I enjoyed watching The Hobbit. Yes it's long, that's the only downside of it but the original movies were long as well. These movies provide some great stage-setting for the later LOTR movies. I did watch The Hobbit in regular 2d not the 2x frame speed because I'd seen the negative reviews. I thought it looked fine.
The people in the theater I saw it with (mostly kids) had a collective sense of disasspointment at the end when they see the Lonely mountain still far off in the distance. The crowd wanted a defintive ending to their (long) action packed journey in this one movie. When they saw these character's are still a long way from being finished with their tasks their need for instant gratification wasn't satisfied.
If you have read the book, this advice may have some special meaning: be careful what you wish for because when you get it, it may not be what you thought you wanted. You have to be prepared to let it go and realize the journey is what's special - not the ending.
I think the next two movies are going to be good and I can say with some confidence from the character's foreshadowing in this movie that the ending of the hobbit trilogy won't be altered from the book like the ending of LOTR movies left out the scouring of the shire and if Peter Jackson does it right it will really impact the crowd who look for instant gratification.
I second that wholeheartedly! If you haven't seen/read Mrs Frisby/Brisby und das Geheimnis von Nihm, you haven't lived!
I might be the only person in the world that prefers the book over the movie, actually, but I still think it's a very good film.
I cannot quite remember which one I preferred back then, 30 years ago. But I will always remember that movie fondly since I saw it the only time I ever visited Bayreuth, on an evening when there was no performance in the Festspielhaus.
Having seen the movie in HFR 3D and normal 3D, I strongly suggest to all who have not seen the movie yet, to watch it in HFR 3D. The quality is much better with the 48 fps and it also feels more natural with minimum blur and greater clarity. As for the movie itself, I really liked it and I can't wait for the next 2 movies. The movie is not 100% true to the book, but has some changes that, in my opinion, are not so important as in making me dislike them. My only objection, as I have many times before said, is the human-like appearance of the majority of the company of the dwarves. All who supported this decision of PJ, said that will help the audience to get to know them and distinguish them. Unfortunately, most of the dwarves only speak once or twice in the movie (Bombur never said a single line in all the movie!), and you get no info about their personality, so the audience will only see them as some dwarves following Thorin... How can it be that all dwarves in all movies of PJ (Gimli, the dwarves in the prologue of FOTR, dwarves in Council of Elrond, dwarves in the flashback in the beginning of Hobbit AUJ) seem very dwarvish, except the majority of the company of 13 dwarves of the Hobbit? This seems very strange to me.
Just get prepared to be dissapointed you will need to wait another year for part 2.
Probably the biggest issue with the movie right there. Three hours long and it doesn't even get to some of the best parts. (Gollum scene was fantastic though)
Not sure what to think about 3D. When it wasn't working it was very immersion breaking. I thought the film was great, my only qualm would be Peter Jackson's love of over the top action sequences.
The first 15 minutes alone were worth the entry ticket to me. After the atrocious treatment of Gimli in the LotR, I was happy to see Dwarfs be Dwarfs and be lousy with gold and riches, living in giant halls with massive carved statues, going deep into the mountain. It was a beauty to behold. Later on, there's a massive dwarf-on-goblin battle with armoured dwarven phalanx and the slaughter of everything that moves and is beardless and it's glorious, I felt so proud.
Bilbo is a likable chap and the setting and story are awesome, going through many diffent locations. Therein lies one of the few main issues though; it often feels like not just a story for children but told by one; "and then they ran into trolls, and then then into giants, and then into goblins, and then they fell, and then there were more goblins, and then gollem, and then goblins, and then orks and then..." You catch my drift. Meanwhile, Gandalf is practicly abused as a life saving plot device, being the fix-all to every nasty situation. And as a final critisism, because of the number of dwarves (some with hardly any beards, for shame) they don't really flesh out as characters. A number don't have any lines, or only 1-2 and most feel like they don't really contribute anything. Even Thorin's character is fairly one-note, but the guy playing him does a good job and makes him a good badass. The old gray dwarf Balin is a good runner up for important dwarfs, but then it quickly trickles down to true sidecharacter filler with little to no personality (aside from 'the deaf dwarf', 'the fat dwarf', 'the young dwarf', etc). Of course, this was also partially Tolkien's fault for lacking in the character development writing department (ducks to avoid rocks from fans) but I still would've liked to see a little more. Still, awesome movie, loved it, going to see it again soon with all the bells and whistles and the final 10 seconds of the movie got me all excited for part 2.
First conclusion; I will not watch movies in 3D in theathres again unless they upgrade the equipment (glasses & 3d technology in general), HFR or not, it sucks. Heavy on eyes, headache, cumbersome glasses and it brings nothing new to the movie.
Now, the movie itself? A major effing disappointment.
Since when has the Witch King been called a "Necromancer"? Only Sauron held that title... They also ruined Radagast's character IMO. And how come Gandalf didn't know about Mirkwood already being FUBAR? Surely he... should've known?
Now, I must give good reviews for the beginning of the movie, how Erebor was shown and how it fell was quite good, but all action in the movie was horrible. Also - dwarves blocking arrows with swords & ladders.
Now, I'm a huge Middle-Earth/LOTR fan.. but this.. well, once the extended edition comes out, I'll watch it and then probably not again for a good -long- while.
The scenery and 90% of the music was beautiful, but the geographical derp moments left me confused.
Also: Wargs spot dwarves, distance about 200 meters? Dwarves run for what seems to be minutes (30? 60?) before wargs catch up. Excuse me?
At the end of the movie I grew tired of the whole horrible action/combat scene and just wanted it to be over so I could get out!
What were Galadriel and Saruman doing in Imladris? They have no -place- there! Also.. what the hell was that with Galadriel magically disappearing?
Now, I could give our director credit for adding Frodo cameo there. That was quite well done, really, felt natural.
I don't think they were saying the Necromancer was the Witch King, they were just stalking about the blade Radagast took out of the fortress.
This is how I understood it as well. It makes sense if he was gathering power and form again he would start with summoning his major flunkies to his side..
@Sily I don't think they confused the witch-king with the necromancer, they were clearly shown as two separate characters.
-The white council: should they be somewhere else? -Action scenes: I agree, for such a long film we should have more plot and character building, rather than mindless special effects.
Yes sauron was only the necromancer in the hobbit. He was called the "Lord of Werewolves" in the first age. In the Second Age he assumed the name Annatar, which means "Lord of Gifts" In the Third Age he was known for a time as the Necromancer of Dol Guldur before his true identity was still unknown.
Other tales involving Sauron are in the Silmarillion where he is able to shapeshift (his is of the order powerful spirits). He has a battle with Huan the wolf-hound who defeats Sauron while he's shapeshifted to a giant wolf (he escapes as a giant vampire bat) as part of the tale of Beren and Luthien (this is somewhat mentioned in the FOTR:EE where Frodo asks who the woman Aaragorn is singing about - Luthien).
In the Second Age, Sauron became a handsome man, Annatar the lord of gifts, where he gives out the rings to help the races while withholding the controlling one ring. He whispered ill council and whatnot and ensured the Numenoreans got too proud for their britches leading to their island being destroyed by the gods in an Atlantean style event. Aargorn's ancestors escaped the calamity and settled on middle earth. Sauron was unable to take a pleasing appearance or veil his power again after his fair form was destroyed as part of this event and ever after a terrible lord.
After his defeat by Isildur as shown in the Fellowship of the Ring prologue he wanders off as a spirit /essence of evil and re-gathers himself as the Necromancer at Dol Guldur on the intriguingly named Isle of Werewolves.
Neither Saruman nor Galadriel play any role in the story. I saw no reason for adding them in (except for throwing more familiar faces at the audience.)
19. When Bilbo is snatched up in the claws of the eagles, he is frightened and the eagles speak to him, reassuring him that it is a clear, beautiful day—the perfect time to fly. In the film, the eagles don’t speak, and he mounts the back of an eagle, which carries him to safety. At the close of the film, Bilbo is no longer Tolkien’s flawed protagonist, but Jackson’s Hollywood hobbit with all the action hero trimmings—John Wayne’s sunset and an eagle as his loyal steed.
@Sily There are many things that weren't in the book, it has been effectively rewritten to be a clearer prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy - hence the inclusion of the white council.
I'm sure I wasn't the only one to watch it, ticking off a mental checklist of my favourite lines and scenes. But I wouldn't make the mistake of rating the film, based on how closely it followed the book - We've already had three films from this director telling us that would be a mistake!
@Sily There are many things that weren't in the book, it has been effectively rewritten to be a clearer prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy - hence the inclusion of the white council.
I'm sure I wasn't the only one to watch it, ticking off a mental checklist of my favourite lines and scenes. But I wouldn't make the mistake of rating the film, based on how closely it followed the book - We've already had three films from this director telling us that would be a mistake!
I know just fine that Peter Jackson likes to pull his own ideas into the movie, and am completely fine with that. And I am -NOT- rating the movie on how closely it followed the book, I'm rating it as what it is.
For me the movie was dull and bad except for a few moments. Hell, I loved LOTR movies, even with all what Jackson added there.
I saw the movie in HFR 3D and I personally think it was awesome! HFR makes a world of difference IMO, it changes (in a good way) your perception of the whole movie VERY MUCH. Of coure, the movie itself has it's flaws (like everything in this world, it's not perfect!) but despite that I enjoyed every single scene! The dwarven city in particular was amazing! There are some scenes and storylines that aren't by the book, but they are necessary for the film to relate successfully to LOTR as a prequel. IMO they fit in very well because they don't change in any way the original story, but also even make it more colourful and rich. A thing I didn't like about the film was that it was a bit childish and not as dark as LOTR, but then i figured that Peter Jackson clearly wanted to stick to the original style and story of the book. Hence - the different design of some of the characters, items and environments. I can only recommend that every fantasy fan watches the movie so that they can form their own opinion about it because it's the type of movie that you either love or hate. Personally, I loved it!
As with the Star Wars prequels, I have pledged to myself never to watch this monstrosity of a movie. I cherish the memory of reading the book too much to taint it with this crass commercialism cash-in.
My wife & I saw the film on opening night & I thought it could have been much worse. It didn't quite meet my expectations, but as those were astronomical, I was realistic about them not being met. Other than the 3D glasses being extremely uncomfortable (doubly so because I wear normal glasses), the effect was at least as good as Avatar, with very few 'viewmaster' scenes. The 48fps was excellent and it only took a few minutes for my eyes to adjust. But apparently this is a tremendously subjective experience, YMMV. As to the adaption of the book, I think it was more faithful than The Fellowship of the Ring, but that was to be expected, considering how relatively short the story is.
The Hobbit as a book simply isn't as strong as LOTR, so it would be difficult to make the film better than Fellowship, but I thought Jackson did well enough with the material. Minus the plethora of over-the-top action sequences! Some were appropriate, though I didn't envision the Storm Giants as big rocks, the scale of that sequence seemed right. The Goblin caves however, were way overdone & the scene took too long.
I didn't mind most of the additions, though Radagast's 'Bunny Sled' was weak. I appreciated the White Council sequence, it's simply an elaboration of something Tolkien already established and I'm sure that the 2nd film will have a *big* action set-piece of the fight to expunge the Necromancer from Dol Guldur. Again, okay with that (as long as some restraint is exercised. Jackson needs an editor willing to tell him "No.") because it did happen in the book, it was just done in a few sentences.
Performance-wise I think everyone did well with what they were given. Martin Freeman nailed Bilbo, Ian McKellen of course portrayed Gandalf very well. Richard Armitage pleasantly surprised me as Thorin, even though it was obvious they were trying to make him a dwarvish Aragorn.
So, all in all, worth seeing again and I'm interested to see what happens with the next chapter.
The rabbit sledge is cool. Because it is pulled by giant rabbits. In a world with giant eagles and spiders, and talking birds and wolves, giant rabbits are not out of place to me.
The only thing I'm not too much in favour of is the goblin caves; there was a bit too much action and slapstick-like stunts there, in my opinion. The goblin king could have a bit less goofy and more threatening, too.
Azog is quite intriguing. He obviously looks quite different than other orcs and his pale skin, scars and small eyes reminded me of a sperm whale of sorts - and he is the hated nemesis of Thorin. I wonder if that is meant to be a nod to Moby Dick.
I disliked it. It looks great and all, but that's really not what I care about. I didn't mind the ending being at the end of some chapter somewhere without finishing the story either, and I had no problem with the movie being 3 hours. What damned this movie for me though, was the forced insertions of hollywood tropes. It's not even that they replace parts of the book, it's that they replace parts of the book with parts of stupid. There just had to be a non-existing comic relief sidekick (Radagast), there had to be a beautiful fallen hero (Thorin), there had to be a moment where our protagonist steps up to save the day (Bilbo at the the ridiculous Final Scene Great Battle), there had to be Super Bad Guy to fight the fallen hero (Azog), there had to be dumb one-liners, there had to be excessive action scenes which included people fighting as if they'd have spent the last 60 years training martial arts 40 hours a week (seriously, a handful of dwarves killing approximately a gazillion goblins? Why can't they just retake Moria with a couple of hundred guys if they're that good?).
Also, as we all know, Gandalf shouldn't be able to dual wield a quarterstaff + long sword since quarterstaves are two-handed weapons.
Comments
The people in the theater I saw it with (mostly kids) had a collective sense of disasspointment at the end when they see the Lonely mountain still far off in the distance. The crowd wanted a defintive ending to their (long) action packed journey in this one movie. When they saw these character's are still a long way from being finished with their tasks their need for instant gratification wasn't satisfied.
If you have read the book, this advice may have some special meaning: be careful what you wish for because when you get it, it may not be what you thought you wanted. You have to be prepared to let it go and realize the journey is what's special - not the ending.
I think the next two movies are going to be good and I can say with some confidence from the character's foreshadowing in this movie that the ending of the hobbit trilogy won't be altered from the book like the ending of LOTR movies left out the scouring of the shire and if Peter Jackson does it right it will really impact the crowd who look for instant gratification.
To Dungeons Deep and Caverns Old
The Pines were Roaring on The Heights
The Winds were Moaning in the Night
The Fire was Red, it Flaming Spread
The Trees Like Torches Blazed with Light
Just get prepared to be dissapointed you will need to wait another year for part 2.
As for the movie itself, I really liked it and I can't wait for the next 2 movies. The movie is not 100% true to the book, but has some changes that, in my opinion, are not so important as in making me dislike them.
My only objection, as I have many times before said, is the human-like appearance of the majority of the company of the dwarves. All who supported this decision of PJ, said that will help the audience to get to know them and distinguish them. Unfortunately, most of the dwarves only speak once or twice in the movie (Bombur never said a single line in all the movie!), and you get no info about their personality, so the audience will only see them as some dwarves following Thorin... How can it be that all dwarves in all movies of PJ (Gimli, the dwarves in the prologue of FOTR, dwarves in Council of Elrond, dwarves in the flashback in the beginning of Hobbit AUJ) seem very dwarvish, except the majority of the company of 13 dwarves of the Hobbit? This seems very strange to me.
I thought the film was great, my only qualm would be Peter Jackson's love of over the top action sequences.
The trolls were awesome.
The first 15 minutes alone were worth the entry ticket to me. After the atrocious treatment of Gimli in the LotR, I was happy to see Dwarfs be Dwarfs and be lousy with gold and riches, living in giant halls with massive carved statues, going deep into the mountain. It was a beauty to behold. Later on, there's a massive dwarf-on-goblin battle with armoured dwarven phalanx and the slaughter of everything that moves and is beardless and it's glorious, I felt so proud.
Bilbo is a likable chap and the setting and story are awesome, going through many diffent locations. Therein lies one of the few main issues though; it often feels like not just a story for children but told by one; "and then they ran into trolls, and then then into giants, and then into goblins, and then they fell, and then there were more goblins, and then gollem, and then goblins, and then orks and then..."
You catch my drift. Meanwhile, Gandalf is practicly abused as a life saving plot device, being the fix-all to every nasty situation. And as a final critisism, because of the number of dwarves (some with hardly any beards, for shame) they don't really flesh out as characters. A number don't have any lines, or only 1-2 and most feel like they don't really contribute anything. Even Thorin's character is fairly one-note, but the guy playing him does a good job and makes him a good badass. The old gray dwarf Balin is a good runner up for important dwarfs, but then it quickly trickles down to true sidecharacter filler with little to no personality (aside from 'the deaf dwarf', 'the fat dwarf', 'the young dwarf', etc).
Of course, this was also partially Tolkien's fault for lacking in the character development writing department (ducks to avoid rocks from fans) but I still would've liked to see a little more.
Still, awesome movie, loved it, going to see it again soon with all the bells and whistles and the final 10 seconds of the movie got me all excited for part 2.
Heartily recommended.
First conclusion; I will not watch movies in 3D in theathres again unless they upgrade the equipment (glasses & 3d technology in general), HFR or not, it sucks. Heavy on eyes, headache, cumbersome glasses and it brings nothing new to the movie.
Now, the movie itself? A major effing disappointment.
Since when has the Witch King been called a "Necromancer"? Only Sauron held that title... They also ruined Radagast's character IMO. And how come Gandalf didn't know about Mirkwood already being FUBAR? Surely he... should've known?
Now, I must give good reviews for the beginning of the movie, how Erebor was shown and how it fell was quite good, but all action in the movie was horrible. Also - dwarves blocking arrows with swords & ladders.
Now, I'm a huge Middle-Earth/LOTR fan.. but this.. well, once the extended edition comes out, I'll watch it and then probably not again for a good -long- while.
The scenery and 90% of the music was beautiful, but the geographical derp moments left me confused.
Also: Wargs spot dwarves, distance about 200 meters? Dwarves run for what seems to be minutes (30? 60?) before wargs catch up. Excuse me?
At the end of the movie I grew tired of the whole horrible action/combat scene and just wanted it to be over so I could get out!
What were Galadriel and Saruman doing in Imladris? They have no -place- there! Also.. what the hell was that with Galadriel magically disappearing?
Now, I could give our director credit for adding Frodo cameo there. That was quite well done, really, felt natural.
I also find the 3D thing super tacky and irritating. But why did you see it in 3D if you don't like it?
-The white council: should they be somewhere else?
-Action scenes: I agree, for such a long film we should have more plot and character building, rather than mindless special effects.
Other tales involving Sauron are in the Silmarillion where he is able to shapeshift (his is of the order powerful spirits). He has a battle with Huan the wolf-hound who defeats Sauron while he's shapeshifted to a giant wolf (he escapes as a giant vampire bat) as part of the tale of Beren and Luthien (this is somewhat mentioned in the FOTR:EE where Frodo asks who the woman Aaragorn is singing about - Luthien).
In the Second Age, Sauron became a handsome man, Annatar the lord of gifts, where he gives out the rings to help the races while withholding the controlling one ring. He whispered ill council and whatnot and ensured the Numenoreans got too proud for their britches leading to their island being destroyed by the gods in an Atlantean style event. Aargorn's ancestors escaped the calamity and settled on middle earth. Sauron was unable to take a pleasing appearance or veil his power again after his fair form was destroyed as part of this event and ever after a terrible lord.
After his defeat by Isildur as shown in the Fellowship of the Ring prologue he wanders off as a spirit /essence of evil and re-gathers himself as the Necromancer at Dol Guldur on the intriguingly named Isle of Werewolves.
Because I thought that it would be worth my while to give that HFR a chance.. which I now regret. A grave mistake.
@Moomintroll
Neither Saruman nor Galadriel play any role in the story. I saw no reason for adding them in (except for throwing more familiar faces at the audience.)
This article gave me some wonderful laughs..
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/14/the-hobbit-19-changes-from-j-r-r-tolkien-s-novel-to-peter-jackson-s-movie.html
Especially the last change.
19. When Bilbo is snatched up in the claws of the eagles, he is frightened and the eagles speak to him, reassuring him that it is a clear, beautiful day—the perfect time to fly. In the film, the eagles don’t speak, and he mounts the back of an eagle, which carries him to safety. At the close of the film, Bilbo is no longer Tolkien’s flawed protagonist, but Jackson’s Hollywood hobbit with all the action hero trimmings—John Wayne’s sunset and an eagle as his loyal steed.
I'm sure I wasn't the only one to watch it, ticking off a mental checklist of my favourite lines and scenes. But I wouldn't make the mistake of rating the film, based on how closely it followed the book - We've already had three films from this director telling us that would be a mistake!
For me the movie was dull and bad except for a few moments. Hell, I loved LOTR movies, even with all what Jackson added there.
Of coure, the movie itself has it's flaws (like everything in this world, it's not perfect!) but despite that I enjoyed every single scene! The dwarven city in particular was amazing! There are some scenes and storylines that aren't by the book, but they are necessary for the film to relate successfully to LOTR as a prequel. IMO they fit in very well because they don't change in any way the original story, but also even make it more colourful and rich. A thing I didn't like about the film was that it was a bit childish and not as dark as LOTR, but then i figured that Peter Jackson clearly wanted to stick to the original style and story of the book. Hence - the different design of some of the characters, items and environments.
I can only recommend that every fantasy fan watches the movie so that they can form their own opinion about it because it's the type of movie that you either love or hate. Personally, I loved it!
The Hobbit as a book simply isn't as strong as LOTR, so it would be difficult to make the film better than Fellowship, but I thought Jackson did well enough with the material. Minus the plethora of over-the-top action sequences! Some were appropriate, though I didn't envision the Storm Giants as big rocks, the scale of that sequence seemed right. The Goblin caves however, were way overdone & the scene took too long.
I didn't mind most of the additions, though Radagast's 'Bunny Sled' was weak. I appreciated the White Council sequence, it's simply an elaboration of something Tolkien already established and I'm sure that the 2nd film will have a *big* action set-piece of the fight to expunge the Necromancer from Dol Guldur. Again, okay with that (as long as some restraint is exercised. Jackson needs an editor willing to tell him "No.") because it did happen in the book, it was just done in a few sentences.
Performance-wise I think everyone did well with what they were given. Martin Freeman nailed Bilbo, Ian McKellen of course portrayed Gandalf very well. Richard Armitage pleasantly surprised me as Thorin, even though it was obvious they were trying to make him a dwarvish Aragorn.
So, all in all, worth seeing again and I'm interested to see what happens with the next chapter.
The rabbit sledge is cool. Because it is pulled by giant rabbits. In a world with giant eagles and spiders, and talking birds and wolves, giant rabbits are not out of place to me.
The only thing I'm not too much in favour of is the goblin caves; there was a bit too much action and slapstick-like stunts there, in my opinion. The goblin king could have a bit less goofy and more threatening, too.
Azog is quite intriguing. He obviously looks quite different than other orcs and his pale skin, scars and small eyes reminded me of a sperm whale of sorts - and he is the hated nemesis of Thorin. I wonder if that is meant to be a nod to Moby Dick.
Also, as we all know, Gandalf shouldn't be able to dual wield a quarterstaff + long sword since quarterstaves are two-handed weapons.