Badmovies.org Forum

My wife and I had already planned to go out tonight, but after the devastating news from Connecticut today - it hit home with both of us, as teachers - losing ourselves to Middle Earth for a few hours seemed all the more appealing.  So off to the local multiplex we went.

I have been a Tolkien fan since I was in 7th grade.  I have read The Hobbit many, many times.  On the one hand, I desperately wanted to like this movie.  On the other hand, I am also something of a purist, and was somewhat afraid they would mess the story up - especially since I found out they were turning this single novel into a trilogy.

So I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked the story, even though there were some significant departures from the book.  There are some mild spoilers below, but I'll try not to give away any of the good stuff.

The story actually begins with Bilbo, shortly before his 111th birthday party, writing the "real story" of his unexpected journey and the acquisition of the Ring for his nephew Frodo.  He begins by giving the back story of how the Dwarves were driven from the Lonely Mountain by the dragon Smaug many years before, and then moves into the familiar territory of the book's first chapters: his surprise encounter with the wandering wizard Gandalf and the absolutely unplanned dinner party for the 13 dwarves.  The dwarves are wonderfully well-cast, and give just the right combination of silliness and seriousness that the book balanced so perfectly.

The dangers of the road and the encounter with the trolls follow the book closely, but the account of Thorin's role in the Goblin Wars is inserted as a bit of backstory here.  There is a major departure from the book in this story, but I will let you see for yourself what it is.

The visit to Rivendell is quite wonderful, and Hugo Weaving is still brilliant as Elrond Halfelven, master of the Last Homely House west of the Sea.  The meeting of the White Council is a lovely addition, consistent with Tolkien's works, but not detailed in the original book THE HOBBIT.  Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett return in their roles as Saruman and Galadriel.

The disastrous encounter with the goblins in the mountains is marvelously depicted, with only slight departures from the storyline, and Bilbo's encounter with Gollum is excellent too. They did add some things to the story near the end of the movie, which brings Thorin and Company safely past the Goblins and to the edge of Mirkwood.

All in all, this is a beautifully filmed and thoroughly entertaining movie.  I give it my highest recommendation.

Our reaction was that the film had great material and acting, but that it needed editing in a severe way.
The movie would have benefited greatly from the James Cameron reductionism.   Would have been a much better movie that way.

Could have completely lopped off about 45 minutes of travel and excess... much of the GCI fighting could have been truncated...  The strong parts were in the Shire, in Rivendell, and under the earth (Gollum and Bilbo -- easily the show-stealing scene of the film, as it should have been).     But too much added orc enemy stuff... Too much Radagast, way too much Radagast. 

A good movie that could have been great.  Someone on teh Internetz will probably do his own cut of it down to 2 hours and 5 min or so... and that version I'd watch again!

I hope that Jackson and company see enough feedback like this on the internet and decide to pare it down for parts 2 and 3.

Don't get me wrong.  Did like the movie.  But bloated like a Microsoft product!

I can see where you are coming from, but frankly I am such a Tolkien junkie that I soak up every extra second of film I can!  I didn't even buy the DVD's until the extended edition director's cut came out!

Had a bit of luck yesterday. My wife needed a sewing machine repaired immediately, but was too busy herself. So, she sent me to town with it yesterday morning. Well, the guy said the machine would be ready at 3, and it was just past 11, and I was about an hour from home, so I popped over to the multiplex and there just happened to be a showing at 11:30 that ended around 2:30. Seemed like it was meant to be. Being that it was late Saturday morning, there was hardly anybody else in the theatre, so I got a nice seat in just the right location, with nobody near me. Perfect.

Anyway, I liked it. Didn't seem too long to me at all. It's not often you see a movie that retains everything in the book, and even rarer that it should expand on things that the book only mentioned. It never once felt too long to me. I did notice a few changes to the story, which didn't really hurt it any. In truth, if The Hobbit is to be shown in a style similar to the earlier Lord of the Rings movies, it needs this. There is a lot happening in The Hobbit, but it is a much tighter book than Lord of the Rings. I see how it can be expanded to more than one movie without feeling padded, while LOTR fit nicely into one film per volume after being cut down a bit and restructured.

It was good to see the actors from LOTR playing their parts again. Seeing Gollum again made me smile, although after seeing the mostly pathetic Gollum of the later stories, it was something to see him at the top of his game, when he actually felt powerful and in control.

Of the new cast, it was great seeing Sylvester McCoy as Radagast the Brown. Have not seen him in anything since the 1996 Doctor Who TV movie, so having him turn up in an important role in a movie this big was a treat.

Liked the 3D. I very quickly stopped noticing it, which is probably the best thing I could say for its use. Not distracting, but sometimes quite striking when a scene had sufficient depth.

I will, no doubt, see this again. I got the impression my wife was a little disappointed she did not see it with me, although she's usually more content to wait for the video than I am. And anyway, it's very difficult for both of us to get out to a movie unless the whole family goes, and I wasn't sure it would be appropriate for that.

My daughter was quite envious, in fact, as I've read the book to her, and she's seen the Rankin-Bass animated movie. I didn't say anything, but I had been giving some thought, as I watched, whether it would be too scary for her. Based on what she's seen lately, I think she might be ready when the video comes out.

My only disappointment is that I now have to wait for the rest of it.

I've seen it twice now, once in regular 3D and once in IMAX 3D. Overall, I think it works well. Although it is nearly 3 hours long, it moves along nicely. There are a few spots that could have been edited down, but it all fits with the LotR movies in style and tone. It's been a while since I read the novel, so my memory is hazy as far as what all was added or changed. I didn't really see what the 3D added to the movie; in fact, I didn't really like it as it seemed to muddy up some scenes, most notably the scene in the goblin cavern--the cgi was already motion-blurred, and the addition of the 3D process seemed to make much of that scene just look out of focus. And in the IMAX version, this was multiplied.

I liked most of the epic feeling of the film, and Jackson did a fine job of making it feel and look like the LotR. Because of the darker tone, I'm not sure I fully appreciated the comic touches (most notably Radagast's scenes). They seemed a bit out of place. But the effects, the scenery and the acting was all top notch. I continue to be impressed with the portrayal of Gollum--can cgi characters win best supporting actor academy awards?  :tongueout:

I know I sound like I'm complaining about the movie more than praising it, but it is a very enjoyable experience. The casting was good, the acting and directing were great, the effects were amazing. I can't wait to see Smaug in action.

We kicked around seeing it this weekend, but rejected it on the basis on the length...solely on the basis of the length.  Egads, 2 1/2 hours.

We'll probably watch it after theatrical release - either Amazon Instant Video or Netflix DVD.

We went to see RISE OF THE GUARDIANS instead, and that felt long enough.  ;)

(My wife is a pretty big Tolkien fan and my daughter has read "The Hobbit" and the first two LotR books, so "probably" pretty much equals "will").

This is good news, and I was thinking that the interaction between the characters is absolutely essential for the film to be enjoyable.  There is also the very important aspect of Bilbo's reaction and adjustment to everything, which also interests me.  How does Martin Freeman carry it off?

The running time does worry me.  Very few movies need to be more than 2 hours in length unless they are trying to cover a lot of ground, and with this relatively short book broken up into three films, surely they could have edited it some.

I maintain that the film still was too long.

Andrew, the actor who played Bilbo did it just brilliantly.  A+.

It seems to be a trend for Peter Jackson.  I feel that way about the Lord of the Rings movies and King Kong.  The only LOR movie that didn't seem horribly overlong was The Return of the King, and I still think that it needed editing.



Excellent!

I feel like Jackson is getting the "Lucas effect". Once he gets more power and less restrictions from studios, directors tend to go power crazy.

That is PRECISELY the comparison my wife and I made.   No one is reining Jackson in and preventing some of his excesses.

That's because a lot of us ENJOY those excesses! LOL

Freeman does a good job overall, though there are times when he again channels Arthur Dent. I never really thought about these two characters together (Dent and Baggins), but they are similar in a lot of ways, particularly when portrayed by the same actor.

We're all going to see it on Christmas day....though waiting that long is driving my daughter crazy. Just spotted this poster and loved it:

(http://urbanchristiannews.com/ucn/the-hobbit-movie-poster-GANDALF.jpg)

And after you see the film, you can now visit Hobbitland, and you need not go all the way to New Zealand to see it neither. Director Peter Jackson is in talks with the executives at both Universal Orlando and Walt Disney World to create an attraction based on this film and the two upcoming films. The odds on favorite to win the contest as to who gets to create the attraction would at this point seemingly be Universal Orlando, as they have the larger space to do do a bigger attraction. As they want to take out Jurassic Park at the Islands of Adventure and put in something else. But we shall see what we shall see.

We went to see this yesterday and all thoroughly enjoyed it. I really liked the extra info they've put in and now can't wait to see the next one. 5 out of 5.

I enjoyed this one more than I expected.  It's definitely overlong and should have been pared down, but honestly most of the scenes that most obviously should have been pared down..  It'd have been tough to do a lot of it as they're all tied to the main story (even if loosely).  Pradergast shouldn't have even been in the film, and I think they should have cut the number of dwarves in half for film purposes. 

That said, even though it felt overlong, I enjoyed almost every scene of the film on its own - I was never bored.  It's not another LOTR, but it's a fun fantasy romp. 

8/10.

The whole reason Bilbo was chosen was to avoid the unlucky number 13, so cutting the number of dwarves would have mangled the story.  Radagast could have been cut, I suppose, but I kind of liked him!

He was interesting.....but not essential.

I don't remember them even mentioning this in the film, and they focus a lot more on his ability to be a burglar and stealthiness and the unnoticed nature of hobbits. 

I know there's no way they were going to just cut out half the characters from the film, but the number of dwarves really does seem pointless and silly.  And the book is rather silly, but the movie is much less so (as a nine hour epic, it probably should be a little more serious), and having so many characters just detracts from this. 

That's the films biggest problem, on a whole - it tries to be epic and serious like LOTR, but also silly and kind of kiddy like the novel.  It's an awkward mix at times.

Trailer for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnaojlfdUbs&feature=player_embedded

I am SO ready for this!!!!! :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

I've always had the opinion that South Africa and more specifically Bloemfontein (Prof. Tolkien's birthplace) should put up a statue to him.  :teddyr:

But there is THIS guesthouse in Bloemfontein: www.hobbit.co.za (http://www.hobbit.co.za)  :teddyr:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/hobbit-actors-offer-giggling-response-567636

 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

I saw this yesterday and wanted to share.  These two girls geek out over the new trailer.  I guess someone told Peter Jackson about the reaction video to the trailer so he made a reaction video to their reaction video using some elves.

Thanks! I'm pretty hyped....and a big fan like Indy. :wink:

I've seen the trailer, and all I can say is "What the heck!" Just slapping a title on something doesn't make it so, and whatever that is, it's not Tolkien's "The Hobbit."

And what is that with all the flippin' and floppin' during the action scenes. They may look good on film, but most people didn't fight like that in "those days." Which is a real turn-off for me.

One thing I do wonder, is whether the 2nd in the series will gross as much at the box office, as the 1st. Which I believe grossed about a billion $.

Saw the trailer for the 2nd one yesterday.  Looked cool.  But why'd they show the dragon in the trailer?  I don't mind that they showed him, but I thought they wanted us to wait until the movie.   :question:

This is weird, because I loved the Rings trilogy, but I am in the middle of watching The Hobbit and I'm finding it difficult to get into it.  It's a bit too cutesy and comical, and feels like a Disney movie made for kids.  I haven't read The Hobbit in decades, so perhaps I'm missing something.  I'll give it another go tonight and see what happens.

Tolkien wrote THE HOBBIT first, and it is very much a children's tale (I read it out loud to my daughters when they were six, and it was a high point of raising them!).  LOTR was written more than a decade later, and it went far into the darker and more complex history of Middle Earth that THE HOBBIT only hinted at.

Thanks, Indy.  I will watch it with that in mind.  :cheers:

The length didn't bother me, but then I did watch it at home rather than at the theater. There were plenty of parts that could've been pared down although the only part that really began to annoy me was that bit with the trolls' dinner discussion.  That seemed like it would never end.  I really love the way this one was cast though.  Richard Armitage (Thorin) and James Nesbitt (Bofur) were particularly great. 
  I kind of get the sense with this whole thing that Jackson decided, "OK Tolkein fanboys, you did nothing but b!tch about how I left this, that, and the other detail out of LOTR.  This time around we're going to get ALL THE DETAILS IN EXISTENCE! Because f*ck you, I'm Peter Jackson!"

Fanboys ruin everything, is what I'm saying.

I agree, fanboys can ruin a lot, especially when egomaniacal directors like Peter Jackson heed their b***hing and give them what they want. Lesson learned: A director known for his excesses + fanboys that want no stone left unturned = overindulgence that must be beared by the rest of us casual folk.

I made the mistake of dragging my pregnant and near-popping wife out to see this at the 3D theater when it came out last December. What I didn't anticipate was the vertigo that many of the 3D action scenes would cause. What I also didn't anticipate was that pregnant women are not compatible with vertigo, for nausea reasons! This is my basic take on the technical aspects of the film.

What also bothered me about the technical aspects of The Hobbit (2012) is that it relied a bit too much on CGI action. The human eye is rarely fooled by CGI scenes in films anymore. Whereas the LOTR movies had a lot of CGI in them, the majority of the action scenes were done with practical effects; our heroes were fighting with real-live orcs, or people dressed as orcs. Not flailing their swords at empty air with computer-generated images incorporated into those scenes later on, as they obviously were in this film. The Hobbit (2012) would have benefited more from scenes with live actors more than it did with computer-generated ones. The Uruk-hai leader in The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) was a real-live dude, this guy...


...who coincidentally, did eventually find employment later on in the first Pirates of the Caribbean (2003) movie. Azog the White Orc, however, was completely CGI and definitely looked like it. Plus, I was a little miffed when I found out that Azog wasn't even in the book. I hate write-in movie characters that aren't in the original books, like Sandra Bullock's character in A Time To Kill (1995), for example. Why do it?

But I was impressed with what they did include from the book, which thankfully was a lot. We got to see the famous riddle segment between Gollum and Bilbo, which was well-done from what I read out of the book. And while I was also glad that they kept Radagast the Brown in the story, he was about as annoying as Tom Bombadil was in the LOTR books, which made me grateful that they didn't include Bombadil in those movies; could you imagine all of that annoying singing that we would have had to have put up with?  :hatred:

As much as I hate to say it though, I actually enjoyed this movie more on home video and in 2D. I rented it recently and was able to enjoy it more without the 3D vertigo that I had experienced in the 3D theater from last December. Maybe it's just my view of 3D movies in general, which I honestly don't see replacing practical movies any time soon. 3D is more of a distraction than anything else.