The Hobbit?

I loved it! Every minute. I read a few critics complain that it was no LOTR, but its not supposed to be LOTR, its The Hobbit. And its great great fun! I can't wait to see it again!

I enjoyed it too, but I think I will enjoy it more on a second viewing. We went to see it on Christmas Day and because it was the earliest showing were forced to view it in ULTRASTUPENDOUS AVX XYZ 3D or whatever. I'm not a huge fan of 3D to begin with, but the main problem was that the high definition made everything look too real. CGI looks like CGI, sets look like sets and the characters look like actors in silly costumes. That one dwarfs bald cap was so obvious it was really distracting every time he was on screen.

None the less, the movie itself was very good. A lot goofier than LOTR, however that's just an observation, not a complaint. Frodo and the Dwarves were a lot of fun and I liked the one-arm Orc a lot. I still don't understand what Cate Blanchett's character is, some sort of witch or goddess. I guess it gets explained better in the books.

I'm looking forward to watching both The Hobbit and Dredd again once they're on DVD so I can appreciate the films better without having to readjust the stupid 3D glasses every five minutes.

I don't like 3-d either, we saw the real version. The glasses really bug me and the 3-d effect isn't all that great to be even remotely worth it.

Tolkien's description of Galadriel, is that she is "the mightiest and fairest of all the Elves that remained in Middle-earth" (after Gil-galad's death) and she is the "greatest of elven women"

I saw it in standard 2-D, 24 fps viewing, and loved it. Yeah, that high-tech stuff sounds annoying.

One of the things I liked best about the movie is that the vision of Galadriel is basically this classic Brothers Hildebrandt painting brought to life:

http://img-fan.theonering.net/~rolozo/images/hildebrandt/galadriel.jpg

Or this one:

http://img-fan.theonering.net/~rolozo/images/hildebrandt/gift.jpg

That quality of light glowing all around her, just mesmerizing.

Joe Lee wrote:

I don't like 3-d either, we saw the real version. The glasses really bug me and the 3-d effect isn't all that great to be even remotely worth it.

Tolkien's description of Galadriel, is that she is "the mightiest and fairest of all the Elves that remained in Middle-earth" (after Gil-galad's death) and she is the "greatest of elven women"

Ahh, that's neat. So she's basically an old Elf with mad respect.

Another question re: the books. In the film Gandalf is like the nuclear option. At least twice he shows up at the last possible moment and saves theirs butts (from the trolls, then from the orcs). I was kind of disappointed that it happened more than once because it was totally predictable the second time. I'd have much rather seen the Dwarves get themselves out of trouble. Was this the case in the book?

On a similar note, the giant eagles are totally a get-out-of-jail-free-card. Do the eagles get explained in the books at all? I'd be inclined to just ride them everywhere rather than only using them in dire straights, however there might be some kind of plot protection magic around them (one use every six months!) that's not explained in the film. (I remarked to my girlfriend when the credits rolled that the eagles also drop Gandalf, Bilbo and crew off in the most inconvenient place ever)

JamesCarter wrote:

Another question re: the books. In the film Gandalf is like the nuclear option. At least twice he shows up at the last possible moment and saves theirs butts (from the trolls, then from the orcs). I was kind of disappointed that it happened more than once because it was totally predictable the second time. I'd have much rather seen the Dwarves get themselves out of trouble. Was this the case in the book?

Yeah, I remember thinking that when reading the book too, but at some point I noticed Tolkein does this weird reverse contrast thing pretty often. I think he's using Gandalf's rescues and the Dwarves being rescued, to show how brave and resourceful Bilbo is, as he steps up and and starts to do some of the rescuing himself later in the book without Gandalf.

The best example of Tolkein's use of contrast was to show how powerful the one ring is in Fellowship of the Ring, and how strong Bilbo must be. Tolkein has Boromir seem weak as a kitten by just being near the thing. Then later in his death scene, where Boromir absolutely refuses to die, in valiant defense of Pippin and Merry (which was done better in the book). It shows what a tremendous willpower Boromir had all along, illustrating how truly powerful the ring is, and how strong Frodo must be, and Hobbits for that matter. If a man with a constitution so strong as Boromir could have so easily succumb to the ring.

JamesCarter wrote:

On a similar note, the giant eagles are totally a get-out-of-jail-free-card. Do the eagles get explained in the books at all? I'd be inclined to just ride them everywhere rather than only using them in dire straights, however there might be some kind of plot protection magic around them (one use every six months!) that's not explained in the film. (I remarked to my girlfriend when the credits rolled that the eagles also drop Gandalf, Bilbo and crew off in the most inconvenient place ever)

Yeah, I agree. It sometimes looks like some fantastical creatures, even Gandalf are kinda dickish with their assistance. Or at least conveniently helpful when it suits the drama. Otherwise, Gandalf could have saved everyone a lot of grief, if he just had the King of the Eagles fly Frodo over Mt. Doom and drop the ring in it.

It's been a while since I read the book but I had always thought of the Eagles in much the same way as the Elves or the Ents. (to rationalize it for myselfanyway). You just graciously accept whatever help they are willing to give.

The kids were sad that the Dragon didn't see fit to be in the movie so I showed them the old Rankin-Bass Hobbit TV special. I had forgotten how nice that it was. With some pretty backgrounds and some fun characters, and voices like from Orson Bean, John Huston, almost strange to hear their voices again. The kids loved it. And it was nice how the whole story fit, and the songs, I had almost forgot them, it holds up better than Ralph Bakshi's LOTR. I'm still looking forward to the next movie, but it was nice to see the story as a cartoon again, for me it still works well as a children's story.

Peter Urkowitz wrote:

Or this one:



That quality of light glowing all around her, just mesmerizing.

Beautiful. I wish the movie was a little more colorful like these paintings.

Finally got to see The Hobbit, the advantage at least for me in seeing a flick a few weeks after the premiere, is that with only three or four other
movie goers, it's practically a private showing. Some folks of course prefer the crowd as part of the experience. It was obvious in every scene,
really every frame, the loving attention that Peter Jackson and crew lavished upon this. The plot line adhering so close to the source, practically
all the dialogue in this first third of the book makes it to the movie, all the characterizations by the actors, makeup, wardrobe and scenery is all
so completely right, but they got it wrong too. I can hear booing and hissing through the tubes of the interweb even here! But, I loved it and the
wife who hasn't read the books loved the film too, every majestic minute of it. This isn't even really a complaint, as I think I know why Jackson did
The Hobbit this way, and I think it was justified. The Hobbit is a children's story and most of the action is broad and comical. Agreed that the kids
JRR Tolkien knew may've been a little more sophisticated than many of us were at 8 or 9. He also wrote The Hobbit before Lord of the Rings and
hadn't entirely envisioned it as a prequel to the larger, more adult work. However, it works very well as a prequel and Jackson decided to solidify
that relationship by presenting it in a tone that is closer to L.O.T.R. So, if the fighting Rock Giants mimicking a thunder storm or the deus ex machina
of the eagles at the end seem somehow out of place with the rest of the movie, they would be perfectly at home in a children's story, likewise the
venerable element of a ring of invisibility. All the expansions of such concepts came later. But, like I said, I think Jackson was justified in his choice
of tone. It makes more sense than a jarring difference between The Hobbit and L.O.T.R. when they're synonymous in most people's minds and will
someday be together in a truly mammoth boxed set. And it's not like he left out even one of the funny bits here, even adding to them with a much
increased role for Radaghast the Brown, played beautifully by exDoctor Who, Sylvester McCoy! So, I'm not complaining. Really!

Now, does anyone know the schedule for movies 2 and 3 release? It kind of surprises me, but knowing what's still left in the book, and it's a short
book, there really is enough for 3 films.

12 December 2012
(An Unexpected Journey)

13 December 2013
(The Desolation of Smaug)

18 July 2014
(There and Back Again)

Yes The Hobbit is short but so was The Two Towers, I assume the next film will be all Smaug, and the last will have the war, as well as other elements. And according to some of what I 've read, many characters from the LOTR, will be returning in the third film, my understanding is elements of The Silmarillion are going to be used in the films as well.

Thanks for those release dates, DitkoFan, I can live with the trilogy being completed in about a year and a half,
at least that's my plan. I'm no L.O.T.R. expert, but I think the increased coverage of The Necromancer is one
of elements that takes from The Silmarillion, so it's already begun. In The Hobbit, Gandalf just disappears for
a while and when he comes back it's like 'oh, me and the white council guys were fighting the Necromancer', but
nothing is described even in flashback.

Yeah, I think you're right.

I just got a app that will let me listen to The Silmarillion on my phone. Looking forward to my next long car trip

As much as I love JRR Tolkein, I wouldn't try listening to the Silmarillion during any activity where you would need to stay awake.

Try reading Le Morte d'Arthur

The Silmarillion had fewer files than the Hobbit. I was relieved when loading up iPhone.

For what it's worth, I wrote a series of blog posts exploring the novel a couple months back which I've been re-posting on Alex's Poplitiko site. Here is the first installment: The Hobbit (Part 1)

Excellent post, Kurt! Lots that I did not know before! Thanks!

Thanks for the link!