Hobbit - Hit or Miss?

[behndy]

okay..... i don't remember what movie made this point.... Clerks 2? they had a cool ass description of what's silly about the LotR stuff.

but eagles? giant landscape covering EAGLES? fuck YOU Gandalf. you grey/white anti-public transportation little BITCH.

"ohhhhh.... let's quest all the way to this hard as virgin Amish hymen to get to mountain... for however long these three movies take... and OOP! GOT YOUR NOSE!! JUST HAD MY EAGLE PAL MEET US THERE!!"

AND the little dickbag shows the seeds of this hate towards the comfort of others in this movie. yeah, great, thanks for the 38 Giant Eagle Deus Ex Machina, but WHY THE FUCK DO YOU DROP THEM OFF WHERE THEY CAN SEE WHERE THEY NEED TO GO. FROM A FUCKING ROCK. LIKE 400 FEET OFF THE GROUND AND MILES AWAY FROM THE DESTINATION.

dick. BAG.

[01010111]

I'm a huge Tolkien fan, and while I have read the LOTR, The Hobbit, the Silmarillion and Unfinished tales, I really think they should have made it one movie and had Guillermo del Toro direct. Seriously, the Hobbit is a bit of whimsical tale, that's silly, and full of wanderlust. It's NOT a tale on the epic proportions of LOTR, and it felt like they were trying to make it just that.

Just imagine guillermo del toro's directing, I think he would have kept the playfulness of the book without making it a saptastic, disney-esc escapade. And a new take on Gollum and smaug, and imagine the goblin king not looking like a naked, deformed Benjamin Franklin with an out of control goiter.

And they're totally raping my favorite part of the Hobbit with this sidestory about Necromancer, while it did happen in the book it was never actually stated, and having this hidden statement of story gave it an incredibly detailed feel. To read what happens with the necromancer you have to read the appendixes.

[Haki]

okay..... i don't remember what movie made this point.... Clerks 2? they had a cool ass description of what's silly about the LotR stuff.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmuT8UeTk4s[/youtube]

[behndy]

lol. yeah. iiiiiiii.... didna like them.

my boy that loves LotR...

about a week before Hobbit - "so you interested in seeing the Hobbit at all?"
"naw. not really my thing."

2 days before the Hobbit - "sooo.... did you want to go see Hobbit?"
"i mean, i will if you want me to go with you. but i don't like LotR that much."
"cool cool. i'll go with Dave or somebody."

text the day it came out - "I WANT TO SEE THE HOBBIT."

[coldbrightsunlight]

I'm a huge Tolkien fan, and while I have read the LOTR, The Hobbit, the Silmarillion and Unfinished tales, I really think they should have made it one movie and had Guillermo del Toro direct. Seriously, the Hobbit is a bit of whimsical tale, that's silly, and full of wanderlust. It's NOT a tale on the epic proportions of LOTR, and it felt like they were trying to make it just that.

Just imagine guillermo del toro's directing, I think he would have kept the playfulness of the book without making it a saptastic, disney-esc escapade. And a new take on Gollum and smaug, and imagine the goblin king not looking like a naked, deformed Benjamin Franklin with an out of control goiter.

And they're totally raping my favorite part of the Hobbit with this sidestory about Necromancer, while it did happen in the book it was never actually stated, and having this hidden statement of story gave it an incredibly detailed feel. To read what happens with the necromancer you have to read the appendixes.

Exactly this. I think that making it into a big epic incredibly long 3 film deal was totally the wrong approach, a single film could have been reeeaally good.

[devnulljp]

and I think in 15 (if not less) years LOTR and these Hobbit movies will not age well because of all the dang CGI.

Making room for the remastered re-releases.
They're not stupid. Soulless maybe, but not stupid.

I just read the book (three times, back to back) with my 6 yr old. Don't think he'll be seeing the film any time soon though.

[Mudfuzz]

and I think in 15 (if not less) years LOTR and these Hobbit movies will not age well because of all the dang CGI.

Making room for the remastered re-releases.
They're not stupid. Soulless maybe, but not stupid.

I just read the book (three times, back to back) with my 6 yr old. Don't think he'll be seeing the film any time soon though.

and maybe Lucas will join in and have Greedo shoot at the black riders first....

[Gunner Recall]

I enjoyed it, the hobbit came before LOTR and was intentionally cheesy/lighter than the later novels. It's a kids story.

They certainly could have done it in 2 movies...1 would have been a stretch but 3 feels a
I do agree the CGI is very distracting...especially the trolls and the orc/goblin leaders who looked fresh out of a video game from about 5 or 6 years ago.

Anyone see the HFR version? I had the choice of imax3d or hfr 3d and went for the imax. Might go again just to see what all the fuss is about.

[fuzzywolf]

I agree that it should have been 2 movies. There's too much information for just one movie, but 3 movies is just way too long.

Personally, I thought it was a good movie.

And going off what wfs1234 said, I too kinda wish it was more playful like story was intended. But at the same time, the majority of the audience have probably never read tolkein's books and can only their judgement off of what they saw in the LOTR movies. So it kinda makes sense that they tried following the epic styling of LOTR.

[devideva]

I think Jackson respected the author by being full blown and over the top. Ideally for smaller kids who will find the graphics larger than life. I do feel his one overriding desire was to make a monumental feature. So to that end I don't find three long movies too much a chore. I think it's a token of respect for Tolkien to make a grand overture in film. Do I wish it somehow had more sex, blood, guts, emotion, yearning, and magic, yes, actually. I remember wanting to live in Rivendell or Lothlorien as a kid. The flicks missed the faerie-high fever and enchantment. I could be a critic of anything and everything and I am. Little is perfect.

[behndy]

interesting. again, the books bore the poo bits out of me and i didna dig the first three movies, so i'm not the built in audience they're going for. and it's cool that they're doing it in a way y'all fans dig on.

but objectively, with no fond attachments to the mythology, it was BORING. to me.

[coldbrightsunlight]

That's the thing, I love the Hobbit, it's a great kids book, but I see it more as a whimsical short story than the dramatic epic they're trying to make it, and I don't think that treatment of it works. Would much rather have had one normal length film that had a bit of a lighter, possibly weirder, tone.

[01010111]

I think Jackson respected the author by being full blown and over the top. Ideally for smaller kids who will find the graphics larger than life. I do feel his one overriding desire was to make a monumental feature. So to that end I don't find three long movies too much a chore. I think it's a token of respect for Tolkien to make a grand overture in film. Do I wish it somehow had more sex, blood, guts, emotion, yearning, and magic, yes, actually. I remember wanting to live in Rivendell or Lothlorien as a kid. The flicks missed the faerie-high fever and enchantment. I could be a critic of anything and everything and I am. Little is perfect.

I couldn't disagree more. The Hobbit started out a series of short stories that Tolkien would tell his children at night. Tolkien was spun a slightly childish tale that was scary at times and full of wonderlust. While there are some pretty cool things in it, the only truly epic part of it is the battle towards the end. Trying to make in an epic, over the top, overture in the name of the author, Jackson should have chosen the Silmarillion and made 27 6hr long movies. In short Jackson was trying to turn the story into something it wasn't.

[coldbrightsunlight]

I think Jackson respected the author by being full blown and over the top. Ideally for smaller kids who will find the graphics larger than life. I do feel his one overriding desire was to make a monumental feature. So to that end I don't find three long movies too much a chore. I think it's a token of respect for Tolkien to make a grand overture in film. Do I wish it somehow had more sex, blood, guts, emotion, yearning, and magic, yes, actually. I remember wanting to live in Rivendell or Lothlorien as a kid. The flicks missed the faerie-high fever and enchantment. I could be a critic of anything and everything and I am. Little is perfect.

I couldn't disagree more. The Hobbit started out a series of short stories that Tolkien would tell his children at night. Tolkien was spun a slightly childish tale that was scary at times and full of wonderlust. While there are some pretty cool things in it, the only truly epic part of it is the battle towards the end. Trying to make in an epic, over the top, overture in the name of the author, Jackson should have chosen the Silmarillion and made 27 6hr long movies. In short Jackson was trying to turn the story into something it wasn't.

Using the Silmarillion for material instead is exactly what I suggested to my friend after the film. It's fucking perfect for Jackson, he could make the 24hr films he's always dreamed of and still have more overblown dramatic stories!

[01010111]

It really just makes sense. There were so many superbly epic parts in the Silmarillion that are far grander than anything in LOTR or the Hobbit. I mean the extent of the lore, the creation of middle earth and there are even more glorious stories of good triumphing over evil than what you see in LOTR.