seak’s review of The Hobbit: Or There and Back Again > Likes and Comments

82 likes · 
Comments (showing 1-50 of 60) (60 new)    post a comment »

message 1: by TK421 (new)

TK421 Agreed.


message 2: by Lyndz (new)

Lyndz Couldn't have said it better myself


message 3: by seak (new)

seak Lyndz, you were limited to one word responses. :D

I should probably write an actual review, but this really does work doesn't it. :)


message 4: by Cassy (new)

Cassy Your conciseness will surely be rewarded. I foresee at least 500 votes for this review...


message 5: by Lyndz (new)

Lyndz haha, ok I will try harder next time. :)

I don't think you need to. 'Amazing' sums it up nicely.


message 6: by seak (new)

seak Cassy wrote: "Your conciseness will surely be rewarded. I foresee at least 500 votes for this review..."

I'm surprised at how many likes it's already received. :D


message 7: by seak (new)

seak Lyndz_♥ wrote: "haha, ok I will try harder next time. :)

I don't think you need to. 'Amazing' sums it up nicely."


I think you're right, it can't be changed. I can't wait for the movie, may have to have another reread.


message 8: by Jason (new)

Jason Koivu The Hobbit has been one of my favorites since I saw the 70s cartoon version back when I was about 5 years old, so I've looked forward to the LotR movies as well as this one. I really enjoyed this latest Hobbit movie, but it definitely didn't need to be almost 3 hours long, especially not if there are two more movies to follow. And I while I did get a little irritated when it stretched into Disney/Pixar territory with its silliness, specifically the Radagast scenes, I had to remind myself that Tolkien wrote this as a bedtime story for his children at a time when fantasy didn't go much further beyond fable. So by the second hour I gave in and enjoyed Jackson's version for what it is....and in a few hours I'm going back to see it again but in 3D!


message 9: by David Sven (new)

David Sven I enjoyed the first movie a lot more than the book. Its been a while since I came out of a cinema where the audience applauded at the end. Unless they were just glad it was over - but I liked it.


message 10: by seak (new)

seak Derrick wrote: "Seak-the whole "3 movies" really should have clued people in that it wouldn't follow the book.

Way to write it out :)"


Haha, thanks Derrick.


message 11: by seak (new)

seak Jason wrote: "The Hobbit has been one of my favorites since I saw the 70s cartoon version back when I was about 5 years old, so I've looked forward to the LotR movies as well as this one. I really enjoyed this l..."

You know, I had a hard time with Radagast at first, but then the more they showed him, the more I liked him. I kinda think they made him better now in fact. I only saw it in 3D and I can say it was AMAZING!


message 12: by seak (new)

seak David Sven wrote: "I enjoyed the first movie a lot more than the book. Its been a while since I came out of a cinema where the audience applauded at the end. Unless they were just glad it was over - but I liked it."

Glad to hear. I'm just a bit over the fact that everyone's so disappointed. It's Middle Earth in theaters again and heads are getting chopped off all over the place. What's not to like! :)


message 13: by Sesana (new)

Sesana I've seen it twice, and I still don't have a final verdict. Leaning towards "more awesome than not". Did you see the high frame rate version?


message 14: by Traci (new)

Traci I love this book. I like it better than LotR actually. I just love Bilbo. Read it again before seeing the movie this week. Yesterday actually. And I loved both. Differently. There were small parts of the movie I could have done without. But the rest were perfect. To me. And I thought the casting was wonderful. Bilbo is officially Martin Freeman (Watson) to me. Love or hate it though. Or between. One thing watchers are not thinking of. Or maybe they are. But Old-Bilbo is writing the story down for Frodo. That's why it's different from LotR. I do worry about the 3 movie thing. But if they're this good? Bring them.
The only bad? Waiting.


message 15: by Forrest (new)

Forrest My sentiments exactly. I hint at this in a roundabout way in a recent blog post.


message 16: by seak (new)

seak Sesana wrote: "I've seen it twice, and I still don't have a final verdict. Leaning towards "more awesome than not". Did you see the high frame rate version?"

Yes, I saw the high frame and in 3D and it was glorious! I'm glad your leaning the correct way on this one. :)


message 17: by seak (new)

seak Traci wrote: "I love this book. I like it better than LotR actually. I just love Bilbo. Read it again before seeing the movie this week. Yesterday actually. And I loved both. Differently. There were small parts ..."

Yes and yes. I'd just be repeating if I said more. :)


Daniel (Attack of the Books!) Burton I went to see it for the second time last night, worried that the initial impact would wear off the veneer. It didn't. The movie expands on the book, but Jackson makes a good accounting of Tolkien's work. I loved it, and like you, I often found myself grinning from ear to ear.


message 19: by seak (new)

seak Daniel wrote: "I went to see it for the second time last night, worried that the initial impact would wear off the veneer. It didn't. The movie expands on the book, but Jackson makes a good accounting of Tolkien'..."

That's so good to hear. I can't wait to own it...and then never watch it or only watch it in 10 minute chunks when the twins finally go down for a nap. :D


message 20: by Rick (new)

Rick Fisher To me, this book isn't about the Hobbit, but about the dwarves. They have always been my favorite characters. So, I knew going in, if they weren't right, then I wouldn't like the movie. I friggin loved the movie. The dwarven characters were awesome, especially Thorin Oakenshield and the twins, Fili and Kili.
I was not surprised Mr Jackson decided to turn this great novel into two movies. But, was slightly taken aback trying to figure from which orifice he would pull all the additional info to carry this into three movies. After watching movie one, I anxiously await 2 and 3. Mr Jackson can gladly pull from whatever orifice he would like as long as he continues to honor this work and do it so marvelously.


message 21: by seak (new)

seak Rick wrote: "To me, this book isn't about the Hobbit, but about the dwarves. They have always been my favorite characters. So, I knew going in, if they weren't right, then I wouldn't like the movie. I friggi..."

Jackson has so many great orifices, I'm looking forward to seeing from all of them. :D


Daniel (Attack of the Books!) Burton Rick wrote: "To me, this book isn't about the Hobbit, but about the dwarves. They have always been my favorite characters. So, I knew going in, if they weren't right, then I wouldn't like the movie. I friggi..."

True story, Rick. Jackson's done a great job in turning more attention to developing and displaying the dwarves, something often overlooked in reading Tolkien.


message 23: by Traci (new)

Traci Rick wrote: "To me, this book isn't about the Hobbit, but about the dwarves. They have always been my favorite characters. So, I knew going in, if they weren't right, then I wouldn't like the movie. I friggi..."

For me it was different. The book has always been about Bilbo front and center and the dwarves sort of in the back. A little overlooked. The movie I loved the dwarves! I had heard going into the movie that Jackson added a lot of unneeded humor. And of course I knew the book also has its moments. So I was a little nervous. But I thought how Jackson handled the dwarves was awesome. The humor was there sure. But he gave them honor and pride too. Not just greed and stubborness. And I actually enjoyed Richard Armitage's Thorin more than Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn. (Not to mention as a female viewer, he was very easy on the eyes...don't think I have ever said that about a dwarf. Lol.)


message 24: by [Name Redacted] (new)

[Name Redacted] I was under the impression that the third film was actually a studio executive's decision, rather than his own.

Also DWARVES FOREVER!


message 25: by seak (new)

seak I have always been with Traci, the focus being on Bilbo, but I really enjoyed the focus on the dwarves in this movie. I have to say, Gimli is probably one of the best, if not THE best, character in the Lord of the Rings and I completely support this emphasis.

Especially those first few scenes in the movie, the dwarven halls beneath the mountain, even the king's beard - for some reason that really stuck with me. Loved it from the beginning.


message 26: by Rick (new)

Rick Fisher Seak (Bryce L.) wrote: "I have always been with Traci, the focus being on Bilbo, but I really enjoyed the focus on the dwarves in this movie. I have to say, Gimli is probably one of the best, if not THE best, character in..."

The beginning set the pace, for sure. It was magical. Everything epitomized the granduer under the mountain. And, the greed which became their biggest enemy. Before Smaug, of course.
And, Gimli is awesome. I agree.


message 27: by Rick (new)

Rick Fisher Traci wrote: "Rick wrote: "To me, this book isn't about the Hobbit, but about the dwarves. They have always been my favorite characters. So, I knew going in, if they weren't right, then I wouldn't like the mov..."

And as a male viewer, with a penchant for hairy men, lol, I found Thorin to be smoking hot, as well.


message 28: by seak (new)

seak Rick wrote: "And as a male viewer, with a penchant for hairy men, lol, I found Thorin to be smoking hot, as well."

I was quite amazed at that in fact, I just really hope they show some Dwarf women at some point.


message 29: by Rick (new)

Rick Fisher Seak (Bryce L.) wrote: "Rick wrote: "And as a male viewer, with a penchant for hairy men, lol, I found Thorin to be smoking hot, as well."

I was quite amazed at that in fact, I just really hope they show some Dwarf women..."


Well, bud, for your sake, I hope they aren't as hairy as their male counterparts...lol...bet they could swing a mean hammer, though


message 30: by Traci (new)

Traci How do you know you haven't seen dwarven women folk...? Lol.


message 31: by seak (new)

seak Ah good point.


message 32: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan I have to agree with you on this one Seak. Loved the movie, thought it was one of the best of the year!


message 33: by Matt (new)

Matt "The Hobbit delivers with orc-slaying, adventure-having, rock-throwing, breath-taking goodness. What's wrong with that?"

Everything. The movies reveal not only that Peter Jackson hates Tolkien's works, but that he knows he hates Tolkien's works and wishes to do violence to them and make immitations of them in corrupted mockery of the real thing. It's not that there are changes and deviations here and there, it's that the particular changes and deviations under taken by the writer have a coherent theme and a purpose and it is a coherent theme and purpose which stands in opposition to that of the books.


message 34: by seak (last edited Jan 03, 2013 05:00PM) (new)

seak I don't know, I think "hates" is quite the extrapolation. I've read LotR and The Hobbit twice each (not nearly as many as some I realize) and The Silmarillion and I thought it fit fine with the general feeling and world. Really, it's just The Hobbit made more in the style of Lord of the Rings.

Plus, from what I've watched of all the extras from The Lord of the Rings movies I get the feeling that Jackson really really loves this stuff and I don't know why so many people jump to the fact that he's spitting in fans' faces or something. I just never knew that giving fans more time in a world they love was such a bad thing.


message 35: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Seak (Bryce L.) wrote: "I don't know, I think "hates" is quite the extrapolation. I've read LotR and The Hobbit twice each (not nearly as many as some I realize) and The Silmarillion and I thought it fit fine with the gen..."

I agree. I've read The Hobbit about 5 to 10 times (three times in the last 5 years and however many as a kid) and The Lord of the Rings 4 times at least. I've never thought that the movies 'destroyed' the elements of Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit that were in there. They just emphasised the action elements already in the books. Really, if we were to turn the books into what Tolkien was after we'd end up with a linguistics movie set in Middle Earth :p


message 36: by seak (new)

seak Which just sounds riveting! Haha! :D


message 38: by seak (new)

seak Jonathan wrote: "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen..."

Amazing article. He even makes a compelling article with source material. My knowledge of middle earth is limited to what I mentioned above.


message 39: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan I definitely agreed with the argument. Strong one indeed!


message 40: by Ken (new)

Ken Gould I couldn't disagree more. It's not just about expectations. There really was no reason to alter it this greatly, first of all. The story Jackson adds is irrelevant and Tolkien only included in LOTR appendices for good reason. Jackson only extended it to make money; otherwise, much of the storyline had no purpose (including Galadriel - whom they just added for star power - and Radagast - who just detracted from the main story). Not knowing the greater story was part of the original magic. Great story telling involves leaving out more than it does piling on. Less is more as a matter of principle, and Jackson just adds irrelevant material. Worse, I at no time actually thought the Dwarves were in jeopardy, which means I could care less about the outcome. Of course, the main characters would live (I've read the book) but an audience HAS to believe its possible someone could die. Jackson uses CGI (eye candy) so much it defies the laws of physics! Middle Earth may have some magic to it, but Tolkien was restrained in his use of supernatural elements; the Dwarves were subject to the same laws of physics as the rest of us. They can't drift from rock to rock or Goblin-made bridge, whatever it was, as the mountain falls apart around them without even a scrape on them! It's more than stupid. It's insulting, particularly to Tolkien himself. It was made for a 14 year old who likes visuals more than story. Typical Hollywood garbage that crowds out story in favor of special effects. There are movies (very rare these days) that manage to give story AND special effects in the proper balance. This is not one of those.


message 41: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Ken wrote: "I couldn't disagree more. It's not just about expectations. There really was no reason to alter it this greatly, first of all. The story Jackson adds is irrelevant and Tolkien only included in LOTR..."

I do agree that there was a lot of visuals but I disagree on the story aspects you mention. This was a childhood book for me and coming back I recognise that one of the major flaws was its overall disconnect from the bigger story. Tolkien himself edited The Hobbit to fit into Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion, leaving hints which fed into that story. I just see Jackson as doing that. I respect anyone who disagrees and doesn't see balance but I did. Anything which was added was from within the world of Lord of the Rings itself so it's not destroying the logic of the world but I thought it actually strengthened (or at least attempted to) the flaws. I will say that they really haven't done a lot to fix the lack of females but I'm thinking the flaws will be resolved in the overall 'trilogy'.


message 42: by Ken (new)

Ken Gould I believe those weren't flaws in the original book but part of it. The reader was only told as much as needed for the main narrative of the book and nothing more. Once the reader gets to LOTR he or she needs a larger story and now is told the significance of the ring and not before. Even LOTR wasn't large enough to tell the entire story, so appendices were included. The Silmarillion was actually written first but was initially refused publication because it was too dark; I'm sure it was eventually edited to make room for new material from the Hobbit and LOTR. I'm willing to accept some sort of larger story to fit it into the LOTR universe. But the problem is Jackson does it very ineptly. A story should flow and be consistent and this one doesn't. It jumps from point to point haphazardly, jarring the reader out of one storyline, jamming him into another and then back again without so much as a how-do-you-do. It's like bad sex. Jackson (and the studio) knew it would make a bunch of money so very little effort was put into this screenplay. Jackson should go back to making movies like Heavenly Creatures. It suffers from the exact same problems as Episodes I, II and III of the Star Wars saga, horrible storytelling and a reliance on special effects to wow the audience. But then again, George Lucas isn't bad company, I suppose.


message 43: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Well personally I did feel for the most part that it did flow, although I recognise a lack of consistency. I say flaws for the original book because Tolkien himself changed those aspects in the end. When an author changes something, in my eyes its usually because they see an error or something that needs fixing. Either way I certainly rate this much better than The Phantom Menace.


message 44: by Ken (new)

Ken Gould Jonathan wrote: "Well personally I did feel for the most part that it did flow, although I recognise a lack of consistency. I say flaws for the original book because Tolkien himself changed those aspects in the end..."

My personal gripe with Jackson is that, as a director, he's fallen into a rut that started a little with LOTR but really kicked in with King Kong. A little too much in love with CGI without acknowledging its limitations. I was disappointed in the Fellowship when it first came out, but upgraded my opinion when I bought the Director's Cut, which added material, enhancing my experience. And the films got better each time, for me. I hope the Hobbit movies do the same but I'm not holding my breath. I just take any chance I can get to gripe about CGI. Robert Redford said Star Wars (a great movie, btw) was the death of storytelling and he was right. Special effects has officially taken over the narrative.


message 45: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Ah, I see, I have no issue with CGI when there's stories as well. I in fact love lots of CGI when it's used well and thought it was fine in The Hobbit. I don't really see why a lot of people have always thought VFX is cheating (as they said for the original Tron, denying it an oscar for that reason). But when something feels too glassy or rather glossy, like it's using VFX as a screen (think Transformers) I'll enjoy it but not like it. I still caught the warmth from this and liked it a lot more than King Kong. Jackson tried turning a simple, non-epic into a real epic.


message 46: by Christine (new)

Christine Marie Peter Jackson hahah


message 47: by Yashi (new)

Yashi Yeah. True. The book is amazing and so was the first movie.. waiting for the rest of them..


message 48: by Colonelomaha (new)

Colonelomaha The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey I believe is my favorite movie out of all that I have seen!!!!!


message 49: by Cassandra (new)

Cassandra I would even dare to say that the movie is better. There's more adventure and intrigue, though I'm sad the Wargs and Eagles don't get their characters. (The first one, with regard to the first part of the book that it covers)


message 50: by Ava (new)

Ava Dohn Thanks. After the altered endingin the Return of the King, my expectations for the Hobbit were smaller too. But previously having only seen the 70's cartoon of the Hobbit I'm still awaiting great things.I


« previous 1
back to top