Love LOTR...Hated 'The Hobbit'!

[Bob Saget]

As a fan of the LOTR trilogy, I was quite disappointed with The Hobbit.

Where to begin with this thing? Overall way too goofy for the Peter Jackson films of Middle Earth that we've come to know & love. Whether it be a dwarf going cross-eyed due to a long burp (SGE, anyone?), or the Three-Stoogified trolls, and my personal hated-the-most choice...that Godawful wizard of the woodlands. What a doof! This character did nothing to move the story along, and was the Jar Jar Binks of this film.

One of my favorite characters from the book, The Great Goblin, didn't even seem evil. I mean, yeah, he was bad & all...but the way he talked & acted made him seem more like a grumpy Shrek rather than an evil lord of the goblin/orc race. (No, I'm not talking about the pale goblin who is always chasing the dwarfs around, but the large Goblin king who lives underground and was CGI'd to look like a bloated Garfield). Moving on...

Many of the action/fight scenes seemed too drawn-out & tiresome to watch. (Did you know that 13 dwarfs can fall 400+ feet & not one of them get hurt?).

Gandalf, Bilbo, & Gollum were fun to watch. But many of the new characters were painfully hard to even care about, unlike the characters from LOTR.

With all that being said...I give this film a solid C-

As a Tolkien fan, I can only hope they get Smaug right in the later film(s). But after seeing how the Great Goblin, the 3 trolls, and the woodland wizard were all portrayed so childishly...I wouldn't be surprised if Gilbert Gottfried did the voice.

End rant.

 

[luv]

The Hobbit is the one that is a "to be continued" ending, right? It is the first of three? I'm avoiding it for that reason. When all three are out, then I will watch...unless everyone says they suck, in which case I won't bother.

I have hated To Be Continueds ever since my first one on "Happy Days" or "Laverne & Shirley." Even as a kid I couldn't abide them and got mad when "To Be Continued..." popped up on the screen.

 

[Bob Saget]

The Hobbit is the one that is a "to be continued" ending, right? It is the first of three? I'm avoiding it for that reason. When all three are out, then I will watch...unless everyone says they suck, in which case I won't bother.

I have hated To Be Continueds ever since my first one on "Happy Days" or "Laverne & Shirley." Even as a kid I couldn't abide them and got mad when "To Be Continued..." popped up on the screen.

The "to be continued" part really wasn't the problem. They're taking one story and stretching it into 3 films. Not sure how well this will play out in film #2 & #3, as they are already half-way through the story by the end of this movie (?) But that isn't what bothered me.
What I didn't like was the fact they toned down the mood of many key scenes & characters (Toddlerization). While it is still a serious movie & a serious story, it just didn't have the same feel & likeable characters as the LOTR trilogy.

 

[PUSH]

I heard that it was supposed to be geared more towards kids, and the trailers never really intrigued me like LOTR did.

 

[Nemo14]

The "to be continued" part really wasn't the problem. They're taking one story and stretching it into 3 films. Not sure how well this will play out in film #2 & #3, as they are already half-way through the story by the end of this movie (?) But that isn't what bothered me.
What I didn't like was the fact they toned down the mood of many key scenes & characters (Toddlerization). While it is still a serious movie & a serious story, it just didn't have the same feel & likeable characters as the LOTR trilogy.

I'm really disappointed, although not totally surprised, to hear this. Loved the LOTR books, and the movies I thought were very well done. I really didn't understand how they could make 3 movies out of The Hobbit, but I had hoped for them to be at least on par with the previous movies. Guess I'll wait now 'til it comes to the dollar cinema. Thanks for the heads-up Bob!

 

[imagineer boy]

I'm getting very tired of movie studios splitting up movies into several parts when they clearly didn't need to and it's obvious they're doing it to milk as much money as possible. We can all thank Deathly Hollows for starting this trend. lol

I havn't seen The Hobbit yet but I'm going to remain cautiously optomistic. I'm totally expecting the more light hearted feel because the book was after all a childrens book and even had a different feel than the LOTR trilogy.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Mrs. 'Matata saw it yesterday. Said it was great.

 

[Bob Saget]

I'm really disappointed, although not totally surprised, to hear this. Loved the LOTR books, and the movies I thought were very well done. I really didn't understand how they could make 3 movies out of The Hobbit, but I had hoped for them to be at least on par with the previous movies. Guess I'll wait now 'til it comes to the dollar cinema. Thanks for the heads-up Bob!

Don't get me wrong. The scenery & music are superb like in LOTR. The Rivendale scene was gorgeous with the mixture of CGI scenery & real scenery to create this fantastic city.

I dunno. Just some of the parts & characters didn't seem to have the same flavor & seriousness as in LOTR. Lots of running & falling. More running & falling... The 3 trolls needed to be much darker and less silly. The Great Goblin who lives underground needed to be more evil (remember the 1980's cartoon? THAT was how Great Goblin was supposed to be). The wizard who lives in the woods & tried to give CPR to a chipmunk (??) I hated that character. Just those factors alone seemed to turn me off of this thing.

The good parts:
-Like I said before, GREAT scenery & musical score.
-Gandalf
-Gollum's scene
-The lead role of Bilbo Baggins
-The Rivendale scene

 

[Clamman73]

The good parts:
-Like I said before, GREAT scenery & musical score.
-Gandalf
-Gollum's scene
-The lead role of Bilbo Baggins
-The Rivendale scene

Did you see it in the 24 or 48fps version?

 

[WDWmazprty]

I just saw the movie today and it was great! I've read all the books including The Hobbit and it followed it pretty well. First, The Hobbit isn't supposed to be like the LOTR trilogy, yes its a prequel, but its a different movie altogether and therefore a slightly different feeling, mood, etc. although still connected. The dwarves were portrayed wonderfully as they were supposed to be like in the book. I actually loved the dwarves and their personalities, they provided funny parts to the movie as Pippin and Merry did for LOTR most of the time.

The Hobbit is not going to be as good as LOTR because its only one book and yes its being stretched, however Peter Jackson did his thing once again with this movie and it was good. Visually it was stunning and as always the music was awesome. The movie will break records and wow audiences everywhere no matter what some people may expect. The movie was great and I'll be waiting for the second installment eagerly.

 

[imagineer boy]

I just saw the movie today and it was great! I've read all the books including The Hobbit and it followed it pretty well. First, The Hobbit isn't supposed to be like the LOTR trilogy, yes its a prequel, but its a different movie altogether and therefore a slightly different feeling, mood, etc. although still connected. The dwarves were portrayed wonderfully as they were supposed to be like in the book. I actually loved the dwarves and their personalities, they provided funny parts to the movie as Pippin and Merry did for LOTR most of the time.

The Hobbit is not going to be as good as LOTR because its only one book and yes its being stretched, however Peter Jackson did his thing once again with this movie and it was good. Visually it was stunning and as always the music was awesome. The movie will break records and wow audiences everywhere no matter what some people may expect. The movie was great and I'll be waiting for the second installment eagerly.

Just got back and I pretty much agree with what you just said here. It was a a bit overly long and kind of dragged in places but I over all enjoyed it.

 

[acishere]

I'm seeing it at some point during the week and I am honestly expecting to be disappointed. Your thoughts just reinforced that.
- Its not that big of a book. Making this 3 movies is going to involve stretching everything out unnecessarily. Heck 1/3 of the book is songs. Seriously, how are they making 3 movies out of this?
- Between the lighter tone of the book and the fact that Peter Jackson has softened since having kids, there is no way this could be as epic as the LOTR trilogy.
- The visuals will hopefully make up for all of this.

 

[cba]

1) I see a Hobbit ad on the bottom of this thread
2) I'm seeing the movie next week (Surprised only 65% on Rotten Tomatoes)
3) LOL!

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Several of my acquaintances rated it highly. As someone who is not a fan of any of that hippy, sword and sorcery mince, I will not be wasting my beer chits in going to see it. But based on what I have been told if LOTR was your thang you should enjoy this, and probably flared trousers.

 

[Master Yoda]

I'm seeing it at some point during the week and I am honestly expecting to be disappointed. Your thoughts just reinforced that.
- Its not that big of a book. Making this 3 movies is going to involve stretching everything out unnecessarily. Heck 1/3 of the book is songs. Seriously, how are they making 3 movies out of this?
- Between the lighter tone of the book and the fact that Peter Jackson has softened since having kids, there is no way this could be as epic as the LOTR trilogy.
- The visuals will hopefully make up for all of this.

You are correct that it is not that big of a book. The book could have been done in 2 movies, but Peter Jackson decided to include the expanded story that was found in the LOTR appendices. That is why the third movie became necessary.

This article goes into detail about what will be added to the Hobbit thanks to the appendices. Some of it is speculative, but much of it is right on the money.

http://io9.com/5931001/everything-peter-jackson-added-to-the-hobbit- -with-proof

Regardless if Peter Jackson has or has not softened because he had kids, the book the Hobbit was a softer tone that book LOTR. The Hobbit has long been referred to as "A children's fantasy novel" and that description is quite accurate. To portray the Hobbit otherwise would not be true to the book.

Anyone who expected the story of the Hobbit to be as epic as LOTR simply can not be that familiar with the source material.

 

[WDWmazprty]

You are correct that it is not that big of a book. The book could have been done in 2 movies, but Peter Jackson decided to include the expanded story that was found in the LOTR appendices. That is why the third movie became necessary.

Regardless if Peter Jackson has or has not softened because he had kids, the book the Hobbit was a softer tone that book LOTR. The Hobbit has long been referred to as "A children's fantasy novel" and that description is quite accurate. To portray the Hobbit otherwise would not be true to the book.

Anyone who expected the story of the Hobbit to be as epic as LOTR simply can not be that familiar with the source material.

Exactly!

 

[Hakunamatata]

Exactly!

I second that exactly.

 

[yeti]

I really enjoyed it, maybe because of my tempered expectations from reviews. I will say that having read the book I anticipated the more innocent and wondrous nature of the film compared to Rings. I felt it had echoes of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland (another movie for which I think I was in the minority group). The story has a certain dreamlike quality with regards to the order of events, with enough imaginative dialogue and wit to keep the audience focused. That might help explain how sequential the action was--why one encounter led to another without pause for breath, as opposed to Lotr where the greatest battles and extraordinary set pieces were held off until the second half.

The higher frame rate was hard to adjust to, but it became pretty seamless in time. More so, I thought the motion capture performers benefited from it nicely (Gollum looks better than ever; I had to give a double take to process how real he looked). Oddly enough, it's for the simpler scenes and effects where HRF falls short. Gandalf magically lighting his pipe looked more like Doctor Who thanks to HFR. Bilbo closely resembled Charlie Chaplin when hopping about his hobbit hole, thanks to HFR. Ultimately it's a double-edged sword. I appreciated it for character detail and landscapes; some other times it was a burden no hobbit should bear. I definitely don't think it's a quality of the film that should be so highly debated.

If anyone has seen the extended cuts of LOTR, I'd say The Hobbit is similar in that in some scenes, you get a sense that Jackson forgot to hire an editor. The bag end and stone giants (seriously...what?) scenes come to mind-- good, but far too much. The film could have been cut by a hefty forty or so minutes. I also didn't care for the introduction with Ian Holm and Frodo...that was just, odd.

+ Welcome, well-cast new characters
+ Solid writing
+ TGFHowardShore
+ Tasteful blend of old/new places
+ Gollum looks amazing
+ Likewise for Goblin King and trolls
+ Great ending
- Off-putting introduction (wasn't necessary to set it literally minutes before Fellowship started. Both Holm and Elijah have aged significantly...it just doesn't make sense. As Martin Freeman demonstrates, post production wizardry isn't what makes us perceive a character's age. It just makes him look scarier. And god knows we've all seen scary Bilbo)
- Abundance of CGI is nice, but I still prefer my orcs the old fashioned way. Prosthetics FTW
- Several scenes go on
- And on
- And on

Overall....it's good to be there and back again.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Peter Jackson really needs an editor who will stand up to him. His version of King King is a great 2 hour movie buried in the middle of a tedious 3 hour movie.

 

[bsiev1977]

I saw it in IMAX and enjoyed it.

If the people responsible for the Academy Awards had any guts, Andy Serkis would win an award for his portrayal of Gollum. Not necessarily for this movie in particular, but for the character overall.