If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Pajiba)   Peter Jackson tries to defend splitting The Hobbit into 3 movies as anything other than a pure cash grab   (pajiba.com) divider line 149
    More: Fail, The Hobbit, road movie, love triangles, Smaug, grabs, hobbits, J. K. Rowling, Hermione Granger  
•       •       •

3251 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 Dec 2013 at 2:58 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



149 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-16 01:06:20 PM  
As someone who has never read The Hobbit and loved the LOTR movies, I don't really give a shiat. I think The Hobbit movies are worse than the LOTR movies, but they are on the whole very good so far, and I don't really have any issues with the pacing as a whole. For someone who doesn't know the story, it sure doesn't feel to me like they are stretching things.

The 2nd Hobbit movie, which I saw yesterday, was definitately better than the first, though. Very good fun. The only bad part I can think of is the last sequence in Erebor - too long, and the CGI wasn't very good.
 
2013-12-16 02:15:53 PM  
An article written by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 
2013-12-16 02:19:56 PM  
I also want to say, that even though it looks stupid in the trailers, the barrel sequence was awesome. Very inventive and fun.
 
2013-12-16 02:36:23 PM  
I read The Hobbit in seventh or eighth grade. I have fond memories of that particular escape. Actually, Bilbo's reflection at the mouth of Smaug's lair has been one of the navigation tools in my life: he says something like "If I do this, everything else will be easy." I have said that to myself countless times over the last few decades. Challenge yourself or life will be challenging and all that stuff.

No way in hell would I ruin that corner of my memory with the chunky, swirling cinematic slumgullion that is a Peter Jackson film.
 
2013-12-16 02:43:34 PM  
I have no problem with The Hobbit being split into three movies.  I wish the Lord of the Rings movies had been.  Cramming each book into just one movie left out too much.
 
2013-12-16 03:00:29 PM  

August11: he says something like "If I do this, everything else will be easy." I have said that to myself countless times over the last few decades.


Seems like if you need to say it more than once, it stops being true.
 
2013-12-16 03:03:24 PM  
Beorn's scene was too rushed.

The barrel sequence was farking stupid and I question the intelligence of anyone that thinks differently.  When the red bearded dwarf's barrel bounces out of the water and then takes out 10 orcs in a row before he sticks his arms out the side and becomes a whirling death machine AND then jumps in an unoccupied barrel(where did the extra come from) is probably the most idiotic thing since the 3rd Matrix

When Gandalf is facing "the darkness"  And it forms into the eye of sauron, which then morphs into the armor shape, that then goes back to the eye.   Why do we need that to pulse at us 5-6 times?


This movie needs an editor, someone to make it about an hour long, and then it'd be perfect.  Basically get rid of anything that Bilbo isn't in.
 
2013-12-16 03:03:34 PM  
Isn't he in the business of making movies for profit?  Why should I complain?  No one's forcing me to pay money to see them
 
2013-12-16 03:04:34 PM  

Girion47: The barrel sequence was farking stupid and I question the intelligence of anyone that thinks differently.  When the red bearded dwarf's barrel bounces out of the water and then takes out 10 orcs in a row before he sticks his arms out the side and becomes a whirling death machine AND then jumps in an unoccupied barrel(where did the extra come from) is probably the most idiotic thing since the 3rd Matrix


That was an incredibly fun and awesome sequence. Just perfectly well done by the filmmaking deal.
 
2013-12-16 03:05:33 PM  

DamnYankees: As someone who has never read The Hobbit and loved the LOTR movies, I don't really give a shiat. I think The Hobbit movies are worse than the LOTR movies, but they are on the whole very good so far, and I don't really have any issues with the pacing as a whole. For someone who doesn't know the story, it sure doesn't feel to me like they are stretching things.

The 2nd Hobbit movie, which I saw yesterday, was definitately better than the first, though. Very good fun. The only bad part I can think of is the last sequence in Erebor - too long, and the CGI wasn't very good.


A lot of the CGI and such in this movie seems too long.  The river-barrels sequence is too long.  Erebor is too long.  And they cut out interesting parts of the book, even though its only one book stretched over 3 movies.

The movie is still good, and I like the added bits, but I don't know why they needed to cut where they did and add where they did.

/I'm referring to Beorn
 
2013-12-16 03:07:40 PM  
The LOTR should have been 6 movies (the extended Director's cut plus maybe a bit more). The Hobbit should have been 2 movies.
 
2013-12-16 03:08:53 PM  

Girion47: Beorn's scene was too rushed.

The barrel sequence was farking stupid and I question the intelligence of anyone that thinks differently.  When the red bearded dwarf's barrel bounces out of the water and then takes out 10 orcs in a row before he sticks his arms out the side and becomes a whirling death machine AND then jumps in an unoccupied barrel(where did the extra come from) is probably the most idiotic thing since the 3rd Matrix

When Gandalf is facing "the darkness"  And it forms into the eye of sauron, which then morphs into the armor shape, that then goes back to the eye.   Why do we need that to pulse at us 5-6 times?


This movie needs an editor, someone to make it about an hour long, and then it'd be perfect.  Basically get rid of anything that Bilbo isn't in.


SPOILERS ****************


Beorn's scene could have been hilarious but instead it was a stepping stone.

The fight with the spiders could have been a moment for Bilbo to shine, but rather it was far too rushed.

The Elven love triangle was unnecessary.

I didn't mind Dol Guldur.

Erebor was ok... I guess?


END SPOILERS ********
 
2013-12-16 03:10:00 PM  

vonmatrices: The fight with the spiders could have been a moment for Bilbo to shine, but rather it was far too rushed.


Rushed? That scene lasted a while. And, to me at least, Bilbo did shine.
 
2013-12-16 03:10:20 PM  

DamnYankees: As someone who has never read The Hobbit and loved the LOTR movies, I don't really


...matter in relation to the LOTR discussions.

What, was it too long? The material too difficult?

DamnYankees: I also want to say, that even though it looks stupid in the trailers, the barrel sequence was awesome. Very inventive and fun.


"Inventive and fun" like "dwarves falling 100 feet onto rocks and then tumbling another 100 feet and hitting more rocks" kind? Or like, "that's somewhat plausible" fun?

Tolkien had the barrel scene as a clever and stealthy way to escape to Lake Town. There's no rapids. There's no real danger except for the dwarves drowning in the leaky barrels and Bilbo being detected. Jackson makes it into a super-action sequence, because Hollywood Execs love that shiat.
 
2013-12-16 03:11:30 PM  

August11: he says something like "If I do this, everything else will be easy." I have said that to myself countless times over the last few decades. Challenge yourself or life will be challenging and all that stuff.


But if you say that to yourself countless times, it is clearly a false statement.
 
2013-12-16 03:12:56 PM  
Are we at a full 24 hours in the worlds of Peter Jackson/J. R. R. Tolkien
 
2013-12-16 03:14:05 PM  
Watched the movie this last weekend.

It is better than the first but there is no reason for it to exist.  The entire sequence of events could have been told in about an hour. Trim a bit from the first movie & put some there and the rest in the final movie.

Probably would have been pushing 3 hours for the theatrical release for each of the resulting 2 movies, but do you honestly think the fans will care?
 
2013-12-16 03:15:22 PM  
Below is a list of all films produced in the past 100 years that weren't primarily cash-grabs:
 
2013-12-16 03:17:07 PM  

Null Pointer: The entire sequence of events could have been told in about an hour.


I obviously can't speak to what's in the books or not, but this is absurd to me. It never felt like they lagged in any places, other than at the very end in Erebor. How can you possible fit this in an hour? Here's what they needed to put in:

Beorn
Going through Mirkwood
Spiders
Thranduil
Gandalf and Dol Guldur
Lake Town
The Overlook
Erebor

You want to fit that into an hour? Are you insane? You can choose to cut some of these things entirely, I suppose, but if you want to keep the basic settings and beats of the plot, you can't just spend 7 minutes per place.
 
2013-12-16 03:17:17 PM  

DamnYankees: August11: he says something like "If I do this, everything else will be easy." I have said that to myself countless times over the last few decades.

Seems like if you need to say it more than once, it stops being true.


You are correct. I was oversimplifying my use of it. Bilbo's attitude at the mouth of the lair has, though, been a consistent influence.

I ride my bike six miles to work and when I arrive, I don't take the elevator to the fifth floor, I carry my bike up the stairs. And it is an heavy, old, Trek--about thirtyfive pounds. I cannot tell you the dread I feel some mornings in the last mile to work. I so do not want to shoulder that damn bike. But I do it because the rest of the day seems like a walk in the park. Everyone always wonders why I am so happy mid-morning. It's because I'm done with that damn climb. It is a little Smaug's lair every morning.
 
2013-12-16 03:17:21 PM  

DamnYankees: As someone who has never read The Hobbit and loved the LOTR movies, I don't really give a shiat. I think The Hobbit movies are worse than the LOTR movies, but they are on the whole very good so far, and I don't really have any issues with the pacing as a whole. For someone who doesn't know the story, it sure doesn't feel to me like they are stretching things.

The 2nd Hobbit movie, which I saw yesterday, was definitately better than the first, though. Very good fun. The only bad part I can think of is the last sequence in Erebor - too long, and the CGI wasn't very good.


The CGI wasn't great in the original movies.  The sizes among all the main characters was tetchy every step of the way -- hobbits, dwarves, humans.  They never got a good sense of establishing space and consistency and it bugged me to no end.
 
2013-12-16 03:17:35 PM  

Trail of Dead: Below is a list of all films produced in the past 100 years that weren't primarily cash-grabs:


If you honestly believe this, then you're pretty dim.
 
2013-12-16 03:17:57 PM  
At least we'll always have the animated adaptation to watch. Sure, it's not the big live-action adaptation I'd like, but it did a much better job at keeping to the tone of the book than the new films.

I have yet to see the newest film. I'm probably going to check it out later this weeks. I thought the first one was a good movie, but not a good adaptation of the book. One thing I always loved about The Hobbit was that it was a fun adventure, as opposed to the world-ending danger and big drama of Lord of the Rings.
 
2013-12-16 03:18:38 PM  
I'm conflicted on this one. One one hand, I despise the approach Jackson has taken with the Hobbit and consider it a great opportunity ruined (not to mention that it seems disrespectful to the source material). On the other hand, I'm a Wellingtonian with many friends and acquaintances who are indulging opportunities in the film business here, all thanks to Jackson.

It comes out as a win in that respect.
 
2013-12-16 03:18:38 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: The CGI wasn't great in the original movies.  The sizes among all the main characters was tetchy every step of the way -- hobbits, dwarves, humans.  They never got a good sense of establishing space and consistency and it bugged me to no end.


I don't agree with that - I think they've been consistently brilliant when it comes to size and scale. I was more referring to the interiors of Erebor and the molten gold. That looks fake to me.
 
2013-12-16 03:18:47 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: August11: he says something like "If I do this, everything else will be easy." I have said that to myself countless times over the last few decades. Challenge yourself or life will be challenging and all that stuff.

But if you say that to yourself countless times, it is clearly a false statement.


My fault. I was being vague. See above retraction.
 
2013-12-16 03:19:57 PM  

NeoCortex42: One thing I always loved about The Hobbit was that it was a fun adventure, as opposed to the world-ending danger and big drama of Lord of the Rings.


I feel like Jackson is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. On the one hand, he's already established the world and its general tone in the LOTR movies. It's hard to take that basic world and then change the. On the other hand, there are times in these movies where he has gone for a more fun tone - such as the barrel scene - and he gets flamed for it.
 
2013-12-16 03:21:03 PM  

Trail of Dead: Below is a list of all films produced in the past 100 years that weren't primarily cash-grabs:


The profit motive plays an important role in popular art.  The movie studios are businesses; we understand that.

The issue comes up when the integrity of the art (in this case, the integrity of the depiction) is compromised for financial considerations.

Tolkien wrote The Hobbit a certain and at a certain length to achieve a certain purpose.  I'm not idealizing Tolkien; he wrote for money just as much for pleasure (he squabbles with his publisher endlessly in his correspondence).

The lengthening of the story into a co-eval of the Lord of the Rings accomplishes no legitimate artistic purpose.  In the sense that it distorts the artistic intent of the original work in order to maximize revenue, The Hobbit films are more pernicious than most.
 
2013-12-16 03:22:01 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: Tolkien wrote The Hobbit a certain and at a certain length to achieve a certain purpose.  I'm not idealizing Tolkien; he wrote for money just as much for pleasure (he squabbles with his publisher endlessly in his correspondence).

The lengthening of the story into a co-eval of the Lord of the Rings accomplishes no legitimate artistic purpose.  In the sense that it distorts the artistic intent of the original work in order to maximize revenue, The Hobbit films are more pernicious than most.


To me, they seem to serve the purpose of telling the story at a proper pace. The Hobbit may be a small book, but it sure seems to have a lot of episodes and plot in it, from what I can tell.
 
2013-12-16 03:22:05 PM  
But on the plus side.   Girion made an appearance.
 
2013-12-16 03:23:16 PM  
I really think two would have been just right.

While Desolation wasn't bad, you could have split half of it between the other two films, and then included the remaining half in the inevitable blu-ray director cut versions.
 
2013-12-16 03:24:10 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: While Desolation wasn't bad, you could have split half of it between the other two films, and then included the remaining half in the inevitable blu-ray director cut versions.


The other films are already going to be 2.5 hours each. You want 2 four-hour movies?
 
2013-12-16 03:26:02 PM  
You have to treat the audience like children, especially the book-clingers. They don't know what they really want even though they think they do. They want the book, but in the book Bard come out of nowhere. No one wants that. They think they want stealth barrels but actions barrels is what they need.

I applaud Jackson. This is his second child and he knows what needs to be done. Give these book whiners what they need. Make them eat their cinematic vegetables and take away the movie rotting candy like you did last time. (Bombadil, Shire scouring nonsense)
 
2013-12-16 03:26:07 PM  

Girion47: When Gandalf is facing "the darkness" And it forms into the eye of sauron, which then morphs into the armor shape, that then goes back to the eye. Why do we need that to pulse at us 5-6 times?


I actually laughed in the theater during that moment. Reminded me of this.
coedmagazine.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-16 03:26:29 PM  

DamnYankees: vonmatrices: The fight with the spiders could have been a moment for Bilbo to shine, but rather it was far too rushed.

Rushed? That scene lasted a while. And, to me at least, Bilbo did shine.


I didn't feel like that - sure Bilbo showed some martial prowess and we got an interesting moment where we see Bilbo being influenced by the Ring, but I think we missed out on him taunting the spiders and being brash, and generally saving the Dwarfs butts - instead he basically just frees them and the Dwarfs fight it out, and the Elves show up what seems like entirely too soon.

They should have just ditched Legolas and Thranduil and used the extra time to flesh out stuff that was actually in the book.

I did like their intrepretation of Mirkwood, and I liked the extra stuff involving Gandalf.

I thought Laketown was done well.

I'm not saying the movie was bad, but I just don't understand some of the choices they made.
 
2013-12-16 03:27:08 PM  
I kept expecting an epic battle between Bilbo, Legolas and Poochie versus Smaug and Danny Trejo.
 
2013-12-16 03:27:21 PM  

vonmatrices: They should have just ditched Legolas and Thranduil and used the extra time to flesh out stuff that was actually in the book.


I thought Thranduil is in the book.
 
2013-12-16 03:27:38 PM  

DamnYankees: As someone who has never read The Hobbit and loved the LOTR movies, I don't really give a shiat. I think The Hobbit movies are worse than the LOTR movies, but they are on the whole very good so far, and I don't really have any issues with the pacing as a whole. For someone who doesn't know the story, it sure doesn't feel to me like they are stretching things.

The 2nd Hobbit movie, which I saw yesterday, was definitately better than the first, though. Very good fun. The only bad part I can think of is the last sequence in Erebor - too long, and the CGI wasn't very good.


Awesome. ^This is why they make three movies instead of one.

Making one would have ruined the story as it would be far too short and you would miss a ton of stuff from the book or waayyy too long. As in a 5 hour movie. Making 3 may be overdoing it, but THIS IS WHAT MOVIES ARE ABOUT!

"Oh I think we should only make a limited amount of content. We don't need to make money. No one wants three movies anyway"
 
2013-12-16 03:29:38 PM  

Null Pointer: Probably would have been pushing 3 hours for the theatrical release for each of the resulting 2 movies, but do you honestly think the fans will care?


I can imagine this same line was uttered in the discussion over whether they could stretch this into 2 movies, or go gung-ho for a 3 movie cash-grab.

"We can probably stretch this into 3 movies if we add a bunch of this stuff not from the book.  But, do you honestly think the fans will care?"
 
2013-12-16 03:29:58 PM  
Two movies, I could understand. 3 is crazy. The pacing is sloooowwwww. But I did like the second one a lot more than the first.
 
2013-12-16 03:30:49 PM  

Lando Lincoln: DamnYankees: As someone who has never read The Hobbit and loved the LOTR movies, I don't really

...matter in relation to the LOTR discussions.

What, was it too long? The material too difficult?

DamnYankees: I also want to say, that even though it looks stupid in the trailers, the barrel sequence was awesome. Very inventive and fun.

"Inventive and fun" like "dwarves falling 100 feet onto rocks and then tumbling another 100 feet and hitting more rocks" kind? Or like, "that's somewhat plausible" fun?

Tolkien had the barrel scene as a clever and stealthy way to escape to Lake Town. There's no rapids. There's no real danger except for the dwarves drowning in the leaky barrels and Bilbo being detected. Jackson makes it into a super-action sequence, because Hollywood Execs love that shiat.


For me? The material was boring as shiat and I don't force myself to slog through things I don't enjoy just to obtain some imaginary punch card membership.

And I read a lot, in high school. Couple books a week usually. Even high fantasy. One of my favorites was the wheel of time books. So it wasn't length or complexity. Or even age really, I could read Scifi or fantasy from the 70s without blinking.

The books just didn't remotely interest me.
 
kab
2013-12-16 03:30:53 PM  
There is no defense for it, because that's all it really is.

And it becomes even more clear when you had to omit quite a bit just to get LotR into 3 flicks.   You aren't telling the Hobbit story here, you're shoveling your "vision" on top of it to clear 3 box office weekends, then dvd sales, then blu-ray sales, then uncut footage collector sets bla bla bla.
 
2013-12-16 03:31:26 PM  
I stood up and walked out of Unexpected Journey over the bloated dishware scene.  And that was my own living room watching a pirated copy.
 
2013-12-16 03:31:40 PM  

OSULugan: "We can probably stretch this into 3 movies if we add a bunch of this stuff not from the book.  But, do you honestly think the fans will care?"


Honest question - do you really think Jackson thought "this is 2 movies, but we should make it three and add stuff to pad out the time"? Or do you think he thought "there's so much I want to put in here, and two movies just isn't enough, so I'd rather make three movies than hack out parts I love?"

You can criticize him for making the wrong decision, but it just seems incredibly unlikely to me he did it in bad faith. Dude already has enough money for a lifetime.
 
2013-12-16 03:32:31 PM  
I have one question out for those of you that are very familiar with the various source material available:

Where is exactly to the "non"-Hobbit parts of the movie come from? I have read the Hobbit a few times, but not several.   I don't recall much of the material surrounding Sauron / Necromancer being present, nor much of the development of the Goblins/Orcs as any sort of expansive characters with different personalities.
 
2013-12-16 03:33:03 PM  
My father and I are going to see this for his birthday. I'm waiting until then, because I don't want to hate it and have to sit through it twice.

I'm not optimistic.
 
2013-12-16 03:34:33 PM  

DamnYankees: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: The CGI wasn't great in the original movies.  The sizes among all the main characters was tetchy every step of the way -- hobbits, dwarves, humans.  They never got a good sense of establishing space and consistency and it bugged me to no end.

I don't agree with that - I think they've been consistently brilliant when it comes to size and scale. I was more referring to the interiors of Erebor and the molten gold. That looks fake to me.


No, you can see it in any interior.  Gandalf will be massive compared to a Hobbit, then suddenly the Hobbit will be half his size.  They did a lousy job with it across the movies.
 
2013-12-16 03:34:49 PM  

DamnYankees: You can criticize him for making the wrong decision, but it just seems incredibly unlikely to me he did it in bad faith. Dude already has enough money for a lifetime.


As far as the "enough money for a lifetime" bit, the same thing could be said for George Lucas.  Maybe Lucas and Jackson are operating on good faith but have lost all sense of that artistic proportion that helped them achieve fame in the first place.

In Jackson's case, I suspect that (given the success of the Lord of the Rings movie) he began to see himself as Tolkien's collaborator across the generations, with his revisions constituting a "modernization" like you see in those inferior "contemporary" Bibles.
 
2013-12-16 03:35:28 PM  

RyansPrivates: I have one question out for those of you that are very familiar with the various source material available:

Where is exactly to the "non"-Hobbit parts of the movie come from? I have read the Hobbit a few times, but not several.   I don't recall much of the material surrounding Sauron / Necromancer being present, nor much of the development of the Goblins/Orcs as any sort of expansive characters with different personalities.


A lot of it is pulled from 'The Silmarillion.'
 
2013-12-16 03:36:42 PM  

Trail of Dead: Below is a list of all films produced in the past 100 years that weren't primarily cash-grabs:


What you say is true as far as it goes, but there are degrees: some cash grabs are more crass than others. Splitting a single-volume work into two is a particularly crass type, and to split it into three is beyond the pale, especially when you then go and add filler subplots to pad it out to a three-film length.
 
2013-12-16 03:38:38 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: In Jackson's case, I suspect that (given the success of the Lord of the Rings movie) he began to see himself as Tolkien's collaborator across the generations, with his revisions constituting a "modernization" like you see in those inferior "contemporary" Bibles.


This might actually be a fair way to see what Jackson is doing - and I'm fine with it. I think he's great at it.
 
2013-12-16 03:39:34 PM  
I read the hobbit some 30 years ago, and never felt like it could be revisited.  It was meh to me then.  I  just preferred hard scifi and it was fantasy it better had include giants wielding swords and heaving breasts of young maidens, and maybe a dragon.


In the sixth grade I was given detention because in reading class the teacher noticed I had a big shiat eating grin on my face.

She came over to my desk and grabbed my book.  I had bought a copy of Porkys and put a Hobbit cover on it and she said to me "There is nothing in Tolkien to make anyone grin that match."
 
2013-12-16 03:41:28 PM  
Does this one have song-and-dance numbers? I realize that the book had song-and-dance numbers, but they worked in the book. In the first film, they ruined suspension of disbelief and were also just kinda silly and not in an enjoyable way.
 
2013-12-16 03:43:41 PM  
I'm looking forward to it and Part III next year.
 
2013-12-16 03:44:16 PM  

the opposite of charity is justice: I stood up and walked out of Unexpected Journey over the bloated dishware scene.  And that was my own living room watching a pirated copy.


Including the songs was a stupid move that made this into a farking musical. Excluding the songs in the LOTR was one of the main reasons I liked it so much.
 
2013-12-16 03:45:32 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: the opposite of charity is justice: I stood up and walked out of Unexpected Journey over the bloated dishware scene.  And that was my own living room watching a pirated copy.

Including the songs was a stupid move that made this into a farking musical. Excluding the songs in the LOTR was one of the main reasons I liked it so much.


The couple of times they do include songs in LOTR it was wonderful - Aragorn singing about Beren and Luthien, and of course Pippin singing in front of Walter Bishop.
 
2013-12-16 03:46:04 PM  
I'm willing to believe that Peter Jackson is completely sincere about that.

But based on watching King Kong, I can well believe that Jackson looked at it and went "hey, we can use all of this" rather than "let's edit this bit, it's a little boring".

The author has a good point. Very successful people are far less prone to scrutiny. It's how you get Heaven's Gate and The Phanton Menace.
 
2013-12-16 03:47:02 PM  

DamnYankees: and of course Pippin singing in front of Walter Bishop.


I lol'd
 
2013-12-16 03:50:27 PM  
I never read the books.
I never saw the LOTR movies

I rented the first Hobbit movie Friday night, and then went to see Smaug Sunday afternoon.

End result?  My kids and I enjoyed the Hobbit, REALLY enjoyed Smaug (3Dhfr is excellent), and am now mildly interested in the LOTR story line.  Might even read the books.

/It sounds to me like all this bickering over details is a bunch of Comic Book Guy nerds biatching a bunch of "normies" are invading their turf.
 
2013-12-16 03:50:44 PM  
It's really quite simple:

If you don't like the idea of three Hobbit movies and/or you dislike what Jackson did with the source material, then don't go see the movies.
 
2013-12-16 03:52:08 PM  

fickenchucker: I never read the books.
I never saw the LOTR movies

I rented the first Hobbit movie Friday night, and then went to see Smaug Sunday afternoon.

End result?  My kids and I enjoyed the Hobbit, REALLY enjoyed Smaug (3Dhfr is excellent), and am now mildly interested in the LOTR story line.  Might even read the books.

/It sounds to me like all this bickering over details is a bunch of Comic Book Guy nerds biatching a bunch of "normies" are invading their turf.


Dude, you gotta see the LOTR movies. Complete masterpieces. I'd be very interested to see what someone who watched The Hobbit movies first would think of them.
 
2013-12-16 03:54:15 PM  
Barrel scene was awful, just way too over the top ridiculous, everything else was fun.
 
2013-12-16 03:56:07 PM  
Saw it yesterday. It was good, but for the very first time since Fellowship of the Ring I started to get a little annoyed at the additions and liberties they were taking with the stories. I liked pretty much everything that Jackson has cut or added to the Tolkein stories up until now, but in this one the additions didn't seem to fit as well... they seemed more forced.

*****Minor Spoilers*****

In particular the new elf chick/Legolas/Dwarf love triangle thing I thought was pointless. Maybe this one could have just ended up being the short one of the three hobbit movies, and they could have trimmed off half an hour or something.

And the whole barrel escape sequence I thought was just dumb. I didn't find it amusing, it was just stupid slapstick.

Generally though I liked it. Smaug was great, the spiders great, and the visual art on display is as fantastic as always.  The first thing I thought when I saw the massive mountain of treasure that Smaug was sleeping in was - "When they kill that dragon that huge treasure pile is going to completely kick the bottom out of the treasure market. There is so much gold and jewels in there that everyone in Middle Earth are going to be using gold to make their forks and spoons from then on, and jewels will be used as paperweights."

*****Minor Spoilers*****
 
2013-12-16 03:58:11 PM  

mongbiohazard: Generally though I liked it. Smaug was great, the spiders great, and the visual art on display is as fantastic as always.  The first thing I thought when I saw the massive mountain of treasure that Smaug was sleeping in was - "When they kill that dragon that huge treasure pile is going to completely kick the bottom out of the treasure market. There is so much gold and jewels in there that everyone in Middle Earth are going to be using gold to make their forks and spoons from then on, and jewels will be used as paperweights."


Ha, honestly this was my thought also. There was honestly too much gold in that room. Remember, gold is only valuable if its rare! This blows people minds, but in the entire world, there's not even enough gold to fill 2 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The amount of gold in Erebor was INSANE.
 
2013-12-16 04:01:21 PM  

the opposite of charity is justice: I stood up and walked out of Unexpected Journey over the bloated dishware scene.  And that was my own living room watching a pirated copy.


So...you admit to being an idiot.

That "bloated scene" is in the book jackass
 
2013-12-16 04:02:43 PM  

DamnYankees: Dude, you gotta see the LOTR movies. Complete masterpieces. I'd be very interested to see what someone who watched The Hobbit movies first would think of them.



It's a deal.

I favorited you with a "LOTR" note, so someday you'll get an answer completely unrelated to some future post of yours.
 
2013-12-16 04:03:14 PM  

DamnYankees: mongbiohazard: Generally though I liked it. Smaug was great, the spiders great, and the visual art on display is as fantastic as always.  The first thing I thought when I saw the massive mountain of treasure that Smaug was sleeping in was - "When they kill that dragon that huge treasure pile is going to completely kick the bottom out of the treasure market. There is so much gold and jewels in there that everyone in Middle Earth are going to be using gold to make their forks and spoons from then on, and jewels will be used as paperweights."

Ha, honestly this was my thought also. There was honestly too much gold in that room. Remember, gold is only valuable if its rare! This blows people minds, but in the entire world, there's not even enough gold to fill 2 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The amount of gold in Erebor was INSANE.


I thought about that too. But I will point out that if it's horded properly instead of distributed, it will retain value (see example: US Dollar in 2013). And as far as comparing it to gold in the real world - Dwarves had been mining for gold in Middle Earth for five millennia. And their definition of "mine" makes most modern human mines look like cat holes.

Still... that horde did look like it would fill Scrooge McDuck's bin at least twelve times.
 
2013-12-16 04:04:47 PM  

DamnYankees: mongbiohazard: Generally though I liked it. Smaug was great, the spiders great, and the visual art on display is as fantastic as always.  The first thing I thought when I saw the massive mountain of treasure that Smaug was sleeping in was - "When they kill that dragon that huge treasure pile is going to completely kick the bottom out of the treasure market. There is so much gold and jewels in there that everyone in Middle Earth are going to be using gold to make their forks and spoons from then on, and jewels will be used as paperweights."

Ha, honestly this was my thought also. There was honestly too much gold in that room. Remember, gold is only valuable if its rare! This blows people minds, but in the entire world, there's not even enough gold to fill 2 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The amount of gold in Erebor was INSANE.


Dwarves are the DeBeers of middle-earth.  You better believe that when they have a corner on the treasure market they're going to control the shiat out of that supply.
 
2013-12-16 04:05:22 PM  

clkeagle: DamnYankees: mongbiohazard: Generally though I liked it. Smaug was great, the spiders great, and the visual art on display is as fantastic as always.  The first thing I thought when I saw the massive mountain of treasure that Smaug was sleeping in was - "When they kill that dragon that huge treasure pile is going to completely kick the bottom out of the treasure market. There is so much gold and jewels in there that everyone in Middle Earth are going to be using gold to make their forks and spoons from then on, and jewels will be used as paperweights."

Ha, honestly this was my thought also. There was honestly too much gold in that room. Remember, gold is only valuable if its rare! This blows people minds, but in the entire world, there's not even enough gold to fill 2 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The amount of gold in Erebor was INSANE.

I thought about that too. But I will point out that if it's horded hoarded properly instead of distributed, it will retain value (see example: US Dollar in 2013). And as far as comparing it to gold in the real world - Dwarves had been mining for gold in Middle Earth for five millennia. And their definition of "mine" makes most modern human mines look like cat holes.

Still... that horde hoard did look like it would fill Scrooge McDuck's bin at least twelve times.


/me fail English? That's unpossible!
 
2013-12-16 04:10:46 PM  

clkeagle: clkeagle: DamnYankees: mongbiohazard: Generally though I liked it. Smaug was great, the spiders great, and the visual art on display is as fantastic as always.  The first thing I thought when I saw the massive mountain of treasure that Smaug was sleeping in was - "When they kill that dragon that huge treasure pile is going to completely kick the bottom out of the treasure market. There is so much gold and jewels in there that everyone in Middle Earth are going to be using gold to make their forks and spoons from then on, and jewels will be used as paperweights."

Ha, honestly this was my thought also. There was honestly too much gold in that room. Remember, gold is only valuable if its rare! This blows people minds, but in the entire world, there's not even enough gold to fill 2 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The amount of gold in Erebor was INSANE.

I thought about that too. But I will point out that if it's horded hoarded properly instead of distributed, it will retain value (see example: US Dollar in 2013). And as far as comparing it to gold in the real world - Dwarves had been mining for gold in Middle Earth for five millennia. And their definition of "mine" makes most modern human mines look like cat holes.

Still... that horde hoard whore'd look like it would fill Scrooge McDuck's bin at least twelve times.

/me fail English? That's unpossible!


Just because
 
2013-12-16 04:27:12 PM  

DamnYankees: mongbiohazard: Generally though I liked it. Smaug was great, the spiders great, and the visual art on display is as fantastic as always.  The first thing I thought when I saw the massive mountain of treasure that Smaug was sleeping in was - "When they kill that dragon that huge treasure pile is going to completely kick the bottom out of the treasure market. There is so much gold and jewels in there that everyone in Middle Earth are going to be using gold to make their forks and spoons from then on, and jewels will be used as paperweights."

Ha, honestly this was my thought also. There was honestly too much gold in that room. Remember, gold is only valuable if its rare! This blows people minds, but in the entire world, there's not even enough gold to fill 2 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The amount of gold in Erebor was INSANE.


Yeah--that was the only thing we chose to pick apart, too.  Fantasy is one thing, but when your kids are skeptical about THAT MUCH gold, it's kind of funny.
 
2013-12-16 04:31:27 PM  

Kuta: The LOTR should have been 6 movies (the extended Director's cut plus maybe a bit more). The Hobbit should have been 2 movies.


6 movies? I hope you're being sarcastic. Like you want Jackson to have shown literally every step they took in their journey.

I liked them but I started nodding off midway through each (in the theater, and I never do that), and the extended cuts were just plain boring.
 
2013-12-16 04:34:15 PM  
I have all the extended editions on my shelf, and there is already a space for the remaining 2 Hobbit extended editions. I loved the second Hobbit installment and will probably see it once more in theaters this week. Not only do I not mind that it's a cash grab, I happily aid and abet said grab. The question is whether it's worth the cash. In this case, I say yes, yes it is worth it, and I'm glad I have one more Middle-Earth movie to look forward to.

Most media is a cach grab. Every media you enjoy, books, movies, video games, music, is motivated by how much they can sell. That's how the industry works, and as long as we get quality product, I'm good.

Hell, the original Woodstock was nothing more than a naked cash grab. It gets romanticized years and years later, but it was no less comercial than concerts today.
 
2013-12-16 04:35:08 PM  
I am very disappointed with  Desolation.The narrative flow just seemed really off.  More like a string of connected events than a real story.  They could've cut Beorn out entirely and I wouldn't have missed him.
 
2013-12-16 04:35:41 PM  
I'm enjoying the Hobbit Trilogy thus far, but I have to remember that it is an adaptation of the book.  Things had to be changed to make it flow in an entirely different medium.

But on the topic of CG:  there were a few bad cuts here and there, but hands-down the worst CG I've seen in years (I mean, this was on the level of the local mattress store's President's Day commercial's CG) was Legolas riding on his horse out of Lake Town.  That was just horrible.  It was the first point of discussion after the movie for us.
 
2013-12-16 04:36:45 PM  

ElusiveWookiee: But on the topic of CG:  there were a few bad cuts here and there, but hands-down the worst CG I've seen in years (I mean, this was on the level of the local mattress store's President's Day commercial's CG) was Legolas riding on his horse out of Lake Town.  That was just horrible.  It was the first point of discussion after the movie for us.


Ha, ya, that was bad too.
 
2013-12-16 04:42:08 PM  

Gestankfaust: the opposite of charity is justice: I stood up and walked out of Unexpected Journey over the bloated dishware scene.  And that was my own living room watching a pirated copy.

So...you admit to being an idiot.

That "bloated scene" is in the book jackass


I think he meant that Jackson bloats things. Everything is fatter, longer, taller, voicier, and in general, more bulbous in his films.

I watched Jackson's King Kong, so I bet the "That's what Bilbo Baggins hates!" scene required 57,000 saucers and cups, 61,000 bowls, and 105,000 plates. And fifty grips throwing them in four-hour shifts. And that's before the CGI boys took over.
 
2013-12-16 04:47:03 PM  

DamnYankees: Shrugging Atlas: While Desolation wasn't bad, you could have split half of it between the other two films, and then included the remaining half in the inevitable blu-ray director cut versions.

The other films are already going to be 2.5 hours each. You want 2 four-hour movies?


No, which is why they trim down the first one to accomodate the extra material.  And since we have no idea yet as to the length or content the third will be, who can say?
 
2013-12-16 04:54:34 PM  

fickenchucker: I never read the books.
I never saw the LOTR movies

I rented the first Hobbit movie Friday night, and then went to see Smaug Sunday afternoon.

End result?  My kids and I enjoyed the Hobbit, REALLY enjoyed Smaug (3Dhfr is excellent), and am now mildly interested in the LOTR story line.  Might even read the books.



The Hobbit (book) is an easy read, mainly because it was written for children. Lord of the Rings is a slog to get through, although not as painful as The Simirilion.
 
2013-12-16 05:01:49 PM  
Girion47:

The barrel sequence was farking stupid and I question the intelligence of anyone that thinks differently.  When the red bearded dwarf's barrel bounces out of the water and then takes out 10 orcs in a row before he sticks his arms out the side and becomes a whirling death machine AND then jumps in an unoccupied barrel(where did the extra come from) is probably the most idiotic thing since the 3rd Matrix


I fully recognize that the barrel scene was stupid, but I still enjoyed it.

It was cartoonish and silly fun.

Yeah, I realized as I was watching it that it was totally impossible that something like that could happen, but then I switched into Kids Movie Mode, and simply accepted it. See, that's the point where all reason backs off, and suspension of disbelieve reigns supreme for enjoyment's sake.

The scene was well shot, as you could at least tell what was happening. Many action film directors these days could learn a thing or two from Peter Jackson. At least he doesn't shake the friggin camera all over the place (too much).

Not good, by objective standards, but it still worked somehow. I liked the movie, if reluctantly.
 
2013-12-16 05:02:49 PM  

Andric: I am very disappointed with  Desolation.The narrative flow just seemed really off.  More like a string of connected events than a real story.  They could've cut Beorn out entirely and I wouldn't have missed him.


Jackson's not very good at pacing, especially when he has a large budget, because he doesn't know when to cut things out. He wants to put *everything* he filmed into the movie.

/Of course, sometimes he does the opposite: see the death of Saruman
 
2013-12-16 05:04:48 PM  

doczoidberg: Yeah, I realized as I was watching it that it was totally impossible that something like that could happen, but then I switched into Kids Movie Mode, and simply accepted it. See, that's the point where all reason backs off, and suspension of disbelieve reigns supreme for enjoyment's sake.

The scene was well shot, as you could at least tell what was happening. Many action film directors these days could learn a thing or two from Peter Jackson. At least he doesn't shake the friggin camera all over the place (too much).


Exactly right. They did the exact right thing in saying "ok, we have our basic scenario of barrels going down a river, what can we do with this", and then they hit all the rights note. Barrel bounces around? Check. Barrel turns into armor? Check. Weapons are passed around from barrel to barrel? Check. Awesome sequence where each barrel takes a single hack at a fallen tree, until the tree breaks? Awesome.

It felt like a theme park ride, and it was awesome.
 
2013-12-16 05:08:02 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: The Hobbit (book) is an easy read, mainly because it was written for children. Lord of the Rings is a slog to get through, although not as painful as The Simirilion


The books are all pretty terrible.  The Hobbit is awful because it's written for children, and not very well at that.  LotR can't seem to stay focused on the story, and the hobbits, who should have been killed a dozen times before they even left the Shire, are constantly being saved by a fairy or Tom Bombardillo who just happened to show up at the right time to save them from their own raging stupidity.  Also, it's just plain tedious to read.  I haven't even bothered to open up a copy of the Silmarillion.

And yet, Jackson did a brilliant job with LotR specifically by cutting out a lot of the pointless rambling garbage.  He's taken the opposite route on the Hobbit.  Now, I still intend to go and see the remaining 2 Hobbit movies.  However, I doubt I'll ever sit down and watch them again, which I have done many times with the 3 LotR films.
 
2013-12-16 05:09:28 PM  
Saw it yesterday and was discussing it with my wife.  One thing we both agreed was this story was going to make the Battle of the Five Armies make a lot more sense than the "WTF?  Where did the orcs come from?" in the book.

/Nobody mentioned taking an arrow to the knee?
 
2013-12-16 05:15:06 PM  

mongbiohazard: Saw it yesterday. It was good, but for the very first time since Fellowship of the Ring I started to get a little annoyed at the additions and liberties they were taking with the stories. I liked pretty much everything that Jackson has cut or added to the Tolkein stories up until now, but in this one the additions didn't seem to fit as well... they seemed more forced.

*****Minor Spoilers*****

In particular the new elf chick/Legolas/Dwarf love triangle thing I thought was pointless. Maybe this one could have just ended up being the short one of the three hobbit movies, and they could have trimmed off half an hour or something.


They are setting up for a plausible reason why the elves will join the Battle of Five Armies other than Thranduil is greedy.  There has to be some connection between the elves and the dwarves for the king to leave his realm.


And the whole barrel escape sequence I thought was just dumb. I didn't find it amusing, it was just stupid slapstick.

It's comic relief. Didn't bother me.  How dull it would have been for them to just float away.  One of the reasons you make a fantasy movie is to show off fantastic things in a visual medium.  A book can show off its artistry with a long poem (something Tolkein was overfond of) but that doesn't work so well in a movie.  The orcs are there because, again, there needs to be a credible reason why a huge army of orcs suddenly shows up for the Battle of Five Armies, something lacking in the books.


Generally though I liked it. Smaug was great, the spiders great, and the visual art on display is as fantastic as always.  The first thing I thought when I saw the massive mountain of treasure that Smaug was sleeping in was - "When they kill that dragon that huge treasure pile is going to completely kick the bottom out of the treasure market. There is so much gold and jewels in there that everyone in Middle Earth are going to be using gold to make their forks and spoons from then on, and jewels will be used as paperweights."

Yeah, I was thinking that too.  A bit overboard on the treasure.  The only thing I can think is that dwarves are hoarders so most of the gold will never find its way into the market.  You can safely invest in Middle Earth gold futures I believe.
 
2013-12-16 05:15:52 PM  

kroonermanblack: The books just didn't remotely interest me.


That's because you're a goddamn alien from outer space, so just shut your pie-hole, or whatever it is that you could stuff pie into.
 
2013-12-16 05:19:01 PM  

DamnYankees: Honest question - do you really think Jackson thought "this is 2 movies, but we should make it three and add stuff to pad out the time"?


I think it was more the fault of the movie execs. They were the ones that wanted to milk this cash cow. Jackson just went along with it because more movie time = more time spent making movies, and he likes making movies. Can't really blame him.
 
2013-12-16 05:20:14 PM  

Lando Lincoln: DamnYankees: Honest question - do you really think Jackson thought "this is 2 movies, but we should make it three and add stuff to pad out the time"?

I think it was more the fault of the movie execs. They were the ones that wanted to milk this cash cow. Jackson just went along with it because more movie time = more time spent making movies, and he likes making movies. Can't really blame him.


I'd bet you it was the opposite - Jackson wanted to do it, and the execs said "sure, more money!"

But who knows - I wasn't in the room.
 
2013-12-16 05:22:27 PM  

Persnickety: It's comic relief. Didn't bother me.  How dull it would have been for them to just float away.


In the same amount of time that they spent on the rushing rapids chase scene bullshiat? Yes, that definitely would have been dull. Which is why one logically wouldn't have spent the same amount of time. And then use that time to tell more of the actual story, instead of wasting it on stupid action scenes that are action scenes just to be action scenes and farking love interests that have no goddamn place in the story.
 
2013-12-16 05:24:04 PM  
Still missing appearances from Robert Plant and Jimmy Page.
 
2013-12-16 05:30:49 PM  
 
2013-12-16 05:34:39 PM  

Lando Lincoln: And then use that time to tell more of the actual story, instead of wasting it on stupid action scenes that are action scenes just to be action scenes and farking love interests that have no goddamn place in the story.


Oh no! Not action scenes!
 
2013-12-16 05:37:19 PM  
I'm not spending 9+ hours in a movie theater so we can feel better about the director....
 
2013-12-16 05:47:33 PM  

DamnYankees: Lando Lincoln: And then use that time to tell more of the actual story, instead of wasting it on stupid action scenes that are action scenes just to be action scenes and farking love interests that have no goddamn place in the story.

Oh no! Not action scenes!


There was enough action in the books without adding more of them. But you wouldn't know.
 
2013-12-16 05:51:34 PM  

Lando Lincoln: DamnYankees: As someone who has never read The Hobbit and loved the LOTR movies, I don't really

...matter in relation to the LOTR discussions.

What, was it too long? The material too difficult?

DamnYankees: I also want to say, that even though it looks stupid in the trailers, the barrel sequence was awesome. Very inventive and fun.

"Inventive and fun" like "dwarves falling 100 feet onto rocks and then tumbling another 100 feet and hitting more rocks" kind? Or like, "that's somewhat plausible" fun?

Tolkien had the barrel scene as a clever and stealthy way to escape to Lake Town. There's no rapids. There's no real danger except for the dwarves drowning in the leaky barrels and Bilbo being detected. Jackson makes it into a super-action sequence, because Hollywood Execs love that shiat.


Meh, Jackson needed an excuse for that soft shiny red headed elven slut to go chase after that young hard dwarven cock, because ... fark I have no idea why an elf would bang a dwarf.
 
2013-12-16 05:55:33 PM  
There is pretty much nothing in this movie that happened the way they happen in the book.  Ironically, the only things in either movie so far that have been mostly consistent with the book were the dishes scene at Bag End and the riddles with Gollum - ironic because most people denounce the former as silly and pointless.  It is - that's kind of the point.  The dwarves had to be set up as being slightly absurd, and that's something that gets lost in the "epic" version.

Don't get me wrong - this movie was better than the last, and overall I probably like it.  But it's about as much "The Hobbit" as "I, Robot" was of its original material.  "Inspired by" would probably be the best description.  A friend of mine asked me at one point, "I have to use the restroom; am I going to miss anything?"  I replied, "They've changed enough that I have no idea."
 
2013-12-16 06:07:47 PM  
Persnickety:
They are setting up for a plausible reason why the elves will join the Battle of Five Armies other than Thranduil is greedy.  There has to be some connection between the elves and the dwarves for the king to leave his realm.

Greed is its own explanation at times, and Thranduil is a big dick.  Peter Jackson loves his elves and loves making them more important/badass than they should be (see:  the completely unnecessary inclusion of elves at Helm's Deep; Unbreakegolas) so don't be surprised if the elves only throw down in Five Armies to fight the orcs.
 
2013-12-16 06:09:12 PM  

ztrom: (see:  the completely unnecessary inclusion of elves at Helm's Deep; Unbreakegolas)


I tend to think that people who didn't like the Elves showing up at Helms Deep are just huge sourpusses. Because that scene was "fark YEAH" awesome.
 
2013-12-16 06:11:23 PM  

Null Pointer: The entire sequence of events could have been told in about an hour.


For movies where I just want to know the sequence of events, I'll read the plot on Wikipedia. But Middle Earth is a whole other world.
 
2013-12-16 06:25:41 PM  
wow, so today we learned peter jacksons fark handle.....
 
2013-12-16 06:31:16 PM  

DamnYankees: ztrom: (see:  the completely unnecessary inclusion of elves at Helm's Deep; Unbreakegolas)

I tend to think that people who didn't like the Elves showing up at Helms Deep are just huge sourpusses. Because that scene was "fark YEAH" awesome.


And it could've been worse.

The ORIGINAL draft of that had Arwen showing up with them.  Because they had this problem where we'd meet Arwen in Fellowship, and then she'd randomly show up to marry Aragorn in ROTK two movies (and 2 years) later.

So they had this bright idea of Arwen showing up at Helm's Deep to fight with them.

/And oh thank GODS they got rid of that.
//And instead we got hallucinations after he falls off the cliff.
 
2013-12-16 06:36:04 PM  

meyerkev: DamnYankees: ztrom: (see:  the completely unnecessary inclusion of elves at Helm's Deep; Unbreakegolas)

I tend to think that people who didn't like the Elves showing up at Helms Deep are just huge sourpusses. Because that scene was "fark YEAH" awesome.

And it could've been worse.

The ORIGINAL draft of that had Arwen showing up with them.  Because they had this problem where we'd meet Arwen in Fellowship, and then she'd randomly show up to marry Aragorn in ROTK two movies (and 2 years) later.

So they had this bright idea of Arwen showing up at Helm's Deep to fight with them.

/And oh thank GODS they got rid of that.
//And instead we got hallucinations after he falls off the cliff.


Indeed. There's actually one shot of her at Helms Deep still in the movie, for you keen-eyed folk.
 
2013-12-16 06:52:31 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: fark I have no idea why an elf would bang a dwarf.


They delve deeply. Or so I've been told.
 
2013-12-16 06:54:07 PM  
Loved the books, all of them
Not the least bit interested in the movies, all of them
 
2013-12-16 06:58:19 PM  

DamnYankees: ztrom: (see:  the completely unnecessary inclusion of elves at Helm's Deep; Unbreakegolas)

I tend to think that people who didn't like the Elves showing up at Helms Deep are just huge sourpusses. Because that scene was "fark YEAH" awesome.


Meh, some people love it, some hate it.  I hated it because I thought it undercut the heroism of the Rohirrim.  Kinda a "They only held because of the elves" when it was really the first real, exclusively human victory against the baddies of Middle Earth.
 
2013-12-16 07:03:18 PM  
Ah, there's nothing like a Peter Jackson movie to bring out the "stop liking what I don't like" crowd.
 
2013-12-16 07:19:08 PM  
"...it's a matter of the creatives being so enamored of their own work that they were unwilling to trim the fat."

Peter Jackson's film career in a nutshell.
 
2013-12-16 07:50:36 PM  

INeedAName: RyansPrivates: I have one question out for those of you that are very familiar with the various source material available:

Where is exactly to the "non"-Hobbit parts of the movie come from? I have read the Hobbit a few times, but not several.   I don't recall much of the material surrounding Sauron / Necromancer being present, nor much of the development of the Goblins/Orcs as any sort of expansive characters with different personalities.

A lot of it is pulled from 'The Silmarillion.'


Always one in every one of these threads.

No, it's not from the Silmarillion. The non-Hobbit material is from the appendices of the LotR or has been created by PJ and his team.

I should make a text document with that and just copypasta it in every time I see somebody mention the material coming from the Silmarillion...
 
2013-12-16 08:03:21 PM  
I don't know what everyone is all upset about.  All of the "extra stuff" is 100% canon taken directly from The Silmarillion,  It's like two films for the price of three!
 
2013-12-16 08:28:46 PM  

Lando Lincoln: kroonermanblack: The books just didn't remotely interest me.

That's because you're a goddamn alien from outer space, so just shut your pie-hole, or whatever it is that you could stuff pie into.


I AM NOT AN ANCHOR BABY GOD DAMNIT.
 
2013-12-16 08:30:52 PM  
In other news, Star Wars prequels still deemed "Three Films Too Many".
 
2013-12-16 08:38:11 PM  
Oh for...see the stupid thing or don't, nerds.  Nobody freakin' cares if the thought of this even existing is enough to make you crawl in bed with your blanky and cry yourself to sleep.  Stop telling us about it.  Please.
 
kab
2013-12-16 08:53:20 PM  

Mad Tea Party: Slaves2Darkness: fark I have no idea why an elf would bang a dwarf.

They delve deeply. Or so I've been told.


*snort*
 
2013-12-16 08:56:48 PM  

Night Night Cream Puff: INeedAName: RyansPrivates: I have one question out for those of you that are very familiar with the various source material available:

Where is exactly to the "non"-Hobbit parts of the movie come from? I have read the Hobbit a few times, but not several.   I don't recall much of the material surrounding Sauron / Necromancer being present, nor much of the development of the Goblins/Orcs as any sort of expansive characters with different personalities.

A lot of it is pulled from 'The Silmarillion.'

Always one in every one of these threads.

No, it's not from the Silmarillion. The non-Hobbit material is from the appendices of the LotR or has been created by PJ and his team.

I should make a text document with that and just copypasta it in every time I see somebody mention the material coming from the Silmarillion...


Just be clear, by appendices, you mean the stuff after the end of  "The Return of the King", correct?  Not some separate book identified as the appendices.  And the stuff Peter Jackson created, he just made it up?  Not "loosely based on xxx?"
 
2013-12-16 08:59:44 PM  

Night Night Cream Puff: INeedAName: RyansPrivates: I have one question out for those of you that are very familiar with the various source material available:

Where is exactly to the "non"-Hobbit parts of the movie come from? I have read the Hobbit a few times, but not several.   I don't recall much of the material surrounding Sauron / Necromancer being present, nor much of the development of the Goblins/Orcs as any sort of expansive characters with different personalities.

A lot of it is pulled from 'The Silmarillion.'

Always one in every one of these threads.

No, it's not from the Silmarillion. The non-Hobbit material is from the appendices of the LotR, or has been created by PJ and his team.

I should make a text document with that and just copypasta it in every time I see somebody mention the material coming from the Silmarillion...


In fact, Jackson was only able to obtain the rights to use the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, making material from the Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales verboten.  So yeah, not only did he not pull from the Silmarillion, he couldn't.
 
2013-12-16 09:09:10 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Persnickety: It's comic relief. Didn't bother me.  How dull it would have been for them to just float away.

In the same amount of time that they spent on the rushing rapids chase scene bullshiat? Yes, that definitely would have been dull. Which is why one logically wouldn't have spent the same amount of time. And then use that time to tell more of the actual story, instead of wasting it on stupid action scenes that are action scenes just to be action scenes and farking love interests that have no goddamn place in the story.


If you accept that the orcs were after them, it makes sense they would be watching for them and attack them when they left the elvish kingdom.  If you can't accept it, then we need another plausible explanation why a huge army of orcs suddenly shows up at the Battle of Five Armies.

Also note that this is an adaption of The Hobbit, which is a book told completely from the POV of Bilbo Baggins.  Movies aren't generally told from the POV of a single character which fortunately opens up the movie to include things like the White Council, The Necromancer, more of Bard's story, more about the elves, etc.  So sure, in the story Bilbo tells us, there's no romance.  He spent the whole story with a bunch of dudes, dwarves mostly.  But that doesn't preclude there being a romance somewhere amongst all the other characters he encounters.
 
2013-12-16 09:14:21 PM  

JAGUART: In other news, Star Wars prequels still deemed "Three Films Too Many".


I say this in every thread: they weren't as bad as you think (nor as good as Lucas hoped, for that matter).

The Phantom Menace pod race was pretty damned awesome.  The senate stuff sucked.  The midichilorians were a mind job.  Darth Maul vs. Obi-wan and Qui Gon was awesome. The battle for Naboo was tolerable, but the gungan city was scene was bad.

In the Attack of the Clones, the love story sucked the life out, but the asteroid scene with the "bwaaaaaah" bomb thing was cool.  The final battle was fun as was obi-wans previous battle with Jango, but the droid jokes were stale. The jet ski Darth Tyranus was comical. The harryhausen arena was fun.

Revenge of the Sith was tolerable, and bordered on good (much like Return of the Jedi).  The opening scene 20 minutes was farking awesome, and Obi-wan battling General Grevious was good.  The continued whiny biatch that was Anakin sucked, but the final battles (Yoda vs. Palpatine, Obi-wan vs. Anakin) were good.  The death of Mace Windu was an outright crime (much like the death of Boba-Fett in Return of the Jedi.

So for me they occupy two of the lowest 3 slots, but revenge the sith just barely beats out Return of the Jedi, because you know: ewoks.  (Luke was still a badass though).  So my order

1. Empire Strikes Back
2. Star Wars
3. Revenge of the Sith
4. Return of the Jedi
5. Attack of the Clones
6 - 8: The lensflare Trilogy (yet to be released)
9: Phantom Menace
10. Prometheus (crap wrong series)
11. Star Wars Christmas Special
11
 
2013-12-16 09:23:09 PM  

ztrom: Persnickety:
They are setting up for a plausible reason why the elves will join the Battle of Five Armies other than Thranduil is greedy.  There has to be some connection between the elves and the dwarves for the king to leave his realm.

Greed is its own explanation at times, and Thranduil is a big dick.  Peter Jackson loves his elves and loves making them more important/badass than they should be (see:  the completely unnecessary inclusion of elves at Helm's Deep; Unbreakegolas) so don't be surprised if the elves only throw down in Five Armies to fight the orcs.


Greed is Bilbo's impression as to why the elves showed up.  Remember The Hobbit is from his POV alone.  He's probably wrong, as he is wrong as to why Gandalf was so interested in the quest.  If Thranduil is a dick, Thorin is an ever bigger dick in the book.  The rest of the dwarves aren't much better.  All this dickishness would make for a pretty lousy movie, filled with characters we don't like.
 
2013-12-16 09:29:11 PM  

RyansPrivates: revenge the sith just barely beats out Return of the Jedi, because you know: ewoks.


People who hate on ewoks are secretly child molesters.
 
2013-12-16 09:33:30 PM  

Teufelaffe: Night Night Cream Puff: INeedAName: RyansPrivates: I have one question out for those of you that are very familiar with the various source material available:

Where is exactly to the "non"-Hobbit parts of the movie come from? I have read the Hobbit a few times, but not several.   I don't recall much of the material surrounding Sauron / Necromancer being present, nor much of the development of the Goblins/Orcs as any sort of expansive characters with different personalities.

A lot of it is pulled from 'The Silmarillion.'

Always one in every one of these threads.

No, it's not from the Silmarillion. The non-Hobbit material is from the appendices of the LotR, or has been created by PJ and his team.

I should make a text document with that and just copypasta it in every time I see somebody mention the material coming from the Silmarillion...

In fact, Jackson was only able to obtain the rights to use the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, making material from the Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales verboten.  So yeah, not only did he not pull from the Silmarillion, he couldn't.


Although, the prelude to Desolation of Smaug, with the "chance encounter" between Gandalf and Thorin, actually comes from Unfinished Tales.  Perhaps he changed it up enough to not get in trouble - it's been awhile since I've read it.
 
2013-12-16 10:24:37 PM  

DamnYankees: OSULugan: "We can probably stretch this into 3 movies if we add a bunch of this stuff not from the book.  But, do you honestly think the fans will care?"

Honest question - do you really think Jackson thought "this is 2 movies, but we should make it three and add stuff to pad out the time"? Or do you think he thought "there's so much I want to put in here, and two movies just isn't enough, so I'd rather make three movies than hack out parts I love?"

You can criticize him for making the wrong decision, but it just seems incredibly unlikely to me he did it in bad faith. Dude already has enough money for a lifetime.


I never thought it was Jackson acting in bad faith, I figured it was the studio. Given the development hell that the project went through at the start, I figured a final negotiation came down to "make us three more movies or fark off".
 
2013-12-16 10:36:09 PM  
Before the first film came out, I re-read the Hobbit for the first time in about 20 years. Having read it, I can actually see where some of the additional material is going to come from; Jackson didn't whip up chapters in a vacuum. Tolkien was LEGENDARY for the sheer scale of his backstory, and there are entire off-screen battles in "The Hobbit" that would make good spectacle. Afterwards, I thought, "You know, this could work."
 
2013-12-16 11:21:22 PM  
Why stop at 6 movies? Just hire someone to write three new books and keep it going. Though the new author can leave out all those stupid songs and poems.
 
2013-12-16 11:35:04 PM  

Lando Lincoln: DamnYankees: As someone who has never read The Hobbit and loved the LOTR movies, I don't really

...matter in relation to the LOTR discussions.

What, was it too long? The material too difficult?

DamnYankees: I also want to say, that even though it looks stupid in the trailers, the barrel sequence was awesome. Very inventive and fun.

"Inventive and fun" like "dwarves falling 100 feet onto rocks and then tumbling another 100 feet and hitting more rocks" kind? Or like, "that's somewhat plausible" fun?

Tolkien had the barrel scene as a clever and stealthy way to escape to Lake Town. There's no rapids. There's no real danger except for the dwarves drowning in the leaky barrels and Bilbo being detected. Jackson makes it into a super-action sequence, because Hollywood Execs love that shiat.


What a tool. The books were crap, get over it.
 
2013-12-16 11:44:48 PM  

DamnYankees: PC LOAD LETTER: the opposite of charity is justice: I stood up and walked out of Unexpected Journey over the bloated dishware scene.  And that was my own living room watching a pirated copy.

Including the songs was a stupid move that made this into a farking musical. Excluding the songs in the LOTR was one of the main reasons I liked it so much.

The couple of times they do include songs in LOTR it was wonderful - Aragorn singing about Beren and Luthien, and of course Pippin singing in front of Walter Bishop.


I really enjoyed those two songs, especially Billy Boyd's because he actually wrote it himself, and the entire crew was brought to tears the first time he sang it. Eowyn's song in the extended TTT makes me cringe.
 
2013-12-17 12:39:25 AM  
The orcs look like an intern was designed to render them. At least the LOTR movies had actors in prosthetics, whereas Azok looks like a videogame character from 2007.
 
2013-12-17 12:55:44 AM  
1937 "The Hobbit" first edition hardcover was 310 pages. 3 movies.

"The Fellowship of the Ring" = 531
"The Two Towers" = 416
"The Return of the King" =624

1571 pages. Three movies.
 
2013-12-17 01:15:44 AM  
Meh, more power to him.  The guy's a person, and if I were a person, and I loved doing something, with people I loved doing it with, then yeah - I'd stretch that out.

And try to make a product that was high-quality.

People are people, and their motivations are peopley.

The dude likes being the director of LOTR movies.  And he's pretty good at it.

Stretching The Hobbit out into 3 isn't 'necessary.'
But he's not committing some kind of crime.  He's having fun telling stories.

So he goes on a little too long.
 
2013-12-17 01:50:23 AM  
Haven't seen the second film yet, but it sure sounds like Peter Jackson is continuing his unhinged orgy of useless CGI scenes that drag on for eternity and serve no purpose other than to remove my suspension of disbelief. The slow pacing of the first film was not my problem. The stupid "cute" action sequences of Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull level of sophistication hurt my viewing experience. He's been turning into George Lucas since King Kong, a few steps ahead of where I think Guillermo Del Toro is headed, and maybe a step behind James Cameron. Being strapped for cash and reined in by executives tends to make a lot of film-makers better than if they are given unlimited control and budget.
 
2013-12-17 03:40:40 AM  

sat1va: Haven't seen the second film yet, but it sure sounds like Peter Jackson is continuing his unhinged orgy of useless CGI scenes that drag on for eternity and serve no purpose other than to remove my suspension of disbelief. The slow pacing of the first film was not my problem. The stupid "cute" action sequences of Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull level of sophistication hurt my viewing experience. He's been turning into George Lucas since King Kong, a few steps ahead of where I think Guillermo Del Toro is headed, and maybe a step behind James Cameron. Being strapped for cash and reined in by executives tends to make a lot of film-makers better than if they are given unlimited control and budget.


The second movie is enormously better than the first, but has two action sequences which could be seen as too long, and which contain elements that are pretty silly.. but neither are flat out retarded like the goblin caves in the first one, and there is a LOT to like.
 
2013-12-17 04:27:54 AM  
i'm glad they're willing to pay the tolkien family for this.
 
2013-12-17 09:54:04 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Teufelaffe: Night Night Cream Puff: INeedAName: RyansPrivates: I have one question out for those of you that are very familiar with the various source material available:

Where is exactly to the "non"-Hobbit parts of the movie come from? I have read the Hobbit a few times, but not several.   I don't recall much of the material surrounding Sauron / Necromancer being present, nor much of the development of the Goblins/Orcs as any sort of expansive characters with different personalities.

A lot of it is pulled from 'The Silmarillion.'

Always one in every one of these threads.

No, it's not from the Silmarillion. The non-Hobbit material is from the appendices of the LotR, or has been created by PJ and his team.

I should make a text document with that and just copypasta it in every time I see somebody mention the material coming from the Silmarillion...

In fact, Jackson was only able to obtain the rights to use the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, making material from the Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales verboten.  So yeah, not only did he not pull from the Silmarillion, he couldn't.

Although, the prelude to Desolation of Smaug, with the "chance encounter" between Gandalf and Thorin, actually comes from Unfinished Tales.  Perhaps he changed it up enough to not get in trouble - it's been awhile since I've read it.


FYI, I just was flipping through the Appendices in my copy of "The Return of the King" and found the "chance encounter" detailed in Appendix A under section III "Durins Folk", near the end.  So weird that I was just asking about this stuff yesterday and now find it.  Talk about a "chance encounter"!
 
2013-12-17 10:22:27 AM  

burning_bridge: Oh for...see the stupid thing or don't, nerds.  Nobody freakin' cares if the thought of this even existing is enough to make you crawl in bed with your blanky and cry yourself to sleep.  Stop telling us about it.  Please.


Oooooookay, so what would you prefer we use comment threads for?
 
2013-12-17 11:47:39 AM  

The Pope of Manwich Village: 1937 "The Hobbit" first edition hardcover was 310 pages. 3 movies.

"The Fellowship of the Ring" = 531
"The Two Towers" = 416
"The Return of the King" =624

1571 pages. Three movies.


The beginning of "The Fellowship of the Ring"  has a long introduction not filmed.  The back third of "The Return of the King"  is appendices, again not filmed for LOTR but instead is partially being filmed for  "The Hobbit" movies that we are seeing now.
 
2013-12-17 12:09:06 PM  

Decillion: You have to treat the audience like children, especially the book-clingers. They don't know what they really want even though they think they do. They want the book, but in the book Bard come out of nowhere. No one wants that. They think they want stealth barrels but actions barrels is what they need.

I applaud Jackson. This is his second child and he knows what needs to be done. Give these book whiners what they need. Make them eat their cinematic vegetables and take away the movie rotting candy like you did last time. (Bombadil, Shire scouring nonsense)


This made me laugh.  A more idioctic stance could not be taken by an intelligent person.  Thank you, Decillion, for the sarcasm.  It brightened my day.
 
2013-12-17 12:20:25 PM  

fickenchucker: I never read the books.
I never saw the LOTR movies

I rented the first Hobbit movie Friday night, and then went to see Smaug Sunday afternoon.

End result?  My kids and I enjoyed the Hobbit, REALLY enjoyed Smaug (3Dhfr is excellent), and am now mildly interested in the LOTR story line.  Might even read the books.

/It sounds to me like all this bickering over details is a bunch of Comic Book Guy nerds biatching a bunch of "normies" are invading their turf.


If you enjoyed the movies, please stay away from the books.  Tolkein work can be dry and dense.  There are those that enjoy such work, and then there are "you people".
 
2013-12-17 12:29:50 PM  

clkeagle: DamnYankees: mongbiohazard: Generally though I liked it. Smaug was great, the spiders great, and the visual art on display is as fantastic as always.  The first thing I thought when I saw the massive mountain of treasure that Smaug was sleeping in was - "When they kill that dragon that huge treasure pile is going to completely kick the bottom out of the treasure market. There is so much gold and jewels in there that everyone in Middle Earth are going to be using gold to make their forks and spoons from then on, and jewels will be used as paperweights."

Ha, honestly this was my thought also. There was honestly too much gold in that room. Remember, gold is only valuable if its rare! This blows people minds, but in the entire world, there's not even enough gold to fill 2 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The amount of gold in Erebor was INSANE.

I thought about that too. But I will point out that if it's horded properly instead of distributed, it will retain value (see example: US Dollar in 2013). And as far as comparing it to gold in the real world - Dwarves had been mining for gold in Middle Earth for five millennia. And their definition of "mine" makes most modern human mines look like cat holes.

Still... that horde did look like it would fill Scrooge McDuck's bin at least twelve times.


Keep in mind Erebor wasn't even one of the legendary Dwarven Mansions.  It was a lesser dwarven hall with an insane amount of gold.  How much gold and how many gems were lost when they had to flee Moria?
 
2013-12-17 12:32:14 PM  

Night Night Cream Puff: INeedAName: RyansPrivates: I have one question out for those of you that are very familiar with the various source material available:

Where is exactly to the "non"-Hobbit parts of the movie come from? I have read the Hobbit a few times, but not several.   I don't recall much of the material surrounding Sauron / Necromancer being present, nor much of the development of the Goblins/Orcs as any sort of expansive characters with different personalities.

A lot of it is pulled from 'The Silmarillion.'

Always one in every one of these threads.

No, it's not from the Silmarillion. The non-Hobbit material is from the appendices of the LotR or has been created by PJ and his team.

I should make a text document with that and just copypasta it in every time I see somebody mention the material coming from the Silmarillion...


That's because nobody ever actually finished reading The Silmarillion. Tedious, plodding and all over the place.  Most Tolkien fans own a copy, but Meh'd and put it back on the bookshelf.
 
2013-12-17 12:38:03 PM  

DamnYankees: Lando Lincoln: And then use that time to tell more of the actual story, instead of wasting it on stupid action scenes that are action scenes just to be action scenes and farking love interests that have no goddamn place in the story.

Oh no! Not action scenes!


Action scenes do not equal plot or good story telling, Mr. Bay.
 
2013-12-17 12:51:57 PM  

Persnickety: Lando Lincoln: Persnickety: It's comic relief. Didn't bother me.  How dull it would have been for them to just float away.

In the same amount of time that they spent on the rushing rapids chase scene bullshiat? Yes, that definitely would have been dull. Which is why one logically wouldn't have spent the same amount of time. And then use that time to tell more of the actual story, instead of wasting it on stupid action scenes that are action scenes just to be action scenes and farking love interests that have no goddamn place in the story.

If you accept that the orcs were after them, it makes sense they would be watching for them and attack them when they left the elvish kingdom.  If you can't accept it, then we need another plausible explanation why a huge army of orcs suddenly shows up at the Battle of Five Armies.

Also note that this is an adaption of The Hobbit, which is a book told completely from the POV of Bilbo Baggins.  Movies aren't generally told from the POV of a single character which fortunately opens up the movie to include things like the White Council, The Necromancer, more of Bard's story, more about the elves, etc.  So sure, in the story Bilbo tells us, there's no romance.  He spent the whole story with a bunch of dudes, dwarves mostly.  But that doesn't preclude there being a romance somewhere amongst all the other characters he encounters.


I hate this explanation.  Yes, The Hobbit was "written by Bilbo".  However, to suggest that Bilbo got very selective in his story telling as the reason why the movies are so different is simply illogical.  After 2 movies the story is so vastly different that it could have been written as a separate book and stood a good chance against plagarism charges.  To your own point, why would Bilbo leave out the love triangle?  In the movie Bilbo was at Erebor, while Kili was still in Lake Town.  In the book, all the dwarves go to Erebor.  None of them stay behind in Lake Town.

The whole point of the book is that Bilbo is the only one that doesn't completely lose his common sense due to avarice.  He saves the dwarves time and again because they are too bull-headed and greedy.  Thorin was never a hero in the book, his only redeeming moment is on his death bed.
 
2013-12-17 01:31:03 PM  
Maybe after the Hobbit series Jackson can remake Empire Strikes Back, but add a girlfriend for Chewbacca and give Willrow Hood 20 minutes of screentime to fill out his backstory.
 
2013-12-17 01:58:38 PM  

DamnYankees: The amount of gold in Erebor was INSANE.


You really think Mitt Romnadil and Gandalf the White would let any of the 98% see any of it?
 
2013-12-17 02:58:23 PM  
Wow this thread really brought out the book haters. I knew you were all there, but when you come out all at once you smell like reality television.
 
2013-12-17 03:24:31 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: DamnYankees: As someone who has never read The Hobbit and loved the LOTR movies, I don't really give a shiat. I think The Hobbit movies are worse than the LOTR movies, but they are on the whole very good so far, and I don't really have any issues with the pacing as a whole. For someone who doesn't know the story, it sure doesn't feel to me like they are stretching things.

The 2nd Hobbit movie, which I saw yesterday, was definitately better than the first, though. Very good fun. The only bad part I can think of is the last sequence in Erebor - too long, and the CGI wasn't very good.

The CGI wasn't great in the original movies.  The sizes among all the main characters was tetchy every step of the way -- hobbits, dwarves, humans.  They never got a good sense of establishing space and consistency and it bugged me to no end.


It is worse in the Hobbit 1 (haven't see 2).  Look at a shot between Bilbo and Gandalf. Gandalf towers over him (like he should). Then look at a scene with a hobbit and the dwarves. They look moderately similar with the dwarves being slightly taller.

Then look at a scene with the dwarves and Gandalf. They are very similar.
 
2013-12-17 04:29:33 PM  
chuggernaught: I hate this explanation.  Yes, The Hobbit was "written by Bilbo".  However, to suggest that Bilbo got very selective in his story telling as the reason why the movies are so different is simply illogical.

I'm not saying he's editing the story.  I'm saying he's not omnipresent and therefore doesn't know everything that happens.  Some of what he doesn't know turns out to be quite important.  Certainly, you'd have to agree that the White Council meeting from the last movie and Gandalf taking off to deal with the Necromancer (neither of which are in The Hobbit) are good examples of this.


After 2 movies the story is so vastly different that it could have been written as a separate book and stood a good chance against plagarism charges.

How is it "vastly" different?  All the major plot points have been hit and the main characters are where they are supposed to be.


To your own point, why would Bilbo leave out the love triangle?

Because he doesn't know about it.


In the movie Bilbo was at Erebor, while Kili was still in Lake Town.  In the book, all the dwarves go to Erebor.  None of them stay behind in Lake Town.

And this matters why?  What important thing was Kili supposed to do that was missed by him staying behind?


The whole point of the book is that Bilbo is the only one that doesn't completely lose his common sense due to avarice.  He saves the dwarves time and again because they are too bull-headed and greedy.  Thorin was never a hero in the book, his only redeeming moment is on his death bed.

Again, that is Bilbo's interpretation of what happened.  Everyone but him was a douchebag: the dwarves, the elves and even the men.  Hobbits are pacifists so to Bilbo, anyone who partook in the battle was an idiot and this colored his perception.  In some ways, Bilbo is an unreliable narrator.  Still, greed did get the better of Thorin and it was his undoing in the end.  But to make Thorin a jerk throughout the whole movie, however, begs the question as why Bilbo would join him and continue to support him.  One dimensional characters are fine for a children's book like The Hobbit but they don't translate well to films meant to appeal to adults too.  So, yes, the movie makes Thorin more than just a miserable greedy bastard.  Same with some of the other dwarves, who frankly, have no character at all in the book and are mostly there to have funny sounding names.
 
2013-12-17 04:55:09 PM  

Persnickety: Again, that is Bilbo's interpretation of what happened.  Everyone but him was a douchebag: the dwarves, the elves and even the men.  Hobbits are pacifists so to Bilbo, anyone who partook in the battle was an idiot and this colored his perception.  In some ways, Bilbo is an unreliable narrator.  Still, greed did get the better of Thorin and it was his undoing in the end.  But to make Thorin a jerk throughout the whole movie, however, begs the question as why Bilbo would join him and continue to support him.  One dimensional characters are fine for a children's book like The Hobbit but they don't translate well to films meant to appeal to adults too.  So, yes, the movie makes Thorin more than just a miserable greedy bastard.  Same with some of the other dwarves, who frankly, have no character at all in the book and are mostly there to have funny sounding names.


But lets also be clear that Thorin isn't even very likeable in the movies either. He's way, way less likeable than any of the other leads in these films or the LOTR films.
 
2013-12-17 05:44:47 PM  

DamnYankees: Persnickety: Again, that is Bilbo's interpretation of what happened.  Everyone but him was a douchebag: the dwarves, the elves and even the men.  Hobbits are pacifists so to Bilbo, anyone who partook in the battle was an idiot and this colored his perception.  In some ways, Bilbo is an unreliable narrator.  Still, greed did get the better of Thorin and it was his undoing in the end.  But to make Thorin a jerk throughout the whole movie, however, begs the question as why Bilbo would join him and continue to support him.  One dimensional characters are fine for a children's book like The Hobbit but they don't translate well to films meant to appeal to adults too.  So, yes, the movie makes Thorin more than just a miserable greedy bastard.  Same with some of the other dwarves, who frankly, have no character at all in the book and are mostly there to have funny sounding names.

But lets also be clear that Thorin isn't even very likeable in the movies either. He's way, way less likeable than any of the other leads in these films or the LOTR films.


Agreed.  And like Boromir and Saruman, his flaws will doom him in the end.
 
2013-12-17 09:20:39 PM  

Persnickety: chuggernaught: I hate this explanation.  Yes, The Hobbit was "written by Bilbo".  However, to suggest that Bilbo got very selective in his story telling as the reason why the movies are so different is simply illogical.

I'm not saying he's editing the story.  I'm saying he's not omnipresent and therefore doesn't know everything that happens.  Some of what he doesn't know turns out to be quite important.  Certainly, you'd have to agree that the White Council meeting from the last movie and Gandalf taking off to deal with the Necromancer (neither of which are in The Hobbit) are good examples of this.


After 2 movies the story is so vastly different that it could have been written as a separate book and stood a good chance against plagarism charges.

How is it "vastly" different?  All the major plot points have been hit and the main characters are where they are supposed to be.


To your own point, why would Bilbo leave out the love triangle?

Because he doesn't know about it.


In the movie Bilbo was at Erebor, while Kili was still in Lake Town.  In the book, all the dwarves go to Erebor.  None of them stay behind in Lake Town.

And this matters why?  What important thing was Kili supposed to do that was missed by him staying behind?


The whole point of the book is that Bilbo is the only one that doesn't completely lose his common sense due to avarice.  He saves the dwarves time and again because they are too bull-headed and greedy.  Thorin was never a hero in the book, his only redeeming moment is on his death bed.

Again, that is Bilbo's interpretation of what happened.  Everyone but him was a douchebag: the dwarves, the elves and even the men.  Hobbits are pacifists so to Bilbo, anyone who partook in the battle was an idiot and this colored his perception.  In some ways, Bilbo is an unreliable narrator.  Still, greed did get the better of Thorin and it was his undoing in the end.  But to make Thorin a jerk throughout the whole movie, however, begs the question a ...


Thorin is certainly greedy and eager to take his rightful spot back as king of the mountain, but that isn't all he is. Even in the book. He obviously had courage and nobility. The other Dwarves all saw something in him or would not have dared such a dangerous quest to fight beside him.  Still, Thorin is not the noble soul that Aragorn was and should not tried to be built up like him.
 
2013-12-17 09:26:27 PM  

Persnickety: DamnYankees: Persnickety: Again, that is Bilbo's interpretation of what happened.  Everyone but him was a douchebag: the dwarves, the elves and even the men.  Hobbits are pacifists so to Bilbo, anyone who partook in the battle was an idiot and this colored his perception.  In some ways, Bilbo is an unreliable narrator.  Still, greed did get the better of Thorin and it was his undoing in the end.  But to make Thorin a jerk throughout the whole movie, however, begs the question as why Bilbo would join him and continue to support him.  One dimensional characters are fine for a children's book like The Hobbit but they don't translate well to films meant to appeal to adults too.  So, yes, the movie makes Thorin more than just a miserable greedy bastard.  Same with some of the other dwarves, who frankly, have no character at all in the book and are mostly there to have funny sounding names.

But lets also be clear that Thorin isn't even very likeable in the movies either. He's way, way less likeable than any of the other leads in these films or the LOTR films.

Agreed.  And like Boromir and Saruman, his flaws will doom him in the end.


But Boromir is a strong and virtuous warrior until the Ring uses his fear to corrupt him. Much more likable than Thorin and more tragic I would say. His downfall stemmed from an outside force pushing on his mental strength. The Ring helped reinforce the notion that the cause was impossible and that his beloved lands were going to fall.  Thorin just liked shiny things.
 
Displayed 149 of 149 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report