The Hobbit, or There and Back Again The Hobbit, or There and Back Again discussion


114 views
The Movie

Comments Showing 1-25 of 25 (25 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

Luke Dyess Okay, so we know that Peter Jackson didn't go exactly by the book. But baring that, who thinks the he did a good job on the movies?


message 2: by Ken (new) - rated it 5 stars

Ken I've not seen the second one (not even out yet?) but the first was not shabby.


Stephanie I like the first one. Yeah I noticed the changes from the book, but I think he still did a good job. I hope I'm not disappointed about the second I do plan on seeing it.


message 4: by B. (last edited Dec 02, 2013 11:47AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

B. Doane The first one was good, though it strayed from the original story. Since Bennedict Cumberbatch (I probably spelled his name wrong) does the voice of Smaug in the second one, it must be amazing.


Richard the first one was shocking dull, only film i have ever fallen asleep during at the cinema and on dvd.

no plans on seeing the second one


Julia Haven't seen the second one. But I thought the first one dragged on too much. I kept checking my watch "is it over yet?"

The whole thing just reeks of greed. They threw in all those formulaic battles and stretched it out to 3 movies to make it feel more like LOTR and sell more tickets. But the Hobbit book has a very different tone than LOTR series. LOTR is an epic war story. The Hobbit is a small adventure. There's no reason The Hobbit should need 3 movies.

Those things aside, I guess it wasn't too bad. But I won't be paying prime movie theater prices to see any more of them.


message 7: by Ken (new) - rated it 5 stars

Ken A small adventure is a good descriptor. It's more isolated, more insular. You've got this group traveling the land (as in LOTR) but unlike LOTR, they don't interact much with the others who are out there doing other things. It's very much more a woods-adventure than a world-trek, despite the distance traveled. There is more 'unknown' element to it. In LOTR, the path is known, the challenges known, and the enemy familiar. In Hobbit, much more is obscured to those who travel - except to Gandalf, perhaps.


message 8: by Becky (last edited Dec 03, 2013 09:59AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Becky I usually try to mentally separate books from their movie adaptations. It helps me enjoy the movies more. That being said, I really enjoyed the first part of The Hobbit and am looking forward to parts two and three. Maybe I'm just such a fan of the LOTR world I want to stretch it out as long as possible.


Jennifer Morefield I loved it and thought Peter Jackson did a great job!


message 10: by Ted (last edited Dec 03, 2013 01:14PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Ted NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

He doesn't just "take liberties"; he invents all new stuff just to squeeze out three movies. "The Hobbit" was a nice, contained hero's journey story. It should have been kept that way. It wasn't written as a LOTR "prequel". It was a nice children's story - compact, all on its own. No Legolas; no "white orc"; no R2D2 and C3PO; none of that.

I am ready to bet five bucks that some time during the barrel escape Balin cries out, "I'm getting too old for this shit!"

To think that the same guy who couldn't find a way to get Tom Bombadil into LOTR could expand The Hobbit like this.

I already told my kids they were going to have to see #2 and #3 with someone else.

I have a Tolkien dragon tattoo. I gotta have some standards.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.


message 11: by Jack (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jack Conner I'm a huge fan of Peter Jackson's LOTR movies, and it' painful for me to say that "The Hobbit: Part One" just wasn't that good, and most of that is because of the poor writing, which is bizarre, since they had TEN YEARS to write it. I don't want to go into a big breakdown of the script, but just take one thing -- the stone mountain giants. Were they set up in any way? No. Will they make a reappearance later, affecting the plot (and justifying their presence)? Not if the story sticks even remotely close to the book. Did they feel like something that would exist in the Middle-Earth we knew from the books and from the LOTR movies? No. No, they did not. In fact, their presence diminishes the other huge creature, such as Smaug, the Balrog, the trolls and the Watcher. Also, the action scenes were over-long and cartoonish, such as the bridge collapse inside the cave. We never were able to connect with any of the characters, except maybe Gandolf, not even Bilbo, really, who had nothing to do in his own movie.

All that said, most of the movie felt solidly grounded in Middle-Earth (with the exception of the stone giants), and that's a place I love returning to. I'll be there opening day for H2 and just keep my fingers crossed that it's better than its precursor.


message 12: by Alex (new) - rated it 5 stars

Alex Harris-MacDuff The stone giants play fighting is in the book, the ensuing avalanches are the reason they hide in the cave that turns out to be the goblins'. Also, it makes sense for Legolas to be there, the 'Elvenking of Mirkwood', which is the character's only name in the book, is Thranduil, Legolas' Dad. The Pale Orc sub-plot is based on Tolkien's notes about why Thorin Oakenshield is practically the only dwarf with his own surname. It helps set up the Battle of Five Armies from the very start of the journey.

Radagast is arguably the only true addition to the first one, although again it sets up where Gandalf disappears to once they leave Beorn. Gandalf leaving, and him saying where he goes, is in the book as well, and in Lord of the Rings he explicitly states that it was Sauron he and the other wizards banished from Dol Guldur. It makes sense to show all of this, since they have free reign here to include it all.

Each individual Lord of the Rings film could have been three movies if they included everything, such as Tom Bombadil, all of the songs, the lengthy journey to Rivendell from the Shire at the start of the first one and how long it takes for Frodo to leave after Bilbo's party in the book, and that's just the Fellowship!

I liked the first film, I think it was wonderfully rich and detailed, although the fact that all the dwarfs survive until basically the end means you never feel any peril when they're in any tight scrapes, which may be difficult to sustain over the other two films. We shall see! The book is one of my favourites, but I reckon they could've killed off Nori or Oin or one of them just to change it up a bit!


message 13: by Jack (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jack Conner For me, that explanation about the stone giants doesn't work. Something as big as a mountain -- actually a living mountain - needs to be set up first -- or better yet, discarded. Mountain climbers routinely seek shelter in caves. No reason is needed for them to do so. No, the stone giants were a clumsy and unnecessary excuse for spectacle.


Bethany  T Becky wrote: "I usually try to mentally separate books from their movie adaptations. It helps me enjoy the movies more. That being said, I really enjoyed the first part of The Hobbit and am looking forward to pa..."

With you on separating books and movies and stretching it out as long as possible.


message 15: by Alex (new) - rated it 5 stars

Alex Harris-MacDuff The stone giants were in the book though! They're obviously not leaving anything out of the book this time because of the complaints about missing stuff from Lord of the Rings and because they have the time and budget to include it all. Peter Jackson didn't just decide "oh yeah, this tree can talk" in Lord of the Rings, Treebeard is a major character. They didn't just invent the stone giants out of thin air.


Christian Ted wrote: "To think that the same guy who couldn't find a way to get Tom Bombadil into LOTR could expand The Hobbit like this."
The problem with Tom Bombadil is that he doesn't fit in the all things considered rather gloomy LotR setting. Heck, I still don't think he fits in the book. They'd need to revise him completely to make him work in the film in order to keep him from falling into the sad/depressed clown stereotype. The way they worked around him in the films wasn't the most elegant piece of adaptation I'll give you that, but I still think it was the better choice


message 17: by [deleted user] (new)

I like the first part. All I've seen is comercials of the second


message 18: by Jack (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jack Conner In the novel the giants are just regular ol' flesh-and-blood giants, like the trolls. That would have been cool. Instead -- living mountains that were not set up at all and serve no purpose other than what the original rock-throwing fleshy giants served.

I love PJ, LOTR, Tolkien, and am in no way a hater, but "The Hobbit 1" was badly written, or at least plotted out. I sincerely hope and expect the next one to be better. But when you have living beings the size of mountains that come out of nowhere and fight for no reason and accomplish nothing more than the original giants of the novel did . . . well. Here's hoping the next one will be better.


message 19: by [deleted user] (new)

I like all sorts of different stories: ) Especially fantasy


message 20: by Alex (new) - rated it 5 stars

Alex Harris-MacDuff The stone giants are never really described in the book apart from creating the sound of a thunderstorm. The only real difference is that the party see the stone giants over the other side of the valley rather than being on them. A lot of people have major problems with anything being in any of the films that Tolkien didn't explicitly write, but that would have resulted in no dialogue for up to about 20 minutes at a time through all the descriptive stuff, or the silent nights and days they spend travelling, particularly in LotR. I loved the Hobbit film, I think the second one will be great too.


message 21: by Jack (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jack Conner I have high hopes for the second one, too. I think it will be good, perhaps even great. But even just a "good" movie about Middle-Earth by Peter Jackson is a pretty special thing.


Jeske I thought that the movie was too long (it could have been a lot shorter, making it more enjoyable). I also felt it was over-dramatized, especially after reading the book again. It's supposed to be a jolly children's story, and it's written in a funny, not-so-serious way... But hey, that wouldn't make a great movie to watch, right? Anyway, I feel that they could better have refrained from filming the book. However, I am curious for the second film.


message 23: by K (last edited Dec 10, 2013 12:16PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

K D Jack wrote: "I'm a huge fan of Peter Jackson's LOTR movies, and it' painful for me to say that "The Hobbit: Part One" just wasn't that good, and most of that is because of the poor writing, which is bizarre, si..."

I concur, people who are going to watch know what goes on. We just want to get back into Middle Earth and enjoy the adventure the "Hobbit" is. Please do not invent unnecessary characters or situations. Let it flow. It's tough not to compare to the LOTR but you really can't; two different story lines. We don't need anymore long cave chase scenes, way over the top too. I will go see H2 and really really hope we are back on track.


Julia Kh wrote: "Jack wrote: "I will go see H2 and really really hope we are back on track"

I wouldn't count on it. They planned 3 movies, surely they knew more or less how they were going to fill in the time. If they limited the extra stuff and over-the-top fight/chase scenes then it won't take 3 movies.

I'm willing to bet that H2 and H3 will be more of the same.


message 25: by Helka (new) - added it

Helka Ermala I think Jackson did a fairly good job. Most of the additions were taken from Tolkien's notes, and LotR, and they made the story more solid, and the things that happened became that way more connected to each other. However some of the fight-scenes were waaaaayyy too long and there was some stuff that was clearly added just to add the drama and suspense. I liked the first part much much more than the second one... The first one was more loyal to the original.


back to top