Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anyone disturbed by "The Hobbit" film?
12-26-12 | LinnieBeth

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?


TOPICS: TV/Movies; The Hobbit Hole
KEYWORDS: film; hobbit; hollywood; jackson; moviereview; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: BroJoeK
The movie was as true as anyone could ask to the book.

Hardly. I could ask for them to leave out that 'Azog the pale orc' nonsense, for example.

61 posted on 12/26/2012 11:04:57 AM PST by Sloth (Rather than a lesser Evil, I voted for Goode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u
Why is it that anyone who puts on the ring turns invisible EXCEPT for Sauron?

Sauron can actually control the ring, rather than just being affected by it.

By the way, he was not the only one. In the books, Tom Bombadil put the ring on without disappearing.

62 posted on 12/26/2012 11:07:25 AM PST by Sloth (Rather than a lesser Evil, I voted for Goode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

You still miss my point it takes courage to show mercy to an enemy who may or may not still mean you harm. One whom you might have to watch for over your shoulder later. For many they advocate that its far easier to simply kill them and remove all doubt than live with the chance.


63 posted on 12/26/2012 11:15:48 AM PST by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

It’s there to explain the reason that Thorin us called ‘Oakenshield’, which the story does not appear in the ‘Hobbit’. I also thought that Tolkien was wrong in sending a party of Dwarves on such a quest virtually unarmed, it is one of the few points I always had trouble with when reading the ‘Hobbit’.


64 posted on 12/26/2012 11:24:12 AM PST by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
The Hobbit was every bit as faithful to the book and as entertaining as the first Lord of the Rings movie.

To my mind, that's a condemnation. Jackson totally butchered the character of Galadriel, and even moreso, Faramir.

Way too much of the movie was Jackson's and not near enough Tolkien's. Maybe if I hadn't read the books 20 or more times I wouldn't have noriced.

65 posted on 12/26/2012 12:15:37 PM PST by jimt (Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: LinnieBeth

Why anyone is patronizing Hollywood at this stage whether the film is good, bad, or indifferent is beyond me.


66 posted on 12/26/2012 12:23:56 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by Nature, not Nurture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I saw it in IMAX, too. I forgot, initially, that it was HFR, and at the very beginning when Bilbo opens a chest and looks in, it looked like his facial expressions were moving WAY too fast. Not, smoother, not cleaner, just faster. The film looked sped up, and that effect lasted the entire rest of the movie, some scenes more pronounced than others. I like the 3D, but it’s not really critical to the film. I’m seriously considering just straight 2D for the next one unless some major improvements are made.


67 posted on 12/26/2012 3:24:26 PM PST by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: CharlotteVRWC

It’s too long because they need to stretch it into a trilogy.


68 posted on 12/26/2012 6:15:07 PM PST by crosshairs (It's all about good vs evil. In the end, evil is destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: steve86

This film was made in New Zealand, and the entire production company is New Zealanders. That’s the problem of living a life of gross over-generalization, you miss small details.

And really, even if it was, why punish yourself for Hollywood? I spent $7 on a movie today, a good movie I enjoyed a lot. Had I not gone they wouldn’t have missed my $7, but I would have missed out on a movie I’ve been looking forward to.


69 posted on 12/26/2012 6:33:20 PM PST by discostu (Not a part of anyone's well oiled machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Hollywood, Bollywood, FilmNZ. Pushing the left's agenda globally.

For example, a recent Indian film mainstreaming lesbianism.

Country-by-country distinctions are of limited use anymore.

I don't enjoy movies and attending one is punishment for me. Do not rent, Redbox, Netflix, etc., either.

I like building things and reading.

70 posted on 12/26/2012 6:48:30 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by Nature, not Nurture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

I expect to own all the movies, and they will be in 2-D (I don’t expect to ever do 3-D TV), so I figured to watch the 3-D in the theater.


71 posted on 12/26/2012 7:01:55 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: steve86

And again you’re into gross generalizations. This is a movie based on a novel with strong Christian themes.

And it’s not either or. One can watch movies AND build things and read. My primary reading time is while watching movies at home. Just finished a book with Duck You Sucker on. Humans are an innately dynamic species.

Seems to me like you’re just trying to find political justification for personal failings. You don’t like movies, fine, that’s you, it’s weird, especially for a reader since movies are just another form of story telling. But whatever, we’re dynamic, somebody dislikes everything. But there’s no reason to pretend that’s some great political stance, it’s just you not liking movies. Good for you, no reason to click on a movie thread ever again, cause nobody really cares that you don’t like them.


72 posted on 12/26/2012 7:13:57 PM PST by discostu (Not a part of anyone's well oiled machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit

Haha yes I will probably watch it 40 times when the DVD comes out - my old LOTR movies are starting to wear out I have watched them so much.

It is different - a lot more action but it still has it’s quiet bits - some humorous bits too. I would watch it again today if someone would pay for me to go!

Mel


73 posted on 12/26/2012 8:50:23 PM PST by melsec (Once a Jolly Swagman camped by a Billabong....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java

Fascinating article. I would’ve bet money that 48 FPS would be more immersive but after hearing his angle I can totally see why that might not be the case. Now I’m sort of curious to see the movie in both formats.


74 posted on 12/26/2012 10:39:06 PM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

the Dwarves are partly allegorical to the Jewish plight, and the languages of Dwarvish is related to Hebrew.

But like most Tolkien stuff, he mixes up a lot of influences: the dwarves desire for gold and their love of family with the need to revenge their kin and the riddle game is based on Viking lore, not the Jewish plight of the 1920’s or early 1930’s.

And the story was originally told to his kids as a bedtime story and only written down when he mixed up some details on retelling, and his youngest son caught him at the mistake.

Jackson is adding a lot of backstory from the appendices of the Lord of the Rings about the white council and the history of the dwarves.

Good or bad? Who knows.

But I enjoyed the film, as did my granddaughter, although the fight in the goblin tunnels was a bit boring.


75 posted on 12/28/2012 12:57:14 AM PST by LadyDoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Way too much of the movie was Jackson's and not near enough Tolkien's. Maybe if I hadn't read the books 20 or more times I wouldn't have noticed.

That's an excellent summary of his LOTR movies.

76 posted on 01/01/2013 10:56:25 AM PST by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
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

So basically the Ring was Sauron's horcrux? God, is there nothing Tolkien didn't steal from Rowlands!?

77 posted on 01/01/2013 2:40:51 PM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LinnieBeth
Are you all disgusted with Part 1?

Here's the thing... remember those analogy tests from way back when? Well, the people who read and love The Hobbit and who were expecting a close translation of the book to the movie are like the Conservatives are to the GOP. The powers that be felt there needed to be 'more' in order to reach a wider audience. In doing so, much was lost.
78 posted on 01/01/2013 2:46:42 PM PST by AD from SpringBay (We deserve the government we allow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LinnieBeth
Just saw it. I thought that (as with LotR) Jackson wandered far away from Tolkien's story. I think he got everyone's motivations wrong, especially Bilbo. Did not like the creation of an arch-nemesis goblin to Thorin, or the insertion of Radagast. Also do not like Jackson's version of goblins (I think of them as like elves, but evil, not like The Hulk). Did not like the video-game type of battles. The fights are on much smaller scale in the book, and the escape from Moria is mostly running away after killing the king and a couple of others.

And at no point did Bilbo attempt to run away from his commitment.

79 posted on 01/19/2013 9:33:58 PM PST by Dajjal (Justice Robert Jackson was wrong -- the Constitution IS a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

To put it simply, the Ring was Sauron’s horcrux.


80 posted on 01/22/2013 2:53:08 PM PST by ExGeeEye (It's been over 90 days; time to start on 2014. Carpe GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson