New review in from The Telegraph , and it's not good , I will however make up my own mind in a week or so ;)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...ie-review.html

What a great opening line for the review, especially the way it was used.

Way to go for the jugular! I don't think there is any better way to sum up this mess.

Ah ha ha ha ha!

I have decided I like this critic!

Thus spake Kuruharan. :cool:

This is to me the most interesting:

The first sentence could well apply to Jackson's previous efforts at Tolkien. :rolleyes:

As for the rest, it's pretty much what we "unjust" critics here have been ruminating about for some time.
At any rate, I may end up seeing it despite my misgivings. I am matched against a power too great for me (my wife), who has said she wants to go. :eek:

Guardian bit more positive http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...journey-review

They also have five-odd minutes of clips http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/video...ix-clips-video which, for me, show the problem with the movie - it starts out nicely, apparently quite faithful to the book, but by the final couple of clips - the Warg attack & particularly the fight in the mines, it seems to have lost the plot completely & to be letting the technology lead & to just be putting stuff in there because they can. Oh, it looks exciting enough, but its all been done before (principally by Jackson himself in LotR) so it looks familiar as well.

Its odd that they justify extending the story over three films by claiming that there was too much material for just two films, when all the extra material is stuff they've just (unnecessarily) made up. Its like a cook serving up a 15 course banquet when you only asked for a nice 3 course meal & justifying it by claiming that he had LOADS of food there which would have gone to waste otherwise, & your first thought is 'Well, why did you make so much then? Nobody asked you to.' You get the feeling that Jackson & his writers are incapable of any kind of discrimination when it comes to their ideas - if they think of something they just film it & stick it in there. Got the same feeling about their King Kong.

Interestingly I just finished listening to Nicol Williamson's reading of TH on You Tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggm7XM-3dF8 & while its an abridged version it is an absolutely beautiful & faithful re-telling, which comes in around the same length as this first movie.

Han Solo doesn't think much of PJ's Hobbit:

"I've got a bad feeling about this."
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lytZ7fYOlgU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Same boat I'm in...except its a bit worse for me as my wife's vessel the good ship Drag Kuru into going to The Hobbit has as its First Mate my Mom and the engineer is my Dad.

Oh well.

I found this line from the Guardian review utterly hilarious...

‘they desecrated our sacred holes’.....*
 

Metro a bit noncommittal http://metro.co.uk/2012/12/10/the-ho...rings-3310069/

* my favourite line from the movie so far - I hope the reviewer isn't joking about it being in the film. I want it on a tshirt.

While the Tolkien lover in me screams in outrage, my sense of humor also demands a t-shirt. ;)

"the rubber noses look a great deal more rubbery than nosey. " snork...

We are off to see it (in 3D) on Friday aft. Personally I'd have preferred to wait for the DVD and take the edges off it with a couple or five glasses of madeira ...... Noticed the reviews on the sfx and Mail sites are a bit half hearted as well.

I decided I am going to see it, but at least a couple weeks after the 14th. I'm not the one to go stand all day in line waiting to get the tickets, just to spend the next couple hours in an overcrowded room full of overexcited fans.

Nice scenery, shame about the plot
 

Hmm, well, initial reviews and clips don't really seem like The Hobbit I remember reading, I hope they've managed to keep some of the charm of the tale. Fingers crossed!

As in LoTR the scenery looks great, and if all else fails perhaps someone can edit it all down into a decent film in a few years time - there should certainly be enough footage.

Giant rabbits are a bit of a stretch for me I must say, though not absolutely unthinkable in a book with Beorn's serving-sheep, I have no issue with comedy hedgehogs,

But SEBASTIAN!!!!!!

Nonononononononononono NO! Is there anything resembling such a name in all the tongues of elves, men, dwarves or orcs, or even hobbits, ents and chatty ravens???

Right. The only 2 things I am hoping for at the moment regarding TH are scenery and music. My motto about the film: expect the worst and never be disappointed. However, I do believe the music and scenery will be better than the worst. :)

Possibly a reference to St Sebastian????: I've read a few references to Boromir as a St Sebastian figure given the similarity of their deaths. Can't think of any specific references to St Sebastian in Tolkien's letters or other writings though.

EDIT I know Sebastian sounds a bit out of place - just so long as they don't give the Trolls silly names :P

I am looking forward to this. I'm pretty excited about seeing a continuation of the Peter Jackson Middle-Earth - for me different from the Tolkien Middle-Earth, but still well-beloved. I was perhaps more excited about seeing a Guillermo del Toro Middle Earth, for it would've been fun to have several different 'canon to the movie-goers' worlds; Now it's just Pete's view, which is sad, but which is still such a big part of my childhood and my Tolkien experience that I'm excited.

However, what I will miss, what I think PJ could've never produced due to his image of Middle-Earth leaning to such an opposite direction, but what for me is a very intrinsic part of The Hobbit, is the lack of too much destiny and doom. This is represented in a quote by Frodo in LOTR.

"Of course, I have sometimes thought of going away, but I imagined that as a kind of holiday, a series of adventures like Bilbo's or better, ending in peace."

The forthcoming movie with "Why the hobbit, Gandalf"'s and "You didn't promise that I would come back"s and "Nor will I be responsible for his fate"s feels way too grand and massive. I was fine with the idea that they'd put some of the Necromancer-stuff in, but including the silly adventure of the dvarves in this greater scheme of things, in this talk of dooms and fates and you will never be the sames, just feels a bit wrong. I guess this is the situation of it being a children's book but definitely not a children's film. I guess it has to be accepted, given how this was clearly made as a prequel to the LOTR movies, and how it thus needs to have a similar mood in order to attract the same group of fans. But I'll miss it, and I hope that one day the filming rights will be released and someone makes a good, and a not too doomy children's film out of The Hobbit. The book deserves it.

It was done years ago, but not as live action. Google "Rankin Bass Hobbit".

And a review from the Economist..
 

Sounds like a familiar refrain.

You know, why couldn't they have started the tale by taking a cue from UT's The Quest of Erebor? Just have Frodo, Sam, and Gimli talking together in Minas Tirith after Sauron's fall, and have someone ask why Bilbo was chosen by Gandalf. Gimli and Gandalf could have quickly set the stage, and then cut to Bilbo at Bag End.
Too simple for the likes of PJ? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Inziladun:
Since the Tolkien estate still owns the film rights to all of the books published after Tolkien's death, any scene like that, or even remotely similar, might well open up P.J. and New Line to law suits for copyright infringment, quite different from the "creative accounting" lawsuits previously imposed on them, especially considering the contentious relationship they already enjoy with the Tolkien estate.

True, that. Maybe that's an instant when co-operation by the Estate could have made all the movies better. But then they'd have expected some concessions from the filmmakers too. Irresistible force, meet immovable object. :rolleyes:

My feeling is that both sides have been too bloody minded. The Estate could have given more & been less 'precious' about the works - the films have meant a great deal to a great many people & its not as if the film-makers have bought up every copy of the books & torched them. At the same time the film makers seem to have revelled in their belief that they know better than Tolkien & gone ahead & made changes in both storyline & tone which they must have known would antagonise CT. CT has shown himself very willing in the past to help out with dramatising his father's work. My suspicion is that if the film-makers had approached him for help he would have been willing - but then they would have had to give way to him in certain aspects of the adaptation.

For those interested in the part CT played in helping the adaptors of the BBC Radio series of LotR back in the early 80's, here's Brian Sibley (one of the adaptors along with Michael Bakewell) discussing Christopher's help (including allowing them to use material from UT in their adaptation) as well as an excerpt from a tape CT sent them to help with pronunciations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5spIPrF_PPE&feature=plcp

"The LotR trilogy was close to perfect" :eek: :( :rolleyes:

A simple typesetting omission.
 

"fiasco."

:)

Aside from the (rather more serious and important reasons already listed) you could never have gotten John Rhys-Davies back into his Gimli makeup.

Mr Spock sings Bilbo Baggins' story
 

Someone else may have already done this. If so, I apologize for any redundancy. Otherwise, a much younger Mr Spock (who had his own pointy-ears issues) sings all one needs to know about The Hobbit. Someone in the comments section of the Economist review posted the link. Economical in the extreme, and absolutely horrible as music, it nonetheless succinctly summarizes the essential narrative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2HQ1K7YyQM

Somehow, I suspect that when I get around to seeing Peter Jackson's impression of George Lucas doing Middle Earth: Episode I (with Chinese subtitles here in Kaohsiung, Taiwan), I'll wish I had seen a movie version of the song instead.

Three years of insufferable marketing and celebrity/fan-fiction hype to endure, only to spend nine hours having to figure out just what happened to Tolkien's coherent little two-and-a-half hour story about the hobbit Bilbo Baggins. On the positive side, I understand that Andy Serkis as the schizoid Smeagol/Gollum comes in about two hours into the movie and somewhat rescues the floundering enterprise. So I guess I'll have to content myself with that. What Middle Earth: Episode II and Middle Earth: Episode III will do without the tortured little freak, I have no idea. Something awful keeps suggesting to me that Prince Legolas and the elf chick security guard Itaril/Tauriel may try to fill the void. The action-figure elvish Ken and Barbie dolls now on sale only seem to corroborate this dreadful prospect.

Oh, well ...

It seems pretty much *all* critics who have reviewed The Hobbit are major fans of the Lord of the Rings movies– which has already led many an aggrieved fanboy to accuse them of bias on account of "unrealistic expectations". (Can't win, really.)

Hoot! Maybe this is PJ's plan to make us all much fonder of LotR.

Peter Jackson: Lord of the Revision.

I have seen the movie. Not sure if this is the right place to post. But i think it was really good. Its not as epic as lotr, but its more down to earth and more fairytale-ish. Some things are changed in the story to make a more "hollywood" movie, but its rly close to what i imagined when i read the book. Its pretty close!

PJ made some changes and added something aswell, and i rly dont think he failed it was a nice "try" to expand tolkiens world, and people will critizise him for it, but i think its good that someone tries atleast. Blown away by the film, the music wasnt all that. But ok.

And of course the expectations couldn't have been raised by the Jackson cultists who decreed that whatever PJ decided would be all for the best in the best of all possible Middle Earthes.

My own expectations seem to being confirmrd. And since I loathe SerkisGollum and find the music soupy.... don't think I will be making the trek to the multiplex yet.

Review from The Atlantic
 

This is one of the most scathing reviews I have seen yet. The critic pulls no punches and is direct and blunt, even though I completely disagree with his assessment that the LOTR film trilogy was a marvel of cinematic triumph.

[edit] Its...uhh...actually the Atlantic Wire...and I am hoist yet again by the inability to edit headings :o

Melkor perhaps?

Extruded Fantasy Product
 

Guardian reckons its too long http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmb...obbit-too-long

I'm being 'taken' to see it & one thing I'm not looking forward to is the three hour running time. I'd be less bothered by it being made into three movies if they were three 90 minute movies. I'm old enough to remember when most films were 90 minutes (apart from the odd Gone With the Wind/Laurence of Arabia) & most books were around the 200 page mark, & I enjoyed them much more. Seems like the advent of the word processor did for reasonable sized novels & computer graphics & video did for reasonable length films.

Kuru, if you go to "Advanced Edit" you can change the title. :)

I do like eternal optimists. :D

Do remember you can vent here if not domestically. ;)

Three hours? Seriously? All other critiques aside, I honestly don't know if I can handle that. I'm absolutely riddled with ADD, and it especially rears its head when I'm faced with a task I don't enjoy. ;)

Two hours and fifty minutes. In the past they'd have an intermission with long films. I suspect its about getting you to go twice to see the bit you missed when your bladder gave out during the first viewing.

Sorry; can't help seeing visions of a trussed and gagged davem in the theater. :D

I remember similar discussions for LotR run times. Movies with longer run times can generate less revenue as they can be shown fewer times during the day.

Surely the industry knows this and has somehow compensated (bigger theaters, more showings, some other plan).

Huh...I didn't know that.

I'll leave it as it is now since everyone has seen it. :)

Hobbit at 74% on RottenTomatoes
 

I've seen a lot of comparisons with The Phantom Menace...

Hardly a ringing endorsement. Who gets to be Jar Jar? My money's on Bombur. :rolleyes: