Hobbit Trailer

[Matthean]

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G0k3kHtyoqc" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

[stevew]

Thought this looked homemade until I saw Ian Mcclelland.

[Alan T]

I can't wait for this movie to come out!

[sterlingice]

Well, I'm officially excited. I don't know how you stretch out 300 pages into 2 movies, but I guess they'll do it.

SI

[CrimsonFox]

I'm excited but apprehensive now. This had such a feel of LotR movies of it. And I've always felt the Hobbit was SUCH a different story, a different structure and different feel.

A more sprawling adventure story that of Alice and WONderland.
NOne of the superpolitical and war stuff that abounds in lotr.

And seeing Galadriel in there REALLY worries me. Did Fran and Phillippa and Peter fuck up the story and add a bunch of other stuff in (ala Faramir changing and Arwen galore)?

I really really hope not. Granted I AM excited.

[PilotMan]

After all this time, I can't imagine that Peter Jackson is going to let you down. That said, I'm not as familiar with the story of The Hobbit, I just loved LOtR so much, that I am super excited for this on principle alone.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I'm excited but apprehensive now. This had such a feel of LotR movies of it. And I've always felt the Hobbit was SUCH a different story, a different structure and different feel.

A more sprawling adventure story that of Alice and WONderland.
NOne of the superpolitical and war stuff that abounds in lotr.

And seeing Galadriel in there REALLY worries me. Did Fran and Phillippa and Peter fuck up the story and add a bunch of other stuff in (ala Faramir changing and Arwen galore)?

I really really hope not. Granted I AM excited.

From what I remember of The Hobbit, and it's been ages and ages since I've read it, over 25 years likely, I think it could use some changes.

I think almost everything Fran, Phillippa and Peter changed in the LOTR actually improved upon the source material. I find the movies to be superior to the books in almost every way. The Faramir thing is the only niggling thing that bothered me. Arwen's increased role and pretty much everything else, was an improvement to me.

[Warhammer]

I'm going to see it since it is The Hobbit and all, but I don't have extremely high hopes.

After seeing what Jackson did to LotR, I have no doubt he is going to butcher some things. Galadriel should NOT be in this, unless they expand on some of the White Council stuff and show Gandalf going off to Dol Guldur. Also, unlike LotR, where they nailed the casting, this seems a bit off.

So, I'm going to see it, but with very little in the way of expectations.

[Izulde]

My guess is, like Warhammer suggests, they'll include some of the things that occur off-text, but are alluded to in-text and are very much contemporaneous to The Hobbit's timeline.

Personally, what I'd love to see Peter Jackson and Co. do is tackle The Silmarillion.

[Izulde]

I'm excited but apprehensive now. This had such a feel of LotR movies of it. And I've always felt the Hobbit was SUCH a different story, a different structure and different feel.
.

The different feel comes from the fact that The Hobbit is written as a children's story, which accounts in large part for the Alice in Wonderland echoes.

A different story and structure? Not so much. At the most fundamental level, both of them fall in the quest romance tradition and everything attached to it.

[CrimsonFox]

My guess is, like Warhammer suggests, they'll include some of the things that occur off-text, but are alluded to in-text and are very much contemporaneous to The Hobbit's timeline.

Personally, what I'd love to see Peter Jackson and Co. do is tackle The Silmarillion.


An EXCELLENT suggestion. The Hobbit is a complete story in itself. They'll probably cut some encounters but I HOPE they keep as many as they can, especially Beorn. Wonder if they'll keep the Arkenstone in it too.
I just want them leaving things alone.

But you're totally right about Silmirrhion since its a history lesson as opposed to a story. :) They can make a dozen films out of that and select the bits that they want and embellish the rest.

[CrimsonFox]

The different feel comes from the fact that The Hobbit is written as a children's story, which accounts in large part for the Alice in Wonderland echoes.

A different story and structure? Not so much. At the most fundamental level, both of them fall in the quest romance tradition and everything attached to it.

By different structure I mean that The Hobbit definitely echoes AiW as it moves from one encounter to the next seemingly unrelated encounter. Some loop back but some do not and in the end the hero erturns to the origin point but has grown.

Lotr is about more than one hero and features many sideplots and stories and intrigues and more adult themes of war and politics.

That's what I meant

[Peregrine]

One thing to keep in mind, with seeing Galadriel etc in the trailer, is that PJ has written additional material, based on other Tolkien writings, so we'll be seeing that as well as the Hobbit.

Description of this from CinemaBlend

We know that Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Hobbit will actually contain more than just The Hobbit. He's written a bunch of new material, not in the book, but based on ancillary Tolkien works to pair with it. That extra material will involve a side quest in which Gandalf, Galadriel, and other great powers go to confront a dark and rising power in Mirkwood. What we didn't know until this trailer is whether that extra material would be confined to the second movie of the two being released, allowing them to focus on simply telling the story of The Hobbit here, or if they'd somehow weave it in with the other things which are supposed to be happening. The trailer though makes it clear that we're getting it all at once. Galadriel appears numerous times (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/94-Images-From-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-Trailer-28465.html?tid=5516) in the Unexpected Journey trailer, though she's not in the book version of The Hobbit at all. She'll no doubt be one of the main characters in that new, side story, and here she is in the very first film.

[Draft Dodger]

hadn't really been following along. Did not expect to see the dude from the Office

[Marc Vaughan]

One thing to keep in mind, with seeing Galadriel etc in the trailer, is that PJ has written additional material, based on other Tolkien writings, so we'll be seeing that as well as the Hobbit.
Thats a shame - I thought the Hobbit was a very well put together story and quite complete as it was tbh ...

That being said, the trailer looks promising imho.

[Izulde]

So it is the White Council and and the cleansing of Mirkwood and all that they'll be including. Hmm, I wonder if that means they'll also be including the part from the LotR appendices that has Gandalf ruminating on how to keep Smaug from joining forces with Sauron.

[Blackadar]

I'm going to see it since it is The Hobbit and all, but I don't have extremely high hopes.

After seeing what Jackson did to LotR, I have no doubt he is going to butcher some things. Galadriel should NOT be in this, unless they expand on some of the White Council stuff and show Gandalf going off to Dol Guldur. Also, unlike LotR, where they nailed the casting, this seems a bit off.

So, I'm going to see it, but with very little in the way of expectations.

You're in the extreme minority about Jackson "butchering" LOTR. To each his own opinion, but I've read LOTR about a half dozen times now and the Silmarillion about 10 times and I love Jackson's take. He was smart enough to adjust the story to adapt for the change in medium. LOTR told "as-is" wouldn't work well for movie audiences.

As Izulde said, they'll be doing the White Council stuff in Mirkwood, hence we'll see Galadriel, Elrond, Saurman and Legolas again. That stuff helps bridge the audience to the LOTR tales they're already familiar with.

[Autumn]

I think they had two ways to go here - go with a very different feel and appeal to the "children's book" side of things, or create something that resonates with the earlier movies. Obviously they're doing the second. Given that, layering in some plot that will mean a lot to those who watched the earlier movies makes sense, as does doing the movies in this order. There will be a layer of awareness of what's to come that can add to it.

That said I'm not at all a fan of many of the changes they made to the original movies. The whole Warg chase thing with Strider falling off the cliff? Legolas snowboarding down an oliphaunt? I'm glad they're doing something interesting with this movie but A) I don't know it was necessary, B) I expect much of it to pander to Hollywood.

[Honolulu_Blue]

That said I'm not at all a fan of many of the changes they made to the original movies. The whole Warg chase thing with Strider falling off the cliff? Legolas snowboarding down an oliphaunt? I'm glad they're doing something interesting with this movie but A) I don't know it was necessary, B) I expect much of it to pander to Hollywood.

I will take both of those scenes over Tom Bombadill and the scouring of the shire.

Jackson and company did a fantastic job at bringing those characters to life. Most of the characters in the book are pretty paper thin. They are archetypes more than characters and I think some of the re-writing, casting and scenes really helped make the characters seem more alive and gave them quite a bit of depth that was absent or merely hinted at in the original texts. Some things I wasn't a huge fan of. I didn't like Gimli being so much of a "comic relief" character.

I didn't mind Legolas snowboarding down the oliphaunt. Him taking that thing down by himself was one of the highlights even with that added flair at the end. In fact, I don't think any character benefitted more from the transformation from page to screen than Legolas. He is much, much cooler in the movies.

I read the books once when I was young and again right before the first movie came out. I have no interest in going back and reading them again. I will pretty much watch the movies anytime.

[Autumn]

I agree they made good decisions about what to edit out, for the most part. But editing out Galadriel giving the gifts to the Fellowship, but then adding in a scene with a Warg car chase is ridiculous. And frankly Saruman and Gandalf having a staff battle was pretty silly too. I think when they tried to Hollywood-ize the movies they made some blunders.

I'm certainly not claiming they did a bad job at the movies, but it often showed that they were employing Hollywood writers to 'improve' on the books.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I agree they made good decisions about what to edit out, for the most part. But editing out Galadriel giving the gifts to the Fellowship, but then adding in a scene with a Warg car chase is ridiculous. And frankly Saruman and Gandalf having a staff battle was pretty silly too. I think when they tried to Hollywood-ize the movies they made some blunders.

I'm certainly not claiming they did a bad job at the movies, but it often showed that they were employing Hollywood writers to 'improve' on the books.

They definitely did add some scenes to make it more action oriented. I think the biggest example is Helm's Deep. In the books, the whole battle takes place over, what, 5 pages or so? There's not much to it. On screen, however, it's one of the most epic battles filmed.

By this time, I've sort of forgotten what was in the theatrical releases and what was in the extended versions. I am pretty sure Galadriel giving gifts to the Fellowship is in the later, unless I am just making that scene up in my head.

[Autumn]

Yeah they added it to the extended. It just drives me crazy in adaptions when they cut great stuff from the books (which is always necessary) but then add in something lame (not like Helm's Deep, but like the war chase).

[DaddyTorgo]

Personally, what I'd love to see Peter Jackson and Co. do is tackle The Silmarillion.

Fuck me that would be amazing.

[Subby]

I loved the Trilogy and that trailer looks like more of the same goodness. Let's not overthink this.

[Blackadar]

I agree they made good decisions about what to edit out, for the most part. But editing out Galadriel giving the gifts to the Fellowship, but then adding in a scene with a Warg car chase is ridiculous. And frankly Saruman and Gandalf having a staff battle was pretty silly too. I think when they tried to Hollywood-ize the movies they made some blunders.

I'm certainly not claiming they did a bad job at the movies, but it often showed that they were employing Hollywood writers to 'improve' on the books.

Some additions made the movie stronger, some made them weaker.

I entirely agree about the Warg scene. By Jackson's own admission, they hadn't done much planning on that scene and it shows. It falls pretty flat for an action scene and is the worst scene in all 3 movies IMO.

The Galadriel giving gifts scene is in the extended cut. I can see why they cut it (need to get on with the story), but the extended edition has my favorite Gimli scene when he's talking about her gift to him. So while I personally hate that was cut, I understand why.

An example of an addition making the movie stronger IMO is one of the most controversial decisions - the addition of the elves in Helm's Deep. In the book, they spend many pages building up to the battle and while it's a desperate battle, it's not entirely hopeless. It's extremely difficult to convey those subtle shades of grey to a movie audience and there really wasn't any time to do so. So it was better for a movie audience to make the battle seem entirely hopeless and then provide just a glimmer of hope at the very end when the elves march in. I saw it in the theatre multiple times and every time the crowd erupted in cheers when the elves showed up - that shows it worked. Ultimately it doesn't change the story in any significant way, but it was a great addition for the medium and keeps the audience on that emotional roller-coaster.

Of course, thank goodness that some of the proposed changes were removed, including having Arwen at Helm's Deep and the Aragorn/Sauron battle during the end scene.

[flounder]

A lot of the decisions made sense, but leaving out the Scouring of the Shire is inexcusable. It's only the whole point of the trilogy.

[Autumn]

I agree.

That reminded me of the one change i really despise though. When Aragorn meets the Mouth of Sauron and just cold cuts off his head. I thought they really stepped out of character there in a way that was jarring just for some cool? action.

I hope the Hobbit is fun. I'm surprised they squeezed two films out of it, and I hope the end product feels distinct from the trilogy. It seems they've used much of the same music here in the trailer. I think with a bit of a change in the cinematography to make things younger and brighter, and some distinct music, it could be great.

[Warhammer]

One thing to keep in mind, with seeing Galadriel etc in the trailer, is that PJ has written additional material, based on other Tolkien writings, so we'll be seeing that as well as the Hobbit.

Description of this from CinemaBlend

We know that Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Hobbit will actually contain more than just The Hobbit. He's written a bunch of new material, not in the book, but based on ancillary Tolkien works to pair with it. That extra material will involve a side quest in which Gandalf, Galadriel, and other great powers go to confront a dark and rising power in Mirkwood. What we didn't know until this trailer is whether that extra material would be confined to the second movie of the two being released, allowing them to focus on simply telling the story of The Hobbit here, or if they'd somehow weave it in with the other things which are supposed to be happening. The trailer though makes it clear that we're getting it all at once. Galadriel appears numerous times (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/94-Images-From-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-Trailer-28465.html?tid=5516) in the Unexpected Journey trailer, though she's not in the book version of The Hobbit at all. She'll no doubt be one of the main characters in that new, side story, and here she is in the very first film.

So in other words, I was right! :D

The Two Towers was more or less fine. I enjoyed the changes they made in that film, substituting Eomer for Erkenbrand was a good and actually built Eomer's character in this format.

I even did not have too many issues with the warg chase previously mentioned. It worked with the medium and kept the story moving. Plus, it heightened the tension about the move to Helm's Deep.

The big issues I had were in the 1st and 3rd movies. The whole, "Let's destroy the ring with an axe!" scene was laughable after they had talked about what to do. The tension of jumping from stair section to stair section in Moria (would have been much more impressive to have a rapid shot of them running through different parts of Moria to the bridge, would have kept tension and a frantic pace.). Also cannot leave out Aragorn kicking the Nazgul's ass on Weathertop and everyone being terrified of them.

The RotK had the previously mentioned oliphaunt surfing, plus, Frodo telling Sam to go home because he was picking Gollum over him, etc., etc. The skulls flying out of the Paths of the Dead was: 1) Stupid and 2) Completely over the top.

My biggest issue with the trilogy was changing all the themes and characters. Aragorn did not need to be a weenie, "I never wanted to be king" personality. Gandalf was way too cautious. Yes, he cared about the races of Middle Earth, but he was by no means Mr. Cautious in the books. Legolas was not a bad ass in the books, and the fact that he achieved the least of the Fellowship (minus Boromir I guess), highlighted the fact that the elves of Middle Earth were waning. You miss all this in the movies and figure that if they had a regiment of Legolases they could storm Barad-dur with no problem. Also, there was no reason why they had to change Faramir as dramatically as they did. However, based upon the other changes, that one made the most sense to me.

EDIT: Also I hated the way they portrayed Denethor. The books have him as a haughty, yet noble character who is broken emotionally by the deaths (perceived in the case of Faramir) of his sons. In the movie, he is a completely unsympathetic character and you have to wonder how he is Steward of the most powerful free nation.

[Autumn]

Yes, I was thinking of Denethor too, and the sort of hamhanded characterization, him eating while the battle rages on. Clearly they felt they didn't have the time to develop nuance, but yes it is much more powerful if you sympathize with Denethor, respect him, and thus realize the danger of looking into the Eye of Mordor, and losing hope. He and what's his name, the other King who has fallen under Wormtongue's spell, are great symbols of the danger of forgetting hope.

But a set of books this size, there are so many themes you could seize on for a movie adaption, you have to pick and choose. It says something about the variety of characters in Tolkien's work that Jackson & Co. had a hard time knowing how to deal with some of them in a film setting, as they didn't fall into our movie character molds.

[Abe Sargent]

I reread the LOTR trilogy after seeing the movies a few times, and I recall Tolkein specially mentioned that, unlike freakin' Saruman, Denethor was so noble and good that Sauron could NOT corrupt him when he used the Palantir, so all he did was so him scenes of Gondor's fall and other things to depress him, rather than turn him evil. He was a good man who simply lost hope. You don;t get that in LotR film. I'm not sure that you could easily though. How would you write him to say the same lines but deliver them in a tragic hero sort of way. I'm not sure what was needed.

[JediKooter]

Dang. I thought this was a documentary about Dan Snyder.

[Rizon]

I think they got the casting right

[DaddyTorgo]

I reread the LOTR trilogy after seeing the movies a few times, and I recall Tolkein specially mentioned that, unlike freakin' Saruman, Denethor was so noble and good that Sauron could NOT corrupt him when he used the Palantir, so all he did was so him scenes of Gondor's fall and other things to depress him, rather than turn him evil. He was a good man who simply lost hope. You don;t get that in LotR film. I'm not sure that you could easily though. How would you write him to say the same lines but deliver them in a tragic hero sort of way. I'm not sure what was needed.

I'll disagree with you guys. I got the sense from the movies that Denethor was just totally broken. Broken and a bit nuts (and he clearly has issues with Boromir/Faramir), but just a man who's totally broken by having the weight of the world on his shoulders.

Maybe more nutty then I would have wanted him played, but broken.

[Blackadar]

My biggest issue with the trilogy was changing all the themes and characters. Aragorn did not need to be a weenie, "I never wanted to be king" personality. Gandalf was way too cautious. Yes, he cared about the races of Middle Earth, but he was by no means Mr. Cautious in the books. Legolas was not a bad ass in the books, and the fact that he achieved the least of the Fellowship (minus Boromir I guess), highlighted the fact that the elves of Middle Earth were waning. You miss all this in the movies and figure that if they had a regiment of Legolases they could storm Barad-dur with no problem. Also, there was no reason why they had to change Faramir as dramatically as they did. However, based upon the other changes, that one made the most sense to me.

The flip side:

RE Aragorn: So, you think the character having no story arc or growth would improve the film? It's a weakness of the books that Aragorn doesn't grow or change, not a strength. I like seeing Strider's character arc much more than the absolute stiff he is in the books.

RE Gandalf: Cautious? When was he cautious?

RE Legolas: Need action and humor in movies. Legolas was chosen as the action hero, Gimli as the humor. Not true to the books, but it makes the movie more enjoyable.

RE Farimir: Absolutely they had change him because in this particular case, the books are moronic. They spend hundreds of pages building up the evil of Sauron, only to have Faramir look at the ring and say "meh". It makes no sense whatsoever. If Faramir can easily resist (and therefore control) the ring, then there's really nothing to be scared of because Sauron isn't all that powerful. By greatly tempting Faramir, they maintain that the ring must be feared AND they still give him the opportunity to show there's strength in men to resist Sauron.

RE Denethor: I remember him being a devious and broken man when Gandalf met him in the books and not some heroic king-like figure. It's only been a year or two since I read them, but maybe I remember incorrectly.

RE Frodo/Sam/Gollum: Again, a weakness of the book is that Gollum never gets a chance to "win". By parting them, it adds drama to the movie and Gollum gets his brief moment in the sun. It adds drama to the later Shelob scene as well. Again, the audience cheered when Sam showed back up - it works in the movies. Remember, the original Sam/Frodo relationship was really one of servant/master based on the class system of the English military in WWI. That doesn't play well to modern audiences, so changes had to be made.

[Warhammer]

I like a hero. I take that back, I love a great hero. Aragorn is that hero in the books, he is what we aspire to be. With the amount of time they spent in some areas, they could easily have worked that into him. I'm not looking for a ton of character growth in a span of 6 months (which is what the books more or less represent in detail). He has spent 80 some odd years preparing for this, I don't need to see any additional character development in what amounts to less than 1% of his life.

Gandalf was cautious in the movies, let's try the pass, let's not rashly move out with the army. In both cases, his role was usurped by Aragorn (which really made no sense).

Regarding action, they set Aragorn up to be the action hero. That's great, you don't need Legolas to do that. Gimli was fine as the comic relief. Again, this is completely changing some of the themes of the books.

Faramir never sees the Ring. He tells Frodo to keep it hid. The whole temptation of the ring is about human nature. How often can we resist temptation once, but fail when subjected to repeated temptations? This is the vein I see Faramir in. I look at him as a lesser sort of Aragorn. He knows what the Ring is and realizes the danger there, so the temptation can be resisted.

Denethor was full of pride and sparred with Gandalf in the books, but it was not due to his being evil. It was difference of responsibility. Denethor is responsible for Gondor, Gandalf for Middle Earth. Again, I can draw real world comparisions to Denethor. However, once Faramir gets severely injured, he certainly is overthrown mentally.

Gollum does get his win. He gets the Ring in the end. He plays his part, Frodo would not have cast the Ring into the Fire at the end, and Sam would never have made him.

Another thing, it is possible to have some movies work the first time you see them, and not hold up under additional viewings. Attack of the Clones is a great example for me. When I first saw it in the theatre, it was great fun. Got to see Yoda whipping ass, a huge Jedi battle, what's not to like. Then you watch it again, and the romantic dialog is terrible, Anakin is a whiny little bitch, etc., etc. Now, it is probably the one Star Wars movie I can't watch. Even TPM is not a terrible movie in my eyes (sure it doesn't measure up to the first three, but it is not as bad as many make out).

[Peregrine]

To be honest there are a lot of changes in the movies, but there had to be - there's pretty much no way you could make those movies and keep every character exactly the same as they were in the books. I do miss certain things from the books but overall I appreciate the movies for what they are - a great attempt to put very difficult books on film.

[Blackadar]

Even TPM is not a terrible movie in my eyes (sure it doesn't measure up to the first three, but it is not as bad as many make out).

Given this statement, there's no hope for you at all. :lol:

[Buccaneer]

I love the books, having read it twice (just got into LotR recently), listened to the awesome unabridged reading, as well as the BBC dramatization. I think the movies were great, despite some silly scenes (as already mentioned). I haven't read the Hobbitt but I may after I see the movie.

[Izulde]

The flip side:

RE Aragorn: So, you think the character having no story arc or growth would improve the film? It's a weakness of the books that Aragorn doesn't grow or change, not a strength. I like seeing Strider's character arc much more than the absolute stiff he is in the books.

But Aragorn *does* change in the book. He goes from the same lack of desire to be King to accepting his role that he does in the movie. The changeover is just much less dramatic in the book, because it occurs via his boast to Eomer when they meet the Riders of Rohan, rather than Elrond's bad ass "Become who you were born to be!" in the movies.


RE Gandalf: Cautious? When was he cautious?

A good percentage of the time in the book IMO.


RE Legolas: Need action and humor in movies. Legolas was chosen as the action hero, Gimli as the humor. Not true to the books, but it makes the movie more enjoyable.

Agreed. And even in the books, there's something of the racial competition (albeit on a much less noticeable scale) that finds its resolution in Gimli's description of the caves of Helm's Deep.


RE Farimir: Absolutely they had change him because in this particular case, the books are moronic. They spend hundreds of pages building up the evil of Sauron, only to have Faramir look at the ring and say "meh". It makes no sense whatsoever. If Faramir can easily resist (and therefore control) the ring, then there's really nothing to be scared of because Sauron isn't all that powerful. By greatly tempting Faramir, they maintain that the ring must be feared AND they still give him the opportunity to show there's strength in men to resist Sauron.

The Ring is problematic for several reasons in the books, not least of which is the fact that Isildur and Co. already defeated Sauron with the Ring, so the anxiety over it is undermined from the beginning if you're playing close attention.

By the way, Faramir is the only one who can resist the temptation of the Ring. Galadriel and Tom Bombadil both do.

The reason Faramir was able to resist the ring was because Faramir is the closest character in the books to Tolkien himself.


RE Denethor: I remember him being a devious and broken man when Gandalf met him in the books and not some heroic king-like figure. It's only been a year or two since I read them, but maybe I remember incorrectly.

Correct. More specifically, he is the Bad Steward, as opposed to the faithful and loyal steward in Orfeo, one of the texts that had a strong influence on the LotR.


RE Frodo/Sam/Gollum: Again, a weakness of the book is that Gollum never gets a chance to "win". By parting them, it adds drama to the movie and Gollum gets his brief moment in the sun. It adds drama to the later Shelob scene as well. Again, the audience cheered when Sam showed back up - it works in the movies. Remember, the original Sam/Frodo relationship was really one of servant/master based on the class system of the English military in WWI. That doesn't play well to modern audiences, so changes had to be made.

It's also very much a homoerotic relationship in addition to the numerous representations of master/servant relationships that it's drawing upon.

[Izulde]

An example of an addition making the movie stronger IMO is one of the most controversial decisions - the addition of the elves in Helm's Deep. In the book, they spend many pages building up to the battle and while it's a desperate battle, it's not entirely hopeless. It's extremely difficult to convey those subtle shades of grey to a movie audience and there really wasn't any time to do so. So it was better for a movie audience to make the battle seem entirely hopeless and then provide just a glimmer of hope at the very end when the elves march in. I saw it in the theatre multiple times and every time the crowd erupted in cheers when the elves showed up - that shows it worked. Ultimately it doesn't change the story in any significant way, but it was a great addition for the medium and keeps the audience on that emotional roller-coaster.


Having the elves show up at Helm's Deep was definitely a masterstroke in terms of cinematic storytelling, and I'm in favor of it as well.

I know the purists will bitch that the elves were actually fighting off Sauron's forces (Llothlorien was attacked three times) and on other fronts, as outlined in the appendices, but the change is simply better.

[ISiddiqui]

I will take both of those scenes over Tom Bombadill and the scouring of the shire.

Lord knows I am not the biggest Lord of the Rings fan, but this denigration of the Scouring is ridiculous. As stated before, it is absolutely inexcusable that it is left out because it is the entire point. The idea that evil will eventually find you, justifies taking the risk to venture out and combat evil (it is no coincidence that Tolkein is British and lived during World War II).

[Blackadar]

But Aragorn *does* change in the book. He goes from the same lack of desire to be King to accepting his role that he does in the movie. The changeover is just much less dramatic in the book, because it occurs via his boast to Eomer when they meet the Riders of Rohan, rather than Elrond's bad ass "Become who you were born to be!" in the movies.

In the movie, his acceptance of his fate started when Boromir died. By the time Elrond showed up in ROTK, he had already come to grips with it. Personally, I though the character progression was much better in the movie than in the books. We just don't have 1,500 pages to get to know Aragorn in the movies, so the only option is to increase the arc of his character.

It's just the difference in the mediums. You can paint in detail in a long book, but you have to use broader brush strokes in a movie.

A good percentage of the time in the book IMO.

Exactly. I didn't see Gandalf being more tentative in the movie than in the books. I'm not sure where Warhammer is coming up with that.

The Ring is problematic for several reasons in the books, not least of which is the fact that Isildur and Co. already defeated Sauron with the Ring, so the anxiety over it is undermined from the beginning if you're playing close attention.

By the way, Faramir is the only one who can resist the temptation of the Ring. Galadriel and Tom Bombadil both do.

The reason Faramir was able to resist the ring was because Faramir is the closest character in the books to Tolkien himself.

We agree on a lot.

Galadriel is an elf queen and Tommy isn't in the movies. In the movie, we see Galadriel barely resist it, again reinforcing to the audience the power of the One Ring. As an aside, I love that scene...it was extremely well done.

As for Faramir, how do you explain to a movie audience that this guy is exceptional for his ability to resist temptation by having him turn it down immediately? Remember, in the books he said he wouldn't pick it up, "not even if I found it by the side of a road". That just neuters the ring's power. Hence the need to change the story a bit to actually show he was *almost* corrupted, but managed to resist it in the end - unlike his brother. To me, it's just a different way to show that he is exceptional.

[Blackadar]

Lord knows I am not the biggest Lord of the Rings fan, but this denigration of the Scouring is ridiculous. As stated before, it is absolutely inexcusable that it is left out because it is the entire point. The idea that evil will eventually find you, justifies taking the risk to venture out and combat evil (it is no coincidence that Tolkein is British and lived during World War II).

I entirely disagree. The Scouring of the Shire is shown in the Galadriel/Frodo scene, so it's understood that it would happen if they don't act. The "entire point", as you phrase it, has already been made. So there's no reason to hang around for 30 minutes to see the Scouring and a broken-down "Sharkey" when that point was made 6 hours ago.

[ISiddiqui]

It is far more of effective and powerful when you see your own home be subjected to what the forces of evil can do.

[Blackadar]

It is far more of effective and powerful when you see your own home be subjected to what the forces of evil can do.

But remember that Bag End was no longer Frodo's home.

Again, they already showed the Scouring of the Shire in Frodo's vision - does the audience need to see it again? Do you think that for the general movie-going public having the Hobbits come back to the Shire to find out that Saurman ruined it would be a satisfying ending? Furthermore, with ROTK already at 3 hours (with nothing that can be cut), do you think that audiences would have had the patience to sit through it and the rebuilding of the Shire?

I understand the importance for the books, but I can't see if in the movies. IMO, it's anti-climatic and makes the story stretch far too long in that medium.

[Izulde]

Jack Nicholson walked out of Return of the King screening and at the after party, Elijah Wood asked him why. Nicholson looked at him and said, "Too many endings, kid. Too many endings."

So it's another ending stacked on to the ones already present within the films. I also thought the Scouring of the Shire made for a tedious conclusion to the book.

[DanGarion]

So Frodo is the hobbit? Is it about his adventure before LOTR?

Stop causing problems.

[ISiddiqui]

Furthermore, with ROTK already at 3 hours (with nothing that can be cut)

I'd quibble with that point, especially concerning the never-ending ending.

[Warhammer]

But Aragorn *does* change in the book. He goes from the same lack of desire to be King to accepting his role that he does in the movie. The changeover is just much less dramatic in the book, because it occurs via his boast to Eomer when they meet the Riders of Rohan, rather than Elrond's bad ass "Become who you were born to be!" in the movies.

I don't think we read the same book. Aragorn was humble, sure. "All that is gold does not glitter," etc., etc. However, he was preparing for the War of the Ring his entire life. He knows that in order for him to win Arwen's hand, he has to become the High King of the Dunedain or whatever you want to call the Reunited Realm. He never once says he does not want to be king, that he would prefer to be in exile. He is grim. He realizes dark days are ahead, and thus rarely shows mirth.

A good percentage of the time in the book IMO.

Gandalf is the one who wishes to go through Moria. He is the one who advocates destroying the Ring. He pushes to get Sauron out of Dol Guldur (backstory and The Hobbit). He is the one who advocates sending the army to the Black Gate to keep Sauron occupied.

The Ring is problematic for several reasons in the books, not least of which is the fact that Isildur and Co. already defeated Sauron with the Ring, so the anxiety over it is undermined from the beginning if you're playing close attention.

True, but it is also mentioned that the ability of the Elves to resist was much greater in the Second Age and the power of the Dunedain was much greater as well. Sauron also surrendered when Numenor first came against him at the end of the Second Age. Also, both powers were essentially broken during the War. Arnor crumbles after few centuries, and Lindon is no longer the main stronghold of the Elves in Middle Earth.

The difference between the Second and Third Ages were Sauron had essentially the same power base whereas the Elves of Lindon, Rivendell, and Mirkwood were essentially non-existant. Rivendell to my knowledge takes no active part in the war. Lorien and Mirkwood snuff out Dol Guldur. Men and Dwarves fight at Erebor. In the South, Men fight in Gondor and at Helm's Deep. So Men are bearing the brunt of this war for the Free People.

Correct. More specifically, he is the Bad Steward, as opposed to the faithful and loyal steward in Orfeo, one of the texts that had a strong influence on the LotR.

I agree with this. Gandalf calls him out on it when he asks what he would wish and Denethor says he wants things to remain as he has known them.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Lord knows I am not the biggest Lord of the Rings fan, but this denigration of the Scouring is ridiculous. As stated before, it is absolutely inexcusable that it is left out because it is the entire point. The idea that evil will eventually find you, justifies taking the risk to venture out and combat evil (it is no coincidence that Tolkein is British and lived during World War II).

Maybe it's because I am not a huge fan of the hobbits and didn't really care too much about them, but when I got the end and the Ring was destroyed and the book went back to a bunch stuff dealing with the shire, I was completely bored and disinterested.

It'd be like adding 30 minutes to the end of "Return of the Jedi" after they blew up the Death Star with the ewoks fighting off the remenants of the Empire's forces.

[flounder]

I understand the importance for the books, but I can't see if in the movies. IMO, it's anti-climatic and makes the story stretch far too long in that medium.

If the goal is to make a light action-adventure movie, then I agree. The problem I have is that the books are so much more than that. The whole trilogy is Tolkien's paean to the simple life of the English countryside that he saw as being irreversibly replaced by the encroachment of modernity. The fading of the elves and the wizards, the coming "Age of Men", Saruman being in love with his machines, these are all allegorical for the mechanization and dehumanization of modern life.

The scouring of the Shire is important because it shows to Frodo that even though he fought valiantly to save the Shire from the forces of Mordor, it was impossible to save it from the force of progress. The Shire that he loves is going to be replaced by something a little more modern and less "Shire-like". This is the meaning in his statement, "The Shire has been saved, Sam, but not for me."

I'm a big fan of the movies. I re-watch them almost as often as I reread the books. I just think that a lot of the underlying meaning of the books was tossed aside in order to cram in more action and special effects. In a way, it's parallel to the very thing Tolkien was writing about. Maybe we should call it "The Scouring of the Trilogy" :)

[Izulde]

I don't think we read the same book. Aragorn was humble, sure. "All that is gold does not glitter," etc., etc. However, he was preparing for the War of the Ring his entire life. He knows that in order for him to win Arwen's hand, he has to become the High King of the Dunedain or whatever you want to call the Reunited Realm. He never once says he does not want to be king, that he would prefer to be in exile. He is grim. He realizes dark days are ahead, and thus rarely shows mirth.

Fair point on the feeling the proving need to win Arwen's hand. I'd have to go back and search the text again for the rest of it.


Gandalf is the one who wishes to go through Moria. He is the one who advocates destroying the Ring. He pushes to get Sauron out of Dol Guldur (backstory and The Hobbit). He is the one who advocates sending the army to the Black Gate to keep Sauron occupied.

The only one of these I see as being incautious is the Mines of Moria. The rest of it I would consider to fall under the rubrique of Gandalf's awareness as an angel incarnate and perfectly safe bets, all things considered.


True, but it is also mentioned that the ability of the Elves to resist was much greater in the Second Age and the power of the Dunedain was much greater as well. Sauron also surrendered when Numenor first came against him at the end of the Second Age. Also, both powers were essentially broken during the War. Arnor crumbles after few centuries, and Lindon is no longer the main stronghold of the Elves in Middle Earth.

The difference between the Second and Third Ages were Sauron had essentially the same power base whereas the Elves of Lindon, Rivendell, and Mirkwood were essentially non-existant. Rivendell to my knowledge takes no active part in the war. Lorien and Mirkwood snuff out Dol Guldur. Men and Dwarves fight at Erebor. In the South, Men fight in Gondor and at Helm's Deep. So Men are bearing the brunt of this war for the Free People.

True, and of course, it's necessary that Men take on the responsibility for the war, for it is the Age of Men that is reaching its fullness. And in fact, the Age of Men is already foreshadowed in The Hobbit, with the line "Men changed the language they learned of elves", which has as one of its most obvious links Narsil translating as 'shining fire' in Elendil's time period, and 'red and white flame' in Aragorn's era and the index to LotR, before the name change to Anduril, which in and of itself is another signifier of the coming dominance of Men.

[Izulde]

If the goal is to make a light action-adventure movie, then I agree. The problem I have is that the books are so much more than that. The whole trilogy is Tolkien's paean to the simple life of the English countryside that he saw as being irreversibly replaced by the encroachment of modernity. The fading of the elves and the wizards, the coming "Age of Men", Saruman being in love with his machines, these are all allegorical for the mechanization and dehumanization of modern life.

"I cordially dislike allegory." So Tolkien would bitchslap you for that one. ;)


The scouring of the Shire is important because it shows to Frodo that even though he fought valiantly to save the Shire from the forces of Mordor, it was impossible to save it from the force of progress. The Shire that he loves is going to be replaced by something a little more modern and less "Shire-like". This is the meaning in his statement, "The Shire has been saved, Sam, but not for me."

I'm a big fan of the movies. I re-watch them almost as often as I reread the books. I just think that a lot of the underlying meaning of the books was tossed aside in order to cram in more action and special effects. In a way, it's parallel to the very thing Tolkien was writing about. Maybe we should call it "The Scouring of the Trilogy" :)

The Scouring of the Shire essentially hearkens back to Beowulf (another one of the influential texts on both The Hobbit and LotR) and the notion that no matter what heroic deeds are done and what victories good achieves, all will eventually be lost.

Everyone ubi sunting all over the place also points to this ultimate conclusion.

[ISiddiqui]

"I cordially dislike allegory." So Tolkien would bitchslap you for that one. ;)

Well then he shouldn't have made it so bleeding obvious ;).

[Glengoyne]

I will take both of those scenes over Tom Bombadill and the scouring of the shire.

...



+1

[Buccaneer]

I thought that Rob Inglis' unabridged reading made the Tom Bombadil's chapters really come alive.

[stevew]

Well, I'm officially excited. I don't know how you stretch out 300 pages into 2 movies, but I guess they'll do it.

SI

2 movies? Pssshwww

3 movies now!

[Peregrine]

Come on, that's just ridiculous. I coulld see 2 with the added content from other books but three is just milking it.

[sterlingice]

2 movies? Pssshwww

3 movies now!

You jest, right?

SI

[Blackadar]

Come on, that's just ridiculous. I coulld see 2 with the added content from other books but three is just milking it.

But I trust Peter Jackson enough that if he thinks there's more than enough for 3 movies in the can, then there is. There's a lot that happens, so I can see where it could become 3 movies:

The starting/dwarves in Bilbo's house
The drugery walking
The trolls and rescue
Rivendell
The Misty Mountains
Goblintown
Gollum and the Ring (my guess is that movie 1 will stop here)

Escape from Goblintown
Beorn
Mirkwood
White Council
Attacking Sauron (perhaps in movie 3?)
Spiders
Wood Elves and escape
Dale
The Lonely Mountain & Secret Passage (movie 2 stop?)

Smaug
Arkenstone
Smaug's attack on Dale
Rebuilding the caves
The siege of the Lonely Mountain
Battle of the 5 Armies
End and homecoming

I think he realized that there was enough footage in the can that he could easily do 3 movies. In addition, if it's 3 two hour movies rather than 2 three hour movies, there may not be any difference.

If you think of it, there are probably as many major characters in the Hobbit as in LOTR:

Bilbo
Fili
Kili
Oin
Gloin
Dwalin
Balin
Bombur
Bifur
Bofur
Dori
Ori
Nori
Thorin
Gandalf
Elrond
Gladriel (White Council)
Saurman (White Council)
Radagast (White Council)
Bjorn
Golum
Wood Elf King (forget his name)
Bjorn
Smaug

That's a lot of characters. You could argue that some of the dwarves aren't that major, but the rest of them are pretty important. In LOTR, we have the 9 party members, Elrond, Galadriel, Sauron, Saurman, Golum, Eowen, Arwen, Denethor, Faramir...so it's pretty close.

[stevew]

You jest, right?

SI

Confirmed: The Hobbit will now be a trilogy (http://io9.com/5930200/confirmed-the-hobbit-will-now-be-a-trilogy)

[Glengoyne]

Confirmed: The Hobbit will now be a trilogy (http://io9.com/5930200/confirmed-the-hobbit-will-now-be-a-trilogy)

I figured two movies was required. Three doesn't surprise me. There is a lot to accomplish, and a lot of great content.

[ISiddiqui]

Confirmed: The Hobbit will now be a trilogy (http://io9.com/5930200/confirmed-the-hobbit-will-now-be-a-trilogy)

From the link:

Perhaps Anil Dash (http://twitter.com/anildash) said it best: "Since when have diehard fans of a giant fantasy universe ever been disappointed by a bloated prequel trilogy?"

Ha!

[DaddyTorgo]

From the link:



Ha!

Dune? :D

Although in fairness those were bastardizations by his son and Kevin Anderson.

[Chief Rum]

I trust in Peter Jackson. And the pacing of the Hobbit is much faster than LOTR, IMO. In other words, much more happens in a smaller number of pages.

Tolkien was much more descriptive and long-winded in LOTR.

[kcchief19]

I think this is how we ended up with three Back to the Future movies. Odds are you're going to end up with one great movie and two decent movies rather than two great movies.

Or what the LOTR trilogy was ... Two great movies and and extended conclusion.

[Chief Rum]

I think this is how we ended up with three Back to the Future movies. Odds are you're going to end up with one great movie and two decent movies rather than two great movies.

Or what the LOTR trilogy was ... Two great movies and and extended conclusion.

FWIW, while I did think the extended ending was a bit silly, there was plenty of material for three movies for LOTR. Jackson just made some decisions with the third one that probably could have been better thought out. It's a strange twist that that is the one the academy gave the Best Picture to, although we all know that was a cumulative award, and they should have given the oscar to either or both of the first two, but not the third (which only deserved to be nominated).

[Blackadar]

FWIW, while I did think the extended ending was a bit silly, there was plenty of material for three movies for LOTR. Jackson just made some decisions with the third one that probably could have been better thought out. It's a strange twist that that is the one the academy gave the Best Picture to, although we all know that was a cumulative award, and they should have given the oscar to either or both of the first two, but not the third (which only deserved to be nominated).

/agreed

IMO, the best of the three was The Two Towers.

But 3 was still a great movie in its own right. The Sam/Frodo scenes were consistently awesome, as was the whole Minas Tirith battle. The "fade out/fake out" ending sequence also drives me nuts, but other than that it was a great movie. And even some of that sequence was great - the smile Frodo gives when boarding the ship is just perfect. So I also don't get the whole "two movies and an extended ending" shtick.

[ISiddiqui]

Dune? :D

Although in fairness those were bastardizations by his son and Kevin Anderson.

If you weren't kidding - I think he was referring to Star Wars (Space Fantasy).

[kcchief19]

The liftetime achievement Oscar notwithstanding, anyone arguing Return of the King is as good as the first two films is wrong. Part of that is the nature of any epic story. I don't get it when people say other than the 45-minute ending it was a great movie.

[DaddyTorgo]

If you weren't kidding - I think he was referring to Star Wars (Space Fantasy).

I wasn't kidding - I realized he was referring to Star Wars, but IMO the Dune prequels are pretty damn horrible too. Maybe some minor redeeming features in terms of filling in some of the historical back-story, but clunky and poorly-written as fuck.

[Blackadar]

The liftetime achievement Oscar notwithstanding, anyone arguing Return of the King is as good as the first two films is wrong. Part of that is the nature of any epic story. I don't get it when people say other than the 45-minute ending it was a great movie.

Well, that's your opinion. But it doesn't make everyone else "wrong". It was a great movie. And the endings didn't bother me all that much until the very *last* one - after the Grey Havens. I was ok until that one. So I'm not a fan of ~2 minutes or so of a 3 1/2 hour movie. I think there's a better way to do those ending scenes, but they weren't horrible.

Remember, that I'm a fan of #2, simply because it's pure awesomesauce. But even it has a lousy scene (the Warg attack is poorly done).

[Blackadar]

Oh, and for anyone who thinks they're drawing this out unnecessarily.

The Hobbit principal photography length: 266 days
LOTR principal photography length: 274 days

And remember, they had the Hobbit scheduled when they presumed it was only going to be two movies, not 3. They also had 2 crews running full-time (LOTR had two and sometimes 3 crews, but not throughout the entire picture from what I understand), so there's plenty of footage.

I doubt they'll be 3+ hours each, though.

[Peregrine]

But I trust Peter Jackson enough that if he thinks there's more than enough for 3 movies in the can, then there is. There's a lot that happens, so I can see where it could become 3 movies:

The starting/dwarves in Bilbo's house
The drugery walking
The trolls and rescue
Rivendell
The Misty Mountains
Goblintown
Gollum and the Ring (my guess is that movie 1 will stop here)

Escape from Goblintown
Beorn
Mirkwood
White Council
Attacking Sauron (perhaps in movie 3?)
Spiders
Wood Elves and escape
Dale
The Lonely Mountain & Secret Passage (movie 2 stop?)

Smaug
Arkenstone
Smaug's attack on Dale
Rebuilding the caves
The siege of the Lonely Mountain
Battle of the 5 Armies
End and homecoming

I think he realized that there was enough footage in the can that he could easily do 3 movies. In addition, if it's 3 two hour movies rather than 2 three hour movies, there may not be any difference.

If you think of it, there are probably as many major characters in the Hobbit as in LOTR:

Bilbo
Fili
Kili
Oin
Gloin
Dwalin
Balin
Bombur
Bifur
Bofur
Dori
Ori
Nori
Thorin
Gandalf
Elrond
Gladriel (White Council)
Saurman (White Council)
Radagast (White Council)
Bjorn
Golum
Wood Elf King (forget his name)
Bjorn
Smaug

That's a lot of characters. You could argue that some of the dwarves aren't that major, but the rest of them are pretty important. In LOTR, we have the 9 party members, Elrond, Galadriel, Sauron, Saurman, Golum, Eowen, Arwen, Denethor, Faramir...so it's pretty close.

Here's my issue. It was already established that even with ALL the Hobbit stuff, he was still adding stories from other books to get more exposure from Galadriel, Gandalf, etc and to make the length for two movies. That I could accept. But to say this is all going to be the Hobbit and there's too much in the Hobbit alone to make two movies, I believe is wrong. I trust Peter Jackson, but I severely mistrust studio executives here, who figure that they can make this LOTR 2.0 and get another movie out of it and a bunch more money.

[Alan T]

but I severely mistrust studio executives here, who figure that they can make this LOTR 2.0 and get another movie out of it and a bunch more money.


Well, if that is their goal, it is going to work with me. I'll be seeing all three hobbit movies, and probably buy multiple copies of them and watch them all a million times just like I have with Lotr. There simply is not a fictional universe that I have read,watched,played games about as much as Middle Earth.

Whatever they choose to do to get us more great quality Peter Jackson directed movies based on stories in Middle Earth is perfectly fine with me. If they pull in stories from the Silmarillion, that is fine with me. If they make future movies on the Silmarillion or even some of the works that Christopher had put together from J.R.R Tolkien's notes such as Unfinished Tales, the Children of Hurin, etc than that would be great too.

[DaddyTorgo]

Well, if that is their goal, it is going to work with me. I'll be seeing all three hobbit movies, and probably buy multiple copies of them and watch them all a million times just like I have with Lotr. There simply is not a fictional universe that I have read,watched,played games about as much as Middle Earth.

Whatever they choose to do to get us more great quality Peter Jackson directed movies based on stories in Middle Earth is perfectly fine with me. If they pull in stories from the Silmarillion, that is fine with me. If they make future movies on the Silmarillion or even some of the works that Christopher had put together from J.R.R Tolkien's notes such as Unfinished Tales, the Children of Hurin, etc than that would be great too.

What Alan said - there isn't any "bad" source material in the LOTR universe that he could be pulling this stuff from, so I'll gobble it all up. Which reminds me, it's probably time to read the Silmarillion again...

[Subby]

The kids of mine that love this stuff freaked the f out when I told them The Hobbit was going to now be three movies. This could be the Star Wars trilogy for a whole new generation of kids.

[Chief Rum]

The kids of mine that love this stuff freaked the f out when I told them The Hobbit was going to now be three movies. This could be the Star Wars trilogy for a whole new generation of kids.

Do you have a whole bevy of children around, some of whom (and large enough in number to be considered a disparate "group") love the Hobbit, and then a whole other unclear group of other kids who do not?

[Warhammer]

Well, if that is their goal, it is going to work with me. I'll be seeing all three hobbit movies, and probably buy multiple copies of them and watch them all a million times just like I have with Lotr. There simply is not a fictional universe that I have read,watched,played games about as much as Middle Earth.

Whatever they choose to do to get us more great quality Peter Jackson directed movies based on stories in Middle Earth is perfectly fine with me. If they pull in stories from the Silmarillion, that is fine with me. If they make future movies on the Silmarillion or even some of the works that Christopher had put together from J.R.R Tolkien's notes such as Unfinished Tales, the Children of Hurin, etc than that would be great too.

I would love if they did the Silmarillion simply because it is not the sacred cow LotR and the Hobbit is to me.

[revrew]

Do you have a whole bevy of children around, some of whom (and large enough in number to be considered a disparate "group") love the Hobbit, and then a whole other unclear group of other kids who do not?

Um. Actually, I do. Yeah.

[Chief Rum]

Extra Tolkien Notes To Be Used To Expand the Hobbit (http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/extra-story-drawn-upon-hobbit-trilogy-194114585.html)

I think we have surmised that this was likely before now.

[Warhammer]

He references the Battle of Dol Guldur. Not a good sign.

[dawgfan]

He references the Battle of Dol Guldur. Not a good sign.
?

[Matthean]

Extra Tolkien Notes To Be Used To Expand the Hobbit (http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/extra-story-drawn-upon-hobbit-trilogy-194114585.html)

I think we have surmised that this was likely before now.

He can't get the rights to anything else so that's why he's going in that direction.

[Autumn]

I'm kind of torn on this trilogy thing (or really this Hobbit movie thing). Here's my thinking:

1. I wish that they had made The Hobbit into a kid-friendly intro to the Lord of the Rings, a less imposing, less "dark" movie that could be something I could take my kids to and let them get the fun of seeing a Tolkien story on film. Instead of making this a prequel, with the same tone as the other movies, why not match the way that Tolkien made The Hobbit a less intimidating tale for younger readers that still entertained the older readers?

2. Given that they chose not to do that, I"m all for what they're doing in turning this into not just The Hobbit, but a more extensive prequel that gives us a whole new adventure with this world and these characters. There's plenty going on behind the scenes in The Hobbit that they certainly can not only present that adventure but lots of other riveting stuff that Tolkien fans would love to see on the screen, that we've only "heard about" in the books.

3. However, I question their ability to pull off #2. It seems that the third movie idea was added rather late. They filmed the first two back to back, and then to after that fact (and every indication seems to be that they did decide it after that fact) add another movie suggests to me that this isn't going to be as tightly written and carefully thought out as it would have to be. It sounds to me like a written invitation to Hollywood Rewrite Hell to try to be juggling things last minute like this. They had the benefit of the spine of Tolkien's story in the other trilogy. But frankly I don't think a lot of the revisions the writers made in that trilogy, so I have a hard time imagining that they're going to do a great job working on this much more revisionist, and last minute, trilogy.

[Alan T]

Just because the Hobbit was written more kid friendly though doesn't mean that there aren't great stories within it. You have multiple battles, pretty scary stuff in mirkwood, the stuff to do with Smaug should be awesome, etc. I am actually happy they are making this more for my tastes than my kids to be honest. :)

[Autumn]

Just because the Hobbit was written more kid friendly though doesn't mean that there aren't great stories within it. You have multiple battles, pretty scary stuff in mirkwood, the stuff to do with Smaug should be awesome, etc. I am actually happy they are making this more for my tastes than my kids to be honest. :)

Well that's exactly my point. It has great stories, but could also be kid friendly. They made three movies for me. If they make one that has Bilbo and dragons and Gandalf and trolls and isn't terrifying or violent so my kids can watch it, I'll still enjoy it and watch it.

[Warhammer]

?

There was not really a battle of Dol Guldur, per se. Yes, the White Council forced Saruman out of Dol Guldur, but its not listed as a battle in the Tale of Years. Additionally, any effort to take out Dol Guldur would need to entail the Mirkwood Elves, which they weren't involved.

[dawgfan]

There was not really a battle of Dol Guldur, per se. Yes, the White Council forced Saruman out of Dol Guldur, but its not listed as a battle in the Tale of Years.
Semantics really - the White Council went to drive Sauron out of Dol Guldur, to attack him. I'm not sure it's worth getting too upset about referring to it as a "battle" - let's wait until we see the filmed product.

[dawgfan]

3. However, I question their ability to pull off #2. It seems that the third movie idea was added rather late. They filmed the first two back to back, and then to after that fact (and every indication seems to be that they did decide it after that fact) add another movie suggests to me that this isn't going to be as tightly written and carefully thought out as it would have to be. It sounds to me like a written invitation to Hollywood Rewrite Hell to try to be juggling things last minute like this. They had the benefit of the spine of Tolkien's story in the other trilogy. But frankly I don't think a lot of the revisions the writers made in that trilogy, so I have a hard time imagining that they're going to do a great job working on this much more revisionist, and last minute, trilogy.
The impression I got was that when Jackson went to make his first cut of what he had, he realized he had a lot of compelling material that was going to have to get left out to have a reasonable running time. Rather than discard all of that, he felt like there was still time while he's editing the first film to adjust the planned two to be three. From a film production standpoint, I'm not terribly concerned at the timing. If this decision had been made after the first one was released and the second one was in post-production, then I'd be worried.

I guess we'll see if it ends up looking disjointed. Personally, I'm excited to see the story fleshed-out even more with Appendices material.

[sterlingice]

I think rather than forcing some deliberate cuts that are necessary, we're going to get something not nearly as tight. I love the extended editions of LotR, but the finished products are better, tighter narratives while the extended editions are 1/3rd useful backstory, 1/3rd fanservice, and (a running gag) 1/3rd extra bickering.

SI

[Matthean]

#2

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/c5bvK-pMzJM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Alan T]

Oh... I am so pumped! Can't wait!

[PilotMan]

'The Hobbit' To Feature 53-Minute-Long Scene Of Bilbo Baggins Trying To Figure Out What To Pack | The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-hobbit-to-feature-53minutelong-scene-of-bilbo,30727/)

[DaddyTorgo]

Debating if I "NEED" to go see this tomorrow, or if I should wait until the days after Xmas when I won't have work and I can do it more at my leisure.

Not really sure why I'm debating...lol...but I am.

[sterlingice]

Isn't the correct answer "both"?

SI

[Buccaneer]

It's amazing that they can take a 3-hour book and turn it into a 9-hour movie when the usual trend is to do the opposite. I don't think either approach makes for a quality movie (one is chopped up, the other is bloated).

[DaddyTorgo]

Isn't the correct answer "both"?

SI

Yeah - that's what I'm realizing.

Now I'm just debating how early I want to wake up tomorrow/whether I want to be in the theater from 11-2 or from 3-6. Leaning towards 11-2 actually.

[DaddyTorgo]

Wow - talk about a deal. Tickets for the 10:45am showing are only $6.

[Honolulu_Blue]

It's amazing that they can take a 3-hour book and turn it into a 9-hour movie when the usual trend is to do the opposite. I don't think either approach makes for a quality movie (one is chopped up, the other is bloated).

I totally agree.

[DaddyTorgo]

It's amazing that they can take a 3-hour book and turn it into a 9-hour movie when the usual trend is to do the opposite. I don't think either approach makes for a quality movie (one is chopped up, the other is bloated).

Yeah - I'm a little scared it's going to be bloaty. But there's a lot of stuff from other Tolkein writings he could use to fill that bloat which would make me :D not :( , so I'm optimistic.

[Matthean]

A friend said it was a half hour too long, which is what I expect from all three films.

[Grover]

It was fantastic. I thought the opening was a bit unnecessary, but the 3 hours flew by.

[DaddyTorgo]

It was fantastic. I thought the opening was a bit unnecessary, but the 3 hours flew by.

Glad to hear this!

[Grover]

I also want to say and I can't possibly overstate this: Riddles in the Dark was phenomenal. Serkis eclipses his work as Gollum from the LOTR trilogy.

[Alan T]

I am going tonight to see it with my wife, and then going again after Christmas with my oldest daughter. Can't wait to see it!

[DaddyTorgo]

I am going tonight to see it with my wife, and then going again after Christmas with my oldest daughter. Can't wait to see it!

:D

[sterlingice]

A friend said it was a half hour too long, which is what I expect from all three films.

I just don't get the three movie idea for this reason. Two seemed like a good length and it would force Jackson to make some needed painful cuts.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

True... a lot of what I've read is that the movie is waaay too long.

[dawgfan]

I just don't get the three movie idea for this reason. Two seemed like a good length and it would force Jackson to make some needed painful cuts.

SI
I figured 2 would be a good amount given that A) The Hobbit was written with less detail than the LOTR books, so it's not an apples to apples comparison, and B) there's plenty of additional material to address that wasn't specifically covered in The Hobbit but was happening behind the scenes (i.e. the White Council and driving the Necromancer from Mirkwood.

Expanding to three - we'll see. There were a couple spots I thought that felt like what the extended edition would look like, but could have been trimmed down.

[Glengoyne]

Saw this with the family this weekend.


I liked the bits that were added about Radagast discovering Sauron, and this being escalated through Gandalf.

I didn't care for a number of other things

Riding around on the Stone Giant's legs. Give me a break. I was happy with the initial treatment with the giants in the distance, less so when they drew closer, then the whole thing degenerated from a cool "sense of mystery" treatment to a "gaudy, over the top rollick" when the mountain they were walking on got up and joined the fight.

The whole affair in the lair of the Goblin king. A whimsical running fight along cat walks, I can take. Seeing the whole party swing, teeter, and plummet multiple times, I could have done without.

Radagast leading the warg riders on a merry chase, coincidentally right to where Gandalf was leading the others. Just over done, and not done well.

They could have cut back on any the bombast of the above scenes and given a "truer to the text" recounting of the troll encounter or the scene where the party was treed and rescued by eagles.



I enjoyed it, but it doesn't hold up to any one of the previous trilogy. Oddly I didn't find it "too long".

[GrantDawg]

Saw this with the family this weekend.


I liked the bits that were added about Radagast discovering Sauron, and this being escalated through Gandalf.

I didn't care for a number of other things

Riding around on the Stone Giant's legs. Give me a break. I was happy with the initial treatment with the giants in the distance, less so when they drew closer, then the whole thing degenerated from a cool "sense of mystery" treatment to a "gaudy, over the top rollick" when the mountain they were walking on got up and joined the fight.

The whole affair in the lair of the Goblin king. A whimsical running fight along cat walks, I can take. Seeing the whole party swing, teeter, and plummet multiple times, I could have done without.

Radagast leading the warg riders on a merry chase, coincidentally right to where Gandalf was leading the others. Just over done, and not done well.

They could have cut back on any the bombast of the above scenes and given a "truer to the text" recounting of the troll encounter or the scene where the party was treed and rescued by eagles.



I enjoyed it, but it doesn't hold up to any one of the previous trilogy. Oddly I didn't find it "too long".

I agree almost completely with your negatives, but I disagree with the idea it doesn't hold up to the previous trilogy. I think it is quite a bit better than "The Two Towers."

[DaddyTorgo]

Saw this with the family this weekend.


I liked the bits that were added about Radagast discovering Sauron, and this being escalated through Gandalf.

I didn't care for a number of other things

Riding around on the Stone Giant's legs. Give me a break. I was happy with the initial treatment with the giants in the distance, less so when they drew closer, then the whole thing degenerated from a cool "sense of mystery" treatment to a "gaudy, over the top rollick" when the mountain they were walking on got up and joined the fight.

The whole affair in the lair of the Goblin king. A whimsical running fight along cat walks, I can take. Seeing the whole party swing, teeter, and plummet multiple times, I could have done without.

Radagast leading the warg riders on a merry chase, coincidentally right to where Gandalf was leading the others. Just over done, and not done well.

They could have cut back on any the bombast of the above scenes and given a "truer to the text" recounting of the troll encounter or the scene where the party was treed and rescued by eagles.



I enjoyed it, but it doesn't hold up to any one of the previous trilogy. Oddly I didn't find it "too long".

Said it as good as I could. Disliked Gandalf's line "...and that's also how golf was invented." EDIT: ALRIGHT ALRIGHT...I FORGOT THAT THAT LINE WAS STRAIGHT FROM THE BOOK. STILL DOESN'T MEAN I LIKE THE CONCEPT OF IT THOUGH.

Other things I liked



1. The opening. Seeing old-Bilbo and Frodo (especially) again...I literally almost started crying tears of happiness. It was like seeing two old friends again. And it wove the story in fairly nicely I thought.
2. The story of Erebor at the beginning. Nothing's going to top the opening of Fellowship, but that was pretty sweet still. //sucker for Middle Earth history
3. THRANDUIL!!!!
4. GALADRIAL!! Same as with old-Bilbo and Frodo...I almost started crying.
5. Elrond-the-not-so-serious
6. Riddles in the dark was good.



I imagine in the next 2 books we'll see young-Aragorn at some point? I can't see Jackson passing up an opportunity to tug on that heartstring.

[GrantDawg]

Said it as good as I could. Disliked Gandalf's line "...and that's also how golf was invented." Ugh. Seriously?


Straight from the book.

[DaddyTorgo]

Straight from the book.

Really? Been so long since I read the Hobbit (and I wasn't as into it at that point as I am now), so I must not have realized that.

Still think it's a klunky line.

[Alan T]

Said it as good as I could. Disliked Gandalf's line "...and that's also how golf was invented." Ugh. Seriously?






That was in the books

[dawgfan]

Really? Been so long since I read the Hobbit (and I wasn't as into it at that point as I am now), so I must not have realized that.

Still think it's a klunky line.
It's part of the Middle-earth lore, and definitely appeals to the LOTR geeks. And to be fair, I think PJ handled this pretty well by having Bilbo challenge it and Gandalf admit that sometimes stories get exaggerated for effect.

[dawgfan]

Saw this with the family this weekend.


I liked the bits that were added about Radagast discovering Sauron, and this being escalated through Gandalf.

I didn't care for a number of other things

Riding around on the Stone Giant's legs. Give me a break. I was happy with the initial treatment with the giants in the distance, less so when they drew closer, then the whole thing degenerated from a cool "sense of mystery" treatment to a "gaudy, over the top rollick" when the mountain they were walking on got up and joined the fight.

The whole affair in the lair of the Goblin king. A whimsical running fight along cat walks, I can take. Seeing the whole party swing, teeter, and plummet multiple times, I could have done without.

Radagast leading the warg riders on a merry chase, coincidentally right to where Gandalf was leading the others. Just over done, and not done well.

They could have cut back on any the bombast of the above scenes and given a "truer to the text" recounting of the troll encounter or the scene where the party was treed and rescued by eagles.



I enjoyed it, but it doesn't hold up to any one of the previous trilogy. Oddly I didn't find it "too long".
I think you nailed it. All of those issues are ones I had problems with. One more:


I don't not care for the way they portrayed Azog. I get that they needed to create an antagonist for the movie since there really isn't a direct one in this section of the story, and it made some sense to use the Azog character from lore, but I did not care at all for how he was designed and animated. One of the things I really enjoyed from the first trilogy is that PJ relied on CG only when absolutely necessary - all of the "bigatures" for locations and using real actors in heavy prosthetics and make-up, and even using proxy animatronic wargs and whatnot made of real elements where they could helped give those movies a realism and grittiness that gets lost when a movie goes so far into CG territory.

I thought the goblin king was modeled far better and animated well, but even there I felt like the movie was going too far into CG land.

Azog lacked the grotesque distortions that I loved about the orc, Uruk-hai and goblin designs of the first trilogy. He just looked like a bland, doughy mess that was far too similar looking to a well-built human, or a slightly smaller troll.


That said, I do enjoy how he's fleshing out the things only hinted at in the book and in the LOTR appendices. Those that are freaking out about the original trilogy coming from 3 books and this trilogy from 1 book are glossing over this point, and also overlooking that The Hobbit was not written with the same level of detail as the LOTR books, so there's more there that can be fleshed-out.

[GrantDawg]

It's part of the Middle-earth lore, and definitely appeals to the LOTR geeks. And to be fair, I think PJ handled this pretty well by having Bilbo challenge it and Gandalf admit that sometimes stories get exaggerated for effect.


This, and also remember "The Hobbit" was a book written from a story he made up for his kids. It is a children's book, that he grew greater middle earth from. So some elements in the book are a little sillier.

[Glengoyne]

Other things I liked
...



Yes I clearly didn't identify my likes well enough. I really enjoyed the opening and the going back to the beginning aspect of the Lonely Mountain.

[Autumn]

I imagine in the next 2 books we'll see young-Aragorn at some point? I can't see Jackson passing up an opportunity to tug on that heartstring.

Yes, let's see him before his grunge phase. Young hipster Aragorn? Elvish lore nerd Aragorn? Pipe weed junkie Aragorn?

[sterlingice]

Saw this with the family this weekend.


I liked the bits that were added about Radagast discovering Sauron, and this being escalated through Gandalf.

I didn't care for a number of other things

Riding around on the Stone Giant's legs. Give me a break. I was happy with the initial treatment with the giants in the distance, less so when they drew closer, then the whole thing degenerated from a cool "sense of mystery" treatment to a "gaudy, over the top rollick" when the mountain they were walking on got up and joined the fight.

The whole affair in the lair of the Goblin king. A whimsical running fight along cat walks, I can take. Seeing the whole party swing, teeter, and plummet multiple times, I could have done without.

Radagast leading the warg riders on a merry chase, coincidentally right to where Gandalf was leading the others. Just over done, and not done well.

They could have cut back on any the bombast of the above scenes and given a "truer to the text" recounting of the troll encounter or the scene where the party was treed and rescued by eagles.



I enjoyed it, but it doesn't hold up to any one of the previous trilogy. Oddly I didn't find it "too long".

Hopefully we're past the need for spoiler posts now that it's been out a couple of weeks.

Almost spot on with my thoughts and overall was surprised to not find it too long. I was expecting something like King Kong where I thought the movie was fairly well done tone-wise but just 30-45 minutes too long and some really elongated scene (you know who you are: scene with the dinosaur and King Kong fighting). We did have some of that here (Ork King), but it wasn't throughout the entire movie, just a couple of extraneous and extended scenes.

I strongly agree with two of your points (paraphrasing): Stone Giants thing was stupid and Goblin King battle went long. The Stone Giants battle didn't serve any point at all. There was no narrative purpose served by it as it's too short to be a major encounter and didn't spawn any additional plot branches or callbacks.

Also, I fear the third movie is going to be just awful. Well, not awful, but poor narrative storytelling. We're more than halfway through the Hobbit which means the final third of the trilogy isn't really going to have much to do with the first two parts. There are some good stories to be told, but I don't see how the third movie is anything but "neat scenes" and fanservice loosely strung together. I suspect it we'll have a huge drawn out battle scene (ala The Battle of Helms Deep but with The Battle of Five Armies) and a lot of just tying up of loose ends that could have been done sooner. That makes me think of Matrix: Revolutions and the ludicrously long battle in Zion.

Un(?)fortunately, I don't remember the book all that well so I don't have the side-by-side comparison of what was changed or expanded upon. So feel free to correct me where I'm wrong. I suspect there are some things in here that were changed and disliked by the more purists that go unseen by the rest of us. An example that comes to mind from LotR is the whole deal with Faramir where it changes his character but doesn't really change the plot. One could argue that makes it meaningless so why do it, but for the rest of us, it doesn't really impact the plot one way or the other. On the other hand, the whole thing with Arwen makes a bit more sense: it got drawn out for the movie audience and it doesn't really impact the plot positively or negatively. Let's be honest: that was put in for modern movie making purposes of "always having a love interest in pretty much every movie" so it makes sense when viewed in that lens.

The story went from being about a whimsical journey to get treasure to an epic battle to reclaim the homeland. This change works well considering the tone of the Peter Jackson directed movies. That makes Erebor much more front and center stage and thus the intro was necessarily beefed up to reflect that. Also, Azog was made into a main adversary, which helps towards that major plot. This further diminishes the Ork King and, frankly, that whole scene just went on too long so I wish it had been edited a bit.

Oh, and speaking of the intro, I loved seeing the old Bilbo and Frodo stuff and blending that in. Nicely done.

SI

[Izulde]

I thought this was extremely well done in terms of interweaving it into the film adaptations of LotR, which is what matters most - once the trilogy transferred to film, the adaptation of The Hobbit was about making sure this antecedent story worked with the film adaptation of LotR, in much the same way that the HP film series, once the leap from print to screen was made, was about developing narrative arc between the film versions (or should have been).

That said, I also didn't care for the Goblin King scenes - to me it felt like a lot of RPGs we've seen the last several years, right down to the set design. And yes, the Storm Giants thing was completely unnecessary without adding anything. It disrupted the story and pacing more than anything else.

My favorite scene was the one with Galadriel. It added another layer onto the story and provided some very nice foreshadowing of what is to come later in the film series (and by later in film series I mean LotR).

[DaddyTorgo]

I thought this was extremely well done in terms of interweaving it into the film adaptations of LotR, which is what matters most - once the trilogy transferred to film, the adaptation of The Hobbit was about making sure this antecedent story worked with the film adaptation of LotR, in much the same way that the HP film series, once the leap from print to screen was made, was about developing narrative arc between the film versions (or should have been).

That said, I also didn't care for the Goblin King scenes - to me it felt like a lot of RPGs we've seen the last several years, right down to the set design. And yes, the Storm Giants thing was completely unnecessary without adding anything. It disrupted the story and pacing more than anything else.

My favorite scene was the one with Galadriel. It added another layer onto the story and provided some very nice foreshadowing of what is to come later in the film series (and by later in film series I mean LotR).

I mentioned that I literally almost burst out in tears of happiness with the Galadrial scene too right?

That was one of those - like the (somewhat hokey, but nicely delivered and future-telling) "Elrond's Prophecy" scene in Two Towers that I suspect I'll wear myself out watching again and again.

[gstelmack]

I agree with most of the criticisms that could have brought this down to a 2 hour movie without losing a darn thing. I would also argue that the eagle-rescue scene could have been chopped in half.

I took my 9 year old daughter (nearly 10) who watched all the Harry Potter movies (after reading each and every book) to see this, and she didn't like it. She thought it was too intense, and was too long for the intensity. She might have been okay if it had been shorter (cut out some of what we're saying should have been cut), or if I had shown it to her in chunks on the TV at home. The Wargs especially ended up over the top for someone her age, a bit too horror movie-ish. But she sat through it, and no nightmares or anything from it.

[Matthean]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fnaojlfdUbs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[DaddyTorgo]

Cool - thanx!

[Buccaneer]

Coincidentally, I just watched this Sunday night. I have to give it a 4/10 because it had none of the storytelling nor the charm and pacing of the LotR, esp. to FotR. I was initially bothered by Bilbo looking like Pippen (or Merry, forget which) and couldn't shake that. When the Hobbits got together in Shire and when the fellowship got together in Rivendell, they did normal things, not magically throwing dishes around. What made me dislike the movie the most was that it was way too CGI, to the point where I didn't think anything was real; actor, scenery or props. The dialog was sparse compared to FotR and what little there were, it was very rushed - just quick sound bites to get to the next running or action scene. What was the deal with the dwarves being able to outrun anything or not getting hurt at all when falling a thousand feet off of rocks or being landed upon? It made it seem like an action cartoon and not an adventure like the FotR was. I don't know if it was too long or not, just tedious and uninteresting and too incredulous to get into.

[ColtCrazy]

This, and also remember "The Hobbit" was a book written from a story he made up for his kids. It is a children's book, that he grew greater middle earth from. So some elements in the book are a little sillier.

I think this is a great point. I use Hobbit in my 5th grade class. I rarely have kids that can comprehend the depth of LoTR. And maybe that's why the movies fell different. I loved the Hobbit. Didn't mind the added stuff and having just read through the book with my class, it's amazing how many direct lines there were. It is a bit campy compared to the trilogy. I'm okay with that. Still has quality acting, good action, and a good story. Makes it better than a vast majority of movies right there.

[Buccaneer]

I think this is a great point. I use Hobbit in my 5th grade class. I rarely have kids that can comprehend the depth of LoTR. And maybe that's why the movies fell different. I loved the Hobbit. Didn't mind the added stuff and having just read through the book with my class, it's amazing how many direct lines there were. It is a bit campy compared to the trilogy. I'm okay with that. Still has quality acting, good action, and a good story. Makes it better than a vast majority of movies right there.

Not having read The Hobbit but had read LotR several times recently, I did not know the extent of the sillyness and campiness. Makes sense and yet again, another movie in which I was not the intended audience.

[chesapeake]

What made me dislike the movie the most was that it was way too CGI, to the point where I didn't think anything was real; actor, scenery or props. The dialog was sparse compared to FotR and what little there were, it was very rushed - just quick sound bites to get to the next running or action scene. What was the deal with the dwarves being able to outrun anything or not getting hurt at all when falling a thousand feet off of rocks or being landed upon? It made it seem like an action cartoon and not an adventure like the FotR was. I don't know if it was too long or not, just tedious and uninteresting and too incredulous to get into.

This is a good articulation of why I found this film enormously dissatisfying.

The film comes off as overwrought, in my opinion. Whereas the pervading sense of gravity and doom are appropriate and successful in LotR given that the future of everyone in Middle Earth is at stake, it falls pretty flat in The Hobbit because the primary motivations for the dwarves are revenge and greed. The book has a lightness that matches the stakes much, much better. And the book is almost exclusively about Bilbo and his own self-discovery; even Thorin has a very minor role, as I recall.

[Buccaneer]

Thinking about this more, I'm struck as to how unclear the storytelling was. First, the opening scenes with bilbo and frodo - when did that take place in relation to anything?

Also, the shadowy dude, the dragon and sauron are all one and the same? The narrative, to me, appears to not give a clue as to what any of these were or could be - just more evil beings. The only thing I got out of it was a dragon wanted gold ?!?!? and took out the dwarves mountain home. I understand the need for revenge but not why anyone else got involved.

[Blackadar]

Thinking about this more, I'm struck as to how unclear the storytelling was. First, the opening scenes with bilbo and frodo - when did that take place in relation to anything?

If you really did LotR, it's easy to place this scene. It takes place right before the party in the opening scene of LotR. You must have forgotten The Fellowship of the Rings. For those of us who remember the first movie, it was a fun way to get into The Hobbit. The rest of the story is simply a very long flashback. It's a great way to tie the films together.

Also, the shadowy dude, the dragon and sauron are all one and the same? The narrative, to me, appears to not give a clue as to what any of these were or could be - just more evil beings. The only thing I got out of it was a dragon wanted gold ?!?!? and took out the dwarves mountain home. I understand the need for revenge but not why anyone else got involved.

Seriously? Really?

Yes, Mr. Shadow is Sauron, though that's not known to the characters at this point.

There's a reason you don't know why others have gotten involved. Their motivations haven't been revealed yet!

For example, Smaug the Dragon is not Sauron. However...

...the reason why Gandalf is encouraging the dwarves to undertake this journey and actively supporting them is that he is worried about Smaug. If Sauron ever comes back - and Gandalf is investigating that during The Hobbit (as you will see) - Smaug would be an incredibly strong pawn in that war. He wants to force a confrontation there, but he knows he needs the dwarves to do it (remembering that Gandalf has some gift of foresight).

Again, this hasn't been revealed yet. In fact, it's never revealed in the book because Tolkien hadn't fleshed out LotR yet. You only find out in that book (the appendencies, I think) why Gandalf is involved in this tale.

I know these books like the back of my hand and perhaps that's why the storytelling was clear to me. my wife and my son. But even my mother didn't think it was unclear. She barely saw LotR and understood the movie.

[Pyser]

to me, the inherent flaw is that it's a prequel. you know how everything turns out, basically, which removes a lot of the danger

it did feel cartoonish to me, too, but i love that world, so i'll see the next 2 in theaters

[Buccaneer]

I figured it was before the party but didnt remember that this was the book that he wrote while in Rivendel. Sorry for not being a fanboy.

[Blackadar]

to me, the inherent flaw is that it's a prequel. you know how everything turns out, basically, which removes a lot of the danger

it did feel cartoonish to me, too, but i love that world, so i'll see the next 2 in theaters

The inherent flaw in the movie to me is the lack of tone consistency. Sometimes it's heading towards LotR-dark and then suddenly jerks back to Hobbit-kiddieworld. A perfect example is Goblintown. Things look dire - getting close to a Moria-type scene - and then there's great ballsack King Goblin. *groan* Or when Radegast is fleeing Dol Godir...in a rabbit sled? Both of these are just flat-out stupid and seem out of place with other things happening. It's like Jackson can't settle on the appropriate tone of the movie. He waffles between the lighthearted book and the splendid tone he maintained in LotR.

However, I still greatly enjoyed it. I hope he's cleaned out much of the stupidity of movie 2 so we can just sit down and enjoy the story as it starts to get darker. Except, of course, when Bombur is on screen. He IS the comedy relief.

[Buccaneer]

Was the Great Ballsack how he was described in the book? He seems so out of place among scary goblins, not me mention the cartoonish world of goblin town. I would have expected something more like moria or the mine pit sauroman opened up.

[Buccaneer]

Also, if the story was children's and much of the tone cartoonish, why pg-13?

[Blackadar]

Was the Great Ballsack how he was described in the book? He seems so out of place among scary goblins, not me mention the cartoonish world of goblin town. I would have expected something more like moria or the mine pit sauroman opened up.

No, Great Ballsack was not described that way in the book. He is described as the Great Goblin, but without mention of the large scrotum hanging from his chin. Goblintown, however, is a pretty good re-creation of what is in the book.


Also, if the story was children's and much of the tone cartoonish, why pg-13?

Almost anything with any violence is PG-13 now. Star Wars would be PG-13 these days. Revenge of the Sith was PG-13. Plus, there's a lot of money in that rating.

The Reign of the PG-13 Rating: Sanitized, Safe, and Worth Shitloads of Money (http://gawker.com/5896566/the-reign-of-the-pg+13-rating-sanitized-safe-and-worth-shitloads-of-money)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Also, if the story was children's and much of the tone cartoonish, why pg-13?

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

[Lathum]

Saw 5 armies last night and all I have to say is what a steaming pile of dog doo. Basically a 2.5 hour fight scene, and not a good one.

[frnk55]

Saw 5 armies last night and all I have to say is what a steaming pile of dog doo. Basically a 2.5 hour fight scene, and not a good one.
Ugh. That's not good to hear.

[BillJasper]

Saw 5 armies last night and all I have to say is what a steaming pile of dog doo. Basically a 2.5 hour fight scene, and not a good one.

This. They could've easily cut an hour out of it and not lost a bit of the story.

[stevew]

So what's the deal with the trilogy? I guess I liked LOTR, but I probably can't remember a lick of what happened. I can't believe this turned into 3 movies(taking aside the fact that each one made like a billion dollars), so I kind of boycotted the whole thing. Should I watch these at all or do I need to wait for the extended ultra long 13 hour cut?

[BillJasper]

Should I watch these at all or do I need to wait for the extended ultra long 13 hour cut?

There wasn't enough story for one movie, much less three. I can't imagine how painful extended editions would be.

[DaddyTorgo]

Saw 5 armies last night and all I have to say is what a steaming pile of dog doo. Basically a 2.5 hour fight scene, and not a good one.

Blah - I guess I won't be hurrying to catch this one.

PJ is in love with his own CGI fight scenes.

[PilotMan]

Saw 5 armies last night and all I have to say is what a steaming pile of dog doo. Basically a 2.5 hour fight scene, and not a good one.

Disagree. I saw it opening day in IMAX 3-D, and if there is anyway to see this movie this is it. If fact I don't think it's actually worthwhile NOT to see it this way.

I will admit that I had a hard time early on. There were parts that drug on here and there, but once the battle started it was good. I don't think it was as good as Desolation, but it's a fitting end to the trilogy.

[Buccaneer]

There wasn't enough story for one movie, much less three. I can't imagine how painful extended editions would be.

+1