I went and saw The Hobbit last night and thought it was good. As much as I loved Return of the King, they dragged that movie out. I'm glad that they did not drag this movie out like they did ROTK. I know there is content that was not in the book but I thought they did a good job wrapping the movie up and tie it in with the Lord of the Rings movies.
The Hobbit...
- Thread starter OSUIvan
- Start date
I haven't seen this one yet, so I can't agree or disagree with your opinion. I do think it's funny, though, that you think ROTK was dragged out and the Hobbit wasn't. The Hobbit movies were about 8-9 hours to cover a 300-page book. The LOTR movies were about 10 hours for, if I remember correctly, about 1200 pages. I love all those books, but I've been pretty disappointed by the previous Hobbit movies due to how padded they felt.
I saw the triple feature and thought it was great. Plenty of stuff was.missed, but that's to be expected. Fight scene at the end could've been made.much longer, but it was great either way.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I feel the same way. I wore out my collectors edition LOTR box set and have watched Hobbit 1 once and fell asleep during Hobbit 2. Not all that stoked about Hobbit 3.
But I am working on a costume plan for Star Wars already.
Saw it tonight. Enjoyed it. Love all 6 movies. LOTR is a notch above the Hobbit movies IMO. I guess they could have easily made the Hobbit into movies, but I liked a lot of the stuff they added.
Saw it tonight as well. Loved LOTR both as a book and trilogy.
Liked Hobbit ok, both as book and trilogy. Certainly would have been better had it been 2 movies instead of 3.
At the end of the day, LOTR is by far a better set of movies, but it's based on a far better source material.
Liked Hobbit ok, both as book and trilogy. Certainly would have been better had it been 2 movies instead of 3.
At the end of the day, LOTR is by far a better set of movies, but it's based on a far better source material.
So, I was thinking about the movie as I was trying to fall asleep last night, and I decided I have a big problem with the ending. I am about to reveal a big spoiler, so, if you have not seen the movie, do not read the rest of my post.
<
>
<
>
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
So, the entire plot of the trilogy is built around the concept of Thorin (and his company) trying to regain control of the Lonely Mountain, and get possession of the Arkenstone, so he can take his place as rightful ruler of the dwarves. Yet, in the final chapter of the trilogy, Thorin is killed, as are his 2 nephews. As far was we know, the line of Durrin is ended. We are not told what happens to Erebor, the Arkenstone, the treasure, etc. I read the book many years ago, and don't remember if this is resolved or not. Does one of the other dwarves decide to sit the throne? Is the Arkenstone returned to its place, thus uniting the various dwarf factions around Middle Earth? Is Erebor occupied and restored, or is the treasure divvied up and the lonely mountain abandoned? I realize that the title of the movie is "The Hobbit" and the idea is to follow Bilbo's adventures, but it bothers me that the entire trilogy is centered about Erebor/The Dwarves, but no resolution of those events at the end.
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
So, the entire plot of the trilogy is built around the concept of Thorin (and his company) trying to regain control of the Lonely Mountain, and get possession of the Arkenstone, so he can take his place as rightful ruler of the dwarves. Yet, in the final chapter of the trilogy, Thorin is killed, as are his 2 nephews. As far was we know, the line of Durrin is ended. We are not told what happens to Erebor, the Arkenstone, the treasure, etc. I read the book many years ago, and don't remember if this is resolved or not. Does one of the other dwarves decide to sit the throne? Is the Arkenstone returned to its place, thus uniting the various dwarf factions around Middle Earth? Is Erebor occupied and restored, or is the treasure divvied up and the lonely mountain abandoned? I realize that the title of the movie is "The Hobbit" and the idea is to follow Bilbo's adventures, but it bothers me that the entire trilogy is centered about Erebor/The Dwarves, but no resolution of those events at the end.
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
What they left out int he movie is that his cousin lived and took over the mountain, so his blood line was not completely wiped out. But you're right if you only saw the movies you're left wondering which isn't good since we know what happens. Just a simple question to Gandalf, or even show the cousin (his name is slipping my mind) when Bilbo leaves to go home.
Thanks for clarifying. I could not remember that detail from when I read the book. Really a huge oversight on the part of the director/screen writer. I even tried to look up the answer on Wikipedia but it is not there. There will probably be quite a few viewers of the trilogy who end up wondering about that information.
Wasnt the arkenstone burried w Thrain?
Also I think Bilbos small bit of treasure he brings home is the burried loot from the troll cave (movie 1), as his 1/14 share was the arkenstone he gave away. He did get the mithril tunic from Thrain as a gift which saved Frodo's life 70 years later.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Also I think Bilbos small bit of treasure he brings home is the burried loot from the troll cave (movie 1), as his 1/14 share was the arkenstone he gave away. He did get the mithril tunic from Thrain as a gift which saved Frodo's life 70 years later.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I think better detail for the bloodline is in the information Tolkien ' s son wrote about.
Not the silmarrilion (sp), but some.other history style writing. I'm too lazy to search this early in the morning. Also, there is a great wiki out there.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Not the silmarrilion (sp), but some.other history style writing. I'm too lazy to search this early in the morning. Also, there is a great wiki out there.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I do remember that from reading the book. On Wikipedia, it says he left Erebor with a much smaller share of the treasure due to him taking (and giving back) the arkenstone as most of his share. So, maybe he did take some with him when he left to head home.
For the purposes of the movie, I don't think it matters all that much since he never opened the chest at the end. The viewer can assume there is treasure in there or think it is something else. If the viewer assumes it to be treasure, they can make their own opinion as to where it came from. I would have to go back and watch the first Hobbit movie, but I do think the chest he was carrying was the same one they buried in the Troll cave.
You're right BJ. He even makes mention of it when him and Frodo were talking about the Saxville-Baggins taking his things.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
