The Hobbit

Rather than derail the Reacher thread, I split off The Hobbit discussion here.

I saw The Hobbit in HFR 3D, and it truly, deeply sucked. I cannot overstate that enough. I absolutely DO NOT recommend that you pay money to see it. Everything Jackson got right in the LOTR trilogy (which was quite a bit, even with some missteps), he completely berked up in The Hobbit:

1) Too long by a mile. Cut out half of the falling-off-a-cliff scenes. Then maybe this (the shortest and most to-the-point of the 4 books) wouldn't have to be dragged out over THREE movies. The pacing sucked, too.

2) I paid extra to see the high-frame-rate 3D version, just so it could look exactly like a video game. I am disappoint.

3) Character development? What character development? Bilbo's change of heart happens randomly and suddenly because Jackson finally realized something important had to happen before the damn thing was finally over. Oh, and Elijah Wood probably looks like he's about to cry when someone hands him a warm chocolate chip cookie.

4) The backgrounds and set pieces were way less convincing than the other 3 movies, which were made years ago. I mean Rivendell seriously looked like it was painted on a big canvas about 10 feet behind the actors. The only part of the CGI that advanced was Gollum, who looked much better. Should have spent more money on rendering and less on length, which would have solved the 2 major flaws at once.

Shame on you, Peter Jackson. You're better than that, when you want to be. Too bad you went all Wachowski on us and just turned something good into a plotless video game. Less story line than your average James Cameron movie.

This was my favorite of the books, and my least favorite of the movies. The Hobbit is a much more... intimate? ...personal? book than the LOTR trilogy, yet for some reason this is the one that Jackson decided to make into a brainless action movie. The other movies suited the epic nature of the grand story, and visually it was easy to suspend disbelief. In addition to being very fake-looking, this movie was very juvenile for its PG-13 rating. Troll snot? Really? Didn't we already do that in a movie actually AIMED at 13-year-olds?

I think Jackson got a blank check and just decided to phone this one in.

Ian F wrote: Funny... I had a feeling the 1st Hobbit movie would be like that would you think about how Jackson is stretching a relatively short book into a trilogy. It just reeks of pure greed. I'm damn tempted to ignore all three movies until the DVDs come out and I can watch them all at once.

^^^^ THIS.

My dad wants me to go with him to see it SO FREAKING BAD but I haven't heard a single good thing in any review (Wired magazine trashed it harder than Sucker Punch) and only one person who watched it has told me it was good.

I actually enjoyed Sucker Punch, so take that as you will. If you read Hobbit reviews on IMDB, everybody intelligent among the reader reviews is panning it and giving it half marks at best. The only people who are raving about it sound like they are about 12.

I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy the trilogy, but I always have pretty low expectations when it comes to movies so I'm easily entertained. I'm also pretty patient and don't have a problem waiting to see the movies until I can buy a DVD set of all three.

Duke wrote: I think Jackson got a blank check and just decided to phone this one in.

As soon as I heard he was making a trilogy out of it, that is what I feared. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, it's possible the Studio saw huge $$$$ and forced him into making it a trilogy. Since it seems like everything has to be a trilogy (or more) these days.

We (the g/f and I) were hoping the movie would be a nice telling of The Hobbit with a bunch of The Salmarillion flash-backs and excerpts to flesh out the LOTR background to stretch it out. Unfortunately, that doesn't sound like what he did.

Yeah I wish I hadn't payed to see it.

Django on the other hand equaled awesome sauce.

If you read the technical stuff about how he had to make the movie, it's another example of 3D screwing it up. 3D for instance does not allow you to use forced-perspective camera tricks, so actors had to be shot on different sets with lots of green screen. And the high frame rate caused even more problems, just for some stupid bragging rights?

I for one HATE 3D and what it is doing to the movie industry. It's not worth it (unless you are James Cameron perhaps and you do it right) and it sounds like it killed the Hobbit.

My biggest problems were: 1. He tries to turn it into another Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is a completely different work with a different tone and style. The Hobbit is an adventure, while LotR is an epic. The odd thing was that it kept some of the lightheartedness, but it seemed to be all in the wrong places. The Hobbit is NOT about saving the world like LotR is. 2. Agree completely on it being too long. There were a number of scenes that were "gee whiz, it's in 3D, so let's make it like one of those thrill rides!" They easily could have cut a good half hour at least of action footage alone and it would've been a better movie for it. The intro was also far too drawn out.

I, for one, didn't mind the HFR bit, but I'd like to see it in HFR 2D, which is not offered. I think that part is more a "we're not used to it, so we don't like it" thing. It's also a matter of artists getting used to working with the technical change.

The 3-D was a waste of time and money. Felt really forced, gimmicky. Do not want.

It was long, in part, because (according to my wife) they give you a WHOLE MESS of history/background information that wasn't in the Hobbit (but was in Tolkien's other books i.e. not the trilogy either). My wife is a huge Tolkien fan, and she loved that there was so much background in the movie. I didn't care for it all that much, but that's because I went with the intention of seeing The Hobbit, not The Hobbit-with-a-bunch-of-somewhat-pertinent-historical-mumbo-jumbo. My opinion.

I'm not happy about having seen the first movie without being able to see all of them in one go, so I'll second the idea of waiting until they're out on DVD and having a (2-D) marathon.

In Jackson's defense, he had to compromise with a brand new (to the series) co-director who seems to have been largely in charge of early development (including the 3-D, I suspect), and then dropped out after trouble with the studio. MGM then wanted to put Jackson in charge, but was also considering X, Y, and Z directors. In my opinion, Jackson should have had the helm all by hisself from the get go. I liked the Trilogy, and I have a hard time buying that, greedy or not, Jackson would be pleased with the quality of the film, having the Trilogy as a benchmark. I think he got pitched into a e36m3 situation and turned what was bound to be a really crap movie into a fairly meh movie.

If the next one is garbage of this caliber, I'll be most displeased with Jackson. Assuming of course, they let him do what he does without interfering with him.

Agreed, this was the worse. Like it was done by someone who never read the book. It skipped and jumped around with no real reason or purpose.

But, my kid liked it.

As for the LOTR trilogy, I rather thought the first one was the best. The others were good as well, in their own right. But they progressively deviated from the original story line.

I enjoyed it...

I'm practically blind, so I don't pay much attention to screen resolutions or 3D. It has had absolutely no effect on any of my movie going experiences, so I generally forego the extra expense.

Yes, it could have been shorter. Yes, there could have been less action. No, I don't care that it was left in. It was enjoyable, and I cannot wait for the second one.

JohnInKansas wrote: It was long, in part, because (according to my wife) they give you a WHOLE MESS of history/background information that wasn't in the Hobbit (but was in Tolkien's other books i.e. not the trilogy either). My wife is a huge Tolkien fan, and she loved that there was so much background in the movie. I didn't care for it all that much, but that's because I went with the intention of seeing The Hobbit, not The Hobbit-with-a-bunch-of-somewhat-pertinent-historical-mumbo-jumbo. My opinion.

Hearing that now, perks my interest again... FWIW, the Salmarillion is sort of long Middle Earth history book and the whole LOTR story is barely mentioned, "then there was that episode with The One Ring... moving on..."

Haven't seen it and don't plan on it. I eventually need to read the book.

3D sucks.

berkeleying bunny sled.

All of the back story and such is the only way to streach out The Hobbit to three movies. I have been told to go see the non 3D non high framerate version and it is much better.

I enjoyed it. I like how they included information from the other books to flush out the back story and mythos. I wonder if a bunny sled could outrun my Miata?

For the most part, I enjoyed the movie. It was fun. I was surprised that this was only part one. Why did the advertisements not saying anything like "Part 1"? Then I hear this is supposed to get stretched to THREE movies?!? WTF? I would definitely pay to watch a second part, but don't think I will pay to see two more.

I'm not sure about what I think of all the extra stories from Tolkien mythology getting woven in there. I figured maybe the full story they wanted to tell was going to take up about a movie and a half worth of time, so they decided that rather than cut stuff, they'd stretch it out by adding other lore. Doesn't seem like it though.

The exposition was too long for not providing enough information or character development. All the stuff with Radagast, the necromancer, and the prelude to LotR does not need to be there. It doesn't advance the story.

I haven't made up my mind on how they changed certain scenes into 'Oh Yeah! We're Badasses!' fight scenes, like being treed by the goblins or captured by the Trolls. I always pictured those as showing off how just out of their depth the adventurers are.

I still like the old animated version better. It captures the warmth and wonder I get from the Hobbit. The Jackson LotR films captured the grandeur and epic scope I got from those books. I'm glad Jackson didn't just try to do a live version of the cartoon. It wouldn't have been able to outdo the affection I have for that film, and wouldn't have given me anything new.

I saw it and generally liked it. It was a bit too long and really seemed to steal a few scenes from the previous movies (ring on finger, eagles) which I thought was strange. The beginning was the most obviously stretched.

I liked the additional back story information, but I can see how unnecessary it is for this story. The silly part is, if they wanted to stretch some movies, ALL three of the other movies could have been stretched, this is the one that really shouldn't be. I am told they even added stuff in there that wasn't in any book (which is pretty bad really).

To be clear, the Hobbit story (from the book) should only be in the first two movies of this series. The third movie is supposed to be about stuff that was not in the Hobbit book. More Silmarillion stuff apparently (I think mostly Suron back story).

I am sure they will eventually re-edit the movies to provide a continuous timeline movie. Maybe add in some not used stuff from the other 3. It would be a CRAZY long series of movies. What, something like 20 hours of movie!!?!

...oh... and 3D sucks. Just an excuse to pull more money out, really doesn't add much to most movies.. just say no.

I saw it opening night, 2d no HFR. Then again, 3d is pretty much lost on me with my depth perception issues.

I liked it a lot, for the parts that could be sourced to the Hobbit and Silmarillion. The expanded parts with Radaghast (Sylvester McCoy, Dr Who #7)... he does a fantastic job with his part, I just think it was superfluous. Part of the problem is Jackson (when he ended up having to do the movie), was only going to do two parts. The Studio wanted three badly, so three it became. He's doing a good job working that out, but you can tell where he's filling in stuff and when his writing team is transcribing Tolkien to the big screen.

Overall, it's doing a good job. It's not LoTR epicness, but it's nice to see the old place again.

I saw it in a free early preview, in 3D and HFR. FIrst time I ever got dizzy in a 3D movie.

BTW, I have a 55" 3D TV for the home and own a bunch of 3D movies. I LIKE 3D when done well. I don't think this was, but it'll probably be better on the 55" screen.

The movie could easily have been done in one (or if necessary, two) films. But it seems jackson is doing a pretty good job bending to the studio will and making it a three parter by adding some other Tolkien story. The conversation with Bilbo and Gollum was spot on, but the troll stuff was overdone and as was mentioned, it looks like the white orc was added just to give additional action to what was a fairly drawn out basic plotline.

I feel like I wasted 3 hours to watch half of a movie.

It was like they reiterated the goal 40 times. Then at the end they said well, over there is the goal..... The End.

It sucked.

wvumtnbkr wrote: I feel like I wasted 3 hours to watch half of a movie. It was like they reiterated the goal 40 times. Then at the end they said well, over there is the goal..... The End. It sucked.

I take it you didn't like Kill Bill part 1?

saw it... the non 3d version (hurts my head and not worth the extra $$$ IMHO)...

I enjoyed it... yes it was a little long... but I liked the tie into the LOTR at the beginning also...

We saw it a few weeks back in 2d I rather much enjoyed it but then I am a big fan of Tolkien. I was not aware it was a trilogy so I was beginning to wonder half way through how they were going to get it done in the alloted time. Now I know. I will see the other two and probably enjoy them in 2d as well.

After reading the four books I got the impression that Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as a children's book. Maybe with his son as the target audience? Or maybe even as an exercise to "practice" for the LOTR before he committed himself. I'm no scholar of the history of the books, but maybe The Hobbit was dumbed down by his editors to make it more marketable?

In any case, taking the same screen time to cover The Hobbit and the LOTR seems ludicrous (and greedy) on the face of it.

I suppose I'll have to watch them eventually, but I'll wait for the DVD's, as well. I don't go to theaters to watch movies, anyway. I hate the smell of stale popcorn and the sound of people sniffling, coughing and talking while I watch a movie. Last movie I saw in a theater was Senna, and that was while on a business trip and in a small shoebox theater with six other people and beer service!