Movie: The Hobbit

[Renegade334]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

That is... DANGEROUSLY close to declaring the Dwarves as unworthy of existing, and should be exterminated for the good of Middle Earth.

Does Tolkien realised what he has written? He just declared a race as been unworthy and would be killed off because they shouldn't be there. Not because of anything they did or what they want to do, but because they dared to have been born.

I guess he is just being truthful to his religious upbringing. That genocide is okay as long as god does it.

Alright, I probably darkened the picture overmuch here, so allow me to amend my post. Eru Ilúvatar was NOT thrilled by what Aulë did, for two reasons:
1. He fashioned creatures that weren't part of the destiny-symphony. When you don't stick to your script, problems are bound to happen later on.
2. He gave them life before even the Elves and Men were awoken on Middle Earth, which is kind of galling knowing that everyone (except Melkor and his posse) was working double time to prepare the world for the two races' arrival...and Aulë just does something else completely.

However, as Aulë was about to crush his dwarf creations under his sledgehammer, Eru took pity on them and adopted this new race before putting them to sleep and compelling them to awaken MUCH later, after the Elves showed up on ME.

But this measure of mercy didn't come without something like a curse and a warning:

Originally Posted by The Silmarillion, 'Of Aulë and Yavanna' chapter

But Ilúvatar spoke again and said: ‘Even as I gave being to the thoughts of the Ainur at the beginning of the World, so now I have taken up thy desire and given to it a place therein; but in no other way will I amend thy handiwork, and as thou hast made it, so shall it be. But I will not suffer this: that these should come before the Firstborn of my design, nor that thy impatience should be rewarded. They shall sleep now in the darkness under stone, and shall not come forth until the Firstborn have awakened upon Earth; and until that time thou and they shall wait, though long it seem. But when the time comes I will awaken them, and they shall be to thee as children; and often strife shall arise between thine and mine, the children of my adoption and the children of my choice.’

As to the Dwarves' impact on the story...well, their greed was directly responsible for the fall of the Kingdom of Doriath and the death of Elu Thingol (the only non-Ainu to have ever married a Maia), so it's not certain what would have happened had Doriath survived until the end of the Third Age and participated in the subsequent events (who knows? maybe Melian could've seen Sauron for what he truly was and prevented his rise...so many what-ifs, so many possibilities). It should nevertheless be remarked that Beleriand sank beneath the waves before the Second Age, so Doriath's ruin might've been ineluctable, or its population might've eventually been forced to migrate to the Undying Lands due to the Valar's edict.

[Kyero Fox]

Saw the series for the 4th time on TV. Still don't see why they are considered awful.

[Engels]

Originally Posted by Kyero Fox

Saw the series for the 4th time on TV. Still don't see why they are considered awful.

Me neither! Every time I see a dumbass comment such as ''You might disagree, but The Hobbit films were awful'', I get a string of hate following through my veins! Never mind the inherent contradiction in such an affirmation (i. e. saying someone might disagree, but then stating an OPINION as fact), but that it is proclaimed without a single justification or reason behind it.

I was even banned from a LOTR forum because I attacked multiple individuals due to their disdain for these Hobbit movies.

[Sheba]

The movies were fine, but would have worked better as a duology, less padding and elfservice.

[Engels]

Originally Posted by Sheba

The movies were fine, but would have worked better as a duology, less padding and elfservice.

I don't get it. If the padding or 'elfservice' are good, then why more of it isn't better? This ''excess'' mentality is something I don't get. ''The Hobbit trilogy is excessive''... but if it's an excess of a good thing, then it's a non-issue. Those people should explain WHY those elements are bad (so that the ''excess'' of it would be something objectionable).

But I get that that is your opinion. I should respect it, but I just would like to understand it.

[Engels]

I just remembered, and therefore would like to add, that PJ and the other screenwriters are big fans of Elves, so it's not surprising that there is ''elfservice''. It was already there in Lord of the Rings; it just got even more prominent in The Hobbit.

[Kafriel]

I don't get it. If the padding or 'elfservice' are good, then why more of it isn't better? This ''excess'' mentality is something I don't get. ''The Hobbit trilogy is excessive''... but if it's an excess of a good thing, then it's a non-issue. Those people should explain WHY those elements are bad (so that the ''excess'' of it would be something objectionable).

The entire point of the Hobbit was having an adventure of a different kind. It ended up becoming a battlefield of glorified slaughter, entirely missing the point of its origins. It's still a great movie, just a bad adaptation of a book - there's a great difference between the two.

As for taking things out of JRRT's work and extrapolating it in real life...the author states in the prologue of "the fellowship of the ring" that he does NOT want people to think that way (p.13-14). It is a work of pure fiction and as such, shouldn't be used to make comparisons to actual situations.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Engels

I don't get it. If the padding or 'elfservice' are good, then why more of it isn't better? This ''excess'' mentality is something I don't get. ''The Hobbit trilogy is excessive''... but if it's an excess of a good thing, then it's a non-issue. Those people should explain WHY those elements are bad (so that the ''excess'' of it would be something objectionable).

But I get that that is your opinion. I should respect it, but I just would like to understand it.

The main issue is that the script was clearly not intended as a trilogy. The 2nd film was simply not self-contained, with most of the payoff delayed to the third film and not having enough substance in itself. So it's not that the film is too long, but that the 2nd film cut off at a very bad time.

[Darthtabby]

While I don't necessarily agree with every criticism, this struck a cord with me, probably because I was literally wondering "how much longer is this?" in the lead up to the movie's climax. The audience should be excited at that point in the film, not exhausted.

I also found parts of the films too over the top -the escape from the goblins in the first film and the the stuff with Smaug in the mines in the second. Granted I find the action in a lot of modern films too over the top for my taste.

I haven't seen the third film yet. I'd probably rather rewatch The Fellowship of the Ring.

I think there's a lot to be said for keeping it relatively simple and being focused when making an adventure film.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Darthtabby

I haven't seen the third film yet. I'd probably rather rewatch The Fellowship of the Ring.

The third film is basically needed to understand the second. I understand your reasons for not wanting to finish it, but the third film really did make things better.

[GDB]

I didn't think the length was a problem either until I watched the fan edit that cut out side fluff like Gandalf's adventures away from the dwarves (which, while good, really had nothing to do with what was happening in the Hobbit itself) and as much elf love stuff as they could.

The narrative was just so much stronger without those tangential stories.

[Engels]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The main issue is that the script was clearly not intended as a trilogy. The 2nd film was simply not self-contained, with most of the payoff delayed to the third film and not having enough substance in itself. So it's not that the film is too long, but that the 2nd film cut off at a very bad time.

I don't know, I thought all 3 movies had self-contained stories while telling a much larger story, just like LOTR.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Engels

I don't know, I thought all 3 movies had self-contained stories while telling a much larger story, just like LOTR.

The end of the 2nd film left a bad taste in my mouth. There is nothing self contained about it because every story conflict raised in it was left unresolved.

[Engels]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The end of the 2nd film left a bad taste in my mouth. There is nothing self contained about it because every story conflict raised in it was left unresolved.

In my opinion, the last part of DOS was about Smaug and the Dwarves (and Bilbo) and was over when the dragon left Erebor. At that point, Smaug became part of the story of Laketown and the characters there, and the destruction of Esgaroth pushed forward the stories of Bard and the Laketowners, Thranduil, Legolas and Tauriel. That ultimately led back to Bilbo and the Dwarves too.

The attack on Laketown is the beginning of a new story - one that will draw men, elves and orcs to the Mountain. The attack on Laketown is the first act in the Battle of Five Armies - I think that's why they put it where they did.

As for an incomplete story, that's true, but I don't think there's any way round that in a three-part adaptation, is there? The story can't be complete if there's another part to come.
"The Battle for Helm's Deep [or possession of the Mountain] is over: the battle for Middle-earth is about to begin."

[AntonKutovoi]

I think they should've cut down all that running around from the dragon a little and end the movie with the death of Smaug. If we compare it to the LoTR, imagine if Two Towers didn't show Isengard and Helm's Deep and instead thrown it into prologue of the Return of the King with a quick resolve. That would be pretty anticlimactic, wouldn't it?

[Engels]

Originally Posted by AntonKutovoi

I think they should've cut down all that running around from the dragon a little and end the movie with the death of Smaug. If we compare it to the LoTR, imagine if Two Towers didn't show Isengard and Helm's Deep and instead thrown it into prologue of the Return of the King with a quick resolve. That would be pretty anticlimactic, wouldn't it?

Disagree. I loved the cliffhanger ending.

Plus, remember that in THE TWO TOWERS the Saruman storyline didn't get resolved and they moved that into ROTK (and it's all the more bad given that the original volume did end with the ''demise'' of Saruman AND Frodo getting captured by Shelob; all of that got moved into the final movie of the trilogy).

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Engels

Disagree. I loved the cliffhanger ending.

Plus, remember that in THE TWO TOWERS the Saruman storyline didn't get resolved and they moved that into ROTK (and it's all the more bad given that the original volume did end with the ''demise'' of Saruman AND Frodo getting captured by Shelob; all of that got moved into the final movie of the trilogy).

The issue is that the 2nd Hobbit film resolved NOTHING. The last two films were intended to be one, and as such all the conflict was in the first half and the resolution was in the 2nd half. The bit with the melting gold statue was massively boring because it resolved nothing.

[Ithekro]

If I recall the first film was suppose to end with the dwarves going over the waterfall, or going up towards Laketown.

[Engels]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

If I recall the first film was suppose to end with the dwarves going over the waterfall, or going up towards Laketown.

Yes. The first film was suppose to end with the first appearance of Bard, and the second one was suppose to cover all the rest of the story until the end.

[Engels]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The issue is that the 2nd Hobbit film resolved NOTHING. The last two films were intended to be one, and as such all the conflict was in the first half and the resolution was in the 2nd half. The bit with the melting gold statue was massively boring because it resolved nothing.

But you think the 1st film was self contained?