‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ Spoilers Discussion

Published 1 year ago by , Updated December 17th, 2012 at 8:48 am,

The Hobbit Movie Spoilers The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Spoilers Discussion

While our readers are already talking about this movie in the comments section of our Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey review, this is the place where you can discuss The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey spoilers without concerns about ruining the movie for people who haven’t seen it yet.

If you’re posting comments here, assume that anyone in the conversation has seen the movie – if you haven’t seen the movie, we would recommend you don’t read the comments here until you have.

For an in-depth discussion of the film by the Screen Rant editors check out our Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey episode of the SR Underground podcast.

We’ve set up a poll below where you can rate The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey for yourself. Other than that, feel free to discuss the film and all its surprises!

[poll id="477"]

Follow me on Twitter @benkendrick for future reviews, as well as movie, TV, and gaming news.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is rated PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images. Now playing in 2D, 3D, IMAX, and 48fps theaters.

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: the hobbit

106 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. What do you mean THE HOBBIT looks like Batman. I disagree that Jackson has been influenced by Nolan. Regardless of what you say this doesn’t look gritty to me!!!

    Hang on!!! What????

    Congrats BEN! Cheers all round!

  2. I loved it. Loved it so much. When it ended, I immediately wanted to see it again. I loved the slow build-up, that we got to know the characters, all the dwarves, before the adventure really began. I loved the bridge with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood. Awesome. Best film of the year for me!

  3. wasn’t a fan of LOTR when it came out, but recently watched the 3 films a couple months back. now the hobbit was everything i was wishing for and more, just loved the 3d (and i hate 3d) and the 48fps, now i’m counting down the days for The Desolation of Smaug, i have for faith in peter Jackson about expanding the book into 3 films.

    • full*

  4. Wouldnt of guessed it would get a 66% on rt, but after seeing it i agree. I hope other enjoy it tho! The gollum scene was superb.

  5. LOVED IT!! My favorite film of the year. I understand at times when critics have to be critics but I am baffled by how wrong they are. Anybody that loved LOTR is going to love this film. It’s my favorite of the year because I came out satisfied in the end. The Star Trek Prologue helped as well. It looks amazing. But highly recommend the Hobbit. This is in no way the Phantom Menace of the LOTR. My favorite scene was at the end when Thorin finally admits he was wrong to doubt Bilbo. The way Bilbo reacts is great and heart wrenching.

  6. One thing that I was especially pleased about with the Hobbit (of which there is plenty to be pleased about) was how the dwarfs were handled.

    There’s been a lot of complaining about the way they look (*cough*mongoose*cough ;)), but IMO none of that really mattered in the end. Each of them had so much personality and charm that you end up really caring about them all – not even the book managed to do that for me.

    Thorin especially. He was wonderfully acted and had more depth and character than I could have ever imagined.

    I was expecting a great deal from this movie, but even I was surprised at the end result – and I’m not even that big-of-a LotR fan.

    • Really? I felt 2 dwarfs stood out the rest were stock characters on the background. Just my opinion curious on your thoughts

      • Which two stood out for you?
        The dwarfs that stood out the most for me were Thorin, Balin, Bombur, Bofur, Fili and Kili, but IMO all of them were were unique and filled with character. The only ones that didn’t impress me much were Oin, Dori and Bifur, but I think that was only due to a lack of screentime…

        • Avenger, looking back through some of the previous discussions, I’ve noticed that a few folks, even before seeing the film, were generally negative about it, and Trey appears to have been one of these individuals. It thus seems that these people found exactly what they were looking for in the movie…less than perfection. I’d love to hear both from someone who thought it was going to be bad and loved it, and from someone who genuinely thought it was going to be good and hated it, and learn their reasons why. Of course, as with everything, to each their own.

          • I will say i didnt come in with high expectations but that should have helped the film.i was expected my problems to be the film is bloated, which i felt it was. What i didnt expect was extremely inconsistant cgi. Which imo was the films biggest flaw. Lotr was filled with beautiful makeup amongst the orcs, and this film got lazy and used cgi. It took me out of the film cause i felt i was watching a skyrim cutscene

        • Balin thorin and kili stood out for me. Thorin only stood out cause his screen time otherwise he was just another dwarf who failed to impress in the final act. While kili was really the only consistant effective fighter who got more action screentime than anyone. I just feel balancing 13 dwarfs is a near impossible task.

          • “I just feel balancing 13 dwarfs is a near impossible task.”
            Which is partly why the movie is being divided into three parts.
            I think once all three movies are released, people who didn’t like this one will change their opinions completely.
            … but I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

            As for the inconsistent CGI, I don’t know if your 3D glasses were dirty or something ;), but the visuals were amazing (usually I’d add “IMO”, but in this case it’s pretty much universally the same opinion) There were one or two characters who looked a little too CGI/fake, but like 92% of the VFX was incredible.

            I’d recommend maybe watching the movie again (for example, I know a lot of people who didn’t like TDKR their first time watched it again and ended up loving it), but reading some of your comments, I’m not sure you’re interested in watching it again…

            • Avenger, did you see the film in regular 3d or the new 48 fps? If the latter, how would you describe the overall experience, comparing and contrasting it with regular 3d? Thanks.

              • Sadly, here in South Africa there was only one theater screening the movie in 48fps (since the studio decided to scale back on the 48fps release and since the technology is still fairly untested).

                The above theater is over 900 miles away, so I decided it might work better to just see it in regular 3D ;)

                • @ Avenger

                  They were actually showing it at 3 theaters, 2 In Johannesburg and one in Durban.

                  I saw it in one of the Johannesburg theaters and I must tell you, it looked amazing in 48fps :D

              • Jeff, I saw it in HFR 3D, and I thought everything came out looking hyper-realistic. I quite enjoyed the effect. I think that for fantasy and science fiction films, this will (or, at least, SHOULD) be revolutionary. For action/adventure, spy/thriller, war, romance, or historical/literary drama films the effect would look cheap…possibly even silly. The way I basically described it in the Open Discussion was that the events seemed to be projected to me from somewhere else…as if they were occurring at that moment instead of merely seeming to be recorded film. It took me a couple of minutes to settle in to the effect, but I found it added a robustness to the proceedings.

                That’s MY take on it, anyway…

            • I saw it in 2d, and i felt everything looked fake. Especially the wolves, trolls and white orc. While the environment looked good. As for the dwarf i think its a film that doesnt work on its own, but as a part of a trilogy. Where films like the godfather or dark knight.

    • Gave me a good laugh, Avenger, calling Mongoose out like that. Yes, he has quite the history of complaining about the look of two of the dwarves. I can’t wait to see the film, but I must, since I am treating my parents to it around Christmas and two of my friends to it shortly thereafter. (I may sneak off and see it myself before then.) Anyway, the variety of opinion on the movie perplexes me. Most fans of Middle Earth seem to think it is “amazing”, whereas others seem to think it was too long and boring. To each his own, I guess, but for me, the more time in Middle Earth, the better!

      • Yeah, when I agreed with him once on a thread about the look of the Dwarves he then disagreed with me for the sake of it, which often seems the case. I was quite baffled by the Dwarves look at first, but it totally works in the movie. A few of the Dwarves didn’t really leave a mark, but as mentioned, I think that was just lack of screen time. And a couple of them were extremely camp. (^-^)

    • I’m glad some of you could have a bit of a laugh at my expense but my original point of contention continues to stand…….While I thought Thorin in general was portrayed competently, I would STILL have preferred them sticking with the original description and making him look like the aged and grizzled battle-scarred veteran he was supposed to be (and no long beard for the leader of the Longbeard clan was a blatant miss imho)

      Thorin was much easier to overlook however than Kili who looked completely out of place in the Dwarf group. Even his cousin Fili looked pretty correct as a “young” Dwarf but turning Kili into Aragorn 2.0 was irritating every time he was featured. (and considering how often he was given the spotlight, his character became a bit of a thorn in my side personally)

      So while I may soften on my Thorin position somewhat, I will continue voicing my disdain for Kili’s look.

  7. Im not a hobbit/tolkien fan so bare with me.
    Movie was hard for me to sit through, being three hours long, not much happens or is resolved. Plots are introduced and discussed but not resolved because there will be another one which hurts this as a stand alone. Because it only uses the first part of the book there was very little weight to me as no character would die and it seems to follow a constant boring repetition of;

    1. Oh no we walked/conveniently fell into trouble
    2. Gandalf arrives in time to save us
    3. Then they run

    The ending is just them arriving at the mountain, which pretty much sums up everything I feel(we here or whatever, so yay… I guess?). In the viewing people were obviously getting tired especially during travel scenes and long bouts of dialogue which were as I said before were one of the few things drawn out.

    Id say the movie is shot well, the actors act well, the effects are good but its just so long and and boring in parts, as well as the aforementioned lack of any plot resolutions prevents any sensation of completion or feel that any part is climatic.

    Just saying if your an outsider to this series, take heed that this unexpected journey is something you should plan more on if your going to see it.

    • I agree cody except i dont think thr effects are good. There was so much of it that the group i was with (all of which loved the trilogy) was complaining about how terrible the orcs and trolls looked. I found it lazy abondoning real life orcs like in the trilogy for cgi counterparts.

    • Cody, it’s a common theme for non-Tolkien readers to complain about the walking and talking and description of every rock and tree. I do understand that it’s hard to follow and stay interested if you don’t know so much about the history of all Middle Earth (not just Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit). If you are looking for something to broaden your mind about the realm of Middle Earth, try reading The Silmarillion. It’s not full of lengthy descriptions, rather full of short accounts of large scale events that created Middle Earth and destroyed it.
      Also, just because they could see the Mountain does not mean they reached it. They have all of Mirkwood to go through, and that’s a full film in its self.

  8. Dwarf armies. Elrond being a boss. Gollum playing games. Singing dwarves. And best of all – Gandalf-G not Gandalf-W complete with shiny blue scarf – what a tank.

    I’m such a huge fan of the Tolkien world, I detoured my entire church group en route to Australia to visit New Zealand so we could kayak Anduin, spalunk Mt. Doom, and visit Hobbiton to dance under the party tree. Oh yeah… I’m living the dream.

    Anyway – the movie was awesome. The “slow intro” was not something I found to be slow at all. I was enthralled by the film from start to finish. And the last hour is non-stop action.

    I think my favorite single moment was the entire Gollum sequence – from the riddles to the point where Bilbo firmly decides not to kill him.

    And the moment that impressed me most visually was the scene where Oakenshield earns his surname.

    I’m obsessed, so I’m probably going to see it again every day this weekend… But I digress… What were we talking about again?? Three hours of sleep 0.o

    • I totally agree, I thought the film was fantastic. I loved every single minute of it and I could not believe how fast the (nearly) 3 hours passed by. I am just bummed that I have to wait a whole year to see Pt 2. Despite the complaints about the book being spread out for 3 films, I loved that more of the history of Middle Earth was put in to the film without really taking away from the actual Hobbit story. It was also really good to see Frodo again, if even for just a few minutes. I didn’t think anything could be as good as The Avengers for me this year, but The Hobbit came close.

  9. Also – I would suggest anyone who hasn’t seen the film ignore RottenTomatoes (which is good practice regardless of the movie in question) and just go see it. Seems like the critics are overly scrutinizing PJ for a story which he did not create.

    • There judging it as a movie like they should. The main complaints is its bloated and the source material is tedious which imo jackson made it even
      More tedious by having the dwarfs being saved each fight scene wether it be by gandalph or elfs

      • Agree to disagree. Deus ex machina is the entire novel of the Hobbit, right down to Smaug being killed. If you don’t like The Hobbit as a movie because of the story, then you probably wouldn’t like the book either.

        Anyway – “tedious” is your word, “amazing” is mine. Either way, people should see it for themselves and base the judgment on that, not rotten tomatoes or even screenrant.

        • Ill agree to that mate

        • I agree

      • They’re

        • @RandomInternetGuy – that was really bugging me too, also it’s Gandalf not gandalph and elves not elfs.

  10. The Hobbit was amazing … emphasis on AMAZING!
    3 hours of full immersion in Middle Earth? who could complain?

    To address some of the complaints regarding the length and plot, I think Peter Jackson did a wonderful job of providing a fun adventure story, while staying true to the source material.

    He organized the plot in a way that people who have never read the book or aren`t Tolkien fans will be able to easily follow and understand. While providing plenty of things that hardcore fans like myself would wet themselves over.

    Those who say the film is to long or should be only one or two movies, obviously haven`t read the book. While the Hobbit is short in pages, the plot/story is not and has numerous key events that need its proper screen time.

    Perhaps I`m bias because even a 5 hour movie would still be short in my opinion, but I don`t see how you could create a proper story arc by trying to cram so many events and sequences into one or two films. Maybe for non Tolkien fans it would make for a more exciting story, but for fans of the books it would be very disappointing.

    It`s obvious from the first scene that Jackson isn`t only trying to tell the hobbit story but connect it with LOTR by providing alot of screen time to events that set it up.

    But he connects both stories so brilliantly without sacrificing the focus on Bilbo`s story. Not to mention he provides fans of Tolkiens work so many great scenes from source material for example the battle of Moria which I didnt expect. Also how excited were you fellow Tolkien fanboys/girls when you saw Thranduil for the first time?

    I can understand while non fans may have found the movie a bit to long, but I if they read up a little on the characters and different backstories they`ll realize just how epic the film was and how masterfully Jackson weaved it all together. My only disappointment is that we have to wait another year to see the next film.

    • Id have to disagree respectfully. The story has no character arc. The only one is bilbo whose arc is a less compelling similar version of frodo’s. Thorins arch enemy arc is unecesaary and pretty useless and thrown in to give the film another antogonist. The other dwarfs were stock and only kili shined. The hobbit itself is just a less interesting version of the trilogy. Which ive read both.

      • You know what’s funny? I disliked how Legolas and Gimli were treated in the original trilogy for the same reason. I actually think Thorin’s company of dwarves was given a collective personality that served the story better than Legolas and Gimli did in Fellowship.

        Funny enough, Tolkien himself regretted his lack of development for Thorin’s company in the book. I guess the stock-dwarves don’t matter to me much because I read the book and watched the movie for Thorin, Bilbo, Gandalf, and Beorn primarily.

        You’re right on Kili being presented well. Balin was a decent character also. When he told the tale of Thorin Oakenshield, I thought that was pretty dope. I thought more Dwalin would have been nice. Dude has tattoos on his scalp – Bam Bam Bigelow style.

        I’ll say this in defense of Bilbo – I think he’s way less whiney than Frodo, though his task doesn’t possess nearly as much significance in regards to the Sauron plot. By Towers, Sam was the hobbit I most enjoyed watching.

        • You are very correct about him being less whiny. And i thought freeman was phenomenal he had great comedic delivery. I just cant put anyones name with their face besides fili kili and balin, well and thorin of course.

          • Yeah for real – the “one with the floppy hat” is how I identify the dwarf who shared the other decent bit of dialogue with Bilbo. We shall see in the next movie! In LOTR, Gimli and Legolas started showing more personality as the movies progressed so hopefully the same can be said for the Hobbit.

            • Haha thats funny i went with “fat dwarf” and “funny moustache dwarf”

            • I always love this exchange from Return of the King:

              Gimli: Never thought I’d die fighting side by side with an elf.

              Legolas: What about side by side with a friend?

              Gimli (getting choked up): I…. I can do that.

              Hopefully we can get a moment like that in a later Hobbit film.

              • We got that moment with Thorin and Bilbo at the end of the film.

  11. Just to tell everyone who is complaining that the film is over long and bloated….its not.
    Peter Jackson has skillfully woven in the history of middle earth into the Hobbit. He is not only adapting The hobbit onto the big screen, he is adapting Tolkiens’ entire Middle Earth universe onto screen which is no easy task.
    He is also trying to set up a trilogy that seamlessly blends into his LotR trilogy which is a very clever idea.
    I personally loved the movie (especially in HFR3D) which is full of little Easter eggs for both movie fans and book fans alike. I really just can’t wait for the next two :D

    • The film may not feel bloated to you but others disagree. I think the argument can be mad that the interweving and other segments (radagast the brown, thorins arch enemy) are unecessary to the plot. It all depends on what kind of movie you want. Either every ounce of middle earth or a tight narrative

      • made

      • interweaving

  12. I loved the movie. I give 4 out of 5 stars just because I feel like the cgi and graphics weren’t rhe best in some parts. I know that they were great, but it seemed like at some parts seeing it in 3d sort of hurt the graphics in parts. Especially the dragon attacking the dwarven city at the beginning. It looked like an old tv movie. The fire looked fake. But like I said it might have been partially because I was still adjusting my eyes to the hfr.

  13. When I heard that they were stretching the short Hobbit book into 3 films I was initially disappointed. After seeing this first installment I am blown away. I thought it was very fast paced and exciting. I’m not sure where those lengthy dialog scenes were that you guys are complaining about. In Rivendell? In the Shire? There was dialog there but you have to have SOME basis of story and I thought the way it was handled kept things interesting. Surprisingly, I also ended up really liking the additions to the plot and the tie ins to LOTR also. All very well crafted. I thought the white orc added another level of excitement to the trip through middle earth. If you consider that the journey they have taken so far was probably a month or more and that we didn’t have endless nights of campfire chats to sit through but instead had one epic scene after another I don’t think the story dragged. At least not for me! I can’t wait to see it again!

  14. 1.5 hours of sleep and 8.5 hours of work. Seeing it again Sunday on a much bigger screen. Anyway, Thorin’s (and Balin’s) back story was amazing, all three times. Bofor was hilarious. The whole premise of the book was almost like a serial, repeatedly in and out of trouble. (Out of the frying pan into the fire to paraphrase an actual chapter title). The conclusion in the forest before the eagles came was a brilliant improvement on an otherwise mundane rescue in the book (yay Bilbo’s bravery). And who is the bigger badass? Thorin or Aragorn? There are similarities with the whole “displaced prince/king” theme. The White Council sidebar was effective: it sets you up for LOTR (Saruman’s disbelieving arrogance – the comment about Radagast’s consumption of mushrooms – you can see the foreshadowing of where he flirts with Sauron and loses). The first act – Bag End – clearly demonstrated safe and stodgy. The interlude with Gollum was so well done – Gollum’s pathos – his internal war – Bilbo’s act of mercy the sets up the future. (and NO! they aren’t at the mountain – long way to go still. There is an encounter with Beorn and the happy little jaunt through Mirkwood – we have seen a hint of the nasty spiders. There was so much fun humor! “letter opener”

    • Aragorn is far more badass than thorin. Thorin got his butt kicked badly at the end without even laying a blow. Aragorn wouldnt even allow a 2nd meeting he would have slayed him in seconds. Lol

      • Trey…

        The encounters Aragorn had were quite a bit different than that particular one Thorin had at the cliff. Aragorn was beaten up pretty well too, if you’ll recall. He, however, had a different attitude about the reasons for the fights than Thorin. THAT was Aragorn’s real strength. If you’ll also remember, Thorin, at the end of the film, has begun to adjust his outlook and his attitude (actually more in line with way Aragorn already was in HIS respective first film). I was happy that Jackson (AND Armitage as the actor) did not merely attempt to clone the character of Aragorn. I found that it added to the character growth I saw in Thorin which, by the way, made for TWO chararacters evolving in the span of this first film, as opposed to the ONE in “Fellowship”.

        I found the story to be very strong with room for great development as the trilogy progresses.

        I’m also exceedingly confused by those who say the film was not substantially lighter than the LOTR films…it was. Yes, there were dramatic moments to balance the lightness, but the film’s overall tone and flow were MUCH less plodding and dense than ANY of the three LOTR films…as “The Hobbit” SHOULD be.

    • I thought there were a lot of call-backs to the first trilogy, but the one that “stood out” the most was when we literally witnessed “The Pity of Bilbo”. all I could think of was back in LOTR Fellowship in the mines of Moria , when Gandalf said ;

      “Pity?? It was Pity that stayed Bilbo’s hand”

      and then went into his powerful speech about temperance, fortitude and patience.

      yeah, that was a powerful scene. reminds you of earlier when Gandalf gave Bilbo the Sword and said courage was knowing when not to take a life…but to spare one [something like that]

      Gandalf was great in this movie, but it pained me because despite the wizardry of the make-up crew, I could see that Sir Ian had aged.

      Meanwhile the Gorgeous Cate Blanchett appeared not to have aged more than a few weeks since the last movie.
      incredible! [HOW is this possible????!!!]

      I understand the gripes about the pacing of the film, I didn’t mind all that much, but I really disliked the scene where the Goblin King asks one of his minions to send word that they had found Thorin. The little goblin writing on a scroll, and then riding a pulley to deliver the message brought chills as it was disgustingly reminiscent of George Lucas’s edits to the original Star WArs, when he added all these grotesquely fake looking little monsters that added so little value to the story…

      I disliked that very much.

      I thought Thorin was an interesting character, and I was glad to hear of his backstory; It was necessary for the n00b movie-goer [like myself] to invest some empathy in him, his quest, and his fate.

      Bilbo was annoying for most of the movie until he by chance met up with the adorable Gollum. After which he became much more interesting, and better developed; especially his compassion, where he decided not to kill Gollum, his speech about helping Thorin take back his home, his ridiculous heroics, saving Thorin from losing his head [literally]

      I think this film followed the “formula” of the Fellowship, but did not have the same emotional investment as the fellowship, nor was the “villain” nearly as menacing.

      Fellowship had Frodo nearly dying several times, The Nine! ,The tension between Boromir & Aragorn, Tension Between Legolas & Gimli, The Fall of Gandalf, Sam almost drowning, the Fall of Boromir, and his redemption as he lay dying, forget about it. FOTR was an emotional roller-coaster. There’s literally no way this movie could have matched that,

      but this movie had its moments…

      The Necromancer, Thorin’s backstory, Christopher Lee!, Gandalf saving them from the Goblin King, the “escape” from the Goblin King & the well choreographed fighting, jumping, and use of props.

      but I could have done without the stone men fight – they looked like rock em sock em robots made of stone.
      The Wizard that loved animals was weird & creepy.

      I dunno.

      I’d say it was a good setup for the remaining films. let’s hope that unlike the last trilogy, the 2nd chapter is better than the first.

      I’ll be seeing it in HFR tomorrow for comparison.

  15. Without a doubt, the best part was the game of riddles between Bilbo and Gollum :D

    • Absolutey would of loved 3 hours of riddles

      • And Gollum constantly arguing with himself. Oh God, that was hysterical

      • would “have” loved.
        and I was bored with the riddles. any more of them & I would have liked that scene less.
        the “magic” of that scene was Gollum.

        • Don’t start you sentences with “and”.

        • Also, before you try to be a smart-arse again, I am aware “your” is spelt incorrectly in my post.

    • Yeah, Riddles in the Dark was my favorite chapter of the book and Jackson did not disappoint bringing that to the screen.

      • Riddles in the dark is such a special part of the book, and I really love how they handled it. Serkis really plays the Gollum split personality with comic aplomb.

        On a separate note, I am very fond of Gandalf speaking with moths to call up the eagles. The entire eagle scene was punctuated with power and grace.

  16. I absolutely loved this movie so much! Sauron the freaking Necromancer and the Witch King of Angmar! But first, what happened to Radagast? He just left after the chase scene. At first I was unsure of the idea of making the orcs and goblins cgi because they looked awesome in the LOTR trilogy as makeup and prosthetics but man was I wrong. This movie had some of the coolest cgi creatures ever. I loved Azog the grey orc captain. Lurtz could’nt hold a candle to him. My only complaint is that of the trolls. It was just weird to me how they talked and acted since in LOTR all the trolls do is roar and mindlessly kill things. Another nitpick is that Gandalf calls those trolls mountain trolls. Mountain trolls are able to come out in day light. Mountain trolls are the ones in Return of the King at the battle of Minas Tirith. While Cave trolls like the one in Moira are the ones that turn to stone. So that confused me. But yeah this was an epic movie and I am really looking forward to the next two.

    • Lurtz was kind of cool, but had they been able to make Azog played by a real fellow in make-up, I think he could have been more intimidating as a villain. I didn’t notice the CGI so much until I read everyone on here complaining about it [well almost everyone]

      In retrospect, I guess I didn’t like the CGI that much. Those things they rode reminded me of the ones in The Two Towers. They just didn’t look [nor move] believable enough to me.

      So the Necromancer was actually Sauron? I did not know that. Interesting. I wonder if Saruman knows this presently or if he “joins him” in the next movie

  17. Were the Orcs all CG? I can see that most of the goblins were, and also the Orc leader, but I wasn’t sure about the “regular” orcs. They looked different than the LOTR trilogy (definitely more “real” in LOTR), but they also could have had different practical effects/make-up/prosthetics.

    They also repeated one of the flaws with the LOTR trilogy that I noticed after watching the Blu Rays on a projector screen. In the wide shots the small characters are obviously CG. The characters don’t move “right” and you can tell they’re fake. Maybe they thought people couldn’t tell because they’re smaller – but I could definitely tell, even with the newer FX tech in The Hobbit.

    I loved the movie though :)

  18. “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” is a pretty good (somewhat slow) movie about a hobbit named Bilbo and a ragtag collection of dwarves and a freaking great wizard. The plotline of the movie bore surprising similarities to a book written by J.R.R. Tolkien.

    Honestly I really did NOT like the movie. I grew up on the books, and enjoyed most of the LotR movies. My dislikes of the movie:

    1. NEEDLESS plot changes – I’m not talking about slight adaptations necessary to convert a written story to movie, I’m talking about adding major recurring characters (Thorin’s nemesis), Gandalf ‘tricking’ them to go to Rivendale,

    2. The Dark “tone” of the movie – The LotR books and movies are dark. Lots of evil, bad stuff happens everywhere. But in The Hobbit book, the tone is light and easy. Bad things happen, and then the world is set right. There are hints that there is a growing evil, but you don’t see it directly in The Hobbit book. The Hobbit movie is only slightly lighter than LotR movies.

    3. Skipping some of my favorite moments of the story. – This is a personal preference but I LOVED the song that the goblins sing “15 birds in 5 fir trees”. I loved it in the book, I loved it in the 1977 animated Hobbit movie. I was excited for it after the other couple songs, then was dismayed at the HORRIBLE changes to the scene. See point #1. Also – The trees were pines in the movie. NOT FIR. *sigh*

    4. The Smeagol/Gollum duality – while entertaining, it undermines the story as a whole, where because of the loss of ‘his precious’ the Smeagol/Gollum duality develops because of the power of the ring and his lust for it.

    5. “Cheap Laughs” – Yes, the story of “The Hobbit” is light, but I felt like there were moments when my suspension of disbelief was completely disrupted by cheap burp jokes, where Gandalf cuts off the head of the goblin then has to push it off, the last words of the goblin king, etc. Really lost of lot of credibility in those jokes.

    6. SLOW movie – Seldom have I checked my watch so often in a movie. Maybe it was the combination of the above 5 reasons, but I was extremely ready to leave come credits roll.

    Set aside those 6 reasons it’s a very decent movie if you are not looking forward to the story of “The Hobbit”.

    • Honestly, I don’t know why you and others believe that The Hobbit should be “light and easy”, as you describe. I agree, it is not as dark as Lord of the Rings, but have you really read the book? All along the way, the main characters are met with potentially deadly battles and scenarios, and after the desolation of a dragon, a large war ensues.

      “Light and easy”?

      • I’m not saying the film should be completely light and easy, but the movie is much much darker than the book, and I was not expecting that nor did I enjoy it.
        Also, I went into the movie thinking I would love it. I thoroughly enjoyed the LotR movies overall.
        Basically, I’m not going to see the second one in theaters. #2 of 3 movies are always much poorer than the 1 or 3. Look at the LotR movies, Pirates movies, or even, though not a trilogy, the Narnia movies.

        • You say that now, but I think you’ll see Part II in the theater. Although that may be the general rule…not always. I thought X-Men II, for example, was better than the first. And come on, Smaug the dragon will feature predominantly in the second film!

          • Xmen 2 is better i agree. But an all cgi talking dragon? Thats a tough task, no film has ever succeeded with a talking dragon

            • “Dragonheart”, with Sean Connery as the talking dragon, worked beautifully.

              Also, “The Empire Strikes Back” is quite frequently considered the best of the original SW trilogy, as is “Superman II” of ITS trilogy.

              Some considerations…

              • Thanks for the assist, Archaeon. Good examples.

                • :D

                • Don’t forget about Spider-Man 2. By far the best of that film trilogy.

              • Add the fact that Smaug is voiced by Benedict Cumberpatch

  19. I had several problems with the film. Having read the novels, I understood the uselessness of the Dwarve company heading into this film and to see it played out, makes for a very annoying film filled with deus ex machina and plot conveniences. The nostalgia was there though. I choked up seeing Elijah Wood in the Frodo costume again leading up to Bilbo’s party. The film suffers from the fact that it’s a trilogy kickoff. Nothing gets resolved, there is a ton of exposition to follow, and there are obvious character arcs brewing. The cgi was decent, but the Three Stooges trolls were as bad as the Goblin King.

    The parts I did enjoy were remarkable. I loved the Gollum riddle scene. It played out exactly as I imagined when I read it all those years ago. The escape from the goblin lair was exciting.

    But all in all, it is a mediocre film (even for fans). It’s a shame it’s pushed into a trilogy, I think the trek through Mirkwood, siege of Dale, and Battle of Five Armies could fit into one film. 3 stars.

    • you are forgetting all the necromancer/white council stuff.

      Can’t fit the spiders, mirkwood, dale, smaug, death of smaug, “good guys fighting”, 5 army war, bilbo’s trek home, funeral, AND the necromancer stuff in one movie unless it is horribly rushed.

      • It sounds like a lot to convey on screen, but think about how much of the story was fit into ROTK; Shelob’s Lair, Sam’s heroics at Barad Dur, the isolation of Isengard, Beacons of Gondor, the siege of Osgiliath, War for Minas Tirith, Arwen’s choice, Aragorn’s trek through the dark mountain, the battle at the black gate, the ring finally being destroyed, and the 40 different endings. I’m sure a second film could fit what’s left of the Hobbit, but I could see Jackson carefully using details to stretch the story a bit in DOS and TABA.

    • I didn’t care for the trolls at all, but half-way through [and I haven't read the books] I realized this was probably the story Bilbo told at his party in the FOTR and I was able to endure it until it ended.

  20. 1% = Fighting
    9% = Talking
    20% = Resting
    30% = Running Away from the Enemy
    40% = Walking to the Damn Mountain

    It’s boring as f***!

    • Well, there’s always “The Jersey Shore” for you and yours…

      • ZING!!!

  21. My absolute favourite part was Gollum’s gurning face when trying to solve Bilbo’s riddles. Priceless.

  22. I loved this. It was similar to Fellowship in scale (small battles no outright wars) and the fact it is a set up for a trilogy.

    I loved the backstory with Thorin. I didn’t expect to see any of that so that was great. Gives the character more weight.

    Bilbo was great throughout. Riddles in the Dark was awesome.

    Loved the hints are the return of Sauron. It in the movie enough but not enough to dominate the screen time thankfully.

    All in all I don’t have anything to complain about. I will never complain about MORE middle earth so I am glad it is a trilogy and I will buy the extended versions pronto.

    If I remember correctly, the goblin/dwarf war wasn’t like this in the books and Azog didn’t hunt the Dwarves in the book correct? I understand the need for a central villain other than Smaug since he meets his demise the next movie, but I wonder if Jackson will change the ending of the War of the 5 armies now? In a “normal” movie, Thorin would get revenge at the end of the movie but that isn’t what happened and if what happens inthe book happens on screen… that would be kind of sad for Azog to win (temporary).

    Oh, good to see some more magic from Gandolf… I forgot he had more “powers” in the Hobbit…

  23. Am I the only one who thought Richard Armitage did a terrible job as Thorin? The performance just felt like a phony sense of anger and vengeance.

    • I dont think he was terrible, he just wasnt given much to do besides btch about bilbo being there.

    • I don’t think he was terrible. His brooding was just a bit cheesy I guess.

    • I thought he was good. Like Trey said, he wasn’t given much to work with, but he had a presence about him that was appropriate for his character. Hopefully he gets more prominence in the next movie.

      • Defenetly if anyone asked me who the leader of the group was without even seeing the parts that state it, id choose him. He just feels tough and a leader. Presence is something he had.

    • Personally, I thought he was excellent as Thorin…his body language and facial expressions conveyed as much and as well as his words.

  24. Loved the dwarves in battle. They are little tanks! The fanboi within hopes rhys-davis is smiling in a theatre…

  25. I loved this film. It’s so good, well writen, excellent acting, I can’t wait for the next one… a year from now… drat!!!

    I love the slow build up, the songs, the humor, the getting to know the characters, best three hours of movie I have ever seen. No this is not a gritty Nolan style film. Quite franlky i’m tired of everything being compared to Nolan. He’s not a visionary filmmaker as everyone is making him out to be.

    • Agree about Nolan, Wally. Actually, “everyone” is not making him out to be visionary. That just seems to be the predominant opinion on this website, because so many fanboys of comic books frequent here. He’s a good filmmaker, I’ll give him that, but nothing extraordinary. He’s no Scorsese, Speilberg, Eastwood, or Jackson, for example.

      • Ok, stop. You can debate whether or not the Hobbit movie was influenced by Nolan`s films. (I don`t think it was fwiw.) But to say that as a filmmaker Nolan is “nothing extraordinary“ is just whack. Have you not seen Memento. Do you think the Dark Knight movies were just average.

  26. I will start out by saying I LOVED this movie and cannot wait for the next. Everything that was added was in line with what Tolkien had written in appendices or was at least in the spirit of his mythos.

    A couple of things to note since this is the spoilers discussion:

    1. I have been pretty disappointed in the casting of all the elves from day one of the entire LOTR trilogy and could never for the life of me figure out why the casting dept. just couldn’t get it right. Very few if any of the elves in the first three movies really looked like they were described in Tolkien’s writing (very fine in their features, delicate, pretty even).

    Why bring this up? Because THANK ERU ALMIGHTY they finally got it right with Thranduil! The guy just looks like an Elf. Cannot wait to see him interacting with the company in the next film. He’s so PRETTY!

    2. The one thing that really let me down about this movie was that I thought we were finally going to hear the Eagles speak. And then…nothing. They just leave after dropping the company off. So bummed. I don’t see any reason to cut this out of the movie. I mean if you have giant rock men beating the crap out of each other, surely you can have talking eagles…

  27. I thought the movie was strangely soulless. I thought it was padded out the wazoo. I thought the movie suffers from having 12 Comedy Reliefs and no real heroic hero. It suffers from being a basically light hearted entry AFTER the weighty LOTR story. It suffers from stuff added to the story that wasn’t really part of the story.
    I didn’t think much of it, really. I did like that they kept a song in there that wasn’t a grim tune. That’s a big part of the book.

    • I disagree with almost everything you said in your comment, but, oh well…to each, his own.

      I thought the film possessed a great deal of soul, of depth…actually more than the novel, to a certain degree and in some respects, if truth be known.

      • We certainly do differ. I thought there was far too much running around just to extend the story, I expected the Riddles in The Dark segment to be more nerve wracking. And I say soulless because all the beats seem to be set up to be similar to LOTR to use that series’ goodwill rather than make this movies’ own. But you’re right: To each, his own.

        • Derek, I absolutely agree; you have perfectly summed up exactly what I thought was wrong with the film, although I think that, in addition, the appauling writing, the cringe-worthy humour and the ham-fisted over-explanation of ideas have been under-criticised in reviews and fora- would you agree? I couldn’t help but think the entire way through that Tolkien, a particularly elegant writer, would be horrified with the script of The Hobbit. Dishonourable mentions go to the Goblin king character (in particular his embarrassingly bad final line), the awful scene where Gandalf explains to Galadriel why he wants Bilbo to go on the journey (“small people can make a difference”, we get it, we got it the first time around), The entire Radagast experience (in particular the smoking and the mushrooms gags- a recycling of the infinitely more subtle “love of the halflings’ leaf” reference from LOTR), and the awkward and self-conscious cameos from Frodo and old Bilbo.

  28. Just saw tonight. LOVED LOTR and was so excited to see it. Was amazed at how LITTLE character development there was. Felt like I wanted my money back as most of the film was a video game over and over again. Scene after scene that wasn’t even remotely in the original storyline to sell video games to teenagers who can’t be bothered to read a book anymore. VERY DISAPPOINTED. Will not be spending $$ to take 10 people to see it in 3D again or for the future releases unless something changes. Depth not distraction is what this could have been and wasn’t.

  29. just watched the movie a couple hours ago. dont believe it was in 48 frames, hopefully i would have been able to tell, never read the book but saw all lotr movies. i really enjoyed it. thought the character development was good for what material was covered. general flow of the movie kept me interested, especially the last quarter or so. i liked how sauron and gollum were both in it. the scenes with gollum were very entertaining. definitely going to try to find a theatre with the higher frame rate and read the book before the next installment. negatives would be, i thought the same things kept happening. doing good, dillema, remedy, repeat. but i assume thats the way it went in the book. and i could see how some might compare it to a video game because of the sfx but dont see how that makes it any less enjoyable. definitely an epic.