# The Hobbit



## hulia (Sep 13, 2012)

I'm seeing it tonight! Whoo. Friend from New Zealand saw the midnight premier and said it was fantastic.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Saw it this afternoon, thought it was really good. 3.5/4 because, although I would have thought it was fantastic had I no knowledge/love for the LOTR trilogy, it was one rung below it and other completely awesome films. Can't wait for the Desolation of Smaug, should be just about the same time next year :happy:


----------



## Sai (Sep 3, 2012)

Im happy and at the same time sad about this film. I promised my ex we would go to see it together, and well... Also im having quite a shitty december. I dont know if ill go to see it or not.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Sai said:


> Im happy and at the same time sad about this film. I promised my ex we would go to see it together, and well... Also im having quite a shitty december. I dont know if ill go to see it or not.


The Nicest Place on the Internet


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

lulz! Watching this movie is probably better than thinking about your ex for three hours.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Shahada said:


> I can't help but feel like these are going to feel like the bloated LOTR expanded editions as opposed to the much better paced theatrical cuts, God help us all if they release four hour versions of these on DVD/Blu-Ray.


You know, I feel like a mutant for considering myself a Lord of the Rings fan but not thinking the extended editions are superior (*gets murdered by crazy Tolkienites*), but I feel a bit relieved I'm not actually the only one. I felt the first two extended editions enriched the movie though they *were* poorly paced, but the Return of the King extended edition honestly made the movie worse in my opinion. The editing just didn't flow in places and a lot of the dramatic tension is ruined by certain cuts.

Even a few extra scenes adding some character development would have been great, but they just went too far. I'm glad they were released because it was interesting to see the deleted scenes, but I don't consider them better films.

Apparently even Peter Jackson agrees the extended editions aren't the "definitive versions" of the films. I find that interesting given the attitudes of a lot of fans.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Shahada said:


> I can't help but feel like these are going to feel like the bloated LOTR expanded editions as opposed to the much better paced theatrical cuts, God help us all if they release four hour versions of these on DVD/Blu-Ray.


You know, I feel like a mutant for considering myself a Lord of the Rings fan but not thinking the extended editions are superior (*gets murdered by crazy Tolkienites*), but I feel a bit relieved I'm not actually the only one. I felt the first two extended editions enriched the movie though they *were* poorly paced, but the Return of the King extended edition honestly made the movie worse in my opinion. The editing just didn't flow in places and a lot of the dramatic tension is ruined by certain cuts.

Even a few extra scenes adding some character development would have been great, but they just went too far. I'm glad they were released because it was interesting to see the deleted scenes, but I don't consider them better films.

Apparently even Peter Jackson agrees the extended editions aren't the "definitive versions" of the films. I find that interesting given the attitudes of a lot of fans.

Haven't seen the Hobbit yet but I've heard it's supposed to be pretty slow. I agree 3 films probably wasn't a great idea, but I don't think it was a "cash grab". (It wasn't the studios' idea, though you can bet they were happy when Jackson suggested it). Remember King Kong? I think Peter Jackson just doesn't know how to pace himself.


----------



## Krelian91 (May 2, 2012)

Just got back from the cinema.

Mind successfully blown.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

nevermore said:


> You know, I feel like a mutant for considering myself a Lord of the Rings fan but not thinking the extended editions are superior (*gets murdered by crazy Tolkienites*), but I feel a bit relieved I'm not actually the only one. I felt the first two extended editions enriched the movie though they *were* poorly paced, but the Return of the King extended edition honestly made the movie worse in my opinion. The editing just didn't flow in places and a lot of the dramatic tension is ruined by certain cuts.
> 
> Even a few extra scenes adding some character development would have been great, but they just went too far. I'm glad they were released because it was interesting to see the deleted scenes, but I don't consider them better films.
> 
> Apparently even Peter Jackson agrees the extended editions aren't the "definitive versions" of the films. I find that interesting given the attitudes of a lot of fans.


My personal preferences are different (I liked the Extended Editions better), but that's mostly because I didn't really enjoy much of movie trilogy, so what the Extended scenes gave me was more chance to find a scene I actually liked. The things that drew me to Tolkien (the writer) didn't show up consistently in the films, and/or the films made some poignant book scenes silly.

But I do agree with your comments here about Extended Editions in general. I think editing is an important part of the film creation process, as it is for books as well. A story is distinguished not by what it is about but by what it is not about. And pacing is important. I watch all the Bluray "extra scene" footage for any movie I purchase, and in the majority of the cases I agree with the cut. I find the scenes useful simply as "information scenes" -- it fills in the gaps, gives me a better understanding of a character, etc., but often the scenes are redundant, distracting, or ruin the pacing. 

I just watched all the cut scenes from Dead Poets Society recently; among the scenes edited out (something like 11-12), I saw one that I thought should have been kept in, one that DEFINITELY should have been kept out because it would have been devastating to the characterization and plot, and the rest were informational but redundant or distracted from the main plots.

Then again, let's examine Prometheus: This was a movie that suffered from too many cuts... probably to cut down on run-time. When I viewed the missing footage, at least half of the scenes that were cut added necessary clarity to an otherwise confusing plot and/or character behavior, or offered something that built tone and ambiance. It's possible to kill your movie by cutting off too many limbs and have it bleed out on the cutting room floor.

(I really want to see if there's any additional footage for the Total Recall remake, and if it would improve the movie...)

So with LotR, although I liked Extended Edition better, I actually agree with you about the value of the extra scenes: They added information. Since I didn't much like the movie or the pacing or get much out of it emotionally, information was actually a plus for me. 



> Haven't seen the Hobbit yet but I've heard it's supposed to be pretty slow. I agree 3 films probably wasn't a great idea, but I don't think it was a "cash grab". (It wasn't the studios' idea, though you can bet they were happy when Jackson suggested it). Remember King Kong? I think Peter Jackson just doesn't know how to pace himself.


Well, not a cash grab on Jackson's part. I think we're going to have to take it on its own terms, not as a movie based on Tolkien's book. Jackson does not make lean movies. In this case, he added things to The Hobbit that end up making it seem like LotR Lite to me, and it should be called "The Dwarves" rather than "The Hobbit," but... whatever. At least they nailed the Riddle Game; I'd say the whole Gollum sequence culminating in Bilbo's "Leap in the Dark" is easily the best sequence in the movie.

I actually love King Kong. Yes, it's a monster, but the original story itself is pretty sprawling. I really like the Extended Edition, but agree that one or two of the jungle monster scenes can be cut without harm to the story. It was perfectly suited for Jackson -- a sprawling epic with horrific elements and large opportunities for CGI, and lots of opportunity for heart-wrenching pathos, based on a movie that was "bare bones" so Jackson could flesh it out as he saw fit without having to worry about conflicting with existing material. Probably his Magnum Opus, as far as a story from his own heart rather than one he had to share with Tolkien.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

I enjoyed the film. It's not the same as the first three films, but that's because the intended audience of the source material was different (LOTR was for adults, The Hobbit was written as a children's novel). 

That being said, I do wish I had realized how long it was before walking in. I would have worn sweatpants, slippers, and brought an army of snacks. I prefer watching movies comfortably. 

I must also add that I thought Martin Freeman did an excellent job as Bilbo. Someone give that man a pint.


----------



## Aslynn (Jun 2, 2012)

Just saw it a few days ago - fantastic! (and it takes a lot to get an exclamation point out of me)
Though I never expected to like Thorin so much...


----------



## hela (Feb 12, 2012)

I saw it yesterday and have since gone through about 500 pages of LoTR fanfic. DAMNIT TOLKIEN, I THOUGHT I WAS DONE WITH YOU.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Jennywocky said:


> Well, not a cash grab on Jackson's part. I think we're going to have to take it on its own terms, not as a movie based on Tolkien's book. Jackson does not make lean movies. In this case, he added things to The Hobbit that end up making it seem like LotR Lite to me, and it should be called "The Dwarves" rather than "The Hobbit," but... whatever. At least they nailed the Riddle Game; I'd say the whole Gollum sequence culminating in Bilbo's "Leap in the Dark" is easily the best sequence in the movie.


This is a great point. I'd actually say the LOTR trilogy ought to be judged on the same terms, at least parts of it. I remember being angry when I first saw The Two Towers because the movie strayed so far from the book, especially towards the end, and I also didn't know Shelob was being moved to the third movie, which caused me a lot of disappointment. But when I came back to the cinemas to see it again, and everything had sunk in, I realized how nitpicky I was being. It's obviously a very enjoyable movie (if not as emotionally resonant as the other two movies), just not a loyal adaptation of Tolkien's book.

At this point I'm a lot more "non-puristy" in my approach to adapted screenplays in general (unless the nature of the adaptation clearly demands accuracy). We'll always have the books, after all. I agree with some changes Jackson made, and disagree with others, but overall if the movie is good I'm content to sit back and enjoy it. 

I thought The Hobbit was decent. I DO think it was too long, even considering the sort of movie it was trying to be (that flashback with Azog nearly killed the pacing, even though I think I can forgive the overly long other prologues; I do understand they had a lot of information to get across, but the beautiful parsimony of the Fellowship of the Ring's prologue and the cleverly sprinkling of exposition throughout that movie makes me think they could do better - I think the Azog stuff and a lot of the Smaug stuff could easily have been done in dialogue). I also personally felt the character scenes (and many other scenes) were handled a bit more clumsily than they were in LOTR, at least at times. The script and direction sometimes seemed a bit ham fisted to me, though they were pitch perfect at other points. It also didn't seem like there was much forward motion by the end of the story (to me anyway, which I personally think is another sign it was too long, or "deliberately paced" as the Rotten Tomatoes site says). But hey, I wanted more. Whether that's the Tolkien fan in me speaking wanting to see the end of the book or Jackson's clever storytelling giving me a demand for a second helping, I don't know, but I think it's a good sign.

It's definitely not the "second Phantom Menace" like some people have been saying though, not by a longshot. I do think the critics overreacted. It's still an enjoyable movie, though it could have been a lot better in my opinion and alas, is no LOTR.  But then again I don't think we shouldn't expect it to be.



> I actually love King Kong. Yes, it's a monster, but the original story itself is pretty sprawling. I really like the Extended Edition, but agree that one or two of the jungle monster scenes can be cut without harm to the story. It was perfectly suited for Jackson -- a sprawling epic with horrific elements and large opportunities for CGI, and lots of opportunity for heart-wrenching pathos, based on a movie that was "bare bones" so Jackson could flesh it out as he saw fit without having to worry about conflicting with existing material. Probably his Magnum Opus, as far as a story from his own heart rather than one he had to share with Tolkien.


Interesting opinion. I definitely agree with what you said about it being his Magnum opus. Of all the stories he's done, it also seems to be the one most beloved by him (it was Kong that got him into cinema and storytelling, not Tolkien). I do agree it's underrated. But in the end...well, maybe I just have a preference for leaner movies.  The character driven scenes were by far the best part, for me personally. The action scenes, by and large, were sort of underwhelming and over the top, and lacked urgency to me for some reason. Perhaps because of the movie's more sensitive portrayal of the relationship between Ann and Kong. (I understand the urgency of the Jack Driscoll character of course, and obviously Ann still wanted to be rescued, but there was only the life of one person at stake while large numbers of crew members died to save her, which made the whole expedition seem crazy on the part of the crew members, and since the audience knows Ann is more or less safe, if not exactly in an ideal place, it sort of takes down the stakes and makes the adventure boring, at least for me). That could have been forgiven, but there were too many action scenes for me to stay interested personally (I own the extended edition though, so it might not be fair for me to judge). I did feel it was an emotionally powerful movie (when it got to the Ann and Kong scenes), and probably underrated, but in the end I guess I feel the length of the movie sort of crushed it all. But hey, you know my editing sensibilities are very different from Jackson's. 

*laughs at the irony of my massive, unedited post* :laughing:


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

hela said:


> I saw it yesterday and have since gone through about 500 pages of LoTR fanfic. DAMNIT TOLKIEN, I THOUGHT I WAS DONE WITH YOU.


Not bad for a dead guy.  He's quite the charmer.




Marlowe said:


> I enjoyed the film. It's not the same as the first three films, but that's because the intended audience of the source material was different (LOTR was for adults, The Hobbit was written as a children's novel).


I agree about the source material. There was a huge shift in tone between The Hobbit and LotR. Tolkien himself wasn't even aware of what was going to happen or of the importance of the Ring until he began to write.




> That being said, I do wish I had realized how long it was before walking in. I would have worn sweatpants, slippers, and brought an army of snacks. I prefer watching movies comfortably.


Lol! I knew Jackson well enough that I didn't really eat or drink much earlier in the day (because I didn't want to have to run to the bathroom and miss something) and made sure I wore my comfy clothes.




> I must also add that I thought Martin Freeman did an excellent job as Bilbo. Someone give that man a pint.


He was good. I've never seen the BBC Sherlock, so I don't know Freeman in any other roles, but I thought he made a convincing Bilbo.


----------



## Siren (Jun 25, 2011)

I'm seeing it tomorrow - cant wait!!


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

nevermore said:


> This is a great point. I'd actually say the LOTR trilogy ought to be judged on the same terms, at least parts of it. I remember being angry when I first saw The Two Towers because the movie strayed so far from the book, especially towards the end, and I also didn't know Shelob was being moved to the third movie, which caused me a lot of disappointment. But when I came back to the cinemas to see it again, and everything had sunk in, I realized how nitpicky I was being. It's obviously a very enjoyable movie (if not as emotionally resonant as the other two movies), just not a loyal adaptation of Tolkien's book.
> 
> At this point I'm a lot more "non-puristy" in my approach to adapted screenplays in general (unless the nature of the adaptation clearly demands accuracy). We'll always have the books, after all. I agree with some changes Jackson made, and disagree with others, but overall if the movie is good I'm content to sit back and enjoy it.


Yeah. I am a purist not in the sense of viewing the book as an authority here, but in the sense I just think the book had a lot more going on that Jackson threw out for lesser quality. Tolkien had a lot of underlying structure in his approach to magic, the elves, the Istari, etc., that was just thrown out whereas it could have easily been incorporated to make the move more fascinating. Instead, the movie is much more "surface-oriented" to me. Everything is WYSIWYG. All the monsters are just animals, but they were actually representative of a lot more in the source; it's like whole dimensions of the characters and animals that could have easily been explored or presented in the film were tossed out for trivial things like skeletons in the Halls of the Dead or more orc-creation shots to satisfy Jackson's interest in the visceral macabre.

So I honestly don't understand why people like the movies so much. It left me wondering if this was many people's first experience with epic fantasy in cinema. Granted, most fantasy movies and shows are dogs, they're typically cheesy B rate movies and I think Jackson improved on that. But while I would find particular scenes of Jackson's to be really good, overall I can't really even bear to watch the latter two movies; I just don't find them enjoyable even as stand-alone movies not attached to a book. I was bored or found them clumsy-handled at times even when just trying to compare them to themselves.

I actually laughed (and drew a few glances) when Denethor died, it was so over-the-top and ham-handed... and it didn't help that I remembered the much more haunting version in the book, which could have EASILY been shot dramatically by a decent director. The same with Saruman's death; no, Jackson did not shoot the Scouring of the Shire, but you can still make a character's death dramatic without having to throw them off a tower and impaled them on crap the way down. A movie like "The Silence of the Lambs" won zillions of awards and is profoundly liked by a wide variety of people, and it was well-done dramatically, and really kind of underplayed -- there was a lot going on under the surface. It is possible to make a great movie that doesn't have all this melodrama. So a director that relies on schlock and excess to express emotion to me seems to be inept, yet for some reason Jackson could pull off some other dramatic scenes adequately.... so he must have thought it would be "cool" but really was debasing to the tone and character.




> I thought The Hobbit was decent. I DO think it was too long, even considering the sort of movie it was trying to be (that flashback with Azog nearly killed the pacing, even though I think I can forgive the overly long other prologues; I do understand they had a lot of information to get across, but the beautiful parsimony of the Fellowship of the Ring's prologue and the cleverly sprinkling of exposition throughout that movie makes me think they could do better - I think the Azog stuff and a lot of the Smaug stuff could easily have been done in dialogue). I also personally felt the character scenes (and many other scenes) were handled a bit more clumsily than they were in LOTR, at least at times. The script and direction sometimes seemed a bit ham fisted to me, though they were pitch perfect at other points. It also didn't seem like there was much forward motion by the end of the story (to me anyway, which I personally think is another sign it was too long, or "deliberately paced" as the Rotten Tomatoes site says). But hey, I wanted more. Whether that's the Tolkien fan in me speaking wanting to see the end of the book or Jackson's clever storytelling giving me a demand for a second helping, I don't know, but I think it's a good sign.


Well, I liked the Smaug flashback, as it's the basis for the movie, and I thought it was excellently staged... with us never even actually seeing the dragon in totality. I feel like Azog was tossed in just to create an "interesting villain" kinda like he did with the Urukhai leader in Fellowship of the Ring... but I didn't find it necessary. It was almost a little too much for me, personally. The movie definitely kind of just peters out and ends... it's got "first-part-itis". I also feel like the entire end fight at the fir trees was just to resolve the issue Jackson added to the story about Thorin wanting Bilbo to go home, and Bilbo suddenly proving himself; it kind of demanded an over-the-top display of bravery from Bilbo. It's just that it seemed a bit out of character. Both Bilbo and Frodo are not really warriors, at heart; there were some scenes from LotR (like where Frodo says he'll slit Gollum's throat) that just seem jarring because they do not fit the character as played and established. Bilbo's a pacifist as well; at least in the book, at the Battle of Five Armies, he tries to prevent the war from happening, and then when the battle occurs, he sneaks off to sit on a rock and watch. He's simply not a fighter type in open battle; and he considers murdering Gollum to save himself, but it's not really a fight -- he has complete control. So... I dunno.




> It's definitely not the "second Phantom Menace" like some people have been saying though, not by a longshot. I do think the critics overreacted. It's still an enjoyable movie, though it could have been a lot better in my opinion and alas, is no LOTR.  But then again I don't think we shouldn't expect it to be.


I totally agree that the critics overreacted. I don't understand the pushback Jackson is getting. Obviously i don't think he's this AWESOME director, but I felt like some of the criticism was unfair. I watched the 3D 48fps version and I really didn't have issues with focus or anything; the Smaug flashback looked unreal, but otherwise I thought it looked fine and I could actually focus on detail when I wanted and see some pretty amazing detail. I think it's a biological and/or psychological thing. I was wondering if more sensory types might see too much detail and not know what to focus on; I'm very big picture and kind of bad at sensory detail, so I'm used to ignore extraneous detail except when I want to. It was a thought I had about it...




> Interesting opinion. I definitely agree with what you said about it being his Magnum opus. Of all the stories he's done, it also seems to be the one most beloved by him (it was Kong that got him into cinema and storytelling, not Tolkien). I do agree it's underrated. But in the end...well, maybe I just have a preference for leaner movies.  The character driven scenes were by far the best part, for me personally. The action scenes, by and large, were sort of underwhelming and over the top, and lacked urgency to me for some reason. Perhaps because of the movie's more sensitive portrayal of the relationship between Ann and Kong. (I understand the urgency of the Jack Driscoll character of course, and obviously Ann still wanted to be rescued, but there was only the life of one person at stake while large numbers of crew members died to save her, which made the whole expedition seem crazy on the part of the crew members, and since the audience knows Ann is more or less safe, if not exactly in an ideal place, it sort of takes down the stakes and makes the adventure boring, at least for me).


I don't think they really knew she was safe, did they? They thought Kong was a monster and would eat her.

It's also typical 30's male bravado, they are risking their lives to save a woman. Lol.

And how about the spider/scorpion/leech sequence? Poor Lumpy!



> That could have been forgiven, but there were too many action scenes for me to stay interested personally (I own the extended edition though, so it might not be fair for me to judge). I did feel it was an emotionally powerful movie (when it got to the Ann and Kong scenes), and probably underrated, but in the end I guess I feel the length of the movie sort of crushed it all. But hey, you know my editing sensibilities are very different from Jackson's.


Well, I only watch the Extended version. I would like it more if it were shorter, because I just typically don't like to watch movies in parts (it breaks the emotional buildup) and I don't like to commit 3 hours to a movie viewing typically. I also do like action, horror, and drama (among other genres), and especially like it when things are mixed together into the same picture... so this is a good movie for that. But I do think the highlight for me (aside from the cool T-Rex battle) is the character of Kong (he is not a generic ape, but kind of an over-the-hill grizzled veteran, the last of his kind, stoic, battle-scarred, lonely, reserved, etc... a very distinct personality) and the relationship between Ann and Kong. Watts nails the role, I think. The scene in NYC where she finally appears to him and they go to the park is pretty amazing.





> *laughs at the irony of my massive, unedited post* :laughing:


----------



## SorkBoard (Dec 31, 2012)

The whole thing seemed like a trailer for the next one and could be summarized in a few sentences. They fought some orcs, the eagles bailed them out, Frodo found the ring. the end


----------



## jinjaNinja (Dec 31, 2012)

Loved it. I totally fell in loved with Thorin. It did somewhat meet the lighter tone of the book, and stuck relatively close to the source material. 

I remember seeing Martin Freeman in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and he was really the only reason I got through this film. (Owen Wilson, please don't let me see your dumb face ever again.) And when I heard he was going to be Bilbo, I thought YES! He was born for that role. Throughout the movie, I was laughing at Bilbo because his reactions were just so real and relateable.

There were only two problems I had with the movie: first, the orcs. They were gross enough in LOTR, but now it's just too much. Pete, ROTK won an Oscar for makeup for a reason--cut the CGI guys and use those wonderful prostetics! Also, those goblins made me hate life. They looked nothing like the ones in Fellowship, were obnoxious cartoons, and tried to make the tone silly and dark, which just made me uncomfortable. And that goblin king was super gross. He didn't need to be super gross. Also, the dwarves cheated death WAY too much. They're not video game characters.

But I loved the pacing and ending of the movie. Thorin getting up and running down that burning fallen tree on the edge of a cliff was SO FRIGGIN BOSS and then Bilbo comes to his rescue adding in some character development and then the eagles come and we see Smaug's eyeball and...oh yeah that was awesome. It did not feel like 3 hours to me. Not at all.

Gollum was fantastic and the Riddles in the Dark was so natural and perfect.


----------



## 68097 (Nov 20, 2013)

Is anyone going to see part two tomorrow?

I'm stoked. Rewatched part one tonight -- can't want to meet Tauriel, and see more of Thranduil... among other characters.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Yep, watching it in a little over three hours :happy:


----------

