Your view on the Hobbit

[HeroOfTime]

Sorry if there's already a thread like this in the forums.

So who hates this triolgy because it was so off-book? And who liked it because of the special effects and the stuff that was added?

I personally would've liked to see it more like the books, but I did like what they did with it. I thought the Necromancer was interesting and liked that he was more involved in the movie, and how they were able to stretch it out into three movies without it feeling totally stretched out and killed.

But who hates it because of how off the book it was?

 

[Justac00lguy]

I actually really enjoyed it contrary to a lot of Tolkien fans.

Of course it wasn't near the Lord of the Rings (though Desolation of Smaug was fantastic), but it still captured that Middle Earth vibe and even the light hearted tone of the book. I think a lot of people are jumping on the "let's hate he not modern thing" bandwagon and are completely ignoring what the movies did well. They tied the trilogies together almost perfectly.

You've got to remember, the Hobbit was never meant to be connected and was originally just a book he wrote for his son. It was only after that he realised he could tie it into his fictional universe. So even though the Lord of the Rings was a sequel, the events of the Hobbit (apart from the Ring, really) didn't seem significant really. I like to think of the Hobbit as its own book self contained tale that just so happens to have Gandalf, Bilbo and the Ring within it. Thing is, if you base a film purely off the book, you wouldn't get that prequel feel and a lot of fans (especially casual) will be rather confused.

The actual stuff they added I feel was an overall success. I actually don't get why everyone hates the Dol Guluor subplot, that was the best part of the films and ties everything together perfectly. And for the loyalists, no it wasn't in the Hobbit but this did actually happen and is canon. The White Council did attack Dol Guldur during the events of the Hobbit and it's blatantly hinted at it in the books. Though the part about the Nazgul isn't exactly correct, I can live with it just because the scenes were fantastically executed. The addition of Galadriel and Saruman was actually a plus because they're apart of the White Council, so I don't see the problem there. Hell even having Azog alive was needed because without him you wouldn't have a main villain/obstacle throughout the entire story. Remember that Bolg is only given a couple of sentences in the book and that's near the end, so the trilogy wouldn't be as nearly as interesting.

A few things that did bother me though. First is that some of the Dwarves felt empty and just character-less. I'll admit that they weren't fully fleshed out in the book either, but some had roles and even had unique personalities. Also why did Throin and Kili look like small men? Ok maybe Kili is young, but Throin is ****ing old as hell and he should look it, not look like a mini Aragon. Oh and I didn't like the addition of the love triangle either. Legolas and Tauriel felt disconnect and I loved seeing Legolas again and Evangeline Lily is hot as hell, but it was a needless addition. Oh and one more thing, Beorn, hero of the last battle, was cut out? And no scene of Throin being buried with the Arkenstone either?

Overall though, apart from a few needles additions, disappointing omissions, dependency on CGi, and that is could have been two films, I thought it did it's job well. It severe as a prequel while giving us a chance to revisit Middle Earth again and experience Bilbo's adventures and I'm fine with that. Actually I like to think of this trilogy as being an expanded version of Tolkien's chapter in the Unfinished Tales, named "The Quest for Erebor".

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

The White Council did attack Dol Guldur during the events of the Hobbit and it's blatantly hinted at it in the books.

Yeah I do clearly recall that Gandalf alludes to it, or someone does at some point in the book. Personally I liked that they expanded on it to fill a gap that the book left. Not only that, but the entire sub-plot helped expand the story so it could sort of work as a Trilogy. People complain that the story could have been compressed into two movies as it is, imagine what it'd be like if the Dol Guldur sub-plot had been omitted from the movies.

 

[Dio]

The trilogy overused CGI and lacked the feel of the LOTR. Yes many parts of LOTR used CGI but not so blatantly. All the orc closeups were real men in costume yet in The Hobbit they looked fake and horrible.

I felt the music was generally inferior to the LOTR with few memorable tunes and some Dwarves were underdeveloped as characters. Apart from that the films were not bad but they should have been a lot better considering what came before.

 

[Farore's Chosen]

I liked the Hobbit book better then the LotR trilogy. I despised the Rankin/Bass movies. I liked the new LotR trilogy better then the new Hobbit movie. Either way Tolkeins stuff just drags the hell on.

 

[Moonstone]

I loved the first Hobbit movie. The second was alright. The third seemed like an awful fanfiction.

As for the movies not being like the book, I really don't mind if movies take a different spin on the story than the book(s) - I actually prefer it. If I wanted the book I would read the book. I watch the movie to get a bit of a different experience, so I don't mind if the story is tweaked a little.

 

[misskitten]

I enjoyed the Hobbit movies. They didn't grip me the same way the Lord of the Rings movies did, but all in all enjoyable movies.

 

[DoomDash]

I liked The Hobbit movies more than the LotR movies I think. I haven't watched LotR in awhile, though I do have them on Bluray, so maybe I should refresh my memory a bit.