[kokobombon]

^hmm... It´s my favorite book from the saga but I don´t think three movies are necessary :/

[heelscatchfire]

^ Me either but Jackson said to get his full vision of the book out he needs to expand to three movies. I trust him so we'll see. I can't wait til December to see the first one!

[Belowen]

I don't think we could ever doubt Peter Jackson and the love that he has for Tolkien's work... If he thinks his vision is best suited to a trilogy well then I'd back that decision 100%.

[wickedcrazyness]

Peter Jackson did such an amazing job with The Lord of the Rings trilogy. If he thinks that The Hobbit would work best as a trilogy as well, I trust his decision.

[cloudyshambles]

I definitely trust Peter Jackson's judgement as well, LotR are still among my all-time favourite films plus, don't they include something from another Tolkien book as well? I thought I read somewhere it's not just The Hobbit that they're adapting...

[heelscatchfire]

^ i remember reading something like that a long time ago too! I'd forgotten until you brought it up.

[MissyJG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cloudyshambles I definitely trust Peter Jackson's judgement as well, LotR are still among my all-time favourite films plus, don't they include something from another Tolkien book as well? I thought I read somewhere it's not just The Hobbit that they're adapting...

They are adding things from appendices (from LOTR).

[kokobombon]

^ooh, that´s gonna be so interesting
now it makes more sense, I was fearing that the pace was gonna be too slow if they´re splitting only TH in 3 movies...

[dumbfairy]

5 days and I am SO EXCITED I COULD WEE.

[Phuel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissyJG They are adding things from appendices (from LOTR).

Apparently, by digging into the appendices, they're able to expand and enrich The Hobbit: So, events like what Gandalf was up to when he disappears from Bilbo and the Dwarfs are shown; Ragadast's investigation of disturbing events that lead to the investigations of the return of the Necromancer: and action sequences in The Hobbit that are only but a few sentences are expended into full action sequences. I think that should be interesting and much less flat than Tolkien's original words.

I never liked Tolkien's storytelling when it came to the action sequences. They were bland. Peter and company made those action sequences exciting. I remember reading LOTR, and the way in which Gandalf simply gave up to Saruman and allowed himself to be lead tot he top of Orthanc was a huge letdown-- and lazy storytelling. I loved Peter, Philipa and Fran's version of that confrontation-- that Gandalf put up a valiant fight despite being inferior to Saruman's skills.

[kokobombon]

I´m reading all over the net that the movie sucks
Has anyone seen it?

[Phuel]

Don't believe all the bashing, it does not suck. The critics that are damning it are all complaining about the 48fps and the 3hr length running time. I feel Peter and Co are in a damned if they do, and damned if they don't situation: Some non-Tolkien fans will complain it's bloated and excessive because it's so detailed in its storytelling and lingers too long in atmosphere-- while some Tolkien fans will criticize not enough time is spent in The Shire, Middle-earth, etc...

I've never read The Hobbit, and only seen the animated movie-- which I though was horrible and a borefest. Never cared for Bilbo, or the dwarves. I always got the impression it was clearly a children's tale. I always preferred The Silmarillion by a long long shot to LOTR anyways. With that in mind, I enjoyed Peter's The Hobbit immensely. It was thoughtful, passionate and the dwarves were great. I actually didn't care too much for the actor that portrayed Bilbo. The story unfolded at a leisurely pace-- much like the Extended Editions of the LOTR. I preferred those to the theatrical-cuts, so The Hobbit wasn't long, or sluggish and dragging, to me.

I loved that it was a fresher, and more innocent Middle-earth with The Hobbit. It can never be compared to the LOTR since the story is so much smaller and lighter, so don't go in with that expectation of it having to be so weighty and epic, or you'll be disappointed. I saw it in traditional 24fps, as I abhor 3D. It was beautiful, colorful, and even though I could tell there were a bit too much CGI, it served the story well-- unlike those horrible Star Wars Prequels. And being only the first of 3 parts, it's a great start, I think it's going to be a wonderful addition and preface to the LOTR trilogy.

Go see it. If you're a Middle-earth fan, you'll really like it. No guarantee you'll love it...

[kokobombon]

^Thanks for your review
I was going to see it anyways, taste being so subjective I don´t pay attention to critics. But I was surprised to see only negative comments, from both die hard fans and regular fans.
I´m going to see it in 3D only because I´m curious about the 48 fps

[Karen0193]

I've watched twice now, and I loved it.

[Phuel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokobombon I´m going to see it in 3D only because I´m curious about the 48 fps

In case you're not aware, be sure it is 3D with 48fps-version that you're seeing if you want to experience 48fps, as there's also the regular 24fps 3D-version.

Seeing it in traditional 24fps, this film is gorgeous-- like a hyper-technicolor painting come to life. It's like a deliberate effort on Peter's & Co's part to remind us that The Hobbit is set in the springtime of what would be the winter of Middle-earth with the LOTR. I really liked that it is unmistakably Middle-earth-- just a more unspoiled one.

It's definitely very subjective: I cannot stand romance comedies, like anything with Jennifer Anniston in it, so it would be very hard for me to give an objective review without bashing those types of films.There are plot points/devices in The Hobbit that really bug me-- the Eagles' appearances, for example, but that's how it was written in the book, apparently. I still would have liked to see Peter approached it better than Tolkien had. I mean, thank goodness the elves weren't a bunch of happy singing Peter Pans in the LOTR films, like they were in the books. And even though Radagast on his rabbit sleigh looks really awkward as a concept, within the context of the Middle-earth that belongs with The Hobbit, it works just fine. I won't spoil it for you, but Radagast and his bunnies are no pushovers when it comes to a good fight.

I'm glad Peter's infused a sense of slight maturity in the appropriate places of an otherwise very childish story, but still being faithful to its original source. But then again, anything would be an improvement over the animated version-- where the dwarves looked like the ones from Snow White and Gollum was a giant mutant-frog...