You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Shit aren't they?
How did they manage to be so spectacularly less than the sum of their parts?*
What else has failed so impressively to meet expectations?
The Princess Bride on the other hand...
* It's the script isn't it? Everything lives or dies by that at the end of the day. As Thora Hird always said "you're only as good as your words".
the film is shite because the hobbit is quite a shit book.
Too long, too shite, too complicated, too self absorbed, too underacted, too introverted, too samey, too landscapy, too furry, too hobbitish.
And it’s got Martin whatsit in and he’s shite in it.
I like them, but I don't love them, like I do the LoTR films.
the film is shite because the hobbit is quite a shit book.
I'm not having that. I'm no massive fan of the Hobbit book (it's a decent enough yarn but JRRT was clearly just getting into his stride) but the film makers had a chance to fix any failings it had but made it all even worse.
And it’s got Martin whatsit in and he’s shite in it.
I'm not sure I've seen him being good in anything but non-fan though I am I don't think I'd lay this failure at his feet.
It's such a shame.
Mostly, there was more than enough in LOTR books to make nine hours (and more) of movies and effects.
The Hobbit should have been one pacy movie, or maybe two short ones, split at Beorn's place.
IMO the $$$ demanded a 3 x three-hour trilogy. Hence all the added 'bonus' material. Sadly.
Love the book even though it's short and simple, kids book. Even more loved the computer game (talking Spectrum/BBC etc here, so showing my age definitely 😀 ).
Loved LOTR books, the Radio 4 series and definitely the films, even extended versions. That despite changes and leaving out the Scouring of the Shire.
Watched The Hobbit first film, got bored and somewhat confused by its similarity to anything Tolkien wrote. Not watched the rest.
I’m not sure I’ve seen him being good in anything but non-fan though I am I don’t think I’d lay this failure at his feet.
Sherlock, but can see he's Marmite or rather the show is.
Was good in Micro Men, but then I have a nerdy interest in that TV film.
Hitchhikers maybe, even though it's not one of the better adaptations but he was decent enough in the role.
@sockpuppet: Agree.
The Hobbit should have been one pacy movie, or maybe two short ones, split at Beorn’s place.
One for preferable, personally. None of the added stuff enhances the story.
All seems a bit joyless and ground out compared to LOTR, which I really enjoyed.
Shame.
Love the book even though it’s short and simple, kids book.
My mate is an English teacher and teaches The Hobbit. He maintains that it has one of the best opening lines ever: "In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit." It immediately makes you ask, who is this Hobbit? What is a Hobbit? Why does he live in a hole in the ground?
Personally I prefer "It was the afternoon of my eighty-first birthday, and I was in bed with my catamite when Ali announced that the archbishop had come to see me." Although I can see how that might not work with 12 year olds.
My 7 year old loves the Hobbit films.
It's one film stretched into 3. As it is it runs hot and cold. Some parts that are not in the book work, the sauron reveal for example, but most don't, for example see pretty much all of number 3. It could have been amazing as 1 film, even with the goblins bit.
Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold.
My 7 year old loves the Hobbit films.
I'm 43.
The cynic in me thinks the studio will “reimagine” it as the one film it should have been in 15 years on e they’ve milked this version to death.
the film is shite because the hobbit is quite a shit book.
It's a great children's book and the hobbit films are a good 2 hour film of a decent story padded with extraneous BS and long-winded exposition into 9 hours of screen time. Mustn't kill that golden goose too early.
Not a fan.
ITS GOT BILLY CONNOLLY RIDING A PIG, which definitely wasnt in the book
there are some condensed fan edits out there
I’m 43.
Good for you.
“It was the afternoon of my eighty-first birthday, and I was in bed with my catamite when Ali announced that the archbishop had come to see me.”
I read that about 38 years ago. Had to find a dictionary and look up "catamite", I found it a bit discouraging when I had to look up a word from the opening line.
Martin was superb in the Fargo TV series (can’t remember which one). Great TV!
i agree the Hobbit movies were too long - had some scenes in it I quite enjoyed in isolation is the best I can say about it.
I remember being told once the Hobbit was a book for younger people compared to lotr
it’s never going to set you imagination alight as it is a 9 hour retelling of a well known story...
a bit long but mostly inoffensive stick it on have a nap wake up and still understand what is going on.
I read a review and figured Charlie and Lola and Ben and Holly's Little Kingdom were probably more interesting for grown ups.
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.
Perhaps only the most die-hard teen fans of J.R.R. Tolkien’s books and Peter Jackson’s lovingly rendered — if increasingly laborious — film adaptations will delight in this finally-final finale, the last of Jackson’s second trilogy. A good deal of pre-knowledge seems essential. Yet the mythical-magical world on the screen might be enough to enthrall teens not savvy about everything pertaining to Middle-earth. Even kids 10 to 12, depending on how they handle screen monsters — the evil orcs bring ginormous ones into battle — may revel in the film’s fanciful world. It begins as the dragon Smaug lays fiery waste to Laketown, with people fleeing for their lives. Bard, the heroic bowman, shoots Smaug through the heart. Back at his newly recaptured mountain, the dwarf lord Thorin Oakenshield grows besotted by the gold therein and overcome by greed and suspicion. Gandalf the wizard returns from captivity, and soon the gold and the missing Arkenstone take a back seat to an impending orc attack. Alliances are formed and feuds forgotten among dwarves and elves. Spoiler alert: A couple of beloved characters die near the end of the film, leading to a bittersweet ending. (144 minutes)
THE BOTTOM LINE: As in the past films, battle scenes are chaotic and intense, with implied stabbings, impalements and such, but no blood or gore. Several of the enemy are beheaded at once in one battle scene. Seemingly dead children are briefly and nongraphically depicted in the midst of a siege.
Martin Freeman sucks generally, he's like the British version of Tom Hanks, harmless, but lame and forgettable. He was perfectly cast in The Office, as a lame loser. Fargo sucked.
Thorin reminds me of Sam Wharburton. However, I only thing is think Sam migh have actually been better cast....
Martin was superb in the Fargo TV series (can’t remember which one). Great TV!
The original Fargo, yes.. but I think the concept of the programme made him seem interesting.. the character that is. Generally though, he has a one look face and three USP moves. Even in Sherlock, where you’d think he be way outplayed, alongside Bumbtish Currentstash he had his moments of Marcel Marceau’ism.. again it worked there because the programme generally was fast paced and complex in its visuals.. it needed a blandness to bring the visuals back to some central reference point. That point would never have been the utterly gorgeous Una Stubbs, who out acted both leads..
IMO.
Hobbit films are a bit like star wars films, too many of them and too long.
Shame you all feel that way as I really liked all your best selling books and how you all directed and produced you best selling films,trouble with forums is if you look at it too closley and take it a bit too seriously you will see that its just some old picky ****s who haven't really done anything at all slagging off things they couldn't do in ten lifetimes,life huh:)
Bit of a silly comment that mikey3. By that standard no one could comment critically on anything unless they'd done better themselves.
Now toddle off back to your Hobbit memorabilia room...
I wasn't impressed as a long time Tolkien fan, but I wasn't keen on the LOTR films either.
I wasn't impressed as a long time Tolkien fan, but I wasn't keen on the LOTR films either.
the film is shite because the hobbit is quite a shit book.
If I recall correctly, it was never written to be a book, it was a bedtime story Tolkien concocted for his children.
Agree with richmars and don't understand the high expectations of adults watching children's/youth entertainment.
If I recall correctly, it was never written to be a book, it was a bedtime story Tolkien concocted for his children.
No, he definitely wrote it as a children's book. Unlike the rest of his mythology which was meant for adults (although he started it all as a framework on which to base his invented languages)
It did have Thorin sitting down and singing about gold.
Usually I don't go for fan edits but so much of the extra stuff was a) shit and b) didn't progress the story so it really could be edited with an axe and just plain made better. Because there is good stuff in there, it's just drowning in bullshit.
(perfect example- we get all that bullshit about the black arrow and the special crossbow thing for shooting dragons with. Not in the book, and then they don't even bloody use it, and in the end he just more or less shoots it out of a bow like the bloody book said in the first place. The actual final scene is actually pretty cool with lots of dragonning, except that IIRC it has Stephen Fry being shite for a bit right in the middle for no reason, and loads of annoying fake jeopardy with Ron Weasley. It's like every time it's doing something good the devil on Peter Jackson's shoulder says, quick, take a shit in it)
If I recall correctly, it was never written to be a book, it was a bedtime story Tolkien concocted for his children.
No, he definitely wrote it as a children’s book. Unlike the rest of his mythology which was meant for adults (although he started it all as a framework on which to base his invented languages)
You're right of course (and I'm rather embarrassed, although it's been years since I read any Tolkien, his biography or the history of Middle Earth books).
From Wikipedia:
In a 1955 letter to W. H. Auden, Tolkien recollects that he began work on The Hobbit one day early in the 1930s, when he was marking School Certificate papers. He found a blank page. Suddenly inspired, he wrote the words, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit."
I can't believe that I'd forgotten this (perhaps I was thinking of The Father Christmas Letters or Roverandom).
I still think it’s a great pity that Del Toro never had the chance to do his version. I would loved to have seen his take on it.
Whilst not anywhere near as good as LOTR, they’re still very watchable. I like to watch them at a Christmas when cooking the large Christmas/New Year meals. Like Cricket, they make great background material whilst you’re doing something else.
Hobbit films? Occasional moments of okayness, drowing in fluff, guff, a mountain of insultingly bad physics and deus ex machinas, leaving aside the general daftness of having dragons and whatnot. They seemed like a complete sellout.
I maintain that the musical washing up scene was an all time cinematic low.
Even Billy Connolly on a pig was a CGI Billy Connolly.
I still think it’s a great pity that Del Toro never had the chance to do his version. I would loved to have seen his take on it.
I think bits of his treatment stayed in the Jackson version. The battling giants are quite clearly Del Toro creatures.
Personally I prefer “It was the afternoon of my eighty-first birthday, and I was in bed with my catamite when Ali announced that the archbishop had come to see me.”
Earthly Powers is such a superb book, but feels almost forgotten. So much in it and the diametric opposite to Tolkien.
(Should not really have posted as there is no way I'll ever know anything about watching these films, hobbit forming though they may be for devotees.)
He's quite good in the Vodafone ads tho.
Yeah, because there is only two characters in the Advert... him and his (now) posh totty G/F.
Though where he’s waiting for the CRM Op to tell him to take a hike is hilarious.
Ugh, the horrible tacked on romance plot. So unnecessary and badly written.
And too much bad cgi that was a bit iffy even on release, which has dated really badly.
Loved LOTR books and movies and The Hobbit movies just helped carry it all on for me so it's a big thumbs up from me!
<div class="bbp-reply-author">Mrs Toast
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Ugh, the horrible tacked on romance plot. So unnecessary and badly written.
"So this is a randomly added on love interest... For a character that isn't in the books?"
"Yep, I'm a genius"
I actually thought, I'll give this the benefit of the doubt- and they had some good Legolas stuff, and the love triangle had some good bits, and then Jackson took a shit in it again. WHY DOES IT HURT SO MUCH!
</div>
WHY DOES IT HURT SO MUCH!
Because it's real!
There are brief moments in The Hobbit films when Jackson manages to capture the original tone and mystery of Tolkien's work.
Unfortunately, Jackson seems to have quite fixed ideas about what a film should contain (the love interest, the incongruous 'comedy' bit - won't somebody think of the children? - and the crap fake jeperdy that usually involves taking a sledgehammer to the laws of physics); all these elements have to be shoehorned in and to hell with the consequences.
Which is a shame, because there's a decent film in there hidden among all the shite.
Didn't the director change halfway through with Peter Jackson left essentially trying to polish a turd? There was too much cgi which just looked crap. Look at the orcs in the hobbit and compare them to the orcs in lotr. Plus all the added nonsense of Legolas and the women elf whatever she was called.
Loved LOTR books and movies and The Hobbit movies just helped carry it all on for me so it’s a big thumbs up from me!
Me to. Way to much over thinking on this thread. I doubt even the biggest Hobbit fan doesn't thing the 3 film franchise wasn't a bit overblown. But hey it was a fun romp. Even the most corny lines "because it's real" are just a bit of fun 😊.
If you think the film's and the book are shit (they aren't) why give anything to do with the Hobbit a moments thought ??
The films did a good job of how tragic the dwarves are, and Thorin comes across as a hero better than I remember from the book.
But ultimately that's because the focus comes away from Bilbo and his very sheltered perspective. It goes that way from the first moment, when we see, immediately, the destruction of Dale in flashback from an ancient Bilbo writing his memoirs just before his eleventy-first birthday. In the book, we open with a small, smug, unpromising little person who knows nothing about the world and grows through the book from the disaster of uninvited guests cutting the cheese wrong through to people he knows well being killed, via a lot of learning about the dangerousness and tragedy of the world and a lot of learning how to live in it. Even so, at the start of The Fellowship of the Ring, Bilbo still lacks any inkling that (for example) Gandalf can fight a Balrog. There's a whole new journey into confusion and terror left for Frodo to make in LOTR.
The Hobbit films plug us straight into the wider story that the hobbits themselves are unaware of. We get burdened by everything that is bothering Gandalf, Galadriel and Saruman about the return of the Necromancer, and it inevitably changes a lot in doing that. It could have made that radical change of tone from the book and still been amazing, but for me it's flashes of brilliance in a very long 9 hours! LOTR by contrast feels mostly amazing. Hey ho.
I wonder how much of it was down to studio interference. There was definitely a decent film hiding inbetween the needless padding and bad CGI. I honestly thought Martin Freeman was excellent as Bilbo.
Don't know if it's studio or Jackson. After LOTR he went OTT with the length of King Kong (and there's an extended version) and CGI.
He was at his best with The Frighteners (maybe even Bad Taste).
But yeah, the padded story of all the other characters, some which Bilbo and the audience (if this is the first they watch) haven't met yet, is just unnecessary. It detracts from the fun little tale of Bilbo and dwarfs going in search of the gold and the adventures they have on the way.
it's the 'mood-enhancing' music/sound that does my head in. Any time the audience is supposed to feel anything the orchestra chimes in. So many modern films are guilty of this. Just let the action and dialogue drive it!
Like the book. Like LOTR too (book and films).
Hobbit films are turgid. Pointlessly deviate from the source material and end up with an overly long horrendous CGI mess. That scene in the second one when they’re floating in barrels down the river is one of the worst I’ve seen.
Escaping in barrels is in the book, but without all the orc action.
I wonder when Jackson will tackle the Silmarillion...
...and how many films will it take (sweepstake anyone).
Isn’t this on TV tonight ?
Bet you’re all asleep by 2130.. 😜👎👎
Wasn’t the escaping in barrels that I was bothered about, it is as the awful CGI and the elf running on heads of orcs whilst shooting other orcs that did for me.