The Hobbit : An Unexpected Journey (2012) 2D/3D - March 19, 2013 Reviews

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Darth Fredius

I hope to see theses scenes and stories too on the big screen one Day....
I hope that it will be Peter Jackson futurs plans.
Silmarillion has so mutch epic scenes and stories.

The Tolkien Estate refuses to sell the rights. The current head of the estate Christopher Tolkien is 88 so he won't be in charge much longer but there are others in the estate who share his sentiments and dislike of Peter Jackson.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Cook

The Tolkien Estate refuses to sell the rights. The current head of the estate Christopher Tolkien is 88 so he won't be in charge much longer but there are others in the estate who share his sentiments and dislike of Peter Jackson.

If Peter Jackson gave in to every demand by them the Lord of the Rings films would have actually been about 8 films totaling around 30-35 hours.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

If Peter Jackson gave in to every demand by them the Lord of the Rings films would have actually been about 8 films totaling around 30-35 hours.

Yeah. Chris is from a different time and mindset. He doesn't understand film or the way an adaption works.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Cook

Yeah. Chris is from a different time and mindset. He doesn't understand film or the way an adaption works.

He has such immense respect and devotion to his father's work, I assume that dwarf-tossing jokes and marijuana gags play as vulgar to him. I only know the barest fraction of that universe, and even I was uncomfortable with the low comedy in the films. The Goblin King in The Hobbit and Radagast getting high and blowing pot smoke out of his ears represent new lows for the franchise. Then again, I don't even know if he's seen the films, so...

[Darth Fredius]

Originally Posted by Cook

The Tolkien Estate refuses to sell the rights. The current head of the estate Christopher Tolkien is 88 so he won't be in charge much longer but there are others in the estate who share his sentiments and dislike of Peter Jackson.

Nobody know If Christopher Tolkien have seen the LOTR Trilogy ?

I love JRR Tolkien books since I'm a kid and I must say that - IMO - Peter Jackson's LOTR Trilogy (in his EE version) is absolutly flawless.
Some pictures I had in mind when I read the book a long time ago really came to life when I saw it for the first time FOTR, TTT or ROTK.
The first time I read the book, I thought that It was impossible to see it on screen.
Then Peter Jackson make a dream come true.
The Balrog scene was exactly the scene I had in mind when I read the book.
I was blow away the first time I saw The Fellowhip Of The Ring.

I just watched again (for the... times - I don't remembered how many time I watched theses movies in theaters, in DVD or now In Blu-ray magnificient) the EE Trilogy on Blu-ray this week and Theses movies are - IMO - the best LOTR movies adaptation I can imagine (even If the awesome cliffhanger at the end at TTT book should have been in TTT movie instead at TROTK movie).

As for The Hobbit, things are a little bit different.
First The Hobbit will be compare to LOTR trilogy as theses movies are definitly classics and came first.

Both are Tolkien book's adaptations.
The Hobbit book was in "a way" the "inspiration" for the LOTG Books, some will argue that The Hobbit story looks too mutch like The FOTR story.

Tones of each books are totaly different.
LOTR is an "adult" book when The Hobbit book is a "kid" book.

Tones of the movies (LOTR Trilogy and The Hobbit) are the same.
The Hobbit Trilogy movie will be - IMO - less "serious" than LOTR movies because The Hobbit book is a kid book.

Anyway I love The Hobbit first movie. It was like coming back home again...to Middle earth.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Darth Fredius

Nobody know If Christopher Tolkien have seen the LOTR Trilogy ?

I love JRR Tolkien books since I'm a kid and I must say that - IMO - Peter Jackson's LOTR Trilogy (in his EE version) is absolutly flawless.
Some pictures I had in mind when I read the book a long time ago really came to life when I saw it for the first time FOTR, TTT or ROTK.
The first time I read the book, I thought that It was impossible to see it on screen.
Then Peter Jackson make a dream come true.
The Balrog scene was exactly the scene I had in mind when I read the book.
I was blow away the first time I saw The Fellowhip Of The Ring.

I just watched again (for the... times - I don't remembered how many time I watched theses movies in theaters, in DVD or now In Blu-ray magnificient) the EE Trilogy on Blu-ray this week and Theses movies are - IMO - the best LOTR movies adaptation I can imagine (even If the awesome cliffhanger at the end at TTT book should have been in TTT movie instead at TROTK movie).

As for The Hobbit, things are a little bit different.
First The Hobbit will be compare to LOTR trilogy as theses movies are definitly classics and came first.

Both are Tolkien book's adaptations.
The Hobbit book was in "a way" the "inspiration" for the LOTG Books, some will argue that The Hobbit story looks too mutch like The FOTR story.

Tones of each books are totaly different.
LOTR is an "adult" book when The Hobbit book is a "kid" book.

Tones of the movies (LOTR Trilogy and The Hobbit) are the same.
The Hobbit Trilogy movie will be - IMO - less "serious" than LOTR movies because The Hobbit book is a kid book.

Anyway I love The Hobbit first movie. It was like coming back home again...to Middle earth.

I wouldn't call them "flawless", but they're very good. The fact that they are so good is sort of what drives the impulse to nitpick them to begin with.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Darth Fredius

I love JRR Tolkien books since I'm a kid and I must say that - IMO - Peter Jackson's LOTR Trilogy (in his EE version) is absolutly flawless.
Some pictures I had in mind when I read the book a long time ago really came to life when I saw it for the first time FOTR, TTT or ROTK.
The first time I read the book, I thought that It was impossible to see it on screen.
Then Peter Jackson make a dream come true.
The Balrog scene was exactly the scene I had in mind when I read the book.
I was blow away the first time I saw The Fellowhip Of The Ring.

Well, there is no disputing that these movies represent an excellent effort by Jackson, and he deserves all of the awards, acclaim, and fortune that have been given to him as a result. In my opinion these are among the greatest movies ever made.

I also realize these movies are an attempt to film what many people had considered to be an unfilmable story. Again, Jackson did an excellent job, with extremely difficult material. I certainly appreciate, and no one denies the commendable effort of the thousands of people responsible for the production.

That being said, as a proponent of the books (and to the dismay or dislike of anyone who cannot tolerate ANY criticism of the movies), the movies are good, but far from perfect. Yes, the Balrog scene is right out of the book, and therefore is as magnificent as you state. It is the parts that deviate the most from the book that suffer, in my opinion and the opinion of many who are familiar with the story.

Let's take a trivial example. In the Fellowship EE, a scene is added that depicts Sam having a difficult time getting to sleep. At first glance we are inclined to say, "good, that adds depth and personality to the story". But anyone familiar with the book knows that Sam is the soundest sleeper of the fellowship and the probably of this scene happening are approximately zero. So I (dare) ask the question: "Why take added time to insert a scene that has nothing to do with the story - or goes against the story - when there are so many scenes that could have been added that would have reinforced or detailed important aspects of the story? There are many more examples we could use here, including some face-palm-caliber plot deviations that Jackson and Boyens inserted, but the idea is clear.

Q: Are these movies "really good" cinematic spectaculars, equaled by few or no movies before or since?

A: Yes.

Q: Are the movies "absolutely flawless" and up to the incredible standard of the even more spectacular source material?

A: No.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

He has such immense respect and devotion to his father's work, I assume that dwarf-tossing jokes and marijuana gags play as vulgar to him. I only know the barest fraction of that universe, and even I was uncomfortable with the low comedy in the films. The Goblin King in The Hobbit and Radagast getting high and blowing pot smoke out of his ears represent new lows for the franchise. Then again, I don't even know if he's seen the films, so...

• The Goblin King in The Hobbit

I felt like this was one of the big weak points in the film. The Goblin King should be menacing, scary, and the Dwarves should have appeared to be in true peril, not at the mercy of some jolly obese pus bag.

I could also have done with less merriment at the dinner table early on. The belching/beer guzzling sequence I felt was a little too much and trying too hard.

• Radagast getting high and blowing pot smoke out of his ears

This part was somewhat amusing, but the Radagast character kind of diminishes the prestige of being a Wizard, as he seems like someone who's gone off their meds.

I would agree that the film could have done with more subtle humor and more menace, in appropriate places.

[MifuneFan]

Both Radagast, and Azog (the "goblin king") shouldn't have been in the movie to begin with. Those are the parts that I felt totally unnecessary and made it drag on a bit. There's enough that happens in The Hobbit without Jackson needing to embellish it with things that never happened.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Christopher Tolkien's objections aren't really about how his father's works are adapted into film, but rather than they're turned into films at all. To Christopher, his father's world exists solely in literature (in the minds of the readers - what J.R.R. called the "Secondary World"), and is not suitable to be adapted into the film medium.

So it's not really about any personal animosity towards Sir Peter or the film production. He's just very protective over his father's legacy.

And as far as Christopher keeping The Silmarillion from being adapted into film, keep in mind that we wouldn't even have The Silmarillion if it wasn't for him.

[i007spectre]

3D will be $24.96 at walmart. Not sure if that's been posted yet.

[TitusTroy]

they need to cap the price on both the 2D and 3D versions at $19.99...no need to go higher as everyone know's the EE versions will be the definitive versions

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by TitusTroy

they need to cap the price on both the 2D and 3D versions at $19.99...no need to go higher as everyone know's the EE versions will be the definitive versions

That doesn't make any sense.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

Christopher Tolkien's objections aren't really about how his father's works are adapted into film, but rather than they're turned into films at all. To Christopher, his father's world exists solely in literature (in the minds of the readers - what J.R.R. called the "Secondary World"), and is not suitable to be adapted into the film medium.

So it's not really about any personal animosity towards Sir Peter or the film production. He's just very protective over his father's legacy.

And as far as Christopher keeping The Silmarillion from being adapted into film, keep in mind that we wouldn't even have The Silmarillion if it wasn't for him.

Well said.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by TitusTroy

they need to cap the price on both the 2D and 3D versions at $19.99...no need to go higher as everyone know's the EE versions will be the definitive versions

That's a bold assumption when we literally have zero idea what's included on the EE version of The Hobbit: AUJ.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

Christopher Tolkien's objections aren't really about how his father's works are adapted into film, but rather than they're turned into films at all. To Christopher, his father's world exists solely in literature (in the minds of the readers - what J.R.R. called the "Secondary World"), and is not suitable to be adapted into the film medium.

So it's not really about any personal animosity towards Sir Peter or the film production. He's just very protective over his father's legacy.

And as far as Christopher keeping The Silmarillion from being adapted into film, keep in mind that we wouldn't even have The Silmarillion if it wasn't for him.

I can really respect this.

As a big Tolkien fan I may be one of the few who does not want to see The Silmarillion turned into a film for that reason. Leave the imagination with something to call its own.

[TitusTroy]

Originally Posted by Taikero

That's a bold assumption when we literally have zero idea what's included on the EE version of The Hobbit: AUJ.

we know for sure the most important feature that will be included- the extra running time (20-25 minutes worth has been reported)...did the LOTR EE versions skimp out on important bonus content compared to the standard versions?

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

He has such immense respect and devotion to his father's work, I assume that dwarf-tossing jokes and marijuana gags play as vulgar to him. I only know the barest fraction of that universe, and even I was uncomfortable with the low comedy in the films. The Goblin King in The Hobbit and Radagast getting high and blowing pot smoke out of his ears represent new lows for the franchise. Then again, I don't even know if he's seen the films, so...

That is purely tolkien. He speaks about pipe weed and its effects on people in his notes. It just comes across more pronounced in the visual medium. Tolkien didn't hide the fact that shire pipe weed addled the mind and created a high effect.

[sookie]

Went to Walmart tonight and they had the preorder cards with Thorin, Gandalf and I can't remember the 3rd.

Picked up the Thorin one and just redeemed my copy. I've not used this method before, so from what I understand it will ship from vudu on the release date?

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by TitusTroy

we know for sure the most important feature that will be included- the extra running time (20-25 minutes worth has been reported)...did the LOTR EE versions skimp out on important bonus content compared to the standard versions?

What I'm saying is we don't know whether that 20-25 minutes will be enjoyable or fashioned as well as the LOTR EE versions.

Until we have the EE in hand or someone gets their hands on a preview version of the final cut of the EE, we just won't know whether it's brilliant or terrible.