The Hobbit was a major dissapointment

I don't get why everyone needs action to be satisfied. And there was plenty of action, that was enjoyable. It had more original, thoughtful scenes, especially the one with Gollum and Bilbo having the battle of riddles.

And the pace was not that slow. A ton of things happened in this movie. People need to learn some patience, sit back and enjoy things.

VendettaRed07

Dude it's hip to have ADHD now get with the times, duh.

My only gripe with the film was that the scenes with the necromancer story were too long winded and didn't lead anywhere in the film.

I understand it will develop more in the sequels, but it was disjointed and out of place from everything else that was happening. (and kinda boring)

Radagast, the council in Rivendale, the necomancer, all of that should have been cut and saved for part 2.

[QUOTE="brucewayne69"][QUOTE="Justinps2hero"]I'm reading the book at the moment, nearly finished it now, but I can't work out how on earth they can stretch three long loooonnnngggg films from it. Can I ask where it ends (spoiler alert), at a guess in the woods, at Boerns place, or is it after the Goblin Mountain? Maybe on 2nds thoughts they just leave the Shire at the end of the film & set out on a unexpected journey. Looking forward to seeing it, but can tell its a bit of a rip off already.Justinps2hero

My only gripe with the film was that the scenes with the necromancer story were too long winded and didn't lead anywhere in the film.

I understand it will develop more in the sequels, but it was disjointed and out of place from everything else that was happening. (and kinda boring)

Radagast, the council in Rivendale, the necomancer, all of that should have been cut and saved for part 2.

Blue-Sky

Radagast in Dol Guldur was my favourite scene. I saw the movie after being awake for two days and when the Necromancer showed up...

I know a lot of Lord of the Ring fans were a little disappointed because the Hobbit, while being a LOTR prequel, wasn't really a LOTR style movie. As a LOTR fan myself, I liked the movie. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. It's nice to finally get some more back story on the LOTR, as I'm too lazy to read all those 900 page books lol. Though, I thought the story could have been more LOTR style. What I mean is, the whole magical dragon wanting gold for the lulz was just too magicy for a LOTR movie (and yes I know the Hobbit came first, book wise).SergeantGuy

[QUOTE="SergeantGuy"]I know a lot of Lord of the Ring fans were a little disappointed because the Hobbit, while being a LOTR prequel, wasn't really a LOTR style movie. As a LOTR fan myself, I liked the movie. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. It's nice to finally get some more back story on the LOTR, as I'm too lazy to read all those 900 page books lol. Though, I thought the story could have been more LOTR style. What I mean is, the whole magical dragon wanting gold for the lulz was just too magicy for a LOTR movie (and yes I know the Hobbit came first, book wise).worlock77

[QUOTE="SergeantGuy"]I know a lot of Lord of the Ring fans were a little disappointed because the Hobbit, while being a LOTR prequel, wasn't really a LOTR style movie. As a LOTR fan myself, I liked the movie. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. It's nice to finally get some more back story on the LOTR, as I'm too lazy to read all those 900 page books lol. Though, I thought the story could have been more LOTR style. What I mean is, the whole magical dragon wanting gold for the lulz was just too magicy for a LOTR movie (and yes I know the Hobbit came first, book wise).worlock77

[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="SergeantGuy"]I know a lot of Lord of the Ring fans were a little disappointed because the Hobbit, while being a LOTR prequel, wasn't really a LOTR style movie. As a LOTR fan myself, I liked the movie. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. It's nice to finally get some more back story on the LOTR, as I'm too lazy to read all those 900 page books lol. Though, I thought the story could have been more LOTR style. What I mean is, the whole magical dragon wanting gold for the lulz was just too magicy for a LOTR movie (and yes I know the Hobbit came first, book wise).SergeantGuy

Sometime after Christopher Tolkien dies and someone snatches the rights to The Silmarillion, we'll see this on the big screen:

Yes, those are mountains and that's a flying ship. And Smaug-tier dragons flying around.

[QUOTE="SergeantGuy"][QUOTE="worlock77"] You think they should have changed the entire point of the story's plot? Without the dragon there is no quest there, thus Bilbo never leaves the Shire (consequently this would f*ck the story of 'the Lord of the Rings' as well).Baranga

Sometime after Christopher Tolkien dies and someone snatches the rights to The Silmarillion, we'll see this on the big screen:

Yes, those are mountains and that's a flying ship. And Smaug-tier dragons flying around.

[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="SergeantGuy"]I know a lot of Lord of the Ring fans were a little disappointed because the Hobbit, while being a LOTR prequel, wasn't really a LOTR style movie. As a LOTR fan myself, I liked the movie. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. It's nice to finally get some more back story on the LOTR, as I'm too lazy to read all those 900 page books lol. Though, I thought the story could have been more LOTR style. What I mean is, the whole magical dragon wanting gold for the lulz was just too magicy for a LOTR movie (and yes I know the Hobbit came first, book wise).SergeantGuy

I was certainly underwhelmed by it. Not quite Phantom Menace levels of disappointment, but it could have been a lot better.

The book was a very light hearted adventure. The movie had none of that. It tried to make it into more of a LOTR serious business story.

The book was a very light hearted adventure. The movie had none of that. It tried to make it into more of a LOTR serious business story.

sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

The book was a very light hearted adventure. The movie had none of that. It tried to make it into more of a LOTR serious business story.

Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

The book was a very light hearted adventure. The movie had none of that. It tried to make it into more of a LOTR serious business story.

jim_shorts

Was planning to watch The Hobbit : an Unexpected Journey from December 2012, today managed to watch it in 3D finally. omg, it was sooo boring lol. Visuals, camera work were great maybe its best 3D movie i seen yet , but pace of the movie was very slow. plus not enough action. Not even close to any LOTR trilogy epicness.

Maybe Peter Jackson has great plans for the upcoming Trilogy but The Hobbit : An Unexpected Journey dissapointed me highly. Maybe Gangster Squad will live upto its hype.

Who else got dissapointed with The Hobbit?

indzman

I thought it was brilliant. Some parts were off, but otherwise the best film last year.

[QUOTE="SergeantGuy"][QUOTE="worlock77"] You think they should have changed the entire point of the story's plot? Without the dragon there is no quest there, thus Bilbo never leaves the Shire (consequently this would f*ck the story of 'the Lord of the Rings' as well).Baranga

Sometime after Christopher Tolkien dies and someone snatches the rights to The Silmarillion, we'll see this on the big screen:

Yes, those are mountains and that's a flying ship. And Smaug-tier dragons flying around.

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

[QUOTE="SergeantGuy"] I realize that, but what I was trying to say is to have something other than the magical dragon attack the dwarfs kingdom. I know it's harder to do because of the book put it in stone and all, but they could have easily tweeked the tone just a bit. For example, make the dragon more demonic like some of the beasts that the eye of Sauron (don't know how to spell that, sorry) used in the trilogy. Stuff like that.-Tish-

Sometime after Christopher Tolkien dies and someone snatches the rights to The Silmarillion, we'll see this on the big screen:

Yes, those are mountains and that's a flying ship. And Smaug-tier dragons flying around.

[QUOTE="-Tish-"][QUOTE="Baranga"]

Sometime after Christopher Tolkien dies and someone snatches the rights to The Silmarillion, we'll see this on the big screen:

Yes, those are mountains and that's a flying ship. And Smaug-tier dragons flying around.

Laihendi

[QUOTE="indzman"]

Was planning to watch The Hobbit : an Unexpected Journey from December 2012, today managed to watch it in 3D finally. omg, it was sooo boring lol. Visuals, camera work were great maybe its best 3D movie i seen yet , but pace of the movie was very slow. plus not enough action. Not even close to any LOTR trilogy epicness.

Maybe Peter Jackson has great plans for the upcoming Trilogy but The Hobbit : An Unexpected Journey dissapointed me highly. Maybe Gangster Squad will live upto its hype.

Who else got dissapointed with The Hobbit?

Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="-Tish-"]I feel like the Silmarillion would be ten times more epic than LotR. The Music of Ainur and the disharmony of Melkor, if done properly, would be a total nerdgasm. Ungoliant, the Balrogs, the theft of the Silmarils... that would be absolute cinema gold. Again, if done properly. brucewayne69

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="indzman"]

Was planning to watch The Hobbit : an Unexpected Journey from December 2012, today managed to watch it in 3D finally. omg, it was sooo boring lol. Visuals, camera work were great maybe its best 3D movie i seen yet , but pace of the movie was very slow. plus not enough action. Not even close to any LOTR trilogy epicness.

Maybe Peter Jackson has great plans for the upcoming Trilogy but The Hobbit : An Unexpected Journey dissapointed me highly. Maybe Gangster Squad will live upto its hype.

Who else got dissapointed with The Hobbit?

brucewayne69

I was saying much of the action in An Unexpected Journey was boring because it added nothing to the plot. I was not talking about LOTR.Laihendi

Art is not supposed to be efficient.

Here's something that bugs me. I want movies to be more than just a support for another art form. A movie can be all about images and movement. Action and photography. That is the essence of this art from. I actually find it sad that some people care only about meaning and want moving pictures to be nothing but a vessel for story. Why do they insist on using movies as a support for another art form? I appreciate movies as a visceral experience more than as an intellectual experience.

As far as I'm concerned Peter Jackson can make each movie 10 hours long and full of landscape shots and action scenes pulled out of his ass. In glorious HFR.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I was saying much of the action in An Unexpected Journey was boring because it added nothing to the plot. I was not talking about LOTR.Baranga

Art is not supposed to be efficient.

Here's something that bugs me. I want movies to be more than just a support for another art form. A movie can be all about images and movement. Action and photography. That is the essence of this art from. I actually find it sad that some people care only about meaning and want moving pictures to be nothing but a vessel for story. Why do they insist on using movies as a support for another art form? I appreciate movies as a visceral experience more than as an intellectual experience.

As far as I'm concerned Peter Jackson can make each movie 10 hours long and full of landscape shots and action scenes pulled out of his ass. In glorious HFR.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I was saying much of the action in An Unexpected Journey was boring because it added nothing to the plot. I was not talking about LOTR.Baranga

Art is not supposed to be efficient.

Here's something that bugs me. I want movies to be more than just a support for another art form. A movie can be all about images and movement. Action and photography. That is the essence of this art from. I actually find it sad that some people care only about meaning and want moving pictures to be nothing but a vessel for story. Why do they insist on using movies as a support for another art form? I appreciate movies as a visceral experience more than as an intellectual experience.

As far as I'm concerned Peter Jackson can make each movie 10 hours long and full of landscape shots and action scenes pulled out of his ass. In glorious HFR.

Storytelling is an art. Pointless action scenes that detract from the story are not art. Those are nothing more than an effort to pander to action-craving masses for the sake of increased commercial success. Laihendi

They are visual art.

Largely unrelated but mentioning the music reminded me of an issue I had with it. [spoiler] When Thorin goes to fight Azog the Ring Wraith theme from LoTR starts playing. I mean yeah it's epic but given how the series usually makes excellent, excellent use of musical themes it felt really out of place to me. If this is going to be a rivalry we're going to be seeing in multiple films it should have it's own theme rather than borrowing a theme. Again it wouldn't bother me if the rest of the musical themes weren't expertly used [/spoiler] Ace6301

It was confirmed that there is a reason for using that cue in that moment.

I'm sure [spoiler] there's a connection between the supposed-to-be-dead Azog and the Necromancer. [/spoiler]

I read The Hobbit years ago so I knew it wasn't going to be as epic as the Lord of the Rings trilogy. That being said I felt it was still a good movie and I can't wait until the next one.

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I was saying much of the action in An Unexpected Journey was boring because it added nothing to the plot. I was not talking about LOTR.Laihendi

Art is not supposed to be efficient.

Here's something that bugs me. I want movies to be more than just a support for another art form. A movie can be all about images and movement. Action and photography. That is the essence of this art from. I actually find it sad that some people care only about meaning and want moving pictures to be nothing but a vessel for story. Why do they insist on using movies as a support for another art form? I appreciate movies as a visceral experience more than as an intellectual experience.

As far as I'm concerned Peter Jackson can make each movie 10 hours long and full of landscape shots and action scenes pulled out of his ass. In glorious HFR.

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I was saying much of the action in An Unexpected Journey was boring because it added nothing to the plot. I was not talking about LOTR.Laihendi

Art is not supposed to be efficient.

Here's something that bugs me. I want movies to be more than just a support for another art form. A movie can be all about images and movement. Action and photography. That is the essence of this art from. I actually find it sad that some people care only about meaning and want moving pictures to be nothing but a vessel for story. Why do they insist on using movies as a support for another art form? I appreciate movies as a visceral experience more than as an intellectual experience.

As far as I'm concerned Peter Jackson can make each movie 10 hours long and full of landscape shots and action scenes pulled out of his ass. In glorious HFR.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Baranga"]

Art is not supposed to be efficient.

Here's something that bugs me. I want movies to be more than just a support for another art form. A movie can be all about images and movement. Action and photography. That is the essence of this art from. I actually find it sad that some people care only about meaning and want moving pictures to be nothing but a vessel for story. Why do they insist on using movies as a support for another art form? I appreciate movies as a visceral experience more than as an intellectual experience.

As far as I'm concerned Peter Jackson can make each movie 10 hours long and full of landscape shots and action scenes pulled out of his ass. In glorious HFR.

chrisrooR

Eh I didn't have expections of this being up there LOTR Trilogy considering how more simple and light hearted the the Hobbit was, through I still iffy about it being its own trilogy.

[QUOTE="indzman"]

Was planning to watch The Hobbit : an Unexpected Journey from December 2012, today managed to watch it in 3D finally. omg, it was sooo boring lol. Visuals, camera work were great maybe its best 3D movie i seen yet , but pace of the movie was very slow. plus not enough action. Not even close to any LOTR trilogy epicness.

Maybe Peter Jackson has great plans for the upcoming Trilogy but The Hobbit : An Unexpected Journey dissapointed me highly. Maybe Gangster Squad will live upto its hype.

Who else got dissapointed with The Hobbit?

Laihendi

It would have been vastly better had they just stuck to the plot of The Hobbit.
The 'stuff from the appendices'/LotR-reference sections did not fit the film in any way - they killed the pacing, screwed with the tone, and heavily detracted from Bilbo's story. Which is a shame, since the bits featuring Bilbo or the dwarves were actually quite entertaining.

Also, I strongly disliked how the film had about six intros.
Peter Jackson clearly couldn't decide whether to start with a historical battle, a flashback, a flashforward, a link to Lord of the Rings, or the actual start of the book...so he just went with 'all of the above'. It was sloppy as hell, and made the film simply drag on (ha!) and on for the first half-hour.

Anyway, I got to the end of it thinking that they could have easily cut the worst hour out of the film without losing anything from the central story, then slapped an hour on the end, finishing the entire book in one film.

*edit* Come to think of it, I probably enjoyed the film more than I did the LotR films. But the bits that tried to remind me of the LotR films were by far the worst bits.

I haven' seen it yet.

I think the film is suffering from Fanboys claiming it to be a masterpiece which it isnt, and people trying to put it down more so that what it is. I think the film was OK. It had pacing issues, the start was to slow, the middle was fine but it was so long winded at the end, everyone in the cinema was releaved that it was over.

The effects were great but the opening part (I watched it in 2D) was very fuzzy and blurry picture wise. I am assuming that to make it look awesome in 3D the 2D counterpart has to suffer with imense blurring.

So yeah, in my opinion is was a good film but not great. A bit like the Dark Knight Rises, its still a good film, but there are parts of it that you wish were not there. I can't see this being a better series than LOTR, for me the main group of dwarfs lack the contrasting nature and humour of the original 3.