Hobbit incoming!!!

[Kindablue]

I was shocked watching this to find how much I remembered from having read the book at eleven. The trolls, the goblins, most of the riddles, the hawks... One of the things I must have forgotten is how every important discussion and detour and contemplative thought in the moonlit night takes place on a perilous ledge over a four hundred foot drop. Maybe Sauron is really the last health and safety inspector in the world, and he's just gone a little sour because no one takes his warnings seriously.


I liked the movie.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think I'm gonna go watch it tomorrow. Cant wait!

Where does the first movie leave off?

Spoiler

Show

The part where they get trapped in the trees by wargs, and the eagles rescue them. However, this part is altered a good bit into a climactic first confrontation, and the dwarves wind up being not quite so trapped in the trees. The "Fifteen Birds in Five Fir Trees" song is regrettably also cut.

[Muz]

I'm curious at the thinking behind a minor change in the troll scene:

Spoiler

Show

In the book, the dwarves are tired, soaked from days of rain, and hungry because one of the ponies carrying most of the food had washed away in a river, and it's because of this that they send Bilbo off to check out the trolls' fire. In the movie, he's going to try to get back their stolen ponies.

Incidentally, the ponies that did NOT get stolen are really quite mellow, aren't they? Usually horses tend to react a bit to large smelly predators in their midst taking their fellows away...

I can't really figure out why they went and changed this.

Also -- and I really don't mean to sound like I'm complaining, because I did enjoy the movie -- did anyone feel like Rivendell just came out of nowhere? Geographically speaking, I mean. The terrain they were in just prior to finding the cave really did not seem like it was 100 yards from the valley.

Goblin scribe: Evil Yoda.

[Dumbledore lives]

Well I saw it, comments in spoiler.

Spoiler

Show

I felt the pacing was just... off. It was too fast in some parts, too slow in others, and just seemed kind of weird. Of special notes is the scene with the brown wizard which just broke off from the main characters completely to show something that had no relevance to this film, even if it will play into something later.

The action all felt far too cartoony, with even the decapitations being accompanied by laughter. Pushing the goblins at the end especially it was like a freaking Tom and Jerry cartoon. That drove me completely out of what the film was trying to do, with the epic feel and big bag it just all kind of fell apart with the comedy. Much of the comedy throughout the film actually felt this way, it was decent but just didn't sit well with the tone.

Overall I guess I enjoyed it but there were a lot of little things like de-mystifing Gandalf and adding things to the story which just didn't seem necessary, I still think two movies is unnecessary, and three is really too excessive.

[Reverent-One]

Saw it. Liked it. The 48 fps was generally a good thing, and they did a good job weaving the supplementary material into it (in some cases in ways that probably won't be obvious into later if I guess correctly). I approve and want to see the next one.

[OhJohnNo]

I have to admit, when we see Galadriel slowly turn for the first time with her dress flowing all around her, my first thought was "If you take a step in literally any direction you are going to trip. That was silly, lady."

Ah, but she's MAGICK. Also, elven. It wouldn't surprise me if her dress possesses some sort of innate ability to magically flow out of her way any time she wants to move anywhere.

[Saph]

I just saw it and really enjoyed it.

Watching it reminds you of just how dense the book was. It might be shorter than LotR, but there's loads and loads of material in there.

[Traab]

I'm curious at the thinking behind a minor change in the troll scene:

Spoiler

Show

In the book, the dwarves are tired, soaked from days of rain, and hungry because one of the ponies carrying most of the food had washed away in a river, and it's because of this that they send Bilbo off to check out the trolls' fire. In the movie, he's going to try to get back their stolen ponies.

Incidentally, the ponies that did NOT get stolen are really quite mellow, aren't they? Usually horses tend to react a bit to large smelly predators in their midst taking their fellows away...

I can't really figure out why they went and changed this.

Also -- and I really don't mean to sound like I'm complaining, because I did enjoy the movie -- did anyone feel like Rivendell just came out of nowhere? Geographically speaking, I mean. The terrain they were in just prior to finding the cave really did not seem like it was 100 yards from the valley.

Goblin scribe: Evil Yoda.

Yeah, the thing is, in the hobbit, iirc, rivendell was called "The Last Homely House" And it was treated more as an outpost of the elves than their capitol frigging city. In game terms it was the last save point before you enter a long and dangerous dungeon map. :p

[SmartAlec]

Thought that occurred to me - Bilbo's calling out to a puzzled Hobbit as he ran past them - "I'm going on an adventure!" - might actually be a call-forward to Bilbo's words at the Grey Havens in Return of the King movie - "I'm quite ready for another adventure."

[Squark]

Spoiler

Show

Regarding the eagles, I am amazed they came as quickly as they did. I assumed Gandalf used the butterfly to summon them, but I would assume such a feat would take hours, unless the eagles were given orders to follow them from up in the sky and render aid when required.

That's an interesting disconnect I always find in comics and films. They are somehow always able to zip halfway around the globe in minutes and arrive always in the nick of time.

Spoiler

Show

To be fair, the eagles of the book were able to come to everyone's rescue because their nest was nearby.

[Cavelcade]

Overall, I liked it, but a lot of the changes frustrated me. Instead of making it feel more 'epic', they just left me thinking of how much more epic the original lore is. Even going back to the start - the actual dwarf-orc war is so much more interesting than what we were given. This is just "let's go see what Moria's like" whereas in that it's more "For this crime, we will wipe out every orc we find until we find Azog " - and they do.

The White Council annoyed me on many levels. For a start, it's certainly implied to be a bigger affair than the four of them, wise as they may be. And, well, more important, it just wrecked Gandalf. No-one in the council is actually beholden to any decisions made, rather, they come together to share wisdom and try and move in a union, to have more strength that way. And, while Gandalf does have an admiration for Saruman, he doesn't revere him. This was a problem I had with the LotR movies, as well, though. Also him forgetting that he had the sword of the dead was just...confusing? I agree with the posters who have complained about Radagast being so cartoonish, as well.

The most annoying part for me, personally, was the butchering of the lore of Angmar though. Not so much because they did it - but it has no meaning for anyone who hasn't, as a bare minimum, read the appendices of LotR. And it's just...so incredibly wrong, it's like a slap in the face. And, in any case, the same effect could very easily have been accomplished without that butchering that the reasoning behind it just baffles me.


Other than Gandalf, though, the characterisation was strong. I don't particularly think Thorin needed to have his realisation now - I think the book had the placement right. The songs were great, and the riddle scene was thoroughly enjoyable. Martin Freeman makes a wonderful Bilbo. While I mostly had no problem with the goblins, the only line I found kind of jarring was "That'll do it.", it just made it feel...meh.

Also, them fighting their way out instead of just plain running was kind of silly, and reminded me of Moria from the Fellowship. I mostly liked it - except for the bit with the swaying piece of stair and the point where they were surrounded by orcs who fled at the approach of the balrog. That scene was just silly - essentially, Peter Jackson loves set pieces and puts them in where they don't belong.




My overall conclusion is that it was padded, and the next two movies would want to be very tight to justify it being three instead of two.

[grimbold]

Hmm true, but I can see why they'd changed it. Having it be Azog adds some direct weight to the confrontation between him and Thorin, as well as removes the need for "Azog was my father!" exposition. As far as changes go, that doesn't really bother me.

it was more like an itch :P

maybe he'll kill azog in film 2 and we'll get to see bog?

[Zevox]

Saw it today. Pretty darn good, though I have some criticisms.

Spoiler

Show

Okay, being a fairly big Tolkien geek, I can't help but spot quite a few changes from the book, even though I haven't read it in a while. Some I can kind of understand, others just leave me confused.

I don't recall any of this business with Azog, for instance. Oh, the battle outside Moria where Thorin earned his name I recall (though whether it was from The Hobbit or supplementary material I don't recall), and the whole "chased up some trees" bit, but I'm fairly certain the Orc attacks before they reach Rivendell were invented whole cloth, and if there was a named Orc King at the battle outside Moria, I'm pretty sure Thorin was supposed to have killed him there. The Orcs that chased them outside the Misty Mountains were supposed to be the same ones that they were fleeing from the caverns, too, not a separate group.

Now, all that isn't necessarily a bad addition or anything, but I can't help but worry that it was added solely to pad the story out to more movies, as it wasn't really necessary. And on that note, this one ended pretty much where I would've expected for the story if it were being done in two movies, so I'm now very curious how it ends up as three. There's really no other logical stopping point I can think of for the second movie unless they stretch the Murkwood sequences out way too long and end at Dale, before they head up to Erebor.

Now, on to other changes, more the ones that bug me as they seem pointless:

• The way the Dwarves are captured in the Misty Mountains. Trapdoors that spill them into a bucket-like cage instead of a hidden door in the back of the cave that Orcs use to sneak up on them while they sleep? Um, why?
• The whole White Council sequence. There's a number of parts to this:
  
  • It gives the impression that the White Council was not a thing that existed before, that this gathering is solely because Saruman is concerned about Gandalf encouraging the Dwarves to go after Smaug. Why?
  • Saruman denies that Sauron could possibly return. Even though that's the whole reason he and the other Istari were sent to Middle-Earth in the first place. Um, what? I mean, I know he was starting to contemplate seeking the ring and betraying his duty at this point, but denying that the whole reason he's even in Middle Earth could possibly be a concern seems like a pretty dumb way to go about it, and should be ringing all sorts of alarm bells with everyone else present.
  • The whole deal with the Necromancer seems to have been altered substantially. Originally he had been around for quite some time, and Gandalf had discovered that he was Sauron some time ago - in fact, it was at the same time as he found Thorin's father, Thrain, locked up in Dol Guldur, and was given the key and map that play such an important role in this story. Now the Necromancer is just turning up - which is going to make how Mirkwood gets into the state it's supposed to be in so fast very strange - and Radagast discovered this instead? I mean, I understand the desire to get Radagast into the movie, particularly since the goofy version of him they went with fits well into the Hobbit's lighter tone, but couldn't they have done that with him as a part of the White Council instead? Also, he didn't find out that the Necromancer is Sauron, which is kind of important information. And if Gandalf didn't get the key and map from Thrain at Dol Guldur, where did he get them?
  • The Morgul blade stuck out to me. This may be overly nitpicky, but I can't help it. When that's brought up, they say that it was buried with the Witch-King... but he was never killed. In fact, it was when he escaped after the fall of Angmar that one of the Elves present at that battle made the prediction that he would not be felled by the hand of any man, which was important in LotR. Sorry, not really important when you get down to it, since when the prediction was made doesn't matter for viewers of the movie who aren't Tolkien geeks, that one just bugs me personally.
  • It also seems like they might be trying to imply some romantic interest between Galadriel and Gandalf. Big problem with that: Galadriel is married (heck, her husband should probably be part of the White Council). I hope I'm just misinterpreting there, and they're only trying to imply a strong friendship, which would make sense, but given the prevalence of romantic subplots in media today I can't help but be worried they're trying to shoehorn one in here.
• The Giants. Now yes, there is mention of Giants in The Hobbit - the only mention of them anywhere in Tolkien's writings, in fact - but they're just said to stand atop the mountains throwing rocks at each other, making it dangerous, not to be made of rock and seem to be part of the mountain. Again, not important, but I get the feeling that change was made solely to show off some 3D effects given the way some of those scenes were shown. (I did not see the movie in 3D. 3D is not worth any extra cost in my opinion.)

Now, on the flip side there, I should mention that there are changes that didn't bug me, and I readily acknowledge were a good move. Like with the Trolls, for instance. The removal of the talking purse was obviously a good call, and having the Dwarves try to rescue Bilbo and get captured when the Trolls threatened to kill him instead of stumbling in and being captured one by one like idiots was as well. And actually, I kind of wish they had made one more change there - alter the Trolls' design, so that their turning to stone in daylight when the Trolls in LotR don't becomes a matter of them being a different species of Troll. Also would explain their ability to talk instead of just grunt like animals like the LotR ones. Oh well, missed opportunity.

I also liked how they managed to make the Dwarves look different and mostly distinct. While I didn't manage to get all of them down, I can certainly recognize Thorin, Balin, Bombur, and Fili and Kili (though I can't tell those two apart) on sight now, as well as one other whose name I don't recall ever putting to his face (the one that Bilbo talks to in the cave in the Misty Mountains before the Dwarves are captured). I could have done without the cliché fat jokes with Bombur though (and yes, I know he was fat in the book). And there is still about half of the company that don't stand out, but I can't fault them there, as thirteen such characters is a bit much even for a lengthy movie adaptation of the story.

Anyway though, as I said, on the whole, I liked it. Aside from what I've said so far, my main criticism would be that the beginning drags on too much, but once the adventure gets started, it's genuinely quite good throughout, aside from a couple of hard-to-follow action sequences. I am definitely looking forward to the remaining movies, and I do think there is ample proof here that multiple movies were called for... though as I said earlier, I don't know about three instead of two. We'll see how the second turns out before I pass any judgment on that though.

[LordHavelock]

it was more like an itch :P

maybe he'll kill azog in film 2 and we'll get to see bog?

Azog won't die until film number 3 at the battle of five Armies I imagine.

[Silkspinner]

...wow, really? I was expecting a lot of negative criticisms for this film, especially considering the general consensus on these forums for the LOTR trilogy.

The Trilogy is amongst my top ten fave films.

The Hobbit was unapologetic crap once the journey began. I consider everything after Bilbo woke up to find the dwarves gone to be all a bad dream.

I could go into details but doubt it'd be well received here.


Let's just say wasn't me, but every Tolkien fancier I went to see it with. None of us are even interested in seeing it a second time, and we could do so for free.

[snoopy13a]

...wow, really? I was expecting a lot of negative criticisms for this film, especially considering the general consensus on these forums for the LOTR trilogy.

The Trilogy is amongst my top ten fave films.

The Hobbit was unapologetic crap once the journey began. I consider everything after Bilbo woke up to find the dwarves gone to be all a bad dream.

I could go into details but doubt it'd be well received here.


Let's just say wasn't me, but every Tolkien fancier I went to see it with. None of us are even interested in seeing it a second time, and we could do so for free.

Would you mind going into detail? I'm just curious to see how you thought it fell short. For example, did you think it wasn't epic enough? Or did you think that Jackson betrayed the source material? Did you think that he tried to do both and made a muddled mess? Did you find the film technique used distracting? Too long?

Also, what is your favorite Tolkien work versus your least favorite Tolkien work? (I have a little theory that people who really like The Hobbit tend not to like The Simarillion very much and vice versa.)

As I've written previously, I enjoyed the movie but I didn't think it was great. It is in the B-/C+ range for me.

[Zevox]

Also, what is your favorite Tolkien work versus your least favorite Tolkien work? (I have a little theory that people who really like The Hobbit tend not to like The Simarillion very much and vice versa.)

That's not necessarily the case. The Silmarillion is my favorite of Tolkien's books, but I still like The Hobbit. Some parts of it that just don't gel with the rest of Tolkien's writing do bug me, but not badly since I know the reason for them is that The Hobbit was originally a children's story not necessarily meant to fit in with the rest of Tolkien's mythos.

[Silkspinner]

Well, just off the top of my head...

- The CGI was pretty horrible. In the Trilogy they used prosthetics for everything. In this one they used mostly computers and the orcs look absolutely fake and unlike the trilogy. The Goblins were a travesty, especially that stupid King. He was merely a remake of that fat diner-owner from Star Wars II, and even used the same voice actor.

In fact, the whole thing had the feel of the latest Star Wars films, which brings me to...

- The lame, childish humor. Not bumbling slapstick like in The Hobbit which can be done in an adult manner, but simply corny and/or agonizing. Lines like with the Goblin King 'And what can you do to kill me' or whatever, followed by -slash-, "Oh, that'll do it." X_X

Reminiscent of ThreePO in Star Wars having his severed head hauled along and going, 'This is such a drag'.

Then you had the snot flinging and fart blowing. I mean, really?

As someone mentioned above, it was like a live-action cartoon. This isn't really a film for children, yet they throw in stuff that is suited to pre-teens.

- It veered wildly from the book, far more than the trilogy, adding in parts that were completely unnecessary and rather uninteresting, like that stupid pale orc arc. Could have left him out and extended on other scenes or parts of the book that weren't even added.

- It had a generally rushed, sloppy, unprofessional feel once the Shire was left. Like they just wanted to hurry and get it over with. It's as if The Hobbit was the cheap intro, and the Trilogy the masterpiece made with all the money they made from the Hobbit, instead of being the other way around.

And while it didn't need to feel 'epic', it had very little magic to it either. I didn't feel I was seeing the book. The actual old cartoon film felt closer to it.


I left feeling disappointed and disheartened. It was not even the same league. LOTR was nominated, and won, many awards. I could never see The Hobbit doing the same.


And I'm pretty much equal with all of Tolkien's works. Can't really say I prefer one over the other.

[Ragnar Lodbroke]

Also, what is your favorite Tolkien work versus your least favorite Tolkien work? (I have a little theory that people who really like The Hobbit tend not to like The Simarillion very much and vice versa.)

Probably not directed at me, I'm only answering because It's not my case and I enjoy debunking theories

I think that the Hobbit in one of my favourite Tolkien works; but I love the Silmarillion. The Fellowship of the Ring is probably my least favourite one.

Yet I feel it is an unfair question. I mean, every book had its awesome moments, and I love the Fellowship.
I just love the rest more.

I think that the only regret I have over the Silmarillion is that, since many of the stories in it are not completely developed due to Author Existance Failure (And the fact that most of those stories were not meant to be originally published, but to work as background), it's only a shadow of what it could have been.

Which is a very Tolkienesque thing, since we are talking about it.

- The CGI was pretty horrible. In the Trilogy they used prosthetics for everything. In this one they used mostly computers and the orcs look absolutely fake. The Goblins were a travesty, especially that stupid King. He was merely a remake of that fat diner-owner from Star Wars II, and even used the same voice actor.

You know, I was thinking "Gungan King... Gungan King" through that entire scene

Then you had the snot flinging and fart blowing. I mean, really?

That is actually a good point.

Spoiler

Show

I'd add the bird droppings on Radagast.

- It veered wildly from the book, far more than the trilogy, adding in parts that were completely unnecessary and rather uninteresting, like that stupid pale orc arc. Could have left him out and extended on other scenes or parts of the book that weren't even added.

Not in all cases... The pale Orc did exist in the books (Died years before, true...) But it's not a completely awful change. It could work to have an enemy following throughout the series, besides Smaug.

The dialogs between the dwarves and Bilbo were necessary. How do you establish their relationship without that?
How do you give the dwarves a personality without that?

Spoiler

Show

And the White council thing has potential. I mean, real epic potential.

[Ragnar Lodbroke]

Double post, sorry.

[Helanna]

I saw it and loved it (I also love the book, but I haven't read it for quite a few years). I don't really have anything to add that hasn't been discussed already. Yes, some parts dragged a bit but I found I didn't mind, and it was nice to see so much of the world and its history.

[navar100]

Yeah, because there is no difference between the amount of material in a novel that is easy to fit in ones pocket and a doorstopper the size of a good dictionary or large Bible.
In case you couldn't guess, the above is sarcasm.

Ah, but what is in one's pocket can be quite important.

Personally, I have so far not even read Lord of the Rings nor The Hobbit. Maybe one day I will, but free from the burden of being offended of what is or is not in the movies I can judge the movie on its own merits. It is a great adventure.

[Tavar]

Just saw the film, and I thought it was pretty good.

Also, Bilbo's fighting skill is wildly inconsistent (I wave a sword around like an idiot and then I suddenly one-shot a warg and duel a goblin).

His one shot of a Warg was a Warg impaling its head on Sting, and his duel with the Orc was him blindsiding it and then repeatedly wildly chopping at it. Not exactly moments showing off his skill.

As for the Rings, they might be brought up in the next movies. Considering how rarely the rings are brought up in the Lord of the Rings, it didn't feel odd that people didn't mention them.

[Telonius]

Spoiler

Show

"Are the Elf and Sauron singing? When did this become Tenacious D?"

Spoiler

Show

This is not the greatest story Tolkien ever wrote. This is only a tribute.

[Wardog]

I've just got back from seeing it. (High-speed 3D version).

Overall, I liked it, a lot. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if - as with LotR - all the problems start to grate on future viewings).

The special effects looked fine to me. It took me a little while to get my "eyes in" on the 3D (at first all the foreground characters seemed to be floating infront of the background), but I all 3D movies do that to me, including Avatar. Apart from that, I didn't have any problems with the effects, and didn't notice any of the issues I've seen complaints about.

I didn't have too much problem with the filler, apart from the bit right at the start that's imported from the first chapter of LotR. (Why, for Eru's sake? It was completely unnecessary, and was a bit of a drag even in the original novel, where it was at least mostly relevent to the plot).

I was a bit off-put by the portrayal of Rhadagast at first (especialy his rabbit sled). But after thinking for a bit, I decided it probably wasn't too much "out of tone" with the original book. And then when I considered that the story is essentially "Bilbo's account of his adventures", which canonically was embellished for effect/to conceal certain events, then all the dafter bits suddenly make perfect sense.


As for the actual changes to the story:
For the most part, I think they work. Having Azog alive and persuing them adds a degree of urgency to the story, and a bit of structure as well, compared to the novel which was more of a string of wacky adventures.

Having the dwarves get involved in more fights I think was also a good change, as it makes them much more involved in the story. (A lot of the episodes in the novel seemed to be variations of "stuff happens to the dwarves, Gandalf saves the day, and Bilbo acts as the audience surrogate").

Similarly, having Bilbo prove himself sooner was probably necessary given the structure of the films. (By which I mean, it needed to be done in the first film). As an aside, I'm very glad that Film!Bilbo, despite his own sense of unworthyness, i a more competent and engaging character than Film!Frodo. (Which is ironic, because if I remember the books right, Bilbo started out quite pathetic before undergoing character development, whereas Frodo started out a lot more adventurous and competent, got even more so over the course of the story, and didn't go "soft" until the end when he had been broken by his experiences).

I have a bit more of a problem with Jackson's tendancy (previously demonstrated in the LotR trilogy) to mess around the the background story and the timeline. (Simplifying the War Between the Dwarves and the Orcs, and more notably, making The Necromancer's takeover of Mirkwood a current event). On the one hand, I'm not sure it harms the plot of the film, and people unfamiliar with the lore won't have any complaints. But on the other hand, it seems completely unnecessary, and will potentially annoy/confuse those lore fans.

And reducing the eagles to moth-summoned air-taxis (again) cheapens their role in the world, loses a good opportunity for some useful exposition (and, if I remember correctly, an opportunity for Gandalf to show his importance by essentially discussing world politics with the agents of the gods. Which is far more impressive than casting "talk with moth", which should really be more of Rhadagast's thing).


So overall, I enjoyed it. It was a good film, and enjoyable to watch especially if you can switch off the Lore Purity part of your brain (and remember that The Hobbitt, or There and Back Again is Bilbo's not-entierly-accurate autobiography, and a more light-hearted tale than LotR*. I'll definitely be going to see the next part when it's out. (Whether I'll still enjoy them on the second or third re-watch, I'm not so sure).



* Or the Silmarillion. Or The Children of Hurin. Dear God, The Children of Hurin. It could be subtitled "or, How Everyone Screws Up, and the Bad Guys Basically Win. And then Everyone Dies Alone."

[Wardog]

He ISN'T low profile. He WAS generally pretty easily trackable.

Again, like the guy but either:

A: He DOES'NT have the power, and hes mostly wise

or

B: He just doesn't want to use them out of laziness.

Or C: Because when Ainur use their full power to directly intervene in the world, the world breaks.

[Zevox]

Or C: Because when Ainur use their full power to directly intervene in the world, the world breaks.

Well, continents do, anyway. The world breaking thing was actually Eru, as they temporarily turned over governance of the world to him because of the magnitude of that situation.

But their struggle with Morgoth at Utumno was said to send the surrounding land into the sea, and the War of Wrath did the same to northern Beleriand despite only Maiar, Elves, and mortals taking part, so close enough. No doubt that's why the Ainur had forbid the Istari from using their power against Sauron directly.

[JoshL]

- The CGI was pretty horrible. In the Trilogy they used prosthetics for everything. In this one they used mostly computers and the orcs look absolutely fake and unlike the trilogy. The Goblins were a travesty, especially that stupid King. He was merely a remake of that fat diner-owner from Star Wars II, and even used the same voice actor.

That's actually not true.

I actually didn't mind the CG goblins as much as I thought I would. Don't get me wrong, I love the Moria goblins in LOTR, but I liked that these had a distinctly different style. Furthermore, more than anything else, they're del Toro's style, rather than just old Howe/Lee designs. I personally really love del Toro's style, wasn't sure how much of a stylistic impact he was going to have.

[Mutant Sheep]

Spoiler

Show

This is not the greatest story Tolkien ever wrote. This is only a tribute.

OH MY GOD YOU ARE AWESOME.

You know, I was thinking "Gungan King... Gungan King" through that entire scene...

I was reminded of (oh god why did I watch that) MiB 2's "He's a ball-chinian."

Not in all cases... The pale Orc did exist in the books (Died years before, true...) But it's not a completely awful change. It could work to have an enemy following throughout the series, besides Smaug.

The dialogs between the dwarves and Bilbo were necessary. How do you establish their relationship without that?
How do you give the dwarves a personality without that?

Spoiler

Show

And the White council thing has potential. I mean, real epic potential.

Spoiler

Show

I think it would have taken a bit too long to manage the whole "bwhaha, I cut off his head and gave you gold MASSIVE WAR OF DOOM", but I found the flashback fight lacking.
*bunch of incoherent and inane questions*How did Azog cut off his head, he only has a giant maceclub? Why was Thorin the only one to notice and do the classic "stop fighting at look at the big dramatic thing"? And how did cutting off Azog's arm reverse the rout so thoroughly? Why do all the Gundabad Orcs were so many leather armor pieces on their upper bodies but then Azog runs around wearing nothing when he has prior experience of "no armor=missing limbs"? Why do the orcs look like Spiderwick Chronicle orcs? THEY SHOULDN'T! I think that's where the CGI hurt the movie the most. When it's a human underneath makeup, they had to keep the eyes in a reasonable place. Azog already looks strange, making all his minions wear a ton of clothes and weird eyes didn't help me take him seriously. (But I was already griping when he got dragged into Moria by other orcs because he should be deaaaaaaaaaaad.
Also, there was one too many scenes of "oh no wolv-I mean wargs" THEY ARE WOLVES YOU ALREEADY SHOWED US WARGS IN LOTR. They turn around and kill them easily after the wolves catch up to them anyways. I loved Radagast though. The moss/bird on the side of his face was weird, but the hedgehog was adorable and spiders were menacing. And also, he completely smacked down Khamul. Like, bad. And in the face. But the blade was the *Insert BFME2 made up lore argument* argh. HE DIDNT DIE. ARGH.
*end incoherence*

[Ragnar Lodbroke]

Well, continents do, anyway. The world breaking thing was actually Eru, as they temporarily turned over governance of the world to him because of the magnitude of that situation.

But their struggle with Morgoth at Utumno was said to send the surrounding land into the sea, and the War of Wrath did the same to northern Beleriand despite only Maiar, Elves, and mortals taking part, so close enough. No doubt that's why the Ainur had forbid the Istari from using their power against Sauron directly.

There was a similar discussion in a LOTR thread somewhere in this forum...

I always had the impression that the World had changed due to the "world-breaking thing".

That somehow magic, and magical powers didn't work in the same way.

It could be an explanation of the reasons behind the Rings of Power: A way to stop the passage of time, of keeping Magic in middle earth for a while longer.

(Of course, personal impression not backed at all by canon)

Telonius; you rock.

I was reminded of (oh god why did I watch that) MiB 2's "He's a ball-chinian."

Spoiler

Show

I think it would have taken a bit too long to manage the whole "bwhaha, I cut off his head and gave you gold MASSIVE WAR OF DOOM", but I found the flashback fight lacking.

*bunch of incoherent and inane questions*How did Azog cut off his head, he only has a giant maceclub? Why was Thorin the only one to notice and do the classic "stop fighting at look at the big dramatic thing"? And how did cutting off Azog's arm reverse the rout so thoroughly? Why do all the Gundabad Orcs were so many leather armor pieces on their upper bodies but then Azog runs around wearing nothing when he has prior experience of "no armor=missing limbs"? Why do the orcs look like Spiderwick Chronicle orcs? THEY SHOULDN'T! I think that's where the CGI hurt the movie the most. When it's a human underneath makeup, they had to keep the eyes in a reasonable place. Azog already looks strange, making all his minions wear a ton of clothes and weird eyes didn't help me take him seriously. (But I was already griping when he got dragged into Moria by other orcs because he should be deaaaaaaaaaaad.

*end incoherence*

Spoiler

Show

- Good question.

- Thorin was the guy's grandson, I believe. He was also not engaged in battle at the moment. The rest of his army was trying very hard not to die.

- By defeating the leader, Thorin broke the morale of the Goblins and they retreated. Goblins lack discipline and can only remain together when ruled by a stronger chieftain, so it's not impossible. Finally, the goblins only retreated, they weren't destroyed. It was implied to be a Pyrrhic victory, after all. The dwarves won by not dying completely.

- I would say Rule of Cool, and there are probably some tropes about Barbarians Not Wearing Armor.
It makes him look badas and primitive.
And on his previous experience; this is a guy who sends wolves to climb trees. He is not precisely the brightest apple in the basket.

- Never watched Spiderwick. The orcs looked different, but not so bad to me.

- Finally; yes, he SHOULD be dead. Only time will say if they make that change a meaningful one, thereby justifying it, or if they just destroy the canon for Hollywood fandom.