Hobbit lives up to expectations

[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]

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 Ämting]

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]

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 Ämting]

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]

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 Ämting]

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 Ämting]

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]

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]

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.