What are you watching right now?

[Razor Knuckles]

My computer screen

[The Metamorphosing Leon]

Saw The Hobbit, it was disappointing. They messed with the novel too much.

Do you feel like there's actually enough content in the book to warrant a trilogy? Always found that odd. It has cash cow written all over it, imo.
The Lord of the Rings also was a movie trilogy - atleast that made sense since there are actually three books. But The Hobbit is only a 300 page book. How you're going to turn that into three movies while keeping a decent pace seems a mystery to me.

There totally isn't. In the case of this movie they could have cut out an hour of superfluous junk. There's pointless action scenes, extended just...walking/running/flying scenes that go on way too long. Also, they added all this lore that wasn't in the book in order to tie this story to LoTR that I'm certain no one would miss. They also added this stupid villain character that eats up time and is completely unnecessary. If they had left that hour out and made it an hour longer it could easily be one movie.

It has its moments, but it's more disappointing than good.

[Techie413]

Trying to give the US version of The Office another try.  Compared to the original BBC release, it's kind of terrible so far.

[techwizard]

Saw The Hobbit, it was disappointing. They messed with the novel too much.

Do you feel like there's actually enough content in the book to warrant a trilogy? Always found that odd. It has cash cow written all over it, imo.
The Lord of the Rings also was a movie trilogy - atleast that made sense since there are actually three books. But The Hobbit is only a 300 page book. How you're going to turn that into three movies while keeping a decent pace seems a mystery to me.

There totally isn't. In the case of this movie they could have cut out an hour of superfluous junk. There's pointless action scenes, extended just...walking/running/flying scenes that go on way too long. Also, they added all this lore that wasn't in the book in order to tie this story to LoTR that I'm certain no one would miss. They also added this stupid villain character that eats up time and is completely unnecessary. If they had left that hour out and made it an hour longer it could easily be one movie.

It has its moments, but it's more disappointing than good.

this post has spoilers for those who care

i just got home from watching it and i have to strongly disagree, as a hardcore fan of the book i was (mostly) impressed. yes it wasn't exactly how The Hobbit book itself went, but a lot of the extra lore you mention was true to the canon. throughout the entire production it was clearly stated that they have the rights to use material from the appendices of the Lord of the Rings, and that it would be used extensively. i could easily run through the movie scene by scene and explain all the things they did right and wrong, but i'll stick to a few key pros and cons that i noticed and can remember.

first, there was only one action scene that was entirely wrong, and that was the first battle of the 13 dwarves with bilbo and gandalf vs the orcs on wargs, when the elves showed up. that was no where in the canon material and the small orc party following them throughout the movie was wrong as well, i agree on that part. every other fight was fairly accurate to the books, just with some flourishes and embellishments. there were many battles in the book where they happened very quickly and didn't focus on the actual fighting, as it was a book meant for children and not about action. but tolkien had actually come back to revise the story during the 60s and bring it more in line with LotR (see "The History of the Hobbit" by John Rateliff). he wanted to fix some inconsistencies and write it in the more adult style of LotR (no all knowing narrator, for example). so the fact that the movies expanded on the action and seemed to focus on them was solely because they were trying to tie it more closely with LotR than the original book is, which is a good thing. another reason is that the first movie follows only the first 100 pages or so of the hobbit, with some backstory from the LotR appendices. there were only so many major events to focus on in the Hobbit itself.

next counterpoint to what you said, the walking/running/flying scenes. these were necessary to show that it was an actual journey, and there were major distances involved. Hobbiton to Rivendell is over 450 miles in distance. they then climbed over some of the tallest mountains in the world, and spent 3 days navigating the goblin caverns. all of this takes a lot of time, and in this as in LotR, the journey itself is part of the story. the places they see, the daily struggle just to survive and make it to their final goal. it wouldn't nearly convey that clearly enough if they just cut from them leaving one place to them arriving at another. another point in favour of the travelling is that in the books as in the movies, the world itself is almost a character in and of itself. each region has a distinct feeling and atmosphere, as well as the places in between. seeing the landscapes is a fairly big part of the experience. i will agree that the flying part when on a bit longer than necessary though, i imagined the Eagle's Eyries to be much closer to the place of battle.

the villian character, Azog, was actually canon. but you're right, he shouldn't have been in this movie. during the battle in the prologue at the beginning of the movie, he should have died there. a quote from the Tolkien Gateway (i would quote the books but i don't feel like sifting through pages for a specific quote like this ) "As Azog gloated over his duel, however, he came to the realization, looking out into the valley which the east gate overlooks, that his entire force was routed. Those that could were fleeing southwards, and all his guards were killed as well. With that he fled back to the gate. Náin's son, Dáin, leaped up the steps after him with his red axe and just before the gate he decapitated the Orc chieftain, thus ending the battle." this also shows that it was Nain, not Thorin, who ended the battle.

i definitely agree some things were wrong, but overall they kept it fairly canon with some expanded parts, especially with radagast and the white council, neither of which have much canon to work with. although they weren't in the book, they should definitely be there. if you read the books, you'll remember the Necromancer was brought up a few times. the white council did meet around that time to debate what to do about him, and there should also be a point (i hope they show this in the 2nd or 3rd movie) where gandalf convinces them that the Necromancer is Sauron (which is true), and that they need to attack. Saruman agrees reluctantly, as at this point he's already started searching for the One Ring for himself and studying the other rings of power, and doesn't want focus brought to the area where the ring was lost (Dol Guldur isn't far from the river Anduin which is where the Disaster of the Gladden Fields took place when Isildur was killed and the ring lost). this all happens around the time of the hobbit if i remember correctly, or at least near enough to it that it would be perfectly alright with me to show that battle while the main Hobbit story is going on.

TLDR - you're right on some points, partially right on some, and personally i would say your overall opinion of the movie's flaws is misguided. i would agree with you if i thought The Hobbit movies should be word for word identical to the book. but Tolkien wrote of and hinted at so much going on in the background of his stories that were just as essential to the plot, even if they weren't in the spotlight, that i think adding them in does nothing but improve on the movies, even if it wouldn't work as well in the books. they are a different medium after all.

and yes, i am a fanboy, but i think my points are still valid

[Deafens Proner]

I'm watching Rocky III.

[ixtaileddemonfox]

Desert Punk

[NES_Rules]

Watched two episodes of Amish Mafia today, I was really looking forward to it, but its just awful. It makes Moonshiners and Gold Rush look like awesome shows. I just wish Discovery and History would quit with the "you do something different than 95% of Americans, so we'll give you a "reality" TV show" format.

[The Metamorphosing Leon]

Saw The Hobbit, it was disappointing. They messed with the novel too much.

Do you feel like there's actually enough content in the book to warrant a trilogy? Always found that odd. It has cash cow written all over it, imo.
The Lord of the Rings also was a movie trilogy - atleast that made sense since there are actually three books. But The Hobbit is only a 300 page book. How you're going to turn that into three movies while keeping a decent pace seems a mystery to me.

There totally isn't. In the case of this movie they could have cut out an hour of superfluous junk. There's pointless action scenes, extended just...walking/running/flying scenes that go on way too long. Also, they added all this lore that wasn't in the book in order to tie this story to LoTR that I'm certain no one would miss. They also added this stupid villain character that eats up time and is completely unnecessary. If they had left that hour out and made it an hour longer it could easily be one movie.

It has its moments, but it's more disappointing than good.

this post has spoilers for those who care

i just got home from watching it and i have to strongly disagree, as a hardcore fan of the book i was (mostly) impressed. yes it wasn't exactly how The Hobbit book itself went, but a lot of the extra lore you mention was true to the canon. throughout the entire production it was clearly stated that they have the rights to use material from the appendices of the Lord of the Rings, and that it would be used extensively. i could easily run through the movie scene by scene and explain all the things they did right and wrong, but i'll stick to a few key pros and cons that i noticed and can remember.

first, there was only one action scene that was entirely wrong, and that was the first battle of the 13 dwarves with bilbo and gandalf vs the orcs on wargs, when the elves showed up. that was no where in the canon material and the small orc party following them throughout the movie was wrong as well, i agree on that part. every other fight was fairly accurate to the books, just with some flourishes and embellishments. there were many battles in the book where they happened very quickly and didn't focus on the actual fighting, as it was a book meant for children and not about action. but tolkien had actually come back to revise the story during the 60s and bring it more in line with LotR (see "The History of the Hobbit" by John Rateliff). he wanted to fix some inconsistencies and write it in the more adult style of LotR (no all knowing narrator, for example). so the fact that the movies expanded on the action and seemed to focus on them was solely because they were trying to tie it more closely with LotR than the original book is, which is a good thing. another reason is that the first movie follows only the first 100 pages or so of the hobbit, with some backstory from the LotR appendices. there were only so many major events to focus on in the Hobbit itself.

next counterpoint to what you said, the walking/running/flying scenes. these were necessary to show that it was an actual journey, and there were major distances involved. Hobbiton to Rivendell is over 450 miles in distance. they then climbed over some of the tallest mountains in the world, and spent 3 days navigating the goblin caverns. all of this takes a lot of time, and in this as in LotR, the journey itself is part of the story. the places they see, the daily struggle just to survive and make it to their final goal. it wouldn't nearly convey that clearly enough if they just cut from them leaving one place to them arriving at another. another point in favour of the travelling is that in the books as in the movies, the world itself is almost a character in and of itself. each region has a distinct feeling and atmosphere, as well as the places in between. seeing the landscapes is a fairly big part of the experience. i will agree that the flying part when on a bit longer than necessary though, i imagined the Eagle's Eyries to be much closer to the place of battle.

the villian character, Azog, was actually canon. but you're right, he shouldn't have been in this movie. during the battle in the prologue at the beginning of the movie, he should have died there. a quote from the Tolkien Gateway (i would quote the books but i don't feel like sifting through pages for a specific quote like this ) "As Azog gloated over his duel, however, he came to the realization, looking out into the valley which the east gate overlooks, that his entire force was routed. Those that could were fleeing southwards, and all his guards were killed as well. With that he fled back to the gate. Náin's son, Dáin, leaped up the steps after him with his red axe and just before the gate he decapitated the Orc chieftain, thus ending the battle." this also shows that it was Nain, not Thorin, who ended the battle.

i definitely agree some things were wrong, but overall they kept it fairly canon with some expanded parts, especially with radagast and the white council, neither of which have much canon to work with. although they weren't in the book, they should definitely be there. if you read the books, you'll remember the Necromancer was brought up a few times. the white council did meet around that time to debate what to do about him, and there should also be a point (i hope they show this in the 2nd or 3rd movie) where gandalf convinces them that the Necromancer is Sauron (which is true), and that they need to attack. Saruman agrees reluctantly, as at this point he's already started searching for the One Ring for himself and studying the other rings of power, and doesn't want focus brought to the area where the ring was lost (Dol Guldur isn't far from the river Anduin which is where the Disaster of the Gladden Fields took place when Isildur was killed and the ring lost). this all happens around the time of the hobbit if i remember correctly, or at least near enough to it that it would be perfectly alright with me to show that battle while the main Hobbit story is going on.

TLDR - you're right on some points, partially right on some, and personally i would say your overall opinion of the movie's flaws is misguided. i would agree with you if i thought The Hobbit movies should be word for word identical to the book. but Tolkien wrote of and hinted at so much going on in the background of his stories that were just as essential to the plot, even if they weren't in the spotlight, that i think adding them in does nothing but improve on the movies, even if it wouldn't work as well in the books. they are a different medium after all.

and yes, i am a fanboy, but i think my points are still valid

I'm a fanboy too, I steeped myself in middle earth lore in my teens and still hold it dear. However, I stand by my argument that they could easily have pared this film down and presented a better final product. It reminds me a lot of Jackson's King Kong. He just tries to put too much in a film and Hollywood gives him the budget anyways.

[techwizard]

the real problem is going to see a film adaptation of a book and expecting it to be exactly as you remember the book. everyone who does that is disappointed, but if you go in knowing it's only an adaptation and there will be changes, your opinion of a lot of movies will go up. whenever i watch lotr, even though i'm aware of the differences, i always try to watch it as it's own entity and separate from the books. when seen in that way, the things that make you scream "BUT THAT'S WRONG!" really aren't that bad.

[Deafens Proner]

Tommy Boy

[Razor Knuckles]

Dude, Where's My Car?

[Link41]

Ted, easily the best thing Seth MacFarlane has done.

[The Metamorphosing Leon]

the real problem is going to see a film adaptation of a book and expecting it to be exactly as you remember the book. everyone who does that is disappointed, but if you go in knowing it's only an adaptation and there will be changes, your opinion of a lot of movies will go up. whenever i watch lotr, even though i'm aware of the differences, i always try to watch it as it's own entity and separate from the books. when seen in that way, the things that make you scream "BUT THAT'S WRONG!" really aren't that bad.

It wasn't that at all. It just wasn't a well made movie, I don't care if they change things, but if they change them and make the story boring and tedious I dun lik it.

[Razor Knuckles]

Trailer park boys.

I'm starting to dig this show. Has a Reno 911 feel to it.

[Sirgin]

There totally isn't. In the case of this movie they could have cut out an hour of superfluous junk. There's pointless action scenes, extended just...walking/running/flying scenes that go on way too long. Also, they added all this lore that wasn't in the book in order to tie this story to LoTR that I'm certain no one would miss. They also added this stupid villain character that eats up time and is completely unnecessary. If they had left that hour out and made it an hour longer it could easily be one movie.

It has its moments, but it's more disappointing than good.

Exactly as I predicted/expected, then. What a shame, Jackson should've known better. Even when it was still going to be a two-parter I had my reservations. But I thought that if they made it into two fairly short (120min max) movies they could get away with it. The same thing happed with Harry Potter 7. It just about works, but the first movie ends nowhere and some scenes just aren't as relevant as I was used to from the other 6 Harry Potter movies. It's so clear HP7 should've been a single 180min movie. The best HP movie (not book!) imo is HP4 (Goblet of Fire).

But making The Hobbit into three 3-hour movies is absurd. Anyone who's ever read the book can tell you they either have to make all scenes unnecessarily long, add irrelevant stuff (LoTR appedices), or do both. Doing the former ruins the pace of the movie, doing the latter ruins the cohesion of the actual story.

I own the Extended Edition box sets of the LoTR trilogy and even those border on absurdity (especially Return of the King) because they're just too long. Trying to do the same when the source material is 1/10th as big is a recipe for disaster.

I'm willing to bet PJ will end up regretting doing an obvious cash cow/fan service trilogy instead of a single 3-hour movie, which would've been just about perfect for The Hobbit. I wouldn't be surprised to see an "abridged" Director's Cut for the 10-year anniversary of the trilogy that cuts all the fluff and restores the pace of the book.