That's interesting to hear. I was wondering how they'd manage to make 3 films out of the 1 book.
I loved LotR as a set of films, I found them very true to the books. I'm curious as to why/how he's added material? I'm going to see it myself very soon, I'm looking forward to it

ashmire13 wrote:That's interesting to hear. I was wondering how they'd manage to make 3 films out of the 1 book.
I loved LotR as a set of films, I found them very true to the books. I'm curious as to why/how he's added material? I'm going to see it myself very soon, I'm looking forward to it

Hey ashmire13,

I haven't seen the movie yet, been out in Hong Kong since last Thursday.
Hopefully can catch it this weekend.

But I heard that the extra material is from the Appendices from LOTR.

Covering details that were listed in there during the time period of the Hobbit.

Best regards,
Ronald

rhynne wrote:

ashmire13 wrote:That's interesting to hear. I was wondering how they'd manage to make 3 films out of the 1 book.
I loved LotR as a set of films, I found them very true to the books. I'm curious as to why/how he's added material? I'm going to see it myself very soon, I'm looking forward to it

Hey ashmire13,

I haven't seen the movie yet, been out in Hong Kong since last Thursday.
Hopefully can catch it this weekend.

But I heard that the extra material is from the Appendices from LOTR.

Covering details that were listed in there during the time period of the Hobbit.

Best regards,
Ronald

Thanks Ronald, that makes more sense

Dave

I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

The Hobbit was that much better!!!  

I have mixed feelings about the Hobbit. I prefer the book to Lord of the Rings so I was looking forward to it. I saw the film in 3D which I don't like (I find it distracting) and will look forward to seeing it again in 2D before I completely make up my mind.

I thought, rather inevitably, that it seemed drawn out, maybe two films would have been better for pacing. On that I think it is too early to tell.

I also thought there were too many action scenes. I am fairly jaded by modern blockbusters where it is all about the special effects and the explosions rather than the plot or the characters. This story has both plot and characters and so I was rather disappointed with some of the scenes that seemed to be inserted purely for the crash, bang, wallop of the seasonal blockbuster rather than because they add to the storytelling.

I thought it suffered for coming after LotR. It was as if Peter Jackson was attempting to make it more epic that LotR when IMO it should be less epic, but should not suffer for that, it is from small and humble beginnings that the rest of the tale flows. That in some ways is the point.  Therefore some elements were over the top for me and the scale seemed wrong.

I like Martin Freeman and I thought he was good as Bilbo, not sure why he has been criticised. However, I think the roles he gets seem to be the same. He is always cast as the English Everyman who finds himself in strange situations. He plays that role as Arthur Dent, as Dr Watson, he even plays that role in The Office. That said, it is the correct role for Bilbo.

Oh, and at least one of the dwarfs didn't have a proper beard but some sort of designer stubble.  That really upset me!

There is a lot of criticism there, I enjoyed it overall, there were just a number of things I am not sure about. I suspect I can't judge it properly until the rest of the films are seen.

Sardan wrote:I thought it suffered for coming after LotR.

Jackson's LotR opened during a revival of middle-ages-themed fantasy, no coincidence that it appeared a year after D&D 3e. The Hobbit comes when everyone is sick of the genre. Based on the 20-year retro cycle, it would have been better to wait another decade.

Just saw The Hobbit tonight and thought it was great. Loved Martin Freeman as Bilbo, and enjoyed the additions/changes/interpretations as they breath new life into a story that I've read many times. I agree with Mike about judging the movie separately from the book.

Saw it last night also. I would give it 3.5 out of 5 stars. I read the book 30 years ago, so I'm fairly certain I am not biased by it.

Positives: story, character development, mixed use of CGI and cinematography, Cate Blanchett (I swear she's truly an elf; an amazing actress...and woman...wow).

Negatives: length, goes a bit 'soap-operaey' a few times (with the stares mixed with the score, Thorin's 'Noooooooooo!!!' every time he sees the white Orc, etc.; though I must admit, was never as uncomfortable as the Frodo-Sam stare exchanges), editing (looks like it was finished in a rush; some scenes jump amateurishly)

On the fence: direction, screenplay. Jackson forgot to direct the characters throughout the whole movie. About the screenplay...the dwarf song is the best bit. It tells you something when the CG characters get the best lines...

Best scenes: the fall of Erebor; the stone giant fight; the goblin hall; the exchanges between Galadriel and her 'Mithrandir' (there's something there, I think...); the dwarves at Bilbo's house.

Worst scenes: Bilbo and Gollum (FOR SHAME!!!; I understand Jackson's intent in making it very intimate, but badly managed, I say); the very end (I understand the stage needs to be set for Hobbit II, but come on! Cheap! Jackson saw Empire Strikes Back once too many).

As it sometimes happens, the movie is carried by the supporting characters. Thorin was adequately played by Armitage. Radagast (masterfully portrayed; don't know the actor's name, tho I've seen him before) might be the most interesting character in the whole movie. Weaving and Blanchett are in a class by themselves. Ian McKellen is grossly underused, and looked, at times, more Mrs. Doubtfire than the Balrog Slayer. Someone should retire Lee (or drive a stake through his heart already...kidding!); honestly, the orcs acted better than him.

Martin Freeman...so-so as Bilbo. Had many good moments, but missed the acting nuances (facial expressions, body movement) of Ian Holm, who in the few minutes on screen develops the character more than Freeman in three hours. I honestly think he looked more excited to get the part than to play it. Freeman needs to 'mature' his performance (and, consequently, Bilbo) in the next movies, if he wants people to recognize his work in this movie. I guess it will take more than one. We'll see.

But, all in all, we could use more of these. I just hope someday, someone, somewhere, does a D&D movie at this scale and this good. Here's to hoping!!

Hector.

stratochamp wrote:radagast actor is sylvester mccoy aka the 7th doctor who

I'm sorry, your post must have been cut off. The 7th doctor who what? A doctor who golfs, or who does something else? Who are you talking about?