there are long and boring movies out there. twilight series, warren beatty’s red, fanny and alexander, woody allen’s manhattan, an unmarried woman, etc…
I actually liked it. Saw it twice. The 3D was fun but unnecessary. What I find is that- while movies sometimes tell the story differently from the book- those changes aren’t always wrong. Sometimes they’re valid- in terms of telling a story on film. Not everything that works in book CAN work on film. And yes, there are always things I might have done differently from what the director did. But in the end, I remind myself: It’s not a replacement for the book. It’s a movie BASED on the book. No more, no less.
You’ve got to remember that the book was written for children – lots of action but very little detail. In order to give the story the weight it deserves as the precurser of ‘The Lord of the Rings’ you need to expand on those details. I enjoyed tthe book and the movie both in different ways and am looking forward to the next 2 movies.
Tried to read the book in high school because I was told it was the prequel to the whole Lord of the Rings Trilogy. After reading a few chapters, I discovered that I didn’t really care about little dudes with hairy toes. Gave The Hobbit and LOTR a pass.
If the ‘another artist’ you’re referring to is Ralph Bakshi, who did he animated LORD OF THE RINGS, that wasn’t really later. It came between the two Rankin Bass TV Tolkien films- and they were in production simultaneously. But there were many, many things wrong with that RETURN OF THE KING. I contributed to a blog review of the film here: http://home.netcom.com/~zmoq/pages/ROTK_RB2.htm
I liked it. I grew up on the Hobbit, and read LOTR as each book was published (have first editions.) Hobbit was written as a children’s story. LOTR was written for those same children…grown up. In order to show the foreshadowing of LOTR the writers have added a lot of things that were not in the original story. But I think if Tolkien had gone back and re-written Hobbit he would have added scenes very similar to what the screenwriters did.
OH MY JOHN AND SCOTT, my 2 sons, 25 and 22 and my hubby spent this day at dinner and went to see the 3D version of THE HOBBIT. I myself, having LOVED the LOTR trilogy was concerned if I would like the HOBBIT, the storyline the new characters and actors in the roles, and I can say,IT WAS AWESOME! WONDERFUL!*
and as Redkaycei Repoc he couldn’t believe it was over 2 hours long, actually closer to 3 hours, AND YOU DIDN’T MIND, because it was over that QUICKLY AND IT LEFT YOU WANTNG MORE! And now we have to wait almost another year! :-(
I liked the book. I liked the movie. They aren’t the same, and I’m actually glad of that. When watching the first Harry Potter movie, I found it frustrating that it was almost identical to the book.
black_knight15_au over 11 years ago
haven’t seen it. Sorry Roy.
Tue Elung-Jensen over 11 years ago
The Book or movie? Since I´m honestly not going to waste time on the movie either.
herdleader53 over 11 years ago
The movie was good. Really enjoyed it and will buy it when it comes out on DVD. Looking forward to the next two episodes.
Sportymonk over 11 years ago
The book was much better, (usually is). The trolls and dwarfs in my minds eye were much more fierce than any movie could ever be.
shamest Premium Member over 11 years ago
I loved it
llong65 over 11 years ago
i’ve got a dvd of the original “The Hobbit” animated. it’s pretty good.
vwdualnomand over 11 years ago
there are long and boring movies out there. twilight series, warren beatty’s red, fanny and alexander, woody allen’s manhattan, an unmarried woman, etc…
rshive over 11 years ago
Looks like it’s going to take more than water to revive Roy.
Thomas Scott Roberts creator over 11 years ago
I actually liked it. Saw it twice. The 3D was fun but unnecessary. What I find is that- while movies sometimes tell the story differently from the book- those changes aren’t always wrong. Sometimes they’re valid- in terms of telling a story on film. Not everything that works in book CAN work on film. And yes, there are always things I might have done differently from what the director did. But in the end, I remind myself: It’s not a replacement for the book. It’s a movie BASED on the book. No more, no less.
johnzakour Premium Member over 11 years ago
My only critique is you don’t have to put every single page of the book to film. That does tend to make for a long film.
57-Don over 11 years ago
You’ve got to remember that the book was written for children – lots of action but very little detail. In order to give the story the weight it deserves as the precurser of ‘The Lord of the Rings’ you need to expand on those details. I enjoyed tthe book and the movie both in different ways and am looking forward to the next 2 movies.
yaakovashoshana over 11 years ago
Tried to read the book in high school because I was told it was the prequel to the whole Lord of the Rings Trilogy. After reading a few chapters, I discovered that I didn’t really care about little dudes with hairy toes. Gave The Hobbit and LOTR a pass.
Comic Minister Premium Member over 11 years ago
You could just say sorry Sue.
Thomas Scott Roberts creator over 11 years ago
Oh, it’s still on. Roy was never going to marry Sue anyway.
Thomas Scott Roberts creator over 11 years ago
Now I hear the voice of John Huston. “Your story has a RING of truth to it. Yes, it RINGS true.”
Thomas Scott Roberts creator over 11 years ago
If the ‘another artist’ you’re referring to is Ralph Bakshi, who did he animated LORD OF THE RINGS, that wasn’t really later. It came between the two Rankin Bass TV Tolkien films- and they were in production simultaneously. But there were many, many things wrong with that RETURN OF THE KING. I contributed to a blog review of the film here: http://home.netcom.com/~zmoq/pages/ROTK_RB2.htm
sbwertz over 11 years ago
I liked it. I grew up on the Hobbit, and read LOTR as each book was published (have first editions.) Hobbit was written as a children’s story. LOTR was written for those same children…grown up. In order to show the foreshadowing of LOTR the writers have added a lot of things that were not in the original story. But I think if Tolkien had gone back and re-written Hobbit he would have added scenes very similar to what the screenwriters did.
Dry and Dusty Premium Member over 11 years ago
OH MY JOHN AND SCOTT, my 2 sons, 25 and 22 and my hubby spent this day at dinner and went to see the 3D version of THE HOBBIT. I myself, having LOVED the LOTR trilogy was concerned if I would like the HOBBIT, the storyline the new characters and actors in the roles, and I can say,IT WAS AWESOME! WONDERFUL!*
and as Redkaycei Repoc he couldn’t believe it was over 2 hours long, actually closer to 3 hours, AND YOU DIDN’T MIND, because it was over that QUICKLY AND IT LEFT YOU WANTNG MORE! And now we have to wait almost another year! :-(
nj23nut over 11 years ago
The movie was awesome! I am looking forward to the next 2 films. It was long, but felt like it flew by in less than a 1/2 hour!
LisaGRH over 11 years ago
I liked the book. I liked the movie. They aren’t the same, and I’m actually glad of that. When watching the first Harry Potter movie, I found it frustrating that it was almost identical to the book.