Do the Hobbit movies kick you right in your childhood?

[annapoleon]

I grew up on The Hobbit as a youth, back in the day. It had a pretty sweet cover and my Mom did an excellent Smaug voice. (Take that Benedict Cumberbatch! Doesn't even compare)

I loved the book and held it far apart from the Lord of the Rings series, which I read a couple years later. (Skipped all the songs and I still don't regret it)

Not only was The Hobbit written far earlier than the LOTR series but it was meant for children. It was not a serious epic that should be drawn out to a ridiculous degree.

The Hobbit 'trilogy' is akin to the "Where The Wild Things Are" movie, where a ten page book was stretched out into an hour and a half and I think someone's arm gets ripped off? Who made that artistic decision? Geez.

Making this book into a trilogy was just Peter Jackson losing his mind like George Lucas. It is probably more accurate to blame the producers behind them, but I don't know their names so whatever...

Also, rabbit sleds are stupid and Radagast is not at all like I imagined him in my head for over a decade.

Does anyone share my opinion or have any input? Just curious to know if I'm the only one.

[[ Insert name Here ]]

I pretty much agree completely. There's no reason that it needed to be put on the rack and stretched into three movies. I'm pretty sure Peter Jackson already has enough money from the LotR trilogy to keep his swimming pool filled with fresh $50's for the rest of his life, why did he have to ******** up my favorite book like that?

[Erailea]

[ Insert name Here ]

I pretty much agree completely. There's no reason that it needed to be put on the rack and stretched into three movies. I'm pretty sure Peter Jackson already has enough money from the LotR trilogy to keep his swimming pool filled with fresh $50's for the rest of his life, why did he have to ******** up my favorite book like that?

I rather doubt it was about money, considering Jackson only picked up doing the movies when his director friend walked away from the project. I think Jackson just wanted to get more of the Middle Earth lore into the movies, thus why he added the Silmarillion crud.... I call it crud because I felt it totally bogged down the first movie and made it confusing to follow (3 plots going on all at the same time, right in the beginning of the movie was a terrible idea). Jackson really could have integrated those parts better. They flowed more smoothly in the 2nd film because the focus was on the Dwarves and the side plot was the Necromancer, unlike in the first film where the plot of the Dwarves, the Necromancer and the desired-revenge of the White Orc were all competing for the spotlight (and the White Orc's revenge was then cast aside as if it were nothing in the second movie, which made it's existence seem kind pointless).

On the 1-book-into-3 thing. People would have screamed and hollered had it just been one because, lets face it, a TON of stuff happens in the books. One film would have been extremely rushed. It really could have been condensed into 2, though, had they cut out a lot of the bull in the first movie.

On the other hand, making it 3 films allowed the team to focus on the memorable moments in the book, which happen extremely fast in text form - Goblin town was only a few pages! The Goblin King was alive for less than a page! I was terribly surprised when I looked that up right after I saw the first movie (I hadn't read the book in several years, prior to that). About half of the second film was dedicated to Smaug himself too, who, if I remember right, was only around for a few short chapters, yet commanded about an hour of screen time ( *SPOILER, SKIP NEXT LINE IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT* ----------- and isn't dead yet).



As a whole, I don't feel The Hobbit lives up to the amazing quality and structure of the LOTR trilogy, but The Hobbit is terrible either. The first movie was definitely the weakest link, in my opinion, for reason stated above, but the second was pretty stunning. Yes, it delved off the path a bit (Legolas becomes a frontal character, but Jackson made it work, really well actually, unlike his attempts to get people into the Necromancer story in the first film) and had an eye-rolling love triangle, but there was plenty to be in awe over too. I was gushing over Smaug - his animation, personality, and how all the characters interacted with him were simply amazing. Mirkwood wasn't too shabby, either, to be honest.

[Sunny Soda Breeze]

annapoleon

Also, rabbit sleds are stupid and Radagast is not at all like I imagined him in my head for over a decade.

Does anyone share my opinion or have any input? Just curious to know if I'm the only one.

Aww! Maybe it's just me with my Watership Down fan-ism, but I heart the rabbits crying crying crying

Honestly though, I couldn't really picture Radagast because he's so briefly mentioned, from what I remember...I guess a lot of people complained about his general look (and his bird poo ofc) but idk, aside from that, I think he complements Gandalf well. *shrug*

Anyway, maybe I'm one of the few, but I really have little to complain about what Jackson has done other than bloat a lot of the material. I think overall this trilogy has so far been fantastic, especially the art...Yeah, a lot of the filler stuff was never in the Hobbit, but more so in the appendices/background Tolkien wrote. I also didn't like the idea of 3 movies, and there's some other smaller things I'd complain about, but, come on...Thranduil. Thranduil. Like, 1) he has an actual name 2) he is an actual person, elf (and a gorgeous one at that...unlike in the animated movie... sweatdrop )

And yesssss, Smaug was amazing, period...I really can't describe in words his sheer awesomeness finally revealed on screen.

The love triangle was meh though, I agree.

[Lazarus Larkin]

The trailers for both movies made me make so many indignant noises XD when the first one came out I just re-read the book instead of seeing it, and I'll probably do that again.

I actually think Benedict Cumberbatch was a good casting choice BUT THEN THEY PUT SO MUCH COMPUTER SYNTH IN HIS VOICE WHY BOTHER EVEN HIRING HIM.

I hate peter jackson so much XD

[Tunechi F Baby]

I've seen Unexpected Journey, I think I'm going to wait a while before watching DoS, I didn't like UJ at all, it's too animated, too much songs, no LOTR feeling... emo

[BabiiBre402]

Tunechi F Baby

I've seen Unexpected Journey, I think I'm going to wait a while before watching DoS, I didn't like UJ at all, it's too animated, too much songs, no LOTR feeling... emo

If that is how you feel on AUJ, you should absolutely see DOS. Much more action, not many songs. You will have your fill of LOTR feeling.

[Double-Click Darling]

Lazarus Larkin

I actually think Benedict Cumberbatch was a good casting choice BUT THEN THEY PUT SO MUCH COMPUTER SYNTH IN HIS VOICE WHY BOTHER EVEN HIRING HIM.

This. I was very excited, only to be let down with how much they covered his voice with computer synth. I could hear bits and parts, but honestly, I was expecting much more of his voice (especially since he does a wonderful job with darker roles and has the voice to pull it off).

Overall, DoS was not The Hobbit. It had elements from The Hobbit, but in my opinion, it wasn't The Hobbit by any means. I feel like Peter Jackson is putting in so much filler to force it into an epic story on the level of LOTR and forgetting that it never was an epic story. It is no longer the book that I read when I was in late primary school that got me into Tolkien in the first place.

[Tunechi F Baby]

BabiiBre402

Tunechi F Baby

I've seen Unexpected Journey, I think I'm going to wait a while before watching DoS, I didn't like UJ at all, it's too animated, too much songs, no LOTR feeling... emo

If that is how you feel on AUJ, you should absolutely see DOS. Much more action, not many songs. You will have your fill of LOTR feeling.

Great, but I'll wait a while sweatdrop

[Red Wysteria]

Not at all. I have always thought that the Lotr movies were better than the books. As for the Hobbit, if it was for children, it was sort of hard for me to feel engaged and follow along just cause of the way the author wrote. The movies have stuff in them that I don't completely understand, and it might be because of that stuff that a person would feel compelled to go and read the Tolkein books - it brings out our curiosity for those who haven't read or don't remember much. I enjoy the Hobbit movies very much and if I ever feel like going back to read the book, I can do so - I am not going to imagine the movie when I am reading along right there what they are doing, my imagination won't wander off to something different than what's right there in words. When so much of the book is scenery and songs, I just personally like to see the scenery and hear the songs. Peter Jackson is the greatest choice for directing those movies, I've no doubt about that, and I think it is a good thing that he brought so much new life to it. The book was pretty different in what happened but it's the way that each the book and movie are told that makes it easy to separate the two in your head depending on which one you are focusing on at the moment.

[Kelso The Great]

Erailea

[ Insert name Here ]

I pretty much agree completely. There's no reason that it needed to be put on the rack and stretched into three movies. I'm pretty sure Peter Jackson already has enough money from the LotR trilogy to keep his swimming pool filled with fresh $50's for the rest of his life, why did he have to ******** up my favorite book like that?

I rather doubt it was about money, considering Jackson only picked up doing the movies when his director friend walked away from the project. I think Jackson just wanted to get more of the Middle Earth lore into the movies, thus why he added the Silmarillion crud.... I call it crud because I felt it totally bogged down the first movie and made it confusing to follow (3 plots going on all at the same time, right in the beginning of the movie was a terrible idea). Jackson really could have integrated those parts better. They flowed more smoothly in the 2nd film because the focus was on the Dwarves and the side plot was the Necromancer, unlike in the first film where the plot of the Dwarves, the Necromancer and the desired-revenge of the White Orc were all competing for the spotlight (and the White Orc's revenge was then cast aside as if it were nothing in the second movie, which made it's existence seem kind pointless).

On the 1-book-into-3 thing. People would have screamed and hollered had it just been one because, lets face it, a TON of stuff happens in the books. One film would have been extremely rushed. It really could have been condensed into 2, though, had they cut out a lot of the bull in the first movie.

On the other hand, making it 3 films allowed the team to focus on the memorable moments in the book, which happen extremely fast in text form - Goblin town was only a few pages! The Goblin King was alive for less than a page! I was terribly surprised when I looked that up right after I saw the first movie (I hadn't read the book in several years, prior to that). About half of the second film was dedicated to Smaug himself too, who, if I remember right, was only around for a few short chapters, yet commanded about an hour of screen time ( *SPOILER, SKIP NEXT LINE IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT* ----------- and isn't dead yet).



As a whole, I don't feel The Hobbit lives up to the amazing quality and structure of the LOTR trilogy, but The Hobbit is terrible either. The first movie was definitely the weakest link, in my opinion, for reason stated above, but the second was pretty stunning. Yes, it delved off the path a bit (Legolas becomes a frontal character, but Jackson made it work, really well actually, unlike his attempts to get people into the Necromancer story in the first film) and had an eye-rolling love triangle, but there was plenty to be in awe over too. I was gushing over Smaug - his animation, personality, and how all the characters interacted with him were simply amazing. Mirkwood wasn't too shabby, either, to be honest.

I rather liked the fact they paced the films out in a familiar way at the first ones. I rather like seeing what the writers and director and actors can add to the story.
Considering that the LOTR is 3 times as much materiel, the film has more elbow room so to speak. I think if you don't like this film, you are just being too overly harshly critical. Why can't you just enjoy the film with out pecking it to death? But there were a few things I wasn't too hot about... the overly CG barrel fight scene was barely believable... I HATE CLIFF HANGERS!
But this is one I want to get on the DVD...
I was thrilled about Dol Goldur, and the whole white council inclusion... But What Silmarillion Crud are you talking about? The Silmarillion covers a lot of history of middle earth. From the Song of the Ainur, to the Corruption of Morgoth and Creation of Man... To the Lay of Luthien... all the way to the First War of the Ring I believe...

[Kelso The Great]

Sunny Soda Breeze

annapoleon

Also, rabbit sleds are stupid and Radagast is not at all like I imagined him in my head for over a decade.

Does anyone share my opinion or have any input? Just curious to know if I'm the only one.

Aww! Maybe it's just me with my Watership Down fan-ism, but I heart the rabbits crying crying crying

Honestly though, I couldn't really picture Radagast because he's so briefly mentioned, from what I remember...I guess a lot of people complained about his general look (and his bird poo ofc) but idk, aside from that, I think he complements Gandalf well. *shrug*

Anyway, maybe I'm one of the few, but I really have little to complain about what Jackson has done other than bloat a lot of the material. I think overall this trilogy has so far been fantastic, especially the art...Yeah, a lot of the filler stuff was never in the Hobbit, but more so in the appendices/background Tolkien wrote. I also didn't like the idea of 3 movies, and there's some other smaller things I'd complain about, but, come on...Thranduil. Thranduil. Like, 1) he has an actual name 2) he is an actual person, elf (and a gorgeous one at that...unlike in the animated movie... sweatdrop )

And yesssss, Smaug was amazing, period...I really can't describe in words his sheer awesomeness finally revealed on screen.

The love triangle was meh though, I agree.

OMG I NEVER REALIZED THAT WAS POO TILL I WATCHED IT WITH MY DAD FOR LIKE THE 3rd TIME!
SO me and my brother played the Lego LOTR Game, and Radagast was there, but he was a very simple Minifig... LOL So when I saw him in the film I was very impressed! His brief appearance in LOTR books was cut from the film (he was sent by Saruman the White to trick Gandalf into being trapped at the tower of Isengard)... But I found his inclusion to be rather fun... he has plenty to bring to the story...

I have one problem with Thranduil, and same for Legolas... But it is unbearable on Thranduil... But Siouxsie Sioux aint got s**t on those dark a** brows... Elizabeth Taylor is Jealous... I guess I am the only one resistant to his charms... Faramir was my fan girl crush... House of Healing was my favorite Chapter EVER!

[Alistair Arborstone]

no