An Unexpected Journey, or the morning after

[Aganzir]

First off a warning: this thread is for discussing the film after seeing it, so it will contain spoilers.

I went to the premiere (https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/380279_10151285718094303_960953119_n.jpg) last night. I had very low expectations, so I was positively surprised, but I can't really decide which one was better, or worse, The Hobbit or the LOTR trilogy. As the Telegraph critic cited in Three Times The Hobbit thread said, it is like butter scraped on too much bread.

I liked the beginning - the fall of the Mountain, Bilbo and Gandalf's meeting (and dialogue), and the 13 dwarves (Fili ftw!). It would've been more beautiful if they had gone for an "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit" beginning, but I certainly didn't mind seeing the Lonely Mountain either.
I found the Bilbo & dwarves part pleasantly Tolkien-esque. It didn't stray too far from the atmosphere of the book, and even though the dwarves were silly at times, they weren't too much of a joke.

It was a good film until the appearance of the trolls. After that, it got confusing, as if that was the point up to which they had been following Tolkien and after that they wanted to spice things up of their own accord. I kind of understand the Azog thing because it gives the orcs a real reason to pursue Thorin's company - but "they killed our king" would also have been sufficient, and I got bored watching the orcs chase Radagast. And the rabbit sled, really? The elves coming to the rescue was also totally lame.

Rivendell was another confusing part. I seriously couldn't see what reason Elrond would have for not wanting the dwarves to get the Mountain back from the dragon. It's a freaking dragon! They're never up to good, and at least I would be grateful if somebody else wanted to do away with it. Basically what we got here was Galadriel and Gandalf plotting behind Saruman's back - at a time when he was still to be trusted - and no dwarves, except breaking furniture and leaving all of a sudden, leaving Gandalf behind just for the heck of it.

The stone giant battle lost its awe-inspiring quality because it was way too long. Does PJ want to send every hobbit home at some point? And before they met the Goblin King, I half-expected him to turn out to be Azog, and I'm happy that wasn't the case. He was a sympathetic fellow, really. But the battle and the escape were too long too. It would've been so much better - and scarier - if the pursuit had been more like how Tolkien wrote it. And when Gandalf and the Goblin King are standing on the bridge, you can't really help noticing all the similarities between LOTR and this even if you've been trying to ignore them before - the structure of the story is so blatantly similar (which is not the case in the books)! Gollum was okay though.

The final battle wasn't very interesting (or believable) either. Except when Thorin faced Azog, which was unnecessary and crude but still made me squeal a little bit inside. Did they only do it so Bilbo could save his life though? Sigh. And the eagles looked lousy.

I enjoyed it while I was watching it, and I am relieved it was better than it could have been, but it was badly cut and not very interesting - there's too much seemingly random stuff for it to be coherent.

[Bêthberry]

The title of this thread is just too suggestive. ;)

Is there a pill for the morning after?

Or this blast from rock n roll history: The Shirelles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2khQJGdnFE)

I had something better to do today, so I couldn't attend any premiere, but I will post a review once I see it. I'll be attending with the entire family so I don't think I will reprise my Mrs. Maggot costume, who really isn't very applicable to TH-but I love your dwarf. Your beards are getting better and better. :cool:

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I saw the movie last night and am still digesting way too many conflicting impressions to write a coherent review. However, I can share the one thing that bothered me most - too much recycling!

I wasn't expecting a true rendition of the book and had heard enough to expect similarities to the LotR movies. However, I had hoped that this would be a work of its own. Instead, it was, as one reviewer said, "LotR 2.0". Aside from the Dwarf theme, much of the music was taken verbatim from LotR. Some echoes were to be expected, of course, since Shore worked with the leitmotiv principle, so when characters and places there were included in the previous films show up again, their theme is repeated. However, I would have expected more variation on those themes, and more distinctive original music. Musically, it feels like the fourth movie in a series. I do like the Misty Mountain Dwarf theme (though it is often used like the Fellowship theme was, with epic orchestration).

Not only that, Jackson recycled many of the iconic images he created in LotR. A "fellowship"? Check. Running single file across a narrow subterranean bridge? Check. Gandalf facing a huge foe there? Check. A ring flying into the air and falling down upon a hobbit's finger? Check. The quotes may be intended as an homage, or used with tongue-in-cheek irony, but seeing the same images again took me out of the story.

All in all, this felt like a fan fiction movie of the original trilogy! Both music and images were excellent in LotR, so I know Shore and Jackson are capable of more than they produced here. That is the source of my greatest disappointment in this movie.

Positive impressions will follow when I've had time to sort it all out...

[Kuruharan]

All in all, this felt like a fan fiction movie of the original trilogy!

Ouch!

Now there's a cutting critique!

[Boromir88]

For convenience purposes I'm compiling the reviews of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey I've read or seen around. And after I see the movie tonight will share my impressions.

I maintained I could wait on this one and not see it in theaters...but ultimately I'm a weak person. That and a co-worker buddy has tickets and he offered me one of them, which I wasn't going to turn down. :p

Here are the reviews for perusal if anyone is interested:

The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/12/new-film-hobbit?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/an_unexpected_disappointment

Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/the-hobbit-length-hampers-film-peter-jackson_n_2277805.html

The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/dec/09/hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-review

Rotten Tomatoes:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/reviews/

[Guinevere]

I saw the movie yesterday afternoon, and I have mixed feelings as well. I pretty much agree with everything Aganzir has written!

I liked the beginning, (Erebor was awsome). Bilbo was excellent and the dwarves mostly ok. Thorin was more noble than I imagined him, but why oh why do Dwarves always have to burp and spill their ale when drinking?!
That they altered the course of events in the Troll scene was ok. but all the action and fight scenes and never ending pursuit scenes were exaggerated, as I had feared. There can be no real suspense when things are always overdone, or repeated over and over again! The pursuit in the maze of footbridges in the goblin caves reminded me of Moria, but was even more unlikely.
Neither did I like the warg riding orcs already before coming to Rivendell. In my opinion Radagast was rather ludicrous, let alone his rabbit drawn vehicle.

What I enjoyed was the "riddles in the dark" scene with Gollum. I enjoyed the music, too, especially the Dwarves' song.

[Boromir88]

I saw the movie's midnight showing, and here are my thoughts/reactions. If you prefer not to see any spoilers, watch the movie first before reading this...

The opening starts out fairly good, with Bilbo and Frodo. I don't think it's entirely necessary to have this "right before the Long-Expected Party" moment, but it brings back familiar faces to set up the story, and doesn't harm it. Old Bilbo takes us back not right to the "Unexpected Party" but to a prologue of the coming of Smaug and flight of the Dwarves. Erebor and Dale look fantastic. But the prologue also contains one of the more glaring changes that I don't like, nor do I think it's necessary...

Thranduil arrives with his elf army as the dwarves are fleeing the mountains. They are calling for Thranduil to aid them, but then Thranduil simply refuses and marches his army back home. It really doesn't make sense to me. I believe it's supposed to set up the hostility between Elves and Dwarves (can't really take us all back to Thingol and Doriath). However, I don't see how it's necessary to manufacture this animosity between the two races. You could have just dealt with the tension when the Dwarves are captured by Thranduil, and not manufacture this "Thranduil somehow magically arrives in Erebor when Smaug comes (even though Smaug's arrival is a surprise)...and despite marshalling an army he then flat out refuses to do anything, marches them back home. Thorin will remember this!" It paints the Elves as villains who seem perfectly content with a dragon taking up abode in the North of Middle-earth and Thranduil like fool, for marshalling his army and then deciding "mmk, pleasant show, let's go back."

Now we get to the beginning of The Hobbit with Gandalf's arival in Bag End. Some differences here, Bilbo doesn't try to cordially get rid of Gandalf by telling him to return for tea the next day, but basically tells him to bugger off and slams the door in his face. Then for whatever reason, Gandalf took that as a sign to just go ahead and mark the door anyway. Dwarves come busting in, Dwalin first and despite Bilbo's protest to get out of his hole, Dwalin just helps himself to food and pigs out. It's the same for the rest of the Dwarves who start filtering in, Bilbo throws fits telling them to get out, but he goes ignored completely and Dwarves raid Bilbo's food supplies.

Instead of Bilbo expecting to host Gandalf and being confused by a company of Dwarves sporadically showing up and Bilbo busying himself with trying to be a good host, but wonder how and why these dwarves just keep knocking on his door. You get quite a different feeling, as Dwarves just keep coming in to apparently raid all of Bilbo's food and refuse to know they're in someone's home who is yelling at them to get out. Not a change that I liked.

For some reason Jackson decides it must be elaborately explained why the Dwarves are on this quest to slay Smaug in the first place (because you know, having your home taken over by a dragon isn't good enough reason). Enter some strange prophecy story where Thorin is supposedly the one destined with the task and when the ravens return then Smaug's reign will end. I understand having to set up the dwarves motivations, but it's unnecessarily complicating the story. Like I said, what dwarves being kicked out by a dragon and they want their home back isn't simple enough to follow and explain? Thorin apparently attended some meeting of the 7 dwarven lords and he was told this "quest" was for him. It's also explicitly told that Dain refuses help, which well...I don't understand, considering the importance Dain plays in the Battle of Five Armies.

The two dwarven songs are fantastic and do in ways make up for this overly complicated "prophecy/quest" story. Bilbo refuses to sign the contract and the dwarves leave without him. Then the next day Bilbo seems to have a change of heart, realizing the emptiness and boredom of his hobbit hole that was previously filled with a bunch of dwarves. This one I don't mind, because it would be hard to explain the adventure that woke up in Bilbo from the stories (where it also seemed like in the books the music of the dwarves sparked this new found spirit). Here Bilbo seeing the emptiness is quite telling and it's this which sparks his adventure spirit. It's about as good as can be expected.

I will bypass the trolls, because that's fairly good, as well as entertaining. I really just want to get to the appearances of Azog and Radagast in the films. And I really don't see a point for them. Well there is a point, Azog to set up an antagonist in the first film, and some cheap thrills as the baddie "on the hunt" for Thorin and company. Radagast's only narrative purpose is to inform Gandalf that bad things have returned to Dol Guldur, but there is no reason this could not have been done by Gandalf later, when he visits Dol Guldur. The other stuff with Radagast is quite frankly ridiculous and only looks to be time filler. And thus I finally saw what the critics had been talking about, there is no point to Radagast except to stroke Jackson's ego as some sort of story-teller.

We get some mindless action to spice up the movie now as Azog is on the prowl with his warg-riding orcs, and attacks the party, driving them towards Rivendell. Rivendell's cavalry (led by Elrond) comes to their rescue. Thorin is distrustful towards Elrond by they accept his invite and eventually Thorin agrees to show Elrond Thror's map. And now I will say I did like Thorin's character better than I expected. He carries a distrust towards Elves, but I did imagine him as being very guarded. His reaction to be wary of Elrond is understandable, I just don't think we needed the whole "witnessing Thranduil refuse to aid the dwarves during Smaug's attack" to manufacture that hostility/mistrust.

It is here we get the White Council meeting (well Elrond, Gandalf, Saruman, and Galadriel at least). Another good part in the movie in my opinion. Now obviously the timing of this meeting is distorted, and it might only be to try to relive the Middle-earth feeling from the LOTR movies. But Blanchett and Lee are masterful on screen, I could legit watch any movie involving them. :p We get Saruman's blatant contempt for Radagast (as Gandalf informs them Radagast has discovered something bad has come to Dol Guldur) and Saruman brushes this off as Radagast being an unreliable source (afterall he's just a druggie forest wizard with birds nesting in his hair and a pet hedgehog). There is some really good dynamics set up here, and that is to be expected whenever you put actors with the caliber of Blanchett, Lee, McKellan and Weaving together. I am definitely interested to see how the rest of these White Council meetings turn out.

Unfortunately, we also get some nonsense from Elrond to not allow Thorin's party to continue with the quest, which has been mentioned by Agan. I don't get it either.

The stone giants are meh. I mean CGI wise they look great, but it's just more time waste that has no purpose but to have dwarves stumbling through some fight between the giants. Party gets to the cave, Bilbo decides he's tired of Thorin getting on him all the time about being a burden and thus he wants to sneak out and just go back home. He doesn't get the chance, as the party is captured by dwarves.

I love the look of Goblin-town, as the dwarves are taken to the Great Goblin (Bilbo gets separated and thus meets Gollum). Seeing it is Thorin, and Azog has a price on his head, the Great Goblin wants to ransom Thorin to Azog. At least this change in the story makes sense. But upon seeing Orcrist the goblins go nuts and want to just kill them all, a battle ensues. I'm ok with it, maybe because I expected a battle here, but it was good.

The Riddles scene between Gollum and Bilbo are easily the highlight of the first film, and my favorite part. There are some big differences here, but that I won't spoil. :D The differences make sense as far as adding to the movie and fitting nicely with what the narrator in The Hobbit tells us about Gollum's history.

Bilbo returns to the Dwarves, but there's really no understood reason why, considering before the Goblin capture he was whiny about Thorin being mean and thus just wants to go back home. But he's back with them, and for a fabricated reason suddenly wants to help them again.

The conclusion is turned into another fight scene. And this is I believe the overall issue with dividing up The Hobbit in three films. The book comes to a natural and logical conclusion where everything is brought together in The Battle of Five Armies. But now, Jackson is trying to create an entire movie narrative over a few chapters and other random stories from the appendices getting smushed all together.

Therefor, you're just confused how everything is relevant and a bunch of material has to be manufactured to weave all these separate events together. I think it's summed up well by Esty, and those who say it comes off looking like a fan-fic. I do believe, I can not fairly get an idea of everything until the story is complete with the other two movies. I was intrigued enough to see how everything gets brought together, but as far as this first movie...

The Lord of the Rings was a large enough book to contain Jackson's obsessive need to film and plunder everything. It never felt like too much, or too long, because there actually were so many narratives, and sub-plots that existed for the movies to be built upon. In my opinion, The Hobbit was not a big enough story for Jackson, and therefor he's plundering any possible avenue that is vaguely related to The Hobbit events, to try to mangle together a story. Since afterall, he has to create a narrative over a few chapters within one very small story. In my opinion, it didn't work, but I still don't think I can know until the entire story gets told (erm shown on screen).

[Lalwendë]

Spoilery - You have been warned.

Now I have seen it, I can look at stuff about it once more. Phew. I was expecting surprises, and there were a ton of 'em.

Let's get my gripe out of the way first. The one thing that I did not like and could not rationalise (there were other things I personally didn't like much but they were rational, coherent etc) was Azog's vendetta. I need to think about that bit some more. I did not like how Jackson chose to recycle motifs from LotR (e.g. the ring falling onto Bilbo's finger and Gandalf asking a moth to bring the eagles - there are a fair few more). But that's just personal. I feel it would have stood up well on its own merits without needing to be self-referential. However, plenty of other geeks lap up this kind of meta stuff so I know why it was there. Ho hum. Oh, and no Burrahobbit joke. Boo.

"It was too long!" cried critics. No. It wasn't too long at all. I felt like an hour had passed. "The material is too thin for a film this long!" also cried critics. Hmmm, The Hobbit is a children's book and is written like a children's book, with scant description and character exposition. It reads to a grown up as: this happened, then this happened, then this happened, then this happened... That's not a criticism, it's just how it is because of the type of book it is. And followed religiously, would have made for a very thin and unmeaty film. More Lambrini than Real Ale.

However, I kept thinking "Oh Jackson has been bold with this!" It's stuffed full of extra things and slight re-imaginings. But all of them did work and made sense to me apart from the Azog thing. I can see that the Radagast interlude is there so unknowing viewers weren't smacked with the Necromancer further into the trilogy without prior warning. And it was fun! The attitude of Thranduil toward the Dwarves also made sense - remember we are soon going to meet some distinctly unfriendly Elves. That Stag was also amazing.

That was one of my favourite details, and I do like the small details. The Blue Wizards line amused me. Gandalf couldn't remember their names - but was he allowed to mention their names given they are owned by the Estate? That little bit was something few would 'get' ;) And they nearly mentioned the Barrow Downs. I was willing them on...

The Bag End scenes were totally fantastic, both for the huge level of detail (Bullroarer Took's portrait!) of my favourite place in Middle-Earth and for the comedy of the party.
The acting though was something else. Completely superb. :cool:

I enjoyed it! I want to see it all again now. Maybe not in 3D because the glasses annoyed me and I ended up getting greasy popcorn salt on them. It didn't play havoc with my eye sight though and I have fairly extreme astigmatism so I don't understand why people were moaning about feeling sick.

[McCaber]

I loved the Dwarven raid on the goblin mines. It reminded me of some of the D&D games I've been part of, even including the showboating villain boss.

And that PJ kept most of the songs in, that just takes the cake. I really enjoyed this movie.

[SonofUgluk]

Thank you boromir88, Lalwende , Guinevere & McCaber , interesting & heartening reviews . I was going to wait until the film came out on dvd , but am now going to go and watch on the big screen as befits an epic film of this magnitude - I missed seeing any of the LOTR films on the big screen and don't want to make the same mistake twice , thanks for your input :)

[davem]

Don't know. Loved bits - actually loved bits of it far more than the bits of LotR that I loved.

Disliked other bits - & some bits lost me. This was my first 3d film & the glasses didn't help - in fact the 3d didn't help. 3d glasses are a nightmare to keep in place over specs & I was too conscious of the 3d effects - every time something came out of the screen at me I was taken out of the film. At other times I found myself focussing so much on the 3d I stopped following the story.

Anyway. Liked the bits others liked - Erebor & Dale, Bag End & the battle of Azanulbizar. Riddles in the Dark. Lots of it seemed to go on too long & drag in events & characters for not very well explained reasons. Still, all in all I don't feel like I wasted my time or money. Overall fun, exciting & occasionally moving. Not sure how it will stand up to repeated viewings.

Irritating bits, inevitably. And annoying lapses of logic. How come Thorin & the Dwarves can fall about 600 feet in Moria & just get up & walk away, only for him to be knocked senseless a bit later by a couple of thumps from Azog? The Moth/Eagles thing is now very old - even before seeing Gandalf employ it (as we will) at the Battle of Five Armies. In fact, a number of points where I got the feeling that they'd run out of ideas.

I'd say, chill out, go see it expecting nothing, don't be too critical & you'll enjoy lots of it.

Maybe more later.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

It is very late at night and I just came back from the cinema, but I think it would be difficult to sleep or to contain my thoughts for the following day, so I'll post now. At least I have motivation for once to make my post really short. Well, short for my usual length of "short", that is. But I'll point out only the few things that really caught my eye or mind. Also, I will wait to read the reviews of the rest of you only later when I have time, so it will be certainly uninfluenced analysis :)

*cough cough* So, let me start. Today (if I count tonight as still "today") has been remarkable for two things. First, Legate of Amon Lanc got educated by a newbie with the post count about 30-something about a thing in the LotR Appendices he has had no idea about for over the larger part of his life (somewhere here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=677767&postcount=90) if you care). Secondly, Legate of Amon Lanc, who, among other things, is the author of this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=665270&postcount=13) or this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=674707&postcount=8), has seen the Hobbit and liked it. Yeah. Stop beating your computer screen, what you are reading is not a visual error. If I am to say a simple statement, I say: I liked it.

Now, for a few highlights or "lowlights". What comes immediately to my mind is:

Handling the book's original plot: Well done. Nothing misses, nothing is twisted (and not even twisted beyond recognition, but nothing is twisted at all, except for the basic filmmaking license).

Adding the Dol Guldur subplot: That is weaker, but given what PJ operates with, again, it's a movie. And movie is for people who haven't read the books. And, let's be honest here, there are many among the book readers who do not even care about the "background" stuff beyond the frame of LotR and The Hobbit. So whether I go on explaining when was the White Council formed, when did they learn about Sauron, what did they do and so on - here we have the whole "Mirkwood is darkening" subplot squished into and ultimately, the outcome is the same, and fine by me. Of course, concerns might be regarding the Nazgul rubbish, but then again, if it serves to introduce "the Necromancer"... speaking of that, I really like the way the movie (or Saruman ;)) explained it. "A human wizard tampering with black magic, nothing more" = perfect. For some reason I loved this way of diminishing the threat. Also, the "shadow in the box" aka Necromancer actually looked quite good, much much better than the idiotic power plant we all know from LotR.

Bilbo and Gandalf: Handled perfectly, I see no problem. I still don't understand why the Uncloaking of Gandalf has to look so bad and ridiculous, the same way it did in LotR where it evidently did not work (it seemed as if Gandalf got some fit), but PJ is apparently of different opinion.

Dwarves: No objection. Very nice, very nice focus on some main ones (Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili, and gradually a couple of others), from the initial introduction throughout the story. And of course, Thorin. It was one thing I thought I might like, and it turned out that way. He remains a consistent character - except for the one unfortunate point in the mountains where he all of a sudden tells Bilbo he should not have been there (after they are falling down from the stone giants - it comes totally out of the blue). Since the start, there was this picture of him smiting the red iron on the anvil - totally reminded me of his important feature as mentioned in the appendices ("great anger burned in him as he smote the red iron on the anvil...") - not sure if PJ intended that, but if I wanted to mention a sentence in the book put 100% perfectly into a movie, this was one such example. All in all, praise, praise, praise to Thorin.

Trolls: So happy they didn't make them just ugly turtles and kept the whole thing basically almost unchanged (as much as you can in a film).

The Great Goblin: His voice almost lifted me from my seat at first. Aside from that, granted, 99% of his role is incredibly weak. But it was a nice impression.

Radagast: He was not as horrible as I feared. He was nuts and degraded into this poor senile being, but it was nice. Acceptable in the terms of movie license, I'd say.

The White Council: YES, YES and YES. That was the best, the coolest moment of the whole movie, slowly looming from the moment Elrond told Gandalf that he has something to explain... Wonderfully handled scene. Saruman. Was. Cool. And Galadriel too. When she appeared first and when she was talking (especially the mind-talking with Gandalf!!! Great one), she was great. However when she roamed around as they probably instructed her to do, she looked like a doll without strings and really made me think of "the marketing needs a pretty woman to pose, please". If you ask me, she was beautiful when she appeared and acted, not when she was standing in the background or roaming around with no purpose. That looked ridiculous. But close your eyes to that and you have the best scene of the whole movie. For me it really was.

- Gollum part of the plot handled well. Well except for Gollum, but that's the question of the design of the creature (I don't like it). I also like how the Ring's invisibility effect does not yet have the "corrupt feel" to it. Also, the idea of "mercy is the point" shown and conveyed well, I'd say.

Okay, minuses:

- Too unnecessarily prolongated action scenes. Be it fighting or running from place X to Y while doing ridiculous stunts... I cannot emphasise this strongly enough. PJ could have made it into, if not one, then certainly two two-hour movies if he left out all the action rubbish except in places where it is relevant/important. Speaking of length, I had the feeling just after they left Rivendell that the movie could have ended just about there and I'd be happy. I don't know at what mark that event is, but I think if they had cut the unnecessary things, it might have worked around that timestamp.

- Too many unrealistic stunt-scenes. I just realised that's what really I dislike the most. I really could not bear the escape from Goblin-town. Swinging whole platforms and all that while throwing the goblins overboard... horrible. Nothing against Ice Age, but that is an animated movie. Such things really are not supposed to happen in movies with real actors, sorry.

- Absolutely unnecessary Azog subplot. The story as narrated by Balin was nice, but a) Azog is ugly (he's supposed to be mail-clad), b) I've had enough of idiotic wannabe-creepy grins of PJ's orcs into the camera for half an age, c) using Azog to introduce wargs was nice, but the fight against him in the end was unnecessary. Thorin was absolutely cool when he rose from the fire like a phoenix to meet his nemesis, that was perfect, but after that? Got kicked and it served no purpose whatsoever except to prolongate the movie with another few minutes.

- The Transformers. Seriously. The worst thing ever. I was happy to hear they put the Stone giants in. When I saw them... The Transformers. *facepalm*

- The songs. I loved the Dwarven song, as sung by the Dwarves in the deep voices (NOT as sung by whoever it was during the end credits. The deep voices made it cool, the end credit-singer didn't), but what the heck was the plate song? So bad. Totally unimaginative tune. IT HAD THE SAME TUNE AS THE ALREADY UNIMAGINATIVE TUNES IN LOTR WHICH PIPPINS AND CO. ARE SINGING IN THEIR PUBS!!! Likewise, there was some goblin-song, right? I don't even remember it, it was also bad. And if there was anything in between, it was probably bad as well.

Summa summarum:
Best moments: The start in the Shire, the White Council.
Worst moments: The Transformers, escape from Goblin-town.
General verdict: Give me scissors, I'd cut several scenes and make a very good movie of suitable length which will be fun to watch.
I would not necessarily watch this again for all that money I paid for the ticket, in fact, I'd have paid half for even the original one if I could choose. But as a movie, at home, with a couple of people, I'd watch it again without any objection.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Of course I could not have resisted and, after all, read the posts on this thread anyway before going to sleep.

My comment, and concern, is only one.

Am I the one who liked the movie the most from the people who have posted on this thread? :eek: (Or, on about the same wavelength as Lalwendë.)

That is probably the scariest thing that has happened to me for some time.

[davem]

I think most people (even the most hard line fan of the books) will find a lot to like in the film. Its fun for the most part, captures much of the mood of the story & expands the (movie) universe nicely. I suppose the question is would you rather have these films or no films? Would you have missed out on the whole movie experience (not just the films & the tie-ins, but the whole community experience which they have fostered) would this site & its community even exist if not for the films?

So, certainly annoying in parts but to actually see Bag End, Moria, Minas Tirith, Erebor.... to encounter those characters in the (digital) flesh, well..... I think you'd have to be very churlish & ungrateful to wish they hadn't happened at all. There are some very annoying things, some points where Jackson seems to have let the technology run wild & also to have failed to rein in his imagination. I agree that the stone giants episode went too far - a glimpse would have been more powerfully evocative. Plus it was yet another point at which the characters, if real physical beings, would have simply died. Jackson seems to have no understanding of the effect of physical force (or fire!) on bodies. I don't care that Dwarves are physically stronger than humans, they wouldn't have survived that - & certainly Bilbo wouldn't.

Of course the book moves from childish innocence & silliness to adult, worldly-wise, seriousness, but Tolkien doesn't jerk back & forth between the two, & that's a major issue for me with the film which jumps from Tom & Jerry to The Silmarillion & back without any warning. When it works its brilliant, when it doesn't work it really, really doesn't.

Again, I think we''ll have to reserve full judgement till we can watch the whole thing.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

So, certainly annoying in parts but to actually see Bag End, Moria, Minas Tirith, Erebor.... to encounter those characters in the (digital) flesh, well..... I think you'd have to be very churlish & ungrateful to wish they hadn't happened at all.
Actually, that is about the last thing I like about the movies. I did not need to see a portrayal of Bag End or Moria which are fundamentally different from how I imagine them and thus disrupt my imagination of them. I am a very "landscape-visual-type" person. In fact, I would possibly say that I would have preferred not to see a movie adaptation, if we put the stress on the word "adaptation". But it is a nice movie. I would be equally happy to watch any other movie which I would find likeable. However, I guess here comes the dimension of, perhaps, curiosity, or evaluation from the point of view of a fan, who can say "okay, this was handled well" and "okay, this was handled interestingly" (and, of course, "this was screwed up"). And as for the dimension of introducing new fans, of course, that's no debate.


There are some very annoying things, some points where Jackson seems to have let the technology run wild & also to have failed to rein in his imagination. I agree that the stone giants episode went too far - a glimpse would have been more powerfully evocative. Plus it was yet another point at which the characters, if real physical beings, would have simply died. Jackson seems to have no understanding of the effect of physical force (or fire!) on bodies. I don't care that Dwarves are physically stronger than humans, they wouldn't have survived that - & certainly Bilbo wouldn't.
Absolutely. That is what basically annoyed me the most especially this time (in LotR, it was present too, but I think less - the one thing I can think of was the "balancing on falling stairs" part in Moria, aside from Legolas stunts etc.).

Again, I think we''ll have to reserve full judgement till we can watch the whole thing.

When returning from the cinema, we met a guy who asked us about the movie and asked if it isn't annoying to have to wait for the following movies. That's when I realised: I don't care. For me, the movie is finished, and how I rate the rest, is a different thing. For the moment. Of course, once all the movies are out, I can rate them all together. But I can also rate them separately, and evaluate them separately, and have no problem with that. For example, I am able to tell you that Two Towers was easily one of the worst movies ever, while Fellowship was still quite nice.

[davem]

Absolutely. That is what basically annoyed me the most especially this time (in LotR, it was present too, but I think less - the one thing I can think of was the "balancing on falling stairs" part in Moria, aside from Legolas stunts etc.).


I can think of a few points in LotR - Boromir hurled a good 20 feet across the Chamber of Mazarbul into a stone wall & then getting up & shaking his head & getting straight back into the fight, Frodo falling the equivalent of 20 feet from the the Seat of Seeing onto his back & not even being winded, Aragorn's fall over the cliff & Denethor's infamous 3 mile human torch sprint ... I don't think Jackson gets that if you do that with your characters you can't then suddenly switch to giving them normal physical vulnerability in the next scene & expect the audience to believe it. When Thorin was beaten unconscious at the end I was convinced, after all he'd been through without even being fazed, that he was faking it - & that actually spoiled the impact of the scene as I was expecting him to jump up & behead Azog any second.


. For example, I am able to tell you that Two Towers was easily one of the worst movies ever, while Fellowship was still quite nice.


I can watch Fellowship as a stand alone film, but not either of the others, but I can (only done this once btw) watch all of them back to back - I suspect this is because Fellowship provides the necessary momentum....

John D Rateliff (author of History of the Hobbit) gives his thoughts http://sacnoths.blogspot.co.uk/ I pretty much agree with his points when it comes to his likes.

As to the 3D - again, I just didn't see the point of it. It was well done but I don't think it would have been missed. I read recently that Jackson has decided against converting LotR into 3D. I'd like to see it again in 2D now I know what's coming. I'll save my review proper for then.

[Rikae]

Well, I thought the Goblin King and the battle with the goblins were so awful, so cheesy and over-the-top, that they overshadowed everything I did enjoy: the look of Goblin town and Erebor, the portrayals of Bilbo and the dwarves (and of course Gollum and Gandalf), the dwarves' song, in fact, pretty much the whole thing up to that point. I thought I was watching King Kong for a second there.
What it boils down to: if you are Peter Jackson and you feel something needs more "humor" or "action", you should handcuff yourself to the nearest wall.

[Boromir88]

I had a good laugh from this:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/im/2012/12/the_hobbit_movie_reviewed_by_tolkien_virgins_does_ the_peter_jackson_film.single.html

Two Slate employees, who had not seen the LOTR movies, nor read any of Tolkien's books, give their Hobbit review :D

[Lalwendë]

Yes, the stunts were unbelievable. However, they didn't detract from it for me because I've become more or less immune to them after years and years of watching TV and films with equally unbelievable stunts. I blame The Matrix!

A thought strikes me that films such as The Hobbit will always be at a disadvantage with obsessed fans like us. This is because the original text is so overwhelmingly powerful at creating strong inner visuals, and even Tolkien admitted that for each reader, this visual would be different. In On Fairy Stories he says that each reader, when they encounter say the word 'tree' then what they see is his or her own picture of a 'tree', on an almost elemental level. So when a film director (or indeed an artist) shows us his or her 'tree' then the odds are stacked against it being like what we have seen.

Bearing that in mind, I have been to see each and every one of Jackson's films with an open heart and mind, realising that his vision will be different to my own. His landscapes are the most wildly different for me. Much of Middle-earth looks a bit like Lancashire or Scotland to me!

I have to throw in another point that I didn't cover yesterday fully. The acting was totally superb. The Dwarves often have little individual personaility to me in the text but the film really did bring them out, some in particular. James Nesbit wasn't an actor I especially liked but he steals several scenes in The Hobbit as Bofur, and I want his hat. Ken Stott's turn as Balin was touching. Graham McTavish as Dwalin was frightening, like a proper nutter. Mark Hadlow as Dori was great - I liked his scene with the camomile tea/red wine. Loved Adam Brown as Ori (playing him as the Much the Miller's Son of the group). Aidan Turner and Dean O'Gorman are not at all like Legolas and played the parts of young laddish Dwarves very well. You don't need me to say just how good Richard Armitage was as Thorin - he owned the role.

Martin Freeman was as perfect for Bilbo as I knew he would be.

I need to see it all again in 2D and enjoy it more rather than be distracted by bits of gubbins flying at me from out of the screen while I fiddle with plastic shades...

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

I'm going on a double date tonight to see it. SO. FREAKING. EXCITED!!!!

I'm just hoping that it won't differ from the book too much, like LOTR did.

[Bêthberry]

Taking a nod from Boro, here's more chuckles about the film, courtesy of The Onion:

Hobbit to feature 53 minute long scene of Bilbo packing (http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-hobbit-to-feature-53minutelong-scene-of-bilbo,30727/).

[Oddwen]

I was more pleased than anything with it. When it stuck to the book, it was lovely, and when it didn't, well, at least it was nothing we haven't seen before with LotR. Sometimes literally.

I did love Thorin and Company and hope there will be much, much more of them in the EE. Balin especially was awesome. I would follow him into Moria. Thorin was fantastic, and I'm soooo glad they didn't take the "Reluctant Hero" route as was done with Aragorn.

The weak spots for me were all of the goblins and orcs. Every word of their dialogue is stunted and far too "modern". And as for Azog...ugh. No. "He died of his wounds.......LONG AGO." I was half hoping that it would be Bolg following instead for revenge, and given an opportunity to show some orcish loyalty as a parallel to Thorin's followers, and also finally see some orcish angst...oh wait, it's PJ&co.

I've had enough of idiotic wannabe-creepy grins of PJ's orcs into the camera for half an age

Seconded. Thirded. Fifteenthed. Forever.

I'll definitely see it again though.

[Rikae]

Yes, Bofur was a good character, and one of the rare cases where embellishing on the book created something decent, in my opinion. I liked the dynamic he had with Bilbo, sort of big-brotherly teasing with an underlying protectiveness. Martin Freeman was wonderful, very sympathetic. One scene I found really moving was the moment he caught up with the dwarves carrying the signed contract (I was a little disappointed he didn't get the oversized green cloak and hood from the book afterward: for some reason those items always seemed important in my mind).
I didn't care for Barry Humphries as the goblin king. I suppose some might have found him entertaining, but to me he just seemed very out of place (a friend of mine called him the film's "Jar Jar Binks" and I agree). I shouldn't entirely blame the actor: his lines were dreadful. As for the battle that followed, it looked like something out of a roadrunner cartoon. The goblin scenes actually made it difficult to for me to fully enjoy the neighboring "Riddles in the Dark" scene. The latter was on a set that wasn't nearly dark, or large, enough, but Freeman and Serkis could have probably managed to be convincing in the produce department at Wegmans. The writing still wasn't great, with too many dual-personality jokes for my taste. I'm just not a fan of Boyans and Walsh, and never will be.

I really loved the dwarves' song* and wish there had been more new music. I'm actually sad that neither the elves nor the orcs sang. Tra-la-la-lally's are optional, but, well, you know what they say about elvish singing, in June, under the stars. :D

One really minor thing that that annoyed me far too much: why does Galadriel need to strike a dramatic pose at all times while having a conversation? Surely they could have come up with slightly less corny way to make her look impressive. Yes, I know she does a bit of that in LoTR, but it isn't as extreme.
I'll just stand on this ledge here with my back to you all so everyone knows I'm special.

I wasn't really happy with the Necromancer (who looked like something out of a sci-fi movie), but mostly liked Radagast, though his costume was over-the-top. The embellishments to the plot surrounding Azog weren't really objectionable: of course PJ wanted to create more continuity and at least Azog doesn't do too much that the generic goblins didn't in the book.

I suppose I sound too critical. I certainly found more to dislike here than in FoTR, probably because more was invented/padded, and several scenes seem to have been there because PJ was going down some kind of "successful movie formula" checklist. I'm still looking forward to the next one. A friend I went with, though, said that she felt like she didn't need to read the book after watching this, which just... *sigh*
What do you say to that? :rolleyes:

*Edit: the version in the movie, not the one at the end.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Many thanks to Boromir88 and Bethberry for the humorous links. After suffering through two-hours and forty five minutes of this bloated turkey -- not to mention two days of intestinal flu -- I really needed the laughs.

My Chinese wife tried to read The Hobbit in English once, and never managed to get past Chapter Six: "Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire." After viewing this miserable excuse for a movie, I told her: "See? You don't have to feel so bad now. Peter Jackson reportedly speaks and writes English and has been over all these stories innumerable times, and even with a half-a-billion-dollar budget to squander, he couldn't get past Chapter Six either!" My wife liked getting out of the routine of daily life for a few hours, though, and so appreciated the escapism of the film, even though the guy eating popcorn in the seat behind her reminded her of mice raiding the pantry. When I told her that Ian Holm (as the 111-year-old Bilbo the Older, with nothing meaningful to do or say) looked to me like a 50-year-old with either a face-lift or a post-production Photoshop version of one, she told me that, from her female point of view, she thought Cate Blanchett looked like Sharon Stone in Basic Instict 2. "And she didn't even cross her legs, either!" I added.

And Elijah Wood as Frodo going to the mailbox? Why?

Even I could do the arithmetic and divide The Hobbit's 19 slim chapters by three movies and get 6+ chapters per movie, so I knew going in that the eagles would again do their ornithological interpretation of Deus Ex Machina and swoop down to save the day -- again -- just in the nick of time. I didn't, however, count on Peter Jackson taking the "hanging over the edge of the abyss" cliché to the point where not just Bilbo Baggins (in one scene) but the entire company found themselves literally hanging over the edge of yet another cliff clinging to the branches of a single tree. Naturally, no one really fell to their deaths; yet even if they had, Gandalf would have just passed his hand over their closed eyes -- like he did with Thorin Oakenshield after a warg chewed him up and spit him out -- and their lovely bones would magically rejoin the living in a heartbeat.

What unadulterated crap. Not just the unnecessary and pointless Radaghast the Brown, but practically everyone in this film wound up with bird-droppings in their beards -- even the ones who didn't have beards. In their defense, though, Bilbo (the younger) and Gollum did have a few moments together towards the end where something approaching characterization with dialogue happened. Even there, however, Peter Jackson couldn't help having Gollum look -- again -- at his own reflection in the water (Return of the King scene rip-off! Check!) and Gollum's truly gratuitous bludgeoning of an injured goblin (who actually had suffered from a dizzying fall) seemed excessively tasteless to me even for Peter Jackson.

I could go on for hours deconstructing this farce, but the film just doesn't hold enough interest for me to bother. A few barely passable lines of dialogue here and there do not rescue or redeem this over-extended spoiler prologue to -- wait for it! -- a glimpse of the entire dragon (not just his foot or tail or eyeball) -- which might occur either one or two years from now. Really: a two-hour-and-forty-minute teaser trailer which basically boils down to this: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey never has any adventure or does anything unexpected.

As the stomach turns ...

[Lalwendë]

One really minor thing that that annoyed me far too much: why does Galadriel need to strike a dramatic pose at all times while having a conversation? Surely they could have come up with slightly less corny way to make her look impressive. Yes, I know she does a bit of that in LoTR, but it isn't as extreme.
I'll just stand on this ledge here with my back to you all so everyone knows I'm special.


Ew, yes. It's a long, long way from being a deal breaker, but there's always been something I didn't like in Galadriel's posing thing. She stands there, like a Collector's Model speaking through an autotune machine. I always pushed the thought away thinking I was being a bit of a cow, but I have to admit it always annoys me a wee bit. They should have got her on a whopping great stag like Thranduil and then I would be impressed - you can tell I do not like Princessy stuff much, can't you.... :D

Another thing - I surprised myself and found I liked Barry Humphries as the Goblin King. And normally I hate Barry Humphries - Dame Edna is one of the least funny things in the whole world. And I've just remembered that creepy little Goblin scribe - I liked him, he was a bit horrible.

So far, around 95% of comments I have seen outside sniffy media film reviews have been positive and some are rating it above FotR.

[Nerwen]

So far, around 95% of comments I have seen outside sniffy media film reviews have been positive and some are rating it above FotR.

I have't seen this film yet– it hasn't been released here, in fact– but I intend to, and when I do I'll of course make up my own mind regardless of what any critic says. However, Lal– well, I hope I'm not sounding like too much of a cynic by pointing out that early audience reactions to a heavily-promoted, long-awaited entry in a popular franchise are almost guaranteed to be positive? I'm not saying they're wrong– I mean, nobody can be "right" or "wrong" about a subjective opinion– I just mean I don't think it really works as an argument for the film's quality.

[The Barrow-Wight]

I don’t know why, but I can believe in dwarves, orcs, wizards, magic, trolls, Hobbits, elves, glowing swords, dragons, wargs, Gollum, and the Necromancer, but I get angry when I’m forced to watch 13 dwarves and a wizard fall 300 feet on a disintegrating wooden platform and never get hurt. Come on, Jackson! That’s impossible! ;)

P.S. I really liked the movie but wonder why it was in 3D.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Speaking only for myself, I cannot see a film adaptation of The Hobbit through the perspective of someone else who has never read the book and/or seen the Lord of the Rings movies. I've read the books and seen the movies several times over the last fifty years, so they have now become part of my particular life experience. I cannot cleanse my mind of them, nor would I ever wish to do so, just so I could succumb to an obvious commercial campaign like other innocent consumers. I had a few dollars that I could spare to see this film once, more out of curiosity than hope, especially since I attended a Friday matinee and got my first senior-citizen discount. Even at that reduced rate, I still felt swindled, but I knew the likelihood of that going in. Still, as the dyslexic dwarf chimpanzee of a recent American president once said: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice -- You can't get fooled again." Once: OK. Twice: No Way.

As I said, I attended the first showing of the day here in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Not many people showed up at that early hour and so I saw the film in the company of probably no more than a dozen other Taiwanese persons. Normally, I don't pay any attention to the Chinese subtitles of English-language movies, but in this case I found them both interesting and educational during the many times when my attention wandered from the fan-fiction, video-game dreck on the big screen. I did, however, experience a few -- although fleeting -- encounters with creativity. For example:

In the scene with the trolls, the book had Gandalf coming to the rescue of Bilbo and the dwarves by confusing the trolls (from off in the dark somewhere) and getting them to argue among themselves until the sun came up and turned them to stone. In the film, Bilbo conceives the idea of stalling for time by various suggestions to the trolls about possible seasonings, filleting options, and possible dangers of eating infected dwarf meat, et cetera. Here the film-makers almost improved upon the book because Tolkien had Gandalf disappear at times precisely so that Bilbo could prove his own worth to Thorin and Company instead of having the magician predictably wave his magic staff and take care of everything himself. Yet instead of just letting the sun come up and turn the trolls to stone due to Bilbo's ingenuity at stalling for time, Gandalf steps into the picture right at the last minute, waves his magic staff, and spits a big rock in half, allowing the sunrise to ossify the trolls. Tolkien had good reason for wanting less Gandalf and more Bilbo Baggins -- but do you think these film-makers could understand this and let Bilbo have his little victory? Nooooooooooooooooo. They have just got to do the Deus Ex Machina thing, even when they could easily have avoided it. I would have just let the sun come up and do the job and then had Gandalf wander in from the surrounding woods saying: "Well what do you know? I see that Mr Baggins has taken care of things quite nicely, just as I thought he would." Something like that. Sometimes one can deviate from the book if one understands the author's purpose and can effectively find a novel way to advance it. A close call with almost a creative departure from the book there, but not quite.

In all fairness to this bloated mercenary assault on a simple story, I did experience a few moments like this when I could see Bilbo's character and understanding deepen. Unfortunately, I can count those instances on fewer than five fingers. If time and energy permit, I'll detail a few other examples in subsequent comments.

Mostly, though, the film-makers here just don't seem to have many interesting new ideas, as I believe several others have mentioned above, and so they mostly keep recycling old scenes from the LOTR films. Each time they did this, I found myself thinking: "Oh, look. Another recycled scene from the LOTR movies." Then I would start reading the Chinese subtitles again.

And so it went ...

[davem]

The new Guardian/Observer review is one of the most positive I've yet come across http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/dec/16/the-hobbit-unexpected-journey-review while the Independent seems to have gone for the 'Offensive Snob' approach http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/ios-film-review-the-hobbit-8420225.html

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I have't seen this film yet– it hasn't been released here, in fact– but I intend to, and when I do I'll of course make up my own mind regardless of what any critic says. However, Lal– well, I hope I'm not sounding like too much of a cynic by pointing out that early audience reactions to a heavily-promoted, long-awaited entry in a popular franchise are almost guaranteed to be positive? I'm not saying they're wrong– I mean, nobody can be "right" or "wrong" about a subjective opinion– I just mean I don't think it really works as an argument for the film's quality.
Subjective opinions are certainly what it comes down to. That's why I do not care much about the film reviews. Not even from other random individual people, but e.g. in this case from 'Downers, with whom I at least have some idea of how they might judge the stuff.

As for heavily-promoted, long-awaited entry in a popular franchise, I, for one, have not been awaiting it, nor following any film-news at all (only seen the trailers, and even they made me confirm my "bad PJ once again" expectations), and my expectations were of the phlegmatic kind at most. I would not have probably even gone to the cinema if not for my friends who wanted to see it. But I was overall pleased with the way the film was handled.

Maybe we should start a more "anonymous" and spoiler-free thread of general review ratings of the movie for 'Downers who have not seen the movie yet and would be interested to know about the fellow 'Downers' opinion...

[davem]

Its worth remembering as well that Tolkien himself was fairly dismissive of TH, and that it only really touches greatness towards the end. Tolkien disliked the tweeness of the start of the book and in the early 60's attempted to rewrite it in the style of LotR (and failed, btw). It could certainly be argued that Jackson's version, so far, has treated Bilbo's story with more respect and dignity than Tolkien himself did... ;)

[Nerwen]

Legate– in case I didn't get my meaning across before– I wasn't questioning anyone's taste or judgement here, just saying the general audience response probably doesn't tell us very much at this point.

[Boromir88]

I also heard a guy say "You're not a TRUE fan of the books if you like this movie." But I was too sleepy and pleasanty content to knock him off his high elk.

And that I also will semi-credit the movie with...you know those 60s TV Batman episodes? Holy fish paste, Batman! Well, now, I can exclaim, Holy elk riders! (or the longer version...Holy elk riding, Elven King!)

[davem]

Thranduil on the stag is straight out of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Vita Merlini. Can't help wondering if the rabbit sled has any precursors in legend or folklore.

[radagastly]

originally posted by davem:

Can't help wondering if the rabbit sled has any precursors in legend or folklore.
Perhaps from Beatrix Potter?:

http://infernalcakewalk.com/post/6516903460/beatrix-potters-illustrations-for-cinderella-she

[Rikae]

I would have just let the sun come up and do the job and then had Gandalf wander in from the surrounding woods saying: "Well what do you know? I see that Mr Baggins has taken care of things quite nicely, just as I thought he would."

Oh dear. That would have Bilbo playing the hero from the beginning, instead of slowly developing into one from a timid hobbit. I already thought they went too far in that direction in this film: he jumps between Thorin and Azog, for crying out loud! There's not far for him to develop from there.

[Kuruharan]

I also heard a guy say "You're not a TRUE fan of the books if you like this movie." But I was too sleepy and pleasanty content to knock him off his high elk.

And that I also will semi-credit the movie with...you know those 60s TV Batman episodes? Holy fish paste, Batman! Well, now, I can exclaim, Holy elk riders! (or the longer version...Holy elk riding, Elven King!)

So I gather with elk riding elves, it is pretty much a given that we will see pig riding dwarves. :rolleyes:

[Elmo]

I thought it was excellent except the Galadriel and Radagast bits. Dol Guldor isn't how I imagined it at all. :(

The bit when Bilbo realises why the dwarves are so desperate to get their home back :smokin: Amazing acting by Freeman, brilliantly captured the conflict between the Took and the Baggins within Bilbo.

[Kitanna]

I also heard a guy say "You're not a TRUE fan of the books if you like this movie." But I was too sleepy and pleasanty content to knock him off his high elk.

Oh, psh. :rolleyes:

Since my mom is making me go with her, I'll reserve my final judgement until I see it again. I wasn't really swept away when I saw it yesterday though.

I thought the beginning was good and considering later parts, fairly true to the book (changed slightly but not for the worst).

However I couldn't stand Radagast. It would have been better if Radagast had shown up and retold everything for Gandalf rather than having an awkward segway into saving a hedgehog. Even though it was an adorable CGI hedgehog. Then he has a sled pulled by rabbits on steroids? It felt too much like a podrace, "Hey look what we can do with a computer". In fact a lot of scenes felt like "look where we are now with technologically."

The vendetta was forced on us, not like the company didn't fall into enough trouble without that, but it was worked in well.

My favorite scene was Saruman telling everyone not to worry and that Radagast was a nutter butter. I thought it was a very nice addition. Though why were the dwarves sneaking out as thieves in the night?

Right now I give it ***. But I did buy the soundtrack when it was released. The dwarf songs and any theme that was a variant on the Misty Mountain theme was wonderful.

[Lalwendë]

Legate– in case I didn't get my meaning across before– I wasn't questioning anyone's taste or judgement here, just saying the general audience response probably doesn't tell us very much at this point.

It might not, indeed, tell you much about objective quality. But who is the Guardian of Quality anyway? Critics certainly like to think so, but they would be wrong. Almost every lay viewer I have read the opinion of or spoken to has said they really enjoyed it. Some have reservations, some have none, but they enjoyed it. That counts above Quality in my book!

The new Guardian/Observer review is one of the most positive I've yet come across http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...journey-review while the Independent seems to have gone for the 'Offensive Snob' approach http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...t-8420225.html

That second review isn't even a review, it's just some guy exercising his machismo and trying to underline to his fellow Islington intelligentsia that this sort of thing is for spotty geeks and he is above this kind of thing, sniff. All the usual anti-Tolkien insults, comedy Dwarf names etc.

The second one makes an interesting point though, and it might be a bit controversial but I agree with it:

You don't need to be a Tolkien devotee who knows their orcs from their elvish to enjoy the movie, and it's generally less irritating than the book, with none of the archness Tolkien adopts when addressing children.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Legate– in case I didn't get my meaning across before– I wasn't questioning anyone's taste or judgement here, just saying the general audience response probably doesn't tell us very much at this point.
I didn't think you were questioning anyone's taste, I more like interpreted it that you were trying to say something along the lines of "any early reviews this far are not really good for telling us anything objective, because so far they all come from hyped audience who has been drooling for the movie already for a year or more". To which I wanted to counter by saying "But here you have what I believe might give you a small hint of objectivity, the overcritical people like Legate or davem seem to have not burned the movie to ashes yet, in fact even worse, they seem to speak in relatively positive tone about it". :) That said, part of it comes from the fact that most of what would likely have been the most shocking stuff was already glimpseable in the trailers (rabbits), so it is probable I was more attuned to seeing the positives now, because I knew about the negatives. But generally PJ is capable of much worse. I only hope Hobbit 2 won't be the repetition of the horror that came with TT. But that's too far ahead now. I'm keeping my focus on what we have in the present...

Oh dear. That would have Bilbo playing the hero from the beginning, instead of slowly developing into one from a timid hobbit. I already thought they went too far in that direction in this film: he jumps between Thorin and Azog, for crying out loud! There's not far for him to develop from there.
Yep, that was not a good thing, though again, thinking about it, it isn't running too much far ahead of the schedule: I mean, the strongest breaking point in the book (at least from my perspective) comes in Mirkwood, when Bilbo saves all the Dwarves from the spiders (since it's the first time they are without Gandalf to save them from trouble, and Bilbo is the one who does it). And that isn't so far ahead in the future from the point when the Azog-thing happened. So I think it isn't yet such a terrible jump. However, I completely agree about the deed in particular being a bit suicidal and over the top. Bilbo is otherwise supposed to save the Dwarves by cunning as well as courage, but fighting head-on with an Orc is not exactly the way.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I've seen it twice now so I'll give my thoughts...

I went in expecting 'Peter Jacksons Vaguely Hobbit-based Fight Movie with Dwarves' and was pleasantly surprised. There were plenty of page-to-screen scenes that I liked and the cinematography was generally wondrous to behold. The CGI was most noticeable in Goblin Town, I think, and it would have been better with models and prosthetics, I think, rather than the over-reliance on graphics. But that may just be my personal preference for models and puppetry. ;)

The padding was more noticeable on second viewing. A few scenes do go on a bit and as beautiful as they were, the panoramic adverts for New Zealand's scenery could have been cut down considerably.

Now, I really disliked the Azog sub-plot. It annoyed me an awful lot and felt shoe-horned in. In fact, I'm pretty sure you could effectively remove it and make no difference to the movie - I'm almost convinced that it wouldn't have been there had this been a 2-film deal and this first outing could have gone as far as the Barrels at least!
I thought the fork-for-a-hand and general fake look of Azog himself was not to my liking. As ridiculous as 'Gothmog' looked in the Return of the King movie, I think I preferred that look to this CGI silliness.

There was stuff I did like. I really enjoyed Radagast. He's always had a special place in my heart as the not-quite-a-failure and not-quite-a-success wizard. He was played pretty much as I imagined him. Also, I am a massive Doctor Who fan, so to see Sylvester McCoy (7th Doctor, my personal favourite) play him was a treat. Though I did fear he'd face the same criticism as his Doctor did. When he first started in Doctor Who he played the Doctor as a clownish buffoon and was lampooned for it. As he went on he toned it down and turned the Doctor into a powerful, manipulative and yet lovable character you could believe was a Lord of Time. That beneath the silly surface slept this immense power and intelligence that he was waiting to unveil. My hope is that in movies 2 and 3 he does the same; we did get a sense of that in this film.
I liked the scene with the hedgehog for that reason. He demonstrates that he is a powerful wizard with great potential, he simply chooses to channel it into a poor defenceless hedgehog. He also holds his own against the Witch King.
The Bunny Sleigh was perhaps a little too much, though. It seems like something that's there to entertain the slightly younger audience - if the burping and falling over Dwarves wasn't good enough. Also, it's probably there for the sake of action figures, let's face it. It was okay in the forest, but the chase with the wargs was over doing it, I felt.

A much more cheerful Elrond this time, too. I liked that. The whole White Council was a good scene for nerds. I don't know how none-nerds will receive it, though. One of my brothers who saw it with me thought they still played Saruman as too "obviously sinister". I didn't get that impression - he struck me as dismissive and unconcerned, but not sinister. I'm glad they kept his contempt for Radagast in, though. I was waiting for a 'bird tamer' line, but alas, was not to be.

The scene where the Dwarves are eating in Rivendel was a missed opportunity, I felt. The music the elves were playing could so easily have been coupled with a few lines of 'Tra-la-la-lally'. They could have made it clear the elves were trying to annoy the Dwarves (which is the impression I got in the book), and given the one Dwarf who stuffs his ear-trumpet, it would have been a hilarious scene!

Goblin Town, as I've said, needed to be toned down. The Goblins in general were a bit too obviously computer generated. There was much more of a 'real' feel to the orcs of the LotR films. Also, the chase scene was really just Peter Jackson taking liberties, I think. It's nothing I wasn't expecting from the start. In many ways, I'm amazed it wasn't more ridiculous!

Riddles in the Dark was good. Well played. I was always worried about that because it works on paper but I feared that the long pauses while Bilbo thinks would have been boring. But I think they pulled it off okay.

I'm in two minds about Bilbo's killing of the warg and his sudden bravery at the end. On the one hand, I liked the idea that the Spider was his first victim and it really took him that long to work up the courage. On the other, I think it's a nice nod to how the Ring may be having an influence on him - pushing him to rash action. Let's not forget, the Ring is trying to get back to its Master, so pushing little Bilbo into a fight with orcs and Wargs may seem to it like a good path as it probably thinks Bilbo will die or be captured.

I hope there is a conversation with the Eagles in the next film. Or some explanation about them from Gandalf - I liked in the Hobbit book how it is explained that the Eagles do not like helping people because they are often shot down by elves and men. It nicely shows why they couldn't just fly them all the way there and back again. Eagles as cowards is how I like to read it, and if not for love of Gandalf, and hared of Orcs, they wouldn't have bothered with the battle of Five Armies. But, personal pet theories aside...

Over all, it was better than I expected. It was enjoyable and full of nerdy stuff. Beautifully shot and faithful in parts. I love Sylvester (and Sebastian) and will probably see it a few more times.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

I appreciate the reviews and opi nions above. It seems the first PJ
Hobbit attempot isn't as bad as I feared. I'll probably see it before
January (NOT in 3-d, tried that once for Avatar---annoying and added nothing).

Let's hope PJ movies don't deteriorate again. I rewatch FotR but the latter two have
so many errors, absurd additions, etc. they are virtually unwatchable.

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

Anything I have to say at this point would simply be redundant. I quite enjoyed the movie, even though it strayed quite a bit from the book. I do think the fighting scenes were too far streched, so they lost some interest.

I did end up annoying my boyfriend, though. He's never read it, so he was upset when I told him that horin, Kili, and Fili all die, and I kept telling him spoilers. Even so, pretty much every three second, he wispered "Was this in the book?"

One last thing, when one of the dwarves asked andalf where he was taking them, I whispered "To Rivendell, Master Gamgee, to the house of Elrond."

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

I spent two hours and forty-come minutes enduring stuff like this:

Bilbo gets an elvish blade handed to him. He tries to beg off receiving it, saying that he doesn't know anything about fighting. Shortly thereafter, he finds himself in the Goblin cave separated from his dwarf companions (he simply crouches down and thousands of goblins walk away without bothering with him). A single goblin, however, somehow catches sight of him and attacks. The two of them have a short, vicious (but well choreographed) knife fight, with Bilbo handling his new weapon like a master swordsman. (this scene appeared in one of the teaser trailers). Then, both Bilbo and the goblin fall down a deep precipice -- yes, that abyss-diving thing again -- after which horrific fall Bilbo gets up uninjured (naturally) and finds himself facing Gollum. The master hobbit swordsman suddenly seems terrified of his little blade as he tries pointing it uncertainly at the strange apparition in front of him.

A really crappy, logically contradictory, and completely unconvincing sequence of scenes.

In another real howler -- one of too many to enumerate them all here -- Gandalf does his magic-exploding-staff trick -- again -- and stuns thousands of goblins just about to dismember thirteen disarmed and captive dwarves. When the lights come back on, we see everyone in the vast cavern lying on the ground, dwarves included. Gandalf then yells: "Arm yourselves! Fight!" whereupon all of them -- dwarves and goblins alike -- get up, arm themselves, and fight. No sense in our heroes just getting the hell out of their predicament while they still had a little darkness to cover their escape. Oh no. Not that. Too much like the book.

As the real Bilbo Baggins might have said, had he a real movie about himself in which to say it: "I don't dislike half this film half as much as I should; and I dislike less than half of it half as much as it deserves."

[Morsul the Dark]

MY wife wants to go with friends the only time they have is tonight... at 9:45 pm... I have to work at 5am but am going... If I happen to stay awake during the show I'll give my thoughts tomorrow afernoon.:D

[Lalwendë]

I liked the scene with the hedgehog for that reason. He demonstrates that he is a powerful wizard with great potential, he simply chooses to channel it into a poor defenceless hedgehog. He also holds his own against the Witch King.

I thought this fitted in very well with the tone of the text to be honest, as Tolkien is not averse to dropping in a sentient animal or bird, even creatures with the ability to speak. Moments like that managed to maintain the childlike charm of the text in the film, without resorting to those didactic author's interjections that Tolkien makes. And also underlined exactly where Radagast has chosen to direct his considerable abilities. I hope we see Radagast again...

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I hope we see Radagast again...

Very likely. There's the issue of his staff and how suspiciously familiar it looks. ;)

[Diamond18]

The Hobbit appealed most to my sense of nostalgia. Nostalgia for 2001 when I saw Lord of the Rings and the years I spent on the Downs after that, but also nostalgia for 1999 when I first read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. I recall my mother reading in the paper that the Lord of the Rings was going to be made into an epic movie trilogy and so she went out and bought all the books for me to read but made sure I read the Hobbit first. I loved it then and I still love it now. Martin Freeman made such a perfect Bilbo.

I find myself nodding and agreeing with davem, Lalwende, Oddwen and Hookbil. I won't go very in depth as I don't have much to add. The movie was of course drawn out but instead of being as annoyed as I thought I would be, I really enjoyed it. I savored the cinematography and singing dwarves.... The ridiculous parts just made me laugh, like when Azog killed Thorin's father and elicited the most over-the-top "Nooooooooo!" I have ever witnessed. Perhaps I feel so generous because of the soft spot of nostalgia LotR and the Hobbit hold for me.

I will go see it again sometime before it leaves theaters. We'll see how the second viewing goes.

[Thinlómien]

Okay so I saw it tonight (with Nog, Greenie and Volo) and here are my thoughts (or some of them!)...

Five things I liked

1. The heroes - both the actors and the characters. Richard Armitage as Thorin and Martin Freeman as Bilbo - amazing, loved them both to bits. I'm afraid I will become a horrible Thorin fangirl before the end (he's way too epic for my brain to handle, although I don't entirely like his aragornization) and start crying when he (and poor Fili and Kili!) die. I loved Balin and Dwalin too, and all the other Dwarves (save maybe Bombur) were fine too. And I was so happy about Gandalf being as bitchy as he's in the book and Hugo Weaving as Elrond was so much better and nicer than in LotR!

2. The history bits about dwarves, Dale and Smaug. It all looked so cool, and I started liking Dwarves (again). I also actually liked how the enmity between the Elves and the Dwarves was played out.

3. The music. I really like the Dwarven theme, and I was a lot happier about the musical than the visual references to the LotR movies. For example playing the Ring theme for the first time again really had a desirably creepy effect.

4. The scenery and the places. New Zealand is just so amazingly beautiful and it does look like Middle-Earth to me.

5. Including so many small things from the books. I'm so happy we were explained why Thorin is called Oakenshield (again dying of the epicness of it all), that we got the Dwarves messing around with Bilbo's plates, that the stone giants were included (although the DID look like transformers, gotta agree with Legate), the Blue Wizard quip (not just 'cos the estate has the rights but also because it was a funny reference to how little Gandalf seems to know about them in the books), Bilbo's homesickness and reluctant heroism, Oin and Gloin making a fire, Dwarves being known as toymakers etc etc.


Five things I didn't like

1. The humor. 75% of the time it just wasn't funny. Some lines just made me squirm embarrassedly in my seat, and don't get me even started about Radagast, bird poo, bunny sledge and the hedgehog named Sebastian of all possible things!

2. The storytelling problems. Although I enjoyed (almost) every minute, I think the movie was too long. Too much of everything: unnecessarily long and dumbed down beginning with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood, overlong (and silly) action scenes, incredible amount of running around... Generally although most of the stuff was nice the structure "20min of actual plot, 20min of showing what happened it the past/ what happens elsewhere" just didn't work. Too much stuff in a movie with a simple storyline. Speaking of which, it also started to bother me that The Hobbit doesn't really work as a heroic story. I mean, the point is that the Dwarves fail at everything, going from one misfortune to another and they are always saved either by Bilbo's wits, Gandalf or coincidence. They are not any great war heros, and in the current situation the movie's plot kind of contradicts the portrayal of characters like Thorin and Balin.

3. Too much recycling LotR. The same shots, portrayal, moves in fight scenes, lines, plot devices etc. One of the worst things not mentioned yet was probably when Aragorn said "Legolas, shoot him!" in a totally LotR style... wait, I mean Thorin said that to Kili. :rolleyes:

4. A lot of the non-Tolkien dialogue. Whenever Gandalf starts to philosophise something not written by Tolkien my head just starts to hurt. While Tolkien can really say something wise (even if it's nothing new), Jackson and co just come up with really cheesy and empty lines. Also what the heck was that when Galadriel was talking in Gandalf's head? It was creepy. (And moreover, what was that about Gandalf being so awed about her, I think it should be the other way around! Even though it wouldn't be of course as funny as having an old man looking longingly after a beautiful Elven queen. *sigh*)

5. The CGI. I was a bit disappointed, I have to say. Technology has advanced but the wargs look even worse than they used to. Also Azog (whose addition I think was a little silly but fine) looked incredibly ugly, and apart from the king, the goblins too looked silly. Gollum was even cuter than before, which was sad. (Although Andy Serkis was wonderful again.) Even the eagles were kind of lame.


And when Gandalf and the Goblin King are standing on the bridge, you can't really help noticing all the similarities between LOTR and this even if you've been trying to ignore them before - the structure of the story is so blatantly similar (which is not the case in the books)! Given how many thing they copied from the LotR movies, I was really dreading Gandalf would say "You shall not pass!" but I was relieved when he didn't.

The Riddles scene between Gollum and Bilbo are easily the highlight of the first film, and my favorite part. There are some big differences here, but that I won't spoil. The differences make sense as far as adding to the movie and fitting nicely with what the narrator in The Hobbit tells us about Gollum's history.
I liked that scene, but there was way too much fidgeting and pointing with swords and running around. It seemed to me Jackson was afraid the audience might be bored by a simple game of riddles which is pretty insulting.

The ridiculous parts just made me laugh, like when Azog killed Thorin's father and elicited the most over-the-top "Nooooooooo!" I have ever witnessed. Grandfather, I think. ;) Anyway, that was pretty ridiculous really. I mean, it really might be that you would cry "Nooooo!" in a situation like that, but we've simply seen it so many times the audience just won't take it seriously. (Apart from the Radagast stuff, that probably caused the most collective facepalming from me and Nog. ;))

All in all, I enjoyed it a lot, but I can't say if I really liked it. There were wonderful epic moments but there was a lot of cringeworthy stuff too. Better or worse than LotR? Actually, it might be it just feels fresh but it's actually worse, but I'm not judging before I've seen this at least half as many times as the LotR trilogy. Do I want to see it again? Yes. To pay attention to more stuff. Am I looking forward to the next two? Yes, but not with 1/10 of the enthusiasm I look forward to the next season of Game of Thrones with.


PS. Has anyone spotted PJ's cameo yet?

[Boromir88]

I was not as annoyed by Radagast as I was expecting after first hearing about his character. (The bunny sled and nesting birds deficating on his hair and beard...I still shake my head, but I was anticipating a disaster).

I started imagining an insane, trippy on shrooms, bird freak, and as careless/spaced-out as Tom Bombadil. However, I think the movie captured his "worthiness" as a wizard as Gandalf describes:

Radagast is, of course, a worthy wizard, a master of shapes and changes of hue; and he has much lore of herbs and beasts, and birds are especially his friends.~The Council of Elrond

And then being able to get Saruman's perspective on Radagast plays nicely. I think in the books, Saruman's snobbish disregard for Radagast is based on having no respect for the fellow wizard's line of work. Remember, Saruman's a high-minded wizard, who mocks Gandalf's affection for Hobbits. I think therefor Saruman sees Radagast's "lore of herbs and beasts" as a study that is below his own standing. Ring-lore is work worthy of Saruman, not Hobbits nor plants and animals.

The trouble for Saruman, is he can't see (unlike Gandalf) Radagast's worth as a wizard, and therefor can't comprehend the means in which Radagast actually foils his plans of capturing, and holding Gandalf indefinitely. This might be hard to portray on screen if Jackson didn't make Radagast a little "wierd."...that is a bit a loof, and too fond of his animal friends to pay much care to other matters.

I think they took it too far with the birds nesting in his hair, but they also show his worth (and proper Radagast characteristics) as well. Overall, I just wish Jackson showed some type of restraint. I mean Radagast was cut from LOTR, so why does he need to be in The Hobbit? Who knows...I was actually watching a documentary that Jackson was incapable of cutting even in LOTR, someone else working on the films said each one would have been 6 hours had Jackson got his way. But he was of course had to be overruled.

[Aganzir]

I'll be attending with the entire family so I don't think I will reprise my Mrs. Maggot costume, who really isn't very applicable to TH-but I love your dwarf. Your beards are getting better and better.
Oh noes! Well, it wouldn't have taken a lot to turn it into a Lobelia costume. ;) And thank you! I intend to let my beard grow by next December - and I also hope to persuade the lady who accompanied me to be my bearded brother next time around.

Not only that, Jackson recycled many of the iconic images he created in LotR. A "fellowship"? Check. Running single file across a narrow subterranean bridge? Check. Gandalf facing a huge foe there? Check. A ring flying into the air and falling down upon a hobbit's finger? Check.
Not only that, I was disturbed by the identical structure of the films. Hobbit goes on an adventure. There's a pursuit by villains. Elrond intervenes and the company can rest a bit in Rivendell. Trouble with mountains. Caves and orc pursuit. Duel. They get out (even if with more battle than in LOTR). Another safe haven.
Now I know it doesn't stray too far from the book in that respect, but I felt Jackson made it even more similar than necessary. The absence of the orc pursuit before Rivendell would already have made a difference, but no. That combined to the recycling of iconic images and music really made me feel I was watching a remake of LOTR, only with more interesting (to my mind) yet less developed characters - so I definitely get Esty's fan fiction comparison!

It really doesn't make sense to me. I believe it's supposed to set up the hostility between Elves and Dwarves (can't really take us all back to Thingol and Doriath). However, I don't see how it's necessary to manufacture this animosity between the two races.
Ah but it does - it just shows elves for what they are! ;)
The animosity between the races came through clearly enough in LOTR, and I think they could've done better if they had contented with saying something about the long-lasting mutual distrust between the races... but at the same time I see the point. Elves have been portrayed as such goodies everywhere that if they hadn't shown us Thranduil was a jerk, people would complain when he captures the dwarves.

Anyway, I'll be interested in seeing how they'll do Bilbo's changing of sides. If they continue treating Thranduil as a semi-villain, Bilbo can't very well jump to the evil side. Perhaps they'll fix it by giving an even worse treatment to (most of) the dwarves. Can't wait. Yay.

I loved the Dwarven raid on the goblin mines. It reminded me of some of the D&D games I've been part of, even including the showboating villain boss.
Me too! I basically came home and told flatmate I wanted to play a Dwarf adventure.

Also, the "shadow in the box" aka Necromancer actually looked quite good, much much better than the idiotic power plant we all know from LotR.
I may not agree with you here (I take more to Rikae's sci-fi movie comment) but that's one of the best descriptions I've seen of PJ's Sauron. :D

- The Transformers. Seriously. The worst thing ever. I was happy to hear they put the Stone giants in. When I saw them... The Transformers. *facepalm*
That's what I thought too! :---D

Oh yeah, the dwarven song. My ears just about came.

The Dwarves often have little individual personaility to me in the text but the film really did bring them out, some in particular.
I definitely agree here. I couldn't have told who was my favourite before, but now it's easy as pie (Fili, obviously, har har, and Dwalin - and obviously Thorin too). I was also very happy with the treatment of the young dwarves. They were pleasantly roguish.

One really minor thing that that annoyed me far too much: why does Galadriel need to strike a dramatic pose at all times while having a conversation? Surely they could have come up with slightly less corny way to make her look impressive. Yes, I know she does a bit of that in LoTR, but it isn't as extreme.
I'll just stand on this ledge here with my back to you all so everyone knows I'm special.
That bothered me too. Gandalf, Elrond and Saruman were having a pleasant conversation and whenever she took part in it, it was only to say something that sounded like she had thought of it for half an hour before opening her mouth even if it was a direct comment to something that had just been said. She may have looked dramatic, but that's not very impressive - and it's certainly not Blanchett's fault because I don't know of an actress or actor who could have pulled it off convincingly. Well yeah, she's kind of a mythological creature, being the only woman in the movie, but that's no excuse for making her a mannequin. Also, what was that with vanishing into thin air?

That was one reason I wasn't entirely happy with the White Council meeting. The other was the telepathic chat between Galadriel and Gandalf behind Saruman's back - while he was talking! It's as if they were setting the stage for Saruman's treachery - as if they didn't trust him any more which certainly wasn't the case yet. It's not that they played him too obviously sinister as Hookbill's brother said - it's G&G undermining his authority by their distrust.

On the other, I think it's a nice nod to how the Ring may be having an influence on him - pushing him to rash action. Let's not forget, the Ring is trying to get back to its Master, so pushing little Bilbo into a fight with orcs and Wargs may seem to it like a good path as it probably thinks Bilbo will die or be captured.
This is actually a very good point and one I didn't think of. But then, I'm honestly not sure if it crossed PJ's mind.

I'll probably see it before
January (NOT in 3-d, tried that once for Avatar---annoying and added nothing).
We saw it in 2D, and I kind of feel I should go see it again in 3D just because it's so obviously made for it. I don't know what the CGI looked in 3D, but I found it quite plastic, and especially the eagles and the wargs looked horrible.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Nerwen
Legate– in case I didn't get my meaning across before– I wasn't questioning anyone's taste or judgement here, just saying the general audience response probably doesn't tell us very much at this point.
I didn't think you were questioning anyone's taste, I more like interpreted it that you were trying to say something along the lines of "any early reviews this far are not really good for telling us anything objective, because so far they all come from hyped audience who has been drooling for the movie already for a year or more". To which I wanted to counter by saying "But here you have what I believe might give you a small hint of objectivity, the overcritical people like Legate or davem seem to have not burned the movie to ashes yet, in fact even worse, they seem to speak in relatively positive tone about it".
That's my point in a way: I just meant you can't, at this stage, really use the audience responses to back up your own opinion, that's all.

[Aganzir]

Better or worse than LotR? Actually, it might be it just feels fresh but it's actually worse, but I'm not judging before I've seen this at least half as many times as the LotR trilogy.
That's what I'm inclined to think - I was very excited right after seeing it, but the longer time passes, the more skeptical I get. It may have looked fair, but to me it feels foul.

[Galadriel55]

Here begins the quest of the 55 family to see The Hobbit. My mother said this morning that we could go and see the movie today. And, knowing the Entish beings of the 55 family, we did not leave until 15 minutes before the start of the movie, and we're not as good as Bilbo when it comes to racing after Dwarves. So the planned Dwarves left off without us, and we had to wait for the next ones.

The person who sold us the tickets told us that we can come in at four. We came in at 4:15 to hear the echoes of the credits song. We sat for about 10 minutes. Then the cleaner guy who just stood there for the past ever came over and told us to please leave the room so that they can clean up. Quite irritated at this point, the 55s went outside just to face a lengthy queue of people who have apparantly stood there for hours waiting to be admitted, and of course no one would have liked their seat taken.

Bottom line is, we were all quite fed up with going to the movies by the time it began.

I'm not sure I can at the moment try to relive the movie and discuss every scene. Instead I'm going to make a list of things that I thought good and bad.

Good
-the sac of Dale and Erebor
-not really showing Smaug fully anywhere
-Bilbo - yes!!! That hobbit is darn brilliant! Thumbs way up for Martin Freeman!
-Goblin-town
-Bilbo running across some back yards with the contract in hand - <3
-Riddles in the Dark

Bad
-Gandalf talking all the time like he doesn't know what he's saying, stuttering apologetically... very unimpressive.
-Nazgul tombs? Noooo.
-Sebastian?!
-Too many orcs, and too many battle scenes (that, btw, looks exactly the same, only with a different orc)
-The Dwarves cheering and applauding at the end as Thorin hugs Bilbo. I was always of the mind that even though you may feel elated, having people applaud behind the screen just ruins everything.

Simply unnecessary
-The LOTR references that were almost literally cut out of LOTR and pasted into TH (as if the story wasn't enough to tie the wto together):
*Gandalf hitting the stone with his staf
*Gandalf: "- you fools!"
*Gandalf talking to the butterfly that brings the Eagles (with the same music as in LOTR too!)
*Bilbo falls and the Ring flies up and lands on his finger
*Gandalf facing some big guy on a bridge
*Kiligolas. The parts where he's just being Legolas
-Thranduil cocking his head with that annoying look on his face every time they show him
-"I'm off to an adventure!" - ruins it
-Albino werewolf for an albino orc
-Thorin half-dying? And Gandalf saving him?

I am yet to process in my head the main story. I have not decided yet whether I like Thorin & co., Azog, Bolg, Elrond, and etc. Nor if I like the emphasis on the hatered between Azog and Thorin, and Thorin and Elves.


Overall, I think I'm a bit conflicted here. It was much better than I thought it would be, and included some bits of pure Hobbit spirit (and I don't mean their ale). Especially with Bilbo. It did stray, but I didn't expect it not to, and it was still enjoyable. The most conflicting part is Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire - the whole battle scene and all. I really really liked it in the context of the movie (all that built up hate, and that despair and madness that drives Thorin, and then Bilbo's burst of courage) but I'm not sure if I like that context in the first place.

For now, I give it a positive vote.


Now, to speak more of that scene, I'm thinking I do like it. It's not in the original Hobbit, and, ok, I've accepted Azog as something unavoidable, so might as well accept the mutual hate they have with Thorin. And that scene was quite beautifully done, really. I can't say that Thorin acted amazingly, but through the story - with all the lead-ups to it, and the reactions - you could feel Thorin's dread and then immense hate. And then comes the hobbit and The Hobbit - the Dwarves weep, but it is Bilbo who rescues Thorin, and then only do the Dwarves follow.

On a similar note, regarding the ultimate tragic hero. I have a feeling it won't be Thorin, or at least not only Thorin. They're building up Kili's role too. Fili as well, but not as much. And I don't really mind them, I guess. Yes, they're not Dwarves, especially Dwarves from TH, but good enough. If you take away Kili's non-Dwarvish appearance and Legolas bits, you're left with two lads who don't know what they're up for. And all those times when all the Dwarves are laughing, but they sorta zoom in on Kili's face to show how carefree he is... Thorin for sure will be a tragic hero, but Kili and possibly Kili will be made into them too, more than they are in the book. I tell you, something's gonna happen with Kili.

As for the matter of Radagast... *sigh* The rabbits and that fussing over a hedgehog, as well as that general scattered way of going about things, is not very complimentary. I know this might be weird, but Radagast's first appearance was similar to what I imagined Bombadil's appearance to be. Not the actual look, of course, but the entrance. Slightly slower. Less erratic and more to the beat of some tune. But quite similar.


I have not read the previous comments yet but I will so now that I have seen the movie. Perhaps that will help me form my mind on that subject.


PS: you are a lovely Dwarf, Aganzir. I saw your picture a few days ago and I thought you look more Dwarf than most of the movie Dwarves do.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Originally posted by Thinlomien

Originally Posted by Agan

And when Gandalf and the Goblin King are standing on the bridge, you can't really help noticing all the similarities between LOTR and this even if you've been trying to ignore them before - the structure of the story is so blatantly similar (which is not the case in the books)!

Given how many thing they copied from the LotR movies, I was really dreading Gandalf would say "You shall not pass!" but I was relieved when he didn't.


And Gandalf didn't, like when he was on Stephen Colbert last week, say:

"YOU SHALL...Pass." :D

Btw, Stephen is a Middle-earth aficionado. He even knows who Olorin really is.

[Aiwendil]

Btw, Stephen is a Middle-earth aficionado. He even knows who Olorin really is.


He even made a reference to "The Quest of Erebor" in his interview with Peter Jackson. He did seem to mix it up with the aborted 1960 Hobbit revision, but still I was pretty impressed.

[urbanhiker]

When he first entered the screen, Radagast was nowhere close to the image I've had in my head for years and years. I envisioned him as someone basically like Gandalf, but wearing different colors and maybe younger. Consequently I was uncomfortable with Radagast for the whole movie.

But the more I think about his character, the more I'm becoming okay with him. In The Two Towers, Treebeard says, "Sheep get like shepherds and shepherds get like sheep." When I think of movie Radagast within the context of that quote, his character makes complete sense. He's become like his animals - nervous, jittery, filled with quick movements. Messy. Dirty. Organic. Almost wild.

I also enjoyed seeing Sauron as something other than the ridiculous Tessla Coil generator on top of Barad-dur. I never liked that rendering of the Dark Lord. He wasn't terrifying in the right way, or at all. But an ominous, dark shadow in the form of a man haunting the old fortress of Dol Guldur feels much more appropriate.

I'd like to see the movie again.

[davem]

All in all, I enjoyed it a lot, but I can't say if I really liked it. There were wonderful epic moments but there was a lot of cringeworthy stuff too. Better or worse than LotR? Actually, it might be it just feels fresh but it's actually worse, but I'm not judging before I've seen this at least half as many times as the LotR trilogy. Do I want to see it again? Yes. To pay attention to more stuff. Am I looking forward to the next two? Yes, but not with 1/10 of the enthusiasm I look forward to the next season of Game of Thrones with.




Better than the LotR films for me, only in that LotR has greater meaning & significance for me. The running, jumping & falling down stuff in Goblin Town pains me less than the similar stuff with the falling stairway in Fellowship, not simply because it lessens the impact of Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog & is the first point at which Gimli becomes comic relief, but mainly because if we'd been spared that we might have gotten a glimpse of Mirrormere. TH is a lighter work & I have less of a problem with it being played around with. The book is a high adventure romp right up till the end & I have no problem with the film taking the same approach. Some of Tolkien's stuff is light-hearted comic adventure (TH, Giles, Roverandom, Mr Bliss) & some certainly isn't.

[Zigûr]

Here in Australia we're not getting "An Unexpected Journey" until the 26th for some reason, but I would like to ask only this about the film of those who've seen it: could someone give an impression about how much Professor Tolkien's original dialogue and language is retained/maintained in the film? Obviously my expectations are low given a) the precedent and b) how much I know has been changed, made up or extrapolated from historical recount rather than direct narrative but I'm still curious. The rearrangement and omission of perfectly serviceable dialogue from the source material is something that makes the films of The Lord of the Rings incredibly difficult to watch for me. Compare in the Voice of Saruman section of the Extended Edition of The Return of the King the use (almost) of the original Professor Tolkien e.g. "when you hang from a gibbet for the sport of your own crows" vs the clashing Boyens/Walsh pastiche e.g. "Something festers in the heart of Middle-earth" (I find the inconsistency in phrase/tone at occasions like these very off-putting, when Professor Tolkien's unique style is merged with what is, to me, very stock and cliché Fantasy vocabulary).
And more specifically, does the Great Goblin ask "Who are these miserable persons?" He'd better...

[davem]

Some nice short interviews with the cast here: Martin Freeman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLi6ojygvpc Richard Armitage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmP9jAVPESA Christopher Lee http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKvkaEipcN0 James Nesbitt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8XJEIRIfeY Peter Jackson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHZ7zvwKgU0 Ian McKellan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpkREQecPdg

[Galadriel55]

Here in Australia we're not getting "An Unexpected Journey" until the 26th for some reason, but I would like to ask only this about the film of those who've seen it: could someone give an impression about how much Professor Tolkien's original dialogue and language is retained/maintained in the film?
...And more specifically, does the Great Goblin ask "Who are these miserable persons?" He'd better...

I honestly can't remember if he uses this specific line, but if not then he says something very similar.

I recognized certain passages from the book, but, of course, not strictly everything was there, and there were other additions. Sometimes I too could tell that some passage is very off stylistically (like the White Council bits) but generally I think the inserted bits were ok.

Realistically, when you're stretching one book into 3 films (subsequently adding 2/3 of it) you have to insert both actions and dialogue. Generally, it wasn't too bad. Not bad at all.

[Aganzir]

*Kiligolas. The parts where he's just being Legolas
I'm not complaining because even though archery is sexy per se, it's a hundred times sexier when it's a dark-haired dwarf doing it instead of a blond elf. ;)

I tell you, something's gonna happen with Kili.
It had better not happen before the Battle of the Five Armies though!

And thank you for your compliments. :) I got laughed at by teenage girls in elven cloaks (not to mention the bus ride to the cinema), but it was naturally highly enjoyable.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

If PJ doesn't botch it, the deaths of Fili and Kili
defending Thorin could be a highlight.

PJ not going over the top? What am I saying! :rolleyes:

[Thinlómien]

If PJ doesn't botch it, the deaths of Fili and Kili
defending Thorin could be a highlight.I'm so looking forward to that too! Because already in this movie one the awwww-iest moments for me was when Thorin thought one of them was dead/in danger and he was totally like "ohmygodnooo!!!!" and then he was relieved to find out he was ok, so I'm just trying to imagine how he'll react when they die defending him... and Thorin's death will really make me cry because it's so sad in the book too (and in the book you don't get the tear-fishing music in the background).

Thorin half-dying? And Gandalf saving him?Oh that was silly, but after Aragorn half-dying in The Two Towers, I can't say I was surprised! Gosh, I had forgotten about Gandalf's healing powers. That was pretty ridiculous! Couldn't he have woken up himself, couldn't one of the Dwarves had some healing herbs, couldn't even, I don't know, the eagles have magically healed him or something? ;) I mean, Gandalf's no doctor (when it comes to physical wounds) and I wish they'd kept it consistent. The only more ridiculous solution would have been having Elrong riding up the steep path to the Eyrie in a cloak that covers his face and making a surprise visit to demonstrate his healing powers accompanied by some quasi-wise words about the relations of Elves and Dwarves in the ages to come...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Oh that was silly, but after Aragorn half-dying in The Two Towers, I can't say I was surprised! Gosh, I had forgotten about Gandalf's healing powers. That was pretty ridiculous! Couldn't he have woken up himself, couldn't one of the Dwarves had some healing herbs, couldn't even, I don't know, the eagles have magically healed him or something? ;) I mean, Gandalf's no doctor (when it comes to physical wounds) and I hope they'd kept it consistent. The only more ridiculous solution would have been having Elrong riding up the steep path to the Eyrie in a cloak that covers his face and making a surprise visit to demonstrate his healing powers accompanied by some quasi-wise words about the relations of Elves and Dwarves in the ages to come...

The "wannabe dying" definitely was silly, though I just thought of one possibility (which concerns neither of us present here, of course) - what if there are people who have seen the LotR movies and haven't read The Hobbit, and they would be under the impression (because they remember Boromir) that somebody is likely to die at the end of the first movie. So maybe the idea was to really scare the unknowing part of the audience, I can very well imagine PJ having this on his mind. It would be very naive, but maybe also too delicate idea for him.

In any case, I did not really approve of it, as I said. But as for "Gandalf healing" - everyone seems to speak about it, but I never understood it that way! To me, it seemed like that Thorin was lying there, looking dead, and now Gandalf comes and wants to try some - whatever - "healing magic" - anything, any desperate attempt to utilise the power he definitely does have, in the hope that perhaps he might save Thorin. But, as soon as he touches him, maybe only the bit or the touch "kicks in" and Thorin wakes up from what was nothing more than being unconscious. So the way I saw it was that Gandalf wants to do something (since he'd of course wish Thorin to live), but he does not really do anything. I certainly didn't see it as using any healing, less even any "resurrecting" powers (that would be utterly ridiculous).

[Lalwendë]

The Gandalf healing part must have passed over my head (I was possibly fiddling with the pesky 3D glasses). Did he touch Thorin or just do a 'Jedi force' type pass of his hand? If he just touched him I'd put it down to a gentle way of waking him from his unconsciousness. The alternative being a slap? Not really appropriate ;)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

The Gandalf healing part must have passed over my head (I was possibly fiddling with the pesky 3D glasses). Did he touch Thorin or just do a 'Jedi force' type pass of his hand? If he just touched him I'd put it down to a gentle way of waking him from his unconsciousness. The alternative being a slap? Not really appropriate ;)

Yes, that's how I saw it: touching him and therefore waking him up, nothing more. I can't say I 100% remember correctly, maybe somebody can correct me, but I think he did the sort of thing that first it looked as if he was, I don't know, doing something akin to what he would do if he was trying to close the eyes of a dead person (except that Thorin's eyes were already closed), sort of slid his palm over his face or somesuch. Maybe up to his neck. He basically looked like he could have been checking whether Thorin was still alive, or something.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Gosh, I had forgotten about Gandalf's healing powers. That was pretty ridiculous! Couldn't he have woken up himself, couldn't one of the Dwarves had some healing herbs, couldn't even, I don't know, the eagles have magically healed him or something? ;) I mean, Gandalf's no doctor (when it comes to physical wounds) and I wish they'd kept it consistent.

In terms of film-consistency it was perhaps because they'd already shown Radagast heal a hedgehog, so Gandalf MUST be able to heal a dwarf! But it looked to me like the same thing they did with Pippin after he'd looked in the Palantir - Gandalf waking him up from a stupor.

[Pomegranate]

Whoa. I expected to come here and meet a lot of criticisms and negative feedback, based on what how I see the film and how most of the people seemed to be a lot more negative about it than I was in the first place, and now I think my opinion might be the one of the most negative ones. I definitely didn’t expect that. And given that, I think I’ll need to see the movie again before I can have a proper full picture of the film, right now it’s just bits that I liked a lot and bits that I didn’t like at all, and these not forming anything proper.

I’ll start with what I didn’t like, because it’s on the top of my head.

Azog, as many have said before, was useless and confusing. For a while I assumed it might actually work, when he appeared with the wargs and I thought “Hey, that makes sense! They’ll kill him here and thus will have an appropriate ending to the first movie, a separate plot, and we don’t have to watch him anymore in the next one!” …and then this didn’t happen. So he remained a useless and confusing side-plot.

More controversially, I didn’t like Bilbo. I think. I had high expectations, having seen Martin Freeman do great in all the trailer bits, and what we had? Instead of a confused and surprised but still keeping-his-good-manners–hobbit who invites Gandalf for tea and treats the dwarves to all his food because that’s how he’s been raised, we get a rude slam-the-door and don’t-eat-my-things person who keeps turning back at every possible corner, until the sudden change-of-mindset due to which he decides to save Thorin from Azog. And I feel like most of the changes PJ has made to the story were affecting his growth-story, making him do things that were done by others in the book (like the trolls) or things that don’t happen at all in the book (like the Azog-fight in the end, or his plan to leave in the mountain cave), which made it jump forth and back unlogically. He didn’t feel likeable, or believable. Which was sad, because the original story is, after all, essentially that - Bilbo’s growth story.

And another bit that I didn’t quite agree with that seems to be generally approved was the White Council. Especially Saruman. I mean, he’s supposed to be respected and “the wise” still here, right? And then he keeps going on about how he doesn’t like the dwarves not coming to talk to him and blahblah and is completely ignored by Gandalf and Galadriel who have their secret wee talk. No respect whatsoever. Which annoys me a great deal, because I feel like it’s contrary to PJ’s own works – in LOTR, Gandalf goes to ask for his help, talking about the greatest of his order and so on, and here he seems like a complaining child who wants to stop others from playing because he wasn’t involved in the first place.

These were my main complaints. And then there were a lot of brilliant bits.

Like the beginning with Dale and Erebor. Lovely, tell-tale-like. Beautiful, and a good way of explaining the background.

The dwarves. I love the personalities given to them, I love Thorin, I think the young dwarves are adorable and enough childish to not to be only the sexy-dwarves that they were labelled as before.

The already-familiar characters when they were younger and all was well. The cheery Elrond and his awkward hug with Gandalf, especially. I could include Gollum here as well, I loved the way they portrayed him.

The songs. I’m so glad they included the songs, and as has been mentioned before, the misty mountains-song is one of the most beautiful things in all PJ films I’ve seen.

Some of the references to the LOTR trilogy. Not the one with Gandalf getting mad in Bag End, though, that was really bad.

I really liked the rock giants. They were very impressive, and pretty, and I’ve not seen transformers so that impression didn’t hit me during the movie either.

[Morsul the Dark]

most are saying the bird poo and nest on Radagast's head was poor humor... if it was meant as humor it was indeed poor, for my part however I thought it shiwed more his compassion for living creatures. While extremely odd I found Radagast Quite well done, certainly his bravery in Dol guldor. The bunny sled while odd was used to good effect and not blatantly silly. My only complaint was the eye crossing, but only at one moment(I thought it was fine showing concentration on the incantaion) However when he puffs the pipe and goes crosseyed.... I always put the leaf down as more tobacco type of leaf not really in the narcotic family...

Bilbo was amazing very physical actor the way he walks and moves his neck were very good at explaining unspoken emotions.

Gandalf well done, of course. I think his scene on the bridge with the goblin king was great it didn't feel recycled to me I understand how people see it that way but I feel it was unique enough no great proclamations or wizard tricks.

Gandalf's line about the blue wizard's gave me a chuckle though I had thought they had been part of ousting Sauron from Dol Guldor. The out of the frying pan and into the fire line was misplaced I think, It should have been said in the trees when the fire was actually there(I always thought that was the reason for the title in the first place.

Gollum played out as he sould the riddles game getting progressively more tense... Bilbo's Pity scene was a tad drawn out for me however... While we're in the area, I thought Bilbo was knocked out after falling through the crack and happened to be missed by the goblins originally, in te movie he just sort of squats and is suddenly ignored...

Maybe Ihave to reread but I always thought of the stone giants as sort of metaphorical instead of real that was a bit shadow of collossus (http://youtu.be/wi1q-eCLk1I?t=2m40s) for me.

As for length the length was fine and pacing fine, if this was going to be two movies. Ending on the edge of Mirkwood leaves Well, Mirkwood Dale and the battle of 5 armies, not a lot of material for two more movies I know he's using the appendices butI don't know how much is Actually in there...

I'm glad the Rivendell elves didn't sing I'm glad Gandalf explained his relationship to the tooks without a baby scene.

My only complaint which is silly(as it has no actual bearing on the movie itself) is Balin's Ear horn, out of all the props that just for me was the most intrusive.

One last thought add my to the I thought Gandalf just woke Thorin up list... didn't seem very magiccy...(magiccy really?) to me

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

And another bit that I didn’t quite agree with that seems to be generally approved was the White Council. Especially Saruman. I mean, he’s supposed to be respected and “the wise” still here, right? And then he keeps going on about how he doesn’t like the dwarves not coming to talk to him and blahblah and is completely ignored by Gandalf and Galadriel who have their secret wee talk. No respect whatsoever. Which annoys me a great deal, because I feel like it’s contrary to PJ’s own works – in LOTR, Gandalf goes to ask for his help, talking about the greatest of his order and so on, and here he seems like a complaining child who wants to stop others from playing because he wasn’t involved in the first place.
The last part is true, however in the context of the books, that's exactly how it was. There was all this dynamic within the ranks of the Council, Saruman opposed everything Gandalf had been a part of just for the sake of it already at the first Councils (being jealous even before they left Valinor - cf. the Unfinished Tales - and all that), and later (he mentions that by the end of LotR when the company meets him on their way back to Rivendell) suspected Galadriel and Gandalf of plotting against him (which was what I approved about the movie, because you can actually look at it from Saruman's perspective and see that he was right!). And as for disapproving the Dwarves, I think Saruman was a bit "racist", too - in the sense that his focus was on Men and how he thought the Elves are basically dead and gone, and so probably pretty much the Dwarves (him being a Maia of Aulë, I think he must have had a reason to ignore them - probably their lack of "activity on the surface").

Gandalf's line about the blue wizard's gave me a chuckle though I had thought they had been part of ousting Sauron from Dol Guldor.
They could not have been, since they had been lost in the East already for quite a long time at that point. For almost two millenia, actually. (Which also makes it possible for me to imagine that Gandalf would really have forgotten their names at that point.)

The out of the frying pan and into the fire line was misplaced I think, It should have been said in the trees when the fire was actually there(I always thought that was the reason for the title in the first place.
That was actually another part I forgot to mention and which I did not like. It seemed too sudden and rushed. They just ran out of the mines, stopped for like the exchange of two sentences, and suddenly there were more Orcs coming, with no introduction, no change of place and time, nothing.

Also makes you wonder why didn't the goblins start following them out at that point too, since the Orcs apparently could, and the evening was falling...

Maybe Ihave to reread but I always thought of the stone giants as sort of metaphorical instead of real that was a bit shadow of collossus (http://youtu.be/wi1q-eCLk1I?t=2m40s) for me.
I always thought them real, but I imagined them as the classic giants, like, huge men, throwing boulders.

My only complaint which is silly(as it has no actual bearing on the movie itself) is Balin's Ear horn, out of all the props that just for me was the most intrusive.
That wasn't Balin (and to be honest, I have no idea who exactly it was, can somebody clarify? Originally I thought it was Oin, but then I think it turned out that Oin was somebody else, so I really am not sure).

[Lalwendë]

One thing about those Stone Giants. It made me want to watch Trollhunter again.

I was reading something elsewhere earlier where someone asked "Did you spot Cumberbatch?" Well, I can't say that I did. When Radagast was at Dol Guldur I saw a wight (who I assumed was the Witch King of Angmar, later one of the Ringwraiths) and then there was the very creepy bit where the dark figure appeared out of the mists (quite unpleasant in 3D). It didn't look Cumberbatch shaped though, just vaguely man shaped. Have I missed something?

[Morsul the Dark]

They could not have been, since they had been lost in the East already for quite a long time at that point. For almost two millenia, actually. (Which also makes it possible for me to imagine that Gandalf would really have forgotten their names at that point.)
That wasn't Balin (and to be honest, I have no idea who exactly it was, can somebody clarify? Originally I thought it was Oin, but then I think it turned out that Oin was somebody else, so I really am not sure).

First off ah yes you're right about the blue wizards whenever I hear White Council I just automatically include them...

Secondly it is Balin (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120922121059/lotr/images/c/c4/Balin_-_The_Hobbit.PNG)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

First off ah yes you're right about the blue wizards whenever I hear White Council I just automatically include them...

Secondly it is Balin (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120922121059/lotr/images/c/c4/Balin_-_The_Hobbit.PNG)

Nope, no way. But ha, turns out I was right after all, and it's Oin (http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-Oin.jpg) (it's even written on the pic).

[Morsul the Dark]

Nope, no way. But ha, turns out I was right after all, and it's Oin (http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-Oin.jpg) (it's even written on the pic).

Indeed those two looked alike to me along with the other one, gloin maybe? Ah the treachury of seeing a film at midnight after an evening of only 3 hours sleep...:rolleyes:

I bow to your correctness;)

[Galadriel55]

And thank you for your compliments. :) I got laughed at by teenage girls in elven cloaks (not to mention the bus ride to the cinema), but it was naturally highly enjoyable.

Giggly girls in Elven cloaks can go eat bananas. What do they know of life or Dwarves? :D

If PJ doesn't botch it, the deaths of Fili and Kili
defending Thorin could be a highlight.

Right. But in the book we're not told much. The focus is on Thorin. I wager that in the film there will be focus on Kili as much as on Thorin.

Yes, that's how I saw it: touching him and therefore waking him up, nothing more. I can't say I 100% remember correctly, maybe somebody can correct me, but I think he did the sort of thing that first it looked as if he was, I don't know, doing something akin to what he would do if he was trying to close the eyes of a dead person (except that Thorin's eyes were already closed), sort of slid his palm over his face or somesuch. Maybe up to his neck. He basically looked like he could have been checking whether Thorin was still alive, or something.

Really? I thought he was more Jedi-ing. He sort of lowered his hand above Thorin's head and brought it over his face. Like I sometimes do to my siblings when they aren't listening to what I'm saying, but in a horizontal position.

And another bit that I didn’t quite agree with that seems to be generally approved was the White Council. Especially Saruman. I mean, he’s supposed to be respected and “the wise” still here, right? And then he keeps going on about how he doesn’t like the dwarves not coming to talk to him and blahblah and is completely ignored by Gandalf and Galadriel who have their secret wee talk. No respect whatsoever. Which annoys me a great deal, because I feel like it’s contrary to PJ’s own works – in LOTR, Gandalf goes to ask for his help, talking about the greatest of his order and so on, and here he seems like a complaining child who wants to stop others from playing because he wasn’t involved in the first place.

Oh noes, we don't likes that part either. Not one bit.

By the way, do you know what Galadriel said in the second telepathy exchange? I missed it completely.

And her dress looks so fake when it makes this perfect circle around her, and then she turns round... and then she walks back and forth in it, showing off her trail of circular dress like a peacock... Ugh.

Some of the references to the LOTR trilogy. Not the one with Gandalf getting mad in Bag End, though, that was really bad.[QUOTE]

Oh yeah, I missed than one in my list. I definitely agree.

[QUOTE=Legate of Amon Lanc;677955]That wasn't Balin (and to be honest, I have no idea who exactly it was, can somebody clarify? Originally I thought it was Oin, but then I think it turned out that Oin was somebody else, so I really am not sure).

Right. Balin was the little one with the big white beard, no? The one that looks like Santa's elf?

I was reading something elsewhere earlier where someone asked "Did you spot Cumberbatch?" Well, I can't say that I did. When Radagast was at Dol Guldur I saw a wight (who I assumed was the Witch King of Angmar, later one of the Ringwraiths) and then there was the very creepy bit where the dark figure appeared out of the mists (quite unpleasant in 3D). It didn't look Cumberbatch shaped though, just vaguely man shaped. Have I missed something?

I actually really didn't like that they gave the Necromancer a quite distinct shape. But then the book idea of Sauron having a body before he's in Mordor doesn't sit well with me either. I don't even remember when he's supposed to regain his body. :rolleyes:

[Boromir88]

And another bit that I didn’t quite agree with that seems to be generally approved was the White Council. Especially Saruman. I mean, he’s supposed to be respected and “the wise” still here, right? And then he keeps going on about how he doesn’t like the dwarves not coming to talk to him and blahblah and is completely ignored by Gandalf and Galadriel who have their secret wee talk. No respect whatsoever. Which annoys me a great deal, because I feel like it’s contrary to PJ’s own works – in LOTR, Gandalf goes to ask for his help, talking about the greatest of his order and so on, and here he seems like a complaining child who wants to stop others from playing because he wasn’t involved in the first place.

The last part is true, however in the context of the books, that's exactly how it was. There was all this dynamic within the ranks of the Council, Saruman opposed everything Gandalf had been a part of just for the sake of it already at the first Councils (being jealous even before they left Valinor - cf. the Unfinished Tales - and all that), and later (he mentions that by the end of LotR when the company meets him on their way back to Rivendell) suspected Galadriel and Gandalf of plotting against him (which was what I approved about the movie, because you can actually look at it from Saruman's perspective and see that he was right!). And as for disapproving the Dwarves, I think Saruman was a bit "racist", too - in the sense that his focus was on Men and how he thought the Elves are basically dead and gone, and so probably pretty much the Dwarves (him being a Maia of Aulë, I think he must have had a reason to ignore them - probably their lack of "activity on the surface").


I wasn't happy with Ian McKellan's delivery of that line in the FOTR movie ("I must see the head of my order. He is both wise and powerful. Trust me, Frodo, he'll know what to do."), because it definitely came off too trusting towards Saruman. And then in particular, it didn't seem to fit well with the White Council scene in The Hobbit, because if I remember it correctly, Gandalf shoots Saruman a suspicious look, and then also the meeting with Galadriel.

However, I think it can still work, because like Legate, I really did like the internal dynamics of the White Council.

As Legate said, we get Saruman's perspective, and strictly within a book context he is jealous of Gandalf right at the start. He also knows that Galadriel wanted Gandalf to head the Council, and this is probably where he gets to accusing them of conspiring against him. From, Saruman's perspective, completely true, but he's assuming an evil and personal intent by Gandalf and Galadriel to supplant him (much like Denethor's "Your left hand you would use as a shield against Mordor, but with your right you seek to supplant me." Denethor is completely correct, Gandalf seeks to restore Aragorn as the rightful King, but Denethor's perspective carries a negative connotation. The readers know Gandalf is making the legitimate and rightful decision in supporting Aragorn's claim to the throne of Gondor).

Saruman's also got an arrogant and superior personality. He is the head of the Istari, he does have far more knowledge in matters concering Sauron and Ring-lore than Gandalf, and it is his designs which ultimately drive Sauron out of Dol Guldur. Other matters are below his standing, however. For example, there is a clear disdain towards Radagast, and my opinion is because Radagast's special knowledge of herbs and beasts is in Saruman's opinion, not knowledge that he deems "worthy." Same as how Saruman chides Gandalf for paying attention to Hobbits. Hobbits are below Saruman's respect, and he feels Gandalf could put his time and thought to far more important matters.

From Gandalf's perspective, we know that he doesn't find out Saruman is a traitor until going to Isengard and being imprisoned there. He could not conceive Saruman was a turn-cloak, if he suspected it he said he would not have gone or he would have been more wary (The Council of Elrond). However, there are moments Gandalf does suspect, or at least, seemingly scratch his head at Saruman's decision making. He does have clear disagreements over how Saruman keeps dragging his feet over the question of Sauron's return to Dol Guldur. And at a later White Council meeting, when Saruman objects to attacking Dol Guldur, this is where he chides Gandalf for paying too much attention to hobbits and that perhaps the "halfling's leaf" he so often enjoys has slowed his mind. Gandalf responds in kind by blowing a smoke-ring symbolizing that Saruman's delving into Ring-lore is a dangerous slope:

Now because of his dislike and fear, in the later days Saruman avoided Gandalf, and they seldom met, except at the assemblies of the White Council. It was at the great Council held in 2851 that the "Halflings' leaf" was first spoken of, and the matter was noted with amusement at the time, though it was afterwards remembered in a different light. The Council met in Rivendell, and Gandalf sat apart, silent, but smoking prodigiously (a thing he had never done before on such an occasion), while Saruman spoke against him, and urged that contrary to Gandalf's advice Dol Guldur should not yet be molested. Both the silence and the smoke seemed greatly to annoy Saruman, and before the Council dispersed be said to Gandalf: "When weighty matters are in debate, Mithrandir, I wonder a little that you should play with your toys of fire and smoke, while others are in earnest speech."

But Gandalf laughed, and replied: "You would not wonder if you used this herb yourself. You might find that smoke blown out cleared your mind of shadows within. Anyway, it gives patience, to listen to error without anger. But it is not one of my toys. It is an art of the Little People away in the West: merry and worthy folk, though not of much account, perhaps, in your high policies."

Saruman was little appeased by this answer (for he hated mockery, however gentle), and he said then coldly: "You jest, Lord Mithrandir, as is your way. I know well enough that you have become a curious explorer of the small: weeds, wild things and childish folk. Your time is your own to spend, if you have nothing worthier to do; and your friends you may make as you please. But to me the days are too dark for wanderers' tales, and I have no time for the simples of peasants."

Gandalf did not laugh again; and he did not answer, but looking keenly at Saruman he drew on his pipe and sent out a great ring of smoke with many smaller rings that followed it. Then he put up his hand, as if to grasp them, and they vanished. With that he got up and left Saruman without another word; but Saruman stood for some time silent, and his face was dark with doubt and displeasure.~Unfinished Tales: The Hunt for the Ring

Sorry for the lengthy quote there.

In sum, I didn't like how McKellan delivered the line in FOTR, because it does come off as too trusty towards Saruman. However, still at that point, Gandalf did not know, nor seem to seriously suspect Saruman was a traitor. But I think Gandalf's perspective is one that goes from professional disagreement (thinks Dol Guldur should be attacked, Saruman disagrees. No more serious than perhaps an employee having a professional disagreement with his/her boss), to some inkling suspicion, and then without question once he goes to Orthanc in FOTR, Saruman's revealed his hand. Saruman sees it differently, being jealous of Gandalf and feeling Gandalf wants his position.

[Oddwen]

In terms of film-consistency it was perhaps because they'd already shown Radagast heal a hedgehog, so Gandalf MUST be able to heal a dwarf!

They're practically the same creature, right?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I wasn't happy with Ian McKellan's delivery of that line in the FOTR movie ("I must see the head of my order. He is both wise and powerful. Trust me, Frodo, he'll know what to do."), because it definitely came off too trusting towards Saruman. And then in particular, it didn't seem to fit well with the White Council scene in The Hobbit, because if I remember it correctly, Gandalf shoots Saruman a suspicious look, and then also the meeting with Galadriel.
[...]
But I think Gandalf's perspective is one that goes from professional disagreement (thinks Dol Guldur should be attacked, Saruman disagrees. No more serious than perhaps an employee having a professional disagreement with his/her boss), to some inkling suspicion, and then without question once he goes to Orthanc in FOTR, Saruman's revealed his hand. Saruman sees it differently, being jealous of Gandalf and feeling Gandalf wants his position.

That's how I saw it. Especially when Saruman appears behind Gandalf at first and the latter has a look on his face of sudden fear - of having being spotted by his superior. It was a "Uh ho! The boss is here!" kind of look which I found most amusing.
If there are further White Council scenes in the movies I dearly hope for the smoke-rings bit. It made me laugh when reading UT. :)

[Sarumian]

One thing about those Stone Giants. It made me want to watch Trollhunter again.

I was reading something elsewhere earlier where someone asked "Did you spot Cumberbatch?" Well, I can't say that I did. When Radagast was at Dol Guldur I saw a wight (who I assumed was the Witch King of Angmar, later one of the Ringwraiths) and then there was the very creepy bit where the dark figure appeared out of the mists (quite unpleasant in 3D). It didn't look Cumberbatch shaped though, just vaguely man shaped. Have I missed something?

Honestly, my thought was that shadow looked a bit Cumberbatchy :) Anyway, I liked the moment of total darkness that followed. There was no doubt - we know, who...

[cellurdur]

I saw the Hobbit and overall I thought it was a very, very good film and well done. I enjoyed it much, much more than the Two Towers or Return of the King.

I even agreed with some of the changes. Making the dwarves more heroic and noble fits better with the story. I also like that they gave us the background of Thorin's name.

Bilbo was brilliant and exactly how I thought he would be. I am glad to see that they did Bilbo justice.

I am happy they put the singing back in the films too.

Even having Azog survive and want revenge is a change I did not want, but could easily tolerate.


What did disappoint me is the pointless changes, which made little sense. Why is the Witch King of Angmar supposed to be dead, when they know he holds one of the Great Rings?
Why did Thranduil pay homage to the king under the mountain?
Why was Elrond against the dwarves quest?

My biggest gripe though has to be in Gandalf. Gandalf seems to lack authority and they have removed all his great displays of power or cunning. The scene with the trolls should have been kept it.
I disliked how the White Council played out. Gandalf should have been given more respect, though he would defer to Saruman. Elrond was not very wise and perhaps they should have included a few more of other the elves.
Shame we have never seen the elves being merry and having fun. This film would have been great to see a Rivendell party and perhaps include Aragorn.

Was not a fan of the way Radagast was portrayed either. He IS still a maia and should have his dignity.

I am also unsure how Gandalf got the map if not from Dol Guldur?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

A two-hour movie, three hours long.

As with the previous three, PJ is OK when he's rendering actual, genuine Tolkien, and hopeless when indulging in yet another endless, repetitive CGI battle scene or trying to film the third-rate fan-fic Phillippa makes up out of fluff and horsefeathers.

Seriously, could PJ even film a remake of My Dinner With Andre without sticking in 40 minutes of CGI critters hacking at each other and falling off high places?

The good:
Riddles in the Dark. I wonder why.......
Also Martin Freeman generally.

The bad:
too many pointless fights, all too long.
The dumb Azog subplot.
Azanulbizar turned into yet another too-long, pointless fight without any of the significance or tragedy which weights Tolkien's telling (some of his finest writing; "If this is victory, then our hands are too small to hold it.")
Erebor rendered with absurd over the top trans-Egyptian gigantism of the sort CGI unfortunately makes too easy for directors with no self restraint; looked like a set from Thor. (And will somebody please tell Alan Lee that stone has little tensile strength and his statues are physically impossible?)
Radagast and the ghost-witch-king whatever and the "Nazgul tombs" rubbish.
Bilbo engaging in not one, not two, but three swordfights, all before Mirkwood.
The illogical stupidity of Thranduil at the fall of Erebor, as someone discussed above (I did like the elk, though).
The Dwarves' 'reception' (and almost yet *another* fight!) at Rivendell: JRRT's descriptions of the Last Homely House and its Master completely forgotten.
The generally estimable Howard Shore phoning it in and just recycling his old musical cues.
The Stoneformer Giants
PJ not realizing that if one sweeping helicopter shot of the Southern Alps is good, ten of them are not ten times as good.
Gandalf deprived of nearly all his dignity and testy asperity

Didn't hate as much as I thought I would:
Radagast. Though the bunny-sled chase was basically a Road Runner cartoon without any of Chuck Jones' wit or creativity.

[davem]

Boyens is clearly a real fan of Tolkien http://movieline.com/2012/12/18/philippa-boyens-interview-the-hobbit-the-silmarillion/ so I think we have to lay the blame for any excesses at Jackson's door. I'm happier with the film than I thought I would be. General audiences/fans of the LotR films would have had certain expectations and the studios would have their own demands too. Looking at the massive success of the film so far I think we have to admit PJ had given the audience what it wants - if you want films on this scale you have to put up with stuff being in them that you don't like. As I said changes to TH are far less irksome to me than what they did to LotR.

[Nerwen]

Davem, I have no opinion on this particular movie yet since, again, it hasn't been released here yet– but honestly, you certainly seem to be saying the main criterion for a "good" film is that it sell tickets.

[Mister Underhill]

Well well well, hello to friends old and new(ish)!

I've very much enjoyed the thoughts and insights discussed so far. I miss me some good Tolkien discussion! I'll toss a few thoughts into the pot, while trying not to be too redundant:

FIRST IMPRESSION

I enjoyed the movie. Seeing it with my son, who was mesmerized, helped me see the film in a kindly light. Add in a resigned acceptance of PJ's flaws as a director and the fact that, as davem and others have noted, The Hobbit has a little less going on under the hood than LotR, and thus less to screw up, and I ended up being rather pleasantly surprised overall. AUJ is a good time at the movies. Still, any grizzled old Tolkien nut is bound to have a few nitpicks...

CAST

Martin Freeman is very good as Bilbo, but he wasn't the casting perfection I thought he would be. I missed Bilbo's eccentricity, his moods, his devilish sense of humor, his sometimes absurd ridiculousness. I like Freeman as much as anybody, but his specialty is the put-upon, befuddled, deadpan straight-man. It's what makes his Watson such a perfect foil for Cumberbatch's highly eccentric Holmes. Being the eccentric one himself, not so much. Interestingly, Ian Holm kind of specializes in that sort of character. See, for example, his turn as Polonious in Hamlet or his role as the priest in The Fifth Element. I missed that in Bilbo, who comes off more "everyman" here than he should, methinks.

Armitage as Thorin. Okay. Let's just stipulate up front that, like many of us, I'm not a fan of the look of some of the dwarves, and Thorin perhaps above all doesn't resemble the Thorin in my head. And like Bilbo, I miss the sense of humor in the characterization -- Thorin's pompous ridiculousness, his tendency to be a windbag at times, etc. I guess mostly I'm okay with this grittier, more kingly Thorin, but still.

Ian McKellan's Gandalf was one of the best things about the original LotR films, and I still love him in the role. Having said that, I'm not sure who's responsible for some of these choices with the character in AUJ, but there were some that I really didn't approve. I don't like a Gandalf who lacks confidence and the sharp tongue that can put anybody in Middle-earth in their place. See the excerpt posted by Boro -- or really anything in Tolkien involving Gandalf. Hated his cringing, servile demeanor towards Saruman, though I guess it's of a piece with some scenes in the LotR films.

I really didn't care for Hugo Weaving as Elrond in LotR, like, at all. But I liked him much better here. He seemed relaxed in the role, less hammy and broad, more the Elrond who is "kind as summer".

TONE

Not far off from predictions of "LotR: The Prequel", yet still there was more Hobbity whimsy in there than I think most of us expected -- the rabbit-drawn sled, an elvish elk mount, birds nesting in Radgast's hair. I often sensed Guillermo del Toro's fingerprints on the film. It would be interesting to know which ideas were his. Anyway, most of it worked surprisingly well for me (bird poo notwithstanding).

On the other hand, I thought there were a few real misses. The whole theme about mercy and Bilbo's big moment when he spares Gollum might have been a lot more powerful if they weren't sandwiched in with the wanton slaughter of the escape from Goblin-town, which climaxes with the gruesome slapstick of Gandalf killing the Great Goblin. But at this point I guess I've just accepted Jackson's hamfistedness, and it landed more as a missed opportunity than anything else.

DESIGN AND ART DIRECTION

I liked Dale, and Bag End is just so deliciously perfect that I wish I could be there right now and live there always.

I have to note this in passing, though it's a real nitpick -- the wide open, cavernous interiors of both Erebor and the lair of the goblins of the Misty Mountains were all wrong for me.

Back to the dwarves -- it was distracting that some looked cartoonish and made up, while some others were just normal.

THAT SCENE WHERE...

"Far over Misty Mountains cold..." was great, a real high point of the film for me.

Am I the only one who thought the way "Riddles in the Dark" was staged was just okay? The whole scene had a frantic quality, and I thought shoe-horning in the split-personality thing with Gollum was very distracting. Also, why needlessly mess with the words? The charming musicality of "This thing all things devours" becomes the flat "All things it devours". Why?

While we're at it, why bungle "burrahobbit"?

I liked the idea conceptually of dramatizing the meeting of the White Council, but in execution there were so many things wrong for me. The Gandalf choices, as mentioned. I don't like that it's just, oh hey, coincidence, we're all here! Might as well convene a White Council meeting! Also, I always pictured the White Council being more than just these four. Don't remember what canon has to say, if anything, about that.

Radagast and the pipeweed. Well, it wouldn't be a Peter Jackson movie without somebody's eyes rolling up into their head, now would it?

Loved Smaug descending on the mountain. You really felt him as a force of nature.

Liked the Battle of Azinulbizar stuff. Appropriately grim and bloody. You are not going to go wrong with me putting in obscure bits of Middle-earth history.

CALL-BACKS TO LOTR

I agree that there are too many. Great insight about the music, Esty! There did come a point where I found myself thinking, wow, there's a lot of LotR music in here. Most egregiously illogical call-back? Gandalf and the moth.

HEAD-SCRATCHERS

Bag End has plumbing?

[Nerwen]

I liked the idea conceptually of dramatizing the meeting of the White Council, but in execution there were so many things wrong for me. The Gandalf choices, as mentioned. I don't like that it's just, oh hey, coincidence, we're all here! Might as well convene a White Council meeting! Also, I always pictured the White Council being more than just these four. Don't remember what canon has to say, if anything, about that.

No, that's pretty close. At least Tolkien only names five members: Galadriel, Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond, and Círdan. (I don't think it's clear if they're the only ones, though.)

[Elmo]

No, that's pretty close. At least Tolkien only names five members: Galadriel, Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond, and Círdan. (I don't think it's clear if they're the only ones, though.)

I think he mentions it contained 'other Lords of the Eldar' in the Silmarillion. I reckon Glorfindel must have in a place in it surely?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I think he mentions it contained 'other Lords of the Eldar' in the Silmarillion. I reckon Glorfindel must have in a place in it surely?

I am not really sure about it. Because I know for sure that who I "feel" should be here are, like, Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast (as all the Istari present at that time), Elrond, Círdan, and Galadriel (as the wisest of the Elven lords, and ringbearers on top of that). Glorfindel, however noble his origin is and all that, seemed to me always just like a "fighter", not a "talker", if it comes to that, he's from a different era and is sort of "beyond the present concerns", since the only thing he does is to fetch Frodo, we hear nothing more about him at all in the Third Age. Another person I would be possibly considering is Celeborn, whom, however he tends to be "overshadowed" by his wife, I can imagine sitting there in the corner when Galadriel is speaking something of value... it simply sort of comes together, I can't see why Galadriel would not have invited him there, however "filling" his role would be.

However, what Tolkien explicitly tells us is exactly what Nerwen said - Saruman, Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel (right now I can't vouch for Círdan, but I think he is there). There are other moments, when the list might include "other Elven Lords", but that is when e.g. Saruman, Gandalf and one other Elf are mentioned, so the "other Elven Lords" include the remaining ones.

So the movie is pretty punctually after the canon (I'm glad they didn't invent seven other Elven Lords to come in), personally I think there were likely one or three more, but there is no mention of them anywhere.

[davem]

Davem, I have no opinion on this particular movie yet since, again, it hasn't been released here yet– but honestly, you certainly seem to be saying the main criterion for a "good" film is that it sell tickets.

Well, if it doesn't sell tickets its certainly a 'bad' film from the filmmakers' point of view. TH, as with LotR before it, had to appeal to a broad audience. What has to be admitted is that Jackson could have done a lot worse, and been a lot less respectful of the material than he was. There were a number of places in all the films where he messed up (less, to my mind, in AUJ than in LotR), but a straight page to screen adaptation wouldn't have worked - why no Cirdan at the White Council? Simple - the general audience would be asking 'Who's the beardy-weirdy Elf over there?' So you'd need screen time accounting for who he is and why he's there and why everybody is showing him respect.

AUJ, like the LotR films, have to make profit or they don't get made. In order to make profit they have to appeal to a wide audience. So, given those restrictions, I think AUJ is a 'good' film. And if I was your average film goer, or even just someone who'd read the book few times I'd be more than happy with it. Actually, I suspect I'd be happier with the LotR films if it wasn't for the BBC Radio version, which showed it is possible to adapt the book faithfully and make it work.

(written on a phone, so bear with any mistakes)

[Boromir88]

Well, if it doesn't sell tickets its certainly a 'bad' film from the filmmakers' point of view. TH, as with LotR before it, had to appeal to a broad audience. What has to be admitted is that Jackson could have done a lot worse, and been a lot less respectful of the material than he was. There were a number of places in all the films where he messed up (less, to my mind, in AUJ than in LotR), but a straight page to screen adaptation wouldn't have worked - why no Cirdan at the White Council? Simple - the general audience would be asking 'Who's the beardy-weirdy Elf over there?' So you'd need screen time accounting for who he is and why he's there and why everybody is showing him respect.

AUJ, like the LotR films, have to make profit or they don't get made. In order to make profit they have to appeal to a wide audience. So, given those restrictions, I think AUJ is a 'good' film. And if I was your average film goer, or even just someone who'd read the book few times I'd be more than happy with it. Actually, I suspect I'd be happier with the LotR films if it wasn't for the BBC Radio version, which showed it is possible to adapt the book faithfully and make it work.

(written on a phone, so bear with any mistakes)

For me, I think part of it is, with the LOTR trilogy, it was very good cinema. For the most part the changes seemed to have an understood and logical cinematic reason behind them. Even the change to Faramir's character was made to create a short-term antagonist so the main phyiscally seen antagonist (Shelob) could be moved to ROTK. Therefor, Faramir wants to prove his worth to his dad, particularly after it's learned favorite Boromir is dead.

The problem here, is generally I think the LOTR trilogy carried the impression "well for the most part it was accurate to the books, besides a few changes here and there made by Jackson...like having an elven army show up at Helm's Deep." But there are many more, harder to spot alterations if you're not quite familiar with the books. The representation of Sauron as a literal Eye for instance, led to one of my friend's reading the books after the movies, and thinking that the talk of Sauron's "reach" and the references to his "black hand" or that "he will come when all is won" were the actual metaphors and the Eye was Sauron's real, physical representation, since the Eye is talked about much more frequently.

For the most part, the changes to LOTR though were good cinema. I mean, Tolkien says about TTT, that Treebeard and the Ents are far more important than the battle of Helm's Deep, so if he was to cut something out, it would be Helm's Deep. This would have been disastrous, cinematically, if Helm's Deep wasn't hyped up as the larger, more important, and climatic moment of TTT.

With An Unexpected Journey, I at least went in without the expectations of a good adaptation. It's been well established the type of director Jackson is, and since The Hobbit is a far shorter, and less complex story, the changes are much easier to spot, even to the casual "read the Hobbit a few times" fan.

Cinematically it wasn't as good as LOTR though, because a lot of it appeared too...how shall I say, forced? Formulaic? I absolutely loved Freeman's Bilbo, and Armitage's Thorin, but their tension in the films was just way too forced. It was like "We need to have a narrative growth with these two characters...um here let's just insert Thorin being mean to Bilbo, now!" "Ok, so now to show their growing friendship, Bilbo will step between Azog and Thorin...holy cliche city, batman!"

Instead of just letting it happen as I believe what the LOTR trilogy showed between Gimli and Legolas. The tension was clearly established, and seemed natural at the Council. As the Fellowship journey continues you can just see the budding friendship, without forcing in inserted tension/let's be friends moment. Gimli is talking about being grieved at departing Lorien, and Legolas smiles...that's all you really need.

[Galadriel55]

Instead of just letting it happen as I believe what the LOTR trilogy showed between Gimli and Legolas. The tension was clearly established, and seemed natural at the Council. As the Fellowship journey continues you can just see the budding friendship, without forcing in inserted tension/let's be friends moment. Gimli is talking about being grieved at departing Lorien, and Legolas smiles...that's all you really need.

On the good side, though, the Dwarves were not as bad comic reliefs as Gimli was. Sure, they had their moments, but it was pretty accurate to the spirit of the book, except for some instances (*coughBolgfallingontopofeveryonecough*).

Not that this is relevant to what you're saying in the slightest. I just merely had the thought.

About what you said, I would agree, but then again, in defense of the movie, this is no Love Story where everything is subtle and clear even if it's unsaid. The Hobbit is a different type of movie. It's the kind where those things have to be exaggerated in order to be seen.

[davem]

Really interesting piece in the Huffington post on Jackson's expansion of the story http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/seth-abramson/dislike-peter-jacksons-em_b_2342591.html

Also, some useful background info for those of us who have neglected our studies recently....

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Seth Abramson comes off as a prating poseur who plainly knows nothing about Tolkien but wants his readership to think he does. The elementary errors in his piece are laughable.

[Nerwen]

Seth Abramson comes off as a prating poseur who plainly knows nothing about Tolkien but wants his readership to think he does. The elementary errors in his piece are laughable.
Let's be fair, though– he's not the only one. I've now read quite a lot of reviews and comments right across the spectrum of opinion, and it looks like "Let's All Play Tolkien Experts" is quite the thing just now. Fun for the whole family!:cool:

[davem]

Strange, I initially thought he was someone attempting to give all the non geeks some sense of the history (however flawed) behind the main tales, and explain Jackson's approach to the story. I now see that burning is too good for people like him, and that he should be hung, drawn and quartered and his remains thrown to wild dogs for his temerity. Too much Christmas spirit on my part.

[Eönwë]

Ok, so I've finally got round to watching it. Some thoughts:


Martin Freeman as Bilbo is excellent.
All the Smaug we saw was really good.
I didn't actually find Radagast that bad. I mean, some characteristics were a little exaggerated, but I'm at least glad he felt like a wizard, though I found his "Rhosgobel rabbits" line a bit too cheesy for my liking.
Speaking of that, the same goes for the big "NOOOOOOO!" as well as the some goblin fight when escaping the Great Goblin. That was nice in general, but some of the ease with which they just swiped them all off (with the long pole, for example), or Gandalf's rock seemed to overdo it a bit.
I liked how they did Gollum. It shows how he's changed now that he's lost the ring. Though seeing him lose the ring makes takes away some of the mystery. And they cut out the fish riddle, which is one of my favourite.
For the way the extended the story, I can understand why they added Azog. I do hope Dáin kills him at the Battle of the Five Armies, though, instead of them totally taking away his glory.
I both liked and disliked the Great Goblin. Some of the things he did, like when he recognised the swords, were good, but I disliked him at others. And the way that Gandalf killed him was not something I liked.
I liked that orcs were actually treated as conscious beings in some cases, but the problem now is that there's too much of a contrast between the leaders and the normal orcs.
Seeing a more lighthearted Elrond was nice.
I was at first annoyed at the timeline change, where Gandalf still hasn't been to Dol Guldur yet, but then I realised how many other flashbacks there already were with the Dwarves. It makes reasonable sense to not have that earlier. Though they'll probably never explain how Gandalf got the key now.
So apparently Radagast has too many mushrooms? Saruman's just accusing everyone of using too many drugs at this point. Though it looks like Longbottom Leaf is pretty potent stuff.
I'm used to them ignoring him, but I was still sad that they didn't at least have Círdan at the White Council. I also imagined at least a few more elves, though in my mind I always did have a round table in the middle for some reason. But it makes perfect sense for them not to include additional, unfamiliar characters, especially for such an important scene.
I also didn't get why Elrond was so opposed to the quest. And while we later saw that it was because he had been taken in by the words of Saruman, I can't see why they made it so that they had to go against him at the time when they are supposed to have trusted his counsel. It was just a pointless addition, in my opinion.
I think they rode too much on the back of LOTR. Sometimes it was useful to use parallels, as with the Eagles, but other times, such as the one-on-one battle near the end which uses basically the same music as Aragorn's Lurtz scene was too much. As well as Kiligolas.
I liked Gandalf leaning on the fourth wall by not remembering the Blue Wizards' names because they're not in the books they're allowed to use (at least that's what I assumed it was). I also liked how they played with some of the book dialogue. But then some of the stuff they added was ridiculous. Like Gandalf's wise speech to Galadriel. Didn't sound Gandalfy at all.
I was happy that they managed to include some of the songs.

[Nerwen]

Well, if it doesn't sell tickets its certainly a 'bad' film from the filmmakers' point of view.
Well... that doesn't really get us any further, does it? I would guess they're pretty disappointed with the critical reception, anyway.

Strange, I initially thought he was someone attempting to give all the non geeks some sense of the history (however flawed) behind the main tales, and explain Jackson's approach to the story. I now see that burning is too good for people like him, and that he should be hung, drawn and quartered and his remains thrown to wild dogs for his temerity. Too much Christmas spirit on my part.

Look, davem, just because you're now, apparently, a born-again fan doesn't mean you have to go around smiting the unbelievers. It's just a bloody film. :D

[davem]

Well... that doesn't really get us any further, does it? I would guess they're pretty disappointed with the critical reception, anyway.



Look, davem, just because you're now, apparently, a born-again fan doesn't mean you have to go around smiting the unbelievers. It's just a bloody film. D

Not sure I qualify as a 'fan' exactly. I liked a lot of the film - though I'm sure with repeated viewings I'll find stuff that I like less and less. I have, a I've gotten older, gone more and more off this whole 'I'm more informed on the minutiae of Tolkien's works than you, so you must be a pathetic wannabe. What I took from that review was that the guy genuinely loves Tolkien's creation and wanted to give movie goers some sense of the background behind the story. Yes, it is just a bloody film, but in the end its also just a bloody book, and neither should be used as a weapon to attack others with :)

Anyway, here's a very positive review from John Ratliff, who is a real Hobbit expert (unless someone feels different :p ) http://sacnoths.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/hobbit-movie-review-part-i.html

[Nerwen]

Not sure I qualify as a 'fan' exactly. I liked a lot of the film - though I'm sure with repeated viewings I'll find stuff that I like less and less. I have, a I've gotten older, gone more and more off this whole 'I'm more informed on the minutiae of Tolkien's works than you, so you must be a pathetic wannabe. What I took from that review was that the guy genuinely loves Tolkien's creation and wanted to give movie goers some sense of the background behind the story. Yes, it is just a bloody film, but in the end its also just a bloody book, and neither should be used as a weapon to attack others with :)
Well, my impression of the article was very much that the writer was doing precisely that– playing "I know more about Tolkien than you, na-na-ni-na-na". It is, after all, titled "Dislike Peter Jackson's 'The Hobbit'? Then you don't know Tolkien."

[davem]

Don't know if the writer was responsible for the title, but I suspect it was just an attempt to be eye catching. If it had appeared in an academic journal like Tolkien Studies, or Mallorn, it would be a different matter.

And I've noticed a few inconsistencies in the negative revues as well, but they tend not to get the same level of criticism

[Nerwen]

Don't know if the writer was responsible for the title, but I suspect it was just an attempt to be eye catching.
It may have been chosen by a sub-editor, but I'd say it fairly represents the content of the article.

Example:
All of this may seem like hapless nerd-kvetching, but consider: Would a film critic reviewing a Jane Austen adaptation be forgiven for exhibiting little knowledge of (and little willingness to embrace) the film's source material? How about Tolstoy?

[davem]

I do take your point, but as I've said I've found as many, if not more, errors in the negative reviews which weren't attacked in the same way, so I can't help feeling that the 'offence' taken has less to do with the errors and more to do with the fact that they appeared in a positive review. It seems to me that anyone reading the review who is interested will use it as a starting point to find out more, and anyone who isn't won't care. I've lost count of the writers of negative reviews who have also attempted to present themselves as 'experts'.

[Nerwen]

I do take your point, but as I've said I've found as many, if not more, errors in the negative reviews which weren't attacked in the same way, so I can't help feeling that the 'offence' taken has less to do with the errors and more to do with the fact that they appeared in a positive review.
Offence taken by whom, WCH? If you're including me– well, I was actually pointing out that there's been a lot of posing going on, on all sides. Posing is one thing, though, and saying 'only Tolkien experts (like myself) are fit to criticise this film' quite another– even without the additional implication of, 'and those who criticise it can't really be experts'. And yet, davem, apparently your post at #96 is a reaction to WCH doing, in your opinion, much the same thing.

Besides, you've also argued that the main thing is that the film make a profit– which is as close as can be to a direct opposite to Abramson's position.

Finally– what's the problem, anyway? It's not as though this thread is devoted to roasting the "Hobbit" movie– quite the contrary. Most of the comments I've read here have been at least fairly positive, as a matter of fact.

[Mithalwen]

I have seen plenty of PJ cultists claiming minor semantic inaccurcies such as referring to Rivendell as an elf city invalidates a negative review entirely.

[Kuruharan]

I saw the movie today. I don't want to bore everyone with a recitation of things most everyone has already pointed out in one form or another. Broadly speaking, my impressions are largely in line with Boro's.

I do think it was better than The Two Towers...of course, that is a pretty low bar to get over. It might be better than Return of the King too, it’s been so long since I've seen that one. Personally I'm not sure it’s on par with Fellowship.

I had the sense to see it in 2D so I didn't have to suffer through 3D glasses and weird images so just from a sheer image perspective there was only one place where the movie just looked blatantly fake to me and that was Ian Holm's makeup during the beginning of the movie, which in my opinion looked *really* bad.

Other stuff I feel to be of note that hasn't been mentioned by others very much:

Dale is medieval Novgorod: It’s an interesting idea to dress the Dalemen in Russiany type garb, and I approve of the imagination behind the idea. However, I'm not completely sold on it as they are supposed to be related to the Rohirrim. I think a more Nordic look would have worked better, but I still give them credit for trying.

Making an unnecessary mishmash of the backstory: Believe it or not, I do understand that there is a need to make some changes when one is adapting a book to film. However, there is absolutely no need from a technical perspective to make such a hash of the history. Several references are made to the other dwarf lords and yet at the same time Erebor is called the last dwarf kingdom in Middle-earth. Balin also has his dialogue with Thorin about their new home in the Blue Mountains...except that according to the story these dwarves don't belong anywhere. There are only two possible outcomes for the thinking members of the audience arising from these contradictions. For those unfamiliar with Tolkien's work all this incoherent backstory is just confusing. For those familiar with Tolkien's work it will be annoying at best. Why mention the backstory at all if you are going to make such a mess of it? There is no technical or story based reason for it. And you can't say that it is simplifying and making the complex backstory less confusing. Jackson went and made it *more* confusing by making it incoherent. Why can't he just tell it like Tolkien wrote it if he has to mention it at all?

Troll boogers: Seriously..? :rolleyes:

That stupid *stupid* *STUPID* chase to Rivendell: I will say at the beginning that words can't really do justice to how stupid and wrong in just about every way that sequence was. But I'm going to give 'er a go anyway! :D

1) Radaghasty is riding around on his bunny sled in circles leading the "orc pack" (I cringed every time that phrase was used) around and around to create a diversion so the dwarves could get away...except he is leading the orcs in the SAME FREAKIN' DIRECTION the dwarves themselves are going which is only going to make it more likely that the dwarves are going to be seen! And not only that, he is staying like 50 yards from the dwarves at all times. Seriously?! How is this necessary to adapt the story to film? I understand suspension of disbelief...but this is requiring suspension of any sort of information processing apparatus at all!

2) The wargs are shown in the film as having a sense of smell keen enough to detect the passage of the dwarves at least a day or so after they have been there...and yet somehow these same wargs couldn't smell the dwarves when they were just on the other side of that rock. It took an orc to smell them. Dumb, dumb, dumb!

3) Those fast wargs that only the Rabbits of Rhosghobel could outrun sure took a long time surrounding and closing in on a bunch of dwarves on foot in flat country. Maybe Gandalf knew that the Gundabad wargs were in fact slower than snails and that is why he knew Radaghastly didn't have too be far ahead of the dwarves..?

4) Why in the heck didn't the dwarves follow their own advice to stay close and group up (like they managed to do a few minutes later in Rivendell when surrounded by elves) when they were finally surrounded by the wargs? When Thorin was yelling at everyone to stand their ground they were all dispersed in a wide circle...ideal for being ridden down and killed one by one by mounted opponents. Still its lucky that the wargs were slow as all heck so that Kiligolas had time to trot leisurely across the field to jump down the hole. It would have been such a shame if his beardless face had departed the movie at that moment. (I do understand and appreciate the need to have different beard styles and for the most part the look of the dwarves has really grown on me...but I draw the line at a beardless dwarf. Stubble does not cut it. By the way, did anybody else catch the beardless dwarven women fleeing Erebor, even though all the literature for the film describes the women as bearded...that's literature expressly for the film mind you...obviously nobody cares much about what that chap Tolkien wrote.)

Middle-earth to Bilbo: If you aren't able to keep up with a company of dwarves in the wilderness...I have my doubts that you are going to make it back even to Rivendell by yourself. Call it a hunch. At the very least those rock giants are still out there...like right outside that cave. But go on out there and try buddy! I'm sure that can only end well for you.

Mace in the Face: I sure hope that if I'm ever hit in the face by a mace being swung by a moving mounted person I end up with some cool, artistically placed facial scarring rather than having icky things happen like my neck being immediately snapped or my face being turned into pulp. Artistic scarring is cool and would really help with the ladies. Pulp face...not so much.

Erebor so close to the Misty Mountains: The decision to split The Hobbit into three movies is even more baffling to me now that I see how close to the Misty Mountains Erebor actually is. I mean it’s like fifty miles tops...and probably less. They should get there in three days tops. I am oh so dreading what kind of filler PJ is going to have to come up with to elongate that trip.

Overall Impression: As others have said, I found the movie to do best when PJ and Company are portraying what Tolkien actually wrote. When they start following their own ideas things tend to fall apart in a hurry.

Aside from that, as a film (aside from all my Tolkien based objections) at different parts it felt slow and disjointed to me. It felt slow at the beginning with that intro (especially the part with Ian and Elijah) which felt like it would neeeeeeever end. It felt disjointed from the late intro through the middle (basically with the introduction of Radaghastly). The film tightened up the story toward the end and that portion of the movie was better because of it.

Also, overall I think these movies are not really aimed at people like me. My Dad just loved the whole thing and had a grand time watching the movie. I think the movies are really more for people like him, people who are willing to watch and enjoy what's presented to them and not nitpick. I'm sure he's back home right now watching "Making Of The Hobbit" clips on YouTube and happy as a clam, which is a good thing.

I am kind of dreading what the next movie will hold as Two Towers was so awful...

[Nerwen]

I have seen plenty of PJ cultists claiming minor semantic inaccurcies such as referring to Rivendell as an elf city invalidates a negative review entirely.
As does the writer complaining about the frame rate, complaining about the length, being a Jackson/Tolkien fan, not being a Jackson/Tolkien fan, rating [movie title] higher, not being a famous Oscar-winning director.... and the list goes on.:rolleyes: But I'm presuming davem's talking about responses here, not the outraged-fanboy silliness I've seen elsewhere.

[davem]

Part two of Rateliff's review http://sacnoths.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/hobbit-movie-review-part-two.html?m=1

[Lalwendë]

Anyway. Without the film I wouldn't have got my Very Awesome Christmas Present. Which is LEGO Bag End. And it made me scream like a kid when I opened it. So that's good enough justification for the films for me. Merry Christmas! :D

[Elmo]

I am not really sure about it. Because I know for sure that who I "feel" should be here are, like, Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast (as all the Istari present at that time), Elrond, Círdan, and Galadriel (as the wisest of the Elven lords, and ringbearers on top of that). Glorfindel, however noble his origin is and all that, seemed to me always just like a "fighter", not a "talker", if it comes to that, he's from a different era and is sort of "beyond the present concerns", since the only thing he does is to fetch Frodo, we hear nothing more about him at all in the Third Age. Another person I would be possibly considering is Celeborn, whom, however he tends to be "overshadowed" by his wife, I can imagine sitting there in the corner when Galadriel is speaking something of value... it simply sort of comes together, I can't see why Galadriel would not have invited him there, however "filling" his role would be.

However, what Tolkien explicitly tells us is exactly what Nerwen said - Saruman, Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel (right now I can't vouch for Círdan, but I think he is there). There are other moments, when the list might include "other Elven Lords", but that is when e.g. Saruman, Gandalf and one other Elf are mentioned, so the "other Elven Lords" include the remaining ones.

So the movie is pretty punctually after the canon (I'm glad they didn't invent seven other Elven Lords to come in), personally I think there were likely one or three more, but there is no mention of them anywhere.

I have to defend Glorfindel's honour here, he was a leader in the army that wiped out Angmar in 1975, and no doubt fought many numerous battles against the witch-king before hand, and led various sorties against other evil folk.

[Zigûr]

I apologise for this post being so long but I wanted to get everything down while it was fresh in my mind.
We finally got the film here in Australia on Boxing Day. I've just returned from seeing it. I must admit that I researched as many of the changes from the book as possible to reduce my disappointment; with that in mind I thought it was adequate fare. If I hadn't I suspect I would have felt very frustrated. I understand perfectly that no adaptation can or really should cleave exactly to the source material; what I just find disappointing about adaptations of Professor Tolkien's work is how often they substitute perfectly good dialogue/events from the original with invented material and so the screen misses out on what is, in my view, stronger storytelling from the Professor's own hand.
With this in mind I found An Unexpected Journey to be satisfying in some ways and similarly frustrating in others. I was satisfied to an extent with the use of the Battle of Azanulbizar to flesh out the history and characterisation of the Dwarves, for instance. I found the development of the Necromancer/Dol Guldur plot, however, to be rather frustrating. The Azog plot I simply don't understand; couldn't Bolg have served the same purpose equally well without so substantially altering the original storyline?
This is part of what I suppose I found the most wearisome about the film: the characterisation of Thorin. In the novel we're presented with Thorin as a proud but rather pompous old man who is a "good sort" but needs a bit of a push, but I felt that in this film PJ and co went down the maddeningly predictable route of turning him into an archetypal brooding, angst-ridden Hollywood "bad boy" figure. This wasn't helped by the establishment of his vendetta with Azog, a necessary but weak consequence of limiting Smaug's role in the first film. His motivations of revenge on the dragon and the reclamation of his homeland were muddied with this conflict with the Orcs to the extent that I felt like Thorin's character arc was a little overcomplicated, especially for a story where the focus, in my opinion, should really be on Bilbo.
Now I'm no screen writer but were I in the position of "Hollywood-ing up" The Hobbit (as much as I personally feel that such a notion is both unnecessary and distasteful), I would have played the whole situation a little differently in such a way that it could maintain Professor Tolkien's own story whilst padding out the length and the characterisation. Have Thrór killed by Azog; Thráin and Thorin swear revenge, but in the end it is the stripling Dáin who slays the Orc and wins the day. Thráin eventually goes missing. Thorin, despite being king of his people, is left in an awkward position: not only does he lack a true kingdom but the hero of his people is not him but Dáin, his cousin. This adds to his motivations for reclaiming the mountain: if he can win back Erebor he will also win not only the treasure but the dignity of his kingship or something like that. He will finally have achieved greatness. It could add to the nature of his greed; greedy for the respect he thinks he deserves as well as the gold. It's unnecessary nonsense of course, but if they really need to "sex up" the story a bit I feel that could have been a stronger way of doing it. It might make Thorin less sympathetic but hey, we're meant to sympathise with Bilbo anyway. Thorin is, in my view, a deuteragonist in the classic Tragic mould: his hamartia is his greed, which he pays for with his death. We're yet to see how this plays out with PJ's Thorin but I feel that something like what I've suggested could have stayed true to Professor Tolkien's original storyline while still expanding and "modernising" things, so to speak.
The Dol Guldur plot, on the other hand, I felt was overcomplicated for no good reason. The situation in Professor Tolkien's original story is, I feel, fairly straightforward. A shadow is growing in Mirkwood from Dol Guldur; Gandalf investigates and discovers it is no enemy less that Sauron; coincidentally he receives the key to the secret door of Erebor from Thráin. This could all have been established quite succinctly, and were they insistent upon featuring Galadriel and Saruman the White Council meeting could have been held with the information of Sauron's whereabouts revealed; Gandalf agrees to part ways with Thorin and Company in time to meet with the rest of the Council for the attack on Dol Guldur. This would have actually tied in far better to the story of Bilbo and the Dwarves with absolutely no need for Radagast, "Rhosgobel Rabbits" (I'm surprised we didn't encounter any Seventh Doctor-esque rolling rs in that scene) or bizarre duels with the ghost of the Lord of the Nazgûl, all of which primarily reflect nothing more than the hyperextension of the storyline to stretch across first two and then three films. There was certainly no need for the completely unnecessary butchering of the Angmar storyline, which needn't have been present whatsoever. All the talk of tombs and "black magic" and a Necromancer who could literally raise the dead (rather than prolonging through the use of rings) and so on made the entire White Council subplot seem like something from a trivial Tolkien rip-off like Dungeons and Dragons or Warhammer. It riddles Professor Tolkien's work, the Fantasy archetype, with Fantasy clichés which derived mostly from his imitators pasticheing his stories with none of their metaphysical integrity.
My most nit-picky complaints (beyond the use of plate armour and other such anachronisms) are the use of terminology like "divine" in regards to Thrór's right to rule and Saruman's frustrating use of the word "human" which always sounds out of place in a Tolkien context.
I might also quibble about some elements of pronunciation. Names like Glóin, Óin, Thráin and Dáin were pronounced with their vowels as dipthongs. I was taught in my Old Norse course at University that names like these should be pronounced something like "Glowin" and "Owin", and "Thrawin" and "Dawin" where the ó is pronouced as a sort of clipped 'or' as in 'bore' and á sounds a bit like the vowel sound in 'pound'.
The plot involved too many portents and omens and the like which jarred oddly with the genuine (and pleasing, to me) bits of "coincidence" ie fate which were either pointed out or at least implied, such as with the moon letters or Bilbo's discovery of the Ring which referred more genuinely to Professor Tolkien's recurring theme of the subtle hand of providence (or more appropriately Eru) at work.
I felt the designs were mostly good, although I feel the Dwarves were overdesigned and despite everything still lacked a natural dignity which began with the misinterpretation of Gimli in the films of The Lord of the Rings. In the novel I derive far more humour from the image of this rather large assortment of fussy, somewhat incompetent middle-aged and (mostly) upper-class men trying to get their home and money back than the film's reliance on belching and throwing food and general rowdiness. The songs were nice but I would have liked more, and more instruments. I think Balin was portrayed well; Fili and Kili's obvious repurposing for keeping the girls interested was a bit too "modern" for my tastes as well but at least they were used well enough.
As for Hobbits, I thought the entire section with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood should have been left on the cutting room floor. The CGI on Ian Holm's face was distracting. I heartily dislike establishing monologues in films (I find the one at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring to be a long-winded and cheap way of drawing the audience in with some early action) and this wasn't much of an exception. It was too long and could have been explained elsewhere. The opening dialogue of the film should, without a doubt, have been "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit."
Martin Freeman I generally find to be quite watchable and I enjoyed his appearance as Bilbo. I can definitely say that the section in Rivendell where we became so distracted from him was my least favourite part of the film, although I generally thought he was sidelined too often, another casualty of the unnecessary inflation of the story. On the other hand I feel Freeman's typical "bemused everyman" performance didn't always gel especially well with the image of a comfortable, sedentary homebody forced into difficult situations, because he almost felt too world-weary already for a character who is notionally having his eyes opened to life beyond the familiar.
As for the rest I thought Azog looked incredibly phony and that the CG in general wasn't spectacular. I didn't like the goblins of the High Pass whatsoever - Professor Tolkien goes to great lengths to describe in the novel how technologically advanced they were (albeit not in a good way) yet they were rendered as typical enemy troglodytes led by a Great Goblin who was exaggerated to pointless proportions. This is what irks me about these films. They could do something a bit different by actually following what Professor Tolkien wrote but they insist on following Hollywood clichés which render the material stale and inconsequential. Some argue that these clichés are necessary for adapting the stories as mainstream cinema. If this is true, which I suppose it is, then I think that in many ways these films shouldn't really be made at all, because I really think that so many of the sensibilities of modern Hollywood are more or less entirely incompatible with so much of the thematic content (and especially a lot of the subtleties) which Professor Tolkien's work tries to express that the adaptation comes across as entirely shallow compared to its source material. I think this needn't be the case but when they're forced by commercial concerns then, from artistic grounds, what's the point? It's really adaptations like these which have caused me to doubt the artistic value of cinematic adaptation in general.
All this aside I found the film to be reasonably entertaining if too long. Were the opening scenes with Old Bilbo omitted along with the majority of the Radagast and White Council material I think it would have been much more enjoyable despite the changes. To me the film suffered quite clearly from this decision to present it as a trilogy rather than two films or even one. It was, in my opinion, adequate adventure material with some unnecessary deviations from the source material and decent presentation and performances despite some unpleasant CGI.

[Galadriel]

My, my, it's been a long time since I posted anything on this site!

Basically, I went to the cinema not expecting too much. Certainly it would not live up to the LotR films, but it would hopefully be more entertaining/visually stunning than The Dark Knight Rises.

I guess my review is going to be very confused, because the movie itself left me a bit, er, thrown? I enjoyed the part in Bag End. It was clean, it was funny, and it was more or less true to the book. I also liked the scene with Gollum.

What I did not like was pretty much the rest of the film. PJ deviates from the very spirit of the book, making it too comic in some places (rabbits pulling a sledge?) and too serious in others (actually, this, for me, was mostly a Thorin issue; the guy looked like he was suffering from severe constipation throughout the film). It stretched for far too long with too little plot, and Radagast looked like he'd leapt out of Narnia. It was like a bizarre blend between a children's movie and an adult's one, and lacked the nostalgic element that was evident in the book.

I'd give it 3/5 stars, and that's being pretty generous. It was on par with Prince Caspian.

I'll stop with my ranting now. :rolleyes:

[William Cloud Hicklin]

This is what irks me about these films. They could do something a bit different by actually following what Professor Tolkien wrote but they insist on following Hollywood clichés which render the material stale and inconsequential. Some argue that these clichés are necessary for adapting the stories as mainstream cinema. If this is true, which I suppose it is, then I think that in many ways these films shouldn't really be made at all, because I really think that so many of the sensibilities of modern Hollywood are more or less entirely incompatible with so much of the thematic content (and especially a lot of the subtleties) which Professor Tolkien's work tries to express that the adaptation comes across as entirely shallow compared to its source material. I think this needn't be the case but when they're forced by commercial concerns then, from artistic grounds, what's the point? It's really adaptations like these which have caused me to doubt the artistic value of cinematic adaptation in general.

Hear, hear!

[Lalwendë]

I might also quibble about some elements of pronunciation. Names like Glóin, Óin, Thráin and Dáin were pronounced with their vowels as dipthongs. I was taught in my Old Norse course at University that names like these should be pronounced something like "Glowin" and "Owin", and "Thrawin" and "Dawin" where the ó is pronouced as a sort of clipped 'or' as in 'bore' and á sounds a bit like the vowel sound in 'pound'.

That reminds me of one little thing I noticed and I wonder if anyone else did - at one point Gandalf pronounces Thorin as 'Torin', in what I assume is the correct Norse/Scandinavian way? Am I right? I used to know a Norwegian woman with a son named Thor and she pronounced it as 'Tor' so that is how I have always presumed it is correctly said since then.

Whether this fits with the way Tolkien intended it to be pronounced I don't know, but it made me look it up again, knowing that the name was taken directly from the Voluspa verse from the Poetic Eddas.

A random point maybe but you just reminded me of it....

[William Cloud Hicklin]

That reminds me of one little thing I noticed and I wonder if anyone else did - at one point Gandalf pronounces Thorin as 'Torin', in what I assume is the correct Norse/Scandinavian way? Am I right? I used to know a Norwegian woman with a son named Thor and she pronounced it as 'Tor' so that is how I have always presumed it is correctly said since then.

Whether this fits with the way Tolkien intended it to be pronounced I don't know, but it made me look it up again, knowing that the name was taken directly from the Voluspa verse from the Poetic Eddas.

A random point maybe but you just reminded me of it....

I would think quite the reverse: as Tolkien of all people knew very well, in Norse (and Anglo-Saxon), T and TH were even different letters!

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Phew. Reading this thread is exhausting work. There were many posts that reminded me of things I wanted to say about my experience. Here it goes.

My mother surprised my brother and I by taking us (along with a cousin and uncle) to The Hobbit on Christmas. I went in not knowing what to expect. Soon thereafter I was pleasantly surprised by the introduction. I really liked the backstory and old Bilbo starting his story. The part where the camera pans out from Bilbo reminded me of when Bilbo was writing "Concerning Hobbits" in the EE FotR. It was a nice element of nostalgia, reminding me why I decided to read the books in the first place. I think that my favourite part of the whole ordeal was Smaug coming, but us not actually seeing him. It was a nice bit of foreboding. I really enjoyed the dwarves in Bag-end. I was disappointed that Bilbo did not invite Gandalf in for tea, but the way they led into the dwarves coming worked. Martin Freeman made a very good Bilbo, not excellent, but then, we didn't really see a lot of him.

After the company left the Shire, the film quickly went downhill. With the exception of Bilbo messing with the trolls, I did not find the next hour of film enjoyable. When Balin told the Azog backstory, my mother turned to me to ask me if that really happened in the book. I affirmed her that it was Tolkien, not part of TH, but an interesting backstory to put in as filler. After that, I assured her that Azog had died in that battle and we didn't need to worry about him returning. One might imagine my surprise when Azog turned out to be a (or the) main character in the story. I found that inclusion galling. Every scene that Azog was injected into I found boring and superfluous. I didn't like how the orcs were chasing the company, and I really didn't like the big chase scene leading up to Rivendell. Gandalf deciding that the rock the dwarves were hiding behind was the entrance into the valley seemed too off-the-cuff to me, so did the random elf that greeted the company. Thorin's anger at Gandalf for taking them to Rivendell was silly, and felt wholly out of tune with Thorin's character.

Speaking of Thorin, my mother complained that he was too "Aragorn" and not enough of his own character. She and I both found his beef with Azog boring and unneeded. The film was all about Thorin and his history, and Mr. Baggins was hardly featured at all. I was very disgruntled at the lack of Bilbo. This whole affair was about Bilbo going on his adventure with the dwarves. The Hobbit was told from his point of view, and to not have Bilbo be the central character of the film really spoiled it for me.

Another thing that really irked me was how dark it was. Not in the lighting department (Riddles in the Dark looked like it was filmed in in a cave with skylights on a brilliantly sunny day), but in the mood of the movie. Dol Gildur did not look how I personally visioned it, but once inside, it scared me. I felt as if the mood of this film was gloomier and darker than LotR, but with more slapstick. I thought that it was gross when one of the dwarves was snoring and inhaling all of those flies at the same time, a point that my brother thought it hilarious to point out to me later. During the bulk of the film, I felt this nasty sense of foreboding, like some kind of evil was behind it. The feeling is hard to describe, but I was thoroughly creeped out by parts of it.

Mum continuously had to ask me what the hell was going on, and I honestly can say that half the time, I didn't know what to tell her, because I didn't know what was going on myself.

Radagast was really adorable. Not exactly how I imagined him in the books, but pretty close. I don't really know what he was doing in TH, I wondered how they were going to place him before I saw it. Now that I've seen how they've done it, I am satisfied. One more thing about Radagast, I never thought that it was possible for a human being to scurry, thanks to Radagast, now I know. ;)

I went to the bathroom during our stay in Rivendell, honestly, I don't think I missed much. I caught the White Council scene.

The stone giants looked and felt completely different from my version of them, and I think that I have to agree with Legate about them looking like Transformers.

I didn't mind the Goblin King. He sounded similar to how I imagined.

I enjoyed Riddles in the Dark, aside from all of the sword waving and the extreme brightness of it all. The lighting in Bag-end was darker than that of Gollum's cave.

I really disliked the ending. It made no sense for Bilbo to jump out like that. Azog was obviously a filler. When easily entertained people obviously notice filler, that is just going too far. They put in all of that fluff about Azog being bad and ugly, blah, blah, blah. Then at the end, it cuts to Smaug, as if to say "btw, we totally added a useless villain in here to make you forget about the actual villain of the story, but we'll insert the real bad guy right at the end to make you curious about the next movie. we're stealing your money...lol!!!!!"

The experience was bloated. My mother and my brother were both bored. I found myself wondering after Riddles about when it was going to be over. Bilbo's pantry had made me hungry almost three hours prior, and all I wanted to do was eat. I am a bored eater, and that it what TH made me feel like doing. The film was too long. When seasoned Tolkien fans get antsy in the cinema for a film to end, that is where you need to start cutting. I agree with so many sentiments here that this would have been great fun if someone had at the film with a pair of scissors. It would have made a nice two-parter.

There was something else I wanted to say, but I've forgotten it. I suppose it will come to me as I am trying to sleep tonight. :rolleyes: I'll come back to that later.

EDIT: I remembered what it was! Some bits were quoted almost line by line out of the book, which I thought was fabulous. Others, though, missed the mark completely and were a disappointment to not only my inner Tolkien nerd, but also my inner movie-goer.

[elvet]

I'm a big fan of both the books and the movies. I consider the movies to be an interpretation of the books, so I don't mind the inconsistencies. They are 2 different medias, each with it's own way of telling the story. I am glad that the Hobbit landed on Peter Jackson's lap, since I think he makes an effort to be faithful to the book, yet still have an entertaining film for the non-readers. Plus, he has the resources to have all the bells and whistles.
Having said that, I still have some criticisms about the film (when compared to the previous film experiences, not compared to the book). In some ways it was truer to the source than the LotR movies, but I thought the previous movies worked better. I didn't like the rehash of LotR's scenes - Gandalf and the moth, Gandalf and company in goblintown (shades of Moria), the mountain pass rock avalanches, etc. As much as I love the new Song of the Lonely Mountain, the rest of the soundtrack felt recycled to me. I saw the film in 24fps 3D and 48fps 3D. The latter just seemed liked seeing HD TV for the first time, much less blur. I enjoyed both versions of the movie. I'm seeing it in 3D IMAX this weekend, it will be interesting to compare.
Thing I liked about the movie:
- It still grabbed me emotionaly. The dwarf version of the Song of the Lonely mountain gave me shivers. I teared up when the eagles came to get Thorin and was stirred by Bilbo's moment of 'staying his hand". The sleigh bunnies were just too cute, and I couldn't help but giggle at those scenes.
- I liked that Jackson focused on a few of the dwarves, trying to get camera time and dialogue for all 13 would have been too confusing.
- His choice of 'hunky' dwarves worked for me. I fell for Thorin, Fili and Kili and am going to be an emotional wreck at the Battle of 5 armies.

[Kuruharan]

Riddles in the Dark looked like it was filmed in in a cave with skylights on a brilliantly sunny day

Actually...now that you mention it, you have a point there.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Actually...now that you mention it, you have a point there.

I don't have a problem with seeing what is going on, but really, they made Moria dark enough to look like a cave. Why not Riddles in the Dark? There was even a light on in Moria. :rolleyes:

[davem]

According to Billy Connoly (Dain) Billy - who also stars in new Dustin Hoffman movie Quartet - admitted he wasn't a fan of the novel.

"No I never read it. And I probably never will. It's not my cup of tea. Youthful society when I was younger was divided into Tolkien and non-Tolkien and I was a non-Tolkien and I didn't like the Tolkien people," he said.

"They were all corduroy and limp wrists and we were all string band people, banjos and bluegrass players and blues players, chasing women about the place, having long hair and they were all talking about the ginks fighting the gonks."Connolly: No plans to read Hobbithttp://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/film-tv/news/connolly-no-plans-to-read-hobbit-16255688.html

Which got me wondering whether Billy is the odd one out, as all the other actors/production team have been praising Tolkien, the fans & the books to the skies, but surely, for most of them its first & foremost a job & they may not have any time at all for the book/fans.

And actually, should we care whether they like the book or not, or whether they think the fans are a bunch of sad geeks who can't get a girlfriend/boyfriend? Not everyone is going to like Tolkien, & isn't the most important thing that they play their part well & give the audience a good time? And yet, and yet.... what about the niggling little feeling that when you watch Dain on screen the actor is thinking "I can't believe they're paying me to do this rubbish! Right, now am I a ****** Gink or a ****** Gonk?"

The other point to be made is that if his reference to 'string band people' is to The Incredible String Band, then he's making a big mistake as Mike Heron & Robin Williamson were deeply influenced by Tolkien: Heron and Williamson fashioned a visionary environment out of odd and ends of Tolkien, Blake, Celtic folklore, Western occultism, Romantic poetry, British children's literature, The Golden Bough and The White Godddess, the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita. And that was just the lyrics. They were gifted, if highly eccentric songwriters. They were deeply versed in British folk music, having come up on the coffee house scene during Britain's own version of the American folk boom.http://www.thebluegrassspecial.com/archive/2009/june2009/incrediblereviewjune09.php

[Nerwen]

And yet, and yet.... what about the niggling little feeling that when you watch Dain on screen the actor is thinking "I can't believe they're paying me to do this rubbish! Right, now am I a ****** Gink or a ****** Gonk?
I think it should be as nothing to the niggling suspicion that you've taken the bait exactly as he intended. ;):p
Ha, ha, they should have got him to play one of the trolls.:D

[davem]

I think it should be as nothing to the niggling suspicion that you've taken the bait exactly as he intended. ;):p
Ha, ha, they should have got him to play one of the trolls.:D

I'm not sure-it's similar to a lot of other things I've heard him say in the past. And why assume it's trolling on his part-many non fans feel exactly that way about Tolkien?

[Nerwen]

I'm not sure-it's similar to a lot of other things I've heard him say in the past. And why assume it's trolling on his part-many non fans feel exactly that way about Tolkien?
Huh? I didn't mean it wasn't his actual opinion of Tolkien, and fans thereof.

[KamexKoopa]

I've not read all the comments yet and I'll compile my own thoughts soon enough, but did anyone notice the bearded dwarf women fleeing Erebor at the start :D

[Kuruharan]

They looked unbearded to me, but there was only a quick look at them and it took me a second to realize they were supposed to be dwarf women.

[Aganzir]

They looked unbearded to me, but there was only a quick look at them and it took me a second to realize they were supposed to be dwarf women.
Lommy claims they had sideburns (which, I think, would be a very nice compromise). I didn't see them properly either, but we're going to see the film again some time this week and I'll do my best to pay special attention to them.

[Lalaith]

There does - or am I imagining it? - seem to be a much greater level of agreement about this film than there was about the LotR films.
I saw it today - in full 3D HFR IMAX glory. I squealed when Gandalf threw the fiery pine cone. Overall I liked it, more than I expected to given my reservations about PJ turning it into a trilogy. I liked the things most of you liked, and disliked the things most of you disliked. (Too damn long, suffering from King Kong-itis)

What I would like to gripe about however is - given how much back story they stuck in, could they not have remained more true to the real back story? The Quest for Erebor was always one of my favourite things in Tolkien. This part I could quote almost verbatim:
" Weeping, Nár fled down the Silverlode; but he looked back once and saw that Orcs had come from the gate and were hacking up the body and flinging the pieces to the black crows.
Such was the tale that Nár brought back to Thráin; and when he had wept and torn his beard he fell silent. Seven days he sat and said no word. Then he stood up and said: “This cannot be borne!” That was the beginning of the War of the Dwarves and the Orcs, which was long and deadly, and fought for the most part in deep places beneath the earth."

It would really have been quite something to have seen all that translated onto the screen - culminating in the head of Azog, on a stake, the purse of money stuffed into its mouth. So much more haunting than the psycho albino stalker we got instead.

Ok, so they didn't do Azog properly. What I would like to see at some point in the trilogy, backstory-wise -
*Gandalf's discovery of the broken, half-witted Thráin in the dungeons of Dol Guldur.
*Any reference to the Ring - meaning the last of the Seven.
*And that wonderful line of Gandalf's: "A chance meeting, as we say in Middle Earth."
I wonder if we will get any of it?

[Lalwendë]

Which got me wondering whether Billy is the odd one out, as all the other actors/production team have been praising Tolkien, the fans & the books to the skies, but surely, for most of them its first & foremost a job & they may not have any time at all for the book/fans.

And actually, should we care whether they like the book or not, or whether they think the fans are a bunch of sad geeks who can't get a girlfriend/boyfriend? Not everyone is going to like Tolkien, & isn't the most important thing that they play their part well & give the audience a good time? And yet, and yet.... what about the niggling little feeling that when you watch Dain on screen the actor is thinking "I can't believe they're paying me to do this rubbish! Right, now am I a ****** Gink or a ****** Gonk?"

I think Cumberbatch also doesn't particularly like Tolkien, it's just a 'job' to him. But I'm not objecting to him being involved. ;) Personally speaking Connolly does my head in, his comedy seems to consist of a good joke surrounded by hours of shouting, but he should in theory make a good Dwarf. He's good at acting, I'll give him that. Nerwen is right that he probably wants to stir people up a bit, that's the kind of person he is. But the irony is that he's quite close to turning into one of those 1970s gonks anyway...

[Kuruharan]

Lommy claims they had sideburns (which, I think, would be a very nice compromise). I didn't see them properly either, but we're going to see the film again some time this week and I'll do my best to pay special attention to them.

Thanks. This is obviously an issue that requires prompt resolution!!!

I will say that bearded dwarven women are one of my least favorite parts of Middle earth. ;)

[Aiwendil]

So I finally saw it a few days ago. I went in with very low expectations indeed, and they were basically met. Maybe my judgement was affected by my being a bit under the weather at the time, but I'm afraid I found it rather a bloated, mis-shapen thing. Part of that, I'll readily admit, is me being a purist about the book (all right, so hang me). But part of it is, just as surely, dissatisfaction with it as a film, on its own terms. And where those intersect, there's the strong suspicion that many of the defects it has as a film could have been remedied by following the book more closely.

There were some things I liked, to be sure. A few that come to mind:

- Hobbiton and particularly Bag End were, of course, lovely; the latter possibly even more so than in FotR.

- Much of the prologue was good. I very much liked what we saw of Dale. Smaug's attack was quite well done, even if the coyness of not letting us get a good look at him was a bit obvious. Thror was good.

- On the whole, the Riddles in the Dark scene was done well. I could have done with Gollum a shade more menacing, but that's getting picky.

- Goblin town was utterly different from the way it comes across in the book, but I must say it was visually very appealing.

- The music was good. Others have complained that it recycled too much from LotR, but to me the amount of recycling didn't seem that different from other franchise films scored by the same composer.

- The 3D was not overdone. I have mixed feelings about 3D in general; I think it works for some films but not for others. It worked here, perhaps in part because it was (quite surprisingly, from Peter Jackson!) not done too blatantly. At times I almost felt like I was watching a 2D movie; at other times, it added a certain definition to the settings. It wasn't an immersive experience in the way that, say, Avatar, was, which I think was the right choice for this movie.

- I quite dug the Dwarves' singing.

So, you see, I'm not entirely a curmudgeonly, critical, grouch. Trying to bear that in mind, a few items from my long litany of complaints:

- It was too long. I'm not opposed to long movies in principle, but as I see it a film that's in the 150+ minute range needs to justify its length. The Lord of the Rings movies, whatever other criticisms of them I might have, did that. They were long, but only because that's how long it took to tell the story. AUJ could have been an hour shorter and told exactly the same story, if the action set pieces hadn't been allowed to run amok, and if things had been better paced. Cut out the unnecessary Dol Guldur/White Council stuff, and you're probably down to 90 minutes or so. All of which is simply to say what was already obvious: The Hobbit can't sustain three movies. It should have been one, maybe (maybe!) two.

- It was loaded with unnecessary action and false drama. The first point is really a corollary of this, for this is largely the reason that it was so long. Jackson never misses a chance to turn a minor incident into a major one (e.g. the stone giants), or a subtle point into a blatant one (e.g. Gandalf's little sermon to Bilbo when he hands him Sting). And when did it become mandatory to have a huge, spectacular, action set piece every fifteen minutes?

- Many of the Dwarves, of course, didn't look like Dwarves. They didn't act like Dwarves either, much of the time. At least, not like the Dwarves of The Hobbit, who were quite polite when they came to Bag End, and certainly didn't go raiding Bilbo's pantry and taking his food without permission. As far as their looks are concerned, it's regrettable that the prettification of, chiefly, Thorin, Fili, and Kili is the sort of thing that film-makers think (rightly or wrongly) is necessary. But it also results in a film-world that is very mixed up in its portrayal of Dwarves. Here, they (at least, many of them) look like Men, or perhaps Hobbits, particularly when you've got a company of thirteen of them and the forced perspective tricks lose much of their power. The look of the Dwarves was something I thought Jackson had gotten right in LotR, which makes it especially disappointing here.

- Thorin's character, quite apart from his appearance, deserves its own heading. Essentially, in my view, movie-Thorin and book-Thorin have nothing whatsoever in common, beyond superficialities. Book-Thorin was a proud, stubborn, often self-important and pompous, yet noble king, mostly virtuous (though also capable of great greed), and inclined to a certain stiffness and long-windedness that sometimes rendered him a bit silly. He was an interesting, well-drawn character. Movie-Thorin is a Hollywood trope; he has no personality of his own.

- I have mixed feelings about Martin Freeman's Bilbo. I like Freeman; I think he's a very good actor and is wonderful in Sherlock. But I can't help feeling he was a bit miscast here. His flat, perpetually put-upon affect works well when Bilbo's in difficult situations (e.g. the riddles), but it also gives one an impression of, I don't know, joylessness, for lack of a better word. For one thing, this starts things out on the wrong foot with the story proper. In the opening scene of the book, Bilbo is happy. It's a beautiful morning to just sit outside after breakfast with a pipe and blow smoke rings until you get hungry again. It's not until Gandalf mentions an 'adventure' that he becomes a bit perturbed. Freeman, on the other hand, seemed quite perturbed from the very beginning, and only got more and more so as the story went on. I sensed very little of the love of life, so to speak, that Bilbo seems to have in the book.

- Radagast. I admit, I'm probably even less objective than usual here, as, for reasons I don't entirely fathom, I've always been peculiarly fond of and intrigued by the Brown Wizard (hence the screen-name). So it probably goes without saying that I did not enjoy his portrayal in the film. With one exception: I did actually rather like the rabbit-sled.

- Others have said this, but: why have Azog still alive? Why not have him killed as in the books, have the story of Azanulbizar told as it is in the film, and use it to set up Bolg's enmity for part 3? Then you have a tighter part 1 (not that that's something Jackson apparently cares about), the set-up to reveal a great new villain in part 3, and a nice symmetry of vengeance-seeking between Azog-Bolg and Thror-Thorin. The quintessential example where staying closer to the book would have made for a better movie too.

- Maybe I missed something, but if no one knew until now that there was some guy calling himself the Necromancer in Dol Guldur, then where and when did Gandalf get Thrain's key and map? And, more importantly, why didn't Thorin ask him how he'd gotten them?

- Gollum with Dissociative Identity Disorder is a valid, reasonable interpretation of him in LotR. But not in The Hobbit. Again, it seems to me that this is detrimental to the movie on its own terms as well, since Gollum's split personality is quite extraneous to the story.

- Okay, so this is both a very minor complaint and a very old one, but I continue to hate the design of Elvish blades in the films - all sinuous and curved and pretty. Glamdring, for some reason, doesn't look like that, and it's great. But, alas, Orcrist does. Which bothers me further since it fails to make sense that they would look so different.

- Another really minor one: In the film, there's nothing to suggest that Gandalf doesn't intend, at least initially, to go the whole way with them. Which would seem to make them a company of fourteen already and obviate the need for Bilbo as the lucky number.

[elvet]

I saw it in 3D IMAX this weekend, and it is my favorite of the 3 different ways I watched it. My least favorite was 3D 24fps, it was too blurry around the edges. 3D 48fps was nice and clear, but the huge IMAX experience was just better (IMHO).

[Aganzir]

Thanks. This is obviously an issue that requires prompt resolution!!!

I will say that bearded dwarven women are one of my least favorite parts of Middle earth. ;)
We saw it again tonight and yes - the dwarven women do have sideburns, and it looks really cool! They could have botched it but I'm happy they didn't.

Overall I liked the film better on the second time. When you know what to expect, it's easier to ignore the parts you don't like and pay closer attention to the details. I still think the beginning is immensely better than the action parts and the end though, and even though I'm still not too bothered by the lack of beards, Thorin's short facial hair disturbed me more this time. The younger dwarves not so much because, well, they're young - but they would be better with longer beards too.

Also, we spotted Peter Jackson! I'll let Hookbill tell more about it though because it was him who saw him.

[Rhod the Red]

I want to intervene by arguing always having Dwarves with medium sized beards is too old or overused, in my view. Having younger & variety portrayals helps ensure realism.

Beards are a fashion, obviously not all Dwarves will cooperate with it.

[Kuruharan]

We saw it again tonight and yes - the dwarven women do have sideburns, and it looks really cool!

The mystery is resolved. :)

[Rhod the Red]

Dwarves also age very slowly in the physical sense. So even after they reach adulthood, for human standard appearance, it's logical many will look like teenagers for us long after they pass 30. It's after they reach 250 they 'rapidly' age;

Dwarves on average live to be 250 years of age. A 30 year old Dwarf is very much considered a young stripling, having not yet reached full adulthood. Thus it was considered very remarkable when the young Dain Ironfoot slew Azog the Orc chieftain of Moria, at only 32 years old. Once a Dwarf has reached maturity, he will stop aging almost entirely, remaining in prime physical condition, or perhaps middle-aged at the most, for over two centuries. However, when Dwarves reach 240 years old, they will begin to age very rapidly and their physical condition drastically worsen, essentially condensing the aging process that Men experience from 40 to 80 years of age into only ten years.

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Dwarves#Nature

[Aganzir]

But even Fili and Kili, who are the youngest, are around 80 at the time of the quest and should therefore be fully grown. Also I seem to remember a passage in The People's of Middle-earth that claims dwarves are born bearded (even though it's arguable you can't use it as a canonical source). Anyway thanks for posting the quote, Rhod - being reminded of Azog's death makes me happy. :D

[Rhod the Red]

Not meaning to be rude, but the resurrection of Azog by Sauron is no doubt intended as a plot device to imply a spookiness about a Necromancer in the background bringing people back to life, which I found was good for a film. The "He's dead! I saw him die." Like in the Doctor Who episode of the Android Invasion, if film makers are careful it has a nice spooky effect on the mind about a hidden danger growing that may be a great danger to the characters in the future, PJ got it perfect, at least for me.

Better than the overused theme of 'I am your father', etc. The 'back from the dead danger' is mostly badly used, like with Zombie movies. If it has a mystery about it and only used for one or two characters, like in Hobbit P1, ooooooooo, it feels good as a movie goer as a plot device.

[Morthoron]

Not meaning to be rude, but the resurrection of Azog by Sauron is no doubt intended as a plot device to imply a spookiness about a Necromancer in the background bringing people back to life, which I found was good for a film. The "He's dead! I saw him die." Like in the Doctor Who episode of the Android Invasion, if film makers are careful it has a nice spooky effect on the mind about a hidden danger growing that may be a great danger to the characters in the future, PJ got it perfect, at least for me.

Better than the overused theme of 'I am your father', etc. The 'back from the dead danger' is mostly badly used, like with Zombie movies. If it has a mystery about it and only used for one or two characters, like in Hobbit P1, ooooooooo, it feels good as a movie goer as a plot device.

But Thorin did not see Azog die in the film (another annoying thing about Jackson's movie). In fact, if I recall correctly, in the film Azog never left his feet after combat with Thorin. Azog's arm was severed below the wrist and he was carried off bellowing by other Orcs into Moria. He was not laying comatose on the field; therefore, Thorin claiming later "He's dead! I saw him die!" is patently absurd even with PJ's illogical scripting.

Losing a hand in battle is not necessarily a death blow. The greatest concern is infection later. But plenty of soldiers have survived the loss of an arm or a leg, so was movie-Thorin plain dumb or was he wishfully thinking?

[Kuruharan]

but the resurrection of Azog by Sauron

When was it implied that Sauron resurrected him?

[Rhod the Red]

While Orcs have medicine, material insight doesn't seem to indicate it's much beyond energy boosters. It's up to the watcher to decide if it's reasonable to assume that a major injury to Orcs with cultural deprivation of serious medicine die afterwards. It didn't click as incoherent in my mind when I saw it, but that's just me, lol.

[Morthoron]

While Orcs have medicine, material insight doesn't seem to indicate it's much beyond energy boosters. It's up to the watcher to decide if it's reasonable to assume that a major injury to Orcs with cultural deprivation of serious medicine die afterwards. It didn't click as incoherent in my mind when I saw it, but that's just me, lol.

Cultural deprivation? A warlike race like the orcs might not have delicate surgical procedures, but they would know enough to cauterize a wound. Even the most barbarous tribes had the wherewithal to staunch the most serious wounds. Thousands of years afterward, surgery in the American Civil War was basically a saw and perhaps some alcohol. If it was a clean wound and didn't get infected, you survived. Thousands did survive after amputations.

And if I recall correctly, the Uruk-hai had a salve they slathered on Merry's head that proved quite effective in healing his wound.

[The Barrow-Wight]

Everyone, please stay on topic and avoid talking about each other. Thanks!

[Morthoron]

Peter Jackson noted the Orkish cordial and salve in The Two Towers.

Therefore, even in the LotR trilogy PJ adheres to the abilities of Orkish medicine, but then has Thorin make a claim that is absurd, given the turn of events in the film itself. Thorin did not and could not see Azog die. So, if there is going to be some questionable plotpoint about a necromantic resurrection, has PJ once again shot himself in the foot with bad editing?

[Nerwen]

Therefore, even in the LotR trilogy PJ adheres to the abilities of Orkish medicine, but then has Thorin make a claim that is absurd, given the turn of events in the film itself. Thorin did not and could not see Azog die. So, if there is going to be some questionable plotpoint about a necromantic resurrection, has PJ once again shot himself in the foot with bad editing?
I'm not sure there is one. From Googling "Azog + resurrection", it looks like it's just fan-speculation, and may have begun as a purely figurative use of the word ("I hear they're going to resurrect Azog for this film" etc.).

Here's hoping, anyway.:(

[Rhod the Red]

Probably, yes. Unless a scene will be given showing the Necromancer reviving him after he dies in a cave or intervening to prevent death or something like that.

When was it implied that Sauron resurrected him?

The juxtaposition of the rise of a Necromancer & the re-emergence of an Orc leader Thorin assumes he killed in battle. That implies Souron revived the Orc at some point, to help create trouble in the Wilderland, etc. Hopefully PJ ensures more coherency on this issue in Hobbit P2, etc.

The same with the reference in the White Council meeting that the Witch King was *killed* & buried, despite the inclusion of Glorfindel's prophesy of him not killable 'by any living Man' in the Return of the King film ;)

[Lalwendë]

But even Fili and Kili, who are the youngest, are around 80 at the time of the quest and should therefore be fully grown. Also I seem to remember a passage in The People's of Middle-earth that claims dwarves are born bearded (even though it's arguable you can't use it as a canonical source). Anyway thanks for posting the quote, Rhod - being reminded of Azog's death makes me happy. :D

The horror. Imagine having to give birth to, clean up and feed a baby with a bristly face... :eek:

[Aganzir]

Not meaning to be rude, but the resurrection of Azog by Sauron is no doubt intended as a plot device to imply a spookiness about a Necromancer
Don't worry - I don't consider opposing arguments rude. :p Anyway I don't think either that Azog has been resurrected, it seems more likely that he just survived getting his hand chopped off and the insertion of the fork.

But plenty of soldiers have survived the loss of an arm or a leg, so was movie-Thorin plain dumb or was he wishfully thinking?
Ah but if he believes something hard enough, it will come true! Arrogant bastard, and that's the way we love him. ;)

The same with the reference in the White Council meeting that the With King was *killed* & buried, despite the inclusion of Glorfindel's prophesy of him not killable 'by any living Man' in the Return of the King film
Grr! I didn't even notice the fallacy in the film! There's nothing special whatsoever about Éowyn killing him now if he's been killed before. Grumble.

The horror. Imagine having to give birth to, clean up and feed a baby with a bristly face...
Aww but maybe it's soft and fluffy baby beard! Like hair. :p

[Nerwen]

Better than the overused theme of 'I am your father', etc. The 'back from the dead danger' is mostly badly used, like with Zombie movies. If it has a mystery about it and only used for one or two characters, like in Hobbit P1, ooooooooo, it feels good as a movie goer as a plot device.
Aw, c'mon. Not overused? Whenever I see an obviously significant character supposedly killed in the opening sequence, followed up by other characters making confident assertions about what a severe case of death this person is suffering from– I do this: :rolleyes:

[Morsul the Dark]

Aw, c'mon. Not overused? Whenever I see an obviously significant character supposedly killed in the opening sequence, followed up by other characters making confident assertions about what a severe of death this person is suffering from– I do this: :rolleyes:


Indeed I tend to think well I wonder When I'll see them again

[Lalwendë]

Hang on....Azog was killed? Really? I got the impression right away that he wasn't dead and Thorin was mistaken. Why would chopping a hand or limb off kill you, presuming the blood loss was staunched? We've all heard colourful tales about farmers and hunters who have crawled for miles to safety after losing a limb, so a hand isn't that much of a big deal.

[Ben K.]

We get that impression because we expect such medical absurdities from movies. Losing a limb like that needs instant cauterisation and restoration of the amount of blood volume he is clearly shown losing in the scene. Neither occurs. Thorin is perfectly correct to assert with confidence that Azog is dead, he would be in real life without modern medicine.

Now I'm not sure about any necromancing, but Rhod is entirely correct in noting that the scene discussing the necromancer feeds directly into our reveal of an alive Azog. It's pretty strong evidence actually, since that how PJ edits.

[Lalwendë]

We get that impression because we expect such medical absurdities from movies. Losing a limb like that needs instant cauterisation and restoration of the amount of blood volume he is clearly shown losing in the scene. Neither occurs. Thorin is perfectly correct to assert with confidence that Azog is dead, he would be in real life without modern medicine.

Now I'm not sure about any necromancing, but Rhod is entirely correct in noting that the scene discussing the necromancer feeds directly into our reveal of an alive Azog. It's pretty strong evidence actually, since that how PJ edits.

Plenty of medieval soldiers suffered terrible injuries on the battlefield and lived - and medical care certainly wouldn't have been easy to find at say Towton or Tewkesbury. This Azog character is also presumably made of sterner stuff than a man. However, I can see that Thorin might think he had met his end, as Orcs and Goblins can't have had a reputation of caring for their sick and injured (and yet Azog clearly was in command of lesser goblins who were eager to help him, even at risk of their own lives, as seen by his treatment of his war band in the scene where he confronts Thorin in the trees). He probably rightly assumed he had crawled into a hole and died. But I didn't assume that.

[Galadriel55]

Or maybe it's purely psychological. Thorin wanted him dead so badly that he hoped and convinced himself that Azog gave him the Ring for his birthday... :p erm, I mean, that he died of his wounds.

[Lalwendë]

Or maybe it's purely psychological. Thorin wanted him dead so badly that he hoped and convinced himself that Azog gave him the Ring for his birthday... :p erm, I mean, that he died of his wounds.

Now, I know you're having a joke but.....it's possible that it was done to show how stubborn Dwarves can be?

...No, probably not. I'm very much down on the Azog thing, so it was probably just clumsily done ;)

[Nerwen]

Now, I know you're having a joke but.....it's possible that it was done to show how stubborn Dwarves can be?

...No, probably not. I'm very much down on the Azog thing, so it was probably just clumsily done ;)

What I have heard is that the entire Azog subplot is a very late addition, even that it wasn't thought of until after filming had begun- which might explain why it doesn't seem to make much sense.

As for the "zombie" business- that, as I said, appears to be just a fan theory. I certainly hope so, as it would be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of.

[Zigûr]

What I have heard is that the entire Azog subplot is a very late addition, even that it wasn't thought of until after filming had begun- which might explain why it doesn't seem to make much sense.
I've read this as well. What continues to baffle me is why Bolg could not have served this purpose. He would certainly have more motivation - avenging the death of his father; although would that make an Orc too sympathetic? The film tells us that Azog "swore to wipe out Durin's line" but never tells us why. I can only see it making much sense if it is somehow resolved as having its origins in Sauron's efforts to recover the last of the Seven, although I can't imagine that being handled especially elegantly. Indeed some of the invented/altered action scenes (Azog's hunters in Eriador, Azog rather than the Orcs of the High Pass in Out of the Frying-Pan Into the Fire) seem suggestive rather of the misfortunes which afflicted Thráin in his efforts to reclaim Erebor one hundred years earlier: "as soon as he was abroad with few companions he was hunted by the emissaries of Sauron. Wolves pursued him, Orc waylaid him, evil birds shadowed his path" etc, i.e. a series of directed attacks rather than the generally unrelated accidents which befell Thorin and Company for the majority of their journey.
I don't know, the whole Thorin plot in the films leaves me feeling rather depressed to be honest. I can't help but shake that feeling that the film would be so much more refreshing if we'd received the amusingly pompous and long-winded but ultimately good-if-you-don't-expect-too-much Thorin of the novel over the Hollywood stereotype we ended up getting and largely eliminated this Azog business which was one of the contributing factors to my impression of the film being rather overstuffed.

[Galadriel55]

Now, I know you're having a joke but.....it's possible that it was done to show how stubborn Dwarves can be?

...No, probably not. I'm very much down on the Azog thing, so it was probably just clumsily done ;)

I did turn it into a joke, I just couldn't resist... but I was serious. Or at least partially so.

I suppose it does come down to being clumsily done, and if anyone wants they can pick any version of why it is so just to, you know, watch the movie without ruffling their own feathers... I prefer the psychological one.

[Lalwendë]

What I have heard is that the entire Azog subplot is a very late addition, even that it wasn't thought of until after filming had begun- which might explain why it doesn't seem to make much sense.


I suspect as much - it has hints of the nonsense over the Elves turning up at Helm's Deep. And I suspect they hadn't even got a name for 'Azog' until late in the day as the Lego set (http://thehobbit.lego.com/en-gb/products/79002) "Attack of the Wargs" has him with the name of 'Yazneg'.

[Lalwendë]

Been to see it again and my first impression was just how packed the cinema was for 11.30am on a Monday morning! We were lucky to find a decent seat - lots of small boys came in and sat near us and were engrossed in it all, gasping at Gollum.

It was even more enjoyable the second time around. One reason is we saw it in plain old 2d. It really doesn't actually need any tricksy stuff like IMAX, 3D and 48fps. I'd only bother with those things if they are to your particular taste. And the other reason is of course all the tension of "What will he have done with this?!" is taken away and you can just absorb everything. I picked up on so much more of the detail this time, and that's one of the things I do particularly enjoy in Jackson's adaps - I think with even more repeated viewings I'll find yet more to see.

One plot point that did come through stronger to me this time was how Thorin wants to keep his mission secret because he suspects others will also be keen to raid Erebor and the treasure there is his. There was also a very distinct impression that now there are signs Smaug has 'gone' (Oh how wrong they will be) not all the Dwarves are willing to show brotherhood - Dain refusing to help was mentioned, and Thorin underlines throughout how his group is loyal. I sense traitorous Dwarves on the horizon. That also helps understand why Thorin is so intolerant of the unwilling Bilbo (he is not as loyal/keen as his Dwarves) and unwilling to seek the help of Elrond or the Elves in general.

I also got more of an impression that the reason Saruman and Elrond don't give a backing to Thorin's mission is that they do not want to break an uneasy peace. Putting this with the message throughout the film that these Dwarves actually do not have a home, and their situation comes across as quite tragic.

[Pitchwife]

So I finally saw this the other day. Having completely missed out on the latest trailers, rumours and speculations (due to criminally neglecting the Downs for the last half year or so:o) I like to believe I entered the cinema as unprejudiced and open-minded as I could possibly be. Some small part of me may even still have hoped to see an adaptation of Tolkien's book rather than LotR Episode I: The Dragon Menace, and that part wasn't wholly disappointed, although it largely was.

In roughly chronological order:

The opening scenes with Bilbo and Frodo linking the story to Bilbo's farewell party weren't really necessary but nice to watch; the sight of a careless young Frodo still unscathed by the martyrium waiting for him was - well, not exactly poignant, but a wee bit touching, I'll admit that. From the creators' view though, it was probably meant to tell reluctant viewers who had been dragged into the cinema by their significant others, "See, this is the prequel to that other movie about a ring and the dude who would be king." I guess somebody might have missed that otherwise.

It was also nice to see Dale, although I almost didn't recognize it because the buildings looked strangely reminiscent of renaissance Italy to me, I'd expected something more northern. The transition from the toy dragon to the attack of the real monster, and the attack itself, was well done - which is probably not surprising; PJ as I understand him is at heart a monster movie maker, and I expect that talent of his to shine once we get to see Smaug (the Mirkwood spiders too).

What I reeeally liked was the panoramic scene where the wandering tribes of the Dwarves set out from the ruins of Erebor, setting up the theme of Dwarven homelessness; that had an almost biblical touch to it in light of Tolkien's statements comparing the Dwarves to the Jewish people in terms of living in diaspora among other peoples, preserving a secret tongue etc. That homelessness theme was brought across well in the movie, indeed harped on a bit too much for my taste.

Now, Azanulbizar. I've always loved that story, so obviously I'm not complaining to see it included; I'd have loved even more to see it in full - "This cannot be borne", Dáin leaping up the steps after Azog with his axe, Azog's head on the stake, "Beyond the shadow it waits for you still: Dúrin's Bane" - , but I get that it would have taken too long for a flashback setting the scene for the main story, so I'm OK with cutting it. What I'm not OK with is Dáin not slaying Azog - which, together with what we hear about Dáin refusing to support Thórin's enterprise, doesn't bode well for his portrayal in parts II and III- , and I'm even less OK with Azog not being slain at all but made into the film's main villain. More of that later.

Bilbo - oh, wait, no: Thranduil, I almost forgot Thranduil. Thranduil on an elk - not exactly canonic IIRC, but cool. Not so cool that they made him a jerk - at least I think that's how he must look like to viewers who aren't aware of the whole Elven-Dwarven backstory, and even so. Meh.

Bilbo was great, hands down. Martin Freeman is perfect for the part, and while some of the script he was given wasn't exactly flawless I found his performance very enjoyable to watch.

The whole opening scenes in Bag End suffer from a deplorable lack of manners, both on Bilbo's side towards Gandalf and on the Dwarves' side towards Bilbo, but honestly, it was such a sentimental pleasure to see them at last that I was ready to overlook that. The Dwarves' song is gorgeous, and making it one of the main musical themes was a very good decision by Mr Shore.

The Dwarves - meh, a mixed pack. Balin was great, and the developping friendship between him and Bilbo was portrayed well, I think (it should have been him who caught Bilbo trying to sneak away!). Fili & Kili were OK too except for being beardless - in one or two scenes where Thórin reprimanded them they reminded me of Merry and Pippin, but there was also that sense of a strong bond between them and Thórin. As for the others, I had a hard time remembering which was supposed to be which (except for Bomburix who was sort of obvious; and the lumberjack, was that Bofur or who?), and the silly hairdos didn't help.

Thórin's main fault was that he wasn't Thórin. That brooding, darkly handsome hero would never have written the casuistic contract Bilbo signed (although I could imagine Balin doing that for him). Also, when he told Bilbo "you don't belong to us" it seemed as if he was trying to spare Bilbo instead of dratting and confounding the goodfornothing burglar, as the real Thórin would have done. You know who he really is? Túrin! Túrin Turambar! Maybe the scriptwriters got confused, the names being so similar and all?

The three trolls - great scene, all in all (and in the German version we even got the equivalent to burrahobbit, so there!:p). The end was a bit half-assed, like they wanted to show Bilbo showing brains and doing his part but were reluctant to lose the Gandalf ex machina moment, which is actually understandable as lots of people would have complained otherwise, so nevermind.

Radagast - reminded me a lot of Catweazle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catweazle), which isn't at all bad. I see he has his own thread, so I'll give my full opinion on him there. As for the Rhosgobel rabbits, they would have fitted in very well if PJ & Co. had filmed the children's fairy tale Tolkien actually wrote, not so well in the action adventure they did make.

I suppose this is the point where I must deal with the Rutger Hauer orc, otherwise known as Azog, and that silly vendetta between him and Thórin Turambar, or vice versa. If he had to survive at all, why not save him for the Battle of Five Armies? Well, yeah, people might forget who he was, or not have seen the first movie at all and wonder where he comes from; and I suppose they needed a main villain for the first movie, with the Sauromancer probably playing the part in the second and Smaug in the third, but you know what? I don't care. That whole nemesis/vendetta thing is sooo old (see post title), especially when it happens for no other reason than because the scriptwriters decree it so. I mean, what does Azog have to seek revenge from Thórin for? Yeah, the loss of a hand. How original. (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070225203113/wikiality/images/7/76/Darth_Vader.jpg)

So let's move on to more pleasant matters. The White Council was very nice to see, and I loved the osanwe between Gandalf and Galadriel, you could see the special understanding between them - after all, she originally wanted him to head the Council, didn't she? On the other hand, they made it seem as if he was somehow beholden or subordinate to her, which is stupid, although consistent with PJ's general diminishment of Gandalf's stature; but as the latter has been and apparently still is discussed at great length elsewhere (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11508)on these Downs I'll say no more of it here. While I'm talking of Galadriel though, I adore Cate Blanchett (especially her smile*swoon*) but I could have done with less angelic poses that made her scenes look like commercials for cosmetics or haute couture.

The mountains. I admit I squee'd at the first hint of stone giants, but what followed was plain ridiculous. Please, please, pleeease Mr Jackson, couldn't you spare us further scenes like that and remake Godzilla instead? (Or has he already? Well, remake Son of Godzilla then.)

Bilbo trying to sneak away - that was the "Go home, Sam" of this film, and let's leave it at that.

I'd have loved to hear "Down, down to goblin town" and being spared the silly laundry chute. I liked the Great Goblin though, if only because he veeery vaguely reminded me of the illustration of him in my German edition of TH. Bonus for recognizing Beater and Biter.

The escape from goblin town was where the film lost me. Those scenes felt like Matrix Reloaded Reloaded, and I didn't like that kind of CGI materialschlacht back then; not to mention that all those wholly unbelievable falls and swerving camera dives were nauseating to watch in 3D.

The Riddles in the Dark Scenes, on the other hand, were done well, except that Gollum was too cute and they overdid that split personality thing, both mistakes repeated from LotR; but you could sense how meeting Bilbo made Sméagol remember his long-forgotten life in the sunlight and the games of his youth from centuries ago, the rapport between two hobbits, although they couldn't be more different. Nice acting by Freeman and Serkis.

The burning pines in the night were visually glorious - pure visuals are something which PJ mostly gets right. Don't know why the Gandalf-butterfly-thing from LotR had to be rehashed - I mean, couldn't we have Landroval receive a croaked report in subtitled Eaglish from Gwaihir and decide to look into the matter? After all, we got enough subtitled fake Orcish, so... ? Well, maybe not, but still: a butterfly? Lazy.

I don't really have to write down what I think of turning that scene into a showdown between Azog and Thórin and Bilbo saving Thórin's life, do I? If you turn Bilbo into a heroic fighter and have Thórin apologize and wax all warmhearted towards him (which made me yell at the screen, "You're supposed to do that on your deathbed, you idiot!"), what development do you have left for the next two films? Couldn't Fili and Kili have done that instead of Bilbo? And couldn't they have killed Azog dead for good so we can have Bolg in part III?

(Yesyesyes, I do get that Bilbo had to level up and be accepted by the Dwarves to round the film off dramaturgically or some such. I'd have preferred them to achieve that by making two movies instead of three, with the break after Barrels out of Bond - I mean, is it a law of nature that movies about hobbits and rings have to come in trilogies? But I also get that three movies make more money than two.)

I'm not saying it wasn't entertaining (apart from the parts that were simply nauseating, see above); there were parts I enjoyed a lot, and parts I might have enjoyed if I hadn't known it was supposed to be The Hobbit. I don't regret the money, but I don't think I'll pay to see it a second time, not even to dissect it better. I'll probably watch the other two parts out of curiosity, although, remembering Jackson's LotR, I have a bad feeling it's going to get worse from here.

[davem]

The Azog thing became a lot clearer on a second viewing - its obvious that Thorin had convinced himself (consciously at least) that he'd killed Azog because Azog had killed his Grandfather & he had a duty to kill the perpetrator in revenge. The idea that he had failed to do so would have been an unbearable stain on his honour. Hence, he convinces himself that the blow he dealt Azog was fatal. Yet when he says that there's (unless my memory is flaky) a very doubtful look that crosses Balin's face (& Gandalf's) as if to say "Who're you kidding?" I got a strong sense that deep down Thorin doubted Azog's demise himself. Clearly this is a Thorin driven by a sense that he is not worthy of his inherited role & his failure to avenge Thror just adds to that. He feels he should have done that just as much as he feels that he is obliged to take back his Kingdom.

I think the fact that he has now taken Bilbo to his heart & feels him to be as loyal a companion as any of the others will make Bilbo's 'betrayal' of him on the eve of battle all the more painful for him - Thorin will feel he has finally achieved what he was obliged to do, attained to his birthright, only to be humiliated by someone he trusted & believed was loyal to him to the death. I think the end of this film has set up that event perfectly. I actually think that the fact that that confrontation & the final farewell between him & Bilbo has been foreshadowed by the ending of this one will add to the power of it at the end.

[Aganzir]

Don't know why the Gandalf-butterfly-thing from LotR had to be rehashed - I mean, couldn't we have Landroval receive a croaked report in subtitled Eaglish from Gwaihir and decide to look into the matter? After all, we got enough subtitled fake Orcish, so... ? Well, maybe not, but still: a butterfly? Lazy.
We at the Finnish end of things have named the thing Mothrandir. Always there when needed.

[Lalwendë]

Hence, he convinces himself that the blow he dealt Azog was fatal. Yet when he says that there's (unless my memory is flaky) a very doubtful look that crosses Balin's face (& Gandalf's) as if to say "Who're you kidding?" I got a strong sense that deep down Thorin doubted Azog's demise himself.

I spotted the 'look' too. That's one thing you can rely on, if someone in a Jackson film gives a 'look' then it means something ;)

[Nerwen]

I'm onot saying it wasn't entertaining (apart from the parts that were simply nauseating, see above); there were parts I enjoyed a lot, and parts I might have enjoyed if I hadn't known it was supposed to be The Hobbit. I don't regret the money, but I don't think I'll pay to see it a second time, not even to dissect it better.
This idea that seems to be going around that it's your *duty* to watch this film mutiple times, even if you weren't very impressed the first time- well, it seems very odd to me.

[Morthoron]

This idea that seems to be going around that it's your *duty* to watch this film mutiple times, even if you weren't very impressed the first time- well, it seems very odd to me.

I don't think I've ever seen the same movie twice in a theater, but I have gone to see movies I first saw on TV or DVD that were re-released for the large screen, like Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With the Wind, and a few silent movies. You know, movies actually worth watching again.

[Nerwen]

I don't think I've ever seen the same movie twice in a theater, but I have gone to see movies I first saw on TV or DVD that were re-released for the large screen, like Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With the Wind, and a few silent movies. You know, movies actually worth watching again.
I'm talking about the idea that you *need* to see a film twice or more during its theatrical run before you can even decide if you liked it or not.

[Lalwendë]

This idea that seems to be going around that it's your *duty* to watch this film mutiple times, even if you weren't very impressed the first time- well, it seems very odd to me.

Heh. You've certainly done some very creative reading ;)

[Ben K.]

Yeah, I watched it a second time too. Wanted to experience HFR (did 2D the original time) since I have my doubts we'll see anyone else doing it anytime soon, but my AUJ virgin companion insisted on regular 2D. Theatre was still full at this point in the run and the movie got an ovation afterwards (which didn't happen on my first viewing on opening day, just overheard some disgruntled comments about dragon-teasing). In all honesty, I think this trilogy may be better received by the casual viewer than LOTR - if the after-movie reactions of the casual crowd and the LOTR fanboys is anything to compare.

I enjoyed it a lot more the second time around. I appreciated the childish nature of many scenes, Bilbo's character arc and thought things were set up well for the trilogy. Bilbo's betrayal of Thorin, Throrin's self delusion and Fili and Kili's deaths will pay off in the end barring some major missteps. Action scenes remain the only thing I would cut down on.

My only apprehension is the third movie and a potential two hour Battle of Five Armies.

[Rumil]

Hmm, Hoooom, indeed,

well at last I've seen it, and do you know, I quite enjoyed it overall.

Reading the present thread I find myself nodding along with or wincing painfully at many of the same points people have raised above.

But after all "He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom", or so some chap said once, so am not going to detail every niggle.

One thing I find very difficult is to try and imagine the film from the point of view of someone who doesn't know the book. I think this is all but impossible, The Hobbit has been with me for a very long time, as it has with most of you here. Perhaps this may explain some of the odder decisions, perhaps not.

My major frustrations with all the PJ films is that they have been astonishingly good at portraying the scenery, very good at finding the right actors to play the characters, and where they have stuck to the Book scenes and dialogue, have been wonderful. The divergent plots are generally the weakest in my view.

Certainly there was a choice to be made - go for the 'fairy' vibe with full on Tra-la-la-lallying or choose the 'Quest of Erebor' route. In my mind from a LoTR perspective this means choosing the real story rather than Frodo's bedtime tale. It had to be this way really.

People have commented that Thorin seems to have been more prominent than Bilbo. I wonder if that might have been the way to go all along? The Saga of Thorin.

[Ulvenok]

I watched it some weeks ago and has since downloaded it because there is no way I'm buying that on dvd. I watched it once in the cinema and once at home, the only scene I have watched several times is the Gollum scene which is both hilarious and frightening at the same time. My two favorite scenes in the movie or let's make that three are.

-Gollum
-Gandalf/Galadriel chat on Bilbo
-Gandalf surrounded by happy dwarves and an upset hobbit at bag end

Everything is grey to me, it's just not interesting to watch. One can sum up this movie with few words:

CGI fest, New Zealand vacation commerical and RUN you fools! RUN! RUN! RUN! All they do is run with that theme playing in the background for almost 3 hours...a very bad movie, at least the fellowship of the ring didn't look plastic or fake like the hobbit does.

[Nerwen]

Heh. You've certainly done some very creative reading ;)
I don't think so- I've noticed quite a few people saying things like that, and I'm just saying, it seems odd to me. Maybe some people find movies tend to grow on them with repeated viewing, or something. But I realise my earlier post sounds rather accusing, which wasn't my intention.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I dislike how the Wargs never get to kill anyone in these movies. They could surely have sacrificed a few of those Rivendell elves, no?

[Lalwendë]

I don't think so- I've noticed quite a few people saying things like that, and I'm just saying, it seems odd to me. Maybe some people find movies tend to grow on them with repeated viewing, or something. But I realise my earlier post sounds rather accusing, which wasn't my intention.

Not on here. I don't think anyone here would claim it was your duty to see the film multiple times - either see it or not! The only duty anyone has is paying their taxes ;)

I enjoyed it more the second time which is highly unusual, as the law of diminishing returns generally applies to films and TV. But I put it down to the absolute assault of stuff that seeing it for the first time involved. Plus those stupid 3D glasses. I now look at this icon ----> :cool: differently...

[Bêthberry]

TH:AUJ is shut out of the big Oscar nominations, getting nominations only for Makeup and Hair Design, Production Design, and Visual Effects. Nothing for direction, music, acting, best film. 2013 Oscar Nominations (http://oscar.go.com/nominees)

[Ulvenok]

Oh yes and while Gollum is very well made, the alien in prometheus is also very well done. While some of the special effects in the hobbit looks fake...would be nice to see it get no oscars, then maybe jackson would step up his game for the next movies.

[elvet]

I will be seeing it again in regular 3D. That will make it 5 viewings. I concidered travelling to see it in IMAX again, but the combination of 3 hours in the car and 3 hours in the theater leaves my back sore.
As I have mentioned, I like the movie. I like the movie going experience, and that is part of the urgency to see it so many times. In a few short weeks, the only other choice for seeing it will be at home. Irregardless of how good a home theater one can have - dogs bark, cats want on laps, phone rings, etc. Because I will wait to buy the extended edition I may not see this again for almost a year, and right now that just seems too long.

[Michael Murry]

... Because I will wait to buy the extended edition I may not see this again for almost a year ....

I saw this movie once, and thought that I already had seen the extended edition. In light of this, the lack of an Oscar nomination for Film Editing seems perfectly rational to me.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I saw this movie once, and thought that I already had seen the extended edition. In light of this, the lack of an Oscar nomination for Film Editing seems perfectly rational to me.

I agree wholeheartedly! :D I would like to see a shorter version, not extended!

As to the music: there's no reason it should be nominated for an Oscar - most of it is warmed-up leftovers from LotR, and already won an Oscar there. :rolleyes:

[Pomegranate]

I think that when all the three movies have been released they should sell a box set with all of them plus a one-film version with only the essential bits, Azogs and prolonged fight scenes and rabbit-sledgings cut out. That might become a pretty good one :P

[Aganzir]

I saw this movie once, and thought that I already had seen the extended edition. In light of this, the lack of an Oscar nomination for Film Editing seems perfectly rational to me.
Fortunately, as we concluded after seeing the film for the second time, the unnecessary parts will be easier to skip than in the LOTR films where they were more closely intertwined with the plot.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Having finally seen PJ's Erebor movie (Part I) my view is that if you haven't read
TH and liked his previous Middle Earth movies you'd like it overall, otherwise not
so much.

While aspects of scenary, casting, etc. are still well done the overall impression is
of a dark "adult" cartoonish feel (sort of like a "graphic novel" as opposed to a comic book. Battle scenes are too large and long, characters like the dwarves are too
non-dwarvish (unlike, physically, Gimli in the LotR movies), and individual scenes and persons are exaggerated. examples are showing in detail the stone giants tossing mountain bits, the trees in the concluding scene of the movie (leaning over the edge of a precipice--The Hell?), the absurd, and repetitive, scene in the Goblin underground city. This is a pointless repetition of Moria and even more absurd. A long serious of jerry rigged wood walks which wouldn't even hold up in an Indiana Jones escape. And at the end they fall waaaay down , say ouch, and jump right up, less believable then a Hollywood car chase where the car keeps on going no matter what. And the Goblin King goes from Tolkien's basically obese orc to a cartoonish figure of absurd size.

The point is not that it's a bad fantasy movie, but is a fail as an adaptation of The Hobbit. After leaving Bagend it has none of the charm of TH. As others have commented, PJ isn't bad when he adheres to Tolkien's work and words but 9 out of 10 times fails when trying to add/improve (whatever) his "vision". Oh, and Thorin has to have a mano-a-mano (okay a dwarf-a-orko) confrontation?

And what the heck is that about a tunnel leading to Rivendell?

[Strider67]

Oh dear. Rarely have I been more disappointed by a film. It looks odd, even at 24 fps, and it's way too long. How PJ can justify spinning The Hobbit out to three films (apart from for monetary reasons) is beyond me.

One of the things that most annoys me about Jackson's Tolkien adaptations is the way he and the other writers feel the need to re-write so much of the original dialogue. So much so, in fact, that when they do use Tolkien's words, they stick out as being unlike those which surrounds them. I mean, who ever thought that they would hear a dwarf say that he was 'up for it' or that he would kick someone 'up the jacksie'?

One of the ways in which Tolkien establishes that the events in Middle Earth take place in a time very different from our own is in his use of quite archaic-sounding speech-patterns. How, then, do you expect an audience to suspend their disbelief when Gandalf talks about golf? Seriously? Unbelievably crass.

I very much doubt that I shall be going to see the second and third episodes.

[cellurdur]

Oh dear. Rarely have I been more disappointed by a film. It looks odd, even at 24 fps, and it's way too long. How PJ can justify spinning The Hobbit out to three films (apart from for monetary reasons) is beyond me.

One of the things that most annoys me about Jackson's Tolkien adaptations is the way he and the other writers feel the need to re-write so much of the original dialogue. So much so, in fact, that when they do use Tolkien's words, they stick out as being unlike those which surrounds them. I mean, who ever thought that they would hear a dwarf say that he was 'up for it' or that he would kick someone 'up the jacksie'?

One of the ways in which Tolkien establishes that the events in Middle Earth take place in a time very different from our own is in his use of quite archaic-sounding speech-patterns. How, then, do you expect an audience to suspend their disbelief when Gandalf talks about golf? Seriously? Unbelievably crass.

I very much doubt that I shall be going to see the second and third episodes.

Though it's not Gandalf who says it, Bullroarer Took inventing golf is IN the Hobbit.

[Guinevere]

One of the ways in which Tolkien establishes that the events in Middle Earth take place in a time very different from our own is in his use of quite archaic-sounding speech-patterns.

That is the case in The Lord of the Rings, but not so much in The Hobbit.
For example, in LotR, only Hobbits and Bree folk use casual speech with contractions; ancient and cultivated races and people like Elves, Dwarves, Gondorians and Gandalf never do!

But in The Hobbit, everyone, from Gandalf to Elves uses contractions! And the language is much more casual, especially in the beginning. ( you surely remember the silly songs of the Rivendell elves!) However, towards the end the direct speech of Dwarves and Elves get much more archaic and "noble", in contrast to Bilbo's speech.

Btw, the incident about the invention of golf is in the first chapter, it is told by the narrator:"Excitable little fellow," said Gandalf, as they sat down again. "Gets funny queer fits, but he is one of the best, one of the best-as fierce as a dragon in a pinch."
If you have ever seen a dragon in a pinch, you will realize that this was only poetical exaggeration applied to any hobbit, even to Old Took's great-granduncle Bullroarer, who was so huge (for a hobbit) that he could ride a horse. He charged the ranks of the goblins of Mount Gram in the Battle of the Green Fields, and knocked their king Golfimbul's head clean off with a wooden club. It sailed a hundred yards through the air and went down a rabbit hole, and in this way the battle was won and the game of Golf invented at the same moment.


So in the book, there is lighthearted, comical stuff too, but it's mostly in the beginning, and as the story progresses it gets more serious.

In the movie, some things appeared to me too serious, right from the beginning (Thorin's & Azog and the whole vendetta) alternating with stuff that was just too comical (Radagast and his rabbit sledge) and all those chases were just not believable. Jackson's sense of humour is not the same as Professor Tolkien's .

[Strider67]

OK, I stand corrected on the golf thing (in my defence, I'm much more familiar with LOTR and it is some time since I read The Hobbit). Another example of what I meant would be in the FotR film, where after the Coucil of Elrond, the company are leaving Rivendell and Frodo asks Gandalf if Moria is left or right. I just found it so irritating that, having gone to the effort of establishing the importance of the quest and building an atmosphere, it's then brought crashing down by such a daft piece of dialogue. If the director wants his audience to take it seriously, then he has to take it seriously too.

Perhaps the problem is that, coming after the LOTR films, The Hobbit will feel anticlimactic if it isn't done on an equally epic scale. But, of course, The Hobbit is a much slighter story, and the whole thing feels like butter scraped over too much bread.

I realise it's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction and say you don't like something merely because it doesn't tie in with your own mental picture, but I found the whole thing immensely cross-making.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I could write a lengthy review or simply post this link -- the best review I've read of the film (written, incidentally, by one of the best writers of YA fantasy).

http://philipreeve.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-hobbit-unexpectedly-enjoyable.html

[alatar]

This weekend, the tribe voted and so we went to see this first installment of the Hobbit.
My little one was expecting more dwarven flatulence, and so was disappointed.
As the previews went on for seemingly 5 hours, the long run time of the movie bored her.
The other three (all <14 years old) enjoyed the movie.
They liked how Gandalf cracked the stone.
Mom liked it as well, though had a thousand questions after the movie, to many I replied, "It wasn't in the Book."
She also wanted to know why, after almost 3 hours, we hadn't killed a dragon yet.For me, I wasn't excited about going but knew I'd end up going eventually, so gave in.
Hated the Brown Wizard. The bird poop was stupid.
Did anyone think that Azog looked cat-like, much like Panthro from Thundercats? Guess that PJ was playing on our collective thinking that cats are evil. ;)
The goblins sure like to build platforms.
When escaping the goblins, the sledding down the caverns was just silly and CG.
Was there New Zealand law stating that the movie had to reference LotR in at least one short per ten?
Didn't remember this kids' story being so violent.
Lastly, m'eh.

[cellurdur]

OK, I stand corrected on the golf thing (in my defence, I'm much more familiar with LOTR and it is some time since I read The Hobbit). Another example of what I meant would be in the FotR film, where after the Coucil of Elrond, the company are leaving Rivendell and Frodo asks Gandalf if Moria is left or right. I just found it so irritating that, having gone to the effort of establishing the importance of the quest and building an atmosphere, it's then brought crashing down by such a daft piece of dialogue. If the director wants his audience to take it seriously, then he has to take it seriously too.

Perhaps the problem is that, coming after the LOTR films, The Hobbit will feel anticlimactic if it isn't done on an equally epic scale. But, of course, The Hobbit is a much slighter story, and the whole thing feels like butter scraped over too much bread.

I realise it's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction and say you don't like something merely because it doesn't tie in with your own mental picture, but I found the whole thing immensely cross-making.

I agree with a lot of things, but this is the problem with making a Hobbit movie. The book as it is, is a brilliant stand alone story. However, it is not brilliant as a prequel to LOTR. Only the last 1/3 of the book really can be directly translated. A lot of foolery of the dwarves does not really fit with their later portrayal. This is precisely why Tolkien considered rewriting the book.

[Zigûr]

I agree with a lot of things, but this is the problem with making a Hobbit movie. The book as it is, is a brilliant stand alone story. However, it is not brilliant as a prequel to LOTR. Only the last 1/3 of the book really can be directly translated. A lot of foolery of the dwarves does not really fit with their later portrayal. This is precisely why Tolkien considered rewriting the book.
This is why I feel that an adaptation of The Hobbit should really have come first. The more serious tone of The Lord of the Rings feels like a logical maturation of the later stages of The Hobbit, and in my opinion story elements like Gollum, the Ring and the Necromancer are far more dramatically effective in the original order. I don't know if that would have worked in Hollywood terms, though. It probably makes more sense to wow audiences with the big extravaganza first and then cash in on the other material later.
Also why do people online still think that elements of The Silmarillion and/or Unfinished Tales were used in The Hobbit? I keep seeing this notion getting bandied about as if it a) is true, and b) somehow automatically vindicates Peter Jackson from any source-material-butchery.

[Nerwen]

Also why do people online still think that elements of The Silmarillion and/or Unfinished Tales were used in The Hobbit? I keep seeing this notion getting bandied about as if it a) is true, and b) somehow automatically vindicates Peter Jackson from any source-material-butchery.
I've seen this too, all over the place- but oddly, nobody ever seems to specify *which* elements they're talking about. A "meme", I suppose.

Anyway, it can't be true- they'd get sued.

[alatar]

I've seen this too, all over the place- but oddly, nobody ever seems to specify *which* elements they're talking about. A "meme", I suppose.
One's a book; the other's a book - the common elements are glaringly obvious. :D

[Galadriel55]

I can only think of one reference - about the Blue Wizards. That was cleverly done and funny on two levels (haha Gandalf doesn't remember their names and haha what a nice way of avoiding saying what you have no rights to). But that's not enough to warrant the Sil claim, and - even goblins know how to count! - one is not "elements" in plural.

[Bêthberry]

I've avoided this the way undergraduates avoid essays they don't want to write. But I might as well get it over with before I forget any more of what I didn't like about it.

I saw TH the same weekend Alatar did, and with similar company, my family, whose treat it was to take me to the movie and a second breakfast (High Tea). Like Estelyn, I needed time to consider exactly what to say about it.

Let me begin by saying that I can appreciate action/adventures flicks. ET is high up there as one of my favs, as are the first three (original) Star Wars epics. I had fun watching Transformers. I thoroughly enjoyed Joss Whedon's The Avengers and thought the earlier movies in that series were a fun watch. I'm a sucker for an Indiana Jones movie. I adored Labyrinth. But I don't seem able to enjoy Peter Jackson's stuff.

I grant that every artist has the right to his or her own interpretation of a work. Usually, that means an interpretation that opens up new avenues for appreciating or understanding the original work, or seeing it in a new context which liberates thought. Jackson doesn't do that. He simply misappropriates Tolkien in a mishmash of styles and genres. And doesn't even produce a movie that is consistent. It's nothing more than a constant hit of visual images that are supposed to have an impact but which don't add up to a whole vision.

First off, TH doesn't know if it is a prequel or a sequel or a standalone. Viewers who don't know the book won't really appreciate how Bilbo grows. Yes, they will get that he must undergo change, but there's not really much to justify or explain why or what he leaves behind. Partly this is because the opening scenes are dedicated to dwarven history. I have always liked Tolkien's dwarves, whether in The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings or elsewhere, partly I think because I have a soft spot for the forsaken and the downtrodden and partly because they are simply interesting. The dwarven history is of course how Jackson attempts to link his TH with his movie trilogy and the unmentionable Legendarium. Yet it comes at the expense of explicating Bilbo's life and hobbit values. Freeman does a credible job with Bilbo but I don't think his Arthur Dent housecoat really does much to characterise him, except to link the actor with a previous role, which is a sleazy marketing ploy rather than an enlightening allusion. This really has become not The Hobbit but The Thirteen Dwarves and How They Grew Wealthy.

And it's not really the dwarves I know and love. Guinevere on Facebook pointed out that Tolkien's dwarves are tinkers and tailers, craftsmen who take up warfare only to recover their homeland. Their approach to Bilbo's home and entry is civil and their love of music is part of their craftsmanship. Jackson's dwarves are uncooth goons who run roughshod over Bilbo, almost bullies, a stereotype male adolescence. (The fact that they leave Bag End tidy is extraneous, an awkward filler inconsistent with their first presentation.) Jackson does not really understand Faramir's line about loving the bright sword not for itself but for what it defends and so all his battle scenes and action bits are little more than spectacle and gore fest. And like the final scene where the goblins--excuse me, orcs--attack the group before the eagles save them, they go on too long. Or contain such silly exaggerations that they ruin narrative coherence. So my complaint is not simply that this is hardly faithful to The Hobbit, but also it is hardly a unified, coherent story on its own.

The tone and tenor violate Tolkien. I'm not interested in watching The Hobbit turned into a computer game. But obviously I'm not in the target audience.

Like Estelyn, I was disappointed with the music, so much rewarmed. I tired very quickly of all the scenes that were supposed to allude to the movie trilogy. Again, sequel or prequel? Why not simply tell this story?

Radagast left me cold and I had wanted to like him. Again, so much of his depiction is devoted simply to cheap action shots. I'm reminded of a comment Mr. Underhill once made to me, that Whedon always starts with character and the action develops from that. Jackson starts with action and rarely gets around to character. And yet it is character that provides so much of the significance in story and narrative.

I couldn't shake my sense that Azog--who? what? where? why?--was the Michelin Man. And if I heard "Fili, Kili" one more time, I was ready to stand up and yell," okay, I get it, we are supposed to know that something is in store for them."

One person I attended with, who has not read The Hobbit, asked about 3/4 of the way through how far along in the book we were. When you start wondering how much longer you have to sit through the movie, it's too long.

Will I see the remaining two movies? I'm not sure. I certainly don't feel like giving Jackson/NewLine/whoever any more money because that simply perpetuates their ability to produce dross.

[Inziladun]

I probably have no business posting here, because I still haven't seen TH. I really have no desire to do so.
Beth however, seems to make it perfectly clear that Jackson and Co. either were unable to fix the issues Tolkien fans expressed of the LOTR movies, or simply were not interested in trying. Whichever, you can keep it, Mr. Jackson.

[alatar]

I saw TH the same weekend Alatar did, and with similar company, my family,
My daughter actually said, "They should make a sequel."

Thanks PJ! :rolleyes:

[Galadriel55]

"They should make a sequel."

"Maybe they should even make a book."

[alatar]

Galadriel55, you jest, but consider seeing The Hobbit aside THE HOBBIT TUJ, DOS and MEH (Middle Earth Havoc): Super Extended Trilogy Addition in your favorite bookstore (should an actual book store exist in these times). For your gold, do you choose the anemic 'slimmed down' 200-300 page version, or the two ton tome with glossy pictures 'straight from the movies?'

<Note that you need to end of that last sentence dramatically, as you would if you saw the book inside its special storefront marquee.>

One looks like a screenplay while the other the real deal.

"Dad, why did that Tolkien guy leave Azog out of his version?"

Scary...

[Galadriel55]

Galadriel55, you jest, but consider seeing The Hobbit aside THE HOBBIT TUJ, DOS and MEH (Middle Earth Havoc): Super Extended Trilogy Addition in your favorite bookstore (should an actual book store exist in these times). For your gold, do you choose the anemic 'slimmed down' 200-300 page version, or the two ton tome with glossy pictures 'straight from the movies?'

<Note that you need to end of that last sentence dramatically, as you would if you saw the book inside its special storefront marquee.>

One looks like a screenplay while the other the real deal.

"Dad, why did that Tolkien guy leave Azog out of his version?"

Scary...

And thinking along those lines, The "Original" Hobbit would become "the children's adaptation". :eek:

[Aganzir]

Your discussion reminds me of this (which you've probably all seen before, but it always makes me so happy):

http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/harry-potter.jpg

[Galadriel55]

On the subject of pessimistic thoughts...

Your discussion reminds me of this (which you've probably all seen before, but it always makes me so happy):

http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/harry-potter.jpg

You win. :D

[alatar]

I cannot believe, in these days of instant information, that someone would make such a glaring error. :eek: Has to be trolling.

[Morsul the Dark]

I've seen tha post and always hoped in my two hearts(Yeah I'm a timelord now. deal tih it;)) that he was just a joking troll...

[Aganzir]

Don't forget this is the internet. Instant information, yes, but also the easiness of speaking before thinking. This is to say I wouldn't be surprised if he was a troll, but it wouldn't surprise me either if he wasn't. ;)

[Morthoron]

I cannot believe, in these days of instant information, that someone would make such a glaring error. :eek: Has to be trolling.

Al, never underestimate the dizzying power of abject ignorance.

Why just yesterday posters on TheOneRing.net bemoaned the fact that The Hobbit didn't win any Oscars. One poor soul considered it to be a conspiracy, and that a 3-D fantasy would never win any Oscars; that is, until I reminded him that The Life of Pi, a 3-D fantasy, just won four. I then suggested that perhaps The Life of Pi didn't win four Oscars because it was a 3-D fantasy, but that it was a compelling film. I am sure my meaning was lost in translation.

[Aiwendil]

A fine example of Poe's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law).

[Nerwen]

C'mon, people, how can you fall for this? :rolleyes:

[Nerwen]

Really: I have indeed seen people say things just as silly and mean it, but this is fairly obvious trolling. Funny though.

[Nerwen]

Why just yesterday posters on TheOneRing.net bemoaned the fact that The Hobbit didn't win any Oscars. One poor soul considered it to be a conspiracy, and that a 3-D fantasy would never win any Oscars; that is, until I reminded him that The Life of Pi, a 3-D fantasy, just won four. I then suggested that perhaps The Life of Pi didn't win four Oscars because it was a 3-D fantasy, but that it was a compelling film. I am sure my meaning was lost in translation.
You know you've just handed him a brand new one, Morth? "But they gave another 3-D fantasy film four Oscars, so how did "The Hobbit" miss out? A conspiracy, I tell you!"

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Why just yesterday posters on TheOneRing.net bemoaned the fact that The Hobbit didn't win any Oscars.

TORN has always been little more than an arm of the New Line/Wingnut PR machine; but lately it's become nothing but a slimy swamp of drooling PJ fanboyz.

[Mithalwen]

It rather amuses me that it uses the strapline "for fans of JRR Tolkien, when you have to dig hard for non film stuff and if there is dissention PJ's cause inevitably seems ot win out.

[Zigûr]

I wasn't sure if the need existed to start a whole new thread for this but apparently Part 3 "There and Back Again" has been pushed back from the middle of 2014 (July 7) to the end of 2014 (December 17). Surprise, surprise...
http://ign.com/articles/2013/03/01/the-hobbit-3-gets-pushed-there-and-back-again
Somehow I was never really convinced that it would be screened only seven months after Part 2 when they could spend a year drumming up hype and getting the film fans frothing, as well as avoid competition with any major summer blockbusters.

[Kuruharan]

Can't say I am surprised.

My Dad will be disappointed, though.

[LordPhillock]

Hey all, in light of this, I decided to write my own review on "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Prequel Trilogy" (http://phildragash.com/hobbit-review) after being sorely reluctant to go and see it. Since I know most of you are well-spoken and intellectual about it, I thought I'd also share my views on what went down with my first (and only) cinema-going look at the film. I'm guessing it fits right in here.

Oh, enjoy the sketches too.

[Zigûr]

Hey all, in light of this, I decided to write my own review on "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Prequel Trilogy" (http://phildragash.com/hobbit-review) after being sorely reluctant to go and see it. Since I know most of you are well-spoken and intellectual about it, I thought I'd also share my views on what went down with my first (and only) cinema-going look at the film. I'm guessing it fits right in here.

Oh, enjoy the sketches too.
This is comparable in some ways to my own full review http://opinionscanbewrong.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/the-hobbit-unexpected-journey.html I think your points about Martin Freeman's Bilbo are particularly noteworthy. While I found him very watchable, his typical sense of bemused resignation to all the insanity around him didn't seem to mesh that well with Bilbo's combination of reluctance and burgeoning enthusiasm for adventure (even as presented in the film's own dialogue).

I also enjoyed your use of "Playstation 3" as a reference to the more artifical elements of the film. I've noted a lot of comments about "video game" moments in "An Unexpected Journey". I'm surprised, actually, that "The Hobbit: The Game" is not already flooding the shelves. Given how episodic the source material is it's interesting that some viewers got this added impression of "video game" structure in the film. Personally I think that's related to the way the Dwarves (and Bilbo to an extent) were made more "realistic" for the film, which in modern Hollywood terms mostly means "more violent". In the novel each episode is an encounter which has to be overcome in a different way: by trickery (the Trolls), by simply running away (Goblin Town) or by good fortune (the Eagles). In the film each of these events is to a extent maintained, but embellished with extra action. So Thorin poking Tom in the eye with a burning stick and Bifur and Bombur fighting "like mad" becomes a glorious charge with axes all 'round, Gandalf and Thorin turning at bay to fight Goblins in tunnels becomes that extravaganza of ladders, swinging platforms, Kíli swatting arrows out of the air and so on, and "fifteen birds in five fir-trees" becomes Thorin getting instantly smacked down by Azog (and looking like an absolute plum duff in the process, so much for "one I could call King"), Bilbo having a dust-up with an Orc and so on. We also have that extraneous additional chase to Rivendell and the mind-boggling encounter with the stone-giants. If they'd trimmed a lot of this the film might have been less conventionally exciting but it would to my mind have been significantly less generic as well, and wouldn't have been as needlessly long as it was. When I hear about material which was left on the cutting room floor, not always book-based but certainly more character-building, like Bilbo exploring Rivendell, Saruman discussing the Seven Rings and Glóin talking about his family I'm staggered by some of the content they left in.

Even though I personally find the films of The Lord of the Rings to be largely unenjoyable even on their own merits, besides being (to me) rather poor adaptations, I feel that in hindsight they were significantly more audacious in terms of their pacing and development than "An Unexpected Journey", which I think feels very 'Hollywood-safe' by comparison. Only giving Bilbo (or Thorin) a romantic subplot would have made it more unambitious to my mind.

I notice that you are the composer of the much-lauded Youtube Audiobook of The Lord of the Rings with film soundtrack. Are you intending to do one for The Hobbit? And if so, would your disappointment with the soundtrack for "An Unexpected Journey" be an impediment to that? I recorded my own audiobook of The Lord of the Rings about eighteen months ago (not up to your professional standard) and am in the middle of a recording of The Hobbit at present, partly out of simple desire but to a lesser extent also because I feel the need in the wake of the films to really re-establish my own grasp on the original text in a "dramatic" way.

[Aganzir]

Oh, enjoy the sketches too.
They are awesome. :D Good review anyway, and I agree especially on this part:
There was nothing engaging about him, nothing I can see that matches with much Tolkien wrote, and his relationship with Bilbo is also underplayed and ineffective. It almost felt like he had to recite lines from a script to dislike Bilbo – because I sure didn't feel that he disliked him at all, sans that he had to.
Except I feel it was more about the script and the directing than Richard Armitage's acting - he's a fan of the books, and I would've expected him to get Thorin right.

Only giving Bilbo (or Thorin) a romantic subplot would have made it more unambitious to my mind.
Just wait till parts 2 and 3, we may yet see all kinds of interesting interspecies affection.

I shouldn't really be reading this kind of stuff this late at night, though, because now I'm annoyed with PJ again.

I notice that you are the composer of the much-lauded Youtube Audiobook of The Lord of the Rings with film soundtrack.
Wait, that means I've reblogged your art on Tumblr! See, everybody here knows you some way or other. :p

[LordPhillock]

Great elephants... what is this wizardry? Some of you actually know of me? This is... unexpected!

That's just too humbling! Please allow me a sigh of utter relief to see that my sharing of that review didn't get snubbed to the side or encouraged a snarky frown - I initially made this review just for my personal friends to read since they wanted to know what I thought of it, and when I felt bold enough to share it on another Tolkien-centric web site, I was accused of being "worse than Christopher Tolkien". Though, in retrospect, that might be a good thing.

Yes, I agree with you about Armitage - as I've stated in my review about Freeman. Actor's craft and all that!


Are you intending to do one for The Hobbit? And if so, would your disappointment with the soundtrack for "An Unexpected Journey" be an impediment to that?

Well, I'll give that an indefinite maybe. The audiobook project I started working on (and thanks so much for calling it 'much-lauded', it made me do this: :D in real life) was something I did almost exactly why you started doing yours; and because I felt "left out" when the Hobbit movies began production. Therefore, now that I am feeling rather fatigued from the whole thing (those sound effects - those sound effects! Aaah!) I'm not planning on doing the Hobbit audiobook... at least not in the same way or by myself. Yes, the music cues are a little difficult to fit in since most of it is loud and quickly paced. I did start doing a personal project in just recording an audio-log (with sound effects and music - what's wrong with me?) on what I wanted the movie to feel like, and I do show those to some of my friends from time to time. At some point in the future, I wouldn't mind sharing it to some of you individually. "if they asks - if they asks nicely."

If they'd trimmed a lot of this the film might have been less conventionally exciting but it would to my mind have been significantly less generic as well, and wouldn't have been as needlessly long as it was. When I hear about material which was left on the cutting room floor, not always book-based but certainly more character-building, like Bilbo exploring Rivendell, Saruman discussing the Seven Rings and Glóin talking about his family I'm staggered by some of the content they left in. Really? Well, to the "Extremeleylong Edition" DVD it goes!

[Aganzir]

Great elephants... what is this wizardry? Some of you actually know of me? This is... unexpected!
At risk of sounding stalkerish, it's not your username I remembered but your last name (just because it sounded vaguely Hungarian). :p

and when I felt bold enough to share it on another Tolkien-centric web site, I was accused of being "worse than Christopher Tolkien". Though, in retrospect, that might be a good thing.
It's a compliment and so, of course, not true. ;)

Also, I dare to guess you'll find an audience here for pretty much anything Tolkien-related.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

, and when I felt bold enough to share it on another Tolkien-centric web site, I was accused of being "worse than Christopher Tolkien". Though, in retrospect, that might be a good thing.

I suspect that this alleged "Tolkien-centric" website was in reality "PJ-centric."

Try it over at the Mythopoeic Society's forum http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc/

[Galendor]

This is comparable in some ways to my own full review http://opinionscanbewrong.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/the-hobbit-unexpected-journey.html I think your points about Martin Freeman's Bilbo are particularly noteworthy. While I found him very watchable, his typical sense of bemused resignation to all the insanity around him didn't seem to mesh that well with Bilbo's combination of reluctance and burgeoning enthusiasm for adventure (even as presented in the film's own dialogue).

I saw the film, and thought Martin Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo was unfortunately quite shallow. Perhaps this isn't surprising, in his interview on the Colbert Report (Stephen Colbert is a true Tolkien fan) Freeman admitted he had not read The Hobbit (perhaps he gave it a quick read once he got the part). He had, however, seen Jackson's LOTR films and thought them to be "brilliant" (I suppose he had to say that). Freeman stated that the highlight of the experience for him was seeing "The Hobbit" brand Lego toys. Freeman also sums up his interpretation of the Bilbo character as a person who "is wrenched out of his life... and learns he might have to kill or be killed". I suspect most of us who love the book would not characterize Bilbo like that. Here is the Colbert/Freeman interview if you care to see it:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/421824/december-04-2012/martin-freeman

[Zigûr]

This is a slight digression, but it just struck me how similar in some respects "An Unexpected Journey" is to the PJ-co-produced (albeit Spielberg-directed) "Adventures of Tintin" from 2011 (as adaptations and as films in general). Before going on, I should mention that I didn't enjoy the "Tintin" film at all; I probably found it more disagreeable in some respects than "An Unexpected Journey". I'm not the world's biggest Tintin fan (I guess I would consider myself a medium-strength fan; read quite a lot of the albums and enjoy the 1991 cartoon) but I still found it very shallow both as an adaptation and as a film in general. Anyway:
1. Both involved the mish-mash of multiple stories: The Hobbit with the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings and The Secret of the Unicorn with The Crab with the Golden Claws.
2. Both involved a very minor character being blown way out of proportion: Azog and Sakharine.
3. Both had loads of added action: e.g. Warg Chases, Goblin-Town escapades, etc. etc. for "AUJ" and, among other things, that utterly bizarre crane fight for "Tintin".
4. Both featured some characterisation change in their secondary protagonists: Thorin's transformation into the king of angst, Captain Haddock becoming a sort of believe-in-yourself type. Incidentally, Bilbo and Tintin both "give up" at some point in the film; Bilbo tries to sneak off and go home, Tintin despairs of the adventure.
5. Both featured comedy belching.
This is purely my opinion, but I think it's sad to see how utterly homogenised traditional adventure fiction becomes in the Hollywood meat grinder.

[Galadriel55]

2. Both involved a very minor character being blown way out of proportion: Azog and Sakharine.

Nowadays you can't have an adventure without a major villain.

3. Both had loads of added action: e.g. Warg Chases, Goblin-Town escapades, etc. etc. for "AUJ" and, among other things, that utterly bizarre crane fight for "Tintin".

What's an adventure without a thrill? Or two? Or fifty? :rolleyes:

4. Both featured some characterisation change in their secondary protagonists: Thorin's transformation into the king of angst, Captain Haddock becoming a sort of believe-in-yourself type. Incidentally, Bilbo and Tintin both "give up" at some point in the film; Bilbo tries to sneak off and go home, Tintin despairs of the adventure.

That's all that's left of "character development", sadly.

5. Both featured comedy belching.

And comedy drinking.

This is purely my opinion, but I think it's sad to see how utterly homogenised traditional adventure fiction becomes in the Hollywood meat grinder.

I think that's the main issue too. But that's been going on for a while. I wonder if the aduience now expects something like this because Hollywood has been making films that way, or if they have started making them that way because the audience expects it. I suppose it's a bit of a "the chicken or the egg" question, though.

[Kuruharan]

I suppose it's a bit of a "the chicken or the egg" question, though.

When in doubt, chalk it up to the laziness of the person who did the work.

[Nerwen]

I think that's the main issue too. But that's been going on for a while. I wonder if the aduience now expects something like this because Hollywood has been making films that way, or if they have started making them that way because the audience expects it. I suppose it's a bit of a "the chicken or the egg" question, though.
Actually you've answered your own question- audiences couldn't expect something unless it had been done already, could they? It's not so much a chicken-and-egg situation as a vicious cycle: elements from successful movies get copied until they become a formula, audiences come to accept the formula as "how films are meant to be", more and more films use it because, "it's what the audience wants"... etc.

Bit like fantasy novelists copying Tolkien, as a matter of fact.;)

[Zigûr]

I also find it interesting that in the filmmakers' greater use of the "history" in order to pad out the story, the history itself became more dramatised, as happens with historical fiction dealing with Primary World history too. History doesn't just occur to a core group of "characters", it's a wide-ranging thing, but in drama it tends to become compressed (a sort of Forrest Gump effect, as it were). So in the story it's completely plausible, historically, that at Azanulbizar Thorin was stuck in the woods while Dáin fought and killed Azog, but that doesn't make good "drama". Hence Thorin becoming Azog's foe in the film, because he's one of the main characters of the story. However, I think Professor Tolkien could be quite canny in suggesting that the grand scheme of history often feels arbitrary and disconnected, but actually makes sense when viewed from a wider perspective.

This is something in which the Appendices really shine because the interconnectedness of events only becomes evident through the perusal of multiple sources: the rise of Angmar is evident in the history of Arnor, but we need to read the history of Gondor as well to discover its fall. Or we might look at the death of Walda of Rohan, killed by Orcs in the White Mountains fleeing from the North. The history of Gondor reveals these Orcs to be refugees from Azanulbizar, but only the history of Durin's Folk informs us of how this came to transpire. But the drama of history is different to "personal drama", hence how these kinds of situations come to be personalised in the films.

I think this is why the history of the Dwarves feels a little hollow to me in the films, not because of the changes in themselves but because the changes they did make tend to make it feel less "historical", if that makes sense. The sequences of events seem more artificially dramatic. So it's less of a backdrop, the "new unattainable vistas" Professor Tolkien thought were so important, and more of a constructed back-story, which I feel gives a drastically reduced impression of depth.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Very good comment, Zigur.

[Kuruharan]

I watched part of the movie for the second time at my parent's house last night.

I am left scratching my head even more than after the first time regarding the opening of the movie. What in the world was Jackson and Krew thinking with starting the movie in the "present" moving to the "past" moving back to the "present" and then moving back to the "past" again?

It would have been much better to have moved to Gandalf visiting Bilbo right after he said the line, "And that, my dear Frodo, is where I came in."

That sequence between Frodo and Bilbo was poorly written, poorly acted, and felt like it brought the movie to a halt.

[Zigûr]

One thing I've noticed online is the attitude that a lot of the "visual humour" of the films (snot, belching, etc) is a substitute for the humour provided by the narrative voice in the novel. I wanted to look at three examples of humour just from the first chapter of the novel which I think don't demand a narrative voice and could have been equally funny in film form.

For example:
1. Dwalin has just barged into Bilbo's house.
"When the silence that followed had become uncomfortable, he added: 'I am just about to take some tea; pray come and have some with me.'"
This is a moment which I think could have been very amusing, with Dwalin and Bilbo hovering around in the hall not speaking for a humorously long amount of time. Martin Freeman is incredibly typecast in this kind of awkward, bemused role, after all. I think he could manage it.

2. Thorin's speech.
"If he had been allowed, he would probably have gone on like this until he was out of breath, without telling any one there anything that was not known already."
Of course this one is impossible within the context of the film because of their complete abandonment of Thorin's pomposity, which is a source of a good deal of humour in the book. I can imagine a closer-to-the-book Thorin delivering the "We are met to discuss our plans" speech in one long continuous politician-esque drone with the other Dwarves and Gandalf sitting around looking politely interested but increasingly stupefied as it goes on, before Bilbo interrupts of course.

3. Bilbo being "on his dignity."
"I had a great-great-grand-uncle once, Bullroarer Took, and - "
"Yes, yes, but that was long ago," said Gloin. "I was talking about you."
In the film this would be moot because Bilbo becomes outwardly frustrated and rude to the Dwarves far, far too early (when only Balin and Dwalin are there, in fact), but if it had been delayed (with him becoming increasingly flustered) only to have him finally stick up for himself just to have Glóin dismissively interrupt him, with Bilbo looking rather shocked, I think it could be a quite amusing subversion of audience's expectations regarding the hero shutting down his doubters.

I think these are the kind of elements which a director with some British comedy experience might be able to bring out in a hypothetical alternate Hobbit adaptation. There is a bit of a ripple effect of that here in the Colonies but it's not quite at the same standard. Personally I think the humour in The Hobbit is very British in general and in the right hands I think the existing comedy could have been very funny and perhaps even rather cutting.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

After watching FotR again in the first time in probably a year, I have come to a conclusion about the dwarves in TH:AUJ. The way that Gimli was adapted from book to film in LotR was very similar to me of how the dwarves acted in TH (the book, not movie). I came to thinking that if PJ and co. had adapted the dwarves from The Hobbit into characters like their version of Gimli, then the Hobbit movie-dwarves would have been much more like they were in the book.

My grandparents sent me a Hobbit movie book for Christmas. It was about the production, characters, costumes. I liken it to special features on paper -- glossy photo paper. In its pages, Peter Jackson talks about how wonderful he is, and how much fun it was to make The Hobbit, and his grandiose vision. If I didn't already realise how far gone he was from seeing his "vision" come to life, I would have from how he talks about himself in this book.

Another thing:

I hosted a tea party on Friday, and Star Wars came up as a topic of conversation. Disney has recently bought the movie rights, and my friends were talking about how terrible any new films might be. I made a comment about seeing any new material ironically, while one person said that he had already gone to see the prequels ironically. I told the group that I felt the same way when I saw AUJ: I watched it basically to see how bad it was. Some parts were good, and others were just terrible. I now realise just how much I didn't like it, when I remember how much I still enjoy the LotR movies.

[Morsul the Dark]

http://www.cracked.com/article_20315_if-hobbit-was-10-times-shorter-100-times-more-honest.html

Figured you'd guys get a kick out of this version of the movie scriopt.

[Kuruharan]

Ha ha ha! That is hilarious.

And I hadn't even noticed the inherent flaw in the premise of the movie that if they think the dragon is dead...why do they need a burglar?

And this burn is just sooo good!

"MARTIN finds THE ONE RING in a manner COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from how we saw it happen in FELLOWSHIP.

MARTIN FREEMAN

(hesitates, frowns)

The one time it would be a good idea to imitate that movie, and we DON'T do it. Right."

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

Well, my friend Nikki bought the DVD, so I watched it with her again at her house. My sis was there too, watching it for the FIRST time, after throwing a hissy fit that she hadn't seen it yet, and she was basicaly laying on the couch WITH HER EYES CLOSED for half the movie. It was like, What The Orc are you doing?

In other news, my study teacher has taken to asking me how my elevensies was. (My school has lunch at about eleven.)

[THE Ka]

Rivendell was another confusing part. I seriously couldn't see what reason Elrond would have for not wanting the dwarves to get the Mountain back from the dragon. It's a freaking dragon! They're never up to good, and at least I would be grateful if somebody else wanted to do away with it. Basically what we got here was Galadriel and Gandalf plotting behind Saruman's back - at a time when he was still to be trusted - and no dwarves, except breaking furniture and leaving all of a sudden, leaving Gandalf behind just for the heck of it.

I have to agree with this whole heartily. At first you come to understand they're trying to show Gandalf's talent with diplomacy, at least with getting Elrond to look at the moon runes without a scene of panic (which is odd from the book, I tend to remember Elrond being rather interested in their quest. Mysterious at first, but more as the wise councilor several hundred years tends to give a person.). The eleven scouts making a grand show of circling the company was a little unnerving. I highly doubt Elrond has that much of a self esteem issue that he'd be threatened by someone of his house welcoming guests than himself first.

I was rather impressed by the inclusion of the white council, since I thought that might have been ignored, which would have been a great loss to the 'backroom happenings' of the story. Though, like much else in the scene, it was rather rushed. Of course there is a great deal of haste given they only have the latter half of summer to trek across ME, but I felt myself echoing Balin's own statement when they camp in the mountains for the night.

The riddles scene was probably the most memorable and faithful part I saw. All around I was impressed and even alright with the addition of Bilbo's final confrontation with Gollum before escaping the mountains. It lent some depth to Frodo's trials and tribulations with Gollum/Smeagol in ROTK.

Before I get into Radagast (and that rabbit sled), first I need to say that I was very worried for his character inclusion in TH. As little as we know about him from canon, he's always been my favorite among the wizards. His portrayal to me was both memorable and sometimes cringe worthy at times. The biggest worry was that he would be thrown in as an all out "stoner" at the comic relief of other characters, ignoring that he actually is an Istari.

He was shown to be vapid of thought at times, but not at the expense of his character, which was nice. If anything, the scene of him recounting the Necromancer, shines light on Saruman's rather scathing disapproval at his 'microcosm' approach in life, a lover of the details and small things. Also rather nice was to see his attachment to the natural world. Fans who may have no clue of him from LOTR, or have forgotten his brief mention there, can clearly see he's a certain Valar's representative.
The mention of Alatar and Pallando was a nice little nod too.

Overall, I believe as many it could have gone a lot worse. The Hobbit has been my favorite Tolkien work for years and the idea of turning it into a film always seemed a little daunting to me without the obvious pit falls, but there are a few small gems in the film that save it from too much scathing.

After all, it is an adaptation at the end of the day. There are folks who might be inclined to pick up the book as we have and give it a go because of the films and then there is always a few who will think that the original work 'takes away' (for lack of a better phrase) from the film version. It's just nice to know PJ made some small effort to remember key events from the original.
As for the next two films, we have yet to see of course.

[THE Ka]

http://www.cracked.com/article_20315_if-hobbit-was-10-times-shorter-100-times-more-honest.html

Figured you'd guys get a kick out of this version of the movie scriopt.


"Well, you did a song about what an uptight *bleep* I am, so I was going to say no. But then you sang about being really sad, so OK. I'll go with you."

... Dwarves must secretly have a 100 skill in illusion or charm that makes Maglor look like friday night drunken karaoke.

[Rhod the Red]

I want to make two points that is more in disagreement with non-forum members but might address some confusion anyway. On the council meeting & Radagasts' portrayal.

In the WC meeting one might be puzzled by Gandalf's bowing & the contradiction of Gandalf most of the time by the others. As others have said Saruman outranked Gandalf, which was no little feat. Even if Saruman was on the up-and-up and not already falling into league with Sauron, it would have been his right and duty to call Gandalf into question. ATM, Saruman is the proven superior wizard. Verbally berating him for 'plans and schemes' made behind his superior's back.

Everything Gandalf believes right now, ref Sauron (which this is all foreshadowing of) are suspicions and gut instincts. Concrete proof is needed. He is calling into question things basically set in stone as far as everyone in the know is concerned. His preliminary propositions are radical to the extreme.

As to Galadriel and Elrond, they are powerful beings in their own right, separate from wizards, likely superior to wizards in some ways and lesser than wizards in others. Elrond is sort of looking upon Gandalf as unproven & unfounded in so much as his suspicions are concerned. Also, realising that elves are not all-knowing and flawed, I can sympathise with why he thinks it's a ridiculous notion to return Thorin and his kin to what is now Smaug's lair. Whuch one poster in page one said he was puzzled by the opposition. What a needless risk it looks like to stir a dragon from his lair in a foolish suicide mission, one that won't only affect Thorin, Gandalf, & the company but potentially countless innocents who have nothing to do with the attempt.

Galadriel I believe admires Gandalf above all others. She alone is wise and insightful enough to appreciate his full potential. Had she wanted to call his deception out before the others, she could have done so. Instead, she remained silent, granting him opportunity to obtain the proof he needed and to rise in everyone's eyes.

On Radagasts' portrayal, his usefulness appears to be missed by many. People who complain so much weren't paying much attention. Radagast was actually the one character who succeeded at every challenge put before him. He saved Sebastian the hedgehog, drove away the spiders and tracked their activity back to Dol Guldur, took on and defeated the ghost of the Witch-King(?)/Ringwraith, escaped the Necromancer alive & reported back to Gandalf & the White Council with valuable evidence, & then drew off the attack by the wargs. Radagast got stuff done while Saruman sniped from the sidelines & Gandalf played bodyguard to the Company.

[LordPhillock]

I really liked what Zigûr said. Especially since I've been trying to keep a record of what I wanted to have done in the "Hobbit" movie.

Also, I really enjoy these discussions too.

[Zigûr]

I really liked what Zigûr said. Especially since I've been trying to keep a record of what I wanted to have done in the "Hobbit" movie.
Why thank you. Honestly the whole thing feels like one missed opportunity after another in a certain light to my mind. I mean, take away all the additions to the story and the plot is relatively faithful, but the mood and tone is still all over the place. Consider the "good morning" sequence which was one of the most faithfully retained. Instead of the bluff Bilbo disguising his anxiety with more and more politeness we get the routine Martin Freeman bemused-and-cagey performance. Maybe it's just the strength of my mental images but a lot of the film's scenes seem to lack a certain gusto which is found in the source material.
In every one of these films there's something that stops me dead when I even consider rewatching them: incoherent wounded Frodo or dunderhead Treebeard or "go home Sam" or something like that. I think for "An Unexpected Journey" it has to be Thorin. What a bore.

[Galadriel55]

Yesterday I had a group of friends over "to watch The Hobbit". By the time it got to Rivendell we had to pause for a second bathroom break, and since no one was paying any attention anyways to the movie and talking about random stuff instead we quit the movie and looked up funny LOTR/Hobbit-related videos, and then played board games. We decidedly decided that we are better off without TH. :D Now what does that tell you about the movie? Too long and not interesting.

[Michael Murry]

"Pirates of the Third Age," based upon a New Zealand amusement park ride of the same name. Look for future installments in years to come.

[alatar]

Yesterday I had a group of friends over "to watch The Hobbit".
Friends?!? Friends?!?

True friends do not invite friends over to watch The Hobbit. ;)

[Inziladun]

Yesterday I had a group of friends over "to watch The Hobbit". By the time it got to Rivendell we had to pause for a second bathroom break, and since no one was paying any attention anyways to the movie and talking about random stuff instead we quit the movie and looked up funny LOTR/Hobbit-related videos, and then played board games. We decidedly decided that we are better off without TH. :D Now what does that tell you about the movie? Too long and not interesting.

This has happened to me on every rare occasion that I've tried to watch the LOTR films. It's the only time cleaning the catbox seems inviting. ;)

[Inziladun]

just isn't in the cards for me.

My wife bought it on DVD when it was released, and then lent it to someone. From whose home it was stolen. Confusticate and bebother! :cool:

[Morthoron]

This has happened to me on every rare occasion that I've tried to watch the LOTR films. It's the only time cleaning the catbox seems inviting. ;)

It is said the Egyptians constructed the pyramids while watching the LotR films.

[Galadriel55]

Friends?!? Friends?!?

True friends do not invite friends over to watch The Hobbit. ;)

:D

Thing is, though they didn't love it on the first viewing, they liked it well enough. And, despite all my grumpiness, so did I. However, the second watching was just beyond human abilities...

It is said the Egyptians constructed the pyramids while watching the LotR films.

The reason being, most likely, that the Chinese have reserved the Hobbit movies for their Great Wall. ;)

[Bêthberry]

I'm sure Queen Beruthiel would not be amused.

The Hobbit and Cats (http://tannni.strana.de/Hobbit_cats.html)

[Mister Underhill]

Ha! "Kind as summer" indeed.

[Mithalwen]

Poor, darling Hugo..mind you most cats get grumpy when other cats take over their house and eat all their food....

A friend is threatening me with the extended edition. I am hoping I have moved house before that is released.

[Aganzir]

Those are spot on!

[Michael Murry]

A friend is threatening me with the extended edition.

Extending the already interminable. What a concept.

I can just imagine thirty additional minutes of "pixels hanging over the edge of a cliff" or "pixels falling without injury down into yawning chasms" -- that kind of stuff.

Saw it once. Shame on them for fooling me. Saw it twice? No way. That would make a fool out of me.

[Bêthberry]

Those are spot on!

I just noticed that Thorin has several photos and look-a-likes.

Clearly a fan of the man!

[Morthoron]

Extending the already interminable. What a concept.

I can just imagine thirty additional minutes of "pixels hanging over the edge of a cliff" or "pixels falling without injury down into yawning chasms" -- that kind of stuff.

Saw it once. Shame on them for fooling me. Saw it twice? No way. That would make a fool out of me.

The CIA tried to use the extended version in place of waterboarding as an enhanced interrogation technique. Unfortunately, many prisoners died of old age prior to divulging information.