The Hobbit: That Christopher Tolkien Did Not Like

[Musical Shutterbug]

Anyway, who else thought Kili was totally hot?

*raises her hand gleefully*

Fili and Kili were absolutely adorable.

[ric]

Saw it last night. I had no expectations, but if I had had any, I definitely would have been disappointed.

Since we're speaking of attractive actors, man, Galadriel... lovely as ever.

I guess guys aren't allowed to do this though.

[Taps]

Well dang, the Goblin King was pretty darn hot.

[Musical Shutterbug]

Since we're speaking of attractive actors, man, Galadriel... lovely as ever.

Wait...really? I don't find Cate to be a very attractive actress.

[ric]

Since we're speaking of attractive actors, man, Galadriel... lovely as ever.

Wait...really? I don't find Cate to be a very attractive actress.

Well, I would never describe her as 'hot,' but as Galadriel, I think she is very beautiful. Just my opinion though.

[Laura Ingalls]

We're going to see this tomorrow night, I think! If the winter storm holds off til Wednesday, that is.

[Aeva]

I'm going to see it for the third time on Thursday with Termite and a few other people who will be seeing it for the first time.

[Termite]

I'm sooooo excited.

[Metal15]

saw it a couple weeks ago. I enjoyed it a good deal.

[Laura Ingalls]

Yay, we just got back from seeing it! It was good! I didn't LOVE it, exactly, but I liked it...it almost seems like I need to see it again to be able to take it in properly. I liked Bilbo's actor, he did a good job. The riddle scene was one of my favorites.

[Knight Fisher]

I just got back from Thorin and Co. Go On a Really Long Walk. I will spare you from my review.

[bookworm]

Wow, what a movie! I had only seen Lord of the Rings on dvd so it was quite an experience to see something of this renown in a theater for the first time.

I loved it. I thought it was excellent as a movie, and very good as The Hobbit. I’m confused where the negative reactions are coming from. While it’s true not all the things in the movie were in The Hobbit, they were things that did occur in that timeframe so it made sense to include them and provided some nice bonus material. And with the exception of the one obvious big change

(the pale orc)

I don’t think anything was altered excessively. Some things were tweaked for storytelling purposes, but nothing was outrageous or unreasonable.

Some of my specific thoughts can be read below.

I’ll start with my take on the pale orc because that’s the major thing for everyone.
I really liked the original flashback. It fit perfectly in the context and I’m glad it was put in. I especially liked how it explained the origin of Oakenshield, I had no idea about that. Very neat.
That said, I think it should have stayed there, as a flashback. I didn’t like that the story was altered to keep the orc alive for future plot purposes. It turned the focus of the story from ‘face the dragon to get back the treasure’ to ‘avoid the evil boss guy that’s chasing you’ which was totally unnecessary. That’s what LOTR is about, not what The Hobbit is about. They’re two different stories with different plots. And then not only was he kept alive for a reunion confrontation, but he wasn’t even killed then. Obviously he’s going to remain a main part of the plot.
So I’m not really liking that. It didn’t sour the movie for me, but I didn’t appreciate it.

Other then that there were just a few other things I made note of.

I was briefly disjointed when the dwarves sang Over the Misty Mountains because the only time I’ve heard it sung is in the audio dramatization I have, so that’s what I’m used to. It has a slightly different tempo, not really very different actually, but just enough for me to need a moment to readjust.

I didn’t understand Bilbo’s change of heart to rush after them and join the quest. Last we saw he was firmly bowing out, and then all of a sudden he’s all for it.

I was slightly annoyed that Bilbo was the one that stalled the trolls instead of Gandalf, that seemed like an unnecessary change.

I didn’t like the comedic exchange during the Necromancer story where Gandalf gave Radagast his pipe. It was my impression from the book that the Necromancer was a very serious subject, and that brief interruption totally lost that feeling in the film.
And speaking of that sidestory, I’m confused. Is this character just ‘a necromancer’ or is it ‘the Necromancer’ because they called him both in the film. In the book he’s portrayed as a well known and dangerous evil being, but in the film he just seemed to be some guy doing black magic.

I don’t remember the animosity between Thorin and Bilbo from the book. I may have just forgotten it, but if it was just put in for the movie I don’t know why.

I was somewhat disappointed that To Goblin Town wasn’t sung when they were captured. The Goblin King gave an altered version later on, but it wasn’t the same thing.

I was very disappointed that the flaming pinecones were just plain fire. I had been looking forward to that scene because I wanted to see Gandalf casting all the different colored fires, it always sounded neat in the book.

I was sad we didn’t get to see Smaug, but I guess it makes sense cinematically to make us wait until they finally get down there.

I liked all the nods to the LOTR trilogy throughout the movie. I noticed (and remember):
Bilbo commenting that Gandalf doesn’t like lateness
Gandalf bumping into Bilbo’s chandelier
Bilbo inadvertently putting on the Ring by catching it on his finger
Gandalf summoning the eagles through a moth again (though in the book he doesn’t summon them this time, they just show up)

It definitely didn’t seem to be as long as it was, the time flew by with the story. It was a lot of fun to watch.

[Smaug the Dragon]

Ah, just saw it for a second time yesterday, and have tentative plans to see it a third time with some uninitiated friends of mine who will only go if I drag them.

I don't care what criticisms people are throwing around about it being inaccurate, or overly dramatic. After the LotR people will expect dramatic. Big battle scenes and stunning vistas and dramatic showdowns are kind of a big movie selling point. It's a movie adaptation - and that necessarily means things will have to be different. Although on the first viewing I was a bit taken aback by the Azog storyline, by the second viewing I came to appreciate it more. Without it, the movie would have had no overall plot. It would just be some dwarves and a hobbit riding ponies across Middle Earth. They kinda needed some sort of story to drive the movie.

Just my two cents.

Aside from that, Martin Freeman was even better as Bilbo than I could have hoped. Such a great actor. I loved his interactions with the dwarves - especially the incineration scene with Bofur. Pretty much everything else was awesome too. The start was great, with all the LotR references - the sign on the gate, Frodo running off to surprise Gandalf, Gandalf bumping into the chandelier.

EDIT: didn't see your post there bookworm. You have some good points, some I think I noticed myself, but I don't remember minding any of them much.

[bookworm]

Without [the Azog storyline], the movie would have had no overall plot. It would just be some dwarves and a hobbit riding ponies across Middle Earth.

That is the plot. But it’s like the plot change in Voyage of the Dawn Treader. To someone like me, it would have been just as fun to watch following the disjointed plot of that Narnia tale or this Middle Earth tale, because I wasn’t watching it to see a great cinematic experience, I was watching it to see the story of the book brought to life. But for the average moviegoer a more structured overall plot was thought to be needed, and so one was invented and put in. I get it, and I can live with it, but for me personally it just wasn’t needed.

[Smaug the Dragon]

Yeah, I'm right there with you on that. I didn't need it either, but I saw how the casual movie-goer would need it. It would be asking too much for someone who just doesn't care that much to watch two-and-a-half hours of dwarve/hobbit banter. It just wouldn't make much coherent sense without some sort of plot.

Anyway, I tend to be rather biased towards any film adaptations of favourite books. I'm so excited about finally seeing it, that any flaws are ignored or excused. Not saying that there were any flaws that needed ignoring in this movie.

In other news, I can't wait for Smaug! The flashes and small bits of him that we saw look so good. Though, it was rather cruel of them to scare me so badly with the CGI kite-dragon at the flashback in the start. For a whole half second I wept bitterly in my heart. Then sighed in relief.

[bookworm]

I tend to be rather biased towards any film adaptations of favourite books. I'm so excited about finally seeing it, that any flaws are ignored or excused.

That’s a unique position to have I think. For most people, changes to the book would be magnified.

[Smaug the Dragon]

I tend to be rather biased towards any film adaptations of favourite books. I'm so excited about finally seeing it, that any flaws are ignored or excused.

That’s a unique position to have I think. For most people, changes to the book would be magnified.

It's a sad position to be in, when you excitedly re-watch a movie you thought you loved and realize how badly done it truly is... *coughEragoncough*

[Aeva]

It's a sad position to be in, when you excitedly re-watch a movie you thought you loved and realize how badly done it truly is... *coughEragoncough*

QFT (We never did get a "like" button. )

I just got back from Thorin and Co. Go On a Really Long Walk. I will spare you from my review.

I'm going to feed you to the Wargs. Was there anything that you liked about the film?

And I think I can answer your question, bookworm.

And speaking of that sidestory, I’m confused. Is this character just ‘a necromancer’ or is it ‘the Necromancer’ because they called him both in the film. In the book he’s portrayed as a well known and dangerous evil being, but in the film he just seemed to be some guy doing black magic.

This character is definitely "the Necromancer." The uncertainty is probably intended to draw out that particular plot line as Gandalf and the White Council discover his true identity. I imagine fans of the book most likely know that the Necromancer is really Sauron, but anyone who isn't as familiar with Middle Earth history will have fun finding out.

[bookworm]

And I think I can answer your question, bookworm.

And speaking of that sidestory, I’m confused. Is this character just ‘a necromancer’ or is it ‘the Necromancer’ because they called him both in the film. In the book he’s portrayed as a well known and dangerous evil being, but in the film he just seemed to be some guy doing black magic.

This character is definitely "the Necromancer." The uncertainty is probably intended to draw out that particular plot line as Gandalf and the White Council discover his true identity. I imagine fans of the book most likely know that the Necromancer is really Sauron, but anyone who isn't as familiar with Middle Earth history will have fun finding out.

The uncertainty wasn’t what really confused me so much as the disinterest. Like I said, in the book it’s like ‘The Necromancer?! He’s so dangerous and evil!’ but here it was just like ‘Oh okay, so there’s someone doing witchcraft.’ Of course I guess this is at the very beginning of his actions, so maybe he hasn’t become the infamous figure he is in the book yet here. That’s probably it.

[Aeva]

And I think I can answer your question, bookworm.

And speaking of that sidestory, I’m confused. Is this character just ‘a necromancer’ or is it ‘the Necromancer’ because they called him both in the film. In the book he’s portrayed as a well known and dangerous evil being, but in the film he just seemed to be some guy doing black magic.

This character is definitely "the Necromancer." The uncertainty is probably intended to draw out that particular plot line as Gandalf and the White Council discover his true identity. I imagine fans of the book most likely know that the Necromancer is really Sauron, but anyone who isn't as familiar with Middle Earth history will have fun finding out.

The uncertainty wasn’t what really confused me so much as the disinterest. Like I said, in the book it’s like ‘The Necromancer?! He’s so dangerous and evil!’ but here it was just like ‘Oh okay, so there’s someone doing witchcraft.’ Of course I guess this is at the very beginning of his actions, so maybe he hasn’t become the infamous figure he is in the book yet here. That’s probably it.

You just answered your own question better than I did lol. I'm quite excited about the White Council/Necromancer plot line; I can't wait to watch Gandalf and the others drive Sauron from Dol Guldur. What an epic battle that will be.