The Hobbit Thread.

[Spike Spiegel]

I assume they will call the second one: "Bilbo: Hobbit Part 2", and the third will simply be titled "Bilbo 3."

 

[2D_mastur]

The Hobbit 2 : The Search for More Money

 

[evil wasabi]

..it was the fastest 3 hours of my life.

Sleeping is the fastest time of my life.

 

[Taiso]

So what are they going to call the next film?

Hobbit 2
Son of Hobbit?

Second one is called The Desolation of Smaug and the third one is, I believe, There and Back Again.

Saw it in 24 FPS this morning and greatly enjoyed it. I am a fan of decompressed stories that take a long time to tell. I'm into culture building and world building in fiction, and this movie had that in spades. I've heard it said that this trilogy's length is a result of Jackson's hubris and studio demands for more money. Those things may be true, but if they result in two more movies as entertaining as this one was, then there's nothing wrong with it.

I disagree with the criticism that the movie going into 'Jar Jar' territory, like some reviews have said. I like the fact that dwarves are sort of silly at times. I like the fact that Radagast rides around on a sled pulled by rabbits. I like the fact that trolls argue with each other like they're in a Monty Python skit. I like how light the goblins seem compared to the orcs. The orcs were all blood and guts and savagery, and if the goblins were just smaller, paler versions of the orcs, they'd seem redundant.

LOTR was really heavy, and The Hobbit needs to be about something else. There are plenty of good character arcs and emotional payoffs, and Thorin is given so much more context and detail than he received in the original story because of how they padded the parts of his past that drive him. The end is especially poignant and is a great feelgood moment.

Speaking of LOTR, I felt that the movie had the appropriate amount of cameos, appearances and nods to the previous trilogy. This movie is a 'bridge' and people need to be 'weaned' off of the prior films. Those connections need to still be there, but I expect we'll see less and less of them as time goes on. Unless there are some serious plot contrivances, we won't see Gollum again, for example. But we are likely to see Legolas in the second film as that's probably where the Murkwood stuff happens.

I also am not down with the 'too many endings' criticism. That is something others are welcome to feel, but I love it when a movie I've just enjoyed refuses to end. It's like leaving a party you really had a good time at and you keep going back in to say goodbye to one more person. It's a good feeling.

The acting is spot on. Sir Ian McKellan can do so much without ever saying a word. It's an amazing trait for an actor to possess. Martin Freeman does an admirable job with Bilbo, and finds the right note of uncertainty without becoming an annoying weakling. You feel Bilbo is afraid, but he's seizing the moment in spite of his hesitations. That's important, as it makes Bilbo likeable.

Richard Armitage is excellent as Thorin, and he brings a certain gravity to the role. In the movie, you learn why dwarves and elves dislike each other (to some extent) and Armitage does a good job making you believe that Thorin just doesn't want anything to do with them-it is not just a demand of the script that Thorin be standoffish towards them. You also get a good feeling for his dislike of orcs based on the historical reveal at the gates of Moria. Thorin is a complex character who understands he has a destiny, the gravity of that and the flaws he has as a leader of dwarves. He must be king, but he is struggling with needs versus wants. He brings out the internal conflict well.

The soundtrack is a good mix of old and new. When you see Bilbo, you hear the Baggins theme. When you see the ring, you hear the familiar chords. And the dwarves come with their own all new theme music that really hits the right notes and feels 'dwarven.'

I have a couple of criticisms of the film, however.

I really wish they'd spend a little more time contextualizing the eagles' continual involvement, however. Like many have said...if the eagles are willing to help Gandalf out of a pinch, why not go the extra distance and just take the dwarves to the Lonely Mountain? It seems to me like at some point, the rules that dictate their involvement need to be squared up and made plain so that these plot holes can be shored up. Whatever reasons Tolkein gave, and whatever reason Jackson gives, until it's actually GIVEN, it's just a machina to bail the characters out. Children's book or no, audiences ask these questions, and the glaring ones simply need to be answered. You can't just myopically expect the audience to go with anything you want to do. If that's the case, why not have Hell's Angels ride in on motorcycles and shoot the orcs to death. Gandalf could whisper to a biker slut and she could run to the bar and get them. Hey, it's a children's book so anything goes, right? Right?

I also think WETA needs to spend a little more time making some of their creatures look more organic. The wargs in LOTR never really looked right or meshed with their world. It's the same here. They've improved considerably with Gollum and especially the white skinned orc, and the eagles look fine, but when it comes to feral, 'dire' versions of animals that already exist, they still look cartoonishly out of place in spots.

Overall, I give the movie 4 out of 5.

NOTE: One thing I found curious was that I didn't see the scene when Bilbo comes across Elendil in Rivendell. I saw the scene in the trailers but it was nowhere to be found in the cut of the film I witnessed. A strange scene to cut, since the commercial promised it. I wonder if they decided that there were already enough nods and bridges from the LOTR trilogy.

 

[aria]

Taiso is a fan of the book, you can tell in his review. Those who haven't read it need to deduct 1 to 2 points from that review for what it's like.

Just getting out of Bilbo's house is like pulling teeth.

EDIT:
There are 13 dwarves: Thorin Oakenshield, the old one, the guy with the cool goatee/hat combo, brothers who don't look like the other dwarves (one of the two looks human) and filler-dwarves of no characterization or note other than they were in the book so they're in the movie. Maybe they'll develop the character of those anonymous 8 dwarves in the subsequent 6 hours of mercenary filmmaking.

 

[Xian Xi]

Is this movie just going to be one movie or is it going to be another trilogy? If it is another trilogy, I'll wait for the Clerks 3 breakdown of the movies.

 

[Lagduf]

Is this movie just going to be one movie or is it going to be another trilogy? If it is another trilogy, I'll wait for the Clerks 3 breakdown of the movies.

Did you read the thread at all?

The Hobbit has been made in to a trilogy.

 

[SouthtownKid]

Is this movie just going to be one movie or is it going to be another trilogy?

Good morning, Rip Van Winkle.

 

[Taiso]

Taiso is a fan of the book, you can tell in his review. Those who haven't read it need to deduct 1 to 2 points from that review for what it's like.

Nice assumption, but you would be wrong.

My friends were all Tolkein fans in high school but I didn't like it because I thought his work was too verbose. I preferred pulp adventure, stuff like Howard, Leiber and Lovecraft. Moorcock was another favorite.

I only read The Hobbit once and I never even finished Lord of the Rings.

So what now? You call me a liar?

 

[NeoSneth]

Liar! lol

but look who is calling something verbose...

 

[Taiso]

Liar! lol

but look who is calling something verbose...

Guilty as charged, I suppose

Funny thing is, I don't mind wordy novels. I love Martinm for example, and there are some people that think his books are boring, too.

I don't think it was Tolkein's long winded writing. I like long winded writing. I think it's the fact that I just didn't get into the structure of Tolkein's writing. Specifically, how he wrote. I preferred faster reads in high school, like Elric or Conan, over Tolkein who did a fair bit of world building, but not in a style I enjoyed. Maybe it was because I could blast through a whole Conan or Elric story in study hall, whereas with Tolkein, I could never really build momentum for the story between classes, which was when I did most of my reading back then.

 

[Xian Xi]

Good morning, Rip Van Winkle.

Morning, Sir.

 

[SNKorSWM]

Which one came first? bilbo or dildo?

That was my first reaction when I was reading the book.

 

[aria]

Nice assumption, but you would be wrong.

My friends were all Tolkein fans in high school but I didn't like it because I thought his work was too verbose. I preferred pulp adventure, stuff like Howard, Leiber and Lovecraft. Moorcock was another favorite.

I only read The Hobbit once and I never even finished Lord of the Rings.

So what now? You call me a liar?

No comment

Then I really don't know how you were able to suffer through Bilbo's house unscathed.

At least Fellowship of the Ring had better pacing and more interesting characters. This had an unlikable Bilbo (who I'm sure changes over time), Gandalf trying to preserve his dignity, Thorin, the old dwarf and various annoying miscellanea.

I assume they will call the second one: "Bilbo: Hobbit Part 2", and the third will simply be titled "Bilbo 3."

B3: The Mighty Dwarves

 

[Lagduf]

B3: The Mighty Dwarves

 

[norton9478]

Which one came first? bilbo or dildo?

That was my first reaction when I was reading the book.

You would have to check the Appendices.

 

[RBjakeSpecial]

I just read the first third of The Hobbit again. It actually took less time than watching the movie!

The movie followed the book a lot closer than I thought it did. I am definitely going to watch The Hobbit in the theater again.

 

[Taiso]

Then I really don't know how you were able to suffer through Bilbo's house unscathed.

It's probably because I liked the dwarves and their antics.

LOTR doesn't really do any kind of job showing you what the dwarves were really like. Gimli is the only dwarf in the whole thing that does anything important or meaningful. Otherwise, they're all just stoic resolve and grumpiness.

Whereas in The Hobbit, they're basically gypsies. They have no country of their own, no land, no home. They get by in life doing whatever odd jobs help them to pay the bills. And yet, they still have an irrepressable zeal that I found entertaining.

I enjoyed seeing a race in Middle Earth that wasn't boring (hobbits, elves) or depressing (humans) or evil (orcs, 'easterlings') and getting a chance to really see, at length, what dwarves are like in this world.

So much of that first hour is all about establishing the dwarves, and I really liked the 'new' element that Jackson added into the mythology.

Whatever Jackson was doing with the dwarves in that first part you found so boring, I found very engaging from the world building perspective.

 

[aria]

It's probably because I liked the dwarves and their antics.

LOTR doesn't really do any kind of job showing you what the dwarves were really like. Gimli is the only dwarf in the whole thing that does anything important or meaningful. Otherwise, they're all just stoic resolve and grumpiness.

Whereas in The Hobbit, they're basically gypsies. They have no country of their own, no land, no home. They get by in life doing whatever odd jobs help them to pay the bills. And yet, they still have an irrepressable zeal that I found entertaining.

I enjoyed seeing a race in Middle Earth that wasn't boring (hobbits, elves) or depressing (humans) or evil (orcs, 'easterlings') and getting a chance to really see, at length, what dwarves are like in this world.

So much of that first hour is all about establishing the dwarves, and I really liked the 'new' element that Jackson added into the mythology.

Whatever Jackson was doing with the dwarves in that first part you found so boring, I found very engaging from the world building perspective.

That's the thing, other than the (interesting) backstory they told in flashbacks, the dwarves other than Thorin and the white haired old dwarf (if he were one of Snow White's Seven Dwarves, he would've been named "Expository") the rest did nothing to illustrate their culture and personality other than "wacky antics!" I'm not saying they needed to be boring or brooding (though Thorin understandably is the latter), but I felt like I didn't learn much about any of their personalities other than "oh look, a fat one!"

I mean: Only because I'd read some stuff several months ago after seeing a poster did I know that one of the dwarves has an axe blade stuck in his skull so he can only speak in some special language (orcish?). Apparently that may have not even been in the book, but instead of developing that backstory in any meaningful way we got all of a 3-second bit where he starts blathering and the other dwarves at the tables dismiss it and move on with wacky plate throwing and burping contests. Instead of showing off the 3D ad nauseam in those sequences they could've done a little more exposition and then it would've have been so uneven (and a bit jarring) when they'd suddenly go into the more serious musical numbers.

 

[Taiso]

That's the thing, other than the (interesting) backstory they told in flashbacks, the dwarves other than Thorin and the white haired old dwarf (if he were one of Snow White's Seven Dwarves, he would've been named "Expository") the rest did nothing to illustrate their culture and personality other than "wacky antics!" I'm not saying they needed to be boring or brooding (though Thorin understandably is the latter), but I felt like I didn't learn much about any of their personalities other than "oh look, a fat one!"

I mean: Only because I'd read some stuff several months ago after seeing a poster did I know that one of the dwarves has an axe blade stuck in his skull so he can only speak in some special language (orcish?). Apparently that may have not even been in the book, but instead of developing that backstory in any meaningful way we got all of a 3-second bit where he starts blathering and the other dwarves at the tables dismiss it and move on with wacky plate throwing and burping contests. Instead of showing off the 3D ad nauseam in those sequences they could've done a little more exposition and then it would've have been so uneven (and a bit jarring) when they'd suddenly go into the more serious musical numbers.

Other than Bilbo and Thorin, this isn't a character driven story. This is an adventure story and those other characters are there to be a bunch of somewhat capable bumblers who are the only dwarves willing to go with Thorin. Their brand of 'comedy' may not have worked for you, but that doesn't make it bad filmmaking.

I am not saying the movie is 'perfect' but overall I think it's an engaging and well handled experience, which is why I gave it such a high mark. In the movie thread, you gave it 3.5/5 and I gave it 4/5, so we're really not that far apart on this overall. But your issues with the film revolve around narrative and pacing. Taking the movie for what it is, I found it to have different, and lesser, problems.

I will agree that it's indulgent filmmaking to a certain degree, which is the main reason I didn't give it a perfect score. I really didn't think it needed all the overt nods to LOTR. I also don't think they should be trying to 'presage' LOTR so that these movies make a natural six film trilogy. There are too many hints of 'dark times to come' in the movie. I sometimes wondered if Jackson wasn't thumbing his nose at Lucas, saying 'I'll show you how to make a proper prequel trilogy, Georgie-boy!' It sometimes seems it's not enough for Jackson to have the crowning achievement of what has to basically be considered the most well made film trilogy of all time on his resume.

And I completely agree with your thoughts about King Kong being bloated. I remember enjoying it at the time, but a few weeks later, I asked 'did Kong NEED to be 3 hours long?'

This is, largely, the same complaint that could fairly be leveled against The Hobbit. I think the difference is that I never felt bored and never really felt the movie dragged. Given the fact that I enjoyed it as much as I did, I cannot give it a lower mark. Likewise, I do not consider it to be flawed filmmaking, nor do I consider it a 'guilty pleasure.' Overall, it's a well made film, IMO.

 

[aria]

Other than Bilbo and Thorin, this isn't a character driven story. This is an adventure story and those other characters are there to be a bunch of somewhat capable bumblers who are the only dwarves willing to go with Thorin. Their brand of 'comedy' may not have worked for you, but that doesn't make it bad filmmaking.

I am not saying the movie is 'perfect' but overall I think it's an engaging and well handled experience, which is why I gave it such a high mark. In the movie thread, you gave it 3.5/5 and I gave it 4/5, so we're really not that far apart on this overall. But your issues with the film revolve around narrative and pacing. Taking the movie for what it is, I found it to have different, and lesser, problems.

I will agree that it's indulgent filmmaking to a certain degree, which is the main reason I didn't give it a perfect score. I really didn't think it needed all the overt nods to LOTR. I also don't think they should be trying to 'presage' LOTR so that these movies make a natural six film trilogy. There are too many hints of 'dark times to come' in the movie. I sometimes wondered if Jackson wasn't thumbing his nose at Lucas, saying 'I'll show you how to make a proper prequel trilogy, Georgie-boy!' It sometimes seems it's not enough for Jackson to have the crowning achievement of what has to basically be considered the most well made film trilogy of all time on his resume.

And I completely agree with your thoughts about King Kong being bloated. I remember enjoying it at the time, but a few weeks later, I asked 'did Kong NEED to be 3 hours long?'

This is, largely, the same complaint that could fairly be leveled against The Hobbit. I think the difference is that I never felt bored and never really felt the movie dragged. Given the fact that I enjoyed it as much as I did, I cannot give it a lower mark. Likewise, I do not consider it to be flawed filmmaking, nor do I consider it a 'guilty pleasure.' Overall, it's a well made film, IMO.

A movie can be a made competently and still be a disappointment, that's what differs between 1/2-point: you think this movie was a success, I think it was a disappointment given its pedigree.

 

[RevQuixo]

Okay..maybe someone can clear this one up for me...

When the fat dwarf is running from the goblins in the chase scene is gets himself covered with goblins and then does a move where he jumps up and crashes through 2 or 3 bridges to knock them loose...thus ending a quite a few levels below the grouping of other dwarves.

Then he ends up back with the group before the final encounter with the Goblin King.

I don't see how he could have caught back up truthfully.

 

[Taiso]

A movie can be a made competently and still be a disappointment, that's what differs between 1/2-point: you think this movie was a success, I think it was a disappointment given its pedigree.

A perfect explanation of our difference of opinion on the film.

Okay..maybe someone can clear this one up for me...

When the fat dwarf is running from the goblins in the chase scene is gets himself covered with goblins and then does a move where he jumps up and crashes through 2 or 3 bridges to knock them loose...thus ending a quite a few levels below the grouping of other dwarves.

Then he ends up back with the group before the final encounter with the Goblin King.

I don't see how he could have caught back up truthfully.

Jeez, man. They had to leave SOMETHING to add back in to the special edition!

 

[Hikaru Ichijyo]

I saw it Saturday with my roommate and his kids. Apart from the kids needing bathroom breaks every 45 minutes, I had a decent time. I have never read the novel and I remember next to nothing from the animated movie that came out in the 70's.

We ended catching the HFR 3D version. While I enjoyed the movie over all, I actually regret seeing the HFR version because the crispness actually took me out of the movie. I couldn't help but notice how incredibly fake Bilbo's feet looked, the Dwarves looked like a bunch of guys in costume and make up and the CGI in parts stood out like a sore thumb (the wargs in particular).

Overall though I enjoyed it and I'm sure I'll be picking it up when it comes out on Blu-Ray but I imagine I'll be waiting until all three installments have been released before I do so.

 

[bradtemple87]

I just got back from my first viewing in regular format with the lady and we had a fun time. I may see it again in 3D down the road.