Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Just saw the Hobbit

2

Comments

  • IkedaIkeda Largo, FLPosts: 2,204Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Entris38
    I felt Jackson did an amazing job with the first movie, there were some inaccuracies, and he did fill in some of the back story. I am glad they touched on the backstory of the necro, for it was barely mentioned in the book(only at the end, in explaining Gandalf's mysterious disappearance). I hope they expand on the necro story, I am not sure if  in Christophers writings, if it was covered or not. Christopher apparently had many side stories/fillers....though I have never read any of them.

    Just so you know:

    The necromancer (or Witch King of Angmar) was written by J.R.R. Tolkien himself (not Christopher) in Appendix B.  You learn of the necromancer in the storyline.  In Appendix B, during the timeline, you read about the creation of the Morgul, the Witch King of Angmar title is specifically mentioned here as well.

     

    Azog (while some are complaining that he makes no sense) is mentioned in Appendix A (under Durin's folk; again by J.R.R. Tolkien himself).  Thorin didn't fight him though in the battle it was someone else.  Azog did not really chase them in the Hobbit (he was dead) so yes that was added but it makes far more sense as it explains why the dwarves are being hunted in the books AND if I recall correctly Azogs orc-kid is the one that leads the Orcs at the Batlle of Five Armies (I won't spoil).

    SWTOR: F2P or Premium? Want Galactic Strongholds early? http://www.swtor.com/r/LbMdN7 Use the referral for 7 days of subscriber access. Unlock your GS today!

  • strangiato2112strangiato2112 Richmond, VAPosts: 1,538Member Common
    Originally posted by wormywyrm

     

    That being said, there was one problem I had with the hobbit, and that was the character of radagast.  Much like harry potter destroyed the soul of dumbledores character by making him a grumy old man instead of quirky and kind, the hobbit movie has taken radagast and turned him into something really strange.  They sort of made him the jar jar binks of the movie, mostly there for kids entertainment.  I was sad to see this because although he was barely in the books I remember liking him a lot, or at least the -idea- of him.  Maybe he was a weirdo in the books too and I chose to ignore it... I dunno.

    I could have done withoout the bird shit and rabbit sled, but overall I liked Radagast.  Very eccentric but certainly not inept.  Dude  is a hermit that loves the plants and animals above all else (this is the book version of him too) so its natural he is a bit out there. He proved himself to be pretty badass too in Jackson's film.

  • strangiato2112strangiato2112 Richmond, VAPosts: 1,538Member Common
    Originally posted by lizardbones


    The movie contains extra stuff, both from the appendixes in the Lord of the Rings, and from Jackson's imagination. The appendixes are fine, Jackson's imagination is not. Even rearranging the events from the story, to end up in the same spot was OK, but the stuff Jackson added was very obviously done for a video game tie-in or to make action figures.

    The story ends up being unfocused and yes, a little too full of information. I wouldn't have used the word, 'bloated', but it fits.

    ** edit **
    If you've never read the book, then the movie probably won't seem bloated, and the extra elements that Jackson added may not seem like bloat.

     

    Here is what I would classify as 'bloat' from The Hobbit:

    1.  The goblin escape was way too long and way too 'hollywood'

    2.  Given how long the unexpected party was (and should have been IMO), the Frodo stuff in the beginning could have been cut.  Leave Ian Holm writing the story (and I loved that the first few lines from the book were told) but cut it off without the Fellowship lead in.  If anything toss it at the end of movie 3.

    3.  Stone giants were cool.  could have done without the hollywood stuff in that scene though

    really thats about it.  And that amounts for maybe 10 minutes of film time.

    The Radagast/white council stuff was very welcome by me and I liked it.  Azog was fine.  Again, a littlle less hollywood with the tree sene though but it wasnt overlong either.

     

     

    Cant wait for Beorn

  • KabaalKabaal Edinburgh, ScotlandPosts: 3,012Member Uncommon

    I loved it, perhaps not quite as much as the previous trilogy so far but then those movies had their ups and downs also. Taken as a whole however they were very good and we'll probably have to take this current interpretation of the hobbit in the same way once all are released.

    Some of the comments on other forums have given me chuckles, like the complaints about golf... golf was in the book yet Jackson gets the blame lol.

    For the record The Hobbit is the first book i can remember choosing to read myself as a child and has been read god knows how many times since, it and the rest of the series are probably much to blame for my book, movie and game preferences through life.

  • BACONXBACONX Wellford, SCPosts: 236Member

    I agree with your feeling Lord. I saw the movie and it made me want to play LOTRO badly. Not becasue the movie was that great but becasue it brought up a lot of lore that I remember from the books and from LOTRO's quest hubs. I'm on the fence about playing again though- it has been so long and the game has gone Free-to-Play.Should I play or not?!?!

  • BlazeyerBlazeyer Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 476Member Uncommon
    I know this is semi off topic, as I haven't seen the movie. I read the book last month. Wasn't a fan of it at all to be honest. Infact it pushed me to not wanting to see the movie. I was a huge huge fan of the original trilogy movies (i haven't read those books, but reading the hobbit made me not want to all the more). After reading a few of your posts I'm wondering how exactly the movie compares to the original 3. I'm really looking for a game to catch my attention and considering a return to LOTRO.
  • TerranahTerranah Stockton, CAPosts: 3,605Member

    In general I liked the movie, but it was pretty long: 3 hours.  Half way through, I had to pee.  So I start tapping my leg.  Tap tap tap.  1.5 hours later it felt like a stone giant had kidney punched me but I refused to go to the restroom and potentially miss something.  I had no idea how far along we were into the movie time wise, when they stepped onto the promontory and looked off into the distance at the dwarven mountain.  I thought for sure I would pee my pants right then when I saw how far away that mountain was, lol.  Luckily the orchestral music was playing loudly or my groan would have been audible.

     

    I saw it twice in 3d.  I enjoyed it both times.  The second time I picked up on some dialogue and other things I missed the first time around so that was good.  All in all I found it an enjoyable albeit long experience, and the idea of waiting years to see the next one is painful.

     

    Going back to LORTO did cross my mind but there are a few reasons I left that have not changed so I don't think I'll be doing that.  It's a good game though, great devs.  The game just isn't for me.

  • aspekxaspekx Brandon, FLPosts: 2,167Member
    Originally posted by Sevenstar61

    I saw the movie today. It was fun and it was pretty much very tue to the book. I was impressed. This is Tolkien book lover dream come true. It's sort of slow pace but if you love the book, you will love it. Music is mostly re-made from LOTR so it's awesome. Thorin is great :) - very good pick. I got lucky LOL because the projector crashed while watching previews and we had 10 minutes break... they gave us passes for this inconvenience, so I think I am going to see Hobbit one more time after holidays :)

     

    The dinner scene is one of the best, simply hilarious, I was LOL... poor Bilbo :)

    you and i clearly did not see the same movie.

    the movie is a terrific action adventure movie. but it is a very loose interpretation of the book. and one that i had sincere problems with because it seemed to overlook some very basic tenets that JRRT had included in his book.

    their interpetation of JRRT's songs was however, unmatched by anything i have heard before.

    "There are at least two kinds of games.
    One could be called finite, the other infinite.
    A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
    an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
    Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse

  • ThorkuneThorkune Eastern, KYPosts: 1,830Member Uncommon
    My wife and I both loved it, and we are excited for the next installment.
  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,058Member Uncommon
    Like seriously how does one, especially a gamer go this long without seeing possibly the greatest prequel i nthe history of cinema?  I thik your geek card needs to be pulled!

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • kroz318kroz318 Lanoka Harbor, NJPosts: 26Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ikeda
    Originally posted by Entris38
    I felt Jackson did an amazing job with the first movie, there were some inaccuracies, and he did fill in some of the back story. I am glad they touched on the backstory of the necro, for it was barely mentioned in the book(only at the end, in explaining Gandalf's mysterious disappearance). I hope they expand on the necro story, I am not sure if  in Christophers writings, if it was covered or not. Christopher apparently had many side stories/fillers....though I have never read any of them.

    Just so you know:

    The necromancer (or Witch King of Angmar) was written by J.R.R. Tolkien himself (not Christopher) in Appendix B.  You learn of the necromancer in the storyline.  In Appendix B, during the timeline, you read about the creation of the Morgul, the Witch King of Angmar title is specifically mentioned here as well.

     

    Azog (while some are complaining that he makes no sense) is mentioned in Appendix A (under Durin's folk; again by J.R.R. Tolkien himself).  Thorin didn't fight him though in the battle it was someone else.  Azog did not really chase them in the Hobbit (he was dead) so yes that was added but it makes far more sense as it explains why the dwarves are being hunted in the books AND if I recall correctly Azogs orc-kid is the one that leads the Orcs at the Batlle of Five Armies (I won't spoil).

    *Spoilers*

    Been awhile but isn't the necromancer Sauron?

     

    Anyway some of you guys are taking this too seriously. Was a great movie. My only two complaits were Christorphor Lee's out of place acting and how weird the goblins looked.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,461Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by grimal
    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

    And it made me want to play Lotro again, specifically a sword and staff loremaster

     

    Interesting.

    Is it as bloated as a lot of the critics are complaining? (the movie, not the game..lol)

    nah.

    oh, there are some things they shouldn't have put in there but at no time did I feel like it was bloated. Then again, I have incredible stamina for long movies/plays/operas so your mileage may vary.

    They added a character that they shouldn't have. I understand why they did it as it will probalby tie into some of the orc/goblin fights later on, but it wasn't necessary. Unless of course you make an argument for giving Thorin Oakenshield a antagonist.

    My thought is that as a story, the hobbit is kind of light. Get a group together, take a trip, have some minor battles, they don't actually kill smaug and then the battle of the five armies where, if memory serves me, Bilbo gets knocked out.

    It's difficult to create a story where the main protagonists don't really vanquish anything.

    So I suppose that's one reason to add some of the stuff.

  • aspekxaspekx Brandon, FLPosts: 2,167Member
    Originally posted by kroz318
    Originally posted by Ikeda
    Originally posted by Entris38
    I felt Jackson did an amazing job with the first movie, there were some inaccuracies, and he did fill in some of the back story. I am glad they touched on the backstory of the necro, for it was barely mentioned in the book(only at the end, in explaining Gandalf's mysterious disappearance). I hope they expand on the necro story, I am not sure if  in Christophers writings, if it was covered or not. Christopher apparently had many side stories/fillers....though I have never read any of them.

    Just so you know:

    The necromancer (or Witch King of Angmar) was written by J.R.R. Tolkien himself (not Christopher) in Appendix B.  You learn of the necromancer in the storyline.  In Appendix B, during the timeline, you read about the creation of the Morgul, the Witch King of Angmar title is specifically mentioned here as well.

     

    Azog (while some are complaining that he makes no sense) is mentioned in Appendix A (under Durin's folk; again by J.R.R. Tolkien himself).  Thorin didn't fight him though in the battle it was someone else.  Azog did not really chase them in the Hobbit (he was dead) so yes that was added but it makes far more sense as it explains why the dwarves are being hunted in the books AND if I recall correctly Azogs orc-kid is the one that leads the Orcs at the Batlle of Five Armies (I won't spoil).

    *Spoilers*

    Been awhile but isn't the necromancer Sauron?

     

    Anyway some of you guys are taking this too seriously. Was a great movie. My only two complaits were Christorphor Lee's out of place acting and how weird the goblins looked.

    ive no issue with broad interpretations where the book only gives hints or is silent. that's the fun of all this after all, right?

    am i taking it too seriously?

    first, im taking issue with PJackson reinterpreting some fundamentals. this story has been a part of my life since childhood, so its important to me.

    second, i thoroughly enjoyed the movie. as i mentioned above, i think the music, while reinterpreted in part for brevity, was fabulously well done. im not angry at PJackson and i am looking forward to the next 2 installments.

    but again, the story is a part of my life, part of my growing up, so in that sense i do 'take it seriously'. i fear that in a culture currrently so at odds with itself that we are becoming cynical about taking things seriously. its okay to be devoted to something or someone. its okay to have differences of understanding and interpretation, even, gahd forbid, to become passionate about it.

     

    ***spoiler alert***

     

     

    as for the Necromancer question, the answer is, Yes.

    "There are at least two kinds of games.
    One could be called finite, the other infinite.
    A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
    an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
    Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse

  • aspekxaspekx Brandon, FLPosts: 2,167Member
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by grimal
    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

    And it made me want to play Lotro again, specifically a sword and staff loremaster

     

    Interesting.

    Is it as bloated as a lot of the critics are complaining? (the movie, not the game..lol)

    nah.

    oh, there are some things they shouldn't have put in there but at no time did I feel like it was bloated. Then again, I have incredible stamina for long movies/plays/operas so your mileage may vary.

    They added a character that they shouldn't have. I understand why they did it as it will probalby tie into some of the orc/goblin fights later on, but it wasn't necessary. Unless of course you make an argument for giving Thorin Oakenshield a antagonist.

    My thought is that as a story, the hobbit is kind of light. Get a group together, take a trip, have some minor battles, they don't actually kill smaug and then the battle of the five armies where, if memory serves me, Bilbo gets knocked out.

    It's difficult to create a story where the main protagonists don't really vanquish anything.

    So I suppose that's one reason to add some of the stuff.

    but of course i think thats part of the beauty of the story and something essentially Tolkienesque about it. it concerns quite ordinary folk making their way in a world with some extraordinary people and events in it. all w/o losing a sense of homey-ness.

    for example Rivendell is called the Last Homely House in the book. this is not the title of a dramatic backdrop for world events, which it has been in the past and will become later in the trilogy. but i believe that is part of Tolkien's point. homey-ness, the ordinary day to day pleasures of the world are worth celebrating and in the final book of the trilogy become clearly the motivation for saving it.

    i dont think PJackson made poor choices. i just think he missed the point.

    "There are at least two kinds of games.
    One could be called finite, the other infinite.
    A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
    an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
    Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse

  • TheHavokTheHavok San Jose, CAPosts: 2,398Member Uncommon

    I liked the Hobbit a lot.  I saw it on the opening night release at midnight.  Its much more lighthearted then TLOTR - but thats perfectly inline with how the book is.  While the TLOTR movies were very epic and serious, the hobbit was much more rambunctious and silly.  It still had awesome, epic moments as well - but they were nothing compared to Boromir's final stand against the orcs at the end of The fellowship of the Ring - those big horns playing and the beat of the wardrums.  That shit was crazy.

     

  • IsawaIsawa Middle 0 Nowhere, ORPosts: 1,051Member
    Originally posted by bossalinie
    Originally posted by zyklonian
    Originally posted by Dasterdly
     

    tolkien wrote the hobbit for his kids so it was never intended to be as serious as lotr

    Reminds me of another director who made trilogy for his kids...

    Umm Tolkien wrote one book, for the kids, The Hobbit. Jackson is turning it into a triology with the use of extended writings.

  • RednecksithRednecksith Madison heights, MIPosts: 1,238Member
    Sylvester McCoy plays Radagast. That alone means the trilogy will ROCK. Can't wait to see it.
  • aspekxaspekx Brandon, FLPosts: 2,167Member
    Originally posted by Rednecksith
    Sylvester McCoy plays Radagast. That alone means the trilogy will ROCK. Can't wait to see it.

    Radagast was awesome.

    "There are at least two kinds of games.
    One could be called finite, the other infinite.
    A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
    an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
    Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse

  • AesowhreapAesowhreap Omaha, NEPosts: 78Member
    I always felt more at home witht the Hobbit compared to the Lord of the Rings.

    Best Regards, ...

  • FlawSGIFlawSGI Woodstock, GAPosts: 1,379Member Uncommon

    Maybe it is because I am such a fan of R.A . Salvatore and Robert Jordan that I didn't really care as much for the LOTR books as I remembered when I read them in middle school. When Jackson did the movies I made myself re read all of the books and I thought he did a fantastic job potraying the story. I personally liked the movies better than the books and that includes the Hobbit. Sure some stuff was left out and added in, but it didn't feel like it was out of place to me since it went with his vision. I try really hard to refrain from comparing the stories of the book to the movies and just accept it for what it is and in the end I loved the movies more. Not to say the books aren't great, I just found I enjoyed the way Jackson handled it. I was also ecstatic to learn that Bilbo wasn't a whiny b*@+h like Frodo was. Frodo was my least favorite character and he just brought me down. I blame Elijah Wood.

     

    As to wanting to play the game, I felt the same way. I got caught up in the lore and all but when I got home it was gone. Not that the game was that bad to me really, I just know it wouldn't last for long.

    RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,461Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by chelan

    i dont think PJackson made poor choices. i just think he missed the point.

    Actually he does make poor choices. he sometimes changes things that don't need to be changed. Such as how the Tree Beard and the ents decide to attack Saruman in The Two Towers. That didn't need to be changed.

    Several odd changes such as The Riddle Game which is supposed to be "riddles in the dark" but it's pretty bright there. It could have been darker, perhaps a dim light source here and there so that we could obviously see it.

    How Bilbo gets down to Golum in the first place. etc, etc.

  • InFlamestwoInFlamestwo HindPosts: 662Member
    The Hobbit is the best movie i've ever seen, it was long and they dragged it out with good environments and music and some good humour. It was epic and magical.

    image

  • CorehavenCorehaven Colorado Springs, COPosts: 1,538Member
    Originally posted by Dasterdly

    Good but not great.  If you are going into this expecting a true visual representation of the book, you will be dissappointed.  There are way to many scenes and characters that will make you ask yourself if you are mis-remembering stuff.  Let me assure you that no, you are not.  Jackson has taken a TON of liberties with this production.  There are odd filler sequences, some extended silliness that was unneccessarry, and oddly represented characters that at times feel out of place.  I wont get into spoilers or discuss specifics as I do not want to ruin someone else's experience however. 

    I agree with an earlier assesment that the films are over indulgent.  Cash grab?  I dunno...  but certainly over indulging Jackson's ego.  That said, it is well worth the price of admission.  The film is available in something like 6 different formats from IMAX, to 3D, to High Frame Rate, to standard, etc.  I watched the standard format after reading so many negative reviews on the high frame rate offering and I felt it was a perfect format for me.

    Cinematically, it is Jackson's Middle Earth.  It is lush and beautiful.. the camera work is excellent, and the whole production is vibrant. Despite this, I felt it lacked the epic feeling of the LotR trilogy.  While I do not want to go so far as to say my childhood has been sulied I can admit that this film did not pull me in the way I expected it too, the way LotR did. 

     

    As for my opinoin I'd say this ^^ is spot on.  Exactly how  I felt about it. 

     

    I'd only add, do not see it in the high frame format as I did.  I was expecting it to be a non factor until I saw it.  Not good.  Some people say it makes the movie look like a "video game" or a cartoon but I didn't get that at all.  Instead the high frame format somehow makes 50% of the movie seem like it is moving in 2x fast forward.  That was the intense impression I got, so much so I was tempted to go to the theater manager 5 min into the movie to complain that the movie was running too fast.  However I noticed the voices were matching up in sync so it must be right.  But it sure didn't look right.  Looked like a movie running in 2x fast forward. 

     

    As for the movie in general like I said, Dasterdly has it pegged as far as I care to say.  This could have easily been made into one movie and should have been.  Two movies I could have forgiven.  Three movies out of one book (and not a very large one at that) is a more than obvious cash grab.  With lots of filler they'll have to put in (and did) to make it work. 

     

    Worth seeing.  But I can't say it had the magic of Lord of the Rings. 

  • CyclopsSlayerCyclopsSlayer Minneapolis, MNPosts: 532Member

    I felt that "The Hobbit" was definitely good, but by no means great.

    While the story was there and visuals fit in perfectly with how Jackson did the LoTR films, there will be simply too much of it by the end. A single 3 hour movie, or even a pair of 2 hour movies would have sufficed, instead we are left bloated and nearly bored after the first part. A great film I want to see again right away. A good film in a few months. But as much as I enjoyed visiting the world again, I feel absolutely no desire to ever see it again.

     

    I could read the Hobbit again in about the same time or less that it took to watch merely the first of three parts.

  • I can describe The Hobbit in a single word: Epic.

    The spirit of the movie is very faithful to the book. The new subplots added mesh well with the existing story, and despite being a long movie it doesn't feel so at all. The actors are great and perform their roles very convincingly. Bilbo and Thorin pull off their parts just as well as Gandalf.

    I think J. R. R. Tolkien would have loved to see this film.

    A few complaints I have:

    - Thorin doesn't really look a lot like a dwarf, save for his size. An odd choice since they clearly do other dwarves well.

    - There's a place where they fall way too far for it to be believable that they didn't all diel. Yet they survive without a scratch.

    - I think the stone giants were over the top (no pun intended).

    - In the 3D version there isn't enough time to find the right focus point in some of the quicker edits.

    - Gandalf doesn't fry any goblins with a smoke and lightning sparks like in the book.

    - It was too blatant when Gandalf ninjaed a magic sword. "I need for Mordor?" Riight.

    - It's going to be a long wait for the second movie.

     

    When the dwarves start singing about reclaiming their mountain in the beginning you can just feel how epic the rest of the movie is going to be. I hope there'll be a version where the dwarves sing the full song from the book instead of just a few verses.

    Overall I'd rate it 8/10.

2
Sign In or Register to comment.