Movie The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[TheGhostOfJohnBelushi]

Am also curious to the young bilbo explanation. He should've still looked as he did in LOTR. Could be something as simple as the original bilbo not being upto filming a trilogy etc or something more superficial

Also remember LOTR had a scene of bilbo originally finding the ring? The scene played out different in the hobbit (not that it bothers me, just thought it was note worthy)

Ian Holm is in his 80s. No way to get him to play such a role now. Remember that LOTR was 10+ years ago now (filming wise).

 

[Sterge]

Am also curious to the young bilbo explanation. He should've still looked as he did in LOTR. Could be something as simple as the original bilbo not being upto filming a trilogy etc or something more)

I don't agree with that the ring slows down aging not stops it, gollum was a normal man when he found the ring now he's gollum

 

[yakka man]

I know I'm very much minority but I like FOTR the most out of the LOTR trilogy.

100% agree. Fellowship is by far the best of the LOTR trilogy.

 

[Connoisseur]

IMHO The Hobbit was superior to any of LOTR films which were just filled with wave after wave of repetitive predictable dull battle scenes, never sensing for a second that any of the heroes/protagonists were ever any danger.

I find it ironic that critics label The Hobbit as bloated when that description fits more aptly to all LOTR movies. I saw all the LOTR at the cinemas and have no intention of seeing any of them again whereas I'm already planning to see The Hobbit in the next few days for a second serving.

 

[Igloo]

I saw all the LOTR at the cinemas and have no intention of seeing any of them again whereas I'm already planning to see The Hobbit in the next few days for a second serving.

While I have watched all the LOTR films a ridiculous amount of times since they came out, and still love them, I never saw them at the cinema more than once. But I saw The Hobbit today, and I feel like i'm dying to watch it again already. I thought it was incredibly enthralling. It didn't steer too far in terms of accuracy with the book. I loved it.

The dwarves were the best thing for me. I thought they were fantastic. Maybe not individually brilliant acting (some definitely were), but as a group, they all nailed it, imo.

 

[Bond.ShaneBond]

IMHO The Hobbit was superior to any of LOTR films which were just filled with wave after wave of repetitive predictable dull battle scenes, never sensing for a second that any of the heroes/protagonists were ever any danger.

Trolling? How can you say that when in FOTR Boromir gets killed and Gandalf gets owned? I must have missed something like that happening during The Hobbit.

 

[ManWithNoName]

IMHO The Hobbit was superior to any of LOTR films which were just filled with wave after wave of repetitive predictable dull battle scenes, never sensing for a second that any of the heroes/protagonists were ever any danger.

I find it ironic that critics label The Hobbit as bloated when that description fits more aptly to all LOTR movies. I saw all the LOTR at the cinemas and have no intention of seeing any of them again whereas I'm already planning to see The Hobbit in the next few days for a second serving.

Troll battle->Fighting/running from the wargs->Talking at Rivendell->Stone giant battle->Riddles in the Dark->Goblin fight->Warg/Orc fight.

The last 80 minutes of The Hobbit.

 

[HolyRioli]

Only had two beefs with the film (which were slightly related), in what I thought was otherwise excellent

1 - Azog the Goblin. Unnecessary IMO. Wasn't in the book (was killed by Thorin's cousin, Dain) and the film didn't need a "secondary villian" (Smaug obviously the main villain). Also, he looked ridiculous. From all my LoTR reading (which is extensive) he was always described as wearing armour, yet here he's butt-naked

2 - The movie jumped around a little with the stories. It would've been fine had to been confined to the main story, and The White Council vs The Necromancer story, but adding the orcs in as well was just completely unnecessary. Never in any of the Tolkein books has a story been told from an Orc perspective. I just don't see the need to do it here.


One thing my girlfriend noted was that, unlike LoTR, she didn't feel she was given the opportunity to get to know many of the Dwarves well, which I partially agree with. Kili, Fili, Thorin, Balin and Dwalin were given good screen time, and Bombur is always recognisable. But I don't think I'd be able to pick out Bifur, Bofur, Oin, Gloin, Ori, Dori or Nori in a lineup.
That said, from my memory of the book (it's been a while) none of the dwarves had many major parts, so I wasn't as phased by that. I may be wrong there though

 

[blues4flag]

Was decent. Watched it in 2D and I'll probably go see it again in 3D HFR to make my own mind up about it.

Biggest difference between this and the original trilogy though is that it seems to lack heart. In the original you genuniely connected with a ridiculous number of characters. Each of the Fellowship was well developed and I cared about each of them. There were numerous other characters that left me feeling something, whatever that may be. The Hobbit lacks that. Beyond Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin and of course Gollum, you don't really connect with anyone.

Sure, some of the dwarves provide comic relief but they're lacking emotional substance. Take Perrin and Merry from LOTR. The scene where they were captured by the orcs after Boromir died defending them was more moving than any in the Hobbit. Hell, the scene where Theodin buries his son is far more moving than any in the Hobbit. You cared more about him than any dwarf bar Thorin, despite him being a relatively minor character in the scheme of things.

Anyway, that's my major criticism about the movie. Other one is that it drags on a bit but that doesn't really bother me. If anything, I was surpised that it finished as soon as it did, seeing as though it felt like not much happened in the movie.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Only had two beefs with the film (which were slightly related), in what I thought was otherwise excellent

1 - Azog the Goblin. Unnecessary IMO. Wasn't in the book (was killed by Thorin's cousin, Dain) and the film didn't need a "secondary villian" (Smaug obviously the main villain). Also, he looked ridiculous. From all my LoTR reading (which is extensive) he was always described as wearing armour, yet here he's butt-naked.

They needed an antagonist though, and some kind of arc for Thorin. From a filmmaking perspective I can see the logic behind it. Similar to Lurtz in FOTR.

 

[Boro]

I'm a massive LOTR and Hobbit fan, so no surprise that I thought it was great. I didn't have a problem with the length at all, a good mix between light comedy and action, a few of the fight scenes were over the top but it is fantasy after all. After reading some bad reviews I think I went in without huge expectation and that would have helped. I can't wait for the next one already.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

IMHO The Hobbit was superior to any of LOTR films which were just filled with wave after wave of repetitive predictable dull battle scenes, never sensing for a second that any of the heroes/protagonists were ever any danger.

I find it ironic that critics label The Hobbit as bloated when that description fits more aptly to all LOTR movies. I saw all the LOTR at the cinemas and have no intention of seeing any of them again whereas I'm already planning to see The Hobbit in the next few days for a second serving.

I thought the fight scenes were repetitive in Hobbit and all very predictable. Not one Hobbit (EDIT:dwarf) harmed or killed!!??? You've got to be kidding me.

Lots of bloated fillers, e.g opening scenes with dwarves at Bilbo's could have been cut in half. Whole movie could have been done in 2hrs. How the **** does such a small book get stretched to 3 movies?? Movie not as bad as some critics make out but not that great.

 

[Financialpanther]

I thought the fight scenes were repetitive in Hobbit and all very predictable. Not one Hobbit harmed or killed!!??? You've got to be kidding me.

Lots of bloated fillers, e.g opening scenes with dwarves at Bilbo's could have been cut in half. Whole movie could have been done in 2hrs. How the **** does such a small book get stretched to 3 movies?? Movie not as bad as some critics make out but not that great.

There was really only one hobbit - would have been a short trilogy to kill him off early....

 

[Carbine Chaos]

They needed an antagonist though, and some kind of arc for Thorin. From a filmmaking perspective I can see the logic behind it. Similar to Lurtz in FOTR.

Meh, the orcs/goblins have proven themselves to be so inept in the past LotR movies that even a giant CGI one like Azog can't ever really be taken that seriously as a major antagonist.

 

[Seeds]

I actually enjoyed the Hobbit much more than the LOTR movies. It suffers from the same problem that all the LOTR movies suffer from though. That being whenever it looks like the characters are doomed along comes Gandalf out of nowhere to save them at the very last second or eagles appear to fly them to safety. Does anyone know why they didn't use the eagles from the beginning to carry them all the way to the mountain????? The music and scenery however was very beautiful and the dwarfs were more interesting then the characters from the LOTR's. Although the story seems very simple, it also appeals to me much more than a story about a magic ring that needs to be thrown in a volcano. Man that story was stupid. Overall I give it a 7 out of 10 and will go to see the next one at the movies. Something I refused to do after seeing Fellowship.

 

[Igloo]

I actually enjoyed the Hobbit much more than the LOTR movies. It suffers from the same problem that all the LOTR movies suffer from though. That being whenever it looks like the characters are doomed along comes Gandalf out of nowhere to save them at the very last second or eagles appear to fly them to safety. Does anyone know why they didn't use the eagles from the beginning to carry them all the way to the mountain????? The music and scenery however was very beautiful and the dwarfs were more interesting then the characters from the LOTR's. Although the story seems very simple, it also appeals to me much more than a story about a magic ring that needs to be thrown in a volcano. Man that story was stupid. Overall I give it a 7 out of 10 and will go to see the next one at the movies. Something I refused to do after seeing Fellowship.

Because if they used the eagles straight away, then there would be no story .

But, there are several reasons. Firstly, flying into Mordor would have been pretty much impossible. The Nazgul had their fell-beasts (the flying ones), and if they sent Frodo on the back of an eagle, it would have drawn attention to them pretty easily. Nazgul flies past, snatches Frodo off it's back, game over .
Also, the eagles aren't under the service of anyone. They hate Orcs and all the evil things in middle earth. Pretty sure that their reason for being sent to middle earth was to make sure Morgoth (who was a Valar (the gods), Sauron (a Maiar - lesser gods) was associated with him) wasn't doing any super evil shit.
And finally, in the book, IIRC, it's Radagast who initially sends Gwahir (who is the lord of the eagles) to Orthanc to talk to Saruman, but he sees Gandalf on the top of the tower as a prisoner, so he saves him. Since Radagast is loved by all the birds, animals, nature, all that stuff, they don't mind helping him. But Radagast wasn't invited to Rivendell when they made the fellowship and all that, so they didn't really have any contact with the eagles.

It is a commonly asked question though, and understandable if people don't know all the backstory and everything. The explanation with the eagles was pretty much left out of the movies.

 

[bok_party]

Saw this on Thursday and thoroughly enjoyed it. I haven't read any of the LOTR or Hobbit books so I only know it all from the LOTR films. It was much more humorous than I was expecting. I saw it in #D 48FPS and I got to say, I'm not entirely convinced. I found it worked best when it was pretty much CGI. It made it seem much more realistic whereas it had the opposite effect on the real life actors. I felt if you put the Benny Hill theme song to it, it would have amde for an amazing comedy. Gonna take my dad to the 24 FPS to see the difference.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

There was really only one hobbit - would have been a short trilogy to kill him off early....

obviously meant dwarves. 14 dwarves and 95 fight scenes where completely outnumbered, not to mention the stone guys fight. Very lucky little ****ers.

 

[Atavistic]

I felt if you put the Benny Hill theme song to it, it would have amde for an amazing comedy. Gonna take my dad to the 24 FPS to see the difference.

Yes, they could have used the Benny Hill theme song for when the dwarves were doing the dishes.

Edit: And maybe for that scene where they escaped the orcs' mountain home.

 

[pantskyle]

While I have watched all the LOTR films a ridiculous amount of times since they came out, and still love them, I never saw them at the cinema more than once. But I saw The Hobbit today, and I feel like i'm dying to watch it again already. I thought it was incredibly enthralling. It didn't steer too far in terms of accuracy with the book. I loved it.

The dwarves were the best thing for me. I thought they were fantastic. Maybe not individually brilliant acting (some definitely were), but as a group, they all nailed it, imo.

Same with the LOTR trilogy, I often get out the extended editions and watch them, takes a day but it is worth it.

Will see the Hobbit this week.

 

[Tomnat Tigers]

What's good about the extended editions for LOTR?

*Sorry for going of topic.

 

[Caesar]

Moar Middle-Earth for Tolkien fanatics. Basically.

There are a couple of scenes that add a little bit more context to the theatrical cut. In ROTK there is a scene showing the ghost-soldiers capturing the ships they later arrive at the battle in, and also another one showing Faromir and Eowyn falling in love while they are recovering from their injuries. The results of those scenes that you see in the theatrical cut don't make a ton of sense without the background.

A lot of it is pretty unnecessary though. My housemate owns the extended editions and I struggle to sit though them. A 4+ hour movie is just too damn long.

 

[yakka man]

What's good about the extended editions for LOTR?

*Sorry for going of topic.

There are some good scenes that were cut from the theatrical editions. Eg the mouth of Sauron in ROTK. Although I do prefer the theatrical version of the Fellowship but there are still some good extra scenes in the extended edition.

Although there are also some tedious scenes also which drag the film on for too long

 

[Tomnat Tigers]

Sounds like there are some good scenes but also some that are unnecessary, maybe worth watching the extended versions at least once. Thank you both for the reply.

 

[Heisenberg_]

Finally saw it and loved it!

Not sure if its because I just saw it but I found it every bit as enjoyable as the LOTR movies. Time will tell though I guess.