Hobbit Movie - Thoughts & Trailer Analysis

[arildno]

as of now, 2 out of 3 top critics classify it as rotten, and third, at Variety, is so critical it ought to be regarded as rotten as well.

 

[stargazer3]

I would like to point out that Thorin, and also two other dwarves, died as warriors, so I'm not sure it's correct to say that depicting them as warriors is completely a bad idea.

I don't know that I'd call The Hobbit a "fairy tale", but it's been a while since I've read it.

Good point, but fighting is not the main theme of Hobbit, it is more of a culmination of the whole story. As for the fairy tale, remember all those dwarves making their entry one by one, singing, dancing, riddle games, trolls turned into stone, etc.? Those are clearly a fairy tale elements. When LotR came out, I had a similar feeling (apparently Tom Bombadil was not serious enough to fit in). I think that if not for the battle scene at the end of The Hobbit, Jackson would not make the movie.

Oh, one more about Thorin. Look at him, he has no beard (on a dwarven beard scale)! He's a shame to all the dwarven folk. I will not like hobbit-the-movie Thorin unless they claim it was burned by a dragon (recently), of bitten off by a troll (more recently, considering direct troll proximity), and demonstrate that it's growing back during the film.

 

[arildno]

I think the beard of a true dwarven king reflect the state of his kingdom. Tiny kingdom, tiny beard.

 

[stargazer3]

I think the beard of a true dwarven king reflect the state of his kingdom. Tiny kingdom, tiny beard.

Makes sense!

 

[gravenewworld]

Beh, I won't be seeing this one in theaters. I know I'm in the minority on this one, but IMO, I thought the LOTR trilogy was some of the most overrated set of films of all time. The overacting and melodrama was laughable at times, and the "humor"/dialogue quite corny in certain instances. I don't want more of the same. Next time you watch LOTR, no tice how many overhead flying shots Peter Jackson uses. 70% of the movie has to be overhead flying shots, the cinematography is so repetitive.

 

[arildno]

Beh, I won't be seeing this one in theaters.

One more ticket for me!

 

[r4z0r84]

I thought the LOTR trilogy was some of the most overrated set of films of all time. The overacting and melodrama was laughable at times, and the "humor"/dialogue quite corny in certain instances. Next time you watch LOTR, no tice how many overhead flying shots Peter Jackson uses. 70% of the movie has to be overhead flying shots, the cinematography is so repetitive.

Are you sure your not thinking of Twilight trilogy?

/sarcasm

 

[Borg]

Ooh. Another trilogy in the making?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6uEGtGg3Jk

 

[Tommy1995]

CAN'T WAIT !
This film is gonnnaaa bee awesome! Elves, hobbits, dwarves, a wizard, a dirty rat livin in a cave, dragon slaying, betrayal, seperation, orcs and a ring that can turn you invisible! what more could you want out of a film?

 

[arildno]

CAN'T WAIT !
This film is gonnnaaa bee awesome! Elves, hobbits, dwarves, a wizard, a dirty rat livin in a cave, dragon slaying, betrayal, seperation, orcs and a ring that can turn you invisible! what more could you want out of a film?

Hmm..realism? Genital intermixtures, perhaps?
No, I guess you are right, I look forward to this film as well.

 

[Borek]

From the trailers I have seen so far I don't like the way dwarves look like. Plus, Thorin is way too young. Then, it is a thin book made into three parts, so I expect it to be watered down. I plan to watch it, but I am afraid it will be disappointing.

 

[Borg]

Here's a handy dwarf guide to take to the theater.

 

[turbo]

It's hard to get too worked up about this latest film-series. I read the Hobbit in college, then bought the LOTR 3-book boxed set and devoured that in less than a weekend. My roommate was not really impressed, because I asked him to turn the stereo down (or OFF), so I could read in peace. Eventually, he borrowed my books and got hooked, too.

 

[stargazer3]

Ladies and gentleman, I've FOUND it!

I used to have this Soviet Hobbit book (don't buy the webpage claim that it's LotR, they are morons) with delightful illustrations. To be precise, it was a Ukrainian version of it. Please check it out, it is very cute indeed. Also, the translation for Gollum was Hum-Hum (equivalent to "Nom-Nom" in English).

I guess now you'll excuse me my frustration about the overall tone of the film adaptation.

Borek, did you have this one in Poland?

 

[Borek]

Borek, did you have this one in Poland?

No, Polish editions that I remember were using standard original pictures for maps and were not illustrated.

There was one edition that was advertised as a "collectible", but it stank of abused Corel Draw on every page.

Edit: sorry, that "collectible" version was LOTR, not Hobbit. Still, everything else holds.

 

[arildno]

I saw it today, in 2D, 24 fps.
It was..amazingly beautiful and satisfying.

 

[strangerep]

Thorin is way too young.

Nah, he's only 195 at the time of The Hobbit.
That's only middle-aged for a dwarf... :-)

[Oh, I'm so embarrassed that I actually know that...]

 

[Jack21222]

I watched the movie tonight, and it was a good, fun movie. The scenes with Radagast were hilarious.

Gandalf: Those are Gundobad Wargs. They’ll catch and eat you.
Radagast: These are Rhosgobel rabbits! I'd like to see them try.

 

[nitsuj]

The Hobbit is the only book i have ever read, for a school english exam. I hope i don't get frustrated by the book during the movie from suttle differences.

please post back when you have seen the movie.

I would like to know how you feel about the comparison between literature & motion picture.

 

[rodsika]

Has anyone seen the 3d 48fps version? If I'd watch it, it will be solely to experience what's it's like to see 48fps in movies, it's supposed to be the first movie that offers the experience

 

[Borg]

Saw the Hobbit yesterday and enjoyed it very much. My wife isn't really into it but went with me anyway. When the movie ended, she was confused and said "that's it?". I replied that this is the first of three parts. Her reply? NOOOOOO!

 

[arildno]

Saw the Hobbit yesterday and enjoyed it very much. My wife isn't really into it but went with me anyway. When the movie ended, she was confused and said "that's it?". I replied that this is the first of three parts. Her reply? NOOOOOO!

dumb woman.
My mom is much smarter than your wife.
Moms tend to be smarter, in general.

 

[Jack21222]

Saw the Hobbit yesterday and enjoyed it very much. My wife isn't really into it but went with me anyway. When the movie ended, she was confused and said "that's it?". I replied that this is the first of three parts. Her reply? NOOOOOO!

My girlfriend had a very similar reaction.

 

[dipole]

I saw it two days ago, and I was horribly dissapointed...

I can't believe intelligent members of the PF community are praising the movie. Perhaps they've never read the book or don't care for integrity.

Peter Jackson basically has completely corrupted Tolkien's work and made it into his own story. I'm so disgusted with it I doubt I'll watch either of the next two.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I can't believe intelligent members of the PF community are praising the movie. Perhaps they've never read the book or don't care for integrity.

Since when did intelligence and personal taste go hand in hand?

I saw it last night and was ambivalent about it. Two main things hindered my enjoyment: the more childlike style (though admittedly The Hobbit was a children's book) and gratuitous CGI. With regards to the latter it was mainly things like the animals in the forest (why CGI a dead rabbit?) and the orcs which had far more of an impact in the other films when they were actors with cosmetics. The CGI orcs seemed too cartoony and didn't conjure up any real sense of fear or gravitas for me. That and the CGI seemed sub-standard, perhaps because it was so heavily used.

 

[Janus]

I saw it two days ago, and I was horribly dissapointed...

I can't believe intelligent members of the PF community are praising the movie. Perhaps they've never read the book or don't care for integrity.

Peter Jackson basically has completely corrupted Tolkien's work and made it into his own story. I'm so disgusted with it I doubt I'll watch either of the next two.

If you are talking about much of the extra material in the move, that, in fact, uses Tolkien's work as its source material. For instance, the story of the battle at Moria's gate and how Thorin earned the name "Oakenshield" is part of Tolkien's history of Middle Earth.

The meeting where Gandolf, expresses his concerns over the Necromancer, while not mentioned in "The Hobbit", did take place at during that time of the story according to Tolkien. In fact, this is the reason that he gives for Gandolf being absent for a good part of the book; He, and rest of the White Council have gone off to deal with that threat.

So essentially, What Jackson is doing is integrating in events that happened during the time of "Hobbit" in order to tell the larger story. Setting the dwarves and Bilbo off to deal with Smaug was in fact just one part of a plan being executed by Gandolf.

I'm not saying that Jackson hasn't taken some liberties (for instance Azog, the white Goblin was killed at the Battle of Azanulbizar, and it Gandolf and not Radagast that goes to Dul Gulder.), But I think I can understand why some of these changes were made for the film. (He did the same thing with the "Lord of the Rings"; Sometimes having one character do something that was done by another in the books.)

 

[turbo]

If you are talking about much of the extra material in the move, that, in fact, uses Tolkien's work as its source material. For instance, the story of the battle at Moria's gate and how Thorin earned the name "Oakenshield" is part of Tolkien's history of Middle Earth.

The meeting where Gandolf, expresses his concerns over the Necromancer, while not mentioned in "The Hobbit", did take place at during that time of the story according to Tolkien. In fact, this is the reason that he gives for Gandolf being absent for a good part of the book; He, and rest of the White Council have gone off to deal with that threat.

So essentially, What Jackson is doing is integrating in events that happened during the time of "Hobbit" in order to tell the larger story. Setting the dwarves and Bilbo off to deal with Smaug was in fact just one part of a plan being executed by Gandolf.

I'm not saying that Jackson hasn't taken some liberties (for instance Azog, the white Goblin was killed at the Battle of Azanulbizar, and it Gandolf and not Radagast that goes to Dul Gulder.), But I think I can understand why some of these changes were made for the film. (He did the same thing with the "Lord of the Rings"; Sometimes having one character do something that was done by another in the books.)

A well-reasoned critique. I have to hand it to film-makers that can bring complex print to screen. (Dune comes to mind.)

 

[arildno]

Just a nerdy note:
Gandalf's trip to Dol Guldur was long before he met Thorin.
On that trip, Gandalf ascertained that it was, indeed, Sauron who was lurking about in the fortress, and found a mad dwarf who had forgotten his name, but impressed upon Gandalf to give his son a key and a map. That dwarf was Thrain, Thorin's father (Sauron had taken the great dwarven ring Thror had given Thrain just before the battle at the Gates of Moria).
So, at the time of The Hobbit, the White Council was aware of Sauron's whereabouts, but due to (already corrupted) Saruman's stallings, no effective action was taken. Once Saruman found hopes to find the One Ring in the Anduin, however, Sauron had to be driven away, so that Saruman's minions, rather than Sauron's, would be the ones to find it. Thus, he consented at last, to Gandalf's insistence that an attack should be launched on Dol Guldur.
------------------------------------------------
I think Jackson has made an intelligent re-working of this part of the tale, although it most definitely changes the relative merits and roles of the different wizards involved.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I saw it today. Granted I haven't read the book in about ten years, I found the movie well done and entertaining. I think once all three are out, it will be high acclaimed. It's really hard to make three movies from one book. I can see why some didn't like it due to the setting up and the content split. But I am patient.

 

[Jack21222]

It's really hard to make three movies from one book.

That's why they're adding in a lot of stuff from things like Unfinished Tales and the Silmarillion. Even then, there is quite a bit of padding. An Ars Technica article puts it thus:

I ultimately suspect that, even with all of the added and expanded elements, Jackson had the material for perhaps two to two-and-a-half films and decided it would be easier to expand the series to three movies instead of murdering some of his darlings and cutting back. The decision was also probably driven by the studio, which stands to make roughly ten hojillion dollars from each Hobbit film released whether there's one movie or eight movies. It's safe to say that they exerted no pressure on Jackson to be more judicious in his editing

http://arstechnica.com/staff/2012/12/a-tolkien-nerds-thoughts-on-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

As others have said, the movie contains stories that are not found in the book, but rather in other books. In addition, even when the story is from the book, it is altered in various ways. However, there is one deviation in particular that I think unwise. The book is about Bilbo. The name of the book isn't "A Hobbit", it's "The Hobbit", and Bilbo is the hobbit. Gandalf tells the dwarfs (and the reader) that there is more to Bilbo than meets the eye. As the book progresses, the dwarfs come to respect him more and more. That respect is fickle though and grows in fits and starts throughout the book. How is that going to happen now that Bilbo has saved Thorin's life, a scene that is not in the book?

 

[Feodalherren]

Absolutely terrible. I didn't enjoy it at all. Way too long.

 

[strangerep]

Absolutely terrible. I didn't enjoy it at all. Way too long.

ISTM, the world is divided into people who comprehend and appreciate the towering magnitude of J.R.R Tolkien's achievements, and those who can't/don't. The former will deeply appreciate a long movie. As for the others... well, I don't care about the others... :-)

 

[Curious3141]

As the book progresses, the dwarfs come to respect him more and more. That respect is fickle though and grows in fits and starts throughout the book. How is that going to happen now that Bilbo has saved Thorin's life, a scene that is not in the book?

IIRC, the dwarves *really* started to respect Bilbo after he saved them from the spiders in Mirkwood. So, it's a little premature for Thorin to have declared his undying respect for Bilbo before they'd even set out into the forest.

And even then, they remained a bunch of ungrateful gits - for example, when Bilbo came up with his plan to get them out of imprisonment by the Wood Elf King by enclosing them in casks, they groused to no end.

And finally, Thorin and Bilbo became the worst of enemies (at least from Thorin's perspective) when Bilbo gave the Arkenstone to Bard & Co. Of course, Thorin just about forgave Bilbo before his last breath.

 

[Adyssa]

I saw it two days ago, and I was horribly dissapointed...

I can't believe intelligent members of the PF community are praising the movie. Perhaps they've never read the book or don't care for integrity.

Peter Jackson basically has completely corrupted Tolkien's work and made it into his own story. I'm so disgusted with it I doubt I'll watch either of the next two.

Here's a tissue buddy. :)