# The new Hobbit movie



## was (Dec 19, 2014)

I am thinking of going to see it tomorrow.  Has anybody seen it yet?  Without giving spoilers, can you tell me if it's worth the expense?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 19, 2014)

The io9 review suggests decidedly not.

Yet I'll see it anyway.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Dec 19, 2014)

I saw it Tuesday. It's entertaining. It may not stick to the book enough for some people, but as long as you're not going to let that spoil your experience, its worth the money for a couple of hours of entertainment.


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 19, 2014)

As long as the film kept focus on Bilbo and the Dwarves, it was quite good. Unfortunately Peter Jackson stuffed it full of crap that could have been easily cut out, like that overwrought Third Act that seems to go on forever. If you want my more detailed review (which is full of SPOILERS btw) you can read it in the other thread here.

It's a damn shame. I loved PJ's take on _LOTR_, but his _Hobbit _trilogy has been somewhat of a disappointment. Mind, it's not as bad as how George Lucas messed the _Star Wars _prequels, but it's still a letdown from what came before. Still going to make a s**t ton of money either way.


----------



## delericho (Dec 19, 2014)

If you liked the previous two, you'll probably like this. If you didn't like the previous two, you probably won't.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 20, 2014)

delericho said:


> If you liked the previous two, you'll probably like this. If you didn't like the previous two, you probably won't.





Agreed.  Personally (when it comes to The Hobbit and LotR), if I need the story from the books, I re-read the books, so the adjustments to the Hobbit through the three films don't bother me in the slightest.  Anyway, I went last Monday to  the marathon on the IMAX at Lincolnshire, IL and saw the three films from 1 pm to 9:30 pm, with 20 minute breaks, in 70mm 3D on their 70' x 53' screen. I found it spectacular.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 21, 2014)

Saw it. Much better than I anticipated. Close to being a Bay film. Obviously lots of scenes were cut at the end. Like the crowning of the new king under the mountain, sharing the gold with the humans, Bilbo getting the treasure of the trolls, etc. I guess Jackson listen to critics.


----------



## Bagpuss (Dec 21, 2014)

Very disappointing, one long battle and not a particularly well done one either.


----------



## HobbitFan (Dec 22, 2014)

Based upon the other 2, I'm not sure I'm even going to see the 3rd in the theater.  I may cave in and see it....


----------



## billd91 (Dec 22, 2014)

I caved in and saw it. Had to ask myself if this was Tolkien or Warhammer Fantasy. Came to conclusion that, whatever it was, it had very little Tolkien it. I have *not* been a fan of the Hobbit trilogy. Too little butter scraped over too much bread, if you ask me. Too much filler and too much focus on all of the wrong stuff.


----------



## horacethegrey (Dec 22, 2014)

billd91 said:


> I caved in and saw it. Had to ask myself if this was Tolkien or Warhammer Fantasy. Came to conclusion that, whatever it was, it had very little Tolkien it. I have *not* been a fan of the Hobbit trilogy. *Too little butter scraped over too much bread, if you ask me. Too much filler and too much focus on all of the wrong stuff.*




Completely agree with this. If PJ wasn't so intent on linking it with LOTR and just focused on Bilbo and the Dwarves, they could have easily cut this trilogy down to the original 2 film plan that they originally had.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 22, 2014)

Orcs were too hobgoblin (organized and tactics).  Maybe it will grow on me.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 22, 2014)

horacethegrey said:


> Completely agree with this. If PJ wasn't so intent on linking it with LOTR and just focused on Bilbo and the Dwarves, they could have easily cut this trilogy down to the original 2 film plan that they originally had.




Could have been done in one -

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x140e0u_the-animated-hobbit-rankin-bass-part-1-2_creation


Nevertheless, I am glad it was done as well as it was done in my own lifetime.   I've waited thirty(-five for LotR) to forty (for The Hobbit) years since first reading them in the early 70s for live action versions and the tech has allowed it to happen remarkably well, IMO.  I'll re-read the books all the way through someday, or likely enjoy them as audio books, and get the original version as well.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 22, 2014)

Best of the three by far.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Dec 22, 2014)

Yep - it’s a Warhammer movie rather than Tolkien in feel. If you want an artistic or classic representation of Tolkien’s greatest work, then you’ll still have the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which is obviously the superior set of movies. 

The Hobbit is prequel-ish in a Star Wars sense, with lots of references and allusions to what-characters-were-doing-before-as-backstory and so on. That’s a bit irritating, along with the totally original and un-Tolkien romance between the Elf and Dwarf  (!) along with other characters. It lacks the thematic depth and narrative cohesion of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and ups the level of cartoonish action and cgi effects throughout. 

But all that said, as a straight fantasy movie it’s entertaining enough. Certainly as good as a Pirates of the Carabbean, or Star Wars or Harry Potter movie. And, to be fair, that’s all a lot of us want for a Christmas movie.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 22, 2014)

I dunno. I think the un-Tolkien inclusion of female protagonists is a feature, not a bug. It's just a shame Tolkien didn't do it first time around.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Dec 23, 2014)

I didn’t mind the beefing out of female characters’ roles in LotR, but the entire fabrication of additional narratives with original characters seems a bit much - especially if it involves an elf fancying a dwarf…..although I suppose it gives some of us hope…


----------



## billd91 (Dec 23, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> Yep - it’s a Warhammer movie rather than Tolkien in feel. If you want an artistic or classic representation of Tolkien’s greatest work, then you’ll still have the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which is obviously the superior set of movies.
> 
> The Hobbit is prequel-ish in a Star Wars sense, with lots of references and allusions to what-characters-were-doing-before-as-backstory and so on. That’s a bit irritating, along with the totally original and un-Tolkien romance between the Elf and Dwarf  (!) along with other characters. It lacks the thematic depth and narrative cohesion of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and ups the level of cartoonish action and cgi effects throughout.




[sblock]I would agree it lacks the depth and cohesion of the original. What was that appearance of Beorn in the final? An afterthought rather than a significant point of action? Most of the dwarven company need not have shown up for all the nothing they had to do. The drama of Kili and Fili protecting their king (and uncle) with their bodies from Bolg? Pfft. A disappointing end to a disappointing set of movies.[/sblock]


----------



## TrippyHippy (Dec 23, 2014)

Yep. Think I’ll see it again though….


----------



## billd91 (Dec 23, 2014)

Morrus said:


> I dunno. I think the un-Tolkien inclusion of female protagonists is a feature, not a bug. It's just a shame Tolkien didn't do it first time around.




No it isn't. Tolkien's stories are what they are. They are the stories he wanted to tell and there's no shame in that at all. 

I don't have a problem with Jackson adding things for female characters to do when adapting the work for the silver screen, a medium that requires simplification from most novels. And having Arwen take Glorfindel's place saves introducing another character. I do object to excessive retreading in previous own works (Aragorn's issues are all over the Hobbit trilogy). Tauriel's presence would have been much better considered independent of a love interest with a primary male character and independent of elvish healing magic - both of which are retreads.


----------



## Stormonu (Dec 23, 2014)

I liked the first two, this one felt like it was full of leftovers to fill in a 3rd movie that should have been two.  A lot of what was built up just ... happens and it doesn't come off across as impressive or frankly interesting.

It felt like the the 3rd Matrix movie.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 23, 2014)

In a recent interview with Jackson that was mainly about what he plans and doesn't plan to do next PJ said the following regarding  The Hobbit :



> “It’s a weird thing, even when you look at the reviews for this movie, people are still bitter about the breakfast scene from the first movie. They say, ‘It took so long.’ Fair enough,” says Jackson. “But I always thought of these movies as a seven hour film. So you look at it as, ‘Why are we spending the first quarter of this movie at a dinner scene?’ I’m thinking that it’s not the first quarter, it’s actually one-sixteenth of a thing.”




Full article here https://www.yahoo.com/movies/the-hobbit-director-peter-jacksons-next-act-105871825637.html


----------



## TrippyHippy (Dec 23, 2014)

These things I liked about The Hobbit: 

a) Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. A pretty much perfect casting. Indeed, honestly, I don’t think we’ve really seen a bad casting call amongst the whole series.

b) Smaug the Dragon - aside from a firework effect, one thing that was palpably missing from the LotR trilogy was a memorable Middle Earth dragon. Smaug was fully realised in The Hobbit. 

c) A variety of Dwarves - not just one, but a whole diverse bunch of them with varying levels of beardiness. While still played up for comic effect, they broke down some of the stereotypes. 

d) Wargs as giant wolves, rather than giant hyenas.

e) More Middle Earth. As a fantasy fan is worth noting that this will be the last time we have a Middle Earth movie on the big screen for an awfully long time (unless someone decides they want to remake them, god forbid…). 

While there may be some criticism of The Hobbit, it is sobering to recall just how laughably bad fantasy movies were before the LotR kicked off. Go see the original D&D movie (released just a year before) if you want a reminder. We’ve come a long, long way since then - and if we eventually start getting decent D&D movies in the future, The Hobbit films will actually serve as a pretty good blueprint for how to go about it.


----------



## Bagpuss (Dec 23, 2014)

The breakfast scene feels short compared to the "battle" scene in the final movie. Why did we have to spend so long on that?


----------



## TrippyHippy (Dec 23, 2014)

Bagpuss said:


> The breakfast scene feels short compared to the "battle" scene in the final movie. Why did we have to spend so long on that?



'Cos it was cool?


----------



## Dioltach (Dec 23, 2014)

TrippyHippy said:


> These things I liked about The Hobbit:
> 
> a) Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. A pretty much perfect casting. Indeed, honestly, I don’t think we’ve really seen a bad casting call amongst the whole series.
> 
> ...




Yup. Remember the days when _Willow_ was the benchmark for what an epic fantasy movie should look like?


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 23, 2014)

From over a decade ago on these boards -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?82555-Hobbit-movie-April-Fools-Joke-(I-hope!)


----------



## Thunderfoot (Dec 23, 2014)

I kind of torn about this one.  The additions of all the peripheral stuff doesn't bother me much (mostly because I didn't like "The Hobbit" as it was written (yeah, I know, just try and take away my geek card)), but the third one just seemed, there, it didn't really make a statement, it didn't really resolve anything, it didn't really deal with Thorin's madness so much as gloss it over, etc.

The mention of Ang Mar and the prodigious additions thereof, while interesting were unneeded.  I don't know, I can't say it was a miss through total insanity (*cough* Lucas *cough) but it didn't feel like it was the story that needed to be told.  Although I am glad that Bard actually shot Smaug with a bow (sort of) instead of that silly looking windlance; That whole seen with his son was something I thought the rest of the movies should have been like, thoughtful and lovingly crafted to the Professor's standards.


----------



## was (Dec 23, 2014)

I broke down and saw it today.  Tuesday is discount movie day at the local theater.  I liked it.  Definitely worth the $5.50 I spent on it.


----------



## Richards (Dec 23, 2014)

I still haven't seen any of the Hobbit movies, and I won't for a while yet - not until all three of them are on DVD and I can see them all over the course of three nights.  I didn't like the year-long wait between movies of the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, but at least those were movies of three different books.  I refuse to pay cinema ticket prices three times to see a third of a movie each year for three years straight.

So I'm still looking forward to finally seeing Sylvester McCoy with bird crap all over him.  I figure by next summer I'll have managed to finally see this trilogy.

Johnathan


----------



## delericho (Dec 24, 2014)

It might actually be worth waiting a bit longer, and picking up the Extended Editions. I found that the added scenes improved each of the first two films quite a bit. Which was odd, given that my biggest criticism of the cinema versions was that they were too long. 

(I think the explanation for this is that the added scenes adjust the pacing, so that what seemed rushed is more leisurely, and what seemed drawn out is now not so significant. Or something.)


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 26, 2014)

So, just got back from seeing this. It was visually-stunning, action packed, and entertaining, as promised.

I'm slightly let down, though. While the Hobbit movies have been a good series of movies, they aren't the great movies that the Lord of the Rings movies were.  Perhaps that's because the expectations bar has been set so high. I personally think Jackson did better when he hewed more closely to the original text in intent and dialog, and Hobbit -- particularly the last two movies -- diverged significantly more than the LotR series.  A closer edit could make a world of difference.

Gripes, irritations, and observations:

[sblock]
Legolas fanservice. *retch*

Alfred the comedy relief.

War sheep.  Really, weren't war moose, war pigs, and war bats enough?

Tharanduil the Greedy. I prefer the wisdom of the original book quote: "Long would I tarry, ere we begin this war for gold."

Yet *another* orc beheading.

Goldmember as Dain.

Tauriel. Yeah, the series lacks female characters. But did we really need an elf-dwarf romance?

OK, why did the trolls in Movie #1 turn to stone in daylight, but the trolls in #3 don't?

Inconsistent Sting.

Orcish body modification fetish gone wild.

Despite all the fighting, Beornish badassery is largely ignored.

Radagast *still* needs to wash his face.

Rhosgobel rabbits, *again*.

Thorin descent into madness, well played.

Wizard v. Nazgul pwnage. Saved by uber-elf,  *again*
[/sblock]


----------



## fjw70 (Dec 26, 2014)

I saw it last weekend and really enjoyed it.  The Hobbot movies aren't as good as the LotR movies but that is a really high bar. I can't think of a medieval-type fantasy movie that is better than any of the six LotR/Hobbit movies. Jackson has set a really high bar. Much like Lucas has set a really high bar for space fantasy movies with the six Star Wars movies.  As far as fantasy goes these 12 movies as in a class by themselves. The Marvel movies are not too far behind though.


----------



## digitalsignage (Dec 29, 2014)

I think it's the best of the 3 hobbit movies. This was the most engaging and exciting one.


----------



## Kaodi (Jan 17, 2015)

I finally saw it after nearly a month. Not because I was avoiding it or anything but because I have to cajole my Sister into driving me into the city to see a movie.

I liked it. I enjoyed it. But I do not think I was really satisfied by it. I do not know if we still need a spoiler tag but whatever...

[sblock=Spoiler]I can live with them making additions to the movies, ever since we first met Tauriel I have not felt super purist or anything. But for the love of God, why does Legolas, a named LotR character who was not in the Hobbit (son of Thranduil is kinda noticeable), kill Bolg and not some combination of Tauriel and Kili? Why does Tauriel survive the movie, never to be heard from again? Why do _only_ Fili and Kili bite it, other than Thorin himself? More named dwarves should have died. I think it cheapened the source material in a serious way for all the rest to live. 

And on a completely different note, I am cool with Galadriel getting her badass moment but why does she look and sound so ghoulish doing it? Looked more like the illusion of what she would be like with the One Ring than of what she should be like with herself and one of the elven rings.[/sblock]


----------



## billd91 (Jan 17, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> I liked it. I enjoyed it. But I do not think I was really satisfied by it. I do not know if we still need a spoiler tag but whatever...
> 
> [sblock=Spoiler]Why do _only_ Fili and Kili bite it, other than Thorin himself? More named dwarves should have died. I think it cheapened the source material in a serious way for all the rest to live.[/sblock]




How does maintaining the same death toll among the dwarves cheapen the source material? I thought the nature of the deaths kind of cheapened them but that's a different issue.


----------



## Kaodi (Jan 17, 2015)

Suddenly I think I might have made a mistake somehow. I have the The Hobbit at least thirteen times, you would think I would be immune to mistakes, but almost all of those readings were over twelve years ago. Perhaps I was... [sblock=Spoiler]...vaguely remembering references to certain a number of dwarves fates in LotR and mistaking them for what happened in The Hobbit. For instance, I thought Bombur had died. Looking it up I now am reminded he just got fatter.[/sblock] Oops.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 17, 2015)

Kaodi said:


> Suddenly I think I might have made a mistake somehow. I have the The Hobbit at least thirteen times, you would think I would be immune to mistakes, but almost all of those readings were over twelve years ago. Perhaps I was... [sblock=Spoiler]...vaguely remembering references to certain a number of dwarves fates in LotR and mistaking them for what happened in The Hobbit. For instance, I thought Bombur had died. Looking it up I now am reminded he just got fatter.[/sblock] Oops.




You may have been thinking of the Rankin and Bass animated version. The death toll was higher in that one for some reason, if I recall correctly.


----------



## Dioltach (Jan 17, 2015)

[MENTION=1231]Kaodi[/MENTION]: I assumed that the SFX with Galadriel had to do with her spirit power shining through. I noticed that when Bilbo put on the Ring and the world went blurry, there were some shapes shining brightly in the murk. And in Fellowship (book version), after Frodo is rescued outside Rivendell, he mentions having seen a bright figure, which Gandalf tells him is Elrond, who being an Elf lives partially in the spirit world. So my feeling is that Galadriel, existing in multiple worlds, is shown in her most powerful form as she exerts her strength.


----------



## Kaodi (Jan 17, 2015)

Not sure I ever actualy saw Rankin/Bass The Hobbit. Just their LotR work.


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 18, 2015)

Bluntly, I thought it was the weakest of the six, and most notably because of Legolas. Is there a clause in his contract that requires him to be the hero? I'm not particularly concerned about hewing to Tolkien's script, particularly when it improves the narrative, but this did exactly the opposite. It took the focus off of Bilbo and the dwarves, and put it on Legolas. It weakened and diverted the core story exactly when it should have been narrowing in.

Also, for some reason the movement of the CGI animals really bothered me this time.


----------



## HobbitFan (Jan 19, 2015)

It's not that the Hobbit movies were especially bad fantasy movies....there were just terrible adaptations of the Hobbit book.  
And whoever was holding back Peter Jackson from indulging in his excesses completely stopped in these latest 3.  It's all the weaknesses of the LOR movies multiplied many times over.


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 19, 2015)

HobbitFan said:


> And whoever was holding back Peter Jackson from indulging in his excesses completely stopped in these latest 3.  It's all the weaknesses of the LOR movies multiplied many times over.




Ayup. I got the distinct impression that the storyline was basically "what did we leave out of other movies? Lets throw it in here!"
Also did not stand on it's own in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jan 20, 2015)

I felt like the end battle of the armies was like the end of a night of gaming and everyone was really really tired ... Ok the Eagles show up and kill the other army! ... Werebears?! Crap! Yeah they showed up too.

I still have fond memories of the cartoon battle of the 5 armies (at least the Eagles coming to save the day) ... this one felt a let down to me.


----------



## Nellisir (Jan 20, 2015)

Wolf72 said:


> I felt like the end battle of the armies was like the end of a night of gaming and everyone was really really tired ... Ok the Eagles show up and kill the other army! ... Werebears?! Crap! Yeah they showed up too.




That's...that's it exactly!


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jan 28, 2015)

I never bothered to see the first two movies in the theater, as I was kind of turned off by them making 3 movies out of a 300 page children's book.  I saw them on DVD, though, and was kind of underwhelmed by the first two movies.  Didn't hate them, but just had that "meh" feeling about them.

However, I finally broke down & saw this one in the theater and liked it quite a bit, though I could have lived without the elf-dwarf romance.  I thought it was the best of the three movies with the initial action sequence to start the movie, and then the standoff and Bilbo's attempted heroics, and then the big battle to finish.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 30, 2015)

I saw the movie yesterday and liked it more than I expected to. I thought Lee Pace as King of the Elves was awesome. And the war boar and war rams as Dwarven mounts were very cool.


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (Jan 31, 2015)

Azog, we have wormsign the likes of which even Sauron has never seen!


----------



## Cristian Andreu (Feb 3, 2015)

I had a lot of fun with it. It's not very often we get to see dwarfs cursing and smashing orcs in movies, so I relished the opportunity. I even managed to find Thranduil somewhat cool, and that's a character I've disliked ever since I read the book at age 11.

It did feel a bit odd at first with Smaug dying so early and everything else being focused on the secondary plot regarding the war. Structurally, it would have made more sense for Smaug to be killed at the end of the second movie, but maybe that would have made selling the third to people harder.

Still, I enjoyed the whole ride (elf/dwarf fanfic aside). Did anyone else notice Bombur didn't have a single line in the entire thing?


----------



## Rune (Feb 3, 2015)

Cristian Andreu said:


> Did anyone else notice Bombur didn't have a single line in the entire thing?




I'm not sure he had any lines in the book, either.


----------



## Cristian Andreu (Feb 3, 2015)

Rune said:


> I'm not sure he had any lines in the book, either.




Haven't read the book in almost two decades, but I seem to remember Bombur spoke with Bilbo in Moria.


----------



## Rune (Feb 3, 2015)

Moria? Surely you mean in the goblin tunnels (would have had to have been before Bilbo got knocked out) or Mirkwood? (Would have had to have been before Bombur fell asleep.)


----------

