Every time The Hobbit is on HBO (read, every single night) I put it on as background noise. I thought it was a great movie, although the beginning was a bit slow.
Haha I remember on Tuesday, I walked into my room, opened by new Hobbit bluray, turned on tv, and The Hobbit was on HBO. Haha. Not extended, but still funny.
Misty Mountain song puts me to sleep...That ending felt like a cop out to the movie...But I will wait to see the whole trilogy before grading the movies.
So far I thought the first one was true to the book except for the Brown wizard but I found him entertaining enough. Anyone who was disappointed with it was probably expecting more action since Lord of the Rings was released first.
I agree JH. Radagast was mentioned in the book though, as was the whole Necromancer, Dol Guldur, sub-plot. However, it was largely glossed over and not any real part of story, so not surprised that some don't recall it. This was obviously going to be something they went into in detail once they did the movies, especially 3. I think they did a pretty good job of keeping it moving along on #1 generally. Looking forward to #2.
The big complaints I heard about the movie were that Gandalf was a dues ex machina (or however that is spelled) and that most of the 13 dwarves weren't developed as characters. Well, if you ever read the books, most of the 13 dwarves weren't developed as characters and Gandalf saves the party from everything until Bilbo gets the ring (and then Gandalf leaves). It was very true to the book, if you had read that, it shouldn't have bothered you.
The only way you cannot like the movie is if you expected it to be like Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is not anything like Lord of the Rings. It is a kids book that Peter Jackson has adapted very well, allowing adults to enjoy the story too. He has taken the opportunity to expand on Tolkein's ideas from the book and LOTR's appendices. I don't see how anyone can complain about that. I would have complained if he didn't do that!
Actually the way you cannot like the movie is that you can not like how it was far too long for the story that was told. In my opinion many scenes dragged on for no good reason. That has nothing to do with what was in the book, and what you are calling "expanding on Tolkien's ideas" I would call filler. Indeed, rather than crediting Jackson for it, I viewed it as a cynical attempt to keep the LotR fans happy by throwing in pointless asides involving Mordor and Saruman that had nothing to do with the story that was actually being told. Here is the comment I made in this thread immediately after seeing it. I still stand by it:
Got my tickets for Thursday night. Can't wait. Looks fantastic. Early reviews say it is great, but strays from the Hobbit material and moves more toward a LOTR prequel.
Personally I love it. In a way it's my favorite read from him, though it's not really a narrative, more like a history book, but it's so rich. Very dense reading. I boycotted the movies when they first came out, for a few months, until I saw what a great job Jackson did with the trilogy, and have to admit I became hooked. The Hobbit movie is a little cute for my liking at some parts, but it's still worth a watch. I just have to read the books every so often so I can keep my own interpretation in my head and not the movies, though I think the trilogy is pretty dead on. In a way, it was an arrogant task to take on because there's now way you could capture all the richness of the books in a movie, but I'll admit Peter Jackson probably did the best job you could do.
TDOS was a really fun movie. Crazy fast paced. Cuts off rather randomly, but that must be due to them expanding from 2 films to 3.
Saw Smaug today. Long movie for a sequel and believe it or not, another two part sequel just like Hunger Games II. Pissed me off. They wonder why people d/l movies huh.. Well, perhaps when they stop making sequels to prequels, people won't feel like they've been had. Unless something of note is included in Hobbitt III, I'll be downloading it instead of paying cash at the theatre to see it. Same goes for Hunger Games III. I'm done. Didn't really give a shit what was after the credits either.
More mad at myself OB for thinking this would be a complete movie instead of filler. I should have known better after getting suckered in with HG II. I'll know better next time and wait for them to be available on the 'net.
He is the best character in the book. " You have nice manners for a thief and a liar". As long as he says that I'm happy Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
The dragon did indeed, pull a Loki and steal the movie. Up until that point, there was good action spaced between long stretches of filler. If you're into trilogies, this is the middle one. I'm not sure how one would term a 6 part series though as this would be 2 of 6. Kinda like the Star Wars Prequels.
This is an odd response to a 2nd part of a trilogy. It is as if you did not realize that there were 3 Hobbit movies? You watched the first one right? I am confused at how you expected it to end.
