The Sword and Laser discussion

The Hobbit > An Unexpected Journey (Spoilers)

Comments (showing 1-50 of 65) (65 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Chip (new)

Chip Davis (cadavis3) | 17 comments I thought it would be a good idea to have a thread where those of us who've seen the film can discuss it without worrying about ruining it for everyone else.

So, what did you guys think?

I thought it was fantastic. Yes, there were changes and additions, some of them pretty significant (Azog). Some of it came directly from Tolkien, some was completely new. I honestly felt that all of these alterations helped make it a better movie. They provided a much greater level of depth, drama and character development while still staying true to the heart of the story.

Peter Jackson was never going to make a word for word adaptation of a children's book and, frankly I never wanted him to. As much as I love the book, I don't think it would have made a very good movie, as it is. This movie feels much more like a true prequel to LotR and, if you ask me, I think that's a good thing.

Also, I just have to say that the "riddles in the dark" scene was absolute perfection.

message 2: by Dirk (new)

Dirk | 39 comments will try to remove my post, sorry didn't see you're post before posted mine.

message 3: by Dirk (last edited Dec 14, 2012 12:10PM) (new)

Dirk | 39 comments Before I start: If you haven't started reading the book yet but plan to do so before you watch the movie, DON'T. Watch the movie, then read the book.

I read the book a week before I went to watch the movie and found myself struggling to keep a open mind about what was happening in the movie. This was mainly because I was scrutinizing every detail that was not the same as the book.

Now for the real point of this post! :D

What I loved:
- Bilbo Baggins. Martin Freeman did an excellent job.
- The actual riddles in the dark scene was my favorite 10 minutes of the movie.
- As expected the score was really good and the songs adapted from the book were all good.

Sadly, that is about it.

What I liked:
- I really enjoyed the first +-2 hours of the movie. (view spoiler)

message 4: by Justin (new)

Justin Lance | 20 comments I enjoyed it a lot though I do have some mixed feelings on it. The acting is fantastic, especially Martin Freeman. He is about a million times more likeable than Elijah Wood was as Frodo. But everyone else was good to equally fantastic.

I also enjoyed the tone of this movie. Without delving into spoilers, The Hobbit is a much more whimsical and optimistic tale than Lord of the Rings, and a lot of that carries through into the film. It isn't nearly as dark or overbearing as the first three films, and I love that abot it.

Related, I loved the action scenes, even the added ones. They were a lot of fun for me.

The flaws were the same as pretty much every Peter Jackson movie since The Fellowship of the Ring came out, pacing and editing. I grant that a lot of this might have been enhanced by the fact that it was a midnight showing, but it seemed almost every scene in the film went on 15-40% too long. The more I think about what I want out of The Hobbit, the more I'm glad it isn't just one film, but with decent editing and toning down some of Jackson's usual issues it could have been two films at two hours apiece instead of three at three hours a pop.

message 5: by Kevin (new)

Kevin Xu (kxu65) | 1075 comments I saw the movie, and I enjoyed, especially the cliffhanger ending.

message 6: by Kim (new)

Kim | 441 comments I felt that the movie was a bit too dark and trying to be too much like Lord of the Rings instead of staying true to itself. I was glad for the humorous bits as they lightened the movie.

I didn't like Gandalf. They played his character too dark with too many winks and nods to LotR. I also wasn't a fan of the added Radagast section. It just didn't sit right.

And lastly, as others have said it was just too long. There was no need for the extended goblin chase or all the orc stuff. A shorter movie would have been better.

Overall a good movie but not a great one.

message 7: by Bob (new)

Bob Chadwick | 37 comments Great movie, all I could have wanted, I had no complaints beyond the wait for the next. That said it's been YEARS (upper case) since I've read The Hobbit so I only remembered the very basics of the book.

To long? No, I didn't feel that. Could some of it get cut to "streamline" the movie? Yeah but with a three hour movie that could almost always be said.

message 8: by Kim (new)

Kim | 441 comments I just feel there was no need to make it that long. Peter Jackson did it just because he could.

message 9: by Chip (new)

Chip Davis (cadavis3) | 17 comments I didn't think it was too long at all. It didn't even feel like three hours to me. I was honestly surprised when it was over.

Also, and I'm not saying everyone who disliked the movie did this so don't shoot me, I think some people would have enjoyed the movie more if they hadn't spent the whole time over-analyzing it. ;)

message 10: by Kim (new)

Kim | 441 comments Chip wrote: "I didn't think it was too long at all. It didn't even feel like three hours to me. I was honestly surprised when it was over.

It might not have helped that I had a splitting headache :P We're going to go see it again in the HFR version soon.

message 11: by Dirk (new)

Dirk | 39 comments I really tried my very best not to over analyze it x_x

message 12: by MarkB (new)

MarkB (Mark-B) | 69 comments I did feel that the start of the movie took longer than it needed to. I was actually put in mind of the old Hobbit adventure game on the Commodore 64, where it can take well over an hour just figuring out how to get out the front door.

Beyond that, though, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and thought that most of the expansions and alterations were at least reasonable, and in some cases inspired.

Expanding Azog's role to make him Thorin's nemesis was a particularly good choice, and I did very much enjoy Sylvester McCoy as Radagast.

message 13: by Minna (new)

Minna (Vesiru) | 1 comments I have to say I really liked it. I have not read the Hobbit before, but I tried to read it as far as I could before I saw the movie. I also felt the movie got more depth than the book.

Neither LotR och Bilbo are famous for their female portraits, but I got really excited to see Dwarf women in the introduction. And they had no beards.

Another thing I really enjoyed was the Dwarves. I think I might even remember their names by the last movie. The songs they sung were good and did what they were supposed too. I'm glad they did not make all the songs, I never really liked them or saw the point of them.

Towards the end I was sure the movie would end at an inconvenient place, but it didn't.

One thing I really don't like in my movies or books is repetition. Every time the dwarves charge into battle it looks exactly the same. I'd be surprised if they didn't shoot those scenes the same day. I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same shot. The things I didn't like were mostly details. I enjoyed it far more than it annoyed me.

message 14: by [deleted user] (last edited Dec 16, 2012 04:08AM) (new)

I enjoyed the film, it lived past my expectations. I can't tell how good an adaptation it is because I read "The Hobbit" when I was a child and LOTR several years ago, I just remembered the most famous scenes, basically the introduction of the dwarves, the hungry goblings and of course Gollum, the rest of story was new to me. It wouldn't be fair from me to comment the plot, but I was glad it was more "adult" than I expected and still kept big part of the comedy side. I also liked the connecting elements to the previous films. (And the songs)
Of the acting, I loved Martin Freeman, he's really charming as Bilbo.
And yes, I agree with some that say film is a bit too long, but it might be because I watched it on a midnight screening on working day.
Overall, I'm looking forward for the next film and meantime, I think it's time for me to return to the original books.

message 15: by Mark (new)

Mark Duffy (EquipDeadFish) | 8 comments Went in expecting the worst, especially after all the negative reviews seemed to confirm all the problems I thought it would have, but I really enjoyed it.

I thought the changes Jackson made were good for the most part; if he had stuck to the tone and story of the hobbit it would have been a bit terrible.
The book’s story and characters aren’t exactly the deepest of things.

Glad the dwarfs weren’t a dozen comedy relief characters which was what I was expecting from that first trailer.

Could have left the stone giants out though, wasn’t much point and they were a bit silly with the more serious tone.

The foreshadowing of LotRs was good too, I liked that Gandalf had his own motivation and I'm looking forward to see what they do with that.

Couldn't see what all the issues with the pacing were as it seemed almost identical to fellowship to me.

But yeah this film is getting a beating from reviewers (65% on RT), seems like a lot of people are either angry it’s not exactly like the book or angry it’s not more like lord of the rings… I’m sure so publicly splitting it into 3 films so late in the day hasn’t helped either.

message 16: by Paul (new)

Paul  Perry (Pezski) | 404 comments I liked it very much indeed, but with reservations.

I loved the portrayal of the dwarves; each had their own look and personality, were real characters instead of just "12 dwarves". Martin Freeman was superb.

I thought the way the Necromancer and Azog were brought in were excellently done, tying the story to the LotR and making the dwarves problems more immediate. That is a bit of a problem with the books, that the timescales sometimes don't make any sense, perhaps because they are just background rather than actually being written about directly. It's pretty clear that "the Necromancer" is responsible for the darkness engulfing Greenwood, and many of the problems in that part of Middle Earth, so shortening the timscale to make i part of the film works superbly. Having Azog as the direct threat, rather than just random groups of orcs, I thought worked very well.

What I do think was managed absolutely perfectly was getting the balance between the more "children's book" feel of the Hobbit and the LotR movies; we still had the opening "Concerning Hobbits" bit, and a few songs (I loved the treatment of Over the Misty Mountains, and the way Howard Shore made that the recurring theme of his score, and was so pleased they used Bend the Forks and Smash the Plates!)

I do think it was a bit overlong - there were a few scenes that could've been cut (the stone giants, as Mark said), but mostly a little flabbiness to some of the scenes.

I was lucky enough to see it in IMAX 3D, so it was shown in the 48 frames format. I confess I was a bit worried about this (I think the argument that we only use the 24 fps because that was the limit of the tech when it was chosen is fallacious), but I think that, in general, it worked well. The more real than life quality really drew me in, although this was slightly spoilt by the fact that even a slight tilt of the head made the 3D blur. I thought it brought the internal shots of Bag End to life, and the external shots were simply magnificent. With 24 fps I find that panning shots often blur sickeningly, which didn't happen here, although I do think that allowed Peter Jackson to somewhat over-use the sweeping, rolling camera shots the New Zealand tourist board love so much. Also, I thought some of the action shots looked looked a little computer game-like.

I'll be interested to see how the trilogy splits; I imagine that the last movie will be all the Lonely Mountain and the Battle of Five Armies, although I guess a lot will depend on how the Necromancer is woven in to things.

Jenny (Reading Envy) (readingenvy) | 2094 comments Almost left from 3D headache but the movie's 3d was smoother than the commercials beforehand.

Gonna stick this all behind a spoiler tag for people who get this in email digest but I have a lot to say. (view spoiler)

message 18: by Kim (new)

Kim | 441 comments Jenny wrote: "Stone giants. Was this in the book? How did I miss it?"

Yep, chapter 4.

message 19: by Chip (new)

Chip Davis (cadavis3) | 17 comments I find it frustrating that review sites like Rotten Tomatoes only have it at 65% or so. Because many of the negative reviews I've read are mostly just complaints about the 48 FPS. I'm sorry, are we supposed to be reviewing the film or the format? If you hated the frame rate so much, please go see the movie in 24 FPS before posting a negative review on a percentage site and ruining the films reputation unjustly.

Also, as always happens with any prequel/sequel/remake of a film that has become a huge part of popular culture, I think a lot of reviewers are holding this movie up against their embellished memories of the LotR trilogy, which is completely unfair.

message 20: by Molly (new)

Molly (AnIllLuckName) | 83 comments I very much enjoyed the movie. Very glad I didn't reread the book beforehand though, because I know I would have nitpicked everything. Like many others have said, I think the movie could have been pared down a bit. Some of the action scenes dragged on too long for me.

I also don't see the need for three movies. I can understand two, but three at nearly three hours each? Sounds like overkill.

My favorite part of the movie was probably Martin Freeman as Bilbo. I love that guy, thought he was perfect for the role. Is it weird to have a crush on a hobbit?

message 21: by Timm (new)

Timm Woods (Kexizzoc) | 43 comments My favorite part of the movie was probably Martin Freeman as Bilbo. I love that guy, thought he was perfect for the role. Is it weird to have a crush on a hobbit?

If it is then we had a LOT of weird people watching the first 3 LotR movies ;)

Overall, I was a big fan of this movie, including the changes. This was not a direct adaptation of the book The Hobbit, but I feel like the people lauding the book's happy children's-story tone don't really consider what that kind of movie would look like. I wouldn't have Peter Jackson direct a true-to-the-novel Hobbit movie, because honestly it would probably be best done as a cartoon.

As a movie true to the STORY, I think it did a great job. It has the Hobbit, sure, but it also has all of the events surrounding the central story. I loved the book when I was younger, but when I was older, I loved the fact that the whole thing was just Gandalf treating the Dwarves like a really valuable chess piece in the War against Sauron that he was already plotting out. Embracing that tie-in for the sake of providing the moviegoing audience with some continuity seemed like the right move to me.

message 22: by Isaac (new)

Isaac Hamlet (potterman201) | 22 comments Also saw the Hobbit and, of course, was rather fond of it. The actors were all great, as where the sets, and the soundtrack was awe inspiring.
Though coming out of it I couldn't help but feel that making three 3 hour movies will be too much. I felt like they could do it in 2, but time will tell if this is the case.
My only real "problem" with the movie was Azog. He added tention as well as a really cool climax, but that whole bit just felt out of place. This seemed tonally lighter than the LotR and all the scenes with Azog made it a bit darker, it just didn't seem to fit well with the tone of the rest of the film.
I did however, enjoy all the other things they added: The white council, the Necromancer, and all the stuff that happens around during the hobbit (correct me if I'm wrong, but according to Tolkien Azog is supposed to have died at the east gate of Moria).
I also feel Radagast is worth mentioning. He was very different from how I've always pictured him. That said I really liked him and how different they made him from Gandalf and Saurman. (I also liked the reference to the blue wizards).

message 23: by Joe Informatico (new)

Joe Informatico (joeinformatico) | 827 comments In short, I thought it was a great film. It was never going to astound me the way Fellowship did a decade ago, but I knew that going in. But overall I was pleased.

I had a few issues with the 48fps format. I'm not dismissive of the format as a whole, but it's clear it's such a new way of doing things even a storied filmmaker like Peter Jackson and his creative team haven't quite figured out all the kinks yet. I go into more detail on this thread.

This film is extremely padded, especially at the beginning. To be fair, some of that comes from Tolkien, but not all of it. The Fellowship of the Ring movie managed to sum up the important backstory touchstones of the Second Age and Isildur, Sauron, and the One Ring in the first 5 minutes of the film. In this film, it feels like it takes 20 minutes just to tell the story of the fall of Erebor. Basically, it feels like an excuse just to bring Ian Holm and Elijah Wood back.

Once they finally leave the Shire, though, the story hums along nicely, although the bits with Radagast and Gandalf's meeting at Rivendell are stretched maybe just a bit too long.

But Martin Freeman is fantastic as Bilbo, the dwarves were all great, and Ian McKellan and Andy Serkis reminded me why I loved their portrayals so much. And the scene between Thorin and Bilbo at the end made me cry almost as much as Boromir's death at the end of Fellowship. Fantastic.

message 24: by kvon (new)

kvon | 554 comments I thought it was good, but not as amazing as LotR was. But then it is a much slighter story. I kept getting distracted that Thorin didn't look much like a dwarf to me; was it racist that the noblest dwarf seems to 'pass' as Aragorn? I think Jackson has had too many dreams of being chased by wolves. But I loved the view of the dwarven kingdom at the beginning, and Bilbo was great, and the scenery beautiful, and the giants of the mountain were amazing. I saw it in Imax 3D, and am likely to see it again in 2D.

message 25: by Dan (new)

Dan Spina | 1 comments Saw the 2D version of the film. Absolutely loved it!! Brought me back to when I first saw Fellowship in the theater. The magic of the world and the characters is represented perfectly.

Didn't really have a problem with pacing. In fact, as the credits rolled I was hungry for more.

I also liked the things that they added. Rereading the Hobbit again, it's neat that characters like Azog and the Necromancer were fleshed out more.

My only complaints would have to be an over use of CG when compared to LOTR and the shaky cam action scenes, especially in Goblin City, that was reminiscent of the camera work in the Bourne films.

An amazing piece of cinema, overall, and a worthy followup/prequel to the Rings films. My only question is, is it worth seeing in 3D?

message 26: by Daran (new)

Daran | 599 comments I've put my thoughts on my website. Writing it all down again would be tiring. Overall, positive review though.

I did not mention that I saw it in IMAX 3D. First time I've seen IMAX 3D. First time I didn't have even a twinge of a headache at the end of the film.

message 27: by Syacelion (new)

Syacelion | 10 comments I still think there's a point to be made about the double standard in having more corpses in the film compared to the books, but not having the ponies get killed and eaten.

message 28: by Gautam (last edited Dec 18, 2012 09:32AM) (new)

Gautam | 20 comments Maybe i'm just being a bit grumpy, but I really didn't enjoy it. The pacing of the movie seemed really off and the plots seemed to divided.

In the 3 LOTR movies a lot of the more ridiculous aspects of the book, were taken out (like tom bombadil and the mouth of sauron), but in the hobbit they added very weird and seemingly unnecessary parts that even though they were in the books didnt translate well into the film. Like the stone giants and radaghast.

A lot of the movie seemed to be trying too hard to be serious like LOTR, instead of more light hearted and whimsical like how it felt when i read the book.

message 29: by Ruth (tilltab) (last edited Dec 18, 2012 02:43PM) (new)

Ruth (tilltab) (till-tab) | 1337 comments I really really did notice the padding, and it's a shame, because I really really enjoyed what bits of the story I was given, but I left the cinema with an unsettled feeling, which I've only just realised was because it felt like I had walked out half way through a film. There wasn't much of a sense of completion to the story, and what there was felt a little forced. I was aching to see the whole, edited film, without all the extras, which, while nice, acted mostly just to slow down a story that didn't have enough going on to end so soon (though I certainly wouldn't have wanted to sit in the cinema much longer!). That said, I actually really loved the lengthy beginning with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood. I thought it made for nice framing. Perhaps a return to them at the end would have removed some of that 'left halfway-through' feeling. And the brown wizard bit was nicely played, but not needed at all. Mixed feelings, overall.

message 30: by [deleted user] (new)

I don't know exactly in which board should I ask about it, but maybe someone can help me with this: May someone tell me where can I read the extra material of the story? I read The Hobbit years ago and I was planning on re-reading it, but I don't recall the spanish edition I read included any appendix. I've read some of the new plot-lines in film appeared in other stuff by Tolkien and I don't know where? The Silmarillion? Collector's Edition of The Hobbit? I'd like to read it with the extra material this time.

message 31: by Chip (new)

Chip Davis (cadavis3) | 17 comments Duck wrote: "I don't know exactly in which board should I ask about it, but maybe someone can help me with this: May someone tell me where can I read the extra material of the story? I read The Hobbit years ago..."

The appendices of The Return of the King and the section of The Silmarillion titled Of the rings of power and the third age.

message 32: by Daran (new)

Daran | 599 comments There's also a nice bit in Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-Earth, a piece that was cut from Lord of the Rings, where Gandalf talks about what was happening elsewhere while the dwarves were on their quest. I think the section is called the "Quest for Erebor." They couldn't technically use it in the movie, but the same events are outlined in the appendices to LotR. I just like Gandalf narration better.

message 33: by [deleted user] (new)

Chip wrote: "Duck wrote: "I don't know exactly in which board should I ask about it, but maybe someone can help me with this: May someone tell me where can I read the extra material of the story? I read The Hob..."

Daran wrote: "There's also a nice bit in Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-Earth, a piece that was cut from Lord of the Rings, where Gandalf talks about what was happening elsewhere while the dwarves were o..."

Thanks a lot Chip and Daran. For some reason the paperback (spanish) edition I own of The Return of the King" only includes the appendix "On Aragorn and Arwen" but I'll check the ebook editions, I think I'll make a challenge for 2013 of it :)

message 34: by Alex (new)

Alex (II2GUNKIDII) | 6 comments I like the movie. although the giant part was a bit weird. Something Tolkien that dosn't have have 200 pages of detailed history?

message 35: by Derek (last edited Dec 20, 2012 11:59AM) (new)

Derek Brown (raistlinsghost) | 81 comments I don't want to weigh in on 2D vs IMAX 3D vs non-IMAX 3D, so I'll keep the review about the film itself (though for the record I saw the movie in non-IMAX 3D, and as a typical 3D hater, I found it very unobtrusive).

Like most people here, I read the novel as part of the December pick, and prior to that, it had been at least 20 years since the last time I'd read it. So I went in with the details of the novel fresh in my mind.
(view spoiler)

I will say too that unlike a lot of the commenters here, I loved where they finished the movie, and feel like it was a natural feeling place to pick the story up from next time.

message 36: by Cory (last edited Dec 20, 2012 01:31PM) (new)

Cory (Flatline__) | 4 comments I really liked the movie. I have read the book a number of times over the years, and always loved seeing a different side of Tolkien and middle earth in the styling of the story, but it was such a huge leap. I think Jackson did a great job in bridging the stylistic gap that was a bit jarring in the books. The additions to me were good, a few of the omissions were a bit disappointing but nothing so major as to change my opinion of the movie. I even like where he left it, knowing where the book goes makes me really excited for the next movie.
That said, I am really nervous about the fact that there are 2 more movies. Where is all that material going to come from, is Jackson going to make up part of the story and show things like Gandalf's actual battle with 'the necromancer'. I don't know how I feel about that if he does do that. His additions so far haven't been ones that are so pivotal to the actual story of the main characters. So far I think what he has done is add some support lines to the big top wonder that is LOTR, but he cant add a whole new ring.
My biggest problem was in the shooting. I saw it in HFR 3D. HFR makes a huge difference..... it was distractingly real. It almost looked so real that it almost took out the fantasy. And yet the real was so real the cg was noticeable. i swear on some parts you could also see the prognostics on Bilbo's feet giggle like they are made out of latex. I believe that HFR is the future but its strange, like when you saw HD T.V. the first time.
Overall i loved it though. It was an awesome birthday present from Tolkien and Jackson, thanks guys.

message 37: by kvon (new)

kvon | 554 comments I've now seen it in 2d and IMAX 3d. The annoying blur when panning over Dale and Erebor were present in both. I didn't notice much difference in color or detail between the two. But the sweeping landscapes and the view over Rivendell were much nicer in 3d.

message 38: by Aaron (new)

Aaron Yeager | 11 comments The scene with Gollum was just amazing. Innocent, dangerous, pitiful, and endearing all at the same time. I really credit Andy's acting performance.

message 39: by James (new)

James Ward | 9 comments kvon wrote: "I've now seen it in 2d and IMAX 3d. The annoying blur when panning over Dale and Erebor were present in both. I didn't notice much difference in color or detail between the two. But the sweeping la..."

There is no blurring at all in HFR version. Frankly it was the only difference I noticed between the two frame rates.

message 40: by James (new)

James Ward | 9 comments I've seen the film 3 times now in two different formats and I must say that the niggling problems that I felt on the first viewing vanished at the second and by the third I loved it.

message 41: by Joseph (new)

Joseph Seen the film in 2D, absolutely loved it. Thought it was fantastic and a great film interpretation of the book.

Its clear Tom and Veronica didn't like it as much, and I'm interested to find out why, especially an elaboration of Tom's line from the Joe Abercrombie YT show...

message 42: by Matthew (new)

Matthew (MatthewDL) | 268 comments Overall, I'm a big fan of the movie. I really enjoyed seeing Erebor and Radagast but I agree with a lot of you that it did feel too long. It seemed to drag a bit from the chase scene to Rivendell to the cave ambush.

Awesome performances by Freeman and Serkis. What I'm most pleased with is the balance struck between the lighthearted nature of The Hobbit book and the seriousness of the previous LOTR movies. It FELT like the Hobbit, and after all this 3 movie nonsense that was more than I was hoping for.

message 43: by Alterjess (new)

Alterjess | 318 comments LOVED IT. I watched it in HFR 3D and standard 2D. I totally get why people don't like the HFR, but I thought it was phenomenal. I was happy for the extended prologue because it gave my eyes a chance to get used to it - it was amazing having *everything* in focus, but since we're used to focus creating depth of field in movies (even in standard 3D), it did take some mental adjustment. But by the time Martin Freeman was onscreen I was used to it and could just enjoy the ride.

I agree that it did not need to be that long, but I'm thrilled that it was. I love that PJ is making this a mashup of The Hobbit and Appendix B (he doesn't as far as I know have the film rights to the Silmarillion) and that he's cramming in as much detail as possible and then some. It's bloated, yes, but it's bloated with such good stuff. I want him to go back and reshoot LotR like this and turn it into 12 movies instead of 3.

Watching the HFR version I never felt that it was lagging, but in 2D the long warg chase before they get to Rivendell takes forever. (And...does Radagast understand that "drawing them off" means he has to run in the opposite direction of the Company? I'm not sure how his running in a big circle was supposed to help, but in HFR 3D it looked pretty spectacular.)

I loved the stone giants. I had the impression in the book that it was a figure of speech in the same way we say "raining cats and dogs" but I love that PJ took it literally. The stone giants reminded me of the stop-motion animation he used in Heavenly Creatures.

I found it endearing that the ponies were allowed to run away instead of getting eaten by goblins.

Did anyone else think the white warg looked like a luck dragon?

message 44: by Tony (new)

Tony | 33 comments Liked it very much, but hated the overlong and ridiculous battle scenes. I've come to expect that from Jackson, so didn't let it ruin the film for me. The Orc battle and subsequent stone giant scene reminded me of the dinosaur vs Kong scene in Jackson's King Kong. So over the top and ridiculous. Had it been even moderately realistic the entire party would be dead.

message 45: by Daran (new)

Daran | 599 comments Kong fights the dinosaur in the original 1933 version. In many ways Jackson's Kong was a much more faithful retelling than the 70's one.

I agree the stone giant scene was over the top. It was absolutely wonderful.

message 46: by Angela (new)

Angela (happi_fishyahoocom) | 1 comments Loved the movie! Can't wait for the others. :)

message 47: by Louise (last edited Dec 23, 2012 02:32AM) (new)

Louise (louiseh87) | 352 comments Finally been to see it and loved it, but went with wee sis and her bf (and the rest of my family). The conversation afterwards culminated with "sounds just like Twilight" in the face of my attempt to describe The Dirty Streets of Heaven as an example of original urban fantasy. Turns out, they believe fantasy is just Tolkein and Jordan, always contains a mountain range called something similar to "the misty mountains", and is generally unoriginal.

I need to go and see The Hobbit again with liked-minded friends, because I'm no longer sure I enjoyed it...

message 48: by Tracy (new)

Tracy B | 9 comments I saw it last night and I absolutely loved every minute of it.
I don't understand all of the negative reviews and relatively low RT score (65).
Can't wait for the next one!

message 49: by Rik (last edited Dec 23, 2012 06:14PM) (new)

Rik | 619 comments Just saw it. Thought it was good but not great.

All the Dwarves except Thorin and either Fili or Kili (the dark haired one with the bow) are so bland and interchangeable.

And there were too many parts where Jackson seemed to be channeling his inner George Lucas by trying to be funny and cutesy only to have it be groan inducing . . . the parts with the Goblin King or the parts with Radagast.

Some of the new scenes were good but some were not. The dinner scene at the beginning went on way to long and the Stone Giant battle was just silly looking.

Overall it was a good movie but it definitely pales in comparison to any of the three LOTR movies. I saw each of those at least twice in the theater. This one I'll wait til the DVD and even then probably won't be in a rush to get it . . . I will get it eventually but if it ends up being months down the line and a used copy at a video store I won't be surprised.

message 50: by Katina (new)

Katina French (thatdarnkat) | 48 comments I did three things very right, I suspect. First was choosing 2D (3D often gives me a headache). Second was not re-reading the book immediately before seeing it, so the differences weren't at all glaring. Third was going to see it with a group that included kids ranging from 6 to 15. During all of the "silly" or over the top sections (**cough**Goblin battle**cough**) I was able to watch the kiddos reactions, which made them much more enjoyable.

(Yes, my sister and I took her first grader to see it. We're collectively terrible parents.)

Agree that Martin Freeman in general, and the riddles in the dark scene were standouts. I think I'm probably the only person so far who really liked Radagast's rabbit sleigh. But that's probably because as a redneck, it reminded me of the kind of "Hold my beer and watch this" moments my people find endlessly entertaining.

On the whole, I think the changes do strike a nice balance between the tone of the book, and the tone of the previous movies. I like using Azog as a focused villain, as opposed to "random semi-undirected orc hordes."

I like bad guys with a clear goal, y'know? Smaug has scale going for him, but "continuing to sit on this big honking pile of gold" is not a really compelling, smite-worthy evil motivation. Plus we don't even get to him till probably the third movie.

« previous 1
back to top

unread topics | mark unread

Books mentioned in this topic

Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-Earth (other topics)
The Dirty Streets of Heaven (other topics)