It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Parvateshwar: I, like many other people who have posted here and other places, loved a lot of things and hated just as many. The book is a little juvenile, especially when compared to the succeeding trilogy, and the movie did seem to capture this tone but they threw in a few things from the lore that were a lot more mature. It also didn't feel like we were meeting the characters, more-so the environment and the history with a few exceptions. This was supposed to be Bilbo's story but he didn't connect, Gandalf and Thorin were always at the centre of attention. The story is supposed to be about how Hobbits are so often overlooked but it just didn't seem like Jackson was making an effort go against that. Bilbo is just there and even though the story is told through his point of view we really don't know who he is or what he is thinking from the film.
And the Dwarfs are damned annoying, even Thorin has the character of a plank of wood and sometimes they didn't scale the environments properly which made them seem more like annoying humans. It's becoming apparent why there are going to be three movies, so we can watch Gandalf defeat the Necromancer. This really was Gandalf's big story and he came off the best out of all the characters and he was always at the forefront of the action. So long as Ian McKellen is prominently featured in the next two movies then this series will be exceptional. Peter Jackson had better pray that he stays healthy otherwise he will have to depend on one of the other characters and, aside from Andy Serkis or Barry Humphries, no other main characters stood out (and so long as he follows the story we won't be seeing (hearing) those two again).
I just saw it yesterday and I already want to see it again so that says something about the impact of the film but that doesn't necessarily make it good. It's intriguing, informative and epic in scale but it's a film that was made for sequels and it is therefore inconclusive and unsatisfying.
Though I like Sylvester McCoy's acting anyway I thought he was good in this film and hope he appears again.
avatar
McDon: Though I like Sylvester McCoy's acting anyway I thought he was good in this film and hope he appears again.
The book mentioned that he helped Gandalf fight the Necromancer so we will probably be seeing him along with Christopher Lee in the next films. I'm a little worried though, this is going to be a five+ year project and some of my favourite actors in the film are over 70 (Lee is over 90!), keeping them alive and well has to be Jackon's #1 priority.
avatar
McDon: Though I like Sylvester McCoy's acting anyway I thought he was good in this film and hope he appears again.
avatar
Parvateshwar: The book mentioned that he helped Gandalf fight the Necromancer so we will probably be seeing him along with Christopher Lee in the next films. I'm a little worried though, this is going to be a five+ year project and some of my favourite actors in the film are over 70 (Lee is over 90!), keeping them alive and well has to be Jackon's #1 priority.
If anything happens they'd have to do a Dumbledore and switch mid-trilogy, bit sad since it's the older actors that are the best in the film, except for Martin Freeman and I like him from Sherlock.
Thought it was a good decision from Jackson adding him in as though he's important to the lore we'd probably never see him in a film except for an odd mention.
avatar
McDon: Though I like Sylvester McCoy's acting anyway I thought he was good in this film and hope he appears again.
avatar
Parvateshwar: The book mentioned that he helped Gandalf fight the Necromancer so we will probably be seeing him along with Christopher Lee in the next films. I'm a little worried though, this is going to be a five+ year project and some of my favourite actors in the film are over 70 (Lee is over 90!), keeping them alive and well has to be Jackon's #1 priority.
The two other movies are already in post-production. The filming is over.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1170358/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2310332/

Not sure where you get that 5+ years thing from but they are going to be released one each year at the same date.
Post edited December 16, 2012 by Faenrir
The scenes added to make the Hobbit trilogy a true prequel trilogy to the LotR movies were IMO a completely unnecessary and often poorly-executed distraction that hurt a wonderful tale rather than helped it.

I can see why modern movie goers get off on the one-liners and Pirates of the Caribbean-style action, but to me they turn the movie into a joke, which it most assuredly is not meant to be despite being a more whimsical adventure than the epic LotR.

Where they kept on the straight and narrow, I thought they nailed the Hobbit almost perfectly. The farther they stepped away, the bigger a mess it became IMO.

The casting was great. PJ and his team have traditionally done a great job finding people who make the characters memorable, and they did it again here.
avatar
xxxIndyxxx: As far as i understood the books Gandalf only suspected at that point that it was Sauron in Dol Guldur, but i could be wrong about that. I must say i always thought about it like this (thus even before wachting the movie).
This is going back a while in the thread, but I found an answer* to the question in a thread I just found on a forum I sometimes visit: The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza.

Link to the thread

Gandalf did know that it was Sauron when he sneaked in to Dol Guldur and found Thrain. He then wanted to have the White Council attack but Saruman cautioned against it and they waited.

The thread is specifically about the timeline of what is going on with the White Council scene in the movie, which is interesting as well if you care about the way the lore was handled.

*technically it isn't cited, but the forums I link to are probably the best place on the internet for a depository of Tolkien knowledge/lore, and the specific comment-writers both know their stuff from what I've read of theirs before.
Post edited December 17, 2012 by SheBear
I feel asleep about 60 pages into the book so I'm not going to bother with the movie.
avatar
keeveek: I heard it's watered down like hell. You should expect a movie about talking and walking...
That's pretty much a description of Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring and look how many awards that won.

The Hobbit story was originally aimed for kids and bed times stories. So naturally this wasn't originally intended to be anything like LotR (or the other way round). Peter Jackson did quite well in making it dark though, not as dark as LotR but its bedtime story that he had to work with.

One negative thing about the film is, it tried to explain too much. It not only spread the hobbit film into 3 different films but it also included other back-stories of middleearth that wasn't even in the book. Jackson did this to give a more bigger picture, I guess. It would be much better if he consolidated it in to one film. I'm sure it is possible.

The big battle of the 5 armies started and ended in the space of 2 paragraphs in the book. No doubt, Jackson is going to do something stupid and bring out a 2 hour long battle scene.
Saw it in 2D and thought it was great, very entertaing if you dig the material. I loved all three LoTR movies and this felt like more of the same, and because it's been almost a decade since RotK, I don't think that's a bad thing.
Critics are full of shit. That's my opinion.

EDIT: http://www.gog.com/forum/general/favorite_films_the_last_one_you_saw_recommendations/post889
Post edited December 18, 2012 by jefequeso
avatar
McDon: Though I like Sylvester McCoy's acting anyway I thought he was good in this film and hope he appears again.
avatar
Parvateshwar: The book mentioned that he helped Gandalf fight the Necromancer so we will probably be seeing him along with Christopher Lee in the next films. I'm a little worried though, this is going to be a five+ year project and some of my favourite actors in the film are over 70 (Lee is over 90!), keeping them alive and well has to be Jackon's #1 priority.
Lee is over 90????? Really?????


*looks it up*

Holy crap... you're right! Wow. He's aged remarkably well.

I'm most worried about Ian McKellen. Because I frankly couldn't see anyone else playing Gandulf, ever.
avatar
Parvateshwar: The book mentioned that he helped Gandalf fight the Necromancer so we will probably be seeing him along with Christopher Lee in the next films. I'm a little worried though, this is going to be a five+ year project and some of my favourite actors in the film are over 70 (Lee is over 90!), keeping them alive and well has to be Jackon's #1 priority.
avatar
jefequeso: Lee is over 90????? Really?????


*looks it up*

Holy crap... you're right! Wow. He's aged remarkably well.

I'm most worried about Ian McKellen. Because I frankly couldn't see anyone else playing Gandulf, ever.
Once again, filming is over already x)
And yeah, Christopher Lee is as old as it gets. Not much active actors (if any) of the same age...(and incredible filmography as well).
avatar
Faenrir: Once again, filming is over already x)
*checks IMDB*
Yeah, you're right.
Post edited December 18, 2012 by jefequeso
The mixed reviews are worrying.... I hope I enjoy this. I've disliked many movies that critics liked but usually the reverse is not true.
Thanks for all the info here i was on the fence to go and see the Hobbit. I loved LOTR but wasnt sure how they could translate the hobbit from book to film. Think i will wait for the dvd release probably the extended version like the ones they did for LOTR trilogy.