symbol in the books, essentially saying "these are the leaders of the new age" and showing that there's always hope. Good old Faramir.

I also disliked that the Rangers weren't even in the films. Their badassery in the big battle was one of the most memorable parts of the book. :(

[Loony BoB]

Seriously, no mention of Rangers = what. :(

Also,


Long after completing The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien would write that of all characters Faramir resembles the author most, and that he had deliberately bestowed upon the character several traits of his own.
So basically making Faramir a more damaged, broken character is a slap in the face of the great author himself. D=

[I Don't Need A Name]

That may all still count as one book in Europe but in simple America, a single book is any one draft you can read cover to cover thus the second and third volumes would be considered second and third books which is why three films is better fitting for that particular title.
NEWSFLASH: There are more people out there with a driving opinion other than 'simple America'. Why have you even brought America up? The book and author was English (part of Europe) and Peter Jackson is from New Zealand. Also, your opinion is completely invalid. 'A single book is any one draft you can read cover to cover.' The entirety of Lord of the Rings was written as a single book that was split into 6 six volumes, so by your logic The Lord of the Rings should only be one film, due to it only being one book. It was split into 3 books due to paper shortages from the war and keeping the cost down on the book.


I went in with low expectations for this movie which I think is partly why I enjoyed it so much. I'm buggered by the ending, sure, but that's mainly because we were introduced to three antagonists throughout the film and none of them were dealt with. Instead we deal with an antagonist we've never met, never heard of, and never seen until this second in the film.
Another comment that makes very little sense.. Introduced to 3 antagonists and none of them are dealt with? So like how Saruman and Sauron weren't dealt with until the final film in Lord of the Rings? If you start dealing with everything in a '1 every film' basis then you may as well make it into a bleeding weekly serial TV Series. We're introduced to 3 antagonists: Smaug (who obviously isn't gonna get dealt with, seeing as they aren't at Erebor yet), The Necromancer (who is only a detached subplot for the fans in these films) and Azog. If you're going by the book then Azog should already be dead. I reckon they've only kept him alive and keep bringing him up so that they could have a coherent antagonist for this film to keep some kind of danger present. As for an 'antagonist we've never met, heard of, and never seen until this second in the film.'

EDIT: Having reread your post then I realise that BoB is right and that you were referring to The Goblin King. The original novel was a children's novel and far from the likes of Lord of the Rings. Just like all children's books antagonists come and go in a very rapid pace. The book is mainly split up into many antagonists (Trolls, Goblin King, Spiders, Smaug and Bolg to name the major 5).

[Loony BoB]

I think he was referring to the goblin king. Could be wrong, though. Try to avoid making personally targeted remarks, IDNAN. ;)

[I Don't Need A Name]

But if he was referring to the Goblin King then he should take up his remarks with the source material, and not the film, because that's how it was written. It is a children's novel after all

[Loony BoB]

On a sidenote, I totally remember when I first read the book that a Charlie-Chaplin-esque music was running in my head when I read about the Dwarves escaping the goblins through the tunnels and whatnot. I couldn't help but want for the entire thing to be done with no dramatic music and just some slapstick going on all over the place instead. And then at the end, Azog would shout out something like "You haven't seen the last of me, you rascally Dwarves!" or something while shaking a fist and stomping his feet.

[I Don't Need A Name]

Well that was effectively done in the films with the amount of slapstick involved in how the dwarves fight (especially with Bombur using his weight to break the floor) :jess:

[charliepanayi]

Seriously, no mention of Rangers = what. :(

Also,


Long after completing The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien would write that of all characters Faramir resembles the author most, and that he had deliberately bestowed upon the character several traits of his own.
So basically making Faramir a more damaged, broken character is a slap in the face of the great author himself. D=

I'm sorry, but there is no part of LOTR that is a 'slap in the face' to the books and/or the author, you may not like aspects of the films, you may not like the reasoning behind things that were changed for the films, but I cannot see any time where the script writers had anything but utmost respect for the source text. And Faramir isn't damaged or broken (his father certainly is), he's just human.

[Bubba]

I thought what they did with Faramir was a massive slap in the face to Faramir. He was one of the best characters in the books and deserved to show that the best of men would not be corrupted so easily. To say that only Aragorn would not be corrupted is unrealistic. There were many men who were corrupted by the idea of the Ring and Faramir was every bit as noble and strong in willpower as Aragorn. Such men deserve to be praised. Faramir in the movies was an ugly individual (I'm not talking about how he looked, but how he acted) and it left a very sour taste in my mouth. I like some changes in the films but this was one of my most hated, because Faramir was one of my favourites in the literature


I'm with BoB on the Faramir issue. He's one of my favourite characters in the book, and a perfect contrast to his brother. He was very Ranger-y, in every way, and I thought he was quite poorly handled in the films. If I remember rightly - which, after not having read the books for over a decade, I probably don't - Faramir gave even less of a toss about the ring than Aragorn! He was a great symbol in the books, essentially saying "these are the leaders of the new age" and showing that there's always hope. Good old Faramir.



I really enjoyed what they did with Faramir in the extended versions, he became someone desperate to win the approval of his father and he was treated rather sympathetically. In the theatrical versions that wasn't so apparent so it didn't work as well.


Bob and Quin, like charliepanayi says, you both need to watch the extended editions of LOTR. I honestly can't watch the theatrical versions now as they miss out ridiculous amounts. I agree, Faramir was not well represented in the original films but in the extended edition, he has a lot of big extra scenes...

- Him letting Frodo and Sam go (his life is declared forfeit), helping them out of Osgiliath and threatening Gollum for taking them to the stairs of Cirith Ungol. He knew Frodo held the ring of power at this point.
- A flashback scene to when he and Boromir reclaimed Osgiliath from orcs. Plus, the subsequent meeting with their father to discuss Boromir leaving to attend the council of Elrond. Faramir offers to go in his stead.
- The scene in the houses of healing after the Battle of Minas Tirith

All in all, the extended editions portray Faramir as the perfect contrast to his brother. He chose to allow Frodo to leave with the ring as opposed to take the ring back to his father in Minas Tirith. In essence, he did what Boromir could not.

The LOTR extended editions is not just the "director's cut" that you may expect. It is literally the essential version of the films that you must watch. The only reason you didn't see these scenes at the cinema is that theatres won't let you sit watching a film that is nearly four hours long.

[Loony BoB]

I've seen them. :p It doesn't change the fact that the actual film itself (the one that many millions of people have seen) protrays Faramir as a bit of a dick. And to be fair, there is a large amount of variation even when you have the extended version. Faramir was a great, noble man from the start, a young man too with no beard on his face. He treated his hostages - such as Gollum - very fairly and demanded his troops treat him the same way. I'll actually stop now before I start reading up even more on the differences. I did like that some fans have nicknamed the film variant of Faramir 'Farfromthebookamir'. :p

[Bubba]

I agree, Faramir was not well represented in the original films


He was one of the best characters in the books and deserved to show that the best of men would not be corrupted so easily. To say that only Aragorn would not be corrupted is unrealistic. There were many men who were corrupted by the idea of the Ring and Faramir was every bit as noble and strong in willpower as Aragorn. Such men deserve to be praised.

If you're referring to the original theatrical releases then I absolutely agree with you on this. Though, the extended editions clearly address all the issues that you've mentioned above.

I also agree that neither version of the film accurately shows how Faramir is in the books. I still feel it shows all his redeeming qualities though.