The Hobbit

[SPK1983]

I didnt expect as much time to be spent on the council at Rivendell but I realise that Jackson is building the story more for the cohesion into LOTR than there was in the actual Hobbit book.

I think part of it is to do the whole tie-in with LOTR, but then it's also

dealing with a line towards the end of the book, where it was mentioned that a council took place, discussing the Necromancer, and the subsequent trek to address that problem, which also explained a good bit about why Gandalf is going to be missing from a lot of the next movie or two. It was barely a line or two in the book, but PJ seemed to have expanded on this, so I think that Necromancer piece will be featured in the next movie.

Seriously, the 1st hour is a bunch of dwarves singing in a room? Did we watch the same movie?

...

The Hobbit in all fairness seems geared towards 5 year old's, whom I could easily envision embracing that movie. Not for me at all ...

Well considering that it IS a children's book first and foremost, the childish slant is only to be expected.

As for the first hour being so slow, yes it may be considered slow if you're talking the first hour out of a 3 hour movie. The Hobbit, however, is NOT a 3 hour film, but closer to 9 hours in its entirety, when all is said and done (or even longer when Extended Editions are to be taken into account). Whether I agree as to if it should be that long in the first place, is another discussion entirely.

The whole introduction to the dwarves sequence was excellently done, as it showed their more jolly, lighthearted side, since things do get somewhat grim as the movie progresses.

[sMASH]

things get grim as the story progresses? great. cause LOTR was great, but game of thrones is more my style

[SPK1983]

Well grim should be considered a relative term, if you consider starvation etc as being a grim situation, not to mention war, then yes, it will become grim. If you're expecting it to be like GoT, or even LOTR, then you will be disappointed.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Saw it last night ... Worst POS I've seen all year.

Seriously, the 1st hour is a bunch of dwarves singing in a room? Did we watch the same movie?

Not recommended, not worth the money.

LOL seriously?
that's like complaining that that Transformers was about a bunch of big talking robots that keep fighting and changing into vehicles.

The Hobbit book had ALOT more songs and singing than that.

Well Thank God I missed that ... Sorry was not my idea of fun and big talking robots that keep fighting and changing into vehicles is as least appealing to my destructive nature ...

The Hobbit in all fairness seems geared towards 5 year old's, whom I could easily envision embracing that movie. Not for me at all ...

If you like Game of Thrones, Misfits, Homeland (all comparable *arguably* due to being epic series of their own accord) You will probably hate The Hobbit like I did.

Opinions are like arseholes ... Well all have one.

I should mention I also hated the last Batman movie and Skyfall ... Both rubbish.

I havent seen Skyfall or Dark Knight Rises

Opinions are great - sharing them is even better.
Stating something is crap just because you don't like it....

My point was that Hobbit was written as a children's book and the movie is based on the book - so I'm not sure why you would expect it to be other than what the book is based on.

Even the The Hobbit 2012 trailer and teaser had dwarves singing in it.

"The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien

The best book to get introduced to Middle-earth is The Hobbit, an easy and lighthearted fantasy story, which Tolkien wrote first, without having much back-story and historical details in mind. In fact it was a story he told to his children as a bedtime story; and only because of Tolkien's children pointing out mistakes, Tolkien decided to write down the tale in the early 1930s. It was eventually published because he lent it to to some people outside of the family, including C.S. Lewis,"

"The Lord of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien

The Lord of the Rings is the natural sequel of The Hobbit and completes this story. However in this book it is clear that Tolkien's mind was already on the vast mythologies and history behind this tale and this shines through the complete book. It can be argued that Tolkien only wrote this book because of the demand for more 'hobbit tales' and that he actually longed to write The Silmarillion. The tone of this book is different and is much less a children story than The Hobbit."

The first Hobbit movie was a Rankin/Bass cartoon musical from 1977 that obviously had ALOT of singing in it featuring songs from the book.

[Rooki3]

this movie was sheit wow, nah man, what an anti climax, singing is annoyin as fcuk

[MG Man]

Lol easy to spot the folks who never read the book

[douglaking]

The deviation from the book was a bit disappointing especially the part with the eagles was kind looking forward to the dialogue tbh

[Rooki3]

Lol easy to spot the folks who never read the book

so, dat en change d fact d movie was rubbish, or shud i read d book, den the movie becomes good?

[MG Man]

If you read the book, then you would have known not to bother seeing it

[nemisis]

@ rookie did you read LOTR btw and if you did before or after you saw the movie?

[Rooki3]

so u agree the movie was sh¡t, By yur reasoning, i guess i wud have encountered d same quality of excrement in the book?

[Rooki3]

@ rookie did you read LOTR btw and if you did before or after you saw the movie?

nah, nvr read the books

[nemisis]

^^^ that actually says a lot

I haven't seen the hobbit cannot say if it was good or not but I tend o believe movies never live up to how good the books were after they have been adapted to the American audience.l

[Rooki3]

ahmmm, what exactly does it say?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I think there is no limit to your imagination when reading a book AND you tend to imagine exactly what suits you. Whereas a movie sets limits or is the creation based on someone else's imagination, so you feel disappointed - this the almost cliched comment "the book was better"

I don't think you need to read the book to enjoy the movie at all.

However as with anything you need to have an open mind. But I know that's hard to come by.

[Mr. Go Slow]

If you read the book, then you would have known not to bother seeing it

So the proponents of the movie are saying:

1. If I had read the book I would know what to expect ...
2. The book is written for children hence the childish theme of the move is expected and acceptable
3. The movie is supposed to be considered as the first piece of a 9 hour epic and should not be judged on its own

I'm sorry but I think I'm missing something. Shouldn't the film stand on it's own?
By this logic I can write an epic children's book, make a 10 movie adaptation that will span 50 hours, and, have the 1st 5 hour movie filled with the characters singing in one room.

Honestly, you hardcore fans need to acknowledge this film is not for everyone ... Heck it's not even for an avid film buff with an "open mind" (me).

It's for die hard Tolkien fans with an appreciation for kids movies ... did I mention how much I hated the troll scene (pony abduction) ... I'm not 5 years old guys.

I stand by my recommendation ... i.e, I don't ...

[Rory Phoulorie]

. . .I'm sorry but I think I'm missing something. Shouldn't the film stand on it's own?. . .

Didn't you see Back to the Future 2 or The Empire Strikes Back or Harry Potter Part 10000? In my opinion, those movies did not stand on their own.

So you did not like it, okay, you are entitled to your opinion. People, let's move on.

[Gem_in_i]

If you read the book you would know that the movie didn't really follow the book. But no need to even argue over that, its representation by the Directors mind. Some would enjoy it , some would not. And every preview of the movie had the song. So who went to see the movie and didn't expect a song well...
So let's move along now... Far over the misty mountain cold....

[Rooki3]

what i gather is "in order to fully appreciate this movie, i shud have read the book"

sad state of affairs when a movie cant wow u singlehandedly

[pyromaniax]

I read the LOTR trilogy enjoyed it and enjoyed the movies. I did not however read The Hobbit but saw the movie and enjoyed it. I dont compare books to movies based on what duane said about perception.

The Hobbit's movie was just as i expected it to be because i know what i was gonna look at and cannot wait for the two other parts.

[sMASH]

just came back a while ago, and i liked it a lot. but, admittedly, this is just like the twilight series or the harry potter series, its not for every one.

almost all critiques about this movie in this thread, i saw, and agree with, but it still is one heck of a ride. there are many things i would have tweaked slightly differently, eg the numerous ties to the lotr series. they push the movie in a direction that isn't there.

[Cid]

I saw the movie and thought it was great.... Im not a big die hard lotr fan, i think the franchise is ok. I didnt wanna see this movie but my wife did... The visuals was great, story line was great, soundtrack was great. Its a good movie to take een...looking fwd to the next installment

[DFC]

I've read the books, and i honestly think its the greatest thing i've ever read.

I've seen the movie and i totally loved it.

Its a bit different , but so what? a true fan would still appreciate how much they've tried to bring the characters out of pages and into life.

Tolkien's books are incomparable.

[sMASH]

i don't read books and ting, most of these movies are the first experiences i have with the content.

[VexXx Dogg]

Saw it yesterday in MT.
A couple of drawn out scenes, but overall a great movie. Cant wait for the rest...

[Cooper]

Saw it today in IMAX and really enjoyed it. Having read the book, I like the additions to the story. I think it worked well, but I was expecting a little more in the tree top scene.

Warner Bros. pulled in over $680,000,000 worldwide in a really short space of time since the release. I hope they have enough pocketses for the amount of cash they will continue to make.

[Halfbreed07]

i thought the sequence at the beginning when we were first being introduced to the dwarfs was a tad bit stretched. Similarly the first interaction with gollum. It feels like it could have been two movies at best. Having watched LOTR multiple times i appreciate the nostalgia factor as well as the 5 sec satisfaction of seeing the return of some characters. However it was hard to sit and watch multiple musical sequences and childish banter. Does not seem to fit in with the previous franchise very well. Of course i did not read the books so i may not be totally correct in my assertions.

[Dizzy28]

Saw Hobbit last Friday and having never read the Hobbit story line from JRRT only the LOTR it was pretty decent but IMO it didn't need 3D.
Christopher Nolan said it best when he described 3D as just merely a way to earn higher margins on tickets.

[MG Man]

I quite happy watching movies in 2D..........plus 3D glasses over nerdy glasses is not the most comfortable way to watch a movie..........especially those iMax glasses.........Iw as getting a headache after the first hour.....will probably see it again in movietowne at some point......

[Cooper]

^^^ I know what you mean... the 'springy' portion on the earpieces kept pulling my real glasses up on my face where I could feel my eyelashes touching the lens. I had to regularly tilt it forward to make it comfortable.

I myself will go back and see it in 2D (as long as it is available) at movietowne.