so correct me if im wrong... (Small halfling sized Hobbit 3 Spoiler alert)

[Arkhan Land]

So Bilbo is 50 in hobbit series.

at hobbit 3 movie ending pj inserts a dumb non-cannon franchise-based LOTR setup scene asking Legolas to find go find a young ranger named Strider

LOTR begins with Bilbo's 111th birthday, Strider/Aragon is in his 30s-40s

so correct me if im wrong shouldn't Strider probably not be born yet?

as always aside from little slipups the movie was good BUT THE BOOK WAS BETTER

[ElectricPaladin]

So Bilbo is 50 in hobbit series.

at hobbit 3 movie ending pj inserts a dumb non-cannon franchise-based LOTR setup scene asking Legolas to find go find a young ranger named Strider

LOTR begins with Bilbo's 111th birthday, Strider/Aragon is in his 30s-40s

so correct me if im wrong shouldn't Strider probably not be born yet?

as always aside from little slipups the movie was good BUT THE BOOK WAS BETTER

Aragorn is in his late 70s. Maybe his 80s? I don't remember.

He's a Dunedaine. They live for a long time. Not elf-long, but long. He and Arwen get at least a century together before he finally dies.

Also, the Hobbit movies are reeking piles of **** and I hope Peter Jackson rots in hell. Even the Lord of the Rings movies didn't buy him enough good will to justify this dreck.

[Darren Richardson]

...Strider/Aragon is in his 30s-40s

so correct me if im wrong shouldn't Strider probably not be born yet?

Nope, in the books Strider/Arragorn is mentioned of being of a purer older race of men who could live for at least 150 years, possibly longer, while men such as the men of Gondor and Rohan were less pure and would live to around 80-100 years.

One thing JRR was fond of was making notes on almost everything about his fictional world, it's somewhere in the appenidix of the LOTR volume 3.

- - - Updated - - -

thats the book of course, the appendix in the back of the book, just in case you misunderstand me :D

And damn EP you got there before me, and with the race name as well :p

[Arkhan Land]

Aragorn is in his late 70s. Maybe his 80s? I don't remember.

He's a Dunedaine. They live for a long time. Not elf-long, but long. He and Arwen get at least a century together before he finally dies.

Also, the Hobbit movies are reeking piles of **** and I hope Peter Jackson rots in hell. Even the Lord of the Rings movies didn't buy him enough good will to justify this dreck.


ah, this makes sense

I still found the movies enjoyable but I think I totally prepped myself knowing that it would have a lot of divergence and commercial extravagance, added romance, unnecesary plot elements etc.

in terms of book to movie accuracy on a 1-10 scale where Scifi Channel Dune is a 10 and Starship Troopers is a 1, I give this movie a 7.5

which I guess isnt as good as a book thats a 10

[Faultie]

ah, this makes sense

I still found the movies enjoyable but I think I totally prepped myself knowing that it would have a lot of divergence and commercial extravagance, added romance, unnecesary plot elements etc.

in terms of book to movie accuracy on a 1-10 scale where Scifi Channel Dune is a 10 and Starship Troopers is a 1, I give this movie a 7.5

which I guess isnt as good as a book thats a 10
There's actually a scene in the director's cut of the Two Towers where Aragorn and Eowyn are talking, and she's like "You can't be the Aragorn I've heard of, he's old as hell."

[daboarder]

Aragorn is in his late 70s. Maybe his 80s? I don't remember.

He's a Dunedaine. They live for a long time. Not elf-long, but long. He and Arwen get at least a century together before he finally dies.

Also, the Hobbit movies are reeking piles of **** and I hope Peter Jackson rots in hell. Even the Lord of the Rings movies didn't buy him enough good will to justify this dreck.

Wow man, good ninja, totally agree on all counts

- - - Updated - - -



in terms of book to movie accuracy on a 1-10 scale where Scifi Channel Dune is a 10 and Starship Troopers is a 1, I give this movie a 7.5


Nah, its more like a 4 maybe 3.5. theres about 3 hours of movie all up that never even come close to being a thing in the book

[ElectricPaladin]

There's actually a scene in the director's cut of the Two Towers where Aragorn and Eowyn are talking, and she's like "You can't be the Aragorn I've heard of, he's old as hell."

Oh, yeah. I loved that scene.

These movies aren't a 3.5. They're a -8 at best. I hate that they stretched out a relatively simple book into three movies. I hate everything they included in a pitiful attempt to make that choice make sense - the White Ork, Tauriel, all of it. I hate that they made the Dwarves sexy - not because I've got a problem with man-candy in movies, but because that's not what Dwarves are - they're Dwarves, not short grumpy people. I hate that Radagast was a joke. I hate everything. I am a screaming eye of hate.

That's not entirely true. There are two things about the movies that I only mildly disliked. I disliked the way they refocused it on "heroic" violence and completely lost sight of Tolkien's original aesthetic of true, deep, compassionate goodness as the only real way to live. I'm used to that by now. I also disliked Thorin's stupid ****ing oak-log-for-a-shield. Because apparently we're all to stupid to handle a simple ****ing metaphor now, God damn it.

These movies are a figurative steaming crap taken on a series I love. I hated everything except for the two things I mildly disliked.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Put down the gun Shirley.

[daboarder]

Oh, yeah. I loved that scene.

These movies aren't a 3.5. They're a -8 at best. I hate that they stretched out a relatively simple book into three movies. I hate everything they included in a pitiful attempt to make that choice make sense - the White Ork, Tauriel, all of it. I hate that they made the Dwarves sexy - not because I've got a problem with man-candy in movies, but because that's not what Dwarves are - they're Dwarves, not short grumpy people. I hate that Radagast was a joke. I hate everything. I am a screaming eye of hate.

That's not entirely true. There are two things about the movies that I only mildly disliked. I disliked the way they refocused it on "heroic" violence and completely lost sight of Tolkien's original aesthetic of true, deep, compassionate goodness as the only real way to live. I'm used to that by now. I also disliked Thorin's stupid ****ing oak-log-for-a-shield. Because apparently we're all to stupid to handle a simple ****ing metaphor now, God damn it.

These movies are a figurative steaming crap taken on a series I love. I hated everything except for the two things I mildly disliked.

hahaha still really well said

[Aegwymourn]

Oh, yeah. I loved that scene.

These movies aren't a 3.5. They're a -8 at best. I hate that they stretched out a relatively simple book into three movies. I hate everything they included in a pitiful attempt to make that choice make sense - the White Ork, Tauriel, all of it. I hate that they made the Dwarves sexy - not because I've got a problem with man-candy in movies, but because that's not what Dwarves are - they're Dwarves, not short grumpy people. I hate that Radagast was a joke. I hate everything. I am a screaming eye of hate.

That's not entirely true. There are two things about the movies that I only mildly disliked. I disliked the way they refocused it on "heroic" violence and completely lost sight of Tolkien's original aesthetic of true, deep, compassionate goodness as the only real way to live. I'm used to that by now. I also disliked Thorin's stupid ****ing oak-log-for-a-shield. Because apparently we're all to stupid to handle a simple ****ing metaphor now, God damn it.

These movies are a figurative steaming crap taken on a series I love. I hated everything except for the two things I mildly disliked.

+1

While the original trilogy at least made an attempt to keep stuff from the books the Hobbit movies are not even close.

[Darren Richardson]

I do agree in most points, half of the added stuff with the Hobbit films never existed in any of the books, I feel the events with the White Council at Dul Guldar (is it?) were worthy additions as they exist in the referance materials and in snippets of conversation elsewhere in the books themselves.

A lot of the other stuff such as the elves and orcs attack and the attack on Smaug were unwarented and needless.

[ElectricPaladin]

I do agree in most points, half of the added stuff with the Hobbit films never existed in any of the books, I feel the events with the White Council at Dul Guldar (is it?) were worthy additions as they exist in the referance materials and in snippets of conversation elsewhere in the books themselves.

A lot of the other stuff such as the elves and orcs attack and the attack on Smaug were unwarented and needless.

I kind of liked the White Council stuff. It was interesting to get a glimpse into why Gandalf decided to do this in the first place, how it fit into his grand scheme and his role as "the one guy who was worried about Sauron when everyone else thought it was over."

It didn't pay for the rest, though. Not by a long shot.

[Deadlift]

We went to see the movie last night, IMAX 3D. Loved it.
I'm no purist, if Jackson made the films exactly the same as the books what would be the point ?

[ElectricPaladin]

We went to see the movie last night, IMAX 3D. Loved it.
I'm no purist, if Jackson made the films exactly the same as the books what would be the point ?

There's a world of difference between the changes and liberties needed to make a book a movie and terrible ideas and bull**** filler added for no reason other than to make more movies.

[Deadlift]

There's a world of difference between the changes and liberties needed to make a book a movie and terrible ideas and bull**** filler added for no reason other than to make more movies.

Well I can happily separate the two. The books I've read numerous times. The films I've seen a lot. I couldn't care less how much Jackson has used artistic licence to change the story to appeal to the masses. For me and many like me he's made some hugely enjoyable movies. Doesn't make me enjoy the books any less.
They are rip roaring fun. Popcorn entertainment.

[Arkhan Land]

hopefully it will drive people to read the original more often, the hobbit was one of my earliest reads, nowadays reading is dying : /

[ElectricPaladin]

Well I can happily separate the two. The books I've read numerous times. The films I've seen a lot. I couldn't care less how much Jackson has used artistic licence to change the story to appeal to the masses. For me and many like me he's made some hugely enjoyable movies. Doesn't make me enjoy the books any less.
They are rip roaring fun. Popcorn entertainment.

That's a legit feeling - I just feel differently.

I only want to make sure that my point is understood. I don't object to changes in theory. I didn't have a problem with the many changes in the LoTR trilogy. My problem is these specific changes. They're dumb. Changes in theory are fine - these changes are terrible and stupid.

[Morgrim]

I cannot object to Tauriel being added, because it is already ridiculous that there are only two female characters in a film trilogy that has dozens, including what are arguably 14 main characters. So showing Galadriel in her role as part of the White Council and adding an original female elf is still kind of woeful but at least better than nothing.

And yes, I know that there were NO WOMEN AT ALL in the original book, but that's because Tolkien had very bigoted views on women in general and that was the thing that irritated me the most the first time I read it. (I spent the entire book hoping there was going to be some sort of "actually [several dwarves in the company] are female, but since we all have beards and our language doesn't have sex-specific pronouns everyone thinks dwarves spontaneously germinate from rocks" conversation.)

[ElectricPaladin]

I cannot object to Tauriel being added, because it is already ridiculous that there are only two female characters in a film trilogy that has dozens, including what are arguably 14 main characters. So showing Galadriel in her role as part of the White Council and adding an original female elf is still kind of woeful but at least better than nothing.

And yes, I know that there were NO WOMEN AT ALL in the original book, but that's because Tolkien had very bigoted views on women in general and that was the thing that irritated me the most the first time I read it. (I spent the entire book hoping there was going to be some sort of "actually [several dwarves in the company] are female, but since we all have beards and our language doesn't have sex-specific pronouns everyone thinks dwarves spontaneously germinate from rocks" conversation.)

I was very happy when they expanded the female roles in the original trilogy - I thought that Tauriel was ham-handed and inane. As a character, based on the specific decisions they made to introduce her character and pursue her arc, not because I objected to including a female character.

That said, I totally get that adding a female character into The Hobbit would have been a lot harder because there just aren't any to be expanded. As you wrote, maybe they should have gender-swapped one of the Dwarves.

[eldargal]

Taurel should have been better than she was, they ended up adding the whole bull**** romance thing in re-shoots after despite Evangeline Lilly being promised htere owuldn't be a romance angle.

[Gotthammer]

https://40.media.tumblr.com/ae18328196db0fb54ce5527662cda381/tumblr_ng1wolKxeM1tipsk1o1_500.jpg

[Arkhan Land]

Taurel should have been better than she was, they ended up adding the whole bull**** romance thing in re-shoots after despite Evangeline Lilly being promised htere owuldn't be a romance angle.


I dont know how true it was but I read she even specifically stated she didn't want to be typecast again as a love triangle member, what girl doesnt want boys to fight over her

[Morgrim]

what girl doesnt want boys to fight over her
Having guys treat ignore the fact that you didn't pick them sucks. Being fought over isn't romantic, it's creepy.

[ElectricPaladin]

I dont know how true it was but I read she even specifically stated she didn't want to be typecast again as a love triangle member, what girl doesnt want boys to fight over her

I have it on pretty good authority that while it can be exhilarating, most girls - of the subset of girls who ever found it appealing - grow out of it when they become emotionally mature and start to desire things like friendship, companionship, love, and other prosocial relationships. Wanting two people to do bad things to each other to please you is pretty sadistic, when you think about it.

Really, I think it's us boys who like to imagine that girls like us fighting over them. It's far more appealing as a male fantasy than a female fantasy, because it creates a world in which there is something you can do to "win" female affection, rather than the reality that attraction is attraction and there's really nothing you can do but be ready to take advantage of it when it appears. And "I'll out-do that other jerk and get what I want" is a lot more human and not-sadistic and sociopathic than "tee hee, I like to watch people be mean to each other for my benefit."

[DarkLink]

We went to see the movie last night, IMAX 3D. Loved it.
I'm no purist, if Jackson made the films exactly the same as the books what would be the point ?

Hear, hear. Complaints about the movie being long with unnecessary plot elements miss the whole point of the film.

[ElectricPaladin]

Hear, hear. Complaints about the movie being long with unnecessary plot elements miss the whole point of the film.

... which was to stretch out a simple book into a length movie by adding tons and tons of unnecessary inane filler?

I don't get it.

I don't think anyone (at least anyone here) is complaining about the fact that he changed something. We (I at least) are complaining about the specific, stupid choices that he made. Specific choices that made the movies more Hollywood and less Tolkien, inserting filler material and lengthy fight scenes that I didn't care about, and other putrid crap that I've already critiqued. I knew from the beginning that I was going to see one man's re-interpretation of the novel. I just didn't know it would be a stupid interpretation.

[daboarder]

Hear, hear. Complaints about the movie being long with unnecessary plot elements miss the whole point of the film.

the thing is, the film is meant to be the book, you didnt hear a lot of these complaints about LoTRs because it did a really polished and good job of representing the books, even when it added or changed parts. But the parts in the hobbit are just god aweful, useless and unneeded.

[DarkLink]

And the hobbit movies are as faithful to Tolkien's work as LOTR. Almost all of the extra plot elements are lifted from Tolkiens other work, and Tolkien had planned to rewite the hobbit so stuff like the white ork would be in the revised book. Some stuff is original, but so was a lot of the LOTR.

Plus, have you read the hobbit lately? It's a goofy, rambling adventure. You can't complain about the movie having rambling plot elements and then complain it wasn't faithful to the books.

[ElectricPaladin]

I think I need to get off this thread. I am convinced that it is making me into a bad person.

I hated the movie. I think that it added things that are specifically counter to the spirit of Tolkien's work. I don't mind the idea of adding, subtracting, and changing stuff. I am bothered by the specific things that were added and changed. While the Lord of the Rings trilogy embraced and expanded Tolkien's universe with minimal Hollywood-ization (ie. Legolas being quite that pretty, the plethora of "Gimli is short jokes," the role that violence and adventure played in what is really a story about faith and humanity), the stuff added to the Hobbit was dumb, clearly intended to pad out the story so it could be three stories, and so thoroughly diluted the genuine The Hobbit content that I felt I had been cheated. This wasn't a movie for The Hobbit. It was a load of Hollywood trash masquerading as The Hobbit in the hope of capturing $60+ of my money when, in fact, they only had enough quality material to capture $20ish. That is the problem.

The Hobbit movie wasn't goofy or rambling. It was inane. It was full of bad writing, poorly thought-out characters, transparent fanservice, and irrelevant plot points included only to take up screen time. I didn't care about the ******* White Orc. I didn't care about ******* Tauriel and her stupid love triangle. It's not that things were added, it's that stupid things are added.

I love you all. You are, to a significant sense, my community. If I keep on talking about this insulting crap-pile of a movie, I am going to stray into saying insulting things about those of you who enjoyed it. You had fun - more power to you. I'm out.

[Morgrim]

My feelings are they The Hobbit could have been quite nice as two movies. It doesn't feel like it fits three.

[Arkhan Land]

Having guys treat ignore the fact that you didn't pick them sucks. Being fought over isn't romantic, it's creepy.

i meant for what i said to be interpreted sarcastically, I definetly degree with what you are saying, but in also going to throw in there most public fights I've seen over "romance" were between women. The other day there was fight that spilled over from another venue into the street in front of the one I do sound at, Got to see one lady drag another out of a car and then rip off a weave... terrifying


My feelings are they The Hobbit could have been quite nice as two movies. It doesn't feel like it fits three.

I sure hope we get a good fan edit that does this, cuts out as much non book stuff. I wonder if they could even get around some of the dwarf deaths...

[DarkLink]

My feelings are they The Hobbit could have been quite nice as two movies. It doesn't feel like it fits three.

Supposedly that was Jackson's plan, but new line cinema was having financial issues and they needed a third movie.

[DarkLink]

Cut out unibrow guy and a few other things and a lot of complaints about the movie go away.

[Tyrendian]

yeah the first Hobbit was something like a 5/10 for me and it went downhill from there, fast. there was pretty much only one single scene in the third movie that I liked, and that was the first one (I think it was?) - Elrond, Saruman and Galadriel vs. the Ringwraiths. Not because it did anything important for the movie or anything, but because that was just plain cool to watch, end of story.

[Kirsten]

well I saw it this afternoon and absolutely loved all three of them.

[Darren Richardson]

nah, I'll wait tell all three extended versions are out and watch them all together then, and then complain like hell afterwards....

[Erik Setzer]

These movies are a figurative steaming crap taken on a series I love. I hated everything except for the two things I mildly disliked.

Read Robert Ludlum's The Bourne Trilogy and then try to stomach even the first of the three movies. But no, for the full effect, force your way through all three.

You won't think so poorly of The Hobbit trilogy after that. They took the entire story of the Bourne trilogy, threw it out the window, only kept the name of the books and some characters, completely changed the main character, changed the name and nationality (and, of course, everything else) of his wife, and just generally did everything except digging up Ludlum, opening his coffin, and taking a crap on his corpse. Every time I hear those movies praised, I want to slap everyone doing so, because the book series is infinitely superior and makes a lot more sense. (Right off the bat: David Webb isn't a CIA assassin who got a conscience, he's a former free agent who helped America in a war after his wife and son were killed, who later agreed to play the role of a fake assassin named Jason Bourne that real assassinations were being accredited to in order to piss off Carlos the Jackal and draw him out to take out this competing assassin. And the actual Bourne was a traitor Webb killed during that war.)

Okay, going to stop there and go breathe deeply somewhere and try to calm down... I really loathe those movies, though.

- - - Updated - - -


My feelings are they The Hobbit could have been quite nice as two movies. It doesn't feel like it fits three.

That's where I felt it went wrong. Maybe push them to three hours each if needed, fine. But to get a third movie, they had to extend some things, including making the final battle just way too long (it basically *was* just a movie dedicated to a battle). Yeah, the Warhammer player in me loved regiments of fantasy fighters going against each other, but, well, it wasn't really that necessary.

- - - Updated - - -


Not because it did anything important for the movie or anything, but because that was just plain cool to watch, end of story.

Well, heck, I felt like a lot of the battle scenes were just plain cool to watch, so... guess their inclusion was fair game. (Seriously, I felt like getting Thandruil for the Hobbit miniatures game after seeing that, just so I could charge him into orcs and slaughter them. I'm just annoyed that the mounted version of him is on a horse, and in the movie it's based on he's riding a moose (I think it's meant to be a special elk or something, but whatever). Sure, the horse seems more normal and all, but hey, maybe I want an elf riding something like that. (Granted, it might have been too close to the Wood Elves GW makes.)

[DarkLink]

Three movies was fine, but there was padding within those movies that could have been trimmed. Unibrow should just go away, Fili's elf girlfriend's story should have been rewritten, and a few other things.