The Hobbit

[ACPhilson]

I need to go see this. Read the book and trilogy. I know it's gotta be great.

[johnmcclane]

saw it twice. i liked it quite a bit.

however - i have some major grievances with the omissions and inclusions of a few things.

1) This is not a prequel to the LOTR. This is the story of Bilbo (in which he happens to find the ring). Tying in Sarumon and Galadriel was dumb. Gandalf saying he's assisting the dwarves because Smaug would be a powerful weapon in the hands of the enemy is also dumb.

2) The stakes aren't as high in this story. This story is about Bilbo's adventure in helping dwarves get back their gold.... not the destruction of Men in MIddle Earth (like LOTR). But you can't help but feel like Jackson wants us to feel as if the stakes are high.

3) Thorin is a rather self-obsessed, pompous dwarf in the book. He is not the Aragorn of this series. He's a dwarf prince. Aragorn's a bad mother scruncher. Thorin isn't.

4) The pale orc vengeance sublot was dumb.

5) I missed the practical fx from LOTR trilogy - specifically with the orcs.

6) Also, Radagast being the wizard who discovers the Necromancer and Witch King is dumb. Gandalf retrieves the key to the hidden door of Erebor after meeting Thrain and defeating the Necromancer. Radagast is lame. And so were his rabbits.


That being said, I still really enjoyed the film. I was too happy to be back in Middle Earth to do anything but geek out.

[dreammachine]

Originally Posted by johnmcclane

saw it twice. i liked it quite a bit.

however - i have some major grievances with the omissions and inclusions of a few things.

1) This is not a prequel to the LOTR. This is the story of Bilbo (in which he happens to find the ring). Tying in Sarumon and Galadriel was dumb. Gandalf saying he's assisting the dwarves because Smaug would be a powerful weapon in the hands of the enemy is also dumb.

2) The stakes aren't as high in this story. This story is about Bilbo's adventure in helping dwarves get back their gold.... not the destruction of Men in MIddle Earth (like LOTR). But you can't help but feel like Jackson wants us to feel as if the stakes are high.

3) Thorin is a rather self-obsessed, pompous dwarf in the book. He is not the Aragorn of this series. He's a dwarf prince. Aragorn's a bad mother scruncher. Thorin isn't.

4) The pale orc vengeance sublot was dumb.

5) I missed the practical fx from LOTR trilogy - specifically with the orcs.

6) Also, Radagast being the wizard who discovers the Necromancer and Witch King is dumb. Gandalf retrieves the key to the hidden door of Erebor after meeting Thrain and defeating the Necromancer. Radagast is lame. And so were his rabbits.


That being said, I still really enjoyed the film. I was too happy to be back in Middle Earth to do anything but geek out.

You make some very good points. There were things left out of the LOTR Movies too and I guess it was because of how long it would have made the movie if everything was included in it. That being said, if you have read all the books then it does kind of leave you wondering where they are going with the direction of the movie and why they added or left out certain parts. I use to have all the books on the Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings, but like I have done for many years I have loaned my books out to people who forgot to bring them back to me. I guess that's my fault.

I did however enjoy the movie once it got "rocking and rolling" and would encourage everyone to go and see it when they get a chance.

[Spurrier_Superior_One]

I saw it last night, it was well worth the wait. now only two more years until we see this baby to the end. I loved the backstory at the beginning, well done just like in the Fellowship of the Ring. I however do not understand the Radagast being the one who discovers the return of the Necromancer since it was Gandalf was the one who did. The rabbit sleigh huge epic fail. I think Jackson was brillant with trying to up the ante with Smaug being up for grabs with Sauron, it really foretells the huge war that is going to take place some 60 years later, because who knows if Sauron would try to get an alliance with dragons if any still lived during LOTR. Gollum wow just freaking awesome loved the riddles being included and watching Gollum saying "We knows the answer. Shut Up!" No reason why the Hobbit doesn't clean house for Academy Awards.

[The Yancey]

[Don Giovanni]

It wasn't a bad movie, but I found myself quite bored during it actually.

[M.C.]

I enjoyed it and was mad when it ended with the huge cliff hanger...definitely will be ready for the next one

[USCMM]

They pulled a lot from the books of lost tales and took inspiration from how Tolkien wanted to rewrite the Hobbit to better fit the LotR plot (even after the Gollum/Bilbo revision). I liked it.

I thought the Azog plotline was a little saturated. Plus, it was his son who was avenging his father's death in the book. I don't understand why they decided to change it.

I also thought the Radagast plotline was out of place. They omitted him from the LotR movies--ya know, the book he actually had plot relevance--and placed it in the Hobbit...odd.

I really liked it otherwise...I had the Hobbit cartoon song versions in my head though. HAHA

[CockySpaniel]

Originally Posted by USCMM

I also thought the Radagast plotline was out of place. They omitted him from the LotR movies--ya know, the book he actually had plot relevance--and placed it in the Hobbit...odd.

They didn't want to omit one of the best passages in the Tolkien books completely.
They weren't sure they would make money yet in the first films, so they had to leave that scene out.

Also, Hobbit expert Colbert explains "The Hobbit" to Peter Jackson:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/432941

[riceatusc]

going to see it tomorrow. debating on seeing it in rpx or imax

[The Yancey]

[Cigaro]

They sure did add a whole lot, and a lot of it was simply stuff they made up. All of its based somehow on Tolkien's characters and writings, but they did much more than simply add what he wrote in the Appendices. Even though I would have preferred a more pure story, I'll hold off my opinion on these alterations/additions until I see the next movies.

[Spurrier_Superior_One]

Originally Posted by Cigaro

They sure did add a whole lot, and a lot of it was simply stuff they made up. All of its based somehow on Tolkien's characters and writings, but they did much more than simply add what he wrote in the Appendices. Even though I would have preferred a more pure story, I'll hold off my opinion on these alterations/additions until I see the next movies.

In two more years I will be looking to hear them.

[Spur's Addiction]

Just saw it today. Overall it was great. Though the Radagast part was a bit forced.

[ACPhilson]

Saw it today. Long movie. Great cinematography. But honestly, this reminds me of a remake of the first 3 they did.