Anybody dislike The Hobbit movies?

#1 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16389 posts) -

I've got to say that these movies are simply boring to me.The first one was okay, and I thought "Maybe the second one will be better" but when I saw the second one in theaters, I felt like I'd been cheated. The ending was, simply put, a crock of horse shit. I have pretty much no interest in seeing the third movie, but I probably will simply because my Dad will want to see it and he'll likely pay for me.

Mind you, this is coming from someone who adores each of the LotR movies and has seen them all multiple times.

#2 Edited by flazzle (6488 posts) -

I did not like the first one very much. I more disappointed than actually hating it. It was nothing but close calls and no one actually dying.

(Much like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars, where hardly anyone of importance dies, and if they do they come back in some way)

I want to see the second one however, but they seem to be more style than substance

#3 Posted by lonewolf604 (8510 posts) -

I feel the same. The fact that it was split into 3 movies really hurt its presence. I thought it would be fine at first. I thought, "yay we're getting 3 hobbit movies to expand on the LOTR universe".

#4 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16389 posts) -

@lonewolf604: Honestly, I was skeptical when I first heard it was three parts. And it turns out I was right. The movies are far too drawn out and packed with filler. I loved the original trilogy, but I was actually bored with all the action in the second movie. I was never bored with any of the three original movies.

#5 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12652 posts) -
#6 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16389 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit: I was only talking about The Hobbit movies. Lord of the Rings is amazing.

#7 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (12795 posts) -

I really didn't like the added content, the performances just weren't as well done as those in LOTR either. You can tell Gandalf and Sauromon just didn't have their heart in it.

The dude they got to play the hobbit tho, he was really good.

This was bound to happen, converting what was largely a children's book into a 3 part epic, just wasn't going to play out.

#8 Posted by Korvus (2365 posts) -

I never really cared for LOTR and to this date The Fellowship of the Ring is the only movie I ever fell asleep during; so when my wife wanted to go see the Hobbit I said yes but wasn't expecting much, and "not much" is what I got...it was almost a Disney movie so I haven't had the courage to watch the second one.


That being said, though, I'm now rewatching the first trilogy and I'm enjoying it quite a bit more this time around...still think they could each be only half as long (even more so since I'm watching the Extended Edition this time around) but I'm not disliking them....maybe I'll rewatch the first Hobbit one again after I'm done with the trilogy...

#9 Posted by CrimsonBrute (23070 posts) -

I was never interested in anything LotR related. The movies really didn't do much to convince me otherwise.

#10 Edited by br0kenrabbit (12652 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer said:

@br0kenrabbit: I was only talking about The Hobbit movies. Lord of the Rings is amazing.

The trilogy (books) are so full of filler, dragging ass and horrible poetry that it's a miracle that it can still stand on the strength of its underlying story. I view The Hobbit movies in much the same way as I view the 3 books of the trilogy: lots of bullshit, but there's still a solid story in there.

Besides, Golem's riddle scene in An Unexpected Journey is brilliant and well-played by both actors. Serkis ruined any other interpretation of Golem for all time.

#11 Edited by uninspiredcup (6834 posts) -

Complete shit imo. Some scenes stand out as really superb (Bilbo returning when everyone thought he ran away). But over stretched, over indulgent action scenes that play like something from a Disney ride.

People praise Smaug. But Jackson basically just quickly pisses away any sense of wonder, granduer of threat when they make it a big incompetent piece of shit chasing dwarfs for a sequences (like most) that goes on far too long.

This would have been a case of "less is better". But, Jackson has absolutely no constraint and just fucks it up.

#12 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16389 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit: Yeah I've tried reading the books and I can't do it. Like you said, the story is great, but I HATE Tolkein's writing. excellent story that makes for a great

#13 Posted by Shottayouth13- (6690 posts) -

I enjoy them. I don't expect much but I like to sense of adventure and it's good to kill a couple hours.

#14 Posted by SaintLeonidas (25693 posts) -

Didn't care for the first one. But, I watched the sequel this past weekend...it is literally just 3 hours of a bunch of incompetent dwarves getting captured time and time again. Then, when we finally get the money shot...it cuts to credits. The original trilogy is brilliant...these past two have just lost all the magic.

#15 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2536 posts) -

The problem with The Hobbit movies dates back to early pre-production. To start, they wanted two movies based on a 300 page book, and that's something Peter Jackson wanted no part of. Then, after seeing bad script after bad script, Peter Jackson finally intervened at the final hour and attempted to turn it around, while also feeling pressures from the studio to get things moving.

So, after racing to turn the script around and start filming, Jackson then started feeling pressure to milk this into three movies instead of two. This was after scripts were written and filming was nearly completed. So, they essentially built these movies in the editing room, which simply put is an effing disaster. What we got are drawn out, boring narratives that have no business existing.

To answer your question, The Hobbit trilogy is turning out to be a bastardization of Jackson's original Lord of the Rings movies. I've been highly disappointed so far.

#16 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15753 posts) -

They're entertaining enough considered all the movies, including the LotR movies, were butchered anyway....from the books.

#17 Posted by roulettethedog (10927 posts) -

I never liked the first Hobbit book let alone see any of the movies.

#18 Posted by lamprey263 (22428 posts) -

They're not great but they're entertaining. I didn't much care for the LOTR movies and though they're more polished films I found them extremely boring. I find Bilbo more sympathetic as a character, and the dwarves are more entertaining. There's a bond between the characters I felt the LOTR fellowship didn't have. I don't love the Hobbit movies but I enjoy them more than the LOTR movies.

#19 Posted by -ParaNormaN- (655 posts) -

I haven't seen the 2nd one yet but, I did catch the first one on HBO a few months ago. I watched it without any kind of expectation because I barely enjoyed the original trilogy except for the war scenes which I thought were fantastic. The Hobbit actually drew me in with its story. The story wasn't that strong imo but I did enjoy it since it felt a little faster paced than the others and seeing some of the origin stuff was pretty sweet too. I enjoyed the movie more toward that end when we meet Golem for the first time (Timeline wise). The ending was good with the hobbit stepping up and fighting alongside his comrades and gaining their respect. I look forward to watching the 2nd movie in this new trilogy.

#20 Posted by Flubbbs (2807 posts) -

i like them alot. but it does have alot of filler in it, some of it is good stuff though.. like Gandalf going to Dol Guldur and adding the Necromancer. I would of loved to see what Guillermo del Toro's would of done with The Hobbit..

#21 Edited by hippiesanta (9732 posts) -
#22 Posted by Serraph105 (27571 posts) -

Happy to be in Middle Earth again on one level, but on another level it makes me sad that these films are just not as well done as LOTRs.

#23 Posted by The_Mancunian (20 posts) -

As much as I love the book, and the characters, I would've been more than happy if they left the whole franchise after the LOTR movies. I think they're trying to milk it as much as possible.

#24 Posted by bowchicka07 (1069 posts) -

I enjoy them, not near as much as I do with LoTR but they still have a lot of good plot and a fabulous setting IMO.

#25 Edited by KHAndAnime (13147 posts) -

Call me crazy but I think they'd really have to up their game to make this series work. With fantasies like Game of Thrones out, LoTR feels dated and cheesy. I haven't seen The Hobbit 1 or 2, but they appear cheesy and dated. It's like one big giant CGI fest, except the CGI isn't extremely good, nor is anything else.

Also, I don't like to support Hollywood's butchering of literature. Butchered literature = me not attending.

#26 Posted by johnd13 (7803 posts) -

I quite enjoyed them. It is nice returning to Middle-Earth once again and looking forward to the next movie set in its beautiful world. They are not as amazing as LOTR but this is only natural, the hobbit after all is not supposed to be as epic as LOTR.

#27 Posted by -Tish- (3620 posts) -

As much as I love the book, and the characters, I would've been more than happy if they left the whole franchise after the LOTR movies. I think they're trying to milk it as much as possible.

I'm the opposite since my imagination sucks and I hope sometime down the road we get the Silmarillion on the big screen.

#28 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16389 posts) -

@hippiesanta: Yup he did. Even though I'm old enough to live on my own.

#29 Posted by Curlyfrii87 (14902 posts) -

I didn't care for the first movie all that much... but i did enjoy the second!

#30 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15753 posts) -

I definitely prefer the Peter Jackson renditions over the original cartoon musical. The latter.....just nasty. Ugh.

#31 Posted by BranKetra (47482 posts) -

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is good. Everything about it is in appreciation of Middle Earth mythology to my knowledge. The sequel, Desolation of Smaug, is also good. However, Smaug is not a dragon in appearance; he is a wyvern. How can I put the next thing I have an issue with? It ended with a cliffhanger, but it almost did not feel forced. It is almost three hours long and there was never a moment of stagnation. DoS did not disappoint until the screen literally suddenly went black.

#32 Posted by auron_16 (4110 posts) -

yes you ignoramus, you are not the only one in the universe that can dislike a movie

#33 Edited by patrick5152003 (1807 posts) -

didnt like the first one, havnt seen the second one

#34 Edited by br0kenrabbit (12652 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

However, Smaug is not a dragon in appearance; he is a wyvern.

Wyverns have two legs, Smaug obviously has four.

Edit: Actually, I went back and watched the scene again, you're right. His forward claws extend from his wings: he is a wyvern. Good catch.

#35 Edited by uninspiredcup (6834 posts) -

@KHAndAnime said:

Call me crazy but I think they'd really have to up their game to make this series work. With fantasies like Game of Thrones out, LoTR feels dated and cheesy. I haven't seen The Hobbit 1 or 2, but they appear cheesy and dated. It's like one big giant CGI fest, except the CGI isn't extremely good, nor is anything else.

Also, I don't like to support Hollywood's butchering of literature. Butchered literature = me not attending.

I don't understand your argument here. The Hobbit is a children book, for children. Not Game of Thrones.

Agree about the CGI though. Not so much in it looking shit but that it's poorly executed and story wise, not interesting. I just blank out at shit like the Goblin king and the overlong dragon chase. Even compared to LOTR which is pretty old now. The CGI (for example) in this scene isn't actually all the great but the way it's shot and the dialogue make it seems more than PS2 monsters.

Saying that though, Akira Kurasawa movies generally shit on it. The scale is actually real scale. One shot in which a castle is burnt down in "Ran" is done in 1 take with no miniature or CGI tricks. CGI has became something a of lazy mans tool. Mr Jackson is definitely guilty of it.

#36 Posted by Boddicker (2272 posts) -

*raises hand*

I love fantasy, just not Tolkien's version of it. Of course it's almost inescapable to get away from Tolkien influenced medieval fantasy if you want your book/movie/RPG to do well. He's just that influential.

I really like the universe of Robert E Howard's Conan and George RR Martin's Song of Ice and Fire. I'm probably going to die before Martin finishes his books.

Am I the only one that feels they should have waited till he had only one more book to write till beginning the TV series?

#37 Posted by coasterguy65 (5723 posts) -

I don't like them as much as the LoTR movies. Way too much filler. The whole Hobbit book could have been done in one movie. Two at the most. Stretching it out to three has just diluted the interesting bits down so much. I've only watched each movie once, and don't expect to watch them again any time soon.

#38 Posted by Qixote (10645 posts) -

The first two films have been hugely enjoyable and fun to watch. Although I will admit my opinion has changed on The Hobbit being divided into three movies. A couple years ago I was excited and thought it was a good idea. But as entertaining as the movies are, they definitely are somewhat lacking the special appeal that the LotR had. The story of the Hobbit does seem to be stretched out a bit too much. Obviously Jackson wanted to repeat his Tolkien trilogy success on the big screen. But The Hobbit simply cannot do it.

#39 Posted by sukraj (21604 posts) -

I don't like them.

#40 Posted by Bardock47 (5146 posts) -

I honestly love them as much as the original LotR. I'm a huge middle-earth nut so returning to it in theaters is alot of fun. I will admit that Unexpected Journey is the weakest of them all so fat; but I would argue that Desolation of Smaug could hold its own with the original three, I liked it better then two towers.

(I just need to geek out, but seeing Smaug so masterfully done was a dream of mine since i 12, if not younger)

#41 Edited by Cloud_imperium (1780 posts) -


I loved both movies . I loved LOTR even more but love Hobbit too . Visuals and art reminds me of Witcher 2 & 3 .

#42 Posted by Senor_Kami (8257 posts) -

They're fine to me. Not great, but they're entertaining enough. I get the feeling they will be like LoTR. First movie has like 30-45 minutes of snorefest at the beginning, the second one is entertaining all the way through, and the third one will have 30-45 minutes of post-climax snorefest at the very end.

#43 Edited by Maddie_Larkin (6179 posts) -

Mmh, I do not dislike them no, but the first hobbit movie is one I consider average. the second I liked alot.

#44 Posted by SythusHD (38 posts) -

The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey was a great film, sure it had problems, but still a great fantasy film, The Hobbit - Desolation of Smaug improved everything and got rid of the problems in the first film, much improved and i can't wait for There & Back Again, also hopefully after Jackson is done with the Hobbit trilogy, i hope he makes the Silmarillion movies, there's a lot of content that can be made into tons of movies in the Silmarillion.

#45 Edited by GreySeal9 (23927 posts) -

The milkage of his franchise is just insane. It's ridiculous to make three movies out of a simple and moderate-sized novel. Will not watch.