The Hobbit movie...what didn't you like about it? <SPOILER ALERT>

[DwarfFriend]

I actually loved the movie (and yes, I have read the book multiple times, along with LotR and many of Tolkien's other writings). Sure, some things were over the top and not as described in the book, but I went into the theater expecting Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth, not an exact version of the novel. Overall, I felt that it was a fun movie, and there just aren't enough purely fun and entertaining movies being released these days.
I found the whole Witch-King story to be a pretty odd deviation from the writings, but I guess we'll see where that goes in the sequels. Also, even though Azog was supposed to be dead before the story, I still have a feeling that he won't survive until the end, since Bolg is in the sequels.

"Witch-king story"? I think you have to read the book again. The "necromancer" in Dol Guldur in Mirkwood, who is clad in a black cloak, is none other than Sauron! Why did you think it was the Witch-king of Angmar?

[DwarfFriend]

"Witch-king story"? I think you have to read the book again. The "necromancer" in Dol Guldur in Mirkwood, who is clad in a black cloak, is none other than Sauron! Why did you think it was the Witch-king of Angmar?

Sorry, I have to apologise for this and edit my thoughts: It is said nowhere that the black wraith that attacks Radagast is really Sauron, however it is also stated nowhere that it is the Witch-king of Angmar. And seeing that he was (sort of) defeated by Radagast, that must mean he is either a weaker Ringwraith or an even weaker ghosr-type creature. I am sorry I patronized you on this, when I didn't know it for sure either. My apologies are offered sincerely!

[Daedrice]

Gandalf seemed a little (weak?) because he ran away from nearly everything, I mean a couple of warg riders? Seriously?

Funny how Gollum was killing the orc, and when he stirred, gollum bashed him over the head with a rock.

[MythrilDragon]

Sorry, I have to apologise for this and edit my thoughts: It is said nowhere that the black wraith that attacks Radagast is really Sauron, however it is also stated nowhere that it is the Witch-king of Angmar. And seeing that he was (sort of) defeated by Radagast, that must mean he is either a weaker Ringwraith or an even weaker ghosr-type creature. I am sorry I patronized you on this, when I didn't know it for sure either. My apologies are offered sincerely!

No problem
When Radagast goes to Dol Guldur in the movie, he does see the Necromancer/Sauron as the black figure that appears after the wraith that attacks him is gone, which causes him to flee in panic. I think the white ghostly wraith that emerges from the statue and attacks Radagast is supposed to be the Witch-king, perhaps in a somewhat weakened state at this point (although I'm still not entirely sure why he's in ghost form....), as the sword that he leaves behind is later said to be the Witch-king's sword.
The Witch-king plot I'm referring to in the movie is the one in which he was buried in a tomb with the sword after Angmar fell, which seems to contradict the prophecy about his death (although I suppose that they could just say that he was only mostly dead...or something). I like that they included Dol Guldur and the Necromancer into the movie, but I think they could have kept the sword in the movie as a sign that the Witch-king had returned to Dol Guldur without saying that he had been buried. Still interested to see where they're going to go with it though.
Still loved the movie, enough to have seen it three times

[Zachski]

No problem
When Radagast goes to Dol Guldur in the movie, he does see the Necromancer/Sauron as the black figure that appears after the wraith that attacks him is gone, which causes him to flee in panic. I think the white ghostly wraith that emerges from the statue and attacks Radagast is supposed to be the Witch-king, perhaps in a somewhat weakened state at this point (although I'm still not entirely sure why he's in ghost form....), as the sword that he leaves behind is later said to be the Witch-king's sword.
The Witch-king plot I'm referring to in the movie is the one in which he was buried in a tomb with the sword after Angmar fell, which seems to contradict the prophecy about his death (although I suppose that they could just say that he was only mostly dead...or something). I like that they included Dol Guldur and the Necromancer into the movie, but I think they could have kept the sword in the movie as a sign that the Witch-king had returned to Dol Guldur without saying that he had been buried. Still interested to see where they're going to go with it though.
Still loved the movie, enough to have seen it three times

Quick question, what book is the backstory of the Witch-king located?

[tuor66]

Quick question, what book is the backstory of the Witch-king located?

Mostly in PJ and Co's fevered imaginations
But seriously, what little we know comes mostly from LOTR and the appendices concerning Arnor and Gondor.

[Elricgodslayer]

The beginning of the movie makes dwarves look like cowards and elves look like &&&&&&&s. Why were the dwarves backing up when the dragon hadn't even gotten through the door? THey were wearing full face masks, those are supposed to be able to resist dragon fire, it says many times in tolkien lore! Also, dwarves are freaking steadfast and stubborn and defiant, they wouldn't back away even in the face of death.

THEY STOOD THEIR GROUND IN A SUICIDAL BATTLE WITH A FIRE DRAGON. Led by their princes even. How, in any way, is that cowardly?


Does this look cowardly to you?

The metal of the Dwarven war masks may be able to resist melting by dragon-fire (highly unlikely, since it is said the Great Rings could only be consumed by dragon-fire, and that would put Dwarven armor at the same level of enchantment and craft as the Rings of Power, which could only be forged with the aid of or knowledge from a Maiar, in this case Sauron), but that wouldn't stop the Dwarves from rapidly roasting alive inside their armor. Where is it written that Dwarf war masks are supposed to resist dragon-fire?

[Radhruin_EU]

Where is it written that Dwarf war masks are supposed to resist dragon-fire?

It's in the Silmarillion, when the Dwsrves of Belegost go up against Glaurung during the Nirnaeth Arnoediad. Dwarves apparently had some native resistance to fire, too.

[Ioralor]

I may be starting to nitpick but why did Jackson feel the need to change the dwarve ages around and make Ori out to be the youngest?

In The Hobbit it is clearly stated that Fili is the youngest.* ("Dori is the strongest, but Fili is the youngest and still has the best sight," said Thorin.)

In the movie, the Goblin King talks about starting with the youngest and Ori is shown. In an interview the actor who plays Ori mentioned being the baby of the group.

It just seems like an odd thing to change around and I cannot think of a reason for him to do that. It would be such an easy thing to get right so why bother getting it wrong.

*An interesting thing...in the Appendices at the back of ROTK, Kili is said to be the youngest. I'm assuming that when Thorin said Fili was the youngest when they were in Mirkwood, he actually meant to say Kili. It happens to the best of us sometimes. I'm pretty sure my mom always gets me mixed up with my cat.

[Dustalin]

Funny how Gollum was killing the orc, and when he stirred, gollum bashed him over the head with a rock.

I found that part disturbing.

[Felaguin]

Overall, I enjoyed the movie and even the additions like Radagast but the dwarves really annoyed me. Thorin is supposed to be an old and proud dwarf, not a petulant brash youngish princeling with a chip on his shoulder. Their costuming wasn't reflective of the colors Tolkien took pains to describe. I was reminded more of "Time Bandits" than "The Hobbit" (right down to the messed up hairdo).

[Magdon1]

Quick question, what book is the backstory of the Witch-king located?

Appendix A of the LOTR "The North-kingdom and the Dunedain."

Also, Sauron was still greatly diminished when first inhabiting Dol Guldur. Radagast and Sauron were of the same people ( Maiar), though at his height, Sauron was one of the greatest of these, while Radagast was very low. It is not inconceivable that Radagast could drive off a weakened Sauron, though there is no mention of this in any Tolkien writings. Radagast is a miniscule character with no first hand appearances anywhere in any book that I know of. Nowhere is it said that he wore a poultice of bird-droppings on his head or that he traveled on the Sled of Myxomatosis.

[Felaguin]

It also could have been explained a bit better that Thorin's grandfather was given one of the Dwarven Seven Rings of power. And it was the ring that made him greedy, thus attracting the attention of Smaug.

Do remember that no one was thinking about the Rings of Power at this point in the story and in fact, the Dwarves didn't need the rings to make them greedy -- they had a weakness for gold and gems and mithril from the beginning.

[Beleg-Of-Doriath]

One thing they shouldn't have changed was how Gandalf rescues the Dwarves from the Goblins in Goblin Town. If they had followed the book that would have been a really good scene, well suited for film format. Instead they give Gandalf some kind of air-blast power.

[Darkheart06]

Not liking what they're doing with Azog. Not just the fact that it's a direct retcon of the lore but it just doesn't make any sense. Why can't that part be given to Bolg? It makes a lot more sense and you get to elaborate on a character that is actually in the story but never got much detail. And I HATED how easily Azog schooled Thorin and then having Bilbo save the day by fighting. Making him and Thorin buddy buddy so early in the story is going to lessen the impact of Bilbo's remaining challenges and the payoff of him and Thorin finally seeing eye to eye at the end.

[Redbeaver]

here's my take:

First, i thoroughly enjoyed the movie. it was fun and i had no problem paying $10 to watch it. It's a really good fiction movie.

Second, well, I regretted I didn't leave my Tolkien expectation at the door. Don't get me wrong, I love LOTR trilogy movies and I was ready to watch *SOME* deviation from the books in the movie, but there were just too many changes that made me think, Mr. Tokien is probably rolling in his grave right now.

Third, it's too long. Cut off the unecessary parts that are not part of the books, and instead of 3 movies, make it into 2. Or make one that's 4 hours long or something, I don't care. But it's just way too much fluff.

I love all the books, but this movie dissapoints my expectation. I sit through all 3 LOTR movies in the theater, done it again at home, and yet a third time with extended edition. All glued to my chair, focused on the story.

This movie? Spent about an hour before I start thinking of what's for dinner at home, whether i locked my car, how i wanted to play LOTRO again to visit these stuff...

I can't help to think that Hollywood stuffed Jackson's &&& with boatload of money to make sure they can milk this franchise as best as they could while completely disregarding the lore...

[andrealibs]

Two things seriously irked me.

One is simply aesthetic. The wargs (my favorite beast-type villain from the franchise) looked so fake. Gross.

Second, my biggest gripe is just my OCD flaring up: The way Bilbo finds the Ring in FotR and this movie is so completely different. I can suspend an incredible amount of disbelief for a fun movie when I choose to, but that was jarring to me.

[Redbeaver]

Just saw it AGAIN in Blu-ray at the convenient of my couch and a remote control with fast-forward capabilities.

And yknow what? I didn't fast forward it a single second. In fact, I rewind a few scenes (i hate enabling subtitles, it ruins the immersion IMHO) to get exactly what they were saying.

And it was in fact... enjoyable. Sure, it's wildly different than the book, and yes, some things are off (WAY off), but overall, it's a great enjoyable flick.

That being said, I did read the Hobbit again between the movie and this Blu-ray, and I have one complaint still lingering by the way the movie ends: second movie can't come soon enough.

There's too many filler. I wished it's split only into 2. And I really really REALLY want to see the Skin Changer.

/sigh

[Nymphonic]

Just saw it AGAIN in Blu-ray at the convenient of my couch and a remote control with fast-forward capabilities.

It's out in Blue Ray now? I did not know that.


I loved the movie, saw it twice, but since this thread is about what I did not like, I have to say that I did not like the video game fight scenes in Goblin Town. I wish the fight scenes would have been more like the LOTR films.

To me, it was like George Lucas adding too much computer graphics in the last 3 Star Wars films.

I have a feeling the 2nd film is going to be all about Beorn and Mirkwood and escaping from.......damn, I forgot the name of the elf cave in Mirkwood.

[Surfside]

6. I understand Saruman is basically "the boss" I just felt like Gandalf was nothing compared to everyone else. I also understand the respect for Galadriel but despite her being a high elf I remember who Gandalf is (a Maiar). It just seemed like they were looking down on Gandalf (one who they have more respect for then Saruman despite Saruman being the head of the order).

As other have said Saruman outranked Gandalf, which was no little feat. Even if Saruman was on the up-and-up and not already falling into league with Sauron, it would have been his right and duty to call Gandalf into question. ATM, Saruman is the proven superior wizard.

Everything Gandalf believes right now, ref Sauron (which this is all foreshadowing of) are suspicions and gut instincts. Concrete proof is needed. He is calling into question things basically set in stone as far as everyone in the know is concerned. His preliminary propositions are radical to the extreme.

As to Galadriel and Elrond, they are powerful beings in their own right, separate from wizards, likely superior to wizards in some ways and lesser than wizards in others. Elrond I believe is looking upon Gandalf as unproven and unfounded in so much as his suspicions are concerned. Also, realizing that elves are not all-knowing and flawed, I can sympathize with why he thinks it's a ridiculous notion to return Thorin and his kin to what is now Smaug's lair. What a needless risk, one that won't only affect Thorin, Gandalf, and company but potentially countless innocents who have nothing to do with the attempted reclamation.

Galadriel I believes admires Gandalf above all others. She alone is wise and insightful enough to appreciate his full potential. Had she wanted to call his deception out before the others, she could have done so. Instead, she remained silent, granting him opportunity to obtain the proof he needed and to rise in everyone's eyes.

[Slin6]

After watching the movie again I was able to enjoy it a little more (not that I didn't enjoy it the first time).

The pale orc and giant wargs still bugged me.

Radagast did not bug me as much but the poo on his head still annoyed me.

[Slin6]

After watching the movie again I was able to enjoy it a little more (not that I didn't enjoy it the first time).

The pale orc and giant wargs still bugged me.

Radagast did not bug me as much but the poo on his head still annoyed me.

Once again...it is a real good movie but it seems a lot more "hollywood" then LOTR and I think they took basing it off a children s book a little to serious.

[CarltheRed]

"6. I understand Saruman is basically "the boss" I just felt like Gandalf was nothing compared to everyone else. I also understand the respect for Galadriel but despite her being a high elf I remember who Gandalf is (a Maiar). It just seemed like they were looking down on Gandalf (one who they have more respect for then Saruman despite Saruman being the head of the order)."

Well it's logical.

Everyone else was eithjer a Head of State(Elrond, Galadriel) or Head
of the Order of Wizards & White Council(Saruman). He was the lowest ranked person attending the meeting.

[CarltheRed]

"Saruman's beard was kind of odd looking. It looked too dark and too wide compared to the Lord of the Rings version"

The intention was logically to show him slightly younger. They did the same with Gandalf.

They had different bears and hair. Even the makeup of the character's skin made them look a little younger.

[CarltheRed]

One thing they shouldn't have changed was how Gandalf rescues the Dwarves from the Goblins in Goblin Town. If they had followed the book that would have been a really good scene, well suited for film format. Instead they give Gandalf some kind of air-blast power.

No, Tolkein gave it to him.

In the scene in the book there's a big fire in the throne-room. Gandalf makes it go poof. The Smoke turns blue, vertically travels upwards like a column spurting white sparks/glitter that takes out a number of goblins.

The change is that PJ has it as simply a white light with a knock-back effect & Gandalf telling the Dwarves 'To arms!" instead of "Follow me!" to lead them running out of the throne-room.