The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0k3kHtyoqc[/youtube]

This film has caused a rebound in my LotR special interest.

For good or evil.

I loathe anything that has to do with the "Lord Of The Rings" series.

It was great, however I wish they would have just made 1 movie out of the whole book, not 2 or 3 or whatever they are doing. I mean each LOTR book was one movie long so I can't see why they split the hobbit which is shorter than all three into three movies. I did enjoy it though and I guess for all my complaining about the stupid 3D crap, it was a cool movie to see in 3D.

I saw it on Christmas Eve (minus the 3D) and thoroughly enjoyed it. The plot never lagged and the running time felt more like 2 hours than 3 hours, the visuals were stunning, and the end were we get a glimpse of Smaug's eye has me excited for number 2.

Richard Armitage was also excellent as Thorin Oakenshield, there was a mixture of Aragorn's brooding and Boromir's arrogance within his performance. His back-story of distrusting the elves and dismissing Bilbo as a liability was also a nice touch.

On a lighter note, the scenery in New Zealand was amazing.

Why, dear Nox? Is it the movies you loathe, or the books as well? (Purists would prefer the movies not to have been made but they did a reasonably good job of it)

Is it becasue there are no actual vampires in it?

My favorite part of the movie was the Misty Mountain song. The dwarves sung a lot in the book and I was a bit disappointed that they didn't sing more after the beginning. Hoping they do in the next movies.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRUBe2RTq74[/youtube]

It was amazing. I am looking forward to seeing Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug...

I kind of agree with you. I was surprised that they went for 3 movies instead of 2 but, I guess it's ok if they want to tap into some of the other source material. As long as they can keep it interesting. Explain some of the history behind the events that are happening around The Hobbit story. It flowed pretty well in the first movie so hopefully it won't ruin the story or make it too long.

The Hobbit is going to be THREE movies and not two?! Nooooooo I am crushed!! Lol I absolutely loved the movie but it ended on such a cliffhanger, I was hoping that I'd get the whole thing in the next one! I almost wish they'd just release it all in one go, and make one 9 hour movie or something (of course I know why they don't do it that way though, even I would have trouble watching a movie for that long and I'm a huge fan).

It's an interesting movie, but I can barely even recognise the book anymore. The main point of the movie seems to be to set up a "prequel" trilogy that can sit comfortably alongside the LotR movie trilogy. It uses the same epic music, the same epic cinematography, and so on.

The problem is that it's a very different type of story. It's smaller in scope, and there is no "end of the world" scenario. Bilbo and the dwarves are not heroes, and the movie gets into trouble by trying to pretend that they are. The dwarves are greedy and arrogant, and Bilbo is a nice enough fellow but his journey is mostly about becoming a skilled burglar and proving himself, not about being a hero.

I enjoyed the movie. The way they are leading to the war is a nice touch and Bilbos actions are really showing off his tookish side which I felt was lacking in the books.

Yeah I am likely to spend around 60$ or more on that movie, I'll have to see the next two in 3D and get the DVD...maybe its possible to get a vintage copy on vhs to watch it that way as well.

And I think it makes some sense that they add more detail to the movie than there is in the book, the book is more simply written than the LOTR triology...so if they would have stuck to the book exactly than it would have been a short movie. There's an animated version that pretty much directly follows the book and I am not even sure if its an hour long.

Meh I think peter jackson is simply trying to make up for making such a hack version of LOTR, he shot the 10 hours of film in 18 months. Far to short of time to make a quality film.

I agree that they made the movie a little two epic, but atleast it's interesting. Aside from that you can't make 100 million dollar film, based on the book, you'd have to make it cartoon for it even to get begin to work.

My only complaint is that kili, looks far too human. The guy has zero features of a dwarf, he's attractive, small nosed, no long bear, has a lean body structure. In fact the only things that tell you he's a dwarf are the ears and the scaling, and that only makes him look more like a hobbit. They at the very least better make him out to be half human or something.

Anyhow I'm about 60 pages in to book 1 of lotr, it's far better to read after watching the movie.

There's some weird balance, where the hobbit is the funnest read but lacks weight, the lotr books are most in depth but are too heavy, the lotr movies are awful yet were my first introduction, and the fact the new movie is piecing it all together.

Me too!


As for the movie, it was very well-done. I'm glad Peter Jackson chose to direct the prequel trilogy, and not the original choice to direct The Hobbit, Sam Raimi. Peter Jackson kept the movie going at a steady pace and it never lagged.

Sam Raimi would have likely screwed the entire thing up like he did with Spider-Man 3.

The movie was awesome! The one thing I didn't like was that there was very little dragon. I know they did that to provide movie-long/year long suspense, but . . .
Radagast the Brown made up for it though. Doctor Who fans will know Slyvester McCoy as the 7th doctor. Absoulutly hilarious! Points to Peter Jackson for coming up with that rabbit-sled, which of course is not in the book.
As a dedicated fan of Tolkien and a student of Norse mythology I say: One of the few movies worth going back, paying the extra amount, and seeing in 3D.