Yes but there is a big difference between a long book made into one movie, and a short book made into three movies. If they made the The Fellowship of the Ring movie's length proportional to the length of the Hobbit trilogy, you would have a 12 hour movie. Does that sound appealing to you?
Actually, yeah but i am not representative for this since i really love LOTR, both the books and the movies
I'll be seeing the movie tonight.
One thing I'll mention about my first experience with FOTR - I didn't know what to think the first time. I didn't really like it until the second time. This was fairly common among the Tolkien fans….it became widely known as "second viewing syndrome" because it was so common. Most likely because there were so many expectations that people had that weren't met but once the expectations were dropped we could just enjoy it for what it was.
Saw it a few days ago. It was great. HFR was great. Acting was great. Pacing was fine in my opinion. Radegast was fine in my opinion. Goblin King and Azog looked a little silly but hey what did you expect, it's a children's story.
I cannot wait for the second and third part. The bad reviews are extremely unjustified.
Saw it. Loved it. Had a lot of fun. the entire sequence with Gollum was fantastic, I enjoyed all the action, and it was nice just settling in with the characters again.
I can see where the complaints come from, and I agree with them somewhat, but my enjoyment wasn't hampered.[hide]The opening IS a little slow, and a couple of the monsters a little silly (like the trolls arguing) but…. that's how it was in the book! The dinner parter was always the slog of the book, and the trolls DID argue like idiots. But I didn't really have a problem with any of it. Especially in the context of it eventually being a 9 hour mini-series thing. The things that are bothersome now should be fine once the other two movies are out, and it'll sit well as background listening in the future.
Action scenes were all good and fun.
I actually really like all the new material, because... it makes the story an actual surprise rather than one I know inside and out. Radagast was a little off, but I'm sure he'll be in the next ones in some capacity and so it'll make more sense setting him up now, hopefully a little more serious. Hope he cleans off that bird poo though.
I did not see it at 48 fps, because that's only on the 3-D showings and... I can't do those. So. No opinion there.
I didn't like
-troll snot. I know PJ likes his gross humor here and there, but that was uneeded.
-Main orc enemy guy and his wolf was too obviously CGI, especially next to his in-makeup ad real armor minions. Maybe they'll look better next time.
-Scrotum chin goblin king. He was likeable and fun to watch, but that chin was really bad.
So, almost entirely visual issues.
[/hide]
Otherwise… it was the sensibility of the kids book hobbit fit a little more to Jackson's LOTR films, which is... pretty much what I wanted out of it. I'll probably see it again, and will definatley buy the EXTENDED edition dvd in a year.
Also. Thorin is awesome. I will never forget how he got his nickname now.
i just figured rad and the necromancer were gonna be put in as part of the simarillion junk that's rumored to be included (cuz i haven't read the simarillion)
None of it is from Silmarillion. that's all ancient history, and a different set of books to license that the current estate won't ever let out. It's all LotR appendices.
@RobbyBevard:
I actually really like all the new material, because… it makes the story an actual surprise rather than one I know inside and out.
I heard watching a clip today that most of the new material that isn't in The Hobbit, is from some other book Tolkein wrote. I think this book 
I also haven't read that book or anything but the bare bones Hobbit and Lord of the rings. By bare bones I mean I didn't read appendixes or anything like that. Not that they were abriged.
@RobbyBevard:
I didn't like
-that there were subtitles. The original trilogy always let the other languages run raw, or had them speak in english. Thats just a consistency thing.
just watched the three again this week and they had subtitles at most of the times things where in Elvin. I know that for a fact, not sure how many others, but there was subtitles in the other three.
I Like what I hear that it seems to tend to slowly build up the Lord of the Rings, while doing this Smaug adventure. I don't mind that this Hobbit's story kind of seems minor, because the huge thing IS the Lord of the Rings. I feel that was a problem Star Wars had with its prequals. They tried to hard to top the originals and not to build up to the originals.
I'm really excited for movie 3 of the hobbit. I hear that the Smaug and basically the hobbit book is completed in book 2, so really curious on what book 3 will involve.
But I'll be so happy once I get the hobbits version of this 
As I said just recently watched those 3 movies this week. And wow they are long movies, but soo good. It's so amazing just watching some of the characters grow, like Merry and Pippin. I mean the way you first meet them and then their the first ones to run at the end towards guaranteed death. And since this is like a 13 hour affair you actual believe their growth and not like the cliche "someone gives a good speech with music playing in background and everyone all of sudden is the most honorable curageous man alive" While I can't fault these 1 1/2 - 2 hour long movies that have to resort to that, its just refreshing having something be so long that it is believable by being not so instant.
I'm excited to see how Bilbo slowly grows in these movies. Going to IMAX theater tomorrow to see this movie. It's not a 48 fps version I don't believe.
I'm really excited to see what kinds of things the Hobbit elaborates on. Like if we get to see how Golum got captured and tortured to say where the Ring is. Maybe see the Ringwraiths start their scouring for the Ring. See how the Palantia got to who has them and who all has one. See what Aragorn has or was doing during this time. Mines of Moria fall maybe. Ect. I'm not sure when all events happened, but anything that can be further expanded on is like pure awesome fan-service that just makes the Lord of the Rings movies even better.
just watched the three again this week and they had subtitles at most of the times things where in Elvin. I know that for a fact, not sure how many others, but there was subtitles in the other three.
Yeah, thinking back on it now I recall now when Aragorn and Legolas were arguing about people going to die in the outnumbered fight, that was definitely subtitled. And probably some of the stuff with Arwen as well. But I remember far more vividly the bunch of times they had lines in elvish or dark speech that flat out weren't… but then, those were usually one liners with context rather than dialogues.
I listen to the movies while I work more often than I actually watch them, so my thinking this is not a surprise.
Well, strike off one problem I had with the movie then!
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
I'm really excited for movie 3 of the hobbit. I hear that the Smaug and basically the hobbit book is completed in book 2, so really curious on what book 3 will involve.
That was the vauge plan years ago when they were going to do two movies and then a bridge movie. (Or A movie and then a bridge movie…) then they settled on two movies... and ended up with a ton of footage and made it 3 instead. Its not going to be quite like that now.
2 is mostly going to be Smaug, (plus the spiders and wood elves and barrell riding and Beorn) and 3 will be the battle of five armies and the journey back (in the book they took on those rock giants at the end!) And the taking on of the necromancer at Dal Goldur will be in there somewhere... probably climaxing in the third. And Thorin's orc rival guy.
See what Aragorn has or was doing during this time. Mines of Moria fall maybe. Ect. I'm not sure when all events happened, but anything that can be further expanded on is like pure awesome fan-service that just makes the Lord of the Rings movies even better.
Aragorn was in diapers during the hobbit.
I loved the original LOTR so much
I was in love with Elijah wood
when the third movie ended it felt like there would be no good movies ever again for me
The unfinished tales only contains some stuff about how gandalf came to the decision to involve bilbo and some talks with thorin about it. It's about five pages so it's definitely not only from that where the additional stuff comes from.
Most of the stuff seems to come from the appendices of the lotr books themselves it seems.
Once enough Tolkien fans have seen, and re-seen the movie, I think I'd like to see a break down of just how much in this first one was Hobbit and how much was Appendices and how much was original to the movie. I read the book, but I haven't really read any of the supplemental stuff, so I'm kinda stumped as to what of that was Appendices stuff and what was movie original.
Also wait, explain to me
! they said the Witch King was dead in this? That's the ghost that attacked Radagast? How can he be dead if we see him die in RotK?
Switch Friend Code: SW-1795-2519-1884 • Click Here to check out my Twitch Channel
@RobbyBevard:
Aragorn was in diapers during the hobbit.
How many years ago is The Hobbit from Lord of the Rings? Cause I know Aragorn is quite old in the main books.
Quick google search shows he is about 10 years old when they were in Rivendale. Would have been neat to see a cameo of a 10 year old boy or something like that.
These new hobbit movies are going to end up costing me big money. Had never gotten around to buying Anduril replica and rewatching and these movies going to make me finally succumb to it. Then I can see me getting Sting for its just mass influence in all the whole story, along with the ring. Planning on getting a nice Map of middle earth framed. Then also not LOTR movie prop, but still haven't gotten around to buying a wooden long bow yet. Those things are expensive like 400 dollars. ugh.
Wonder how Anduril will look next to long claw. That is my coolest sword i have imo.
How many years ago is The Hobbit from Lord of the Rings? Cause I know Aragorn is quite old in the main books.
Quick google search shows he is about 10 years old when they were in Rivendale. Would have been neat to see a cameo of a 10 year old boy or something like that.
60 Years passes between Hobbit and Fellowship.
I know this because the movie starts 10 minutes before the beginning of Fellowship (With Old Bilbo telling Frodo the story and writing in his book while they wait for Gandalf) and then when it goes back to Young Bilbo, it says "60 years earlier".
So… holy crap, Aragorn was 70 in LotR... damn... he looks great for an older fellah.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1795-2519-1884 • Click Here to check out my Twitch Channel
60 Years passes between Hobbit and Fellowship.
I know this because the movie starts 10 minutes before the beginning of Fellowship (With Old Bilbo telling Frodo the story and writing in his book while they wait for Gandalf) and then when it goes back to Young Bilbo, it says "60 years earlier".So… holy crap, Aragorn was 70 in LotR... damn... he looks great for an older fellah.
In the LoTR he tells Eowin that he is like 80 something. Pretty sure. I recall that from the Two Towers when i watched that this week.
Edit: on wiki it says he is 87 in fellowship.
He is some Dumadah race or whatever. Basically it seems like what one would say a half-elf in other fantasy due to the long lived nature.
Out of Curiosity how would one know where to see the 48fps version because my local movie theater website just list the movies in 3D and regular. I called them up and they had no idea what i was talking about. Now I'm not sure I should just chance it or not and hope it's the right one.
Out of Curiosity how would one know where to see the 48fps version because my local movie theater website just list the movies in 3D and regular. I called them up and they had no idea what i was talking about. Now I'm not sure I should just chance it or not and hope it's the right one.
There is not that many 48 fps theaters out there. If you don't want to see it in that format i would not worry.
Here is a list of the ones that are in 48 fps
http://www.48fpsmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list/
For example, Minnesota has only 5 TOTAL theaters that have in 48 fps. Also note that 48 fps is only available in 3D. So if your not going to 3D version then no worry.
Eh, I wasn't the least bit bothered by the pacing; on the other hand, the sequences shown here were some of my favorites from the book anyway. I've always loved the sequence where the dwarves are introduced and was really happy that they actually worked the "Crack the plates" song in the way they did.
I really enjoyed Martin Freeman as Bilbo; his expressions alone make his take a lot of fun to watch.
If there's one thing I wasn't all that thrilled by, it's like taboo said about the goblins. Their CGI work really doesn't quite work as well as the more simple makeup effects did during the Lord of the Rings.
Once enough Tolkien fans have seen, and re-seen the movie, I think I'd like to see a break down of just how much in this first one was Hobbit and how much was Appendices and how much was original to the movie.
Most of it was in The Hobbit in some form or another.
Off-hand, here's what I remember being original:
! -Any sequence that involved with Radagast; he was only mentioned as in the Hobbit during Gandalf's conversation with Beorn and a side reference in the Lord of the Rings.
-The Battle Outside The Gates of Moria - Thror was murdered by Azog after he and a friend went to visit the Mine. The actual battle was much later after an extended war where the dwarves drove the goblins out of most of the south and was won when the Iron Hills Dwarves showed up. They refused to help reclaim Moria after the battle though.
-Azog's presence in the film - He was killed by Dain, leader of the Iron Hills Dwarves at the battle mentioned earlier. His son Bolg had replaced him as leader of the goblins of the Misty Mountains.
-The Council of the Wise in Rivendell- Mentioned only in The Hobbit (as a "Oh, yeah, we took care of that little Necromancer problem" aside) and the Appendix; they concluded that the Necromancer was likely a Ringwraith.
! they said the Witch King was dead in this? That's the ghost that attacked Radagast? How can he be dead if we see him die in RotK?
! The Witch-King and Nazgul in general couldn't be permanently killed so long as The Ring existed; you could destroy the current forms, but they'd come back eventually.
! the ghost that attacked Rad (the necromancer) is an early form of Sauron i believe
! The actual attacker being the Witch-King or another of the Nazgul seems more likely; Sauron lost his original body during the destruction of Numenor.
! How much, if any, did they take out of the Silmarillion for The Hobbit?
Nice, I thought the theatres near me would have the 48 fps version available. I noticed they sometimes had D next to a movie for the digital version and figured that would let them do that.
If any material was taken from the Silmarillion for this film, it'll probably be in the next film.
Pretty much everything in this was taken from The Hobbit, the Appendix after Return of the King, or was entirely original and based on the two sources listed.
In the LoTR he tells Eowin that he is like 80 something. Pretty sure. I recall that from the Two Towers when i watched that this week.
Edit: on wiki it says he is 87 in fellowship.
He is some Dumadah race or whatever. Basically it seems like what one would say a half-elf in other fantasy due to the long lived nature.
I think that Aragorn was born in 2931 whereas Bilbo was born in 2890. The story line of the Hobbit starts in 2941, so yeah, Aragorn should be 10 years old at that point.
Gonna be lazy and just repost what I typed for something else :D
I saw it tonight, really enjoyed it and I have to say the overall low critic rating is largely unjustified. I will say that I understand it to a degree; For one thing, we're comparing this to LOTR. If you're not a into the books, the only way you can think of this is as a successor to LOTR, and The Hobbit simply doesn't have the same epic depth that LOTR does. It's an adventure - and while PJ definitely adds stuff to link its significance to future events, it doesn't change that it's more light-hearted and whimsical story. There's a lot of cartoony zaniness to it as well - kind of reminds me a bit of some 80's movies with Jim Henson's Creature Shop but with CGI instead. The one thing that does bother me a bit is that I can feel the stretching….I was hoping I wouldn't. However I disagree with people that seem to think they spent too much time in the Shire. I thought all of that stuff was brilliant and executed perfectly. It's the stuff with Radagast that had me rolling my eyes a bit....
I think the next installments will have a more serious of a tone and will probably be a bit better received by the critics. There was so much exposition and setting up in this movie. Personally I enjoy that; I love Middle-Earth and I love every minute that I get to spend with these characters so movie length has never been an issue for me.
Worst part of the movie? the annoying teenage girls behind us that kept giggling and chattering away the whole time. About 2/3 through I finally turned around and glared and them.
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. - Frank Zappa
Worst part of the movie? the annoying teenage girls behind us that kept giggling and chattering away the whole time. About 2/3 through I finally turned around and glared and them.
Here is how you deal with that
I' honestly glad everyone seems to be enjoying it more than I did. Maybe it'll get better with another watch.
Though, fun, weird fact: I loathed the LotR books. They were a chore tog et through. I read the Hobbit in 5th Grade and loved it.
I have no idea if this has any baring on my view of the movie. Its just weird.
I don't know if I will make it to the theatres in the next weeks, but The Hobbit sounds like my kind of The Hobbit movie. Except for Radaghast.
And about the additional material. Actually there isn't a whole lot of it:
Out of all these books, Silmarillion has barely a few paragraphs of Gandalf going "This Necromancer dude is totes Sauron and we like should kick his ass out" to Saruman's brilliant rebuttals of "Lol nope". The Quest of Erebor talks in detail about Gandalf staging operation "Bilbo", of which Durin's Folk includes only an abridged version, but adds a lot to the dwarf history. And Appendix B contains the whole chronology of Second and Third ages.
@Cyan:
How much, if any, did they take out of the Silmarillion for The Hobbit?
None. Silmarillion are completely different film rights, they can't take anything from it. (And the book mostly covers ancient histories rather than anything pertinent to that time period.) It's all LotR appendices and notes.
They're sort of cheating a little bit since Tolkien specifically mentioned some Hobbit stuff all over the place.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Nex:
I' honestly glad everyone seems to be enjoying it more than I did. Maybe it'll get better with another watch.
Though, fun, weird fact: I loathed the LotR books. They were a chore tog et through. I read the Hobbit in 5th Grade and loved it. \
Hobbit is a kids book. LotR is a college discourse on the history of a fictional world. Its a MUCH harder set of books to read.
Bilbo Baggins was badass in this installment, especially when he had the One Ring on like he was the Witch King. Loved this movie so much! 
Also. My theatre played this at the start of the movie.
@Cyan:
! How much, if any, did they take out of the Silmarillion for The Hobbit?
Haven't seen yet, but felt shoul note that the Silmarillion is like 90% material in the ages before this age. Not sure how long an age is, but prolly 1000 years.
There is barely any stuff in the silmarilion related to the age The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings takes place in.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Nex:
I' honestly glad everyone seems to be enjoying it more than I did. Maybe it'll get better with another watch.
Though, fun, weird fact: I loathed the LotR books. They were a chore tog et through. I read the Hobbit in 5th Grade and loved it.
I have no idea if this has any baring on my view of the movie. Its just weird.
Lord of the Rings are a chore. Hobbit is fun. As another reviewer I saw said The Hobbit was meant to be a bedtime childrens story.
But I have a pretty good collection of fantasy books. I have read most of them 2+ times. Lord of the Rings only once. It is a tough read, and especially so when there is such great adaptations. While not perfect, they easily fill any Lord of the Rings fix I would get to read th ebooks again.
It is true that it is kind of hard to get into LOTR but once you are in it will not let you leave it, at least that´s how i felt. None of the books i have read so far made me engross myself that much in a fictitious world, in my opinion, nobody so far could surpass Tolkien in terms of creating a world for itself.
Watched it yesterday. Liked it. And that's pretty much all I can say since I haven't read the books and can't judge how good the scenes were adapted. What I can tell is that the music and visuals were as great as those of LotR (at least in my eyes).
Yeah, just think for a moment what happens just in FOTR. You've got the epic Balrog battle which ends with Gandalf going over the edge with it - we know he survives if you read the book, but it's still a sad moment of self-sacrifice. The Boromir betraying Frodo and then dying to try to save the other Hobbits, the moment where Frodo decides he needs to go alone and Sam's determination to go with him…if you're like me you're teary eyed every time. There aren't any moments like that in The Unexpected Journey.
(is it ok for me to say this, I assume everyone in this thread has either read or seen FOTR?)
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. - Frank Zappa
Yeah, just think for a moment what happens just in FOTR. You've got the epic Balrog battle which ends with Gandalf going over the edge with it - we know he survives if you read the book, but it's still a sad moment of self-sacrifice. The Boromir betraying Frodo and then dying to try to save the other Hobbits, the moment where Frodo decides he needs to go alone and Sam's determination to go with him…if you're like me you're teary eyed every time. There aren't any moments like that in The Unexpected Journey.
That's because there are no moments like that in the first third of the Hobbit.
That's because there are no moments like that in the first third of the Hobbit.
Yes, I know :P - put it together with my last post where I talk about the expectations of critics who probably haven't read the books and only see the movies as the successor to the last ones, maybe why they are scoring it so low. Because none of us who went to see it last night could justify the 65%.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that people who aren't readers might be expecting the same kind of dramatic arcs. But they simply aren't there, at least in this part of the story. It's also part of a the problem of stretching things out too much. Like too little butter scraped over too much bread.
It'll sit better for audiences as a whole once the entire thing is done. The hour long intro and all the setup exposition makes more sense in a 9 hour miniseries. Right now a lot of it doesn't have payoff.
Also, modern audiences would probably also have problems with Lawrence of Arabia or Godfather. Geez, Godfather. Whats with that half hour wedding at the start before the movie gets going. All those CHARACTERS just meeting and talking before anybody starts getting killed. Yeesh.
Try watching an early 70's movie called "Electra Glide In Blue". Apparently it's one of Rob Zombie's favorite movies. But there's one action scene and the rest of the 2hour+ movie is just a lot of talking. Only reason why I saw it is because members of the band Chicago are in it. You can't not want to see Peter Cetera as a motorcycle riding drug dealer.
But yeah, I really enjoy a lot of old classic movies from the 40-70s but I often think about how nobody would dare make movies anything like them anymore.
I'm pretty sure everything about the next movies will be more appealing - more human and elf characters too, probably less comic relief.
@RobbyBevard:
Also. My theatre played this at the start of the movie.
So you live in Austin I see.
@RobbyBevard:
Also, modern audiences would probably also have problems with Lawrence of Arabia or Godfather. Geez, Godfather. Whats with that half hour wedding at the start before the movie gets going. All those CHARACTERS just meeting and talking before anybody starts getting killed. Yeesh.
Those movies are better than any Hollywood feature that is produced nowadays, though.
I think that's his point, basically. The problem is that the average movie-goer's attention span has shortened pathetically.
@Monkey:
So you live in Austin I see.
We have Alamo Drafhouses in San Antonio.
Which makes sense. The Alamo and all.
Their policies of "no children, weird bonus crap at the start of the movie, and dinner" make it a theatre I try to go to when I can.
Was anyone else just a tiny bit disappointed that there wasn't at least a little comment about funny littler birds that have no wings? I didn't want them to actually sing it, but I was hoping some goblin would actually say it.
@RobbyBevard:
Their policies of "no children, weird bonus crap at the start of the movie, and dinner" make it a theatre I try to go to when I can.
The hell don't we have those up here. I mean I'm sure there's stuff in NYC, but that's an effort and a half to get to for a movie….like can one pop up on the Yale campus or something...
Damn, Texas might flip from redneck saudi arabia....to hip fucking youth paradise one day.
I-i-i still hate humidity! I don't care at all!
@Monkey:
Damn, Texas might flip from redneck saudi arabia….to hip fucking youth paradise one day.
Austin is a disease, dude, and it's taking hold of Texas's white pasty body.
@Monkey:
Damn, Texas might flip from redneck saudi arabia….to hip fucking youth paradise one day.
Be prepared for a LONG, LONG wait.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1795-2519-1884 • Click Here to check out my Twitch Channel
Holds up just as well on a second viewing.
Was that Stephen Colbert delivering the line in Elvish when they first arrive in Rivendell? It really sounds like his voice and the guy has a completely different voice when he speaks in English.
Actually I enjoyed the movie a whole lot more than reviews were leading me to expect.
Thorin can smolder better than any dwarf, ever.
And Martin Freeman was basically fantastic any time he opened his mouth. Perfect Bilbo.
They nailed the riddle scene with Gollum, and Cate Blanchet basically set the screen on fire with her sex eyes.
Though there were obviously moments that dragged, it got video gamey at times, and every scene with Radagast was an exquisite torture,
I saw it with my mates and considering my fears going in was pleasantly surprised with the end result.
I overall found it quite enjoyable - though critically I'm not sure it'll stand serious scrutiny.
Bring on number two.
I don't know how I feel about this film.
Radagast made me laugh with how silly and stupid of a character they turned him into. I literally couldn't stop laughing at his scenes, and though maybe that means I enjoyed his character, it was stupid and unneeded.
I prefer cartoon Bilbo to Martin Freeman. I don't think Freeman was terrible, but I think they could have written Bilbo a lot better.
The Goblin King was awesome!!
I don't like a lot of the stuff they did with Thorin, I guess I'll have to see how it plays out. I still think he was a good character overall.
The Eagles should have talked, I always thought that was one of the cool things about the Hobbit.
The troll scene was better written in the book than in the movie, I don't quite understand the point of the changes to it.
My biggest gripe though is just the amount of padding in the film. The first ten minutes included, the film added a lot of ridiculous content, and one ridiculous character (Azog) to make the content in the film fit. I've never been on board the Hobbit as a trilogy and after seeing the film my opinion hasn't changed in the slightest. I think if done in two movies it would have been a much tighter and more effective movie.
Was a pretty good movie. Liked it just as much as Fellowship of the Ring, which, was quite a bit, even though it was my least favorite movie out of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The 2nd and 3rd movies are bound to be much better.
@Monkey:
The hell don't we have those up here. I mean I'm sure there's stuff in NYC, but that's an effort and a half to get to for a movie….like can one pop up on the Yale campus or something...
Damn, Texas might flip from redneck saudi arabia....to hip fucking youth paradise one day.
I-i-i still hate humidity! I don't care at all!
Saw it today. I liked it. Some parts were a little dragged. Pacing was not a problem to me. If you have seen FOTR without any problem, then Hobbit should not be much of a problem. As the reviews go, since most of them are comparing it with LOTR, its baseless to read and refer to them anyways.
 
