The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey reactions (SPOILERS)

[Zaukrie]

I did not like the giant scene at all...but I liked Radaghast quite a bit, actually. That's the difficulty of art, right?

 

[Sammael]

Saw it again tonight (just not in 3D). The introductory part (first hour or so) seemed much longer than on the first viewing. My friends who saw it with me (and fans of Tolkien's work in general) did not like it very much, they sad it was too long, with too many pointless scenes, and that roughly 50% of the movie could have been cut without much loss. I heard a lot of people in the theater comment that the movie sucked except for the soundtrack.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Just came back from seeing it. Did not feel overlong to me while I was in it, however, I don't think it would have done any harm at all to have trimmed it closer to 2 hours than 3. There's no reason THIS film needed to match the running times of LotR - which almost needed to be longer. I thought the non-canonical sequences fit just fine with the overall storytelling requirements but pacing IS a bit of a problem in this film.

Don't want to be overly critical before seeing how it fits with the other two movies. That is, certain inadequacies in each of the three can be excused more easily when viewed as being only 1/3 of the FULL story.

In general it feels like a less epic movie than any part of the LotR trilogy because the book was less epic, reading more like a childrens book than the much more mature and deep novels written as Professor T. vastly expanded the scope of his universe.

 

[RangerWickett]

Remember how I said The Hobbit would suck? That Peter Jackson had gotten too obsessed with visuals over story, like George Lucas? That the stretching of it into three movies would ruin something that was a wonderful children's story?

I have never been more wrong in my whole life. (okay, mild hyperbole)

I had a lot of fun. Can I borrow the DVD of the next installment from someone please? Now sure, I would have cut the Frodo stuff at the beginning, and I wish there'd been a better segue to introduce us to Radagast. And yeah, some scenes are redundant. No need to show so many orcs saying, "ooh, those nasty dwarves we're SOOO gonna attack them soon." But man, with the full understanding that it's geared more toward 13-year-olds than adults, I liked it.

Mountain giants might have been bizarre, but they are SO going into one of my games.

Plus, the Star Trek preview in front of it was excellent.

 

[RangerWickett]

Oh, and Lady Galadriel is a lot less impressive when you realize her fey step only teleports her 25 feet. So she vanishes from Gandalf and has to hide until he walks away so he thinks she really vanished.

 

[Mark CMG]

Plus, the Star Trek preview in front of it was excellent.

Yeah, loved that too.

 

[cavalier973]

Well, The Hobbit isn't Lord of the Rings, and that's a good thing. Jackson's LOTR is an abomination deserving only contempt and censure. The very idea of Faramir trying to steal the ring from Frodo!

In any case, it appears that Jackson was able to hire an actor who can credibly portray a hobbit, and who is the right age, to boot. Elijah Wood was far too young for Frodo. The dwarves are differentiated nicely, though there are too many of them for each to have a shining moment. They also got a boost to their stats, apparently, because they kick tail hard just about every fight they get into. In the book, they were often rather useless.

The Bilbo/Gollum scene is nicely handled. The addition of one sentence ("You told me to ask you a question, so there it is.") helped, I think, make Gollum's (initial) acceptance of the last riddle a little more credible; Bilbo was throwing it back onto Gollum for pressuring him.

I didn't mind the over-the-top rock giant scene, nor the over-the-top Radagast the Brown scene. I think it was because I went into the theater expecting cheesy goodness, and got that, plus some really good movie squeezed in there, too. The changes he made to character actions were improvements, I think, unlike in LOTR, where the changes didn't make any sense (Faramir trying to steal the ring from Frodo? Oh, come on!!!).

So, I recommend seeing The Hobbit, and have, for the present, taken Peter Jackson off my "We hates it forever, preciousssss!!!" list.

 

[GSHamster]

It was good, but it could have been much better. Jackson should have cut ruthlessly. It was a very indulgent movie.

The thing is that if he had cut more here, the story would have ended much farther along. Pretty much cut an hour out this movie, and fill it with what will be in the second movie. Honestly, as heretical as this sounds, I might even have cut the troll scene. It took up a lot of time, and really didn't accomplish much in the way of storytelling.

The same thing with this pale orc nonsense. Does anyone really give a damn about Thorin and some random orc? The story is Smaug and the Mountain, and Jackson should have kept his eye on the heart of the story.

The other problem was that it felt very much: Dwarves get in trouble, then deus ex machina. Repeat. The times the movie got away from this pattern was much better.

I also found it interesting how Tolkein grew as a writer. It's really hard to differentiate the dwarves, so when he wrote LotR, he went to some length to have each member of the Fellowship be very distinct.

Edit: Also the Star Trek preview. I'll see the movie, but the trailer really made it feel like a generic superhero movie to me. Didn't have anything "Star Trek-ish" about it.

 

[MarkB]

I enjoyed it a great deal on first viewing, but I suspect I'll be skipping through much of the prologue on DVD.

For the Lord of the Rings movies, I always looked forward to the extended Director's Cuts. For The Hobbit, while I'll enjoy them in their full form, I'd also rather like to see an "Author's Cut" which focuses more closely upon the events of the novel, and holds more closely to Bilbo as viewpoint character.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Oh, and Lady Galadriel is a lot less impressive when you realize her fey step only teleports her 25 feet. So she vanishes from Gandalf and has to hide until he walks away so he thinks she really vanished.

LOL *snort*. "My lady, why are you hiding behind that column?"

The other problem was that it felt very much: Dwarves get in trouble, then deus ex machina. Repeat. The times the movie got away from this pattern was much better.

Frankly, that's less of a problem with the adaptation than with the source material. There's a lot of deus ex in The Hobbit, especially given that Tolkien's favorite gets used twice (the Eagles).

For the Lord of the Rings movies, I always looked forward to the extended Director's Cuts. For The Hobbit, while I'll enjoy them in their full form, I'd also rather like to see an "Author's Cut" which focuses more closely upon the events of the novel, and holds more closely to Bilbo as viewpoint character.

Agreed. As good as it was, I think it's crying out for a cut-down version for comparison. With a nip-and-tuck down to the original material, I'll bet it could pick the pace up while maintaining the majority of the narrative. I'm sure someone out in internet land will do one as soon as digital copies of the movie become widely available.