The Hobbit

[Avatar]

Meh.

Although visually it was good, they tried too hard to tie it into LotR. Radagast was not in The Hobbit. And he certainly didn't ride a bunny-driven sled. (I hated the bird shit. Undignified.)

It was too long. I did like the intro with the destruction of Dane, but overall, there was too much stuff that didn't happen in the book. (Which I shall be rereading again very soon, and after which I will come back and complain some more.)

It could have been 2 2-hour movies...Up to Beorn in the first, then split there.

Instead, (I'm guessing), they'll split the next one on the arrival at the Lonely Mountain, and the last will be the battle of 5 armies, Laketown, etc.

Felt most of the Dwarves looked too young...IIRC, in the book Thorin was grey-bearded. Fili and Kili were pretty good though.

The Pale Orc wasn't in the book either. And there was a bit much fighting, especially considering the dwarves mostly weren't warriors.

Overheard on leaving the cinema: "Wow, that was the best Lord of the Rings film ever."

Overheard in a bookshop: "Oh look, The Hobbit. That must be based on the new Lord of the Rings movie."

Which obviously was Jackson's point...but I think he overdid tying it into the overall Middle-Earth story in comparison to the book.

--A

[Zarathustra]

Av, I think you have a point about too much fighting with regards to Azog, but only at the end. I think after all the fighting in the goblin tunnels (which makes a hell of a lot more sense than merely running away), it was overkill to have another fight while Dwarves are dangling from the trees. And then Bilbo rushing in to save Thorin was pretty ridiculous, which will dilute the surprise and impact of his fighting later in Mirkwood.

As for the rest, I'm not bothered by the extra stuff at all. I thought everyone knew that Jackson would be adding content from the appendices in order to stretch this out for multiple movies and to connect it with LOTR. Did you think those scenes weren't done well? I thought Radagast was a little silly and the bird crap bugged me, too, but overall his arc was important. It will later explain why Gandalf leaves them prior to Mirkwood in order to go to Dol Guldur, which would be entirely inexplicable otherwise. In terms of screen time, the extra stuff is a small part of the movie.

[ussusimiel]

I was disappointed with the film and it took me a while to figure out why. The conclusion I came to is that it is trying to do two incompatible things: it's trying to be true to the spirit of the book and it's trying to be a prequel to LOTR. I think that if it had settled on one of these aims it would have been far more enjoyable, for me. (In the LOTR films Peter Jackson and Co. brilliantly managed to be true to the spirit of the books and to make great films.)

The look and the feel of the film (I saw it in 2D) was similar to the LOTR movies and I found the stuff that related to Dol Gulder, the White Council, Gandalf's concerns etc. interesting and enjoyable. I think they could easily have made the films in this prequel mode.

Since The Hobbit (the book) is not a true prequel to LOTR, to be true to the spirit/atmosphere of the book, IMO, a distinctly different, softer approach to the whole endeavour is necessary (maybe something more akin to the general feeling of the Shire scenes). In saying that, I did enjoy the parts of the film that were true to the book: the Dwarf party in Bilbo's house and the troll scene, but I think that it would have been quite difficult to make the whole film this way.

With that in mind I'm going to go and see it again in 3D this time

u.

[Avatar]

Did you think those scenes weren't done well?

No, they were done well for the most part. And you have a point about explaining why Gandalf left. (There was no meeting with Saruman and Galadrial in Rivendell either damnit. )

I think Ususimiel put his finger on it. The Hobbit was not a prequel to LotR, LotR was a sequel to The Hobbit. Jackson has tried to make it into a prequel.

And really, he didn't do it too badly either, but as U suggests, the feel and spirit of the story suffered for it. The books were widely separated in time. IIRC, it's around 60 years before the start of LotR in The Hobbit. And then around 20 years between the end of Chapter 1 and the beginning of Chapter 2 in LotR.

At the beginning of the Hobbit, the ring has been lost for nearly 3,000 years, and Sauron doesn't return to Mordor until after the events in The Hobbit. (I had to look those last bits up. ) In other words, the stuff that started off the events in LotR hadn't happened by the time that The Hobbit ended. (Except maybe finding the ring...)

So the "foreboding" he kept trying to set up, (the morghul blade for example) felt all wrong.

*shrug* The Hobbit is one of my favourite books...one of the earliest memories I have of fantasy. I stopped counting when I'd read it a dozen times, and that was in my early teens. Added to which I'm notoriously purist when it comes to movies made from books I've read. So maybe I'm over-critical too.

Like I said, it was all done very well. And of course I understand the exigencies of business and popular appeal. But they changed it.

--A

[Zarathustra]

Like I said, it was all done very well. And of course I understand the exigencies of business and popular appeal. But they changed it. Wink

Actually, Tolkien changed it. Sure, those aspects (like the White Council) weren't in the Hobbit, but Tolkien added those elements later to his overall mythology. Gandalf/Elrond/Galadriel/Saruman were indeed meeting during these times, and debating the very issues portrayed in the movie. The first White Council meeting was held about 500 years before the time of the Hobbit, in response to Sauron reentering Dol Guldur and signaling the end of the Watchful Peace. The next meeting was about 90 years before the Hobbit, and in this meeting Gandalf urged attacking Dol Guldur in order to drive Sauron out (he had entered it the previous year, discovered Sauron, met Thrain, and got the key to Erebor). Saruman, who was searching the same area for the ring because he knew Isildur lost it in the river Anduin, urged patience and overruled Gandalf. Two years prior to the Hobbit, Saruman learns that Sauron is searching this very area, too, and is alarmed but says nothing to the Council.

[Caution: potential spoilers for the next movie if you're not familiar with the Appendix.]

The next meeting of the White Council was indeed in the same year as the Hobbit (2941 of the Third Age), right after Bilbo finds the ring. During this meeting Saruman finally agrees to an attack on Dol Guldur to prevent Sauron from searching that area for the ring. Sauron flees Dol Guldur. And then the Battle of Five Armies happens. So, according to Appendix B in LOTR, this Council meeting must have happened after Gandalf left the Quest just after Beorn, prior to Mirkwood. Maybe they met in Lothlorien, but it did indeed happen very close to the time in the movie. The subject matter of this meeting was more developed than the meeting we saw, but I imagine that this subject matter will be portrayed in the next movie, when they decide to attack Dol Guldur. [Expect a large battle there, involving forces of Rivendel, Lothlorien, and Saruman himself. It should be awesome. Perhaps the climax to the movie.]

So it's not entirely true to say, "the stuff that started off the events in LotR hadn't happened by the time that The Hobbit ended," because it was precisely the time period during Gandalf's absence in chapters 8-15 of The Hobbit that all this "extra" stuff involving the Council/Sauron/Dol Guldur happens. It's indeed contemporaneous to The Hobbit, and driven by the events which occurred during the Quest for Erebor. Sauron doesn't flee after the Hobbit, but during its time period, prior to the climax of the third movie.

It's a fair point to say that the movie wasn't entirely true to the published version of The Hobbit. But it's not a fair point to say that it wasn't true to Tolkien's vision, because the published book itself wasn't an accurate portrayal of his vision. The movie is an accurate portrayal of the story told in Appendix B of ROTK. If most people haven't read it, well, that's their fault.

[lucimay]

ok, perhaps "fraught" was not quite the word...
perhaps i meant overly "melodramatic" or
heavy-handed.

of these 4 tolkien movies that jackson has made i guess i liked
the first LotR one the best, aside from the fact that tom bombadil wasn't
in it.

the best thing about the hobbit for me was martin freeman and andy serkis.

and yes zar, those of us who didn't care for it saw the same movie you did.
we just didn't have the same response.
i have had to learn to live with the fact that people just don't have the same
perceptions as i do most of the time.

[Zarathustra]

Luci, I thought "fraught" was a fine word, and an accurate description of the movie. It's even a valid criticism if you were expecting the movie to be much like the book. I just assumed it was common knowledge that Jackson was including more in order for this movie to mesh better w/LOTR, but maybe I shouldn't assume that everyone else has kept up with the pre-production news like I have (though, we have been discussing it for years now).

My tongue-in-cheek comment about wondering if people saw the same movie I saw was in response to the criticism that the movie was one long action scene and that Galadriel was condescending to Gandalf (not the "fraught" thing). People are free to have their own opinions about whether or not they liked the movie, but supporting those opinions with inaccurate statements that can't be justified by what was onscreen just opens one's opinions to challenges of their accuracy. Which is what I've done.

[Cybrweez]

Saw it awhile ago, and loved it. I thought it was like prequel (like a continuation) of the LotR movies, which I love.

It's been too long since I read any of the books, so I just couldn't remember enough to comment on accuracy/portrayal. Maybe that's a better approach for next 2 movies, I may hold off reading. Haven't decided.

Anyway, my expectations were pretty level, b/c I thought how could he match up, it's very hard (look at the wreck of star wars prequels). But when it was over, I was thinking, aw man.

When's the next one due?

[lucimay]

it's okay, i frequently wonder if people are seeing the same movie as i am, or reading the same book as i am!!

but thanks for clarifying.

[Avatar]

So it's not entirely true to say, "the stuff that started off the events in LotR hadn't happened by the time that The Hobbit ended," because it was precisely the time period during Gandalf's absence in chapters 8-15 of The Hobbit that all this "extra" stuff involving the Council/Sauron/Dol Guldur happens. It's indeed contemporaneous to The Hobbit, and driven by the events which occurred during the Quest for Erebor. Sauron doesn't flee after the Hobbit, but during its time period, prior to the climax of the third movie.

Fair enough...he only arrives in Mordor after the Hobbit, but was driven out of Mirkwood during it, etc. Certainly Gandalf was already worrying about it. But my point was really that the film is full of the foreboding of the upcoming LotR, but the book doesn't have that feeling.

--A

[Cambo]

Av, I really think Jackson had no choice but to make The Hobbit a "
"prequel" trilogy. The way I see it he had two source materials for these films: The Hobbit book, and his LOTR trilogy. If he had made The Hobbit first, perhaps it could have been more strictly faithful to the tone of the book. But as a film maker, he couldn't just completely ignore his previous masterwork set in the same universe. That would be like Nolan making The Dark Knight, then trying to make Batman Begins as a prequel based on Batman: The Animated Series.

[Holsety]

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.

Aah, well, it is true that condescension is a loaded word. I did not mean to use it in quite the nature you mean. I could go through a very long explanation, with some digressions (actually I did, but deleted it), but a simple way of putting is that I don't see condescension as bad, given certain assumptions - in an established hierarchy, or something like a hierarchy. One of the most crucial assumptions would be a fairly idealized liege, who really does carry both the will/consent of the governed and a royal prerogative. In that kind of setting, the "expected" state of Elrond and Galadriel, to me - because they rule kingdoms, have a great deal of power, live long lives, and probably some other rationalizations I can't think of - is that they'd be cautious in simply going by the report of an ally who is, comparatively, a lone power. When Galadriel makes a fairly direct and open show of support for Gandalf (even if only for/to Gandalf) I see that as condescension, because, quite simply, it was within her rights - no, her royal prerogative, not to, and it seemed to essentially be trust that motivated her. Maybe concession would be a better word, because magnanimity is not particularly contrary to ascent nor particularly equivalent to descent. I'd say they probably have no connection to each other.

Fair enough...he only arrives in Mordor after the Hobbit, but was driven out of Mirkwood during it, etc. Certainly Gandalf was already worrying about it. But my point was really that the film is full of the foreboding of the upcoming LotR, but the book doesn't have that feeling.

I suspect that's true. I saw foreshadowing (that seemed pretty intentional) of stuff related to Gollum, Bilbo, the ring, corruption, etc during the scene where Bilbo gets it, all over the place. (incidentally that was my favorite part of the book)

I mentioned it to someone recently, and he said that as far as he remembers, the book is actually a bit more whimsical through the entire encounter, and has a bit less of that.

[peter]

I haven't seen the film and apologise in advance if the subject below has been dealt with already, but I had a very interesting talk with a guy in the shop yesterday about this film. He had travelled 80 miles to see the film in the nearest cinema that was capable of delivering it in the actual 48 fpm with which it was intended. The bulk of cinemas apparently have not got the technology to deliver more than 24 fpm and so much of the films effect is lost. This is the case with the cinema in our town which, while it can do the 3D, can't do the frame rate. This guy was the first positive report I have had on the frame rate issue and I think it worth noting his comments. He said for the first half hour or so the effect was very odd indeed. It was, he said, like seeing a film almost speeded up - but not. Almost impossible to discribe other than in terms of how much it brings home how 'unreal' the films we see at slower speeds are - but we don't even notice it in the way that people who saw the original silent films didn't notice how bad they were; for them they were just like the real thing. His best description was he said one that he had read in a review, but that he felt hit the spot. It was, he said, like having the screen pulled away from you, such was the immersive effect of the increased frame rate. Almost like watching the action in real life through a hole in the wall. Sounds great to me and I fully intend to make the same trip to see this for myself! (nb Avatar 2 is apparently being done in 60 fpm!)

[Zarathustra]

It's not really that most theaters don't have the technology, since it's apparently easy and inexpensive to upgrade, but the studios didn't want to gamble the success of the movie on a new, untested technology. When 10 minutes of the movie was screened at a high frame rate over the summer, audiences, didn't react positively. Some people complained that it makes the movie look cheap, like video or a TV soap opera. This is a valid complaint to some extent, in a handful of close-up shots, but overall I thought it was marvelous. The look is a drastic change that takes some adjustment. While I was able to forget that it was in 3d, I was never able to forget that it was a high frame rate. It's almost as stark as the difference between color and B&W. I couldn't believe how much detail I was able to see. No blur whatsoever, even in scenes with lots of action and motion.

[Avatar]

Well, I re-read the book quickly this weekend, and I largely stand by my complaints, while recognising why it was done that way.

--A

[lorin]

great vid about the Hobbit (unless you are sensitive)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LDhsH79jAY

[lucimay]

so I clicked on this thread in the list of recent commented threads and started reading from the top of the page and never actually got to the most recent comments cause I stopped and read this post:

Like I said, it was all done very well. And of course I understand the exigencies of business and popular appeal. But they changed it. Wink

Actually, Tolkien changed it. Sure, those aspects (like the White Council) weren't in the Hobbit, but Tolkien added those elements later to his overall mythology. Gandalf/Elrond/Galadriel/Saruman were indeed meeting during these times, and debating the very issues portrayed in the movie. The first White Council meeting was held about 500 years before the time of the Hobbit, in response to Sauron reentering Dol Guldur and signaling the end of the Watchful Peace. The next meeting was about 90 years before the Hobbit, and in this meeting Gandalf urged attacking Dol Guldur in order to drive Sauron out (he had entered it the previous year, discovered Sauron, met Thrain, and got the key to Erebor). Saruman, who was searching the same area for the ring because he knew Isildur lost it in the river Anduin, urged patience and overruled Gandalf. Two years prior to the Hobbit, Saruman learns that Sauron is searching this very area, too, and is alarmed but says nothing to the Council.

[Caution: potential spoilers for the next movie if you're not familiar with the Appendix.]

The next meeting of the White Council was indeed in the same year as the Hobbit (2941 of the Third Age), right after Bilbo finds the ring. During this meeting Saruman finally agrees to an attack on Dol Guldur to prevent Sauron from searching that area for the ring. Sauron flees Dol Guldur. And then the Battle of Five Armies happens. So, according to Appendix B in LOTR, this Council meeting must have happened after Gandalf left the Quest just after Beorn, prior to Mirkwood. Maybe they met in Lothlorien, but it did indeed happen very close to the time in the movie. The subject matter of this meeting was more developed than the meeting we saw, but I imagine that this subject matter will be portrayed in the next movie, when they decide to attack Dol Guldur. [Expect a large battle there, involving forces of Rivendel, Lothlorien, and Saruman himself. It should be awesome. Perhaps the climax to the movie.]

So it's not entirely true to say, "the stuff that started off the events in LotR hadn't happened by the time that The Hobbit ended," because it was precisely the time period during Gandalf's absence in chapters 8-15 of The Hobbit that all this "extra" stuff involving the Council/Sauron/Dol Guldur happens. It's indeed contemporaneous to The Hobbit, and driven by the events which occurred during the Quest for Erebor. Sauron doesn't flee after the Hobbit, but during its time period, prior to the climax of the third movie.

It's a fair point to say that the movie wasn't entirely true to the published version of The Hobbit. But it's not a fair point to say that it wasn't true to Tolkien's vision, because the published book itself wasn't an accurate portrayal of his vision. The movie is an accurate portrayal of the story told in Appendix B of ROTK. If most people haven't read it, well, that's their fault.

and was struck by this extraordinarily detailed and succinct account. my GOD man your brain!!! this post is written so well I am trying to wrap my head around whether you sat there with the texts and summarized or whether it just came out of your memory. either way it's a great post! I am absolutely sure I did NOT read it before posting

ok, perhaps "fraught" was not quite the word...
perhaps i meant overly "melodramatic" or
heavy-handed.

of these 4 tolkien movies that jackson has made i guess i liked
the first LotR one the best, aside from the fact that tom bombadil wasn't
in it.

the best thing about the hobbit for me was martin freeman and andy serkis.

and yes zar, those of us who didn't care for it saw the same movie you did.
we just didn't have the same response.
i have had to learn to live with the fact that people just don't have the same
perceptions as i do most of the time.

which I think was a bit catty of me now. urg. I have a smartass streak in me a mile wide, don't I?


all of this to just say I'm kinda awed at the depth of your knowledge of the subject.

i'll go read the rest of the posts now. heh.

[Zarathustra]

Oh hell no, I didn't remember all that! I'm a freakin' fantasy nerd who sat there with the book in my lap, researching as I typed it out. But it was actually easier than it sounds, because Tolkien provides a "tale of the years" in the Appendix to ROTK. It's basically a timeline with entries for all the major events of the 1st-3rd ages. Every Tolkien fan should take 15-30 minutes to read through it, because it's an amazing summary of his entire creation. When it gets to the time period of the LOTR, it starts to get very detailed down to specific days.

I imagine Tolkien created it in order to keep everything straight in his own mind, because he couldn't remember it all, either. As the Fellowship broke apart, he needed to coordinate all their movements so that when they all experienced similar events across the regions (e.g. seeing phases of the Moon, seeing smoke from Mordor, seeing the signal from Minas Morgal to start the war), all this would synch up properly.

But thanks for the compliment. I had fun refreshing my own memory of that stuff as I wrote it.

[Cagliostro]

Ok, I saw the latest Hobbit movie, and here is my review.

To a great degree, it was a lot of fun. And there were a heap of changes from the book. Normally, I don't mind changes to the book, but there was one big thing that got under my skin that I'll get to in a bit when I get to spoilers.

First off, I did actually like the Evangeline Lily character that was created for the movie, and she was present during some of the best scenes of the movie. The first half of the movie was a rollercoaster ride, and a lot of the changes they made at least made sense and was fun and good, with a few things I hope make it into the extended cut. And the bits invented of the Necromancer investigation scenes were interesting in a good way, although a bit underdeveloped, but it does really make me ready for the big payoff in the next movie that hopefully will not disappoint. But like the middle film before, The Two Towers, it gets filled with a long drawn out action sequence that really started to bore me by the end.

Spoilers time

Spoiler

I was really looking forward to the initial Smaug scene between Bilbo and the old worm, and I have to say that it really disappointed me. It started well, but then Bilbo takes off the ring and has a conversation with Smaug while Smaug acts like a cat toying with a mouse for a bit. What made the scene in the book for me was that there was a feeling Smaug would take him down any second if he could just find the bugger, and engaged in conversation as a means to locating him. And Bilbo, who is doing one of the bravest things he has done on the adventure, has a bit of fun with his position of being hidden.
In this, Smaug is just fooling around for a bit, but is eluded by Bilbo until the damn dwarves show up and start seriously messing with Smaug, who is outwitted a few times and can't seem to take one of them down. It really killed the sense of danger of the book, and just became another action sequence rather than more of a psychological scene. And even worse, it goes on WAY too long. None of the scenes in the first Hobbit movie, despite criticism, seemed as stretched out to me as this one. And because it happens at the end of the film, it felt like the Battle of Helm's Deep all over again; some good moments, but for the most part goes on way too long. I was pretty bored by the end.
Another objection with this scene in particular is that one minute Smaug is particularly interested in shaming and destroying Thorin, and then to tie it back to the book, suddenly Smaug has to become interested in destroying Laketown. With an ego the size of Smaug's, I wouldn't imagine he'd just let the dwarves go after they hurt him and suddenly turn his rage on Laketown.
It just seemed like a scene I was particularly looking forward to was spoiled by a need to have a bit action sequence to plant at the end of the movie, and it annoyed me, and made me wonder if I actually liked the movie or not. But all of Mirkwood was fantastic, especially how creepy the spiders were (coming from a non-arachnophobe). And the scene with the barrels was absolutely what an action sequence should be like, and I frequently found myself cackling out loud because I was having so much fun. It's just too bad that after they get away from Mirkwood that the movie goes downhill for me. And I even enjoyed the weird love triangle with two elves and a dwarf.

I still have more I could discuss about it, but I'm out of the allotted time I was given by the wife for today, so I'll chime in as others see it.

[Zarathustra]

I agree with much from your post, Cag. In fact, I thought almost exactly the same things about the Smaug encounter.

[Needless to say: massive spoilers. I'm not spoiler tagging anything. I assume we all know the story. The stuff not from the book isn't good enough to worry about it being spoiled. You should have your expectations lowered before seeing it.]

Let's start at the beginning: Beorn. For three long movies made from a short book, I don't understand why they shortened actual scenes in the book, to make room for boring, repetitive, unnecessary scenes not in the book later on. Beorn looked cool, but the beginning of this film should have been a time to rest, relax, get our bearings, and enjoy this really cool set. Beorn looked awesome, so did his house. It was a shame how quickly this passed.

I have the same complaint about Mirkwood. It went too fast. Granted, Mirkwood was awesome, and the spider fight was brilliant. But this took days in the book, to the point where the company was starving. The absence of the Elven feasts seemed like a missed opportunity for some magic and mystery. It could have been trippy and cool. I have no idea why it was left out, to make room for melodramatic dialog from Mr. Eyebrows. However, Bilbo has a cool moment during the spider fight that's not in the book. I won't spoil that, but if you've seen the movie, it's the ring scene. His reactions there were disturbing and a welcome addition in the development of the 6-movie arc. Great acting by Freeman.

The Elven Kingdom was okay. Again, this felt rushed. I have no idea why you'd rush material that was actually in the book, when it is stretched out into three movies. Tariel was badass, and I didn't mind her addition as a character, but I thought where she ends up in this movie was a pointless addition that added nothing to the story. However, I did like the fight scenes, and the escape from the Elf Kingdom was the best action in the whole movie.

I hated nearly everything about Lake Town. This is where it started feeling like a soap opera. The addition of Bard's children, constantly yelling, "Da!" and doing basically nothing else, was another pointless addition that just ate up screen time for no purpose. What they did with Fili here was maddening. Everyone knows about Kingsfoil now? Random orcs carry "Morgul weapons?" Tariel's Arwen impression was a tired retread. The love triangle added nothing but screen time. Legolas looked bored and puffy. What's up with his eyes? Why does he move so slow? Why is there a battle with orcs in Laketown? How long does this boring battle have to take?

And then we have the mountain. They could see it in the last movie. Bilbo sees it from the treetops. They see it from Laketown. But when they finally get there, Bilbo stupidly asks, "What is this place?" And then we get Balin quoting the movie title. Just ridiculous. Sure, maybe Bilbo is talking about Dale, but his question was obviously a set-up for this melodramatic one-liner, the first of many stupid one-liners at this point in the movie. "That, my friends, is a dragon." Yeah, no shit it's a dragon. That's the chief obstacle of this journey!

The encounter with Smaug is bad for exactly the reasons Cag lists. Damn, that's a chatty dragon. I liked the conversation at first, while it matched the book, but pretty soon Smaug sounds like any other villain spouting off Hollywood one-liners, while completely unable to inflict any harm whatsoever on his opponents in the lamest, longest, not-in-the-book battle scene ever. Mix in some boring healing scenes in Laketown which repeatedly robbed the moment of its tension, and you have one long 3rd act that I couldn't wait for it to be over.

"I'll have it in a jiffy."
"We don't have a jiffy!"

Who the hell says jiffy in Middle Earth??? Apparently, Balin.

Speaking of words that shouldn't be in this movie ... there are toilets in Middle Earth??? Sure, it's just an outhouse over a lake, but can't they call it something else? Like a water closet, or something?

"Ah, it burns!"

I didn't realize dragons are hurt by heat, much less that they whine like little girls when they're hurt.

"If we must burn, we'll all burn together!"

Wait ... what? Apparently this one-liner from Thorin was so liked by the writers, they commissioned a songwriter to put it in the final sappy, too-emotional credits song, and have a singer moan the lines while we're leaving the theater. "We'll all burn together ... " What the fuck was that?

People were flipping off this movie when the lights went up. By the time it was over, I felt like it was genuinely aweful.