The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Wholeheartedly agree. Although I wouldn't call it amazing, it is certainly better than some people give credit for.

Apr 23 - 12:10 PM

And it's definitely worse than some other people give it credit for. At any rate: I think almost everyone agrees that The Hobbit is a great deal better than The Phantom Menace.

The point of this thread, however, is that there are certain degrading elements that both prequels have in common (overuse of CGI, overuse of idiotic comedy, unneccesary foreshadowing of what happens in the 'sequel' trilogy etcetera) and that Jackson could/should have learned from Lucas' example. It's kind of how Hitler is generally regarded as a bigger fool for invading Russia than Napoleon, because he had Napoleon's failed attempt to learn from.

Apr 23 - 02:00 PM

You're right about all of these things, although The Hobbit does them on a lesser scale.
These problems are found in most other prequels, except for the use of idiotic comedy(Which wasn't a huge deal IMO).

Apr 23 - 03:09 PM

alex mackay

For my part, I really really hated this movie.
I thought that, in much the same way he did over the course of the LOTR movies, Peter Jackson just got altogether too carried away. Whether he was hyped up on fame or special effects or just had a really big budget or whatever, he took The Hobbit (one of my all time favorite books) and made it into nothing more than an over-produced money-grab. It's shameful, really.
It was something that I had an issue with in LOTR as well, and as nobody has really seemed to have brought it up yet I want to put it out there: the dwarves were ridiculous. Peter Jackson got it backwards - the ELVES are supposed to be the ones dancing and drinking and singing and being awesome. The dwarves are supposed to be the grim, serious ones. Like, what the hell was up with Ori's hair? And Kili didn't even have a beard! Excuse me whilst I rage.
Without getting into everything else in gruesome detail, I just wanted to get my two cents. I thought that The Hobbit was a festering turd of a movie, and I would like to go on record as saying that Peter Jackson really fucked the dog on this one. I can understand, to some degree, why other people might enjoy it - visually it was quite impressive, and as a continuation of the LOTR trilogy it probably had a pretty decent fan base already, but c'mon.
They couldn't even get the opening lines from the book right.

Apr 22 - 11:30 PM

Peter Weber

Strange, while I think that this comparison is quite interesting, my opinion diverges quite a lot.

I remember when The Phantom Menace came out, that I really enjoyed it and I was curious to see the next installment (which left me quite disappointed). Maybe I jsut didn't get it in Episode I, but in my opinion it was with Episode II that the franchise got really on the wrong track.

As regards The Hobbit you can only appreciate Jackson's visual work, but then you realize that it is far too long and without the slightest poetry, which was the one characteristic that differentiated the first book from Lord of the Rings. Dropping this aspect, Jackson just made a copy of LOTR. I guess all the fighting will somehow carry the next installments until the end, but I couldn't say that I'm curious to see them.

Strange enough I disagree on yet another point and that is the figure of Radagast. In my opinion Radagast was the only novelty in this movie and therefore the one figure I appreciated most. Btw, he looks a lot like the Italian comedian/blogger/leader Beppe Grillo and his behaviour is as odd.

Apr 20 - 03:16 PM

David Drake

Have to say the main difference is that people went in with expectations of what should and shouldn't be in the Hobbit. We know the story. I was by far more disappointed with The Hobbit, then TPM. The fact that they spent one second of film on Radgast the Brown is mind blowing. I don't know if PJ is trying to make up for some of the the characters he left out of LoTR. LoTR could not have been better. I'm not going to knit pick either movie. But, I'll probably not see the other two in theaters (and for the record I wouldn't have missed any of the Star Wars movie on the big screen).

Apr 19 - 11:46 PM

Jacklord Alan Keen

no!!!

Apr 19 - 02:52 AM

Dave Simmons

The Phantom Menace was a mess. The only Star Wars prequel that was bearable was Revenge of the Sith. Hayden Christiansen ruined those movies for me. Plus, Jar Jar Binks alone made The Phantom Menace painful. The Hobbit is a gorgeous visual spectacle. Peter Jackson is a genius to be able to bring Tolkein's masterpieces to life on screen. I would like too see anybody else to a better job.

Apr 14 - 11:44 AM

When it comes to LOTR I agree: Jackson did a magnificent job and he will always be respected for that. However, he did botch The Hobbit (or at least the first part) and I would love to see another director take a shot at adapting it.

Apr 21 - 11:42 AM

Bernhardina H�rnstein

Ugh I wouldn't! Perhaps Del Toro but no one else! I honestly think Jacksons adaption is as good as it gets. Since he made the LOTR movies. But then I also think he did a sloppy job. He could have done The Hobbit better.

Apr 22 - 08:18 AM

Like I said, Jackson's adaptation of LOTR IS as good as it gets, but The Hobbit was poorly executed.

Ideally, I would like to see a film which encompasses the world that Jackson has established in LOTR, but employs a subtler, smaller scale kind of storytelling to match the tone of the book.
I have come to believe that Jackson is incapable of doing this, as is demonstrated by how he tries to make The Hobbit as grand and epic as LOTR. Solution: a different director. Sadly, it's too late for that now.

Apr 22 - 11:22 AM

C.J. Hines

The Hobbit was not a bad movie!? If you honestly think The Hobbit is as bad as Phantom Menace, you are an idiot. I dont see what everyone was expecting from this movie. For me, it delivers!

Apr 7 - 05:52 PM

Nathan O'Hara

The Hobbit was more intolerable to sit through and watch.

Apr 4 - 07:38 AM

At the least the dialogue and plot made sense, unlike the phantom menace.

Apr 4 - 09:02 AM

Colin Riegels

At least Phantom has one saving grace - it didn't bastardise a classic story with sub-par cinematic sequences and tedious plot padding.

Apr 3 - 05:55 AM

Agreed.

Apr 3 - 12:09 PM

Dylan Jones

I would argue that it did exactly that.

Apr 3 - 02:17 PM

But wasn't Phantom Lucas' own creation? Sure, it brought down the original trilogy, but at least he did it with his own written material. Jackson used someone else's story.

Apr 4 - 12:00 PM

Dylan Jones

It still doesn't change the fact that a great trilogy was ruined in my opinion. And I never argued that Jackson did the book justice, I only argued that Lucas killed a franchise.

Apr 4 - 12:08 PM

In that case I agree.

Apr 4 - 12:12 PM

Uh, yes it did.

Apr 3 - 08:06 PM

Bernhardina H�rnstein

The Hobbit is waaaaaay better than The Phantom Menace. Both were a let down but that's how it is when the previous trilogies were freakin amazing! The Hobbit is a great movie but it is not freakin amazing. Not sure how much it has to do with Jackson though, I think the plot is weak and that's the downfall of this movie. I also think making one book into a trilogy was a bad decision. Two films I can live with but three? He better make it right!

Apr 3 - 02:51 AM

hOBBIT IS BETTER...MORE ENJOYABLE

Apr 3 - 02:01 AM

Sam Denyer

This was miles better than The Phantom Menace...

Apr 2 - 10:11 AM

lol fuck you asshole this was the best movie of 2012 way better than boring life of pi shit and django poopstained. the hobbit deserves every oscar.

Mar 24 - 06:59 PM

You said it, man.
(Although Life of Pi was not boring)

Mar 24 - 07:53 PM

Jed, this guy is a known (and rather obvious) troll, don't encourage him.

Mar 25 - 10:45 AM

Everyone deserves a comment. :)
(PS: I am not used to this newfangled internet slang. What is a troll?)

Mar 25 - 01:10 PM

A troll is someone who posts inflammatory statements solely for the delight of stirring up controversy and consternation.

Observe, for example, how EntertainMeorDie has used obscene language to frame his absurd post (regardless of how good you thought The Hobbit was, anyone saying that it should have won every oscar cannot be taken seriously): clearly this is intended to make people respond in an equally inflammatory manner, causing the flames of discord to spread, which is the goal that trolls strive to achieve for their own enjoyment.

Mar 25 - 01:32 PM

I see.

Why are they called "trolls"?

Mar 25 - 03:21 PM

That, I don't know. Does anyone else know the answer to that?

Mar 25 - 03:49 PM

@Fungus--I mean Fergus...
If Jed wants to encourage the known FACT that the Hobbit deserves every oscar, let him! He's encouraging what is true!

Mar 25 - 07:23 PM

No, I really don't. No film deserves every Oscar.

Mar 26 - 03:58 AM

Ah, EntertainMeOrDie, you're back! I guess you are as good a person to ask as any: why do people call individuals such as yourself trolls?

Mar 26 - 08:48 AM

I thought you knew, Fungus.

Mar 26 - 09:25 AM

Alas, I do not. I shall have to look it up on Wikipedia then. I must thank you for providing some basic examples of troll behaviour for our young friend Jed to study, though.
Have fun with your other attempts at being a nuisance, trollboy, but please, put some more effort into it next time: the comments you've been posting lately are worthy of the likes of Geordie Newlands (minus the capital letters). Step it up.

Jed: 'It has been asserted that the verb to troll originates from Old French troller, a hunting term. A verb "tr�ler" is found in modern French-English dictionaries, where the main meaning given is "to lead, or drag, somebody about". In modern English usage, the verb to troll describes a fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat. A similar but distinct verb, "to trawl," describes the act of dragging a fishing net (not a line). Whereas trolling with a fishing line is recreational, trawling with a net is generally a commercial activity.

The noun troll comes from the Old Norse word for a mythological monster. The word evokes the trolls of Scandinavian folklore and children's tales, where they are often creatures bent on mischief and wickedness. The contemporary use of the term is alleged to have appeared on the Internet in the late 1980s, but the earliest known example is from 1992.'

Source: Wikipedia

Mar 26 - 12:14 PM

Shut the fuck up with your trying-to-be intelligent comments, Fungus! No one gives a shit! Jesus!! i couldn't even read past the first paragraph you boring ass idiot.

Mar 26 - 12:29 PM

Hahaha, now who got trolled, mr. 'most successful and innovative troll on the site'?

Mar 26 - 12:44 PM

Who got trolled!? UH, YOU DID! Your shitty boring ass comments are fucking hard to read; it's almost mind boggling how complex the awfulness is.

Mar 26 - 08:25 PM

Yes, well, seeing how trolls, even in defeat, enjoy drawing out conversations for as long as possible I declare this conversation at an end.

I had great fun annoying you, good sir, but I wouldn't like for you to get any more attention than I'm willing to give you. Ta-da!

Mar 27 - 05:20 AM

You think you have won! What is light without dark? What are you without me? I am a part of you all. You can never defeat me. We are brothers eternal!

Mar 27 - 09:42 AM

David Tanny

*eats popcorn*

by the way, EntertainMeOrDie, nice Plinket reference.

Mar 28 - 12:03 AM

I must admit that is kind of clever. Credit where credit is due.

Mar 28 - 11:01 AM

Why thank you.

Mar 28 - 06:15 PM

Jayson Hill

I would not even recommend The Phantom Menace (or any Star Wars movie after Empire for that matter) to a drunk, narcoleptic, eight-year-old kid. The first installment of The Hobbit may not have been perfect, but I would not even mention it in the same breath as The Phantom Menace.

Mar 22 - 02:17 PM

Return of the Jedi?

Mar 22 - 08:51 PM

AMEN!!

Mar 26 - 08:25 PM

Ruined by the Ewoks bringing down the Empire.

Mar 27 - 07:39 AM

That was pretty silly, but other than that?

Mar 27 - 06:19 PM

Admiral Ackbar's fish head?

Mar 28 - 10:47 AM

You know, I totally forgot about him. Yeah, he was horrid.

Mar 28 - 01:04 PM

Keegan Connolly

Revenge was the best Star Wars film since Empire. It was a genuinely good film.

Mar 27 - 07:36 AM

Lee Augustus

Kill yourself.

Apr 4 - 08:17 PM

Sam Denyer

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Apr 2 - 10:12 AM

Cody Kerr

The Hobbit is superior in every way (except the score and final fight).

Mar 19 - 06:32 PM

What's wrong with the score?

Mar 20 - 11:37 AM

The score was a complete rehash of LOTR themes, lacking worthwhile new material. It was just lazy: they even used the Ringwraith-theme for the Thorin/Azog (horrible character, by the way) face-off. The only new theme that I consider worth remembering was the Misty Mountains theme.

And that ending song... The horror... The horror...

Mar 25 - 10:54 AM

Why does everyone hate Azog? Other than the fact that his CGI looked weird, and he wasn't in the book, I thought he was kinda cool. :/

Mar 25 - 11:30 AM

Well, I don't know about everybody else, but I found him to be a rather dull and generic villain with a weak revenge story. He even has that mandatory villain-scene where he kills one of his minions for failing him. Come on, Jackson could have done better than that.

Mar 25 - 01:20 PM

Okay, I'll agree with you with the minion killing scene. But how was he any more dull and generic than lurtz or Gothmog?
The revenge story may not have added to his story, but it did to Thorin's--which is what really mattered.

Mar 25 - 03:55 PM

Lurtz was a minion himself and Gothmog was a competent army commander. Azog failed at everything he did. If they wanted a revenge story they should have used Bolg.

Mar 25 - 04:05 PM

Keegan Connolly

I felt the score was good--except for the Lorien theme right before Rivendell, which was an utter fail. You can't expect many new themes yet because they haven't been anywhere new, really. But I definitely concur with you on the final showdown, twas a major let-down. It was really cheap to place it on a cliff and cheaper to have all the trees fall except for the last one where they're all saved by the Eagles. In the book, it was in a field and the Eagles saw from their Eyrie, which was from high above. I don't like Azog either, but he is necessary. You have to have a conflict running through the trilogy, and this one makes more sense than having Bolg be the villain because Bolg's case would be much harder to make than Azog's.

Mar 27 - 07:44 AM

How would Bolg's case be harder to make than Azog's. If Thorin had killed Azog (yes, I know it was Dain in the book, but let's allow them some creative license) he would have killed Bolg's father: a far more valid motivation for revenge than the loss of an arm, methinks.

Apr 2 - 11:26 AM

yeah, but Bolg's an orc. It would be weird to give an orc a sense of humanity.

Apr 3 - 02:46 AM

Bernhardina H�rnstein

I agree!

Apr 3 - 02:47 AM

Bart, even orcs are loyal to their tribe or clan. And besides, revenge for a fallen clan leader (in this case the Great Goblin) was what motivated Bolg to lead an army to the Lonely Mountain.

Apr 3 - 02:59 AM

But is this ever established in the movies?

Apr 3 - 03:03 AM

http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1353/58/1353588462978.jpg
Maybe this means Azog will die soon

Apr 3 - 03:06 AM

Well, I think it has been established in a way: remember how the Uruk-Hai from TTT were loyal to Saruman only? Evidently they regarded him as their leader, rather than Sauron.

The fact that they included Bolg in the second movie could mean that Azog dies, which would be a good thing, but then again it could also mean that he is going to have a different role from the one he has in the book. They should have killed Azog off so there wouldn't have been any doubts AND we wouldn't have had to suffer through his bland character too much.

Apr 3 - 03:16 AM

He is the new george lucas, and has been for a while now. Lucas fell further though, his original works were original works. Jackson just adapted lord of the rings, and in those I saw many of the same problems that are also evident in the hobbit. The bad story telling with the arbitrary rules of the universe, the deus ex machinas and the rest...

You have to understand that Peter Jackson has huge conflicts of interest now. I'm sure he built up relationships with many people during the long production of the lord of the rings, these films also support his weta computer graphics production company, in other words he's like george lucas if there were no other game in town. You are seeing a filmmaker with conflicts of interest most do not have, his priority is to keep his machine running, stretching out the films at the cost of story or quality is not a concern to him anymore apparently, he is probably consumed with the every day working of his factory, or he's just learned to rationalize anything to keep his factory fed with fuel as long as possible, its not about the film anymore....

The material was never that great to begin with anyways, there is a misplaced reverence for the books that keeps people from critical assessment of the series. They are filled with deus ex machina and other arbitrary nonsense that just prevents any emotional investment in the story. A lot of the films is just going through the motions of fan service, its empty spectacle, and with the lavish praise for the material much of the time I feel like I'm watching the emperor with no clothes.

Mar 16 - 03:32 PM

phantom is a decent film

Mar 16 - 02:06 AM

absolutely not, i liked phantom menace and the hobbit but hobbit was lot better

Mar 16 - 02:06 AM

Diego Tutweiller

The Phantom Menace is NOT a decent film.

Mar 16 - 01:20 PM

Jeff Parker

Indeed it is not.

Mar 17 - 12:45 PM

its my opinion

Mar 18 - 06:05 AM

Dylan Jones

And that's Jeff and Diego's opinion.

Apr 3 - 02:18 PM

Jayakrishnan R

I think you are right, Phantom Menace is after all a good film and The Hobbit is better.

Mar 22 - 07:02 AM

Keegan Connolly

I agree. The only thing I really disliked about Phantom was Jar Jar and how Anakin just happened to accidentally pilot that fighter into a battleship and destroys it--I'm all for movie magic, but that was just too much.

Mar 27 - 07:46 AM

Is The Hobbit as bad as The Phantom Menace? Not by a long shot. It is, however, my opinion that Peter Jackson has done several things in this new movie that reminded me of The Phantom Menace:
- The new focus on CGI as opposed to models, prosthetics and other 'real' props is VERY similar to what happened in the Star Wars franchise.
- Obnoxious comedy was also something that was more prominent in the Star Wars prequels than it was in the original trilogy (even though Return of the Jedi already had plenty of silly moments).
- Some lines in this flick were of sub-par quality. Most notably the notorious one-liner the Goblin King uttered after his death. This could be compared with the sometimes laughable dialogue in the Star Wars prequels, even though it's a far cry from being as cringeworthy as the lines uttered in those films.
- The Isengard theme playing softly as Saruman made his entrance at Rivendell reminded me of how Lucas treated young Anakin Skywalker. Remember how The Imperial March used to play ominously in the background whenever he had an important moment? Yeah, I was instantly reminded of that when they reintroduced Saruman in this movie. Why do prequels have to spoil what happens in the next movies?
- Last but not least, the dreaded comparison of Radagast with Jar Jar is kind of legitimate in my opinion. In a way Radagast's portrayal was a bigger insult than Jar Jar was, because he was based upon a character that wasn't written by Peter Jackson. Jar Jar Binks at least had the benefit of being Lucas' creation.

And let me make it very clear this time, since it seems that this was an issue last time: these aren't facts, these are just my opinions and they can be discussed over freely.

Mar 9 - 08:58 AM

Very good points--I disagree with a few things, though.
-The CGI in The Hobbit, while overused, looked AMAZING for the most part, minus Kratos, I--I mean Azog. Pardon me.
-I wasn't all that bothered by Radagast, at least not like that of Jar Jar. The bunny sled chase was too much, but I kind of liked his personality. If for nothing else, he moved the plot along (whether you like or dislike the Necromancer subplot is another story).
On a side note, Radagast, as I recall, wasn't a character that stood out really in the books, so it's not as insulting as it would be if they'd given, say, Gandalf bird shit and a bunny sleigh.

Mar 9 - 11:54 AM

Yes, I agree with you about Radagast in that he wasn't nearly as annoying as Jar Jar. While watching the movie, I didn't mind him as much as several other things. What I am saying, though, is that he was kind of a goofball, much like Jar Jar was. In the book, the Istari are, all of them, depicted as respectable. It's true that Saruman called Radagast daft, but that was supposed to indicate the decrease of wisdom within Saruman himself. In this movie, Saruman is quite justified in saying that Radagast is a bit untrustworthy.

The CGI wasn't bad, I just found it to be off-putting when it was used in close-ups of orc-faces. It just took away from the believability that the LOTR-trilogy had in this aspect.

Mar 9 - 12:57 PM

I actually didn't mind Phantom Menace too much. It's the weakest of the six Star Wars films, and Jar Jar was pretty damn awful, but it was still decent. But nowhere NEAR as good as The Hobbit. Just out of curiosity, how many stars (out of 5) would you rate Phantom Menace?

Mar 12 - 02:31 PM

-18 Midichlorians out of 5.

Mar 12 - 05:58 PM

To compare the hobbit to the phantom menace is to compare that slightly disappointing orgasm the fourth time you jack off to anal rape.
Sorry for the imagery.

Mar 12 - 06:00 PM

I acknowledge that. The Phantom Menace was MUCH worse than The Hobbit was. All I'm saying is that there are several similar elements in both movies that reflect the path that Peter Jackson took after he made LOTR.

Mar 13 - 02:54 AM

Oh, I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you. You're quite right about The Hobbit being comparable to The Phantom Menace, I'm just pointing out the difference in execution: The Hobbit is actually a decent movie, with human characters, some modicum of emotional depth, and doesn't have a horribly rendered, annoying, CGI alien thing. Say what you want about Radagast--at least he fits the basic definition of a character.

Mar 13 - 03:39 AM

Agreed. While I personally found The Hobbit to be wholly underwhelming, I would at least consider it to be a decent, though mediocre and near-fatally flawed, movie which provided at least some degree of entertainment.
The Phantom Menace? Not so much: I was completely alienated by the ridiculous discourse about 'Force-DNA' being measurable alone, let alone the multiple other things that were wrong with this movie.

Mar 13 - 07:34 AM

You'd probably like the movie more if you disregard the criticisms from the standpoint of someone who knows Middle Earth inside and out. Of course, then there are still some problems with the pacing, and the tonal imbalance.

Mar 13 - 08:10 AM

Peter Jackson = Frodo
George Lucas = Gollum

Mar 13 - 08:28 AM

Oh, and Sam = sensible moviegoers

Mar 13 - 08:37 AM

I was wondering, Tim, how many stars out of 5 would you rate Phantom Menace?

Mar 13 - 08:05 PM

I know that I'm liable to draw some ire from some Star Wars fanboys by saying this, but since you asked: in my opinion The Phantom Menace deserves no more than 1.5 stars out of five.
It really is that bad, especially since I wasn't that big of a fan of the original trilogy anyway: I really enjoyed parts IV and V, but I found Return of the Jedi to be rather silly and a bit of an anti-climax, with the Imperial ground forces getting destroyed by a tribe of teddy bears.

Mar 14 - 12:18 PM

This. The original Star wars trilogy isn't even that amazing, (although in the 80's it was probably groundbreaking) and in no fucking way does it compare to LOTR. I just don't get how one can simply watch return of the Jedi with it's over sized, AIDS-infested gerbils and think, "this is so much better than Lord of the rings DERP! LOTR is just a bunch of gay guys walking DORRR!"
Oh god, where do I even begin with the Phantom Menace? At least in The Hobbit, there is a slight degree of enjoyment factor. How can you enjoy a movie that is just riddled with annoying characters, boring political dialogue, and some of the most non-engaging action sequences ever?
And George Lucas doesn't even try! Regardless of what you think about The Hobbit, you can tell that Peter Jackson, on some level, cares about the quality of his work, demonstrated in the film's spot on performances and detailed visuals. The Phantom Menace's CGI effects are so incredibly bad(and behind their time), it's laughable! Just look at the gungans, (or, "goongas," as George Lucas didn't even give enough shits for pronunciation consistency)--they look like something that a child interested in special effects would design on a cheap, 3D animation program. And if you've watched the film, nothing be said about the atrocious acting. How does one assemble an Oscar worthy cast, and manage to get such awful, awful, performances?

Mar 14 - 01:41 PM

@Tim: What would you rate Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith?

Mar 15 - 07:34 PM

Yep its hard to say the cgi was horrible, it was competent and amazing in parts, even though much of the time the human actors looked cg thanks to the 48fps. Jacksons still has better art design/production compared to lucas who's prequels all looked incredibly cheap looking. But in the end they both felt empty, the stories just don't work.

Mar 16 - 03:27 PM

Hunter Primm

I would say 2 to 2.5 of 5 for Phantom Menace. I'm leaning towards 2.5 because it's a very mediocre film and is just plain ok. I think The Hobbit is a way better movie and way better than people give it credit for.

Mar 20 - 03:59 PM

The Hobbit IS a lot better than The Phantom Menace, but it isn't better than people give it credit for. In fact, I think many people give it way too much credit.

Mar 25 - 10:48 AM

@Hunter Primm: You can't say a film is "mediocre" and "okay" at the same time.

Mar 25 - 05:13 PM

Valandhir Falyn

Hm... I have to disagree on the Isengard theme. I always say it as Saruman's leitmotif, not as a foreshadowing. I would have been confused if they had given him a new theme here.

While I am not a huge fan of Radagast as such, I actually like the message in that part quite a bit - it'not Saruman who is powerful/well established, but the odd people like Gandalf and Radagast who do the meaningful stuff. He could have been a bit less of a treehugger, but riiiight.

And the book introduces only 2 Istari with some deeper character - Saruman and Gandalf, Radagast has little of a scene and the other two wizards Tolkien only decided very late on what to do with them at all. And even the mention of the "blue" wizards could have put PJ into hot water, because he did not have the rights for the Unfinished Tales.

Mar 9 - 09:55 PM

The Isengard theme may be Saruman's leitmotif, but it does sound rather evil, doesn't it? Much like The Imperial March sounds evil.
If a first time viewer was to be introduced to Saruman in The Hobbit, he would instantly identify him as a bad guy, making it seem kind of silly that Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond experience his betrayal as a surprise in FOTR. And if the music doesn't give him away, then his rather tactless denial of the Necromancer's existence would. Saruman should be a skillful deceptor, not a dead give-away. This could easily have been remedied by making Saruman more sympathetic: don't have him berate Gandalf and make belitteling comments about Radagast.

While it is indeed true that Radagast isn't furnished with a worked out character in Tolkien's books, it is somewhat obvious that he wasn't a complete and utter dunce. Can you imagine this Disney-character hopping off the boat from Valinor? I get that he was distracted by his love for animals, but still. I always imagined him to resemble St. Francis of Assissi: a respectable animal loving hermit.

Mar 10 - 03:28 AM

DAT ASSet management

I thought that Radagast was not allowed to leave for Valinor due to not completing his task?

Mar 10 - 06:34 AM

I believe it isn't entirely clear what happened to Radagast in the end. Some claim that Gandalf was the only wizard allowed to return to Valinor. Others, however, state that Radagast's failure was not as great as Saruman's and that he was eventually allowed to return. I believe Christopher Tolkien holds that Radagast was entrusted with a different mission entirely, since he was a Maia from the following of the Vala Yavanna (the 'goddess' of nature), namely that of protecting the wildlife of Middle-Earth: a task that did not end with Sauron's defeat.

In any case, what is certain is that Radagast did originate in Valinor, along with the other wizards. In fact, Saruman was forced to bring him along, which was one of the reasons for his contempt of Radagast.

Mar 10 - 08:49 AM

This is all so Greek to me...

Mar 12 - 02:33 PM

Haha, I'm sorry if I confused you. If you read the Silmarillion this should make a bit more sense to you. :-)

Mar 13 - 02:58 AM

I did not read any LOTR books, and I'm still in the middle of reading The Hobbit. But I did actually know a little bit about The Necromancer before I watched The Hobbit movie, because I read the entire article about Saraun on Wikipedia months earlier. Good thing I did, or else I would have been thoroughly confused. By the way, what the hell is the Silmarithmarilllianalabadingdong anyway? I heard it's supposed to be a "bible" of Middle Earth, or something like that.

Mar 13 - 08:10 PM

Yes, I suppose you could call the Silmarillion that. It isn't so much a single narrative as it is a collection of myths and histories about Arda (which is the world in which Middle Earth is located) from the very creation of the world to the end of the Third Age and the Downfall of Sauron. It even briefly describes the events of The Hobbit and LOTR at the very end of it.

I should warn you, though: if you aren't interested in wholly immersing yourself in Tolkien's world and if you find it confusing that 'Orc' and 'Goblin' are two names for the same species, you will probably find the Silmarillion a boring and thoroughly confusing read, much like the Bible is for those who aren't interested.

Mar 14 - 12:27 PM

My parents both read the Silmarithmarilllianalabadingdong, and they both didn't like it. Even my mother, a die-hard LOTR fan (she is responsible for taking me, an 8th grader, and my sister, a 4th grader, out of school to see the midnight screening and matin�e of The Hobbit) found the book illiterate and confusing. I am an Ignosticist, so I am not at all familiar with the bible (which is probably why I hated Life of Brian), and, like I said, I haven't read the LOTR books, so I probably won't understand the Silmarillion. Oh, and by the way, if it takes place in a fictional universe, where did the name "Earth" come from? And are there other "continents" other than middle earth? And, for that matter, what does "Silmarillion" mean? Too many questions...

Mar 15 - 07:30 PM

'Illiterate' seems an odd way to describe any book, but if they didn't like it I can't blame them. Many people dislike reading the Bible as well, and as I said: the Silmarillion is comparable in form and subject matter to the Bible (I have read the Bible, but only because I find it interesting to know what other people believe in).

I probably could answer those other questions of yours, but are you really interested in hearing the answers to them?

Mar 17 - 03:13 AM

I am very interested. Hearing all this otherworldly stuff is so freaking cool.

Mar 18 - 12:46 PM

Hold your horses mate, I had other stuff to do these couple of days.

Very well, let me try to explain. In order to understand where the word Middle Earth came from it is important to know that Tolkien was inspired by the myths of the Ancient Norse (or 'Vikings' if you will). These myths refer to our world as 'Midgard' (which can be translated to 'Middle World' or 'Earth') as opposed to other worlds that were inhabited by other races, such as gods, elves, giants etc. So in short, this is where the origins of Middle Earth lie: though the Middle Earth of Tolkien's books is still inhabited by other races, this time is coming to an end at the end of the Third Age.

As an answer to your second question: yes, there are other continents besides Middle Earth in Arda. You have, for example, Harad in the south (which could be identified as Africa) and Rhun in the east (which could be identified as Asia).

Finally, your third question: Silmarillion refers to the Silmarils, which were three jewels of unparalleled beauty whose theft by the Dark Lord Morgoth (who was Sauron's master) instigated many of the events of the book.

I hope this has informed you somewhat. If anything should be unclear, feel free to ask.

Mar 23 - 12:11 PM

Very interesting. I crave hearing about all this geeky stuff (I mean that in a positive way, mind you). Here are some other ones: at the end of ROTK, when the elves and Frodo go on that boat, are they ascending, or simply going to another continent? Oh, and it seems as though Galadriel and Gandalf had a past romantic relationship... is this true? And who are the other wizards besides Gandalf, Saruman, and Radagast?

All this fantasy stuff, it's like trying to understand algebra in Latin. Have you seen the film 10,000 BC? It has similar themes to this.

Mar 24 - 08:03 PM

The elves, Gandalf and Frodo are going to another world called Valinor, where the 'gods' live. Valinor used to be another continent, but it was taken from the world after the men of Numenor (who were the ancestors of the Gondorians) tried to overthrow the gods.

Galadriel and Gandalf did NOT have a romantic relationship: this was a very strange scene in AUJ, nothing more.

The other wizards are the two Blue Wizards, Alatar and Pallando, who went east into Rhun. They were never heard of again.

10,000 BC was horrid. 1,5 stars out of five.

Mar 25 - 10:36 AM

Blue wizards? Oi yoi yoi...
Here's a stretch... is there a name for the UNIVERSE middle earth takes place in? Are there other planets? I'm guessing not, but it's worth an ask.

I kind of liked 10,000 BC. Amazing effects, gorgeous sets, and a tear-jerking musical score. Looked great in the theaters. But it did have a half-assed story, atrocious dialogue, an annoying narrator, and more historical inaccuracies than there are hairs on my head. Not perfect, but a nice guilty pleasure. 3.5/5.

Hmm, 1.5 is what you gave Phantom Menace. Just out of curiosity, what would you rate Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith?

Mar 25 - 01:25 PM

Yeah, Blue Wizards. Kind of widespread and stock nowadays, I know, but you need to bear in mind that Tolkien was one of the first to write about these kinds of fantasy worlds. Also, like I said, they don't have a very big place in the stories.

No, there isn't a specific name for the universe, but I believe Tolkien intended his stories about Middle Earth as a mythology for our world in a very distant past.

Revenge of the Clones: 2 out of five because it suffers from a lot of the same problems as Phantom Menace. Revenge of the Sith was actually pretty good in my opinion: not better than Episodes IV and V, but better than Return of the Jedi. I award that movie a 3 out of five, which is slightly above average for me.

Mar 25 - 03:47 PM

Yeah, I heard something about Middle Earth being earth's past. But then why didn't we see cave drawings or anything? Oh, what's the point...

I just recently saw A New Hope for the first time in over five years. I originally had it on my top 20 favorite movies list purely out of nostalgia, but on re-watching it, I realize it's actually quite flawed. Boring characters, rushed plot, and not enough atmosphere. Still a good movie, though.

You say 3 out of 5 is above average? Geez, what a critic. I almost never go below 2 out of 5, even when I really don't like a movie. Like I told you before, the only movie I ever gave zero stars was Blair Witch 2. As I get older, I'll probably become more critical. Are you an adult?

Another fantasy film that I quite enjoy is Season of the Witch, starring Nicolas Cage. Aside from some subpar CGI and a shaky final act, it was an intriguing and exciting fantasy adventure that was nicely paced, decently acted, and pretty original. 4/5. Have you seen it?

Mar 25 - 05:26 PM

Steven Potgeter

I think that what makes The Hobbit better than Phantom even though they share many flaws is that The Hobbit still has an interest in its characters which results in us being interested as well.

Mar 16 - 05:59 AM

Eh, I'm not sure you can say that, generic dwarves and a "oh look its gandalf" again isn't quite enough to be interesting. Gollum was a nice short film I guess, the time with gollum was in stark contrast to the rest of the film and its boring characters, it almost felt out of place.

Anyways back to the phantom menace comparison, it brings to mind the phantom menace red lettermedia review where he brought up the issue of the rules of the universe in the story, if there are really none or they are entirely arbitrary, all tension is lost. Thats a problem with the hobbit, all the deus ex machina and the falling from great heights with no injury just remove your emotional investment from the film.

Mar 16 - 03:55 PM

Typhon Q

well the whole gandalf thing is what happens in the book, which im sure everyone would have been furious about if PJ changed it

Mar 17 - 02:30 PM

Thats the problem with slave-ish adaptations, you appease the fanboys, and ruin the movie. Anyways we will never know if changes would have really pissed off the fanboys, if he had changed it to fit a film narrative better it might have been better for all involved. He might have been christopher nolan, making the movie his own vision of the world, instead of just a by the books mindless translation.

Mar 17 - 06:14 PM

Cody Kerr

Jar-Jar had such a fantastic character-story that he could have been the next Han Solo, but Lucas chose to use the character to appeal to the 5-10 year old demographic, selling out.

I barely even recall Radagast in the book and I don't think there really was much of a character to start with for Jackson to mess up, but Radagast was an intriguing, impressive, and unique character in the film who I'd rather see than avoid.

Jar-Jar had unused potential; Radagast, not so much. Jar-Jar was the bigger insult (and even he was nothing compared to the insult of child Anakin).

Mar 19 - 06:46 PM

I think Jake Lloyd was pretty good, actually. Remember, it's the SCRIPT that had him saying "yippee!", not him.

Mar 22 - 08:53 PM

very true..

Apr 3 - 02:01 AM