The Hobbit Thread

[Monolith]

Forgot to mention that I'd like to see Gandalf using more f#cking magic.

I get that Peter Jackson isn't a big fan of magical effects in his movies and he doesn't want it to look cheesy with fireballs and lightning bolts spraying everywhere, but the RPG nerd in me is like: He's a wizard. The reason you take a wizard on a quest with you is to blast enemies with magic while the others use their swords.
Sure, it's cool to see an old guy swinging a sword around as well as any of the younger fighters, but there is such thing as too much. He occasionally shines a light and splits a rock open, and the rest of the time he's hacking and slashing. Enough with making Gandalf look like a samurai. Make him more wizardly!

But isn't he kinda low-key with his magic in the book as well? I last read the trilogy a year ago and I'm just starting to re-read it, and the impression I get is that Tolkien never intended for magic in Middle-earth to be all flashy and in-your-face. In that sense PJ is staying true to the original source material. I think Gandalf's most overt display of magical power happened in the Hobbit when he blasted the goblins to oblivion in Goblin Town. Apart from that the books only describe the occasional flash of light and cracking of stone here and there.

 

[The Phoenician]

I'm in the process of reading all the books. For the most part I really liked all the movies. I don't understand Jackson's Need to change and add story arcs. Like the whole Pale Orc thing sure it was cool in the movie but it never happened in the book. It's like PJ is using the movies to create his own fan fic of the books.

 

[sticky runes]

I'm in the process of reading all the books. For the most part I really liked all the movies. I don't understand Jackson's Need to change and add story arcs. Like the whole Pale Orc thing sure it was cool in the movie but it never happened in the book. It's like PJ is using the movies to create his own fan fic of the books.

Well it is Peter Jackson's interpretation of the story.A good interpretation doesn't necessarily mean a spot-on adaptation. There are some ideas that work better on screen and some ideas that work better on the page. Besides, it's good to leave some things for the audience to discover themselves when/if they decide to read the books, and it's also not a bad thing to see the potential of what some characters can offer if certain events are played out a bit differently. As long as we get the essence of Tolkien's world.

 

[Docta Corvina]

I'm in the process of reading all the books. For the most part I really liked all the movies. I don't understand Jackson's Need to change and add story arcs. Like the whole Pale Orc thing sure it was cool in the movie but it never happened in the book. It's like PJ is using the movies to create his own fan fic of the books.

I have to agree hardcore, man. I argued with people about this on Facebook yesterday and in the words of one of my friends, "Yeah...I'd rather see a faithful adaptation of the story I was read as a child. Not Radagast and his bunny-sleigh." (I love Radagast, btw) I have to echo the basic sentiment. I realize it's an interpretation, but is it too much to ask for, for a faithful adaptation that doesn't take so many liberties? I don't think it is. There's already so much to work with, so much to draw from content and theme-wise.

 

[Nocte Aeterna]

Aldaril is never early, nor is he late. He arrives precisely when he means to.

-late entry by yours truly-

Anywho. Good movie, but poorly paced. I don't think spending the first 45 minutes in Bilbo's house was terribly necessary.

 

[Hargood]

Forgot to mention that I'd like to see Gandalf using more f#cking magic.

I get that Peter Jackson isn't a big fan of magical effects in his movies and he doesn't want it to look cheesy with fireballs and lightning bolts spraying everywhere, but the RPG nerd in me is like: He's a wizard. The reason you take a wizard on a quest with you is to blast enemies with magic while the others use their swords.
Sure, it's cool to see an old guy swinging a sword around as well as any of the younger fighters, but there is such thing as too much. He occasionally shines a light and splits a rock open, and the rest of the time he's hacking and slashing. Enough with making Gandalf look like a samurai. Make him more wizardly!

The thing is, in the books Gandalf rarely used Magic, and when he did it could always be explained away. His powers were always "A Strange Coincidence" as they worked. It's Alot like Merlin from the Authurian Ledgends.

Infact, Gandalf isn't actually a Wizard so to speak. He is what is called an "Istari" but for the sake of Mortals understand them, they take "Wizard" as a Title. There isn't really anyone in the Tolkien Universe that Hurls Fireballs. I guess JRR was too old to Play Advanced Dungeons and Dragons in his day.

 

[sticky runes]

But isn't he kinda low-key with his magic in the book as well? I last read the trilogy a year ago and I'm just starting to re-read it, and the impression I get is that Tolkien never intended for magic in Middle-earth to be all flashy and in-your-face. In that sense PJ is staying true to the original source material. I think Gandalf's most overt display of magical power happened in the Hobbit when he blasted the goblins to oblivion in Goblin Town. Apart from that the books only describe the occasional flash of light and cracking of stone here and there.

The thing is, in the books Gandalf rarely used Magic, and when he did it could always be explained away. His powers were always "A Strange Coincidence" as they worked. It's Alot like Merlin from the Authurian Ledgends.

Infact, Gandalf isn't actually a Wizard so to speak. He is what is called an "Istari" but for the sake of Mortals understand them, they take "Wizard" as a Title. There isn't really anyone in the Tolkien Universe that Hurls Fireballs. I guess JRR was too old to Play Advanced Dungeons and Dragons in his day.

Both very good points about the magic. Guess I've gotten so used to flashy effects that I felt disappointed when the films kept it toned down! All the same, I am kinda surprised that a movie adaptation focused on Gandalf's swordplay rather than his magic. Again, it's the RPG nerd in me, but he seemed a bit too warrior like!

 

[Monolith]

Both very good points about the magic. Guess I've gotten so used to flashy effects that I felt disappointed when the films kept it toned down! All the same, I am kinda surprised that a movie adaptation focused on Gandalf's swordplay rather than his magic. Again, it's the RPG nerd in me, but he seemed a bit too warrior like!

Yeah, it does conflict with the stereotypical RPG wizard role when you mostly see Gandalf swinging his sword or bashing orc skulls with his staff. Maybe that is why I found myself almost cheering out loud when he smoked the goblins with the flashy spell in Goblin Town, just like he did in the book.. I was like "yeah, finally he stopped holding back!" However, there is one instance of overt magic use in the extended edition of the Return of the King, where Saruman shoots a fireball from his tower at Gandalf, failing to do any damage. This wasn't in the books but somehow felt appropriate enough, anyway.

 

[The Phoenician]

Gandalf is badass PJ definitely did him justice in the Movies.

 

[Finnsson]

I'm in the process of reading all the books. For the most part I really liked all the movies. I don't understand Jackson's Need to change and add story arcs. Like the whole Pale Orc thing sure it was cool in the movie but it never happened in the book. It's like PJ is using the movies to create his own fan fic of the books.

Overzealous filmmakers. Once they have their mind set on a specific idea, to even ask them to forget it is like poking a criminally insane bear with a sharp stick. Not pretty, I assure you.

I sat there with a two liter soda for nearly three hours thinking, "This movie is as slow as molasses in January and I gotta pee somethin' awful." It's so... deliberate. Detrimentally so. It could have been trimmed at least a half hour, if not more. But I did enjoy it, I will not lie. Just not as much as the book.

 

[Docta Corvina]

LOL, yeah, the Bilbo house scene was a bit...drawn out, especially. It all sort of is. I will admit to my line of thought during some watchings of it being something like, "Can we leave Bilbo's house now? No? Oh, yeah, waiting for Thorin. Oh wait, he's here now! Let's eat...more. Talk. Plan. Still eating...and drinking...okay. How about...NOW? Nope? Okay. Oh hey, Bofur's adorable, I think I really like him. OH HAI AGAIN, THORIN. Fili and Kili being cute over there. Bofur being adorable and funny, Bilbo passing out as a result. Right. Misty Mountain song. Yes. Wait, Dwarves have left, it's morning! YAY! *hour passes* Seriously...where the FLUFF is Bofur?! What is he doing at this moment? I need to know! "

I LOVE the movie, don't get me wrong. But, even still. Even still.

 

[Hargood]

... So I um, Just saw this movie last night btw (Thank you Redbox!)

It was very nice. Balin is my Favorite Dwarf now. Infact liking his character in this movie so much makes me sad when I think of "The Mines Of Moria" in the First Lord of the Rings movie .





EDIT: and Yes, I totally went and got it because of all you guys talking about it lol

 

[mamali]

Good movie , amazing book

nice and short

 

[Monolith]

Heh, I must be the only person who enjoyed the leisurely pace and the fact that the movie lingered for a good while in Bag End I thought it was a clever bit of juxtaposition on PJ's part, creating that contrast between the safety and comfort of home and the dangers of the wilds beyond. Had we only seen 10 minutes of the Shire before Bilbo was whisked off on his adventure, the entire thing would've felt terribly rushed. I also liked that the dwarves did the song from the book while throwing around Bilbo's plates and mugs.. nice little touch there.

 

[Docta Corvina]

Well, of course 10 minutes would have been a bit rushed! Don't get me wrong, I LOVED the dishes song. I've always loved that one. And it's true, the atmosphere that came with a warm, well-lit and lingering focus on Bilbo's home is perfectly apt, especially given what the Dwarves were collectively after. I just was waiting for the "little nudge out of the door" to occur a little sooner than it did.

Still, if that's the worst one can say about a movie, it ain't doing badly at all.

 

[Hargood]

Heh, I must be the only person who enjoyed the leisurely pace and the fact that the movie lingered for a good while in Bag End I thought it was a clever bit of juxtaposition on PJ's part, creating that contrast between the safety and comfort of home and the dangers of the wilds beyond. Had we only seen 10 minutes of the Shire before Bilbo was whisked off on his adventure, the entire thing would've felt terribly rushed. I also liked that the dwarves did the song from the book while throwing around Bilbo's plates and mugs.. nice little touch there.

No i'm with you. I liked it.

I will say that I liked it in the book alittle betther though maybe? If I remember, in the Book the first Dwarft told Bilbo "Im here to meet Gandalf" and Bilbo was like "Ah I see well come in, would you like some tea", and he said "Actually I'd like some Ale and a Seed cake". Then it happened again and the next dwarf asked for something other than tea and it went like that.

At first Bilbo was So happy to entertain ...one ...two.... maybe three Dwarves, but then they kept comming. It made his "Tending to his guest" personality turn into "Catering for a Banquet on the spot" as the party grew. That is how Bilbo started getting put out by the Dwarves... Not so much of them Going crazy and ransaking that place..


...but I still liked it.

 

[Anouck]

I'll start by copy pasta'ing what I just angrily scrawled on Facebook:

http://the-hobbit-movie.com/2013/04/18/tauriel-in-the-hobbit/

^ This is making me angry and twitchy. There's NO need for her to exist as a character. None. Let alone have a "tremendous impact" on the story when she wasn't even in the book. Jackson did not need to "create" a character for the sake of filling some perceived void. If she has any sort of romantic role with a main character (like, say, THORIN), there will be rage. FFS!

Otherwise, I am pumped for the rest of the films. Well, less so for the third, for...depressing spoilery reasons. But yeah.

I've read that on FB

As far as I'm concerned, despite the film's name, Peter Jackson doesn't only use the Hobbit for his movie: he uses elements from other stories as well. A few of the events and characters come from The Quest Of Erebor, which is Tolkien's name for the larger, more inclusive story. Maybe the extra character Jackson added comes from this version.
According to a few 'experts' on the internet, there's actually very little in The Hobbit film that's not taken from Tolkien's writings. The Hobbit was written before Tolkien decided that it would be a part of his Middle-Earth universe. There are many editions and versions of the original story where he changed events and characters.

...Maybe (but I really don't know ) this is the reason why that character is in the movie and not in the book...

 

[Hargood]

I've read that on FB

As far as I'm concerned, despite the film's name, Peter Jackson doesn't only use the Hobbit for his movie: he uses elements from other stories as well. A few of the events and characters come from The Quest Of Erebor, which is Tolkien's name for the larger, more inclusive story. Maybe the extra character Jackson added comes from this version.
According to a few 'experts' on the internet, there's actually very little in The Hobbit film that's not taken from Tolkien's writings. The Hobbit was written before Tolkien decided that it would be a part of his Middle-Earth universe. There are many editions and versions of the original story where he changed events and characters.

...Maybe (but I really don't know ) this is the reason why that character is in the movie and not in the book...

Actually, (just FYI) that character in particular was completely made up by the Writers to have more females in the move. She's not based on any real character at all. (I might still like it though. Who knows. I'll have to see)

 

[Anouck]

Actually, (just FYI) that character in particular was completely made up by the Writers to have more females in the move. She's not based on any real character at all. (I might still like it though. Who knows. I'll have to see)

Hmmm... Making up extra characters?

If that's true I really don't understand mr Jackson. :\
That just makes no sense.

 

[Nocte Aeterna]

LOL, yeah, the Bilbo house scene was a bit...drawn out, especially. It all sort of is. I will admit to my line of thought during some watchings of it being something like, "Can we leave Bilbo's house now? No? Oh, yeah, waiting for Thorin. Oh wait, he's here now! Let's eat...more. Talk. Plan. Still eating...and drinking...okay. How about...NOW? Nope? Okay. Oh hey, Bofur's adorable, I think I really like him. OH HAI AGAIN, THORIN. Fili and Kili being cute over there. Bofur being adorable and funny, Bilbo passing out as a result. Right. Misty Mountain song. Yes. Wait, Dwarves have left, it's morning! YAY! *hour passes* Seriously...where the FLUFF is Bofur?! What is he doing at this moment? I need to know! "

I LOVE the movie, don't get me wrong. But, even still. Even still.

A bit too much anticipation, if you ask me.