I was lucky enough to get an early look at Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey last week (you can read my review here) and with the film now open to the public, a critical consensus has began to form – racking in at an underwhelming 66% on Rotten Tomatoes, with a 6.5 average – alongside a mixed fan reception. Though the movie might be pleasing enough to the casual viewers – though they’re still liable to find it far, far too long – to the Tolkein fan and Rings nerd, Peter Jackson bungles the work in many more ways. In his desperation to needlessly, greedily distend this story out into a three-film, likely 9-hour epic, Jackson has altered much of Tolkein’s written word, making it saggier and less pleasant in a lot of bad places.
Here are 20 blunders that ruined The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.
20. The Tone Is All Wrong
Tone is important in any film, and to be honest, in fantasy fare like this, it really shouldn’t be hard to get the tone right; it is really only going to be either light or dark. However, Jackson manages to make the entire feeling of the book play off the mark here; Tolkein’s book was a whimsical, brisk adventure that didn’t take itself too seriously, and of course, it was a self-contained one-shot. Jackson’s film take, then, isn’t only three films instead of one, but it’s also a mostly dark, distended adventure that takes itself dead-seriously, and even those infusions of humour that do occur usually fall flat on their face.
The Hobbit has always been a simple story that’s light and to the point, not really having all that much in common with the Lord of the Rings trilogy aside from the characters and the setting. Jackson has evidently decided that the tone for these films needs to be dark and fastidiously epic, though he’s trying to fashion this tone out of incompatible material.
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
You Might Also Like...
- 10 Most Ridiculously Awesome Montages In Movie History
- Man Of Steel 2: 5 Reasons Standalone Superman Sequel Should Be Next
- 10 Greatest Movie Cops
8 Actresses Who Tricked You Into Thinking You Saw Them Nude
11 Irresistible Movie Moments That Wore Out Your Pause Button
100 Things Wrong With The Dark Knight Rises [Video]
10 Scenes You Won't Believe You Missed in 2012
10 Most Infuriating Movie Cliffhangers
10 Major Plot Holes You Probably Missed
10 Happy Movie Endings That Probably Had Horrific Consequences
12 Ruthless Movie Villains Who Were Defeated By Complete Fools
54 Comments
Given that Peter Jackson had no choice (it was expected of him by everyone, whether they admit it or not) but to set this in the same “world” as his previous trilogy, I think he did a magnificent job of handling the darker aspects of LOTR with The Hobbit.
The fact that the film works at all – and can still be continued to his LOTR films – is miraculous. He couldn’t have just made The Hobbit, given that people wanted something that felt like the films we got before. This is an admirable attempt to do such things, and I don’t think he made too many errors.
Jesus! This just seems like complaining for complaining’s sake. I would agree with you on some things – too much CGI, the dwarves aren’t developed enough (though they are FAR more devoloped than in the book – in the book they’re literally a list of names apart from Thorin = leader and Bombur = fat.
But Thorin being too sexy? Tension between Bilbo and Thorin? How on earth are they things that “Ruined” an unexpected journey ???
Was it as good as Lord of the Rings? – No.
Will it be scooping up oscar like rings? – No.
Was it a good adaption? – Yes.
Was it great fun and hugely exciting? – Yes.
It was by no means perfect but I think Jackson did a great job and I think the next 2 could be even better.
Being in Australia, I am yet to see the film; but I must say that a few of these complains you could easily direct at Lord of the Rings as well.
Sarumans death? Completely changed from the book. Some battles and scenes were either in different parts, changed, added or scrapped altogether. Tension was added, somewhat needless characters were added at points.
Now I’m very skeptical of the film still, like I said, haven’t seen it, but some of these things honestly sound like good things. The inclusion of a main villain is necessary because the film needs a climax. The tension is added because it needs character tension and development (and honestly, it just sounds like he’s trying to make up for his lack of Frodo’s development in Fellowship). And yes, Ragadast is only mentioned in the book once, as well as LOTR, but as I understand he’s kind of needed for Gandalfs journey, which, in the book, was one line long.
Lastly, Tolkein changed what happened with the Riddles in both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings after publishing. Originally, Gollum gambles the ring in the Hobbit, and in LOTR you find out it was just a lie made up by Bilbo because he stole it and it was corrupting him. Then he changed it to he stole it accidently.
Your number 2 is just ridiculous, “nerd will hate it, so i guess I do too!”. I personally loved it and I’ve yet to speak to any other Tolkien fan who’s seen it and disagrees with me. This list is really just “Top 20 things that kinda annoyed me that I’ll blow out of proportion”.
You have some valid points here, you honestly do, but you just need to go about expressing them in a better way instead of just saying things like “Peter Jackson must think he’s better than Tolkien!”, because of course he friggin’ doesn’t, that’s just ridiculous.
Agreed on point number one, but on everything else you’re an entitled ass.
The presumption that a man in a suit is naturally a better call than a CGI creature is bad, but the worst for me was constantly guessing that Jackson is trying to outdo Tolkien, and once stating that “Jackson thinks he’s a better storyteller than Tolkien.” Guess what- he is. Anyone is. Tolkien was a crap storyteller with some interesting ideas and writing style. Look at how often he deus ex machinas the crap out of his writing. Hey, we’re in a tight spot. Oh, I know! Eagles! Just having a character named Bard swoop out of nowhere and kill Smaug was awful. Tolkien’s biggest flaw was storytelling, and Jackson’s trying to suture things into less of a mess.
Holy crap tolkein was an incredible story teller you fool! if he wasnt a great friggin story teller why the hell did so many people LOVE HIS BOOKS and then this genious movie maker then decide to make three awesome movies about them!! i read all four books and absolutely LOVED EACH ONE SO MUCH I READ THEM FOUR TIMES!! and to defend bard, would you rather have a bunch of greedy gold loving dwarves kill the dragon out of revenge or a good man kill it for a good, noble reason? thats why tolkein “swooped in” Bard! to have a noble man kill the dragon in order to save his town, a good reason! you can insult the guy who wrote this article, you can insult me, but you will not insult the literary genious tolkein, he was an amazing writer and you have him to thank for this movie even coming out and also the previous three award winning master pieces.
Sincerely BAKA!
A LOTR lover
Thank you from a fellow LOTR lover! Tolkien is a genius and influenced all fantasy adventure novels of our time! No one will ever write as well as him, EVER.
I agree about the CGI complaint and I did find the inclusion of Azog a bit perplexing (it would have been much better if they included Bolg, Azog’s son who actually WAS around during this period in Tolkien’s mythology). But other than those two things, the film was an excellent addition to Jackson’s Middle-Earth films. Your complaint about the scene is Rivendell is way off-the-mark. Even though the meeting of the White Council was not discussed in The Hobbit, it is absolutely consistent with Tolkien’s mythology, as it is the explanation for Gandalf’s disappearance from the dwarve’s company early in the book (this is confirmed in Tolkien’s “Unfinished Tales”, as well as in the appendices at the end of “The Return of the King” book). So your assertion that Jackson’s adding Galadriel and Saruman was some sort of “Hollywood” thing is dead-wrong.
I actually agree with most of this, but I don’t think it is as detrimental to the film as suggested.
Definitely, I would have preferred less CGI and less random goofiness. I was also disappointed that several good scenes from the novel were changed and I can’t think of a reason why they needed to be.
I think there’s a fine line between being critical of a film and being really pedantic about it. This whole article just makes me think you’re clutching at straws in an effort to be negative about it. Just feels like you’re making mountains out of molehills to be honest.
“He didn’t do it like the book. That was not what I wanted… wwuuaaa, wwuuaaa (crying noises)”
These are some of the stupidest complaints I have ever seen. Seriously, go read some of the background Tolkien lore, and many of your complaints would disappear.
I personally have read all of Tolkien’s books on middle earth and I felt it was a brilliant adaptation. Yes Azog was brought back but hay he was a good bad guy and on the topic of the music I loved that touch because it brought together the hobbit and the rings trilogy.
This seems like extreme nitpicking, and some of your points indicate a possible lack of understanding about what makes a good book adaptation on the big screen.
Take point number 8. The sequence with the trolls as as originally envisaged by Tolkein works very well in the written medium, but is essentially a talking sequence in the dark, and would have been a little dull as a film sequence. Jackson has therefore interpreted it, remained faithful to the plot and the spirit of the novel, and has given a sequence that works far better on film.
This is what makes for a good book/film adaptation, taking the source material, and expanding it using the benefits of the different medium. Jackson did this throughout the LOTR trilogy, and naturally continues in this series, with no disresepct to Tolkein (indeed if you watch the fantastic interviews that accompany the LOTR extended editions, you’ll see the reverence in which he holds Tolkein’s work).
By adding the backstories and side plots that Tolkien used to shoe horn in the epilogue, he is depicting a rich and fascinating world that will come together with the LOTR series to make what will, in years to come, be held up as THE yardstick by which fantasy epics are judged.
N.b. As a little epilogue of my own, if you want an example of an adaptation that just took a book, and copied the text into script form, look at The Da Vinci Code, which is essentially a dull linear narrative that rushes from one set piece to the other. While this worked in the bite size, populist- style, short chapter format of the book, it felt very flat and unsatisfactory on the big screen because it had no sense of the cinematic.
I agree, my cinema was full and not one person said a word. Everyone clearly enjoyed the film as did I, my mates, and my family.
Critics and certain fans are expecting this to beat LOTR, it wasn’t going to tbh, but it doesn’t mean it’s not a brilliant film.
You, sir, have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please refrain yourself from making further articles regarding The Hobbit, as well as anything else that is related to Tolkien and his works. Thank you.
This whole thing is pointless! You’re just being petty! I think that the Hobbit was considerably better than The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, so far! I mean, too sexy? What the hell? And, you just moan about how there are too many pointless sequences. Well, none of them are pointless, they all add up to make the film more action-packed and intriguing. Also, if he didn’t add in little things, then there would be no point in three films. If Peter Jackson made a film the way you wanted it; it would be dull, factual and short. So, please to do talk about a perfectly good film (that I thoroughly enjoyed) ever again, because you are clearly delusional and an idiot!!!
What the hell? I’ve now heard some critics claim it was too dark and others claim it wasn’t dark enough. I haven’t seen it yet, so I really don’t know how it compares to the novel in tone.
I’ve loved all the books all my life, loved jacksons LOTR despite it’s flaws, wish I could
say the same of the hobbit! Jackson has taken far too many liberties with
the story and characters and as a result created a disjointed, thrown together
monstrosity from what should have been a far simpler and rounded tale.
I agree with many of your comments and I’m amazed that people reading A FILM CRITIQUE
are surprised that you are being pedantic or ‘complaining for complainings sake’.
I agree. Loved Tolkien’s books, loved Jackson’s adaptation of them. Went into The Hobbit midnight showing fully expecting another enjoyable experience from a filmmaker who seemed to understand how to bring Tolkien’s world to life on the big screen. While I understand that a translation of a book to the big screen means certain details may be changed, left out or even added, I am very willing to forgo my own ideas of a book so long as the moviemaker 1) makes a quality movie and 2) maintains the spirit of the book.
I didn’t think The Hobbit was a quality movie for many of the reasons the reviewer listed above. It was an unedited, unfinished mess. Somewhere in those 3 hours was perhaps the potential for a quality movie, but someone forgot to edit the thing down. And while I also understand my own interpretation of a book’s “spirit” may differ from someone’s else’s, I always understood The Hobbit to be a lighthearted adventure that takes place in a majestic fantasy world. In his movie, Jackson reverses this, overdramatizing the adventure into an overheavy melodrama while turning the Middle Earth setting into a goofy, cartoonish, “let’s CGI the hell out of everything and everyone” world.
I’m really glad other Tolkien fans enjoyed the movie…so much so, it seems, that they will question the motives and/or intelligence of anyone who disagrees with them. But sadly, for me, The Hobbit movie, much like the Star Wars prequels, is a missed opportunity in a franchise I dearly love.
I agree, about 17/20 of the issues stated in the article were major problems in the film. I can’t believe how most LOTR fans are accepting this, clearly Peter Jackson is just trying to make more money by appealing to the audience who hasn’t read the books.
I think your just someone who wants to complain about everything. Seriously, I have read lots of reviews on the Hobbit and even the ones that said the movie was terrible were not so ignorant and pig headed as your list is. Seriously, have you even read the book? Do you even know what a book to film adaption is? Because it seams like you don’t. I completely disagree with most of your complains. I thought the beginning was just fine and I defiantly felt that Bilbo was a passenger and a protagonist, and he is just coming out of his shell in the end. Also if you have ever seen a movie before you know there are background characters and when you have 13 dwarves there simply isn’t the time and place to give each of them an extensive personality. I thought the little tidbits of personality they gave us were enough for this film. Also the plate’s song was just okay but the Misty Mountain song was beautiful and gave you a little foreshadowing for the climax of the film, where you even paying attention when you saw this film? Also Radagast symbolizes the beginning of the fight against evil, and is important to the actions Gandalf will take in the next film. also the whole gollum scene was amazing and there is one contradictory shot in the Fellowship, and given how well the dialogue and visuals were done nobody will care. And recycling score is just fine he did it in the LOTR movies, and now its perfectly acceptable to do it here, plus he created a whole new theme and suite of songs, don’t be hating on the amazing score. And who give a #$*% about how sexy Thorin is! Though I do agree with you about the overused CGI.
Oh, where would I start with the 20 things wrong with this review?? It reads like an precocious child trying to appear clever for the grown-ups; criticism for its own sake, verbosity and a few fancy words thrown in to impress mummy and her friends from the WI; “oh, who’s a clever little man?” But what it lacks is any coherence or sense, because it is plainly a collage of points made in by others in their poorly considered reviews across the net.
I couldn’t possibly disagree with you more on literally every single point you make. Except the 48 FPS. But guess what? You don’t have to go see it in 48. Given that there are 4 different ways to view this movie (2D 24fps, 2D 48 fps, 3D 24 fps, 3D 47 fps) it was YOUR choice to see it in 48fps. I didn’t because I work in post-production and knew exactly what it was going to look like. So basically, your point on that is invalid.
-The dwarves aren’t that developed individually in the book.
-Riddles in the dark was magnificent. Of course it can’t be completely consistent with FotR.
-Stones giants were awesome and it was important in being a catalyst for Bilbo attempting to leave the dwarf company later.
-CG was pretty amazing. As much as I love the “real” goblins in LotR, as more of a light hearted children’s story this made more sense. The goblins were just like I imagined them reading the book as a kid. I definitely didn’t imagine the Moria goblins in FotR like that. Gollum’s CG was even more amazing. The new warg design was much, much better. They actually looked like evil wolves and not hyenas.
-You must be insane. The score was magnificent! There was enough mixture of new and old to keep it fresh and entertaining. It was obviously re-scored and rerecorded and led to a consistency of feel between films, something you yourself was complaining about in a different point. There’s no pleasing you.
-The dwarf songs were awesome. The misty mountains song gave me chills.
I saw this movie with 5 other people and all of your points about why this movie was bad were the same points we had for why this movie was good. They all loved it.
You clearly did not want to like this movie to begin with. You make that pretty obvious. There was so much to enjoy about the Hobbit.
And you sure do like using the word “perfunctory.”
It’s weird that you either complain about Jackson changing scenes and facts from the book and then you complain about him NOT changing scenes and facts from The Hobbit. Storytelling techniques in books almost never work in films, and the fact that you expect them to be the same is ridiculous.
I agree when other commenters say that it almost sounds like you wanted to hate the film from the beggining, aside from the fact that this article is clearly a compilation of complaints made all over the web from die-hard fans with an eye for detail and analysis. When you put them all together it just seems like pointless whining and more specifically, a direct bashing to Peter Jackson.
Complaints about the casting and characters are also out of place, since Martin Freeman DID shine in this film and Richard Armitage looks completely different out of character.
I think that what bothers me the most is the fact that The Hobbit is an incredibly large book, if it were to be made into only one film it would’ve lacked development and substance, which would’ve DEFINITELY garnered complaints all over, yet people complain when they turn it into a trilogy. I believe this film was used to setting a base for the next two films, which I hope will have more substance and significant plot.
Regarding your #2, exactly what happens in the prologue is that Bilbo finds the ring, says “What’s this? A ring?” and then hears Gollum cry “Lost! Precious is lost!”
That’s it. So, alright, the inconsistencies are that in the prologue, Bilbo stumbles on the ring (rather than seeing it fall out of Gollum’s pocket in The Hobbit), and that Gollum discovers the ring is lost before meeting Bilbo. But good Lord, it’s such a tiny, tiny scene in “Fellowship”, glossed over in about 30 seconds, and doesn’t even get into the riddle game, and other than that, the overall look of the setting is recreated to near perfection in The Hobbit.
In no way is it one of the top two blunders. At absolute worst, it’s a minor easter egg, about as egregious an error as a character having their hands open in one shot and closed in the next. As far as the nerds go (and sure, I’ll consider myself one), it’s not anywhere close to the kind of thing that I typically get annoyed at filmmakers for screwing up, but thanks for your concern, anyway.
You can not be a real LOTR nerd if that blunder is okay with you, I was literally ready to scream at the movie screen and Peter Jackson for the complete laziness they had letting the setting not match the settings in LOTR.
you fool
Sorry, I’m finding it really difficult to pay attention to “I’m such a huge book purist” when you have consistently misspelled TOLKIEN as “Tolkein”
Everyone’s a critic these days, but you’re one who really likes the number 20. Despite the fact that your remarks contradict each other many a time, it is so obvious that a) you had already judged this movie to be bad before seeing it, and b) you have nothing to do with the Tolkien legendarium beyond the movies and maybe having read The Hobbit as a child. You don’t think it’s obvious? YOU MISSPELL TOLKIEN’S NAME EVERY SINGLE TIME. It’s not “Tolkein”.
If asking whether or not Jackson thinks he is a better writer than Tolkien is supposed to raise eyebrows, then maybe you should consider that Tolkien is known by many as one of the most overrated writers of all time. Yeah, he had a great imagination, but this film is an interpretation. If you don’t like this film just based off the fact that it was kinda different from the source material, then maybe you should consider the fact that The Wizard of Oz did the same thing! And so do a LOT of really good movies! sure, there are countless amounts of bad adaptations, but it’s an adaptation for a reason. Many seem to like the Willy Wonka movie over the book version and others don’t. It doesn’t mean that one writer is better than the other. Peter Jackson IS a great writer and will probably be looked back decades from now as just that! so it’s not all that big of a tragedy to compare the two writers
You must have been in a terrible mood when you wrote this, it’s unsubstantiated nonsense with no logic or proper reasoning behind any of your points. 48 fps will be hit and miss, like all changes the industry will need to adapt. Otherwise I disagree with you on so many of your points it’s absurd.
As others have said…really clutching at straws here and I disagree with pretty much every point. Although I did think Galadrial’s presence could have been utilised better, the point of her bringing a female presence to the film is completely valid. Seems like this writer is just jumping on the critical bandwagon.
I think you’re a victim of some fan rage here in the comments mate. As a huge fan of Rings and the vast majority of the changes made to the story, I felt that this film was disappointing over all.
The points you’ve made are mostly fair and I had many of the same thoughts myself, lazy film making and the score bothered me the most – basically just mood stealing from Rings. Mostly cameo’s were pointless and the film was too long. 48fps gave everything the surreal look which hurt the tone from the off.
This is the first visit to Middle Earth where I kind of just wanted to go home to my mundane mediocre life again and forget. By no means is this a complete fraudulent failure, but it very much could have been better with a cut to the run time…or dare I say it, one less film. Padding padding padding.
Anyway, good article well written.
Great review! I agree entirely, a complete botch. Except, I liked how he added in the white council – NOT a part from the hobbit per se, but certainly a real event from the overall story – except when they ruined it when Saruman made a joke about mushrooms.
Wow, sorry about all these hateful comments you’re getting. I got that this was a negative review, but not “pigheaded” like one person called you. It’s ridiculous how defensive people are of their fun.
I personally agree with you. I went into the Hobbit wanting to love it (i.e. I didn’t go in skeptical). I had problems with it similar to yours. That must make me a straw grasping idiot that hates puppies and fun. Even though I enjoyed it and would recommend people to see it, that people like us were overall disappointed makes us the anti-christ.
While i don’t think the film was ruined by these ‘blunders’ i do agree with quite a few of them.
The film was far too long and had too many superfluous scenes which seem to force the fact that it leads up to the Lord of the Rings, when we already know this to be the case. These scenes go against the mood and flow of the original story.
there seemed to be too much screen time given to the ‘prologue of the LOTR’ in comparison to the story of ‘the hobbit’ especially since this is a tale being told by Bilbo therefore the other goings on would not have been known to him.
I don’t have an issue with things being changed to bring it in line with LOTR, Tolkein himself changed large chunks of ‘The hobbit’ after releasing the LOTR books, but in this it seemed to treat the audience as having to have things spelt out for them rather than hinted at and giving them some credit for filling in the blanks themselves.
I feel a lot of these scenes were added to make what could have been a great set of two films, into a good set of three films.
Still an thoroughly enjoyable film, just not quite as enjoyable as i had hoped for.
The use of CGI for goblins was a good choice distinguishing them as seperate from orcs, and the Wargs were far superior in this that in LOTR, though i thought the CGI Azog poorly done, and would have been better suited to an actor.
Fool of a reviewer!
There are so many things wrong with your points, I’m just going to cover the main bits.
1. The songs were epic! I loved them in the book and I, and so many fans, were extremely happy to see it in the trailer and in the movie.
2. The tone was perfect, slightly darker than the book, but lighter than the LoTR trilogy, making it fit with both.
3. You complained that the Riddles in the Dark was inconsistant … HOW?! The Riddles in the Dark never were in the original trilogy. The only part that overlapped was when Bilbo found the ring, but I don’t think that’s what you’re referring to!
4. The pacing was fine, if you consider it’s the first part in a trilogy. And I loved the extra information and inclusions. People will complain either way, too much is cut, or too much is included, its ridiculous. As someone who is quite comfortable sitting in a cinema, I don’t really care about length.
Do you know how very annoying it is to have you mis-spell Tolkien’s name throughout this piece? Whatever the merits of your case (and I have some sympathy having just sat through the film) you completely undermine it with this repeated blunder.
Coming from a LOTR-lover:
Really only 1 thing needs to be said… CGI.
Everything looked realistic in LOTR but The Hobbit is the complete opposite… This movie could’ve been so much better, I was like “oh now it’s this part of the book this will be epic!” but an epic moment never came… everything felt wrong..
Hate to say this but it would’ve been better to not release it at all, I was really hyped for it and waited for it month after month. Biggest dissapointment of 2012.
Not looking forward to the other 2 parts at all. After all it’s only 3 parts to make more cash to begin with…could’ve been one really good long movie instead of an underwhealming trilogy.
First I have to say that I enjoyed the film – maybe not with the astonishment of LotR, but still it was a pleasure to watch, even when I agree that some of the points hit.
One other thing I stumbled upon: When the Great Goblin King of the Mountain came into view, I immediatly started to think ‘I know this guy… I know this guy…’. Star Wars came into my mind… thought of Jar Jar… no, not him… some villain from the pod race… no… and then I got it: The facial expressions and movement of this king very much reminded me on Dex, the one bartender Obi-Wan queries about Kamino.
Does anybody share the opinion, that those two CG characters look quite similar? Anyway, for me, the bad-ass image of that king was ruined. ;)
I think you’re spot with your points, especially the recycled score. The Hobbit is not only a poor adaption, but a poor movie altogether. However, you forgot one of the biggest blunders, the constant last minute escapes. I know some of them are in the book as well, but not as pronounced or unbelievable.
Jackson’s version is like being hit over the head with a sledge hammer full of annyoing Hollywood cliches.
I can’t take this seriously, seeing as you frequently spell Tolkien’s name incorrectly. Nice try, but no.
I despised this film it wasn’t that it was just a bad adaption that i could have forgiven, it was a terrible movie if i took a swig of whiskey every time i cringed i would have died of alcohol poisoning 30 minutes into this terrible film.
Everything was wrong the writing, the pacing and the acting it was like an absurd parody of The Hobbit written by a retarded 12 year old who never read the book.
I would rather watch all three Tranformers movies back to back while listening to Katy Perry and having someone kick me in the back of the head than see The Hobbit again.
0 Stars never make another movies again Peter Jackson
Jesus Christ!!!! You literally just listed the WHOLE entire movie in 20 points haha.. You are a complete retard, I cant believe you are a actual reviewer for any website..
I agree with the above comment when they said you obviously did not like this movie to begin with, well before you actually saw it or gave it a chance..
I think there is a little to much CGI, but besides that its great.. I think the average LOTR fan, the ones who are not obsessed with the books but are huge fans of the previous 3 movies, they will love it..
I blame Avatar. Because Avatar did as well as it did in 2009, The Hobbit was shot in 3D, at 48 FPS and had an over use of CGI. We know directors compete and studios push for what sells. I can see Jackson sitting in a studio room now saying how they want to top Avatar. I also have a really strong feeling that had the Lord of the Rings been made in 2012 they may not have done what they did with the effects. in 2001-03 CGI was not where it is today and they almost had to use actors and models. But I can hear Jackson now, “I think the technology has gotten to where we can have all the extras CG” James Cameron said the same thing with Avatar.
That aside, I really have no problem with the cameos, and thought the movie was pretty decent. While it is a far far cry from the Rings Trilogy ~ it is an ok adventure film. My biggest problem was that it felt more like Narnia then the Hobbit. To be honest I am ok with Jackson pulling from Tolkiens other works to add to the Hobbit. The Hobbit is a weak story to begin with, since it is just a kids book after all, and I can understand the need to structure it for a film, ie the White Orc and what not. Overall a fun movie, but I doubt I will have every scene memorized like I do with the original films 10+ years later. I mean lets face it the Rings movies will go down in film history with the likes of Star Wars 4-6. Whereas the prequels will quietly fade away in the lost lands of the Netflix library.
Enjoyed Hobbit, but I look forward to the next movie with high hopes.
Peter Jackson must have had a sickness of the mind because where sickness thrives bad things will follow.
Honestly, some of these things barely make any sense. This film was made with the purpose to at least try to please both readers and watchers alike. I don’t think many people that only watched the movie would have understanded the Dol Guldur part that well if there hadn’t been a certain reference to LoTR. In this case, the score that had been used for these scenes. Hearing familiar tunes makes scenes familiar, and people who only watched the films will be able to remember/know the mindset of certain characters, or their allegiance to good or evil. The part of the audience that read the story (I’m one of them) also had enough to see and get familiar with. A story as thorough must be told properly, but it must not get too stretched, or it will get dull. And would a dull movie, that may be true to the book, appeal to the audience that grew up with just the books…?
And the book has always been a child’s book, but some parts are scary nonetheless! It’s all about creating the correct balance, and Jackson has done a very good job so far… I wasn’t 100% satisfied with everything that I saw in that movie theatre, but in the end, I left the hall very happily
Honestly, I rather enjoyed the movie. I know Radaghast was only mentioned once or twice in the book and didn’t need to show up in the movie, neither in fact did the orcs as they wern’t really a presence in the book, but they did make the scene with the wargs make more sense, or would you rather have had talking wargs like in the book. Tho maybe they could have stuck with goblins riding them,and yes the eagles part was cut too, but really? Did you want to see talking eagles? LOL Despite the differences to the book I think it was an enjoyable movie that should be liked for its own merit and not because its based on a book you love, cause honestly, no one who makes a movie from a book ever gets it totally right, with VERY few exceptions.
Boy, some people get upset at reading criticism. Why would you read an article on 20 mistakes The Hobbit makes if you didn’t want to read something negative about the Hobbit?
I saw the film and liked it enough to buy it on dvd, but I definitely won’t re-watch it like I have the LOTR films. The source material just doesn’t appeal to me as much, being a more light-hearted adventure story. Peter and Philippa tried to make it more LOTR-like, but they largely failed.
There really is no suspense in The Hobbit–you are thrust from action sequence to action sequence. There’s no grim preparations of Theoden while the Uruk-hai march on Helm’s Deep, no gathering hordes in Mordor, no unexplained baddies like the ringwraiths. We just bumble from crisis to crisis. The book is like that too, which is why I don’t like it as much as LOTR.
I agree the score is terrible, but the score was also terrible in the second two LOTR films in that they were ridiculously predictable: Sam’s/Pippin’s talking about home, cue the Shire theme; here’s Orthanc, cue the “Sarumaaan…IS EVIL! Sarumaaaaan’s…BUILDING STUFF!” them. Etc. It didn’t bother me at first–I guess I watched it too many times.
For me, the worst part of The decide to focus on a quasi-universal theme. In the TT we had that drivel from Sam about “the stories…that really matter” etc. In the Hobbit there’s the speech about how everyone needs a home, cue the Shire theme.
I only agree with a couple of these- 20 seems to be a product of your sleep-deprivation. Radagast’s rabbits felt a lot like the pod race in Phantom Menace.
Keep in mind that Tolkien himself revised The Hobbit multiple times to darken the tone and create consistency with LOTR- especially the Riddles in the Dark chapter. Jackson knows what he’s doing. Azog’s character didn’t bother me at all. The only CGI issue I had was with the goblin chase- too busy. The CGI acting was great- great acting for the Goblin King and Serkis is brilliant as expected.
Bilbo’s not the main character in this first film; it’s Thorin. Bilbo will take the lead in DoS- think his role in the Mirkwood shenanigans.
I haven’t read so much nonsense in a while now…
Whatever PJ is doing, it’s not right for you. Whether he sticks to the book (e.g. by inculding two songs) it’s bad, if he adds things (Radagast, Azog) it’s bad. He tries to give his many protagonists a little bit more personality than they have in the book – now that’s not enough for you, too. Really – you’re free to dislike the movie, but only because you don’t like it doesn’t mean the movie is ruined or bad.
I love Tolkien’s work since I was a child, I grew up with it. I’ve read his books (The Hobbit, LOTR, Unfinished Tales, The History of Middleearth, …) and I call myself a very big fan – and I love the movie.
And please don’t call yourself a Tolkien-Fan if you can’t even spell his name right. Somehow you lose your credibility as a real fan here…
Ughhhhhh I’m SO glad I don’t have to watch movies with you. Try being less sober when you view, maybe you won’t be so annoyed by every little thing. Like most film adaptations of novels, it’s basically fan-fic, so get over the whole “source material” thing already. Bloody hell
I agree with pretty much every point and would add some of my own if I were so inclined. I didn’t think this was just an awful adaptation but an awful movie as well.