The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[Ouch!]

I've been avoiding this thread until I saw it, and I'm genuinely surprised to find out that I'm so far one of the only people here who thought this film was an utter mess. While a large part of why the film didn't settle well with me may be because I saw it in 48 frames per second (which requires some significant visual adaptation), I feel it had problems throughout, mostly related to how they've expanded a short book into three movies by bringing in all kinds of ancillary material.

I'm a Tolkien geek. I've read it all--The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, The Children of Hurin, and many of the volumes of the History of Middle Earth--and I've taken freaking classes on it. I was interested when they initially said that they planned on trying to bridge the sixty years between The Hobbit and LotR, but they've failed miserably to decide what direction they wanted to go with this movie. Is it the often whimsical and humorous storytelling characteristic of the Hobbit? Or is it the high fantasy quest with a more serious edge and grander scope. Throughout, the movie jumps back and forth between the two absolutely manically. Consequently, the movie is a mess of pacing (the whole thing plays almost episodically, which gets tiresome after nearly three hours) and tonal dissonance.

It's not a bad movie by any stretch. A lot of problems with pacing can be attributed to the fact that Tolkien was always terrible with pacing to begin with. I enjoyed myself, and I'll probably see it again if only to see how much of a difference there is between 24 and 48 frames per second. But the Lord of the Rings trilogy movies were phenomenal--easily some of the best book-to-film adaptations, well, ever. This falls well short of the mark. It's not bad, just... really disappointing.

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

And dwarves are hot? WHAT? That's not how it's supposed to be!

I know, eh?

I enjoyed it for the most part, not having read The Hobbit, yet I felt it was not worth 3D, didn't really anything to the experience.

[Pumpkin]

The sharkdogg and I went to see this movie on Monday and we both enjoyed it very much .

This was the first novel I ever read and that was a long time ago so I didn't remember many of the details. That might actually be a good thing because I don't usually enjoy movies as much if I've read the book. I get fussy about the details.

[Necronopticous]

They might as well have gone ahead and cast Jason Statham as Bilbo. This movie was basically the Transporter set in Middle Earth.

[Jiro]

Only two more days until it comes out in Australia!


What the smurf is wrong with the world

[Kossage]

My sister and I went to see it, and it turned out to be a rather enjoyable film. Not quite on LotR level, but considering the source material and how they used stuff from Unfinished Tales and such, it was still surprisingly smooth despite the somewhat episodic nature. Jackson managed to weave these different stories together well enough, and even the non-canonical additions to the story didn't quite detract from the overall narrative and actually fit in relatively well. I was also really glad how they kind of recreated an emotionally powerful scene, (SPOILER)Thorin hugging Bilbo in earnest, near the end in LotR trilogy's style.

I really enjoyed Radagast the Brown: it was such a nice performance reminiscent of the famous Finnish tv character Rölli (a somewhat goofy guy living with animals and having powers). They used some of my favourite animals in the scene too (and dat music), and the whimsical nature of the character fit in really well into the overall Hobbit narrative feel. The (SPOILER)Necromancer portions were handled quite well too much to my surprise; I was dreading that they'd feel disjointed in their rather ominous and foreshadowing nature (I also enjoyed the brief cameo of (SPOILER)the Witch King as the ghost who attacks Radagast).

The side characters like the Goblin King and Azog the Defiler had nice designs too and left their mark, particularly Azog who was given two rather epic scenes which almost felt too epic for the Hobbit narrative. Then again, I wasn't quite expecting (SPOILER)such an action-packed prologue with Smaug no less because I thought his takeover of Erebor would've been mentioned instead of actually shown in all the grisly and dramatic detail. I wasn't quite expecting the slight ship tease between Gandalf and Galadriel, though; I wonder if that was a tongue in cheek addition of Jackson and Boyens to "please" the fans or if it's actually based on some supplementary material about the characters in question.

One thing has to be said, though. Gandalf was utterly hilarious in this film, as was Gollum. The audience kept laughing at their scenes (particularly Gandalf's kind yet somewhat smug attitude in parts which make him all the more lovable, and Gollum's "egg" comment which has a lot more dirty connotations in Finnish than Tolkien himself intended in his native tongue).

I got to see it and I'm a huge geek for movie scores (and tv shows) and I absolutely loved all the bits that were woven in from the LoTR scores. Even if they were just small snippets. You start to hear a little of Gollum's theme and a little of the sauron/ring theme. Like EEEEE that was awesome.

Oh i guess the movie was cool too BUT THE MUSIC!

Yes, I totally agree. Sis and I were counting how many different themes from LotR showed up (when the Ring and Nature's Reclamation themes appeared, latter of which was played when (SPOILER)the Eagles come to the rescue, it was very nice), and there were quite many. It was also pretty neat how Shore cleverly hinted at the Fellowship theme in certain parts of the film, and I was glad that even one of the elven themes got its chance to shine at some points. I was rather surprised by the different mixing of the choir; it wasn't quite as wet as in LotR, so it doesn't quite mesh with earlier soundtracks, but either way it was handled well. The two new themes that stuck to my mind were obviously the Misty Mountains theme (which became the de facto adventuring theme in this film) and Radagast's quirky yet catchy melody which brought a smile on my face every time it showed up. I just hope Shore develops his dwarven themes more now that he has the chance; if one thing was kind of lacking in LotR's complete recordings, it was how little dwarven material showed up except somewhat more prominently in Moria bits.

Overall, despite its flaws, the Hobbit turned out to be rather enjoyable as a whole. I look forward to seeing the next part and hearing how Shore develops his theme for Smaug and certain other people who will show up. The film's definitely worth a watch, but don't expect it to be similar to LotR because it does have its own feel despite Jackson's attempts to make it somewhat more epic with all those expanded details than the source material originally was.

[Pike]

Just got back from seeing this. Loved it. I thought it struck a nice balance between being whimsical and "high fantasy" (which is really whimsical to begin with.)

My least favorite part was (SPOILER)those stupid CGI wolves that the orcs had, they looked so fake and it drove me insane but I loved the rest!

[Cuchulainn]

I agree with Pikey. The over-reliance on CGI to cater for 3d was an annoyance. THat'sb the future though, unless Holywood's hardon for 3d wanes we'll see more and more of this. The art that went in to posthetics in the trilogy was genius. They should have used Weta a lot more

[Shorty]

I didn't come out of this film head over heels like I had hoped to be. I was hoping for it to be a more linear telling of The Hobbit. I feel like Peter Jackson cheapened the entirety of The Hobbit, throwing in all of the extended storylines and all the business at the beginning. I feel like Jackson is so desperate to overhwhelm the rest of the world with the same love for Tolkien that he has that he overdoes it and almost completely misses the point. I thought that the beginning of The Hobbit was supposed to be where we see just how simple Bilbo's life is and that we have absolutely no idea what to expect from the world outside The Shire until Thorin & Co. arrives. Instead, the beginning of the film is filled with a mess of all of this backstory and these great ancient tales. In short, Jackson is a show off and I feel like it detracted from the experience I had hoped to have.

(SPOILER)I hate, hate, hate, hate haaaaaaaate that we caught a glimpse of Smaug not once but TWICE before his time in the story. Absolutely mortified. The first time, it must have been thirty seconds into the start of the film! Why, why would they do that! The second appearance was more in line with traditional cinema, but it still bothered me because we had already seen him once before. Why wouldn't they save the best part? I don't understand.

I liked it for what it was. I liked the story and (most) of the events that happened and I would have liked it a lot more if it stood on it's own without having been based on a book. Martin Freeman's performance was astounding. I had just hoped for something more along the lines of the book without a bunch of extra crap added, but I suppose that was too much to ask for because Peter Jackson doesn't do "simple" when it comes to Tolkien.

Additionally, there is absolutely no need for three films to tell this story. Could have been done in two, imo.

[charliepanayi]

Well I preferred the LOTR films to the book, so I can't fault what Peter Jackson did there in adapting it. But things are obviously different with this one and not everything that attempts to turn The Hobbit into a LOTR prequel pays off.

And I seriously doubt anyone bar the film studio has ever thought three films is a sensible idea.

[Miriel]

I love Tolkien and I love seeing that world come to life. I want more and more and more!

But, I would have appreciated a faithful adaptation of the Hobbit. Just the Hobbit. Without all that other stuff.

CONFLICTING.

Given that the Tolkien estate will probably never give up the rights to Silmarillion or any of the other works of Tolkien, it's super unlikely that we would ever get another movie devoted to stories like the White Council and the Necromancer and all the backstory with the Dwarves or the fall of Numenor.

So I think that's why Jackson put SO much into the Hobbit to make it less about The Hobbit and more a general collection of pre-LotR stories and split it into 3 movies. Because otherwise, we would never get to see any of this extra stuff.

I think The Hobbit is probably more likely to be remade in the future than Lord of the Rings ever will be. And that might be nice I think.

[charliepanayi]

Coming to cinemas in 2016: The Amazing Bilbo!

[Cuchulainn]

(SPOILER)I hate, hate, hate, hate haaaaaaaate that we caught a glimpse of Smaug not once but TWICE before his time in the story. Absolutely mortified. The first time, it must have been thirty seconds into the start of the film! Why, why would they do that! The second appearance was more in line with traditional cinema, but it still bothered me because we had already seen him once before. Why wouldn't they save the best part? I don't understand.

What a pointless thing to get so upset about

[Araciel]

The Morgul Blade.


I get why but... Ugh

[Faris]

I...I think I'm in love. It has every single movie element that makes a movie spectacular for me.

Was anyone else reminded of Dragon Age 1's dwarven area during the prologue?