Amph The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, The Desolation of Smaug, Battle of the Five Armies

Discussion in 'Community' started by -Courtney-, Nov 25, 2006.

  1. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    I cannot in good conscience accept any accolades. I was reading that book when you were in diapers. ( Disregard if you wear adult diapers. )
  2. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Oh, so you're really old. That... doesn't explain much and in fact, makes things more confusing.
  3. tom Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    the thing is many years later in this peter jackson lord of the rings universe, when he reaches a crisis point gandalf goes to saruman for advice before he does anything else. lothlorien is a bit closer, he could have gone and talked to galadriel but he didn't. this is why it's so odd for them to think that their telepathic conversation should take precedence over what saruman, the head of gandalf's order is saying.
  4. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Lothlorien is only closer if you go through Moria or goblin territory. Overland it's farther.
  5. Mar17swgirl Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 26, 2000
    star 7
    Nope, Isengard is closer to Hobbiton than Lothlórien is, plus Saruman was considered to be an expert on the One Ring and Sauron.
  6. tom Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    but totally ok to ignore on all other matters? and lothlorien looks closer on maps. both are quite a distance to travel at any rate.
  7. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    The mountains are in the way.
  8. tom Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    right, but there's a pass. and this is straying so far from the point. the point being the scene was pointless, stupid, and annoying.
  9. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Which slows you down, even if nothing crazy happens.

    no
  10. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    It wasn't pointless, per se - we could state why they had that little gathering. But to go all meta-; it was added purely to accomplish two goals, being 1) pay fan-service, and 2) Pad the story out a little longer with this film's own version of the council of Elrond scene. The plot didn't need to be served by these four hanging out; however, the driving force had to have been "wouldn't be cool, if we had Galadriel, Saruman, Gandalf and Elrond chat?!!"

    Hence, why we complain of a lack of soul in the film.
  11. NYCitygurl NSWFF Manager

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2002
    star 9
    I'll admit to being one of those fans who thought it was cool. Right up until Saruman started in on poor Radagast.
    Last edited by NYCitygurl, Jan 5, 2013
  12. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    There's that whole problem with words meaning things. Don't fret - we'll see it again.

    Or there's always the truth: to continue the Dol Guldur/Necromancer plot.

    Because you're spending more time playing with your phone than paying attention?
    Master_Ysagon likes this.
  13. Force Smuggler Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    It's Saruman. Who cares?
  14. Legolas Skywalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 3, 2012
    star 6
  15. tom Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    pretty much everyone should care what saruman is saying at this point. i really hate how he was portrayed in that scene. he should be at the height of his powers here, and so much of his power comes from his voice and his ability to win people to his side. in jackson's hobbit he just comes across as bitchy, almost like he's already revealed that he's indeed evil.
  16. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    Saruman hates on Radagast in the FOTR novel, fwiw.
  17. NYCitygurl NSWFF Manager

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2002
    star 9
    His irrational Radagast dislike is canon but annoying :p
  18. Merlin_Ambrosius69 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2008
    star 5
    The meeting of the White Council re: Dol Guldur is referred to in Tolkien's The Hobbit and in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Jackson and company have dramatized what is referred to or summarized in the texts. The event is canonical, and while it may be "fan service" to depict these scenes on screen, it isn't "padding the story" because it already is the story.
    Mar17swgirl likes this.
  19. Merlin_Ambrosius69 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2008
    star 5
    He's skeptical and has a point from a purely evidential perspective. Skeptics are typically represented as unlikable in film and TV. We already know he's evil (or will become so not so far in the future) and I think your perception may be colored by that awareness. Also I suspect that Galdariel and Gandalf, being essentially super-powered, can divide their attention equally between listening to Saruman's "bitching" and to each other's telepathic canoodling.
    Rew, laurethiel1138 and Arawn_Fenn like this.
  20. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    self-proclaimed "skeptics" are typically unlikeable irl
    Ender_Sai likes this.
  21. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    :rolleyes:
  22. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
  23. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    It's relevant to the story; it isn't the actual story and since it relates more to the events in LOTR than this film, I think I'm ok with calling it "padding". Imagine you saw the film without that scene - is it worse off?
    Bacon164 likes this.
  24. laurethiel1138 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2003
    star 4
    In the context of AUJ, perhaps not, but if the other films actually show the Lorien forces battling those of Dol Guldur, say, at the same time as the Battle of the Five Armies, people will be hard-pressed to understand why it's so crucial, and why Galadriel goes out of her reserve and goes on the war path, so to speak. And in the even wider context of the LOTR trilogy and Middle-Earth, it will be interesting to see her go back to her Valinor roots, when she was still called Artanis (and even nicknamed Nerwen, the man-maiden, by her mother), and contrast it with her willing renouncement in FOTR.

    Cheers,
    Lauré :)
  25. Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 7
    Ok, here's my thoughts on the film, which will probably surprise many on both sides of the argument.

    First things first, I suppose, let's talk about the technical end. The whole Frame Rate kerfuffle added up to nothing; I didn't detect a single difference between this and every other movie I've seen in the theater this year. As to the pacing, I thought it was fine. The movie never seemed to drag to me and even the first hour was perfectly fine as regards not feeling padded. I thought the movie moved briskly and it certainly didn't feel anywhere near three hours long.

    As to the added material, I actually rather liked the White Council scene. Christopher Lee's entrance was absolutely perfect and I thought he nailed Saruman's pedantic jerkiness perfectly. Saruman really is quite the jerk, from what I've read of the texts. Radagast is another thing entirely. I didn't have a problem with the bird poop in the hair thing when I first heard about; silly me, I thought it would be subtle. Instead, Radagast seems to have a large white plate affixed to the side of his head most of the time. Also, the bunny sled is stupid. And let's not even get into the whole hedgehog scene. That was really awful. As to Azog and that whole plot thread, it didn't bother me. And, much as I disliked Radagast, I liked the brief appearance of the Necromancer.

    Now, as to the bits of the movie that come from the book, a few notes and then I'll sum up as to the movie as a whole. First off, I know it's faithful to the book, but it was strange and kind of cartoony to have the trolls talking. None of the trolls in LOTR talk, do they? That was by far my least favorite sequence; the humor was incredibly stupid and let's not even get into that one troll blowing his nose on Bilbo. I mean, ****. That's the one bit that feels PT level bad to me. In the same vein, the Goblin King felt equally cartoonish. I didn't like seeing such an obviously monstrous creature speaking clearly enunciated King's English, if you know what I mean. However, the action sequence in the goblin's lair is by far the best in the film; yes, it made me think of the Mines of Moria, but I didn't much care. I loved the creative touches, like the ladder, the rolling stone and the stick used to sweep the goblins out of the way. It was high intensity and I thought it was great. God, though, did they have to make the Goblin King die with a corny joke on his very lips? That was really awful; a sad punchline on a great sequence. I would go so far as to say that the humor in the movie almost entirely fell flat. I can't remember a legitimately funny movie at the moment. The Bilbo/Gollum stuff was pretty great, all culminating in my favorite moment of the film, the moment when Bilbo decides to let Gollum live. Freeman was perfect in that moment and, of course, it is the most significant decision in the entire Third Age, right?

    The movie as a whole was very entertaining and I look forward to the next one very much. What the film didn't have was the overt emotionalism of the LOTR trilogy. In PJ's prior trilogy, you really felt the intense character dilemmas of all the major characters and quite a few of the secondary ones. They seemed real and all very unique and interesting. In this film, you can tell the dwarves apart physically, but that's the only way you can tell them apart. None of them seem real or unique, except Thorin. Armitage is very good as Thorin and he really owned my second favorite moment in the film, the moment when he tells Bilbo that he was wrong about him. But the LOTR films were frankly kind of epic tragedies as much as they were anything. The evil is overwhelming and the films are, as I rediscovered when watching the EEs on the big screen when they came back out recently, unbelievably emotionally grueling. They are painful, grim and unrelenting. The symbolism of the journey and the heroism in those films is overt and powerful and evocative. This quest in The Hobbit simply isn't anywhere near the level of that. Compared to the original LOTR trilogy, the film felt emotionally shallow, but then the emotional stakes of the journey simply aren't nearly as high and the situation isn't nearly as tragic and bleak. Where The Lord of the Rings films really are, as I said above, tragic and emotionally charged, this film felt like a simple, rollicking adventure film. On that level it succeeded and I enjoyed it. I missed the intense emotional experience that I got from the original LOTR trilogy, but this was never going to have that. On its own terms, fantastic; stacked up next to the original trilogy, lacking in emotional weight and moral heft. In a way, it's too bad he didn't make The Hobbit first; then the entire series would work as a build to a climax. This way, all the flash and action and genuinely enjoyable moments aside, the six film series is going to be lesser at the end than it was at the beginning.
    eht13 and RC-1991 like this.