Reviews are slowly pouring in for the first part of Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit trilogy – you can read our take here – and it’s regrettable that they’re not what we had hoped for; critics have in unison praise its technical sophistication as well as Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis’ impressive performances, but have noted the film’s numerous gripes that mean it’s not a touch on Jackson’s more assured Lord of the Rings films.
That said, Jackson presses on with production on parts two and three, and though it’s too late for Jackson to really adjust much of his trajectory, we hope that in the edit room he can at least listen to fans and ensure that the next entry into the series, The Desolation of Smaug, is a far tighter affair that trims the fat and focuses on those aspects in Part 1 that worked the best.
Here are 10 things Peter Jackson needs to improve for Part 2.
10. More Actors, Less CGI
One frequent complaint about An Unexpected Journey was how Jackson deferred a lot of the time to pure CGI creatures rather than combining visual effects with live-action actors as he did on his Lord of the Rings films. In the first Hobbit film, many of Jackson’s Orc-like characters could have been humans in make-up that were accentuated with CGI, but for the large part, he insists on CGI renderings which, while impressive, just don’t have the same presence and subtle sense of humanity that actual people have. It’s a difficult balance to maintain in any project, let alone one of this scale and ambition, but Jackson needs to make sure not lose sight of the tactics that brought him to this dance in the first place.
Save the CGI for the stuff that really needs it – the flying beasts and grotesque monsters – and keep everything else as grounded as possible.
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
39 Comments
Although I agree with most of your points (Although I am yet to see the film). I thought that your argument about 48FPS was pointless. As you have not seen the film in the format isn’t said that you cant pass judgment about it until you have see it in the format. I have seen reviews which do not agree with the use of HFR I have also seen many that believe that it could be part of the future of cinema.
Which dose mean that the only way that people are going to get use to the format is by seeing more and more films with the format. I personally cant wait to not only see the film just because of the use of HFR.
My thought was that many of these criticisms are lame. Not to be rude, but the hobbit was awesome and as a loyal fan, I must speak my piece. Firstly, if a viewer isn’t a fan of 48fps, can’t they just go to a regular theatre and watch it in 24fps. I saw the film twice, once in 3d, but never in 48fps. The length argument is no good because the film is rich with content, and also shorter than any of the Lord of the Rings films. The idea that film contained too much content from the books was silly because fans love it, and nobody else really minds it. It gives the story depth. The addition of the White Council meeting was nothing short of awesome. Bringing Gollum back would be probably be inaccurate, but I could see why a fan of Gollum might enjoy that. However, the slapstick comment was probably warranted, but I enjoyed the dwarves and their humor. Also, Radagast the Brown was quite funny.
Maybe I agree a bit about the CGI orc thing. The goblins looked great, but many times very different from the LOTR trilogy, which is fine, but I did very much like the look of the LOTR orcs.
I get it though, everybody has an opinion when it comes to these films, as they should. My biggest complaint would be that we have to wait a whole year for the second one. You should have put THAT at the top of your list.
Pretty harsh analysis to be honest. Anyone that has read the book can relate to this alot better than those who have just seen the movie. Every aspect of the film was perfect, yes it did drag on at times but it had a purpose to build upto what the next scene will show. As for seeing more gollum, this shows you clearly haven’t read the book!
Some of your critiques have merit and are understandable regarding less CGI and the issue with dwarven slapstick humor however others ring hollow. Consider your comment on Elrond as a Tolkienism or whatever this term indicates, it is simply uninformed. You should know having read the Hobbit that Elrond plays a minor though pivotal role in the chapter naming the swords Glamdring and Orcrist and revealing the moon runes on the Erebor Map. Your accusations of Peter Jackson adding superfluous material and extending the films sounds much like your attempt to create unnecessary points simply to reach ten improvements.
Case in point the comments regarding 48 fps suggest weak logic and tenuous links. It is common knowledge that HFR is available only in limited theaters. Your suggestion to completely abandon an alternative experience and non mandatory option is spurious and over-reactive. Retaining or removing the HFR option has the same result, despite the latter penalizing audience members who prefer a new medium. Peter Jackson will not drastically alter the framework of the narrative that has been established in AUJ to appease critics and placate bloggers. The White Council and Dol Guldur subplot will feature in DOS and for ill or good it will reach prominence and find resolution like the main plot itself. I do wonder how increasing Gollum’s screen time will be fit into the continuity of the original story itself. Perhaps adding Gollum into unsupported scenes will amount to a fan service of a different sort, though that should wait for the extended edition.
If you haven’t seen the movie, please save your comments. I believe that’s reasonable. Give it a chance, and then come back with an opinion I’d be delighted to hear. :)
I greatly enjoyed the cheezy Fat Boy-Frat Boy humour of the Dwarves. It was very much consistent with the Rankin-Baas cartoon, and that is the most well-loved adaptation of this story. Fans of that version are as important to please as book purists.
The idea that you’d make the Hobbit and leave out the White Council only makes sense if you make the Hobbit BEFORE LoTR. Since that’s not how it happened, Galadriel and Saruman were necessary. Personally I find Radagast’s Role brilliant in its use of artistic license. That was something that didn’t need to be included, but I’m glad it was.
Over all, it seems the length was necessary for establishing the Dwarven Race as well as the races of Elves and Men were in the Fellowship of the Ring. While the individual Dwarves are not especially distinguished, the whole movie has a strong feeling of the ”real” title being “The Hobbit And The Dwarves”, or “Thorin & Company”. This is I believe a fair interpretation of the works of Tolkien. All those flashbacks show us that Dwarves are NOT fat, short, hairy elves. They are a proud strong warrior race, but much richer and storied than the Riders of Rohan. They have an Exiled King like Gondor with a huge chip on his shoulder.
Thorin’s job is to be “the Elrond or Aragorn or Theoden of the Dwarves”– the Iconic Race-Defining Bad Ass of them all- all their Best Qualities and some of their worst.
Finally- The Hobbit was aimed at a younger audience- and was a book. I firmly believe this movie version is continuing that tradition of aiming itself at a younger audience than the Lord of the Rings movies- which is why the silly cheezy humour HAS to stay. It’s a GOOD thing, don’t you see? :D
I could critique every point you made, except putting in more Gollum, ironically. There is no basis from any perspective in the source material for expanding Gollum’s role. There was room for interpretation on the rest. Putting in more Gollum because you like Gollum doesn’t make sense tbh. He did exactly what he was supposed to. Gollum was great. But be careful that your arguments are consistent, mr. reviewer.
I like how, on the one hand, you criticise Jackson’s inclusion of Saruman/Galadriel as “fan service”, when they are crucial to the White Council/Necromancer storyline, and then at the same time you want Jackson to include more Gollum stuff when everyone knows full well Gollum plays no further part in this until LotR.
Some good points in the beginning, but your arguments get weaker and weaker, more Golllum less White council? no 48fps, not even for those who liked it when you haven’t actually seen it in 48fps? and ofcourse the characters will be more fleshed out during the journey by automatic. And how would the set pieces with fighting become longer if you shortened three films into two??? you now that the fighting in the book are very short moments of fighting? they don’t actually fight the trolls at all!
You talk of the “listenint to the fans”… well, 99.999% of the fans have not seen this film yet. And while some of your points may have merit (i have yet to see it either), it would be nice to not write The Hobbit off as a failure until *after* the film comes out. And the reviews, while not unanimously glowing, are still quite good overall, and a consensus has hardly been formed. I, for one, am greatly looking forward to The Hobbit, and a large part of the reason is the stuff Peter Jackson and Co. are including from Tolkien’s Appendices.
Saw the film today was awsome dont know what your complaining about, this film isnt lotr I thought it was better I dont know when you last watched lotr but maby you need to watch it again. The fight scenes were to short? Its the first film it has to build up in the fellowship the fight scenes were even shorter I think.
I agree with 1 or 2 points, dont care for the 40 w/e fps didnt bother me at all, agree with the cgi, was a little disappointed not to have real people playing a larger amount of goblins. but o well, sooner have the films long than have them at 90mins, doesnt seem worth going to the cinema paying £10+ for a ticket
Basically I don’t agreea with any of this reviewer’s comments. He didn’t see the same movie I did. I don’t know maybe he’s right about 48FPS bc I havent seen that, but everything else I can explain. Even the CGI Misty Mountains Goblins- they need to look different from Moria Goblins and from Orcs and from Uruk-Hai and there’s not much room left to do that with humans. :P Also it makes it look fancifuller.
As for character fleshing out and center-staging Bilbo- I think he did as much as was possible and I expect more to happen and be possible in the sequels. Really even though I’d be slow to call anything perfect, whatever flaws there were were not egregious enough for me to notice them. I think you approached it too much as a film critic and not enough as I AM A HAPPY CHILD BECAUSE THE HOBBIT IS OUT AND IT’S CHRISTMAS TIME AND IT IS FUNNY AND EPIC AND HAS ALL KINDS OF COOL THINGS THAT I WASN’T EVEN EXPECTING.
This doesn’t make sense as a way to review ALL movies. But it DOES make sense as a way to review a movie about a book that is directed QUITE SPECIFICALLY at this type of mentality: misty-eyed children in need of something to dream over.
It’s still 2 billion times better than Justin Beiber or Twilight. c’MON don’t be hatin! :D
Your critiques are pointless. Putting more emphasis on character development for ALL of the dwarves would take up far too much time, yet you complain about the legth of the movie…The graphics rocked and Jackson put character emphasis on those most important to the storyline AND those that THE FANS wanted to see… Here’s a newsflash, the fans are the ones paying to see the movie so it would make sense to take their considerations into accout. It was a great movie and your criticisms would turn the movie into a boring infomercial on dwarves without any action whatsoever. It’s best to keep dumb opinions to yourself… It makes you look better in the end.
So explain to me how you want longer scenes, more development with dwarves and make the movie shorter? wtf buddy.
These suggestions are mostly pointless considering they filmed all three films simultaneously. They’re pretty much limited to post-production editing.
Also, it’s been a long time since I read the book, but I’m fairly certain even Tolkien didn’t attempt to develop all the dwarves.
I don’t know why people keep hating on everything all the god damn time.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is one of the best movies ever. No it’s not too long, 169 minutes is perfect. The Hobbit is perfect just the way it is, the only bad thing is that I have to wait a year for the sequel. I suggest you go and watch it in 3D, it is definitely worth the money. You’re still here?! Go and watch it…like right now!
More gollum ….. i dont think he will be appearing anymore….. maybe in the third part but not the second
i cant understand what people are talking about people are moaning that 3 parts is too much then there saying that the films are too long so its either 3 hour films in three parts or 5 films and 2 hour long films
Firstly regarding the CGI i think u can alwez improve the visuals now that they cannot reject it
2ndly i think Peter should concentrate more on how the two films should end. I think the endings have very strong impact. The ending of the second installment is most crucial according to me. To me the ideal ending will be the Defeat of smaug and the exile of the necromancer from Dol Guldur. The third film should revovle around the battle of five armies, thorin’s death and the connection from the flashback to the present
3rdly i think the white council was one of the best and significant scene in the film . It is vital to explore the forces behind the ring because the entire trilogy along with its sequence completes the War of the Ring. Although i dont want two different stories to take place.. The ideal way will be to have a proper hobbit story from the books.. with some developments to the side story but that should be secondary..
4thly i am eager to look forward to 48fps.. if they could somehow reduce the speed a bit..
and lastly we all want epic battles.. not so epic as lotr but long battles worth seeing and i think the length of the film is good enough
# 3 is impossible. What a lot of reviewers don’t seem to realize is that the White Council scene is a set up for the Battle of Dol Guldur, which will take up a large portion of the next movie. So, cutting down on the “fan service” would 1) make the theatrical cuts make no sense and 2) delete a significant portion of the story. Adding more Gollum however WOULD be fan service. Although I’d love every moment of it.
#3 is wrong. It’s not “fan service”. That conversation with Saruman and the rest of the white council is crucial for the next two movies. It helps lead into the battle with the Necromancer(Sauron). You obviously haven’t researched much. Please get your facts straight.
I’m kinda agree with the “less CGI” but the last one; PJ movies are famous for the three hours of fun. FUN! Why should The Desolation of Smaug be shorter. It’s just more fun with the big awesome movies if they would take up to 3 hours. More Gollum? How could people even say that when the book doesn’t have that.
This movie was GREAT!
I don’t get why everybody thinks they need to criticize The Hobbit, all the whining about pacing; did we see the same movie? I thought it was spectacular if I thought it was to slow, please go see a doctor ’cause you have adhd or something; its a movie that came from a book, it has a story it does not exist to be a throwaway special effects giant; it has a legitimate fan base. The dwarves are supposed to be jovial and slapstick at the beginning that’s how Tolkien wrote them. The addition of the white counsel at Rivendell AMAZING! Radagast …GENIUS! I think Jackson is spot on and understands the fans, only one thing, WHY A WHOLE D@MNED YEAR!
Whilst I agree with the majority of your comments, I wholly disagree with 3 and partially with 2. Did you not understand the point of the White Council? Did you not read the book and pick up the whole Necromancer thing? If the scene was cut then Jackson would have a good quarter (if not potentially more) of Desolation of Smaug rendered useless, or the Rivendell scene, replaced in DoS, would only make AUJ shorter and it’s sequel longer. It’s essential to the Dol Guldur sub-plot that the White Council scene took place. And of course it didn’t “move the plot forward” that much, it’s only one scene and there’s a lot for the Council to do in combatting Sauron. If anything I wanted MORE White Council material and especially more Radagast.
As for 2, Gollum doesn’t offer anything in relation to any Hobbit related plot what so ever. NONE. Except the potential tie-in with LOTR if There and Back Again is to do this and potentially Aragorn returns for his hunting of Gollum. I’d love to see more Gollum as well but unless you want him to go skipping through the tunnel to Smaug on Bilbo’s behalf, or Jackson decides to connect the Hobbit with LOTR, then he quite literally cannot appear. The appearence of Saruman and Galadriel in AUJ makes sense for the Necromancer sub-plot and in my view adds even more tension to the trilogy as a whole and can’t wait to see more of Dol Guldur.
lol, LOT of contradicting statements here. Leave out the white council, which , ya know, has to do with sauron and all that, but add MORE gollum, which would be him moping around a cave for 60 years wishing he had his ring back? I love how this article is also like, there needs to be more live actors like lord of the rings, it needs to be more serious like the lord of the rings, and you say how it shouldnt try to be like the lord of the rings? The hobbit is doing its own thing, the humor ties in into the fact that it was a children’s book, that only means that its a faithful adaption, if they made it more serious people would probably blame hollywood for bastardizing the source material.
As a fan of Jackson and LOTR and The Hobbit, I can say that it seems you’re trying only to find fault, rather than appreciate the fantastic fact that The Hobbit is now a film. The Hobbit was and remains a film that I was and am extremely excited about. The fact that Jackson included information from the appendices is brilliant and sheds light upon things that develop the story of LOTR and bring Tolkien’s works to life even more. This added length, which is not a problem because why would having more detail be a problem? That’s why there are three films! Characters will be elaborated on! Bilbo has only covered one part of his role as a member of the Company and the rest of the dwarves are given their chances to shine as the story moves on. With the CGI, I understand your argument, but at the same time, the costume, make-up, WETA, tech design, artists, set designers and builders, as well as the production crew had 14 main characters to keep track of and the CGI is well done, which adds to the fantasy and magic of Middle Earth. The effort that goes into a production like The Hobbit should not be broken down into what should and should not be corrected. Why spend your time being nit-picky and negative? There are some things that were added or adjusted yes, but film is MUCH different from literature. The LOTR are entirely different and Jackson’s style might have changed since then but the FILM WAS STILL FANTASTIC. If you enjoyed the LOTR trilogy, why not share in the excitement of having The Hobbit and the history of LOTR on film? As for the humor thing, really? Raucous humor can often be cheezy, but the dwarves enjoy a good drink, laugh and dinner party. Don’t we all?
Lets give the author of this article some slack. I think he is upset that the movie did not follow the book. The White Council Meeting and the whole Necromancer is not in the book, so I can see why the author is upset about that. I was not a fan of the higher frame rate either, it made it feel unauthentic and the film as a whole looked nothing like The LOTR films. Same with the CGI. I would have loved to see the orcs, especially Azog with less animation. Azog should have been done like Lurtz and Ugluk in the FOTR and TTT films respectively. None of the Dwarves besided Thorin, get developed in the books, so it only makes sense that it would be the same in the movie. The only way I see Gollum being in any part of the upcoming movies is when Aragorn, Galndalf and Legolas try to hunt him before he gets captured by Sauron. We would know by now if Viggo Mortenson would reprise his role, so Aragorn and Gollum will not be seen in the upcoming movies (that would be awesome though).I’m intrigued to see how much of Legolas we see in the films. I would assume he would be in Mirkwood and also help the elves fight in the battle of fives armies. I’m excited to see Luke Evans play bard as well as Mikael Persbrandt play Beorn.
Only someone who has never read the books or really appreciated the Tolkien universe could write this kind of review. The Hobbit was as good – if not better – than Lord of the Rings. Including the White Council was necessary, though it could have been better done, and including more Gollum would probably mean rewriting the entire story. Tolkien did even less service to the dwarvish characters than Jackson. The only ones that Bilbo ever really talks to are Thorin, Balin, and Bombur (and he doesn’t even talk to Bombur really, but he drags him through Mirkwood). I think Jackson’s attempt to give the dwarves individual looks and personalities was valiant and an overall success.
I think the only point I agree with is the first one — less CGI would have been appreciated.
Read the Hobbit, read the Appendices, read the Silmarillion, and then come back and say this movie was a flop.
TOTALLY AGREE
Dude you suck!(my point of view) The only thing in which I agree is less CGI. Other than that you seriously seem to want to destroy the movie by saying all those ridiculous things!
The only points i agree with are the Ones with “Use of less CGI” and “Flesh out the Dwarves”. However i dont think the films should be shorter. Let Peter Jackson be indulgent! Why not? I personally never get bored when i’m in Middle earth. I think the Desolation just more actors as villains(Which we did actually get a little bit of in the Hobbit, there was some orc makeup). I thogh the comedy was warm and funny and why would anyone not want to see older characters we know and love return in cameos. Just my Opinion.
I don’t agree with your point that you think they should reduce the goofy humor when in the book there is a lot of goofy humor in it. Also u state that you think that there should be longer set pieces, if they were longer it would get boring and the audience would get bored. Your point about developing the dwarfs, they aren’t developed in the book so there wasn’t much Jackson could do. I think that the 48 fps worked very well when i saw it in 3D was much better than seeing in the normal 24 fps.
This whole column is crap. First, jackson didnt want to invest in the hobbit to begin with and is therefore doing how he sees fit, AS A FAN. So as fan i agree with his vision 100 perc. He has made a masterpiece in the LOTR, and is making the HOBBIT a fan piece, putting together as much Tolkien as he can. Its the last time he will work in the tolkien realm is doing it for the fans. We will never see this world on a grand scale again, so i applaud jackson.
As being a big fan of The Lord of the Rings, as well as the Hobbit trilogy, I thought it was great including those cameo appearances with the original actors from LOTR, such as Frodo at the beginning, and the meeting with the Elves. I agree with the fact of more Gollum, and less comedy with the dwarves, such as making them look silly. And saying it was too long of a movie is just wrong. If you like a movie, you want it to be long. The Lord of the Rings was over 11 hours total for 3 movies, its one of the most known and liked movies of this century. Most of your points are just terrible, and if anyone is to make a topic similar to this, I think it should be someone who actually enjoys the movie.
PETER JACKSON. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ‘THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG’ AND ‘THERE AND BACK AGAIN’ SHORTER! THAT WOULD DESTROY THE NICE, BEAUTIFUL TRILOGY. MAKE THE ORIGINAL/CINEMA VERSIONS UP TO 3 HOURS AND THE EXTENDED VERSIONS UP TO 3 1/2 HOURS or 4 HOURS. THAT IS WHAT MAKES THESE MOVIES ( Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit ) SO GOOD!
I really disagree with all the pointless complaining your doing. Although I agree that it would be nice and different to make bilbo the centre of attention, but we all love the dwarfs and I actually think the second movie will be much more exciting to watch since we are past the introduction and meeting all the characters. Because now we can get on with the story. As the battles go- there’s going to be many more and going to become greater as the climax approaches. So don’t worry about them. As for the light humour. Well this is the part many people actually like which is different from LOTR. Because it was dark and dramatic and this is a really nice change. And many people laughed during them. It lightens the mood, makes you love the characters even more and makes it enjoyable to watch. And for this many people are saying they like the hobbit better than LOTR. So quit complaining because everyone has many different opinions. And by the way, the true fans of LOTR and now the hobbit. Don’t care about all this, all we want is to watch another great adventure written by JRR Tolkien, with our beloved Bilbo; because we miss it. So don’t take it for granted because it a wonderful movie/book. And one more thing; as for the 48 frames per second it is a big achievement in technology, and if someone can’t Handel it then watch it in 24 frames per second. Lastly as for the 3 hour long movie, it’s called Escapism, if you even hear why Peter Jackson does these things then you wouldn’t be saying all this. I mean seriously. Judgmental or what. I could keep going forever until I’ve said everything I want, but I think you get the point.
I have to say, most of these are spot on! Well done! There’s one thing though; as a film-maker I cannot imagine that Jackson is “trying to live up to Lord of the Rings”. Every movie you make is looked upon as a single project, you don’t try to make movies that look like your previous! It doesn’t work like that. Of course you would like your movies to have good revievs but in the end you do make movies with entartaining and/or artistic motives. Not to critics satisfaction.
And about the 48fps… why do you even care? Jeez, go and watch it in 24fps, it’s not like anyone is forcing you to see it in high frame rate. Duh.
Just wanted to point out a slight imax issue from your post
Traditional IMAX is projected on 70mm film and can only be shown in 24FPS, and I have not found any mention of digital IMAX being shown in 48FPS.
I so don’t agree with this list :
First, 48fps was with The Unexpected Journey absolutely awesome. I saw it in IMAX 3D HFR and the result was beyond everything I expected. The level of details was crazy, especially in the backgrounds, decors, textures, movement, etc. It’s the next step of the revolution that James Cameron started with Avatar. Plus, it’s also beautiful in 3D and 2D 24fps, so why complain if you have the possibility of watching the film according to the best way you like.
Second, “goofy humor” is what makes “Braindead” or “The Frighteners” or “The Feebles” quite delicious pieces of cinema so to speak. The Hobbit is supposed to be a book for children, Peter Jackson got that and mixed with his own humor, which I think turned out as a quality, considering a lot of people laughed in the theater the first time I saw it, including me.
Third, asking for “more Gollum” is not very smart, the character in the Hobbit book appears only during the cave scene. We’ll probably have more Gollum though with the extended cut.
Fourth, “less CGI” is also not appropriate. The shooting of the movie is finished, we all know that all along the trilogy there will be mostly CGI characters to depict creatures such as orcs or goblins. The final result in The Hobbit I was really great, way more impressive than in The Lord of the Rings, because more expressive (difficult to properly convey emotions besides fear or disgust when you have 10cm of make-up all over your face and/or body).
Fifth, the action scenes were, to my mind, long enough for the theatrical version. The Desolation of Smaug and There and Back Again will be of course way more impressive pieces of action, remember we have a huge battle preparing.
I will stop there. Just enjoy The Hobbit as it is : the best high-fantasy film we’ve seen since The Return of the King, ‘nuf said.
You want longer Scenes ? .. and shorter length.?
Cant believe how stoopid you are.