Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: The Hobbit 12/12/12

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > The Hobbit 12/12/12   [1] [2] [3] >>

So today is the release date(the official date is the 14th, but it's already available here) of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. So why not make a thread where you can put all your thoughts about the first part of the trilogy on paper. If there comes a real discussion which belongs in another topic, we just move it. I'm going to watch the film this afternoon. And I will posts something as soon as possible. Enjoy Namarie, Arwen

 

Just a quick edit to warn people coming to this thread....

SOME OF THE POST BELOW CONTAIN SPOILERS ABOUT THE MOVIE

I wish I could already see it... I've won free tickets yesterday, but it's for 11 am... So I gave to go to school and I can't go..
And you don't even get off from school?!! Ahwww, poor you.
Nope and my mum doesn't even let me be "sick"
Aaahh I'm so jealous, Arwen. Here it doesn't officially come out until the 14th so 2 more days! But I hope you enjoy it very, very much and I'll join this thread as soon as I watch the film!

Finally....In a few hours I am ready to meet Bilbo and Gandalf again

i am so happy! I get to go see The Hobbit on Friday with my lovely significant other!

I can't see it on the fourteenth....poor me, but I don't want to be trampled by crazy fans (even though I am one) and get killed....I'm going to see it next weekend. I can't wait to see the part when bilbo faints after reading the contract. Oooooooo and when gollum tells himself to shut up and bilbo thinks he's talking to him and gollum says " I wasn't talking to you!" it will be epic! Who is everyone's favourite character!? Mine are Bilbao and gollum......huh? Who is y'all favourite ( yes I am from the south) ...........omg! Excitement!!!!!

I am just jealous of all who will get to see The Hobbit this week. It comes out on 20DEC here, so I have another week to wait. Am so excited to see it. I am looking forward the seeing Smaug

Never in my life have I felt so much disappointment than watching the hobbit.

It took all of my willpower not to walk out of the theater mid movie.

 

Funny thing is there was a guy handing out hobbit books to anyone who wanted one. They were the neat ones with the green covers too. Something good came out of that trip in the end.

You probably had super high expectations, I guess

Yeah, I guess Arath's expectations were a little bit too high.

I don't have any expectations for the movie itself, since I know that I'll eventually like of it, but going to a good movie theater is an experience of it's own already, since I rarely do that. Smile Smilie

And why to get that disappointed anyway? I always remind myself of the fact that there's the book, there's the movie and both of them can be good in their own ways.

In the end, whether it's movies or television series that we watch, whether it's books that we read or good music that we listen to, it's all supposed to entertain us, so why not let them to serve their purpose?

And in my opinion, reading is fun, 'cause with good imagination, you can let the text itself take you on a journey, but then again, watching movies is fun too. You just have to live the experience, like you'd be one of the actors in the movie. Forget that you even went there to watch a movie, 'cause the only way to truly enjoy of it, is to become one with it.

That's my way to think about things.

Now, back to daily things and by tomorrow, I'll go and watch the movie by myself.

Yea, I'm gonna ask Arwen and if she didn't like it either I guess that it really isn't that great (I doubt it).
Oh she liked it Smile Smilie at least she tweeted that
This is my first impression of the film - I'll probably need to see it in the comfort of my own home before I can form a final opinion. Also, there's no spoilers, unless you haven't even read the book! :P My first recommendation to anyone going to see this movie would be to see it in 2D - the 3D made me feel slightly dizzy and distracted me from the story and action, both of which I personally feel were very well done. Now, we were all expecting changes. This movie has quite a few, and some major ones at that, which I did not bridle at and accepted as being part of the story the film was telling. Many of the scenes were just as I had envisioned them from the book (the scenes in Bag End, the trolls, and the riddles and escape from Gollum being chiefly among them), and there were also a lot of links made with the trilogy, an element which I liked. In terms of making it more lighthearted than the Lord of the Rings, some of it was done well (songs and some jokes) though there were also one-liners that I felt were a bit too corny. The action and visuals were, of course, stellar (again, I probably would have enjoyed them more in 2D), and the locations and sets were all beautifully brought to life. In effect, see it in 2D, don't expect miracles, try to appreciate the film and its story for its own sake, and you'll enjoy it far more.

Yeah, pretty much what Fornad said.

Just got home from the premier and I gotta say....I LOVED it! But, if you're a die hard purist with more than an air of skepticism, you might want to hold off. I'd say it was maybe....85% accurate, depending how you wanna look at it. Like Fornad said the movie did an AMAZING job of capturing so many scenes from the book, almost exactly as I pictured it myself. But of course there were other things that weren't quite as I imagined. Also the preview is really misleading IMO. You learn to appreciate the dwarves, and their look, as you experience them. Your slowly introduced to Thorin instead of the dramatic light backing scene you see in the trailer. And I wasn't a huge fan of Thorin's look at first but, again, it grows on you...

I also loved how they implemented the songs. Even from the Goblin-King. No other fantasy book to movie adaptation has ever really implemented entire songs and this is how it should be done.

And I'll second the sentiment that you should probably see it in 2d. The still shots were simply a-maz-ing. But unfortunately most of the movie is in motion, and often times with a lot going on, which tended to make the view a little blurry. 3D technology has a way to go IMO, so I'd stick with the 2D unless you just ABSOLUTELY love 3D. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't phenomenal either. Meaning, I don't think it's worth it.

 

Anyways I'm really tired so I'm gonna pass out. But I look forward to hearing other's thoughts and discussing the film more!!! And I know many of you are wondering, so this will be the closest to a "spoiler" I'll give, so beware....

.....but they do use orc alongside goblin.

Righty, now that I've seen first part of The Hobbit in 3D, I must say that I've to go and watch it in 2D during the next week. Some of the scenes just looked way too messy with the glasses on, and once again, I couldn't focus fully to the movie with those damn idiotic and heavy glasses on my nose. I hope 2D will be much better.

But, back to the business. I very much enjoyed of the movie, just like I had expected.

All actors were great, especially the one who plays Galadriel (I don't recall her name), but she has a very good voice in my opinion.

All of the visuals were great and about the story part, well, I think last time I actually did read The Hobbit, was over 3 years ago, so I can't say anything about that.

And oh!

Fornad, good to see you again, my friend. And what is this, a balrog, here? Well hello! Hail and kill. Horns up. (Too much?)

I strongly agree with the landscapes that they used to film the movie. Absolutely beautiful. All of those mountains, valleys, forests, oh boy.. Now I feel like wanting to embark on a glorious adventure across the world. Sadly, traveling is not my kind of thing, so I'll pass for now, but in future.. Well, who knows? Smile Smilie

Bah, I'm tired as well.. So, let's end this message by saying that..

My final opinion is that The Unexpected Journey was a great movie, and I'm already waiting for the two remaining parts of the trilogy. Two years there and there, does it matter? No!

Tomorrow, I'll start reading The Hobbit again. Preparations, preparations. I remember myself saying once that I don't re-read anything, but I guess I can make a few exceptions. Smile Smilie

Oerath bows and leaves the hall.

Hail Oerath! I once stirred in these parts in the final age of 2010 but have slumbered within the mountains since. Glad to be re-awakened.

"Now I feel like wanting to embark on a glorious adventure across the world. Sadly, traveling is not my kind of thing, so I'll pass for now, but in future.. Well, who knows?"

Neither was Bilbo!! And look how that turned out...

But I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought the 3D was a bit much. I'll probably be seeing it again tomorrow in 2D. Can't wait. Ah, and Cate Blanchett played Galadriel and I agree she was perfect for the role. They did a much better job at capturing her...influence. They made it clear that she was an elf way beyond the years of Elrond and her opinion meant more than most others combined. Unlike in the FOTR, where most people thought she was some random elf queen who was corrupt and greedy for power.

I am so grateful to PJ for making the Hobbit .I loved it

Please Arath, tell us why you was such disappointed.

Oerath, your words are so true. I thought the same.

I saw the film yesterday, and I liked it. First of all there are a lot of discussions about 3D and HFR. I liked the 3D and I had no problems with it. It looked so real, a great experience. Definitely high quality. It's different for every person if they like 3D or not. Some people get dizzy, others really enjoy it. And I definitely enjoyed it.

And now about the film itself. I think, like oerath said, you need to make a difference between the book and the film. It's such a difficult task to make a film from such a popular book. I liked the way they put the story on screen. Even when some things were a bit different, I think it's good. I mean if you make a film you make something people will enjoy watching. And I think that turned out very well. For example the scene "Riddles in the Dark". It was quite true to the book, and very nice to watch. I liked the scene when the dwarves came at bag.end . It was shorter than in the book, which doesn't really surprised me, because I don't think much people would have enjoyed it that way. Even when it wasn't complete true to the book, I don't think you may say it was "really" different. I loved the scene with Galadriel and Mithrandir. Although this wasn't in the book, I think it was quite the same style. Most scenes were how I imagined me. So that was cool. And of course, the last shot of the film. Amazing! I'm so curious. I really want to hear "The voice of Smaug"
Sorry for the paragraphs and spelling mistakes. I'm using my phone.... I will edit it later.

I thought the 3D was great when you could see it. Mainly in scenes like the Goblin city, you couldn't really see the goblins running in the background because it looked so blurry from the 3D. I'm looking forward to seeing it in 2D tomorrow to see if there really was a "worth it" difference. Maybe I'll appreciate it more once I don't have it...

My teacher told me that the hobbit was entertaining but it wasn't awesome. I am going to see it real soon and I can't wait whomever downs on it shall burn in the pits of mt doom!
Yeah, I have an awesome teacher that likes lotr and such. He so awesome!
I saw the film in 2D t the midnite premiere and I wasn't Entirely happy with everything that happened. I don't understand why they had to add anything about the pale Orc, because it isn't staying true to the book. The scenes when they were in danger always ended with heroic music and fighting, and the dwarveswereall... Non dwarvish. Kili is, simply put, too sexy to be a dwarf! He lookalike an elf, with the flowing hair and thin frame. It was also almost as if they were trying to compare the membs of the Fellowship to the Thorin and Co.- Kili is Legolas, Thorin is Aragorn, Fili is Pippin, ect. I'm still fuming about Tauriel, as well. Why do they need her? I guess I'm ok with Legolas being there with a cameo, because he's thrandurils son and it makes sense- but it honestly seems to me like Tauriel was only added to bea love intrest for, of course, the sex symbol of the movie, Kili. Overall I thought it was good, but the changes in the plot made no sense to me.
Kili is indeed sexy, but gollum is sexier. I would like to understand what in thenameof Precious the white Orc is! Is he like some weird Orc that is white from some other Tolkien thing? I so confused!
I would like to know before I go see it!

I haven't seen the film yet, but I think it's just Jackson's invention of a 'zombie orc'. I hear it's Azog.

Azog was slain [Appendices to The Return of the King], but the filmmakers appear to want to bring him back from the dead so he can annoy Thorin, or particularly annoy Thorin anyway.

Not sure though. Again haven't seen the film.

The white orc is Azog. That is one of the few errors in the Hobbit. Azog was the orc who killed Thror when Thros and his companion went to Moria ALONE! Thror went in and then a few days later his headless body was flung out; Thror's. His companion was sent back to the other Dwarves with a small bag containing a few almost worthless coins. THREE YEARS LATER the Dwarves finally finished mustering their strength and began a war against the orcs. Azog was the king over all orcs and goblins in Middle-Earth. When the fight finally came to the Gates of Moria, Azog waited until the Dwarves were weary before coming out and fighting. He had a bodyguard and he NEVER faced Thorin. Thorin was driven back into a wooded area by other orcs and he hacked off an oaken branch to use as a shield, earning his name Oakenshield. It was only when Nain and his son Dain arrived late that the battle turned. After a long time fighting Nain faced Azog and was eventually felled by a blow that never pierced his iron collar but broke his neck. By this time the orcs were almost routed and Dain leapt up to avenge his father. DAIN IRONFOOT FACED AZOG AND KILLED HIM BEFORE THE DOORS OF MORIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thorin the Dwarf never faced him. In the book, Bolg, Azog's son, was the one who led the orcs against the Dwarves, the Elves, and the Men of Esgaroth in the Battle of Five Armies. But my question is, the orcs were not born but spawned as there were no women folk among orcs, so how is Bolg Azog's son? I'm guessing that Azog merely claimed his as a successor and thought of him as a son? But once more, THORIN OAKENSHIELD NEVER FOUGHT AZOG! IT WAS DAIN AND AZOG IS NOT IN THE HOBBIT EXCEPT FOR TWO PLACES WHERE GANDALF REFERS TO ANCIENT HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AZOG IS ALREADY DEAD WHEN THE HOBBIT TAKES PLACE. That's one of the few errors. I apologize for being so vehement.

Orcs reproduce sexually [after the manner of the Children of Eru], and Tolkien did mention female orcs too, in a letter. So orcs can have sons and daughters.

But film question: is Azog portrayed as a 'zombie orc' in the sense that he has been brought back from the dead?

Or is this speculation based on his death in the books, and his colour and presence in the film?

I don't wanna be the downer here but now that I think about it I didn't like the movie too much. Yes, amazing visuals and really fun, but how the hell is Azog alive. Dain kills him. Wich brings me to the point that Thorin did not kill Azog. These changes weren't really necessary. Also the unrealisticness. I know this is a movie about Middle Earth but in the lonely mountains when the crack opens under them they fall an insurvivable height and then Bilbo falls once more an enourmus into Gollums cave and survives once more. PJ just changed lots of things that didn't need change. I still enjoyed it, but those things made it a bit less enjoyable.

So does the first film reveal [or imply] that Azog has been brought back to life by someone, maybe the Necrodancer?

Or... no? Maybe it doesn't?

Very good points Beredras. And Galin, Azog is not a "zombie Orc". He was killed in the book but Peter Jackson didn't follow that part. He just changed the story so that Azog could be the main bad guy. Two errors in one; Thorin never faced Azog, and Azog was killed long before the Hobbit took place.

Thanks Durin.

I got that idea from a thread titled 'Azog the headless zombie orc' at another site, and that was based on this WB character brief for Azog:

'It was said that Azog the Desecrator fell many years ago in the great battle between the Orcs and the Dwarves. But now he appears again at the top of a deadly horde of killer orcs. For Gandalf begins a race against time because he has to figure out the connection between the most dangerous orc commander and the growing evil, which takes shape in the ruins of the fortress of Dol Guldur. One thing is totally clear: no one will deter Azog from his intention to destroy Thorin Oakenshield’s companions to the last dwarf.'

I must admit, the implication here, at least, might be that Azog was raised from the dead. Although granted 'it was said' qualifies that he 'fell' many years ago.

But again I have to rely on those who have seen the films, at the moment.

Hello Galin,always so nice to read you.

 

I would like to contribute my impression on the Azog question: in the film, Thorin does fight Azog instead of young Dain Ironfoot, but unlike Dain does not kill him, merely chops his left arm off nearly at the elbow. He (Thorin) obviously believes he has done Azog in, and is therefore very surprised to see him later on, with an iron gadget instead of his hand and forearm.

 

I also wondered at this, and my conclusion is that this Azog will compound both characters (himself and Bolg), with the purpose of building up a more solid antagonist.  He will obviously be leading the orc/goblin forces in the Battle of the Five Armies, as his constant appearances suggest.

 

This is, of course, one of the weaknesses in all of Jackson's films: shaving off characters and bunching together times and actions.  Sigh.  Nothing to be done about it.  I was hoping to maybe see Glorfindel this time around, but it doesn't seem to be happening.  Imagine, Glorfindel!  On the up side, I find that in The Hobbit Jackson has maybe given the Elves a bit more depth and complexity than in the other films.  

 

Yes, deviations are disturbing, but after all this is just a vision.  The true story... we know where to find it.

 

Namarië.

Thanks Marghana. Hmm, only an arm? Someone else must have confused Azog with a different orc who lost his head, unless 'headless zombie orc' was a bit of a joke title.

An iron gadget? My guess is a can opener. Probably wrong though indecision

Interestingly, at another forum someone started a thread with...

Ok, so bear with me here, but I think it's possible that Azog DID die of his wounds as Thorin suspected and that he was brought back to life by the Necromancer. Afterall, to be deserving of that title he's gonna have to have done some necromancing, and I don't think the little bit with the Witch King fully passes for it. He looked more like a spirit/ghost to me. The real reason I feel Azog is returned from the dead is the musical cue that plays when Thorin squares off with him at the end. As many have already pointed out, its a theme we most closely associate with the Nazgul/Ringwraiths.

Now I know some believe it was just sloppy editing caused by the change from 2 films to 3, but all reports we're hearing are to the contrary. The cue was a brand new rendition of the theme and not just a copy/paste over from the Rings soundtracks. We're told Shore turned his desired score in and had time to spare, and the guy who runs the website "Music of Lord of the Rings", an insider of sorts, was tight lipped but said the Nazgul music was intentional and we will find out why later. Anyone else think this might be the case?

So it seems there is some speculation here yet.

INCLUDES A FEW SPOILERS!!!

 

 

 

A few months ago I saw one of the Underworld films in 3D and wasn't impressed, so given the option of 3D or 2D for the Hobbit I chose to watch it in 2D. At the time it seemed a good choice because my screen was virtually empty as everyone else had crammed into the 3D viewing. Having read a few of the posts here, I am really pleased I chose 2D (thank you Underworld).

Ten years ago I was amazed by FotR. I had waited all of my life to see it filmed. I was shocked that so many people hated it. I came here today half expecting the same - a lot of negative people who had pre-determined they were not going to like the film because they are Tolkien purists who hate any changes at all to their story. So far the reception has not been as bad as it was when FotR came out. Maybe after having seen the three LotR films people's expectations are different, so changes to this one have not sparked quite so much passion (or maybe those who really didn't like what was done to LotR have not bothered going to see the Hobbit???)

I love movies, so I was bound to like it, even though a few things did niggle a bit... The dwarves are a mixed bunch. PJ has done a good job of making each of them unique, but while some of them look like 'real' people, in real armour etc, others look so heavily made up with prosthetics and CGI, they appear cartoon-like. Several of them would have done better swapping places with a few dwarves out of Snow White and the Hunter. Balin was particularly disappointing. I always saw him as a strong warrior-like dwarf who took back Moria. In the Hobbit he looks like an aged rubber smurf. That said, I liked the other characters, although Radagast was maybe a little too wacky.

I wondered how they were going to stretch it out to three films. I thought Dol Guldur was going to feature heavily in this one. I guess that will now be the second film. I did like the inclusion of the Dwarf Goblin wars though. The Hobbit is a story about Dwarves as much as Hobbits, so it was good to catch their history. I think PJ would have done himself a big favour, however, if he had called the White Orc Bolg instead of Azog. Everyone who has read the LotR appendices knows that it was Dain, not Thorin, who killed Azog and how it was Bolg who lead the Orcs in the Battle of Five Armies. By necessity films tend to cut down on the number of characters and plots compared to books, but calling him Bolg would have saved a lot of problems. Maybe Bolg was at the battle where Azog was slain? Maybe even Thorin fought him there? We do not know for certain, so PJ could have elaborated with uncertainties rather than changing known facts. Unless, like Galin has posted, he is trying to link Azog's resurrection to the power of the Necromancer???

What else? I'm not a fan of musicals so I wasn't looking forward to the songs. I was surprised though. They fitted in great... A humorous one while they were washing up reiterated the Hobbit was written for children and was lighter than LotR... A solemn one in deep tones really echoed like deep caverns and made you realize these dwarves were different to humans... The goblin king's, too, was good and very animated.

Stone giants. They were mentioned in the book, but only in the distance if I remember correctly? These were a bit too close. Fun to watch, but there was just a bit too much flying debris and near misses for 13 out of 13 characters to survive. Under those conditions 1 out of 13 would have been more realistic. I would have rather seen them at a distance, as intended, with maybe the odd rock coming closer.

The trolls - Fantastic! I loved them. Some fantastic troll humour in there, right down to Bilbo getting snotted on. What's this? It came out of my nose! Classic.

Gollum - After his performance in LotR, we would all have been disappointed if Gollum had been any different. Riddles in the dark was just as it should have been. I must admit, these films have given me a much stronger sympathy for Gollum's fate than the books ever did. I despised Gollum in the books, even though i knew his history. The films do very nicely bring out his tragic corruption.

Anyway, 'd better not give too much away...

Concerning Azog; It may be that the directors believed that it was neede to have a common enemy- it may have been that they thought the film would be boring without one; they have to appeal (I am assuming) to Tolkien fans and non-Tolkien fans alike. At least they used an actual character, vs. a made up character only there to be a pain. I am curious as to how they will get RID of Azog now that he's involved. They didn't have Thorin kill him, (if I remember correctly) so it seems as if he will likely emerge once again in the Battle of Five Armies...

I do think it's unfair to be "determined to dislike something before they even see it," but more power to them if they don't like the films AFTER, purist or no.

Just fyi, I think a lot of these posts need to be labeled with spoiler alerts!!

**SOMEWHAT SPOILER ALERT**

 

 

 

I like to think I know ME fairly well, and I'll tell you I did not get the impression AT ALL that Azog was resurrected or a zombie or anything ridiculous like that. They said the dwarves believed he had died from being mortally wounded, but he was dragged inside and nobody ever saw him actually die. Thus, it is nothing but PURE speculation to assume he did die and was resurrected. I think people claiming he's a "white zombie orc" are either trying to be humorous, making up Tolkien lore to have fun with it, or just really like 80s hair metal.

I actually really liked the stone giants scene. IMO that was a good way for PJ to show his artistic interpretations without hurting the story too much. In the book it was like a sentence or two, but this was a good 5-10 minute scene with some of the best CGI in the film. Agreed it is way unrealistic that nobody really died, especially the way he went about it, but whatever, it's a movie...I've seen much worse, much more unrealistic survivals.

And just calling him Bolg definitely would've been a much better idea. Maybe even alluding to him being Azog's "son" and showing Azog's death. It really wouldn't have changed anything in the films as they are but would've pleased those who know the lore. Though Galin's right that it looks like one of those can/beer bottle opener two in one tools.

One thing I was somewhat disappointed with was Gandalf. He was way more Terry Brooks wizard than LOTR wizard. I don't want to ruin anything specific, but he does get some pretty elaborate magic use in. So it was cool and all and we all love fancy wizards, but it's the equivalent of adding in elves to Helms Deep. Simply to appeal to the masses. I liked Radagast's personality, but I didn't like his hat. I pictured a hat more like Gandalfs but brown, maybe with some patches in it.

I still find the goblin/orc thing interesting. There is a clear distinction between the two, though they were definitely fighting orcs in the Goblin War scenes.

I loved the movie. More accurate than any of the LOTR films but that's not saying much. I have a few more things but I don't wanna mention those until more people have seen it. Galin, you definitely need to check it out. It's really not even as long as Fellowship, maybe a little over 2 1/2 hours.

Mr. Tolkien was very clear, Azog was killed by Dain. Now, I loved the movie but I must say, I am very disappointed that Mr. Jackson made Azog the main orc. I also highly doubt that Sauron (the Necromancer) would concern himself with resurrecting a mere orc. Granted Azog was the king but in Sauron's eyes, orcs were very inferior and there would be no need to bring him back.

Durin, I thought that the necromancer was the witch king, because remember that Radagast brings the Morgul blade to Gandalf.

Beredras the Necromancer is definitely Sauron. Kinda like how goblins are orcs. I believe at this time he was still in Minas Morgul, not leaving until the FoTR. I thought he said it was a blade from Mordor, not Morgul? And in any case it was a basic orc sword, the Morgul blade is super fancy and cool looking.

I agree with Durin though. In fact, I'm a little shocked this is even up for debate. I thought it was pretty obvious it was one of those scenarios where they were believed dead after being injured only to come out again many years later, a common plot line in many stories, particularly fantasy. Ya know, considering how that's exactly what happened (in the movie).

Balrogs, yeah know I know Sauron is the Necromancer. But no, he did say the Morgul Blade and it makes sense because Frodo later gets stabbed by the Witch King with it. Is there even a Mordor Blade?

But yea as I said I didn't like the many changes Jackson made. He didn't change LOTR THAT much. I guess Azog is just the Hobbit version of the Nazgul so he could keep us on our toes, but to me that still doesn't justify bringing Azog back from the dead and changing the character who kills, or in this case"kills", Azog. So at first after leaving the theater I was amazed at the film, but when I really thought it through there were many things that I didn't like. In my opinion the film was not bad but it just wasn't true to the book, and I've said this before but even though it is a fantasy movie People, Hobbits, or Dwarves don't just survive falls like the one when the cracked opened in the Misty Mountains or the one when Bilbo fell into Gollum's lair, even though it is fantasy it is too unrealistic even for a fantasy film. If a weapon can kill them why can't a far drop kill them?  I know that the film is never going to be as good as the book or exactly the same as the book, but this was just TOO changed in my opinion.

I am surrounded by good points. But One of you mentioned that the blade Radagast found wasn't the Witch King's blade? Bull hockey! Forgive me but I am shocked that it was said. If you watch both films ( the Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring)  you see that it is indeed a blade of the same make but I do doubt it was the one used to stab Frodo. Don't you remember? Morgul blades are destroyed by sunlight. That fine point was ignored in the Hobbit however. And if Gandalf had it and left it in Rivendell, how would the Witch King regain possession of it? Gandalf is quoted saying, "Evil things do not come into this valley but we still should not name them." (forgive me if I was a little off but you get my point.) The blade in the Hobbit must have been one of many. I always heard it referred to as A Morgul blade and not THE Morgul blade.

I was the one who said it MIGHT not be. I full heartedly admit I haven't seen it since the midnight premier and was SUPER tired so my memory might be a little hazy. I thought they said "a blade from Mordor" not necessarily a Mordor blade.

Ok so I did look into it though and it's definitely a Morgul blade. But doesn't seem likely that it'd be the same. I think the reason I thought this was because I remember Radagast grabbing that blade after killing an orc or something, then in the distance he saw the shadow of the necromancer? I guess I thought a Morgul blade wouldn't be wielded by some random orc hidden in Dol Guldur. Then on top of that I thought they said Mordor at the White Council. My mistake...

Moral of the story though is I HIGHLY doubt it was the same one the witch king used. Cause that would mean it would have somehow. Just seems way too disconnected...

Durin, I was looking up the subject on the morgul blade thing and this is what I found "Upon Radagast's investigation into Dol Guldur he is attacked by the spirit of the Witch-king of Angmar inwhich Radagast is able to ward off his attacks and force the Witch-King into retreat and in doing so drops his Morgul-blade that he used to attack Radagast. Radagast is able to retrieve the Morgul-blade and moves to leave the fortress but before he is able to he notices a dark spirit within the fortress, one who he believes to be the Necromancer." Though it is said that no evil thing enters Rivindell, I think that means no evil thing enters Rivindell with out Elrond's permission. But apart from that yea I agree that that was the Witch King's blade.
Why would they want to annoy thorin!? Okay wow........female orcs? I don't wanna think about that too much. When I o see the movie, I am gonna barf if I see one Orc woman! I swear that is just WRONG! But anywho.......I wanted to know if bilbo was going to stab gollum in the face! He was swinging sting around and thrusting it at him in the trailer! And I saw that late show thing where gollum was honeybooboo......I will never see gollum the same ever again..... - cries in corner-

Forgive me for sounding harsh Balrogs, I am sorry. And Smeagol, Bilbo does the right thing by not killing Gollum. I personally wanted to cry when I saw his face when he realized his precious was lost.

  [1] [2] [3] >>