Holy stuff, The Hobbit is Phenomenal

[Visage]

The movie was 90% dialogue 10% action I wasn't too impressed and the story didn't develop much it was dreadfully drawn out to turn a single book into 100 movies.

[Ad Bot]

[Cucumber!]

All my friends were being butthurt on how the goblin king's death wasn't serious and that's why they hated it. How dare they try to introduce humor into a fantasy movie!

I loved it, personally.

[Fredulus]

The movie was 90% dialogue 10% action I wasn't too impressed and the story didn't develop much it was dreadfully drawn out to turn a single book into 100 movies.

this so much
i mean i don't mind the dialogue but the story moved at an absolute crawl.

All my friends were being butthurt on how the goblin king's death wasn't serious and that's why they hated it. How dare they try to introduce humor into a fantasy movie!
I loved it, personally.

they obviously have no idea what they're talking about/have never read the hobbit
it's got tons of hilarious stuff, it's not some dark serious edgy novel

Becuase RADaR looks handicapped so they stylize it as RADAR which was eventually changed to just radar. Same thing with SFMoMA, that looks handicapped so it's stylized as SFMOMA. There's a difference between a stylization and the way acronyms are formed. It's LotR.

you know what else looks handicapped
arguing over the capitalization of LOTR lol

[ImperealOfficer]

Peter Jackson seemed to have the intent to reflect the drama and depth of the original Lord of the Rings drawn out story, and so is tried to apply that the the one book prequel The Hobbit. However, I agree, its a bit too slow for the length of the actual book, it would be more fitting if it was worthwhile to flesh out such a story. But, the movie is good, solid, Peter Jackson type style found likewise in the original Lord of the Rings trilogy. Some scenes, like Bilbo finding the ring, may have been elaborated and changed for a reason, you can't just explain a memory in one flashback. Also, Azog seems more of a plot device than anything, Thrain is destined to kill him or mutilate him in some way after or before they defeat Smaug and he really diverts the plot that Thrain and Company are going after Smaug to retake The Lonely Mountain.

But besides that, it was enjoyable and solid, Peter Jackson rekindles the flame.

9.7 out of 10

[Mysteroo]

I was actually really disappointed.
I guess alone it might have been alright, but when you have read the book and you're comparing it, it's a real downer. He just trashed the book, there were so many inaccuracies. I thought the movies would be so long because they were being accurate to the comma, but instead I found that it was so long because they added so much stuff that was never there in the first place. :/

[Kazami]

I just saw The Hobbit last Thursday. I thought it was quite entertaining. It was a nice adaption from the book (even though I have yet to read the book, which I will soon), and it had a nice flow to it. I thought for splitting one classic book into three movies the first part was really good. It was a perfect blend of comedy, action, drama, and suspense. I still haven't seen all three Lord of the Rings movies all the way through, but I would say that The Lord of the Rings is better still, but The Hobbit was quite amazing. I can't wait for the next movie.

[devildogelite]

it shouldn't be when you're the same person with the same crew and have more money.

You're somewhat handicapped. It's my favorite story I've seen in a movie. The story is different in The Hobbit, I may not like the story as much as Lord of the Rings.


WAH WAH THE BOOK IS MUCH BETTER EVERYONE!

[King Leo]

Peter Jackson seemed to have the intent to reflect the drama and depth of the original Lord of the Rings drawn out story, and so is tried to apply that the the one book prequel The Hobbit. However, I agree, its a bit too slow for the length of the actual book

What I heard is that Jackson only got the rights to "The Hobbit", but not the other Tolkien books. Seeing how LotR was hugely successful, he wanted to make as much money from "The Hobbit" as possible. 3 movies = 3 times the money.


I actually loved the "Riddles in the dark" scene. It was very true to the book, and Gollum was animated/played really well in that scene. I wouldn't have minded if the scene would have been even longer :P

[Jaxx]

first half: dwarves in a hole
second half: dwarves fighting
also bilbo gets the ring. next movie!

[Littledude]

I saw it not too long ago but I was pretty stoned and ended up falling asleep a bunch of times.
Which is sad to say since I really love lord of the rings and loved what I did see.
I'm probably going to see it again while its still in theaters.

[Cybersix]

I was actually really disappointed.
I guess alone it might have been alright, but when you have read the book and you're comparing it, it's a real downer. He just trashed the book, there were so many inaccuracies. I thought the movies would be so long because they were being accurate to the comma, but instead I found that it was so long because they added so much stuff that was never there in the first place. :/

The only real inaccuracy was the fact that Azog is alive.

[Port]

first half: dwarves in a hole
second half: dwarves fighting
also bilbo gets the ring. next movie!

yes

[Nymethus]

It's LotR.

You have no source that says it's LotR and not LOTR. It's bullstuff.
Also, "because [it] looks handicapped" isn't a real rule.

You're somewhat handicapped. It's my favorite story I've seen in a movie. The story is different in The Hobbit, I may not like the story as much as Lord of the Rings.


WAH WAH THE BOOK IS MUCH BETTER EVERYONE!

what the forget are you talking about? did you quote the wrong person or did you completely lose track of the conversation?

The only real inaccuracy was the fact that Azog is alive.

Define "real inaccuracy". An example of what I'd call a "real inaccuracy", is that every single dwarf was visually done completely different compared to the book.