I thought Beorn was okay. I was expecting someone burlier and wider, but heck at least he was a real person. It was so short I didn't really get to judge him, heh. They just broke into his house, he protected them for some reason, then gave them horses. Just because they couldn't fit a big fight scene in there they cut it down I guess.
The Hobbit isn't about fighting.
wasnt**
Overall I don't think I would even want the movies to have a lighter tone, personally. Remove Gandalf's side quest and the elves talking and the eternal orc threat and the movie would lighten a bit by itself. It'd be hard to really capture the writing style, but that's okay. Taking a scene and adding a big orc ambush and fight scene, then adding a dwarf bouncing around smashing orcs in his barrel like goombas just makes it so ****ing confusing (tonally and...just in general). Is the scene silly or should I be worried? Well, there's no way to feel tense in these movies since I not only don't give a **** about any of the dwarves, but they've been through death already and come out okay; plus, we know Bilbo/Gandalf survive. So I guess I'll just remain baffled (at how this made it into the final cut).
I think the goblins chasing them are a problem. It makes the movie too urgent. The book felt slower, like they were actually traveling somewhere. That itself was the adventure. I don't want to see a poorly choreographed cheeseball fight where the good guys are going to win (obviously), but hey some orcs lived moooooore pressure move the story along i dont think itll fit into 3 movies oh ****number4herewego I want to learn a bit about Beorn. Make Murkwood creepier, darker. Scare us. Then lighten the mood a bit with a barrel ride (not even a cheesy one, dwarves in barrels is good enough after spiders and mean elves).
I mean, the spiders aren't still chasing the dwarves, are they? Maybe they'll show up and chase them around for a bit in the next movie.
But hey, a campier version probably wouldn't be worse than what we have. At least it wouldn't be just be Lord of the Rings: The Prequel (Part 2) (with retconning). It would've taken some balls to change the style a bit. It probably wouldn't have been my type of movie, but hey, neither is this (I like things that seem plausible...even in fantastic worlds :P).
I just remembered! They added that Thorin scene with Gandalf in the Prancing Pony. So they stole a scene from fellowship and stuck it in here to "explain" the goblins chasing them? Did they actually explain it or do they just randomly want him dead? Meh.
Yeah, there are some actual dwarves. I'm not sure how he could make the other lotr movies, then have real dwarves in this...and then add practically beardless creatures and pretend they are dwarves. Just blows my mind (not to mention their physical build).
I don't like the first hour or so. Mirkwood takes them one day to cross? But we're supposed to believe that it'd take them hundreds of miles out of their way to go around? They're only imprisoned for a day by the elves? The elves know all about their quest?
It honestly feels like Jackson is bored with The Hobbit. The stuff that comes from the book is almost none of the movie, and the stuff he made up gets almost all of the screen time. Beorn is glossed over. Mirkwood is glossed over. The elves are glossed over except for Tauriel, who simply isn't in the book.
The writing is poor. The scene with Thorin and Gandalf in the Prancing Pony actually fills a glaring, major plot hole in the book - they aren't planning to kill the dragon, so why the heck are they even bothering with a burglar? At most they might steal some minor value. And yet as a scene it's pretty much just... boring. It's written badly. Another example: Beorn is far more compelling as a big mystery than with a simple, obviously contrived backstory assigned to him.
Once they get out of the wood elves' dungeon, it does turn into a fast, fun adventure movie. It's pretty mindless fun, but it's at least fun.
Smaug was awesome and I think they made a good decision to rewrite the scenes inside the mountain to give him a lot more action. He's an amazing set piece and an interesting character, and fully deserves to be featured in extended action sequences.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and
So now Gandalf knows beyond a doubt that Sauron is back some 50-70 years before the events in The Fellowship of the Ring? Doesn't that completely demolish the timeline of the Lord of the Rings? He's got more than an entire steward's reign to ensure the right person comes to power in Gondor to oppose Sauron and to make sure Rohan will be ready. Between him, Galadriel, and Elrond, they've got decades for the elves to prepare for war - and yet there's a last second decision to march to Helm's Deep by the elves? Aragorn would be a young man at this point (not *that* young, considering how long he lives, but still) - why hasn't he been getting ready for things for decades? He obviously knows and respects Gandalf.
More than any departures from the book, this obvious plot hole blows apart half the story of the entire series. I pretty much have to pretend it doesn't happen to take it at all seriously.
I disagree on the Smaug bit, Smaug already was a compelling character with all the depth you could imagine, he is a freaking huge ass dragon (Most likely Adult age if we where to use D&D terms, definitely not ancient), he is like Kefka really, he already had won.
His scene in the book is actually much more compelling or even intimidating than what happened in the movie, it felt overly long and force. A dragon doesnt need a big action sequence to be intimidating, it needs a survival sequence!
And yes so far the Movie has pretty much already broken the entire timeline with the Sauron reveal, they didnt need to make it so, they could have just kept the 'Necromancer' going and have him 'defeated' and later show that Sauron or even better Saruman just played them all for fools and is just back in Mordor.
And yes the sense of time/distance is fully messed up in this film, if you where to tell me this entire journey takes about a year's time i would not believe it at all based on the movie's pacing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
I disagree on the Smaug bit, Smaug already was a compelling character with all the depth you could imagine, he is a freaking huge ass dragon (Most likely Adult age if we where to use D&D terms, definitely not ancient), he is like Kefka really, he already had won.
His scene in the book is actually much more compelling or even intimidating than what happened in the movie, it felt overly long and force. A dragon doesnt need a big action sequence to be intimidating, it needs a survival sequence!
And yes so far the Movie has pretty much already broken the entire timeline with the Sauron reveal, they didnt need to make it so, they could have just kept the 'Necromancer' going and have him 'defeated' and later show that Sauron or even better Saruman just played them all for fools and is just back in Mordor.
And yes the sense of time/distance is fully messed up in this film, if you where to tell me this entire journey takes about a year's time i would not believe it at all based on the movie's pacing.
I think that cuts to the heart of what makes for a good adventure in book form and a good adventure in movie form. In the movie, they've got an incredibly powerful visual set piece and they use it - and they SHOULD use it. Smaug's visual impact is enormous on screen and they do a decent job of maximizing it. Half the theater I was in gasped when his head appeared. The shot of him flying down towards Laketown is genuinely full of dread. This stuff wouldn't work in a book in the same way.
So now Gandalf knows beyond a doubt that Sauron is back some 50-70 years before the events in The Fellowship of the Ring? Doesn't that completely demolish the timeline of the Lord of the Rings? He's got more than an entire steward's reign to ensure the right person comes to power in Gondor to oppose Sauron and to make sure Rohan will be ready. Between him, Galadriel, and Elrond, they've got decades for the elves to prepare for war - and yet there's a last second decision to march to Helm's Deep by the elves? Aragorn would be a young man at this point (not *that* young, considering how long he lives, but still) - why hasn't he been getting ready for things for decades? He obviously knows and respects Gandalf.
More than any departures from the book, this obvious plot hole blows apart half the story of the entire series. I pretty much have to pretend it doesn't happen to take it at all seriously.
Gandalf and the White Council identify the Necromancer as Sauron in the books too. The piece of the puzzle they don't get until LotR is that the Ring is still in play and so Sauron can regain his power in Mordor. In The Hobbit era, they think they're just dealing with a shadow of the Big Bad.
I disagree on the Smaug bit, Smaug already was a compelling character with all the depth you could imagine, he is a freaking huge ass dragon (Most likely Adult age if we where to use D&D terms, definitely not ancient), he is like Kefka really, he already had won.
Why not ancient? He is older than most D&D great wyrms, and in the movie, larger too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Gandalf and the White Council identify the Necromancer as Sauron in the books too. The piece of the puzzle they don't get until LotR is that the Ring is still in play and so Sauron can regain his power in Mordor. In The Hobbit era, they think they're just dealing with a shadow of the Big Bad.
Also, IIRC, Aragorn is three.
That's a lot better, then.
Aragorn being 3 (if true? I thought he was like ~120 at the time of Fellowship, but I'm no Tolkien scholar) doesn't help anything, of course, because Gandalf's still got decades to make sure he grows up knowing who the enemy is. Maybe that's what happened, then, but I don't like it; it seems like his hero's journey is a lot more contrived if he knows full well all along that if he doesn't step up and claim his destiny, the world will be in danger of ending, since then it's just like, step up, you have no choice. At that point the whole saga of Aragorn's return should have played out three decades before Fellowship, shouldn't it?
Not to mention Gandalf has time to maneuver Gondor so that a proper steward comes to power, since the stewards don't have unusually long lifespans.
My impression is that they've known Sauron was returning for a few years, maybe even a decade at the start of Fellowship, not half or more of a century. But I could be wrong about that and it does help the timeline a lot if they're supposed to know it around the time of The Hobbit.
Gandalf and the White Council identify the Necromancer as Sauron in the books too.
I kind've thought so, but something about the way it was done made it seem like Gandalf was either skipping steps or just dumb. I actually just went and dug through a wikipedia entrance about Sauron to figure out exactly what happened. Another part of me thought that they believed the necromancer to be some other baddie (they did, but they guessed earlier and figure out for sure around the time of the hobbit (the scene they added with Gandalf)). I guess that's just me leaping to conclusions. I am kinda glad to see that scene existed elsewhere (if not in the Hobbit) prior to this movie and does fit in the timeline, despite my initial reaction.
If only someone could explain away all the other stuff I dislike.
Aragorn being 3 (if true? I thought he was like ~120 at the time of Fellowship, but I'm no Tolkien scholar) doesn't help anything, of course, because Gandalf's still got decades to make sure he grows up knowing who the enemy is. Maybe that's what happened, then, but I don't like it; it seems like his hero's journey is a lot more contrived if he knows full well all along that if he doesn't step up and claim his destiny, the world will be in danger of ending, since then it's just like, step up, you have no choice.
Well, that's exactly how Tolkien wrote it. Aragorn has been training all his life to fight the forces of darkness.
My impression is that they've known Sauron was returning for a few years, maybe even a decade at the start of Fellowship, not half or more of a century. But I could be wrong about that and it does help the timeline a lot if they're supposed to know it around the time of The Hobbit.
Again, they don't know that Sauron is returning to his full strength in Mordor. It's like, in The Hobbit, they're fighting Hitler in exile in Argentina with a small cadre of Nazis. Then in LotR, they're like, "Holy crap, Hitler's back in power in Germany?!" That's still legitimately a big freaking surprise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think that cuts to the heart of what makes for a good adventure in book form and a good adventure in movie form. In the movie, they've got an incredibly powerful visual set piece and they use it - and they SHOULD use it. Smaug's visual impact is enormous on screen and they do a decent job of maximizing it. Half the theater I was in gasped when his head appeared. The shot of him flying down towards Laketown is genuinely full of dread. This stuff wouldn't work in a book in the same way.
My problem is not with his depiction because you are right in both instances, i mean his reveal and the flight scene ARE impressive, i just dont think every movie needs to turn everything into an action scene to be 'compelling', specially not when it has a dragon.
Why not ancient? He is older than most D&D great wyrms, and in the movie, larger too.
Well mostly the lack of spellcasting, yes we know this universe is rather magic light at this periods in time but still we are talking about what 15 tons of pure magic and barely a spell was cast.
Also an ancient wyrm would have been able to pierce through the invisibility/phasing of the ring. (because in all honesty the ring looks more like it blinks people into a shadow realm than true invisibility)
But that is mostly my own perception of how dragons should be, also size, yes his size was impressive but i would imagine an ancient to be closer Cloverfield or even the Kaiju in size and mass, for all his scale he still seemed way shorter than that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
I thought Beorn was okay. I was expecting someone burlier and wider, but heck at least he was a real person. It was so short I didn't really get to judge him, heh. They just broke into his house, he protected them for some reason, then gave them horses. Just because they couldn't fit a big fight scene in there they cut it down I guess.
The Hobbit isn't about fighting.
wasnt**
Overall I don't think I would even want the movies to have a lighter tone, personally. Remove Gandalf's side quest and the elves talking and the eternal orc threat and the movie would lighten a bit by itself. It'd be hard to really capture the writing style, but that's okay. Taking a scene and adding a big orc ambush and fight scene, then adding a dwarf bouncing around smashing orcs in his barrel like goombas just makes it so ****ing confusing (tonally and...just in general). Is the scene silly or should I be worried? Well, there's no way to feel tense in these movies since I not only don't give a **** about any of the dwarves, but they've been through death already and come out okay; plus, we know Bilbo/Gandalf survive. So I guess I'll just remain baffled (at how this made it into the final cut).
I think the goblins chasing them are a problem. It makes the movie too urgent. The book felt slower, like they were actually traveling somewhere. That itself was the adventure. I don't want to see a poorly choreographed cheeseball fight where the good guys are going to win (obviously), but hey some orcs lived moooooore pressure move the story along i dont think itll fit into 3 movies oh ****number4herewego I want to learn a bit about Beorn. Make Murkwood creepier, darker. Scare us. Then lighten the mood a bit with a barrel ride (not even a cheesy one, dwarves in barrels is good enough after spiders and mean elves).
I mean, the spiders aren't still chasing the dwarves, are they? Maybe they'll show up and chase them around for a bit in the next movie.
But hey, a campier version probably wouldn't be worse than what we have. At least it wouldn't be just be Lord of the Rings: The Prequel (Part 2) (with retconning). It would've taken some balls to change the style a bit. It probably wouldn't have been my type of movie, but hey, neither is this (I like things that seem plausible...even in fantastic worlds :P).
I just remembered! They added that Thorin scene with Gandalf in the Prancing Pony. So they stole a scene from fellowship and stuck it in here to "explain" the goblins chasing them? Did they actually explain it or do they just randomly want him dead? Meh.
Yeah, there are some actual dwarves. I'm not sure how he could make the other lotr movies, then have real dwarves in this...and then add practically beardless creatures and pretend they are dwarves. Just blows my mind (not to mention their physical build).
I don't like the first hour or so. Mirkwood takes them one day to cross? But we're supposed to believe that it'd take them hundreds of miles out of their way to go around? They're only imprisoned for a day by the elves? The elves know all about their quest?
It honestly feels like Jackson is bored with The Hobbit. The stuff that comes from the book is almost none of the movie, and the stuff he made up gets almost all of the screen time. Beorn is glossed over. Mirkwood is glossed over. The elves are glossed over except for Tauriel, who simply isn't in the book.
The writing is poor. The scene with Thorin and Gandalf in the Prancing Pony actually fills a glaring, major plot hole in the book - they aren't planning to kill the dragon, so why the heck are they even bothering with a burglar? At most they might steal some minor value. And yet as a scene it's pretty much just... boring. It's written badly. Another example: Beorn is far more compelling as a big mystery than with a simple, obviously contrived backstory assigned to him.
Once they get out of the wood elves' dungeon, it does turn into a fast, fun adventure movie. It's pretty mindless fun, but it's at least fun.
Smaug was awesome and I think they made a good decision to rewrite the scenes inside the mountain to give him a lot more action. He's an amazing set piece and an interesting character, and fully deserves to be featured in extended action sequences.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and
So now Gandalf knows beyond a doubt that Sauron is back some 50-70 years before the events in The Fellowship of the Ring? Doesn't that completely demolish the timeline of the Lord of the Rings? He's got more than an entire steward's reign to ensure the right person comes to power in Gondor to oppose Sauron and to make sure Rohan will be ready. Between him, Galadriel, and Elrond, they've got decades for the elves to prepare for war - and yet there's a last second decision to march to Helm's Deep by the elves? Aragorn would be a young man at this point (not *that* young, considering how long he lives, but still) - why hasn't he been getting ready for things for decades? He obviously knows and respects Gandalf.
More than any departures from the book, this obvious plot hole blows apart half the story of the entire series. I pretty much have to pretend it doesn't happen to take it at all seriously.
His scene in the book is actually much more compelling or even intimidating than what happened in the movie, it felt overly long and force. A dragon doesnt need a big action sequence to be intimidating, it needs a survival sequence!
And yes so far the Movie has pretty much already broken the entire timeline with the Sauron reveal, they didnt need to make it so, they could have just kept the 'Necromancer' going and have him 'defeated' and later show that Sauron or even better Saruman just played them all for fools and is just back in Mordor.
And yes the sense of time/distance is fully messed up in this film, if you where to tell me this entire journey takes about a year's time i would not believe it at all based on the movie's pacing.
Also, IIRC, Aragorn is three.
Why not ancient? He is older than most D&D great wyrms, and in the movie, larger too.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Aragorn being 3 (if true? I thought he was like ~120 at the time of Fellowship, but I'm no Tolkien scholar) doesn't help anything, of course, because Gandalf's still got decades to make sure he grows up knowing who the enemy is. Maybe that's what happened, then, but I don't like it; it seems like his hero's journey is a lot more contrived if he knows full well all along that if he doesn't step up and claim his destiny, the world will be in danger of ending, since then it's just like, step up, you have no choice. At that point the whole saga of Aragorn's return should have played out three decades before Fellowship, shouldn't it?
Not to mention Gandalf has time to maneuver Gondor so that a proper steward comes to power, since the stewards don't have unusually long lifespans.
My impression is that they've known Sauron was returning for a few years, maybe even a decade at the start of Fellowship, not half or more of a century. But I could be wrong about that and it does help the timeline a lot if they're supposed to know it around the time of The Hobbit.
If only someone could explain away all the other stuff I dislike.
They do, actually. And it's a hereditary position; it's not like it'd be easy to manipulate the succession.
Again, they don't know that Sauron is returning to his full strength in Mordor. It's like, in The Hobbit, they're fighting Hitler in exile in Argentina with a small cadre of Nazis. Then in LotR, they're like, "Holy crap, Hitler's back in power in Germany?!" That's still legitimately a big freaking surprise.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well mostly the lack of spellcasting, yes we know this universe is rather magic light at this periods in time but still we are talking about what 15 tons of pure magic and barely a spell was cast.
Also an ancient wyrm would have been able to pierce through the invisibility/phasing of the ring. (because in all honesty the ring looks more like it blinks people into a shadow realm than true invisibility)
But that is mostly my own perception of how dragons should be, also size, yes his size was impressive but i would imagine an ancient to be closer Cloverfield or even the Kaiju in size and mass, for all his scale he still seemed way shorter than that.