Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies

[alkanto]

as I mentioned to James earlier in discussion, I understand that there's a rich backstory to Middle Earth and I think that's what is being covered here....the problem is, I don't find that stuff very interesting in the slightest. There's a reason why the LotR books have such mass appeal and the other works don't. I just don't know if they have enough good material (good being the operative word) to fill 3 movies.

That being said...I'll be at the midnight showing of all 3. This is Middle Earth, afterall. It was my first and best love, as far as fantasy works go

[Brainslinger]

Here's the Peter Jackson Facebook entry I was referring to.

[Merlin1958]

As many of you know I am a huge Tolkien fan. I do believe that Jackson & Co. are as well and will do a stellar job of storytelling. As I understand it they intend to incorporate elements of several other Tolkien tales (The Silmarillion etc) and that can on be a good thing. My only trepidation is that in this age of (lack of reading?) is it proper to house this under the banner of "The Hobbit"? So many will view the movie and never actually read the books which is a damn shame IMHO

[frik]

I'm not sure about The Silmarillion, though. In a recent interview PJ mentioned the fact that he doesn't have the rights to touch it - the Tolkien family (kids?) own it - and they're not too impressed with what he did with the LotR trilogy.

sk

[Empath of the White]

He might pad the journey out with flashbacks to add more character to the dwarves. I am worried that he might end up making these seem even bigger than the Lord of the Rings if he gets too carried away. The Appendices are probably where he'll get most of the material, though I think those are just dates and major events. The Lord of the Rings trilogy got me curious in fantasy novels outside of the Potter series, so I'll be seeing all three Hobbit films anyway.

[noal]

I do hope it's not just padding. I would love for them to use the rich layers of Tolkien's text to fill out the history of Middle Earth but I'm assuming that's not very commercial perhaps?

There is way too much material not to use some of it but I suppose we don't know what Jackson is allowed to use.

Eru perhaps?

[Brainslinger]

I doubt they'll be covering The Elder days. It will be stuff from the Appendices of Return of the King, namely stuff that happened withing the time period of the Hobbit. I'd imagine it may include some stuff that happened before (I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some footage of the attack of Smaug on Erebor, or the earlier conflict between the Dwarves and orcs.) but not that far back.

[Empath of the White]

If they have Smaug killed in the 2nd movie, do you think people will be eager to see the 3rd one?

[alkanto]

NEW TRAILER

[fernandito]

Nice!

[Lurker]

Happy Hobbit Day.

[noal]

Looking good!

[Merlin1958]

Yes, very!!!! Jackson has it nailed!!!

[Merlin1958]

In theaters Dec. 14th!!!!! Get excited folks, Very excited!!!

[fernandito]

Hobbit review from IGN


This return to Middle-earth is just shy of greatness.

December 3, 2012 Director Peter Jackson's fourth trip to Middle-earth can't quite recapture the greatness, emotional impact or charm of his Lord of the Rings trilogy, but there's nevertheless much to enjoy about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

A classic book known to millions worldwide, most of whom were introduced to it in childhood, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is appropriately lighter in tone than the more apocalyptic Lord of the Rings trilogy. It's a happier time in Middle-earth -- or so many believe until word comes of a Necromancer and a vague, but definite threat looming somewhere that foreshadows the later events of LOTR -- when Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) finds himself besieged by Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and 13 dwarves asking this meek, comfort-loving hobbit to leave behind his home and join them on a dangerous quest. These 13 dwarves, led by the brooding king Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), are out to reclaim their homeland and treasure from Smaug the dragon (seen only in the quickest of glimpses here).

This quest will see Bilbo -- chosen as the company's burglar since Smaug doesn't know the scent of hobbit -- prove himself to the doubtful Thorin (and to himself) as hey endure a series of dangerous encounters with the many creatures and races of Middle-earth.

Jackson and his co-writers Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Guillermo del Toro pad out this first installment in what is now a trilogy adaptation of a rather slender kid's book with supplemental material from Tolkien's other works, additions meant to not just draw out the story into three films but to also further explain some characters' motivations and whereabouts, as well as to establish more connective tissue to the LOTR films.

This elaboration on events once left to footnotes makes The Hobbit run 160 minutes, which isn't noteworthy (given the runtime of the LOTR films) except that unlike the preceding trilogy it takes a full hour for anything to really happen here. The first hour -- which includes the amusing invasion of the dwarves into Bilbo's domestic bliss and their subsequent song-and-slapstick dinner -- drags along and robs the film of a sense of urgency and forward momentum. For a film that's more kid-friendly than its predecessors -- there are snot gags and belching jokes sure to make kids giggle -- it'll be interesting to see if youngsters will have the patience to get through this movie.

Prolonging this prelude to the main narrative -- the dwarves' journey to the Lonely Mountain -- is a sequence reintroducing audiences to elder Bilbo (Ian Holm) and, in a wholly unnecessary cameo, his nephew Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood). Seriously, why is Frodo in this movie? He accomplishes two things in his nearly 10 minutes of screen time: he gets Bilbo's mail and reminds him of his party, which will lead directly into the events of Fellowship of the Ring. The use of a fast-moving body double for Holm is fairly obvious throughout this sequence, which coupled with Frodo really having no reason to be onscreen makes you wonder when the hell the show will literally get on the road.

Once the quest proper begins, though, The Hobbit, like the book, becomes a relentless series of chase scenes and action episodes, from hungry trolls to Rivendell to the netherworld realm of the goblins to Bilbo's fateful encounter with Gollum (Andy Serkis, who also directed second unit). One of the subplots is the pursuit of Azog (Manu Bennett) and his orc horde; Azog, we learn in an early flashback, lost his arm to Thorin during a war, an act which beget Thorin his surname Oakenshield. Azog wants his revenge and his pursuit of Thorin and company leads to the film's action-heavy climax.

Unfortunately, Azog, like all the orcs and goblins seen in The Hobbit, is a CGI character. Remember how formidable and scary the Uruk-hai were in the LOTR movies? It's because they were played by real actors in makeup and wielding actual weaponry, monsters who had a presence that CGI just can't recreate. The phoniness of these CG-heavy creatures makes The Hobbit feel as inorganic to LOTR as the prequels were to the original Star Wars films.

There's actually a lot of less than jaw-dropping visual effects work here, whether it's Azog -- who looks like he walked out of a video game -- or the horde that chases Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy) or the wargs. The Goblin King (Barry Humphries) and his minions are all CGI. At a certain point during battle scenes with these CGI characters it becomes evident that the main actors are swinging at nothing; you never get the sense anything's actually connecting and thus you're never fully invested in these battles or what happens to anyone in them. It's makes you think that if you went 20 minutes in any direction outside of The Shire you'd end up in Toon Town. Add in the brighter landscapes and The Hobbit often looks more like a Narnia film than an LOTR one.

The CGI character that works best here is, of course, Gollum, and his appearance is a welcome return of an old fan favorite at exactly the right moment. After such an onslaught of chases and action set-pieces (including a diversion to Stone Giant Fight Club), Gollum and Bilbo's game of riddles is a nice piece of character interaction that reenergizes the story in-between battles. It's sad to think we'll never see Gollum again onscreen.

As for the movie's "real" characters, this is Freeman, McKellen, and Armitage's show and they don't disappoint. Freeman is wonderful as Bilbo, even if he can't quite single-handedly out-charm the original trilogy's Fab Four of hobbits. Still, Freeman brings a warmth, wit, and, well, a humanity to the whole affair. McKellen is as regal and coy as ever as Gandalf, while Armitage adeptly captures the bitterness and drive of the rather cold fish that is Thorin, portrayed here as much younger than he's traditionally been depicted.

The rest of the dwarves are essentially sight gags. While it's understandable that most of them would get short-shrift (no, that's not a mean height pun) due to the sheer number of characters, the only ones who really register outside of Thorin are Balin (Ken Stott), Bofur (James Nesbitt), and Kili (Aidan Turner), who will play a larger role in the next two movies. Problem is that by the end of this first film, you don't really care as much about all these characters as you did about the Fellowship by the end of the first LOTR. Still, much of the movie's fun and humor derives from their interaction with one another and their growing fondness for Bilbo.

Jackson and Co. make the dwarves' quest part of a more epic diaspora, a decision that elevates their quest above being a mere treasure hunt like it was in the original story, but the stakes of The Hobbit just don't have the gravity or impact of those in LOTR. It's not as if the entire world as the characters know it would cease to be if the dwarves didn't get their kingdom back (or at least as is evident in this film).

I viewed this film twice; the first time in 24 frames-per-second and 3D, and the second time in 48 frames-per-second and 3D. While we'll address the 48 fps issue in greater length in a later feature, I will say that it certainly looked better than it did at CinemaCon and ultimately didn't bug me as much as I thought it would. Still, it robs a fantasy movie of its escapism by making it feel too "real"; it still looks like broadcast video, making the 48 fps presentation of The Hobbit look like the greatest BBC or PBS production ever. I'm glad I saw it in 48 fps, but more glad that I first saw it in 24 fps. The movie looks just fine in 24 fps -- the format most people will experience The Hobbit in and the one which we've decided to review -- although the 3D in either frame rate simply didn't add enough to justify paying the higher ticket price. I would be curious, though, to see The Hobbit in IMAX as I suspect that might be an ideal format for this oversized saga.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey almost attains greatness yet despite so many moments of epic fun, greatness remains just out of its reach. This is a very good and entertaining movie even if it never quite recaptures the wonder or mystique of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Flaws and all, though, it was just nice to be back in Middle-earth again. It's a minor miracle The Hobbit even exists after such a storied and arduous journey to the big screen, so we're thankful for The Hobbit and eagerly await seeing the next two installments in the trilogy.

The Verdict

Peter Jackson's fourth trip to Middle-earth can't quite recapture the greatness, emotional impact or charm of the LOTR films, but there's still much to enjoy about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

7.9/10

[sgc1999]

opinions, opinions, opinions....

[alkanto]

Good review. I by no means have ever expected for it to outshine the trilogy, simply due to the strength of the respective stories. Good to know it is still enjoyable, though. I am still very much excited!

[Merlin1958]

I'm still very excited to see how Jackson does with this material since I thought he did so well with LOTR. Bear in mind that as the review states "The Hobbit" was originally written as a children's story/fable. It will be interesting to see how PJ walks the line. What also intrigues me is the additional story, which I am assuming will draw heavily from "The Silmarillion". While Tolkien's back story draws heavily on "Paradise Lost" it was still rather compelling to me.

Can't wait for the 3 year adventure to begin!!!

[fernandito]

That's one of the aspects I'm most curious about, to see how Jackson will mesh the supplemental material from The Silmarillion with that of the Hobbit's. He earned my trust with the original LotR trilogy so I'm very excited to see what he did here.

[Merlin1958]

Here's a tasty little treat:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59907

[frik]

As far as I know, PJ can't touch The Silmarillion, as he doesn't have the rights. His (Tolkien's) kids do - and they weren't impressed by his (PJ) trilogy.
The extra stuff's from the Return of the King appendices.

sk

Oops - I think I already mentioned this....

[alkanto]

I just woke up and have a massive headache so I won't type up a proper review now, but suffice to say....The Hobbit was amazing! It was different than LotR, which makes me a little bit fearful that critics are going to not appreciate it as much, expecting the same product. Much as the books are vastly different, so are the movies. But it's not by any means a bad thing. Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage completely nail their respective roles as Bilbo and Thorin as well. The soundtrack is amazing, the cimeotography was well-done, and Gollum is as creepy as ever.

One thing I will say, off the bat, is that there is a lot more CGI here than they have used in the past and I was originally afraid that would detract from the movie. Only in a few times did I ever really notice it where I shouldn't. And the times where you do really notice it, it's done in a way that it doesn't detract from the film. In many cases, it's 100% necessary to accomodate the more fantastical setting and creatures in this film, compared to LotR. I just loved it. I can't wait to see it again.

And on top of all that...our theatre was weird. I'm not sure if it sold too many tickets or not enough, but they directed us all to one theatre and it was full by the time we and a few other people got in (we were early, but spent all the time chatting in the lobby instead of being in line...) so they just told us "Go to theatre 14. We did...and there was maybe 10 of us in there? Felt like a private showing, which was awesome

[DoctorDodge]

Really glad to hear how good it is, Pond. Especially glad to hear how different it is - unlike a lot of people, I actually prefer The Hobbit to the LotR due to its fairytale nature, and I was afraid that Peter Jackson may have ruined that by trying to make a LotR prequel trilogy instead of a spiritually faithful adaptation to the novel. Definitely keen to check it out, now.

[Merlin1958]

I'm going today and seeing it in the IMAX!!!

[alkanto]

Lucky! The IMAX showings are also playing the first 9 minutes of Star Trek: Into Darkness, or so I am told. I really wanted to see that, but there are no IMAX theatres near me.