Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 9

[ThePhantasm]

I would have hated it if they cut the number of dwarves. Call me a purist if you will, but that would have really been a disappointment to me.

 

[<(o_o)>]

They talk in the Hobbit book, whereas I don't think there is ever an instance of trolls speaking in LOTR. At least, not that I can remember off the top of my head.

Since The Hobbit book was written for children it would probably make more sense that they would be able to talk in that, & then with the more adult oriented LOTR's books the Trolls didn't necessarily have to talk even though they could have made them talk.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I would have hated it if they cut the number of dwarves. Call me a purist if you will, but that would have really been a disappointment to me.

I would've accepted such a change. Let's face it, other than Thorin, Balin, and Bombur, the rest had almost no individual lines of dialogue. They were there simply because a company of thirteen seems more appropriate for the story than a company of four or five. It works well enough on the page where the author has the power to guide you to exactly which part of the story being told, but it's more noticeable and jarring in a medium like film that uses cinematic space that some of the characters along for the ride are doing nothing.

 

[RoboAmish]

So I just got back, here's my review.

My greatest fear going into this film once Jackson made the decision to split it into three films was whether the story was there to justify the almost 9 hours of cinema. Sadly it doesn't, The Hobbit is a film that at times recaptures the magic that was seen in LOTR but ultimately doesn't have the same weight story wise to demand the same amount of time. It seems to me Jackson spent way to much time trying to redo what he did 12 years ago with LOTR instead of treating The Hobbit as its own thing. Whilst The Hobbit does better than most it still suffers from a reasonably mild case of 'prequel-itis', we know what's going to happen, the needless connections to the events that will transpire 60 years later have zero impact on the story at hand, yet large amounts of time are wasted on telling us things we already know.

In and amongst the needless future connections the title character seems to get lost, that to me is the biggest issue of the film. Martin Freeman is fantastic as Bilbo, but instead of focusing on him this film feels much more like Thorin's story with Bilbo along for the ride. Whilst you can make the argument that The Hobbit has always been the Dwarves story, Bilbo's perspective of the situation was haphazardly handled here, after a fantastic introduction at Bag End with the dinner sequence Bilbo seems to get completely lost during the second act of the movie and only really comes back into the fold during the Riddles in the Dark sequence which is by far the best sequence in the movie, seeing Andy Serkis as Gollum again was a true joy. Overall it's hard to gauge exactly who this film was meant to be about and who was meant to be the focus.

Ian McKellen was great again, I always preferred Gandalf the Grey over Gandalf the White and it was awesome to see this version of the character back again. McKellen slips back into the role like and old pair of shoes, the only down side is I never really felt much of a relationship between Gandalf and Bilbo was established. Perhaps that will be explored in the next two films but I think some of the time spent in other areas could have been used in showing the friendship building between the two.

For the dwarves Richard Armitage as Thorin is good, but the rest of the dwarves seem to get lost amongst each other which isn't really a surprise given there a 13 of them in all, but I wonder if maybe Jackson could have reduced the number by 4 or 5 just to make them stand out from each other a bit more.

Some complaints about the CG are warranted, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as some have made it out to be, the action sequences are fun to watch in spite of the overly GC environments and characters. One thing I missed was the great make-up work on the Orcs, there was a texture and feel to the Orcs in LOTR that is noticeably absent here in The Hobbit, I'm not really sure why Jackson chose this route but I think this was a case of being overly reliant on the CG to achieve the same effect as makeup.

As for the changes to the book, I'm no purist by any means, but I feel as if many of the additions really don't add a hell of a lot. I can understand the need for a villain as such given Smaug isn't coming up until the next movie, but Azog just doesn't cut it in the same way that Lurtz did in Fellowship. Maybe it was the fact that he was a CG character but he felt extremely bland whilst Lurtz felt like a genuine badass. As for the LOTR reunion in Bag End and Rivendell, pretty much pointless, the former of which does nothing but slow down the beginning of the movie. Radaghast the Brown, a character I always wanted to see, is entertaining in the brief period he's on screen but I feel as if the story is altered to accommodate him and ultimately he feels wasted.

Overall, The Hobbit Part 1 is a slightly above average movie that drags out longer than it should, it feels every bit of its 169 minute run time and could easily have had 30 mins shaved off it, in fact this feel more like an Extended Edition of the film as opposed to the cinema release. A two-part movie was more than enough for the book Jackson is adapting, the fact that this first film has covered only the first half dozen chapters kinda scares me, but I'm hopeful Jackson can see the error in his ways here and tighten things up a bit more in the next two movies even if that means they have a considerably shorter run time. I don't know if overindulgence is the right word, I just think Jackson was trying to do the same thing he did 12 years ago to a completely different book.

6/10

You've probably been slightly more charitable than I would have been but I agree with all your points

 

[jmc]

^ I still enjoyed it in parts, it just needs a good 30 mins taken out.

 

[Octoberist]

I would give it a 7.5 or maybe an 8 personably. I didn't watch it in 48 so my viewing is more charitable due to the fact I could view the film as a film and not with the distractions of 48.

 

[CGHulk]

There's to much childlike fantasy throughout the film. Thrandul riding a elk. The action sequences have crazy camera moves and plausibility of the action sequences is to unrealistic. Dori breathing in moths while sleeping. The company being thrown left and right on a rock giants knees. The company falling down on a piece of bridge and the golbin king falls on top of them and nobody gets a scratch. Azog looked like a video game character from one of those Blur video game trailers. The humor was childish, when one of the trolls wiped his nose with Bilbo and he was covered in troll snot, that was not in the book. Radagast talks to animals, he has a bunny sled and he somehow has a stick insect in his mouth. It felt like this movie was in a cartoon world aimed at children. Of course this was a children's movie adapted from a children's book, but if this is supposed to tie in with the LOTR, it doesn't. It's way to fanciful and it had to much childish humor more so than the book. Thranduil on an an elk just bothers me, did he have to be on an elk because the big budget now will allow it?

When the Lord of the Rings was made Peter was on a budget and when each film was more successful than the other the studio granted his request for more money on the last two films, more so on the ROTK. It seamed less was more, now with this film he's been granted enough money to do whatever he wants. Most of the film doesn't look real to me, there's to many CG camera moves and improbable action sequences that can only be done in the computer. There's to much of an emphasis on using more CG for animals and creatures, including the orcs and goblins. Like I said before the tone and look of this film is like an animated film. There's more CG here than live action, and the wild camera shots with CG environments take me out the illusion of this looking like a real world. In the flashback of the battle of the Mines of Moria, the CG orcs in the battle looked really fake, especially Azog. This film has a cartoon aesthetic to filmmaking, as the LOTR films had a live action.

 

[Marvolo]

There's to much childlike fantasy throughout the film. Thrandul riding a elk. The action sequences have crazy camera moves and plausibility of the action sequences is to unrealistic. Dori breathing in moths while sleeping. The company being thrown left and right on a rock giants knees. The company falling down on a piece of bridge and the golbin king falls on top of them and nobody gets a scratch. Azog looked like a video game character from one of those Blur video game trailers. The humor was childish like when one of the trolls wiped their nose with Bilbo and he was covered in troll snot. Radagast talks to animals, he has a bunny sled and he somehow has a stick insect in his mouth. It felt like this movie was in a cartoon world aimed at children. Peter directed this like it was a Tintin film, an animated film!!!

That is the tone of the book. The Hobbit is a children's book. It is very different from LOTR.

 

[CGHulk]

I don't say that now in my post above. But I'll answer it, aesthetically it's made like an animated film. The tone and humor is more childlike than even in the book, as I now have stated above on both issues.

 

[jmc]

There was always going to be a disconnect between LOTR and The Hobbit. I'll say this in its defence, I think Jackson did a better job of seamlessly connecting the stories than Tolkien. Tolkien himself tried to recon things but it was too late IMO.

 

[CGHulk]

There was always going to be a disconnect between LOTR and The Hobbit. I'll say this in its defence, I think Jackson did a better job of seamlessly connecting the stories than Tolkien. Tolkien himself tried to recon things but it was too late IMO.

I agree but Jackson then added his own stuff.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think the disconnect comes with the added material. It takes on several different tones that just don't quite fit together. Some stuff is LotR serious, while other stuff is more kiddy and goofy then the material actually being adapted.

 

[CGHulk]

I agree!

The cave troll sequence is sorta silly slapstick. In that same spot 60 years later Frodo is there with the Hobbits and Aragon where the tone there is very serious. I don't blame Jackson. The Hobbit is a very different tone due to Tolkien.

 

[Boom]

Peter Jackson and cast talk about their most anticipated scenes in Desolation of Smaug:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1eAWskbUrs

Major props to Richard Armitage for the Beorn shout-out .

 

[CGHulk]

Martin's a funny guy!

 

[Bruce Malone]

That is the tone of the book. The Hobbit is a children's book. It is very different from LOTR.

Yeah that's what prevented me from being more critical of the film and it's much more childish tone. They were adapting the book.

However it also just furthered my belief that the Hobbit was not a book in need of an epic 3 film 3 hour movie trilogy.

I really feel it was a film that knew it probably couldn't stand on it's own without reminding the viewers that this was connected to the LOTR trilogy. The pointless frodo cameo was sort of evident of that.

 

[ravn0s]

just got back from seeing it. absolutely loved it.

 

[Doc Ock]

I loved the stuff with Biblo and Frodo in the beginning, just fantastic. Gave me a massive grin just because it felt like FOTR again, but something new at the same time.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I agree!

The cave troll sequence is sorta silly slapstick. In that same spot 60 years later Frodo is there with the Hobbits and Aragon where the tone there is very serious. I don't blame Jackson. The Hobbit is a very different tone due to Tolkien.

The cave Troll sequence wasn't in the Mines of Moria.

 

[CGHulk]

The cave Troll sequence wasn't in the Mines of Moria.

Who said it was? The cave trolls sequence I was referencing is in the forest at night, where they were going sit on them one by one and squash them into jelly.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Sorry. I quoted the wrong post and made a typing mistake. I meant to quote your original post. I think you mistook Erebor for Moria in the prologue.

Need to go to sleep.

 

[CGHulk]

Sorry. I quoted the wrong post and made a typing mistake. I meant to quote your original post. I think you mistook Erebor for Moria in the prologue.

Need to go to sleep.

I corrected it, thanks! I put it back as Moria as it says it is in the movie.

 

[DaveMoral]

The only scene I felt was truly superfluous was the stone giants. I took a bathroom break there for my second viewing.

Even when I read that scene at 12 years of age I didn't take it literally. I always took it in the same kind of way one might say angels are bowling during a thunderstorm. The comic adaptation was the first literal depiction I ever saw, and Jackson made it waaaaay too literal.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Saw this last night. Overall I liked it, but I did feel that it was a tad too long. And let me say that I have NEVER been one of the ones who complained about the length of the LOTR films (all the people who complain about "too many endings" seriously need to give it a rest). But here, it just seemed like it took way to long to get things going. There's always a risk when you add extra scenes and characters, and while I think most of the additions Jackson made in the original trilogy really worked, here they bogged the story down at certain points. I did like that they included more about Dol Guldur and Sauron, but Radaghast was just a little TOO over-the-top silly. Granted, The Hobbit is intended to appeal to a younger audience, but they still could have toned down some of the sillier aspects. Still, it's a much better film than any fantasy epic since... well, since the last LOTR film. Some more recent attempts at the genre have failed miserably (The Golden Compass, Snow White & the Huntsman) while others have been okay but still felt lackluster in comparison (the Narnia films).

I really liked Freeman as Bilbo and Armitage as Thorin, and of course McKellan, Blanchett, Weaving and Lee brought their A-game as they always do. Also loved the Dwarven and Orc cities. Those created some amazing visuals.

So, in conclusion, not a perfect film and probably my least favorite of the Tolkien films so far, but still a very worthy addition. Looking forward to the next one.

8/10

 

[Rowsdower!]

The only scene I felt was truly superfluous was the stone giants. I took a bathroom break there for my second viewing.

Even when I read that scene at 12 years of age I didn't take it literally. I always took it in the same kind of way one might say angels are bowling during a thunderstorm. The comic adaptation was the first literal depiction I ever saw, and Jackson made it waaaaay too literal.

Haha, did the Stone Giants remind anyone else of Rock-em Sock-em Robots? I almost feel like Jackson made them look that way on purpose.