|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lio
Menegroth
Feb 27 2013, 1:30am
Post #1 of 31
(1061 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Love-it-or-hate-it things in The Hobbit AUJ
|
Can't Post
|
|
So, I've been thinking about the individual things in the movie that received mixed responses from fans, as opposed to other aspects that seem to be widely liked (the Riddles in the Dark scene) or disliked (it seems that many people thought the Stone Giants scene was a bit much). We've already had some interesting threads about the latter two over the past couple of weeks or so. So now I'm looking for things that were both loved and hated!
Here are some examples what I'm talking about:
- Radagast. His overall portrayal, and things like the stick bug gag and bunny sled, which some people seemed to love but others hate. Personally I'm pro-bunny sled but it would have been nice to see a bit more of Radagast's serious, powerful side. We should have a reason to fear and respect him as a Wizard.
- Azog. His survival and design seem to be drawing a lot of ire from some, but others think he's cool. I like him as a character myself so in a way I was glad he's going to stick around a bit. But some of the changes in history that were necessary for this to happen kind of bug me.
 - The Goblin King. I recall reading some posts of people saying they disliked his portrayal, but I can't remember the specific reasons given. Personally I love his "drama queen" personality that is at once menacing and goofy. But I'd like to get other people's thoughts.
- The final moments with Azog, Thorin, and Bilbo.The scenes from Thorin walking off that tree to his not-really-angry speech were really awesome! Or were they extremely cheesy? I kind of a agree that the way things played out was a bit conventional (did anyone doubt that Bilbo would save Thorin or that Thorin would finally accept him?) and the whole thing felt like a last-minute climax because there had to be one. But, eh, I can live with it.
- The scenes with old Bilbo and Frodo. I liked seeing them again with familiar faces leading into the new movie, but I can see how others thought they were unnecessary.
- Hmm, what else? I'll leave the rest for others to come up with.
I don't especially mean to start another debate topic, just compile a list of what some of those love/hate things are and get people's opinions of them. To reiterate, this thread should be for opinions about things that have received mixed feelings from fans, not individual likes/dislikes. (And I realize that for every little thing there are going to be people who love it and people who hate it, but I hope everyone knows what I mean by a mixed reception?)
Anyway, whether you think Radagast's bunny sled was the best thing ever or the fakey CGI ruined the scene for you, this is the place to speak up! 
Want to chat? AIM me at Yami Liokaiser!
|
|
|
billzy2
Lindon
Feb 27 2013, 2:24am
Post #2 of 31
(748 views)
Shortcut
|
I personally was hoping to see a young Aragorn in Rivendell, but alas,
|
|
|
Kullervo
Ossiriand
Feb 27 2013, 3:32am
Post #3 of 31
(706 views)
Shortcut
|
I liked almost all of those things you listed ( I even liked the stone giants, altough I do admit it doesn't add much to the plot or to the characters, so I see why people might dislike it, but it just looked so spectacular. It was like the Balrog in FotR, if you take out Gandalfs fall of the bridge, it would have still been good, just not great.)
The only thing I would peronally cut out of the movie is Frodo's cameo. The opening of the movie would flow much better if after the prologue we went straight to young bilbo smoking his pipe in front of Bag End, where the actual story begins. But even that doesn't bother me that much, and I can understand why he is there, he is a familiar face to bring us back to the middle earth of the movies.
(This post was edited by Kullervo on Feb 27 2013, 3:32am)
|
|
|
Barrow-Wight
Nargothrond
Feb 27 2013, 3:34am
Post #4 of 31
(718 views)
Shortcut
|
I heard that there was a scene filmed in Rivendell where Gandalf and Elrond were walking and Gandalf notices a little boy looking at a waterfall or something and Gandalf smiles at him. that kinda brings up timeline issues though considering what they've done in LOTR Aragorn would be 27 but I don't know. I'll try to find the article though.
|
|
|
Mahtion
Ossiriand
Feb 27 2013, 3:58am
Post #5 of 31
(677 views)
Shortcut
|
In his introduction we as the audience immediately see his role as protector of the forest and in the subsequent scene we see that he is both sensitive to suffering of animals and his immense innate power. The attempts at saving Sebestian's life is crucial to Radagast's portrayal as one who is both tenacious and compassionate. After several natural remedies finally Radagast realizes he must contend with darker forces and he summons the ability of the Ainur In a solemn and poignant display of his power as Radagast the Brown. Despite all the inane moments and zanny lapses into comedy, Radagast has already demonstrated his capabilities and true nature. Part of the rustic charm of Radagast as a sensitive wildlife loving buffon is a parallel of Gandalf as a elderly and wizened traveler with a soft spot for pipe smoking and leisure among company of the insignificant. The two Istari go to great lengths to not take life too seriously and rely on feeling more than logic or machinations like the crafty and astute Curunir/Saruman. Radagast and Gandalf are adorned in the form of old eccentric men who contain sparks of the Holy light of Aman, their forms belie their true nature as Maiar and the personas they have developed serve as personalized adaptions to life as mortal beings.
|
|
|
billzy2
Lindon
Feb 27 2013, 4:27am
Post #6 of 31
(671 views)
Shortcut
|
Sir Peter has never let a little thing like a person's age according to the book get in his way if he decides it needs changing.
|
|
|
Barrow-Wight
Nargothrond
Feb 27 2013, 5:55am
Post #7 of 31
(642 views)
Shortcut
|
Yeah that's true I forgot about Merry Pippin & Sam
|
|
|
swordwhale
Dor-Lomin
Feb 27 2013, 6:08am
Post #8 of 31
(646 views)
Shortcut
|
I have mixed feelings about Thorin appearing to berate Bilbo then ... le hug... except that I know people like that.. except it seems a bit typical cliche plot thing... except I know people who are just like that....
I admit there are one or two moments when the Radagast/sled CG (out in the open) doesn't quite work perfectly, but every time I see the film I want to scream BUNNYSLEDDING at the top of my lungs and HIKE! HIKE!!! BUNNIES!!! Of course I'm the only musher in the audience....
...not as sure about the whole stick bug thing...
...am sure that Sylvester McCoy is awesome...
troll snot... I dunno, I think every twelve year old who saw this loved it... there is seriously a missing scene (done nicely in fanart) of Bilbo washing in the nearest stream...
I happen to like how the Goblin King breaks the stereotype of the Stupid Barbarian goblin... he's much scarier as a mutated corrupt but eloquent/ intelligent beast...
Some of the action seemed over the top the first time I saw the film... as in "nobody would survive that!" Then I considered the whimsical nature of the book, the possible "embellishment" (as Gandalf notes: all good tales deserve some embellishment) by Bilbo, who is our narrator... and the fact that none of the main characters are normal humans...
Go outside and play...
|
|
|
BalrogTrainer
Ossiriand
Feb 27 2013, 7:14am
Post #9 of 31
(625 views)
Shortcut
|
... Thorin (oldest dwarf in the book, but seemingly somewhere in the middle in the movies) and Ori (suddenly the youngest in the movies instead of Fili/Kili  ).
|
|
|
Súlimë
Ossiriand
Feb 27 2013, 7:28am
Post #10 of 31
(632 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't have a huge problem with any of these things:
- Radagast
- Bunny sled
- Stick insect
- Azog being alive
- Excessive snot (though a bit less would be great)
- Unnecessary appearance of Frodo
I actually liked:
- the final showdown between Thorin and Azog
- the hug (I was thinking that anyone could see it coming, but it was still 'awww that's so sweet' for me)
However, the whole Goblin Town sequence just didn't sit well with me, no matter how many times I watched it. Now that I've thought about it, I guess the whole thing felt a bit non-consequential. Although the trolls were funny, I felt they were a real threat. With the Goblins, nothing felt really dangerous or threatening. I know I might be alone in this, but since the Goblin King was threatening them with torture, I want the situation to be a bit more hopeless before Gandalf arrives (like maybe the Goblins are already starting to drag Ori to the torture machine and the rest of the dwarves are struggling to free themselves to help him but to no avail). This I think will make Gandalf's entrance more spectacular, and the non-stop Goblin-slaughter afterwards somewhat justified...
Anyway, to keep with the intent of your original post, I think I'd like to add: The White Council :)
I think that one received mixed reaction?
|
|
|
Glum
Nevrast
Feb 27 2013, 9:55am
Post #11 of 31
(604 views)
Shortcut
|
Radagast was a great character, IMHO. He was both funny and serious, I really felt respect torawds him when I saw him in Dol Guldur. Or when he was trying to bring that hedgehog back to life in Rhosgobel. I had an impression he was a true Maia during these scenes (which he is ;-)). No problem with his bunnysled or the tip of toungue quote. I hope to see more of him in the next movie(s)
Regarding Azog, he saved the movie for me. It wouldve been pointless to make a triology without this new plot. It is a complete departure from the book but it makes the quest much more adventurous. I just cant complain here. I especially liked the scene with the orcs on wargs prior to Rivendell, dunno why, I just enjoyed it :)
The Goblin King didnt look bad at all but it all went wrong when he said "Thatll do it." So unbelievably stupid. I just have to live with it...
I was positively surprised by the tree scene, I didnt expect this conclusion! I didnt care it had nothing in common with the cannon, it felt like an perfect ending of AUJ.
Unfortunately, the scene with Frodo and Bilbo wasnt much entertaining, but on the other hand, how do we know it is unneccessary? I think that judgments like this should be said after weve seen the whole triology, shouldnt they?
Well, if it is really true than most of us didnt like the Giants scene, Im in the minority, then :) It was nice to see how Thorin was terrified that several of his companions might have died. And very sad to hear what he thought of Bilbo :( If there had been no stone giants, we probably wouldnt have seen these little Thorin bits.
I also think that many people consider the White Council scene a bit unneccessary. Again, we should wait for the next movies before we can say something like this.
And some people feel that the Bag End scene was too long. I might agree with that, it wasnt boring, but it couldve been 3 minutes shorter in the theatrical version.
|
|
|
DanielLB
Elvenhome
Feb 27 2013, 11:06am
Post #12 of 31
(570 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think that was only fan speculation.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It would confuse the general audience as well.
|
|
|
Glum
Nevrast
Feb 27 2013, 11:47am
Post #13 of 31
(566 views)
Shortcut
|
Im sorry but I just dont get why we should think that some things in the Hobbit actually happened in a different way because Bilbo narrates the story. It would ruin the movie for me, I want it to be real. I wouldnt like to watch the movie if I knew that there werent so many Goblins or that the Giants were much more smaller. I would feel cheated Everything was real in LOTR, why should TH be different? Unless PJ mentions something like you suggest, there is no reason to think that we dont see reality in certain parts of AUJ
And there is also another thing - Bilbo actually narrates only the Erebor sequence. We dont see or hear him narrating the main story, or do we? All we can see is old Bilbo smoking the pipe, then the sky and smoke above him and suddenly there is his young version sitting on the bench. But there is no real narration by old Bilbo concerning the quest, no voiceover, no scene of him... But these are just my thoughts, I accept that you see it another way
|
|
|
arithmancer
Hithlum
Feb 27 2013, 1:22pm
Post #14 of 31
(536 views)
Shortcut
|
We do see Bilbo sitting down to write the story of his adventure at the very start...I think that is where the interpretation that the narrative may be embellished is coming from, along with the statement by Gandalf to young Bilbo at Bag End that all good stories deserve embellishment.
Personally I'm not bothered by this either way. I am happy to think of the story as embellished, and equally happy to think that characters survive long falls, etc. through incredible luck, Middle Earth physiology differences, magic, the Hand of Fate, etc. as the mood takes me. Because none of it is "real".
|
|
|
Rostron2
Mithlond
Feb 27 2013, 3:29pm
Post #15 of 31
(507 views)
Shortcut
|
I would probably have cut the Old Bilbo/Young Frodo and gone to a voice over if you need to tie the old Bilbo with the new.I'm not a big fan of the bookend device. I may take it back if this is well executed, but I really don't see what else there is to do for those two characters at the very end of TABA. We already know its near party time.
|
|
|
cats16
Gondolin
Feb 27 2013, 4:17pm
Post #16 of 31
(496 views)
Shortcut
|
I suggested that Bilbo and Frodo have different ways of storytelling, and the different tones of TH and LOTR account for this. I still stand by this proposal. When two unique people write two different stories, the story usually is expressed in dissimilar ways. Especially because Bilbo wrote his story before the "war-times" of LOTR. I think Bilbo's narration represents the whimsical, fantastic story that our grandparents tell us when we visit them. (Ahem, Gandalf's story about Bullroarer Took.) Frodo wrote his story after World War Middle Earth-style, and based on his traumatic experience, his story should be pretty darn raw and realistic. He documented his story in a certain style and so did Bilbo. Yes, Tolkien wrote the novels and we all know that backstory over the different styles of TH and LOTR. But I like to think of the stories and the films like we have two distinct stories told by different people in the same universe.
Simply my opinion. I totally see your point, though. That's just how I see it.
|
|
|
swordwhale
Dor-Lomin
Feb 27 2013, 4:28pm
Post #17 of 31
(481 views)
Shortcut
|
|
let me rephrase that... actually....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Im sorry but I just dont get why we should think that some things in the Hobbit actually happened in a different way because Bilbo narrates the story. It would ruin the movie for me, I want it to be real. I wouldnt like to watch the movie if I knew that there werent so many Goblins or that the Giants were much more smaller. I would feel cheated Everything was real in LOTR, why should TH be different? Unless PJ mentions something like you suggest, there is no reason to think that we dont see reality in certain parts of AUJ And there is also another thing - Bilbo actually narrates only the Erebor sequence. We dont see or hear him narrating the main story, or do we? All we can see is old Bilbo smoking the pipe, then the sky and smoke above him and suddenly there is his young version sitting on the bench. But there is no real narration by old Bilbo concerning the quest, no voiceover, no scene of him... But these are just my thoughts, I accept that you see it another way
...the thing that blew Life of Pi apart for me (arrrrrgggghhhh!) and my buddy, was that business of..."Oh, wait, it didn't happen just this way..." beautiful film, lovely acting, wonderful CG... then... "oh, wait that wasn't quite how it went..."
I, too, expect that what I see in the story is real (within the boundaries of the Story)...when I step across the threshold of the Book or the Film, when I open the first chapter, when the lights go down, I am seeing the True Tale. I always felt that way about Hobbit and LOTR, films too... what we see is how it went down... especially when you SEE it onscreen! It just occurred to me that some might see some of that as Bilbo's "enhancements" (it might possibly be one explanation, kind of like that UFO might have been a guy in a lawn chair with a lot of balloons tied to it). I really do prefer to think that the slightly "over the top" moments are due to the fact that there's still much more magic in the Middle Earth of the Hobbit (vs the slightly less magical, more World of Men of LOTR), and that Dwarves (and Hobbits) are just way tougher than I could ever hope to be. And that PJ has a sense of humor much like Bofur's.
The more I see it, the more I like it. I also suspect the next two films might leak towards the LOTR sensibility, a tad more serious.
Go outside and play...
|
|
|
swordwhale
Dor-Lomin
Feb 27 2013, 4:33pm
Post #18 of 31
(496 views)
Shortcut
|
In his introduction we as the audience immediately see his role as protector of the forest and in the subsequent scene we see that he is both sensitive to suffering of animals and his immense innate power. The attempts at saving Sebestian's life is crucial to Radagast's portrayal as one who is both tenacious and compassionate. After several natural remedies finally Radagast realizes he must contend with darker forces and he summons the ability of the Ainur In a solemn and poignant display of his power as Radagast the Brown. Despite all the inane moments and zanny lapses into comedy, Radagast has already demonstrated his capabilities and true nature. Part of the rustic charm of Radagast as a sensitive wildlife loving buffon is a parallel of Gandalf as a elderly and wizened traveler with a soft spot for pipe smoking and leisure among company of the insignificant. The two Istari go to great lengths to not take life too seriously and rely on feeling more than logic or machinations like the crafty and astute Curunir/Saruman. Radagast and Gandalf are adorned in the form of old eccentric men who contain sparks of the Holy light of Aman, their forms belie their true nature as Maiar and the personas they have developed serve as personalized adaptions to life as mortal beings.
I don't think I can add anything to that. You may have hit on something here... this is only the first film, and even more than LOTR, it is part one of a single tale... some of these bits will make more sense in the grand context of the whole tale.
Go outside and play...
|
|
|
Glum
Nevrast
Feb 27 2013, 6:39pm
Post #19 of 31
(455 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, I see your point. But I've never had an impression that LOTR movies have their storyteller. I've never felt that what we see on screen is in any way Frodo's narration. And the same goes for the AUJ. The only bits that I consider being narrated are the Prologue in FOTR and the Prologue in AUJ :) Anyway, thank you for your explanation ;-)
|
|
|
Hamfast of Gamwich
Ossiriand
Feb 27 2013, 8:26pm
Post #20 of 31
(444 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Aragorn actually says his age in the trilogy though...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and AUJ has a '60 years earlier' caption at the start so it'd be a bit odd if he was a child.
|
|
|
Hamfast of Gamwich
Ossiriand
Feb 27 2013, 8:30pm
Post #21 of 31
(439 views)
Shortcut
|
I reckon the Frodo/Bilbo scene would definitely have been cut from the theatrical release if it weren't for the fact they made quite a big thing out of Elijah Wood's involvement in the promotion.
It adds nothing to the film and in my opinion is largely responsible for the feeling of spending too long in Bag End at the start of the film. That is only a personal opinion though, that is what skip buttons on DVD remotes are made for I guess!
|
|
|
Hamfast of Gamwich
Ossiriand
Feb 27 2013, 10:19pm
Post #23 of 31
(438 views)
Shortcut
|
I think we'll still see the old Thorin in the next film. All that really happened was he accepted Bilbo. He'll still treat other characters (elves, Beorn?) like he treated Bilbo in AUJ.
|
|
|
|
|
1
