The Hobbit Movie or There and Back Again
- Sign In
- Join
The Hobbit discussion
Honestly, I was disappointed in the movies. Don't get me wrong, I loved the cast, characters, and the small-scale changes that they made. I just think that they used besides much CGI and some changes that were made strayed too far from the book. What do y'all guys recollect? What did you like almost the movies? What didn't you like about them?
Oh, I also remember that it was a mistake that they stretched information technology into three movies. Anyone concur?
I thought the start movie was awful, just by the tertiary it was much better - well-nigh every bit good as the LOTR films. I hold with the OP about stretching them out, especially in the get-go. I thought legolas was a caricature, simply Gandalf and bilbo were spot on.
Weirdly, what annoyed me the most was how they were so blantantly foreshadowing Saruman every bit a villain!
I agree about the CGI. The whole visual fashion was a fleck of a difference from LOTR. Especially if you compare Gimli to any of the dwarves in the Hobbit movies. You mean convincing dwarf versus comical plastic surgeon do pieces? Perchance they idea people wouldn't exist able to distinguish between 13 "normal" looking dwarves, and then they exaggerated their features to brand them more recognizable?I besides agree that 3 movies was a flake much. That said, one pic, despite the relatively brusk length of the book, wouldn't have been enough.
I call up the movies would have been meliorate (and visually consistent) had there not been an almost ten year gap between Return of the Rex and the kickoff Hobbit pic.
The hunt scenes were tortuously bad. Both within the mount and the barrels in the river were filmed with no realism whatever. All those orcs shooting arrows and swinging swords and non i connecting to the necks of our dwarfish heroes. Tutut,,,,as bad a STAR WARS´south first five.I was intrigued by Gandalf´s depiction. Less bodacious, less driven and less powerful than in LOTR and well acted to demonstrate the more unconversant wizard.
The Hobbit is a lesser novel than LOTR. It´s only a kid´southward romp in the woods with 13 adorable elves and an adventurous Hobbit scampering off to distant lands and fighting a nasty dragon. Even the most threatening scenes such as that with the trolls is played for comic relief.
The novel doesn´t get tragically serious until the Battle of the Five Armies, whereas in LOTR the high drama begins at the very onset of the story. Yes, for Thorin, son of Thrain, etc. etc. at that place is a drive and a dramatic grapheme that permeates throughout the story but for the most function, the tone of the book is that of a fairy tale, non a death rattling crusade. The gravitas simply is not at that place.
Repeat wrote: "Honestly, I was disappointed in the movies. Don't get me wrong, I loved the cast, characters, and the small changes that they made. I only think that they used also much CGI and some changes that nosotros..." I thought the commencement movie was pretty proficient, though I didn't love information technology. I didn't like the second movie at all. It had besides many activity scenes and unnecessary conflicts, and not enough character development(though I'll admit the acting was pretty adept). Every time an orc appeared on the screen I hitting the fast-forward button because I just got and then tired of the orc subplot! Personally, I wish that information technology had but been adapted to 2 movies, and that they had trimmed the storyline down to what was actually in the book.
The movies were groovy,only i don't like the idea of making a 300-something page book into iii movies.There were lots of unnecessary action sequences,and dialogues.Why on globe did Azog become the master villain?He was not even nowadays in the book!Why did they drag Legolas into theHobbit?And that too,after dolling him up with eyeliner! 
I actually loved the movies. I know they were really different from the books, but they didn't change the actual story line only added some interesting stuff. I still love the book more, but I didn't mind the movies at all. 
The offset flick was actually enjoyable, the changes made were reasonable and it didn't compromise the story. After that I feel like information technology is a disgrace to even put the proper name The Hobbit on these movies. The Elf and Dwarf "love story" is laughable. The Dwarf showdown with Smaug is even worse. The third flick is and so unsatisfying I asked for a refund on my out of the theater (I did non become it). Why they fifty-fifty made these is conspicuously just to capitalize on the dedicated fans to this beautiful world and if they put i/100 of the effort they put in the LOTR trilogy it would take come out great. This was sloppily thrown together and just a complete failure. The second motion-picture show was and then bad I actually wanted to exit halfway through. Gave up substance for cheap thrills and tried to arrive more widespread past making information technology less "deadening" every bit people who don't appreciate these works would phone call the original trilogy. Adam wrote: "I thought the first flick was awful, but past the third information technology was much better - nearly equally skilful equally the LOTR films. I agree with the OP about stretching them out, especially in the first. " I have the opposite stance. I feel they got worse with each movie. The reason for my decline in stance was largely due to the constant additions of fight scenes. I skim fight scenes in books, I ignore them entirely in movies. I felt #1 was a good moving-picture show overall. I enjoyed the beginning half and Gollum scenes.
I liked a lot well-nigh #3, only the 60 minutes long battle doesn't ameliorate it. To be fair, Smaug redeemed a lot of #2 for me. If I had not been thrilled with Smaug, #2 would have been my to the lowest degree favorite.
The first two movies were fun, although they could have hands been edited down by half an 60 minutes. The kickoff film definitely captures the feel of the Hobbit best, even if it was a scrap lopsided in its narrative. The third picture, on the other hand, felt like it was only recreating Render of the Male monarch, but information technology failed miserably on almost all fronts. I did similar how the films continued to the larger overacting plot of the LotR universe, though.To be off-white, the source fabric is kind of hard to arrange equally a serious narrative due to its lighthearted and fast-paced nature--I tin't come across a completely faithful adaption of the whole book working well in a live action medium. While I don't like all the directorial choices made in the trilogy, I can sympathize why they were made. Except the romance. Whyyyyyy did they waste such a skillful actress on such a crappy subplot?
That being said, Freeman *nailed* Bilbo'due south character. That'due south all I actually needed from the movies at the end of the day.
Geoffrey wrote: "The Hobbit is a lesser novel than LOTR. It´south but a kid´south romp in the woods with 13 ambrosial elves and an adventurous Hobbit scampering off to distant lands and fighting a nasty dragon. Even the most threatening scenes such equally that with the trolls is played for comic relief." I disagree. The Hobbit does have a playful tone, just it is ultimately a story much like The Wizard of Oz--a character, Bilbo, being thrust into a world that is entirely not his. He is not allowed to get home until he completes his chore, which is to somehow confront a menace that otherwise has no meaning to him. There's a lot to describe from this theme; for example, the ring for Bilbo accentuated what turned out to be his greatest nugget. He was already invisible to dwarves, trolls, goblins, humans, and elves (many of whom did not even know hobbits existed), and the ring but made this theme literal and physical. For Frodo, the band was an entirely unlike symbol--like the rabbits in Watership Down, Frodo was constantly threatened by unknown evils everywhere. He would have liked nothing better than to be invisible--but the ring did not permit this without some issue, which reflects the very point of the story of paranoia and self-destruction from relentless and insensible persecution. The Hobbit is a story of walking into a dream, or a looking glass; LOTR, of living a nightmare. They are perfect contrasts to one some other, and I couldn't imagine enjoying LOTR so much without having read the playful and simpler, dream-similar Hobbit.
The Hobbit movies seem to accept completely erased this aspect of the Hobbit volume--that of being Dorothy in Oz. Instead, it'southward the story of the dwarves, something more than like Braveheart--chasing out a villain that'south taken your territory. In a way, that's not an entire betrayal of the book, considering the story of Smaug was never really a hobbit story to begin with. Smaug had no real significant to Bilbo, other than being an impossible and menacing chore to overcome. The movies, if anything, prove us the perspective of all the other characters in the saga, that hobbits, in the cease, are invisible beings--curious creatures, only ones that are not very of import.
In today's world of wars and martyrs, Frodo'southward story, and the story of the dwarves, are in high demand. A story like Bilbo'southward comes off as quaint and pollyannish. But there's a foreign and bizarre tragedy, I think, behind Bilbo'south story. He thinks himself an adventurer, but to anybody else, he is merely a practiced luck charm that makes a brief advent--not much different than the thrush.
While I did similar the elf daughter they added into the movies, I thought information technology was a little weird how they fabricated a relationship with her and Kili. I thought she was kind of and unnecessary addition.
But I accept to say, her quote at the end was probably the most amazing and sad part of the whole flick.
If this is love, I do not want it. Have information technology away, delight. Why does it hurt so much?
Because information technology was real.
Okay there is another thing I didn't similar. I feel like how they killed Fili, Kili and Thorne was not right. Fili and Kili were supposed to die defending the body of there died uncle and instead Fili was stabbed and thrown off a tower. It just wasn't as good as it could take been.
The quote truly was the best function of all the iii movies for me. It's been stuck in my head from the day I saw it in theaters. 
The but part of the movies that Actually bugged me was the portrayal of Beorn. They seriously didn't exercise him justice. He could have at least gotten an crawly action scene in the battle of the five armies, because who wouldn't want to see a giant badass werebear fighting an army of orcs? That's what I thought too. Beorn was strangely one of my favorite characters. 
The book was better. In the movies, they tried making another Lord of the Rings. Come on, Jackson! These are two completely dissimilar stories! Get them both right! 
Equally much equally I love the LOTR movies, the Hobbit disappointed me. The start i was okay, simply information technology was getting worse with every new one. I was mostly annoyed by the unnecessary plotlines, like why would yous put a love triangle between ii elves and a dwarf in in that location?It could have been a great movie if they made information technology in only ane movie and kept more of the original mood of the book. Hobbit is non LOTR it'south a simpler, more playful story.
EXACTLY! Give thanks yous. They just messed with also much of the Hobbit for me to fifty-fifty think of it as an adaptation. It is a different story using the same names that Tolkien used. 
I was okay with the first i, though in that location were things that I would've changed. but I felt similar they but got worse and worse. It got the betoken where not only had they butchered the story but they animated and airbrushed so much that it looked completely fake. They merely got way besides carried away! Here's a Viggo Mortensen quote that I think explains that pretty well, "Also, Peter was ever a geek in terms of technology but, once he had the means to do it, and the evolution of the technology really took off, he never looked back. In the offset moving picture, aye, there's Rivendell, and Mordor, but there'due south sort of an organic quality to information technology, actors acting with each other, and real landscapes; it's grittier. The 2d moving-picture show already started ballooning, for my sense of taste, and then by the third one, there were a lot of special effects. It was grandiose, and all that, but whatever was subtle, in the first movie, gradually got lost in the second and third. At present with The Hobbit, one and two, it'due south similar that to the ability of 10." It just makes me love him more than. That and the fact that he turned downward the offer to render as Aragorn in The Hobbit. And that'southward another thing. Legolas at least makes sense because he lived in Mirkwood and would've been alive then but then they went and mentioned Aragorn being some great Ranger or whatever but he was merely 10 or xi at the fourth dimension of The Hobbit! oh, that made me and then mad. Information technology made me even more mad than the whole Tauriel thing, and that was infuriating.
I loved the movies, but...when I read the book- I was profoundly disappointed... It seems creators never read this book. >_> Doriane wrote: "I loved the movies, but...when I read the volume- I was greatly disappointed... It seems creators never read this book. >_>" I know, right? I hate when moviemakers change so much that it'due south difficult to fifty-fifty tell if they know the story at all.
I read The Hobbit when I was 14 (nearly 15 years ago) and it nonetheless stands as i of my all fourth dimension favourite books. I didn't listen the first film, information technology was okay. Now originally I heard it was going to be split into 2 films and I thought it'southward not a large book just okay, then it was appear it was going to exist a trilogy and I just idea 'great they're going to milk The Hobbit dry out and at to the lowest degree 2 of the 3 films are going to endure for information technology'. Every bit far as the films go, like I said the first one was fine, the second one wasn't great only the third 1 was awful. I couldn't watch it,and I knew I wasn't going to look at it once again and so I skipped to withing 5 minutes of the end and I was so ill of it i couldn't be bothered even letting these last few minutes play out.
For me a lot of the problem was the changes and additions that deviated abroad from the books. I know a lot of movies exercise this but if the changes take from the film so stick as close as possible to the original.
add: link cover
Flag Corruption
Flagging a mail service will send it to the Goodreads Client Care squad for review. We take corruption seriously in our word boards. Only flag comments that clearly need our attending. Every bit a general rule we do not censor any content on the site. The just content we will consider removing is spam, slanderous attacks on other members, or extremely offensive content (eg. pornography, pro-Nazi, kid abuse, etc). Nosotros volition not remove whatsoever content for bad language lone, or being critical of a detail book.Welcome back. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account.
Source: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/17608263-the-hobbit-book-vs-the-hobbit-movies
0 Response to "The Hobbit Movie or There and Back Again"
Post a Comment