The Hobbit: An Unexpected Jouney

[Matt Bellamy]

Anyone else see it yet?

I thought it was kind of "Meh" but I liked it. Having loved the LoTR movies probably played a part in my lower scoring for the movie... It had some decent stuff, but I didn't really like many of the Dwarves, and the best parts seemed to be with any of the returning cast from LoTR.

The hype surrounding the movie probably also knocked a few points off. With LoTR: Fellowship of the Ring, no one really knew what to expect. With The Hobbit, those of us who never read the book expected something similar to LoTR. Yes, it was familiar, but it was definitely missing something... And I think that "thing" was a majority of likable characters.

Bilbo was done well, and Gandalf is always great... And Thorin was pretty cool... But the rest of the Dwarves were kinda just... There.

Though unlike a lot of reviews I've heard... I really didn't find it all that "slow", or it really didn't bother me. I mean, even LoTR Fellowship of the Ring had a lot of slow moments too. It's the first/start of a trilogy, and has a lot to do to get it all going. The Hobbit is now a trilogy as well, thus I kind of expecting it.

My final gripe is that there is no truly "Epic" scenes that I want to watch again. All 3 LoTR movies at least had 3 or 4 scenes I absolutely love. The Hobbit didn't have one scene that I can really say " That was awesome! I need to watch that again!", thus I like it, but it really was kinda "Meh".

[*Jess♥]

I've read the Hobbit so I know what to expect. but three films?

I never caught that news flash, so I'm quite surprised.

I find myself really wondering just how they could create three films from the hobbit!

The book was not that long and I don't recall that many events that could make a decent three films.

granted it was a very long time ago when i read it, but i remember the main set pieces.

I recall about 6 or 7 major plot points. to make 3 films needs about 9 to 12 major plot points.

I can understand you feeling like there isn't any parts in the movie that you could thing "that was awesome!" because it seems they are stretching the story too thin.

I've got a lot of stuff going on so I don't expect to watch this one in the cinema, even though I was looking forward to it since the announcement.

judging from your response, I may not be missing out on too much.

[odin]

Well I enjoyed it, I did not expect it to be better than lord of the rings but the way the movie was developed it I can clearly see how it can be made into 3 films since there are 3 unresolved plots on the first movie alone it gives them enough to work with in my opinion (

The white orc, the necromancer and Smaug itself

) maybe they are this time going for a different route on making this film by adding more stuff that the book does not have, well here is hoping, so far so good.

[*Jess♥]

yeah that's kind of an interesting point.

for the lord of the rings films, they cut out some major stuff.

they cut out one part that I thought was the most important part, the culmination of the hobbits' journey.

so they are really elaborating on gandalf's diversion?

that was really brief in the book so I wonder how they can elaborate on it. with it not being what tolkein wrote... it could be awful.

[river_chaos]

I got to see it today, and I give it five stars. It's most definitly worth seeing and the money.

I was tickled to death when they kept the songs from the old cartoon version of the Hobbit. I've also read the book, and I've noticed that they're making a film that combines both the Hobbit and the Necromancer, both written by Tolkein and run in the same timeline. I haven't read the Necromancer, but I did notice scenes in the movie that did not belong in the Hobbit book nor the older movie.

[*Kenji Murakami]

yeah that's kind of an interesting point.

for the lord of the rings films, they cut out some major stuff.

they cut out one part that I thought was the most important part, the culmination of the hobbits' journey.

so they are really elaborating on gandalf's diversion?

that was really brief in the book so I wonder how they can elaborate on it. with it not being what tolkein wrote... it could be awful.

According to what I've heard, Jackson is pulling from the Appendices to expand on the action. So, it is what Tolkien wrote, it just wasn't in the book.

[durendal]

I've seen the LOTR trilogy and I doubt that I'll be seeing this movie since I'm not much of a Bilbo Baggins fan. Although I'm an avid book reader, I've read the entire LOTR trilogy in just a few pages from the Silmarilion, so I cannot appreciate the movie much.