Well, I wasn't aware that it's necessary to choose a side here.

SolarSystem wrote:

Well, it's all a matter of taste in the end, isn't it? A lot of people like the film, others don't quite like it all that much, what's the problem? It seems to me, kitty, as if you're taking it almost personally when someone says that he/she didn't like the movie. It's great that you like it and that you are willing to spend money on a ticket for the third time. There are movies out there where I did the same (STID, for example), but I wouldn't go and see this one a second time.

I had a good time this afternoon watching it, but there still were things in it where I thought 'okay, alright, let's move on'. Too much of Orks, not enough Hobbit in The Hobbit for my personal taste.
I don't know the book, but the movie really makes me wonder why it's called "The Hobbit". I would have loved to see much more of him, not just because of Martin, but because everyone was going on about Bilbo's development and that he is more courageous now. And yes, I suppose he is more courageous now, but still... he didn't really have a chance to speak too many lines, did he? When he finally encounters Smaug I really had to laugh at one point, because Smaug rambles on and on and on - and I suppose it's only natural, after all he really didn't get a chance to chat with someone for a very long time, right?  And when Bilbo answers him, the stuff he says is pretty funny.
But still, it's just not enough Bilbo for me. The Orks were getting on my nerves, and I'm not sure yet what to make of Tauriel. Introduce a female Elb, fine.Yes, she knows how to fight. But of course she's also there as a love interest... is that really necessary...?

So, I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it, either. It's a decent movie, that's for sure. But I'd say it lies in the nature of things that not everyone will like it - and please, nobody is obliged to like it, right?

The book is strange...it's really hard to compare the movie with the book because they are completely different creatures trying to accomplish different goals.  The movie is trying to be of the same ilk as Lord of the Rings, but the book was just a simple children's tale with little in the way of narrative cohesion.  Basically, in the book, they blunder from danger to danger, everything is 'coincidental' and all of the sudden Gandalf leaves halfway through without a word of explanation (then comes back later STILL with no explanation).  The big battle at the end is told piecemeal through flashback, as the story is following Bilbo - who conveniently is knocked out and misses it all.  I don't think the book is nearly as good as it is given credit for, and I also agree that the movie could have done many things better.  It seems like there's a fine line to straddle somewhere, but neither the book nor the movie found it.

But no, no one's under any obligation to like the movie simply because Martin and Benedict are in it.  For me, the best part WAS the part concerning just the two of them, as it was always the best part of the book (other than Gollum's cave) and I thought they did a magnificent job on the dragon.  I saw it a second time in the HFR simply because I wanted to see the dragon again XD  However, I completely understand if someone else didn't like the movie.  Personally, I think the best movie out right now is Disney's "Frozen" and would gladly go see it again

Last edited by sj4iy (December 17, 2013 8:10 pm)

I don't think they will...Aidan Turner more or less confirmed that he filmed Kili's death scene. Unfortunately, we'll have to see it happen 

sj4iy wrote:

But no, no one's under any obligation to like the movie simply because Martin and Benedict are in it.  For me, the best part WAS the part concerning just the two of them, as it was always the best part of the book (other than Gollum's cave) and I thought they did a magnificent job on the dragon

I agree, I liked the part with Bilbo and the dragon best, too. To me it was the most thrilling part of the film. And even though I basically knew what would happen from seeing the trailers (Bilbo wakes up dragon, dragon gets pissed and calls Bilbo thief and liar, Biblo tries to get out of there and so forth), it still was very exciting.

Mr Freeman has more punch lines and character moments in one ep. of Sherlock when he is the "sidekick" than in The Hobbit where he is the lead actor.
 

Be wrote:

Mr Freeman has more punch lines and character moments in one ep. of Sherlock when he is the "sidekick" than in The Hobbit where he is the lead actor.
 

Well, that is because Sherlock does not stick so close to the canon as The Hobbit does.

The character of John Watson in Sherlock is not quite the character from the canon. The makers of the show are free to adapt certain characteristics or lines or simply leave out some parts. They also have more liberties in terms of creating the plot.
The Hobbit sticks closely to the canon and the film has even more aspects to focus on. The whole plot is forced because the canon demands it. It was necessary for the sake of the film to explain some parts that were simply left out in the book (e.g. why Gandalf leaves). Bilbo was given enough screentime in my opinion but the whole film couldn't completely focus on him because it is important for the development of the story. The whole story of Middle Earth isn't nearly as strongly based on the characters as the tv show Sherlock is. This is why you can't compare the character moments Martin has in Sherlock to the ones he has in The Hobbit in my opinion. All the character moments Bilbo has in the book are also in the movies.

Last edited by Mary Me (December 18, 2013 12:15 pm)

Third viewing for me tomorrow ^^

I've done 3D+HFR, and I did 2D as well. Might do just 3D this time. 

That's one badass dragon ^^

But damn, that cliffhanger...poor Kili and Fili