Middle Earth Discussion Thread

[Gwangi]

The LOTR movies are virtually flawless, I don't think anyone will dare attempt a remake for a long time to come, if ever! Now The Hobbit on the other hand...far from flawless. Entertaining for sure but 3 movies for that one book? A bit much, and it shows. Especially in the final movie.

[Yutyrannus]

The LOTR movies are virtually flawless, I don't think anyone will dare attempt a remake for a long time to come, if ever!

I certainly hope they don't .

[triceratops83]

The big difference for me is LOTR had heart, the Hobbit pretends to.

[Gwangi]

The big difference for me is LOTR had heart, the Hobbit pretends to.

Basically. That's not to say it was all bad. The visuals were beautiful as to be expected, the cinematography, Martin Freeman was excellent as Bilbo and naturally Ian Mckellen as Gandalf is always fun to see. Other actors played their parts well too. And Smaug! I cannot say enough about Smaug! The movies have a lot going for them but in the end it does feel a bit bloated and I think a lot of the stuff they shoe horned into the movie (to make it longer) was unnecessary and detracted from the main story. In the end, the movie was one film too long. The Hobbit should have been one movie, MAYBE two, certainly not three.

[Manatee]

The big difference for me is LOTR had heart, the Hobbit pretends to.

Basically. That's not to say it was all bad. The visuals were beautiful as to be expected, the cinematography, Martin Freeman was excellent as Bilbo and naturally Ian Mckellen as Gandalf is always fun to see. Other actors played their parts well too. And Smaug! I cannot say enough about Smaug! The movies have a lot going for them but in the end it does feel a bit bloated and I think a lot of the stuff they shoe horned into the movie (to make it longer) was unnecessary and detracted from the main story. In the end, the movie was one film too long. The Hobbit should have been one movie, MAYBE two, certainly not three.

I definitely agree with this. Also, what happened to the Gundabad orcs in the third film? It seemed like they appeared in battle, and then, because the main characters were fighting different battles, they were completely ignored. How does an entire army disappear, even with everyone's favorite deus ex machina eagles!
That's not even mentioning that it took four people and about ten minutes to bring down one orc (Bolg), which is probably about the three thousandth time it was shown that these movies were way too drawn out.

[triceratops83]

Basically. That's not to say it was all bad. The visuals were beautiful as to be expected, the cinematography, Martin Freeman was excellent as Bilbo and naturally Ian Mckellen as Gandalf is always fun to see. Other actors played their parts well too. And Smaug! I cannot say enough about Smaug! The movies have a lot going for them but in the end it does feel a bit bloated and I think a lot of the stuff they shoe horned into the movie (to make it longer) was unnecessary and detracted from the main story. In the end, the movie was one film too long. The Hobbit should have been one movie, MAYBE two, certainly not three.

I may be a cynical bugger, especially towards recent movies, but I LOVE LOTR. It bothers me that I get nothing from the Hobbit movies. They are by no means bad movies, but they pale in comparison. I've watched them multiple times, even bought the extended editions, but I just get nothing from them. I won't keep prattling on about this, and I certainly won't criticise any fans, but I just can't feel anything for these films.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Well I finally made it to a theater and watched the last Hobbit film. I think had I not read the book and grew up on the animated film ( watched it twice today) I might have enjoyed much more than I did.  Knowing what wasn't in it, what deviated, and what was grossly inflated I have to settle for a 3 out of 5.  I actually liked the first film a lot is wa a 5/5 or at least a 4.5/5..but for some reason we go down hill a lot in the second film...just after they enter the forest ( Beorn's bit was great) it went on too long..and from about the time the elves appear and save them from the spiders whereas Bilbo was only supposed to ..I think things were diminished. The story became less and less about Bilbo and how he affected all this change in himself and the world he inhabits..the whole reason he's the main character.  Additional scenes and added characters just dominated the 2nd ( his talk with Smaug was everywhere..made it hard to focus. Why did they eliminate the Thrush and Bilbo's discovery of the bald patch on Smaug? To build the character of Bard up? Wouldn't have had to do that if he had been left as Bard the Bowman, Capt of the guard...he's an honorable man and that's all we needed to know. sorry to pick on Bard, it could have easily been Legolas, Taurial, Bolg, Azog, ect.. all character we didn't need gumming up the works) and certainly the final film where he was almost reduced to an observer it removes the main point of the story I think. 

Watched the first half of LofR:FotR today..it played out much like the first Hobbit film..nice easy build up, great scenery, ect.  Somewhere in part 2/Desolation someone decided " this is going to be our last Middle Earth film, lets toss in everything we can."  Not that 2 and 3 didn't have fun and exciting parts..but really, too much of a good thing.

[triceratops83]

Additional scenes and added characters just dominated the 2nd ( his talk with Smaug was everywhere..made it hard to focus. Why did they eliminate the Thrush and Bilbo's discovery of the bald patch on Smaug? To build the character of Bard up? Wouldn't have had to do that if he had been left as Bard the Bowman, Capt of the guard...he's an honorable man and that's all we needed to know. sorry to pick on Bard, it could have easily been Legolas, Taurial, Bolg, Azog, ect.. all character we didn't need gumming up the works) and certainly the final film where he was almost reduced to an observer it removes the main point of the story I think. 

Peter Jackson seems to think he'll be criticised for not going in depth with characterisation, but doesn't seem to realise the purpose of SUPPORTING characters. This is an issue I had with the sailors in King Kong. Lumpy the cook was fine, he was gruff and surly, kinda comical, no backstory. And Captain Engelhorn was a responsible no nonsense type. But the relationship between first mate Hayes and that kid Jimmy was annoying. They kept up this interchange with Hayes being like a father figure to him, but then Hayes is killed on the Log bridge and Jimmy is all sad and takes out his anger at his loss with a tommy gun on giant bugs, and puts on Hayes' cap. But we don't see his character for the rest of the film after we leave Skull Island, so we don't witness the rest of his character arc. Did he become the new first mate? Did he become a gorilla poacher? Why did we waste so much time with this character? What's the point in half a character arc? This is the sort of thing that bogs down Jackson's movies. The film's length doesn't bother me, it's just the wasted time. There's always a great movie buried in there, just edit them for crying out loud.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

That was certainly an issue...and it's one everybody seems to have to a degree..making minor characters major to explore unrealized plot potential. The thing is do it on paper, not on film. At least not in the final version of a film.   I mean from what I understand Azog, our chief villain ( was supposed to be Smaug) is dead a long time prior to the events in the film taking place. So now we're adding new characters on top of existing ones we're exploring.

What was with the worms? Jackson needed his bad guys to have "Eagles" ? By that I mean loop holes that can get them anywhere but really aren't taken advantage of fully.

Speaking of plot holes..where did the Arkenstone end up? So much was made of that point in the film then it's just ignored...same with the wood elf king ( forgot his name) he was all about that jewelry for all this time..then..pfff.

Reminds me of the end of Pirates of the Caribbean 4..Jack just tosses away his search for immortality so easily after 4 films looking for it.

[Paleogene Pals]

Believe it or not, I have not seen a single Hobbit film yet. And, I was in the theater for all three LOTR movies, freakin' awesome BTW! When I heard that Peter Jackson wasn't going to be scientifically accurate and make the Hobbits feathered, I said not for me, not for me.

[Gwangi]

I agree with all the points made concerning a long run time plagued with minor characters that ultimately went nowhere. Just the contrived love story between the dwarf and Kate-from-Lost ultimately had an anti-climatic ending, what was the point? The entire sub-plot involving Alfrid was just awful! It was wasteful filler material to make a movie that should have been one (maybe two) movies long into three. And in the end I don't even know (or care) what happened to the guy! Did we really need Gandalf's side quest to tie the movie into LotR? The events take place 60 years apart! The same can be said about Legolas being sent off to find Aragorn at the end of "The Hobbit". Are we really supposed to believe it takes Legolas 60 years to find him?! Too much filler, too much BS and not enough focus on the core plot. Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing a fan-edit for these movies that cuts that all out.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I agree with all the points made concerning a long run time plagued with minor characters that ultimately went nowhere. Just the contrived love story between the dwarf and Kate-from-Lost ultimately had an anti-climatic ending, what was the point? The entire sub-plot involving Alfrid was just awful! It was wasteful filler material to make a movie that should have been one (maybe two) movies long into three. And in the end I don't even know (or care) what happened to the guy! Did we really need Gandalf's side quest to tie the movie into LotR? The events take place 60 years apart! The same can be said about Legolas being sent off to find Aragorn at the end of "The Hobbit". Are we really supposed to believe it takes Legolas 60 years to find him?! Too much filler, too much BS and not enough focus on the core plot. Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing a fan-edit for these movies that cuts that all out.

The first film was pretty good before got into all that..it focused on the dwarves and Bilbo as it should. Why couldn't he stick to that dynamic?  Gandalf's bit was I guess to show more of Gandalf..we know him and Galadriel has a "thing" after they made it to Rivendell..we didn't need anymore than that. In the EE they actually added in a whole other character, Thorin's father in those scenes..he didn't even make it theatrical.  At any rate the beginning and ending tie the films into LOTR we didn't need to see it hammered  home with every other shot. 

Maybe I missed something but how old is Aragorn at the outset of LOTR?

The whole ending just seemed like a ton was going on then bam it's over and Bilbo is going home. No real feel there..what should have been fleshed out more in this case seemed rushed. Another instance where the characters that were were the main characters were " hurried along" to get to another scene.

I was done seeing Alfrid/Wormtongue after his first appearance..and he literally means nothing to the plot.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Believe it or not, I have not seen a single Hobbit film yet. And, I was in the theater for all three LOTR movies, freakin' awesome BTW! When I heard that Peter Jackson wasn't going to be scientifically accurate and make the Hobbits feathered, I said not for me, not for me.

lol   I actually was okay with the appearance of most of the dwarves aside from Thorin and maybe Kili ( had to "hot" to get the female elf, so much for his soul being beautiful) who looked like Aragorn, who looked like Bard, ect.. way too similar for me.

This is the Thorin I expected to see :


but..all the girls seem to love the new AragonBardThorin..so who am I to say?   

[Gwangi]

I agree with all the points made concerning a long run time plagued with minor characters that ultimately went nowhere. Just the contrived love story between the dwarf and Kate-from-Lost ultimately had an anti-climatic ending, what was the point? The entire sub-plot involving Alfrid was just awful! It was wasteful filler material to make a movie that should have been one (maybe two) movies long into three. And in the end I don't even know (or care) what happened to the guy! Did we really need Gandalf's side quest to tie the movie into LotR? The events take place 60 years apart! The same can be said about Legolas being sent off to find Aragorn at the end of "The Hobbit". Are we really supposed to believe it takes Legolas 60 years to find him?! Too much filler, too much BS and not enough focus on the core plot. Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing a fan-edit for these movies that cuts that all out.

The first film was pretty good before got into all that..it focused on the dwarves and Bilbo as it should. Why couldn't he stick to that dynamic?  Gandalf's bit was I guess to show more of Gandalf..we know him and Galadriel has a "thing" after they made it to Rivendell..we didn't need anymore than that. In the EE they actually added in a whole other character, Thorin's father in those scenes..he didn't even make it theatrical.  At any rate the beginning and ending tie the films into LOTR we didn't need to see it hammered  home with every other shot. 

Maybe I missed something but how old is Aragorn at the outset of LOTR?

The whole ending just seemed like a ton was going on then bam it's over and Bilbo is going home. No real feel there..what should have been fleshed out more in this case seemed rushed. Another instance where the characters that were were the main characters were " hurried along" to get to another scene.

I was done seeing Alfrid/Wormtongue after his first appearance..and he literally means nothing to the plot.

I loved the first film, it really got me excited for the series. The second one was hit and miss but Smaug salvaged it for me, this third movie was a real let down for me.

Aragorn was quite old, 97 I believe.

And yes, I agree about the end as well. You know, one thing I've observed about these movies is that despite Gandalf and other characters thinking of hobbits as a quaint, peaceful, friendly race they seem awfully "human" to me. Small minded, petty and bitter. As an example, them auctioning off Bilblo's stuff and then not even recognizing him upon his return. And in the LotR:FotR even Bilbo admits his disdain for most of the other hobbits as I recall it. Obviously the key hobbit characters in all the films are likeable but the rest all seem pretty miserable.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I agree with all the points made concerning a long run time plagued with minor characters that ultimately went nowhere. Just the contrived love story between the dwarf and Kate-from-Lost ultimately had an anti-climatic ending, what was the point? The entire sub-plot involving Alfrid was just awful! It was wasteful filler material to make a movie that should have been one (maybe two) movies long into three. And in the end I don't even know (or care) what happened to the guy! Did we really need Gandalf's side quest to tie the movie into LotR? The events take place 60 years apart! The same can be said about Legolas being sent off to find Aragorn at the end of "The Hobbit". Are we really supposed to believe it takes Legolas 60 years to find him?! Too much filler, too much BS and not enough focus on the core plot. Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing a fan-edit for these movies that cuts that all out.

The first film was pretty good before got into all that..it focused on the dwarves and Bilbo as it should. Why couldn't he stick to that dynamic?  Gandalf's bit was I guess to show more of Gandalf..we know him and Galadriel has a "thing" after they made it to Rivendell..we didn't need anymore than that. In the EE they actually added in a whole other character, Thorin's father in those scenes..he didn't even make it theatrical.  At any rate the beginning and ending tie the films into LOTR we didn't need to see it hammered  home with every other shot. 

Maybe I missed something but how old is Aragorn at the outset of LOTR?

The whole ending just seemed like a ton was going on then bam it's over and Bilbo is going home. No real feel there..what should have been fleshed out more in this case seemed rushed. Another instance where the characters that were were the main characters were " hurried along" to get to another scene.

I was done seeing Alfrid/Wormtongue after his first appearance..and he literally means nothing to the plot.

I loved the first film, it really got me excited for the series. The second one was hit and miss but Smaug salvaged it for me, this third movie was a real let down for me.

Aragorn was quite old, 97 I believe.

And yes, I agree about the end as well. You know, one thing I've observed about these movies is that despite Gandalf and other characters thinking of hobbits as a quaint, peaceful, friendly race they seem awfully "human" to me. Small minded, petty and bitter. As an example, them auctioning off Bilblo's stuff and then not even recognizing him upon his return. And in the LotR:FotR even Bilbo admits his disdain for most of the other hobbits as I recall it. Obviously the key hobbit characters in all the films are likeable but the rest all seem pretty miserable.

As I said the first one was certainly the top. The second.. I was worried from the outset..so much deviation from the book and if they ruined Smaug I was going to be ticked. I have to say the actor, Cumberbatch , did a great job with the voice. The design I was a little disappointed wasn't the 4 legged variety Tolkien envisioned..that is a dragon, not a wyvern.  But I got over it eventually..him and Bilbo talking as they ran around the hoard was a bit hard to keep track of between what was happening and what was being said by both. I felt as confused as Bilbo looked in the behind the scenes trying to do the scene.  While the dwarves actually getting in on trying to fight Smaug was fun visually..it lessened the great worm. I mean if a few dwarves and a hobbit gave him such trouble why didn't the hundreds ( thousands?) that lived there be able to defeat him in the first place? He was almost too personable..having just watched the Balrog scene in LOTR again that beast felt scary and intimidating. 

The third film..just seemed to be all over the place. I can't figure why you would jump around so much..in LOTR it made sense and was needed, the scenes flowed better..in BotFA it was just jumping and startled you out of what was going on too much I think.

Wow, hope I look so good when I'm 97..lol

Yeah that was odd. I get they are insular and closed off as a community really..they also tend to look down on Hobbits that deviate and aren't " proper".  Bilbo was on his way to being the same before Gandalf showed up and prodded him into joining the dwarves. In LotR they seemed a bit stuffy but still fun loving even during Bilbo's party and antics...but yes in The Hobbit films they are certainly more.."off" it had only been 13 months..surely someone remembered him?  His own family the other Bagginses seemed very "human".   That said something I think Gandalf mentions at the end of the RotK, how alike Hobbits and Humans are and that they would eventually grow to be one race if I recall correctly.

[triceratops83]

One of my favourite "added" characters from LOTR was Gothmog. They didn't waste any time with backstory, just had a line or two indicating how much of a jerk he was. He had a real presence with a minimum of running time. I don't like any of the orcs from the Hobbit - they're boring and seem to be motivated more by revenge than sheer malice, which is more characteristic of a human villain.

[Gwangi]

As I said the first one was certainly the top. The second.. I was worried from the outset..so much deviation from the book and if they ruined Smaug I was going to be ticked. I have to say the actor, Cumberbatch , did a great job with the voice. The design I was a little disappointed wasn't the 4 legged variety Tolkien envisioned..that is a dragon, not a wyvern.  But I got over it eventually..him and Bilbo talking as they ran around the hoard was a bit hard to keep track of between what was happening and what was being said by both. I felt as confused as Bilbo looked in the behind the scenes trying to do the scene.  While the dwarves actually getting in on trying to fight Smaug was fun visually..it lessened the great worm. I mean if a few dwarves and a hobbit gave him such trouble why didn't the hundreds ( thousands?) that lived there be able to defeat him in the first place? He was almost too personable..having just watched the Balrog scene in LOTR again that beast felt scary and intimidating. 

Smaug's design never bothered me simply because I've always preferred the look of wyverns. They just make more sense biologically (yes yes, it's fantasy) but I can see where others who prefer the Tolkien version better are coming from. I have no complaints about Smaug or Cumberbatch doing the voice work. I absolutely agree with you about the fight with Smaug. I was just talking about that with my wife today! I always hate physics defying (and death defying) scenes in these CGI movies. Where everything goes according to plan without consequence and everything is made to look too easy. The barrel scene is another one like that, with Legolas jumping along the dwarf heads. Or in the case of "Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" the awful sword fight/monkey scene. Or how in "The Phantom Menace" when Anikin "accidentally" destroys the space station. Jackson's "King Kong" Brontosaur stampede...the list goes on and I think you get the idea. And the point is that you can still have jaw dropping action and CGI while still keeping it believable...like the Balrog scene!

Wow, hope I look so good when I'm 97..lol

Likewise, but in Aragorn's case it was because he was Dunedain which have a longer lifespan than other men. And yes, I just had to look it up and he was actually 87. Still though, not bad.

Yeah that was odd. I get they are insular and closed off as a community really..they also tend to look down on Hobbits that deviate and aren't " proper".  Bilbo was on his way to being the same before Gandalf showed up and prodded him into joining the dwarves. In LotR they seemed a bit stuffy but still fun loving even during Bilbo's party and antics...but yes in The Hobbit films they are certainly more.."off" it had only been 13 months..surely someone remembered him?  His own family the other Bagginses seemed very "human".   That said something I think Gandalf mentions at the end of the RotK, how alike Hobbits and Humans are and that they would eventually grow to be one race if I recall correctly.

I never read the books and it's been a long time since I've watched LotR (who has the time?) so my opinions about hobbits may be askew. That said, a lot of the residents of The Shire make the place look less inviting than you would otherwise think given how others talk of it.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

One of my favourite "added" characters from LOTR was Gothmog. They didn't waste any time with backstory, just had a line or two indicating how much of a jerk he was. He had a real presence with a minimum of running time. I don't like any of the orcs from the Hobbit - they're boring and seem to be motivated more by revenge than sheer malice, which is more characteristic of a human villain.

I think I know the one you mean, I wasn't aware o didn't remember any of them really having names.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

As I said the first one was certainly the top. The second.. I was worried from the outset..so much deviation from the book and if they ruined Smaug I was going to be ticked. I have to say the actor, Cumberbatch , did a great job with the voice. The design I was a little disappointed wasn't the 4 legged variety Tolkien envisioned..that is a dragon, not a wyvern.  But I got over it eventually..him and Bilbo talking as they ran around the hoard was a bit hard to keep track of between what was happening and what was being said by both. I felt as confused as Bilbo looked in the behind the scenes trying to do the scene.  While the dwarves actually getting in on trying to fight Smaug was fun visually..it lessened the great worm. I mean if a few dwarves and a hobbit gave him such trouble why didn't the hundreds ( thousands?) that lived there be able to defeat him in the first place? He was almost too personable..having just watched the Balrog scene in LOTR again that beast felt scary and intimidating. 

Smaug's design never bothered me simply because I've always preferred the look of wyverns. They just make more sense biologically (yes yes, it's fantasy) but I can see where others who prefer the Tolkien version better are coming from. I have no complaints about Smaug or Cumberbatch doing the voice work. I absolutely agree with you about the fight with Smaug. I was just talking about that with my wife today! I always hate physics defying (and death defying) scenes in these CGI movies. Where everything goes according to plan without consequence and everything is made to look too easy. The barrel scene is another one like that, with Legolas jumping along the dwarf heads. Or in the case of "Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" the awful sword fight/monkey scene. Or how in "The Phantom Menace" when Anikin "accidentally" destroys the space station. Jackson's "King Kong" Brontosaur stampede...the list goes on and I think you get the idea. And the point is that you can still have jaw dropping action and CGI while still keeping it believable...like the Balrog scene!

Wow, hope I look so good when I'm 97..lol

Likewise, but in Aragorn's case it was because he was Dunedain which have a longer lifespan than other men. And yes, I just had to look it up and he was actually 87. Still though, not bad.

Yeah that was odd. I get they are insular and closed off as a community really..they also tend to look down on Hobbits that deviate and aren't " proper".  Bilbo was on his way to being the same before Gandalf showed up and prodded him into joining the dwarves. In LotR they seemed a bit stuffy but still fun loving even during Bilbo's party and antics...but yes in The Hobbit films they are certainly more.."off" it had only been 13 months..surely someone remembered him?  His own family the other Bagginses seemed very "human".   That said something I think Gandalf mentions at the end of the RotK, how alike Hobbits and Humans are and that they would eventually grow to be one race if I recall correctly.

I never read the books and it's been a long time since I've watched LotR (who has the time?) so my opinions about hobbits may be askew. That said, a lot of the residents of The Shire make the place look less inviting than you would otherwise think given how others talk of it.

I don't mind Wyverns exactly they are a type of dragon..but not in Middle Earth. They also kept saying they wanted to do something different..well most dragons on film have the wyvern body type, Harry Potter, Reign of Fire ( those dragons had the fear/Balrog aspect..natural but evil feeling you know? ). The fight yeah was just..wrong. If they wanted to show more of Smaug, they should have followed the book when he flies around the mountain hunting the dwarves/invaders and trying to toast them.  I don't know I think the film makers feel they have to keep pushing things. LOTR he was careful and cautious, now in the Hobbit he just let fly any old thing.

I've only ever read the Hobbit, which had I not I would have probably have enjoyed the film more..well and not seen the animated version.  I have to keep looking things up..there really is an entire world to these books.

[Yutyrannus]

This finally arrived today .