Did anyone else think the Hobbit was awful?

[we can do it]

I really liked the 3 LOTRs, but thought the Hobbit would never end (and it still has 2 more excruciating parts to go, which we will only watch on video after the first one)

[LynneSin]

1. Pete Travers of Rolling Stone mag named it one of the 10 worse movies of the year

as for me not really a Tolkien fan

[we can do it]

3. It well may be, Peter Jackson decided the Tolkien story needed embellishing.

and that did not help- I enjoyed the book long ago and buzzed right through it. The movie was tedious, awful camera angles and short skirmishes became WWII.

[LynneSin]

8. I think the problem was the Hobbitt was a 1 movie tops book...

that could have been made into a 2-parter but Jackson got greedy and went for another Triology.

[we can do it]

11. I think the ring somehow slipped on his finger prior to filming.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

33. yep... TWO TOPS... one would have been good

but like said above... skirmishes in the book turned into all out 20 minute battles...

sP

[hedgehog]

2. I haven't seen it yet, but from what my daughter tells me,

Jackson is using this film trilogy to cover a lot of back story from the Simirillon and other sources. I think we will have to see all three films as a prequel to LOTR before making a final judgment.

[we can do it]

6. I would not spend the money on it if I had it to do over, not even a matinee.

[fizzgig]

4. i understood using it to give some background

what pissed me off was their inability to leave even the slightest details alone.

[we can do it]

32. ^This, and the fact that they invented stuff not in the book.

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. Here's exactly what we thought (we went to see it New year's eve day)

They messed with an excellent book - no reason to turn it into 3 3 hour movies, all that Orc stuff, presaging LOTR. let the Hobbit be the Hobbit

Endless peril, but filmed as if the movie watcher were inserted into a nauseating video game. Too much....just all too much - noise, fighting, violence

Too many serious upward heavy duty anger stares from Thorin

No development of any of the other dwarfs, at least to a decent extent

We didn't hate, it, we sure didn't love it (any "like" of the movie was likely for love of the Hobbit, the book, itself).

Long, long, long movie - did I say that yet (ha ha) - we squirmed!

[we can do it]

9. I thought my eyeballs would fall out before it finally ended.

[cyberswede]

20. Two things...

1. I had to close my eyes during some parts - it was making me dizzy (and we saw it in 2D!)

2. "Too many serious upward heavy duty anger stares from Thorin" -

[we can do it]

21. I didn't like the aerial viewpoint and feeling like a canary in a tornado in some scenes.

we saw it in 2D as well.

[Codeine]

36. The whole chase/fight scene across the endless rope bridges

seemed like watching someone else play a sidescrolling video game at maximum volume for fifteen minutes, and being charged twelve bucks for the privilege.

[HarveyDarkey]

7. Haven't seen it, will probably wait for the video

What I can't figure is how they could do each book of the trilogy fairly well in one movie, yet it takes three to do the smallest, thinnest book.

[we can do it]

13. I think the answer is greed.

[Cheap_Trick]

10. Not a fan of the Rings

Saw the Hobbit in 3-D IMAX mainly for the 9 minute preview of Star Trek Into Darkness.

As for the Hobbit....meh.

[RevStPatrick]

12. I heard from a couple of friends that it was bad...

...so I downloaded the book onto my Kindle.
Haven't read it in about 30 years!

Maybe when the film hits Netflix, I'll watch it...

[we can do it]

18. I wish I had done the same.

[onehandle]

14. We liked it, but as an extension of the LOTR trilogy.

It's a lot more than 'The Hobbit.'

Hoping for more dwarf characterization in the next two.

[geardaddy]

15. I don't know if I'll be able to get past

Martin Freeman not being Tim from The Office.

[dawg]

16. I really liked it.

I love Tolkien and I think Peter Jackson has done a great job of bringing the stories to the screen.

As a Tolkien-fanboy (and the closest thing you will find in this world to an actual hobbit), I could find plenty of things to complain about, but I won't. I enjoyed the film and it passed very quickly for me.

Jackson stuck very close to his successful formula from the LOTR movies, so the Hobbit has a very familiar feel to it. I would have probably switched things up a bit, with fewer musical and visual tie-ins to the other movies. I would also have gone for a more fanciful, fairytale, atmosphere. And Aidan Turner, who I love from Being Human, is not fat enough to be a dwarf.

Martin Freeman was perfect.

And Richard Armitage plays a mighty fine Thorin Oakenshield, too.

[we can do it]

17. I went to see it with a friend who is also a big fan-boy and 2 other friends.

He went on and on all the way home on how Jackson added parts not found in the book, but it was ok because he loved the trilogy so much. I loved reading the Hobbit and this movie did not have the feel of the Hobbit- it had the doom feel of the LOTR trilogy (which I liked a lot, but not in the Hobbit) sorry I think he blew it. He took a light happy book and made it a gory gloomy poopfest.

[dawg]

19. I agree that it had the feel of the LOTR movies.

I think he made bank with those movies and didn't want to mess around with a formula that he had success with. As a fanboy, I knew the movie should have been more lighthearted and whimsical. But taken on its own merits, I enjoyed it.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

22. Don't know if I'd say "awful" but it wasn't good

I hope that Parts II and III will be better.

[we can do it]

23. Maybe disappointing would be a better word. No, awful.

as good as the trilogy was, I had high expectations and this was just awful.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. Yes. Disappointing would be how I'd describe it (nt)

[LWolf]

25. I didn't.

I went in knowing that it wasn't just The Hobbit; maybe that made a difference.

In hearing that it would take 3 movies, my first reaction was not positive.

On second thought, though, it would be hard to film the back story from appendices and The Silmarillion as stand-alones; if the goal was to complete the story, incorporating them into the hobbit makes more sense. So I went in expecting extras; nothing new, since I've read all the LOTR appendices and TS.

Instead of a simple children's story about adventure, dragons, wizards, and treasure, it becomes a prequel to something bigger. I'm okay with that. I can see why people would just want the simple kid's version, though.

I didn't see the faster film that bothered so many. That might have made a difference, too.

I took my grandson, who is 12. He has read The Hobbit and LOTR. He liked it, but was disgruntled with not getting to see the whole thing. He grumbled, "So now what...wait a whole year to see the rest?" He was even more unhappy when he heard there would be TWO more; more waiting. He, like many adolescents, is not known for patience.

I thought it was as good as a movie version of a book is going to get. The movies, no matter how well done, never live up to the book imo, so maybe my threshold of expectation is lower.

[we can do it]

26. I'm glad someone liked it, its going to take longer to watch than read.

[JI7]

27. i think when it's put together with the other 2 parts it will be

better.

there were certain scenes which made the movie worth it for me. the beginning with the dwarves at Bilbo's place. the Gollum Scenes. the actors . there was more humor in it than lotr .

i didn't expect the history of the orc stuff . but i'm guessing with the other 2 parts it will make it more worth it.

[Still Blue in PDX]

28. I think it's awful and I haven't even seen it yet!

The book was what, 88 pages long, and they're making THREE movies out of it?

I love Martin Freeman and I love Aidan Turner, but I'm not sure my ADHD will allow me to sit still for The Hobbit, even for them.

[we can do it]

29. I think 310 pages long, but I read it in one day as a sixth grader.

So it will take longer to sit thru the movies than to read for most anyone.

[Still Blue in PDX]

37. I think I was in the ninth grade when I read it.

That would have been 1969.

Geez-oh-man, suddenly I'm feeling my years!

[Major Nikon]

41. You could easily make 3 movies out of most any good book

I think I would have enjoyed the LOTR even more had it been made into a series with a dozen or more 1 hour episodes, but such things don't enjoy much commercial success in the US. The biggest problem I have with most book derived movies is they just try to condense too much of the story in the interest of marketing.

[pipi_k]

30. That's what I thought about

the first LoTR...

I thought it would never end.

Didn't like it at all.

So I guess I won't be seeing "The Hobbit".

[we can do it]

31. The first LOTR went by very quickly (even though it was scary) compared to the Hobbit

This one had repetitive scenes that seemed like they would never end, (like 10 minutes of troll boogers) yikes.

[Codeine]

34. I alternately loved and hated it.

There were some wonderful parts, but Gawd Almighty did it spend a lot of time in Super Mario territory. When all the dwarves are warriors par excellence Bilbo's cleverness becomes completely superfluous and is thus never shown. Bilbo is nothing in this film.

[Motown_Johnny]

35. I loved it, and I am a Tolkien nut.

I agree that some parts were drawn out to long. The first LOtR was similar. The idea is for each film to be more action packed than the last, therefore the first one kinda drags.


I will go see the other 2 in the theater and be happy to do it.


Side note: I did go see the 3D version and it did make the movie a little more interesting just because of the effects.

[mykpart]

38. I prefer the cartoon version,

with Orson Bean as the voice of Frodo.

[AmyDeLune]

39. *ahem* whispers "Bilbo" n/t :)

[AmyDeLune]

40. It wasn't The Hobbit, but I wouldn't say it was awful.

I knew that the book was being padded out with material from the appendices and the Silmarillion (and it will show rather than just give a little line at the end about where Gandalf disappears to for a good chunk of the book).

I agree, too much action and too few resting points, and too little character development. I'm hopeful that that will be expanded in the next two films.

I saw it with the high frame rate in 3D. It really looked gorgeous. Instead of the usual "Look! Here's the 3D moment!" and back to "Why is this in 3D?" The sharp definition made it like looking through a window at something that was really there instead of a screen.

The cast is excellent. Peter Jackson said he couldn't think of another actor to cast as Bilbo and worked the filming around Martin Freeman's "Sherlock" shooting schedule to make it work. I'm looking forward to the next two movies, but I know it's not everyone's cup of tea.

[JCMach1]

42. loved it!

JACKSON'S best film since FOTR.... The first LOTR movie.