Unrelated to anything else I've posted on this thread: when the Wood-Elves were shown bringing food supplies to the starving Laketown survivors, it looked as if the food shipment consisted almost entirely of ROMAINE LETTUCE! This is going WAY too far on their vegetarian-elves idea. People facing winter in a cold climate need something to eat with some CALORIES!

I don't clearly remember anything about hunting parties in The Hobbit, but from what I do remember, none of the races of Middle Earth was entirely vegetarian. In The Silmarillion Beren resorted to a vegetarian lifestyle while hiding from Morgoth because the birds and animals of the area had helped him. His decision is treated as unusual, and he seems to have resumed eating meat once he moved from that area. Later, I believe he either hunts with the Elves, encounters Elves hunting, or both.
 
Having finally watched the last of The Hobbit movies recently, I have to say it's been a forgettable experience - as in I'm going to pretend I never saw them. When it was announced that Peter Jackson would be directing these movies I thought it'd be a slam dunk given the masterful work he did with the LOTR trilogy. Not so. I understand stretching a relatively short children's novel into three big-budget films presented challenges and the need for alot of creative license, but not things I would've come up with as a 14-year-old dungeon master (D&D reference) back in the day.
 
LOL - really? I enjoyed all the films. I thought the stuff PJ added to The Hobbit was mostly taken from the LOTR appendices and the Simarillion )sp? sorry!).

Nothing too much seemed gratuitous to me. What in particular did you find hokey?
 
I found the double peg-legged troll to be hokey. Also, and I cannot say this enough, Azog is supposed to be dead! Dain slew him at the Battle of Azanulbizar!
 
I cannot say this enough, Azog is supposed to be dead! Dain slew him at the Battle of Azanulbizar!
Yes they did play with that aspect of the story ... but I didn't mind too much. The only part I didn't like was how they let him beat the snot out of Thorin and then Bilbo rescued him. Thorin was better than that.
 
LOL - really? I enjoyed all the films. I thought the stuff PJ added to The Hobbit was mostly taken from the LOTR appendices and the Simarillion )sp? sorry!).

Nothing too much seemed gratuitous to me. What in particular did you find hokey?

Several things - the white orc, how Thorin died, the all-star assemblage of heroes at Dol Guldur, the forced love interest between fili or kili and whats her name, Legolas continuing to be the one-elf-wrecking-crew and more deadly than the one ring it would seem, that whole awkward and shoehorned scene between Legolas and his dad and "oh btw, you should seek out this ranger from the north." (why?)

I think to sum it up - the movie tried too hard to be epic when the story really isn't. There and Back Again, a Hobbit's Holiday.
 
Several things - the white orc, how Thorin died, the all-star assemblage of heroes at Dol Guldur, the forced love interest between fili or kili and whats her name, Legolas continuing to be the one-elf-wrecking-crew and more deadly than the one ring it would seem, that whole awkward and shoehorned scene between Legolas and his dad and "oh btw, you should seek out this ranger from the north." (why?) **

I think to sum it up - the movie tried too hard to be epic when the story really isn't. There and Back Again, a Hobbit's Holiday.

** Yes, really why, given that if you check out the LotR appendices you will find out that Aragorn was aged 10 at the time...
 
"The all-star assemblage of heroes at Dol Guldur" was the least objectionable part of it - that is exactly where Gandalf was and what he was up to and with whom, while he was absent from Thorin's quest between Beorn and the Battle of Five Armies. However, the parts about Radagast being the one to stumble across the Necromancer, or Gandalf being taken prisoner, are completely made up. Gandalf went to the Necromancer's stronghold years before (it was where he got the key to the secret door from Thrain, though he was unable to save him) and he studiously avoided becoming a prisoner either then or later.

As to the Five Armies, mentioned above, the book itself lists them: Goblins and Wargs on one side, Dwarves, Elves and Men on the other. End of. :p
 
Last edited:
"The all-star assemblage of heroes at Dol Guldur" was the least objectionable part of it - that is exactly where Gandalf was and what he was up to and with whom, while he was absent from Thorin's quest between Beorn and the Battle of Five Armies. However, the parts about Radagast being the one to stumble across the Necromancer, or Gandalf being taken prisoner, are completely made up. Gandalf went to the Necromancer's stronghold years before (it was where he got the key to the secret door from Thrain, though he was unable to save him) and he studiously avoided becoming a prisoner either then or later.

As to the Five Armies, mentioned above, the book itself lists them: Goblins and Wargs on one side, Dwarves, Elves and Men on the other. End of. :p

You forgot about how the Nazgul were never killed. They faded due to their usage of the Nine Rings. There are no tombs.
 
You forgot about how the Nazgul were never killed. They faded due to their usage of the Nine Rings. There are no tombs.

You're right, I forgot that altogether.

That said, there's no reason why a tomb actually has to have anyone in it - you can put up a memorial tomb to your immortal wizard-king who no-one has seen for centuries. Or even one who has faded but is still ruling your kingdom very effectively and decides it's about time he had a tomb.

Stuff that was in the book (LotR appendix): Gandalf meets Thorin in Bree and starts to float the idea of the whole expedition, because he is aware that Sauron is starting to make a move again and Gandalf really wants Smaug out of the picture. Gandalf points Thorin in the direction of the Shire because a hobbit will offer Smaug something out of his experience, as well as being far stealthier than a dwarf.

Stuff that wasn't, in addition to what I noticed above:

Gandalf wants Thorin to recover the Arkenstone in order to reunite the dwarven nations. (Having the dwarves reunited and in Erebor is highly desirable, but Thorin is already known to be the rightful King of Durin's line and this is not remotely in dispute).
Smaug has the ghost of an idea what the One Ring even is. (Never hinted at even in retrofit.)
 
Not everything ADDED TO the movies was bad; for instance, I positively liked Bard the Bowman having children of his own to care about. But I was and am extremely irritated by something that was LEFT OUT-- namely, the whole character and significance of Beorn. In place of the character Tolkien wrote, they inserted some geek who couldn't control his own behavior in animal shape. The ACTUAL Beorn was a great lord, in full command of himself; and-- unlike the movie Beorn-- DID get to do something worth noticing in the Battle of Five Armies.

Hey, Jackson, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
 
Yes, Tolkien hinted, through Gandalf, that it was best not to stumble upon Beorn in the wild and that they should heed his warning to stay indoors at night, but Jackson had to have them chased around by a bear in order to make the point. Completely ruined the character. The actual interaction with Beorn works just fine in the book and Jackson could have used it if he hadn't been determined to shoehorn in everything he could make up.
 
Not everything ADDED TO the movies was bad

Exactly. And I'm not using Tolkien's works as a whole to judge the Hobbit movies either. Bad is bad. Some of Tolkien's stuff is ill-conceived (heresy? oh well). Tom Bombadil? It just doesn't fit to the point of being jarring. The scouring of the shire? Talk about anti-climactic.

Peter Jackson using Arwen (perfectly cast with Liv Tyler) and what she did at the river with the black riders instead of some no-name elf (yes, Glorfindel) who is never heard from again, is a perfect of example of an addition or change improving the story. That's one of the greatest scenes in movie history IMO.

But yeah, I stand by my criticisms of The Hobbit movies.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. And I'm not using Tolkien's works as a whole to judge the Hobbit movies either. Bad is bad. Some of Tolkien's stuff is ill-conceived (heresy? oh well). Tom Bombadil? It just doesn't fit to the point of being jarring. The scouring of the shire? Talk about anti-climactic.

Peter Jackson using Arwen (perfectly cast with Liv Tyler) and what she did at the river with the black riders instead of some no-name elf (yes, Glorfindel) who is never heard from again, is a perfect of example of an addition or change improving the story. That's one of the greatest scenes in movie history IMO.

But yeah, I stand by my criticisms of The Hobbit movies.

I'm tempted to do the tedious thing and argue with every single thing you posted :D but I'll confine myself to disagreeing about the Scouring. The War doesn't end tidily with the downfall of Sauron and the hobbits have grown up enough to sort out their own messes - important character development that adds interest IMO. Merry and Pippin at the outset of the story, even though they were helpful and loyal, could never have inspired and organised a rebellion again an evil occupying force. After all they've done and seen on the quest, they manage to make it into a curb-stomp battle despite the Men's massively superior size and strength.
 
I'm tempted to do the tedious thing and argue with every single thing you posted :D but I'll confine myself to disagreeing about the Scouring. The War doesn't end tidily with the downfall of Sauron

Of course it didn't, and WWII didn't end tidily in Europe with the surrender of Germany either. There were still pockets of resistance. But I didn't see that in Band of Brothers. In other words, it adds nothing to the story. When newly-crowned Aragorn in Minas Tirith said to the hobbits "My friends, you bow to no one" and the whole assemblage takes their knee to our friends from the shire, it should've faded to black. THAT was the ending.
 
Of course it didn't, and WWII didn't end tidily in Europe with the surrender of Germany either. There were still pockets of resistance. But I didn't see that in Band of Brothers. In other words, it adds nothing to the story. When newly-crowned Aragorn in Minas Tirith said to the hobbits "My friends, you bow to no one" and the whole assemblage takes their knee to our friends from the shire, it should've faded to black. THAT was the ending.

What it would add to the story in Band of Brothers I could not possibly tell you, but I've told you what it adds to the story in LotR; The hobbits return home to find that they have grown up, and even Gandalf, who will have had an inkling that there was something in the wind, is happy to take his leave and let Frodo and company find out what the matter is, secure in his confidence that they will handle it.

I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed the closing chapters of Book Six back when I first read LotR lo, these forty years ago. Tolkien neatly resolved even the quite minor plot threads such as Eomer and Gimli's difference of opinion over Galadriel, or what would become of the Wild Men in return for their help. Maybe Jackson finished the film untidily, but that is not IMNSHO down to including too much Tolkien. :)
 
I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed the closing chapters of Book Six back when I first read LotR lo, these forty years ago.

I did too when I first read it when I was 11 or 12. But in hindsight, I tend to pick things apart (the Hobbit movies were just a mess from the get go IMO, but I've covered that).

In the Scouring, the once mighty Saruman is reduced to lording over hobbits in hobbiton and going by "Sharky?" Why didn't Tolkien make him a real joykill bartender in Bree instead.

It happens, the man who brought us Star Wars and Empire brought us Jar-Jar and the prequels.

There's a cutting room floor and the equivalent for books for a reason.
 
Back
Top