The Hobbit [movie adaption] sucks

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by troll05

Why mountain-giants...

Those were in the book, playing in the storm that drives the group into the caves.

[troll05]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

Those were in the book, playing in the storm that drives the group into the caves.

Yes they are, and they get the same half-sentence like Azog, Radergast and the necromancer. This is what I criticize, three side remarks make about half an hour of film

[afv011]

Originally Posted by troll05

Yes they are, and they get the same half-sentence like Azog, Radergast and the necromancer. This is what I criticize, three side remarks make about half an hour of film

Well, if 3 books for LoTR make 3 movies, and 1 book for The Hobbit is supposed to stretch to 3 movies, then they certainly have to milk every scene in the book and then some.

[vivaldirules]

While I appreciate the film, I was more disappointed even than I had expected to be. As many others do, I enjoy the book a lot for what it is and am enamoured with it as a fanciful children's fantasy. The movie certainly wasn't. But just as you can restage a Shakespearean play into a musical about immigrants in New York City and create something beautiful in the process, I accept Jackson's attempt. I sure didn't like the Bilbo character, though. Nor the dwarves.

[victauria]

I, too, am a huge Tolkien fan, re-reading The Hobbit and LoTR every year or so since receiving them as gifts when I was a child. I was a bit snarky about it before seeing the movie -- three movies out of such a small book? inflate much? -- but Jackson gave it much more background and depth than I thought possible.

So, make this another vote for Peter Jackson's vision and accomplishment. I loved the movie; and like desertblues, saw it twice (and will see it again as well as own it when available).

I re-read the book after seeing the movie, something I do anyway every year or so as I said, and I liked much of what the movie did even more than the book. Jackson's Thorin Oakenshield was far, far more interesting and impressive and sympathetic in the movie.

The effects were great, the actors for the most part were marvelous (though I do agree that Christopher Lee was wooden beyond endurance). I could obviously go on….

Maybe the problem was that the original poster saw an "adaption." Clearly, something would be missing in such a thing.

[BenG]

PJ doesn't have the rights to The Silmarillion, so there will be nothing from there. It will be mostly stuff from the LOTR appendices and stuff they make up. They'll show Gandalf's activity after he left the dwarves at Mirkwood, including the White Council and driving the Necromancer from Mirkwood, which all happened off screen in the book.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by troll05

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...

To be fair, mountain giants, the dwarf/elf enmity are the necromancer are all in the book, just not so so explicit.

[troll05]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

To be fair, mountain giants, the dwarf/elf enmity are the necromancer are all in the book, just not so so explicit.

They are and I don't deny it, but they make about one not too long paragraph in the book and about one hour of the film. This mismatch is bothering me

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by troll05

They are and I don't deny it, but they make about one not too long paragraph in the book and about one hour of the film. This mismatch is bothering me

Different elements are always emphasised in books and films - it's a different medium. Take the crossing of the bridge in Khazad-Dum in LOTR. A paragraph in the book; a major "tour de force" in the first LOTR film. There was really nothing that one could point to in the film and say "Tolkien would have objected to that", IMHO.

[DiapDealer]

I enjoyed it for the most part, but I did start feeling the need to check the time after a while. Changes/adaptations I get... different medium and all. But mixing the overall whimsical nature of The Hobbit with the darker tone of Jackson's LOTR movies seemed awkward at times. The altering of some characters' nature was puzzling at best (Thorin: somber and brooding), and I didn't understand the dwarves' appearances: some looked like normal stout humans, while others looked like caricatures that walked out of a Hildebrandt Brothers' illustration. Do dwarves grow up into cartoons? Did anyone else think Dwalin looked like a Klingon, BTW?

Radagast was overly silly and the "white council" was excruciating. Christopher Lee's performance was the most wooden I've ever seen. Did anything other than his lips move?

Anyway, I'm getting picky, as I was entertained for nearly three hours. But judged as an adaptation, or even on its own merits alone; I didn't think it was amazing at all.

[BenG]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

and I didn't understand the dwarves' appearances: some looked like normal stout humans, while others looked like caricatures that walked out of a Hildebrandt Brothers' illustration. Do dwarves grow up into cartoons? Did anyone else think Dwalin looked like a Klingon, BTW?

Plus one dwarf that is obviously meant to be eye candy like Legolas in LOTR.

[Hamlet53]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

I have never read The Hobbit and I am not that much of a Tolkien fan. The Hobbit just opened at my local theater, but unfortunately not in 3-D. I did enjoy the three LOTR films for what they were and any deviation from the book did not bother me because I found a lot in the books silly and tedious anyway. So would The Hobbit be enjoyable taken as a film alone, and not in 3-D?

[HarryT]

For me, definitely. The 3D was merely a bonus. I enjoyed the film for its own sake.

[victauria]

I saw it in both the regular format (not IMAX) and in the 48 FPS HFR 3D. I preferred the regular format, even though I'm usually gung ho for 3D and IMAX and any other techie toys that can be dragged forth. There was something almost video game fake in some of the scenes in the 3D version, enough so that it took me out of the story. I was watching the effects unfold and questioning the gimmick instead of reveling in the beautiful scenery (and BenG's dwarvish eye candy!). Also, the glasses for this one were extremely uncomfortable for me, and rather small (compared to the wonderful ones provided for Avatar).

When the next one comes out, I'll go with the regular format or IMAX, but probably not bother with the 3D.

[David Munch]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

I have never read The Hobbit and I am not that much of a Tolkien fan. The Hobbit just opened at my local theater, but unfortunately not in 3-D. I did enjoy the three LOTR films for what they were and any deviation from the book did not bother me because I found a lot in the books silly and tedious anyway. So would The Hobbit be enjoyable taken as a film alone, and not in 3-D?

Absolutely. The 3D didn't add anything IMO. I only went to see it in 3D to get HFR, which didn't really work for me either.

3D was worth it for Avatar, but not for the Hobbit.