The Hobbit (Spoilers, Or Just Read The Book)

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:30 pm

Preface: on a day where another idiot got another easy-to-obtain gun and shot a bunch of elementary-school-kids, and the gun nuts on Facebook are crazy enough to post "We should be arming the kindergartners so they could shoot back!" then, no matter my complaints about this movie, it sure was nice to escape to Middle-Earth for three hours.

Having read the reviews, I went into this expecting to feel like I was watching an Extended Edition at least. But oh man. Decompression city. Jackson could have done this really well in two movies, especially since the first was set to end at "Barrels Out Of Bond;" journey's made, Bilbo's proven his bravery, dragon's on the horizon.

Three movies... well, you'll see it. A twenty-minute epic prologue, then ten minutes of Old Bilbo and Frodo puttering around, then a one-hour sequence of the Unexpected Party, and then a nice long pony ride, and then, some action... then a long stop at Rivendell... The last hour or so is still padded, but generally good as we get the Goblin-town sequence and the riddle-game. Oh, the riddle-game is great. Up there with the best Smeagol sequences of the LotR films. Serkis has so not lost it.

Tolkien's side mentions of Azog, the goblin-lord, get turned into a major antagonist who has the sad distinction of looking really really computer-animated, like a subpar God of War.

On the one hand, it's ridiculous. There is no way that this amount of material could fill three hours. It would have felt long at two hours. Sylvester McCoy should have brought his TARDIS to help this movie's length; his sequences as Radagast the Brown, with bird **** in his hair, are really unnecessary. I would have rather spent more time on the Dwarves vs. Elves dynamic in Rivendell than get the Radagast sequences.

The main annoyance for my writer-brain was the sheer repetition of the story's main points. Bilbo will never survive. Thorin thinks Bilbo is a pansy. Bilbo proves himself. These get pounded on the head, over and over again. Pounded so much that you wonder what they will do with the rest of the story, since in the book, Bilbo didn't earn Thorin's grudging respect until he saved their Dwarvish asses in Mirkwood. The story beats feel like the same one story beat repeated.

On the other hand, when you realize that the THREE studios sharing the rights to this film were pushing Jackson to turn it into the biggest profit machine possible, when you realize that Jackson didn't even want to direct it...

It's actually watchable, and that's a victory. It feels very long in a way no LotR film did. But it is no Phantom Menace. And inevitably, some fan will edit all three films down to one three-hour-or-so film, and I'll torrent it and have it be my preferred cut.

Still, Jackson could have edited this down to two hours, at the very least. It would be a better film, if still a glacial one. I guess that ain't how the mighty PJ likes to roll. Three hours or nothing...

Post by **Kaylee** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:47 pm

I liked it

True story.

ruby_moon · Post by **ruby_moon** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:51 am

I enjoyed it, but as you said, it was long and felt really drawn out. I am glad however that it got my fiance to pick up a book (an amazing feat that I have not been able to accomplish since Ender's Game.) He really wanted to know what happened next (I still am amazed that he never read The Hobbit.)

I thought that was bird crap in Radagast's hair. We were debating if it was bird crap vs lichen or some other fungus. On the note of Radagast, I enjoyed the rabbit sled. Minus the super CG, and the impracticality of it, I would love a rabbit drawn sled.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:51 pm

I can't really decide if The Hobbit was good or not: it's just too damn big for that. Some parts of it were brilliant, other bits were awful.

The bad:

Name-dropping characters and plot devices seconds before they appear on screen is lazy and contrived.

“So, Gandalf, any other Wizards?”

“Why yes: Saruman (whom the audience have already met), two others who have nothing to do with anything so I’ll conveniently forget their names and Radagast. Oh, hi Radagast!”

The cheap-laugh drug references for the college student crowd. Gandalf smoked tobacco and Radagast is never mentioned as a mushroom fiend. Anything else is just as speculative as my saying Aragorn and Legolas were lovers and ****** in between erotic showers. For some reason they left that out, though?

The terribly uneven padding. Some of the added bits, like the mini-council at Rivendell, I liked. They added depth and gave the film more in common with its predecessor than the two books have in common, IMO. Other added inserts just felt like detours to fill up the three hours when two would have done the trick nicely.

Jackson’s sodding sense of humour. I understand you don’t want your films to become so po-faced that they disappear up their own self-importance. That said, firstly I think belching and snot gags are a poor means to that end and secondly I want him to stop using humour to rob powerful scenes of their pathos. Council at Rivendell? Drugs joke. Big fight with goblins? Stupid one-liner last words from the goblin king.

Smeagol. I know I must be the only person on the planet who thinks this. I don’t like Andy Serkis’ Smeagol. He’s meant to be a pitiful yet terrifying creature: a corrupted mess who steals babes from their cribs to eat them. Jackson’s Smeagol gets a laugh out of the audience with every other line. Much like my last gripe, I dearly want him to dial back on the ‘look how seriously I don’t take myself!’ ****.

The dwarves mostly blurred into one background noise, indistinguishable except by hairstyle.

Radagast isn’t meant to be a batshit crazy hobo with a drug problem. Saruman dislikes him because Radagast values animals, which Saruman sees as merely beasts for his purposes.

Saruman acting shifty as fück and nobody noticing. He could at least pretend to not be evil! Stretch though that may be for Christopher Lee’s abilities...

The good

The effects I really liked. Even though most of the monsters were CGI this time, for the first time at the movies I actually thought they looked as good as actors.

The high frame rate I loved. It had me smiling in joy throughout the entire (sluggish) first half hour to see Middle Earth look so real.

The 3D I enjoyed for the same reason.

The acting was top, even when I didn’t appreciate the characterisation (eg Smeagol).

The efforts to bridge The Hobbit with The Lord of the Rings. The two books have almost nothing in common. Much like the most recent Trek movie, if you changed the names you wouldn’t relate them to the same lineage. I appreciate Jackson trying to bring two very different stores together.
Overall, The Hobbit is what the book is. A lesser-sibling to its much bigger relatives LoTR, The Silmarillion et al. Jackson’s choice was either make it into a complete children’s fantasy or do what he’s done here and try and meet LotR half way.

I think he did well, for the most part

Most of what I don’t like is just based on my nitpicking opinion.

Post by **Best First** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:08 pm

Karl wrote:I liked it

True story.

Me too.

Freeman was superb. Thorin was good. Enjoyed Bilbo kicking ass and i actually enjoy all the stuff that was in appendices or only referred to in the stories being bought to life, it might be padding to the specific tale of the Hobbit but it's not neccessarily padding to the wider world of Tolkien.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:01 am

Epic. Absolutely loved it and wasn't bored in the least, not even for thirty seconds.

The music was outstanding and really elevated the film. The cinematography and angles of so many of the scenes just blew my mind. The acting! There wasn't a bad actor in the thing, and Bilbo and Gandalf were superb. All in all, it was pretty much what I expected from a return to Middle Earth by Peter Jackson.

No criticism here. Best movie of the year, IMO.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:46 am

bumblemusprime wrote:
Still, Jackson could have edited this down to two hours, at the very least. It would be a better film, if still a glacial one. I guess that ain't how the mighty PJ likes to roll. Three hours or nothing...

I actually thought this could have been a fantastic 2-hour fantasy movie. And the book is rich enough for three movies of such a length. But it seems just because the previous trilogy's films were three hour's a piece, Jackson feels these ones have to be too.

The world is still enchanting, and the casting brilliant, but the movie was flabby. And the 48 fps made it alternate between scenes of vast epic beauty, to talky scenes that look like a Middle Earth-set EastEnders. The 3D was the best since Avatar though.

Tellingly the best bits, and the coolest bits, are always from Tolkien's brain and not Jackson add ons. The Riddles in the Dark, goblins riding wargs, etc.

Hound · Post by **Hound** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:19 am

Gandalf walks off. Dwarves get into trouble. Gandalf saves their ass. And repeat.

And he does that ******* giant bird trick again!!

It was enjoyable but too long, and that's coming from someone who hasn't read the book.

bumblemusprime · Post by **bumblemusprime** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:48 pm

Hound wrote:Gandalf walks off. Dwarves get into trouble. Gandalf saves their ass. And repeat.

And he does that ******* giant bird trick again!!

It was enjoyable but too long, and that's coming from someone who hasn't read the book.

Tolkien actually explains what's up with the damn giant birds, and how one of them owes some kind of Wookiee life debt to Gandalf. But I guess PJ couldn't find a way to fit that into A THREE F@CKING HOUR MOVIE!

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:16 pm

I coulda sat through another hour, to be honest. LOVED IT!

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:27 am

The movie was okay. I'd give it a weak 7/10. It felt like a three hour long action scene. Lots of running, lots of fighting, big monsters (the bit where the mountains started fighting. Huh?! What did that add to the movie?) and a bunch of stupid dwarves that lacked (individual) personality.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:18 pm

Obfleur wrote:The movie was okay. I'd give it a weak 7/10. It felt like a three hour long action scene. Lots of running, lots of fighting, big monsters (the bit where the mountains started fighting. Huh?! What did that add to the movie?) and a bunch of stupid dwarves that lacked (individual) personality.

The mountain fighting thing was AWESOME! Michael Bay is adding Rock Lords to TF4 as we speak.

TransFans.co.uk

The Hobbit (Spoilers, Or Just Read The Book)

Re: The Hobbit (Spoilers, Or Just Read The Book)