David Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Good but not great movie. It was very long at 2 hours and 50 minutes. This wasn't a bad thing since I needed my LOTR universe fix, but there were several times were I thought "This must be the ending" only to see it continue on. Bilbo is MUCH more relate-able and entertaining than Frodo. I thought that was a weakness of the first movies with their boring, slightly homosexual Frodo/Sam scenes, so it's good to see a better Hobbit lead. The tone of the movie is much different than the dark, foreboding feeling of the originals; there is a lot of color, festivity, and wild-life featured. A couple scenes last for a strangely long period of time; one of my friends thought that this was an attempt to get scenes from the book involved in the movie since much of it was obviously just Peter Jackson making stuff up. Overall I didn't think it was as good as the first trilogy, but again, much of that may also be nostalgia from when I was younger. When I think back to the first movie of Frodo's journey, The Fellowship of the Ring, I remember it being substantially weaker than the following two. That's likely what's going on here - story-building taking precedence over getting into the epic adventures right away. My only real large complaint is that the main characters spent over half the movie running away from something while being scared shitless, which is kind of a let-down after the badassery of the first group of heroes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 have you read the books? you talk like frodo and co. came after the hobbit? Also the first book is a bit slow compared to the other two :/ your right it is all about character building and background history/story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted December 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 have you read the books? you talk like frodo and co. came after the hobbit? Also the first book is a bit slow compared to the other two :/ your right it is all about character building and background history/storyThis is all in terms of the movies though, which is what most people know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric the Bard Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Was Radagast in the Hobbit? I didn't think so. I thought he was only mentioned in LotR. Also, I think Saruman is all wrong in the movies. And I don't think the Necromancer was in the Hobbit(just mentioned)? Also, I hate when they think they have to make the audience laugh every five minutes, and put in some horribly stupid scenes, that makes me want to cry, not laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted December 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Was Radagast in the Hobbit? I didn't think so. I thought he was only mentioned in LotR. Also, I think Saruman is all wrong in the movies. And I don't think the Necromancer was in the Hobbit(just mentioned)? Also, I hate when they think they have to make the audience laugh every five minutes, and put in some horribly stupid scenes, that makes me want to cry, not laugh.Radagast was in the movie, and he was easily one of the most interesting characters for every scene he was in (not that many). The Necromancer gets a short appearance but he is mostly just alluded to. Saruman is in the Hobbit and comes across as kind of an oblivious prick, but he obviously has an ulterior motive that no one knows about yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric the Bard Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Radagast was in the movie, and he was easily one of the best/most interesting characters for every scene he was in (not that many). The Necromancer gets a short appearance but he is mostly just alluded to. Saruman is in the Hobbit and comes across as kind of an oblivious prick, but he obviously has an ulterior motive that no one knows about yet.I have seen the movie. Twice. Probably before you saw it for the first time. I didn't like Radagast. He seemed like an idiot. I was referring to the book, not the movie in my previous comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted December 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 I have seen the movie. Twice. Probably before you saw it for the first time. I didn't like Radagast. He seemed like an idiot. I was referring to the book, not the movie in my previous comment.And you seeing the movie before me has what to do with anything, exactly? I do see what you were trying to say now, though. The Necromancer and Radagast are added to the Hobbit to relate the events at that time to those that happened in the LotR trilogy. You have to remember that Tolkien wrote 'The Hobbit' before the other books. Had he done it the other way around, or even lived long enough to finish his other works relating everything, he almost certainly would have gone back and made additions like those that made the timeline of events between the two stories obvious. Having the Hobbit story as a prequel to the movies that are already made makes things like that necessary for viewers. I can see why people wouldn't like Radagast. I even read one review that likened him to Jar Jar Binks. That's obviously a little overly critical, but you have to remember that the Hobbit is SUPPOSED to be a much lighter time and story. Most people seemed to hate the bunny sled and not Radagast himself. I should clarify that I thought Radagast's characterization was well done; I'm pretty "meh" on the whole bunny carriage thing, but don't hate it that much either. Radagast isn't an idiot; as Gandalf says he's "brilliant in his own way." That's just part of who he's supposed to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric the Bard Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 I really liked Radagast in LotR. When it comes to me seeing it before you, I'm just bragging. Even if you don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huygens Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 My only real large complaint is that the main characters spent over half the movie running away from something while being scared shitless, which is kind of a let-down after the badassery of the first group of heroes. LOL! I couldn't agree more...they are running away the whole fucking time and when their leader is in danger, it's the fucking hobbit who attacks the albino orc and wargs...and after that the midget dwarves suddenly found the courage to fight back? My biggest complaint is in the books as well..the fucking eagles...why not fucking fly over to Erebor? As for LOTR, why not fucking fly to Mount Doom, drop the ring, end of story, fuck you Sauron. That's a lot of fuck I just gave o.0 I'm sorry for that, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.