Included is a link to a review of 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey'!
Can't wait to see it this Friday!
Review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey(20 posts)
Included is a link to a review of 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey'!Posted 12 months ago #
From the above review-
'Jackson and company pump up the thin 'The Hobbit' book with additional threats not used in the original narrative. Using characters from Appendix A of 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, the richness and depth of myth that Lord of the Rings offered is also included in this first installment of The Hobbit. Azog the Defiler, an Albino Orc, is a long-standing nemesis of Thorin from the campaigns where Thorin and his kin attempted to reclaim the mines of Moria from the Orcs and Goblins.'
Um, none of that is right and is not what is in Appendix A concerning Durins Folk....
I was showing that the short reference to Azog from appendix A enabled Jackson to pump up 'The Hobbit' movie storyline. I understand that references to Durin folk would not be listed that way. The movie takes elements not originally from Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' to spice things up!
It takes elements not from Tolkien. Full stop.
I'll say it again. It appears that in PJ's version, Azog was not killed by Dain, and Bolg does not exist. I do not like this.
It also appears the entire history of the dwarf/goblin war is ruined- which would seem to mean Thrors death which sparked the dwarves into revenge against the goblins will now happen at the battle being fought as a result of his death! How does that work?
I believe that instead of Azog having his big scene where he cuts off Thrors head an defiles it by branding Azog on it this no longer happens- instead Thorin chops Azogs arm off in a battle which is now about an attempt to retake Moria- which never happened.
How is any of this better exactly than what Tolkien wrote? And apart from anyhing else as PJ is still calling him Azog the Defiler, but if he didnt brand Thors head what did he get the name for?
I don't remember anything on Azog in the appendices other than him killing Thror,carving the name Azog into his head and then using Nar as a messenger, starting the dwarf and goblin war. Which led to the battle of Azanulbizar, where Azog killed Nain and was then beheaded by Dain Ironfoot where they put Azog's head upon a spike outside the gates of Moria with the purse of coins in his mouth as a warning to any goblin/orc.
What did I miss when I reread them months ago (or the 5 minutes ago I picked up my copy of LOTR to check) and posted a full synopsis of those Appendices here?
I don't see anything in the appendices about the necromancer resurrecting Azog, I don't see anything about him being a big albino orc, I don't see anything about Azg being linked to DolGuldur, I don't see anything of the sort that Jackson has MADE UP to fit into his film. I see Azog being dead and staying dead in what Tolkien wrote and that's the end of THAT story.
Seems people are just willing to believe Peter Jackson's word for it that the BS he is peddling is actually in the appendices. I hate to inform anyone who does not know this information but NONE and I repeat NONE of Peter Jackson's BS is in the appendices.
I also dislike the goblins in this movie visually (from what I've seen from trailers and photos). They all seem to be albino. But when I read the book, I imagined them being darker, even with a hint of green. And I think this darkness is an important aspect of the goblins/orcs in Tolkien's world. He uses a constant theme of light versus dark. Morgoth was evil and was thus robed in black with a black crown, with his throne in a blacker than night throne room. Angband spewed ash and clouds and darkened the surrounding area. Orcs were a (sort-of) creation of Morgoth's and were twisted into being evil. Therefore, I think they should inherit this darkness. That's one of the main reasons I didn't like PJ's Gothmog (plus the fact that he just looked stupid and only had like two fingers and I couldn't imagine him being a leader of any sort). I actually liked a lot of the orcs in PJ's LOTR (how they looked, anyway), but so far, I haven't seen any in TH that I've liked.
are they albino because they live underground?
That's a possible reason Figgy, but then that would not really be consistent with the Moria orcs who live underground too and the only real difference with them was bigger eyes (and apparently the technology to climb sheer walls and ceilings- you'd think theyd have brought some of that equipment to Helms Deep- soon made short work of the defences- could have ran right up them- or wasnt I suppose to notice that PJ?)
small orcs (goblins) in moria versus big sumbitches at Helm's Deep. That's the only way I can justify it, but you're right, it seems like damn short sighted not to have the little nasty ones to swarm up walls during a siege.
Thought people might want to have a sneak peak if you havent already.
The second one will give you a clear indication of how the orcs are going to look, gotta admit, reminds me more of the zombies in 'i am legend'
PJ + CGI + ORC = Albino sloth
Still wont alter my excitement though
found another too. Sorry if you have already viewed. Someone hand Radagast a baby wipe please.
Gandalf, In the 2nd clip you showed, The Goblins looked to flimsy to me ? They were tossed over so easily, like brushing your hand thru a pile of maggots.Thorin & co seemed to push thru to easily? Still dont like Bofur's silly,"Im in the wrong film" hat. If he was in "Van Helsing",as a pitch fork wielding peasant, it would have fitted.And I dont like his moustache either.
Figgs, orcs generally prefer darkness over the light , so I don't think the Hobbit orcs should be singled out as being different like that. Of course, some could have genetic mutations, but still...
I think they are making the orcs and goblins so different to distinguish the various species, I dont see it as a problem that some of them are albino, as long as they look the part I dont care what colour they are.
Just bumping away to move these ridiculous spammmers down.
Dear powers that be, bring back Julia.
Posted this in the other review thread but figured since some people read some and not others I'll repost it here
OK first off Let me say, I thought the film was entertaining, BUT it is not (as someone else has said) the story I wanted to see. I was given lemons I am simply making lemon-aid. I will openly admit they were good films but as I have been saying for almost a year now it was NOT the Hobbit. The scenery was stunning in almost all the location scenes, but some scenes IMO seemed very fake and not well thought out.
Goblin Town being my main beef here. Goblin Town just seemed like it was filmed the way it was in order to make people with motion sickness vomit. And attempt to show off WETA's 3-D and digital environments where there was no real set needed. Which IMO proved why we NEED more real and practical effects in films instead of relying on just CGI. Maybe had there been something more to Goblin Town other than the roller coaster ride we got it might have seemed more real.
Things like Gandalf's speech about knowing when not to take a life were IMO things that undermined Bilbo's character, as well as Bilbo running in sword slashing at Azog to save Thorin were moments that to me anyways felt out of place for the character of Bilbo Baggins at this point in the Hobbit.
Riddles in the dark IMO was well done for the most part, but I found Gollum telling himself to shut up multiple times quite annoying, and they bounced the personalities back and forth just a bit much for my liking. I would have preferred the mean angry Gollum for the majority of the scene, instead of the back and forth. But that one is just personal taste. I will say I did not mind the Riddles in the dark part running concurrently with the dwarves escape from Goblin Town. They should have just stuck to the book a bit more with the fine details of them meeting back up IMO.
Buttons on the doorstep was an important scene IMO because it was one scene they could have used to tell more about the ring without having to invent made up material to do it. Bilbo should have had to get thru goblins to get outside to rejoin the dwarves IMO. The goblins should have seen him in the sunlight.
NOW onto Azog is that the fakest looking villan I have ever seen or what? The should have been smart and had a guy in a suit for that role. The whole albino thing isn't working for me either... Call me cynical but I just didn't like the whole Azog plot line they could have made it much more entertaining by going another route such as Bolg wanting revenge for Azog's beheading at Moria instead of having Azog even in these films (BIG WASTE OF MONEY AND TIME IMO)But then we wouldn't get Bolg working for the Necromancer then would we? And it might actually match what Tolkien wrote.
I do like the fact they stayed away from using the name Sauron too much and were at least at this point in the films passing the necromancer off as some human sorcerer who just happened to re-inhabit DolGuldur. I can live with that. But I am sure Gandalf will head to DolGuldur in film 2 just to verify that it is Sauron there, bringing into play more and more references.
Radagast IMO was alright nothing spectacular and at times annoying. I think they played out the rabbit/Warg chase scene a bit too much. But again personal opinion. Radagast didn't actually discover it being Sauron at DolGuldur but that a great evil was there and he feels it is Sauron but I am sure Gandalf will investigate it in film 2 since Saruman said there is NO proof. which throws the whole 2850 time line out the window in typical Peter Jackson fashion...
There was much t love about the film, I agree. It was after all entertaining, actually fast paced (3 hours flew by), and was a good story overall. BUT and I say BUT it was not the Hobbit that we have known for decades, something loosely based on that Hobbit YES. A film with sections that stuck closer to the book than anything in LOTR, but again NOT the Hobbit.
I will probably see the film again on Monday just because I am off work and its nice to go to an uncrowded theater to see it for 5 bucks. But I wouldn't say I am more enthusiastic towards Peter Jackson. I have just come to terms with these films being what they are, entertaining mindless enjoyment, and nothing more. These films IMO are not nor ever will be a great representation of Tolkien's books. and I will just take them for what they are. Films loosely based on some of the greatest books ever Nothing more.
SO Id love in detail some reasons why you love or hate The Hobbit? Spoilers are ok as long as they are within reason.
You must register or log in to post.