The Hobbit: A Long-Expected Spoiler Movie Thread

[Scion of Valyria]

Saw the midnight premiere last night. Loved it. It wasn't perfect, but I thought all the additional stuff meant to connect it with the LotR trilogy worked well enough to not be upset or bothered by any of it. And the Riddles in the Dark bit was great enough to make seeing it again in theaters worth the ten bucks.

A couple minor complaints, though.

The pacing, as mentioned numerous times in this and the other thread. Seemed a little off sometimes, although it was never bad. Forty minutes in the Shire is a lot, but I love the Shire and I love the fun-loving dwarves and thus I loved forty minutes there. But I can see how others would not feel the same.

The horrible treatment of Radagast. He is one of the Istari, not some bumbling mushroom-addled halfwit.

The CGI. Worst offender probably. The orcs and goblins looked fantastic close-up in LOTR. I understand the costuming is more of a pain in the ass but the extra effort is worth it. Azog and his company just looked jarring and goofy and worst of all, plain. Same with the goblins, whose Moria cousins were much more repulsive and "realistic." The motion-capture performance is great for Gollum, and really the only way to do it, but when you don't have the time/money to give the same detail to the rest of the lot, just go with makeup.

Minor squabbles, really.

[waaimasjien]

Don't see it in High Frame Rate. Yes, as advertised it completely and totally eliminates eyestrain and fatigue from watching in 3D

But it's fucking weird and awful to look at, and I went in thinking it would be wonderful, since I'm not a huge fan of 24fps (which is the low end of barely adequete for human vision)

That actually varies per viewer. It took my brain an hour to adjust to, my boyfriend was still complaining about some movements seeming to go too fast near the end. I actually enjoyed it; PJ likes his sweeping helicopter shots and the high frame rate really complements them. I think everyone should at least give it a shot. If we all started watching 48 or 60fps movies now and would watch nothing else, I bet that 24fps movies would start to look weird.

This is so vastly more poorly paced than King Kong it is downright exasperating.

Agreed. I did however like the prologue where it was (the Fall of Erebor, that is. I hated the Frodo/Bilbo thing) and I quite liked how they worked Azog in.

[Buckwheat]

Agreed. I did however like the prologue where it was (the Fall of Erebor, that is. I hated the Frodo/Bilbo thing) and I quite liked how they worked Azog in.

Interestingly enough, I thought the fall of Erebor narration was a little bit too long and I really liked the part with Frodo.

I also thought the scene with the riddles was easily the most memorable in the movie. What I disliked were too obvious deus ex machina moments, usually in the shape of Gandalf, though that is the same in the book, I assume (I have not read it).

Was the scene with the stone giants (that had very little to no influence on the story) in the book also? I thought this was where the use of special effects for its own sake went a little over the top.

[BLU-RAY]

I heard that the high framerate led to the sets and props looking more obviously like sets and props, as though you can see the artifice at the edges- any truth to that?ETA: The giants throwing boulders thing is in the book, up in the Mountains- that and the related rain are why the gang takes refuge in the cave.

[Calibandar]

Just back from seeing it.

General thoughts first, followed by specific pros and cons.

The film as a whole was very enjoyable. Having to see it in 3d was again an annoyance, I continue to dislike how it strains my eyes.

However the 48fps is perfectly fine, and if you are seeing it anyway, might as well see it as it was intended. At no point did I notice a negative difference by it being 48fps. All that said, I will be happy when I can see this film again, on dvd, at home, on a regular flatscreen. Though I am resolved to see this film at least once more in cinemas, because I quite loved it.

Comparing it with the LoTR films, I would say it holds its own quite well, despite being a lighter story and a bit more goofy. I expect the next two will be darker. What you do see is that a lot of the story's meat has been saved for the next film. Even taking that into account, what's still totally unclear to me, is how they will turn it into 3 films, instead of 2. Moreso, I totally don't see the necessaity of that decision, even with this first film under my belt.

Pros:

• I really like Gandalf in this film. Thorin is great, and so is Bilbo. But all of this we knew going in.
  
• None of the Dwarvish company ever rang false to me. I enjoyed their troupe, never had a moment where it seemed off.
  
• Rivendell is divine. The White Council scene is nice, but I would have loved more White Council deliberations. But again, Rivendell, what a marvel.
  
• Bag End. That first sequence with Bilbo inside Bag End, it just so cozy, beautiful and almost otherwordly.
  
• Azog- I actually really liked "The Giant Orc of the Gundabad". He was a proper monster, much improved from the Lurtz Uruk-hai in the LoTR films, and that was no slouch. I like how he manhandles his opponents, Thorin included, in a film that otherwise shows the Goblins and Orcs as weak cannon fodder, summarily dismissed. He looks one fluent whole with that huge White Warg of his. And speaking of Wargs, they look better here than in the LoTR. I wonder who will be the one dealing with Azog in the end, Thorin or Dain. His son Bolg will be in the next one, and it seems he will either have his big fight with Gandalf, or Beörn.
  
• The flashback scenes were awesome. The Moria battle was nice, but the Erebor prologue is truly magnificent, on par with the Last Alliance prologue in "Fellowship" and that was one of the best scenes in the entire trilogy. Jackson is great at these flashbacks.
  
• Thranduil looked fantastic, with his enormous stag. I cannot wait to see more of him next year.
  
• I think the start of the film, upto their arrival in Rivendell, is the film's best part. I thought the action scenes in the second part were sometimes quite boring, and consequently I have to disagree with many professional reviewers, who found the start too slow and weaker than the film's climax. I was left a bit underwhelmed at the end actually.
  

Cons:

• Saruman. One of the things I disliked in LoTR was how his character was handled, it did not seem they knew what to do with him, reducing him instead of Sauron's mere puppet. The dual nature of his character clearly troubles the writers, as this again the case here. He is called The Wise, is referred to as Head of the White Council, but is again portrayed as an ignoramous. Rather than being played as the Wizard who sees the truth but who is playing a long con, here he seems genuinely adverse to taking any action, dismissing out of hand both the evidence and showing his dislike for Radagast. There is no reason why he would think the Necromancer is merely a "human dabbling in black arts", or why he should dismiss the Morgul blade out of hand. If they are playing him as a Wizard who already has a plan and merely wants to keep the Council from acting because of that plan, it wholly escaped my scrutiny. There is no hint of it, even though they may intend it as such. Chris Lee looks great again as Saruman though, as he was in LoTR. Just a shame he isn't used very well.
  
• Radagast at Dol Guldur. I think the character of Radagast is about 75% succesful. He is too goofy a times, it's a bit much. But they also clearly show him as being Nature's own Wizard, which is good. He seems very much underused in this film though, perhaps because of all the cuts they did to bring his and Gandalf's Dol Guldur material to film 2. In any case, his adventure at Dol Guldur was too brief for me, as the glimpse of the Necromancer. The film should also have done a better job of getting the point across to the viewer, that this Necromancer is actually Sauron. Most people had no idea, and if you know it, it adds spice. More Radagast please.
  
• The endless staircase scenes again in the Goblin city. I'm tired of it, the whole sequence was a sort of Mini- Khazd-Dum, without the Balrog to make it great. It just wasn't good enough, the only nice part was Gandalf's almost "divine" intervention. Didn't like The Goblin King. Didn't like how every Goblin is meaningless cannon fodder. Even a horde of hundreds swarming at them towards the end seems insignificant, given what we have seen.
  
• Showing us only bits and pieces of Smaug is a bit churlish really. You know why they do it, but I just don't think it's necessary to withhold us seeing him, when we already see much of him in pieces.
  

The film ends and I really wanted it to go on. Much of the best stuff lies ahead. Beorn will be great, and Jackson has already said he is so pleased with how that character has turned out, that he is adding more material for him. You can see that the Mirkwood adventure will be a big part of film 2, and the Elves there will play a big role. There will probably be a big showdown with the Necromancer at Dol Guldur, but I don't know if they will kill Smaug in film two already. They might not, and The Necromancer might play some role at the Battle of Five Armies as well. Plus you'll have both Azog and Bolg to deal with in the next two films.

Bring me the next one please. 8.5 stars out of 10, which is the same rating I gave the LoTR as a whole. I can actually see the Hobbit trilogy scoring better than that.

[Francis Buck]

I haven't seen this yet, but just out of curiosity where are people getting the idea that they'll kill Smaug in part two? That seems really...off, to me.

[Calibandar]

Makes great sense to me. Third film will be about the the Battle of Five Armies. Unless you want to have Smaug as a presence there, which I don't think they would do because that would change *everything*, you either have him killed as a narrative conclusion at the end of film two, or you have to start film 3 with him, and kill him in the first hour. If it were my choice, his arc would end in film two.

But opinions on that are divided indeed, and Jackson may decide otherwise, no one knows yet.

If you look at the LoTR for evidence, you will see Saruman was *not* killed off at the end of film two, was left sort of hanging as an afterthought in film 3, and that didn't really work in the opinion of many at the time.

[Kelli Fury]

I actually really liked how you don't see Smaug yet, and I liked his attack of Dale showing little of anything, more the flashes you'd catch as you ran for your life. I want to save Smaug as much as possible and I hope he stays largely under his coins until he can fully stretch out and go into attack mode, because I don't want our first view of him to be sleepy Smaug

[Werthead]

The film should also have done a better job of getting the point across to the viewer, that this Necromancer is actually Sauron. Most people had no idea, and if you know it, it adds spice.

There is an interesting question that the film raises: is it trying to be a proper prequel to LotR (i.e. you're supposed to watch LotR first, then this); a new 'place to start' (i.e. you now start with this movie and watch in chronological order); or some mix of the two? George Lucas was adamant that he wanted people to start watching Star Wars with Episode I, but Jackson is less clear.

For example, the opening stuff with Bilbo and Frodo only really makes sense if you've already seen LotR, as does the introduction of Elrond (although in the latter case, Elrond doesn't get much of an explanation in FotR either). However, Jackson also undersells the crucial 'mercy' scene with Gollum - you'd assume he'd make a bigger deal out of it for LotR fans - and in Dol Guldur treats the Witch-King as a new villain the audience will be unfamiliar with, despite us seeing his real form in FotR when he stabs Frodo on Weathertop (also the Weathertop cameo in AUJ is completely nonsensical: why do the warg-riders have to travel 200 miles back from Rivendell to report their failure to Azog? Shouldn't his camp be much closer? Bizarre).

[Cold Pie]

One of my favorite part of the movie was the meeting of Gollum and Bilbo. Great acting and dialogue, almost like watching a play. I liked all the LoTR actors, I think Martin Freeman made a great job as bilbo, Thorin was great as well. Didn't like Azog as some nemesis to Thorin. Main theme is great. But other than that I was a bit disappointed by the reuse of LoTR soundtrack. I didn't like the sometimes unfitting comic situations, which were too many and not always very smart. What I liked the least was the bad use of CGI and the too-many action scenes (and running scenes). I didn't mind the additional things, like Radagast (except his rabbit diversion, another CGI action scene), as much as I thought.

I have to say I'm looking forward to seeing Beorn in the next scene, played by swedish actor Mikael Persbrandt. He's mostly known for playing violent detective

(quite funny, in a bad-acting sort of way) in Swedish thrillers Beck. However I was positively surprised in Oscar winning film The Revenge by Susanne Bier, where he played the main character. I actually thought he played better in the English speaking parts of the movie, so maybe there's hope for Beorn.

[AndrewBaelish]

Saw it a second time today. Liked it a bit more, and a bit less at times. I noticed a lot more of the filler. The giant miuntain fighters kind of annoyed me this time around. Absolutely no point to that scene.

What I did like better was Azog, the flashbacks, and the begining in Hobbiton. Those were examples of the good filler stuff they added.

The only thing that I find forboading about this trilogy is that my favorite scenes were all the ones with the people from The Lord of the Rings (ie Rivendale, the Whit Council, The Prologue, and Smeagol)

Hopefully the second and third ones aren't like that, but all in all I thought it was great.

My 8 went up to an 8.5

[Chise]

Riddles in the dark was fantastic! OMG, the 18bucks ticket was completely worth it right there

Sadly the "It was Pity that stayed his hand." didn't ...quite... deliver that

Was it just me or did the great chase from the goblins caves go on too long? And also felt far too much like a quicktime event in a video game. Serioulsy, my fingers started twitching expecting to see commands for hitting X or Y or shoulder buttons any second now. Especially once Gandalf breaks the giant rock which begins to roll forward

The masive fight with the trolls also got too dizzying and loud and annoying

[Sci-2]

And also felt far too much like a quicktime event in a video game.

Thought the same thing, though overall the film was good. I love the elf king on the giant elk - the flashbacks are awesome, as has been noted previously. I think I liked this one more than Fellowship, and I may end up liking all of them more than the LOTR films.

What I liked was that it really gave a sense of the world LOTR takes place in. If the next two are as good, it'll be good to watch all six in order and future generations will enjoy seeing the story in fold unfold in that way.

[Bastard of Boston]

I liked it a lot. The stuff with Gollum was the highlight for me and everyone else in the theater. I appreciated the overall lighter tone. It did drag in spots, which is strange...the movie seemed shorter than its run time. And, Kili was way too pretty. Nothing wrong with diversifying the way Dwarves look, but at least give the dude a prosthetic nose. They could've still succeeded in keeping their eye-candy, while still making him resemble the rest of the Dwarves more. I thought they were much more successful doing it with Thorin.

[Lord Tyrion]

Thought the movie was amazing. Perfect balance between action and the rest. Typin this on my phone so it's a hassle.

My biggest gripe was that almost everyone looked the same. I know it's a minor thing to some people but did anyone almost feel like the goblins looked alike to the Orcs? And even the trolls.... I really wish they changed up some coloring or something. Maybe make the goblins green or whatever? Again, it's minor but I thought that was my biggest gripe about the movie.

Furthermore, I loved the Golem part. By far my favorite part. Really loved the goofy comedy that the movie had too.

[The Anti-Targ]

Was it just me or did the great chase from the goblins caves go on too long? And also felt far too much like a quicktime event in a video game. Serioulsy, my fingers started twitching expecting to see commands for hitting X or Y or shoulder buttons any second now. Especially once Gandalf breaks the giant rock which begins to roll forward

Don't worry, it will be. And you'll have the timing of when to hit the buttons down perfectly after having watched the movie.

Edit: Hmmm, what am I going to do with my 3,333rd post.

[Isis]

Saw this Thursday afternoon in 3D 24 fps. The format wasn't chosen for any other reason other than that's all that was on offer at the independent cinema of my choice in London. I will go see it in 48 fps next week. I feel ambivalent about it being in 3D. I don't feel that it really added or took away anything from the film. Maybe I'll feel differently after seeing the 48 fps version.

I think what they did with Smaug was spot on. It reminded me of a story about a child's drawing of a dragon or some similar huge beast - that it was so huge that the child could only fit its eye onto the sheet of paper they were given. In the film where we only see Smaug's feet and tail in the prologue I'm thinking WOW! HE MUST BE ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS. Then near the end we see just his eye. It's as if the film is framed, start and finish, by the dragon and he's so big that we cannot comprehend his size. It's a very effective way to convey his scale (not the shiny kind). I really liked that. :)

Then I come here and see people complain that not showing us Smaug in his entirety is super lame... we are all different and will like/dislike different aspects of the film. I accept that. Maybe I am getting old, but I don't seem to have it in me to argue over this stuff any more.

Yesterday I saw a Pat Rothfuss post on FB about how much he hates The Hobbit and won't be going to see it. Fine. I hate the twilight films and won't be going to see any of those. But I don't keep posting about how much I hate them and how much they suck. I just wish people would get over it. If you don't want to see The Hobbit, that's cool. Why not go and do something more interesting instead? And then tell people how much you enjoyed doing that other thing? All this HATE HATE HATE hating of stuff is so tiresome.

Some other things I liked about The Hobbit:

-The pity of Bilbo, I thought was almost perfectly done. It's an iconic moment in the story of the Ring and it worked fine for me.

-The 'smash the plates, that's what Bilbo Baggins hates' song in Bag End - I love this! So glad they included it. Demonstrates well the 'cleverness/craftiness' as a counterpoint to the baseline greed and guzzling they had displayed up to that point

-The tension while we wait for the eagles to arrive - we know they are coming but they seem to take so l-o-n-g

-Thorin

-The prologue

-The White Council - not perfect or as I would have wanted it but it gets the job done

I did find the soundtrack a little bit samey at times, i.e. like listening to the LOTR soundtrack. I had much the same issue with The Dark Knight soundtrack, after I had enjoyed the Batman Begins soundtrack so much. What I really enjoyed with the LOTR soundtrack was the subtlety of the leitmotifs, e.g. the part at the Council of Elrond where Boromir starts talking about Gondor and you hear just in the background the Gondor theme. I am waiting for my Hobbit soundtrack to arrive and maybe I will think differently after I listen to that...

I think I had pretty low expectations of this film by comparison to how I felt going in to see FOTR. I don't feel disappointed. I think that's another aspect of growing old. I know from experience that high expectations lead to thwarted desire which leads to suffering. ;) If you don't expect much in life then you feel so much happier when life treats you well.

[Buckwheat]

ETA: The giants throwing boulders thing is in the book, up in the Mountains- that and the related rain are why the gang takes refuge in the cave.

Thanks! I really thought that scene was kind of random and without explanation, though.

Sadly the "It was Pity that stayed his hand." didn't ...quite... deliver that

I actually thought this scene was excellent. It showed Gollum as this most pitiful being that Bilbo just could not kill, and it was to expect since the conversation about it with Gandalf, so it tied neatly into the theme.

My biggest gripe was that almost everyone looked the same. I know it's a minor thing to some people but did anyone almost feel like the goblins looked alike to the Orcs? And even the trolls.... I really wish they changed up some coloring or something. Maybe make the goblins green or whatever? Again, it's minor but I thought that was my biggest gripe about the movie.

I agree witht that. The goblins were pretty much interchangeable with the orcs.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

I really enjoyed the movie. Fun experience, nice retelling. Have no idea how three movies are supposed to be made however. Two sounds like a good number, but three is silly.

The tonal shifts didn't bother me because I felt they were more a nod to the book itself, in which Tolkein had plenty of tonal shifts. It was just being loyal to the source material

[mormont]

A very mixed bag.

All of PJ's worst traits as a director and writer are front and centre. No subtlety at all, everything goes way over the top and then keeps going. 'How intense shall we play this scene, on a scale of 1 to 10?' '11! And then add another scene, and do that one at 11 too! With choral singing in the background and a dramatic speech!' I'm honestly surprised we managed to get through dinner at Bag End without a swordfight, a fire and a rescue. There's just too much. It all sort of washed over me by the end. By the time we got to the Azog/Thorin fight I was rolling my eyes. It had just lost any impact.

The storm giants scene = abysmal. Worst scene in the movie.

The pacing and tone are problematic too. Very slow, flabby even, and much too melodramatic. It needed a lighter touch all round. From time to time you get a glimpse of that: the Bag End scene was actually done well, and so were the scenes with Radagast. More of that tone and less melodrama and the film would have been much better. Lose an hour and it would have been good.

There are a number of good decisions - not showing Smaug, broadening the dwarves' quest right from the start, using Azog as a big bad - and the riddle scene is awesome, but the film as released, overall, is a mess. Disappointing: I'd give it 6.5 out of 10.