Posted on 12/26/2012 3:46:05 AM PST by LinnieBeth
We went to see The Hobbit yesterday and we thought it was awful. Been surprised that since it's release there haven't been any posts to the Hole.
Are you all disgusted with Part 1?
Saw it in 3D yesterday and was prepared to hate it, but actually thoroughly enjoyed it. The length didn’t bother me, as the theater had nice overstuffed recliners.
Well I loved it - it was a little corny at times and almost jumped the shark a few times but the scenery is awesome and special effects excellent. It went too quick for me even though the film is long it mostly kept me interested.
Mel
Loved the scenerey, thought the fight scenes were too long and thus pushed the film out too long. That’s especially important for me, because I have a bum left knee and sitting for long periods of time is hard on that knee.
Having read the books years ago when I was young and not being an afficienado, one thing I picked up on was the fact that the dwarves homeless plight seems to be allegorical to the Jews without a home. I know that Tolkein was very religious and this being written in the 30’s seems to me that Zionism at that time was gaining a lot of steam. Is there any truth to what I’m saying. Was the dwarves allegorical to the Jews?
Saw the movie Christmas Eve with my family, thought it was great ... would go see part 2 tonight if it was up.
Thought the scenery was absolutely outstanding.
My wife and I both enjoyed it. Saw i in 3D, hope to see it again in 2D. She thought Gollum stole the show. I read The Hobbit and LOTR many years ago and love that they can now make movies that do them justice.
I have read the Hobbit & The Lord Of The rings yearly since I was 17. (1975) In that time I have worn out at least 4 sets of books.
I liked the movie and agree that they tried to stay true to the book. The visuals were great and I hate having to wait for the next installment.
The “banquet” scene at the meeting of the dwarves could have been cut to no more than a minute or two and the battle scenes could have been cut a bit. Altogether the movie seemed to be played for laughs rather than as a “serious” folk tale
I have read LOTR and Hobbit many times although not as many times as you. My eyes are weaker now and so I have started listening to audio books. Finaly this year they came out with unabridged (non dramatized) versions which are really very good. I say non dramatized because before all they had were abridged versions with cheesy readings by a gaggle of actors. Now it’s one reader who does change his voice a bit but not too much which is sort of like if Tolkien himself were reading it to his children. I love listening to audio books of books I’ve read. I find myself focusing on different aspects. I’m not part way into The Fellowship of the Ring. Mr. Mercat and I will probably go see the Hobbit this weekend.
Why is it that anyone who puts on the ring turns invisible EXCEPT for Sauron?
Haven’t seen it yet. I do often wonder what Tolkien would have thought about the movie versions of his writing, and how they would have turned out if he had been involved in a way similar to Stan Lee was in his own work.
I just love the story, however it is told.
Saw some of it in 2D, left after Radagast’s chase (i had forgotten that it was going to be Dr Who Sylvester McCoy — who I knew from Dr Who conventions — in that outfit!). I enjoyed the (overlong) part in the Shire then lost interest. Recently re-watched the movie Hitchhikers Guide to hear Alan Rickman — didnt realize that the guy who played Arthur Dent in that was Bilbo in this, a very similar role. I first read the Hobbit as a kid in the late 60’s when it became trendy, so am glad PJ even tried to film it.
I seem to have heard that this can cause convulsions in some people.
Sauron was fully evil - he existed in both the shadow world that Bilbo disappears into and in the “real world”.
That’s how I would answer the question, although I admit I have never really thought too much about that before! ;-P
My family saw the Hobbit over the weekend and thought it was great. Every bit as well done as the LOTR. Can’t wait to see the dragon in Part II.
The difference is, our society has become so feminized it cannot fathom violence, even to protect the good and the innocent. As Professor Tolkein's dear friend CS Lewis predicted, we are a society of "men without chests."
Other than minor changes (White Orc got killed before Battle of Moria) and additions (back story from Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion added at the beginning to continuity), I had no argument with the movie. I thought Peter Jackson did a fine job. The Hobbit was every bit as faithful to the book and as entertaining as the first Lord of the Rings movie.
To a certain extent, they HAD to make it a prequel. In The Hobbit, the elves enjoy a lot of silliness, which would be a jarring change to someone who watched LOTR. So would be their tendency to do evil things, or to be greedy, which results in the Elvish King marching an army to attack the dwarves.
OTOH, the cave chase was stupid. It was truly Bilbo Meets Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Unhappily, too many movies have conditioned audiences to spectacular chases. Dwarves running thru tunnels with an occasional arrow shot at them would seem too tame. After all, an occasional arrow wouldn’t even get a wry remark out of James Bond, so why should Gandalf be scared?
It was also wrong to change Bilbo’s character, and have him save Thorin at the burning tree. I think the biggest problem is they decided to make 3 movies. Two would have been plenty, and it would have allowed Bilbo to change at the right pace. He sees heroism, but he doesn’t ever act heroic until he is separated from the dwarves and forced to make decisions on his own. But they didn’t want the entire movie to go by with Bilbo looking meek...
In the end, I felt much like I did with LOTR: it does a good job of creating Middle Earth and making it look real, but it “King Kong”s the story while doing it. There are too many times Jackson wants to wow the audience instead of trusting them to appreciate things over time.
And goodness knows, the Hobbit movies have a LOT of time! They are turning a very good 5 hour movie into a so-so 9 hour movie...
:>(
I’ll check it out when the movie is free-
Hollywood doesn’t get a penny from me.
Because the ring WAS Sauron. He poured himself into it. In a sense, the ring was possessed by Sauron. When he had it, he was still fully himself. When someone else tried to use it, then Sauron-in-the-ring would twist and overpower their nature. And as long as the ring existed, part of Sauron was still alive and could recover.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.