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.

I wrote this on imdb:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/reviews-714

 MrMerlin wrote:
I wrote this on imdb:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/reviews-714

I have one issue with that, it's not a realistic film, it's a fantasy film...
Yes the landscapes are real because the made up world is fairly earth based, it's not some alien planet with weird things.

And you can't really complain at the dwarfs not getting hurt in the film, it's like that in the book. S you should just complain about the book. Because its not a dark film, it's not too perilous (if that's a real word) but there is some real danger built up worth he trolls, in goblin town and on the trees, especially with the addition of Thorin going after that orc and Bilbo saving him. Also one moment with Radagast in his house. I think it's darker/not as child friendly as some make out, the main difference to LOTR in that way for me, is that it's not an end of the world kind of situation so it's not going to be as constant in its danger.

 rodgers37 wrote:

 MrMerlin wrote:
I wrote this on imdb:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/reviews-714

I have one issue with that, it's not a realistic film, it's a fantasy film...
Yes the landscapes are real because the made up world is fairly earth based, it's not some alien planet with weird things.

And you can't really complain at the dwarfs not getting hurt in the film, it's like that in the book. S you should just complain about the book. Because its not a dark film, it's not too perilous (if that's a real word) but there is some real danger built up worth he trolls, in goblin town and on the trees, especially with the addition of Thorin going after that orc and Bilbo saving him. Also one moment with Radagast in his house. I think it's darker/not as child friendly as some make out, the main difference to LOTR in that way for me, is that it's not an end of the world kind of situation so it's not going to be as constant in its danger.

There is a difference between fantasy and unrealistic stuff. The genre fantasy is not an excuse for unrealistc scenes.

And as I said in the review, in the books defence, it's just like that at times. So.... maybe the effort of making such an enormous film is a little wasted on it.
And if it's not meant for children, why does childish humor seem to pop up several times, and why are the fighting scenes made pg on purpose?

I found the movie ok, quite good at times, but some things just don't work.

Saw it yesterday (for some reason it came out over a week later in Oz... I don’t understand why) and here are my random thoughts:

1. I thought it was great fun. I enjoyed it all the way through.
2. I like the Dwarves, even if I couldn’t tell you who half of them were. I did eventually memorise all the Pod Racers from Episode 1, and every trooper from Aliens, so I think I’ll be able to learn the Dwarves after three films.
3. I love all the other ‘stuff’ that isn’t part of the main Hobbit book. I can’t wait to see where they go with the Necromancer/White Council plot.
4. Tied to the last one, I’m tired of all the reviews saying that the scene with the White Council should have been left out as it’s not important to the film. It is important to the film. Cutting the White Council would be like cutting Gandalf’s imprisonment in Orthanc in FOTR. You need to introduce your concepts before you expand upon them, and that’s exactly what the White Council scene did!
5. Martin Freeman is perfect as Bilbo. He is without a shadow of a doubt the best casting choice they made in this film. Richard Armitage as Thorin ‘Kill Joy’ Oakenshield is pretty cool too. His slow-mo walk through the fire (to the theme of the Nazgul, of all things) was amazing.
6. Radagast’s bunny sled was awesome! “I’d like to see them try!”. Never thought there’d be a LOTR film with what was essentially a car chase in it.
7. The Rock Giant bit was cool.
8. The riddles in the dark bit was great. I feel proud that I got the riddles myself!!!

The only two things I didn’t like were that a few of the long sweeping shots of NZ with the Dwarves just walking around became gratuitous. Some of them were unnecessary. And the Goblin King. He was too talkative for my liking. Didn’t strike me as a threatening bad guy. The way he died was funny.

And it’s kinda sad having Balin in the film, knowing his eventual fate.

HMBC, completely agree, especially about Thorin's slo-mo walk and Martin Freeman's casting.

and yeah, it's kinda sad knowing Balin's gonna die- he's such a nice guy, kinda like the grandfather figure :(

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Saw it yesterday (for some reason it came out over a week later in Oz... I don’t understand why) and here are my random thoughts:

Because the idiots here saw that lots of people go see movies on Boxing Day, and so decided that not letting people go see movies before Boxing Day would improve their bottom line. After all, it's not like their cinemas have a finite seating capacity, is it?

4. Tied to the last one, I’m tired of all the reviews saying that the scene with the White Council should have been left out as it’s not important to the film. It is important to the film. Cutting the White Council would be like cutting Gandalf’s imprisonment in Orthanc in FOTR. You need to introduce your concepts before you expand upon them, and that’s exactly what the White Council scene did!

That's only a compelling argument if you want Jackson to expand upon them. If you wanted to watch The Hobbit and not Jackson's nine hour Frankenhobbit, adding unwanted filler to set up more unwanted filler isn't much good.

 The Bringer wrote:

 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)

And the last few lines of the "time" riddle.

Luckly I am a big enough nerd that I was able to whisper the last few lines to my brother much to his annoyance.

 AlexHolker wrote:
Because the idiots here saw that lots of people go see movies on Boxing Day, and so decided that not letting people go see movies before Boxing Day would improve their bottom line. After all, it's not like their cinemas have a finite seating capacity, is it?

Or that the Internet doesn't exist.

When will the people responsible for these decisions in Australia (and this includes television stations) get it through their skulls that the Internet is a real thing, and the most passionate people are often the most impatient. When you air a new episode of Television Show X 7 days after its aired in the states, that's not 'fask tracking'. That's 'missing your window'. It's got to be on within 24 hours or it might as well not air at all.

Same applies to movies. You can hold them back for a few weeks so you can do a big boxing day release. The country the movie was filmed in, which is a few hours plane ride away, had it two weeks before us. There are LOTR fans crazy enough to go to NZ to see the film (and then go to Hobbiton before coming back). That just hurts the cinemas here.

That's only a compelling argument if you want Jackson to expand upon them. If you wanted to watch The Hobbit and not Jackson's nine hour Frankenhobbit, adding unwanted filler to set up more unwanted filler isn't much good.

But it's not filler. Nor is it padding, or whatever other euphemism you want to use. It's part of the story. Sure, it wasn't when the book was original written, but Tolkien went back and re-wrote the Hobbit to make it fit with the later LOTR books, and then he went and wrote the appendices to explain what Gandalf was doing during the moments he wasn't around in the Hobbit. It makes a more complete story, and allows it to breathe and cover two films (now three films).

I think stretching it to three films was a studio mandated bit of nonsense to ape what all the other studios are doing (splitting the final Harry Potter, Twlight and The Hunger Games books into two movies each), but in the case of the LOTR films, I don't see more of it as being a bad thing, especially when it gives PJ & Co. room to bring in all the extra material that would otherwise be left out.

Adding to what H.M.B.C said... most of the 'filler' you saw were actually in the appendix of the other books.

If I remember right, the whole story how Thorin got "Oakenshield" was in the Two-Towers appendix... (or something like that).

I think Peter Jackson has done a superb job in translating this behemoth of this story onto the screen

The round-up sites show a split in opinion between the professional critics and the ordinary viewers.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey

Critics are all (insert appropriate naughty word)...

Well some of them are good, but too many just seem to be very pompous, over the top and some other word I can't think of. Too many reviews I have read just put me off the reviewer and not the film, after all it's the film you are going to enjoy not some guys review.most film reviewers probably get their job because they know a fair bit about film but are very articulate but not good enough to be proper journalists, I do a film course and I'd rather get the opinion of any of my lecturers than most reviewers. I think most people are smart enough to make their own sections about films, and I don't think reviewers probably do too much to put people off (or on) a film, sure some people might be 50/50 read a couple reviews and decide its not worth it, but I could have read 100 negative Hobbit reviews, I'd have still gone to see it.

Rant over (for now...)

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Luckly I am a big enough nerd that I was able to whisper the last few lines to my brother much to his annoyance.

same here, but to my friends

Also, to all those who are whining about extra white council stuff- this is PJ's last chance at entering middle earth. He's including all the stuff about the hobbit, then throwing in lots of other parts from Tolkien's lesser known works. If you want just the hobbit stuff, it's there anyway. This is expanding upon the lord of the rings in a way, giving more background to both the wizards and Sauron, and I don't see how you would complain about extra stuff.

 shrike wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Luckly I am a big enough nerd that I was able to whisper the last few lines to my brother much to his annoyance.

same here, but to my friends

Also, to all those who are whining about extra white council stuff- this is PJ's last chance at entering middle earth. He's including all the stuff about the hobbit, then throwing in lots of other parts from Tolkien's lesser known works. If you want just the hobbit stuff, it's there anyway. This is expanding upon the lord of the rings in a way, giving more background to both the wizards and Sauron, and I don't see how you would complain about extra stuff.

He'll be back, they always come back... But this time it will probably just be a vacation or some such thing.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 shrike wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Luckly I am a big enough nerd that I was able to whisper the last few lines to my brother much to his annoyance.

same here, but to my friends

Also, to all those who are whining about extra white council stuff- this is PJ's last chance at entering middle earth. He's including all the stuff about the hobbit, then throwing in lots of other parts from Tolkien's lesser known works. If you want just the hobbit stuff, it's there anyway. This is expanding upon the lord of the rings in a way, giving more background to both the wizards and Sauron, and I don't see how you would complain about extra stuff.

He'll be back, they always come back... But this time it will probably just be a vacation or some such thing.

There isn't really much else to come back to. The rest of the books edited by his son are collections of short stories that can't really be tied into movie series. Middle Earth is done on the big screen until the inevitable sci fi reboot in 5 years.

I absolutely love the end credits 'The Lonely Mountain Song'.





As for the appendicies material that was added. I loved it. It really helps to tie these films into the Lord of the Rings.

Sure the movie isn't 100% accurate to the books, but then this is Pete Jackson's version, just as HBO's Game of Thrones is DB Wiess' & David Benoiff's version of those books.
Books overall don't translate exactly onto the big screen. At least The Hobbit hasn't been butchered like the final Potter film/s were!

^ Completely agree, there. I'm deliberately not going to listen to that song, just so that when I do in however many year's time, I'll get all nostalgic about the time when I went to see it at the cinema

Well, one thing that the Hobbit did for me. It made me pull the Dwarves out of storage after watching those great scenes. I was practically picking out the Hammerers/Ironbreakers with the King in the opening scene, Miners with candles on their heads, Balin the Long-as-its-going-to-get-Beard, one Dwarf with a Slayer Mohawk and two weapons before he shaved it - just loved it. If LotR made people fall in love with elves, then I can hope the same for Dwarves. Now if only GW will update the Dwarf book, then I will be one happy camper.

I am definitely glad that a friend told me that it would be better to not think of the LotR in terms of comparison between the movies, and judge it based upon its own character. Probably was the best advice going into the movie.

 Goldshield wrote:
Well, one thing that the Hobbit did for me. It made me pull the Dwarves out of storage after watching those great scenes. I was practically picking out the Hammerers/Ironbreakers with the King in the opening scene, Miners with candles on their heads, Balin the Long-as-its-going-to-get-Beard, one Dwarf with a Slayer Mohawk and two weapons before he shaved it - just loved it. If LotR made people fall in love with elves, then I can hope the same for Dwarves. Now if only GW will update the Dwarf book, then I will be one happy camper.

I am definitely glad that a friend told me that it would be better to not think of the LotR in terms of comparison between the movies, and judge it based upon its own character. Probably was the best advice going into the movie.

I completely agree here- One thing I can't wait for is now GW's gonna have to release the dwarves with shields and spears- you see, though I like just about everything about the dwarves apart from the models- the dwarves' whole aesthetic is angularity- runes, axes, stone carving. Then the models are all circle shields and rounded helmets. These dwarves I love- all octagonal shields and gimli-style helmets.

AlexHolker wrote:That's only a compelling argument if you want Jackson to expand upon them. If you wanted to watch The Hobbit and not Jackson's nine hour Frankenhobbit, adding unwanted filler to set up more unwanted filler isn't much good.

Am what? Clearly you know nothing of Tolkein if you think the White Council stuff is filler. If you weren't into the books even that's fine, but don't talk about them then like you know them. I would suggest reading all of the appropriate material, and then you will see how fundamentally important the White Council appendices stuff is.

Why do you think Gandalf is helping Thorin out on this quest? Do you think an uncorrupted Maiar has an interest in gold? Initially Gandalf turns down Thorin as he thinks the quest is just dwarven greed, but changes his mind later after Sauron returns. Gandalf is there solely to kill Smaug so he cannot join forces with Sauron, and Gandalf has been planning this for a long time; he pushes the council at that time specifically so that Smaug and the Necromancer cannot come to each others' aid at the time of the joint assaults on them. If the audience, like readers of the book, have no knowledge of Sauron as the Necromancer, then this makes no sense (which was fine for 6yr olds way back when). Even in the book Thorin pushes to go after the Necromancer also, but Gandalf rejects the idea as he has his plan already laid out. It is also important because otherwise you have one of the main characters disappearing randomly without any explanation throughout the film, which has red flags all over it (and did in the book as well). Basically without all of that, Gandalf has no purpose in the story whatsoever, and comes across as nothing but their get out of jail free card, which obviously gets annoying unless he has another purpose to be there.

And that's the short version of the explanation.

Not wanting to see this stuff is your opinion and you are very entitled to it, but calling it filler and acting like it doesn't belong in the film is ignorant at best.

I stick by my original analysis that it is the fans of the book that really have enjoyed this movie mostly, and that those who didn't read it but saw Lord of the Rings that mostly didn't, which is amusing as adaptations usually get the reaction the other way around.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 shrike wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Luckly I am a big enough nerd that I was able to whisper the last few lines to my brother much to his annoyance.

same here, but to my friends

Also, to all those who are whining about extra white council stuff- this is PJ's last chance at entering middle earth. He's including all the stuff about the hobbit, then throwing in lots of other parts from Tolkien's lesser known works. If you want just the hobbit stuff, it's there anyway. This is expanding upon the lord of the rings in a way, giving more background to both the wizards and Sauron, and I don't see how you would complain about extra stuff.

He'll be back, they always come back... But this time it will probably just be a vacation or some such thing.

There isn't really much else to come back to. The rest of the books edited by his son are collections of short stories that can't really be tied into movie series. Middle Earth is done on the big screen until the inevitable sci fi reboot in 5 years.

Sorry, it was more of a comment that Peter Jackson would travel to New Zealand...

Godless-Mimicry, I couldn't have put it better myself

I agree with everything H.B.M.C. said.

People that disagree dislike kittens, children, puppies, grandma's cookies, and sweeping generalizations.

Edit:

 kronk wrote:
I agree with everything H.B.M.C. said.

People that disagree dislike kittens, children, puppies, grandma's cookies, and sweeping generalizations.

but... I dislike sweeping generalisations...

 shrike wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I agree with everything H.B.M.C. said.

People that disagree dislike kittens, children, puppies, grandma's cookies, and sweeping generalizations.

but... I dislike sweeping generalisations...

Personally I just dislike sweeping.

 Necroshea wrote:

 shrike wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I agree with everything H.B.M.C. said.

People that disagree dislike kittens, children, puppies, grandma's cookies, and sweeping generalizations.

but... I dislike sweeping generalisations...

Personally I just dislike sweeping.

you monster...

Woot! I'll be seeing the Hobbit in the New Year!

Stupid Austrian release on Boxing Day nonsense...

Yay Movie gift voucher for Christmas

Just got back from seeing it.

Overall rather enjoyable. Best movie I have seen this year. Some corny stupid parts that I would only expect to see in the next "Scary Movie" but I digress.

Some funny parts, great steady flow of action, great music, great work on all the details in the movie scroll work on the wood frames and joint work. They must have had someone with obsessive compulsive behavior to be in charge with all the details. Enjoyed and appreciated the background stuff, such as Oakenshield's name.


The one thing that really disturbed me was the troll king's chin. They looked liked testicals.

Good film, probably could have been better if the girl next to me didn't start crying when she thought Thorin died.

It was a great film except the bits with the Mountain trolls in it. It was a bit goofy there.

Downright amazing movie. 48 fps is breath-taking. The troll scene was too goofy and the scene where Gandalf killed the Goblin King by poking his eye with his staff was gak. The amazing down-ride scene made up for it though.

Gandalf poked the Goblin King in the eye then slit his throat...