In Tolkien's legendarium, Azog was killed in the battle. And he wasn't killed by Thorin, he was killed by Dain. It was his son Bolg who was leader of the orc army in the Hobbit book.
I love that you're like "if you get annoyed that I'm talking, why did you click a reaction commentary? If you get annoyed I tell jokes, sounds like a personal problem." I love that, don't be apologetic, do your thing and have fun. Also, it's so cool that you reacted to LoTR and then went and read the books, reacted to that, and now are watching the rest.
Great to join you again, Gina. A lot of the "filler" they used to stretch the movies, like the scenes with Saruman, Galadriel, the Necromancer, etc, were things not in the book but happening at the same time as the Dwarves journey to Erebor. Its what Gandalf was doing when he would leave the Company to themselves for long periods. Those scenes were drawn from the Appendices of the LOTR books. Some pieces were very briefly mentioned in the book but not expanded on, like the Necromancer, Dol Guldur, the cause of the dark enchantment of Mirkwood, etc. Loving the reaction so far, as always.
necromancer is not fully filler since at least the lotr books did confirm that handled had been hunting the necromancer/sauron when he was gone from the dwarfs. So at least that the necromancer existed was cannon and that gqndalf was going for him
The first movie was probably the best out of this trilogy, imo, and the best scenes were ones they pulled directly out of the book like Riddles In The Dark. When Bilbo meets Smaug is also a good one.
Gina: "I wonder how they made 300 pages into 8h of movie" Gina: *confused that they added things to make the story longer* "I don't remember this." Loved the reaction. Can't wait for the other parts.
In the book they were cornered in the trees, but by the goblins from the caves still pursuing them. The subplot of Azog and the other orcs pursuing the dwarves was added to increase drama and create a continuous sense of tension, because otherwise the dwarves simply ran into random incidents as they traveled. The "thunder battle" in the mountains was fairly vague in the book, and giant mountain monsters is one possible interpretation. To be fair, a lot of changes and additions were made to Lord of the Rings to make it more cinematic. It was not Arwen that sexy man and the hobbits met after Frodo was stabbed, for instance, but an elf named Glorfindel who was deleted altogether. It was also not Arwen who commanded the river to surge like horses, but rather a spell cast by Elrond with Gandalf's aid (Gandalf added the horses, a pointless touch but he just enjoyed the dramatic effect). As readers we don't know that Eowyn is even in the battle of the Pelennor Fields until she unmasks herself before the Witch King, disguised up to that point as a man named Dernhelm. In the books, we don't actually get to see the Ringwraiths tricked by the padded beds in The Prancing Pony; the scene is practically lifted from the previous animated version made by Ralph Bakshi. These changes are often good ideas for dramatizations. The Hobbit may have been stretched out a bit TOO much, though. Fan consensus is often that two movies would have been better. There has been an animated adaptation of The Hobbit, and as one film everything feels terribly rushed.
@@lailaalanna315 Do you realy mean that "Eowyn also never met Aragorn in the books" As far as I remember they interact at least three times, before Helms deep, after Helms deep then she greats him after the battle and then confronts him then he goes into the mountains and finally then then she asks Aragorn, her liegelord, to wish her luck. But yes there is hardly a single scene in the movies that are exactly like they are in the books,
Ok, so Gandalf meeting his friends to handle a Necromancer was mentioned in this book, but it was not until The Return of the King, Appendix A - Durin's Folk and Appendix B - The Third Age, do The White Council get mentioned, so this meeting did happen at this time but you didn't hear about it unti the end of the Third LOTR book.
And I always forget in which of his writings Tolkien identifes who the Necromancer is. Is that in the Silmarillion or is this also in the Appendix to LOTR?
True, the White Council isn't mentioned by name in The Hobbit (& nor was Saruman), but the description there comes close: "It appeared that Gandalf had been to a great council of the white wizards, masters of lore and good magic; and that they had at last driven the Necromancer from his dark hold in the south of Mirkwood."
The white orc is not in the book. He was mentioned in the appendices of the Lord of the Rings somewhere and they expanded him to a main character in this movie because they needed to pad out the run time and provide a Main Villain.
The white orc (Azog) is mentioned once in The Hobbit, as the killer of Thror. According to the LotR appendices, Dain kills him more than a century before the main events of The Hobbit. So "expanded" is a bit of an understatement for his role in the movies.
22:01 While orcs and goblins are interchangeable names for the same species in the books, the movies interpret the orcs as having diversified into different breeds over the millennias. Goblins are subterranean orcs, Ûruks are human-sized orcs, and Gundabad orcs are pale orcs
That is sort of the in universe explanation. The real world explanation is that when Tolkien did The Hobbit he was using goblins as his monsters for kids. After he did Lord of the Rings he had to go back and rework some things to bring the stories together. Orc and goblin in universe work as different translations of similar things. The names even in real world comes from a similar place. In the real word and in universe translation of words is everything Tolkien was about.
@@rnkelly36 Our entire understanding of modern fantasy is based on Tolkien. The elves you see in every fantasy ever made - they were invented by Tolkien. It's extremely rare for anyone to use pre-Tolkienic elves, of the notable examples the Disk World does have elves that are malicious fairies with deathly allergy to iron instead of noble humanoids. Dwarves pre Tolkien used to be what nowadays would be referred to as gnomes, although here Tolkien specifically used Scandinavian portrayal of elves as inspiration. The distinction between orcs and goblins as we understand it now though wasn't Tolkien's idea. In Tolkien's works goblins ARE orcs. There's even a scene (that people often forget about) in Fellowship of the Ring, in which Saruman talks about his army of goblins or something along these lines, now to mention that the battle of 5 armies in the books lists wolves and orcs as two of the sides - but said orcs are literally the very same goblins that have been chasing the party since the caves. What I am saying is - I do not know what the director was smoking when he went "oh yeah, we MUST show the goblins like the modern portrayal of goblins, because the book uses the word goblins"
@@RancorSnp What the director was thinking was they are different words so they should show as different things. Tolkien the philologist would recognize this as a human tendency to separate things as words evolve. He would also work to re-establish that in actuality the words refer to the same thing just coming from different language sources. Yep pre Tolkien elves are much different than post Tolkien. The word in different cultures across northern Europe into the UK and Ireland use to evoke various images. I just saw a discussion about this and I know he got his image from a series of poems I just forgot from whom. People always argue that Goblin and Orcs are different and I think those people probably are thinking Dungeons and Dragons rules. Tolkien's world is that they are the same coming from different language sources. I think Orc is suppose to be coming from Noldor language of elves and goblins are suppose to be Sindar in origin. His explanation would probably be that Bilbo confused the issue while writing about the orcs in the Misty Mountains using the Hobbit language to translate each differently. Other writers and directors treat it differently depending on where they are getting their inspiration.
Honestly, I didn't think they were that bad, they don't have the same soul as the Lord of the Rings and I'm not a staunch defender of the canon of the books, but I even found them enjoyable... all that until the third... the third film is indefensible, I think.
I as a person who grew up on the hobbit book, didn't even stand the first movie. I watched the first one, left outraged and never even considered looking at the next two. Looking at the public reception, I'm not missing out on much
@@RancorSnp I think it depends a lot on expectations, three movies of a book the size of that one was not going to be faithful, but I don't think that an adaptation can be good without being equal to the book, literature does not work like cinema... but they are tastes
You're amazing. Glad you are not quiet; so many "reactors" just sit there like a bump on a log, without any real opinion or thought. You're different and I hope you remain that way.
So guessing this has already been said elsewhere, but this was never originally planned as a trilogy, it was originally only supposed to be two movies (which, even then, would have required a bit of padding), but... money. The studio pushed to extend it to three movies and tie it into the LotR movies as much as possible for marketing's sake. A lot of the padding was pulled from The Silmarillion, and Tolkien's unfinished works (published as Unfinished Tales) and other letters and notes, along with some entirely new elements created for the movie (...for marketing's sake). So yeah, you really need to read all of Tolkein's Middle Earth books to get the full context for what was crammed into the movies.
It's funny how when Lotr was being made, they fought the studios so much over the permission to make it into 3 movies and they only barely got the permission, then they get the hobbit and go like "yeah we do not care this is a 90 minute long story, make it into 3 movies"
@@MrRenanHappy For movie rights reasons alone there can't be anything from the Simlarillion in there. The same right's situation that made the "Rings of Power"-Show an ill-conceived idea from the start.
Imagine not loving the fact that Gollum is in this movie. The Hobbit was written first, and this is how the ring came to be in the possession of hobbits 😂
These films draw much more heavily on the Appendices of the 3 LOTR books. So a lot of what's in the films is going on at the time of the events of the book, we just don't know about it. Gandalf disappearing constantly is explained much more fully in the Appendices, you're told where he goes and what he's doing.
I honestly see these movies as miracles, considering ALL the production hell they've gone trough. They had no right to turn out half as good as they did.
I dont really care about the production hell, the end product still isnt good. Thats what matters in the end, I'm not gonna excuse the quality just because WB and the rest were terrible at handling this project.
@@geenahreacts Lindsay Ellis has a great documentary about the creation of the movies. In short - there was an insane amount of studio meddling; it was supposed to be a 2 movie series; Peter Jackson didn't really want to deal with the stress of making a new trilogy, but couldn't leave his brainchild.
@@MrRenanHappy I honestly can't look at a product without considering it's creation. For example, I'll give much more leaway to a game made by a single developer, but will be more strict with a game from a huge studio. I think it's a reasonable way of looking at things
Azog is mentioned in The Hobbit, but is not a featured character. The White Council (the meeting with Galadriel, Elrond…) is mentioned in the LoTR books eluding to the Council kicking the Necromancer out of Dol Guldur. It’s sort of canon.
For some reason, the eagles never seem to fly anyone to where they need to go, initially. You would think the eagles could have flown over Mt. Doom for Frodo to drop the ring in on the first day of the LOTR, and here, They could have flown to the lonely mountain and saved months of walking for everyone.
I love how mad she got at the space bar not working for pause. It cracked me up. Also PLEASE don’t stop swearing. It makes the commentary so much more funny.
Make your own opinions of course, but I imagine somewhere in the multiverse there is a movie called "The Hobbit" that was a single 4hr film that covered those 300 pages and respected the source material enough not to just blatantly scribble all over the margins. It's probably a fantastic film.
Yeah this was fun but that would have been better. They could have even made separate spin-off movies to do all the Gandalf / Sauron storyline if it was worth it.
Ive seen comments talking about Azog so I won't go into that, but as far as Galadriel and Saramaun, that's part of "the white council" held in rivendell in a similar fashion as the council of the ring in the fellowship of the ring (fotw). Its not in the main book of the hobbit, but is explained in appendices and other spin off books. In the books this council took place many times over the course of over 500 years, finally closing after saramaun's betrayal in fotw. the council seen in fotw kind of acts as a surrogate and final white council meeting, although galadriel was unable to attend, likely due to rising concerns about the dol guldur place that was mentioned (the old fortress). One of the main parts of the white council is them discussing and dealing with dol guldur, and the reason why they had it in the movie is because gandalf conveniently goes missing again in the books when the dwarves are about to go into the misty mountains then pops up later in goblin town. the dissapearance earlier makes sense because he might have been scouting a way to get to rivendell which is a secret valley, but they had to give gandalf something to do in the movie, so by them referencing the white council which later sets up dol guldur, part of that which does take place later during the hobbit books, it kind of helps tie off loose ends whether or not it was intended by the author for such a meeting to be happening at that time. The main bulk of the white council and dol guldur stuff happens during the timeline of the hobbit, and then later in the lord of the rings its only brought up a little bit. Sorry for the big yap but I think that kind of covers that whole thing. Radagast kinda just gets thrown in the movie for filler though.
Stephen Fry plays the Goblin King in this segment and then he plays the Mayor of the town in the last 2 of the series. This is before Sauroman and Lord Denethor of Gondor, came into possession of the "seeing stones" that Sauron uses to drive them mad.
Lots of people complain that The Hobbit movies aren't the same level as the LOTR movies, but when I read the books, I also thought the The Hobbit book wasn't in the same level as the LOTR books. Very different flavors. People should remember that Tolkien made The Hobbit as a evening story for his children, so it's basically a children's adventure story which I think the films did capture. There are some moments that I don't like from the films, but there are also a lot of strong ones. Just from the first movie alone, the troll scene, the stone giant battle, the riddle game with Gollum, etc. I'm so glad that these films were made.
I think the main issue with the movies beyond the padding is how much they missed the mark of the tone of the book. The book is whimsy, fairy tale like at places. The Hobbit movies are far to dark and gritty. So I guess we're at opposites on the movies finding the right tone.
I don't think too many had read the books, but had seen the LOTR so it would be strange to pretend that those movies was not out there (or about something entierly different) therefore the attempt to draw the Hobbit movies towards the greater Legendarium would be logical, and also what the author himself tried to do afterwards, he aloso regretted the tone of the Hobbit.
Sorry, The Hobbit book is a different vibe because it is a children's book, as it was written to be that. The Hobbit movies vibe is to be a tie in to a company's franchise and doesn't have a real identity of its own, lying on a limbo between LotR and The Hobbit as well being corrupted by multiple unfaithful choices and becoming more of a mediocre fantasy movie.
@@F7024-f3p Tolkien didn't regret the tone of the Hobbit. He tried to tie it in with LotR more, but people at the time felt that it corrupted the initial vision, to which Tolkien himself agreed and then mainly kept the changes to the 2nd edition mostly in the Gollum chapter.
@@mormacil Missing the tone of the book is the biggest problem with the movies for sure. "I couldn't hire a powerful warrior for this party, so we will hire a burglar instead, we will travel in secret, and avoid combat as much as possible" - meanwhile the movie "so then they mowed down hundreds of orcs"
Gandalf chose bilbo for two reasons: first, because - as tolkien points out in the first two pages - hobbits can make themselves unseen if they wish (perfect for a burglar) and, second, because bilbo is half Took on his mother's side - which is why bilbo and frodo are peregrine "pippin" took's cousins. The Tooks are famously adventurous. The extended version of the Hobbit trilogy has more exposition and in that version Gandalf explains - as per the book - why he chose bilbo in particular. Im assuming youre watching the theatrical versions. While both are flawed masterpieces the extended version, with its extra exposition of background details, is probably a bit better. The meetings involving galadrial, elrond, saruman and gandalf are the White Council. While thats not in the Hobbit book, it is, with some minor differences, in the Middle Earth books. If you check the Hobbit book you will notice there are significant parts where Gandalf departs from Thorin's company. The movies fill in the gaps and explain what Gandalf was actually doing, although not 100% in line with the canon (especially in one very important way). Bear in mind the book is a kid's book, so the complex middle earth stuff doesnt appear there.
It can be inferred that Galadriel and Saurman are in the book. In the book Gandalf has to leave the party to help the White Council deal with the Necromancer. Tolkien doesn't name the White Council members in the Hobbit, but he does name them in the LotR trilogy. This is one of the things I feel was done well when it came to additions from the book. In the book Gandalf just says "okay I'm going to take care of a powerful mage that has the ability to raise the dead in an epic fight with two of my wizard brethren and some of the oldest and most powerful elves still living in Middle-Earth. Bye!" And we never really hear about that confrontation. Even as a kid I was like "wait I want to know about that!" And here we get not only the set up, but later on the payoff to that little nugget Tolkien just kind of dropped and half forgot about.
I haven't confirmed it myself, since I'm kinda new to Tolkien myself, but I have heard that some of the "extra" stuff they added to the movies was also in the Appendices of the LotR books, and Unfinished Tales, etc. But a big chunk of it is just added for the movies
As best I can tell, the only named orcs/goblins in The Hobbit are Bolg and The Great Goblin, while a mention is made of Golfimbul who was killed by Bullroarer Took before The Hobbit takes place. So if you don't remember any named orc characters, it's because he generally didn't use any. Not gonna lie, I was expecting EVERY riddle to make the cut for a nine hour movie, but instead we get a bunch of nothing.
You were absolutely right: Azog was not that relevant, in the book. He actually died, at the battle for Moria. In the book, his son - Bolg - leads the armies at the battle of the five armies. Peter Jackson changed that part of the sorry, and made Azog a proper villain. An antagonist for our heroic dwarfs to fight against😉
They made goblins and orcs different things in this movie, but for Tolkien they were the same. In the book Gandalf leaves the party at certain times, in these movies you get to see what he was doing.
i love the hobbit films (especially the first one) and i honestly get fed up sometimes with fans being so hateful towards them like yeah they changed some things and dragged it out, they’re not the same as lotr, but they’re gorgeous films with a lovely atmosphere and great actors, and will always be a comfort watch for me. plus lee pace’s thranduil could not have been played any better oh my god
Hey girl, don't worry about it. I'm a guy pushing 50, and my wrists are nothing as well. But I did lift 60 kilos once, in my younger days. But now I have issues with 10-20 kilos.
Just FYI, "wherefore art thou?" actually means "WHY are you?" The most famous use, in Romeo and Juliet, Juliet is asking WHY Romeo is named what he is, because that name makes him her enemy. This was such a fun watch, and I love that you've read the book, so you already know who should and should not be there! 😄 They did a lot of "sir-not-appearing-in-this-film," here. Even had to make up female characters, since Tolkien barely provided for a handful of them being in the forefront in ANY of the books. You will definitely also see some entirely made up events, as well as some that happened, but happened "off screen" in the book. To stretch it to 3 movies, it got kind of wild, which is why I think so many people dislike this trilogy. I'm fine with it, though; I think of it as a re-imagining on drugs.
I'm glad this reaction was the first I've seen of yours. It made me want to subscribe and watch the rest of the series. I'm looking forward to watching your reactions to the full Tolkien/Middle Earth series in order (as the books go). It was lots of fun watching your content😂 Thank you. Peter Jackson added some content that wasn't in the books as well as some content that was from Tolkien's legendarium as fillers.
They were Goblins. They make Sting glow blue also. Even though I think in the books, Orcs and Goblins are the same thing. But in the films they are separate things.
They are far from perfect, and definitely shouldn’t be three films (tried to squeeze in stuff from ‘The Silmarillion), but there are some real gems in these films. I do love the performances of the dwarves, Gandalf, Bilbo, and really everyone who came to work lol. The first hour of the first film I really like (similar to book), and then they deviate too much for my liking. The second of these movies is my personal favorite because it’s actually closest to the book, in my opinion, also the dragon is excellent. Then the third is the worst. My two cents.
Saruma is not in The Hobbit they just added that scene to show a future connection to L.O.T.R. Azog isn't in the book as a named character but the dwarves do get chased into some trees by Wargs, goblins, and orcs but are saved by the eagles.
your joy over seeing smaug destroy the town in the beginning was a little worrisome, but apart from that - great video! [edit] 13:11 - please, o please add 'arachnophobia' to your list of reactions
I've never understood why it matters so much for a movie adaptation to exactly match the book word for word. "It can't be like this because I read the book" has always seemed like such a copout. Even people who have read the same book will imagine the same things differently.
I remember seeing the 2nd film in theatre with my now husband. He was asleep for more than an hour while I was screaming of disapprobation watching some non-sense 😂 What a ride, good luck with the two last movies lmfao
Galadriel and Saruman showing up referenced stuff from the Appendices in the Lord of the Rings I believe. They were a part of what they called the “White Council,” which also included Gandalf and Elrond. They basically kept a watch over Middle Earth, and Saruman was the leader. They’re important in events leading up to the Lord of the Rings.
Yep - for some extra info Galadriel wanted Gandalf to lead the White Council because of his wisdom, humility, and alignment in opposing Sauron. Gandalf was a servant of Manwe, king of the Valar and creator of the great eagles. From before the awaking of the Children of Eru (Elves and Men) Manwe opposed Morgoth (Melkor), the dark Valar whom Sauron later served. Saruman and Sauron were both originally Maiar of Aule, but each fell into darkness - Sauron by directly serving Morgoth, and Saruman through his later pride and desire for power. Galadriel distrusted Saruman for his arrogance and ambition, traits that mirrored Sauron’s fall. However, Gandalf declined leadership because his task was to inspire and unite the peoples of middle earth, not to lead them as he understood the corrupting nature of power.
Ima save you some time flipping through the book, they added a lot 😂😂😂 trust your memory! I really like these movies. They were never going to be LOTR level but I love being back in the world. I think this first movie is my favourite. I also think it’s underrated how much went into adapting the book into this trilogy and having certain moments and characters be more impactful. I’m sure a good single movie could be made taking the book exactly as is but…it makes sense if we’re in the same universe as the LOTR movies to take advantage of that.
I was not completely impressed with the films as they released (with waiting a year between them and all that). BUT I got the extended versions on DVD and watched them again over a week's time last summer and have truly come to be "very fond" of them. Yes, a lot of additional stuff was added to pad out the run time making it into another trilogy, but I enjoyed it, and it helps the two trilogies be more cohesive as a "Middle Earth Saga". I also loved the fact that we got 9 hours MORE of Howard Shore's wonderful score. The callbacks to (OR foreshadowing of) the LOTR leitmotifs was so much fun to hear, and the new Dwarven themes as well as 'Dwagon Music' was just superb. I'm glad you are enjoying this and it's time for "whiners and complainers" to get to the back of the bus again and pipe down for a while.
As someone who saw the movies before reading the book, I thought they were fantastic, it’s really more that they’re not a very faithful adaptation of the book because of how much was added to the story. I understand why people that grew up with the book first are critical, but I still feel like they get so much more hate than they deserve.
You are correct, Azog was mentioned in the book but wasn't that relevant to the story as they made him in the films. My guess is because the way they planned it, they needed a villain and a threat for the 1st film, otherwise it would look like random sidequests
I enjoy these films for what they are. We can all agree it didn't need three films, we can agree the production quality wasn't the same, and we can agree that there is a lot more action than what anyone expected. At the end of it though, these are the movies we got, I personally like that they are tied into the LotR more than the book, and letting go of being so critical makes them a fun time. But some people really enjoy hating on film adaptations and if that's your stick, have at it. I'm not a vibe killer. Still, no one has the right to dictate what others enjoy - so Gina, hate or enjoy them at your leisure!
There's lvls to this. I can understand someone enjoying this trilogy however for example the rings of power is horrible and feels nothing like middle earth for example.
Great reaction. Love your British level sarcastic humour. I'm looking forward to The Desolation of Smaug reaction. I highly recommend reading the Silmarillion. ❤ from Lancashire 🌹 UK 🇬🇧
I agree. In "Unexpected Journey" they added some needless filler (e.g. Radagast was unnecessary and kind of irritating to be honest), but at least they didn't trim down or cut out major scenes from the book just to fit in the stuff that wasn't. I think they did justice to my favorite scenes from that part of the book - the unexpected party, the trolls, and the riddle game; and I would even go so far as to say I like the movie version of the scene with the orcs and the flaming trees better than the scene from the book. On the other hand, what they did to the second movie can be summed up by one word: "betrayal." Runners-up are "travesty" and "unforgivable." I didn't mind the third movie so much, but that's mainly because when I watched it I was still in such a state of shock over how they treated the second one that I was just too numb to care anymore.
3 дня назад
To be fair, Tolkien usually wrote action scenes in a sentence or two, whereas they get a lot more screentime in movies. The Hobbit are IMHO great movies. Not masterpieces like the LOTR trilogy, but great nonetheless. But we all expected masterpieces
I grew up on MST3K so I enjoy a really smart reaction,. I think you would enjoy Ranking of Kings anime, because it is a complete story, in a fantasy world about a little deaf prince and a kingdom of spite and subversion. Everything pays off, as opposed to stories like 'Lost' or 'Game of Thrones' or a little later where everybody loves it for some reason, and then are pissed off about the ending not having a hell of a lot to do with the story. I never got past the first five episodes of either as they aired, and then everyone was all upset about their endings and I was, to myself, like 'did you watch the first five episodes? There was no plan' It would be a similar form of reaction, but it's not new water to tread if copyright got you down.
They stretched the story by adding a lot of fillers and new characters from start to end. Even though it feels like "this is not how the Hobbit book goes", those extras never felt like a bad implementation of the Middle Earth in general (for me personally). A good deal of those extras were inspired by other middle earth literature other than the Hobbit book. And fully new story parts and new made up characters didn't feel like they are out of context, they are still in Middle Earth-ly vibe and fits the timeline. At least that's for me personally. A fan of the Hobbit book might not like these too many fillers, but as a Middle Earth fan in a bigger scope, it's nice to see more spices came from the lore and came from some original ideas.
Azog wasnt a thing in the Hobbit book, they just chose to bring him in to give Thorin a personal antagonist within the trilogy. Since Smaug isnt the final conflict of the book and he's delt with by someone else
I really enjoy this movie! I love the Riddles in the Dark scene. The movies get weaker from here IMO but Martin Freeman remains the best Bilbo we could have asked for.
A lot of the extra stuff comes from LotR book appedices, The Silmarillion (highly recommend reading), and other unpublished tidbits. As someone who read most of that before any movies I thought the additions were masterfully done and I loved seeing it. Nevertheless, yah the Hobbit movies quality drop a notch compared to the trilogy but they are very fun.
girl as you loved far over the misty mountains cold, i think you'd love the songs clamavi de profundis has made based on lotr and the hobbit:D they're gorgeous, would love seeing you react to them or if you don't want to react, at least go and check them out:)
The copyright gods got us again so everyone please join me in saying “THANK YOUU” to our sponsor for this video ✨Skillshare✨
Thank you, Skillshare!
Skillshare✊
ty skillshare
Thank you
After you read LOTR, you have to finish with The Silmarillion. You can go deeper than that if you wish. But you have to read The Silmarillion.
"I don't remember this" and "this wasn't in the book" are the taglines of these movies
In Tolkien's legendarium, Azog was killed in the battle. And he wasn't killed by Thorin, he was killed by Dain. It was his son Bolg who was leader of the orc army in the Hobbit book.
I love that you're like "if you get annoyed that I'm talking, why did you click a reaction commentary? If you get annoyed I tell jokes, sounds like a personal problem." I love that, don't be apologetic, do your thing and have fun. Also, it's so cool that you reacted to LoTR and then went and read the books, reacted to that, and now are watching the rest.
Great to join you again, Gina.
A lot of the "filler" they used to stretch the movies, like the scenes with Saruman, Galadriel, the Necromancer, etc, were things not in the book but happening at the same time as the Dwarves journey to Erebor. Its what Gandalf was doing when he would leave the Company to themselves for long periods. Those scenes were drawn from the Appendices of the LOTR books.
Some pieces were very briefly mentioned in the book but not expanded on, like the Necromancer, Dol Guldur, the cause of the dark enchantment of Mirkwood, etc.
Loving the reaction so far, as always.
necromancer is not fully filler since at least the lotr books did confirm that handled had been hunting the necromancer/sauron when he was gone from the dwarfs. So at least that the necromancer existed was cannon and that gqndalf was going for him
The first movie was probably the best out of this trilogy, imo, and the best scenes were ones they pulled directly out of the book like Riddles In The Dark. When Bilbo meets Smaug is also a good one.
Facts
I really like the second because it has my favorite bits from the book, but we can all agree the third is weakest.
Gina: "I wonder how they made 300 pages into 8h of movie"
Gina: *confused that they added things to make the story longer* "I don't remember this."
Loved the reaction. Can't wait for the other parts.
"I have no memory of this place."
@wierdoskill 🏆
There is an extended edition of this, and in that you get to see the first time Gandlaf meets Bilbo as a child. And Bilbo's mum is there as well....
Shout out to the guy who played The Mountain in the first season of Game of Thrones who left to do this movie only to be turned completely CG
In the book they were cornered in the trees, but by the goblins from the caves still pursuing them. The subplot of Azog and the other orcs pursuing the dwarves was added to increase drama and create a continuous sense of tension, because otherwise the dwarves simply ran into random incidents as they traveled. The "thunder battle" in the mountains was fairly vague in the book, and giant mountain monsters is one possible interpretation.
To be fair, a lot of changes and additions were made to Lord of the Rings to make it more cinematic. It was not Arwen that sexy man and the hobbits met after Frodo was stabbed, for instance, but an elf named Glorfindel who was deleted altogether. It was also not Arwen who commanded the river to surge like horses, but rather a spell cast by Elrond with Gandalf's aid (Gandalf added the horses, a pointless touch but he just enjoyed the dramatic effect). As readers we don't know that Eowyn is even in the battle of the Pelennor Fields until she unmasks herself before the Witch King, disguised up to that point as a man named Dernhelm. In the books, we don't actually get to see the Ringwraiths tricked by the padded beds in The Prancing Pony; the scene is practically lifted from the previous animated version made by Ralph Bakshi.
These changes are often good ideas for dramatizations. The Hobbit may have been stretched out a bit TOO much, though. Fan consensus is often that two movies would have been better. There has been an animated adaptation of The Hobbit, and as one film everything feels terribly rushed.
@@lailaalanna315 Do you realy mean that "Eowyn also never met Aragorn in the books" As far as I remember they interact at least three times, before Helms deep, after Helms deep then she greats him after the battle and then confronts him then he goes into the mountains and finally then then she asks Aragorn, her liegelord, to wish her luck. But yes there is hardly a single scene in the movies that are exactly like they are in the books,
Who's gonna tell her that there is no Dwagon in the first film, poor thing seems so excited for the Dwagon 😂😂😂
Imagine how disappointed I was with how long it took for the dragon to appear in the second movie…
hey I’m Ryan I have a movie request Austin powers international man of mystery and if you can please wear leather gloves for the movie
I'd say it was worth the wait.@@geenahreacts
Ok, so Gandalf meeting his friends to handle a Necromancer was mentioned in this book, but it was not until The Return of the King, Appendix A - Durin's Folk and Appendix B - The Third Age, do The White Council get mentioned, so this meeting did happen at this time but you didn't hear about it unti the end of the Third LOTR book.
And I always forget in which of his writings Tolkien identifes who the Necromancer is. Is that in the Silmarillion or is this also in the Appendix to LOTR?
True, the White Council isn't mentioned by name in The Hobbit (& nor was Saruman), but the description there comes close:
"It appeared that Gandalf had been to a great council of the white wizards, masters of lore and good magic; and that they had at last driven the Necromancer from his dark hold in the south of Mirkwood."
@@jamesreilly6612 yep!
@@Quotenwagnerianer I don't remember if it gets mentioned in the Silmarillion but it's definitely in the Appendix of LOTR.
@@shawnlopez2317 It is mentioned in the Silmarillion as well in "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age"
The white orc is not in the book. He was mentioned in the appendices of the Lord of the Rings somewhere and they expanded him to a main character in this movie because they needed to pad out the run time and provide a Main Villain.
The white orc (Azog) is mentioned once in The Hobbit, as the killer of Thror. According to the LotR appendices, Dain kills him more than a century before the main events of The Hobbit. So "expanded" is a bit of an understatement for his role in the movies.
p.25, Chapter 1. "An Unexpected Party". At least in the 2011 edition.
But yes, he was more a footnote than a character, while Bolg is more referred to than involved.
22:01
While orcs and goblins are interchangeable names for the same species in the books, the movies interpret the orcs as having diversified into different breeds over the millennias.
Goblins are subterranean orcs, Ûruks are human-sized orcs, and Gundabad orcs are pale orcs
That is sort of the in universe explanation. The real world explanation is that when Tolkien did The Hobbit he was using goblins as his monsters for kids. After he did Lord of the Rings he had to go back and rework some things to bring the stories together. Orc and goblin in universe work as different translations of similar things. The names even in real world comes from a similar place. In the real word and in universe translation of words is everything Tolkien was about.
@@rnkelly36 Our entire understanding of modern fantasy is based on Tolkien. The elves you see in every fantasy ever made - they were invented by Tolkien. It's extremely rare for anyone to use pre-Tolkienic elves, of the notable examples the Disk World does have elves that are malicious fairies with deathly allergy to iron instead of noble humanoids. Dwarves pre Tolkien used to be what nowadays would be referred to as gnomes, although here Tolkien specifically used Scandinavian portrayal of elves as inspiration.
The distinction between orcs and goblins as we understand it now though wasn't Tolkien's idea. In Tolkien's works goblins ARE orcs. There's even a scene (that people often forget about) in Fellowship of the Ring, in which Saruman talks about his army of goblins or something along these lines, now to mention that the battle of 5 armies in the books lists wolves and orcs as two of the sides - but said orcs are literally the very same goblins that have been chasing the party since the caves.
What I am saying is - I do not know what the director was smoking when he went "oh yeah, we MUST show the goblins like the modern portrayal of goblins, because the book uses the word goblins"
@@RancorSnp What the director was thinking was they are different words so they should show as different things. Tolkien the philologist would recognize this as a human tendency to separate things as words evolve. He would also work to re-establish that in actuality the words refer to the same thing just coming from different language sources. Yep pre Tolkien elves are much different than post Tolkien. The word in different cultures across northern Europe into the UK and Ireland use to evoke various images. I just saw a discussion about this and I know he got his image from a series of poems I just forgot from whom.
People always argue that Goblin and Orcs are different and I think those people probably are thinking Dungeons and Dragons rules. Tolkien's world is that they are the same coming from different language sources. I think Orc is suppose to be coming from Noldor language of elves and goblins are suppose to be Sindar in origin. His explanation would probably be that Bilbo confused the issue while writing about the orcs in the Misty Mountains using the Hobbit language to translate each differently. Other writers and directors treat it differently depending on where they are getting their inspiration.
Honestly, I didn't think they were that bad, they don't have the same soul as the Lord of the Rings and I'm not a staunch defender of the canon of the books, but I even found them enjoyable... all that until the third... the third film is indefensible, I think.
I as a person who grew up on the hobbit book, didn't even stand the first movie. I watched the first one, left outraged and never even considered looking at the next two. Looking at the public reception, I'm not missing out on much
@@RancorSnp I think it depends a lot on expectations, three movies of a book the size of that one was not going to be faithful, but I don't think that an adaptation can be good without being equal to the book, literature does not work like cinema... but they are tastes
@RancorSnp many others watched and appreciated. Yall need to calm down- its just a book.
The biggest problem with physical books is that they dont have a CTRL+F function
THIS IS WHAT IM SAYING
In the book, Gandalf has a side adventure he doesn't talk about while the dwarves are in murkwood.
"What the f*ck is Frodo doing here?" really got me. LOL
Friday evening saved
It’s my honor to save your Friday evening
You're amazing. Glad you are not quiet; so many "reactors" just sit there like a bump on a log, without any real opinion or thought. You're different and I hope you remain that way.
“An Unexpected Cameo” 😂
"I bet you're tired of hearing me speak about things." Perfect.
So guessing this has already been said elsewhere, but this was never originally planned as a trilogy, it was originally only supposed to be two movies (which, even then, would have required a bit of padding), but... money. The studio pushed to extend it to three movies and tie it into the LotR movies as much as possible for marketing's sake. A lot of the padding was pulled from The Silmarillion, and Tolkien's unfinished works (published as Unfinished Tales) and other letters and notes, along with some entirely new elements created for the movie (...for marketing's sake). So yeah, you really need to read all of Tolkein's Middle Earth books to get the full context for what was crammed into the movies.
...All this is to say that your memory isn't that bad, there's a lot of 'new' stuff in there.
I dont think there is anything from the Silmarillion here
@@MrRenanHappy I think you're probably right, just going off old memories.
It's funny how when Lotr was being made, they fought the studios so much over the permission to make it into 3 movies and they only barely got the permission, then they get the hobbit and go like "yeah we do not care this is a 90 minute long story, make it into 3 movies"
@@MrRenanHappy For movie rights reasons alone there can't be anything from the Simlarillion in there. The same right's situation that made the "Rings of Power"-Show an ill-conceived idea from the start.
I love that she made a list of demands before watching it. That's true fandom if u ask me.
Gina swearing at technology is so endearing. I do that all the time and it reinforces the feeling that we have a lot in common. ♡
I love this first movie. I really think the hobbits biggest issue was splitting it into 3 movies. There’s still a lot to love about them
Imagine not loving the fact that Gollum is in this movie. The Hobbit was written first, and this is how the ring came to be in the possession of hobbits 😂
These films draw much more heavily on the Appendices of the 3 LOTR books. So a lot of what's in the films is going on at the time of the events of the book, we just don't know about it.
Gandalf disappearing constantly is explained much more fully in the Appendices, you're told where he goes and what he's doing.
I honestly see these movies as miracles, considering ALL the production hell they've gone trough. They had no right to turn out half as good as they did.
I need to know more about this “production hell”
I dont really care about the production hell, the end product still isnt good. Thats what matters in the end, I'm not gonna excuse the quality just because WB and the rest were terrible at handling this project.
@@geenahreacts Lindsay Ellis has a great documentary about the creation of the movies. In short - there was an insane amount of studio meddling; it was supposed to be a 2 movie series; Peter Jackson didn't really want to deal with the stress of making a new trilogy, but couldn't leave his brainchild.
@@MrRenanHappy I honestly can't look at a product without considering it's creation. For example, I'll give much more leaway to a game made by a single developer, but will be more strict with a game from a huge studio. I think it's a reasonable way of looking at things
Gloin, the father of Gimli was one good surprise I was happy for.
Azog is mentioned in The Hobbit, but is not a featured character. The White Council (the meeting with Galadriel, Elrond…) is mentioned in the LoTR books eluding to the Council kicking the Necromancer out of Dol Guldur. It’s sort of canon.
For some reason, the eagles never seem to fly anyone to where they need to go, initially. You would think the eagles could have flown over Mt. Doom for Frodo to drop the ring in on the first day of the LOTR, and here, They could have flown to the lonely mountain and saved months of walking for everyone.
I love how mad she got at the space bar not working for pause. It cracked me up. Also PLEASE don’t stop swearing. It makes the commentary so much more funny.
I love the swearing - never stop! :)
Noted!
Make your own opinions of course, but I imagine somewhere in the multiverse there is a movie called "The Hobbit" that was a single 4hr film that covered those 300 pages and respected the source material enough not to just blatantly scribble all over the margins. It's probably a fantastic film.
Yeah this was fun but that would have been better. They could have even made separate spin-off movies to do all the Gandalf / Sauron storyline if it was worth it.
You are allowed to swear when you see Galadriel and Sauruman in The Hobbit.
Azog, the pale orc, was a minor character only in passing. There’s a LOT added to the films that wasn’t in the book.
Dang, was that Stormbringer that you got to hold?
Ive seen comments talking about Azog so I won't go into that, but as far as Galadriel and Saramaun, that's part of "the white council" held in rivendell in a similar fashion as the council of the ring in the fellowship of the ring (fotw). Its not in the main book of the hobbit, but is explained in appendices and other spin off books. In the books this council took place many times over the course of over 500 years, finally closing after saramaun's betrayal in fotw. the council seen in fotw kind of acts as a surrogate and final white council meeting, although galadriel was unable to attend, likely due to rising concerns about the dol guldur place that was mentioned (the old fortress). One of the main parts of the white council is them discussing and dealing with dol guldur, and the reason why they had it in the movie is because gandalf conveniently goes missing again in the books when the dwarves are about to go into the misty mountains then pops up later in goblin town. the dissapearance earlier makes sense because he might have been scouting a way to get to rivendell which is a secret valley, but they had to give gandalf something to do in the movie, so by them referencing the white council which later sets up dol guldur, part of that which does take place later during the hobbit books, it kind of helps tie off loose ends whether or not it was intended by the author for such a meeting to be happening at that time. The main bulk of the white council and dol guldur stuff happens during the timeline of the hobbit, and then later in the lord of the rings its only brought up a little bit. Sorry for the big yap but I think that kind of covers that whole thing. Radagast kinda just gets thrown in the movie for filler though.
Stephen Fry plays the Goblin King in this segment and then he plays the Mayor of the town in the last 2 of the series. This is before Sauroman and Lord Denethor of Gondor, came into possession of the "seeing stones" that Sauron uses to drive them mad.
Lots of people complain that The Hobbit movies aren't the same level as the LOTR movies, but when I read the books, I also thought the The Hobbit book wasn't in the same level as the LOTR books. Very different flavors. People should remember that Tolkien made The Hobbit as a evening story for his children, so it's basically a children's adventure story which I think the films did capture. There are some moments that I don't like from the films, but there are also a lot of strong ones. Just from the first movie alone, the troll scene, the stone giant battle, the riddle game with Gollum, etc. I'm so glad that these films were made.
I think the main issue with the movies beyond the padding is how much they missed the mark of the tone of the book. The book is whimsy, fairy tale like at places. The Hobbit movies are far to dark and gritty. So I guess we're at opposites on the movies finding the right tone.
I don't think too many had read the books, but had seen the LOTR so it would be strange to pretend that those movies was not out there (or about something entierly different) therefore the attempt to draw the Hobbit movies towards the greater Legendarium would be logical, and also what the author himself tried to do afterwards, he aloso regretted the tone of the Hobbit.
Sorry, The Hobbit book is a different vibe because it is a children's book, as it was written to be that. The Hobbit movies vibe is to be a tie in to a company's franchise and doesn't have a real identity of its own, lying on a limbo between LotR and The Hobbit as well being corrupted by multiple unfaithful choices and becoming more of a mediocre fantasy movie.
@@F7024-f3p Tolkien didn't regret the tone of the Hobbit. He tried to tie it in with LotR more, but people at the time felt that it corrupted the initial vision, to which Tolkien himself agreed and then mainly kept the changes to the 2nd edition mostly in the Gollum chapter.
@@mormacil Missing the tone of the book is the biggest problem with the movies for sure. "I couldn't hire a powerful warrior for this party, so we will hire a burglar instead, we will travel in secret, and avoid combat as much as possible" - meanwhile the movie "so then they mowed down hundreds of orcs"
Gandalf chose bilbo for two reasons: first, because - as tolkien points out in the first two pages - hobbits can make themselves unseen if they wish (perfect for a burglar) and, second, because bilbo is half Took on his mother's side - which is why bilbo and frodo are peregrine "pippin" took's cousins. The Tooks are famously adventurous.
The extended version of the Hobbit trilogy has more exposition and in that version Gandalf explains - as per the book - why he chose bilbo in particular. Im assuming youre watching the theatrical versions. While both are flawed masterpieces the extended version, with its extra exposition of background details, is probably a bit better.
The meetings involving galadrial, elrond, saruman and gandalf are the White Council. While thats not in the Hobbit book, it is, with some minor differences, in the Middle Earth books. If you check the Hobbit book you will notice there are significant parts where Gandalf departs from Thorin's company. The movies fill in the gaps and explain what Gandalf was actually doing, although not 100% in line with the canon (especially in one very important way). Bear in mind the book is a kid's book, so the complex middle earth stuff doesnt appear there.
It can be inferred that Galadriel and Saurman are in the book. In the book Gandalf has to leave the party to help the White Council deal with the Necromancer. Tolkien doesn't name the White Council members in the Hobbit, but he does name them in the LotR trilogy. This is one of the things I feel was done well when it came to additions from the book. In the book Gandalf just says "okay I'm going to take care of a powerful mage that has the ability to raise the dead in an epic fight with two of my wizard brethren and some of the oldest and most powerful elves still living in Middle-Earth. Bye!" And we never really hear about that confrontation. Even as a kid I was like "wait I want to know about that!" And here we get not only the set up, but later on the payoff to that little nugget Tolkien just kind of dropped and half forgot about.
I haven't confirmed it myself, since I'm kinda new to Tolkien myself, but I have heard that some of the "extra" stuff they added to the movies was also in the Appendices of the LotR books, and Unfinished Tales, etc. But a big chunk of it is just added for the movies
As best I can tell, the only named orcs/goblins in The Hobbit are Bolg and The Great Goblin, while a mention is made of Golfimbul who was killed by Bullroarer Took before The Hobbit takes place. So if you don't remember any named orc characters, it's because he generally didn't use any.
Not gonna lie, I was expecting EVERY riddle to make the cut for a nine hour movie, but instead we get a bunch of nothing.
You were absolutely right: Azog was not that relevant, in the book. He actually died, at the battle for Moria.
In the book, his son - Bolg - leads the armies at the battle of the five armies.
Peter Jackson changed that part of the sorry, and made Azog a proper villain.
An antagonist for our heroic dwarfs to fight against😉
Just found this channel, first impression is i love this girls attitude lol. keep it up with the vids, they're great!
I said I'd follow to the end to the last hobbit movie, and I come back now. At the turn of the tide
They made goblins and orcs different things in this movie, but for Tolkien they were the same. In the book Gandalf leaves the party at certain times, in these movies you get to see what he was doing.
I'll always be heartbroken that we didn't get to see Guillermo del Toro's vision for these.
Riddles in the Dark was always my favourite chapter in the book, it was written so well, and Jackson didn’t balls it up in this film, so that’s good!
i love the hobbit films (especially the first one) and i honestly get fed up sometimes with fans being so hateful towards them like yeah they changed some things and dragged it out, they’re not the same as lotr, but they’re gorgeous films with a lovely atmosphere and great actors, and will always be a comfort watch for me.
plus lee pace’s thranduil could not have been played any better oh my god
I'm here for the cursing :) partially. I enjoy cursing commentary. I read this book in 5th grade and fell in love for life.
i haven't noticed this in your other videos, but i'm really happy to see the murderbot series on your shelf
Hey girl, don't worry about it. I'm a guy pushing 50, and my wrists are nothing as well. But I did lift 60 kilos once, in my younger days. But now I have issues with 10-20 kilos.
Just FYI, "wherefore art thou?" actually means "WHY are you?" The most famous use, in Romeo and Juliet, Juliet is asking WHY Romeo is named what he is, because that name makes him her enemy. This was such a fun watch, and I love that you've read the book, so you already know who should and should not be there! 😄 They did a lot of "sir-not-appearing-in-this-film," here. Even had to make up female characters, since Tolkien barely provided for a handful of them being in the forefront in ANY of the books. You will definitely also see some entirely made up events, as well as some that happened, but happened "off screen" in the book. To stretch it to 3 movies, it got kind of wild, which is why I think so many people dislike this trilogy. I'm fine with it, though; I think of it as a re-imagining on drugs.
Gina you’ve convinced me to start reading again 😂 somehow.
Excellent! This is my greatest achievement
@@geenahreacts I heard your deadpan tone in my head as I read that lol.
I'm glad this reaction was the first I've seen of yours. It made me want to subscribe and watch the rest of the series. I'm looking forward to watching your reactions to the full Tolkien/Middle Earth series in order (as the books go). It was lots of fun watching your content😂 Thank you.
Peter Jackson added some content that wasn't in the books as well as some content that was from Tolkien's legendarium as fillers.
They were Goblins. They make Sting glow blue also. Even though I think in the books, Orcs and Goblins are the same thing. But in the films they are separate things.
Azog comes up late in the book and here he is made the antagonist
13:25 Daughters of Shelob from memory.
Funny story, I actually have a Sting letter opener I got when they promoted the Hobbit.🤣
Look for the video of Martin Freeman flipping off the camera behind the scenes of The Hobbit
They are far from perfect, and definitely shouldn’t be three films (tried to squeeze in stuff from ‘The Silmarillion), but there are some real gems in these films. I do love the performances of the dwarves, Gandalf, Bilbo, and really everyone who came to work lol. The first hour of the first film I really like (similar to book), and then they deviate too much for my liking. The second of these movies is my personal favorite because it’s actually closest to the book, in my opinion, also the dragon is excellent. Then the third is the worst. My two cents.
When you hand someone a blade, you hand it to them point down.
Every single person in this particular situation was handed these giant props right side up to help them prop it on their shoulder for a photo though
Goblins and orcs are the same creature.
Saruma is not in The Hobbit they just added that scene to show a future connection to L.O.T.R. Azog isn't in the book as a named character but the dwarves do get chased into some trees by Wargs, goblins, and orcs but are saved by the eagles.
your joy over seeing smaug destroy the town in the beginning was a little worrisome, but apart from that - great video!
[edit] 13:11 - please, o please add 'arachnophobia' to your list of reactions
I've never understood why it matters so much for a movie adaptation to exactly match the book word for word. "It can't be like this because I read the book" has always seemed like such a copout. Even people who have read the same book will imagine the same things differently.
so much of tolkien's writing about being a writer might super resonate with you. his short story Leaf By Niggle might resonate the most.
Oh nice I’ve been curious to see your reaction to this
I remember seeing the 2nd film in theatre with my now husband. He was asleep for more than an hour while I was screaming of disapprobation watching some non-sense 😂
What a ride, good luck with the two last movies lmfao
The Rankin-Bass The Hobbit is a condensed version of the story.
Galadriel and Saruman showing up referenced stuff from the Appendices in the Lord of the Rings I believe. They were a part of what they called the “White Council,” which also included Gandalf and Elrond. They basically kept a watch over Middle Earth, and Saruman was the leader. They’re important in events leading up to the Lord of the Rings.
Yep - for some extra info Galadriel wanted Gandalf to lead the White Council because of his wisdom, humility, and alignment in opposing Sauron. Gandalf was a servant of Manwe, king of the Valar and creator of the great eagles. From before the awaking of the Children of Eru (Elves and Men) Manwe opposed Morgoth (Melkor), the dark Valar whom Sauron later served. Saruman and Sauron were both originally Maiar of Aule, but each fell into darkness - Sauron by directly serving Morgoth, and Saruman through his later pride and desire for power. Galadriel distrusted Saruman for his arrogance and ambition, traits that mirrored Sauron’s fall. However, Gandalf declined leadership because his task was to inspire and unite the peoples of middle earth, not to lead them as he understood the corrupting nature of power.
The use of other characters like Galadriel and Saruman are because they also used a lot from the appendices at the end of The Return of the King book.
love your love for books \m/
I genuinely never tire of your delightful don't give an f. dissertations, fetchingly wavey haired Daria. Your styling is damn good in today's video. 👍
Ima save you some time flipping through the book, they added a lot 😂😂😂 trust your memory! I really like these movies. They were never going to be LOTR level but I love being back in the world. I think this first movie is my favourite. I also think it’s underrated how much went into adapting the book into this trilogy and having certain moments and characters be more impactful. I’m sure a good single movie could be made taking the book exactly as is but…it makes sense if we’re in the same universe as the LOTR movies to take advantage of that.
21:32
... that's what she said?
I was not completely impressed with the films as they released (with waiting a year between them and all that). BUT I got the extended versions on DVD and watched them again over a week's time last summer and have truly come to be "very fond" of them. Yes, a lot of additional stuff was added to pad out the run time making it into another trilogy, but I enjoyed it, and it helps the two trilogies be more cohesive as a "Middle Earth Saga". I also loved the fact that we got 9 hours MORE of Howard Shore's wonderful score. The callbacks to (OR foreshadowing of) the LOTR leitmotifs was so much fun to hear, and the new Dwarven themes as well as 'Dwagon Music' was just superb. I'm glad you are enjoying this and it's time for "whiners and complainers" to get to the back of the bus again and pipe down for a while.
As someone who saw the movies before reading the book, I thought they were fantastic, it’s really more that they’re not a very faithful adaptation of the book because of how much was added to the story. I understand why people that grew up with the book first are critical, but I still feel like they get so much more hate than they deserve.
You are correct, Azog was mentioned in the book but wasn't that relevant to the story as they made him in the films. My guess is because the way they planned it, they needed a villain and a threat for the 1st film, otherwise it would look like random sidequests
I enjoy these films for what they are. We can all agree it didn't need three films, we can agree the production quality wasn't the same, and we can agree that there is a lot more action than what anyone expected. At the end of it though, these are the movies we got, I personally like that they are tied into the LotR more than the book, and letting go of being so critical makes them a fun time.
But some people really enjoy hating on film adaptations and if that's your stick, have at it. I'm not a vibe killer. Still, no one has the right to dictate what others enjoy - so Gina, hate or enjoy them at your leisure!
There's lvls to this. I can understand someone enjoying this trilogy however for example the rings of power is horrible and feels nothing like middle earth for example.
"I need to try to swear less, no promises" I like you just the way you are =), or whatever way you want to be. Here either way!
Great reaction. Love your British level sarcastic humour. I'm looking forward to The Desolation of Smaug reaction.
I highly recommend reading the Silmarillion.
❤ from Lancashire 🌹 UK 🇬🇧
I enjoyed the first Hobbit movie a lot, when it came out.
As Part 1s go, it held my attention and was fun.
Part 2 is where I started slipping away
I agree. In "Unexpected Journey" they added some needless filler (e.g. Radagast was unnecessary and kind of irritating to be honest), but at least they didn't trim down or cut out major scenes from the book just to fit in the stuff that wasn't. I think they did justice to my favorite scenes from that part of the book - the unexpected party, the trolls, and the riddle game; and I would even go so far as to say I like the movie version of the scene with the orcs and the flaming trees better than the scene from the book.
On the other hand, what they did to the second movie can be summed up by one word: "betrayal." Runners-up are "travesty" and "unforgivable."
I didn't mind the third movie so much, but that's mainly because when I watched it I was still in such a state of shock over how they treated the second one that I was just too numb to care anymore.
To be fair, Tolkien usually wrote action scenes in a sentence or two, whereas they get a lot more screentime in movies.
The Hobbit are IMHO great movies. Not masterpieces like the LOTR trilogy, but great nonetheless. But we all expected masterpieces
I grew up on MST3K so I enjoy a really smart reaction,. I think you would enjoy Ranking of Kings anime, because it is a complete story, in a fantasy world about a little deaf prince and a kingdom of spite and subversion. Everything pays off, as opposed to stories like 'Lost' or 'Game of Thrones' or a little later where everybody loves it for some reason, and then are pissed off about the ending not having a hell of a lot to do with the story. I never got past the first five episodes of either as they aired, and then everyone was all upset about their endings and I was, to myself, like 'did you watch the first five episodes? There was no plan' It would be a similar form of reaction, but it's not new water to tread if copyright got you down.
They stretched the story by adding a lot of fillers and new characters from start to end. Even though it feels like "this is not how the Hobbit book goes", those extras never felt like a bad implementation of the Middle Earth in general (for me personally). A good deal of those extras were inspired by other middle earth literature other than the Hobbit book. And fully new story parts and new made up characters didn't feel like they are out of context, they are still in Middle Earth-ly vibe and fits the timeline. At least that's for me personally. A fan of the Hobbit book might not like these too many fillers, but as a Middle Earth fan in a bigger scope, it's nice to see more spices came from the lore and came from some original ideas.
Azog wasnt a thing in the Hobbit book, they just chose to bring him in to give Thorin a personal antagonist within the trilogy. Since Smaug isnt the final conflict of the book and he's delt with by someone else
My friends all wanted Narsil, but I wanted Glamdring.
There are some good Deep Bass covers of the Dwarves songs out there. Worth a listen for sure.
I really enjoy this movie! I love the Riddles in the Dark scene. The movies get weaker from here IMO but Martin Freeman remains the best Bilbo we could have asked for.
19:08 You do know Saruman is called SaRRRuman, right?
A lot of the extra stuff comes from LotR book appedices, The Silmarillion (highly recommend reading), and other unpublished tidbits. As someone who read most of that before any movies I thought the additions were masterfully done and I loved seeing it. Nevertheless, yah the Hobbit movies quality drop a notch compared to the trilogy but they are very fun.
Awe and a cameo from lynmoor😊
Azog the Defiler and Bolg are in the book, but like other characters are portrayed quite differently in the movie.
girl as you loved far over the misty mountains cold, i think you'd love the songs clamavi de profundis has made based on lotr and the hobbit:D they're gorgeous, would love seeing you react to them or if you don't want to react, at least go and check them out:)
All three movies have extended versions.
It's the MOVIE girl, not the BOOK.....😄....And they make three movies out of that single book so there'd be a lot of thing not present there.