[Movies] The Hobbit Trilogy (Possible Spoilers)

[BHD]

Rhombostel rabbits according to the wikia. I thought it was something with "ra" as well..

Huh, I could've sworn it began with "ra". Well then! It's not like it's witchcraft..

..oh, but it is.

[worprz]

I too believe almost without a doubt that Smaug will die in the second movie. The Desolation of Smaug refers to the area around the Lonely Mountain, so I will bet you that they won't end it at the barrels.

Some might say the Necromancer, but since he doesn't die and will be at The Battle of the Five Armies, that'd be a pretty bad climax.
"But Azog didn't die either!" Well, Azog will probably not be in the second movie very much. Probably just in the end, meeting up with the Necromancer, and they agree to attack Erebor.

Was the necromancer in that battle? I could have sworn Gandalf killed him while he was away from the Dwarves at some point. I also saw some people saying the necromancer is Sauron but I don't remember that either. Was this stuff in other books or was it added for the purpose of making the film longer?

[Frontenac]

I think so too, I like the middle part of the book the most. I am really excited to see the parts in Mirkwood with the spiders and elves. I am just so curious what the third movie is going to be. I can't see Smaug dying in the 2nd one. Also I remember hearing somewhere that part of the hobbit was going to be all about Aragorn. Can someone confirm this?

About the spoiler, I really doubt it. Aragorn was about 10 years old when Bilbo had his adventure. He was under the tutelage of Elrond in Rivendell at this time. It would have been nice to see a cameo of a young human in the movie... Of course, Aragorn was about 87 years old in LotR, but since Jackson skipped 17 years and that The Hobbit is set 60 years before LotR, then Aragorn would have been around 27 years old in The Hobbit (movie). However, according to the appendix, Gandalf met Aragorn about 15 years after The Hobbit...

[Markluzz]

Was the necromancer in that battle? I could have sworn Gandalf killed him while he was away from the Dwarves at some point. I also saw some people saying the necromancer is Sauron but I don't remember that either. Was this stuff in other books or was it added for the purpose of making the film longer?

The Necromancer is actually in the Hobbit book used to get Gandalf away from Bilbo and the Dwarves during Mirkwood and the encounter with Smaug so Bilbo could become important and a hero.

And yes, the Necromancer [spoiiler]is Sauron, this was not something Peter Jackson made up either.[/spoiler]

[SirRobin]

Well just got back from taking the kids to it and the ten year old told me its the best movie he has ever seen. When I asked why his exact words were. "Well duh... It has a sword that glows blue when orgs are around." Hehe... So while he didn't exactly understand it. My ten and seven year old loved it. My four year old got scared though, and then bored. It was okay for me but I wasn't terribly impressed. The visuals were fantastic of course but it kind of feels like watching the first half of a movie after you've watched the last half.

[Lollis]

It was great but wasn't outstanding, what I expected really from part one. The action doesn't really begin until 'Flies and Spiders' anyway. I'm looking forward to Beorn, and more of the Eagles Was a little disappointed about Bilbo's exit from the cave when he does not have goblins in the way of him but I was glad to see that they fit in the buttons popping off his waistcoat

The problem with movie prequels is that everyone who has seen The Lord of the Rings knows that Bilbo and Gandalf end up fine as does Gloin, for those that remember the council of Elrond scene so the experience we had when we first read The Hobbit will not be the same as those who watch this movie after watching LoTR.

I felt the same with The Fellowship really, perhaps it is because of the books. Don't get me wrong, the films are fantastic but the books are just so much better.

[Zatheyll]

The problem with movie prequels is that everyone who has seen The Lord of the Rings knows that Bilbo and Gandalf end up fine as does Gloin, for those that remember the council of Elrond scene so the experience we had when we first read The Hobbit will not be the same as those who watch this movie after watching LoTR.

You need to expect that in stories the main character(s) survive and win. If evil triumphs in the end and good never wins then the story loses a lot of what makes it a story.

You don't need LotR to know that Smaug is going to be defeated, and at the very least Bilbo would be alive by the end of it.

[Puck]

I don't know what the hell is wrong with critics. This movie was great.

[Butterland]

I don't know what the hell is wrong with critics. This movie was great.

I had the same thought. Except critics were being too generous imo. This movie was bad.

[Lollis]

You need to expect that in stories the main character(s) survive and win. If evil triumphs in the end and good never wins then the story loses a lot of what makes it a story.

There are plenty of stories where the 'main character' is killed off though :P, and there also are a good few Tolkien stories where the main character is killed off or captured.

[BHD]

There are plenty of stories where the 'main character' is killed off though :P, and there also are a good few Tolkien stories where the main character is killed off or captured.

Very true, a lot of the characters that get a lot of focus in Silmarillion dies very tragically. He seems to have had a thing for suicide.

@Arrowstorm What makes you think the Necromancer will show up at the Battle of Five Armies? I have no recollection of that happening in the book, or anything hinting that PJ have any intention of making it so.. :s

[Arrowstormen]

Very true, a lot of the characters that get a lot of focus in Silmarillion dies very tragically. He seems to have had a thing for suicide.

@Arrowstorm What makes you think the Necromancer will show up at the Battle of Five Armies? I have no recollection of that happening in the book, or anything hinting that PJ have any intention of making it so.. :s

The guy who voices the Necromancer stated he were at Dol Guldur and The Battle of the Five Armies. It would add to the depth of the battle, and make it more clear that the place is important for Sauron to control, so I don't see why not.

[BHD]

The guy who voices the Necromancer stated he were at Dol Guldur and The Battle of the Five Armies. It would add to the depth of the battle, and make it more clear that the place is important for Sauron to control, so I don't see why not.

I think it would be way out of line to add the Necromancer to the battle. If they want to emphasize the importance of claiming the area for Sauron they could add some sort of dialogue between him and Azog before he rides out to battle (if Azog will be there, which I think is highly likely). The Necromancer doesn't have a physical form either.. Or, having an eye of fire flying around the battlefield would certainly add to the light-hearted feel of The Hobbit

Reading through the quote of the guy playing Smaug/Necromancer it's safe to say he's not a Tolkien fan, and he doesn't seem to be sure of what exactly his role as the Necromancer is. So he could be confusing the location of Sauron and Smaug.

I get that they want to make the final battle to be like the Battle of Pennelor Fields (spelling?) but adding the Necromancer of even a Nazgul just doesn't seem like anything positive in my mind. Not only were the Nazgul never buried (since they never died), they were occupied with doing evil stuff in Minas Morgul, they'd have no time to appear at Erebor (the idea of them appearing was placed in my mind by reading a comment on the article with the Necro/smaug guy's quote). And the Necromancer was supposed to be driven out of Mirkwood before the battle, which is why Gandalf has time to appear there. D:

Edit: I guess I shouldn't expect them follow the story thoroughly, since it's an adaption of the book, not a direct movie-version. But still..!

[Deleted]

The Necromancer doesn't have a physical form either.. Or, having an eye of fire flying around the battlefield would certainly add to the light-hearted feel of The Hobbit

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

[Arrowstormen]

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

Wasn't it just some pupil illusion thing he made?

---------- Post added 2012-12-17 at 03:56 PM ----------

Edit: I guess I shouldn't expect them follow the story thoroughly, since it's an adaption of the book, not a direct movie-version. But still..!

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.

[Deleted]

Wasn't it just some pupil illusion thing he made?

Not 100% sure what you mean with that, but as far as I can remember the only point where Sauron's current manifestation is described is when he is 'watching' from his tower, and there it's only his 'eye' that is said to be watching.

[Muzjhath]

The Eye is the sign that Sauron takes as his symbol in the late third age. It's never specified if that is his full manifestation or not, even if I got a feel that it wasn't back when I read it.

[Gamdwelf]

I think it would be way out of line to add the Necromancer to the battle. If they want to emphasize the importance of claiming the area for Sauron they could add some sort of dialogue between him and Azog before he rides out to battle (if Azog will be there, which I think is highly likely). The Necromancer doesn't have a physical form either.. Or, having an eye of fire flying around the battlefield would certainly add to the light-hearted feel of The Hobbit

Reading through the quote of the guy playing Smaug/Necromancer it's safe to say he's not a Tolkien fan, and he doesn't seem to be sure of what exactly his role as the Necromancer is. So he could be confusing the location of Sauron and Smaug.

I get that they want to make the final battle to be like the Battle of Pennelor Fields (spelling?) but adding the Necromancer of even a Nazgul just doesn't seem like anything positive in my mind. Not only were the Nazgul never buried (since they never died), they were occupied with doing evil stuff in Minas Morgul, they'd have no time to appear at Erebor (the idea of them appearing was placed in my mind by reading a comment on the article with the Necro/smaug guy's quote). And the Necromancer was supposed to be driven out of Mirkwood before the battle, which is why Gandalf has time to appear there. D:

Edit: I guess I shouldn't expect them follow the story thoroughly, since it's an adaption of the book, not a direct movie-version. But still..!

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

[Deleted]

I have a feeling that they might deal with the Necromancer the same way as they dealt with the Balrog in The Two Towers, dealing with it in the very beginning of the movie, leaving the rest of it to deal with Dale and Smaug. That way the third movie can focus entirely on the Battle of the five armies and the return journey.

[ringpriest]

The Eye is the sign that Sauron takes as his symbol in the late third age. It's never specified if that is his full manifestation or not, even if I got a feel that it wasn't back when I read it.

In Letters Tolkien explicitly stated that he thought Sauron had the form of a man. Presumably a large, very-intimidating, and not particularly good looking man who was missing a finger, but still a man. Personally, I've always thought of "The Eye" as being a manifestation of Sauron will and awareness via his palantir.