The Hobbit (Dec 14, 2012/Dec 13, 2013/Dec 16, 2014)

[Ohemgee]

I loved it. Can't wait for the collectors edition (if they have one).

[Grey Jorildyn]

Yeah if you thought the theatrical release was long, just wait for the extended cut. It's gonna be 3.5 hours long, with just an extra hour of them walking, talking, and burping. I fully expect the total-afterthought storm giants scene to be at least 5 minutes longer in that version too.

[Arauge]

Enjoyed the movie, saw it in regular 2D and there were still a lot of places where it felt like the effects were falling apart. Not sure how much it can be blamed on the HFR 3D.

[Melena]

Saw it yesterday in IMAX 3D with the hfr and enjoyed it. Took a little while to adjust to the added realism though. I will admit some scenes really looked like they were straight from a PC Benchmark tech demo.

[Ohemgee]

I'm not reading through the recent pages but, I can expect a lot of people to be disappointed by this movie. Prior to seeing it yesterday, I never watched a trailer, I never looked at the promo shots (except the character profiles), and I knew this movie will be a lot more "adventurous" based on the source material.

Having said that:

Pro's:

Spoiler: show

1(t). Martin Freeman - Incredible Bilbo bagginses
1(t). Richard Armitage: Probably the most believable setup for Thorin (Balin's story at the first camp + the intro)
2. Sylvester Fucking McCoy: Bad ass/odd wizard and time lord. He's everything how I imagined the character to be and probably my favorite adaptation
3. All of the Dwarf flashbacks to Erebor + recapturing Moria = fucking nerdgasm. I struggled to imagine a lot of the Dwarf kingdoms
4. There was so much background lore that really felt organically placed, rather than shoe horned in. Ungoliant, Dol Goldur and how the Nazgul came to be, 5 wizards, Tharanduil
5. The music. Howard Shore is brilliant. A lot of rehashes, but it makes sense to have the same score for the Ring when Bilbo finds it
6. Characterization of the Dwarfs that really matter. I don't think Bofur had a line in the movie, but its to the movies benefit.
7. Gandalf uses magic.

Con's

Spoiler: show

1. Wtf at Lady galadriel insta warping?
2. The movie did live up to what I remember the story to be. This really should be a pro, but it felt like a violent children's film
3. The movie felt its length at times, especially in bilbo's house. There were some moments that felt like it could of been excluded, but it shows off the dwarves personality, which is good for the time being, but the same people will eventually die.
4. The fucking bitch who kept coughing in the movie theater. Fucking seriously, if you know if you have a terrible cough, dont go to a fucking movie theater and ruin everyones movie. Fucking cunt.

That being said, the movie felt a bit rushed compared to its LotR counterpart. The first movie should always be slow, dry, and boring to establish the remaining parts of a trilogy. Towards the end of this movie it really wanted pick up the pace and rush in to the next part without a real reason. I can ignore the CGI, because in the end the acting of the "real" actors felt more organic than stale and boring like the Star Wars prequels.

Towards the end (especially in Goblin Town), I came across a thought - "Oh god is this Peter Jackson's Phantom Menace" - then I realized that the source material is too solid to fuck up, and that any minor alterations to tell the narrative was ok. Unlike Star Wars which completely undermined the original trilogy.

[Tyrath]

The first movie should always be slow, dry, and boring to establish the remaining parts of a trilogy.

Why would anyone wish such a thing? I was okay with the faster pacing. Theres nothing wrong with the first movie letting you enjoy IT too and not just be a build up for the next one.

[Ohemgee]

Why would anyone wish such a thing? I was okay with the faster pacing. Theres nothing wrong with the first movie letting you enjoy IT too and not just be a build up for the next one.

Because it establishes everything for the second movie (typically the darkest of the film, loss of established characters, they're put in a shitty place) and third film (resolution, ultimate sacrifice, pay off). The first movie of most planned trilogies shouldn't always follow that format, but it makes sense for a Hobbit trilogy to be slow and dry (or in this case, throw a bunch of backstory in to the main plot). If you took a true adaptation of the book, this would be two movies that felt like rushed pieces of crap.

[Tyrath]

The first movie can establish something while still being enjoyable itself. The movie did so just fine. That is not what I asked though. I asked why does it have to be slow, dry, and boring to establish future movies? Because this movie was fun as hell and I left the movie theater really wanting it to be next year because the next movie is going to be that much more awesome with the addition of Smaug.

[Ohemgee]

Well I think we both have the same sentiment to the movie, because I found it to be exciting and enjoyable to watch.

My comments were concerning people who felt that it was too talky and less actiony (there were a few people who felt that way when they left the movie). But to reiterate, a trilogies beginning must be slow to establish the remaining movies (which is credit to Tolkien at this point).

[Rhyis.]

Spoiler: show

1. Wtf at Lady galadriel insta warping?

Spoiler: show

I haven't seen the movie yet, but Galadriel is the keeper of one of the 3 magic elven rings (Gandalf and Elrond have the other two). She's also one of the few first age elves still alive. Basically Galadriel is a super hax elf with magic powers, which is rare in the third age. Elrond is a pussy in comparison.

[Rulke]

About pacing of the 3 movies.

I think some people forget (especially in LOTR) that Tolkien wrote it was 1 single story originally. Thus, like any good book, the plot gains shape and depth the farther into the book you read. The Hobbit is a single book, really with no 'breaks' in it like LOTR, so all the epic stuff will happen in the latter half of the 2nd movie and well into the 3rd. I think Jackson said too that he made LOTR (and so I would assume Hobbit too) as a single 9 hour movie. So same idea applies.

[Ohemgee]

Spoiler: show

I haven't seen the movie yet, but Galadriel is the keeper of one of the 3 magic elven rings (Gandalf and Elrond have the other two). She's also one of the few first age elves still alive. Basically Galadriel is a super hax elf with magic powers, which is rare in the third age. Elrond is a pussy in comparison.

Spoiler: show

I thought the same thing too, but really? Its still baffling how that specific scene went down. It kind of made Gandalf's powers seem obsolete. Galadriel is a very very complex character (given the Noldor's history). To the audience, if she had those powers, why isn't she using them often to help out Thorin's Company / The fellowship? - to me it was very strange to see her off like that. Also, I never liked Cate Blanchett as Galadriel for some reason

@Ruike

Pacing is important to stretch these stories out. So far I think Peter Jackson has done well with the hobbit. LotR is too easy to follow since the books also indicated the same kind of flow to it. The hobbit is one shorter story than LotR. To me, every time I think of Lord of the Rings, I always remember -those- moments (and especially the music - Fucking howard shore is brilliant).

[-Zer0-]

and especially the music - Fucking howard shore is brilliant

Yesssssss. After hearing some of his pieces for The Hobbit, I really can't wait to see what he's got in store for us with the next two films. It's going to be tits.

[Rhyis.]

Spoiler: show

I thought the same thing too, but really? Its still baffling how that specific scene went down. It kind of made Gandalf's powers seem obsolete. Galadriel is a very very complex character (given the Noldor's history). To the audience, if she had those powers, why isn't she using them often to help out Thorin's Company / The fellowship? - to me it was very strange to see her off like that. Also, I never liked Cate Blanchett as Galadriel for some reason

Spoiler: show

She's an elf, therefore only cares about herself. That's how Tolkien rolls. You know that super awesome forest village of hers? Maintained entirely from her ring and magic powers. Shits wack... I've always liked Blanchett as that role simply because her face always has a regal smugness to it, which carries well to an elf queen sorceresses.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Just got home from seeing this. I loved it... but the movie was made even more awesome by one simple fact: One of my friends looks exactly like Ori. He even makes the same expression as Ori has on the promo poster. So any time there was a shot involving Ori, our whole group burst out laughing. It was almost always appropriate, too. "I don't like green food." "Do they have any chips?"

Edit: Extremely mild disappointment:

Spoiler: show

There was no dialogue with the Eagles. I don't remember it that well, but I do remember Thorin being somewhat upset that the Eagles wouldn't take them further, and the Eagles essentially saying "We're not your fucking taxis." I've always wanted the Eagles to be explained a bit more in the movies, because it's easy for people who haven't read the books to think they're just animals, as opposed to the sentient beings they are in the books.

[Apelila]

Spoiler: show

I'm expecting the movies to go similarly to your first idea, but then show many of the events that come between the hobbit and Fellowship. They had said at a few points they wand the end of the third to lead pretty directly into fellowship. I was expecting the 2nd movie to probably lead up to finding the door, possibly even including Bilbo's conversation with Smaug, with the third movie being the conclusion of the necromancer, death of Smaug, battle of the five armiles (with Azog leading them instead of Bolg) and then into a depection of the events that followed, such as Saurons return to Mordor, ect

Oh yeah, I forgot that the necromancer<>Sauron has to be tied up. They just 'dealt' with the necromancer in "The Hobbit" without getting into what it was.

[Tyrath]

Can someone explain the necromancer thing to me. I don't really remember the Hobbit book at all so I can't recall which bits of this were in the book and which weren't.

Spoiler: show

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Sauron

But this site says that Sauron/Necromancer was driven out of Dol guldur in TA 2851. But Sauron's downfall is in TA 3019. The Hobbit takes place 60 years before LotR. So how can the necromancer thing happen during the Hobbit?

[Ohemgee]

Can someone explain the necromancer thing to me. I don't really remember the Hobbit book at all so I can't recall which bits of this were in the book and which weren't.

Spoiler: show

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Sauron

But this site says that Sauron/Necromancer was driven out of Dol guldur in TA 2851. But Sauron's downfall is in TA 3019. The Hobbit takes place 60 years before LotR. So how can the necromancer thing happen during the Hobbit?

Sauron had Barad Dur rebuilt during/after he was driven out in TA 2851. During that time he (Gandalf) found Thrain (father of Thorin) and received the map+key to Erebor. After the white council raid, I'm not exactly too sure what happens, but he manages to become the Necromancer and finds a way to summon the Nazgul (a la the Radagast scene when he revists the area)

[Tyrath]

Oh, hmm. Thought the movie said the Necromancer was in Dol Guldor. I might've confused the names.

[Ohemgee]

It's not entirely explained well.

But I found out that Manu Bennett (Crixus) is the pale Orc. Then everything made sense