The Hobbit was Terrible

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ProRaven wrote:
I was really looking forward to this movie, as I’ve always been a LOTR fan. Unfortunately, I took my 15 year old son today and we both agreed it was terrible. Way too long, too many unnecessary scenes, its obvious Peter Jackson could use a lesson in editing. What’s really shocking is there is stll two more movies to go.

I loved the book as a kid. This should have been one movie, tops. [/quote]

This is what I think of your OP… Dislike Peter Jackson's <em>The Hobbit</em>? Then You Don't Know Tolkien | HuffPost Entertainment [/quote]

I was wondering why Peter Jackson made the movie have such a strong good vs evil overtone. That article really clears it up and explains to me upon what he based that part on to make it work well.

People liked LOTR? I thought it was the typical, predictable Hollywood drivel. The book is good though.

Peter Jackson also sometimes puts on unnessecary gore or horror movie elements to
his movies that seem idiosyncratic to American audiences, it was the Fly in the ointment
that messed up KING KONG IMHO, like the disturbing giant Insect attack on the group of men, and that
intense, practically racist scene that made those Aborigine-like natives of the Island portrayed
as these insane, Raging epileptic lunatics…he sometimes has this proverbial ‘gas pedal is stuck’ mode where
he crosses the line into this kind of strangeness.

KONG could have been as good, or
better than the original if it wasn’t so long, and several scenes either re-done, or omitted
altogether as there are some outstanding scenes in this movie and alot of it looked just fantastic.

[quote]Karado wrote:
Peter Jackson also sometimes puts on unnessecary gore or horror movie elements to
his movies that seem idiosyncratic to American audiences[/quote]

I kinda like that about Jackson. He didn’t forget his roots when he became a ‘legit’ director and you can see the development of an idea from one movie into another, like how he went from the Grim Reaper in The Frighteners to the Nazgul.

LOTR needed someone with horror chops to make it work.

[quote]ProRaven wrote:
I was really looking forward to this movie, as I’ve always been a LOTR fan. Unfortunately, I took my 15 year old son today and we both agreed it was terrible. Way too long, too many unnecessary scenes, its obvious Peter Jackson could use a lesson in editing. What’s really shocking is there is stll two more movies to go.

I loved the book as a kid. This should have been one movie, tops. [/quote]

I don’t think anybody can make a fair assessment until all three movies have been released. As hotly anticipated prequels go, this is a masterpiece compared to The Phantom Menace and Prometheus.

I have a feeling that the story will gain serious momentum when Smaug enters the fray. He represents the contant threat of attack that Azog couldn’t provide.

Thanks for the assessments.

Even though I had no intentions of seeing it, I’m REALLY not going to see it now…

… even though they are my people.

Fuck all y’all who don’t like it. Dwarves are the shit; I loved the movie. I see myself liking this trilogy way more than Lord of the Rings. LOTR was full of gay ass hobbits and elves. This one’s all about a bunch of awesome dwarven powerlifters who kick tons of ass and drink loads of beer.

That’s why you see Django Unchained, obvi.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
While I did enjoy it, as a story, it’s just not the same caliber film as LOTR, especially for people who only know the LOTR story, and expected the Hobbit to be of similar intensity and scale. My previous exposure was the old Ralph Bakshi cartoons from my childhood, so obviously Jackson’s visions blew me away. In terms of lagging moments in the films,… well, if a director cuts something too short, it’s bad, and if they let it go too long, it’s bad. No one will ever be completely satisfied, so I guess I sort of grant film makers a certain amount of leeway (sp? -lol).

S[/quote]

The Hobbit was like an afternoon fishing with your best friend, when school let out early…of course you could hang out for an hour, catch your limit and go home, but really…I’d much rather waste all afternoon with my buddy catching and releasing until its time to go eat supper…and then his mom lets him come over for supper and camping in the backyard![/quote]

Good way of putting it. I never understood why people would complain about a good movie being too long. I watched it twice on opening day and didn’t feel that at all.

When the original LOTR films came out WOW was on the horizon.

You could play dorfs and elves with bows.

Now that wow is bleeding subs, a terrible community and boring, same old, same old game play, LOTR gets ravaged! A lot of critics miss their WoW methinks.

I thought it was okay.

You can’t walk into the movie expecting a LOTR film because it’s not.

The film has more of a humorous undertone to it than the erie dark feel that the other movies have.

I could see how a 10 year old could love this movie and watch it 1000 times.

Seriously almost cried when that hedgehog died though…

But I’m definitely looking forward to Evangeline running around in tights in the next one.

Damn I enjoyed. I read the book years ago and there are changes that were made but damn they did the same thing to the LOTR series as well. Keep in mind that the book wasnt as serious or violent as the others so the movie probably appeals more to the younger crowd(although they added more action to the movie than there is in the book). I look forward to the next 2 movies.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Thanks for the assessments.

Even though I had no intentions of seeing it, I’m REALLY not going to see it now.
[/quote]

x2

Can’t believe how many people are saying the LOTR movies were way better. If you liked those but thought The Hobbit was slow I imagine half of the movie was like watching paint dry in slow motion.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
A director/producer like Peter Jackson has some degree of power with the studio when it comes to calling the shots. He could have kept it to the originally announced plan of a two-parter movie. His ego let him think that he could get away with making a trilogy out of a book that was already much thinner than any one of the LOTR trilogy books.

Someone beat him if he even suggests doing the Silmarillion. [/quote]

There is no such thing as LOTR trilogy books. LOTR series is made up of six books. The LOTR trilogy is the LOTR books made into three movies: two books per movie.

The fact that you don’t know that basically disqualifies you from putting forth your opinion into the matter.[/quote]

That is a retarded argument. Really, you should be embarrassed for even imagining yourself as ‘clever’ for writing such utter nonsense.

Yes, I’m well familiar with the division of the books of the LOTR series. However, said divisions were never actually published as 6 individual books, it’s simply a stylistic choice on the part of Tolkien. One could equally make the argument that the entire series is in fact one single novel published in 3 parts.

But I’m pretty sure that you know this, and you’re just making your ‘argument’ as part of some form of pseudo-intellectual public masturbation.

Did anyone else check out BC’s article?

Thoughts?

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
A director/producer like Peter Jackson has some degree of power with the studio when it comes to calling the shots. He could have kept it to the originally announced plan of a two-parter movie. His ego let him think that he could get away with making a trilogy out of a book that was already much thinner than any one of the LOTR trilogy books.

Someone beat him if he even suggests doing the Silmarillion. [/quote]

There is no such thing as LOTR trilogy books. LOTR series is made up of six books. The LOTR trilogy is the LOTR books made into three movies: two books per movie.

The fact that you don’t know that basically disqualifies you from putting forth your opinion into the matter.[/quote]

That is a retarded argument. Really, you should be embarrassed for even imagining yourself as ‘clever’ for writing such utter nonsense.

Yes, I’m well familiar with the division of the books of the LOTR series. However, said divisions were never actually published as 6 individual books, it’s simply a stylistic choice on the part of Tolkien. One could equally make the argument that the entire series is in fact one single novel published in 3 parts.

But I’m pretty sure that you know this, and you’re just making your ‘argument’ as part of some form of pseudo-intellectual public masturbation.

[/quote]

No. I was, as BeefEater said, being a “douche.” Wasn’t being clever.

I won’t comment on your statement about publishing though. That doesn’t even make sense.

My point though was that, the man–Peter Jackson–knows what he is talking about/doing. He knows the books, including the apocrypha, and he’s worked on this project for I don’t know how many years. So, to give a glance at the Hobbit and say it is too long, is…well ridiculous.

OK, here’s how my statement makes sense.

Tolkien chose to divide his story into parts. He called said parts, “books.” The choice of the term, “books” was purely stylistic.

The first publication, “The Fellowship of the Ring,” was divided into two of these parts, called “books.”

That doesn’t change the fact that “The Fellowship of the Ring” was itself, a book. One book.

When I go to Barnes and Noble, point to FotR, and say, “can I buy this book,” nobody will say, “NO, because that’s two books!”

Similarly, Tolkien originally hoped for LotR to be one single book (i.e., one publication, in between two covers source: Carpenter, Humphrey, ed. (1981), The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien). Various issues with publication forced it to be divided into a trilogy.

For publication purposes, it is a trilogy of three books. For narrative purposes, it’s one story. To claim that it is in ‘fact’ 6 books is just childish parsing of words designed only to aggrandize your own opinion over the opinion of someone else. Or, as stated, it’s being a douche.

As for your last paragraph, you do realize that it’s possible for a person to have their own informed opinion about narrative and stylistic choices?

I realize that because you’re spouting some fan boy butthurt, you want me to be objectively wrong, and you want yourself and Jackson to be objectively right, but forgive me if I opt to not cooperate, and dare to have my own consideration of how the text was handled.

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
OK, here’s how my statement makes sense.

Tolkien chose to divide his story into parts. He called said parts, “books.” The choice of the term, “books” was purely stylistic.

The first publication, “The Fellowship of the Ring,” was divided into two of these parts, called “books.”

That doesn’t change the fact that “The Fellowship of the Ring” was itself, a book. One book.

When I go to Barnes and Noble, point to FotR, and say, “can I buy this book,” nobody will say, “NO, because that’s two books!”

Similarly, Tolkien originally hoped for LotR to be one single book (i.e., one publication, in between two covers source: Carpenter, Humphrey, ed. (1981), The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien). Various issues with publication forced it to be divided into a trilogy.

For publication purposes, it is a trilogy of three books. For narrative purposes, it’s one story. To claim that it is in ‘fact’ 6 books is just childish parsing of words designed only to aggrandize your own opinion over the opinion of someone else. Or, as stated, it’s being a douche.

As for your last paragraph, you do realize that it’s possible for a person to have their own informed opinion about narrative and stylistic choices?

I realize that because you’re spouting some fan boy butthurt, you want me to be objectively wrong, and you want yourself and Jackson to be objectively right, but forgive me if I opt to not cooperate, and dare to have my own consideration of how the text was handled.[/quote]

now who’s partaking in pseudo-intellectual masturbation?

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
OK, here’s how my statement makes sense.

Tolkien chose to divide his story into parts. He called said parts, “books.” The choice of the term, “books” was purely stylistic.

The first publication, “The Fellowship of the Ring,” was divided into two of these parts, called “books.”

That doesn’t change the fact that “The Fellowship of the Ring” was itself, a book. One book.

When I go to Barnes and Noble, point to FotR, and say, “can I buy this book,” nobody will say, “NO, because that’s two books!”

Similarly, Tolkien originally hoped for LotR to be one single book (i.e., one publication, in between two covers source: Carpenter, Humphrey, ed. (1981), The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien). Various issues with publication forced it to be divided into a trilogy.

For publication purposes, it is a trilogy of three books. For narrative purposes, it’s one story. To claim that it is in ‘fact’ 6 books is just childish parsing of words designed only to aggrandize your own opinion over the opinion of someone else. Or, as stated, it’s being a douche.

As for your last paragraph, you do realize that it’s possible for a person to have their own informed opinion about narrative and stylistic choices?

I realize that because you’re spouting some fan boy butthurt, you want me to be objectively wrong, and you want yourself and Jackson to be objectively right, but forgive me if I opt to not cooperate, and dare to have my own consideration of how the text was handled.[/quote]

Oh, yes…let the nerd out begin! It is glorious.

[quote]ProRaven wrote:
its obvious Peter Jackson could use a lesson in editing. [/quote]

He obviously knows how to edit. I haven’t seen the Hobbit yet, but it’s happens with just about every filmmaker and writer that reaches a certain level of success that their films and/or novels get longer and worse. Basically, their success makes their ego so big that they think every word they write and every scene they film is gold, and they have so much power within their industry that no one has the authority to force them to make cuts. Jackson obviously reached this level with Kong.

Quentin Tarentino reached it with Jackie Brown, which was sadly just his third film. He could have made some great films. I haven’t seen Django yet either.