[Epic Movie] The Hobbit: Part 1 (coming December 2012)

I never read the book . . so which elements were added?

Rocket River

 

Added:

Spoiler

The historical Dwarf-battles were mentioned but not prominent.

Radagast was barely mentioned in the book.

They hyped up the "white Orc" bit so that Thorin would have a main antagonist throughout the films.

Elrond out hunting Orcs = not in the book.

The White Council might have been mentioned---don't remember---but Galadriel and Saruman never appeared in "The Hobbit".

Certainly no Frodo/Bilbo scenes.

I liked the film a lot, but Jackson, like many directors (George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, the Wachovski siblings, on a lesser-scale Judd Apatow), has gone up his own ass a bit after the initial success.

The scenes with the trolls, the eagles, the Goblins, and Martin Freeman's performance, and the incredible visuals, do overshadow the shortcomings. I just wish that successful artists had someone around them with enough money in the bank not to worry about their current employer's tetchiness by saying, "Peter/Francis/George, you need to reel this in a bit. You don't need to throw everything in the spaghetti sauce."

Oh well. As Oscar Wilde said, "Nothing succeeds like excess." Me, I'm seeing it again, if just for the Goblins, Gollum, and the Eagles.

 

By having Peter Jackson going all out and making it the most bad ass Hobbit movie you've ever seen, you didn't think it was epic in scale? I disagree sir.

 

Sorry I wasn't clear. The underlying storyline from the book isn't epic in nature. It's an episodic journey in which defeating Smaug is actually the point and climax of the whole thing, along with the petty money-grab to follow. It looks like where Jackson is going, the fate of the world will hang in the balance -- and I'm guessing that they'll win a 60 year reprieve from Sauron by the end of it to set up LOTR. I feel like the source material doesn't support what h'se looking to do.

 

Hate that the Hobbit will be stretched out 3 movies, but if the other two are as well done and epic as the first movie, I'll really have no complaints.

LOTR is actually worthy (and has enough material) to be stretched to 6 or even 9 movies.

 

Thank you! Glad I'm not the only one who saw it that way. I never read the books but I know enough to understand that it's supposed to be a children's story. So why not make it such? Sure it had comedic elements here and there, but I just don't understand why Jackson tried to make this adventure as epic and important as LOTR.

And then almost everything he did in the movie was an exact copy of things he did in the previous trilogy. The first time we see the ring in the Hobbit it drops to the ground with a thunderous boom. Why do we need that? Bilbo doesn't know what it is, it's just a ring to him. The sweeping panoramic shots, that while beautiful, give me a sense of been there done that. The score played for Galadriel and Rivendell and a few other places...exactly the same. And a lot of these places were depicted in such grandiose fashion, in almost the exact same way they were in LOTR, that I had a feeling of, "BIG F***ing DEAL." I get that to the Dwarves and Bilbo, seeing Rivendell for the first time is a big deal. Just wish he would have found some other way to shoot it to keep that feel intact while not seeming the same to the audience. Then the subplots and tangents that felt out of place...

...the trailers to me felt a little inconsistent, like they almost had trouble marketing the film (children's adventure or epic fantasy?) or just couldn't blend the two elements together well. So I never did quite become gung-ho for it, and that's exactly what happened when I watched it. Would give it a second chance but it is nowhere near the level as LOTR.

 

I like the book the Hobbit most of all the Tolkien books. I'm not sure whether or not I like this movie the most or not. If not, it's close... definitely close.

The carefree innocent adventure mood is a little toned down. I think it's still present in the movie, but not as prevalent as in the book. It's the biggest weakness in the movie in my opinion, but even that is pretty miniscule and the great visuals, story, and acting more than make up for it.

I saw the the 3D HFR version with Dolby Atmos sound that was incredible. I had no problem with the pace of the movie. It might be my favorite of all Jackson's Tolkien films. I know that puts me in the minority, and it might be because it's my favorite of the books. Once I've seen it a few more times, I'll have better perspective.

 

I really, really dislike Thorin. The guy was a juiced up sports jockey and was a douche to everyone. Was that ever in the book?

 

He could be quite difficult at times during the course of the novel, having a great deal of pride and touchy about it, but I didn't have the reaction you did to him while watching the film. Perhaps it was because I had finished rereading The Hobbit (for at least the 7th time) about 3 days before I saw it on the 14th. I thought Thorin's role was well cast.

 

He just looked like a brute to me. He was obsessed about the white orc and was antagonistic to Bilbo. I didn't read the book, only watched the 1977 movie. Idk how much that omitted but I liked Thorin there.

 

Guys who are arguing about this... it's a children's book... just sayin... OK, proceed.

 

A few things about the film:

1. I'm a huge Tolkien book fan. I really, really, really hate when fans of the book complain about movies. I really don't think books should translate exactly onto the screen. Jackson changed a TON about the LOTR books for the movies and they ended up fantastic movies. The Hobbit stayed TOO faithful to the book. The first hour of the movie was miserably boring (minus some humorous moments).
2. I really liked the sub-plots they went with (by the way, to whoever was saying the sub-plot with Radagast/White council etc. wasn't in the book, you need to go back and look again). The sub-plots were mentioned in the Hobbit and expanded on in the appendix in the LOTR. Glad Jackson is actually using this material.
3. The trilogy money-grab is really lame. This movie could easily been a singular movie, and at best two movies. 9 hours of the Hobbit is going to be really pushing it.
4. That being said, after you make it past the super long first hour in the Shire, I thought the movie was excellent (the Gollum riddle scene is really well done. Martin Freeman is also awesome.

 

So true. I think two movies is all that should have been done and would have made the movies better...hate obvious money grab stuff...and the riddle scene was my fave. part - def. well done. . .the way I imagined in the book from years ago hit it very well.

 

Pretty good movie. I'm going to have to watch it again though when it comes out on blu-ray. Usually movies that are close to 3 hours don't actually feel that long, but this one definitely did.

 

<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOLx1sC.x?p=1" width="720" height="433" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://blip.tv/api.swf#AYOLx1sC" style="display:none"></embed>

 

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hs4Ma7J0cyg?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hs4Ma7J0cyg?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

Upon second viewing, I gotta say I really loved this movie. I thought the 48fps does wonders for fantasy, even though I wished it was more 'gritty'. Performances were great too.

Radagast (who I didn't particularly like the first time) really grew on me. I like him, and can't wait to see what else his character gets up to.

Also, I love how this was more fantasy-based (creatures, locations, etc..) than LOTR. Goblin City was great (although Jackson wayyyyyy overuses panning/following shots).

Really looking forward to parts 2 and 3.

 

Going to see it today. Anyone got any advice on which quality to see? 48fps or 24fps?

 

I saw it twice, once in 48fps 3D and once in standard 2D, and I preferred the 2D version. I'm not a big fan of 3D in general, but wanted to see what the HFR did for the film. IMO, not much.