My Hobbit review (Spoilers)

[Mr. Pedantic]

Loved the 48fps thing, looks much better to me than 24. Though I wish they'd take it up another notch and get it to 60 or 72, I can still see the individual frames.

The worst part was how they kept introducing villains into it, that werent even part of the movie!

Lets count:
ogres
goblins
elves (sorta villians, very little impact in this one)
orcs (led by the pale orc...wasnt he entirely made up?)
spiders (who were shown for a bit)
gollum (the highlight of the movie)
necromancer (not really in this movie)
smaug (not in movie either)
wargs, wargs and more wargs

Does a single movie really need 9 sets of villains? Couldnt they have just entirely left out the mention of the spiders, necromancer and smaug? They still had ogres, goblins, gollum and orcs. If the movies werent 3 hours they probably could have even shifted gollum to movie 2. Its so ridiculous there's even what felt like a 10 minute scene in rivendell where theyre talking to saruman (who doesnt belong!) about the necromancer - the end result is just him questioning the necromancer's existence....who even cares, he's not in the movie! Its that kind of thing that dragged it to such epic lengths.

I thought this set of movies is kind of explaining how the world of the Lord of the Rings comes about - why the dwarves hate the elves, how Sauron started coming back, what happened to Moria, etc.

 

[mnewsham]

I felt the 48FPS is actually really good, as I have said in the HFR 3D thread. As for the movie itself I felt it was really trying to give a good enough amount of back story so those who haven't read it could get into it, however in doing so they are taking a LONG time to do anything. So in some ways to me it felt like the book as I hated the first part of the book, dragged on forever to me.

 

[eits]

not sure what the hell people are whining about. the movie was awesome. it held close enough to the book that i wasn't upset about anything, the cg didn't bother me whatsoever because, although you could tell things were cg, they fit well into the storyline and things moved in a very lifelike manner, and the soundtrack was incredible.

you have to remember that this movie is the first of a trilogy, so there's a lot of character development and conflict development that needs to arise. that's exactly what happened. you see the beginning stages of a web that's being formed which is fully completed in rotk.

saying that there isn't enough content for three movies is ridiculous.

i absolutely loved this movie. i saw it thursday at midnight.

 

[GunsMadeAmericaFree]

More like 350 pages but yes stretching to three 3 hour films was an error IMO.

I strongly disagree. Consider that it probably took most folks about 9 hours to read the book. Even further, think about how long it would have taken to personally EXPERIENCE all of the story in real time - probably weeks, not days.

Things are already very highly compressed to get everything down to 9 hours in the theater. I don't consider this stretching at all. In any case, it is much better than leaving lots of things out like they did in the LOTR movies 10 years ago. Each book should have gotten 2 or 3 movies to be realistic. And if they are going to go over 3 hours, there needs to be an intermission built in - no matter what the movie theaters say. (they would sell more popcorn that way anyway)

 

[Markbnj]

I strongly disagree. Consider that it probably took most folks about 9 hours to read the book. Even further, think about how long it would have taken to personally EXPERIENCE all of the story in real time - probably weeks, not days.

Yeah, but you can't just ignore the medium. Real life is lived in real time, with interludes for stuff like sleep. Books are read in slices of a few pages to a few chapters at a time. Movies are watched through in one sitting. There is a limit to how long they can be, and there is some limit to how long a story they can tell. I still feel 3 hours is too long for a film without an intermission break, and I still feel there were not three good movies in "The Hobbit." Now, people have responded by noting all the history and backstory. All well and good. Most writers try to avoid excessive amounts of backflashing, but if they fill three movies with that and do it well I will watch all three. But it is in no way "ridiculous" to question making The Hobbit into the same number of movies as TLotR.

 

[BD2003]

Yeah, but you can't just ignore the medium. Real life is lived in real time, with interludes for stuff like sleep. Books are read in slices of a few pages to a few chapters at a time. Movies are watched through in one sitting. There is a limit to how long they can be, and there is some limit to how long a story they can tell. I still feel 3 hours is too long for a film without an intermission break, and I still feel there were not three good movies in "The Hobbit." Now, people have responded by noting all the history and backstory. All well and good. Most writers try to avoid excessive amounts of backflashing, but if they fill three movies with that and do it well I will watch all three. But it is in no way "ridiculous" to question making The Hobbit into the same number of movies as TLotR.

Yeah, I mean dont get me wrong. I really enjoyed the movie. But theyve already set the precedent of the extended cut DVDs - they should have kept that going forward. The place for that long drawn out saga is your home, not the theater.

I cant imagine they can possibly extend these films any more than they already have.

 

[HumblePie]

The worst part was how they kept introducing villains into it, that werent even part of the movie!

Lets count:
ogres
goblins
elves (sorta villians, very little impact in this one)
orcs (led by the pale orc...wasnt he entirely made up?)
spiders (who were shown for a bit)
gollum (the highlight of the movie)
necromancer (not really in this movie)
smaug (not in movie either)
wargs, wargs and more wargs

Does a single movie really need 9 sets of villains? Couldnt they have just entirely left out the mention of the spiders, necromancer and smaug? They still had ogres, goblins, gollum and orcs. If the movies werent 3 hours they probably could have even shifted gollum to movie 2. Its so ridiculous there's even what felt like a 10 minute scene in rivendell where theyre talking to saruman (who doesnt belong!) about the necromancer - the end result is just him questioning the necromancer's existence....who even cares, he's not in the movie! Its that kind of thing that dragged it to such epic lengths.

Yes in the book, tons of adversity was through their way when the band of dawrves + 1 burglar + 1 wizard are off to battle Smaug. Actually, there IS a reason for it as near the end you'll see many come together to try and fight a huge battle over the gold from the dwarven kingdom. There is a major reason for all this adversity as it is a setup for the LotR series.


Again, I REALLY liked that they aren't trimming down a whole lot from the original book by spanning this into 3 movies. There was just WAYYY to much crap left out in the original LotR that really pissed me off. Things like:

1) Why Aragorn was destined to be king? What is the significance of his name.
2) Why is Sauron a big bad ancient evil dude? Why is the ring really connected to him and his power. What were the true purpose of the nazguls?
3) Why did Sauron pick this time to come back?
4) Why did Saruman go insane and change from good to evil? What was the significance of the "colored" cloaks the wizard's wore?
5) Why were the elves, dwarves, and many other races in middleearth in a general state of decline?

There were these and SOOO much more that was never even touched upon. Objectively speaking, as a viewer of the movie only we have very little understanding of the main antagonist "Sauron" and what he was trying to accomplish. As a movie viewer we are basically told, this is the villian and he must be stopped. And the way to stop him is to destroy this ring in some volcano way over there. Why? We don't have time for all that. Just do it.

There was also a major lack of character development compared to the books. Why does legolas really join the fellowship as the only elf? All the interactions just felt way too forced because we were never really told everyone's motives.

Despite all that I liked the LotR movies, but I did not like them as much as I like the Hobbit. Unlike those movies, they aren't leaving much out here.

 

[Geosurface]

Sometimes less is more.

And I agree that the blu-rays were the place for the bloated version.

Btw, I've owned both theatrical and extended cuts of LOTR since it was possible, first on DVD now on blu-ray. I even paid the $150 years ago to get my name into the "super nerd fan credits" on the extended editions hehe.

I went to an oscar party for LOTR and met Peter Jackson, Ian McKellen, held an oscar... it was cool. I was as into those movies as a person could be.

But, when I watch them now... it is always the theatrical. Extended are simply too long.

I love the books, but film is a different medium and they don't have to be identical or include every single thing.

Much more concerning to me is matching the SPIRIT of the books, rather than the letter of them.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Yes in the book, tons of adversity was through their way when the band of dawrves + 1 burglar + 1 wizard are off to battle Smaug. Actually, there IS a reason for it as near the end you'll see many come together to try and fight a huge battle over the gold from the dwarven kingdom. There is a major reason for all this adversity as it is a setup for the LotR series.


Again, I REALLY liked that they aren't trimming down a whole lot from the original book by spanning this into 3 movies. There was just WAYYY to much crap left out in the original LotR that really pissed me off. Things like:

1) Why Aragorn was destined to be king? What is the significance of his name.
2) Why is Sauron a big bad ancient evil dude? Why is the ring really connected to him and his power. What were the true purpose of the nazguls?
3) Why did Sauron pick this time to come back?
4) Why did Saruman go insane and change from good to evil? What was the significance of the "colored" cloaks the wizard's wore?
5) Why were the elves, dwarves, and many other races in middleearth in a general state of decline?

There were these and SOOO much more that was never even touched upon. Objectively speaking, as a viewer of the movie only we have very little understanding of the main antagonist "Sauron" and what he was trying to accomplish. As a movie viewer we are basically told, this is the villian and he must be stopped. And the way to stop him is to destroy this ring in some volcano way over there. Why? We don't have time for all that. Just do it.

There was also a major lack of character development compared to the books. Why does legolas really join the fellowship as the only elf? All the interactions just felt way too forced because we were never really told everyone's motives.

Despite all that I liked the LotR movies, but I did not like them as much as I like the Hobbit. Unlike those movies, they aren't leaving much out here.

This.

 

[xSauronx]

not sure what the hell people are whining about. the movie was awesome. it held close enough to the book that i wasn't upset about anything, the cg didn't bother me whatsoever because, although you could tell things were cg, they fit well into the storyline and things moved in a very lifelike manner, and the soundtrack was incredible.

you have to remember that this movie is the first of a trilogy, so there's a lot of character development and conflict development that needs to arise. that's exactly what happened. you see the beginning stages of a web that's being formed which is fully completed in rotk.

saying that there isn't enough content for three movies is ridiculous.

i absolutely loved this movie. i saw it thursday at midnight.

it was fun, better than i expected but they did throw in a lot i wasnt expecting. the hobbit was one of my favorite books as a kid but i didnt hate anything enough to nitpick it to death. there were a couple changes/additions i didnt love, but whatever, i had a good time watching it

 

[kache]

i wish they'd stop making all these stupid 3d movies, it's so annoying

I wish they made the movies at 16k@1200fps 3D (or even without 3d) with 22.2 audio. It would make even shitty movies an experience.

 

[HeXen]

my wife said animals died while making the movie, she won't see it which means i'm not allowed as well apparently. just as well, trailer looked like crap and sounds like it's crap. Though i didn't care for LOTR's much, part 2 wasn't bad but part 3 looked so heavily edited and rushed, one thing to the next without seemingly finished...maybe the directors cut is more polished.
honestly i'd rather see something else similar done on the scale of LOTR movies without all the hobbit crying and whatnots. just not a fan of it's storyline so likely would hate Hobbit even moreso.

 

[Geosurface]

my wife said animals died while making the movie, she won't see it which means i'm not allowed as well apparently. just as well, trailer looked like crap and sounds like it's crap. Though i didn't care for LOTR's much, part 2 wasn't bad but part 3 looked so heavily edited and rushed, one thing to the next without seemingly finished...maybe the directors cut is more polished.
honestly i'd rather see something else similar done on the scale of LOTR movies without all the hobbit crying and whatnots. just not a fan of it's storyline so likely would hate Hobbit even moreso.

What animals does she think died during The Hobbit?

Everything's friggin' CGI.

Is she vegan?

Animals die, it's one of the things they do best.

 

[kache]

my wife said animals died while making the movie, she won't see it which means i'm not allowed as well apparently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4Kejdj-A34

 

[Geosurface]

So I looked up some info and here's a quote from The Independent.

In the production of The Hobbit, goats and sheep were reportedly corralled in crowded pens, kept on land full of burrows that caused them to lose their footing and exposed to a variety of other hazards from which they could not escape. Chickens, naturally timid birds, were left at the mercy of marauding dogs and were chased down and killed.

Four wranglers who worked on the set and saw animals being hurt and killed say that they repeatedly asked those with the power to take corrective action, but their concerns were ignored. Two horses were stampeded over steep embankments and died (one was found the following morning with a broken neck and her head submerged in water), one horse sustained a severe injury after being housed with other horses despite previous conflicts and sheep broke their legs in sinkholes.

All I can say is:

In Apocalypse Now they had some boar or something being macheted to death on screen.

Animals are dying constantly every day everywhere for us to eat, for other animals to eat, and of every other imaginable cause.

They also say in the article:

Animals ask for far less: simply to be able to live their lives, seek out small pleasures and basic pursuits and go about their business without being captured and controlled, tormented and slaughtered.

Hahaha, animals barely even do anything we would consider thinking in most cases.

I personally find what the Japanese do to dolphins repugnant and when I watched "The Cove" I was disgusted.

But chickens and sheep and shit? C'mon now.

Good lord we live in a feminized, pussified world anymore.

 

[Ferzerp]

Watched this today.

I wasn't impressed, and I loved LOTRO.

I've read all the books in the past.

 

[Chiropteran]

A long time ago I read the hobbit. I tried to read the lord of the rings trilogy, but never got into it and stopped early on in the first book.

I enjoyed the lord of the rings movies, but I didn't think they were all that. It seemed like nothing at all happened during the first movie, for example.

When I heard about the hobbit movie, I didn't expect much- I remember reading the book and thought it was fairly simple and short and had a hard time imagining it being split into a 3 part movie series.

However, I was wrong. I saw the Hobbit today, and was very impressed. The added details and scenes really fit well, and helped me understand the back-story of everything. The story is well interspersed between character development and dialog and action. The dwarfs are not just comic relief, which was such a huge annoyance to me in the lord of the rings movies how Gimli was basically treated as a sad joke.

All in all, I liked the movie more than I thought I would. I do think that some of the slower parts could be cut, but the lord of the rings movies suffer from the exact same flaw so I can't fault the hobbit for that. I *like* the fact that it adds things that were missing from the book, because ultimately a good book doesn't always translate perfectly into a good movie, some adjustments can make for a net positive change.

 

[HeXen]

What animals does she think died during The Hobbit?

Everything's friggin' CGI.

Is she vegan?

Animals die, it's one of the things they do best.

maybe from here
http://www.chicagotribune.com/enter...bit-animalsbre8ak12i-20121121,0,2459255.story

 

[Red Storm]

Saw the movie again last night. This time in HFR 3D. Big difference. I really liked the high frame rate. You can actually see what's going on at every point in the movie, even during the fast action sequences. I'm getting tired of all the shaky cam ghosting that every movie seems to be using now during action scenes, the Hobbit was a welcome change from that. I hope more movies use it going forward.

 

[Markbnj]

1) Why Aragorn was destined to be king? What is the significance of his name.
2) Why is Sauron a big bad ancient evil dude? Why is the ring really connected to him and his power. What were the true purpose of the nazguls?
3) Why did Sauron pick this time to come back?
4) Why did Saruman go insane and change from good to evil? What was the significance of the "colored" cloaks the wizard's wore?
5) Why were the elves, dwarves, and many other races in middleearth in a general state of decline?

I'm no filmmaker, but I can't think of a way to get all that backstory in without a lot of exposition (characters talking to one and other), or narrated flashbacks like the one that opened TLotR. Frankly, too much of that would really bloat and slow a film, and in fact Tolkien didn't spend tons of time on it in the main narrative of any of his books. It gets in the way of telling a good story, and properly belongs in appendices or expansions that fans can seek out if they want to know more.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I thought the movie was pretty good but have to admit that in the last 30 minutes or so I was ready to go. Maybe I'm just getting old and can't sit in a theatre chair that long anymore. With that said I do plan to try the 48fps out just because I'm interested in seeing the tech.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Also, people really need to stop comparing the book directly to the movie. This is NOT the Hobbit. It's the Hobbit plus a lot of appendix information, unfinished tales, etc. that are meant to bridge the gap in the story between what is in the Hobbit novel and the Lord of the Rings novels. Comparing the Hobbit book length to the length of the movie and calling that silly is just showing ignorance to this fact.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I'm no filmmaker, but I can't think of a way to get all that backstory in without a lot of exposition (characters talking to one and other), or narrated flashbacks like the one that opened TLotR. Frankly, too much of that would really bloat and slow a film, and in fact Tolkien didn't spend tons of time on it in the main narrative of any of his books. It gets in the way of telling a good story, and properly belongs in appendices or expansions that fans can seek out if they want to know more.

To be honest, I really thought the appendices really explained a lot of what was happening, and it would have been much more convenient for me to have just read the stuff in the main narrative rather than flipping right to the back of a 1000-page book every few minutes.

 

[ioni]

Just saw it tonight. The only thing that was wrong with is was it wasn't 5 hours long. Can't wait to see the next one! The 48 FPS was great. I didn't thing FPS mattered for this, but there is now finally a 3D movie that doesn't look like a blurry mess.

 

[Wag]

Caught it in IMAX 3D 24fps (5 story screen) and I thought the best part of the movie was the 9min Star Trek: Into Darkness preview that ran before it.

Thought the movie was good, but a bit long. Not sure what the hell they're going to do to fill up the next 2 movies.

Oh, and way too much Radagast. Way, way, too much Radagast...