The Hobbit

[Hashi Lebwohl]

....as an aside though: Tolkien seems very interested in revenant characters, like Durin's Bane, the last Balrog in Middle Earth, hiding under a mountain for centuries or milennia before the dwarves woke him up, and Smaug, the last fire-drake, sleeping atop his pile of stolen treasure.

Not that I mind these themes/characters, I actually like the idea. I wonder what would have happened if the heroes hadn't slain these last vestiges of the First Age, and Sauron was able to contact/recruit them to his cause. Would Smaug even obey Sauron? I assume his leader was Ancalagon, Morgoth's lieutenant. But Sauron was Morgoth's chief general, although I can't really picture Sauron trying to pull rank on Ancalagon the Black. Not a good idea, most likely.

Similarly, would the Balrog of Moria have obeyed Sauron and done his bidding? Durin's Bane followed Gothmog in the First Age, although like I said Sauron probably technically outranked the Balrog king. However, I wouldn't bet on Sauron in a one-on-one battle with Gothmog.

These creatures would have made Sauron's forces even more unstoppable, had they not been killed by Gandalf and/or that archer guy. But I wonder if Smaug and Durin's Bane would have seen themselves more as Sauron's equal or partner rather than servants?

We don't know that the Balrog in Moria is the last one in Middle Earth; rather, it is the only one to have been found in a really long time. The other are hidden so far down that no one will discover them (hopefully).

I concur--I don't think the Balrog or Smaug would necessarily have been Sauron's servants, but there would have been a mutually beneficial arrangements, the Balrog getting to destroy and Smaug receiving even more treasure in payment for services rendered.

The entire undercurrent of Hobbit and LoTR is, as you note, that all the old things are passing away.

I know this isn't an LoTR thread, but exactly how stupid is Sauron, anyway? Why wasn't there a Nazgul posted in the Sammath Naur just in case? He should have been prepared for someone to try and unmake the Ring rather than betting that they would try to keep it and use it. *shrug*

[ItisWritten]

I know this isn't an LoTR thread, but exactly how stupid is Sauron, anyway? Why wasn't there a Nazgul posted in the Sammath Naur just in case? He should have been prepared for someone to try and unmake the Ring rather than betting that they would try to keep it and use it. *shrug*[/color]

He couldn't imagine destroying the Ring and its power; they were too precious to him. He would never relinquish that power willingly; why would anyone else? He had already snared Saruman through his lust for the Ring. It seemed inevitable to him that someone in power would try to challenge him with the Ring.

The Council of Elrond's decision to destroy the Ring was one of the best kept secrets in all of literature. That is, of those the reader was aware of. I'm not counting plot twists.

[Frostheart Grueburn]

()

[lucimay]

Other than the arrival of the dwarfs, the thunder battle, and the flight through the hall*, I really didn't care for the movie. Just seemed all wrong to me, even though I was a fan of the other movies. The Hobbit was my favorite book growing up, and such a big departure from the tone of the book seemed to be making it into something it wasn't, going from simple adventure story to epic. The whole Thorin/Bilbo and Thorin/Azog thing was too sappy, Radagast was goofy, and Saruman was too big of a dick.

so yeah...that was my impression too, sheriff.

and i'll tell ya why it felt "all wrong" to me. it was continually FRAUGHT.
every freakin scene was FRAUGHT. every word out of gandalf's mouth
was FRAUGHT. every word out of thorin's mouth was FRAUGHT.
FRAUGHT FRAUGHT FRAUGHT.
it just drove me insane.
i don't know why i expected it NOT to be fraught considering the other
films were exceedingly FRAUGHT.
i'm sure elija wood was cast as frodo because he's soooo freakin good
at FRAUGHT. fraught and weepy. gah!
i was sooooo hoping they'd not do that to this story.
but, alas, they did.

it's as if they (the filmmakers) don't trust the story to be
"entertaining" enough. so they put action sequence after action
sequence between all the FRAUGHT scenes.

i will see it again just to have a second look, and i will see the
other films, of course i will.
but i'm not really happy with what they've done thus far.

i can see why some who aren't as familiar with the books would
like it but i can't imagine that the majority of tolkien fandom is
too awful happy about it.

[[Syl]]

Exactly, Luci. Also, just realized I didn't elaborate on my *:

The flight through the hall was good, if not quite how the book had it (though just as with the part with the trolls, I think they dropped a couple good moments (the hole in the back of the cave, finding his way through the darkness after getting dropped, and squeezing through the door past the guards, not just Gollum) to make Bilbo seem somewhat competent rather than a hapless tag-along). My problem with it, though, is the multiple falls. Are they all made of rubber? Sure, there's a certain level of suspension of disbelief required, but they aren't superheroes.

[Zarathustra]

I don't appreciate it how Hollywood attempts to fill every stinking nanosecond with *ACTION* *EXPLOSIONS* BLAM BLAM SLAM WHOOSH HOCRAPBEWAREITSAMOVINGMOUNTAIN... This suffered from the same overstuffed atmosphere as the recent Tintin film (adapted from the Belgian comics, which rely mainly on suspense) and the alien-whatsist. Do the directors and producers deem the audience is so stupid and/or has the attention span of minus five seconds that they cannot follow a plot unless it slams a constant stream of car crashes and firestorms on the screen? It's like turning a Dostoyevsky novel into a chase through New York.

You're talking about the movie where it took 45 minutes to get out of a dinner party scene which included doing the dishes and singing a couple songs? Or a 15 minute scene which was basically two characters telling each other riddles? I don't get this criticism at all. Have you read the Hobbit? There was quite a lot of action in the book. It's basically one episode of action after another. The only action sequence which wasn't in the book was the Azog sub-plot.

As for the Dostoyevsky comparison, I can't imagine two more dissimilar styles of writing. Sure, it would be a travesty to turn one of his novels into a long chase scene, but that says absolutely nothing about similar treatment of the Hobbit, which was one monster encounter after another.

Oh, and (just a minor nit-pick) this movie had nothing to do with Hollywood. Are you familiar with Peter Jackson? He's basically making a movie in his back yard ... which happens to be New Zealand. He's the anti-Hollywood filmmaker.

My problem with it, though, is the multiple falls. Are they all made of rubber? Sure, there's a certain level of suspension of disbelief required, but they aren't superheroes.

I thought the multiple falls in LOTR were ridiculous, but I can only think of one in The Hobbit, where Bilbo is separated from the Dwarves. And if you look closely, you'll notice that Bilbo fell into a patch of over-sized mushrooms, which broke his fall. That's also why Gollum didn't see him, because he was hidden in them.

As for some of the other criticisms, I guess it's a personal taste issue. I'm an avid Tolkien fan, and I loved the movie. I guess I can see how people would think the tone was a little more "fraught," but based on sources like Tolkien's Letters, I think Tolkien himself would have made the Hobbit a bit more dark and "fraught" if he'd known it was going to be a prequel to the LOTR from the beginning. He worried about the discrepancy in tone between the two stories, and edited the Hobbit later to match them up a little more. He complained of the silliness and the tone, and saw it as one of the flaws of the book. So I think he would approve of the melding of the two stories which Jackson achieved.

With that said, I still think the movie captured most of the charming, silly innocence of the book. Many scenes were lifted out almost word for word. The changes were certainly less drastic than what they did to The Two Towers. Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo was understated and subtle. I personally can't imagine a better translation from the book to the screen.

What would you all have done differently?

[Holsety]

I'm just gonna post a short thing about personal experience w/ the film...

The Hobbit is probably one of the best known chapter books (for want of a better word - I don't remember if it has chapters) that I read when I was younger. My first was Redwall, which is more contemporary and, while British and perhaps a bit, rustic, a bit more of a "defend the village (or rather abbey) from barbarians" story.

Because, like I think many kids, I loved riddles and jokes, the riddle contest between Bilbo and Gollum was one of my favorite sections of the book, and - because of the childishness mentioned in Zar's post - quite effective at making Gollum a somewhat more comic than tragic figure, and at making the ring a source of wonder (Wow a magic ring!) than of danger or evil. Certainly, moving into the lotr, it was interesting to see it, and the world in general, "evolve" a little (from my perspective). This is probably not only because the section itself is interesting, but because my version of the book actually had Bilbo and Gollum on the cover (I believe it shows Bilbo trudging through the pool in the cave with Sting shining while Gollum lurks behind him...though it turns out gollum doesn't trigger sting's shine). Give me a break for anticipating the cover of a book - I was probably around 7 or 8 at the time.

I only read the hobbit and LotR once through each (actually I probably read the fellowship twice), and I've only seen the movies once each (well I've probably seen the fellowship at least 4 or 5 times).

For that reason, striking back to one of the core moments of the hobbit side of the story and seeing how - on screen at least - a fair amount of the nuance of the later books, as I saw them, is reflected in the action, presumably fairly drawn from the book, was rather moving.

so yeah...that was my impression too, sheriff.

and i'll tell ya why it felt "all wrong" to me. it was continually FRAUGHT.
every freakin scene was FRAUGHT. every word out of gandalf's mouth
was FRAUGHT. every word out of thorin's mouth was FRAUGHT.
FRAUGHT FRAUGHT FRAUGHT.
it just drove me insane.
i don't know why i expected it NOT to be fraught considering the other
films were exceedingly FRAUGHT.
i'm sure elija wood was cast as frodo because he's soooo freakin good
at FRAUGHT. fraught and weepy. gah!
i was sooooo hoping they'd not do that to this story.
but, alas, they did.

it's as if they (the filmmakers) don't trust the story to be
"entertaining" enough. so they put action sequence after action
sequence between all the FRAUGHT scenes.

i will see it again just to have a second look, and i will see the
other films, of course i will.
but i'm not really happy with what they've done thus far.

i can see why some who aren't as familiar with the books would
like it but i can't imagine that the majority of tolkien fandom is
too awful happy about it.

I strongly agree with this...I liked the movie enough to enjoy it, but at a certain point, I wanted to use the restroom. This was, incidentally, the bowels humor section with the trolls who get petrified by the sun. As soon as the scene "cleared up" I headed off for the restroom - and, it turns out, 5 other people in the theater walked out at the same time for the same reason. We all had the same rationale too - it would be a good time for an unimportant scene, so we might as well take our chances.

I'm actually starting to feel like larger theaters should consider an intermission for longer movies (2hr+ perhaps). I dunno how y'all would feel about that, as it's not like you can't get a dvd and watch it at your leisure later...but even without restroom considerations, sometimes I'd appreciate a moment to stretch my legs and get a breath of fresh air without missing material.

I also loved seeing Radagast. And Hugo Weaving Elrond is one of the most adorable elves of all time.

[Holsety]

I'm just gonna post a short thing about personal experience w/ the film...

The Hobbit is probably one of the best known chapter books (for want of a better word - I don't remember if it has chapters) that I read when I was younger. My first was Redwall, which is more contemporary and, while British and perhaps a bit, rustic, a bit more of a "defend the village (or rather abbey) from barbarians" story.

Because, like I think many kids, I loved riddles and jokes, the riddle contest between Bilbo and Gollum was one of my favorite sections of the book, and - because of the childishness mentioned in Zar's post - quite effective at making Gollum a somewhat more comic than tragic figure, and at making the ring a source of wonder (Wow a magic ring!) than of danger or evil. Certainly, moving into the lotr, it was interesting to see it, and the world in general, "evolve" a little (from my perspective). This is probably not only because the section itself is interesting, but because my version of the book actually had Bilbo and Gollum on the cover (I believe it shows Bilbo trudging through the pool in the cave with Sting shining while Gollum lurks behind him...though it turns out gollum doesn't trigger sting's shine). Give me a break for anticipating the cover of a book - I was probably around 7 or 8 at the time.

I only read the hobbit and LotR once through each (actually I probably read the fellowship twice), and I've only seen the movies once each (well I've probably seen the fellowship at least 4 or 5 times).

For that reason, striking back to one of the core moments of the hobbit side of the story and seeing how - on screen at least - a fair amount of the nuance of the later books, as I saw them, is reflected in the action, presumably fairly drawn from the book, was rather moving.

so yeah...that was my impression too, sheriff.

and i'll tell ya why it felt "all wrong" to me. it was continually FRAUGHT.
every freakin scene was FRAUGHT. every word out of gandalf's mouth
was FRAUGHT. every word out of thorin's mouth was FRAUGHT.
FRAUGHT FRAUGHT FRAUGHT.
it just drove me insane.
i don't know why i expected it NOT to be fraught considering the other
films were exceedingly FRAUGHT.
i'm sure elija wood was cast as frodo because he's soooo freakin good
at FRAUGHT. fraught and weepy. gah!
i was sooooo hoping they'd not do that to this story.
but, alas, they did.

it's as if they (the filmmakers) don't trust the story to be
"entertaining" enough. so they put action sequence after action
sequence between all the FRAUGHT scenes.

i will see it again just to have a second look, and i will see the
other films, of course i will.
but i'm not really happy with what they've done thus far.

i can see why some who aren't as familiar with the books would
like it but i can't imagine that the majority of tolkien fandom is
too awful happy about it.

I strongly agree with this...I liked the movie enough to enjoy it, but at a certain point, I wanted to use the restroom. This was, incidentally, the bowels humor section with the trolls who get petrified by the sun. As soon as the scene "cleared up" I headed off for the restroom - and, it turns out, 5 other people in the theater walked out at the same time for the same reason. We all had the same rationale too - it would be a good time for an unimportant scene, so we might as well take our chances.

I'm actually starting to feel like larger theaters should consider an intermission for longer movies (2hr+ perhaps). I dunno how y'all would feel about that, as it's not like you can't get a dvd and watch it at your leisure later...but even without restroom considerations, sometimes I'd appreciate a moment to stretch my legs and get a breath of fresh air without missing material.

I also loved seeing Radagast. And Hugo Weaving Elrond is one of the most adorable elves of all time.

[Horrim Carabal]

Hobbit was meh. Sick of Elrond, sick of dwarves, sick of Gollum.

Like I said, not a Tolkien fan anyway, so I'm not in the target demographic. That aside, yes I will see the next two movies.

One last thing: how about Gandalf backhands Galadriel next time she condescends to him in that patronizing tone. Maybe he could scream something like WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE SPEAKING TO, ELF? I AM MITHRANDIR OF THE MAIA, AND YOU WILL AMEND YOUR TONE.

Say it in the YOU WILL NOT PASS voice. She'd shit a brick.

[Holsety]

Hobbit was meh. Sick of Elrond, sick of dwarves, sick of Gollum.

Like I said, not a Tolkien fan anyway, so I'm not in the target demographic. That aside, yes I will see the next two movies.

One last thing: how about Gandalf backhands Galadriel next time she condescends to him in that patronizing tone. Maybe he could scream something like WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE SPEAKING TO, ELF? I AM MITHRANDIR OF THE MAIA, AND YOU WILL AMEND YOUR TONE.

Say it in the YOU WILL NOT PASS voice. She'd shit a brick.

[Horrim Carabal]

Yeah I know she is a powerful elf, etc. But Gandalf is the wisest of the Maia, probably more raw power than her at least after his return, and she does speak dismissively to him all the time. She just irks me - one of my least favorite Tolkien characters.

[Holsety]

Yeah I know she is a powerful elf, etc. But Gandalf is the wisest of the Maia, probably more raw power than her at least after his return, and she does speak dismissively to him all the time. She just irks me - one of my least favorite Tolkien characters.

Ah. Well, I didn't mean to be taken too seriously with that - I was just seizing on Elrond looking "annoyed" (IMO) when Gandalf speaks Mordor's tongue in the Fellowship.

I haven't read the Silmarillion (sp?) nor notes, nor am I really big on the books, and I have a few friends who are yet I haven't talked about this movie with 'em much. In this movie, I actually thought she had a dismissive view towards Saruman's disinterested yet, perhaps, "well regimented" attitudes and arguments towards Mordor/Sauron, and I thought her attitude towards Gandalf in turn was simultaneously condescending and, hmm, newly impressed?? On the one hand, she sort of has an attitude that she's the one who deserves all the info, on the other, she's right in one sense because, compared to Saruman, she at least is willing to admit that something is up. When you start working in private with a subordinate figure who's being criticized by his own "boss," why would you go out of your way to bow and scrape? In general, Gandalf doesn't seem to spend a whole lot of time trying to curry open shows of favor, very much like a Merlin character. He just gets pissed when he thinks someone is being stupid. Galadriel doesn't come across as particularly stupid very often, I think, being as, like Elrond (and Saruman) she's frequently hesitant to act and therefore is easily afforded a certain mystery.

[Zarathustra]

Again, I'm left wondering if people saw the same movie I saw. Galadriel was supportive and even affectionate toward Gandalf. I didn't get even a hint of condescension from her toward him. She believed him and took him seriously in the face of Saruman's condescension. Then she told him she'd help him if he ever needed it.

Nor do I think we should advocate hitting women who have a "tone." What is this, the 1950s? Put down the eggnog for a second and think about what you're saying. I'm not usually one to pull the "sexist card," but that's a pretty sexist attitude, imo.

[Horrim Carabal]

Uhh I was speaking (writing?) tongue firmly in cheek. Thought that was abundantly clear but just in case anyone else is wondering I am not an advocate of violence against women.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Uhh I was speaking (writing?) tongue firmly in cheek. Thought that was abundantly clear but just in case anyone else is wondering I am not an advocate of violence against women.

She's an elf not a woman.
You can beat the crap out of female elves, it's ok.

[Mortice Root]

I saw it about a week back. Loved it!

Only really a couple of complaints - I thought the opening section that takes places before the "long-expected party" from fellowship (the section with old Bilbo) was a little long, but I understood why it was there - to set up when this story was taking place for people who had only seen the other films, not read the books.

I thought the great goblin looked ridiculous.

Maybe one too many action sequences - the stone giant section seemed a little long (especially considering it was only briefly referenced in the book) but they did look cool as hell. And the chase out of the goblin kingdom seemed somewhat drawn out also. And to agree with [Syl] above,about too many falls - the one that I would point too is that drop down the chasm on the bridge at the end of the escape; it seemed to strech suspension of disbelief.

But otherwise - wow, was this great!

I loved the look of the film - saw with high frame rate and 3d glasses. I actually expected to feel wet during the rainstorm it looked so real.

The destruction of Erebor/ Dale was perfect.

The introduction of the dwarfs was great. I loved the way Jackson gave them all distinct personalities, something Tolkien never did (aside from Thorin and maybe Balin). I like the idea that these were not all great dwarven warriors, but what few dwarves Thorin could assemble. BTW Thorin (the actor) was awesome - way exceeded expectations.

Bilbo was spot on, and I loved the way McCellan played Gandalf the Grey as distintly different from Gandalf the White - less strong, less sure of himself, and occiasionally, subservient to other "powers".

I liked the dinner party and the dwarven song. Though I have to say I had a hard time not recalling the melody that was used for this section from the old animated Hobbit - don't know if anyone else saw that - but as a kid, I had that as a book with a 45 rpm record that I read and listened too constantly, so it has been permanantly burned in my brain (along with the "Where there's a whip, there's a way" song from the animated Return of the King). But I think I like the new music better - fits the tone much more appropriately.

I loved most of the addeed stuff that Jackson put it. I liked Azog, and the way Jackson built on stuff from LOTR appendiecies and Unfinished Tales to show us what happened to the dwarves after the destruction of Erebor, and showing us how Thorin got the name "Oakenshield" - awesome. The Radagst section was perfect, Dol Guldur was creepy as hell (Jackson always seems to do well with ghosts and creepiness).

The "white council" section exceeded expections immensely. It made perfect sense to me the way the Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman and Gandalf related to each other at that time. That portion couldn't have been better, IMO.

I liked the change also with Bilbo's separation from the dwarves coming during the capture by goblins, rather than during the escape from them. It just makes more sense, from a narrative standpoint to have his encounter with Gollum simultaneous from the dwarves escape. And the riddle section was perfect. It's moments like this in these films that make me feel that Jackson loves these books as much as I do.

I was worried about the troll section, and how that would play, with what, IMO is one of the more cringe-worthy sections of dialog in the book. But it was handled very well in the film. I like it better than that part of the book.

And speaking of improvements on the book, is anyone else happy that the "Tra-la-la lally, down in the valley" singing introduction to the elves is gone? Cause I sure am.

Overall I loved this film. I thought it was the equal of the previous 3, and it makes me super excited for the next one. I can't wait to go see it again!

[Zarathustra]

Mortice, the "tra la la" was one of my biggest fears going into this. The troll scene was the second. You nailed it. I'm glad the former is absent, and the latter played out a lot better than I expected. It was funny, respectful of the source material, and when the Dwarves started fighting back, I had one of many "holy crap!" moments. It makes a lot more sense for this team of Dwarves, who are bent on retaking treasure from a dragon, not to be simply outwitted by some stupid trolls and popped into sacks one-by-one. If they hadn't fought back, they would have looked like wimps who couldn't have possibly escaped Misty Mountains.

I can see how people would complain about the Great Goblin, but my main problem was his voice and his death scene one-liner. I thought he looked perfect.

I'd forgotten about the fall on the scaffolding. That was a bit much.

Speaking of the destruction of Erebor/Dale, this section surpassed all my expectations. Can anyone honestly say that they imagined the lost kingdom under the mountain as majestic and awe-inspiring as what Jackson put on screen? The Dwarven halls were stunning. Seeing all the Dwarves mining and working, Dwarves in the prime of their power, led by a King who looked truly royal and majestic, it was a thing of wonder.

Horrim Carabal, I understood it was a joke. Perhaps I should have said "joking about" instead of "advocating." I don't want to control anyone's speech. It's a particular kind of humor that I can't appreciate, but it's not my place to tell you how to post, so please accept my apology for overstepping my role here. Peace and happy new year!

[High Lord Tolkien]

Speaking of the destruction of Erebor/Dale, this section surpassed all my expectations. Can anyone honestly say that they imagined the lost kingdom under the mountain as majestic and awe-inspiring as what Jackson put on screen? The Dwarven halls were stunning. Seeing all the Dwarves mining and working, Dwarves in the prime of their power, led by a King who looked truly royal and majestic, it was a thing of wonder.

Totally agree.
He nailed it.
The destructive power of Smaug was breathtaking.
Gandalf's fear of Smaug destroying the Rivendell and most of the Northwest was visually realized.

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned if Smaug would serve under Sauron and do his wishes.
Gandalf thought so.

[Horrim Carabal]

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned if Smaug would serve under Sauron and do his wishes.
Gandalf thought so.

He did? Is this in the print version of the Hobbit?

[Zarathustra]

It's in Unfinished Tales, "The Quest for Erebor." It might also be in the Appendix of ROTK, since there's an abbreviated version there, but I don't remember that version.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quest_of_Erebor