To answer questions about
The Hobbit, or There and Back Again,
please sign up.
Jansen
I personally really enjoyed the films and the extrapolations they took from Tolkien's other works, besides The Hobbit. The Hobbit book, by itself, would not be possible to translate into a film without changing up and adding a few things to make it appeal to the mainstream audience. ("All good stories deserve embellishment") The Hobbit was a children's story, whereas LotR was written for adults. Therefore, the LotR films didn't need "embellishment", and since the filmmakers didn't want to make The Hobbit films for children, they changed things up, creating an engaging story with a deeper study into character and plot.
Ted Vanegas
They sadly turned The Hobbit movie into a prequel to Lord of the Rings, which is not what it was intended to be. Some day I hope someone makes a Hobbit movie that is reflective of the spirit and charm of the book.
Bushybeard
HATED the movie. Could barely get through it, and will never watch the others. LOTR was pretty true to the essence of the story, but TH was a flat out insult to the author. I'm sure he rolled in his grave. And barfed.
Fatima
I was extremely dissapointed. Watching the battle of five armies had me thinkin "what is goin on" throughout the whole movie. I think Del Toro being envolved in the first place is what actually screwed up the hobbit movies, and after he ran off, Jackson had no time to clean up his mess.
Heres a link to peter jackson saying he winged it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20vA9...
Yet I still Blame peter jackson for all the senseless madness that was goin on that was not related to the story at all, and the abused CGI threw me off a cliff, not to mention very poor dialogue writing. The most and only 2 incredible and memorable scenes in all the Hobbit movies in my opinion, are riddles in the dark with bilbo and Gollum, and Smaug vs Bilbo conversation at erebor, the rest lost my interest.
Heres a link to peter jackson saying he winged it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20vA9...
Yet I still Blame peter jackson for all the senseless madness that was goin on that was not related to the story at all, and the abused CGI threw me off a cliff, not to mention very poor dialogue writing. The most and only 2 incredible and memorable scenes in all the Hobbit movies in my opinion, are riddles in the dark with bilbo and Gollum, and Smaug vs Bilbo conversation at erebor, the rest lost my interest.
Cassandra
I hated The Hobbit movies. HATED.
The ludicrous goblin king so rolling in fat he couldn't be menacing and belting out songs in a beautifully clear voice befitting a stage musical star. The cross-dressing mayor or whatever he was. A powerful, demigod wizard whose hair was coated with bird droppings. One of Thorin's dwarf warriors wielding a slingshot. Another with an axe imbedded in his skull through most of the movie. A gorgeous elf warrior falling for a rude hobbit because he made a joke about his genitalia. She was only there because Peter Jackson promised Evangeline Lilly a role in the films and then realized there weren't any female characters of note in The Hobbit.
Peter Jackson had an excellent design for dwarves and their architecture. This wonderful design was preserved in the opening scenes of The Hobbit. Then he threw out the baby and borrowed some bathwater and made Thorin's followers goofy comic relief that no one could ever take seriously. The only reason to insert Legolas into the story is that Orlando Bloom was so popular in the role.
Peter Jackson took a charming adventure story for children and turned it into a vile, crude, crass, slapstick farce occasionally peppered with serious moments ripped from The Silmarillion. He might as well have filmed nine hours of fart jokes. I realize that books have to be adapted for the different medium when they are made into movies, but if he had so little respect for the story as it was written, he should have picked a different story to adapt.
It didn't even have decent action in it. I cringed when I saw those people riding a river of molten gold without so much as breaking a sweat, but then it was enough to take down a fire-breathing dragon?!
The entire trio was just a travesty. Anyone who hasn't seen the movies yet should spare himself.
The ludicrous goblin king so rolling in fat he couldn't be menacing and belting out songs in a beautifully clear voice befitting a stage musical star. The cross-dressing mayor or whatever he was. A powerful, demigod wizard whose hair was coated with bird droppings. One of Thorin's dwarf warriors wielding a slingshot. Another with an axe imbedded in his skull through most of the movie. A gorgeous elf warrior falling for a rude hobbit because he made a joke about his genitalia. She was only there because Peter Jackson promised Evangeline Lilly a role in the films and then realized there weren't any female characters of note in The Hobbit.
Peter Jackson had an excellent design for dwarves and their architecture. This wonderful design was preserved in the opening scenes of The Hobbit. Then he threw out the baby and borrowed some bathwater and made Thorin's followers goofy comic relief that no one could ever take seriously. The only reason to insert Legolas into the story is that Orlando Bloom was so popular in the role.
Peter Jackson took a charming adventure story for children and turned it into a vile, crude, crass, slapstick farce occasionally peppered with serious moments ripped from The Silmarillion. He might as well have filmed nine hours of fart jokes. I realize that books have to be adapted for the different medium when they are made into movies, but if he had so little respect for the story as it was written, he should have picked a different story to adapt.
It didn't even have decent action in it. I cringed when I saw those people riding a river of molten gold without so much as breaking a sweat, but then it was enough to take down a fire-breathing dragon?!
The entire trio was just a travesty. Anyone who hasn't seen the movies yet should spare himself.
Barry Haworth
One sign of a good adaptation is when the film maker can show you something in a book which you had never noticed but was there all along. To his credit, Jackson managed that with the first Hobbit movie, when he had Bilbo, who in the books is always pining for the home he has left behind and wondering when he will get back to it, realises that the dwarfs feel exactly the same about there lost home in the Lonely Mountain.
On the strength of that I will forgive him the first movie, extra characters, ridiculous chase scenes, falling trees that stop in mid air and all. The other two movies, though, have no excuse. An elf falls in love with a dwarf? The light of the moon rather than the light of the suet opens the door? The dwarfs make a huge statue out of pure gold? Giant worms? What on Middle Earth is happening here?
On the strength of that I will forgive him the first movie, extra characters, ridiculous chase scenes, falling trees that stop in mid air and all. The other two movies, though, have no excuse. An elf falls in love with a dwarf? The light of the moon rather than the light of the suet opens the door? The dwarfs make a huge statue out of pure gold? Giant worms? What on Middle Earth is happening here?
Hannah Smith
I just recently read this after watching the movies, and I was so disappointed when I realized how they changed almost everything about the storyline they could while keeping some semblance of the book. Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the movie and still do but I just can't believe more people weren't in uproar over it. Especially as they added in the female elf as a love interest, which there was no need for and distracted once again from the original story. I think the movie needs to be taken as a loose interpretation of The Hobbit.
Jon R.
I actually feel the opposite. The book was pretty vague and overly simple at times (it being for Children as they say) and the movies fleshed out everything much more deeply. I also like how Peter used the appendices and incorporated them. CGI aside (that's the time we live in now when it comes to movies) the movies are a much more complete story. It actually stayed very close to the book, but just had more in them.
Emma Jones
Yea! Especially the stupid giant worms! Peter Jackson screwed up real bad!
Clarissa Mei
I got agitated as well from the movies, the unnecessary characters, side stories. The one-armed orc really was bad. And the elven king was unnamed in the book. The book was awesome, the plotline, and characters.
Marc Berube
Yes, I agree. I found the LOTR movies did a good job representing what Tolkein's actual message was, but The Hobbit movies seemed more like they were just produced for the money.
Rori.Cantall
I'm usually for a 'visual re-telling' of books. I don't mind when filmmakers create their own stories with inspiration from a book. I wouldn't watch a movie if I expected it to tell me a story I've already heard. But The Hobbit movies were terrible. They don't even work as movies. The visuals are supposed to be impressive, but I couldn't help but think it looked like somebody melted crayons and smeared it around.
What do I think went wrong? I think they tried to ram too much Middle-Earth mythology into the movie without making the story coherent. It could have been done. Buuuuut it wasn't done.
What do I think went wrong? I think they tried to ram too much Middle-Earth mythology into the movie without making the story coherent. It could have been done. Buuuuut it wasn't done.
Sydney
I agree. They were ok, but added tons of new characters and fight scenes. (But Thorin was way cooler in the movie. His death in the book was kind of meh.)
Noor Al-Shanti
I didn't hate them, but they definitely had problems and weren't in the same league as the LOTR movies. There was just far too much added into them that was not necessary.
Patrick Jean-Jacques
Sorry, I'm 2 years later than everyone else to comment BUT here goes... I agree with Bushybeard, Fatima and just about everyone else... Aarrgh! Yuk! Apart from 'The Unexpected Journey', which I can just about stand, I can't bear the other movies. Like everyone has said, far too CG for my taste.
I totally disapproved of the way Peter Jackson, pimped out a fantastic (not particularly long) story and filled it unnecessarily into a three-part drivel JUST TO MAKE $$$. Especially, after the due care and attention he gave LOTR.
LOTR Special Extended Editions 10/10
THE HOBBIT any addition 0/10
I totally disapproved of the way Peter Jackson, pimped out a fantastic (not particularly long) story and filled it unnecessarily into a three-part drivel JUST TO MAKE $$$. Especially, after the due care and attention he gave LOTR.
LOTR Special Extended Editions 10/10
THE HOBBIT any addition 0/10
Marko Realmonte
Peter Jackson sold out with the Hobbit movies. So sad. Gone are all the models he used for LOTR...gone is the careful attention to detail. The female elf/love story addition is all Philippa Boyens...who should have her laptop taken away.
Faham Tak
Yes, I have to admit, Peter Jackson had a much more lackluster approach to The Hobbit than The Lord of The Rings.
Mattias Johnsson
I love the book. It is one of my all time favorites. I have read it more than any other book.
And the movies was so terrible and horrible that no words can describe them.
I knew that the movies would be horrible. If they had done one movie, it would probably have been so much better.
And the movies was so terrible and horrible that no words can describe them.
I knew that the movies would be horrible. If they had done one movie, it would probably have been so much better.
Kendall Moore
Given the choice between the CGI bastardizations Jackson wrought or the humble 1978 Rankin-Bass film, it's not even a question.
Wilhelmina
I didn't HATE them, but I was definitely a bit disappointed. I feel like it could've been accomplished in one or two movies instead of having to stretch it out with all of those fillers.
Michael Lechner
The recent Hobbit movies are really bad. I would go as far as to say they are literary mockery of Tolkien's works. The Hobbit is a short children's tale and somehow it gets turned into three movies completely filled with nonsense and filler. Even if I had never read The Hobbit before watching the film, I would have thought the movies were boring because a lot of the plot has no point and character arcs are left open at the end.
Lorraine Ellis
I love the Hobbit movies and I just did a re-read from 40 years ago, and love the book in equal measures. I enjoy Jackson's additions to the book: humor, whimsy, snarky-ness and sweetness. And I feel that Thorin's two added scenes with Azog were just brilliant. That vendetta added depth to Thorin, rather than his sole desire being just gold and jewels. I must agree with others though about Radagast- that was a travesty.
I really thought I was a book purist; I was SO disgusted by the Game Of Thrones show, but I guess my literary devotion is flexible.
I really thought I was a book purist; I was SO disgusted by the Game Of Thrones show, but I guess my literary devotion is flexible.
Raz O'Xane
What movie? No such movie exist.
F. Dum
I am quite mad at Jackson. His epic action approach worked well for LOTR, but for this charming children's book, it just sucks. Also, what kind of dwarves are THAT? Downsized teen idols with f*cking BEARDS? C'mon!! And this bloody lovestory!!! Between a DWARF and an ELF!!!! And all these senseless killings!!!!! AaaaaAAAAaaargh. (I've run out of exclamation marks.) I didn't even watch the third part, and I don't want to.
To me, the film just feels like a ripoff -- "oh hey, let's make a lot of money; we got the CGI already, so we'll keep it cheap, the sheep will flock to the cinemas anyway". And this is not what you should do to this wonderful, subtle, lovable, good-hearted children's book.
To me, the film just feels like a ripoff -- "oh hey, let's make a lot of money; we got the CGI already, so we'll keep it cheap, the sheep will flock to the cinemas anyway". And this is not what you should do to this wonderful, subtle, lovable, good-hearted children's book.
Kiana Fitzpatrick
For once I watched the movie before I read the book. I did enjoy the movie, but I did like the book more.
Dominic Graham
Yeah, I agree with most folks here. The movies were good - they just weren't faithful enough to the real story. And they became something not quite fitting the 'hobbit' title.
Livvy Hansen
I totally agree! The movies seemed like it was trying to recreate the same feeling as LOTR, but just did a bad job. The Hobbit movies had so much CGI that it made the world seem a little unnatural and alien-like, while LOTR didn't use as much CGI and the world seemed a lot more natural and beautiful. When I watched the Hobbit movies, it almost felt like I was watching a Marvel movie because of the heavy overload of CGI. I think it's okay for Marvel movies to have a lot of CGI just because a lot of it is very unnatural! But, Tolkien's world (Middle Earth) is supposed to be very earthy and rugged. So, there was just NO NEED for all the CGI in the Hobbit movies. Also, WHY ON EARTH did they make extended editions of each of the Hobbit movies!! THEY ALREADY EXTENDED IT TWO MOVIES MORE THAN IT NEEDED TO BE!!!
Macy Grant
Honestly, I liked the movies a WHOLE lot more than the book. The book was really slow, but the movies made it more fast-paced and I am one who loved romance and Legolas so that also made the movies better for me.
greatgrayprairie
Animation is the only way to “transcribe” from the written. The Ralph Bakshi animation then can be said to be the only “hobbit” movie. Ralph Bakshi depicted Bilbo Baggins in the mode of a tragic Roman emperor. John Hurt did a voice too. The chapter Flight To The Ford made the Bakshi film. The Crossing Of Rohan chapter inclusion solidified the Bakshi film as at the most interchangeable with the most minor Tolkien essay ever written.
Lainey M.
I loved the movies aside from the added characters that weren't in the book and the unnecessary love triangle. The first part of the trilogy of the movies is the only part I can tolerate. Tauriel was a BS character. Legolas was an unnecessary addition to bring in fangirls. The love story between them and Kili was obsurd and infuriating. If you'd never read the book, the movies would have been alright, but PJ should be ashamed of the BS he added. It's an insult to the origins of the story.
Rik Ploeg
I thought the first movie was wonderful. Stepping out of the cinema that evening I was really exited about it. I loved the fact that they included the backstory of The Hobbit into the movie, and that was for me the most important justification for making a trilogy series based on one book. The back story illuminates a lot about the larger relevance of slaying the dragon and the battle of the five armies. In addition, the travels of Gandalf are quite relevant too for the LOTR trilogy, which justifies its incorporation into the movie.
However, I was utterly disappointed by the last movie. It just made no sense at all to me. I could not regard it as a serious effort as the entire thing was not convincing. The battle graphics were very poor, the battle tactics were ridiculous, and the dialogues during the fighting were absurd and laughable. Most importantly, very little of the movie plot was actually based on Tolkien's story. It was a very disappointing end to a high potential movie trilogy.
However, I was utterly disappointed by the last movie. It just made no sense at all to me. I could not regard it as a serious effort as the entire thing was not convincing. The battle graphics were very poor, the battle tactics were ridiculous, and the dialogues during the fighting were absurd and laughable. Most importantly, very little of the movie plot was actually based on Tolkien's story. It was a very disappointing end to a high potential movie trilogy.
spalanai ⛤
We are talking about the books here. This is not a movie review site, you know.
Divit Bhende
Yeah, true, in the books Dain and the Elvenking fight the goblins together but in the movies the three armies keep fighting each other
J.D. Jewett
Way too much CGI. Regarding straying from the book, I get what you're saying, but they were filling from actual other writings of Tolkien on events that were on the same timeline.
Lily
The Hobbit movies actually got me really deep into Tolkien, the movies were the gateway for me. However, after reading the book as well as the LotR books and The Silm, I do agree with you that The Hobbit movies feel short... I think Christopher Tolkien holds the same opinion on that as well. The movies are still worth watching for anyone who is interested, though!
Benjamin Connolly
I read and watched the lotr books and they were fairly similar but then i watched the hobbit and was dissapointed
Oscar Piatt
Personally, I really liked the movies, but I understand where you are coming from. I will suggest, there are a large number of fan-edits out there which have shortened the trilogy into either 1 or 2 films by cutting out certain aspects of it (kili-legolas-tauriel love triangle) which I think improves the films a lot.
Tyler
I love the movies. The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit movies were both so good. I thought they elaborated on the book, which I liked.
Shrimpy
I found the movies really dark, especially since The Hobbit is a children's story. Did I enjoy them from an action-packed adventure movie-loving point of view? Yes. Did I enjoy them from a fan of The Hobbit book point of view? No. They don't follow the book great, there's a deal too much CGI, and they're altogether just really gruesome (The Battle of Five Armies extended edition is rated R) But it's hard to make movies for everyone that aren't too dark these days.
Susan
The movies were abjectly awful.
Embla
I abhorred the Hobbit movies. Some parts here and there were fine, I guess, but most of it? It was like watching Middle Earth fan fiction. Horrendous. The whole Tauriel storyline, for instance.. and how PJ made a cliche of the morgul blade too. I cringe, just thinking of it :/
Kmojinhbgfv
while watching the battle of five armies, I was constantly getting lost. at the end of them, I had to keep rereading the actual book to see if my memory of the book failed me, but no. the movies are actually a dumpster fire that strayed away from the plot of the book.
ExquisiteReads
I thought movies were decent. I like that there was a movie adaptation, and that it brought the book to life, regardless of how much of a cash grab it was. i would rate the movies a 6/10.
Liz
Glad it's not just me who was bugged by the CGI. The "Lord of the Rings" adaptations used CGI exactly as it should be used, with quality over quantity and blended with practical effects. "The Hobbit" felt like a video game.
The only thing I really liked about the "Hobbit" films was Tauriel, and I only "liked" her in the way I like a DeviantArt drawing of a cool looking elf badass chick. The whole new "trilogy' was just... blech.
The only thing I really liked about the "Hobbit" films was Tauriel, and I only "liked" her in the way I like a DeviantArt drawing of a cool looking elf badass chick. The whole new "trilogy' was just... blech.
Krillarbran
Too many differences and too much noticeable CGI. The LOTR movie trilogy had differences but there was not an overbearing amount of CGI. It seems they significantly increased the budget of each hobbit movie compared to each of the LOTR movies but proceeded to spend the excess amount on CGI? They could of done the Hobbit movies on a lesser budget with more realistic effect. TBH I had rather they not have done a Hobbit trilogy as I didn't see any reason to. The Hobbit is a decent childrens story and not an epic like The Lord of the Rings.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more