# The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey reactions (SPOILERS)



## Krug (Dec 13, 2012)

So what did folks think of the first installment in The Hobbit Trilogy?


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 13, 2012)

Allow me to be the first to comment on this film. 

As the first part in a trilogy, this movie is not as good as _The Fellowship of the Ring_. While Peter Jackson manages to conjure some fantastic visuals and get some great performances from his actors, he loads the movie with unnecessary filler that slows the films pacing to a crawl, thus making this movie feel like three hours.

But don't fret, this isn't a disaster of _The Phantom Menace_ proportions. Jackson's is a smarter director than that, but it's still a slight disappointment over what came before it.

Let's get to the good stuff first. Martin Freeman is *perfect *as Bilbo. I've no complaints whatsoever on his performance. The same goes for Andy Serkis returning as Gollum. And would you believe it? The advances in CG and motion capture technology have made him more realistic and lifelike than ever before. The subtle change in expressions that Serkis pulls off are even more believable than they were in _LOTR_. Just watch how Freeman and Serkis play the Riddles in the Dark scene, which is fantastic. And then there's Mckellen as Gandalf, who somehow tops his performance in _LOTR _by bringing back a key element to The Grey Pilgrim that was absent before, that of being a sly manipulator. Richard Armitage also does fine as Thorin Oakenshield, bringing noble bearing and stubbornness to his portrayal. And speaking of dwarves, I never expected Jackson would be able to top the prologue from Fellowship, but the fall of Erebor does just that. It's an incredible sequence.

But now let's get into the downside here. This movie feels LONG. Where Fellowship moved at a brisk pace, this film is bogged down by fluff that could have been left at the cutting room floor. The inclusion of the subplot regarding the Necromancer don't add anything to the film, nor does the inclusion of new material that Tolkien never wrote, like Radgast. Even the cameos of _LOTR _regulars like Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman feel glaringly out of place, or the scene between the Elder Bilbo and Frodo in the prologue. For me, the best stuff in the movie are those that are closest to Tolkien's book. It would have been better had the movie just focused on Bilbo and the Dwarves.

So, there be my thoughts. While I still think this is solid fantasy film, it could have been so much better.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Dec 13, 2012)

Saw it this morning and really enjoyed it.

I hear what you're saying about the length of the film, but I disagree. I really enjoyed the length of the film and the depth and detail that was put into it. Jackson, to me, is trying to set the Hobbit in a wider context and tie it into the LotR films in a way the book doesn't.

The foreshadowing of the spiders, Radaghast, and the involvement of Galadriel was all good fun. True, it slowed this film down a little but I think it'll really pay off in the second or third film.


----------



## Sammael (Dec 13, 2012)

The only scene I felt was completely out of place was the Old Bilbo/Frodo one (before the party). It felt forced, and while I understand Jackson used it to connect LOTR to the Hobbit, I think there were other ways to accomplish that. 

The White Council meeting in Rivendell was alright, but its inclusion probably resulted in the exclusion of other scenes - like Bilbo wandering around the Homestead, enchanted by the elves' music, making acquaintances and so on. I think that scene would have been pivotal to explaining the connection between Bilbo and the elves in LOTR - and I can only hope it will be included in the extended version.

I disliked Radagast's scenes because he was portrayed as... well... an idiot. The stick insect thing in particular was grating. Also, being one of the Istari, he should not have been as afraid of Dol Guldur. Still, the foreshadowing in those scenes was pretty important, and will help with establishing the mood of Mirkwood in the second part of the film.

Overall, 8/10 from me - could have used some better pacing, and some of the dwarves did not receive enough characterization, but still very enjoyable. In some ways, it was better that FOTR. In others... not so much.

Effects were great too, but I was really pissed about the endless scenery drops in Goblintown which were too "extreme" for my liking. Goblin King looked too much like Wormtongue for some reason.

And the Erebor/Moria flashback scenes were fantastic, easily on par with the FOTR intro.


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 14, 2012)

Sammael said:


> The White Council meeting in Rivendell was alright, but its inclusion probably resulted in the exclusion of other scenes - like Bilbo wandering around the Homestead, enchanted by the elves' music, making acquaintances and so on. I think that scene would have been pivotal to explaining the connection between Bilbo and the elves in LOTR - and I can only hope it will be included in the extended version.



That for me is the biggest problem with the film. This is Bilbo's story, the focus should be on him and his journey of discovery. But here he doesn't get much screentime as he should, and the film seems to focus rather on extraneous events and characters that could have been left out. It's a damn shame, since Martin Freeman plays him so well and could have carried the film easily.

The LOTR film trilogy at very least never took it's focus off of Frodo, despite the various subplots.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 14, 2012)

My experience was different to that of Horacethegrey, and more like that of others who have posted thus far - I didn't find that the film 'felt' long or bogged down at any stage (in fact I rather like the few action films recently that have dared to have dialog sections rather than action -action-action all the way, even though I saw critics label them as 'long').

What I liked about the film was that it didn't feel to me as though he was inventing new plot, nor changing it as much as he changed in Fellowship of the Ring. I recognised all the essential elements from the story, but painted on a bigger canvas, or with some extra detail put in there.

I already feel that the dwarves show more characterisation than they received in the book (a pretty difficult task at any time). I liked the lighter hearted feel at the council with Elrond, as they don't have the Ring hanging over them at this time. I thought the script plus Freeman are doing an excellent job of showing the slow transformation of Bilbo from a homebody to a hero. I also think it is great that they are building up the respect between him and Thorin [sblock]which will make their eventual falling out all the more tragic[/sblock]

The only thing I mildly disliked were the rock giant scene which felt over-done, and the heavy handed musical themes to telegraph emotional content (a al LotR). Oh look, Bilbo is doing something good. Let's have the hobbit theme.

Cheers


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 14, 2012)

I liked it very much, having just got back from an IMAX 3D showing of it.  Great fun and looking forward to the remaining films as well!


----------



## Zaukrie (Dec 15, 2012)

My entire family want to the midnight show. We all enjoyed it, we all agreed it was not as good as the LotR movies. There were some over the top, no way to suspend my disbelief, moments for me and my wife, but there were more good points than bad. I never felt like it dragged at all, though I can see how others would want a shorter movie.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 15, 2012)

Much as others, I saw _The Hobbit_ today and quite enjoyed it, though it left me disappointed that we have to wait 18 months to get to the end of the story.

Pros:
- Martin Freeman great as Bilbo
- The dwarves are interesting, each with a unique character and personality
- Serkis as Gollum, again
- Great music, especially the haunting dwarves' song
- Evokes the Jackson Middle Earth feel quite well
- Some of the added material from the "Quest of Erebor" story and dwarves' backstory was well done
- Goblintown

Cons:
- Jackson needs a new editor; the movie drags a bit, particularly at the beginning, which could have been tightened up a bit.  My wife about fell asleep before getting out the door; some of the front end and subsequent scenes could have been traded to get the whole series down into two long movies
- Didn't need the Bilbo-Frodo opening sequence
- Jackson needs to refrain from unnecessary embellishment.  For example: the Radagast scenes,the giant sequence, and the Azog/Warg scenes prior to Rivendell are unnecessary.  The Rivendell scene could have sufficed to introduce the Dol Guldur plot point, and even if we wanted to introduce the canonically-incorrect Azog  (which, I'll admit, will be a nice setting for the climax of the Battle of the Five Armies), the "Out of the Frying Pan" sequence would have sufficed for the "surprise" reveal.  Radagast was unwelcome comic relief, too
- Tone loses a bit of the light heart of the novel, which I'd be OK with if it was traded for drama; instead it went a little too much action blockbuster.

Acknowledging that this is the first act of a three-act sequence, which may forgive some early sins, I'd give it a B+ overall.  It's very much the Hobbit, just gone a little too Hollywood to be perfect.


----------



## Asmo (Dec 15, 2012)

This movie reminded me in a deep and profound way why I love fantasy and roleplaying. I sat with a big, happy smile during the whole movie. Thank you, Peter Jackson and crew, for bringing magic back to the screens once again.

Asmo


----------



## Zaukrie (Dec 15, 2012)

I did not like the giant scene at all...but I liked Radaghast quite a bit, actually. That's the difficulty of art, right?


----------



## Sammael (Dec 15, 2012)

Saw it again tonight (just not in 3D). The introductory part (first hour or so) seemed _much_ longer than on the first viewing. My friends who saw it with me (and fans of Tolkien's work in general) did not like it very much, they sad it was too long, with too many pointless scenes, and that roughly 50% of the movie could have been cut without much loss. I heard a lot of people in the theater comment that the movie sucked except for the soundtrack.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 16, 2012)

Just came back from seeing it.  Did not feel overlong to me while I was in it, however, I don't think it would have done any harm at all to have trimmed it closer to 2 hours than 3.  There's no reason THIS film needed to match the running times of LotR - which almost needed to be longer.  I thought the non-canonical sequences fit just fine with the overall storytelling requirements but pacing IS a bit of a problem in this film.

Don't want to be overly critical before seeing how it fits with the other two movies.  That is, certain inadequacies in each of the three can be excused more easily when viewed as being only 1/3 of the FULL story.

In general it feels like a less epic movie than any part of the LotR trilogy because the book was less epic, reading more like a childrens book than the much more mature and deep novels written as Professor T. vastly expanded the scope of his universe.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 16, 2012)

Remember how I said The Hobbit would suck? That Peter Jackson had gotten too obsessed with visuals over story, like George Lucas? That the stretching of it into three movies would ruin something that was a wonderful children's story?

I have never been more wrong in my whole life. (okay, mild hyperbole)

I had a lot of fun. Can I borrow the DVD of the next installment from someone please? Now sure, I would have cut the Frodo stuff at the beginning, and I wish there'd been a better segue to introduce us to Radagast. And yeah, some scenes are redundant. No need to show so many orcs saying, "ooh, those nasty dwarves we're SOOO gonna attack them soon." But man, with the full understanding that it's geared more toward 13-year-olds than adults, I liked it.

Mountain giants might have been bizarre, but they are SO going into one of my games. 

Plus, the Star Trek preview in front of it was excellent.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 16, 2012)

Oh, and Lady Galadriel is a lot less impressive when you realize her fey step only teleports her 25 feet. So she vanishes from Gandalf and has to hide until he walks away so he thinks she really vanished.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 16, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> Plus, the Star Trek preview in front of it was excellent.




Yeah, loved that too.


----------



## cavalier973 (Dec 16, 2012)

Well, _The Hobbit_ isn't _Lord of the Rings_, and that's a good thing.  Jackson's _LOTR_ is an abomination deserving only contempt and censure.  The very idea of Faramir trying to steal the ring from Frodo!

In any case, it appears that Jackson was able to hire an actor who can credibly portray a hobbit, and who is the right age, to boot.  Elijah Wood was far too young for Frodo.  The dwarves are differentiated nicely, though there are too many of them for each to have a shining moment.  They also got a boost to their stats, apparently, because they kick tail hard just about every fight they get into.  In the book, they were often rather useless.

The Bilbo/Gollum scene is nicely handled.  The addition of one sentence ("You told me to ask you a question, so there it is.") helped, I think, make Gollum's (initial) acceptance of the last riddle a little more credible; Bilbo was throwing it back onto Gollum for pressuring him.

I didn't mind the over-the-top rock giant scene, nor the over-the-top Radagast the Brown scene.  I think it was because I went into the theater expecting cheesy goodness, and got that, plus some really good movie squeezed in there, too.  The changes he made to character actions were improvements, I think, unlike in _LOTR_, where the changes didn't make any sense (Faramir trying to steal the ring from Frodo?  Oh, come _on_!!!).

So, I recommend seeing _The Hobbit_, and have, for the present, taken Peter Jackson off my "We hates it forever, preciousssss!!!" list.


----------



## GSHamster (Dec 16, 2012)

It was good, but it could have been much better.  Jackson should have cut ruthlessly.  It was a very indulgent movie.

The thing is that if he had cut more here, the story would have ended much farther along.  Pretty much cut an hour out this movie, and fill it with what will be in the second movie.  Honestly, as heretical as this sounds, I might even have cut the troll scene.  It took up a lot of time, and really didn't accomplish much in the way of storytelling.

The same thing with this pale orc nonsense. Does anyone really give a damn about Thorin and some random orc? The story is Smaug and the Mountain, and Jackson should have kept his eye on the heart of the story.

The other problem was that it felt very much: Dwarves get in trouble, then _deus ex machina_. Repeat. The times the movie got away from this pattern was much better.

I also found it interesting how Tolkein grew as a writer. It's really hard to differentiate the dwarves, so when he wrote LotR, he went to some length to have each member of the Fellowship be very distinct.

Edit: Also the Star Trek preview. I'll see the movie, but the trailer really made it feel like a generic superhero movie to me. Didn't have anything "Star Trek-ish" about it.


----------



## MarkB (Dec 16, 2012)

I enjoyed it a great deal on first viewing, but I suspect I'll be skipping through much of the prologue on DVD.

For the Lord of the Rings movies, I always looked forward to the extended Director's Cuts. For The Hobbit, while I'll enjoy them in their full form, I'd also rather like to see an "Author's Cut" which focuses more closely upon the events of the novel, and holds more closely to Bilbo as viewpoint character.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 16, 2012)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Oh, and Lady Galadriel is a lot less impressive when you realize her fey step only teleports her 25 feet. So she vanishes from Gandalf and has to hide until he walks away so he thinks she really vanished.




LOL *snort*.  "My lady, why are you hiding behind that column?"



			
				GSHamster said:
			
		

> The other problem was that it felt very much: Dwarves get in trouble, then deus ex machina. Repeat. The times the movie got away from this pattern was much better.




Frankly, that's less of a problem with the adaptation than with the source material.  There's a lot of _deus ex_ in _The Hobbit_, especially given that Tolkien's favorite gets used twice (the Eagles).



			
				MarkB said:
			
		

> For the Lord of the Rings movies, I always looked forward to the extended Director's Cuts. For The Hobbit, while I'll enjoy them in their full form, I'd also rather like to see an "Author's Cut" which focuses more closely upon the events of the novel, and holds more closely to Bilbo as viewpoint character.




Agreed.  As good as it was, I think it's crying out for a cut-down version for comparison.  With a nip-and-tuck down to the original material, I'll bet it could pick the pace up while maintaining the majority of the narrative.  I'm sure someone out in internet land will do one as soon as digital copies of the movie become widely available.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 16, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> Honestly, as heretical as this sounds, I might even have cut the troll scene.  It took up a lot of time, and really didn't accomplish much in the way of storytelling.




I thought the scene set up a couple of storytelling things very nicely.

1) it is the first point where Bilbo finds he is a little braver than he thought he could be - trying to rescue the horses back from the trolls
2) Bilbo is the one who has his wits about him enough to delay the trolls when it looks that all is lost
3) it raised the question of why trolls are so far south, are bad things afoot? foreshadowing what we will learn about the mirkwood and the necromancer etc.

For me, these were some significant storytelling benefits which came out of the scene.



GSHamster said:


> The other problem was that it felt very much: Dwarves get in trouble, then _deus ex machina_. Repeat. The times the movie got away from this pattern was much better.




Can't really blame the film for that, because that is pretty much the source material right there 

Cheers


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 16, 2012)

Well, I thought it was great.  My brother, not a gamer and has never read the book, said he could have sat there for another 3 hours, he was so taken with it.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 16, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> Honestly, as heretical as this sounds, I might even have cut the troll scene.  It took up a lot of time, and really didn't accomplish much in the way of storytelling.



Cutting this scene means no wealth and gold in the hobbit hole.


----------



## MarkB (Dec 16, 2012)

Hand of Evil said:


> Cutting this scene means no wealth and gold in the hobbit hole.




Not to mention no Glamdring and Orcrist and Sting.

Plus, they had "Bilbo's trolls" in _Fellowship of the Ring_. It'd feel weird to leave them out now.


----------



## GreyLord (Dec 17, 2012)

cavalier973 said:


> Well, _The Hobbit_ isn't _Lord of the Rings_, and that's a good thing.  Jackson's _LOTR_ is an abomination deserving only contempt and censure.  The very idea of Faramir trying to steal the ring from Frodo!
> 
> In any case, it appears that Jackson was able to hire an actor who can credibly portray a hobbit, and who is the right age, to boot.  Elijah Wood was far too young for Frodo.  The dwarves are differentiated nicely, though there are too many of them for each to have a shining moment.  They also got a boost to their stats, apparently, because they kick tail hard just about every fight they get into.  In the book, they were often rather useless.
> 
> ...




They weren't that useless.  In the book they fought their way out of the under the mountain.  That's not really running away completely, that's fighting your way out.  And then, of course if you have an army of Goblins at your back, you DO run away if you want to live...unless you're an idiot.

That said, even with that, later in the book, the come out of the mountain against an entire ARMY.  Sure, quite a number of them get killed, but some survive.  That's not exactly wimpy dwarves.  If 13 of them can make that much of an impact (along with the bear) on a battle involvings thousands in three other armies (then 4, then 5), they couldn't be that wimpy.


----------



## cavalier973 (Dec 17, 2012)

GreyLord said:


> They weren't that useless.  In the book they fought their way out of the under the mountain.  That's not really running away completely, that's fighting your way out.  And then, of course if you have an army of Goblins at your back, you DO run away if you want to live...unless you're an idiot.
> 
> That said, even with that, later in the book, the come out of the mountain against an entire ARMY.  Sure, quite a number of them get killed, but some survive.  That's not exactly wimpy dwarves.  If 13 of them can make that much of an impact (along with the bear) on a battle involvings thousands in three other armies (then 4, then 5), they couldn't be that wimpy.




They do fight their way out of the goblins' cave, but in the book (if I remember correctly), they only fight long enough to get out of the main cave, then run like a bat out of a burnt stump.  In the movie, however, it's like watching level 15 4th edition fighters cutting their way through waves of minions.  They are freakin' awesome.  I was using a bit o' hyperbole when I said that the dwarves were "useless" in the book.  Sorry if I gave offense.


----------



## Iosue (Dec 17, 2012)

I had no problem with the White Council scenes, nor with the Azog scenes, which I thought were good use of background material to set up the Battle of the Five Armies and the expulsion of the Necromancer from Dol Guldur that will happen in later movies.  The part where the movie dragged most for me were the warg chase scene, the stone giant scene and the escape from goblin-town.  Not that I minded having them in the movie; I just thought they could have trimmed them down a bit.

Other than that, a very good movie.  Holy crap, was Martin Freeman born to play Bilbo.  The movie was classic Peter Jackson in that it had these over-the-top action sequences, but then you'd have a fantastic, intimate moment of the finest of acting.  Bilbo's moment of pity with Gollum was PERFECTLY played.  It would have been extremely easy to make it "good enough", to perform it very obviously, and get the point across in a decent, if maudlin way.  Instead, Freeman's performance was understated, yet got across Bilbo's internal conflict and ultimate feeling of pity in an extremely clear and empathetic way.  I don't know why, but I thought there was something quintessentially English about it; I don't think an American actor would have or could have played it in just that way.  I'll happily put up with a slightly draggy stone giant scene if it gets me something so absolutely perfect as that.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 17, 2012)

My wife and I saw the film last night.  We both know and enjoy the original book, but I am more of a Tolkien fan than she is.  So, for example, she doesn't know the background about Dol Guldur and such.  I was okay with the length, but I have greater tolerance for the repeated, long, "hey, look, New Zealand is beautiful!" shots.  The movie was not so good as it didn't have my wife checking her watch occasionally after the 2-hour mark.

Like several here, I feel the opening Frodo scene could be left out.  With Gandalf around, he doesn't need to establish continuity that way.  The Radagast scenes we both enjoyed.  For one thing, Sylvester McCoy is a bit of a genius.  For another, it is useful to help set up whey Gandalf will be away later.  I think they played up Gandalf's suspicion that it is the Enemy overmuch - in the original that sits for 60 or so years after this adventure.  It can't be that much in the forefront now.

I think the giants were way, way overdone.  That looked a lot like a scene for the sake of an effects scene.  And the Goblin King was a touch too erudite for my tastes.

There's one really small change that seems to me to make a notable difference in character - how Bilbo leaves the house the morning after the party.  In the original, he's sort of fast-talked out by Gandalf, if I recall correctly.  In this, he more actively chooses to grab the bull by the horns.  I don't mind the change, but it is a notable one, and means something for the character, I think.  Similarly, how he violently saves Thorin's bacon makes him a bit different from the Bilbo we see in the book.  Again, not bad.  Just different.

I understand the whole presence of "Moby Orc" - he's there to give at least a single thread of continuity over all three movies, and makes a few things happen in ways that are slightly less arbitrary than in the original, which does sometimes seem just like a chain of unfortunate events that happen to the dwarves for no particular reason.  However, they do add to the dragging on a bit, so I'm a bit ambivalent about him.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 17, 2012)

GreyLord said:


> They weren't that useless.  In the book they fought their way out of the under the mountain.




In the original, they fight their way out of one chamber - and that's mostly Gandalf and Thorin doing the fighting, and the rest is running in the dark.



> That said, even with that, later in the book, the come out of the mountain against an entire ARMY.




Yes, but that's kind of a flaw in the original - the dwarves aren't demonstrated as very able warriors in the book before that.  Here, they've established that they're badass, so when they sally forth from the mountain later, that won't seem quite so suicidal.


----------



## Janx (Dec 17, 2012)

The wife and I saw it Saturday night.

It was long, but we liked it.

The begining scene with old Bilbo and Frodo served a couple functions.  1) it gave elijah wood a chance to be Frodo again after 10 years.  2) it also let old Bilbo set up the deviations in the film from the book when he says "I never told you everything that happened"

Since we know this tiny book has been split up into a trilogy, it explains why we got the extra scenes with Radaghast and the Necromancer.  That stuff wasn't really in the book.  But now we got those scenes, because you can bet, one of the movies will focus on the taking out of the Necromancer, where in the book, it was "Gandalf went out and did some stuff involving a necromancer, but he's back now"

the Pale Orc is really just the same trick Jackson did with the leader Uruk Hai in Fellowship, or the big fat general in Return.  He gives us a singular, recognizable villain to hate, rather than a plain mass of never ending orcs.

last on my list of observations is this.  When Fellowship came out in December 2001, we were all pretty bummed about 9/11.  We were fixing to bomb Afghanistan back into the stone age.  When I watched that film, Gandalf's monologue to Frodo bore some relevance to the situation (scene where Gandalf is pondering which way to go in Moria).

Once again, some tragedy has struck and Gandalf once again has some wisdom for us when he tells Galadriel that he eschews Saruman's strategy of seeking power to combat evil with force.  He says that it is the small acts of goodness that tip the balance.


----------



## jasper (Dec 17, 2012)

Since others have covered troubles with film. My wife wants to know what brand of skin lotion "Moby Orc" uses. Because his skin is too smooth and he does not look like a warrior compared to the others.


----------



## Janx (Dec 17, 2012)

jasper said:


> Since others have covered troubles with film. My wife wants to know what brand of skin lotion "Moby Orc" uses. Because his skin is too smooth and he does not look like a warrior compared to the others.




Bucket Brand skin lotion.  "It puts the lotion in the bucket"


----------



## Rune (Dec 17, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Similarly, how he violently saves Thorin's bacon makes him a bit different from the Bilbo we see in the book.




This was the one thing that _really_ bothered me both times I've seen it.  And will continue to do so with each subsequent viewing.  Because, frankly, it's a complete reversal of one of the main themes, both of _The Hobbit_, and _The Lord of the Rings_.

And, to make it even worse, it didn't add anything to the movie, anyway!  They had _already_ just established that Bilbo was earning Thorin's respect with the previous scene's explanation of _why_ he was still with them.

And they had just gone through great lengths in the scene before _that_ one (the most important scene in the entire novel, in my opinion--which the movie did _perfectly_) to establish that Bilbo was capable of being placed in a situation where it seemed he had no choice but to kill (in both the book and the movie, Gollum was blocking his way), but found a way to avoid it anyhow.  And, as tLotR (and Gandalf, earlier--and unsubtly--in this movie) points out, this was absolutely the right thing for Bilbo to do.

It is _very_ important for the character of Bilbo that he is _not_ violent like the great heroes of the world (and even Gandalf).  The decision to place the Bilbo of the movie in a situation where the actual best choice for him _is_ violence saddens me, because, for the rest of the tale, no matter how excellent an actor Martin Freeman is (and he is), he won't be playing the same character as the one the book was written about.

The rest of the movie, though, I enjoyed even more with the second viewing.  Especially the songs.  They only left out one I wanted to hear.  And they also left out one I definitely didn't want to hear.


----------



## Iosue (Dec 17, 2012)

Rune said:


> The rest of the movie, though, I enjoyed even more with the second viewing.  Especially the songs.  They only left out one I wanted to hear.  And they also left out one I definitely didn't want to hear.



_Down, down to Goblin-Town!
Ho, ho, my lad, you go, my lad!_


----------



## Umbran (Dec 17, 2012)

Rune said:


> It is _very_ important for the character of Bilbo that he is _not_ violent like the great heroes of the world (and even Gandalf).  The decision to place the Bilbo of the movie in a situation where the actual best choice for him _is_ violence saddens me




Except Tolkien did it himself.  Do you remember where Sting gets its name?  Taking bites out of spiders.  Sentient spiders that understand taunting language!  So, the canon already has him use violence when he really, really has to...

...Edit:  Which is in and of itself meaningful.  If he *never* uses violence, then his choice not to kill Gollum isn't really an individual act of mercy.


----------



## MarkB (Dec 17, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Except Tolkien did it himself.  Do you remember where Sting gets its name?  Taking bites out of spiders.  Sentient spiders that understand taunting language!  So, the canon already has him use violence when he really, really has to...




Indeed. And with the way the story has been split up (and I suspect we'd have still seen the first movie end around that point even as a two-parter), it's essential to bring some of that side of Bilbo's nature into this film, along with his smarter side in the trolls scene, because otherwise he'd really have had very little useful to do in this movie, making him seem in truth the unhelpful burden that Thorin mistakes him for.

After all, we Tolkien fans know that Bilbo will prove his worth, but it's a bit much to ask of the average movie-goer to say "wait and see, he'll start getting useful next installment."


----------



## Rune (Dec 17, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Except Tolkien did it himself.  Do you remember where Sting gets its name?  Taking bites out of spiders.  Sentient spiders that understand taunting language!  So, the canon already has him use violence when he really, really has to...
> 
> ...Edit:  Which is in and of itself meaningful.  If he *never* uses violence, then his choice not to kill Gollum isn't really an individual act of mercy.




Indeed.  I was quite prepared to argue that I didn't think Tolkien didn't view the Mirkwood spiders as the same level of sentience as orcs, and that he viewed them as somehow more monstrous, but, upon some further reflection, I'm not so sure that is the case.  After all, even the wolves and eagles have a language in _The Hobbit_ (and a fox demonstrates sentience in _The Fellowship of the Ring_), and the orcs are perhaps more of an unnatural race than the spiders.  Ungoliant, wasn't created by Melkor, after all, but existed along side him.

In that light, I suppose that the added violence of Movie-Bilbo's character isn't as drastic as I had been considering, although I still think it detracted more from the movie than it added.


----------



## Rune (Dec 17, 2012)

Also, on a completely unrelated note, one thing I forgot to mention that I was delighted by was Thorin's correct use of "whence," especially considering that in _Fellowship_, Elrond used it incorrectly.  The King James Bible and Shakespeare may both have used "from whence," but Tolkien never would have.


----------



## Spatula (Dec 17, 2012)

The movie was pretty much what I expected it to be. Overlong, stuffed with unnecessary subplots and a desperate need to make the principals into "serious" (read: violent) heroes. The opening could have been cut drastically, as many have noted, but I feel that one could say the same for the final confrontation, which just drags on and on and on. I personally could have done without the whole "Thorin charges and gets saved by Bilbo" business, especially as it didn't make much sense (how was there a clear path in the fire for them to charge _through_? the wall of fire is what drove the orcs back). The whole Azog thing ate up a lot of time and didn't, I feel, add anything of substance to the movie. And why are the orcs running around in the daylight throughout?

Overall, I found the film to be an enjoyable one, and there was a welcome lack of Jackson's handheld-cam slow-mo shots. But I feel like the alterations took what was a light-hearted kids' tale and turned it into a somewhat tedious story of grim warfare and violence.

I also missed the presence of the line (which I am guessing originated in the cartoon version), "You're the burglar. Go burgle something!"


----------



## Umbran (Dec 17, 2012)

Rune said:


> In that light, I suppose that the added violence of Movie-Bilbo's character isn't as drastic as I had been considering, although I still think it detracted more from the movie than it added.




In the very least it certainly distracted.  I was left with a, "He did what?!?" moment that broke the flow for me.  Each time he did a major deviation from the source, it jangled a bit.  But then, I think folks like me, who have read the book several times over, are probably a small minority of the audience.  For those who don't know the material, most of those deviations make sense for the movie.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 17, 2012)

The council scenes make me wonder how the fate of Thrain as well as Gandalf's procurement of the key and map will be explained.

In the book, we know he encountered Thrain in the dungeons of the Necromancer and obtained the map and key there; when asked why he gives a "never ye mind" answer but from the other sources it's clear Gandalf knew then that the Necromancer was Sauron.

The movie version has him ignorant of that, which is fine for building mystery and in part makes a better story, but then: what happened to Thrain, and how did Gandalf get the map and key?


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 17, 2012)

I think it's a good thing Jackson's combining the characters of Azog and Bolg into just Azog. It would feel odd to have Azog in the flashback to the War of Dwarves and Orcs, play him up as a badass and the hated enemy of the dwarves, and then in the Battle of the Five Armies go, "Oh yeah, and this is his kid."

I had really, really been hoping to see some of the goblin war going into the film, so I'm glad they showed it. Although with three films to fill, I kinda guess they had to bring in every bit of background they could...


----------



## MarkB (Dec 17, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> The council scenes make me wonder how the fate of Thrain as well as Gandalf's procurement of the key and map will be explained.
> 
> In the book, we know he encountered Thrain in the dungeons of the Necromancer and obtained the map and key there; when asked why he gives a "never ye mind" answer but from the other sources it's clear Gandalf knew then that the Necromancer was Sauron.
> 
> The movie version has him ignorant of that, which is fine for building mystery and in part makes a better story, but then: what happened to Thrain, and how did Gandalf get the map and key?




I'm guessing they're going to rework the timeline a little and include Gandalf's venture into Dol Guldur and his encounter with Thrain in the second movie - most likely after he leaves the party at the eaves of Mirkwood - with the final defeat of the Necromancer integrated into the events of the third movie.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 18, 2012)

MarkB said:


> I'm guessing they're going to rework the timeline a little and include Gandalf's venture into Dol Guldur and his encounter with Thrain in the second movie - most likely after he leaves the party at the eaves of Mirkwood - with the final defeat of the Necromancer integrated into the events of the third movie.




I can see that, I guess, but I think it loses a bit of drama since the mystery of how he escaped Erebor is now no longer tied to handing over the key to the secret door.



			
				John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> I think it's a good thing Jackson's combining the characters of Azog and Bolg into just Azog. It would feel odd to have Azog in the flashback to the War of Dwarves and Orcs, play him up as a badass and the hated enemy of the dwarves, and then in the Battle of the Five Armies go, "Oh yeah, and this is his kid."




Agreed -- it will certainly make a better set up and foreshadowing for the BoFA (though I'm guessing they won't let Beorn kill Azog this time).  I think they could have done a better reveal for Azog, though.  Rather than having him track the dwarves from the start, if the Great Goblin had sent his message off to an "unknown friend", Azog arriving at the "Out of the Frying Pan" scene would have been quite a bit more dramatic.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 18, 2012)

John Q. Mayhem said:


> I think it's a good thing Jackson's combining the characters of Azog and Bolg into just Azog.




Hm.  The LotR wiki says that Bolg will make an appearance, played by Conan Stevens.  
http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Bolg


----------



## MarkB (Dec 18, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> I can see that, I guess, but I think it loses a bit of drama since the mystery of how he escaped Erebor is now no longer tied to handing over the key to the secret door.




Whilst that's true to some extent, I think that, if you're going to go ahead and do an expanded tale of what happened around Do Guldur, you want to work as much as possible of the meagre existing canon into the story. Relegating Gandalf's venture into the fortress to back-story would be a waste.

And i think the film has done a good job of broadening the scope of the narrative, so that it'll have more than enough drama within that thread of the narrative.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 18, 2012)

MarkB said:


> I'm guessing they're going to rework the timeline a little and include Gandalf's venture into Dol Guldur and his encounter with Thrain in the second movie - most likely after he leaves the party at the eaves of Mirkwood - with the final defeat of the Necromancer integrated into the events of the third movie.




No, that won't work at all.

In the original, it is Gandalf who discovers and investigates the Necromancer, where he encounters Thrain - Gandalf knows what is up before the quest even begins (90 years before, even), and it is reasonable to think that maybe the quest is in part a convenient cover for Gandalf's movements.  

In the movie, they've shifted the discovery of the Necromancer at Dol Guldur to Radagast.  But Gandalf has met Thrain - so that meeting _cannot_ have been at Dol Guldur.  I expect they won't touch on where it was at all, honestly.  Thrain simply entrusted the key to Gandalf, and that's it.

They are mucking with Tolkien's timeline considerably, mostly by compression.  In the movie, Gandalf mentions that these days the forest is begin called Mirkwood, as if this is a recent thing the others wouldn't know about.  In the books, it has been known by that name for a couple thousand years!  While I know Saruman can be a bit distant at times, he isn't *that* out of touch.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 18, 2012)

Umbran said:


> In the original, it is Gandalf who discovers and investigates the Necromancer,




A minor point - the Necromancer was widely known and feared before Gandalf investigated him and discovered his identity. Thorin ponders attacking him once the Lonely Mountain is reclaimed, and Gandalf warns him off.

So, Bolg's going to be in the films? Interesting. I wonder why Jackson kept Azog alive, then, if he's not going to lead in the Battle of the Five Armies? Or maybe Bolg will be a mini-boss. That would be reasonable. I guess then Beorn could still kill Bolg, as in the book.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 18, 2012)

John Q. Mayhem said:


> A minor point - the Necromancer was widely known and feared before Gandalf investigated him and discovered his identity. Thorin ponders attacking him once the Lonely Mountain is reclaimed, and Gandalf warns him off.




If you want to be complete, the history is thus:
Sauron is defeated, the One Ring is lost.  This begins the Third Age.  A millennium passes...

In TA 1050, Sauron moves into the Greenwood, and his influence darkens it, and people start calling it Mirkwood.
TA 2063 - Gandalf drives Sauron out of Dol Guldur.
TA 2460 - Sauron moves *back* into Dol Guldur - this is around when Smeagol finds the One Ring.
TA 2850 - Gandalf investigates the renewed presence in Mirkwood, finds Thrain in Dol Guldur
TA 2941 - Events of The Hobbit take place.

So, yes, if they were holding to the original timeline, they should be completely unsurprised.  Mind you, I expect a 3000 year timeline on this is hard to get across to viewers of a 3-hour movie, so they compressed it.



> So, Bolg's going to be in the films? Interesting. I wonder why Jackson kept Azog alive, then, if he's not going to lead in the Battle of the Five Armies?




As I noted upthread - he's there to provide a certain continuity across the films.  He's the overarching plot thread.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 18, 2012)

Umbran said:


> I think they played up Gandalf's suspicion that it is the Enemy overmuch - in the original that sits for 60 or so years after this adventure.  It can't be that much in the forefront now.




Where do I have this jumbled memory in my head that Gandlaf found out it was Sauran_ before_ the Hobbit, and that's where he found Thorin's dad in captivity and got the map and key from him?  Or am I mixing that up with something else?

[Edit - never mind; I see later posts go into that].


----------



## Morrus (Dec 18, 2012)

Spatula said:


> I personally could have done without the whole "Thorin charges and gets saved by Bilbo" business




For me, having three of those in a row in under 60 seconds was a little painful.  Bilbo saves Thorin, Dwarves save Bilbo, Eagles save Dwarves; all in a sequence of similar "allies rushing in from offscreen at the last second" beats in about a minute of film.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 18, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Where do I have this jumbled memory in my head that Gandlaf found out it was Sauran_ before_ the Hobbit, and that's where he found Thorin's dad in captivity and got the map and key from him?  Or am I mixing that up with something else?




Yeah, I was a bit off on the timeline myself.  Earlier on, the Wise all figure that the Necromancer is a Nazgul, or some other servant left behind.  Gandalf figures out it is Sauron in TA 2850.  Saruman talks the council out of acting openly at that time (Saruman wants his own search for the One Ring to go undisturbed).  It is in 2941 they finally get their acts together, but by that time Sauron was about ready to re-inhabit Mordor anyway, so he just flees when pressed.  

Sauron sets himself up in Mordor, actually announcing himself a decade after the quest.  The Wise leave him be for 50 years, because they don't have a weapon against him until Gandalf finally decides that Bilbo has the One Ring, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy begins...


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 18, 2012)

On the topic of the movie, anyone have issue with the OOPS 48 frame rate?


----------



## Spatula (Dec 18, 2012)

If you mean the 48 fps, I didn't have any issues with it. I thought the picture looked great. The only real "mistake" that I noticed was that the CGI of Bilbo's plates being bounced around by the dwarves when they were cleaning up looked obviously fake. But that was less about the framerate and more about how the effects were positioned, I think. I wonder if it would have looked better in 2D, come to think of it...


----------



## MarkB (Dec 18, 2012)

Umbran said:


> No, that won't work at all.
> 
> In the original, it is Gandalf who discovers and investigates the Necromancer, where he encounters Thrain - Gandalf knows what is up before the quest even begins (90 years before, even), and it is reasonable to think that maybe the quest is in part a convenient cover for Gandalf's movements.
> 
> In the movie, they've shifted the discovery of the Necromancer at Dol Guldur to Radagast.  But Gandalf has met Thrain - so that meeting _cannot_ have been at Dol Guldur.  I expect they won't touch on where it was at all, honestly.  Thrain simply entrusted the key to Gandalf, and that's it.




Gandalf's meeting with Thrain in Dol Guldur need not be their first ever meeting, and the way they've left Thrain's fate hanging unresolved in the first movie is highly suggestive that he'll have a part to play later.

I'm not so certain that his appearance will play into Thorin's quest as it did in the original, but it might - after all, Thrain is Thror's son, and he may yet have some key piece of information about Erebor that could affect the party's chances. Alternatively, he may simply be an ally at need for Gandalf.


----------



## GSHamster (Dec 19, 2012)

Hand of Evil said:


> On the topic of the movie, anyone have issue with the OOPS 48 frame rate?




No problems. But it did look more like theatre than film.  It looked more real, but I think my mind identified the "more realness" as watching a theatre production on the stage.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 19, 2012)

I pesonally give it a solid 8 but only at 6 pages on it, that seems to indicate 6 to 7 rating.


----------



## jasper (Dec 19, 2012)

Hand of Evil said:


> On the topic of the movie, anyone have issue with the OOPS 48 frame rate?



i saws in 2d or normal mode. Yes at the start of movie during the dragon attack run some of the crowd looked blurry and out of focus.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 19, 2012)

MarkB said:


> Gandalf's meeting with Thrain in Dol Guldur need not be their first ever meeting, and the way they've left Thrain's fate hanging unresolved in the first movie is highly suggestive that he'll have a part to play later.




To me, it is more highly suggestive that they want that they just needed to maintain a reason why Thorin hadn't tried before this.  I see no particular need for them to refer to Thrain again.


----------



## Siberys (Dec 19, 2012)

The movie made me realize that I'd had Beorn and Radagast conflated for a very, very long time. :|


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 19, 2012)

Hand of Evil said:


> On the topic of the movie, anyone have issue with the OOPS 48 frame rate?




No ... cause I saw it in 2D! 

The last 3D film I saw was _Avatar_, which convinced me I hate 3D, so I'm conveniently withdrawing from the whole 48 fps vs. 24 fps debate.  I'm glad I still had the choice to see the movie in 2D -- I have no complaints about the look and feel of the film in 2D, as it equaled or improved on LotR, and the effects did not cause me to suspend disbelief.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 19, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> No ... cause I saw it in 2D!
> 
> The last 3D film I saw was _Avatar_, which convinced me I hate 3D, so I'm conveniently withdrawing from the whole 48 fps vs. 24 fps debate.  I'm glad I still had the choice to see the movie in 2D -- I have no complaints about the look and feel of the film in 2D, as it equaled or improved on LotR, and the effects did not cause me to suspend disbelief.




_Avatar_ contrasted by a few subsequent films that used post-production 3D convinced me over time that the _Avatar_ way was the better way forward.  For instance, if last year's _The Three Musketeers_ movie had a better script and fewer casting problems, I feel it would have been a great example of how far things have come since James Cameron's 2009 film, which had script problems as well (in that it was almost a placeholder/cliche story ion which to hang the effects).  This year we finally have a film made with the best cutting-edge film tech and topnotch source material.  I'm happy for the continued advances and find both formats to be fine in their own ways.


----------



## CAFRedblade (Dec 20, 2012)

I find that movies shot and blocked with 3D cameras are usually far better off than post conversion any day of the week.  Both real and CGI 3D films using native tech seem to produce much better results.  Many of the CGI films from Pixar and Dreamworks look lovely in 3D, while the Resident Evil films look pretty good, if cheesy on some of the shots/plot points.  I found that the HFR 3D did wonders over regular 3D, it was brighter, and easier to watch, no headaches on a nearly 3 hour, 3D film for me was a wonder to experience.  I usually get mild to medium level headaches from regular 3D films.  Took a bit to adjust to the frame rate, experiencing the "phantom" fast motion others did, not sure if it was just me, or the tech still needs(ed) work..  

Oh, regarding timelines, didn't Elrond imply at the council in the movie that it'd been 400 years of hard won peace, implying a much compressed timeline.  
Smaug took over Eredore 60 years prior to the movie began, and the 400 years should then be the big battle against Sauron...
If that's the case, then the Mirkwood change, and other timeline oddities/re-arrangements from the source material can be glossed over..


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 20, 2012)

As someone above mentioned, it might have been nice to:

a) keep the flashback with Azog vs. Thorin.
b) not show the orcs stalking them.
c) keep the orc/warg attack being lured away by Radagast.
d) not show the orc survivors talking to Azog.
e) not have the Goblin King mention to whom he sends his message.
f) have Azog show up as a big reveal in the final scene.
g) *minor* not use the Witch King's music for Thorin. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see why they reused that musical cue.


----------



## Manbearcat (Dec 23, 2012)

After huge let-downs for me from Prometheus, Dark Knight Rises and  Skyfall and huge wins from The Avengers, Lincoln and Silver Lining's  Playbook, it was a 50/50 split this year at the box office (which is not  good as I'm capitally invested so that is a net loss in my book).  I  was expecting The Hobbit to tilt the scales toward the former rather  than the latter.  I was quite wrong and happy to be so.  Going in, the major concerns I had were:

- poor pacing
- disjointedness with regards to the tone/mood and plot delivery
- trying to force emotion on the audience

While it wasn't perfect in any of those areas, I thought it was good enough and delivered a better cinema experience than I expected when I walked into the theater.  It was quite a fun romp and felt sufficiently "The Hobbit"-ey.


----------



## Water Bob (Dec 25, 2012)

Saw it. Really had my doubts. Previews looked like a children's film.

But...this film really charmed me. Loved it.

And, I think it's the closest thing to visualizing classic D&D than has ever been committed to film--including the three Lord of the Rings films.

There's a Quest.

There's a Party.

There's a Journey.

There's a Dungeon.

There's a Dragon.

It's good stuff. Let it charm you, too.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->


----------



## MarkB (Dec 26, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> And, I think it's the closest thing to visualizing classic D&D than has ever been committed to film--including the three Lord of the Rings films.
> 
> There's a Quest.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I always got that impression from the book, too. Not only are there all of the above, there are some truly terrible / silly plans and ideas, some incidents which can only be attributed to appallingly-bad rolls at just the wrong moment, and the party start squabbling as soon as they get the treasure.


----------



## Votan (Dec 26, 2012)

I was definitely a fan.  It wasn't a perfect adaption but it was closer to the book than Les Miserables was.  In some ways it makes the saga of middle earth seem more unified.  I was very skeptical about the pictures of the dwarves but I was impressed with how well the movie handled such a crowded cast.  The casting of Bilbo was perfect and, knowing the actor, I am feeling very optimistic about Smaug as well.


----------



## Orius (Dec 27, 2012)

Just saw it.  It was pretty good, though Jackson is clearly milking the book for all it's worth and there were a few times where it felt like he left the camera running unnecessarily.  

Frodo at the beginning didn't bother me at all, clearly those scenes were being used as a framing device.  It could have been a bit tighter though, some stuff left for the Director Cuts.

It seems pretty clear where Jackson is going with the Azog plot in the movie. In the book, Azog was originally killed at the battle of Nanduhirion (and that was a good scene), and later his son Bolg shows up with a huge goblin army at the end. Jackson seems to be combining the two characters into one (though apparently Bolg shows up in a later movie) and giving Azog a motivation to want to wipe out the dwarves to justify the Battle of the Five Armies later.  In the book the goblins kind of just pop up out of nowhere at the end when news travels that Smaug has died, and they're coming for the treasure.  Azog as a Big Bad I think is a pretty good addition to the film.  The mid scenes with him didn't bother me when I was watching the movie, but maybe it would be better if he wasn't revealed again until the end as some said. 

Radagast is probably there to tie things in more strongly with LotR.  Umbran already listed the timeline and backstory, so I'm not repeating all that.  It was already speculated that Jackson is going to show the White Council's strike on Dol Guldur, so he's probably setting that up.  Here though, the threat that the Necromancer (Sauron) poses is still unknown as Mirkwood is only starting to fall into darkness instead of having 2000 years of Sauron's influence tainting it.  In the book though, the Necromancer was infamous enough that even Bilbo had heard of him.  I too am curious to know about how Gandalf got Thrain's key since he got it from him about 100 years earlier in Dol Guldur.  I was disappointed by Saruman's dismissal of Radagast, I was hoping for "Radagast the bird-tamer, Radagast the fool!"  Instead we get a line about mushrooms.

Thorin's resentment towards the elves and Thranduil in particular I think will help in the second movie or early third movie, wherever we'll get the Elvenking plot.  I always thought it was strange in the book that Thorin was perfectly willing to give the Great Goblin the lame excuse about visiting his kin in the Iron Hills while he completely clammed up with Thranduil since he had no reason to see him as a complete enemy.  Here though, if he thinks Thranduil abandoned Erebor at their hour of need and hates his guts over it, it'll make more sense when Thorin is captured and brought before him.  And later in the third movie, his hostility towards Bard and Thranduil after Smaug is killed will probably not make him look as much of a dick as he did in the book.

I liked the stone giants myself, though I thought the whole bit about the dwarves actually crawling on their legs was overdone.  The troll scene wasn't bad either

Jackson made decent use of some of the songs that were in the book.

But it was still pretty faithful to the source material, much like the LotR films, once again, the weakest parts tend to be where Jackson notably deviates from the books.  But unlike the LotR films were the departures hurt things (Faramir draggin Frodo to Osgiliath, Frodo chasing Sam away, Denethor being a crazed decadent madman rather than Sauron manipulating him into utter despair) some of the embellishments like Azog or Thorin's elf grudge look like they'll actually help the plot later.


----------



## Krug (Dec 27, 2012)

Saw it and thought the pacing was bloody slow in the middle, but had two good set pieces at the end to round things up. I also enjoyed the riddle scene, even though the treatment was much darker than I envisioned. Still, three movies really is quite a stretch for it.


----------



## Ebon Shar (Dec 30, 2012)

Radagast was an awesome D&D druid, or how I would visualize one.  I could do without the bird crap on his face though.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 30, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> g) *minor* not use the Witch King's music for Thorin. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see why they reused that musical cue.




Can't say I noticed.  However, I CAN offer a bit of potential insight into why such a decision might have been made.  In Star Wars (a.k.a. Episode IV: A New Hope) when they are escaping the Death Star, Ben is facing Darth.  He sacrifices himself willfully and Vader cuts him down without hesitation.  The musical cue then used is actually PRINCESS LEIA'S THEME.  Composer John Williams stated that he'd chosen to use it at that point because it was the most sweeping of the themes in the film.  Apparantly it worked best to convey the emotion, etc. that was desired at that moment.  I'd be willing to bet that similar logic applied.  Most people realy aren't going to notice such little tricks - especially if the music is behaving as it should and not drawing inordinate attention to itself.


----------



## Nikosandros (Dec 30, 2012)

I enjoyed the movie a lot. I've seen it once and I'm likely to go to the theater once more.

Personally, I believe it to be quite "unfaithful" to the book. I'm not talking about specific episodes or deviations from the original plot, but rather about the spirit. The book is a almost a fairy tale and has a rather whimsical mood. The movie is darker and is more of an action movie. But, as I said in an old thread about LotR, I'm perfectly fine with movies that "betray" the source material, as long as the result is enjoyable as in this case.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 31, 2012)

deleted


----------



## Pog (Dec 31, 2012)

It was a really fun film!  Didn't think it was slow, and I'm hoping that there'll be a special edition DVD with another hours worth of Tolkien goodness ...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 31, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I like that a lot of the dialogue from the book is used verbatim in the movie, and I love hearing the songs from the book brought to life with music.  I was afraid it would end up feeling like _Lord of the Rings: The Musical_, but they really seemed appropriate when and where they are used, and worked really well.




To Tolkien's credit and Jackson's fault, the best lines of dialogue are definitely the direct lifts from the books.  It's when jackson freelances that things go astray.

The dwarf song was fantastic -- I bought the soundtrack and can't stop listening.  Though I do wish they would do the entire song with the dwarf cast, even though it would be about 10 minutes long.



> I think Tolkien would have been immensely proud of it.




One wonders about the Professor.  Certainly I expect that Christopher Tolkien, lemon puss that he is, will hate it just like he hated the LotR movies.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 1, 2013)

I've now watched the IMAX 3D version, the 2D version, and 3D HFR edition, in that order.  I've enjoyed it in each format.  I didn't notice any of the problems that some said they had with the HFR. I sat right after the first aisle (a little close for some folks' taste) so that the edges of the screen were just outside the field of the 3D glasses.  I did the same thing with Avatar back when that came out and try to do that with any 3D movie.  I'm definitely farsighted and wear specs for reading, so I wonder if those factors make any difference.


----------



## Orius (Jan 2, 2013)

El Mahdi said:


> I think Tolkien would have been immensely proud of it.




I'm not certain about that, they did take a few liberties with the book, and The Hobbit always was a much lighter story than LotR. Here things are presented in a much darker tone.  In some cases, it is making for a stronger story though, because Tolkien himself added darker elements to the story when he wrote LotR.  Some stuff could have been trimmed though, particularly Radagast's introduction in the film (that probably could have been saved for the Director's Cuts).  It's still pretty faithful to the overall plot also, where many film adaptations aren't.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 2, 2013)

Orius said:


> Some stuff could have been trimmed though, particularly Radagast's introduction in the film (that probably could have been saved for the Director's Cuts).




I'm guessing that scene is important to the other two movies and so needs to be in the theater release.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jan 2, 2013)

Mark CMG said:


> I'm guessing that scene is important to the other two movies and so needs to be in the theater release.




Agree, hinting / fore-shadowing the spiders mostly.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jan 3, 2013)

I thought it was below average but I thought the same about the LotR series too.

It's a minor point but aesthetically I wish all of the dwarves looked more dwarven.  Thorin, Fili, and somewhat Bofur looked too much like humans and Kili (the worst offender) looked like a half elf.

I loathe when Jackson breaks the tension of his suspenseful scenes by interjecting them with drawn out interludes.  In the frying pan scene two of the company are barely holding onto Gandalf's staff trying desperately to not fall to their doom.  Suddenly that pulse-pounding tension is put on hold so first Thorin, then Bilbo, then the other dwarves can do a fight scene.  That completely ruins the momentum of the story and suspense of a scene.

And I hate how Gollum is portrayed.  I can't make it through one of his scenes without rolling my eyes.

(Sorry for being so critical.  I'm really not a sourpuss!)


----------



## Umbran (Jan 4, 2013)

Wednesday Boy said:


> And I hate how Gollum is portrayed.  I can't make it through one of his scenes without rolling my eyes.




I don't really argue with the rest of what you said, but this, I wonder about.

Exactly how do you expect them to portray a character who was weak-willed and uneducated, and has spent like four to six _centuries_ in cold dark caves with only a malevolent ego-bending ring for company?  

(I personally think Andy Sirkis is a bit of a genius.)


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jan 4, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Exactly how do you expect them to portray a character who was weak-willed and uneducated, and has spent like four to six _centuries_ in cold dark caves with only a malevolent ego-bending ring for company?




To put it simply, I wouldn't try to make the character funny.  They take a character who is tragic for all of the reasons that you noted and interject instances where they can portray him as goofy and cartoonish.  When those goofy and cartoonish instances arise, it breaks the emotional connection (sympathy, loathing, fear, etc.) that Tragic Gollum was evoking in me.  (Which causes my ocular inferior oblique muscles to spasm unconsciously, causing my eyes to roll.)


----------



## Orius (Jan 4, 2013)

Wednesday Boy said:


> It's a minor point but aesthetically I wish all of the dwarves looked more dwarven.  Thorin, Fili, and somewhat Bofur looked too much like humans and Kili (the worst offender) looked like a half elf.




Personally, I think it's good that he dwarves show some actual diversity instead of all looking the same.  There's a lot of dwarves here for even three movies, so it helps that their appearances are distinct.  Kili in particular might seem quite a bit undwarvish with just heavy stubble rather than a beard, but probably he's there to get the fangirls excited (he's also supposed to be one of the youngest dwarves here, so less beard is excusable).


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jan 4, 2013)

A side note:  When  I first saw the cast pictures, especially the one where Thorin was alone, I thought, "who's the human?"


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jan 4, 2013)

Orius said:


> Personally, I think it's good that he dwarves show some actual diversity instead of all looking the same.




I certainly agree with you there.  I appreciated that they tried to make each dwarf unique.

For me it isn't so much Kili's lack of facial hair, it's that his face was completely unchanged so he looks human.  The addition of a hawkish or bulbous nose would have done the trick for me.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 4, 2013)

Wednesday Boy said:


> To put it simply, I wouldn't try to make the character funny.




Ah.  Here's the thing - I don't think they're trying to make him funny.  At all.  If you want to see comic relief in this movie, you look at the dwarves.  In the original film, it was Merry and Pippin.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jan 4, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Ah. Here's the thing - I don't think they're trying to make him funny. At all.




Interesting.  When Smeagol and Gollum argue it seems like one step away from the Nutty Professor to me.  http://movieclips.com/7HGaD-the-nutty-professor-movie-klump-vs-love/ (Mild language, potentially NSFW.)  And every time I've seen one of the movies in the theatre, the audience hoots at Gollum's buffoonery.

But to paraphrase [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION], "As always, watch what you like!"


----------



## Umbran (Jan 4, 2013)

Wednesday Boy said:


> Interesting.  When Smeagol and Gollum argue it seems like one step away from the Nutty Professor to me.




To me, it comes across as the clear statement that Gollum isn't really evil, so much as broken, screwed up, and overall pitiable.  If it *isn't* there, you have a big question as to how you make him threatening, and yet worthy of Bilbo's (and later Frodo's) mercy.  What reason do you have for not treating him like, say, any other menacing orc?


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 4, 2013)

Relique du Madde said:


> A side note:  When  I first saw the cast pictures, especially the one where Thorin was alone, I thought, "who's the human?"



Indeed. Thorin and the twins looked too human for my taste. I also had some issues with the 48 fps 3D version I watched. I was going to say it looked too artificial, but as someone else mentioned above what it actually reminded me of was theatre or live action roleplaying.
I also felt the first half of the movie dragged quite a bit. The second half was much better but all in all I enjoyed the first LotR movie better than this one.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 4, 2013)

Wednesday Boy said:


> I certainly agree with you there.  I appreciated that they tried to make each dwarf unique.




I made a quiz to see if folks could remember which dwarf was which.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jan 4, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I made a quiz to see if folks could remember which dwarf was which.




For the first time I got over a 60% on one of your quizzes! And I got 100% this time!


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jan 4, 2013)

Umbran said:


> To me, it comes across as the clear statement that Gollum isn't really evil, so much as broken, screwed up, and overall pitiable. If it *isn't* there, you have a big question as to how you make him threatening, and yet worthy of Bilbo's (and later Frodo's) mercy. What reason do you have for not treating him like, say, any other menacing orc?




I'm with you on the rationale but the execution didn't work for me.


----------



## Orius (Jan 5, 2013)

Got 100% on it.

Tip on the quiz for Morrus though: 



Spoiler



I'd mix up the dwarves a bit more.  They're clumped together in much the same order they are in the books, which makes it a bit too easy.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 6, 2013)

Ebon Shar said:


> Radagast was an awesome D&D druid, or how I would visualize one.  I could do without the bird crap on his face though.




That was the only part of the movie I really disliked, I can say I HATED it. Radagast should look eccentric, but that was really stupid. 

Otherwise I really enjoyed the film. That was the one bit that really destroyed my immersion.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 7, 2013)

[video=youtube;8OiYDUEu3i8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OiYDUEu3i8[/video]


----------



## tuxgeo (Jan 8, 2013)

Saw it today, 7 Jan 2013. 
The ending came abruptly for me--I was ready for the story to go on for another hour or so. 

Best part: Martin Freeman as Bilbo. His delivery of the verbal nonsequiturs was wonderful. The best one was when he was explaining to Thorin why he was still there (after the goblins), when he switched from "I think of my home a lot" to "and that's why I'm here." Almost as good was when he stabbed a warg with Sting, and stabbed an orc with Sting, and then demurred, "I'm no fighter. No burglar, either." 
(I may be paraphrasing. ) 

I thought the stone giants in the mountain pass were unnecessary. I was surprised when Gandalf's staff split the rock. (I wanted to hear "Dawn take you all and be stone to you," but if he said that then I missed the wording.) I expected Orcrist to be less like a cutlass. (Yes, I know it's an elven blade, but I would have been pleased to see it looking more like a falchion.) 

I really wanted Howard Shore to put in some (more) minor-key harmonies in the dwarves' "Far over the Misty Mountains cold . . ." song. That sounded like Human harmonizing. More strangeness would have helped sell it as a dwarf song. (I don't know -- more flat-fifths? minor thirds? more diminished chords? something.) 

I didn't like the "ravens." They weren't black enough. Couldn't they use the word "thrush" for copyright reasons? What?


----------



## Umbran (Jan 8, 2013)

tuxgeo said:


> I didn't like the "ravens." They weren't black enough. Couldn't they use the word "thrush" for copyright reasons? What?




They did refer to thrushes:  "when the thrush knocks thrice" I believe.

The ravens are a different thing - there's Ravenhill, one of the spurs of the Lonely Mountain, where there live ravens capable of speech, friendly to the dwarves of Erebor before Smaug.  One such raven, named Roäc, carries news to Thorin that Smaug is dead, and then carries news to Dain that the mountain is theirs, creating the setup for the Battle of Five Armies.


----------



## jbear (Jan 10, 2013)

I'm going to see it tomorrow at the Embassy Theatre in Wellington (where it was premiered) in 3d. I'm pretty excited! I got to play an orc (though the scenes I am in are part of the second movie, not the first), so having been behind scenes and in full orc costume etc. amps up the excitement value.


----------



## Kaodi (Jan 25, 2013)

I finally saw the movie on the _last night_ the theatre was showing it. I enjoyed it, but I have read the books too many times to be satisfied by it.

Of all the things they did with it (it has been a long time since I read the book, so a lot of continuity stuff I had forgotten) the one that was most viscerally grating was the Goblin King, I think. Because 1) as has been mentioned, he is too erudite, and 2) by Eru Illuvatar that is a troll, not a goblin! It does not even make sense to portray Azog as being significant because he is really big and then pretend you have a goblin that would tower over him.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 29, 2013)

deleted


----------



## Kaodi (Jan 29, 2013)

El Mahdi said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by the Goblin King being erudite.  He actually seemed quite stupid in the movie, and the only knowledge he expressed was basically the same knowledge that he expresses in the book.




Was not the knowledge. It was the accent. Azog speaks only in subtitles, yet the Great Goblin speaks in perfect (un)accented American English. 

In any case, looking at pictures now I see that the Great Goblin has pointed ears and the trolls rounded ones, and the Great Goblin may have been a fair bit smaller. But still. That I could even confuse the Great Goblin for a deformed troll instead of a big deformed goblin is something of an indictment of how he was designed. 

I guess I may have misremembered the description of him as tremendous, though I still think he may have been too tall. Tremendous could refer primarily to his girth, after all.


----------



## DnD_Dad (Jan 29, 2013)

I took my daughter opening night and we both loved it.  I'm a huge Tolkien nerd and I love how Jackson interweaves his own ideas and concepts and characters into that universe.  I want a word for word rendition of the Hobbit and LOTR, but I'll take what I can get.  There is very little in the ways of fantasy/swords and sorcery these days and I want more.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Feb 4, 2013)

Was trying to find a theater showing it today. LotR1 was around for almost a year before it reached the discount theaters for 2 weeks and then faded away. Hobbit pt 1 has almost disappeared after just what--2 months? 3? It is still playing in 1 theater within 15 miles, but that is a pretty drastic fall.
Still, I expect the movie to be at least decent.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 4, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> Was trying to find a theater showing it today. LotR1 was around for almost a year before it reached the discount theaters for 2 weeks and then faded away. Hobbit pt 1 has almost disappeared after just what--2 months? 3? It is still playing in 1 theater within 15 miles, but that is a pretty drastic fall.
> Still, I expect the movie to be at least decent.




Not really, it is number 12 on this weeks BoxOffice but its numbers show it has about run its course, Widest Release:  4,100 theaters, In Release:  52 days / 7.4 weeks, now at 1,300 Theaters.  Note: Theater does NOT equal screens! 

Total Lifetime Grosses: Domestic:  $296,203,000    31.2% + Foreign:  $653,000,000    68.8% = Worldwide:  $949,203,000

Big Screen demands are the first couple of weeks, then make way for the next batch of releases.  Gone are the days of movies running months, they want to get them to the DVD market, where I hear the really big bucks can be found.


----------

