The Hobbit or A Hobbit Movie ? [spoilers inside]

[I-KP]

Where LOTR was defined by walking, walking and more walking, The Hobbit is defined by running, running and more running. Actually, I very much enjoyed The Hobbit and look forward to the next two films.

[hollyfant]

[paazin]

It was mediocre.

The glaring inconsistencies with canon wouldn't have been so terrible if the underlying purpose/meaning for the plot elements was kept; alas PJ had his own ideas again, much like in the lotrs.

[Ithildur]

It was mediocre.

The glaring inconsistencies with canon wouldn't have been so terrible if the underlying purpose/meaning for the plot elements was kept; alas PJ had his own ideas again, much like in the lotrs.

+1 alas.

The real hero/main protagonist of PJ's lotr based movies was Sam Gamgee, not Frodo; let me guess, for the Hobbit it's Smaug?

[Lucifer]

I liked it as an entertaining action/fantasy movie..I'd not even begin to count the deviation from the Book..on a side note..Tom B. /should/ have been kept in..including his wonderful Bard tendancies ...and I want to know from the Dorf experts here what is the subrace of the obviously +2 Dex Dorfs represented here and when do we get em?

[kid]

+22 dex you mean.

It was a reasonble movie. I never expect movies to be anything like the books.
Though the book was realy a glorious childrens adventure tale.
This moive was a comic book/action kinda tale...
which is slightly a shame, but it is what it is.

[Heero]

Well, guys and gals, I saw the second one this morning.

So let me preface this by saying I really enjoyed the LOTR movies along with the first installment of The Hobbit. Id consider myself a diehard fan of the books having read them umpteen times over the past 20-25 years or so since my first reading in the 5th grade. Despite their inaccuracies to the books and oftentimes over-the-top action sequences, Ive enjoyed them and thought them to be as-good-as-can-be-expected adaptations of the novels and fine adventure flicks on top.

Well, I found this second installment to be shit. And I dont dub it that lightly. It was shit. I wont post any spoilers, but, in my reckoning, the movie was little more than one giant, over-the-top, action movie consisting of ridiculous fight scene after ridiculous fight scene, none of which appeared in the book. Sure the plot moved forward and they came closer to their end goal, but despite this the move felt like filler. It felt like poorly-written filler.

In all seriousness, who likes this shit? My wife who is not into fantasy in the slightest, has never read the books, yet loved the LOTR movies along with the first Hobbit installment absolutely hated the movie, as well. I went to the matinee show so there was a lot of kids and families, but even still there were no cheers or any other sort of animation from the audience which I witnessed in the LOTR movies or even the first Hobbit movie, all of which I also saw opening weekend in matinee showtimes. Granted, I watch little TV and watch even fewer movies so I have little to use as comparison, but is this what people like? Who are they writing this shit for?

Anywho, there is my review. Take it for what its worth: absolutely nothing.

[boombrakh]

[Heero]

Are you who?

[kid]

First was really bad.
And you're saying second is worse?
Bad news.
I will go watch it now and complain later.

[Heero]

I enjoyed the first. It was a fun romp with only a bit of over-the-top Tarzan-Ninja-Viking-Berzerker Dwarf carnage upon goblinkind and needless filler not related to the central storyline.

This second was crap. I think each dwarf must have racked up no less than 50 kills and the two main elfs, Legolas and Freckles, racking up about 300 each. All done in the most ridiculous manner possible more befitting to one of those lameass Japanese animation movies/shows. The main problem here being this was basically the entire movie. An entire movie of lame action sequences.

One plus was the portrayal of Thranduil. Cool and well-done portrayal of an elfking.

[Heero]

I read a couple reviews online, and its seems everyone loved this one. So I guess the writers do know their audience, and that audience just aint me.

[Mikayla]

I was very disappointed in both Hobbit movies. Too much new stuf that detracted, rather than added to the story. And too much slapstick bullshit. Notice, I didn't say "americanised slapstick" as Veilan did - not one of the four writers of this movie is American - Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens are from New Zealand, and Guillermo Del Toro is from Mexico, and the movies were filmed in New Zealand. Granted, there is a heavy American presence in the movie, but please don't lay this entirely on us - PJ is not one of ours nor are the other folks who wrote this thing. America cannot take credit for PJs brilliance directing the first 3 movies, and conversely, should not take the blame for these last two.

[kid]

Americanized slapstick is well documented genera, type or method of filmmaking, as any first year student would tell you.
It has nothing to do with the creators but it is simply that that genera was created with strong American influences, and mostly by American filmmakers, which is why it got it's name.

This is obviously a complete lie but perhaps no one will notice.

[Veilan]

I suppose that is why I wrote "americanised" and not "American". Or maybe simply to use a word likely to be understood without having to go into a paragraph of explanation.

Will go watch on Friday. I hear promising tales of how Thranduil is made to be the greedy arrogant bitter bastard he is, but I doubt the movie can match the brilliance of Rusty's portrayal of him as DM in The One Ring.

Anyway, the trick is to keep one's expectations low of these movies, then, you can manage to at the very least be entertained if not mildly positively surprised.

Cheers,