Peter Jackson to make The Hobbit (1 Viewer)

[dancer]

Really disappointed. Here's a tip: when your movie is three hours long and people still want more, then your story-telling blows.

See I think the opposite. If your movie is three hours long and people had enough after two hours, then your story-telling blows. If people leave wanting more...isn't that actually what any moviemaker strives for?

 

[Maelstrom]

Really disappointed. Here's a tip: when your movie is three hours long and people still want more, then your story-telling blows.

Like I said, wait until all 3 movies are out.

I will wait. Had a chance to see it last night and passed. Making three movies out of this one book was a terrible idea. I'm not going to pay $30+ to see one movie when it could have been completed in two.Besides, when the movie is out on DVD... I'll download it and/or rent it instead.

Have you ever glanced at the appendices for LOTR? Because these movies encompass the bigger story included there, and not just the Hobbit.

I don't mind the money as much as waiting nearly two years in between movies that were filmed at the same time. I'll gladly pay $30 to see the marathon but I learned my lesson after being disappointed after FOTR and TT.

If we waited for all of the movies post-production to be done, we wouldn't see any of the Hobbit films until 2014. Just because primary filming is done doesn't really mean anything when it comes to whether the film itself is "done".

 

[Mjolnirs]

Really disappointed. Here's a tip: when your movie is three hours long and people still want more, then your story-telling blows.

See I think the opposite. If your movie is three hours long and people had enough after two hours, then your story-telling blows. If people leave wanting more...isn't that actually what any moviemaker strives for?

The main thing missing is an intermission. Any movie over 2.5 hours should have an intermission. Oh my bladder!

 

[cstu]

Really disappointed. Here's a tip: when your movie is three hours long and people still want more, then your story-telling blows.

Like I said, wait until all 3 movies are out.

I will wait. Had a chance to see it last night and passed. Making three movies out of this one book was a terrible idea. I'm not going to pay $30+ to see one movie when it could have been completed in two.Besides, when the movie is out on DVD... I'll download it and/or rent it instead.

Have you ever glanced at the appendices for LOTR? Because these movies encompass the bigger story included there, and not just the Hobbit.

I don't mind the money as much as waiting nearly two years in between movies that were filmed at the same time. I'll gladly pay $30 to see the marathon but I learned my lesson after being disappointed after FOTR and TT.

If we waited for all of the movies post-production to be done, we wouldn't see any of the Hobbit films until 2014. Just because primary filming is done doesn't really mean anything when it comes to whether the film itself is "done".

I'd be fine with that.

 

[Maelstrom]

Really disappointed. Here's a tip: when your movie is three hours long and people still want more, then your story-telling blows.

Like I said, wait until all 3 movies are out.

I will wait. Had a chance to see it last night and passed. Making three movies out of this one book was a terrible idea. I'm not going to pay $30+ to see one movie when it could have been completed in two.Besides, when the movie is out on DVD... I'll download it and/or rent it instead.

Have you ever glanced at the appendices for LOTR? Because these movies encompass the bigger story included there, and not just the Hobbit.

I don't mind the money as much as waiting nearly two years in between movies that were filmed at the same time. I'll gladly pay $30 to see the marathon but I learned my lesson after being disappointed after FOTR and TT.

If we waited for all of the movies post-production to be done, we wouldn't see any of the Hobbit films until 2014. Just because primary filming is done doesn't really mean anything when it comes to whether the film itself is "done".

I'd be fine with that.

Heh...I guess then myself and a lot of other people are glad you aren't producing them

 

[Rustoleum]

I'm sure it's been talked about, but what gives with the dwarves? Why are some so human (Thorin, Kili and Fili) looking and others so dwarfy looking? I found it distracting. (saw it in IMAX 3d hfr) If it's age, there are other dwarves that are young but still bulbous. Thorin basically looked like Aragorn while the rest looked like Gimli.

Only one should look like Gimli, his Father Gloin. I assume Jackson gave them all distinctive looks to help people seperate them. The thought being that every human does not look alike, so why would every dwarf look the same. Here is a great flow chart to help you tell who is whohttp://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-dwarves-flowchart/

I didn't make my point well. I can tell them apart. The problem for me is that most of them look like CG Gimli-like dwarves with big noses and overall bulbous qualities. Thorin looks like a human- very similar to Aragorn or some other "hero", while the other guys look like donkeys.And if Gimli is supposed to look like Gloin- why doesn't Thorin look like his dwarfy-looking dad and granddad?

ftr: Thorins two closest relations are Fili and Kili which are his direct nephews. Those three look similar.

So they look alike, but Thrain and Thror look like muppets. I think I'm saying less that I don't get it, and more that I don't like it.

Because sons always look like fathers or grandfathers? And Kili/Fili are from Thorins sister.

They look like the same species, generally.Thorin might as well look like an elf compared to the others.

Thorin and his family are of "Durin's Folk" , who are fewer in number than the other flavors of Dwarves, and have different features. Tolkien did the same with hobbits (Harfoots, Stoors,Tallfellows?) the elves, and the humans. I wasn't a big fan of how Jackson portrayed Thorin in the still photos I saw before the film came out, but it wasn't jarring for me in the movie itself at all.

 

[Buckna]

Saw it in IMAX 3-d last saturday and loved it (but I am a big Tolkien geek ) Thought it would drag based on a lot of the comments I had read, but it flew by for me. Didn't mind Rhadaghast, but I agree with the others in here who said there was a little too much slapstick with the Dwarves, Trolls & the Goblin King. I also didn't think the goblins/trolls voices really matched up well with their CGI appearences. They shouldn't have sounded like regular humans and they didn't do that in the first 3 films.

Only nitpick that bothered me was Balin was not at all how I pictured. I thought he would be more like how they portrayed Dwalin, a tough, hard fighting 2nd in command type as opposed to the older, sagely advisor full of wisdom type. He didn't look like the type that would try to lead a foolhardy expedition to fight and take back Moria. And I didn't like the look of the Arkenstone at all.

 

[Andrew74]

Saw it in IMAX 3-d last saturday and loved it (but I am a big Tolkien geek ) Thought it would drag based on a lot of the comments I had read, but it flew by for me. Didn't mind Rhadaghast, but I agree with the others in here who said there was a little too much slapstick with the Dwarves, Trolls & the Goblin King. I also didn't think the goblins/trolls voices really matched up well with their CGI appearences. They shouldn't have sounded like regular humans and they didn't do that in the first 3 films.Only nitpick that bothered me was Balin was not at all how I pictured. I thought he would be more like how they portrayed Dwalin, a tough, hard fighting 2nd in command type as opposed to the older, sagely advisor full of wisdom type. He didn't look like the type that would try to lead a foolhardy expedition to fight and take back Moria. And I didn't like the look of the Arkenstone at all.

I thought the same about Balin - how's this old dwarf going to take back Moria.

 

[Psychopav]

Jackson's depiction of Radagast doesn't bother me. He seems to fit into the story better than Tolkien's Tom Bombadil in LoTR. Tolkien had written stories about Tom Bombadil and told them to his kids before he wrote LOTR.

I feel that Bombadil being put into LOTR was Tolkien pandering to his kids despite his statements that Bombadil has a purpose. I've read that Bombadil was a representation of pacifists during war time that will not take up arms against an enemy even if it means their own destruction or end of the world they care about.

My favorite take on Bombadil: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil

That was interesting. Thanks for posting.

Yea , that was pretty awesome. Thanks

Woah.

So, if this is true, then why does Bombadil save and help the ringbearer and his companions? Because they can bring about the downfall of Sauron, the current Dark Lord of Middle Earth. When Sauron falls, the other rings will fail and the wizards and elves will leave Middle Earth and the only great power that is left will be Bombadil.

Projecting that he might someday became the Dark Lord is a stretch, but I'm always suspicious of characters who are too goody-goody, especially when they live in a forest everyone is afraid of.Edit: after reading a bunch of comments I've concluded that Tom is simply the Switzerland of LOTR rather than evil.

I think he's supposed to represent the more primitive magic before middle earth was tamed. He's a wild, kind of pagan anachronism.

 

[Psychopav]

Here's one pretty good response in the comments to that post about Bombadil:

This is a really cute theory, but I think you made some very basic mistakes.The reason the hobbits have never met Bombadil is because they only venture into the very fringes of the Old Forest. Likewise, the fact that his home is less than twenty miles from the road to the Grey Havens is irrelevant; if you've ever walked a long distance on foot, you know that twenty miles is nothing to sneeze at in a straight line. Draw a circle with a twenty mile radius from the road and you have over 1200 square miles of territory; it's not surprising that the elves wouldn't have run across him, especially since he doesn't like to be found. This is all splitting hairs though, because it's clear that some elves know of him. They don't know much about him, but they do have a name for him.The idea that he's lying about how he knew the hobbits were coming is not supported by the story. Tom is at one with the forest; he certainly could have heard the rumor of their passing from the trees. Likewise, it's not hard to imagine that Tom does talk to Farmer Maggott from time to time. Maggott is taciturn and grim; not the type to go tell stories around the Shire about his weird mystical friend in the Old Forest. Also, hobbits are plain, practical folk, likely to dismiss such outlandish tales (see their reactions in the early part of Fellowship to stories of giants).I really don't see why you think the Old Forest is the second-most dangerous place in Middle-Earth. It's probably not even the tenth most dangerous of the small subset of places that Tolkien actually described. It's an uncanny, unwelcoming place, sure. Is it more dangerous than the Paths of the Dead, which only one living man may walk and survive? Is it more dangerous than Barad-Dur, home of Sauron, or Cirith Ungol, home of the deadliest of Ungoliant's spawn? More dangerous than Mirkwood, where stepping off the paths without the protection of Thranduil's wood-elves is nearly a death sentence? More dangerous than Dagorlad, where will-o-wisps lead travellers astray to drown in the ghost-haunted swamps? Furthermore, the Barrow-Downs may be in some sense part of Tom's "country", but as he and Goldberry make clear, Tom does not control his country. Rather, he is an integrated part of it. It would not be his style to purge the countryside of all evil simply because he could. He seems to be some sort of nature spirit, content to let be what already is, unless urgent need and his responsibilities as a host take precedence.I think you really got confused when you said that all of the trees in the Old Forest are huorns. I don't think that's true at all; are you confusing the Old Forest with Fangorn? Even in Fangorn we don't have a clear indication that ALL of the trees are huorns. Old Man Willow seems to be a kind of huorn, or something related to them, but nowhere are we given an indication that the trees of the foreboding Old Forest are anything more than trees that resent the presence of intruders. Don't forget that Tolkien had a deep reverence for trees, and considered them living creatures that could feel pain, and that he could commune with.You theorize that Bombadil was in Middle-Earth "before Morgoth set foot there." This is impossible because Morgoth (then known as Melkor) went to Arda as soon as it was created. You theorize that Bombadil was "ruler of the darkness" before Morgoth -- since Morgoth created the darkness by throwing down the Two Lamps, I don't see how that's possible.I think a lot of the problem people have with Tom Bombadil is that he is deliberately presented as a mystery. He doesn't fit neatly into our categories of good and evil. It's fun to speculate about who or what he might be, but I don't think even Tolkien knew. And honestly, I think you've strayed very far from what he intended or what is supportable in the text with this guess.

 

[cstu]

This one seems to make a lot of sense.

There is a theory that Tom Bombadil is an Ainur governing the "time" of Middle Earth. He and Gandalf both state that he is the "eldest" and assuming this is true, no one would person could possibly be older than time itself, save for perhaps Eru Ilúvatar. The ring has no effect on him because the ring has nothing to offer him; time is already immortal, and neither good nor evil. He has no real concern because his existence will still be around whether or not Sauron gets the ring back. Another hint to this idea of him being or governing time is his wife is said to govern the nature in Middle Earth. This could be a reference to Mother Nature and Father Time, with Goldberry and Bombadil occupying their roles, respectively. His wife describes him as being "Master of wood, water and hill." Time does effect all these, and even in the riddle battle between Gollum and Bilbo one of Gollum's riddles involves something that has dominion over many things with "trees" and "mountain" included, the correct answer that Bilbo gives is time.Also:In The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, Tolkien describes Goldberry as the seasonal changes in nature, and Tom Bombadil as the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, meaning that Tom is the countryside existing in Time, alive and embodied.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Saw it in IMAX 3-d last saturday and loved it (but I am a big Tolkien geek ) Thought it would drag based on a lot of the comments I had read, but it flew by for me. Didn't mind Rhadaghast, but I agree with the others in here who said there was a little too much slapstick with the Dwarves, Trolls & the Goblin King. I also didn't think the goblins/trolls voices really matched up well with their CGI appearences. They shouldn't have sounded like regular humans and they didn't do that in the first 3 films.Only nitpick that bothered me was Balin was not at all how I pictured. I thought he would be more like how they portrayed Dwalin, a tough, hard fighting 2nd in command type as opposed to the older, sagely advisor full of wisdom type. He didn't look like the type that would try to lead a foolhardy expedition to fight and take back Moria. And I didn't like the look of the Arkenstone at all.

I thought the same about Balin - how's this old dwarf going to take back Moria.

Haven't seen the film yet, but I always read Balin exactly as the older, kindly, wise advisor in the book. He's the first to really accept Bilbo. But he's also a Dwarf and they don't let go of grudges - Moria's "theirs" - so it's not crazy that years of brooding over losing Moria finally got the better of him (especially after they were successful in taking back Erebor and were thriving). To be honest, I think Tolkien had Balin be the one to try and retake Moria was because he was the one we had the most emotional connection to from The Hobbit left alive when he wrote LOTR. Dain (or Dain's son - Thorin III?) would've been a more logical choice, IMO.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Here's one pretty good response in the comments to that post about Bombadil:

This is a really cute theory, but I think you made some very basic mistakes.The reason the hobbits have never met Bombadil is because they only venture into the very fringes of the Old Forest. Likewise, the fact that his home is less than twenty miles from the road to the Grey Havens is irrelevant; if you've ever walked a long distance on foot, you know that twenty miles is nothing to sneeze at in a straight line. Draw a circle with a twenty mile radius from the road and you have over 1200 square miles of territory; it's not surprising that the elves wouldn't have run across him, especially since he doesn't like to be found. This is all splitting hairs though, because it's clear that some elves know of him. They don't know much about him, but they do have a name for him.The idea that he's lying about how he knew the hobbits were coming is not supported by the story. Tom is at one with the forest; he certainly could have heard the rumor of their passing from the trees. Likewise, it's not hard to imagine that Tom does talk to Farmer Maggott from time to time. Maggott is taciturn and grim; not the type to go tell stories around the Shire about his weird mystical friend in the Old Forest. Also, hobbits are plain, practical folk, likely to dismiss such outlandish tales (see their reactions in the early part of Fellowship to stories of giants).I really don't see why you think the Old Forest is the second-most dangerous place in Middle-Earth. It's probably not even the tenth most dangerous of the small subset of places that Tolkien actually described. It's an uncanny, unwelcoming place, sure. Is it more dangerous than the Paths of the Dead, which only one living man may walk and survive? Is it more dangerous than Barad-Dur, home of Sauron, or Cirith Ungol, home of the deadliest of Ungoliant's spawn? More dangerous than Mirkwood, where stepping off the paths without the protection of Thranduil's wood-elves is nearly a death sentence? More dangerous than Dagorlad, where will-o-wisps lead travellers astray to drown in the ghost-haunted swamps? Furthermore, the Barrow-Downs may be in some sense part of Tom's "country", but as he and Goldberry make clear, Tom does not control his country. Rather, he is an integrated part of it. It would not be his style to purge the countryside of all evil simply because he could. He seems to be some sort of nature spirit, content to let be what already is, unless urgent need and his responsibilities as a host take precedence.I think you really got confused when you said that all of the trees in the Old Forest are huorns. I don't think that's true at all; are you confusing the Old Forest with Fangorn? Even in Fangorn we don't have a clear indication that ALL of the trees are huorns. Old Man Willow seems to be a kind of huorn, or something related to them, but nowhere are we given an indication that the trees of the foreboding Old Forest are anything more than trees that resent the presence of intruders. Don't forget that Tolkien had a deep reverence for trees, and considered them living creatures that could feel pain, and that he could commune with.You theorize that Bombadil was in Middle-Earth "before Morgoth set foot there." This is impossible because Morgoth (then known as Melkor) went to Arda as soon as it was created. You theorize that Bombadil was "ruler of the darkness" before Morgoth -- since Morgoth created the darkness by throwing down the Two Lamps, I don't see how that's possible.I think a lot of the problem people have with Tom Bombadil is that he is deliberately presented as a mystery. He doesn't fit neatly into our categories of good and evil. It's fun to speculate about who or what he might be, but I don't think even Tolkien knew. And honestly, I think you've strayed very far from what he intended or what is supportable in the text with this guess.

I thought the guy who wrote the article was being tongue-in-cheek. He was serious?

 

[Daywalker]

Saw this in HFR 3D. Movie was entertaining and about what I expected but man did the 3D setup ruin it for me.It's horrible. Everything is too dark. The glow of the movie screen is gone. The sprawling landscape shots really suffer. I kept fidgeting with my glasses the whole time. Taking them off and wondering why the hell this has become popular.I really didn't notice the 48fps difference but maybe because the 3D effect was so annoying.I never read the book. My only real complaint was that it seemed anytime they got into trouble a wizard just snapped their fingers and everything magically got better. I understand the dwarfs are small in comparison to many of their enemies but maybe they could use that teamwork they displayed when doing dishes and take down some bad guys on their own.One other thing was the riddles Bilbo and Gollum were telling each other were nearly unintelligible. A garbled mess of a scene.Overall- 6/10.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

but maybe because the 3D effect was so annoying.

That's how I feel about every 3D movie I see. Can ruin a flick.

 

[oddball]

Still haven't had a chance to catch this yet.

 

[NewlyRetired]

The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey, picked up 3 academy award nominations in technical areasBest Production DesignBest Makeup and HairstylingBest Visual Effect

 

[beer 302]

Still haven't had a chance to catch this yet.

Thanks for the updateTo that end, I haven't had the opportunity to take out the trash yet. Hoping to break free some time in the schedule to knock it out over the weekend but it's looking like I may to push it until next week.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Finally saw it last night. Call me a purist, but I just wanted what was in the book. I didn't need all the Radagast stuff, which did feel Jar Jar Binksian to me. Also hated the mountain man fight and the ridiculous escape from the Goblin Lair. That was just borderline awful. Having said that, it was nice to see most of it up on the screen. I thought Bilbo was portrayed wonderfully, and the Riddle game/finding of The Ring was great. Still pissed off it's going to be three movies, though. Overall, it was okay. Not great.

 

[VA703]

saw it yesterday... not bad.. not greatthey could have shortened that film by atleast 30 minutes

 

[mad sweeney]

Also finally saw it. Bummed that I missed out on the HFR 3D, but when/if they re-release it to the teaters in that format, I'll have a 2d baseline to compare it to. I thought it was great. Not perfect because of the flaws mentioned: Goblin King was absurd, trolls were silly, the stone giant fight was cool but had no place in a film that was borderline too long (we already knew Thorin didn't like Bilbo), the Goblin King was stupid, the long falls were a bit too credulity straining (to go with surviving the giant fight), the Goblin King sucked and a few other miscellania (Hey Rocs, could you set us down further away from the mountain?!).Howver, the movie greatly surpassed those down moments. Freeman was utterly perfect, one of the best performances of a literary figure of all time, IMO. Better even than McKellan as Gandalf. I liked how Gandalf wasn't the same confident, all-knowing guy he was in LOtR. Other than needing to trim it down by 20-30 minutes, including the goblin fight and the stone giant fight, I don't have any bad complaints. One of my main ones was the problem of height differential in the trilogy. It seemed like all of a sudden they'd have a shot of a 2 foot tall kid next to a man to remind us they're short and then nothing to remind us for a while. With most of the characters short, it wasn't that jarring and they probably learned from the last ones that it didn't work that well. Very much looking forward to the next two if they're as good as this one. Just keep Elijah Wood out of it.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

From all the comments about the Dwarves/Goblin King/Trolls I'm picturing the ridiculous Dwarf surfing/tossing nonsense at Helm's Deep in The Two Towers. Is it that bad? Thought that was the lowlight of the movie trilogy.

 

[mad sweeney]

From all the comments about the Dwarves/Goblin King/Trolls I'm picturing the ridiculous Dwarf surfing/tossing nonsense at Helm's Deep in The Two Towers. Is it that bad? Thought that was the lowlight of the movie trilogy.

Kind of worse. The troll and the GK sounded like foppish English gents instead of vicious, cave dwelling monsters. Not at all like any of the baddie critters in LotR are portrayed.

 

[NewlyRetired]

From all the comments about the Dwarves/Goblin King/Trolls I'm picturing the ridiculous Dwarf surfing/tossing nonsense at Helm's Deep in The Two Towers. Is it that bad? Thought that was the lowlight of the movie trilogy.

Significantly "worse" if you don't like that thing. In Two Towers you had less than a minute of Gimli burping, falling off his horse and being tossed. You probably have closer to 15 minutes of that type of scenes in The Hobbit. The worst thing you can do is go to see The Hobbit and expect the seriousness of LOTR. You will be incredibly disappointed. The tone and texture of the Hobbit (at least so far) is significantly different than the LOTR movies but in fairness so was the Hobbit novel much different than the LOTR novels.

 

[NewlyRetired]

The 3rd Hobbit movie has been reschedule from July 14, 2014 to December 17, 2014. The Hobbit was going to butt heads with Bryan Singers highly anticipated Days of Future Past on July 14th, and will likely have much less genre competition in December, a time of the year all previous LOTR/Hobbit movies have done very well at the box office.

 

[NewlyRetired]

The Hobbit 1 just broke through the $1 billion mark world wide. 15th movie in history to achieve that mark

 

[Fiddles]

The Hobbit 1 just broke through the $1 billion mark world wide. 15th movie in history to achieve that mark

Bluray out in a couple weeks.

 

[Kraft...]

They going to release extended versions at some point like they did with LOTR movies?

 

[beer 302]

They going to release extended versions at some point like they did with LOTR movies?

I'm sure there will be directors cuts, then extended special directors cuts then box sets then special edition box sets and at some point, probably 20 or 30 years down the road they will find film that was forgotten and the whole series, along with LOTR will be combined for an addition 5 minutes of "new" footage and sold as a special edition never before seen going into the vault forever super-d-duper box set that will sell for approximately the debt of a small third world nation

 

[NewlyRetired]

They going to release extended versions at some point like they did with LOTR movies?

Yes, this was announced officially in early February by Warner Bros.

Middle-earth fans who buy “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” when it is released on Blu-ray and DVD March 19 will be privy to a sneak preview of “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” — the second movie in Peter Jackson’s planned trilogy based on the book by J.R.R. Tolkien. But those hoping for an extended edition of the first film will have to wait until the holidays.“An Unexpected Journey” will go on sale March 19 in three different combinations — a Blu-ray combo pack ($35.99), a Blu-ray 3-D combo pack ($44.95) and a DVD two-disc special edition ($28.98) — but all of them will feature the 169-minute theatrical version of the film, Warner Bros. announced Tuesday, adding that an extended edition will be available in time for the holidays.

 

[cstu]

Saw it in IMAX 3-d last saturday and loved it (but I am a big Tolkien geek ) Thought it would drag based on a lot of the comments I had read, but it flew by for me. Didn't mind Rhadaghast, but I agree with the others in here who said there was a little too much slapstick with the Dwarves, Trolls & the Goblin King. I also didn't think the goblins/trolls voices really matched up well with their CGI appearences. They shouldn't have sounded like regular humans and they didn't do that in the first 3 films.Only nitpick that bothered me was Balin was not at all how I pictured. I thought he would be more like how they portrayed Dwalin, a tough, hard fighting 2nd in command type as opposed to the older, sagely advisor full of wisdom type. He didn't look like the type that would try to lead a foolhardy expedition to fight and take back Moria. And I didn't like the look of the Arkenstone at all.

So despite trying to avoid it, I finally watched it last night...Having read the book I was expecting anything as serious as LOTR but the slapstick was over the top. I could have lived with the slapstick but Jackson also decided to forego any semblance of realism - this was especially bad in the stone giants and goblin scenes. There was enough there for it to be enjoyable but I couldn't help being a bit disappointed by the cartoonishness.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Saw it in IMAX 3-d last saturday and loved it (but I am a big Tolkien geek ) Thought it would drag based on a lot of the comments I had read, but it flew by for me. Didn't mind Rhadaghast, but I agree with the others in here who said there was a little too much slapstick with the Dwarves, Trolls & the Goblin King. I also didn't think the goblins/trolls voices really matched up well with their CGI appearences. They shouldn't have sounded like regular humans and they didn't do that in the first 3 films.Only nitpick that bothered me was Balin was not at all how I pictured. I thought he would be more like how they portrayed Dwalin, a tough, hard fighting 2nd in command type as opposed to the older, sagely advisor full of wisdom type. He didn't look like the type that would try to lead a foolhardy expedition to fight and take back Moria. And I didn't like the look of the Arkenstone at all.

So despite trying to avoid it, I finally watched it last night...Having read the book I was expecting anything as serious as LOTR but the slapstick was over the top. I could have lived with the slapstick but Jackson also decided to forego any semblance of realism - this was especially bad in the stone giants and goblin scenes. There was enough there for it to be enjoyable but I couldn't help being a bit disappointed by the cartoonishness.

Why did this surprise you when every single review of the movie in this thread mentioned the sillyness?

 

[cstu]

How did the goblins chip through the floor below the dwarves without any of them hearing anything?

 

[cstu]

Is The Hobbit Peter Jackson’s Phantom Menace?

 

[stbugs]

How did the goblins chip through the floor below the dwarves without any of them hearing anything?

I got the Bluray (3 boys) and we had a great time watching it together last night. On this point, did you not notice that they were doors that opened and everyone fell into that basket? It's called a trap. The goblins didn't chip through anything. They probably heard all the commotion and one of the goblins opened the trap. Did you notice how all those goblins converged and that Bilbo's sword glowed blue right before the trap doors opened?

 

[stbugs]

Is The Hobbit Peter Jackson’s Phantom Menace?

I can see some slight comparisons in that it was definitely light hearted and not menacing in any way, but The Hobbit >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Phantom Menace. It will probably get more serious in the next two, but from everything I ever heard in here about the books (never read The Hobbit), the source material is far more kid friendly than LOTR. I liked The Hobbbit a lot and I loved the LOTR movies. It was a little goofy and maybe being a dad I enjoyed the fact that I could watch it with my boys.

 

[mozzy84]

Can a 7-8 year old watch this and not be freaked out?

 

[NewlyRetired]

Can a 7-8 year old watch this and not be freaked out?

Can you give us an idea of what movies he has seen so that we can balance this out?Obviously this movie is more enjoyable if you have watched LOTR since they make so many ties back to the trilogy. I personally would wait until he/she has seen LOTR first.If he/she has already seen LOTR first they will have no problem with the first Hobbit movie as it is much lighter.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

Can a 7-8 year old watch this and not be freaked out?

My 5 year old daughter watched it with no problems. She loved it, but she LOVED the book first...we had some great quality time reading a chapter before bed each night for a couple of weeks!

 

[Fiddles]

Watched with my 4 and 6 yr old boys this afternoon. 4 yr old was scared in parts. I was prepared to ffwd several scenes but I wound up only fwding through thrains decapitation. We just finished the book a few days ago which made it less scary.

Does anyone know where the next movie ends? Guessing its beorn to escaping the wood elves.

 

[cstu]

How did the goblins chip through the floor below the dwarves without any of them hearing anything?

I got the Bluray (3 boys) and we had a great time watching it together last night. On this point, did you not notice that they were doors that opened and everyone fell into that basket? It's called a trap. The goblins didn't chip through anything. They probably heard all the commotion and one of the goblins opened the trap. Did you notice how all those goblins converged and that Bilbo's sword glowed blue right before the trap doors opened?

Went back and watched that scene, no clue how I missed it was a trap.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

Just saw it after buying the blu-ray (didn't see it in theaters). Overall was an enjoyable experience, though as always I question some of the choices Jackson makes to needlessly change the source material. I am supportive of how he has brought in the Necromancer storyline, and can't wait to see the White Council's efforts in the coming movies. On the other hand, I don't see the point in the Azog stuff, or needlessly changing details of the troll encounter/Goblin Town/dwarf&orc war backstory. Why not be faithful to Tolkien's vision in these parts?

 

[cstu]

Just saw it after buying the blu-ray (didn't see it in theaters). Overall was an enjoyable experience, though as always I question some of the choices Jackson makes to needlessly change the source material. I am supportive of how he has brought in the Necromancer storyline, and can't wait to see the White Council's efforts in the coming movies. On the other hand, I don't see the point in the Azog stuff, or needlessly changing details of the troll encounter/Goblin Town/dwarf&orc war backstory. Why not be faithful to Tolkien's vision in these parts?

He couldn't have made it into three films.

 

[Premier]

So bought this blu ray 3d set yesterday. The 3d is chopped up into 2 disks. The first one doesn't work at all (just a black empty screen) but the second one works great.

Took it back today thinking it was defective but the new one I purchased does the same thing. Anybody heard of this? Is something wrong with the prints?

 

[Doubtingthomas]

Is The Hobbit Peter Jackson’s Phantom Menace?

Sorry not going to read this, just on the face of it it is silly. In part what made Phantom so horrible was the ridiculously bad acting from really good actors and things like planets basing their political system on democratically elected teen aged "queens". How stupid is that? The hobbit matches the tone of the book well and is well acted. I was sufficently menaced during the riddles in the dark scene, really liked the whole dragon attack at the beginning, and while the goblin escape scenes are over the top I explain that as the presence of Gandalf and his red ring which is known to be able to inspire people around him to extraordinary deeds. At least it is consistent with the source material in some way. Phantom menace is just ######ed in places, not even rising to the level of cartoonish.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Is The Hobbit Peter Jackson’s Phantom Menace?

Sorry not going to read this, just on the face of it it is silly. In part what made Phantom so horrible was the ridiculously bad acting from really good actors and things like planets basing their political system on democratically elected teen aged "queens". How stupid is that? The hobbit matches the tone of the book well and is well acted. I was sufficently menaced during the riddles in the dark scene, really liked the whole dragon attack at the beginning, and while the goblin escape scenes are over the top I explain that as the presence of Gandalf and his red ring which is known to be able to inspire people around him to extraordinary deeds. At least it is consistent with the source material in some way. Phantom menace is just ######ed in places, not even rising to the level of cartoonish.

And let's be honest about a couple of things:

1. Eps 4, 5, & 6 of Star Wars weren't exactly works of dramatic art. Hammil especially was horrid.

2. The Hobbit as a book wasn't quite High Lit.

3. Jackson likes his toys sometimes too much, but can keep a narrative moving (looking at you, Lucas).

 

[cstu]

Is The Hobbit Peter Jackson’s Phantom Menace?

Sorry not going to read this, just on the face of it it is silly. In part what made Phantom so horrible was the ridiculously bad acting from really good actors and things like planets basing their political system on democratically elected teen aged "queens". How stupid is that? The hobbit matches the tone of the book well and is well acted. I was sufficently menaced during the riddles in the dark scene, really liked the whole dragon attack at the beginning, and while the goblin escape scenes are over the top I explain that as the presence of Gandalf and his red ring which is known to be able to inspire people around him to extraordinary deeds. At least it is consistent with the source material in some way. Phantom menace is just ######ed in places, not even rising to the level of cartoonish.

I never bothered to figure out the politics in Star Wars. Is that really how it worked?

 

[Doubtingthomas]

Is The Hobbit Peter Jackson’s Phantom Menace?

Sorry not going to read this, just on the face of it it is silly. In part what made Phantom so horrible was the ridiculously bad acting from really good actors and things like planets basing their political system on democratically elected teen aged "queens". How stupid is that? The hobbit matches the tone of the book well and is well acted. I was sufficently menaced during the riddles in the dark scene, really liked the whole dragon attack at the beginning, and while the goblin escape scenes are over the top I explain that as the presence of Gandalf and his red ring which is known to be able to inspire people around him to extraordinary deeds. At least it is consistent with the source material in some way. Phantom menace is just ######ed in places, not even rising to the level of cartoonish.

I never bothered to figure out the politics in Star Wars. Is that really how it worked?

Yes, on Naboo Amadilla is Queen. Elected Queen appointed to Senator of Nabooo by her successor, also a teenager. As Queen she calls for the vote of no confidence on Chancellor Valoran and appoints Palpatine Senator so he can become Chancellor. All before the age of 25 seemingly.

 

[NewlyRetired]

The teaser trailer for The Desolation of Smaug was released today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnaojlfdUbs

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The teaser trailer for The Desolation of Smaug was released today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnaojlfdUbs

Looks like more fun.