The Hobbit - The Movie: Speculation and Discussion

[MICHKA]

Pour beaucoup de détails je suis d'accord avec Lindariel et Philipa, PJ se permet beaucoup de libertés avec le texte et les actions des personnages, créés ou réels, à tort bien souvent . Je pense sincèrement qu'il aurait mieux valu suivre vraiment le récit de bout en bout, et que les spectateurs nouveaux ne connaîtront pas la véritable teneur du livre de l'auteur. L'adaptation ne doit pas pas forcément être une histoire différente; quand elle est bonne et fidèle, c'est plus juste pour les lecteurs et ça ne fausse pas 'intention du narrateur

[Lindariel]

Finally had a chance to see The Desolation of Smaug today. No question, it is an absolutely spectacular movie. I enjoyed it thoroughly. I definitely advise that you leave your Tolkien geeks hats at home, and simply strap yourselves in for 2 hours and 40 minutes of pure entertainment. Martin Freeman is spectacular as Bilbo, Richard Armitage continues to develop a marvelous characterization of Thorin Oakenshield, Sir Ian McKellen simply IS Gandalf, Lee Pace crafts an otherworldly, regal, and imperious Thranduil, Evangeline Lilly's Tauriel kicks ass and takes names (YAY! for girl power), Luke Evans makes an impressive Bard the Bowman, and there is simply far too LITTLE of Mikael Persbrandt's Beorn (hope to see much, much more of him in the third movie). Finally, Benedict Cumberbatch's Smaug is nothing short of SPLENDID, AMAZING, SPECTACULAR, THE CHIEFEST AND GREATEST OF CALAMITIES!! There just aren't enough superlatives for his accomplishment, both in voicing the beast and providing the motion capture for the creature. He is sinuous, terrifying, vain, tyrannical -- you name it! Just superb!

However, I stand by all of my previous comments based on other fan reviews -- this is NOT Tolkien's The Hobbit. This is Peter Jackson's The Hobbit. He has thoroughly parted ways with the Professor's story telling and has gone off on his own path. It is very entertaining, but it is decidedly NOT Tolkien.

[Merry]

Since I probably won't see the movie until after Christmas, let me ask you both this: in spite of the changes to the text, does the movie preserve at least some of the spirit of Tolkien?

[MICHKA]

Eh bien, Merry, heureusement oui, mais il faut s'évader du livre pour vraiment apprécier tout le film et les inventions des scénaristes. C'est plaisant à regarder et il y a de bons moments ,fabuleux, prodigieux , des images superbes ( je pense à celles où l'on voit Bilbo au faîte des arbres), la scène des tonneaux est amusante et bien réalisée, celle des araignées est horrible, mais réussie, mes préférées sont celles de la caverne de Smaug, énormes!!

[Merry]

Here's a nice interview from the Smithsonion which was posted at TOR.n about the movie. The interview was with Michael Drout, whom I've heard speak--he knows of what he speaks!

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-cult ... c=y&page=1

Unfortunately, the author spells 'Bree' as if it were the cheese, so he loses all credibility with me! But there is some interesting stuff from Drout about previous drafts of The Hobbit that attempts to give some credibility to some of the deviations from the final text in the movie.

[Lindariel]

Thanks for posting this Merry! A very interesting article. I do take issue with his assertion that there are no female elf warriors in Tolkien's canon. Excuse me? Luthien took on both Sauron and Morgoth and bested them. Galadriel threw down the walls of Dol Guldur. Granted, they both probably accomplished their deeds with magic and Songs of Power, but still, it takes a warrior's mentality to go up against such mighty foes.

No female elf warriors indeed!!! Huff!!

[Merry]

Well, I saw it! My overall impression was positive enough, I guess, although not 4-thumbs up. Some quick thoughts:

*I liked Tauriel! Not because of the action, necessarily, though. She was one of the more thoughtful characters in the whole movie.

*I thought it was good to give Bard's character some building-up and, in general, liked him.

*The whole dwarf plan for killing Smaug at the end was ridiculous and took up much too much time.

*Smaug was wonderful!

*But I didn't feel the tension between Smaug and Bilbo as I felt in the 'Riddles in the Dark' scene between Gollum and Bilbo.

*Thorin has some nice moments.

*I didn't mind deviating from the text when Kili and the other dwarves were left behind, nor when Tauriel used athelas. For me, it provided some well-needed 'human' touches and relief from all the silly action.

*All in all, enough Tolkien to keep me interested, but it's the tail wagging the dog: the film-makers are using Tolkien as a vehicle for an action story. As much as the actors try, they can't overcome that.

[Lindariel]

Hi Merry! Glad you finally had a chance to see The Desolation of Smaug! I agree with all of your comments below (well, except for the Tauriel/athelas one. I wish she had healed Kili with other "elvish medicine," rather than athelas, given its importance to the validation of Aragorn's kingship) and especially with your summation that the tail is wagging the dog. This movie is about 90% fan fiction and 10% Tolkien. It's an excellent adventure movie, full of terrific acting and hands-down the most amazing dragon in all of film history. But it is Tolkien-like, or Tolkien-lite, not true Tolkien.

I think the reason we miss the tension from the "Riddles in the Dark" scene in the scene between Bilbo and Smaug is because Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch were not able to act the scene out together in the motion-capture studio because of the scale issues. Benedict mentioned this in an interview, that if Smaug were his size, then Bilbo would be about the size of his little finger, so they just couldn't do the scene together. He calls it his one regret about filming the scene -- that he missed acting the scene WITH Martin. It is indeed a shame, because the atmosphere and chemistry Martin and Andy Serkis were able to create for their scenes together were just amazing, and I'm sure Benedict and Martin would have created MAGIC together!

Even without that element, the scene with Smaug is still extraordinary, and what Benedict has done with the voice and motion capture acting is pure genius!

[MICHKA]

Je trouve votre analyse très logique et bien faite, Lindariel et les discussions vont bon train sur l'autre forum à ce sujet, tous les jours on apprend de nouvelles choses. Je m'aperçois du nombre de personnes intéressées, c'est formidable. Avez-vous remarqué un petit changement dans le décor de Hobbitebourg? Les portes des maisons étaient tout à fait rondess dans LOTR ,ici elles sont normales ,rectangulaires dans un cadre rond

[Merry]

We had a day off school today, a 'cold day', not a snow day, and I've had a chance to read some other discussions of DOS and an e-mail discussion with one of my former students who is also a big Tolkien fan. This has made me think that many of us have missed some of the central questions from DOS.

Whether or not we like Tauriel or the subplot involving Kili, Tauriel serves a purpose in the plot, which is to oppose the isolationism of Thranduil. He and Bard, apparently, are content to let things remain the way they are. I'm not entirely sure about this in the movies, but it seems that Smaug has been asleep for sixty years. (Is that possible? Wouldn't he have had to eat? But I digress . . .) Gandalf seems convinced that the emergence of the Necromancer opens up the likelihood that he will use Smaug in his battle against the North. But Thranduil and Bard, whether they know about the Necromancer or not, seem to think that leaving well enough alone is the only course of action. Thorin is interested in justice, whether that is in the form of home or treasure, and doesn't seem to be aware of the bigger picture.

Bilbo ends DOS asking, 'What have we done?' Are the dwarves responsible for what happens to Laketown? Is it right for Gandalf to try to engineer the ousting of Smaug and, if so, isn't he responsible for what happens to Laketown? Is what happens to Laketown justifiable in light of the consequences: the killing of Smaug, the security of the north, the victory of Dain in the War of the Ring, which contributed to the eventual victory over Sauron? (as Gandalf says in "The Quest of Erebor"). Do the ends justify the means? Why is it that Tauriel opposes Thranduil in his isolationism? Is she just too young or silly to remember the real dangers of Middle-earth, so she craves adventure? Why does she think the battle is "our fight"? Is it better to be safe than free?

These are some of my thoughts at this point. Your thoughts?

[MICHKA]

Tout ce je peux dire c'est que Tolkien a écrit le ''Hobbit'' certainement sans imaginer les conséquences et penser à la suite , ce merveilleux livre de Seigneur des anneaux , mais PJ donne l'impression que les deux sont liés depuis toujours, et son interprétation du 1er roman s' en ressent , est-ce bien ou mal? que dire? Certes, si on veut rester très fidèle à l'écrivain, c'est un peu trahi, d'un autre côté, comme le LSDA (LOTR) a été réalisé avant, ça lui est presque normal de mélanger les deux , de trouver des éléments prémonitoires, et faire travailler son cerveau pour y trouver des similitudes, des indications, même involontaires . Je demeure assez restrictive à ce sujet, je préfère la version initiale, sans interférence sur la suite, en fait, demandée et inventée par Tolkien après succés et sur insistance des éditeurs, mais je reste subjuguée du talent et de l'imaginaire employé par cet auteur prodige , son chef d'oeuvre restera à jamais l'énorme livre du Seigneur , superbement écrit et admiré de tous lecteurs, dans tous pays, et si plus ou moins bien imité , plagié, depuis

[Lindariel]

Excellent questions Merry! Let me see what I can add to the conversation.

I think Smaug's 60-year sleep is entirely possible, based on myth. For instance, Fafnir the dragon was awakened from a 100-year sleep by Siegfried. Let's remember also that Smaug completely glutted himself on men, Dwarves, cattle, sheep, horses, ponies, etc., during his rampage to destroy Dale and take the Lonely Mountain. After such a glut, he would be due for a nice long sleep, so I don't find the concept of Smaug's 60-year sleep to be strange at all.

I also think that Thranduil and Bard have vastly different perspectives on the issue of leaving the dragon alone. Thranduil has the luxury of being far more secluded from the dragon through greater distance, the cover of the forest, and his vast underground halls. According to PJ's script, Thranduil has fought dragons before and suffered the consequences. Since he can withdraw his people and hunker down in his hidden underground fortress, he can indeed take an isolationist stance. As far as making the connection that Smaug would be a terrible weapon for Sauron, we have to remember that Thranduil and his father Oropher fought in the Last Alliance. Thranduil already has experience with facing Sauron's forces -- and it was disastrous. According to some stories, Oropher chose to ignore the strategies of Gil-Galad and Elrond and launched his part of the attack on the Morannon prematurely. Oropher was killed in the attack and his forces were decimated. Thranduil survived to return to the Greenwood with a disastrously depleted force and take up his father's reign under less than auspicious circumstances. He has gradually rebuilt his kingdom, only to find himself constantly under siege by the evil forces of Dol Guldur. He's an embattled King already fighting to keep his people safe from an unknown evil. The last thing he needs is a tiny rag-tag group of Dwarves on a suicide mission to retake Erebor pointlessly awakening the dragon and adding yet another danger to his already overfull plate. Remember, the coming of Dwarves has always spelled disaster for Thranduil, whose origins go back to Doriath and the murder of Elu Thingol by the Petty Dwarves. Don't forget that extra bit of history that PJ can't use because it's from The Silmarillion.

Bard's situation is completely different. His village is utterly exposed, being built right out over the lake, and currently at the mercy of a corrupt government ill-prepared to deal with a dragon attack. He knows that sooner or later the dragon is going to wake up on its own, there's nothing he can do about that, and he knows they'll have hell to pay. The last thing he wants is for some tiny rag-tag group of Dwarves on a suicide mission to retake Erebor to wake that dragon up sooner than he normally would. Bard's position isn't one of isolationism, but rather one of a desperate man trying to put off the inevitable as long as possible. PJ seems to indicate that Bard is regarded by the current government as a rabble-rouser and a threat. I imagine Bard hopes to change the political situation in Laketown so he can then help the people become better prepared for a dragon attack. Only one Black Arrow and one Dragon Bow left! He probably hopes to have the chance to build more bows and many, many more arrows before the dragon awakes, hungry and ready to pillage and burn.

As far as Tauriel is concerned, I think she represents the idealism of the young. Thranduil is injured, guilt-ridden, and jaded. HIs world-view is colored by his own personal pain and loss and fighting "the long defeat (as Galadriel describes it)" against the evil that is swallowing up his beloved forest. Tauriel is young, and she doesn't have the burdens of kingship and centuries of defeats on her shoulders. She has made the connection that the forest is part of a larger world and that the evil they are fighting has encroached upon them from that broader world.

As far as Gandalf's responsibility in all of this is concerned, YES, he does bear some responsibility, and it is one that he willingly shouldered when he accepted the call to become the last of the Istari sent to Middle-earth from Valinor. He implies this to Denethor in LOTR: "As for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair or bear fruit and flower again in days to come. For I also am a steward. Did you not know?"

[MICHKA]

Oh! merci pour toutes ces explications, c'est un plaisir de pouvoir lire la défintion des évènements aussi clairement, vous êtes réellement très érudite sur Tolkien, Lindariel, je suis émerveillée! j'ai lu parfois sans bien comprendre tout ou le détail, de partager vos points de vue est tout à fait réjouissant et très instructif, merci encore

[Merry]

Here is a review of DoJ from TOR.n:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2014/01 ... of-wisdom/

It includes much of the criticism from here and Viggo-Works that we have offered, plus more, all wrapped up into a funny, literate, and sometimes sarcastic package.

[Riv Res]

Whether or not we like Tauriel or the subplot involving Kili, Tauriel serves a purpose in the plot, which is to oppose the isolationism of Thranduil. He and Bard, apparently, are content to let things remain the way they are. I'm not entirely sure about this in the movies, but it seems that Smaug has been asleep for sixty years. (Is that possible? Wouldn't he have had to eat? But I digress . . .) Gandalf seems convinced that the emergence of the Necromancer opens up the likelihood that he will use Smaug in his battle against the North. But Thranduil and Bard, whether they know about the Necromancer or not, seem to think that leaving well enough alone is the only course of action. Thorin is interested in justice, whether that is in the form of home or treasure, and doesn't seem to be aware of the bigger picture.

Sorry I am so late with comments here, but I wanted a chance to see the movie for a second time, which I did today.

It's funny, Merry, but I have never thought of Thranduil in isolation, probably because of that whole episode where he and his people were supposed to be guarding Gollum and let him escape. Obviously Aragorn would have clued him in when he brought Gollum there ... don't you think? Also, Thranduil sent Legolas (not an unimportant character) to the Council of Elrond. He must have been aware of the goings on ... at least as Tolkien wrote him. Tee hee hee ... PJ would have sent him there to separate him from Tauriel.

After seeing the movie again, I still am at odds with Gandalf confronting Suaron at Dol Goldur, as well as his being convinced that Sauron was seeking an alliance with Smaug. That plot is only mentioned once ... in one line after the fact in the Lost Tales, if I am correct. Hmmm ... PJ is pulling from other sources? Is this plot mentioned in the Appendices. I don't think it is.

PJ does like to conflict his characters with the sins of their ancestors. Much as he had Aragorn brooding over the weakness of Isildur, he has Bard flogging himself over the fact that his ancester, Girion, failed to kill Smaug when he attacked Erebor.

I particularly liked the scene where Thorin and Balin get emotional when they finally get to enter Erebor through the secret entrance. I think this was done well ... to show that it was not just greed for gold and the Arkenstone that drove them, but a true desire to reclaim their home. PJ is doing a lot more to make me very sympathetic to Thorin ... much more than Tolkien did in his writing.

On second viewing, I liked the scene where Tauriel heals Kili and his affection for her. No more kidding around and making passes at male Elves here. There is also a look of rather astonishment on Tauriel's face when she has healed him ... almost as if she is surprised by her own affection for him.

Bilbo ends DOS asking, 'What have we done?' Are the dwarves responsible for what happens to Laketown? Is it right for Gandalf to try to engineer the ousting of Smaug and, if so, isn't he responsible for what happens to Laketown? Is what happens to Laketown justifiable in light of the consequences: the killing of Smaug, the security of the north, the victory of Dain in the War of the Ring, which contributed to the eventual victory over Sauron? (as Gandalf says in "The Quest of Erebor"). Do the ends justify the means? Why is it that Tauriel opposes Thranduil in his isolationism? Is she just too young or silly to remember the real dangers of Middle-earth, so she craves adventure? Why does she think the battle is "our fight"? Is it better to be safe than free?

These are some of my thoughts at this point. Your thoughts?

I have always felt that the Dwarves were responsible for what happened to Laketown. They knew darn well what Smaug would do ... where he would go first, if he was driven from the mountain. And ... he did just that. As far as Gandalf being complicit, PJ's Gandalf certainly would be more so than Tolkien's Gandalf. Am I correct in my recollection that in the book when Gandalf meets Thorin at Bree, it is truly only by coincidence and that Thorin was NOT looking for his long lost father, but indeed, is hell bent on taking back Erebor on his own? I seem to recall Gandalf having to calm him down in the book and persuade him to go to the Shire.

I have always felt that the killing of Smaug was a convenience for Gandalf's master plan, but not necessarily something he orchestrated for strictly that purpose. I have always felt that Smaug and Sauron, while both were evil, remained blissfully unaware of each other until it was too late for Smaug. The only reason that the Orcs went to Erebor was to plunder the gold there.

Since Tauriel is a figment of PJ's imagination, I am reluctant to think she has a master plan in all this.