The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey opinions, SPOILERS!

Lord Hurin · **Posted:** Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:42 am

Ori is the one with the slingshot. Nori is the one with spikey hair and the mace/ club.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:48 am

Nori's only real lines were that he saw Bilbo slip away. Ori had his false courage, Dori seemed like a slight bit of a suck up, but Nori could be anybody.

Sacrilege83 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:05 am

Ha, I can't even tell which one is which. Nori is the one with the fish star haircut correct? Because yeah I remember him not doing much.

Lord Hurin · **Posted:** Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:05 am

Dori sucks up a bit to Gandalf, for sure. Another way to put it is that he has a lot of faith in the Grey Wizard. Too much, perhaps, in the sense that he expects that Gandalf can do certain things he actually can't. I liked him though, his face reminds me of Kelsey "Frasier Crane" Grammer.

Sacrilege83 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:13 am

I don't have a favorite dwarf yet. In the book I did like Bombur. I don't like Ori that much, he must be the only one I dislike in the film. I don't recall Oin and Gloin ever having big parts in the story compared to the other dwarves. Probably the most memorable thing about Gloin is his son who is a member of the fellowship.

Lord Hurin · **Posted:** Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:22 am

Just get the Escape from Goblin Town set and look over the manual. That's how I started to get a feel for who was who. It's only $150 for us lucky Canucks!

I think PJ took Ori's role as the recorder of Balin's Expedition and made him meeker by design, allowing for some "big brother/ little brother" humour between he, Dori and Nori. I don't recall him having a large part in the book, but I always thought Ori was the oldest since the trio is always referred to as "Ori, Nori and Dori." When the Great Goblin suggests torturing the youngest first, he motions to Ori when the book explicitly states that Fili and Kili are "the youngest by some fifty years." Man, I know too much off the top of my head... :roll:

Draugluin · **Posted:** Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:49 am

Ya, I thin kPJ did it just for some variety in the dwarves. It wouldn't be that great if all but 2 of them were 100 some odd year old dwarves with giant grey beards, it would be too hard for even purists to follow.

I hadn't thought about Dori looking like Frasier until you pointed it out, I can actually see it now lol.

Ares B · **Posted:** Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:42 am

Fëanor, the mighty elf wrote:

- Radagast: a bit too corny for me. Mostly he was okay, but I would've loved to see Gandalf take the initiative in the Dol Guldur part. This would've made the entire White Council part richer too. So again, why deviate from the books if you can't make a better story-line?

It wasn't actually that big deviation. In the Council of Elrond chapter of LotR, Gandalf tells of meeting Radagast near Bree and him warning about the return of the Nine. It was just moved to happening some 60 years earlier.

Zogash · **Posted:** Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:39 pm

Ares B wrote:

Fëanor, the mighty elf wrote:

- Radagast: a bit too corny for me. Mostly he was okay, but I would've loved to see Gandalf take the initiative in the Dol Guldur part. This would've made the entire White Council part richer too. So again, why deviate from the books if you can't make a better story-line?

It wasn't actually that big deviation. In the Council of Elrond chapter of LotR, Gandalf tells of meeting Radagast near Bree and him warning about the return of the Nine. It was just moved to happening some 60 years earlier.

I think the point (and the reason I really dislike what PJ did) is that in the movie, Gandalf has no idea whatsoever that Sauron had returned at all, when in the book(s) it was he himself that discovered the true identity of the Necromancer 90 years before the events of The Hobbit (2851 T.A., Hobbit is 2941 T.A.).

Click to: Show

Over all, despite of the overall tone of my post, I liked the movie. It could have been far better, but it also could have been much much worse.

theavenger001 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:53 pm

Zogash wrote:

I was actually quite surprised that the tie-ins to scenes seen in the Fellowship weren't made more in accordance with the old films - especially Bilbo's finding of the ring was very different from what we saw in the FotR prologue.

I bet they'll come out with a 'new' version of the lotr trilogy with updated tie-in parts. (like that bilbo finding the ring part) I don't want to think how much the extended edition six box set of both trilogys will cost...

Ares B · **Posted:** Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:12 pm

Zogash wrote:

I think the point (and the reason I really dislike what PJ did) is that in the movie, Gandalf has no idea whatsoever that Sauron had returned at all, when in the book(s) it was he himself that discovered the true identity of the Necromancer 90 years before the events of The Hobbit (2851 T.A., Hobbit is 2941 T.A.).

No disagreement, though he still has two movies of time to make that discovery. The movie shortens the time span quite a lot, probably to avoid explaining why Gandalf did nothing about the Necromancer in those 90 years.

Though I'd have liked an explanation of where Gandalf met Thror and received the key, if not in Dol Guldur.

Curufinwë · **Posted:** Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:07 pm

Ares B wrote:

Zogash wrote:

I think the point (and the reason I really dislike what PJ did) is that in the movie, Gandalf has no idea whatsoever that Sauron had returned at all, when in the book(s) it was he himself that discovered the true identity of the Necromancer 90 years before the events of The Hobbit (2851 T.A., Hobbit is 2941 T.A.).

No disagreement, though he still has two movies of time to make that discovery. The movie shortens the time span quite a lot, probably to avoid explaining why Gandalf did nothing about the Necromancer in those 90 years.

Though I'd have liked an explanation of where Gandalf met Thror and received the key, if not in Dol Guldur.

He met Thrain in Dol Guldur's prison while trying to figure out who the Necromancer was and recieved the key and map. And Gandalf tried to get the white council to attack Dol Guldur when the Necromancer was first discovered but Saruman keeps over ruling him so that he can search for the ring near the Gladden Fields.

Fëanor, the mighty elf · **Posted:** Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:24 pm

Zogash wrote:

Ares B wrote:

Fëanor, the mighty elf wrote:

- Radagast: a bit too corny for me. Mostly he was okay, but I would've loved to see Gandalf take the initiative in the Dol Guldur part. This would've made the entire White Council part richer too. So again, why deviate from the books if you can't make a better story-line?

It wasn't actually that big deviation. In the Council of Elrond chapter of LotR, Gandalf tells of meeting Radagast near Bree and him warning about the return of the Nine. It was just moved to happening some 60 years earlier.

I think the point (and the reason I really dislike what PJ did) is that in the movie, Gandalf has no idea whatsoever that Sauron had returned at all, when in the book(s) it was he himself that discovered the true identity of the Necromancer 90 years before the events of The Hobbit (2851 T.A., Hobbit is 2941 T.A.).

Click to: Show

Exactly, that was mostly the point. Also, by letting Radagast take discover the Necromancer, Gandalf's role in the resistance of Middle-earth was made a lot smaller. That is my biggest problem with it. In the books, Gandalf is by far the most effective in organising the resistance of Middle-earth. This is done not only by leading the Fellowship from Rivendell, but also by helping Thorin's Company (Gandalf wanted to get rid of the Dragon). Gandalf also investigated Dol Guldur, twice. After the first time (long before The Hobbit), he tried to convince the White Council to attack it, and then at last, once he finds that it is indeed Sauron after visiting for the second time, he can finally convince the rest. Here, Saruman's treachery is already beginning to show. He's very subtly trying to persuade the rest not to act, but he is sabotaging the resistance already.
You see, the grand schemes of Gandalf are just diminished in this way. I personally loved reading the books (incl. UT and Appendixes) because Gandalf's role appeared to be much bigger than you expected even from the Lord of the Rings.

theavenger001 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:57 pm

Fëanor, the mighty elf wrote:

Exactly, that was mostly the point. Also, by letting Radagast take discover the Necromancer, Gandalf's role in the resistance of Middle-earth was made a lot smaller. That is my biggest problem with it. In the books, Gandalf is by far the most effective in organising the resistance of Middle-earth. This is done not only by leading the Fellowship from Rivendell, but also by helping Thorin's Company (Gandalf wanted to get rid of the Dragon). Gandalf also investigated Dol Guldur, twice. After the first time (long before The Hobbit), he tried to convince the White Council to attack it, and then at last, once he finds that it is indeed Sauron after visiting for the second time, he can finally convince the rest. Here, Saruman's treachery is already beginning to show. He's very subtly trying to persuade the rest not to act, but he is sabotaging the resistance already.
You see, the grand schemes of Gandalf are just diminished in this way. I personally loved reading the books (incl. UT and Appendixes) because Gandalf's role appeared to be much bigger than you expected even from the Lord of the Rings.

I think they can still have Gandalf go back a second time. To me he is still the main guy, it's just that Radagast would have had almost no part to play if they hadn't have done it as they did. To me Gandalf is the main guy trying to do something, and Radagast is just his friend who helps him out by finding things out...and being eyes and ears where Gandalf can't.

Ares B · **Posted:** Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:25 am

Curufinwë wrote:

He met Thrain in Dol Guldur's prison while trying to figure out who the Necromancer was and recieved the key and map. And Gandalf tried to get the white council to attack Dol Guldur when the Necromancer was first discovered but Saruman keeps over ruling him so that he can search for the ring near the Gladden Fields.

Right, that's the encounter I meant, just confused the dwarven forefathers. Since it didn't happen in the movie 'verse, how Gandalf got the key was glossed over.

Anyway, that's what PJ showed Gandalf do in the Rivendell scene, though in much abbreviated form. Having intel of a powerful evil stirring in Dol Guldur, he tries to convince the White Council of it, but Saruman rules him over.

The time span is much shorter, but that's how it must be in a movie where you show the story, not tell it like you can in books.

Natarn · **Posted:** Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:23 pm

In a movie, there are lots of ways that time can be kept correct, in terms of when things should happen in a story. For example, I hear that some flashbacks have been used in this film.

It is possible to be true to an original story in the chronology of events.

However, I think things might be 'simplified' in order to make the storytelling easier for the film-makers and perhaps easier for a younger audience to comprehend. Linear stories that don't jump about in time too much are much simpler to understand; and pieces of information that are eluded to in a novel are not quite so easily slipped into a film if there isn't any narration - and nobody (I hope) wants a voice-over.

This makes film versions of books better for people totally new to the story than those who are already familiar with it. While the newbies can get immersed in the world of Middle-Earth, the 'experts' notice all the bits that aren't 'right'. "NO! It wasn't like that in the book!"

We all hope that a film will live up to, or even exceed our expectations but that is a very difficult thing for any film-maker to achieve as imagination is so individual and the interpretation of a story for a different form of media is so subjective and limited by a wide range of factors.

I've not seen, and don't want to see the Hobbit... at least not for the moment. I have been known to change my mind! I imagine that it is in many ways like The Lord of the Rings Trilogy in that it is a mixture of original story, omissions, changed events, realisations that are worse than imagined and some which are even better than we had imagined.

In the end, I think we need to accept the films for what they are. They are not THE story. THE story, in its best form, is what we experience when we read or listen to the original text, when our individual imaginations are left to make their own interpretations of the tale - what characters and locations looked like, how they spoke etc.

The films then are NOT what really happened, but someone's interpretation. They are like theatre on screen. The problem is that we are so dramatically effected by the visual, and faces imagined when reading the book can be overwritten by what we see on film. A movie may, on the one hand, enhance our enjoyment of a tale. Yet, on the other hand, it can spoil something precious!

Curufinwë · **Posted:** Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:44 pm

Natarn wrote:

In a movie, there are lots of ways that time can be kept correct, in terms of when things should happen in a story. For example, I hear that some flashbacks have been used in this film.

It is possible to be true to an original story in the chronology of events.

However, I think things might be 'simplified' in order to make the storytelling easier for the film-makers and perhaps easier for a younger audience to comprehend. Linear stories that don't jump about in time too much are much simpler to understand; and pieces of information that are eluded to in a novel are not quite so easily slipped into a film if there isn't any narration - and nobody (I hope) wants a voice-over.

This makes film versions of books better for people totally new to the story than those who are already familiar with it. While the newbies can get immersed in the world of Middle-Earth, the 'experts' notice all the bits that aren't 'right'. "NO! It wasn't like that in the book!"

We all hope that a film will live up to, or even exceed our expectations but that is a very difficult thing for any film-maker to achieve as imagination is so individual and the interpretation of a story for a different form of media is so subjective and limited by a wide range of factors.

I've not seen, and don't want to see the Hobbit... at least not for the moment. I have been known to change my mind! I imagine that it is in many ways like The Lord of the Rings Trilogy in that it is a mixture of original story, omissions, changed events, realisations that are worse than imagined and some which are even better than we had imagined.

In the end, I think we need to accept the films for what they are. They are not THE story. THE story, in its best form, is what we experience when we read or listen to the original text, when our individual imaginations are left to make their own interpretations of the tale - what characters and locations looked like, how they spoke etc.

The films then are NOT what really happened, but someone's interpretation. They are like theatre on screen. The problem is that we are so dramatically effected by the visual, and faces imagined when reading the book can be overwritten by what we see on film. A movie may, on the one hand, enhance our enjoyment of a tale. Yet, on the other hand, it can spoil something precious!

The way I described it to my friend when he asked me what I thought about the movie, I told him: "As a fantasy movie it was probably the best I have seen; but as J.R.R. Tolkiens The Hobbit, it sucked. So if you intend to see the movie try and divest yourself of thinking of it as the book and just enjoy it as a movie independent and separate from Tolkien."

Draugluin · **Posted:** Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:44 pm

I don't know why everyone seems to think that it was less like the book than LotR. In fact, I thought it was substantially more like the book than the LotR movies were simply because there was so much less detail in the Hobbit than in LotR. To make a good movie based off of TH, they quite a bit of stuff had to be added, and quite a bit of stuff COULD be added simply because of the Appendices. With LotR, however, the book had all the detail neccessary to be a good movie, so every single change felt unneccessary and detracted from the overall story.

In regards to Radagast, his inclusion in no way detracted from Gandalf. Gandalf started the quest to make sure that if Sauron ever came back, he wouldn't have a ready ally in Smaug. When Radagast told him about the Necromancer, all it did was confirm Gandalf's fears that Sauron could and was coming back.All Radagast did was make Gandalf seem (imo) more like the planner ahead that he was.

Lord Hurin · **Posted:** Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:14 pm

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are quite different in style and characterization. Remember that when Tolkien was writing The Hobbit, it wasn't a part of middle-Earth. He simply used names and places from his own private writings as sort of an in-joke to himself.

The Company, if portrayed exactly as described in the book, would have been so vastly different than how Gimli was portrayed in the Rings films (despite the silly moments given to him) and even more disparate from Dwarves in the other books. In The Hobbit, the Company comes to Bag End unarmed and remains so (save Thorin's aquisition of Orcrist) until a couple of them get bows from Beorn. This is totally against the battle-ready nature of Durin's Folk as depicted in The Lord of the Rings and even during the Battle of Five Armies.

That, and by extension the fight scenes, is something I can certainly forgive PJ & co. Not only does it make those scenes more exciting for "Joe Average" but it really is in keeping with Tolkien's later depictions of Dwarves.

theavenger001 · **Posted:** Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:07 pm

Bit of rant here....

All this conversation about how the hobbit went off the main story line.....really. LOTR was changed much more. Frodo leaving right away at the begining, elves at helms deep, aragorn almost dying after the warg attack, sauron as a huge litteral eye on baradur, tom bombadil's exclusion, glorfindel's exclusion, frodo making sam leave right before shelob (one of my least favorite changes...), no scouring of the shire, the cave troll being the one to almost kill frodo, army of the dead at minas tirith, faramir taking frodo to osgiliath (also one of my least favorite changes...), and I could go on. How do the changes to the hobbit even have a chance to come close to those so far? So they added a main baddy to tie in all the little encounters/attacks that the (dwarf) fellowship encounters. So what? It's somewhat plausable, (though I wish it was bolg...) and didn't affect the overall storyline very much. We don't know if they will show how gandalf got the key in a later movie or the extended editions. We also don't know if gandalf will go to dol guldur to check things out for himself yet. Like really guys, we all enjoyed the LOTR movies, why all the hate for the hobbit? (Yes, I realise it's new, but I think that people have forgotten the liberties that PJ took in the LOTR movies, or you all hate the LOTR movies, because they're so different from the books...

)

I personally really enjoyed the lotr movies and the first hobbit movie. I'm really looking forward to the next one. Are any of you who didn't like this first one not going to see the second one?

[rant/]
P.S. ( I realise that I was comparing changes from three lotr movies vs one hobbit movie, but still.)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey opinions, SPOILERS!

Who is online