FILM: The Hobbit (some spoilers)

[iheartdance]

Are you going? When?

My mom, brother, and I are going pry next week in the morning.

Merry Christmas!

 

[InJesusItrust]

As soon as possible, but seats are full.

 

[HansTrappist]

Are you going? When?

My mom, brother, and I are going pry next week in the morning.

Merry Christmas!

I went to see it just to see what this new 48 fps would look like and to see if there was any truth to the early negative reviews.

I must say, for a nearly three hour movie it was over before you knew it and the early, negative reviews were entirely wrong about this movie.

Great story, a lot of humor, and unbelievable special effects. I have never seen a movie with this much resolution and depth. The 3D was most pleasant to watch and was much easier on the eyes than 24 fps. I found that none of the early negative reviews were correct about this 48 fps technology. 48 fps (if done correctly like Jackson has done here) is the way to go.

So, to sum up my review, none of the early negative reviews were correct on either front. Not only was the story and pacing perfect, the special effects were stunning and novel. Make an effort to see it in 3D at 48 fps (High Frame Rate). There was a genuine discussion of good versus evil. The only word of caution I will give is that there is quite a bit of violence (quite a few limbs and heads being lopped-off in a few battles) and the monsters are quite a bit more fearsome than the baddies from The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. So, parents with young children may want to take that into account.

Well worth the exorbitant price of the ticket and you see just enough of Smaug to want to see much more.

 

[aicirt]

Has anyone read the book? Giving it for Christmas to an 11 yr. old.

 

[the_phoenix]

I read the book at about age 12 and became a lifelong Tolkien fan.

 

[DaveBj]

We’re going next weekend, after the crowds have somewhat died down. Gonna see the 48-fps version, to see if the haters had it right or wrong.

 

[aicirt]

I read the book at about age 12 and became a lifelong Tolkien fan.

Thanks!!:christmastree1:

 

[curlycool89]

I must say, for a nearly three hour movie it was over before you knew it and the early, negative reviews were entirely wrong about this movie.

I completely agree with this.

Although I must say that I was nervous going into this movie (because of it being extended into a trilogy), I was absolutely amazed at it. The plot was marvelously done. The effects were amazing. The longer running time allowed every bit of the plot to be explored in great detail (including the beginnings of the investigation into Dol Guldur and the White Council). The movie felt epic and yet lighthearted all at the same time (largely thanks to the excellent humour, which was not overly-childish or overdone).

If I can add one thing (I guess this is technically a SPOILER, but most people here probably know the story already), I think I want to say that this first part of the trilogy can be summed up as the acceptance of Bilbo into the Company, and thus focuses a lot on the relationship between Bilbo and Thorin (something that I really have never thought about while reading the book).

Overall I totally give it a 5/5 and Best Movie of the Year. And that incudes better than Dark Knight Rises.

 

[Kopratic]

I saw it yesterday afternoon, and I thought it was fantastic. My only qualm was that the opening exposition with the narration felt a little long. I think I would’ve appreciated it a bit more had the narration faded out a little quicker. That being said, it was such a small detail that it didn’t really hinder my thoughts on the film.

One of my favorite parts was Bilbo’s explanation of why he decided to be a part of the adventure.

I’m currently reading LotR for the first time {just got finished with the council of Elrond}, so it was really pleasant to be able to catch some of the references they threw in near the beginning. :}

 

[curlycool89]

I saw it yesterday afternoon, and I thought it was fantastic. My only qualm was that the opening exposition with the narration felt a little long. I think I would’ve appreciated it a bit more had the narration faded out a little quicker. That being said, it was such a small detail that it didn’t really hinder my thoughts on the film.

See, I actually thought that that aided the movie.

The longer running time allowed them to have a proper prologue to set up what is happening (especially since this is no longer just the story of a hobbit on an adventure, but something much bigger), especially the characters of the dwarfs (I believe that is the proper way Tolkien says to spell it ) and their motivation.

 

[DaveBj]

I must say, for a nearly three hour movie it was over before you knew it and the early, negative reviews were entirely wrong about this movie.

Ugh, I’m gonna have to figure out when to take a potty break. Somewhere there’s a website that’s supposed to tell when is the best time for potty breaks.

Edit: Found it: runpee.com/

 

[ChelleyD]

I read the book at about age 12 and became a lifelong Tolkien fan.

Same here. I’ve got the extended edition of teh LOTR movies and have watched with my kids (ages 9 & 11). They’re excited about seeing the Hobbit. Just have to get my oldest over whatever is causing her fever before we can go.

 

[Robyn_p]

Ok I’m gonna be the voice of dissent here

To me, it seemed like the filmmakers were confused about who the movie was aimed at. It kept alternating between silly slapstick and fart jokes to epic violence. But instead of a nice blend, it just seemed sloppy to me. I know, the Hobbit book is much more lighthearted and fairy tale ish, than the LOTR books, so I expected it to be aimed more at kids…but then…why the three hour running time and intense violence??? They should have only done one movie, I’m sorry. The result was a lot of fillers that seemed pointless to me.

I take back what I said about the intense violence, there was a lot of it; heads flying all over the place and what not, but it seemed like I was watching Star Wars. It almost felt like a joke…but those scenes were supposed to be serious and epic.

SPOILERS!

And I couldn’t handle that brown wizard, riding around on a sleigh of bunnies. Was that in the book? I don’t really remember. It did make me laugh at least.
Plus, the troll part they really messed up. Instead of Gandalf using ventriloquism to make the trolls argue with each other till morning, he did a whole “you shall not pass!” tribute thing that didn’t fit.
And finally, there wasn’t much of a transformation of Bilbo like there was in the book. It was a slow process originally, where he went from timid hobbit, to being brave enough to sneak into the dragons lair, so when he did that, it was amazing and intense. (At least it was when I first read it at nine ) But in the movie, Bilbo doesn’t seem to struggle with fear that much and does this heroic fight at the climax, so that in the next film when he goes to the dragon, it’s seems like that scene will lose its poignancy. That’s the biggest mistake I think they made.

But I will say the scene with Gollum was awesome, that part made the movie. I actually want to just watch that part again. Except I really can’t sit through the 2.5 hours it’ll take to get there.

Sigh I was really looking forward to this movie, oh well. Sorry for the rant, but I do feel better now.

 

[Kopratic]

I have to disagree.
{note; there may be SPOILERS interspersed}

Mainly, one film would have felt very rushed. Also, they’re including a lot of stuff from the appendices of LotR. Originally, it was only supposed to be two films, but due to all the stuff they had, they decided to make it three.

I can understand why you would be upset about them deviating from the book; however, the movie isn’t the book. It’s simply based on it. The movie universe should be taken as a completely separate place than the book universe. So a scene in the movie happened differently in the book: Who cares?! It still makes sense in the context of the movie.
If Bilbo had remained shy and timid throughout the whole film, that would have made no sense. Also, I think there’s still room for more growth for the next two films for Bilbo.

Also, I thought the juxtaposition between the slapstick scenes and the more serious scenes was well done. It helped to solidify the point that the dwarves {most of them} weren’t warriors but just well-meaning folk helping Thorin get their home back. The jarring difference between the light-hearted and serious gave the feeling {for me at least} of “Oh! This is real! This isn’t just some foolish adventure!”

As for Radagast {sp?} the Brown, I honestly don’t know if his rabbit-sled was in the book because I have yet to read The Hobbit. However, based on how he’s described in LotR, it fits his character. Sarumon does not take him seriously at all.

All that being said, it’s perfectly fine for you to have disliked the film. After all, not everyone will like everything.

 

[Razanir]

Ok I’m gonna be the voice of dissent here

To me, it seemed like the filmmakers were confused about who the movie was aimed at. It kept alternating between silly slapstick and fart jokes to epic violence. But instead of a nice blend, it just seemed sloppy to me. I know, the Hobbit book is much more lighthearted and fairy tale ish, than the LOTR books, so I expected it to be aimed more at kids…but then…why the three hour running time and intense violence??? They should have only done one movie, I’m sorry. The result was a lot of fillers that seemed pointless to me.

I take back what I said about the intense violence, there was a lot of it; heads flying all over the place and what not, but it seemed like I was watching Star Wars. It almost felt like a joke…but those scenes were supposed to be serious and epic.

SPOILERS!

And I couldn’t handle that brown wizard, riding around on a sleigh of bunnies. Was that in the book? I don’t really remember. It did make me laugh at least.
Plus, the troll part they really messed up. Instead of Gandalf using ventriloquism to make the trolls argue with each other till morning, he did a whole “you shall not pass!” tribute thing that didn’t fit.
And finally, there wasn’t much of a transformation of Bilbo like there was in the book. It was a slow process originally, where he went from timid hobbit, to being brave enough to sneak into the dragons lair, so when he did that, it was amazing and intense. (At least it was when I first read it at nine ) But in the movie, Bilbo doesn’t seem to struggle with fear that much and does this heroic fight at the climax, so that in the next film when he goes to the dragon, it’s seems like that scene will lose its poignancy. That’s the biggest mistake I think they made.

But I will say the scene with Gollum was awesome, that part made the movie. I actually want to just watch that part again. Except I really can’t sit through the 2.5 hours it’ll take to get there.

Sigh I was really looking forward to this movie, oh well. Sorry for the rant, but I do feel better now.

I have to disagree.
{note; there may be SPOILERS interspersed}

Mainly, one film would have felt very rushed. Also, they’re including a lot of stuff from the appendices of LotR. Originally, it was only supposed to be two films, but due to all the stuff they had, they decided to make it three.

I can understand why you would be upset about them deviating from the book; however, the movie isn’t the book. It’s simply based on it. The movie universe should be taken as a completely separate place than the book universe. So a scene in the movie happened differently in the book: Who cares?! It still makes sense in the context of the movie.
If Bilbo had remained shy and timid throughout the whole film, that would have made no sense. Also, I think there’s still room for more growth for the next two films for Bilbo.

Also, I thought the juxtaposition between the slapstick scenes and the more serious scenes was well done. It helped to solidify the point that the dwarves {most of them} weren’t warriors but just well-meaning folk helping Thorin get their home back. The jarring difference between the light-hearted and serious gave the feeling {for me at least} of “Oh! This is real! This isn’t just some foolish adventure!”

As for Radagast {sp?} the Brown, I honestly don’t know if his rabbit-sled was in the book because I have yet to read The Hobbit. However, based on how he’s described in LotR, it fits his character. Sarumon does not take him seriously at all.

All that being said, it’s perfectly fine for you to have disliked the film. After all, not everyone will like everything.

Tone– I agree that the slapstick was well done. I feel like they managed to keep the lightheartedness of The Hobbit (book) while maintaining the darker tone one would expect of a prequel to Lord of the Rings (movie).

Plot– They stuck to the book fairly well, actually. Some of the stuff they added was mentioned in the book (the meeting of the White Council) and some of it was implied (dwarves v goblins). The only major change I noticed was the orcs attacking on the way to Rivendell

New material– None of the stuff with Radagast was in the book. Radagast was mentioned a single time in it. However, I really enjoyed it. Particularly the bunnies. “I’d like to see them try” (Favorite line!) My other favorite line, by the way, was “If Baggins loses we eats it whole!” “Fair enough.”

Running time– I did not mind the half hour (real time) they spent in Hobbiton. There really was a lot of backstory to introduce, and some scenes in the book were really dense. It felt no more dragged out to me than Fellowship, because both were assorted dangers while travelling with a brief stop by the elves.

The one change I didn’t like– They changed Bilbo’s answer to the time riddle! He wasn’t supposed to know the answer. In the book, he just shouted “Time! Time!” to ask for more. He got really lucky it was the answer

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Just saw it, and my kids and I enjoyed it.

There is a line when Gandalf is trying to explain why he chose a hobbit for the quest, and he says that, unlike Saruman believing the way to best Evil is to oppose with greater force, Gandalf feels that it is the small, least expected things of the world, and the acts of day to day kindness, that give the greatest opposition to evil. I can’t remember if the line is from the book, but that seems to be the greatest exposition of Tolkien’s Catholic outlook.

 

[curlycool89]

The one change I didn’t like– They changed Bilbo’s answer to the time riddle! He wasn’t supposed to know the answer. In the book, he just shouted “Time! Time!” to ask for more. He got really lucky it was the answer

Gollum gave away the answer, so it’s still essentially the same thing that he was lucky (well, maybe it adds that Bilbo is good at thinking on his feat).

There is a line when Gandalf is trying to explain why he chose a hobbit for the quest, and he says that, unlike Saruman believing the way to best Evil is to oppose with greater force, Gandalf feels that it is the small, least expected things of the world, and the acts of day to day kindness, that give the greatest opposition to evil. I can’t remember if the line is from the book, but that seems to be the greatest exposition of Tolkien’s Catholic outlook.

I don’t remember it being there, but it does fit perfectly with Gandalf’s established character and MO.

 

[Sarcelle]

I think Peter Jackson did not take advantage of the opportunity to showcase the elves’ song described in the book, with the “tra-la-la-lally” lyrics, during the dinner scene with the elf musicians in Rivendell.

 

[Pons]

Not going to watch this ever.

It’s just not The Hobbit for me. The way they went about “adapting” the book to make it The Lord of the Rings: Origins by adding filler, fanfiction and fanservice rubs me the wrong way.

And the negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes proved my misgivings right:

An Unexpected Journey may as well be The Phantom Menace and God help us all if the next two movies aren’t better than this one.

As a lover of cinema, Jackson’s film bored me rigid; as a lover of Tolkien, it broke my heart.

It frequently seems as though Jackson was less interested in making The Hobbit than in remaking his own fabulously successful Lord of the Rings series.

If you’re going to a see a nearly three-hour movie based on a fraction of a popular book, make it “Lincoln”.

Just because you can do three movies doesn’t mean you need to do three movies.

Tolkien’s inventive, episodic tale of a modest homebody on a dangerous journey has been turned into an overscale and plodding spectacle.

An Unexpected Journey is a major comedown, a muddle-headed and cumbersome piece of filmmaking that betrays Jackson’s mercenary motives – Tolkien’s book, too.

If Peter Jackson couldn’t tell this slight story in a single film there’s no hope the other two in this prequel series will be any less bloated.

With approximately six more hours to go, it’s tough not to shudder at the sheer lengths director Peter Jackson is about to go to stretch this story into paper-thin taffy.

Tolkien’s brisk story of intrepid little hobbit Bilbo Baggins is drawn out and diluted by dispensable trimmings better left for DVD extras.

Instead of simply adapting Tolkien’s novel, Jackson has opted to use the story as a jumping off point for a convoluted prequel that threatens to do for Middle Earth what George Lucas’s Star Wars prequels did for a galaxy far, far away.

http://s19.postimage.org/f5fk01p77/mconyc_DVAl1r2vpn6o1.jpg

 

[Razanir]

Not going to watch this ever.

It’s just not The Hobbit for me. The way they went about “adapting” the book to make it The Lord of the Rings: Origins by adding filler, fanfiction and fanservice rubs me the wrong way.

And the negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes proved my misgivings right:

For one, there actually is a lot more material in the Hobbit (book) than people realize. Particularly with Gandalf and the White Council. Plot summary of that going strictly by the books: Gandalf disappears. Gandalf wins. Yeah. Not much. Jackson really has to flesh it out. The thing is, it’s such an essential story for setting up Lord of the Rings. I’m a huge Tolkien fan, and I completely trust Jackson to do the other two films well. And yes, it’s my favorite movie he’s set in Middle-Earth.

Also, I’ve never actually seen the Prequel Trilogy, but I’ve heard the stories. It’s NOT set up to be like that. Partly because Jackson already has a good book to work off of. Also, he probably had people to say “No” unlike Lucas