Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Entertainment Weekly)   The Hobbit passes the $1 billion mark at the box office, though it was a slow, ponderous walk to reach the goal   (insidemovies.ew.com) divider line 71
    More: Followup, The Hobbit, The Return of the King, box offices, lists of films, moviegoers  
•       •       •

1242 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 03 Mar 2013 at 9:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-03 08:55:42 PM  
They got my money. I went opening week. Skipped the 3D thing. It was glorious.
 
2013-03-03 09:13:45 PM  
God dammit, just ride the farking eagles everywhere!
 
2013-03-03 09:40:38 PM  
I was better than the first 3, mainly because Martin Freeman doesn't seem like a pussy like Elijah Wood did in his trilogyl
 
2013-03-03 09:43:19 PM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: I was better than the first 3, mainly because Martin Freeman doesn't seem like a pussy like Elijah Wood did in his trilogyl


you do realise this is a sort of prequel to LOTR, right ?
 
2013-03-03 09:44:34 PM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: I was better than the first 3, mainly because Martin Freeman doesn't seem like a pussy like Elijah Wood did in his trilogyl


He was a terrible, terrible Frodo. The worst thing about LOTR.
 
2013-03-03 09:44:37 PM  
I found the movie to be a bit disjointed myself.  On one had Radagast the comic relief for kids and the almost cartoonish evil orc (that I don't recall reading about in the Hobbit).  On the other hand there were moments where it tried to have the gravitas of a serious epic.

It's not bad, but I think Jackson made this one worse.  While the Hobbit is a bit more child oriented than the LoTR, the book does it mostly by having the violence happen off camera and humanoid on humanoid violence is restricted (and at one point suggested to be very wrong when the elves, dwarves, and humans almost start a three way fight).  The trolls are turned to stone, not that many goblins are actually killed in the first encounter (Gandalf gets the king of course), the Beorn killings happen off camera, etc.  It's more of a book you can read to kids without having to edit out parts.  The Jackson depiction though trends too far down the cartoon path at times though.

/also the camera work aimed to make Thorin the Aragon-like heart throb of this trilogy is heavy handed
 
2013-03-03 09:44:48 PM  
I just ordered the Blu-ray, even though a part of my mind realizes... crap, how often these days do i have the time to watch a 3-hour movie?  I haven't even watched The Dark Knight Rises that much, not because i don't like it, but because it's three freaking hours and there's work i gotta do.   It's a far cry from years ago, when my friends and i would get wasted and watch the original trilogy over and over if we had nothing better to do.  I miss drugs and spare time.  Work sucks.
 
2013-03-03 09:45:53 PM  

alienated: Zarquon's Flat Tire: I was better than the first 3, mainly because Martin Freeman doesn't seem like a pussy like Elijah Wood did in his trilogyl

you do realise this is a sort of prequel to LOTR, right ?


What do you mean? Freeman clearly plays an older version of Wood's character.
 
2013-03-03 09:48:04 PM  
I'm a big Tolkien fan and still haven't seen this flick.
 
2013-03-03 09:50:10 PM  
Read the books in the 70s, have no desire to see the movies.
 
2013-03-03 09:51:00 PM  
Marc L'Hommedieu: It's a far cry from years ago, when my friends and i would get wasted and watch the original trilogy over and over if we had nothing better to do. I miss drugs and spare time. Work sucks

We live the same life, my friend.
 
2013-03-03 10:00:02 PM  
Saw it.  Loved it.  Can't wait for part 2.
 
2013-03-03 10:01:53 PM  

Marc L'Hommedieu: I just ordered the Blu-ray, even though a part of my mind realizes... crap, how often these days do i have the time to watch a 3-hour movie?  I haven't even watched The Dark Knight Rises that much, not because i don't like it, but because it's three freaking hours and there's work i gotta do.   It's a far cry from years ago, when my friends and i would get wasted and watch the original trilogy over and over if we had nothing better to do.  I miss drugs and spare time.  Work sucks.


This is what Netflix is for. Unless you're going to watch the a movie three or four times a year, buying it is largely a waste of money if it's available for rent from Netflix. And for Blu-rays I buy, I price track the hell out of them. A two or three months after release the price always drops sharply.
 
2013-03-03 10:01:55 PM  

ha-ha-guy: and the almost cartoonish evil orc (that I don't recall reading about in the Hobbit).


He was mentioned, but was not brought back from the dead like he is in the film.
 
2013-03-03 10:09:05 PM  
Worst part of the movie? The "dwarves" did not look nearly dwarvish enough. What happened to the awesome beards like Gimli had in LOTR? You can't depict dwarves without badass beards!
 
2013-03-03 10:14:02 PM  

browneye: Saw it.  Loved it.  Can't wait for part 2.


Same here.  I will be buying the blu-ray the day it comes out so that I can catch the trailer for DoS.  I was perfectly happy with how they portrayed everything...especially the dwarves.
 
2013-03-03 10:24:32 PM  
Sounds like they really grabbed the brass ring of cinema..
 
2013-03-03 10:36:43 PM  
One does not simply walk to the $1billion mark.
 
2013-03-03 10:39:03 PM  
Guess it has been a slow walk, what 36 years now?
 
2013-03-03 10:43:05 PM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: I was better than the first 3, mainly because Martin Freeman doesn't seem like a pussy like Elijah Wood did in his trilogyl


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-03 10:51:00 PM  

Ghastly: God dammit, just ride the farking eagles everywhere!


I keep trying to not think that.
 
2013-03-03 10:59:54 PM  
I paid to see it in 2D at 24 fps. I didn't think it was very good. I actually got a bit bored.

Loved LOTR trilogy though.
 
2013-03-03 11:00:26 PM  
I loved LOTR but strongly disliked The Hobbit. The Hobbit is a kid's book, plain and simple, and PJ inserted way too much gravitas that is not part of the original...OR...he made the humorous parts TOO humorous, e.g. the trolls. The only part of the movie that rang true, IMO, was when Bilbo met Gollum and the riddle game they played. The battle with the goblins felt like Mines of Moria meets Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom meets the raid on the vault in Gringotts in the last Harry Potter film. Just awful an went on way too long. I am really wondering how in the hell PJ is going to stretch what is left of the book into TWO more movies!
 
2013-03-03 11:07:11 PM  

Decillion: alienated: Zarquon's Flat Tire: I was better than the first 3, mainly because Martin Freeman doesn't seem like a pussy like Elijah Wood did in his trilogyl

you do realise this is a sort of prequel to LOTR, right ?

What do you mean? Freeman clearly plays an older version of Wood's character.


jestertrek.com
 
2013-03-03 11:07:48 PM  
The Hobbit was a fun and enjoyable film. That is all.
 
2013-03-03 11:10:05 PM  
I like how we have reached the point where we react to this with, "You mean that's it? Just a billion dollars?"
 
2013-03-03 11:16:22 PM  

R.A.Danny: Ghastly: God dammit, just ride the farking eagles everywhere!

I keep trying to not think that.


I try to rationalize it by imagining there must have been an ancient pact made between the Wizards and the Eagles that they are only to be summoned in times of great need and not just called upon to be a taxi service.
 
2013-03-03 11:24:13 PM  

Ghastly: R.A.Danny: Ghastly: God dammit, just ride the farking eagles everywhere!

I keep trying to not think that.

I try to rationalize it by imagining there must have been an ancient pact made between the Wizards and the Eagles that they are only to be summoned in times of great need and not just called upon to be a taxi service.


Here's why (NSFW)
 
kab
2013-03-03 11:26:08 PM  
Didn't walk away particularly impressed with this flick.  The goblin king was just poorly done, dwarves were poorly done for the most part, and there was simply no reason for this movie to be as long as it is.

Probably just waiting for blu-ray for the next two.
 
2013-03-03 11:29:24 PM  

quatchi: They got my money. I went opening week. Skipped the 3D thing. It was glorious.


Yep, and they'll get it again. I enjoyed it, while I'm a big Tolkien fan and there were some changes I disliked, overall, it was a fun adaptation of the story for me and I didn't expect them to keep it as a child's tale. I'm curious to see how Mirkwood gets handled....
 
2013-03-03 11:29:39 PM  

BrianGriffin: I loved LOTR but strongly disliked The Hobbit. The Hobbit is a kid's book, plain and simple, and PJ inserted way too much gravitas that is not part of the original...OR...he made the humorous parts TOO humorous, e.g. the trolls. The only part of the movie that rang true, IMO, was when Bilbo met Gollum and the riddle game they played. The battle with the goblins felt like Mines of Moria meets Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom meets the raid on the vault in Gringotts in the last Harry Potter film. Just awful an went on way too long. I am really wondering how in the hell PJ is going to stretch what is left of the book into TWO more movies!


The Lord of the Rings trilogy of movies were based on three books.  The Hobbit trilogy of movies is being based on about a dozen books: The Hobbit, The Similarion, various other volumes of Middle Earth writings from Tolkien, and additional author's notes specific to the story of The Hobbit.
 
2013-03-03 11:30:44 PM  

mscleo: Zarquon's Flat Tire: I was better than the first 3, mainly because Martin Freeman doesn't seem like a pussy like Elijah Wood did in his trilogyl

He was a terrible, terrible Frodo. The worst thing about LOTR.


Thank you for saying that. IIRC, in the book Frodo is over 50 years old. ( granted, proximity to the Ring probably slowed down aging, and Hobbits have a slightly longer lifespan than Men, but still...he shouldn't have looked like a teenager...)

/ the sobbing Hobbits in the third film were a bit much as well...
 
2013-03-03 11:32:01 PM  

Ghastly: God dammit, just ride the farking eagles everywhere!


That sounds like a great idea!

Let's have the hero, by himself, up in the air for everyone and anyone to see (Including the Eye of Sauron), soaring through the sky towards Mt. Doom.

Suddenly, a Ringwraith comes by on their flying beast. Or, perhaps ground troops launch an assault into the air, throwing everything and anything at them. The eagle is killed and the hero plummets to his death.

The end.

Those who give the "Hurr use the eagles!!!11" excuse really don't think it all the way through.
 
2013-03-03 11:37:25 PM  

R.A.Danny: Ghastly: God dammit, just ride the farking eagles everywhere!

I keep trying to not think that.


For the umpteenth time: Why didn't the RAF just fly to Berlin and kill Hitler?
 
2013-03-03 11:42:10 PM  

Teufelaffe: BrianGriffin: I loved LOTR but strongly disliked The Hobbit. The Hobbit is a kid's book, plain and simple, and PJ inserted way too much gravitas that is not part of the original...OR...he made the humorous parts TOO humorous, e.g. the trolls. The only part of the movie that rang true, IMO, was when Bilbo met Gollum and the riddle game they played. The battle with the goblins felt like Mines of Moria meets Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom meets the raid on the vault in Gringotts in the last Harry Potter film. Just awful an went on way too long. I am really wondering how in the hell PJ is going to stretch what is left of the book into TWO more movies!

The Lord of the Rings trilogy of movies were based on three books.  The Hobbit trilogy of movies is being based on about a dozen books: The Hobbit, The Similarion, various other volumes of Middle Earth writings from Tolkien, and additional author's notes specific to the story of The Hobbit.


Not really.  They only have the rights to "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings."  Additional materials for the "Hobbit" films come either out of the appendices of "The Lord of the Rings" or out of Peter Jackson's arse.  There was a nod to the fact that they had to omit info.  When asked about other wizards, Gandalf claims that he doesn't remember the two Blue wizards' names.  Neither are named in "The Hobbit" or in "The Lord of the Rings," so they couldn't use the names in the film.
 
2013-03-03 11:42:13 PM  

blueviking: quatchi: They got my money. I went opening week. Skipped the 3D thing. It was glorious.

Yep, and they'll get it again. I enjoyed it, while I'm a big Tolkien fan and there were some changes I disliked, overall, it was a fun adaptation of the story for me and I didn't expect them to keep it as a child's tale. I'm curious to see how Mirkwood gets handled....


Me too. That's always been my take on PJ's vision of the film. "There and Back again" was the story Bilbo told Frodo about his adventures but it wasn't the whole truth of it. The movies will attempts to incorporate the child friendly version with the darker actual events. This will and has lead to some incongruities in terms of shifting tones but even with that the movie remains enjoyable to me on several levels and I will no doubt have ticket in hand, butt in seat and popcorn at the ready when the next one drops.

/Real butter, layered.
 
2013-03-03 11:47:27 PM  

Teufelaffe: BrianGriffin: I loved LOTR but strongly disliked The Hobbit. The Hobbit is a kid's book, plain and simple, and PJ inserted way too much gravitas that is not part of the original...OR...he made the humorous parts TOO humorous, e.g. the trolls. The only part of the movie that rang true, IMO, was when Bilbo met Gollum and the riddle game they played. The battle with the goblins felt like Mines of Moria meets Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom meets the raid on the vault in Gringotts in the last Harry Potter film. Just awful an went on way too long. I am really wondering how in the hell PJ is going to stretch what is left of the book into TWO more movies!

The Lord of the Rings trilogy of movies were based on three books.  The Hobbit trilogy of movies is being based on about a dozen books: The Hobbit, The Similarion, various other volumes of Middle Earth writings from Tolkien, and additional author's notes specific to the story of The Hobbit.


Then don't title it The Hobbit. Title it "Cool shiat you didn't know about Middle Earth." I know he stuffed a lot of crap in there from other sources, but it was still a craptastic movie and was likely only entertaining for those who never read the original book. The Hobbit is a great story. Just tell it in one movie. If you want to film a history of middle Earth, than film THAT!

I can't understand the people who are defending this film because some of the same folks most likely complained that in LOTR PJ left out The Scouring of the Shire and Tom Bombadil and the barrow wights from the LOTR and the whole section where the Rohirrim meet up with the Druedain and Ghan-buri-gahn - which is a cool part of the story. So, PJ inserts stuff not in the Hobbit but leaves out cool stuff that SHOULD have been in LOTR - BTW, none of the scenes I mentioned are in the expanded versions either so PJ never even filmed them.

A lot of people are going to go out, buy The Hobbit book, and wonder "Hey, where's all the cool, dark shiat that was in the movie? This here is a KID'S book!"
 
2013-03-04 12:01:23 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: ha-ha-guy: and the almost cartoonish evil orc (that I don't recall reading about in the Hobbit).

He was mentioned, but was not brought back from the dead like he is in the film.


They basically combined Azog with his son Bolg, who was in the book of the Hobbit at the Battle of the Five Armies. Originally, at Moria, Azog captured Thror, tortured him for days, then beheaded him, branded his name on the head, and tossed it back out, so every dwarf hates him.
    Likewise, they combined several Dwarven characters, as at the actual battle at Moria, he killed Nain, and was then killed by Nain's son Dain, neither of which are mentioned in the film (they were entirely replaced by Thorin, his father and grandfather.).
  I understand why they merged characters, because it could be really hard for the film audience to keep them all straight, but I thought going back to those scenes with the orcs kept breaking the pace of the movie.

   I also assume they chose not to have the eagles speak since they didn't show the eagles speaking the LoTR films, but the fact that the eagles are sentient and choose how much they'll help would help counter the people who always just say "why don't they ride the eagles everywhere"

/yes I'm an uber-nerd.
 
2013-03-04 12:08:23 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: mscleo: Zarquon's Flat Tire: I was better than the first 3, mainly because Martin Freeman doesn't seem like a pussy like Elijah Wood did in his trilogyl

He was a terrible, terrible Frodo. The worst thing about LOTR.

Thank you for saying that. IIRC, in the book Frodo is over 50 years old. ( granted, proximity to the Ring probably slowed down aging, and Hobbits have a slightly longer lifespan than Men, but still...he shouldn't have looked like a teenager...)

/ the sobbing Hobbits in the third film were a bit much as well...


In the books Frodo is 33 at Bilbo's 111th birthday party (they share the same birthday).  For Hobbits, 33 is considered to be "coming of age", so 50 is entering middle age, and their average lifespan is about 100.
  In the book he doesn't end up leaving the shire until 17 years later, but as they cut those 17 years out of the story in the film, and made it look like no more than months, they were able to get by with Frodo still looking like a Hobbit in his 30s as opposed to his 50s..
 
2013-03-04 12:10:28 AM  
I enjoyed the movie, and have now seen it three times.  I went to the midnight premier to see it in 3D HFR, and it was absolutely spectacular.  Saw it in 2D on a couple of dates and enjoyed it then, too.  Don't know if I can squeeze $20 to buy it into my budget, but I'll probably try.
 
2013-03-04 12:41:33 AM  

BrianGriffin: Teufelaffe: BrianGriffin: I loved LOTR but strongly disliked The Hobbit. The Hobbit is a kid's book, plain and simple, and PJ inserted way too much gravitas that is not part of the original...OR...he made the humorous parts TOO humorous, e.g. the trolls. The only part of the movie that rang true, IMO, was when Bilbo met Gollum and the riddle game they played. The battle with the goblins felt like Mines of Moria meets Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom meets the raid on the vault in Gringotts in the last Harry Potter film. Just awful an went on way too long. I am really wondering how in the hell PJ is going to stretch what is left of the book into TWO more movies!

The Lord of the Rings trilogy of movies were based on three books.  The Hobbit trilogy of movies is being based on about a dozen books: The Hobbit, The Similarion, various other volumes of Middle Earth writings from Tolkien, and additional author's notes specific to the story of The Hobbit.

Then don't title it The Hobbit. Title it "Cool shiat you didn't know about Middle Earth." I know he stuffed a lot of crap in there from other sources, but it was still a craptastic movie and was likely only entertaining for those who never read the original book. The Hobbit is a great story. Just tell it in one movie. If you want to film a history of middle Earth, than film THAT!

I can't understand the people who are defending this film because some of the same folks most likely complained that in LOTR PJ left out The Scouring of the Shire and Tom Bombadil and the barrow wights from the LOTR and the whole section where the Rohirrim meet up with the Druedain and Ghan-buri-gahn - which is a cool part of the story. So, PJ inserts stuff not in the Hobbit but leaves out cool stuff that SHOULD have been in LOTR - BTW, none of the scenes I mentioned are in the expanded versions either so PJ never even filmed them.

A lot of people are going to go out, buy The Hobbit book, and wonder "Hey, where's all the cool, dark shiat t ...


How come movies about books aren't just a film of some guy reading the book?!
 
2013-03-04 12:43:11 AM  

Teufelaffe: Ghastly: R.A.Danny: Ghastly: God dammit, just ride the farking eagles everywhere!

I keep trying to not think that.

I try to rationalize it by imagining there must have been an ancient pact made between the Wizards and the Eagles that they are only to be summoned in times of great need and not just called upon to be a taxi service.

Here's why (NSFW)


I sent that to my wife the Tolkein nut a few weeks ago and I thought she was going to choke, she was laughing so hard.
 
2013-03-04 12:45:01 AM  

Relatively Obscure: How come movies about books aren't just a film of some guy reading the book?!


The Princess Bride kinda went there...
 
2013-03-04 12:52:12 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: mscleo: Zarquon's Flat Tire: I was better than the first 3, mainly because Martin Freeman doesn't seem like a pussy like Elijah Wood did in his trilogyl

He was a terrible, terrible Frodo. The worst thing about LOTR.

Thank you for saying that. IIRC, in the book Frodo is over 50 years old. ( granted, proximity to the Ring probably slowed down aging, and Hobbits have a slightly longer lifespan than Men, but still...he shouldn't have looked like a teenager...)

/ the sobbing Hobbits in the third film were a bit much as well...


Sobbing Hobbits.

Found my new band name.
 
2013-03-04 01:04:21 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: mscleo: Zarquon's Flat Tire: I was better than the first 3, mainly because Martin Freeman doesn't seem like a pussy like Elijah Wood did in his trilogyl

He was a terrible, terrible Frodo. The worst thing about LOTR.

Thank you for saying that. IIRC, in the book Frodo is over 50 years old. ( granted, proximity to the Ring probably slowed down aging, and Hobbits have a slightly longer lifespan than Men, but still...he shouldn't have looked like a teenager...)

/ the sobbing Hobbits in the third film were a bit much as well...


Ideally Frodo should have looked in his early-mid 20s at the time of the lotr trilogy, having stopped visibly aging at 33 in hobbit years and being described as a perky looking hobbit anyway. Bilbo should also have looked maybe about 35-40 in the hobbit (being 50 and slower aging than humans).

This being so, the movies didn't really get that too wrong, except that bilbo looked far too old in the first lotr movie.

Character-wise Frodo is not really 'old' enough, and Merry especially should be a much more sensible and serious fellow than he is portrayed, pippin being the only irresponsible youth of the group.
 
2013-03-04 01:59:30 AM  
bossip.files.wordpress.com
What a Hobbit may look like.

/You can't spell "Hobbit" without "Ho".
 
2013-03-04 02:11:04 AM  
All Jackson had to do was follow the book. Cramming in the mindless action scenes and putting makeup on the dwarfs turned a surprisingly deep fairy tale into a ponderous, boring, plodding intro to what is obviously a 3 movie money making enterprise, full of shirts, toys, legos, blurays, commercials, fast food tie-ins, books, magazines, comics, and children's backpacks.
 
2013-03-04 03:39:54 AM  
Am I the only person in America who doesn't care to see this film? I'm not a Tolkien fan. Maybe it's the genre. I've never liked fantasy fairy tale stuff.
 
2013-03-04 04:36:38 AM  

BrianGriffin: Just awful an went on way too long. I am really wondering how in the hell PJ is going to stretch what is left of the book into TWO more movies!


part 2: mirkwood to long lake (possibly door)
part 3: long lake to mountain to dragon to home

so at least I can see where and why the breaks of 3 movies ....
but ....

there will be filler with the necromancers/sauron ... probably part 2

help
I except them both to be entertaining ...
part 2, because they will nail the spiders and mirkwood
part 3: because peter farking jackson and DRAGONS!
 
2013-03-04 06:14:13 AM  
Lord of the ring          3 books -> 3films
hobbit              1 small book    ->3films

and after sitting through what felt like 6 hours I haven't seen the tail of a dragon

Fark you Peter Jakson!
please make something like "Bad taste" again
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report