The Hobbit Movie Thread

[Glelas]

The dwarves singing gave me goosebumps.

Only Peter Jackson can pull that off.

 

[gollumbells]

End of this year and it shall be out =D

(Yeah, old thread I know First time back on these forums for years and found this in my user CP )

I so hope this captures the magic that the fellowship of the ring created.

 

[Evil Agent]

First time back on these forums for years

Welcome back!

 

[gollumbells]

I remember you Evil agent!

Thanks, I shall try and hang around more often.

 

[Siberian]

The dwarves singing gave me goosebumps.

Only Peter Jackson can pull that off.

Let's just hope the said Peter Jackson is not going to turn the dwarves into the dumb sidekicks like he did with poor Gimli

 

[Glelas]

Let's just hope the said Peter Jackson is not going to turn the dwarves into the dumb sidekicks like he did with poor Gimli

Yes, Gimli was pretty much comic relief but somehow he still came across like a bad ass.

 

[Evil Agent]

2nd Trailer

Here's the second trailer for the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

Hard to believe it's been 9 months since the last trailer! I'm glad they spaced it out, though, instead of flooding us with trailers all year.

Also, I don't think anyone in this thread has yet mentioned the news about expanding The Hobbit into a trilogy. I was a bit worried at first, but now I'm just excited. A whole new trilogy... it's hard to believe!

 

[Evil Agent]

2 weeks to go!

Well, only two weeks left until we get to see THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY!

I already have my tickets, for opening day. HFR 3D (48 frames per second). I'm getting really excited. I'm reminded of the final weeks before the release of The Fellowship of the Ring (11 years ago). Can't wait to return to Middle-earth on Friday Dec. 14th.

I'll be back to post my thoughts/review, as I'm sure others will.

 

[NickeeCoco]

Let's just hope the said Peter Jackson is not going to turn the dwarves into the dumb sidekicks like he did with poor Gimli

I just re read The Hobbit (first reread since I was a kid, so it was kinda like reading it for the first time again), and I actually got the impression that the dwarves are like silly sidekicks. There is a lot of funny stuff in there, particularly with Bombur.

 

[chris777]

I just re read The Hobbit (first reread since I was a kid, so it was kinda like reading it for the first time again), and I actually got the impression that the dwarves are like silly sidekicks. There is a lot of funny stuff in there, particularly with Bombur.

I'm reading The Hobbit for the first time right now. I have a few questions.

Is this just one book? My book says "The Hobbit - Or There and Back Again". Like it's a secondary title. But it's also the title of the final movie in this Trilogy? I know LOTR was technically only one book as well. Is this the same scenario? Seems like a pretty small book to make 3 movies from.

I tried reading LOTR and couldn't get through it about 10years ago when I first started reading for fun. I thought it was just not a good first book to start with. But now reading The Hobbit, I'm wondering if I simply don't like Tolkein's style. It's too wishy-washy. Too silly? It's like a goofy fun fantastical journey. Probably going to be a really nice movie, but reading the book...i'm struggling.

I also couldn't get through Wizard of Earth Sea for much the same reasons. Do I just not like "old-school" authors? Do most of the older authors have a prose or style like this, or are these 2 unique?

 

[Loerwyn]

The Hobbit, like The Lord of the Rings, is a single novel. "Or There and Back Again" is the subtitle.

 

[Hobbit]

The Hobbit, like The Lord of the Rings, is a single novel. "Or There and Back Again" is the subtitle.

Unlike the Peter Jackson movie, in which case it is 'There and Back again, and again, and, ooh look, a third time.' *grin*

 

[Evil Agent]

Oh, this thread makes me feel old!

From Page 1, March 2005:

...That article says [The Hobbit] is at least 3 years away (I think 5 years is a more likely bet).

If I'd only known then that it would be another 7 or 8 years... LOL!

 

[Hobbit]

Quote from the Guardian newspaper. Don't think they'll be using this one in their advertising!

Below a headline that describes the film as being "perfectly OK" sits the legend: "It's not as bad as you feared, not as good as you hoped."

 

[saintjon]

It was really goddamn good. Far better than I was expecting and after that first trailer I was expecting it to be very good. Whole movie was like a love-song to this entertaining notion we have of fantasy dwarves. Get crazy you guys, this **** is money!

 

[Siberian]

I have to say, Martin Freeman as Bilbo is miles ahead of any hobbit in the LOTR movies (Sam is good but doesn't get enough development, Elijah Wood is simply miscast, and Merry and Pippin are reduced to sidekicks). But since I loved Bilbo I also wanted to see more of him. The story is about the Hobbit, not Thorin and his tribe or Radagast or Azog or the Necromancer. It's as if PJ is afraid to make the movies about a non-traditional hero like Bilbo and wants to build up Thorin as a stand-in for Aragorn. The other problem is that they want to include as many links to LOTR as possible and make it as epic even though it's completely unnecessary. I feel it could have been a much more solid movie with 30 minutes of filler and padding (like that scene with Elijah Wood) cut from it. Besides, PJ has a propensity for over-the-top and completely unrealistic action sequences that also go on and on. I know it's supposed to be an adventure movie, but the video game battles go for too long and lose any kind of tension. He also seems to think that the best way to create a feeling of danger to the characters is to have them hang over the cliff (repeatedly) or show someone seemingly dead - right, like we've never seen these cliches before.

Similar to LOTR, there're changes to characters' motivations or attitudes that don't make much sense. For example, the dwarves quietly living Rivendell without telling anyone, getting new ponies for the long mountain haul or even waiting for Gandalf! That just makes them look stupid.

That said, I still liked it almost as much as FOTR and certainly more than TTT and ROTK. Those two have little to do with the books as far as I'm concerned and even as the movies they have lots of flaws that people seem to overlook because, you see, it looks like Middle-earth and it's e-p-i-c!

 

[Evil Agent]

Well, after waiting 9 years, I FINALLY saw The Hobbit (Part One, anyway).

Overall, I loved it. It definitely has flaws, and I can kind of understand why some critics have given it mixed reviews. However, I think this movie is really for the fans, not the critics, and being a massive Tolkien fan, I enjoyed it immensely!

I absolutely loved Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, and Cate Blanchett. The dwarves were fun, sometimes a little goofy, but I thought they struck a good balance between under-/over-developing them. The special effects were stunning (stone giants, trolls, goblin town, vastly improved wargs, and the prologue/flashback sequences). The Riddles in the Dark segment with Gollum was flawless. I loved everything about Dol Guldur / the Necromancer / the Witch King. And some of the fan-service moments were just wonderful (mentions of Bullroarer Took, the Istari/blue wizards, etc.).

I thought the length was perfect. It did not drag or feel slow - it almost felt too short! And, unlike some of the critics, I loved the whole first hour in Bag End, I loved the songs, I had no problems with Radagast, and I liked Azog (I thought he looked cool, even if he was all CGI).

I found the movie more "fun" than LOTR, probably because I'm less invested in The Hobbit as a book. It was simply a hugely entertaining fantasy/action/adventure movie. Not as great as The Lord of the Rings, but still very good. Can't wait to see it again!

My rating: 4.5/5

 

[Daddy Darth]

I am going this weekend with the kids!!! I can't wait to see it.

 

[DailyRich]

When this was first announced, I railed against the two film idea, against adding in the White Council and Dol Guldur. It was the King Kong bloat all over again, and it looked like Bilbo was going to get lost in his own story. Then I saw the trailers and started feeling a little better, until two films became three and that dread started to creep in again. Of course I was going to see it, but there wasn't the breathless anticipation that I had leading up to FOTR, where every single decision seemed to be so right. With The Hobbit, it was more, "I hope he didn't screw it up too badly."

Three hours later, it was, to quote Thorin, "I have never been so wrong."

Yeah, it's not Tolkien's The Hobbit, it's Jackson's. But it's so wonderfully, gloriously Jackson's. The additions don't feel obtrusive, but set Bilbo's story on a larger canvas, yet one that never diminishes his journey. Some say the pace is slow, but I say it's luxurious, not afraid to pause for grace notes or reactions or details. The changes to the story, like the ones in the Rings films, make cinematic sense. And every single performer just knocks it out of the park. It's great to see the cranky old Gandalf the Grey back, and McKellen seems just as happy to be in the role again. Freeman is perfect, and I dare you not to be slack-jawed at Galadriel's first appearance.

I was so dead set against the very idea of this film, and Jackson won me over. He can do what he wants with the next two, and barring an utter train wreck, I'm on board. The Hobbit won't make you forget the Rings films -- and really how could it, what with the surprise of those films being long since gone -- but it won't make you wish you were watching them instead either.

 

[chris777]

I watched it last night. I didn't feel like it was too slow, or too long or any of that. I'm fine with changing the actual Hobbit for the film, it made it better. Let's be honest if you followed the book too closely it would make for a dreadful film. So with that said I have a few complaints, and they only relate to a couple scenes.

1) The Giant Mountain Rock fighting men. So these mountains become giants and "Rock Em Sock Em Robot" each other. That's bad enough. But then add 13dwarves and a hobbit basically straddling their knee cap, and they somehow all make it out perfectly fine, no scratches. Cut that whole scene and it wouldn't take anything from the film.

2) The encounter with the Goblin King. First of all the slaying of the Goblin King was unfulfilling. But, my main issue is with what happened before and after. Their unrealistic escape. I could have swallowed it all if not for the final exit. Where they tumble a mile straight down on some busted up bridge falling through rocks and other bridges, 13 of them, undamaged like they are skateboarding. Finally hit the bottom and make a joke of it. At this point I was thinking. "Are they trying to make this YA or adult" because they keep mixing between the two. It's like they are trying for the adult believable(in this fantasy setting) theme. But then to make the YA crowd happy, they throw in these bits that just completely kill the moment.


All in all I liked the film.

Lastly, I watched it in 24FPS 3D. If I had to do it over again I think I would stick with 2D. The blur and uncomfortable glasses(my OCD doesn't help) take away from the story. If there was some really comfortable glasses and I was able to get the 48fps version it might work. Assuming I didn't succomb to the other issues with 48fps I've heard.(seeming like it was in fastforward. headache, nausea, cartoony look)