# The Hobbit Will Be A TRILOGY



## nojyeloot (Jul 30, 2012)

PETER JACKSON



I know there is another thread here, but this was worthy of a thread in itself, and would later benefit to be merged into the "megathread"


----------



## Nimgoble (Jul 30, 2012)

Fuck you, Peter Jackson. Way to milk it.


----------



## nojyeloot (Jul 30, 2012)

^


----------



## Ayo7e (Jul 30, 2012)

Good news!


----------



## brutalwizard (Jul 30, 2012)

This is is way old news, but awesome news none the less.


----------



## nojyeloot (Jul 30, 2012)

brutalwizard said:


> This is is way old news, but awesome news none the less.



Got a link?


----------



## Nimgoble (Jul 30, 2012)

nojyeloot said:


> ^



Lol. Don't get me wrong: I LOVE "The Hobbit". But splitting it in to a trilogy just seems like a way to milk it for more money, as opposed to allowing for a better movie, imo. And now I have to wait THAT MUCH LONGER to see the entirety of "The Hobbit" in film form.


----------



## nojyeloot (Jul 30, 2012)

haha, no prob man. I'm the opposite. I'm all for him wringing it dry.


----------



## Xiphos68 (Jul 30, 2012)

Don't care how much money they make, as long as it is good as LOTR or at least close, that's all that matters. 

To me at least. So in that case...

I AM EXCITED!!! AWESOME!!! I just found out there was going to be a 2 part (which I didn't know), now 3 just makes it awesome!


----------



## ROAR (Jul 30, 2012)

Now i've gotta see three movies?! 
Fuck man, two was just fine!
I'm sure Peter has thought this out better than I have of course


----------



## flint757 (Jul 30, 2012)

Honestly, there is so much detail in those books, it isn't really milking it. It is doing it justice.


----------



## Xiphos68 (Jul 30, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Honestly, there is so much detail in those books, it isn't really milking it. It is doing it justice.



Exactly. There's so much stuff that wasn't even included in LOTR, that if it were, it would have been a 5-8 hour movie (which would have been awesome imo, lol).


----------



## flint757 (Jul 30, 2012)

Apparently the extended editions reached like 3 to 5 hours. I haven't personally seen them though...


----------



## atimoc (Jul 30, 2012)

Jackson seems to be a die-hard fan of Tolkien's works, I doubt he'd agree to split the movie into three parts if he didn't think it was going to work.


----------



## Nimgoble (Jul 30, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Honestly, there is so much detail in those books, it isn't really milking it. It is doing it justice.



I hope so, man. I just wonder how much of that detail is something that can be translated over to film, how much of it was setting the scene, etc. I'm probably just worrying about nothing. 

Looks like I need to read "The Hobbit" again.


----------



## nojyeloot (Jul 30, 2012)

Xiphos68 said:


> Exactly. There's so much stuff that wasn't even included in LOTR, that if it were, it would have been a 5-8 hour movie (which would have been awesome imo, lol).





Nimgoble said:


> I hope so, man. I just wonder how much of that detail is something that can be translated over to film, how much of it was setting the scene, etc. I'm probably just worrying about nothing.




^
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if they bring in some info/history from the Similarion


----------



## troyguitar (Jul 30, 2012)

Sounds good, but means I probably won't watch them until the third one is out. I don't like waiting months/years between viewings.


----------



## nojyeloot (Jul 30, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> ...but means I probably won't watch them until the third one is out. I don't like waiting months/years between viewings.


----------



## Xaios (Jul 30, 2012)

Feelings are so conflicted on this one. On one hand, it's MORE Tolkien and MORE Peter Jackson, which can only be construed as a good thing on its face.

However, I can't help but wonder if they're overreaching. After all, there is a good reason why characters like Tom Bombadil and events like the Barrow Downs didn't make it into The Lord of the Rings movies: they didn't make for good movie-making. I'm also reminded of the seemingly endless battle between King Kong and the dinosaurs as an example of how Peter Jackson sometimes allows his instincts as an artist to get the better of his film-making sensibilities.

Still though, I look forward in anticipation, not dread. For now, at least.


----------



## nojyeloot (Jul 30, 2012)

^VERY good points... though I REALLY wanted to see Bombadill (even though he was basically a rabbit trail). I had the same thoughts on King Kong. But, I really think he'll do this right since it's in the same vein as LOTR, even though King Kong was shot on the same set/location. I dunno, I'm just very optimistic I guess and not really worried.


----------



## Murdstone (Jul 30, 2012)

From my understanding, the first two movies will follow the book, while the third kind of bridges the gap between the Hobbit and the Fellowship. The third one isn't stretching out the first two as much as adding material on. This is a very good thing IMO.


----------



## Edika (Jul 30, 2012)

I am with Xaios on this one because I am also conflicted. Yes the hobbit has a lot of details and a trilogy would do it justice. But in that case LOTR should have been like 9 movies. And I don't want to think how many movies he would have to make if he tried to do Silmarilion.

I'll watch them of course and reserve further comments for after.


----------



## fps (Jul 31, 2012)

In which case I won't bother seeing them in the cinemas. That's epic for epic's sake, too much. Two films would have been perfect. King Kong was bloody awful, just had to express that somewhere.


----------



## pink freud (Jul 31, 2012)

Xiphos68 said:


> Exactly. There's so much stuff that wasn't even included in LOTR, that if it were, it would have been a 5-8 hour movie (which would have been awesome imo, lol).



The extended versions include everything except for maybe 2 or 3 scenes from the books, and end up being 4-5 hours each. You have to remember a lot of Tolkien's writing was focused on stuff that visual elements took care of in seconds.

The Hobbit isn't nearly as complicated as even one of the books from the trilogy, and honestly the only way I can see spending three movies worth of time on it is if he includes all the songs and makes them each a 30 minute epic


----------



## flint757 (Jul 31, 2012)

Well if Murdstone is correct then it will basically be 2 movies for the book and the third will just be sort of made up without the aid of a book I guess to bridge the gap between the Hobbit and LOTR. In which case it seems like a good idea and would also offer up material that the reader has not read yet.

And if you hate the idea of the third the nice thing is it sounds like it will be fairly complete without it, if all I said is in fact the case.


----------



## Amanita (Jul 31, 2012)

Xaios said:


> I'm also reminded of the seemingly endless battle between King Kong and the dinosaurs as an example of how Peter Jackson sometimes allows his instincts as an artist to get the better of his film-making sensibilities.


when Jackson included dinosaurs and the spider pit in his King Kong it wasn't artist instincts exactly. he was following the script for the original 1933 version of King Kong


----------



## flint757 (Jul 31, 2012)

Off topic, but Universals tour ride has a King Kong 3d simulation that was mind blowing. We are inside the bus and the screen wraps entirely around it with 3d glasses as well. It felt incredibly real. One of my coolest experiences ever.


----------



## The Uncreator (Jul 31, 2012)

I think "The Silmarillion" could be 15 movies. Everytime I read it it seems like there is so much on one page.


----------



## Bobo (Jul 31, 2012)

The Uncreator said:


> I think "The Silmarillion" could be 15 movies. Everytime I read it it seems like there is so much on one page.



Still haven't read those, but my friend says it's Tolkien's best work. Hey I'm super excited for three Hobbit movies, but I'll take moar


----------



## pink freud (Jul 31, 2012)

Bobo said:


> Still haven't read those, but my friend says it's Tolkien's best work. Hey I'm super excited for three Hobbit movies, but I'll take moar



The Silmarillion: Find a digital copy of The Bible and do a search-and-replace on any biblical names with elvish names.


----------



## Bobo (Jul 31, 2012)

pink freud said:


> The Silmarillion: Find a digital copy of The Bible and do a search-and-replace on any biblical names with elvish names.



What?  Seriously?


----------



## pink freud (Jul 31, 2012)

Bobo said:


> What?  Seriously?



The writing style is very reminiscent of The Bible.


----------



## Nimgoble (Aug 1, 2012)

Relevant


----------



## ilyti (Aug 3, 2012)

Murdstone said:


> From my understanding, the first two movies will follow the book, while the third kind of bridges the gap between the Hobbit and the Fellowship. The third one isn't stretching out the first two as much as adding material on. This is a very good thing IMO.



The way I read it is, the first movie will follow The Hobbit from start to finish. The second will be the one bridging the gap between the Hobbit and LOTR. But maybe that's changed now. The first two will be the book and the third the gap-filler. However it turns out, I don't think what we'll be seeing is glorified fanfiction. There's actually a lot in Tolkien's universe that could be made into a third movie.

There's a lot of stuff Gandalf does in The Hobbit that you never see, but he briefly talks about, and I'd be thrilled to actually see Gandalf or Aragorn arguing with Gollum in Thranduil's dungeon.


----------



## SirMyghin (Aug 3, 2012)

Well, here is hoping given all the screen time he 'needs' he can make a better movie than his travesty of the rings.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Aug 3, 2012)

Nimgoble said:


> Lol. Don't get me wrong: I LOVE "The Hobbit". But splitting it in to a trilogy just seems like a way to milk it for more money, as opposed to allowing for a better movie, imo. And now I have to wait THAT MUCH LONGER to see the entirety of "The Hobbit" in film form.



The greatest filmmaker my country (and the world for someone his age) has ever known, I think he deserves to be a little financially strategic.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 3, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> Well, here is hoping given all the screen time he 'needs' he can make a better movie than his travesty of the rings.



I take it you were a huge fan of the books. As a movie with no knowledge of the books (haven't read them yet, on my list) I thought they were good, competent movies.


----------



## Murdstone (Aug 4, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> Well, here is hoping given all the screen time he 'needs' he can make a better movie than his travesty of the rings.



To expect any movie to follow perfectly the book it was created from is a little out of the question. There are a lot of aspects of books that only fly in print and would make for awful screen-time. I think the movies represented the books as well as they could - some of the important things that were left out were added in the director's cut editions.


----------



## Amanita (Aug 4, 2012)

Murdstone said:


> To expect any movie to follow perfectly the book it was created from is a little out of the question. There are a lot of aspects of books that only fly in print and would make for awful screen-time. I think the movies represented the books as well as they could - some of the important things that were left out were added in the director's cut editions.


you make a fine point. it was a skateboarding elf and a dwarf used only for comic relief that ruined it for me


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Aug 4, 2012)

I know I'm about to sound like a complete noob or idiot but this is a serious question:

I watching the very first Lord Of The Rings when it first came out (I was very young.) I enjoyed all of the action, but at that age I didn't understand the story side of it. So watching the other movies all I got from it was This man found a ring and all of the bad people wanted it.

Here is my question:
Could any LOTR or Hobbit fans PM me (because I don't want to ruin this threads creative flows) and kind of give me a backing story to LOTR and Hobbit, kind of to catch me up? I'd love to really get into it I just want to understand. 

I've borrowed the last two LOTR movies from my friend so I need to find someone who has the first so I can have like a 12 hour marathon.


----------



## Winspear (Aug 4, 2012)

^ Congrats, RaiseTheDead - you're the first person I know who doesn't know the LOTR movies like the back of their hand 

All in all, you're right about LOTR - guy finds ring..bad guys want it. That's pretty much it. But aren't all stories really so basic like that? Watch the movies


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 4, 2012)

Stoked.


----------



## Amanita (Aug 4, 2012)

for example i don't know the films like the back of my hand. i've seen them, they left me with mixed feelings, i didn't delve.

as for iRaiseTheDead - maybe you could go to one of them places, what the name... ah, libraries, and get a hold of them books? 
they are pleasant read, even if the language is stylized (quite successfully) on archaic


----------



## SirMyghin (Aug 6, 2012)

Murdstone said:


> To expect any movie to follow perfectly the book it was created from is a little out of the question. There are a lot of aspects of books that only fly in print and would make for awful screen-time. I think the movies represented the books as well as they could - some of the important things that were left out were added in the director's cut editions.



My biggest beef was the fact that second and third movie devolved into action flicks.


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Aug 7, 2012)

Thanks guys  I just didn't want to feel like a complete noob! Like I said I saw the first one in '01 or '02 and didn't get to see the 2nd until about 7 years later so I was very confused.

Watched it for teh acti0nz


----------



## ilyti (Aug 7, 2012)

You could read the book, but you might want to start with the Wikipedia article, if you want to know the basic story, and you think tl;dr.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Aug 7, 2012)

So stoked for this. Opening night anyone?


----------



## Danukenator (Aug 10, 2012)

I don't really know how to feel about this. I liked the LOTR movies. That's about it. I really didn't care for some of the directing choices in the first. The one that always comes to mind is how Frodo has 7ish full gag falls in the first film to put him in a tense dangerous scene. (Massive nitpick). 

Watching the extended versions of the films didn't really enhance my experience. It's worth noting that I never read the books. I simply watched the films and judged them accordingly. I felt that the extended battles were really the main "point" of the extended cuts. They showed more eye candy but didn't bolster my understanding of the characters of the story. 

I'm not sure how good of a decision this was. I didn't think making the last Harry Potter film a two part experience was a good idea.


----------



## GXPO (Aug 21, 2012)

Definately excited for this. That being said I am worried about it, LOTR was obviously a logical trilogy to make given the source. I'm just concerned that the source material regarding The Hobbit can't properly support a trilogy. Then again LOTR was done so well thast I suppose I should just chill out.


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples (Aug 21, 2012)

GXPO said:


> Definately excited for this. That being said I am worried about it, LOTR was obviously a logical trilogy to make given the source. I'm just concerned that the source material regarding The Hobbit can't properly support a trilogy. Then again LOTR was done so well thast I suppose I should just chill out.



well the positive to the trilogy is that a lot of the material that would be cut for a 2.5-3 hour movie won't have to be, the film will be able to get the whole book as opposed to LOTR when a ton is cut out, just like every book turned movie.


----------



## Xaios (Aug 22, 2012)

I still enjoyed the LOTR movies a lot more than the books. Tolkien may be considered a master of epic literature, but some parts of those books are really dry, and they give very little sense of scale. Granted, I haven't read them in more than 10 years, but that's what I got from them. The movies, conversely, really stuck with me.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 22, 2012)

I tried in intermediate school, I guess I wasn't mature enough yet to enjoy them. I intend to try again at some point.


----------



## Sepultorture (Aug 23, 2012)

I first read the hobbit when i was 12, loved the book, always thought it'd make a great movie. Didn't read the LOTR books till after the first movie, and i too also enjoyed the movies better than the books. there are def parts of the books that won't translate well to firlm, and there were a tonne of very long dry parts where i didn't even realize that i fell asleep lol.

i can pretty much see almost all of the Hobbit being used in the films., 3 movies even to me seams like a stretch, just gunna have to wait and see what the extra inbetween material looks like. after seeing the great job peter jackson did with LOTR, i have the utmost confidence in his abilities to deliver a sick as hell Hobbit movie


----------



## ilyti (Nov 26, 2012)

I just have to add, that when this comes out in a few weeks, I will be searching for any theatre in town that DOESN'T show it in 3D.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 26, 2012)

There are glasses you can buy that put movies back in 2D.

Personally, I don't mind 3D.


----------



## ilyti (Nov 26, 2012)

I'm already wearing glasses to correct my vision, and don't like wearing glasses on top of my glasses.

Any 3D movie I've ever seen looked so fake it was distracting. Maybe Peter Jackson and his gang know how to do it, but I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 26, 2012)

Understood. My suggestion is to buy some then that will fit better on your face from somewhere like Amazon. It is usually just passive 3D so shouldn't be any compatibility issues. They also make 3d to 2D conversions that work really well if the 3D effect bothers you, but the gimmick still remains. Movies that use corny 3D is still corny in 2D because in the back of your mind you know what they were doing. I can call it so easily like a car part from a movie flying at the camera whether it is 3D or 2D  I think he'll avoid these pitfalls though.

3D has gotten a lot better since Avatar. Not a huge fan of the movie itself (got old fast for me), but Cameron set the bar high on more subtle 3D that seemed to enhance the film instead of the Childish or jackass style 3D (shit pops at you for no reason).


----------



## wankerness (Dec 1, 2012)

ilyti said:


> I just have to add, that when this comes out in a few weeks, I will be searching for any theatre in town that DOESN'T show it in 3D.



I am curious to see it in the 48 fps or whatever their new format is, the advance reviews are saying that it is initially jarring but then is pretty cool. I don't know how many theaters are even capable of playing it like that though.


----------



## liamh (Dec 1, 2012)

ilyti said:


> I just have to add, that when this comes out in a few weeks, I will be searching for any theatre in town that DOESN'T show it in 3D.



Same, only because I feel like such an ass wearing 3D glasses.


----------



## wankerness (Dec 2, 2012)

The only movie I've ever seen in 3d was Avatar, everything else I just went to the 2d version of instead. From what I hear in many places the theaters don't even play the 2d versions, I guess Madison WI is a bastion of culture or something.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Dec 11, 2012)

EXCLUSIVE - Misty Mountains song HD from The Hobbit - YouTube 

little girl squeal!!!!!!! 

i showed this clip to my mom, she could barely see my computer screen but when she heard it the biggest grin went across her face. i get chills when i hear it!


----------



## Darkened (Dec 13, 2012)

The first episode comes to Poland on 28th December, I can't wait! I hope it won't dissappoint me because opinions on metacritic are very extreme.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Dec 13, 2012)

Just got back from seeing this and its amazing! 10/10

I'm not going to post any spoilers or anything that would give away the plot but its much more high-fantasy than LOTR and is quite a different take to the novel(in a VERY good way).


----------



## Bloodbath Salt (Dec 14, 2012)

Nimgoble said:


> Fuck you, Peter Jackson. Way to milk it.



+1.


----------



## ilyti (Dec 15, 2012)

drawnacrol said:


> its much more high-fantasy than LOTR and is quite a different take to the novel(in a VERY good way).


----------



## soliloquy (Dec 16, 2012)

i saw it last night. and i agree, its a much different, but amazing take on it.
and i will go out to say that as much as i enjoyed LOTR as a trilogy, tell me to watch them a few times in a row, and i wont be able to. its not the length that bothers me. its the slow pace. or rather, the awkward paced progression. there was a lot going on, but somethings they briefly touched, while others they couldn't. as a result, i found the character development in LOTR was a bit weak.

in the hobbit on the other hand, i'm not finding that. even the new characters they introduced caught my attention from the get go. in the LOTR, folks like boramier, legolas and others i could care less about. the only reason legolas stood out to me was coz of the 'legend of zelda' and how similar link would be to legolas. 


with that said, the CGIs i thought looked amazing! really looking forward to the next few parts!


----------



## Maniacal (Dec 16, 2012)

Saw it yesterday. Really good film. I thought it was better than LOTR.


----------



## Randyrhoads123 (Dec 16, 2012)

Did anyone else see it in the 48 FPS format? I saw the IMAX 3D HFR version last night and I have mixed feelings about it. I think the "perfect" picture makes it look unnatural at times. During low action scenes I think it looks great and I think it improves the realism of the CGI characters, (it was sort of like watching a play) but during high action, there is NO motion blur whatsoever and it looks almost like the film is sped up. I think an analogy I have that people would be able to relate to here for 24fps vs. 48 fps would be like tube amps vs. solid state/computers. While the 48fps is technically better, I think it ruins the immersion of the film by making camera pans and characters too smooth, and it makes me realize that it's fake. It's hard to make such a drastic transition after 100 years of precedence. I think there are definitely potential uses for the 48 fps format, but I don't think it works well as a replacement for 24 fps movies.


----------



## xFallen (Dec 16, 2012)

Sounds like Peter Jackson bought a farm of milk cows :X


----------



## IbanezDaemon (Dec 16, 2012)

Just saw the movie and it was fantastic. They did a brilliant job with it!!!


----------



## soliloquy (Dec 17, 2012)

i'm hearing rumors that now this will be a 4 part movie. and they aren't just using the 'hobbit' as a book. they are using a lot of other appendix stuff too


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Dec 17, 2012)

Murdstone said:


> From my understanding, the first two movies will follow the book, while the third kind of bridges the gap between the Hobbit and the Fellowship. The third one isn't stretching out the first two as much as adding material on. This is a very good thing IMO.



If this is the case that sounds pretty cool to me


----------



## TheDivineWing22 (Dec 17, 2012)

I saw it yesterday and thought it was fantastic! And I predicted exactly where the movie would end. I would definitely go see it again.

Now we have to wait till next year for the second installment.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Dec 17, 2012)

soliloquy said:


> i'm hearing rumors that now this will be a 4 part movie. and they aren't just using the 'hobbit' as a book. they are using a lot of other appendix stuff too



It was originally two movies but then Peter Jackson wanted to tell Gandalf's side story so they stretched it out to 3 films to accommodate everything he wanted to do. Its all in the appendix and Middle Earth history books but they are adding their own twist to it. All the stuff with Dol Gulder and Radagast would have been edited out if it was just 2 movies.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 17, 2012)

I saw it on Friday. I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10. The action was great and the characters were well drawn, but the main villain (in fact, all the villains) was kinda meh and the stakes never seemed as high as they did in Lord of the Rings. A lot of it felt more like Lord of the Rings Episode I than The Hobbit.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 17, 2012)

Makes sense since it is the first of the 3 to come. I haven't read the book, but wouldn't the stakes be lower since it was pre-LOTR and in the beginning of LOTR things weren't that bad yet?


----------



## synrgy (Dec 17, 2012)

Saw this Friday, in LieMax 3D HFR.

First, I'll say that I absolutely LOVED the HFR. The difference between it and 'standard' 3D is easily noticeable, and pretty vast. I sincerely hope that other directors quickly adopt the technology, because I'm really interested to see what others can/will do with it. I understand some people's complaints about the 'look' of it, but I have to say after having seen the film that I don't think this change in look is inherent to the new technology; rather, I think it was a deliberate choice on behalf of the director and/or director of photography. In short, based on what I'm reading, I think what people don't like is the _lighting_ of the film, which has something of a 'soap opera' kind of look to it. Personally, I didn't mind it at all. Jackson's long used that look. I was reminded a bit of The Frighteners.

Anyway, as for the film itself, I truly enjoyed it. This seemed like a fresh and exciting take on the Middle Earth Jackson so well established last time. I think my favorite thing about it is the lack of men. In this first part, there are precisely zero representatives of the race of men. I can't say this is directly responsible, but whatever the case, this is the most fun I've had in Middle Earth to date. I'm saddened that it's gonna be another year or more before I get to see the next one.


----------



## Lagtastic (Dec 17, 2012)

My dad called me bitching because he didn't know it was going to be a trilogy. "The movie just stopped out of nowhere!"


----------



## ilyti (Dec 17, 2012)

TheDivineWing22 said:


> And I predicted exactly where the movie would end.



Haha me too! 

I enjoyed this movie, but I went into it knowing that it wouldn't be like the book. I agree that the character development in this one was great; definitely better than LOTR. But this film is more about Gandalf and Thorin than Bilbo, and I was not expecting that. All that Radagast stuff was funny and interesting, but ultimately unnecessary. In the book history (appendices, etc) Gandalf knows Dol Guldur is the new stronghold of the Witch King; he went there himself years earlier. And it seems like Mirkwood has just started being called "Mirkwood." It was called Greenwood the Great, but since the Witch King moved in, it started getting darker and the animals died. 

Also, I gotta say it was unnecessary for us to see the ring fall out of Gollum's pocket. I mean, _really_?

There are other details that annoyed me, because I am a fan of the book and would have preferred it stayed closer to that, but on the whole I enjoyed it, an would see it again.


----------



## soliloquy (Dec 18, 2012)

ilyti said:


> Also, I gotta say it was unnecessary for us to see the ring fall out of Gollum's pocket. I mean, _really_?



going by the original movies, they said that the ring abandoned gollum. here, on the other hand, it seems he just lost it.

also, i'm assuming that gollum never put that ring on. he just played around with it, but never actually wore it


----------



## xCaptainx (Dec 18, 2012)

soliloquy said:


> going by the original movies, they said that the ring abandoned gollum. here, on the other hand, it seems he just lost it.
> 
> also, i'm assuming that gollum never put that ring on. he just played around with it, but never actually wore it



extended version of the 3rd LOTR movies dispells that, it's what the first 10 minutes is dedicated to (his progression from smegal to gollum)


----------



## TheDivineWing22 (Dec 18, 2012)

Xaios said:


> I saw it on Friday. I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10. The action was great and the characters were well drawn, but the main villain (in fact, all the villains) was kinda meh and the stakes never seemed as high as they did in Lord of the Rings. A lot of it felt more like Lord of the Rings Episode I than The Hobbit.



Well, to be fair, the stakes really aren't as high in the Hobbit as they are in Lord of the Rings.


----------



## synrgy (Dec 18, 2012)

soliloquy said:


> going by the original movies, they said that the ring abandoned gollum. here, on the other hand, it seems he just lost it.



Yeah, I was maybe a _little_ annoyed at the continuity break between how Jackson and company elected to portray the ring leaving Gollum in the LOTR trilogy, and how _the exact same team_ elected to portray the _exact same event_ in The Hobbit.

It's one thing when the director changes, the writers change, etc. It's another thing to be self-contradictory..


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Dec 18, 2012)

Pretty damn good. Wasn't bored once.

Did feel a bit too familiar though.


----------



## ilyti (Dec 18, 2012)

^ I know, right? It seemed like they were trying to make a similar trilogy to LOTR out of this story - Thorin is Aragon, Killi is Legolas, Azog is Lurtz (The Uruk-Hai in FOTR).. I figure the second part of this should be called Return of the Dwarf King.



soliloquy said:


> going by the original movies, they said that the ring abandoned gollum. here, on the other hand, it seems he just lost it.
> 
> also, i'm assuming that gollum never put that ring on. he just played around with it, but never actually wore it



Gandalf explains in Fellowship (the book) pretty early on how Smeagol used the ring after he stole it from Deagol, pretty much all the time, to spy on people, and it made him evil.


----------



## ilyti (Dec 19, 2012)

It occurs to me that as soon as The Hobbit part 3 is over with, Peter Jackson will go home and start thinking about making 10 films out of the Silmarillion. Might actually see a movie version of that; the book was impossible.


----------



## tacotiklah (Dec 19, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I take it you were a huge fan of the books. As a movie with no knowledge of the books (haven't read them yet, on my list) I thought they were good, competent movies.



Good point, but read the original books (not the books based on the movie, which I had mistakenly done the first time I read the series) and you'll see that the theatrical movies (non-director's cut) only cover about half of what's actually in the books since Tolkien put that much detail, history, and lore into his writing. The songs and poetry are gorgeous too. 
It is of course ridiculous to ever expect a movie to closely follow a book without being boring, and that's why I don't get too crazy when it comes to LOTR and The Hobbit; there's a ridiculous amount of detail and story to try and cover in under 3 hours. 

Honestly, I'd have loved it more if they made something of a mini-series out of it so as to cover everything, but not force people to sit in a movie theater for half a day.


----------



## Choop (Dec 20, 2012)

Saw this a couple nights ago, and I liked it quite a bit..much more than reviews on the internet led me to believe I would. I was really worried that it'd feel too drawn out and fluffy, but the pacing was quite fine for me (no worse than any of the LotR movies). My only gripe is that a good amount of the CGI looked cheap and just bad, haha. But oh well. At least the characters were done pretty well IMO.
Not a mind-blowing movie by any means, but I enjoyed it and feel like it was worth it to see in theaters. That's more than I can say for a few other movies I've seen in the last year. ;-; General user reviews on imdb and rottentomatoes are from 80-86ish last I checked, and that seems pretty fair to me for this film.

EDIT: I just want to put out there that I did not watch this in 3D. From what I've read though, the visuals are dramatically different, and ymmv.. D:


----------



## Metal_Webb (Dec 20, 2012)

I'm keen to go and see this in the 48 fps format when it's released here in Aus. I first (and only time mind you!) read the Hobbit 10 years ago, so the details of the story are fairly sketchy at best.

Also, age check, The Two Towers came out 10 years ago. Scary how quick time's gone huh?


----------



## Xaios (Dec 20, 2012)

Choop said:


> I've read though, the visuals are dramatically different, and ymmv.. D:



I saw it in 3D, and I can confirm that's true. In some places, it's great. However, in other places, and particularly places where it really should have been great... it wasn't.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 21, 2012)

This was the first time I've gone to see a movie in 3D (apart from gimmick-laden 3D shows at theme parks as a child), and if I never see another, it'll be too soon. I felt like I was watching a three hour video game cut scene through a dirty car window while wearing someone else's prescription glasses. It's nice that Jackson didn't try to do anything gimmicky with the 3D like some of the older 3D movies did back in the day (Friday the 13th 3 is _hilarious_ to watch in 2D, because the gimmicks look even more out of place and absurd that way), but I couldn't help but think that it didn't really add enough to have been worth the effort.

3D aside, the movie itself... I could take it or leave it, to be honest. I can't say I didn't enjoy it, because it certainly had its entertaining moments. However, being as it's pretty much just three hours of exposition, I didn't leave the theater feeling like I had just experienced a whole story. I know, I know, there are more to come, but still. It would have been nice if there were _some_ sort of major plot development that had all the traditional elements of story telling. Instead, it was just exposition, exposition, more exposition, BATTLE!, exposition, BATTLE!, exposition, cliffhanger. I'm tempted to skip the next two in theaters altogether and just waiting until they're all available on home video, so I can watch them all in succession and not have to worry about feeling like I received an incomplete experience.


----------



## Edika (Dec 21, 2012)

I saw it yesterday and I liked it a lot. I had read the book when I was in junior high so I don't remember a lot of details but I didn't get bored at all. One thing I didn't like, maybe because I saw it in 2D, was that the CGI was really evident. The lighting gave it a bit of a fake, unrealistic touch. Of course it is a fantasy movie and it is unrealistic but in comparison with the LOTR movies it seemed quite "cartoonish". These were my only complaints.


----------



## ilyti (Dec 21, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> This was the first time I've gone to see a movie in 3D (apart from gimmick-laden 3D shows at theme parks as a child), and if I never see another, it'll be too soon. I felt like I was watching a three hour video game cut scene through a dirty car window while wearing someone else's prescription glasses. It's nice that Jackson didn't try to do anything gimmicky with the 3D like some of the older 3D movies did back in the day (Friday the 13th 3 is _hilarious_ to watch in 2D, because the gimmicks look even more out of place and absurd that way), but I couldn't help but think that it didn't really add enough to have been worth the effort.
> 
> 3D aside, the movie itself... I could take it or leave it, to be honest. I can't say I didn't enjoy it, because it certainly had its entertaining moments. However, being as it's pretty much just three hours of exposition, I didn't leave the theater feeling like I had just experienced a whole story. I know, I know, there are more to come, but still. It would have been nice if there were _some_ sort of major plot development that had all the traditional elements of story telling. Instead, it was just exposition, exposition, more exposition, BATTLE!, exposition, BATTLE!, exposition, cliffhanger. I'm tempted to skip the next two in theaters altogether and just waiting until they're all available on home video, so I can watch them all in succession and not have to worry about feeling like I received an incomplete experience.



I'm glad you told us about the 3D experience. It validated my suspicions. In 2D it really didn't feel gimmicky at all, and felt very much like the LOTR trilogy. I'm glad I got to see the wonderful New Zealand scenery instead of a bunch of video game graphics.

As for the major plot development; from the start the dwarves view Bilbo as having no place among them, but he proves himself and gains their approval. That's the plot of part 1 I guess. Besides setting up the story. Also Greenwood turns to Mirkwood and the Necromancer is back at Dol Guldur. In the books, this happened long before Bilbo's journey, but keeping with the tradition of the film versions, where everything happens much faster, it actually worked. My opinion. In some way I'd like them to stick close to the book, but I'm also willing to accept the movie version of events, if properly explained.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Dec 23, 2012)

Saw it tonight - 8/10.


----------



## Murmel (Dec 23, 2012)

Watched it for the second time yesterday.

I cringe every time they speak Elvish


----------



## Murdstone (Dec 23, 2012)

I'm really hoping they develop Bard as a character a hell of a lot more than the book did, since every time I finish the book it feels like I was slightly gypped.


----------



## texshred777 (Dec 25, 2012)

Saw it with my father last night. It was pretty good. He didn't know it was going to be a trilogy and when the ending credits started he just looked at me in surprise. He's worried that he won't be around for another two years to see it finished, so happy they're doing the book justice by making more than one movie but upset because he doesn't think he'll see the end. 

I liked it, although the flow seemed a bit off. I could have done without the extras like Thorin dueling with The Defiler, as I recall they were stuck in the trees while the goblins sang their song(which wasn't in the movie unfortunately).


----------



## Danukenator (Dec 26, 2012)

Xaios said:


> I saw it on Friday. I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10.



After much discussion with my friends, we arrived at the exact conclusion for a score.

I thought the majority of the issues stemmed from the fact that it was a trilogy. Some of the action sequences seemed to be inflated in length, beyond the point where they were servicing the plot. Think the final action scene from Star Wars Episode III, it's so long, you kinda' stop caring.

I also felt there was a lack of meaningful plot development in the film. I get it's an adventure so the goal is to get to that treasure and reclaim the dwarfs home. However the plot of the movie really seemed to just get closer to that goal, literally. They set stuff up for the next film like the necromancer but it wasn't a major feature. 

Despite these issues, it was very well shot. The casting was excellent. The visuals were stunning and easily on par with the other films. I also enjoyed the level of character development explored. You learned stuff but not enough to leave nothing for the later films. I also loved the work on the Brown Wizard. He could have easily been annoying but they pulled off an nice, fun quirky.

Overall, I'd recommend people to see it. It's fun and better than a lot of other movies I've seen lately. However, I doubt it's going to be a Juggernaut like the other films in the franchise.


----------



## Sang-Drax (Dec 26, 2012)

I watched the other day and I really enjoyed everything but the 48 frames per second idea. Jesus, what a mistake. I just couldn't get past the fact that it felt like watching a soap opera! I'm almost inclined to watch it again at 24fps to try to cancel out that bad feeling.


----------



## synrgy (Dec 26, 2012)

I'm telling you, folks, the 'soap opera' look has nothing to do with the HFR, and everything to do with how they chose to light each scene... (at least so far as my eyes could tell, anyway..)


----------



## flint757 (Dec 26, 2012)

IDK, when we transitioned from 480 to 1080 I got the same vibe. It went away over time, but I think it has to do with the newness of it all. We aren't used to seeing movies with such clarity and as such attribute it to the real world which in TV terms equates to soap opera. I don't think it is the lighting, however, I have not seen it yet.


----------



## synrgy (Dec 26, 2012)

I mean, I could very easily be wrong, but I feel like I noticed what I would call a 'soap opera' look in the vast majority of Jackson's previous films - particularly The Frighteners:

















Or, to put it another way: it seemed - to me - to be in visual-lock-step with the original LOTR films, with the exception of heightened clarity during any shots which used camera motion.


----------



## Skyblue (Dec 29, 2012)

The dwarf song is the best song ever.


----------



## pink freud (Dec 30, 2012)

Two things: 

1) If I had just encountered rock giants I'd be a bit more hesitant in crawling into rock orifices.

2) The eagles couldn't pick a better drop off point?


----------



## Duelbart (Dec 30, 2012)

Just watched it and I liked it, not mind-blowing but very solid. Oh, and I may be one of the dying breed of people that haven't actually read the hobbit, so I have no idea how true the movie was to the story and what will happen next.

However, I felt like bursting in laughter at the end at all these last moment gandalf save fragments. I mean - orcs? GANDALF SAVE , main antagonist? GANDALF SAVE, trolls? GANDALF SAVE, third world poor? WAITING FOR GANDALF SAVE, gosh


----------



## bhakan (Dec 30, 2012)

I really enjoyed it. Since I hadn't read the book in ages, I read the first half of the book right before the movie. 

It was incredibly true to the book in my opinion. There was stuff added, and a couple of little tweaks, but it seemed to be to help make it better as a standalone movie, since it is only the beginning of the book. A lot of the dialogue was lifted word for word form the book.


----------



## pink freud (Dec 30, 2012)

Duelbart said:


> Just watched it and I liked it, not mind-blowing but very solid. Oh, and I may be one of the dying breed of people that haven't actually read the hobbit, so I have no idea how true the movie was to the story and what will happen next.
> 
> However, I felt like bursting in laughter at the end at all these last moment gandalf save fragments. I mean - orcs? GANDALF SAVE , main antagonist? GANDALF SAVE, trolls? GANDALF SAVE, third world poor? WAITING FOR GANDALF SAVE, gosh



Gandalf save doesn't work? EAGLES.


----------



## texshred777 (Dec 31, 2012)

pink freud said:


> Gandalf save doesn't work? EAGLES.



Gotta get me one of those.


----------



## fps (Dec 31, 2012)

pink freud said:


> 2) The eagles couldn't pick a better drop off point?



Ha YES! Plus, why didn't they just carry the whole group of em straight to the mountain!?


----------



## bhakan (Jan 1, 2013)

fps said:


> Ha YES! Plus, why didn't they just carry the whole group of em straight to the mountain!?


It explains it in the book (and probably the beginning of the next movie). They first fly to the eagles nest to discuss what the eagles are going to do with them, because they do not know who they are. Then Gandalf talks to them, and they owe Gandalf a favor from a while back. They Eagles don't want to fly into territory inhabited by men, because the men attack them, so they fly them as far they can take them.


----------



## ilyti (Jan 2, 2013)

I was wondering if the eagles would talk in this movie, like they were supposed to. I wish they had. It would have made that last scene make more sense.

(You know you're watching a fantasy film if you say "if the eagle talked it would make more sense.")


----------



## AxeHappy (Jan 2, 2013)

I quite enjoyed the movie. 

Saw it in "I-max" (the I-max at the Silver Cities in London is not really a 100% real I-max) and I didn't notice any of the visual glitches that people have been mentioning. It looked like the LoTR but prettier/more real. I hope more and more movies pick up the whole 48FPS or whatever it was... 

I thought it was fairly true to the book and I enjoyed the appendices stuff put in. Not quite sure how they're going to stretch the rest of the book across 2 movies?


----------



## pink freud (Jan 3, 2013)

AxeHappy said:


> I quite enjoyed the movie.
> 
> Saw it in "I-max" (the I-max at the Silver Cities in London is not really a 100% real I-max) and I didn't notice any of the visual glitches that people have been mentioning. It looked like the LoTR but prettier/more real. I hope more and more movies pick up the whole 48FPS or whatever it was...
> 
> I thought it was fairly true to the book and I enjoyed the appendices stuff put in. Not quite sure how they're going to stretch the rest of the book across 2 movies?



Movie three is purported to be what happens in between The Hobbit and LOTR.


----------



## roadsalt (Jan 3, 2013)

ilyti said:


> I was wondering if the eagles would talk in this movie, like they were supposed to. I wish they had. It would have made that last scene make more sense.
> 
> (You know you're watching a fantasy film if you say "if the eagle talked it would make more sense.")



That's what I thought too and I have a feeling that we may see it in the extended edition (if there will be one).


----------



## Murmel (Jan 3, 2013)

ilyti said:


> I was wondering if the eagles would talk in this movie, like they were supposed to. I wish they had. It would have made that last scene make more sense.
> 
> (You know you're watching a fantasy film if you say "if the eagle talked it would make more sense.")


Only if voiced by Gordon Freeman. Would be so hilarious.


----------



## fps (Jan 3, 2013)

bhakan said:


> It explains it in the book (and probably the beginning of the next movie). They first fly to the eagles nest to discuss what the eagles are going to do with them, because they do not know who they are. Then Gandalf talks to them, and they owe Gandalf a favor from a while back. They Eagles don't want to fly into territory inhabited by men, because the men attack them, so they fly them as far they can take them.



Well colour me told. That does make sense. I read this book back in the mists of time as a kid, and that does ring a bell. 

Anyway I did in the end go to see it. Cheesy, overblown, full of often lame humour, loved every second of it, will see the next one.


----------



## pink freud (Jan 3, 2013)

Murmel said:


> Only if voiced by Gordon Freeman. Would be so hilarious.



Wouldn't work, or at least not for the _third_ movie.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 3, 2013)

Saw it last night. Enjoyed it

The higher frame rate seemed to help the 3d stuff. Hopefully he can pull it off for the other 2 movies, he had me with fellowship then lost me in the two towers and return of the king last time (too much action movie syndrome).


----------



## Xaios (Jan 3, 2013)

Skyblue said:


> The dwarf song is the best song ever.



Agreed, I enjoy the main motif of the score for The Hobbit than the one from Lord of the Rings.

Also, I think I've created a new term to describe Tolkien's seemingly favorite plot device...

Deus Eagle Machina.


----------



## Kiwimetal101 (Jan 3, 2013)

Saw it yesterday, loved it! The high frame rate did wonders for motion, I do get how some people said it made it look fake.. But it was easier to follow the fast paced shots, and its a fantasy movie not everything is going to looks real..

The only bit I thought didn't make sense was when they got out of the goblin cave to daylight (Gandlaf makes a point that it will save them) then when the orcs come it goes straight back to dusk...

Edit: Agreed, the Dwarf song is amazing...


----------



## Xaios (Jan 3, 2013)

Kiwimetal101 said:


> The only bit I thought didn't make sense was when they got out of the goblin cave to daylight (Gandlaf makes a point that it will save them) then when the orcs come it goes straight back to dusk...



Yeah, now that you mention it, I did notice that too.


----------



## Kiwimetal101 (Jan 3, 2013)

I guess it was to keep with the lighting that had been associated with the orcs in the previous scenes, but they could have done something there to make it less obvious..


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 3, 2013)

^^

Or they just arrived outside close enough to dusk you can imagine a little bit of time passing.


----------



## bhakan (Jan 5, 2013)

Kiwimetal101 said:


> The only bit I thought didn't make sense was when they got out of the goblin cave to daylight (Gandlaf makes a point that it will save them) then when the orcs come it goes straight back to dusk...


Maybe I can clarify somewhat. In the book, when they get out of the cave, they're supposed to have about a days travel, and then they camp out in the forest. It happens to be a meeting spot for the wargs (giant wolves), who they climb trees to escape, since wolves can't climb trees. Then the goblins (replaced with orcs in the movie) come to meet with the wargs, and then try and burn them out of the trees, and then the eagles come. The events seemed more condensed in favor of fighting, so I would assume some time was just supposed to have passed before the orcs arrive. 

Again, really happy I read the book before the movie, definitely made it better. The only thing I wasn't super happy with was The Pale Orc. He wasn't mentioned in the hobbit, and whenever they encountered orcs/goblins, it was just random. It did make sense though, as without him there would be no antagonist in the first movie.


----------



## Kiwimetal101 (Jan 5, 2013)

^
Ahhk that kinda makes sense...


----------



## Murdstone (Jan 6, 2013)

I remember noting that in the scenes immediately after they leave the cave, you can gradually see the light disappearing and night coming in. It wasn't a one scene transition.


----------



## Amanita (Jan 6, 2013)

saw it tonight.
3D with polarized glasses is OK.
together with higher framerate it gave an impression described by my friend as a 'brasilian soap quality', i'd rather enjoyed that tho'
i didn't mind slower pace. 
i didn't mind expanding the plot with parts only hinted in the book and expanded in LOTR.
i found character development and dialogues hard to swallow. 'i miss my home and fireplace but i'll stay with you 'cause you don't have a home' high horse shite. 
was that written with two-digit IQ teens in mind or what?


----------



## Kiwimetal101 (Jan 7, 2013)

Since we love the dwarf song so much..

The Hobbit - Misty Mountains - Jun Sung Ahn & Peter Hollens Violin/A Cappella Cover - YouTube!


----------



## pink freud (Jan 7, 2013)

Amanita said:


> saw it tonight.
> 3D with polarized glasses is OK.
> together with higher framerate it gave an impression described by my friend as a 'brasilian soap quality', i'd rather enjoyed that tho'
> i didn't mind slower pace.
> ...



Well, to be fair, he _was_ bullshitting them at the time.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 7, 2013)

I thought it was bloody awesome, and Gollum in particular was way scarier this time around. When he was trying to kill that orc and dragging it away, that was some dark shit.


----------



## Bodes (Jan 7, 2013)

Saw this last night. What a load of complete horse-shite!

The images were akin to some of the god-awful children's shows my nieces watch.
Could he have dragged out the over orchestrated music sections even longer?
WTF was with the scene with the three ogres around the campfire? It added nothing to the film.
Blah blah blah... etc. etc. etc.

I know what I wont be spending my cash on over the next few years....


----------



## AxeHappy (Jan 7, 2013)

Uhhh, they found the 3 swords in the troll horde. That's kind of important. 

Also, it was in the book...so yeah...


----------



## ilyti (Jan 7, 2013)

pink freud said:


> Well, to be fair, he _was_ bullshitting them at the time.



Yeah, he was. Although it would have been fine if the scene had stayed truer to the book; i.e. Thorin _never _got pissy about Bilbo being with their company, wishing he would go home. And book-Thorin would have had enough class not to complain about it, especially not around that time. The dwarves thought Bilbo was probably dead, not that he escaped and went home. And because of that they are thrilled beyond belief when Bilbo does appear out of nowhere, and it proves that he's a good burglar.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 8, 2013)

Bodes said:


> Saw this last night. What a load of complete horse-shite!
> 
> The images were akin to some of the god-awful children's shows my nieces watch.
> Could he have dragged out the over orchestrated music sections even longer?
> ...



You know that The Hobbit, was a 'childrens' (more akin to teen literature now, kind of a coming of age type thing) book right? The Trolls scene was probably one of my favourite parts of the book, and the film


----------



## SenorDingDong (Jan 25, 2013)

So I unexpectedly wound up seeing the movie last weekend. It was pretty good, however the CG use really bothered me, especially in the


Spoiler



goblin caves, where all the dwarves roll the boulder in to the goblins. It just looked to terribly 2009 video-game-graphic-ish.


 Other than that the movie was solid.


----------



## Xiphos68 (Mar 23, 2013)

Bought the movie today and it was... EPIC! 
It went beyond my expectations! 
Overall it was a fantastic movie and the Soundtrack was very well done!



11/10 For me.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Mar 23, 2013)

The soundtrack for every LotR movie has been the very definition of epic. Hobbit was NO exception and I'm very very excited to see what other themes are in the movies to come.


----------



## ilyti (Mar 23, 2013)

I'm gonna wait and buy the extended edition when it comes out.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 24, 2013)

Watched it tonight and absolutely loved it!


----------



## Xiphos68 (Mar 25, 2013)

ilyti said:


> I'm gonna wait and buy the extended edition when it comes out.



Has one been confirmed?


----------



## ilyti (Mar 25, 2013)

Yeah I looked it up, it won't be out until December or something.


----------



## Sean Conklin (Mar 29, 2013)

Finally saw this. I really enjoyed it. From what I had heard I was expecting a movie more children-focused, but I thought this was packed with a good dose of action. Will get the extended version when it comes out.


----------



## Rev2010 (Mar 29, 2013)

Saw it last weekend with the wife on Pay Per View HD. Overall it was "ok", not great by any means and not unwatchable. It was definitely draw out waaay longer than it needed to be, almost as if they tried desperately to intentionally make it nearly 3 hours without the content available to do so normally. I can't see at all why they couldn't do each movie in 2 hours for example... Jackson always has to push toward 3 hours it seems.

One other thing that bugged me that is reminiscent of LOTR:



Spoiler



As in the Lord of the Rings and was asked by many later why if Gandalf can summon a giant bird why they didn't just fly the fuck over Mordor and thrown the ring in, in the Hobbit movie at the end why do the birds leave them so far away? Why not just drop them at the old Dwarf mountain?




Rev.


----------



## bhakan (Mar 29, 2013)

Rev2010 said:


> Saw it last weekend with the wife on Pay Per View HD. Overall it was "ok", not great by any means and not unwatchable. It was definitely draw out waaay longer than it needed to be, almost as if they tried desperately to intentionally make it nearly 3 hours without the content available to do so normally. I can't see at all why they couldn't do each movie in 2 hours for example... Jackson always has to push toward 3 hours it seems.
> 
> One other thing that bugged me that is reminiscent of LOTR:
> 
> ...





Spoiler



Gandalf doesn't summon giant birds, they stumble across the hobbits and decide to save them. Then, because they owe Gandalf a favor from some previous event, they fly them as far as they can, but they can't fly over cities or anything because they are not friendly with mankind and people will try and shoot them down. Where they drop the Hobbits is as far they can safely travel.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 29, 2013)

Rev2010 said:


> Saw it last weekend with the wife on Pay Per View HD. Overall it was "ok", not great by any means and not unwatchable. It was definitely draw out waaay longer than it needed to be, almost as if they tried desperately to intentionally make it nearly 3 hours without the content available to do so normally. I can't see at all why they couldn't do each movie in 2 hours for example... Jackson always has to push toward 3 hours it seems.
> 
> One other thing that bugged me that is reminiscent of LOTR:
> 
> ...



I haven't read the book, but Tolkien writes stories about the journey just as much as the end goal. I don't actually think anything in the movie was filler as I'm fairly certain everything in the movie was present to some degree in the book. If it bothers you then these sort of tales are just not your thing probably.

I thought it was the perfect length personally, but I like long movies.



Spoiler



Yeah, I had the same thought, but Gandalf I believe did mention something in this one as to his limitations in doing so. I can't remember what exactly (if at all, my memory sucks).


----------



## Rev2010 (Mar 29, 2013)

@Flint - long movies don't bother me at all. Quite the opposite, I prefer them. Some of my favorite movies are over 2 hours - Contact, Cast Away, The Right Stuff, The Last Samurai, Wyatt Earp, etc. Just don't care for it as much when it looks like they are trying hard to lengthen a movie more than needed. 



Rev.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 29, 2013)

Ahhh. I didn't mean long movies weren't your thing, but that maybe epics (the writing style) aren't really your thing. Like I said I haven't read the book, but I'm fairly certain that the books trot along at a similar pace.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Mar 29, 2013)

Rev2010 said:


> One other thing that bugged me that is reminiscent of LOTR:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



already kinda been answered. but another thing is... 



Spoiler



if they had try to fly the ring in with the eagles the nazgul would've picked them off miles before they got to mount doom because the eye would've seen them first. the whole idea of the hobbits is that someone quite small can accomplish big things, in both cases the enemy expects the brazen approach and can defend against it, whereas walk the ring in on foot with a small person they slip through.


----------

