Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Solid 10/10.

Though the 48 FPS took a while to get used to, and the sounds were too loud at certain times.

At 12/18/12 08:36 PM, simon wrote: Good, don't waste your money because you're completely right. They've ruined the film by overly extending it with pointless character plots and action scenes that don't fit in The Hobbit world at all. The problem that Jackson had in mind with this film is that this is not Lord of the Rings, this is The Hobbit, a book written for children whereas LotR was written for adults.

I have a feeling the 2nd part will be pretty solid with the inclusion of Smaug, but this part was 4/10.. I don't even want to imagine the 3rd part, I heard it won't have ANY of The Hobbit's story in there and will be mainly appendixes and side stories that Tolkien had written at the end of Return of the King. Total cash grab there.

Huge disappointment after the amazing Lord of the Rings trilogy. 48fps also looks bad, just saying.

I just got back from the theater and I have to say, I agree. I decided not even half way through the movie that I would not think of it as The Hobbit at all, and so managed to enjoy it, but I'm still extremely disappointed. They butchered the story to make it more exciting and accessible for people who have never read any of the books; a good move I suppose, pleasing the majority, but it sucks for fans of the book. Despite feeling like I should know better, I am still looking forward to the next two parts.

What I liked about this movie is that it is a different tone than lord of the rings. It's not the world ending, it's just an adventure. For an adventure it's good. The biggest difference is Gandalf. He's more laid back. This is just a day of wizard work for him.

At 12/18/12 09:01 PM, stafffighter wrote: What I liked about this movie is that it is a different tone than lord of the rings. It's not the world ending, it's just an adventure. For an adventure it's good. The biggest difference is Gandalf. He's more laid back. This is just a day of wizard work for him.

Until Sauron pops up.

Yeah, but I get your point. Even though the challenges are huge, it's a much more light-hearted, less dark adventure, for sure.

I wonder if, like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I'll see this on DVD, be impressed, than see the final two in theaters.

I also still think 2 Hobbit films would be better than 3.

At 12/18/12 09:14 PM, Ryanson wrote: I wonder if, like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I'll see this on DVD, be impressed, than see the final two in theaters.

I also still think 2 Hobbit films would be better than 3.

I don't know. I'm as wary as anyone (who isn't outright paranoid) about making it a trilogy but the movie was a full one. That's one of the strengths of going from tolkien material is that it's so dense you don't have to scrape to find additional scenes.
But I did miss the "15 birds" song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y30LAj502mY

At 12/18/12 09:26 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 12/18/12 09:14 PM, Ryanson wrote: I wonder if, like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I'll see this on DVD, be impressed, than see the final two in theaters.

I also still think 2 Hobbit films would be better than 3.

I don't know. I'm as wary as anyone (who isn't outright paranoid) about making it a trilogy but the movie was a full one. That's one of the strengths of going from tolkien material is that it's so dense you don't have to scrape to find additional scenes.
But I did miss the "15 birds" song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y30LAj502mY

I'm just glad they (finally) gave Radagast good screen time. Also, just the mention of Ungolianth had me very happy. And the fact they actually developed the Azog story added a lot of depth to Thorin, which was quite unexistant in the book (other than the Unfinished Tales).

At 12/18/12 09:32 PM, FBIpolux wrote:

I'm just glad they (finally) gave Radagast good screen time. Also, just the mention of Ungolianth had me very happy. And the fact they actually developed the Azog story added a lot of depth to Thorin, which was quite unexistant in the book (other than the Unfinished Tales).

That's something a lot of the geekier reviewers are saying. Like Spoony said he's the perfect mark for this brand of geekery. We love this kind of world. World building was one of the stronger points here. Also, the casting was perfect. Martin Freeman looks exactly like someone who should never go on an adventure. Which is probably why he's the go to guy for this kind of part.
Speaking personally the reason seeing this was so great for me was that I got to take my 13 year old niece to go see it and she lit up at every bit. She's a nerd in the making.

Not as good as The Lord of the Rings, but neither was the actual novel. Overall, I thinks it's a great movie and I am very excited to see the next two films. Also, despite what some people say, I actually liked the 48fps.

At 12/18/12 09:04 PM, FBIpolux wrote:
Yeah, but I get your point. Even though the challenges are huge, it's a much more light-hearted, less dark adventure, for sure.

The main people that are upset were expecting this to be Lord Of The Rings Version 2. They should have educated themselves just a little bit on the source material and saved themselves the disappointment.

At 12/19/12 02:10 AM, Cootie wrote:

At 12/18/12 09:04 PM, FBIpolux wrote:
Yeah, but I get your point. Even though the challenges are huge, it's a much more light-hearted, less dark adventure, for sure.

The main people that are upset were expecting this to be Lord Of The Rings Version 2. They should have educated themselves just a little bit on the source material and saved themselves the disappointment.

I wasn't expecting anything of the sort myself; I was hoping for a movie of The Hobbit (which I've read and enjoyed many times), and expecting to be disappointed. I wasn't nearly as disappointed as I thought I would be (I thought the funny dwarf facial hair would be distracting; it wasn't), but I was disappointed by all the changes they made to the story, even the minor ones. I guess my disappointment was based on my irrational hopes that they would stick closely to the original story, but knowing that such hopes are irrational doesn't stop me from feeling that this movie could have been so much better, at least for me.

It was the longest movie I've seen all year, at 169 minutes. The weird thing is that while it wasn't one of my favorite movies of the year, it didn't seem that long to me. I guess that's probably because I didn't know there were going to be more movies, so I just assumed the story was going to end. I did see the 1977 animated version, but I guess I don't remember it that well.