The Hobbit Reviews Are Unjustified

[Tiger King]

I really enjoyed the film, was surprised at the critical reception actually.
the very end dragged because I feel it didn't need that final battle but it was great to see middle earth being fleshed out.
was a shame the goblin king wasn't involved much though as he seemed interesting.

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

But at least if it had gone full action all the way it would have been a consistent vision. The problem is the attempt to have both, to shoehorn in all these big fights and action scenes and complicated plot points alongside all the whimsical stuff. It doesn't work because it isn't consistent.

Spoiler's ahoy!

That was also my perception at the end of the movie: it kind of constantly blew this actually rather simple story out of proportion and harped on about how epic it is. In Lord of The Rings that worked, because the story was so all-encompassing and we are literally told from the very beginning about the grand struggle, fate of the world and what-not - the scale simply fits. In the Hobbit it all kind of felt forced, since the connections are not that readily apparent, nor even that important. Okay Azog is evil, but at the end of the first movie he is neither as important a villain as Sauron ever was nor do we actually care about him. The fight scene is unnecessarily drawn out. The whole Necromancer plot looks cool, but as you say, remains ultimately just foreshadowing and going "wooooooooooooh! look how epic this is!!". Unfortunately, this approach also takes away a lot of the story cohesion as especially after leaving the shire we are distracted by two lengthy side stories (Radagast and the whole Thorin vs. Azog battle) with barely anytime to enjoy the actual quest. The only thing where this tone really did fit was (and I'm glad you mentioned this!) was in the first ten minutes which does a very cool set-up to the whole movie series and works very well with that "epic" and heroic tone.

However, this is then compounded with scenes that work perfectly on the small scale they want to do: from the start in the shire, over the trolls, the scene with Gollum and Goblin Town. They work great in giving that feeling of a small scale adventure, yet clash with the "Lord of the Rings" feel they wanted to emulate. By it's own it's certainly a very good movie but not even close to the revelation that the first LotR movie was. I'd however be entirely careful in wanting to judge this movie on it's own at all - it is part of a trilogy after all and while I do see your point as to why you think one should do so, I think the movie will benefit a lot if we actually see some of those consequences of that foreshadowing in the later movies. I'll personally hope it does.

 

[Abomination]

I enjoyed it for what it was, a more children friendly fantasy adventure. I did find the dwarf proportions a bit off though compared to Gimli in the original (his face was just so much more condensed). Then again he required a TON of makeup and trying to do that thirteen times would be a nightmare.

As for the changes to the story, I think they fit quite well. It really has made the idea of dwarves returning to their ancestral home an overarching story now. The pale orc is essentially the remnants of a failed expedition coming back to haunt the party.

 

[Leadfinger]

I thought the CG really did mar the movie. The problem with the CG was that it created these unbelievable, cartoony action scenes that broke the viewers immersion and drained away the dramatic tension of the scenes. The CG action scenes were so over the top that it was impossible to believe the characters were in any real danger. In this sense, the Hobbit was very much like a George Lucas film.

 

[Daveman]

I don't get the "it's too long" thing. I was entertained throughout and wasn't bored at all, and I didn't develop the need to go to the loo. So regardless of however long it actually is, who gives a shit?

I for the record, preferred it to all the LOTR films.

 

[Uhura]

I don't get the "it's too long" thing. I was entertained throughout and wasn't bored at all, and I didn't develop the need to go to the loo. So regardless of however long it actually is, who gives a shit?

I for the record, preferred it to all the LOTR films.

Well obviously not everyone felt the same way as you. I was bored and I thought that the length of the movie was detrimental to the storytelling.

 

[khiliani]

I genuinely liked the hobbit movie. I didn't feel it was too padded at all. with the possible exception of the panning shots of people walking that lotr made famous. The inclusion of Azog was a good choice cause, as it has been stated, it gives the story a persistent antagonist which the book itself lacks a bit in my opinion (I know there is the dragon, but he didn?t really feel like a threat when the party was still in the west).

And my 2 cents on the CGI: I saw it in IMAX with all the fancy 3D and 48 fps etc etc, and didnt think there was a problem with the quality or appearance of the CGI. my girlfriend who had seen the movie before in 2D said that bits that had looked bad in the 2D version looked better in 3D, so there may be that

 

[zehydra]

You didn't mention any of my qualms with it.

1) Excessive CGI (it looked too fake)
2) Some parts with poor writing
3) The hobbit in general is just not as serious as LOTR
4) Too much focus on cameos that didn't happen in the book (cameos for the sake of cameos)

 

[Kikosemmek]

I didn't like it for one basic and all-important reason: the 2nd half bored me to death. I'm not familiar with the book, but I'm a big fan of the lore and of the LOTR movies. I was down with the story and the plight of the dwarves, and was very happy during the 1st half's openings, exposition, music, and questing. The movie then began to turn stupid as soon as the head-hunter scene came along; "you think orc raids are funny?" What, is he 13? Have him voice his resentment in a mature and nuanced way. The whole thing with the trolls was really bad (they were so ridiculously stupid that the comedy took away from the tension of being captured by gigantic monsters); the Rivendell bits were more cheesy than smoked gouda (couldn't enjoy because they were so over-acted that I couldn't take it seriously); I was thinking it would become less boring when they were all traveling along the mountains, but oh yeah there are stone golem godzillas that just randomly fight. Out of nowhere. Like it just happens. Seriously? No one knew about that shit? No one heard them? No one thought that if there's a storm out (which is what I guess gets storm giants going), maybe not travel along mountains? Giant deux-ex machina from my perspective. The goblin city was meh; the riddles game with Smeagle didn't do anything except waste time and make me wonder when we'd get back to the story; the final fight was really fucking bad.

So, 1st half of the movie was cool; the 2nd half with all the climaxes and the action blew my dick so hard it almost came off. Final verdict: can't say half a movie counts for a whole movie, so it kinda sucks.

 

[Daveman]

I don't get the "it's too long" thing. I was entertained throughout and wasn't bored at all, and I didn't develop the need to go to the loo. So regardless of however long it actually is, who gives a shit?

I for the record, preferred it to all the LOTR films.

Well obviously not everyone felt the same way as you. I was bored and I thought that the length of the movie was detrimental to the storytelling.

Well I'm right and you're wrong so... nyeh. *sticks tongue out*

Opinions, such silly things.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

although I must say I personally did enjoy the movie as it was with the added quest for erebor scenes (those are what most of the padding is meant to be although not completely true to the book itself for we've not seen Gandalf meet thorin in the pub but that may be in the extended cut)

You know, I'm just going to SPOILER ALERT this whole post rather than putting the whole thing in tags.

The opening sequence about Smaug's arrival at the lonely mountain was great. It was something the book lacked, in fact, in that it immediately established a motivation for Thorin and his company. Better, it did so visually rather than simply explaining it through expositional dialogue or a voiceover. That was a very welcome addition and I wouldn't consider it padding.

The whole reference to Moria and the conflict between Thorin and Azog was entirely unnecessary, in my opinion. The flashback is completely out of kilter with any of the previous scenes and clearly there to tick off a battle scene. I get that he's there to provide a named antagonist, but he's not interesting enough to pull it off.

In the book, it was the goblins who chased the dwarves with the wargs after they escaped goblin town. In the film, it's Azog. Last time we saw Azog was in the lone lands, so somehow he's crossed the Misty Mountains and perfectly located Thorin and company minutes after they hit the surface. That's.. weird, when you think about it. It would have made much more sense to use the goblins.

Additionally, I spent the entire movie waiting for him to die off at the end only to find he didn't. I assumed that he was there to provide a clear arc which would help the movie stand on its own as a story (which is cool, it kind of needed that) only the story wasn't resolved.

His role could have been entirely replaced by adding more scenes with the Goblin King and fleshing him out as a more credible threat, perhaps adding a few goblin lieutenants and and you would have lost nothing, stayed truer to the book and made a shorter movie.

Finally, the Necromancer/Radagast plot. Okay, the Necromancer is simply there to tie the events of the hobbit in with those of Lord of the Rings, but it's entirely non-essential to the plot. The plot has an overarching antagonist, it's a big-ass dragon (and a goblin army), we don't need to somehow tie everything back to Sauron. Now, I can see how it could result in some interesting scenes and I like Benedict Cumberbatch and am certain he will do a good job, but even assuming the pay-off is incredible there is simply too much exposition and foreshadowing in the first movie and it never really connects to the main story. It could have been cut down substantially to just a few establishing scenes and we would have lost very little.

The goblin king send a message to Azog,they made a whole thing about it with the little goblin on the cable tier.

I can see where you're coming from though.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

You didn't mention any of my qualms with it.

1) Excessive CGI (it looked too fake)
2) Some parts with poor writing
3) The hobbit in general is just not as serious as LOTR
4) Too much focus on cameos that didn't happen in the book (cameos for the sake of cameos)

3 and 4 I kind of hit on well 3 I most certainly did otherwise I will have to take another look at my post.

The excessive CGI thing, I'm not sure about it although in some parts it looked off it may be due to the format one watched it in.

Just on a side note, I personally felt the scene with our favourite big boys was done well in writing despite people hating it for the way it was done in CGI. for me it felt like one of the best illustrated scenes from the book (People may hate me for it but it's the -how I always imagined it- idea)

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

I didn't like it for one basic and all-important reason: the 2nd half bored me to death. I'm not familiar with the book, but I'm a big fan of the lore and of the LOTR movies. I was down with the story and the plight of the dwarves, and was very happy during the 1st half's openings, exposition, music, and questing. The movie then began to turn stupid as soon as the head-hunter scene came along; "you think orc raids are funny?" What, is he 13? Have him voice his resentment in a mature and nuanced way. The whole thing with the trolls was really bad (they were so ridiculously stupid that the comedy took away from the tension of being captured by gigantic monsters); the Rivendell bits were more cheesy than smoked gouda (couldn't enjoy because they were so over-acted that I couldn't take it seriously); I was thinking it would become less boring when they were all traveling along the mountains, but oh yeah there are stone golem godzillas that just randomly fight. Out of nowhere. Like it just happens. Seriously? No one knew about that shit? No one heard them? No one thought that if there's a storm out (which is what I guess gets storm giants going), maybe not travel along mountains? Giant deux-ex machina from my perspective. The goblin city was meh; the riddles game with Smeagle didn't do anything except waste time and make me wonder when we'd get back to the story; the final fight was really fucking bad.

So, 1st half of the movie was cool; the 2nd half with all the climaxes and the action blew my dick so hard it almost came off. Final verdict: can't say half a movie counts for a whole movie, so it kinda sucks.

I'm sorry sir but you named so many plot points from the book as your "I hate the movie for these reasons" I can't really take your post seriously.


The scene with gollum is one of the most important ones in the book and the only real thing that ties the hobbit to the lord of the rings, as a fan of LOTR you should have understood that.
The Trolls were indeed so ridiculously stupid in the book, that's the bloody point of the scene.
They are tricked in taking the mountain pass if I remember correctly for Thorin knows very well what dangers loom in the mountains.

I'm not here to start a fight but I have to say without knowing the source material you can't argue about whether or not The Hobbit is good for a movie about well The Hobbit because well you don't know what you're comparing it to.

But then again you are one of the critics I pointed out in my OP.

 

[Strazdas]

So critics are disliking the hobbit? must be those critics i already marked to ignore for stupidity.

 

[grey_space]

I thought the movie was fine, a bit stretched out in places but overall worth seeing. I just hope this isn't another Star Wars prequel situation where people will be still be whining about it online in a decade's time.

Oh this please. I can put up the moaning short term but lets all get the sand out of our vaginas at least before the next movie comes out?


The movie didn't have any major issues with it but as has been said before ITS A KIDS MOVIE. And I don't have any issues with the tonal shifts; look at any Disney move. Tonal shifts aplenty. Still very watchable films

 

[Existentialistme]

Hey man it's a good movie for me and my friends so that'll be enough for me. I'm not even gonna try to deconstruct the logic of people that are displeased with the movie. *shrugs* Haters gonna hate.

This guy has the right idea. Do we really have to deconstruct every movie and game that is released these days? Shut the fuck up and take the movie for what it is, the internet doesn't need your short novel on why you didn't like it.

You know what, you're right. I'm never going to express my feelings toward a piece of art or entertainment ever again, regardless of its craftsmanship -- that's just dumb. It's not like it's an amazing ability to be able to express our own opinions of what is well-made, beautiful, or stimulating; any creature can do that. And what's more, expressing detailed opinions is just stupid anyway because no one really cares and we should just take everything at face value. No need to deconstruct when there's only one interpretation for everything. Thank you for having me realize that I need to just stop opening my mind -- it'll be so much easier this way.