The Hobbit movie

the_monkey

Hi,
I watched the Hobbit last night and was really surprised at how good it was, because the book was
so short I was wondering how they were going to spread this over 3 films, but I really liked the filling
in the backstory- I don't remember the book well (its been 10 years + since I read it) but the points
about the Necromancer (Sauron) was not in the Hobbit ? - The Silmarillion maybe ?

Anyway great ending and now really looking forward to part II.

I notice Bernard Cumberbatch is credited as the Necromancer , does he play a big part in JRR Tolkien's other works ?

Also what about that Orc Azog ? I can't remember if he was in the book or not ?

And will Gollum be in the next films ? I'd imagine so, but is the Tolkien universe he should not
show up now untill LOTR I ??

shockwave

I thought it was pretty good too but making it a trilogy is really milking it in fairness.

the_monkey

All depends what the content is, if it's real Tolkien story and not embellished modern stuff then it could be good.

I thought 2hr50mins for the 1st would be milking it, but was pleasantly surprised.

But yeah, maybe one more 3hr film would be enough !!

Judging by the titles of II and III seems II will be the rest of the Hobbit book, I'm not sure what they'll put in III.

5starpool

I was pretty damn disappointed by it, tbh.

the_monkey

And another thing, flicking through the book here , where was Beorn ?

you'd think with 2hrs 50 mins they'd have time for him _somewhere_ ?

Nody

the_monkey wrote: »

And another thing, flicking through the book here , where was Beorn ?

you'd think with 2hrs 50 mins they'd have time for him _somewhere_ ?

Moved to movie 2; also disapointed with it to be honest (esp. the scene with the trolls).

Sleepy

I'm not a Tolkien fan but tbh, my favourite part of the movie was the trailer: the dwarves singing.

The rest was pretty awful imo, other half fell asleep during it.

the_monkey

I think it's a film you would need to have read at least Lord Of The Rings to enjoy, otherwise the parts referencing the necromancer would mean nothing ...

keane2097

Peter Jackson's history as a B movie horror director really came to the surface in this one. How they managed to cram 3x too much rubbish into what should have been three hours to cover about 80 pages worth of text but the characters basically spent the entire film falling out of one hole and into another without a moment's breath in between.

You got the impression that all the locations were within about five miles of each other. Whole thing was a mess.

Playboy

Thought it was great personally. Was well paced and didnt drag imo. Liked the bits they added and glad its going to be 3 movies if the next two are as good as this one. Saw it in IMAX 3D at 48 fps and it was visually one of the most amazing things I have ever seen. Cant really understand peoples negativity.. was easily as good as the LOTR

Lukehandypants

Milking the whole middle earth thing to death.
I love the books lord of the rings, the hobbit.
But three films from one slim volume seems a bit much.
I was into the idea of the films when guillermo del toro was involved and it was only gonna be two films but as soon as he left the project (to make Pacific rim job which sucked) and it became three films I was like this stinks and smells of money grabbing.
I went to see the first hobbit film because it was 3d imax hfr because u just have to see it, but I was bored off my head, the dwarves were crap and dull, the eye gouging lame cgi just made the whole thing worse.
I'm not goin to see the second one in the cinema because I just can't be bothered to sit through three hours of dwarves and dull cgi.

Dades

It really would be one brilliant 3 hour movie had they done it that way.

That said, Middle Earth is such a special place I'm happy that we'll get to see it through Peter Jackson's lens for two more movies. It can't be argued that he did an incredible job in LOTR. Also, it can't take anything from the book which I wore out my copy of in the 80s.

Happy to go along for the ride, bitch about the bits I don't like, but enjoy the visuals that cinema has to offer.

I thought Benedict Cumberbatch was Smaug, no?

mcgovern

Dades wrote: »

I thought Benedict Cumberbatch was Smaug, no?

I think he will be Smaug and the Necromancer

OwaynOTT

It was okay. They really could have used some other Tolkien material to milk the cash cow though.

beauf

I love the LOTR books but they are overly long winded. The LOTR movies likewise could do with a lot of boring stuff taken out and more interesting stuff put in that they left out from the books. I think they treated LOTR material with too much reverence. The hobbit was better paced. But still could be more tightly edited.

Nody

beauf wrote: »

I love the LOTR books but they are overly long winded. The LOTR movies likewise could do with a lot of boring stuff taken out and more interesting stuff put in that they left out from the books. I think they treated LOTR material with too much reverence. The hobbit was better paced. But still could be more tightly edited.

Better paced? They take ONE book consisting of about 300 pages and turn it into a 6h movie while LoTR is about 1000 pages and is a 9h movie (extended edition)...

If anything the Hobbit movies are boringly long with way to little happening (and don't even get me started on their "oh lets add action scenes because it will be cool in 3d" attitude). After having watched the second movie I can safely say the third one I'm not even going to bother with as it's a waste of my time.

beauf

As you say yourself they've padded out the Hobbit with more action. But my point was they are both needed better editing.

The LOTR had lots of scenes of nothing happening at all. Not that you want a Tolkien die hard movie. But its seriously indulgent and it adds nothing IMO.

endacl

The second hobbit movie was at least a thousand times better than the first. In all regards. In other words, it was ok-ish, a little too long, but the dragon was cool.

Also, elf-chick was hot.

Roll on film three. I anticipate an improvement from 'ok-ish' to 'not bad'. More from hot elf-chick would be a good move. Maybe just skip straight to what they'll include on the deluxe edition DVD in the 'hot elf chick' extra. About 10-15 minutes would be spot on. Perfect as a preview before a good movie.

the culture of deference

The Picture and audio are perfect. As for the movie .... someone should have stood up to jackson and said WTF are you doing.

Hopefully at some stage in the future someone will issue a 1 movie directors cut of the trilogy.