The Hobbit: SPOILERS

[Neverhoodian]

I find it more unbelievable that the Orcs with their oh so known amazing knowledge of the art of medicine could save his life. Cutting of an arm has some pretty major blood veins, i say the blood loss that follows would take a mans life easily without proper medical procedure, and i doubt orcs had that, but hey, i guess it can be explained with: "He's a huge orc, so it wasn't a big deal".

Well, the books do contain a few examples of orc healing practices, consisting largely of taking some sort of vile draught and either drinking it or rubbing it on a wound. It's crude and painful, but it works in a brutally efficient kind of way. It's implied that some sort of subtle magic/alchemy is at work, like a corrupted version of the elves' healing power.

You see a bit of it in the second LotR film when Merry gets a mouthful of orc "medicine," but its effects on him aren't really shown or explained. I can see how that might lead people who haven't read the books to believe orcs just "tough it out."

 

[Kyber]

I find it more unbelievable that the Orcs with their oh so known amazing knowledge of the art of medicine could save his life. Cutting of an arm has some pretty major blood veins, i say the blood loss that follows would take a mans life easily without proper medical procedure, and i doubt orcs had that, but hey, i guess it can be explained with: "He's a huge orc, so it wasn't a big deal".

Well, the books do contain a few examples of orc healing practices, consisting largely of taking some sort of vile draught and either drinking it or rubbing it on a wound. It's crude and painful, but it works in a brutally efficient kind of way. It's implied that some sort of subtle magic/alchemy is at work, like a corrupted version of the elves' healing power.

You see a bit of it in the second LotR film when Merry gets a mouthful of orc "medicine," but its effects on him aren't really shown or explained. I can see how that might lead people who haven't read the books to believe orcs just "tough it out."

Thanks for correcting me, rarely do i see someone correcting someone who's wrong in a civil way, too many times people seem to just answer: "Ugh no, you're wrong you idiot etc etc".

 

[Verzin]

I wish they'd stayed more true to the book instead of making ridiculous over-dramatized shit such as the battle of the stone giants of the escape from the goblin lair.

some of the action scenes were just silly.

I did enjoy it, however, but I was SO BORED during a lot of the action scenes because they were so overdone.

 

[Talaris]

I realise that part of the reason why I loved the film was due to nostalgia; witnessing a visual interpretation of a memory from the book that hasn't crossed my mind in 15 years was quite emotional for me. The comedic banter during the riddles scene was a highlight, both in book and film format. The was a right decision to keep the tone ligh hearted

I saw it in 2D, and whilst on the whole the picture quality was very impressive considering 2D was not its native format, there are certain scenes which seemed particularly blurry. One of the worst was the final scene involving and panning scene of Smaug's gold, before we see his eye. My guess is there were originally intended for the "3D effect", and they really took me out of the film when I noticed them.

That aside, I enjoyed it a lot, and look forward to the next installment.

 

[Tyler Trahan]

I wish they'd stayed more true to the book instead of making ridiculous over-dramatized shit such as the battle of the stone giants of the escape from the goblin lair.

some of the action scenes were just silly.

I did enjoy it, however, but I was SO BORED during a lot of the action scenes because they were so overdone.

Well at least there WERE stone giants in the book. So it isnt as if Peter Jackson made up the idea of stone giants, and they were in fact fighting on the mountain side while the company was walking along... Jackson just... spiced up the scene a bit >.>

 

[RyQ_TMC]

*snip*

Happy Forumday!

OT: I went into the theater expecting disappointment (after foolishly having a look at Metacritic), but in the end I thought the film was good. I'd give it a 7/10 or 8/10 - good enough that I'll watch the next part, but it's not winning any Oscars. In terms of tone, it felt very Indiana Jones-y. Lighthearted, with some goofy action (Fili and Kili jumping off each other during fights), comic characters (Radagast the Brown felt like a Marcus Brody expy, and the trolls were definitely based on the Three Stooges) and battles serving mostly as visual aid to noises of flour sacks getting hit with baseball bats.

Yes, it was a goofy 1980s adventure flick - exactly the kind of film I like. So I'll be happy to watch the next parts and maybe get a Collector's Edition somewhere down the line.

The riddles scene was extremely well done - you could see they wanted to squeeze as much out of the few minutes of Gollum as possible. I loved the stone giants. Radagast scenes felt a bit jarring - he felt more like a Narnia character - but thanks to the film's light tone, it didn't kill it.

The early scenes of Smaug was some horrible CGI. Not sure why they went with it, but especially the scene where his tail disappears into Erebor looked really, really bad. The CGI hedgehog and thrush also rubbed me the wrong way.

And now for the most important bit.

Dwarven women did not have beards! Where are all the threads about that? Why is the Internet not awash with controversy?

 

[V8 Ninja]

Just saw it yesterday and, while I liked the movie, one of my major problems with it was that it seemed too "Modern". For a universe of horses and steel swords and magic, there were a few too many instances where extremely modern language was used. It felt artificial and against the setting. I was also expecting a bit more of a "Grand Adventure" feeling from the movie, but then I realized the book was more-or-less the exact of opposite of what The Lord of The Rings trilogy was attempting to achieve.

Also, there was an awful lot of singing in the movie. For the first 40 minutes I though I had accidentally walked into the theater for "The Hobbit: The Musical".

 

[Erja_Perttu]

Also, there was an awful lot of singing in the movie. For the first 40 minutes I though I had accidentally walked into the theater for "The Hobbit: The Musical".

I left the cinema thinking this. I thought they may do one song, just a short one but there were a couple knocking about that first part.

It felt really padded out, and for movie called The Hobbit, there didn't seem to be all that much focus on Bilbo. I get that the wizards and the Necromancer are probably going to be cool later, but for now it all just felt a bit unfocused.

Sometime I felt drawn out of the story as well. I don't know what it was but around the time the eagles showed up, I found myself thinking, this is ridiculous, and not for the first time *cough*rabbit sleigh thing*cough*.

OH! Hot dwarf! Why is there a hot dwarf? Well, actually, I get why there is one, but really? We're doing that now? The whole thing about dwarfs is that they are specifically not hot. As a race, they are described as not pretty in any way shape or form, but hey, they're just throwing one in anyway.

That said, I loved it. Sat in that cinema, it was like visiting an old friend and realising I missed them more than I thought. Martin Freeman really is perfectly cast. His scene with Gollum was fantastic.

 

[Linakrbcs]

I really loved the movie. I read the Hobbit when I was very little, I can berely remember a time when I didn't know middle-earth. And then, sitting there in the cinema, watching my childhood heroes come alive, was amazing. The beginning, with Bag End and the Shrie theme felt so much like coming home, I actually cried.
I loved that they kept so much dialogue from the book, especially the opening sentences "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit...".
Quite apart from that, the film is beautifully made, Martin Freeman is perfect as Bilbo, out of his depths but still trying to keep up with what's going on.
It didn't feel slow to me, but I suppose it might be different if you don't know the books. I like that they took the time to set up the story, to show what's at stake. The meeting in Bilbo's house is long, and not exactly action-heavy, but it's not dull, what with that brilliant "Blunt the knives" song and the dished being thrown about. And then it goes serious again, with the dwarves singing in the dark, and its obvious how important this all is to Thorin. Yes, it's probably half an hour of just talking, but they talk about interesting and important stuff.
I love that hte dwarves have slightly more individual personalities than they did in the books, and how Gandalf keeps being a bit baffled by their antics. He's a good mix between friendly, grandfatherly mentor and powerful wizard involved in very serious business who should not be messed with.
The action scenes are maybe a bit over the top, but still fun to watch. They were of course expanded from the book, since Tolkiens descriptions of battles are usually rather short, he'd probably seen enough of war to know that there is little glory in it, but an epic adventure movie nowadays needs a few good, big action set pieces.
Another major change from the book is Bilbo's evolution. In the book, he was much more timid and only turned into a more heroic character once the group reaches Mirkwood. It's likely a consequence of having three movies, there had to be some character developement for him in this movie or people would have complained about him being a useless burden to the much more competent dwarves. The bit at the end, where Thorin hugs him, is sweet, and the theme of strong, battle-forged friendships between men is close enough to Tolkien's writing that it fits well.
Overall, the Hobbit is an excellent movie that shines in the quiet, dramatic moments without neglecting fun, epic, if slightly unrealistic, battles.