The Hobbit

[Scott Gourley's Lovechild]

I thought this was going to be just one film. When I found out it was going to be a trilogy, that had me worried (I read the book back in High School, so had no idea how they were going to do 3 movies). But that was one hell of a padded out movie. Half the dwarf stuff at the beginning could of been scrapped, Radagast didn't need to have so much screen time, and the addition of characters not even in the novel made it drag on waaaay too much. 2 movies would of been a stretch, three is just too much.

Barry Humphreys as the Goblin King was a nice turn out.

6/10.

 

[Apey]

Yeah I haven't seen it yet but I don't see how the trilogy is going to work. The Hobbit isn't even as big as the smallest of the three LoTR books.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

News outlets already reporting that it's made it's way onto the internet. That didn't take long.

Personally I still can't see how they can make 3 movies of it like Apey said, the trailers didn't really inspire any hope in it from me, and the reviews aren't exactly outstanding either. No real interest in seeing it, might catch it on DVD in a few months time.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Yeah I haven't seen it yet but I don't see how the trilogy is going to work. The Hobbit isn't even as big as the smallest of the three LoTR books.

Jackson has fleshed it out with material from some of Tolkeins other works

Anyone who was afan of the LOTR movies really should check it out. The reviews were overly critical IMO

 

[bileduct]

News outlets already reporting that it's made it's way onto the internet. That didn't take long.

Personally I still can't see how they can make 3 movies of it like Apey said, the trailers didn't really inspire any hope in it from me, and the reviews aren't exactly outstanding either. No real interest in seeing it, might catch it on DVD in a few months time.

I'm curious about experiencing the HFR presentation, but other than that I have no interest whatsoever.

 

[Fifty Metre Line]

I'm curious about experiencing the HFR presentation, but other than that I have no interest whatsoever.

That was the only part of the movie I found annoying.
It gives a realistic look to the film, but I don't think it works for this one.
Some of the CGI stands out because of it and when characters are moving it looks weird sometimes.

Apart from that I had no problems with the movie - didn't feel it was too long and enjoyed the story a lot (I haven't read the book).
The 3D was spectacular. Very well done.

 

[bileduct]

I ended up watching this today because it was so f**king hot and an air conditioned cinema was a good option. I actually thought it was pretty good. Long, but never really boring.

I agree about HFR. There was just stuff that stood out like dogs balls, costumes, makeup, special effects.

 

[Aragorn]

1. too long.

2. too many dwarfs & not enough character development.

3. tired of seeing orcs..hate to guess how many have been killed in all 4 films...

4. I thought the singing at the start was a bit weird

5. all that food made me hungry

6. Gandolf looked "old".... bags under his eyes, could do with more make-up

7. seeing Gollum again was cool

8. the trolls with cockney accents was a little OTT

I gave the movie 6/7. In no hurry to watch it again any time soon....

 

[Zoidberg]

Saw it on Friday. Little bit long and dragged out in a few scenes, at Rivendell and the begiinning at the Shire.

Some of the special effects were not the best, which is strange considering how good other bits were ie Gollum. I guess I had the same problem with the LOTR trilogy, the orcs getting their arses whooped have no weight to them. It's obvious the actors were swinging swords at nothing and then orcs added in CGI.

But, I do want to see the next 2. Wish they were out sooner. That's the big problem with planned movies like this, the movies themselves don't feel whole until you see them all. I get that it's one big 9 hour movie, but it's a bit much.

 

[Misanthrope]

News outlets already reporting that it's made it's way onto the internet. That didn't take long.

Personally I still can't see how they can make 3 movies of it like Apey said, the trailers didn't really inspire any hope in it from me, and the reviews aren't exactly outstanding either. No real interest in seeing it, might catch it on DVD in a few months time.

I wish!

 

[bileduct]

I wish!

It has. There's a cam and a watermarked screener.

 

[Misanthrope]

The hunt begins...

 

[Springs]

The worst part of the movie was the overuse of CGI. Why they needed to make all the goblins CGI when they looked so good in Lord of the Rings didnt' make sense to me. Azog, the goblins and the wargs looked video gamish at times.

I enjoyed the new scenes. The book, as a children's book, has no character development outside Bilbo and Gandalf. It also skips quite fast from place to place. A lot different compared to Lord of the Rings when they take 6 chapters to get out of the Shire.
The backstory was interesting as well. In the book it's just 'come with us to this mountain'.

I don't see how people thought the Bag End scenes were stretched out. Rivendell yes but the shire chapter is the longest in the book. All the extra scenes come from appendices or Unfinished Tales and to me make more sense than Gandalf disappearing all the time and us wondering who the hell this necromancer is. Also Gollum was the best part and it's a shame we won't be seeing him again.

I can see how they can make three movies, just the third one will be shorter than the others. Can already see the second one going Beorn - Mirkwood - Gandalf at Dol Guldor - Spiders - Thranduil - Barrels - Mountain - Battle at Dol Guldor - Confrontation with Smaug. The story is actually quite large. If Tolkien wrote it with the same depth and development as Lord of the Rings it would be a lot longer.

Most of the bad reviews I saw had problems with the 48fps. If the one I saw was shown with it, and that was the reason for the CGI looking so bad, then get the f**k rid of it.

And yes, it's way too long until the next one.

 

[Jason Maher]

1. too long.

Disagree, but then I am a Wheel of Time and Dream Theater fan

2. too many dwarfs & not enough character development.

The number of dwarves is set in stone by the book. There's no practical way to develop that many characters without pissing off sensitive modern types with short attention spans even more than they are already. Thorin, Balin (Lord of Moria), and Gloin (Gimli's father) will be it as far as character development goes for the dwarves, I would presume.

3. tired of seeing orcs..hate to guess how many have been killed in all 4 films...

You're not really a Tolkien fan, are you?

4. I thought the singing at the start was a bit weird

Straight from the book. I thought it was one of the highlights.

5. all that food made me hungry

Ummm...

6. Gandolf looked "old".... bags under his eyes, could do with more make-up

There was about 12 or 13 years between the filming of LotR and The Hobbit. I suspect they did what they could. I did notice this myself, actually.

7. seeing Gollum again was cool

"Gollum is cool" is a tautology. ;-)

8. the trolls with cockney accents was a little OTT

Again, straight from the book.

I gave the movie 6/7. In no hurry to watch it again any time soon....

There's a Gene Wilder meme in the making with that one. Do you rate all movies out of 7 just to be different?

 

[Springs]

By Aragorn's contradictory criticisms you can tell in no way is he a fan of Tolkien. By this point in the book only Thorin and Balin has had more than about 2 lines. The film made up appearances and personalties for most of the dwarves. Bofur is pretty much a completely new character apart from name.

After seeing it again last night, I thought the parts with Azog were the weakest. He just didn't look good and the scenes he was in would have been just as good without him.
Also several scenery shots could have been cut. They made a big deal out of showing Rivendell from all sides in all it's glory even though we've seen it all three times already.

 

[firechild]

I thought the movie was great although I didn't like all the CGI. I think the goblins and orcs looked far better in LOTR than those in the Hobbit which looked like they would have been better placed in a computer game than a movie.
The only other part that looked terrible was where the floor gave way and the party fell into the goblin kingdom. The trap doors were far to obvious and it looked like a B-grade movie set.
The Gollum part was really well done and I'm glad they gave the game of riddles the time it deserved.

 

[Bastard Squad]

Saw it today for the 1st time, didnt like Azog, he just shouldnt be there, he was killed in Moria by Thorin's father from memory of the appendices. Don't mind the white council at all, Gollum was definitely the highlight though. Oh, and too many orcs on wargs, they shouldn't have come into it until after the misty mountains, but Jackson likes his fight scenes I suppose, but all up I quite enjoyed it.

 

[Misanthrope]

The trap doors were far to obvious and it looked like a B-grade movie set.

What do you mean by 'obvious'? They're trap doors set up by the goblins to catch food, as far as I can tell from the chute leading conveniently into a cage.

 

[Fifty Metre Line]

But but but......it wasn't like that in the book!

 

[firechild]

What do you mean by 'obvious'? They're trap doors set up by the goblins to catch food, as far as I can tell from the chute leading conveniently into a cage.

Yeah, I was wondering if that's what it was. It wasn't abundantly clear whether it was a trap or luck that created that situation. If the former then fair enough, if the latter then it looked tacky.