The Hobbit finds a director

[Harkonis]

Can't see that until later.  Closest theater is a bit away.

[ATB]

Who who knew that turning a relatively short book without the depth of source material as the previous films would turn into a boring slog?

This will be a rental some day.

[TiLT]

Who who knew that turning a relatively short book without the depth of source material as the previous films would turn into a boring slog?

Not you obviously, since you haven't seen the movie.

[TheEgoWhip]

Saw it last night in hfr 3d.  I liked it alot even tho there were a few pieces of the story that seemed kind of tacked on.

Spoiler for Hiden:

The stone giant scene for instance.   Only thing I got from that scene was maybe trying to show how dangerous the journey was and reinforce that Bilbo was a bit of a burden.

I have been a lifelong fan of Tolkien, so I expected that I would like it. My gf went with me and she generally has no interest in the fantasy genre at all. I was pleasantly surprised that she enjoyed it as well, and that she had no trouble following the characters or story line with no previous exposure to the story.

As far as the HFR, the movie seemed very clear, crisp and easy to follow. I enjoyed  it and the only scene that I thought suffered from it was when they were walking in the rain and you could clearly see that they were wet, but that rain wasn't hitting them.  Wet faces but no droplets in the face.

[metallicorphan]

Saw it last night in hfr 3d.  I liked it alot even tho there were a few pieces of the story that seemed kind of tacked on.

Spoiler for Hiden:

The stone giant scene for instance.   Only thing I got from that scene was maybe trying to show how dangerous the journey was and reinforce that Bilbo was a bit of a burden.

that part is actually in the book

Spoiler for Hiden:

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Stone_giants

Stone-giants first appeared in The Hobbit. It was their only known appearance, although they are mentioned briefly
in The Fellowship of the Ring. They first appeared in Chapter 4 (Over Hill And Under Hill), where they are described as hurling rocks at one another for game

[Teggy]

If this doesn't do well at the theaters, they'll be in pretty bad shape, no? The next two movies are locked in already.

[TiLT]

Saw it last night in hfr 3d.  I liked it alot even tho there were a few pieces of the story that seemed kind of tacked on.

Spoiler for Hiden:

The stone giant scene for instance.   Only thing I got from that scene was maybe trying to show how dangerous the journey was and reinforce that Bilbo was a bit of a burden.

that part is actually in the book

Spoiler for Hiden:

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Stone_giants

Stone-giants first appeared in The Hobbit. It was their only known appearance, although they are mentioned briefly
in The Fellowship of the Ring. They first appeared in Chapter 4 (Over Hill And Under Hill), where they are described as hurling rocks at one another for game

It's not like in the books. The movie version is

Spoiler for Hiden:

more like enormous stone golems that suddenly fight to the death for no good reason, crushing limbs and heads with rocks while the main characters climb along one of their legs. It's a bit unnecessary and isn't at all like what I imagined it would be when reading the book.

[ATB]

Who who knew that turning a relatively short book without the depth of source material as the previous films would turn into a boring slog?

Not you obviously, since you haven't seen the movie.

Do they have reviews in your country? If not let me explain how they work: people- known as critics- go and see the movies and then tell us how they are.  When a bunch of critics say the same thing, that's called consensus. The consensus so far is that the movie is boring, drawn out and not very good (just like the consensus was that XCOM has lots and lots of bugs (many of which you never saw, so I understand why you think they didn't exist or that one could not make a judgement on something without actually having seen it first hand).  Thus, I can also say it is boring.  Not that I mentioned before the reviews came out that there's no way the book should be 3 movies or anything...

Thanks so much!

[metallicorphan]

Who who knew that turning a relatively short book without the depth of source material as the previous films would turn into a boring slog?

Not you obviously, since you haven't seen the movie.

Do they have reviews in your country? If not let me explain how they work: people- known as critics- go and see the movies and then tell us how they are.  When a bunch of critics say the same thing, that's called consensus. The consensus so far is that the movie is boring, drawn out and not very good (just like the consensus was that XCOM has lots and lots of bugs (many of which you never saw, so I understand why you think they didn't exist or that one could not make a judgement on something without actually having seen it first hand).  Thus, I can also say it is boring.  Not that I mentioned before the reviews came out that there's no way the book should be 3 movies or anything...

Thanks so much!

well i have already posted my view on the last page on the critics saying they could not of got this more wrong

That's my view anyway,i can't wait to go see this again


maybe of some interest,the user ratings on 3 sites people use aren't that bad for the film
Metacritic-8.5(240 users)
Rotten Tomatoes-81%(146,951 users)
IMDb-8.7(37,010 users)

If this doesn't do well at the theaters, they'll be in pretty bad shape, no? The next two movies are locked in already.

well after 1 day,it's currently made $64 million worldwide($37 million domestically),okay it's only one day and things may go pear shaped,but it's off to a good start

[Arclight]

I've been on the Tolkein band-wagon for over 35 years now. I've read the Silmarillion a few times, and of course of the "ring" books. I even found a not so popular book about Tom Bombadil. It was more a less a song and poetry book of all the songs good old Tom use to sing, while he dance along the trails in the Woods.

Just got back from seeing, The Hobbit. Couldn't have picked a better actor for the part of the young Bilbo. I thought Oakenshield was well portrayed as well. And the way Galadrial looked was mesmerizing. I don't think Kate Blanchet has ever looked better on screen.

Personally, I thought the beginning at bag-end lasted a bit too long. Other than that, the build up to Smaug was very well done. The next movie should be great.

3d effects were for me good. I even had a little jump at one part. Haven't done that in a 3d movie for ages.

If you like Tolkein lore, Peter Jackson's movie making, and beautiful scenery, go see the movie. Listen to all the nay sayers if you need to. But in the end who knows where Tokein fits on the "like-dislike" meter for them.

Also two people playing riddle games never was more fun to watch.

[TheEgoWhip]

Saw it last night in hfr 3d.  I liked it alot even tho there were a few pieces of the story that seemed kind of tacked on.

Spoiler for Hiden:

The stone giant scene for instance.   Only thing I got from that scene was maybe trying to show how dangerous the journey was and reinforce that Bilbo was a bit of a burden.

that part is actually in the book

Spoiler for Hiden:

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Stone_giants

Stone-giants first appeared in The Hobbit. It was their only known appearance, although they are mentioned briefly
in The Fellowship of the Ring. They first appeared in Chapter 4 (Over Hill And Under Hill), where they are described as hurling rocks at one another for game

It's not like in the books. The movie version is

Spoiler for Hiden:

more like enormous stone golems that suddenly fight to the death for no good reason, crushing limbs and heads with rocks while the main characters climb along one of their legs. It's a bit unnecessary and isn't at all like what I imagined it would be when reading the book.

I didn't mean to imply that it didn't fit into the overall story line, or that he made it up.  It just didn't feel necessary to me. It doesn't advance the plot line in any way apart from MAYBE showing Thorin risking himself to save Bilbo once again.  I get it, Bilbo isn't the adventuring sort. 

[Arclight]

Maybe the reasoning behind emphasizing Bilbo's inadequacies is, that when he really starts to shine, it makes his new found honor among the warriors that much more poignant . The triumph of the anti-hero.

[th'FOOL]

Loved it. Plan to see it again next weekend. Fuck the naysayers.

[disarm]

I saw it in HFR 3D yesterday afternoon and absolutely loved it.  Sure, there are a few changes in scenes from the book, and a lot of material from sources other than The Hobbit has been added, but it all comes together to make a great film that is obviously going to tell a much more epic story than the book from which it gets its name. I will admit that it can get a little slow at times, but I really didn't mind those parts and I think that they did tend to add to the plot in important ways. Overall, I loved the movie and would encourage anyone to see it whether you're a Tolkein fan or not.

As for the HFR 3D, it is definitely a major change in the way we're used to seeing movies in the theater, but I came away very impressed in the end.  The clarity of the picture is incredible, and it pairs with excellent use of 3D to make the sharpest, most realistic movie I've ever seen. It really is almost like looking through a window onto Middle Earth at times. I will admit that the clarity makes a few of the more effects-heavy scenes appear more artificial than they might otherwise, but I think that is a small price to pay for how great so many other scenes look. It does take a little adjustment, and there were a handful of shots that seemed to be moving in fast-forward, but once you get used to the change, it really is an impressive difference. I can definitely see it becoming the new standard with time, but it is going to take most people a little while to accept something so different.

[metallicorphan]

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:    $84,775,000      38.0%
+ Foreign:    $138,200,000      62.0%
= Worldwide:    $222,975,000   

not bad for 3 days

[farley2k]

It reminded me of later Stephen King, Tom Clancy, or J.K. Rowling books - meaning they are too big to be told "no". Notice how each of those author's books get larger and larger because they are simply too powerful/famous to tell them to cut down. Jackson is the same. It has the images of greatness we saw in the other movies but no one said "no Peter don't include that"

I think my wife summed it up best "Jackson tried to make it a huge and grand movie but the Hobbit wasn't that type of story. It is a simple smaller story"

I still loved the imagery but it was just poorly edited/paced.

[Soulchilde]

Saw it in 3D and I loved it.  The clarity of the picture was great.   

[rittchard]

Saw it in 3D and I loved it.  The clarity of the picture was great.   

Ditto!  (This was HFR 3D just to be clear).  Admittedly I did get a bit nauseous/headachey during some of the big sweeping camera motions, but I got over it.  I thought the first hour moved a little slow but all in all it met and exceeded my expectations.  Casting wise, I felt Martin Freeman played a much better hobbit overall than any of the LOTR crew, so that was definitely a big plus.  Side note: if you haven't seen Love, Actually, it's worth it to just watch his scenes in there.

[Bullwinkle]

In my head, HFR stands for High Freakin' Resolution.

[Suitably Ironic Moniker]

Just saw it and I enjoyed it, but it was too padded in length and I couldn't help feeling a little regret that we'll never see Guillermo del Toro's version.

[TiLT]

Just saw it and I enjoyed it, but it was too padded in length and I couldn't help feeling a little regret that we'll never see Guillermo del Toro's version.

It's still partly his script, which is why he's one of the first names to appear in the credits sequence.

[Suitably Ironic Moniker]

Yeah, but I would have liked to have seen the film directed by him. I didn't care for Jackson's direction as much this time, particularly those first person POV shots during some of the action scenes.

[Roguetad]

I went into the movie having read the book for the first time earlier this year.  It was good to be back in Middle Earth...Jackson does a great job creating that world for his audience.  Even with the ramped up drama with the introduction of the pale orc pursuing their company, the movie actually seemed to drag at times.  I'm not sure how I feel about the more serious tone of the movie compared to the whimsical tone of the book.  The book does become gradually more serious as they venture further East, which made sense given their plight. 

Some of the added scenes were well done, like the council at Rivendell, but some they could have left out (the entire section with Radagast and his sleigh bunnies).  Overall I liked it.  I hope PJ can get some help with the pacing and tone in the next movie.

[kratz]

I went today, and found it horribly disappointing.  In true Star Wars fashion, it largely abandoned what made the original movies so great.

I went into it thinking the reviews were probably overly harsh because of the cash grab feeling of them drawing it out into 3 films, but after seeing it, I'm afraid I have to agree with a lot of the criticisms.

The first act is mostly ok, if drawn out, but the second is almost non stop terrible and groan inducing.  For some reason they decided they had to come up with a main villain, and what they came up with looks like a video game character... I don't get it when Gollum is so well done. The other CG characters don't seem realistic in comparison, with this villain character being the most glaring.  The wargs and other animals just don't look believable or like they are part of the same world that they made with the LOTR films.

However, even beyond that, it seems that they have done away with actors in makeup and gone to CG monsters all over the damn place, and it doesn't look nearly as good... having a character with bird shit all over his head who flies around the countryside on a bobsled pulled by *bunnies* is getting up to Jar Jar Binks levels of unforgivableness. 

The third act, aside from yet another weak CGI character, actually goes a long way towards saving the movie - and proves that the closer it sticks to the source material, the better.  The stuff with Gollum is spot on, and I like the casting for Bilbo.  The third act took me from 'do I even want to keep watching this one, let alone two more of these' to 'ok, I'll watch the next one'.

I don't mind that they are including stuff from other books, appendices, etc., but it seems like they are screwing up some basics.  The rock giants could not have been done more poorly... they had a chance to do what they do with the eagles there, but instead they turned it into some Jerry Bruckheimer BS... Radagast being an eccentric hippy is fine, but so much of what they do with him is just too ridiculous... Galadriel getting beamed up or whatever the hell they do with her... there are just a lot of little things that are too much, or too far, or too over the top, and too far away from what they had done before.  The atmosphere was severely lacking.

I'm NOT a hard sell when it comes to a movie like this... but I was really, really let down.  I don't know how this was made by the same people - it should've been a guaranteed home run.  The summer blockbuster dreck they were rolling previews for seemed to have more in common with this than the original movies did.

Side note: I thought there was a lot of Boromir in the voice and mannerisms of Thorin... which I think is brilliant if it's intentional.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

I saw this tonight (in 3D 48 fps) and thought it was pretty terrible, well at least for the first 2 hours and 20 minutes. The last half hour was pretty good and felt more like LoTRs quality. For the most part, it just felt like a bunch of individual scenes one after another with no transitions or story tying them together. And it was like Peter Jackson couldn't decide whether to make it a kids movie or more like LoTR, so you have scenes with silly characters (e.g. the trolls, the other wizard, etc) and bad slapstick humor along with multiple decapitations.

I also thought the 48 fps didn't help. All of the inside shots looked like sets rather than true places. I agree with people who have said it looks like a soap opera; some of the visuals almost reminded me of Fraggle Rock.

I'm a huge LoTRs fan, but unless they get stellar reviews I'm not sure that I'll see the next two movies in the theater.

[Toe]

I saw it over the weekend (true IMAX screen, 48FPS) and me and the wife both thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought the cinematography was jaw-dropping amazing at times. The crispness and clarity of many of the outdoor shots in 48FPS were very notable (to us) . Loved just about everything about it. I thought it did drag on a little to much in spots, but overall felt the pacing was good as well as the casting and acting (although I did feel that a few of the dwarves had too narrow a face/head). Can not wait for the next installment. We plan on seeing it again, just not sure when atm. 

[CeeKay]

damn, looks like PJ didn't get the first live action Hobbit...

[kronovan]

damn, looks like PJ didn't get the first live action Hobbit...

It's been a long time since I saw it live, but that looks like a filmed version of Patricia Grays Hobbit play performed by an Eastern European cast. That version has been around forever and IIRC Tolkien actually authorized it himself. I know it was around at least by the 70's because my sister produced a performance of it for her high school back in the mid part of that decade.
Hmm...Bilbo in a pastel pink shirt seems a bit strange. Tolkien always said he liked colorful waistcoats, so I'm guessing the producer didn't think a waistcoat would stand out on stage.

[Rowdy]

I thought it was fantastic, will definitely be going for a second viewing with my 12 year old.  For those who still can't understand how a small book has been turned into three movies there is a lot of content in the movie that has been fleshed out from appendicies and other Tolkien material.  Its like the Hobbit plus other stuff that helps with background for the LoTR movies.  For instance, in the book the 'Necromancer' in the Mirkwood and Radaghast the Brown are throw away paragraphs.  In the movie that's an hour of content which helps to tie two very separate stories together.  You can see Gandalf starting to put the pieces of the picture together; the main story of the Hobbit is presented as a story within a larger story (LOTR) which is exactly the way the book fits in with the larger trilogy.

If you liked LoTR, or if you like Middle Earth, the extra content is not 'boring' or a slog.  It's awesome.  A lot of the extra time is spent fighting Orcs or exploring the dwarves back stories, so I fail to see how that could be considered boring at all.

Besides, most of the criticisms came around the high frame rate and 3d, not the story.  I saw it in 2d the first time; may try the HFR version the next time around.

[hepcat]

My thoughts (originally posted on qt3) after seeing it Christmas day:

- The higher frame rate is...interesting. It's very disconcerting because I've grown accustomed to that "look" being associated with live broadcasts of sports and tv shows. As such, it took me out of the film every now and then as my mind succumbed to previous prejudices about that format. But that problem is solely on me. I'm betting that high frame rate movies will become the norm over the next decade.

- The story felt unnecessarily padded at times. I just wish they'd stuck with one...maybe two films at the very most. Where we're left at the end of An Unexpected Journey is just too early in the book in my opinion, and makes me believe that even more padding is to come.

- Martin Freeman can do no wrong.

- The source material is, as previously mentioned here a few times, meant for a younger audience than the LotR books. I think the script is trying to combine that sensibility with a more mature one and it feels oddly disjointed at times. The comedy of the trolls juxtaposed with the story of the Pale Orc, for example.

In spite of any stated issues, I still think it's a fantastic movie though. I took my mother to the show for a Christmas event and she had a blast.

[ATB]

- The story felt unnecessarily padded at times. I just wish they'd stuck with one...maybe two films at the very most. Where we're left at the end of An Unexpected Journey is just too early in the book in my opinion, and makes me believe that even more padding is to come.

[hepcat]

I think that's pretty much a given.

having a character with bird shit all over his head who flies around the countryside on a bobsled pulled by *bunnies* is getting up to Jar Jar Binks levels of unforgivableness. 

This reminds me of something I thought of when that particular scene appeared in the film.  The higher frame rate is FAR more unforgiving to weak CGI.  That scene in particular was a rather strong case for the need to improve CGI technology before making HFR films more prevalent.

[TiLT]

Oh really? The LOTR movies encompass the entirety of the 3 LOTR books, do they? And they of course completely cover the events in those books, such as the encounter with Tom Bombadil? Yet The Hobbit, which heavily features content from the appendix in Return of the King (a sizable chunk of the book) and is very extensive in what content it features from the source material is only from one book. Right?

You know, I'm going to give you a break. You haven't seen the movie after all, so it's not like we can expect you to have even the slightest idea what you're talking about. All you're interested in doing in this thread is trolling those who like the movie, and trolling coupled with lack of knowledge is an incredibly annoying combination. 

Also, Peter Jackson is already filthy rich. He's making these three movies because he wants the movies about Middle-earth to go out with a bang. It's his last chance to cover this setting, and he wants to do as much as he can before it's over. But hey, he's a businessman. It's impossible for people like him to do something out of love instead of money, right? Right?

[hepcat]

I don't believe it's Peter Jackson pulling the strings on the 3 movie extension of The Hobbit.  I'm guessing (which is what all of us are doing) it's a studio decision primarily...no matter how many press releases come down from on high to deny that.

Look, I don't have the hatred of the film that some have here, I actually enjoyed it a great deal.  But I have to admit that I agree with the belief that it's more a financial decision to go with three films rather than an artistic one.  I understand that they're pulling in stuff from the appendices, but the relevance of that material is tenuous at best, in my opinion.  Azog should have died in the original battle with Thorin (the one in which he gained the surname Oakenshield)...and not by Thorin's hand.  If they're mining source material from other books in order to flesh out the story for the sake of the story, you would think they would avoid making such a change to the plot.

[metallicorphan]

I think it was Peter Jackson himself who wanted the three movies,because he knew this would be the only chance to film the Appendix stuff,as the Hobbit and Lord Of The Rings are the only books that are not under the Tolkien Estate contract,they used this opportunity to get the Appendix stuff done once and for all...its not like Peter Jackson,Warner or MGM will be back to Middle Earth unless they remake The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings,because Tolkien Estate aren't letting out any other books(and i heard they are not too keen on the movie versions of the LOTR as it is)

"It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made," Jackson said on his Facebook page.

"We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance," he added.

The Hobbit has now passed $500million worldwide

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:    $179,663,000      34.3%
+ Foreign:    $344,000,000      65.7%
= Worldwide:    $523,663,000   

In Release:    13 days / 1.9 weeks

[hepcat]

,because Tolkien Estate aren't letting out any other books(and i heard they are not too keen on the movie versions of the LOTR as it is)

That's insane.  Really?  LotR is one of the most lovingly made literary adaptations ever made!  I can think of nothing negative about them (at least nothing that would reflect even the slightest bit negatively on the books).  I would've thought the Tolkien estate would have embraced them.

[metallicorphan]

It seems like its own success was what they were mostly disturbed about...it became somewhat of a franchise or commercialised even

The T-Shirts,the mugs,the sticker books etc,i think the Tolkien estate saw that The Lord Of The Rings had become a monster and all of the Blockbuster status was not what J.R.R. Tolkien was aiming for when he wrote the books

This is from Christopher Tolkien:

“They gutted the book, making an action movie for 15-25 year olds. And it seems that The Hobbit will be of the same ilk. Tolkien became…devoured by his popularity and absorbed by the absurdity of the time. The gap widened between the beauty, the seriousness of the work, and what it has become is beyond me. This level of marketing reduces to nothing the aesthetic and philosophical significance of this work.”

I can certainly see what he means,but i am a fan of both the books and the films and although i was gutted at what was gutted(heh),i don't think anyone else would of done justice for the content they did leave in.(IMO)

I always think to the Cast Commentary of Fellowship of the Ring when Samwise is at Frodo's side when he wakes up in Rivendell,and Ian McKellen(VO) was saying on how he was telling Sean Astin who played Samwise,that he has to take Frodo's hand as Frodo lies in bed,because that is what it says in the book

There is also the Directors+ commentary where i think its either Fran Walsh or Philipa Boyens who said that when the scene came on where they were travelling across country,they hadn't shown the Barrow-Wrights or Tom Bombadil,She said that they were not saying that did not happen even in their version,its just that they didn't film it


Back to the Tolkien Estate,take note that they were in a big royalties battle for quite a few years IIRC with Warner,so that may be another reason for them to hate the movies 


The books for the longest time were deemed un-filmable,so IMO,what they did get on film has to be some kind of accomplishment,whether you liked the movies or not

[TiLT]

Christopher Tolkien isn't exactly loved around the world. He seems to dislike anything related to Middle-earth that hasn't been written by his father or by himself, and he objects strongly and publicly whenever someone tries to use the LOTR license. He hated the LOTR movies long before they were even filmed. It's just the kind of thing he does. I wouldn't use him as an authority for anything, least of all what J.R.R. Tolkien wanted done with the LOTR license.

[metallicorphan]

Christopher Tolkien isn't exactly loved around the world. He seems to dislike anything related to Middle-earth that hasn't been written by his father or by himself, and he objects strongly and publicly whenever someone tries to use the LOTR license. He hated the LOTR movies long before they were even filmed. It's just the kind of thing he does. I wouldn't use him as an authority for anything, least of all what J.R.R. Tolkien wanted done with the LOTR license.

I agree,but nevertheless he IS 'sole literary executor' of the Tolkien Estate,which is what we were discussing



EDIT:
it's only 5 people anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_Estate

[Lordnine]

Watched this on Christmas.  While I don’t think the movie deserves the 65% it has on Rotten Tomatoes it is without a doubt the weakest of the movies.  I felt the movie had some serious pacing and tone issues that could have been solved with some fairly minor scene reworking and if they had cut about 30 minutes out of the movie.

The worst part of the movie in my opinion was the Troll scene towards the beginning, which although quite faithful to the source material, was completely out of place with the tone of the movie.  Maybe it’s because I enjoyed the rest of the movie quite a bit but this one scene annoyed me more than Jar Jar Binks.