The Hobbit (film series)

Remove all ads!

Isn't there a kill count competition in the books? At the battle of Helm's Deep?

 

There was a kill count in the book, but I don't think that is what Ineth is taking issue with. He said that he felt it was "overdone". Probably thinking about things like Legolas launching an arrow into an Orc that Gimli had already killed so he could get an extra kill count. Or perhaps Gimli telling Legolas that the Mumakil that he took down only counted as one kill.

 

I did really enjoy the movie but felt it was dragged out way too long. Scenes could have been cut completely and most of the others could have also been shortened. The extra stuff felt a bit bolted on to the Hobbit. The Hobbit is a lighthearted, straightforward book and the extra bits were dark and epic in scale. The tone was all over the place at times. I also didn't like how much of a buffoon Radagast was. Still, it was fun.

 

It was fun, well shot, and all of that. I don't think it'll be getting any Academy Awards for writing or acting, but still it could have been a lot worse, and any efforts to make it better might have backfired.

I liked the fact that it kind of went all over the place in terms of mood. It covered all the bases.

My only complaint was that there was not enough hot women in the film. For me to enjoy a film, there must be hot women.

 

I thought it was brilliant here and there, and downright poor in other scenes. Mostly everything with the gobling king sucked. The guy looked like something out of Star Wars episode 1. And the whole fight\flight from the goblin caves looked like somone had recorded a playthrough of a video game, with cheatcodes enabled. Unlimited health.

 

I quite enjoyed it. The fighting mountains were a bit.... Strange, though.

 

I'm in a similar boat to many of you. I liked it. Didn't love it.

I felt that the excessive CGI ruined the experience to a large degree. The original trilogy's enemies were primarily guys in suits and makeup. That helped everything feel more real. I don't recall seeing a single baddy in The Hobbit that was done through practical special effects. It's very distracting. It's as if Peter Jackson's egg nog was spiked by George Lucas when he wasn't looking (surely he's heard the chief complaint about Episode III?!).

Also - like Barmy, I thought the mountains fighting each other was just...weird. I haven't read the Hobbit since I was 12, but I don't remember that part at all.

Finally - I thought that several of the characters looked overly goofy and cartoonish, also contributing to the distraction factor. Several of the dwarves, and especially Radagast, looked like they belonged on H. R. Puffenstuff. Which is odd, since Jackson went out of his way to avoid the appearance of "Witchy-Poo noses" as he called them - overly cartoonish special effects - in the first trilogy.

Overall, I'm more surprised than I am disappointed at the flaws in The Hobbit. But I'll still be seeing parts 2 and 3, with bells on.

 

I haven't seen it yet, as RL is getting in the way of my fun lately. Damn you RL!

But I did just re-read the book, as it's been a long time. Mountains don't fight each other in the book. But, there are stone giants about when they cross the Misty Mountains.

Without giving away too much, can anyone tell me if they did a good job on Beorn? He is the one character I am looking forward to seeing done right.

Glorfindel was the Lotr character I was hoping to see in all his Elven Glory at the flight to the fords, but Jackson in his infinite wisdom cut him out of the movie, the bastard!

 

@ Blades,

Yeah, that's what they were. Stone giants - basically large mounds of boulders connected to form humanoid shapes. They were definitely having a battle royale (with cheese!).

 

I really enjoyed it and can't wait for the next one.

 

I agree to an extent but it was so much better than it could have been (think Star Wars episode 1-3 vs Return of the Jedi) that it avoided my worries and I was very pleased.

I agree but to a much more limited extent. Real works better than CGI but I thought the CGI was done well enough to pass muster.

While I don't know what the chief complaint about Episode 3 was too much CGI wasn't on my list. And I feel Episode 3 was done better than 1 or 2.

 

3 was much better than 1 or 2. But that's like saying the gold medal special olympian did much better than the silver or bronze.

 

Not to mention all the special olympic volunteers, many of whom aren't differently-abled (which in this case I suppose would make them "undifferently-abled").

You're in a whole sh!t-load of trouble, DR. (With apologies to any piles of feces that might be offended by the previous sentence.)

 

I watched the movie too, but it couldn't really captivate me. It's a bit slow - they get stuff from different books to pad out an already too long movie.

The storm giants stood out as a bit weird to me too. I looked it up in the book, and there are stone giants, though they are described as throwing rocks to each other more playfully and then tossing them down to the trees in the valleys. And Bilbo is spotting them while they are hiding in a cave, nothing like the stuff they're showing in the movie, where they're caught in a battle between mountains come alive (I somehow imagined them being a lot smaller).

The thing I remember from the ending most, is that it surprised me that they only just got out of the orc/goblin caves in the Misty mountains and then the movie ends. I don't think I'll watch the 2nd and 3rd movies, especially if it turns out that they're as slow as the first one.

 

I'm not terribly familiar with Tolkien (read The Hobbit but no LotR books), but aren't any one of the LotR books longer than The Hobbit?

 

Yes, completely right. Each individual book in the LotR triology is longer than the Hobbit, but for each LotR book, they made a single movie, while for some reason the Hobbit rates three movies for a shorter book. No wonder the movie feels so slow.