The Hobbit Trilogy

[Schweedie]

My friend said to me when we came out of the cinema, "I think you had the most fun of everyone in there." Which was both probably true, and probably not the reaction Peter Jackson wanted to inspire. But seriously, there was so many hilarious moments where I couldn't stop myself from laughing. Legolas using the falling masonry to jump upwards was one of those. It's like Jackson took details that worked in the first trilogy (like in the case of Legolas, him walking on top of the deep snow in the first film to show how light-footed elves are) and then taking them that extra step too far. Even the music had that going - it felt as if every time Bilbo said or did something, they played the hobbit's theme which would always make me well up the first trilogy, but here it felt --- unearned, somehow, and like overkill.

 

The basic issue with this trilogy is that Jackson erred by making it the dwarves' story, when it is Bilbo's.

 

 

That does sum it up nicely. Martin Freeman's Bilbo was probably the best thing about the whole trilogy for me (along with Smaug), and he really gets to do very little, especially in this one. They should've let it be Bilbo's story. The book is sweet, and fun, and didn't need this Jackson treatment.

[NoWillToResist]

I hate to say it, but the book holds the answers to many of your questions. .

 

I have no problem reading it; I do own it, but it's been too long since I read it to remember the specifics. However, I've heard nothing but complaints about how much padding and made up shit was added so I didn't know whether there WOULD be answers to my questions in the book.

 

Did you guys see it in the 3-D HFR (high frame rate) format?

 

Nope. I saw it in regular IMAX. No 3D.

 

At the end of the movie, my husband asked me, "so...where's the Arkenstone now?" As far as I can recall, Bard was the last one in possession of it (when he held it up to Thorin during negotiations). I presume he would still have had it or did he return it after the dust had settled?

 

I know that the movie tried to address this by Bilbo saying that the dwarves were loyal to a fault but I was beyond annoyed that they all still stuck with Thorin even though (A) they knew he was under the gold's influence and (B) he refused to join the war HE created while their own people died. I could understand being loyal to an honourable man but they had just witnessed him going back on his word to the Laketown people. Hell, he could have given those moon gems back to Thranduil, thrown some money at the Laketown people, leaving himself with PLENTY and that would have been that. Fuck the Arkenstone...the dwarves should have snuck that shit out of the mountain and thus prevented war.

 

I blame Richard Armitage, in part.   He doesn't seem to possess the range necessary to make one empathize with a character who possesses both noble and dickish qualities. 

 

Watch North and South (not the Patrick Swayze mini series from the '80s based on the American Civil War).

 

All this movie accomplished was to make me long for the sense of wonder that the first trilogy bestowed upon me.  I wanted to feel again the emotions that welled up at the end of Return of the King, when the credits roll and Annie Lennox sings "Into the West."

 

There was none of that.

 

I must agree that the Hobbit made me want to re-watch the entire LOTR trilogy (again). It will be interesting to compare the Hobbit with LOTR to see if I can pinpoint just WHY The Hobbit fell so flat for me while I loved LOTR...

 

I think this trilogy should have just been two movies. There were far too many sequences which I felt were unnecessarily long.

Edited January 5, 2015 by NoWillToResist

[Joe]

Okay, I'll answer the questions. The Arkenstone. From the book,

the Arkenstone is returned and laid on Thorin's tomb. Dain becomes king under the mountain.

 

The eagles.

In the book, the reason they rescued the party to start with. They saw the goblins causing trouble, approached and investigated. Any enemy of the goblins was their friend, so gave the party a lift. The reason they turned up at Lonely Mountain, same. To fight the goblins.

 

What other issues were there?

[millennium]

 

What other issues were there?

What about Mr. Comic Relief, the Laketown cretin named Alfred?   What purpose did he serve (other than comic relief).   He escapes with the gold in the end, but never shows up again in LOTR.   Typically, when a dastardly character escapes unscathed at the end of one movie, he is sure to reappear in the next.   But nope.  Alfred got away scot-free, with a fortune.    I thought Bard's parting joke, "Alfred, your slip is showing" was a glaring modernism and all wrong for this film.

Edited January 5, 2015 by millennium

[millennium]

I must agree that the Hobbit made me want to re-watch the entire LOTR trilogy (again). It will be interesting to compare the Hobbit with LOTR to see if I can pinpoint just WHY The Hobbit fell so flat for me while I loved LOTR...

 

 

 

My guess?  There were no characters we could truly empathize with, cheer for or fall in love with.   Bilbo was the obvious everyman ... but they shoved him into the back seat, especially in the final film.   Gandalf was Gandalf, but after six movies, meh.

 

There were no awe-inspiring moments either.    One of the most breath-taking scenes from any of the movies (in my opinion anyway) was when in Return of the King, when they lit the beacons on the mountaintops.   I still get chills just writing about it

 

Another thing is that the novelty of CGI has long worn off.   Do you remember the first time you saw the cave troll scene in Fellowship of the Ring?   How cool that was?   Now it's like "oh look, trolls again."

Edited January 5, 2015 by millennium

[Bruinsfan]

It doesn't help that in that initial appearance the troll was filling most of the space the scene was occurring in, giving a sense of its size, with quick action happening continuously all around it. Whereas the staging for the trolls in this movie felt like long distance shots of WoW mid-bosses.

[Joe]

Alfrid was made up for the movie. In the book

after the battle Bard gives some money to the master of the town, who gives some to his lackeys before catching gold fever, running off into the wilderness, and dying.

[Jeebus Cripes]

I blame Richard Armitage, in part.   He doesn't seem to possess the range necessary to make one empathize with a character who possesses both noble and dickish qualities.   

 

I took no issue with Armitage as Thorin. The moments when he was a dick made me want to smack the crap out of him; the moments when he was kind made me want to hug him. I bought it.

 

But you can't pull those threads, because then you start noticing other threads dangling, like "If the earth-eaters could burrow through a whole mountain range, why the hell did they stop a mile OUTSIDE Erebor?   Why not tunnel right into the belly of Thorin's gold hoard?

 

Are those things in the book? That was some wild, Dune type shit.

 

Another thing is that the novelty of CGI has long worn off.   Do you remember the first time you saw the cave troll scene in Fellowship of the Ring?   How cool that was?   Now it's like "oh look, trolls again."

 

The CGI is shoddy in this trilogy. Smaug looks great, and there are some visuals that work when I don't notice it's CG, but there are a lot of glaringly not-so-great shots as well. There were a few scenes that were almost Once Upon a Time bad, where I could tell everything I was looking at, save the actors, was fake. Made me cringe.

[NoWillToResist]

The CGI is shoddy in this trilogy. Smaug looks great, and there are some visuals that work when I don't notice it's CG, but there are a lot of glaringly not-so-great shots as well. There were a few scenes that were almost Once Upon a Time bad, where I could tell everything I was looking at, save the actors, was fake. Made me cringe.

 

My jaw dropped in the scene where Thorin, Kili and Fili are riding mountain goats up to confront Azok (or whatever). I have legit seen better and more convincing graphics in video games. I just don't understand why movies add in all this unnecessary CGI if they aren't even going to do it WELL.

 

The eagles.

In the book, the reason they rescued the party to start with. They saw the goblins causing trouble, approached and investigated. Any enemy of the goblins was their friend, so gave the party a lift. The reason they turned up at Lonely Mountain, same. To fight the goblins.

 

What other issues were there?

 

Thanks for answering some of the queries!! I have a (likely silly) follow up question though: the goblins were underground, so how did the Eagles see the goblins causing trouble? By the time the group was topside, the goblins had been vanquished.

 

As for other issues, I have two and they are linked. Galadriel and Gandalf's powers. I do not understand what Galadriel's powers are at all. Her weird reaction to the ring in LOTR and her similar reaction/look when she expelled/banished Sauron were perplexing to me. And Gandalf can kick ass yet usually chooses to just use his sword and staff in a fight which I find odd. Normally, in the fantasy books I read, it's indicated that using spells drains the wizard's energy or life force, so you had to pick and choose your battles...fair enough. But I don't recall that ever being stated for Gandalf. He was able to blast away a ton of goblins in the first movie, but then didn't do it while they were trying to escape their mountain, yet he didn't appear drained at all (he was running and fighting alongside the dwarves).

 

 

Are those things in the book? That was some wild, Dune type shit.

 

Hee! I totally called Dune on those things too. I love how the enemy used them to get a shortcut to the battle and then didn't use them again to - as you point out - just get INTO the fucking mountain, or to even come up in the middle of their enemy's position on the field. Tactician fail? ;)

[Joe]

 

the goblins were underground, so how did the Eagles see the goblins causing trouble? By the time the group was topside, the goblins had been vanquished.

When the company escapes from the mountains, the goblins chase them up a tree and set fire to it. That's when the eagles see what's happening.

 

The worms are sort of mentioned in the book. There's an early reference to the were-worms of the last desert. The goblins approach by tunnel or in darkness, catching everyone by surprise.

 

Powers and behaviours. Well, Tolkien was a low-magic type, as compared to many of his imitators. He and Galadriel have two of the three Elven rings, but still, low magic. I'm sure there's something else in there somewhere, but nothing I can think of. I'm not exactly Corey Olsen. :)

[Bruinsfan]

It seemed odd to me that Galadriel was able to smurf out and banish Sauron when he'd easily overcome Gandalf earlier and his minions were holding their own against the entire White Council. Especially since it looked like she was on the verge of passing out moments before. (Oh, and speaking of video game CGI, that bit with Sauron and all the Ringwraiths floating against a fiery background looked embarrassingly fake.)

[ribboninthesky1]

I thought the best and most memorable sequence of the Hobbit trilogy was the escape via the barrel in the river from the 2nd movie.  I thought that was incredibly well-shot and exciting.  I don't remember much from the first film - mostly that ridiculously long sequence with the dwarves taking over Bilbo's home in the beginning.  Oh, and Bilbo's meet-cute with Gollum.

 

I've seen Richard Armitage in mostly Youtube clips of his other work prior to these films.  I didn't have any issues with his acting - Thorin as a character wasn't particularly winsome.  Which was fine, but then don't try to sell me on a bond between Bilbo and Thorin at the end - it wasn't at all earned.  I'm hard-pressed to think of any actor who could have made Thorin likable for me. He was assholish before Dragon Fever.  The sickness just amplified it.

 

I would say the weakest actor was Lee Pace - his acting seemed to consist of wide-eyed staring and incredibly erect posture.  It was hilariously awful. But as Schweedie mentioned, it was one of several (unintentionally) funny moments in the film.  Another one - Smaug's taunting of Bard.  I was rolling! I guess Smaug conveniently never noticed a draft where his flash was pierced. And it gave Bard plenty of time to set up the killing shot.  I loved Bard, was glad he lived, but there was really no reason for him (and his son) not to have met a crispy end.

 

I, too, wondered why the other dwarves would sit by and allow their fellow countrymen to die.  But then, they didn't do anything to help Bilbo when he was stuck inside the mountain alone with Smaug, either.  I'm pretty sure Balin would have been the only one to care if Bilbo perished.

[Dandesun]

I was disappointed by Bilbo's diminished role.   Armitage was clearly the star of this film (unfortunately) even though (in my opinion) the fellow who played Bilbo was the superior actor.

 

All this movie accomplished was to make me long for the sense of wonder that the first trilogy bestowed upon me.  I wanted to feel again the emotions that welled up at the end of Return of the King, when the credits roll and Annie Lennox sings "Into the West."

 

There was none of that.

 

Yeah, that's the real problem it seems. Jackson turned this into a story about how the dwarves needed to reclaim their kingdom under the mountain as opposed to Bilbo's getting drawn into adventure. That being said, Bilbo remained the moral center of the movie... even if we didn't see very much of him.

 

The other problem, to me, is that the Lord of the Rings was meant to be a much more serious story that involved a great deal of Middle Earth while The Hobbit was a funny little adventurous tale. They had to cut a LOT out of LOTR to fit it into three movies whereas they had to add a lot IN to make it three movies. I mean, come on, the dwarves and their various rhyming names? Trolls named BERT? They don't even mention the Arkenstone in the book until 2/3 of the way in... right before Bilbo goes into the mountain to look around and bring back proof of the treasure inside and some reconnaissance on the dragon itself.

 

I can appreciate fleshing out the dwarves story but this is still, ultimately, Bilbo's tale. It's called The Hobbit not All Those Dwarves! And, unfortunately, fleshing out the growing threat of Sauron as the Necromancer in Mirkwood and having Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond be made aware of it by Gandalf and Radagast... kind of makes everyone look really dumb for being surprised by his presence and growing power in the LOTR movies. I suppose that they were all pretty certain that the One Ring was lost and when Gandalf found it in Bilbo's possession he was suddenly all 'Oh shit!' but, at the same time, we see him go to Gondor and search the archives for these small pieces of the puzzle when this trilogy pretty much spells out that he had the biggest pieces already.

 

Hell, these movies kind of show that Legolas knew more about what was going on than anyone in the LOTR films... but given that his dialog in the LOTR movies could probably fit on one page they never gave him the chance to be all "Okay, LOOK, about fifty years ago some shit went down around Erebor and Mirkwood and we went to the gates of Angmar to find out that crazy shit was going on THERE, too. We cannot even pretend that what we're doing right now isn't the most important thing EVER! By the way, my dad is a classist douche and he never got over losing his awesome battle elk in the big fight there. Also, the woman I had a major crush on decided she preferred a dwarf. I'm still struggling with that one... he didn't strike me as particularly interesting. His brother, at least, could hide any number of knives on his person. I respect that."

[ribboninthesky1]

And, unfortunately, fleshing out the growing threat of Sauron as the Necromancer in Mirkwood and having Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond be made aware of it by Gandalf and Radagast... kind of makes everyone look really dumb for being surprised by his presence and growing power in the LOTR movies. I suppose that they were all pretty certain that the One Ring was lost and when Gandalf found it in Bilbo's possession he was suddenly all 'Oh shit!' but, at the same time, we see him go to Gondor and search the archives for these small pieces of the puzzle when this trilogy pretty much spells out that he had the biggest pieces already.

 

Right, I thought about that as well.  It made sense when I believed that Gandalf didn't know Bilbo had the ring.  But he called Bilbo out on it at the end, and I thought, "Wait, what? So why are you all furrowed brow about it, like you didn't know what it was, in The Fellowship of the Ring?"  Shut up, Gandalf. Agreed on how it makes the Elves appear dumb at worst, incredibly naive, at best.

 

The films were clearly conceived to be a cash cow more than any insightful pre-cursor to the LOTR trilogy. In that, it was certainly a success. I'll always prefer the latter, by a mile.  

[Dandesun]

The films were clearly conceived to be a cash cow more than any insightful pre-cursor to the LOTR trilogy. In that, it was certainly a success. I'll always prefer the latter, by a mile.  

 

Same here. I mean, there are things I like. Cute dwarves? Never imagined that happening. Although I really could have done without the shitty romance part of it. Why not have Tauriel see something in Kili that changes her mind about dwarves being nothing but hungry for gold and the riches in the earth? And then Legolas is influenced by this, perhaps, and finds himself willing to at least see the dwarf he winds up travelling with as more than what he had always thought.

 

I mean, we know that Legolas and Gimli became great friends... so much so that when Legolas was able to bring Gimli with him to the Undying Lands. Yeah, Legolas sneering at the picture of wee Gimli was worth a chortle, I guess, but... I don't know. I just feel they could have done a better job at tying the two trilogies together. As it stands, they seem to take place in two very different but also very similar worlds.

 

Hell, at this point, they may as well have done a whole section of Tom Bombadil just so people could be all "What the fuck was THAT all about?!" (Rather like meeting him in Fellowship of the Ring -- the book. I still find that whole section weird.)

[millennium]

I never read the books, so I had no idea how intricate the Middle Earth tapestry truly is until last night when I tried to read more about Galadriel on Wikipedia.   Suddenly I felt like I was on Ancestry.com as it laid out her lineage, her marriages, her children, her challenges, etc.   It occurred to me, they could have made a movie about Galadriel alone.

 

To those who have read the books, how in the world do you keep track of all those names and who did what to whom and when and where and why?  

[Dandesun]

I never read the books, so I had no idea how intricate the Middle Earth tapestry truly is until last night when I tried to read more about Galadriel on Wikipedia.   Suddenly I felt like I was on Ancestry.com as it laid out her lineage, her marriages, her children, her challenges, etc.   It occurred to me, they could have made a movie about Galadriel alone.

 

To those who have read the books, how in the world do you keep track of all those names and who did what to whom and when and where and why?  

 

I've never really tried to keep track of the dwarves in The Hobbit. Thorin, Fili and Kili matter because they are the descendants of Durin but the rest are basically the other dwarves.

 

Tolkien is a writer that doesn't write a specific story so much as invite you to spend time in the world he has created. There is a LOT of detail about flora and fauna in his books, descriptions of the Old Forest or Old Man Willow or Fangorn will go on for quite some time... so, in a lot of ways, it's not so much about remembering who is who for me. When reading the books, you're spending time with these characters so you just wind up knowing them. Also, for me, I did enjoy studying epic poetry in school and Tolkien was a scholar of such things himself so the premise helps me out.

 

Although, I have yet to read the Silmarillion so I don't know how confusing that all gets. Still, Middle-Earth has eons of history that Tolkien created. It's really impressive and as far as LOTR, I never had a problem remembering who was who. The four Hobbits are all specific and different. I don't confuse Boromir with Aragorn despite them both being men. Gimli is a dwarf and Legolas and elf. I have always loved Rohan so there was no confusion between Theoden, Eomer and Eowyn. And Faramir came into the story well after Boromir was killed off but the similiarities of their names reminded you that they were brothers. Also a lot of the histories aren't so much in the main story as much as they're in the appendices.

[Jeebus Cripes]

Hell, at this point, they may as well have done a whole section of Tom Bombadil just so people could be all "What the fuck was THAT all about?!" (Rather like meeting him in Fellowship of the Ring -- the book. I still find that whole section weird.)

 

That part of the book was silly and... unnecessary? I'm trying to remember... I don't think it serves any purpose at all.

 

For the post up thread about Lee Pace being the worst actor: I don't know if he was necessarily the worst, but he was a visual feast for my eyes. Totally otherworldly and stunning to look upon. 

[Joe]

Tom Bombadil shows that the world isn't as regulated and organised as later writers have made it. There's no room for this non-fitting weirdness in other authors' fantasy novels, and I miss that. All the world building is carefully regulated and organised. Besides, Bombadil was shoehorned in there. Tolkien created him, wrote some other stories with him, and then shoved him in because he could. I appreciate that attitude.

 

Also, the later part of that sequence in the Barrow-Downs is where Bombadil gives Merry the sword that wounds the Witch-King of Angmar enough for Eowyn to finish him off.

[Dandesun]

Tom Bombadil shows that the world isn't as regulated and organised as later writers have made it. There's no room for this non-fitting weirdness in other authors' fantasy novels, and I miss that. All the world building is carefully regulated and organised. Besides, Bombadil was shoehorned in there. Tolkien created him, wrote some other stories with him, and then shoved him in because he could. I appreciate that attitude.

 

Also, the later part of that sequence in the Barrow-Downs is where Bombadil gives Merry the sword that wounds the Witch-King of Angmar enough for Eowyn to finish him off.

 

Tom Bombadil is one of those purely Tolkien things that later writers have no idea what to do with. The fact that Tolkien himself never explained what Bombadil was probably added to that. He has reams and reams of history and explanation for everything in Middle-Earth... except for Tom Bombadil. His explanations of Tom are vague and I think he admits that he's not sure exactly what Tom actually is... save that he's been where he is longer than anyone. There are a lot of speculation about Tom... some think he's an evil presence held back by the power of the elves since the land he lives in is rather wretched and evil itself.

 

I can totally understand why they removed Tom from the films. He's such a bizarre character in and of himself that he would stand out in the absolute wrong way. Besides, the Hobbits getting caught by the Barrow Wight in the Barrow Downs and all that is also unnecessary to the story when you've got so much to tell. It's fine for the book but they really did need to edit the shit out of that story in order to even make it fit into three movies.

My aunt is a hardcore Tolkien purist (so much so that she refuses to see the movies at all -- she is deeply offended that the elves have pointed ears) and I should really ask her what she thinks of Tom Bombadil. I think her answer might be interesting.

[millennium]

I think the inclusion of Evangeline Lilly was also to the trilogy's detriment.   She's a highly recognizable television actor in one of the most successful series ever.   I'm not a Kate Austen hater (I liked her, actually) but it was difficult to accept her as Tauriel vs. Kate in Spock ears.   The Kili actor was also known to me through TV (from Almost Human) and Richard Armitage too (from Spooks). 

 

In the first trilogy, I recognized very few of the actors, or the associations were so vague that I had no trouble seeing the character rather than the actor.   It greatly aided my willingness to suspend disbelief. 

[Dandesun]

I think I'm the opposite there... of the cast of The Hobbit I knew Lee Pace and Martin Freeman and Luke Evans as well as the characters who were present in the LOTR trilogy. I had heard the name Evangeline Lilly but I had no idea who she was (yes, I know now she was on Lost. Never watched it.) And Richard Armitage seemed familiar to me but I don't know how because I hadn't seen anything he was in. Except for Captain America: The First Avenger where he was the first HYDRA guy to show up (as Steve became Cap) shoot Stanley Tucci and then be the subject the chase scene through Brooklyn. And it wasn't like I went 'Hey! It's the HYDRA agent from the first Cap movie!' when I saw him. With the Hobbit I just went "They made some hot dwarves... I was not expecting that."

 

As for LOTR, I knew Ian McKellan, Christopher Lee, Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Sean Bean (major pull for me even if I hadn't been already interested), John Rhys-Davies, Hugo Weaving, Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett and Karl Urban. I didn't know Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan. or Orlando Bloom or Viggo Mortensen. And, as it turned out, Sean Bean made the character of Boromir infinitely more likable to me than in the books. I found Book!Boromir to be a major douche. Sean Bean!Boromir had a lot more pathos about him. 

 

As for keeping them all straight... well... I am something of a D&D nerd and so much of that is born from Tolkien's high fantasy AND I grew up watching the Rankin-Bass versions of The Hobbit and Return of the King (I've always loved Eowyn, man, and a lot of it comes from that cartoon.) No lie, the child in me was a bit bummed that Jackson's Elrond didn't have the motes of light dancing around his head... but Hugo Weaving played Elrond and that made up for a lot.

 

Has anyone seen any of the extended version stuff for the various Hobbit movies, yet? That was something I found mesmerizing with LOTR... not just the lengthened and added scenes but the behind the scenes stuff with WETA Workshop and how hard they worked to create the various cultures in Middle-Earth. I'm thinking that immersing myself in that sort of thing with the Hobbit might not be a bad thing because I have a deep fondness for world building -- which might be why I like Tolkien so much despite his tendency to go off on tangents about Tom Bombadil or the Entwives or whatever.

[NoWillToResist]

I thought the best and most memorable sequence of the Hobbit trilogy was the escape via the barrel in the river from the 2nd movie.  I thought that was incredibly well-shot and exciting.  I don't remember much from the first film - mostly that ridiculously long sequence with the dwarves taking over Bilbo's home in the beginning.  Oh, and Bilbo's meet-cute with Gollum.

 

I, too, wondered why the other dwarves would sit by and allow their fellow countrymen to die.  But then, they didn't do anything to help Bilbo when he was stuck inside the mountain alone with Smaug, either.  I'm pretty sure Balin would have been the only one to care if Bilbo perished.

 

I remember being frustrated by the barrel sequence when I watched it in theatres. It felt overlong to me. When I re-watched it prior to seeing the final film, it didn't bother me as much. I seem to recall liking everything that happened in the mountain in the 2nd movie (basically everything involving Smaug, his confrontation with Bilbo and then the dwarves). I was not a big fan of the Gollum/Bilbo scene. Again, it felt overly long and Gollum's speech is kind of fucked up so it was sometimes difficult to hear what he was saying. And when he's LITERALLY talking in riddles, it was a bit annoying. :)

 

Unless I misunderstood, I thought the dwarves couldn't go look for the Arkenstone because they were told that the dragon would wake up as soon as it smelled them because dragons know the smell of dwarves. Apparently, dragons were lazy and never bothered to swing by Hobbiton to catch a whiff of hobbits, so Bilbo was supposed to be able to sneak in unnoticed. Also, even once they realized that Smaug had woken up, Bilbo's reputation as a thief (courtesy of Gandalf) probably gave the dwarves more confidence in his ability to escape than was warranted.

 

I do feel that, regardless of whether all the action sequences could have done with some editing, they were far superior in entertainment value and quality in the first two movies. The dragon stuff was interesting in the final film but once the action shifted to the war over the mountain, it was mostly a hell of a lot of "aerial" CGI figures, which leaves me cold.

 

I find myself a bit disappointed that the dwarves didn't agree to give Thranduil his moon gems. Seems to me that they could have bought, like, a year of peace by saying that it would take time to find them among the mess that Smaug made of the treasure room.:)

 

I can't help but wonder if part of the reason why so many people seemed able to distinguish between (and remember) more LOTR characters is because of the amount of fake facial crap that was required for the dwarves in the Hobbit movies. Elves, wizards, humans and hobbits mostly have their human faces as is, so IMO it's easier to remember them...particularly if they are played by an actor one knows.

 

Is it a coincidence that Fili, Kili and Thorin - the only ones from the all-important line of Durin - had the most 'human' faces and were thus more easily identified? Unless I'm misremembering, all the others had tons of rubber on their faces and wacky wigs.  Gimli, IIRC, was the only dwarf in the LOTR movies, so it was like "is that the dwarf? Yes? Ok, that's Gimli."  Easy. :)

 

But in the Hobbit, it was like, "there's a dwarf. Is it the leader guy (Thorin)? No? Oh. Is it the young blond one (Fili) or the young dark haired one (Kili)? No. Oh. Is is the super old advisor who has a lot of lines (Balin)? No? Oh. Well, whatever then, it's one of the miscellaneous dwarves in their group, so they're not important.

Edited January 7, 2015 by NoWillToResist

[ribboninthesky1]

Interesting, as I thought the Smaug scenes in the 2nd film, while technically well-done, felt too long.  I remember thinking, "Oh, will you shut up already?"  Smaug just went on and ON.  I understand he was toying with Bilbo, but Smaug's smack-talking was justifiably his undoing.  

 

Yes, the dwarves didn't want to go in because he would recognize their scent, but that rationale didn't make any sense to me because ANYONE'S scent would have been caught.  Smaug had lounged around, alone, in gold and jewels for X number of years, so he rightly picked up Bilbo's scent very quickly.  I never understood how being a Hobbit was supposed to be less risky.  I assumed it was just spin to make Bilbo more agreeable. 

 

Bilbo also didn't know how much treasure there was - for plot's sake, he quickly found the Arkenstone.  But even without the dragon there, it might have taken a long time to find it.  To me, it would have made more sense to go with Bilbo and distract the dragon while he searched for it.  But of course, Thorin wasn't going to risk his neck, and Balin was the only other one who spoke up.      

 

 

For the post up thread about Lee Pace being the worst actor: I don't know if he was necessarily the worst, but he was a visual feast for my eyes. Totally otherworldly and stunning to look upon. 

 

I think Lee Pace is quite handsome, yet I thought the juxtaposition with Orlando Bloom's Legolas was interesting.  Lee did nothing for me as Thranduil, yet Legolas is the only role in which I've found Orlando Bloom attractive.  It's not particularly relevant, I suppose, just two dark-haired, dark-eyed actors playing blond, blue-eyed characters, and only one of them did it for me.  Beholder, and all of that.

 

I find myself a bit disappointed that the dwarves didn't agree to give Thranduil his moon gems. Seems to me that they could have bought, like, a year of peace by saying that it would take time to find them among the mess that Smaug made of the treasure room.:)

 

  Right?

[NoWillToResist]

Interesting, as I thought the Smaug scenes in the 2nd film, while technically well-done, felt too long.  I remember thinking, "Oh, will you shut up already?"  Smaug just went on and ON.  I understand he was toying with Bilbo, but Smaug's smack-talking was justifiably his undoing. 

 

Objectively, I'd agree. But subjectively, I loved BC's voice as Smaug, so he could have sat in his gold and read the Hobbiton Yellow Pages and I'd have been okay with it. ;)

 

On a slight side note though, I didn't understand how Smaug was able to shake off the molten gold. Shouldn't that have weighed him down and then solidified, thus trapping him? I can only assume that was the plan and I honestly thought it would work. It was very anti-climactic to have Smaug not be slowed down at all.

Edited January 7, 2015 by NoWillToResist

[ribboninthesky1]

Maybe Smaug is warm-blooded due to the fire-breathing.  I don't know how long it takes gold to solidify, but he booked it out of there posthaste.  Perhaps gold isn't that heavy in molten form?  I need to stop trying to use logic for these films, heh. 

[Haleth]

I haven't seen (and have no intention of seeing) the third movie, but for me the scenes that come closest to book canon are the riddle game with Gollum and Smaug conversing with the thief.  (The riddle game is almost word for word from the book.)  Both were Bilbo scenes.  I agree with the posters above who felt Jackson misstepped when he made the movies more about the Dwarves than Bilbo's quest. Bilbo is the one we are supposed to identify with and care about.  I thought Armitage did a pretty good job making Thorin sympathetic, but he was no Aragorn.  Balin was sweet, Kili was cute, but the rest are pretty interchangeable.  That must have been one of the easiest jobs ever for these actors.  Between the lack of dialog (except for the major characters) and all the CGI there wasn't much for them to do.  I remember debates about how Jackson was going to be able to make 13 Dwarves recognizable with distinct personalities.  The answer?  He didn't.  

[Dandesun]

I remember debates about how Jackson was going to be able to make 13 Dwarves recognizable with distinct personalities.  The answer?  He didn't.  

 

To be fair, neither did Tolkien. But then, the bulk of the dwarves were background noise. The major stuff was Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin.

[Jediknight]

On a slight side note though, I didn't understand how Smaug was able to shake off the molten gold. Shouldn't that have weighed him down and then solidified, thus trapping him? I can only assume that was the plan and I honestly thought it would work. It was very anti-climactic to have Smaug not be slowed down at all.

Because his armor is iron.  His teeth are swords.  His claws are spears.  His wings are a hurricane.  He instills terror into the hearts of men.  He is King Under the Mountain!

Edited January 8, 2015 by Jediknight

[Jeebus Cripes]

Balin was sweet

 

Balin ended up being my favorite Dwarf. Made me really sad when I realized that was his tomb in Fellowship of the Ring.

[Bruinsfan]

It's particularly sad that the Watcher in the Water got Oin. Bad way to go.

[NoWillToResist]

Balin ended up being my favorite Dwarf. Made me really sad when I realized that was his tomb in Fellowship of the Ring.

 

?! Holy shit. I totally did not make that connection. Would dwarves consider tombs to be a burial? (just wondering because Tauriel said that they wanted to bury Kili)

[ZoqFotPik]

Also, the skeleton holding the log book Gandalf reads, that was Ori.

[Haleth]

Whatever Jackson wrote for a character he created can be taken with a grain of salt.  A stone tomb in the territory that Balin valiantly fought to reclaim was a fitting burial place for a Dwarf.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Haleth

[Dandesun]

Yeah, I assumed burial meant entombment. It strikes me that elves probably don't bury their dead... they either go to the Undying Lands or... I would honestly assume that they use a pyre or even perform a sort of Viking funeral for those that fall in battle. If elves love the stars I can see them rendering their dead unto ashes that fly into the sky like stars. So, for me, Tauriel speaking of 'they want to bury him' seems an elvish way of not wanting someone she came to care for interred in the ground. Elves just don't understand that.

 

I have purchased the Extended Editions of both An Unexpected Journey and Desolation of Smaug because I'm something of a world-builder myself and seeing the thought processes of the film-makers in the world of Tolkien delights me and have rather immersed myself over the weekend in such things (when not finishing painting my room, grocery shopping, hardware store shopping etc...) It's funny because they do point out that Tolkien didn't do a hell of a lot to differentiate the dwarves in The Hobbit and just having thirteen dwarves that looked like Gimli was just not going to work.

 

I also loved how Richard Armitage didn't think he'd get the role because he was too young to be Thorin as he is in the book but he wanted it because reading those books were one of the things that made him want to be an actor and tell stories. Also, the idea that the oak branch that Thorin used as a shield would become important enough for Thorin to gild and whatnot was Armitage's idea... he even sketched out ideas for it.

 

All of this appeals to the D&D girl in me... where you play a character and you immerse yourself so much that you really start getting into the ideas of where this weapon came from or why the character follows this or that god and all that. Like I said, I have a weakness for world-building.

 

Also, the focus on Martin Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo is great. They show a lot of the different takes he does for scenes... and, man, Ian McKellan has some amazingly wonderful things to say about Martin as an actor. I've always liked Martin Freeman and I freaking love Ian McKellan so hearing the things he has to say about Freeman, how he actually expressed jealousy and admiration over Freeman's abilities, to the point where he mentioned that he seemed to be doing a style of acting McKellan had never seen before... I put a lot of weight into that sort of thing.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Dandesun

[ChelseaNH]

The first movie is on TNT a lot this weekend, so I gave it a watch.  Wow, that was a mess.  It took forever to get things started -- Bilbo tells a story and then Bilbo tells another story and then Bilbo's nephew shows up so we can remember how the LOTR movies started...  It was nice to see Erebor before Smaug showed up, but I think there was a better way to incorporate that into the flow.

 

Finally we're on the road and having adventures, but then they take away a lot of the stuff that Bilbo actually did, with the trolls and the goblins, where he's being clever and gaining confidence.  The riddle game, at least, was good.

 

Then there was the stuff with Galadriel and Saruman and Elrond, which belonged in its own movie.

 

Finally we get to the part where the dwarves are up the trees and the forest is on fire, and we have to stick in a pointless battle with Azog for reasons before the eagles can rescue people.  (And yes, the eagles would totally have gotten shot out of the sky if they had tried to invade a fortified Mordor that wasn't already occupied with falling to pieces, so let's please hear no more about How They Could Have Solved Everything.)

 

I would say that at least seeing the movie didn't cost me anything, but I did have to sacrifice more than three hours of my life, and I can't say it was worth the trade.

[caracas1914]

Maybe I'm a contrarian but I thought that Lee Pace's spin on Thranduil was interesting , he seemed like a Drag Queen/snob/control freak all in one.

I just made up canon that he was so wrong headed about everything and that being an Elf gave him such a warped sense of entitlement he couldn't help himself.

[Bruinsfan]

I agree. There was a nice undertone of chilly menace in his portrayal (except when he showed off that horrific burn-scarred visage and it wasn't an undertone anymore).

 

Really, Guardians of the Galaxy is the only time I've ever seen him turn in a bad performance, and he was woefully miscast in that.

[bunnyblue]

What the hell happened to Peter Jackson??? This trilogy is awful. HBO is airing the Battle of the Five Armies and I decided to watch even though I wasn't impressed by the first two movies. Might as well see how it ends, right? The lighting is so damn distracting. The entire time I felt like I was watching a Thomas Kinkade painting come to life. Why was there always a white glow, even in the indoor scenes? Was everything filmed in front of green screen? Nothing looked real. Honestly, I was so distracted by the fake looking scenery and awful acting, I'm not really sure what the hell was going on story-wise. The only thing I enjoyed in the entire trilogy was the quick mentions of Gimli and Strider.

[Joe]

The studio execs apparently pressured Jackson to make it three movies over two, which resulted in a lot of padding. Also, according to Mortensen, he became more interested in effects than story back during LOTR. Apparently he never got over it.

 

Yes, pretty much everything was done in front of green screen. McKellan was in a different room to Freeman and the Dwarves most of the time, something to do with the 3D thing.

[Athena]

Yeah, ever since I heard of McKellan breaking down on the set of these movies and contemplating quitting acting makes me wonder what the hell Jackson was doing. McKellan is a treasure. Creating such a lonely work environment for such an acclaimed actor over months of time is really sad. I know McKellan said he didn't mean it later and the crew surprised him with goodies, but it does seem to me that there was just too much green screen.

[Jeebus Cripes]

Yeah, ever since I heard of McKellan breaking down on the set of these movies and contemplating quitting acting makes me wonder what the hell Jackson was doing. McKellan is a treasure. Creating such a lonely work environment for such an acclaimed actor over months of time is really sad. I know McKellan said he didn't mean it later and the crew surprised him with goodies, but it does seem to me that there was just too much green screen.

 

WTF? I'm pretty sure when I watched all those special features on my LOTR DVD's that the actors portraying tall characters were interacting with the shorter ones while filming takes. That's depressing. Poor Ian.

[VCRTracking]

Thinking back to LOTR I guess it was easier to use perspective tricks because he was only acting with one or two people in a scene, either old Bilbo or Frodo,  In The Hobbit, there are 14 people and they're all over the place in front of and farther back from him, so greenscreen was probably necessary. I do think they could have had little people stand ins, then replaced them with the real actors to make it less solitary for him. But then that would have been more expensive and they were saving that money for all those 'exciting' CGI set pieces.

Edited August 11, 2015 by VCRTracking

[Bruinsfan]

 I'm sure paying scale to a group of 14 little people wouldn't seriously impact the budget for what must have been over a thousand all-CGI shots of orcs smashing through walls, Orlando Bloom dancing across falling bricks in mid-air, and the sandworms from Dune not taking a left turn at Albuquerque and ending up in the wrong movie.

[Jeebus Cripes]

They could have dressed them up in green suits and just edited them out.

[Jediknight]

The only thing I enjoyed in the entire trilogy was the quick mentions of Gimli and Strider.

Bard and Smaug were fantastic, and Martin Freeman was absolutely perfect as Bilbo.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Jediknight

[VCRTracking]

Rewatching and I hate Alfrid more than ever. How the hell did he get to survive all the way through to the end?

[Joe]

It's somewhat Tolkien, but not quite. He was big on his characters being merciful to their foes when possible, but them being hoist on their own petards through other means. See Gollum and Saruman. I'm sure that if Alfrid was in the book, he would have run off into the wilderness and died from a random orc. But let's be honest, Jackson never quite grasped Tolkien.

 

Oh, I just checked the LOTR wiki! Apparently he dies at an unknown point. Is that in the extended version? I can't bring myself to watch it. I'd need a substance stronger than mere alcohol.

[Jenniferbug]

That's horribly sad about Ian McKellan being so lonely during filming. As if I needed another reason to be disappointed in these movies.

My husband and I are nerds- we pretty much live for sci-fi and fantasy movies. We both loved LOTR and have watched it countless times. We were so bored while watching the first Hobbit movie that we skipped seeing the second in theatres. We bought it when it came out and both fell asleep while watching it- not once, but twice. We still haven't seen the third one I'm sure we will eventually, but I feel no excitement and anticipation. More like a sense of obligation to see how it ends.

[ZoqFotPik]

 

I'm sure that if Alfrid was in the book, he would have run off into the wilderness and died from a random orc

It's been a long time since I've read the books, but isn't that what happens to the Master of Laketown?

 

 

Oh, I just checked the LOTR wiki! Apparently he dies at an unknown point. Is that in the extended version? I can't bring myself to watch it. I'd need a substance stronger than mere alcohol.

The extended edition won't be been released until November. Apparently, it will be rated 'R' and add about 30 minutes of footage. Alfrid's fate might be included.