SHP Forums

The wife and I are planning to go see it tomorrow. I do have a few concerns about this trilogy, but unlike George Lucas, Peter Jackson has done such a consistently top-notch job on his films that I feel he's earned the benefit of the doubt. So overall, I'm very excited! Will post my reaction after I've seen it.

El Ravager wrote:The wife and I are planning to go see it tomorrow. I do have a few concerns about this trilogy, but unlike George Lucas, Peter Jackson has done such a consistently top-notch job on his films that I feel he's earned the benefit of the doubt. So overall, I'm very excited! Will post my reaction after I've seen it.

I will warn you, there are indeed some changes. (Some obvious, like small bits of including Frodo and others from LOTOR, but they're there mostly as a reference to tie it to LOTOR). They also add stuff from appendixes and such - and they make one change that kind of startled me. (There's one thing that made me itch my head too). But at any rate, there's some changes! But it's over all such an amazing movie!

Changes in and of themselves don't bother me. Film adaptations of books require a certain amount of change in order to translate the material effectively. Obviously, in the LOTR trilogy there are quite a number of changes, from dialogue tweaks to outright chronological alterations. For the most part these didn't bother me, because they remained faithful to the spirit of Tolkien's books. (For example, cutting out the approx. fifty years between Bilbo's party and the beginning of Frodo's adventure was not only an acceptable change, but a necessary one given the peculiarities of film as a medium. Ditto with the exclusion of Tom Bombadil and a host of other changes.)

What bothers me in book-to-film adaptations are changes that negatively affect the spirit of the original work, or unnecessarily alter a character's traits or arc. For example, while I didn't mind the Elves at Helm's Deep in the Two Towers, I did object to the Ents' reticence to go to war, as that affected characterization in a negative way. Ditto (to a MAJOR degree) with the reworking of Faramir's character arc.

So, while the LOTR movies are certainly among my very favorite, there were a few bits that irritated me. (A couple years back, I made my own fanedits of the trilogy which remove or at least minimize those offending bits. Anal-retentive? Yeah, maybe, but it does make the experience more enjoyable for me.) Anyhow, I'm certain there will be a few irritating bits and pieces in this new Hobbit trilogy as well, but for the most part I'm fully prepared to be impressed and thoroughly entertained. The inclusion of material from the LOTR appendices are actually the aspect of these films that I've probably been looking forward to the most; it'll be interesting to see how Jackson & co. handle the integration. Also, the mysterious character of Radagast has always been extremely interesting to me, and I've been a big fan of Sylvester McCoy ever since his run as the seventh Doctor. Can't wait to see his portrayal...

I think that it could have been compressed to two hours and would have been more exciting.

I have to say, though, the gollum scene was fantastic!

stuntology wrote:I think that it could have been compressed to two hours and would have been more exciting.

I have to agree, at least when watching it on the big screen. I think it felt a bit too much like watching a series marathon, which is great when at home, where you can take breaks and eat in between and move around, but not so great when in the cinema. It was way too long before they actually started their journey. But I have to admit, from then on, it actually picked up it's pace, either that or I just got more into it all. There were a few sceens, though, that felt a bit to much like they wanted to get as much of the book into the movie, but without actually taking the time to realise them fully. Now don't get me wrong, I don't mind it, just as i said, I prefer it when sitting at home with some nice food and snacks and room for my legs.

But as I said, when I really got into it, it was a great movie, I'll most likely get it later on and have great fun watching it with my bf and/or friends, at howm on the couch.

Saw it. Loved it.

It doesn't come out here in Australia until December 26...

Wicked Hobbit Master! Tricksy! False! *stamps foot impatiently*

I guess I'll see it when I see it.

My thoughts on The Hobbit:

I'm a long-time Tolkien fan and am also extremely fond of Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy; although I have a few major gripes with The Two Towers and Return of the King (namely, the handling of Faramir's character, the reticence of the Ents to go to war, and Frodo and Sam's "breakup"), overall they are among my favorite movies of all time. For that matter, The Hobbit the book is among my favorite novels of all time. So when the mixed reviews of this film started hitting the internet, I was a bit taken aback.

Turns out I needn't have been. While it's true that The Hobbit has a slightly different "feel" than the LOTR trilogy and it alters/adds to the source material at several points, I don't feel that these detract from the film in any way. Sure, if you go in expecting a straight-to-screen adaptation of the book or a film with the scope and gravitas of the LOTR trilogy you may be disappointed. But such expectations are unrealistic, not to mention inappropriate in this case. The Hobbit has never been in the same category as the Lord of the Rings. It's a fun, light-hearted adventure, not an epic quest to decide the fate of the world. Furthermore, to those ultra-purists who are mad about Jackson's additions and alterations, I suggest you go back and read The Hobbit and imagine what it would look like if ported directly to the silver screen. My guess: not that great. While the story (which mostly comprises a series of the party getting captured and then being rescued, getting captured and then being rescued again, getting captured and then...) works great in print, I don't think it would have worked very well as a film. And for the most part, I felt that Jackson's adaptive choices were respectful to the spirit of the book while permitting the story to thrive in a cinematic environment. And furthermore, even with the additions and alterations, I'm impressed by how faithful to the book (for the vast majority of the running time) the adaptation remained. It's not as though Jackson re-wrote the plot (a la The Voyage of the Dawn Treader) or replaced any of the characters (a la any of the recent David Suchet Poirot adaptations). The majority of Jackson's changes fall into the "expansion" category, not the "alteration" one. In short, if you're willing to appreciate this film for what it is rather than criticizing it for not being something that it was never meant to be, you'll find it thoroughly entertaining and more than acceptable.

Now there were one or two things that bugged me. Specifically (and I'll try to keep this mostly spoiler-free), I felt that the characterization of the dwarves was too crude (no surprise; the same was true of the LOTR trilogy) and the relationship between Thorin and the Elves was inappropriately handled. But these misgivings in no way wrecked the film for me. Also, I'm a bit flummoxed by the frequent castigation of this movie's pacing. That's one aspect of The Hobbit that I feel was handled perfectly. If I want a mindless, non-stop action-fest, I'll go see a Michael Bay movie. Jackson's Middle Earth films are so strong, in large part, because of the balance between great action scenes on the one hand and plenty of characterization and dramatic scenes that give you time to "warm up" to the characters and allow the films to breathe. The Hobbit is no exception. (I think it's become trendy to bash Jackson's films just because he's a thoughtful, successful filmmaker; witness a similar trend with Christopher Noland's movies.) Rating: 9 out of 10 flaming pinecones.

El Ravager wrote:...replaced any of the characters (a la any of the recent David Suchet Poirot adaptations).

Hear hear! That's bugged me too, to be honest, but I wasn't aware if there were any other people here who watch the Suchet Poirot. I've noticed this also - mostly to allow more screen time for the actors playing Hastings, Japp and Miss Lemon.

Now, to be honest, all three are superb actors, but... well... when they're in EVERY film, it gets a little boring...

El Ravager wrote:(I think it's become trendy to bash Jackson's films just because he's a thoughtful, successful filmmaker; witness a similar trend with Christopher Noland's movies.)

Sigh... I've observed a similar thing here in Australia, where it's called tall poppy syndrome. To summarise it, basically, "don't be too tall a poppy and we won't have to chop you down to size". I find this ludicrous, but that's another rant...

Good review there, Rav. I'll post my own review when I FINALLY get to see the film next Wednesday...

I saw it, didn't hate it, but didn't love it either. A half hour could've easily been cut from it and it would've made a better movie. Most of the complaints I've seen people make, I've agreed with. Even the Gollum scene bothered me because the cutesy Smeagol stuff wasn't necessary. The scene was best when Gollum was creepy and menacing. And it really annoyed me that they shortened one of the riddles, which saved a whole 10 seconds when the movie had so much filler. I think it was too much like LOTR. Same music. Same sweeping helicopter shots. Lots of scenes that echoed scenes from LOTR. In short, I think it could've been a lot better, and I wish del Toro had directed.

El Ravager wrote:(I think it's become trendy to bash Jackson's films just because he's a thoughtful, successful filmmaker; witness a similar trend with Christopher Noland's movies.) Rating: 9 out of 10 flaming pinecones.

I wouldn't say I necessarily "trash" Jackson's or Nolan's films; however, I despise LOTR and I felt Nolan's Batman trilogy wasn't true to the character. In regards to the latter, Nolan's Batman spent very little time actually using his brain and detective skills in favor of simply beating up bad guys.

None of the other Batman movies did this right either, but what irks me is how so many praise Nolan's films and yet, to me, this is a very poor portrayal of Batman. Show me a Batman movie where he actually uses his greatest weapon -- his mind -- and I'll probably enjoy it.

I just saw it, and loved it. Very promising first entry in the trilogy...... see you all next year!

All right, all right... a bit more... I don't know where the Goblin King came from - I seem to remember him from the book... but I couldn't understand much of what he said. I was also a little disappointed that we didn't get to meet Gwaihir, the Lord of the Eagles - we definitely meet him in the book - but I guess there was no time. *shrug* Still, the whole eagle business seemed to come out of nowhere and the only resolution is when they flew away. I'd have preferred to show the audience something about why the eagles are on the side of the dwarfs - otherwise, you'd have people who didn't read the book scratching their heads and thinking "What the...? It's just a convenient deus ex machina!"

That said, I thought it was very good. I particularly liked the exposition about Erebor, and the dwarf songs! They have impressive bass and baritone voices - as a bass/baritone myself, and a chorister to boot, I loved it!

I don't know what the problem was with pacing. I thought the pacing was just right - it needed to have contrast. Too many "slow" scenes in a row would become boring; conversely, too many fight scenes in a row would also become boring. Alternating them keeps the movie interesting.

Anyway, those are my thoughts... oh, and I also loved the subplot with Azog the Defiler, and the orcs speaking orc-language... suitably menacing. Nice!

I saw the movie yesterday and... I liked it.

I liked some parts very much - especially the first hour, the segment at Imladris and basically everything involving Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin -, and I absolutely loved the mesmerizing scene between Bilbo and Gollum, who is without a single doubt the highlight of the movie (much like the LotR trilogy, if you ask me). However, I found some parts rather boring: I have to admit, for example, that I didn't like the bit with the three trolls that wanted to eat the dwarves and I wasn't a fan of the Goblin King (both were too comedic for my tastes), but I especially disliked the endless chasing and fighting of the second half. It's a matter of taste, I know: I could easily listen to two hours of mythological talk between Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman, but after the tenth fighting scene in a row I start yawning.

All in all, though, I liked the movie and I'll eagerly wait the other two!

AndreaDraco wrote:I saw the movie yesterday and... I liked it.

I liked some parts very much - especially the first hour, the segment at Imladris and basically everything involving Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin -, and I absolutely loved the mesmerizing scene between Bilbo and Gollum, who is without a single doubt the highlight of the movie (much like the LotR trilogy, if you ask me). However, I found some parts rather boring: I have to admit, for example, that I didn't like the bit with the three trolls that wanted to eat the dwarves and I wasn't a fan of the Goblin King (both were too comedic for my tastes), but I especially disliked the endless chasing and fighting of the second half. It's a matter of taste, I know: I could easily listen to two hours of mythological talk between Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman, but after the tenth fighting scene in a row I start yawning.

All in all, though, I liked the movie and I'll eagerly wait the other two!

Wow, that pretty much fits my opinion of the movie to a T, Andrea! Those were my exact thoughts regarding the gollum scene, as well as the many fight scenes and the goblin king. I do disagree about the trolls, though. I found them to be pretty entertaining!