Poll: Okay, did you like or dislike the Hobbit
- Thread starter Saviordd1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It was ok. I'd forgotten exactly how much more aimed at kids The Hobbit is compared to LotR but I still enjoyed it.
Apart from the bloody singing. I have a deep seated hatred of singing in films.
Apart from the bloody singing. I have a deep seated hatred of singing in films.
Loved it. More than the LotR-trilogy.
Has it's flaws and plot holes, but is very enjoyable. I mean, Fantasy is never much about Philosophy (like good Sci-Fi) or authentic drama (usually too over the top), it's all about creating a fantastical world and immersing you in it. The Hobbit succeeded.
Has it's flaws and plot holes, but is very enjoyable. I mean, Fantasy is never much about Philosophy (like good Sci-Fi) or authentic drama (usually too over the top), it's all about creating a fantastical world and immersing you in it. The Hobbit succeeded.
I thoroughly enjoyed it. I don't think it's movie of the year, but that's only because there have been some incredible films released this year. I also really liked the 48 fps, and I really hope that it gets used in more movies.
I loved it. It kept my interest the whole time.
I wasn't falling asleep in the theater or waiting for it be over like I was for Return of the King.
Wish I'd gotten to see more of the dragon.
I wasn't falling asleep in the theater or waiting for it be over like I was for Return of the King.
Wish I'd gotten to see more of the dragon.
So, I really liked it. I won't say it's the movie of the year, but it's top five overall. They kept a very lighthearted tone that worked really well against the more serious moments. The only thing I really didn't like was the main Orc guy. Other than that, I thought it was brilliant. Freeman is awesome as Bilbo.
I had some problems with it, but those are problems I also had with the book, so it doesn't really count. I watched it in 3D at 48 frames, and while I could've done without the 3D, I really enjoyed the increased frame rate. I also seem to be in the minority of actually appreaciating the special effects. I thought the Pale orc looked great, as did (most) of the goblins. The only cgi creature that looked off was Gollum actually. Something about the eyes. They're either too big or too blue...
The LOTR novel and movie series are supposed to be serious - because the tone of the land at the time is death, gore, and war and far more 'adult'.
The novel , 'There and Back Again', isn't actually about war even though there seems to be a lot of fighting, not really. It's about Bilbo Baggins learning something profound about himself and going on a brillant and once-in-a-lifetime adventure. 'There and Back Again' was written before the LOTR series as children's fantasy-adventure in 1937 and was actually reworked by Tolkien to help it fit in more with the highly established lore of LOTR and it's actually one of my favorite books.
The fact that the movie was good-humored and light-heartened to the point of almost seeming kiddish, is pretty close to the mark, at least for me. I could complain about a couple things that may have been unnecessary or a smidgen over-the-top, but it seems pointless to because I don't feel they really took anything away to do it. It actually reminds me a lot of one of my favorite games, 'The Hobbit' for the original X-Box, which could only add to my enjoyment level.
So, I'm sure you know exactly what my opinion is.
The novel , 'There and Back Again', isn't actually about war even though there seems to be a lot of fighting, not really. It's about Bilbo Baggins learning something profound about himself and going on a brillant and once-in-a-lifetime adventure. 'There and Back Again' was written before the LOTR series as children's fantasy-adventure in 1937 and was actually reworked by Tolkien to help it fit in more with the highly established lore of LOTR and it's actually one of my favorite books.
The fact that the movie was good-humored and light-heartened to the point of almost seeming kiddish, is pretty close to the mark, at least for me. I could complain about a couple things that may have been unnecessary or a smidgen over-the-top, but it seems pointless to because I don't feel they really took anything away to do it. It actually reminds me a lot of one of my favorite games, 'The Hobbit' for the original X-Box, which could only add to my enjoyment level.
So, I'm sure you know exactly what my opinion is.
I thought overall it was a really good movie. I personally can't see how somebody could go into thinking it was a bad movie. Not liking it sure I get that. But to say that the hobbit has no good things about it is kind of silly.
I did not like it. Neither as a righteous adaptation of its source material nor for its entertainment value, which was on par with the Narnia movies. I realize the story is meant to be lighter in tone to that of The Lord of the Rings - almost like a kid's farce of some kind - and I would've had no problem with the movie following suit. Except it does that on the one hand, and then on the other it tries to blend in a "serious, foreboding" tone that really doesn't mix properly. Sometimes the movie goes for cheap laughs, sometimes it tries to be all serious and menacing (Dol Guldur, the war flashbacks, the White Council scene).
I cringed a lot.
I cringed when Thorin walked in slow-mo through the flames towards his orc nemesis, like Nic Cage and Tom Cruise in so many John Woo flicks. I cringed at the stoner humor surrounding Radagast and his cheap CGI Narnia animal buddies. I cringed at the modern-day humor and at that tiresome running gag of "tempting fate" (the fatso orc falling on the dwarves once they're surprised they got off easy, Bilbo mentioning "the worst is over" in the end). I cringed at the Goblin King and that soddy one-liner before dying. I cringed at Frodo's (pointless!) cameo, short of waving at the camera and playing Mickey Mouse to Disney's Middle Earth. I cringed at the pointless scene involving the rock giants. It seems Jackson and crew made up as many fight sequences as possible out of the source material, regardless of pacing or usefulness to the narrative.
Don't misunderstand this. John Woo slow-mo, stoner humor, cheesy Bond one-liners, fan service cameos - I'm all for that, at the right time and the right place, of which The Hobbit was neither. The movie does not feel Middle Earth-y. It's called "The Hobbit", and yet the eponymous Hobbit features very little. I love Freeman as Bilbo but he doesn't weigh a lot in, does he? How many times does the movie stray away from his POV? Wasn't this supposed to be a tall-tale-ish adventure as seen through the little guy? Do we need to see Azog kill one of his orcs to be afraid of him and go "oooh"? Compare to how "Lurtz" was handled in Fellowship. Honestly, I was not entertained. I saw through the filler scenes and Jackson's half-hearted attempt at being classy, modern, humorous, scary, melancholy, cool and cliche, a generic PG-13 fantasy knock-off where everything goes and it goes everywhere.
I cringed a lot.
I cringed when Thorin walked in slow-mo through the flames towards his orc nemesis, like Nic Cage and Tom Cruise in so many John Woo flicks. I cringed at the stoner humor surrounding Radagast and his cheap CGI Narnia animal buddies. I cringed at the modern-day humor and at that tiresome running gag of "tempting fate" (the fatso orc falling on the dwarves once they're surprised they got off easy, Bilbo mentioning "the worst is over" in the end). I cringed at the Goblin King and that soddy one-liner before dying. I cringed at Frodo's (pointless!) cameo, short of waving at the camera and playing Mickey Mouse to Disney's Middle Earth. I cringed at the pointless scene involving the rock giants. It seems Jackson and crew made up as many fight sequences as possible out of the source material, regardless of pacing or usefulness to the narrative.
Don't misunderstand this. John Woo slow-mo, stoner humor, cheesy Bond one-liners, fan service cameos - I'm all for that, at the right time and the right place, of which The Hobbit was neither. The movie does not feel Middle Earth-y. It's called "The Hobbit", and yet the eponymous Hobbit features very little. I love Freeman as Bilbo but he doesn't weigh a lot in, does he? How many times does the movie stray away from his POV? Wasn't this supposed to be a tall-tale-ish adventure as seen through the little guy? Do we need to see Azog kill one of his orcs to be afraid of him and go "oooh"? Compare to how "Lurtz" was handled in Fellowship. Honestly, I was not entertained. I saw through the filler scenes and Jackson's half-hearted attempt at being classy, modern, humorous, scary, melancholy, cool and cliche, a generic PG-13 fantasy knock-off where everything goes and it goes everywhere.
Having read the book many times, often I was waiting for finally something from the book to happen. And I had a problem that the film wanted to be two things: on the one hand a great epic like LotR, on the other a children's tale more in the vein of the Hobbit book. And I hated the focus on Azog. It didn't need a token villain shoehorned in.
Still, I was never bored, it looked great and was genuinely fun. I liked it.
Still, I was never bored, it looked great and was genuinely fun. I liked it.
Finally saw it last night, really liked it. Saw it on the 48FPS AVX screen, which was really weird at first and I wasn't sure if I liked it, but once they left the hobit hovel and the movie got underway I got more used to it and enjoyed the scenic and action scenes with it.
I realised that I had one or two minor complaints, not least that it would cost me 3 times as much to watch the entire thing as I thought it would.
But then I thought, if it means I get 3 times as much highly enjoyable film out of it, I'm actually really pleased with that.
It doesn't seem like 7 dwarves pounding on one piece of metal is an efficient means of smithing, though.
But then I thought, if it means I get 3 times as much highly enjoyable film out of it, I'm actually really pleased with that.
It doesn't seem like 7 dwarves pounding on one piece of metal is an efficient means of smithing, though.