What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Who has seen the Hobbit?

ScoobyDoo said:
You do realize that most of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit is people, dwarves, elves, hobbits traveling on foot from place to place, right?

I watched the first film again last night in extended Blu-Ray form. I like it even more than I did the first time. The foe hammer and the goblin cleaver along with Sting and it's glow may be my favorite parts of the first part.

Also, I love the ending to part two cause it coincides with the ending of part 1. You know the cliffhanger at the end of part 1 where they show the eye of the dragon? Total unnecessary but awesome none the less.

And it's never boring watching a wizard dual wield two two-handed weapons at the same time. Impossible in any D&D ruleset.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the ending to part 1...that makes sense. It is a hint what is to come. It is not even close to what happened at the end of 2 where they spend 30 minutes fighting Smaug then he leaves to destroy Laketown and Bilbo just watches...

You want a parallel...it would be Smaug defeated and Bilbo and the Elves happy only to have a character say something like "I fear there is more misfortune ahead of us" or some such nonsense. There you get an actual ending (you know, closure of a narrative) with a hint of what is to come. It is way less insulting to the average fan and still gets the point across...not unlike when Gollum hints at Shelob in TT without us actually seeing her.
 
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

Handyman said:
I have no problem with the ending to part 1...that makes sense. It is a hint what is to come. It is not even close to what happened at the end of 2 where they spend 30 minutes fighting Smaug then he leaves to destroy Laketown and Bilbo just watches...

You want a parallel...it would be Smaug defeated and Bilbo and the Elves happy only to have a character say something like "I fear there is more misfortune ahead of us" or some such nonsense. There you get an actual ending (you know, closure of a narrative) with a hint of what is to come. It is way less insulting to the average fan and still gets the point across...not unlike when Gollum hints at Shelob in TT without us actually seeing her.
Click to expand...

I think this ending is no different then any of the others. In fact I think it's better. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think you going nuts about such a small thing is telling. It's not even in the top 10 for things that are actually wrong with the movie.

The other thing that's not in the top 10 is it's too long for the book. Of course if you had spent any time understanding the context of the books then you might understand that. The movies are not being made in the same manner as the book was written. It would have been interesting to see it done that way but I doubt you'd see many people in the theater.
 
Last edited:
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

ScoobyDoo said:
I think this ending is no different then any of the others. In fact I think it's better. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think you going nuts about such a small thing is telling. It's not even in the top 10 for things that are actually wrong with the movie.

The other thing that's not in the top 10 is it's too long for the book. Of course if you had spent any time understanding the context of the books then you might understand that. The movies are not being made in the same manner as the book was written. It would have been interesting to see it done that way but I doubt you'd see many people in the theater.
Click to expand...

I find that ever since the first movie came out in 2001 when I read the book I think, "I'm 120 pages in and we're STILL in the Shire."
 
ScoobyDoo said:
I think this ending is no different then any of the others. In fact I think it's better. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think you going nuts about such a small thing is telling. It's not even in the top 10 for things that are actually wrong with the movie.

The other thing that's not in the top 10 is it's too long for the book. Of course if you had spent any time understanding the context of the books then you might understand that. The movies are not being made in the same manner as the book was written. It would have been interesting to see it done that way but I doubt you'd see many people in the theater.
Click to expand...

The context of the book? You said it yourself it is a CHILDREN'S BOOK! Context my left foot that is just another way for fanboys to justify depth where there is none.

Answer honestly, dont you think they could have cut say 30 minutes out of each movie so far (put them on the DVD extended editions) and not lost a beat? Dont you think they could have moved the story a long a bit further? Dont you think a third movie that basically was all about the council and the battle that it could be looking at epic status? Personally I would have cut half the dinner at Bilbo's out, a lot of the running and had the Dwarves and Gandalf separate at Mirkwood to end the first flick. Keep the same cliffhanger. The second movie then is almost all the same minus Smaug dying at Laketown. Third movie is the battle.

Remember Scooby it isnt just me complaining...
 
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

Handyman said:
The context of the book? You said it yourself it is a CHILDREN'S BOOK! Context my left foot that is just another way for fanboys to justify depth where there is none.

Answer honestly, dont you think they could have cut say 30 minutes out of each movie so far (put them on the DVD extended editions) and not lost a beat? Dont you think they could have moved the story a long a bit further? Dont you think a third movie that basically was all about the council and the battle that it could be looking at epic status? Personally I would have cut half the dinner at Bilbo's out, a lot of the running and had the Dwarves and Gandalf separate at Mirkwood to end the first flick. Keep the same cliffhanger. The second movie then is almost all the same minus Smaug dying at Laketown. Third movie is the battle.

Remember Scooby it isnt just me complaining...
Click to expand...
Oh please, you could cut a decade of time off the LOTR movies and a full movie of time they spent adding and modifying things. Not one person complains half as loudly as those as they do about these movies.

If they left the barrel scene as it was in the book people would be complaining about how boring it was. If they tried to cram it down to one movie because it's just a children's book then you'd be complaining on how they had to skip something. You knew going in that this was going to be a ****ing trilogy, what the **** did you expect them to fill the time up with except every excess piece of information that came out afterwards, tie-ins to the prior trilogy, and all the stuff Tolkien didn't describe because he hadn't gone as detail crazy as he did when he wrote the lotr!


<img src=http://s28.postimg.org/wosn1lzwt/Rage_o.gif></src>
 
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

Priceless said:
The big one that bugged me is that the orcs in the first movie (and presumably in this one) walk in broad daylight. This is completely counter to Tolkien-lore. In the first movie of the LOTR saga, they make a point of saying that Saruman's orcs are special because they walk in the light. However, I am willing to overlook a few things in the interpretation of books to film.
Click to expand...

It hadn't bothered me in the first movie, but for this one, it had me thinking: since when do Orcs walk about in the daylight. And then I remembered from the LOTR movies, how Saruman was breeding a new type of Orc who could be about in the day, which was fine for that series, and I guess why it never registered for me in the first Hobbit film. But that's still some 60 years to come from this film, and just the sheer number of Orcs out in the daylight was a bit too much for me in this film. . So yeah, that's the one thing that bugs me the most about these Hobbit films. It should have been easy enough to have all this Orc action take place at night, if Jackson just had to do it.
 
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

Handyman said:
I have no problem with the ending to part 1...that makes sense. It is a hint what is to come. It is not even close to what happened at the end of 2 where they spend 30 minutes fighting Smaug then he leaves to destroy Laketown and Bilbo just watches...
Click to expand...

Right. Smaug just flies away from his treasure hoard, leaving Bilbo and a dozen dwarves free to search for the Arkenstone at will. As well as cart off whatever else they felt like.
 
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

I didn't even realize The Hobbit was in the same universe as Lord of the Rings until about two months ago.
 
Foxton said:
Oh please, you could cut a decade of time off the LOTR movies and a full movie of time they spent adding and modifying things. Not one person complains half as loudly as those as they do about these movies.

If they left the barrel scene as it was in the book people would be complaining about how boring it was. If they tried to cram it down to one movie because it's just a children's book then you'd be complaining on how they had to skip something. You knew going in that this was going to be a ****ing trilogy, what the **** did you expect them to fill the time up with except every excess piece of information that came out afterwards, tie-ins to the prior trilogy, and all the stuff Tolkien didn't describe because he hadn't gone as detail crazy as he did when he wrote the lotr!


<img src=http://s28.postimg.org/wosn1lzwt/Rage_o.gif></src>
Click to expand...

Wow I know you are used to being wrong all the time but this is gold even for you! If the barrel scene was shorter I would not have cared.

This is exactly what I expected which is the problem.

Nice worthless rant though...
 
Gurtholfin said:
Don't throw your "facts" at me! :p


I don't recently.
Click to expand...

Hey I hadnt even posted in this thread of late until Gurt reminded me. Then Scooby had to get all fanboyish. Kinda reminded me of the nerds I know who get mad if you say Batman cant beat up Superman so I gotta keep poking him about it :D
 
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

Handyman said:
Hey I hadnt even posted in this thread of late until Gurt reminded me. Then Scooby had to get all fanboyish. Kinda reminded me of the nerds I know who get mad if you say Batman cant beat up Superman so I gotta keep poking him about it :D
Click to expand...

If Batman didn't have any kryptonite, how would he beat up Superman?
 
Foxton said:
Oh please, you could cut a decade of time off the LOTR movies and a full movie of time they spent adding and modifying things. Not one person complains half as loudly as those as they do about these movies.
Click to expand...
(I'm sorry, but this argument means less to me than when idiots use the "You shouldn't expect it to be an Oscar-winning period drama" argument to defend Michael Bay movies.)

That's because the variations made in the LotR films were (mostly) better for the narrative and other than seeing Gimli as little more than comic relief none of the characterization and overall tone was lost. You can't say the same for these Hobbit films. In fact, I think the tone and amount of time spent building characters is more akin to King Kong and the Adventures of Tintin than it is to the LotR trilogy, if we need to compare it to Jackson's earlier work.

Or, to put it another way: Most of the things I didn't like about the LotR films were problems carried over from the books (chief among them that the Deus ex Army of the Dead was kept in the story), and are vastly outweighed by the strengths of the films. Meanwhile, most of the things I am not enjoying about The Hobbit (the suspense-free, cheesy action sequences, the decision to abandon most of the character arcs from the book in favor of broad, easy to digest cliches) are adaptation choices, and those problems are dominating the new films.
 
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
(I'm sorry, but this argument means less to me than when idiots use the "You shouldn't expect it to be an Oscar-winning period drama" argument to defend Michael Bay movies.)

That's because the variations made in the LotR films were (mostly) better for the narrative and other than seeing Gimli as little more than comic relief none of the characterization and overall tone was lost. You can't say the same for these Hobbit films. In fact, I think the tone and amount of time spent building characters is more akin to King Kong and the Adventures of Tintin than it is to the LotR trilogy, if we need to compare it to Jackson's earlier work.
Click to expand...
I can and will say the same for the Hobbit films and the LOTR ones. It's the same types of changes, cuts, and expansions to make people walking form point a to point b more palatable to a movie audience.

For instance, if you want to complain about there being a fight around the barrels as the dwarves make their escape, you better be willing to also complain about the added attack on the caravan of refugees only Eowyn was supposed to be leading during the Two Towers? There are no wargs attacking, the three main characters are not there protecting it, and there is no horse saving Aragorn in the book. Exact same kind of addition but in the Hobbit suddenly OH **** can't have that!

Orcs in the forest/day? How about Elves at Helms Deep?

If you seriously think there is some great difference to how they've adapted things then you are the worst kind of fanboy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top