The Hobbit (Teaser Trailer released)

[DeaconTheVillain]

If you love the LotR movies, you'll love this movie.

If you're in it to watch a film adaptation of The Hobbit, you might be disappointed.

Not saying I didn't like it, but I am left a bit flat after last night.

...
I enjoyed it, but was left with the feeling that something was missing. I am not sure what

Then again, maybe im just pissed cuz I had to sit in the front row.

[FanboyOf91]

...
I enjoyed it, but was left with the feeling that something was missing. I am not sure what

Part 2 The Desolation of Smaug.

[DeaconTheVillain]

Part 2 The Desolation of Smaug.

heh, well sure.


But, I think I was bothered some by the comic relief with the trolls and goblins. I would have hoped for the scenes with the trolls and goblin king to be scary and almost terrifying, I mean the group is straight ****ed until Gandalf saves the day both times, and the put in light hearted jokes?? But, I guess that is PJ appealing to children and keeping the movie pg13 maybe

[JMS]

...
I enjoyed it, but was left with the feeling that something was missing. I am not sure what

Then again, maybe im just pissed cuz I had to sit in the front row.

That bear guy is missing...

---------- Post added December-17th-2012 at 10:49 AM ----------

Part 2 The Desolation of Smaug.

I think smog is going to be part III honestly... Part II is going to have to deal with getting captured by the wood elves, the escape in barrels, the giant spiders, more molestations on the road including Bilbo finding the mithrial armor; and that Bear guy... If they take care of Smog in the second movie; What will they have to do in the third movie?

---------- Post added December-17th-2012 at 10:52 AM ----------

heh, well sure.


But, I think I was bothered some by the comic relief with the trolls and goblins. I would have hoped for the scenes with the trolls and goblin king to be scary and almost terrifying, I mean the group is straight ****ed until Gandalf saves the day both times, and the put in light hearted jokes?? But, I guess that is PJ appealing to children and keeping the movie pg13 maybe

The hobbit is a children's book. Tolkein wrote it in the late 1930 before he wrote the war of the ring trilogy which was written for an older audience. I thought the movie was pretty true to the book although I didn't remember anything discussing the one armed goblin king, or the brown wizard... But it's been more than 40 years so hey maybe it's in there?

[FanboyOf91]

Holy ****, use some spoiler tags!

[fwo40]

Okay adaptation, I understand why they needed to keep Azog around.

Potential Spoilers:

IMO this is where Jackson ****s up the most. Look, I understand the supposed need for a foil - b/c it's a movie where the main villain (the dragon) probably won't show up for another 2 films....BUT Azog has a pretty awesome backstory that is radically changed - and not in a good way...they actually diminish him to be some sort of plot device...AND they had the potential to use the angle of his of his son Bolog who actually is in the Hobbit as the leader of the Goblins at the battle of 5 armies. Why not just use him?

If you're going to show backstory to setup Azog, why not show the whole thing? How Azog kills Thorins kin...the war is raged against the goblins Azog is beheaded and coins are shoved in his mouth? Not many more scenes needed for that...and a much cooler backstory of now his son being involved in the chase for the hobbit (as a movie device goes it's pretty good...Bolog's mention in the Hobbit feels a little tacked on at the end anyway).

It's frustrating b/c I know someone there knows what they're doing...b/c stuff like the White Council scene was an extra that was awesome. So how can they get that right while making Azog and Radagast, and the Goblin King completely one dimensional movie caricatures?

UGH

[FanboyOf91]

Potential Spoilers:

IMO this is where Jackson ****s up the most. Look, I understand the supposed need for a foil - b/c it's a movie where the main villain (the dragon) probably won't show up for another 2 films....BUT Azog has a pretty awesome backstory that is radically changed - and not in a good way...they actually diminish him to be some sort of plot device...AND they had the potential to use the angle of his of his son Bolog who actually is in the Hobbit as the leader of the Goblins at the battle of 5 armies. Why not just use him?

If you're going to show backstory to setup Azog, why not show the whole thing? How Azog kills Thorins kin...the war is raged against the goblins Azog is beheaded and coins are shoved in his mouth? Not many more scenes needed for that...and a much cooler backstory of now his son being involved in the chase for the hobbit (as a movie device goes it's pretty good...Bolog's mention in the Hobbit feels a little tacked on at the end anyway).

It's frustrating b/c I know someone there knows what they're doing...b/c stuff like the White Council scene was an extra that was awesome. So how can they get that right while making Azog and Radagast, and the Goblin King completely one dimensional movie caricatures?

UGH

I meant spoiler tags for part 2.

Spoilers:



You have to remember that the Hobbit is a kid's book. The dramatic sweep and detail of LOTR is not something you are supposed to find in it.

I don't have a problem with Radagast. That's pretty much the type of character Tolkien wrote: someone who is more concerned with nature than civilization.

I have to admit the Goblin King got to me a bit. And then his anticlimactic death...

Now that I think about it, they semi-screwed up Gollum shrieking at Bilbo escaping.

""Thief, Thief, Thief! Baggins! We hates it, we hates it, we hates it forever!"

Tolkien had an ear for rhythm. And it's not like Andy Serkis isn't a gifted voice actor...

I'm hoping the Director's Cut is much better, which it was for LOTR.

[JMS]

Holy ****, use some spoiler tags!

Sorry man, I guess it's news to me there are still folks out there who haven't read the book. The only spoiler information for this film to me is where the first two movies of the three Peter Jackson is making to cover the book the Hobitt end...

I ninja'ized my previous post.

[fwo40]

I meant spoiler tags for part 2.

Spoilers:



You have to remember that the Hobbit is a kid's book. The dramatic sweep and detail of LOTR is not something you are supposed to find in it.

I don't have a problem with Radagast. That's pretty much the type of character Tolkien wrote: someone who is more concerned with nature than civilization.

I have to admit the Goblin King got to me a bit. And then his anticlimactic death...

Now that I think about it, they semi-screwed up Gollum shrieking at Bilbo escaping.

""Thief, Thief, Thief! Baggins! We hates it, we hates it, we hates it forever!"

Tolkien had an ear for rhythm. And it's not like Andy Serkis isn't a gifted voice actor...

I'm hoping the Director's Cut is much better, which it was for LOTR.

I get that the Hobbit was a children's book...hell I read it by myself before I was 8 or so. I am huge Tolkien fan - stopping just short of studying Elvish. I'm just saying the elements we are talking about go so far as to paint the movie of the Hobbit as more towards the tone of LOTR....his inclusion of the villain and the things they were discussing in Rivendell is proof that Jackson is trying to incorporate the larger LOTR world in the Hobbit's isolated tale.

Jackson has a point, and an obvious advantage. When Tolkien wrote the Hobbit and completed it he had no idea he'd ever write a sequel. The stuff that makes up the Silmarillion was on his mind-but he didn't have LOTR events there. This accounts for the dramatic tonal difference in the written works-and Jackson seems to have had a unique opportunity to equate them. It's just the way he represents the villain which irks me to no end- for the reasons which I wrote above.

My point is...if you're gonna go epic with the Hobbit you ought to go all the way...and I feel like Jackson went about halfway and then in the process muddled it with sloppy execution of setup flashbacks.

[JMS]

My point is...if you're gonna go epic with the Hobbit you ought to go all the way...and I feel like Jackson went about halfway and then in the process muddled it with sloppy execution of setup flashbacks.

Just seems to me that Jackson is getting killed by the critics and really for no other reason than his first Trilogy of the War of the Rings was so successful it's pissing off all of these film critics off. That and that he's going to the well one more time with the Hobbit AND doing it so obviously to their mind for the money.. The first three films mad a billion dollars each... and really so will the 3 hobbit movies because regardless off what the critics are saying.. The first one is well done

I've heard Peter Jackson killed by critics for everything from 3d film, to the frame rate of the film he choose, to the story line mods... etc etc etc... I have to tell you I've read these books 40 years ago, loved them as a kid, and really looking forward to what Jackson does with the Hobbit in the up coming films. I'm a little miffed that he made 3 films of three hobbit only because now I have to wait 2 years to see the other two.

I don't care if he goes into a little more background than the book did to fill out his 3 movies. I'll judge him on how well I enjoy the movies. That's all I care about... As a Tolkien fan I've sat through some painful or at least not as well done animated adaptations of the literary works. Jackson's work thus far is first rate... I pretty much feel all of the critics of Jackson for the Hobbit are all sour grapes..


It's like a critic panning the original star wars as Davey Marlin Jones famously did.. Somehow they think if they pan a wildly successful movie it puts themselves above the people... In reality it makes them look stupid. If you don't kike the genera and pan the movie... get another job, cause all that means is the next time around most folks won't listen to you...

My special pet peeve is with the critics on NPR... cause they give away the movie... whenever they come on I reach for the radio dial.

[fwo40]

Just seems to me that Jackson is getting killed by the critics and really for no other reason than his first Trilogy of the War of the Rings was so successful it's pissing off all of these film critics off. That and that he's going to the well one more time with the Hobbit AND doing it so obviously to their mind for the money.. The first three films mad a billion dollars each... and really so will the 3 hobbit movies because regardless off what the critics are saying.. The first one is well done

I've heard Peter Jackson killed by critics for everything from 3d film, to the frame rate of the film he choose, to the story line mods... etc etc etc... I have to tell you I've read these books 40 years ago, loved them as a kid, and really looking forward to what Jackson does with the Hobbit in the up coming films. I'm a little miffed that he made 3 films of three hobbit only because now I have to wait 2 years to see the other two.

I don't care if he goes into a little more background than the book did to fill out his 3 movies. I'll judge him on how well I enjoy the movies. That's all I care about... As a Tolkien fan I've sat through some painful or at least not as well done animated adaptations of the literary works. Jackson's work thus far is first rate... I pretty much feel all of the critics of Jackson for the Hobbit are all sour grapes..


It's like a critic panning the original star wars as Davey Marlin Jones famously did.. Somehow they think if they pan a wildly successful movie it puts themselves above the people... In reality it makes them look stupid. If you don't kike the genera and pan the movie... get another job, cause all that means is the next time around most folks won't listen to you...

My special pet peeve is with the critics on NPR... cause they give away the movie... whenever they come on I reach for the radio dial.

Speaking for only me, not as a critic I was disappointed...Jackson even as a film maker is repeating a lot of the same shots and plot devices over and over...like Thorin's spoiler: fake out near death at the end...I mean what is the point of that? Thorin is going to die at the end of the triology and he confesses then to Bilbo that he was wrong about him why ruin that in the 1st movie? Also, he's done it before with Aragon's warg riding fake death, and Gollum's fake death when he was pushed off a cliff...these are not things Tolkien wrote...these are things Jackson is inserted in the same way and they spoil and foreshadow ratherly stupidly the story's real surprises. end spoiler

Jackson's visual style of LOTR and the Hobbit are very impressive and the acting is generally great, these things keep me coming back...but to me it's apparent through 4 movies that Jackon's adaptations are repeating dozens of similar patterns and generally have terrible pacing.

[elkabong82]

Overall I liked it. I thought it was better than the first LOTR movie. LOTR got better with each movie and I expect The Hobbit to do the same. Movie didn't seem that long and after getting what all they did in there and I can now easily see the next two movies being filled up well, plenty of material for two more.

Ninja: This one ends with the eagles rescuing them from the Orcs, so 2 will start with Beorn's house and Mirkwood and Elves and end not sure but my guess is with death of Smaug then 3 has aftermath, Gandalf dealing with Necromancer, 5 armies converging and battling (which should be amazing), aftermath and trip home

[Elessar78]

It's in JMS blood to spoil movies and shows for people.

[DeaconTheVillain]

Something else that was mentioned that kinda pissed me off. Spoiler:

I also was like wtf when Thorin hugged Bilbo and said he was one of them now or whatever he said....Thorin was supposed to be a complete jackass to Bilbo and doubt him in every way until he is dying at the end

[JMS]

It's in JMS blood to spoil movies and shows for people.

Really? How did I do that here?

---------- Post added December-18th-2012 at 10:31 AM ----------

Something else that was mentioned that kinda pissed me off. Spoiler:

I also was like wtf when Thorin hugged Bilbo and said he was one of them now or whatever he said....Thorin was supposed to be a complete jackass to Bilbo and doubt him in every way until he is dying at the end

That's a perfect example of being too hard on Peter Jackson. As I remember the book undervaluing Bilbo by Thorin was a central theme which ran through the entire first half of that book. There was a turning point in the Hobbit where Bilbo came into his own and became a respected member of the team. Well before they ever get to the lonely mountain Bilbo is among the most respected and valued team members.

Question... Was there a Necromancer in the Hobbit? Was the Goblin king giant guy?