Midnight Screening - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

(21 votes, average 4.29 out of 5)
Facebook Share

Don't forget to check out The Cinema Snob's website here!

Doug's Official Facebook Page
Comments (44)
  • Raddcast
    avatar
    I enjoyed it. It wasn't converted though it was shot in 3D.
  • Mahogany Rhino
    avatar
    While I personally loved this film, I can, in theory understand why somebody would be disappointed.
  • LilacElf82
    avatar
    Watched the movie in regular 2D an while on it's own it's okay.....as far as following the BOOK, I have to say that the Rankin Bass cartoon did better. I know,I know!! Cue the tar and feathering, but that's my opinion.

    And since when is Gollum a comic relief character?
  • Flaregun  - Reply yo LilacElf82
    avatar
    You've obviously read the book, so you should know that in the Hobbit Gollum very much *was* the semi "comic relief" character portrayed here, the film actually captures that scene of the book quite well.

    In fact, when the book was originally published, that scene was very different & Gollum didn't even turn out to be a bad character in the end: he willingly gives the ring to Bilbo as the prize for winning the Riddle game & they part amicably. But when Fellowship was published the nature of the ring had changed so much that this would no longer fly, so Tolkien revised that scene in later editions of The Hobbit.

    (For that matter, since Jackson has three films to pad out and no more Gollum scenes to offer us, I was half expecting/hoping we'd get two versions of the "Riddles in the Dark" scene: first in this movie the original version that's jarringly out of character with both Gollum & the ring as we'd come to know them, then in the next film we'd see Frodo pressing Old Bilbo that something about that story didn't seem right, and Bilbo would break down & tell him the "real" version, saying he'd always been sensitive to Gollum's accusation that he'd "stolen" the ring, which fits in with the footnote Tolkien included explaining the change in the revised edition of The Hobbit.)
  • LilacElf82  - reply to Flaregun
    avatar
    I have to admit that my complaints about Jackson's Gollum in the Hobbit have to do with the fact that the RankinBass Gollum gave me nightmare until my teens. He's always been the make-or-break character for how good a Tolkien adaptation is.
  • TheRocketeer
    You watched it in 3d at the lower frame rate... no wonder it looked like shit.... Go see it at a cinema that can handle The Hobbit.
  • trlkly
    avatar
    I haven't watched the review yet because my Internet is being stupid. But if they mentioned everything looking plastic or TV-like or Soap Opera like, then they clearly saw it at 48 fps.

    And if it looks like shit now at 24fps, it's going to look just as bad when it's converted to Blu-ray. I still don't get why they didn't film at 60fps, which would have been Blu-ray compatible. Instead, they'll have to downsample back to 24fps.
  • LilacElf82
    avatar
    No, the appearance was good! I liked that! I'm saying that the story line was very hit/miss for me.
  • LilacElf82
    avatar
    Brad called the mountain things Rock Biters! KNEW I couldn't be the only one thinking that way!

    The Pale Orc thing was totally unnecessary in my book and okay, was badass, but totally not needed.
  • thorondragon
    the whole movie is obviosuly designed to be a set up for the movie to come. though the pale orc does exist in tolkien lore, though they changed it up a bit. he was long dead by the time bilbo's adventrue goes on. however, it seems that it might be leading up to a far more dramatic final act when the third one comes around in 2014.the five armies. makes the attack by the orcs at that moment far more personal a thing going on. i always questioend how easily or quickly set up the goblin army was.
    then again, the film as it is now will not be appareciated as it should be till the rest of the movies come along.
  • pomaflah
    It is much more faithful to the book than the others. If only there were twenty-one Lord of the Rings movies...
  • joek86  - great movie
    avatar
    i thought the 3D was awesome. Of course I saw it HFR and XD so it might of made a difference. I don't understand the motion sickness thing at all.
  • aibr
    Watched Hobbit yesterday, and I think it's better than Lord of the Rings trilogy. It took it time when it needed to have some quiet and powerful moments, and have some great fight scenes. Unlike in Two Towers, these fight felt more realistic, being more brutal and not acrobatic. Most important to me was that they didn't betrayed Tolkien story or cut important scenes out of movie. They add some new plot lines and scenes to movie, what is in opinion great, because this way even those who already know the story and mythology around it have something new to see. There are some inaccuracies, but unlike in Lord of the Rings trilogy, those inaccuracies are minor.

    I liked 3D (HFR) here, because it wasn't use to just throw something at screen. It made (for me) this experiment feel closer, like you actually were there.

    10/10: Everyone (who like Tolkien universe) should see this.
  • Lightice
    The Hobbit was shot in 3D, 48fps right from the start, get your facts straight, people! The whole project was Peter Jackson's testing ground for the most advanced filming technologies he could come up with.

    I enjoyed the movie, but it did have a couple of cringeworthy scenes and one completely useless subplot that could have been switched to some proper character development for the dwarves. I thought that was the whole point of three movies: develop the underdeveloped characters properly. Instead we got an unnecessary extra villain to complicate things up.
  • Flaregun
    avatar
    I really wanted to see the 48fps second version, even though it meant putting up with 3D, just to see what it looked like. But the only theater offering 48fps was an hour away, and when I got there for what I thought would be the 48fps show it turns out the info on the website was wrong & they were only offering the regular 3D version at that time. So that's the version I wound up seeing but damm it, I fucking *hate* 3D! it does *not* look like reality, it makes everything look all that much more artificial, and at least for the lower frame rate version, whenever anything "3D" was moving fast, the effect was totally destroyed and you couldn't tell what the hell you were looking at, all you saw was a choppy, insidtinct blur.

    That aside, the movie wasn't brilliant, but it was a lot better than I feared it might be considering the padding this moderate length childrens book is apparently getting to stretch it out to three three hour movies. It's definitely just for Tolkien fans though, as charmed as I was by the whole "Unexpected Party" sequence, by the end I was grumbling at the movie to get out of that dammed Hobbit hole & get on with it almost as I was yelling for them to get off the damm boat already in Jackson's King Kong.

    Oh, and one pet peeve: dwarf beards should be huge Gilmi/Gandalf/Santa/ZZ Top-type beards, not sexy GQ cover model beards. Dwarves look ridiculous when they *don't* have ridiculous beards.
  • Lightice
    The whole point of 48fps is to reduce the motion blur that is the biggest issue with 3D movies today. Good 3D, like The Hobbit's really doesn't look bad either way in my opinion, but the greater framerate makes it superior still, though I understand that it takes getting used to for many people, like all the previous advancements in movie technology.

    As for the dwarf beards, there is a very simple reason why every dwarf in the movie couldn't have a huge Gimli-beardo: recognisability. They all need to look unique and interesting on their own and in a group, and you need to be able to tell them apart by glance. A great chunk of the dwarves do have huge beards, but they ran out of different designs that wouldn't look identical in distance shots.
  • Flaregun  - reply to Lightice
    avatar
    Not quite. except for Thorin's right-hand man with the snow white beard, it's all the more "background" dwarves that have the full beards, and the more prominent dwarves with more camera time have the sort of beards you might see Brad Pitt rocking on a red carpet now & again.

    Beards aside, they actually do a surprisingly good job of makiag each dwarf unique thanks to a variety of goofy hats, braided moustaches/sideburns, Scottish accents of varying intensity, that one guy with the ear horn, etc. But unfortunately unlike in a well-written book, when you have 13 characters up there on screen all part of the same group, they're gonna start to blend together no matter what you do.
  • Plotspider  - What I'm wondering
    avatar
    I'm wondering which of the dwarves were females. Ever since Gimli dropped the line that you can't tell male dwarves from female dwarves because they look alike, I've been wondering if anyone would play that out. I thought, when the goblins were about to search them out completely, there would be something happening to show that some of the dwarves were actually women, but I don't think we are ready for quite that kind of reveal, and it might have frightened people out of watching further movies. Still, it would have been interesting.
  • Myrnin_fan  - The 48fps
    Despite all the hate it's been getting with the 48fps my friend and I still went to see it in that version. It really was great, I'll admit it took a good bit of the beginning to adjust to it, but nothing really happened until that point and after you adjust it's awesome. Actually I think it improved the flame and water effects in the movie, so I can I understand the use of the 48fps with the dragon coming up.
  • TragicGuineaPig
    avatar
    They should have gotten Leonard Nemoy to sing the opening theme.
  • phoenixtorn  - High Frame Rate in 3D was terrible.
    Don't watch this movie in the HFR format. That combined with the 3D takes every ounce of realism out of the movie.

    Everything looked like a set, and it somehow messed with the speed. When Bilbo ran out of the hobbit hole it was comical because it seemed sped up. Blur or not, the picture was too crisp to be believable and took you out of the story. It made a $250 million movie look cheap...and that's crazy.

    Variety's quote sums it up perfectly: "Consequently, everything takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious, while well-lit areas bleed into their surroundings, like watching a high-end home movie."

    Luckily enough (or what have you) our screening froze with 45 minutes left of the movie and they couldn't get it started again and we were forced to leave (with ticket vouchers).

    I watched it in regular 2D on Saturday and all of these problems disappeared.If you are already annoyed with 3D, the High Frame Rate screenings are not for you.
  • Neshomeh
    avatar
    I feel like an endangered species, but I'm both a big Tolkien nut AND someone who felt this movie was weak, both as an adaptation and on its own. I thought the pacing was shoddy, and it couldn't make up its mind whether it wanted to be a serious, LotR-style action/adventure or a lighthearted, comedic cartoon. I could understand either decision--making it more lighthearted is more true to the book, but making it more serious makes it fit better with the LotR movies--but trying to do both is ridiculous. The tone shifts radically between scenes, and there's a lot of humor injected into otherwise-dramatic scenes where it isn't appropriate. This is an issue I have with Peter Jackson in general. It was irritating for me in the LotR films, and it was a lot worse here. The overuse of CG doesn't help, and Radagast was disgustingly absurd. He made me uncomfortable every time he was on screen, like watching someone make fun of the mentally ill.

    Like Brad, I found myself bored a lot of the time, even in the big action sequences, because they just went on too long, the chases into Rivendell and out of "Goblin Town" in particular. I also agree that Azog (the pale orc) didn't do very well as a villain. He did eat up screen time that could have been better spent developing Bilbo and the Dwarves, though.

    Another issue I have is how much of this felt recycled from the LotR films. The music in particular is 90% LotR themes, and a lot of the shots felt very, very familiar, such as the "circling horses" and pretty much everything getting into and out of Rivendell. The only reason that chase had to happen was because Peter Jackson tweaked the Dwarf/Elf mutual disregard into OMG ALL ELVES ARE TEH EBULZ!! on Thorin's part, so there had to be an excuse to get them into Rivendell instead of just letting them go. It's contrived and silly.

    So, yeah. Brad, you're not alone, and it's not so clear-cut as "Tolkien fans will enjoy this, other people won't." Tolkien fans who look for good storytelling, character development, pacing, and tonal cohesion in their films may also find that this falls short of the mark. It certainly doesn't reach the standard set by the LotR trilogy.
  • thorondragon
    that is because its NOT the lord of the rings, as so many people seem to forget. the lord of the rigns had a far more serious tone because it delt with something far more serious. it delt with the coming of a monstrous tyrant so powerful, so influential, it could turn the entire world into the equivalent of a nazi concentration camp.

    this movie deals with a group of dwarves seeking out lsot treasure, intent on retaking what is their's. far less apocalyptic in every way, as the stakes are more personal and less world threatening. also, there is room for a lot of jokes inbetween the drama, sometimes during, because of these far less serious stakes. still, you do make some fair points. however comparing lord and hobbit to one another will breed unnecessary disappointment, as they are very different stories.
  • Neshomeh
    avatar
    My dear Mr. Thorondragon, the very act of criticism is to hold something to some sort of standard and see how it measures up. I think the LotR trilogy is a fair yardstick because it's clear to me that the intent of the moviemakers is to tie both trilogies together, partly because they ramped up the drama and the stakes of the story so much as compared to the book (and may I add that smaller stakes do not necessarily correlate with a less serious story--if it's important to the characters, it should feel important to the audience). I think they're trying (badly) to make it as much like LotR as possible, which invites comparison.

    But, if you disagree that the LotR trilogy is a fair standard to hold The Hobbit trilogy up to, what would you suggest instead?
  • Plotspider  - Wow
    avatar
    You can read minds. You're not so endangered as you may have thought, because you said EXACTLY what I was thinking. Especially about Rhadagast. It was like they got him out of a methodone clinic and propped him up with promises of free drugs. And what he was doing wasn't really well explained. I HATED the pale orc. So unnecessary and so stupid. I was hoping he'd be the goblin king, instead of the...holding in vomit...actual one.
  • thorondragon
    that goblin king is pretty damn accurrate to the book. and obese, gluttonous ruler of the goblins of that mountain. he was fat and nasty because he was supposed to be fat and nasty.
    personally on the pale orc, i see what he was for. he is part of how the five army war starts up. i always found it strange how all those goblins organized into an army when their king had died.
  • Neshomeh
    avatar
    Ugh, agreed about Radagast! I couldn't tell when any of his scenes in Rhosgobel and Dol Guldur were meant to have taken place in relation to the main story. I know more or less when those events could have happened canon-wise, but the movie was very confusing about it. They make it looks like it's all happening at the same time as the main story, the way they cut back and forth, but it has to have taken him more than a day (probably more like weeks) to get from Dol Guldur to the Dwarves, so that doesn't make sense. I'd also like to know how he crossed the Anduin and the Misty Mountains on his rabbit-sledge.

    I did like the "Rhosgobel rabbits" line, though. It was the one time I felt he was close to a sort of odd, out-of-context recluse who is absolutely in his element when it comes to animals, as opposed to a one-note hippie stereotype. (Dear filmmakers: if you are taking cues from "Bored of the Rings," you're doing it wrong.)

    I also kinda liked the Great Goblin, at least at first. Like Thorondragon says above, he is supposed to be huge and disgusting, so that was fine (bad CG notwithstanding), and I could see having some sport at the expense of the Dwarves for the benefit of his subjects. The way he went out ruined him for me, though. Chalk up Inappropriate Cartoon Moments #47 and #48...

    I also get what they're trying to do with Azog, since it does make sense to establish where the Gundabad orcs come from before they actually show up, but that doesn't stop him from being overblown and a poor use of screen time the way they went about it.

    Glad to know I'm less alone here! {= D
  • Ebalance
    Even the LOTR trilogy doesn't meet the standard of the LOTR trilogy. Two key reasons:

    FRODO IS NOT A DAMSEL IN DISTRESS, he is VERY STRONG AND PROACTIVE IN THE BOOKS. IT REALLY SUCKS THAT PETER JACKSON TURNED HIM INTO SUCH A STUPID, WIMPY, DICK.

    SAM WOULD NEVER LEAVE FRODO!!! AND FRODO WOULD NEVER DO THAT TO SAM!!!

    That whole sequence between the time Gollum frames Sam to the time when Frodo gets abducted by orcs is totally wrong.

    It's really ironic b/c if they had done it the way it is in the books it would not only have been vastly better, but would have taken LESS TIME than what they put in.

    That choice was ridicously sad and bizzare.

    Another thing that was really screwed up: Arwen. She doesn't belong in this story nearly as much as they put her in, and the idea she could out-run those wraiths was just silly.
    (In fact a lot of their "danger enhancers" were not-so-much danger enchancing as stupidity enhancing)

    Frodo stands across the river shouting curses at the ring-wraiths, not being carried away in a coma by freaking Arwen!!!
  • Neshomeh
    avatar
    Oh, don't misunderstand me: I completely agree about what they did to Frodo and Sam (not to mention Treebeard, Faramir, Denethor, Haldir, Gollum, etc.). I have not historically been a huge supporter of the LotR movies. However, I do feel that they're loads better than this one. Sure, the changes made from the canon irritate me, but at least they work as films. They never bored me, for one thing, and they're not trying to be two different kinds of movie at once.

    Arwen doesn't actually bother me that much, at least not in FotR. It was jarring to see her instead of Glorfindel at first, but I can understand not wanting to add a character who only shows up once, and if Frodo can outrun Ringwraiths riding Asfaloth by himself, I don't see why Arwen can't. Her scenes in the other two movies are pretty pointless, though.
  • Markunator  - Saoirse Ronan
    avatar
    Guys, just so you know: her name is pronounced "sur-sha".
  • Flaregun
    avatar
    Oops, wrong comments section. Sorry.
  • V3g3t4  - Thanks for the HUUUUUGE Spoiler!!!!!!!
    Why the hell doyou tell who the Negromancer is????!!!!!

    When I watch one of your midnightscreening-videos, I don´t expact spoilers like that. That´s revieled in maybe the third movie!!!!!
    Why would anybody tell this stuff in a FIRSTMOVIE-review????
    Thanks a lot for destroying that Trilogie for me you.....CURSEWORD!!!!!!!
  • Plotspider  - Please...
    avatar
    How could that possibly be a surprise? Of course it was Sauron. The whole mention of him in the book was added in later by Tolkien AFTER Lord of the Rings became a success. He was hardly mentioned except as a reason that Gandalf left the company for a moment and wasn't around helping them during some of the times. Otherwise, the book would have been "The Wizard and his cronies" and not the hobbit.
  • TheBlackMage
    avatar
    The "High" frame rate looks like shit. See the Hobbit in regular frame rate.
  • Plotspider  - Three things killed this movie for me...
    avatar
    1. The goblin king. Oh, how I hated that star-wars monster look alike. "Ooh, I"m a villain, look at me! Whoops, you cut my guts out. That's the end of me! Wah, wah, wah! Wrong type of childish whimsy there, Jackson.

    2. The CG orcs and other things. They looked a bit too much like the vampire/zombies from I am Legend, and that wasn't great. The whole movie seemed a little cartoonish.

    3. Rhadagast. Oh my lord, Rhadaghast. What was the point of that? And what did Saruman hate about Rhadaghast? He ate mushrooms and had yellow teeth. Really? Was that really necessary? But I hated that character from the moment I saw him.
  • Neshomeh
    avatar
    Well, Saruman canonically isn't a fan of Radagast. Thinks he's a disgrace to wizards, the way he spends his time off playing with animals instead of... I dunno, reading old books and staring into crystal balls and plotting to take over the world. Whatever Saruman does on a daily basis. Note that he thinks Gandalf is pretty foolish, too.

    The only thing that bugged me about that was that they recycled Saruman's line about Gandalf-- "your love of the halflings' leaf has clearly clouded your mind" --and applied it to Radagast. Just insert mushrooms instead of pipeweed. Laaazy writing, right there.
  • JoeDawson15
    I'm with Brad 60 percent on this one the first 30 min.s were great and even though i'm not a LOTR fan, i have the DVDs and have yet to watch them. I don't understand, i can sit though Inception and TDKR 3 times in cinema, but ONE J R R Tolkien film puts me to sleep. BUT i did care to like Thorin and the Dwarves and i will go and see the other ones. I give it a Matinee.
  • Geeky Girl
    avatar
    Thanks for the spoiler >-(

    I already watched the Hobbit and I usually avoid reviews until I have seen the movie to NOT spoil it for me. I stopped watching after you telling me who the necromancer was, that really pissed me off. I expect spoilers for the discussed movie coming up in the discussion but for the future movies? What the hell!
  • Ebalance
    Oh how long it was I first stumbled upon TWTG, b/c of the Old vs. New on the Lord of the Rings.

    NOT AGAIN!!! WHY? WHY? OH WHY DID HE HAVE TO RUIN THIS TOO?

    (BTW there is a Rankin Bass Hobbit movie, too. If you can get over the bizarre character designs, and you are a die-hard Tolkien fan like me, it is really worth watching)

    All my dreams are shattered and I feel blue.

    So many books I love that studios have destroyed, and if you think I'm wrong about LOTR watch it again and see how much they sucked the life out of Frodo. I seriously cannot believe how much of a wimp they turned him into. The worst thing, though, is that they had the perfect cast, the perfect everything, except for ONE BIG GAPING FLAW: THEIR FILMS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TOLKIEN!!!

    How come the Rankin Bass movie, with all it's incredible flaws managed to get that one thing right, and they did it beautifully in under 2 minutes, and a hoard of amazing actors, special FX people, etc. etc. etc. couldn't manage to do it in 9 F***ING HOURS?!

    If you have ever read LOTR you know that it is about the Industrial Revolution, and clearly is not about any specific war. It is about a war on nature, and greed (It just happens to coincide a bit with the story of WWII)

    Please watch this: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=864VY2jux7U

    I think I'm gonna cry :(

    (BTW there is a Rankin Bass Hobbit movie, too. If you can get over the bizarre character designs, and you are a die-hard Tolkien fan like me, it is really worth watching)

    Other favorites of mine that have gotten beaten over the head with a sledgehammer:

    Every single incarnation of OZ ever. Let us hope and pray that this new OZ the Great and Powerful movie will at least do a tiny bit of justice to Baum's magnificent works.

    Narnia, A Princess of Mars, DBZ, and Avatar (not the one with the blue cat people).

    The good thing about these other ones is there is plenty of time to rectify the "wrongs" done to them. (DBZ and Avatar should never have been made into movies BTW)

    As for OZ (the 1939 one is all right as a movie, but as a representation of OZ it really sucks), and there is time to make new Narnia films, and new films based on Edgar Rice Burroughs's stories.

    But I deeply fear, yet expect, that no one will ever make a truly satifactory movie (movies) based on Tolkien's works. I think he knew that too, as he let the movie rights go for almost nothing.
  • thatchickwithlonghair
    avatar
    "Oh how long it was I first stumbled upon TWTG, b/c of the Old vs. New on the Lord of the Rings.

    NOT AGAIN!!! WHY? WHY? OH WHY DID HE HAVE TO RUIN THIS TOO?

    (BTW there is a Rankin Bass Hobbit movie, too. If you can get over the bizarre character designs, and you are a die-hard Tolkien fan like me, it is really worth watching)

    All my dreams are shattered and I feel blue.

    So many books I love that studios have destroyed, and if you think I'm wrong about LOTR watch it again and see how much they sucked the life out of Frodo. I seriously cannot believe how much of a wimp they turned him into. The worst thing, though, is that they had the perfect cast, the perfect everything, except for ONE BIG GAPING FLAW: THEIR FILMS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TOLKIEN!!!

    How come the Rankin Bass movie, with all it's incredible flaws managed to get that one thing right, and they did it beautifully in under 2 minutes, and a hoard of amazing actors, special FX people, etc. etc. etc. couldn't manage to do it in 9 F***ING HOURS?! "


    Oh for the love of God, SHUT UP.
    If you hate the movies so much, don't watch them. The studio didn't "destroy" the books. The books are still in existence. Read them to yourself instead of bitching about how much a movie based on the book ISN'T EXACTLY LIKE THE BOOK. BOO-HOO. How exactly can the films have "nothing to do with Tolkein"?
    It's obvious Jackson is a huge fan of his and it comes through in the movies.

    ......and the Rankin Bass movies suck ass. I hated them as a child and I hate them now. Who cares if they stick closer to the books? They're freaking ugly and unpleasant to sit through. The animation sucks, the voice actors suck, the character designs suck, and the music ESPECIALLY sucks.

    I saw The Hobbit in 2D and enjoyed it. Others will too. Glad I didn't spring for the 3D though.
  • kushtaka78
    avatar
    I have the Snob's hat....in blue. It is awesome.
  • de la Doobie  - I hate this movie
    I loved the book they did have a choice. This movie sucked. They screwed the Tolkien story. He should have fought the spiders and gave the sword the name much earlier. Thorin sucked and was not liked in the book. He never forgave Bilbo until he was dyeing at the end of the entire book after the battle. What the hell was the director thinking. Everything was wrong also Glum in the movie didn't know about hobbits, he was a hobbit. Read the book.
  • WhistleAndSnap  - Er-hem...
    avatar
    Well, on the Gollum part, to be fair, he probably didn't remember he was a hobbit. Bloody hell, he didn't remember his own NAME until Frodo told him it in theTwo Towers. Therefore I strongly doubt he'd have been able to recall what species he was if he couldn't even remember something as personal and identifying as his own bloody name.

    As for you saying that Bilbo should have fought the spiders and named Sting much earlier... that doesn't happen until the company arrives in Mirkwood in the book. Did you want Jackson to violate that key part of the story by changing events in such a way that this critical moment of character development for Bilbo came at a completely wrong time, or are you saying you just wished the movies were shorter in general and that they should've gotten to Mirkwood by the conclusion of the first film?

    As for Thorin, well... what's wrong with making him more likable in these movies than he was in the book? Yes, in the book he was a dick, but I think he's a pretty big dick in the movie too. For instance, Book!Thorin is an old-timer, a bit haughty and cranky in a pretentious sort of way. He's also long-winded and a bit self-important; the guy loves to hear himself talk. Movie!Thorin is a man of action. He's haughty as well, and a bit of a pretentious dick sometimes, just like Book!Thorin, but he's more rugged and down to earth. He's a fighter, he's not polite, and he hates beating around the bush. They're different, but both of them are prideful and arrogant.

    Also, Book!Thorin wasn't completely unlikable. At least not for me. In the books, when the dwarves were getting caught up in sacks by the trolls, Thorin was the only one with enough common sense to catch on to what was happening and fight back. In fact, he was the ONLY one that put up a fight, and he gave the Trolls a pretty decent thrashing before going down. I thought that was pretty cool. And though he could be a jerk, he could also be very gracious and very, VERY polite. In fact, one of this character traits was that he was ALWAYS as well-mannered as possible, even in situations where civility wasn't called for at all. Hell, there were times when the other dwarves would get mad at him for beating around the bush and being so formal and well-spoken ALL THE BLOODY TIME. And when he WAS aggressive towards others in matters of diplomacy, he was aggressive in a snide, sneaky sort of way that was both clever and eloquent. Book!Thorin was more of a diplomat than Movie!Thorin.

    As for "forgiving" Bilbo.... I'm not sure what you mean here. At this point in the film, there's nothing to "forgive" because Bilbo has not committed any offense, other than seeming inadequate in Thorin's eyes. And in the books ALL of the dwarves, Thorin especially, warm up to Bilbo and realize that he's actually a very valuable asset to their group long before the Arkenstone debacle, which is what prompted Thorin to give his forgiv...
Only registered users can write comments!

Follow us on:

Latest Videos

NC: The Purge

Watch Video

Todd: Desp Seeking Susan

Watch Video

LAG: Guardians of the Galaxy

Watch Video

CR: Familiar Faces - Olaf

Watch Video

Film Brain: Behaving Badly

Watch Video

ChaosD1: Global Agenda

Watch Video

Lesbian Talk: Episode 65

Watch Video

Linkara: US-1 #4

Watch Video

Sage: Fatal Fury Double Impact

Watch Video

Vangelus: Cyberbots Blodia

Watch Video

Dena: Abadox Commentary

Watch Video

Adventure Time: The Prince Who

Watch Video

BB: Stan Lee's Top 10 Awesome

Watch Video

Brad: Anime Midwest Panel

Watch Video

Lupa: BW - We Need a Vacation

Watch Video

Lotus: Galerians Parts 3-4

Watch Video

Adventure Time: Furniture & Meat

Watch Video

Nash: Serial Pooper

Watch Video

Smarty: DAH - ChaosD1

Watch Video

Shaun K: P4GA & Anachronauts

Watch Video

Brad: Hercules & Lucy

Watch Video

Vangelus: Dinobots Grimlock

Watch Video

Adventure Time: Food Chain

Watch Video

Rap Critic: Ridin

Watch Video

Brad: TR - Infringment

Watch Video

NChick: BYOA - S2E8

Watch Video

Paw: QfG4 Parts 5-6

Watch Video

Tom: Beneath the PotA P3

Watch Video

Adventure Time: Breezy

Watch Video

Brad: Babe Ruth Story

Watch Video

Making of NC: Bloodrayne

Watch Video

Vangelus: Batman Arkham City

Watch Video

Word Funk: Serious Dudes

Watch Video

WMR: The Evil Cat

Watch Video

Nerd: Ep 121 - Voice Acting

Watch Video

Blog Categories

What's Up? (141)
Sports (264)
News (279)
Book Reviews (551)
Funny (573)
Top # Lists (735)
Animation (918)
Wrestling (987)
Movies (1050)
Anime (1069)
Thoughts (1145)
Comics (1190)
Misc Reviews (1281)
Music (1393)
Video Reviews (1931)
Film Review (2711)
Uncategorized (4011)
Video Games (5148)
Old Blogs (15313)