On balance, it always was going to make for a padded and ponderous story, but at the same time the Tolkien fan in me is grateful for seeing the extra stuff.
As I said before, what I would really like is to have an abridged version in the DVD extras, that would just follow the tightly structured story of the book.
Well, I'd rate the film about an 8/10 I think. Fellowship and TTT would be 10/10, ROTK a 9.
Thoroughly loved the film except for a few parts. I thought the opening bit about the Sackville-Bagginses was a bit over indulgent and distracting, faithful though it be to LOTR.
The world seems a lot smaller in the Hobbit film. I think it was because of the awkward pacing - much time is spent in the Shire, but everything moves quickly from there. A minor grumble.
Another minor one: the CGI on Azog looked fake. Something about the pink scars just did not look real. Wasn't nearly as menacing as Lurtz.
And a minor annoyance:
When Thorin approaches Azog down the tree, the film plays the leitmotif for... the Nazgul? Why? That theme was never used for anyone but the Nazgul in LOTR, but here Thorin gets it. It was a bit distracting.
BTW this film is going to make more money than Dark Knight Rises, and you can take that to the bank. It's not going to sell as many tickets, but it will make more money. If it doesn't I will eat crow.
When Thorin approaches Azog down the tree, the film plays the leitmotif for... the Nazgul? Why? That theme was never used for anyone but the Nazgul in LOTR, but here Thorin gets it. It was a bit distracting.
I liked the movie much better the second time around, when I knew what to expect. I'm sure I'll like it even better when I can watch it at home and take a break or two.
I loved it. I just feel cheated that Jackson didn't direct a Thor movie. Anyway, misplaced theme music or not, Thorin coming off the tree with all that fire around, with the score playing was EPIC....although hilariously short-lived.
I just seen the movie and I understand the complaints about the pacing being slow at the beginning but when it got going it was good, really good. I don't understand the CG complaints, everything looked great to me except maybe the eagles.
Saw it this morning. I loved it. Comparing first movie to first movie, was it as good as Fellowship? No... and some of that, I think, is kind of down to the different tone. Hobbit had lighter moments (as the book does) where as the LotR trilogy is a darker time. But though maybe not as good as Fellowship, I still really enjoyed it.
I had been watching Sherlock these past few days, so it took me a moment to not see Freeman as Watson but instead as Bilbo, but eventually I got there *lol*. I loved all the dwarves, but I especially loved Thorin. Dude is badass!!! There were a couple shots of him during the goblin fight in the Misty Mountains where the way he's wielding Orcrist is just... well, damn impressive (especially knowing how large that sword is for a dwarf)!
My sister pointed out that the intelligence of the Goblins in the Misty Mountains was a little offputting, that they seemed too smart almost, and I kind of agree. Also, Radagast was...charming, but maybe a touch over the top. *lol*
We saw it in 2D (24fps) which was perfectly fine for us for first viewing (my mom didn't want to do 3D)... me and my sister decided that next week we'll go ahead and brave the 3D HFR
It's all dependent on the legs The Hobbit has, especially the week of Christmas and New Year's. If it's better than King Kong's, it'll probably scrape $300M domestic by the skin of its teeth.
I liked the movie, more than I thought I would actually. Sure it took far too long to get started, a good chunk of the the comedy isn't good and it feels a bit segmented but I had fun. I like this world and it's inhabitants.
I was wrong, and I'll eat my crow. However this is an extended weekend with Christmas eve on Monday, and I think it will have a good hold, but I want to see how it does against Les Miserables.
Yeah, I don't know why Jackson and Shore went with that. It was an inappropriate piece to use in that scene and devalues the theme itself. They should have used something different and new for it. A similar incident is when the Lothlorian theme is played when the elves rescue the dwarves from the wargs even though those elves were from Rivendell. To be honest, other than the Misty Mountains theme and the Radagast material, I couldn't really pick up on any new motifs Shore had come up with. A lot of seemed to be stuff from LOTR, which for the most part was well used. Then again, I've only seen the movie once and haven't listened the score on its own yet.
Is that true?? I imagine Jackson is attempting to crowbar some of his own stuff in because the story doesn't require three three hour films. One film should have been enough. The Hobbit has a very simple storyline.
Is that true?? I imagine Jackson is attempting to crowbar some of his own stuff in because the story doesn't require three three hour films. One film should have been enough. The Hobbit has a very simple storyline.
In the book the company's time in Rivendale lasts a little over two weeks, and Bilbo speaks of great feasts, and council, and good times, but doesn't go into any detail. I feel Jackson could have kept it the same in the film. They go in they speak to Elrond they look at their map and they move on while Gandalf has his council meeting. Actually they could have removed Rivendale entirely, and replaced those scenes with one scene of Gandalf holding the map up to the moonligfht illuminating the runes. There was no need to see Elrond, and his glass alter was unecessary. The White Council scene could have taken place at a new location that the council has for meetings.
Changes like this would have moved the plot along faster.
For the White Council scene, that could have just happened when Gandalf goes off the first time. Some events would've needed to be switched around, but whatever.
Listen as a Tolkien fan I enjoyed all the extra padding in the movie. But the problem is that it is still a movie and that it all felt like padding. I mean yeah I enjoy all the extra stuff but I mean this was a short little fantasy book.
Honestly, I think between the two Rankin/Bass had a good handle on how to turn this story in a movie and I think they did it more effectively in terms of ADAPTATION.
Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy how Jackson connected all the dots here from this movie to the original trilogy. I like stuff like that, but the movie at times felt like it was navel gazing.
OK let's just take this for example. The Necromancer. We all know who the Necromancer is. But here's why it didn't work. It was a tangent that messed up the pace of the movie. Suddenly there's a new threat and a new villain that comes in. And yet midway through he's never addressed again. He's completely forgotten about. In terms of narrative, IMHO that's unacceptable. In the Rankin/Bass movie there is no Necromancer stuff. There's no Morgol blade. There's no Witch King. It didn't serve this movie to suddenly introduce a whole other plot thread, villain, and antagonist and just jettison and forget about it minutes later.
Radagast's introduction. He's almost attacked by giant spiders. And I'm like, WTF? What the frell are Shelob's cousins doing here? The spiders run away? Why? Where did the Spiders go? Are the spiders coming back for him? Spider issue is never dealt with again. None of this makes any sense.
And this is my problem with Jackson because he does stuff like this. He puts in all this crazy indulgent **** and doesn't properly explain it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
