Poll: Okay, did you like or dislike the Hobbit

[Saladfork]

I liked it a lot, but there were problems with it.

One in particular was that they really went overboard with the CG. There were a few scenes I looked at and didn't believe for a moment (I started noticing that during some fight scenes, goblins would get stabbed and then immediately stop moving at all for a fraction of a second before the shot was cut).

It's pretty true the source material, though. If you didn't like the movie, you probably wouldn't have liked the novel either.

 

[David Furness]

I enjoyed The Hobbit film and will certainly own the DVD. I am not a novelist nor a film maker, but a Tolkien scholar (if such a thing can exist).

The film is (mostly) faithful to the novel. Some of the extra footage made me cringe. The writers appear to have a strong desire to literally retell the story (overly so, i think in some cases such as the stone giants - a passing mention in the novel is dragged out absurdly in the film). On the other hand, the additions of scenes and storylines that add little, if anything, to the tale (the Radagast silliness), indicate, to me, a slavish dedication to remaking Middle Earth in their image.

The Wise knew for the last hundred years that the Necromancer was Sauron, as Gandalf had discovered when he found Thorin's father in the pits in Dol Guldur (acquiring the map and key in the process). Why change that story, except to add some padding to the story?

Azog was was killed at the final battle of the war between the Dwarves and Orcs in 2799. Why resurrect him, except to add some padding to the story?

The novel, though admittedly slow in the first chapters, is a damn fine story with plenty of conflict and plot. I see the necessity for eliminating and/or condensing scenes and characters to maintain film cohesion and reasonable film length. Adding unnecessary plot and characters is not always better and is often just more.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

I cringed at the pointless scene involving the rock giants..

What was pointless about it? It is an action take on the books version of it, the giants were throwing rocks at each other and they all wanted to get to cover because of the giants and the lightning.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I cringed at the pointless scene involving the rock giants..

What was pointless about it? It is an action take on the books version of it, the giants were throwing rocks at each other and they all wanted to get to cover because of the giants and the lightning.

Yes, they're fleetingly mentioned in the book and it adds a quirky little touch to the story. In the film they just felt too random. We get a cheesy line from one of the dwarves that goes something like "Rock giants! The legends are true!" and a brief action sequence and then poof, gone into oblivion. No build-up, no pay-off, nothing. A textbook example of Giant Space Flea From Nowhere, as defined by TvTropes. Contrast to how the Watcher in the Water has some creepy POV shots as the Fellowship tries to enter Moria, the quiet that precedes its appearence, the tension building and then a reference to the creature as Gandalf reads from that one book later on at Balin's Chamber. Even the timing is appropriate: the last action-y scene at that point has been the Nazgul before Rivendell - quite some time ago. Whereas The Hobbit insisted on and on to turn everything into an action sequence: the two war flashbacks, the trolls, the warg-riders, the rock giants, the whole Moria sequence and then the fight at the cliffs... half of that was pointless, or rather felt pointless, like the director was buying time until the core action scene took place.

 

[David Furness]

The giant scene was pointless in that it was an action scene for the sake of having an action scene. It contributed nothing to the narrative, the party could have been compelled to seek shelter from the storm without it. Had the scene been omitted, the story would have been just as complete as it was. I would not have missed it in the least.

 

[XMark]

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.

Yeah, I had mostly adjusted to the 48FPS by the time they left the Shire. A couple of odd-looking moments here and there, but overall I'm totally psyched about higher frame rates. It does seem, though, that 48FPS puts a greater demand on the special effects. Any tiny mistakes in rendering movement, or combining CGI and live action, end up sticking out like a sore thumb.

There's definitely room for improvement, but I'm hoping that filmmakers work out the kinks for higher frame rates in the future because it makes everything look so real, and even makes 3D work a lot more effectively.

Also, I could still see some strobing effects for faster screen-spanning motions, or for sparks flying in the air. I'm thinking that a push up to 60FPS would be ideal. (anything above 60FPS would cease to be make a noticeable difference, but 72 FPS would be evenly divisible by 24)

 

[BreakfastMan]

I went to go see it on Christmas day with my family, and I had a great time. It isn't on par with the LOTR films and it certainly had it's share of flaws, but it was a damn fun ride nonetheless, and I like forwarding to seeing the sequel with my family next year.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I really enjoyed it, watched it Christmas Day with my sister. Worth it.

 

[thesilentman]

I liked it. It's a fun movie which I can recommend to anyone who wants a nice fantasy movie to keep the occupied for the evening. I want to reread LOTR now.

 

[Jumendez-sama]

Deus ex machinas to end a lot of the added scenes in the movie (such as with the eagles, Gandalf always coming in at the last minute, etc) sets off flags that the added bits were made to entertain the general public more than to expand on the themes brought up in the book (not to say that I remember what the themes of the book were considering I read the Hobbit so long ago). Additionally, the added story element of the necromancer also has me worried as it seems like it will only birth a cartoonishly evil villain.

Sure the new bits were entertaining, but they rang hollow to me. The parts of the movie that I enjoyed most were the parts I could tell were from the actual story, as they often followed the Hero's Journey, a very refreshing in a world plagued by the Hero's Constant Triumph.

I felt this was deserving a "meh" vote because of that, because while it was entertaining it definitely could've been better.

 

[Starik20X6]

Faaaaantastic. Absolutely loved every moment of it.

 

[BaronUberstein]

Saw it both in normal vision and 3D. Loved it both times. I'll likely see it a 3rd time when my brother goes to see it.

 

[Calcium]

I thought it was really good. I have to stop myself from saying it was as good as or better than the Lord of the Rings trilogy though, and that's mostly because I didn't care as much about the party. I can't name all of the dwarfs, nor describe them really, but I'll give it a shot from what I remember...

King Dwarf (Thorin Oakenshield), Old Dwarf (Balin), Bad-ass Dwarf (Dwalin?), Ginger Dwarf, Fat Dwarf, ... Twin Dwarfs? And... umm... Yeah that's it.

I haven't read the book in about 6 years, so perhaps they're not as developed there either.

 

[Smolderin]

It was a FANTASTIC movie. Best movie of the year in all accounts in my opinion. It was so good to return to Middle Earth again and much like how Lord the Rings did, the Hobbit swept me up into it's adventure and didn't let me go. I thought it was to short to be quite honest.

 

[mechalynx]

I have waited over 20 years for this, ever since I first read the book. Loved every second while watching it. The I got home, discussed it a bit with others who saw it and ended up loving it even more.

The only thing I can complain about is that I felt that Gandalf got as much, if not more, screen time as Bilbo, who somehow wasn't as memorable as Thorin in PJ's version of the story.

But now I've got a more fleshed out Thorin, so no complaints there.

 

[SpAc3man]

I loved it. I am a huge fan of the Tolkien books and I was very happy with the adaptation.
There were a few points that did not follow the lore of Arda such as aspects of Smaug's attack on Erebor and the timing and nature of Thror's beheading by Azog along with Azog actually being alive during the quest. But all of these were quite necessary to rid the story of the very episodic nature of the book which would have been terrible for the movie. The humour was very fitting too. The book had humour so it is only right that the film should incorporate some form of humour.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

The poll needs another option between "really good" and "meh". It's like jumping from a 4-star rating to 2,5 stars.

To me it was more "really good" than "meh". Great performances, fantastic setpiece moments and great visuals. But it was wayyy too long, some scenes were really stretched and the CGI was rather painfully obvious in some scenes. I'd say 3,5 out of five

It was OK.

Overlong and a few unneeded scenes could have been cut.

And then the eagle rescue, ugh.

Yeah, the eagles seem to be the deus ex machina of the Lotr franchise that no one ever points out.

 

[xplosive59]

It was good but very inconistent, the tone of the film changed every scene which was very jarring and while there were alot of excellent scenes there was also alot of filler like with the storm giants.

 

[EscapeGoat_v1legacy]

I really enjoyed it. I loved the expansion of the scale of the book into something epic - it really does seem to be Peter Jackson's forte. I thought Armitage and Freeman were perfect in their given roles, I loved the little call backs (or call forwards, I guess) to the Lord of the Rings and I thought the addition of the Azog subplot was a decent way to expand the film. It never seemed boring or slow-paced, despite it being a 2 and a half hour film, and the effects were marvelous.

All in all, rather bloody good.