The Hobbit [movie adaption] sucks

lorenzoens · 01-15-2013, 02:33 AM

PJ's The Hobbit is not only a slaughter of the original, nice fairy tale. But it's a plain ugly film.

There are many who listed all the ridicuolus choices by PJ. Let's just recall some:

Dwarves with mascara and hair like YuGiOh. They fall from frightening heights without a scar.

Bilbo turned into a cynic and fearless warrior since the first moment.

Azog in an absurd role (also, he looks like Naavis), with huge scars that are perfeclty symmetric, as if received to look better:

The company in the Goblins' tunnels remind me of Indiana Jones.

A stoned Radagast with his slender in the (impenetrable) Mirkwood

The epic? Where's the epic?

So on and on. The film is not completely disgusting, but it's just an excuse to make money. Til now.

troll05 · 01-15-2013, 04:44 AM

+1 for this.
In the same way the" Lord of the rings" was great this one is disgusting. Alone the fact that a relative small book is blown up to three overlength films shows its only made for money

HarryT · 01-15-2013, 05:23 AM

To offer a contrary viewpoint, I saw it on Saturday and thought it was excellent. Certainly it's not exactly like the book, but I thought that the changes that were made were well done. I very much enjoyed it, and I say that as a big Tolkien fan.

David Munch · 01-15-2013, 05:54 AM

While i thought it was a good movie, I wasn't blown away as with LotR. I didn't mind the deviations from the book, but the action part at the end was too long.

Christopher Lee really showed his age. It was horrible acting IMO. Loved all the dwarfes though, especially the makeup! Would have liked to see more of it on Thorin though.

I dont get why people expect an epic though. The Hobbit was never about saving the world, but merely about a hobbits adventure with some dwarfs.

rhadin · 01-15-2013, 07:21 AM

Here's another vote for a very mediocre movie. My son and I saw it a few weeks ago and agreed that we would not waste money on the next instalments. I thought Martin Freeman was excellent and would have made a better choice than Elijah Wood as Frodo in the LOTR movies. But overall, I think the movie is a waste of time and money.

desertblues · 01-15-2013, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

To offer a contrary viewpoint, I saw it on Saturday and thought it was excellent. Certainly it's not exactly like the book, but I thought that the changes that were made were well done. I very much enjoyed it, and I say that as a big Tolkien fan.

I saw it twice and loved it both times very much.

But I am a Tolkien fan; took the Lord of the Rings book with me each holiday, long before it was a film.

pdurrant · 01-15-2013, 07:38 AM

I thought it was OK. As in the LoTR films, the bits I disliked the most were ones that changed the character of some of the characters, if you see what I mean.

I did feel that Radagast in the film was much more Terry Pratchett than J R R Tolkien.

I suspect that a decent film could be spliced together from the two (or is it three?) final films, with a bit of CGI to plaster over the cracks.

David Munch · 01-15-2013, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I suspect that a decent film could be spliced together from the two (or is it three?) final films, with a bit of CGI to plaster over the cracks.

Three. The last one will be based primarily on the Silmarillon as far as I know, and bridge the gap to LotR..

Oh, I forgot to mention that I was let down by the soundtrack, which is what I looked forward to the most - It wasn't very interesting, and mostly a recap of the LotR ones.

HarryT · 01-15-2013, 08:14 AM

I should add that it's also the first 3D film I've ever seen (yes, I know I'm behind the times

), and I was blown away by how good the 3D was.

steven522 · 01-15-2013, 08:51 AM

Place me on the side of enjoying The Hobbit. But I also have a viewpoint of the LotR series as being way to much emphasis on random action and not much on anything else. I felt "Hobbit" was much better in blending character development with adventure into the story.
The "tacked on" parts were tolerable as a bridge to blend this series with LotR, but I would have preferred a straight-up rendition of the original. And, yes I can see many "fan edits" being released in a couple of years that take all three Hobbit movies and creates a version closer to the book.

wodin · 01-15-2013, 12:45 PM

I haven't seen it yet, tho' I'm a JRRT fan.

I'd dearly like to see this thread turned into a poll. Perhaps five stars; from reading the posts, I'e expect to see most votes fall out as either two stars or four stars.

widuvarg · 01-15-2013, 03:30 PM

I didn't have anyone around to see it in cinema, so instead I watched the leaked dvd. Perhaps the absent ambiance of the cinema made the experience rather disappointing, but it didn't blow my mind. It wasn't a pain to watch, and I enjoyed it, but somehow I expected more of it. I like Martin Freeman, I enjoyed watching him in The Office UK and in Sherlock, and he makes a good Hobbit.

As said before, the dwarves are too gimmicky, and not looking like proper dwarves. Gimli looked much better, a wild growing beard and non-shining armour. The dwarves in The Hobbit look like all they do is visit the hairstylist and compete in the World Beard and Moustache Championship. Dwarves wear beards because they don't care about other's opinions, and not as a fasion item.

I'll watch it again soon, and perhaps I'll learn to appreciate it.

PeterT · 01-15-2013, 03:35 PM

I've always taken the view that a film is totally distinct from the original book; that the two are works to be judged and enjoyed independently of each other.

afv011 · 01-15-2013, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

To offer a contrary viewpoint, I saw it on Saturday and thought it was excellent. Certainly it's not exactly like the book, but I thought that the changes that were made were well done. I very much enjoyed it, and I say that as a big Tolkien fan.

My sentiments as well. Though almost 3 hours in length, I was surprised when I reached the end of the film as it felt much shorter than that, things kept moving along at a good pace.

troll05 · 01-15-2013, 05:46 PM

Please don't misunderstand me, the film itself is quite entertaining popcorn-cinema, but I had expected more of PJ by judging the LOTR films.
Why all this unnecessary deviations from the plot? Why mountain-giants, a stoned Radergast, Azog, necromancer, the enmity of dwarfs and elves (I'd say it's mutual dislike at best), Moria???
OK, some of this is fine to liven things up, but he put way to much emphasis on action and far too less on the story itself, and he could have made a movie of about the same length without being boring by just sticking to the book...

01-15-2013, 02:33 AM	#1
lorenzoens ex se ens Posts: 348 Karma: 1020253 Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Italy Device: enTourage edge & Pocket, Sony T1, Galaxy Note I, ex many others	The Hobbit [movie adaption] sucks PJ's The Hobbit is not only a slaughter of the original, nice fairy tale. But it's a plain ugly film. There are many who listed all the ridicuolus choices by PJ. Let's just recall some: Dwarves with mascara and hair like YuGiOh. They fall from frightening heights without a scar. Bilbo turned into a cynic and fearless warrior since the first moment. Azog in an absurd role (also, he looks like Naavis), with huge scars that are perfeclty symmetric, as if received to look better: The company in the Goblins' tunnels remind me of Indiana Jones. A stoned Radagast with his slender in the (impenetrable) Mirkwood The epic? Where's the epic? So on and on. The film is not completely disgusting, but it's just an excuse to make money. Til now.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Hobbit - movie to be done by Del Toro!	TadW	Lounge	19	02-27-2008 11:18 AM

01-15-2013, 04:44 AM	#2
troll05 Harmless idiot Posts: 3,411 Karma: 2154829 Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Zuhause Device: PB622, Nexus7, Sony PRS 350, Tolino und nur noch wenig toter Baum:(	+1 for this. In the same way the" Lord of the rings" was great this one is disgusting. Alone the fact that a relative small book is blown up to three overlength films shows its only made for money

01-15-2013, 05:23 AM	#3
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383043 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	To offer a contrary viewpoint, I saw it on Saturday and thought it was excellent. Certainly it's not exactly like the book, but I thought that the changes that were made were well done. I very much enjoyed it, and I say that as a big Tolkien fan.

01-15-2013, 05:54 AM	#4
David Munch Scholar Posts: 1,008 Karma: 3999312 Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Denmark Device: Kobo Libra H2O + iPad Air 4	While i thought it was a good movie, I wasn't blown away as with LotR. I didn't mind the deviations from the book, but the action part at the end was too long. Christopher Lee really showed his age. It was horrible acting IMO. Loved all the dwarfes though, especially the makeup! Would have liked to see more of it on Thorin though. I dont get why people expect an epic though. The Hobbit was never about saving the world, but merely about a hobbits adventure with some dwarfs.

01-15-2013, 07:21 AM	#5
rhadin Literacy = Understanding Posts: 4,833 Karma: 59674358 Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: The World of Books Device: Nook, Nook Tablet	Here's another vote for a very mediocre movie. My son and I saw it a few weeks ago and agreed that we would not waste money on the next instalments. I thought Martin Freeman was excellent and would have made a better choice than Elijah Wood as Frodo in the LOTR movies. But overall, I think the movie is a waste of time and money.

01-15-2013, 07:38 AM	#7
pdurrant The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠 Posts: 71,495 Karma: 306214458 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Norfolk, England Device: Kindle Voyage	I thought it was OK. As in the LoTR films, the bits I disliked the most were ones that changed the character of some of the characters, if you see what I mean. I did feel that Radagast in the film was much more Terry Pratchett than J R R Tolkien. I suspect that a decent film could be spliced together from the two (or is it three?) final films, with a bit of CGI to plaster over the cracks.

01-15-2013, 08:14 AM	#9
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383043 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	I should add that it's also the first 3D film I've ever seen (yes, I know I'm behind the times ), and I was blown away by how good the 3D was.

01-15-2013, 08:51 AM	#10
steven522 binomial: homo legentem Posts: 1,061 Karma: 25222222 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Alabama, USA Device: iriver Story HD; Archos 80 G9	Place me on the side of enjoying The Hobbit. But I also have a viewpoint of the LotR series as being way to much emphasis on random action and not much on anything else. I felt "Hobbit" was much better in blending character development with adventure into the story. The "tacked on" parts were tolerable as a bridge to blend this series with LotR, but I would have preferred a straight-up rendition of the original. And, yes I can see many "fan edits" being released in a couple of years that take all three Hobbit movies and creates a version closer to the book.

01-15-2013, 12:45 PM	#11
wodin Illiterate Posts: 10,279 Karma: 37848716 Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: The Sandwich Isles Device: Samsung Galaxy S10+, Microsoft Surface Pro	I haven't seen it yet, tho' I'm a JRRT fan. I'd dearly like to see this thread turned into a poll. Perhaps five stars; from reading the posts, I'e expect to see most votes fall out as either two stars or four stars.

01-15-2013, 03:30 PM	#12
widuvarg Junior Member Posts: 6 Karma: 10 Join Date: Jan 2013 Device: Sony PRS-650	I didn't have anyone around to see it in cinema, so instead I watched the leaked dvd. Perhaps the absent ambiance of the cinema made the experience rather disappointing, but it didn't blow my mind. It wasn't a pain to watch, and I enjoyed it, but somehow I expected more of it. I like Martin Freeman, I enjoyed watching him in The Office UK and in Sherlock, and he makes a good Hobbit. As said before, the dwarves are too gimmicky, and not looking like proper dwarves. Gimli looked much better, a wild growing beard and non-shining armour. The dwarves in The Hobbit look like all they do is visit the hairstylist and compete in the World Beard and Moustache Championship. Dwarves wear beards because they don't care about other's opinions, and not as a fasion item. I'll watch it again soon, and perhaps I'll learn to appreciate it.

01-15-2013, 03:35 PM	#13
PeterT Grand Sorcerer Posts: 12,157 Karma: 73448616 Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Toronto Device: Nexus 7, Clara, Touch, Tolino EPOS	I've always taken the view that a film is totally distinct from the original book; that the two are works to be judged and enjoyed independently of each other.

Advert

Advert

01-15-2013, 05:46 PM	#15
troll05 Harmless idiot Posts: 3,411 Karma: 2154829 Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Zuhause Device: PB622, Nexus7, Sony PRS 350, Tolino und nur noch wenig toter Baum:(	Please don't misunderstand me, the film itself is quite entertaining popcorn-cinema, but I had expected more of PJ by judging the LOTR films. Why all this unnecessary deviations from the plot? Why mountain-giants, a stoned Radergast, Azog, necromancer, the enmity of dwarfs and elves (I'd say it's mutual dislike at best), Moria??? OK, some of this is fine to liven things up, but he put way to much emphasis on action and far too less on the story itself, and he could have made a movie of about the same length without being boring by just sticking to the book...