Peter Jackson to produce "The Hobbit"!

[DesertDan]

I'm all ashiver with antici--pation!

 

[BigFitz]

I am conflicted. I've read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and I've watched Jackson's LOTR. The movies were well made but I wish I would never have watched them. When I read the books, I prefer how my minds' eye imagines the world and characters of the book as oppsed to someone else's vision, but now after having seen the films I can't get my vision back. I think I will not see the movie and stick to my interpretation of the story.

 

[m0nk]

I am conflicted. I've read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and I've watched Jackson's LOTR. The movies were well made but I wish I would never have watched them. When I read the books, I prefer how my minds' eye imagines the world and characters of the book as oppsed to someone else's vision, but now after having seen the films I can't get my vision back. I think I will not see the movie and stick to my interpretation of the story.

It's funny because a lot of people say that Jackson did such a good job of bringing their imagined world to life. Everyone envisions something slightly different, but from my perspective, Jackson's vision was fairly close to mine.

 

[Jaguar66]

I suppose I should also note that I'm looking forward to this release with the same anticipation as for the new Star Trek movie. My favorite movies include the most of the original Star Trek movies, JJ Abrams Star Trek, and Peter Jackson's LOTR. I also love classic Golden Era movies just as much...

I too like science fiction, and the LOTR movies. I have always had a fascination about 3 fantasies since childhood. 1. To be able to fly. 2. To be able to be invisible and 3. To have a time machine.

I think the Star Trek series on TV (both original and STNG) were better science fiction than the the Star Trek movies.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Just got a poster of the map from the story. I think I'll frame it appropriately. Movie coming on the 14th. I'm there.

 

[Doctor Damage]

I am conflicted. I've read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and I've watched Jackson's LOTR. The movies were well made but I wish I would never have watched them. When I read the books, I prefer how my minds' eye imagines the world and characters of the book as oppsed to someone else's vision, but now after having seen the films I can't get my vision back. I think I will not see the movie and stick to my interpretation of the story.

This is a real problem and one of the (many) reasons I did not like the Jackson movies. The Hobbit was more significant to me as a child growing up and I've read it several times, and enjoyed the animated film which I thought was close enough to the book for me. Apparently Jackson's life-action version is expanded to 3 X 2.5 hour movies with new characters and added sub-plots! No thanks.

 

[Edward]

The Jackson additions draw from the Silmarillion, LOTR, and other Tolkien works which fleshed out the backstory to and events of what was originally written as a light childern's book. It is not a direct lift of the book, but it is authentically Tolkien. I've seen it, amd recommemd highly.

 

[Jaguar66]

I had never read the Hobbit (nor the Lord of the Rings), but knew of the story line, based on the 1978 Rankin-Bass cartoonized version of the story. I decided to read the Hobbit a week before the movie came out. The movie is getting a lot of criticism that I think is based on peoples expectations based on what they remember from Lord of the Rings. I myself loved the Hobbit. Both the book, and now the movie. I had to try to educate myself about the extra story lines. The more of Middle Earth in the movie, the merrier. I can't wait until the next movie The Desolation of Smaug. I bet the critics will be back on the band wagon after the next movie. I have seen it in IMAX 3D, and also the new format, the 48 frames per second hi frame rate (HFR) 3D with the new Dolby ATMOS surround system format. I recommend the latter, the detail is amazing. The surround sound is dazzling.

 

[BigFitz]

Couldn't resist and went to see it. Hated it. Was relieved when it "ended". Musical score was overwrought. Jokes were cliche or fell flat. Added plot lines? Why? Of course it didn't help that I had to sit through 8 previews.

 

[Boyo]

While the movie differs greatly from the book, does it stand up on its own? If the you hadn't read the book, and walked in blind would you have enjoyed it? My answer is yes, I liked the story, the special effects, etc.., and I am looking forward to part 2

 

[Jaguar66]

The movie has been out since Dec 14th and it is still leading at the box office. Many, like myself, have seen it more than once. Its a case where fan appreciation is higher than the critic reviewers.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I just realized I never commented on the film in my own thread...

While not quite a jaw-dropping instant masterpiece like the LOTR films were, the first Hobbit film is very much of a piece with them, and marks a welcome return to Middle-earth with excellent continuity in production design, acting, music, and storytelling. Sure, three films feels like it may be too much, but I think PJ and company did a fine job of remaining relatively true to the events and spirit of the book (which I just reread for the first time in 30 years) while folding in the elements from the LOTR appendices to set the backstory for the later saga. Martin Freeman is excellent, Ian McKellen (if anything) *****les even more this time, and seeing all the returning actors was a hoot (though I wish they hadn't modified Ian Holm's makeup to make him look more like Freeman - he doesn't quite match his previous appearance precisely like the others do). Apart from Thorin, the dwarves - as in the book - are relatively lacking in character and are mostly defined by their individual appearance and skills.

I will not argue that this film is as good as, or as important to (fantasy) film history as, FOTR was. It is a slighter story, even with the additions. And the change in the movie industry landscape in the last dozen years essentially pushes Peter Jackson to indulge his worst impulses up to eleven: too many dizzying swooping shots, impossible hairsbredth escapes one after another, and general overkill in many regards. (Note that i saw it in good old 2D - I felt that the change to digital camerawork was a significant enough difference on its own, and I'm no fan of 3D to start with... And 48fps, while a great idea [does anybody recall Douglas Trumbull's Showscan process from thirty ago with its 70mm film at 60fps promising "a more immersive experience?!?"], seems totally antithetical for a fantasy film. When early reviewers reported being able to clearly see Gandalf's contact lenses, I decided I really didn't want to see it this way!) But even with its missteps and effects overkill, this film is far from the Phantom Menace-level disappointment that many reviewers claimed.

Anyway, I had a huge grin on my face for the entire length, and I can't wait for next year's installment!

(I saw the film the day after opening day with my kids, keeping up our tradition from the LOTR trilogy. They were very young back in December 2001 - 8 and 11 - but they adored these movies from the start, and we all own the Extended Editions. Anyway, we all enjoyed the new film... while recognizing that it's not quite the mind-blowing, enormously emotional experience that the LOTR films were a decade ago.)

 

[DesertDan]

I loved it.
People seem to forget that The Hobbit was a children's story and therefore not nearly as grim and desperate a tale as The Lord Of The Rings. There is a degree of the whimsical fairy tale to it that I think Jackson captured but didn't let overpower the movie. The "Riddles In The Dark" scene was fantastic, as I fully expected it to be. Were there things I didn't like? Of course, but no film no matter how well done can be a one-to-one correlation to a book, it just doesn't work.

Will definitely be seeing it again before it leaves the theater and will own the extended editions when they come out.

Cheers!
DD

 

[Doctor Damage]

Review of the second Hobbit movie. Although I haven't seen it, I have seen the LOTR movies and this reviewer articulates exactly what irritated and disappointed me about those three films (although he doesn't mention the orcs which can climb and run along walls and ceilings like spiders and move faster than the heroes yet somehow never quite catch them).

http://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/...review-pirates-of-the-caribbean-with-orcs.php

 

[scottyrocks]

I have tried to sit through The Hobbit a number of times, and I can't get through more than about 10 minutes at a time before turning it off. It is almost completely unwatchable, and I loved the LotR trilogy.

 

[Fed in a Fedora]

I am with Scottyrocks. The first Hobbit movie set my teeth on edge with the silly action sequences. Wile I liked the LOTR series, seems like Jackson felt the need to top the shield skate board antics of LOTR by having Radagast and his silly critters go wild; the goblins are CGI gone over the top; and the storm giants are on steroids.

I will stick to the books from here on.

Fed

 

[Horace Debussy Jones]

The CGI stuff was a bit overdone I must say. But still, I can't say it was a bad adaptation of the story, and it fits in well with the rest of the movies overall I think. I want to see part 2 on the big screen here, just like I watched the LOTR trilogy. The first part of The Hobbit really does leave us hanging and anticipating the rest of the story. Gollum was especially good in this film, and should be nominated for an academy award for his role. :eusa_clap

 

[Chasseur]

I really enjoyed the second Hobbit film. The first was pretty good, but the second had the combination of Evangeline Lilly and the best movie dragon: Smaug. But I have to admit I'm not a fan of the books or Tolkien's writing style. Every time Peter Jackson makes another fun film from Tolkien's works and I think again to myself, "Well hell that book series can't be nearly as turgid and boring as I thought all those years ago, let's give it another shot." Then I try on this third (or fourth attempt?) to make it through chapters of Hobbit sociology and architecture, and a plot to that consists of people running away from threats for a page or two of pseudo action to be buried under long interminable meetings with random nonsensical, mythic characters (who just coincidentally happen to be there to save the Hobbits,*cough*Tom Bombadil *cough*...), who insist on either reciting long chants or singing mythic ballads only to be followed by a short chase and then another large meeting with recitation and song... back to the library ye go Lord of the Rings...

 

[Horace Debussy Jones]

Yeah, I'm so glad the movies did away with most of that rot. The movies are a nice distillation of important events in the story. The dwarvish song in the first part of the story was tolerable though.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I saw the second Hobbit film over the weekend. I liked it more than the first, though it has some pacing issues (the Beorn sequence seems very truncated: I expect there's more for the extended edition) and the usual amount of now-that's-physically-impossible-without-getting-injured action that required a boatload of suspension of disbelief. But the reappearance of Legolas and invented-character Tauriel were better than I was expecting, and I thought Bard and the Laketown stuff was well-done.

And, as even the film's detractors have said, Smaug is very, very impressive. Between the outstanding design/animation and Benny Batch's expert vocal performance, Smaug unseats Dragonslayer's Vermithrax Pejorative as the best movie dragon ever!