[Movies] The Hobbit (Possible Spoilers)

[Northy]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=100983

The 3rd installment entitled "The Hobbit: There and Back Again" has officially been moved back to December 2014. Not a big deal for me, I don't mind the wait, and I always love going to movies over the Christmas holiday anyways. Loved the first one and looking forward to the next two, and looking forward to seeing the final three-film trilogy in its full uninterrupted entirety.

[Markluzz]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=100983

The 3rd installment entitled "The Hobbit: There and Back Again" has officially been moved back to December 2014. Not a big deal for me, I don't mind the wait, and I always love going to movies over the Christmas holiday anyways. Loved the first one and looking forward to the next two, and looking forward to seeing the final three-film trilogy in its full uninterrupted entirety.

That's good news in my opinion, Summer Movies sometimes have great quality but are usually only there for the money. Holiday Season movies are often either the cheap Christmas grabs or of great quality.

[Northy]

The Hobbit: AUJ coming out on Blu-Ray on March 19th. Gonna rent the heck out of it. Regretting not having seen it more times in the theatre. Saving my money for the extended edition trilogy box set though.

[xylophone]

Anybody know if there is gonna be a hfr version available on blu ray?

[CheeseDoodlez]

Pretty sure Blu-ray doesn't support HFR (48FPS)

[Phookah]

This movie was awful. Why in the hell did they have to go and ruin The Hobbit? Not to mention them splitting the book up into 3 movies (really?) It's my favorite book in the world, I read it on average on 3-4 times a year but there isn't even CLOSE to 3 movies worth of action/story.
The whole thing just screams "I'm Peter Jackson. Now give me your money, nerds."

[Badhairday]

This movie was awful. Why in the hell did they have to go and ruin The Hobbit? Not to mention them splitting the book up into 3 movies (really?) It's my favorite book in the world, I read it on average on 3-4 times a year but there isn't even CLOSE to 3 movies worth of action/story.
The whole thing just screams "I'm Peter Jackson. Now give me your money, nerds."

Yeah, Peter Jackson obviously needs more money, that must be why he does it. >_>

If you didn't already know, they're adding story from the appendices, explaining all the things happening at the same time as the story of the Bilbo book.

[Andrijana]

I expected a bit more from it

[Shinzai]

This movie was awful. Why in the hell did they have to go and ruin The Hobbit? Not to mention them splitting the book up into 3 movies (really?) It's my favorite book in the world, I read it on average on 3-4 times a year but there isn't even CLOSE to 3 movies worth of action/story.
The whole thing just screams "I'm Peter Jackson. Now give me your money, nerds."

Peter Jackson had originally intended it to be one very long film, or two shorter films. Certain companies who aim to profit from such creations decided it would be best as trilogy. Thus, it is.

As to ruining the book, I disagree. The book's still the same as it always was and the film makes a decent stab at it. With literal classics, you can almost never have a perfect film to match the original source material. For as many people that liked the LotR trilogy, just as many derided them for not following the books perfectly. You can't win either way as a film maker. Also, that's not just a defence of Peter Jackson in particular, but for any director trying to translate a script of a screenplay of a book, into a visual medium.

[Hardstyler01]

For as many people that liked the LotR trilogy, just as many derided them for not following the books perfectly. You can't win either way as a film maker.

Well, to be honest I did miss a lot of things when I first saw the LotR films.

But once I saw the extended versions of the LotR I was very pleased. He really did fit in almost everything I missed. So I don't think you can really blame Peter Jackson, he does what he can for the fans. And I understand why he cut the battle in the Shire for example, it would make the Return of the King anti-climatic and drag on too long. But I did miss Saruman's death though... but he included that in the extended versions, perfect for me.

Overall I'm very happy with Peter Jackson's work. Having watched the Making Of discs, I realize that Peter Jackson really has a passion for getting it right because he loves Tolkien's work. And I think most of his cast and crew are like this as well, so I'm sure that even when they change things they do it to make it better. Or at least, that's their intention.

[Adam Jensen]

This movie was awful. Why in the hell did they have to go and ruin The Hobbit? Not to mention them splitting the book up into 3 movies (really?) It's my favorite book in the world, I read it on average on 3-4 times a year but there isn't even CLOSE to 3 movies worth of action/story.
The whole thing just screams "I'm Peter Jackson. Now give me your money, nerds."

The book isn't ruined. Go pick it up, it still has the same words that Tolkien set down on paper seventy years ago.

---------- Post added 2013-03-05 at 07:25 PM ----------

Well, to be honest I did miss a lot of things when I first saw the LotR films.

But once I saw the extended versions of the LotR I was very pleased. He really did fit in almost everything I missed. So I don't think you can really blame Peter Jackson, he does what he can for the fans. And I understand why he cut the battle in the Shire for example, it would make the Return of the King anti-climatic and drag on too long. But I did miss Saruman's death though... but he included that in the extended versions, perfect for me.

Overall I'm very happy with Peter Jackson's work. Having watched the Making Of discs, I realize that Peter Jackson really has a passion for getting it right because he loves Tolkien's work. And I think most of his cast and crew are like this as well, so I'm sure that even when they change things they do it to make it better. Or at least, that's their intention.

I'm really fucking glad he cut the scouring of the shire, that would have been another 5 hours.

[Laurcus]

I really loved this movie and I think there's easily enough content for 2 more movies. I mean, the Battle of Five Armies by itself could be like half a freaking movie.

[Northy]

Peter Jackson had originally intended it to be one very long film, or two shorter films. Certain companies who aim to profit from such creations decided it would be best as trilogy. Thus, it is.

As to ruining the book, I disagree. The book's still the same as it always was and the film makes a decent stab at it. With literal classics, you can almost never have a perfect film to match the original source material. For as many people that liked the LotR trilogy, just as many derided them for not following the books perfectly. You can't win either way as a film maker. Also, that's not just a defence of Peter Jackson in particular, but for any director trying to translate a script of a screenplay of a book, into a visual medium.

The more time spent in Middle-Earth the better. I don't see why people get foaming at the mouth angry about it. If it were up to me it'd be 10 movies all 5 hours long. I'm a huge nerd though. The movie was great, can't wait for the extended edition and the next two movies.

[Markluzz]

The more time spent in Middle-Earth the better. I don't see why people get foaming at the mouth angry about it. If it were up to me it'd be 10 movies all 5 hours long. I'm a huge nerd though. The movie was great, can't wait for the extended edition and the next two movies.

The reason people complain is as a movie it is very bloated and honestly as a LOTR fan I love the appendices and learning about the setting but they don't convert well to adding story to the Hobbit, because if you looked at it the best parts were the original book material and if they had stuck with that and maybe added in some of the necromancer stuff and kept it at two movies, it would have been much more compact and fast paced (which is good for movies like the Hobbit, the places where the pace was fast were the parts that matched the tone of the book the most and got me the most involved in it) as 2 3 hour films than 3 2 and a half hour long films.

At the very least they could have saved a lot of that stuff such as Radagast, the stonge giants fighting, Thorin's story of how he gots his name, etc. for the extended edition. And honestly they should have cut the orc chase altogether, they weren't apart of the Hobbit story in any way and offered nothing to the movie except to let movie 1 have a figurehead bad guy since you most likely won't see Smaug till the second movie (which is another problem which was caused with bloating the movie, they had to bloat it more so the UAJ could stand-alone as an entry movie).

I know what's done is done, I just still wish it would have been Del Toro or heck it could have been Jackson, but I just wish they kept it at 2 compact movies. Every scene or section of a movie or book or play should have purpose for the story as a whole, if it serves no purpose except to bloat the story and make it longer it shouldn't be there. There were many fragments in the Hobbit that could have easily been cut and thrown on the extended edition.

And that honestly was really my only complaint about the movie, except it is a pretty big complaint and detracts from the movie enough for me to consider it merely good instead of great. (Because there were many fantastic moments in there, and unsurprisingly they were all moments from that were from the book, so it just makes me wonder how this could have looked if they just used the original source material, it could have been much better.)

Longer does not always equal better, longer is fine, but there needs to be purpose to length. If there is no purpose it is just bloat and fat that does nothing but pull the film down.

[Badhairday]

The reason people complain is as a movie it is very bloated and honestly as a LOTR fan I love the appendices and learning about the setting but they don't convert well to adding story to the Hobbit, because if you looked at it the best parts were the original book material and if they had stuck with that and maybe added in some of the necromancer stuff and kept it at two movies, it would have been much more compact and fast paced (which is good for movies like the Hobbit, the places where the pace was fast were the parts that matched the tone of the book the most and got me the most involved in it) as 2 3 hour films than 3 2 and a half hour long films.

At the very least they could have saved a lot of that stuff such as Radagast, the stonge giants fighting, Thorin's story of how he gots his name, etc. for the extended edition. And honestly they should have cut the orc chase altogether, they weren't apart of the Hobbit story in any way and offered nothing to the movie except to let movie 1 have a figurehead bad guy since you most likely won't see Smaug till the second movie (which is another problem which was caused with bloating the movie, they had to bloat it more so the UAJ could stand-alone as an entry movie).

I know what's done is done, I just still wish it would have been Del Toro or heck it could have been Jackson, but I just wish they kept it at 2 compact movies. Every scene or section of a movie or book or play should have purpose for the story as a whole, if it serves no purpose except to bloat the story and make it longer it shouldn't be there. There were many fragments in the Hobbit that could have easily been cut and thrown on the extended edition.

And that honestly was really my only complaint about the movie, except it is a pretty big complaint and detracts from the movie enough for me to consider it merely good instead of great. (Because there were many fantastic moments in there, and unsurprisingly they were all moments from that were from the book, so it just makes me wonder how this could have looked if they just used the original source material, it could have been much better.)

Longer does not always equal better, longer is fine, but there needs to be purpose to length. If there is no purpose it is just bloat and fat that does nothing but pull the film down.

I believe they put in Azog to build up a character that acts out the villain part throughout the three movies, instead of having pretty much no one in the first movie (they deal with the Goblin King very quickly, both in the book/movie), then Smaug and then Bolg. I'm sure they'll add him in somewhere in the second, probably showing his connection to the Necromancer, building up Sauron's Return. For the third movie I see 3 options: Have him replace Bolg, have him with Bolg or have him killed off (in 2nd or 3rd) with Bolg there to avenge him. And the part with Thorin's name adds to the whole Azog thing going on, and overall it was just a very nice scene. I for one really liked that they didn't really show off Smaug in this movie, showing off his full size will have a bigger impact when they actually encounter him.

If they didn't add anything from the appendices, it would've been two rather shallow movies, as while The Hobbit was a great book, it was still a children's book without any deep lore being explained throughout of it. If we saw a movie version of the book instead of an adaption, we would sit there and wonder where the hell Gandalf went off to all the time. Suddenly having such a big character drop out of the movies would just suck. Just as with Frodo's journey, there's something bigger going on than Bilbo going off on a journey to get some dwarven gold, and with the way Jackson decided to do things, they explain all of that. I don't think the movie was bloated at all, and the only thing that makes LotR better (for me personally) is that they're more serious. But of course I knew beforehand that The Hobbit would be more childish.

Also, the stone giants were in the book. D:

[Arrowstorm]

When The Hobbit was announced as a three-parter, I knew what my favorite movie of the year would be in the next three years.

[Adam Jensen]

Also, the stone giants were in the book. D:

Yeah, it was interesting watching the movie and seeing that scene and realizing "actually, that was in the book!"

[Lizbeth]

When The Hobbit was announced as a three-parter, I knew what my favorite movie of the year would be in the next three years.

Yea.. so true I like Hobbit a lot better than I liked LotR, when it came out. But I think it's mostly because I was too young then and only understood the movies much later. They also seemed a lot shorter then.

The only sad part is that there are no more books to base trilogies on Unless they start making up stuff or base movies on the reference book that Tolkien wrote (which is basically the same thing), we won't be seeing any more trilogies

[lakisa]

they dragged this movie soo much only thing they didn't include is 30 mins of them going to pooper.

[Matheren]

The only sad part is that there are no more books to base trilogies on Unless they start making up stuff or base movies on the reference book that Tolkien wrote (which is basically the same thing), we won't be seeing any more trilogies

They could easily make a trilogy+ based on some of the various stories in the Silmarillion. It's not really a reference book, it's got a number of actual stories. They just read more like the Bible than a novel.