Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

3268 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 Dec 2013 at 2:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



149 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 49 of 149 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report