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

[Stranger Wings]

The critics are wrong.

This film isn't bad because of the beginning. The beginning is one of the best things I have ever seen on film. This film is bad because of the middle and end. Which leads me to my ultimate conclusion: Peter really knows how to set up a story, and he has absolutely no idea how to execute it. No clue whatsoever. The middle and end of the film is so incredibly uninteresting, flat, disjointed, heavy-handed, sloppy, fake, bland, thin, and every other insulting description in the book. It is an extended video game cinematic with high production value. There are so few reasons to care about this part of the story, or anyone in it, that it's almost not even worth talking about. But it has left me with such an immensely hollow feeling – borne of the fact that I believe this was the last chance in my life to see Tolkien’s work satisfyingly translated to the screen – that I have to get it off my chest as therapy. This may sound silly, but I went into the film quite happy – my personal and professional life is wonderful at the moment – and left bordering on depressed. I know it’s just a movie, but this is it. I am going to die, and never see a film adaptation of Tolkien’s works that I like. Alright, enough of the Peter Jackson-esque melodrama!

Oh, but the beginning. How absolutely wonderful it was. As the embers floated off into the night sky over Bag End, I said to myself: "Has Peter Jackson done it? Has he finally captured the essence of Tolkien, in just a few scenes?" The answer is yes, he did. He captured it in a bottle, and used it all up at the beginning. Then he lost it. And boy did he lose it.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let me start with what I liked, primarily because I can count that on two hands.

The Good

1. Bilbo and Frodo prologue: Despite being rather unecessary, I unexpectedly enjoyed the framing device. Why? Three reasons. First, it is about Bilbo – the main character of this story (who Peter forgets about later). Second, it’s in the Shire. That is the place Peter does best. Third, it has Ian Holm being an English bon vivante in it. That’s always a good thing. One quibble. Why in the name of Radagast’s Rhosgobel rabbits did they change “and that means comfort” to “and that means good food, a warm hearth, and all kinds of comforts” or some such nonsense? What purpose did that change serve?

2. The Erebor flashback: While I felt Thror’s Scrooge McDuck moment in the vault was a tad ridiculous, and that the interior of Erebor looked more like something from the Thor comic book world than Middle Earth, I ate this flashback up. I especially loved Thror’s awesomely ornate beard, and Thranduil’s fantastic stag-mount. That was a moment of visual imagination that wasn’t in the book, but felt absolutely right. I also didn’t mind the bit about Thranduil abandoning the dwarves, even if it had echoes of Théoden’s “Where was Gondor?” That is primarily because Lee Pace did an extraordinary job of portraying some sort of godly indifference – slowly closing his eyes and turning away. In those few moments, he seemed more elvish than both Weaving’s Elrond and Blanchett’s Galadriel (as much as I love them both as actors). But we shall see if that is sustained in the next film.

3. All of Bag End: The “good morning” dialogue. Brilliant. Bilbo doesn’t mean most of what he says! The arrival of the dwarves. Brilliant. I especially loved the short bit where Dwalin sits down and eats Bilbo’s dinner, which we just watched him preparing for himself. Bilbo awkwardly sitting next to Dwalin while his hulking form literally gobbles up his comfortable life, made the point of the story far better than most of the film does (and it was very funny, to boot). Here was the clash of timid, modern England and her virile, glorious, barbaric past, communicated in one scene. And then Balin’s response to Bilbo, when he says “good evening?” “Yes, yes it is.” That is spot on. Bilbo, the modern English man, was just uttering a pleasantry. And Balin, a dwarf of the ancient English past, takes his comment literally! Just perfect. Chip the glasses was good, for many of the same reasons, and then the Misty Mountains song. OH MY GAWD. This was the best representation of “the call of the wild” that I have ever seen on film. Thorin and company sing like ancient snake-charmers (beautifully shot too), and Bilbo listens from his room. With only a few shots, you could feel Bilbo drawn into the depths of the past, and the allure of ancient wonders. The primordial fire wakes up in his heart at that moment, and we didn’t need a flashback or anything to make the point. The camera pans to the fireplace, up and out the chimney, following the embers of the fire into the night sky. It could not be better. Then one of my favorite scenes in the film. Bilbo’s initial false relief at seeing the dwarves gone, followed by a deep disappointment. The camera-work, and Freeman’s brilliant acting, communicates this subtly and profoundly. Yes, Peter Jackson can do subtle. And he can do it very well. If only he trusted this kind of storytelling more often…

4. The outskirts of the Shire: Bilbo’s arrival, Balin’s “welcome Master Baggins,” Bilbo’s first go at pony-riding, the bet, and his “I forgot my handkerchief!” All light, jaunty, but refreshingly funny. It is Bilbo-centric, and is the most meaningful and natural group interaction we see in the entire film.

5. Balin’s description of Thorin’s personal story: Ken Stott is great. And the flashback to Azanulbizar was evocative (BTW, I saw Bolg quite clearly in closeup for a few seconds). And, it’s always good to see dwarves in battle. Even if they are being hurled off cliffs.

6. Azog’s design: Not the character so much, but the design. It’s genius (the best-designed orc character I have yet seen – almost a marble statue of an orc deity come to life. Much, much better than the uninspired Uruk Hai designs, including Lurtz).

7. Most of the troll business: I liked the trolls, and especially liked the unexpectedly horrifying image of one of them carrying the ponies to their deaths. I also didn’t mind the “Bilbo negotiation,” and found the parasites stuff to be pretty funny. Here, instead of a full-on deus ex machina, we have a Bilbo assist, followed by the Gandalf slam dunk (if you notice, Bilbo sees Gandalf scurrying out of view, which emboldens him to continue stalling). But Peter marred this scene with a few too many stupid gags, and a totally uninspired fight scene. It ended up feeling rather blah by the end of it.

8. Balin and Bofur: These two were the best dwarves of the bunch. Why? Because we got to spend a little time with them, and they were well-acted by Stott and Nesbitt. I loved all of Balin’s dialogue (except when he inexplicably becomes a voice of unreason, when he advises Thorin to not show Elrond the map). And despite the stupidity of Bilbo deciding to go home, I found the scene between him and Bofur in that moment to be incredibly effective. It’s just too bad that Peter decided to dwell on ten billion minutes of crappy CGI running and fighting, rather than spending time on the dwarves and Bilbo.

The Okay

1. The Goblin King’s personality: I was pleasantly surprised that he wasn’t the “Kill the dwarf-scum” type of limited vocabulary orc/goblin. While some of his routine was certainly silly, this part of the film desperately needed some personality. Otherwise, it would have been overwhelmed by CGI nothingness.

2. Most of Riddles in the Dark: While I think it would have been far more effective to visually play this scene ala Sheen and Brando in Apocalypse Now, it was competently executed. It wasn’t the tour de force some reviewers have claimed, but it was decent enough…

3. The flight of the thrush: A nice touch. Saved AUJ from being one of the worst films I have seen in the cinema in the past decade.

The Bad and the Ugly

Despite the fact that I really disliked the film, I will spend less time on the bad than the good. That’s because I don’t want to rain on the parade too much, and because there are so many bad things about the film, that I couldn’t possibly list them like I did above. If I did, I would probably list close to 200 examples.

In short, the rest of the movie sucked, and that made the whole film ultimately suck (I don’t believe a film can be good unless most of it is good!). For me, it was so overwhelmingly bad, that it wiped away almost all the moments of charm. Bilbo and the dwarves, and their Lonely Mountain quest, were no longer the focus of the film. In fact, the main purpose of their mission almost became an irritating afterthought – as if Peter Jackson simply didn’t care about it, and would rather have a tedious and thin rivalry between Thorin and Azog, and the backstory of Sauron’s rise, take center stage. But then even those misguided narratives were under-cooked. Everything from this point on felt perfunctory. Radagast’s initial introduction was charming, but that then devolved into utter crap. The warg chase was just awful, and Radagast’s diversionary tactic was criminal. Their method of getting into Rivendell was terrible. The lack of any more interaction between the dwarves, and the dwarves and Bilbo, was indefensible. Rivendell was useless and tacky, and Elrond’s “light table” was almost midichlorian-esque in its destruction of the simplicity and mystery of the source material. The White Council scene, which when I watched on its own seemed okay, was absolutely the wrong thing to show at that point of the film, when we should have been spending time with Bilbo and the dwarves. Galadriel’s chat with Gandalf was awfully boring, meaningless and completely tangential. Was this now also a film about Gandalf overcoming his fears? For god’s sake, focus on Bilbo’s character arc, not Gandalf’s! Do you not trust that storyline?

And after this, basically no more talking or meaningful interactions. Just fighting and shouting and swooping and falling. Mind-numbingly horrible. Oh noes, we’re on the stone giant’s knees! Oh noes, Bilbo is falling! Oh noes, the dwarves are dead! No, they’re alive! A cave! Oh noes, a trap door! Oh noes, we’re falling through a CGI slide! Ladders, wooden bridges, more CGI goblins, the Goblin King jumps up out of nowhere, video game boss-like!

Then Bilbo gives a decent speech, which the previous hour of the film makes you care nothing about, and then its more CGI idiocy. And the trees just HAD to be on the edge of that cliff, and we just HAD to have dwarves hanging off a tree, and thus off the cliff, and then Thorin fights Azog, and Bilbo saves him, and then all the dwarves show up somehow, and….whatever. The eagles were okay.

But this brings me to the final big problem of the film. While I like the man immensely, and believe he is the one actor on the cast that truly understands Tolkien (and speaks about his works far more intelligently than PJ ever has), Richard Armitage is simply not a great actor in this. His Thorin is so astoundingly one-note, that I almost can’t believe it. It may just be PJ, Fran and Philippa’s horrible script, but I’m not so sure. Just imagine what prideful energy a James Cosmo sparring with Gandalf would have given the film. Or an Ian McShane, or a Brian Cox, or any other older actor that has grit, wisdom, experience in his eyes, talent, and a capacity for humor when needed. This was, IMO, an epic miscast. And I didn’t expect that.

But enough of this rant, which is probably almost as mind-numbing as the film.

Conclusion

It’s not a very good film, and that’s that. But the most frustrating part about it is that it had a few small moments of beauty and near-perfection (the first 30 minutes or so, I suppose). If PJ just trusted the kind of storytelling he gives us in Bag End and the flashbacks – meaningful, rich and layered – his films would be excellent. Instead, he always gets away from that in his quest to provide us viewers with Hitchock’s “slice of cake” rather than a “slice of life.” The problem is that Hitchcock’s cake actually tasted pretty good. Jackson’s tastes like the first cake I ever baked, back in college when I was drunk and hungry. It was horrible.

[yovargas]

Shelob - if it makes you feel any better, at least you enjoyed those 1st 30 minutes. I can't even say that much!

[N.E. Brigand]

... I HATED the 48fps. Hate it. The film looks like a BBC play from the 1970s, for pete's sake. Not bothered by the 3D. My problem is with the 'too real' look, it just ruined that wonderful filmic sense of illusion.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so. This was my first modern 3-D film, and I was stunned by how bad it looked. I never thought the cinematography in Jackson's LOTR was more than satisfactory, but this film, at least in the the 48 f.p.s. version I saw, represents a big decline from the older films' visuals.

[Mrs.Underhill]

So, my question is... could you possibly edit the full (three film version) to only include the bits from the actual book... or are such bits inseparable from PJ's additions?

Interestingly, that's what I've been thinking about while watching the movie a second time.

With Hobbit-1 it seems pretty easy to satisfy me:
- In the troll fight, nip a part where dwarves lay down their weapons for Bilbo and just cut to the dwarves in sacks, like an ironic ending to their fight.
- Cut Azog/warg scenes from before Rivendell, cut to the dwarves going through the ravine and then to Rivendell directly. But keep Balin's description of Torin-Azog fight, and then Great Goblin mentions Azog anyway, so when he shows up with warg riders after Misty Mountains it's good enough for me.
It loses Radagast and his "Rosghobel rabbits" though... Not sure how to keep that.
- Show stone giants from the distance, and then the scared company hurrying into the cave.

- Not sure what to do with Bilbo deciding to leave. We can't lose the key scene with Bilbo and Bofur. I'm OK with keeping it, but I'd like more explanation of Thorin suddenly lashing at Bilbo than Bilbo just hanging off the ledge before. That one is tricky, but could be done.

Then I would cut the falling/running/fighting in Moria in about half, but it's not for purist purpose - just for cinema.

I don't mind the end with hanging tree and Thorin and Bilbo fighting warg riders. I love how it sets up the last scenes of the movie, so no help from me here.

[Stranger Wings]

So, my question is... could you possibly edit the full (three film version) to only include the bits from the actual book... or are such bits inseparable from PJ's additions?

Interestingly, that's what I've been thinking about while watching the movie a second time.

With Hobbit-1 it seems pretty easy to satisfy me:
- In the troll fight, nip a part where dwarves lay down their weapons for Bilbo and just cut to the dwarves in sacks, like an ironic ending to their fight.
- Cut Azog/warg scenes from before Rivendell, cut to the dwarves going through the ravine and then to Rivendell directly. But keep Balin's description of Torin-Azog fight, and then Great Goblin mentions Azog anyway, so when he shows up with warg riders after Misty Mountains it's good enough for me.
It loses Radagast and his "Rosghobel rabbits" though... Not sure how to keep that.
- Show stone giants from the distance, and then the scared company hurrying into the cave.

- Not sure what to do with Bilbo deciding to leave. We can't lose the key scene with Bilbo and Bofur. I'm OK with keeping it, but I'd like more explanation of Thorin suddenly lashing at Bilbo than Bilbo just hanging off the ledge before. That one is tricky, but could be done.

Then I would cut the falling/running/fighting in Moria in about half, but it's not for purist purpose - just for cinema.

I don't mind the end with hanging tree and Thorin and Bilbo fighting warg riders. I love how it sets up the last scenes of the movie, so no help from me here.

You could do all that, but it wouldn't really change much, IMO. Because the Bilbo-Thorin relationship, which is at the heart of the book, will still be awfully thin. IMO.

[Stranger Wings]

Shelob - if it makes you feel any better, at least you enjoyed those 1st 30 minutes. I can't even say that much!

Good to know that someone is more miserable than I am!

But out of curiosity - what didn't you like about the Bag End bits?

[Elentári]

So, my question is... could you possibly edit the full (three film version) to only include the bits from the actual book... or are such bits inseparable from PJ's additions?

Interestingly, that's what I've been thinking about while watching the movie a second time.

With Hobbit-1 it seems pretty easy to satisfy me:
- In the troll fight, nip a part where dwarves lay down their weapons for Bilbo and just cut to the dwarves in sacks, like an ironic ending to their fight.
- Cut Azog/warg scenes from before Rivendell, cut to the dwarves going through the ravine and then to Rivendell directly. But keep Balin's description of Torin-Azog fight, and then Great Goblin mentions Azog anyway, so when he shows up with warg riders after Misty Mountains it's good enough for me.
It loses Radagast and his "Rosghobel rabbits" though... Not sure how to keep that.
- Show stone giants from the distance, and then the scared company hurrying into the cave.

- Not sure what to do with Bilbo deciding to leave. We can't lose the key scene with Bilbo and Bofur. I'm OK with keeping it, but I'd like more explanation of Thorin suddenly lashing at Bilbo than Bilbo just hanging off the ledge before. That one is tricky, but could be done.

Then I would cut the falling/running/fighting in Moria in about half, but it's not for purist purpose - just for cinema.

I don't mind the end with hanging tree and Thorin and Bilbo fighting warg riders. I love how it sets up the last scenes of the movie, so no help from me here.

Yes, those cuts would improve the movie a great deal...but also, I still don't see the need to have Azog not die at Azanulbizar? Just exactly why can't Bolg be the main Orc villain with a vendetta against Thorin (if we still omit Dain here) for the death of his father?? All Azog's real-time scenes in this movie could have been given to Bolg with the same effect. I don't get Boyen's claim that the canon revenge plot is too removed.. Makes you wonder what the deal is going to be with Jackson's Bolg in DoS.

I do think the EE will give us a better film...hopefully it will restore more of the slower character moments which are much needed.

The warg chase was just awful, and Radagast’s diversionary tactic was criminal. Their method of getting into Rivendell was terrible.

Agreed 100% It was like Rivendell popped up out of nowhere. Bore absolutely no relation to the approach route the Fellowship took. I can only hope there is a lot of Rivendell cut for the EE as we did not see nearly enough. It's these parts of the book where more time should have been spent at the expense opf gratuitous action scenes like the Stone Giants...

The White Council scene, which when I watched on its own seemed okay, was absolutely the wrong thing to show at that point of the film, when we should have been spending time with Bilbo and the dwarves. Galadriel’s chat with Gandalf was awfully boring, meaningless and completely tangential. Was this now also a film about Gandalf overcoming his fears? For god’s sake, focus on Bilbo’s character arc, not Gandalf’s! Do you not trust that storyline?

Absolutely nothing of any worth was uttered in the White Council scene, principally I feel because the scriptwriters were hampered by having to tiptoe round the legality of the canon material in The Silmarillion. Because they couldn't use anything Tolkien actually wrote of hat was said or hppened, they had to make it all up and pretty much floundered. it all boiled down to "look, a Morgul blade has been found where it shouldn't" answered by "so what?" and the rest of it was a love-in between Gandy and Gladys. I also felt for poor Christopher Lee having to utter the drivel about Radagast eating too many mushrooms. He must have been cringing inside. One wonders why PJ didn't actually give him the lines from FotR...I know I expected them - Radagast the Brown...Radagast the bird-tamer! Radagast the Simple! Radagast the Fool! "etc. They would have worked much better.

[yovargas]

Shelob - if it makes you feel any better, at least you enjoyed those 1st 30 minutes. I can't even say that much!

Good to know that someone is more miserable than I am!

But out of curiosity - what didn't you like about the Bag End bits?

There were individual moments that were lovely - I particularly liked the "good morning" scene. But a major problem with the movie in general is that the pacing is atrocious. Like every single thing feels draaaagged out, streeeetched, blooooated. The first half of the movie just has very little energy or momentum. It just kinda sits there. I was quite bored.

The (misguided, IMO) attempts at adding grandeur and majesty to this tale fall utterly flat because it remains a plain, simple story: dwarves had treasure in a mountain, dragon took it, we're gonna try and take it back. The party should have been on the road and on its way in 15 minutes, not an endless 40+ (I checked my watch).


Another general side-note: dwarves are boring action heroes. They have none of the visual panache of a Legolas so watching them constantly swinging stuff at monsters is a dull chore, not the adreline-pumping ride PJ hopes for. A lot of fans complained about dragging action sequences in LOTR but I enjoyed almost all of them a lot. Here, if it were up to me, I'd cut as much of the sword-fighting as I possibly could. (I'd also have 97.8% less rabbits.)

[Pearly Di]

Ha! That iconic dinner party is NOT too long. I relished every moment.

Got a bit restless during the second half, what with all the PJ-ing. . Battles, orcs, yeah yeah yeah ... . Let's get back to Bilbo and Thorin, shall we?

Yes, Thorin. Epically miscast???!!!! Oh, no. No no no no no! No way. Does not compute, precious. Does. Not. Compute. .

The film isn't perfect, but I'm a pretty content fangirl.

[anthriel]

I had no idea that dwarves only came in two genetic types: buffonish cartoon characters or Totally H0tt.

[axordil]

Bore absolutely no relation to the approach route the Fellowship took.

I'm relatively sure this is canonical. Fonstad's maps of paths taken certainly point towards different routes all along the way.

Beyond that, if you're going to have Thorin refusing to go to Rivendell because of the elf thing, some mechanism is necessary to force his hand. Story wise that's the main reason for that whole sequence, although it also ties in Radagast bringing the Morgul-blade from Dol Guldur AND provided a link to the "Revenge of Azog" plot line.

That sort of temptation is irresistible for professional screenwriters.

Now one could argue, if Thorin doesn't have his undies in a bunch about elves to the extent demonstrated, you don't need to go through that. But again, if you have those other plot lines dangling out there, you have to bring them in before Rivendell, so some sort of sequence remains necessary between the Trolls and there. Given the relatively low quality of the CGI for the wargs-chasing-Radagast bit, I do wonder if they found themselves getting to that conclusion relatively late in the process.

If one is less tolerant of the grafting on of the appendix material than I am, one could certainly use all that as ammunition for why *none* of it should happen. However, given Thorin's portrayal in the movie as more consistently xenophobic (or at least quendiphobic), it all clicks into place.

I happen to like the consistency of character in the movie, because, well, Thorin DOES have a bad case of ofermod. This doesn't come out until later in the book, and gets blamed on the dragon-spell on the gold, but you know, unless you're remaking Treasure of the Sierra Madre, that's a subtle thing to get across.

[JewelSong]

I kind of agree with yov although I wasn't totally bored during the action scenes. The best scenes are the ones straight from the book - the dinner party, the riddles in the dark, the trolls, the eagles. These stay in character and are beautifully acted.

It's the "fillers" that make the movie drag. Because they are NOT PART OF THE STORY.

I really, really wish PJ had NOT opted to try to make "another LOTR" because that IS what he is trying to do and "The Hobbit" is a far simpler tale and its beauty lies in that simplicity.

I will say that Martin Freeman is absolutely perfect as Bilbo.

ETA: I will write a more complete review later.

Oh, and Hal? You'd HATE it.

[Mrs.Underhill]

You could do all that, but it wouldn't really change much, IMO. Because the Bilbo-Thorin relationship, which is at the heart of the book, will still be awfully thin. IMO.

But the whole point of the movie is that Bilbo-Thorin relationship does NOT START until the very end. Bilbo's arc in the first film was to get accepted in the company, and by Thorin. For Thorin, it's a journey from "You are not one of us" to that hug.
And for Bilbo - starting from Took-Baggins conflict and going on an adventure to prove himself and see the wide world, to taking dwarf cause to heart.

In the end, they come together as true partners and friends, to hit us harder with the conflict in the end, in the 3rd movie.

But during the 1st movie Thorin and Bilbo are still in their separate bubbles. Thorin is all about his lost home and his dwarves, and Bilbo is about proving himself.

And that's why I was so annoyed when PJ decided to split it into 3 movies.

The real story starts after Misty Mountains, it's where the most interesting stuff between Thorin and Bilbo happens, the best character moments and conflicts etc.

The 1st movie is basically just a setup, which PJ had to pad with Azog nonsense to make it into a stand-alone story, and managed to blow it to 3 hours still.

I went in there with very low expectations just because I couldn't believe they could make a good long story out of that small piece of the book.

I was pleasantly surprised that they still managed it, but Hobbit would be so much a better as a the one 3-hour epic movie, because then it would have all the conflicts clear and laid-out from the book, which would leave no space for PJ's padding.

That Thorin-Bilbo hug should have happened after Mirkwood spiders, for example.
OK, I could do with 2 movies instead of one because I don't want to lose that 1st hour in Bag End, but how much better would it be to end the movie, say, in Esgaroth after being lauded by the townsfolk.
It could have ended on exactly the same shot of distant Lonely Mountain with Smaug waking up, but seen from the Lake, just like in the book.
And that would make all this action and extra conflict padding unnecessary, replacing it with book canon action, while achieving exactly the same goal of making Thorin and Bilbo comrades.

Actually, going back to Purist Edit - maybe we should wait until all 3 movies are out, because then we can rearrange the key pieces of the 1st movie around 2nd movie events.

[kzer_za]

Well, I liked it, but definitely less than LotR. If I were to give it a grade right now it would be a B-, but I'm still processing and that could go up or down later. Loved Riddles in the Dark, the Unexpected Party, and Freeman in general. Didn't like Azog or most of the non-Hobbit material besides the Azanulbizar flashback.

PJ makes a huge action scene out of everything and even invents a new long and pointless action scene. I liked most of the action in LotR and feel like some of "action Jackson" criticisms there are exaggerrated, but he crosses the line for me in The Hobbit. I actually liked Goblintown, and I even found Frying Pan was enjoyable despite PJ overstuffing it. It's all the stuff earlier that gets to me.

Does anyone else think having Bilbo kill an orc shortly after he spares Gollum's life undermines both his nobility there and his courage against the spiders?

I do hope that the next two will better, where we can have Smaug as the main villain, less padding, and hopefully the Necromancer plot will actually go somewhere. We'll see...

[Pearly Di]

I had no idea that dwarves only came in two genetic types: buffonish cartoon characters or Totally H0tt.

I have no complaints about any of the Dwarf portrayals. .

[Mrs.Underhill]

Beyond that, if you're going to have Thorin refusing to go to Rivendell because of the elf thing, some mechanism is necessary to force his hand. Story wise that's the main reason for that whole sequence, although it also ties in Radagast bringing the Morgul-blade from Dol Guldur AND provided a link to the "Revenge of Azog" plot line.

Yes, it's hard to get around that if you just cut out the wargs.

However, if Radagast and Nazgûl blade could be kept, they would add to Gandalf urgency to go to Rivendell for council and force Thorin to go too.
And so we could have Gandalf pressuring and scolding Thorin like he did later in Rivendell ("You have one person in ME who could read your map and you refuse to show it to him?!"), and like he did in "Quest of Erebor" to push Bilbo on Thorin ("If you don't take the Hobbit with you, your Quest will fail, trust my foresight").
Not sure how to achieve it in Purist Edit with existing footage, but ideally that what I'd do there.

I happen to like the consistency of character in the movie, because, well, Thorin DOES have a bad case of ofermod. This doesn't come out until later in the book, and gets blamed on the dragon-spell on the gold,

YES! So much in agreement here!
It's so easy to blame Thorin's refusal to talk to Bard on Dragon's sickness and make Thorin the only bad guy in that affair, with all blame on him.

In fact, it was as much paranoia and mistrust, and being scared of yet another failure, of being unable to hold on on the kingdom after almost having it in his grasp, about pressure of responsibility before his people which also drove him crazy.

He was simply scared of the huge army coming on his doorstep, with only 13 of them and the wall they hastily built to keep this huge host from coming in and taking what they wanted.
The host including hated Thranduil who imprisoned him and who was quite open with his desire to get his "toll", or racket, if you will, on dwarves passing through his realm if they managed to get some treasure. And whom Bard refused to send away, thus earning Thorin mistrust as well.

Thorin was like a cornered animal there, unable to trust his opponents, and who could blame him, honestly? We, the readers, know that Bard's intentions were honorable, but Thorin just saw him for the first time in his life, and in Thranduil's company no less.

And Bard isn't that honorable and blameless here either. He COULD have sent his host away and leave, say 13 against 13, to make a step toward someone in much weaker position, to even the negotiations. Could have done wonders in establishing Thorin's trust, I'm serious about it.

Also, there is a question of the mysteriously shrinking part of the treasure which Bard wanted.

He started claiming 12th part in gold and jewels, but ended up perfectly happy with 14th part of just gold and jewels which were truly originally from Dale, and considered it beyond generous.

The difference? It seems to be the strength of the other side at the negotiations table. It was OK to demand 12th part from 13 dwarves but when the host of Dain sat in Erebor 14th was more than Bard hoped to get, and was given only due to Arkenston.

I wonder what part Bard was really, fairly due and what he would have gotten from equal strength party with no Arkenston boon? 24th?

I really hope they won't make Thorin motives as simplistic as just greed, when we get to the negotiations point, and would cover his Elf-hatred, paranoia and the huge burden of responsibility as well,

By the way, Shelob's Appetite - Thorin IS a one-note character in the book as well, because of this pressure.
He can't afford, or rather he feels he can't afford, to be anything else but a leader, and he gives everything to his people.
He channels all his person, all his energies into the effort to restore his people and then to bring them back. He's like a workaholic in a way...

[axordil]

Does anyone else think having Bilbo kill an orc shortly after he spares Gollum's life undermines both his nobility there and his courage against the spiders?

Ambushing someone from invisibility, especially someone as obviously broken (if murderous) as Gollum, is not the same as stopping an orc from killing a helpless Thorin.

As to the spiders, we'll have to see what comes a year from now.

[Stranger Wings]

You could do all that, but it wouldn't really change much, IMO. Because the Bilbo-Thorin relationship, which is at the heart of the book, will still be awfully thin. IMO.

But the whole point of the movie is that Bilbo-Thorin relationship does NOT START until the very end. Bilbo's arc in the first film was to get accepted in the company, and by Thorin. For Thorin, it's a journey from "You are not one of us" to that hug.
And for Bilbo - starting from Took-Baggins conflict and going on an adventure to prove himself and see the wide world, to taking dwarf cause to heart.

In the end, they come together as true partners and friends, to hit us harder with the conflict in the end, in the 3rd movie.

But during the 1st movie Thorin and Bilbo are still in their separate bubbles. Thorin is all about his lost home and his dwarves, and Bilbo is about proving himself.

And that's why I was so annoyed when PJ decided to split it into 3 movies.

The real story starts after Misty Mountains, it's where the most interesting stuff between Thorin and Bilbo happens, the best character moments and conflicts etc.

The 1st movie is basically just a setup, which PJ had to pad with Azog nonsense to make it into a stand-alone story, and managed to blow it to 3 hours still.

I went in there with very low expectations just because I couldn't believe they could make a good long story out of that small piece of the book.

I was pleasantly surprised that they still managed it, but Hobbit would be so much a better as a the one 3-hour epic movie, because then it would have all the conflicts clear and laid-out from the book, which would leave no space for PJ's padding.

That Thorin-Bilbo hug should have happened after Mirkwood spiders, for example.
OK, I could do with 2 movies instead of one because I don't want to lose that 1st hour in Bag End, but how much better would it be to end the movie, say, in Esgaroth after being lauded by the townsfolk.
It could have ended on exactly the same shot of distant Lonely Mountain with Smaug waking up, but seen from the Lake, just like in the book.
And that would make all this action and extra conflict padding unnecessary, replacing it with book canon action, while achieving exactly the same goal of making Thorin and Bilbo comrades.

Actually, going back to Purist Edit - maybe we should wait until all 3 movies are out, because then we can rearrange the key pieces of the 1st movie around 2nd movie events.

I agree completely. I was once a proponent of the 3-film idea, as I felt it would give more opportunities for PJ to flesh out character, and spend time in Middle Earth, but that would have taken much more gifted writers and directorr to pull off with artistry. I find myself wishing we had one film, with cuts rather than filler. Second best option would have been two films, written and directed by Guillermo Del Toro. The best option would have been one or two Hobbit films written and directed by Alfonso Cuaron. :-)

Honestly, and I don't intend to be harsh here - Peter Jackson is an incredibly mediocre director, and his writing team is awful - they have no original story ideas to add, and have a tin ear for dialogue. They got lucky with LOTR because of novelty, and an epic and complex story (which I still thought was pretty poorly done, but most critics disagreed with me), but otherwise they can't pull off a good film. And with Heavenly Creatures, Fran Walsh co-directed.

Maybe Fran Walsh should have co-directed these films? Would possibly have reined in Peter Jackson's many inanities.

I do pretty much love everything up to the troll scene, though, even if the pacing is a tad off. It's a crying shame he couldn't keep up that quality, though.

In all, I find it to be a dull, forgettable film. I will not be seeing it again, and I will certainly not be purchasing the theatrical edition when it is released on DVD.

[yovargas]

Yes, Thorin. Epically miscast???!!!! Oh, no. No no no no no! No way. Does not compute, precious. Does. Not. Compute. .

I don't know if I'd say he was miscast, exactly, but I would say I found his portrayal highly distracting - I kept thinking "why is Aragorn leading this bunch of dwarves?"

I kind of agree with yov although I wasn't totally bored during the action scenes. The best scenes are the ones straight from the book - the dinner party, the riddles in the dark, the trolls, the eagles. These stay in character and are beautifully acted.

Pretty much this. These were mostly nice (though the dinner party dragged on way too much for me, especially after Thorin gets there), but I don't think there was a single scene outside of these that worked for me.

Does anyone else think having Bilbo kill an orc shortly after he spares Gollum's life undermines both his nobility there and his courage against the spiders?

Not really, but I did think it took away from Gandalf's sage advise to be careful on taking lives when he'd happily killed three trolls a couple minutes ago.



Oh, and having Rivendell - aka a giant, mountainous, canyon valley - hiding under a rock in a wide open plain felt extremely weird to me. Did nobody notice the huge cliffs about 100 yards over there? (Which is why I didn't buy that Thorin got "tricked" into going to a place he was a couple minutes walk from. )


PS - to the art design team - in the future, please avoid putting giant scrotums on your characters faces. kthxby

[Inanna]

Saw the movie yesterday.

My feelings in one word after watching it: "Tiring".

The movie was tiring. So tiring. I kept glancing at my watch after 2 hrs or so, thinking "oh lord, there's *still* time for the eagles scene". And then Azog comes again. To be fair, having my nephew ask questions all the time added to the "tiring" bit and the fact that I was not able to immerse myself in middle-earth added to my dissatisfaction. But, still. I've seen other movies with my nephews and thoroughly enjoyed myself.

Bilbo was fantastic - absolutely fantastic. Such acting from Martin Freeman, such understanding of the character of Bilbo; ah, those expressions.So wonderful to see Gollum again. RA was great as Thorin; Fili and Kili were also good. Gandalf the Grey, Elrond - great to be with them again.

So, no Faramir-like character assassination... but if there was no "I hate this", there was not too much to love either. Except the "Riddles" scene, the prologue and the end.

Overall, the movie did not seem fit for children (too violent in parts; I don't think I should have taken my younger nephew to it), and not adult-enough, either (that's, maybe, not PJ's fault; it is The Hobbit). However, overall, PJ did a fantastic job with LOTR (cutting out Tom Bombadil and having a few less endings was a good move); I think he has bungled up The Hobbit - I.

And I hated Azog. I think he was included to provide some continuity to an episodic movie, but I hate him. It seems that the main creature to be vanquished is Azog, not Smaug; and that has distorted the movie. The White council scene was.... annoying in parts. Seemed like Gandalf had a crush on Galadriel (gaaah, puke), and I did not like her "vanishing act".

I did not mind the 48 fps, the 3D effects were very-very good (although it did give me a slight headache). It was the content that was the problem for me.