The Hobbit Sucked/No it didn't!

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 1:52 am

I saw the Hobbit today. I liked it a lot!

And it sounds odd, but I rather liked Azog. He was a badass-looking orc.

The ring-falling-onto-the-finger shoutout was obnoxious, Radagast...well, he did a plot point, but they'd told the actor to have too much fun with it.

I can believe they can stretch it into a three-parter.

Shrapnel · Post by **Shrapnel** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:53 am

Sylvester McCoy can have all the fun he wants; he played the Doctor, dammit!

I nerdgasmed when I found out he would be playing Radagast, because he was my favorite LOTR ultra-minor side character. And because it takes some serious 1337 5k1ll5 in order to impersonate Colin Baker. And he had some good stuff in Season 24, I don't care what you say.

And yes, Azog was ten kinds of bad-ass for an Orc.

And, it is "can believe" or "can't believe" that it's a padded three-parter?

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:06 am

I believe they can pull it off with a bit of grace.

K · Post by K » Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:36 am

Is it weird that I'm a huge Hobbit fan, but I don't want to watch any of it until I can see it all at once?

Shrapnel · Post by **Shrapnel** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:37 am

Maxus wrote:I believe they can pull it off with a bit of grace.

As can I. Apparently, they found most of the material from the metric-fuckton of letters that Tolkein wrote about The Hobbit and Lord of The Rings.

Considering how many letters the guy wrote, I'm actually surprised they didn't make it a five-part movie.

K wrote:Is it weird that I'm a huge Hobbit fan, but I don't want to watch any of it until I can see it all at once?

Not really; some people just don't want to watch something in episodic increments. I know some folks who wait for a current season of their favorite TV show to come out on DVD, so they can watch everything in one sit-through.

I, personally, like watching things when they come out; there's something special about that shared experiance of watching something with hundreds of other people and knowing that you are all experiencing it for the first time. Or words to those effects.

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:03 am

I saw that on Thursday. It was pretty damn good.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:51 am

Maxus wrote:I saw the Hobbit today. I liked it a lot!

<snip>

I can believe they can stretch it into a three-parter.

Yeah, I really liked it. I also had no idea it was in three parts. As it was getting time to be finished, I was trying to figure out how the hell they were planning on wrapping it up.

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:24 am

K wrote:Is it weird that I'm a huge Hobbit fan, but I don't want to watch any of it until I can see it all at once?

That's how i watch most series, I wait until I can watch the whole season at once. I did it with the first 3 seasons of Metalocalypse, season 1-2 of MLP: FiM, and with Beavis and Butthead.

I saw it again in 3D. the 3D blows, don't see it in 3D.

I thought the Great Goblin was perfect. And I'm glad they didn't make the goblins look stupid, that's something that always slightly bugged me, stupid Warhammer.

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

K wrote:Is it weird that I'm a huge Hobbit fan, but I don't want to watch any of it until I can see it all at once?

If you really liked The Hobbit I'd stay the fuck away from the movies.

I might have been able to enjoy it as The Lord of the Rings: The Prequel, but as The Hobbit it is just awful. The humor is gone, Bilbo being Bilbo is gone (by the end of the first movie he is ACTION HERO HOBBIT), and you don't get the fun writing style Tolkien used. Riddles in the Dark is super good in the movie, but uh...yeah that's about it. It's The Lord of the Rings again but on a much less grand scale.

That's probably all because I went into it thinking "this is going to be a fun adventure story" and went in completely blind about it being a trilogy because I was avoiding everything about it. The only redeeming section is Riddles in the Dark, and it's short. Short as in "the only thing they didn't drag out about the book." They even turned the fucking trolls into a needlessly long action scene. Jesus Christ, the dwarves just get bagged in the book (except Thorin, who fights for all of five seconds), there's no need to draw that shit out.

I know some of the additional scenes happen in Middle Earth canon (though not all these bullshit chase scenes and such, and they drag on forever), but why the hell is it in The Hobbit? Fuck the necromancer, he's mentioned in one sentence as an excuse for Gandalf to leave.

The Lord of the Rings was awesome, but The Hobbit isn't The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is a children's story about stealing GOLD from a DRAGON.

So much nerd rage.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:08 pm

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:Fuck the necromancer, he's mentioned in one sentence as an excuse for Gandalf to leave.

I'm really confused... Why do so many people not fucking get this. The Necromancer is some fucking dark sorcerer hanging out in Dol Guldur. He literally is Sauron. That is totally worth the time of the movie, because it is clearly being set up as 1/2 the Hobbit and 1/2 LOTR prequel. If you are seriously saying they should leave out the Rise of Sauron from a LOTR prequel you are smoking crack.

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:15 pm

Kaelik wrote:
Pseudo Stupidity wrote:Fuck the necromancer, he's mentioned in one sentence as an excuse for Gandalf to leave.
I'm really confused... Why do so many people not fucking get this. The Necromancer is some fucking dark sorcerer hanging out in Dol Guldur. He literally is Sauron. That is totally worth the time of the movie, because it is clearly being set up as 1/2 the Hobbit and 1/2 LOTR prequel. If you are seriously saying they should leave out the Rise of Sauron from a LOTR prequel you are smoking crack.

I'm saying they should leave the rise of Sauron out of The Hobbit because the rise of Sauron isn't in The Hobbit. It's a single sentence used to get Gandalf to leave the party. If I want to see LoTR I can go watch it, and I love it.

Again, the movie(s) should have been called LoTR: The Prequel because they aren't The Hobbit. I wanted to see the book I loved turned into a movie, because Peter Jackson did that really well with LoTR. I got something that I didn't want, and that anyone who enjoyed The Hobbit for what it is would not want. It's not a fun adventure, it's burdened by Jackson's idea that it needs to be so deeply tied into LoTR.

I just want my hobbit, my dwarves, my dragon, my wizard, my elves, my magic ring, and my fun little story. Fuck making The Hobbit epic, because it isn't. That's why I like the damn book so much.

I really can't stress this enough. The Hobbit is a book about a wizard, some dwarves, and a hobbit stealing gold from a dragon. It isn't about the rise of Sauron. Nothing in the fucking title or posters or trailers (that I saw) makes it look like it's about the rise of Sauron.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:19 pm

Pseudo Stupidity wrote: If you really liked The Hobbit I'd stay the fuck away from the movies.

Hunh. I really liked both.

I also like chocolate *and* vanilla ice cream. They're different things, but I like em both.

I suspect I would not have liked the Hobbit movie that you wanted nearly so much as the one that I saw. If Gandalf just dumped em on the mention of a "necromancer" then it likely would have been quite distracting without further exposition.

I'll grant you that this bit of adaptation seemed a bit out of place in the story though.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:38 pm

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:Nothing in the fucking title or posters or trailers (that I saw) makes it look like it's about the rise of Sauron.

Then 1) You didn't watch the trailers. and 2) Fucking A man, the Hobbit isn't 3 movies long either. It is very clear what they were going to do before the first movie even started filming, don't kid yourself.

If you just want to fucking whine about how it shouldn't be a prequel, then do that in a way that doesn't make it clear that you have no idea that Sauron and the Necromancer are the same person, because despite that this is like being confused when Snape kills Dumbledore in the movie, and despite that the movie fucking has Gandalf tell you that he thinks he is Sauron, for some reason a lot of reviews seem to be by people who are completely unaware of that fact, and that is really fucking weird.

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:41 pm

That gif is excellent, but...

If I wanted to see people being chased by goblins on wargs I could watch LoTR again.

If I wanted to see Gandalf defeat a giant thing on a narrow bridge I could see LoTR again.

If I wanted to see Rivendell I could see LoTR again.

If I wanted to see Gandalf whisper to a messenger to get saved by eagles I could see LoTR again.

If I want to see people jumping around on things while being chased by goblins underground I could see LoTR again (seriously, the underground chase was just like the Mines of Moria, part II)

Admittedly, if I want to see a bunny sled I would need to watch The Hobbit again. Then again, I really don't need to see a bunny sled ever again.

I know those are general things, but none of them need to happen in the fucking movie (well, except Rivendell). They're just there because Jackson must have figured "it worked in LoTR so it'll work again."

What part of The Hobbit did people actually enjoy? The only part that wasn't "well, you liked this in LoTR so you might like this again," was Riddles in the Dark. You know there's a problem when your battle and chase sequences are just "oh no, not this again."

Why the fuck were the chase sequences in the movie at all? They served no purpose except Jackson masturbating all over New Zealand and padding the movie out because... goblins on wargs are super entertaining?

@Kaelik- The trailers on TV are not the same as your full trailers. I didn't seek out anything on the movies beforehand (hence not knowing it was going to be three movies long). I'm a casual fan of LoTR and The Hobbit, with The Hobbit being a more enjoyable story to me because it's a fun little adventure.

Whining that the movie The Hobbit isn't like the book The Hobbit is legitimate. They took away everything that made The Hobbit a good story and made it LoTR: The Prequel. Tolkien tried to rewrite The Hobbit once to tie it into LoTR more, but he gave up on it because it stopped being The Hobbit.

For fuck's sake, do you not realize how extremely unlike The Hobbit Jackson's movie is? You may think it's better, but it's fine for people to find it worse. I didn't want LoTR again, and the movie is decidedly more like LoTR than it is like its source material.

Warning somebody who liked The Hobbit that the movie isn't like The Hobbit is fine. Amazingly enough, it's possible to like The Hobbit more than LoTR, and to be disappointed when they turn The Hobbit into something it isn't (an epic).

echoVanguard · Post by **echoVanguard** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:01 pm

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:I just want my hobbit, my dwarves, my dragon, my wizard, my elves, my magic ring, and my fun little story. Fuck making The Hobbit epic, because it isn't. That's why I like the damn book so much.

Then you should probably go watch the Rankin-Bass animated special, because it is excellent and matches your requirements quite scrupulously. Anyone who goes to see Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Cashgrab and is upset when it doesn't match their expectations has not properly managed their expectations in light of the first three films.

And, for the record, I loved the new Hobbit film. It was exactly like watching someone's Dungeons and Dragons campaign on the big screen, and the three hours absolutely flew by. But I went in understanding a fundamental truth about modern cross-media adaptations - if you hope for fidelity, you will always be disappointed. That's what adaptation means - changing the material for a new medium. The best that you can hope for is a work that utilizes the medium in the most appropriate ways for that medium to tell its story while adapting the story's events in such a way that best suits the new medium.

echo

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:29 pm

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:If I wanted to see Rivendell I could see LoTR again.

If I wanted to see Gandalf whisper to a messenger to get saved by eagles I could see LoTR again.

I'm sorry, your complaints are so stupid I stopped taking you seriously because you started complaining about things that where in the Hobbit being in the Hobbit.

Spoiler alert, not only did the Eagles save them from the trees in teh fucking hobbit, but they also totally show up to save the day a fucking gain. So you are going to get really tired of the Eagles showing up in the Hobbit movie exactly like they did in the Hobbit book.

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:The trailers on TV are not the same as your full trailers. I didn't seek out anything on the movies beforehand (hence not knowing it was going to be three movies long).

Okay, well then I don't care about your whining. Because fuck you.

Anytime your complaint begins with "I am super ignorant about the movie I am watching" I find it difficult to give a fuck.

Frankly, if I had walked into the movie not knowing it was part one of three, I would damn well not be complaining about the Necromancer, I would be complaining about how 2/3rds of the book is fucking missing.

And if you don't walk in ignorant as shit, you know they are going to have to add something to make it three movies, because the Hobbit is maybe 2 hours of cinema, not 9.

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:For fuck's sake, do you not realize how extremely unlike The Hobbit Jackson's movie is? You may think it's better, but it's fine for people to find it worse. I didn't want LoTR again, and the movie is decidedly more like LoTR than it is like its source material.

For fucks sake did I ever say it was really similar?

Look you dumb shit, my point is this:

If your problem is the existence of the Necromancer in a LOTR prequel, you are dumb as shit.

If your problem is that you are an ignorant dumb shit who didn't realize that Peter Jackson's 3 movie long Hobbit trilogy was going to be a LOTR prequel, you are dumb as shit.

If your problem is you literally knew nothing about the movie including that it was only part 1/3, you should have more important complaints.

If you just don't like what they are doing, but saw it coming, like lots of people, then stop whining about how surprised and betrayed you fucking are.

It isn't cheating on you when your girlfriend breaks up with you first, and Peter Jackson was very fucking clear about what he was doing, you were not betrayed. Call him a [EDITED] who ruined the BESTEST Tolkien if you want, but stop whining about how you were tricked.

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:43 am

Kaelik wrote: I'm sorry, your complaints are so stupid I stopped taking you seriously because you started complaining about things that where in the Hobbit being in the Hobbit.

Spoiler alert, not only did the Eagles save them from the trees in teh fucking hobbit, but they also totally show up to save the day a fucking gain. So you are going to get really tired of the Eagles showing up in the Hobbit movie exactly like they did in the Hobbit book.

You know Gandalf doesn't send for the eagles...right? I mean, for somebody who spergs the fuck out about Tolkien (so badly you mistype in your rage) I'd really expect you to know that. Then again, why be right when you can be a raging cock?

Kaelik wrote: Okay, well then I don't care about your whining. Because fuck you.

Anytime your complaint begins with "I am super ignorant about the movie I am watching" I find it difficult to give a fuck.

Frankly, if I had walked into the movie not knowing it was part one of three, I would damn well not be complaining about the Necromancer, I would be complaining about how 2/3rds of the book is fucking missing.

Never in the advertisements did it say "Part one of three!" or I'd of avoided it. Should I have to research a movie to have an opinion about it as a fan of the book it's based on?

Kaelik wrote: If your problem is the existence of the Necromancer in a LOTR prequel, you are dumb as shit.

If your problem is that you are an ignorant dumb shit who didn't realize that Peter Jackson's 3 movie long Hobbit trilogy was going to be a LOTR prequel, you are dumb as shit.

If your problem is you literally knew nothing about the movie including that it was only part 1/3, you should have more important complaints.

If you just don't like what they are doing, but saw it coming, like lots of people, then stop whining about how surprised and betrayed you fucking are.

It isn't cheating on you when your girlfriend breaks up with you first, and Peter Jackson was very fucking clear about what he was doing, you were not betrayed. Call him a [EDITED] who ruined the BESTEST Tolkien if you want, but stop whining about how you were tricked.

The advertising was not "Part 1 of 3." The information was freely available apparently, but holy shit. I'm not going to look up a movie that I'm watching for casual entertainment. I don't do movie homework. You're incredibly angry that I didn't look up a movie outside of the trailer and knowing its source material and then didn't like the movie.

Even as cinema it's...pretty fucking boring. The added fight scenes are long and pointless. The humor is gone, and the humor they added is embarrassing (the fat dwarf is fat, and the goblin king is fat, and holy BALLS that is funny. Also haha, rabbits and that wizard is such a hippy). It reeks of "this worked in LoTR, let's do it again!"

The recycled stuff from LoTR is more of a joke (again, pretty generalized), but it is strange how several key moments in the film were mirrors of things that happened in the first LoTR film even though they didn't happen in The Hobbit.

But really Kaelik, you blindly attack people for disagreeing with you. I know this is the Den, but shit, at least know what you're talking about first. Being stupid and a prick isn't supposed to be your style.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:30 am

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:You know Gandalf doesn't send for the eagles...right?

So your complaint is that they showed gandalf sending for help instead of having them arrive out of nowhere with no explanation, and has absolutely nothing to do with the fucking eagles? Congratulations, your complaint makes even less sense.

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:I mean, for somebody who spergs the fuck out about Tolkien (so badly you mistype in your rage)

Yes, the onyl possible explanation for a typo is rage. No one has ever typoed for any other reason ever.

I don't particularly care about Tolkien, but since you are going to fap about how the Eagles saving them in the Hobbit is a bad thing, I'm going to laugh at your stupid ass.

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:I'm not going to look up a movie that I'm watching for casual entertainment. I don't do movie homework. You're incredibly angry that I didn't look up a movie outside of the trailer and knowing its source material and then didn't like the movie.

Oh, then I hate you for being a rich entitled dickbag who spends money without a thought in the world.

Yes, you should damn well fucking do some goddam research before you spend 14 dollars and several hours on a goddam movie.

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:48 am

Kaelik wrote:
Pseudo Stupidity wrote:If I wanted to see Rivendell I could see LoTR again.

If I wanted to see Gandalf whisper to a messenger to get saved by eagles I could see LoTR again.
I'm sorry, your complaints are so stupid I stopped taking you seriously because you started complaining about things that where in the Hobbit being in the Hobbit.

Spoiler alert, not only did the Eagles save them from the trees in teh fucking hobbit, but they also totally show up to save the day a fucking gain. So you are going to get really tired of the Eagles showing up in the Hobbit movie exactly like they did in the Hobbit book.

I went back and skimmed that section earlier just cuz of this thread (and since I read it last maybe 15+ years ago). The Eagles show up just because they heard the goblins making a ruckus and decided to see what was up, and the Lord of the Eagles recognizes Gandalf and figures what the hey, and snatches him up to save him. Then Gandalf explains things off screen and the Eagles bail out the rest of the party. So they are saved by blind luck, which absolutely makes a worse movie story (and arguably a worse written story) than Gandalf phoning a friend, even if he has done it before, in the future. I mean, how the hell is a movie supposed to sensibly convey that some fucking huge birds just randomly showed up and decided to save the good guys? I suppose they could have some voice-over exposition, but that would feel pretty insulting to the audience.

As for whether the Hobbit is an epic, well, I don't think the movie really is more epic than the story. It's the same schtick, but you are seeing what was supposed to happen rather than the more light-hearted retelling as written by a hobbit. Of course it is actually darker than the written story.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:10 am

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:The trailers on TV are not the same as your full trailers. I didn't seek out anything on the movies beforehand (hence not knowing it was going to be three movies long).

Wait, what? What tv trailers or spots did you see that did NOT convey the fact that this was NOT the light tale that the book was.?

Seriously. I've shown you the official tv trailer along with the seven tv spots that aired. What the fuck are you talking about?

You know what, I don't care. Don't tell me what you seem to think you are talking about.

If you can't take a few moments out of your time to go see what the movies is about then I put you in the same boat as the idiotic parents who go to a theater with their kids to see movies like Sin City because it's a comic. Seriously, it's a Peter Jackson movie. Did you not expect it to be almost 3 hours long? How could you not go check out other shit about it before you saw it. I mean that's three hours of your life wasted. I haven't seen the movies because I'm still not sure how I would feel about them. I might feel disappointed that certain things are different or omitted or added. But when I do feel disappointed it's with the foreknowledge that I knew this shit was coming.

edit: fixed tags.

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:26 am

Kaelik wrote:Oh, then I hate you for being a rich entitled dickbag who spends money without a thought in the world.

Yes, you should damn well fucking do some goddam research before you spend 14 dollars and several hours on a goddam movie.

I just can't even relate to this. I'm rich because I went to a $7 movie (yes, movies are that cheap where I go) that shared the title with a book I liked without looking the movie up before?

You're insane if you think the $7 I spent without looking shit up makes me rich.

I would like to point out that, about the entire eagle debacle, all I did was say "Gandalf whispers to a messenger and the eagles save him" because it happens in LoTR but not in The Hobbit, in a list of things that happen in LoTR and The Hobbit movie, but not in The Hobbit. I didn't say it was worse than the eagles deciding to save them because it messed with the goblins, I just pointed it out as an example of him adding shit just to tie it in with LoTR. It was cool in LoTR (fairly certain the book had it happen differently, but I admit I haven't read it in a while and it's really minor), and it didn't really bother me in The Hobbit, I just thought it was funny that Jackson did it as a tie-in. Same thing for the killing a giant thing on a narrow bridge. It's a weird set of coincidences, but not a real reason to hate the movie.

I hate the movie because it changes Bilbo's character and adds tons of pointless shit (those chase sequences...) while taking something like 30 minutes to even leave the hobbit hole. It made for a worse story to me.

The only other Jackson movie I've seen is LoTR, the source material was huge and he actually cut it down. I assumed he was going to make a decently long movie out of the entirety of The Hobbit. Obviously I should have done my homework, but the hate I'm getting for spending my money on a movie then advising somebody against seeing it is more than a little strange.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:30 am

I loved the Hobbit movie, too, but I honestly feel that the weakest parts of the movie came from having to implement elements of the original adaptation.

Unfortunately, while getting rid of these elements would've made for an even stronger movie, it would have made the whole 'let's adapt The Hobbit!' project completely pointless.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:31 am

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:I'm rich because I went to a $7 movie (yes, movies are that cheap where I go) that shared the title with a book I liked without looking the movie up before?

Actually, the book is The Hobbit , or There and Back Again, and the movie is The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey. They broadcast that subtitle pretty clearly in the previews I saw. That seems like a good clue that something will be different.

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:11 pm

I just figured the subtitle was a choice to differentiate the movie from the other The Hobbit movies. It's a ~270 page book with pictures. I Didn't expect him to make a trilogy out of that, even with the extra background.

I am curious as to why people liked the movie. Was it really that fun watching people get chased around by goblins on wargs again? All the camp scenes were fairly boring (the majority of characters are underdeveloped to the point where it's almost impossible to tell any of the dwarves except Thorin and Bombur apart), and practically every scene was dragged out. What was enjoyable in the film, because all I remember is thinking "are we there yet?" for the majority of the movie.

The interesting sequences are few and far between, which is primarily the fault of shackling the movie to The Hobbit and then stripping out what made The Hobbit so good. Maybe Lago is right, if they didn't try to make it The Hobbit it would have been better.

All I know is the movie didn't do it for me. It just wouldn't stop with the pointless sequences (both chases, the thunder battle, making Bilbo's House so damn long, several camp sites) and then went ahead and made Bilbo something he isn't. If I had seen it without expecting The Hobbit I'd of enjoyed it more, and there are a couple of parts that are actually good (riddles in the dark, and the opening exposition is done well). Too few good scenes, too long, and so much of it should have been cut.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:21 pm

Pseudo Stupidity wrote: I am curious as to why people liked the movie. Was it really that fun watching people get chased around by goblins on wargs again?

If you're going to reduce everything to that level of simplicity, why is it fun to watch any movie? They're all just people doing and saying things on a screen. They did that shit nearly a hundred years ago. They're all the same!

You didn't like it. We get it. Stop trying to explain it so hard.