There’s no denying the majesty in Peter Jackson’s visuals but he's taken a relatively slim children’s book and stretched it beyond the limits.
Friday, 14 December 2012
Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage
Joshua said on Saturday, August 17, 2013 7:19:22 AM
For one, Peter Jackson did not make most of the story up. Tolkien wrote a load of appendices at the back of the Lord of the Rings, after he wrote the Hobbit. So that adds more words to the story.
Secondly I do not think that the film was too long. I agree, some viewers less used to this sort of film found the start too slow, but the fan base for the Lord of the Rings and the people who liked the films is large enough so that I think it is unfair to say that Peter Jackson made a mistake. If the fans would rather have three films, who's going to stop them?
Tom Smith said on Saturday, August 10, 2013 8:42:47 PM
The Habbit will make one billion at the Bax Affice.
Paul said on Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:22:20 AM
I was wondering how they would ever stretch a thin kids book into a trilogy. I now know how... Make up 3/4 of the crap as they went along. Radagast the Brown has exactly 6 words devoted to him in the book and now he has a half hour of screen time. Seriously? The movie is a debacle.
Unhinged Reviews said on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:01:15 PM
I'm going to start with saying this. It seems that a lot of people that read the books before seeing the movie dislike the on-screen adaptations. For those of us who haven't read the books, we love it! I wasn't even a big fan of the LOTR trilogy, but I did enjoy the animated story of The Hobbit from years ago. With that being said, how can you give The Hobbit a C+ when the movie has made over 1 Billion dollars? Well, the majority has spoken, "The Hobbit" is a hit..lol I do appreciate you sharing your opinion of the film though, thanks..Later
Rita said on Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:17:18 PM
Can i just add!
The Hobbit IS and was INTENDED as a children's book! I read it at 11! Just because now days you don't see kids reading anything thicker then the Hungry Caterpillar does not mean its NOT a kids book!
Additionally, those of you who are justifying PJ added in extra parts from The Sillmarillion, therefore making it more lengthier and richer- please dont forget he also added ''historical'' accounts in the Fellowship of the Ring (ie. when Gollum was called Smeagol before being consumed my the ring, how the ring came to be found and others).
If he can add extras to the The Fellowship and turn it into ONE volume then he could easily have done the same with the Hobbit. Although I'd liked to have seen The Hobbit made first, I can see why he added in the Frodo bits in the beginning as it needed that flow from LOTR. But it sort of waffled in the beginning and would have preferred if he made those connections in a snap shot.
Rita said on Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:49:42 PM
Richard i love your feisty responses and quite rightly so! Very funny.
Rita said on Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:30:53 PM
Richard, I agree with you on this one. I love The Hobbit and was the first ''big'' book i read as a kid. 287pages is not much Tammy. If you feel it wasn't as good as LOTR and needed to pick up the pace; its because one whole story has been divided into 3 parts, where as LOTR was based on 3 individual books. Hence giving those more substance and why The Hobbit felt more slow and watered down. It seem obvious PJ is dividing the movie to cash in on the money. I for sure wont be putting my pennies there. However, i think it was well done but could easily have been one whole movie. But I would have loved to have seen Guillermo Del Toro's adaption of this great novel. I think it would have been refreshing and new. Oh well...
Jesse` said on Monday, April 15, 2013 1:16:20 PM
I don't think you realize that these movies incorporate more than just the book called the Hobbit. They incorporate so much of Tolkien's less known works like the silmarillion. People complain that too little detail makes the movie boring, but too much detail makes the movie unbearable. Make up your mind and get some background info before you criticize a director with tons of oscars.
Jeremy Bryan said on Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:21:53 PM
I wonder how many of the,'dissapointed,' would have thought it a good movie if it was called: Lord of the Ring Origins: Hobbit. Ponder that for a minute,(in-a-minute says the squeaky voiced mouse aboard the Cartoon Express). Some People, unfortunatley, cannot enjoy The Hobbit due to it being compared to LOTR. Not critizing the fans by all means. It is very difficult not too compare because the subconsciencs will always remember these events, even though you may not. Memories regressed, are usualy disturbing and this starts the trend in your brain saying, "i'll gladly hold on to that and your other possesion
Jodis said on Saturday, February 09, 2013 7:08:34 PM
I agree with everything you said, except everything you said. I felt like some scenes weren't long enough. They could have delved into the riddle scene even more. Another half an hour of this would have been intriguing. I felt like there also should have been more long walking scenes so I could really see the majesty of middle earth. After the dinner scenes they should have showed them getting ready for bed, washing their face and I really would like know how dwarves brush their teeth. I also thought some more musical numbers would have good, with a dragon singing some light jazz.
Bilbo was far from annoying. I felt like I was walking beside him and the dirty old wizard throughout his journey. But who really got snubbed for an oscar nomination was the bird shit wizard. Cause he kept a straight face the entire time while helping his woodland friends.