|
1019 Posts
On January 08 2013 03:25 crms wrote:
I really enjoyed the movie.
I never read any of the books (hobbit or LOTR) but I'm a big fantasy nerd and never felt the movie had slow pace. I even had uncomfortable seats 2nd row far left!
Maybe I enjoyed it because I haven't read the books and had nothing to expect other than a cool fantasy story. Sure it had it's cheesy bits, it's ridiculousness but it's all fun and it's pretty much what I went in expecting to see.
I can't wait for the next films!
Then you should at least read the hobbit (reading all three LOTR takes a long time) because jackson made the hobbit movie pretty close to shit when compared to the book.
|
I am really sorry guys... I enjoyed the movie. I feel like shit.
|
On January 08 2013 04:37 Saumure wrote:
I am really sorry guys... I enjoyed the movie. I feel like shit.
That's perfectly okay, I enjoyed it too and a lot of people here actually did. Don't feel like shit, feel blessed: you've had more fun than most people watching the movie, which is actually good for you! 
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 08 2013 04:37 Saumure wrote:
I am really sorry guys... I enjoyed the movie. I feel like shit.
Don't, I enjoyed it too, despite how different it is compared to the book.
Just remember, most of the people who come in to these threads are doing so because they have an axe to grind, so it only makes sense that most of the posts are negative.
|
Hmmm. I feel strange, i really liked the movie despite just reading the book two weeks ago. Didn't i read carefully enough? I felt like the movie did a good job at displaying the events of the book. Sure, a few things were added, but they weren't bad.
I'm definitely looking forward to the 2nd part of the movie. I thought the first part of LOTR was the worst, so i hope it will be the case for The Hobbit as well, because i already liked it a lot.
|
I came into the theater not expecting too much, so I was pleased with the movie. Of course, looking back on it after I reread The Hobbit I can see where all the dislike is coming from.
|
On January 08 2013 08:28 Tiegrr wrote:
I came into the theater not expecting too much, so I was pleased with the movie. Of course, looking back on it after I reread The Hobbit I can see where all the dislike is coming from.
Pretty much how I felt.
I think it has to do with the medium. The LOTR was a heavy story, which translated well into film. The Hobbit was playful and fun, with a sense of adventurous wanderlust as opposed to epic adventure as in the LOTR. That sort of child-like adventure story just does better as a book (at least when it's a fantasy).
People who went in expecting the LOTR were fools.
3.5/5
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On January 08 2013 08:53 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2013 08:28 Tiegrr wrote:
I came into the theater not expecting too much, so I was pleased with the movie. Of course, looking back on it after I reread The Hobbit I can see where all the dislike is coming from. Pretty much how I felt. I think it has to do with the medium. The LOTR was a heavy story, which translated well into film. The Hobbit was playful and fun, with a sense of adventurous wanderlust as opposed to epic adventure as in the LOTR. That sort of child-like adventure story just does better as a book (at least when it's a fantasy). People who went in expecting the LOTR were fools. 3.5/5
People went expecting The Hobbit, not LOTR. If you really think the book itself is childish and playful enough to justify Jackson's adaption of it, you really need to re-read it. Tolkien didn't need to resort to childish gags and absurd action to tell a children's tale.
|
Someone lost their academy member only copy and today Hobbit debuted on the interwebs, great quality all that jazz. I guess they were too eager to wait another year for the next years Oscar awards, oh well. This plus the fact they've split movies for more ka-ching makes it popular subject to talk about on the web.
|
I really wanted to like it, but Jackson overdid a lot of things. Imho, it had to be more of a mature interpretation
of the book, but he took it cheesy/childish. Seriously, stone giants ridiculousness, goblin king looking like some grandma, trolls not scary at all, elves acting up weird, meh, CGI instead of real actors. Disconnection between scenes, pacing issues - sometimes too slow/sometimes too fast.Lotr was far far better and mature.
There were a lot of things i did like (the begining, Bilbo actor, some dwarves), but those things i mentioned above just overshadowed them.
|
I quite enjoyed it.
Is this a duology, or a trilogy?
|
On January 11 2013 13:24 Alay wrote:
I quite enjoyed it.
Is this a duology, or a trilogy?
Trilogy.
|
On January 09 2013 10:57 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2013 08:53 Kimaker wrote:On January 08 2013 08:28 Tiegrr wrote:
I came into the theater not expecting too much, so I was pleased with the movie. Of course, looking back on it after I reread The Hobbit I can see where all the dislike is coming from. Pretty much how I felt. I think it has to do with the medium. The LOTR was a heavy story, which translated well into film. The Hobbit was playful and fun, with a sense of adventurous wanderlust as opposed to epic adventure as in the LOTR. That sort of child-like adventure story just does better as a book (at least when it's a fantasy). People who went in expecting the LOTR were fools. 3.5/5 People went expecting The Hobbit, not LOTR. If you really think the book itself is childish and playful enough to justify Jackson's adaption of it, you really need to re-read it. Tolkien didn't need to resort to childish gags and absurd action to tell a children's tale.
Good God, never. Some of the crap he pulled was unforgivable, but a good deal of the criticism I've heard leveled at it (by non Tolkien readers) had nothing to do with Jackson's interpretation (the sole source of my criticism). The very nature of the story is differen from the LOTR, that's all I'm saying.
|
My god everyone's so critical, it's supposed to be for general audiences, if you want the book then go read the book, otherwise let everyone who doesn't know Tolkien very well have some fun.
|
Great shit hath never been shat.
Downloaded it off Pirate Bay.
Crap movie, felt like it didn't 'end' properly, should've just made it one movie instead of three (greedy fuck), two average 'action' scenes and snippets of little ones where you can't tell what's really happening. Jokes unfunny. Dwarves assholes (especially the leader). Bad guy left undefeated. If it wasn't for the book and this movie was released without anyone knowing any background everyone would have thought it was shit and not worth seeing.
|
Greed ruined what could have been a fantastic movie. Practically 3/4 of the movie is pointless filler. Trying to make a trilogy out of a book that's 1/2 the size of one volume of LOTR is just plain stupid.
If they had gone with one movie, then I think it could have lived up to LOTR standards.
|
I feel like a minority here.. I watched the movie and really enjoyed it. Then I read the book and really enjoyed that. The book and the movie differ quite a lot but the same can be said with the LOTR trilogy.
Either way, the book is too full of details for the movies to have the possibility to cover everything. I believe that the movies managed to convey a good enough story even if they didn't follow the books very closely. That's the problem when you read the book before seeing the film, unfortunately.
|
I was coming in expecting the movie to be terrible and just a money grab(since it's going to be a trilogy and the book is like what,not even 300 pages?,my edition has 253) but was entertained in the end and got my moneys worth I feel like.
The movie is definitely not a waste of time even if you read the book imo.
On January 09 2013 10:57 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2013 08:53 Kimaker wrote:On January 08 2013 08:28 Tiegrr wrote:
I came into the theater not expecting too much, so I was pleased with the movie. Of course, looking back on it after I reread The Hobbit I can see where all the dislike is coming from. Pretty much how I felt. I think it has to do with the medium. The LOTR was a heavy story, which translated well into film. The Hobbit was playful and fun, with a sense of adventurous wanderlust as opposed to epic adventure as in the LOTR. That sort of child-like adventure story just does better as a book (at least when it's a fantasy). People who went in expecting the LOTR were fools. 3.5/5 People went expecting The Hobbit, not LOTR. If you really think the book itself is childish and playful enough to justify Jackson's adaption of it, you really need to re-read it. Tolkien didn't need to resort to childish gags and absurd action to tell a children's tale.
Personally I don't think the book is all that amazing either.
|
The only things I really enjoyed in the film was the aesthetic side of it (the music, the landscapes etc) and the scene between Bilbo and Gollum. Other than that I found the film rather boring and predictable with way to many unexciting battle scenes (especially the one when they are in the tree tops).
On January 13 2013 23:52 foxmeep wrote:
Greed ruined what could have been a fantastic movie. Practically 3/4 of the movie is pointless filler. Trying to make a trilogy out of a book that's 1/2 the size of one volume of LOTR is just plain stupid.
If they had gone with one movie, then I think it could have lived up to LOTR standards.
I agree with this.
|
I thoroughly enjoyed it. Never read the book, but i felt like it was entertaining, the jokes were decent, and the acting was relatively solid.
7.8/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
