I liked the Hobbit a lot.  I saw it on the opening night release at midnight.  Its much more lighthearted then TLOTR - but thats perfectly inline with how the book is.  While the TLOTR movies were very epic and serious, the hobbit was much more rambunctious and silly.  It still had awesome, epic moments as well - but they were nothing compared to Boromir's final stand against the orcs at the end of The fellowship of the Ring - those big horns playing and the beat of the wardrums.  That shit was crazy.

Originally posted by bossalinie

Originally posted by zyklonian

Originally posted by Dasterdly
 

tolkien wrote the hobbit for his kids so it was never intended to be as serious as lotr

Reminds me of another director who made trilogy for his kids...

Umm Tolkien wrote one book, for the kids, The Hobbit. Jackson is turning it into a triology with the use of extended writings.

Originally posted by Rednecksith
Sylvester McCoy plays Radagast. That alone means the trilogy will ROCK. Can't wait to see it.

Radagast was awesome.

Maybe it is because I am such a fan of R.A . Salvatore and Robert Jordan that I didn't really care as much for the LOTR books as I remembered when I read them in middle school. When Jackson did the movies I made myself re read all of the books and I thought he did a fantastic job potraying the story. I personally liked the movies better than the books and that includes the Hobbit. Sure some stuff was left out and added in, but it didn't feel like it was out of place to me since it went with his vision. I try really hard to refrain from comparing the stories of the book to the movies and just accept it for what it is and in the end I loved the movies more. Not to say the books aren't great, I just found I enjoyed the way Jackson handled it. I was also ecstatic to learn that Bilbo wasn't a whiny b*@+h like Frodo was. Frodo was my least favorite character and he just brought me down. I blame Elijah Wood.

As to wanting to play the game, I felt the same way. I got caught up in the lore and all but when I got home it was gone. Not that the game was that bad to me really, I just know it wouldn't last for long.

Originally posted by chelan

i dont think PJackson made poor choices. i just think he missed the point.

Actually he does make poor choices. he sometimes changes things that don't need to be changed. Such as how the Tree Beard and the ents decide to attack Saruman in The Two Towers. That didn't need to be changed.

Several odd changes such as The Riddle Game which is supposed to be "riddles in the dark" but it's pretty bright there. It could have been darker, perhaps a dim light source here and there so that we could obviously see it.

How Bilbo gets down to Golum in the first place. etc, etc.

Originally posted by Dasterdly

Good but not great.  If you are going into this expecting a true visual representation of the book, you will be dissappointed.  There are way to many scenes and characters that will make you ask yourself if you are mis-remembering stuff.  Let me assure you that no, you are not.  Jackson has taken a TON of liberties with this production.  There are odd filler sequences, some extended silliness that was unneccessarry, and oddly represented characters that at times feel out of place.  I wont get into spoilers or discuss specifics as I do not want to ruin someone else's experience however. 

I agree with an earlier assesment that the films are over indulgent.  Cash grab?  I dunno...  but certainly over indulging Jackson's ego.  That said, it is well worth the price of admission.  The film is available in something like 6 different formats from IMAX, to 3D, to High Frame Rate, to standard, etc.  I watched the standard format after reading so many negative reviews on the high frame rate offering and I felt it was a perfect format for me.

Cinematically, it is Jackson's Middle Earth.  It is lush and beautiful.. the camera work is excellent, and the whole production is vibrant. Despite this, I felt it lacked the epic feeling of the LotR trilogy.  While I do not want to go so far as to say my childhood has been sulied I can admit that this film did not pull me in the way I expected it too, the way LotR did. 

As for my opinoin I'd say this ^^ is spot on.  Exactly how  I felt about it. 

I'd only add, do not see it in the high frame format as I did.  I was expecting it to be a non factor until I saw it.  Not good.  Some people say it makes the movie look like a "video game" or a cartoon but I didn't get that at all.  Instead the high frame format somehow makes 50% of the movie seem like it is moving in 2x fast forward.  That was the intense impression I got, so much so I was tempted to go to the theater manager 5 min into the movie to complain that the movie was running too fast.  However I noticed the voices were matching up in sync so it must be right.  But it sure didn't look right.  Looked like a movie running in 2x fast forward. 

As for the movie in general like I said, Dasterdly has it pegged as far as I care to say.  This could have easily been made into one movie and should have been.  Two movies I could have forgiven.  Three movies out of one book (and not a very large one at that) is a more than obvious cash grab.  With lots of filler they'll have to put in (and did) to make it work. 

Worth seeing.  But I can't say it had the magic of Lord of the Rings. 

I felt that "The Hobbit" was definitely good, but by no means great.

While the story was there and visuals fit in perfectly with how Jackson did the LoTR films, there will be simply too much of it by the end. A single 3 hour movie, or even a pair of 2 hour movies would have sufficed, instead we are left bloated and nearly bored after the first part. A great film I want to see again right away. A good film in a few months. But as much as I enjoyed visiting the world again, I feel absolutely no desire to ever see it again.

I could read the Hobbit again in about the same time or less that it took to watch merely the first of three parts.

I can describe The Hobbit in a single word: Epic.

The spirit of the movie is very faithful to the book. The new subplots added mesh well with the existing story, and despite being a long movie it doesn't feel so at all. The actors are great and perform their roles very convincingly. Bilbo and Thorin pull off their parts just as well as Gandalf.

I think J. R. R. Tolkien would have loved to see this film.

A few complaints I have:

- Thorin doesn't really look a lot like a dwarf, save for his size. An odd choice since they clearly do other dwarves well.

- There's a place where they fall way too far for it to be believable that they didn't all diel. Yet they survive without a scratch.

- I think the stone giants were over the top (no pun intended).

- In the 3D version there isn't enough time to find the right focus point in some of the quicker edits.

- Gandalf doesn't fry any goblins with a smoke and lightning sparks like in the book.

- It was too blatant when Gandalf ninjaed a magic sword. "I need for Mordor?" Riight.

- It's going to be a long wait for the second movie.

When the dwarves start singing about reclaiming their mountain in the beginning you can just feel how epic the rest of the movie is going to be. I hope there'll be a version where the dwarves sing the full song from the book instead of just a few verses.

Overall I'd rate it 8/10.

I dunno, several people I know (older folks like myself) have seen it and one gave it a 3/5 and another said "nice, but nothing special" so I haven't rushed out to watch it.

Unlike others here, I disliked the Hobbit so much when I read it that I failed to continue with the next 3 books until after I had seen the first movie, which rekindled my interest in the story again.

So it seems like making 3 movies to cover a single story that I wasn't very impressed with is a bit of overkill, but eventually I'll have to go out and see it regardless.

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

And it made me want to play Lotro again, specifically a sword and staff loremaster

Interesting.

Is it as bloated as a lot of the critics are complaining? (the movie, not the game..lol)

I think critics shoot it down because expectations are so high after LotR. It's no secret that LotR is the better of the two stories.. yet it probably wouldn't exist without the other. It only makes sense that the better of the two stories would make the better film.

I thought the film was brilliant and loved every minute of it.

For any fantasy fan more Middle Earth is better. It really is that simple. LotR is better.. but so what? We already have that. The Hobbit is great and if it had come first (like it should have) it would have been praised more.

Originally posted by Kyleran

I dunno, several people I know (older folks like myself) have seen it and one gave it a 3/5 and another said "nice, but nothing special" so I haven't rushed out to watch it.

Unlike others here, I disliked the Hobbit so much when I read it that I failed to continue with the next 3 books until after I had seen the first movie, which rekindled my interest in the story again.

So it seems like making 3 movies to cover a single story that I wasn't very impressed with is a bit of overkill, but eventually I'll have to go out and see it regardless.

 

Hmm, well an older folk like myself (46 years old, read the books aged 12 in 1978) thought it was fantastic. I suggest you go see it and make up your own mind. I give it 5/5.

I never consider any movie to be a faithful retelling of a novel. They are chalk and cheese, two totally different media, so it always seems stupid that anyone would think a film should ever be totally faithful to a book. I liked the additional bits, some of which would only be kown to those who have read The Silmarillian, and were also understandable in the light of the Lord of the Rings already having been seen, Saruman's reluctance to admit the presence of a necromancer in Dol Guldor for example or help Gandalf. Some bits that could have been silly (Radaghast's rabbit chariot) somehow worked because this was more of a fun movie than LotR was. The Dwarves were excellent and Thorin's obsession with Azog (also chronologically inaccurate btw because Azog was dead before The Hobbit starts, but who cares) was well handled.

Over all Jackson keeps up the momentum and here's to the next two films.

Originally posted by Vannor

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

And it made me want to play Lotro again, specifically a sword and staff loremaster

Interesting.

Is it as bloated as a lot of the critics are complaining? (the movie, not the game..lol)

I think critics shoot it down because expectations are so high after LotR. It's no secret that LotR is the better of the two stories.. yet it probably wouldn't exist without the other. It only makes sense that the better of the two stories would make the better film.

I thought the film was brilliant and loved every minute of it.

For any fantasy fan more Middle Earth is better. It really is that simple. LotR is better.. but so what? We already have that. The Hobbit is great and if it had come first (like it should have) it would have been praised more.

That's the way I saw it too. I love LotR and Middle Earth and more time spent there, especially Peter Jackson's version, is good. I could have happily sat for another three hours.

I also saw the film and although it was quite a garbage for me I had that urger to play the game again. But then I remembered why I quit - it had nothing to do with the Tolkien's books anymore other than names of places and it became tedious grindfest with p2w cash shop. Just loved the game until Moria (somewhat included) though.

Edit: I think that Martin Freeman is a great Bilbo Baggins and a great actor too :)

I was worried about the splitting of the one book into three movies.  I thought it would be bloated but was pleasantly surprised.  Great movie.

Hunger Games on the other hand could have had all three books easily done in one movie.

I really enjoyed it, and after the LOTR trilogy and watching the special features - you get the distinct feeling that Peter Jackson and the rest of the cast pretty much never wanted it to end. The story is epic, but participating in the making of those movies was epic for them as well. I imagine that hold a great deal of weight for Jackson when he chose to make the Hobbit a trilogy as well.

I know that I'm already saddened by the fact that there will only be two more movies. The fantasy genre in movies is sparse and so little of what is out there is actually good. I too, wish it would never end, the 2hr 45min runtime was not enough, I wanted to stay in the theatre all day.

The Hobbit was certainly an epic movie. I loved it, but I would still give it only 8.9 from 10.

GOOD:

- I loved Radagast. He is so weird, funny, distinct, I almost wished they make a movie about him. XD It was cool to see that even though he is so weird, in that once scene where he heals the hedgehog and drives away the spider, you see he has great power, and is a true Istari, not just some weird forest guy.

- The Drwaves finally got out of the "fool" niche. I hated that about fantasy way too much, that Dwarves were always just funny, fat and mostly useless and dumb. Before the extended version of LotR, even Gimli was sometimes more like Jar Jar. The extended cut improved Gimli a lot. But here we see how awesome and cool Dwarves are. They are nimble to the point of being acrobats, and since we hear they are just average Dwarves, you can guess what a truly dangerous foe a Dwarven warrior actually is. As to the fall from heights: I guess a Dwarf is much more robust, physically. I loved it how Jackson gave each Dwarf a real personality and look.

- Kate Blanchett as Galadriel is always epic! She has such a strong presence, as Galadriel, but also in every other role I saw her. She is a bit like a new Kathrine Hepburn - who ironically she played I think in Aviator. She really transported this immense hidden power Galadriel has, as one of the Old Noldor who really saw IT ALL from the earliest days. (Which makes me wish they'd make a Silmarillion trilogy too, someday. ^^)

- The landscape, the characters, all was charimg, exciting, cool. What's not to love.

- Absolutely right mix of fun and drama. I like it when such movies have a bit humor here and there. Nothing worse than a totally serious fantasy film. Alas, it is way too easy to ruin a fantasy film with bad humor. See Star Wars Prequels. PJ made it totally right. Radagast is sometimes funny, but you still take him totally serious in his own way. Much unlike Jar Jar.

NOT SO GOOD:

- The movie is a tad too focussed on action. I had the feeling we stumbled from one action scene to the next. But remembering the book, it WAS sometimes heavy on action and thin on story, so expanding the book to 3 movies makes that logical. Still, I did not feel so connected to the characters of the Hobbit as I felt with the Fellowship characters of LotR. Some Dwarves, especially Thorin, Balin and Bofur stand out well. My favourite was Bofur. He seemed like a nice dude. Still, I didn't relate to the Hobbit-chars so much as to the Fellowship main chars.

- due to the character of the book as children book, it feels much as "just some adventure". Which is fine, but the story does feel more light-weight compared to the "world is at an end"-feeling from LotR. But I guess that is how it is. ;)

All very great. I hope future games learn from that to display Dwarves less "round" and "stupid". And we get a Silmarillion Trilogy! XD Though I probably would cry when Beleriand is destroyed. I always loved Beleriand and it saddened me to think, the great Elven Kingdoms of Beleriand were all destroyed. Age of humans my ass! :/

Just saw the Hobbit last night ~ that was fricken epic and now I want to play LOTRO again.  Its been several years since I last played but my original Minstrel char is still there.  Not sure if I should continue where I left off {just before the Mirkwood update} or start anew...

And I need to decided quickly since I could get the entire game for $45 with the steam sale, but its ending Sat....