The Hobbit

[recoveryone]

Saw this lastnight, the storyline is inline with the others especially the first movie, as you see old familer faces and get new information on their connections with the fellowship.

[JohnMichael]

Saw this lastnight, the storyline is inline with the others especially the first movie, as you see old familer faces and get new information on their connections with the fellowship.


I am anxious to see it. I have read the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion. I am a fan of the movies and read the trilogy often. I am sure I will like the Hobbit.

[thekid]

I saw it on saturday and thought overall it was a very good movie. Starts a little slow but picks up steam and a solid ending considering it is the first of three movies.

It does draw from the Appendices and the Silmarillion in a few places because Tolkien himself recognized the differences in the tone of the Hobbit and the LOTR and tried to correct for it in those other sources.

I suspect the movies following this first one will gradually get a bit darker and little more in line with some of themes/conflicts portrayed in the previous LOTR movies.

Can't wait for the next installment!

[Worf101]

"The Hobbit" - Way too long... it was like running a marathon. I wondered how Mr. Jackson was going to make 3 movies out of one VERY short childrens book... now I know... One overly long intro and build-up and lots of foreshadowing of later events in TLOTRs. I got into see it for free so I ain't kickin' but so much. Still Mr. J needs a good editor.

Worf

[Feanor]

I saw it with the family on Sunday. It was really just OK, (I speak as a true Tolkien fan). Too long like Worf says, and with too many embellishments vs. the book.

Yes, some additions from the LoTR Appendices do provide useful context to the story. (It seems there are none from the Silmarilion since Jackson doesn't have rights to that book).

Among the gratuitous embellishments are scenes with the wizard, Radagast, who never appeared on person in either The Hobbit or the LoTR. In this first film there are a couple of battles with Orcs that didn't happen in the book; also, fights scenes with Orcs / Goblins are grossly hyperbolic but I suppose you have to expect this from Jackson and most film makers these days. The same for the vast and elaborate caverns of both the Dwarves and the Goblins that far exceed anything I saw in my mind's eye when I read the book.

Hardcore Tolkien fans might notice that of the Elfish swords found by Gandalf in the Troll hoard only Bilbo's "Sting" glowed blue in the presence of Orcs (or Goblins). In The Hobbit, neither "Glamdring", the sword that Gandalf took for himself, nor "Orcrist" that when to Thorin glowed blue: this is an oversight on Jackson's part since all three were made in Gondolin in the First Age.

Acting was adequate for all characters. Martin Freeman is a tad flat but otherwise makes a good, early middle-aged Bilbo; (far better than Elijah Wood as Frodo in the LoTR -- who was a travesty of the book's character). Andy Serkis was great as Gollum, especially under the improved CGI. Ian McKellen continues to make a great Gandalf.

The 3D high frame rate was pretty good, though it didn't add a whole lot IMHO. None of us experienced nausea or headaches has some apparently have. Also, I didn't notice the props and scenery looking more fake than usual which some critics complained about.

This flick comes up short of the original LoTR films (which weren't without their own issues). I give it 3/5*

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I also saw it in 3D, 48fps, and Dolby Atmos sound. Like others have said, it took a minute to ramp up the story line, but overall I loved it. I think it just as good as the LOTR movies in terms of quality of the story line. If anyone has seen the extended versions of the LOTR story, they also had pretty long ramp up times as well.

On a technical note - like Bill stated, I didn't think the sets were fake looking at all. For a mostly CGI based film, I thought the visuals were quite good. The 3D like Dolby Atmos sound was first rate, and perfectly matched the visuals in telling the story. I love the ceiling mounted channels, and am in the process of setting up my own version of Dts Neo:X sound in one of my sound rooms. It is not a easy task to tweak a 11.2 sound system.

Bill, you must not notice motion blur during fast moving scenes like I do. The high frame rate really made the picture realistic, and there was no motion blur to be found. I love this technology.

[Feanor]

I also saw it in 3D, 48fps, and Dolby Atmos sound. Like others have said, it took a minute to ramp up the story line, but overall I loved it. I think it just as good as the LOTR movies in terms of quality of the story line. If anyone has seen the extended versions of the LOTR story, they also had pretty long ramp up times as well.

On a technical note - like Bill stated, I didn't think the sets were fake looking at all. For a mostly CGI based film, I thought the visuals were quite good. The 3D like Dolby Atmos sound was first rate, and perfectly matched the visuals in telling the story. I love the ceiling mounted channels, and am in the process of setting up my own version of Dts Neo:X sound in one of my sound rooms. It is not a easy task to tweak a 11.2 sound system.

Bill, you must not notice motion blur during fast moving scenes like I do. The high frame rate really made the picture realistic, and there was no motion blur to be found. I love this technology.
I'll hasten to say that I had no problem with the technology and I'll be happy to view it anytime. Did I perceive it has a huge improvement? Well I'm not sure about that -- I might get a better appreciation if I went to see the 2D and/or standard frame rate 3D versions.

Tolkien's writing something you either love or you have no patience with. And even if you are one who loves Tolkien, you might or might not care about the the extensive background history of Arda the underlies the LoTR and The Hobbit. If you do care, you will appreciate additions from the Appendices to the LoTR, (principally Appendix A). The Hobbit novel is a bit "thin" when it comes to the history and motivation of the Dwarves, and to the mandate and tasks of Gandalf; a bit more of these things appear in the movie than in the book itself.

On the other hand, hard core Tolkien fans generally abhor additions, modifications, and major omissions to the story line, of which The Hobbit had quite a few.