 December 14, 2012 - 11:35pm | I read a bunch of reviews that were critical of the Hobbit, the unexpected journey and now that I saw it I think some of the criticism is just people looking for something to gripe about. For instance, one reviewer pissed over the fact that there are no women in the movie and yet Peter Jackson worked Galadriel into the story. there has been some pissing about it being a thin childrens book and Peter Jackson bloated it by spreading it into 3 movies. That complaint is to be expected by the cynical. However, the Hobbit was not so thin a childrens book and ther was much to the story that was left untold concerning the "necromancer" and Gandolfs mission to southern Mirkwood to deal with him. Peter Jackson has decided to tell the untold bits of the story. As a long time lover of Tolkien's literature I would have settled for just the Hobbit as it was published without the parts of the story I knew about but are not the Classic Hobbit. However, I'm really glad that we are going to get the whole story. I doubt there is any bloat anywhere in the story except on the Great Goblin who was quite bloated. Pros for the Hobbit: Its quite funny. Actually, down right funny at times and much of that is actually the skill of the actor playing Bilbo as quite a bit of the humor is in his facial expressions. Action sequences are quite stunning and the landscapes are stunning. Visually its, its, its... can I use stunning again? BTW I did not see it in 3D, because I just didn't want to. However, I suspect that the goblin caves running fight is really cool in 3D- I had that thought while actually watching it. The script differs from the book in some ways that people will notice. Mainly the same stuff happens but sometimes its not the character that Tolkien wrote doing it. the scene with Bilbo and Gollum is just WOW! I think the script is pretty tight and well written and I suspect that Tolkien would approve. However, I'm wondering if the action and violence is too much for my kids. Which is a problem since I Promised we would go to see it when it came out. I simply audited the movie first because I know we will have 5 or more trips to the bathroom during the movie, which is frustrating for me. Jedion give a thumbs up. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 December 15, 2012 - 12:52am | Thanks for the review. It was actually very helpful for me. I'll be screening it tomorrow, to preview it for my own kids. They are excited about it, so I hope it's not too gory for them! |
 December 15, 2012 - 5:03am | Thanks have heard alot of critism of the film but some of it is quite ridiculous. Like he filmed it in 48 frames per second without an explanation of what that means. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
December 15, 2012 - 6:23am | Actual gore is not so much but there is quite a bit of fighting and a few heads roll. Whats interesting on that point is that you dont see Thorin's Grandfather being beheaded just that he's fighting Asok the orc in a flashback as Ballin is telling a story and then you see the orc with the head in his hand. Later you see Gandolf swing his sword then pause to look at the goblin he just slashed and he pokes the head with this staff and it folls off. You dont actually see any of these beheadings happen. Now that I think about it there is very little blood shown though the movie is so realistic. Its down right tense at times. Saruman is back (same actor) and he's in the same scene with Lady Galadriel and they wrote him as one of the good guys and part of the council of the wise but to the knowing audience you can clearly see evidence that he's a dick. He's probably always been a dick and his actions latter in LotRs should probably not come as a surprise to anyone. If, like me, you didn't quite like the wargs in LotRs then you may just like the wargs in this movie. they are a little bit more wolf looking in face and body. These I love. The issue about 48 frames is that its double the normal ammount of 24. What its suppose to do is smooth out the action in 3D. Comments by some reviewers indicate that it takes a few minutes to adjust to it and then you forget about it. For myself I didn't see the 3D version and didn't notice anything at all. Peter Jackson felt that doing it this way would make it more real to the viewer in 3D, I just cannot speak to that. What it will affect is when you buy the movie and use the frame advance feature on your Blue Ray/DVD to look at scene frame by frame it will take twice as long to do that because there are twice as many frames. But then how often do you do that? I cannot state enough how funny this movie is. Lots of big laughs but then there is stuff that is amusing that doesn't go for the big laugh, like when the dwarves are in Rivendell and the elves have fed them and they were totally like "where's the meat" (apparently elves east salad) so the dwarves are making a fire in their room to cook something and you plainly see that one of peices of wood is a leg from a chair. Its funny because you know they broke up the furniture in Elrond's house to make a fire but Jackson doesn't linger on it and try to get a laugh from it. Its just amusing if you think about it and to me that is awesome- kudos to Jackson for being that kind of film maker. They managed to give the various dwarves different personalities and this comes out a lot through out the film when the action slows. They are not just a name and a colored hood as in the book. in fact each has a distinct look and the hoods are not much in evidence. they each have a distinct hair and beard style- apparently dwarves can be quite artistic with their beard. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 December 15, 2012 - 7:55am | I took my 9yo and my 13yo yesterday morning to go see it (and then played Star Frontiers last night so I get an epic dad day!) and it was fantastic. I heard it said (well) somewhere that if there was blood and it was red in all of these LOTR battles that it would have been rated R. I kind of agree with that. The lack of blood (think Kill Bill) made it a little easier. The action was high and tense and it was thoroughly enjoyable for the kiddos as well. On the story issue, IIRC Jackson is including some of the backstory from the Silmarillion to set up the happenings in the Hobbit. Far from milking it, I find that it lends a lot of depth to the overall setting. I was wondering how he would pull off a three part movie without the first part being a total snoozer (like the book. It took me two tries to get to the good parts). Well incorporating some of the 'historical' information in the Silmarillion really seemed to do the trick. On the frame rate, I saw it in 2d as well, and didn't notice anything. Fantastic movie. My kids loved it, and I don't feel bad at all about my 9yo seeing it. |
 December 15, 2012 - 1:40pm | I saw it yesterday for our company Christmas party. I really enjoyed it. I think it is a more accurate film than the Lord of the Rings was. I appreciate seeing the back story and other material that a Tolkien fan has to dig out of other works. I see the differences between the children's book and the film as a more accurate telling. At the beginning of the film Bilbo even mentions to Frodo that he is going to tell him the more complete truth. Would I take my children to see this movie? YES! I did not see the violence as gory or over the top. Will I own it and allow my children to watch it at will? Yes. -iggy |
December 15, 2012 - 1:08pm | You went to see the Hobbit for your Christmas Party!?! I will be lucky if we have a potluck. Never quit that company. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
December 15, 2012 - 3:44pm | You went to see the Hobbit for your Christmas Party!?! I will be lucky if we have a potluck. Never quit that company. I wish this forum had a like button for posts like this. |
 December 17, 2012 - 1:59pm | It was an entertaining flick for sure, lots of good humor and action sequences. I saw it in regular 2D as well, and I have since heard the premium price for 3D wasn't worth it due to a severe lacking of actual 3D effects. I don't recall seeing many "coming right at you" moments in the flick so I'm glad I saved the price of three tickets for two admissions. Besides, ever since what I like to refer to as the "Avatar Experience" I've been watching flicks in 2D at the theaters. See, when Avatar came out on DVD I was floored by the epic colors on my 42" 720dpi flat screen TV. Despite the great 3D effects in the movie, I didn't get to enjoy that color experience with those dark glasses in the digital theater (I can only imagine what those colors must have been like on the big screen at 1080), so I've been enjoying the full color of 2D on the big screen ever since. We've already seen evidence that this franchise is seeking to unseat George Lucas as "senseless money making whore of the century" what with the umpteen million different DVD releases, each one costing another $20 for an extra couple of minutes worth of "never before seen footage" accompanied by an additional 10-15 minutes worth of commentary as to why that scene wasn't included and how pivotal it is to the story at the same time. So pardon my skepticism as to why we need a trio of movies for one more story. It only makes me wonder if PJ will release a seventh movie detailing the return to the Shire tale that we didn't see in the LOTR series...or God forbid, another trilogy. Three hours and ten minutes (including trailers) is a bit much for "part one", more so with the lack of a pause button. Never mind my "book by the cover" outlook, there was plenty that could be cut out of this film to shorten it. For starters the 15-20 minutes worth of opening sequence retelling what we already saw in the other three movies. I'm pretty sure that wasn't in the book, considering how LOTR was penned after the Hobbit. Another scene that could have bene shortened was that rabbit-sled chase. It was getting redundant seeing the chase circle around the dwarves time and again, I mean wasn't the point here to draw the wolf pack AWAY from the group instead of towards them? Stuff those scenes into one of the 50,000 DVD versions that will be released later, my back and legs can't handle being seated for three hours, and sometimes my bladder can't either...I almost needed a wheelchair to leave the theater because my legs were paralyzed from lacking circulation. To suffer this twice more, I'll most likely wait for the DVD releases on the next two flicks. |
December 17, 2012 - 3:10pm | Long ago (like when they released Star Frontiers) movies had to be 90 minutes long. This was because a movie was released in theaters and after its run would make its way to television where it needed to fit in a two hour time slot (movie plus commercials). Even when cable started up (and they only showed movies) 90 minutes helped them plan the time for airing. Then VCRs came along and things could be loosened up a little. But when DVDs came along and now most movies don't even come to television anymore since the real money is in DVD sales, writers, directors and producers were no longer restricted by "the Man" and could let the story go as long as it needed to. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
December 17, 2012 - 4:39pm | Keep in mind the mass marketing of the VCR started in 1975 (along with the technically superior Betamax), with the Laser Disc making its debut in 1979. Still, 2+ hour movies are nothing new and there are many that predate SF. Here's a list of 1970s flicks I have (yes, I took my laptop to my DVD & VHS collection to compile this LOL): Patton (1970): 172 minutes Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970): 144 minutes Clockwork Orange (1971): 136 minutes The Andromeda Strain (1971): 131 minutes Nicholas & Alexandra (1971): 183 minutes The Godfather (1972): 175 minutes The Exorcist (1973): 122 minutes The Sting (1973): 129 minutes Serpico (1973): 130 minutes The Towering Inferno (1974): 165 minutes Earthquake (1974): 123 minutes Godfather Part 2 (1974): 200 minutes The Great Gatsby (1974): 144 minutes Jaws (1975): 124 minutes One Flew OVer the Cuckoo's Nest (1975): 133 minutes Dog Day Afternoon (1975): 125 minutes King Kong (1976 - climbs the WTC instead of ESB): 134 minutes Midway (1976) 132 minutes The Oulaw Josie Wales (1976):135 minutes Star Wars (1977): 121 minutes Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind (1977): 132 minutes The Deep (1977): 123 minutes The Spy Who Loved Me (1977): 125 minutes A Bridge Too Far (1977): 175 minutes Superman (1978): 143 minutes The Deer Hunter (1978): 182 minutes Midnight Express (1978(: 121 minutes Lord of the RIngs (animated, 1978): 132 minutes Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979): 132 minutes Apocalypose Now (1979): 153 minutes Moonraker (1979): 126 minutes ____________________________________ Being under 12 years old when those flicks debuted, the only ones on the list I saw on the big screen were Star Wars, Close Encounters, Supeman, and Star Trek. I slept through the bulk of Star Trek...only one other movie has been able to cast me into La-la-land and that was 2001 A Space Odyssey (1968, 141 minutes), I have honestly given that snoozefest a dozen opportunities and have yet made it to the end. I should probably buy that movie for my insomnia, it's far more potent than Ambien. Still, Trek is the ONLY flick I ever fell asleep at in the theater. |
 December 17, 2012 - 7:25pm | Seen this twice. :-) It was that good to watch - awesome effects. It's a bit different from the book, after watching LoTR I expected as much. The take on the stone giants was interesting. |
 December 22, 2012 - 7:31pm | Just got back from it. An amazing film that really took me back to the feel of Old School D and D. Pure adventure. Liked it better than LoTR and that's a hard one to do. Sci-fi is main thing, but fantasy is where I got my start down the spec fiction road, so it has a good place. Ahh, the age old battle: rivets or swords.... These two yazarians and this vrusk walk into a bar... |
December 27, 2012 - 8:08pm | So, I previewed it and deemed it good for family viewing. Watched it with the kids, who couldn't stop talking about it for days! Then, when the wife got a day off, we went together as part of a nice date evening. So, altogether, I got to see it 3 times! Great movie! One of the biggest and most satisfying surprises for the kids and I was the inclusion of Sylvester McCoy as Radagast the Brown. We are big Doctor Who fans, and to see the 7th Doctor onscreen in The Hobbit was a huge surprise! Regarding the "bloat", I did not feel that the extra parts interfered with the story at all. The story never dragged, and time went by pretty fast. I appreciated seeing the bits from the Silmarillion, and was pleased to see the White Council. The biggest bloat was the goblin king - as he should be! (Another hilarious surprise - the Goblin King is played by none other than Dame Edna.) The worgs were far better in this film. In the LOTR trilogy, that had been one of the big disappointments for me. They just didn't look right. I thought they looked more like mangy hyenas. The Hobbit gets them right. |
December 27, 2012 - 8:24pm | Agreed, big ugly hyenas sucked and The Hobbit's warg's rocked. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
December 28, 2012 - 4:07pm | Took my wife and 10 year old daughter and 5 year old son. My favorite part was when the goblin king tells the little goblin in the gondola chair to send a message and he takes off flying down the wire and my son belted out, "That looks like fun". -iggy |
 December 29, 2012 - 7:20am | Cinematography, staging, lighting, costuming and writing/rewriting (all the stuff beyond the book, which is about half,) were all thin to me. There were contrived moments injected. I hate contrived dialog and staging. The original story had enough deus ex machina, it didn't need more that lent nothing to the story and it didn't need the existing ex machina made so overt. The movie operated as if showing us how many times they could make 15-16 characters survive literally impossible odds. When suspension of disbelief is challenged constantly, it's hard to take the movie seriously. I think it would have been much better if they simply made the book into a single movie. It's less than 300 pages. It's not that hard. This is a clear money grab. As much as I liked the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I didn't enjoy this movie. given the option to see this again a few days later, I snuck into James Bond instead. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
December 29, 2012 - 7:59am | I think it would have been much better if they simply made the book into a single movie. It's less than 300 pages. It's not that hard. This is a clear money grab.
Ah, good...I'm no longer the lone disenter on that topic. ;) |
December 29, 2012 - 9:51am | Isn't everything a money grab? These two yazarians and this vrusk walk into a bar... |
December 29, 2012 - 11:21am | It's not a money grab. It is finally allowing the artesst to release his full creative efforts and bring together the many elements of this highly involved story so that everyone can enjoy the full magnitude of its magnificance. If you can not understand the full effect this film has upon not only the artistry of film making but on the release of true artistry upon the great undeserving masses than you must either go see the movie 12 times to fully appreciate it and buy the first 6 DVD releases or resign yourself to Elvis on Black Velvet paintings which aren't money grubbing either. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
December 29, 2012 - 3:17pm | Rrrriiiggghhht. The artesst butchered another artist's work. I'm not usually against modifications to an original story. But in this case, the modifications were consistently inferior. Oh, and mostly, I blame the editing. I would bet he had full opportunity to stick it and dump the junk, but was too invested in the special scenes he wrote. He could easily have dumped an hour of film and have a much better movie. Don't expect any major awards for this one. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
December 29, 2012 - 4:56pm | I would think the acting by the guy playing Bilbo would get a nod. His eye acting alone was awesome, he often took the time to let the audience see the emotion on his face before speaking the lines. Good stuff that was and not so common in actors today. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
December 29, 2012 - 5:15pm | Agreed, Jedion. He was good. The film was good I thought. These two yazarians and this vrusk walk into a bar... |
December 29, 2012 - 7:59pm | That I can agree to. He's an excellent actor. I think all the actors did fine with what they had. I just feel Peter Jackson phoned this one in for a buck. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
December 29, 2012 - 9:42pm | you must either go see the movie 12 times 38 hours?!? I don't even work that many hours in a week these days...which means I can't possibly afford to do that let alone: and buy the first 6 DVD releases
$120 after spending the same for tickets at the theater so I can see an extra combined ten minutes of footage...no thanks. I'm sure those extra few minutes will be available on YouTube. Personally, I'd rather just buy the book...which would probably serve to further dispel the movie. Whoops, sorry...I meant movieS. I'm betting it wouldn't take me ten hours to read it either. |
December 30, 2012 - 5:33am | Personally, I'd rather just buy the book...which would probably serve to further dispel the movie. Whoops, sorry...I meant movieS. I'm betting it wouldn't take me ten hours to read it either. Which brings up the point, when they released the book with the movie tie in cover is it a reprint of the original material or is it an adaption of the screenplay? Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
December 30, 2012 - 5:41am | Personally, I'd rather just buy the book...which would probably serve to further dispel the movie. Whoops, sorry...I meant movieS. I'm betting it wouldn't take me ten hours to read it either. Which brings up the point, when they released the book with the movie tie in cover is it a reprint of the original material or is it an adaption of the screenplay? When the released the LotR trillogy with the movie tie in cover I believe it was the original by Tolkien otherwise you need to credit who wrote the material. And the Tolkien estate has had a long history of being screwed by Tolkien enterprises. So any relaese of Hobbit with the movie tie in cover will be the original work so that the estate collects a royalty. Tolkien Enterprises and the traitor Saruman that runs it often requires certain changes to material before issuing a license such that the estate gets nothing. The estate only makes money if the books themselves sell but when TE licences an on line game or a table top game its required that enough changes be made such that the estate will not profit. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
December 30, 2012 - 10:09am | No wonder there have been so many lawsuits. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
December 30, 2012 - 5:48pm | Another critique (critique, not criticism on this one,) I think they should have acquired the rights to the sheet music from Rankin's production. It was so much more memorable, which I feel would have at least gone further to put me at ease. Now to a criticism. If a live action movie can't match or exceed the charm and direction of a cartoon, then the movie has failed. The cartoon stuck more closely to the book and acheived far more in 30 minutes (first third) than the film acheived in 2 hours and 50 minutes. And yet the cartoon was still panned when it came out for not sticking closely enough to the story in areas that these days could be easily overlooked, and yet the movie deviated so much more and acheived so much less. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
December 30, 2012 - 5:38pm | Wait you mean to say after all that Dwarf singing and Elf Playing no Orcs are going to sing "Where there's a Whip There's a Way"? Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
December 30, 2012 - 5:53pm | Wrong movie. That was Return of the King around the time they met the human army on the roadway. I was referring to the song they sung when cleaning the dining table and the song of the Mist. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
