Duck and Cover

The Hobbit is the book that came before the Lord of the Rings trilogy and is based in the same universe and has a lot of familiar characters. It's about Bilbo Baggins (Fredo's father) and his adventure when he was younger.

I read the book after I read LOTR, which was many years ago, and it seemed okay just more of a children's tale . The movie is done by Peter Jackson who is the same guy who made the LOTR movies so you know the guy gets the universe.

First, this is part one of a three series movie based on one book, so it feels like they are extending the story and parts of it a bit more than needing too but I don't remember everything from the book so I can't confirm specific details. The movie is quite long and I get the feeling they are going word by word from the book for the scenes instead of cutting and streamlining parts. Overall I thought the movie was generally entertaining but felt a bit slow in parts, I don't think it's as good as any of the movies in the LOTR trilogy but it's fun exploring the universe again. There were a couple scenes that were really good like when a dwarve tells a story about a previous battle and they show scenes from it and it looked really cool, you're just not going to get any of that in the real story though heh. A lot of scenes they probably could have cut down and no one would care because they were boring like everything with Gollum. Also it feels like a lot of the good scenes or battles will be in the later movies so at the end you might feel unsatisfied.

I saw it in the 2d version which I hear is 24 FPS but the 3d version is 48 FPS and people are barfing, has anyone seen it in the 3d version?

I recommend the movie if you are a big fan of LOTR but if you didn't care for LOTR then this one change you, will probably make it worse.

Wait, you thought the scenes with Gollum were boring?

Yes, but i generally don't like Gollum much as I feel like everything he does it drawn out and over played. I thought it was nice that he did riddles but you can't understand most of the ones he says and he will often go on for minutes at a time not speaking much dialog but doing the two character thing.

So I guess they made a trilogy out of it? I think the prospect of dragging ass to the movie theater three times over the course of the next few years is enough to make me forgo the whole thing. I always liked the old cartoon, it was pretty well paced and covered about everything. Nothing can top the old Rankin-Bass music and John Huston as Gandalf.

I think Frodo was Bilbo's nephew, not his son?

I liked the movie better than LoTR, but that's probably because I watched the 70's cartoon abunch. I also felt it was more traditional fantasy than LoTR.

The movies aren't just based off The Hobbit - they have all the expanded stuff from the other two books, such as the rather substantive subplot about Gandalf investigating the necromancer to explain what's going on when he randomly disappears in the book. So really, it's like 3 movies made out of 3 books, just that it's primarily concerned with the work of The Hobbit.

The movie is taking some things from the Silmarillion, which I think is pretty cool.

I agree with Walt for the most part and I also like that they're not really cutting any content from the book in the movie. I thought for what the movie focused on, plot wise, the pacing was done fairly well. I also really like the character designs. The dialog with the wizards about the Necromancer was cool, and I thought the representation of Radagast was awesome.

The whole movie was pretty great. Disregarding some of the CGI I'm stoked for the next one.

SenisterDenister wrote:The whole movie was pretty great.

My only real qualm with the movie that just really makes me scratch my head and WTF is the death of the Goblin King and "Yea, that did it." I think to make matters worse, the scene was nigh PERFECT had it not been for that line of dialogue.

I think the movie also has some stuff from Lost Tales, doesn't it?

I thought the death of the Goblin king was funny, myself.

I wish they had used more songs from the book, personally. It needed Goblin Town and Fifteen Birds.

SenisterDenister wrote:It needed Goblin Town and Fifteen Birds.

And Where There's a Whip There's a Way for the trifecta.

Cimmerian Nights wrote:

SenisterDenister wrote:It needed Goblin Town and Fifteen Birds.

And Where There's a Whip There's a Way for the trifecta.

That was in Return of the King, though.

Wolfman Walt wrote:I think Frodo was Bilbo's nephew, not his son?

Yeah, I think Pooper might have fallen asleep or something during the movie


By the way, I'm 11 posts over 15,000

Bilbo and Frodo were lovers. Like Jaesun and Barney Frank.

SenisterDenister wrote:Fifteen Birds.

I really was waiting for it and kinda sad that it didn't occur, given that I enjoyed the renditions of "That's what Bilbo Baggins Hates" and "Misty Mountains Cold."

Bilbo and Frodo were lovers

I thought that was Sam and Frodo?

I actually saw it a few days ago. It was okay, not counting the shitty parts. Too much horsing around at the start of the movie, with Elijah Wood and Ian Holm cameos. Showing the dwarven kingdom in all its glory at the start also felt like a bad call, as it instantly killed any mystery associated with the locale, which the book practically hinged on.

The pasted on white orc v.s oakshield rivalry didn't deserve to be the main plot of the film, and references to the necromancer and great evils starting to stir is quite irrelevant to the story overall; why the compulsion to link it together with LotR? A lot of touchy-feely bullshit about Bilbo being useless, and then the highly improbable scene where he takes down a wolfrider to compensate for the fact = hugs and kisses all around. Newsflash; Bilbo is completely useless -- what saves him from being a complete burden in the book is the ring and a bit of wit (the latter hard to imagine on Martin Freeman). Perhaps the next movie will have him slaying ettins like it ain't no thang?

Also, a lot of running in this movie and people telling each-other to run constitutes a fair part of the total interaction between characters. The bits with Gollum did feel a bit off, but maybe I was just annoyed at how the entire theater cheered with his every word and facial expression. Radagast was pretty good though, covered in bird-shit and all. That and Sebastian, the hedgehog.

S4ur0n27 wrote:

Wolfman Walt wrote:I think Frodo was Bilbo's nephew, not his son?

Yeah, I think Pooper might have fallen asleep or something during the movie


By the way, I'm 11 posts over 15,000

I know I'm wrong, but you get that they are related or something right? I think technically speaking Bilbo and Frodo aren't even blood related in the book, as I believe Frodo is adopted by Bilbo.

POOPERSCOOPER wrote:

S4ur0n27 wrote:

Wolfman Walt wrote:I think Frodo was Bilbo's nephew, not his son?

Yeah, I think Pooper might have fallen asleep or something during the movie D;


By the way, I'm 11 posts over 15,000 D:

I know I'm wrong, but you get that they are related or something right? I think technically speaking Bilbo and Frodo aren't even blood related in the book, as I believe Frodo is adopted by Bilbo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilbo_Baggins

I think they're actually 2nd cousins upon re-looking it up. For some odd reason I always thought he was his uncle. Oh well.

That still means he's the cousin of one of his parents. In practice it would be about the same kind of relationship.

St. Toxic wrote:That and Sebastian, the hedgehog.

best part of the movie right there