The Hobbit- A 30 second or less review (Depends on how fast you read).

And of course we need to add this:

I am not going to post any real details til others have seen it and commented.....

i always get the names mixed up but cool feet

Karen, I have almost the same credentials as you.
I have read every book by Tolkien. While I am not as fanatic as some of my friends were growing up,they learned to read and write in the Elvish languages, you are probably one of the few that I agree knows as much about Tolkien's mythology as I do. I've even visited a site or two you have made.
That being said, I admit I am a purist.
You can say Tolkien has been a major part of my life for over forty years.

Jackson made three fine movies that he called LOTR, but they were not the story of LOTR. Three books into three movies.

Now he is reportedly making one book into three movies. After seeing what he did to LOTR,I was skeptical about The Hobbit but went in WANTING to see he be more true to Tolkien. He wasn't. Instead he was true to Jackson.

I didn't say it here,but I posted elsewhere that I was not going into detail about the movie til others have had a chance to see the movie,because I want them to decide on their own.

I'm wondering if we saw the same movie? The real problem was, as you yourself say,
" it was about Peter Jackson". This much is very true. At his finest? I don't agree with that at all. Showing all of his excesses? Definitely. Sadly the only news things in the movie were also the worst..

I'm going to guess what you call humour I saw as bad attempts at comedy/humour which is NOT in the book.

Oh,he had some breathe taking scenes, but we had already seen them in LOTR.

And I especially liked his version of Jabba the Hut. Oh,wait wrong movie. I wish I could say I laughed at that too,but it wasn't funny, just pathetic.

Anyway. Everyone is entitled (and welcomed) to their opinion,and I hope others post theirs here too.

I also can't wait for part two,and if it gets what it deserves,it will go straight to video. But it won't,because people love Jackson's movie making more that Tolkien's writings.

Yes, I complained about how he messed up LOTR,and now I am complaining about how he messed up The Hobbit.

Yes,I am a purist and proud of it.


By the way,Jacskon's version of King Kong sucked too.

The best movie Peter Jackson ever made was Dead Alive (Braindead)

By the way,I've seen other bad versions of both The Hobbit and parts of LOTR.




And this one by Ralph Bashki,creeator of Fritz The cat.
Much better than the Rankin/bass version in my opinion and not too bad considering the time period is was done.
He didn't do the trilogy though,only The Return Of The King.

Interestingly enough,here is a comment someone left on this video:

"And no1 should even try to claim Jackson didnt copy parts of this movie, because he surely did. Some scenes are almost identical, if not else just as a tribute to this movie (as he has said himself how much he loves this one)."


http://www.imdb.com/find?q=The+Hobbit&s=all

Some might find this interesting,though it isn't about the movie:
'Hobbit' House In Pennsylvania Would Make Bilbo Baggins Feel At Home

Kim,

Like you and Karen, I am a (almost) lifelong Tolkien fan. I loved the books, and also love the films. (I haven't seen The Hobbit" yet as it doesn't open here until the 26th).

The thing about the books though is they are, in Tolkien's own words, unfilmable.

Scenes like The Council Of Elrond would just be a shambles if they were committed to the screen the were they are in the book.

I think the ending to ROTK film would be something the Tolkien would've disapproved of. I would've preferred the film to end with The Scouring Of The Shire as did the book. However, the Hobbits returning to the Shire where everyone was blissfully unaware of the great events that had just happened, works as well.

Also the romance between Aragorn and Arwen was upgraded for the film due to it would''ve been difficult to make filmgoers understand the coronation and wedding scene if the romance had been ignored the way it was in most of the book(s).

I guess there are three types of people: Ones that loved the book(s) and hated the movies; Ones that hated the books but loved the movies, and (my category) ones that love both.

I guess there's also another category as well - ones that hate both the books and the movies, but why would anyone want to bother with them.

Anyway, I'll be at the very first session on January 1, 2013 to see the first installment of The Hobbit, probably the 3d version.

I made sure that I did the same thing for the LOTR films, making sure that the very first activity I did in each respective year was to see the LOTR.

I'll add my review to this thread on Jan 2 (or thereabouts).

While I can see why you say that,I disagree, On first reading I thought so too,but I've rad the trilogy at least 20-25 times and my opinion changed to where I felt it was very important to what he was saying.

I've said over and over Jackson made some good films,they just aren't the story of the LOTR.

Anyone that has not read any of the books could sit down and watch then,with no preconceived notions,and find all three well well made,and for the most part a cohesive story.

As someone said before, it is probably mostly us "purists" that find fault with the movies,both LOTR and The Hobbit.

To each their own.

Peter Jackson's 'The Hobbit' Stays Faithful To Original Book, Denny's Menu | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Dead/Alive reminded me of a film with Billy Connolly where zombies are kept as pets, Fido.

Still waiting,Whateverpedia...

"I guess though if sweeping panoramas of natural beauty don't appeal to you then you just won't get into it."

I actually love the beauty of the land,but that was one of my problems. Jackson has done "the sweeping panorama" so many times in these movies that it just looks contrived now,
Veering off the story is one of my complaints,as it was with LOTR, but with The Hobbit,it is just the fact that we have seen it all before, and done better in his LOTR movies.

OK, so here it is (finally).

Making the Middle Earth film series this way around (ie TLOTR first, Hobbit second) was always going to be fraught with danger. In book format TLOTR is a lot stronger than its prequel, and so it is with the movies (so far).

From what I've read about The Hobbit (TH) movies, Jackson intends for them to fill in the back story for TLOTR, and turn the whole lot into a 15-20 hour movie. This is why TH begins at more or less the same point that TLOTR movies begin, with Bilbo sitting in his hole writing about his "adventure". In fact I got the impression that TH begins about half an hour before TLOTR kicks off. In the opening scene of TH, Frodo (who isn't even mentioned in the book) is shown as going off to wait for Gandalf while Bilbo continues to write.

He then gives viewers a background on dwarves and the building of Erebor. I have to say that Weta Workshops have lived up to the reputation they earned in TLOTR in the visual image of Erebor. I always had a firm mental picture of what places looked like while reading the books, but their vision of Erebor (just as it did with Rivendell and Lothlorien) was way better than anything even my imagination could come up with. It then recounts the story of the coming of Smaug to Erebor and the downfall of the Dwarves, and especially provides an explanation of why the Dwarves mistrust the Elves so much.

It then goes back 60 years and we see the younger Bilbo played by Martin Freeman (the older Bilbo is once again played by Ian Holm), and from then on it's pretty true to the book. Gandalf visits Bilbo and decides that Bilbo would make a suitable companion on the Dwarves campaign to reclaim Erebor.

The Dwarves arrive, and once again, the next part is pretty true to the book. Eventually they're off on the "adventure".

Here we get some of tagiscom's favourite moments as it shows the 15 companions (13 Dwarves, Bilbo and Gandalf) trudging across "Middle Earth" (better known to the rest of us as New Zealand). Incidentally, I view these scenes as necessary story telling devices to show the viewer just how big a journey they're actually making. This ain't a walk around the neighbourhood folks.

After some "trudging" they eventually come to the Trollshaws, and what happens there is once again pretty true to the book.

Then they encounter Radagast The Brown, a wizard who concerns himself with all manner of creatures, who has discovered that the malevolent force residing in Dol Goldur is the Necromancer. It's not giving away too much to disclose that the Necromancer is in fact Sauron before he regains his strength and ventures off to Mordor to rebuild Barad-Dur.

Next they come to Rivendell, and what takes place there is the biggest departure from the books. There is a gathering there that comprises Elrond, Gandalf, Galadriel and Saruman, who are discussing the implications of the Necromancer and the Witch King Of Angmar (the Captain of the Nazgul in TLOTR) and how they are going to deal with them.

This is covered briefly in the book of TH, where Gandalf goes off to a meeting of the White Council and eventually drive the Necromancer out of Dol Goldur. It is this part which leads me to the belief that the TH movies are meant to fill in the complete back story to TLOTR movies. More on that later.

Then it's off to the Misty Mountains where there is another slight departure from the book. The book tells of how while they are crossing the mountains, they can hear in the distance "giants causing mischief" by tossing boulders around. You'll have to see the movie to see how that scene is depicted.

From there the rest of the movie is once again, pretty true to the book. The companions are captured by goblins, except Bilbo who has his own encounter with Gollum, and comes into possession of the One Ring (to rule them all).

Eventually they all escape from under the mountains, but get trapped by the goblins outside. When all looks lost, the Eagles fly in to rescue them and take them to their eyrie where they catch a glimpse of their goal, the lonely mountain of Erebor.

And that's where part one ends.

Now, back to what I was saying before about how Jackson is using TH to complete the tale of the "great events" that bring about the end of the Third Age of Middle Earth.

The scenes featuring Radagast and the White Council meeting at Rivendell are setting this up to be continued in parts 2 and 3 of TH (The Desolation Of Smaug and There And Back Again respectively).

I get the impression that part 2 will continue these threads whilst telling the main story of the downfall of Smaug and the reclaiming of Erebor, while part 3 will expand on the threads and tell of the expulsion from Dol Guldur of the Necromancer/Sauron and the build up to the events told of in TLOTR.

Anyway, I hope I haven't given too much away for those who haven't seen, but want to see, the movie, as well as answering Kim's question(s) about what I thought of it.

I'm giving it 4 out of 5.

Ah,while we disagree on the movie and how true it was to the book, good review.

Some quick comments. Yes,the "mountains" is a part I really disliked and thought was terribly done.
Radagast was made to be some sort of clown, and his depiction again was something not true to the book at all imo.

The "trudging" while a good device,had been over done in the 3 previous movies,which was my complaint. The landscape itself is beautiful and I would love to visit before I pass.

Thanks for the review, Whateverpedia.