Pray tell, what other hobbits are you talking about, unless you are saying that The Hobbit happens after the main trilogy, which is just ridiculous.
In the beginning of the book, it is mentioned how Gandalf is infamous amongst hobbits for taking some of them in adventures from time to time, no details are specified though. But some relatives of Bilbo, from the less respectable side of the family (from Belladonna Touc, at least that's how she's called in French) had adventures. And I got the feeling that Gandalf had his hand in there too, as he was aware of that.
@HaHiHa, could you give me a page number, I have access to the book. (page and chapter, in case the pages differ)
@Manly, You own the extended collectors edition, cool. They left out some really good scenes in the originals.
@AJ, I heard somewhere that the third will be focused on Gandalf's hiatus during the middle of the journey, when he went to drive out Sauron (The Necromancer)
p.s. I am annoyed as it will probably be at least 4 if not 6 years before I can by the Extended Collector's Editions of the Hobbit movies.
@Jacen: only for the second and third, we watched a friends copy. But that's not the point, the point's that it took (with some breaks) 14.5 hours from the time we started fellowship to the end of the return of the kings!
I can safely say the movie is awesome. PJ captured the light-heartedness of the book brilliantly, but it still feels like the Middle-Earthe created in his LoTR movies.
I was worried abour several things: the CGI, the added stuff, and the fact that the movie was split into 3 parts.
So first, the CGI. I heard how cartoonish it was and that it was overused, but after watching the film, I have to disagree. The CGI was consistently good. There is a distinct style, much different from Lotr. That's a fair reason to dislike it, but I feel like it fit the lighter tone of the movie. I can also safely say that there are still plenty of stuntmen in goblin suits.
I didn't like the idea of added stuff at first, but as a Middle-Earth nut, I can't deny that it made me smile to see Dol Guldur (I want to spoil that scene so badly) and the White Council (Saruman!). On the other hand, the whole plotline about Azog seemed a little unneeded, but I'll need to see the other movies before I can really say how I feel about it.
I still think The Hobbit should be two parts, but I'm accepting of the fact nonetheless. Atleast with 3 parts, there will be plenty of time to allow the smaller details of Middle-Earth to be shown. And more time in Middle-Earth is never bad.
And for the true lore fan, there are many name drops that only someone who has delved into the depths of Middle-Earth will get. MINOR Spoilers, my favorite is when Gandalf discusses the five wizards. Instead of making up names for the two Blue wizards, Gandalf simply states that he forgot their names.
It would be odd to jump to the Silmarillion. I figured the second film would end with the death of Smaug and the third would culminate with the Battle of Five Armies. But I don't know, I'll have to research that.
@HaHiHa, could you give me a page number, I have access to the book. (page and chapter, in case the pages differ)
If you have access to the book, just read the few first pages. But I gotta admit, it nowhere says that Gandalf was taking Hobbits on adventures, it just says that he is responsible for the fact certain Hobbits went on adventures. For me, both always were one and the same.
it just says that he is responsible for the fact certain Hobbits went on adventures.
Not to derp around in this any more than necessary, but, all things considered, it might have been smaller adventures. Like going out in the forest, looking for elves, or going to Bree. This, however, could very well be his reasoning for taking along Hobbits on the more - dangerous adventures. If nothing, I do believe Gandalf had a special place in his heart for the Hobbits, because they were quite different in nature from the elves or the humans, which is another fine reason to go looking for help from them than from either of the other two.
Anyway. Watched the movie. I don't have any comprehensible words to describe the experience, but, well... I did doubt the reasoning behind stretching the story over three movies. I do not have such a doubt any more, and I am welcoming anything Jackson and crew can come up with. The pacing and storytelling is good, the atmosphere is fitting and... I am impressed and will look forward to seeing Smaug next year(?).
Like I said in my last post, the only thing I'm not sure about is Azog. Why didn't he die at the Battle of Azanulbizar? It doesn't make much sense to me. They could've used that scene to introduce Dain, who kills Azog in the books. Azog had a son, Bolg, who is in The Hobbit. Why not have him pursue the dwarves instead?
