Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 9

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Which was all good and keeping with Tolkien and LotR. And then you have a Wizard with crap on his head, with a bunny sled and a bunch of cutie cgi creatures that would have trouble finding its place in a Dreamworks made for television special.
 
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.

Frodo's pointless cameo bothered me. It felt really forced, I was expecting him to stare at the camera and say:

"Hi, I'm Elijah Wood, you may remember me from such films as Lord of the Rings... North and The Good Son."
 
Frodo's pointless cameo bothered me. It felt really forced, I was expecting him to stare at the camera and say:

"Hi, I'm Elijah Wood, you may remember me from such films as Lord of the Rings... North and The Good Son."

The Good Son. :woot:

Yeah, I agree on the scene. It kinda of puts a halt to the film and it just started. As soon as Bilbo says "that is where I come in" or something to that effect, it should of cut directly to the younger Bilbo on his bench smoking.
 
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".

Except it did feel like padding. LOTR had a strong forward momentum. In The Hobbit everything feels like a vignette from the world of Tolkien and there is no sense of mounting action. The only time the movies comes alive is when Gollum is onscreen. Otherwise, it is a very hard-nosed "fans only" affair (what you call "more fantasy"). LOTR tried to win audiences over and introduce this world. Hobbit assumes everyone has read the book and wants to see the characters, so things like plotting and development do not matter. It also doesn't help that the first hour is so self-indulgent it has two musical numbers and what seems like 15 flashbacks.

Yes, they are very different.
 
The difference is also the weight of story, Hobbit is a lightweight fighter trying to box in a heavyweight division.
 
Ok, so everyone knows how I feel about LotR and Peter Jackson in general, so I won't waste my time with generalities. I only went to see it to take a look at the 48fps format. Now that I have, I will not be seeing the sequels at the theatre. I will try to be nice here, so as not to wind anyone up. Let's see...

Music: The main theme is much, much better than the LotR's one. Epic, foreboding, it's genius. The rest of the music (the new pieces, not the return of existing themes) was bland as hell. It's like Jackson hired King Kong era's James Newton Howard and slapped Shore's name on the credits. The use of the Nazgul theme when Thorin goes to face Azog was a huge wtf moment. Easily the worst soundtrack of the 4.

Story: Smaug prologue was fine. Older Bilbo/Frodo scenes were completely pointless, but they didn't bother me as much as I thought they would in terms of length, but their execution was terrible. Everything up to Bilbo joining the dwarves and Gandalf was awkward and truly a chore to get through.
After that it kinda gets better. The trolls scene was fun, I must admit. Everything with Radagast made me roll my eyes, apart from the Nazgul/Necromancer scene, that genuinely gave me chills. Rivendell was ok, but the White Council scene was vintage Jackson, dragged on and on and on and on. The Stone Giants scene was nice, everything until they get captured by the goblins is meh (thankfully it's short).
Now, the entire Gollum scene and everything after Gandalf saves them is pure gold. Amazing. Everything after Bilbo rejoins the company, however, is bad. We had the climax, but noooo, they had to re-insert the already pointless Azog subplot. I switched off, knowing the movie MUST be ending (thankfully it did).

Characters: Bilbo was entertaining, but the focus was clearly on the dwarves, so after a point there really wasn't much for him to do. Still, Jackson did manage to strike a balance, so that he didn't fade to the background completely. Gollum is better than ever. Gandalf was fine, I guess. I expected to be more entertained, but sure, whatever.
The 12 dwarves... actually my favorite was Bofur. The rest are inconsequential, I remember none. I don't even remember Kili for not being dwarvish enough. I expected for Thorin to really stand out, but I didn't feel it.
Frodo, as always, was there. Saruman was more of a ******** than I had surmised by reading in the books. I half expected him to attack Gandalf and do that break dancing thing again. Elrond was extremely likeable. Galadriel was extremely fu... yeah, well, she's fairer than ever. I did enjoy her. Radagast was a total meh. I liked the hedgehog he saved more.
Azog was a good villain, visually, if not completely pointless. The Goblin King was a bit of fun, but absolutely nothing more.

Acting: Ok, Martin Freeman IS Bilbo. In every conceivable way. Won't dwell on him, he's 100% perfect. McKellen was, as always, perfect. No complaints here. Armitage... I don't know, he tried and tried and he succeeded to a point, but I think he lacks charisma. The Radagast guy was having fun and it shows. The rest of the dwarves... Kili is a bad actor, but I enjoyed Bofur and the white bearded one who told Bilbo Thorin's story. The rest were meh.
Lee and Blanchett were class, as always. Humphries was also good. Lee Pace should be interesting to see, he looked regally creepy. Weaving as Elrond NAILED the f**k out of it. I always thought (still do) he was terribly miscast in the LotR movies, but in this one he was perfection. He may have been my favorite one in this movie. Azog's voice was creepy, me likey.
Ian Holm was terribly awkward. I was kinda uncomfortable watching, although that was partly the editing and camera work's fault. Elijah is Elijah, whatever. Andy Serkis was f**kin' genius as Gollum. He's evolved so much and he's done wonders with the part. Wow, just wow.

FX: Makeup effects were fine, if not somewhat exposed in the 48fps format. Ian Holm-Bilbo looked really really weird.
CGI was generally LotR level. Azog was fine, especially in the battle of Moria, so was Smaug's eye. Gollum was outstanding, really gave me chills how realistic he looked. And they really challenged themselves, 'cause he was more expresive than he was in the entire trilogy. Wargs were terrible, so were the eagles, and so was the entire scene were the Orcs hunt Radagast.

Editing: Fire the editor. No, really. And not because of the length of the movie, that's pure Jackson. Everything up until they leave the Shire is awkward as hell. The character interactions, the scene establishing shots, it's embarassing. The fights fell victim to the 00s action editing for a big part.

Cinematography: It was alright, maybe better than the LotR movies. The 48fps really really helped with the landscape shots.

Direction: I never liked PJ as a director, and I still don't. He kinda showed he can do something more in the Gollum scene, but then he was off to his usual antics. His camera work is still TV-like to me and I see he's still trying to use slomo to get emotion out of the viewer. Only this time it stands out more, since there are far fewer emotional moments in the Hobbit.

Action: Much much inferior to the LotR trilogy, save for the Goblin Town sequence, which trumps almost every LotR action scene. Don't know how that's possible. But I really didn't enjoy his one-on-one or his 13-on-enemies fights, so to speak. The final "fight" was terrible.

48fps: Yeah... I'm not feeling it. I was surprised that I got used to it after the dwarves cleaned up Bilbo's dishes, and then Bilbo started running to find them and join them. It's hideous in motion. And it's terrible for green screen and the meshing of backgrounds with sets and CG characters and actors. It's REALLY good for CGI characters alone, though. Azog and Gollum, as well as Smaug's eye really benefit from the format. But that final shot of the company posing... oh my dear sweet god. This format will be great for documentaries and animated movies, but I will not be preferring it in the future.

Overall: 5/10. Jackson has caught the Lucas bug, like a friend said. These are his Prequels, in terms of what people have accused Lucas of doing. Jackson has clearly become a technocrat and has barely evolved as a filmmaker. And this movie was somewhat exciting, since it was us meeting the characters and setting up the "story" and what have you. I do disagree with Bilbo that the worst is behind us. The worst is coming. This was already inferior to FotR (and TTT and RotK), I think TDoS will be worse than TTT respectively and TaBA will be worse than RotK.

PS: The tone was also very inconsistent. Sometimes it was pure Hobbit, sometimes it was LotR, and not its good moments. Very uneven. The pacing was also worse than FotR's.
 
Last edited:
^^ Tell us how you REALLY feel! LOL

Just playing with you.
 
I can't help but think this suffered from what Iron Man 2, Prometheus and the Dark Knight Rises suffered.

Filmmakers make movies. Audiences expect the second coming.

The Hobbit was just brilliant and I can't wait for the next one. I wish I could go to NZ soon!
 
Or it doesn't entirely have to do with expectations and some people can judge for themselves.
 
Is there a reason those giant eagals didn't just take the fellowship to mount doom or Thorin's comapny to the Lonely Mountain?
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.
The Hobbit and Tolkien in general was very popular with hippies in he 60s.

Hippies on Acid used to call up Tolkien in the middle of the night asking him questions about The Hobbit or Lord Of The Rings.

It got so bad he had to take his phone number out of the public directory and move to Bournemouth on the south coast of England.
Except it did feel like padding. LOTR had a strong forward momentum. In The Hobbit everything feels like a vignette from the world of Tolkien and there is no sense of mounting action. The only time the movies comes alive is when Gollum is onscreen. Otherwise, it is a very hard-nosed "fans only" affair (what you call "more fantasy"). LOTR tried to win audiences over and introduce this world. Hobbit assumes everyone has read the book and wants to see the characters, so things like plotting and development do not matter. It also doesn't help that the first hour is so self-indulgent it has two musical numbers and what seems like 15 flashbacks.

Yes, they are very different.
I think part the reason people may feel like that is because The Hobbit story has a more episodic narrative that the Lord Of The Rings.
 
Last edited:
I can't help but think this suffered from what Iron Man 2, Prometheus and the Dark Knight Rises suffered.

Filmmakers make movies. Audiences expect the second coming.

The Hobbit was just brilliant and I can't wait for the next one. I wish I could go to NZ soon!

Can't agree. I don't think audiences and people in general are as ignorant about The Hobbit as some people would like to believe. A lot of people knew what to expect and that it probably wouldn't live up to the trilogy.

I went in with a hopeful approach. Certainly not what I'd call "sky high" expectations.

jmc is mostly correct in his "lightweight" comment. It's an insubstantial story. And that's it's charm... it's a simple adventure story. The problem is trying to give this lightweight story added weight with all the dark foreboding and trying to drag it out for three movies. The material just simply wasn't made for a trilogy. It's making the whole thing feel even more insubstantial which seems to be what Jackson was trying to avoid.
 
I know some people that have never read The Hobbit or seen the cartoon movie from 1977 before going into this film. Some of them liked this film as much as the Lord of the Rings.

qJ2sB.gif
 
Last edited:
Is there a reason those giant eagals didn't just take the fellowship to mount doom or Thorin's comapny to the Lonely Mountain?
I came to the thread to ask for the same thing.
Is there a reason in the book or even in the movie? There are no dragons around or the eye of Sauron to stop them from doing that.
 
Last edited:
I came to the thread to ask for the same thing.
Is there a reason in the book or even in the movie? There are no dragons around or the eye of Sauron to stop them from doing that like.

They don't like to get involved. The Eagles are the very definition of deus ex machina.

As regards to the Eagles in The Hobbit, it is explained in the book. In the book, they speak and help out the company when its being harassed by Wargs as they owe Gandalf a favour for saving their chief years ago. They save them and bring them to their chief who explains he's glad to repay Gandalf but will only fly them to the outskirts of any settlement as they do not want to go near any Men, who they fear will try to shoot them down with arrows in the belief they are trying to steal their sheep.

Also, it's Tolkien's birthday today. He would have been 121. Bow before the man who made these films possible :up:
 
Thanks. That I can understand.
I had no idea they talked.
 
I can't help but think this suffered from what Iron Man 2, Prometheus and the Dark Knight Rises suffered.

Filmmakers make movies. Audiences expect the second coming.

The Hobbit was just brilliant and I can't wait for the next one. I wish I could go to NZ soon!

One could also say it is protected by fans who love said filmmakers and/or the franchise and will defend ANY. THING. :oldrazz:

I actually liked TDKR out of that list. The thing is, the Hobbit is a mess when it did not have to be.
 
I had higher expectations for TDKR hen anything else on that list. I love it. I really, really like The Hobbit, can watch Iron Man 2 and well Prometheus is certainly watchable if I turn my brain off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"