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.
I don't quite agree. Every moment of Fellowship felt necessary and vital, there was definitely a lot of padding for this one. Between Bilbo's faces and the added orc scenes.
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.
…Bilbo was the best part of this movie. Martin Freeman totally owned it, what are you on about?
I don't quite agree. Every moment of Fellowship felt necessary and vital, there was definitely a lot of padding for this one. Between Bilbo's faces and the added orc scenes.
Well, it is bound to happen since there is not much into Hobbit as compared to LOTR. As such didnt have much problem with added scenes…most of them. I never got bored.
Acting was top-notch. Freeman was excellent. It was as good as LOTR.
Sometimes i wonder though, Viggo should have been nominated for Oscar at the least.
Anyways, just a query, why does Elrond say "Sauron was destroyed long time back" when the ring was not destroyed in front of his eyes?
…Bilbo was the best part of this movie. Martin Freeman totally owned it, what are you on about?
I just didn't like him much. I always felt like he was acting, and he never had that mischievous streak that Bilbo had in the book. I never really felt his Tookishness. Added on were his very 21st century quips that annoyed me quite a bit.
@RobbyBevard:
Everyone knew what happened at that battle and they'd had 400 or so years of peace. He was destroyed.
Elrond knew Sauron could not be destroyed until the ring lives, did he not?. Presence of a dark necromancer who can conjure WKOA's ghost should have made him realize that. I must have missed something. Still confused
Elrond knew Sauron could not be destroyed until the ring lives, did he not?.
No one KNEW that at the time. And they thought the ring lost.
Wasn't until after encountering the necromancer they realized "oh, he has enough power to come back." But still no way of locating the ring.
As is it took Gandalf decades of research to find the info about the ring and he was specifically looking for it.
Elrond knew Sauron could not be destroyed until the ring lives, did he not?
He knew the Rings of Power forged by Sauron would corrupt anybody who held one, but nobody suspected that he could resurrect himself so long as the One Ring remained until after Sauron returned to Mordor.
Presence of a dark necromancer who can conjure WKOA's ghost should have made him realize that. I must have missed something. Still confused
They thought that the Necromancer was just a Ringwraith in the books; possibly Khamul the Easterling. The Witch-King was definitely capable of raising the dead since he used barrow-wights while destroying Arnor so the others might have been able to as well.
Just watched the movie (in 3D, no less).
I enjoyed it a lot. I especially liked the Gollum part and those gorgeous eagles 
Talking about this film makes me want to read the book again. I don't know where my Annotated Edition is or the late '80s reprint is so I'll have to settle for reading the more ragged '78 copy.
I tried reading the book when I was like 12. Needless to say I didn't finish it. Might try to read it again and maybe go to the LotR books as well.
I'm past the part where they get rescued by the eagles.
I'd forgotten that Gandalf's staff was called a wand in The Hobbit.
Because of the movie I finally started reading the books for the first time - not just The Hobbit, but also LotR. I've finished the first LotR book so far, and I'm greatly enjoying it :D
It was quite sad to see Balin alive in the movie when you know he is soon approaching death in Moria :\
Really enjoyed the movie. While I loved the Rataghast stuff, cause anything extra added that adds to the world is a plus imo, I do understand some's opinion. Only for the reason that it was like the only part of the movie that all of a sudden left our group and focused on someone else. All of a sudden it was like "hmm who is this and whats going on" But I'm fine with it, it tied into story soon enough and later on after the hobbit events, it is Gandalf, Rataghast, and Sauroman that go and fight this necromancer, and I suspect they will show that in movie 3.
Also man I need to re-read some books. Did some looking around last night and noticed how many things I didn't remember or didn't know. Like the elven king is actually Legolas's dad. Gloin is Gimli's dad. Then as Leon just said Balin was the dwarf mentioned and king of Moria we see dead in Fellowship. I hope they show him retaking Moria and then losing it or whatever exactly happens in movie 3, like I also hope they show Gandalf, Rataghast and Sauroman take on the Necromancer and realize that Sauron is not dead.
The only critic I have is really just a worry. This Azog character. He was great and all in this movie and a good villian, and made it very personal for Thorin, but I'm worried what they make his part and how his death and so on. I mean he was killed by Dwalin before the events in the Hobbit and it was Azog's son, Bolg, that would be the one taking on what Azog seems to be doing this movie. Bolg is in this movie but don't even know if they mention his name. And this Bolg pretty sure is the one who
! kills Thorin during the battle, only to then be killed by Beorn. I wonder if they will have Thorin Kill Azog during the big battle, then have Bolg avenge his father by killing Thorin. Then have Beorn kill Bolg. And to make Thorin look better they will probably have Bolg win in a cheap manner, like stabbing him the back or something.
! They basically reversed the roles of the good and bad guys. In the books, it is this Bolg that would want revenge on Thorin for killing his dad. Yet the movie made it so that Thorin wants revenge on Azog for killing his dad, or grandfather. I don't really see the need for it to be reversed. It would make more sense for Bolg to be as persistent as Azog was in this movie due to wanting revenge for killing his father, versus wanting revenge for losing an arm. But I guess Jackson wanted us to sympothise with Thorin a bit more since he really isn't that great of a character in the whole scheme of it all. He kind of turns into the bad guy in a small way.
! I don't know, I'm just worried on this small change on what huge changes could happen later. This movie made me really respect and like Thorin, even though I know later he is going to piss me off and seemingly turn into a greedy evil bastard. Well, guess I'll just see in 2 years how it all plays out
^
! What, does my memory play me tricks? I remember that dain was the one who killed azog. So it doesn't make sense for bolg wanting revenge on thorin specifically. Did they change it? Thorin's grandfather was indeed killed by azog if I remember correctly so there wasn't a change.
Jackson simplified it to Azog surviving the ancient battle, and didn't introduce his son at all.
Easier to make a character iconic and consistent, rather than introducing him in a 2 minute flashback and then his son.
One of the changes that a film adaptation calls for occasionally.
I saw it yesterday in 48 fps. The framerate didn't bother me as much as i thought it would especially after the reviews were so mixed to negative. Maybe it's because i'm used to Blu-Rays and Video Games in HD. It did however feel different than watching a movie in 24 fps. I don't know if the movie would feel different after seeing it in 24 fps, but i'm thinking about watching it again soon to find out.
Anyway, the action scenes just looked amazing!
About the film itself … i liked it. Pretty much actually. It helped that i knew that The Hobbit is lighter material than LotR so i was prepared for what was coming. A lot of people in the theater didn't seem to enjoy it as much and 2 people even left the movie early (although i don't know if the movie was the reason for that).
The start did drag a bit, yes, but since this is an almost 9 hour journey i thought it was alright. Martin Freeman was great, though i have to watch it in English again to really say much about him. And Gollum ... what a great scene. My favourite moment in the movie definitely.
Next one please.
… I liked Rhadagast. He's basically this guy.
!
Rock on you crazy bird shit hermit!
My 2 cents before I forget everything I watched:
Saw it last night and it was pretty good. I enjoyed it but it wasn't as memorable as LOTR (which I've also read, unlike The Hobbit). All the dwarves looked awesome and were pretty likeable, but I don't remember any of their names and probably never will. Contrary to what most people seem to think, I felt like the slow opening scenes in Bilbo's hut were great, and it went mostly downhill after the ADHD action began. I liked the flash back of the big fight between the dwarves and orcs, where Thorin cut off the big orc boss's arm, but other than that there were waaaay to many boring battles with random orcs. I felt like I was watching a Jackie Chan flick, with the party getting into fisticuffs with baddies every 5 minutes, and the fight choreography didn't help that image either.
Azog(th)(fg)h or whatever the big bad was called felt like he popped out of some much more serious movie, since it was mostly pretty light-hearted action like with the trolls and the brown wizard guy and all that. It'll probably get more serious later, who knows, I never did pick up the book. Also, Gandalf's completely useless, as always. He's supposed to be really strong, isn't he, so how about throwing those fiery pinecones BEFORE you're all completely cornered. And if he can summon gigantic eagles and shit at will, why even walk anywhere? Speaking of that scene, I was pretty pumped up when Thorin challenged the orc boss, it was a cool scene, too bad he got the floor mopped with his face. Hope he gets his chance to shine at some point.
The ending scene with the eye felt like a Japanese monster movie's ending, like I'm 100% sure I've seen that exact same ending in some B flick at least once. Made me laugh.
What I disliked the most about it was bad 3D effects made it hard to focus on any details, like, you know, faces and shit that's important. I don't like 3D at all, it feels uncomfortable and strains my eyes. Shame because the visuals were by far the best part of the movie. The scenery and the dwarves looked great. Not worth seeing it again in 2D, it wasn't THAT great, but I def liked The Hobbit and will see the rest of the trilogy.
Contrary to what most people seem to think, I felt like the slow opening scenes in Bilbo's hut were great, and it went mostly downhill after the ADHD action began.
Totally agree. The opening scenes were perfect IMO.
I actually enjoyed the beginning the most. When the dwarves came, the song, etc. I liked the movie overall and any gripes I had were minor. I don't mind the CGI too much but the Goblin King and the orc really stuck out and in a way ruined the immersion but oh well. Rhadagast seemed…odd but it was okay. Though, did he have that weird rabbit sled in Fellowship of the Ring (Book)? I don't remember. I thought I recall him with just a horse.
But I liked the movie a lot, I pretty much went in with zero expectations so I wasn't disappointed! It was a fun adventure and Bilbo is such a fun hobbit, I really enjoy him. Going to have to go back and reread the book now.
Also, Gandalf's completely useless, as always. He's supposed to be really strong, isn't he, so how about throwing those fiery pinecones BEFORE you're all completely cornered.
The idea didn't occur to him till then? He's powerful, but he can't make something from nothing, he has to work with what's around him.
And if he can summon gigantic eagles and shit at will, why even walk anywhere?
It wasn't a random animal summon, it was the summoning of a very specific eagle family. The eagles owed him a favor, they aren't his personal escorts. And they try to stay out of the affairs of men. That was mostly a one time call in.
And in LotR, couldn't do it because the enemy had flying critters and would have spotted them from miles away.
Isn't it part of Gandalf's thing is how he can't really directly interfere?
@RobbyBevard:
Jackson simplified it to Azog surviving the ancient battle, and didn't introduce his son at all.
Easier to make a character iconic and consistent, rather than introducing him in a 2 minute flashback and then his son.
One of the changes that a film adaptation calls for occasionally.
Bolg will be in at least the third film though, maybe the second film too.
Guess I'll try tackling some of your complaints or criticism on the movie. Not that one can't have any, just would like to help explain why it was so.
@Shigan:
My 2 cents before I forget everything I watched:
Saw it last night and it was pretty good. I enjoyed it but it wasn't as memorable as LOTR (which I've also read, unlike The Hobbit). All the dwarves looked awesome and were pretty likeable, but I don't remember any of their names and probably never will.
don't worry I doubt anyone does except for basically just naming all the names in a fun little quiz to say they can. There are only a few even worth mentioning or have any significance in the overal scheme of Middle Earth's history
Contrary to what most people seem to think, I felt like the slow opening scenes in Bilbo's hut were great, and it went mostly downhill after the ADHD action began.
I also loved the beginning and thought it was probably best part of movie. Worth noting the beginning was the most faithful part of the movie and almost word for word and scene for scene perfect. Also was genuinely surprised when Frodo showed up, did not expect him. I hear we getting a Legolas cameo sometime too, wonder who else we'll see from Lord of the Rings
I liked the flash back of the big fight between the dwarves and orcs, where Thorin cut off the big orc boss's arm, but other than that there were waaaay to many boring battles with random orcs. I felt like I was watching a Jackie Chan flick, with the party getting into fisticuffs with baddies every 5 minutes, and the fight choreography didn't help that image either.
Azog(th)(fg)h or whatever the big bad was called felt like he popped out of some much more serious movie, since it was mostly pretty light-hearted action like with the trolls and the brown wizard guy and all that. It'll probably get more serious later, who knows, I never did pick up the book.
The Hobbit was wrote before he did most of all his work and was meant to be a childrens story at bed time. Childrens stories back then are way cooler than these days. Green eggs and Ham, meet the Hobbit. But you shoudl keep that in mind that this story was wrote as a lighthearted funny adventure meant for kids. Jackson is doing his best to keep that aspect faithful while also underlying the danger and significance of Sauron coming back and the Ring of Power and other things going on in the world AROUND the event of the Hobbit. If Jackson didn't add the stuff he did and kept 100% to the book it would be almost entirely a light hearted adventure.
Also FYI, Azog was killed in that battle we saw and didn't just lose his arm. Not to mention killed by someone not Thurin, but Thurin cousin or second cousin or something like that.
Also, Gandalf's completely useless, as always. He's supposed to be really strong, isn't he, so how about throwing those fiery pinecones BEFORE you're all completely cornered.
always been a complaint of mine in regards to Tolkeins world. The wizards are able to do amazing things, but never seem to do them during the adventures. But as with Lord of the Rings, the times Gandalf dissapears all the time it is usually cause he needs to check something out or is doing something that is more crucial or saves their lives soon enough just we don't really know about it. We more or less see him dissappear before a battle and appear after. He gets a bad rep, bad timing on his part.
I think tolkein wanted to keep his wizards as an enigma and ALSO he wanted the adventure to be about the weak and tiny becoming curageous and overcoming many obsticles. Can't really accomplish that if you have a wizard doing insane spells and killing hoards of enemies left and right. BTW the pinecones were made of green fire i believe in the books. Wonder why jackson changed that. I mean in Game of Thrones they managed to make green fire in their scene and their budget would be much smaller than Jacksons.
And if he can summon gigantic eagles and shit at will, why even walk anywhere?
The same as the Lord of the Rings. The birds get a bad rap because of what Jackson cuts out. First of all the birds king can talk, and Gandalf saved his life at some point, thus why he is able to get their help. But the birds are doing a LOT of things during both the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings books. They are helping out and fighting in many places, they aren't just sitting around watiing for gandalf to call and essentially a taxi service. They are a lot of the time doing reconascense on behalf of Gandalf. Also they fly gandalf around quite a few times that we never see.
Speaking of that scene, I was pretty pumped up when Thorin challenged the orc boss, it was a cool scene, too bad he got the floor mopped with his face. Hope he gets his chance to shine at some point.
Yea that was kind of a let down. Would have been great if Jackson had him kill Azog in that scene and then have Azog's SON almost kill Thorin and Bilbo jump in at that time. Like I said Azog was already dead at this point in the story, but then again Azog wasn't even killed by Thorin, so who knows how Jackson kills Azog. So as not to spoil you I will put this in spoilers
! Don't get your hopes set too high for Thorin, he has a very similar path/end as Boromir did in the Lord of the Rings. When Sauron gave the rings of power to the other races he hoped to be able to control them with his one ring. It worked on the Humans, thus the Ringwraigths. The elves sensed it immediately when Sauron made his ring so they took their off quick and thus avoided it. The dwarfs happened to be too strong willed or stubborn or whatever so they didn't become enslaved like man did. BUT the rings had a side effect on the Dwarves. They made them gain and unquenchable thirst for Gold and gems, kind of like a Dragon. This led to many a dwarf battle, civil war, ect. Led to them hiding in the moutnains ect mining for riches instead of helping out the world. IN the end of the Hobbit you will see Thorin succumb to this folly, much like you saw his grandfather acting in the beginning of the movie. So as I said, he kind of has a Boromir end, where a ring of power ultimately effects him and makes him "evil" before he dies.
The ending scene with the eye felt like a Japanese monster movie's ending, like I'm 100% sure I've seen that exact same ending in some B flick at least once. Made me laugh.
Hmm I don't recall the ending, or any eye. All I recall is them on top of the giant peak they got dropped off on. Talk about a shitty place to be left at, stupid eagles, lol. And them looking off into the distance and being able to see the Mountain.
Oh wait as I typed this I remember. The dragon Smaug opened his eye. I didn't mind it I guess.
What I disliked the most about it was bad 3D effects made it hard to focus on any details, like, you know, faces and shit that's important. I don't like 3D at all, it feels uncomfortable and strains my eyes. Shame because the visuals were by far the best part of the movie. The scenery and the dwarves looked great. Not worth seeing it again in 2D, it wasn't THAT great, but I def liked The Hobbit and will see the rest of the trilogy.
Yea since I wanted to see it in IMAX I also had to see it in 3D. Not a big fan of 3D either. At times it looks amazing and super cool, like when in Bilbo's house. It makes you feel like your almost there and in the actual house, or PROP house as it is. Really neat. But during faster scenes like action it can get blurry i feel. Then also there are times where it makes the characters look like they are little tiny action figures walking around and its almost hard not to laugh.
Well me and my siblings are going to go to the movie again this Saturday I believe, so will be my second time seeing it and in 2D this time. Will be able to say which version I liked better then. Assuming 2D. Also should maybe have some new insight, always seems like you miss things the first time watching a movie and notice them on later watchings. Especially in terms of forshadowing events and stuff.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Tijnn.:
Bolg will be in at least the third film though, maybe the second film too.
Was he not in the first movie? I see online there are pictures of him in costume already or the CG picture of him. Not sure who is CG and who isn't in this movie. BTW I didn't mind the CG at all in this movie. Maybe its not as noticable in 3D, and you notice it more in 2D, but I never really felt like there was too much CG in terms of the goblins, orcs, ect.
This is Bolg as I see on the internet. So does anyone remember him in the movie or not? 
So I saw the movie last night and after thinking about it for a while I've finally come to my conclusion about it. It was not a very good movie but I still liked it a lot.
First with the bad. I know this has already been established but man, Peter Jackson may be the worst editor in the history of ever. I realize that these movies are more or less the directors' babies and its hard for them to cut anything but anyone who has taken half a semester of a film class could tell you at least 50 instances in like the first hour that should have been left on the cutting room floor. One such example is when Bilbo realized he has forgotten his handkerchief and one of the dwarves offers him a part of his clothes. Only about a 45 second scene but something that even an amateur editor would know doesn't belong in a movie that is already pushing 3 hours.
This was a pretty classic case of the director having too much power and either not listening to any advice he was given or people were too afraid to give it. The FoTR is often criticized for having to long an opening act but it has nothing on this movie. I thought Bilbo was fleshed out decently as a character and I thought it was a wise move to not try and make us care about all of the dwarves as individuals, but more as a collective group. It was difficult enough telling them apart that spending time on each one (other than Thorin) would have been insane. However this made it hard to emotionally invest in the dwarves plight and it was a major drawback in when the movie attempts for Bilbo and one of the dwarves to connect.
Another thing that has bothered me with a lot of movies, including this one, lately is how things are clearly being shown only to set up things for the sequel. Its one thing to put small foreshadowings and allusions here and there like showing the dragon at the end. But when a huge chunk of an already long movie is spent on Radagast and a necromancer and then its completely dropped, thats frustrating. I haven't read the books so I am assuming it comes back up, either way it either should have been dropped or shortened for time. Whats worse than the fact that it doesn't come up again, the Radagast scenes are literally the worst of the movie, it should have been a very easy decision to cut it out.
Also, I was shocked by how bad some of the CGI was at times. The movie didn't look anywhere near as real as in the LoR trilogy, it got so bad at some points that it took me out of the movie which is surprising for a Peter Jackson movie.
The last 45 minutes were the bast of the movie and had all of the action, stakes, and tension that was missing for the first 2 hours. The scene between Bilbo and Gollum was fantastic, Cumberbatch did some great stuff there and Gollum shocks me every time with how real and creepy he is.
Overall, all these things add up to an average to below average movie, there is really no way around it. And yet I was a big enough fan of the LoR movies that I missed this world and was just glad to be back. I missed the walking (lots of walking) around beautiful mountain landscapes, I missed all the long, impossible to remember names, I missed Gandalf doing Gandalf things, I missed all the long pipe smoking, the orcs, and Gollum, I even appreciated the obligatory and should-have-been cut scene with Frodo because we get to see Elijah Wood as Frodo. So even though the movie wasn't good I was immersed enough in Middle Earth that I didn't care.
Also those dues ex machina Eagles are real pricks. Its been a running joke for a while now about how they could have just flown the ring to Mordor in LoR. When the dwarves were looking in amazement at something we could't see yet at the end of the movie I thought "wow the Eagles finally did something really useful and dropped them off right in front of the Lonely Mountain". I couldn't help cracking up in the theater when we found out the Mountain was about 100 miles away
So I saw the movie last night and after thinking about it for a while I've finally come to my conclusion about it. It was not a very good movie but I still liked it a lot.
First with the bad. I know this has already been established but man, Peter Jackson may be the worst editor in the history of ever. I realize that these movies are more or less the directors' babies and its hard for them to cut anything but anyone who has taken half a semester of a film class could tell you at least 50 instances in like the first hour that should have been left on the cutting room floor. One such example is when Bilbo realized he has forgotten his handkerchief and one of the dwarves offers him a part of his clothes. Only about a 45 second scene but something that even an amateur editor would know doesn't belong in a movie that is already pushing 3 hours.
I would argue that the handkerchief part was one of the most important parts of the entire first hour of the film. It helps establish Bilbo's character, lets us know more that he is just a guy who knows nothing of adventure and he is going to have to get by with a lot less than just a handkerchief. He is with all these hardy battle worn and traveled dwarfs and he is completely out of his element.
That scene was one of my favorites in the entire movie. That scene and the one where Bilbo talks about he has a home and the dwarves don't and so he is going to help them reclaim their home I felt where the two most important and best scenes the entire movie.
The Necromancer and Rhataghast I dont' recall if are ever in the Hobbit book or not. That is something that Jackson got from other Tolkein sources. In the scope of The Hobbit, it has nothing to do with it. It is all related to building up The Fellowship of the Ring or the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Absolutely nothing to do with The Hobbit.
I would argue that the handkerchief part was one of the most important parts of the entire first hour of the film. It helps establish Bilbo's character, lets us know more that he is just a guy who knows nothing of adventure and he is going to have to get by with a lot less than just a handkerchief. He is with all these hardy battle worn and traveled dwarfs and he is completely out of his element.
That scene was one of my favorites in the entire movie. That scene and the one where Bilbo talks about he has a home and the dwarves don't and so he is going to help them reclaim their home I felt where the two most important and best scenes the entire movie.
I feel like at this point we already know Bilbo's character and that scene is something thats nice to see in an extended director's cut, not a movie that is already ridiculously long.
The Necromancer and Rhataghast I dont' recall if are ever in the Hobbit book or not. That is something that Jackson got from other Tolkein sources. In the scope of The Hobbit, it has nothing to do with it. It is all related to building up The Fellowship of the Ring or the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Absolutely nothing to do with The Hobbit.
If thats the case it makes its inclusion in the movie all the more egregious and frustrating.
I believe Rhataghast was merely mentioned in the Hobbit at best, but he did show up (briefly) in Fellowship of the Ring (book).
Necromancer I think is another case of was just mentioned but not shown, but this one I'm not as sure about.
I feel like at this point we already know Bilbo's character and that scene is something thats nice to see in an extended director's cut, not a movie that is already ridiculously long.
I feel its the little things like that though that seperate in manga terms One Piece from Fairy Tail. or a Michael Bay movie to any other. Or the Superhero movies to The Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings isn't just some big actiony movie. It's the subtleties that make it so great.
As for extended edition. This movie was only like 160 minutes, it was no longer than the original rings movie standard movie. The extended movies were like 3:15 or so at least each. or like another 30 minutes to an hour longer than this movie.
If thats the case it makes its inclusion in the movie all the more egregious and frustrating.
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt at the moment. This is a trilogy.
Time for some spoiler info regarding the underlying story that is going on at same time as the Hobbit events. Or the events you didn't find enjoyable.
! Gandalf goes back to that abandoned place and finds out that the Necromancer is in fact Sauron coming back to life. They all assumed he was dead when his ring was stolen/lost. Gandalf, Rhadaghast and Sauroman all go to battle and drive off Sauron or the necro. Sauron then retreats back to Mordor and starts building up his army, towers, ect as we see in The Lord of the Rings. So that little egregious and frustrating stuff ends up becoming very important background information. Only thing is it kind of Dwarfs the importantness of the Dwarves mission in the scope of things. ha see what I did there. I mean they are worried about getting their home back and some gold, meanwhile the most dangerous overlord ever is coming back to bring the entire world under his rule and darkness.
! Also I'm pretty sure that Meeting between Sauroman, and the three ring bearers (gandalf, galadrial and elrond) didn't happen in the Hobbit, but was another thing related to the Necromancer incident that was in the side stories. So that should be included in your Egregious and frustrating parts since they are all part of the underlying storyline that is being added to the Hobbits movies in order to tie in better and build up to the Fellowship of the Ring.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/
I think the people who are dissapointed in this movie don't seem to understand it.
They all seem to have 2 complaints.
1. Can't live up the epicness of the Lord of the Rings storyline. nothing you can do about it cause the Hobbit isn't as epic. But somehow people seemed to want it to be more awesome than LotR, even though they knew it was not possible. Kind of a catch They wanted it to be, but knew it couldn't be. Yet still got upset it wasn't. Very strange.
2. They misinterpret what Jackson is doing. They believe that all the added scenes are Jackson trying to make the movie more epic to again address problem one. But the thing is. I don't believe that Jackson is trying to outdo the Lord of the Rings. I think he is doing these movies out of pure enjoyment of the world Tolkein built and wants to give us fans and himself as much fan-service as he can. And by fanservice I mean the things like Rhadaghast the necromancer storyline and any others he adds from side stories. The way I look at it, its like in One Piece terms. Think of the recent one piece movies. Oda has an entire volume z he gives out. There is anime filler episodes building it up. There was a chapter 0 for strong world. and so on. Did we complain that chapter 0 wasn't in the strong world movie? Did we complain that film Z didn't tell us Z's entire life story like it did in volume Z? No we love those things and they add so much more to the characters adn world of one piece that we love. The only difference between those and the Hobbit is, that Jackson decided to add all those things to the movie instead of having them be part of the extra's.
I feel that is what Jackson is doing with this movie. He is trying to fit as much lore and stuff he can into these movies because he wants to make all the diehard fans such as himself happy. He doesn't care about anyone else or trying to outdo himself. He is doing this for the fans and himself. And he can do whatever he wants. The success of the first three movies and basically guaranteed success of these just due to the name alone allows him to toss in as much information and be as long as he wants the movies to be and no one can do a thing about it. These movies will sell a shit ton no matter what.
BTW Who else thinks Bilbo should get and Oscar or whatever award actors get for his performance in this movie. I thought he was amazing in this movie.
^I don't have an opinion on the movie yet haven't seen it but I thought that was an interesting point to make to say that jackson tried to do 2 things that don't necessarily go well with each other which is being a faithful adaption to a book that was never meant to be the epic that lotr is and trying to not be a movie of lesser scale.
Having seen/heard a lot of stuff about the movie that seems like a valid point to make compared to saying no it's not as good as lord of the rings(which seems pretty stupid to say, because the base material is a different kind of narrative with a different point to make)
Whatever Peter Jackson's reason was the problem people have had is that they didn't like the extra stuff. You obviously feel differently.
And while Cumberbatch was great he didn't have enough to do in this movie to deserve an Oscar.
I wasn't expecting it to be LotR. I was however expecting it to be The Hobbit, which is why I don't understand why Jackson wants to make it so much more than just The Hobbit.
I went into the movie unconvinced that it needed to be three parts, and I left with those feelings stronger than ever.
Whatever Peter Jackson's reason was the problem people have had is that they didn't like the extra stuff. You obviously feel differently.
And while Cumberbatch was great he didn't have enough to do in this movie to deserve an Oscar.
I am a huge Lord of the Rings fan. And I feel that the extra info was put in there just for someone like me. A typical movie goer won't like the new info, but I don't believe he is making the film for those people. I think the movie is being made for just die-hard lord of the rings fans.
I mean heck look at the first 3 movies. Those seem to be universally loved by almost everyone, critics and viewers alike. Yet guess who hated them and thought they were butchered? Tolkeins sons and family. But if i were to guess I would say that they might like these movies more because they are more faithful and having an extended look at the tolkein universe.
Here was his quote regarding the Lord of the Rings “They gutted the book, making an action movie for 15-25 year olds. And it seems that The Hobbit will be of the same ilk. Tolkien became…devoured by his popularity and absorbed by the absurdity of the time. The gap widened between the beauty, the seriousness of the work, and what it has become is beyond me. This level of marketing reduces to nothing the aesthetic and philosophical significance of this work.”
I don't know if he made that quote before seeing the Hobbit or just seeing trailers or something. But you can clearly see he did not like the first three which a lot would argue best movies of all time. Jackson is maybe trying to not make the Hobbit just some GUTTED adaptation in order to please the millions, but doing it to please the diehards or Tolkeins family. I mean heck as one poster above complained about the handkerchief scene taking up 45 seconds in a 3 hour movie. Sounds like he would want the movie more "gutted"
I am a huge Lord of the Rings fan. And I feel that the extra info was put in there just for someone like me. A typical movie goer won't like the new info, but I don't believe he is making the film for those people. I think the movie is being made for just die-hard lord of the rings fans.
I mean heck look at the first 3 movies. Those seem to be universally loved by almost everyone, critics and viewers alike. Yet guess who hated them and thought they were butchered? Tolkeins sons and family. But if i were to guess I would say that they might like these movies more because they are more faithful and having an extended look at the tolkein universe.
Here was his quote regarding the Lord of the Rings “They gutted the book, making an action movie for 15-25 year olds. And it seems that The Hobbit will be of the same ilk. Tolkien became…devoured by his popularity and absorbed by the absurdity of the time. The gap widened between the beauty, the seriousness of the work, and what it has become is beyond me. This level of marketing reduces to nothing the aesthetic and philosophical significance of this work.”I don't know if he made that quote before seeing the Hobbit or just seeing trailers or something. But you can clearly see he did not like the first three which a lot would argue best movies of all time. Jackson is maybe trying to not make the Hobbit just some GUTTED adaptation in order to please the millions, but doing it to please the diehards or Tolkeins family.
Sorry nope that's just wrong, tokiens son and family don't hate the movies because they changed stuff to adapt it. It's because they changed stuff while totally disregarding the messages behind the book.
As such no the hobbit most likely won't be liked by them, because it's the same thing again.
I'm also almost sure that they most likely won't even see it.
Let me be a little clearer, people didn't dislike Radagast because he wasn't in the Hobbit book, they didn't like him because he was stupid and pointless to the story. People are trying to make this an argument for wether Jackson should just stick to whats in the Hobbit or he should branch out. The thing is thats not the point. There was a lot of stuff that just didn't work in the movie, some of it was taken from the Hobbit book some of it wasn't.
Just saw it.
Didn't mind the prologue. It was nice seeing such a beautiful dwarven city. The stuff with old Bilbo was too long. Although I guess I understand that it presents him as a changed man, different from all the hobbits, it still wasn't necessary. Not everything needs an explanation. And yeah, the part with the dwarves was also too long, even if it was there present their nature. I was rather surprised when we finally got to the trolls, for if I remember correctly, it was at somewhat the second or third chapter of the book, and here I was beginning to think it was omitted from the film.
Didn't mind Radaghast. Such a small character shouldn't ruin the movie for you. And if anyone has read LOTR, we know where the Necromancer story will go hen, so I do look forward to that, even if I do believe extending this series to a third film for is not good enough - if, that was a part of it. I don't recall. I'm rather confused given how there's already been a photo released of Bilbo laying on a bunch of Smaug's gold. If that is the second film, what are they doing for the third film? They can't have the climax of the film just for the third film.
As for the additions, yeah, they did the same with LOTR. This story is pretty thin in terms of emotion, so they embellished, I thought, Thorin's feelings and made it far more dramatic, and Arog's involvement is understandable given how it's basically just random goblins at the end if I remember correctly, but this adds tension.
Overall, I still enjoyed it immensely, even if I do believe that Jackson, perhaps, enjoys the world all too much. This book doesn't serve to be stretched so much. And I don't care what wasn't and what was in the Hobbit book. My complains are for what's good for the pace of a film.
I also didn't even know I would be watching 48p. The prologue did struck me as different, but only when Bilbo moved his smoking thing so quickly did I notice.
But once thing I don't understand. 48p is supposed to be better, right? But we don't move that quickly. I might have adjusted more to it, dunno. Wasn't really paying attention toward the end, and perhaps that's the idea; we aren't used to this. But when a character moves oddly quick, I don't see how that's better. It's not real.
Bilbo forgetting his handkerchief was actually a rather large moment in the book that he kept referring to as the story went on, to the point that it was followed up on in LotR as something Frodo made sure not to do (only for Sam to forget to bring rope and fret about that until much later.) Cutting out something that short but character building would have been pretty upsetting. I for one was looking forward to that particular moment.
I also can't wait wait for the LONGER version of the movie. It wasn't long enough!
Let me be a little clearer, people didn't dislike Radagast because he wasn't in the Hobbit book, they didn't like him because he was stupid and pointless to the story.
I liked Radagast, he was fun, and the cute animals dying helped start showing the evil and scope of the necromancer. It absolutely had a point and worked to do what it started doing.
Its part of a trilogy, and built as such. its not meant to be 100% on its own. As is, most of the exposition and groundwork is out of the way now, so I figure the next two will fly right along. It'd be more a cheat if the groundwork WASN'T laid here and characters and ideas started popping up out of nowehere in the next film. or if all the setup and foreshadowing was only in the extended editions. Be awkward if Radagast suddenly appeared to help fight Sauron without any intro at all in the middle of the third film, right?
This'll sit better once the whole 9 hours are out.
Its kind of like making sure Arwen appeared and had a couple of moments in Fellowship, and then reminding audiences she existed, if only for a moment, in the second film. She wasn't really there in the book, and doesn't show up until the very end… but you can't just have Aragorn's love interest be completely sidelined and introduced in the last 5 minutes of a 10 hour epic.
(which seems pretty stupid to say, because the base material is a different kind of narrative with a different point to make)
Meh, LOTR and the Hobbit have much different tones and are very different books, but the movies are definitely comparable. The Fellowship was a much better made movie than the Hobbit in my opinion. Better sets, better editing, much, much better pacing, better and more sensible changes from the book, better outfits, and much less fan service that doesn't even work. (Filli and Killi aren't dwarves.) I really did like the film, it was entertaining. But I don't think a lot of the changes were for the better, and it definitely didn't convince me that this needed to be a trilogy.
Check out my podcast for conversations about Greatness in anime, sports, music, and whatever else we can think of.
Meh, LOTR and the Hobbit have much different tones and are very different books, but the movies are definitely comparable. The Fellowship was a much better made movie than the Hobbit in my opinion. Better sets, better editing, much, much better pacing, better and more sensible changes from the book, better outfits, and much less fan service that doesn't even work. (Filli and Killi aren't dwarves.) I really did like the film, it was entertaining. But I don't think a lot of the changes were for the better, and it definitely didn't convince me that this needed to be a trilogy.
What you mean Fili and Kili aren't dwarves?
Meh, LOTR and the Hobbit have much different tones and are very different books, but the movies are definitely comparable. The Fellowship was a much better made movie than the Hobbit in my opinion. Better sets, better editing, much, much better pacing, better and more sensible changes from the book, better outfits, and much less fan service that doesn't even work. (Filli and Killi aren't dwarves.) I really did like the film, it was entertaining. But I don't think a lot of the changes were for the better, and it definitely didn't convince me that this needed to be a trilogy.
Which was the point of the criticism? Because based of the material they shouldn't be comparable…
If that is the second film, what are they doing for the third film? They can't have the climax of the film just for the third film.
Character moments. Frodo and Thorin at odds. Gathering of five armies. Battle of the five armies. (thats gotta be at least an hour like Helm's Deep was.) Aftermath. Funerals. Journey home (where they take care of the rock giants!) All the stuff with the white council and Sauron. Legolas cameo.
There's a ton of stuff after Smaug is dealt with. Heck, the cast is going to be HUGE by the final movie, LOTS of players by that point.
Second movie I'd be happy if we just get lots of screen time with the dwarves developing and becoming more distinct. (We have Spiders, wood elves, barrell riding, a guy that transforms into a bear, river of forgetfullness, Laketown, getting to Smaug, Confronting Smaug… its the movie I most forsee being thin... but Smaug can be all grandiose and destructive and awesome for an hour or two and that's fine.)
People keep saying "Hobbit is just one book!" But its a really PACKED book where LOTS of stuff happens.
Which was the point of the criticism? Because based of the material they shouldn't be comparable…
Because of the tone? They're both fantasy journeys in middle earth with battles, people being captures, a group with a goal. They're different in a lot of ways, but they're definitely comparable. What does that even mean for them not to be comparable?
Check out my podcast for conversations about Greatness in anime, sports, music, and whatever else we can think of.
Because of the tone? They're both fantasy journeys in middle earth with battles, people being captures, a group with a goal. They're different in a lot of ways, but they're definitely comparable. What does that even mean for them not to be comparable?
When people say they aren't comparable they are referring to the storylines.
The Hobbit is about 13 dwarves trying to reclaim their home from a Dragon.
The Lord of the Rings is about middle earth trying to stop Sauron from destroying the World.
Doesn't matter if the Dwarves reclaim their home or not in the Hobbit, cause if no one stops Sauron, everyone dies along with the Dwarves.
But as you said they are both in the same universe, too many people are comparing the two and going "hmm, the lord of the rings was more epic" No shit sherlock. everyone knew that 80 years ago. It's hard not to want to compare though considering it by the same director, same world, many same actors, ect. The only other time we have seen something like this happen in movies is Star Wars probably. I think we can all agree though that The Hobbit is no Phantom Menace.
1.Because of the tone? 2.They're both fantasy journeys in middle earth 3.with battles, 4.people being captures, 5.a group with a goal. They're different in a lot of ways, 6.but they're definitely comparable. 7.What does that even mean for them not to be comparable?
1.Because of the tone and the intent.
2.They're both fantasy and different kind of journeys
3.You mentioning that is probably one of the biggest gripes tolkiens heirs have with the movies. Both the hobbit and lotr were never about the battles but the movies put heavy emphasis on that. In that sense there is not much of a point in comparing the battles specifically beyond stating they exist.
4.:wassat:are we going to say next that taken and lotr are comparable because both involve hostage situations?
5.Every story has someone with a goal, it's the goal itself that is of importance not the fact that it exists… and yes the two goals that drive lotr and the hobbit are very different in the way they affect their seekers.
6.Sure everything is comparable, but there is a reason why we clearly differentiate a harry potter from a lotr, a song of ice and fire from a dresden files.
7.It means paying attention to the author behind the story... there are reasons why tolkien didn't write the hobbit the way he wrote lotr.
Tolkien actually started to rewrite the Hobbit to be more in tone with LotR (who knows how far he got) but pretty much everyone told him "No no, its a classic kid's book and the tone is fine, leave it be."
He still significantly tweaked the Gollum scene for continuity's sake, however.
And while Cumberbatch was great he didn't have enough to do in this movie to deserve an Oscar.
Cumberbatch is the voice of Smaug and he didn't even talk yet….what are you on about? lol
Edit: reminds me of this
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. - Frank Zappa
1.Because of the tone and the intent.
2.They're both fantasy and different kind of journeys
3.You mentioning that is probably one of the biggest gripes tolkiens heirs have with the movies. Both the hobbit and lotr were never about the battles but the movies put heavy emphasis on that. In that sense there is not much of a point in comparing the battles specifically beyond stating they exist.
4.:wassat:are we going to say next that taken and lotr are comparable because both involve hostage situations?
5.Every story has someone with a goal, it's the goal itself that is of importance not the fact that it exists… and yes the two goals that drive lotr and the hobbit are very different in the way they affect their seekers.
6.Sure everything is comparable, but there is a reason why we clearly differentiate a harry potter from a lotr, a song of ice and fire from a dresden files.
7.It means paying attention to the author behind the story... there are reasons why tolkien didn't write the hobbit the way he wrote lotr.
You are literally making no sense. Yes, they are very very different books, but you're ignoring (while not ignoring) that
1. There are similarities
2. There are ways to make comparisons.
I'll sum up what you're saying, they're different kind of journeys, with different kinds of battles written much differently, with different kind of hostage situations, different macguffins, different groups with a different goal. But we're still freaking comparing them. You're trying to get around that but you can't. Of course they're completely different books with different intents, but they can be compared. That we're talking about the differences among their similarities is proof.
