68 replies to this topic

[Goose]

So, Its out in the US on the 14th. Is anyone going to a screening of it dressed up as a halfing/Dwarve?

Please do not spoil the film here, if you want to talk about crucial things please hide them in spoiler tags. The movie doesn't come out in Aus till Boxing Day, December 26th, and I will hunt down and murder anybody who ruins it for me.

But other discussion would be cool. Is anyone excited by the idea of it almost here?

[Kisseena]

Everyone dies.

[Sir Deimos]

What if I only spoil the book?



Seriously though I'm not going to see it. I'm rather upset with how this adaptation has been handled.

[JRPomazon]

It has it's issues, but it was a fantastic movie.

There are some throwbacks to the first trilogy they added to connect this and the other movies that I felt was a smidge too much. They tried a few new things but the core sense of Jackson's Middle Earth is still here, for better or for worse. Martin Freeman acted well, but is not much of a character actor to begin with. Some times he was Bilbo, other times he was Martin Freeman. If you like him as an actor, great, but he could have strayed further from his own habits. These movies I feel are going to be much more light hearted, given the book it's based off of and I'm looking forward to the next two.

[Egann]

Smaug's evil.

[Crimson Lego]

If it means anything right now it has a 67% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.



Which isn't totally unexpected.

[Fëanen]

Dad and I were talking about it (we're going to see it Monday or Tuesday), and we agreed in advance that this movie will be a let-down for people with certain expectations because it probably should have come first. Just this month I finished rereading The Return of the King and started The Hobbit, and the difference is really jarring at first - much less so when as a young kid I went from The Hobbit to Fellowship (which starts light and Hobbit-ish enough). Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful book and I love it with all my heart, but it's not the epic that redefined an entire genre. It's not even as deeply rooted in Tolkien's pre-existing mythology, aside from the mention of Gondolin and a paragraph on the difference between the clans of Elves.

[Veteran]

It'll probably be next Friday when I get to see this, really looking forward to it.

If Glorfindel gets a line in any of the 3 movies, I'll be happy.

[Sir Deimos]

Dad and I were talking about it (we're going to see it Monday or Tuesday), and we agreed in advance that this movie will be a let-down for people with certain expectations because it probably should have come first. Just this month I finished rereading The Return of the King and started The Hobbit, and the difference is really jarring at first - much less so when as a young kid I went from The Hobbit to Fellowship (which starts light and Hobbit-ish enough). Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful book and I love it with all my heart, but it's not the epic that redefined an entire genre. It's not even as deeply rooted in Tolkien's pre-existing mythology, aside from the mention of Gondolin and a paragraph on the difference between the clans of Elves.

I've only read The Hobbit and the trilogy, and I vastly prefer The Hobbit. So in that regard, if they're forcing it to be more like the trilogy, I'll likely be very disappointed.

[Chukchi Husky]

I heard that unlike the Lord of the Rings where there was a lot of model work and people in costume, for the Hobbit the film makers have decided to do it all in CGI.

[Selena]

Never underestimate the power of Synile's stubborn streak. XP

[Fin]

Aesthetic taste is like the one thing it's completely okay to be stubborn about.

[Sir Deimos]

Sorry. XD I guess I came off strongly.

[Selena]

Aesthetic taste is like the one thing it's completely okay to be stubborn about.

Would respectfully disagree completely.

[Twinrova]

I heard that unlike the Lord of the Rings where there was a lot of model work and people in costume, for the Hobbit the film makers have decided to do it all in CGI.

Well that's disappointing. Oh well. Still gonna go see it with Benjamin tomorrow. :B

[Steel Samurai]

Aesthetic taste is like the one thing it's completely okay to be stubborn about.

Aesthetic taste is like the one thing it's completely okay to be stubborn about.

Would respectfully disagree completely.

Opinions, go. I'm torn, for the moment.

On topic: I'm just not excited about this film at all, oddly. Actually I am, but only because I want to see what Jackson does with 3D tech and framerate. I think I watched the original trilogy so much when I was in high school that I'm still burnt out on it.

Edited by Steel Samurai, 14 December 2012 - 09:29 PM.

[Fëanen]

One thing I will say right off the bat: it's going to be a hell of a lot better than this:

(I don't think there's any huge spoilers, since every single damn event and character was significantly and at times unrecognizably altered).

[JRPomazon]

OK, I've been reading some of the criticisms on the Hobbit today after seeing it's Rotten Tomatoes score drop to 65%.

People who like the Hobbit as it's own, independant story rather than as an extension of the lore of Middle Earth might not like what Peter Jackson did with the first part of the Hobbit.

Although to be fair, Tolkien attempted to rewrite the Hobbit in the 60's after he finished the Lord of the Rings to make the two work together together, since there is about 20+ years between the time he wrote those works. However, the overall story of the Hobbit, in the manner the LotR was written was exactly the same story after being rewritten so Tolkien decided to leave things be. So the question is whether Jackson has the right to alter the Hobbit in a similar manner when the author himself didn't go through with it himself.

[Oberon Storm]

The books are Tolkien, but the films are Jackson's. He can do as he wishes.

[SteveT]

My spoiler-free impressions:

Generally, I liked it. However, I do agree with people who think it was bloated. That can actually be traced to one major deviation from Tolkien.

[JRPomazon]

My spoiler-free impressions:

Generally, I liked it. However, I do agree with people who think it was bloated. That can actually be traced to one major deviation from Tolkien.

Out of curiosity, would you mind putting this deviation in spoiler tags?

[TheAvengerLever]

My short review:

As a film, it's excellent. The writing is good, the characters are good and acted well by the actors, the story is awesome, the visuals are stunning.

As an adaption, it is piss poor. For a film called The Hobbit, it really didn't put too much focus on Bilbo. Instead of seeing the story through his eyes, he's simply just another detail in a series of large details. The dwarves got way...way too much focus, and I think that is a symptom of trying to make the film darker than it should be.

[SteveT]

Out of curiosity, would you mind putting this deviation in spoiler tags?

Very well.

Spoiler

Azog. In the book, Azog started the War Between Dwarves and Orcs by killing Throrn. The war lasted a while, Thorin earned his kenning, and Dain Ironfoot killed Azog. In the movie, Thorin took Azog's hand, and Azog survived with the intent of killing all Dwarves, especially Thorin. So early on, there were a lot of Azog scenes, the most egregious of which was the pack of wargs chasing Radagast and the Dwarves, totally fabricated for the movie. Part of the reason Thorin was reluctant to go to Rivendell (which was planned to be the first stop in the book) was to support an unnecessary action sequence. Likewise, during the burning tree sequence, we have another unnecessary action sequence when Thorin gets out of the tree to attack his old nemesis.

Dain shows up later, so continuity will be further broken.

In the book, there is a company of goblins chasing after the Dwarves, so it should be less divergent in parts 2 and 3. I think the reason they did this is to have a unifying villain now that they've broken it into a trilogy and I expect Smaug will be dead by the end of Part 2, freeing up the third movie for the Battle of Five Armies and the journey home.

[JRPomazon]

My short review:

As a film, it's excellent. The writing is good, the characters are good and acted well by the actors, the story is awesome, the visuals are stunning.

As an adaption, it is piss poor. For a film called The Hobbit, it really didn't put too much focus on Bilbo. Instead of seeing the story through his eyes, he's simply just another detail in a series of large details. The dwarves got way...way too much focus, and I think that is a symptom of trying to make the film darker than it should be.

Or as I think, to make it fit better with the previous trilogy of movies. Jackson is definitely honoring Tolkien's attempt to rewrite the Hobbit so the stories fit better together. And unfortunately, this means we get more useless diversions in this first film. We can only speculate this was done to serve as a better foundation for the later movies with most of the introductions now out of the way.

[Selena]

I think this is all a side effect of the Hobbit not being released first.

If they had made a Hobbit movie before the LotR trilogy, then it probably would have been closer to the book. But since filmgoers have already been exposed to the larger, more complex setting in LotR, a strict Hobbit adaptation would probably feel limited in comparison. Because they know there's more going on - and unlike Bilbo or even Tolkien himself at the time of his initial writing - they know what's ahead, and they know why the ring's so vastly important. You can't really go back to pure simplicity again once you've learned something like that. As a not-fully-compatible-comparison, the Star Wars movies would have also been very different if the prequels had been released first.

[Masamune]

If the Hobbit had been released first and been as popular as Lord of the Rings, then we'd probably would have just finished seeing the fifty LotR movie, chronicling the first half of Return of the King.

In that world, we'd get Scouring of the Shire. I want to live in that world.

[Egann]

So...question. Has anybody seen it in High Frame Rate?

I'm considering taking my parents to see it, and I conveniently know where a mall is which is offering it in HFR...but I don't know if it's worthwhile or causes nausea.

[Fëanen]

So...question. Has anybody seen it in High Frame Rate?

I'm considering taking my parents to see it, and I conveniently know where a mall is which is offering it in HFR...but I don't know if it's worthwhile or causes nausea.

That's how I saw it, in HFR 3d. I'm not a huge 3D fan, but it's a once in a lifetime thing (well, thrice I guess) and I'll be seeing the normal version in a few weeks too. I didn't have the problem, but I did have optimal seats - absolute back row and center of the local IMAX.

As for the movie - I thought it was fantastic. Lots of liberties, but I saw that coming - if this had come first there might have been less of Jackson's interpolations, but as it is I think he hit a decent middle ground between the vibe of the book and the tone of The Lord of the Rings film series. Based on my re-reading The Hobbit over the last month, the tone of the book does have a bit of a shift and gets darker at around Chapter 8 anyway.

A few scenes that I really enjoyed. I strongly suggest not opening this if you haven't seen the film yet.

Spoiler

1) The Unexpected Party. Bilbo's reactions are fantastic - shocked, bewildered and overwhelmed just like in the book. Having Thorin come last is one deviation that I felt worked extremely well, as it made him stand out more from the beginning.
2) Radagast at Dol Guldur. A total invention of Jackson's, of course, but I felt that the shadowy Necromancer was much better than the giant red eye of LotR. Sauron did have a body, y'know. Not sure I like the phantom Witch King that much, but oh well.
3) Riddles in the Dark. My favorite chapter in the book, and it was done brilliantly. I love how we get to see Bilbo's revulsion, fear and ultimately pity for Gollum come through.
4) Bilbo telling the Dwarves why he wants to stay on the adventure with them. Not in the book, but it's a fine character moment.

All in all, I loved it. It wasn't pure Tolkien, but it was another venture into Jackson's version of Tolkien's world, and that's still head and shoulders above any other film in the genre that I've seen.

[Khallos]

Overly embellished I thought, some bits were welcome additions other bits needless.

Spoiler

I quite enjoyed the Dwarven flashbacks of the Lonely Mountain and Dale, really gave purpose to the quest.

[Stew]

I think once all three movies are out, it'll seem a lot better.


That being said,The Hobbit was my favourite book as a kid, so I had a big banana grin on my face while watching it. I'd be just as happy if they didn't add in the other stuff, and just left the film as the adventure from the novel.