Top 10 films of 2012: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Feature Juliette Harrisson 23 Dec 2012 - 22:05

One of the last releases of 2012 is also one of our favourites. Juliette explains why The Hobbit made our top 10...

Over the past few weeks, Den Of Geek writers have been voting for the films of the year. It's a democratic vote, which inevitably means that things end up in a slightly funny order that not one individual writer is likely to fully agree with. Nevertheless, it's a fine list. Here's entry number 9…

9th place:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Let’s get the negatives out of the way first, for The Hobbit is far from a perfect film. As just about everyone has observed, it’s too long. It’s at least half an hour too long. No one needs to see dwarves do dishes no matter how cute and funny the Tolkien song is. And astonishingly, after every single viewer of The Return Of The King complained that it had too many endings, Jackson took that feedback and… gave The Hobbit too many endings. Granted, The Hobbit only has two or three endings to Return Of The King’s five or six, but still.

Length is not the only problem. Most of the minor alterations made to the scene with the trolls are wise changes and serve a purpose, but jokes about troll snot do not serve a purpose in anything, ever. If you’re making a Serious Fantasy Epic, it’s probably best not to make your hero look like Comedy Ron Weasley from the junior Harry Potter instalments. And there’s a fine line between exhilarating, death-defying action, and a cartoon in which your heroes can throw themselves from tall buildings and survive without a scratch. The Lord Of The Rings stayed just the right side of that line – The Hobbit doesn’t.

Why then, is The Hobbit on our list of films of the year (other than the fact that we saw it more recently than anything else, and the comic book movie vote was split between The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises)? Well, because despite these flaws, it’s brilliant. Howard Shore’s score is magnificent, finding the perfect balance between echoing his The Lord Of The Rings score and new material. The deep, resounding dwarf song with lyrics from the book is enough to send chills down your spine. Martin Freeman is perfectly cast and was worth the entire crew breaking off in the middle of filming to fit around his Sherlock schedule.

The neatness of the match between Freeman and Ian Holm is beautiful, and Freeman, ever the everyman (see also: The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy) simply is Bilbo Baggins. Most of the effects work is, of course, excellent, bar the odd moment in the goblin cave (and if the 48fps speed makes the film look too fake, it’s widely available in 24fps as well).

The highlight of the film is, of course, the riddles game between Bilbo and Gollum in the caves under the Misty Mountains. Serkis’ conflicted Smeagol/Gollum from The Lord Of The Rings has been expertly combined with the lighter Gollum of The Hobbit’s source novel. Happier, better-humoured but recognisably the same sad figure, his single scene is funny, creepy, tense and captivating. Jackson also makes two characters sitting around telling each other riddles into a properly cinematic scene full of movement and shifting tensions, using just the right number of riddles from the book.

Ultimately, The Hobbit is a film for the fans. Casual fans, those who haven’t seen The Lord Of The Rings in the last ten years, those who haven’t read the books and certainly anyone who is entirely unfamiliar with Middle Earth will notice the length, the tonal shifts, the occasional leaps in logic, and may be disappointed. But for the devoted fan, this film is a thoroughly rewarding experience. In addition to the musical cues that put the audience straight back into the world of The Lord Of The Rings, the film is full of little touches for fans of the book – from Bilbo (somewhat implausibly) quoting the opening lines of the novel, to the detail that Bilbo forgot his pocket handkerchief, all the way through to the group being flung out of the frying pan and into the fire, the film is Tolkien nerd Nirvana.

One of the most affecting scenes in Jackson’s best film, The Fellowship Of The Ring, is the conversation between Gandalf and Frodo in which Frodo complains that it’s a pity Bilbo didn’t kill Gollum when he had the chance, and Gandalf tells him that ‘pity stayed Bilbo’s hand.’ Their conversation about life and death resonates throughout the rest of Fellowship, and Gandalf’s assertion that Gollum has a part to play yet is, of course, resolved in The Return Of The King. And so, fittingly, the most moving moment in The Hobbit is signposted when Gandalf gives Bilbo the sword-that-isn’t-yet-called-Sting and tells him that the real challenge is knowing when to kill and when to hold back. The audience knows as he says it how this will play out, and the extended moment when Bilbo, invisible, holds his sword over Gollum’s head and hesitates when he sees the creature’s miserable, ruined state is beautifully done and feeds back perfectly into Frodo’s story and, indeed, the whole saga.

Also, Thorin and Kili are really hot. I’m just saying.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Still not sure about this film but hopefully it's as good as you make out.

They could have made a decent entertaining film out of the Hobbit. That wouldn't have sold happy meals for 3 or 4 year, or toys for Christmas after Christmas. No lucative DVD/Blue releases, special editions, or Amazon Kindle fire sales for year after year.

They wanted a francise, so padded the film with unnecessary borring crap. So they could reach into the wallets of gullible fans, who will defend any film however rubbish, if it has the right francise name, and their geek hero attached. We saw this with the Star Wars Prequels, which were awful films. It was Star Wars and Lucas, so they must be good. Now we have the Hobbit, which is Peter Jackson's equivalent.

Please avoid this film, if you see it, it will simply encourage the studios to pull off the same cynical trick again.

Or if you enjoyed the film feel free to watch it again, and appreciate a fine rollicking adventure and send a message to the studio that there is an big audience for such epic ventures.
Fortunately we also live in an age where you'll soon be able to buy it to enjoy again at home, if you want.
Of course if you happen to like the film, then people who didn't enjoy the film as much as you may accuse you of being a 'gullible fan' or worse. Which is fair enough, personally I will never understand anybody who can say a single positive word about Indy 4, but I'm happy there are some peoople who enjoy it. Each to their own - there's always another point of view.

Not anywhere near the tonal shift and terrible plotting and acting of the Star Wars sequels.

Infact, some pacing issues apart, Jackson handles the perilous prequel with a deft, light hand that befits the lighter tone of the material yet still ties the film in to the Lord of the Rings universe at appropriate moments (no Revenge of the Sith rush to tie in to the established trilogy with a couple of final establishing shots). And McKellen, as the playful Gandalf the Grey is just superb.

We haven't even seen films 2 and 3 to make any proper dissection of whether the material works across the 3 films.

Anyway, go see the film and make up your own minds!

What annoys me is there is a good film in there. There is certainly the talent, but to find that good film, it needs to be properly edited. Hell if we gave Peter Jackson a truth drug, I bet he would admit this isn't the film he wanted to make. So instead of getting a tightly edited film, we are getting three badly paced movies, because that will keep the money flowing in for years to come.

Go and see the film when it has luckwarm reviews, and when I know the source material, and there isn't enough of it to support this bloated length?

You are right, I doubt it is as bad as the Star Wars prequels, but I am going to wait till someone gets all three movies and edits them properly. That will be a film worth seeing.

I loved this movie. I watched it twice ( I rarely do that, but once I finishedd my first viewing I missed it already). I was afraid of the length, but I was never bored, not even the second time around. I cannot wait for the next ones.

You probably shouldn't see it then, seeing that you've already made up your mind. I know that when critics dislike something, we think 'oh, I probably won't see that.' But for a film like The Hobbit, prequel to the greatest trilogy of all time, you HAVE to see for yourself. If anything the critics lowered my way-too-overhyped expectations and made me go into the cinema with a fairly open mind, and so I enjoyed the film much more than I would've otherwise. If you're going to support the (minority of negative) critics then you can at least their pathetic reviews- theywhine about the frame rate and only critique the film in a single paragraph. Look at this article, it complains about the lighter moments even though it's an adaptation of a LIGHT BOOK.

" I am going to wait till someone gets all three movies and edits them properly"

You haven't even seen it yet, FFS judge for yourself, you shameless sheep.

Despite the critics complaining about Return of the King having 'too many endings' I've never met someone that has actually thought that...people have said it was too long but I've never met someone who said that movie would have been better if it ended: at Mount Doom, when the Fellowship is reunited, Aragorn is crowned etc...(and most Tolkien fans would've hate the film if it ended before the Grey Havens.)
As for The Hobbit having too many endings, I would say the ending is more abrupt than anything (it only feels like part of a film, while each LOTR had it's own narrative that worked towards telling the over arching story.)

Your an idiot. Try some independent thinking for a change.

I consider myself more than just a casual fan of both the LOTR books and movies (I watch the EE versions maybe once a year and read the books once every few years) and I found this movie to be a bloated mess. My love of the material is being exploited by the studios for money. Nothing unusual about that, I suppose, but at least they bothered to make the first three movies GOOD.

Well, something I picked up on at the very least was that they used the title "An Unexpected Journey" to end the movie at the right point. Sure, we all know the literal meaning of Bilbo going on an adventure. But what was probably more unexpected for Bilbo was going on a journey from being a hobbit that doesn't want adventures to a hero. He showed mercy with Gollum, and bravery on the cliff, and at the end he was accepted by his comrades. There's not a lot you can add after that to help out Bilbo's personal journey there, so it acts a lot like a TV mini-series that ends a character thread at the end of an episode while still having an ongoing plot to follow.

I'm not sure how much room there is for being clever with a title like "The Desolation Of Smaug" though.

Why are the main dwarves in "The Hobbit" less cartoony than the others? Is it because they felt they wouldn't be taken seriously by the audience unless they were made like handsome men?

Another reason to prefer the Rankin-Bass version.

There is no artistic justification for making three long movies out of a story as short as the Hobbit. It is blatantly obvious that the only reason to do this is a completely cynical move to take money off fans.

Your calling me an idiot incapable of independent thought, when you decided to reward the studio and Jackson for their cynicism? So what do you think is going to happen next time the studio gets their hands on your favourite fantasy or Sci Fi story?

Will they produced the best film from an artistic point of view or simply do what have done with Hobbit? Which is to fatally compromise the film/films to make more cash?

There is nothing sheep like in going to see three masively overlong films, when there is absolutely no artistic justification for their length? Just because it is part of the LOTR universe, and has Jackson's name attached?

"Thorin and Kili are really hot" - No kidding.

I liked the 'too many endings' of RotK

If nobody mentions Breaking Dawn Part 2 then there's clear Bias against a franchise that has grossed a ton load of money world wide..some of us can like Dr. Who, The Hobbit and Startrek and can still appreciate the fun of Twilight world.

Havent see this one yet, going with my Dad on boxing day, the first time he's agreed to come to the cinema since he managed to sit on a lady in the darkened theatre when he took me to watch The Empire Strikes Back, its going to blow his mind, I suspect what will get him most is the way there's not an organist down at the front any more god bless him.

I am the devoting fan !!! I thought it was an amazing adventure <3 yup Thorin & Killi are really HOT! :D that's what everyone are saying

"three massively overlong films"

YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT. How can you say that?? The negative critics are outnumbered by the positives 2:1, who follows a minority decision in anything?? If you saw it and agreed with them fine, but you have no idea at all if it's good or not.

"there is absolutely no artistic justification for their length"

Once again, listening to a few others, I'm just embarrassed for you if I'm honest. Jackson stated that he simply shot too much footage for 2 films, end of story.

Listen to the fans of LOTR who saw the Hobbit, I'd say 95%+ liked it. It's a great film.

Said No-One.

You clearly are incapable of independent thought because you haven't seen it yet but are somehow following the opinions of a small number of people. How can your warped mind not realise that it's wrong?

You seriously think there are three films in the Hobbit? It is a cash cow and the studios want to milk it as long as possible. I will have a look when it ends up in the bargin bin at blockbusters, but otherwise i'm saving my money.

Saw Hobbit with a friend who does Not like fantasy movies, only likes Romances, Comedies, Crime movies. She LOVED it. She Especially loved Gollum.

Money = quality, apparantly.

I'm surprised at you all who are taking this bartelbe seriously. He/she clearly has not seen the movie and doesn't plan to soon, so he/she's not exactly a knowledgeable source on the worthiness of the film.

That said, I had the same viewpoint. Having read the books multiple times (over a great span of years) and seen the movies more than once, I thought that stretching the Hobbit into 3 movies was too much. But having seen it, I enjoyed it more than the original trilogy of movies (excepting The Fellowship of the Ring). The slower pace fits Tolkien's style far better. And Peter Jackson shows an obvious affection for the source material.

It of course, remains to be seen if the next two movies will be equally successfull

Funny how people complain of it being all about the MONEY. You see, any blockbuster or commercial movie, be it Batman trilogy or Spider-Man, or Inception, Twiligh, Transformers etc, for the studio mostly, IS about the money! They are selling their product! The studio rate movie stars considering their potential to attract public in order for it to be a COMERCIAL SUCESS.

The director and the creators may have a great deal of artistic interest in seeing the product of their craft acknowledge by the public, but they also don't mind money or success! If I could write a great book or do a great movie I would love to be successful and also get some money out of it.

If you feel bad about studios and actors making money out of the poor gullible fans, you should not watch ANY commercial movies (the crap and the good). By the way, fans normally like to spend money on the things they like, they give money so they can get whatever enjoyment they can ge from the thing that they love, be it by having a very expensive figurine or the first edition of a comics (someone is getting profit out of these too, watch out), or spending lots of money going to watch a movie for 15 times.

Now, maybe the studios suits saw all the cash possibilities in Peter Jackson 3 films idea, but what I can guess from the material and interviews is that Peter genuinely love what he does and Tolkiens Word. He seems like a fan to me, and like any fan with a oportunity, he took advantage of the studios cash cow dreams to provide the fans with a very detailed and well made trilogy. Most fan of a book complain that this part or that part is missing. Jackson managed to add everything in the hobbit plus Tolkien's extra material.

Now is it perfect? Nope. Is it terrible, like Transformesr terrible? A big emphatic HELL NO. Better or worst than the first trilogy? That depends on your opinion, it is different in tone for sure, much like the material they were based on. Both are well made, with a amazing level of care, in my opinion.

If anyone still thinks they are robbing them and don't want to give their money to that nefarious plot? Well, good for them but nobody should act like this is the only trilogy - or entertainment thing - made on earth by a studio or whatever to get profit out of the good people out there.

This was one of my highest anticipated films of the year and it didn't disappoint. Definitely deserves to be on this list.

"If you’re making a Serious Fantasy Epic..."

I stopped reading at this point. The Hobbit is a kids book. The film is a kids film. Its not meant to be a 'Serious Fantasy Epic'. Why cant people get this fact?

I did feel a little disappointed at times throughout, but the win redeeming quality is the characters and the intense changes they go through during the movie. I would have liked Bilbo to get a lot more screen time (which I can now understand, due to the unfortunate Sherlock scheduling), but in the parts where he mattered most, he was as good a Bilbo as anyone expected. The movie was no Lord of the Rings, but it was, for the most part, the Hobbit. And that's what counts

I know, right? NOTHING cartoony about them. Bombur was just inexplicably gorgeous: a great big hunk of movie-star manliness.....

Anyone else taken note that Martin Freeman has now played three of the best-loved characters in British literature? What a guy! He definitely deserves it. I loved this film myself. Probably even more than I would have if negative reviews hadn't lowered my expectations. I can understand where the critics are coming from, but I mostly don't agree with them. My only personal quibble is the CGI-made Goblins. I can't really understand the thinking there since the Orcs (especially Azog) are much more effective with the use of prosthetic. That genuinely is my only problem with the film, while I can see where others might dislike it. Along with Looper and Avengers, it ranks as my top film of the year! (Yes, that's three films tying for top. I'm not too good at making solid decisions...)

It's an hour too long and yet it places above the bone-crunching perfection of The Raid. It's the Jackson Jizzing effect in action.

You both are right bartelbe is an idiot, a self righteous idiot at that

After thinking about the movie a lot and the 'too long' criticism, there was only one part that I felt did nothing to advance the story or develop character and which I would happily have cut - that was the scene with the stone giants fighting. It just seemed really out of place, and considering what's coming up it wasn't as if another action scene was needed then. Still that's a minor quibble and everything else, Dwarves washing up and all, I felt played into the overall movie really well and, as you say, I was never bored.

The film is not just an adaptation of the Hobbit, it's more a prequel to the Lord of the Rings film trilogy based on The Hobbit and other writings about the history if Middle-Earth. Complaining about the film based on the principle that it adds too much is like complaining that it looses too much. Film is a different medium, things are always changed when films are made. It just so happens on this occasion, instead of removing things, they could add things. I'm not saying that means the film is inherantly 'good', but rather you should see it for yourself before passing judgement, as with any work of art.

There is no way this could be one film, either. The Hobbit may be shorter, but there's a far higher 'events per page' ratio compared to LOTR. Each chapter is like a mini adventure, and it's pretty episodic. It also has 2 endings.

Also, describing splitting into 3 movies is, I think, rather cynical itself. I'm sure the studios were quick to agree to it, but I have enough faith in Jackson and Walsh's integrity that they honestly thought the fans would like to see a more fleshed out, extended version of this story. Nobody else will get the chance.

It's interesting that you mention the little touches being what won you over, because those were the very places that lost me. Yes, I got excited hearing the first lines from the book being read out, but so many little moments from the book that I love were gone in the movie.

That line about out of the frying pan and into the fire? Just served to remind me that they didn't include the line about escaping goblins to be eaten by wolves. And one of the best moments from the riddle scene? When Bilbo accidentally answers "Time!" while trying to stall.

Overall I did think this was an enjoyable film, and despite its long length I didn't find myself checking my watch, but the places I was disappointed were where little, clever touches from the book were lost.

Lordy WHY is this only No 9? Its way more entertaining than the utter shite Skyfall or The Dark Knight Returns.

The Hobbit is a fantasy book wrote for children, yes. But it was not wrote by one, and by today's standards most kids will find it troublesome to even read until they learn how to read better. So probably around the ages of ten, elven, or so, all depending on ones own reading level of course which differs from person to person. & it was intended to be a "Serious Fantasy Epic". Or have you not ever read any of the books? & I can assure you they are not of the Dr. Seuss size or variety. & have you ever seen the maps or do you know anything about J. R. R. Tolkien at all? & lastly, do you even know Elvish sir? No, I bet not says my intuition. Next time get your facts straight before you spew your vileness.
Also, the film is rated Pg-13 -_-

You are a massive idiot! If I could reach through your screen and slap you in your face, I surely would!!! You have no clue what you are saying, so it's just best if you shut your mouth!! My pet hamster has more brains than you, sir.




I loved this movie!!! It's too bad about idiots like bartelbe who go spewing negativity about a move they've never even seen. If I haven't said it enough times here, are an idiot!!

That last sentence made your review for me.


(Fili is pretty hot too but I don't go in for blondes)

I suggest you get your pet hamster to write your comments for you then. If you love the movie fine, but I do think you're taking your love to extremes. As for me, this is the straw that broke the camels back. I am simply fedup with cynical movies with no other purpose then to empty my wallet. Be it with bolt on 3d then adds a fortune to the ticket, pointless special editions, or this new Hobbit film.

Want to make Jackson and the studio richer, fine, but I have no interest in this movie and don't want to encourage film executives to make these sort of movies again. The first three Lord of the Rings films were near perfect and I don't want to ruin them by seeing a film that doesn't match their quality.

I'm a huge fan of the books and LOTR, but I found the hobbit too jovial for my liking. I know the hobbit is a children's book, but after the beautiful adaption of LOTR, I can't allege with this adaption, especially when the hobbit is first and foremost a prequel to LOTR. I found myself fidgeting and waiting for some scenes to end. The only bits I really enjoyed was when the hobbit retracted back to the more serious elements of LOTR, such as gandalf and Galadriel's conversation in rivendell. I think Jackson made a mistake making the hobbit too whimsical and less gritty - boisterous characters that lacked the humanity unlike LOTR. I still have faith that next instalments will be epic. Because the hobbit is ultimately an epic story.

Weird how this piece about the "9th best film of the year" reads like, at best, a three star review. People are giving this film too much leeway because of how much they adore Peter Jackson.

First watched this in 2d as I had never seen a film in 3d and didn't want to watch it in that format in case it ruined my 1st viewing. I very much enjoyed the film apart from a few moments of cartoon action (as mentioned by the reviewer). My 2nd viewing was in 3d at the higher frame rate which quite frankly blew my mind. I have never been so immersed in a film. During action scenes I felt as if I was running along with the characters and the eagle scene almost had me in tears at the majesty of the imagery. The run time didn't bother me neither did the cgi Azog, which the critics seem to knock in almost every review. Overall a good solid film, with a few mis-steps & leaving me wanting to see the next instalment

i didn't see anything in your petulant diatribe that really counters the guy you are replying to. The hobbit was written as an adventure stories for kids. fairly straight forward, some jeopardy, some laughs. not meant to be too gritty, not a political allegory. just as epic as any good children's adventure story tends to be (like the oz novels or the narnia novels), and appealing to all ages without being an "adult story". Jackson made a film of similar mood and tone, while maintaining the majestic sweeping feeling of his other trilogy.

if you don't like that, thats cool, but getting your knickers into a twist doesn't change anything. nor does contrasting it with dr suess preschooler books as an argument. nor does bringing up the fact that the film (a more graphic medium than books) has a rating that suggests parents be aware that it may be scary to their children under 13, but not their children over thirteen. i don't know if you understand the ratings system, but that rating doesn't mean younger children can't watch it. Madagascar 3 was also rated PG13. and 13 year olds are kids too.

the only fact that was spewed was the generally accepted idea that it is a kids novel. i guess we should accept that--it was Tolkein's intention after all. but maybe you find his thinking vile too?

it's pretty special if you know elvish. handy skill. i guess. what it has to do with anything, I don't know. For the record, there aren't any facts in your whiny rant. you need less sugar. it makes you excitable.

also, do you really figure kids can't read anymore?

this is a bit nitpicky, but The Hobbit is not a prequel to the lord of the rings. the lord of the rings is a sequel to the hobbit.

i loved this new hobbit movie, but i also have an undying love for the rankin-bass original

the notion of a trilogy put me off, and i cried greed shenanigans. i went to see it feeling skeptical. i ended up loving it, finding none of it boring or dragging. I enjoyed it far more than the LOTR trilogy which feel to me, a bit like dreary war movies. so, different people feel differently about the film. it does seem to have divided audiences between love and irritable disappointment,

soooooo, you havent actually seen this movie that you are pronouncing on. nifty.

be efficient and consistent don't watch any of them at all and hate them equally with vigorous faith. its that kind of quality opining that really sets you apart from the crowd.

i kinda hope they do what they did with the hobbit. it was pretty damn fantastic

how do you know what is justified without watching? i guess some folk were really crazy and gave good source material, a good director, good actors, a good composer and a good studio the benefit of the doubt. totally crazy, i know. what's up with people?

nicely put

Thank you! It always bugs me how people lazily criticise RoTK with the "too many endings" line. Its an ending of an epic trilogy, not just one film. I think I can grant the filmmakers some leeway to indulge themselves and give those characters a proper send-off. As for The Hobbit, I thoroughly enjoyed it but feel it is only the first episode of a larger story more than with LOTR. I want to see parts 2 and 3 to give it full context. I want to see it again just to process everything. Beautiful looking film with a wonderful final shot. Roll on Smaug!

True, I think I am having a crisis of geek faith. too many 3d bolt ons, special editions, and indulgent overlong movies. Not to mention remakes, and movies franchises from my youth remade and ruined to make a bit more cash.

Maybe it is a great movie, but the moment I heard it was going to be a trilogy my heart sank.

I don't quite get the criticism that the film was too long or that it was only for 'serious fans'. I felt like it moved along at a brisk pace and never really seemed to drag. My wife (who has never read any of the books) loved it and was ready to go watch it again.

I thought they did a great job of balancing the 'children's story' nature of the original book vs the need to make it feel consistent with the (darker) tone already established in the previous LOTR films.

I saw The Hobbit twice and I could see it again and again without getting bored. I didn't find it too long or with many endings. I personally loved it! Brilliant adaptation of the book.

The movie is awesome I haven't seen anything as good as it the last few years! I don't think it was too long we will go watch it again! Best movie ever I can't wait to see it again and again. Looking forward to the second part next year, too.

The CG effects bothered me. I am not sure if this is because I saw the movie in 2D instead of 3D but goblins, especially the goblin king looked straight out of a video game and the escape scene from the goblin king was horrible and reminded me of Super Mario Brothers.

It also seemed to me that the Golum / Bilbo scene was far too short. I remember him being down there with Golum for far longer than the 10 minutes the movie gave it.

Overall it just seemed like they glossed over stuff that was important and stayed too long with stuff that wasn't.

Madagascar 3 is rated PG without the 13 in it (look it up). -_- & I was sorta being sarcastic & stuff, but you don't know me very well, so I'm sure you didn't detect that. & I do not know Elvish, was trying to make a point with that, and I wish I was special like that heh. & whiny, really? Lol okay. & your probably right, I did a poor job in my reply that day, and I tend to agree. I play fair & I had no sugar that day, which was another problem. E.g. No coffee. I apologize.

But anyway, let me clear things up for you fellow writer person.
I added that whole Elvish bit & map bit to show you that there was a whole language invented & universe made to go with the books. It's pretty serious & time consuming work to do something like that, and that is why I'm saying it is a "Serious Fantasy Epic". & secondly, let's look at a brief description of what the word serious means as to clarify for anyone & everyone else...

(of a person) Solemn or thoughtful in character or manner.
(of a subject, state, or activity) Demanding careful consideration or application: "marriage is a serious matter".
Source: Google

& thirdly, people die & worse, which is I don't know, serious if you ask me. Also you have a creature called: Gollum that eats people & stuff. Pretty gritty & doesn't really get anymore graphic than that, unless you want to go into detail about something else... & I could go on & on with stuff like that, yet I'm going to assume you get the point just like your assuming things with me & just like I foolishly did with Draig up there. Like I said, I play fair. & without going into fourthly & etc, I will just continue... from out of nowhere, here & there, because I'm currently not in the mood to make things look so pretty at the moment or otherwise I would. So anyhow, I know about the rating system, and I consider kids over the age of 12 to be elder kids or just teens or whatever you what to call them. & does it really matter? I guess it just depends where you live at, In some part of Africa at the age of ten or so, a kid is sent into the wild by their parents with spear in hand to hunt a lion or beast as right of passage to become an adult.

& yes, most kids really can't read (til they learn how to), but like I said it differs from person to person or where you live or how you grow up & etc. That's why I put the ages of ten & eleven on there as the most likely ages for kids to be able to read & understand the dialog fully, and most people tend to agree with that figure (and you can look that up too). & I noticed I misspelled the word eleven earlier by the way to be random - Just had to correct myself.

The only thing I was truly arguing about was the "serious" fantasy epic part to begin with, not anything else. However, we as people love making things complex & complicated (it's in our nature), and now it is that way, so thank you lol. & I would post some links with things that will explain stuff far better than I, yet I'm feeling kinda slothish & stuff today as I may have very well mentioned. & thank you for you taking your beloved time to form a reply over something as trivial & laughable as this, it made me laugh & stuff, and I will be back eventually if you wish to add anything or something. Was only on here because I was bored looking up why they split the movies into multiple parts & that's how I arrived here.

Also, I was comparing it to the Dr. Seuss books which are usually considered one of the mainstays of all children books ever made (by most people) mainly because of the sheer size or volume of this book or any of the others wrote by this man, and the word epic come to mind for some reason. & lastly, all these books are for all ages anyway, which is something I'm sure we can agree upon, and those ages are put there for when someone may or may not be able to read & understand them fully.

Extra credit: What is The Silmarillion?

I didn't think it was too long at all. In fact, this is probably my second favourite Peter Jackson/Tolkien film after Fellowship (The Two Towers drags and ROTK seems like it's never going to end). I thought this one moved at a perfect pace.

Actually I think Azog was CG too, the y just put more effort into making him because he has more screentime than the goblins.

Surely Azog was CG? He was the most CG looking of all of them...

Loved the Hobbit, was a welcome change from the superhero movies that seemed to be clogging up the cinema this year! In fact The Hobbit was maybe one of my favourite films of 2012, loved that it didn't try to be super serious, and stayed true to the book.

"from Bilbo (somewhat implausibly) quoting the opening lines of the novel"

Obviously have not read the book or Lord of the Rings where Tolkein himself said that the book is a Translation of documents wrote BY the people in the book "Red Book of Westmarch". In fact tolkein states that the book he translated is a copy wrote by "Peregrin Took" so thats why Bilbo quotes the opening lines from the novel.

I agree with the comment at the end saying Kili is hot. Aiden was hotter in being human though!

The hobbit is one of the best movies ive ever seen along with the lotr trilogy, gladiator and braveheart and stuff like that. I liked bilbo alot better than frodo. Frodo talks too slow, bilbo talks really fast at times, and bilbo is more brave and has an interesting and funny personality. For me the hobbit was as good as the fellowship, and surpasses the other two lotr movies, the end of return of the king was awesome though, especially when the eye explodes and mordor collapses.

Agreed. Really, it's the only place you could end it. I've only been annoyed by it once, and that was my own fault for drinking exactly 27 cups of tea whilst watching the DVD without pausing it to go to the loo at any point.

I went to see this film with my mother, who has never read Tolkien or watched the LOTR films in her life, and we both loved it. And my mother is genuinly God-awful at understanding fantsey normally (though I suspect her unusually good attention span was 40% interest in the film and 60% interest in Richard Armatage) so I was pleasently suprised. I can honestly say I would only have cut about two minutes overall myself, and I was straight into the cinema to see it again a few weeks later.
It is in the second showing I saw the 48fps version, and really, I don't see what all the fuss was about. I loved it, for hours at a time I compleatly forgot I was in a cinema and really thought I was in Middle Earth, a feeling I've not had in the cinema since I was a rather small child. The only time I was taken out of the moment was due to a woman two rows in front mistaking the 3D affect on Bifurs pipe smoke for a genuine fire, and frankly that was so amusing I didn't really care!
Bring on Smaug!

You, sir, are the biggest f***ing moron I have ever seen in a while!

Sponsored Links