# Hobbit Reviews ~ With Spoilers



## Ancalagon (Dec 16, 2012)

Sorry Bucky, had to start this one because you can't really discuss the films without revealing some elements. Most of these were out long ago on tinterweb!

Hello folks, hope you're all well. It should come as no surprise that when something loosely related to Tolkien's work appears on screen, Tolkien enthusiasts, admirers and devout, fanatic militants alike appear (or reappear in some cases) to cast their verdict on the spectacle. 

_One thing I should point out from the start is the fact there may be some spoilers in this review. However, if you've read the books then nothing should be a spoiler in the review of a film based on a Tolkien book on a Tolkien Forum. That said, there are spoilers nonetheless, but only because they are deviations from the work of Tolkien. Therefore, I make no apology for discussing terms in the film that deviate from the published work._

Having just come from watching 'The Hobbit' I feel compelled to offer my opinion on Peter Jackson's adaptation of this Tolkien classic. To begin with, I watched this in normal 2D 24fps and it was just fine. If you've watched it in some other super, fantastic format I look forward to your opinions.

The immediate thing that struck me with the opening scenes was how breathtaking and magical Erebor and Dale appeared. I loved this about the LOTR's movies that no matter what way the text was bastardised, they really made an effort to stunningly recreate places in Middle-Earth (excusing Edoras). The Hobbit is no different and in this you immediately feel the sense of parity with the LOTR's movies. That is something I like because it adds some credence to the makers intentions. This does not excuse deviations from Tolkien's storytelling, it simply makes the continuity of the films impressive to watch.

There is clearly some design to provide the viewer with the history of Smaug's sack of Erebor. This is devised from both The Hobbit and that which is discussed in the Appendices in the Lord of the Rings. This is fine in itself as it prepares us for what becomes the adventure of Thorin and Company, including the Burglar, Bilbo. 
The arrival of Gandalf, the Dwarves and Thorin himself is typical of the book and will appeal more to the Tolkien enthusiasts than most. This is an abbreviated introduction yet still takes some time on screen to develop. This is where those who read the books and those who expect action and magic tricks will differ in their opinions. The latter will find the time in Bilbo's home tedious, while the former will appreciate the context. There are some lovely lines taken directly from The Hobbit which I appreciated. There is some interaction between the young and old Bilbo as the story develops. I know some people have wondered over casting Martin Freeman as the young Bilbo, whom I for one enjoyed watching and am keen to see develop over the adventure. 
Yet, while the opening scene is set, there are also some issues that the purists among you will have to contend with and wonder why the story deviates and for what purpose. 

Thorin produces the Map which in The Hobbit, Gandalf produces, in addition to the Key to the side door. Now this may seem minor, but if they were prepared to use text from the Appendices to flesh out the story, why not explain more fully how the map and key came to be in Gandalf's possession. We do get an explanation for the key which is not altogether incomplete, however, it is left hanging and not developed. I hope it can be in the later parts of the film. 

The journey itself is fine, the encounter with the Trolls is both amusing and impressive as far as the sheer brilliance of recreating them on screen goes. However, there is some dubious rock-splitting which is an unnecessary embellishment and honestly quite cringe-worthy. It's again one of those things that will give the devotee a slight turn in their eye as they wonder, 'why did that have to happen'?

The introduction of Radagast is interesting and fine as far as I was concerned. The point that Dol Guldur is now inhabited by a powerful Necromancer is introduced and Radagast plays some role in it's discovery. Though there is something about the whole Dol Guldur storyline that will confuse and concern however, I'll consider this more over the next film as 'their' storyline unfolds. This I can accept as a natural deviation for the purpose of developing an acceptable line. But, something begins to creep over me like the icy grip of a Barrow-Wight. I won't spoil this farce for those who haven't seen it, but for those of you who love Radagast as one of Tolkien's more mysterious characters, prepare to have that image tarnished.

Character developments are one thing, bringing ones back from the dead in order to introduce a definable adversary for Thorin is another. Why oh why oh why is Azog alive and kicking and apparently hunting down Thorin Oakenshield? Ahh, of course this because Thorin fights Azog and severs his arm before he escapes back into Moria (rather than Dáin Ironfoot, Náin's son killing Azog at Battle of Azanulbizar). Of course, none of these things actually happen in the book, they only happen in Hollayyywooood. Where Peter and the scriptwriters live and discuss how to put their mark on it, make it better for the big screen, flesh it out with Azog so they can introduce, Bolg, son of Azog later on. A flashback would have done and been much more credible then easily introduce Bolg from the start. 
It's as bizarre as showing Thorin's 'Oakenshield' name being created by him making a shield of a bit of Oak when he fights Azog! Why develop one bit of truth but muddled with an untruth? Why bother, why not at least attempt to credit the author and develop Bolg as having a grievance against Thorin? Surely this is a deviation that can be creditable from the start? Now this storyline will continue into the next film and irritate me all over again because it's pathetic. Phew, had to get that off my chest

There are Wargriders and a chase reminiscent of the journey to Helm's Deep (iirc) in the LOTR's movies which is all fine except for Radagast and his sledg...I want to say it but I just can't find the words...ohhh the horror!

There are Goblins and Eagles and fires in the trees and lots of stuff that makes the film great and true and close to the book in so many way. Yet, the tangents introduced by PJ and Hollayyywooood just make no sense to me. 

When they do devote themselves to Tolkien's work and show the fantastic meeting of Bilbo and Sméagol, then all can be forgiven in an instant. The exchange between them is astounding more so for Andy Serkis and the CGI designed Gollum than anything. They have captured Gollum perfectly in my opinion, at least my inference of how Tolkien envisaged him marries with their creation. In fact, one truly feels sorry for Sméagol when asked the question, 'what have I got in my pocket'? He's right, it's not fair, it's not a riddle. This is the point where I have to say, I don't really like Bilbo as a person. In fact, as I write this I think I argued that very point many moons ago in a debate on the forum...and if I didn't then I might reconsider my position

Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman appear in the shape of the White Council and telepathy aside, I have no issue with where it goes. Galadriel and Gandalf aren't an issue for me, there is nothing to see here...move along

That aside, there are many things about this film that are great, honest and attempt to be true to the intentions of the author. By the same token, there are a lesser number of glaringly reprehensible divergences that don't sit well on the pallet, for me at least. For most who don't worry too much about Tolkien will enjoy it for what it is, a fantasy adventure. They may groan about the length of it but they will look forward to the next part. For others, who disliked the plot changes in the LOTR's films, some of this will not sit well with you. 

For me, I'm looking forward to the remainder and will probably watch this again in due course. I would hope there are not too many changes in the future as the story only gets better. I really relish the introduction of Smaug (of whom we get a glimpse in this film) and his exchange with Bilbo. All in all a better effort than LOTR's films in my very humble opinion.

Nice to speak to you all again...Anc.


----------



## Uminya (Dec 17, 2012)

I'll go and see it anyhow. But I'll never understand PJ's bizarre "additions" to the stories. They add nothing, and usually come off as cliché and tacky.


----------



## Bucky (Dec 17, 2012)

Ciryaher said:


> I'll go and see it anyhow. But I'll never understand PJ's bizarre "additions" to the stories. They add nothing, and usually come off as cliché and tacky.




*I understand changes have to made, but must they always be:

1. Controversial (Thranduil deserts the Dwarves at Smaug's sacking; The Dwarves of the Iron Hil same at the beginning of the quest, etc)
2. Excessive scenes to the point where any tension or drama is lost in absurd, over the top action (see the stone giants & Goblin Town escape scenes, utterly
redic... i watched a safe being opened in a Bogart movie last night & there was more tension in THAT ~ there's a point modern movie makers need to learn...).
3. Just freakin DUMB? (WTF is a 'Gundabad Orc'? Aren't Uruk-Hai Bad-a$$ enough? I guess not. And the Witch-King's BODY was buried? OMG!)

Oh well, I'll go see the next two, but don't really care at this point to be honest.

BTW: I don't know, but I don't think we'll see Bolg.




*


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Dec 17, 2012)

Well I'm writing up my own review WITH spoilers, but the thing that made me the most angry was resurrecting a dead character, Azog, and adding him in. If anything, it should have been his son Bolg chasing them down, culminating in the last film with his death as Tolkien wrote it. Also Radagast....nuff said very cool character but yeah....


----------



## Uminya (Dec 17, 2012)

I presume a "Gundabad Orc" is an orc from Mount Gundabad, where the Misty Mountains intersect the Grey Mountains and curve into the Mountains of Angmar. It's the "capital" of the goblin kingdom, where Bolg resides.

Since I just got back from seeing the film, here are my thoughts:

The introduction of orcs prior to Rivendell I wouldn't have minded if they didn't also include the "villain" Azog. It just seems...pointless to have added him in. I think there's more suspense when you *don't* see some controlling force; I think his pointless addition detracted from the tension that would have been there if Smaug and the Necromancer were the only foes mentioned.

I liked how Elrond was portrayed in this one much more than how he was portrayed in the LOTR movies. He seemed less like an utter b*stard and more sagely (and I absolutely loved his armor).

Radagast and his sledge didn't bother me too very much. Seems like something out of old European folklore, kinda like how Baba Yaga flies around in a bowl pulled by geese (from Russian folklore). He was certainly eccentric, but good-hearted and I would expect something like that from a follower of Yavanna, plus it seems consistent with how he was spoken of.

I'm unsure why the Elves were shown so early on at Erebor, but it doesn't really annoy me. It's odd that they mentioned the Iron Hills refusing to help when they're supposed to help as Erebor is being taken, but I suppose I'll wait and see how that's handled.

I enjoyed the dwarves, and I'm fond of Balin, Bofur and the twins especially. The dwarven singing at the Unexpected Party was terrific. I really enjoyed the interior visuals from Erebor as well.

The Goblin King was *very* obviously a creation of del Toro, which made me happy, along with a lot of the other creature designs. The stone giants reminded me a bit of another del Toro creature (the nature elemental in Hellboy 2), and I really didn't mind them at all.

All in all, the movie was enjoyable, and while some of the changes were irritating, they've not yet reached a level that makes me froth with rage every time I see them. I look forward to seeing the second and third installments.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Dec 18, 2012)

Reading Ciryaher's review really helps to make sense of Radagast and he's not as bad as I initially thought, cool actually. One thing I thought of in this that I think a lot of people would think possibly is, since Gandalf wanted to remove Smaug obviously to help the dwarves but also so that Sauron couldn't use him, what about the Stone Giants? Couldn't Sauron try and use them as allies in his army as well? They seemed pretty big and hardcore...


----------



## Uminya (Dec 18, 2012)

I think the Stone Giants are one of those things in the Hobbit that don't quite line up with the overall history of Middle Earth (like the "were-wyrms" mentioned toward the beginning of The Hobbit). If that's not a good enough answer, then they're probably just too hard for Sauron to try and control.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Dec 18, 2012)

Ciryaher said:


> I think the Stone Giants are one of those things in the Hobbit that don't quite line up with the overall history of Middle Earth (like the "were-wyrms" mentioned toward the beginning of The Hobbit). If that's not a good enough answer, then they're probably just too hard for Sauron to try and control.



Thank you, that does make sense :*). Anyways here's my review (with spoilers)





**MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**
I loved the movie. I've been an avid fan of Tolkien's works from the time I first cracked open The Hobbit when I was young. His stories have held strong through decades and will continue to be one of the world's greatest series of stories. PJ did an amazing job on this movie. The only thing that I dislike were his little additions, though after already having seen LOTR, I wasn't surprised to see them this time around.


First off, Radagast. I think Radagast was great. Being a lover of nature and a follower of Yavanna, his kind spirit and cheerfulness fit him perfectly. I did feel that he was overused, especially since, in the novel, he wasn't present, just mentioned as being Gandalf's cousin. While some may think the sleigh was unneccessary, Ciryaher has a good explanation for this and Radagast in general in this film (from above):


'Radagast and his sledge didn't bother me too very much. Seems like something out of old European folklore, kinda like how Baba Yaga flies around in a bowl pulled by geese (from Russian folklore). He was certainly eccentric, but good-hearted and I would expect something like that from a follower of Yavanna, plus it seems consistent with how he was spoken of.'


The visuals, as in LOTR, were stunning. The music was beautiful, Howard Shore does NOT disappoint in the least, just like last time. I think the music fit the movie perfectly.


One other thing I disliked was PJ's use of Azog as a character in this movie (this is taken from my comments on another thread that I'd commented on.) Let's just resurrect a character that was already dead by this time and add a subplot. Azog was killed in TA 2799 but the events of the Hobbit occurred in TA 2941, 142 years later. If anything, the Orc that was chasing the company should have been Bolg, Azog's son, with a climax in the final battle of Five Armies (where Bolg died in The Hobbit.) I mean I understand that directors can't follow their movie's respected novels completely (skipping some things, like Tom Bombadil and Scourging of the Shire in LOTR), but why change the true history in the story. I realize this is a work of fiction, but for purists like myself, this really gets under the skin. At least let the history happen the way it was meant to.


Dol Guldur was very well done, though the Witch King should probably have been invisible. Sauron, in the brief glimpse that we get of him so far, was pretty cool looking as well.

All in all I have to say that I liked it because I did, just wish it was more along with the books, though was not surprised by PJ this time around.


----------



## Bucky (Dec 19, 2012)

Erestor Arcamen said:


> Thank you, that does make sense :*). Anyways here's my review (with spoilers)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Witch-king WAS invisible... Just the 'white' version was showing, the one that can only be seen when in the 'wraith-world; when one has the Ring on.

That was one thing I liked...

The 'Necromancing' of the dead, the Nazgul if you will. Though they certainly did not exist when TH was written it made perfect sense to me.*


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Dec 19, 2012)

Ok I understand that so when we could see the Witch King in his wraith-world form, was Radagast unable to see him and saw just the blade? I guess that's what I'm confused about.


----------



## Bucky (Dec 20, 2012)

Erestor Arcamen said:


> Ok I understand that so when we could see the Witch King in his wraith-world form, was Radagast unable to see him and saw just the blade? I guess that's what I'm confused about.



*/Me too...

I thought Redagast didn't see the W-k though.. That's how it appeared to me.

Forget what JRRT Tolkien says: 'We're not in Kansas any more.' ;*)

Honestly, I had no idea about the blade until they pulled it out at the Council meeting.

That part made no sense.

The Witch-king was buried & dug up? :*rolleyes:

Rumors are starting that the reason the Nazgul's theme music was playing during Thorin & Azog's battle (and Thorin saying Azog 'died from his wounds) is because Azog was raised from the dead by The Necromancer & sent after Thorin & Co..

I guess we'll see.

NOTHING PJ does at this point would surprise me though. *


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Dec 20, 2012)

Yeah well I was reading what someone from theonering.net had said and supposedly all 9 of the Nazug's graves were dug up and that'll be revealed in a later movie....


----------



## Sulimo (Dec 21, 2012)

> The introduction of orcs prior to Rivendell I wouldn't have minded if they didn't also include the "villain" Azog. It just seems...pointless to have added him in. I think there's more suspense when you *don't* see some controlling force; I think his pointless addition detracted from the tension that would have been there if Smaug and the Necromancer were the only foes mentioned.



This is an excellent point Ciryaher, that was the reason why their was never a physical encounter with Sauron in the LOTR. I didn't think of that during the film, but that is a good call. I gotta say though that I surprisingly enjoyed the movie. I thought it was rather long, and I felt like I may have been watching one of the extended editions, but the changes bothered me little over all. I think I was expecting it to be so bad that I was surprised by how good it was.

I appreciated that most of the songs were present, and I also enjoyed the riddles in the dark. I thought that Azog was pointless as well, but I was more vexed about Dain having his thunder stolen. It was visually stunning with good character development. It was just very long, and in that aspect it did not feel like the book. Tolkien was very brisk with this story, and the book did not have much back story. 

It was certainly better then the Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Valandil (Dec 24, 2012)

I watched a couple nights ago and really enjoyed it. Visuals were great - as Ancalagon pointed out, esp loved the views of Dale & Erebor at the start.

The things others mentioned didn't bother me: orc-chase and stone giants were eye-candy, most story changes were detail things that didn't affect the spirit of the story. Nobody is going to take a book and translate it word-for-word into film. Doesn't happen. Ever. Not even when the source matter is the Bible (compare "The Ten Commandments" to Exodus text). Frankly - I was glad to see how MUCH of the story text made it into the movie. And I was glad over all background material from LOTR Appendices and Prolog that were worked in.

I don't think it matters much that Thrain runs off after the battle - instead of wandering off from the Blue Mountains some years later. He had his ring gnawing at him - and he probably wound up in Dol Guldor anyway (we'll see). I suspect Gandalf got the key from him there - but just hasn't let on yet. Yes - they say the King of Angmar was buried (and they don't say "Witch-King" - indicating, quite plausibly, that they were still uncertain of his identity) - but at least they acknowledged that there was an Angmar - and who knows, maybe it served the W-K's purpose to fake his own funeral. Similarly, they place "The Watchful Peace" at the wrong period of time - but they acknowledge its existence.

I think the things they did work well for translation into a movie - and stayed very much in keeping with the spirit of the story.

My one pet peeve was portraying pipeweed as cannabis, rather than tobacco (even while calling it "Old Toby").


----------



## BelDain (Dec 27, 2012)

I really enjoyed the whole backstory part with Dale and the coming of Smaug. The only thing that should have been changed is Thorin was not at Erebor during the attack. That was the whole reason that he was one of the survivors.


----------



## Starbrow (Dec 30, 2012)

I finally got my chance to see the movie. Overall, I think it was well done. I especially enjoyed the settings of the Shire and Rivendell, as I did in LOTR. PJ stuck to the story more closely than I thought he would, or that the trailers led me to believe. The changes PJ made to the story made sense in the context of the movie, although the stone giants and the orc mines were a little over the top. 
While I enjoyed the movie, I am sad that it is much more violent than The Hobbit and not geared toward the same age audience as the book. I miss the light-heartedness of the book and wanted to hear the elves sing silly songs and not be so stuffy.


----------



## Halasían (Jan 1, 2013)

My review is quite simple...

*The Good Points:*
Hobbiton looked good and the party at Bilbo's was well done. Love The Green Dragon!
Rivendell looked better after the remodel and the tearing down of some of the cheap-looking gazebos. The remaining ones were better built.
Elrond looked better and the acting was more 'Elrondish'
Galadriel looked much better, more like Galadriel.
The whole 'Riddles In The Dark' bit was good. Andy nailed Gollum again!

*The Bad Points:*
The rest of the movie. It was rubbish. This movie, and I suspect the two coming, and all the added fluff and goblin gore to pad the one book out into three movies, are just more nails in the coffin of J.R.R. Tolkien's legacy. I went to an advance screening for us here in Oz (which means we got to see it when most of the rest of the world did) that required getting dressed up in costume. It was a fun night seeing all the different costumes and the nice photo-shoot and the free drinks and food and all. Yet it was more of a matter of getting through the movie than it was enjoying watching it. It was in the 3D HD 48fps format, which made the effects rather intense. Listening to the people's chatter going in, Peter Jackson has pretty much succeeded in co-opting Tolkien's works, and now in the minds of the idiot masses, they have awarded the tale as his own. My only consolation this time is I haven't spent a cent that will go to the film company or Peter Jackson. I intend to keep it that way.


----------



## Sulimo (Jan 1, 2013)

> My only consolation this time is I haven't spent a cent that will go to the film company or Peter Jackson. I intend to keep it that way.



Halasían I am jealous of your saved cent. My wife joked about us sneaking into the theater just so PJ wouldn't make a cent off of us. However, I paid something like $15 for a ticket to see this special 3D, and it ended up being regular 3D. However, it was fairly fun to watch with a lot of unnecessary fluff.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jan 4, 2013)

Valandil said:


> My one pet peeve was portraying pipeweed as cannabis, rather than tobacco (even while calling it "Old Toby").



I think this may be in part because cannabis is now considered by many to be socially acceptable and is gaining ground in that regard while tobacco has been losing its PR battle for years. I kind of rolled my eyes at this reference as well as the "mushroom" line, not because I think they are awful (to me if a reference isn't explicit enough for me to have gotten when I was seven or eight or for my young daughter to get now, I can just ignore it), but because I think they are silly. To me it simply didn't make sense how, to Radaghast the pipeweed somehow is supposed to be a narcotic but Gandalf and Bilbo sit there and smoke it with clear heads. It is either one or the other. Make up your mind.



BelDain said:


> I really enjoyed the whole backstory part with Dale and the coming of Smaug. The only thing that should have been changed is Thorin was not at Erebor during the attack. That was the whole reason that he was one of the survivors.



This bugged me a bit too.

I was actually surprised at how much I liked Radaghast as well. I didn't have a ton of images for Radaghast in my head. I am afraid I considered him rather foolish just because of being duped by Saruman which is unfair, isn't it? I mean, everyone else was as well, weren't they? I also have always had this image that he eventually melded into the trees (I call it going "Rip Van Winkle") and just lies there, with birds nesting in his beard, sleeping in a shaft of sun in some forest. Those were the only two thoughts I'd given him. The sleigh was not a big deal. I've always sort of envied the Norse goddess Freya her sleigh pulled by cats, so rabbits isn't a stretch. I really liked the hedgehogs. A lot of time CGI animals are distracting. These were just really cute. Like making me want to go out and buy a hedgehog right now cute. I'll stick with my cat (it would probably eat a hedgehog).


----------



## Starbrow (Jan 5, 2013)

Speaking from experience, hedgehogs are cute, but they are not very cuddlly pets. Probably hard to eat, too. That was a hard scene for me to watch because it reminded me of the slow death of our hedgehog.


----------



## BelDain (Jan 10, 2013)

Just saw the high frame rate 3D version and I'm officially a believer.
The scenes in Erebor, amazing. The scenes fighting the goblins, spectacular. Gollum is out of your mind realistic. And when they zoom in on the dragon's eye at the end is the most compelling, visually immersive thing I've ever seen in a movie.
Even after all the disappointment with the myriad story changes, I cannot wait to see the other two movies now.


----------



## Ancalagon (Nov 5, 2013)

BelDain said:


> I cannot wait to see the other two movies now.



You won't have long to wait. You even have Legolas there to help it along because the story needs a bit of help!

[video=youtube;lfflhfn1W-o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfflhfn1W-o[/video]


----------



## Starbrow (Nov 5, 2013)

It looks PJ really changed the story line involving the wood elves, which I'm sure I'm going to hate. I will see the movie, anyway. Otherwise, I'll always wonder how bad and/or good it really is.


----------



## BelDain (Dec 3, 2013)

Ancalagon said:


> You won't have long to wait. You even have Legolas there to help it along because the story needs a bit of help!
> 
> [video=youtube;lfflhfn1W-o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfflhfn1W-o[/video]



Yeah i already know from the trailers that i'll be cringing through the whole thing due to the changes but the HFR visual feast should be amazing.


----------



## Confusticated (Apr 20, 2014)

Just read the book for the first time in three years. This solidifies my original decision to refrain from watching the films. It is as simple as not wanting my own imaginings of visuals and voices replaced with those in the movies.


----------



## Eledhwen (Apr 21, 2014)

Confusticated said:


> Just read the book for the first time in three years. This solidifies my original decision to refrain from watching the films. It is as simple as not wanting my own imaginings of visuals and voices replaced with those in the movies.


The film Hobbit is so far removed from the book version that, for me, my original imaginings remain intact; being superior in very many ways from the depictions on the screen. This interpretation is far poorer than The Lord of the Rings, in my opinion (and that had its flaws). The CGI, extra battles and slapstick was so overdone that it was, for me at times, boring.


----------

