Critical Reception of The Hobbit: AUJ [Massive SPOILERS!]

[Frelga]

It's not a question of being an expert, hal. The things that he complains about show a lack of appreciation of Tolkien, not of Jackson. Such as complaining about showing the Dwarves as miners, and other background history of the Dwarves. So much of what makes Tolkien so great is the depth of his stories.

I don't think he complains about the inclusion of the background. Rather, it was about beginning the movie with it, instead of Tolkien's iconic quote.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But the film does apparently begin with Tolkien's iconic quote. And his description of the scene as "an interminable narrative detour" and "details of dwarf family trees that are of interest, at this early stage in what is supposed to be a family film, to almost nobody" show that he is not just complaining about the placement in the beginning but including so much detail.

[Stranger Wings]

But the film does apparently begin with Tolkien's iconic quote. And his description of the scene as "an interminable narrative detour" and "details of dwarf family trees that are of interest, at this early stage in what is supposed to be a family film, to almost nobody" show that he is not just complaining about the placement in the beginning but including so much detail.

Has it been confirmed that the film starts with "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit?" If so, that would be delightful news.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It has definitely been confirmed that it is there, but I am unclear as to just how close to the very beginning it is. Let me see what I can dig up.

Of course, when Alatar shows up he can answer, but it looks that won't be until at the earliest tomorow morning, Irish time.

[Frelga]

But the film does apparently begin with Tolkien's iconic quote. And his description of the scene as "an interminable narrative detour" and "details of dwarf family trees that are of interest, at this early stage in what is supposed to be a family film, to almost nobody" show that he is not just complaining about the placement in the beginning but including so much detail.

Has it been confirmed that the film starts with "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit?" If so, that would be delightful news.

According to that review:

The book begins with the unimprovable ten-word opening sentence: “In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit.” Jackson, by contrast, starts with an interminable narrative detour about a mining operation run by a team of dwarfs, involving magic crystals, orc armies and details of dwarf family trees that are of interest, at this early stage in what is supposed to be a family film, to almost nobody.

Now, to take this last chance at unbridled speculation, this may not be a BAD decision by PJ. It is similar to how FOTR started with an epic prologue, which certainly only added to the subsequent move to the Shire. Besides, we've seen the Shire.

But I do have to say that the few reviews I read raise similar concerns - the say the movies are overstuffed with superfluous material, overblown action scenes and boring background information. I suppose I will see in a few weeks how much of it I agree with.

[Stranger Wings]

But the film does apparently begin with Tolkien's iconic quote. And his description of the scene as "an interminable narrative detour" and "details of dwarf family trees that are of interest, at this early stage in what is supposed to be a family film, to almost nobody" show that he is not just complaining about the placement in the beginning but including so much detail.

Has it been confirmed that the film starts with "In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit?" If so, that would be delightful news.

According to that review:

The book begins with the unimprovable ten-word opening sentence: “In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit.” Jackson, by contrast, starts with an interminable narrative detour about a mining operation run by a team of dwarfs, involving magic crystals, orc armies and details of dwarf family trees that are of interest, at this early stage in what is supposed to be a family film, to almost nobody.

Now, to take this last chance at unbridled speculation, this may not be a BAD decision by PJ. It is similar to how FOTR started with an epic prologue, which certainly only added to the subsequent move to the Shire. Besides, we've seen the Shire.

But I do have to say that the few reviews I read raise similar concerns - the say the movies are overstuffed with superfluous material, overblown action scenes and boring background information. I suppose I will see in a few weeks how much of it I agree with.

I know I will love the flashbacks, etc, as they give depth to the world (something Tolkien can do with a simple line or two, really does need to be visualized on film in order to achieve the same effect). However, I am 100% certain that I will cringe often at PJ's over-the-top (and now super-CGI) action scenes. The Goblintown clip we saw looks atrocious.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Is "In a hole in a ground ... [ect., etc}" said at the very beginning of the film? If not, where is it placed?

Thanks again!

It's not at the very beginning, but it's early on.

[Stranger Wings]

Is "In a hole in a ground ... [ect., etc}" said at the very beginning of the film? If not, where is it placed?

Thanks again!

It's not at the very beginning, but it's early on.

Got it. I imagine Ian Holm will say the line as he starts to read from the book to Frodo, which will probably then fade or cut to Freeman as Bilbo, smoking on the bench.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

An excellent review with a knowledgable and balanced assessment of the film's strengths and weaknesses and perhaps the best discussion of the HFR that I have seen.

http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/the-hobbit-an ... ey-review/

Inched back up to 75%.

[Stranger Wings]

An excellent review with a knowledgable and balanced assessment of the film's strengths and weaknesses and perhaps the best discussion of the HFR that I have seen.

http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/the-hobbit-an ... ey-review/

Inched back up to 75%.

Having not seen 48fps, how do you know his discussion of it is the best?

For example, he says the following:

The claim that the film looks less cinematic (“like TV” was a regular complaint) is a false one.

How, exactly, can that claim be "false," if it is the perception of a viewer we are talking about? If it looks like TV to a number of people, then it looks like TV to those people! And speaking from experience (though limited to a documentary-style production) I also find that 48fps reminds me of TV. In particular, BBC TV from the 70s.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Review: The Hobbit Is Insanely Gorgeous at 48 Frames Per Second

Probably not very surprising that the folks at Wired like the new technology. They like the film alot, too.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Having not seen 48fps, how do you know his discussion of it is the best?

Because he says what I want to hear, of course!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, RT has now switched the Slate review to rotten, and it is now down to 71%. And an abysmal 1 out of 7 of the "top critics".

[Primula Baggins]

Anthony Lane at the New Yorker quite liked it—his review is not a rave, but has an affectionate tone even when carping, and he clearly is familiar with the book (he refers to his "worn paperback" and writes knowledgeably about Tolkien and LotR). I expect that one will come up "fresh." (He singles out both Freeman and Armitage for special praise.)

[Dave_LF]

However, do not read The New Yorker's article about why The Hobbit (edit: book) is better than The Lord of the Rings:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/b ... rings.html

I'm conflicted about the extent to which the author is deliberately trolling.

[Stranger Wings]

Anthony Lane at the New Yorker quite liked it—his review is not a rave, but has an affectionate tone even when carping, and he clearly is familiar with the book (he refers to his "worn paperback" and writes knowledgeably about Tolkien and LotR). I expect that one will come up "fresh." (He singles out both Freeman and Armitage for special praise.)

In my view, Lane doesn't have the best eye for film. But I am delighted that he seems to have liked it!

[Stranger Wings]

Meanwhile, RT has now switched the Slate review to rotten, and it is now down to 71%. And an abysmal 1 out of 7 of the "top critics".

Anthony Lane's will at least change that a bit.

I am getting the sense that some of the "top" reviewers finally feel they can bare their anti-fantasy teeth on this one, and that this is contributing to some of the extremely negative responses. I just can't believe how many times "leisurely pace" has been derided thus far. Most of these reviewers loved some of the most leisurely films out there, such as most of Malick's work. Why do they find it inappropriate in fantasy?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here is Lane's review: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/c ... inema_lane

Quite a nice read, although I hope I disagree with him about Radagast.

[Primula Baggins]

Sorry for not linking it! I subscribe, so I figured others might not be able to see it online.

I hope I disagree about Radagast too, although it's not a dealbreaker for me.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yeah, I was little surprised that I was able to read it. The Times of London has what seems to be a good review, but it actually is only available to subscribers.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/film ... 625874.ece