A Long-Expected Hobbit Movie Thread

[RickZarber]

So, I just got back from the midnight showing of the Hobbit (in HFR 3D) and I want to get some reactions down before they fade, but it's also like 4am so I need to sleep soon. So I guess excuse any incoherent ramblings.

Short version: I really liked it. While there are quite a few changes from the book, I didn't find any of them to be nearly as objectionable as the changes made to the Lord of the Rings. There are book moments here and there that I missed, but on the whole it was a very good adaptation.

It does drag a bit here and there, and there are certainly excessive and unnecessary scenes, but none of them are any worse than extended footage from the LOTR films. I'd say the more overall problem is that it doesn't feel nearly as much as a complete film as any of the LOTR movies. (And rightly so.) It most definitely feels like part of a story. And I could do without belching dwarves or a snot gag. At least we didn't have any dwarf flatulence jokes. (Gimli already took that bullet in ROTK EE.)

That said, I was never bored, and there was plenty of stuff where I was left wanting more. (And we'll probably end up with Extended Editions of these films as well, as there were multiple scenes from the trailers--Bilbo going shopping, Bilbo scoping the shards of Narsil in Rivendell, some Goblintown stuff--that didn't end up in the movie.)

The acting was uniformly great. Gandalf quickly establishes himself as the bedrock of this film. Thorin is great, even if it's not how I ever really imagined him. Bilbo is also fairly different from the book, but Freeman quickly owns the role. Some of the Dwarves were a little shortchanged on dialogue (I don't think poor Bombur had a single line!), but there are two more films to flesh them out. Radagast definitely felt the most extraneous character, and honestly I wish some of his scenes had been trimmed a bit. But the upside of the excess is all these great references to Tolkien's mythology that never made it to LOTR. Referring to the spiders as spawns of Ungoliant, for instance.

Riddles in the Dark was by far the high point; I was really impressed with just how scary they managed to make Gollum. His intro is changed from the book, but they manage to make him an immediate threat, and that informs the rest of the scene wonderfully. It brings him away from the Gollum we know from LOTR and makes him this dark, dangerous thing. And I was impressed with how many riddles they worked in. I was expecting like three at the most.

Music-wise, I was surprised they worked in "Chip the Glasses and Crack the Plates", but I would've cut it entirely in favor of more verses to "Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold" (we only get what's in the trailer plus those two lines they left out of the first verse). But I may be alone in wanting like 10 mins of the movie devoted to a song. :P We don't get any flighty elf songs, though. But though the elves are never as "silly" as they are in the books, we certainly get to see them seem that way to the dwarves, which was nice. And we do get one Goblin song, though not any of the ones from the book.

As I said, I saw the HFR 3D version. I can heartily recommend the 3D, at least. I've probably only seen a half dozen 3D films ever, but given the choice, I'd take a 3D version of this one every time. Those New Zealand landscapes just look incredible. Not to mention locations like Erebor or Goblintown. The high frame rate too me a while to get used to. I think it wasn't until nearly the half-hour mark that it stopped throwing me off. The problem I has was that my brain was interpreting those extra frames as faster movement, so everything looked unnaturally sped-up. But as soon as I got used to it, it was pretty sweet. (My roommate says it only took his eyes like a minute to adjust.) And the best thing is that it really does alleviate some of the eye strain of watching a 3D film. If you're susceptible to motion sickness, though, I might recommend some Dramamine or something; I found some of that flying, spinning camerawork was making me mildly nauseous--moreso for being so smooth. Bottom line, if it's playing in 48fps in your area, I suggest at least giving it a try. I'll want to see the movie in 24fps just to compare, but I had no major complaints of the kind I've read online (ie, everything looks fake, the lighting is too bright/bleeds everywhere, more eyestrain, etc).

I want to say more, talk about spoilerish changes and stuff, but it's really damn late and I must away ere break of day, because I work tomorrow, so maybe I'll let others have their say before hopping back in with my other comments. Now I've just gotta fall asleep somehow...

[Ryanderman]

I can echo Rick's assessment. I loved the movie.

I saw the film in 24 fps non-3D (my wife gets headaches from 3D, but I plan to go back and see it 48fps next week), and it was noticeably shot for a higher frame rate. Camera pans and action blurred in odd places, but at 48 fps they'll probably look great.

The consensus criticism of the movie being too long, trying to stretch too little material into a 3 hour epic are valid. But I didn't care. I loved every minute of it regardless.

While we don't get to know individual dwarves as well as we did each member of the Fellowship, the dwarves as a group are excellently done, and a great part of the movie. The movie focuses on Thorin's drama more than the book, and sidelines Bilbo's own character development somewhat to fit it in. It's unfortunate, but I enjoyed it for what it was.

The music was amazing. The dwarves' theme is up there with the Fellowship's theme for me, and it appears throughout the movie just the right amount to not get old.

And now I'm at work all day, after 3 hours of sleep. So we'll see how that goes.

[phil_]

I'll let you guys know what special headaches crop up in presenting only the 2D version of a film with six different versions. I'm sure someone will be upset that my theater on the edge of civilization isn't showing the 3D 48FPS Imax version.

[Magus]

I'll see it tomorrow, I usually go the super bargain matinee.

I hope they aren't showing it in 48 FPS because I hate those 120 Hz TVs and as far as I know that's what the 48 FPS has been most compared to (that and video camera footage ala the old BBC Narnia adaptations).

[phil_]

Don't watch it in 3D and you won't be watching it in 48FPS.

[synkr0nized]

I saw it in 2D and did not feel that I was robbed of anything or that a scene was clearly made for 3D, which honestly means that they had the correct mentality behind making the film.

In any case, I am a little tired and not interested in hammering at my keyboard, so suffice to say I found the movie quite enjoyable. I liked the addition of content well beyond the book itself, as I do honestly find The Hobbit to be pretty light and meh overall. It is nice to see them taking the time to also lay groundwork for the events of the trilogy, be it expansion of hinted at scenes in the book or content built upon embellishing Tolkien's source material.

Good visuals, good pacing, good acting, and good storytelling even where they made changes.


edit: Perhaps unlike other Tolkien fans, I was glad they only did as little singing as they did. I find myself eagerly skipping over the pages in the books that deal with songs.

My only real complaint was that Thorin looked very human. He needs a proper dwarven beard (and this is coming from someone who doesn't even really like dwarves; also their city in the opening scenes is fucking awesome).

[RickZarber]

Perhaps unlike other Tolkien fans, I was glad they only did as little singing as they did. I find myself eagerly skipping over the pages in the books that deal with songs.
Heheh yeah, as I said, I may be alone there. I've always loved Tolkien's songs and poems; they're some of my favorite parts of his books, and I have quite a few of them memorized. But maybe it just seems normal to me because I've been reading it for 20 years... I can understand why other people might blanch at it.

[rpgdemon]

edit: Perhaps unlike other Tolkien fans, I was glad they only did as little singing as they did. I find myself eagerly skipping over the pages in the books that deal with songs.

Hey, me too!

I really enjoyed the movie, though I actually thought a lot of the CG looked surprisingly bad. Like, I dunno if it was the framerate stuff (I saw it in 2D, not sure what framerate), but a lot of it made me go, "This looks like a videogame." That's really my only complaint though.

[Bells]

Just came back from it. Loved it.

Regarding the whole "video game thing" i think the 3D is at fault here. I saw it in 3D and it's damn clear that the movie was framed and the photography was done thinking of the 3D. And that certainly gives that Video Game look to it.

If you saw it in 2D my suggestion is to see it again in 3D, you will certainly see why certain shots look the way they do (on that note, the Final hill battle in the fire, Absolutely badass)

And if Andy Circus is not nominated for Best Support character, i'm just going to yell "Bullshit" for a full night. And Martin freeman was an absolutely fantastic Bilbo, loved his take on the character....

The movie is certainly long, but i liked the pacing, it felt like just so much stuff... even this comparatively small adventure felt gigantic in scope after all of that.

[RickZarber]

Hobbit Vlog #10: Premiere

OtCOQMfNaLQ

Basically had a big dumb smile on my face throughout.

[Magus]

Saw it 2D. I'd say the only "visual problem" that popped up was that some landscape scenes panned so quickly it seriously just looked like a blur to my eyes and I could feel a "strain" on them. For the most part though it was pretty glorious to look at.

I feel the added parts/elements were fairly good, although even with bloating up the plot and altering some of Bilbo's actions, they still failed to make him a compelling lead and not just look like a guy along for the ride. It's not as bad as in the original story I suppose but the two or three things he does to help the party in the movie (changes from the book) still didn't really give me the same feeling I got watching Frodo and Sam in LOTR. I would think in a three hour movie this wouldn't have been a problem but nowhere in the added scenes did they sit back and say, "Let's explore the character of Bilbo to the same extent we did Frodo" and I'd say that's the biggest failure of the film--to expand it so greatly and yet miss the point.

[Lumenskir]

Saw it in 3D/HFR. At the very beginning it looked janky as hell, to the point where I honestly thought it was just being played at 1.5 speed. I guess I adjusted somewhat because the talky scenes weren't too bad by the end, but any motion more extreme than walking slowly or talking still looked janky as hell, like a sputtering computer game.

As someone who isn't invested at all in the books, I was mostly impressed by how overstuffed and yet underwhelming it all was. Like, after the interminably long pre-leaving preamble it was basically just "Dwarves* sit around, make fun of Bilbo, run into baddies they all whack at, then run away until they find a place to rest, make fun of Bilbo, run into baddies they all whack at, then run away until they find a place to rest, etc." Sprinkle in some intentionally undeveloped musing on necromancers** and such for extra puffery.

*The Dwarves = Jews thing isn't something me and my friends imagined, right?

**I mean, I get the need to set up things for the other movies, but having to sit through a 20 minute scene of people talking about a problem that intentionally can't be solved (or even confronted) in the movie you actually paid money to watch now is just an abhorrent instance of Jackson & Co. slapping the audience in the face with a continuity dick.

I've been recommending to friends to just wait for it to come out on cable. I mean, I realize that this forum being what it is most of you have already seen it twice thrice, but for the non-steeped it's not really mandatory to see in the theater.

Also, I get that the Taxi-Eagles couldn't just drop the ring into Mordor because something something corrupting influence...but what's their excuse for dropping the gang so far away from their actual destination?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I haven't seen it but its too long and nothing happens and its boring. 0.

[Magus]

The Eagles thing is a really old complaint about these things. Maybe they just hate carrying people hundreds of miles or whatever.

It's easier to explain in LOTR though since people who are like "WHY DON'T THEY JUST FLY FRODO FROM RIVENDELL TO MT. DOOM?" are intentionally ignoring the existence of thousands of orcs with bows and arrows and catapults and ballistas, etc., and 9 sorcerer ring-wraiths flying wyverns between point A and point B, besides the whole corrupting influence thing. It's a plot hole that only occurs with selective application of external logical reasoning, and can also be done to almost literally every movie ever made, as well.

[Geminex]

The Eagles thing is a really old complaint about these things. Maybe they just hate carrying people hundreds of miles or whatever.

It's easier to explain in LOTR though since people who are like "WHY DON'T THEY JUST FLY FRODO FROM RIVENDELL TO MT. DOOM?" are intentionally ignoring the existence of thousands of orcs with bows and arrows and catapults and ballistas, etc., and 9 sorcerer ring-wraiths flying wyverns between point A and point B, besides the whole corrupting influence thing. It's a plot hole that only occurs with selective application of external logical reasoning, and can also be done to almost literally every movie ever made, as well.

Wasn't the explanation to the eagles thing that Gandalf didn't want to risk the eagles getting too close to the ring? Because their pride would have made them super susceptible to its corruption?

[Lumenskir]

Just to be clear, I can understand that in LoTR factors exist which would prevent the Eagle-Taxis from making it a two minute movie.

However, in the Hobbit the biggest thing that stuck with me was that the film basically ends with the Eagle-Taxis dropping the dwarf gang on a huge rock with their ultimate destination waaaaaay off in the distance.* You can tell it it's their ultimate destination because it is a crystal clear day and there's nothing but open fields ahead of them. So, one is left with the distinct impression that the Eagle-Taxis are just dicks.

*Seriously, what the fuck is the third movie going to be? I mean, for all I joke about how dickish the Eagle-Taxis are, the group is basically a stroll away from taking back their homeland. Is the third movie literally just going to be "The Hobbit: Completely Unrelated Tales From the Appendix"?

[Magus]

Just to be clear, I can understand that in LoTR factors exist which would prevent the Eagle-Taxis from making it a two minute movie.

However, in the Hobbit the biggest thing that stuck with me was that the film basically ends with the Eagle-Taxis dropping the dwarf gang on a huge rock with their ultimate destination waaaaaay off in the distance.* You can tell it it's their ultimate destination because it is a crystal clear day and there's nothing but open fields ahead of them. So, one is left with the distinct impression that the Eagle-Taxis are just dicks.

*Seriously, what the fuck is the third movie going to be? I mean, for all I joke about how dickish the Eagle-Taxis are, the group is basically a stroll away from taking back their homeland. Is the third movie literally just going to be "The Hobbit: Completely Unrelated Tales From the Appendix"?

I don't think you actually want spoilers so suffice it to say there are significant obstacles between them and the Lonely Mountain, which is super-big so it's farther away than you think. This movie really did just get through maybe a third of the book so they definitely added in enough stuff to pad it out properly.

I mean at best I would have said it should have been two movies at most but anyway, add in some more shenanigans like this movie had and I can see the three-part story structure fairly well, though the third movie will HAVE to involve significant Helm's Deep/Pelennor Field-esque extrapolation.

Wasn't the explanation to the eagles thing that Gandalf didn't want to risk the eagles getting too close to the ring? Because their pride would have made them super susceptible to its corruption?

Yeah I think that was the official Tolkein explanation, I just felt that besides that there are more than significant physical obstacles to the fulfillment of any kind of suicide-run on Mount Doom by a bunch of eagles.

[RickZarber]

You can tell it it's their ultimate destination because it is a crystal clear day and there's nothing but open fields ahead of them. And, you know, Mirkwood. Plus, distances looking compressed (or mountains looking impossibly huge) seems to be a thing with Jackson's Middle-Earth. Take how high and near the mountains of Mordor looked from Minas Tirith, where in the book they were only just visable on the horizon.
*Seriously, what the fuck is the third movie going to be? I mean, for all I joke about how dickish the Eagle-Taxis are, the group is basically a stroll away from taking back their homeland. Is the third movie literally just going to be "The Hobbit: Completely Unrelated Tales From the Appendix"?Second movie will likely take us from Beorn to the death of Smaug. Movie three will be the Battle of Five Armies, plus possibly the White Council driving off the Necromancer (they may even combine these, who knows; I wouldn't put it past them to have the Necromancer show up at the Battle). If they could stretch the first six chapters to 3 hours, I'm sure they can make a whole movie out of the last five. (Which, if you're curious, would leave 8 chapters for movie two.)


Honestly, the thing that bugs me most about the eagles not talking is that it is a missed opportunity to put this argument to rest. In LOTR, when Gwaihir rescues Gandalf from Orthanc, Gandalf asks, "How far can you bear me?" To which he responds, "Many leagues, but not to the ends of the earth!" And even in the Hobbit, he refuses to take them near to the Old Forest Road through Mirkwood, for men lived there and, "They would shoot at us with their great bows of yew, for they would think we were after their sheep. And at other times they would be right. No! we are glad to cheat the goblins of their sport, and glad to repay our thanks to you, but we will not risk ourselves for dwarves in the southward plains."

I wish the second movie would open with Bilbo asking why they couldn't just keep riding the eagles all the way. It would be a nice way to simultaneously lampshade and address this "plot hole".

[Lumenskir]

I mean at best I would have said it should have been two movies at most but anyway, add in some more shenanigans like this movie had and I can see the three-part story structure fairly well.
I think my main problem with the movie is that it's basically a road-trip movie, but instead of having a connected series of wacky hijinks it's basically just the dwarves fighting monsters (or, in a huge changeup, watching monsters fight themselves). Which isn't an inherently bad thing and all, but they all have basically the same fighting style of "Whack it with a blade to commit bloodless carnage, causing the enemy to either cry out in pain and continue fighting or keel over dead."

I personally think I was happier with the Gollum scene mostly because it was an engaging break from the tedium of the cluttered action.

[Magus]

The Gollum scene was my favorite so you're onto something there.

The scenes that were totally manufactured were the ones involving Azog (except the climactic scene on the cliff, which did occur, although not in that particular fashion), and since his orcs just pop up randomly several times for the dwarves to run from/battle it does indeed amount to a lot of repetitiveness. The only actual battle in this entire thing would have been the escape from the goblins if they had stuck with the book, so I guess they felt they had to manufacture more action scenes.

I think part of it is an implied expectation that this movie be almost three hours long like the old LOTR ones. I'm not sure why Jackson felt he had to hold himself to this "standard"--the movie would still make just as much box office bucks at two hours and not need so much manufacturing. It would also cost less. And best of all, it would be justifiable.

[RickZarber]

I think it's less premeditated and more that Jackson just indulges in excess and has difficulty cutting it away.

That said, I still think that the main problem with this movie is that it doesn't feel like enough of a story; the actual length is not the problem so much as the fact that--as Lumen said--it spends so much of that runtime setting up plot points that don't even bear on this section of the story. On reflection, I honestly didn't find any of the action sequences to be overlong or detrimental. Or even all that repetitive, really. I was very impressed, for example, just how short the rock giant sequence was. I was expecting PJ to make that into a whole long thing, and then in the end I don't think it was even more than a few minutes.

I also think that time will be kinder to this movie, and it will feel more natural once we have the entire story available to us. (Though people may still cling to their initial dislike, so who knows how that will affect how it's remembered.) But in a few years from now, when we sit down for our... 12 hour marathon of the Hobbit :sweatdrop it will feel more like a proper opening act and less like an incomplete film.

[Magus]

I don't understand why Warner Bros. allows him to indulge in excess with their money unless they think that a three-hour movie is more of a draw than a two-hour one or something. Like it basically would have been fine at two hours long, would have saved them money, made just as much money, etc. etc. But maybe the run-time IS a draw, I dunno. The only reason I can think of is that people expect it to be around three hours long so he worked towards that expectation...

[RickZarber]

I think it's just the simple logic of "The LOTR movies were 3 hours each, they made us a crap-ton of money. Let's do exactly that again." So they keep their 3-hour runtime restriction, even though I'm sure they would have been fine with a shorter movie. It's just that Jackson, in his own words, doesn't know how to make short movies.

[Bells]

Honestly? I think it's too soon to say, Jackson already shot the 3 movies, the second one is in Editing right now, probably close to done, i would like to watch the second one before passing any judgment on this prequel saga.

The movie was Fantastic, it had material for it's run time. If you were to cut the Stone Giants, Shorten the Beginning and then Shorten the Goblin king segment a bit to round down 30 minutes, it would probably be a slimmer project. But i will not complain about an awesome movie that is just "89% as awesome as it can be" ...

[Magus]

The thing with the stone giants was it was super amazing to watch and actually from the book, but basically flies in the face of any logic of the original trilogy's world, so there's a big disconnect there...that or I am oddly more accepting of talking trees than stone golems that are a dozen stories tall and also for some reason have not been harnessed to do battle for one side or the other and are also not mentioned at all by anyone in LOTR despite being literally the most amazing thing ever.

Of course the Trolls in LOTR clearly were never meant to be intelligent/talking ones either so I guess it's just as well that Jackson ignored the internal logic of his previous take on the universe.

[Bells]

The trolls ? you mean the 3 Stroollges? Seriously, that was hilarious, but some parts they were Moe'ing it up pretty hard in there!

Also, i want to think that the stone giants are gone cause they are assholes. I mean, they were pelting rocks at each other apparently for no reason and out of the blue ... i mean, 3 Mountains decide to have a snowball fight with each other within marching range of an Elvish city... you would notice that shit.

[synkr0nized]

Of course the Trolls in LOTR clearly were never meant to be intelligent/talking ones either so I guess it's just as well that Jackson ignored the internal logic of his previous take on the universe.

But the three in The Hobbit do talk, and quite a lot. In fact, it is dialogue which gets them in trouble, not a brawl itself (though individually or in small groups the dwarves do approach and tussle with them a bit before being captured).

It's not their fault the other trolls that make on-screen (on-page?) appearances don't do much beyond growl and grunt.




I, for one, welcome more scenes that show us what nonsense Gandalf is up to when he buggers off, and of course anything that continues to build up a connection to the Dark Lord rising and the forces of Good giving that their attention is a worthwhile addition. In that sense, I have become much less worried about this not being handled in one movie.

[Bum Bill Bee]

I just saw it yesterday, great expanded plot and humor and loved it long run time and all.

The only bits that bugged me were 1. the Troll's cave being significantly smaller than the trolls themselves 2. The subtitles kind of nerded it up too much. Sorry, not everyone can love the fictional linguistic side of the LOTR verse. and 3. The way they did the main wolf riding goblin antagonist. I mean come on, how many billions of villainous Albinos and amputees do we gotta have?

I did however love how kind and thoughtful the dwarves were, they even did favors for their goblin enemies, like helping them with their over population problems. I mean seriously, countless thousands of goblins living in a dang cave? They surely must've suffered through tons of diseases and starvation, but the dwarves went out of their way to cut their population down to a more manageable number. And Gandalf was kind enough to start the morbidly obese Goblin King on a "Cut your stomach open" diet.

Such wonderful role models for the kiddies to look up to. You just don't see that very often these days.

[Magus]

Those bleeding-heart Elves were always complaining about the great Goblin genocide. Dwarves just call that population control.

[Locke cole]

Bah. Just another example of wizards taking depopulation jobs away from hardworking citizens like Gollum.

[Bum Bill Bee]

Gollum was just a small independant business owner who could just take care of a small handfull of goblins per day. Gandalf invested in abig corporation that could do hundereds in one go.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Best part of the movie (http://shyriadracnoir.tumblr.com/post/38194588207#notes)

[BloodyMage]

I really enjoyed the talking trolls, badly organised orcs and misshapen goblins. That's where The Hobbit really shines. They look and sounds like real creatures rather than just seeming like evil counterparts to Men, Elves and Dwarves. I know they were in the Lord of the Ring but bar a few they didn't seem to have much of a personality and were just there to fill out the numbers. There's a sense of realism here that isn't in the other films that probably comes with scaling back from the epic war of the original trilogy.

[CABAL49]

Found Peter Jackson's cameo.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Ker-necro

Release Date for Blu-Ray and special edition DVDs announced, with bonus first look at second film for consumers (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/02/05/68922-own-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-on-blu-ray-combo-pack-319-available-for-early-download-in-hd-312/)

In addition, Peter Jackson will host a live first look at “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug,” the second film in The Hobbit Trilogy, on Sunday, March 24th at 3:00PM Eastern/Noon Pacific. Content will be streamed live and an edited version will be archived on the Trilogy’s official website. Access to the live event will be limited to holders of an UltraViolet code available by purchasing “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” Blu-ray Combo Pack, Blu-ray 3D Combo Pack or 2-Disc Special Edition DVD. Select digital retailers will issue access codes upon purchase of the film.