The HOBBIT......don't bother

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

cheezydemon3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
12,915
Reaction score
1,677
Location
louisville
Keep in mind that I REALLY wanted to like this film.

Not a super fan, but the books are my all time favorite.

The first LOTR movie moved me to tears by staying true to the book.

I would wager that at least half of this movie was either rewritten, not for time, but just to change it, or was not actually in the book at all.

EFF that.

If you never read the books, then The Hobbit is an absolutely action packed special effects oriented sci-fi train wreck.

I should have been worried by the ads before it. 6 out of 7 of the previews were Syfi channel special effects aliens meet Will smith or Robot Jox or the maker of *retch* twilight's new gem (about aliens that take over human bodies and the love between a ****** and his alien infected girl)

I was seriously sitting there scoffing at the ads, saying to myself "The people here want to see a great piece of literature made visual, and they are showing us the equivelant of Starship Troopers ads"...... Unfortunately, maybe they weren't that far off.

Will NOT see the 2nd half in the theatre.
 
Really disappointed to hear that. I expected Jackson to be as faithful to the work as he was in the past. When I heard he was splitting it up into 3 films, I looked at the relative thickness of each of the LOTR books to that of the single work that is The Hobbit, and became dubious. It's sounding like he took artistic license to a completely new level and made it an ADD-riddled battlefest.

Still going to go see it, but sad to hear what's happening with it. Jackson may be becoming the new Lucas, creating great things and then milking them until they become tragic self-parodies.
 
Really disappointed to hear that. I expected Jackson to be as faithful to the work as he was in the past. When I heard he was splitting it up into 3 films, I looked at the relative thickness of each of the LOTR books to that of the single work that is The Hobbit, and became dubious.

i haven't read the whole LOTR series, but did read all of the Hobbit about 10 years ago. From what i have heard is there is actually more story in the hobbit htan the whole lotr series. Its a pretty fast paced book, and i have heard LOTR drags on with setting some scenes, and has a lot of fluff that wasn't included in the movies. Also, parts from the appendix to return of the king (?) were included in the hobbit trilogy.

saw it last night too. SOOO dissapointing. the movie never developed a rhythm at all. it was like oh boy we just escaped death. walk for 2 minutes while showing how beautiful new zealand is, rinse and repeat.

i feel like gandalf said "run. RUN!!!!" like 100 times.

i thought the 48 fps was better than i was expecting though. it had a sort of soap opera feel at the beginning, but once you got used to it it wasn't as bad as i thought it would be.
 
:EDIT: IT IS VIOLENT. I saw people with kids 7 or 8 years old leave and more squirm. Beheadings, Burning to death...all in the book, but the movie focused on the violence and neglected areas I would like to have seen more of.

It was like fate. Work said take the day off. No responsibilities. I was headed to the grocery when I was like........the 14th.......HOLY HELL!! HOBBIT!

I was by myself, but so what.

Got a ticket, killed some time......

Azog was a MAJOR character in the movie. Remember him?

I might have. Some big bad guy from some historic battle somewhere mentioned 2 or 3 times throughout ALL of the books. He showed up again, and again, and again. I guess to give the orcs a face for continuity. Whatever. Had only one hand, had a metal claw thing shoved on instead? Yeah.....probably in the foreward or the silmarillion or something......maybe.

The stone giants in the mountains, instead of being far off scary things throwing rocks for fun during the thunder, they are actually psychotic beings bigger than the mountains absolutely HELL bent on killing each other. One got beheaded with the whole gang on his knees. Don't seem to recal reading anything like that.
 
I saw a sneek prescreening in 2D. Tech geeks help me out here, was the 2D in 48fps? I know that not all 3D was in 48fps.

I think that viewing a movie that is shot in 3D in 2D causes the backgrounds to be extra blurry, so I was not impressed with what I saw.

I will have to see it in 3D 48fps just to see if it is better.
 
I was excited about this until I heard it would be 3 movies, and then I got angry. I'm going to do my absolute best to Not see these until all 3 are out on DVD. This splitting movies in half and thirds, and splitting tv series into split seasons is not making me happy.

(I saw the 2d fwiw)

LoTR left stuff out by necessity. I fully forgive there.

The HOBBIT added in crapola that wasn't in the book and left out stuff I would have LOVED to see.

In the scene with the 3 trolls, gandalf says not a word. In the book, it was he that immitated troll voices to turn them in circles until morning. LEFT OUT.

Guess it wasn't flashy and special effects enough.

I do feel similarly betrayed to the time when I first witnessed Jar jar and realized that what I wanted to love was crap.
 
I understand the time constraints, but didnt think the first movies were close enough to the book for my tastes.

I had high hopes, but I guess ill wait till i can get it on netflix and not waste the cash on the movie
 
Well, that's a bummer.

I was planning on potentially seeing it this weekend, if I can get my raytracer working correctly before then.


I heard a sort of "preview" on the radio where they said the fact that they split it up into 3 films allowed them to basically transcribe the entire book into film, getting every word and scene, but that doesn't sound like what they did. Especially if they didn't include the scene with Gandalf tricking the trolls..that was a pretty major scene in the book, and I don't understand why they'd change it except because Peter Jackson is scared of filming scenes that don't include heads being chopped off.
 
I've read the book twice. I'm looking forward to it. I'm easy though, give me a bucket of popcorn and a big soda and I can settle into almost any movie.

Geez, there are so many worse places to be than the movie theater.

Strive to be happy!
 
Well, that's a bummer.

I was planning on potentially seeing it this weekend, if I can get my raytracer working correctly before then.


I heard a sort of "preview" on the radio where they said the fact that they split it up into 3 films allowed them to basically transcribe the entire book into film, getting every word and scene, but that doesn't sound like what they did. Especially if they didn't include the scene with Gandalf tricking the trolls..that was a pretty major scene in the book, and I don't understand why they'd change it except because Peter Jackson is scared of filming scenes that don't include heads being chopped off.

Thta is laughable. There WAS beheading, although it was an obscure historical event which begs much further question of WHY??????

I've read the book twice. I'm looking forward to it. I'm easy though, give me a bucket of popcorn and a big soda and I can settle into almost any movie.

Geez, there are so many worse places to be than the movie theater.

Strive to be happy!

This is star wars for me brother. Have you any opinion there?

My 8th grade english techer literally gave up because each book report was on something JRR Tolkien.
 
Thta is laughable. There WAS beheading, although it was an obscure historical event which begs much further question of WHY??????



This is star wars for me brother. Have you any opinion there?

My 8th grade english techer literally gave up because each book report was on something JRR Tolkien.

Jar Jar was a catastrophe, but Darth Maul made up for that. And Ewoks were a disaster. That is all.
 
In how I met you mother Barney breaks down the ewok love and hate thing by age. I would post a link but on my phone and don't know how.
 
So ewoks seemed ridiculous to older folks?

That makes some sense.

Oddly I thought Darth Maul was a ******.
 
I am 45 n love the ewoks.

Did not think much of Darth Maul because the movie did not develop his character very much.
 
Oh yeah.....(back OT, sorry)

The Dwarves called for neither ale nor porter.

They drank red wine and chamomile tea.
Believe me, I wish I was making this up.
 
Completely OT:

Darth Maul had no character development. He was just some guy who appeared on screen for a few scenes for no apparent reason. Same as pretty much every other character in Episodes 1-3.
I wasn't a huge fan of the Ewoks, although they weren't nearly as bad as Jar-Jar. Really, of the original trilogy Return of the Jedi was by far the weakest film, despite having cooler special effects and featuring Leia in a metal bikini.
 
I've read the book twice. I'm looking forward to it. I'm easy though, give me a bucket of popcorn and a big soda and I can settle into almost any movie.

Geez, there are so many worse places to be than the movie theater.

Strive to be happy!

It's tough to remain happy when a movie you've been waiting 30 years for turns out to be nothing but a commercialized butchery of a beloved & well known story. I found that out with John Carter. And this one is filmed in some newfangled format that makes some people ill. I don't care how technically advanced it is, if it makes me puke, it ain't fun.

If it's offered in standard 2D format locally, I'll go see it. If not, I'll wait till it comes out on DVD. And I'm not happy that 1 book was split into 3 films. I was afraid they'd pull some sort of $hit to turn a quick buck on this film; starting to look like I was right.

I don't mean to piss in anybodys wheaties here, but that's how I see it.
You know, technically, the glass is ALWAYS FULL.
Regards, GF.
 
It's tough to remain happy when a movie you've been waiting 30 years for turns out to be nothing but a commercialized butchery of a beloved & well known story. I found that out with John Carter. And this one is filmed in some newfangled format that makes some people ill. I don't care how technically advanced it is, if it makes me puke, it ain't fun.

If it's offered in standard 2D format locally, I'll go see it. If not, I'll wait till it comes out on DVD. And I'm not happy that 1 book was split into 3 films. I was afraid they'd pull some sort of $hit to turn a quick buck on this film; starting to look like I was right.

I don't mean to piss in anybodys wheaties here, but that's how I see it.
You know, technically, the glass is ALWAYS FULL.
Regards, GF.

That's a very thorough, and negative, movie review for someone who hasn't even seen it. How do you do that?
 
It's tough to remain happy when a movie you've been waiting 30 years for turns out to be nothing but a commercialized butchery of a beloved & well known story. I found that out with John Carter. And this one is filmed in some newfangled format that makes some people ill. I don't care how technically advanced it is, if it makes me puke, it ain't fun.

If it's offered in standard 2D format locally, I'll go see it. If not, I'll wait till it comes out on DVD. And I'm not happy that 1 book was split into 3 films. I was afraid they'd pull some sort of $hit to turn a quick buck on this film; starting to look like I was right.

I don't mean to piss in anybodys wheaties here, but that's how I see it.
You know, technically, the glass is ALWAYS FULL.
Regards, GF.

That's a very thorough, and negative, movie review revvy,
for someone who hasn't even seen it. How do you do that?

There is 1 big factor to consider here.

I saw the movie with no reviews or opinions.

I saw it first day, no preconceptions except the ones I had carried for 20 years.

Hopefully some who now read this thread and see the film with a grain of salt will say it isn't too bad.

How can I put this?

My posts may be erratic and 60% or so nonsensical....but my movie reviews are pretty widely respected.

Since the "GOOD on Netflix" I haven't done so many, but of movies in general, and of the HOBBIT specifically, I know of what I speak.

If GF is pissed for the reasons I am, why question it when YOU haven't seen it?
 
Say what you will about The Hobbit, how dare you speak ill of starship troopers! And here i thought i actually liked you and your reviews.

/leaving now...
 
I just saw this tonight and I've got to say that it didn't nearly live up to my expectations. I was hoping all the negative reviews were wrong, but alas they were right. I didn't have the issue with pacing that I read about early in the thread, but all the additions angered me. As with most book to movie adaptations I'm assuming the producers felt the need to cater to the masses which is translated as those who haven't read the book. So in that respect I think it was what it was supposed to be. Just my $0.02.
 
As per the reasoning for three movies, there is a recent interview with Peter Jackson where he said the idea for three movies was his own and he actually had to convince the studio that it could be done. He said that as this book will be the last Tolkien movie anyone will ever make (per the Tolkien foundation) he wanted to include a lot of back-stories/characters from the appendixes that otherwise would never see film.

Regardless, I saw the movie tonight and it has a lot of issues. Even in 2D, the lighting made it looks like a soap opera and even some of the CGI was very plastic-y and fake. The story line is very meandering and it is hard to believe this was written by the same folks who did LOTR. But other than that, if you are a fan of the books, you'll enjoy it.

Still better than the latest Batman tho...
 
Did you know that this film was subsidized a lot by NZ rate payer in hope that all you rich tourist will come here to see the scenery. So, will you? Local actors had to work under minimum pay etc.

I've been here for 5 years and I think that this country is 100% fake when it comes to the environment. All you see in these movies etc. is what once were something completely different. The final nail is now been nailed in the coffin by the intense dairy farming destroying what ever was left in the rivers and creeks after the introducing of trout and perch... Just to export cheap milk powder to China.
 
I'm not judging the movie until I see it. I think that's reasonable.

I think it is unreasonable to judge the movie if you haven't seen it.

What's your thought on this?

And why did you slip revvy in there?

Revvy has been on me to start my own movie review blog. Sorry I brought him up.

If everyone who had listened to it said that a brewing podcast was bad and full of inaccuracies, you would still bother with it?

That is fine. I myself would have loved to come upon a review like this. I would have lowered my expectations, and probably enjoyed the film more, or saved myself the pain and seen it when it is on amazon or netflix.

There was almost constant action and violence, huge parts were left out and huge parts created that weren't there. Azog and Radagast were footnotes in the book, but major roles in the film. Radagast????? He was mentioned in the book, but NEVER made an appearance as far as I can recall.
 
If everyone who had listened to it said that a brewing podcast was bad and full of inaccuracies, you would still bother with it?

I might not go see it based on the poor reviews. However, I won't review it myself unless I see it. And that's what GF did. How many ways do I have to say the same thing here? Come on cheeze.
 
I thought it was great. And yes I have read the book. I learned a long time ago to stop comparing books to movies/shows, as someone will always be disappointed with the changes. As for the splitting it into three movies, as someone else mentioned Jackson wants to include more back story and history from the other books, since these will be the last movies ever made. I love this idea, seeing how The Silmarillion and other works will never be put on screen, it would be neat to include some of that in the back story of these movies.
 
well, i saw the movie yesterday. i've loved LOTR since i first read it as a child, and i return to it often as an adult (my wife thinks i'm a little nuts). i'm currently teaching the hobbit and my two ninth grade classes will be finishing the book next week before christmas break begins. perfect timing for them, but this movie is so far removed from the book that i suspect most of my students will come back to school with a thousand questions and plenty of disappointment.

if this movie was titled, say, "tolkien's middle earth: the hobbit" then i think it would sit easier with fans. but the movie is simply not "the hobbit." it's more; more from tolkien's universe and more from jackson's imagination.

the entire use of azog and radagast to drive the plot was pretty ridiculous. more violence and more cgi. azog was completely cgi, where in the past jackson has used people in orc-costume, and this seriously detracted from azog's character. and i don't know whose idea it was to have bird crap running down radagast's face as part of his costume (he has a bird's nest under his hat), but that was disgusting and unnecessary. the entire character of radagast was shown to be a goofball, which was annoying considering he is one of the five wizards.

probably the biggest letdown was the lack of development in bilbo's character. they developed frodo and sam so well in the LOTR that it was surprising to see such a shallow hobbit for nearly three hours of the movie named after him.

the dwarves do consume plenty of cask ale at bilbo's home, however (the wine is for gandalf), and then pass into a much-too-lengthy belching contest. that scene, and the sneezing troll, are for the kids, i suppose.

i wasn't disappointed because i knew it was going to include more than what's found within the pages of the novel, but i also wasn't pleasantly surprised by any of it. the gollum riddle game scene was fun to watch. as was most of ian mckellen's performance.

so i have mixed feelings. enjoy, or do not enjoy, the movie. i'm off to keg an imperial red ale...
 
I might not go see it based on the poor reviews. However, I won't review it myself unless I see it. And that's what GF did. How many ways do I have to say the same thing here? Come on cheeze.

I get it. You won't form an opinion without seeing it. That is fine, you just seemed to criticize someone who was reading the disappointment and assuming the worst.


If there was a 53 minute packing scene, I evidently slept through it, because I recall very few 5 minute areas without serious action commencing.

It was exhausting.

The book is about those very things. The movie wasn't.
 
See this is why I don't read reviews. I saw this Friday night and loved it. Yes I have read all the books, yes I have read all of the Annexes etc. Yes PJ put a lot of extra stuff into the film, and I don't care. I was entertained, and that's all that matters.
 
I saw it again in 3D HFR.

There is no comparison, in 3D HFR it is a great movie, in 2D it is a lousy movie.
 
Well, I read the book yesterday just to catch up. I had read the LOTR series and the Silmarillion (Best book ever IMO), but for some reason never the Hobbit. Not as good literature I don't think. But, as Cheezy points, Radagast is only mentioned to Beorn as Gandalf introduces himself. Although, Radagast is actually in the LOTR series in a minor roll.


I want to see Tom Bombadil!

I'll probably see the movie this coming week. I'm a sucker for LOTR stuff.
 
It's The Onion. It's satire. Don't take it seriously.

Sorry, I was a chinese press analyst in a former life ;)


Look, this isn't the debate forum. I just wanted to let other people who are very literal, like me, know to take the movie with a grain of salt or not bother entirely.

I'm not saying that the movie sucked, just that it wasn't a good version of the Hobbit.

Kinda wish I'd done the latter.
 
Well your thread title says "Don't bother"...

This is going to be our Christmas Eve before Christmas Eve dinner movie. I'm not particularly attached to the book and really just hope to entertained. Would it be nice if Peter Jackson stuck to the book? Yes, absolutely. I'm not going to go in there with a copy of the Hobbit and cross reference every scene.
 
Back
Top