I hope you're right, as the White Council segment was lethargic and largely wasted. I'm not even sure that the segment deserves to be rated as a "White Council", but more as a "reintroduction to the audience of familar cast characters from the LotR movies". That is a symptom of the problems with this film. Despite the good action scenes and special effects, there are just too many "Why did they do that?, Why didn't they ... ?, or What the... ?" moments in the movie. Since this is the first of the three Hobbit movies and primarily a set-up film, one has a feeling that the last two will alleviate many of these problems. However, The Fellowship of the Ring, as the first of the three LotR movies did not suffer in this manner and from a story perspective was the BEST of the three. What has me concerned is that with each movie, the screenplay trend has been less Tolkien, more Jackson/Boyens. If this progression can be reversed, the remaining two films will put the franchise back on track and the trilogy will be a classic.
While I believe the other two will be decidedly better, I do not believe they will be better in the sense that you refer to. I do not hold out any hope of that "trend" being reversed. It will be better because it will be more spectacular and won't have anything held back to "set up the payoff". From my view, "holding back" hurt the first episode for the sake of making the payoff better, it kept the film from coherently coalescing to any particular theme, it's more-or-less a movie about nothing, and I think that's the only thing that is going to change in the next two.
... but keep praying for miracles, and remember that in 10-20 years somebody else will remake it, and maybe that will be the version that we really want.
While I believe the other two will be decidedly better, I do not believe they will be better in the sense that you refer to. I do not hold out any hope of that "trend" being reversed. It will be better because it will be more spectacular and won't have anything held back to "set up the payoff". From my view, "holding back" hurt the first episode for the sake of making the payoff better, it kept the film from coherently coalescing to any particular theme, it's more-or-less a movie about nothing, and I think that's the only thing that is going to change in the next two.
... but keep praying for miracles, and remember that in 10-20 years somebody else will remake it, and maybe that will be the version that we really want.
Well, film one is about a somewhat pampered hobbit asking for a handkerchief from people who don't respect him ending up a brave defender and a "brother" in the company, so it isn't about *nothing*, it just took three hours to tell that story, with some goofy stuff along the way.
Well, film one is about a somewhat pampered hobbit asking for a handkerchief from people who don't respect him ending up a brave defender and a "brother" in the company, so it isn't about *nothing*, it just took three hours to tell that story, with some goofy stuff along the way.
And this is where I must parse the difference between a movie being "about something", and the ending of a movie being about something. No coherent theme or tone. I expect it to be very different with the other two, I expect them to be highly thematic.
If there is one central point of film one, it is about that place beyond hope and fear, where there is only "must", that point where, as the cliche goes, mothers can lift a car off their child, that place where one finds a strength they never knew they had, because they were pushed past the point where fear becomes irrelevant. The concept is introduced and set up in the flashback where Balin tells the Legend of Thorin, and it of course is driven home at the end when
[Show spoiler]Bilbo throws himself onto a goblin to save Thorin.
But it doesn't run as a theme, it's just an idea foreshadowed early and revisited at the climax.
Finally saw The Hobbit in the theater last night. I believe I was seeing the 24FPS version...2D. First off, never read the book, love the LotR movie trilogy. With that out of the way, I wasn't "moved" by this one like I was with Fellowship. It kind of seemed all over the place and I couldn't get into the characters as well. I also agree that the first hour was kind of weak. I'm hoping a second viewing will bring me around.
Having said that, this film had some amazing visuals and special effects, which I really enjoyed. The action sequences were fantastic.
My honest rating would be a 3.5/5.
I think you are right, but I don't think the film-makers can be blamed for the fact that Hobbit 1 isn't as "moving" as FotR, I think that is largely due to Tolkien's writing. There is simply much, much more sentimentality in LotR than there is in the Hobbit, (as books, of course, not comparing the movies). I think sentimentality is actually one of the strengths of this film-making team. They nailed it with LotR, and made, in my opinion, an amazingly thoughtful and sentimental version of King Kong.
I wholeheartedly echo the impression that Hobbit 1 was "all over the place", it always felt like it was trying to find its groove... but then again, I had the same impression of FotR when it was new and we hadn't yet seen it in the context of the trilogy as a whole. Just seeing the extended cut of FotR significantly effected my impression of the movie, it was a much more coherent story IMO.
I think it would be very interesting to come back two years from now and compare how people feel about Hobbit 1 then, versus how they feel about it now. I would be interested to see how impressions evolve as the context of the whole Hobbit trilogy is unfolded.
Personally, I think the film is pretty well anchored with the Bilbo/Thorin arc, and works amazingly well because of it. The only structural weakness I find with it is the Radagast/Dol Guldur plot elements - chiefly because I can tell in the original 2 film structure, those elements were probably carried further and achieved some kind of resolution (i.e. the Mirkwood Spiders). Aside from that, though, I think the film's arc is very well done.
As far as I saw, in terms of what the general narrative is about...it's about Bilbo becoming a real adventurer - recognizing where he came from. By earning Thorin's respect at the end, he feels worthy upon having fully embraced his history, including his "Took" side. So, in that sense it's about self-realization through potentially breaking out of one's shell and taking risks (including letting other people "in" or becoming part of a "family" of sorts). I think that message, of embracing who one really is in a deep sense and seeing that others recognize and support that within you...is fairly universal and uplifting.
Now, you can think it was done incredibly poorly - but that's hardly nothing.
Mumbling About How I Drew This Conclusion:
[Show spoiler](It also explains why the elves turning away in the flashback is important because Thorin's journey in the film must allow him to learn to accept help from outsiders and learn that it's valuable...without automatically distrusting them based on unrelated factors. Hence the trip to Rivendell being necessary for him from a character arc standpoint and something that Gandalf guides them toward not just to find more information on the map but to bond them further together as a company. Without that, Bilbo's heroics at the end would have likely been seen as an anomaly from a desperate individual (on Thorin's part). So they go through all of these trials together and Gandalf often shows up at the end to save the day...and, as a result, they are growing closer through shared - dangerous - experiences. So all of this allows that ending of self-realization for Bilbo to come. To paraphrase what I'm attempting to say to an extent - and wander into the territory of obvious and eyeroll-worthy allusions, the film itself is about the affirming nature of "fellowship.")
No, you're right. My comment about the movie being about "nothing" was more a judgement of how effective they were at using almost 3 long hours of screen time to deliver a thematically coherent film. It is an impression, a sense of disunity and wandering purpose over the film's runtime. Perhaps it would be better if I said: "for many stretches of the film, it feels like it is a movie about nothing".
And again, recalling how my impression of FotR evolved, there is a good chance that all of my misgivings will be relieved when I've seen the whole extended version of all three parts.
Did anybody else get the feeling that they were implying that the Arkenstone is actually the Silmaril that Maedhros threw (along with himself) into a volcanic crevass? I mean, they sure implied something supernatural about it, much more than just a big jewel.
As far as I saw, in terms of what the general narrative is about...it's about Bilbo becoming a real adventurer - recognizing where he came from. By earning Thorin's respect at the end, he feels worthy upon having fully embraced his history, including his "Took" side. So, in that sense it's about self-realization through potentially breaking out of one's shell and taking risks (including letting other people "in" or becoming part of a "family" of sorts). I think that message, of embracing who one really is in a deep sense and seeing that others recognize and support that within you...is fairly universal and uplifting.
Now, you can think it was done incredibly poorly - but that's hardly nothing.
Mumbling About How I Drew This Conclusion:
[Show spoiler](It also explains why the elves turning away in the flashback is important because Thorin's journey in the film must allow him to learn to accept help from outsiders and learn that it's valuable...without automatically distrusting them based on unrelated factors. Hence the trip to Rivendell being necessary for him from a character arc standpoint and something that Gandalf guides them toward not just to find more information on the map but to bond them further together as a company. Without that, Bilbo's heroics at the end would have likely been seen as an anomaly from a desperate individual (on Thorin's part). So they go through all of these trials together and Gandalf often shows up at the end to save the day...and, as a result, they are growing closer through shared - dangerous - experiences. So all of this allows that ending of self-realization for Bilbo to come. To paraphrase what I'm attempting to say to an extent - and wander into the territory of obvious and eyeroll-worthy allusions, the film itself is about the affirming nature of "fellowship.")
I like your interpretation, and I can see where Jackson is going in the film, but I think this could have been done in a simpler and more direct fashion.
[Show spoiler] Of course, as you infer, and as is true of many movies, the story is about Bilbo's two journeys, the physical one and Bilbo's journey of self-discovery. Note that in the book this occurs as a very obvious progression, a product of Tolkien making up stories for his children and reminding them that as they mature, their perspective will enlarge from a primarily self-centered awareness to one of world and societal awareness. Everyone has a "Took side", an inclination to find out, explore, and experience that, for some, needs some encouragement - a Gandalf. You also point out that "the film itself is about the affirming nature of fellowship". These are very obvious themes of the story, so why does Jackson complicate it?
The film is incongruent, with some instances where Jackson highlights these themes in an excellent manner, and even adds some parts not contained in the book. For example, there is a part near the end where Bilbo states that one of the reasons he is on the journey is to help the dwarves find a home, since he already has one. There were other parts that were also well done and highly enjoyable. I have stated before that Jackson hit a home run when he depicted Bilbo's exhibition of mercy towards Gollum, which was the most important scene in the movie and a huge, unifying theme in the overall Middle-earth saga.
On the other hand, there is the strange and unnecessary introduction of multiple threads. I say this is strange because Jackson commented that one of the most difficult things about filming Lord of the Rings was finding a way to coherently film the story, once the fellowship broke up into three groups and essentially three different stories. Here the opposite is true. The original story is based on a simple thread with an equally simple timeline. Jackson now complicates this by adding another major parallel thread that didn't even happen in the original story, and that is the adventures (and apparently many lives) of Azog the goblin. So instead of Bilbo's journey of self-discovery, we now add the vendetta of this creature. But, not just this creature, we have to fabricate some additional material with the implausible arrival of the elves at Erebor to amplify the dwarves' mistrust of the Elves. Why? We know why - there can never, ever be enough drama or action in a Jackson film, regardless of how good the original story is. This is carried to the point of absurdity, where it is not enough for the dwarves to get to Rivendell, but (of course) the dwarves have to consider fighting the elves - IN RIVENDELL
This is the stuff that takes me out of the movie. Instead of Azog having his warg devour an orc at Weathertop, why not have Bilbo and the dwarves establish some "fellowship", as you say, at Weathertop - or Bree, or any of a number of places that we know they visited. That would tie this story into his LotR films, which he clearly is trying to do. The most important moment of self-discovery, Bilbo's resolve to go forward while alone in the dark, prior to his encounter with Gollum, is not even in the movie. Removing the Azog footage would have reduced the running time by probably 20 minutes and would have made the viewing time more palatable to many film goers. This would not make the teenagers as happy, but would add needed substance and make the film far more involving. And if you are going to lengthen the films under the guise of "including material from the Appendices - do it! Add real material from the Appendices, which is important to the overall story, and far better than a contrived plot. Instead of another over the top action scene or over-dramatization of an event, develop the story. It's a good story.
Last edited by Grand Bob; 01-17-2013 at 01:29 AM.
Reason: spelling
Did anybody else get the feeling that they were implying that the Arkenstone is actually the Silmaril that Maedhros threw (along with himself) into a volcanic crevass? I mean, they sure implied something supernatural about it, much more than just a big jewel.
I didn't catch that, but if it was it would have made a poor Silmaril, as they were incredibly radiant and apparently not easily handled. Plus, the Tolkien purists would have been on a warpath, as it was fairly obvious that the two that were lost were never meant to be found. What I did find odd is that, with the prologue and all of the extraneous material, it was never mentioned that the Silmaril was the actual sore point between the dwarves and elves, and a much bigger deal than the point of contention that was depicted in the movie.
So I just got done watching the movie. I didn't hate the movie but I did feel bored from start to finish. Visually the movie was beautiful. It was great seeing the Man of Steel again.
I do have a question for the people who know more about the movie/book.
[Show spoiler]When Bilbo put the ring in his pocket did Gandalf know it was "the ring"? I wasn't sure on how they were trying to play that off.
So I just got done watching the movie. I didn't hate the movie but I did feel bored from start to finish. Visually the movie was beautiful. It was great seeing the Man of Steel again.
I do have a question for the people who know more about the movie/book.
[Show spoiler]When Bilbo put the ring in his pocket did Gandalf know it was "the ring"? I wasn't sure on how they were trying to play that off.
So I just got done watching the movie. I didn't hate the movie but I did feel bored from start to finish. Visually the movie was beautiful. It was great seeing the Man of Steel again.
I do have a question for the people who know more about the movie/book.
[Show spoiler]When Bilbo put the ring in his pocket did Gandalf know it was "the ring"? I wasn't sure on how they were trying to play that off.
No.
[Show spoiler]Gandalf suspects it at Bilbo's party in FOTR. Then spends 17 years (!!!) investigating the matter, before arriving back to Hobbiton and confirming his suspicions with Frodo when the see that fire reveals the language of Mordor.
[Show spoiler]Gandalf suspects it at Bilbo's party in FOTR. Then spends 17 years (!!!) investigating the matter, before arriving back to Hobbiton and confirming his suspicions with Frodo when the see that fire reveals the language of Mordor.
Okay.
[Show spoiler]Why would Gandalf just agree with him then about being right behind them?
[Show spoiler]Why would Gandalf just agree with him then about being right behind them?
Hobbits are stealthy and Gandalf was not sure of where he came from, although he was suspicious of how he surprised everyone. Also, there was no way that he would have assumed Bilbo
[Show spoiler] had found the Ring of Power, as it was assumed by the Wise at that time that the Ring was lost far away in the vicinity of the Gladden Fields.
Hobbits are stealthy and Gandalf was not sure of where he came from, although he was suspicious of how he surprised everyone. Also, there was no way that he would have assumed Bilbo
[Show spoiler] had found the Ring of Power, as it was assumed by the Wise at that time that the Ring was lost far away in the vicinity of the Gladden Fields.
Sounds good to me.
Music is the movie was great as well. Looks like it will need to finally purchased off of itunes.
What I did find odd is that, with the prologue and all of the extraneous material, it was never mentioned that the Silmaril was the actual sore point between the dwarves and elves, and a much bigger deal than the point of contention that was depicted in the movie.
Well that subject is off limits to them, right?
So Jackson had to invent another reason for the dwarves animosity towards the elves.
What about our own poll at the top of the page, plus the Rotten Tomatos audience poll too?
Do you not respect them also?
If you select "Top Critics" it has a 42% "Rotten" rating compared to an 81% audience score. That has to be one of the largest discrepancies on there, I would think.
I really feel that this trilogy will be the opposite of the LotR trilogy, in that my favorite from those is the first, whereas I think the first one from The Hobbit is largely exposition for those who haven't read the book, but 42%?
If you select "Top Critics" it has a 42% "Rotten" rating compared to an 81% audience score. That has to be one of the largest discrepancies on there, I would think.
I really feel that this trilogy will be the opposite of the LotR trilogy, in that my favorite from those is the first, whereas I think the first one from The Hobbit is largely exposition for those who haven't read the book, but 42%?
I stopped reading Rotten Tomatoes a few years ago. It's almost as if the critics wanted to hate this film. If the movie plays well to the fans and general audiences, it wouldn't matter that some stuffy critic decides it isn't up to par. The biggest issue has been the light nature of it, which seems to stem from the comparison to the tone of LOTR. Oh, and that too much time was spent in The Shire. Honestly, the series has lacked time there and seeing day to day Hobbit life was quite enjoyable to me.
Judging from the fan reviews and general audiences, it was mostly successful and in terms of these type of films that's all that matters. It does boggle the mind that The Avengers, which I adore as well, is rated higher. The Avengers is just three major set pieces - Stark Tower, The Helicarrier, and Downtown NY. The Hobbit didn't have five lead up films and wasn't short of character development the way The Avengers was. We had to get introduced to young Bilbo, Thorin and the other Dwarves. My point is that critics are unpredictable and they change their reasoning when its convenient to boost certain films.
[Show spoiler]Why would Gandalf just agree with him then about being right behind them?
i have not read the book in six years (decided not to re-read) my take on it cinematically
[Show spoiler]He saw the hand switch hiding "something", and it was enough for me at least to see Gandalf had to let that moment pass, so I reckon a suspicion was raised, specifically the "One"? don't think so. I reckon it was cool to at least see that Gandalf observes "much", if only that Bilbo was not entirely forthcoming and/or something was not right with the situation.
Last edited by L-Rouge; 01-17-2013 at 09:51 AM.
Reason: farting
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
That has to be one of the largest discrepancies on there, I would think. 
Linear Mode
