That pretty much sums up how I feel about it.It wasn't terrible, no. I'll give it that.
But it wasn't "The Hobbit."
This. I thought the movie was fantastic, and will anxiously await part 2. That being said, I think Jackson is definitely taking his liberty at making this a true "prequel" than it's own story. I'm happy either way, but can definitely see your point.They tried too hard to make this the prequel to Lord of the Rings. While technically it is, it really is supposed to be its own story and it always had a much different tone than the trilogy. "The Hobbit" is and was supposed to be much lighter in content. They didn't seem to understand that and failed quite hard.
I agree that Tolkien wrote it in a much lighter tone than the later did with LOTR. But that's the thing really, Tolkien was always far more interested in the world and mythology of Middle Earth than he was in publishing stories from it. The Hobbit happened to be a much lighter mood because it was written as a children's book long before he had laid out LOTR and how the Third Age would come to an end. When he wrote The Hobbit he didn't even know or intend for Gollum's ring to be The One. It was only in hindsight when writing LOTR that he basically ret-conned that.They tried too hard to make this the prequel to Lord of the Rings. While technically it is, it really is supposed to be its own story and it always had a much different tone than the trilogy. "The Hobbit" is and was supposed to be much lighter in content. They didn't seem to understand that and failed quite hard.
The greatest charm of The Hobbit has, to me, always been that it was a children's story. But one that adults could enjoy, too. And that was kind of ruined by turning it into an action-movie prequel.I agree that Tolkien wrote it in a much lighter tone than the later did with LOTR. But that's the thing really, Tolkien was always far more interested in the world and mythology of Middle Earth than he was in publishing stories from it. The Hobbit happened to be a much lighter mood because it was written as a children's book long before he had laid out LOTR and how the Third Age would come to an end. When he wrote The Hobbit he didn't even know or intend for Gollum's ring to be The One. It was only in hindsight when writing LOTR that he basically ret-conned that.
Given that the viewing public knows the LOTR story far better, and the movie The Hobbit IS a prequel to LOTR, I don't see why anyone would be surprised that it takes on a lot more of the tone of LOTR. Hell, The Hobbit as a book was itself almost two separate parts. The first half was a lighter children's fantasy adventure story, the second half was much, much darker with the Battle of the Five armies and thousands of beings getting killed.
I understand your criticism, I guess I just don't understand why you expected the movie to be anything different from what it is.The greatest charm of The Hobbit has, to me, always been that it was a children's story. But one that adults could enjoy, too. And that was kind of ruined by turning it into an action-movie prequel.
The 3D was pretty well done. It wasn't corny. Like throwing shit at the screen. The HFR to me made it look like a stage show or something, a play maybe. It was ok. Would like to see more HFR films.Awsome. I haven't seen the movie yet and reading all the negative reviews my expectations are way down. This is the way I like to see a movie.
Now for those who have seen in in 3d and regular, which should I go see? (Ive never seen a 3d before)
I don't usually go to theaters because a) Im cheap and b) the no booze rule.
It was definitely well done, but there were at least 3 corny "throwing shit at the audience" events. If I recall it was a spear, an arrow, and a flaming pine cone.The 3D was pretty well done. It wasn't corny. Like throwing shit at the screen.
Foolish hope.I understand your criticism, I guess I just don't understand why you expected the movie to be anything different from what it is.