The Hobbit movies

[ResultsMayVary]

I'm going to be seeing The Hobbit tonight in 2D and I assume 24 fps. I just started watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy, so I'll finish them before I go to see The Hobbit tonight. Pretty excited! 

[RuRoRul]

From what I gather - The Hobbit book could barely fill one film - let alone three.

But hey - three films make more money than one ! And why not chuck em in 3D as well for extra money ? Bingo !!

From what you gather?  I take it you've never read the books, then?

A lot of people seem to think that because The Hobbit was only one book and The Lord of the Rings was three, that The Hobbit should only be one movie because The Lord of the Rings was three.  The problem with that thinking is that the books aren't "scaled" the same way.

The Hobbit was written first, and was a children's book.  There is a lot of lore which is only referenced or hinted at, and a lot of story occurs "off-screen".  Heck, the climactic Battle of Five Armies isn't even in the book, and you know that's gonna get milked for at least a half-hour of screen time, probably more.  The Lord of the Rings was meant to dig deeper and goes into greater detail.  The story itself is broader, but the books go into more detail.

I'm sure part of the reason why there will be three movies is because of the money, so you're not wrong about that.  But people always talk about what gets left out of the book to make the movie, and how they wish the movie could be twice as long (or in this case, three times as long).  Here we'll actually get it.  Plus, there's a certain elegance to making it a prequel trilogy, if for no other reason than to show George Lucas how to do it right.

I have only recently read The Hobbit again (after reading it years ago when I was younger), and even though I was sceptical about making it into three films, I agree it is unfair to make the comparison of the content of The Hobbit and Lord Of The Rings based on page count or length of the books. The Council Of Elrond is about Chapter 14 of the Fellowship Of The Ring - in The Hobbit they arrive at and leave Rivendell in Chapter 3. And if the films were progressing through the chapters in the books at an equal rate, The Hobbit would have to have reached the part where the first film ended as quickly as The Fellowship Of The Ring got to a point about halfway between Frodo and Sam meeting Merry and Pippin and when the four of them arrive at Bree. So the page count comparison isn't really a good measure of the amount of material covered when one book flies through the events with simple, plain narration, while the other is extremely slow and detailed.

After watching the first film (and, as I said, re-reading the book and being reminded just how child-friendly it is), I am much more sold that making three films was a good move. Perhaps they could have made a film that matched the tone and pace of The Hobbit book exactly, but in my opinion there would be no way to reconcile that film with The Lord Of The Rings films and make it believeable that they both take place in the same world. Essentially the film is trying to do what Tolkien never really did - tell the story of the Hobbit in a way that's actually consistent with it taking place in the same Middle Earth as LOTR and everything else (which, for the filmmakers, means the same Middle Earth as the LOTR films). People just accept the disparity between The Hobbit and LOTR because of the history of how they were written (The Hobbit was a more simple quest story, aimed at children, that Tolkein later adapted to take place in the Middle Earth mythology he was making and linked it to LOTR), but if Jackson did a Hobbit that was as different from LOTR as the book was, it would be panned even more severely.

[DarkLord_Lalinc]

Went to the midnight screening last night. Amazing, didn't disappoint at any level.

[Orbert]

After watching the first film (and, as I said, re-reading the book and being reminded just how child-friendly it is), I am much more sold that making three films was a good move. Perhaps they could have made a film that matched the tone and pace of The Hobbit book exactly, but in my opinion there would be no way to reconcile that film with The Lord Of The Rings films and make it believeable that they both take place in the same world. Essentially the film is trying to do what Tolkien never really did - tell the story of the Hobbit in a way that's actually consistent with it taking place in the same Middle Earth as LOTR and everything else (which, for the filmmakers, means the same Middle Earth as the LOTR films). People just accept the disparity between The Hobbit and LOTR because of the history of how they were written (The Hobbit was a more simple quest story, aimed at children, that Tolkein later adapted to take place in the Middle Earth mythology he was making and linked it to LOTR), but if Jackson did a Hobbit that was as different from LOTR as the book was, it would be panned even more severely.

Good point.  The Lord of the Rings was epic in every way, one of the few times the word "epic" is truly appropriate.  The story being told, the running time, the effects, the cast, everything.  The Hobbit has to at least have a similar scope and feel to it, or it will be a disappointment.  It has to live up to The Lord of the Rings, which won't be easy.  With The Lord of the Rings, the challenge was accurately adapting the epic scope of the books onto film.  The challenge with The Hobbit is changing the tone of the story from the simple tale that it is to something that can stand next to The Lord of the Rings.

[Perpetual Change]

After watching the first film (and, as I said, re-reading the book and being reminded just how child-friendly it is), I am much more sold that making three films was a good move. Perhaps they could have made a film that matched the tone and pace of The Hobbit book exactly, but in my opinion there would be no way to reconcile that film with The Lord Of The Rings films and make it believeable that they both take place in the same world. Essentially the film is trying to do what Tolkien never really did - tell the story of the Hobbit in a way that's actually consistent with it taking place in the same Middle Earth as LOTR and everything else (which, for the filmmakers, means the same Middle Earth as the LOTR films). People just accept the disparity between The Hobbit and LOTR because of the history of how they were written (The Hobbit was a more simple quest story, aimed at children, that Tolkein later adapted to take place in the Middle Earth mythology he was making and linked it to LOTR), but if Jackson did a Hobbit that was as different from LOTR as the book was, it would be panned even more severely.

Good point.  The Lord of the Rings was epic in every way, one of the few times the word "epic" is truly appropriate.  The story being told, the running time, the effects, the cast, everything.  The Hobbit has to at least have a similar scope and feel to it, or it will be a disappointment.  It has to live up to The Lord of the Rings, which won't be easy.  With The Lord of the Rings, the challenge was accurately adapting the epic scope of the books onto film.  The challenge with The Hobbit is changing the tone of the story from the simple tale that it is to something that can stand next to The Lord of the Rings.

Thankfully, Tolkien laid the groundwork for that by recasting the events of the Hobbit in the Rings appendices and Silmarillion. I'm just glad they're incorporating on that stuff in the movie as it's the only way to make it both epic and loyal to the material.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Saw it last night. It was pretty good, but now I’m at work feeling like a zombie.

Although I should have, I wasn’t expecting the events of the Hobbit to be presented over such an epic backdrop, even though that’s consistent with how the events of the story are described in the LotR appendices and later. When Tolkien wrote the Hobbit, he wasn’t quite sure what it was leading up to, if anything at all. After he wrote Lord of the Rings, however, he was able to recast many of the events as being of great importance to Sauron’s return and the ring quest. This movie reflects that. It’s not really based on the Hobbit as-is, but more like the Hobbit as-would-have-been, given Tolkien never abandoned the idea of going back to rewrite it. However, the film is still The Hobbit as re-written by Jackson, not the Hobbit as re-written by Tolkien. The changes and informative fill-ins succeed most of the time, but there were a few instances that just seemed odd. Overall it was an enjoyable film. Not as enjoyable as the original trilogy, but still great, and promising only to get better.

As far as technical things go, After seeing 48fps 3D last night, I’m pretty convinced that the whole controversy over the thing was BS, if not an outright publicity stunt. Never once did I feel like I was watching a documentary, or a stage play. But at multiple times I was floored by how “alive” Middle Earth seemed to be. Visually, the only real strange part for me was when Radagast was zooming over the fields on his rabbit carriage while being chased by the Wargs. It looked really fake and weird, and I wonder how that scene made it through the final cut.

Some people will complain it’s slow, but what could you expect? There was no way it could be on Return of the King’s level from the getgo… however, with what’s coming up in the story, I am sure it’ll get there and I’ll be happy to see it when it does.

Just came back from a screening and could not said it better myself. The controversy just felt like BS because both the 3D and 48fps added a new dimension like never before. I had to pick up my jaw in some scenes. I did though really feel like i was watching the first movie in a series so the movie felt more like a presentation on what lies ahead but that's basically what i expected anyway.

Peter could not have done a better job and i can't wait for part two.

[JayOctavarium]

Going tonight

[GuineaPig]

The Hobbit’s prose is unadorned while being jam-packed with action, so I had no problem at all believing that it could be two or even three films. However, it’s also pretty telling that for the original trilogy, Jackson was cutting out things left and right, and sometimes even entire chapters, to try and control the length of what was already a trilogy of extremely long movies.

Now, the Hobbit is presented fully intact with not only every single triviality from the book represented, but with those trivialities in fact embellished upon. The passing mention of Radagast is now a 5 minute scene of the Wizard nursing his furry companion back to health, and the Dwarves’ back story is now an entire side narrative.

I suppose the special edition DVDs will be shortened cuts instead.

[JayOctavarium]

The Hobbit’s prose is unadorned while being jam-packed with action, so I had no problem at all believing that it could be two or even three films. However, it’s also pretty telling that for the original trilogy, Jackson was cutting out things left and right, and sometimes even entire chapters, to try and control the length of what was already a trilogy of extremely long movies.

Now, the Hobbit is presented fully intact with not only every single triviality from the book represented, but with those trivialities in fact embellished upon. The passing mention of Radagast is now a 5 minute scene of the Wizard nursing his furry companion back to health, and the Dwarves’ back story is now an entire side narrative.

I suppose the special edition DVDs will be shortened cuts instead.

lol

[jammindude]

Just got back.   AMAZING!   I just saw the regular version...I'll see the 48fps IMAX 3D version later, but I was VERY impressed with the character development and pacing especially.   It was every bit the equal of FotR.    I expect that we will see a similar pattern to the LotR trilogy as this one goes on. 

[JayOctavarium]

Panda and I are leaving in a little bit to see it. We were wondering does anyone know if there is anything to sit around for after the credits or can we take off?

[jammindude]

Panda and I are leaving in a little bit to see it. We were wondering does anyone know if there is anything to sit around for after the credits or can we take off?

Nope...

[senecadawg2]

Just got back.   AMAZING!   I just saw the regular version...I'll see the 48fps IMAX 3D version later, but I was VERY impressed with the character development and pacing especially.   It was every bit the equal of FotR.    I expect that we will see a similar pattern to the LotR trilogy as this one goes on.

I completely disagree. As much as I wanted to love The Hobbit, I couldn't. I really enjoyed it, and I'll see it at least once more in theaters, and buy it when it comes out on DVD. However, the FOTR was superior on almost every level, IMO. However, I am really excited about the second and third films in this trilogy, as I think they will be even better.

[DarkLord_Lalinc]

Perhaps, Peter Jackson will be able to accomplish what George Lucas couldn't. Create a 6-part movie saga that feels cohesive and solid all the way through. It fits so well into the Lord of the Rings cannon (obviously I'm just talking about the films here) that it's ridiculous.

[jammindude]

Perhaps, Peter Jackson will be able to accomplish what George Lucas couldn't. Create a 6-part movie saga that feels cohesive and solid all the way through. It fits so well into the Lord of the Rings cannon (obviously I'm just talking about the films here) that it's ridiculous.

There was a single (but fairly minor) continuity error that bugged me a little bit.   But it was small enough that it didn't effect my enjoyment of the film. 

What REALLY impressed me was the dialog.   But let me preface that by saying that this dialog was very much like Neil Peart lyrics.   Most of the time, it's excellent...and SO excellent that it almost makes you forget the *occasional* bonehead cliche. 

After having just saw Lincoln lately...it really whet my appetite for a more dialog and character oriented movie with more "old school" pacing that relies more on the story itself than just getting to the next piece of action.    And this first installment fit that description PERFECTLY!!!   The initial reviews had me skeptical when I walked in...but the movie itself COMPLETELY met, and surpassed my wildest expectations.

Peter Jackson totally hit it out of the park.

[Nic35]

I'm going to see it tonight. But I'm in Quebec, and the only theater where I can see it in english is also in 3D. Meh.

[Kotowboy]

Perhaps, Peter Jackson will be able to accomplish what George Lucas couldn't. Create a 6-part movie saga that feels cohesive and solid all the way through. It fits so well into the Lord of the Rings cannon (obviously I'm just talking about the films here) that it's ridiculous.

Was actually thinking of this the other day...


Was trying to think of any other director who has directed so many films in the same universe consecutively ?


Peter Jackson = Fellowship. Two Towers. Return of The King. An Unexpected Journey. Desolation Of Smaug. There & Back Again.

[Kotowboy]

...Also it will definitely only be 6 movies since there is no source material left.

Although you know someone will push for Peter jackson to do 3 more from 100% new scripts written by hacks.

[jammindude]

...Also it will definitely only be 6 movies since there is no source material left.

Although you know someone will push for Peter jackson to do 3 more from 100% new scripts written by hacks.

The chances of what I'm about to say are about the same as a Pink Floyd reunion but....

Remember that the reason these movies got made was because JRRT gave up the movie rights a long time ago when he was hard up for money.  The estate has passionately claimed that they will never give up the rights to any more material...but as you have stated, sometimes money wins out the day.

But fans have been pipe dreaming for the last 10 years about possibly getting movies of The Samarillion or maybe even Unfinished Tales.    I'm just saying that the source material *IS* there for more movies...it's just a matter of talking the Tolkien estate out of it. 

[Kotowboy]

From what I read - most of The Hobbit movie trilogy is excessive padding from books other than The Hobbit ?

[jammindude]

From what I read - most of The Hobbit movie trilogy is excessive padding from books other than The Hobbit ?

It's from the LotR appendices.   From what I understand, they *want* to reference the Samarillion...but they can't or they will risk a lawsuit from the Tolkien estate.  So they have to strictly adhere to the LotR appendices (and their own imaginations) ONLY. 

[wasteland]

From what I read - most of The Hobbit movie trilogy is excessive padding from books other than The Hobbit ?

It's from the LotR appendices.   From what I understand, they *want* to reference the Samarillion...but they can't or they will risk a lawsuit from the Tolkien estate.  So they have to strictly adhere to the LotR appendices (and their own imaginations) ONLY.

Hence Gandalf claiming not to remember the names of the blue wizards!

[hefdaddy42]

Their names aren't referenced in the Silmarillion either, IIRC.

[MoraWintersoul]

Yeah, just in the Unfinished Tales.

[BlackInk]

I thought that was a funny detail, Gandalf not remembering the blue wizards names. I also liked Saruman calling Radagast one of the Istari. They never mention that "title" in the LotR trilogy. I thought that was cool as "wizard" is only a title given to them by the people of Middle Earth, but they're actually Maiar.

[wasteland]

I thought that was a funny detail, Gandalf not remembering the blue wizards names. I also liked Saruman calling Radagast one of the Istari. They never mention that "title" in the LotR trilogy. I thought that was cool as "wizard" is only a title given to them by the people of Middle Earth, but they're actually Maiar.

It was a funny detail to me too. After all, they are unlikely to have met in the past 2000 years!

[Perpetual Change]

Glad to see so many here are digging it. I must say, I want to go see it again, and might this weekend (albeit probably in 2D)

[The King in Crimson]

Yeah, just in the Unfinished Tales.

Pallando and Aratar, I think?

I thought that was a funny detail, Gandalf not remembering the blue wizards names. I also liked Saruman calling Radagast one of the Istari. They never mention that "title" in the LotR trilogy. I thought that was cool as "wizard" is only a title given to them by the people of Middle Earth, but they're actually Maiar.

They very well could have been called that somewhere in the Appendices. As far as I know, Jackson and co are barred from using anything that isn't in the hobbit or the LotR books so anything in the Silmarillion and the Books of Lost Tales and Unfinished Tales are all off limits.

I was pretty excited when I heard it was going to draw heavily from the Appendices.  There's some good stuff in there.  Durin's Folk is pretty awesome little historical vignette about the dwarves, going from the fall of Beleriand up to the Quest For Erebor.

I'll probably see it sometime this weekend, hopefully in 2D.

[MetalJunkie]

I enjoyed the hell out of it. Given the current ratings on RT and how I rely on them too heavily, I expected it to be a mediocre film. I'm slowly learning to teach myself not to care what critics think. Anyway, now on to my reaction. Rather than write a coherent post in a review form, I'll just throw out some random thoughts about individual moments.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS BEYOND THIS

- I know some were put off by the fact that this movie has a more light-hearted tone, but that didn't bother me. It didn't "feel" different to me than the LoTR movies, and if it was more light-hearted, I think that would help to preserve the gravity of things in the LoTR movies.

- The golf joke was funny but it felt out of place. I guess it isn't inconceivable that golf is played in Middle Earth, but ehhhhhh

- Gandalf. What a fucking badass.

- I almost cheered when Gollum showed up. He had some good lines.

- It was nice to see connections to the older movies, whether they were characters Tolkien put in the story or whether they were decisions made by the director. Nice to see Galadriel, Elrond, Gollum, and Saruman. Hell, even Frodo and old Bilbo. Also, Frodo's placing of the sign on Bilbo's front gate was kind of neat.

- Almost shat brix when the Witch King showed up.

- When Bilbo had the ring on near the end and the dwarves were looking for him/talking about him, I'm glad he didn't pull the cliche move and walk away in sadness. I haven't read the books, so I wasn't sure what to expect in that scene.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

Thoughts:

- I liked the movie a lot.

- Its first half was a little slow.

- I felt less attached to the characters than I did watching the original trilogy. Maybe that's just because I've seen the originals so many times, though.

- I have no idea what the 48 FPS controversy was about. My eyes didn't even have to adjust to it. From the get-go, everything looked fine.

[DarkLord_Lalinc]

One thing that bugged me a little though, was that Saruman looked a little evil. Maybe we've been teased by Sir Christopher Lee that has played dozens of evil characters in films in his life and his wonderful performance of the crazed and corruped wizard in the LOTR trilogy, but hey...in that time, Saruman is supposed to be pure good and wisdom and I don't know...it's a weird feel, bro. haha

[wasteland]

Thoughts:

- I felt less attached to the characters than I did watching the original trilogy. Maybe that's just because I've seen the originals so many times, though.

This might have to do with the company being formed by 13 dwarves and two other people instead od 4 hobbits, one elf, one dwarf and so on. I also believe that the dwarves were not characterized as well as the original Fellowship were in the respective novels.

One thing that bugged me a little though, was that Saruman looked a little evil. Maybe we've been teased by Sir Christopher Lee that has played dozens of evil characters in films in his life and his wonderful performance of the crazed and corruped wizard in the LOTR trilogy, but hey...in that time, Saruman is supposed to be pure good and wisdom and I don't know...it's a weird feel, bro. haha

This is not entirely true. Sure, he was still to use the palantír being thus corrupted by Sauron, but he was already pursuing his own agenda concerning the one ring. Which is why he was hindering Gandalf in the movie.

[senecadawg2]

- The golf joke was funny but it felt out of place. I guess it isn't inconceivable that golf is played in Middle Earth, but ehhhhhh

Yes. That really bothered me as well.

[RuRoRul]

- The golf joke was funny but it felt out of place. I guess it isn't inconceivable that golf is played in Middle Earth, but ehhhhhh

Yes. That really bothered me as well.

It did seem weird, but it is a direct quote from the book.

[Perpetual Change]

Yup. That was right from Tolkien.