Having seen a number of various opinions in this thread, it might interesting to see all your opinions about the movie on a numerical scale from 1 (absolutely appalling) to 10 (best movie ever seen). If a substantial number of you participate, we might get a good overview how the TOR community rates the first Hobbit movie.

Cheers
Tolwen

I would also be interested in knowing what people thought, combined with what version they saw (2D, 3D, 3D HFR).

I loved it (with some petty quibbles), and I saw it in 2D.

I gave it a 7 in 2D (I don't like 3D, both as I see it as rip-off with added prices as well as being uncomfortable to wear the goggles). For me, it wasn't so much what was shown that bothered me, but how it was shown, i.e. mostly visual issues.

Please note; all of the below my personal opinion (in some cases backed by Tolkien's own information).

Positive
- Choice of the scenes, both from the book plus added ones
- The film up to and including the Unexpected Party
- Gollum and Bilbo (for me with a huge margin the highlight of the whole movie)
- Martin Freeman as Bilbo!!!
- The Stone Giants (principally). A great idea to make them not oversized humans, but something really different. It solves many issues associated with them - IMHO.
- The Troll encounter
- Radagast in Mirkwood (apart from the rabbit-sled; see below)

Negative
- The Dwarves' design. I acknowledge the choice to make it easier for the broad audience to differentiate them. Still, most of them are poor, almost beardless fellas (Thorin included). No wonder Thorin was so ill-tempered . Beside the overall lack of dwarvish beards in most, Bofurs hat was ridiculous (same as Radagast's), the weapon head lodged in Bifurs skull was absolutely nonsense and Dwalins baldness non-dwarvish.
- The rabbit-sled
- Radagasts hat (see Bofur) and the bird-poop (or whatever else) on his hair/temple
- The Stone Giants' size. Much smaller would have been better here
- Animated orcs instead of costumed actors
- Azog and his gang as an artificial nemesis of Thorin
- Jump-and-run feeling in goblin-city
- Much too quick cuts in the action scenes
- Overall: Much inflated over the top action sequences; hardly believable or to be taken seriously (as far as fantasy is serious at all)
- Goblin-city as a big hole in the mountain (probably owing to 3D; smaller caves and tunnels would make no big impression in the chosen 3D technology or preclude the - often overhead - excessive tracking shots)
- Erebor similar to goblin-city (much too big open caverns) and overblown sizes (Moria is dwarfed by it - no pun intended ). Unbelievable amounts of gold
- Smaug (of what little was shown) looked much too big to me

EDIT: As a comparison, FotR awed me much more in what was shown and how it was done (and both compared to their respective textual model).

Cheers
Tolwen

"I don't like 3D, both as I see it as rip-off with added prices as well as being uncomfortable to wear the goggles."

I knew I could not be the only one who felt like this around here. And don't forget the eye strain and headaches from the 3D.

"Smaug (of what little was shown) looked much too big to me"

I think it a litle premature to make a decsision of Smaug asyet. What was shown was more or less combat footage, hard to gauge scale. But, from what I saw I had no problem...In my mind dragons need to be BIG. I just ha a feeling that they would end the movie like that.

I gave it 9 out of 10. I really enjoyed it, I arrived rather hyped up about seeing it and wasn't disappointed.

I saw it in 2d because 3d provokes my migraines.

Am I the only one who likes Bofur's hat?

Yes.


Well, maybe Bofur liked it. Maybe.

You know. I was going to give it only an 8. But when I thought about it, I couldn't really think of any real complaints I had. Have only seen it once so far, and I imaging I will notice flaws in future viewings. But the first is the one that counts. And I can't really find any nagging faults. I am not a fan of 3D in general, but I thought that this was tastefully done. The FHR wasn't a huge negative for me. Wasn't a huge positive either. Looking forward to seeing it without. If I had a nag, it would be Radagast. I was unclear what he was up to. How does healing a hedgehog drive away whatever was "out there". And wouldn't he be more of a threat to the Necromancer? He is one of the Istari.

But I loved it. It did not leave me in Awe like FotR did. But lighting doesn't strike the same bottle twice. If nothing else, I got to spend almost 3 hours back in Middle Earth. So not perfect, but what is in this universe.



Oh, and another thing. I could have enjoyed seeing more hobbits in the Shire. But that's just me.

No, you are not.

I tend to hear all of the gripes about the 13 as "why don't all dwarves look and dress the same?" If they were humans, there would be no issues with their varied looks, so why with another race? I think fantasy races too easily get into the very unrealistic mode of "all (race) does this or that" which isn't true within any human culture, let alone a whole race.



As a side note, the only thing that really irked me when I saw the film was where does Radaghast get over the mountains with that sled? I kept wondering if they had gone south enough for him to loop under the gap of Rohan. The obvious answer is that he went through the mountain pass, but after watching the dwarves struggle with it, that seems unlikely. If we had seen him without the sled, I would have assumed that the eagles carried him and thought nothing of it. Since he brought the damn thing, it stuck out to me.

I saw the 3D HFR and I will give it an 8! I really liked it, but I did not like the stone giants, yuck...and some minor other stuff. I would hope someone had the courage to tell Sir Jackson that Less is MORE!!!

Negatives: I agree with most of what Tolwen wrote. Way to much gold.
Dale looked like a Easterling city. To many computer animations. I hate the axe head in Bifurs head. We have 2 dwarves that looks like elves...

I like that Smaug is big ass big. I love the costums. I love Bag End.

I hate to see our heroes fall hundreds of feets un harmed...that no no no.

But still, I LOVE The Hobbit! <3


/Khamul

"Dale looked like a Easterling city."

I didn't have a problem with the way Dale looked. I thought it had a cosmopolitian way about it. Though the archetecture is more what I would've thought of as coming from some where more Southern (Dol Amroth).

"I hate the axe head in Bifurs head."

You know I never noticed it, I knew about from here. Where did we see it in the movie?

"I hate to see our heroes fall hundreds of feets un harmed...that no no no."

Yeah, that fall was a bit much.

I never noticed that axe head either, even though I knew it was there. I don't mind the dwarves having different looks, but Thorin, Fili and Kili didn't look like dwarves to me.

I don't want to repeat my previous 'review' but let's just say that while I first saw it in 24 FPS 2D, I initially intended to see it a second time in 48 FPS. I won't. Well, maybe in two years, when the three movies are shown together, but not until then. I see many complaints about changed from the book, but am I the only one to find the pacing off? I was really bored at times, and let my mind wander away from the story, looking at the beautiful landscapes and costumes.

To end on a positive note... please give me a three hours movie with just singing dwarves. That was beautiful.

I absolutely love this film - but I have to shut out the pictures of the book! This was something I learned with the LoR-Trilogy. I have seen the first movie and I was totally broken till the moment I forgot about the books. And then I was absolutely excited. The movies and the books are - for me - different universes, for example like Hell Boy, and therefor I can enjoy a good, no, very good, awesome movie.

You know, I have a pretty substantially different opinion of the books than 1) most of you and 2) most of everybody, it seems. I did not enjoy the movie. I admit that, when it comes to Tolkien adaptations, I find it very hard to be objective. (For example, I have long wanted an RPG to adequately capture the feeling, tone, and scope of Tolkien's legendarium, and only have recently achieved something close to the mark with TOR! )

More than just being "not as good as the book," I think that the marked departures in tone and appropriateness in this latest installment not only hurt the franchise, but (and this is the most important point) - I think the movie will provide a stumbling stone for new readers, giving them false impressions and erroneous associations of a Middle-earth that is a dramatic departure from that which was imagined by Prof. Tolkien.

To quote Letter 210, in which Tolkien harshly critiqued a screenplay adaptation of the LotR trilogy:
"If Z and/or others do so, they may be irritated or aggrieved by the tone of many of my criticisms. If so, I am sorry (though not surprised). But I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occasion the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it is all about. ....
The canons of narrative an in any medium cannot be wholly different ; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies.
Z .... has intruded a 'fairy castle' and a great many Eagles, not to mention incantations, blue lights, and some irrelevant magic... He has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights; and he has made no serious attempt to represent the heart of the tale adequately: the journey of the Ringbearers. The last and most important pan of this has, and it is not too strong a word, simply been murdered."

The whole of letter 210 is interesting (because Tolkien is such a lovable curmudgeon), but I think that his understanding of how his works should be adapted is particularly poignant in the light of the recent movies.

I saw it in HFR 3D and really liked the stuff took directly from the book. What I didn't like was the whole orcs following the party and the added stuff with the brown wizard. It didn't seem like something JRRT would write.

The HFR 3D was a very new experience to me. I could see how someone would not like it. Is is very realistic and made everything have a Spanish soap opera feel. I found my self thinking Gandalf has massively huge pores. However I got to appreciated the choreography and costumes more and I think I prefer it to the non HFR. It just took some getting used to.

Overall an 8

For one, the Elves are quite uniform in physical appearance as well (despite their different dresses/clothings), so the Dwarves would not be alone. It would also set them apart from men. Given the Dwarves' origin, that would be fitting indeed IMO.

Concerning the beards, I have found some interesting quotes, all from The Hobbit:

Here we learn that Fili and Kili had blonde beards, that Thorin had a long beard himself (naturally; he was king of the Longbeards tribe among the Seven Houses). I cannot understand the choice of giving especially Thorin such a diminutive beard. He is IMHO the first choice for classic a long-bearded dwarf.
Instead all three (Thorin, Fili and Kili) look like their outlook was designed to please the 16-year girls (oh, he's soooo cuuute!); or at least make them dashing-looking youngsters. If so, I can live with it and make my own opinion about it

In this context, another passage is quite highlighting:

Fili and Kili were 82 and 77, respectively, at the time of The Hobbit and thus would have looked about the same "age" as the 195 year-old Thorin at that time. IIRC all of Thorin's company fell in this range of 200 years where the Dwarves all looked about the same age, so outwardly, all the Dwarves of Thorin & Co. would show no "age differences". Of course that's hard to sell for the mass audience - especially if the Dwarves all have long beards as well...
Another point is that according to Tolkien, the movie-Dwalin's baldness is something unknown among Dwarves.

EDIT: In another forum I saw a post which sums up the "Azog experience" (and with him some others as well), as WoW-look'n'feel. A nice comparison, and Azog definitely qualifies for it

Cheers
Tolwen

The axe that is stuck in Bifurs forehead is there in every shot of him (sadly)

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2012...6px-Bifur_2.jpg

About the greatness of Dale, I love it too. But it should have looked alot more norse. Look at Rohan, they are decendants from the men of the North (Mirkwood area).

Never noticed the axe while watching the movie. Kind of funny actually.

Mild nit pick; Rohan is based on the saxons, not Norse.

And I bet the Saxons was Norse men from the beginning hehe

The 9, and especially the 10, rating should be qualified with "You are equally thrilled and entranced when someone tosses a red object onto the floor, such as a bouncy ball, but even a hat or sock will do."


Positive

I agree wholeheartedly.



Negative
The stone giant scene was disappointing and only surpassed by the absurdly, kung-fu-ish (wire-fu) escape from goblin town scene. Why not just have them all riding out on shield-skateboards a-la-Legolas?

I thought the Great Goblin was a bit too Rhodes scholarly-ish, but maybe they depicted him just right. He seemed like he spent his idle time drinking decanters of wine, playing chess, and writing on his life long work: The Annotated Don Quixote.. I didn't care for his parting line, but Jackson gets a pass on this one.

I enjoyed Radagast. His rabbit sled made me cringe. My 10 year old nephew however thought it was great and laughed as it whipped about on the moor.

The entish lichen was a nice touch but it should have stopped at his hat brim and not extended upward. That looked like bird droppings.

The Troll scene was enjoyable. My nephew was disappointed with how it differed from the book (as was I).

Oh and the dwarves... . The lack of beards, the pretty-boy dwarves, the mad, russian bomber hat, Thorin Nobeard Smallnose ... it's almost criminal.

Balin was well done, the epitome of dwarfdom. To bad we didn't see this theme carried over to the others.

As for pushing Bilbo to the forefront into hero status -- why? What purpose does this serve?

An apt comment overheard while leaving the theatre: "At least the movie shared the same character names as the book".

I laughed out loud at that.

Classy.

So where were the blue-bearded dwarves? They are rather clearly mentioned in "An Unexpected Party",

And Smaug is "red-gold" not green!

And...

Much better than Rankin-Bass! Fewer actual departures from the Nobel and its sequel tha in he LotR films. Jackson's LotR made several huge departures from Tolkien's novel. Arwen at the ford instead of Glorfindel, Frodo and Sam go to Osgiliath, the great wizard smack-down, and no scouring of the Shire. All completely unlike the novel.

At least everything in the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was mentioned or alluded to in one of he two novels. I'll grant you that Radaghast's rabbit-sled was rather an extreme reading of his character.

"And Smaug is "red-gold" not green!."

I seem to remember that Smaug in the movie was a bronzish colour, at least in the footage of his attack on Eribor.

"Arwen at the ford instead of Glorfindel..."

Trouble iwth Tolkien's work is that he has so many one shot wonder characters. Works well in a book, not so much in a movie.

I was being somewhat tongue in cheek.

I rated the Hobbit an 8. As for LotR, Frodo and Sam go to Osgiliath was actually my favorite part of the whole movie series. For one simple reason, it put suspense back in the plot line for me. Up to that point I felt I knew the story well and could tell what was coming next. When Frodo and Sam took that big detour, suddenly I didn't know any more than they did what was happening next.


I was glad to see that Smaug looked big enough to devastate a couple of towns, including the Dwarvish Kingdom Under the Mountain.

And wasn't there a blue-bearded dwarf (Gloin?) in the Council Of Elrond in the FOTR movie? It didn't look silly there, so they could have done it.

Just watched the movie for the second time today. It is nearly perfect!

Um, if you don't know why a movie entitled "The Hobbit" needs to have Bilbo portrayed as a hero at some point during the three-hour showing, then I can't help you. Waiting until his first true hero moment in the books would mean waiting until the second movie. If your entire audience consists solely of people who have read the book, that's an option...but you're not going to make much money that way.

That's ridiculous.

OTOH this only becomes necessary by inflating it to three movies. I bet that a decent portrayal of the book plus some added stuff to link with the LotR is entirely possible in two 3+ hour movies. In a two-movie version, at least Mirkwood would be in the first, giving Bilbo a good opportunity for his "hero role".

Not that I judge the three-movie decision before I have seen all of them, but the story and scope as such wouldn't have necessitated it.

Cheers
Tolwen

Just saw it for the second time yesterday. The first time was opening day in 3d. Yesterday was in 2d. I will watch it one final time (in the theatre) in 48fps. I thought the 3d version was crisper (i.e., everything looked clearer, more sharp, more focused). However, I found it easier to follow the action in Goblin Town in the 2d version as it seemed less chaotic.

I gave it an 8 on the scale. Overall, I liked it. There were some changes I wouldn't have made.

What with what all was going on, I believe the entire company should've perished in the scene with the Stone Giants and later in Goblin Town. Only a superhero or a Jedi should've been able to survive that!

I do have a theory to rationalize the divergent looks of the Dwarves in Thorin's Company. In the scenes at Erebor in the film The Hobbit, the Dwarves look pretty similar and uniform. The Dwarves at the Council of Elrond in the film FotR look pretty similar and uniform. What these two different groups have in common is a common home (i.e., they are not a scattered people at those times). Their attire and grooming reflect that commonality. The Dwarves in Thorin's Company are all representative of a scattered people, reflecting more individual personalities that are influenced by the variety of locales in which they find themselves about Middle-earth. That is they way I interpret their radical look, at least. Thoughts?

SPOILER ALERT!!! READ NO FURTHER!!!!

One note about the axe in the head of Bifur. I understand the reason behind it is that he took a blow there in the battle with the Orcs outside Moria that did NOT kill him and the Dwarves did not possess the medical knowledge to remove it. The Elves do, but the Dwarves won't go to them for assistance due to Thranduil's abandonment when Smaug sacked Erebor. I know that there have been real world counterparts to catastrophic injuries like this (e.g., Phineas P. Gage ... a fellow that had a railroad spike driven through his head).

Speaking of Thranduil ... from reading The Hobbit, I have always thought Thranduil to be a royal a-hole. The film version REALLY makes him one to the power of 10 (the term "rat-frak-s-of-a-b" leaps to my mind). I cannot really see any Dwarf EVER forgiving his actions ... and certainly not give them even one single coin of the treasure. I'm thinking that was an over the top change from book to film that I don't really like. There must really be something coming up in the next 2 films if this was done in film 1 to have that titanic rift repaired. Yet, I know imprisonment is coming up, so....?

I invite feedback.

Throrsgold, I agree with you regarding the Dwarves. I spoke to a friend about it the other day, and she pointed out that Thorin spent a lot of his time amongst humans, and so it would make sense for him to look more human. Also, apparently Fili and Kili grew up among humans, so there's that. Then again, there's also the fact they're all played by some of the more attractive cast members.

My experience has been the quality of the projection. I watched it first at a theatre that is roughly 8+ years old. The second time I saw it was at a theatre that had just opened it doors three days prior.

It was night and day in regards to the clarity, the 'crispness' of the picture. Both were 48fps, but the newer theatre won hands down.

/This.

It thrills me to no end that Jackson dumbed the movie down for the Ironman/Thor crowd.

You may be over thinking this. IMO Jackson sent a memo down to Design and ordered the dwarf's to be divided up into traditional, comedic, and heartthrob stereotypes.

IMO, since Thorin had no qualms about telling Elrond or Gandalf to piss off, change appearance to better blend and be more acceptable to humans wasn't ever on his to-do list.

Jackson appeased the deep-pocket O*, Men's Health, and Seventeen magazine readers by throwing them some eye candy.



(*Oprah Magazine)

Is this with respect what is stated in the movie or what Tolkien wrote about that? Most often, it's a huge difference

Cheers
Tolwen

As I already wrote: Do we discuss this on a basis of statements made in the movie or what we know from Tolkien of this subject?

That way misunderstandings can be avoided

Cheers
Tolwen

I'm basing the rationalization I presented here on the movie(s) ... as an attempt to "explain" the differences (in my mind at the very least) in the looks of the 3 groups I saw: 1) the Dwarves present at the Council of Elrond; 2) the Dwarves at Erebor; and, 3) the Dwarves of Thorin's Company.

I'll give it an 8 overall, didn't have a problem with the story changes:

Main quibble was that it looked too much like a video game in parts, especially in the fight sequences. I think this is due to overuse of CGI & not enough prosthetic orcs.

As a result I think the movie lacked the epic 'feel' of the LOTR movies

Robin S.

OK, within the "PJ Middle-earth" this might then work.
I guess have always to remind me that this and Tolkien's Middle-earth are quite different things and I can't assume things written by Tolkien to be valid here as well

Cheers
Tolwen

I agree with Throrsgold. What I said about the appearance of Thorin, Fili and Kili is merely an attempt at rationalising the way they appear in the film, regardless of the fact we all know from the book that this would not be the case

I'm sick and tired of hearing all this nonsense about hot dwarves and whatnot.

It makes absolutely zero difference to the plot that Thorin, Fili and Kili have short/no beards.

If beard is what makes a dwarf, Gandalf is also a dwarf. Beorn is probably a dwarf as well.

The book is the book, what works in the book would not work in the film at all. I'd be really glad if someone actually made a short video of one scene from the book and do the makeup of the dwarves as they're described in the book.

That would clearly show what an absolute disaster that would've been as a design choice. The film has little space to give to all the various characters and there's 13 of the dwarves alone. I was unsure about the designs at first, when they showed the photographs. But they grew on me. And here's why:

They make sense.

But Thorin has a long beard in the book! But dwarves don't go bald in the book! But Fili and Kili are both blonde in the book! But...blah blah blah.

All of this doesn't matter in the slightest. What matters is - these are dwarves, they're all distinctly dwarven, but at the same time we can easily tell them apart.

And in the movie, they all feel very dwarvish. I don't care what your idea of a dwarf is, or whether dwarfishness is determined by the length of his beard.

Jackson's thoughs were:

- dwarves get more "dwarvish" as they get older. That's why the young dwarves - Fili and Kili and Ori have only short or no facial hair, to clearly indicate their youngness. That's kinda hard if their beards were tucked in their belts.

- Thorin is younger, because it's difficult to see an old looking character and identify with his motivation. Which in this case is to reclaim his heritage, his homeland, to gain back what his ancestors lost. If he's already looking like one of the ancestors...not a good thing. Again, visual movie storytelling. Plus we immediately identify him as a relative of Fili and Kili.

- dwarves don't all come from the same place and caste. Yes, they actually came up with that, it's not "let's make these guys hot and this guy weird". Bifur, Bofur and Bombur are supposed to be relatively poor miners who used to live more to the east than the others. I really like Bofur's hat and Bifur's axe didn't bother me at all. Which I admit, I didn't expect. Similarly, Nori, Dori and Ori are supposed to be something like travelling dwarven merchants. Ori being the young scribe, Dori being the head merchant with good manners and eloquent braided hair+beard and Nori being the sneaky peddler/swindler type who's up to no good. His hair is pretty far out, yes.
If you look closely at Fili and Kili, their clothing and mannerisms clearly mirror Thorin's, they're nobility. Balin even more so, he's clearly an old noble warrior. Dwalin too, although he's more of the rough bodyguard type. I think he's shaving his head, (although I'm not sure on this), to show off the tattoos. He had a mohawk in the battle of Azanulbizar scene. So he's not supposed to be bald from age or anything.

I really think the "hot "dwarves don't look anything like elves. Why couldn't dwarves be reasonably handsome? They do have larger ears, noses and their proportions are distinctly dwarven, not elven. The way they talk, the way they move, it all screams "dwarf". To me at least.

There's a nice article written about this trio of "hot dwarves" and how the relationship between Fili, Kili and Thorin is subtly, but visibly portrayed in the movie. In fact, that's one of the parts I really liked about it.

Of course, I have my own issues with the film, I didn't enjoy it in 3D at all. Yes, there are things I'd cut and so on. But reading these sarcastic remarks about hot dwarves makes me a bit sad, because the dwarven design is one of the things the film got absolutely right.

This post has been edited by Jan Pospisil on Dec 27 2012, 10:46 AM

Jan Pospisil

Uh... ok. I didn't think the comments about them being hot were sarcastic. I consider it a fact to be honest. The consensus is that those actors are attractive. Whether Jackson altered the character's appearance to show that isn't that big an issue.

Also, from reading your short essay, it seemed almost as though you don't like the fact people are having a discussion about the film. And what's wrong with people complaining about certain things? Each to their own and all that. I know of few films that nobody will find fault with, and that applies doubly so with adaptations of books. But you seem to be upset that people have differing views. That's how it came across anyway :/

PS: I had a quick look at your bloggy thing. Nice art work

I object to people repeating their opinions and speculations as fact.

Ie. the "Those three were cast just to please the teen girls in the audience" type. Criticism doesn't mean I wish you to cease having opinions, that's a bit of a strawman. It means I disagree with your opinion and that I'm unhappy about similar misinformation or speculation being quite common on internet forums.

So called Tolkien purists detest any and all changes and tend to call them unwarranted or without meaning, sense and purpose. But they mostly do have a purpose, often it is to better translate the story into the medium of film.

It's interesting that purists often disagree entirely on what parts of the film were terrible and which parts were done almost right.

(had a funny discussion with a few people, where one liked only the White Council scene and the other thought it was done very poorly and in a way unworthy of the book)

I'm not telling you guys to stop discussing, of course not. That'd be just silly. Check your facts, don't assume the filmmakers are absolute idiots. That's all.

This post has been edited by Jan Pospisil on Dec 27 2012, 11:37 AM