The HOBBIT......don't bother

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

To me there wasn't a massive difference if you understand the concept. He was telling the Hobbit but with the added mythology of the Appendices of Lord of the Rings.

 

[cheezydemon3]

Perhaps with the simplicity of the Hobbit, the departures are more stark.

Azog completely changed, Bilbo completely changed, Thorin, Balin, etc.,etc.

Gandalf sheepish and cowering, not tricking the trolls, not throwing colored flaming pine cones.

Goblin King suddenly a 3 story British Genius with a dark slap-stick sense of humor.

None of these changes make any sense to me.

 

[landshark]

One item I did actually enjoy from the movie was the white council. In the book Gandalf simply disappears. The fact he was in a white council even while in the last homely house could make sense as later the white council runs the Necromancer out. They would need to meet before they decide to act. There PJ makes some liberties I liked. However, the whole Radagast part, well, No.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

Perhaps with the simplicity of the Hobbit, the departures are more stark.

Azog completely changed, Bilbo completely changed, Thorin, Balin, etc.,etc.

Gandalf sheepish and cowering, not tricking the trolls, not throwing colored flaming pine cones.

Goblin King suddenly a 3 story British Genius with a dark slap-stick sense of humor.

None of these changes make any sense to me.

I'm not a fan of Azog, and I dont' think he drastically changed Bilbo too much, certainly not any more than he changed characters in LOTR.

I don't get Gandalf as being sheepish at all, but rather wise to the dangers of the world.

Goblin King was a stupid change, but it is what it is. He wanted to add levity so they could attract the average movie goer.

I think people are in general too cruel to the Hobbit when LOTR was basically the same, I think that either more people read the hobbit and had their own idea of it, or hadn't read LOTR in a long time.

 

[bottlebomber]

Hahaha

[ame]http://youtu.be/JrKXH1CeXck[/ame]

 

[Billy-Klubb]

my wife & I watched it last night. we both liked it & disliked the single eye opening at the end. we both could've called it if we thought they'd do such a thing.

 

[bottlebomber]

my wife & I watched it last night. we both liked it & disliked the single eye opening at the end. we both could've called it if we thought they'd do such a thing.

It was a little cliche, but appropriate considering what they're trying to do with the film.

 

[landshark]

Hahaha

http://youtu.be/JrKXH1CeXck

I love the HISHE episodes.

 

[Homercidal]

One thing we all need to consider. At least it ain't Les Miserables!

Wife practically dragged me to see that. I think I enjoyed it more than she did in the end. And that ain't sayin much.

 

[Billy-Klubb]

It was a little cliche, but appropriate considering what they're trying to do with the film.

I agree.

 

[TxBrew]

Perhaps with the simplicity of the Hobbit, the departures are more stark.

Azog completely changed, Bilbo completely changed, Thorin, Balin, etc.,etc.

Gandalf sheepish and cowering, not tricking the trolls, not throwing colored flaming pine cones.

Goblin King suddenly a 3 story British Genius with a dark slap-stick sense of humor.

None of these changes make any sense to me.

How did Azog change?

 

[landshark]

How did Azog change?

In the Book: Azog claimed rulership over Moria. He started the War of the Dwarves and Orcs in TA 2790 by beheading Thrór, who came to revisit the ruins of Khazad-dûm. In the following years, he was the common enemy of all dwarves, and the war he started had its climax in the Battle of Azanulbizar, where he killed Náin, only to be himself slain by Náin's son Dáin. His son, Bolg, inherited the reign in Moria and continued it for decades until his death at the Battle of the Five Armies. In fact,Azog is mentioned briefly in the novel The Hobbit by Gandalf, who says to Thorin, 'Your grandfather Thrór was killed, you remember, in the mines of Moria by Azog the Goblin,' to which Thorin responds 'Curse his name, yes'. Incidentally, this is the only place that Tolkien refers to Azog as a "goblin"; in other books such as The Lord of the Rings Tolkien describes him as a "great Orc."


In the Movie: well, everything is different.

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Azog

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

How did Azog change?

He wasn't dead. The making him white was also an embelishment but Azog was a great orc who killed Thror when Thror went to visit Khazad Dum and then started a 9 year war resulting in him killing Nain then Dain killing Azog (which IIRC Dain killing Azog was why the Moria Orcs marched to battle in the Battle of the 5 armies, hearing that Dain was on the march)

 

[cheezydemon3]

Azog just wasn't white, didn't have a spike arm, didn't ever see Bilbo, wasn't in 95% of the place PJ put him.

That alone would have been fine with me. I was more put out by the unnecessary changes to Gandalf. The mountain troll scene could have been one of the best scenes in moviemaking history. Instaed we settle for a circus-like scene straight out of PJ's imagination.

Considering that there are 3 movies, and only so much that happened in the Hobbit, why change great scenes like that?

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

Azog just wasn't white, didn't have a spike arm, didn't ever see Bilbo, wasn't in 95% of the place PJ put him.

That alone would have been fine with me. I was more put out by the unnecessary changes to Gandalf. The mountain troll scene could have been one of the best scenes in moviemaking history. Instaed we settle for a circus-like scene straight out of PJ's imagination.

Considering that there are 3 movies, and only so much that happened in the Hobbit, why change great scenes like that?

Well, you don't know if Azog was white or not. Nothing was mentioned of his appearance other than he was a great orc. So that that as it's definition. You are right he never met Bilbo. It was added movie jazz.

I don't think there were massive changes to Gandalf in all honesty. I mean yeah there were some but compared to the book there were massive changes in LOTR as well. I did not like the Troll scene but I don't think that it would have changed much more if it went the way of the book, it would have left some more mystery though and that would have been nice.

As far as the 3 movies, it's been touched on a few times. There will certainly be a fight for Dol Galdur which took place during the time of the Hobbit where they chase Sauron out and he flees to Mordor. Also I'm sure they will greatly expand on the Battle of the 5 armies, as you may or may not remember Bilbo gets knocked out relatively early in the fight. And I imagine they'll tell the whole tale of that. The next movie should be action packed. If it's chronological you should see Dol Galdur, you will meet Beorn (who I'll be interested in seeing how he is portrayed in the movie), then there's all the things that happen in Mirkwood, Giant Spiders, Elven palace, then the staying in Laketown, then of course going to the Lonely Mountain, and you haev to imagine since it's called the Desolation of Smaug that there will be the scene with Smaug and Bilbo which will be massively intense.

Then for the third movie at the very least you'll likely have the standoff with the Elves and man vs the Dwarves leading to the battle of the 5 armies later occuring which will probably be epic. After that I guess it will tell of Bilbo's return home, and who knows what else.

 

[cheezydemon3]

I sincerely respect your opinion hhh, but I can sum it up like this:

In The HOBBIT the book, Gandalf was a mysterious, powerful, secretive BADASS.

Unquestionably the one that saved them again, and again, again.

In this movie, he was sarcastic, at times simpering and fawning, NOT the guy in charge in much of ANY scene, and seldom the one who saved them.

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

I guess there's some truth to that. The problem with the mystery of Gandalf is that the LOTR came out. And since the movies came out first we know that Gandalf is a powerful wizard (if you know ME history a Maiar) and we know (at least if you read the book) he's a powerful ringbearer as well. So in comparison to the Hobbit which none of those facts were really known to the reader, they are known now. It's the issue when you have a book, then years later you write another book that totally changes the gravity of the original work. The Hobbit is a children's story, but LOTR brought Middle earth to a whole different level. Because of that, the Silmarillion, etc. you have all kinds of different issues with characters, history, and gravity. Gandalf going off an a mission or whatever in the books where he's gone from Beorn's house until right before the Battle of the 5 Armies has no real significance if you don't know the world around it and that they were meeting to ultimately decide if they are to chase the Necromancer out of Dol Galdur.

 

[501irishred]

One thing we all need to consider. At least it ain't Les Miserables!

Wife practically dragged me to see that. I think I enjoyed it more than she did in the end. And that ain't sayin much.

Sound like loads of fun! Possibly only topped by a shoe shopping trip to the mall (where one might even be lucky enough to hold the purse)!

 

[landshark]

I guess there's some truth to that. The problem with the mystery of Gandalf is that the LOTR came out. And since the movies came out first we know that Gandalf is a powerful wizard (if you know ME history a Maiar) and we know (at least if you read the book) he's a powerful ringbearer as well. So in comparison to the Hobbit which none of those facts were really known to the reader, they are known now. It's the issue when you have a book, then years later you write another book that totally changes the gravity of the original work. The Hobbit is a children's story, but LOTR brought Middle earth to a whole different level. Because of that, the Silmarillion, etc. you have all kinds of different issues with characters, history, and gravity. Gandalf going off an a mission or whatever in the books where he's gone from Beorn's house until right before the Battle of the 5 Armies has no real significance if you don't know the world around it and that they were meeting to ultimately decide if they are to chase the Necromancer out of Dol Galdur.

I agree. Tolkien wrote the Hobbit, then had to go back and tweak a few thing as it didn't line up with the whole story of Middle Earth once it was outlined. Overall the Hobbit is very weak on details and as mentioned earlier, is only from Bilbo's view, so while he is knocked out for Battle of 5 Armies, a huge epic battle occurs. No point in skipping the battle just because he was unconscious. Then sum the battle up in a paragraph. This is early Tolkien. Not the dedicate first 3 chapters to describe a coffee table Tolkien. It allows liberties to be taken when going to a movie.

They should just be more true to the book where they exist. Looking at you Radagast. Get out of my Hobbit.

 

[Billy-Klubb]

in the beginning of the movie, Bilbo's narration said he was going to tell the story "how it really happened...". classic movie makers way of telling the audience "this is not the book".

 

[hoppyhoppyhippo]

They should just be more true to the book where they exist. Looking at you Radagast. Get out of my Hobbit.

There was nothing more unnecessary than Radagast and his stupid Rabbit sled. Also I do wish the Troll scene was more accurate to the book, but it's all about fitting a character archetype, and Jackson wanted people to like Bilbo more without telling the story through only Bilbo's eyes.

 

[cheezydemon3]

Why do I choose to hate this version of the hobbit, but feel that Kubrick's "The Shining" is one of the best movies ever, despite the fact that Kubrick apparently read 5 random pages of the novel and cobbled a script together?

Because The Shining is a MASTERPIECE and the Unexpected adventure (say that again) is going to be as mundane as the LOTR movies are now.

WHY won't PJ make the sequel to district 9????????

*******.

 

[lowtones84]

WHY won't PJ make the sequel to district 9????????

*******.

Because it would probably suck. I did enjoy District 9 though.

 

[passedpawn]

Why do I choose to hate this version of the hobbit, but feel that Kubrick's "The Shining" is one of the best movies ever, despite the fact that Kubrick apparently read 5 random pages of the novel and cobbled a script together?

Because The Shining is a MASTERPIECE and the Unexpected adventure (say that again) is going to be as mundane as the LOTR movies are now.

WHY won't PJ make the sequel to district 9????????

*******.

I loved the shining, but no masterpiece stars Shelley Duvall. Blech. Dull flat acting at it's worst. Jack of course is the best, and everything else about this movie was aces.

 

[cheezydemon3]

I loved the shining, but no masterpiece stars Shelley Duvall. Blech. Dull flat acting at it's worst. Jack of course is the best, and everything else about this movie was aces.

I watched a documentary on the making, and I swear Kubrick wanted a retarded bimbo to play the part of the retarded bimbo.......not saying that it absolutely worked, but it kinda did.

She looked scared anyways.

 

[cheezydemon3]

Back OT!!!

Phew! I was debating whether or not I needed to go dec 12th's release of the 2nd hobbit experiment.

This, http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/11/07/evangeline-lilly-tauriel-the-hobbit/?hpt=hp_t5, explaining how they brought in another person from LOST to play a female elf that was never in any of the books, made it easy!

Thanks PJ!

 

[TxBrew]

Well, we's is enemies now. I thought The Hobbit was great and I've seen it three times now.

 

[headbanger]

I thought The Hobbit was great and I've seen it three times now.

+1

 

[Homercidal]

Back OT!!!

Phew! I was debating whether or not I needed to go dec 12th's release of the 2nd hobbit experiment.

This, http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/11/07/evangeline-lilly-tauriel-the-hobbit/?hpt=hp_t5, explaining how they brought in another person from LOST to play a female elf that was never in any of the books, made it easy!

Thanks PJ!

So there was no Elven Guard? I'll have to reread the book again. I could have sworn the dwarves, or most of them, were captured by elves.

Man it bugs me when I am so sure of something and then it turns out I was wrong altogether! I have this recurring vision in my memory of the dwarves being captured and held prisoner for a time by the elves. Ok, so I don't distinctly remember the name of every guard the elves had keeping an eye on them, so I could be wrong after all.

Man, it just seems strange to have these memories of Bilbo arranging an escape by stuffing the dwarves into barrels and sending them downriver to the Men, all while avoiding ELVEN GUARDS...

Yep, I'm going to have to definitely go back and reread that chapter, since it now appears that there were no elven guards after all. It was just something PJ dreamed up for the movie.

 

[landshark]

Damn. I'm extremely excited to be extremely disappointing when I have to watch elves chase the dwarves in open barrels coming down the river as I saw in a trailer. I'm seriously torn on how I feel about how this movie is going to go down.