[kingjeremy]

So I finally have got to see this.

Some of my fears were pretty well founded, it's full of bloated over CGI'd action sequences, Jackson seriously needs somebody to reign him in!

Azog looked seriously rubbish and had zero screen presence, his character is completely unnecessary and having him full on CGI just makes it even worse, he just looks fake. With the trolls, stone giants, goblins and wargs there was plenty of action to be had anyway, just another case of Jackson trying to add tension to the movie by shoving in completely unneeded additions, see the warg attack from The Two towers.

The wargs look rubbish once again. The Goblin sequence is a poorer version of the mines of Moria with none of the tension. I did like the Goblin king though.


But right with all that being said I did like it, it was awesome being back in Middle Earth, I'm hoping the extended edition is extended with character stuff, I think that would help a lot.

There is soo much that is good about the film that I'm willing to over look the bits I'm not keen on, if the whole Azog subplot was removed and the balance between CGI and real shifted a little towards the real side I would rank it along side the LOTRs movies.

[grazman]

Personally, I think this should have been 1 movie not 3. Just been reading the book again and its quite clearly not an epic story, and it just doesn't work for me as a 9 hour trilogy. The book is more a childrens novella than an epic novel and the film has way too much padding and unnecessary bits that slow the movie down to snails pace for me.

[Kapellmeister]

Originally Posted by kingjeremy

So I finally have got to see this.

Some of my fears were pretty well founded, it's full of bloated over CGI'd action sequences, Jackson seriously needs somebody to reign him in!

Azog looked seriously rubbish and had zero screen presence, his character is completely unnecessary and having him full on CGI just makes it even worse, he just looks fake. With the trolls, stone giants, goblins and wargs there was plenty of action to be had anyway, just another case of Jackson trying to add tension to the movie by shoving in completely unneeded additions, see the warg attack from The Two towers.

The wargs look rubbish once again. The Goblin sequence is a poorer version of the mines of Moria with none of the tension. I did like the Goblin king though.


But right with all that being said I did like it, it was awesome being back in Middle Earth, I'm hoping the extended edition is extended with character stuff, I think that would help a lot.

There is soo much that is good about the film that I'm willing to over look the bits I'm not keen on, if the whole Azog subplot was removed and the balance between CGI and real shifted a little towards the real side I would rank it along side the LOTRs movies.

I watched it last night on DVD. I thought it was utter drivel.

I loved all three of the LoTR films and have got them all in the extended editions, but The Hobbit was awful, boring trash.

Not only was there too much CGI but a lot of it was unbelievably poor! Yes, Azog was rubbish but the Wargs were much worse. They looked like something from a Disney cartoon. There was no atmosphere or sense of place like you had in the other films. The dwarves were pretty tedious and the 'adventure' just had them stumbling from one pointless action sequence into another. I've read the book and really enjoyed it but this left me totally bored.

The dwarves make-up was crap too. Everything looked strangely clean and plasticky.

It all seemed really lazy. The level of design just wasn't there either. Whereas before they would had 100 people in costume being orcs, etc. nearly all the enemies were CGI. Bilbo is supposed to be the main character and yet he's on the periphery for much of the film.

I wasn't expecting it to be brilliant but I was shocked at how crap it was. It took me three nights to watch it all. I'll try and watch it again to see if it improves but it was a massive disappointment.

[ritch]

looking forward to the fan edit

[Kapellmeister]

Originally Posted by ritch

looking forward to the fan edit

It can only be an improvement

[Ancient IDTV]

Saw it at the cinema. Imo they could easily have adapted the novel into one three hour film, rather than making it a trilogy. It probably is the most padded out film I've seen. It's worth watching once, but I can't see myself sitting through it all again.

I recently re-read the novel (for the first time in about 25 years), and it's really well written and never dull.

[yaristaman]

Haven't read the books so went into this fresh and absolutely loved it.

Didn't get round to seeing it in the cinema but will definitely be going to see parts 2 and 3 there.

[ritch]

the whole thing of dragging it out and making three films has been a massive mistake when it comes down to it. Opinions are so polarised because some fans love anything LOTR regardless of the content but the fact is the film is massively flawed due to its pacing. I really don't understand why it was not universally hated by all, its an insult to LOTR fans really. To me it was literally like watching a bad version of fellowship, I felt I was in a parallel universe where things were slightly off. The story was seriously lacking and had little or no depth at all, the characters unmemorable, the effects and makeup terrible, the dragging scenes pointless, no drama, the list goes on.

All I can imagine is the next ones will step things up a bit. someone will then do a fan edit combining all 3 into one 3 hour film which is what should have been done in the first place. Longs great, I love long, unless it is utterly pointless! I can only think this was a cynical money making scheme. I tried to like it and wasn't so harsh at first because I just didn't want to believe they messed it up, but these are now my naked thoughts on Hobbit after again trying to watch it.

[ritch]

Originally Posted by Kapellmeister

It can only be an improvement

you could easily slice 2 hours off Hobbit

[Yuffie]

Originally Posted by ritch

the whole thing of dragging it out and making three films has been a massive mistake when it comes down to it.

Im sure the production companies agree with you, with that billion in their pockets and two more films to go.

[ritch]

Originally Posted by Yuffie

Im sure the production companies agree with you, with that billion in their pockets and two more films to go.

my point, money over quality. shame on you Peter Jackson you money grabbing hack

[Edmond-Dantès]

Ideally, the Tolkien scholar the production team hired (the very accomplished and very well respected in our field; Janet Brennan Croft) would have had far more input. The script eventually used in AUJ is a far cry from the one she saw last.

Azog for example was one of the last minute alterations. His character as we know it was developed four weeks before the premiere. Azog was originally intended to be an actor in prosphetics, but he wasn't imposing enough. That particular Azog design eventually went to the character of Yazneg.

More input from Tolkien scholars was essential, but alas PJ trusts Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh over established scholars even though they've both been shown to be lacking a genuine understanding of the Legendarium.

I would've have cut Frodo and Old Bilbo. Started the film with "In a hole in the ground there live a hobbit.." narrated by Sir Ian.

Cut the Warg chase, reduced Radagast's role, reduced the Stone Giant sequence to mirror the novel; a method Tolkien used to give an extra depth to the lands of Middle-earth. The Stone Giants were never key to the primary narrative.

Azog would die as he did in the Battle of Azanulbizar. Bolg would be in his rightful role.

The Goblin town sequence would be much reduced and the Great Goblin's final piece of dialogue cut.

[Conall Cearnach]

Originally Posted by Edmond-Dantès

Ideally, the Tolkien scholar the production team hired (the very accomplished and very well respected in our field; Janet Brennan Croft) would have had far more input. The script eventually used in AUJ is a far cry from the one she saw last.

Azog for example was one of the last minute alterations. His character as we know it was developed four weeks before the premiere. Azog was originally intended to be an actor in prosphetics, but he wasn't imposing enough. That particular Azog design eventually went to the character of Yazneg.

More input from Tolkien scholars was essential, but alas PJ trusts Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh over established scholars even though they've both been shown to be lacking a genuine understanding of the Legendarium.

I would've have cut Frodo and Old Bilbo. Started the film with "In a hole in the ground there live a hobbit.." narrated by Sir Ian.

Cut the Warg chase, reduced Radagast's role, reduced the Stone Giant sequence to mirror the novel; a method Tolkien used to give an extra depth to the lands of Middle-earth. The Stone Giants were never key to the primary narrative.

Azog would die as he did in the Battle of Azanulbizar. Bolg would be in his rightful role.

The Goblin town sequence would be much reduced and the Great Goblin's final piece of dialogue cut.

So much truth here I had to quote the lot.

[Kapellmeister]

Originally Posted by ritch

I really don't understand why it was not universally hated by all, its an insult to LOTR fans really. To me it was literally like watching a bad version of fellowship, I felt I was in a parallel universe where things were slightly off. The story was seriously lacking and had little or no depth at all, the characters unmemorable, the effects and makeup terrible, the dragging scenes pointless, no drama, the list goes on

Oh I totally agree. I expected that at least it would have the same feel as the LotR films but it didn't even have that. It was like someone had tried to do a bad imitation. As you say, everything was just 'off' in some way. It should've worked but it didn't. The CGI for the Warg pursuit of Radagast was unbelievably poor. Much of the rest just looked like an animated cartoon. I watched RoTK again recently and the CGI in that is so beautifully crafted, sensitive and gorgeous. The siege of Minas Tirith is as spectacular now as it was 10 years ago. I don't know why they made the dwarves look so clean and wholesome. Gimli's make-up was superbly realistic. 'The Hobbit' dwarves looked like something from Disney's Snow White. And yes, even with impressive CGI there would still be enormous problems with the pacing and characterisation.

I tried watching it again last night and only got as far as Rivendell before I turned it off. I never expected it to be as poor as I thought it was.

Originally Posted by Edmond-Dantès

Azog for example was one of the last minute alterations. His character as we know it was developed four weeks before the premiere. Azog was originally intended to be an actor in prosphetics, but he wasn't imposing enough. That particular Azog design eventually went to the character of Yazneg.

Really interesting post, especially the bit above. I wondered why Azog didn't work and I guess it makes a bit more sense if it was such a late inclusion. The look of the Yazneg character was much better. CGI can be a great addition to a film (e.g. Davy Jones in the PotC movies) but 'The Hobbit' was saturated with it, and it was often unconvincing as entire scenes seemed to be CGI depriving the film of any sense of being grounded in a real world. Moria in FotR was superbly realised. The Goblin City in 'The Hobbit' felt like a sequence from a video game.

There was no real threat, no sense of peril. It just meandered on. I could understand it more if the film had been a faithful realisation of the book but it wasn't. It was stuffed with unessential crap and Tolklein's lean structure was replaced with an obese narrative purely to fill in time.

[Moboloco]

I wonder how many movies the The Children of Húrin could be turned into if they decided to make that movie from the book. It would arguably be more entertaining that The Hobbit if they broke that into 3.

[ritch]

Originally Posted by Edmond-Dantès

Ideally, the Tolkien scholar the production team hired (the very accomplished and very well respected in our field; Janet Brennan Croft) would have had far more input. The script eventually used in AUJ is a far cry from the one she saw last.

Azog for example was one of the last minute alterations. His character as we know it was developed four weeks before the premiere. Azog was originally intended to be an actor in prosphetics, but he wasn't imposing enough. That particular Azog design eventually went to the character of Yazneg.

More input from Tolkien scholars was essential, but alas PJ trusts Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh over established scholars even though they've both been shown to be lacking a genuine understanding of the Legendarium.

I would've have cut Frodo and Old Bilbo. Started the film with "In a hole in the ground there live a hobbit.." narrated by Sir Ian.

Cut the Warg chase, reduced Radagast's role, reduced the Stone Giant sequence to mirror the novel; a method Tolkien used to give an extra depth to the lands of Middle-earth. The Stone Giants were never key to the primary narrative.

Azog would die as he did in the Battle of Azanulbizar. Bolg would be in his rightful role.

The Goblin town sequence would be much reduced and the Great Goblin's final piece of dialogue cut.

you should do a fan edit.

[goldberry1]

I watched the film in 3d in the cinema and have just watched it again on DVD - it's even better the second time around - I really concentrated on the story and the dialogue and listened to the beautiful music especially at the end when the credits rolled - just fantastic - wonderful! I know it was filmed in New Zealand but so much reminded me of the wilder parts of north Yorkshire and the Yorkshire Dales. The whole thing is amazing

I'm a big fan of LOTR too.