The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey opinions, SPOILERS!

Galanur · **Joined:** Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:28 am **Posts:** 1389

Answering to sacrilege, from the movie will come out at february:
- elrond armoured foot and mounted (new)
- new radagast pose (finecast)(heard rumours about his mounted chariot thing pulled by rabbits)
- new bilbo pose (finecast)
- rivendell knights (plastic)
- loose feral wargs(we still dunno) (plastic most likely)
- azog foot and mounted (maybe) (finecast maybe)
- grim hammers and their captain (plastic - captain finecast)
- eagles (plastic kit)

Gene Parmesan · **Posted:** Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:46 pm

Dr Grant wrote:

As ukfreddybear mentioned, It's very odd that GW have released a Bolg figure when he's not in the film at all (I must have missed the 1 second you saw?!?!?). There's obviously no Azog figure as they wanted to keep his appearance a secret (Bolg had been shown in production photos, Azog had not) but it seems strange to have released a film 2 character when he really doesn't feature - Thranduil gets more screen time than Bolg!

Bolg was in the end credits, although I didn't notice him in any scene.

I quite enjoyed the film, though more for the visuals than anything else. I was incredibly cynical about the CGI based on the trailers (and CGI overall), and don't like 3D normally, but the 48FPS made everything fit together nicely. Not too keen on the rabbit chase, and Bilbo's heroic charge at Azog felt a bit too contrived. Could have done without the Stone Giant sequence, and a fair few cheesy lines.

I found some of the acting unconvincing. I think this was actually down to the frame rate. Hyper realistic shots juxtaposed with 'Holywood dramatic' acting. Looked a bit too put on or something. Can't quite put my finger on it.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:33 pm

I saw it in 24 fps 2d and thought that everything looked PERFECT. The lighting, the effects, everything fit together perfectly. I would love to see it again in 48 fps just to see the difference, but I'm more than happy with seeing it again in 24 fps.

Most of the cheesy lines were directly from the book, if I recall correctly.

aelfwine · **Joined:** Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:23 am **Posts:** 508

Loved it, but its probably the least impressive of the Middle-earth movies thus far. Which is not really saying anything - they've all been impressive achievements.

The film took its mandate as a retelling of the children's story part of the saga seriously, so there's lots of almost Disney-esque elements. No blood, for example, and helter skelter action sequences.

The film also felt a bit manipulative. The Breaking of the Fellowship (a lovely, poignant piece of music) was used in the Bilbo/Frodo scenes which made me a bit teary. Actually Ian Holm's Bilbo tends to make me a bit teary anyway. The "magical" theme when the Eagles are called, and so on and so forth.

I do have a sneaking regard for MovieMiddleEarth. I am a complete Tolkien goob, but I find that the timescale he uses for his backstory is just too long. It's been giving fantasy authors bad habits ever since. The MovieBackStory implies shorter timescales and more active background elements. This is to the good.

Odd little element: Erebor is way more impressive than Moria could have been. Granted, we don't see enough of Moria to tell, but the exiled kingdom of Erebor is pretty darn nice.

Also - another nice element: the soldiers we see in Dale have helmets I can imagine some Easterling kingdoms having. In some old RPG material, the human kingdoms under Erebor use Easterling mercenaries to fill out their army ranks. Nice touch.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:59 pm

We only saw a few scarce halls of Khazad-Dum after it had been taken over by goblins without the wonders of the dwarves to give it light, and they were pretty dag-gone impressive, whereas we were given a full tour of Erebor at the height of it's splendor.

MacGothmog · **Posted:** Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Here's a couple of spoiler heavy podcasts from Empire Magazine online.

One with Philippa Boyens, one of the writers of the movies.
https://soundcloud.com/empiremagazine/h ... -podcast-1

...and one with some of the actors.
https://soundcloud.com/empiremagazine/4 ... ndy-serkis

Sacrilege83 · **Posted:** Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:13 pm

Loved Erebor and seeing Rivendell again from a different perspective. The Cinematography is the bright spot of this movie. Loved the humor as well that it has taken from the books. It's just the action that bothers me a little. A bit too over the top in most scenes: Radagast rabbit sleigh chase, Stone Giant scene, escape from Goblin town. Would of liked the film more if it was more grounded like Lotr, but I guess they made the action that way to fit the mood of the film being made for children based off of a children's book.

Liked the Moria battle flashback, and I was fine with the ending except that I didn't want it to end.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:31 pm

Sacrilege83 wrote:

Liked the Moria battle flashback, and I was fine with the ending except that I didn't want it to end.

I quite liked the action, yes it was over the top, but it fit. Completely agree on your last 2 points.

After thinking it over, I do like the ending but would have prefered if it hadn't happened the way it did. I wish they had had the eagles come sooner (about 10 minutes or so sooner in fact) and use the time saved by that earlier (in Rivendell for instance) for some character development.

Thao · **Joined:** Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:10 pm **Posts:** 179

Nah, the action doesn't fit. People in the German LOTR talebletop forum compared escape from goblin town to a jump and run game scene. That's a good description, sadly.

greendragon · **Posted:** Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:39 pm

There isn't much I can say that hasn't already been said here so I'll just post my thoughts in one sentence...

I'm going to see it again next week

.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:45 pm

greendragon wrote:

There isn't much I can say that hasn't already been said here so I'll just post my thoughts in one sentence...

I'm going to see it again next week

.

Same!

Hopefully Monday (and Tuesday, and Wednesday... :lol:

)

Curufinwë · **Posted:** Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:37 am

I would say I enjoyed it more then any of the LOTR movies. As a movie I enjoyed it and was very surprised I expected to spend most of the movie fanboying out and muttering annoyances but actually got sucked into the movie. However, it was by no mean J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit.

Good:
Great visuals, loved Erebor, Dale, Rivendell, and all the wonderful scenes of them walking through the world. Beautiful locations were chosen as they were in the LOTR movies. The Armors looked awesome as well. They kept the opening dialog with Bilbo and Gandalf pretty close to the book with the ending being the drastic change (always enjoyed that exchange).

Bad: They turned the Trolls into the three stooges. They robbed Dain Ironfoot of one of being the one that killed Azog. I guess if your going to pretty much delete Glorfindel from the history in the movie version you might as well change what happened at the Fall of Arnor (this gets a reference). And why the hell would the white council have any say on what the Dwarves wish to do and why would Sarumon care if they want to go off and get themselves killed that has no baring on his attempts to locate the ring! Glamdring and Orcrist looked to barely glow compared to Sting.

Sticky Fingersss · **Joined:** Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:20 am **Posts:** 1776

I actually think the changes in the Hobbit were less bad than the changes in FOTR... the only real big one was Azog but in FOTR there were HUGE amounts of changes... i guess being a bigger book explains it.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:08 am

Curufinwë wrote:

I would say I enjoyed it more then any of the LOTR movies. As a movie I enjoyed it and was very surprised I expected to spend most of the movie fanboying out and muttering annoyances but actually got sucked into the movie. However, it was by no mean J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit.

Good:
Great visuals, loved Erebor, Dale, Rivendell, and all the wonderful scenes of them walking through the world. Beautiful locations were chosen as they were in the LOTR movies. The Armors looked awesome as well. They kept the opening dialog with Bilbo and Gandalf pretty close to the book with the ending being the drastic change (always enjoyed that exchange).

Bad: They turned the Trolls into the three stooges. They robbed Dain Ironfoot of one of being the one that killed Azog. I guess if your going to pretty much delete Glorfindel from the history in the movie version you might as well change what happened at the Fall of Arnor (this gets a reference). And why the hell would the white council have any say on what the Dwarves wish to do and why would Sarumon care if they want to go off and get themselves killed that has no baring on his attempts to locate the ring! Glamdring and Orcrist looked to barely glow compared to Sting.

I read an article on TheOneRing.net where they said that Azog might be the one to lead the bad guys during the BoFA, which would allow Dain to kill him.

Curufinwë · **Posted:** Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:44 am

Draugluin wrote:

I read an article on TheOneRing.net where they said that Azog might be the one to lead the bad guys during the BoFA, which would allow Dain to kill him.

But that brings up other problems such as, will Bolg get removed or will he be down played? Its not really clear who killed Thorin in the book, will they have him fight through Bolg's guards and kill Bolg only to be killed by Azog and Dain Slay Azog? Well given who created the script I shouldn't be surprised if the Battle of Five Armies doesn't reflect the book, after all, in ROTK they had the Army of the Dead fight on the Pellenor Fields while in the book they were released from service after they took the fleet and the ships came loaded with people from the Fiefdoms.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:02 am

The same article says that since he's listed as the "dungeon master" of Dol Guldur, Bolg might be killed there in the second movie, when the White Council attacks the tower. Beorn could even do it seeing as how close he lives.

Maermaethor · **Posted:** Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:29 am

Thao wrote:

Seems there is an agreement so far that the movie is very fun to watch (myself included).

Nevertheless, my spoiler heavy not comprehensive list of bad things (however its easy to make a list of good things, that's for sure):
- The changes made to the "into the fire" scene. The book scene is really a great one, why these changes? Just for some stupid actions scenes? I guess the answer is yes, and that's poor. Thorin tries to commit sucide, followed by Bilbo (which ruins/hurts a believable/interesting character development of Bilbo badly)?
- The ease of killing wargs (which makes above even worse)
- The scene where Bilbo explains why he joins the party again (You have no home bla bla). Its just no believable (this would have required a more skilled character development). However in a strange way it worked for me in way, cause it left room for interpretation (mine: Bilbo joins again because his ego does not allow for retrieval, the "no home" bla bla is just excuse) , so its not as bad as the other points. But I don't think this was intended. Worse is the change to the book scene, where Bilbo gains respect cause he was able to appear unseen in the middle of the dwarfs (cause they don't know about the ring). Bilbo is partly just lucky. The movie: He gains respect because it tries to sacrifice his life for Thorin. What a massive change! Is it believable? Does it come at the right time, the adventure has just started?
- The rabbit chase scene as said before. Its in there for a stupid action scene, nothing else.
- The ease of killing goblins. That kills any feel of danger.
- Azog. Design, CGI, story change. If you change the story, give it depth and thought. It's not in there.
- The food given to the dwarfs in Rivendell. Poor joke.

To be not only negative, a change which was ok compared with the book scene is the troll scene. The book scene is quite stupid (one dwarf is dumber than the other). I understand why this was changed (however, again another action scene, fight dwarfs/trolls was not required at all.

Overall the writers ranked action above content/development/thought. Nevertheless, the movie is fun, but it could have been perfect. Many issues seem to be so unnecessary.

Opinions?

This is pretty much what I was thinking. My main problem was that because the movie only shows a third of the story, but they have to make it work as a standalone film, Bilbo's character development gets screwed up big time. Throughout the first third of the book Bilbo is pretty much a total noob, and Goblin Town is when he shows a slight bit of skill, while the majority of his character development happens after this. However, in the movie, they had to make him the hero, so he has to be the one saving the dwarves from the trolls, he has to beat up goblins and wargs even though he has never fought in his life.

The Azog and Thorin stuff had so much potential. Instead of building on a feud already established in the books (with Azog cutting off Thror's head and stuffing a gold purse in his mouth, then Dain killing Azog) and having Bolg be the main villain, they just had Azog be the Middle Earth version of Darth Maul. He has no motivation for wanting Thorin dead, and the only reason Thorin wants to kill him is "He is a bad orc, must dies!" If there was more emotional conflict there, Thorin running off by himself against Azog would have made more sense. Bilbo rescuing Thorin makes no sense either, as Thorin has just been a douche to him the entire time, but they had to do that because they have to have Thorin and Bilbo become best friends by the end of the movie, even though it doesn't happen in the book until much later.

What I did like though were the Gollum scene and all the stuff they added with Gandalf and Radagast (I was laughing for literally over a minute at Saruman's mushroom joke). The mountain giants were well portrayed in my opinion as well.

I'm still looking forward to the next film, and I think it will be better than this one.

Thanks!

Maermaethor.

Thao · **Joined:** Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:10 pm **Posts:** 179

Makes one scared about the arkenstone and the related Bilbo/Thorin situation after the stone is found. I hope this is not getting changed, it's one great major story turn in the book.

Thao · **Joined:** Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:10 pm **Posts:** 179

Dr Grant wrote:

...
I even, contrary to popular opinion it would seem, liked Azog's development. I was somewhat dreading his appearance having read the 'all CGI' criticism but I thought he looked great and made for quite a terrifying big bad. I loved the animosity they built up between him and Thorin and really liked the end. I don't think Thorin is trying to commit suicide, I think it's his pride and family honour that leads him to seek out Azog thinking he can beat him and creating a humbling experience that enhances his relationship with Bilbo.
...

Well, animosity "build up"? What was build up there? Person A tries to kill B, B gets injured badly and then B tries to kill A, which leads to A trying to kill B. Sorry, it's that cheap. When I wrote "suicide" this was ironic.

Ukfreddybear · **Posted:** Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:01 pm

ERM, did you guys miss the motivation for the animosity? Thorin witnesses Azog cut off his grandfather's head. A pretty good reason for wanting revenge in my opinion. Thorin maims Azog for life, again pretty clear as to why Azog might bear a grugde towards the one who has permanently crippled him. I am struggling to understand why some of you think this is a poor excuse as to why these two want to kill each other so badly.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey opinions, SPOILERS!

Who is online