Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Reasons why I thought the Hobbit was disappointing.
  • Subject: Reasons why I thought the Hobbit was disappointing.
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Reasons why I thought the Hobbit was disappointing.
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Now, read all of this before you fanboys start raging. Try and think of logical reasons on how I'm wrong.

Goofy Humor:

One of the film's real low-points is how cringe-inducingly goofy a lot of its humour is, often feeling strangely enough like a pantomime, indulging itself in witless sight gags and dialogue that feels horribly misplaced in a property that usually prides itself on its intelligence. Most of this occurs at the beginning when we're introduced to the dwarves; they have pratfalls, they make a mess in Bilbo's home, and they basically act like loons. Then there's the instance later on in Rivendell, when one of the dwarves is served up fresh greens to eat, appears disgusted, and asks "Do you have any chips?". It's supposed to be funny but it's a distractingly cringey line that just pulls us out of the story. Is the lightness of the adventure not enough? Does Jackson need to inundate us with these corny gags as well?



The Dwarves:

Given that there are thirteen dwarves in The Hobbit, finding an economic way to introduce them to us is paramount, yet despite his 169-minute runtime, Jackson apparently can't figure out a way to do it. When we first meet them at Bilbo's home, we spend a while with them yet we're not really allowed to distinguish between them or get to know their personalities, apart from the leader, Thorin, whose back-story is shown in a flashback. In fact, given that we know what happens to Bilbo, Gandalf and Gollum post-Hobbit, they're really the only characters whose fates we can actually get concerned about at least for those of us who haven't read the book yet when we can't even remember their names or know much about them, it doesn't promote that sort of investment.

The similar look of many of the dwarves also doesn't help all that much, and that, combined with the lack of character development really makes it hard to tell the difference between them. But then if they were developed, the film would probably be five hours long.



Contrived Narrative

Here's one aspect that at least in Jackson's version of The Hobbit really doesn't feel up to scratch as far as The Lord of the Rings is concerned. The story relies on an awful lot of convenience during key moments, usually during the middle of action sequences when Gandalf shows up and kicks ass (notably when he turns the trolls to stone, and again when he kills a fleet of goblins using his powers). Though some might see the term "walking deus-ex machina" as a bit flippant given that Gandalf is basically a God and he's treated the same way in Tolkein's novels, it does fast become predictable how often he seems to just swoop in and save the day when the chips are down, primarily because his absences really set this sort of thing up.

Also, in the climactic action sequence when the dwarves, Bilbo and Gandalf are stuck up a tree hanging off the edge of a cliff, a gang of giant eagles swoop in out of nowhere with no explanation given and save the day. The fact that it wasn't telegraphed in the slightest or even explained is a tad frustrating, but then Rings fans are so immersed in the universe by this point that they'll probably just roll with it anyway.



It's Too Damn Long

It's the most predictable complaint to make but it's also the most true, that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is just too freaking long. Running at a meaty 169-minutes, there are plenty of ways for films to justify such an expansive runtime, but Peter Jackson in no way achieves this; it takes 50 minutes for Bilbo and company just to leave the Shire, and given how much exposition and tomfoolery is indulged in before that, it seems clear that he could have got through this portion in around half the time. So much of the plot feels like filler at least speaking as someone not especially acquainted with the novel that the film could easily have run in at around a far more reasonable 120 minutes and probably not lost all that much as a result. The pacing is slack, which is part of the problem; it doesn't even feel that eager to get its story moving.

There's so much in the film that feels like it could have been left for the Extended Edition Blu-Ray, specifically a lot of the Rivendell sequence, in which we get pretty perfunctory cameos from Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman. It is a case of Peter Jackson indulging himself as much as possible, and also exploiting his fanbase's apparently insatiable need for as much material from this universe as possible, whether it's great or not. Will fans backlash? We'll have to wait and see.

  • 12.17.2012 4:48 PM PDT

The giant rock dudes fighting was pretty cool

  • 12.17.2012 4:49 PM PDT

I didnt see the movie so i cant relate sorry. I wish i did though.

  • 12.17.2012 4:49 PM PDT

I thought it was pretty good.

  • 12.17.2012 4:50 PM PDT

He who cannot command himself should obey. And many can command themselves, but much is still lacking before they can obey themselves.
--Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Your opinion is downright terrible. The Hobbit was amazing.

  • 12.17.2012 4:50 PM PDT

-bow chicka brown cow-

I think it deserves movie of the year, but thats just me.

  • 12.17.2012 4:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I haven't seen it but my friend saw it last week and her verdict was too much CGI, too many bits invented to pad the film out, too many attempts at humour that didn't fit and too long.

She said they'd have been better off just sticking to the book and making one film. She -blam!- loves the LoTR films and all Tolkien's books too.

  • 12.17.2012 4:52 PM PDT

Varsity rower

I really have to disagree with you across the board.

  • 12.17.2012 4:52 PM PDT

I'm an Indonesian Halo (and other games) gamer!
Bhineka Tunggal Ika!!

Haven't saw it yet but I thought there's an explanation about the eagles in the book. They didn't put it in or something?

  • 12.17.2012 4:54 PM PDT

We work in the dark to serve the light.

That sounds just like the book! Thanks for the recommendation!

Oh, wait, you're hating on it?

Grr, movie! How dare you be true to the source material!

  • 12.17.2012 4:55 PM PDT


Posted by: Unit 076
Haven't saw it yet but I thought there's an explanation about the eagles in the book. They didn't put it in or something?
They did in fact. OP, remember when Gandalf said something to that butterfly, that was him sending a message to the Eagles. In the book, it was pure coincidence. They heard the fighting from down below, and checked it out.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 4:56 PM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 4:56 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Unit 076
Haven't saw it yet but I thought there's an explanation about the eagles in the book. They didn't put it in or something?


I had this complaint in the Return of the King too but that was a good movie so I didn't mind it so much.


This whole explanation that they're "intelligent creatures" is bull-blam!-. Why did the Eagles drop them off close to the mountain...they couldn't just take them to the mountain?

At least in RotK, perhaps they were scared of Sauron's armies and were too noticible.

  • 12.17.2012 4:58 PM PDT


Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: Unit 076
Haven't saw it yet but I thought there's an explanation about the eagles in the book. They didn't put it in or something?


I had this complaint in the Return of the King too but that was a good movie so I didn't mind it so much.


This whole explanation that they're "intelligent creatures" is bull-blam!-. Why did the Eagles drop them off close to the mountain...they couldn't just take them to the mountain?

At least in RotK, perhaps they were scared of Sauron's armies and were too noticible.

The eagles are servants of Manwe. They will help Gandalf, Bilbo, and the dwarves but they don't like to directly meddle in things unless they have to.

  • 12.17.2012 5:01 PM PDT

Mreh.

It's funny because the Hobbit was a childrens' book.

  • 12.17.2012 5:04 PM PDT

My troll sense is tingling.

Personally I had a few problems with it. There were points were it dragged, Radagast was annoying, the CGI didn't blend as well as Lord of The Rings sometimes. However, I can't say I was disappointed. I still thought it was great and I loved the Riddles in The Dark scene.

  • 12.17.2012 5:06 PM PDT

I don't feel like rebutting that wall so ill instead respond to the bit la about the eagles. In the book the eagles saw that the goblins were gathering/going ape around the mountainside and went to see what's up and in doing so saw Thorin and co. As for why they didn't fly them to Erebor, the reasons are two fold. One, they didn't want to risk going near Smaug and two, they didn't let them off closer because the men of the forest were known to shoot at them. They did what little they did simply for Gandalf and Gandalf alone. In the books this is all clearly laid out because the eagles can talk. That was omitted from the films because people like you would think it silly or childish.

On second thought I want to address that the scene with the White Counsel could NOT have be relegated to the extended cut. Why? Because the plot line of the Necromancer will be continued in the next film.




[Edited on 12.17.2012 5:20 PM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 5:19 PM PDT

Now let's get down to business, I don't got no time to play around, what is this?

I definitely agree with the lack of dwarf character development. I did still think the film was good though, just started the book again, my dad read it to me when I was about 7 or 8 but now I fancy reading it myself.

  • 12.17.2012 5:30 PM PDT

I'm an Indonesian Halo (and other games) gamer!
Bhineka Tunggal Ika!!


Posted by: Palien90
I don't feel like rebutting that wall so ill instead respond to the bit la about the eagles. In the book the eagles saw that the goblins were gathering/going ape around the mountainside and went to see what's up and in doing so saw Thorin and co. As for why they didn't fly them to Erebor, the reasons are two fold. One, they didn't want to risk going near Smaug and two, they didn't let them off closer because the men of the forest were known to shoot at them. They did what little they did simply for Gandalf and Gandalf alone. In the books this is all clearly laid out because the eagles can talk. That was omitted from the films because people like you would think it silly or childish.

On second thought I want to address that the scene with the White Counsel could NOT have be relegated to the extended cut. Why? Because the plot line of the Necromancer will be continued in the next film.



They didn't talk? Shame, can't they do telephathy instead or something?
And I hope the necromancer will look creepy and cool

  • 12.17.2012 5:41 PM PDT

Goofy Humor: The Hobbit is a much more light-hearted book than the Lord of the Rings. The narrator often talks directly to the reader, cracking jokes at the main character's expense. There were some odd scenes, like when Gandalf lobs off a goblin's head, but most of the action was great. The storm giants were jaw-dropping.

The Dwarves: In the book, Thorin and the rest of the dwarves got much less backstory. In fact, the novel doesn't even take place until the Gandalf meets Bilbo in Shire. The entire backstory of the dwarves was expanded upon and taken in a new direction. In the novel, the only character with much development was Bilbo.

Contrived Narrative: (SPOILERS If you haven't read the book) The book lacked a central protagonist. Sure, it had the dragon, but it wasn't even killed by the Company. Not only that, but the book felt very episodic, with very little relation between each encounter the company faced on the way to the Lonely Mountain. If anything, Peter Jackson tied everything together with the introduction of the pale orc. Your complaint about the eagles is baseless. Gandalf whispered to the butterfly, who went to summon the eagles.


It's Too Damn Long: The only scenes that I thought could be taken out are the ones with Bilbo and Frodo in the shire. Other than that, I felt every scene felt like it belonged. The bit in Rivendale was setting up the necromancer to be the antagonist in the third film.

I really enjoyed this film. I would even go as far as saying that the changes Peter Jackson made to the book made the story more enjoyable. If you don't like the movie because of its content that is fine, but I don't think that it's fair to blame Peter Jackson.

  • 12.17.2012 6:08 PM PDT

I'm going to invade your heart like a barn swallow high on milk chocolate and grandma love.

Fairness is only possible within the limited powers of man. Elsewhere, there is only chance.

Thus I refute thee.


Posted by: Cowleyad
Your opinion is downright terrible. The Hobbit was amazing.

  • 12.17.2012 6:10 PM PDT


Posted by: Unit 076
Haven't saw it yet but I thought there's an explanation about the eagles in the book. They didn't put it in or something?


What happens with the Eagles happens in the book.

  • 12.17.2012 6:10 PM PDT


Posted by: crumpster212
I think it deserves movie of the year, but thats just me.

  • 12.17.2012 6:11 PM PDT

From the ashes


Posted by: Forever MS
Now, read all of this before you fanboys start raging. Try and think of logical reasons on how I'm wrong.


Alright, easy, it's all personal preference. Your criteria won't be the same for the next person watching it.

I actually liked the movie, I still can't decide if I liked Fellowship more or less, as it was the first part of the LOTR trilogy, while AUJ (An Unexpected Journey) is this first part of this, err, trilogy...Ok, that still feels weird saying. The Hobbit. A Trilogy. Nope, I'm still baffled.

  • 12.17.2012 6:16 PM PDT

You do realise it was all (or at least mostly) in the book? You also realise that the three other movies were all lomger than this one was?

  • 12.17.2012 6:31 PM PDT

I honestly disagree with all of that. Especially the "It's too long" argument. I would be happy to see it as a longer movie than it is now.

  • 12.17.2012 6:36 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2