The Hobbit

Just out of curiousity, for the people complaining about it being danger -> narrow escape, danger -> narrow escape and so on, have you read the books? Because that's what it's like there too, and if you have .. do you just wish he adapted it to be something different than that? Peter Jackson changed the troll scene a bit, but it still resolved in basically the same way, as did all the other climatic "all hope is lost" kind of moments.

I kept catching myself not paying attention and letting my mind wonder to other things while watching this movie yesterday afternoon. I was even in a nice quiet theater with only one other couple. Even after reading the book and knowing better it was as if I was still waiting for some big LOTR battle scene

What was with all the blurriness? I thought something was wrong with my eyes.

I somewhat disagree though I do see the point of the prequel statement and this movie not being "The Hobbit", sure it isn't as light hearted and it veers away from a true children's story but, I think it was a catch 22. Including all the extra elements to provide a clearer story I thought forced them away. I look at the Necromancer as an example. You have a lot of parts here and there that were pulled from appendixes and other content. I think PJ tried to weigh it out and include sees like Radakast to remain light hearted but you're either happy with all the content and backstory or you're upset from the lack of preservation of the literal "Hobbit" book.

I can't see from Peter Jackson' perspective that I wouldn't have done the same thing. I think his intention has always to tell the whole story and touch on as many elements as possible. I don't think it was ever to make an exact book to film movie but rather tell the story of Middle Earth. In that regards, I think it is very well done (all of the movies). Just my opinion....

vGrade_sl said:

I was even in a nice quiet theater with only one other couple.

What was with all the blurriness? I thought something was wrong with my eyes.

Click to expand...

Did they have sex? And did you have on your 3D glasses without them movie is blurry, brah

Saw it last night, 24 fps & 2D. I don't have any commentary on the technical aspects of the movie, but to say it looked great. I didn't notice any of the problems people are talking about who saw it in 48 fps 3D.

I really enjoyed it. It has a much different vibe and feel than the LoTR's movies, but that is true to the spirit of the books. The Hobbit is much more fun and whimsical. Jackson clearly wanted a film that the entire family could enjoy and he made some very conscious decisions to take the move down that route, versus a more sinister one. I have to agree, the biggest liberty that Jackson took was turning this into a true prequel for his LoTR's movies. Tons of tie-ins, cameos, and nods to his previous trilogy.

I thought Ian McKellen played a great Gandalf that has not realized his full potential yet. Rhadagast worked for me. I was laughing my head off during most of his scenes. The various dwarves and their personalities worked for me. The each played their roles well and added to the story. Bilbo worked for me. He didn't steal any scenes, but I thought he did a fine job playing the reluctant hero. Gollum REALLY worked for me. God damn did they nail his scenes!

Three things didn't work for me.
Really looking forward to the next two movies!

I liked it, although it did drag a bit. I think some stuff could have been cut down a bit, such as the whole warg/rabbit chase scene before Rivendell. That scene went on way longer than it should have.

The thing I liked the most is that the dwarfs were NOT bumbling idiots like in the book. They were actually shown doing real fighting and holding their own. I never liked how they were portrayed in the book, honestly.

Troll_sl said:

It wasn't terrible, no. I'll give it that.

But it wasn't "The Hobbit."

Click to expand...

You are correct, it wasn't "The Hobbit". Ironically, Tolkein tried to update The Hobbit in the 60's to probably a version much more like this but after only writing three chapters many people rejected it because it wasn't the light hearted book it used to be anymore so he abandoned it.

Golt_sl said:

Just out of curiousity, for the people complaining about it being danger -> narrow escape, danger -> narrow escape and so on, have you read the books? Because that's what it's like there too, and if you have .. do you just wish he adapted it to be something different than that? Peter Jackson changed the troll scene a bit, but it still resolved in basically the same way, as did all the other climatic "all hope is lost" kind of moments.

Click to expand...

I read The Hobbit back in middle school but I don't remember it much at all. I wish Jackson had cut some of it, much like he cut Tom Bombadil from the LOTR movies. If not that, he could have at least shortened some scenes.

Candidates include: the warg/rabbit scene, the troll scene, the storm giant scene, the dwarf introduction scene, various flashbacks.

Like I said before, I enjoyed the movie, but I'm posting on the 2nd, no 3rd, coming of an EQ forum. I expect other nerds will enjoy it too. But I doubt it will have the cross-over appeal that LOTR did.

Simas_sl said:

I read The Hobbit back in middle school but I don't remember it much at all. I wish Jackson had cut some of it, much like he cut Tom Bombadil from the LOTR movies. If not that, he could have at least shortened some scenes.

Candidates include: the warg/rabbit scene,the troll scene, the storm giant scene,the dwarf introduction scene, various flashbacks.

Like I said before, I enjoyed the movie, but I'm posting on the 2nd, no 3rd, coming of an EQ forum. I expect other nerds will enjoy it too. But I doubt it will have the cross-over appeal that LOTR did.

Click to expand...

You wish that they would have cut these scenes or that they were done better?

Edit: I'm referring to the bold text.

Why they added Radagast, I don't know. Completely unneccesary.

Shorten the bolded. Cut the warg/rabbit and the storm giants.

By dwarf introduction scene I mean when the dwarves show up at Bilbo's house, not the flashback to the sacking of the mountain city.

Troll_sl said:

Why they added Radagast, I don't know. Completely unneccesary.

Click to expand...

I agree. He should have just had a passing encounter with Gandalf to introduce the existence of the necromancer. The additional scenes with him were completely unnecessary and really dragged the movie out a lot.

McCheese_sl said:

I agree. He should have just had a passing encounter with Gandalf to introduce the existence of the necromancer. The additional scenes with him were completely unnecessary and really dragged the movie out a lot.

Click to expand...

Also the prelude to the spiders of Mirkwood maybe?

McCheese_sl said:

I agree. He should have just had a passing encounter with Gandalf to introduce the existence of the necromancer. The additional scenes with him were completely unnecessary and really dragged the movie out a lot.

Click to expand...

You're not wrong. But I wonder how much he will factor into the next two films. It may have just been an introduction.

It's hard for me to criticize this film knowing how inaccurate the LotR movies were too. And until I've seen all 3 with the extended editions and 46 hours of additional footage it's hard to see the "big picture" of what Jackson is doing with this book like he did with LotR.

I didn't see Legolas. Thought he might show up in the flashback with the elves to give the Dwarves the finger just for the early cameo.

McCheese_sl said:

I agree. He should have just had a passing encounter with Gandalf to introduce the existence of the necromancer. The additional scenes with him were completely unnecessary and really dragged the movie out a lot.

Click to expand...

From the way Radagast was depicted, I'm thinking Jackson was giving the fans who were bitter about the exclusion of Bombadil from LoTR a little of Tom repackaged in the form of the wizard.

Jait_sl said:

I didn't see Legolas. Thought he might show up in the flashback with the elves to give the Dwarves the finger just for the early cameo.

Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if he didn't show up in Mirkwood.

Blackyce_sl said:

Also the prelude to the spiders of Mirkwood maybe?

Click to expand...

You're not wrong. But I wonder how much he will factor into the next two films. It may have just been an introduction.

Click to expand...

I think it was kind of neat how they briefly showed the spiders, but it was still completely unnecessary. It's been a long time since I read the book, but isn't Radaghast's only role that he meets Gandalf on the road by chance and mentions something about the White Council/Mirkwood? That's all his role should have been in the movie. If he factors into the upcoming movies it will just be more added fluff that wasn't in the book. Honestly, I thought the movie's portrayal of him as this looney woodsman was pretty stupid. He loves nature, sure, but I never got the idea that he was a bit unhinged from the book. It really stikes me as a "Jar Jar Binks" sort of addition.

McCheese_sl said:

It's been a long time since I read the book, but isn't Radaghast's only role that he meets Gandalf on the road by chance and mentions something about the White Council/Mirkwood?

Click to expand...

It was Radagast who told Gandalf that the Nine were abroad as the Black Riders, not Saruman as was depicted in the FoTR movie. He also sent Gwaihir to Orthanc, leading to Gandalf's escape.