I see your point about the people that hadn’t read the book. I was thinking everyone had read the book which of course isn’t correct.
So now you’ve got me wondering how people that hadn’t read the book would have reacted to one that followed the tone of the Hobbit. I can see an issue with expectations but maybe there is a way to mitigate that, not sure, need to think about it.
Finally got around to seeing this last night.
I’m still not sure how I feel about Radagast. The movie’s portrayal was different from how I’d pictured him, to the extent that I’d pictured him at all, but I’m not sure that’s a bad thing.
I had mixed emotions about all the action/fighting/cliffhangery scenes. They were fun to watch but detracted from my suspension of disbelief.
And I loved the look of the movie: the scenery/visuals, outdoors, indoors, and underground. Except that, when they arrived at Rivendell, and were oohing and aahing over the Last Homely House, I almost couldn’t help saying “It’s only a model.”
shhhhh!
I was really looking forward to this film. Unfortunately, I was quite unsatisfied with how it entertained me.
I read The Hobbit some 30 years ago, more than a decade before ever getting around to reading The Lord of the Rings. One thing that has always struck me about the two books - from a reader’s standpoint - is that one really has not much to do with the other. As stated elsewhere in this thread, they were two different stories, intended for two different (at least, age-wise) audiences, and therefore, were of two very different tones.
The Hobbit has stood in my heart as something of a fast-paced, breathless adventure, which swept me up, and away, and into it with ease. The Hobbit was exciting, and wonderful, and fun!
Alas, the overall sense of dread and seriousness pervading the story and** PJ** films of LOTR has twisted the light-heartedness of The Hobbit into something less-than-tantalizing. The soul of The Hobbit has been corrupted by LOTR, much like Gollum, into something dark and brooding.
Overwrought, and plodding, the fate of The Hobbit has become to serve as not much more than a history lesson for LOTR. Instead of being a separate, stand-alone story of wistfulness and adventure, child-like wonder and amazement at a world much larger than the Shire, The Hobbit has been rendered as nothing more than a soulless prequel for LOTR.
It would have been much better for me, had I never read the books.
Who can forget the Ballhog? 
I also almost shouted this. I think several of them said “Rivendell” at the same time, or maybe I’m just misremembering it to make the anecdote sound better.
This is an excellent post and I second every word of it. You did a much better (and more focused) job of examining some of what I touched on in my post [#208
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15823168&postcount=208)
saw the movie last Christmas (in 2D though) and I must say some parts were a bit “cartoonish” …like the scenes from the battle with the Goblin King under the mountain , the collapse of the bridge – seemed more in line with a Roadrunner and Coyote clip than the dark, suspenseful journey from the book.
As to the facets of the book which were in there, a number of them were substantially re-written. The finding of the ring and how it was lost by Gollum is completely changed. The Riddle Game is abbreviated and made somewhat cheap.
However, even with those flaws… I must say that really enjoyed watching it…it was fun and not too serious like the LoTR movies…the singing goblins, the humor bought by Bilbo’s character… and that, i think, it what made it unique from the trilogies… I also loved the look of the movie…most especially the elves’ kingdom hehe.,.
I’d give it a 5-6 out of 10 rating .,.
Doesn’t Gollum lose the ring while being out hunting goblins both in the book and the film? I don’t anything that fits that criteria can be consider a “substantial re-write”
Made…somewhat…cheap? Please elaborate, because I have no idea what this even really means. And did you REALLY expect them to do ALL the riddles?
I vaguely remember that, please remind me. Was Gollum hunting goblins to eat?
Yes, he was. He had worn it a few hours previously when he caught a small goblin-imp - “how it squeaked!” - and he realizes shortly after the riddle-game that he hasn’t seen it since and Baggins must have stumbled across it.
Was it tasty? Was it crunchable?
Sheeesh!
I saw it over the holidays and enjoyed it a great deal. As a life-long fan, I really have no complaints about it. (Aside, perhaps, from a few “Hey, look, this is 3D!” gimmicky moments.) The modified scenes were all at least acceptable to me, though I thought some of the changes were unnecessary.
I thought the setup for the expanded treatment of the Necromancer was pretty good, on the whole. The only part that I found jarring was the bit about the Witch-King; it’s possible that I missed something there, but it doesn’t fit his history, since he never actually died.
Or it could be equally said that he was dead before he ever was the Witch-King in the first place, if you see the Nazgul as undead. Either way, that little bit was confusing and didn’t make a lot of sense. I wonder if Jackson is trying to literalize Sauron’s pseudonym here.
Finally saw it. So much to like, so much to hate.
The 48fps was interesting. Definitely got rid of a lot of the annoying motion blur that 3d sometimes has. But outside of the shots inside Erebor, I’m not convinced 3d added anything. I think I’d prefer it in 2d, 24fps. I’m not sure if it was the 48fps or what, but as others said, a lot of scenes looked very fake. Very much like actors in costume on a set, not realistic at at all.
Overall, it was about 40 minutes too long. I suspect that when all is said and done some internet Phantom Editor could make a really nice 4 hour hobbit film out of the 3 films. And it surprises me to say that, since I loved LOTR and loved the EE’s even more. But this one really dragged a lot.
And they could start by removing every frame of Radagast. Horrible. JarJar was my thought too, but I actually laughed at JarJar a few times. The shit-covered wizard with the rabbit sled was just painful. I just can’t buy one of the Istari being such a joke.
Acting was as great as expected. I did like some of the additions, like the white council. But some were completely superfluous. Frodo? really? how much did Elijah Wood beg for that scene?
I didn’t mind the action scenes. They were entertaining at least. Except for the silly rock giants.
I wish I loved this, but I can’t…
I agree, and I’ve not seen the film yet.
Saruman:* “Radagast the Brown! […] Radagast the Bird-tamer! Radagast the Simple! Radagast the Fool! “
*
And in fact, JRRT once said that all of the other three wizards 'failed" and did not return to the West. There is some indication that Radagast didn’t want to go, however, or perhaps staying was part of his mission.
I somehow went into the movie without knowing that Christopher Lee, Ian Holm, or Elijah Wood were involved, so it was kind of a kick to see them again.
For me, the framing scenes with Old Bilbo were completely superfluous, but I suppose they might have helped prevent some viewers from being confused about how this movie relates to the events in LOTR.
Well, the framing bit also helps reinforce the idea that this is, really, a story of Bilbo’s memoirs and the nucleus of the Red Book. That was a few minutes of screen time that I didn’t mind, as opposed to more than an hour of the movie.