The Hobbit, you ever read it?

[Shoggoth2588]

I hated the Lord of the Rings and I strongly disliked the films. They were all beautiful films, but the plot was never able to suck me in. That being said, I fucking loved The Hobbit. I have two or three versions of the book, have read it multiple times and, have been wondering to myself why they didn't do The Hobbit before Lord of the Rings since it seemed like it would be a safer bet than that trilogy. The trailer looked great and I can't wait to see the movie! I'm a bit put-off though because they decided to break it into two movies but that seems to be the trend at the moment.

 

[Ekit]

1) Yes. Multiple times. It's my favourite fantasy book of all time.

2) I'm really excited. The dwarf song sounds exactly like it's described in the book. Martin Freeman looks really good as Bilbo from what I've seen and Ian McKellen's Gandalf is back, which is awesome.

 

[Oly J]

I read it in school when I was 9, well, by that I mean my teacher read it to the class in installments, took 3 months to get through it, gotta re-read that...riiight after the inheritance cycle,

but seriously I'm excited to see the trailer, I think it looks awesome

 

[Xerosch]

1. I'm currently in the middle of it (The gang let Beorn's ponys return home).

After reading 'Lord of the Rings' some years ago I saw where Jackson got his material from. While reading 'The Hobbit' I seriously asked myself if the story was indeed so epic that it needs to be divided into two movies. Until...

2. I saw the trailer and immediatly recognized the Middle Earth-feeling I got whenever I watched something related to the Rings-Movie. I don't care about how they blow up the story anymore. In the worst case the movies will have thin content, but be pretty to look at.

 

[Nami nom noms]

Funnily enough, not only have i read the Hobbit, I'm currently reading it at the moment, too!

It's, alright. Pretty enjoyable, with a tendency to get bogged down on the details (I skip those parts; I tried the same thing with Lord of the Rings but ended up finishing the book in half an hour! )

I'm sure the film will be entirely less cheesy then the book, and tbh there are more action sequences in the hobbit then the lord of the rings books (individually).

 

[Fasckira]

Child like summary incoming:

Hobbit - Lots of fantasy and exciting action
LotR - Lots of fantasy, exciting action but dulled down with politics.

I read the Hobbit when I was about 8 I think, I loved it to bits. The version I had had the little line drawings scattered throughout and it was pretty much the book that got me reading more fantasy based tales. I read LotR however it just didn't have the same magic for me; I cant tell if that's because I read it when I was older and as such my expectations were greater or not though.

Either way, looking forward to the Hobbit on the big screen, should be great fun and they couldn't have picked a better actor to play Bilbo in my eyes.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Tom Bombadil was ridicu-fucking-lous and would have turned the first film into a fucking mess, I think it was a very easy decision to cut it.

Absolutely. Unless you had read the books, several times (and even then), chances are you would not be able to deduce who or what he really might have been. Personally I lean toward the idea that he was the physical manifestation of the spirit of the world.

That whole encounter would have taken, at minimum, an hour to resolve.

The Silmarillion, that is an enjoyable read. Provided you can follow it.

 

[Naeras]

I honestly like The Hobbit more than LotR. It's more light-hearted and far easier to read.

 

[Soxafloppin]

I did when I was younger, I then tried to read the Lord of the Rings and had difficulty, there seems to be a lot more Jargon in the LOTR books.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Read the book a couple times, very exited for the two movies, it is going to be a two movie deal.

2) WATSON!!! HELL YEAH!!!! Other than that, the dwarves look way too young. Especially Thorin. I do love the fact that they sing tho.

Think about Gimli in the Lord of the Rings movies, he wasn't made up to look all that old.

Gimli was actually alive during the time when Gandalf was planning the expedition with Thorin, and the story takes place over 70 years before the full events of the Lord of the Rings.

When I read The Hobbit, I didn't get the impression that the dwarves looked all that old. Since they are the race that has a long life span, who's to say that a dwarf that is over a 100 years old is going to look like he is actually that old. Other than men with normal blood, all the other races had longer than normal life spans. Frodo the hobbit was suppose to be at least 50 when he finally started out with the One Ring, and he didn't look 50 in the movies.

The only place that brings to mind the dwarves looking somewhat old is the old Hobbit cartoon, and even some of those dwarves didn't look all that old, they just looked like dwarves or a cartoon stylized look of what the dwarves might look like.

 

[Hollock]

yeah, but it was when I was 11 and I barely remember it.
The trailer looks really good though

 

[ccggenius12]

The edits were performed mostly for updating the language (terminology, grammer, etc), the major changes were made by Tolkien's heirs afterwards.

Be that as it may, it still doesn't change that Gollum had a very different personality in Tolkien's original book, and it was changed so the circular macguffin could take center stage in the trilogy. Say what you will about Lucas, but he didn't completely invert any character's personalities.
I hope that this movie does well enough to merit a Silmarillion movie. Morgoth makes Sauron look like a chump.

 

[VladG]

Yep, I've read it a long time ago, before reading The Lord of the Rings. Liked it, it's a nice little children's book, but I wouldn't compare it to LOTR for that very reason. LOTR is for a much more mature audience, so if anyone is thinking about picking up the book, don't expect it to be quite as complex or to appeal as much to a more mature audience.

As for the movie, I'm very excited. The LOTR movies were very good and I expect this one to be too. Again, I expect a much lighter tone since the book it's based on is a children's book. But I expect it to be as faithful and well done as the LOTR movie was (or were, I know it's 3 of them, but it's really just one story too big to be put in one movie).

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

1. Nope, went to college early got to skip a lot of things.

2. I hope it's good, the trailer looks decent but I tend not to trust those anymore since Sucker-Punch

 

[Zen Toombs]

I've read the Hobbit twice, but I'm embarrassed to say that I've never completed the Lord of the Rings.

I'm pretty excited for the movie though. ^_^

 

[kickyourass]

The Hobbit is easily my absolute favorite book, I honestly cannot understand how one cannot enjoy it.
As for the trailer EEEEEEEIIIIIII!!!! I want to see this movie and I want to see it NOW!

 

[surg3n]

I'm quite looking forward to the film, personally I think it's a more complete adventure story than LOTR, it's actually my favorite book.

I think that mostly I'm looking forward to the film, because its the last, properly epic story that is familiar enough to be made into a film. Unless Peter Jackson smokes crack and decides to make Silmarillon, in which case I'll eat my own head.

 

[wottabout]

I read most of it as a child, but I admit that I got bored with it after the dragon died. I mean, the dragon's dead, so the story must be over, right? I don't want to read about boring battles!

I'm still excited about the movie, though. I feel like I should reread (and finish) the book, although I think I might watch the movies first so that I can judge whether they are good films on their own without constantly comparing them to the book.