Hobbit-goers?

[beckyminor]

Well, fantasy fans, who got out to see The Hobbit this weekend? Thoughts? Likes? Dislikes? If you haven't gone, read at your own risk--I'm pretty sure there will be spoilers here.

As for me, I am very glad my 8 year old opted not to go with my 12 year old and me. (Hubby has a performance he was in Sunday afternoon, so I will be going again with him on a "just us" date.) While the violence wasn't bloody, it was graphic, and I'm just not comfortable with heads rolling across the vision of my small children. As much as I want to share Tolkien and Jackson with my kids, they will have to wait. The fight choreography was spectacular, though. I loved the use of so many improvised tactics to overcome odds that would never have gone in the dwarves' favor if it came down to sword-swinging only.

As I've already mentioned in the soundtrack thread, Howard Shore's score is a home run.

Gollum and the Great Goblin were astoundingly awesome. I found myself marveling at how the Great Goblin as both repellent and perfect at the same time. Azog, however, lacked the fleshiness, the skeleton and sinew of the others. I did like the detail of his ritual scarring, but I think he was far more rubbery than the others. Which is a shame, because clearly he's going to be Thorin's BBG, and I suspect we will see him in the Battle of Five Armies, so you would think he would be more perfect. Perhaps the Weta team will get him pulled together better for films 2 and 3.

Radagast is a bit of a conundrum for me. I can see the need to include him to personify the disease of Mirkwood more, and for that reason, I think he is necessary and useful. His weird mannerisms and the confounded swath of bird poop down his face were so distracting I couldn't focus on the part he played in the plot as well as I wanted.

Gandalf's behavior in Rivendell was a very interesting set of choices. Given what Gandalf is: a servant of the blessed realm sent as a guardian over middle earth, I found it sort of interesting how daunted he was in Rivendell. Tremulous, submissive--even dare I say smitten with Galadriel? Was it all part of his "charm and tact" approach, or what other character elements were in play here. There is definitely a certain lack of surety about Peter Jackson's rendering of Gandalf (like with Aragorn in LotR) that I don't get from the books. But then again, completely sure characters don't generate much conflict and end up with no character arc, so I can see why he chooses to do what he does with them. Gandalf's demeanor in Rivendell just seemed somewhat cowed, and that was odd for me.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop. Chime in!

[Resha Caner]

I'm torn about the movie. Though there were things I liked, I have to say that all in all I was disappointed.

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are books with two very different tones. As such, I mourn the loss of the whimsy that was The Hobbit. I understand why Jackson chose to make it darker and to solidify the connection with LOTR, but still ...

I also agree with the gratuitous nature of the violence. It stuck out in this movie in a way that it didn't in LOTR. Also, some of the material between the action scenes just seemed like filler necessary to stretch this into 3 movies. As such, it wasn't as good as the 3 LOTR movies.

And I agree once again about Azog and Radagast. To steal your word, Azog is a bit to "rubbery" to be a good villian. Lurtz and Gothmog were much better in LOTR. And Radagast was too quirky. He's almost the Jar Jar Binks of the movie.

That's all the bad stuff. As for the good stuff, I think it was an excellent idea to add Azog and to increase the role for Radagast. Given the intent to tie this in better with LOTR, those are 2 excellent choices for plot devices. Further, the information was dropped in appropriate bites. Never too much at one time.

I'll have to disagree with you about Gandalf. I love Ian McKellen's version of the wizard. It works in the book to keep him distant and mysterious, but I had always feared that trying to do that in the movie would leave him looking like a cardboard cutout. McKellen makes Gandalf real and carries much of the necessary dramatic weight of the movie.

I also liked Thorin. Again, if you're going to eliminate the whimsy and make this dark like LOTR, the dwarves need to be serious characters, and Richard Armitage is spot on. There was some good staging to pull Bombur forward for the lightheared scenes and then push him into the background and forget him when they're running away from the goblins ... how would Bombur manage that? I also noticed some of the clever devices they used to allow a small company of dwarves to escape a massive throng of goblins. The same with the Wargs when they climbed the trees. The staging of that scene was very well done ... and, though it caused me a little bit of heartburn for Bilbo to shine forth that early, I realize the necessity of it for the plot - especially when that's where you choose to make the break between movies. It gave the proper cathartic ending that people complained was missing from the Fellowship movie.

[beckyminor]

Don't get me wrong about Ian McKellen's Gandalf. I'm not saying the dramatic choices here are wrong--they just take some getting used to. Just like Viggo Mortensen's conflicted Aragorn did. Let's face it, archetypes are impersonal--like you said, they tend to be sort of cardboard cut-out. So I wasn't necessarily calling Gandalf's demeanor a negative. Just unexpected.

I don't think I've ever seen a perfect movie, but this one is high on the scale of what I like. Was it as good as LotR? I'm going to wait until the last movie is out before I decide.

[firestorm78583]

My two cent's worth;

Martin Freeman was the best choice for Bilbo. Here is another film where he plays a reluctant traveller, the other is HHGG. (Kind of like Jeff Goldblum is the go-to actor if you need a misunderstood scientist.)

I agree with the earlier posts concerning the main goblin. As my wife put it, "The CG wasn't as good on him and he came off looking like a Warcraft villain".

There were a few comments made about the lighter feel to this movie, vs LOTR. So, concerning y'alls earlier comment about how dark it was, The group I went with didn't get that feeling.

My son loved the film, but as we were leaving, he was lamenting the little changes that were made.

The main thing that distracted me about Radagast was that he is/was a timelord. Oh, yeah, the bird droppings were a bit much.

I am looking forward to the rest of the trilogy. Here's hoping that they don't slack off on the production quality.

[beckyminor]

Knowing Peter Jackson and the Weta team, I think they're going to continue to demand high production quality, so I'm not too worried about that. I will be interested to see how the plot arcs of he next two films hold up. For example, will The Desolation of Smaug be like The Empire Strikes Back--a middle film whose plot arc starts in the midst of everything and leaves everything at the point of desperation? (Oddly, Empire is my favorite of the three, despite its middle child nature.)

[rjj7]

I wish to open by saying that I enjoyed watching The Hobbit. I had a good time, and not once during the almost-three-hours did I regret going.
Me watching the movie:

However, my final opinion of the movie is rather negative. Even setting aside the question of faithfulness to the books, I felt the script and plot were shoddily thrown together, resulting in a final product that didn't have anywhere near the polish that a finished, streamlined product should have.
My opinion of the movie's quality:

I would also like to say that I'll be posting some fairly extensive spoilers. So if you haven't watched the movie, tread further at your own risk.


There were several points where the script failed, the first and most egregious of which being with regard to Azog. The big problem with Azog is that as far as I can see, he has no reason to be in the story. This is exceedingly damaging, as so much of it depends on him. We are told that he swore an oath to destroy Thorin's line. He begins by chopping of Thror's head. But what is never answered is why he would swear such a difficult and inconvenient oath. Compounding the problem is that most of the film depends on this individual orc. Without him, we don't have any orcs prior to the Misty Mountains, the dwarves never go to Rivendell, Gandalf is never seperated from them, we don't have the final scene with the burning trees, and Bilbo never gets on Thorin's good side. The film doesn't even exist without Azog, and as I said, he has no rational reason for being there.

In essence, the filmmakers told us, the audience, that Azog was a big villain and archnemesis of Thorin, and that we just had to accept that as the way things are. Which is extremely lazy script-writing. I don't mind that they felt the need to bring in Appendix A from The Lord of the Rings, but the least they could do was to weave it in in a manner that makes internal sense.

[on a side note, I find the "evil guy kills underling because underling failed {understandably} in a task he was given" extremely cliched. It doesn't make someone feel ominously evil to me, it makes them feel like a stupid jerk ]


Flashbacks are dangerous things, and each time you enter one, you deal a blow to the forward momentum of the story. To give us not one, but TWO lengthy flashbacks before there are any real events in the main story was stretching the welcome. I decided halfway through the second one that we, the audience, didn't really need to know all of this right now. It could have waited a bit. In fact, instead of making the whole 'orcs are chasing us' a function of 'this orc has sworn to kill Thorin', it would have made a much better story, imo, if they had simply gone with "everyone's eyes are looking east, to the dragon, but with that concern foremost in their minds, they are sparing a glance or two for Thorin, whose fate is tied up with Erebor's". You avoid the flashback (temporarily, anyway), keep the focus on the mountain ( ), avoid the whole death-oath ( ), and hint that the orcs as a national/people group have an interest in things that goes beyond harassing peaceful travelers ( ;D ). You also provide a bit of room for mystery about Thorin's moodiness. As it is, we practically have the reasons for Thorin's moods shoved down our throat.


I'm sure we all remember the part in the books with the Stone Giants in the High Pass. Unfortunately, by borrowing lines from the book without the accompanying explanations, the filmmakers created a confusing 5-minute nod to the original book that will leave anyone who hasn't read it scratching their heads in bewilderment.

"This isn't a thunderstorm, it's a thunderbattle!"

In the book, Tolkien went on to explain that what he meant was several thunderstorms rolling down from different directions and having it out once and for all. Nothing more than an epic-class thunderstorm. When someone says the line in the movie, and the next thing that happens is parts of the mountain stand up and start duking it out, one is led to expect more information [thunderbattle? What's that?]. The fact that one of the dwarves shouts out "The legends are true! The stone giants exist!" only heightens the idea that what is occurring is somehow important or related to the story. What legends? Why are they pertinent? How do they affect things? But after 5 minutes of epic roller-coaster stuff, we leave the giants, presumably never to see them again. I had to explain that entire scene to my cousin, as she was curious why it was even in there and what significance the Stone Giants had in the book.


The last thing I'm going to say about the script is that I found the final bit where Thorin runs out to confront Azog, by himself, while two of his companions are hanging for dear life onto Gandalf's staff, a bit overdone. That everyone would just stand and watch him instead of a) running after him or b) trying to help up their friends who are knocking on death's door was too much of a stretch. It was almost as though the filmmakers were trying to create drama through a bunch of intense facial expressions rather than crafting a situation that was actually dramatic.



I have a number of additional thoughts, but felt that I should limit myself to one topic. Namely, the script. I actually don't know if everything I listed technically comes under that heading, but I think of the script as not just the dialogue, but the plot and sequence of events.

[Resha Caner]

Dec 23, 2012 21:35:04 GMT -5 rjj7 said:

... hint that the orcs as a national/people group have an interest in things that goes beyond harassing peaceful travelers.

After all, Orcs are people too.

This is an interesting comment that belies a contemporary sentiment foreign to Tolkien (as least as I understand him). First, I'll state that what you are saying is similar to what I said. If this is going to be a prequel to LOTR, it needs to be tied together better than the book was. And so, WRT Azog's place in the movie, I would say, "Exactly." That is exactly the reason he is so important. Because it was his purpose to tie everything together and give it meaning.

The original Hobbit book has several aspects that make this difficult. I already spoke a lot about the first in my original post: whimsy.

The second is that as I understand Tolkien's motivation, he came from a post WWI perspective that was asking, "Why did such horrible things happen?" His answer was, "Evil." It was not, "Well, the Orcs have embraced nationalism and want to establish their own homeland." There is an underlying modern trend in literature that at heart everyone is good. Tolkien's view is more Christian. At heart everyone is sinful. Sometimes we don't know the reason. But modern audiences want a reason, and that creates a problem.

The third is that The Hobbit is not a prequel in the sense that we think of it now. It didn't have nearly as much marketing premeditation. I don't think Tolkien was trying to set up LOTR as fully as current literature would demand - complete with cliche' hook for the sequel. Tolkien was a student of older forms of literature, and the one that comes to mind here is the frame tale. I'll admit that frustrated me when I first read this as a kid. I didn't get it - all these disconnected stories that didn't seem to be leading anywhere. As an adult I've been frustrated by some writing colleagues who think they are mimicking Tolkien by creating a story of a hero being attacked by a random series of one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eaters. The connection between the set pieces of The Hobbit is not a material plot, but a metaphysical one. Anyway, that causes a problem for modern audiences.

Despite the importance of Azog and my accolades to Jackson for recognizing such a need, I will agree with you that he doesn't quite fit the bill. I like Becky's description that he was too "rubbery", and I agree that killing the failed subordinate is too cliche'.

However, I think that based on the path Jackson chose, the staging for the scene with the Wargs and the dwarves in the trees was necessary, and he did it well. I'll spare you the details of why, but I've now seen the movie twice, and I picked up a few more details this time. If you watch that scene carefully, there are details (they go by quickly) of dwarves trying to help each other (and Gandalf helping them) as well as dwarves trying to stop Thorin from such a foolish attack on Azog. I think the chaos of the moment is closer to what the reality of it would be, and works pretty well.

[rjj7]

First, I'll state that what you are saying is similar to what I said. If this is going to be a prequel to LOTR, it needs to be tied together better than the book was. And so, WRT Azog's place in the movie, I would say, "Exactly." That is exactly the reason he is so important. Because it was his purpose to tie everything together and give it meaning.

I'm not saying that Azog's inclusion was a bad thing. In fact, it was necessary for the story that Jackson is telling. You are absolutely correct in what you say about tying things together. Another minor example is the white council scene where Gandalf brings up the trolls as evidence of spreading evil. It pushed the trolls away from 'side adventure' into something that has bearing on the main story. A good thing all around.

The problem isn't Azog's inclusion, it is the manner in which it was done. He swears an oath to end Thorin's family line. Why? For what purpose? It makes no sense in the plot, and THAT is where the problem is. They wanted to include Azog, but couldn't be bothered to come up with a reasonable way to do it, so they threw him at the audience and said "He's here. Just accept it."

The third is that The Hobbit is not a prequel in the sense that we think of it now. It didn't have nearly as much marketing premeditation. I don't think Tolkien was trying to set up LOTR as fully as current literature would demand - complete with cliche' hook for the sequel. Tolkien was a student of older forms of literature, and the one that comes to mind here is the frame tale. I'll admit that frustrated me when I first read this as a kid. I didn't get it - all these disconnected stories that didn't seem to be leading anywhere. As an adult I've been frustrated by some writing colleagues who think they are mimicking Tolkien by creating a story of a hero being attacked by a random series of one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eaters. The connection between the set pieces of The Hobbit is not a material plot, but a metaphysical one. Anyway, that causes a problem for modern audiences.

I never had an issue with The Hobbit when I was younger. Everything in the Hobbit has a place and belongs, because The Hobbit is not about the quest to slay a dragon. Nor is it about hunting for treasure. Nor is it about revenge for the destruction of Erebor. All of these things happen, but the story isn't about them. The story of the book is that of a Hobbit and his inner journey. Everything pertains to it. The Trolls are an early example of his former self fumbling around in a strange and dangerous world. The goblins are a further example which goes on to give the first hints and indications of Gandalf's assertion that there's more to Mr. Baggins than meets the eye, and a great deal more than he has any idea of himself. In Mirkwood, we see for the first time Bilbo starting to be clever, brave, and resourceful quite independent of his magic ring or the help of wizards. And all of this culminates with the confrontation of Smaug and the adventures at the mountain. The Hobbit is a beautifully constructed story where the events happen in the right order to create near-perfect pacing of Bilbo's characterization.


Having the Orcs a 'random encounter' in the books was perfectly fine. However, you appear now to be arguing that because it was fine in the book, it's fine in the movie. Unfortunately, this does not logically follow, because the movies are not telling the same story as the book. Most people nowadays don't look any further than the plot of a book to see if a movie is faithful. But what they don't realize is that the sequence of physical events is only one part of a story, and sometimes the least important part. Characters are often more important, and themes even more so.

The book's story is that of Bilbo and the inner journey where he discovers those traits that Gandalf saw in the beginning.

The movie's story is that of a party of dwarves tragically robbed of their homeland who now seek to recover it.

I think that that assessment is fair. The movie both begins and ends on the note of the dwarves home and the largest additions to the plot were done to expand the dwarves quest. But you see, since the story has changed, the use of individual elements changes as well. Take, for example, Tom, Bert, and William. Ignoring for the moment the fact that that is where the elven swords came from, did this whole sequence have a place in the book? Absolutely! It was, as I said earlier, the first illustration of Bilbo's character in action. It was the staging ground where the reader sees firsthand how "comfortable bachelor Bilbo" is unfit for adventure in the wild. The dwarves' dislike of him is seen as confirmed, and the stage is set for later growth. But what of the movie? If it hadn't been for Gandalf's use of the trolls to illustrate the growing evil in the world, this whole sequence would have had little bearing on the story because the story is no longer about Bilbo. Since the story is now about the Dwarves' quest, areas that are only pertinent to Bilbo need to be either cut or made applicable to the main storyline. Now, in the case of the Trolls, the filmmakers succeeded in the latter of these goals by making the trolls a symptom of spreading evil that Gandalf can later reference at the White Council. In the case of the goblins, having them simply waylaying random travelers is fine. It is entirely sufficient for the purposes of Tolkien's story. But Jackson changed the story, and I feel that it would have made for a more strongly bound package if he had taken the time at this early point to set the stage for the big climax he's working towards; i.e. the goblins greedily trying to plunder the treasure of Erebor.

The problem with your position seems to be that you are switching back and forth between praising Jackson for telling his own story and praising him for telling the original. What does Azog have to do with Tolkien's story of Bilbo? Nothing. But you praise his inclusion because it ties together Jackson's story. What do the goblins waylaying travelers have to do with Jackson's story? Nothing. But you praise the idea that they wouldn't have any bigger reason because it was a part of Tolkien's. You end up with something that is neither one thing nor the other; a script that is weakened because it is pulled between two different stories.

[the film actually did tie in the goblin adventures in the misty mountains with the Great Goblin deciding to turn Thorin's head over to Azog; however, this was a fairly weak tie and my point was that rather than a simple thread of a through-line, the filmmakers could have made a stronger binding with a stouter cord]

I have implicitly addressed your second point as well. The notion that the orcs would want to establish their own homeland is stuff and nonsense (as you intended it to be). But I was referring more to the idea that they would hatch a scheme to steal the world's biggest treasure horde. They are evil, and it is well within their scope to harass travelers for no reason. But this isn't about 'giving the orcs a reason'. This is about tying the story together. You have misdiagnosed the reasons for my criticism, and thus your comments on the nature of evil, while true, are misdirected.


Now, I will come right out and say that I don't approve of Jackson's changing the story. To put it simply, he isn't even trying to tell the same story that Tolkien was. But since he has changed the story, everything needs to be viewed in this 'new context' if one wants to judge the movie on its own merits independently of the book. It is my personal opinion that one is under no obligations to judge it in such a manner, and I routinely judge movies in the context of the books they are based on. But for this one, I made an exception so that I could argue how poorly put together the movie was even without taking the book into account. If I'd brought up the book, and then criticized the script, it is likely that most people would interpret my complaints as: "it's not exactly like the book, so he's griping about it". Which isn't the case at all.

[Resha Caner]

I only intend a simple, friendly exchange of opinions, so don't take anything I said as a criticism of your review.

Dec 24, 2012 14:24:00 GMT -5 rjj7 said:

The problem isn't Azog's inclusion, it is the manner in which it was done. He swears an oath to end Thorin's family line. Why? For what purpose? It makes no sense in the plot, and THAT is where the problem is. They wanted to include Azog, but couldn't be bothered to come up with a reasonable way to do it, so they threw him at the audience and said "He's here. Just accept it."

I agree it could have been done better, and the alternatives you suggest are plausible. It's just that I don't see revenge as an implausible motivation. Thorin ruined Azog's original plan, and he wants revenge. It's been used as a motivation in other movies (One Night With the King comes to mind), and there are some sad historical examples of it (such as the Dachau Massacre).

What I didn't like about your alternatives is that they seemed like a concession to the Age of Reason - a removal of some of the Christian world view that permeated Tolkien's work. I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, and as I said earlier, I agree Azog could have been done better. It's just that my version of better would be to keep the revenge motive and build off Christian themes of evil.

Dec 24, 2012 14:24:00 GMT -5 rjj7 said:

Everything in the Hobbit has a place and belongs, because The Hobbit is not about the quest to slay a dragon. Nor is it about hunting for treasure. Nor is it about revenge for the destruction of Erebor. All of these things happen, but the story isn't about them. The story of the book is that of a Hobbit and his inner journey.

Yep. I think that agrees with what I said.

Dec 24, 2012 14:24:00 GMT -5 rjj7 said:

The book's story is that of Bilbo and the inner journey where he discovers those traits that Gandalf saw in the beginning.

The movie's story is that of a party of dwarves tragically robbed of their homeland who now seek to recover it.

I think that that assessment is fair.

I agree.

Dec 24, 2012 14:24:00 GMT -5 rjj7 said:

The problem with your position seems to be that you are switching back and forth between praising Jackson for telling his own story and praising him for telling the original.

You are exactly right. I think I mentioned in my first post that I was conflicted over this very issue. But I don't see this as a problem. I'm not trying to write a professional review. I'm just explaining my reactions to the movie. After my first viewing, my disappointment grew and grew, and I didn't want to go back and see it the second time. However, social circumstances required it. It is interesting that, knowing what to expect the 2nd time around, I enjoyed the movie much more.

So, taking it for what it is ... realizing this movie is not about Bilbo, but is, as you said, about the loss and recovery of the Dwarf homeland, I enjoyed it the second time.

So, I realize Jackson wasn't going to retain the Christian themes, but I still lament their loss. Another magnificent piece of literature with a Christian basis has been lost to the American instant gratification, simplistic plot line mindset.

There's nothing wrong with some occasional escapism, it's just ... oh, well.

[rjj7]

I only intend a simple, friendly exchange of opinions, so don't take anything I said as a criticism of your review.

Terribly sorry if you believe that things are possibly hotting up a bit. For my part, I can assure you that I'm still cool with everything that's been said.

The fact of the matter is that I detected in your response to my first post (rightly or wrongly) a certain air that indicated you were regarding me as probably being a part of the modern audience who doesn't understand Tolkien. I happen to have a strong aversion to what could be called 'the modern audience', and regard myself as having little in common. But rather than protest the notion directly, I decided that I would simply write up a ream of opinions on Tolkien and let my opinions speak for themselves. I figured I'd probably be saying things to you that you already knew/agreed with, but then, you said a few things in your post that I already knew/agreed with, so it's all fair and good.

Now that we both know that we are more or less on the same page (differences of opinion, but at least a working knowledge of each other's axioms), we can let somebody else sit us down and tell us where we're both wrong. I can take it if you can.

[Resha Caner]

Dec 24, 2012 17:34:43 GMT -5 rjj7 said:

Terribly sorry if you believe that things are possibly hotting up a bit. For my part, I can assure you that I'm still cool with everything that's been said.

That's good to know.

Dec 24, 2012 17:34:43 GMT -5 rjj7 said:

The fact of the matter is that I detected in your response to my first post (rightly or wrongly) a certain air that indicated you were regarding me as probably being a part of the modern audience who doesn't understand Tolkien.

Fair enough. I can see why you took it that way. I meant more that your comments sparked the thought in me. I didn't mean to make you of the common sort ... sorry, my sarcasm has this nasty tendency to leak out all over the place. I'll go get a mop and clean it up.

Dec 24, 2012 17:34:43 GMT -5 rjj7 said:

I can take it if you can.

Bring it on. ;D Taking criticism is a necessary skill for a writer.

I've had my fair share of beatings in other forums, but honestly I'm just looking for some conversation in this particular thread.

[beckyminor]

I appreciate the mutual courtesy you folks are extending as you go back and forth on these artistic concepts, guys! No time to add anything about the film right now, but I just wanted to thank you for having a civilized discussion--it's refreshing when people can not entirely agree but still discuss in a temperate way.

[earthtrekker]

Everyone makes excellent points. As for me, I absolutely loved every second of the movie with all of its greatness and its flaws--it’s true-to-the-book adherences and its heretical divergences. I smiled the whole time. And the 48 frame-per-second 3D was incredible. Being so realistic, contrary to intuition, it made the movie more like a cartoon in appearance. Because I was thinking it was more real, I noticed the contrast between it and reality. (No one anymore thinks that 2D films are realistic and so we never contrast them with reality.) And that was magnificent too.

I felt the almost same about the LOTR film trilogy, that it was simply another version of a universal classic tale. My only regrets (and they are not insignificant) is the omission of Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire, but my hope is that Peter Jackson will repent and produce those parts someday.

[Bainespal]

I saw the movie last night, so now I can read this thread.

The movie started very well. The plot deviances before the troll scene were minor. The movie portrayed much of the whimsical atmosphere that Tolkien himself used, even including Tolkien's joke about the origin of golf.

I don't mind the inclusions to the plot for the purpose of exposing the political and mythological events that were taking place in Middle Earth at this time, which Gandalf was a part of. I liked Gandalf's brief explanation of the Five Wizards and the appearance of Radagast. (Radagast's physical appearance and personality were overdone, but I think we have to accept that in a Peter Jackson movie almost everything is going overdone and over-exaggerated.)

I think the flashback to the battle with Azog at Moria, taken from the Appendices, was almost crucial. Azog himself probably wasn't, and making him the villain was probably the movie's greatest plot sin, as Randy argued well already.

Less than halfway through, the movie started to acquire a goofiness that I think is absolutely foreign to Tolkien's cheery storytelling from the book. Maybe the book contains whimsy, jolly, and light-hearted fun. But it never contains crudeness, and all the peoples of Middle Earth are shown as respectable and profound and serious. In the book, even the goblins are given the dignity of being legitimately terrifying, serious in their cruelty.

Elrond and Galadriel were stripped of their dignity through casual dialog. In general, the dialog was very bad, unworthy of the profound and memorable conversations from both the book and the movie adaptations of The Lord of the Rings. Radagast's whimsicalness was okay, but he should have also had a profound and majestic side; he is a wizard, after all. (I'll take a moment to note that the inclusion of Radagast almost certainly means that Beorn is going to be cut out of the next movie.)

Gandalf also took a hit to his dignity, but I noticed it less because Elrond's dignity suffered much worse. I don't necessarily mind that Gandalf was shown to have conflictions and fears. Throughout the books of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, we see that Gandalf is not infallible despite his great wisdom, that he still has needs and fears. In a short movie, they have to exaggerate that to show it at all.

But the worst disgrace happened in the mountains. The visual portrayal of the Great Goblin may have been good, but everything else about that character is despicable. I absolutely hated the part where the Great Goblin stood on the bridge before Gandalf and said, "What are you going to do now, Wizard?" -- and then Gandalf slashes him across his fat belly, and he holds his belly and says, "That'll do it." That is disgusting and disgraceful. I think that one moment ruined the whole movie for me.

My anger over that scene is more than the crudeness. With that sequence, and especially that moment with the Great Goblin, the movie betrayed one of its own themes. Before the trolls, Fili and Kili had been trying to scare Bilbo by telling raids. They talked about goblins striking fast in the night, leaving lots of blood. Then Thorin came over and scolded them, saying that battles with goblins were nothing to take lightly. This was followed by the very serious flashback of the death of Thror and the battle against Azog's orcs.

So, the movie began to portray a theme that War Is Not A Laughing Matter. Goblins may be evil, and killing them may good, or heroic, even noble in some circumstances. However, Thorin's character alone embodies the fact that fighting goblins should never be light or goofy or funny. And then, in the mountains, we see the cute fat orc getting a liposuction, and then falling on the pile of dwarves just when they were complaining that things couldn't get any worse. This is a horrible betrayal of the theme, and I absolutely hated it.

[Divides the Waters]

atrossbooks.com/2012/12/29/the-hobbit-and-its-critics/

Not mine, but essentially borrowing these opinions as nearly reflective of my own. Saves time and effort.