I saw it Monday in HFR 3D. I didn't know what HFR was going in. This was my 1st 3D movie since attempting to watch one on TV in the 80s, so I didn't really have anything to compare it to. But I thought it looked good. I never did get around to reading The Hobbit. I thought that might be a good thing before seeing the movie. But I figured the albino orc was a Jackson add on. He stated the need for a visible antagonist which is why he added orc leaders in the LOTR films. It did all seem a bit familiar. Galadriel uses creepy telepathy voice The same music and sound effects for sequences with the ring. Butteflies are eagle messengers. Orcs ride their wargs in the same location as in TTT. I was hoping for more focus on a different story. I did enjoy the movie though. It was worth the price of admission to be immersed in middle earth again, and this time in 3D.
I'm sure this will be pulled down pretty soon, but..... You can see the full movie of The Hobbit right here, right now.
I read all the books, from The Hobbit through the Trilogy, to each of my sons. My older son was 4 or 5 when we hit the part where the Black Riders came busting into Fatty Bolger's house, which we were reading one Saturday morning at the kitchen table, after breakfast. I took a break after that to clean up the dishes and he was sitting there thinking. Son (eyeing the large bread knife I was washing): Would you use dat big knife for fighting dose Black Riders if day came to our house? Me (wanting to discourage him from waving large knives around): Oh, Rawhide, if Black Riders came in the front door, I'd be running out the back door pretty darned fast. Son (crying, clearly upset that he was stuck with a gutless wonder for a father): But you would take me WIF you, right?
I don't particularly care if the story is 100% faithful, and I don't think most of the criticisms are about that. What I didn't like is that Jackson tried to turn The Hobbit into The Lord Of The Rings. But they are two very different stories, with rather different tones. Yes, yes, they take place in the same universe and there is little harm in borrowing facts about that universe across the books - the Radagast stuff didn't bother me one bit, nor did the history "lesson" at the beginning of the movie. But Jackson is wrong that the story needs an extra antagonist, darker tone, more fighting and loud shriek-y quick cutting nonsense. The Hobbit and the LOTR are different. If Jackson didn't think he could do a road movie, then he shoudn't have taken on the project. Peter Jackson's The Hobbit is a hubristic mess.
i liked the movie for what it was, just finished re-reading the book and frankly cant see what the big deal is, if anything peter jackson version is a better story so far
what does "for what it was" mean? is that like saying, "I liked the movie Showgirls for what it was"?
Waterworld isn't in the same universe of suckage as Showgirls. funny but they came out the same year, only a month or so apart. i had forgotten that.
I thought the movie itself had two very different tones, one that featured the foreboding of the Lord of the Rings story, including all the material added in from either other sources or made up by Jackson, and one that was a lot more lighthearted and felt more like the Hobbit novel. Maybe this was by design but I found it a little jarring.
I could care less what its won its an opinion, just like the lord of the rings won countless award yet some people still bag it in my opinion (and I am sure I am not the only one) the book was not that great (the idea to me was fantastic the execution not so much)
Yes, well, if we dismiss the idea that criticism can be valid and that some criticism actually is more than mere opinion, then you are right. Big Macs are just as good as Jiro's sushi. Also, it is fairly clear that if you didn't care for the book, then you will find uninteresting issues of the book vs the movie.
part of the excellent critical response for the book is who gave it and under what criteria. obviously, The Hobbit is not an novel aimed at an "adult" audience. it isn't dripping with exciting technological imagination. it's set in an old world where swords glow when Orcs are present. ho hum. but the broad appeal and acclaim from reputable sources suggests that calling the book "average" is an opinion formed by a specific bias and peculiar disenchantment with the basic premise of the story, which is about commitment and redemption, ultimately.
like I said there is no denying the idea was great, but ultimately I never cared for any of the characters not one of the 12 companion dwarfs is memorable, and Thorin is not a particularly strong character
I agree with these statements, but that doesn't mean the book is average. Maybe the companions were not supposed to be memorable, and Thorin was not supposed to be a strong character? Frankly, he's a cocky jackass with a huge sense of entitlement.
that's true, I guess I saw it as the dwarfs journey to reclaim their land and riches, yet because they were not particularly great characters, It was hard to care for the original purpose of the journey
i can easily accept your POV about the jumping off point -- who likes to see dwarves rolling in gold afterall? -- but that's just Tolkein's exposition of the piece, and therein he reveals Bilbo's ambivalence and introduces the basic conflict.