The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
discussion
read the book before the movie
Read the book, be disappointed, if you're not a child, and don't go to the movie at all!
Rene wrote: "Read the book, be disappointed, if you're not a child, and don't go to the movie at all!".
Rene wrote: "Read the book, be disappointed, if you're not a child, and don't go to the movie at all!"Why be disappointed if you didn't read this as a kid?
I read this book with 23, that was in summer 2012.
I loved it. I read it in English, not my native language (that would be German). I love Tolkien's writing style and I loved The Hobbit.
My parents read other stories to me when I was a kid and that was alright. I read great things on my own and I think that's worth something too.
I think it's pretty arrogant to feel so privileged about having read something as a child if others have not. I can't turn back time. I can only be thankful for not giving up on learning English (as you can see my English is good enough to articulate myself and read books) so that I could read this in a version Tolkien wrote, and not some translator.
I do not intend to offend anybody (except Peter Jackson). I read The Hobbit as a youngster and I liked it. I re-read it last year and I did not like it at all any more, because - simply - it is written for children and it is soooooo simple after LOTR. After having read LOTR several times The Hobbit is no longer interesting. No offense, Sparrowlicious!Now Peter Jackson regrets that he did not make a few movies more and cover the complete LOTR. He abridged it heavily, because he thought one movie per book is the maximum people want to see. Well, he was wrong. Now he tries to amend this by making as much money as he can from The Hobbit, by turning it into three 2.5 hr movies. This simply is too much for a childrens book of 250 pages, even if he uses all high tech features he can think of (IMAX, 48 frames per second and so on). He'd better seriously consider to aman hids mistake and make a remake of LOTR in five, six or seven movies, and put his energy in that project instead of The Hobbit.
I am very surprised about the positive comments all around on the Hobbit. It's not the book by Tolkien, it will be The Ecxtended Hobbit, extended and rewritten by Peter Jackson. This is not what I am waiting for. That also is not the way to honor Tolkien.
Personally, I agree with this quote, Rene:“A children's story that can only be enjoyed by children is not a good children's story in the slightest.”
― C.S. Lewis
I have watched it and it is amazing, but you should always read the book before the movie!!!! It is Fantastic!!!!
I believe one should watch the movies first then read the books ... everything makes more sense and having that visual in your head really enhances the reading experience.
Very disappointed with movie. The Hobbit was always more of a YA read than LOTR, but I found the Disneyfied action and extra-cartoony dwarves fell far short of what could have been.
That's disappointing ... but I must admit, when i saw that the hobbit had been made into three parts that left me a bit cold.
I don't understand phrases like "book made into a movie".
You can't make book into something that it's not.
Watched the film, it's a comic blockbuster as usual.
But these days people prefer sledges with race-rabbits to literature.
You can't make book into something that it's not.
Watched the film, it's a comic blockbuster as usual.
But these days people prefer sledges with race-rabbits to literature.
Rene wrote: "I do not intend to offend anybody (except Peter Jackson). I read The Hobbit as a youngster and I liked it. I re-read it last year and I did not like it at all any more, because - simply - it is wri..."I think Jackson was right in only doing one movie per book. Alot of my friends didn't even finish the movies because they thought they were to long. with the hobbit alot of stuff happens in that little book, and its much more high-paced then the lord of the rings. I love both movies! One thing about lord of the rings though, I likes the length but what made me mad was when they deliberatly changed stuff. I couldn't blame them for taking some stuff out but I could for puting their own stuff in.
Vrabinec wrote: "Scribal wrote: "Very disappointed with movie. The Hobbit was always more of a YA read than LOTR, but I found the Disneyfied action and extra-cartoony dwarves fell far short of what could have been...."I really didn't think the LOTR's was very scary until I saw the movie. The book is written for kids, The movie is not so much
Margaret wrote: "I believe one should watch the movies first then read the books ... everything makes more sense and having that visual in your head really enhances the reading experience."I disagree. I like making my own pics then seeing the movie. Also I like critisizing the movie:)!!
Hannah wrote: "Margaret wrote: "I believe one should watch the movies first then read the books ... everything makes more sense and having that visual in your head really enhances the reading experience."I disa..."
Woah. Definately disagree - it's the other way round!! Reading the book makes the movie so much clearer! And *shudders*, if you watch the movie first, you utterly ruin the book! DX It's true for any book-to-movie. Read the book first :I
Jaime wrote: "I still cannot see a trilogy from this smaller book."Me too! I mean this film was awesome, but I still would have loved the movie to be the entire story..
ງດໂາຊກກຊ ღ♣✽Hᴏʙʙɪᴛ ᴀɴᴅ Pʀᴏᴜᴅ✽♣ღ wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Margaret wrote: "I believe one should watch the movies first then read the books ... everything makes more sense and having that visual in your head really enhances the reading exper..."
I agree with the book first and movie second concept with most cases, but when I read The Hobbit and TLOTR trilogy there was too much information to try and get around. With the visual of the movies I found I got it sorted quicker and the reading was lighter.
I agree with the book first and movie second concept with most cases, but when I read The Hobbit and TLOTR trilogy there was too much information to try and get around. With the visual of the movies I found I got it sorted quicker and the reading was lighter.
Margaret wrote: "ງດໂາຊກກຊ ღ♣✽Hᴏʙʙɪᴛ ᴀɴᴅ Pʀᴏᴜᴅ✽♣ღ wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Margaret wrote: "I believe one should watch the movies first then read the books ... everything makes more sense and having that visual in you..."Hmm ... I guess the LotR and The Hobbit are different cases, because they are classics and sometimes hard reads. I guess it would be confusing to get your head around - (I haven't read the LotR yet myself) but I still like hte idea of reading the books first. Even if it means you have to re-read them after the movie. XD
ງດໂາຊກກຊ ღ♣✽Hᴏʙʙɪᴛ ᴀɴᴅ Pʀᴏᴜᴅ✽♣ღ wrote: "Margaret wrote: "ງດໂາຊກກຊ ღ♣✽Hᴏʙʙɪᴛ ᴀɴᴅ Pʀᴏᴜᴅ✽♣ღ wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Margaret wrote: "I believe one should watch the movies first then read the books ... everything makes more sense and having t..."I think you should read the book its fun to say "oh i remember that part".
Margaret wrote: "That's disappointing ... but I must admit, when i saw that the hobbit had been made into three parts that left me a bit cold."That is just how long the book is they didnt add any extra scenes to it.
jack wrote: "Margaret wrote: "That's disappointing ... but I must admit, when i saw that the hobbit had been made into three parts that left me a bit cold."That is just how long the book is they didnt add any..."
Umm ... Jack???
The book is a relatively small book, not humongous, like the LotR. As for your comment, they definately did add things in. Azog the orc, for example. Radagast the wizard's scene. Besides, you haven't watched the rest of the movies yet: they've used up most of the excitement in the first movie, so we already know they will have to add quite a bit more. They're going to be following Gandalf a bit more, and what he's up to. Which isn't in the book.
Nicholas wrote: "I imagine they will follow Gandalf's path a bit in the next movie, that would explain how they fill it up. As for the first film, I didn't like it. I don't enjoy my favorite Tolkien race being no..."
I agree with your comment on the movie Nicholas. I have loved this book for over half a century and cannot see the reason for the additions and omissions made by the film makers.
Kirby wrote: "Jaime wrote: "I still cannot see a trilogy from this smaller book."me neither. I don't understand that decision."
Maybe they didn't want to leave anything out. But on the other hand, yes it is quite silly
Hobbit! But still to watch the movie.
ງດໂາຊກກຊ ღ♣✽Hᴏʙʙɪᴛ ᴀɴᴅ Pʀᴏᴜᴅ✽♣ღ wrote: "jack wrote: "Margaret wrote: "That's disappointing ... but I must admit, when i saw that the hobbit had been made into three parts that left me a bit cold."That is just how long the book is they ..."
J.R.R. Tolkien wrote a book called the Silmarillion it is where all the stuff about the orc and radaghast and all that other stuff is. Do you think the other movies will be like that?
jack wrote: "ງດໂາຊກກຊ ღ♣✽Hᴏʙʙɪᴛ ᴀɴᴅ Pʀᴏᴜᴅ✽♣ღ wrote: "jack wrote: "Margaret wrote: "That's disappointing ... but I must admit, when i saw that the hobbit had been made into three parts that left me a bit cold."..."
I thought they found the stuff about Azog in the back of the Lord of the Rings? But maybe you're right.
Azog was in the Appendix at the end of ROTK. I went digging through it myself. However... Azog was dead. His SON is the leader of the goblins/orcs in the Battle of Five Armies.
i think your wright
go to message 1 or 2
My daughter watched Hobbit and said it was ... ok! So that has me thinking ...
I loved the movie! But three hours with 3d glasses on = not a good idea! Felt so sick afterwards lol
I saw the hobbit! One word, AWESOME!
Ashby wrote: "I loved the movie! But three hours with 3d glasses on = not a good idea! Felt so sick afterwards lol"And the high-frame rate too.
they added the silmarillion into the hobbit!
Sparrowlicious wrote: "Rene wrote: "Read the book, be disappointed, if you're not a child, and don't go to the movie at all!"Why be disappointed if you didn't read this as a kid?
I read this book with 23, that was in s..."
well i think the book/movie is awsome and he added another book called the silmarillion it has extra stufff in it J.R.R. tolkien wrote it.
i've been trying to read the book for years and then I saw the movie on christmas eve and it was so amazing I ended up reading the book in 3 days....its officially my preciousssssss and i can't wait for my little siblings to have kids in like 20 years so i can read it to their kids!
Oihana wrote: "trilogy?? from where???"????
OK, maybe I'm just being a little protective of this book. It was, after all, the first actual novel that I ever read, and one of the few that I have ever re-read. Suffice to say, even though it's intended for children, it still occupies a special place in my black little heart. But...I was a little disappointed in the movie. Not that it sucked, or anything. It was good. That's it, just...good. Maybe I just wanted The Hobbit to stay The Hobbit, and The Silmarillion to be its own movie. Maybe I wanted The Hobbit:The Movie and not The Hobbit:The Trilogy. Maybe a little of both.
But I digress. In my opinion, you should always read the book first, then watch the movie, but then, I'm a book guy. I'll often read the book first and then NOT watch the movie. I think that reading the book made me enjoy this movie more than I probably would have otherwise. My wife and I, both in our early thirties, sat in the theatre grinning at each other like children during the riddle scene, and that's entirely due to the fact that we had both read the book.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but after reading all these different opinions I am really curious. Re-reading the Hobbit is like revisiting an old friend. I think I'm going to enjoy the trilogy just because I'm not ready to say goodbye to my dear old friend. I know that there is more to translating a book into a movie than I know, and some deviations from the original tale will be necessary, but I really trust Peter Jackson to stay true to the spirit of The Hobbit.
Just a note, guys ... I just re-read The Hobbit, and after assuming the Necromancer and Azog etc. were simply added in to the story, I was surprised to find that they were actually both mentioned quite clearly in the book! It states that Gandalf was in fact banishing the Necromancer, while he was away, and he mentions Azog the goblin at the beginning. Were you all aware of this?
Definitely read the book before seeing the movie. It will help you understand and follow it so much better.
Em... he doesn't show up until after they remove themselves from the Carrock so should see him pretty close to the beginning of the next installment.
Crystal wrote: "Em... he doesn't show up until after they remove themselves from the Carrock so should see him pretty close to the beginning of the next installment."That's true, but towards the end of the film, it sort of hints that they passed Mirkwood and everything because we get a clear shot of the Lonely Mountain...
www.puffcritique.blogspot.com
I dunno... I thought they could see The Lonely Mountain from the Carrock. Have to check my copy.
They haven't passed Mirkwood, because they've released those Hobbit behind-the-scenes videos, and Legolas is in them, along with shots of the dwarves covered in spider-webs (hence the spiders).
And they have shots of the scene where they ride out in barrels.
And they have shots of the scene where they ride out in barrels.
Mrs. Baggins/TeaDrinkingCat wrote: "They haven't passed Mirkwood, because they've released those Hobbit behind-the-scenes videos, and Legolas is in them, along with shots of the dwarves covered in spider-webs (hence the spiders). An..."
Where did you find the behind-the-scenes videos?? Are they on YouTube??
www.puffcritique.blogspot.com
Haven't seen the movie yet, but I read the book shortly after Christmas and I was like: WOW! What an amazing book!So I'm kinda afraid to watch the movie. But I will, sooner or later
Look at the 2nd message!
Nazzy wrote: "Mrs. Baggins/TeaDrinkingCat wrote: "They haven't passed Mirkwood, because they've released those Hobbit behind-the-scenes videos, and Legolas is in them, along with shots of the dwarves covered in ..."
Yes, they are on Youtube. You can just search "Hobbit vlogs" into Google and I'm sure you'll come up with them.
The movie is real good, but they added in a few components to make it more exciting for the first part.
Yes, they are on Youtube. You can just search "Hobbit vlogs" into Google and I'm sure you'll come up with them.
The movie is real good, but they added in a few components to make it more exciting for the first part.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
me neither. I don't understand that decision."
well i read about what Peter Jackson said and apparently in the other books there are references to the Hobbit so he included this info in the movies plus he added a similar back story...still...