The Hobbit movie news: An Unexpected Journey

There's a lot of implied stuff like that, but it's never shown.

Can I just say how much I like the way the dwarves' names are read out in the trailer? By the end even Gandalf is clearly getting bored!

Gotta say, until I saw the trailer yesterday I wasn't that fired up about the movie.
Now I am, that looks really good.
I can't believe the Jackson LotR trilogy is already 10 years old.
I bought The Hobbit (book) about 2 weeks ago, so at least I'll have plenty of time to read it before the films are released.

One thing that nags at me.. I'd read that upon Richard Harris' death, Ian McKellan (Gandalf) was asked if he wanted to take over his role (of DD). He declined, based on the fact that Harris had criticized him as an actor, and so McKellan didn't feel it appropriate.
Firstly, Mr. Harris, just ..why?!?!? Argh! I think Ian McKellan would've made a fine Dumbledore; not only that, but secondly, he would've been the only actor dead or alive to ever play both Dumbledore and Gandalf -how cool would that have been?

I could see how it might be interpreted as romantic, but I think galadriel was just reassuring him about something. I guess we will have to wait and see.

I think it's highly unlikely that Peter Jackson would go there, seeing that he is a fan of the books. It looks a bit odd but I really don't think it's romantic.

One thing that nags at me.. I'd read that upon Richard Harris' death, Ian McKellan (Gandalf) was asked if he wanted to take over his role (of DD). He declined, based on the fact that Harris had criticized him as an actor, and so McKellan didn't feel it appropriate.

McKellan claims he accepted the offer but they never got back to him. But he did say it would be unseemly after Harris died considering what Harris said about his acting. He said McKellen was technically proficient but passionless.

Firstly, Mr. Harris, just ..why?!?!? Argh! I think Ian McKellan would've made a fine Dumbledore; not only that, but secondly, he would've been the only actor dead or alive to ever play both Dumbledore and Gandalf -how cool would that have been?

There was a degree of *****iness between the two.

Richard Harris was mainly a disappointed man because I had played Gandalf and he had to settle for Dumbletwit. Or Dumblebore, I should say.

Total Film (http://www.totalfilm.com/features/ian-mckellen-interview)

It was very much, I think, a clash of personalities and styles. Harris was a hard-living, hard drinking, larger than life bloke and McKellen an archetypal luvvie (http://www.ayoungertheatre.com/tag/luvvie/).

For those of you who know more about Tolkien's work, did he ever write melodies to all the songs that are in his books or is Peter Jackson the one commissioning a team to come up with the melodies? They are just so perfect. I love that song the dwarves sing in the trailer, and I remember liking the song Aragorn sang as well in lotr.

Tolkien didn't write tunes for his songs and poems, no - but he liked the tune that a famous British song-writing duo, Flanders & Swann, composed for 'The Road Goes Ever On.'. I don't care for it myself, their tune I mean - but a lot of people have set the poems and songs to music. The Tolkien Ensemble of Denmark have done a good job, for example. There is also a recording of Tolkien singing the Hymn to Elbereth ('Gilthoniel a Elbereth') which is the song the Elves sing to the Valar Elbereth, the Star-Queen, to an old plainchant melody. :)

I love Howard Shore's fantastic score and the melodies composed by him and the lyrics written by Fran & Philippa and others. :). I also love the music composed by Stephen Oliver for the BBC radio dramatisation of 1981.

Grymmditch - I hadn't heard that Richard Harris had criticised Ian McKellan.

ETA: ah, just read Wab's link. :D

I think that Gandalf and Dumbledore were too similar as roles, to be honest.

I just saw the trailer today and it was worth it :D. Looking forward to seeing the film once it comes out in theaters.

McKellen's aversion to playing two beardy wizards was the story I heard originally.

McKellan claims he accepted the offer but they never got back to him. But he did say it would be unseemly after Harris died considering what Harris said about his acting. He said McKellen was technically proficient but passionless.



There was a degree of *****iness between the two.

Richard Harris was mainly a disappointed man because I had played Gandalf and he had to settle for Dumbletwit. Or Dumblebore, I should say.

Total Film (http://www.totalfilm.com/features/ian-mckellen-interview)

It was very much, I think, a clash of personalities and styles. Harris was a hard-living, hard drinking, larger than life bloke and McKellen an archetypal luvvie (http://www.ayoungertheatre.com/tag/luvvie/).


Wow, I had no idea that the two disliked each other, or that McKellen was even an option for DD. I thought he did an amazing job as Gandalf, and it would have been really interesting to see what his version of DD would have been. I know both are wizards, but DD seemed much more lighthearted than Gandalf but maybe that was just the theatrical interpretation.

Mayhap we can leave Dumbledore out of the Hobbit discussion. Thanks! :)

I honestly cannot get enough of that dwarven song they sing in the trailer. It is amazing!

Right on the heels of the trailer, Jackson gives us a Christmas treat with...

PRODUCTION VIDEO #5!

Two sources for your Hobbity needs:

Peter Jackson's public Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150554790416807&set=vb.141884481557&type=2&theater)

YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e2pcUSXLAU)

Hobbit overload!

She left Celeborn behind when she sailed to Valinor at the end of the Third Age. ;) That always cracked me up. :D

But, seriously, the idea of a Gandalf/Galadriel romance is so weird that I really don't think PJ intends anything like that! I can laugh at the subtext but I honestly think that was just a tender, respectful gesture on Galadriel's part. :)
Perhaps she was gently pointing out that he, as a maiar, chose an elderly-seeming form. (the gray hair and such), when he didn't need to.

I read that because of the lack of women roles in the book, Jackson created the role of Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) for the movie. And as far as I'm concerned, had any other director made that decision it would have bothered me.

The trailer looks pretty darned awesome. My wife made the inevitable comments: 1) dwarves are not supposed to be hot; 2) Thorin is totally hot. I'm working on a beard as I write.

Seriously, it looks like they might be capturing both some of the levity that Tolkien (partially) regretted but that make the book such a charming read, and the gravity that Tolkien later wished he'd put into the Hobbit. I had been ill-pleased with the decision to split the film, but the shots of Dol Guldur do make me just a bit more intrigued to see how Jackson et al. envision this. (Tolkien was pretty sparse in his descriptions.)

We've already made plans for midnight on the 14th of December 2012!

I read that because of the lack of women roles in the book, Jackson created the role of Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) for the movie. And as far as I'm concerned, had any other director made that decision it would have bothered me.One of the big concerns with Lord of the RIngs was that, prior to the films, the story was renowned for being very unappealing to women. Indeed, it was renowned for being unappealing to men who were not afraid of women! This showed up with the first film: only just over 40% of the audience was female, which is really low for a film selling over 50M tickets.

However, the film wound up appealing to women who saw in on TV and the audience for Return of the King actually was over 50% female. To this end, we have to give Jackson, Walsh & Boyens credit for managing to defy the existing statistics. (Orlando Bloom obviously helped: or ruined everything, depending on your point of view! (http://www.amazon.com/Orlando-Bloom-Has-Ruined-Everything/dp/0740749994)). In some ways, they have a greater uphill battle with the Hobbit: but I suspect that they might pull it off!

McKellan claims he accepted the offer but they never got back to him. But he did say it would be unseemly after Harris died considering what Harris said about his acting. He said McKellen was technically proficient but passionless.I recall reading somewhat differently: McKellan noted that he'd already played the greatest wizard ever.

However, I have read multiple places that Harris & McKellan did not get along.


I honestly cannot get enough of that dwarven song they sing in the trailer. It is amazing!Evidently, the actors sang it for Maori at a welcoming ceremony preceding filming on their lands. Apparently it went over well!

Evidently, the actors sang it for Maori at a welcoming ceremony preceding filming on their lands. Apparently it went over well!

That's six kinds of awesome!

I heard...somewhere that they're rolling in more than just The Hobbit, since they'd never get a go-ahead for "Lord of the Rings: the Appendices" or the Silmarillion, there might be some old lore they're going to throw in. :hmm:

That's six kinds of awesome!

I heard...somewhere that they're rolling in more than just The Hobbit, since they'd never get a go-ahead for "Lord of the Rings: the Appendices" or the Silmarillion, there might be some old lore they're going to throw in. :hmm:Jackson et al. have the rights to material from the Appendices. Indeed, if they had not, then they would have gotten sued by the Tolkien estate: the Rings trilogy used a lot of stuff from the Appendices (especially concerning Arwen and Aragorn, but even including things like dwarvish women having beards.) Most of the extra stuff concerning Dol Guldur will be from the RIngs' appendices, too.

The Silmarillion is another matter. Christopher Tolkien has not sold the rights, and supposedly he has insisted that his heirs not do this. The Silm. would be tricky: really, only about two of the stories (Beren & Luthien, and The Children of Hurin) would make decent films.

Wimsey, I made the same comments as your wife :lol. As soon as Thorin started singing, I started swooning :lol I definitely never expected to find him so sexy : lol! I don't know how Peter Jackson does it. I remember my mother feeling the same way about Aragorn, and of course all the girls myself included were completely smitten with legolas..

Evangeline Lily talks about the Hobbit. (http://news.mymiddle-earth.net/2012/01/25/evangeline-lilly-discusses-hobbit-role/)

I’m not sure if I like this..

It makes sense given Jackson's approach to showing long, epic battle scenes (which, as he is doing a two film treatment of The Hobbit, the Battle of the Five Armies will surely be). He needs characters to follow in each army; I don't recall that "The Hobbit" provides much along those lines (except more than enough dwarves :lol:), so some invention of characters was almost inevitable. Is a female leader of the Elf guard a good choice? I'd say let's wait and see.

I’m not sure if I like this..Part of what made the Rings appealing to young women was that the inclusion of fairly strong warrior women as well as a male warrior (Legolas) who was not oozing testosterone. It was not just that young women thought Legolas was hot: it was that they could see themselves doing his stuff, too.

As I've noted before, we cannot dismiss this. Only Rings and Toy Story increased the ticket sales for each film. (In contrast, Harry Potter sales dropped 20% after the first film and never really rose above that again.) In the case of Rings, it was driven entirely by an increase in the female audience. It went from 40% for Fellowship (which is extremely low, even for something like this) to over 50%. Indeed, the male audience might have dropped marginally over the course of the series.

Now, if you recall what the elves looked like, then you'll remember that it was tough to separate the men from the women. Having Tauriel be there (and with no discussion on the fact that she's a female) really won't be noticed by anybody save that most loathsome of Tolkien fanboys, the mid-20's arch-conservative, arch-Christian, been-banned-from-20-Tolkien-groups, hates-women.-gays,-minorities,-intellectuals, etc. guy that plagues every Tolkien discussion group. (I think that there are 12 of them who circulate! :cool:)

I'd also add that this is completely in keeping with Tolkien's canon. By the late 1960's, he was writing that Elvish women were trained to fight and did so in a pinch. Contrast that to 1960's social norms (which were hardly better than the 1950's), and standardize it for the 2010's. To make a statement equally "feminist," you really need a lot more than a few warrior women!

It makes sense given Jackson's approach to showing long, epic battle scenes (which, as he is doing a two film treatment of The Hobbit, the Battle of the Five Armies will surely be). The films will almost certainly include the sack of Dol Guldur. Galadriel was instrumental in that, both times: indeed, I sort of wish that we'd gotten to see her cast down the walls in Rings! (It would have served no purpose, I know....)

Do you think that it is too early to get in line for tickets? :yuhup:

Do you think that it is too early to get in line for tickets? :yuhup:

I've heard a fairly reliable rumor saying a movie theater in Belgium is considering showing ALL Rings films before the first The Hobbit film... :drool:

Part of what made the Rings appealing to young women was that the inclusion of fairly strong warrior women as well as a male warrior (Legolas) who was not oozing testosterone. It was not just that young women thought Legolas was hot: it was that they could see themselves doing his stuff, too.

I personally do not know of a single one that loved the movie for its inclusion of females; rather, I know of a lot of fangirls who were beyond themselves with delight that there were so many different male characters to pick from. :) As a young female, I must confess I was bored and bothered by the female additions, and so were others I know. I guess polls and surveys give all sorts of results...

I'd also add that this is completely in keeping with Tolkien's canon. By the late 1960's, he was writing that Elvish women were trained to fight and did so in a pinch.

Exact quote please. I do not recall this quote. Are you perhaps referring to the passage in Laws and Customs where it was said that Eldarin females were capable of fighting but actually did so 'in dire straits'?

To make a statement equally "feminist," you really need a lot more than a few warrior women!

By the same logic, why not have all human races there, in the name of equality? And armies and governments with a politically correct female ratio? I'm sorry but I for one want to see a medieval world with its stereotypes in a movie set in Middle-earth, not yet another modern take on an author.

Having Tauriel be there (and with no discussion on the fact that she's a female) really won't be noticed by anybody save that most loathsome of Tolkien fanboys, the mid-20's arch-conservative, arch-Christian, been-banned-from-20-Tolkien-groups, hates-women.-gays,-minorities,-intellectuals, etc. guy that plagues every Tolkien discussion group.

Yes, that's one thing I am liking, if my guess is correct. If she's a leader in the armed forces, then her presence is accepted, obviously, as she would have been appointed/promoted in such a way to her position. So it's not giving us an Elvish Eowyn.

Do you think that it is too early to get in line for tickets? :yuhup:

Absolutely not! Except that I need to keep my day job to PAY for the tickets! :lol:

Part of what made the Rings appealing to young women was that the inclusion of fairly strong warrior women as well as a male warrior (Legolas) who was not oozing testosterone. It was not just that young women thought Legolas was hot: it was that they could see themselves doing his stuff, too.

Ah, the non-threatening male object of desire. I'd forgotten all about that since media sociology all those years ago.

As a young female, I must confess I was bored and bothered by the female additions, and so were others I know. I guess polls and surveys give all sorts of results...


What female additions? Though I think Wimsey's point is not that young female Tolkien fans liked the way female characters were handled in LotR, but that young females generally did, which is a different statement.

Exact quote please. I do not recall this quote. Are you perhaps referring to the passage in Laws and Customs where it was said that Eldarin females were capable of fighting but actually did so 'in dire straits'?

If they are all capable and all sometimes do it, it leaves open the possibility that exceptional individuals would depart from the cultural norm (and choose to do it even when the situation is not "dire"). The question is, would the society permit it? It seems plausible to me that they would. It seems to me, anyway, that the immortality of the Elves is relevant to this. Tauriel could have spent literally a thousand years polishing her skills...

I'm sorry but I for one want to see a medieval world with its stereotypes in a movie set in Middle-earth, not yet another modern take on an author.
The question is though, is The Hobbit set in a medieval world? Hobbits themselves don't appear to live a medieval lifestyle, do they?

They definitely live in a highly romanticised pre-industrial idyll.

They definitely live in a highly romanticised pre-industrial idyll.
I agree, and just as the Hobbits in Lord of the Rings had--and Bilbo definitely does in this story--it wouldn't surprise me to see a fair bit of humor related to all the anachronism. While the different races have their cultures, the Hobbits seem to differ from all of them in some particular ways as though they belong to a different era.

I guess polls and surveys give all sorts of results...The biggest survey was the return audience on the 2nd film.
Exact quote please. I do not recall this quote. Are you perhaps referring to the passage in Laws and Customs where it was said that Eldarin females were capable of fighting but actually did so 'in dire straits'?Yup. Now, take "dire straits" from the 1960's and put it in the 2010's. We want the same relative statement, and Tauriel is pretty much that.
By the same logic, why not have all human races there, in the name of equality? And armies and governments with a politically correct female ratio? I'm sorry but I for one want to see a medieval world with its stereotypes in a movie set in Middle-earth, not yet another modern take on an author.None of this is remotely relevant to what I wrote. The idea is to not interfere with the story, and the differences between people are an important backdrop to a story about an individual reconciling differences in his own personality. Hobbits, dwarves, elves and humans all are convenient devices for showing these (just as long as they are not so neatly partitioned as Tolkien wanted to believe).

What female additions? Though I think Wimsey's point is not that young female Tolkien fans liked the way female characters were handled in LotR, but that young females generally did, which is a different statement.Indeed! Remember, Tolkien fans were a small proportion of the audience. Had the film sold tickets only to Tolkien fans, then
If they are all capable and all sometimes do it, it leaves open the possibility that exceptional individuals would depart from the cultural norm (and choose to do it even when the situation is not "dire").Here, it would be appropriate only if battling against norms were part of the story. This comes up a lot in more modern stories with "medieval" settings: instead of assuming that women were all comfortable in their 2nd-class (well, really, 5th or 6th class!) roles, they typically are not. However, those stories frequently are about struggling with the expectations of others (or even of one's own self) in some way.

Now, it almost could be: part of the story is Bilbo's internal struggle against the norm where his "Took" side wars with his "Baggins" side. However, the story really is about Bilbo discovering for himself that he's both "more" than a Baggins couch-potato, yet "less" than the Bullroarer.

To this end, simply show Elves being post-feminist and never make it an issue. It's not an issue in the books so it should not be an issue in the film: but keeping what men like to think medieval norms were like would effectively make it so. That would detract from Bilbo's story and thus is pointless. Again, it's all Red Queen.

They definitely live in a highly romanticised pre-industrial idyll.Yes, for a bit of fun, tell someone that Tolkien hated Capitalism, yet was not remotely sympathetic towards Socialism. Most people do not remember that not even 100 years ago, there was still another and much older alternative: and that was the one that Tolkien romanticized!

I agree, and just as the Hobbits in Lord of the Rings had--and Bilbo definitely does in this story--it wouldn't surprise me to see a fair bit of humor related to all the anachronism. While the different races have their cultures, the Hobbits seem to differ from all of them in some particular ways as though they belong to a different era.I still think that it would have been hysterical to have 2-3 of the dwarves be women, and have Bilbo figure this out only about halfway through the first film. :p

However, Tolkien was very much a romanticized version of a 19th century Tory. He firmly accepted that people were born to class, and he (like many others) blamed many of the world's problems on other people fighting this. (For example, Tolkien blamed WWI on the republican French and capitalism, not the aristocratic Germans.) This is an aspect of Tolkien's personal philosophies that is best left in the dustbin.


Seriously, this is shaping up to be pretty good. Jackson's & Freeman's comments make me think that they really see the same story in the Hobbit that I do. Now, I still do not think that it needs 2 parts: but a big part of me wants 2 parts! (But with Part 2 coming out, like, later that same day.... :drool:

Oh, two parts, bring it on! :) I've stopped minding this. :D

It means more MARTIN FREEMAN as Bilbo. :clap:

As for Tauriel, the only thing that truly irritates me is that she is not a character that Tolkien wrote. :yuhup:

As for female Tolkien fans, I think I speak for a pretty large contingent -- i.e. about 200 women online and in RL :lol: -- who really appreciate certain Men and Elves of Middle-earth. :drool: And of course the delectable hobbit-lads!

I wasn't that bothered by the expansion of Arwen's role. It had to be expanded in some way, otherwise she just looks like a trophy wife for Aragorn appearing right at the end of the saga. But I am very relieved that her scenes at Helm's Deep were cut! Liv was the weakest link in a brilliant cast (sorry, Liv). But all kudos to Ms Tyler, her Elvish sounded lovely. :tu:

Peter Jackson's Hobbit will be just like Peter Jackson's LotR! That is to say, there will be many things that delight me and make me want to shower him with rose-petals, :love: and no doubt quite a few things that make me want to bash our favourite Kiwi director with a large salmon. :yuhup:

Anyway, MARTIN FREEMAN as Bilbo. :clap: Roll on December 2012!

Billy Connolly has been cast as Dain Ironfoot. Link to full article (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/02/08/53459-billy-connolly-joins-the-hobbit-cast-official-release/).

Peter Jackson welcomed the news of Connolly to Middle-earth: “We could not think of a more fitting actor to play Dain Ironfoot, the staunchest and toughest of Dwarves, than Billy Connelly, the Big Yin himself. With Billy stepping into this role, the cast of “The Hobbit” is now complete. We can’t wait to see him on the Battlefield!”

Ooowww... I love Billy Connolly...

Though I think Wimsey's point is not that young female Tolkien fans liked the way female characters were handled in LotR, but that young females generally did, which is a different statement.

And the statement itself is what I have an issue with. How can one make statements, instead of opinions with the appropriate IMO label, about what the entire female audience thinks and feels, unless one is sitting inside their heads? Here is the original quote I replied to:
"Part of what made the Rings appealing to young women was that the inclusion of fairly strong warrior women as well as a male warrior (Legolas) who was not oozing testosterone. It was not just that young women thought Legolas was hot: it was that they could see themselves doing his stuff, too."
The last part I view as completely unfounded, and cannot imagine how someone can speak for millions of people with such certainty, without any indication that they are merely expressing their opinion.

The question is though, is The Hobbit set in a medieval world? Hobbits themselves don't appear to live a medieval lifestyle, do they?

It would be easier to name a concept in Middle-earth society that is not medieval. Apart from that much-discussed passage on Elf women's theoretical rights that is. :)

If they are all capable and all sometimes do it, it leaves open the possibility that exceptional individuals would depart from the cultural norm (and choose to do it even when the situation is not "dire"). The question is, would the society permit it? It seems plausible to me that they would. It seems to me, anyway, that the immortality of the Elves is relevant to this. Tauriel could have spent literally a thousand years polishing her skills...

Yes, but those are mere personal assumptions. The fact remains that despite the words in Laws and Customs about the theory of equal opportunities, there is not a single weapon-wielding female Elf in JRRT's writing. Not a single one actually seen with a weapon in her hand, still less having an army rank. Armed elf units are ocassionally referred to as 'men' (even in The Hobbit), as well as the human ones. Plus there are mentions in JRRT's work (UT) of how strange the entire warrior-woman concept felt to not only the Eldar, but Men of the West as well.

The biggest survey was the return audience on the 2nd film.
Yup. Now, take "dire straits" from the 1960's and put it in the 2010's. We want the same relative statement, and Tauriel is pretty much that.

That, however, is nothing but speculation, not a fact. There is no way to tell what JRRT might have or might not have thought today.

Let me repeat the question to which you provided the quote above as answer - is there any proof for your claim : "I'd also add that this is completely in keeping with Tolkien's canon. By the late 1960's, he was writing that Elvish women were trained to fight "?
To my best knowledge, he never wrote anything of the sort.

None of this is remotely relevant to what I wrote. The idea is to not interfere with the story, and the differences between people are an important backdrop to a story about an individual reconciling differences in his own personality.

But it is relevant, in my opinion: making up characters is meddling with the storyline. The examples I used did not interfere with the story; what difference would it make to the storyline if an army with a 50% ratio of females fought in the Battle of Five Armies? :]

---

Despite my issues with the Hobbit movie and with PJ's innovations, let me just say that I still think highly of the LotR movies, and have no wish to engage in bashing the H. Sorry if this gives off the impression that I am. So far, there have been only three issues I had with it, and I welcome the last piece of news on Dain.

The aggressive and confrontational tone in here needs to go, or else some of you do. Simple as that. :)

Oh, two parts, bring it on! :) I've stopped minding this. :D

I still definitely mind it; frankly I'd rather sit in a theater for four or five hours with an intermission. =^/

It means more MARTIN FREEMAN as Bilbo. :clap:

OOOOOOOOH! YES YES YES YES YES!!! Even from the tiny tiny clip of him in the teaser trailer when he says, "I can't just go running off into the blue. I am a Baggins of Bagend." LOVE his little gesture at the end of that moment! And him on the pony... And when he draws Sting for the first time... AH! I'm already in love with this movie and it's still 10 months away!

I get chills when Richard Armitage starts singing and then all the dwarves join in - amazing. You can't thumb your nose at the incredible sound of a whole bunch of men singing together with the timber they create and the deep souns... LOVE.

I wasn't that bothered by the expansion of Arwen's role. It had to be expanded in some way, otherwise she just looks like a trophy wife for Aragorn appearing right at the end of the saga. But I am very relieved that her scenes at Helm's Deep were cut! Liv was the weakest link in a brilliant cast (sorry, Liv). But all kudos to Ms Tyler, her Elvish sounded lovely. :tu:

Given that the audience is expected to believe that Aragorn and Arwen are in love, a love that nothing and no one can overcome, expanding her role seemed a natural thing to do for the movie. She needed an introduction in the film and it was a good move to make her the one to save Frodo; show her early in the films and show her saving the life of the ring-bearer. Plus Glorfindel was a superfluous character in terms of LOTR, he is only in the books to perform the role of taking Frodo to Rivendel; giving that job to a recurring character the audience must bond with in order to believe her story line was a good move, IMO.

Part of what made the Rings appealing to young women was that the inclusion of fairly strong warrior women as well as a male warrior (Legolas) who was not oozing testosterone. It was not just that young women thought Legolas was hot: it was that they could see themselves doing his stuff, too.

I disagree here. I didn't go see LOTR because it had strong women in it; that was the last thing I went to see it for. IMO, women went to see it for the schmorgesborg of man-candy:


You've got the rough and tumble, once and future king of Gondor, Aragorn
You've got the prim and somewhat supernatural, sexy elf-man, Legolas
You've got the hulking alpha male, Boromir
You've got the witty, short and stocky Gimli
You've got the wize leader of the fellowship, Gandolf
You've got the relucant hero, Frodo
You've got the dedicated fried, Sam
You've got the comedy duo of Merry and Pippin


Man-candy for every age group, every personal preference, every personality type, on top of which it's a story about men but they aren't going around showering bullets on each other, running each other over with cars, punching each others teeth out and generally grossing out the women in the audience with insane amounts of violence. It wasn't a blood and guts movie as so many mostly-male-cast movies are. It's a story about men who come together in fellowship, are bonded by friendship, perservere against all odd, and, yes, fight a couple of battles. It was kind of a chick flick in a way.

The female characters in the books didn't make a huge impact on me, personally, other than that I wanted every dress Arwen, Galadriel and Eowyn wore because they were all so gorgeous! :p Eowyn's desire to fight didn't especially touch me simply because she was a woman and I'm a woman and I thought that Eowyn being able to kill the witch king because she was a woman and not a man was gimmicky rather than affirming for women in battle(having had around 60 years for other people to farm out Tolkein's ideas and bash me over the head with them).

I went for the story, the stage craft and the man-candy. :D

I disagree here. I didn't go see LOTR because it had strong women in it; that was the last thing I went to see it for. IMO, women went to see it for the schmorgesborg of man-candy:I didn't make any comments about why you went to see it; I made a comment (that was much observed at the time) about how the films actually got women to see them. Remember, the audience was very lopsided for the first film, despite all of the advertised "man-candy." Going from 40% for the first movie to the upper 40's for the 2nd movie to over 50% for the third movie was quite an astounding demographic shift.

Historically, that had been always been the case with Tolkien fandom: you always had a vocal cadre of women, but the rank and file were young men who hadn't discovered sex yet. (One site that kept demographics showed this hilariously: a big chunk of the posts were by a handful of women in their 20's and 30's, but the vast majority of the posters were males who signed on in their teens, posted frequently for months to a year, and then disappeared! I wonder why.... no, wait, I don't!)

At any rate, this ultimately is a special-pleading hypothesis: why did it work for Rings but not for so many other action films with such lopsided male audiences? Again, think Occam: your explanation cannot apply simply to one thing, but to lots of others, or you are multiplying without necessity. Instead, stick to a well-documented explanation that pertains to lots of other things. (Think of it as Bayesian if parsimony does not grab you....)



On a side but seasonal note, TheOneRing is already planning its Oscar 2013 party! I'm not sure if this shows more optimism or hubris! :cool: Obviously, it's way too early to talk about these things, but I do have to think that The Hobbit will be one of those films that gets the pre-release "Let's see if this is Oscar-worthy?" buzz. Unlike Deathly Hallows 2, The Hobbit has only good preconceptions coming with it: the Academy accepted and lauded Rings (3 BP noms is pretty darned impressive, and that was with a 5-film slate, too!). The critical reception will provide some clue, and when the Academy and the Critics do disagree (the Academy has a much higher tolerance and even love of saccharine goo than do the critics, as films like Blind Side and Extremely Loud show), it's not a factor that affects the Hobbit.

Ultimately, it will depend on how well the film tells a story. The early teasers aren't much on which to go, but they already show a couple of scenes key to the story of Bilbo finding out he's both bigger and smaller than he had thought.

And, I think that I'm with Pearl: although my rational mind says "Two films is twice as much as we need," the fanboy (or fan-middle-aged duffer) in me says: "Two?!?!? WHy not THREE!?!?!? :yuhup:

Historically, that had been always been the case with Tolkien fandom: you always had a vocal cadre of women, but the rank and file were young men who hadn't discovered sex yet. (One site that kept demographics showed this hilariously: a big chunk of the posts were by a handful of women in their 20's and 30's, but the vast majority of the posters were males who signed on in their teens, posted frequently for months to a year, and then disappeared! I wonder why.... no, wait, I don't!)
One site (and a website not really being the best source for evaluating historical Tolkien fandom) would only show that if we assumed it to be the case already, woudln't it? :)

I have absolutely no idea which group of people contains the most fanboys/-girls and honestly I don't really care. I'm not sure if it's even possible to do a prober check on this. On a side note.. I wouldn't be suprised if women went to see the second and third film because they were "forced" to watch the first one with their boyfriends (on dvd I mean) and found they liked it more than they thought.

I had never heard of the books when I went to see the first film. I wanted to see it because the story seemes fun and I'm always in for anything fairy like.. I didn't even like Aragorn in those days. How silly I was...

On a side note.. I wouldn't be suprised if women went to see the second and third film because they were "forced" to watch the first one with their boyfriends (on dvd I mean) and found they liked it more than they thought.

This is how I ended up seeing the movie, except at my mom's behest and not a boyfriend's, and she managed to get to me to see it in theaters. I finally gave in to her requests because the commercials looked like the movie would be really pretty to look at, at least, and it looked like there would be a lot of interesting stagecraft. I only knew a tiny tiny tiny bit of the story (I tried reading it when I was about eleven but couldn't get past Bilbo's birthday party) so I was basically going into it blind and came out totally hooked. And once I was hooked I made sure all my girlfriends became hooked, too, so we could all talk about it :D

Peter Jackson has posted The Hobbit production video #6! Click here! (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150720773691807)

Peter Jackson has posted The Hobbit production video #6! Click here! (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150720773691807)

OMG!! Thanks for posting this! I didn't know these were out there! Immediately emailing this to everyone I know.... :D

Peter Jackson has posted The Hobbit production video #6! Click here! (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150720773691807)

I love these videos, they're just enough to get me incredibly excited for the movie without giving away too much.

I have to say, the post-Potter era has been much better than I thought, knowing that two Peter Jackson-made The Hobbit movies are on their way. I recently got the Extended Trilogy on Blu-Ray, so I guess I'll be watching them for the next 9 months in anticipation of The Hobbit...

I've been hoping very much that each part of The Hobbit will be three plus hours, and PJ's comment about 254 days of production is a good sign.

Thanks, Aiwendil, for posting the link! Watching it made my morning. :D

I've been hoping very much that each part of The Hobbit will be three plus hours, and PJ's comment about 254 days of production is a good sign.

I would guess the theatrical versions will come in under. But I expect they'll make EEs!

Apparently the preview of the 48fps footage of The Hobbit at CinemaCon drew mixed reviews.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/hobbit-48-fps-footage-divides-audiences_n_1452391.html?ref=entertainment

Apparently the preview of the 48fps footage of The Hobbit at CinemaCon drew mixed reviews.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/hobbit-48-fps-footage-divides-audiences_n_1452391.html?ref=entertainment

That's odd. The footage in the theatrical trailer looked very cinematic - like 24fps cinematic. I can definitely understand, though, why 48fps could undermine the illusion quality of cinema. It's almost 20fps faster than NTSC video!

Now I'm curious about how this movie is going to look when it hits the screens.

The trailer was 24fps as most theatres only support 24fps playback. And there will probably be a 24fps release.

Converting to 48fps is, apparently, not a big deal for theatres with digital projection, not all theatres have digital systems.

Wired (http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/04/the-hobbit-movie-going-experience/)

The trailer was 24fps as most theatres only support 24fps playback. And there will probably be a 24fps release.

Converting to 48fps is, apparently, not a big deal for theatres with digital projection, not all theatres have digital systems.

Wired (http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/04/the-hobbit-movie-going-experience/)

Ah. That explains it. Thanks for the additional information.

A staffer for TheOneRing.net has posted his account of the footage seen at Cinemacon. Not only does he discuss the 48fps, but also the new footage and characters seen in the 10 minute preview! Beware of SPOILERS, and click here! (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/04/27/55378-hobbit-footage-review-massive-spoilers-full-coverage-analysis/)

I'm not liking the description of my namesake, Radagast the Brown. :(

Nah, I'm not hugely enamoured with that either, Aiwendil. :shrug: (No problem with the casting, which as ever is spot-on.)

As for Evangeline Lilly's character ... oh, please. :rolleyes:

But there are things that annoy me to this day about PJ's LotR, so it's business as usual. :p

I do like Legolas's frosty reaction to Thorin. :cool:

Makes a lot of sense for Legolas to be in this. :tu:

Martin in the barrel, awesome. And it seems the new Legolas is much better suited to Gimli now (size wise that is) :lol:

Production Video #7 is up!

It had been quite a while. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RiHRkK4ztU)

It's been six months since the trailer was released, yet we still have six more months to go. Ugh.

:clap:

I know, this wait is torture, but at least we have these production videos.

Production Video #8 is now online! And I'd say it's among the best! Click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTUQi8HBlg4).

Also...stone giants! :wow:

And there's a ton of stuff to be found in articles and interviews from Comic-con. I wouldn't know where to start with providing links, so happy hunting!

All my puristy quibbles simply melt away when I watch these vids. :D

As ever, the sheer joy of the project is infectious. :):):):):):):)

Great crew, great cast. :tu:

And at long last I am going to see Dale. :love:

Production Video #8 is now online!

EEP!! I watched it yesterday when it was posted on my facebook page, it was so good!! I'm excited that they seem to be teasing that they'll continue their video blogs through post production, too.

Okay, finish the book I'm reading now so I can start the one I need to finish by next Monday and then I'm rereading the Hobbit! Close enough to the movie that the plot and characters are still fresh-ish in my mind but far enough ahead that I'm not nitpicking the teeny tiny details.

Excellent plan, me thinks!

Looks like 'The Hobbit' will now be a trilogy:


https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/an-unexpected-journey/101 51114596546558

It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.'

We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.

It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."

Cheers,

Peter J

Oh, good lord! This is actually happening? My calendars say it's July 30, but does anyone have April 1? Anyone? I'd heard the rumors, but I didn't think this would actually happen. I long for the days when the final Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games books being split in two seemed like ugly studio greed. They were examples of that, but this is worse. I still don't think The Hobbit merits a two-parter, but now it's a three-parter? This is ridiculous. I don't buy for a second that this is a creative decision. It's not like I won't see all three parts - I will - but man, this news is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

Maybe I'm wrong - I often am - and this is a creative decision almost as much as a business one. Maybe there is enough there. I doubt it, but maybe it can work. I'm open to being surprised. I'll be spending the money anyway, so it'd be stupid to go in determined not to enjoy it.

I will need the subtitle for the third part to be The Search for More Money, though. (Spaceballs reference!)

__________________

Oh geez they're actually going through with it? I honestly don't know how I feel about this. On the one hand I trust PJ to make an awesome movie, but on the other hand I worry that 3 films will just be too much. The book is what? 400 pages? Although I do understand he's using extra material that wasn't necessarily in the Hobbit. I guess I just gotta trust PJ on this one..Well..I'm sure they'll be epic regardless..

They're not just telling the story as told in the Hobbit, though. They're delving into the appendices and supplementing the story with other canon information written by Tolkien. It's not just the Hobbit.

While I agree that the Hobbit in and of itself is a single movie and as suspicious as I am that this is studio ploy to make more money...

I'M SO EXCITED!!!

An absolutly stupid decision. I thought it'd be a stretch for two complete movies, but they're making it three now? A horrible ploy to get more money and a horrible precedent for future book-to-movie adaptations.

An absolutly stupid decision. I thought it'd be a stretch for two complete movies, but they're making it three now? A horrible ploy to get more money and a horrible precedent for future book-to-movie adaptations.

That precedent was set with Potter. Look at what followed suit: Twilight, final Hunger Games movie, and now this.

The two movie precedent was set with Potter, yes. Now the three-movie precedent has been set. It went from stupid (two movies) to ridiculous (three movies).

as suspicious as I am that this is studio ploy to make more money...
To be fair though, pretty much every film could be described as a studio ploy to make more money. I just mean, I don't see a huge difference between two movies they're only producing to make a bunch of money and three films they're only producing to make a bunch of money. At least in the case of a split (as opposed to endless meaningless sequels) there is usually some artistic or technical rationale for it. I don't mean you in particular, but I get the impression that some people don't think a split film is a valid tool for adapting a long or complex work of fiction, and I don't understand why.

ETA: I mean, The Lord of the Rings, although published in three volumes, is really just one long narrative. Yet I don't remember many complaints about making it into three movies. :lol: (Especially since it wasn't going to be three at all to begin with, but two, and at some point in the process I believe Miramax wanted to condense it into one.)

Oh, good lord! This is actually happening? My calendars say it's July 30, but does anyone have April 1?
It's surprising how often I read the exact thing...about it being April 1st.
And then there are the jokes...they're just making room for more character development and expanding the mythos. Like how Gandalf's power really comes from microscopic intelligent lifeforms that speak to you and allowed you to tap into the magic that pervades the galaxy. Y'know, the magichlorians.
*sigh*

They're delving into the appendices and supplementing the story with other canon information written by Tolkien. It's not just the Hobbit.
Not a bad thing! And I'm pretty sure we're all going to see these movies anyway.

Not a bad thing! And I'm pretty sure we're all going to see these movies anyway.
I won't see them in theaters. There's no way I'd pay for three tickets just to see one book become a movie.

That's just it, I don't think this is all going to be from one book.

Well I, for one, will be looking forward to spending a few more hours in Middle Earth.

What ginger1 said!

That's just it, I don't think this is all going to be from one book.

Agreed.

I think PJ is planning to expand on LotR Appendices material to embellish the story of The Hobbit. This is material he has the rights to. (He has no rights to The Silmarillion.) There is a lot of material there, in the mythos, for PJ to play with.

At best, this could be utterly brilliant. At worst... well, at least it's a few more hours in Middle-earth! :tu:

ETA: I mean, The Lord of the Rings, although published in three volumes, is really just one long narrative. Yet I don't remember many complaints about making it into three movies. :lol: (Especially since it wasn't going to be three at all to begin with, but two, and at some point in the process I believe Miramax wanted to condense it into one.)

The Hobbit itself is a fairly straightforward tale, a children's book, which also contains layers and hints of a rich world beyond its confines. It is the bridge between the material Tolkien was writing which became The Silmarillion and what eventually became LotR.

LotR was split by Tolkien's publishers into three volumes, which was not what he had intended originally. It works though. So it only made sense to make three films out of three books. And no, that was not the original plan. PJ had a two-film plan which was rejected by Miramax because they wanted to condense LotR into one film. (Heavens!) Enter New Line to rescue the day.

Well I, for one, will be looking forward to spending a few more hours in Middle Earth.
This is the focus I think.

There were a lot of people, fans I suppose, that lamented the end of Return of the King, not because it was the end of the trilogy, but because it was the last glimpse of a world they loved. We kinda saw this again with Avatar, and people's desire to go to another world. They...we get to visit this world again, and get something that is more than just one book. I wonder if Jackson will go into the origins of the Nazgul. Even though they aren't at all fleshed out in the books, they were in other, perhaps, noncanon material such as Iron Crown Enterprises old rpg.

This is the focus I think.

There were a lot of people, fans I suppose, that lamented the end of Return of the King, not because it was the end of the trilogy, but because it was the last glimpse of a world they loved. We kinda saw this again with Avatar, and people's desire to go to another world. They...we get to visit this world again, and get something that is more than just one book. I wonder if Jackson will go into the origins of the Nazgul. Even though they aren't at all fleshed out in the books, they were in other, perhaps, noncanon material such as Iron Crown Enterprises old rpg.
I'm sure it appears elsewhere in more or less abbreviated forms, but the origins and the various pre-FotR careers of the Nazgul are covered in the "Unfinished Tales," the relatively unedited collection of Tolkien's continuing works (including reworked bits from published material and fragments of other things). Tolkien it seems had fleshed out the various roles and locations of the various Nazgul up until they were sent out to hunt for the ring. Perhaps little or none of this was ever used (outside of the appendices perhaps?), but it's certainly fertile ground for adaptation: For one thing, any audience should be aware of what's really going on in Mirkwood, so it's reasonable that some of the behind-the-scenes evil at Dol Guldur be revealed, thereby giving the story much more of a villain than just a bunch of random beasts and a greedy dragon, and retroactively foreshadowing LotR, something the book itself doesn't do. Although, Tolkien did love his treasure-hoarding dragons (see Glaurung...).

And I've been thinking about other things that might possibly be included in a series of films centered on The Hobbit: One pretty interesting possibility is a fuller treatment of what the Dwarves had been up to prior to the appearance of Gimli and Gloin at the Council of Elrond. Because they were definitely busy in those several decades, with--among other things--a war with northern 'goblins' a generation prior to The Hobbit. Anyway, guess we'll see.

I first heard rumors last week and was thrilled to read in the newspaper today that it has been confirmed! I think this is an excellent idea and I support it completely. Now we have another trilogy to look forward to! Tolkien's Middle Earth Myth is so expansive and so in-depth and so rich that Jackson could easily expand the story beyond the Hobbit. We have to remember while the Hobbit is it's own book, it's also a piece of a much larger canon that extends beyond the pages and happenings of the book. Most movies coming out today are unoriginal, shallow and devoid of any depth. I'm so happy to have another set of films to look forward to! As has been said, who dosen't want another 9 hours in middle earth?! I didn't see any LOTRs in the cinema so this is a special treat for me.

As for people saying it's just for money, well that's how a free-market economy works. Most products are created for profit, that's capitalism. I raised this same argument when DH was split. Adapating novels into films at all could be seen as a marketting ploy anyway. Heck, the whole film industry could be seen as a ploy. The important thing is if the consumer enjoys the product. Besides, it's not like Jackson is making "Bilbo Baggins goes to Hollywood" or something. :lol: The mythology is so epic, it permits this kind of expansion so I think it is both artistic and economic personally. There are fantasy stories like A Song of Ice and Fire that are getting it's own TV show! Twelve hours (four films length) a book of adapation. Why is making three films of one book such a big deal?

Take heart, we have one hell of a tale ahead of us! :D

As for people saying it's just for money, well that's how a free-market economy works. Most products are created for profit, that's capitalism. I raised this same argument when DH was split. Adapating novels into films at all could be seen as a marketting ploy anyway. Heck, the whole film industry could be seen as a ploy. The important thing is if the consumer enjoys the product. Besides, it's not like Jackson is making "Bilbo Baggins goes to Hollywood" or something. :lol: The mythology is so epic, it permits this kind of expansion so I think it is both artistic and economic personally. There are fantasy stories like A Song of Ice and Fire that are getting it's own TV show! Twelve hours (four films length) a book of adapation. Why is making three films of one book such a big deal?
Right, and when it comes to adaptations (considering the sheer volume of movies Hollywood churns out annually), I don't know why one book = one movie has ever been the norm if money is the only motivating factor, as several people are supposing is the case with this move.

If Jackson can do it well, then all the power to him. But I just don't know if he can. The largest problem that I see is centered around the fact that The Hobbit is about 100 pages shorter than any of the other LoTR books. It's just barely above 300 pages. And Jackson's earlier films were already mocked by many people as movies that featured a lot of scenes of people just walking around. But those movies were great, even though they each covered anywhere between 400 and 600 pages of material. The Hobbit will cover just over 100 pages per movie. It's going to move at a snail's pace. And I know people have been saying that Peter will delve into the appendices for more information but the movies "will not serve as a bridge film but continue to tell the story of “The Hobbit,” in three parts. (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/07/30/59780-peter-jackson-confirms-third-film/#more-59780)" Three films are just not warranted with the source material.

The movies will be a commercial success because of what they are. But I foresee many casual fans leaving the theaters saying Jackson continued to make movies about people just walking around a lot.

If Jackson can do it well, then all the power to him. But I just don't know if he can. The largest problem that I see is centered around the fact that The Hobbit is about 100 pages shorter than any of the other LoTR books. It's just barely above 300 pages. And Jackson's earlier films were already mocked by many people as movies that featured a lot of scenes of people just walking around. But those movies were great, even though they each covered anywhere between 400 and 600 pages of material. The Hobbit will cover just over 100 pages per movie. It's going to move at a snail's pace. And I know people have been saying that Peter will delve into the appendices for more information but the movies "will not serve as a bridge film but continue to tell the story of “The Hobbit,” in three parts. (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/07/30/59780-peter-jackson-confirms-third-film/#more-59780)" Three films are just not warranted with the source material.

The movies will be a commercial success because of what they are. But I foresee many casual fans leaving the theaters saying Jackson continued to make movies about people just walking around a lot.
Let me say first that I'm not convinced any mathematical formula governs the amount of material that can or should be used from a book (especially since a "page" is hardly a standard unit in book form). It all comes down to creative choices and financial constraints, doesn't it?

However, as I've said I agree with you that I don't see enough for three movies in The Hobbit. But, and this is the important part to remember I think: as others have pointed out, Tolkien did have thousands of pages of other writings, notes, letters, and poems that span thousands of years of history of Middle Earth and half a dozen (or more) distinct cultures. The problem is, I doubt that most of those other things--the Appendices, Unfinished Tales, Silmarillion, Children of Hurin, etc.--are really complete enough, grand enough, or discrete enough for a film adaptation. So the reality may be that for Tolkien fans and fans of the LotR movies this is the final chance to adapt his work. I say if Peter Jackson and co. can make a good story out of it all, why not use as much as they can?

At best, this could be utterly brilliant. At worst... well, at least it's a few more hours in Middle-earth! :tu:

Or very expensive fanfic.

Rumour has it that the Tolkein estate is not happy with the possibility.

Or very expensive fanfic.
That's exactly the phrase that popped into my head when I first considered this, but is that a bad thing? What I mean is, considering the literary and linguistic roots of Tolkien's works, namely his own personal and professional interests, I'm not sure a little invention is out of line. Tolkien really, really knew his stuff, but in the end he was essentially writing his own fanfiction based on genres and languages rather than specific literary works. So perhaps Tolkien's estate (or the man himself) would not be pleased about this particular project, but I don't think they could ultimately fault the techniques that adaptation requires.

Is not all book to film adaptation changes basically fanfic anyway?

^I suppose there is that

Noncanonical material can be easily seen as "fanfiction."

Still, I'm looking at such material such as this:

http://www.icewebring.com/ICE_Products/M1/images/3112.jpg


This book had fleshed out the individual history and gave names to the Nazgul all of which were very much in the same manner that Tolkien provided earlier. (Prof. Tolkien had named three). People still quote ICE's material (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/faq/nazgul.html) perhaps to the chagrin of the more die-hard fan, of which I understand, but after delving into much of what they had/have, including details of the wizards (including Alatar and Pallando), the Valar, Maiar, etc...they sold me that they were keeping to the heart of Tolkien.

I confess, I have a thing for the bad guys. (They're just misunderstood, I'm sure! Nasty Baginsses!)

Is not all book to film adaptation changes basically fanfic anyway?

No. Not least because fan fiction is unauthorised whereas films are authorised by the author (or copyright holders).

If Jackson can do it well, then all the power to him. But I just don't know if he can. The largest problem that I see is centered around the fact that The Hobbit is about 100 pages shorter than any of the other LoTR books. It's just barely above 300 pages. And Jackson's earlier films were already mocked by many people as movies that featured a lot of scenes of people just walking around.

I don't know about anyone else but I never heard anything about people mocking LOTR for being movies about people walking around a lot. I heard things like what a beautiful world PJ created, how rich the production design was, what a moving story they were telling... and why were there so many endings? That's the only negative I ever heard about these movies. Never heard anything even remotely close to "mocking."

Maybe I was just talking to fellow geeks - which I doubt as the only other LOTR geeks I knew at the time were my mother and my sister and everone I knew from friends to family to schoolmates to teachers to coworkers was talking about these movies. They couldn't possibly have all been LOTR geeks.

As for basically adapting a 300 page book into three films, I agree that the premise is a little dubious and that there is the possibility for the plot to be stretched too thinly (like butter spread over too much toast... :lol: ) but I have complete faith in PJ and in the end if the movies stray from the tale of the Hobbit I don't think I'd mind. I would love to revisit Middle Earth, revisit some of the characters we met in LOTR (Legolas and Galadriel will be in the films but were not in the book The Hobbit), see the areas of Middle Earth that we didn't get to see before like Mirkwood and the Lonely Mountain...

I won't see them in theaters. There's no way I'd pay for three tickets just to see one book become a movie.

Then don't.

I am definitely going to see all three movies, the debate I'm having right now is whether I want to shell out an additional $5 (+/-) to see these in 3D since I hate having to stack those 3D glasses on top of my regular ones - they never stay put so you end up spending 2 1/2 hours holding them to your face. :grumble:

If you view Tolkein's work as a mythology instead of just a set of books, then I think expanding on it is very appropriate. That's how mythology and legends are supposed to work. I'm not going to judge the third movie until I see it - if it's a good expansion of Tolkien's work in the spirit of what he published, then I'll be happy.

If you view Tolkien's work as a mythology instead of just a set of books, then I think expanding on it is very appropriate. That's how mythology and legends are supposed to work. I'm not going to judge the third movie until I see it - if it's a good expansion of Tolkien's work in the spirit of what he published, then I'll be happy.

I'd guess Movie One will already give us a feel for what to think of this idea. Given Jackson thinks he can create a trilogy with only 2 more months (http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/the-hobbit-tokyo-drift-or-whatever-third-film-ends-up-being-called-doesnt-yet-have-a-script-or-a-budget-20120801#) of principal photography (compared to 266 days, which is 4 times that...) I'd say the plan has to be to make the breaks for 1 and 2 in new places, and/or add back in scenes he had thought he would have to cut into both of those. If he is stretching his butter over too much bread we'll taste it already. :)

I don't know about anyone else but I never heard anything about people mocking LOTR for being movies about people walking around a lot. I heard things like what a beautiful world PJ created, how rich the production design was, what a moving story they were telling... and why were there so many endings? That's the only negative I ever heard about these movies. Never heard anything even remotely close to "mocking."

Oh, I've definitely heard the "it's nine hours of people walking" thing too. It's funny when it's from Kevin Smith - or rather, Jeff Anderson as Randal - in Clerks 2, but I don't pay the people who would make those complaints any mind, because they just don't get it or want to get it. And hearing about this one book being adapted to three movies, they probably have their knives out already.

I'm much more concerned about (a) how late in the game this decision came, (b) expanding/padding a book that doesn't need it, and (c) "filling out" this story to the extent that it's no longer The Hobbit. As to (b), okay, we're going to see a lot of material from the appendices to show us things that were only alluded or referred to in the Hobbit text. But Jackson and Philippa Boyens have talked about one of the differences between this and The Lord of the Rings being that the scope is smaller, the fate of the entire world isn't at stake this time around, it's a less momentous adventure. I liked that, and now I feel the scope is being blown up too much. I mean, doesn't it have to, because we're dealing with a trilogy now (if a hastily retrofitted one). As to (c), I love this world too - my anticipation for this movie has been about going back to Middle-earth as much as anything - but I'm concerned that too much elaboration is going to be done that it'll disrupt the focus and precision of this story, that it'll stop being The Hobbit and become More Tales of Middle-earth. More Tales of Middle-earth could be nice and all, but it's not what this is supposed to be. It can still work - and it probably still will - but I don't know if it'll be as satisfying as it could have been.

Jackson and Philippa Boyens have talked about one of the differences between this and The Lord of the Rings being that the scope is smaller, the fate of the entire world isn't at stake this time around, it's a less momentous adventure. I liked that, and now I feel the scope is being blown up too much.
I'm glad you said this, because as much as I can talk myself off the ledge about the adaptation process, about the depth of Tolkien's work, etc., I still can't think of a solution here. The Hobbit is, at its core, kind of a silly book. Bilbo--the Hobbit--is not remotely interested in saving the world, and the world is hardly saved by the actions of anyone else. If anything, if we want to consider it from a Lord of the Rings point of view, The Hobbit represented a number of distinct failures. I was looking forward to a silly, lighthearted romp, and I admit I'm not sure if I care to see the fate of the world brought into it, as you've suggested it might be.

I honestly don't believe that there will be many complaints. I think that there will be plenty that simply want more Middle Earth and they are going to get it.

If you view Tolkien's work as a mythology instead of just a set of books, then I think expanding on it is very appropriate. That's how mythology and legends are supposed to work. I'm not going to judge the third movie until I see it - if it's a good expansion of Tolkien's work in the spirit of what he published, then I'll be happy.

I think that's a good way to look at it. :)

And anyway, I survived the many heresies of PJ's LotR. :lol:

I am sure I will survive the many heresies he will no doubt commit in this second Trilogy. :cool:

Martin Freeman's Bilbo is just about the biggest draw for me in this.

And anyway, I survived the many heresies of PJ's LotR. :lol:

I am sure I will survive the many heresies he will no doubt commit in this second Trilogy. :cool:

I survived being dragged to all the Twilight movies and after that I can survive anything!

Martin Freeman's Bilbo is just about the biggest draw for me in this.

Eep! I'm so looking forward to him as Bilbo! And Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield (my mom commented that he doesn't look that good-looking as a dwarf, to which I replied that Richard Armitage as a dwarf is about as good-looking as any dwarf can get!)

What is also important to remember when considering this is that the decision was made while editing. Jackson didn't deliberately set out to make three films, it apparently organically grew that way and that to me makes it seem less contrived. Jackson didn't have to stretch it out to fit three movies, that's just the way it naturally evolved.

As Tolkien himself would put it, this tale grew in the telling.

Sounds like someone could use a good editor.

Okay the sarcasm may tone down. You may critique decisions and opinions but be respectful.

What is also important to remember when considering this is that the decision was made while editing. Jackson didn't deliberately set out to make three films, it apparently organically grew that way and that to me makes it seem less contrived. Jackson didn't have to stretch it out to fit three movies, that's just the way it naturally evolved.

Oh, I haven't forgotten, and to me that's a problem. The decision to turn what hadn't been a trilogy into one really doesn't seem like one that should come this late in the game. If these movies end up looking and feeling like they warrant this hasty extension, I'll be surprised, but I'll gladly eat my words. But the lateness of what you call a choice that naturally evolved and I call a choice that was...less noble, it worries me.

It seems to me that PJ will be re-editing stuff as well as shooting new stuff in order to make this new 'Trilogy' work.

He could pull it off, you know.

It might be that his Hobbit Trilogy is even better than his LotR Trilogy ...!

We'll see.

If he had so much material that he would have had to cut plenty of it to fit into two movies then..well, then I imagine adding a bit more would have been easy.

I think The Battle of Five Armies will be amazing.

Oh, I haven't forgotten, and to me that's a problem. The decision to turn what hadn't been a trilogy into one really doesn't seem like one that should come this late in the game. If these movies end up looking and feeling like they warrant this hasty extension, I'll be surprised, but I'll gladly eat my words. But the lateness of what you call a choice that naturally evolved and I call a choice that was...less noble, it worries me.

The look and feel and structure and arcs of a film are all done through editing and post-production work though. Production only includes the filming of footage but post-production gives it cohesion and shape.

The look and feel and structure and arcs of a film are all done through editing and post-production work though. Production only includes the filming of footage but post-production gives it cohesion and shape.

I'm aware of the importance of editing, but changing the structure and shape of your entire film(s) is really huge and goes beyond the bounds of what editing usually does.

I'm aware of the importance of editing, but changing the structure and shape of your entire film(s) is really huge and goes beyond the bounds of what editing usually does.

In what way? Footage is just footage. How you shape that into an arc is done through editing.

In what way? Footage is just footage. How you shape that into an arc is done through editing.

Well, first, they don't have all the footage, they'll be doing a lot of additional shooting to fill this thing out. Second, editing isn't used to determine structure and shape - you have to have that ahead of time. The maxim that a movie is made/written three times - once on the page, once on the stage, and once in the editing room - is true (and really, we need a third word that means editing room but rhymes with "page" and "stage"), but that doesn't mean the story should be entirely made in the edit. Things change, things become clearer, performances can be made or unmade, etc. in the edit, but you still have a to have a structure in place. The thing has already been built, the edit just makes it solid and strong. So my worry here is that they had this structure for a two-part film, but are now retrofitting that into an unnaturally extended three-part film. That is a big change. I don't mean that it'll be incoherent or lacking a decent structure, but the strucutre has been fundamentally changed; The Lord of the Rings would have been very different in two parts than it is as three, and The Hobbit will very different in three parts than it would have been as two. But The Lord of the Rings films weren't reconceived in August 2001, three months before the first part opened.

Okay the sarcasm may tone down. You may critique decisions and opinions but be respectful.

IMHO I don't think it's disrespectful to suggest that perhaps Jackson needs someone to edit his work instead of being allowed to make a whole new movie because he has too much film.

A friend of mine had posted something about this on facebbok and I just now realized what he was talking about. :yuhup: I was excited about it being two parts, but I'm not sure how I feel about it now that it's three parts. We'll have to see what Jackson comes up with. :whistle:

I'm in wait-and-see mode. If Jackson is just dragging out The Hobbit without compensatory mythological material, then it could be bad. But the trailers for the first movie already looked to be as heavy on the mythology as they were on The Hobbit, and if Jackson is going the mythological route... well, there is little that I love better than the mythology of Middle Earth. :)

So I'll just wait and see what he's doing with this before I pass judgment. If Jackson makes three good movies set in Middle Earth, then the decision is fine with me.

If you are worried - just re-visit the first trailer :) I'll go for the moody, belligerent dwarves and their burglar to entertain us.

I don't mind where they break the films. I don't mind how late the decision to go for three instead of two was (though I reckon he always planned on shooting enough for three). I don't mind any of the comments about "only in it for the cash" etc. Peter Jackson's interpretation of The Lord of the Rings was - well place your own words here - (for me - "inspirational" will do). Yes, I had some huge problems with some aspects of his take on the story - some unforgivable - but overall it was a triumph (ok just my opinion). I am not alone.

He will do The Hobbit justice. He will put his own slant on things. Emphasize some bits that are just a few paragraphs in the book. Give rounded characters to all the dwarves - some of which have a scarce few words to utter in the novel.

We will get to know this band of - well if not all brothers - at least some cousins etc

Go watch that trailer :)

I just have to say one last thing:

Tolkien's material is not to be taken lightly, nor is it to be mistakenly fitted into the one-book-to-one-film paradigm that apparently succeeded in earlier decades for ease-of-marketing purposes (or reasons unknown, I've seen some major turds.) Think about how many movie adaptations of books don't do the book justice. The Lord of the Rings could easily fill out a (questionably entertaining) 24 episode series, yet it's considered remarkable for its length as feature films? The Hobbit does not encapsulate the same gravity and depth as LotR, but it has, if retroactively, just as much urgency and just as rich a backstory. So, I hope we can stop presuming that three movies make no sense, because I'm sure a director primarily concerned with fidelity to Tolkien could make ten movies out of it.

I have deliberately stayed out of this thread because I knew I couldn't stand the wait. But yesterday, I was at the movies and they showed the trailer. I couldn't believe how emotional I got over it.

The music is haunting. And seeing the old Bilbo and Frodo again, really brought tears to my eyes. Not to mention Galadriel and Gandalf.

Now, I can't wait.

I have deliberately stayed out of this thread because I knew I couldn't stand the wait. But yesterday, I was at the movies and they showed the trailer. I couldn't believe how emotional I got over it.

The music is haunting. And seeing the old Bilbo and Frodo again, really brought tears to my eyes. Not to mention Galadriel and Gandalf.

Now, I can't wait.

Oh my, now you have me wanting to see it too!

I wasn't too enthusiastic at first - I didn't like The Hobbit (the book) as well as I liked the LotR trilogy. LotR I've read and reread several times. When I tried to reread The Hobbit, it bored me. [Do we have a "bored" or "yawn" smilie in here?]

And though I found The Fellowship of the Ring movie very well done, true to the book, with any change made well justified, I was unhappy with some changes that Peter Jackson made in the other two movies. So I'm wary of what he'll do with The Hobbit. Now Desraelda has my interest piqued. :)

Oh my, now you have me wanting to see it too!

I wasn't too enthusiastic at first - I didn't like The Hobbit (the book) as well as I liked the LotR trilogy. LotR I've read and reread several times. When I tried to reread The Hobbit, it bored me. [Do we have a "bored" or "yawn" smilie in here?]

And though I found The Fellowship of the Ring movie very well done, true to the book, with any change made well justified, I was unhappy with some changes that Peter Jackson made in the other two movies. So I'm wary of what he'll do with The Hobbit. Now Desraelda has my interest piqued. :)

I actually liked The Hobbit a lot. Which means that I won't be reading it again before I see the movie. I'll just accept the movie for what it is.

I especially like that Martin Freeman is young Bilbo and at least we'll hear Benedict Cumberbatch's distinctive voice.

I actually liked The Hobbit a lot. Which means that I won't be reading it again before I see the movie. I'll just accept the movie for what it is.

I especially like that Martin Freeman is young Bilbo and at least we'll hear Benedict Cumberbatch's distinctive voice.

Good call. I always enjoy the movie much more if I do not reread right before seeing it. I used to always reread, but one time I ran out of time before seeing the movie. Enjoyed it. This has become my policy now.

I especially like that Martin Freeman is young Bilbo and at least we'll hear Benedict Cumberbatch's distinctive voice.
Oh goodness, I didn't even know that Cumberbatch was doing the voice work for Smaug. Great, now I'm going to be thinking that the Bilbo/Smaug scenes are stuff from Sherlock. :rotfl: That should be interesting.

Radagast the Brown has finally been revealed in an image from an upcoming calendar. Spoiler warning: click here (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/08/21/61076-radagast-the-brown-revealed-in-hobbit-calendar-spoiler/).

A list of character descriptions from a line of figurines has also been released. Be warned of many spoilers, and click here (http://thorinoakenshield.net/2012/08/20/possible-hobbit-movie-spoilers-in-german/).

According to sources (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35053), the three movies will be split as "An Unexpected Journey" (December 14, 2012), "The Desolation of Smaug" (December 13, 2013) and "There and Back Again" (July 18, 2014).

Even though I think splitting the book into three movies was a horrible decision, I'm excited to see how Martin Freeman is as Bilbo.

The new trailer is available.... Why is december so far away... :grumble:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/

That's just made my day :)

Glorious. :D

Freeman and Armitage are going to rock. And how lovely to see McKellan as Gandalf the Grey again!

And I love how Galadriel looks younger.

Such gorgeous cinematography ... makes me wish the LotR Trilogy was coming after, actually. Ah, well. :)

Check out the alternative endings! :)

http://www.thehobbit.com/share/?media=gollum

Happy Hobbit day to all! It's like Christmas doubled, or maybe squared....

The trailers look cool, of course, I still do not think that it was necessary to divide this into two films, never mind three: and I am worried about how audiences will respond to this.

That being said, the Tolkien geek in me is going to love every second of this. Actually fleshing out the assault on Dol Guldor will be, like, totally awesome, dude.... (I don't know if I actually spoke like that when I was 14, but that was over 2/3rds of my life ago now....)

This has to be the best thing EVER!!

I cannot repeat enough how strongly I believe that Air New Zealand is the best airline on the planet.

cBlRbrB_Gnc
An Unexpected Briefing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBlRbrB_Gnc)

Is anybody from COS or Mugglenet coming to the world premiere here in Wellington, NZ?
I know Hypable will be part of the press scrum at the red carpet, a shame LeakyNews hasn't confirmed anything yet when the event is only 2 weeks away from today(Wednesday 14th November NZDT).

Is anybody from COS or Mugglenet coming to the world premiere here in Wellington, NZ?
I know Hypable will be part of the press scrum at the red carpet, a shame LeakyNews hasn't confirmed anything yet when the event is only 2 weeks away from today(Wednesday 14th November NZDT).

I wish!

The full soundtrack for The Hobbit is out and available to listen too: http://www.hypable.com/2012/11/13/hobbit-soundtrack-score-listen-download/

Hobbit trouble???

http://www.peta.org/features/the-hobbit-unexpected-cruelty.aspx?utm_campaign=1112%20the%20hobbit%20un expected%20cruelty&utm_source=PETA%20Tumblr&utm_medium=promo


And Peter's reply:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/11/20/65507-a-statement-from-peter-jackson-and-the-producers-of-the-hobbit-about-animal-mistreatment-allegations/?fb_source=pubv1

I don't know about this. As fas as I know the studio admitted two horses died needlessly and they spend a lot of money improving conditions for all animals involved. I also understood the people who made these accusations were fired for not treating the animals properly. And the fact that PETA (who I distrust on principle) waited until now to make these claims seems a bit fishy...

This will probably be more of a problem.

The estate of author JRR Tolkien is suing the producers of The Hobbit alleging that The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit merchandising infringes copyright.

The £50m ($98 million NZD) lawsuit filed by Tolkien estate trustees and publisher HarperCollins against Warner Bros, its subsidiary New Line Cinema and Saul Zaentz Comapny's Middle-earth Enterprises was filed in Los Angeles yesterday...

Tolkien estate sues Hobbit producers (http://tvnz.co.nz/entertainment-news/tolkien-estate-sues-hobbit-producers-5229202)

Production Video #9 is now online! Click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vqyzHwnEiY).

The trailers look cool, of course, I still do not think that it was necessary to divide this into two films, never mind three: and I am worried about how audiences will respond to this. This has got me curious as well. I haven't been following movie news precisely, so I'm not sure if they've said roughly what the content of each film will be (as in, how far in the journey each film covers). I have to wonder how they're going to incorporate the Unfinished Tales and The Silmarillion material. I would hope it's done in such a way so as to not go too far off of the Hobbit storyline.

Sooo just came back from watching it. It was pretty good. I also thought that 2-3 movies is too much, but these three hours went by so fast. That wasn't an issue at all.
I wish I could've seen it in a modern cinema in 3D with all the 7 zillion frames a second.

There were a scene I don't remember reading in the book:
the meeting of Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman when they discussed the sword and the Witch king of Angmar.

And they walked and walked and walked... not as much as they did in LotR which was good.
But sometimes the change of scenery was so abrupt. I don't know.

I thought Thorin was superb. They portrait him very convincing as the leader. When Thorin hugged Bilbo in the end. That drove tears into my eyes.

I loved the movie and it didn't feel like it was three hours long at all. I watched the HFR 3D version and the movie looked so good, never have I've seen a movie look this clear before. The 3D was great and I have no words to describe how much I loved the music.

I'm going to the premiere tonight; I'm so excited!! :D

I am so jealous! I can't until Saturday because I am too busy. :sigh:

I'm going to the premiere tonight; I'm so excited!! :D

Me too! I'm glad I'm going to see it in 2D, my eyes won't be able to handle anything else! :lol: Gah, this is going to be awesome!

Sooo just came back from watching it. It was pretty good. I also thought that 2-3 movies is too much, but these three hours went by so fast.

The scene in spoiler tags - definitely not in "The Hobbit", the book. :D That's one reason they thought they'd be able to get away with 3 movies' worth from one relatively short novel, they are adding things.

So. Pumped. to see it tonight. I'm not seeing it in the 3D/48 FPS though, because 3D gives me a headache.

The fact that the reviews aren't as overwhelmingly positive as LOTR doesn't bother me, because I feel like a lot of them went in wanting more of the same (and wanting more of LOTR is a pardonable offense) and forgot that the Hobbit has a completely different tone than LOTR. I'm actually glad that they made multiple movies, though I think 2 could have fit everything reasonably enough. But it's probably better if I reserve more concrete judgment on the 3-movie deal until I've actually seen it!

I saw it yesterday (in 2D) and it was much better than I had expected - having said that it's 95% Jackson and 5% Tolkien. The main cavil I have is that Jackson really does overdo the 'mortal peril' parts which seemed to go on far too long (as they did in King Kong) Perhaps I should eat more mushrooms

Yes, the 'mortal peril' bits that go on a little long are pure Jackson. I felt that the criticisms that the first act dragged a little were somewhat warranted - at least one scene at Bilbo's house in the beginning could have been cut.

Overall, though, I found it delightful.

Just in case -
The little nods to the LOTR movies were quite brilliant, such as Gandalf knocking his head into a chandelier in Bilbo's house and Gollum's "Musn't ask us, not its business!" I also loved, loved, LOVED that they had Bilbo narrate the real first words of the book. I may have teared up a little bit.

Sooo just came back from watching it. It was pretty good. I also thought that 2-3 movies is too much, but these three hours went by so fast. That wasn't an issue at all.
I wish I could've seen it in a modern cinema in 3D with all the 7 zillion frames a second.

There were a scene I don't remember reading in the book:
the meeting of Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman when they discussed the sword and the Witch king of Angmar.


And they walked and walked and walked... not as much as they did in LotR which was good.
But sometimes the change of scenery was so abrupt. I don't know.

I thought Thorin was superb. They portrait him very convincing as the leader. When Thorin hugged Bilbo in the end. That drove tears into my eyes.
I liked that they added this scene as well as the scenes with the other wizard, forgive what was his name? I wasn't sure how they'd throw all this in there, but it played out well.

Yes, the 'mortal peril' bits that go on a little long are pure Jackson. I felt that the criticisms that the first act dragged a little were somewhat warranted - at least one scene at Bilbo's house in the beginning could have been cut.

Overall, though, I found it delightful.

Just in case -
The little nods to the LOTR movies were quite brilliant, such as Gandalf knocking his head into a chandelier in Bilbo's house and Gollum's "Musn't ask, not its business!" I also loved, loved, LOVED that they had Bilbo narrate the real first words of the book. I may have teared up a little bit.
I'm so glad they had him telling the story, I got Geary eyed as well. Bilbo after all is my favorite hobbit.

Everything about this movie was fantastic. I loved every bit of it. The landscape in the scenes were simply breathtaking as usual and the score was beautiful. My favorite scenes were when the dwarves were singing, roast mutton with the trolls, and the stone giants were bloody amazing. :cool:

From the bits I've seen there seems to be only one or two new themes in the soundtrack - Radagast, and the 'main' dwarves tune. Although this is hauntingly good - does anyone feel a bit 'short-changed' that most of the music is from LotR?

I'm at the theater right now. Trailers start in about 10 minutes. :D

Oh, and I adored Radagast. His addition really fits well with into the lighter-toned Hobbit.

Wow...after so many years of waiting...The Hobbit is finally here! And so is Production Video #10! Click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtCOQMfNaLQ).

Saw it last night, and it was amazing!Loved Bilbo and how they made the dwarves a little tougher.

I saw it today.

I enjoyed it, I actually felt it was pretty faithful to the book, despite PJ's self-indulgent embellishments! Lots of the dialogue was from the book. :)

I absolutely ADORE Martin Freeman's Bilbo. :love: The best ever hobbit characterisation. :love: This story is about the making of a hero.

Richard Armitage is broodingly intense as Thorin. :drool: A lovely performance. I knew Armitage would deliver. :cool:

There is much about the film I like. :). It IS over-long. And I did NOT like the 48fps - I prefer the traditional film look that preserves that necessary art of illusion.

But I did think that PJ nailed the lighter, more whimsical, tone of the story, whilst introducing the more epic elements of the wider mythos. That was well done. :)

I will certainly be seeing it again. :D.

From the bits I've seen there seems to be only one or two new themes in the soundtrack - Radagast, and the 'main' dwarves tune. Although this is hauntingly good - does anyone feel a bit 'short-changed' that most of the music is from LotR?
Yeah I noticed the original themes a lot in this film, but I lived it so much that it didn't bother me. Besides when do they ever not incorporate them into later films?

I saw it today.

I enjoyed it, I actually felt it was pretty faithful to the book, despite PJ's self-indulgent embellishments! Lots of the dialogue was from the book. :)

I absolutely ADORE Martin Freeman's Bilbo. :love: The best ever hobbit characterisation. :love: This story is about the making of a hero.

Richard Armitage is broodingly intense as Thorin. :drool: A lovely performance. I knew Armitage would deliver. :cool:

There is much about the film I like. :). It IS over-long. And I did NOT like the 48fps - I prefer the traditional film look that preserves that necessary art of illusion.

But I did think that PJ nailed the lighter, more whimsical, tone of the story, whilst introducing the more epic elements of the wider mythos. That was well done. :)

I will certainly be seeing it again. :D.
I was quite taken with Freeman's Bilbo, I wasn't at all sure about him at first. I think he fit well especially afte the original Bilbo from LotR. :agree: I loved Thorin's character as well, Richard Armitage is that his name? He was so spot on with the character, I was impressed. There was something else I was going to mention and now I forgot. I definitely plan on seeing it again.

Oh now I thought it, for some reason throughout the movie I was thinking of the original Hobbit game. Did anyone ever play it? The movie was so spot on, it reminded me of it. :D

I had a good time, despite not liking the 48fps. I didn't feel ripped off by the soundtrack at all... especially since the new Misty Mountain theme is so absolutely EPIC! And the old Shire theme is really appropriate.

Loved Thorin and Bilbo and Gandalf. Loved Fili and Kili and Bofur and... Which is the white-haired one? Anyway, loved him too. Loved Rivendell and the Wizards Council... and getting to see Chris Lee still getting to be Saruman at 90!!! Loved the Fall of Erebor and the Necromancer at Dol Guldur. Loved watching dwarf fighting style... they really work together.

And I loved loved LOVED the scene with Gollum. Andy Serkis does such an amazing job of bringing that small look of hope for momentary companionship (in the midst of unutterable loneliness) to Smeagol's face. I was actually teary-eyed for Gollum. It's among the best scenes Peter Jackson has ever put on screen. And that's a very good thing, since it is after all one of the single most most important moments in the Third Age of Middle Earth.

I didn't mind the mythology at all. I didn't think it weighed it down. But then, I've always preferred myth to troll humor anyway. And the more Thorin, the better. ;)

I think Richard Armitage is relatively new for us Yanks. Anyway, loved him as Thorin. That's not how I saw Thorin in the book, but I'm not complaining. Oh, and those blue eyes are gorgeous.

So next weekend, I'll be seeing it in 2D at 24fps with my husband. I can hardly wait to see what it looks like on traditional film. :D

CCS, the White-haired dwarf is Balin (who, in LotR, turned out to have died in Moria years after the event in The Hobbit :(), beautifully played by Scottish actor Ken Stott. :)

I looooooove the Misty Mountain song! :love:

The Riddle Game scene was perfection. :agree: Bilbo's crucial moment of pity ... :love: Which rules the fate of many. :cool:

Richard Armitage made me swoon in the BBC adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South, broadcast in 2004, I think. Watch it, fellow Thorin fans, and enjoy Richard in fine smouldering form as the dark, Byronic cotton mill owner Thornton. :eyebrows: He's right up there with Colin Firth's Darcy. :drool:

His Thorin is splendid. :love: I knew he'd deliver, just as I knew Martin would.

So glad you enjoyed it, CCS! :) And glad I'm not the only one who disliked the 48fps. :lol:

I don't mind PJ stretching the story to three parts. I can see now how that can work. I would argue that each film should really be about 2 hours though.

Still ... PJ, once again, has me hooked. ;)

There's an interesting cast interview (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/video/2012/dec/13/hobbit-unexpected-journey-video-interview) on the Guardian site.

Armitage was especially good as Thorin because Jackson plays the dwarfs for comic effect most of the time - Thorin is not comic.

The riddle scene was amazingly good and a brilliant contrast with the rest of the film in that it was 'small.'

I loved Radagast but was less impressed with the superabbits - Sam would have known how to use them properly

I don't think there is much of the film score that's from LotR. I'm listening to it right now and most of it is new. I can imagine it feels and sounds the same when watching the film though.

I haven't seen the film in 48fps. Our theatre here doesn't support it. I think...

I do absolutely love every tiny little bit of it and I can't wait until I see it again. I have to show it to my niece and my sister of course and then there is my friend who wants to see it as well. :p

Good thing is... Thorin makes up for Aragorn not being there.. :love:

I loved all the dwarves. They were perfectly cast as was everyone else.

I loved all the extra info PJ used from the appendices. The more is not always the better but he does a great job at it. The film did not feel too long, the film was over before I knew it. And there wasn't even a break in the middle... So I for one can't wait for the extended edition.. :drool:

Here is one of the better reviews I've read so far...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/12/14/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-review-the-best-middle-earth-movie-since-fellowship-of-the-ring/

I must add my voice to the chorus of praise for Freeman's Bilbo. Spot. On. His reaction shots were some of my favorite bits in the movie!

Balin was amazing too, and my only criticism of him is just that, after already becoming so attached to him in the first film, it will make Gimli's reaction to his tomb in FotR so much sadder :(

I think, after having seen it a second time, 3 movies will definitely work. I do think the length is a bit of an issue for this first film - I loved seeing the stone giants and could tell by watching it that PJ was probably salivating over the chance to make it, but it could have been shortened a little.

Richard Armitage made me swoon in the BBC adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South, broadcast in 2004, I think. Watch it, fellow Thorin fans, and enjoy Richard in fine smouldering form as the dark, Byronic cotton mill owner Thornton. :eyebrows: He's right up there with Colin Firth's Darcy. :drool:

:tu: This! I have not seen "The Hobbit" yet (countdown is now 5 hours... :D) but I had gotten this on DVD on the recommendation of a British CoSer (CathyWeasley) and loved it. And was delighted when I heard the same actor had been cast as Thorin, I am really looking forward to seeing him in the role, especially after seeing him in the previews - I think he will be good.

So glad you enjoyed it, CCS! :) And glad I'm not the only one who disliked the 48fps. :lol:

So many people and critics have said this that I am seeing it in 24FPS the first time. But I will definitely try it out, I wonder whether it is really a bad innovation, or whether it is offputting because it is so new and different and needs getting used to.

One of the sequences where the 48fps didn't bother me so much was the Rivendell sequence. :). Man, Rivendell is even MORE gorgeous in this film. :love: As was NZ as Middle-earth. :). (I want to know where all those spectacular waterfalls are!)

Ginger1, I don't feel particularly shortchanged about the score - The Hobbit isn't LotR, cannot and shouldn't be LotR, and I felt the score by Shore was lighter and less heavy, as befits the tale. I loved the echoes of the LotR score, and didn't think Shore overdid this. I adore the Dwarves' Misty Mountain theme and song - that just became a favourite right up there with the lovely Rohan theme from TTT. :)

More mixed reviews this time round, from fans and critics alike. I'm not bothered :) - I was expecting it, The Hobbit just isn't LotR and that really is OK.

Lots for me to love. :clap: Just not the darned 48fps. :yuhup:

Saw it and was entertained.
The fighting and the escapades...escapes, seemed overlong, but the additional stuff thrown in shouldn't hack off Tolkein fans.

I thought Jackson did well enough to individualize the dwarves. And the add-on scenes did take away from the focus on Bilbo a bit. But as we have plenty of characters here, I can understand this. When the "Riddles in the Dark" kick in, that focus returns sharply.

And I heard someone in the audience say "Killi is totes sexy."

oook..

Seeing the scenes with Radagast the Brown was just too cool for words.
And his appearance...ugh...what appeared to be gray hair on the left side of his head is actually bird poo. He has literally a bird nest on the top of his head under his hat.
And seeing Saruman, Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel arguing, and discussing the "Necromancer" is another addition that I liked seeing.

I always like the articles Michael Martinez writes about Tolkiens books and for the most part I agree (even though I'm not sure wether I'm in a position to agree or not). Anyway... here is the article he wrote after seeing the Hobbit and as usual I agree.

http://middle-earth.xenite.org/2012/12/14/on-peter-jacksons-hobbit-richard-armitage-defines-thorin-oakenshield/

I saw it yesterday. It was in some supposedly new version of 3D which seemed suspiciously like the old 3D I know and hate. It was waaaaaay too long, verging on boring at times, with too much fighting clustered in the second half of the film. The troll scene was the best part, in my opinion. one of the weakest points was the slew of Hollywood ready-made dialogue patterns and quips - predictability is not an asset in a film.

I saw it yesterday, and I loved it! Maybe the very start with Old, LotR-period Bilbo was just a little bit of a slow start, but once the Dwarves started showing up, the movie grabbed my interest and held it. I found the dwarves' visit laugh-out-loud funny.

I agree with everyone that thought the riddles sequence was great, but what I really liked best of all was

the scene following the riddles, when Bilbo is hiding with the Ring, and Gollum is between him and the exit from the goblins' caves. This is such a key moment for the entire series, and I liked the way the script helped set it up (through Gandalf's comments to Galadriel on what it is that in his experience can stop evil from winning, and his comments to Bilbo when he first gets his sword, on the nature of courage).

Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman were both great as Thorin and Bilbo, and I liked the movie's development of their relationship. Though I would also credit the script for fleshing Thorin's character out in a suitable way to enable this. Since I've read the book and know what is coming...it's making me look forward to Movie 3. The movie version of those events, with these characters, is giving me the hope that those events will have the emotional impact they need to, to bring the story to a satisfying end.

I will need to see the movie a couple more times to get the Dwarves straight in my mind, there were brief scenes with more than one of them that I quite liked. (I tend to do better with faces than names in RL also, so I would not blame the movie for this one ;) ). The one that discussed the stolen ponies with Bilbo (and that scene), the scene in the entrance to the goblin caves in which Bilbo talks to the dwarf who is on watch, and Balin. I liked Balin (he was also my favorite in the book, though Armitage's Thorin wins out for me in the movie).

And of course, we are back in beautiful Middle Earth watching hair-raising adventures, breathtaking escapes, and all that stuff. I'm looking forward to taking my kids.

I saw it yesterday. It was in some supposedly new version of 3D which seemed suspiciously like the old 3D I know and hate.

I thought the difference in look was obvious... and not in a good way. 48fps looks a lot more like video, meaning that it looks a lot more like television. There were times when I thought I was watching a glorified TV show. The problem exists mainly for outdoors daytime shooting, not for CG backdrops or night shots.

That said, I enjoyed the film overall in spite of the off-putting 48 fps. My next visit will be in 2D at 24fps.

arithmancer - Glad you loved it! And I agree with you about the setup to Bilbo's moment of mercy.

I thought the difference in look was obvious... and not in a good way. 48fps looks a lot more like video, meaning that it looks a lot more like television.

That's exactly what my boyfriend said. I guess I was too hung up on the absurd 2 levels of depth 3D has which often makes things in the foreground appear disproportionately small and didn't pay much attention to the visual quality.

That's exactly what my boyfriend said. I guess I was too hung up on the absurd 2 levels of depth 3D has which often makes things in the foreground appear disproportionately small and didn't pay much attention to the visual quality.

Ah, so that wasn't just me! I saw that too, it didn't have a full sense of depth, there was just foreground and background, mostly.
I agree this movie was too long, the battles were mostly drawn out CGI fests but in no way did that make them more "epic" to me, (no Helm's Deep or Minas Tirith battles here). It started to feel gratuitous. I liked the trolls scene the best, probably,and then Gollum and Bilbo.
Radagast and his hedgehogs were adorable!
I think this film should've incorporated more humor, because when it did, it worked well. Even Gollum had a great line or two.

Lordy, haven't been here for a while! Off to see this tomorrow with some trepidation - I'm on the final few chapters of a re-read (the first in about 10 years), and I'd forgotten just how good the book is. I can just about see the argument for splitting it into two films, but I can't see any reason for it being three. Especially films of 2.5 hours plus.

Still, at least the reviews (it says something that Rotten Tomatoes has it rated not quite as well as Attack of the Clones, of all things!) mean my expectations aren't astronomical. I'll report back!

Oh, I like this a lot more than Attack of the Clones. :D

The critics do have a point in saying it's too long.

The critics also don't understand the book. ;)

As for padding it out, PJ is adding stuff from the Tale of Years and the Appendices. Which is fine. I also think tying it to the Trilogy is fine.

Less goblinses and orcses and battles and more Bilbo would do nicely. :)

After seeing the film a second time (and having a wallpaper on my phone) I finally realised where PJ's inspiration came from for Thorin... KLINGON'S... :cool:

I also noticed the second time that when the dwarves are setting up the table at Bag End Gloin at some point says something like: "Gimli would have loved this". It''s these ties to the LotR films that I really love.. :love:

Saw the Hobbit for my birfday!

Overall I liked it. I made a very conscious choice to NOT reread the book before I saw the movie - and I'm going to try and stay away from it until all the movies are out and then I'll reread so I don't bring story expectations to the movies and am open to the canon variances that you necessarily get from book to movie adaptations... but it's hard.

I love love LOVED the Riddles in the Dark section - gollum's animation was outstanding and I loved the way you could see him thinking through his eyes and expressions.

The mountain orc sequence was really cool but I thought King Chin-Goiter was totally disgusting.

Loved the look of Erebor and the Dwarves halls therein - my 11-year-old imagination couldn't fathom anything like that and my perceptions have been stuck on those original ideas of what things looked like back when I first read the books that seeing them reimagined for me in the movies has been wonderful.

LOVED seeing the sneak peek of Smaug and I cannot wait until we get Benedict Cumberbatch's characterization! (Anyone else notice that he was credited in this movie??)

The only things that I wasn't a fan of were that Bilbo sort of took a back seat to Thorin in the movie, IMO. Especially since Thorin's backstory was told in that visual sequence and then the whole white orc hunting Thorin thing, it felt like everything was about Thorin, I felt like Bilbo was an afterthought.

I also feel like the action sequences felt really small. The scope of the visuals in LOTR felt enormous, the prologue battles showing Sauron's defeat were gargantuan, the depth of field was miles and miles and it was all filled with people fighting. In the prologue sequence with Thorin it felt itsy-bitsy - the action sequences didn't nearly the same impact because I kept getting the impression that Thorin only had about 10 people fighting on his side and all his major fight scenes in that prologue were filmed like 20' from a stone wall with no accompanying background action. Plus the issues I had with the 48FPS thing being really disorienting, it put me off the action sequences for almost the entire movie.

One of the sequences where the 48fps didn't bother me so much was the Rivendell sequence. . Man, Rivendell is even MORE gorgeous in this film. As was NZ as Middle-earth. . (I want to know where all those spectacular waterfalls are!)

Rivendell was GORGEOUS! If it weren't for Rohan, Rivendell would be my favorite "world" from the films... What I loved about the Rivendell sequence in the 48fsp was watching the waterfalls and seeing the streams of water as they dove off their stone ledges in perfect clarity... wow. I could watch waterfalls in 48fsp all day long.

Lots for me to love. Just not the darned 48fps.

Agree, the 48fps was strange.

I saw it yesterday. It was in some supposedly new version of 3D which seemed suspiciously like the old 3D I know and hate. It was waaaaaay too long, verging on boring at times, with too much fighting clustered in the second half of the film.

I agree that it was too long. I actually did get bored at some point about 2/3 of the way through and started squirming in my seat and noticed that many others were getting fidgety too.

I saw it yesterday, and I loved it! Maybe the very start with Old, LotR-period Bilbo was just a little bit of a slow start, but once the Dwarves started showing up, the movie grabbed my interest and held it. I found the dwarves' visit laugh-out-loud funny.

Did anyone else notice that Elijah Woods' voice had dropped about an octave? I giggled to myself the whole way through the section of the movie - our little Frodo is all grown up!!

I thought the difference in look was obvious... and not in a good way. 48fps looks a lot more like video, meaning that it looks a lot more like television. There were times when I thought I was watching a glorified TV show. The problem exists mainly for outdoors daytime shooting, not for CG backdrops or night shots.

Totally, 100% agree!! I thought I was, at times, watching a made-for-TV movie from the mid '90s because of the way the HFR made the action look. I also had a big, big problem with the lighting in many scenes - it was way too bright (probably because of the whole 3D thing and the fact that you'd need more light to pass through those stupid glasses and still maintain the right film exposure) but it definitely added to the appearance, IMO, that it was a made-for-TV movie.

That said, I enjoyed the film overall in spite of the off-putting 48 fps. My next visit will be in 2D at 24fps.

Yup. I'm trying to not let the issues I stated above color my opinion of the story or the movie overall, I'm trying to keep an open mind for when I see it again in 2D and 24FPS. Hopefully it's just an issue of the 3D and HFR combo.

Overall, good movie. Cannot wait for Smaug in the next movie, though. Smaug was the impetus for my childhood obsession with dragons...

The universal gripes seem to be the 48fps (which is often compared to '80s TV) and the length.

Waiting for the weather to get intolerably hot before seeing it.

I saw it yesterday, and I loved it! Maybe the very start with Old, LotR-period Bilbo was just a little bit of a slow start, but once the Dwarves started showing up, the movie grabbed my interest and held it. I found the dwarves' visit laugh-out-loud funny.



As much I absolutely loved seeing Bilbo and Frodo, I do think that their part may have been a little too stretched out. But I wouldn't trade Bilbo's joke about being plenty sociable before handing Frodo the "No admittance except on party business" sign for anything!

I watched it in 2D and enjoyed it very much. It's not the best thing since sliced bread maybe because it's so similar in look and feel to LotR. But on the other hand, it felt good to revisit Middle Earth, it was like visiting a place you love. I did find it difficult to identify or rather sympathise with 13 dwarves. I think the fellowship was easier to root for because they were not that many. ;)

The length was acceptable. I did not feel bored at any point, which is an accomplishment considering that it's a thin book stretched to the breaking point.

Freeman is better than I expected, but then, his Bilbo is very much like the other characters he usually plays; it's a good fit.

Richard Armitage as Thorin was very, very good, but at times he seemed to be Aragorn's smaller, less charismatic shadow. He had big shoes to walk in, I guess.

For those of you who saw the movie already, do you recommend 3d or 2d? I'm going to see it next week, and I'm not going to pay to see it twice, so I'm looking for recommnedations

For those of you who saw the movie already, do you recommend 3d or 2d? I'm going to see it next week, and I'm not going to pay to see it twice, so I'm looking for recommnedations

I saw it in 3D at the higher frame rate, and I would recommend 2D at the regular frame rate.

For those of you who saw the movie already, do you recommend 3d or 2d? I'm going to see it next week, and I'm not going to pay to see it twice, so I'm looking for recommedations

How do you generally feel about 3D in movies? I'd say this is a factor to consider. I have now seen the movie in 2D format, regular 3D, and HFR 3D.

If you generally like 3D, there is a lot to be said for seeing the newfangled "High Frame Rate" 3D presentation. It's easier on the eyes than regular 3D, allowing one to catch more details in fast-moving action scenes (with which this movie is amply endowed) and making some CG characters (Gollum) look even better. If you find 3D not that necessary, gimmicky, distracting, causing eyestrain, etc. you might be happier with the regular 2D. Some have been put off by the different, sharper "look" of HFR (see CCS's review!). On the other hand, I'd describe high HFR as less like HDTV, and more like sitting in front of a large window that moves about Middle Earth :). Then again, I like HDTV.

I did find it difficult to identify or rather sympathise with 13 dwarves. I think the fellowship was easier to root for because they were not that many.

The biggest difference to me between 13 dwarves and nine fellowship members was that the dwarves were generally treated as a single unit whereas the Fellowship spent time developing each individual member, gave them a story (or a backstory or an interaction with another character or a motivation) that was memorable:

Frodo was the ring bearer, Sam was his loyal servant, Pippin was the trouble-maker and Merry was his only slightly more rational best friend, Gandalf was the leader, Aragorn was second in command, Boromir was the one most tempted by the ring, Legolas was the elf who hated the dwarf, Gimli was the dwarf who hated the elf. "Species" played a part in being able to tell them apart (four hobbits, two men, one elf, one dwarf, one wizard) so it was easier to remember who was who based simply on whether they were tall or short or whether you're talking about the brooding, secretive man or the outspoken one, the fat hobbit or the one who's always getting in to trouble.

There wasn't much distinction amongst the dwarves. To my memory, there was Torin, the super fat one, the old, wise one, the young, goofy-looking one, the young good-looking one... and the rest of them.

In the movie, Kili, Thorin, Bofur, and Balin stand out from the rest of the dwarves IMO. But I'd say the general indistinguishability of the dwarves is as true of the book as it is of the movie. I could never keep the dwarves straight while reading... except for Fili, Kili, and Thorin. To be honest, I actually got a better handle on the individual dwarves in the film than I did in the book. Still, I do agree that the dwarves in general are treated more like a unit than like individuals.

"Species" played a part in being able to tell them apart (four hobbits, two men, one elf, one dwarf, one wizard) so it was easier to remember who was who based simply on whether they were tall or short or whether you're talking about the brooding, secretive man or the outspoken one, the fat hobbit or the one who's always getting in to trouble.

There wasn't much distinction amongst the dwarves. To my memory, there was Torin, the super fat one, the old, wise one, the young, goofy-looking one, the young good-looking one... and the rest of them.

The biggest difference among the darves was their facial topiary.

The biggest difference among the darves was their facial topiary.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Funny you should mention it, this flowchart was sent around facebook a couple weeks ago and the still the only way I could remember any of the dwarves was by the shape of their beard, specifically the "donut shaped beard extremity" - and I still can't remember which dwarf that belongs to without referencing this image!

http://www.cosforums.com/picture.php?albumid=2179&pictureid=19216

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Funny you should mention it, this flowchart was sent around facebook a couple weeks ago and the still the only way I could remember any of the dwarves was by the shape of their beard, specifically the "donut shaped beard extremity" - and I still can't remember which dwarf that belongs to without referencing this image!

http://www.cosforums.com/picture.php?albumid=2179&pictureid=19216

:lol: I saw that one on Facebook about 3-4 weeks ago. I nabbed it from a fellow CoSer on FB and then a bunch of my friends and relatives nabbed it from me! It certainly made the rounds. It was definitely helpful to someone like me who has always been hopeless with distinguishing the dwarves.

Just came back from watching it again, this time in 3D (48). It was ehmm intense? You don't even know where to look, when every little stone is in 3D and there's stuff going on on multiple levels. But overall I enjoyed the effects more this time, especially the landscape scenes where prettier in 3D.

I shed again some tears when Thorin hugs Bilbo...
Was Thorin carrying the oakshield all the time? I only noticed it, when he fought Azog in the end.

Right, well ... it is too long, but I can't say I didn't enjoy almost everything in it.

Trying to use the material from the appendices/Unfinished Tales was an interesting idea, but the film didn't really pick up any real momentum until they left Rivendell. The Radagast/Necromancer plot is just given too much weight, and feels like a distraction - probably because it is, having almost nothing to do with the dwarves' quest. And where in Fellowship Jackson got the very complex Council of Elrond scene down to about 8 minutes, here he spends the same amount of time on a similar scene (the White Council) that wasn't even in the book, and has nothing to do with the main story!

It really felt like watching the extended edition DVD. There were one too many shots of Radagast on his sled; the dwarves across one too many bridges in the goblin halls; there's one too many scenes with Frodo at the start. Someone who was less of a fan than I am might have found it a bit of a slog.

But the stuff that's there is brilliantly done, and it's certainly never boring. Martin Freeman is magnificent, and Ken Stott and James Nesbitt really stand out among the dwarves. So with my fan hat on, I loved every minute of it. But with a general-audience hat on, it really could have done with losing 30 minutes!

So I went to see the movie yesterday and I really enjoyed it! In the end, I went for the 2d version because the person who went with me said that the 3d glasses annoy her :lol:

I enjoyed the movie a lot! The acting was great - and Martin Freeman in particular was fantastic as Bilbo. The riddle scene, which is my favorite part of the book, was done wonderfully as well.

It's been a while since I've read the Hobbit or LoTR, but was Radagast actually in any of the books? I remember Gandalf talking about him in LoTR, but I don't remember him actually appearing or having any sort of real significance to the plot.

The one thing that I was disappointed about was the troll scene. I thought the scene was much funnier and more entertaining in the book, so I have no idea why they changed it. It's not for lack of time if the one book is being turned into about eight hours of film, and I can't think of any other reason to change something that was done so perfectly to start with.

The riddle scene, which is my favorite part of the book, was done wonderfully as well.
I think that was my favourite part - I especially liked how at the beginning, when Gollum killed the goblin, the light in Sting went out.

I quite enjoyed the troll scene though making them speak with working class accents was a bit predictable

It's been a while since I've read the Hobbit or LoTR, but was Radagast actually in any of the books? I remember Gandalf talking about him in LoTR, but I don't remember him actually appearing or having any sort of real significance to the plot.Speaking of Hobbit and LOTR I believe that Radagast only appears in LOTR, book #1. There he's the wizard searching for Gandalf when he's on his way back to Frodo to start his journey. Radagast asks Gandalf to go to Saruman immediately, but never knows that Saruman already turned evil. Since Radagast is a good guy he's asking the animals to look out for information when Gandalf asks hims to do so as well. That's some reason that Gandalf realizes what happened to Saruman slightly before he fully get's trapped.

That's completely left out in LOTR movie and so turned up in the Hobbit (however, a wee bit different there). I'm don't remember where the other information about Radagast and the five wizards are from though. Maybe it's in the background story of Dol Gudor.

The one thing that I was disappointed about was the troll scene. I thought the scene was much funnier and more entertaining in the book, so I have no idea why they changed it. It's not for lack of time if the one book is being turned into about eight hours of film, and I can't think of any other reason to change something that was done so perfectly to start with.
Same here. I found the book version better. They added a play of words in the German version, which I found funny though.

I just came back from seeing it again... this time in 2D. I initially saw it in 3D at 48 fps.

I definitely found the 2D/24fps much more engaging. It all looked cinematic to me. At the lower frame rate, I didn't notice anything that looked like video. And I enjoyed, well, every moment of it this time, including a few scenes that I had rolled my eyes at in 3D/48fps.

I'm glad I went back and saw it in 2D. I found it a thoroughly enjoyable experience. :)

I finally got a chance to set aside 3 hours tosee this movie. I agree with previous posts that this film was like watching an extended edition DVD. I had read that the movie was sluggish, but as a lotr fan I enjoyed it and didn't mind the length. I also saw it in IMAX 3d and thought the 3D was great- the best since avatar. I can't wait for the next one.

(Finally) saw The Hobbit today. It was good to be back in Middle Earth again.

The casting was brilliant, Martin Freeman’s Bilbo Baggins a stroke of genius. The music is familiar, with the addition of a haunting song for the dwarves.

We saw it in 2D and the normal frames per second – and it was a good piece of storytelling – not going to test your grey matter, or even your box of kleenex, and the whole thing was set at a much younger audience than 'rings'– and so it should be, given that it was just a bed-time story Tolkien told to his sons.

It’s good, and worth seeing.

I thought the casting was brilliant as well. Martin Freeman was fantastic, as was Richard Armitage. The riddle scene was really well done as well. All in all, I thought it was great.

I thought the casting was brilliant as well. Martin Freeman was fantastic, as was Richard Armitage. The riddle scene was really well done as well. All in all, I thought it was great.


A little off topic (but related to "casting" and to be fair, I searched the TV thread and couldn't find anything on this show) but I just watch the UK Office (with Ricky Gervais and Martin Freeman) strictly because Martin Freeman was in it and loved it! (Never seen the US version of the show so nothing to compare it with) Gervais is an acquired taste, for sure, or maybe it was just the character he played, but Martin's character makes that show - so sweet, so relatable.

I loved him as Bilbo and feel like he brought that same sense of approachableness and down-to-earthness he brought to his character in The Office but I felt like the story was so focused on other things that Bilbo the character, and Martin the actor were sidelined for sake of "sexier" characters or stories.

A little off topic (but related to "casting" and to be fair, I searched the TV thread and couldn't find anything on this show) but I just watch the UK Office (with Ricky Gervais and Martin Freeman) strictly because Martin Freeman was in it and loved it! (Never seen the US version of the show so nothing to compare it with) Gervais is an acquired taste, for sure, or maybe it was just the character he played, but Martin's character makes that show - so sweet, so relatable.Have you ever seen Sherlock? Martin Freeman plays John Watson, and is incredible of course.

I loved him as Bilbo and feel like he brought that same sense of approachableness and down-to-earthness he brought to his character in The Office but I felt like the story was so focused on other things that Bilbo the character, and Martin the actor were sidelined for sake of "sexier" characters or stories.


That was just right for me. I do not like Freeman's characters normally, I find him rather grating. But he's a good casting choice for Bilbo. For me it was just great that the focus of the story so far has been on Thorin and the dwarves, and the bigger story going on in Middle Earth, instead of the hobbit. It was a wise choice, in my view, because we are already acquainted with Middle Earth, we know some of the people and races, and we already accompanied a wide-eyed hobbit on a dangerous journey he didn't quite understand. Especially since the cinematography is so similar to LotR, the film may have been in danger of feeling like an old hat, if it had the same approach as The Fellowship of the Ring.

For me it was just great that the focus of the story so far has been on Thorin and the dwarves, and the bigger story going on in Middle Earth, instead of the hobbit.

Yeah, and who can argue with more Thorin? :D (Seriously for me this was the big surprise of the movie. I'd seen Armitage in one thing before, the BBC miniseries North and South, and liked him, but I did not think his casting mattered that much as Thorin has never been all that interesting to me as a book character. I had not considered what might be done with three movies and a team of screenwriters fleshing out this character with his backstory...)

Though I think in the end this decision may serve Bilbo's character as well. Even within movie 1, I liked the depiction of how Bilbo comes to sympathize with the Dwarves' plight and wants to help them (whereas he originally joins out of his "Tookish" desire to join the adventure). And I think with all the interaction the movie has added between these two characters, the Movie 3 events with which readers of the book are familiar, will be more powerful (and in ways that show Bilbo's quality).

ve you ever seen Sherlock? Martin Freeman plays John Watson, and is incredible of course.

Absolutely! My friend hooked me up with her Netflix account and I've watched Sherlock about four times now (I'd begun watching it shortly after the last season concluded)

I've seen Martin Freeman in four things: Love Actually, Sherlock, the Hobbit, The Office. I haven't yet imdb'd him to look up his other rolls but, IMO, in these four things he has been perfectly cast every time.

Yeah, and who can argue with more Thorin?

Correction: Who can argue with more Richard Armitage?? ;) (I've really only seen him in Spooks/MI-5 before this but that show was enough to give me a sizable crush on him)

Arithmancer conveyed perfectly what I've been thinking about The Hobbit as well. This film got me to see Thorin through a new pair of eyes. And it wasn't just from seeing Richard Armitage. ;)

Yes, it is seriously difficult not to start crushing on Richard Armitage. However, the film really gave me new perspective on the character. I never really liked Thorin much before. And yes, I knew the backstory. But knowing the backstory and actually seeing the backstory are two different things. I now find Thorin much more epic... and actually, I think he's supposed to be. There's a reason these dwarves are willing to follow him into extreme danger.

So I think the film has helped me to get a better picture of Thorin and understand what's really driving him on this quest. Also, this film has given me (an elf fan) a better understanding of the dwarves' grievance against elves. It's not that I didn't understand it intellectually. It's more that I just couldn't see it through the dwarves' eyes. Thanks to the film, now I can.

Long time, no posting!

Well, the Hobbit was a complete catastrophe from a commercial standpoint. Given the popularity and ticket sales of King, this things should have easily sold nearly double the tickets that it is going to sell in N. America, the UK, Europe, etc. It's going to make $1B world-wide, but with 3D tickets, ticket price increases, the expanded markets, and the low value of the dollar relative to what it was 5+ years ago, that does not mean much anymore.

As some of us feared, the biggest hit was in the female audience: whereas King actually had more women than men see it (52:48, if I recall the numbers from 9 years ago), the Hobbit plummeted to the same low levels of female attendance that Fellowship had with approximately 40:60 split, at least in N. America. Yeah, that's right: American women were less enthusiastic about the Hobbit than they were about Mitt Romney.

Now, the failure to create any interesting female characters likely accounts for the greater audience drop in women than men (would it really have been so tough to make a few of the dwarves women? They could keep the beards!), but that cannot account for the fact that the male audience is going to be only about 60% of what it was for King, and only about 60% of what the next film in this franchise should have had. The critical reviews cannot explain it: as Pirates, Transformers and Harry Potter have shown, audiences ignore critics (for good or ill) when they already have an opinion on a franchise.

I have read the contradictory claims that The Hobbit relied too much on "prequel to Lord fo the Rings" and thus was written off as nothing new, and The Hobbit failed to connect itself to Lord of the Rings, and thus people failed to realize that a movie they wanted to see was out. Neither really holds water.

Instead, it seems most likely that the culprit is the 9 years. Rings was very popular among young audiences, and the huge expansion in the female audience was concentrated on women from 15-29. Well, a decade later and these people probably have moved on to other interests in life. Had this film come out, say, 5 years ago, then I think that it would have gotten nearly 100% return: but it didn't, and it's not coming close.


That said, and as I noted, the critics certainly did not like this! And I have to agree: this was not a good film. Now, I enjoyed it immensely! I was rather vocal about being opposed to splitting The Hobbit and Deathly Hallows into 2 films, as some of you might recall, and in both cases, my fears were met. Now, The Hobbit 1 was not as bad as DH1: if nothing else, then TH:UJ communicates Tolkien's story quite well, whereas DH1 was as devoid of story as the first HP films.

Moreover, I really like how they expanded the story: Tolkien's book really is about how one person (Bilbo Baggins) discovers that he is both more and less than he thought he was. The film recasts both Thorin and Gandalf as protagonists. We get much greater development of Thorin than we do in the books, and we see a fallen King who has had the world turn its back on him, and who carries the legacy of a beloved grandfather on his shoulders. We get to see him realize that being a King might be more than that, but also that he's not quite the mythic figure that he assumed. (Man, Tolkien would have hated that!)

Gandalf's trek is even more amusing for a Tolkien fan: in the original versions of the Hobbit, Gandalf was just a fairly buffoonish human wizard who's spells often went awry. That character less evolved than metamorphosed into the White Council leading, Elven Ring wearing, James Bond/Sherlock Holmes of Middle earth Istari & Gray Wizard, etc. In the film, Gandalf himself does not seem to hold himself in the highest regard, but it starts to become clear that he's actually on to things that the other people of wisdom are not.

And the performances were great. Martin Freeman is a great Bilbo, Richard Armitage makes Thorin absolutely lordly, and the returning cast is superb. I was even impressed by the development the film was able to provide for Balin, Dwalin, Bofur, Ori, Kili and Fili: it was like I could identify 6 (or 5.5) different peronalities in that crowd! (The other dwarves were lost in the jumble, but I expected them all to be.)

So, what went wrong? This film was easily an hour longer than necessary. Bag End in particular seemed to never end. The troll scene just did not work for me: and I realize that it was not so much the interpretation as the sheer ridiculousness of it. The Goblin-King did not work for me: and where it failed was in stuff too close to what was in the book. Unfortunately, the origins of the tale as a children's story just could not be escaped.

All of that said, I liked it a lot and I cannot wait to get the BluRay: I'll probably watch it 2-3 times the first week! I really wonder what the box office for Part II will be: despite the evisceration by the critics, audiences are giving it high marks (8.3 at IMDB) of the sort that portend big return audiences. But, after all: the critics did not say that the film was unenjoyable, they just said that it was bad.

As some of us feared, the biggest hit was in the female audience: whereas King actually had more women than men see it (52:48, if I recall the numbers from 9 years ago), the Hobbit plummeted to the same low levels of female attendance that Fellowship had with approximately 40:60 split, at least in N. America. Yeah, that's right: American women were less enthusiastic about the Hobbit than they were about Mitt Romney.

That's a low blow.

But it was funny. :lol:

Moreover, I really like how they expanded the story: Tolkien's book really is about how one person (Bilbo Baggins) discovers that he is both more and less than he thought he was. The film recasts both Thorin and Gandalf as protagonists. We get much greater development of Thorin than we do in the books, and we see a fallen King who has had the world turn its back on him, and who carries the legacy of a beloved grandfather on his shoulders. We get to see him realize that being a King might be more than that, but also that he's not quite the mythic figure that he assumed. (Man, Tolkien would have hated that!)

I agree that Thorin's character's expansion was nice but I found during my watching of the film that Thorin became the protagonist far above Bilbo who seemed relegated to an almost Nick Carraway type role: the third party narrator talking about a set of much more interesting characters than himself. The main difference between MovieBilbo and Nick Carraway is that Bilbo has slightly more to do in terms of moving the plot along. Overall I liked Thorin's story but I felt that Bilbo's suffered because of it.

I really wonder what the box office for Part II will be: despite the evisceration by the critics, audiences are giving it high marks (8.3 at IMDB) of the sort that portend big return audiences.

I'm wondering how much BBC's Sherlock/Benedict-Cumberbatch-having-a-speaking-role will contribute to the audience size/growth of the second film (since film #2 will have both Watson and Sherlock in it). I know that the two things I am personally most looking forward to are Benedict Cumberbatch making a vocal debute in the film (and I know for a fact that everyone else I know is most looking forward to that) and seeing Smaug on screen (Smaug was the impetous for my childhood love of all things dragonesque).

I agree that Thorin's character's expansion was nice but I found during my watching of the film that Thorin became the protagonist far above Bilbo who seemed relegated to an almost Nick Carraway type roleI think that all three protagonists got about equal footing. However, this necessarily came at Bilbo's expense: in the book, he is the sole protagonist. Imagine what Harry Potter films would have been like had they elevated Hermione and Ron to protagonist: instead of every scene focusing on Harry, we would have had nearly equal numbers of scenes focussing on Ron or Hermione. Harry would go from 95+% narrative focus to 33%. By default, Harry would seem diminished.

We see the same thing here. However, I think that it is for the better because, to be brutally honest, Bilbo just is not that interesting by himself. Thorin's character really has the much more interesting trajectory than does Bilbo's, as Thorin goes from very high to very low and has a lot more baggage behind it. (Abandoning gardening and afternoon tea for a little scandalous fun is not quite up there with losing kingdoms, inheritances and social standing, is it!)


One additional element is that the film might have been relying on Rings as development for both Bilbo and Gandalf. Thorin was completely new. That has two effects. One, they had to emphasize his history more than the other two's histories because it was completely novel. Two, if you see one novel and one old thing, the novel thing sticks out in your mind: so one part Thorin, one part Bilbo, one part Gandalf would seem like one part Thorin with Bilbo & Gandalf in the back ground. This probably contributed to the film length: they actually kept almost all fo Bilbo's stuff while adding stuff for Gandalf & Thorin.

I'm wondering how much BBC's Sherlock/Benedict-Cumberbatch-having-a-speaking-role will contribute to the audience size/growth of the second film (since film #2 will have both Watson and Sherlock in it).It will have no effect on the box office for film 2: any growth there will be due to people watching TH:UJ on DVD/BR/pay-per-view, and deciding that they want to see TH:DoS in the theater. Potentially, there is a huge audience for this: it looks like TH:UJ is going to sell about 60% of the tickets that King did in most of the major markets. That 40% (who were satisfied customers at the time for the most part) should be a really good source for ticket sales.

The return of Orlando Bloom might be a bigger draw. However, if Orlie did help bring in the 15-25 year old women 10 years ago, then do not expect that to repeat. Those women are now 25-35, and even the most wall-flowery of them have discovered that real men (or women) are preferable to on-screen ones. It's improbable that he'll have the same effect on the current women in the 15-25 age group because 10 years later, he's just old and skanky to those women.

At any rate, as Richard Armitage showed for the 371st or so time, damn fine looking men actually do not draw women to theaters. (Shockingly, they like actual dialog and character development: how shallow of them!)

And, of course, the Sherlock audience is fine for TV: but it's a decimal point for films.

That said, a really good Smaug could boost the audience for Film #3 after BR/DVD/PPV, etc.

As some of us feared, the biggest hit was in the female audience: whereas King actually had more women than men see it (52:48, if I recall the numbers from 9 years ago), the Hobbit plummeted to the same low levels of female attendance that Fellowship had with approximately 40:60 split, at least in N. America. Yeah, that's right: American women were less enthusiastic about the Hobbit than they were about Mitt Romney.
Oh please, am I really the only one who couldn't care less about the lack of women in this movie. Even the few that appeared (esp. Galadriel) annoyed me. I really could do without her. All this complaining about the missing women is annoying and that women don't watch it because of that. It's a story about a Hobbit and a bunch of dwarves. There were not many women in the book. There were not many in the movies. Basta. The only thing I can think of that there was a lower women audience was because there were a lack of sexy men in it.

I am a woman. I'm allowed to have this oppinion. ;)

tbh, I'm not surprised this didn't do nearly as well as the LoTR movies. The Hobbit is not the LoTR, it's something else serious, targeted at a younger audience, and, quite frankly, not as epic. The split into three movies probably didnt help either. The first movie is bound to be the most boring as its the beginning of the journey without the true substance.

Oh please, am I really the only one who couldn't care less about the lack of women in this movie.Only? No: after all, about 40% of the audience was female. However, the plunge from 52% women watching King says that something made women even less interested in the Hobbit than men were. The lack of strong female characters is a parsimonious explanation because it's been well-documented in countless studies that women respond strongly and favorably to strong female characters.

And, quite frankly, it really would not have been tough to make some of the dwarves women. It would have made for a better in joke than "I forgot their names" (regarding the two blue wizards) because, after all, dwarvish women are supposed to look enough like the men that other races don't know that they are women. A little: "No one will every believe me" from Bilbo would have been hysterical.

(I did laugh very loudly at the "I've forgotten their names" line: my wife had no idea why!

tbh, I'm not surprised this didn't do nearly as well as the LoTR movies. The Hobbit is not the LoTR, it's something else serious, targeted at a younger audience, and, quite frankly, not as epic. The split into three movies probably didnt help either. The first movie is bound to be the most boring as its the beginning of the journey without the true substance.Franchise is franchise insofar as most people are concerned. Remember, as far as people who are not fantasy fans are concerned (which is most of the film audiences), all of these are "unserious" and somewhat childish films. However, they enjoyed Rings: and customer satisfaction usually gets people back.

However, waiting 9 years is not part of the "customer satisfaction" plan most of the time. (In my analyses on the HP box offices, I did occassionally note that there probably ought to be a correlation between how quickly the next installment of a franchise arrived and how well it did, but nobody waited more than 3 years, so it was tough to tell.)

But RotK was just a great movie all around, hell it won best picture and 10 other awards at the Oscars whereas the Hobbit didnt get a best picture nod and no nominations based on acting or writing. I think RoTK brought in a lot more fans than just typical fantasy fans because it was a great movie. The Hobbit doesn't have that appeal. Partly, again, because it's the first in an extended trilogy without much action but also, IMO, because it was marketed not as something epic but something light and funny and typical fantasy with little appeal to those who aren't genre fans. I expect to see the next two movies do better because it'll have the fame of the first one to sit on, and also some action. But I don't expect any of these movies to have the draw or critical acclaim of RotK.

Ok so I'll put my few thoughts into this - I'm female and soon to be 65 - so I'm not sure which groups of people watching the films I'm supposed to be grouped with. Good looking though Thorin and (next film) - Legolas are - I'm not sure they would make me buy the ticket and go to the cinema if I didn't have the background knowledge.

BUT - I'm a Tolkien fan. Well - as I've read the books almost every year since I first laid hands on them - probably a Tolkien nut.

I worried about the films - could anyone translate Tolkien's imagined world into film? From the first few moments of 'Fellowship' I relaxed, sat back and enjoyed the experience - of all three movies - they were brilliant! For me. Jackson had it nailed. I believed in his vision of Middle Earth, and his sympathy with the characters that inhabited it.

And then the Hobbit problem surfaced. Well I certainly didn't want them in anyone else's hands than Peter Jackson's - breathed a sigh of relief when Del Toro disappeared - and awaited (with trepidation) the telling of a much simpler story - this was a children's book - a bedtime story told to sons who liked bears.

So I don't know how I fit into the figures - I loved the movie (probably half an hour too long - I would have pruned Radagast) - but I don't need female characters, don't need stereotype heroes - just need Jackson to tell the story and take us back to a land we love - Middle Earth. And Martin Freeman's Bilbo is a casting triumph.

I thought it was proven women aren't drawn to the theaters by female characters.. Also.. if I remember it correctly more men than women went to FotR. Women started going as the series progressed.

Opinions about this film are quite varied. On the one hand there is a group that says the film isn't faithful enough to the book, on the other hand there are people who say PJ should have added chararcters (female or otherwise) to make it more relatable. The same discussions went on 12 years ago when LotR first came out and it continued for three years (and still does). There are people out there who are never satisfied.
As far as I see it... this is no different. It's the start of a journey and I like this start. I agree with most of the changes even though I think Radagast could have been left out. But this is not my film and I don't think I could've done a better job.

The return of Orlando Bloom might be a bigger draw. However, if Orlie did help bring in the 15-25 year old women 10 years ago, then do not expect that to repeat. Those women are now 25-35, and even the most wall-flowery of them have discovered that real men (or women) are preferable to on-screen ones. It's improbable that he'll have the same effect on the current women in the 15-25 age group because 10 years later, he's just old and skanky to those women.

As a former teenaged girl I can tell you categorically that age played no role in which Hollywood stars I had crushes on. Good looks are good looks no matter what age the actor is at. I quite vividly remember when I found out how old Johnny Depp was (when he was in his mid-thirties and I in my mid teens) and my first thought was "Who cares? He's hot!"

Oh please, am I really the only one who couldn't care less about the lack of women in this movie. Even the few that appeared (esp. Galadriel) annoyed me. I really could do without her. All this complaining about the missing women is annoying and that women don't watch it because of that. It's a story about a Hobbit and a bunch of dwarves. There were not many women in the book. There were not many in the movies. Basta. The only thing I can think of that there was a lower women audience was because there were a lack of sexy men in it.

I pretty much agree. Female characters are not necessary for me to enjoy a film. In fact I'd almost say that having an all or mostly male cast can be an enormous draw for women, especially if that male cast is adequately hunky. The LOTR series had a man to suit every woman's taste: the brooding, reluctant leader coming into his own (Aragorn), the wise older man (Gandalf), the statuesque, beautiful man (Legolas), the burly, man's man (Gimli), the caring, loyal man (Sam), the fixer-upper (Frodo) :lol: the traditional, stalwart King (Theodan), the defender of his family (Eomer), the unloved son (Faramir), the favored son (Boromir), I could go on! A man for every woman. The Hobbit, by contrast, had a bunch of silly-looking dwarves. Dwarves are not that hunky. Unless you're the type of woman who's into bushy beards and beer bellies. (There's a reason they let Richard Armitage remain pretty good-looking, even under all his dwarf makeup)

(As for women annoying female audiences, I sympathise. I was deeply irritated by Eowyn in the LOTR movies and likely would have become equally irritated by Arwen and Galadiel had they had larger roles)

I am a woman. I'm allowed to have this oppinion.

Hear hear!

Only? No: after all, about 40% of the audience was female. However, the plunge from 52% women watching King says that something made women even less interested in the Hobbit than men were.

Could it be, I don't know, that women on the whole aren't as big a fan group of fantasy movies? Nah, that couldn't be. :eyebrow:

I thought it was proven women aren't drawn to the theaters by female characters.. Also.. if I remember it correctly more men than women went to FotR. Women started going as the series progressed.

(And they discovered the plethora of hot guys in it - never claim that women aren't as shallow as men!) ;)

(And they discovered the plethora of hot guys in it - never claim that women aren't as shallow as men!) ;)

I admit it... I'm extremely shallow.. :rotfl:

As a former teenaged girl I can tell you categorically that age played no role in which Hollywood stars I had crushes on. Good looks are good looks no matter what age the actor is at. I quite vividly remember when I found out how old Johnny Depp was (when he was in his mid-thirties and I in my mid teens) and my first thought was "Who cares? He's hot!"

That doesn't appear to be universal though. Look at teenage heartthrobs - young Leo DiCaprio, the Hanson brothers, Nick from The Backstreet Boys in the 90s, and Justin Bieber, One Direction, Robert Pattinson today - it's always boys who lean feminine. Tween girls don't find Tom Hardy or Ryan Gosling (sine he grew up) as appealing as grown women seem to do.

I'm a woman too and I'd like to offer the opposite opinion on female characters here, for balance - I'm something like 100% more likely to go see a film if I know there's an interesting female character in it (because it doesn't happen that often), and I have no interest in cinematic sausage fests because I've seen enough of those to last me a lifetime.

I'm a woman too and I'd like to offer the opposite opinion on female characters here, for balance - I'm something like 100% more likely to go see a film if I know there's an interesting female character in it (because it doesn't happen that often), and I have no interest in cinematic sausage fests because I've seen enough of those to last me a lifetime.

I go for the plot. I don't care how many good looking men or women are in a film, if I don't like what it's about I won't go. Sure.. I love it when there are good looking men in a film, but that is just the icing on the cake. Not the cake itself.

Quite enjoyed the movie -- saw Thorin and the Dwarves in a new light. It's been years since I read The Hobbit but I remembered the Dwarves as being more caricatures than anything (possibly due to my youth when I read it), and this made them feel more real.

Also love the actor playing Bilbo, fantastic job there in my opinion, and of course Gandalf FTW.

Also love the actor playing Bilbo, fantastic job there in my opinion, and of course Gandalf FTW.

Martin Freeman is indeed a remarkable actor (in my opinion).

So I think the film has helped me to get a better picture of Thorin and understand what's really driving him on this quest. Also, this film has given me (an elf fan) a better understanding of the dwarves' grievance against elves. It's not that I didn't understand it intellectually. It's more that I just couldn't see it through the dwarves' eyes. Thanks to the film, now I can.The same is true for me. I've read The Hobbit a number of times, but until I saw the movie, it wasn't as easy to see things from the Dwarves' perspective. Also, if I recall correctly, the books don't give a very detailed description of each dwarf (aside from Bombur being really fat and Kili and Fili being the younger ones of the bunch). The film also helped to individualize the dwarves and give me some basis to picture what each one might look like instead of picturing a nondescript guy with a large beard every time. That's not to say I remembered who all of them were while watching the movie. :whistle:

In general, I'd agree The Hobbit wasn't as epic as LotR, but I wasn't expecting it to be. It was still entertaining. I loved the music, and the casting was great. Martin Freeman was spot on, and Ian McKellan was great as usual. Also loved Thorin. Looking forward to seeing more of Smaug. :agree:

As an aside, did anyone see The Colbert Report where they had a Hobbit-themed week for the show? That was quite entertaining. He had a map of "Middle America" with things like "The Mines of Astoria" (wish I could remember more).

The Hobbit week on Colbert was awesome. The intro map was a nice (and amusing) touch.

Hey Wimsey! Long time no see!

I thought TH too long, too meandering, too slow and contained too much filler.

Riddles in the Dark was the best scene by a country mile.

The endless chases and fights were repetitive and video-gamish and carried no sense of threat.

I enjoyed Thorin's backstory very much and am looking forward to Smaug.

I thought the acting was only OK. Nothing special.

Still have to see this movie. Don't have a dvd player to play it on though :(. Dang it. Must get one soon, so I can see it. Hopefully I'll have one in the near future.

Especially looking forward to the second movie, since Smaug will be in it.

Especially looking forward to the second movie, since Smaug will be in it.I'm looking forward to seeing Smaug too. I expect Benedict Cumberbatch will do a great job with the voice.