Movie: The Hobbit

[GDB]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

One of the main reason that i may end up liking the Hobbit more at this rate, could be because of how main character is portrayed. I means Frodo got it hard too, but without clear exploring background on the ring corruption, still feel like he is a sissy, and whiner, and damsel-in-distress all at one.

To be fair, I think you're not supposed to relate to Frodo. You're supposed to relate to Sam.

Then the Fellowship of the Ring were so much more powerful in term of strength, that we really failed to appreciate their task and courage. Here these dwarfs barely can fight off 4-5 orcs on hyena-backs and spend more time lurking, sneaking, running through enemies than actually fighting. Once again, make this world seems more dangerous, unpredictable than was in loTR

And these are just normal Orcs, too! Not even Urukhai.

[Lightning_Wing]

Originally Posted by GDB

To be fair, I think you're not supposed to relate to Frodo. You're supposed to relate to Sam.

I don't think that's an excuse to make the main character so whiny, honestly.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by james0246

You're not supposed to. Within the stories dwarfs are the lesser beings on the "good" side. And I mean that literally. Elves and Man are considered to be the superior races (chosen by God) and dwarfs are just afterthoughts. That is part of the reason why dwarfs are often treated as silly or worse in the books (in the actual story of The Hobbit, Tolkien treats the dwarfs as avarice fools that constantly get into trouble requiring Bilbo to help them escape.)

And like the Orcs, Dwarves were not created by God (called Eru in The Silmarillion), but by one of his 'lieutenants,' if you will, a lesser god named Aule.

Originally Posted by Lightning_Wing

I don't think that's an excuse to make the main character so whiny, honestly.

His whiny nature fits perfectly. He's lived a sheltered life in the Shire and is supposed to represent a more 'human' person plopped in the middle of such an epic conflict. Couple that with the fact that he has to shoulder the most powerful corrupting magic that far stronger people could not resist, he has the right to whine. If you wanted him to be a beastly action hero you either misinterpreted the story or it isn't for you. I actually find it really refreshing how he is portrayed as it makes he and Sam's accomplishment all the more grand; they are little, imperfect people, but manage to resist the ring far better than other characters (even in the movies this is shown: Gandalf won't take the ring, Boromir is obviously strongly tempted by it, Galadriel has trouble resisting it despite only being exposed for a brief time, etc).

[Vexx]

Basically, the hobbits (and the implication that Gollum is a hobbit) -- they're able to resist the ring almost as much because they lack the imagination as because of any strong constitution. The more powerful beings *know* what they could do with it and they are just strong enough egos to think they could withstand the corruption of it.

A hobbit would mostly wish for more beer or tasty fishes.

[willx]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Basically, the hobbits (and the implication that Gollum is a hobbit) -- they're able to resist the ring almost as much because they lack the imagination as because of any strong constitution. The more powerful beings *know* what they could do with it and they are just strong enough egos to think they could withstand the corruption of it.

A hobbit would mostly wish for more beer or tasty fishes.

Well, that and .. who the heck created the hobbits? And the treants? Cause we know who created the humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.

Spoiler for Ending of LOTR:

I'm also amused that at the end of LOTR, Frodo still fails and Gollum is the one that ultimately drops the ring in the pit!

[Cosmic Eagle]

Ents come from the Vala Yavanna...can't remember where Hobbits came from... been over 10+ years since I read any Tolkien stuff

[BradleySmith]

Still need to watch this film, i'll have to buy it on blu-ray sometime.

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

Saw this today... and I enjoyed it. TBH, I got what I expected and the 'extra padding' has the potential to fill out some characters and add an interesting story line. I do hope to see more about the Witch King and the Necromancer. I will say Thorin was channeling Aragorn and Boromir pretty hard at times, that's about my only real quibble that I can think of off the top of my head.

I also really liked the opening scene, and the final scene - finally got my 'eye' shot heh. I really can't wait to see Smaug in full, but he is shaping up to look good. Getting good looking dragons in most media outside artwork is damn hard it seems.

[Ithekro]

My parents saw "The Hobbit" as a play back in the 1970s. In that one, Smaug was stage smoke and a pair of red spotlights that moved around the stage and audiance. They say it was a really neat effect for a local production. I found their ticket stubs in the copy of the novel I read. It was on a Saturday, on the 15th of February. So I guess they saw it in 1975.

[Dhomochevsky]

I enjoyed the movie overall.

HFR:
Went into a HFR equiped theatre, to check that tech out. I could not confirm all the critique, that it does not look 'cinematic' or whatever. I think it looks absolutely stunning. Compared to the trailers of other movies shown in normal 24fps before the main film, HFR is clearly the superior choice.
If I want to see blurred action, I can take off my glasses... No thanks.

However, there was a clear distinction between the source of pictures. Completely computer generated scenes that included long camera sweeps, like the one at the very beginning of the interior of the dwarfen fortress, were a bit nauseating.
The same long sweeps over real scenery (New Zealand!) were comforting and nice to look at. No idea why that is.

Content:

Spoiler for details:

Some nagging:
- The start was a bit too long. I am not saying it all has to be action, but it was just repeating the same theme over and over there. Yes the dwarfs are rough and like to party hard. Bilbo does not like that. We get it. No need to watch them doing it for half an hour. With 170 minutes length, it's not like there was a need for padding, so why not cut it a bit?
- I hated the part with the goblins. Was that whole thing supposed to be comedy? The goblins certainly did not feel threatening at all, with how they were easily defeated in huge numbers and with rediculous 'combat moves' at that. The whole rollercoaster setup, with over the top movie physics felt so out of place.
The goblin king even had comic villian dialogue, complete with stupid last words.

[Vexx]

I got the same impression. Real imagery looked quite good. the computer imagery (like the goblin mines didn't come off well (as did some of the animation movements). I figure it means more work to be done in digital fx.

As far as the story itself - most of the complaints I might list are problems of the book (awkward writing, awkward moments, too many rabbits pulled out of hats).
The Peter Jackson specific moments ...
1) The number of cartoon physics moments (dwaves surviving absurd falls with debris, etc)
2) The Goblin King ... the voice needed to be fx'd to sound like it might come out of a being that size?
3) The rabbits. Both my son and I had independent eye-rolling. Up til then we were okay with the Radagast interpretation.

OTOH, I thought PJ did well in salvaging some of the more awkward elements of the book. He managed to tread the line with the dwarves (comical stupid = regal), he managed to make the goblins funny and scary.

I liked the way he had Saruman droning on and on while Galadriel and Gandalf silently said "yeah, yeah, S, blah blah blah" and had their own discussion.

There are dwarven women in the exodus but you have to look very closely (as Gimli might say) ((personally, I'm a fan of the Lineage II idea <rofl>))

Just to keep from droning on and on .... I give the effort a B+, pretty good work, some stuff better'd from the book with only a few missteps injected by PJ himself.

[Frenchie]

Yeah I think the Hobbit is a hard one to translate into a movie honestly. Especially going from LOTR material to Hobbit material, when I feel like the opposite way would have worked better (If The hobbit had been made first, but the problem with that is getting the funding).

I quite enjoyed the movie.

Stuff I disliked: The rabbits were definitely an eye-roll moment, didn't like the Goblin King himself either (The mines were fine otherwise).

Standout moments: The Stone giants. I completely forgot about those! Thanks PJ! The Trolls accents/banter. Gandalf being Gandalf the Grey and not 'the White', too stuck up. The Riddles in the Dark. And the final scene: Dat eye..

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I liked the way he had Saruman droning on and on while Galadriel and Gandalf silently said "yeah, yeah, S, blah blah blah" and had their own discussion.

...

Just to keep from droning on and on .... I give the effort a B+, pretty good work, some stuff better'd from the book with only a few missteps injected by PJ himself.

And now I'm imagining Vexx-jiji as Saruman the White.

[Chiibi]

.......I guess I'm the only one who liked the cute, fluffy bunnies pulling the sled...? (゜^゜);

oh yes, Galadriel's and Gandalf's ESP conversation was GOLD. XD

[james0246]

^I liked the bunnies . They reminded me of Thumper from Bambi...

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I got the same impression. Real imagery looked quite good. the computer imagery (like the goblin mines didn't come off well (as did some of the animation movements). I figure it means more work to be done in digital fx.

I know that isn't the impression they intended. But the recent Hobbit production blog seem to suggest they create the CGI as they go.

The weird part is, the Weta Workshop does great work in actually building physical props, and the New Zealand scenery is so beautiful, that I have the impression the CGI department couldn't keep up.

The production blog seem to suggest their CGI department is actually very small in comparison to the rest of the studio. That it is not like how Avatar or Transformers where the CGI was more important than anything else.

[Ithekro]

The rabbits were alright in general when first introduced as a method of transportation. It was slightly silly with the escape from the Witchking of Agmar. But then the boost. That wasn't quite eye rolling but more of "Wait, did he just try to say something badass?" The audiance I could hear liked it whe he was leading the wargs off. Though there was a complaint that the chase was too long.


Their CGI department might just be overworked to get the first film out. That could ("could") be another reason for three films. To give them time for the large battles were they will need a lot of CGI for the massive armies (especially if they use a lot of wargs).

Out of our group, only one remembered the thunder giants. I looked it up later and found it is really hard to tell in the novels if there really are gaints or if it is just metaphor.

[james0246]

I personally hated the giants sequence. Whether as metaphor or literal, the giants were an extremely silly diversion that, while looking good, did very little for the story or the characters (it was a little cringe worthy that none of the characters even mentioned surviving the giants, as if their appearance was completely ordinary and unworthy of comment.)

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by james0246

I personally hated the giants sequence. Whether as metaphor or literal, the giants were an extremely silly diversion that, while looking good, did very little for the story or the characters (it was a little cringe worthy that none of the characters even mentioned surviving the giants, as if their appearance was completely ordinary and unworthy of comment.)

Other than saying "the legends were true", I am not sure what else they would have said. In those ancient times without Internet, you would keep seeing and hearing things you never comprehended before.

[Solafighter]

Watched it last night. I enjoyed it. Looking forward to the next movie.