Forum Settings
Forums

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.. What did you think?(For those that watched it.)

Pages (2) [1] 2 »
Post New Reply
#1
Dec 14, 2012 3:47 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4920
So I just got back from the midnight showing of The Hobbit and I was overall pleased with the movie. It was slow in some parts, which people who didn't read the book may not be interested in, and I think it did have some things added to the movie that weren't in the book. I have to go back and re-read it, but I think Radagast the brown wizard was not actually in the book. Don't quote me on that though I have to go re-read it. I liked his appearance though, I was quite interested in the other wizards besides Saruman and Gandalf. Anyways had action, silly comedic scenes and a lot of parts kept well with the book. I loved how they brought the stone giants to life and of course Golem's appearance was most welcoming too! The dwarve's song were great and I know people didn't think this actor may not look much like Bilbo, but he played his character pretty well!

I'm pretty excited to see the next one!

What did you guys think of the movie?

(Will probably edit later when I wake up..)
Modified by Ragix, Dec 18, 2012 5:50 PM
Touch me, you filthy casual~
 
#2
Dec 14, 2012 4:15 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 4713
I'm about to watch it in four hours. Will come back with initial impressions


Forgot to edit this post.

It was pretty good
Modified by BryanBossling, Dec 29, 2012 9:32 PM
Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English

Join my fan club // Improve the transport network
 
#3
Dec 16, 2012 4:11 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 995
I think it was really good
The graphic really improved, it looks smoother because of the new tech
And I didn't expect the good amount of comedy in it
But, it lack substance.. maybe...

Anyway, I can't wait to see the next two movies
And I must download that song :)
 
#4
Dec 18, 2012 1:19 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2362
I personally liked it, it was slow to start but really good.

Besides, all I REALLY went to see was the Riddles in the Dark segment and I wasn't dissapointed :)
 
#5
Dec 18, 2012 2:15 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3814
Pretty good movie, I'm really looking forward to part 2 and 3.
 
#6
Dec 18, 2012 8:06 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 79
I really liked it a lot, and this is coming from somebody who isn't much of a Tolkien fan. But I'm definitely willing to rewatch the LOTR trilogy after the Hobbit trilogy.

I really liked the pacing too. I didn't think that stretching one relatively short book over three movies would go over well, but I was wrong. It's also worth mentioning that The Hobbit was the only book in the series that I've ever read.
 
#7
Dec 18, 2012 9:01 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 22
I have mixed feelings about this film, though I've read The Hobbit a long time ago there were still bits and pieces that I remember and feel like Peter Jackson could have could have touched on.
For example like when MaedhrostheTall mentioned the Eagles talking to Gandalf, I feel as if the beasts or smaller animals in the movie aren't being given as much personality as they are given in the book. These animals actually talk and converse, and the most we've seen of that is the little hedgehog or porcupine that whines and whimpers while Radagast the Brown Wizard tries to save it.
I feel like this is important because once Blibo and the others reach Smaug there's a decent amount of dialogue. Smaug isn't just some Dragon hes an actual character within the story. And a major one at that. So don't you think it'll be kinda odd if this dialogue actually happens in the movie after making all the other animals seem so simple with no actual personality?

Also, the film was shot in 48 fpr (frames per second), which indeed made the film look smoother, but there was some points in the film where it bothered me, as if it looked TOO fake...I don't really know how to explain it.

I LOVED Golum's scene. There was so much personality put into his character, and it definitely gave me a creepy feeling at times. I really like the emotion put into the moment whn Bilbo was deciding whether or not to kill him, and the pity he had when he looked at how sad and pathetic Golum seemed. I think this scene was important since this decision impacted his nephews future.
I could go on and on but I feel like I ranted a bit too much. Sorry!

In conclusion I give this film a B. I'll be seeing the next one.
 
#8
Dec 19, 2012 5:10 AM
Offline
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 24
MaedhrostheTall said:
I thought it was eh.

It jumped from action scene to action scene with really none of the slower more conteplative scenes that the LOTR movies had. That small foreshadowing of Smaug at the end was the longest such piece in the whole film, and so it was easy to see what they would do with it. Pacing was terrible, basically.

In the director's defense though the movie was already around three hours.

They also had a chance to redeem Saruman's character but didn't take it. I was kind of disappointed to see him just blindly shooting down what Gandalf was saying.

The comedy bits that were made to be funny really weren't so much. I found myself laughing at stuff that wasn't really trying to make me laugh. Bilbo's fumbling, Gandalf's faces... Gollum resting his head on that rock to think about Bilbo's riddle (i LOL'd)

and WTF was with Azog? If I remember he was mentioned in one of the books and I don't think he was ever mentioned again. It was Bolg that was the leader of the Goblin hordes in the book.

I REALLY liked how Gandalf was portrayed though. He had some great moments. I especially liked that line "(Bilbo) gives me courage" from his chat with Galadriel. Thorin also had some good moments, though I was literally facepalming when Thorin faced off against Azog at the burning trees scene. You're seriously using the exact same log shield prop? SERIOUSLY?

I was kind of upset to see Bilbo kill that warg. Bilbo killing that spider alone by himself in Mirkwood and awakening his Took side was always a favorite part of the book for me.

And the eagles.... Ok look. When you cut out the scene of the Lord of the Eagles going all "What's all this commotion in the forest tonight?" and having him talk with Gandalf and develop his character, the eagles devolve into giant feathery deux ex machinas. Thats exactly what they were in this movie. Gandalf whispers to a bug and then the eagles come out of nowhere, save everyone, then drop them off within sight of the mountain. If that isn't a deux ex machina then idk what is. All I'mma say is if they fuck with Beorn in any way whatsoever I will flip my shit.

and the visuals were amazing too. DAT EREBOR.

I gave the movie a C+

(and no, Radagast was not in the book, but the White Council DID meet over the subject of the necromancer of Mirkwood and the evil that was gathering there. That's where Gandalf disappeared to in the book when he left the dwarves to go through Mirkwood alone. It's Unfinished Tales stuff though, not something from the Hobbit.)


I couldn't agree more.
 
#9
Dec 19, 2012 8:51 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 425
It was just beautifully beautiful and everyone who has the chance to see it the way it's meant to be seen should absolutely do so.

That aside, it was a good movie, but not a great movie. I basically agree with MaedhrostheTall on everything he said.
 
Dec 19, 2012 8:59 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 547
I watched the movie just 4 hours ago. I decided to watch it even without having read the book or having watched any of the Lord of the Rings movies. My classmates told me they're connected.

Note: This is a comment coming from someone who haven't read the book.

The movie had a VERY slow pace, yes. The early part of the movie was so boring that I nearly fell asleep. It was only after the first half that it became exciting, little by little. Without Gollum, I think I would have not survived two and a half hours inside the cinema. It was without a doubt that the scene where he appeared was one of the best in this Hobbit movie.

The effects were awesome. But like jessakuh said, there were some scenes that were obviously fake-looking. Even a person like me, an innocent in graphics, noticed. Most of these were seen in scenes with little action, like the scene between the Princess and Gandalf and also the one near the end. It's as if the characters were rendered and put in a new layer without even considering if it blended well. I can't put it in English, oh well, something like that.

Anyway, I'm going to read the book for the next two movies. The movie made me interested in it, a lot.
 
Dec 19, 2012 9:10 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 919
I haven't read the book. (I tried to read the LOTR trilogy but I fall asleep every time I try.)

So from someone who hasn't read the book, I think it is nicely done: the visuals, the sounds and music, the acting, and the story. At least I understood everything that was going on, and especially sympathized with their motivations (that was what I was most concerned of). Moreover, I saw no plot holes yet. And I am satisfied how it ended not in a cliffhanger. I think they did their best to make the movie function as a stand-alone. But I really look forward to the next movies (I thought there were only going to be just one more; I didn't know it was going to be a trilogy. I have to be patient.)

I'll be reading The Hobbit since the movie was interesting. Hopefully, that won't spoil my opinions of the sequel.
 
Dec 19, 2012 12:36 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 937
I thought it was very good, but I didn't like how most of the orcs were computerised, in LOTR they seemed to prefer having more people in suits than using CGI. The Gollum scene was just plain irritating to me. Erebor and Thorin were awesome though.
 
Dec 19, 2012 4:42 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2435
It had it's good and bad points but overall a very enjoyable film, definitely looking forward to the next two!
 
Dec 19, 2012 5:27 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2362
MaedhrostheTall said:
Gollum resting his head on that rock to think about Bilbo's riddle (i LOL'd)


I laughed too, I thought it was just too cute... Which is funny because Gollum is, by no means, a "cute" character.
 
Dec 19, 2012 10:22 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 447
Dull. Pacing was too slow, and there wasn't enough substance to keep it interesting. Gollum and some of the action scenes were the only things I enjoyed.
Visuals were outstanding though. The improved framerate almost makes it look like one giant video game cutscene.
 
Dec 19, 2012 11:21 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 220
I love how all movies are blue and orange these days (the ones that aren't green and pink, that is). We've come a long way since black and white, eh? The framerate makes it look like it was filmed under the flourescent lights of a Randall's.

Other than that, I've waited 30 years to see something that wasn't Rankin-Bass, so I won't shit on it, and I got to see Smaug \m/
 
Dec 20, 2012 5:37 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 175
I was pretty happy with it.
When i heard that it was to be 3 movies i thought that the pacing would take a serious hit but for an opening chapter i thought it moved well.
As long as they can build on this one and make the second and third feel bigger and more Epic as they did with the other trilogy i think it will be good.
 
Dec 21, 2012 9:22 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 15
Loved it! Seen it 2 times now and would gladly go again.
The visuals were absolutely stunning, I watched in 3D both times but I'm considering going to see in 2D to compare.

Can't wait for the next part, waiting for it is gunna suck though xD.

"Even the greatest were once beginners, don't be afraid to take that first step."
 
Dec 23, 2012 6:56 AM
Offline
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 21
I was very happy with the characterization. Especially Thorin gets more depth in comparison to the book, and I'm pleased with that. The additions plot-wise were necessary if they indeed plan on turing the small book into three films, and they did not bother me.
The visuals were great, the higher frame rate worked for me.
The scene with Gollum was simply breath-taking, it was perfect, Andy Serkis made it perfect, just, brilliant!
I only have one quabble, it was very long film and especially near the end I felt that the balance between action and plot/dialogue was off. There was too much action, the battles went on a little too long for my taste. The book is very calm, and the battles are far from spectacular there, so I get why they needed a bit more action to adapt the story to the needs of the audience, but it was a bit too much for me.
The cast was very good, the score was stunning, I am sad about the troll scene though! I thought it was such a funny moment in the book where all the dwarves get snatched up and captured one by one because they are curious as to what on earth is going on near that strange light. They turned it into an action-filled scene as well.

I like that we see some things that are briefly mentioned in the book but never shown, like the whole matter with Radagast, I really enjoyed that moment of the film. I also like how we get to see more of Gandalf, in the book he disappears for quite a long time and we have no idea where he has run off to, in this trilogy we are going to see his side of the adventure too, I'm happy about that.

Overall, a decent film with a few errors but that's really only my taste, some people will prefer the fact that it was action heavy near the end and would consider the beginning rather slow and boring whereas I loved the beginning of the film very much. It's a matter of taste.
I'm curious to see the following films, and I look forward to them!
 
Dec 23, 2012 7:34 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 218
I enjoyed it quite a bit, actually more so than the original Lord Of The Rings movies.
 
Dec 25, 2012 3:14 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 142
Personally I loved it. I read the book and it stayed truth to it, even though some of the ways things happened were not exactly the same. Martin Freeman was a great choice of an actor for Bilbo (and I'm in love with Fili... damn).

By the way, did you guys know the Necromancer is going to be played by Benedict Cumberbatch in future movies?
WE'RE GONNA HAVE WATSON BEATING SHERLOCK'S ASS.
 
Dec 25, 2012 5:11 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 19338
I liked it a lot. I kinda wish I had read the book before hand, but oh well!

I didn't know they were making multiple films either (Obviously I didn't look into the film much lol), so that was a nice surprise!
 
Dec 25, 2012 5:41 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4409
Well the 48FPS can go fuck it self, the day this 3D fad ends will be good day.

But the movie is pretty solid, still don't understand why it needed to be 3 hours though, if your working with rather skimpy source material, and wanna make 3 movies out of it, making them each 3 hours just means there gonna be alot of stretching and filler. I guess the 3 hour mark is just so they can justifie the price of an IMAX ticket.

But all and all Peter Jackson is a quality film maker and while it wasn't as good as LOTR it was still better then alot of movies.
It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't laugh or cry..... All it does from dusk till dawn is make the soldiers die.
 
Dec 25, 2012 10:52 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 236
I would like to hear someones opinion on the 48 fps and 3d?
was it worth it haha?
 
Dec 25, 2012 10:54 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 19338
Complx said:
I would like to hear someones opinion on the 48 fps and 3d?
was it worth it haha?
I saw it in imax

Honestly, the 48fps looked really weird at first. Like it was in fast forward or something. But I got used to it.

And I liked the 3d. I like how 3d has actually started enhancing films, as opposed to just being a gimmick. Like the landscapes and such looked amazing!
 
Dec 25, 2012 11:18 PM
Offline
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 0
I've read the Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and the Silmarillion through several times. I liked the LOTR movie, regretting only that it did not include some key scenes.

But as far as The Hobbit goes, I did not like the movie. Too much added, far too padded, and it resolved like a 3-hour Brady Bunch episode. The Rankin-Bass production, with all of its faults, was a superior product, and managed to tell the story (including commercials) in less than two hours.
 
Dec 26, 2012 5:29 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 88
I thought it was pretty good, but it had genuine pacing problems, especially on it's second half. One of the main things about it for me was that at any given point during this movie I kept thinking "it could end right here, and that'd be a good stopping point till the next movie" and then it kept going.
And by the time you finish the movie, they've completed exactly half of their journey, so you can really tell they didn't decide on this being a trilogy till this first movie was almost completed which with that knowledge just makes it more awkward.
I liked the more light hearted feel this movie had over the original trilogy, but so far I don't think it's been as good as the original 1st movie.
It had what I would call Akira syndrome, the first half covers a larger amount of time where the second of half is just one big long action scene to draw out the remaining moments of the film.

Either way, yeah it was a decent film for me. It certainly wasn't bad, but it wasn't fantastic.
Although everything in the beginning as the title sequence came onto the screen, all that was exciting and fantastic to me.

But I'm still looking forward to The Decimation of Smaug next December.
Modified by Kazekun-Original, Dec 26, 2012 5:33 AM
"Live a good life, leave behind a legacy to be proud of."

I review anime! (via TrashMutant.com): Aldnoah.Zero: http://tinyurl.com/ly6oyr6; Sword Art Online: http://tinyurl.com/mzpks8t; Patema Inverted: http://tinyurl.com/kphmu7t

I also now review manga! (via Bagandbored.net): Chirality - To the Promised Land: http://tinyurl.com/mvblbuo
 
Dec 26, 2012 5:32 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 88
MaedhrostheTall said:
I thought it was eh.

It jumped from action scene to action scene with really none of the slower more conteplative scenes that the LOTR movies had. That small foreshadowing of Smaug at the end was the longest such piece in the whole film, and so it was easy to see what they would do with it. Pacing was terrible, basically.

In the director's defense though the movie was already around three hours.

They also had a chance to redeem Saruman's character but didn't take it. I was kind of disappointed to see him just blindly shooting down what Gandalf was saying.

The comedy bits that were made to be funny really weren't so much. I found myself laughing at stuff that wasn't really trying to make me laugh. Bilbo's fumbling, Gandalf's faces... Gollum resting his head on that rock to think about Bilbo's riddle (i LOL'd)

and WTF was with Azog? If I remember he was mentioned in one of the books and I don't think he was ever mentioned again. It was Bolg that was the leader of the Goblin hordes in the book.

I REALLY liked how Gandalf was portrayed though. He had some great moments. I especially liked that line "(Bilbo) gives me courage" from his chat with Galadriel. Thorin also had some good moments, though I was literally facepalming when Thorin faced off against Azog at the burning trees scene. You're seriously using the exact same log shield prop? SERIOUSLY?

I was kind of upset to see Bilbo kill that warg. Bilbo killing that spider alone by himself in Mirkwood and awakening his Took side was always a favorite part of the book for me.

And the eagles.... Ok look. When you cut out the scene of the Lord of the Eagles going all "What's all this commotion in the forest tonight?" and having him talk with Gandalf and develop his character, the eagles devolve into giant feathery deux ex machinas. Thats exactly what they were in this movie. Gandalf whispers to a bug and then the eagles come out of nowhere, save everyone, then drop them off within sight of the mountain. If that isn't a deux ex machina then idk what is. All I'mma say is if they fuck with Beorn in any way whatsoever I will flip my shit.

and the visuals were amazing too. DAT EREBOR.

I gave the movie a C+

(and no, Radagast was not in the book, but the White Council DID meet over the subject of the necromancer of Mirkwood and the evil that was gathering there. That's where Gandalf disappeared to in the book when he left the dwarves to go through Mirkwood alone. It's Unfinished Tales stuff though, not something from the Hobbit.)


Yup, I could basically agree on all this.
"Live a good life, leave behind a legacy to be proud of."

I review anime! (via TrashMutant.com): Aldnoah.Zero: http://tinyurl.com/ly6oyr6; Sword Art Online: http://tinyurl.com/mzpks8t; Patema Inverted: http://tinyurl.com/kphmu7t

I also now review manga! (via Bagandbored.net): Chirality - To the Promised Land: http://tinyurl.com/mvblbuo
 
Dec 26, 2012 5:37 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 17051
I would have liked it more if I didnt expect it to be like he first LoTR movie.

And I hated how at some point I thought I was watching the 2012 movie.So much luck!!

Not bad but I wont watch the rest in the theaters.
Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines.
 
Dec 26, 2012 8:56 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 2070
Overall it was alright, but I felt some pf the dialogue and special effects were a little too much. It seemed more Harry Potter-like than the other movies. Although it did stay very true to the book in many regards it also seemed a little too much like the book for my tastes, and by that I mean the dialogue seemed very forced at times as if they were trying to quote the book as much as possible. My other main gripe would have to be the use of CGI. It didn't blend as well into the scenes as it did in the other movies. I much preferred the astonishing makeup and costumes of the LOTR. In the end, it was just alright.
 
Dec 26, 2012 10:53 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 17
It was a nice start to a really awesome journey. Obviously could have been better. I feel like the next 2 movies will really be better.
 
Dec 27, 2012 4:15 AM
Offline
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 139
Overall I'd give it a 7. Now, I love the book and I read it two times. The problem with Hobbit, in comparison with Lotr, is that it will be shown in 3 sequels with the book being around 270 pages long. This makes the story drag at certain points. I mean, the singing and the dwarves fooling around is fun in the book, but it is just not such good material for movies (I think movies, which depend mostly on the visual should be more action packed in order to keep audience attention...in this aspect The Hobbit starts off with a veeeery slow...)

The Lotr is a trilogy which books have around 1000 pages altogether. This is why Jackson had to carefully choose the scenes which he would put in the movie. Therefore, the movie is flowing nicely and, to me, it is interesting in almost every aspect.

What I like about 'The Hobbit' (movie) though, is that they incorporated stuff from other books as well (which I must admit I haven't had time to read, but I plan on doing it in the near future) , not only from 'The Hobbit'.

And one thing that ruined the movie is watching it in 3D...mostly because in a lot of scenes the characters or scenery looked 2D (don't know how to explain it all that well). However, I am not a fan of 3D in general, so that may also had a hand in influencing my overall enjoyment.

And I am sorry if some people will get angry at me by making a comparison between the Lotr and The Hobbit (several people already told me off for doing it) but I just can't help myself. (-_-)

In all, I think the movie is a good watch and I do like it, so I think I'll be watching the others too, when they come out...just not in 3D...never again...
 
Dec 31, 2012 1:33 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 557
Really good and nice movie..

Can't wait for the next part :))
 
Dec 31, 2012 2:36 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 118
Citrine said:
The movie had a VERY slow pace, yes. The early part of the movie was so boring that I nearly fell asleep. It was only after the first half that it became exciting, little by little. Without Gollum, I think I would have not survived two and a half hours inside the cinema. It was without a doubt that the scene where he appeared was one of the best in this Hobbit movie.

I agree. I saw the movie a couple of days after watching The Fellowship of the Ring, and I was expecting The Hobbit to be a 3-hour prequel, not the first part of a 9-hour trilogy! Guess what my expression was when the dragon opened its eye and the credits started rolling.
Elijah Wood looked (obviously) much older than he was in the first movie, so the result was a little strange.
Anyway, despite not being a fan of 3D, I have to admit that the final scenes, with Bilbo and his friends riding the Eagles, were absolutely breathtaking.
 
Jan 1, 2013 9:50 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 74
The LOTR trilogy is better than this Hobbit film but I'll make a better analysis after I watch the next two films to follow. Jackson could have done a better job on the first film though, honestly.

 
Jan 2, 2013 12:21 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 4713
The pacing was obviously better, since Peter Jackson chose to make this into three films. I feel like he can tell the story like he wants to more easily now. I actually think that the original LOTR trilogy should have been made into 6+ films, but just making the three was of course a gamble, so I guess it wasn't possible at the time. I know this wasn't supposed to be a comparison, but it's unavoidable.

I can't imagine The Hobbit being crammed into just one film at this point, even though it's much shorter than any of the rings books.

edit: Definitely better than Fellowship
Modified by BryanBossling, Jan 2, 2013 12:25 AM
Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English

Join my fan club // Improve the transport network
 
Jan 2, 2013 4:24 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 633
I liked it a lot. I could actually see what was going on in the action scenes.
Mr. Wonsworth, you may NOT eat my scones!
 
Jan 2, 2013 10:39 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 7714
I liked it, thought the characters that were also in lotr didnt appear too above aged too much, despite some argument that the book could only fit into 1 movie, not 3 is fine with me, not being a die hard fan, who cares if they ad a few extra things, most of it was worded the same as the book.

over-all 9/10
 
Jan 3, 2013 5:56 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 29
I enjoyed it - not as much as the Lord of the Rings however.

One thing that I have to say though, is that Lady Galadriel is an amazing character and without doubt, my favourite individual of that universe.
 
Jan 3, 2013 6:25 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 808
I liked it, it was unexpecting funny and had those great visual effects and music. I was like ''sh*t, is that all?'' in the end but i shoulda have guessed since it is supposed to be a trilogy or something.
 
Jan 3, 2013 10:22 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 109
I thought it was much better than I was expecting it to be, the humour was pretty well done and still had some great music like the lotr trilogy.The only problem I had was that Gandalf was almost always the one to save everyone if something went down, but I guess he is at least getting much more to do than he did in lotr.
 
Jan 3, 2013 4:41 PM
Marvell

Offline
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 298
You know... I had mixed feelings about it. I thought that it was pretty funny at points... but that was also why I didn't like it. They took out almost everything good about the Lord of the Rings and made it more of a Fantasy/Comedy/Action movie. For one thing, the trolls making soup, much more trying to be funny then I really need. Now I haven't read the Hobbit so I wouldn't know if the scenes were in the book or not... but honestly, I knew from the beginning there was no way it would be enough to surpass The Lord of the Rings... what's worse is that they're making it a 3 part movie...
 
Jan 4, 2013 3:30 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 315
It was visually great and the music/score was pretty similar in style to the other LOTR soundtracks (with the inclusion of the dwarf songs which was good they kept that).
I do feel however that with so many characters all sharing scenes, it does suffer a bit not establishing each and every one of them for the audience to get attached to. With the previous LOTR films, there were just as many, however, they all broke off into smaller teams and had their own sorta storylines for the audience to follow and get to see them develop, but with Hobbit, only a hand full of the dwarf characters did I feel i would remember or gained more perspective on.

 
Jan 4, 2013 4:12 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2365
It was okay. It had too many filler scenes to make it three hours long and frankly some of them were pretty boring. They should make an abridged version instead of an extended version this time.
Honestly, I'd prefer if the adaptaiton was two movies as originally planned instead of three as of now. It seems they will keep milking the franchise as long as they can.
 
Jan 5, 2013 6:59 PM
Offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 886
bergil said:
It seems they will keep milking the franchise as long as they can.


I dunno if I plan on seeing the next two movies tbh. I'm still frustrated that Peter Jackson decided to swap out fucking GLORFINDEL for that Arwen chick in the first LOTR movie. You don't just CUT Glorfindel. the dude killed a balrog with just a sword, and the nazgul took one look at him and ran away with their tails between their legs.

lol @ people who think there's only one balrog.
 
Jan 6, 2013 2:40 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 4208
I liked it a lot. There was quite a lot of comedy, I'd like it to be more dark and serious. But I guess it can't be helped with those dwarves around lol. But nevertheless, really liked it even though Radagast was such a joke. Really looking forward to the sequels.
 
Jan 6, 2013 2:53 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2365
MaedhrostheTall said:
bergil said:
It seems they will keep milking the franchise as long as they can.


I dunno if I plan on seeing the next two movies tbh. I'm still frustrated that Peter Jackson decided to swap out fucking GLORFINDEL for that Arwen chick in the first LOTR movie. You don't just CUT Glorfindel. the dude killed a balrog with just a sword, and the nazgul took one look at him and ran away with their tails between their legs.

lol @ people who think there's only one balrog.


In PJ's defense, Arwen has a better rack and butt than Glofindel.
Modified by bergil, Jan 9, 2013 7:06 AM
 
Jan 6, 2013 8:33 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 144
Loved it. I don't want to wait for part 2 ;_;
 
Jan 6, 2013 8:46 PM
Spoony Bard

Offline
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2000
It was amazing.... I know I'm late, but I saw the topic and had to post. XD I've always been enchanted with the book since I first read it in about 3rd grade, and over the years until now (I'm in highschool) I've reread it and gotten new things from it each time. ^-^ Truly a timeless masterpiece for all ages.

Well, about the movie, I saw it with the crazy new frame rate, but honestly I didn't like it that much. It looked like a home video because of how realistic it was... it somewhat took me out of the fantasy. But it was still beautiful, I must admit. In some scenes I couldn't help but just gaze at the scenery, and I think the makers expected that as there was just a lot of scenes like that (eagle part haha).

The music was amazing... took me back to LOTR days... Howard Shore is so great. Literally, when I came home from the theatre, I ran to my piano and began to play all my favorites from LOTR, and I made up an arrangement for Song of the Lonely Mountain haha ^-^ (which was great, might I add, so dwarfish and medieval, really put you in a perfect mood)

Okay, Thorin was absolutely perfect. I don't know if anyone else felt this, but there was just this kingly aura oozing from him.... I literally wanted to fight for him while watching the movie. I've always loved Thorin since reading the book, and I was afraid how they would adapt him, but they've done an AMAZING job with the casting... Richard Armitage does a fantastic job, he's so regal XD

Also, the detail in the movie was amazing... the slow pace was perfect, I heard some others disliked it, and found it boring, but if you've read the book, you just see everything come to life... it's amazing. I can literally say I heard the words of the book echoing in my head as I watched some scenes... I didn't even feel how long it was... Great great great pacing, and just the adaption of the book was perfect! But I can see how someone who hasn't read it would find some scenes slow.

As for the addition of Galadriel and other characters, who weren't in the book, to connect the story more with LOTR, I really didn't mind at all :) I'm sure Tolkien would have liked that too, as he wrote the other books afterwards. Loved it!

Uwaa >_< I'm just fangirling about the movie XD I have no criticism towards it, it's just such a special place in my heart :')

But yeah. It was amazing. Cann't wait for The Desolation of Smaug!!!! That'll be great :) And it's coming out on my birthday next year, December 13th XD interestinggg. Lolz. Lovely movie!!!!!!
 
Jan 6, 2013 8:53 PM
Spoony Bard

Offline
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2000
bakaboy said:
It was visually great and the music/score was pretty similar in style to the other LOTR soundtracks (with the inclusion of the dwarf songs which was good they kept that).
I do feel however that with so many characters all sharing scenes, it does suffer a bit not establishing each and every one of them for the audience to get attached to. With the previous LOTR films, there were just as many, however, they all broke off into smaller teams and had their own sorta storylines for the audience to follow and get to see them develop, but with Hobbit, only a hand full of the dwarf characters did I feel i would remember or gained more perspective on.

Well of course, that's how it was in the book too most of the time. We did get to know them, but most of the dwarves were just stereotyped (the fat one, the stupid one, etc.)
 
Top
Pages (2) [1] 2 »