The Hobbit Hardcover – January 1, 1997

Peter Jackson's *The Hobbit* (Part I -- "Into the Wilderness"):TITLE: *Martin's Freeman's Bilbo Baggins is inspired!*[***** 5 stars. Until *The Hobbit, Part I* becomes available on DVD, I'm posting the film review here.]WARNING: Spoilers ahead!While Gandalf the Wizard [Ian McKellan] remains timeless, it was obvious from the start that the Bilbo Baggins of three *The Lord of the Rings* films fame [Ian Holm, now pushing 80 years old] would have to bow out for the making of *The Hobbit*. Director Peter Jackson had surely asked himself, "Who could portray a young Ian Holm?", (but not necessarily a younger Bilbo Baggins since we now perceive Bilbo to look like the actor.) Answer: Martin Freeman. And he was right - Freeman effortlessly coalesced into the lead role.In the first of the two *The Hobbit* entries [sub-titled: *Into The Wilderness*], a more youthful Bilbo Baggins is craftily crow-barred by Gandalf into embarking upon a great adventure (Hobbits *despise* adventures!) and by serving as a burglar for a grumbly troupe of thirteen dwarves, all of whom are determined to reclaim their lost family treasure from the Evil dragon, Smaug; however, the actual battle with Smaug at the Lonely Mountain will have to wait until Part II [to be entitled: *Into the Fire*] is released.Part I largely focuses upon the history of the dwarves and the initial hazards that they encounter during their single-minded quest, chiefly battling orcs in the Misty Mountains and finishing with their tribulations with the giant spiders of the vast and ominous Mirkwood forest.It's worth noting right off that the screenwriters very shrewdly rehabilitated the puerile songs of the dwarves [found throughout the book], transforming them into a range of vivid action scenes. This strategy achieved a pair of worthy ends: 1. I've heard audio versions of this story and to include the dwarf renderings of these archaic and lengthy songs would have been in profound conflict with an effective film conveyance. 2. These newly-fashioned scenes provide additional fodder for the artful expansion of the general lack of book material, thereby reinforcing audience interest.Honestly, a movie version of Tolkien's *The Hobbit* could feasibly have been corralled within a single feature-length film [just think of all the ground that was covered in  Avatar (Original Theatrical Edition) ] -- but the financial anticipations of the producers [greed], which tended to tenon seamlessly with Peter Jackson's lust for detail, had dictated long ago that viewers would have to hang on for a "final" conclusion. Part I features an ending of a sort but perhaps it would be more forthright to regard it as a dramatic finale.One looming uncertainty which has kept Tolkien fans off-balance was whether the screenwriters would go dark with *The Hobbit* in an effort to effectively link it up with  The Lord of the Rings - The Motion Picture Trilogy (Platinum Series Special Extended Edition)  series, particularly since Tolkien originally penned the earlier work as a sort of kids' fairy tale. In retrospect the answer to the question was probably evident to Peter Jackson from his earliest conception of a film version, noting additionally that his time-honored philosophy is that first-class films cannot simply mirror the books from which they are taken. A good screenplay massages a book for all it's worth but the visual and audio aspects must be fully accommodated too.Particular figures such as Gandalf, Elrond [Hugo Weaving], Galadriel [Cate Blanchett] and, Gollum [Andy Serkis] have already been firmly established in terms of image and it would be less than prudent at this juncture to radically manipulate the personalities of these prominent returning characters. And speaking of Galadriel, she was never a personage to be found in *The Hobbit* but Peter Jackson mined her from Tolkien's trilogy, casting her very strategically in his film version (along with Legolas, played by Orlando Bloom who also did not appear in *The Hobbit*) to further expand the script. Blanchett's presence additionally helped to overcome the gender gap of the book version. Still, these two actors are not in any way just add-ons -- their respective roles and performances have imparted considerable gravity to the story.It is impossible to separate this film's noir-ish ambiance from Howard Shore's magnificent soundtrack. He's done it again! Upbeat and even a bit frivolous at the outset, the filmscore soon slips furtively into darker realms as the story advances, a few heroic themes being reserved for the appropriate dramatic moments. One is acutely taken with the leitmotif which Shore appended to Beorn, a Prokofiev-ish ponderousness integrated with a more serious Beethoven-like dignity... the perfect musical emulsion for the venerated skin-changer.Once initial New Zealand and Australian actors' guild stumbling blocks were surmounted, the Kiwi locations again became a reality, a twin-island geography wholly adequate for the production when supplemented by studio settings, all of which have lead to the presentation of an astonishingly exceptional end-product. It would certainly have proven problematic to reproduce The Shire's Hobbiton in Eastern Europe, a location which was suggested during the early union-troubled days.Martin Freeman's dazzling performance has eclipsed even that of Elijah Wood's stellar lead role in *The Lord of the Rings* films. The former's ebullient energy ironically seems to have retrospectively amplified Ian Holm's earlier portrayal of Bilbo in the New Line Cinema trilogy of films. The remaining cast members have also set the viewers at complete ease as they creatively played out their respective roles. Peter Jackson undoubtedly learned early in his career that, given spot-on casting, at least half the battle is won. And it's hardly surprising that a particular limelight shines on Fili [Robert Kazinski] and Kili [Aidan Turner] since this caveat, for those of us who already know the story, will markedly impact most of us when we get to view the second film. The director is clearly looking ahead.In the larger view *The Hobbit* story lacks the bulwark of heroic figures which we encountered throughout *The Lord of the Rings* series, Aragorn, Boromir, Theoden, Faromir, and so on. Still, imposing characters such as Elrond, Beorn, and Bard the Bowman provide us with a subliminally more-than-adequate melodramatic security blanket. The bottom line is that this superb movie is not simply the detritus of *The Lord of the Rings* films. It's gratifying that Peter Jackson was shrewd enough to not endeavor upon such a futile follow-up attempt -- he created this film from scratch. Embracing that same notion, the screenwriters saw to it that the storyline endured sufficient jumbling so that the tale is not precisely as linear as the one we encounter in the book. This film stands on its own.With better than a baker's dozen of little folks in starring roles the temptation to over-incorporate moments of comic relief [vignettes of Gimli] must have rivaled the gnawing urge which only The One Ring could normally generate. While some tasteful levity fell well within the bounds of a palatable script, I did actually breathe a sigh of relief once I realized that few such incidents were forthcoming.The computer generated images aspect of the movie, while perfectly executed and integral to the overall work, are nicely supplemented by scale doubles, forced perspective images, miniatures, and other Jackson-ish tricks of the trade. No fear -- these facets of the film are all first-class and delightfully palatable. Gollum is better than ever. Additionally, due accolades can hardly be suitably imparted to all the folks who helped to polish this film to excellence by means of effective make-up, articulate stunt work, unequaled cinematography, precise production design, and all the other crew activities which only ever seem to rate a fleeting line of scrolled credit.One is pleased to observe that the new role of Warner Brothers and MGM [Hollywood-based companies which recently acquired New Line Cinema] did not perceptibly obstruct Peter Jackson's proclivity for artistic detail. The casual but essential impedimenta present at every place where the Dwarfish Crusaders land aids us all to subconsciously believe in the reality of Middle Earth along with its numerous and varied inhabitants. Probably much credit for the focused attention upon the near-infinite number of magical nuances should go largely to Alan Lee, a man with an unbounded imagination coupled with a vast artistic talent.I present only a singular critique of this film and it has nothing to do with the body of the movie itself: I feel compelled to comment that the decision to incorporate the endless scroll of Tolkien Fan Club members' names within the end credits is ill-advised and indirectly demeaning to the actual cast and crew. What do these people actually contribute to the film's production? Loyalty and moral support? The folks who have indeed delivered something more tangible are appropriately noted elsewhere within the credits. But most of the listed individuals have played no real part whatever, regardless of the syrupy patronization conducted by the film-makers toward this particular faction of Tolkien enthusiasts. Including these names in the film credits, which also takes in the so-called self-appointed "guardians" of Tolkien's work [a trivial minority of Tolkien Fan Club members], amounts to little more than a shallow ego-bribe. It's presumptuous as the devil to assert that Tolkien's books *need* guarding by anyone -- the affiliation here is more akin to pretentious posthumous tail-gating on the venerable Old Master.The credits perquisite imparted by the film producers, appears in my view to ostensibly head off any whining outrage raised on the internet by those Tolkien radicals who are wholly unyielding in regard to the slightest manipulation of Tolkien's texts. This posture is pure nonsense. In the end, if one's name is included in the film credits then how can s/he ever issue an untainted appraisal of the film? In truth, such an individual could never ethically issue a fruitful critical review, (nor would they likely be *inclined* to criticize, which leads me to question the motives and ethics of the producers on this front.) But here I ramble witlessly upon a topic which only faintly deserves to be dignified by my attentions to it. In truth, my mini-rant is not even a legitimate film criticism - it's really just a pet peeve.In summary, *The Hobbit* contains enough MacGuffins and other surprise moments to make it seem like a new story while still paying a more than adequate tribute to Tolkien's original manuscript. Martin Freeman was surely a brilliant choice to play Bilbo. I can hardly wait to see Part II!

I initially bought this for my school's summer reading. I started it with the mindset that I wasn't gonna enjoy it, it was gonna be long and boring. After awhile I started to get more and more into the book. Overall, I'm happy that I read it. I put the age 13 because I could never have payed so much attention to it when i was twelve or younger. It all depends on the child and their attention span. I will warn you though that there is alot of information in each page so for a school assignment take notes and listening to an audio version while reading helped immensely.

Wow, this was amazing! I liked The Hobbit more than Lord of the Rings, because The Hobbit had a much more reasonable amount of setting description, imo. The setting descriptions were still fantastic and impressive in The Hobbit. I especially enjoyed the word paintings of the Misty Mountains goblin tunnels and the scary Mirkwood.The character development of Bilbo was pretty good. He really grows as a person, and from reading his internal monologues, I find it easier to connect with and understand him, which I couldn’t do as well in the movies, since we don’t get a direct look into Bilbo’s mind on the silver screen. Thorin Oakenshield seems different in the book; he was overall politer and more considerate than the Thorin in the movies.Yes, I already know that Tauriel and Legolas are not in the book, and that Tauriel is purely a movie character. But the addition of Tauriel is one of the rare instances where I appreciate the director/ scriptwriter’s artistic liberty. There was also not a single named female character in the book!It was a delight to see Gollum. He was so creepy yet portrayed so vividly. Tolkien is very good at conveying characters in an evocative way, with dialogue and descriptions of their behaviors.Furthermore, I enjoyed the humor throughout the book. It was so cute and humorous! The lightheartedness of these funny moments, stood in stark contrast with the darker parts of the story.I’ve heard some people complain that the Lord of the Rings/ The Hobbit characters tend to be too flat and black-and-white, either all good or all bad. Well, that is in itself a black-and-white statement. I already mentioned the character development of Bilbo. Not only does he change and grow, he also shows both noble and less glamorous sides. Thorin is more complex than he may seem too, but I won’t spoil the plot here. In fact, I would argue that even Gandalf and the Elven king are not single-faceted characters; they have more than one side to them.I actually got Beorn and Bard mixed up, due to the similarity in their names. Bard was more developed as a character in the movie than in the book, though. Radagast was only mentioned once in passing in the book, so I was glad that he made some significant appearances in the movie!It was in addition nice to see the less noble sides of the elven race. Even elves can be petty, impulsive, rude, etc. I doubt that we would ever meet a benevolent troll, goblin, or orc, though.One notable quote in this book, was where Tolkien said that there was one flaw in Bilbo’s plan, and you might have seen it and laughed at him for it. But if you were in his desperate situation, you might not have done half as well yourself. Wow, I loved Tolkien’s quote here, because it underscores what many folks who like to pick at “plot holes” miss. If you’re cool, collected, have no personal involvement in the situation, and have all the time in the world to think, of course you can think of some ingenious strategies that may render the entire journey, quest, or story unnecessary. But do you believe that a person deep inside that situation can think so clearly and come up with such a smart plan in such a short time (often just a few seconds)?People who poke fun at “plot holes” can sometimes be unrealistic too. I’ve heard of many people say that Frodo and co should have ridden on the great eagles to go to Mount Doom. But in The Hobbit, you see that the eagles were not even willing to fly to Lake Town, lest the men shoot at them. If these great eagles can’t even bear to fly that distance, do you think they would be inclined to go all the way to Mount Doom? And would the eagles be willing to risk being attacked by Saruman or Sauron? Plus, great eagles though they are, Rivendell to Mount Doom is a pretty long distance. Would the eagles want to expend so much time and energy for them? It’s one thing to be in favor of a noble cause (like saving the world). But it’s quite another to offer to spend tons of time, energy, and resources to help people, especially if there’s a chance they can be killed by a dark wizard.Furthermore, I think the point of having a fellowship of the ring, was not merely to dunk the ring into the fire at Mount Doom. It was also about building character for the adventurers, and having them learn to get along with people of other species. (Most notably, Legolas the elf and Gimli the dwarf become good friends.)All in all, this was a wonderful, enjoyable book. I hope to read some of Tolkien’s other works, and especially want to learn more about Radagast.

It’s been fifty years since I first read this bookAll the wonder, magic and magnificence still are there! I truly enjoyed revisiting this old friend.This is the definition of the word classic. Enjoy.

After my son read all the Harry Potter books I didn't know what to get them got them this for the start and he loves it perfect thank you

La mejor edición de El Hobbit hasta ahora, tiene las ilustraciones en blanco y negro, además de otras a color de mano de Tolkien, además de un prólogo de Christopher, y el primer capítulo de La Comunidad del Anillo.

Brilliant. Took a gamble on getting a newer printing... I wanted the 15th or 16th because the size matches the the cheaper 2022 editions of The Lord of the Rings set, whereas earlier printings don't, it's taller to match the 2012 colleectors editions (see Tolkien Collectors Guide for more info). Anyway I'm well happy I got the one one I wanted, it's also got the gold guilding which is much nicer than the ealier yellow printing on the cover.

4 związki, ponieważ bo bardzo krótkim czasie rogi książki się zagięły.

I just love this oldschool style edition.