The Hobbit: SPOILERS

[Psykoma]

I was at a midnight showing, and I am glad I went when I did. It was just about everything I hoped it would be. A return to Middle-Earth in the Peter Jackson style is all I wanted, and it's what I got. Can't wait for the next 2 movies.

One thing I'm starting to wonder though is if all the complaints I hear about bad CGI and how "obvious" or "rough" it looks are just snobby poser comments made by people who want to pretend that a computer can't fool them. I mean, sure, you know that Gollum is CGI and the trolls and most of the orcs, simply because they are proportioned in a way no human could be. But that is not a legitimate reason to call bad CGI. This is about as good as CGI has ever been.

To me, as long as it looks like these unreal creatures are actually interacting with the world of the actors, it is good CGI, and I was impressed with how real it all looked. I guess the only complaint about it I might make is during the escape from the goblin lair, that was pretty clearly CGI all the way through, but it was obviously intended to be a light-hearted action adventure sequence. I have no real problem with it.

Agree with this.

The only real visual issue that gave me pause was that it seemed like bilbos feet were at least two times the size of any hobbit feet from lotr.

 

[Lionsfan]

I have to agree, and I think it's something on the part of the director. I mean, look at how he portrayed Gimli in the original trilogy. Gone is the stoic and resourceful Gimli Elf-friend, and in his place a brash, bumbling, only sometimes good in a fight Gimli the Comic-relief. It seems to me that, due to their stature and accents, Mr. Jackson seems to think that dwarves are good for little more than comic fodder. Compare that to his portrayal of elves (which isn't really his fault because Tolkien was far too kind to the Quenya himself), and you have a jarringly unfair juxtaposition. I already knew that a party full of dwarves would result in a bit too much "zany antics" for my liking, which is why I think it didn't bother me as much as it should have.

Regarding the dwarves, I thought Gimli had a bit more comic-relief than in the books, but he was still a deadly warrior in the movies. I did think they went overboard with the Legolas stuff, but it wasn't at the expense of Gimli.

I'll start out by saying I've been a Tolkien nut from before any of the movies. Hipster, I guess. Anyways, I loved the original trilogy and can quote them (I have a sad life apparently). I was very excited to see the new movie but went in knowing it wouldn't be LOTR. I've read The Hobbit a few times and it didn't enthrall me but the movie made me sad. I liked Thorin and Bilbo but the other Dwarves seemed to just be a comic relief. The fight scenes (other than the battles in Moria/Erebor) were lackluster. The movie was incredibly pretty but I hated the look of the "goblins". Azog looked decent but I think I preferred the "guys in suits". I *really* cringed with the Goblin King part and the constant comic relief was just silly. I wasn't looking for a super serious movie but it just didn't feel right to me. There were a few great sequences but overall I was seriously disappointed.

The amount of blood/gore seemed fine to me and the acting was mostly very good. I sat down with a bunch of friends and we talked the movie over - we came to the conclusion that it was a decent movie for what the source material was. I know people who just adored the movie and loved the book but to me it just didn't feel right. I'll still happily go see the others (after all, Return of the King was my favorite LOTR - heresy I know) and hope it improves.

As far as the bumbling dwarves, well that's kinda what the original book was. It was a bunch of bumbling dwarves with a hobbit in tow, who do a bunch of bumbling and silly things, yet somehow, against all logic and reasoning, find themselves in control of the mountain after Smaug's death, despite the actions of other more capable characters.

I mean just look at their names. There's Thorin, a good strong name, and the most capable dwarf. Then it's a bunch of base sounds with some extra added on for numbers. Dori, Nori, Ori, Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur. They're not really supposed to be distinguishable, and really, they're all one character, "The Other Dwarfs"

 

[Sordin]

I really really liked the film. In a way I think it might have been better than the fellowship of the ring. Now hear me out this because I have a reason. When I watched the fellowship of the ring I knew almost nothing about the world characters or mythos but now having read the books and got to understanding the lore better the film left me with a lot bigger of an impact because I could understand and connect with the characters more. I liked the CGI and the humor and my only complaint is that the screen occasionally felt a bit cluttered but that is only true for 1 or 2 scenes.

 

[RubyT]

Loved this film. To me, the LotR-trilogy is just okay. I read half of The Hobbit and found it boring. But I loved this movie.

My gripes:

- End battle is stupid. Once the fellowship killed a couple of hundred Goblins with a deathwish, I don't get the sense of urgency anymore. Apparently, Goblins are about as dangerous as fruit flies.

- Elves. Why does Peter Jackson hate them? He directs Elves insanely tedious. Galadriel is horrible. Again.

- Deus Ex MachEagles. Tolkien loves to write his protagonists into corners only Eagles can get them out of.

LOVED:

- Martin Freeman

- All the dwarves

- GOLLUM

 

[Wadders]

Have they fallen out out with Weta or something? I thought the main weakness, like many others here, was the over use of cgi in place of actors all made-up for orcs. It worked so well in LotR, so why change? I understand the proportions are an issue with the goblins and trolls, so their animation is pretty well justified.

However for the generous amount of screen time the Pale Orc got, I think they could have got an actor to play him, he just didn't feel quite right.

People are whinging about the riddle bit being over-long. It goes on for ages in the book, and I actually though it was one of the best parts of the film. You get a great idea of how deranged and pitiful Gollum really is, and Martin Freeman bosses the whole film, but he's great there too.

The light hearted tone came across really well (like Radagasts "chase" sequence), but with enough doom and gloom to fit it into the future events of middle earth. For instance I really liked the Dwarf's signing bit in Bilbo's kitchen actually, very atmospheric.

All in all a top film though

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

There wasn't a thing I thought the movie did wrong. After walking out of the theater, I reevaluated the book, and I thought that Jackson did a lot of things right. The addition of the Pale-Orc-King-Hunter-Warrior was eh... Didn't take away, but I don't think it added much more either.

 

[Macgyvercas]

I'm okay with them making this a trilogy. In all honest, I'm okay with anything that means LotR makes more money than the crap that is Twilight.

 

[The_Waspman]

Well I thought the film was a total snoozefest. The pacing of it is absolutely terrible. It feels painfully padded just to stretch it out into three films, none of the battles convince because of too much (unconvincing) cgi, it felt really disjointed and... silly. I know its based on a kids book and its supposed to be light hearted, but you can do lighthearted without resorting to being dumb. Yeah, and I found it really jarring that half of the dwarves are just people, and the other half are buried under a ton of unconvincing makeup.

And oh yes, the film had so many callbacks to the LOTR trilogy it might as well have been a fucking remake.

Overall, far too self indulgent and boring.

Credit where credit it due, Martin Freeman is good, but then I always thought that was a natural choice for Bilbo.

 

[Kyber]

I know it's a bit off topic, but are people still really complaining about the eagles in LotR? It's not a plothole, it would have been really stupid to go against the Nazgul above Mordor, i know there was a scene where the eagles showed the Nazgul what's what, but i'm pretty sure they couldn't do that while they had somebody on board. And let's not forget about Sauron's eye, it's shown that it looking at you has some pretty major effects. The plan also has some other major problems, without a distraction, i bet Sauron would order a pretty good part of his army to guard the damn volcano if he saw them coming.
OT: I loved The Hobbit, had no problems with it not so ever. Definitely my movie of the year by far, and i'm guessing the next ones will have the same honor in my opinion.

 

[Kyber]

There wasn't a thing I thought the movie did wrong. After walking out of the theater, I reevaluated the book, and I thought that Jackson did a lot of things right. The addition of the Pale-Orc-King-Hunter-Warrior was eh... Didn't take away, but I don't think it added much more either.

It did add to some things. The padding of the story to stretch it over three films, and the hilarity of Thorin thinking cutting someone's hand off means death.

I find it more unbelievable that the Orcs with their oh so known amazing knowledge of the art of medicine could save his life. Cutting of an arm has some pretty major blood veins, i say the blood loss that follows would take a mans life easily without proper medical procedure, and i doubt orcs had that, but hey, i guess it can be explained with: "He's a huge orc, so it wasn't a big deal".

 

[rwllay]

overall i enjoyed it. solid if not overly long adventure movie, my main problems being the CG Orcs, length and lack of strong characters within the Dwarves. a few other little praises / nitpicks:

- looking forward to the resolution of the Necromancer subplot
- little details like Saruman's contempt for (the wonderfully wacky) Rhadagast
- Figwit and a more subtle Elven cameo (i think) - of all the Elven riders i only saw two without helmets (presumably commanders), Elrond and a blonde elf, and to my knowledge there is only one blonde elf in Rivendell (Glorfindel) - perhaps I'm reading too much into this but who knows
- the Shire theme was overused
- they didn't extend the one bit they needed to; introducing the Dwarves (didnt need much just a line of introduction or two like the first few did)
- Gandalf not knowing the blue wizard's names made me smile
- The Goblin King in all of his glory
- Elrond's 'chamber for reading moon runes' which seems not serve any other purpose also amused me

 

[Sarah Kerrigan]

I saw it in IMAX 3D, though I will agree with the comment on How the 3D gave someone a headache. It made my head hurt afterwords, but it was still super fucking pretty and I smiled the entire time. Never done that in a movie since Avengers. I teared up a little at the beginning just being glad I was back in Middle Earth.

It was super good. Not a masterpiece, but I did adore it enough to overlook a few problems.

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

While I haven't read the book. I did find The Hobbit to be really good.

My only complaint Is that I found the dwarf introduction scene to drag on a bit. That and some of the CGI stood out a lot for me.(Mostly the Goblin king and Smog at the end)

 

[Theminimanx]

Let's just get the negative out of the way first. I don't like the heavy use of CG. While I can't call it technically bad, it did make everything look more cartoony, which I really dislike after seeing the semi-realistic visuals executed so well in LotR. Azog just didn't look anywhere near as threatening as Lurtz or Gothmog.

Can't comment on the 3D or 48fps yet, but what I will say is that everytime something moved, it became incredibly blurry. I'm not sure what caused this, and it might have something to do with me wearing real glasses under the 3d glasses, but for now, I'll reserve judgement.

I did like the acting however, Martin Freeman was a delight, and Ian McKellen was great as always. I also loved some subtle nods to the other LotR backstory. For example, there's a scene in which Galadriel agrees with Gandalf instead of Saruman, and Galadriel and Saruman excange this little look. A nice nod that if it were up to Galadriel, Gandalf would be the head of the white counsel instead of Saruman.

Also, I loved some of the camera shots that were propably ripped straight from the concept art. Erebor just looks amazing. Once again great work by Alan Lee and John Howe.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

The movie to me was a bit meh, started out good but the ending fight was just a big ball of bleugh. The ending fight reminded me a lot about the Star Wars prequels actually, that it was just too much CGI for me to care about the characters.

The rest was pretty decent though, if a bit childish.

Exactly what I was thinking. All of the action sequences seemed over the top and pointless because you knew certain characters couldn't die because they were alive later in the series. The goblin fight was such a clusterfuck of unbelievable stuff that it felt like the speeder chase at the beginning of Episode 2. How many times are people going to fall down bottomless chasms and apparently be just fine and virtually unfazed? And stop falling off of cliffs and hanging off of the edge. It's just wasting our time. The writing was much better that the Star Wars prequels, though.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Let's just get the negative out of the way first. I don't like the heavy use of CG. While I can't call it technically bad, it did make everything look more cartoony, which I really dislike after seeing the semi-realistic visuals executed so well in LotR. Azog just didn't look anywhere near as threatening as Lurtz or Gothmog.

Can't comment on the 3D or 48fps yet, but what I will say is that everytime something moved, it became incredibly blurry. I'm not sure what caused this, and it might have something to do with me wearing real glasses under the 3d glasses, but for now, I'll reserve judgement.

No, it looked that way in 2D, too. I imagine it might have something to do with the conversion of 48 fps to 24 fps, but that's just a guess. It's possible the animation was a lot more fluid in 48 fps, but I have no idea. It seems like another way it was like Star Wars Episode 2. It was trying out a new technology that most theaters weren't capable of exhibiting (in Star Wars' case, it was digital projection), but instead it looked muddy and fake when seen on regular screens.