The Hobbit

[jekelish]

The reviews have been less than stellar for this movie, which I saw today (3D version), and frankly I just cannot understand why. Admittedly I freaking love LOTR more than most, but I'm not above finding fault with the films, of which there are certainly some.

The chief complaint has been that the movie is too long and feels padded, which is true, since Jackson is turning as 270 page book into a trilogy. How could it not be padded? There are certain scenes that could have either been trimmed or cut altogether to streamline the film a bit more, but do they really take away from the overall experience? I don't think so.

The primary part people are complaining about is the beginning, when the company of dwarves is first being introduced when they crash dinner at Bag End and meet Bilbo for the first time. It's longer than it probably needs to be, yes, but as that was one of the complaints I'd heard going in, specifically, I was astonished by how quickly I thought that sequence passed, all things considered. Of course, it also contains the stupidest scene in the movie (you'll know it when you see it considering it's a musical number), but still, it wasn't nearly as bad as some are making it out to be.

I was actually pretty amazed, overall, by how quickly the running time passed, which is thanks in large part to the fact that the second half of the movie is almost non stop action. I assume the next two films will improve upon this film, especially since Peter Jackson will have had time to hear the complaints people have had and will hopefully tighten up the plot and pacing a bit.

Overall, though, I really enjoyed the movie.

The goblin king's chin was a bit distracting though, I will admit. Largely because he totally had a huge scrotum hanging from it. You might think I'm joking. But watch the movie and tell me that doesn't look like a big swinging nutsack.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Can't wait to see it. I'm a big LOTR fan. The reviews that criticize this movie seem to be from those who are comparing this to LOTR. While its easy to do, they shouldn't be compared. They are separate entities.

 

[jekelish]

Agreed. One of the complaints is that "the stakes don't feel as large."

Well, of course they don't. LOTR was about literally saving the world from evil incarnate. The Hobbit is about defeating a dragon and helping some dwarves take back their home.

But seriously - that goblin king. I get the feeling Peter Jackson is a big South Park fan and loved the episode in which Butters pretends to have balls growing from his chin.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Agreed. One of the complaints is that "the stakes don't feel as large."

Well, of course they don't. LOTR was about literally saving the world from evil incarnate. The Hobbit is about defeating a dragon and helping some dwarves take back their home.

But seriously - that goblin king. I get the feeling Peter Jackson is a big South Park fan and loved the episode in which Butters pretends to have balls growing from his chin.

I've never actually read the books for the hobbit or lotr. It's on my to do list. But ou hit the nail on the head with regards to each of their plots (from what I've read from others; haven't read the books like I said).

 

[BlackKnight76]

Huge fan of the hobbit/LOTR. I've been a bit worried about the negative reviews, glad to see a positive one. I've read the book at least three or four times, pumped to see it on the big screen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[temery]

I've never seen lotr. Is seeing the trilogy a must before seeing the hobbit?

The reviews have been less than stellar for this movie, which I saw today (3D version), and frankly I just cannot understand why. Admittedly I freaking love LOTR more than most, but I'm not above finding fault with the films, of which there are certainly some.

The chief complaint has been that the movie is too long and feels padded, which is true, since Jackson is turning as 270 page book into a trilogy. How could it not be padded? There are certain scenes that could have either been trimmed or cut altogether to streamline the film a bit more, but do they really take away from the overall experience? I don't think so.

The primary part people are complaining about is the beginning, when the company of dwarves is first being introduced when they crash dinner at Bag End and meet Bilbo for the first time. It's longer than it probably needs to be, yes, but as that was one of the complaints I'd heard going in, specifically, I was astonished by how quickly I thought that sequence passed, all things considered. Of course, it also contains the stupidest scene in the movie (you'll know it when you see it considering it's a musical number), but still, it wasn't nearly as bad as some are making it out to be.

I was actually pretty amazed, overall, by how quickly the running time passed, which is thanks in large part to the fact that the second half of the movie is almost non stop action. I assume the next two films will improve upon this film, especially since Peter Jackson will have had time to hear the complaints people have had and will hopefully tighten up the plot and pacing a bit.

Overall, though, I really enjoyed the movie.

The goblin king's chin was a bit distracting though, I will admit. Largely because he totally had a huge scrotum hanging from it. You might think I'm joking. But watch the movie and tell me that doesn't look like a big swinging nutsack.

 

[jekelish]

Not really. Hobbit takes place 60 years before LOTR with mostly different characters.

I would still recommend seeing LOTR though.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

M

The reviews have been less than stellar for this movie, which I saw today (3D version), and frankly I just cannot understand why. Admittedly I freaking love LOTR more than most, but I'm not above finding fault with the films, of which there are certainly some.

The chief complaint has been that the movie is too long and feels padded, which is true, since Jackson is turning as 270 page book into a trilogy. How could it not be padded? There are certain scenes that could have either been trimmed or cut altogether to streamline the film a bit more, but do they really take away from the overall experience? I don't think so.

The primary part people are complaining about is the beginning, when the company of dwarves is first being introduced when they crash dinner at Bag End and meet Bilbo for the first time. It's longer than it probably needs to be, yes, but as that was one of the complaints I'd heard going in, specifically, I was astonished by how quickly I thought that sequence passed, all things considered. Of course, it also contains the stupidest scene in the movie (you'll know it when you see it considering it's a musical number), but still, it wasn't nearly as bad as some are making it out to be.

I was actually pretty amazed, overall, by how quickly the running time passed, which is thanks in large part to the fact that the second half of the movie is almost non stop action. I assume the next two films will improve upon this film, especially since Peter Jackson will have had time to hear the complaints people have had and will hopefully tighten up the plot and pacing a bit.

Overall, though, I really enjoyed the movie.

The goblin king's chin was a bit distracting though, I will admit. Largely because he totally had a huge scrotum hanging from it. You might think I'm joking. But watch the movie and tell me that doesn't look like a big swinging nutsack.

My kids did the premier. 8 thumbs up from them, and my 2 oldest are sticklers for the books.

 

[dutchhart]

I was pretty happy with what Jackson did. Seems like he's doing some padding but nothing that takes away from the story. Overall I was quite happy with the first part of the trilogy

 

[ImperialOrange]

I assume the next two films will improve upon this film, especially since Peter Jackson will have had time to hear the complaints people have had and will hopefully tighten up the plot and pacing a bit.

Not sure how he'll do much different since they were all shot at the same time and the 2nd 2 films are already in post production.

Regardless of critics, I'm looking forward to seeing them all in IMAX if I can.

 

[jekelish]

Not sure how he'll do much different since they were all shot at the same time and the 2nd 2 films are already in post production.

Regardless of critics, I'm looking forward to seeing them all in IMAX if I can.

Editing, I mean. You can always trim, and you can also do pick ups later if need be. I'd imagine it could all be helped in the editing room, however.

 

[oldpinepoint]

i saw it last night in the HFR 3D at Destiny. Film is a little slow to begin but it picks up. I expect the next two films to be better. I would recommend seeing in the the HFR 3D freaking amazing visuals.

 

[MCC]

Curiouser and curiouser. It's difficult to argue against the books (Hobbit, LoTR trilogy, Silmarillion) ranking amongst the better works of modern fiction. I enjoyed Jackson's interpretation of LoTR, and suspect the Hobbit will be rewarding (just hope Cumberbatch's voice meets Smaugspectations). This all said - nothing beats readin' 'em.

 

[jekelish]

Curiouser and curiouser. It's difficult to argue against the books (Hobbit, LoTR trilogy, Silmarillion) ranking amongst the better works of modern fiction. I enjoyed Jackson's interpretation of LoTR, and suspect the Hobbit will be rewarding (just hope Cumberbatch's voice meets Smaugspectations). This all said - nothing beats readin' 'em.

Speaking of curiouser, are you familiar with Cumberbatch? I would have envisioned someone like Bill Nighy originally, but after watching Sherlock, Cumberbatch will be perfect. He's got a great voice for the role.

 

[MCC]

Speaking of curiouser, are you familiar with Cumberbatch? I would have envisioned someone like Bill Nighy originally, but after watching Sherlock, Cumberbatch will be perfect. He's got a great voice for the role.

I'm not at all familiar with Cumberbatch. I concur that getting Smaug's voice right is critical, and glad to hear you think he's the right voice for the job. I'll have to youtube him and get a sense.

 

[jekelish]

He has a good, deep, booming voice (which you'd never guess by looking at him, frankly). He's also playing the Necromancer, I believe?

 

[armory]

Haven't seen it, but all the reviews tend to say the same thing; that it was stretched too thin for an already relatively thin novel. I would agree in that I have no idea how Jackson expects to turn that book into a trilogy.

'The Hobbit' is a much shorter book than any one of the three LOTR novels... so less than 1/3rd the material is being turned into equal length of film.

 

[jekelish]

Well, they are adding in a bunch of material. There were long stretches in which Gandalf was gone during The Hobbit, and they are filling in those gaps by showing what he was doing. They've also added a subplot about an Orc warlord who is hell bent on killing Thorin and his entire line (he already killed his father).

I think they can do it, but it would be better served by making three two hour movies, maybe 2:15, than three 2:45 movies. This one certainly had a good 30 minutes they could have trimmed without losing too much plot.

 

[MCC]

Well, they are adding in a bunch of material. There were long stretches in which Gandalf was gone during The Hobbit, and they are filling in those gaps by showing what he was doing. They've also added a subplot about an Orc warlord who is hell bent on killing Thorin and his entire line (he already killed his father).

I think they can do it, but it would be better served by making three two hour movies, maybe 2:15, than three 2:45 movies. This one certainly had a good 30 minutes they could have trimmed without losing too much plot.

The goblin warlord (goblins hold Moria, not the same kind of orcs from Mordor or the Uruk-hai created by Saruman - kind of a subtle difference for those who aren't Tolkien geeks) is Bolg. Bolg is the son of Azog, the goblin that killed Thror (Thorin's dad). Azog started the whole dwarf/goblin conflict in the north. If memory serves Azog lopped off Thror's head after torturing him and then rolled said head out to Thror's companion as a "message" to take back to the dwarves, essentially that the goblins now ruled Khazad-dum...

...and I'll now return to my basement lair to contemplate spells to cast on our opponents while I roll the 20-sided die to see if my charisma score can be increased.

(N.B. - I've been a Tolkien fan since the age of nine. I'm still obsessed with dinosaurs, too. At least I'm not a UConn fan ()).

 

[jekelish]

That could be true, but in the movie, the warlord chasing Thorin was most definitely an Orc. He was described throughout the film as "the pale Orc." So they altered that, at least.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

A

That could be true, but in the movie, the warlord chasing Thorin was most definitely an Orc. He was described throughout the film as "the pale Orc." So they altered that, at least.

ccording to my kids, the Pale Orc is referenced in the book, but not a character.

 

[MCC]

That could be true, but in the movie, the warlord chasing Thorin was most definitely an Orc. He was described throughout the film as "the pale Orc." So they altered that, at least.

Interesting. In the book Azog, Bolg, et al. are definitely referred to as goblins. Bolg would be the one chasing Thorin in the movie - Azog died a while before the events in the movie (like 150 years before). Doesn't matter much, as goblins are orcs, but not quite the same as the Mordor or Uruk-hai.

 

[MCC]

A
ccording to my kids, the Pale Orc is referenced in the book, but not a character.

In the book the Pale Orc would've been Azog - your kids are right, he's referenced but not a live character.

 

[jekelish]

Interesting. In the book Azog, Bolg, et al. are definitely referred to as goblins. Bolg would be the one chasing Thorin in the movie - Azog died a while before the events in the movie (like 150 years before). Doesn't matter much, as goblins are orcs, but not quite the same as the Mordor or Uruk-hai.

It is Azog in the movie. However, IMDb lists Bolg on the cast list for the second film.

 

[MCC]

It is Azog in the movie. However, IMDb lists Bolg on the cast list for the second film.

Wow - so they are covering events from a different battle as a preview to the current events in the Hobbit. I get it now. This makes sense if they are seeking to add in enough material / backstory to merit a trilogy. Thanks for the clarification.