The hobbit contradictions...
 

Was bored last night and sat in me bed watching some hobbit. Anyway it suddenly occured to me how unrealistic this movie is even for a fantasy movie. They are 13 dwarves and managed to escape goblin town while being surrounded and hunted by what seems at least to be one hundred goblins. Yet when they are earlier in the movie hunted by like 15 orcs on wargs they all run away. Also for this thread I looked up how many Uruk hai's Gimli, that is one dwarf, killed at helm's deep. It seems that he managed to kill 42 uruk hai, the uruks are far stronger than orcs.

Was gimli more battle hardened than Thorin and Co? Or did jackson force the dwarves to run all throughout the movie to make it more hobbitish? Personally I think that he ought to have either gone full out children tale or tried to make it 100% serious. With contradictions like this within the movie and with characters like the goblin king and Radagast I find the movie to lack in seriousness for me to take it seriously as a movie. But then again, I'm sure Jackson is going to transition into more "realism" in the later movies, or at least one hopes so. So what do you think, will the movies become more serious when characters like Beorn and Thranduil enter the movie and what about Gimli, greatest dwarf warrior ever?

Well I don't recall that many goblins killed in the Hobbit chase out of the MM.

I guess you could say it was done for visual entertainment. I found it appropriate. But then, Toklein no doubt had the minor audience in kind at all times. EG; the narrator continues right up to the Battle of Five Armies part in the book.

PJ knew there'd be a mix of minors and adults, so logicaly mixed appeal for both kinds of audiences. Children that watch these finds of films aren't dumb or mentally vulnerable, so one can't make an anti-exposure argument.

Gimli was part of an army at Helm's deep, not a party of 15: I don't think he took on all those orcs at once. But yeah, it is unrealistic. PJ should have just stuck with the book version of the escape from Goblin town, which makes sense and which also would have saved him the silliness of Bilbo watching the dwarves run by and doing nothing because, apparently, he didn't think they could handle Gollum. :rolleyes:

As for PJ getting more serious in the future, I wouldn't hold my breath.

I think the way it doesn't make sense is one of those textbook instances in which their embellishments combine with their efforts to follow the source material to produce something which makes no sense. In the novel they're mostly unarmed and have to run, with only Thorin and Gandalf occasionally turning at bay to cut down their enemies. Yet when we have characters like Dwalin and Glóin rocking up with about fifteen axes, swords and, ugh! hammers (this isn't some Tolkien knock-off, this is the real deal, why are the Dwarves fighting with hammers raaaar!) apiece stowed in endless lengths of leather straps and bandoliers out of a modern Hollywood Fantasy nightmare it becomes very hard to believe why they're always running all over the place. The Dwarves are made to look rather foolishly ill-prepared on several occasions in the novel and it doesn't really sit very easily with the more "serious" (ie more violent) depiction many of them are given in the film.
Quite so! One of the many reasons I thought that made-up hunt on the way to Rivendell was an unwise addition. So often PJ, Boyens and Walsh make stuff up which sits uneasily with source material elements which they then also include.
Given that many of the members of Thorin and Co. had fought in the War of the Dwarves and Orcs I'd argue that they were more battle-hardened than Gimli but given that so few of them have weapons for the majority of The Hobbit (in the original text at least) it seems to me that it's a bit hard to say.

In the novel, the dwarves are losers and Bilbo has to do everything for them. Peter Jackson wants to portray them as heroes ("We are warriors! All of us!") who won the Battle of Azanulbizar.

I somehow doubt we'll see a transition towards the more serious in the later films. Beorn will probably be a killing machine, but Thranduil (the Dwarf Racist Party King) is already a huge joke on the interwebs.

As for Gimli, I would initially and without any references say that he's more of a fighter than Thorin's Company. At least in LOTR he's portrayed more like one (heavily armed, openly wearing armour) than any of the Hobbit dwarves. Also when you think of the little encounter with the trolls, Bifur, Bombur and Thorin were the only dwarves to put up a fight.

In the film, everything is extremely unrealistic though. As somebody pointed out in the review thread, after everything that happens in the Goblin Town, you don't really believe Thorin could be hurt so bad so easily.

Oh and speaking of the Uruk-hai, I'm seeing similarities between them and Azog's bunch. Azog seems to me even more built up and vicious than the Uruk-hai, who are supposed to be orcs in perfection.

I guess this just proves what we pretty much knew after the LOTR films - PJ & co twist the plot to serve their purposes even if their changes are irrational.

Well check these images:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QDGL1PlE2v...0/_DSC3122.JPG
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I9mUo-AXvI...0/DSCN3260.JPG
Bolg is a giant much like Azog, now let's look at lurtz.
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2...r20middjf4.jpg
It seems to me that Azog was near Uruk Hai size, maybe a tiny bit bigger but not much. Which means that Gimli killed 42 Uruk hais while a party of 13 and a wizard and a stealthy hobbit couldn't deal with a wolf pack of what...15 orcs? Yeah I think also that if Jackson wanted the dwarves to be running throughout the movie, he should have equipped them poorly. Then maybe armed them when they got to dale...but as it is now, 13 warriors and a wizard is running from 13 orcs. Gimli a less battle hardened dwarf killed 42 Azog sized uruks at the battle of helm's deep.

The movie doesn't make much sense, they spent ages making it yet I have seen more thought through movies made by people in less than a year. Something went horribly wrong when they made this movie, I wonder who is to blame if not all of them. In the lord of the rings trilogy one could nitpick a few things that was done badly. But they aren't wholly bad movies, the hobbit part one deserves to be REMADE as it stands now. It's horrible, truly horrible. It's kind of pathetic to be crying about it like this, but it's kind of annoying. Anyone on this forum would be able to do it better I'm sure...

I don't see the contradiction the ran from a few orcs and wargs and ran from a Bunch of goblins...

When you think of blockbusters, it's not like many of them had a coherent and realistic plot anyway. There are certain things that are supposed to happen in the movie, and the characters and the realism value have to bend in order to carry out the plot with all its holes. When you go to movies, it sometimes feels as if everybody was telling the same story, only with different faces and details.

The problem with doing The Hobbit after LOTR is that even though it's technically a prologue, everything should be bigger and more important so as to attract audiences (PJ seems to think) even though killing Smaug is nothing compared to Sauron. Thus we have huge orcs half a century before Saruman bred the Uruk-hai and so forth.

About the 15 or so orcs/wargs... in the dwarves' defense, they were in the open, and the wargs are fast and strong and would probably have done more damage than the orcs themselves. The elves (who were also quite few) had horses and bows which made the situation a bit more even... but my inner khazad still disapproves of them stealing the thunder. And Gimli killed 42 Uruk-hai in a melee that lasted an entire night and was in a place that he was defending against attackers, which gave him more room for maneuvering. These are just possible explanations for why the dwarves ran - but I still agree it's ridiculous they were so okay with, and good at, fighting in the Goblin Town then!

Well I would certainly make as good a Fili as Dean O'Gorman! ;) I seriously consider working out in order to get more muscles and be therefore a more believable dwarf!

Ahhh- but the question then is-

why did the Dwarves run away from the fight between Rocktimus Prime and Granitron? :smokin:

Because they were stoned?

Twice now, when I randomly turned on HBO I was treated to the 'Escape from Goblintown' scene from AUJ (starting around the 14 hour timestamp). I saw this as a portend, calling out to me, asking that I view and make commentary. So here we go:

• When Gandalf reappears when things look darkest for the dwarves, he uses some spell or other to flatten both friend and foe. Is he limited to using this spell only once an Age, as to me it might have come in handy in his later years in Moria, in Gondor, at the Black Gate...
• During the second viewing, I tried to determine the number of goblins killed by Gandalf and the Dwarves. I assumed that any goblin hit with a weapon or pushed from a ledge was killed. Eventually I gave up counting. These dwarves and wizard are a killing juggernaut. If only Elrond had sent a few dwarves to Helm's Deep...
• While the Company slaughters their way to the exit, I couldn't help but notice that the dwarves seem to use more swords than I'd think this race was known for. Where are all of the axes?
• Why, towards the end, when the large goblin force descends on them, are they suddenly concerned? Couldn't a few simply hold a narrow passage while the others escape, and then Gandalf bring the ceiling down?
• Where is this ferocity once they leave the caves and are confronted by Azog? Maybe they gave all leaving Goblintown, and so have nothing left.

Another thing that bothers me, and I mention is here as it's within this part of the movie. Bilbo, in the movie, basically steals the Ring. In the books, from memory, he stumbles upon it as Gollum has dropped it long ago and obviously didn't care enough to find it until it was needed.

Anyway, so how can I feel good about Bilbo and bad about Gollum when the former truly stole from the later?

That's something that puzzled me from the book as well. Thorin's use of Orcrist seems impractical.

We are told in FOTR that Hobbits generally were between 3 and 4 feet tall, and "not much shorter" than Dwarves. Bilbo was able to use the dagger Sting as a short sword. How could Thorin effectively use a full size sword? I'm quite a bit taller than a Dwarf (though hardly Thingol-sized), and a longsword would be a bit cumbersome for me. Also, Orcrist was made for the Noldor in Gondolin, who were pretty tall. Was Thorin trying to compensate for something? ;)

Elvish blades might have the 'magical' - though I know Elves don't do magic - ability to size themselves to the beholder.

Yes, I believe I saw that on an "as seen on TV" paid infomercial. For 29.99(USD) you get not one but two shrink-to-fit Elvish blades. Order now and you will also receive a magic ring that erases the rank order of dwarvish flatulence. Great for narrow corridors under mountains!

As for Gimli killing 42 orcs at Helm's Deep, I don't think it is unrealistic.

He is standing on top of a wall and the orcs are coming up on ladders having trouble defending themselves (ony one arm to parry UPWARDS, and he has to worry about balance as well). Gimli just has to bonk them on the head basically, easy-peasy.

I read a book on the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1492, and the numbers seemed to fit. They reported that a wall manned with 50 men could keep 1000 invaders at bay and such,

Too bad that dead eye assassins Legolas and/or Tauriel weren't at Helm's Deep when Saruman's forces attacked...as surely with at least one of them present, no torchbearing orc could have reached the culvert. :(

And in Hobbit 2: DoS, why didn't Legolas put an arrow into Bolg's head upon site? Why did the blonde one feel the need to go sword-to-sword with this larger than normal orc?