Please log in to participate in this forum.
Maybe you should see the movie before making your opinion : /
Jan 23 - 03:55 PM
I did see it, it was as boring as fuck. Coming from a guy who was not bored for 1 second with Return of the King
Feb 2 - 10:09 AM
Perhaps it could have, but then we would have missed out on so much of the extended universe that Tolkien himself had written. So please understand that some people actually want to see this. Also, if had been only 1 movie it would have been roughly 4 hours long and people would've complained more than this one about the movie leaving out details.
Jan 16 - 07:57 PM
I AGREE FUCK THIS SHITTY BORING ASS HOBBIT TRILOGY. IT IS FOR FAGGOTS ANYONE WHO DEFENDS THIS CASH COW IS A RAGING CLOSET HOMOSEXUAL HOBBIT DICK SUCK BLINDED BY CUM IN THERE EYES FANBOY BITCH. DIE IN A FIRE TO ALL MIDDLE-EARTH LOVING QUEERS WHOS ONLY EXCUSE FOR 3 MOVIES IS TO HAVE MORE TIME TO ESCAPE TO MIDDLE-EARTH FROM THERE FATHERS THE TOWN NONCE KIDDIE FIDDLER. LOLOLOLOL
Jan 15 - 08:57 PM
I agree, even if I am not seen the movie yet....
Jan 16 - 12:29 AM
go suck a dick Geordie, it's the only thing you seem to be good at. That or just go away and leave The Hobbit forums to people who actually want to talk about the movie, not insult everyone who watches it.
Jan 16 - 07:59 PM
FUCK OFF AND DIE IN A FIRE YOU FUCKING FAGGOT BITCH ASS HOBBIT FANBOY DIE DIE DIE NOW NOW NOW!!!
Jan 16 - 08:08 PM
Thoroughly Entertain Me Or Die
or how about: The Hobbit: More Necessary Than You
Jan 15 - 11:19 AM
I don't remember to say that this first act, wich corresponds for the irst six chapters of the book, was a good adaptation. In my personal opinion, was only regular. But there still much to be seen. Saying something without seen the whole picture (thig that will take some time) may will be paid with their tongues.
Jan 14 - 07:16 AM
that just means that we get to spend more time in middle earth,and that iss a good thing! haters gonna hate
Jan 14 - 03:33 AM
Tim de Wit
I have heard this argument so many times...
The problem is that the extra time we spend in Middle-Earth is filler, created by Peter Jackson to spread the story out over three films. Yes, I know that most of the filler is based on material from the LOTR-appendices, but this material has been altered significantly. And for the worse, I might add.
Jan 14 - 04:08 AM
And need we forget that this extra material undermines the brisk pace and the tone of the original story which this movie WAS MEANT to be about in the first place?
Not that the original tone of The Hobbit was portrayed very well, with the potty humour and cartoony characters and all...
Jan 14 - 04:12 AM
The problem is it's not Tolkien's Middle Earth but a low-quality cartoon imitation of it. I'll pass.
Jan 14 - 06:46 AM
So if I make a movie where Adam Sandler plays 50 characters but it's in Middle Earth it's fine and good cinema because it's in Middle Earth?
What are you escaping? Uncle bad touch?
Jan 14 - 03:44 PM
I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion.
Jan 18 - 06:31 PM
It's relevant because many folks are defending this movie with the argument that 'more time in Middle-Earth is better by default'. However, quantity doesn't neccesarily mean quality.
Feb 3 - 01:53 AM
It's relevant because a host of people are defending the length of this movie with the argument that 'more time spent in Middle-Earth is better by default'. However, quantity isn't neccesarily quality: in this movie the brisk pace of the original story is completely annihilated by the added padding, which is either completely made up by PJ/Boyens or based upon material from the LOTR Appendices which has been altered significantly and for the worse.
Feb 3 - 01:58 AM
Nathan Nazgūl Lord
The problem is that it's not just stuff from the book.
Jan 13 - 01:17 PM
Two films is the correct length (for just the hobbit at least) to fit everything in. One film would have to be so fast paced that not even bilbo or thorin would get a shred of character development.
Fyi, every movie ever made is both unnecessary (not essential to life) and a 'money grab' (unless you can name a film the studio had no intention of profiting from).
Jan 13 - 11:03 AM
Jan 13 - 11:09 AM
Jan 13 - 11:30 AM
I don't buy it. Each volume in LOTR was no less than The Hobbit and each got one film. Yes, PJ left things out of those films but the also ADDED a lot of things that were not in the books. There was a large amount of padding in those films and not all of it was from the appendices. Some of it was just made up. So no, I don't buy that The Hobbit needed more than one film. It sounds like some people just want more than one film, which is fine but not necessary. Now it could have been one three-hour film to be inclusive, but no more that ONE was needed to tell the story at a good pace.
And seriously, no character development in one film? Really?! A good writer and director has no issue with building a strong, dimensional character in one film. That argument would indicate no single-part film could ever aptly manage character development. A smart director could easily manage it, even with a lot of events. The events are in fact what help build Bilbo's character, they can't be separated unless you just have bad writers and directors.
Jan 13 - 06:22 PM
I wonder how it would be Gandalf disappearing and reappearing without explanation, at the best style "Dungeon Master of D&D". Not to mention that for just one movie would not be worth what PJ did with all the dwarves - maybe just differentiate them by the beard and the color of the cloaks would be better. Maybe would be better better to print the book itself on the film for people to read instead of to see an adapting a book to film. Sure! So would be perfect for just one movie.
"Adaptation." It is a word that many forget.
Jan 14 - 05:39 AM
I wonder how it would be Gandalf disappearing and reappearing without explanation, at the best style "Dungeon Master of D&D". Not to mention that for just one movie would not be worth what PJ did with all the dwarves - maybe just differentiate them by the beard and the color of the cloaks would be better. Maybe would better to print the book itself on the film for people to read instead of to see an adaptation of a book to a movie. Sure! So would be perfect for just one movie!
"Adaptation." It is a word that many forget
Jan 14 - 06:00 AM
"Adaptation" does not automatically equal "good adaptation." Director's license is so often poorly cited as an excuse for a bad film.
Jan 14 - 06:39 AM
Nobody said it was a good adaptation. Actually it is too early to judge. And considering that the book was divided into three and elements of appendices has been added, perhaps we can say that 1/3 of adaptation was a little disappointing.
Jan 14 - 11:59 AM
People are being charged full price for this film, not 1/3 price. This movie needs to stand on its own in terms of entertainment. Having to wait through a full movie to get to the "good" part is just bad film-making. It's ripping off general audiences who are paying to see THIS film, not the next one or the one after that.
Jan 14 - 03:32 PM
"This movie needs to stand on its own in terms of entertainment." It stands. And more will come with the next movies. Even though many opinions of this movie is just regular, people are going to see it and enjoy.
Jan 14 - 03:46 PM
Ummm, no, every movie made is not unnecessary or a money grab. True movie-making is an art, this hack of a movie is a scheme built on making cash and shouldn't be considered anything more than garbage. One film would be enough and should have been.
Jan 14 - 03:11 AM
Disregarding all aspects of the first movie and the fact that The Hobbit is too complex for just one movie. Very dangerous.
Jan 14 - 05:23 AM
if The Hobbit was unnecessary, then you must say that about every other movie ever made. so just because you didnt like it, you cant say that, your statement is invalid.
Jan 13 - 09:41 AM
I don't know. Don't forget that The Hobbit is a fast-paced story: it may be short in pages, but a lot happens in those pages. A single movie would have to be very fast-paced and would have to omit a lot.
I personally think that two three hour movies would have sufficed to accurately adapt the entire story of The Hobbit. The first movie could have focused on the journey up to Barrels out of Bounds, ending with Bilbo's first glimpse of the Lonely Mountain, while riding the barrels. The second movie could then focus on everything concerning Lake-Town, Smaug, the Battle of Five Armies and Bilbo's journey back home.
Jan 13 - 05:59 AM
I agree that 2 films could have done the book justice and not meant they were not having to make the storyline stretched and slow. Having said that I enjoyed the film, I just didn't feel it was in the same league as LOTR. Maybe the other 2 will be better as IMHO The 2 Towers and The Return of the King were better than The Fellowship of the Ring
Jan 16 - 09:12 AM