Hall of Fire Reviews - Post Them Here! [SPOILERS!]

[Dave_LF]

I didn't care for the troll fight and felt like it went on several beats too long. And Radagast's involvement in wargs #1 was goofy. But I at least liked it that in both warg chases, the heroes only survived by running away. They are evidently impervious to falls, but they can still lose fights. The Nazgûl were diminished by having Aragorn fight them off so easily; we at least don't have that problem with Azog.

[kzer_za]

I thought Out of the Frying Pan was the best non-flashback action scene. I would have preferred the more tense and suspenseful version in the book and I'm not a fan of Bilbo becoming a warrior so soon, but the visuals were excellent and it was an enjoyable climax.

[Dave_LF]

Here's the problem with Azog: the main motivation for the journey is supposed to be reclaiming Erebor. Peter Jackson has also decided to add the Necromancer as a secondary plotline. Azog has only indirect connections to both of these things, so he's almost a third storyline. And he's not an interesting character at all.

I don't think the Necromancer is going to be a secondary plotline, though. In the end, I think both stories will be tied together and resolved simultaneously at the battle of five armies. And, of course, in the scope of the whole six-part story, the Necromancer does end up mattering more than Erebor.

[yovargas]

Honestly Yov, I think you might just not have been in the right mood for it? Not saying you're not entitled to your opinion, just that the films are really very similar in their action scenes and for you to not enjoy ANY of this one when you enjoyed MOST of the other three makes me this you just need to take a break and go watch it with fresh eyes.

Just a suggestion, no criticism implied.

That's a reasonable thought but I think it's 3 things: 1) the dwarves are terribly dull action heroes (I thought the same of Gimli), worse here for being an indistinguishable and impersonal blur of beards; 2) THREE of the major action set pieces involve "OMG falling from a precipice!" scenarios, and all three are totally preposterous.; 3) only the trolls are remotely interesting villians, in part cuz I strongly disliked the art design of the new orcs and HATED the damn goblin king.

[JewelSong]

the dwarves are terribly dull action heroes (I thought the same of Gimli), worse here for being an indistinguishable and impersonal blur of beards;

Really? I thought PJ did quite a creditable job with distinguishing them...and all the beards (and hair) are very different. And if you think dwarves are "dull action heroes" then it is likely you wouldn't like ANY version of "The Hobbit" since, besides Bilbo, ALL the rest of the company is made up of dwarves.

[Elentári]

I'm still scratching around, trying to put my finger on exactly what it was that was the problem for me aside from the changes to canon, of course...people have talked about how we shouldn't expect it to be the same as LotR because it's a much lighter story in tone, etc., and I appreciate that.

Sure it is more fantastical in parts, but what we all loved about LotR was that it felt real! We could believe it was really happening to the characters. And there are sections of AUJ where it becomes unbelievable, just another CGI blockbuster movie:

Step forward the Transformer Stone Giants, and LOTRO Goblin Town as prime examples...

The first hour of absolute perfection at Bag End was vintage Jackson LotR, and the Erebor prologue was epic in the same vein as Minas Tirith/Pelennor Fields. No problem there. So I've come to the conclusion that it was partly the 3D (I haven't yet seen it at HFR - that's tomorrow) as opposed to 2D, and the heavy reliance on CGI whereas before the miniatures were such a big part of grounding us in the reality of the fantastical locations.

Perhaps the EE version in 2D will confirm this for me...

[anthriel]

Anthy and Inanna, if you find The Hobbit tiring, then surely the somewhat over-wrought RotK ought to give you both a headache.

Well, I actually didn't say "tiring", or agree with that word specifically of Inanna's; I was agreeing with yov, about liking LotR better than the Hobbit.

To which I hold. I will try to come back and flesh out my reasons for my impression later, if anyone is interested.


I still say that the "OMG he's Totally H0tt" dwarves (Thorin, Fili and Kili) juxtaposed against the more cartoonish dwarves was jarring. My hubby, not a huge follower of any of this, was not sure at first that they were all supposed to be dwarves. He asked who that guy was who was leading the dwarves... he thought Thorin was a short human, at first.

Maybe it's an age thing? Although Ori was the youngest, right?? and he was hardly H0tt. I kinda wonder how he survived so many travails, actually, an evident half-wit armed with a slingshot.

Will Fili and Kili grow up to look like Gloin? It worries me, yes it does.

[Dave_LF]

Another thing, I think the whole thing will darken and grit up as we go along, just like the book does. If part 1 is silly and cartoony, that may just be so it can stand in greater contrast to what will follow. The danger may have felt fake here, but remember how the story actually ends. And the final scenes with Bilbo and Thorin are more poignant if you keep in mind what will happen between the two of them in part 3.

[Pearly Di]

I still say that the "OMG he's Totally H0tt" dwarves (Thorin, Fili and Kili) juxtaposed against the more cartoonish dwarves was jarring. My hubby, not a huge follower of any of this, was not sure at first that they were all supposed to be dwarves. He asked who that guy was who was leading the dwarves... he thought Thorin was a short human, at first.

I just don't think about it that much, to be honest with you. We have a company of Dwarves who all differ from each other in looks, just as humans do, whilst still preserving a generic sort of Dwarvish* look. *shrugs*

Works for me.

I just think of Kili being an exceptionally good-looking young dwarf.

*Dwarvish, not Dwarven. Friend of mine hates the word 'Dwarven', since Tolkien never actually used it.

[yovargas]

And if you think dwarves are "dull action heroes" then it is likely you wouldn't like ANY version of "The Hobbit" since, besides Bilbo, ALL the rest of the company is made up of dwarves.

I might like one with about 85% less dwarf fighting then the one we got. (Goblin town is eeeeendless!!)

[Stranger Wings]

there's nothing like the stupid pre-Rivendell warg chase.

There is in Towers though. And it serves less purpose than the one in the Hobbit.

The warg chase in TTT served an obvious story purpose. It showed Saruman's reach, it built up tension for Saruman's eventual all-out assault, it gave Éowyn her first opportunity to lead, it also showed us Théoden's leadership for the first time, it created Aragorn's fake death and resurrection plot line (though I didn't much like that), and lastly - it set up the first time Éowyn's love for Aragorn is shown overtly (when she fears his death, and is overjoyed at his return).

Was much of that done in PJ's ham-handed way? Yes. But at least it didn't feel like some sort of throwaway cartoon BS, like the warg and Radagast chase. IMO, of course.

[Stranger Wings]

Well; when you're telling a story in several parts, you sometimes have to "bloat" an early segment in order to set up things that happen later, otherwise they just come out of the blue. The story is increasingly going to shift to the Necromancer with the next two parts, and they needed to hint at that now. I'm actually surprised they managed to do little more than hint (though I strongly suspect there was quite a bit more Radagst material that was cut).

As for the warg hunt, in addition to forcing them to go to Rivendell, it also established that Azog was still out there and after them. They needed that setup for the payoff at the end.

And that is the massive problem with these films - the shift to a Necromancer who really has nothing to do with Bilbo's and Thorin's personal journeys. That will create bloat in the first films, bloat in the second, and will only possibly feel justified by film three - though it may even feel tangential there.

There are just too many barely connected threads, and PJ is not a skilled enough director to pull them together in a satisfying way. Bilbo's personal story, Thorin's attempt to take back the Mountain and get rid of the dragon, Thorin's desire to avenge his grandfather by killing Azog, the rise of the Necromancer, the finding of the One Ring, Gandalf's geopoliticking and covert alliance with Galadriel, Saruman and Elrond's reluctance to do anything, etc.

I think a great director could make all of this wondrous, and expansive and thrilling. But with PJ, it is all done with such a lack of subtlety, and such confusion, that all the story-lines feel like afterthoughts.

[JewelSong]

I might like one with about 85% less dwarf fighting then the one we got. (Goblin town is eeeeendless!!)

See, I *loved* "Goblin-Town." I thought it was suitably quirky and the Great Goblin was hilariously gross.

I don't see how you could have the Hobbit with 85% less dwarf fighting. What do you expect them to do when the orcs and goblins and trolls attack? Bumble around, muttering dwarf-curses under their breath?

Seriously...how DO you expect the dwarves to behave? Maybe you just don't like dwarves in general.

[Stranger Wings]

Here's the problem with Azog: the main motivation for the journey is supposed to be reclaiming Erebor. Peter Jackson has also decided to add the Necromancer as a secondary plotline. Azog has only indirect connections to both of these things, so he's almost a third storyline. And he's not an interesting character at all.

Exactly. Though I do love Azog's design (and the wonderful white wolf). To be honest, I would rather have his storyline than the Necromancer one, which is wholly uninteresting. The fall and rise of Sauron has already been described to us in FOTR. What story-telling purpose does it serve to give us further background on that? Sauron is not concerned with Bilbo and Thorin at all, while he is very concerned with Frodo. So why gives us a plot line, and a character (the Necromancer/Sauron) who is not at all concerned with the main characters?

The way PJ justifies this is by giving Gandalf a llong character arc! They have set him up as "afraid" and he will "grow" during the three films, until he confronts Sauron with the White Council A-team, and then tries to save the day at BoFA.

So, the Hobbit has become a story of Bilbo's, Thorin's AND Gandalf's "growth." Sounds like a colossal bore. Gandalf is a wonderful character because he is an enigmatic archetype. Giving him a half-baked pstchological growth period is criminal, IMO, and about as far from Tolkien as one can get.

These films will be bloated messes, and I'm not sure I care to watch them all in the theaters.

Though I probably will anyway...

[Stranger Wings]

the dwarves are terribly dull action heroes (I thought the same of Gimli), worse here for being an indistinguishable and impersonal blur of beards;

Really? I thought PJ did quite a creditable job with distinguishing them...and all the beards (and hair) are very different. And if you think dwarves are "dull action heroes" then it is likely you wouldn't like ANY version of "The Hobbit" since, besides Bilbo, ALL the rest of the company is made up of dwarves.

Er, but not any version of the Hobbit would put the dwarves into so many action scenes...

We forget that the dwarves of the book were not even armed at the beginning. Another director may have gone with the book's portrayal, and focused in on their hopelessness and incompetence, rather than their argghy fighting skillz (which get boring after the first instance). That might have actually made for a more enjoyable film.

And even if one does require so many action scenes, there are obvious ways of making their fighting more interesting. I'm thinking of the Germanic chief swinging that massive weapon at the beginning battle in Gladiator. That was some furious and memorable fighting. PJ achieved nothing of the sort with the dwarves.

[yovargas]

See, I *loved* "Goblin-Town." I thought it was suitably quirky and the Great Goblin was hilariously gross.

I don't see how you could have the Hobbit with 85% less dwarf fighting. What do you expect them to do when the orcs and goblins and trolls attack? Bumble around, muttering dwarf-curses under their breath?

Seriously...how DO you expect the dwarves to behave? Maybe you just don't like dwarves in general.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be dwarf fighting scenes. I'm saying the ones we got were way too long and too often considering very little interesting or exciting action really happened during them.

[Stranger Wings]

I might like one with about 85% less dwarf fighting then the one we got. (Goblin town is eeeeendless!!)

See, I *loved* "Goblin-Town." I thought it was suitably quirky and the Great Goblin was hilariously gross.

I don't see how you could have the Hobbit with 85% less dwarf fighting. What do you expect them to do when the orcs and goblins and trolls attack? Bumble around, muttering dwarf-curses under their breath?

Seriously...how DO you expect the dwarves to behave? Maybe you just don't like dwarves in general.

Er, you could follow the rather funny scenario in the book, where they foolishly pop up to see what's happened to Bilbo, and get nabbed by the trolls. Then Thorin can show up and have his hero moment. That would have made for a funnier, and more whimsical scene, which would have better captured the spirit of the Hobbit. Instead, we get more LOTR-lite. A cheap imitation of PJ's earlier films. Blech.

[Stranger Wings]

I'm still scratching around, trying to put my finger on exactly what it was that was the problem for me aside from the changes to canon, of course...people have talked about how we shouldn't expect it to be the same as LotR because it's a much lighter story in tone, etc., and I appreciate that.

Sure it is more fantastical in parts, but what we all loved about LotR was that it felt real! We could believe it was really happening to the characters. And there are sections of AUJ where it becomes unbelievable, just another CGI blockbuster movie:

Step forward the Transformer Stone Giants, and LOTRO Goblin Town as prime examples...

The first hour of absolute perfection at Bag End was vintage Jackson LotR, and the Erebor prologue was epic in the same vein as Minas Tirith/Pelennor Fields. No problem there. So I've come to the conclusion that it was partly the 3D (I haven't yet seen it at HFR - that's tomorrow) as opposed to 2D, and the heavy reliance on CGI whereas before the miniatures were such a big part of grounding us in the reality of the fantastical locations.

Perhaps the EE version in 2D will confirm this for me...

I think it was a combination of CGI and really thin storytelling that ruined it for me. I also LOVED the beginning, right up through the trolls (which were OK). The rest of the film is a CGI-filled bore, and Rivendell didn't help, with its stupid moon table and glossy Kincaid-esque look. There was nothing beautiful or poetic or interesting or humorous about the film after Bag End, and that was a major disappointment.

[Pearly Di]

Huh . I thought Rivendell was even more gorgeous, with even more spectacular waterfalls. . I loved that porticoe where the Council met, right next to the lip of one of the falls.

Bilbo's crucial moment of pity towards Gollum was beautiful.

The Company's first glimpse of the Lonely Mountain was beautiful.

The Thorin/Bilbo hug was beautiful!

[JewelSong]

Er, you could follow the rather funny scenario in the book, where they foolishly pop up to see what's happened to Bilbo, and get nabbed by the trolls.

Then you would probably be complaining that the dwarves were used for nothing more than comic relief.

Rivendell didn't help, with its stupid moon table and glossy Kincaid-esque look

Well, to me, Rivendell looked pretty much as it did in LOTR, so you must have hated that, too. And it wasn't Kincaid, it was Alan Lee, almost exactly.

What's your beef with the moon table? I thought it was beautiful.

more LOTR-lite. A cheap imitation of PJ's earlier films. Blech.

Your dislike of the film seems really out of proportion to - well, to anything. Did you even like LOTR?