I saw 'The Hobbit' tonight...(Spoiler free)

[tth2]

The adult in me was impatient and annoyed that it was too fantastic and unbelievable.

 

I didn't feel this way about Lord of the Rings when it was in the theaters. Maybe Game of Thrones has affected my expectations of fantasy movies now.

Because frozen zombies and a priestess birthing a black demon are more realistic?

 

How can you be impatient with The Hobbit and then hold up Game of Thrones as the paradigm? I love Game of Thrones, but "glacial" is the only way to describe it. "Fast-paced" and "action-filled" are not words I would ever use to describe the series.

 

If LOTR and Hobbit were paced the same way as GoT, and Jackson adhered as tightly to the books as GoT does with the books, LOTR would have been 15 3-hour movies.

[zuulioso]

My impatience didn't have to do with the length of the film. As a fan of middle earth lore, I really appreciated the additional material in the movie.

 

The impatience was primarily based on what I considered to be unnecessary hollywood effects that made some scenes seem almost cartoon like. Without going into specifics that would be considered spoilers, I had a feeling that Jackson was trying to out do himself from the original trilogy.

 

Don't get me wrong. In the end I rate the movie enjoyable and will go to see the second and third but I was reminded of the Lucas prequels several times during the film.

[Sqeggs]

I really don`t understand these comments about the beginning of the movie being too draggy. What is it exactly that people want cut out? The use of Ian Holm and Elijah Woods to tie it into the LOTR? The background of how the dwarves got kicked out of Erebor? The arrival of the dwarves at Bilbo`s house? All were great scenes and totally essential.

 

Maybe I was burned out on Tolkien from having recently watched the extended versions of the three LOTR films, but the beginning did strike me as draggy. If you step back and view the film objectively -- not as the Tolkien geeks that we are -- if the point of the film is the journey to reclaim Erebor from Smaug, you can't take 45 minutes (or whatever it is) to get out of the Shire.

 

The book sets a much faster pace. Did we really need a long scene with Holm/Woods, the back story on Smaug taking Erebor, and a really long version of the dwarves and Bilbo? Geek-wise, yes, but story-wise, no. My wife was bored stiff by the beginning of the film and would gladly have left half way through. The Hobbit will be a hit, but I think it will end up appealing to a narrower audience than the LOTR films. The result will be a much weaker opening for the second film next December. Predictions Sure to Go Wrong!

[Sqeggs]

My impatience didn't have to do with the length of the film. As a fan of middle earth lore, I really appreciated the additional material in the movie.

 

The impatience was primarily based on what I considered to be unnecessary hollywood effects that made some scenes seem almost cartoon like. Without going into specifics that would be considered spoilers, I had a feeling that Jackson was trying to out do himself from the original trilogy.

 

Don't get me wrong. In the end I rate the movie enjoyable and will go to see the second and third but I was reminded of the Lucas prequels several times during the film.

 

Me, too, although I think the Phantom Menace is one of the biggest fiascos in movie history. It makes Ishtar seem like Citizen Kane. I was a bit disappointed with the Hobbit, but nothing like I was by the Star Wars prequels.

[The-Collector]

I found the whole movie boring. It is incredibly padded out. Even establishing shots of scenes seemed to have an extra 10 seconds added on.

 

The story telling is lazy, in that many dramatic tensions are resolved by lucky events.

 

2/5 from me.

[tth2]

Did we really need ... the back story on Smaug taking Erebor

Besides the fact that this was probably my favorite scene in the movie, the answer is absolutely yes, particularly for non-Geeks who had never read The Hobbit.

 

Without the back story, every non-reader would've been like:

 

"Where are the dwarves and Bilbo going?"

"Why are they going wherever it is they're going?"

"What is this big room full of gold?"

"What is the big eye that just opened up?"

 

And in the next movie, "Dragon? WTF?! Where the hell did a big dragon come from all of a sudden? And why are the dwarves trying to kill it? WTF is going on here?!?! If only Peter Jackson could've given us a little background!!!"

 

[MCMiles]

I was noti impressed with this movie at all.

[KEY ISSUES Comics]

The adult in me was impatient and annoyed that it was too fantastic and unbelievable.

 

I didn't feel this way about Lord of the Rings when it was in the theaters. Maybe Game of Thrones has affected my expectations of fantasy movies now.

Because frozen zombies and a priestess birthing a black demon are more realistic?

 

How can you be impatient with The Hobbit and then hold up Game of Thrones as the paradigm? I love Game of Thrones, but "glacial" is the only way to describe it. "Fast-paced" and "action-filled" are not words I would ever use to describe the series.

 

If LOTR and Hobbit were paced the same way as GoT, and Jackson adhered as tightly to the books as GoT does with the books, LOTR would have been 15 3-hour movies.

GAME OF THRONES (at least what has been covered by the TV series thus far), can barely be categorized as fantasy. It's a medieval soap opera. Very little of the fantastic in it.

[KEY ISSUES Comics]

Did we really need ... the back story on Smaug taking Erebor

Besides the fact that this was probably my favorite scene in the movie, the answer is absolutely yes, particularly for non-Geeks who had never read The Hobbit.

 

Without the back story, every non-reader would've been like:

 

"Where are the dwarves and Bilbo going?"

"Why are they going wherever it is they're going?"

"What is this big room full of gold?"

"What is the big eye that just opened up?"

 

And in the next movie, "Dragon? WTF?! Where the hell did a big dragon come from all of a sudden? And why are the dwarves trying to kill it? WTF is going on here?!?! If only Peter Jackson could've given us a little background!!!"

 

No kidding. What was the issue with having the backstory? It's absolutely crucial.

[KEY ISSUES Comics]

I was noti impressed with this movie at all.

I had fun, but I felt like I was watching the LotR trilogy again, but as I mentioned in an earlier post it's because the trilogy seems to have been an extended rewrite of the HOBBIT. I know little of the history behind these books, but that's what it seems like to me.

 

Can anyone chime in on this, or did you already when I made my initial comment a few weeks ago?

[mystrymachine]

I liked it.

I did comment to my wife however, that half the movie was spent with Gandalf yelling "Run" and the dwarves running from one danger to the next.

I also had trouble understanding what Gollum was saying half the time, but overall, It's better than most films playing right now..

[Sqeggs]

Did we really need ... the back story on Smaug taking Erebor

Besides the fact that this was probably my favorite scene in the movie, the answer is absolutely yes, particularly for non-Geeks who had never read The Hobbit.

 

Without the back story, every non-reader would've been like:

 

"Where are the dwarves and Bilbo going?"

"Why are they going wherever it is they're going?"

"What is this big room full of gold?"

"What is the big eye that just opened up?"

 

And in the next movie, "Dragon? WTF?! Where the hell did a big dragon come from all of a sudden? And why are the dwarves trying to kill it? WTF is going on here?!?! If only Peter Jackson could've given us a little background!!!"

 

 

Take another look at the first chapter of the book: Thorin explains what happened with Smaug in Erebor, but there is no scene set there. Tolkien must have figured that Thorin's explanation would be enough for readers. Is it nice to actually show what the book only refers to? Sure, if you don't mind taking three hours to tell one-third of the story. Once again, if you are a Tolkien geek, the movie is great. My youngest son's favorite book is the Hobbit and he thought the movie might be the best he's ever seen.

 

But there are a lot of people -- including some on this board -- who found the movie boring. And other people, like me, who found it disappointing because it lacked the pace of the LOTR movies. There just isn't enough substance in the Hobbit story to make three three-hour movies without making them slow going for non-fans. Once again, this movie is not a Phantom Menace fiasco; it's just not as good as I was hoping it would be.

 

In the end, the marketplace will decide whether Jackson has made another movie like the LOTR movies that can appeal to a broad range of non-Tolkien fans. My guess is that this movie will fall short of the studio's revenue estimates and that the next movie will do less business than this one.

[tth2]

GAME OF THRONES (at least what has been covered by the TV series thus far), can barely be categorized as fantasy. It's a medieval soap opera. Very little of the fantastic in it.

Except for the demon being birthed by the priestess, the dragons and the frozen zombies, I agree.

 

In all seriousness, I would say that GOT is more like a political drama dressed up in medieval armor.

[zuckuss2003]

I enjoyed it. Not quite as much as the LOTR movies but well enough. I also appreciated most of the extra scenes the council meeting being the exception, it seemed out of place.

[NewWorldOrder]

The adult in me was impatient and annoyed that it was too fantastic and unbelievable.

 

I didn't feel this way about Lord of the Rings when it was in the theaters. Maybe Game of Thrones has affected my expectations of fantasy movies now.

Because frozen zombies and a priestess birthing a black demon are more realistic?

 

How can you be impatient with The Hobbit and then hold up Game of Thrones as the paradigm? I love Game of Thrones, but "glacial" is the only way to describe it. "Fast-paced" and "action-filled" are not words I would ever use to describe the series.

 

If LOTR and Hobbit were paced the same way as GoT, and Jackson adhered as tightly to the books as GoT does with the books, LOTR would have been 15 3-hour movies.

GAME OF THRONES (at least what has been covered by the TV series thus far), can barely be categorized as fantasy. It's a medieval soap opera. Very little of the fantastic in it.

 

What???? haha

 

Game of Thrones is the best show I have seen maybe ever in my adult life so far, and I am usually not a fan of Medieval fantasy.

 

LOTR is nice set of movies, but lets call it right here. Hobbit and LOTR are pretty much tame little kids movies. Harry Potter was more for adults than these movies.

[batman_fan]

Me and my 10 year old son just got out of the movie. It does start a bit slow and I was concerned my son would get bored but he made it through to the more exciting part. Overall, I would say it was enjoyable to watch and I am looking forward to seeing the next movies.

[paradigmcomics]

I enjoyed it. Not quite as much as the LOTR movies but well enough. I also appreciated most of the extra scenes the council meeting being the exception, it seemed out of place.

 

It is technically, chronologically correct though.

[paradigmcomics]

I was noti impressed with this movie at all.

I had fun, but I felt like I was watching the LotR trilogy again, but as I mentioned in an earlier post it's because the trilogy seems to have been an extended rewrite of the HOBBIT. I know little of the history behind these books, but that's what it seems like to me.

 

Can anyone chime in on this, or did you already when I made my initial comment a few weeks ago?

 

Of all the movies (including those cartoons made by Ralph Bakshi) this Hobbit is probably the most accurate to the book. While there are several, in my opinion, minor difference (like Thorin coming alone to Bilbo's in the movie versus coming with over Dwarves, or Gandalf giving Bilbo Sting versus Bilbo finding and keeping Sting himself), the overall main concept is there and the continuity is correct.

 

The LOTR's have several major differences (Tom Bombadil, Arwen, Elves at Helm's Deep, Saruman's death, etc).

 

[mkman123]

I think the backstory was important and did not think the movie started off slow. Enjoyable movie and a fairly accurate translation of the book (for the most part)

[Norrin_Radd]

Saw it yesterday and loved it. Started reading the book on my phone today (while on the stationary bike). Never read Tolkien before.