The Hobbit was Terrible

Off Topic
41

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Did anyone else check out BC’s article?

Thoughts?

Seth Abramson is mostly accurate in what he said, but he gives Peter Jackson far too much credit for staying true to Tolkien’s texts. Tolkien wrote so little about Radagast that the Radagast we see in the movie is more Jackson’s creation than Tolkien’s.

Also, I’m pretty certain that Jackson didn’t have the rights to Unfinished Tales: there’s a chapter devoted to the Istari but in the movie when Gandalf mentions the Istari he only refers to Alatar and Pallando as blue wizards and says he has forgotten their names.

So while Jackson used a fair amount of creative license to fill in the blanks, the additions are mainly to explain Gandalf’s apparently passive role in the main quest. He disappears a lot in the book, and Jackson is setting up this unseen side to the dwarves’ quest where the White Council contend with the re-emergence of Sauron/ Necromancer at Dol Guldur while he leaves it to Bilbo and co. to kill Smaug, thus preventing him from forging an unbeatable alliance with the Necromancer.

Jackson even has Smaug and Necromancer/ Sauron played by one actor (Benedict Cumberbatch).

42

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ProRaven wrote:
I was really looking forward to this movie, as I’ve always been a LOTR fan. Unfortunately, I took my 15 year old son today and we both agreed it was terrible. Way too long, too many unnecessary scenes, its obvious Peter Jackson could use a lesson in editing. What’s really shocking is there is stll two more movies to go.

I loved the book as a kid. This should have been one movie, tops. [/quote]

This is what I think of your OP… Dislike Peter Jackson's <em>The Hobbit</em>? Then You Don't Know Tolkien | HuffPost Entertainment [/quote]

Thank you BC.
I loved the movie and look forward to having all the movies on Blue Ray someday

43

[quote]TheGreatXavi wrote:
But being a super LOTR fan, just coming back to middle earth brought tears in my eyes. Seeing Bad End, Rivendell. Its nostalgic experiences for me.

[/quote]

What the fuck is Bad End? It’s Bag End super fan.

44

[quote]sen say wrote:

What the fuck is Bad End? [/quote]

It’s Bag End after Bombur used the crapper.

45

Is it true or BS that the Hobbit repeatedly uses the n word?

46

The wife and I enjoyed the movie very much.

47

[quote]imhungry wrote:
The wife and I enjoyed the movie very much.[/quote]
Thats why I like you IH

48

Seen it.
It’s decent if you’re a genre-fan. Some of the effects and fights are great.
The
spoiler
dwarfish underground chase
spoilerend
is amazingly done, in a shorter film with less fights it would have been even more impressive.

If you’re not a diehard fantasy geek, prepare to be bored.
It takes no genius to figure out why.

Partitioning a smallish book first into two, then three parts was motivated by money alone, not artistic integrity.

The Huffington Post nerd can go suck an intellectual orifice of choice, his argument is baffling at best.
It doesn’t matter what Tolkien in his nightly nerdogasms envisioned later on, in order to make his creation appear more solid and whole.

If we find Grimm’s lost annotations to “Red Riding Hood”, and they lay out a wolfish genealogy, explaining at great lengths why this particular predator could talk along with establishing the history of the “Hunters Guild” and other outrageously geeky stuff, a three part movie about a little girl visiting her grandma would still.
Suck.
Ass.
A lot.

It’s painfully obvious that a movie is bloated when it takes ~40 minutes to get the hobbit’s furry ass out of Hobbit Town and 20+ minutes for Bilbo and Gollum to sort things out.

Let’s hear it from the director and former director:
“one of the drawbacks of The Hobbit is it’s relatively lightweight compared to LOTR” (Jackson)
and
“The Hobbit is better contained in a single film and kept brisk and fluid with no artificial 'break point” (delTorro)

49

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Seen it.
It’s decent if you’re a genre-fan. Some of the effects and fights are great.
The
spoiler
dwarfish underground chase
spoilerend
is amazingly done, in a shorter film with less fights it would have been even more impressive.

If you’re not a diehard fantasy geek, prepare to be bored.
It takes no genius to figure out why.

Partitioning a smallish book first into two, then three parts was motivated by money alone, not artistic integrity.

The Huffington Post nerd can go suck an intellectual orifice of choice, his argument is baffling at best.
It doesn’t matter what Tolkien in his nightly nerdogasms envisioned later on, in order to make his creation appear more solid and whole.

If we find Grimm’s lost annotations to “Red Riding Hood”, and they lay out a wolfish genealogy, explaining at great lengths why this particular predator could talk along with establishing the history of the “Hunters Guild” and other outrageously geeky stuff, a three part movie about a little girl visiting her grandma would still.
Suck.
Ass.
A lot.

It’s painfully obvious that a movie is bloated when it takes ~40 minutes to get the hobbit’s furry ass out of Hobbit Town and 20+ minutes for Bilbo and Gollum to sort things out.

Let’s hear it from the director and former director:
“one of the drawbacks of The Hobbit is it’s relatively lightweight compared to LOTR” (Jackson)
and
“The Hobbit is better contained in a single film and kept brisk and fluid with no artificial 'break point” (delTorro)
[/quote]

Agree 1000x. It’s not like it was an unpleasant film to watch, but when I go to see a movie, I expect the basic elements of a story to be present - intro, rising action, climax, descending action, and a meaningful resolution.

The way the movie ended to me was the worst part. You might expect a TV show to end like that (with a new episode coming the next week) but going to pay for a movie like that and have it end suddenly with no resolution and a year to the next film makes me feel like I’ve been ripped off.

50

I just can’t see myself going to a theater for this. The first trilogy was different. Maybe we were just more “ready” for it when it came out. Now, the Dungeons & Dragons shit has been done to death. It is by no means new or interesting. We’ve seen the elves that were 7 feet tall and the midget dwarfs. Unless they were adding in topless mermaids with double D clams, I may or may not see this at Redbox.

51

[quote]challer1 wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Seen it.
It’s decent if you’re a genre-fan. Some of the effects and fights are great.
The
spoiler
dwarfish underground chase
spoilerend
is amazingly done, in a shorter film with less fights it would have been even more impressive.

If you’re not a diehard fantasy geek, prepare to be bored.
It takes no genius to figure out why.

Partitioning a smallish book first into two, then three parts was motivated by money alone, not artistic integrity.

The Huffington Post nerd can go suck an intellectual orifice of choice, his argument is baffling at best.
It doesn’t matter what Tolkien in his nightly nerdogasms envisioned later on, in order to make his creation appear more solid and whole.

If we find Grimm’s lost annotations to “Red Riding Hood”, and they lay out a wolfish genealogy, explaining at great lengths why this particular predator could talk along with establishing the history of the “Hunters Guild” and other outrageously geeky stuff, a three part movie about a little girl visiting her grandma would still.
Suck.
Ass.
A lot.

It’s painfully obvious that a movie is bloated when it takes ~40 minutes to get the hobbit’s furry ass out of Hobbit Town and 20+ minutes for Bilbo and Gollum to sort things out.

Let’s hear it from the director and former director:
“one of the drawbacks of The Hobbit is it’s relatively lightweight compared to LOTR” (Jackson)
and
“The Hobbit is better contained in a single film and kept brisk and fluid with no artificial 'break point” (delTorro)
[/quote]

Agree 1000x. It’s not like it was an unpleasant film to watch, but when I go to see a movie, I expect the basic elements of a story to be present - intro, rising action, climax, descending action, and a meaningful resolution.

The way the movie ended to me was the worst part. You might expect a TV show to end like that (with a new episode coming the next week) but going to pay for a movie like that and have it end suddenly with no resolution and a year to the next film makes me feel like I’ve been ripped off.[/quote]

Watch Prometheus. Then you’ll know what it’s really like to sit through a movie with no ending.

52

[quote]challer1 wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Seen it.
It’s decent if you’re a genre-fan. Some of the effects and fights are great.
The
spoiler
dwarfish underground chase
spoilerend
is amazingly done, in a shorter film with less fights it would have been even more impressive.

If you’re not a diehard fantasy geek, prepare to be bored.
It takes no genius to figure out why.

Partitioning a smallish book first into two, then three parts was motivated by money alone, not artistic integrity.

The Huffington Post nerd can go suck an intellectual orifice of choice, his argument is baffling at best.
It doesn’t matter what Tolkien in his nightly nerdogasms envisioned later on, in order to make his creation appear more solid and whole.

If we find Grimm’s lost annotations to “Red Riding Hood”, and they lay out a wolfish genealogy, explaining at great lengths why this particular predator could talk along with establishing the history of the “Hunters Guild” and other outrageously geeky stuff, a three part movie about a little girl visiting her grandma would still.
Suck.
Ass.
A lot.

It’s painfully obvious that a movie is bloated when it takes ~40 minutes to get the hobbit’s furry ass out of Hobbit Town and 20+ minutes for Bilbo and Gollum to sort things out.

Let’s hear it from the director and former director:
“one of the drawbacks of The Hobbit is it’s relatively lightweight compared to LOTR” (Jackson)
and
“The Hobbit is better contained in a single film and kept brisk and fluid with no artificial 'break point” (delTorro)
[/quote]

Agree 1000x. It’s not like it was an unpleasant film to watch, but when I go to see a movie, I expect the basic elements of a story to be present - intro, rising action, climax, descending action, and a meaningful resolution.

The way the movie ended to me was the worst part. You might expect a TV show to end like that (with a new episode coming the next week) but going to pay for a movie like that and have it end suddenly with no resolution and a year to the next film makes me feel like I’ve been ripped off.[/quote]

I remember when that X-files film pulled that shit in the 90’s as basically a feature length episodic place-holder inbetween the televised seasons. That was some bullshit.

As I remember, the people (including me) weren’t that happy about it

53

If you went into this movie thinking it would be something different than what it was, then you’re on drugs. get off the drugs!!!

54

I liked it

55

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
“The Hobbit is better contained in a single film and kept brisk and fluid with no artificial 'break point” (delTorro)
[/quote]

The artificial break point where Thorin hugged Bilbo was painful to watch…I did enjoy the majority of it, but only since I found out about 2 hours before going to see it that it was only the first part…had I not known I too would have been like What The Elf ??? Get it ??? What the Elf ??? (What the eff??? ) HA

56

[quote]polo77j wrote:
I liked it[/quote]

That.is.awesome.! ^^^^^^^

57

[quote]Rico Suave wrote:
If you went into this movie thinking it would be something different than what it was, then you’re on drugs. get off the drugs!!![/quote]

Exactly.

In fact, if you went into this movie without being on drugs then you need to get on drugs.

Wait, what?

58

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:
I liked it[/quote]

That.is.awesome.! ^^^^^^[1]

I sent it to She Say…hilarious.

  1. /quote ↩︎

59

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:
The wife and I enjoyed the movie very much.[/quote]
Thats why I like you IH[/quote]

… until I see Jack Reacher.

The friendship was good while it lasted.

60

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:
The wife and I enjoyed the movie very much.[/quote]
Thats why I like you IH[/quote]

… until I see Jack Reacher.

The friendship was good while it lasted.[/quote]
I will not hold that against you.

I dont really like cats :slight_smile: I just tolerate them and I love my wife