The Hobbit : Discussion/News/Speculation

[JadedWraith]

The Hobbit was a good movie taking into account that it is the first film and is the set up movie for the rest of the series. I am very much looking forward to the next installments. That said it cannot capture the same feelings that I had when I first saw the Lord of the Rings in the theater perhaps because it is because I was younger or because I had never had a movie experience like it before. Comparing the two different films is very naive and typical of some movie writers who have never even read the novels. Just my opinion.

Yep, that's pretty much mine. I remember one critic saying "The Hobbit" plot was "too episodical". Hello! The book is episodical, what did he expect? A good critique would be something like Pj gave too much atention to that part in detriment of another that could move the story forward. Something like that I would accept. But that would imply they knew what they were talking about.

[BruTak]

Well, unless I'm reading the Odeon's website wrong, unless I go tomorrow, I've missed my chance to see The Hobbit in the HFR format.

[Teddybrown]

There's that great part at the Council of Elrond where Boromir does the speech about how Gondor has been holding back Sauron's armies and basically acting as the stopper in the bottleneck, keeping the rest of middle earth safe. It's a great performance by a fairly underrated actor

It also contains one of the most used lines for a picture now...
"One does not simply walk into Mordor"
But I do agree, he is doing what he thinks is best for Gondor.

[Raelis]

Yep, that's pretty much mine. I remember one critic saying "The Hobbit" plot was "too episodical". Hello! The book is episodical, what did he expect? A good critique would be something like Pj gave too much atention to that part in detriment of another that could move the story forward. Something like that I would accept. But that would imply they knew what they were talking about.

That's true of many critics who bashed the movie: it's really Tolkien's storyline that they had problems with, not the movie itself. One complained tha The Hobbit did not have compelling villains like Voldemort (snort). Another complained about the deus ex machina of the Eagles coming just at the right moment. Many others whined that there were too many Dwarves, and their rhyming names were stupid. Yeah, well... those guys should lay all these complaints at Tolkien's door.

Also, I don't get people complaining about Radagast and his bunny sled. Too cheesy? What will they say when in the next movie we'll meet Beorn who has so many cute animals following him around he might as well be related to Disney's Snow White? And how about taking blackbirds and crows?

[Major Clanger]

Radagast is awful - he is very powerful but more in the way of nature than the other istari who seem more esoteric to me, I really hated what they did to him. And that rabbit sled. YEUCH

Beorn isn't about the cute. I think of him in the same way as I think of Aslan "after all, he's not a tame lion". Remember Gandalf points out to the dwarfs that they shouldn't go out at night when they stay with Beorn because he is dangerous.

[Teddybrown]

That's true of many critics who bashed the movie: it's really Tolkien's storyline that they had problems with, not the movie itself. One complained tha The Hobbit did not have compelling villains like Voldemort (snort). Another complained about the deus ex machina of the Eagles coming just at the right moment. Many others whined that there were too many Dwarves, and their rhyming names were stupid. Yeah, well... those guys should lay all these complaints at Tolkien's door.

Also, I don't get people complaining about Radagast and his bunny sled. Too cheesy? What will they say when in the next movie we'll meet Beorn who has so many cute animals following him around he might as well be related to Disney's Snow White? And how about taking blackbirds and crows?

Lol, you serious? They moaned about a number that was in the book? If there had been less, it would have not been so true to The Hobbit!
I enjoyed Radagast and his rabbits!

[Prowler]

Radagast!

Heard so many people complain about how he was portrayed, saying that it was wrong, which is quite frankly idiotic as Radagast has about 5 or 6 mentions in the entirety of Tolkien's work. I think he was portrayed perfectly. Extremely odd but you could tell he had a lot of wisdom deep down.

Possibly my favourite quote from the movie came from him.

"These are Rhosgobel Rabbits, I'd like to see that try!"

[Raelis]

Lol, you serious? They moaned about a number that was in the book? If there had been less, it would have not been so true to The Hobbit!
I enjoyed Radagast and his rabbits!

Yes. There were at least three of four critics at Rotten Tomatoes who complained that there were a lot of dwarves virtually undistinguishable from each other. Actually, they do have a point here - not a lot of the dwarves were given personalities. Thorin, Kili, Fili to a lesser extent, Balin, the dwarf in the funny hat who talks to Bilbo when Bilbo tries tio leave (forgot who it was exactly). Bombur was mostly characterized by his fatness, which isn't much to go on. But again, that's exactly how it is in Tolkien's book. PJ was merely being faithful to the source material, and frankly, I found most of his dwarves a bit more memorable than Tolkien's. Perhaps the critics wanted PJ to reduce the number of the dwarves? Imagine the cries of the Tolkienites (who still haven't forgiven PJ for cutting the Scouring of the Shire or Tom Bombadil.) By the way... I wonder if there's a chance we will actually see Bombadil in one of the next movies. PJ is taking some liberties with the book already. He included Radagast, so so why the hell not include Tom as well?

And Radagast had me when I saw him trying to heal that poor hedgehog. I found them both adorable.

[Prowler]

Is it just me who thought the name for the hedgehog was amazing?!

Sebastian!

[Morgania]

I wonder if they'll leave that seen at Beorn's where Gandalf is talking while all the Dwarves coming one or two at a time. That always amused me in the book.

[BruTak]

Finally got to see The Hobbit in the HFR format.

It works well for the most part IMO, but it looks really weird on handheld shots. Like it's a YouTube video that's got stuck buffering, then suddenly snaps back to catch up.

[Brother Freyr]

That's true of many critics who bashed the movie: it's really Tolkien's storyline that they had problems with, not the movie itself. One complained tha The Hobbit did not have compelling villains like Voldemort (snort). Another complained about the deus ex machina of the Eagles coming just at the right moment. Many others whined that there were too many Dwarves, and their rhyming names were stupid. Yeah, well... those guys should lay all these complaints at Tolkien's door.

Yup. Tokein wrote The Hobbit for a child, and it remains a children's story at its heart. They're wrong to fault PJ & the film on those points. My complaint is that it's simply too damn long. PJ seems to have forgotten how to cut.

[Morgania]

I wonder, are the other two movies going to be that long? There is still a bit to cover in the second movie (maybe), but I don't think the third needs to be that long (or exist, even).

[Prowler]

Yes, all movies will be around about the same length, as Jackson has said, he wants to cover everything possible and because the appendices are rather vague, he obviously is going to have to embellish a little.

[Teddybrown]

Radagast!

Heard so many people complain about how he was portrayed, saying that it was wrong, which is quite frankly idiotic as Radagast has about 5 or 6 mentions in the entirety of Tolkien's work. I think he was portrayed perfectly. Extremely odd but you could tell he had a lot of wisdom deep down.

Possibly my favourite quote from the movie came from him.

"These are Rhosgobel Rabbits, I'd like to see that try!"

Same here, I loved that line! And yeah, I think Radagast was portrayed well.

Yes. There were at least three of four critics at Rotten Tomatoes who complained that there were a lot of dwarves virtually undistinguishable from each other. Actually, they do have a point here - not a lot of the dwarves were given personalities. Thorin, Kili, Fili to a lesser extent, Balin, the dwarf in the funny hat who talks to Bilbo when Bilbo tries tio leave (forgot who it was exactly). Bombur was mostly characterized by his fatness, which isn't much to go on. But again, that's exactly how it is in Tolkien's book. PJ was merely being faithful to the source material, and frankly, I found most of his dwarves a bit more memorable than Tolkien's. Perhaps the critics wanted PJ to reduce the number of the dwarves? Imagine the cries of the Tolkienites (who still haven't forgiven PJ for cutting the Scouring of the Shire or Tom Bombadil.) By the way... I wonder if there's a chance we will actually see Bombadil in one of the next movies. PJ is taking some liberties with the book already. He included Radagast, so so why the hell not include Tom as well?

And Radagast had me when I saw him trying to heal that poor hedgehog. I found them both adorable.

I do agree that the Tolkienites wouldnt have liked Jackson for leaving a dwarf out, and Im sorta half half about the scourging of the Shire.
I also agree about some of the dwarves being more memorable than others.

And yes! Sebastien the Hedgehog nearly got me too!

Is it just me who thought the name for the hedgehog was amazing?!

Sebastian!

Great name for a hedgehog!