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.

Posted by: jjboy84

Posted by: ST0NE COLD
Posted by: What is thiss
why a murder train?Well, The Blues revolve around trains, and I'm trying to be Blues-y about it.
I think a t-rex sounds better, I mean Murder T-rex. just think about it.
This made my day.


Posted by: Mittens322
The bit in Rivendale was setting up the necromancer to be the antagonist in the third film.

I don't think he is gonna be the main protagonist because if I recall the necromancer is Sauron.

  • 12.17.2012 6:44 PM PDT

This is actually the stupidest thing ever posted on B.net:

Posted by: the omega man117
Why does everyone hate Halo 2? Maybe its because its the worst game ever next to mario.

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

  • 12.17.2012 6:48 PM PDT

I found the humor quite hilarious, and it didn't detract from the movie at all, in my opinion.

The arrival of the eagles was "telegraphed." Gandalf was calling for them when he blew that butterfly away (or whatever it was).

  • 12.17.2012 6:54 PM PDT

On Waypoint I'm rocketFox;
http://halo.xbox.com/forums/members/rocketfox/default.aspx

Old GTs; RebelRobot, Flamedude

It's this guy again.... we all get it. You didn't like The Hobbit.

Maybe you should read the book.

  • 12.17.2012 6:55 PM PDT


Posted by: dtyler27106
I found the humor quite hilarious, and it didn't detract from the movie at all, in my opinion.

The arrival of the eagles was "telegraphed." Gandalf was calling for them when he blew that butterfly away (or whatever it was).
And, in the book, it was just a coincidence. I was disappointed that they didn't talk to the Lord of the Eagles after they got to Carrock.

  • 12.17.2012 7:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: flamedude
It's this guy again.... we all get it. You didn't like The Hobbit.

Maybe you should read the book.


Uhm, why should I read the book? How will it make the movie any better? The movie should stand on its own.

  • 12.18.2012 2:47 PM PDT

http://i.imgur.com/fsISj.png

Posted by: adampower14
Posted by: crumpster212
I think it deserves movie of the year, but that's just me.


[Edited on 12.18.2012 2:49 PM PST]

  • 12.18.2012 2:49 PM PDT

I know everything, I've just forgotten most of it.

Also, my XBL Gamertag is 'Wenggh', not 'A Stolen Fruit'.

The whole part with the Eagles saving them on that cliff and stuff was in the book, just saiyan.

I do agree that Gandalf coming and saving them out of the blue from the Trolls was a tad silly though :P

  • 12.18.2012 2:51 PM PDT

I swear to DRUNK, I'm not GOD!

Posted by: EGO SUM OPTIMUS
The giant rock dudes fighting was pretty cool
And also pretty unrealistic. Tolkien made one extremely vague reference to "rock giants" in the book, and Tolkien makes them in to an entire scene that Bilbo and the dwarves survive without so much as a busted finger.

SERIOUSLY! When the rock giant SMASHED his knee in to the face of the rocky mountain, all the characters are in a heap, but are otherwise perfectly fine. That's beyond believability, and I think Jackson is getting away with a little too much on stuff like that. I like the scene and I like the movie, but it definitely had some flaws.

  • 12.18.2012 2:58 PM PDT


Posted by: mastesargent
That sounds just like the book! Thanks for the recommendation!

Thats what I thought as well. The book also suffered from all of these 'flaws'.

  • 12.18.2012 3:01 PM PDT

I swear to DRUNK, I'm not GOD!

A lot of your critiques are valid, but many of them are about things that were already in the books. It's source material. The dwarves WERE crude when they first came to Bilbo's home, and it IS difficult to differentiate between 13 dwarves over the course of a story when none of them are given much prominence... just like in the book.

That said, I feel The Hobbit can be justified as being split into two movies. I can't imagine starting out in the shire and traveling all the way to the lonely mountain and back again in a single 3 hour sitting. Instead, Jackson has incorporated a LOT of little details from the book (like the "good morning" thing at the beginning, which could have been cut, and the rock giant section which could have been taken out completely without affecting the plot at all) and a whole wealth of extra stuff from the Middle-Earth universe. He's throwing in stuff from the Appendix from the end of Return of the King and even some stuff from the Silmarillion, and all of that REALLY pads the length of the movie.

Still loved the film, but I think they definitely went overboard on some things, to the point that a lot of the movie is just fan-service rather than a good part of the flick.

  • 12.18.2012 3:09 PM PDT

http://i.imgur.com/fsISj.png

Posted by: Emo Joe89
Posted by: EGO SUM OPTIMUS
The giant rock dudes fighting was pretty cool

And also pretty unrealistic. Tolkien made one extremely vague reference to "rock giants" in the book, and Tolkien makes them in to an entire scene that Bilbo and the dwarves survive without so much as a busted finger.

SERIOUSLY! When the rock giant SMASHED his knee in to the face of the rocky mountain, all the characters are in a heap, but are otherwise perfectly fine. That's beyond believability, and I think Jackson is getting away with a little too much on stuff like that. I like the scene and I like the movie, but it definitely had some flaws.

Who says nobody had a busted finger?

Oh, and:

"There they were sheltering under a hanging rock for the night, and he lay beneath a blanket and shook from head to toe. When he peeped out in the lightning-flashes, he saw that across the valley the stone-giants were out and were hurling rocks at one another for a game, and catching them, and tossing them down into the darkness where they smashed among the trees far below, or splintered into little bits with a bang. [...] They could hear the giants guffawing and shouting all over the mountainsides. [...] "This won't do at all!" said Thorin. "If we don't get blown off or drowned, or struck by lightning, we shall be picked up by some giant and kicked sky-high for a football." [...] As they passed under the arch, it was good to hear the wind and the rain outside instead of all about them, and to feel safe from the giants and their rocks."

[Edited on 12.18.2012 3:11 PM PST]

  • 12.18.2012 3:09 PM PDT

"Get pooped on."- Everyone at FHS

I guess most of your complaints stem from not reading the book. I can see why you would feel this way if you've gotten your taste for Tolkien from the earlier movies, it's understandable. LotR is action packed, serious, and has a complex story line. The books are like that too. The Hobbit is very, very different however.

The Hobbit is a children's book in all respects. The dwarves are ridiculous, and even in the book they're impossible to keep track of. Much of the book revolved around pure luck as well, since it's a fairy tale. In LotR Tolkien was making a universe. In The Hobbit, he was just writing a happy little book. This obviously transfered over into the movies. Peter Jackson tried to keep The Hobbit honest to the book, while also trying to keep up with the action in LotR. It's a tough job, since the source materials are so different, and it shows.

If you knew what the source material was you wouldn't be as surprised. Most movie goers probably feel the same way as you, since they don't know what The Hobbit originally was. IN YOUR DEFENSE, however, Jackson could have messed with the source material and made the movie better. Like I said, he balanced pleasing fans and pleasing movie geeks, and it didn't work as well as planned. Your complaints are valid.

In any case, you should pick up The Hobbit in it's orignal book form. It's an excellent piece of literature. It should clear some things up for you, as will be a wonderful use of your time if paired with some tea/ cocoa and a warm blanket. The holidays are here, so you might as well cozy up with a good book.


I feel urged to add that in order to enjoy The Hobbit in movie form, you must forget about the LotR movies. They got everyone thinking The Hobbit would be similar, but it can never be like that. Forget about those and accept The Hobbit as its own film series, it makes things much easier. From reading your previous arguements, I feel as though you are heavily connecting the two. Once again, it's perfectly logical to believe that, but one must remember the source material.

[Edited on 12.18.2012 3:17 PM PST]

  • 12.18.2012 3:10 PM PDT

Octavia is best pony.

To be fair, the dwarves other than Thorin had minimal development in the book as well.

  • 12.18.2012 3:11 PM PDT

On Waypoint I'm rocketFox;
http://halo.xbox.com/forums/members/rocketfox/default.aspx

Old GTs; RebelRobot, Flamedude

Posted by: Forever MS
Posted by: flamedude
It's this guy again.... we all get it. You didn't like The Hobbit.

Maybe you should read the book.


Uhm, why should I read the book? How will it make the movie any better? The movie should stand on its own.


You should read the book so you understand the tone and pacing of the film, which you criticize, as Jackson has clearly honored this aspect. The movie does stand on its own, very well I might add, but it also pays homage and respect to the source material that inspired the movie.

You don't need to read the book to enjoy or understand anything in the film, but if you are going to slam the film at least have some more understanding besides saying the same thing over and over and over.

  • 12.18.2012 3:11 PM PDT

Online ID: GriffGraff15

I thought the whole tone was too goofy compared to the trilogy. Maybe that's just the overall tone of the books too, but it felt really unnecessarily goofy. (the goblins especially, were just god awful with respect to this)

Original Goblins

The Hobbit Goblin

[Edited on 12.18.2012 3:22 PM PST]

  • 12.18.2012 3:18 PM PDT

I swear to DRUNK, I'm not GOD!

Posted by: westpointusma15
I thought the whole tone was too goofy compared to the trilogy. Maybe that's just the overall tone of the books too, but it felt really unnecessarily goofy. (the goblins especially, were just god awful with respect to this)

Moria Goblins

Misty Mountains Goblin
Fixed. And yeah, the book The Hobbit WAS much more light-hearted in general than The Lord of the Rings. You need to read the books, then you'll understand why the Hobbit movie is so different than the LotR movies.

  • 12.18.2012 3:28 PM PDT

I swear to DRUNK, I'm not GOD!

Posted by: annoyinginge
Posted by: Emo Joe89
Posted by: EGO SUM OPTIMUS
The giant rock dudes fighting was pretty cool

And also pretty unrealistic. Tolkien made one extremely vague reference to "rock giants" in the book, and Tolkien makes them in to an entire scene that Bilbo and the dwarves survive without so much as a busted finger.

SERIOUSLY! When the rock giant SMASHED his knee in to the face of the rocky mountain, all the characters are in a heap, but are otherwise perfectly fine. That's beyond believability, and I think Jackson is getting away with a little too much on stuff like that. I like the scene and I like the movie, but it definitely had some flaws.

Who says nobody had a busted finger?

Oh, and:

"There they were sheltering under a hanging rock for the night, and he lay beneath a blanket and shook from head to toe. When he peeped out in the lightning-flashes, he saw that across the valley the stone-giants were out and were hurling rocks at one another for a game, and catching them, and tossing them down into the darkness where they smashed among the trees far below, or splintered into little bits with a bang. [...] They could hear the giants guffawing and shouting all over the mountainsides. [...] "This won't do at all!" said Thorin. "If we don't get blown off or drowned, or struck by lightning, we shall be picked up by some giant and kicked sky-high for a football." [...] As they passed under the arch, it was good to hear the wind and the rain outside instead of all about them, and to feel safe from the giants and their rocks."
I still stand by my first statement. Where in that description does it describe what the stone-giants looked like? For all we know, they could have been troll-sized critters lobbing boulders at each other. The movie makes them out to be mountain-sized forces of nature.

  • 12.18.2012 3:31 PM PDT

Brainwashing, idiotic media: "hur dur, vido gaems cas vilenc n iz nt gud. dey ned 2 b baned."

Logic: Really? Then please explain how there's violence in third world countries. I guess they're all poor due to the large amount of video games they buy.


Posted by: Mittens322
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.


I have to agree with this.

  • 12.18.2012 3:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: westpointusma15
I thought the whole tone was too goofy compared to the trilogy. Maybe that's just the overall tone of the books too, but it felt really unnecessarily goofy. (the goblins especially, were just god awful with respect to this)

Original Goblins

The Hobbit Goblin


Weird how a prosthetics Goblin from 10 years ago looks much more real and scary than a Goblin from this year.

  • 12.18.2012 7:43 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2