Missing the point

Iv'e heard it a thousand times: there was not enough material to justify the length... This is beside the point, this in no way made the quality of the movie bad. The movie was in no way boring, something was always happening, the fact that they had so little material to do this only serves to show how well they have done. Too many of you no longer appreciate movies because you are too focused on the negatives and noticing them, if not that then you make them up or use the book at a way to get at the book. The lord of the rings was 3 movies but it could of easily have been 10, why did many of you not then say lotr was bad? because regardless of how much material there was the movies themselves were fantastic. The hobbit has little material yet a great movie was produced so how is it relevant? If any of you call yourselves professionals or experienced then you most certainly need to take a break and simply enjoy movies rather then make up ways to criticize them.
Sim Mills
12-27-2012 10:08 AM

Thread Replies

Please log in to participate in this forum.

hollis m.

hollis mills

whoa

Jan 3 - 11:53 AM

Luvagoo

Tallulah Robinson

I'm sorry, but no. You must have a basic understanding of how movies work. Pacing and timing: it's a thing. I was never bored exactly, but there were so many unnecessary moments and fillers that had no point. There lacked a basic structure - doesn't matter if it's the first in a trilogy, there still has to be 3 acts, a beginning, middle and end type thing. You can't just splurge all of the pretty pictures on a screen for 3 hours and expect it to be okay. I liked the movie overall, but it was so, so unnecessarily long. And, yes, not enough story to justify it. (Let along two MORE movies - holy shittt).

Jan 1 - 06:22 PM

D P.

D P

I agree. What makes for a faithful adaptation doesn't make for a great movie.

Jan 2 - 05:29 AM

Andrew S.

Andrew Smithdale

Does D P stand for double penetration by any chance?

Jan 2 - 05:58 AM

Andrew S.

Andrew Smithdale

IE...Andrew and D P double penetrated Tallulah Robinson because she gave such a good review

Jan 2 - 06:00 AM

Market Man

Eric Shankle

The Hobbit should never have been made into a trilogy. It's quite obvious that it's not an artistic decision by any means. Had The Hobbit been one film (maybe two but even that's pushing it) I think it would have been much better.

Jan 2 - 10:09 AM

Heath Kessi

Heath Kessi

END OF PREVIOUS COMMENT:

couldn't go more unbelievably and unrealistically right for our group. I understand why people want to like the hobbit so much, it is a wonderful story, and it is nostalgic for so many as well. But we all need to respect artistic integrity and that is something that is fading not just from film but from art, media, and entertainment in general. The more that we support the film industry making so much cheap, superficial, and plain bad movies, the more they will keep making them. That goes for Video games as well. I know when something was just made so that the highest amount of profits could be earned instead of making something that was honest, artistic, and well represented. I wanted this Hobbit film to be the definitive movie, but honestly, I liked the Rankin and Bass 1970's version better. The next movie's version of Smaug will not live up to theirs. And can you believe it, The Rankin and Bass version has a higher score than this one. It is the small things that will make or break anything.

Dec 28 - 05:06 PM

Starbaby

Starbaby Miniverse

You really hit the nail on the head with this long, involved comment. It sums up everything that is wrong with this film IMO, and also what JRR Tolkien's son said about the integrity of his father's work being swallowed up by the "absurdity" of the current time. Excellent post.

Dec 29 - 09:54 PM

Heath Kessi

Heath Kessi

Thank you for your very smart response. Everything I wrote was the honest way I felt. I didn't try to doctor anything in any way or be biased/hateful just for that sake. I live my life expecting everything around me to be honest and live up to the standard that it should. It is just sickening to think that most would actually call a person a fool nowadays for believing that. For the most part, I have given up on modern film and just stick to the pre turn of the century films. I just watched the "Rocketeer" recently and whatever a person?s opinion is about that film it is a prime example of what artistic integrity is all about. There is nothing in that film that says "hey, lets change this or that or add this to try to make more money out of this flick." It has a great hero, brilliant villain, excellent representation of real life people, a soundtrack that nearly brings a tear to your eye, a throwback behind the scenes enemy that pays homage to the Indiana Jones films (the Nazis, why do they make such great villains, maybe it?s the representation of ultimate evil in our universe so far?). My favorite movie of all time is the Back to the Future Trilogy, I can?t think of a more fun and artistic delight than those movies. They are the definitive example of original work put into a movie. The turn of the century didn?t completely lose its soul though, my favorite film in the last 12 years is without question ?Blood Diamond,? a completely original work that is perfectly paced. Every character in that movie is done well, the story is beyond heartfelt, and its hero is an anti-hero which is my favorite kind of character (I am a big Punisher fan, its movies bombed though). Cinema is more successful now than it has ever been, but why do I feel like its dead?

Jan 1 - 09:16 PM

Heath Kessi

Heath Kessi

hmmm... when you copy and paste text from a word doc to a comment here, apostrophe's turn into question marks.

Jan 1 - 09:20 PM

Heath Kessi

Heath Kessi

Sim, this is my favorite novel, and the story I loved and identified most with as a child. It is a masterwork of literature and can be loved by anyone of any age. Hard work and care was put into the writing of this story by one very creative man. I went into this film without any expectations, when I left the theater I was very saddened. My favorite story that I had ever read was cheapened. I believe this film's score is very accurate. It is not a terrible movie, but I would hardly call it a good one. It is just above average as its score implies. Why was this movie cheapened? CG was far overly relied upon, scenes were inaccurate, there were character personalities that were actually changed drastically, and the one thing that saddened me the most was that it was cheapened with awful humor. All you had to do to understand how terribly they cheapened everything was to listen to the sheep...... I mean people's (excuse me) reactions in the theater. The scene with Gollum was like watching a bad comedian, and so many mindless people just harked and harked at his setups. When I read the book, there isn't anything funny about that scene. It was a creature that was creepy, murderous, and psychologically disturbed. you didn't know for sure if Bilbo would ever get out of that cave intact. Radagast had to be the worst though, he again had awful setups for humor making reference to his bunnies (he rode a horse, just like Gandalf and was very wise, not the mushroom eating doofus who again rode a sled pulled by CG bunnies and had a forest full of CG animal friends (that is awful, yet everybody laughed because that is how far artisic integrity has fallen in film). It is the same story with Bert, William, and Tom. They were put on the screen as bumbling doof's that were a throwback to the three stooges (literally). Why are the three stooges in the hobbit, or middle earth for that matter? the moment I knew for certain that this movie had lost its credibility was after the group fell to the bottom of the cave and it is said "Well, that could have been much worse" I actually already knew immediately what was about to happen, the damn Goblin King's corps lands on them (Again, everyone in the theater just laughed and laughed while I hung my head, shaking it back and forth while covering my face, asking myself Why? I don't ever remember this cheapened humor in this wonderful novel. I was so happy to see Sir Christopher Lee reprise his role, in fact I was shocked when he appeared. He is an actor that should be given the greatest of respect in film, and yet, to my dismay, they even gave him a cheap and terrible joke, stating how Radagast had lost his mind, then reacting to Gandalf's impressions by stating that he ate too many mushrooms. The tone and the setup was awful, and again, the laughter in the theater ensued while I dropped my head in dismay. The Saruman I know would never say something so dimwitted. Recreational drug use is so prevalent today that they knew the majority of the people watching would identify with that joke and get a big kick out of it (again, this goes back to artistic integrity in films). The big problem with CG is that it was overdone, and I mean way overdone. Whatever happened to animatronics, makup effects, puppeteering (yoda is the prime example), etc. Nearly every orc and Goblin was CG, I hardly remember any at all as CG in LOTR. The problem with CG is that it doesn't appear as real, you know it isn't really there, and its exactly like what it appears as on the screen, a cartoon interacting with real people, and real things. Aliens and predator are the prime example of what seems and feels real in special effects. Those creatures were something you were expecting to jump out of the dark at you and rip you limb from limb in real life because they were just as much real as they were make believe. CG can work, but it can only work when used sparingly, I think most can understand that, and Peter knew that as well when making LOTR. The Dwarves were made into warrior types which were fine, but you have to also understand that that is inaccurate among many other instances. Thorin himself is described as a self serving, vindictive, old curmudgeon who would rather have others do his work for him. He is not what one would even think of as a hero type. But this can be overlooked and honestly, the new changes were actually fine, and Dwalin was one of the best representations of a dwarf I have ever seen, personality and appearance. The scene that I did not like at all was the dwarves escape out of the cave. I know that it is now actually referred to as the "scooby doo" chase scene and I think that is very funny and also very accurate (I hope to see that scene on youtube with the scooby doo music to it, if nobody else does it, I will). Everything just perfectly fell into place at every step and goblins were just flying off of everyone with no effort at all. Ladders miraculously fell into place and things just could

Dec 28 - 04:59 PM

Sim Mills

Sim Mills

I can understand your displeasure with how the movie turned out, it's totally understandable that you would be disappointed considering you were expecting something exactly like the book but that isn't what you got. Nonetheless i think the movie itself ignoring the book was great, to be quite honest most adaptations of books into movies do not bode so well with the fans of the book's. A prime example would be the sword of truth series which you may or may not have heard about, this series was made up of 12 unbelievably amazing books written by Terry Goodkind which i adored. Eventually a T.V series adaptation was made of these books, the T.V series was nothing like what i expected, the story and characters were all changed for the sake of comedy, this was extremely disappointing for me considering how much i enjoyed the books, however and I cannot stress this enough, i did not think the series was bad in-fact when i accepted that it was not like the book i began to enjoy it. I really think that The Hobbit is the same, if you enter expecting it to be a particular way and it isn't i'm nearly 100% sure you won't enjoy it simply because it wasn't what you expected.

Dec 29 - 05:39 AM

Heath Kessi

Heath Kessi

Good reply Sim. I have heard the argument that a person just has to appreciate this movie as just a plain fantasy film. My own brother (who is the worst critic I have ever known, he is one of the "sheep" I refer to in my original post) after hearing my arguments against this movie said to just appreciate it as a plain fantasy adventure movie. That makes absolutely no sense at all. The title of this movie is "The Hobbit," that comes with an expectation. It is supposed be the film version of the novel. It is not supposed to be "Based upon" the novel (that would imply to it being a different title or different story. There obviously was no better person to puts its hands in than Peter. I know many will hate me for what I am about to say, but after seeing this movie it is just plain obvious he has sold out. It is very sad, and I hope he does realize that he has made some mistakes with this. Again, the movie is not awful, but it also hardly "feels" like the Hobbit I know, that I love to read. The score for this movie, is accurate. 65% implies above average, most people think if something is rated a 5 out of 10, then it is worthless. 5 out of 10 is AVERAGE. 6 out of 10, just above average. I am very thankful to the critics for their score, and whether others realize it or not they should as well . It is time for people to wake up and expect more from the entertainment industry. Not more CG and technology, not more nudity and sex scenes, not more marketing of products, and not more corporate ideas on how to make the most money out of the film. Pure artistic integrity is what describes the films we all grew up on. That is why we loved them so much, original ideas with genuine creativity, hard work, and even love put into them. That has almost completely slipped away in the last decade of film. It is up to us to hold the industry accountable for their mistakes and let them know exactly what should be produced. The more we support these superficial ideals in movies, the more they will keep making them. Don't ever force yourself to like something, when you know deep down it wasn't honest to itself and its fans.

Jan 1 - 09:10 PM

R P.

R Prescott

Some critics will love films you hate, others will hate films you love; some criticism is objective, others have an agenda - just like everyone else. In any event, critical reaction for the Hobbit was mixed but generally positive. I thought the film was great and that is all that matters to me.

Dec 28 - 08:20 AM

Market Man

Eric Shankle

"something was always happening"
Yes, things happen in every film. But many of the things that happen in The Hobbit are irrelevant to the narrative which is why critics complain about the length. As we know with LOTR, Titanic, and Braveheart (which were all well received and won Oscars), critics don't mind long films. But the problem with The Hobbit is that it doesn't need to be as long as it is.

"If any of you call yourselves professionals or experienced then you most certainly need to take a break and simply enjoy movies rather then make up ways to criticize them."
This doesn't make any sense. Maybe you should look up the term critic.

Dec 27 - 10:30 PM

Sim Mills

Sim Mills

No they were not irrelevant. Most of the negative reviews iv'e come across were from critics who had destructive intent to begin with, which is what i mean when i said "making up ways to criticize them" many simply obsessed about frame rates and the decision to make a trilogy rather than actually looking at the quality of the movie which is what i mean when i say "missing the point". LOTR, Titanic and Braveheart where all brand new experiences to the viewers so it's not exactly strange that they received so much hype, don't get me wrong i loved all of them but I loved The Hobbit just as much when i saw it, and now it seems the only reason most others don't like it isn't because of the quality of the movie but because they obsess about practically irrelevant things rather than actually attempt to engage with the film and even then hide behind their distaste for Tolkien's work. It would be arrogant of me to say everyone only disliked The Hobbit for this alone because there where some who simply did not enjoy it, I am fine with that but like i say it seems the majority will not even attempt to engage with the movie simply because of their own prejudice.

Dec 28 - 04:17 AM

D P.

D P

Trouble is that by making it a trilogy (and therefore depriving the first movie of a satisfying ending) and using 48fps (and therefore changing the image) alter the experience for the moviegoer.

No movie is guaranteed good reviews. Deal with it.

Dec 28 - 07:42 AM

Sim Mills

Sim Mills

I found the ending of the first movie to be fine, yes it left me wanting more but that's not a bad thing. I have little to say about the frame rate other than its like mar-mite: you either love it or you hate it, I for one found it fantastic.

Dec 28 - 07:51 AM

D P.

D P

But that's your opinion, just not the critics. Opinions can't be wrong.

Dec 28 - 07:55 AM

Market Man

Eric Shankle

Many things could have been cut from the film such as Frodo, Galadriel, Radagast, rock giants, Azog, and so on. Also, I know the trolls are in the book but when you think about it they have nothing to do with the story. So these are examples of things that are irrelevant and that is why critics are complaining about the length. It doesn't have to be as long as it is. Had The Hobbit been one film I'm sure critics would think differently, and me as well.

Dec 28 - 11:36 AM

Sim Mills

Sim Mills

I disagree, while all of those could have been left out they were all parts of the movie i enjoyed, excluding Frodo. Frankly i think the things you and many others seem to be complaining about are hardly things to complain about in the first place. If these extra additions had been boring i could understand, but they were not. It seems to me that rather than having any quarrel with the quality of the movie many of you seem to dislike it because it didn't turn out the way you wanted it to.

Dec 28 - 12:50 PM

D P.

D P

The extra editions WERE IMHO boring... I didnt need to see the prologue and Frodo eating an apple or whatever...

Dec 29 - 06:49 AM

Market Man

Eric Shankle

Those scenes were boring to me as well which is why we (and critics) can complain about them. It's fine if you enjoyed them but to me all these filler scenes detracted from the overall story. Many critics agree with this too which is partly why the score is at 65% and deserves to be.

Dec 29 - 04:39 PM

D P.

D P

Or maybe they just didnt like it.

Dec 27 - 07:47 PM

Sim Mills

Sim Mills

I meant to type ' use the book as a way to discredit the movie'. I'm not going to bother attempting to explain why i think people are missing the point as it is in my thread.

As for you Mike Travis, You are simply being a little bitch because not everyone dislikes THE HOBBIT like you do. If you think my point was pointless then don't reply to it as you must clearly be wasting your time because it is quite self evident that if i liked The Hobit then i am simply an whiny fan-boy, and thus my opinion no longer counts for anything.

Dec 27 - 03:38 PM

Starbaby

Starbaby Miniverse

You didn't give any solid reasoning for why you believe anyone is "missing the point" other than citing your own opinion. That doesn't fly. And what do you mean by they "use the book at a way to get at the book"? You lost me. . .

Dec 27 - 02:23 PM

Dick Travis

Mick Travis

More fanboy bullshit. The point is you are being a little bitch because not everyone loves THE HOBBIT like you do. People have different opinions, and this bullshit isn't any better or worse than the others. Seriously, this is the billionth forum post from nothing more than a whiny fan-boy pissing on the critics for "missing the point". Guess what: your post was pointless!

Dec 27 - 02:02 PM

ThoroughlyEntertainOrDie

Thoroughly Entertain Me Or Die

what is an opinion?

Dec 27 - 02:44 PM

Ankit Bhattacharjee

Ankit Bhattacharjee

Absolutely perfect answer. I really loved The Hobbit, though I will admit that the second half was a bit slow, and that riddle game could have been shortened.

Dec 27 - 10:33 AM

Find us on:                 
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile