Old 12-07-2012, 12:42 PM
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Directed by Peter Jackson

Written by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro

Genre: Fantasy/Adventure

Plot Outline: A curious Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, journeys to the Lonely Mountain with a vigorous group of Dwarves to reclaim a treasure stolen from them by the dragon Smaug.

Starring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Andy Serkis

Rated PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images.

Runtime: 166 minutes

Although it doesn't sound like it's as good as the films in the LOTR trilogy, I'm still excited to return to this world. I'll be there opening weekend.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 12:43 AM
Already got my tickets for midnight I am a humongous LOTR fan and am so stoked for this. I have faith that Peter Jackson will faithfully bring the classic story to life and there will strike a perfect balance between humor, action, and adventure. This being the first installment of a stretched out story, I expect this one to be a little slower going in than perhaps the later installments, but I'm still excited to see how it shapes up.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 04:39 AM
Is this movie is related with Lord of Rings Movies?
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 04:53 AM
Originally Posted by adwardhil View Post
Is this movie is related with Lord of Rings Movies?
*not sure if serious joker pic*

Early reviews seem to indicate this could have the potential to be a bigger disappointment than Prometheus.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 10:57 AM
The LOTR movies are kind of a big deal around here, but I couldn't stand them, and this looks like more of the same - if anything it looks worse to me. Why? Because Bilbo fucking Baggins.

The "reluctant hero" is a common storytelling trope, but Bilbo takes it to the extreme. They guy is such an annoying, whiny pussy that just watching brief clips of him drive me crazy. The idea of spending another three three-hour movies with that asshole sounds like the worst thing in the world.

Speaking of which, now that we're in the official thread for the movie, how in the fuck do you take a single 300 page book and turn it into three three-hour movies? Especially considering it was already made into an already very faithful adaptation in the form of a 90 minute animated movie?

Fuck this shit.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 11:03 AM

Last edited by Bourne101; 12-08-2012 at 01:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 01:59 PM
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
how in the fuck do you take a single 300 page book and turn it into three three-hour movies? Especially considering it was already made into an already very faithful adaptation in the form of a 90 minute animated movie?

Fuck this shit.
There have been plenty of short stories made into great feature length films. The length of the source material is not always indicative of how long the film should be.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 09:50 PM
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is my favorite trilogy of all time and all three movie are masterpieces and among my all time favorites. So naturally, I can't wait to see Peter Jackson's return to Middle Earth.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 10:06 PM
Originally Posted by Lazy Boy View Post
It feels like something I'm obligated to see rather than having a desire to see.
I agree...I liked LOTR due to the characters. I was never a big fan of The Hobbit, as a book or cartoon, but it IS part of the series, and I feel obligated to give it try. Who knows, it could just as good (if not better) as the others.

Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is my favorite trilogy of all time and all three movie are masterpieces
They're great to look at and all, but I wouldn't go as far as calling them "masterpieces". They're overly flawed, which masterpieces, are not. However, The Return of the King is a wonderful film, but there are too many unanswered questions.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 07:43 AM
Well, while I certainly don't understand the negativity posted above I myself will not be going to the theater for this. To me, it just seems overdone and a bit of a money grab at this point.

I grew up reading the books. Among my favorite reads as a kid. I thought Peter Jackson captured the books perfectly in LOTR. I still remember going to the theater for the first one, my jaw is still on the floor. It was perfect, just like I imagined it as I read it, right there on the big screen. Personally, I have never seen a director do such a good job of capturing a book like that. Like I said, to me, every scene in LOTR was just like I pictured it. I went to the next two and liked them, just as perfect as the first one, but the magic wasn't there like the first. I own the boxed set but hardly ever watch them. It is just too much movie, it feels like work sitting down to watch them all, and that magical feeling I got from the first viewing will never come back.

So now I find myself with The Hobbit thinking do I really want to sit through 9+ more hours of movie for this? Sure, Jackson is awesome, what he did can not be over stated. It was pure perfection. But at this point, it is enough IMHO. I will give these a watch on the inevitable directors cut blue ray, but I have no motivation to go to the theatre or buy and own them. JMTC

Last edited by rustysyringe; 12-10-2012 at 07:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 03:28 PM
I'm actually skipping this. Just can't get up for it.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 04:13 PM

Last edited by SS-Block; 03-31-2014 at 04:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 04:26 PM
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
I'm actually skipping this. Just can't get up for it.
Agreed. I lost interested when Guillermo Del Toro left the project. Peter Jackson has no self-restraint at all.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 11:36 PM
This is a rather difficult post for me to make. As many of you veterans know I am first and foremost a Tolkien loreist, whatever weight that may hold. Thus this is not simply a film for me but something that embodies a... larger piece of my soul perhaps...

In this post I shall give an extensive overview of how I perceived The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. What I want to focus on is how Peter Jackson and his crew translated the book into the movie, what choices they made, and for what reason I think they made them. Obviously this is going to contain a lot of spoilers, because I intend to pick apart the entire movie in order. If you do not want to know any of this information yet, then do not read on and go see it first.
Furthermore two things are of course to be noted. Firstly that this is my interpretation and my opinion of what is going on. I wasn't involved in its creation so any assumptions as to why certain changes were made are based purely of my understanding of film making. Secondly there is the matter of the books versus the films. Although I am comparing the film to the book, I am not stating that everything should be as it is in the book, I understand the need for changes and additions to bring a story to the silver screen and make it an engaging film that will also sell well. Nevertheless this a movie based on a book, and the scrutiny of the changes made is not purely on a level of 'this did not happen that way', but also questions whether it can capture the books feeling. Now without further a due, lets begin.

The meta story
The film begins just before the first chapter of the Lord of the Rings, with the old Bilbo (Ian Holm), narrating and walking around Bag End, beginning with his book. He talks (as can be seen in the trailer) as if it is directed at Frodo (Elijah Wood), who we also get to see walking around the house. They have a few scene's in which they really tie it in to the LOTR films, with references to the party that is about to ensue, Gandalf's arrival for said party, the sign on the gate, and so forth. It thus serves to place the story in the universe of the LOTR films, and perhaps also give a chance for the known faces to make an appearance. To my opinion not a very necessary addition, but neither does it detract from the story.

Then Bilbo starts with the story, but it is not the main Hobbit itself, but first a prologue, that explains the history of Erebor, Dale and Smaug. Both Dale and Erebor are quite beautifully portrayed, and especially Erebor really feels like a vast Kingdom of a powerful lord. A strange choice is however made, in depicting Thrór (son of Dáin I) as becoming a bit mad. In his narration Bilbo even links this with the coming of the dragon, as some sort of evil attracting evil device. Although not a terrible change in itself, I simply do not see why the need was felt to come up with such an odd story. Probably it comes from the fact that in the book it is stated that the wealth was probably what attracted the dragon, and the makers inferred from this some denunciation of greed, but on the whole it just seems odd. Then there are some minor things, such as the fact that the Dwarves flee the mountain via the main gate whilst it was said that none escaped that way and that Thorin was inside the mountain instead of outside, things that were explicitly described in the books, but that on the whole don't really matter.
What then does, and which in my opinion is a glaring rape of the source material, is that Thranduil (riding an elk) shows up with a host of Elves, as the Dwarves flee the mountain, calling to him for aid. He just looks at them really quaint and then turns around and leaves with his men. This does not make sense on any level, even discarding the fact that it was not in the book. How did he know that the dragon was there and march with his army? The dragon came unexpectedly and they couldn't have been there that fast. Why gather and outfit a host of Elves and then not help? Why not even aid those fleeing without fighting the dragon? All this is left unexplained and is used as a device to explain the enmity between Dwarves and Elves. Now I understand that it would be quit difficult to explain the whole history of Elves and Dwarves, the sack of Doriath, and so forth, and that they needed to find a way of conveying that this existed, but this is a rather odd way to do so.
So this then gets the audience up to speed as to why the quest of Erebor would need to be undertaken, and here is where we get into the real book.

An unexpected party
We start the story with Bilbo in his yard, Gandalf coming by, and the well known conversation that follows. The lines are not all quite correct, but they capture the exchange between the two nicely. The problem however arrives at the very end, which is the source of ruin for the next scene if you ask me. For what is left out is that Bilbo invites Gandalf to come to tea the next day in some ploy to get rid of him, instead he clearly tells him he is not interested, goodday's him one last time and slams the door shut. Gandalf then as some madman scratches the sign in Bilbo's door, and when Bilbo looks out of his window to see what is going on he appears close to the glass like someone escaped from a mental institution.
So why then am I being so particular about the invite to tea? Well this has all to do with the arrival and the party of the Dwarves. We see Bilbo just starting his supper, when Dwaling shows up. He just barges into the house, helps himself to Bilbo's supper (eating in a most disgusting manner by the way), and ignores the obvious tension there. Then Balin arrives and although he is as courteous as he should be, when the two brother's are reunited they completely ignore Bilbo and his summons to stop eating and get out of his house. This gets even worse when the rest of the Dwarves arrive, who really plunder his pantry, remodel his whole interior decoration and in general make themselves at home. The enormous problem here is that Bilbo keeps telling them to get the hell out, stop eating his food, put stuff back, and so forth. Compare this to the book where he is so overwhelmed that he is the one getting all the food for everyone, he does not tell them to get out, he is being a good host, although terribly confused and hoping it is all a dream. The dwarves are here depicted as some rowdy bunch with no manners who don't give a damn what the little Hobbit tells them. The whole idea of Gandalf's ploy to sent the Dwarves in increasing number (as he does later at Beorn's house) is completely lost. They might as well have all arrived together and raided his house. To me this entire scene shows a complete lack of awareness of the dynamic of the situation. On a positive note, the washing-up song and Over the Misty Mountains are both done nicely.

Also I need to mention here that the reasons the Dwarves undertake this quest now also had to be explained for some reason. To do so the makers dreamed up a prophecy that when the ravens returned the reign of the beast was supposed to end. Again, although I understand the need to give uninformed viewers some handles to understand characters motives, why was it necessary to do so here? Would it be too unbelievable if they hadn't given any reason why do so now other than that they were ready for it? This also ties in with the fact that Thorin apparently went to some meeting with the heads of the seven Dwarven Kingdoms (words from the film), where he asked the others to help him, but they said it was their quest. In my opinion this only makes matters more complicated than easier, which is quite an accomplishment, seeing that the Hobbit is the easiest book to read. (Also it may be noted that it is explicitly stated that Dáin does not want to help, which would be odd, seeing that he is also of Durin's house, so stating that this is a matter only for their perticular clan would be odd...)

So we skip ahead a little bit and we come to the matter of the Bilbo coming along on the adventure he doesn't want to go on. In the film he is literally presented with a contract by Balin which he is to sign, he decides not to and the Dwarves leave without him. Then the next morning, as he looks around in his deserted house, he suddenly gets the urge to go on the adventure, apparently realizing the boredom of his everyday live. And we get the running through the fields after the Dwarves bit. Although this is of course a big change from the book, it is one I don't actually mind all that much looking back on it. It would've been hard to explain to the audience how his 'Tookish-side' woke up in him and therefore he suddenly acts like a badass in order to impress the Dwarves. The imaggery of him looking around his now empty house in comparison to the one filled with Dwarves is quite a strong one and conveys in a different way the feeling that I believe Tolkien meant as the Tookish-side. Therefore although I feel that the contract is a bit of a stupid thing in itself, the whole dynamic of it is done quite nicely.

Interlude; the war of Dwarves and Orcs

As they make camp for the night we have Balin tell the story of the battle of Azanulbizar. If I remember correctly it is not named as such, but it basically is, with a few big changes though. Those changes include that Thrór is killed in battle by Azog here, instead of earlier inside the mines, and that Azog himself is not slain by Dáin II, but only lost his hand in fighting Thorin. It gives a nice depiction of Thorin acquiring his name as Oakenshield though and all in all is a good rendition of the battle. What stems from it, is an important fact that will haunt us for the rest of this film though. And this is a major spoiler. Namely that Azog is not dead, and is in fact hunting Thorin and company. Yes, Azog has been made the main antagonist for this part of the, dare I say it, film trilogy. Which of course gives good reasons to put extra fighting scene's into the film where they don't belong, but I'm getting ahead of myself already. All in all I just thoroughly enjoyed seeing the Dwarves and Ors battle in front of Moria.

Roast Mutton

Alright, so then we get to the trolls. The set up as to why Bilbo has to go check them out is a bit different (he has to get back their ponies), but the result is the same. Bilbo is captured and questioned as a burrahobbit that will hardly make a mouthful. Yet alas, then the swords and axes come out again, because Thorin and company are charging the trolls, creating our first fight that doesn't have any business being there. We hear one of the trolls calling to put them in sacks but this doesn't happen, until another inexplicable choice is made. For the trolls grab Bilbo and threaten to pull his limbs of if the Dwarves don't lay down their arms, and then the Dwarves do. Why!? Have you read the script and know that you will make it? Because to me it seems that you are now all going to die at the hands of these trolls instead of only the Hobbit you have known for less than a week. But anyway, they lay down their arms and end up in the sacks, roasted over the fire. The escape is a bit different then in the book, playing up Bilbo's role in stalling for time, and Gandalf smashing a rock to let the sunlight through, but those are forgiveable. Portraying Gandalf imitating a troll's voice would of course be doable, but would not make for the most interesting film and perhaps even make it a little to comical (although there are enough dumb jokes made at inappropriate times, but more on that later).
After they then escape they find the troll hoard and the swords, Bilbo gets sting and that is that.

Interlude: Radagast and Dol Guldur.

I'm not quite sure if this was at this time in the move or a bit earlier or later, but it doesn't really matter either way.
Why the need was felt to shoehorn this guy in is beyond me, other than that it provides the start to a contained side story about Dol Guldur and the Necromancer. For he serves as a way to let Gandalf and the others of the White Council know that the forest is being corrupted and a Necromancer has taken up his abode in the old fortress. It would of course have been a lot more difficult to have the story line there if it had to be explained with stuff that happened earlier, so I guess this gives an explanation as to why this choice has been made.
We are introduced to Radagast prancing through the woods and looking how everything is getting corrupted, nasty fungi, some sick animals and plants. Then one of the dumbest scene's in the film ensues, namely Radagast trying to save a single hedgehog as his house is being attacked by giant spiders. There were some people in the audience 'ah-ing' as the hedgehog died and was brought back to live, but what is it doing in this movie? This isn't a pixar production I might hope.
We get the by now famous rabbit-sled, that is almost the least ridiculous thing about Radagast, who is not simply depicted a quaint, but rather as someone who's constantly on psychoactive drugs. He goes to Dol Guldur, fights a wrath, and legs it. Nothing really to say about that, its done quite well.

A short rest

Although I titled this part after the chapter in the book, it does not provide the same experience at all. Firstly we need to consider that Thorin did not want to go to Rivendell because he hates Elves. What happens is that a host of Orcs on Wargs attack them and they have to run, of course slashing a few Orcs on the way, because you have to have some fighting. Gandalf leads them into a hiding place and immediately afterwards an Elvish cavalry charges and kills most of the Orcs, the remainder fleeing back to... Azog who is in the neighbourhood riding his giant white Warg to hunt Thorin.
The company moves forth to Rivendell where they are then welcomed by Lindir. Elrond arrives seconds later, for it turns out he was leading the cavalry, that is by now busy encircling the Dwarves (who have also picked up their weapons), in a manner that can only be likened to the encircling of the three hunters by the Rohirim in the Two Towers. We get to see Elrond in armour and distrust from the Dwarves towards him, but then they decide to accept his invitation to come in and eat.

In the next scene there is some further distrust from Thorin towards Elrond, but in the end he agrees to show him the map and have him read it to them. Although I have some nitpicking here too, these are minor things and there is much to discuss.

Namely that here we also have a meeting of the White Council, or at least of Elrond, Galadriel, Saruman and Gandalf. What is nicely done here is the portrayal of Saruman as trying to discourage the council from action, showing the dynamics that were at play here already. A bit odd is that Gandalf already makes a face to Elrond when he hears that Saruman is there, which doesn't make sense since here he should still be on good terms with him. Where it gets really weird though, is the fact that apparently the council is going to forbid Gandalf and the Dwarves from continuing with their expedition. As if Gandalf has to ask permission (the words is literally used) to Saruman for stuff he wants to do. This is not how the dynamics of the Istari amongst themselves of the White Council in general worked. It does serve, as stated above, as a good way to show that Saruman was already moving against them in subtle ways. Here also does Gandalf (who has been earlier informed by Radagast) that a Necromancer is in Dol Guldur, which of course we will see a lot more of in the coming films.
Then there is the scene between Gandalf and Galadriel, which I don't have all that much to say about. You can read sexual tension in it if you want, but you can also see a friend offering aid.
In any case the Dwarves already legged it out of Rivendell before they could be stopped by a supposed disapproval from the Council, which is clearly set up in this way by Gandalf.

Over hill and under hill

Now I've said so before, but here we get perhaps the most ridiculous scene in the entire film. As the company is making its way along a cliff, we get the fight between the stone giants. And luckily for us CGI technology is now so great that we get to enjoy a five minute fight between animated giants made from rocks, throwing rocks at each other, slamming into one another and so forth. It even turns out the companions themselves are on the legs of a giant. Not only does it add nothing to the progression of the story, it is also boring, and makes stuff unbelievable. For example at one point a part of the group seems to be crushed between to walls of rock, but they turn out to be al right.

They then hide in the cave, at which point Bilbo decides to sneak out at night to go back home, because Thorin won't get of his case about how he's useless and a burden. This makes sense in the film to a degree and also not at all. One can wonder why Bilbo would stick with them whilst Thorin keeps being mean to him. But in the book there is no such option as going back, this wouldn't be logical either, because how would he even survive out there on his own? He's stuck with them and that gives the story a certain 'us against the world'-feeling, overcoming obstacles as a group. Rather than a journey he could get out of at any moment.
Anyway this is cut short by the fact that the ground opens and they are all captured by the Goblins. Although not quite in the same way as in the book, it is a nice rendition of the capturing. Furthermore the Goblintown is quite beautifully depicted and has a lot of atmosphere.

On a side note it is a pity that the film makers still view Orcs and Goblins as a different species. But this is by now a widespread and forgiveable flaw.

They are led before the Great Goblin, except for Bilbo, who falls into the deep whilst fighting a small Goblin, and ends up in Gollum's lair, which I'll get to in a moment. The Dwarves are at the Great Goblin, who wants to ransom them to Azog, who has put a price on Thorin's head. Then they find Orcrist and go mad, wanting to kill them all, but Gandalf shows up. Gandalf then does an awesome Gandalf power trick, creating a blinding flash and an enormous push which throws everyone to the ground. In a menacing voice he then summons the Dwarves to take up arms and fight, so we can then have another fight scene. What makes this so problematic to me, is the question why Gandalf does not do this all the time if they are in a fight? Why run from a few Orcs, whilst blasting away half an army of Goblins? Anyway, we get the fight in the form of an escape scene, in which they run over the small rope bridges of the town in what I cannot describe differently than a videogame. I could just imagine this all being turned into a game with only minor changes, they cut ropes at just the right moment, all the slings had exactly the right distance, they use ladders to push people of, Bombur uses his 'roll up like a ball and crash through several stories'-attack, Gandalf uses his staff-attack to break of a boulder and use it to clear the way, and so forth. As you can infer from this I was not really taken in by this scene.

They are then finally stopped by the Great Goblin, who makes a little fun of them and saying they can't win. He is then with a few jabs killed by Gandalf, only uttering the last words; 'that'll do it' in a corny way, think here of the cheesy humour I was talking about earlier, which doesn't really rhyme well with being killed. Then the bridge they are on collapses and they drop for a few hundred meters between the rocks, miraculously all surviving, even when the full weigh of the Great Goblin then also lands on top of them. Then they leg it out of there. So once again we have a very long action scene, in which everyone survives through incredible odds.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 11:36 PM

Riddles in the dark

This is by far the best part of the film, probably because it stayed most true to the book. And by that I do not mean that nothing was changed or added, but those are only minor changes and, in my opinion, a valuable addition. The addition comes in the form of the small Goblin that falls along with Bilbo. Whereas Bilbo lands in a concealed place, the Goblin lands in the open and we get to see Gollum dragging him back to his island to be eaten, he also loses the Ring in this process which Bilbo picks up. What this adds is showing us how Gollum lives, how disgusting he is in a way, we see him smashing the Goblin to death with a rock, we hear his evil side talk about skinning it. For me that really set the tone for the situation Gollum was in.
When a little later the riddles begin the choice has been made to show the twofacedness of Gollum that was present in the earlier films. This is also an addition, in where the good Gollum (or Smeagol) is really happy to play games with Bilbo, whereas the evil part just wants to eat him. Although this is of course quite a major invention of PJ, I feel that it is one that does justice to the creature of Gollum and gives him more depth without destroying what was there. Most of the riddles from the book are in there, and all in all the scene is just done well. Also the escape that follows is true to the book, although Bilbo does not have to squeeze through the gate, but gets stuck earlier. Also the choice not to kill Gollum is portrayed rather broadly, which I find rather understandably, since it is such a powerful motive that also plays a big role in the Lord of the Rings.

After he escapes we see Bilbo return to the Dwarves, that wonder why he came back. He then gives the explanation that he of course wants to go home, but that they do not have a home and he wants to help them reclaim it. Another purely invented motive by the film makers, and to my taste one that need not be there. Bilbo gets back to them because they are the people he knows in this big scary world, moreover they are his friends. On the whole scale of changes made, and with in the back of the mind the uninformed viewer, the choice to give him this motive can be understood.

Out of the frying-pan into the fire

And then of course the Orcs, Azog at their head, show up again and the company starts to run, kill a few Orcs and climb in the pine trees. Yet other than in the book, the Wargs are not daunted by this, instead they just push over the entire trees, until they are all in one tree at the edge of a cliff. Gandalf starts throwing down the burning pine cones, which scares of the Wargs. Their tree however starts to topple and they hang of the cliff, ready to fall to their death. Now here the need is felt again (just like in the FoTR) to have insects be messengers to the Eagles, so we see Gandalf sending of a moth (or butterfly). Yet, as in every good action movie, we need a stand off, so Thorin grabs his sword and starts walking over the tree towards Azog, then charging at him. Azog kicks Thorin's ass, but just as his lieutenant wants to cut off is head, Bilbo runs up and kills the Orc, saving Thorin. Then the Eagles show up and save them all, carry them to Karrock, Thorin thanks Bilbo, they see the lonely mountain of in the distance, the end.

So what has happened here. A scene that depicts them sitting helplessly in the trees, getting smoked out by the Orcs and Wargs underneath, is transformed into another battle. In this battle Bilbo suddenly becomes the saviour of Thorin and easily kills an Orc. The whole dynamic of Bilbo and the relationship between him and Thorin is changed. In my opinion this is the result of the (and I know this can be a dangerous word) formulaic approach taken to this film. It felt the need to explain everything all the time, and give us grand set piece battles that were not in the book. And why were they not in the book? Because they happened much later in the story. And why did they happen much later in the story, because that is the story arc. But because you just take a few chapters and try to make a film out of it, the need was felt to create a similar arc, complete with the drama that comes with it, within this one film, despite there not being anything of the sorts in the source material.


All in all I feel that the film has some nice depictions of the world of Middle-Earth. What is completely missing though, is the atmosphere of the Hobbit, the feeling of being a group that pulls through everything together and grows as a group in this way to eventually achieve their goal, even though some strive on the way is required. Here everything is presented as if it is on the same scale as the adventures of the LoTR were, which they are not. They are just a small group, that can't fight of thousand's of Goblins, they have to rely on stealth and trickery. In the end I think that is what simply has disappointed me the most; whereas with the Lord of the Rings I saw the changes and still felt like I saw the awesome world of Tolkien come to live, here I feel like I see CGI and fighting, formulaic set pieces that 'progress' a character as you learn in storytelling 101, and do not feel like I'm watching the Hobbit come to live.

Lastly I am especially afraid that the whole character of Thranduil is going to be the one most malformed by the end of the three films. He has already been portrayed as an odd and heartless elf, his capturing them and then later coming to claim gold will only make this worse I fear, but we'll see I guess.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 11:38 PM

Please PM me with any questions you may have. It would seem that your reading of the text is somewhat confused as it were and I'd really like to clarify some things for you in private.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by Lost in Space View Post

Please PM me with any questions you may have. It would seem that your reading of the text is somewhat confused as it were and I'd really like to clarify some things for you in private.
I'm not going to spoil that part of the book or get into that, but there was definitely no confusion here. I distinctly see a large Gold/Silver Key being mentioned, that the trolls carried on their person plus the puzzle Bilbo had to solve for it. It was absolutely not a cave. It was a very large stone door he could only open using a key the troll dropped, and it was a huge dungeon like area with brass buttons. You could see skeletons, so there is no way to reconcile it as just a cave. This was a fairly large cavern with a door.

Plus the following text comes below the spoiler that's in the book.
“What are moon-letters?” asked the hobbit full of excitement. He loved maps, as I have told you before; and he also liked runes and letters and cunning handwriting, though when he wrote himself it was a bit thin and spidery.
“Moon-letters are rune-letters, but you cannot see them,” said Elrond, “not when you look straight at them. They can only be seen when the moon shines behind them, and what is more, with the more cunning sort it must be a moon of the same shape and season as the day when they were written. The dwarves invented them and wrote them with silver pens, as your friends could tell you. These must have been written on a midsummer’s eve in a crescent moon, a long while ago.”
“What do they say?” asked Gandalf and Thorin together, a bit vexed perhaps that even Elrond should have found this out first, though really there had not been a chance before, and there would not have been another until goodness knows when.
“Stand by the grey stone when the thrush knocks,” read Elrond, “and the setting sun with the last light of Durin’s Day will shine upon the key-hole.”
“Durin, Durin!” said Thorin. “He was the father of the fathers of the eldest race of Dwarves, the Longbeards, and my first ancestor: I am his heir.”
“Then what is Durin’s Day?” asked Elrond.
“The first day of the dwarves’ New Year,” said Thorin, “is as all should know the first day of the last moon of Autumn on the threshold of Winter. We still call it Durin’s Day when the last moon of Autumn and the sun are in the sky together. But this will not help us much, I fear, for it passes our skill in these days to guess when such a time will come again.”

A very specific puzzle related to Durin's day is elaborated upon in the novel. The whole group actually has quite a few excursions up the river, which involve crossing large water areas and even a swamp that will swallow your horse...before they even arrive in Rivendell. What was most surprising for me is Thorin specifically remembers the runes, and even retells a story of his father/family traveling into Smaug's cavern many years ago in a quest for a weapon. This should have created the perfect flashback scene to show the story and show Bilbo, but what is most surprising to me is all of it was omitted. Even the runes and the five foot four riddle.

I would have very much liked the Thorin story myself. Instead as replacement of all those things, is a sub-plot about a Necromancer and Radagast which nobody would recognize unless they read the LOTR appendices which are quite long. I'm not saying I dislike the sub-plots, but this came out of left field and was a night/day difference from what occurs in their novel.

Last edited by ResidentWakeVille; 12-21-2012 at 01:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 03:06 AM
Quick Review With More Comment Later

I am not per say an avid Tolkien reader. I think most kids know what The Hobbit story is and well LOTR movies is how really I was introduced to Tokliens other works

I think The Hobbit was good but not LOTR. Which really I never figured The Hobbit could match.

I do however think The Hobbit was a better Fantasy movie in ways. FOTR was a stunning epic and we got a taste of the Fantasy but TTT and ROTK was all about War and less abou adventure.

I think The Hobbit gives fantasy lovers a good movie.

I am not gonna equal them to LOTR because they are slightly better films at this point but really The Hobbit and LOTR movies are not the same movies.

Yes we get set up for Rings but really The Hobbit is a lighter affair but I do think The Hobbit can make a good bridge too rings and make Things Like Balins tomb more sad.
Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump