The Hobbit

I'd love to see a Shadow of the Colossus style game where you travel beautiful Middle-Earth. Or maybe something like The Legend of Zelda.

I saw the film on Monday. I suppose I enjoyed the film whilst watching it, but I would hesitate to call it good. It was a decent enough action film, but it suffers from not being as good at being Lot R as the Lot R movies were, whilst being a terrible adaptation of The Hobbit in spirit. Things I did like:

• Some of the action scenes (barrels!) were done really well. Many of them had a humorous element which made the violence seem almost cartoony - fitting.
• DRAGON. As expected, the Bilbo and Smaug scene was the best in the film.
• I liked the greater focus on Bard, rather than him being a random guard (descendant of Lord Girion notwithstanding).
• Gandalf exploring Dol Guldur and the battle with Sauron, for the visual spectacle.
• Jackson helped justify some of the events that were otherwise a bit flimsy in the book. Smaug having a dislodged scale, for example, rather than missing a large patch of gems. The arrow Bard used being a special, oversized weapon for killing dragons, rather than Bard's lucky arrow. Actually explaining why Gandalf had to leave (I know it was Tolkien's justification, but in the book, he just goes "Welp, think I've earned my treasure now, see you all later!"

Things I disliked:

• Lack of subtlety with magic. It felt like a video game, with people casting spells. Magic in Lot R is more about the way everything exists, and in the craft of Dwarves and Elves.
• Cutting Beorn's part. Gandalf's story really shows off how clever he is. It's one of my favourite moments in the book.
• The pointless romance between Kili and Tauriel. There really wasn't enough time for them to interact for it to feel convincing. Also, the more poetic dialogue in the prison scene felt very awkward.
• The endless orc chases. I get that they need some build-up to the orcs appearing in the Battle of Five Armies, but the action scenes with Legolas being a ninja-elf-warrior became tiring and repetitive.

I can see the point people here have made about these additions being made to create a different kind of movie. It stands rather poorly by itself (and I think splitting the focus between Dol Guldur and Smaug affected the tension somewhat), but it works to create something contiguous with Lot R. It really doesn't feel like The Hobbit in many places, not in spirit. To me, The Hobbit is an adventure, a romp. It's fun. Light and dancing, not plodding the way this movie is, consumed with portent and doom.

The fighting bothers me. If you think about the book, how many engagements do the dwarves actually win by martial prowess? They are captured easily by the trolls (except Thorin), and saved by Gandalf's tricks. Gandalf's diversion saves them from the goblins. The eagles whisk them away from the Wargs and orcs (and only Gandalf was able to fight them, by throwing fire). It is Bilbo's wits (and the Ring) which enrages the spiders enough for him to rescue the dwarves, rather than simply stabbing from invisibility. Until the Battle of Five Armies, it is cleverness and luck that win engagements for the company. I think it enhances the impact: for most of the book, the dwarves and Bilbo are on this great adventure to the Lonely Mountain, where they will miraculously be able to reclaim their home. Then the dragon is attacking Lake Town, the dwarves are consumed by greed and suddenly there is a war. People die and things become much more real. With all the violence in these films, I don't think you'll get that contrast.

edited 22nd Jan '14 4:04:31 AM by Yuanchosaan

"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - Bocaj

...likely because Lord of the Rings was written in a time when commercial air traffic was not an every-day occurrence, and if you wanted to get from Point A to Point B, you walked, trucked, or trained your ass over there.

Quite simply not true. Commercial airline travel was fairly common in the 1950's.

1. Doylist Explanation: If the Eagles did all the work, there would be no adventure.
2. Watsonian Explanation: If the Eagles did all the work, there would be no adventure.

Basically, the God of Middle-Earth (Eru) wanted the mortals to carry the bulk of the burden of defeating Sauron and the various other evils. He wasn't going to do everything for them himself, nor was he going to permit his servants (the Valar) and the servants of his servants (Maiar such as Gandalf and the Eagles) to do everything for them. Instead they were do work behind the scenes and make very rare and select direct interventions. Just like how in Christianity, Jesus isn't always personally intervening in a big flashy was to heal every single sickness and defeat every single evil dictator or whatever. Despite what Indian Jones shows, God didn't send angels to vaporize Nazis. He let the Allies fight them.

See also this:

http://sarahcradit.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/dispelling-the-myth-why-the-eagles-of-middle-earth-are-not-gandalfs-personal-taxi/

http://observationdeck.io9.com/why-yes-the-eagles-are-the-god-from-the-machine-als-1227633871

edited 22nd Jan '14 6:41:19 AM by Catbert

The Valar intervened = They inadvertently destroyed/submerged a part of Middle-Earth
The Valar did not intervene = Eru submerged Numenor, made Valinor separate from the rest of the world, and made the world round

They've experienced the extremes already, so in the Third Age they went the middle way. LOL

And it's not like the Eagles have ever "gone beyond their way" in the past...an eagle (it's either Thorondor himself or another Eagle, presumably his ancestor) saved Fingolfin's body. But not "saved Fingolfin", for example.

edited 22nd Jan '14 7:02:51 AM by entropy13

I'm reading this because it's interesting. I think. Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, over.

Whether Tolkien genuinely did not consider the ability of the Eagles to resolve the plot of LOTR in the blink of an eye or properly regarded it as a Deus ex Machina to be used sparingly is of interest to the literary analyst but not to the story itself.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Not quite sure what you mean by that.

BTW, ironically, the ending of the "How it should have ended" is in one way closer to the book that to what I expect the movie will be, because it shows the black arrow being fired by a regular bow. I imagine the next movie will have a 30 minute sequence of Bard trying to retrieve the black arrow and then climb up one a flaming tower to one of those giant "windlasses" or whatever those were called.

edited 22nd Jan '14 7:29:31 AM by Catbert

The last windlass was pointed out in the movie and it was there that Bard was heading for. I think the old english name for that kind of crossbow is arbalast or something like that. IIRC they were made for long distance shots.

The thing Bard was heading for was a bit bigger than the arbalest.

Was it a ballista?

It's the strangest ballista I've ever seen.

Pictures.

edited 22nd Jan '14 8:18:51 AM by LordofLore

Would a dual stringed arbalest/ballista actually work?

On another note, this music video is actually cool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fngvQS_PmQ - Ed Sheeran - I See Fire. Not the official version but a fan-made one, and it fricking rocks.

I have been annoying my neighbours all day repeatedly watching it on youtube.

Okay, so far finished first half.

Three words.

Legolas. Tauriel. Barrels.

Man, Bilbo leveled up in badass. He's now less of Frodo and more of John Watson.

edited 9th Feb '14 3:53:03 PM by dRoy

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

Yeah, they were OK, but man those two strained my patience by the end.

Visit my Tumblr! I may say things. The Bureau Project

Finished the movie.

Boy, the ending felt weak. I guess it was necessary, setting up the stage for the final battle, but still. That said, the way the dwarves kept on fighting Smaug, especially the way Thorin kept taunting it, was absolutely awesome.

Speaking of Smaug, he doesn't sound very much like Benedict Cumberbatch.

You know, forget monkeys in a barrel, hobbits in a barrel should be a phrase. When one barrel knocked over like a dozen orcs, and when the dwatves thought they are betrayed only to be smothered by fish, I laughed so hard.

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

I liked Tauriel the character, but:

1. Could we have a female character without shoe-horning in a romance?
2. Could we have a film without shoe-horning in a romance?
3. This really would have been more interesting if she decided to help the dwarves because she'd come to the conclusion that they were living beings (different from, but worth as much as, elves) and should be helped, rather than because she thought one of them to be too pretty to die.
4. If romance gets in the way of Durin family feels at the BOFA there will be hell to pay.

Having said that, the romance scenes were much better written than romance sub-plots usually are. This is not to say I thought that they were great, or worth having, just that in most films they're positively painful.

More positively, in no particular order (not even as I thought of them, since I tried for some order at one point):

I know some people don't enjoy the elves' fighting scenes, but Legolas fighting while dancing over the dwarf heads was hilarious-the pirouette on Dwalin's head (it was Dwalin, wasn't it?). Bombur barrel fighting was even better. I still prefer the unexpected party. (Which punctuation mark should I use in place of that dash? It feels wrong, but I'm not sure what would work better. ETA: thanks for the help Ars Thaumaturgis.)

Bilbo, realising he'd locked himself in after loosing the barrels. That 'wait a minute... hmmm... I may not have thought this one through... maybe if I just {bounces slightly}'.

Legolas, with the picture of Gimli and his mother.

Fili, with the knives, and the elves finding another as he'd being pushed into the cell and he still had one.

"I belong with my brother." (Why yes, family matters to me, why do you ask?)

Kili, powering on when wounded, even to the point of stupidity: 'of course I can balance on this bad leg, at the top of the stairs, while carrying a heavy load, and pretending I'm not dying of poison, when it's really important not to make any noise'.

Going to cry so much at the third film. I might even put Les Mis to shame. If I don't (cry, that is), then I'll know they did a bad job. I still can't watch Rot K without crying, and goodness knows I've watched that enough times, so...

Bilbo + Smaug. When Bilbo is sucking up and giving himself titles based on what's happened so far, 'barrel-rider' is one I think. (Also: not really Hobbit vs Dragon - just Sherlock in a snit. I know, old joke. Still funny.)

I like Gandalf's story being shown. (I haven't read the book, but my parents also liked that that part was also told. I understand it's implied, but he kind of just randomly disappears and pops back up near the end.)

I actually watched it over a month ago, so I'm having a hard time remembering specific highlights.

ETA: That first paragrah was supposed to be over 5 lines. Anyone know how to fix the formatting? Thanks. ETA 2: Thanks for the help, Meta Four.

edited 10th Feb '14 11:17:51 AM by annemarisa

Either stick a * or # at the start of each new line to make it a list, or force the line breaks by sticking two forward slashes at the end of each line.

edited 9th Feb '14 11:14:06 PM by MetaFour

I thoroughly enjoyed both parts of The Hobbit thus far released, as I recall.

Offhand, I've particularly liked pretty much everything that we've seen of Smaug, and the plotline that follows Gandalf and Radagast investigating "the Necromancer". The confrontation between Gandalf and Sauron the Necromancer was wonderful (I really liked the "endless eye" effect, which I'm guessing was a representation of Sauron's mental assault on Gandalf, perhaps impressing the idea of "there is only Sauron; Sauron is all; there is nothing but Sauron; submit".

As to Tauriel, I actually quite liked her, enjoyed her various scenes (action and otherwise), and found her romance with Kili (it was Kili, wasn't it? I'm afraid that I have a tendency to forget their names... ^^;;; ) rather sweet.

I'm not sure that your choice of dash is entirely incorrect, but I believe that the longer "em-dash" might be what you're looking for, something like this: ... over the dwarf heads was hilarious—the pirouette on Dwalin's head ... (Note the lack of spaces around the dash.)

edited 10th Feb '14 6:00:57 AM by ArsThaumaturgis

My Games & Writing

I loved a Unexpected Journey, but I was a lot more wary of Desolation of Smaug. Mind you I still liked both of them, but Desolation I felt was considerably weaker.

I actually quite liked a Unexpected Journey, because I just felt it had a lot of very fantastical and entertaining scenes (such as the dwarves' introduction and their colorful personalities showcased to its maximum, Radagast, The Goblin King's amazingly jolly and evel appearance, the Affably Evil trolls...), dialogue and character arcs.

My main problem with Desolation is the dwarves receiving less focus (IMHO) and having their spotlight stolen. In Mirkwood, they start to fight aaand are saved by Bilbo. Then they start to fight again aaand are saved by Elves. Then, as they're arrested, they're saved by Bilbo again. Then they're saved by Bard for half-an-hour or so. And then by Bilbo again. Pretty much the only thing they do is fighting Smaug, and that fails.

I also felt like they were way less focused. Dwalin, one of my favorite of the companies, didn't do much in this movie. The one dwarf who did seem to do anythng was

None of the scenes with the elves really attracted my attention. Never liked Legolas, Tauriel is so-so (though I found her to be the only likable one), Thranduil is entertaining in how much of a colossal jackass he is.

Bard feels like a good character miscast. The character has a gruff, grim aura to him but the actor feels way too babyfaced to convincingly portray what the point of the character seems to be. Someone like Richard Madden would have been a better fit, I think.

Smaug scenes are the redeeming light of this movie, as is Gandalf's subplot with Sauron. Both very epic and grand. It's still a very epic and well-written movie, but I felt Journey was superior.

"All you Fascists bound to lose."

At least the dwarves constantly being saved by Bilbo is true to the book.

Should be noticed I didn't actually read the book. I read Lotr, and I read The Silmarilion, but I didn't read the Hobbit. It was the blind spot in my Tolkien knowledge.

And to be honest, I didn't have a problem with the tims Bilbo saves them, I had more of an issue with the elves. I just didn't see the point of them being there.

"All you Fascists bound to lose."

In the book, The Hobbit is kind of structured as a series of subadventures that make up their journey - the overarching plot is there, but less emphasized.

So it's basically four little arcs/parts:

• The first part is them setting out, and starts with then setting out and ends with them nearly getting wiped out by the goblins.
• The second part is the forest arc, and begins with then getting aided and restocked by Beorn and ends with them getting captured by / escaping the elves.
• The third part is the fight against the dragon, and begins with them reaching Lake Town and ends with Bard defeating Smaug.
• The last part is more or less brings all of the prior parts together: the humans of Laketown want compensation for their losses, the elves show up wanting some of that sweet dragon gold (and retribution), the dwarves call for reinforcements to support them in fighting the humans and elves off, and then the goblins show up wanting revenge and everyone is forced to team up.

edited 10th Feb '14 12:57:02 PM by KnownUnknown

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

Saw the new one when it came out. I can't say I enjoyed it as much as the first, but I also can't say it wasn't worth admission or that I didn't enjoy watching it.

Stand-out performances include Smaug (of course) and Thranduil. Boring performances include most of the other elves (I liked you much better when you were shouting about Balrogs, Legolas). Romance was unnecessary and seems to be trying for extra groan points by going for the triangle (and not just a triangle, a cliched Betty and Veronica one at that).

The giant gold statue was pretty funny in its build-up and subsequent lack of efficacy.

And one final comment, my mom likes Bard because he reminds her of Will Turner. In a movie that includes Orlando Bloom. Take that as you will.

edited 20th Feb '14 6:34:52 PM by pulpfreebookworm

The baby bat/ Screamed out in fright,/ 'Turn on the dark,/ I'm afraid of the light.'

Everyone thinks Bard is William Turner. My aunt and her kids thought it was the same actor.

She definitely knows it's not the same guy. I have fond memories of Legolas as a sort of proto-"husbando" and my mom liked him best too.

It's funny because as I got older I liked the one in the books more, "Ai! Ai! A Balrog!" and impossible perfection and all.

The baby bat/ Screamed out in fright,/ 'Turn on the dark,/ I'm afraid of the light.'

Well, Luke Evans is basically the grittier version of Orlando Bloom, so I can see the confusion.

Visit my Tumblr! I may say things. The Bureau Project

Is anyone else waiting for the third movie to come out on Blu-Ray so the three films can be edited down to one?

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/ian-mckellen-broke-down-over--hobbit--green-screen-scenes.html