The Hobbit (Middle-Earth Universe) The Hobbit discussion


1101 views
Reaction to the movie?

Comments (showing 1-50 of 240) (240 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4 5

message 1: by Stephanie (last edited Jan 08, 2013 12:06PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Stephanie Pangan How did you guys feel about the added portions and the ending of the movie?

Maybe it was mentioned in interviews or something, but I didn't know the film was going to be split into more than just one movie! At the ending I thought, "um....WHAT?!?" So, it was a bit of a love/hate reaction for me. I loved the fight scenes and SOME of the added stories.. But some parts, I feel, were over-extended 'cause I wanted to enjoy the story as a whole.


Crystal It had been some time since I'd read it so much of it was kind of "Oh! Yeah!". I did have questions about Azog so dug out ROTK. I'm still mystified on his inclusion. His son was the one who appeared in the book. Why did they feel the need to resurrect an orc corpse? Just expand on the son's presence. Maybe they forgot that. Dunno.

I did reread the book after I looked up the bit in the Appendix and... I came to the conclusion that most of the dwarves were written as generally unlikable. As in, why would I care if they got their home back, unlikable.

I also noted that the White Counsel meeting and Radagast managed to introduce a timeline error - they acted as if the necromancer was a new development but... Thrain was found by Gandalf after he'd blundered into the necromancer's clutches - that's how Gandalf came about the key and the map. Continuity/timeline/characterization errors bother me more than additions/subtractions (at least when the new characterization behaves in a non-heroic manner)


Trine I was aware that the book would be split into 3 films from the beginning, which I thought was a bit too much. I mean the book isn't THAT long, but I guess it's because they used so much extra material.

I was quite satisfied with the movie though. I thought it had all the most important elements, and there was a lot that was shown that is not in the book. However, I think anyone who expect it to be in the same style as LOTR would be disappointed. I've read several people who wrote that The Hobbit was "disneyfied". I guess I can understand that, because in my opinion The Hobbit was much brighter and funnier than LOTR. As it should be!

The Hobbit has always been much more like a childrens fairytale to me, with dwarves slaying a dragon, and a magic golden ring! Whereas The Lord of The Rings trilogy just seems much darker, and somehow more for an adult readership. So I think The Hobbit was actually really well made, though there are also parts that I don't think where really necessary.


Cátia Susana  Silva Loved it, altough I wasn't expecting more than one movie in the first place. I have read the book a long time ago, so I can't actually say much about "Continuity/timeline/characterization errors", but liked the fact that Peter Jackson had added Bilbo birthday party (those ones that we didn't see in the LOTR), I guess it might have helped non-readers to understand the connection between the Hobbit and the LOTR . (I'me so sorry for any grammar error).


message 5: by johanna d.m. (last edited Jan 08, 2013 12:34PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

johanna d.m. Loved it. Bilbo was excellent. Gollum was brilliant. Although there were quite a few changes in order, plot, characters and other details, I saw it as Peter Jackson's interpretation of the book. Excellent.
Reaction? I wanted to walk right back in there and watch it again!


Crystal Just to clarify, I didn't have any problems with the characterizations in The Hobbit. I did have some issues with character assassination in LOTR.

It WAS a kid's book. Initially, that was the intent with LOTR, but as he began writing it, it drifted darker. At some point, he gave up trying to change direction and went with it (there are a lot of restarts in the histories but relatively few differences later in the story).

I find it amusing though that people complain that it seems childish or... It's like their memory has elevated it to something far loftier than Tolkien ever intended.


message 7: by Andreas (last edited Jan 09, 2013 03:15AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Andreas I really liked the movie. It was really great. But it was a horrible adaptation of the book. I mean they got nothing right. The characters behave differently and the story and atmosphere have almost nothing in common with the book. I wonder why so many people don't see that or don't acknowledge that. It's still a great movie even though it's a horrible adaptation.
And I didn't like Martin Freeman as Bilbo. He can't act. In the riddle scene where in the book Bilbo feared for his life, but in the movie he just seemed mildly annoyed by the thought of being eaten if he gets an answer wrong.


Cátia Susana  Silva ງດໂາຊກກຊ ღ♣✽Hᴏʙʙɪᴛ ᴀɴᴅ Pʀᴏᴜᴅ✽♣ღ wrote: "Loved it. Bilbo was excellent. Gollum was brilliant. Although there were quite a few changes in order, plot, characters and other details, I saw it as Peter Jackson's interpretation of the book. Ex..."

I thought that too! Excelent actors!


Cátia Susana  Silva Andreas wrote: "I really liked the movie. It was really great. But it was a horrible adaptation of the book. I mean they got nothing right. The characters behave differently and the story and atmosphere have almos..."

It's all a matter of interpretation! But I can understand your point of view. Every reader reads the book differently anyway.


Carina I thought the film was true to the feel of the Hobbit - it was definitely more of a 'fun' book than the LOTR ones and that is what came across in the film.

I was a bit concerned about how much they included in it - but realised after that this was only 6 chapters of the book so I *think* the next two will be okay.

As for characterisation I cannot really comment as it has been years since I read the book but I thought it was okay - it all seemed pretty natural anyways!


Crystal My daughter and I had a long-winded discussion about this last night and we came to the conclusion that *as written*, the only characters in The Hobbit that we *didn't* find variously irritating and/or annoying were Gandalf and Elrond.

So if you're looking for ME to complain about the characterizations in The Hobbit - the movie, you'll likely grow quite ancient.

What can I say? Having raised a brood, and put up with them through the teenage years, I have a low tolerance for complaining and whining. Sadly, that seems to be all the dwarves were capable of, since they apparently lacked any sense of self preservation.


message 12: by Rob (last edited Jan 09, 2013 10:04AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Rob The book is a charming and tasteful fairy tale for children. I look forward to reading it aloud to my kids.

The movie is an overwrought and undisciplined Hollywood action film. For all the subtlety it demonstrated, it could have been directed by Michael Bay. Somebody needs to tell Peter Jackson that sometimes more-more-more-more! isn't more. I actually dozed off in a couple of the overlong, overly explicit action scenes.


Naiya It was much better than I expected, but I will qualify that my expectations were very low after I heard that the slim volume of the Hobbit was being stretched into three books. That and the LotR movies (and books) bored me silly.

Except for a few too-long action scenes (those poor trolls, and ye gods, enough with the goblin chase already), I was surprised at how well paced the Unexpected Journey was. It was nicely interspersed with flashes of humor and drama, and it really didn't feel like an agony of two hours and forty eight minutes when the movie was over (unlike the LotR).

It wasn't Hobbit-the-kids'-book, and it wasn't LotR-the-boring-trilogy. It was a kind of marriage and compromise of the two. I'm not surprised there's some polarization in the fandom, but as someone who just casually remembers (and likes) the original Hobbit, it was worth the watch and kinda fun.

Oh, and pretty (I saw it in Imax 3D. 3D eye candy mollifies me, no matter what the movie).


Edward I loved the book and greatly enjoyed the movie. I liked the extra stories (I didn't remember the Brown wizard from the book).

Let face it, this will be the last of the movies. Enjoy them while you can.

I am going to add the Silmarillion to my reading list.


Lizzie For me, more Middle Earth is always better and I trust Peter Jackson with it.
I loved the movie, thought Martin Freeman was spot on.
I've seen it twice already and am going back again.
I also loved Sir Guy of Gisborne as Thorin, we very much enjoyed him in BBC's Robin Hood and I can't get enough of Gandalf, ever.
As a Whovian I also very much enjoyed Sylvester McCoy's Radagast.


message 16: by John (new) - rated it 5 stars

John I enjoyed the movie a great deal, and while I knew it was going to be three films, I wasn't so sure about it. Two films I can easily see, but three seems like it's going to be stretching it.

As for this movie, I think there was only one thing that got under my skin, Radagast. I guess they intended him to be the comic relief, but that rubbed me the wrong way {much like I didn't like the treatment of Gimli in the second two LOTR movies}. I understand the desire to have a lighter character, and when the source material doesn't supply one, someone will inevitably disagree with your decision of who it should be.


Isaac Andreas wrote: "I really liked the movie. It was really great. But it was a horrible adaptation of the book. I mean they got nothing right. The characters behave differently and the story and atmosphere have almos..."

In his defense, Freeman has won a BAFTA and a Rose D'or for his work. He can act. The point is that he can't act to a style that suits your preferences.


Richard Sutton Best Middle Earth film, so far. Amazing 3D, too! Serkis has outdone himself again! I'd see it again in a heartbeat. Much, much truer to Tolkien's writing than the LOTR movies.


Danielle ງດໂາຊກກຊ ღ♣✽Hᴏʙʙɪᴛ ᴀɴᴅ Pʀᴏᴜᴅ✽♣ღ wrote: "Loved it. Bilbo was excellent. Gollum was brilliant. Although there were quite a few changes in order, plot, characters and other details, I saw it as Peter Jackson's interpretation of the book. Ex..."

I've seen the movie to many times by now, so yeah, i know the feeling ;p lovedddddd(L) the movie

loved the movie, but i would really like say to everybody; the movie is "The Hobbit" by Peter Jackson. so ofcourse the movie is going to be different from the book because.. well.. it's Peter Jackson.


message 20: by johanna d.m. (last edited Jan 10, 2013 02:14PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

johanna d.m. Isaac wrote: "Andreas wrote: "I really liked the movie. It was really great. But it was a horrible adaptation of the book. I mean they got nothing right. The characters behave differently and the story and atmos..."

Someone dared to say the actors were no good?! :OOO Bilbo was brilliant! So was everyone else! D:

@Danielle: Exactly. Peter Jackson, not J.R.R Tolkien. Everyone has a different way of telling a story. Wouldn't it be boring if we were all the same?


Samantha D I wasn't a huge fan of the movie, despite good acting (Bilbo) and the scene with Gollum. They added so much extra stuff just to stuff the movie. And the first half dragged on, unlike the book.


message 22: by Lynx (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lynx I LOVED IT!!!!!!!!


Crystal So I took my offspring to see it again. We elected to go to this small, somewhat run-down local theater rather than Tinseltown because the viewing times were more favorable. We were the only party there so it was like a private viewing. Heh. Daughter and I decided we like that, particularly when seeing a movie a second (or in my case, third) time. We could discuss things without worry of annoying another viewer (my other kids don't count :D).

I came to a conclusion, I really don't like those sweeping visuals Jackson likes to do. I get that he's attempting to impress upon me that this is a very expansive and majestic place (or just expansive in the case of the goblin cave) but I'm unable to focus on anything and thus end up disoriented and looking away. He does this with fight scenes at times too.

Took me until now to realize he reused the score used at Weathertop. I knew that tune sounded familiar but couldn't place it. What an odd choice though.

Thorin needs to take lessons from Eowen on how to deal with quadrupeds that are considerably larger than you, though.

Why does Azog sound like Jabba the Hutt?


Lauren Stoolfire Nothing but love!


Nekroskop Great movie, even though poor Radagast was a bit too crazy for me. Why does he have to have birdshit in his face? And even though I liked his rabbit-sled, that must have been the worst "I distract the enemies" scene I've ever encountered. He led the goblins directly into the direction of the dwarfs! 3 times in a row!

I love how they differentiated all the dwarfs, through the strong visuals even the ones without real speaking roles stand out visibly as different. I can even accept Obelix-Bombur. That is even sadly true to the book, as he is nothing but a fat joke in there too.

The physics defying chases... I mean that really got hard to believe. The chase was more ridiculous than pirates of the Carribean.

I love me some Thorin. His scene when he walks back towards Azog, or just his silent reminiscing while his backstory is told. That guy oozes Charisma.

And as an old Warhammer Afficionado, the starting scene with an Iro-sporting hardcore dwarfen warrior had me squeeing. A life action Trollslayer, just great.

The rest has already been said - the only bad thing about the Gollum/Bilbo scene is that these guys won't meet again.

A final gripe - why does he have to force some call backs to LOTR. I was especially annoyed by Elronds Riders doing the exact same "we circle the strangers threateningly" as Eomer did when he met the fellowship. Only Eomer had a reason - he was in wild country. Why does Elrond actively annoy some obvious guests of his house? Bit strange that, and as I saidwhy the useless repetition?

Anyway, TL;DR Great movie!


Carina Nekroskop wrote: "Great movie, even though poor Radagast was a bit too crazy for me. Why does he have to have birdshit in his face? And even though I liked his rabbit-sled, that must have been the worst "I distract ..."

Richard Armitage is a great actor, I didn't think Thorin was his best role but as you say he does very very well.

I never got the circling thing as a call back to Eomer in Two Towers - thinking on it though it makes sense to try and pen in people you have not met before who have somehow managed to get into your sanctuary and keeping them in a confined space like that means it would be harder for them to hurt your warriors.... just my take though!


message 27: by Nekroskop (last edited Jan 11, 2013 04:52AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Nekroskop It jsut struck me because it is even the same camera angles, the exactly same formation of riders (circling from different directions, etc.)

And come one, they are with Gandalf who is quite hard to miss.


message 28: by Rob (new) - rated it 4 stars

Rob Crystal wrote: "I came to a conclusion, I really don't like those sweeping visuals Jackson likes to do. I get that he's attempting to impress upon me that this is a very expansive and majestic place (or just expansive in the case of the goblin cave) but I'm unable to focus on anything and thus end up disoriented and looking away. He does this with fight scenes at times too...."

Jackson falls into the trap of trying to show everything. He doesn't use any kind of selective judgement. But by showing everything, he shows nothing. He simply creates a feeling of scope.

The goblin caves are an egregious example. Underground tunnels are supposed to be cramped, claustrophobic, dark places. That's certainly the way they were described in the book. But Jackson tries to make the goblin caves another Moria, swooping around a colossal space. It's ham-fisted.


message 29: by Noah (last edited Jan 11, 2013 09:39AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Noah Chinn I went into a fair bit of detail about my experience with the movie and asking questions about adaptation on my blog.


http://www.noahjdchinnbooks.com/2012/...

In a hole in the internet there lived a critic. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with spent Kleenex and pornography, nor yet a dry, bare, fact filled hole with the raw data of Wikipedia: it was a critic-hole, and that means discomfort.


http://www.noahjdchinnbooks.com/2013/...

Adaptations. Everyone wants to see their favorite stories adapted to film (or stories they think they’d like adapted so they don’t have to bother reading them), but every time one is announced there’s a kind of mixed feeling from the general population. A kind of mixture of crack-induced enthusiasm and suicidal depression, with every optimistic plus (such-and-such is directing and it’s got a great budget!) being countered by a pessimistic negative (such-and-such said in an interview he’s changing the setting from a New York disco club to the Old West – and now it’s a musical).


Kingsley Why does Thorin Oakenshield, the warrior, the brave epic soldier thirsty of blood hugs a hobbit?

anyone agree?


Danielle Kingsley wrote: "Why does Thorin Oakenshield, the warrior, the brave epic soldier thirsty of blood hugs a hobbit?

anyone agree?"

just because he risked his life to safe him, and Thorin was led by revenge and anger, and Bilbo wanted to safe him, and did.

but yeah your right, why would anybody be gratefull for their lives being saved?


johanna d.m. Kingsley wrote: "Why does Thorin Oakenshield, the warrior, the brave epic soldier thirsty of blood hugs a hobbit?

anyone agree?"


Because Bilbo ish awesome? jk. But he is.

Everyone has their soft-spots, Kingsley. No one is a perfect "brave, epic warrior soldier". No one is utterly untouchable by emotions. I don't think Thorin was a super-warrior in the book, either. That's just unrealistic.


Cassandra Bilbo and Gollum's little riddle contest did it for me.

E to the P.I.C


Lesley Arrowsmith Thorin had been saying all along "We shouldn't have brought the hobbit. The hobbit is useless." And then the hobbit saved his life. Of course Thorin hugged him!


Crystal ALL of the dwarves had been saying it all along in the book. And they continued to say it after he...saved them from speeiiiiders, broke them out of Thandruil's dungeon, helped find the door, swiped a cup, etc...

Actually, Thorin only said something a couple of times in the movie - once right after the trolls (at which point Gandalf snapped that at least he had the wits to stall for time, which was more than could be said for any of the dwarves) and then after he'd risked his own life to keep the hobbit from falling off the dead rock lobs..uh mons.. uh, giant. I could kinda see why he groused it that time since the first thing he heard after he was pulled to safety himself was...Bifur (I think) commenting that he'd thought they lost their burglar. Yeah, you almost lost your king too, dummy.


message 36: by Ian (new) - rated it 5 stars

Ian Bennetts Nekroskop wrote: "Great movie, even though poor Radagast was a bit too crazy for me. Why does he have to have birdshit in his face? "

Because a nest of birds live under his hat?

It's was quite a while between the time I read The Hobbit and the time I saw the movie (several years at least) but I always recalled Radagast as being a Francis of Assisi type character.

Regarding the number of movies, when I got back from the cinema I immediately cracked open the hardback and saw that the end of the movie is at page 105 and the end of the book, at least mine, is 289. So almost precisely one third of the way through the story.

I know to do that they had to do a little bit of padding, but it was all extra value in my opinion.


Jacqueline O. Stephanie wrote: "How did you guys feel about the added portions and the ending of the movie?

Maybe it was mentioned in interviews or something, but I didn't know the film was going to be split into more than jus..."


How could you NOT know that Jackson is actually doing three films? It's been all over the press and on TheOneRing.Net!
I must admit I was kinda' surprised by that decision, because tho' LotR is very complicated and has a lot of background information - the Hobbit is a straight forward adventure tale and much shorter (318 pages as opposed to close to 1500 pages for LotR).
I enjoyed the movie tho', especially the music and look forward to the next too. I also REALLY liked the switch in emphasis from the Dwarves going off in search of gold to them looking to return to their lost HOME. That was cool! We'll have to see how it plays out in the next couple of films.


Kingsley Danielle wrote: "Kingsley wrote: "Why does Thorin Oakenshield, the warrior, the brave epic soldier thirsty of blood hugs a hobbit?

anyone agree?"
just because he risked his life to safe him, and Thorin was led by ..."


I understand he is grateful but it just doesn't seemed consistent with the character. In the book, only in his deathbed showed some tenderness, but never near a hug. It was Balin that huged him.


Danielle yeah but i wrote before, that there's a big difference in the book and the film, after all, it's a peter jackson film. there are a lot af differences, and i think that Jackson wanted to make him more 'human' before his deathbed because it is, after all, a hollywood movie and he is one ofe the leading caracterss.


johanna d.m. I thought it was cute >:3


message 41: by Liz (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liz Actually many parts in the movie were completely different from the book and some things were just added by Peter Jackson to make it longer or (I think) to show the development of the characters better (or just to show any development that was not visible in the book).
I was a bit irritated firstly, especially because at the beginning I was against the Trilogy-idea but after watching the movie I agreed with Jackson.
Hobbit simply needs to be split up into three movies. Not only because of the plot but also because many fans longed to see more of Middle-Earth while watching LOTR.

So I think the movie was simply magnificient and I am really looking forward to the second and third one ♥ :)


johanna d.m. Liz wrote: "Actually many parts in the movie were completely different from the book and some things were just added by Peter Jackson to make it longer or (I think) to show the development of the characters be..."

^


message 43: by Drew (new) - rated it 4 stars

Drew Andreas wrote: "I really liked the movie. It was really great. But it was a horrible adaptation of the book. I mean they got nothing right. The characters behave differently and the story and atmosphere have almos..."

It is a good adaptation, just because a few things are changed doesn't make it a bad adaptation. Martin Freeman was excellent, he was the best part. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


message 44: by Drew (new) - rated it 4 stars

Drew Rob wrote: "The book is a charming and tasteful fairy tale for children. I look forward to reading it aloud to my kids.

The movie is an overwrought and undisciplined Hollywood action film. For all the subtlet..."


I do love the book but found the dwarves and Bilbo very irritating at times, the movie corrected these character flaws and made the film much more enjoyable to watch. I would have tired of a bunch of whiny dwarves and a selfish Bilbo.


message 45: by Drew (new) - rated it 4 stars

Drew Noah wrote: "I went into a fair bit of detail about my experience with the movie and asking questions about adaptation on my blog.


http://www.noahjdchinnbooks.com/2012/......"


This is why I can't stand critics, why do we need people to tell us there opinions about a movie, answer, we don't. Instead of just relaxing and letting a movie take them on a journey, they want to pick things apart like they could do better.


Ryeleigh ☻/
/▌
/ \
This is bob...
Copy and paste him every where you can.
Soon he will take over the world O.o


johanna d.m. Drew wrote: "Rob wrote: "The book is a charming and tasteful fairy tale for children. I look forward to reading it aloud to my kids.

The movie is an overwrought and undisciplined Hollywood action film. For all..."


*0* Bilbo, selfish? D:

And I agree about the opinnions. They just make my head swim and ruin my enjoyment :I


Nekroskop On little thing I noticed during the credits - Bendict Cumberbatch (who I understood is to voice Smaug) is credited as the Necromancer. Why do yo need someone to act as a wavy CGI shadow?


Samuel S.B. A lot of people have talked about this movie but I think it was good. Unlike The Lord of the Rings where a lot was skipped, there is plenty to see. I know some points are overdrawn but well it works for it.


Danielle Nekroskop wrote: "On little thing I noticed during the credits - Bendict Cumberbatch (who I understood is to voice Smaug) is credited as the Necromancer. Why do yo need someone to act as a wavy CGI shadow?"

i havn't read the book, and I'm planning on not reading the book untill the movies are all out (i don't want do compare the movie to the book), but my guess, the necromancer is going to have a bigger part in all of this. and he also plays Smaug with thoose motion sensor.. thingy's...
anyhow, there's more to come, and looks better on screen is the caracter is based on a person in stead of nothing


« previous 1 3 4 5
back to top

all discussions on this book | post a new topic


Books mentioned in this topic

The Hobbit (other topics)