Shop now Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > action discussion forum

Thoughts on the Hobbit Movie?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 38 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 11 Jan 2013 14:34:04 GMT
So as ghost town like as the Action forum is, I am still surprised there is not a thread on the Hobbit so far.

Therefore here it is, though likely as no one else is here, I will have to do a Smeagol/Gollum and start talking to myself about it.

Anyhoo.

I have now seen the Hobbit 3 times, so thought perhaps time to share my thoughts.

The first time in 3D and super HD at the Cinema, I was quite impressed; I should first say my expectation had been lowered dramatically by some of the reviews I had read and my own misgivings at the fact that I knew it took 180 minutes to get to about Chapter 7 of the book, a relatively small book I might add. And of course the reviews were saying it plodded along and took too long.

Anyway when I first saw it at the cinema I kind of thought the running time flew in and it never felt as long as fellowship did at theatres, and yet my opinions have been changing with each time I have watched it since.

Ok so my opinion is that as a 3D spectacle in the Cinema and giving that it's a bit more light-hearted and action focussed, it works really well and is a quick 180 minutes. However in the comfort of home I d happily watch he extended versions of the LOTR movies and this is where I found the Hobbit lacking, once you have seen a film, the surprise goes away and you are left with the quality only. For me the Hobbit like most reviewers have already written is not as good a film as the Lord of the Rings movies.

Wow, but then did anyone actually think it was going to surpass Lord of the Rings? Was it ever supposed to?

I mean as far as the books go, the Hobbit is a little kids tale compared to the grand scope and scale you are immersed in with the LOTR novel. Therefore for me the narrative can never be as good as the material they already developed. Does that mean the movie should not be made and can it still commended for what it is?

That being said its still an enjoyable movie and I still don't `mind' the lengthy running time for this movie, as they have given us a lot of extras, never quite fully explored in story format in the book, such as the history of Erebor and the coming of Smaug, the Attempted retaking of Moria, that darkening of the Greenwood to become Mirkwood (Though to be fair they have seriously narrowed the timescales involved here down to a matter of days and weeks, when it was clearly years in the novels) and the meeting of the white council, which was always off page in the novel.

These were perhaps the most interesting parts for me and ones that stood up the best, because the rest was so close to the source materials that I felt like I had seen it all before.

I think Jackson stance is that any materials shot about or in Middle Earth is desperately sought by Tolkien Fans, he is correct, but for non Tolkienites I think the extra stuff might be a little too much.

Therefore I can't see why they did not release a slightly shorter and pacey cut for cinema release and then have this one for the extended version on Blu Ray again? Surely they cannot give us a super extended version of this one on Blu Ray. What more could they show, the Journey Galadriel took to get to Rivendell LOL.

So what's left to cover in film 2 and 3?

Well they are at Mirkwood essentially now.

So we have beorn next and then it's the Mirkwood Spiders and the Elves, then Laketown and the Mountain, after that we have the Battle of the Five Armies and the journey home.

Surely they can't fill these out to be 3 hour behemoths as well.

We have about one more meeting of the White Council and perhaps they will show us the sacking of Dol Guldur?

I can't see what other things they will fill it with, perhaps Thorin's Fathers tale, though they seem to have went off that chronologically already.

Anyway back to this film and I thought it was as always well cast, all the returning actors make the film seem somehow more grandiose and connected and the new cast are all fantastic in their parts.

I look forward to the next instalment more than I did, but I still have a worry about it length in my mind.

Will I ever watch these movies as much as I would watch LOTR, no the story is just not as engrossing.

And I suppose I still think to myself if making a book smaller than any 1 volume of the LOTR into a 3 movie series roughly of the same length as LOTR is really such a good idea after all.

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 14:47:04 GMT
To save you doing a Smaegol (entertaining as it might be) I'll post, it's a bit OT though as I've not seen The Hobbit.

Are the Blu-Rays of LOTR's worth getting, I've got the extended cut DVD's but is the BR a decent jump in quality? Do you get any extras with the box set (the indivdual extended BR's are £10 cheaper than the box set)?

Back onto the subject at hand, like I said I've not seen it but my biggest concern is, like many it seems, the length of the films. To make 3 x 3 hour films seems far to much for the source material, my concern is it'll either be so slow moving it'll be boring or there'll be considerable liberties taken with the story to pad it out.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:03:30 GMT
Erm not really, I got them on Blu Ray and to be honest its not a huge difference form the already excellent DVD box sets?

The picture and sound is a bit better though and for these movies and how good they are I thought it worth the extra jump to Blu Ray.

I don't recall anything new that was not in the DVD version though in terms of Extras.

In terms of the Hobbit, I think its a bit of them all, its a little slow, but not as bad as I was expecting if you are a Tolkien Fan.

Its been embellished a little in places, but not as much as would remove you from the Tolkien experience, so its both a little slow and padded out with extras.

But neither is jarring at all, there are more action scenes than say Fellowship which really had only Moria as its stand out action piece. Yet I loved Fellowship, so I think anyone who liked LOTR will like this, but Id imagine most people wont like it as much, because as I said its just not as deep a story, it's the small little lead up story to the epic and yet it had the same running time as the epic?

As said this one is ok so far, but if ythe next 2 are also 3 hour epics I think it might just get a bit too much.

If we go by The Two Towers, most of the action was left till the end and the 3rd one, it was a character building piece. I just don't think they'll be able to do that with Part 2 of this.

The fact that this second movie is called the desolation of Smaug hints that the Dragon will be in the next one, now in actual fact the Dragon is not in it much, Bilbo talks to him, he comes out and causes havoc and then gets killed fairly quickly by the future King of Dale, but there is quite a bit of story after this point including the battle for the Mountain.

So if we get through Mirkwood/wood elves/laketown and Smaug all in film 2, it could be great, but then you worry about film 3, will it be the Battle of the 5 armies followed by the sacking of Dol Guldur and show more about the watches placed over the shire and what happened between the Hobbit and Fellowship? Who knows.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:15:23 GMT
"So if we get through Mirkwood/wood elves/laketown and Smaug all in film 2, it could be great, but then you worry about film 3, will it be the Battle of the 5 armies followed by the sacking of Dol Guldur and show more about the watches placed over the shire and what happened between the Hobbit and Fellowship? Who knows."

The only thing I can think of which they could do while staying faithful to the canon is the events in the north, Tolkien wrote about them extensively but they're only hinted at in the LOTR's as the story focuses around the war in the south. According to the canon that's where most of the dwarves are and where their involvment in the war happened (that's why they didn't send any armies to Gondor, they were busy fighting in the north). With the film being focused more on the dwarves maybe they'll focus on that and the witch kings skirmishes in the north before Sauron made his move in the south.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:29:06 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2013 15:30:25 GMT
But then they'd need to go years ahead and come into LOTR timeline.

The battles in the North BTW did not involve the Witch King, that was much earlier when Sauron first rose to power and is mentioned specifically in the Hobbit.

The Witch King was resident in Minus Morgul other than when chasing Frodo through the whole of the LOTR timeline. Far As I can think right now.
But Saurons forces did indeed attack the Dwarves in the North around the time Sauron was attacking Gondor.

They could perhaps do the Dwarves attempt to again rule Moria before the Balrog was discovered. Balin is in the Hobbit Movie, but I cant see that happening either, not a big enough character to carry that section.

We'll have an idea by the time we see the next one I suppose

Posted on 20 Jan 2013 19:10:37 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Jan 2013 19:11:17 GMT
I thoroughly enjoyed it, it is the type of film that reminds me why the experience of Cinema is so great. The Hobbit was a thrilling, unique adventure and I loved every step of the way! Roll on The Hobbit: 2. This will be a film well worth the additional price for the Blu Ray copy.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Feb 2013 11:58:12 GMT
Oh I do think that the Hobbit being newer will be far better in Blu Ray than LOTR was.

I kind of get the feeling that peope are a bit 'Meh' when it comes to this movie though.

Posted on 1 Feb 2013 13:01:24 GMT
Nobody says:
The CGI ruined it for me. The White Orc looked AWFUL.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Feb 2013 14:12:18 GMT
Fair enuff

was ok with it

Posted on 1 Feb 2013 15:40:08 GMT
I just saw it a couple of nights ago and was pleasantly surprised, it was better than I had expected.

"but then did anyone actually think it was going to surpass Lord of the Rings? Was it ever supposed to?"

I actually prefered the hobbit because of the simple story. It's about a bunch of dwarves that want to regain their fortune and home, nothing too complex or convoluted there.

I do have a few questions regarding things in the film relating to the book though:
(I've only read the graphic novel but haven't read the book so some of these questions may seem rather silly)

What's up with the necromancer? Was he originally in the book?

Also, was the pale Orc in the book? I don't recall anything about him and it seems like an obvious hollywood move to add in a villain.

What happened to Tom Bombadil? A character I know very little about although from what I gather he is a big part of the story?

Did they miss the bit with the shapeshifter dude in the woods, or will they put add that into the second/third film?

I also wondered why the film started with old Bilbo, and why is Frodo in it? Surely they must be planning something otherwise it would seem pointless to even include Frodo.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Feb 2013 15:58:12 GMT
Last edited by the author on 1 Feb 2013 15:59:41 GMT
"What's up with the necromancer? Was he originally in the book?"

Yes ******SPOILERS****** He's Sauron in disguise. ******END SPOILERS******

"Also, was the pale Orc in the book? I don't recall anything about him and it seems like an obvious hollywood move to add in a villain."

It's been a while since I read it but I don't remember a pale orc.

"What happened to Tom Bombadil? A character I know very little about although from what I gather he is a big part of the story?"

Tom Bombadil doesn't feature in the Hobbit, only LOTR (book).

"Did they miss the bit with the shapeshifter dude in the woods, or will they put add that into the second/third film?"

I don't remember a shapeshifter in the book.

"I also wondered why the film started with old Bilbo, and why is Frodo in it? Surely they must be planning something otherwise it would seem pointless to even include Frodo."

I would assume just to link it with the LOTR. iirc Frodo doesn't feature at all in the book, in fact I think the entire book would've been set before he was born, from what I remember in the Hobbit Bilbo is the hobbit equivalent of a late teen/early 20 year old.

Posted on 1 Feb 2013 16:18:49 GMT
djburty says:
The Hobbit is a great film due to the large amount of dwarves present. Any film (or computer game) that includes a large amount of dwarves is to be praised :)

I also thought that the laength of the film was just right and didn't particularly feel drawn out. They have put things into the film that weren't originally in the book, partly from other Tolkein literature such as the silmarillion. I think it adds to the story and to the mythology of the series.

I do worry that the last film will have too much padding and would have prefered for them to try and keep it down to 2 films.

I wish they had included Tom Bombadill into the LoTR filmes - but if they included every bit of the books then the LoTR would have needed 9 films to do it justice - since each of the LoTR books are larger than the Hobbit!

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Feb 2013 16:20:23 GMT
Cool, thanks for that.

Just googled the shapeshifter, his name is Beorn and apparantley lives between the Misty Mountains and Mirkwood. So perhaps they haven't got that far yet?

Regarding the Necromancer, it seems odd to me that he is ******SPOILER***** Sauron ******END SPOILER*****. It would make sense that the necromancer could be the one to bring him back but oh well.

Posted on 1 Feb 2013 16:29:03 GMT
Bauer says:
Whats Richard Armitage like in the film, I really rate him, i want him as the next Bond ?

Posted on 1 Feb 2013 16:35:28 GMT
"I wish they had included Tom Bombadill into the LoTR filmes"

I think the problem is he really isn't explained very well and is a bit of a wierd character that most movie goers really just wouldn't understand. To properly explain him they'd have to dip into the silmarilion and it would take a film in it's own right.

"Regarding the Necromancer, it seems odd to me that he is ******SPOILER***** Sauron ******END SPOILER*****. It would make sense that the necromancer could be the one to bring him back but oh well. "

Sauron never died (until the end of LOTR anyway).

Right I'm going to geek out a bit now. If you read the Silmarilion it explains a great deal (but is really hard going). To break it down simply there's a god being who first creates Angels, the Ainur, some of these entered the physical world and are called Valar and they in turn created spirits called Miair. One of the Vlar, Morgoth, turned evil and corrupted some of the Miair with him (the Balrogg and Sauron are corrupted Miair). Morgoth was the first Dark Lord but was defeated centuries before any of the books and Sauron, the most powerfull Miair, took over from him. Gandalf and Sauromon are also both Miair, which is hinted at when Gandalf dies and returns as Gandalf the White, he said he was sent back because his work wasn't done which means he returned to the heavens/god who sent him back to middle earth. At a basic levle it's a rip off of god/satan from christianity.

Posted on 1 Feb 2013 18:18:02 GMT
John morris says:
" The picture and sound is a bit better though and for these movies and how good they are I thought it worth the extra jump to Blu Ray. "

Cam Clark (SKULL1138)

I think the extended edition blu-ray's blow the dvd's out of the water in terms of both picture and sound in my opinion.

Posted on 1 Feb 2013 18:22:43 GMT
Shazzerman says:
Yeah, Beorn is the shapeshifter who will/should feature heavily in the next 2 films (I just hope he isn't portrayed as an "Open Range"-y type cuddly bear).

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Feb 2013 19:17:10 GMT
I do have a few questions regarding things in the film relating to the book though:
(I've only read the graphic novel but haven't read the book so some of these questions may seem rather silly)

What's up with the necromancer? Was he originally in the book?

Yup but never directly, but certainly mentioned he appears more in the appendices or LOTR where they explain they discover its sauron and sack Dol Guldur, and Thorins dad is or was in prison there in the book.

Also, was the pale Orc in the book? I don't recall anything about him and it seems like an obvious hollywood move to add in a villain.

Yes, but only a small role, it was made much larger in the film

What happened to Tom Bombadil? A character I know very little about although from what I gather he is a big part of the story?

This character is in LOTR and was never filmed, was not in the Hobbit

Did they miss the bit with the shapeshifter dude in the woods, or will they put add that into the second/third film?

Its about to happen right when the next film kicks off if they are doing it that is?

I also wondered why the film started with old Bilbo, and why is Frodo in it? Surely they must be planning something otherwise it would seem pointless to even include Frodo.

Linkage with the popular LOTR series is all, makes it all fit together

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Feb 2013 19:18:57 GMT
Does well I'd say

Posted on 1 Feb 2013 19:21:53 GMT
Oops all questions were answered before I got here.

Id say God/Satan ripped off Tolkien myself, only Tolkiens version was more believable LOL

Posted on 2 Feb 2013 09:23:26 GMT
Just had a quick look on Wikipedia to check what I said earlier and my memory was spot on (although I spelt maiar wrong). If your interested in the history the entry on Sauron does a pretty good job of summarising the silmarilion.

Posted on 4 Feb 2013 01:05:01 GMT
Hubbard says:
It had the 7th Doctor in it. Which for me made it an instant 10/10.

Posted on 4 Feb 2013 16:12:33 GMT
"It had the 7th Doctor in it. Which for me made it an instant 10/10."

At least you didn't say 6th Doctor. Any respect I had for you would have died.

Posted on 4 Feb 2013 17:46:04 GMT
R Brown says:
no.....it has so little in common with the book its awful.

the opening "history" is mangled and wrong, the white orc is awful, jackson manages to take a single line in the book and spin it into 10 minutes of film time (stone giants)

as for bilbos slow rise to equality and acceptance as an equal by the dwarves which takes most of the book......nah he'll just save thorins life and that'll do it

Posted on 5 Feb 2013 09:45:07 GMT
Whats worng with the opening History, I cant think of anything.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the action discussion forum (522 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  action discussion forum
Participants:  21
Total posts:  38
Initial post:  11 Jan 2013
Latest post:  23 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions