fumanstan

Which is why eagles answer everything.



I don't get it.

story

"The robot... turns into a bug!"

milo bloom

I've mentioned before, I don't mind stretching it out because there's a lot of sequences in the book of The Hobbit that are glossed over with a "and then they won the battle", plus all the additional world building with the White Council and such is just cool geek porn. So I'll buy all both versions of all three movies and gladly put them beside both versions of the LOTR movies.


That said, just for arguments' sake, I think a neat extra to include with the extended Bluray/DVD of There and Back Again would be a 2 hour cut of the whole story, for quick watching.

RoboDad

That would be awesome.

hanshotfirst1138

I'm inclined to agree. There is some stuff to mine from elsewhere in the Tolkien world about events which happened before and concurrently with The Hobbit, so while it's something of rarely do, I'm going to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt that he's hinting a future riches to come in the rest of the trilogy.

No desire at all? Really? Huh. I'm certainly not going to argue that they've stretched things out far long than perhaps is necessary, but as I said, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the future two films to see how it all pulls together. Besides, I'll be honest, not only is the novel one of my favorite books, but I kind of like returning to Jackson's version of Middle Earth and returning to some of the actors and characters I loved from the previous movies. When all is said and done, this probably won't turn out to be anywhere near the achievement that LOTR was, but it'll probably still be lots of fun.

DeputyDave

I will have to say I was extremely disappointed by The Hobbit when I saw it in the theater. I love the LOTR movies and watched the extended editions on Blu-ray just before seeing it. It's not that I hated it but thought it was "just OK". I remember calling my brother who had also just seen it and complaining endlessly about it.

Now, I've just see it again on Blu-ray and my opinion has completely changed. I was thinking, "is this the same film?" I actually loved it. It may not be quite as "good" as LOTR but I can say I enjoyed it more. It was more fun and playful (exactly like the book was, most people forget it was written mostly as a children's book).

superdeluxe

Is it a different cut? Or just a 2nd viewing?

DeputyDave

Its just a 2nd viewing. I guess I'm removed from expectations. It didn't even seem nearly as long as it first did.

bunkaroo

This is what I had hoped a 2nd viewing would do for me, but it just didn't happen. I felt bored. After I saw FOTR I wanted to see it again right away.

Both times I watched this, it just felt like they were painting by numbers. It's like a remake of FOTR. It's hard to watch the mountain crossing scenes or the underground goblin scenes and not think of the fellowship stuck in the avalanche or in Moria. I feel like I've seen it before, and it was done better then.

If anything I don't think it was light and playful enough for the source material and that's the problem. It seems like they're trying to turn this into another LOTR in tone and it's not working. Also there needs to be more focus on Bilbo and less on Thorin, but I'm not surprised give LOTR seemed to focus more on Aragorn than Frodo.

Pizza

Just watched the blu-ray. The movie needs to be cut to 2 hours. Too much padding. The book would have been an amazing three hour movie or a pretty good two-parter judging by the first one, three films is too much. I didn't miss the HFR. That helped my second viewing. I didn't even bother with the 3D this time.

DeputyDave

The thing is, as much as I loved LOTR it was just so grim. An unrelenting and painful slog to destroy the ring. Sure there were great breaks for action, but it never lost focus of how deadly serious everything was. It was a lot to maintain for almost 12 hours (extended editions). The Hobbit I realized in the 2nd viewing (and keep in mind, several months have passed between my initial viewing opening night) is funny and fun... an adventure.

I too noticed the similarities between the mountain pass/goblin city in both movies. You need to look at the source material though.

Josh-da-man

Yeah, I hate to say this, but the movie is nearly unwatchable.

The movie is a bloated, glacial-paced mess. The bloating problem isn't the inclusion of things like Radagast and the White Council; the problem lies in the editing. It's like every scene runs on too long. A take that could have been done in thirty seconds is stretched to forty-five seconds. A scene that could have been done in two minutes lasts three minutes. And that lasts for almost the whole damned movie.

The Lord of the Rings movies ran three hours and never felt bloated or overlong. This reminds me of King Kong.

And I also think Azog, the albino orc, is a weak addition. Upon the second viewing, the character and his vendetta against Thorin adds nothing to the story. It's little more than a distraction and eats up in screen time in a by-the-numbers villain out for revenge scenario and an attempt to add an antagonist to a story that doesn't really have one.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey could have easily been cut down by thirty minutes or even an hour without losing any of the story.

thelwig14

The decision to make Azog CGI unlike the original trilogy (big dudes in makeup) was a huge mistake and took me completely out of his scenes.

DeputyDave

Yeah, they knocked it out of the park with Gollum (who was even better if possible in the Hobbit) so it just made the others (Trolls, Goblin King, Albino) look so much worse.

Supermallet

The best part of the Hobbit was the messenger goblin. This guy:

slop101

And even he was a rip-off of Salacious Crumb.

Supermallet

Salacious Crumb never did anything but rip out one of R2's sensors. Messenger goblin's zooming along zip lines and shit. Badass.

Pizza

I totally agree. Loved him when he popped up which speaks volumes when such a minor character steals the show and at how uninteresting the other characters are. I really didn't care for the design of most of the characters. Absolutely hated the giants in the first third. Didn't care for that ruler dude in the same scene as the messenger.

Artman

Yeah, that best represents the overuse of CG compared to LOTR. He served the exact same purpose as Lurtz in Fellowship, and he wasn't nearly as good because he was obviously CG. I didn't mind transforming the Hobbit into more of a LOTR type of trilogy, I just wish the filmmaking was done the same way. It's not bad by any means, they did shoot a lot on location....but it can't escape the gloss and sheen that the extra post production work adds.

Dr. DVD

I re-watched this over the weekend and while I still feel that a lot is unnecessary, it wasn't still the letdown it was when I saw it opening night. I actually saw it again the next day for the HFR and it got better. However, this time was the best as all of my expectations were in check.

I feel the movie does a good job when it's actually telling the story of The Hobbit and not trying to expand on the LOTR stuff. While the Azog story is superfluous, I think it will add something in the long run.

Now for my sequel concerns:

hanshotfirst1138

The Great Goblin has a scrotum for a chin. That bothers me.

It was actually kind of a cool design, the use of CG just made him look like an albino reject from Avatar.

Yeah, the tone of The Hobbit-much less serious than LOTR-is sort of a problem given that the monsters in LOTR were properly scary-looking. The trolls were sort of supposed to be funny, and much of the humor this time out was much too broad and poorly judged. I actually kind of like the character of Azog, the design is cool and the idea of him being a face to the forces chasing them was kind of neat, I just thought the CG wasn't that effective.

Josh-da-man

Is that bucket thing hanging off of his seat for him to poop and pee in?

RocShemp

Andy Serkis played both Gollum and the Witchking. Neither character was linked. Jonathan Rhys Davies played both Gimli and Treebeard. Neither character was linked.

I think you can rest easy.

Why So Blu?

The prison was in India.

Terrell

I finally saw The Hobbit on Uverse, and I like it quite a bit, even though Jackson's inability to reign himself in annoys me. His films are ridiculously bloated, almost all of them are. I guess one of the things I like about The Hobbit is it's lighter tone. LOTR just got to be too heavy and and bearing for me. Good films, but bloated, heavy and dreary.

The fact is the entire story of The Hobbit could be effectively told in one 3 hour long movie. At worst two 2 hour long films. The thing is films two and three are just cash grabs by Jackson and the studio.