[Closed] The Hobbit (warning: Hobbit content).

Nope, watched LTLOTR i don't know how many times when it was released. One sitting of the first hobbit tosh was all I could take. Not watched the follow up hobbity showings. I'll tune in when on TV but I'll not go out of my way to watch it. Shame, should have been a single film.

Am I alone?

For Christmas? I wouldnt be surprised, you need to work on your inter personal skills

I'm intrigued to find out exactly how much of it was in the book. About 5 minutes I reckon. Square go, arkenstone, dragon, the end. Definitive moment of the entire Hobbit/LOTR series so far was creating a sideplot to introduce a love interest for a character that wasn't even in the bastarding Hobbit and didn't add anything to the film other than an opportunity to say "Hey, it's that guy, from that other film that was just like this"

Don't get me wrong, I will watch it and I will enjoy it but I'll still rip the piss.

Seeing as I always thought the book was toss compared to LOTR it's passed me by completely. The films of LOTR aren't something I'll be returning to either and will mostly be watching black & white classics over Chrimbo with maybe a bit of Star Wars (older ones) and ROTLA on the side.

Why are so many new films/sequels so, so bad?

Well, I've enjoyed them, so there.

Watched the first one in Wowthatlooksweirdovision™ HFR at the cinema, and the second at home.

Dunno if I'll go to the cinema for the third, I suppose I should make a tolkien effort to go and see it even if it's just due to force of hobbit.

To hfr or not to hfr that is the question

Wait til they try and make sense of the simarillion.

To hfr or not to hfr that is the question

In honesty, for all that I'm a fan of technical [s]gimmicks[/s] wizardry(*) like 3D, Imax, THX (The Audience Is Deaf) and all that, I didn't get on with HFR. Perhaps it's something I'd get used to but it didn't quite "do it" for me.

(* - ho ho!!)

I wonder idly whether there's a TV series to be had in The Silmarillion? Kinda like the Agents of SHIELD spin-off only in the Tolkienverse.

Liked the first one and liked the second more so looking forward to the third.

I enjoyed the second one so went to the Cinema for the third. Disappointing. It is just one big CGI battle and as the film drags on (and it does drag) the CGI becomes gradually worse.

They either ran out of budget, time or patience. Some of the set pieces are laughable in terms of CGI, reminded me of the very first Sam Raimi Spiderman films.

If the first two were stretched this one was pretty much beyond breaking point. It's dull sadly. The threat and anticipation of the Orcs at the start was good but that's about it

It's got a giant fire-breathing lizard in it, of course it's going to drag on.

I think it's dwarfed by the other trilogy.

IS this you OP?

BTW I have enjoyed all of them ,very much.
For me,nothing is going to beat them as collective.
Star Wars doesn't even come close.

I think it's dwarfed by the other trilogy.

Stop trolling you dorc, otherwise a ban may be bad for your 'elf.

Well, that makes a wizard change from the usual emails...

[i]Merry[/i] Christmas.

Exactly. I could well be getting legolas.

Seeing as I always thought the book was toss compared to LOTR

You're aware it's a childrens book and LOTR wasn't (specifically)?

I liked what PJ did to LOTR on film, but think he has overcooked it on the Hobbit. Still been to see them all and enjoyed them though. I think the Dol Guldur / Sauron subplot bits actually work in terms of providing a wider context, but the issue is the film being made & released AFTER LOTR.. it's a bit pointless now.

Pre booked the wine & cheese board at the cinema to watch it on Sunday

and realised that Jackson was just cashing in by stretching a tiny kid's book beyond breaking point into a dull yawn-fest.

FWIW I much prefer The Hobbit (book) over LOTR as the former is light and fun nonsense and the latter is nonsense that takes itself [i]way[/i] too seriously.

Also I thought all the films were crap as IMO PJ totally failed to capture the spirit of the books. They did spawn some cool Lego sets though so not all bad news.

Much like the above I loved the LOTR series and watched them many times. The first Hobbit movie nearly sent me to sleep and I've not bothered with the rest. God forbid he adapts The Silmarillion

Cougar - Moderator
I wonder idly whether there's a TV series to be had in The Silmarillion? Kinda like the Agents of SHIELD spin-off only in the Tolkienverse.

If there was a TV series of the Silmarillion I would [b]definitely[/b] watch it.
If only in the hope that someone else might be able to make some bloody sense of it for me! Every time I have a go at reading it again I end up just giving up. Love Hobbit and Lord of the Rings but me and Silly just don't seem to get on... maybe some sort of counselling might help us...

I'll probably see it at the cinema, the last one was better than the first.
The 'obbit ones aren't a patch on the original LOTR ones though.

I'm not really sure what the other stuff going on apart from getting rid of Smaug is, the Gandalf story line seems totally unrelated. Too many dwarves to remember anything about them. Whatisname the Brown is far too twee.
But probably the worst thing is all the CG. The main bad guy orc is totally unconvincing, and even the landscape doesn't look real.
The bits in the mines in the first ones looked otherworldy and forbidding, the dwarf city in the Hobbit just looks like 'meh' special effects.

Nothing, but nothing, quite beats the disappointment of the musical washing up scene of the first one.

LOTR was simply excellent. A decent amount of plot in three long films - but the Hobbit? 3 hours a piece? For 3 films?

IMO Jackson needs a decent quality control department on his output. His good is very good, but, er, Lovely Bones, King Kong, the Hobbits...

I would say "I told you so" but I don't want to seem smaug.

Looking forward to the last one, going with the kids next week. Somehow I'd missed the fact that it was a three parter not two and waited all the way through the last one waiting for the big fight.

Just sat through 3 hours of 'Wicked' so not sure I can bring myself to sitting through three (more) hours of the Hobbit. I'm also very, very tired of endless CGI, too much of a good thing I guess.

The very festive Bourne trilogy for me this year!

Went and seen it the other day. Whilst I enjoyed it I felt it was a totally unnecessary film. PJ cut off the Smaug story short at the end of the last one only to finish it in the first 10-15 mins of this one. Way to much CGI for the big battle and Billy Connelly looked CGI'd in with just his voice being the real bit.

The original LOTR trilogy was mile better IMO and PJ has used the Hobbit films to line his pockets much like a certain Mr Lucas with the three crap Star Wars prequels.

I was quite glad to discover that after being less than impressed by the first Hobbit film my geeky/obsessive compulsive side did not kick in and so I was able to not see the second one. I will continue to be happy that I do not need to see the third one either.

I know that "show, don't tell" is an important mantra for any visual storytelling medium, but it should be suggested to Peter Jackson that he doesn't need to show everything and spend quite so much time showing things that could be shown in far less time with no ill effects.

Well, my daughter and I enjoyed it, although it would have been nice to know who finally got to be 'King Under The Mountain'. The whole Bard thing was left hanging a bit as well, and what about Legolas - did he finally get the girl once his stumpy rival had bitten the dust or what? I'm beginning to suspect that PJ just can't do endings... Oh, and what about Billy? Did he succumb to a sub-dural haematoma after all those Glasgae kisses? Looking forward to The Silmarillion adaptation in 306 four hour films...

Any wizards sleeves?

I was bored of the rings after the second Lotr film.

I have the LOTR trilogy directors cut and enjoy them a fair bit. With the Hobbit I await the reverse directors cut...you know where three mediocre films are cut into one half decent one.
The final straw for me was "the desolation of Smaug" where the film halts just before the bit that the title indicates as the main event.
Blatant stretching out to multiple films has no place.
Will watch on Netflix next year.

Liked LOTR. Hobbit was gash for me. Switched off the first one half way through on DVD, watched a bit of the second on a plane and was even worse and have zero interested in seeing the third. Loved the book, but said when it was first announced as a trilogy it was a bad idea as it's a short book. But hey, they've made the cash.

Personally, I'm sick to death of way too much CGI, super hero, bad arrives, bad guy wins, good guys then win back then high fives all round. Pish. Unless it's Team America.

Been watching so many more films with stories, good acting, as little CGI as needed or that isn't needlessly splattered all over the screen just for the sake of it. Use it, but not for the sake of willy waving.

I also turned 44 this year...

Lord of the rings was meh for me. I didn't mind the first hobbit. The second however, good grief it was painful.

Bilbo Bobbins!

I quite enjoyed the last one, although it is pretty much just three hours of CGI, but it was good brain numbing fodder. I hated the first Hobit film, I thought that really dragged.

Still love the LOTR films though. I though Jackson did so good job on them (although he'll never too Bad Taste(.

I watched the 1st Hobbit last night on Spanish tv & really enjoyed it. Don't know why, but maybe because I had to concentrate to get the dialogue. 1st time I saw it in English, I fell asleep. Also, on Spanish tv you get 7 mins of adverts every 40 mins or so, so no time to get bored & plenty of time to refill your glass, go to the loo etc. They call him Bilbo Bolsón.…
Don't think I'll be making any special arrangements to fly back out here & watch the other 2 though.