Sparrow wrote:

Hahah yeah. Funny. They did it on purpose. I know they did.

They surely did. Peter Jackson is one big fanboy. In an interview he says that he was very upset after Martin had to cancel his role, and so he rewatched The Reichenbach Fall. (In my imagination P.J. holds a bottle of vodka and cries in front of his TV: WHY Martin WHY?!)
He must have been really happy when he got Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch for his film.
 

In the audio commentary for Love Actually, Richard Curtis said that he saw Martin on the Office and just had to cast him in his next film.  Peter Jackson has said multiple times that Martin is the only Bilbo and he rearranged the Hobbit's shooting schedule so Martin could do Series 2 of Sherlock.  That is a real testiment to Martin's Talent.  I can't imagine anyone else playing Bilbo and doing any where near as awesome a job as Martin did.  My mother read the LotR books (& the Hobbit) with me when I was a little kid, so I've loved the stories for a long time.  When I heard Martin was playing Bilbo, I began looking forward to seeing it even more.  I love the fact that despite not reading the books before being cast, Martin showed respect for the fact that he was playing a beloved iconic character.  He actually read the book before shooting the movie (unlike several of the adults who were cast in the Harry Potter movies).
A lot of people are annoyed that it is being split into three films.  I'm glad.  Peter Jackson geniunely loves the books (like Steve Moffit and Mark Gatiss genuinely love Sherlock.)  There is a lot Peter wants to tell.  It frustrated me to no end watching important parts of the Harry Potter books being cut from the films, or important parts being shown but not really explained why they were important to the story.

Anyway, I always squee a little inside when I see the Necromancer.  It's Benedict!!

erunyauve wrote:

Finally seen this - I wanted to see it at the cinema, but I was too busy with work.

Impressions:  First, Martin is brilliant, as I knew he would be.  Second, I'm very much looking forward to Bilbo and Smaug's scenes - they will certainly have a bit of subtext for us Sherlock fans.  Third, as a long-time Tolkien fan, I have to say that I'm terribly disappointed.  The movie was well made, and it's as beautiful as the LOTR films, but whereas Peter Jackson made only the most necessary adjustments to the book to fit LOTR to the screen (except for the substitution of Arwen for Glorfindel, for which most Tolkien fans still haven't forgiven him), 'An Unexpected Journey' is horribly unfaithful to the book.

Thranduil (who is a hero in Tolkien's legendarium) did not refuse the dwarves help at Erebor - he was never there.  He probably heard of it only later, and there isn't much he could have done.  He had his hands full protecting his own realm.  Thorin had no particular enmity toward the Elves at the start, and I'll leave it at that for those who don't know the book.

Sauron had been forced from Dol Guldur at the start of the Watchful Peace, but by the time the dragon took Erebor, he had been back for some time.  Thranduil was very aware of this, since it affected his people the most.  Galadriel could have cared less - she had a Ring of Power to protect her realm and never lifted a finger to help Thranduil.  The movie implies that she is somehow more powerful than Gandalf, which is ridiculous.  She was a powerful Elf, but not a Maia.  And the Witch King never 'died' - he fled before Glorfindel (which is why he had to be the Elf to make the flight to the ford in FOTR - no other Elf in Middle Earth could have made that ride).

I did like the bit with Radagast, even if it's contrary to canon.  (Gandalf actually entered Dol Guldur - he found Thrain there and that's how he got the key.)  Fili and Kili are lovely, and Gollum is actually rather adorable in the riddling scene.  The CGI is much better in this film.  And again, Martin is too perfect as Bilbo.  But I really can't forgive making Thranduil into a villain.

 
Huh….  that was, informative…. thanks!   I'll sheepishly admit while I've always been into fantasy books and movies, and definitely enjoyed the LotR films, never got around to actually reading any of those 'epic classics', by him, or others.  So, simply knowing the basic gist of story beforehand, I loved the films anyway.  Interesting to know about Thranduil, though.  And yes, Martin was an absolutely perfect hobbit… 

I don't mind minor tweaks or things that need to be shifted a bit for the sake of time/understanding/needing to simplify (such as leaving a character/moment out here and there), but know what you mean about twisting a character like that.  The thing is, without knowing the characters and plot points necessary to lead through major parts of the story, do you think they created that animosity to keep part of the story moving or 'fill in' for why things happen a certain way later with the elves without having to bring in too much more stuff?  Like, I remember hearing fans annoyed about... Azog?  For being much more of a plot point than should be, probably to give the movie format the necessary conflict/fighting point/part of climax needed.....

I agree that there are a few changes that aren't true to the book but as a story I really enjoyed it.
As for the extra links that Peter Jackson has added to tie The Hobbit to LotR just remember that after Tolkien wrote LotR he went back and tried to edit The Hobbit to include more references but he couldn't work it in. So in some ways Jackson is helping to complete the vision of Tolkien.
Also at the end of the day the movies have to appeal to a wider audience than just Tolkien purests. This is coming from someone that is a big fan of both the books and the movies.

erunyauve wrote:

I have a horrible vision of Galadriel showing up to save the day at the Battle of Five Armies.

I'm not a huge fan of Galadriel myself. I won't say she is a stand out character for me. I wonder if PJ will bring her into it mosre to increase the amount of women in the story like he's doing with that new female elf. I would hope he wouldn't change the story that much.

Be wrote:

The film itself is IMO not as good as TLOTR

I find it really hard to compare the first movie in a trilogy with a complete trilogy. LotR is absolutely amazing! However it's a completed story while the Hobbit is still going. Maybe it's better to compare Fellowship and Unexpected Journey. But even then they are very different beasts. The Hobbit was intended as a children's story while LotR was written as an adults book.

In the spirit of April Fool's, the Germans on the forum might get a giggle out of this: http://www.tolkiengesellschaft.de/11754/der-hobbit-smaugs-einoede-erneute-titelaenderung/

Oh, I found an other funny thing about the Hobbit, although it's not related to the 1st of April. Sadly again, only for German readers :
http://www.abendblatt.de/kultur-live/kino/article126484168/So-teuer-wirds-wenn-Hobbits-und-Zwerge-kaempfen.html
About the content: A German insurance company had calculated how much damage Thorin & co. had caused during Hobbit 1 & 2. Honestly, I have no idea, what knowledge the company gained from that .

Last edited by stoertebeker (April 2, 2014 8:11 pm)

Have finally seen part 1 & 2 and have to say I loved them.  I'm easy pleased *sometimes*

Is it odd I want a pet Smaug lol be interesting taking him walkies.

Smaug's pooper scooper.

Sorry I have taken it too far haha.