I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this disgusting "film" is even remotely decent. Can you even call this garbage a film? Absolutely not! It's a disgrace to Tolkien's classic. A shameless cash grab trilogy, solely for the purpose of merchandising through cheap Lego toys and Denny's meals.
And speaking of which, WHY is it a trilogy? There is simply nowhere near enough material to justify THREE THREE HOUR LONG "films" even with the added stuff from the appendices, which only causes an unbalanced tone and useless exposition.
Just awful. -5/10, and that's being kind. One of the worst "films" ever made, save for The Last Airbender.

Legos are not cheap!

I can't believe you would talk about The Last Airbender that way!! That was the best film that M. Night Shyamalan released that whole year!

When did speaking one's mind become trolling? Just as others have the right to express their love for the "film," I have the right to express my distaste. And I shall.
For one thing, why does Radagast the Brown have to exist? He is such an annoying, atrocious, despicable character. WORSE than Jar Jar Binks. And why on Earth is there bird feces in his hair? WHY!? There is simply no getting around the fact that matter excreted from a bird's rectum IS IN HIS HAIR!! I AM AWARE THAT THE HOBBIT IS A LIGHTER BOOK THAN LORD OF THE RINGS. THEY DID NOT NEED TO CONVEY THIS USING BIRD POOP!!
I believe that someone else mentioned that their friend wanted to kill all the dwarves. Yet, how can you want to kill someone who you don't know? This film doesn't know whether it's main focus is on Bilbo or the thirteen dwarves. It tries to handle both, and fails miserably, as both the dwarves AND Bilbo are all awful characters who undergo little to no development.

How do you know there isn't enough material for three movies? Have you seen the whole triology? I think it's too early for complaints like this...

I like to feel I am intelligently stating my opinions, and not attacking people who love the film. I also love a lot of things about it. But IN MY OPINION, the film could have done a better job at drawing in a general movie-going audience. If the production was able to invent story-lines and characters that didn't exist in the original book, then they could have invented an emotional pull to the film as well. But they didn't. They went for action, CGI, and silliness instead.

In Reply To

This isn't rocket science.

LOTR-1500 pages-3 movies.
TH-300 pages-3 movies?

It's so obviously a cash grab, and I feel so sorry for anyone else who doesn't realize this!

There is a good reason ToRn has a reputaion as being the home of PJ fan boys

...the visuals by themselves, are as important to the making of a great film as acting, or writing or music. And a movie sometimes exists for the sake of one or two exquisite shots that it contains, however awful the acting or the writing.

I admit - I enjoyed the movie. I didn't let the parts I didn't like as much or might have done differently ruin it for me and instead enjoyed it for all the wonderful moments. I am such an awful person for this. I'm so sorry. I really wish I could hate the movie. But I like it. Shame on me. Shame on me.

the first is that there is certainly a perception that it is very hard on ToRn to offer any sort of complaint of PJ's Tolkien based works without what has occured here happening: 3 pages of people shouting down the OP, calling them a troll (I was accused of this myself in the past), or making silly statements that imply thinking PJ did a less than stellar job means you dont think anyone invovled with the film did anything right or were any good.

There is a good reason ToRn has a reputaion as being the home of PJ fan boys who will not tolerate any negativity about their favourite films- this thread rather indicates why that reputation persists, even if it might not be strictly true.


The second point is the problems with the films themselves.

I would agree that the OP post was not the most diplomatically worded OP ever, but that does not make the points or post, or opinion invalid either.
In my view there is much to complain about in PJ's films, particuarly as adaptations of the source material, but also just as films.
Which brings me to TH.

It is in my view a very average film that could have been a timeless classic film.
But somehow it is not, I think even the most vervant PJ fan here would not claim TH was the greatest film of all time, or even one of the greatest childrens films of all time. (I would agrue PJ's verion is not even suitable for the target audience of the book)

So the question then is why is not a classic film?
Well it is almost exaclty split 50/50 between an adaptation of the book and stuff PJ made up.

Claims that he was drawing on the appendix ect had some limited credibility before we had all seen the film, but it has vey little now we have as nothing has survived even close to intact from the appendix without huge alterations in service of the stuff PJ has made up.

Those additions PJ has made, particuarly the very artificial (in practise, feel and look) insertion of Azog into the story to give it more impetus is pretty disasterous.

During these parts PJ tries to recreate a tone suited to his LotR's film, but he has to sit it alongside whimsical moment like the Crack the Plates song. And it does not work well at all I would say, as the two tones clash from the off.

And that is leaving aside the way Azog just pops up whenever the script needs him without otherwise any rymne nor reason, nor the subpar pulp fantasy book dialogue.

I also think the opening prolgue was a mistake- I do think having old Bilbo narrate was a good idea, this is in keeping with the narrators voice present throughout the book and the conceit Tolkien got it all from the Redbook- but all the Erebor and Dale stuff, whilst pretty and bombastic is completely the wrong mood to begin TH with, Bilbo is an unsuitable narrator for that information, and its irrelevant because all the information divulged in it comes out in the telling of the story later anyway.

Its main purpose seems to be to have a big opening to the film wih some action and lots of effects. That seems to fit in with PJ's view, expressed throughout his LotR's work that his audience is largely a bit dim and will stop watching if something effects laden and blatantly exciting doesnt happen right away.

In fact its this thinking (beyond needing filler to stretch it to a trilogy) which seems to be behind the inclusion of Azog and much of the other more ridiculous unnecessary action scenes- dwarf/troll fight-bunny sled/warg chase/ -stone giants fairground ride, everything in the Goblin Town escape- Thorin proving he cant fight worth tuppence to Azog/ Bilbo killing a warg and orc, proving he is a much better fighter than Thorin, who is truelly pathetic..

For me the obvious way to deal with the difference in tone between TH and LotR's was to have Bilbo narrate the tale to a young Frodo and Sam.

This is in keeping with the book as we know Sam has been listening to Bilbo's tales all his life. And more importantly it allows for the difference in tone as it can be explaind as Bilbo telling the tale suitably for a child audience. It would also have been much shorter. And the opening sequence is far to long, as especially as nothing of any relevance beyond 'oh look its Frodo!- doesnt he look older?' happens in most of it. And as to altering the final line for no good, or even apparent reason, of the opening famous, iconic paragraph I am at a lost for any reasonable explanation. The only thing I can think of is that PJ deliberetly wanted to stick two fingers up to people like me who think his handling of Tolkien's dialogue and language throughout the adaptations has been nothing short of disgraceful.

Now these are just a few initial points, I could of course go on to give reasons and explainations for many more things about the film I thought were poorly handled or detrimental to Tolkiens original tales. (And people on here always complain those who are negative dont give thought out reasons, so I have offered some).

The point I suppose is that there should be room on any forum for a wide variety of view to be able to be expresed and debated without it becoming accussations of trolling and other unpleasantness right from the off.

My main problem with the prologue is that its wastful in tems of time.

There is nothing in it in terms of information that cannot to be gained form everything that follows as the story is told. Yes it looks very nice and very dramatic but it slows up the entire start of the film needlessly.
Many critics complained the opening was far too long- and they are right it is I think, but not if you take the prologue back out- it works just fine without it, better I would say. And the exciting flashback could easily have relpaced all the shouty bits in the Unexpected Party scenes.
Everything from the transition to Bilbo leaving is good adaptation of the book - I could have done without a few of the excesses but overall its definetly recognisably an adaptation of the book- which is more than can be said for what follows in the film.

And its a shame PJ doesnt seem to know how to script a scene with multiple characters discussing something without it breaking down into everyone just shouting 'rhubarb' at each other until someone important stands up and tells them whats going to happen -Gandalf in this case- Elrond in Council scene in FotR.

As an ageing and life long fan of Doctor Who I am all for scaring the living daylights out of children - but there are ways to do it that do not involve having to show onscreen violence the way PJ does, but you have to be a bit clever and subtle about it- neither traits PJ seems to exhibit in any quantity in his Tolkien based work- there are 6 beheadings, 10 impalments and 5 dismemberments in the Goblin Town escape alone, right there on screen in a film based on a book aimed at roughly 7 year olds, its hardly subtle- I think that is more than in the entire LotR's trilogy which is supposed to be the adult one- and we havent got to the big battle in TH yet!

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this disgusting "film" is even remotely decent. Can you even call this garbage a film? Absolutely not! It's a disgrace to Tolkien's classic. A shameless cash grab trilogy, solely for the purpose of merchandising through cheap Lego toys and Denny's meals.
And speaking of which, WHY is it a trilogy? There is simply nowhere near enough material to justify THREE THREE HOUR LONG "films" even with the added stuff from the appendices, which only causes an unbalanced tone and useless exposition.
Just awful. -5/10, and that's being kind. One of the worst "films" ever made, save for The Last Airbender.

were magnificent (minus the overuse of Frodo). Short of seeing the Dragon in his fullness, one could hardly have asked for a more well delivered Erebor scene. The Unexpected party was VERY true to the book, and was chillingly wondrous in its use of the Lonely Mountain song.

But I have to admit, It's actually nice for me to see someone bashing this movie. It really seems like a lot of people on this board are willing to turn a blind eye to all the films faults simply because it is The Hobbit. While I enjoy the film a lot, I feel it has huge cinematic shortcomings that most "non fans" can pick up on right away. Usually, people around here are lambasted for expressing their distaste with the film. I'll give the OP props for turning the tables.

His points are valid as far as I'm concerned. The way he expressed those points is another story. Gotta give it to him. He made a successful thread.

I really wish people wouldn't take this so seriously. The admins should delete this thread and ban this user immediately, IMO. Others have reported this same user trolling other forums.