The Hobbit (2012 Film)

[Cheomesh]

I do not wish to convey that I did not enjoy the movie.  Rather, I wanted to know if the movie and book were in accord when it came to characterizing the dwarfs.

The giants scene would have captured me, as just one viewer, better if the fellowship hadn't been riding on one.  Having them all somehow survive that was a little silly.  Instead, if it had been something they observed, which added more life to the world, it would have been fine.  Or perhaps not.  If I'm remembering the book, much of the text was Tolkin showing off his world.  Unfortunately, I don't think that'll work in a movie - too niche.

M.

[Humabout]

The giants scene would have captured me, as just one viewer, better if the fellowship hadn't been riding on one.  Having them all somehow survive that was a little silly.  Instead, if it had been something they observed, which added more life to the world, it would have been fine.

Totally agree with you.  That's how it was in the book, if you took it literally, and it probably wouldn't have been too odd like that.

[LD]

Bombur was only there for comic relief, and the rest were more or less just THERE

I thought Bombur was just there for comic relief in the book as well :D.

[Elemental_Elf]

The movie was very well crafted and I really enjoyed myself. I was shocked to realize so much time had passed while watching the film, it really didn't drag the way a some of the other LotR movies did (especially Return of the King).

I was very fearful when I first heard that Jackson was making the Hobbit a movie that they were either going to eliminate the dwarvish clutter (by removing at least half the dwarves) or they would relegate all but a handful to generic background characters. I was quite surprised (and delighted) to see how Jackson characterized the dwarves and gave each of them a visual identity. Sure some of them were goofy but  I remember what each looks like (unlike all their names).

My biggest dislikes were the Storm Giant scene, which felt a bit overwrought, inserted for the sole delight of 3-D viewers (of which I was not). I liked the way they moved and looked but the scene had no bearing on the film what so ever. Still, it saved the scene from being simply a generic "someone slips on the cliff and is saved" scene.

I loved all the added world building that Jackson has inserted into the film. It's really tying the cinematic LotR universe together. Though I would prefer they make another series of movies with these characters, I fear Sir Ian is getting a bit too aged and thus may not be around for another series of movies (knock on wood). It's been many years since I read the Hobbit (almost 10), so the insertion of these extra scenes did not feel as jarring as they would have had I read the book recently. I try not to judge movies against their source material because, 90% of the time, movies are incomparably worse than books. Movies can only skim along the main plot of a novel, often jettisoning a all subplots that give the story life.  This is why I was happy to hear the Hobbit will be given 3 movies, even more so since it will include material from other LotR stories that probably would never have seen the light of day otherwise. There is a danger in that, in that one could include too much outside material but I trust Jackson not to do that (in a few years, I may eat those words...).

I have to wonder though, what the heck is going to be in the director's cut of this film?

[Rhamnousia]

Personally, while it wasn't my favorite scene in the whole movie, I didn't hate the giants as much as a lot of people seem to. Yeah, it would've been totally out of place in Jackson's original trilogy, but I always envisioned the Hobbit as being much more fantastic than the original Lord of the Rings anyway. I loved that he devoted some time to giving the quest context, because when I read the original book, it didn't seem like there was anything really riding on it.

Also, how as nobody mentioned this yet? FEMALE. DWARVES.

[Humabout]

I have to wonder though, what the heck is going to be in the director's cut of this film?

The Eagle's Eerie scene that was dropped.  You know, where Gandalf explains that they are the descendents of Thoronder's kin who lived in the mountains just north of Gondolin in the First Age.  That's where Bilbo makes his strong connection to the eagles, so . . .

[spoiler=SPOILER]
. . . when he hits his head during the War of Five Armies and passes out muttering, "The eagles," it's not going to seem like he just has a concussion . . .
[/spoiler]

The other scene that would have been nice was when the throng meats the group of elves headed to the Gray HaAven to sail west to Valinor.  I do believe we missed another song there.

Also, how as nobody mentioned this yet? FEMALE. DWARVES.

You know, I really need to reread the Silmarillion and the Lost Tales, because I'd almost swear there was at least a sideways mention of some sort of female dwarf somewhere, even if it was only to a princess or queen or some such.  I could totally be wrong, of course.

[Polycarp]

I didn't hate the giants as much as a lot of people seem to. Yeah, it would've been totally out of place in Jackson's original trilogy, but I always envisioned the Hobbit as being much more fantastic than the original Lord of the Rings anyway. I loved that he devoted some time to giving the quest context, because when I read the original book, it didn't seem like there was anything really riding on it.

Well, again - for me, at least - it wasn't that I hated the giants, they just didn't fit very well with the narrative.  What you're saying, I think, is that they fit well with the world, which I don't necessarily disagree with; the problem for me was not so much that they weren't appropriate for the world of the Hobbit, but that they played no role in the movie as a standalone piece of cinema.  It's not that I objected to seeing it, just that it could have been removed and nothing would have been compromised by the removal.

Also, how as nobody mentioned this yet? FEMALE. DWARVES.

I liked seeing this too - I preferred that simple portrayal to the way it was just played for comedy in the LotR movies ("It's the beard!").  I bet a lot of people missed it, however.

You know, I really need to reread the Silmarillion and the Lost Tales, because I'd almost swear there was at least a sideways mention of some sort of female dwarf somewhere, even if it was only to a princess or queen or some such.  I could totally be wrong, of course.

Fili and Kili, in some appendix somewhere, are noted as the sons of Dis, who was Thorin's sister.  This, IIRC, is the only female dwarf named in the text (if an appendix counts as text).

[LD]

Regardless of other merits, I was very disappointed by the Shire portion of the film and it put me in a bit of a detached mood to enjoy the rest of the movie.

In the book, Bilbo doesn't want to go and is essentially dragged along in a humorous interlude. Much believability and much humor was lost by making him want to sign the contract. Now, Peter Jackson could have altered the book as he did... if he set up the change of heart better--he could have introduced Bilbo going about his day and the other hobbits looking down on him because when he was young he was wild and because his mother was a Took, etc. etc. This would also have added great background material into what it means to be a hobbit; but instead he left it to boring exposition by Gandalf and the actor who plays Bilbo- Morgan Freeman?? didn't have any demonstration on his face that Gandalf was getting through to him.

I like the things that were added to the movie- Radagast's section, the meeting with Elrond, Saruman, etc., some of the battle flashbacks. But the things that were taken out were annoying... essentially, the outset of Bilbo's decision to adventure just wasn't done well--- Jackson completely missed an opportunity for humor with Bilbo being afraid of the dwarves and not wanting them to know he isn't a burglar really... it would have been hilarious to see him quaking in fear and them continually talking about how great a burglar he is... except that was limited to only one joke in Bag End...

Regrettably, that scene put me in a bad mood for the rest of the movie, which just seemed like one thing happening after another with little setup and which led me to nearly doze off near the end. It was a sumptuous looking movie, but it seemed poorly put together. I'll see part II because I like the source material, but I'll make a point to go to a matinee showing or cheap theater if possible.

[Cheomesh]

The actor for Bilbo is also not great.  He's not Jean-Claude van Damme bad, but he certainly wasn't great.

M.

[Polycarp]

The actor for Bilbo is also not great.  He's not Jean-Claude van Damme bad, but he certainly wasn't great.

Heresy.  Martin Freeman is excellent.

He's also better at it than Elijah Wood was, except perhaps when it comes to staring wistfully at things.

[Steerpike]

Ian Holm > Sean Astin > Martin Freeman > Elijah Wood

That's how I'd order them.  I like Freeman fine, but he can be awfully one-note.  Holm can go from joyous to paranoid to concerned and melancholy to wrathful to timid and humbled to wistfully optimistic all in one scene and do it in such a way that it seems organic and authentic and natural and perfectly hobbit-like.  Freeman kind of has one setting, bumbling and slightly vexed and tired-feeling.  But that works for Bilbo at this point, and he does that one setting pretty decently enough, in my opinion, and comparing him to Holm just isn't fair when Holm sells the part 100%.  I used to have a picture of Bilbo in my head before I read the books, and then Holm came long and the other version of Bilbo evaporated instantly.  I can't say the same about my images of Frodo or even Sam.

[Cheomesh]

I don't think I've seen Martin Freeman in any other movie - at least not to my knowledge.

I can't quite express why, but his acting in this film took me out in parts.  I'll willingly admit it may have been some other elements, however, and it just feels like it was his acting.  Only saw the movie once, and it was some weeks ago now.

I stand by my earlier assessment though - I left the theater with the same feeling Episode 1 gave me.

M.

[Polycarp]

I don't think I've seen Martin Freeman in any other movie - at least not to my knowledge.

Neither have I, but I've seen him before in Sherlock.  Sherlock is excellent and you should watch it.

I have a hard time disagreeing with Steerpike's analysis, though I have faith that in the movies to come we'll get to see more out of Freeman than "bumbling and slightly vexed and tired-feeling."  Ian Holm is indeed very good.

[Cheomesh]

Ian Holm is one of my favourite actors.  Especially liked him in All Quiet on the Western Front, as little as he was in it.

M.