Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The biggest problem with the movie is in the end where it says "Based on J.R.R Tolkiens book the Hobbit"

Because, lets be real, its barely even "ispired by" and lightyears away from "based on"...

The second biggest problem is that it is overlong and lenghtened with all the wrong stuff. You could easily cut away all the fight scenes in the end, half of the fight scenes in the middle and it would be far more solid movie. Now the good things about the movie get lost under the utterly boring platform jumping, running and falling.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
One of the things I was joking about with my wife, which goes all the way back to Moria in Fellowship.

What is the deal with Middle Earth and the pathological fear of railings on walkways and stairs!!! I swear that they are a 3rd age invention, as every ancient ruin or settlement that appears in the movies has huge deadly drops to either side of thin little walkways with no railings, lol.

Pro-tip for dwarf architects: if you want to keep dragons out of your kingdom, don't make the doors and hallways dragon-sized.

Just sayin'.

polaria wrote:The biggest problem with the movie is in the end where it says "Based on J.R.R Tolkiens book the Hobbit"

Because, lets be real, its barely even "ispired by" and lightyears away from "based on"...

let's be real, if Peter Jackson made exactly the same film as he just did and switched the names, everyone would think it's a rip-off of the hobbit.

I've said it a dozen times, it's a film adaptation. Stop looking at it like it should be a carbon copy of the book and you might actually enjoy it.

 shrike wrote:

polaria wrote:The biggest problem with the movie is in the end where it says "Based on J.R.R Tolkiens book the Hobbit"

Because, lets be real, its barely even "ispired by" and lightyears away from "based on"...

let's be real, if Peter Jackson made exactly the same film as he just did and switched the names, everyone would think it's a rip-off of the hobbit.

It would also be a terrible film unless split into multiple parts. There's too much stuff in that little book to make into an enjoyable, cohesive movie. Any good film adaptation would almost certainly have had to pad it out anyway. That's not to say the extended action scenes or glossing over of some memorable book moments is a good thing, but generally, the padding is necessary.

I've said it a dozen times, it's a film adaptation. Stop looking at it like it should be a carbon copy of the book and you might actually enjoy it.

I can sympathise. Even trying to view an adaptation with an open mind can still lead to disappointment if your perception of the 'The Hobbit' is firmly looted in the book. Personally, I try not to think of it as an adaptation of 'The Hobbit', but as just another story in Middle Earth getting the Peter Jackson treatment.

Saw it yesterday, overall I thought it was not to bad. I share similar thoughts that Beorn was rushed and I wish they had Brian Blessed as the actor for him, for obvious reasons.
But it was a good movie and fits in with the way that Jackson has taken the series thus far.

 guardpiper wrote:
Saw it yesterday, overall I thought it was not to bad. I share similar thoughts that Beorn was rushed and I wish they had Brian Blessed as the actor for him, for obvious reasons.
But it was a good movie and fits in with the way that Jackson has taken the series thus far.

as awesome as brian blessed is, I think he's a bit too jolly for him.

Saw it last night...

I only have two major problems with it...

1) Why Legolas???

2) The romance between the dwarf and Tauriel seemed very forced. blergh.

Other than that: It was awesome-sauce!

*loved the barrel scenes!

It's true that Beorn was far too rushed. The set for his home and the costuming on Beorn himself was far too cool for such a quick scene.

I liked it much better then the last one, the pace was much better.

at the end I wasnt waiting for it to end, I was actually wanting it to go on!

I also like that its slightly different from the books, so that there are at least some suprises...

sure legolas wasnt doing this in the books... great! wasnt expecting him and that red head to do that whole crazy barrel scene... that was EPIC one of the best and longest fight scenes I have seen in a bit...

I found it to be a poor film with little reference to the source material. At least twice it just lapsed into pure comedy.
I almost laughed out loud at one point, at Smaug flicking that gold off. I imagined him saying "faaaaahhhbulouus".
I promised my girlfriend that I'd take her to all three films, but if not for that I would not bother with the third film.

So, the story would have been less ridiculous to you if it had stuck to the source material?


Hokay.

Yes, that's my honest opinion. The Tauriel/ generic dwarf #3/ Legolas love triangle added little, the increased elven presence added little, generic fat dwarf #7 in a barrel rolling down the riverbank and then doing a killa kan impersonation was stupid.

Additional barrels appearing from nowhere? Check.
Gandalf never sheathing his sword at Dol Guldur and yet having it sheathed as soon as Azog knocked him over? Yep.

A poor film, dragged out for longer than needed. I honestly believe a film closer to the source material would have been more enjoyable.

Okay, but the book's far more egregious lapses in plot, character and storytelling don't bother you at all? Did you read it when you were too young and impressionable to care, and then it left a permanent blind spot in your appreciation for art?

I really liked what PJ did with LOTR, but The Hobbit is an embarrassment. It's so obvious that they are milking it with all the padding. The Smaug / Dwarf scene was too long. It felt like the cgi people were saying "look what we can do", a bit like Man of Steel.

 whembly wrote:
Saw it last night...

I only have two major problems with it...

1) Why Legolas???

Because The Wood Elf King was his father. Legolas would have been there if he had existed when the Hobbit was written. When he was added to LotR which came second, added the character, it basically means he would have 'been there' in the hobbit even if he didn't actively contribute to the story.

The little comment about Gimili was relevant as well, as he would have been a young dwarf of 61 at the time of the hobbit, and having a little picture of his son makes sense even if 'his son didn't exist' in the Hobbit.

Remember, the tomb where they fight the troll is Fellowship is BALIN's tomb, the white-beared dwarf who is Thorin's right-hand man. And the book they read 'can't get out, they are comming' is written by the young dwarf with the bowl-cut.

2) The romance between the dwarf and Tauriel seemed very forced. blergh.

There isn't a single female in the book of 'the Hobbit'. Not a damn one. They felt they needed to add a 'female' star.

Also, I think we will see more in the 3rd movie, especially since I suspect:

As for Smaug... Imagine being woken up suddenly in the middle of the night and told "QUICK, there are 13 mice in your bedroom, kill them all with your bare hands... GO!" The point was, Smaug wasn't taking it seriously and was probably still waking up still, and the Dwarves got the best of him and hurt his pride. Could he have kept a cool head and eventually exterminated them? Yes. He basically got a minor injury, super mad and decided to 'kill all their friends' first, then come back and stomp out the dwarves after getting more active. Seemed to make sense as Smaug got super upset and then made a comment that Bilbo started to protest. In the book, the whole reason he goes to attacks the river town is due to 'the barrel rider' words Bilbo uses. Smaug is a dick and goes to kill the laketown simply to hopefully inflict mental anguish on Bilbo, in the movie, he only does it AFTER he gets a gold bath and gets mad.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Okay, but the book's far more egregious lapses in plot, character and storytelling don't bother you at all? Did you read it when you were too young and impressionable to care, and then it left a permanent blind spot in your appreciation for art?

I'm not sure what you mean here, lapses in plot, character and storytelling? Any examples?

I'm intrigued now, I might re-read it again.

 4oursword wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Okay, but the book's far more egregious lapses in plot, character and storytelling don't bother you at all? Did you read it when you were too young and impressionable to care, and then it left a permanent blind spot in your appreciation for art?

I'm not sure what you mean here, lapses in plot, character and storytelling? Any examples?

I'm intrigued now, I might re-read it again.

There's plenty of examples which wouldn't stand up were it translated to the film- For instance, from what I can remember, Bard has very little mention until he pops up halfway through, kills smaug, and then suddenly he's leading an army and half the town wants him to be mayor.

 shrike wrote:

 4oursword wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Okay, but the book's far more egregious lapses in plot, character and storytelling don't bother you at all? Did you read it when you were too young and impressionable to care, and then it left a permanent blind spot in your appreciation for art?

I'm not sure what you mean here, lapses in plot, character and storytelling? Any examples?

I'm intrigued now, I might re-read it again.

There's plenty of examples which wouldn't stand up were it translated to the film- For instance, from what I can remember, Bard has very little mention until he pops up halfway through, kills smaug, and then suddenly he's leading an army and half the town wants him to be mayor.

That's not really a lapse, just a fairy tale trope - hero kills mighty monster and saves a town/castle/kingdom, people revere hero and want to be led by him. Plus he wouldn't want to say their mayor is a dragon slayer?

~Tim?

the Beorn scene was disappointing ...

sort of like ole Tom being left out of the first movies ... and the Barrow section as well ... then the final section of the third book when the hobbits come back to their village.

but i am a fan of the books first ... and just watch the movies mostly to see what looks good and doesn't ...

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 shrike wrote:

 4oursword wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Okay, but the book's far more egregious lapses in plot, character and storytelling don't bother you at all? Did you read it when you were too young and impressionable to care, and then it left a permanent blind spot in your appreciation for art?

I'm not sure what you mean here, lapses in plot, character and storytelling? Any examples?

I'm intrigued now, I might re-read it again.

There's plenty of examples which wouldn't stand up were it translated to the film- For instance, from what I can remember, Bard has very little mention until he pops up halfway through, kills smaug, and then suddenly he's leading an army and half the town wants him to be mayor.

That's not really a lapse, just a fairy tale trope - hero kills mighty monster and saves a town/castle/kingdom, people revere hero and want to be led by him. Plus he wouldn't want to say their mayor is a dragon slayer?

~Tim?

Yeah, but you can't exactly have some random guy who was barely mentioned pop up and kill the main antagonist of the story.

Well, you can. It's just not what people have come to expect.

It is how the world works and I don't really mind it that much. That said the development of Bard for the movie is something I have no issue with. Though my family who hadn't read the books thought he was "Legolas the Brown", which they could have made more effort to prevent.

I was fine with them fleshing out Bard a bit more. It still has some of the problems that the first had, mainly that it vacillated in tone, going between grim seriousness one moment and 'whee, fun adventure!' the next. I still enjoyed it, but you can tell it is a patchwork of different materiel. I also think it is because they are doing to much at this point to tie it to the previous films, where imho, less would have been better in that department. The ring is already doing enough of that, and they went looking for the Necromancer in the first film, I would have been fine if they just showed Gandalf finding the tombs of the Wring Wraiths empty and not had him go fight the orcs and Sauran personally.

Smaug was awesome.

Well I am obviously assuming that the scene with Gandalf is his way of forcing the White Council's hand, so they have to face Sauron and the Witch King if they want to rescue him. It's pretty much his magic power throughout the setting.

That's what Bard should have looked like.

 Bromsy wrote:
That's what Bard should have looked like.

I did have my fears when I first saw bard, but he played it off well enough.
If I were to name anyone to play bard, it'd be Viggo Mortensen, but... yeah. Not really an option.

I thought it was quite good, and was especially happy when Steven Fry was in it.

 Tyranidcrusher wrote:
I thought it was quite good, and was especially happy when Steven Fry was in it.

Just wait until you see Billy Connolly in the next one

I actually like what Jackson is doing with the Trilogy, hitting the real length and breadth of the story of The Hobbit, while digging in to the events surrounding the events of the same, which I feel makes The Hobbit an even better prequel to LOTR

Over all I found similar complaints to many dakkanauts, the cat and mouse was rushed, the romance was a bit out of left field and Lake Town felt just a bit goofy, for which I give full credit to Mr. Fry.

Everything else was pretty solid and I enjoyed it a lot. Looking forward to the third film!

In an interview on the Daily Show the actress who played Tauriel said she got called back for reshoots to add the romance bits in because the studio complained about a lack of it, so they weren't originally in the shooting script.

 Ahtman wrote:
In an interview on the Daily Show the actress who played Tauriel said she got called back for reshoots to add the romance bits in because the studio complained about a lack of it, so they weren't originally in the shooting script.

Hmmm... I wonder if there's a directorial edition w/o all dat romance?