The Hobbit Film Discussion.

Saw The Hobbit last night. I saw it in 2D. I have to say, it was very good. It might even have exceeded my expectations. I had a few issues but they are just quibbling. On the whole, I think Jackson and Company did a great job of respecting the source material. The changes they made were still within the spirit of the original.

I am looking forward to the next two films!

 

Watched the Hobbit in 3D last night, first time I've seen anything in 3D since I was a kid and had 3D pictures on the back of cereal boxes, with those super cool red n blue glasses! I spent a lot of the time considering how they filmed it and how big the rig must have been. I also fiddled around with my glasses trying to work out how the 3D worked. Then things like how does the Hobbit hole door handle on the outside work - its in the middle of a solid wood door and there was no mechanism on the inside! I was also in a new cinema and spent a lot of time looking at the layout and locating the speakers and wondering what the red dotty lights were at the side. I felt the need to work out the position of the room in the building, and where the fire door lead to, matching up with a mental picture of the building! Then I found myself wondering about the projectors and random things. I then found myself trying to figure out which bits were real landscapes and which bits were cgi!

That said I did watch the film and enjoy it, and its not very often I stay awake though an entire film, let alone a film that's nearly 3 hrs long! I think I am perhaps a little weird, and should go back and sit still n watch it again!

 

I saw it. It was great fun. I wanted to see it in 2-D as every recent 3-D experience save Avatar has not been 'worth it.'
Also, the LOTR trilogy was in 2-D and the richness of the visuals, gorgeous as they were, in that 10-y.o.-plus franchise was almost too much.

Joniemack: The Hobbit trilogy has been filmed already--all in one fell swoop. Don't know if how the 48-frame / 3-D is received will change how they are presented.

 

Me too.

 

We saw it last night. In 2D, because 3D makes me nauseated. I'm not really sure how much of a difference that made, but I didn't even think about the complaints until I saw the "filmed in..." bit at the end of the credits. I thought Rivendell and the Shire were beautiful as ever.

I initially thought they'd skipped over Beorn, and was disappointed, but I've since realized he appears later in the book than I was thinking. He'll be in the second one, so, yay (also, the Silvan Elves.)

Anyway, I very much enjoyed the movie. I loved that the songs were included, and there seemed to be more Middle Earth languages used (then again, it's been a long time since I've seen LOTR, and I could just be remembering wrong.) We'll definitely be going to see it again.

 

There's a good idea for a Christmas treat, going to see the Hobbit for a third time.

 

Oh my god, The Hobbit was way better than I ever could have hoped! I read The Lord of the Rings as a boy, which I think spoiled the movies for me a bit, though I loved them, but I've never read The Hobbit, and I think it really added to the experience. The pacing reminded me a lot of Fellowship of the Ring, but I found the characters a bit more down to earth and relatable.

Martin Freeman's Bilbo is pitch perfect, playing the reluctant hero to a T. His comfort zone is established quite well, exaggerated in just the right ways so that when he finally does go out, and each time on his adventure he faces a new challenge, you feel that tug home, back to The Shire and Bag End. It's not the same as Frodo, either. While Frodo did miss the Shire, there was this feeling that he had ants in his pants and was just waiting for an excuse to leave in Fellowship. Biblo had to be repeatedly shook from his comfort.

Armitage's Thorin is, while still a Tolkien dwarf, every bit as stoic and haunted as Arogorn. And he is his own character, too, which is nice. While some of the other dwarfs sort of meld into a patchwork with the rest of the group, Thorin is serious and has the deep pain of loss that really supports his unstoppable drive.

I'm having to go back in my mind to remember which dwarf was which. Kili and Fili are the dwarves with the least prosthetics, if memory serves, one with the bow and arrow and the other with dual swords. Along with Bofur, who has this wonderful moment with Bilbo in the cave, Dwalin, who seems to be second dwarf in command to Thorin, and Balin, who is the old warrior, Kili and Fili stand out as individual and easily discernible characters. I hope, over the next two films, they continue to allow all thirteen of the dwarf characters to demonstrate their individuality so they're a bit easier to tell apart. Not to be racist or anything, but sometimes it was just "oh, a lot of dwarfs".

I'm really excited to see Benedict Cumberbatch as the voice of Smaug, and I will hold off on reading The Hobbit until, I guess, 2015 after we've seen the final movie in the Hobbit trilogy.

 

I'm surprised you had time to see any movie
--- merged: Jan 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM ---
We took the opportunity while Hobart sweltered on Friday (as we were sans children), to sit in air conditioning for a few hours. When Willravel gets around to reading the books he will be surprised at how much is missing (not from tolkien himself, but from this particular tome). I will see it again, but probably not until it comes out on blu-ray and I can do it at home.

As others have stated - it just went so quick. I enjoyed the intro with Frodo and the old Bilbo.

I'm looking forward to the clash with the Necromancer and .... everything else, damnit!

I would think Balin is second in command, especially given where he ends up in the Lord of the Rings. Also Bombur is pretty easy to pick - he's the fat one that is *always* eating. I'll steal a picture and label them, so we can tell who's who
--- merged: Jan 7, 2013 at 5:27 PM ---

 

I think I am the only one who will admit that I fell asleep 30 minutes into the movie. The beginning with Bilbo and Frodo sort of put me off. I saw it in 3D the first time which I think ruined it for me. The second time I saw it, I enjoyed it a little more. Really the 3D and beginning were the only things that I could complain about.

I really liked Bilbos reluctance, Martin Freeman really captured that for me. I didn't think Thorin kingly until he challenged the white Orc before I just found him to be bullying Bilbo around. I got chills when they were singing in Bag End. Also, having all the languages of middle earth going in the movie works a lot better than everyone either being Elfish or English in the majority of LoTR. I'm really interested in the necromancer story now, and the integration of LoTR elements into the story didn't overwhelm the unique story that the Hobbit has....

I do have a question though... I didn't think that the was a 'White Orc' in the book but I blasted through the book and may have skipped over certain elements. I'm also not understanding the three movie part to this but seeing the movie twice... I can see that it could be stretched into three books with inclusion of certain elements that are in other Tolkien literature.

 

Nope, the White Orc was all Jackson. wanting to build Thorin's character and add drama to the overall story. I think it was a good idea. It did add to the story without taking away from the original Hobbit

 

plus it is a better backstory than "we were forced to mine coal to survive, woe is us..."

 

Being a hardcore Tolkien fan for about 15 years now, I have to disagree with the "white orc" being a good thing. In fact, it may ruin a good portion of the story line for me.

The white orc is none other than Azog, who was the murderer of Thorin's grandfather Thror when he ventured into Moria. That was in the year 2790 of the Third Age. This started something called the War of the Dwarves and Orcs, which lasted until 2799 when the Battle of Nanduhirion occurred at the east gate of Moria. This is the battle that you see in the film.

Now here's where they mess everything up.

1) In this battle, the movie depicts Azog killing Thror and holding up his head. First of all, that actually happened 9 years earlier. Second of all, Azog actually killed Nain of the Iron Hills, who was the son of Gror, Thror's younger brother.

2) Thorin is shown fighting Azog with the branch of an oak tree. In the books, Thorin is present in the battle and it is true that he uses the branch of an oak tree as a shield, hence his name. However, he never fights Azog, and he certainly never cuts off his arm. Azog never gets his arm cut off period.

3) And here is where Jackson & Co. did the most damage. After Azog kills Nain, he finds that his guard is all but killed and decides to flee back to the gate. However, Nain's son Dain Ironfoot rushes up to him and decapitates him before he can enter Moria. The battle quickly ends after that.

Read that again: Azog is killed by Dain Ironfoot in 2799. Guess when The Hobbit takes place? 2941! There is no way an orc can live at least 142 years and show no signs of aging without the use of magic. In fact, orc lifespans are known to be shorter than other races. They placed Azog in the film to be the bad guy until the party reaches Erebor.

What they don't tell you in the film is that Azog had a son named Bolg who was quite alive by 2941. So why didn't they use Bolg instead of Azog as the main villian? This makes absolutely no sense to me at all, and as a hardcore Tolkien fan I was extremely disappointed to see the back story so butchered up. It was not nearly as bad with the LotR movies, and there they did a phenomenal job with following the plot line as closely as possible (barring movie related decisions). In this movie? Forget it, its all about the experience now.

Watch them have Legolas capture the dwarves in Mirkwood so Orlando Bloom can make a few bucks.

 

WOW, you weren't kidding when you said you where a hardcore fan. I tired to read The Silmarillion, but just didn't find it interesting enough to hold my attention.

Let me ask you something. what is the story behind the white oak?