Peter Jackson to direct "The Hobbit"

[Johnny Unusual]

Couldn't use Hobgoblins or Blobbits?  Where was your head at, Asylum?

[Relaxing Dragon]

For reasons unknown, it was released here today, a full two days ahead of the US. So I hopped on the train to the only theater nearby playing it in IMAx 48FPS 3D, because if I was gonna see this puppy, I was gonna do it with the works.

In short, I liked it. I didn't love it, but I liked it.

It's biggest issue is that it feels its length. Much has been said about how much material they're packing into these movies and it really shows, especially since it follows pretty much every possible tangent that it comes across. Overall the whole thing feels less coherent than any of the LOTR movies did (which I believe is a holdover from the style the book was written in). Folks have been saying this is a movie that's more for the Extended Edition people than the casual fans, considering how much info is packed in and how tedious it all sometimes feels, and that might be right (and some of the LOTR direct crossover stuff worked better than others. The extended pre-flashback sequence in the Shire right at the start didn't work for me, for instance, but I was all for the White Council meeting). Some of the battles are excellent and grand, others just feel overcrowded and messy. The acting is solid all around, as are the effects, but it all doesn't quite come together like it should, partly because we only ever get to know a handful of the baker's dozen dwarves. Plus, it has one too many instances of "Gandalf saves the day", which gets old kinda quick, unfortunately (although the ending worked pretty damn well). Certainly not bad, far from it, but the weakest of the four Middle Earth films at the moment. Of course, it's hard to judge it before the other ones come out, and we see how well they all connect to each other. I'll be optimistic and say we'll warmly regard the Hobbit trilogy when all is said and done, but not nearly as much as we do the LOTR trilogy.

As for 48FPS (because you can't say anything about the movie without bringing it up), it was what it was. Some said it helped the 3D work better, but I can't say anything about that, since I stopped noticing the 3D pretty quick like I always do. I guess in general it was... different. It's better than a soap opera, but it doesn't feel like a movie. Everything looks sharper, but it also feels faker. It feels too... rushed, too slight and weightless. I guess it was better than I thought it would be, but I'm far from a believer that this is anything more than a science experiment. Certainly not the future of cinema, though I will continue to try and keep an open mind (movie sites I frequent are running articles back and forth about trying to wrap around the whole concept... it's the start of the 3D boom all over again).

Note: The aforementioned was all written by someone who's never read any of the books and is only familiar with Middle Earth via the Jackson movies.

[Relaxing Dragon]

Note: The aforementioned was all written by someone who's never read any of the books and is only familiar with Middle Earth via the Jackson movies.

This makes me sad.

I assure you it makes me feel the same way, it's just one of those things I've never managed to find the time for (I partially pass the buck place some blame on the fact that I grew up in a house that never had them on our shelves. Evidently my parent's copies were destroyed by a dog they owned before I was born, and never replaced).

Lord of the Rings and Discworld. Two series I will get to at some point down the line, no doubt at all.

[BBQ Platypus]

Well, I saw it on Sunday with my brother.

I could probably think of at least 4 or 5 reasons why I shouldn't have enjoyed it (some of which Relaxing Dragon lists), but I actually enjoyed it a lot.  Lack of focus is the biggest problem this film has.  Still, I never felt bored through it, oddly enough.  I don't think it drags, it just lacks a central point - you'd think it'd be Bilbo, but there are long stretches of the film where he's in the background of a shot and I go "Huh - I'd forgotten Martin Freeman was in this movie."  Still, there were several good scenes and no egregiously bad ones.  The riddle game with Gollum was as well done as I could imagine anybody doing it.  And hey, Sylvester McCoy is in it!

Can't comment on the 48 FPS, as the version I saw didn't use it.

[Variety of Cells]

Well allow me to comment on the 48fps. It does what it set out to do. The images are nice and sharp and in focus, unlike all other 3d films I've seen. If I'm going to see a film in 3d, this is how ill see it from now on.

That being said, it is very hard to shake the BBC association, where people in America associate higher frame rates with old low budget BBC productions. Even with full knowledge that it's not 'worse' its just 'different', sometimes it does look more like bad television because of it. The worst of times is actually due to its intended benefit, which is to make what's in focus sharper. And when your characters are sharp and on a different 3d plane than everything else around them, sometimes it makes it much easier to see they are on a green screen stage instead of the practical and CG elements blending together. Though you do kind of get used to it and in many parts it looked great. But in general I don't think 3d adds anything to a movie, so i'm biased there as well. Going to try and convince my family to see it in 2d over Christmas so I can compare.

But I loved the movie. The riddle scene with Golum was great, a lot of fun. I didn't feel it was too long, but I was enjoying myself. Excited to see it again.

[Bob]

Note: The aforementioned was all written by someone who's never read any of the books and is only familiar with Middle Earth via the Jackson movies.

This makes me sad.

I never read the books either....have no desire to read the books.

Enjoyed the first three movies, but a prequel movie.....three of them.   Hmmmm, why am I thinking of a Star Wars movie making plan?

Anyway, hope the three upcoming movies are good so I can watch them on Netflix (or buy the DVDs if Rifftrax covers them).

[Kete]

I saw it, I really liked it, but it's not Lord of the Rings.  I think the biggest problem is with the source material.  I've never liked the book.  It always just seemed too juvenile.  Peter Jackson did a great job trying to make it relevant, but it is still lacking.  The stakes aren't as high as LotR.  LotR deals with saving humanity, while The Hobbit deals with going on an adventure and finding treasure.  Also, I never liked the  13 dwarves.  None of them seem very important or developed.  Again, Jackson does improve on this, but isn't fully successful (who can blame him?).  I fell in love with Legolas, Gimli, Merry, and Pippin.  Despite not being the main characters, they really came to life, and were fully developed characters that I really cared about.  You really can't care about anyone other than Thorin among the dwarves.

That said, Riddles in the Dark was absolutely fantastic.  My favorite Gollum moment of any of the movies.

[Nergol]

So, I just saw it.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good movie. But...

Anyone who's ever complained about a director leaving things out of a movie that were in the book, well, this should kinda be a lesson to you about why they do that, and why it's generally really for the best. Boy, Peter Jackson really threw everything and the kitchen sink into this movie. And yeah, it really made it sorta drag in places.

I wonder if this will start a trend of movies with an abridged theatrical version, and a DVD/home version that has everything thrown in. If not, maybe it should.

I really could have done without Radagast.

[Bob]

Are most of the reviews for the movie (too much stuff and too draggy) mean the next couple of movies might be edited down some?    Is that their strategy?

[Kete]

I always wanted to see Radagast, but now I sorta regret it.

[Pak-Man]

Just got back from a 48fps show. The difference is obvious. It was a hard experience to describe, but it almost felt like the extra frames bypassed something in my brain that was aware that I was looking at filmed footage and everything just felt more real. Combined with the 3D, it was like peeking into a diorama. The side-effect is that everything felt smaller as a result, and the Hobbit is a movie that needs to feel big. I'm not sure if I prefer the experience or not, but I don't regret giving it a shot.

[Relaxing Dragon]

I saw it, I really liked it, but it's not Lord of the Rings.  I think the biggest problem is with the source material.  I've never liked the book.  It always just seemed too juvenile.  Peter Jackson did a great job trying to make it relevant, but it is still lacking.  The stakes aren't as high as LotR.  LotR deals with saving humanity, while The Hobbit deals with going on an adventure and finding treasure.  Also, I never liked the  13 dwarves.  None of them seem very important or developed.  Again, Jackson does improve on this, but isn't fully successful (who can blame him?).  I fell in love with Legolas, Gimli, Merry, and Pippin.  Despite not being the main characters, they really came to life, and were fully developed characters that I really cared about.  You really can't care about anyone other than Thorin among the dwarves.

That said, Riddles in the Dark was absolutely fantastic.  My favorite Gollum moment of any of the movies.

I think that's sort of the point, with regards to the tone. From what I understand, The Hobbit was always a lighter affair, taking place in a time when darkness hadn't already spread over Middle Earth. So it was more relaxed with the characters and had more basic humor. LOTR, conversely, was big and somber and epic in nature, so it had the big heroes and the big scope.

And folks everywhere seem to be loving the Riddles scene. I might be alone in feeling it dragged, but I'm reasonably sure that's because I've never been a big fan of Gollum. He always just seemed irritating to me (which could itself be because of all the parodies I've seen of him before I even watched the original trilogy. Dude was everywhere, and it got old fast).

[Henry88]

$222,817,303

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htm

not bad for the first week.

[Darth Geek]

  I saw it yesterday. While I did like it, it was not nearly as good as LOTR. The length and pacing is the biggest issue. And while a lot of people blame the books for this, these movies are made by the same people who adapted a much longer and more unwieldy book to screen. Jackson made changes to LOTR to make it more cinematic (some of which are the reason a few people don't like those movies). So I don't see why he couldn't have done similar things here. Yes, he had to have all 13 dwarves, that kind of thing. And while I didn't remember all their names, they at least had unique looks so I could tell them apart on sight, which helped a lot. I just think Jackson could have gotten rid of or shortened a lot of unnecessary scenes, rather than padding them out.
  Ironically, this feels like a movie made by a less experienced director who tries to adapt a book as it is on the page, learns his lesson here, and then goes on to adapt LOTR more willing to make necessary changes.
  I think the biggest problem with Peter Jackson right now is that he is so used to huge budgets and bloated runtimes that he isn't willing to cut out as much. These are the kind of decisions that should be done in the scripting stages! A good director will ask if this is entirely necessary BEFORE he takes the time and budget to shoot it. I don't blame him for loving each scene individually, he is a good director, has good cinematographers and actors and everyting, so of course the scene itself will come out well.
  I have quite a few other problems with the movie. Primarily in the beginning, as Gandolf just seems like a dick for having these dwarves literally invading Bilbo's home. And I bought absolutely NONE of why Gandolf brought Bilbo along. There is no explanation, and even plenty of reasonable discussion of why not. Even the one he gives to Galadriel makes no sense whatsoever. I know these things are from the book, but I think Jackson could have done some minor tweaking to help this out. Unfortunately, it's the kind of problem so early in the movie that makes it hard to really get lost in it.
The eagles. Okay, I get in LOTR that the eagles couldn't have just flown them all the way and let them drop the ring in, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have gotten them 90% of the way there. That would have been particularly useful for the swamp they had to go through. I still think they could have just had a throwaway line in those movies about that. Fine, I can handle that in those movies, we really only see one giant eagle until the very end. But here, Gandolf gets a whole fucking flock of them, and they deliberately drop our heroes off with a ton of distance left to go. No Nazgul on dragons, no fiery eyeball lighthouse to see them (damn I hated that visual!), none of the hand waving explanation you get from fans for LOTR. SOME explanation here would have been nice, even a silly one.
  Yes, the best scene was Riddles in the Dark. Although I do think Bilbo kinda cheated. Not to mention the fact that it was all over Gollum showing him the way out (well, that and him not getting eaten), but he found his way out just fine right afterwards.
  I hated the three Trolls scene. I just thought it was terribly handled. And like everything else, way too long. Why weren't the trolls in their cave? And were the trolls going to be able to cook them and eat them in the ten minutes it would have taken for the sun to get over that rock?
  Oh, and Rock-Em Sock-Em Rocks! No reason. The hills are alive, and they don't have Julie Andrews to sing to them. So they beat the shit out of each other just because they are sick of the Carl Orf-ish music apparently. And once that scene is over with, no problem relaxing INSIDE the mountains that were just moving and crashing against each other not a moment ago. Don't get me wrong, it looked fucking AWESOME! But there is silly, there is pointless, and there is WTF, and this was all three. It should have been cut. Now a whole movie about the giant mountains beating the shit out of each other? Yeah, I would see that, just don't make it 3 hours please.
  I liked the look of the head evil Orc, I just thought his motivations for going after Thorin seemed cartoon villainy for the sake of villainy. That, and his cut off arm with sharp object shoved into the stump reminded me of Chucky at the end of Child's Play 2.
  I had other problems with it, but those are the major ones I can remember right now. I don't want to harp on it like I hated the whole movie or anything, I didn't. The performances are all really good. The CG is mostly really good. I just don't see myself rewatching this many times like I can the LOTR.

[Variety of Cells]

Huh, that's interesting.  Return of the King felt really long to me, but the Hobbit didn't.  I was entertained the whole way through.  Return of the King wasn't an example in brevity, it being a half hour longer then the Hobbit, but it sounds like you were entertained by a majority of its scenes where you weren't with the most recent film, which I think is the real difference.  Your issues seem to be less with length and an unwillingness to cut and more with mood and perhaps pacing, if you're going to use LOTR as an example of a good lenth.

Most of your complaints I didn't have problems with, except the fighting mountains.  I'll give you that one.  Seemed a bit silly, something you'd see in a Harry Potter film.  "Hey look!  There's some whimsy over there!"  But it was at least somewhat awesome whimsy.

EDIT:  I'm not directing this necessarily at Darth, who for all I know watched the movie yesterday, but I think that time has made people forget the parts of LOTR that they didn't like when comparing it to the Hobbit.  I've noticed this in other reviews I've read.  Reviews praise LOTR, forgetting how it took forever for RotK to end, and in the next breath continue on to say that the Hobbit had a problem cutting things out, where the Hobbit is practically concise in comparison.  It's starting to make me think that splitting the next movie into two films was not a money grab but a decision made to keep people from falling asleep mid movie.