Man, what a lousy movie. I was ready for it to be over before they even got to the trolls.
I thought the Hobbit was supposed to be a single book (only read LotR). Isn’t he milking the plot by making it into three movies?
Jackson’s gone so far beyond merely milking the source material that he could offer an impressive selection of fine butter and cheeses.
The story is not the story. The story is the back story. I enjoyed Tolkien when I was a kid, but was never a fanatic. I have a cousin who is a fanatic. He makes me feel like I never read Tolkien. I think that’s what this movie is trying to tap into.
Bilbo is traveling through the world without the big picture Gandalf has. The movie goer needs that big picture to appreciate the story. This is one movie where you absolutely have to have read Tolkien first and not just the Hobbit. It would help to know that Smaug is not Smog!
From a reviewer we get… a pack of very poorly differentiated dwarves as if Snow White is the only concept of dwarves they know. To think they are not differentiated is to not get Tolkien. He created a world that could spawn dozens of movies all of which require a suspension of disbelief. Which is a major: why we go to movies.
For example, Tom Bombadil and wife were left out of the LotR movie. They are one of the most interesting puzzles in the Tolkien world. I’d like to see a movie just about their backstory with the hobbits just making a minor appearance.
Oh dear Lord please no. Cutting Tom Bombadil from the movies was an act of mercy.
So why was he unaffected by the ring? Why did Gandalf seek his council? He was older than Treebeard (who thought he was the oldest entity in middle earth.)
Ok, the verse could be highly annoying. Radagast the Brown would likely be a part of his story.
It could go to far into treehugger territory, but he wasn’t completely disinterested because he did arm the hobbits.
I would have liked to see Bombadil. But, I thought cutting out the Scouring of the Shire was a much greater sin. Still, when I think of TB, I automatically start cheering:
“Tim, Tim Benzedrine! Hash, Boo, Valvoline!”
When LOTR came out, there was one generally positive review which, neverless, complained about the pacing. The reviewer said something like, “The movie feels a bit like a non-stop car chase and loses the marvelous feeling of camping out that was part of the books.”
The new movie seems to address that criticism but may lose some popularity as a result. Modern audiences don’t seem to have the patience for anything that isn’t a non-stop car chase.
It doesn’t help that Smaug, the main villain, is completely absent from the film except for one flashback at the beginning and a brief reveal at the very end. There are also hints of another villain, about whom almost nothing is revealed. That is rather incomprehensible for anyone who hasn’t read the books or seen the previous movies.
Interestingly enough, if you’re looking for it (at least in the director’s cut) one incident from the Bombadil part of the book is used in the part dealing with Treebeard. The bit where the hobbits get essentially swallowed by a tree, and Treebeard (rather than Bombadil) remonstrates with the tree that did it.
They did a similar thing with Gandalf’s escape from Saruman. Radagast sent the eagle, not some moth Gandalf happened to notice.
Another example: An entwife may have been spotted near the shire (which is just the type of place an entwife would seek.) They searched for Spock… why not a search for the last entwife?
I enjoyed the movie but I went in not expecting it to be the second coming.
One theme is that adventuring is not one long party and many critics respond to this by complaining about all the walking as being boring. Do they not realize that is the emotion they are supposed to be feeling?
“That highly annoyed me. Also annoying was the ending—there isn’t one! You’re just being set up for the next movie in this series.”
And getting to the end of the movie and wanting to know what happens next is a bad thing? That’s what PJ wanted people to feel. There wasn’t supposed to be a feeling of closure.
These people are supposed to be critics but they cant disassociate themselves enough to figure out why they have the feelings they do and whether they are supposed to have them when watching the movie.
It is sort of like Joffrey on Game of Thrones. Everyone hates him, he is such a despicable person. I don’t like this Joffrey and can’t wait for him to die. It is good acting, people are supposed to feel this way about him.
There were a lot of things that I didn’t like about the movie but I didn’t read about those things in any of the reviews. The reviews all read as an experiment in hipster group think. These people are being paid to write they shouldn’t be writing group papers.
One theme is that adventuring is not one long party and many critics respond to this by complaining about all the walking as being boring.
That is not a new complaint or unique to Tolkein. The Chronicles of Narnia are sometimes referred to as the “Eat Eat, Walk Walk” books. C. S. Lewis did not consider it an insult.
The average movie critic has probably never read a book of any great length.
They should be sentenced to watch John Ford’s “Wagonmaster.” All those long scenes of settlers walking across the country. And hardly any plot to speak of. Ford himself said the story was just an excuse to watch Ben Johnson ride a horse. I’m tempted to go watch it right now…
And getting to the end of the movie and wanting to know what happens next is a bad thing?
In general, no. But in this case, I think an entire year is a long time to wait for part 2.
It would be nice if Peter Jackson could speed up the release somehow. The Twilight films seem to come every two or three months. Or maybe they’re just so annoying that it seems that way.
I’ve never seen a twilight movie as of yet. I did see a midnight Dracula movie that had me looking over my shoulder as I was driving home (about a century ago it seems.)
Man, what a lousy movie. I was ready for it to be over before they even got to the trolls.
I thought the Hobbit was supposed to be a single book (only read LotR). Isn’t he milking the plot by making it into three movies?
Jackson’s gone so far beyond merely milking the source material that he could offer an impressive selection of fine butter and cheeses.
The story is not the story. The story is the back story. I enjoyed Tolkien when I was a kid, but was never a fanatic. I have a cousin who is a fanatic. He makes me feel like I never read Tolkien. I think that’s what this movie is trying to tap into.
Bilbo is traveling through the world without the big picture Gandalf has. The movie goer needs that big picture to appreciate the story. This is one movie where you absolutely have to have read Tolkien first and not just the Hobbit. It would help to know that Smaug is not Smog!
From a reviewer we get… a pack of very poorly differentiated dwarves as if Snow White is the only concept of dwarves they know. To think they are not differentiated is to not get Tolkien. He created a world that could spawn dozens of movies all of which require a suspension of disbelief. Which is a major: why we go to movies.
For example, Tom Bombadil and wife were left out of the LotR movie. They are one of the most interesting puzzles in the Tolkien world. I’d like to see a movie just about their backstory with the hobbits just making a minor appearance.
Oh dear Lord please no. Cutting Tom Bombadil from the movies was an act of mercy.
So why was he unaffected by the ring? Why did Gandalf seek his council? He was older than Treebeard (who thought he was the oldest entity in middle earth.)
Ok, the verse could be highly annoying. Radagast the Brown would likely be a part of his story.
It could go to far into treehugger territory, but he wasn’t completely disinterested because he did arm the hobbits.
I would have liked to see Bombadil. But, I thought cutting out the Scouring of the Shire was a much greater sin. Still, when I think of TB, I automatically start cheering:
When LOTR came out, there was one generally positive review which, neverless, complained about the pacing. The reviewer said something like, “The movie feels a bit like a non-stop car chase and loses the marvelous feeling of camping out that was part of the books.”
The new movie seems to address that criticism but may lose some popularity as a result. Modern audiences don’t seem to have the patience for anything that isn’t a non-stop car chase.
It doesn’t help that Smaug, the main villain, is completely absent from the film except for one flashback at the beginning and a brief reveal at the very end. There are also hints of another villain, about whom almost nothing is revealed. That is rather incomprehensible for anyone who hasn’t read the books or seen the previous movies.
Interestingly enough, if you’re looking for it (at least in the director’s cut) one incident from the Bombadil part of the book is used in the part dealing with Treebeard. The bit where the hobbits get essentially swallowed by a tree, and Treebeard (rather than Bombadil) remonstrates with the tree that did it.
They did a similar thing with Gandalf’s escape from Saruman. Radagast sent the eagle, not some moth Gandalf happened to notice.
Another example: An entwife may have been spotted near the shire (which is just the type of place an entwife would seek.) They searched for Spock… why not a search for the last entwife?
I enjoyed the movie but I went in not expecting it to be the second coming.
One theme is that adventuring is not one long party and many critics respond to this by complaining about all the walking as being boring. Do they not realize that is the emotion they are supposed to be feeling?
“That highly annoyed me. Also annoying was the ending—there isn’t one! You’re just being set up for the next movie in this series.”
And getting to the end of the movie and wanting to know what happens next is a bad thing? That’s what PJ wanted people to feel. There wasn’t supposed to be a feeling of closure.
These people are supposed to be critics but they cant disassociate themselves enough to figure out why they have the feelings they do and whether they are supposed to have them when watching the movie.
It is sort of like Joffrey on Game of Thrones. Everyone hates him, he is such a despicable person. I don’t like this Joffrey and can’t wait for him to die. It is good acting, people are supposed to feel this way about him.
There were a lot of things that I didn’t like about the movie but I didn’t read about those things in any of the reviews. The reviews all read as an experiment in hipster group think. These people are being paid to write they shouldn’t be writing group papers.
One theme is that adventuring is not one long party and many critics respond to this by complaining about all the walking as being boring.
That is not a new complaint or unique to Tolkein. The Chronicles of Narnia are sometimes referred to as the “Eat Eat, Walk Walk” books. C. S. Lewis did not consider it an insult.
The average movie critic has probably never read a book of any great length.
They should be sentenced to watch John Ford’s “Wagonmaster.” All those long scenes of settlers walking across the country. And hardly any plot to speak of. Ford himself said the story was just an excuse to watch Ben Johnson ride a horse. I’m tempted to go watch it right now…
And getting to the end of the movie and wanting to know what happens next is a bad thing?
In general, no. But in this case, I think an entire year is a long time to wait for part 2.
It would be nice if Peter Jackson could speed up the release somehow. The Twilight films seem to come every two or three months. Or maybe they’re just so annoying that it seems that way.
I’ve never seen a twilight movie as of yet. I did see a midnight Dracula movie that had me looking over my shoulder as I was driving home (about a century ago it seems.)