Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 9

[Still Wynning]

No, FOTR is one of my favorite films of all time and I love and adored the Hobbit. There is no so-so or just liking for this movie. I enjoyed it THAT much!

Well, that's why I said "general" and not "exact", because it varies from person to person, but it's just a general observation that I made.

 

[ThePhantasm]

The next chapter will test how well this film sits with audiences, as Gandalf will likely barely be in the next chapter (he'll show up at the end).

No, I think he'll have plenty to do at Dol Guldur.

 

[Doc Ock]

Well, that's why I said "general" and not "exact", because it varies from person to person, but it's just a general observation that I made.

I just find it hard to believe people who loved the LOTR films not love The Hobbit.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

I just find it hard to believe people who loved the LOTR films not love The Hobbit.

Yeah, same here. Guess it's the difference in tone?

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

The Trolls sounding like London cab drivers made me laugh.

Gandalf like Mr T sure likes calling people fools

Yeah, didn't he say something like, "Fly, you fools!" in FOTR? In The Hobbit it was the scene where he lead the Dwarves down the opening behind the rock and said, "Over here, you fools!", or something like that.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I just find it hard to believe people who loved the LOTR films not love The Hobbit.

Agreed. Everyone I know who loved either the books or films or both has enjoyed The Hobbit immensely.

I only had two issues with the film:

1) The three trolls. I didn't care for the Three Stooges vibe they went for. The troll with the high-pitched voice was a little much, but aside from that the scene was good.

2) A few of the action scenes went a little "too far" - in particular, the scene where the group escape the goblin city by falling/sliding for a mile into the earth was a little much for me. Cut that part in half and it wouldn't seem so far fetched. Other than that, the action was great, though.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Yeah, didn't he say something like, "Fly, you fools!" in FOTR? In The Hobbit it was the scene where he lead the Dwarves down the opening behind the rock and said, "Over here, you fools!", or something like that.

Heh, yeah it's a nice reoccuring thing about Gandalf. Remember, he also screams "Fool of a Took!"

The reoccuring drug references in the films make me laugh as well - they're subtle and almost innocent:

FOTR - Gandalf is chastized by Sauroman for his "love of the Hobbit's leaf" and how it "clouds his senses".
ROTK - Merry and Pippin high on longbottom leaf and slightly drunk in Isengard
The Hobbit - Sauroman's comment about Radaghast eating too many mushrooms.

 

[RoboAmish]

Yeah, same here. Guess it's the difference in tone?

I keep hearing this lighter tone thing as a reason but I don't buy it. Might be the lack of stakes but, while it is lighter, the shift isn't quite seismic enough that I feel it'd put people off. Might be the jarring mix of tones between the lighter Hobbit stuff and the darker appendices stuff.

Agreed. Everyone I know who loved either the books or films or both has enjoyed The Hobbit immensely.

My friend and I are both big fans of both and neither of us liked it. Just sayin'

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Heh, yeah it's a nice reoccuring thing about Gandalf. The reoccuring drug references in the films make me laugh as well - they're subtle and almost innocent:

FOTR - Gandalf is chastized by Sauroman for his "love of the Hobbit's leaf" and how it "clouds his senses".

ROTK - Merry and Pippin high on longbottom leaf and slightly drunk in Isengard

The Hobbit - Sauroman's comment about Radaghast eating too many mushrooms.

Yeah, or like how Gandalf hit his head on Bilbo's chandelier and also turned the walls behind him dark in Bilbo's house while his voice boomed to show his anger.

 

[godisawesome]

I actually liked LOTR a lot, and I like The Hobbit the same amount. So did my buddy, the uber-Tolkein fan.

I really liked the change in tones between scenes, but then again I'm a firm believer in the comedy and drama one-two punch. I think that Young Justice the comic was the best teen comic written because one second you have a beleaguered mechanic preparing to perform yet another exorcism on some stupid haunted car and the next Harm shows up to play sick mind games on characters.

So having the dwarves be hilarious singers and then having an epic battle flashback worked well for me.

 

[DACrowe]

I finally saw The Hobbit last night.

I would like to say I loved it, but it just didn't work for me. It was too long, too slow and too boring. I enjoyed the LOTR music, the look of Middle Earth/New Zealand, the acting (especially Freeman and McKellan) and a few scenes. The scene with Bilbo and Gollum was great. But it just felt like one action scene after another and that they were running in place the whole movie.

6/10

It just did not do it for me.

 

[DACrowe]

I just find it hard to believe people who loved the LOTR films not love The Hobbit.

I loved the LOTR films (but can only watch them about once every 5 years) and I enjoyed the books. But the film is just too long and not enough happens. The only characters I liked were Bilbo and Gandalf. The new characters do not work for me, I do not care when they are in danger and the inclusion of appendix-based asides, such as the Brown Wizard's scenes, feel pointless and drag down the plot.

FOTR had a natural plotline that had rising action and made me care about the Fellowship's characters and I hadn't even read the books at that point. LOTR worked hard to earn our interest. The Hobbit feels like it's for hardcore fans only. I read the books, but a movie needs to do more than earnestly regurgitate what's in the book...and a lot more that is intentionally not.

Just my viewpoint on the film.

 

[DaveMoral]

Overgeneralizing. I think it's a mixed bag. I'm a huge fan of the original trilogy, but what stands out in my mind is Martin Freeman's performance. Elija Wood did a great job of portraying the burden of carrying the one ring, but I think Freeman's performance is really what being a Hobbit is all about. Also I think in the LOTR, Gimli was less a dwarf and more of comic relief. We now see the Dwarves for the warriors that they are.

LOTR is a more grand and brooding tale, where the Hobbit is an Adventure story that was originally written for Tolkien's boys. As someone mentioned there's no real strong female characters, and it's a simpler story.

Jackson certainly changed some things from the book, but I think the heart of the story is there. Obviously things get a lot worse and darker, and I'll be very curious by the time we get to the battle of the five armies.

The next chapter will test how well this film sits with audiences, as Gandalf will likely barely be in the next chapter (he'll show up at the end).

I think there will be a ton of Dol Goldur stuff in Desolation... it just won't be the final confrontation between the Necromancer and the White Council. And who knows how that's going to pan out on screen. I always just figured it was more a magical battle than one with swords. Gandalf will definitely be going there though.

They might jumble the timeline again for that too. Gandalf will find a dying Thrain there, get some kind of final evidence that the Necromancer is Sauron... but the map and key for Erebor won't be there. And then There And Back Again will have the Battle of Five Armies and the White Council driving the Necromancer out of the Mirkwood. I definitely think Desolation is likely to end with Smaug's defeat and Thorin and Co holed up in Erebor with the Wood Elves and the Men of Dale on their doorstep.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I loved the LOTR films (but can only watch them about once every 5 years) and I enjoyed the books. But the film is just too long and not enough happens. The only characters I liked were Bilbo and Gandalf. The new characters do not work for me, I do not care when they are in danger and the inclusion of appendix-based asides, such as the Brown Wizard's scenes, feel pointless and drag down the plot.

FOTR had a natural plotline that had rising action and made me care about the Fellowship's characters and I hadn't even read the books at that point. LOTR worked hard to earn our interest. The Hobbit feels like it's for hardcore fans only. I read the books, but a movie needs to do more than earnestly regurgitate what's in the book...and a lot more that is intentionally not.

Just my viewpoint on the film.

I felt kind of the same way. As in The Lord of the Rings was the real movie, and The Hobbit is just a fun bonus for fans. To that extent, I enjoyed it, but it isn't anywhere near the level of the three Lord of the Rings films.

Of course, in many ways the same problems carry over from the book. I really feel that The Hobbit lives mostly off of the reputation of The Lord of the Rings and the larger Middle Earth mythology that Tolkien created. The Hobbit was first and it is the easiest read so it is a good entry point for anybody interested in Tolkien. But The Lord of the Rings was always his masterpiece and it carries over to the films.

 

[Brain Damage]

Heh, yeah it's a nice reoccuring thing about Gandalf. Remember, he also screams "Fool of a Took!"

The reoccuring drug references in the films make me laugh as well - they're subtle and almost innocent:

FOTR - Gandalf is chastized by Sauroman for his "love of the Hobbit's leaf" and how it "clouds his senses".
ROTK - Merry and Pippin high on longbottom leaf and slightly drunk in Isengard
The Hobbit - Sauroman's comment about Radaghast eating too many mushrooms.

That mushroom line got scattered laughs both times I saw it. The set up and Christopher Lee's delivery are just priceless t:

 

[RoboAmish]

Heh, yeah it's a nice reoccuring thing about Gandalf. Remember, he also screams "Fool of a Took!"

The reoccuring drug references in the films make me laugh as well - they're subtle and almost innocent:

FOTR - Gandalf is chastized by Sauroman for his "love of the Hobbit's leaf" and how it "clouds his senses".
ROTK - Merry and Pippin high on longbottom leaf and slightly drunk in Isengard
The Hobbit - Sauroman's comment about Radaghast eating too many mushrooms.

Add Gandalf giving Radagast a puff of his pipe to calm him down.

 

[Marvolo]

I just find it hard to believe people who loved the LOTR films not love The Hobbit.

Im one of those people. The film felt like it had no drive or forward momentum. It could have easily lost 20-30 minutes and felt overly indulgent. It also only covered my least favorite parts of the Hobbit. The only moments that really stuck with me were the character moments between gandalf/bilbo, bofur/bilbo, thorin/balin. The rest of the film I couldnt get invested in. It doesnt have that strong characterization and it could have to do with the fact that I just dont given a damn about half the dwarves. They might as well not even exist. Im hoping the next film will grab me more because it has the stuff Im really interested in. The necromancer, dol guldor, mirkwood, and smaug.

 

[Drizzle]

The next chapter will test how well this film sits with audiences, as Gandalf will likely barely be in the next chapter (he'll show up at the end).

Even if he isn't, it wouldn't be all that different from The Two Towers. Not counting the extended edition, Gandalf isn't in it all that much. He has the opening fight with the Balrog, his big return in Fangorn, the Edoras scenes, and finally when he shows up to save the day at Helm's Deep. All important scenes, but he's probably in the film for about 20 minutes or so. I think he has maybe two or three added scenes in the extended cut.

Regarding the next Hobbit film, Gandalf will be there in the beginning for the scenes with Beorn, and then they'll probably have some more Dol Guldur buildup with him and the White Council. But yeah, it doesn't look like he'll be in it as much as he was in An Unexpected Journey.

In the end it doesn't matter, because I think Smaug is going to steal the second film.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Gandalf should be there. His side adventures will be featured, probably heavily. He has to go to Dol Guldur after all.

 

[TheIrishAvenger]

Well, I saw the film today, and while I enjoyed it, I was somewhat disappointed to be honest.

Great performances, beautiful cinematography and a wonderful score but the huge amounts of CG really took me out of the film and gave me no real thrill or excitement during the action sequences. The film needed a damn good trimming, several characters and scenes I found to be completely unnecessary and pointless. But again, I enjoyed it overall, it's a fun movie with a lot of flaws. Hopefully the worst IS behind us.

Grade: 3.5/5

 

[The Guard]

Am I the only one who feels like almost every major complaint people have with THE HOBBIT should also be applied to THE LORD OF THE RINGS, except that they weren't neccessarily weakness there, so why are they being considered such here?

The only major difference in approach I noticed was a bit more emphasis on pure fantasy elements, which can also be said about the book, and the obvious "padding" drawn from other Tolkein lore, which felt less like "padding" and more like "a subplot".

 

[TheIrishAvenger]

I've seen alot of complaints towards the first act being a bit slow, but I really enjoyed the start, I adored the scenes with the Dwarves and Gandalf at Bilbo's house.

 

[Marvolo]

Am I the only one who feels like almost every major complaint people have with THE HOBBIT should also be applied to THE LORD OF THE RINGS, except that they weren't neccessarily weakness there, so why are they being considered such here?

The only major difference in approach I noticed was a bit more emphasis on pure fantasy elements, which can also be said about the book, and the obvious "padding" drawn from other Tolkein lore, which felt less like "padding" and more like "a subplot".

In some cases yes and in some cases no. As for pace, it is very subjective. Obviously fans of he material and book will be more forgiving of a longer movie. I thought it was too long but I dont care for this part of the book and I just wanted the story to get going. In an extended edition at home it might have been better but as a theatrical release it was ungainly and I just did not care for the story enough to ignore my ass going numb.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I've seen alot of complaints towards the first act being a bit slow, but I really enjoyed the start, I adored the scenes with the Dwarves and Gandalf at Bilbo's house.

I love the stuff at Bag End. It is finely balanced however. It is right on the end of indulgent, and the addition of Frodo scene, which were complete fluff and kinda of horrible, effects how the other scenes feel imo.

Am I the only one who feels like almost every major complaint people have with THE HOBBIT should also be applied to THE LORD OF THE RINGS, except that they weren't neccessarily weakness there, so why are they being considered such here?

The only major difference in approach I noticed was a bit more emphasis on pure fantasy elements, which can also be said about the book, and the obvious "padding" drawn from other Tolkein lore, which felt less like "padding" and more like "a subplot".

It isn't that it has pure fantasy. The pure fantasy moments might be the best in the film. Subplot is padding in this case. It leads no where and is drastically different in tone. It is like the film suddenly changes. Kind of hodgepodge.

As to the comparison to LotR. First I think it would depend on the film. I can see a lot of similar flaws in The Hobbit in RotK and to a lesser extent TTT. But here in The Hobbit they feel far more blatant. It is similarly structured to FotR, but it lacks the elegance or the finesse of class editing both at the script and film levels.

 

[The Guard]

The subplot leads where it's supposed to lead...to where they find themselves at the end of the film. It's clearly intended to run through at least two films, and not to be wrapped up in AUJ.

It's not that the pure fantasy is bad...it's just that it's a noticeable difference from THE LORD OF THE RINGS. This has what THE LORD OF THE RINGS had, plus a dragon, talking trolls, a focus on the goblins and their world, etc.

I'll agree that THE HOBBIT lacked in the editing and script department compared to LOTR. I think a lot of it has to do with the nature of it as an adaption with included material VS an existing structure that was adapted. The flaws in the script are similar to the flaws that existed where Jackson added things to/rearranged LOTR.