[Movies] The Hobbit Trilogy (Possible Spoilers)

[Deleted]

I saw the movie yesterday and enjoyed it a lot - the LOTR films are my favorite and this met my high expectations from them. It's weaker source material - in the sense that it's a lighter book stretched thin - but given that constraint was about as good as it could be. (I think the Hobbit is a much better written book than LOTR - every page is a delight - but the child's story cannot compare with that of the longer epic.)

I did not notice the 48 fps after the first few minutes - you adjust. Ditto, the 3D though - only the butterfly made much impression.

The early dwarven house invasion sequences were a great joy, capturing a lot of the charm of the book. It was like watching the Fellowship for the first time again, and marveling at how well the world of the book was recreated on screen.) The dwarves were much more "dwarven" than I had feared from the screenshots. I particularly liked Balin and Bofur, and of course Thorin.

The additions were generally good, rather than padding, at least from the perspective of a fan of the Middle Earth world. I particularly like Radagast and the spiders; plus the hint of elf cavalry. Azog I could take or leave, but I guess the goblin/orc menace needs a more serious (and enduring) face than that of Barry Humphries.

Gollum was the standout, as expected - the re-interpretation of the riddles scene in the light of the Smeagol/Gollum dichotomy was nicely done. Bilbo himself was excellent - just the right mix of fustiness and courage. It's hard to imagine a better Gandalf, of course.

I'm also curious how PJ will divide films two and three. I'd like him to cover the white council's assault on Dol Goldur, but fear - like the scouring of the Shire - that will be considered too much of a distraction from the main story.

[Deafknight]

I saw the movie yesterday and enjoyed it a lot - the LOTR films are my favorite and this met my high expectations from them. It's weaker source material - in the sense that it's a lighter book stretched thin - but given that constraint was about as good as it could be. (I think the Hobbit is a much better written book than LOTR - every page is a delight - but the child's story cannot compare with that of the longer epic.)

I did not notice the 48 fps after the first few minutes - you adjust. Ditto, the 3D though - only the butterfly made much impression.

The early dwarven house invasion sequences were a great joy, capturing a lot of the charm of the book. It was like watching the Fellowship for the first time again, and marveling at how well the world of the book was recreated on screen.) The dwarves were much more "dwarven" than I had feared from the screenshots. I particularly liked Balin and Bofur, and of course Thorin.

The additions were generally good, rather than padding, at least from the perspective of a fan of the Middle Earth world. I particularly like Radagast and the spiders; plus the hint of elf cavalry. Azog I could take or leave, but I guess the goblin/orc menace needs a more serious (and enduring) face than that of Barry Humphries.

Gollum was the standout, as expected - the re-interpretation of the riddles scene in the light of the Smeagol/Gollum dichotomy was nicely done. Bilbo himself was excellent - just the right mix of fustiness and courage. It's hard to imagine a better Gandalf, of course.

I'm also curious how PJ will divide films two and three. I'd like him to cover the white council's assault on Dol Goldur, but fear - like the scouring of the Shire - that will be considered too much of a distraction from the main story.

Movie 2 will finnish off the Hobbit, Movie 3 will be a bridge piece.

Anyway: watched the movie, loved it, cant imagine anyone not loving it and dont know anyone who does. The End.

[Gamdwelf]

Movie 2 will finnish off the Hobbit, Movie 3 will be a bridge piece.

Anyway: watched the movie, loved it, cant imagine anyone not loving it and dont know anyone who does. The End.

no, looks like movie 3 will start when they get to the lonely mountain.

[BHD]

You do realize that Tolkien never really specified that Sauron was a huge flaming eye, this was a PJ adaption.

And since PJ is making these movies too, I'd expect him to visualize Sauron as a huge flaming eye once again. Even if the glimpse we got of him in the first movie was that of a "man". That could be excused as him not wanting to reveal his true identity. Which makes sense.

I see no reason for The Necromancer not to be at the battle if he meets up with Azog anyway. He could add something else than orcs, wargs, goblins and bats to the army.

When driven out of Mirkwood I'd expect him to be weakened, not to begin a new battle. It's not like him going back to Mordor and letting his underdogs do the actual warfare is something that'd shock us, as he didn't appear on the battlefield in LotR either. Imo, having four humanoid races + various beasts fight it out is enough to make it a truly epic battle.

Out of the mirkwood, into the battle of the 5 armies?

Out of Mirkwood and into Mordor. Would you join a new battle right after being driven out of your current stronghold, or would you hide behind your bigger and stronger stronghold while recovering, and then wage a new and bigger war?

[Gamdwelf]

And since PJ is making these movies too, I'd expect him to visualize Sauron as a huge flaming eye once again. Even if the glimpse we got of him in the first movie was that of a "man". That could be excused as him not wanting to reveal his true identity. Which makes sense.


When driven out of Mirkwood I'd expect him to be weakened, not to begin a new battle. It's not like him going back to Mordor and letting his underdogs do the actual warfare is something that'd shock us, as he didn't appear on the battlefield in LotR either. Imo, having four humanoid races + various beasts fight it out is enough to make it a truly epic battle.

Out of Mirkwood and into Mordor. Would you join a new battle right after being driven out of your current stronghold, or would you hide behind your bigger and stronger stronghold while recovering, and then wage a new and bigger war?

you know the eye of sauron was not his whole being right? Like that was just part of himself, not What sauron was, Actual sauron was shown in the intro when they showed the battle when the ring was cut off.

[Arlee]

I see no reason for The Necromancer not to be at the battle if he meets up with Azog anyway. He could add something else than orcs, wargs, goblins and bats to the army.

Bats?? Bats weren't part of the battle of the 5 armies. It was Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Goblins/Orcs and the wargs (there is some scholarly debate there), and the Eagles. But no bats.

Anyway, I saw it over the weekend in IMAX 3D (damn them for not letting me see it in plain IMAX). Overall I was really happy with it. Specific thoughts below in spoiler tags.

Overall I like the portrayal of Radaghast. The sled pulled by rabbits was a bit hinky (especially since there was no snow) but overall good.

They went too heavy handed with portraying Saruman as already falling to evil. In the council scene all I could think is "why is no one being alarmed at Saruman's behavior. Everyone there knew the ring wasn't destroyed and thus Sauron could come back and he was acting like it was utterly impossible. I just wish they had used more finesse there.

Loved the Dull the knives and lonely mountain songs. They did those a very great justice. I was very sad to see fifteen birds wasn't used. The way they designed the scene where it happens it would have been sort of weird, but I would have liked to hear it.

I was very disappointed to have the Orcs out and about during the day. One of the biggest things that made Saruman's Uruk-hai so scary was the fact that you weren't safe from them in the daylight. During this time period the ones hunting the dwarves would have be regular normal boring Orcs who wouldn't be out in the daylight.

The troll scene was awesome all around.

The Goblin King was interesting. The voice was perfect, but the animation of him was a bit weird to me. It felt like it just didn't fit very well.

I LOVED that they made it clearly that it really was contentious choice on Bilbo's part to spare Gollum. That was an important key to everything that they could have easily glossed over. Though Gandalf's line when he gave him Sting was a bit much. I think the way the scene played out with Bilbo and Gollum would have been better without Gandalf having said that. Again it's an issue of not enough finesse.

I think where they ended it was perfect, with a little funny from Bilbo (yea I think the worst is behind us).

I am really interested to see how they handle everything that happens in Mirkwood, and Gandalf leaving to deal with the Necromancer. I really hope they don't cut out transporting the dwarves to Dale in the empty wine casks part. I also really hope they don't have the necromancer be at the battle of the five armies that would just be disappointing.

[BHD]

you know the eye of sauron was not his whole being right? Like that was just part of himself, not What sauron was, Actual sauron was shown in the intro when they showed the battle when the ring was cut off.

His real form was never shown in the LotR movies, and the way they were made it kinda implied that the eye was Sauron's current form, so Peter could use the eye again, when it's revealed who he really is. But when I said that there would be an eye of fire in actual battle I was joking. IF Sauron actually turns up (which I pray won't happen) he'll be in his physical form, whatever weird stuff that would be. I certainly hope that if he shows up, he won't just be a completely black man-shaped ghost with the face of Voldemort in HP 1 like we saw in this movie.

---------- Post added 2012-12-17 at 06:53 PM ----------

I really hope they don't cut out transporting the dwarves to Dale in the empty wine casks part.

They talk about this in the vlogs: they show a bit of the filming of the dwarves riding in barrels, so it'll probably be in the movie!

I also really hope they don't have the necromancer be at the battle of the five armies that would just be disappointing.

Someone who agrees with me, yay.

[SirRobin]

Maybe the issue for me is more that so much of the buildup is pretty pointless. You have this big bad ass dragon that ends up being killed by a single arrow from someone who is a secondary character, at best. Maybe my memory is fuzzy but it seemed like Bilbo's only relevant accomplishment, to the story, is pissing the dragon off so he can go out and get killed by that single arrow.

[BHD]

Maybe the issue for me is more that so much of the buildup is pretty pointless. You have this big bad ass dragon that ends up being killed by a single arrow from someone who is a secondary character, at best. Maybe my memory is fuzzy but it seemed like Bilbo's only relevant accomplishment, to the story, is pissing the dragon off so he can go out and get killed by that single arrow.

Bilbo's position in the company is not that of a warrior, or a hero, which he says himself. He's a burgler, and he does burgler-y stuff along the journey. Didn't he also tell the bird about the dragon's weak spot, and where Bard should aim? Anyway, the real battle starts after all that. But it's hard to build up for a battle no one knows will take place.

[Deleted]

Maybe my memory is fuzzy but it seemed like Bilbo's only relevant accomplishment, to the story,...

Just think of it as a Luke vs Death Star moment. (Yes, Bilbo is not the Luke figure, but he's all the better a character for that, imo.)

To me, Bilbo's bigger accomplishment is what he does after the fall of Smaug but before the battle of the five armies (with the Arkenstone).

[Arlee]

Maybe the issue for me is more that so much of the buildup is pretty pointless. You have this big bad ass dragon that ends up being killed by a single arrow from someone who is a secondary character, at best. Maybe my memory is fuzzy but it seemed like Bilbo's only relevant accomplishment, to the story, is pissing the dragon off so he can go out and get killed by that single arrow.

Au contraire.

You have to remember that The Hobbit sets up everything that happens in LOTR. If Bilbo hadn't recovered the ring of power from Gollum Sauron would have certainly recovered it. Only by the ring being in the possession of someone who didn't really use it (especially use it for personal gain and rulership) was it able to be hidden for so long. If it were not for Bilbo getting that ring he would not have been able to save the Dwarves from the spiders and the elves and they never would have made it to the dragon's lair in the first place to piss off the dragon. Also, Bilbo is the one who found out about the weakspot in Smaug's armor and without that information Smaug never would have been killed. Bard may be a secondary character but he is important and does eventually become the king of the people of Laketown/Dale.

[Gamdwelf]

His real form was never shown in the LotR movies, and the way they were made it kinda implied that the eye was Sauron's current form, so Peter could use the eye again, when it's revealed who he really is. But when I said that there would be an eye of fire in actual battle I was joking. IF Sauron actually turns up (which I pray won't happen) he'll be in his physical form, whatever weird stuff that would be. I certainly hope that if he shows up, he won't just be a completely black man-shaped ghost with the face of Voldemort in HP 1 like we saw in this movie.

---------- Post added 2012-12-17 at 06:53 PM ----------


They talk about this in the vlogs: they show a bit of the filming of the dwarves riding in barrels, so it'll probably be in the movie!



Someone who agrees with me, yay.

Sauron adopted the symbol of a lidless eye, and he was at that time able to send out his will over Middle-earth, so that the Eye of Sauron was a symbol of power and fear. While Sauron did have a physical form, he remained much weakened without the One Ring and remained hidden in the shadows, directing his armies from afar.

This is how I always kind of thought of it when I read the books and watched the movies.

[Wilian]

They went too heavy handed with portraying Saruman as already falling to evil. In the council scene all I could think is "why is no one being alarmed at Saruman's behavior. Everyone there knew the ring wasn't destroyed and thus Sauron could come back and he was acting like it was utterly impossible. I just wish they had used more finesse there.

The thing is, by that point Saruman had already betrayed everyone else, just not openly. Yes. they all knew Ring was not destroyed but it was thought to be lost forever and by Saruman's words "it fell to the Great River long time ago and is now lost to the Sea".

As for Sauron, he too was thought to pose no threat, expesially after fall of Angmar and Gandalf was pretty much only one in the White Council who had sucpisions about that which only rose after dark presence took place in Dol Guldur.

When he went there to investigate the first time Sauron fled and they were non the wiser, the council leaning on Saruman's side (He didn't want anyone to meddle with his own personal investigations of the Ring in the region) on the subject that there was no real threat and necessity to do anything while Gandalf was thought to be borderline fearmongering

Second time when the shadow returned Gandalf managed to confirm return of Sauron and only then the Council realized that Sauron actually posed a real threat and should be dealt swiftly. Saruman was inclined to agree as he did not want Sauron to search the same area for the Ring as he did.

[Deleted]

They went too heavy handed with portraying Saruman as already falling to evil. In the council scene all I could think is "why is no one being alarmed at Saruman's behavior. Everyone there knew the ring wasn't destroyed and thus Sauron could come back and he was acting like it was utterly impossible. I just wish they had used more finesse there.

Saruman was searching for the ring before that meeting with Gandalf, he wants things to appear calm so he can search uninterrupted.

[BHD]

Sauron adopted the symbol of a lidless eye, and he was at that time able to send out his will over Middle-earth, so that the Eye of Sauron was a symbol of power and fear. While Sauron did have a physical form, he remained much weakened without the One Ring and remained hidden in the shadows, directing his armies from afar.

This is how I always kind of thought of it when I read the books and watched the movies.

As one who indeed read fantasy, but not LotR, before watching the movies; I first thought the eye was Sauron. Because in the movies, they never say that he's anything else. They always refer to him as "the eye", and when he's destroyed you only see the eye imploding and the tower it's on crumbling to ruins. No sign of any physical form. Which is what I'm basing the "it kinda implied"-part of my previous post on.

Must say I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make here.

[Gamdwelf]

As one who indeed read fantasy, but not LotR, before watching the movies; I first thought the eye was Sauron. Because in the movies, they never say that he's anything else. They always refer to him as "the eye", and when he's destroyed you only see the eye imploding and the tower it's on crumbling to ruins. No sign of any physical form. Which is what I'm basing the "it kinda implied"-part of my previous post on.

Yeah I guess I can see that if you had not read the books.

[Frontenac]

And since PJ is making these movies too, I'd expect him to visualize Sauron as a huge flaming eye once again. Even if the glimpse we got of him in the first movie was that of a "man". That could be excused as him not wanting to reveal his true identity. Which makes sense.

The problem is that the Eye seems to be a new thing for both Gandalf and Saruman in FotR (movie).

Saruman: Sauron has regained much of his former strength. He cannot yet take physical form, but his spirit has lost none of its potency. Concealed within his fortress, the Lord of Mordor sees all. His gaze pierces cloud, shadow, earth, and flesh. You know of what I speak, Gandalf. A Great Eye, lidless, wreathed in flame.


So, in The Hobbit movie, Sauron should not have a physical form and neither should he look like The Eye. I wonder how he will look like. Maybe he will look like some cloud of darkness or a shadow?

[BHD]

Yeah I guess I can see that if you had not read the books.

Glad to hear. Just to make it clear though, I have read the books now, and I'm re-reading them now that a new (and correct) translation got printed. I do regret not reading them beforehand, but I was around 8 when the first movie got out. So I was totally absorbed by my childish fantasy (including the Hobbit).

[Gamdwelf]

The problem is that the Eye seems to be a new thing for both Gandalf and Saruman in FotR (movie).

Saruman: Sauron has regained much of his former strength. He cannot yet take physical form, but his spirit has lost none of its potency. Concealed within his fortress, the Lord of Mordor sees all. His gaze pierces cloud, shadow, earth, and flesh. You know of what I speak, Gandalf. A Great Eye, lidless, wreathed in flame.


So, in The Hobbit movie, Sauron should not have a physical form and neither should he look like The Eye. I wonder how he will look like. Maybe he will look like some cloud of darkness or a shadow?

but he does have a physical form, he is the necromancer of dol guldar, (spelling) its just highly weakened, and the wizards don't know that he was the necromancer/back in physical form.

[BHD]

The problem is that the Eye seems to be a new thing for both Gandalf and Saruman in FotR (movie).

Saruman: Sauron has regained much of his former strength. He cannot yet take physical form, but his spirit has lost none of its potency. Concealed within his fortress, the Lord of Mordor sees all. His gaze pierces cloud, shadow, earth, and flesh. You know of what I speak, Gandalf. A Great Eye, lidless, wreathed in flame.


So, in The Hobbit movie, Sauron should not have a physical form and neither should he look like The Eye. I wonder how he will look like. Maybe he will look like some cloud of darkness or a shadow?

That's.. something I've never even considered.

---------- Post added 2012-12-17 at 08:25 PM ----------

but he does have a physical form, he is the necromancer of dol guldar, (spelling) its just highly weakened, and the wizards don't know that he was the necromancer/back in physical form.

Don't they find that out when they drive him away from Dol Guldur?