The Hobbit, you ever read it?

[Nami nom noms]

Funnily enough, not only have i read the Hobbit, I'm currently reading it at the moment, too!

It's, alright. Pretty enjoyable, with a tendency to get bogged down on the details (I skip those parts; I tried the same thing with Lord of the Rings but ended up finishing the book in half an hour! )

I'm sure the film will be entirely less cheesy then the book, and tbh there are more action sequences in the hobbit then the lord of the rings books (individually).

 

[Fasckira]

Child like summary incoming:

Hobbit - Lots of fantasy and exciting action
LotR - Lots of fantasy, exciting action but dulled down with politics.

I read the Hobbit when I was about 8 I think, I loved it to bits. The version I had had the little line drawings scattered throughout and it was pretty much the book that got me reading more fantasy based tales. I read LotR however it just didn't have the same magic for me; I cant tell if that's because I read it when I was older and as such my expectations were greater or not though.

Either way, looking forward to the Hobbit on the big screen, should be great fun and they couldn't have picked a better actor to play Bilbo in my eyes.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Tom Bombadil was ridicu-fucking-lous and would have turned the first film into a fucking mess, I think it was a very easy decision to cut it.

Absolutely. Unless you had read the books, several times (and even then), chances are you would not be able to deduce who or what he really might have been. Personally I lean toward the idea that he was the physical manifestation of the spirit of the world.

That whole encounter would have taken, at minimum, an hour to resolve.

The Silmarillion, that is an enjoyable read. Provided you can follow it.

 

[Naeras]

I honestly like The Hobbit more than LotR. It's more light-hearted and far easier to read.

 

[Soxafloppin]

I did when I was younger, I then tried to read the Lord of the Rings and had difficulty, there seems to be a lot more Jargon in the LOTR books.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Read the book a couple times, very exited for the two movies, it is going to be a two movie deal.

2) WATSON!!! HELL YEAH!!!! Other than that, the dwarves look way too young. Especially Thorin. I do love the fact that they sing tho.

Think about Gimli in the Lord of the Rings movies, he wasn't made up to look all that old.

Gimli was actually alive during the time when Gandalf was planning the expedition with Thorin, and the story takes place over 70 years before the full events of the Lord of the Rings.

When I read The Hobbit, I didn't get the impression that the dwarves looked all that old. Since they are the race that has a long life span, who's to say that a dwarf that is over a 100 years old is going to look like he is actually that old. Other than men with normal blood, all the other races had longer than normal life spans. Frodo the hobbit was suppose to be at least 50 when he finally started out with the One Ring, and he didn't look 50 in the movies.

The only place that brings to mind the dwarves looking somewhat old is the old Hobbit cartoon, and even some of those dwarves didn't look all that old, they just looked like dwarves or a cartoon stylized look of what the dwarves might look like.

 

[Hollock]

yeah, but it was when I was 11 and I barely remember it.
The trailer looks really good though

 

[ccggenius12]

The edits were performed mostly for updating the language (terminology, grammer, etc), the major changes were made by Tolkien's heirs afterwards.

Be that as it may, it still doesn't change that Gollum had a very different personality in Tolkien's original book, and it was changed so the circular macguffin could take center stage in the trilogy. Say what you will about Lucas, but he didn't completely invert any character's personalities.
I hope that this movie does well enough to merit a Silmarillion movie. Morgoth makes Sauron look like a chump.

 

[VladG]

Yep, I've read it a long time ago, before reading The Lord of the Rings. Liked it, it's a nice little children's book, but I wouldn't compare it to LOTR for that very reason. LOTR is for a much more mature audience, so if anyone is thinking about picking up the book, don't expect it to be quite as complex or to appeal as much to a more mature audience.

As for the movie, I'm very excited. The LOTR movies were very good and I expect this one to be too. Again, I expect a much lighter tone since the book it's based on is a children's book. But I expect it to be as faithful and well done as the LOTR movie was (or were, I know it's 3 of them, but it's really just one story too big to be put in one movie).

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

1. Nope, went to college early got to skip a lot of things.

2. I hope it's good, the trailer looks decent but I tend not to trust those anymore since Sucker-Punch

 

[Zen Toombs]

I've read the Hobbit twice, but I'm embarrassed to say that I've never completed the Lord of the Rings.

I'm pretty excited for the movie though. ^_^

 

[kickyourass]

The Hobbit is easily my absolute favorite book, I honestly cannot understand how one cannot enjoy it.
As for the trailer EEEEEEEIIIIIII!!!! I want to see this movie and I want to see it NOW!

 

[surg3n]

I'm quite looking forward to the film, personally I think it's a more complete adventure story than LOTR, it's actually my favorite book.

I think that mostly I'm looking forward to the film, because its the last, properly epic story that is familiar enough to be made into a film. Unless Peter Jackson smokes crack and decides to make Silmarillon, in which case I'll eat my own head.

 

[wottabout]

I read most of it as a child, but I admit that I got bored with it after the dragon died. I mean, the dragon's dead, so the story must be over, right? I don't want to read about boring battles!

I'm still excited about the movie, though. I feel like I should reread (and finish) the book, although I think I might watch the movies first so that I can judge whether they are good films on their own without constantly comparing them to the book.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Of course. Still haven't waded through the silmarillion yet though.

The film looks like it will be good. But it's Peter Jackson directing again. So it will be. I hope the same guy does the music, LOTR's soundtrack was fantastic.

 

[Aeriath]

I love the LotR movies so I've been keeping an eye out for this.The trailer is looking good =D.

Given the majority of answers in this thread I feel a little bad admitting that I never even got halfway through The Hobbit or the LotR trilogy. Unfortunately Tolkien's writing style reminds me of a drunk relative trying to tell you a story and I wasn't stubborn enough to keep going, which is a shame since I hear a lot was cut to streamline the movies.

 

[thejackyl]

Required reading in fourth grade, did a book review in school in third grade. Never read Lord of the Rings past the first 2 chapters though, and I feel bad about that, but it starts out so slow. (from what I remember, it was before the movies came out when I tried to read it last)

 

[Yosato]

I thought Balin was the oldest? Anyway, read the book three times now as of last week. I actually prefer it to the Lord of the Rings books to be honest. I mean I love that trilogy, but the narration of The Hobbit is so much easier to read and it's a lot more fast-paced (once you get past the opening).

Totally stoked for this film. This along with Skyfall and The Avengers are going to make this year something really special, though I have a feeling The Hobbit might just steal the gold medal for me.

 

[Xaio30]

'Twas quite a few years since I last read The Hobbit, but I'm pleased to say that this trailer only brings back good memories.
I can't wait for this movie!

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

Tolkien was more concerned with creating an internally consistent and detailed universe than actually having anything interesting happen in it (much like Bethesda on the Elder Scrolls, really). Both the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit were completely uninteresting to read for me. The films were pretty good.