The Hobbit: A Long-Expected Spoiler Movie Thread

[red snow]

My my, Christopher Lee is 90 years old, and 1.96 cm. And he absolutely dominates the screen. Yikes.

and he was in the SAS during WWII. The guy is a legend - no doubt about it.

[Artas]

Something I thought was a bit weird was that they gave Saruman a grey beard, apparently to make him look younger. Yet Gandalf looked exactly the same, which makes sense: given their status as immortal spirits, it's weird that they'd age, and even if they did it would be at such a vastly slow rate they shouldn't look different across a mere 60 years.

Probably just done to show the audience that we're in an earlier time, and not for reasons of internal logic. It's the same with Bilbo, who is portrayed as much younger during the events of The Hobbit, even though the ring is supposed to keep him young. (Gandalf even comments on it in the Fellowship movie, saying he hasn't aged a day. - Well, he obviously has!)

[DaveSumm]

Just got back from seeing it in 3D HFR. I have no clue what all the fuss is about, it just looked crisper and......better. I was expecting some brain melting adjustment period the way people have been talking about it, but it just looked great. And one of the best looking bits was Smaug at the end, which was a nice way to leave things.

Maybe sliiiightly too long but really, really enjoyed it. I certainly wasn't bored at all. Maybe leant slightly more toward the epic than the adventure for me, but a minor quibble. I quite like in the book how the dwarf's gradually begin to respect Bilbo through the occasional sneaking around or lucky escape, the film went for a less subtle hero act. But understandable. I did like some of the additional dialogue, like Bilbo's explanation at the end as to why he came.

Do we know for sure whether there'll be an extended edition on DVD?

EDIT: a lot of people still asking about the old "why don't the eagles take them all the way" so I thought I'd dig out this quote from the book.

The Lord of the Eagles would not take them anywhere near where men lived. 'They would shoot at us with their great bows of yew' he said, 'for they would think we were after their sheep. And at other times they would be right. No! we are glad to cheat the goblins of their sport, and glad to repay our thanks to you, but we will not risk ourselves for dwarves in the southward plains.

[Lightning Lord]

damn, it took two people making fun or my error for me to get what was going on. i am sad panda today. christopher lee is slightly taller than 1.96 cm.

ugh. epic fail.

[Sci-2]

LL, if it makes you feel better I thought you were making a clever joke and I was too dim to see it.

[Lightning Lord]

LL, if it makes you feel better I thought you were making a clever joke and I was too dim to see it.

nope, i'm just inept :D

[Sixshells]

Well that was a pile of overundulgent mess.

I didn't see a movie as much as I watched a 2h45-long CGI demo reel. There is not that much in terms of story, but copious amounts of padding. There is a true sense of wonder at many of the imagery, and while the pacing of the whole movie is horrendous, it's well done in each individual segment, so it's not boring. But it's a compilation of scenes more than a real story. Like everybody else, I loved the Bilbo-Gollum encounter. In a way, it is what the movie boils down to and what it seems to be centered around.

It does look good. For once I broke my "no 3D" rule, although it was not HFR, and it was mostly okay. CGI looked good and were, in a way, the true star of the movie as I just said. Landscapes were gorgeous as usual.

I liked Freeman as Bilbo. And while I agree that Richard Armitage is more convincing than Viggo Mortensen, I have a problem with the actor's tendency to over-emote. It's tiring after a while.

I think my biggest complaint with it, and from that issue arise a whole lot of related other issues, is that the film is being integrated as a part to the LORT movies. It goes to the point where it seems they are set on redoing the LOTR movies with current technologies rather than tell the story of The Hobbit. Notably, it makes the tone of the movie disaccorded, with moments going for the epicness of the LOTR movies, clashing with others that are completely farcical. A great example of that is the battle against the goblins. It's so filled with visual humour and so cartoonish that in a movie that tries in general to be grandiose it is a representation of violence reeking with complacency, to the obscene when we get to the death of the goblin king. When taking into account that previously there was so. much. seriousness. about the importance of the goodness in each little action or that the greatest courage is to know when not to kill, the disconnect in tone makes those serious moments seem utterly hypocritical and devoid of all meaning.

It's also forgetting that while during this story there is indeed a dark power gathering in the background, this is not what it's about. Sure, Bilbo acquiering the ring has a greater importance to this universe at large, but it is still at this stage a secondary element, yet the movie concentrates on this aspect for no good reason. It detracts from the actual story. It would have been interesting to have the movie concentrating on the main story, not stretching it over three long movies like they are doing, and filming it in a naïve way. You know, like the fun adventure it's supposed to be. This is not the LOTR nor should it be. Or, if they insist on having it closer to an epic and more serious tone, in relation to the dramatic events this movie is a prequel to, then scrap the cartoonish elements.

For that matter, in general subtlety is not the movie's strong suit, even in serious moments. There is a tendency to exagerate every single moment so that it looks cool, it's ridiculous. And when every little thing is made to look intense and important, it stops being so. By the final battle between the orcs and the company, I was totally uninvolved in anything resembling "action" moments. I nearly fell on the floor laughing when Thorin fancies himself heroic and charges Azog by himself and that he gets his ass kicked as a rightful punishment. This was not glorious, or cool, or courageous, it was stupid, ridiculous, and most of all, unnecessarily over the top.

Another related gripe is that it's obvious this is made for hardcore fans of Tolkien's writings and universe. There are just too much elements that are there only to share a wink with those fans, it contributes to divert from telling the story, and it's leaving behind those who aren't in the know.

Also, I don't know if it's just me but, even though I was thinking about it before going to see the movie or before those moments, but there are times where I felt like just punched in the face with the "jewish influence" in Tolkien's creation of the dwarves. That was in the parts where the characters comment on the fact that the dwarves have lost their country and are reduced to be always moving and going around Middle Earth. I don't know it just felt weird, but I don't know if it's just that I'm being overly sensitive about it, or if it's the movie being as subtle as a ton of bricks.

[williamjm]

Do we know for sure whether there'll be an extended edition on DVD?

I'm struggling to think to think what else could be included, but I'm sure if anyone can think of something to add then Peter Jackson can. After all, he did manage to make an extended edition of King Kong, a film that was probably already an hour too long. I do think the extended editions of the Lord of the Rings films were mostly good additions and TTT was improved significantly by the extended version, but I don't think he should necessarily do it for every film he makes.

[Werthead]

Yes, there will.

Same strategy as the LotR movies. So we can expect a cinematic DVD/Blu-Ray release in the Spring and then the Extended Cut next November.

[Sci-2]

Thinking about this now, does anyone else feel like Smaug is going to be a disappointment? I mean, at the end of the day he's going to be a dragon. Maybe this dragon will look more real than any that came before, but even the eagles and wolves didn't seem substantially more impressive in this first film...

[Clueless Northman]

Thinking about this now, does anyone else feel like Smaug is going to be a disappointment? I mean, at the end of the day he's going to be a dragon. Maybe this dragon will look more real than any that came before, but even the eagles and wolves didn't seem substantially more impressive in this first film...

Well, it's a dragon designed by John Howe. So, sure, we might have seen something like this before, but if you liked the balrog (who was also mostly a Howe design and has been pictured by him plenty of times before the movie) and were left in awe, odds are it'll be the same with Smaug.

while the pacing of the whole movie is horrendous, it's well done in each individual segment, so it's not boring. But it's a compilation of scenes more than a real story.

Well, just like the first half of the book. It's only after escaping from Mirkwood that there's a real more-or-less continuous story going on, and not a series of episodes without much link with each other. That's also why I've been pretty annoyed by their idea of splitting the whole book into 3 - it means that not only will the first movie suffer from the loose and episodic nature of a good deal of the novel, but even 2nd movie might mostly be a compilation of loosely-related events.

[Aemon Stark]

Also, I don't know if it's just me but, even though I was thinking about it before going to see the movie or before those moments, but there are times where I felt like just punched in the face with the "jewish influence" in Tolkien's creation of the dwarves. That was in the parts where the characters comment on the fact that the dwarves have lost their country and are reduced to be always moving and going around Middle Earth. I don't know it just felt weird, but I don't know if it's just that I'm being overly sensitive about it, or if it's the movie being as subtle as a ton of bricks.

While you're right about Jackson's general inability to be subtle (or restrained), in this case you are being overly sensitive. All of this "lost their country" stuff is Jackson's invention anyway - the dwarves would sooner return to dominion over their horde than continue to be coal miners.

[Claire of House Thorpe]

Here's my review of the movie here (complete with my annotated factors): http://shereviewseverything.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/

[The Marquis de Leech]

Another related gripe is that it's obvious this is made for hardcore fans of Tolkien's writings and universe. There are just too much elements that are there only to share a wink with those fans, it contributes to divert from telling the story, and it's leaving behind those who aren't in the know.

As one of those nutty hardcore fans, I beg to differ. It's more that Jackson is trying to pad out the films as much as he can, with the result that we get the inclusion of a hodge-podge of material. So many problems stem from Jackson trying to spend so much on so little.

[Clueless Northman]

As one of those nutty hardcore fans, I beg to differ. It's more that Jackson is trying to pad out the films as much as he can, with the result that we get the inclusion of a hodge-podge of material. So many problems stem from Jackson trying to spend so much on so little.

This, exactly. He took the opposite road to LOTR, where he actually removed some elements that wouldn't work for movies - some being debatable, some being pretty obvious like Bombadil. With the Hobbit, he put literally every single bit of the book and added stuff from other Tolkien works, as well as totally made-up stuff. The mere fact he actually put the Stone Giants in is proof enough of this. And don't get me started on the stupid idea of framing the movie with old Bilbo and Frodo; even Lucas wasn't idiotic enough to frame Episodes 1-2-3, but clearly intended them to be seen first.

[Arataniello]

I'm struggling to think to think what else could be included, but I'm sure if anyone can think of something to add then Peter Jackson can. After all, he did manage to make an extended edition of King Kong, a film that was probably already an hour too long. I do think the extended editions of the Lord of the Rings films were mostly good additions and TTT was improved significantly by the extended version, but I don't think he should necessarily do it for every film he makes.

I know that there were scenes shot in The Shire that did not make the cinematic release - Bilbo shopping in a market outside The Green Dragon for example. One of the guys who runs www.theonering.net went down to New Zealand to report on filming and ended up as an extra in some scenes that were shot. I think I also saw a shot of Bilbo wandering around Rivendell in a previous trailer/teaser, approaching the statue with the shards of Narsil.

[Roose Seal]

Is CG ever going to look real? I mean this is WETA, the best digital effects company next to ILM, and I'm assuming they didn't have much budget constraints, and the stuff still looks like a video game.

Textures improve, definition is incredible but there is always something off about the way CG things move.

Gollum is incredibly lifelike but he still looks cartoonish. The orks and wargs looked like they stepped out of a WoW ad. The Goblin King, while appropriately gross, looked silly and cartoonish.

Overall, I found it really hard to get into the movie because everything looked extremely fake. I don't remember LotR leaving me with the same impression.

[wolverine]

I liked it and was worried my wife was getting bored, but she said she liked it as well. It was probably about an 7.5 or 8 for me.

Cons:

• Did not like opening scenes with Frodo, I don't like old Bilbo at all though
  
• Stone Giants were random and ridiculous
  
• I don't get how there is a stronghold of thousands of Goblins on what appears to be an entirely stone mountain. Do these Goblins not need to eat? I know there are other entrances that lead to woods and stuff but it seems ridiculous (that has more to do with Tolkien world building than the movie though)
  
• White Council rang false and tacked on
  
• CGI, Azog looked like he came from WoW-the Uruk Hai looked pretty amazing to me, did they need to CGI Azog?
  
• Scene where Bilbo is buying time with Forest Trolls is not well done. My wife had no idea why he was making his suggestions (she thought if they were going to skin them then they would have to untie them). I thought that scene needed to convey how much time had passes while they argued about Bilbo's advice. By the looks of the scene they would have been turned to stone no matter what.
  

Pros:

• Freeman
  
• Dwarves
  
• Goblin King
  
• Riddling with Golum (Golum was awesome)
  
• Lighter mood of story (could have been even lighter)
  
• Mountain Trolls interaction was great
  

[Aemon Stark]

Overall I was pleasantly surprised though my expectations were *quite* guarded going on. Prologue was ok, and even though the padding was gregious I enjoyed all the little episodes for the worldbuilding, particularly the flashbacks. I did wonder why Radagast was living on the Forest Moon of Endor and how he acquired one of the Empire's speederbikes.

Riddles in the Dark was the highlight, which says something about the over-the-top but meaningless action scenes.

Speaking of the *dark*, I continue to hate that Jackson can never make the lighting look at all realistic. This was much worse in Shelob's Lair, but here where Gandalf exclaims they need to get to "daylight" to escape the goblins, it didn't look remotely "dark".

I did enjoy the Goblin King, though - very much in keeping with the tone of the book, as were the dwarves in general.

[Roose Seal]

Speaking of the *dark*, I continue to hate that Jackson can never make the lighting look at all realistic. This was much worse in Shelob's Lair, but here where Gandalf exclaims they need to get to "daylight" to escape the goblins, it didn't look remotely "dark".

That's one thing that really bothered me too. He makes it look like Middle Earth is a perpetual sunset/rise land.

Even a scene like Riddles in the dark was not in the dark at all.