# Hobbit lives up to expectations



## Black Dragon

Word is leaking out from today's premiere of _The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey_ in New Zealand, and the movie is very good:

The Hobbit impresses early audience - Entertainment - NZ Herald News

I always believed that Peter Jackson and company could pull this off.  

I'm counting down the days...


----------



## Steerpike

Looking forward to it.


----------



## Jess A

Looks good. 48 fps...

Barry Humphries


----------



## Codey Amprim

December 14th is taking forever to get here!


----------



## Sheilawisz

This is excellent news for all of us, really can't wait to watch _The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey_!!

I want to watch it in my birthday with my sister, so I'll have to wait for December 16th... at least you can watch it the 14th. Then you all will be writing here about how awesome it is, and I'll be even more desperate to watch it.

_The Hobbit_ trilogy will make history =)


----------



## Black Dragon

I'm not going to get to see it until the 15th, as that's when our babysitters (grandma & grandpa) are available.  




Sheilawisz said:


> This is excellent news for all of us, really can't wait to watch _The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey_!!
> 
> I want to watch it in my birthday with my sister, so I'll have to wait for December 16th... at least you can watch it the 14th. Then you all will be writing here about how awesome it is, and I'll be even more desperate to watch it.
> 
> _The Hobbit_ trilogy will make history =)


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

Looking forward to it.  I just hope the number of comedians appearing won't mean its too light-hearted though.


----------



## SlimShady

So excited.  December 14th is my birthday so I'll probably see it on the weekend.


----------



## CupofJoe

And we lucky Brits get to see it on the 13th.
But I don't think I'll see it in the cinema, full of people on their mobile phones... and the film is usually out of focus until you tell them... because they are still showing it through the 3D filter. I really dislike British cinemas...


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

CupofJoe said:


> And we lucky Brits get to see it on the 13th.
> But I don't think I'll see it in the cinema, full of people on their mobile phones... and the film is usually out of focus until you tell them... because they are still showing it through the 3D filter. I really dislike British cinemas...



Hehe, me too.  I saw the Return of the King in the cinema, and it was epic on the big screen, but cinemas, audiences and advertising has got worse since then.


----------



## Black Dragon

I haven't been to a movie theater since Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.  I'm hoping that the cinema experience hasn't gotten worse in the U.S. over the past couple of years.


----------



## Jess A

Yes advertising has gotten ridiculous these days. I show up late on purpose; I won't waste my time watching ads. And if I think the cinema is going to be full, I bloody well show up several weeks after it's released...I intend on doing this for _The Hobbit_ and _Skyfall_. Eager as I am to see them both, I am not eager enough to brave the crowds. I do remember lining up for hours to see the LOTR trilogy - I kindly went along with my friend when I would have otherwise waited. 

Something I've noticed is that they are putting film previews in with ads. So there's no just skipping the advertising section and arriving to see the previews.


----------



## Sheriff Woody

I go to the theater in the morning/early afternoon. Not only are the tickets cheaper, but there are less people in the audience, and all the annoying kiddies are in school. It's a quiet and peaceful affair that allows me to sit back with some lunchtime popcorn and just enjoy the movie. 

Going first thing in the morning on December 14th.


----------



## MFreako

Going to watch it on December 12th. Been waiting for it a while now, the geek that I am. Kinda excited


----------



## Jess A

Australia has decided to release it Boxing Day (26th) - marketing and all that. So I have to wait a bit longer. Especially as I will probably wait two weeks after its release date before I go! So many good films to see though.


----------



## Reaver

There's a Midnight showing here, but I already know that it's going to be packed, so I'm opting for the 11 am showing. Hopefully it won't be too bad.

I also hope that the movie isn't a let down.


----------



## tlbodine

I think we're aiming for the midnight release tonight.  If not, there's always tomorrow.  I'm pretty excited -- it'd been a long time since I've braved a midnight release...


----------



## Chilari

I personally did not feel it lived up to expectations. It was good, don't get me wrong, but expectations were very high and it fell short. I felt it dragged a bit, and at 2 hours and 46 minutes was much too long; a lot could have been cut. The film's main villain was manufactured, the pacing was off and suspension of disbelief was too frequently broken. Having said that, Gollum was spot on and everything looked utterly gorgeous. I have posted a full review on my website, if anyone wants to read it.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

Chilari said:


> I personally did not feel it lived up to expectations. It was good, don't get me wrong, but expectations were very high and it fell short. I felt it dragged a bit, and at 2 hours and 46 minutes was much too long; a lot could have been cut. The film's main villain was manufactured, the pacing was off and suspension of disbelief was too frequently broken. Having said that, Gollum was spot on and everything looked utterly gorgeous. I have posted a full review on my website, if anyone wants to read it.



Just read your review, interesting and well written (I haven't seen the film yet).  It's kind of a shame though if it has silly moments that don't work, I found them quite jarring in the original trilogy.  My least liked scenes are the ones where Legolas "skateboards" downstairs on a shield, and takes down an occupied mumak single handed.  Hope he's not trying to be Indiana Jones in these films.  By the way, does it end before the Mirkwood sequence.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Just came back from seeing it. Honestly, I think it's a good, fun movie, pretty much.

Over-all, it has all the bells and whistles you'd expect, and the characters are all very likable. Martin Freeman does a fantastic job as Bilbo and the dwarves are a fun (but occasionally very serious) bunch. There's also seveal familiar faces from the older movies swinging by in cameos, most of which don't feel _completely _shoehorned in. We even get to meet Radagast the Brown, which has got to be a first as far as I know. 

This movie does have a somewhat different mood and feel to it compared to the LotR trilogy. I feels... I wouldn't say more childish, but it definitely doesn't take itself quite as seriously. It's more lighthearted, I guess? Wether that's a good or bad thing, I suppose comes down to your individual taste. It certainly has more sense of humour, anyway. 

(I know the books are exactly the same way, The Hobbit being more of a children's story, but it's sorta wierd seeing it translated to the movie screen like this.)

There is a lot of padding, though - they pretty much have to pad it out for it to last three movies. Again, not sure if this is necessarily a bad thing since it's actually pretty well done. They spend a lot of this first movie building up some kind of looming threat, as if everything that goes on in this one is just signs of something worse. I quite liked that. 

On the other hand, it also makes the story feel kinda disjointed, because it's really just a trip from Shire to the Lonely Mountain and the story here is just all the things that happen to the group along the way. Actually, it kinda reminded me of Skyrim, the way they kept running into adventure _on their way to the adventure. _

("Let's head to that mountain and fight a dragon. We're attacked by wolves! Now we're fighting trolls! Hey, I heard that there's a _necromancer _living in that old abandoned fortress!")

Also, some of the shenanigans do go a bit far. The thing that broke my suspension of disbelief was Gandalf 


Spoiler: Minor spoilers, but just to be safe.



doing the butterfly trick to summon the giant eagles again. Now, I know that's part of Gandalf's resumÃ©, but... it's a _butterfly_. They're not even very fast flyers by insect standards. So unless the eagles are roosting behind that big rock right over there, there is no way that butterfly would reach them in time. 

But of course, the butterfly flutters off and five minutes later some huge goddamn eagles show up. I'm pretty sure I'm not even exaggerating.



I'm also displeased that Glamdrig and Orcrist don't glow like Sting does. (Especially since Gandalf explains to Bilbo that elf blades do just that, as if it was a very common feature.) I think Peter Jackson threw away a great opportunity in not having three glowing swords as opposed to just one. Because, as we all know, glow-in-the-dark swords are as awesome as they are impractical.

Oh and why is one of the dwarves fighting with a slingshot? Even Bilbo got a real weapon; give the poor guy a bow or something.

Oh well, I'm probably nitpicking. Over-all, it was a good movie and I will definitely see the other ones.


----------



## Jess A

Legolas skateboard scene?

-Groan-

And I found the LOTR films dragged so much I nearly fell asleep each time. That's not to say that I didn't enjoy them. I did. But I could have done with watching them in halves, that's for sure. I'm not sure I can sit there for nearly three hours. I don't have the attention span anymore. 

That said, I am still looking forward to it. Is anyone able to tell me how far into the book the first movie went? (a general idea). Australia isn't releasing it until Boxing Day. They'll make more money that way, no doubt.


----------



## Jess A

Chilari said:


> I have posted a full review on my website, if anyone wants to read it.



Good review. I can't wait to see the riddles scene.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Little Storm Cloud said:


> Legolas skateboard scene?
> 
> -Groan-



Nah, the humour was better in this one. Or, at least, didn't feel as forced.



> That said, I am still looking forward to it. Is anyone able to tell me how far into the book the first movie went? (a general idea). Australia isn't releasing it until Boxing Day. They'll make more money that way, no doubt.



It ends a bit after they escape the goblin mountain.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Nah, the humour was better in this one. Or, at least, didn't feel as forced.
> 
> 
> 
> It ends a bit after they escape the goblin mountain.



Wow, they really are stretching it.  I would rather have it as two films, but I shouldn't judge until I've seen it.  Does Saruman or the White council appear in the first film?  (I'll stop asking questions eventually).


----------



## MadMadys

I saw the midnight showing last night, IMax 3D 48 fps version, and was overall happy with it.  I won't do a review of it but I'll put down some remarks that contain no spoilers:

-Overall I can tell they're trying to fit in a lot.  Even with the runtime as it is, you can tell Jackson and his team want to really lore this version up.  This could put some people off and even I found some bits- and I have a ok grasp of the Tolkien lore, hardly an expert- found some things shoehorned for the sake of creating more tension.
-Visually it's a tale of two movies at 48 fps.  When people or landscapes are on screen things look gorgeous.  I could watch aerial shots of New Zealand all day.  Some creatures, like Gollum, also look very good however there are times, when say a lot of goblins are on camera, that the high frame rate hurts the movie by making it very obvious they're computer generated.  To the point where I have to try and not notice it which, for some sequences, is hard.
-A fairly well acted movie with Freeman doing a great job and Mckellen filling old shoes.  Thorin is a little bit... overwrote compared to the books but I suppose for a three picture movie it isn't a bad idea.  Not all the dwarves are given ample screen time to distinguish themselves but, again, we have two more movies to go.
-How they handled Smaug was very good.  Very much teasing throughout with the ending being just the perfect nod it had to be.
-del Toro's influence in character design was still evident, to me at least.  He may have left the production early but his works are still there.


I would suggest seeing it in normal 24 fps for the first time through and, if you want, rewatching it at the higher one afterwards.  It allows you to drink in the visuals without being distracted and missing anything vital story-wise.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Aidan of the tavern said:


> Wow, they really are stretching it.  I would rather have it as two films, but I shouldn't judge until I've seen it.  Does Saruman or the White council appear in the first film?  (I'll stop asking questions eventually).



Saruman does show up briefly. In fact,several LotR characters do.

By the way, I actually felt kinda sorry for Saruman, because from his perspective he must think of himself at the only Istari who takes his job seriously. He's kind of the straight man to the other two, and I can totally see him looking at Gandalf and Radagast and going all: "Damn it, you two, with your mushrooms and your Hobbit weed. We're supposed to be these great legendary wizards..." 

It was probably just a matter of time before he snapped and decided to join Sauron.


----------



## Codey Amprim

Saw _The Hobbit_ last night. It was the quickest 3 hours I've ever felt go past. I don't want to wait another year for the next part! Definitely worth every penny.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Saruman does show up briefly. In fact,several LotR characters do.
> 
> By the way, I actually felt kinda sorry for Saruman, because from his perspective he must think of himself at the only Istari who takes his job seriously. He's kind of the straight man to the other two, and I can totally see him looking at Gandalf and Radagast and going all: "Damn it, you two, with your mushrooms and your Hobbit weed. We're supposed to be these great legendary wizards..."
> 
> It was probably just a matter of time before he snapped and decided to join Sauron.



Yes, I love grey characters with complex stories.


----------



## Ireth

I'm going to see it on Sunday! *bounces in excitement*


----------



## tlbodine

In which I ramble incoherently about the movie because my brain is too frazzled for a real review: T.L. Bodine: Thoughts About The Hobbit 

tl;dr: loved it.  It's not exactly The Hobbit made into a movie so much as it's the story of The Hobbit anchored in Peter Jackson's Middle Earth.  And I'm pretty much OK with that.


----------



## Jess A

Thank you Anders. 

Also, on the 48fps - I heard some people at the preview felt a little ill watching it? I'm very curious though.


----------



## Chilari

I have now seen the Hobbit a second time and will shortly update my blog post about it. I enjoyed it more the second time. Spotted some things I missed the first time round. Made notes again and (thanks in part to some dim lighting in this cinema that was lacking in the first, and in part due to the fact I was no longer worried about missing anything) this time made quite a lot of them. Filled about 15 A6 pages and kept within the lines this time too.

It didn't feel quite so slow the second time round as I felt it did the first. Possibly because I was busy making notes in the slow parts and at times looking for the bits I noticed last time, my brain always whirring for things to say, whereas the first time it was more a take it all in sort of thing.

I think there were three major sections that could have been cut:


Spoiler: Hobbit plot



Firstly, the prolgoue. Now, I don't know if the Arkenstone will become important later, but that bit wasn't needed; the description of the whole city could have been cut and the bit about the king having a sickness didn't make sense, because it wasn't this greed, this sickness that caused the city to fall, it was the dragon.

Secondly, the conversation in Rivendell with Galadriel and Saruman. They didn't need to be there being in Saruman's case all accusing Gandalf of tilting at windmills; for a start, we don't need a big old serious council to hint at the danger of the necromancer, we got the picture with Radagast's tale. Plus, we get it, Saruman became evil in LOTR, but this is 60 years earlier and while he might be more serious and rigid than Gandalf, he's known as the wise, and shouldn't be dismissing a threat and the evidence that supports its reality out of hand, he should investigate even if he is skeptical, because he's meant to be the wise one, so his behaviour is irrational. But he doesn't even need to be there anyway, and the whole "Let's not go to Rivendell, they'll try to stop us" thing is manufactured, there is no reason Elrond, Saruman or Galadriel should try to stop the drawfs from reclaiming their homeland.

Finally, the mountain giant fight scene. It was not, to my knowledge, in the book, it was stupid, it made the film feel like a string of action scenes interspersed with establishing shots I can only assume were sponsored by the New Zealand tourism board, and it was unnecessary. If We must have Thorin tell Bilbo he shouldn't be there, why not have Bilbo slip on the wet surface created by the storm they're all looking for shelter from (which is sufficient reason to seek shelter, by the way, don't need big old rock giants) and then keep the bit with Thorin saving him. Then the other action sequences wouldn't feel so trivial.



I've got a lot more to say about the film than even that which I have written in my (fairly long) review, but I think I'll leave it a while and let the thoughts in my head stew a while.


----------



## tlbodine

Chilari, has it been a while since you read the book?  I think some of the issues you mention are foreshadowing to events that'll be happening later.  Now, whether they *really* needed to be foreshadowed in the first movie is debatable, but I do think they needed to be in there some place before they become major plot points later.  



Spoiler: Spoiler



The Arkenstone is vitally important to the story.  And while dwarven greed didn't exactly destroy the city, it sure causes problems for them later.  I think it was important to show how Thorin reacted to his city being destroyed (nobly, caring more about safety than treasure, being visibly bothered by his grandfather's greed) so we can contrast that with how he is later at the Battle of Five Armies.

And the stone giants definitely do get mentioned in The Hobbit, although it's been a point of debate for fans ever since because they never show up again: Stone-Giants - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum
   It made me happy to see them, but I agree that the scene did run over-long and was probably unnecessary.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

When I was watching the movie, I seriously couldn't remember wether or not the giants were in the book. 

That said, I did think they felt out of place in the LotR movie universe either way. If I had to pick one scene to be cut from the movie, it would be that one.


----------



## Chilari

I have been rereading the Hobbit for the first time since I was 12 in the last few days, but didn't get far before seeing the film. Some stuff I had to check on Wikipedia before writing my review. But I don't think that's really an issue. My main problem with the film isn't about closeness of adaptation, exactly, but the way things are included which are unnecessary to the plot and stretch the length of the film. It's a long film at 2 hours 46 minutes and sometimes does drag - the most frequent complaint I've heard about it. With other film adaptations, large sections are cut because film is a different medium and tension works differently and there's a de facto time limit. In Lord of the Rings, the whole Tom Bombadil section was cut from Fellowship, for example. That's how things work with film adaptations. And that is fine. As I say, it's a different medium so it can't be the same. With the Hobbit, nothing (that I've spotted) has been cut, but rather bits ahve been added. Yes it shows a different storyline, but that's not the point. The point is things should have been cut that were in the book that were not cut. They should have been cut to make it a tighter film, to make the impact of the scenes which are important greater, and to keep it focused and of a length that people can endure without feeling it drags.

We as writers are told that this is what editing is for: the first draft can ramble, go off on tangents, explore a character's backstory when we don't need to know it. Editing trims the fat, keeps it down to what is important to the story. The Hobbit felt unedited, or at least poorly edited. Too much fat is left untrimmed. At least one, and quite probably two, of the scenes I mentioned could have been trimmed more. There are other bits that could be trimmed too.

Another thing we are told: increase the tension incrementally until the climax. Don't just keep the level of tension flat (even if it is high). I think in particular the scene I mentioned in my spoiler tag above, this does not hold true. Aside from a few moments that are a little quieter, from that point to the end of the movie it's basically a straight horizontal line on the tension over time chart. Remove that one scene, change it as I suggested, and both the length/dragging problem and the tension problem (to a lesser degree) are solved.

I honestly think Peter Jackson didn't try hard enough to get it under 2 hours. He could have done. But it feels like he's released the Extended Edition instead of the standard edition.


----------



## Black Dragon

For me, it did live up to expectations.  I was expecting the Hobbit plus lots of Middle Earth lore, which is what we got.  Was it slower than LOTR?  Yes.  But I enjoyed the leisurely pace this time around.  It felt like we got to really know locations, before rushing on to the next sequence.

A few points that I'd like to respond to;

1. The mountain giant fight is totally in the book.  I have an illustrated edition that my mom would read to me as a child, and that picture of the stone giants fighting captured my imagination more than any other image.  In the book, the giant fight is what forces the company to take refuge in the cavern.  This was omitted from the Rankin-Bass animated version.

2.  The scene where Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond and Galadriel discuss the growing threat in Mirkwood is referenced in Tolkien's other writings.  The group of them together was known as The White Council, and they were a legendary force in Middle Earth (think the Avengers).  Seeing the White Council in session was very cool, and pleased the Tolkien nerd in me.

3. The villainous Orc, Azog the Defiler, was not manufactured.  Again, he's referenced in Tolkien's other writings, and was a legendary enemy of the dwarves.  He did kill Thorin's grandfather, and Thorin did earn the name Oakenshield while fighting Azog's forces at the gates of Moria. What Jackson did was include him in this story so as to give an identifiable face to the Orc horde.  Rather than being chased around by a nameless group of Orcs and Wargs, they have a defined leader who - according to Tolkien's lore - would be the avowed enemy of Thorin.

4. The greed of the dwarf king is foreshadowing a major turn of events later in the story.  I appreciated the foreshadowing in this case, as it makes later decisions seem more believable (you'll see what I mean in the third film).  Also, the idea of Dwarven greed bringing monsters into their midst is consistent with Tolkien's mythology (think Balrog).

All that being said, the writer in me appreciates what Chilari is saying in her review.  This film could have been cut by 30 minutes, and would have been tighter, better paced, and more suspenseful.  But the Tolkien nerd in me LOVED seeing all of these references to the lore of Middle-Earth on screen.  

In this case, my inner nerd trumps my inner writer and says "screw it," give me as much Middle Earth as possible.  The more obscure Tolkien lore, the better.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Come to think of it, the dwarf king's greed/hording disorder did_ sorta_ cause the fall of his kingdom, in that he amassed a ridiculously huge pile of gold that caught the attention of a dragon. 

I can sorta see what Chilari means, because it puzzled me too, but in retrospect I think it was mostly a matter of unclear wording.


----------



## Black Dragon

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Come to think of it, the dwarf king's greed/hording disorder did sorta cause the fall of his kingdom, in that he amassed a ridiculously huge pile of gold that caught the attention of a dragon.



You are correct.  Tolkien says as much in The Quest of Erebor, where he tells what really was going on behind the scenes of The Hobbit.


----------



## Black Dragon

Chilari said:


> this greed, this sickness that caused the city to fall, it was the dragon.



As pointed out above, the king's greed - and the resulting over-the-top horde of treasure - effectively summoned the dragon, which is the living embodiment of greed.



> Plus, we get it, Saruman became evil in LOTR, but this is 60 years earlier and while he might be more serious and rigid than Gandalf, he's known as the wise, and shouldn't be dismissing a threat and the evidence that supports its reality out of hand



At this point in time Saruman was "already a traitor in his heart."  He was actively seeking to undermine Gandalf at every turn.  He went out of his way to stop the White Council from investigating Mirkwood and the Necromancer.  This exchange comes from Tolkien.  And the White Council sequence will pay off in a big way later.



> there is no reason Elrond, Saruman or Galadriel should try to stop the drawfs from reclaiming their homeland.



Saruman was seeking to stop Gandalf from carrying out his plan.  Gandalf was aware that Saruman was an obstacle, although he didn't know why as of yet.  Also, Thorin knew from experience that the elves were afraid of waking the dragon from his long slumber.



> Finally, the mountain giant fight scene. It was not, to my knowledge, in the book, it was stupid.



In the book, the company gets caught in the middle of the stone giant fight, which is why they seek refuge in the cave.  It's their motivation for finding cover, even more so than the storm.

If you don't mind some major spoilers for the future movies, check out The Quest of Erebor in Tolkien's Unfinished Tales.  The White Council, Azog the Defiler, Saruman's efforts to undermine Gandalf, and much more come from there.  In Tolkien's mind The Hobbit was part of a much larger story, and Jackson is telling that version of the tale. As a hardcore Tolkien geek, I was thrilled to see these details included.


----------



## Philip Overby

Just saw The Hobbit this weekend.  I was really impressed and thought it was well done.  It's also a good example of CGI that doesn't look hokey or stupid.  I connected with the dwarves more than I did in the book, simply because more time is given to develop their characters a bit more.  I also appreciated the added parts as I felt it gave more depth to the story in some ways.  There were several moments where I thought:  "Gee, Gandalf wandered off, I wonder who's going to help them out of this situation."  There are at least three key moments where everyone would have died if not for Gandalf.  But that didn't bother me too much.  Mainly, because there were several moments where the hero, Bilbo, really made the difference.  

And the scenes with Bilbo and Gollum were excellent in my opinion.  

I also appreciated the lighter tone.  For those that have read the book, it is definitely lighter in tone.  It was happy with the overall presentation and even though there were some parts that felt longish, I appreciated the extra scenes with the various "new" characters.  

Overall, I applaud Jackson and the cast and crew.  I look forward to the next installation.


----------



## Inglorious_Hero

I finally saw "The Hobbit" last night and I must say, it was pretty good.  It did trudge along at some parts, as though Jackson was trying to lengthen it, but my inner-nerd loved the trudging.  Seeing the White Council was pretty awesome, as well as the seen with the Storm Giants.  I though it did the best he could have with the story.  Trimming some fat would have made more people enjoy it, but in this case, I'm glad he kept it the way it was.  He was pleasing those of us who like some Middle-Earth Lore.   

5/5 Stars Peter Jackson.


----------



## JohnKPatterson

Went to the movie as a reward for finishing the primary edits on my own fantasy novel. I'm still taking in the joy and delight and the flourishes of imagination that this movie caused. Sure a couple of parts could have been trimmed, but it was still an excellent experience, and I'd rather spend too much time in Middle Earth than too little. Was it as good as the original film trilogy? Almost. To be certain, it is a worthy successor (predecessor?) to Jackson's earlier films, and I can't wait to see the next two.

Actually, at the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing, I did already post some detailed thoughts on it, if anyone was interested in looking: My Return to Middle Earth Â« John K. Patterson


----------



## Reaver

I saw The Hobbit on Friday and I loved it! I think it's great!!


----------



## Black Dragon

JohnKPatterson said:


> Actually, at the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing, I did already post some detailed thoughts on it, if anyone was interested in looking: My Return to Middle Earth Â« John K. Patterson



Wonderful review, John!  You summarized my thoughts exactly.


----------



## Ireth

I just got back from the movie, and HOLY CRAP. It was almost everything I hoped for. Would have liked to hear some more of the songs, but it's a small loss, and the rest definitely made up for it. The CGI looked a bit weird with the 48fps, but it wasn't too terribly distracting. And the music was excellent, with some nice callbacks (or call-forwards?) to the LOTR trilogy. Five out of five stars, would definitely watch again.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Today I have watched _The Hobbit: An unexpected Journey_ celebrating my birthday with my sister, and we really, really loved the entire movie =)

I have not read the book yet, and from my point of view, The Hobbit is a truly fantastical movie of dazzling quality, great entertainment value and powerful imagination... We were entertained and loving it every minute, and we did not want it to end!!

Gandalf is so great in The Hobbit, Radagast was wonderful, Bilbo, everyone...

I cannot wait to watch the next installment of the trilogy =)


----------



## SeverinR

Saw it saturday morning, loved it.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

Sheilawisz said:


> Today I have watched _The Hobbit: An unexpected Journey_ celebrating my birthday with my sister, and we really, really loved the entire movie =)
> 
> I have not read the book yet, and from my point of view, The Hobbit is a truly fantastical movie of dazzling quality, great entertainment value and powerful imagination... We were entertained and loving it every minute, and we did not want it to end!!
> 
> Gandalf is so great in The Hobbit, Radagast was wonderful, Bilbo, everyone...
> 
> I cannot wait to watch the next installment of the trilogy =)



Very Happy Birthday by the way!


----------



## Sheilawisz

Thank you, Aidan!!

It was a fantastic day, and what can be better than watching _The Hobbit: An unexpected Journey_ in your birthday?

Now I want to watch it again while it lasts in the theatres, at least two more times =)


----------



## Sheriff Woody

Great movie! Perhaps a step down from The Lord of the Rings films, but only a small one. It's still the best film of the year by orders of magnitude. 

And this is amazing: 

The Hobbit: Song Of The Lonely Mountain (Heavy Metal Version)


----------



## lawrence

I saw the movie in 3D standard frame speed. I am with Ireth and Sheila...utterly loved it! What a beautiful, stunning film. It didn't feel at all slow or stretched out to me, I could have stayed riveted to my seat for another hour  I am so glad they are drawing in other storylines, and it's all tied together excellently. The Hobbit (book) has a context that is always making its presence felt, and the movie uses that wider picture skilfully and the results were so good, in my opinion.

Standout elements for me were; Gandalf, wonderfully played, especially loved him at Bag-end and in the White Council scene; Erebor, Goblin Town, Rivendel and the woodlands looked incredible in 3D, such gorgeous, vast scenes; Thorin when he confronts Azog on the white warg, wow that look in his eyes, more intense than the flames burning all around; The Eagles flight into the mountains. All terrific moments.

Mild irritations imo; a few bits of dialogue that were too deliberately reminiscent of lines from the LOTR trilogy, I wasn't keen on this self conscious linking via exact phrases spoken by characters; Radagast was a little too kooky and could have done without the bird droppings! He is one of the mighty spirits from the Undying Lands, would have liked some sense of veiled glory, but I guess then he would be too similar to Gandalf.

Can't wait to watch The Hobbit again, and so looking forward to the next two parts.


----------



## Ireth

I really had only one irritation with the movie, and even then it's a small one. When Thorin confronts Azog, a snippet of the theme music from the Mordor orcs in LOTR plays as background music -- which, while it sounds dramatic, really makes zero sense for the context. It was a rather jarring moment in an otherwise beautiful score.


----------



## Sheilawisz

I have already watched The Hobbit again, and liked it even more than the first time =)

Radagast rules, he should have been a part of The Lord of the Rings... I heard that he will play a very important role in this new trilogy, and can't wait to watch more of him.

And Smaug... I can't wait to see the entire Smaug in action!!


----------



## Black Dragon

We wish that we could see the Hobbit again in the cinema.  Unfortunately, it's so hard for us to arrange for babysitting, that it becomes a Herculean effort.  We have a really nice home theater setup, though, so watching movies on blu-ray is just as good.  But it's going to be a long wait until the Hobbit comes to home video.  



			
				Ireth said:
			
		

> When Thorin confronts Azog, a snippet of the theme music from the Mordor orcs in LOTR plays as background music -- which, while it sounds dramatic, really makes zero sense for the context.



My guess is that this Mordor theme was included intentionally, as every thematic cue was used very deliberately.  At first it may not make any sense, unless you consider the over-arching backstory...

As Tolkien explains in other writings, when the Necromancer moved into Greenwood Forest, his presence began to draw all sorts of evil into the greater region.  The reason that orcs were freely roaming in the open was because the dark power was strengthening their resolve and summoning all manner of wicked creatures - without the creatures themselves being aware of it.  

As the Necromancer's power grew, his psychic control over all monsters grew exponentially.  That's why Gandalf was set on destroying the dragon: if the Necromancer became powerful enough, he would gain control over Smaug, and have a great dragon at his command.  Gandalf could not risk this happening.

So getting back to Azog and the Mordor theme...  whether or not Azog realized it, he and his orcs were summoned by the power of the Necromancer, who was influencing their actions.  And as you may guess:



Spoiler: What's really going on



The Necromancer is Sauron, who is rebuilding his army by drawing these creatures towards him.  Azog and his followers are Mordor orcs in the making.  With Sauron's power growing, the freedom of the orcs is vanishing. Soon they will be completely enslaved to the will of the Dark Lord by a cruel psychic bondage.



When this is considered, the Mordor Orc musical theme was perfect for that moment.  It's deliberate foreshadowing, and Howard Shore knew exactly what he was doing when he used it there.

Does that make sense?


----------



## Ireth

That does make sense, Dragon, but it still seems odd to me since the orcs weren't even on-screen when the theme played -- it was all Thorin walking down the burning tree. *shrug*


----------



## lawrence

Very nice bit of analysis, Black Dragon. From what I remember, the music at the point Thorin advanced down the fallen tree at Azog was the motif for the Witch King/Black Riders, in particular it reminded me of the Weathertop scene from _fellowship_ but I may be remembering wrong. 

I did find it a little out of step, in that the music at that point called to mind the approach of an evil power, rather than the raw courage and valour of Thorin rising up. But after a bit of reflection I found it brilliant, because I think what was going on there was that Thorin was being swept up into the schemes of the Necromancer, and he was being pushed into recklessness, the evil power at work, turning Thgorin's own inner bitterness and vengeful heart to its advantage. The satisfied look on Azog's face when he sees Thorin taking the challenge says as much too. In light of this the music seems totally right.


----------



## Phietadix

I was a bit disapointed at the movie, sort of like Voage of the Dawn Treader. I can't stand new plotlines.


----------



## Black Dragon

Phietadix said:


> I can't stand new plotlines.



What plot lines are you referring to?

With the exception of the orcs pursuing Thorin from the start (which isn't much of a stretch), to the best of my knowledge every plot line in the film came from Tolkien himself

Most of it came directly from The Hobbit.  The rest came from the LOTR appendices, and Tolkien's The Quest of Erebor, which tells the events of The Hobbit from Gandalf's vantage point, as opposed to Bilbo's.


----------



## Phietadix

The Pale Orc, I don't remember him in the book. Anyway I started rereading the Hobbit, I'm happy with the number of direct references to the book. Though I didn't like them messing up the troll scence.


----------



## Ireth

Phietadix said:


> The Pale Orc, I don't remember him in the book.



That's because canonically he died in the battle with Thror. The movies for some reason kept him alive, even though there was the perfectly viable option of having his son Bolg go after Thorin for revenge-by-proxy. But oh well.


----------



## Sheriff Woody

Ireth said:


> That's because canonically he died in the battle with Thror. The movies for some reason kept him alive, even though there was the perfectly viable option of having his son Bolg go after Thorin for revenge-by-proxy. But oh well.



I think it worked better the way it was done, because Bolg means nothing to Thorin.


----------



## Black Dragon

Phietadix said:


> The Pale Orc, I don't remember him in the book.



Ireth and Woody already answered this, but I'll throw in my two cents as well.

Azog the Defiler, the pale orc, is from Tolkien.  But as Ireth pointed out, he died in the battle at the gates of Moria, a battle which was depicted in the film.

In The Hobbit (the book), it's Azog's son, Bolg, who is out for revenge against Thorin.  Peter Jackson used cinematic license to make it Azog himself.  As Woody pointed out, Thorin wouldn't know who Bolg was, but having the enemy be Azog adds more resonance and menace to the story.

Jackson made similar choices in adapting LOTR.  For example, rather than introducing the character of Glorfindel for one scene, he gave that part to Arwen so as to better develop her character and have one less elf for audiences to keep track of.  This was a similar decision.

Still, I wouldn't go so far as to call this a new plot-line.  It is a plot line from the book, although the vengeance-seeker is the father himself in the film, as opposed to the son.


----------



## Reaver

Phietadix said:


> Though I didn't like them messing up the troll scence.



It seemed to me that Jackson wanted to intentionally turn it into an action sequence. Maybe it was too boring for him.  It's way off from what happened in The Hobbit. However, it was a pretty cool scene and I enjoyed the new twist.

*EDIT* The only problem that I have with the movie is a very small one. I was disappointed that all of the elven blades found in the troll's cave weren't glowing blue when goblins were near. Why Peter? Why?


----------



## Phietadix

As I'm rereading the book I noticed that the Necromancer is mentioned very early on. Gandalf mentions him before even leaving Bilbo's house and all the Dwarves seem to know who he is.


----------



## saellys

That was a bloated mess. It wasn't good filmmaking, it wasn't good storytelling, and it wasn't the tale I've loved since I watched the Rankin-Bass cartoon before I could read. 

I enjoy Tolkien lore as much as the next fantasy writer, but cramming all that additional material (canon though it may have been, to varying degrees) into a small and charming story was totally unnecessary. Jackson didn't know when to quit--even the Necromancer subplot had to be padded in order to meet some arbitrary runtime requirement, and the whole film was laden with excessive slow-mo and prolonged dramatic reaction shots. If I took a drink every time Thorin got a majestic close-up, I would have died of alcohol poisoning before the second act ended.

The entirety of _The Hobbit_ could have fit in a three-hour film without cutting anything, and it would have been a delightful experience. As it is, I can't stomach the thought of sitting through two more of these, and I look forward to when they're all out in HD so I can get some video editing software and cut them down to the single film they should have been.


----------



## Black Dragon

saellys said:


> That was a bloated mess. It wasn't good filmmaking, it wasn't good storytelling, and it wasn't the tale I've loved



Appreciation of art is largely subjective.  You are certainly entitled to your own opinion and your own taste.  For myself, and many other members of this community, it was a wonderful experience.  



> The entirety of The Hobbit could have fit in a three-hour film without cutting anything, and it would have been a delightful experience.



The unabridged audio book of The Hobbit is 12 hours long.  While the story could be told in three hours, a whole lot would have to be cut.

Of course, that's what we're used to with movies - having the story pared down to fit it into a predetermined running time.  In this case, I'm very glad that this didn't happen.


----------



## saellys

Black Dragon said:


> The unabridged audio book of The Hobbit is 12 hours long.  While the story could be told in three hours, a whole lot would have to be cut.



That's a false equivalence. Movies don't tell stories; they show them. They take less time than books because they're visually immersive. The many detailed descriptions Tolkien loved to employ have transformed into lush setpieces and wardrobe and character design, which are processed by the human eye much faster than text. Two and a half paragraphs introducing Boromir in _Fellowship of the Ring_ became a few seconds of footage in the movie, and nothing was lost because those paragraphs described Boromir. Instead of reading about him or hearing narration in the film, we saw him. 

To use your own analogy, the unabridged audiobook may be twelve hours long, but all three _Hobbit_ movies will amount to just under nine hours. So how do you explain the fact that they haven't cut anything (except Bjeorn, who will apparently be in the third film), and are actually adding things that fell outside the scope of the story Tolkien wanted to tell in _The Hobbit_?


----------



## Phietadix

Black Dragon said:


> The unabridged audio book of The Hobbit is 12 hours long.  While the story could be told in three hours, a whole lot would have to be cut.



Just because the book takes 12 hours to read, doesn't mean it would take 12 hours to show. I've played Tabletop games where a minute long battle takes a hour to play. It's the same way with books.


----------



## MadMadys

So I got to look at a 'For Your Consideration' copy of the Hobbit last night (friends of friends that work in Hollywood) in the comfort of a couch with some beers.  I still enjoyed the movie, and would very much like to see the extended cut, but the one thing I was highly aware of the entire time was how long it felt.  Especially when they're in Rivendell, I was thinking of everything that was still going to happen.  Some of the scenes carry on too long and the exposition is a bit overdone.

I know, odd to say I want to see the longer cut while complaining about its current length but meh.


----------



## Black Dragon

saellys said:


> That's a false equivalence. Movies don't tell stories; they show them. They take less time than books because they're visually immersive.



When transferring a story between different mediums, this goes both ways.  While you save time by not having to describe appearances and scenery, you add time by showing - as opposed to telling - events that are glossed over by a few sentences in a book.  

Ultimately what stays, what is cut, and what is expanded upon is an artistic decision that is made by the people doing the adaptation.  And with any artistic endeavor, not everyone will have the same appreciation for the end result.  It doesn't mean that one person is wrong and the other is right.  It's a matter of personal taste.

Speaking of which, I hope that you can respect the perspective of those of us who went to see the film, and enjoyed it.  You didn't like it.  Fine, that's your right.  But that doesn't mean that everyone who loved the film is somehow unable to recognize "bad filmmaking, bad storytelling," etc.

When you see a thread full of people who enjoyed a movie, and you jump in to tell us how wrong we are for liking it, labeling it as "bad storytelling," it comes across as dismissive of our opinions.  You may not have liked it, but that doesn't mean that it's objectively a bad film.


----------



## Steerpike

I plan to see this tonight finally. I'll have my thoughts after, but will say preliminarily that not every movie has to have nonstop action from start to finish to appeal to me. I don't mind a slow pace per se.


----------



## Black Dragon

Steerpike said:


> I plan to see this tonight finally. I'll have my thoughts after, but will say preliminarily that not every movie has to have nonstop action from start to finish to appeal to me. I don't mind a slow pace per se.



I had an eye-opening experience when I showed Blade Runner to a class full of college sophomores.

The students complained endlessly that the film was "too slow," and called it "the most boring movie ever made."

These students, who born in the mid-90's, were so used to fast paced films and television shows that the deliberate pace of an 80's sci-fi classic was actually painful to watch.


----------



## Reaver

Black Dragon said:


> When transferring a story between different mediums, this goes both ways.  While you save time by not having to describe appearances and scenery, you add time by showing - as opposed to telling - events that are glossed over by a few sentences in a book.
> 
> Ultimately what stays, what is cut, and what is expanded upon is an artistic decision that is made by the people doing the adaptation.  And with any artistic endeavor, not everyone will have the same appreciation for the end result.  It doesn't mean that one person is wrong and the other is right.  It's a matter of personal taste.
> 
> Speaking of which, I hope that you can respect the perspective of those of us who went to see the film, and enjoyed it.  You didn't like it.  Fine, that's your right.  But that doesn't mean that everyone who loved the film is somehow unable to recognize "bad filmmaking, bad storytelling," etc.
> 
> When you see a thread full of people who enjoyed a movie, and you jump in to tell us how wrong we are for liking it, labeling it as "bad storytelling," it comes across as dismissive of our opinions.  You may not have liked it, but that doesn't mean that it's objectively a bad film.



Thank you BD. My sentiments exactly. It's too easy to tear apart any film, let alone one adapted from a book. Perhaps a film like this is not for the cynics out there.


----------



## Sheriff Woody

Black Dragon said:


> I had an eye-opening experience when I showed Blade Runner to a class full of college sophomores.
> 
> The students complained endlessly that the film was "too slow," and called it "the most boring movie ever made."
> 
> These students, who born in the mid-90's, were so used to fast paced films and television shows that the deliberate pace of an 80's sci-fi classic was actually painful to watch.



I am not a fan of Blade Runner, either. It is a boring movie because the hero is so damn boring. He has little to no depth, he is not interesting or exciting or clever or funny or *anything*. He just is. He has minimal motivation, the stakes are low, the pacing is apathetic, there are gaping holes in the plot...it's just not a well-written movie at all. In fact, it's probably the single greatest example of style-over-substance the cinematic medium has to offer. If you ask me, it's little more than Ridley Scott trying to be like Stanley Kubrick and reaching new levels of failure in the process. 

Not good. Not good at all.


----------



## Steerpike

Sheriff Woody said:


> I am not a fan of Blade Runner, either. It is a boring movie because the hero is so damn boring. He has little to no depth, he is not interesting or exciting or clever or funny or *anything*. He just is. He has minimal motivation, the stakes are low, the pacing is apathetic, there are gaping holes in the plot...it's just not a well-written movie at all. In fact, it's probably the single greatest example of style-over-substance the cinematic medium has to offer. If you ask me, it's little more than Ridley Scott trying to be like Stanley Kubrick and reaching new levels of failure in the process.
> 
> Not good. Not good at all.



I disagree. I think Blade Runner is a great movie. I was never bored by it


----------



## Reaver

Black Dragon said:


> I had an eye-opening experience when I showed Blade Runner to a class full of college sophomores.



Blade Runner? I love that movie so much I bought the Director's Cut. That settles it. I'm enrolling in the university where you teach and I'm signing up for your class.


----------



## Reaver

Sheriff Woody said:


> I am not a fan of Blade Runner, either. It is a boring movie because the hero is so damn boring. He has little to no depth, he is not interesting or exciting or clever or funny or *anything*. He just is. He has minimal motivation, the stakes are low, the pacing is apathetic, there are gaping holes in the plot...it's just not a well-written movie at all. In fact, it's probably the single greatest example of style-over-substance the cinematic medium has to offer. If you ask me, it's little more than Ridley Scott trying to be like Stanley Kubrick and reaching new levels of failure in the process.
> 
> Not good. Not good at all.



Can you give us an example of a movie that you think is really good?


----------



## Sheriff Woody

Reaver said:


> Can you give us an example of a movie that you think is really good?



Just one? 

Well, to prove age has nothing to do with why I see Blade Runner's faults, I'll go with something older: Alfred Hitchcock's NOTORIOUS from 1946. Absolutely flawless film-making with a script sharp enough to cut diamonds.

But if you're looking for something more modern, I'll go with 2011's TAKE SHELTER. What a masterpiece that is. 

Or you can look left at my avatar.


----------



## Phietadix

This thread is about the Hobbit not Blade Runner.


----------



## Reaver

Phietadix said:


> This thread is about the Hobbit not Blade Runner.



You're right. But it's The Hobbit, not the Hobbit. "the Hobbit" could mean any ol' hobbit laying about The Shire smoking pipeweed.


----------



## Reaver

Sheriff Woody said:


> Just one?
> 
> Well, to prove age has nothing to do with why I see Blade Runner's faults, I'll go with something older: Alfred Hitchcock's NOTORIOUS from 1946. Absolutely flawless film-making with a script sharp enough to cut diamonds.
> 
> But if you're looking for something more modern, I'll go with 2011's TAKE SHELTER. What a masterpiece that is.
> 
> Or you can look left at my avatar.



Haven't seen Take Shelter. Let's hope it does better on DVD sales than it did in theaters. Almost five million to make and not quite four in total worldwide box office? Ouch. 

As far as any of Hitchcock's films, there are some I like, some I hate and some I'm indifferent to. For me, Notorious falls into the "meh" category. It's all a matter of opinion, right?


----------



## Steerpike

Black Dragon said:


> I had an eye-opening experience when I showed Blade Runner to a class full of college sophomores.
> 
> The students complained endlessly that the film was "too slow," and called it "the most boring movie ever made."
> 
> These students, who born in the mid-90's, were so used to fast paced films and television shows that the deliberate pace of an 80's sci-fi classic was actually painful to watch.



Maybe this is why so many movies seem to neglect story and character in favor of a fast pace and lots of CGI - the filmmakers believe it is what you have to do to hold the attention of a modern audience. Often I'll watch a film and think it would have been decent if they'd done more in the way of story and character development, but as it was on-screen it was a bit to thin for my liking.


----------



## Steerpike

Reaver said:


> Blade Runner? I love that movie so much I bought the Director's Cut.



I really like the Director's Cut as well. I find the idea that Deckard might be a replicant interesting. I never felt like he was in the written story, though the title could be interpreted that way.


----------



## Reaver

Steerpike said:


> I really like the Director's Cut as well. I find the idea that Deckard might be a replicant interesting. I never felt like he was in the written story, though the title could be interpreted that way.



Excellent point. That's one of my favorite stories by PKD.


----------



## Sheriff Woody

Reaver said:


> Haven't seen Take Shelter. Let's hope it does better on DVD sales than it did in theaters. Almost five million to make and not quite four in total worldwide box office? Ouch.



It was only on 3 (three) screens its opening weekend.

It's not a Hollywood film, so it's lucky it got as much theater time as it did. 



Reaver said:


> It's all a matter of opinion, right?



To a point. Opinion is how much you enjoy something, but the work of the artist is not up to anybody other than the artist. They make the stories great (or not great). All we get to do is like it or not.


----------



## saellys

Black Dragon said:


> When you see a thread full of people who enjoyed a movie, and you jump in to tell us how wrong we are for liking it, labeling it as "bad storytelling," it comes across as dismissive of our opinions.  You may not have liked it, but that doesn't mean that it's objectively a bad film.



Please point out where I said anything like this. My post is, by definition, my opinion, and every post in this thread includes a subjective opinion. I thought that was why it exists, and didn't expect to be labeled a cynic or dismissive for submitting my own opinion. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer in my signature?


----------



## Phietadix

Aren't we supposed to be Discussing The Hobbit? Not Blade runner or any other movie.


----------



## Sheriff Woody

Phietadix said:


> Aren't we supposed to be Discussing The Hobbit? Not Blade runner or any other movie.



It's an open forum. 

If you'd like to discuss The Hobbit, please do.


----------



## Steerpike

Phietadix said:


> Aren't we supposed to be Discussing The Hobbit? Not Blade runner or any other movie.



Yes, topics on this forum tend to grow organically. There is nothing wrong with that. Considering the site admin, who also started this thread, raised the Blade Runner example, I'd say we are on topic. We have moderators who can jump in if things get too far afield.


----------



## Black Dragon

saellys said:


> I thought that was why it exists, and didn't expect to be labeled a cynic or dismissive for submitting my own opinion. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer in my signature?



You can submit your own opinion in a way that is less harsh and more respectful of those already engaged in the conversation.  Telling a group of storytellers that something that they admire "is a bloated mess," and "not good storytelling" comes across as dismissive.  

Going a step further and asking questions that begin with "So how do you explain the fact that..." comes across as confrontational or argumentative.

I don't know if that was your intention, as it's easy to misinterpret someone's meaning when all that we have to go on is text.  Perhaps you are a friendly, helpful person who meant no offense, and this was a misunderstanding?


----------



## saellys

Black Dragon said:


> Going a step further and asking questions that begin with "So how do you explain the fact that..." comes across as confrontational or argumentative.
> 
> I don't know if that was your intention, as it's easy to misinterpret someone's meaning when all that we have to go on is text.  Perhaps you are genuinely a friendly, helpful person, and this was a misunderstanding?



I try to take text at face value for just that reason. I compose posts with the hope that others will, too, because I'm not interested in mitigating my speech when it comes to my own opinions on things like pop culture. I've enjoyed some pretty maligned movies in my time, and when someone said, "This movie sucked because A, B, and C," I didn't take it as a personal affront, because it wasn't. 

I'm still very interested in hearing how a twelve hour audiobook can't possibly be adapted to a three hour movie without cutting a lot, but it can be adapted to a nine hour trilogy with no omissions and with content added to the adaptation.


----------



## Reaver

Sheriff Woody said:


> It was only on 3 (three) screens its opening weekend.
> 
> It's not a Hollywood film, so it's lucky it got as much theater time as it did.
> 
> 
> 
> To a point. Opinion is how much you enjoy something, but the work of the artist is not up to anybody other than the artist. They make the stories great (or not great). All we get to do is like it or not.



I agree with you on both points here.


----------



## Reaver

Love it or hate it, The Hobbit:An Unexpected Journey has made more Tolkien fans happy than not.


----------



## Black Dragon

saellys said:


> I'm still very interested in hearing how a twelve hour audiobook can't possibly be adapted to a three hour movie without cutting a lot, but it can be adapted to a nine hour trilogy with no omissions and with content added to the adaptation.



This comes across as snarky, sarcastic and/or argumentative.  Is that what you intend?


----------



## saellys

Black Dragon said:


> This comes across as snarky, sarcastic and/or argumentative.  Is that what you intend?



Only if your statement earlier in this thread that I was referencing was intended to be snarky, sarcastic, and/or argumentative.


----------



## Black Dragon

saellys said:


> Only if your statement earlier in this thread that I was referencing was intended to be snarky, sarcastic, and/or argumentative.



Snide comments and argumentative behavior are not welcome at Mythic Scribes.  

Please see our forum guidelines:

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/news-announcements/9-forum-guidelines.html

Pay special attention to the guiding principle:



> The guiding principle is to treat others with respect and dignity, and to foster a positive, welcoming and family-friendly community.



If you are willing to accept this, you are welcome to return.  Otherwise, this is not the right forum for you.  Best of luck to you.


----------



## saellys

Reaver said:


> Perhaps a film like this is not for the cynics out there.



I found myself thinking at several points during the movie that Jackson's writing and directorial style had not aged well. Or at least, the cultural sensibilities of the Oughts were far afield from the cultural sensibilities of... whatever we're calling this decade. The overwhelming success of _Game of Thrones_ as a television series lends some credence to the cynicism angle, but I also felt Jackson was ramping up the gore and severed heads, perhaps in an attempt to satisfy that audience. 

I ended up with the impression that he'd set out to make a lighthearted kid's movie (by comparison to _Lord of the Rings_, anyway), and then he decided to make it epic, and then he decided to make it absurdly gory, too. All I know is that all those majestic, heroic shots that I found so fresh and exciting in _LotR_ made me cringe or chortle in _The Hobbit_.


----------



## Steerpike

saellys:

Did you feel any of that had to do with the higher framerate and how the film appeared, or would it have made you feel the same even if filmed with the same frames per second as Lord of the Rings?


----------



## saellys

I actually took pains to see a non-HFR projection after reading some early reviews. The CG looked as seamless in the version I saw as it did in _Lord of the Rings_, and no one got sick in my theater.  

Now, that being said, when I first heard Jackson was filming _The Hobbit_ in 3D and saw the first trailer, I thought it would ruin the whole thing. The only 3D film I'd seen at the time was _Avengers_, and it looked positively awful, which I later found out was due to the fact that it was filmed in 2D and then converted. After a while I came around to the idea that a movie actually filmed in 3D could look pretty sweet; my husband reported that _Prometheus_ was gorgeous, and that was a good sign. Then I remembered _Lord of the Rings_ was filmed for IMAX, which was a pretty big gimmick at the time. So I shelled out to see _The Hobbit_ in 3D and was pleasantly surprised at Jackson's fairly understated use of the technology. He sold me on the format. 

Oh, I just realized that not once in this thread did I mention how perfectly splendid Martin Freeman was. I've been waiting for him to play Bilbo ever since I saw _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_, and I'm so glad Jackson gave him a shot.


----------



## Phietadix

They seemed to do pretty good on following the book, Alot better than most other movies I've seen that are based on books. There are some changes, but nothing too major.


----------



## MAndreas

Jumping in late here .  I saw it on the 14th in Las Vegas- yes, shows what a bunch of geeks my friends and I are- out of 22 of us gathering in Vegas-- 12 of us left the slot machines and booze for the movie .

I had a blast! Martin Freeman rocks, Richard Armatage was nicely intense, and the movie was (IMHO) a lot of fun. Yes, I am a Tolkien fan, but always liked LOTR far more than The Hobbit.  That being said I really enjoyed this.

For the most part, I was unaware of the time, so the pace worked for me. I didn't see a3-D version, but did notice a slight adjustment my mind and eyes needed to do within the first five or ten minutes just because of the faster filming style.

OH!  And Andy Serkis was amazing! I really enjoyed Gollum alot (ok, I always do, but that scene was perfect).


----------



## Sheriff Woody

MAndreas said:


> I didn't see a3-D version, but did notice a slight adjustment my mind and eyes needed to do within the first five or ten minutes just because of the faster filming style.



48fps projection is only available in 3D.


----------



## Penpilot

Sheriff Woody said:


> I am not a fan of Blade Runner, either. It is a boring movie because the hero is so damn boring. He has little to no depth, he is not interesting or exciting or clever or funny or *anything*. He just is. He has minimal motivation, the stakes are low, the pacing is apathetic, there are gaping holes in the plot...it's just not a well-written movie at all. In fact, it's probably the single greatest example of style-over-substance the cinematic medium has to offer. If you ask me, it's little more than Ridley Scott trying to be like Stanley Kubrick and reaching new levels of failure in the process.
> 
> Not good. Not good at all.



This is one of my favorite movies. It's not meant to be a fast pace movie with world shattering stakes. It's more introspective, a movie meant to explore what it means to be human through an internal journey. Now, obviously you didn't think much of the movie, but maybe you're watching it with the wrong mind set. For myself, I find that watching or reading something with the wrong mind set, bringing in certain expectations of what a story should be instead of letting it be what it is, always results in a disappointing experience. 

For example. After watching Pulp Fiction, I watched Tarantino's next movie Jackie Brown. I went in expecting Pulp Fiction 2.0 and left extremely disappointed. For while I really disliked Jackie Brown. I've since revisited the movie, carrying no expectations and realized just how good it really was.    



Sheriff Woody said:


> But if you're looking for something more modern, I'll go with 2011's TAKE SHELTER. What a masterpiece that is.



I've seen Take Shelter. I agree it's a really good movie. But it's a movie that could have fallen apart for some people depending on how they interpreted the end. I know if I interpret the ending as literally what I see on the screen, the whole movie becomes BS for me, but if the ending is just in the head then the movie becomes brilliant. 

Ok now, back on track. The Hobbit. To me, it was a good movie. Not great. First, the 48 frames pers second didn't quite work for me. Things were gorgeous when the scene was more static, but when things moved more quickly the movements didn't seem natural. Also the clarity of the framerate made the movie look like I was watching a stage play. Things were just a little too real for my taste.

In terms of story, the pacing wasn't quite right for the first half of the movie. That could have been trimmed. And there was something about the dwarves and their banter that just wasn't engaging for me. I liked Thorin, but I'm kind of meh about the rest of them, so when there's no Thorin or Bilbo in the forefront, it feels like something is missing. 

I get the feeling this is a movie I'll like more on a second viewing with standard framerate. I went in thinking I would get more of a LOTR feel, but that feeling didn't start until the middle. I think I know why. First they started out to just tell the story of The Hobbit in two movies. Now, they're telling The Hobbit and trying to make a movie that leads directly into LOTR, so weaving in the extra material from the appendixes isn't as smooth as it could be.

But overall, I enjoyed the movie. It gave me most of what I wanted. I'm sure the next movie will smooth over all the wrinkles this movie had, and be a lot better. Fingers crossed.


----------



## saellys

Sheriff Woody said:


> 48fps projection is only available in 3D.



I just saw it a second time in 2D, and the fact that it was filmed in 48fps was very noticeable anytime there was motion onscreen. 



			
				Penpilot said:
			
		

> In terms of story, the pacing wasn't quite right for the first half of the movie. That could have been trimmed. And there was something about the dwarves and their banter that just wasn't engaging for me. I liked Thorin, but I'm kind of meh about the rest of them, so when there's no Thorin or Bilbo in the forefront, it feels like something is missing.



Totally agree about the first half of the movie. One thing that occurred to me is that the entire Bilbo and Frodo prologue was utterly unnecessary. I didn't need to know that Bilbo made Frodo nail up the No Admittance sign right before Frodo went off to wait for Gandalf. It felt like fanservice, but I don't think any fans actually wanted it, and I for one was looking forward to _The Hobbit_ in part because Elijah Wood wouldn't be in it.  

I thought it would have been super neat if the flashback to Erebor had been shown while the dwarves were singing in Bag End--that way the whole song could have been used, as well. Jackson could have panned over to the flames and inserted some nifty animation (I'm picturing the Deathly Hallows backstory in _Harry Potter_). No need for narration, since the dwarves were already singing the whole story, and that sounded way cooler than Ian Holm's delivery. 

As for the dwarves, I thought Thorin stopped being a jerk way too early--such is the trouble with splitting one story into three movies and struggling to put an arc where there wasn't one by that point in the book. Unfortunately that also meant that the dwarves didn't learn what they were supposed to from Bilbo: physical strength isn't the only kind. Otherwise, I was delighted with Balin and Dori and Bofur (more screentime for Nesbitt! More!). It was swell to see Aidan Turner in a major film after watching him in _Being Human_ for years, too, though Fili and Kili seemed like the least interesting members of the company. Overall, I'm glad Jackson is making an effort to individualize the dwarves, because I sure couldn't tell them apart in the book.


----------



## Chilari

I thought the same thing about Erebor and the dwarf song. Start with Bilbo and Gandalf's "good morning" conversation, continue from there, then add Erebor into the song, and yes, the Deathly Hallows sequence from Harry Potter is exactly the parallel I was thinking.

Aidan Turner makes a much more attractive dwarf than he does a vampire too, for some reason. And yes, James Nesbitt was brilliant as Bofur.


----------



## Steerpike

Finally saw it.

I liked the bit at the start where they tie in to the opening of Lord of the Rings, with Bilbo sitting down to write and Frodo running off to surprise Gandalf. I didn't have a problem with any of the pacing in the film, either. I thought it was interesting through out. Some of the injection of comedy into the movie didn't work for me (though other parts did). On the whole I enjoyed the movie, though I didn't consider it to be as good as any of the Lord of the Rings films (a high bar, of course). The part with Smeagol was well done


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

Like Steerpike, I enjoyed the beginning in Hobbiton, it didn't feel like baggage to me at all. I watched it in 3d and I have to be honest, I don't have a clue how different 48fps makes a film , maybe just because I was distracted by my first 3d film.

It didn't really feel like 3 hours to me, but I do think they could have inserted just a little more story, the ending did feel like a bit of a stretched half hour of action. 

*The Good: (minor spoilers)

*It was a beautiful film, looked lovely as always, and Howard Shore once again delivered a beautiful, if more subtle score.  Actors were perfectly cast, Balin was likeable as was in the book, Martin Freeman was the perfect successor to Ian Holm, and Gandalf was as good as always.  I also loved how it had a feel of its own, it didn't feel exactly like the Rings films, and Saruman's cameo with Elrond and Galadriel was perfect for a fanboy like me.  The secondary storyline looks really good, the Dol Guldur scene was really creepy in 3d and surround sound, looking forward to more.  The action was great too, seeing sparks come flying out of the screen made me flinch.

*The Bad (minor spoilers):  

*It would be harsh to call the film slow, it really wasn't, but I did think a little more story progression would have been nice.  Having said that I am glad they left hardly anything out.  As I said before, the final half hour did feel a bit of a drawn out string of action scenes, but it was well filmed.  There were a few moments that really made me cringe though.  The troll shaws sequence felt very clumsily handled in a bid to be as funny as it could, it was a bit tedious in its attempts at humour.  There's also that really awful action film cliche when a character gets killed, and before they drop dead they say something really random or stupid to try and get a laugh from the audience.  Strangely the Great Goblin being slashed by Gandalf and then saying something like "that'll do" stands out as the weakest moment in the film for me.  Yep, just that one line of dialogue.  Oh well.  I also found Azog's portrayal to be a bit unengaging and bland, and the way his confrontation with Thorin played out felt quite weak, but maybe I just need to see more of him.

*Overall:

*Despite the flaws, it was a very enjoyable film and I'm looking forward to the next 2.  I think overall everyone involved made a great collaborative effort.


----------



## Sheriff Woody

saellys said:


> I just saw it a second time in 2D, and the fact that it was filmed in 48fps was very noticeable anytime there was motion onscreen.



Unless you watch the movie with 48fps 3D projection, you will not experience 48fps. In 2D, it will look exactly like a normal movie. Any perceived visual differences will exist only in your mind.


----------



## saellys

Sheriff Woody said:


> Unless you watch the movie with 48fps 3D projection, you will not experience 48fps. In 2D, it will look exactly like a normal movie. Any perceived visual differences will exist only in your mind.



No offense, but this sounds like the time a photography major told me that you could blow up a 4" x 6" 72dpi image to poster size in Photoshop and it would retain all its quality. _The Hobbit_ was filmed at double the normal speed and then converted to 24fps for 2D projection. No, you're not experiencing 48fps; you're experiencing something with half the original frames. It's going to look funny, and it did--the motion was jerky and flickering instead of smooth, because the conversion process left gaps.


----------



## Steerpike

saellys said:


> No offense, but this sounds like the time a photography major told me that you could blow up a 4" x 6" 72dpi image to poster size in Photoshop and it would retain all its quality. _The Hobbit_ was filmed at double the normal speed and then converted to 24fps for 2D projection. No, you're not experiencing 48fps; you're experiencing something with half the original frames. It's going to look funny, and it did--the motion was jerky and flickering instead of smooth, because the conversion process left gaps.



In that example, you're going in the opposite direction, though. Blowing up a small picture and making it large.

If I film a sequence and I'm capturing 24 frames every second, and then I film the same thing and I'm capturing 48 frames per second (so I have twice the frames for the exact same amount of time), wouldn't dropping every other frame put me right back in the same place as the original sequence? I'm still moving over the exact same material in the same amount of time, but with the original 24 frame format.

In other words, if I film my arm waving for one second, with 24 frames only available to provide the information in that one second of motion, how does it differ from filming that same one second time interval at 48 frames and then dropping every other frame to where I again have only 24 frames to show the movement?


----------



## saellys

Steerpike said:


> In that example, you're going in the opposite direction, though. Blowing up a small picture and making it large.
> 
> If I film a sequence and I'm capturing 24 frames every second, and then I film the same thing and I'm capturing 48 frames per second (so I have twice the frames for the exact same amount of time), wouldn't dropping every other frame put me right back in the same place as the original sequence? I'm still moving over the exact same material in the same amount of time, but with the original 24 frame format.
> 
> In other words, if I film my arm waving for one second, with 24 frames only available to provide the information in that one second of motion, how does it differ from filming that same one second time interval at 48 frames and then dropping every other frame to where I again have only 24 frames to show the movement?



To use an Internet analogy, if I have a GIF that loops for five seconds and the file size is too big for Tumblr, I can cut half the frames and make it display at half the speed so it still fills five seconds, but it won't look like the original GIF. That's an extreme example since movies go much faster than GIFs, obviously. Point is, if you manually remove half of the material you filmed, certain sequences--very fast motion, usually--will not match up smoothly and your film will look weird. People can claim that the human eye can't see the difference, and for a large chunk of _The Hobbit_, I couldn't. But sometimes I could, and I ascribe that to the downconversion.


----------



## Steerpike

saellys said:


> To use an Internet analogy, if I have a GIF that loops for five seconds and the file size is too big for Tumblr, I can cut half the frames and make it display at half the speed so it still fills five seconds, but it won't look like the original GIF. That's an extreme example since movies go much faster than GIFs, obviously. Point is, if you manually remove half of the material you filmed, certain sequences--very fast motion, usually--will not match up smoothly and your film will look weird. People can claim that the human eye can't see the difference, and for a large chunk of _The Hobbit_, I couldn't. But sometimes I could, and I ascribe that to the downconversion.



Yeah. I'm trying to visualize the conversion in my head to see where the discontinuity would be. Of course, I know next to nothing about photography or film-making, so I'm probably missing a lot of variables that go into the process.


----------



## The Writer's Realms

Saw it a few days ago and I believe they did a pretty good job. Right in the beginning of the movie, I absolutely loved the part where the dwarves sing the Misty Mountain song.


----------



## saellys

Steerpike said:


> Yeah. I'm trying to visualize the conversion in my head to see where the discontinuity would be. Of course, I know next to nothing about photography or film-making, so I'm probably missing a lot of variables that go into the process.



And I am far from an expert on 48fps technology and technique, but the flickering I saw at the 2D non-HFR version of the film reminded me of a GIF with missing frames sped up really fast.


----------



## Ireth

The Writer's Realms said:


> Saw it a few days ago and I believe they did a pretty good job. Right in the beginning of the movie, I absolutely loved the part where the dwarves sing the Misty Mountain song.



I second that comment. I wish both of the dwarves' songs could have been just a couple verses longer.


----------



## The Writer's Realms

Ireth said:


> I second that comment. I wish both of the dwarves' songs could have been just a couple verses longer.


I know! There is a video on Youtube by the Str8 Voices. They did a pretty decent version with more verses.


----------



## Phietadix

I thought they extended the 'That's what Bilbo Baggins Hates' Song


----------



## Jess A

Finally going to see it this Thursday. Reviews have been fairly mixed, I'll be sure to add mine when I watch it. I don't think we're going to bother with the 48fps - I am curious and would liked to have seen it, but I don't feel it will impact my enjoyment of the film.

I was very surprised to see Aidan Turner was in it. I saw a 'making of' special on TV the other night and recognised him. There's a good cast in this film.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

Little Storm Cloud said:


> Finally going to see it this Thursday. Reviews have been fairly mixed, I'll be sure to add mine when I watch it. I don't think we're going to bother with the 48fps - I am curious and would liked to have seen it, but I don't feel it will impact my enjoyment of the film.
> 
> I was very surprised to see Aidan Turner was in it. I saw a 'making of' special on TV the other night and recognised him. There's a good cast in this film.



Very good cast, they rose well to the challenge.  I saw Sylvester McCoy in a play a few years ago, he was really funny.


----------



## Jess A

Aidan of the tavern said:


> Very good cast, they rose well to the challenge.  I saw Sylvester McCoy in a play a few years ago, he was really funny.



Ooh. He also played the 7th Doctor.


----------



## Devor

I enjoyed the movie.

It ran a little - I won't say long, but stretched, in a few parts, particularly near the beginning.  "That's What Bilbo Baggins Hates" was too predictable for its length - I mean, you watched them cleaning while they sang, so Gandalf's big reveal of a pile of dishes came across as corny.  Then there were two expositions back to back - a long one about the pale orc, followed immediately by a short chat about the five wizards.  That, and a few other things, made the pacing feel a bit too slow.

There were a couple of other minor things which made it 4-stars for me, but the pacing is the one that hurts rewatch value.  I've seen LOTR several times; I don't expect to do so with this one.

Still, definitely worth seeing, and I think it fits three movies fine - just maybe, slightly shorter movies.


----------



## Ireth

Devor said:


> "That's What Bilbo Baggins Hates" was too predictable for its length - I mean, you watched them cleaning while they sang, so Gandalf's big reveal of a pile of dishes came across as corny.



I didn't see it as cleaning up at all -- the dwarves were literally throwing dishes back and forth, so naturally Bilbo freaked out about them being broken.


----------



## Devor

Ireth said:


> I didn't see it as cleaning up at all -- the dwarves were literally throwing dishes back and forth, so naturally Bilbo freaked out about them being broken.



Maybe it's just me, or that I remembered too much from the book.  But yeah, they were throwing them . . . and catching them.  And there were lots of dish-washing sounds, but not the sound of anything breaking.  And it went on long enough for me to consciously notice all that.  Of course Bilbo would freak out, but I didn't as a viewer.  Again, maybe I remembered too much from the book, but I think on a second viewing it would still feel slow.


----------



## Jess A

Great film, really wish I had seen it in 3D or 48fps - it seemed blurry in parts. But hardly a bother. 

Absolutely loved the riddle scene (had been looking forward to that), the stone-giant fight and Barry Humphries' goblin king. The wargs were great. It was a little strange with the plot changes, but the additional stuff from other works was nice added context. Martin Freeman was fantastic and adorable. As much as I adore Richard Armitage and he was great in the film, as someone mentioned above - all the epic shots of Thorin's face were a bit much - I think by about shot ten I started laughing. Really looking forward to seeing Smaug in full. I also loved Radagast, especially his rabbit-drawn sled.

Pity people were talking next to me throughout the entire film. Good thing I was in a more favourable mood than I have been these past two days. If people needed to discuss the book out loud, perhaps they should have taken themselves and their nearly 3-hour-long chat outside.


----------



## aliciamarie

They picked the perfect man to play Bilbo, I was so pleased. Riddle scene was exactly how I always pictured it. Overall I enjoyed it.


----------



## saellys

aliciamarie said:


> They picked the perfect man to play Bilbo, I was so pleased.



True dat. Actually, you could end the sentence after "man" and it would still be accurate. Freeman makes me swoon.


----------



## iWant iStrive

I really liked it, definitely got a different feel to Lord of the Rings.

One thing I didn't like was using the eagles again, maybe its in the book but I mean come on, if you're going to use eagles, use them at the beginning to get to the mountain!?!


----------



## lawrence

Little Storm Cloud said:


> Great film, really wish I had seen it in 3D or 48fps - it seemed blurry in parts. But hardly a bother.
> 
> Really looking forward to seeing Smaug in full. I also loved Radagast, especially his rabbit-drawn sled.
> 
> Pity people were talking next to me throughout the entire film. Good thing I was in a more favourable mood than I have been these past two days. If people needed to discuss the book out loud, perhaps they should have taken themselves and their nearly 3-hour-long chat outside.



Aww, that's not fair of them, talking during the movie. I am hopeless at ignoring that kind of thing and would have asked them to stop. Drives me crazy, such inconsiderate behaviour!

Yes, the rabbit drawn sled was brilliant! Some reviewers were not so keen, but I thought it in perfect keeping with the children's story tone of the book. Loved the bit where the sled lead rabbit was whacking the ground with his hind-leg to get the team up and running!

I agree about the motion blur in the battles and scenes with lots of figures running, but from what I heard regarding the high frame-rate version, I'd keep the blur in preference to the un-cinematic, tv-movie feel that HFR creates. Its personal taste though.


----------



## Jess A

lawrence said:


> Aww, that's not fair of them, talking during the movie. I am hopeless at ignoring that kind of thing and would have asked them to stop. Drives me crazy, such inconsiderate behaviour!
> 
> Yes, the rabbit drawn sled was brilliant! Some reviewers were not so keen, but I thought it in perfect keeping with the children's story tone of the book. Loved the bit where the sled lead rabbit was whacking the ground with his hind-leg to get the team up and running!
> 
> I agree about the motion blur in the battles and scenes with lots of figures running, but from what I heard regarding the high frame-rate version, I'd keep the blur in preference to the un-cinematic, tv-movie feel that HFR creates. Its personal taste though.



Normally I would have chased them out of the theatre. 

Because I've never seen anything in 48fps, I honestly couldn't judge - it's a matter of curiosity for me! I may go and see it again if it's still out.


----------



## Jamber

Little Storm Cloud said:


> Normally I would have chased them out of the theatre.



Sounds like we were sitting on the other side of the same people.

I enjoyed the movie a fair bit, but like some of the reviewers I was disappointed at the added material. Still, it was a good value 3 hours, particularly as it was 42C in the shade. A few weeks later it climbed to 46C... I should have waited to see the movie then.


----------



## Jess A

Jamber said:


> Sounds like we were sitting on the other side of the same people.
> 
> I enjoyed the movie a fair bit, but like some of the reviewers I was disappointed at the added material. Still, it was a good value 3 hours, particularly as it was 42C in the shade. A few weeks later it climbed to 46C... I should have waited to see the movie then.



A lot of people certainly took refuge in the cinemas during the various heatwaves across the country. _The Hobbit_ came out at a good time, I reckon!


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

I watched it in 3d, so I'm not sure why people are comparing it to a tv film or something, I just hope it still looks good on dvd.

I quite enjoyed the secondary "necromancer" story, I thought the interactions between Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond and Galadriel worked great, just one scene and Saruman showed a lot of depth of character.  I thought the Dol Guldur scene was really creepy, and I hope they keep that up because, children's film or not, the necromancer should be creepy.  Besides, like a lot of classic children's books, the book itself has got some horror moments to it .


----------



## lawrence

Aidan of the tavern said:


> I watched it in 3d, so I'm not sure why people are comparing it to a tv film or something, I just hope it still looks good on dvd.
> 
> I quite enjoyed the secondary "necromancer" story, I thought the interactions between Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond and Galadriel worked great, just one scene and Saruman showed a lot of depth of character.  I thought the Dol Guldur scene was really creepy, and I hope they keep that up because, children's film or not, the necromancer should be creepy.  Besides, like a lot of classic children's books, the book itself has got some horror moments to it .



Its not the 3D that causes that wierd effect, but the high frame rate.

Agree...I really enjoyed the Dol Guldur scene and also the White Council, both very good parts and typically great Peter Jackson story-telling.


----------



## Konrad

Hmmm. 

I liked parts of the movie, but had huge problems with other parts... 

For example, Radagast has a fast rabbit sled, but he covers an awful lot of ground in a day, I guess, zipping from Mirkwood to the dwarves at Mach 5 or so. Then there was Azog and the orcs, who make the Uruk hai of the prevous series look likethey will get plenty of sand kicked in their faces at the beach. Then there were the rock 'em, sock 'em stone giants (although that part was pretty cool). 

I think what we really had was Peter Jackson coming in to save a project that he was not happy with under Del Toro. Del Toro dropping out of a project like that would typically cause a starburst of lawsuits (in my current position I know a bit about this), but instead he left The Hobbit, saying he was just too busy with other projects. I call BS on that. But by this time you probably had quite a bit of the film, set design, story boards, costume design and virtual scenes completed. You also had (what I thought) were some very long and drawn out action scenes, a couple which looked very Del Toro-esque. (And didn't the orcs and Azog remind you a bit of Hellboy?). 

Then Jackson comes in. More sentimental and much more "British traditional (although he is from New Zealand)" in his sense of fantasy. He basically takes half a film or more and molds it back to his vision. What you have is a film that is a bit schizo. I think I would have rather seen this film made by one director or the other. It's not bad, but not quite what I think it could have been. However, Jackson has had more time for the next two parts. I figure they will be more consistent and be more impressive. 

But what do I know? It's not like I was there... Heh, heh. 

K


----------



## Konrad

Hmmm. One other thing still bugs me... the conflict between Bilbo and Thorin appears to be over for now. That's a bit too soon for me. I mean, we still have the spiders, the barrel float, etc. 

K


----------



## saellys

Interesting points, Konrad--I didn't think about how far Del Toro's influence went into the production process. Honestly, his filmmaking has never done anything for me, though I've always had mad respect for his visuals and the immersiveness of the experience. 

The tension between Thorin and Bilbo was definitely resolved too early, and the dwarves didn't learn what they were supposed to learn. There was a reason Bilbo never fought anyone in the book--the dwarves ended up discovering that being able to hold one's own in battle is not the only measure of character. With Bilbo jumping into the fight at the cliff, I think that message has been lost.


----------



## Konrad

Saellys, 

That's what I'm really getting at, I suppose (aside from the old "too many cooks spoil the stew" mantra). I've never been a Del Toro fan at all. But  worse than the fact that some parts of the film truly ignored logic is the resolved tension issue. If I were the screen writer for the next two parts, I would have a hard time getting over that hump... And I think they generally will. 

Hope not though. 

K


----------



## Aidan of the tavern

I thought it was a bit over the top putting the burning trees sequence on the edge of a cliff which, surprise, starts to crumble.  As those who read the book will know they have enough trouble and tension stuck up burning trees surrounded by orcs and wargs without also being put on a precarious edge.  It just felt very unecersarry.


----------

