The new Hobbit movie

delericho · Dec 24, 2014

It might actually be worth waiting a bit longer, and picking up the Extended Editions. I found that the added scenes improved each of the first two films quite a bit. Which was odd, given that my biggest criticism of the cinema versions was that they were too long.

(I think the explanation for this is that the added scenes adjust the pacing, so that what seemed rushed is more leisurely, and what seemed drawn out is now not so significant. Or something.)

Olgar Shiverstone · Dec 26, 2014

So, just got back from seeing this. It was visually-stunning, action packed, and entertaining, as promised.

I'm slightly let down, though. While the Hobbit movies have been a good series of movies, they aren't the great movies that the Lord of the Rings movies were. Perhaps that's because the expectations bar has been set so high. I personally think Jackson did better when he hewed more closely to the original text in intent and dialog, and Hobbit -- particularly the last two movies -- diverged significantly more than the LotR series. A closer edit could make a world of difference.

Gripes, irritations, and observations:

[sblock]
Legolas fanservice. *retch*

Alfred the comedy relief.

War sheep. Really, weren't war moose, war pigs, and war bats enough?

Tharanduil the Greedy. I prefer the wisdom of the original book quote: "Long would I tarry, ere we begin this war for gold."

Yet *another* orc beheading.

Goldmember as Dain.

Tauriel. Yeah, the series lacks female characters. But did we really need an elf-dwarf romance?

OK, why did the trolls in Movie #1 turn to stone in daylight, but the trolls in #3 don't?

Inconsistent Sting.

Orcish body modification fetish gone wild.

Despite all the fighting, Beornish badassery is largely ignored.

Radagast *still* needs to wash his face.

Rhosgobel rabbits, *again*.

Thorin descent into madness, well played.

Wizard v. Nazgul pwnage. Saved by uber-elf, *again*
[/sblock]

fjw70 · Dec 26, 2014

I saw it last weekend and really enjoyed it. The Hobbot movies aren't as good as the LotR movies but that is a really high bar. I can't think of a medieval-type fantasy movie that is better than any of the six LotR/Hobbit movies. Jackson has set a really high bar. Much like Lucas has set a really high bar for space fantasy movies with the six Star Wars movies. As far as fantasy goes these 12 movies as in a class by themselves. The Marvel movies are not too far behind though.

digitalsignage · Dec 29, 2014

I think it's the best of the 3 hobbit movies. This was the most engaging and exciting one.

Kaodi · Jan 17, 2015

I finally saw it after nearly a month. Not because I was avoiding it or anything but because I have to cajole my Sister into driving me into the city to see a movie.

I liked it. I enjoyed it. But I do not think I was really satisfied by it. I do not know if we still need a spoiler tag but whatever...

[sblock=Spoiler]I can live with them making additions to the movies, ever since we first met Tauriel I have not felt super purist or anything. But for the love of God, why does Legolas, a named LotR character who was not in the Hobbit (son of Thranduil is kinda noticeable), kill Bolg and not some combination of Tauriel and Kili? Why does Tauriel survive the movie, never to be heard from again? Why do only Fili and Kili bite it, other than Thorin himself? More named dwarves should have died. I think it cheapened the source material in a serious way for all the rest to live.

And on a completely different note, I am cool with Galadriel getting her badass moment but why does she look and sound so ghoulish doing it? Looked more like the illusion of what she would be like with the One Ring than of what she should be like with herself and one of the elven rings.[/sblock]

billd91 · Jan 17, 2015

Kaodi said:
I liked it. I enjoyed it. But I do not think I was really satisfied by it. I do not know if we still need a spoiler tag but whatever...

[sblock=Spoiler]Why do only Fili and Kili bite it, other than Thorin himself? More named dwarves should have died. I think it cheapened the source material in a serious way for all the rest to live.[/sblock]

How does maintaining the same death toll among the dwarves cheapen the source material? I thought the nature of the deaths kind of cheapened them but that's a different issue.

Kaodi · Jan 17, 2015

Suddenly I think I might have made a mistake somehow. I have the The Hobbit at least thirteen times, you would think I would be immune to mistakes, but almost all of those readings were over twelve years ago. Perhaps I was... [sblock=Spoiler]...vaguely remembering references to certain a number of dwarves fates in LotR and mistaking them for what happened in The Hobbit. For instance, I thought Bombur had died. Looking it up I now am reminded he just got fatter.[/sblock] Oops.

billd91 · Jan 17, 2015

Kaodi said:
Suddenly I think I might have made a mistake somehow. I have the The Hobbit at least thirteen times, you would think I would be immune to mistakes, but almost all of those readings were over twelve years ago. Perhaps I was... [sblock=Spoiler]...vaguely remembering references to certain a number of dwarves fates in LotR and mistaking them for what happened in The Hobbit. For instance, I thought Bombur had died. Looking it up I now am reminded he just got fatter.[/sblock] Oops.

You may have been thinking of the Rankin and Bass animated version. The death toll was higher in that one for some reason, if I recall correctly.

Dioltach · Jan 17, 2015

[MENTION=1231]Kaodi[/MENTION]: I assumed that the SFX with Galadriel had to do with her spirit power shining through. I noticed that when Bilbo put on the Ring and the world went blurry, there were some shapes shining brightly in the murk. And in Fellowship (book version), after Frodo is rescued outside Rivendell, he mentions having seen a bright figure, which Gandalf tells him is Elrond, who being an Elf lives partially in the spirit world. So my feeling is that Galadriel, existing in multiple worlds, is shown in her most powerful form as she exerts her strength.