The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[Scarecrow]

Not wanting the 3d version, I can understand. I mean, it's more expensive, too. But the 48 FPS version?

I'll never understand people who get UPSET by a higher framerate. I can guarantee you if kids are raised on 60 or 120 fps, they'll feel old 24 fps movies are jerky. It's just that you expect movies to be 24. You're used to the feel it gives you, and people tend to associate higher framerates with TV. It's an artificial thing, though. Films were only 24 FPS to save money on film. This isn't really a problem anymore, since most theaters are digital. If you watch enough movies at a higher framerate, you'll get used to it. I wish they'd make the movies in 60 or 120 fps instead of 48. That way it doesn't look weird when you put it on a TV, which multiples of 24 WILL.

Because its terrible... Even a poorly converted 3d film is not as distracting as watching something with such a high framerate. I can't speak for the hobbit as I haven't seem it yet. But if it looks like a cheap home video or a taped play, I hope it kills the HFR in its tracks. I never did like the way soap operas were filmed. They looked like actors on a set and everything looks cheap. Never did understand why they were like that till recently. Since the FR is so fast and its so smooth, you are no longer fooled by fake props, sets etc... Which takes you out of the movie as you no longer believe its real because its obviously plaster walls and not stone and plastic helmets and not metal. This is my problem with HFR and it bugs the crap out of me like none other.

I recently got a new HDTV and it had this crappy feature called true motion. This true motion feature up the frame rate of everything and I could not stand it I almost refused to watch anything on this TV and just use it from playing games because it was so annoying and distracting. I finally figured out how to turn it off though and all is well I'm going to give the hobbit a chance though. Stuff like Braveheart and passion of the Christ were not filmed with a higher frame rate so I can't judge how the hobbit will look. I will say Braveheart and passion looks terrible with a higher frame rate it looked like I was watching a play and you can tell everything was fake. Absolutely bugged me the entire time I was watching until I figured out how to turn it off. If it's anything like that with a soap opera/cheap home-video look, no I will never ever get used to it. I've hated that format since I was a kid as it doesn't look real and everything looks fake. A slower frame rate is able to fool your eyes into thinking what you're seeing is real. A higher frame rate totally ruins that illusion. Magic tricks work because they trick your eyes. If you were able to see everything that they were doing there would be no illusion cause you'd see how fake it is.

But I still wanna see the hobbit with the HFR cause I'm curious how it came out and if they managed to keep your eyes fooled or if it still feels like a taped play. If it still has the soap opera effect, I will forever avoid it like the plague and pray that format never catches on.

[Bobtheduck]

I'll never understand people who get UPSET by a higher framerate.

People are always going to be upset when familiar things change. Whether the change is for the better or not is up to the viewer, but most people are going to see a movie running at higher than 24 fps as "not feeling like a movie." You can argue with that on a technical level, but feelings are feelings and if people don't like how they feel about it, then there isn't a lot you can do about that.

I think this is pretty much it. People aren't used to it. If you took children who'd never been to the movies into this movie, they wouldn't have a problem with it. People are simply used to 24 fps.

I recently got a new HDTV and it had this crappy feature called true motion. This true motion feature up the frame rate of everything and I could not stand it I almost refused to watch anything on this TV and just use it from playing games because it was so annoying and distracting. I finally figured out how to turn it off though and all is well I'm going to give the hobbit a chance though. Stuff like Braveheart and passion of the Christ were not filmed with a higher frame rate so I can't judge how the hobbit will look. I will say Braveheart and passion looks terrible with a higher frame rate it looked like I was watching a play and you can tell everything was fake. Absolutely bugged me the entire time I was watching until I figured out how to turn it off. If it's anything like that with a soap opera/cheap home-video look, no I will never ever get used to it. I've hated that format since I was a kid as it doesn't look real and everything looks fake. A slower frame rate is able to fool your eyes into thinking what you're seeing is real. A higher frame rate totally ruins that illusion. Magic tricks work because they trick your eyes. If you were able to see everything that they were doing there would be no illusion cause you'd see how fake it is.

What I just underlined is the key here. True motion isn't based on what was actually there. The extra frames are being created by the TV. The problem isn't the high framerate itself. You said that the lower framerate tricks you into thinking it's real, but I don't think so. I think that the computer making up an extra 3.x frames for every 1 frame that was actually in the original movie is what's causing the problem. A film that is made with a higher framerate to begin with won't have that problem. Yeah, it will take an adjustment. There is a "feeling" that 24 fps evokes. There is a "feeling" that 29.97 fps evokes. There is a "feeling" that 60 fps evokes. This isn't due to inherent natures. This is due to what we're used to. If the highest end computer games all ran at 24 fps, while film had always been shot at 60 fps, that would seem normal, but now people view 60 fps as "like a video game" and 24 fps as "film-like"

[AnimeGirl]

So I saw it at midnight when it premiered. 'Twas awesome. Yes, they added some stuff, but overall it was done in the spirit of the original, and they did base a lot of things on actual references (so....it's just fleshing out what was only briefed). I like how this is an adventure story, I loved the book. It's not as dark as LOTR, which is kinda cool. They made it darker, but due to it's original lighthearted nature, it had more comic relief which I liked. And the songs...I am SO GLAD they kept the songs!

One of my favorite scenes was the riddle game. That scene was probably THE BEST adapted from the book. I enjoyed it very much. Still, HOW THE HECK is this going to be 3 films? Oh well. Let's hope Peter Jackson can still work his magic. I am glad that the added stuff and changes did not hinder the film too much, in fact, it MOSTLY enriched it. Unlike what the people who did the Narnia films did.... (first film was good, then it went down hill, maybe Peter Jackson should of done those, too XD).

I look forward to PART 2! Woot, woot!

[SierraLea]

I saw it over the weekend, and can safely say that Golem didn't let me down. He Totally Freaked Me!
My favorite scene was from when the birds showed up to the end. I told you I'm a major sucker for heartwarming scenes.

[mechana2015]

Still, HOW THE HECK is this going to be 3 films? Oh well. Let's hope Peter Jackson can still work his magic. I am glad that the added stuff and changes did not hinder the film too much, in fact, it MOSTLY enriched it.

Next movie they need to deal with Mirkwood (spiders and elves) and Smaug, and probably the necromancer plot. After that they have the battle of 5 armies to work on for a whole movie, and whatever additional material they have that I'm not aware of having not read the appendicies that the additional story is based on, I'm guessing based on the ring and probably more to connect the Hobbit to LotR better.

As for my opinion?
I didn't want this movie to end. Loved every second of it, and more than the Lord of the Rings trilogy, any of them.

[Rewin]

Seen it last week with Winry and really liked it. I was expecting the songs to be a bit cheesy but was very pleasantly surprised at how well they were done, especially the dwarves second song. And the best scene of the movie was the riddle game, Gollum was even more interesting than in lotr and the book. The beginning did drag on a little for me but it wasn't too bad.

[Sheenar]

Out of curiosity, how much do movie tickets usually cost in the States? Seems like it's a different price in each city up here...

I paid $7.50 US for a matinee showing in my city. Not too bad.

Saw The Hobbit on Friday with a friend. Thought it was pretty well done! Some parts were a bit slow, but to me, the pacing over all was excellent. The additions did not feel out of place to me and are in line with Tolkien's writings, so they were enjoyable.

As a bonus, the movie theater had closed captioning devices available for this showing. It was a little awkward to position the device (this thing with a long neck that sits in the cup holder --you bend the neck so the display sits in front of you), but it did a really good job. This was the first movie I have ever seen in theaters with CC --I loved not missing pieces of dialogue!!

[ClosetOtaku]

I've read the Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and the Silmarillion through several times. I liked the LOTR movie, regretting only that it did not include some key scenes.

But as far as The Hobbit goes, I did not like the movie. Too much added, far too padded, and it resolved like a 3-hour Brady Bunch episode. The Rankin-Bass production, with all of its faults, was a superior product, and managed to tell the story (including commercials) in less than two hours.

[Neane]

I saw it. I thought it was meh.

It jumped from action scene to action scene with really none of the slower more conteplative scenes that the LOTR movies had. That small foreshadowing of Smaug at the end was the longest such piece in the whole film, and so it was easy to see what they would do with it. Pacing was terrible, basically.

In the director's defense though the movie was already around three hours.

They also had a chance to redeem Saruman's character but didn't take it. I was kind of disappointed to see him just blindly shooting down what Gandalf was saying.

The comedy bits that were made to be funny really weren't so much. I found myself laughing at stuff that wasn't really trying to make me laugh. Bilbo's fumbling, Gandalf's faces... Gollum resting his head on that rock to think about Bilbo's riddle (i LOL'd)

and WTH was with Azog? If I remember he was mentioned in one of the books and I don't think he was ever mentioned again. It was Bolg that was the leader of the Goblin hordes in the book.

I REALLY liked how Gandalf was portrayed though. He had some great moments. I especially liked that line "(Bilbo) gives me courage" from his chat with Galadriel. Thorin also had some good moments, though I was literally facepalming when Thorin faced off against Azog at the burning trees scene. You're seriously using the exact same log shield prop? SERIOUSLY?

I was kind of upset to see Bilbo kill that warg. Bilbo killing that spider alone by himself in Mirkwood and awakening his Took side was always a favorite part of the book for me.

And the eagles.... Ok look. When you cut out the scene of the Lord of the Eagles going all "What's all this commotion in the forest tonight?" and having him talk with Gandalf and develop his character, the eagles devolve into giant feathery deux ex machinas. Thats exactly what they were in this movie. Gandalf whispers to a bug and then the eagles come out of nowhere, save everyone, then drop them off within sight of the mountain. If that isn't a deux ex machina then idk what is. All I'mma say is if they mess with Beorn in any way whatsoever I will flip my stuff.

and the visuals were amazing too. DAT EREBOR.

I Would give the movie a C

(and no, Radagast was not in the book, but the White Council DID meet over the subject of the necromancer of Mirkwood and the evil that was gathering there. That's where Gandalf disappeared to in the book when he left the dwarves to go through Mirkwood alone. It's Unfinished Tales stuff though, not something from the Hobbit.)

[Sammy Boy]

My wife and I enjoyed watching this today, though it felt a bit like "The Fellowship of the Dwarves" because the ways used to resolve some situations felt very "re-used".

[Crossfire]

Finally saw it tonight. I must say, after reading some of the reviews I didn't have extraordinarily high expectations... but I walked out of the theater very pleased. Yes, there were some major changes from the book (some good and some bad), but after The Lord of the Rings I'm done nitpicking with that sort of thing. The movie was an enjoyable experience, plain and simple.

[mechana2015]

(and no, Radagast was not in the book, but the White Council DID meet over the subject of the necromancer of Mirkwood and the evil that was gathering there. That's where Gandalf disappeared to in the book when he left the dwarves to go through Mirkwood alone. It's Unfinished Tales stuff though, not something from the Hobbit.)

Did you miss the articles announcing that they were including things from the LotR appendices and Unfinished tales?

[Mr. Hat'n'Clogs]

Movie was awesome, I wish Thorin was my dad or something.

[Vilo159]

I saw it. I thought it was meh.

It jumped from action scene to action scene with really none of the slower more conteplative scenes that the LOTR movies had. That small foreshadowing of Smaug at the end was the longest such piece in the whole film, and so it was easy to see what they would do with it. Pacing was terrible, basically.

In the director's defense though the movie was already around three hours.

They also had a chance to redeem Saruman's character but didn't take it. I was kind of disappointed to see him just blindly shooting down what Gandalf was saying.

The comedy bits that were made to be funny really weren't so much. I found myself laughing at stuff that wasn't really trying to make me laugh. Bilbo's fumbling, Gandalf's faces... Gollum resting his head on that rock to think about Bilbo's riddle (i LOL'd)

and WTH was with Azog? If I remember he was mentioned in one of the books and I don't think he was ever mentioned again. It was Bolg that was the leader of the Goblin hordes in the book.

I REALLY liked how Gandalf was portrayed though. He had some great moments. I especially liked that line "(Bilbo) gives me courage" from his chat with Galadriel. Thorin also had some good moments, though I was literally facepalming when Thorin faced off against Azog at the burning trees scene. You're seriously using the exact same log shield prop? SERIOUSLY?

I was kind of upset to see Bilbo kill that warg. Bilbo killing that spider alone by himself in Mirkwood and awakening his Took side was always a favorite part of the book for me.

And the eagles.... Ok look. When you cut out the scene of the Lord of the Eagles going all "What's all this commotion in the forest tonight?" and having him talk with Gandalf and develop his character, the eagles devolve into giant feathery deux ex machinas. Thats exactly what they were in this movie. Gandalf whispers to a bug and then the eagles come out of nowhere, save everyone, then drop them off within sight of the mountain. If that isn't a deux ex machina then idk what is. All I'mma say is if they mess with Beorn in any way whatsoever I will flip my stuff.

and the visuals were amazing too. DAT EREBOR.

I Would give the movie a C

(and no, Radagast was not in the book, but the White Council DID meet over the subject of the necromancer of Mirkwood and the evil that was gathering there. That's where Gandalf disappeared to in the book when he left the dwarves to go through Mirkwood alone. It's Unfinished Tales stuff though, not something from the Hobbit.)

I agree with you that it was disappointing that the eagles weren't talking characters, they cut the whole conversational part.
As for the log shield, it was the same one. If you look at it closely, it was the same log, but hollowed out a bit for his arm, braced with metal, and added handholds. It wasn't just another log he picked up.Which I think is pretty awesome, how he turned his impromptu shield into some legit armor. It became his signature piece.
I disagree that there weren't any contemplative scenes. There was the scene between Gandalf and Bilbo near the beginning, and the scene with Galadriel and Gandalf; those were both well done. And from what I remember there weren't many contemplative scenes in the whole first half of the book to begin with. I think there will be a lot more of them in the next movie.
I don't remember Azog or any similar character in the book, but I think he added well to it. It gave Thorin some characterization opportunity and gave the story a bit stronger central plot.
In the humor department, why would you be unhappy if it made you laugh? I caught all the jokes they intended and quite a few they didn't, and I was thoroughly satisfied.

All in all, regarding changes the movie made, let me quote Gandalf from the beginning of the film: "Every good story deserves a little embellishment."

I saw it with some friends a second time, and was just as happy with it. Picked up on some smaller details, some of the more subtle humor, and my friends were all LotR experts, so they helped me pick up all the rest.

[Rewin]

Azog is from the lotr appendices. I think he was added to give the movie an antagonist, otherwise there really wouldn't have been a good one.

[Crossfire]

Azog is from the lotr appendices. I think he was added to give the movie an antagonist, otherwise there really wouldn't have been a good one.

Yeah, that's what a lot of people have been saying. However, in the books he was killed off during the Dwarven assault on Moria, and succeeded by his son Bolg (who seems to be missing in the movie adaption).

SPOILER: Highlight text to read: Apparently "The Necromancer" (Read: Sauron) brought Azog back to life in the film. Still don't know why they couldn't just use Bolg...


Edit: Dunno how reliable this is, but apparently Bolg will be in the next movies after all. This really doesn't make sense, unless they kill Azog off right away.

[Lynna]

I really liked it. Yes, it had its flaws, but it was still good. I really don't think they had to make it almost 3 hours, but I'm fine with them making it 3 movies. It did, however, remind me of how much from the books I had actually forgotten since I was...ten, I think, as I tried to remember if Radagast had actually been in the story or just been talked about. It was flawed, yes, but it was good, and the riddles in the dark scene was perfect. Bilbo was excellently acted, too.

[Yuki-Anne]

Added stuff? Don't care. Loved it. Martin Freeman as Bilbo was perfect, Richard Armitage made Thorin kingly, Gandalf got his friendly, quirkier side fleshed out, don't really want to know what was on the side of Radagast's face, thoroughly enjoyed the dwarves and the comic relief, and I TOTALLY want the goblin zip-line messenger's job.

[Nate]

Oh yeah, I saw this movie too. I thought it was pretty good, though as I haven't read the book in years, I don't really have as much of a dog in this fight as far as what was added/removed.

I'm gonna say something everyone will probably disagree with here and say the part of the movie I liked the least was the scene where they're at the goblin "city" or whatever. Watching Gandalf and the dwarves run around for ten minutes killing things got old really fast and I just wanted it to be over so something interesting would happen.

One thing did bug me though. So the company stops after the storm giant attack and set up camp. It's clearly night, and Thorin tells goofy-hat dwarf to take first watch. Bilbo gets up, and goofy-hat dwarf is still on watch...so it's obviously been less than a few hours. They fall into the goblin "city." Gandalf appears, saves them, and tells them to run for daylight. They run outside and it's clearly light. So I figure, okay, sun has risen, it's morning now, because it was night when they first fell in with the goblins.

But then, while they're still in the same place, night falls yet again for the scene with the trees. Are there only two hours of daylight that time of year or something? Or were the dwarves and Bilbo with the goblins for an entire day? It doesn't make any sense at all.

[Yuki-Anne]

Actually in the book it was about that amount of time. In the book it was like this:

They did a lot of walking as prisoners and they all felt miserable and stupid because the cave just kind of opened up and swallowed them and nobody was on watch at all actually, and then the goblins took them prisoner and Thorin actually groveled and it was rather embarrassing for all involved until Gandalf showed up, and then one of the dwarves freaking DROPPED Bilbo, just freaking got tackled and fumbled him like he was a football player at a community college. So Bilbo starts wandering around in the dark and plays a game of riddles and then tricks Gollum into showing him the way out but the dwarves aren't there and he just happens to find them on accident while he's wandering around dazed by the sunlight.

Actually, I liked that the Dwarves weren't so embarrassingly incompetent in this movie. Seriously, read the book again. It's just plain sad how useless almost all of the Dwarves are.

[the_wolfs_howl]

Finally got to see it! ^_^ OMG I LOVE THIS MOVIE SO MUCH a;ldfkjsd;ghdslkj

Okay, I probably need to see it again to have a truly balanced opinion of it, but for now I think they did an excellent job. The beginning that tied it into LotR was a bit cheesy in terms of acting (especially Elijah Wood's, I thought), and there was a bit of "It is now storytime so gather around the fire my children!" in terms of all the backstories being told with Erebor and the Necromancer and all that. Other than that, though, I don't really have any complaints. I don't agree with their decision to turn this into three movies, but now that the decision has been made, I don't see that there's any point fussing about it. I'm just sitting back and enjoying their different interpretation. And for the most part, I like what they did with the changes they made. I feel like they could have done an excellent job if they kept everything exactly the way it was in the book, but I also like how they embraced the freedom to add to what was there, and I think the result is characterization that's even clearer than it was in the book. Or at least clearer than it would be to make a movie exactly like the book. Because there are things that just wouldn't carry across if you can't see the characters' thoughts.

And MARTIN FREEMAN OH MY GOODNESS a;lfkjd;lhjsdg;ldjfl;dkj I'm already a huge fan of his from Sherlock, but it was amazing to see what he did with this role. I could tell he had carefully observed the way Ian Holm portrayed this character before him, because he felt like a really believable younger version. And like others, my absolute favorite scene was the Riddles in the Dark scene. Gollum has always been amazing, and I was expecting no more than just a brief cameo that felt much the same, the one bright spot in a mostly boring scene where the two characters just talked at each other. But threw me flat on my back. It was so much more. Reams and reams of characterization came out in that scene, and Andy Serkis deserves an Oscar for that.

I think probably my favorite change they made from the book is how they brought out Bilbo's pity and mercy. When you read the book, you don't actually get much of a sense that Bilbo spared Gollum. It was more like he just wanted to get away as fast as possible; there was no reason he would kill Gollum unless he was unnaturally cruel anyway. But in the movie, you could just feel that all-important moment of decision when Bilbo makes the conscious choice to spare this pitiful creature, rather than get out the easy way by killing him. You could almost hear what Gandalf says in FotR: "Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or evil, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many."

I didn't want to, but I ended up seeing it in 3D IMAX because that was all they had in my theater, and there was no way I was going to let anything hinder me from seeing this movie. (I'm not sure, but it was probably in 48FPS; I didn't really notice any difference, which is probably due to it being filmed in a higher FPS to begin with.) It was a bit of a hassle, since I wear glasses, and I had to sort of balance the lower rims of the 3D glasses on top of the lower rims of my glasses and stay really still...but I was really impressed. The only 3D movies I'd seen before were those educational videos about bugs or whatever you see at museums, and they made me feel sick. I was nervous going in, but I actually liked it! It was cool to feel like you could reach out and catch the butterflies, and there were a couple times I responded with an actual reflex when things flew at the camera. It was a bit overwhelming during the battles, with everything moving so quickly, but other than that it looked great. I think I'll prefer watching them on a smaller, more personal screen, but I didn't mind the experience at all.

Can't wait for the next movie! I really really want to see what Benedict Cumberbatch does with his roles. And I can't put into words how much I want to get my hands on the Extended Edition of the DVD for this movie and watch all the special features a bajillion times.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

My review:

7.5/10

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

"The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" are very different books. The movies reflect these differences. The tone of "The Hobbit" is markedly different, much more light-hearted and at times, even funny. Couple that with the fact "The Lord of the Rings" movie is beloved by many and that I myself have watched it numerous times since it was released and the cards are already stacked against it. Finally, while this is a simple story of pride and greed, Peter Jackson has decided to take Tolkien's 300 page novel and stretch it over three movies. I think two movies would've sufficed but then again, I'm not a world famous director. Be prepared for some serious padding.

Let's begin, shall we? I enjoyed the movie but it's not great. This isn't due to the tone either; the juxtaposition of light-hearted fun and grim action (mostly) works well. Nor is it due to the slow first half of the movie (in my mind that was the stronger half). I loved the way "The Hobbit" began and how they tied it into "The Lord of the Rings". I loved the flashbacks to the dwarves in the mines (ala "LotR appendices). The design aesthetic is quite different from "LotR", a strange hybrid of the former and "World of Warcraft" or "WarHammer". This is reflected mostly in the dwarven culture. Thorin Oakenshield and 'his' 12 dwarves all look strange, some like Gauls (ala "Asterix and Obelix") and others almost like short men. Very few actually look like traditional dwarves. These outrageous differences in appearance do serve a purpose; they help the viewer differentiate between the dwarves. They each have distinct personalities, which is more than can be said for Tolkien's originals (most of them were forgettable).

“The Hobbit” includes two songs from the book, one of them is silly and playful and the other is a sombre, reflective ballad regarding their dwarven heritage– both are expertly performed. The background vistas and environments are phenomenal as per usual. There is much humour, most of it derived from the dwarves. Martin Freeman is brilliant as Bilbo Baggins, hugely lovable but a real homebody. Andy Serkis reprises his role as Gollum and does a wonderful job being hilarious, tragic and creepy - sometimes all at once. His exchange with Bilbo (the Riddles in the Dark scene) is the highlight of the movie. Cate Blanchett is superb as Galadriel and the rest of the cast are very good.

“The Hobbit” is based on (roughly) the first-third of the book and includes some elements from the “LotR” appendices. Passing references have also been further developed. Since the original book is so short, the movie has been padded out to the extreme. These additions regularly help but sometimes hurt the flow and quality of the movie - I’d say 75% is very good, while 25% is mediocre to poor. Most of the latter scenes are understandably the screenwriters’ inventions.

Sylvester McCoy ("the Doctor" from the late 80's/early 90's) plays Radagast the Brown. He’s an eccentric lover of nature and very different to how I imagined but certainly not a show-stopper. His bunny-sled on the other hand was extremely stupid. There were other choice moments in the movie that reminded me of theme-park rides (clearly they were there to show off the 3D capabilities, rather than used to serve the story). Also, a scene featuring fighting stone giants made me shake my head in disbelief.

PJ and his team are well-known for doing practical effects and using prosthetics. Strangely enough, PJ has chosen to use far too much CGI (when it works, it works. When it doesn’t, it looks crap). This over-reliance on CGI creatures, rather than animatronics and people dressed as orcs etc. (ala “LotR”) hurts the movie, particularly in the long and arduous action scenes (which could've been substantially shortened). There’s no real weight to most of them and Azog, the orc, makes for a disappointing one-note villain (also he’s purely CGI, so he’s never truly believable or threatening). That said, the Wargs are ferocious beasts – a definite improvement on those found in the “LotR”. Finally, the soundtrack is enjoyable and catchy but sometimes works against scenes in the movie.

All in all, “The Hobbit” is quite good and a lot of fun. Here’s hoping the second movie is an improvement on the first.

Warning: Mature audiences – contains fantasy violence

[Yuki-Anne]

Actually, the stone giants thing is in the book. Granted, they padded it out, but it really is in the book. It's, like, one sentence, so hardly anybody remembers it, but it's there. And personally, there was some character development in that scene that I enjoyed. Also some that I hated, but...

SPOILER: Highlight text to read: What I loved about the scene was the way they developed the close-knit relationship between Fili and Kili, not with any lines, but with a single look between the brothers as they realize they're being split up. That moment alone was worth the whole scene to me. It was a split second beautifully acted.
What I hated was the way they used the scene to make Thorin even more of a ridiculous jerk. I mean, Thorin is a bit of an antihero but the way he's constantly ragging on Bilbo as useless is not in the books and the more I think about it the more it ticks me off. And the part at the end with the warg battle also irritates me the more I think about it.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Sorry, yes, the stone giants scene was in the book but I thought the movie scene was very dull and drawn out. Also, it was highly implausible. The leaning back and then forwards to crash into a rock staircase had been used in LotR: FotR in the Mines of Moria scene. It was silly but very short and over in no time. Not so much hear. But I agree with your point about the knowing glance. That was very good.