UKC

So, who else has seen the recently-released first installment of The Hobbit? What did you think?

Splitting it into three films seemed like a bad idea. Wouldn't one be enough? It isn't a particularly long story, after all! I went in a bit worried about this, but hoping it would still be good - I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy, despite having had misgivings about whether it could live up to the books.

I came out convinced that splitting it into two films would have been a good idea, but three does look to be stretching it pretty thin. They've added in a fair bit of material from elsewhere in Tolkien's writing, presumably to make it into more of a prequel rather than just a story that was written earlier, and it fits reasonably well so far, but it does drag a bit at times.

It was visually beautiful, and good fun once it got going. The battles were maybe a bit over-the-top and the Dwarves were more nimble that I felt they should be, but I enjoyed it and think it was a fairly good film; much will depend on the next two. It wasn't Lord of the Rings, but, then, neither was the book.

A note: we saw it in 3D, as that was how it was showing at the only time we could manage. I don't think 3D added anything (and it gave me a headache!)










I'll leave a gap here to move spoilers further down the page...







































...

Also. Radagast. Not quite Jar Jar, but not a worthy addition!

In reply to skog:

Way too long and far too much CGI - the goblins and orcs looked a bit naff and not a patch on the orcs / uruk hai from Lord of the Rings.

Radagast shooting around the forest on a sleigh pulled by rabbits was a bit too disney for me.

The mountain giants fighting looked quite impressive though

In reply to skog:

I saw it yesterday I thought it was worth a watch. I don't think it's as exciting as lord of the rings as they were a diverse group. It's a bit difficult to believe 13 dwarfs can take such huge falls and fight such large armies and not one of them die or get seriously injured!!
Maybe I'm just a bit blood thirsty.
I'm hoping the dragon is going to deliver, we shall see bring on part 2.

In reply to skog:

Agreed. Two films maybe. Three is too many. Won't watch the others in the cinema, but wait for the DVD at home. I thought there were too many characters and as you say, the battle scenes were plain ridiculous. The 'humour' must have seemed very funny to someone but didn't even raise a smile from me. However, the world was nicely done and I quite liked Radagast myself. Too much portenting towards LOTR from Saruman at the council. The pre-story was quite good IMHO. It didn't seem like 2h40m.

In reply to skog:

The only spoiler I'd give is that it's pretty boring

Went with the family on Saturday, forgotten it completely today... a bit like bolted climbs really.

In reply to skog: I found it rather disappointing. It doesn't feel like The Hobbit as I recall the novel, but rather some clumsy attempt to stick bits of the history of Middle Earth into the middle of the tale, and full of far too many overblown battles. Epic pitched battles and big scale politics are what the LotR is about, but not The Hobbit.

If he wanted to make a proper prequel to LotR, he should have taken on parts of the Silmarillion. Whilst it's a long time since I've read The Hobbit, I'm convinced he's made up an awful lot of tale that isn't in either book.

In reply to Liam M:

This was very much my feeling, too. However:


I'm very rusty on this, but I think that's pretty much what he has done.

Radagast, Sauron as the Necromancer of Dol Guldur, a mention of Ungoliant (though he seemed to try to associate the spiders with Sauron, which I think is wrong - they're an independent evil force, possibly even worse and not allied.)

It's interesting reading others' thoughts on this film. I expected to either love or hate it, rather than just enjoy it mildly!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
did you see in high frame rate 3D?
what did the others think?

In reply to skog: Sorry, yes I meant he should have done it under the guise of the Silmarillion rather than The Hobbit.

In reply to Liam M:

Maybe that's next? It'd probably end up being split into about 27 films at this rate, mind!

In reply to skog:

thankee kindly folks, I'll wait for the box set to come out or...

it to be released in the US with no date for us and then get a pirate copy of something i would have bought happily if t'were in the shops

In reply to subalpine:

I mentioned that I didn't think the 3D was worth it, but to expand a bit, I don't think it was particularly well done.

There was a lot of fast movement to and from the foreground, which was hard to follow and was probably what gave me a headache, and I had a strong impression of there being separate layers at other times.

The worst bit of that was early on, in the woods before they met the Trolls. It was raining, and there was a 3D sheet of rain in front that made it look like the rain had been added afterwards, like in one of those old films where the actors are bone dry and someone's running a shower in front of the camera!

In reply to skog: Have to agree with the masses here - dragged on, too much fighting, very little of Bilbo's personality, too much CGI, didn't like the 3D - added nothing. And three films? Not needed at all. Only the Rivendell scene really caught the feel of the book for me - and that was kinda ruined by Saraman.

My conclusion - watchable and entertaining, but should be so much more than that - same as LOTR really.

In reply to subalpine:

It was in 3d, but I don't think in high frame rate - is that what IMAX is? whatever, it wasn't IMAX, but I find that 3D takes a lot away from films, it darkens the image and they are less sharp than non 3D. To get over the darkness you can take the glasses off but then it's fuzzy. For a film in which the scenery is, for me, about the most interesting bit - you can "enjoy" only so much Ork bashing and ridiculous near misses. To rub salt in the wound you pay more for 3D when you don't want it.

Alas, this film seems to be a remake too far.... and like many recent films they spent too much on the special effects and animation and far too little on the scenario and script.

In reply to skog: I loved it. The credits rolled and we thought "What the hell, it's been 3 hours!?" Would go see it again if my mate's wanted to go.

The necromancer actually scared me a bit, what a wimp.

In reply to skog:
<<disappointed voice>>
There's no Smaug?

Tch.

Sxx

In reply to Sarah G: There is a Smaug. Not much yet, but definitely some Smaug-action.

In reply to skog:

To judge from the trailer it looks absolute shite, but then that would hardly be a surprise.

jcm

In reply to skog: So many battles, and yet it managed to be so PG. I don't think a drop of blood was shed in the entire film.

Firstly let's realise it's based on a kids book. At first the cartooneyness annoyed me buy then it dawned on me that this is a film I would enjoy watching with my daughter when she is older. Lotr the movie still needs a bit more attention and intelligence.

Gripes.

The older younger frodo should never have been in the start of the movie. The olde bilbo I can tolerate.

Thorin was too manlike compared to the rest of the dwarves. Some attempt to get people to connect to the new Aragorn.

The orcs were shit and had no character.

Three hours was a good length but not enough movement. Dragged out a bit. They could have done two awesome three hour movies.

In reply to Madden:

In my head, I'd always pronounced it "Smorg"...seems I got that wrong too.

In reply to ThunderCat:

Smaug, in my head, is pronounced Smorg anyway.

Mind you in my head Gandalf has always been 'Gandarf' ('alf' rhyming with 'half'). I prefer it that way...

In reply to Siward:

I've always pronouced it as Gand-alf...and it's only now that you've pointed it out that I see the 'alf' bit as in 'half' (arf). Weird that.

Think someone pointed out further up that Tolkien intended it to be pronounced 'Gandalv', with a soft V

Got to be careful here, it feels like I'm walking down Geek Boulevard and approaching Nerdville.

I believe it should be pronounced "Smowwg"- with the vowel sound rhyming with "ow".

There's a pronounciatin guide in LOTR.

Sx

In reply to ThunderCat:

All the dwarves names might cause some ruckus too

I've just realised something.

In Rivendell, Galadriel said something to Gandalf that I thought a bit odd at the time, something like 'you are not the only guardian present' - I can't remember exactly.

That was just blatant advertising for the new 'Guardians of Middle-Earth' game, wasn't it? That's a bit annoying.

In reply to skog: the bit that annoyed me most was the drawn-out 'running along gangways in the orc kingdom' battle scene. went on too long, was nowhere near dark enough (not a patch on the battle in Moria in LOTR) and if anything reminded me of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. I thought the whole thing was far too driven by CGI set-piece scenes and nowhere near enough attention was paid to generating atmosphere - that's unforgiveable really given the amount of running time they gave themselces to play with. Can't help wondering how much better it could have been if Del Toro had stayed onboard.

In reply to Sarah G:

This was one of the undoubted splendours of the film and showed good subtlety. Smaug was only represented in his breathed-fire at the beginning, then we get a wonderfully malevolent eye emerging from his massed pile of gold, and his roar just before the credits rolled.

This was very much like the 'shadow' given to Sauron by Peter Jackson in the LOTR films and Tolkein himself. It'll be interesting to see how Jackson continues this subtelty, particularly as I remember from the book Smaug conversing at length with Bilbo. But the shadow, mystery and horror of the dragon was very well done.

The fear of the unseen will always be greater than the visual representation. They could shoot this film in 1048 fps, but they'd never convey the dread of the dragon greater than the mind can. And that's what Peter Jackson made us do with the paucity of the Smaug scenes in this film.