Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My general opinion of the first part of the trilogy is that The Hobbit was great, especially Sylvester McCoy as Radagast and Martin Freeman as Bilbo.
Definitely worthy of best picture and best soundtrack, with a good few quotes from the book- "what's a Burrahobbit?", "he knocked the head clean off him, and it sailed 100 yards and went down a rabbit hole, which ended the battle and invented the game of golf in one swing", "are you wishing me a good morning, or saying that is a good morning, whether I like it or not? Or that it is a morning to be particularly good on?", as well as a good dose of light humour, especially from Radagast and Bilbo.
One thing Jackson is to be commended for, of all things, is altering the book to be exciting enough for film, without actually interfering with the story or making it too action-packed, as well as throwing in some of the songs like the "that's what Bilbo Baggins hates" back in bag end or the goblin town song (can't remember the main chorus, but the one as they lead them to the goblin king), without it breaking up the feel of the film.

I do so love all the unique little tidbits they added in that sums up the hobbit beatifully- Bilbo overcoming fear and protecting his friends, and the camaraderie between the dwarves.
My favourite scenes are the escape from goblin town and "out of the frying pan, into the fire", but not simply for the fights- The way the dwarves seamlessly switch tactics to suit what they're facing is wonderful, such as using a ladder to shove goblins away and then using it as a ramp to run onto another platform in Goblin Town, and Bilbo charging up to and killing a warg rider to save Thorin's life.
Ultimately my best film of 2012, and the nine-year wait since the Lord of the Rings has been well worth it.

So, what did dakka think of it?

Stating you're a fan of the series, then stating it's probably the best film of 2012 for you doesn't exactly paint a good picture. Since you like the series, you obviously will like the movie more than someone who has never been introduced to it.

That said, at least a fan likes it, so it can't be all bad.

 juraigamer wrote:
Stating you're a fan of the series, then stating it's probably the best film of 2012 for you doesn't exactly paint a good picture. Since you like the series, you obviously will like the movie more than someone who has never been introduced to it.

That said, at least a fan likes it, so it can't be all bad.

Not necessarily a lot of fans can also be on the other end of the spectrum, like this is garbage it's nothing like the book or wow you actually liked that the book is way better.

juraigamer wrote:Stating you're a fan of the series, then stating it's probably the best film of 2012 for you doesn't exactly paint a good picture. Since you like the series, you obviously will like the movie more than someone who has never been introduced to it.

That said, at least a fan likes it, so it can't be all bad.

well, me stating I'm a fan is kinda my way of saying I might be biased towards it, but I was beyond my hopes, especially when I heard the telegraph rate it 2 out of 5.

plus, Peter did alter quite a bit from the book, so saying I'm a fan of the book is also letting you guys know it's not a bad change.

There's no Orlando Bloom :(

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
There's no Orlando Bloom :(

not in this one, no. Though there probably will be in the next one, if not definitely the last.
I quite like Orlando as an actor (great casting on PJ's part), but I don't really like Legolas as a character- too "perfect". If PJ would have toned down his hand-to-hand combat prowess, or even just gotten rid of the unrealistic cool stuff (like surfing the shield at helm's deep or swinging onto the horse during the warg ambush), I'd like Legolas a whole lot more.

Unrealistic cool stuff?
In a world with giant elephants, magic rings, wizards, dragons, goblins, orc and massive walking trees that hold grudges?
Hell pretty much all of LotR is unrealistic cool stuff.

shrike wrote:plus, Peter did alter quite a bit from the book, so saying I'm a fan of the book is also letting you guys know it's not a bad change.

Not really, not on this occasion, which surprised me a lot. There is a grand total of one scene left out, which spans two pages in the book and that was all that was left out. Appendices were added in as everybody knew already they were going to be (and what an addition they were, the scene at Dol Guldur was amazing). One scene was changed rather drastically but had the same result, and there were two character swaps that went hand in hand to add to the story (by character swap I mean they took out a character that appears in one scene in the book and replaced them with a character who is central to the story, and also the opposite whereby a character with one scene in the book was given some more; one of these was rather minor in my opinion also). Any other changes where small things that you either would expect or didn't really notice. I would say this movie was about 90% accurate to the book, which is a lot more than can be said for any of the LoTR movies.

Action sequences were very well put together; very fluid and well paced and they didn't drag on. Graphics were as good as people expected them to be, and though there were a lot of aesthetic changes, the world was still obviously Peter Jackson's Middle Earth.

Without giving anything away as well, how they handled the creation of Smaug for this movie was simply amazingly done, and will add so much to the later movies.

The Telegraph review astounded me as the only part of the movie I found to be slow was the beginning, and that was pretty much 99% faithful to the book, so when the same guy also starts waffling about faithfulness to the book, I start to wonder. Still, that was the only negative review I saw, and when it comes to critics, the best way to make some money is to completely pan what everyone else is praising.

To summarise, the movie exceeded my expectations quite a bit with its ability to remain mostly faithful while also providing an entertaining 3hrs for a general movie goer. However I felt it was the tip of the iceberg, and that what's in store for us next is going to blow it away. The battle at Dol Guldur and the Battle of Five Armies are easily going to be the top two moments of this trilogy. I will certainly be going to see it again.

 purplefood wrote:
Unrealistic cool stuff?
In a world with giant elephants, magic rings, wizards, dragons, goblins, orc and massive walking trees that hold grudges?
Hell pretty much all of LotR is unrealistic cool stuff.

you know what I mean- if boromir were to be shot 50 times in the chest and still kill a dozen more uruks, would that be fine because there's magic and giant elephants? No. It's unrealistic within the physical boundaries of a human (or elf). Elves, physically, are basically meant to be more graceful men. Surfing an iron shield down a steep stone stairway in the pouring rain, shooting 4 men dead and then leaping off, killing another with the shield's momentum itself, then impaling one straight through the throat with an arrow is just not right.
Same with the horse-climbing:


does that look realistic? Assuming it was physically possible for an elf, it'd still make more sense to swing over the right of the horse.
If it was, in the background, possible to do all that stuff, it just ruins the feel of it for me. Sure, he should be the best at seeing and shooting etc., but making him be perfect at seeing, shooting, fighting, drinking, balancing and running, it makes Legolas too Mary-Sue.

 shrike wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Unrealistic cool stuff?
In a world with giant elephants, magic rings, wizards, dragons, goblins, orc and massive walking trees that hold grudges?
Hell pretty much all of LotR is unrealistic cool stuff.

you know what I mean- if boromir were to be shot 50 times in the chest and still kill a dozen more uruks, would that be fine because there's magic and giant elephants? No. It's unrealistic within the physical boundaries of a human (or elf).

It'd be fine because Boromir is damn awesome.

 purplefood wrote:

 shrike wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Unrealistic cool stuff?
In a world with giant elephants, magic rings, wizards, dragons, goblins, orc and massive walking trees that hold grudges?
Hell pretty much all of LotR is unrealistic cool stuff.

you know what I mean- if boromir were to be shot 50 times in the chest and still kill a dozen more uruks, would that be fine because there's magic and giant elephants? No. It's unrealistic within the physical boundaries of a human (or elf).

It'd be fine because Boromir is damn awesome.

true, has to be one of the most badass deaths ever.
back OT, has anyone else seen it?
I expect this'll get more comments by the evening, once it hits the cinemas for the majority of dakka.

Not seen yet but am going this weekend for my 21st haha. Reviews from my mates have been mixed so interested to see how it pans out

I was pretty optimistic until I saw a clip of the dwarves in goblin town. The action just looked absolutely awful, like something about of an action film aged at 12 year olds.

Would like to hear more opinions though.

 tuiman wrote:
Not seen yet but am going this weekend for my 21st haha. Reviews from my mates have been mixed so interested to see how it pans out

well, all I can say is don't go expecting lord of the rings: the prequel, because it isn't.
it has a similar start, with a battle in the first few minutes in the form of a flashback, but generally there's a lot less at stake, and so the mood as a whole is much more comic between the group of heroes.
I think the main reason some might not like it is because either they're expecting a follow-up to lord of the rings rather than it's own film, or are hoping for the children's bed time story. What you have to think about in that sense is how PJ would ever have made the hobbit that true to the book without it being really watered down- fighting in books is much more child-friendly than fighting in films- he did, in my opinion, hit the middle ground, where the mood is lighter and more fun, but the fighting is still relatively brutal (not really so far, only a few scraps here and there, but I'm sure that'll come to play with the necromancer and the battle of five armies.

 shrike wrote:

you know what I mean- if boromir were to be shot 50 times in the chest and still kill a dozen more uruks, would that be fine because there's magic and giant elephants? No. It's unrealistic within the physical boundaries of a human (or elf). Elves, physically, are basically meant to be more graceful men. Surfing an iron shield down a steep stone stairway in the pouring rain, shooting 4 men dead and then leaping off, killing another with the shield's momentum itself, then impaling one straight through the throat with an arrow is just not right.
Same with the horse-climbing:


does that look realistic? Assuming it was physically possible for an elf, it'd still make more sense to swing over the right of the horse.
If it was, in the background, possible to do all that stuff, it just ruins the feel of it for me. Sure, he should be the best at seeing and shooting etc., but making him be perfect at seeing, shooting, fighting, drinking, balancing and running, it makes Legolas too Mary-Sue.

That shot was added as Mr. Bloom had broken a rib and wasn't able to mount up on a horse in the usual manner.

It is possible to do various flips and the like into a saddle but yes putting the full weight of an adult in armor on the neck of a horse is fairly silly, as is swinging to the right and up as opposed to the left and back.

I always thought that, along with all of Legolas's other feats of nigh superhuman strength, speed and balance were almost the point. "No, he's not human, he's not remotely close" I do see where the sue accusations could come in though.

Down down to Goblin-town
You go, my lad
Ho, ho my lad

reds8n wrote:That shot was added as Mr. Bloom had broken a rib and wasn't able to mount up on a horse in the usual manner.

yeah, I saw that, but I think they could've made it more realistic- you barely see his face, couldn't they have had a stunt double do it, and just use orlando for the close-ups of him shooting beforehand?

Gitkikka wrote:Down down to Goblin-town
You go, my lad
Ho, ho my lad

yup, they stick that in the hobbit, and doesn't make it seem childish too!

The movie was what I expected... perhaps a little worse.

As soon as I heard that Peter Jackson was making it three movies I cringed. Two is bad enough.

The Bringer wrote:I didn't appreciate a number of things in the movie. They made the movie a lot more about Biblo's development than was in book. In the books the dwarves were never really that doubting of him, and though Bilbo thought of his home, he would have never left the dwarves.

Why's it a bad thing Bilbo's character gets more detail?
and the dwarves do doubt Bilbo, the quote about being more a grocer than a burglar and gandalf having a go at them for doubting his decision are taken straight from the book, and bilbo's constantly thinking of home the whole way through (though I do admit, he never tried to leave.)

The Bringer wrote:The part with the goblins was terrible. The scene when the goblin king was slain was absurd. I understand the Hobbit was partially a children's tale, but it was still a little stupid at times. This section of the movie was the worst part for me, if it had been truer to the book and less childish, the movie would have been a lot better for me.

why was it childish? The "that'd do it" before he dies thing a bit too comic for your liking?

The Bringer wrote:Something else I didn't like was them following Gandalf around. In the book, he was mysterious, and no one knew what he was up to. I wish they kept it the same way in the movie. Showing everything he is doing kind of degrades the charm and mystery of him being a wizard.

PJ could hardly have added the necromancer stuff in there without showing what Gandalf was up to, could he?
Plus, there's plenty of mystery around him in the film, just because we know he was talking to the white council doesn't mean we know everything he was doing- it pretty much just shows what he said was doing in the book apart from that bit.

To me, part of the Legolas stuff was just PJ being PJ. There are lots of small goofy silly scenes in there that seem to go back to his earlier campy B-movie days.

Olympic torch running Orcs to blow up a bomb?
Burning Ent runnin and diving into the water?

So it really didn't bother me too much.

He can also walk on snow without sinking in, so I think he horses neck would have been fine.

 shrike wrote:

The Bringer wrote:I didn't appreciate a number of things in the movie. They made the movie a lot more about Biblo's development than was in book. In the books the dwarves were never really that doubting of him, and though Bilbo thought of his home, he would have never left the dwarves.

Why's it a bad thing Bilbo's character gets more detail?

More detail or change? Yes, the movie was more detailed for it, but it was different than in the book. Biblo and Thorin were the only ones who really doubted him in the book, but even Thorin wasn't as blunt as he was in the movie.

 shrike wrote:

The Bringer wrote:The part with the goblins was terrible. The scene when the goblin king was slain was absurd. I understand the Hobbit was partially a children's tale, but it was still a little stupid at times. This section of the movie was the worst part for me, if it had been truer to the book and less childish, the movie would have been a lot better for me.

why was it childish? The "that'd do it" before he dies thing a bit too comic for your liking?

Precisely.

They also made the scene with gollum much too comical for my liking. That part of the Hobbit was very dark.

 shrike wrote:

The Bringer wrote:Something else I didn't like was them following Gandalf around. In the book, he was mysterious, and no one knew what he was up to. I wish they kept it the same way in the movie. Showing everything he is doing kind of degrades the charm and mystery of him being a wizard.

PJ could hardly have added the necromancer stuff in there without showing what Gandalf was up to, could he?
Plus, there's plenty of mystery around him in the film, just because we know he was talking to the white council doesn't mean we know everything he was doing- it pretty much just shows what he said was doing in the book apart from that bit.

PJ shouldn't have added the necromancer stuff at all imo. This is the hobbit. Not, the Hobbit and Gandalf dealing with some necromancer. It would suck even more if in the next two films the decide to tie Bilbo and the Dwarves in with gandalf's adventures.

The part with the trolls was both ok, but kind of stupid at the same time. So the dwarves lay down their weapons to save Bilbo, but full well knowing that they will all be eaten anyways if they do. Why lay down your weapons knowing that you will all die, instead of fighting so that some might be spared? Their decision didn't make any sense at all.

 d-usa wrote:
To me, part of the Legolas stuff was just PJ being PJ. There are lots of small goofy silly scenes in there that seem to go back to his earlier campy B-movie days.

Olympic torch running Orcs to blow up a bomb?
Burning Ent runnin and diving into the water?

So it really didn't bother me too much.

He can also walk on snow without sinking in, so I think he horses neck would have been fine.

Well, I quite liked the little jokes (like the orc tripping and falling off the siege tower at Minas Tirith, or generally everything Gimli says, but I think there's a line between silly in a funny way and just plain OTT, and Legolas' stunts cross that line for me.
Plus, yes, Legolas is very light, but it'd be far easier to swing the other way round- momentum etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Bringer wrote:

 shrike wrote:
why was it childish? The "that'd do it" before he dies thing a bit too comic for your liking?

Precisely.

Well, fair enough, each to his own

 The Bringer wrote:
They also made the scene with gollum much too comical for my liking. That part of the Hobbit was very dark.

I'm inclined to agree with you there, but I have to say at least the humour was well done, if would've been ten times worse if it wasn't actually funny.

 shrike wrote:
PJ could hardly have added the necromancer stuff in there without showing what Gandalf was up to, could he?
Plus, there's plenty of mystery around him in the film, just because we know he was talking to the white council doesn't mean we know everything he was doing- it pretty much just shows what he said was doing in the book apart from that bit.

 The Bringer wrote:
PJ shouldn't have added the necromancer stuff at all imo. This is the hobbit. Not, the Hobbit and Gandalf dealing with some necromancer. It would suck even more if in the next two films the decide to tie Bilbo and the Dwarves in with gandalf's adventures.

I doubt very much PJ would attempt that, it'd never work- but the necromancer stuff adds another film into middle earth, which I'm not gonna complain about, plus when PJ meshed together the storyline from Frodo & Sam, to Rohan, to Aragorn and to Gondor, it was all pretty well done, so the white council storyline shouldn't ruin the hobbit side of the films.

 The Bringer wrote:
The part with the trolls was both ok, but kind of stupid at the same time. So the dwarves lay down their weapons to save Bilbo, but full well knowing that they will all be eaten anyways if they do. Why lay down your weapons knowing that you will all die, instead of fighting so that some might be spared? Their decision didn't make any sense at all.

so if you had a sword, and a bad guy had one of your friends with a sword to his throat, you'd charge at him?
no good guy would be willing to sacrifice a friend for the greater good. They might be willing to die, but not for someone else to.

The only thing that bugged me was that they didn't do the darkness riddle (Cannot be seen, cannot be felt, etc.)

Honestly, I was very impressed with the movie. PJ did a great job of padding the film out with extra plot (the white orc, all the backstory of Erebor, all the Lord of the Rings foreshadowing) without going too far from the book. It's been years since I read it, but I recall it being entirely from Bilbo's point of view (which makes sense), and the shift from focusing on multiple characters felt very natural. The action was great, as were the visuals. Sometimes it's hard to believe that the various landscapes of Middle-Earth actually exist in New Zealand.

It was quite a bit better than I expected, all things considered. I was iffy on the idea of turning one book into three movies (two felt like it would have been right), but given some of the extra plots that were introduced, I think PJ can pull off 3 of them.

 Locclo wrote:
The only thing that bugged me was that they didn't do the darkness riddle (Cannot be seen, cannot be felt, etc.)

Honestly, I was very impressed with the movie. PJ did a great job of padding the film out with extra plot (the white orc, all the backstory of Erebor, all the Lord of the Rings foreshadowing) without going too far from the book. It's been years since I read it, but I recall it being entirely from Bilbo's point of view (which makes sense), and the shift from focusing on multiple characters felt very natural. The action was great, as were the visuals. Sometimes it's hard to believe that the various landscapes of Middle-Earth actually exist in New Zealand.

It was quite a bit better than I expected, all things considered. I was iffy on the idea of turning one book into three movies (two felt like it would have been right), but given some of the extra plots that were introduced, I think PJ can pull off 3 of them.

My thoughts exactly

In it's own right, it was a good movie but following on from LOTR it was difficult to pull of. I however enjoyed it, like the book it was different, less epic, more adventure. I liked how the movie touched on a lot of the backstory, a lot of the foreboding of Sauron's return, such as the appearance of the Necromancer Sauron and the Witch King. I found some of the scenes made me cringe slightly, it didn't flow as well as the other movies, the story seems more stretch, which it is a lot of it is filler.

Despite any drawbacks i did enjoy going to see it and didn't regret it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, despite being filmed in Eastern Europe, Middle Earth still looked just right.

 Locclo wrote:
The only thing that bugged me was that they didn't do the darkness riddle (Cannot be seen, cannot be felt, etc.)

Speaking of riddles, they also missed the one about man. (walks on 4 legs, then 2, then 3)

I loved the locations, I must admit. Absolutely every scene of the movie (except the goblin one) had absolutely stunning scenery. Were the locations constructed or found? If they are real places I swear I will go live there.

kamakazepanda wrote:Also, despite being filmed in Eastern Europe, Middle Earth still looked just right.

The Bringer wrote:Were the locations constructed or found? If they are real places I swear I will go live there.

mostly found, the vast majority of it being filmed in new zealand.
also for the hobbit, they built the shire (40 hobbit holes) out of proper brick and mortar, so the landowners have opened it for tourists


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kamakazepanda wrote:
I found some of the scenes made me cringe slightly, it didn't flow as well as the other movies, the story seems more stretch, which it is a lot of it is filler.

any particular moments? For me it seemed leisurely, sure, but not stretched out to the max, and I can't think of many cringe-worthy things in it (though I might have blocked them out while watching it).

I'm going tomorrow!

I'm going tonight! Anything to take my mind off the rest of the day.