What I think is that it's more than a little presumptuous to state that you couldn't like it because you're a Tolkien fan, as if to imply that the ones who enjoyed the movie weren't "real" Tolkien fans. I'm just pointing out what you said.

I would hardly call it a romance, at least from what we've seen between them thus far. It seemed to me that there was more of a mutual, platonic affection between them.

 

It was the one thing I really disliked. It seemed less of a romantic relationship and more of

Spoiler

a relationship between Queen and subject. The whole council seemed as if Gandalf was the bitch of the council. That should have been a meeting of equals and not Gandalf and his three bosses.

 

Just came from the cinema. Holy hobbits, what a piece of shit. Starts off nice enough, but oh God... I'll just say I found it cartoonish. It tries too hard to blend humor with epic, and it just doesn't work. Think Gimli in the LOTR movies but with everyone, everywhere.

On the other hand, it was worth it just to watch Bilbo and Gollum facing off.

 

In the cinemas around me that something you could choose. But yeah there exists a non 3D 48 fps version.

 

Just went to see it with two of my sisters for Christmas. Having remained relatively unspoiled, I cracked the hell up at the ending. I was not expecting that. My brother in law is bitching about it on facebook now.

9/10 - minuses were the disjointed beginning, the White Council, and the handful of scenes where you could not focus your eyes.

 

In the cinema waiting for curtain rise now. Pretty fucking excited.

Post movie: Hrrnnnnnggghkkkkaaaaaaaahhhhhh.


Go see it. Now. Thorin Oakenshield is a total bro.

 

Saw it on Thursday. Really came out of it with mixed feelings. Now I've never read any of Tolkein's books (could never get into the writing style), but I was a big fan of the LOTR movies so I'll be trying to judge it coming from that.

On the 48fps thing, I'm usually picky about stuff like that. I can't stand watching 100/200Hz interpolation on normal TV, and when I do video editing I tend to downscale everything to 24/25/30fps from 60fps. But didn't even realize the movie was 48fps until I read it here.

On the actual movie, it was fun, somewhat juvenile, but with that LOTR epic-ness thrown in at times. It was the kinda movie that would cause laughs at quite a few points from the audience and yet still have you on the edge of the seat waiting for more.

But there was quite a few things that annoyed me. To start with:

- It felt all too familiar. A completely different adventure to Fellowship of the Ring, and yet it felt like they went through the same experiences. Leaving the Shire on a quest with a fellowship, narrowly escaping death to end up at Rivendell, scaling snowy mountains, ending up in mines fighting goblins, dealing with gollum, etc.

I know there's not much you can do about that, given it's from the book, but as a LOTR movie fan I was hoping to experience something new in Middle Earth. I loved seeing Erebor, Dol Guldur, Smaug and the Necromancer.

- Stone giants. Wtf was up with that. Maybe it made more sense in the books, but it just kinda came from nowhere and was rather jarring.

- Eagles. Deus ex machina if I ever saw one. In LOTR they were annoying enough already, but it was really annoying when it happened in Hobbit. Felt cheap.

- We're told at the start that most of the dwarves aren't even warriors. And yet these amateurs are taking on hordes of goblins and orcs better than Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli in LOTR.

The biggest problem with a lot of these issues is more that it felt like it detracted from LOTR for me. LOTR was this unique and epic story in this huge world of Middle Earth. But now it's not quite so unique with Hobbit occupying the same place - except losing a lot of the epicness and replacing it more with more comedy, and a juvenile feel. It almost felt like a parody at times (with similar situations, but different ways of dealing with it).

I will say that despite my first point, I did enjoy a lot of the foreboding towards LOTR. I loved the meeting at Rivendell when they're talking about Sauron and the Witch King.

I agree with you there. It took me a while to realize that the events shown in Erebor were generations ago, and not just a decade or two.

 

Sigh. I wrote this big long rant. It wasn't worth snapping at you for being ignorant of Tolkien's works. A lot of your complaints make very little sense to anyone who has read even the Hobbit.

I'll say this: You wanted something new? Another Wizard, completely different from the two you've seen on screen who is slightly crazy and rather naive. A dragon. As in the embodiment of greed-style treasure-hording dragon... Old school I'm a vampire and I don't shine type shit. Don't forget goblins. And true dwarf attitude, their greed for gems and all. And storm giants. There is a pile of new in this that you avoided watching or for some reason disliked (Storm giants.... in Middle Earth... a place full of walking trees?!).

Sigh. Go read the book if the movie didn't draw you in. Because there is plenty to come. Don't even get me started on how cool as fuck Beornlings are going to be.


Oh and the eagles and all things dealing with the eagles: The mythos behind these eagles is rather complicated without knowing the history of Middle Earth and just never translates well. Suffice to say that the demi-gods... we'll just call them Gandalf's bosses... All had pet races they loved... their almost avatars in Middle Earth... Eagles were some of the closest to the guy who's in charge over there.

They basically only help on rare occasions because of love of Gandalf. The end of LotR they only helped because that was the Age of Man and they didn't want to interfere until man's fate was decided. In the Hobbit it was one part Gandalf love and one part close proximity to where they nest. The movie couldn't properly explain this because it requires straight exposition. Basically Gandalf's bros with their bro and had permission to seek their aid when needed.

EDIT: And all Dwarves in both books were excellent fighters. Not to mention Gimli is Gloin's (one of the 14 companions) sons. Not very surprising his father could fight well considering the age of strife of his time versus the age of well-being Gimli saw.

 

It's not so complicated: Eagles are the heralds of Manwe, the Zeus/Jupiter/Odin of the LotR pantheon (notably, there's a monotheistic god who is above the pantheon, and created the pantheon, so Manwe isn't the top of the food chain, but he's second - third if you include Melkor).

Gandalf, before he was sent to Middle Earth, was a lesser member of the same order of beings (the Ainur) called Olórin. It was Manwe who nominated Olórin to be sent to Middle Earth, and it's hinted that originally Manwe intended for Olórin to be the leader, not Curumo (Saruman). Only Olórin's humility prevented it. Nonetheless, it was Gandalf who received one of the three Elvish rings of power, not Saruman, because Cirdan perceived that Gandalf was the wiser.

Anyway, Gandalf's close association with Manwe no doubt is what gives him that relationship with the eagles (though the eagles in Middle Earth are but the diminished descendants of the originals). Aside from that relationship, though, the eagles appear again and again in the history of Arda as fighting for the good guys.

 

Also consider, that in the book, the Eagles were not summoned by Gandalf, but only investigated the commotion on the cliff because the Lord of the Eagles saw the fires and grew curious. At the moment of their intervention in the books, there were several hundred more Wargs present with the Goblins only arriving some time after the Companions had been chased up the trees. The Lord of Eagles plucked Gandalf from his tree literally in the second before he summoned lightning to himself and dove down in an attempt to kill as many foes as he could before being overcome himself.

A large reason for the Eagles rendering their help also comes from the fact that Gandalf had met them before and removed an arrow from their Lord--their actions during the rescue and aid rendered after came from discharging a debt. They also didn't just carry them all the way to the Lonely Mountain because (a), DRAGON, and (b), there are men with bows who are quite capable of killing them in defense of their cattle.

 

I watched the movie a couple of days back. It was good fun. I think that if the Hobbit had come out before LOTR, it would have been epic. Now though, since I'm used to the scenery and the characters, it feels like a decent watch rather than an awesome one.

 

Yeah, I figured there'd be good explainations for a lot of the stuff (like the eagles) and I know Jackson was limited by the medium in terms of how much he could really show about the world, but to someone without that background it was just a little jarring.

I think I did come across as more hating than I really was in the post. I did enjoy the movie. And I most definitely loved most of that new stuff - except the storm giants (not that they were necessarily a problem from a world perspective, but more felt out of place in the story - and its never really explained to the audience). Like I said in my last post, I loved seeing the scenes with Erebor, the Necromancer, Smaug, etc.

What I was referring to was less about what we were exposed to in Middle Earth, and more about the story in general. Just like Fellowship of the Ring was a story about a group of people going on a quest - starting from the Shire, being saved going through Rivendell, through the mountains, through the mines, etc - so is the Hobbit. It takes a more lighthearted, comical take on it, but that's why I said it almost felt like a parody at times.

Fair enough. Is there a reason in the books as to why goblins are so weak (and retarded) as well? Thinking about it, they tried to avoid fighting the orcs directly, but the goblins they were completely destroying.

Yeah I agree. Going from Hobbit to LOTR would have been a better experience for me.

From a marketing perspective it made more sense to do LOTR first though. Guaranteed more watchers for the Hobbit than the other way around would.

 

I'm glad to know other people had the "eyes? fuck you, don't focus til I tell you to, bitch!" moments, because there were incredibly jarring and felt really out of place. I was it in 3d, so that ma have exacerbated the issue, but one two notable occassions (Dragon waking up and huge, out of focus, gold piles and when they did the overhead view of a ravine) I felt like I was NOT watching a professional movie.

Otherwise I felt like this was definitely part of the Lord of the Rings. A lot of things smacked you in the face (Frodo in the first part, gollum, the One Ring, etc.) but the other ones were well done with their subtlety. I never heard the Hobbit, but I had read the LOTR, so it was nice to be surprised.

But seriously, what was with the Goblin King's second chin? Ugh it was so.... And it took me too long to figure out that they were goblins for no reason. Were they green it'd have been fine, but they were colored the same as trolls and orcs. That needed to be explained better, and despite the fact he was in charge, I still don't know his name.

Eagles felt expected. Same with Bilbo proving himself worth-while. I had no complaints about that, except that I wish Bilbo had just manned up sooner, and also LEARNED TO USE HIS DAMN SWORD. I know they were rushing about a fair amount, but by comparison, the Fellowship was going to save the world, and they still had time for lessons...

 

I quite liked the Hobbit. There were some things that irked me (Azog, how silly Radagast was), but overall I thought it was a great movie. And while it can't compare it to The Lord of the Rings, I thought it was a great adaptation of the book into a movie, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

That being said, it wasn't as epic as The Lord of the Rings, and it wasn't supposed to be. Middle Earth is less evil in The Hobbit. You remember Saruman's description of Sauron in The Fellowship, but in The Hobbit he hasn't yet regained much of his former power and while he is preparing to cover all the worlds in a second darkness, he's still early in those preparations.

So, if the orcs seem slightly less evil and intimidating, if everything feels a little more magical, it's supposed to be that way, because Middle Earth is a more magical place. The Elves haven't begun to leave and Sauron's oppressive presence can't be feld.

 

Only some theatres have the The Hobbit in 48fps, here is the list of the theatres that do.

 

Went to see it today, and I really enjoyed it. The framing at the beginning, with Frodo and the part being set up, was perhaps a little too long (arguably unnecessary except as a call out to LOTR), and some of the action scenes could maybe have been trimmed, but overall I think they did a good job.

 

Saw it today and enjoyed it immensely. It wasn't as epic as the LotR trilogy, but it neither tried nor needed to be. This is looking to be a fairly long review, and heavy with spoilers, so read at your own risk.

Spoiler

As I said, I enjoyed it a lot. The tone was more whimsical, the battles less grim and Martin Freeman plays a brilliant Hobbit. Overall I'd say it succeeds in what it tried to do, which was give Tolkien's world a breath of fresh air and set the tone for the next two films.

My favourite part absolutely has to be the Riddles in the Dark with Gollum. I've said it before but Andy Serkis is just brilliant when it comes to playing unstable characters, and I liked his performance in this even more than I did in the original trilogy. The balance between Gollum's humorous naivety and Smeagol's viciousness was perfect, especially the ending of the riddles when he seemed ready to kill Bilbo. The minor callback to Gandalf's advice about when to kill and when to have mercy seemed a bit forced, but that was mostly because everyone knew Gollum was going to live and that Bilbo wouldn't be able to kill him.

Thorin Oakenshield is a bro. The part where he apologised to Bilbo was cathartic in a minor way, but seemed forced in the same way Gandalf's advice was. Another meta-criticism, I know, but that was my impression. He is pretty damn badass though, and they did a good job getting me invested in his character through the story itself, even with the poor execution.

The one major complaint I have about the Hobbit is the exposition about Thorin and Erebor. The opening info dump (and Balin's story about Thorin) looked great but completely broke the flow of the opening third of the story for me. I know we needed the information, but there's three god damn films. Could they not have stretched it out a bit? I did like the way they tied Bilbo's writing to the very start of the Fellowship of the Ring though; that was well done.

The trolls were funny, especially with Bilbo's attempts to free the ponies going on in the background. Kili and Fili get lumped in here as well for good comic relief. The rest of the Dwarves were a bit light on characterisation (Thorin and Balin excluded), but there was a good bit of emphasis placed on the more distinctive characters. The aforementioned Kili and Fili stood out a lot, as did Bofur the Irish Dwarf and Bombur the Fat One. Dwalin made a big impression at the start but then faded into the background later on, which was a shame.

I hadn't remembered the Storm Giants from the book, but it has been a long time since I last read it, so they caught me by surprise. This part broke my suspension of disbelief a bit, since the only thing I could really think at that point was 'THEY'RE STANDING ON GARADOS'. It eventually got to the point where I was actively aware of where the plot armour was being used, which broke the flow for me.

That said, it was immediately followed by Riddles in the Dark and Goblin-Town, so any complaints I had at that point were immediately forgotten. The Great Goblin reminded me a lot of the Vogon from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in a good way. He had that same anti-charisma that is its own kind of charm and I could barely tear my eyes away from his fat-beard. He absolutely stole every scene he was in and I loved the fat bastard for it.

Hell, once they got down into the Mountain I can't recall a single moment where I broke my suspension of disbelief. Well, except for one. People do not fall into chasms and wake up from it, unless they're Gandalf. This goes double when they try to sledge down a cliff on a piece of bridge. It did fit with the lighter hearted tone of the battle with the goblins though, so I was able to ignore it fairly easily.

Radagast's rabbit sleigh did break it slightly, but when he started leading the Orcs/Wargs on a merry chase I ignored it in favour of laughing my ass off. It was like watching Hippy Claus at work. His introduction was interesting and showcased his character very well; I liked how McCoy was able to go from slightly mad, naive and bumbling to skilled wizard in the space of a single scene. Then again, he was the Doctor for a long while. Could have done without the bird shit though.

The White Council was a necessary annoyance, and lore unfriendly, now that I think about it. Elrond knew, personally, that Isildur did not destroy the One Ring, so his insistence that they should not worry about Sauron potentially returning was out of character for him. He's supposed to be one of the wisest elves in Middle Earth, but here acts like a mortal man. I can understand his wish for peace, but it is foolish to ignore not just the words of Gandalf but of Galadriel as well.

Saruman was the designated villain for this scene as well. I saw it coming as soon as he turned up, but I suppose it's to be expected. It's too much to let people see that he was once a good person, if prideful. He and Elrond teaming up against Gandalf did seem to put them on a higher footing than Gandalf, despite them all supposedly being equals (at least in the important ways). That said, he did voice the logical argument, and if it was anything but a story he'd likely have been in the right to do so. Too bad we know what's coming.

Galadriel... was well done and annoying in equal measure, I think. She acted as Gandalf's boss for the most part, despite him being the wiser and more knowledgeable of the two when it comes to Sauron's plans. On the other hand I did enjoy the show of camaraderie and platonic love they had; that was a very Tolkien-esque scene. Her telepathy was both irksome to me, for no specific reason, and interesting too.

Now having covered the White Council, we can look at Sauron the Necromancer. From what we saw of him he looked pretty cool, and the Witchking of Angmar seems to be getting some more screentime as an actual villain rather than just as the leader of the Nazgûl. I can see the second film focusing a lot more on him than on Smaug, given that the group venture through Mirkwood Forest in the next one. Radagast's exploration of Dol Guldur was great for showing him to be more than just a vet and for showcasing the powers of the Necromancer. The glowing runes on the ruins looked interesting too, I have to wonder if they'll play a part at all.

Finally, there is the matter of Azog. A number of things are a bit inconsistent with him, such as why he decided to track down Thorin right then rather than years ago and how he managed to get over the Misty Mountains in just a few hours, despite the storm, giants and goblins. I know it's important to given Thorin a personal enemy he can fight after his character arc is done, rather than a huge dragon, but I'd have preferred a bit more exposition on him... Or maybe the exposition he was in just didn't sit right with me, which affected my take on his character.

So yeah, I had a few criticisms. The first third of the movie felt pretty damn disjointed to me, but once the exposition was dumped everything just seemed to fit into place. The only problems I had after that were minor ones, especially in relation to the info dumps, and vastly outnumbered by awesome or funny scenes. I'd give it a solid 8/10 and am going to recommend it to anyone and everyone I meet.

 

Can't help wondering about this.

In the original Hobbit, Bilbo scouted the lair of Smaug and discovered his weakness pretty much by chance.

What if instead of that -- and in lieu of the movies (the first one, anyway) seeming to upgrade him to a more active, badass hero -- he'll find the arkenstone at the location? And he'll cut the jewel from the dragon's chest (in the same fashion as the silmaril was stolen from Morgoth by Beren), thereby creating the weakness?

 

Trailer for part 2, The Desolation of Smaug. Looks pretty sweet, although on first watch I wasn't entirely convinced by Smaug...might be better once I've watched it a few more times though.