This is topic Purist Rage - Chiefest and Greatest of Calamities! in forum New Line Cinema's Hobbit at Minas Tirith Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.minastirith.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=21;t=000049

Posted by White Gold Wielder (Citizen # 2) on :
 
If anyone posts anything about how we should just enjoy the films for what they are, the post will be deleted. This isn't about swallowing these films and smiling. It isn't about a fair, balanced, and level-headed assessment of films as a whole. It's about venting your rage, pure and simple. I know I am not alone.
 
Posted by Numenorean Sword Trainer (Citizen # 11359) on :
 
I don't even understand how this movie relates to the overall story, other than Bilbo finding the Ring. Radagast finding evil in Mirkwood? Calling Dol Guldur "abandoned?" Dwarves hating Elrond, who thought that the Witch-king had been buried? Azog, not Bolg, being at war with Thorin? And what of Daín, or the Balrog? Did they suddenly forget about both of them, considering that Daín leads the Dwarf-army to Erebor, and the balrog is "later" revealed in Fellowship?
And even after PJ introduces Radagast, Gandalf is still talking to moths to summon eagles? WTFudge?
Did PJ really think these things through?

Overall there was the PJ contempt for mortals vs Elves; in LotR there was contempt for men, while here it's for Dwarfs by portraying Thrain as mastered by greed, when I didn't get that notion from the book; rather they simply had more wealth than they knew what to do with, with Dwarfs plying their trade, and many items never even delivered or payed for since there were so many. It just seems that PJ was presenting a typical liberal message; not that it's stopped PJ from hoarding his lavish wealth, he's the real Smaug!

[ 12-17-2012, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: Numenorean Sword Trainer ]
 
Posted by bombadil (Citizen # 1329) on :
 
I didn't see any political message of any kind; I just saw juvenile humor in places that detracted greatly from the story. We all know JRRT's The Hobbit was more of a children's book than LOTR was. But that's no excuse for throwing in so much Beavis-Butthead-level 13-year-old adolescent male crap. The meal at Bilbo's, with all the belching and crude dwarf behavior; the dwarves' stupidity around trolls; the transformer-like giants in the mountains; the scrotum hanging from the Goblin King's chin; and on and on and on (please feel free to add what I haven't covered). I can't say I hated the film, but I can sure say I liked Tolkien's children's tale far more than this teenage boy romp.
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
Why didn't they cut out Radagast? It would have been preferable. The bunny-racing...
 
Posted by Sauron's Secret Agent (Citizen # 1891) on :
 
The bunny-racing looked like Disney on speed to me.

I really can't write anything at all sensible; my blood pressure rose steadily throughout the film and was out through the ceiling by the end.

I know, I know, I defended LOTR mightily; I'm not a purist with these film adaptations. I have cheerfully watched the oddest versions of Shakespeare plays, Hardy and Austen novels, etc. I didn't even think that The Hobbit was particularly close to my heart, but this! Wtf were they thinking?

[]
 
Posted by Tigranes (Citizen # 9076) on :
 
Bombadil:

quote:
I didn't see any political message of any kind; I just saw juvenile humor in places that detracted greatly from the story. We all know JRRT's The Hobbit was more of a children's book than LOTR was. But that's no excuse for throwing in so much Beavis-Butthead-level 13-year-old adolescent male crap. The meal at Bilbo's, with all the belching and crude dwarf behavior; the dwarves' stupidity around trolls; the transformer-like giants in the mountains; the scrotum hanging from the Goblin King's chin; and on and on and on (please feel free to add what I haven't covered). I can't say I hated the film, but I can sure say I liked Tolkien's children's tale far more than this teenage boy romp.
I think this is one of the main problems, perhaps the biggest one, with Peter Jackson's style. He's just immature. Any quality he might possess (as far as I can judge, he has good ideas too) is undone by this, because he can't resist taking the most puerile and cringeworthy approach. Oversizing stuff, crude humour, unreflected fanboyism, and always going for the "awesome" instead of the pragmatic (or lore-accurate) can be traced back to this basic flaw. And yeah, brain farts like a "bunny sled".

To be fair, I think the character derailment issues are someone else's fault; I suspect the co-writers. Can't see why Jackson would do that on his own.
 
Posted by Atmospherium (Citizen # 5323) on :
 
Peter Jackson is orc-spawn. I will have peace with him when he hangs from a gibbet for the sport of his own crows. Until then I will continue to hold a burning grudge against this ruddy little ignoramus for perverting and butchering my beloved Middle-earth.
 
Posted by Athene (Citizen # 3473) on :
 
While I am indifferent to The Stunted One and his works, I applaud both your passionate vitriol and command of the English language. Well played, sir or madam. [] []
 
Posted by bombadil (Citizen # 1329) on :
 
* [] at Athene and Atmo.*

Yes, how could I have left Radagast off my complaint list? Not just the bunny sled -- the entire portrait of him as an addled, eccentric nature nut? If this is really what Radagast was like, Saruman was entirely correct in saying "Radagast the Simple! Radagast the Fool!" I wouldn't object to Radagast's inclusion in the story if he actually got to be an Istari instead of a village idiot. And the bit with the pipe-weed. God help us.
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
Suffered a bit from prequel fever too, I was too busy being disgusted by Radagast to say that last time.
 
Posted by Numenorean Sword Trainer (Citizen # 11359) on :
 
To be accurate, they weren't bunnies; Radagast said they were "Rhosgobel Rabbits," which could apparently outrun any Wargs even while pulling a man on a sled. (Rhosgobel, as you may know, was Radagast’s dwelling on the edge of Mirkwood; but as for rabbits I don't know a thing, perhaps he bred them with goblin-men or something, after all that's how PJ said that Saruman created the Uruk-hai out of orcs to be twice as big and strong as a man despite both orcs and goblins being a good deal smaller.)

Edit: the rabbits must have been fast, since Rhosgobel was over 100 miles from Dol Guldur, and yet he gets there in a hop, a skip and a jump []

[ 12-21-2012, 03:07 AM: Message edited by: Numenorean Sword Trainer ]
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
Fairly sure PJ called them bunnies... *get book out* Yes. He calls it a bunny-rabbit sled. If it's good enough for PJ, it's good enough for me. Bunnies they are! []
 
Posted by Sauron's Secret Agent (Citizen # 1891) on :
 
Bunnies they may be, but it was beyond stupid. Poor Radagast!
 
Posted by Numenorean Sword Trainer (Citizen # 11359) on :
 
Still better than Denethor....
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
This movie, and I suspect the two coming, are just more nails in the coffin of J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy. I went to an advance screening (for us here in Oz) that required getting dressed up in costume. It was a fun night seeing all the different costumes and the nice photo-shoot and the free drinks and food and all. Yet it was more of a matter of getting through it than it was enjoying it. Listening to the chatter going in, Peter Jackson has pretty much succeeded in co-opting Tolkien's works and now in the minds of the idiot masses has been awarded them as his own. My only consolation this time is I haven't spent a cent that will go to the film company or Peter Jackson. I intend to keep it that way.
 
Posted by Eledhsúle (Citizen # 1980) on :
 
quote:
"Rhosgobel Rabbits," which could apparently outrun any Wargs even while pulling a man on a sled. (Rhosgobel, as you may know, was Radagast’s dwelling on the edge of Mirkwood; but as for rabbits I don't know a thing, perhaps he bred them with goblin-men or something...
Oh, best LOL of the day! []
 
Posted by Wetwang (Citizen # 1508) on :
 
Omg, now there's bunnies pulling a sled []
Is this short fat guy and his lackies intent on butchering the whole of the good professors creation? []
Roll on said short fat guy's interpretation of The Silmarillion.................not!
[]
 
Posted by Eledhsúle (Citizen # 1980) on :
 
Wetty - it was awful. [] Everything about Radagast was.
 
Posted by Wetwang (Citizen # 1508) on :
 
I so don't want to go see this film but I feel like a moth being drawn to a flame []
Or is it more like a fly being drawn to a huge pile of horse sh*t! []
 
Posted by Eledhsúle (Citizen # 1980) on :
 
The latter. [] But again you might have this urge to witness the total crappyness of it. I know if everyone hated something with gusto, I'd wanna see the seizuring hedgehog as well... yeah it has one of those too. []
 
Posted by Wetwang (Citizen # 1508) on :
 
You are joking!!!! []
 
Posted by Galin (Citizen # 4975) on :
 
A hedgehog named 'Sebastian'... if rumors are true.
 
Posted by Wetwang (Citizen # 1508) on :
 
You are joking!!!! []
 
Posted by Eledhsúle (Citizen # 1980) on :
 
Unfortunately not... Don't get me wrong I absolutely adore hedgehogs, but in The Hobbit, no thank you.
 
Posted by Wetwang (Citizen # 1508) on :
 
I like hedghogs as well [] but why Sebastian [] ?
I would have thought calling him Spike more fitting []
 
Posted by Eledhsúle (Citizen # 1980) on :
 
or Pokey? []
 
Posted by Numenorean Sword Trainer (Citizen # 11359) on :
 
I think you're confusing a hedgehog with a porcupine?
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
The whole Radagast thing was Disney crossed with goblin-men. Don't eat before it either, the goblin-king... []
 
Posted by Numenorean Sword Trainer (Citizen # 11359) on :
 
I think I have a new name for our favorite producer: [] PETER JACKSIE! []

He's an ass. []
 
Posted by Mithrennaith (Citizen # 5239) on :
 
Too much honour for him - ‘Jacksie’ was C.S. Lewis’ pet name.
 
Posted by Aiwrendel (Citizen # 965) on :
 
My poor cousin Aiwendil. [] A noble Istar depicted as a fool by a creature previously unknown to, and ignorant of, Middle Earth. An invasive species known as the PJackolope.
 
Posted by Halion (Citizen # 2140) on :
 
Galin, being our resident language expert, what kind of name do you think they should have used instead?

Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Sebastian
 
Posted by Numenorean Sword Trainer (Citizen # 11359) on :
 
Mithrennaith

quote:
Too much honour for him - ‘Jacksie’ was C.S. Lewis’ pet name.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jacksie

[ 12-24-2012, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Numenorean Sword Trainer ]
 
Posted by Mithrennaith (Citizen # 5239) on :
 
[]
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
Wetty, do yourself a favor... rent the DVD when it's bargain night. It isn't worth paying for.
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
Saw it last night, where to start...

Why are they being chased by orcs throughout the whole movie? makes no sense whatsoever. And why Azog? Let Azog remain dead, and use Bolg if there must be a premature orc confrontation. This is a big issue I have with PJ, there is NO advantage to this change, it's simply change for change's sake.. hate it! []

The stone giants.. oh my F'n God, what the hell was PJ thinking here? He musta been sportin' a little fat guy chubby when he imagined this scene as "Transformers take Middle Earth". The whole 'stone giant thing' should've been handled more subtly, similar to the golf comment in Bag-end.

Whose bright idea was it to give the Great Goblin a scrotum for a chin?

And of course, maybe the worst and stupidest non-Radagast scene in the movie, the dwarves in the trees adventure. First off, I know this is fantasy but can we have at least a touch of contact with reality? Since when can a pack of wild dogs uproot and topple trees like dominoes? And how unrealistic is it that Bilbo, a hobbit, who has never wielded a sword before will A) be the one companion brave enough to rush to Thorin's aid and B) actually defeat a seasoned orc warrior? And finally, why is Florence Nightingale, aka Gandalf, breathing life into Thorin?

One last thing (for now), could someone please tell me the story of when the Witch-King of Angmar was buried in the deepest darkest hole imaginable? I'm guessing this is another PJ fairytale, I seem to recall the W-K was defeated and essentially chased off, but since the second age represents an admitted gaping hole in my Tolkien knowledge, I can't be certain.

[ 12-30-2012, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Madomir ]
 
Posted by Aiwrendel (Citizen # 965) on :
 
. . . buried in the deepest darkest hole imaginable? Maybe there is something in Sil?

RotK Appendix B
THE TALE OF YEARS
(CHRONOLOGY OF THE WESTLANDS)


Second Age
1500 The Elven-smiths instructed by Sauron reach the height of their skill. They begin the forging of the Rings of Power.
1590 The Three Rings are completed in Eregion.
1600 Sauron forges the One Ring in Orodruin. He completes the Barad-dur. Celebrimbor perceives the designs of Sauron.
2251 Tar-Atanamir takes the sceptre. Rebellion and division of the Númenoreans begins. About this time the Nazgul or Ringwraiths, slaves of the Nine Rings, first appear.
3441 Sauron overthrown by Elendil and Gil-galad, who perish. Isildur takes the One Ring. Sauron passes away and the Ringwraiths go into the shadows. The Second Age ends.

Third Age
1050 Hyarmendacil conquers the Harad. Gondor reaches the height of its power. About this time a shadow falls on Greenwood, and men begin to call it Mirkwood. The Periannath are first mentioned in records, with the coming of the Harfoots to Eriador.
1150 The Fallohides enter Eriador. The Stoors come over the Redhorn Pass and move to the Angle, or to Dunland.
1300 Evil things begin to multiply again. Orcs increase in the Misty Mountains and attack the Dwarves. The Nazgul reappear. The chief of these comes north to Angmar. The Periannath migrate westward; many settle at Bree.
1409 The Witch-king of Angmar invades Arnor. King Arvaleg I slain. Fornost and Tyrn Gorthad are defended. The Tower of Amon Sul destroyed.
1601 Many Periannath migrate from Bree, and are granted land beyond Baranduin by Argeleb II.
1630 They are joined by Stoors coming up from Dunland.
1974 End of the North-kingdom. The Witch-king over-runs Arthedain and takes Fornost.
1975 Arvedui drowned in the Bay of Forochel. The palantíri of Annúminas and Amon Sul are lost. Eärnur brings a fleet to Lindon. The Witch-king defeated at the Battle of Fornost, and pursued to the Ettenmoors. He vanishes from the North.
1980 The Witch-king comes to Mordor and there gathers the Nazgul. A Balrog appears in Moria, and slays Durin VI.

[ 01-02-2013, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Aiwrendel ]
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
quote:
. . . buried in the deepest darkest hole imaginable? Maybe there is something in Sil?
Radagast ended up with a Morgul blade after visiting the ruins of Dol Guldor (which I thought was supposed to still be a somewhat viable dwelling but I guess not). Radagast gave it to Gandalf who in turn displayed it at a White Council meeting to convince the others that the Necromancer was indeed a truly evil being and not just some bad dude with delusions of grandeur. They recognized the blade as belonging to the Witch-King, who along with his blade was "defeated and buried in a grave so dark and deep there could be no escape", (I'm paraphrasing) this according to Galadriel.

I didn't catch a reference to when this supposedly happened. Since I never heard of it I was guessing 2nd age but after seeing the timeline provided by Aiwrendel it would appear they were refering to somewhere around 1975 of the Third Age. Most likely the 3 stooges weren't thinking of any of that, why bother with canon when they're just making stuff up anyway.
 
Posted by Tigranes (Citizen # 9076) on :
 
Of the parts they adapted from the book, a lot were changed for no discernible reason (except to show some more fighting) and became less funny, or less suspenseful, than in the original. Come to think of it, that's exactly like in the LotR films.
The parts they took from other Tolkien books worked to some extent, but the stuff they invented was ****e and absolutely embarrassing, as usual. Especially the whole Radagast affair. What a waste of time.

[ 01-02-2013, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Tigranes ]
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
The concept of adding the info from the appendices and other sources made some sense, especially if PJ wanted the Hobbit to tie into LotR, although I'm not sure it necessitated a trilogy. The stuff that got me was as Tigranes said, the invented stuff.

The whole Azog storyline was utterly pointless and just an excuse to add more violence and cgi tricks, plus unneeded length to the flick. And did we really need to watch Radagast the vet spend 10 minutes bringing a hedgehog back to life? Tough to justify that one. And was that Rhosgobel where Radagast was doing his hedgehog whispering? Hard to imagine a hollowed out stump of a dwelling would require a name. Looked like something out of the swamps of a Shrek movie.
 
Posted by Galin (Citizen # 4975) on :
 
quote:
Galin, (...) what kind of name do you think they should have used instead?
I'm getting a slight connection to TH White's Merlyn (except White's Merlyn had pyjamas to clean the dropping off his head), so maybe turn any of these three into a name: Hedge-pig, urchin, or 'porpentine'


Or Hedgie.
 
Posted by Numenorean Sword Trainer (Citizen # 11359) on :
 
Madomir;

Not to defend the films, but just to dissent here: I will say that PJ was trying to simplify the history of war between the orcs and the Dwarfs; so he wanted to personify it as being mainly between Thorin and Azog. To be fair, using Bolg to continue it would have introduced another character and degree of separation-- as would using Dain; so having Thorin chop Azog's arm off, instead of Dain behead him, was an excusable movie-change IMHO. Otherwise it becomes "well, see, Thorin's cousin killed Bolg's father when the Dwarfs tried to take Moria back; so... it's complicated."
And we know PJ's not one who handles complication well.
In contrast, nothing is as bad as having Thorin hate Elrond because Thranduil, another Elf, didn't become a dragon-dinner for the Dwarves; after all, nobody knew how to kill Smaug, what was Thranduil supposed to do? Shoot him with arrows? That's like ringing the dinner-bell for Elf-burgers.
And Thorin equates Elrond with the Wood-Elves? That's just retarded; apparently PJ doesn't know or care about Elrond's history, esp. considering that Earendil is just "the Elves' most beloved star," and not Elrond's pop. So the name "Elrond Half-Elven is lost on PJ the half-man.

quote:
Whose bright idea was it to give the Great Goblin a scrotum for a chin?
 -
quote:
One last thing (for now), could someone please tell me the story of when the Witch-King of Angmar was buried in the deepest darkest hole imaginable?
I'd say this was taken from the Barrow-wights of the Old Forest, which the Witch King created IIRC by sending the spirits of his minions from Angmar to inhabit the dead bodies of the Cardolans.
That's not even simplifying, it's ordering in a Chinese restaurant: one from column P, two from column J!
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
quote:
I will say that PJ was trying to simplify the history of war between the orcs and the Dwarfs; so he wanted to personify it as being mainly between Thorin and Azog. To be fair, using Bolg to continue it would have introduced another character and degree of separation-- as would using Dain; so having Thorin chop Azog's arm off, instead of Dain behead him, was an excusable movie-change IMHO. Otherwise it becomes "well, see, Thorin's cousin killed Bolg's father when the Dwarfs tried to take Moria back; so... it's complicated."
And we know PJ's not one who handles complication well.

Making the conflict between Thorin and Azog would explain Azog replacing Bolg at the Battle of Five Armies. But if simplification is the goal why insert Azog into places Bolg never was? The whole chase across Eriador to east of the Misty's accomplishes nothing that I can see.
 
Posted by Numenorean Sword Trainer (Citizen # 11359) on :
 
But the book did say that the Elves of Rivendell hunted the Goblins.

I would guess, that it makes more sense for Azog to be introduced around that point in the story, than to just come up out of nowhere at the end, after Smaug is killed?
In the story and the film, the Great Goblin is killed, and most of the wargs and goblins of Goblin-town are killed by bears, all long before Smaug; so for Bolg to come out of nowhere, just seemed rather off-the-cuff to me in the book, a deus ex machina to present a common enemy, esp. when the Lord of the Eagles was keeping watch on the events in the area and could see a rabbit running in the woods at night.
This edit is better by tying it together with the old "Dwarf and Goblin Wars" of which Dain's forces were veterans, which Bilbo tells Bard and the Elf-king, i.e. that's 's just a reference with no more information.
Again I'm not defending the movie by any means, but this is a point that did deserve expanding on to show the theme of the war between Dwarfs and Orcs... it's just a shame they left Moria and the balrog out of the picture (such as Thorin being the one who sees the balrog, and won't let the Dwarfs enter for that reason.. but then when he dies, Balin ignores his warning and goes there anyway).

[ 01-19-2013, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Numenorean Sword Trainer ]
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
quote:
a deus ex machina to present a common enemy
That isn't the currect phrase. Deus Ex Machina is the introduction of an improbable element to RESOLVE PLOT DIFFICULTIES, not create them. Stick with "plot device" or some such in this context. If you want an example in Tolkien of Deus Ex Machina look no further than the Eagles.
 
Posted by Numenorean Sword Trainer (Citizen # 11359) on :
 
Au contraire; the plot-difficulty to be resolved, was the impending war between the Dwarves and the Men&Elves; also Thorin hates Bilbo.
So presto! up pops a goblin-army for them to fight instead, just in time out of nowhere, just so they can all be friends again and forget about their impending war like a harmless little spat.

I'd call that a deus ex machina, since it's both improbable and incredibly convenient without foreshadowing it in the same story.

Meanwhile the Eagles were well-foreshadowed, being friends with both Gandalf and the Dwarves, and being enemies of the goblins.

[ 01-22-2013, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Numenorean Sword Trainer ]
 
Posted by Tigranes (Citizen # 9076) on :
 
edit: nvm.

[ 01-22-2013, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Tigranes ]
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
A war was not required, it was an unnecessary complication added for the sake of a little drama - much like you complain about PJ doing.

Of course. Foreshadowed. The KING of the Eagles just HAPPENED to be out for a fly around and just HAPPENED to fly over that area and just HAPPENED to notice and get there JUST in time to save the day...

[ 01-22-2013, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: The DarkQueen Iauraearien ]
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
quote:
up pops a goblin-army for them to fight instead,
The Great Goblin had been killed by the dwarf band, so the Goblins had reason to be there. Smaug was dead, word had spread far and wide, so the goblins also had the opportunity. The Goblin's presence at the Battle of 5 Armies was at least, if not more so, as well forshadowed and reasoned out as the Eagles.

PJ using Azog rather than Bolg may create continuity back to Moria (altho' why not just introduce Bolg as the outraged, vengeful son in the Moria flashback?) but I still don't see any viable plot advantage to having Azog (or any orc) chasing the dwarves across Eriador.
 
Posted by Numenorean Sword Trainer (Citizen # 11359) on :
 
From a quote in the movie-lovers section:
quote:
Probably the strongest scene in "The Hobbit" was when Bilbo is standing invisible right in front of Gollum who sadly realizes that he has lost the Ring. And Bilbo debates in his mind whether or not to slay Gollum. He spares him. This makes me recall in FOTR when Frodo tells Gandalf that Bilbo "should've killed Gollum when he had the chance". Well, this WAS the Chance! And Bilbo found in own humanity the courage not to slay a life.
But if you recall, Bilbo only spares Gollum because Gandalf told him to when practically forcing the sword on him.
They also missed the part where Gollum was sniffing for Bilbo, and so Bilbo was actually in danger. In the film, Bilbo basically just had to wait until Gollum left.

So Jackson put in the silly part where Gandalf and the Dwarves were walking right behind Gollum, giving Bilbo the "urgent need" to get past Gollum in order to join them; when all he had to do was pop off the Ring and say "hey, here I am!" and they would have dealt with Gollum themselves.

It's not much of a lesson for Bilbo to avoid killing Gollum when he wasn't even in danger, or simply because Gandalf told him not to, and if Bilbo had a pacifist-liberal aversion to carrying weapons in the first place. But apparently Jackson loathes "inner-monologue" scenes.
 
Posted by Cernunnos (Citizen # 652) on :
 
I think the whole Azog/Moria thing has been introduced in anticipation of the third film, to explain:

1) Where the **** all these goblins & wargs have suddenly appeared from at the Battle of Five Armies.
2) To make Thorin a much more heroic figure than he is (at first) in TH, spouting long-winded nonsense like a Victorian stage-Yorkshireman.

I think it would have been better to show the Battle of Azanulbizar as it is in LotR's appendix, tho', as Thorin would still have seemed heroic, but it would have:

a) Introduced Dáin, whom we will meet again in film #3 (and why not, since Thranduil is shown in #1?).
b) Shown the best bit of pure 'dwarvery' in the whole cannon.
c) Been an excellent link in with FotR, with Dáin shown looking in through the Gate of Moria (no need to hint at what he's seeing - his face would say it all), and then one of the best bits of dialogue in the whole Tolkien opus:
quote:
You are the father of our Folk, and we have bled for you, and will again. But we will not enter Khazad-dûm. You will not enter Khazad-dûm. Only I have looked through the shadow of the Gate. Beyond the shadow it waits for you still: Durin's Bane. The world must change and some other power than ours must come before Durin's Folk walk again in Moria.
Positively Shakespearean - at least as good as anything in the Sagas.

[ 12-20-2013, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Cernunnos ]
 
Posted by Mithrennaith (Citizen # 5239) on :
 
Couldn’t say it any better!
 
Posted by Éomer (Citizen # 2824) on :
 
Well, who knows? There are still two movies left. Maybe when Dáin is introduced (likely in There and Back Again) his role in the battle will be revealed, and his looking into Moria and seeing Durin's Bane will be brought up.
 
Posted by Cernunnos (Citizen # 652) on :
 
Here's hoping, mate!
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
Who's actually looking forward to the next two installments of this sh|t?

[ 02-17-2013, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Snöwdog ]
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
quote:
I think the whole Azog/Moria thing has been introduced in anticipation of (presumably) the third film
Reasonable enough, but of course the trouble starts when PJ, in his boundless arrogance, tries to 'improve' it.

quote:
There are still two movies left. Maybe when Dáin is introduced (likely in There and Back Again) his role in the battle will be revealed, and his looking into Moria and seeing Durin's Bane will be brought up.
Now he has to flash back yet again in order to fill gaps that he himself has created. How is that better than doing it the way Tolkien wrote it? Just change for the sake of change. []
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
Yup. Sucked.

(The Dread Pirate Roberts is still alive and well. A bit changed, perhaps, but who remains static, eh?)
 
Posted by Dís Thrain's Daughter (Citizen # 3523) on :
 
Generally I liked the movie. Two things would bother me:

1) When Gandalf discusses with Elrond and Saruman it is said that someone else should approve his decision and this "someone else" is Galadriel. She is presented as if she had higher position than Gandalf, while Gandalf was a Maia and Galadriel was an elf.

2) Too many scenes with falling down - OK, the book does not quite contradict it, but all the scenes look much exaggerated. Thorin gets wounded at the end of part 1 - which is not the case in the book (although might contribute to the attractivity of the movie

Other things:
1) The house of Elrond was a place when the dwaeves felt very comfortable. In the film they escape very soon. Maybe the director wanted to show antagonism elves-dwarves, but there was no antagonism between dwarves and Elrond.
2) Thorin, Fili and Kili are very handsome - this is actually not contradict to the book. It is never said they were ugly. Thorin had silver beard, which is not the case in the film. And (that bothers me a little) the director gave up the ideas of specific colours for the dwarves (Thorin - sky blue, Fily & Kili - blue, Balin - red, Gloin - white, Dwalin - green, etc.). I liked this idea of colours and that's pity it was given up.
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
Dís - They do actually all have a colour still, it's just not obvious. A few times you can see a hood LINED in the appropriate colour and they all do have a colour scheme to their outfits. Thorin's blue, Balin's red, etc. I think they're all listed in the movie guide. []
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
A movie guide? You mean, like a book? So now there's a book about a movie that's supposedly about a book? Dear Lord, New Line is shameless.

Here's a thought, if you want a book that will tell you what's supposed to be going on in the movie, buy The Hobbit!
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
quote:
2) Too many scenes with falling down - OK, the book does not quite contradict it, but all the scenes look much exaggerated.
Agreed Dis [] And nowhere is it more exaggerated than in the goblin caves. It's a fantasy movie, we get it, but can we try to keep things so that they are at least remotely physically possible? Gandalf and the 13 dwarfs fall into a chasm some 100 feet or more deep, to make matters worse they are then landed upon by a 400 pound nut sack, er.. I mean the Great Goblin, and yet somehow, miraculously, they all emerge unscathed. Not even a scratch!!

And here's a pet peeve of mine, why is it that everything the orcs make is so damn rickety? Half the bridges in Goblin Town were swinging around and the rest were ready to topple.. why? The goblins lived and worked there, why would everything be in such disrepair? Somewhere in Tolkien's writings (I don't know where) JRRT wrote that orcs don't make any beautiful things, but they make a great many clever or functional things (I paraphrased). Goblin Town wasn't functional, it needed to be condemned, they'd have been better off swinging around on ropes Tarzan style than using those collapsable catwalks. It all looks like stuff built by the stereotypical stupid guy in a cartoon... boards all crooked, bent nails sticking out everywhere. Isengard in the first trilogy was the same way.

(please pardon the double post [] )

[ 02-25-2013, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Madomir ]
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
Madomir, you're a bit behind aren't you? They existed for every film of LotR and they are VERY interesting. It is about the making of the films, not the story. They aren't spoiler-material if you don't know the books, which is nice as not everyone does.

[ 02-25-2013, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: The DarkQueen Iauraearien ]
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
quote:
you're a bit behind aren't you?
It's more apathy than anything else. I actually own books about the books, The Atlas of Middle Earth for example. I wanted to be just as passionate about the movies as i am the books, but it simply didn't work out that way []

[ 02-26-2013, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Madomir ]
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
You need a book about a book? [] []
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
Yup, you see unlike the movies, Tolkien's books whetted my apetite and left me hungry for more. PJ's movies mostly just leave me nauseous []
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
Tolkien's writing whets mine too, for something better written. [] I'm not so blind a fan that I can't see JRRT's mistakes as well as PJ's. []

(Let the flaming begin! I can take it. [] )

[ 02-27-2013, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: The DarkQueen Iauraearien ]
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
quote:
I'm not so blind a fan that I can't see JRRT's mistakes as well as PJ's.
Nor am I. But even taking Tolkien's shortcomings into consideration, I'm not so blinded by the New Zealand landscape and excessive CGI usage that I can't see that JRRT's works are far superior to PJ's. []
 
Posted by Aiwrendel (Citizen # 965) on :
 
[] Fight! Fight! Hey, everybody come watch...
Um.
I mean...
quote:
It's a fantasy movie, we get it, but can we try to keep things so that they are at least remotely physically possible? Gandalf and the 13 dwarfs fall into a chasm some 100 feet or more deep, to make matters worse they are then landed upon by a 400 pound nut sack, er.. I mean the Great Goblin, and yet somehow, miraculously, they all emerge unscathed. Not even a scratch!!
Just more examples of PJ copying things from other sources instead of being creative. There are many productions with these: Die Hard series, Raiders of the Lost Ark series, Wiley Coyote and Road Runner, etc. But the closest is the end of the spaceship scene in Life of Brian.

Okay, I'm also not being very creative: All of the above has been mentioned before. []
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
They're different, Madomir. Superiority is nothing to do with it.

[] Aiwrendel.
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
The PJ movie apologist in the Purist Rage thread aside, I know exactly where you're coming from Madomir.
quote:
Tolkien's books whetted my apetite and left me hungry for more. PJ's movies mostly just leave me nauseous
Yes, and unfortunately, I think PJ has hijacked the works to some degree with his overkill of his vision. Tolkien's writings, shortfalls and all, are much superior to PJ's version of Tolkien's tales. Having seen the Hobbit movie once, for free mind you, I don't ever plan on seeing it again. The only reason I watched Fellowship so many times was because I was caught up in the hype of the day. Don't ever plan on watching any of those movies ever again either. Read The Hobbit and the Trilogy? Yes, will be doing that again, and again in future years.
 
Posted by Pilgrim (Citizen # 11389) on :
 
I think it's amazing how many mistakes Jackson consciously made with such a huge budget to work with! I suppose one of those was making up for previous mistakes by working in a seclusive, dwarf-like, red-headed little man with magical powers that he somehow managed to leave out of the Lotr trilogy...i.e. Bombadil! It may have worked if Radagast was actually sane, but the fact that he was essentially the parody of a wizard in his manners and just a weird hobo with a sick (literally sick!) bachelor pad and bird bombs coming out of a hole in his hat made it obvious to any child that this wasn't really a wizard!!! Although, he does bare some resemblance to the rather run-down wizard Psamathos Psamathides from Roverandom.

The events based on the chapter 'Out of the frying pan, into the fire' were just pathetic! Why did they leave out Gandalf's famous "your story has the ring of truth" line? At this point Gandalf became, in a sense, the omniscient narrator. Therefore, leaving out this relatively innocuous statement derails an incredibly important plot device! Just dumb in my opinion! And the chapter doesn't resolve when they reach the trees...it only gets worse. Was it my imagination, or didn't Gandalf throw like a TON more fiery pinecones in the book?

[ 03-27-2013, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Pilgrim ]
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
This movie really sucked. Makes his first three movies look like they come right from the books.
 
Posted by Amárië (Citizen # 5498) on :
 
I thought the same thing, Tuor.
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
I think the thing that bothered me the most was Bilbo seeing the ring fall from Gollum's pocket, then keeping it for himself. This would amount to stealing, which would make Biblo's aquisition of the ring an act of evil, instead of unknowingly finding it.

But hey, I suppose such things really aren't much of a concern for pj and company.
 
Posted by Athene (Citizen # 3473) on :
 
Ugh, this makes me super glad that I followed my first instinct and didn't watch it. []

A pity, as some of the casting is great, but that's just not enough to entice me.
 
Posted by Dark Flint the Dwarf (Citizen # 1089) on :
 
At least Richard Armitage knows his Tolkien and ME lore. Asked an obscure fact, he mentioned the first tension between Elves and Dwarves arising out of the dispute for the Nauglamir.

I agree, the film left some things to be desired, but I loved seeing Erebor at it's height in the beginning. Most was too Hollywood for me, but the Misty Mountain song (not the version by Led Zeppelin) is awesome, very moving. So, for me, some parts were better than the whole.

Can't wait to see Stephen Fry as Mayor of Lake Town, the Battle of Five Armies. The Arkenstone...
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
I'd think the first dispute was when the Elves hunted Dwarves as wild animals, not something that happened near the end of the First Age long after knowing Dwarves are actually people.

[ 04-15-2013, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Tuor ]
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
From the very beginning, it's obvious that they wanted to make it as long as possible - too long. Bilbo&Frodo talking, the dwarves&Gandalf escaping from the Goblin city, Gollum's despair after losing the precious, Thorin looking at Azog before the fight... All that seems to last forever! []
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
So is anyone actually considering paying money to go see these over-extended abominations?
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
*raise hand* []
 
Posted by Aiwrendel (Citizen # 965) on :
 
If we don't go see it how can we intelligently disparage it?
[]

[ 09-08-2013, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Aiwrendel ]
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
See it once yes, but paying money to see it, no. Here's to advance screenings!
 
Posted by Mithrennaith (Citizen # 5239) on :
 
What Aiwrendel says.

And indeed, if there were advance viewings I could go to, as Snöwdog does, I would. But unlike with the LotR movies, the distributors over here don’t want us Tolkienists []
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
Things I didn't like about DoS:
* Gandalf's Dol Goldur detour - could have been SO much better
* Laketown - even I won't defend ninja-orcs []
* Erebor antics - don't get me wrong, I don't mind seeing more of Ereborn, but if you're going to chase around like that do something more than giving Smaug some bling and %$*!ing him off
* Legolas's neon eyes. Creepy... []
* Should the Ring really be affecting Bilbo already?
* The Arkenstone sends Dwarves funny?

Also... Did I hear Elros mentioned in there, or am I going mad?

E: I forgot, I also didn't much like the parts with Beorn, not how I imagined it at all. Also, if the light is going to reveal something, don't stand so that you're blocking it. []

[ 12-13-2013, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: The DarkQueen Iauraearien ]
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
No advance screening offer this year, so I guess I'll have to wait for it to come on TV.
it is what it is, with PJ all over it.
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
Ah... theatre Christmas gift certificate .... guess I'll see it for free! Should be good entertainment.
 
Posted by Maia Olorin (Citizen # 2354) on :
 
I've found that both movies reach neither the zenith or nadir of the hyperbolic-ly (issat a wird?) titled threads here. They have their good points and bad.

I've found one thing that kinda annoys me, though. I would've liked to have seen Gandalf messing with the trolls, and Bilbo messing with the spiders. PJ left both out.

I think my biggest gripe, though, is I felt no emotional investment in the characters.
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
I agree. should be a new thread titled 'Purist & Moviephile indifference'
 
Posted by Maia Olorin (Citizen # 2354) on :
 
There's a lot of that around here, the last couple of years. []
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
After seeing it a second time I still don't like Beorn and there was no need to call Galion's friend Elros (I'm sure he wasn't called that in the book, but I can't recall his name).

I'm assuming the Arkenstone business relates to that occasional theory about it being Maedhros's Silmaril, in which case it makes some sort of sense...

Still, not as good as AUJ.
 
Posted by Glóin the Dark (Citizen # 2102) on :
 
I didn't like the scene where I was the only dwarf who wouldn't hand over bribe money.
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
quote:
Still, not as good as AUJ.
NOT as good? Oh dear. Maybe I'll wait until I chance upon it on commercial TV....
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
[] Glóin. I liked the scene with your sketches. []

Might as well go, Snöwdog. They're always better on a big screen. []
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
Desolation of Smaug: NONSENSE, NONSENSE, NONSENSE!!!
I've watched it on the internet 'cause I'm not gonna pay for nonsense.
In my opinion, the last hour of the movie should be left out. All the Esgaroth and Erebor scenes don't make any sense.
The dwarves travelling in open barrels? Good luck, they should drown after 2 minutes, especially in such a rapid flowing river.
Gandalf locked in a cage: looks like a canary.
Gandalf telling Beorn his story left out. Why?
Bilbo dealing with the spiders left out. Why?
The company deciding to leave the path and becoming lost in Mirkwood left out. Why?
LEGOLAS, TAURIEL AND OTHER STUPIDITEIS PUT IN. WHY???
The Grima-like guy who serves the master of Laketown. What for?
Some of the dwarves stay in Esgaroth. Why?
The keyhole scene = total failure.
All Smaug scenes (save the very beginning of his conversation with Bilbo) = disaster.
Bilbo focusing only on the Arkenstone = stupidity.
Too many connections with LotR: Bilbo hearing Sauron when wearing the Ring doesn't fit with the idea of "The Hobbit". The Ring is not (yet) dangerous in the book and should not be.

[] [] [] [] [] []

Well, what can I say? I'm glad that JRRT didn't live to see it. His genius being turned into nonsense by some PJ.
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
quote:
Bilbo dealing with the spiders left out. Why?
Because it's boring? []

quote:
The company deciding to leave the path and becoming lost in Mirkwood left out. Why?
Because teleporting elves is stupid enough in the book? []

quote:
Too many connections with LotR: Bilbo hearing Sauron when wearing the Ring doesn't fit with the idea of "The Hobbit". The Ring is not (yet) dangerous in the book and should not be.
The Ring was dangerous from the day it was made...

[ 12-21-2013, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: The DarkQueen Iauraearien ]
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
DQI = P.J. Balin
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
quote:
The Ring was dangerous from the day it was made...
Of course it was, but if you're reading The Hobbit without having read LotR, you have no idea that it might be dangerous.
Snöwdog, don't pay for seeing it. It's deffinitely not worth paying for []
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
Don't worry Gollum, I don't plan on it.
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
quote:
Of course it was, but if you're reading The Hobbit without having read LotR, you have no idea that it might be dangerous.
Yes but it is all one story really and PJ stated some time ago he wants it to tie-in to LotR, as it really should do.
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
What I meant was: the dangers in TH are not connected with the Ring. TH was written before LotR and was supposed to be a story for children (that was Tolkien's intention, anyway). Spiders are dangerous, goblins as well. But some Sauron-Necromancer and Ring business is incomprehensible for children. That's why Tolkien left both out.
Now, don't get me wrong: I don't mind putting Sauron in there. What I don't like is making him so important (in the book, the Ring's role is just making Bilbo disappear).
If Bilbo heard Sauron when wearing the Ring, the would be worried. If he were worried, he would tell Gandalf about it. And he didn't, which clearly shows that Sauron didn't reveal himself in any way.
That's why I don't like Bilbo hearing Sauron and seeing the Eye.
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
He wouldn't tell Gandalf because of the Ring's influence. He might have to give it up. I don't think it should be affecting him SO much already but it SHOULD be having some effect. Leaving it out makes no sense in the context of the TA as a whole.

IMO the fact that JRRT wrote TH first as a childrens book, then LotR second as an adults book, does not mean that you should ignore all the things that tie the two together when filming them.
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
In my opinion, it shouldn't be affecting him yet: he wore it only about 3-4 times and Sauron is not yet so powerful.
And I think that he wouldn't mind telling: in Mirkwood he did tell the dwarves about it.
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
Only mentioned in passing and I'm sure they no no more about it than he did. He wouldn't tell someone like Gandalf.
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
It appears I'll be seeing DOS tomorrow in good old classic 2D at the morning show. There doesn't appear to be anything better on at the theatre. I look at it as going to see a PJ flick rather than a Tolkien story.

(edit... can't type)

[ 12-25-2013, 03:04 AM: Message edited by: Snöwdog ]
 
Posted by Maia Olorin (Citizen # 2354) on :
 
Try not to enjoy it! []
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
I stuck with 2D too. 3D makes my head go all funny. []
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
As a PJ fanfic it was ok and I walked out indifferent. It always rains in Bree, the whole pointless love triangle was a waste, and Smaug was cool... except he didn't desolate anything yet.
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
[] Yes, Bree must be a horrible place to live.
 
Posted by Cernunnos (Citizen # 652) on :
 
quote:
It always rains in Bree
Like certain places in Scotland. Or, indeed, Oregon.
 
Posted by Aiwrendel (Citizen # 965) on :
 
quote:
...teleporting elves is stupid enough in the book?
They didn't "teleport" in the book. Elves can move quickly and utterly silently. They quickly packed up and left. Plus they have elf magic to move fires and all of their tables. Well, that's the way I read it.
quote:
PJ fanfic
Perfect description of his "adaptations".

Okay. Enough negativity. I'm going to see it this weekend (using a gift of free tickets, Snöwdog [] )

I like the descriptions of some scenes described here. I think I'll enjoy it in between grimaces at the usual PJ (being kind) "poetic license".
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
quote:
They didn't "teleport" in the book.
I know they didn;t, but it's as good a term as any for the totally impossible swiftness. I don't believe even elves can move an entire banquet in the space of about 5 seconds. []
 
Posted by Aiwrendel (Citizen # 965) on :
 
[]
Right, and I agree but since there was no explanation in The Hobbit I had to fill in the blanks with "elf magic". []

quote:
For this is what your folk would call magic. I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean - Galadriel

 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
quote:
I think I'll enjoy it in between grimaces at the usual PJ (being kind) "poetic license".
Enjoy PJ holding up his middle carrot and biting it in an 'eff yew' manner. []
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
I liked that. [] I've still not spotted the AUJ cameo though. []
 
Posted by Aiwrendel (Citizen # 965) on :
 
Aw, poop! I didn’t get to see the movie this weekend. Too much work and not enough play.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

Oops. Wrong movie.

I’ll just bow out until I can discuss this from a first-hand perspective. []
 
Posted by Indil (Citizen # 4434) on :
 
What really hurt my insides was the scene were Legolas was shooting orcs while balancing on the heads of the dwarves in the barrel-scene.
Seriously.
And then Bombur being the rotten cherry on top and doing what my brother described as a "bonus round in a video game".

And (am I supposed to warn for spoilers?) ****/*******-lovestory? Noooo [] []
No no no. No.
That is just terrible.

Other than that I was mildly surprised. It wasn't as terrible as part 1. Still quite shallow, they don't feel half as real as the LOTR movies. But not as annoying as AUJ.

[ 12-30-2013, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Indil ]
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
I'm surprised, Indil. Most people I've seen talking about it prefer AUJ. []
 
Posted by Tigranes (Citizen # 9076) on :
 
I suppose this one counts as "fan fiction". Some 30 minutes of plot-relevant, somewhat lore-backed content, and the rest is so-so fanfic, made up of filler, forced conflict, and gratuitous violence, underscored with loud, blaring noise... er, I mean music.

I missed the humour of the original book. They squandered the opportunity of adapting most of the funnier scenes, like the introduction to Beorn. Same as with the Trolls in Part I.

[ 01-03-2014, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: Tigranes ]
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
Tolkien... Humour... No, I don't see it. []
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
Why not? The first scene with Beorn (in the book, I mean) is just brilliant. And Bilbo's conversation with Smaug. []
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
I don't remember them being particularly entertaining, though those and Riddles are my favourite bits of TH.
 
Posted by Maia Olorin (Citizen # 2354) on :
 
We went to see it for the second time, yesterday. I really couldn't wait for it to be over. It has its good points, but, on the whole, I found it yawnful.
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
I watched it some time ago and started watching it for a second time yesterday, but after 15-20 minutes I gave up. It seemed soooooooo boring. Even AUJ I watched three times, but this...? No way.
 
Posted by Tigranes (Citizen # 9076) on :
 
quote:
I really couldn't wait for it to be over. It has its good points, but, on the whole, I found it yawnful.
My sentiments exactly.
 
Posted by Aiwrendel (Citizen # 965) on :
 
Well, I finally saw The Wrath of Smaug, I mean Bilbo and the Chamber of Smaug, I mean The Hobbit 2: Judgment Day, no, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Tolkien. That’s it.

The best thing I can say is I found it underwhelming to the extreme. Can PJ manage to make a movie without plagiarizing scenes from other movies? /rhetorical

Bilbo taking off the ring so Smaug can see him without being instantly toasted? Really?

A fight scene followed by a battle then a conflict and throw in a dwarf fetish. And of course PJ had to recycle Legolas sliding down a slope on a shield (or something) while shooting his bow. *yawn*
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
quote:
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Tolkien
[]
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
quote:
Can PJ manage to make a movie without plagiarizing scenes from other movies?
The question is, can any fantasy/adventure film made since LotR manage not to take something from PJ or Howard Shore? []
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
quote:
The question is, can any fantasy/adventure film made since LotR manage not to take something from PJ or Howard Shore?
Yes
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
I'm sure there's been one, but most of them have used something. []
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
Yeah, especially Narnia. Some of the scenes were exactly the same... []
quote:
Bilbo taking off the ring so Smaug can see him without being instantly toasted? Really?
[]
quote:
This of course is the way to talk to dragons, if you don't want to reveal your proper name (which is wise), and don't want to infuriate them by a flat refusal (which is also very wise). No dragon can resist the fascination of riddling talk and of wasting time trying to understand it. There was a lot here which Smaug did not understand at all [...].
from: The Hobbit, chapter 12 "Inside information"

Maybe Smaug was already so "fascinated" that it didn't really matter whether he saw Bilbo or not. What's more, he was actually awaiting the hobbit - and maybe wanted to see him...

However, I agree with Aiwrendel. Why? Beacause PJ would never come up with that []
 
Posted by Aiwrendel (Citizen # 965) on :
 
Thanks, Gollum2. I was hoping someone would mention the reason why Smaug didn’t flame Bilbo when he first smelled him. Smaug could have blown Bilbo away before he got to the tunnel entrance but was too curious and thirsty for information. That, at least, was depicted in the movie but Bilbo, wearing the Ring, only peeked out of the tunnel entrance on his second visit and then...
quote:
"Well, thief! I smell you and I feel your air. I hear your breath. Come along! Help yourself again, there is plenty and to spare!"

But Bilbo was not quite so unlearned in dragon-lore as all that, and if Smaug hoped to get him to come nearer so easily he was disappointed. <snip> Bilbo peeped once more from the entrance. <snip> He [Smaug] was watching the tunnel entrance! Hurriedly Bilbo stepped back...

Bilbo never left the tunnel on his second visit.

Had Bilbo left the entrance to the tunnel when Smaug was aware of him he would have trapped and cooked ring or no ring. There would have been no escape. Dodging and hiding behind pillars and piles of treasure would have been futile. The scene was ridiculous. The whole scene seemed too much like the Harry Potter movie where he was chased by the giant snake. Just another stolen scene from another movie.

Well. That was a proper rant. []

[ 01-25-2014, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Aiwrendel ]
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
Finally downloaded the AUJ soundtrack...
Why is the Nazgul-theme in the Erebor-destruction scene?!? [] []
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
It's probably the theme for winged villains.
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
Theoretically it could, but...
1) the Nazgul have no wings in FotR, but the theme is the same - which would suggest that it's simply the Nazgul-theme
2) IMO the soundtracks in those films are really good, so I have no idea why they wouldn't create a separate theme for Smaug (or maybe they did, but I didn't notice it...)
 
Posted by Cernunnos (Citizen # 652) on :
 
quote:
plagiarising
In a sense, Tolkien himself 'plagiarised' Beowulf, the Norse myths, rune-lore, etc. But the creative influence of ancient sources is different from mere unimaginative copying.
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
'But, werent the books made from the movies?

(Yes, I have seen this question a few times on other sites. Too many kids think Peter Jackson came up with Lord of the Rings.... [] [] )
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
Really?!?!?! [] [] [] []
God, what's going on?
But on the other hand... PJ put the "based on the book by JRR Tolkien" information at the very end of the films (so nobody reads it) [] []

[ 02-20-2014, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: Gollum Gollum ]
 
Posted by Aiwrendel (Citizen # 965) on :
 
quote:
Tolkien himself 'plagiarised' Beowulf, the Norse myths, rune-lore, etc
Not to mention Mother Goose.

Hey Diddle Diddle.
[]
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
It was a prediction of someone on a Tolkien board back in 1999 that making movies of Lord of the Rings would end the mythos of Tolkien. I blew it off at the time, but now, I think they were right. [] []
 
Posted by Pilgrim (Citizen # 11389) on :
 
Tolkien didn't actually plagiarize Beowulf. Reading Lotr or TH does not make me think of a Dane loping off the arm of a deranged beast in a dining hall. Similar imagery may have been employed with the description of Bilbo and the dwarves in the halls of Beorn, a "beast" or skin changer. Though Beorn is as much like Grendel as a trained guard dog (who is also it's human owner) is like a wolverine. In like manner, the halls of Edoras are only vaguely comparable with King Hrothgar's barn, and while the re-united company of the ring sleeps in the hall, just as Beowulf and co. does at HG's place, the scenarios are vastly different.

[ 03-11-2014, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Pilgrim ]
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
I finally saw Hobbit 2, and with very few exceptions (Martin Freeman's performance for one) it was absolutely dreadful. The list of complaints is so long I hardly know where to start.

Did anyone other than PJ envision Beorn being skinny? Is Wingnut so desperate for fight scenes that they really need the orcs to chase and attack the dwarves at absolutely every turn? Talk about overkill. The entire trip/fight down the river is one of the most ridiculous and embarassingly stupid cinematic sequences ever recorded. Isn't it bad enough that PJ's elves have super fighting powers akin to Disney's Incredibles but now the orcs and even the dwarves possess them too? And why is it gravity doesn't seem to work in PJ's middle earth? All types of beings make ludicrous leaps and jumps, we have orcs scaling 18 pitch roofs without a hint of a slip. All of this before we even get to Erebor! Could Thorin be more of an ass? He takes one step inside the 'secret mountain passage' and starts with the "I know these walls" rhetoric. NO you don't, you've never seen that passage before! The passage was secret, Thorin never used it nor did he even know about it if memory serves. And of course, floating down a river of molten gold in a wheelbarrow tub, with his fingers wrapped around the rim mere inches from the scorching hot golden lava! Can we have just a touch of realism.. please?

Of the 5 debacles thus far, this one just might be the worst. It's right there with Fellowship as most wretch inducing.

EDIT: I actually meant Two Towers was the most horrid, not FotR []

[ 03-14-2014, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Madomir ]
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
Wow, Madomir, that's the best review of Desolation I've ever read [] [] I agree 100%


[whispering] except for that line about FotR - because FotR is the one I like most, [/whispering] though "like" is not the best word because I don't like any of them. But I also think that DoS was the worst one (so far...)
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
My mistake Gollum, I actually meant Two Towers, not Fellowship. I agree with you, Fellowship was the least objectionable of the 1st 3 movies.
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
If so, I do agree 100%, Madomir []
 
Posted by Pilgrim (Citizen # 11389) on :
 
Unfortunately for a critically superfluous audience, realism is as boring as watching wood rust...if you get my meaning. [] And you're right, not everyone should be aloud to perform spring-powered, cricket-like gymnastics and leap through the air like a cartoon character whose pants are on fire.

How ironic that, out of all the characters, Smaug, the quasi-supernatural dragon, was conveyed with the greatest degree of mythical believability. At least at first. He is a vastly powerful creature in the film, fused with a rolling, effortless, and deep-delving intelligence with the awareness of a queen bee in it's hive. And yet...when he gets the opportunity to show his talents at investigating the outside of the mountain like a stealthy, deadly monster, we instead find him chasing the dwarves (which never happened) whilst slamming into pillars and other objects in the mountain that make him look like a smoking freight train, driven by Jar-Jar Binks.

Despite being a supremely crafty character, he somehow activates that fight-or-flight part of his brain that says: "You're actually an overgrown chicken trying to find it's head!" (although, if his brain told him that it would have to be connected to his body, which if he actually was a chicken with it's head cut off then his behavior with the dwarves would make a lot of sense). []

[ 03-19-2014, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Pilgrim ]
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
Well Pilgrim , obviously PJ had a choice to make regarding Smaug hunting the dwarfs. If he had opted for Tolkien's version of hunting outside the mountain we would have seen the majesty of a full grown dragon at the peak of his powers soaring around the mountain. We would have felt the strenth of his wings as he beat up a wind storm to harry the dwarves and they could have ended the episode with Smaug perched upon Erebor's peak with his wings outstretched and fire streaming from his mouth.

However, if he had done that we would have lost the under the mountain chase which included, among other things, the aforementioned dragon clumsiness, Thorin's exceedingly realistic canoe trip down the lazy river of 800+ deg C molten gold and who can forget Bilbo's golden (coin) shower, courtesy of the dragon.

The truly sad part is, I bet the choice was easy for PJ []

[ 03-21-2014, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: Madomir ]
 
Posted by Aiwrendel (Citizen # 965) on :
 
Yeah. Why bother creating a dramatic scene that sparks the imagination as one leaves the theater and makes one wonder what sinister plans the dragon might have when you can show Indiana Jones in a mine cart being chased by a giant stone ball... or a dwarf floating down a river of molten metal?
 
Posted by Cernunnos (Citizen # 652) on :
 
The adventure movie convention that the hero somehow doesn't get fried despite being mere feet from 1000 C lava is one of the silliest things in these sorts of films. Some things become less and less possible to show as time goes on - people simply know too much these days to take them seriously. PJ, however, has yet to catch up - and he's from the volcanic hot-spot of New Zealand! Mind you, even Thorin's wheel-barrow ride isn't quite as ludicrous as the lava-pit scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. []

The Star Trek (and Star Wars) films still have the equally inane convention of space vehicles accelerating so fast the stars appear as streaks from the point of view of the passengers, something which in real life would:

a) destroy the vehicle, and
b) even if it didn't, leave anyone on board as a thin layer of organic soup against the rear wall of the ship.

AND being able to hear their engines in deep space.
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
You're right Cernunnos, but at least with space travel the impossibilities still fall within the realm of more or less theoretical. Folks who actually give it some thought realize that speed of light travel, if possible, wouldn't be that way; however plenty of folks don't know enough to doubt it.

But with Thorin's ride in the wheel barrow it's different. There are simply too many real life parallels for anyone to buy it's feasibility. Any high school culinary arts student who has ever placed a frying pan on a burner knows that Thorin's tub would have at the very least gotten unbearably hot riding a river of molten gold. It's ridiculous to the point of insulting the intelligence of the viewer. Yet, amazingly PJ keep dishing this garbage out and the public keeps eating it up.
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
Lighten up, they're films not reality. [] If you want to watch people fry in lava go and live near a volcano. []

Space films would be utterly ridiculous if you could hear nothing in the fight scenes! []

[ 04-12-2014, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: The DarkQueen Iauraearien ]
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
(the previous post brought to you by DCUEI, PJ fangirl apologist who can't stand reading anything that speaks contrary to PJ's fan-fic vision nd has to tell people in the Purist Rage thread to "lighten up" [] )

The Thorin & co wheelbarrow ride on molten gold was one of the things that makes the movie utter rubbish. The fact they melted that much gold in the first place was another. Pretty much the whole ending action sequence was crap....
 
Posted by Thingol of Doriath (Citizen # 2718) on :
 
Ahem. []

I would like to preface this post by saying that, while I used to be an avid poster on this site, I never really entered the whole "has PJ ruined Tolkien?" debate (I prefered to discuss the books solely and leave the movies alone). This is mainly due to the fact that I am smart enough to take a step back and give PJ some cinematic leaway. Not that I always agree with them. I think of them as a necessary evil. The story has to be changed a bit to become watchable on the big screen... scenes/characters have to be dropped and added for a variety of reasons. Demographics have to be pandered to! Making movies is, after all, a money-making business (a try not to lose money business at the very least). As long as PJ stuck as close as possible to the spirit of Tolkien, I would keep my purist outrage confined to just wildly rolling my eyes at breaches in taste/story (dwarf throwing, skate-boarding elves, etc;). But now...

I just watched the DVD of the last Hobbit installment. I can still give PJ some of the leaway I mentioned above. I undertsand the addition of female characters as the book is almost completely devoid of them (demographics). I understand making the barrels open... closed barrels are suspensful in a book, hard to make it so in a movie. I understand making certain Dwarves "dreamy" and bringing back Legolas (those demographics again). I understand adding a whole Gandalf-goes-to-Dol-Guldur storyline (Ian McKellan is after all the big name in the movie and you can't have him missing from half of it). I understand keeping one main antagonist throughout the movie (the Pale Orc). Easier to follow for the mass audience who haven't read the book. Do I like these changes or agree with them, considering my love of the book? No! I just understand his motives from a cinema vs literature point of view.

That all being said, this movie pissed me off more than the others for several reasons. Firstly, he changed too much of the story for no discernable reason and added elements that are so anti-Tolkien they make my head spin as much as Tolkien must be doing in his grave.
A budding Elf-Dwarf romance? Why, when PJ knows that is about as verboten as you can get in the Tolkien fantasy world? Sure, Gimli had a crush on Galadriel in the book... but it was hardly mutual, romantic or remotely sexual. Like I mentioned, I understand PJ adding female characters, dreamy Dwarves and romance for the sake of demographics, but at least keep it based on Tolkien! For Eru's sake, he brought in Legolas to the story. Hint at a Legolas-Galion-Tauriel love triangle to keep the fan girls happy.
There are some fantastic special effects and action scenes in the movie... but too much and too many that were unnecessary. Let the story build, let it take a breath! Some great scenes in the book were cut and the only reason that I could see for this is that they were non-action and PJ wanted to make more room for Ninja Elf fighting. The scenes would of worked cinematically (maybe with some slight changes) and would have been nice breaks between the action scenes.
Some scenes were changed from dramatic to action, which wasn't necessary... like Bilbo's conversation with Smaug. And other action scenes were added in the place of action scenes already in the book... like Smaug chasing the Dwarves in the forges instead of flying around Erebor, licking it with flames while the Dwarves cowered. I got the distinct feeling this was done so that PJ could get the chance to use a molten-gold-special-effects that he had seen somewhere else. Typical Peter "I add special effects because I can, not because they are needed" Jackson!
The barrel chasing scene was way too long and having Orcs in Laketown was unnecessary as well. He could have easily kept the Orcs in the storyline and having the Pale Orc as a major character (two things I understand) by cutting away every once and awhile to the Orcs mustering in the mountains and swearing revenge for the murder of the Great Goblin. I'm still scratching my head why PJ changed Bard to a smuggler character. Or why he shortened and changed Beorn's chapter so much. Might as well of deleted it completely to make room for even more Ninja Elves. Meh.
The book is an adventure with a moral. We get to see Bilbo's charcter change steadily through the story. Baggins vs Took. In PJ's action-packed special effects bonanza, Bilbo changes almost 180 from when he gets the Ring. He never dreams back to his multiple meal filled life in his comfy Hobbit hole. The moral is missing...

Points I will give PJ? Some great casting... especially Stephen Fry as the Master of Laketown and Benedict Cumberbatch as the voice of Smaug. []

*rant over* []

[ 04-14-2014, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: Thingol of Doriath ]
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
quote:
(the previous post brought to you by DCUEI, PJ fangirl apologist who can't stand reading anything that speaks contrary to PJ's fan-fic vision nd has to tell people in the Purist Rage thread to "lighten up" [] )
I wasn't talking about PJ but films in general, unless there are space battles and/or lava in TH (which there aren't). [] Do learn to read. []

I agree with Daddy entirely on the + points for casting and some of the changes being a bit [] .
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
Yes DCUEI, learn to read yourself:
quote:
If anyone posts anything about how we should just enjoy the films for what they are, the post will be deleted. This isn't about swallowing these films and smiling. It isn't about a fair, balanced, and level-headed assessment of films as a whole. It's about venting your rage, pure and simple. I know I am not alone.
... and all this sounds like it should be in the praise the films thread []

[ 04-13-2014, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Snöwdog ]
 
Posted by Athene (Citizen # 3473) on :
 
I loathed the first instalment and shall not be watching the second. []

Why yes, we DID need a forty-minute scene of dwarves running out of the Orc stronghold! No, it wasn't in the book, and makes no feckin' sense in the context of Bilbo the POV, but that's OK! And despite being mostly CGI, it nevertheless contained the EXACT SAME SEQUENCE of bits falling off walls three times, each exquisitely and separately designed by a digital renderer who must have committed seppuku out of sheer despair at the end of it, but that's OK too! Got to get those actions scenes in, am I right, even if we have to shoehorn them in so grotesquely that they completely destroy any sense of plot pacing! How will the Transformers-watching knuckle draggers know they are getting good value for money if nothing blows up?
[] [] [] [] []

PJ COME AT ME BRO I WILL FIGHT YOU
 
Posted by Inc' (Citizen # 6274) on :
 
Do you mean the first trilogy or the first Hobbit movie ?

Anyway, yeah don't watch the second Hobbit movie, it is MUCH worse than the first. (And I didn't like the first either). []

As far as I'm concerned, even if there weren't any Hobbit book at all, the movie would still be a load of pïss. Bad acting, bad action scenes, bad special effects (that water and that molten gold !), inconsistent writing and the same things happen over and over again. That, weirdly enough, doesn't make a good film.
 
Posted by Athene (Citizen # 3473) on :
 
First Hobbit, I didn't find (quite) as much to object to in the LotR trilogy. Except the horse-snogging scene, and you know my views on THAT. I mean, WHAT.
[]
 
Posted by Inc' (Citizen # 6274) on :
 
Oh yeah my mind keeps erasing that part. []

What I think is ultimate proof of the sückiness* of that movie is that (apart from Ian McKellen) in my opinion the most believably* played character was Tauriel by Evangeline Lily. Meaning, the one character that doesn't even exist or make sense in the first place. []

*This post was sponsored by the Organization for the Promotion of Bad Neologisms.
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
quote:
The book is an adventure with a moral. We get to see Bilbo's charcter change steadily through the story. Baggins vs Took. In PJ's action-packed special effects bonanza, Bilbo changes almost 180 from when he gets the Ring. He never dreams back to his multiple meal filled life in his comfy Hobbit hole. The moral is missing...
Despite Martin Freeman's acting being a bright spot in the Hobbit (to me at least), the way the character of Bilbo was written has been a sore point from the start. The character arc Thingy refers to is non existent, instead we get a spike. In the book Bilbo grows and earns the respect of the dwarves subtly, little by little, one adventure at a time. In Hobbit 1 this growth was accomplished in 1 scene, and the worst part, it was a "made for the movie" PJ scene to boot, which means of course that it didn't need to be there. When Thorin actually fought Azog at the end of the movie and it was Bilbo that ran to his aid as all the other dwarves just watched, too afraid to lift a finger to help (even big bad biker dwarf Dwalin), I had to bite my tongue to keep from screaming. Then when Bilbo, who for all intents and purposes had never handled a sword in anger before is somehow successful in defending Thorin against a seasoned orc warrior, PJ essentially elevated Bilbo from a nothing hobbit to a super hero in one fell swoop. For the entirety of Hobbit 2 Bilbo is more or less the defacto 1st Lieutenant to Thorin.

PJ proves yet again with his mishandling of Bilbo that the nuance and timing of telling a great story are completely beyond his skill level. Calling PJ a great director is akin to calling McDonalds a 5 star restaurant.

quote:
in my opinion the most believably* played character was Tauriel by Evangeline Lily.
Aside from the foolish love triangle, Tauriel was actually a pleasant surprise.

EDIT: At least in Hobbit 2 somebody talked enough sense into PJ's head that he finally got rid of the idiotic stick Thorin was using as a shield. I understand the legend of "Thorin Oakenshield" but it was a one time event. Thorin didn't from that day forward forego dwarven made weapons in favor of a broken branch whenever he marched to battle.

[ 04-14-2014, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Madomir ]
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
At the beginning, I liked the way Bilbo's character was written (and I loved, and still love, Martin Freeman's performance) - totally different from the dwarves, both in experience (he has none, he's not even able to sleep with mosquitos buzzing around him) and in attitude (being scared, or at least worried, about something all the time), and yet brave in his own way and more likable than any of them. But the Azog-Thorin fight scene ruins most of it. I don't mind the fact that Bilbo wants to save Thorin, but I don't like the way he does it: he stands alone against a legion of orcs and, em, succeeds. []
And in #2, he's so affected by the Ring that I hardly like him at all.

[] for Evangeline's performance, which doesn't change the fact that I don't like putting Tauriel into the story []

quote:
the idiotic stick Thorin was using as a shield
[] Madomir. Another interesting thing is that, fighting Azog both times, Thorin uses the very same stick, but doesn't carry it around. Does the stick just descend from heavens whenever Thorin needs it? [] []

quote:
Calling PJ a great director is akin to calling McDonalds a 5 star restaurant.
I just hate to defend PJ [] , but in this particular case, I'll do so. Apart from LotR and TH, I haven't seen any of his films. But he is, em, well, quite famous, I'd say, and there must be a reason for that. So I wouldn't be so eager to say he isn't a great director (not that I'm implying he is one, as I said, I know nothing of him) just because he doesn't understand the works of a particular author (JRRT).
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
quote:
I just hate to defend PJ [] , but in this particular case, I'll do so. Apart from LotR and TH, I haven't seen any of his films. But he is, em, well, quite famous, I'd say, and there must be a reason for that.
There are different tools for different jobs Gollum x2. You could have the greatest hammer in the world in your hand, but you ain't gonna cut any wood with it. For that you need a saw. If you're making a CGI extravaganza ala King Kong, or a superhero blockbuster where everything is either blown up or shoved down the audiences throat, then Jackson just may be your tool. But when telling a story with nuance and subtlety PJ is way out of his league. Especially a story like Tolkien's works which have war in the background. A guy like PJ will resort to using the war as a crutch, whenever he's in a tricky spot as a story teller, just insert a battle scene to get himself out of it.
 
Posted by Tigranes (Citizen # 9076) on :
 
A nice video review of the second, er, movie here (warning, strong language):

http://confusedmatthew.com/the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug.html
 
Posted by Wandering Tuor (Citizen # 1685) on :
 
Snowdog you are wrong that the barrel ride scene was not faithful to the book and the proof is right here.
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
WT []

Tigranes, that's a very entertaining review, much of it is spot on as well. []
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
I ended up seeing part of Hobbit 2 again the other night and I noticed something.. Legolas steals Orcrist! When the Dwarves are captured Legolas takes an interest in Thorin's sword, then later, in Laketown I think, Legolas is wielding it! I guess it's not a completely outrageous thing, but it just feels wrong.
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
If so, I think there'll be some melodramatic scene in #3: Legolas has learned that the dwarves can also be noble and honourable, after the battle he forgives Thorin, as well as Kili, his ex-rival, and eventually it's Legolas who puts Orcrist on Thorin's grave, maybe even after disobeying Thranduil, who wanted to have the sword for his own...
[] []
 
Posted by Aiwrendel (Citizen # 965) on :
 
You may have it, Gollum²!

It could, however be worse. Kili notices Legolas has Orcrist, wrenches it out of Lagolas’ scabbard insisting Thorin (or he) owns it, a scuffle ensues, Tauriel intervenes and lays the sword upon Thorin’s tomb, turns and gives both Kili and Legolas loving looks (torn between the love she has for both), while the elf and dwarf turn their scowls at each other to smiles of reconciliation and nod at Tauriel in appreciation.

Brrrr! I just freaked myself out! []

(And that was a lot of commas!)
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
I left this version out 'cause I had assumed Kili died in the battle. But wait! It's a PJ fanfic (useful expression, Snöwdog, thanks), so maybe he won't die... []
 
Posted by Madomir (Citizen # 3084) on :
 
You guys are right, PJ has to be headed towards Legolas being the one to lay Orcrist on Thorin's tomb at the end, but with that PJ opens up inconsistencies with his version of LotR. When Legolas does this he'll certainly receive a measure of honor and respect in the eyes of the dwarfs, including Gloin. Gloin would no doubt tell his 'wee lad' Gimli about this and of course Legolas already learned of Gimli by talking with Gloin previously. So why then would the meeting of Gimli & Legolas be so contentious at the outset? Even if Legolas forgot about Gimli, it's doubtful Gimli would forget the honor bestowed upon Durin's heir by Legolas.
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
There are already thousands of mistakes in PJ's films and I bet he knows it, so why should he care about another one?
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
He doesn't. He gets a payday no matter.
 
Posted by Aiwrendel (Citizen # 965) on :
 
I think Pudgy Jackson has had too many PayDays.

 -
 
Posted by Curious_mind (Citizen # 11408) on :
 
Actually, in this case I'm glad that I finished the book before watching the films. I enjoyed the first movie, haven't seen the second one. The Hobbit: AUJ seems to violate the laws of Professor Tolkien's world. Thorin's character is, imho, spoiled terribly. Dwarves hate Elves! They are shown mannerless, to be honest. "The Riddles in the Dark" is the only part that I found closest to the book. Most Tolkien fans are already upset with what they have been served. Though I hope last movie will be better.
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
Rewatched DoS today. I was frustrated, I didn't remember it was so bad. In AUJ the added scenes could make sense and be interesting to someone who didn't read the books, but here the motto of PJ&Co. seems to be "Make it as long as possible and steal more money from viewers". Do they have no sense of decency at all? Please!

I just can't get this thought off my mind:
When I first watched FotR, my reaction was "OMG NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [] "
When I first watched AUJ, my reaction was "OMG NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [] "
When I first watched DoS, my reaction was "OMG NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [] "
When I watch FotR now, my reaction is: "that's a good film".
When I watch AUJ now, I don't like it, but as you see above, I admitted that something in it "could make sense".
And I'm afraid. I really am. In 10 years PJ would have already made Beren&Luthien/Children of Hurin/whatever else into films. And I'm afraid that after ten years when watching DoS I'll say "that's a good film".

I just don't want this to happen. []

We keep calling PJ's latest ideas the worst thing in the world*, but we don't even realise that while doing this, we also come to terms with the previous ones, although some time ago they were at the top of our hate-list. Sometimes I think that the films get worse all the time just because PJ's trying to say to us Tolkienists: 'Hey, don't call my films trash, for it can always be worse!'. And we take that bait.

* yes, DQI, I know YOU don't []

[ 08-08-2014, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: Gollum Gollum ]
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
quote:
"Make it as long as possible and steal more money from viewers"
FYI they don't charge by the minute to view a film, so if anything they're LOSING money by making it longer. []

Note: I'm not talking about PJ particularly, but all film makers. James Cameron's probably the worst offender for pointlessly long films. (No, I don't hate his work either.)

[ 08-08-2014, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: The DarkQueen Iauraearien ]
 
Posted by Gollum Gollum (Citizen # 11392) on :
 
quote:
they don't charge by the minute to view a film
My Hobbit book has 232 pages. If THREE films are made of it, I call it theft of money.
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
quote:
My Hobbit book has 232 pages. If THREE films are made of it, I call it theft of money.
Pretty much....
 
Posted by Thorin (Citizen # 816) on :
 
I feel like I should watch the movies just so I could slam on them. I saw the first one but it was so terrible I kind of forgot about the fact there were more.
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
quote:
I saw the first one but it was so terrible I kind of forgot about the fact there were more.
Don't waste any cash on them. Wait til they happen to be on free-to-air TV. []
 
Posted by Tuor (Citizen # 374) on :
 
I just check them out from the library.
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
quote:
I just check them out from the library.
Ah, you went to that much effort to see them...

The good thing about they being on Free-to-air TV is you get commercials to break it up ( and gives one a chance to find something better on other channels too) []
 
Posted by Thingol of Doriath (Citizen # 2718) on :
 
Just as I was missing another Hobbit installment... Peter Jackson has announced that he has just started filming the first installment of a new trilogy (loosely based on) Farmer Giles of Ham!

And to make it all even better... Orlando Bloom will be recreating his epic role as Legolas for this new triogy! Hooray!

[]
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
[] [] []
 
Posted by Aiwrendel (Citizen # 965) on :
 
Really? I thought he was making a 72-part movie series of the Silmarillion
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
Was having fun sparring with some PJ fanatics over on facebook. The unfortunates had been deluded into thinking that "PJ was spot on" with the movies. I suggested they go and read the books. One comes back that he first read it in 1963... so I said he had 12 on me to the time I first read them, so I may have missed where the elves showed up at Helms Deep, which set off several replies from people who said they did in the books. Finally before I could reply, someone said that it was only Legolas wishing he had 100 elf archers. The whole thing is ongoing and too funny. []
 
Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts (Citizen # 2117) on :
 
The Silmarillion stories should perhaps be put to the screen one day but definitely NOT by Peter Jackson.
 
Posted by faithfull (Citizen # 11417) on :
 
quote:
The Silmarillion stories should perhaps be put to the screen one day but definitely NOT by Peter Jackson.
[] []
 
Posted by Wandering Tuor (Citizen # 1685) on :
 
[]

[ 08-12-2015, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: Wandering Tuor ]
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
quote:
"The Silmarillion stories should perhaps be put to the screen one day but definitely NOT by Peter Jackson."
Yes indeed. It would be good to get the cinematics away from the one-dimensional vision of PJ & Co.
 
Posted by Snaga (Citizen # 2945) on :
 
I thought I would visit this site after many years where I made quite a few e-friends over our mutual enjoyment of Tolkien. I am glad to see I am not alone on my opinion the movies. The movies, ALL six of them, were an insult to Tolkien. Anyone who things otherwise is quite simply low class, uneducated, moronic and lacking any literary taste.

Peter Jackson and his absurd wife have writing skills equal to that of a flunking junior high school student. The closest analogy of I can think of for this cultural calamity would be MTV making a music video of Bach's Mass in B Minor. I am so glad Tolkien's son agrees with all of us.

To make things even more painful, from reading a few news articles it appears the producers have been ripping off the Tolkien estate by not paying them royalties and claiming the films didn't make any profit?!?!? Oh Peter Jackson, may your fat greedy evil soul burn for eternity if this is true.
 
Posted by The Flammifer (Citizen # 11407) on :
 
Snaga says:
quote:
The movies, ALL six of them, were an insult to Tolkien. Anyone who things otherwise is quite simply low class, uneducated, moronic and lacking any literary taste. []
Although this may have been mention before on this site, Christopher Tolkien agrees wholeheartedly – sometime back before PJ destroyed The Hobbit he says:
quote:
"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully.

“And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film. . .Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly.

"The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

Hey! It’s all about the - $$$ do-re-me $$$ - folks!
With PJ’s original version, 3-D version, extended version, etc. etc. etc. How many millions of $ of inaccuracy is enough for one greedster??? []
 
Posted by The DarkQueen Iauraearien (Citizen # 2041) on :
 
quote:
Christopher Tolkien agrees wholeheartedly
CT is a disgrace. Why take any notice of what he thinks about it when he ignores what his father did/didn't want published?
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
quote:
CT is a disgrace. Why take any notice of what he thinks about it when he ignores what his father did/didn't want published?
... because.... he IS the heir to his father's estate and has credibility well above and beyond your beloved PJ. []
 
Posted by The Flammifer (Citizen # 11407) on :
 
Agreed Snowdog
quote:
CT is a disgrace. Why take any notice of what he thinks about it when he ignores what his father did/didn't want published?
How does the DarkQueen know what Tolkien wanted published? We KNOW he DID want The Silmarillion published.

And what CT thinks is in line with most of us old codgers who wonder at times if PJ even read the BOOKS! (Or just CLIFF’S NOTES!)

CT isn’t a disgrace! Look up his bio on the net. A gentleman of the first order. . . []
I can’t say the same for the money grubbers!!

Like I said “How many millions of $ of inaccuracy is enough for one greedster???
 
Posted by faithfull (Citizen # 11417) on :
 
"How many millions . . . "
Well said, Flammifer. []
 
Posted by Alexius (Citizen # 2612) on :
 
I didn't like how the woodland elves were portrayed in the hobbit films, their armor seemed too much like the high-elven type rather than from the woodland realm.

I also was disappointed by the battle of the five armies when they failed to show the Elves charging into the goblins en masse . That part was pretty vividly described in the Hobbit from what I remember.
 
Posted by Tigranes (Citizen # 9076) on :
 
quote:
I didn't like how the woodland elves were portrayed in the hobbit films, their armor seemed too much like the high-elven type rather than from the woodland realm.
I agree; also, where did they get all that metal?


quote:
I also was disappointed by the battle of the five armies when they failed to show the Elves charging into the goblins en masse . That part was pretty vividly described in the Hobbit from what I remember.
The tactics displayed in the Hobbit movies were atrocious, even by Hollywood standards*. It's all showmanship and no sense, let alone strategy.
Even in the LotR trilogy, which is better than the prequels (analogy to Star Wars intended), the battle tactics were terrible and deviated from the book quite a bit. A pity because the costumes were good, as were the actors.
It's one of the chief reasons why I couldn't bring myself around to watching the third Hobbit movie in its entirety.


*) Speaking of Hollywood, there are very few movies or TV shows that show somewhat historically accurate formation fighting. Vikings has a few decent battle scenes, as does the movie Alexander. But usually, in most works, it's a mad charge, followed by chaotic mass duelling - which also happens in the Peter Jackson films.

[ 03-11-2017, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Tigranes ]
 
Posted by Alexius (Citizen # 2612) on :
 
I think it would have been better if the woodland elves had been show wearing chain mail armor instead of plate metal. The plate metal, especially with those crested helmets are more suited for the High-Elves. The helmets they were wearing in the movie just don't seem like something woodland elves would wear.

I agree, some of the tactics in the hobbit were a bit unbeliveable, like in the battle of the five armies, when the elves jumped over the dwarves. It seemed more silly.


I also didn't like how they made the dwarves at the battle of the five armies armed with spears rather than axes. The Hobbit was quite specific in mentioning that the dwarves of Dain were armed with axes!
 
Posted by Tigranes (Citizen # 9076) on :
 
Spears/lances make a lot of sense as primary battlefield weapons - lots of historically iconic warrior types used them as such, including Spartans, Samurai (the much-hyped katana was a backup weapon, and became notorious in pop culture only beause of civilian contexts), and European feudal knights. The problem is how they are implemented in movies; directors and show runners don't seem to get formation fighting. The scenes with the Elves jumping over the Dwarves illustrates that - it immediately defeats the entire purpose of the Dwarf phalanx, just because the effect "looks cool".

In the book, Dain's army had "mattocks", which indicates some kind of polearm, with sword and shield as backup for close quarters. The problem with the movie design is that many weapons, especially Dwarf ones, are way too clunky to be useful, and are more reminiscent of the over-the-top Warhammer and Warcraft designs (same goes for the Dwarves being mounted on rams bit).
 
Posted by Alexius (Citizen # 2612) on :
 
I agree, in general it seems most hollywood films do not portray formation fighting in battle scenes.

However, I thought that the beginning of the Fellowship of the Ring, showing the war of the Last Alliance was pretty awesome. If they had done something like that for the Battle of the Five Armies, it would have been much better I think, than having that stupid 'jumping' scene.
What did you think of the flashback to the battle of Nanduhirrion? I thought that was done pretty well too. Too bad the much lengthier Battle of the Five armies failed to deliver its potential.

By the way, have you heard of the game Rome Total War. Its a war game that has alot of formation fighting, which I think it portrays quite accurately. The camera on the battlefield can pan-out, so its like watching a war movie when you are playing.

[ 03-14-2017, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Alexius ]
 
Posted by Tigranes (Citizen # 9076) on :
 
quote:
What did you think of the flashback to the battle of Nanduhirrion? I thought that was done pretty well too.
Interesting, but has the same flaws as the other movie battles. Don't get me wrong, I think most of the costumes and designs - particularly those of the LotR trilogy - are great (except for the exaggerated bits), but whenever the script deviates from the book, the tactics (and the story) start to suck. Even in the better parts of original trilogy.


quote:
By the way, have you heard of the game Rome Total War.
Yes, unfortunately. It's basically where I got my user name from (one of the Armenian kings).

Speaking of RTW (the first one, not the second), it has a mod called Fourth Age Total War (recently updated with a new, completely reworked release called Dominion of Men; features custom battle maps for Minas Tirith etc., and a building tree system unlike any other you'll see in a RTW), which is an excellent and lore-accurate what-if scenario set in the Fourth Age of Middle-earth some time after Aragorn's reign. It has great atmosphere and is highly addictive. And it's not based on the movies []

[ 03-14-2017, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Tigranes ]
 
Posted by Alexius (Citizen # 2612) on :
 
Tigranes do you think you could put up a few screenshots from the Fourth Age Total War? I always felt like playing Rome Total War was a bit like playing a movie, because of the camera views and epic scale of the battles.
 
Posted by Tigranes (Citizen # 9076) on :
 
I feel like we're digressing a bit here (and I'm too lazy right now to upload my own screenshots), but anyway here's a link to the mod and a lot of screenshots, some guides, etc.:
http://www.moddb.com/mods/the-fourth-age-total-war

[ 03-18-2017, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Tigranes ]
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
... aaaannnd since this devolved into a discussion of games, it basically sums up the fact the PJ Hobbit fanfics are crap. Now, back to the games....
 
Posted by Tigranes (Citizen # 9076) on :
 
Inicdentally, I just stumbled over this five-part review and analysis titled "Why The Hobbit sucks" (it discusses primarily how the the trilogy failed as movies, respectively, but the fifth part also discusses adaptation). Here's part one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TijkFnT8D-U
 
Posted by Snöwdog (Citizen # 15) on :
 
That was a good watch Tig!
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.6.1