So I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey a few hours ago. I must say I don't agree with the negative reception some people gave it. It is still an epic adventure that entertains vastly beyond most other movies. It's far from perfect though, and it seems Jackson does not have that many new ideas to offer, at least with this movie. Apparently there will be 2 more Hobbit films too, and I hope Jackson lends an ear to the critics and tries to make it a bit less typical next time.

Between the reviews and the 48fps thing I'm pretty trepidatious about seeing it. I will of course, in a few days.

I watched the 3D 48 FPS version which basically makes it look like a game cutscene. I didn't mind it though and I loved the added detail, though it takes a while to get used to the weird movements. I'm writing this other post so that there would be no spoilers for whomever reads the opening post in latter pages. So yeah, spoilers below

I really liked the movie, and especially the part about the Necromancer was breathtaking and had me nailed to the theater seat, it was just devastating. I also liked that it is more of an adventure and not as annoyingly serious and dramatic as Return of the King is in some points. However, I think Jackson could have done a lot more to keep it fresh and not reuse some of the cliches from the original trilogy and other films like the whole "hanging from the cliff by one hand" bits (which were not few) and the goddamn eagles again saving the day. I read that that is exactly what happens in the book but I still think it was predictable as hell and could have been reworked into something else.

The effects and costumes are of course still top-notch, as is the acting. One of the best films I've seen in 2012, but there is room for improvement for the next two, just like Fellowship. I especially liked Bilbo's growth as a character from some lazy glutton couchpotato to an inspiring sword-wielding hero. And I also liked that, just like the LOTR-themed video games, it proves that amazing stories and adventures in the Tolkien universe with only barely touching the One Ring story can be made into something visual that is eye-pleasing and extremely entertaining.

They missed my favorite riddle from the section with Gollum. They also missed the part where the orcs sing a horrible song about the dwarves as they climb up the five trees. Instead they had a fight scene which was nowhere in the book at all--which I understand, as they had to make it a big ending for the mainstream audience.

Still, I wonder how they would've pulled it off? Would the orcs sing with death metal vocals? How would they sound?

"Fifteen birds in five fir trees
their feathers were fanned in a fiery breeze!
But, funny little birds, they had no wings!
Oh, what shall we do with the funny little things?
Roast 'em alive, or stew them in a pot;
fry them, boil them and eat them hot?

Burn, burn tree and fern!
Shrivel and scorch! A fizzling torch
To light the night for our delight,

Bake them and toast 'em, fry and roast 'em!
'til beards blaze, and eyes glaze;
'til hair smells and skins crack,
fat melts, and bones black
in cinders lie
beneath the sky!
So dwarves shall die,
and light the night for our delight!"

I consider "The Hobbit" to be the best Tolkien book. Way better and more rapid in its story than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, to make three 3 hour films about a book consisting barely over 200 pages is ridiculous. Haven't seen the movie though and I'll probably wait for the DVD release since I find going to the movies being maybe the most overrated and overpriced shit out there.

^I think exactly the same. LoTR gets 3 movies for three massive books, that also have a slower pace yet the Hobbit alone gets the same ? I'll see the movie but I don't know... fearing it might get a bit boring on a screen to have all the details and stuff to make it last three parts.

My knocks on this movie:

- The goblins and orcs lost the sinister quality they had in the LOTR trilogy. This because they CGI'd everything instead of using real actors with prosthetics. It was a distinct setback for me. They could have at least gotten an actor to portray the part of the pale orc.

- Riddles in the Dark. In the book they were actually riddles IN THE DARK. Not in a lighted cavern. They missed out on a fantastic opportunity to make that scene very memorable. Imagine, your life hanging in the balance on the whim of a riddle in the darkness. With the wonderful portrayal of Gollum by Andy Serkis, this scene could have been a real treat. They made it fun, but didn't really give the scene the appreciation that it deserved.

It seemed like the movie didn't have the same attention to detail that LOTR did. Whether that was intentional to capture the lighter mood of the Hobbit, I dunno. My setbacks to an otherwise solid an entertaining film.

Also, just remembered these two minor points:

- Silly & goofy: the bunny sled and the goblin king. The bunny sled chase and bunny sled, in general, was silly. The goblin king was a little goofy. I did appreciate the trolls being goofy, because they were supposed to be.

The goblins in Fellowship were mostly CGI, as they were just too many to have actors for. I think having the orcs CGI was because real actors would just look goofy as hell on CGI wargs (I dare you to create a realistic warg). I'm actually considering going to the movie again, this time to the normal FPS version, I liked it quite a lot.

I actually liked how Jackson balanced the drama of LOTR with the very light-hearted tone of The Hobbit, which is essentially a children's book. The trolls and the Goblin King weren't all that threatening as the movies and books make a point about cunning and intelligence defeating raw, clumsy strength, but the orcs could not be portrayed as goofy, there has to be some menacing evil presence like Azog in this movie or the big Uruk in Fellowship. It's just the way movies work. And the decision to split it into 3 movies is not really that unjustified when you consider this: An Unexpected Journey is slightly less than 3 hours long and features a lot of stuff to get you inside the story. Then there's the extended edition of Fellowship of the Ring which is 3 and a half hours long, and Return is 4 fucking hours long. I think the running time of the first Hobbit movie is not an issue considering all this.

I LOVED IT. And also can't understand any negative reaction.

Are people just assuming that since Jackson had success with LOTR than any subsequent projects must suck? He's not George Lucas. Not yet anyway.

Of course it's not as dark/scary as LOTR. The book The Hobbit is a children's book and not as dark/scary. This seemed like a very conscious choice to me.

Anything based on a book will leave the auditions with "would haves" and "could haves" but overall I love the choices made for this adaptation.

I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. I think maybe some people went to the movie with the wrong expectations. I'm sure people by now understand that a movie won't be 100% accurate to the. I also heard some of the negative reaction was because of the 48fps thought when watched it didn't really bother me.

Written by Warman on 19.12.2012 at 00:14

I consider "The Hobbit" to be the best Tolkien book. Way better and more rapid in its story than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, to make three 3 hour films about a book consisting barely over 200 pages is ridiculous. Haven't seen the movie though and I'll probably wait for the DVD release since I find going to the movies being maybe the most overrated and overpriced shit out there.

Please try to be less negative... As I wrote in another thread, it's a work of art. I love the way they've expanded the story by including real scenes of events that were only vaguely mentioned in the books. Now they serve as integral parts of the story which they were all along...

And the special effects are only to be viewed in a theatre... just getting immersed in this world is a priceless experience...

Written by Ernis on 31.12.2012 at 00:00

Please try to be less negative

Why? Because you're offended when I think going to the movies is overrated and that making 3 movies out of The Hobbit being too much?

Loved it, great movie. Im definitely looking forward to the next movie!

Actually i really liked it !!! i predicted it to be like that just like the first lord of the rings .... just getting us into the story line i think the next 2 will be epic imo

Written by Warman on 02.01.2013 at 21:15

Written by Ernis on 31.12.2012 at 00:00

Please try to be less negative

Why? Because you're offended when I think going to the movies is overrated and that making 3 movies out of The Hobbit being too much?

Should I be offended? Just asked you to try to be less negative. Asked, by the way, not demanded... just sayin'

Written by Ernis on 03.01.2013 at 16:22

Written by Warman on 02.01.2013 at 21:15

Written by Ernis on 31.12.2012 at 00:00

Please try to be less negative

Why? Because you're offended when I think going to the movies is overrated and that making 3 movies out of The Hobbit being too much?

Should I be offended? Just asked you to try to be less negative. Asked, by the way, not demanded... just sayin'

why would he want to be less negative if that is the way he feels about the film? So, you love the film, and he thinks totally differently. So what? Live with it.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 03.01.2013 at 16:25

why would he want to be less negative if that is the way he feels about the film? So, you love the film, and he thinks totally differently. So what? Live with it.

Live with what?

Are you also thinking that the fact he thinks bout the film the way he does is of immense importance to me?

The only thing I pointed out was that there's no real point being negative about something you haven't experienced/seen/read/etc

I'm sure it's a good movie, never said anything else. But I still think it's greedy and unnecessary to make 3 movies out of it.

Written by Warman on 03.01.2013 at 18:12

I'm sure it's a good movie, never said anything else. But I still think it's greedy and unnecessary to make 3 movies out of it.

You are probably right here. There is a distinct smell of cash-grab here... however, as long as Jackson has something good to offer, I can't really say I can complain... Plus, if they stick some Silmarillion material in it, I'm content...

I haven't seen it yet, but as the trailers and behind the scenes clips show, it's going to go among my bests of all, along with LOTR trilogy and just a few more. the most interesting thing in "The Hobbit" for me are the soundtracks, composed by Mr Shore. loved his music in LOTR trilogy and loving his new scores of "The Hobbit".

I watched the movie, without 3d or 48fps, because the theater here is pretty old and it's a small town, so noone is istalling 3d equipment and stuff because it's not worth it.

Anyway, I pretty much liked it, it's a great movie (if you don't mind that's different from the book).
The dwarfs are funny, Thorin is pretty interesting and the scenario is great and so on. I was really anxious to see it, because there were so many production blogs and trailers, and everything seemed so great, and the movie is really great.
I don't mind having 3 movies... more movies = more of middle-earth

The only problem is that Elrond fucking looks like my boss, and it's quite creepy watching him, I have the impression that he is looking at me and saying "SHOULDN'T YOU BE WORKING NOW" (in fact I was at the movie in my working time )

Bonus (for me) : My bro invited me to see the movie, and payed for my ticket

Written by Yavanna on 07.01.2013 at 20:05

I watched the movie, without 3d or 48fps, because the theater here is pretty old and it's a small town, so noone is istalling 3d equipment and stuff because it's not worth it.

Anyway, I pretty much liked it, it's a great movie (if you don't mind that's different from the book).
The dwarfs are funny, Thorin is pretty interesting and the scenario is great and so on. I was really anxious to see it, because there were so many production blogs and trailers, and everything seemed so great, and the movie is really great.
I don't mind having 3 movies... more movies = more of middle-earth

The only problem is that Elrond fucking looks like my boss, and it's quite creepy watching him, I have the impression that he is looking at me and saying "SHOULDN'T YOU BE WORKING NOW" (in fact I was at the movie in my working time )

Bonus (for me) : My bro invited me to see the movie, and payed for my ticket

such a funny day you had watching the hobbit! lol but I'm angry! 'cuz the hobbit nominated just for three oscars! best make up best production and best visual effects! that's quietly unfair, even for me that haven't seen it yet!

Written by Gurth Bennas on 10.01.2013 at 23:06

I'm angry! 'cuz the hobbit nominated just for three oscars! best make up best production and best visual effects! that's quietly unfair, even for me that haven't seen it yet!

It's just one third of a longer film. Neither FOTR nor TTT did particularly well at the academy awards... It would be logical to assume that if any of the Hobbit films is to receive awards, it's going to be the third one. Make-up-, production-, and special effects-wise this film does deserve the nominations but I could say that Les Mis was better as a stand-alone movie this time... Nevertheless, Hobbit is certainly more entertaining... especially for the fans...

Academy awards are a joke.... I bet the 2 first films won't do well, but mysteriously, the third will win everything (like LOTR).

Anyway, I saw the movie this week end and I found it quite pleasant. The almost three hour length past quite unnoticed, yet I still have the feeling three movies are way too much... (all damn marketing and money bs)

I also don't recall all the events depicted on it though almost a decade has past since I read the book. I'll re-read it again to refresh But I'm sure the Radagast part wasn't on it ! And was the Necromancer also so extensively treated ?

Written by Ernis on 14.01.2013 at 14:11

Written by Gurth Bennas on 10.01.2013 at 23:06

I'm angry! 'cuz the hobbit nominated just for three oscars! best make up best production and best visual effects! that's quietly unfair, even for me that haven't seen it yet!

It's just one third of a longer film. Neither FOTR nor TTT did particularly well at the academy awards... It would be logical to assume that if any of the Hobbit films is to receive awards, it's going to be the third one. Make-up-, production-, and special effects-wise this film does deserve the nominations but I could say that Les Mis was better as a stand-alone movie this time... Nevertheless, Hobbit is certainly more entertaining... especially for the fans...

but I suppose the desolation of smaug will be the best part. because almost everything important in the story ends by the desolation (of course till the war of the ring ) my problem about academy awards for the hobbit is just about the score.I say why they didn't considered the music of hobbit in the list of the nominees?
it's not very brilliant in some cases but it at least reminds me the memories of the past when I was reading the book.

Since this is metalstorm, and this is a "The Hobbit" topic, I thought you might be interested in this:

Written by Vombatus on 14.01.2013 at 15:57

I also don't recall all the events depicted on it though almost a decade has past since I read the book. I'll re-read it again to refresh But I'm sure the Radagast part wasn't on it ! And was the Necromancer also so extensively treated ?

I think I wrote it somewhere here before... the film features an expanded storyline. That means that it displays events and scenes that were only briefly mentioned in "The Hobbit" but were of greater importance in the rest of the Tolkien legendarium. Thus, the films (at least the first one) contain material from not only "The Hobbit" but also from LOTR, Silmarillion and other works on that topic. I personally believe this is great because the material and the background of the story are amazing and do deserve a more extensive treatment...

Written by Gurth Bennas on 14.01.2013 at 20:24

my problem about academy awards for the hobbit is just about the score.I say why they didn't considered the music of hobbit in the list of the nominees?
it's not very brilliant in some cases but it at least reminds me the memories of the past when I was reading the book.

Bub, it's recycled LOTR score. Although it is a very good recycled score, it's still "been there before" and even got nominations and at least one academy award (both Enya and Annie Lennox got nominations for performing the theme songs for the films and Lennox actually won)... It does't make much sense to nominate the same thing again...

Finally watched The Hobbit. The criticisms that scenes were drawn out are spot on. People speak of it expanding the storyline but I don't know how the fuck watching Dwarves eat and sing for 40 minutes counts as storyline expansion. That being said it was still an enjoyable film, it's just a shame the thinness of the story was so transparent. It should have been a 4 hour film spanning the whole book, not a nearly 3 hour film stretching out a portion of it. The LotR books are nearly twice as long as The Hobbit, so making a 9 hour franchise out of it would be like making Return of the King over 15 hours long.

Written by Jaeryd on 17.01.2013 at 00:09

Since this is metalstorm, and this is a "The Hobbit" topic, I thought you might be interested in this:

this is some serious stuff ...but i still secretly prefer this dude