Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

No opinion. Haven't seen it yet.

I've heard some pretty harsh reviews from critics, but I thought it was the best of the movies...so far.

I voted "loved" simply because I enjoyed most of it. There were parts however that I was less enthusiastic about.

It's different from the book, but just like the LOTR films it was a brilliantly-cast, highly entertaining piece of cinema in and of itself. In my opinion (and everybody is entitled to my opinion) it was two hours and twenty dollars well spent. I'm sure I'll be shelling out for the special uncut DVD as well.

Amazing movie. Gonna see it again soon, I hope!

I liked parts of it but it felt padded and bloated.

Mouse wrote: "I liked parts of it but it felt padded and bloated."
I know what you mean. Galadriel and Saruman really didn't need to be in it, for one thing! I was able to let that go, however. Overall, I still had fun. And if it inspires a whole bunch of people to give the book a chance, that will be a very good thing.
I found the songs distracting and a little silly in the book, too. But Tolkien did put them in there, so it made sense that they sang in the film. IN that sense, the film is true to the original story, and it helps that Richard Armitage can actually carry a tune!

Superb casting! Especially Bilbo and Thoren. And the trolls! Amazing how they were portrayed! Can't wait to see Smaug.

Thought it was awesome. I'm seeing it again!

It may have not been quite acurate to Tolkien's work (nor his vision i dare say) but i still loved it, and commend Peter Jackson for his effort at attempting the impossible.

More than just "loved it"! :)

Debbie wrote: "Superb casting! Especially Bilbo and Thoren. And the trolls! Amazing how they were portrayed! Can't wait to see Smaug."

So do I! :)

I don't have an opinion on this, yet. I haven't seen it.

I did not like the "loathe" part. This poll really needed at least another one or three shades to grade the movie because I don't HATE the movie. I just don't LOVE the movie. Peter Jackson extended the fight sequences just FAR TOO LONG! I'm a character-driven author who implements a lot of what I love best about LOTR and its prequels. The movie, for me, was lacking the character depth of the book because, well, he's making THREE out of A SINGLE BOOK! Okay, add in stuff from the appendices...but if you cut down the battle sequences, you can add all of that stuff and do it in TWO movies. So my vote is I LIKE THE MOVIE -- but got REALLY BORED during the battle stuff! Tolkien himself only wrote a couple or three paragraphs for these. Why are you bombarding me with all this stuff that anyone can summarize as "and the dwarves battled their way out of the caverns?"

This poll is deliberately polar - I want to see the raw reaction to the film! More moderate reactions or reasoned arguments can be expressed in the comments, either here or in the discussion topics.

Film being a visual medium, I personally liked the battle scenes - seeing the warriors Tolkien describes in action! Of course, the films can't compete with the books: as Dr Sheldon Cooper says, they run on the world's most powerful graphics chip - Imagination!

Michael wrote: "This poll is deliberately polar - I want to see the raw reaction to the film! More moderate reactions or reasoned arguments can be expressed in the comments, either here or in the discussion topics..."

Well, except my raw reaction was really in the middle. I don't actually have a raw reaction that is negative. But I'm measured by nature; I rarely think or feel in any extreme. Giving me only extremes I feel really skews the results (does my work background in market research show?). Most people I've talked to have raw reactions truly in the middle, especially if they are fans. On the visual side...here's my caveat: I'm low vision! My consciousness fundamentally shifted to my other senses when the car accident took most of my sight. Yes, I know, most people's cognition is 90% visual (did the research paper in university on sight and cognition)! For me, though, the visual appeal of this movie was best seen in the details in Rivendell and in Bag End. There was a richness there that I could appreciate.

Lastly, I think our difference in what appeals is, at least somehow, gender influenced. Women will naturally be more drawn to different details than men will be. This doesn't mean women don't enjoy action; we just look at it through a little different lens.

Although your reaction was in the middle, being offered only "good/bad" options made you choose, and you went for "bad", which I think is interesting. You could, of course, have chosen not to vote. I'm not saying that a middle-ground view is not valid, just not what I wanted to learn from this poll.

I apologise if it sounds like I'm conducting some kind of research on the Group! I'm not, it's just my particular curiosity :-)

Michael wrote: "Although your reaction was in the middle, being offered only "good/bad" options made you choose, and you went for "bad", which I think is interesting. You could, of course, have chosen not to vote...."

Not liking extremes, I avoid flattery and especially saying I love something when I don't. Now BRAVE -- I did genuinely love that.

I personally loved the action scenes though I've been hearing a lot of critics saying that there were too many of them and that the action scenes appeal more to an adult audience in what is supposed to be a child's movie. I've found those reviews to be a bit misinformed. The hobbit and LOTR were first read to me as a bedtime story when I was a kid and there were always dark elements to these stories but that is what made them exciting to me. I am interested to see how this will play out through three films. That being said I think if anyone can pull it off its Peter Jackson. I would not mind sitting through three films each for the Lord of the Rings because any time spent in middle earth is a good time in my opinion. I found the first installment of the Hobbit to be very good and did not find myself bored while watching it.

I'm mostly interested to see how the material that was completely fabricated will be worked into the films. Toward that end what are peoples feelings on Turiel. I've discussed her character alot with friends, the discussion tends to surround her presence as a strong female lead in the films much like Eowyn is in LOTR. I've decided to reserve final judgement on the addition of her character till I see the movies but I guess I'm interested to hear what others think about Turiel being added to the story.

I can understand the need to amalgamate separate characters from a complexly plotted book into single characters in a necessarily streamlined film adaptation, or to switch actions from one character to another, as happened in LotR (Glorfindel/Arwen being the one that comes most readily to mind). I can also support fleshing out in the films characters only briefly sketched in the books (e.g., Radagast), but I see no reason other than commercialism to introduce new characters to the Profs work, so I'm not really keen on the idea of Tauriel. Not that that will spoil my enjoyment of the other films - I just think it unnecessary. Then again, I've never produced and marketed a mega-multi-million-£ movie franchise, so what do I know?

Yeah Micheal I can def see your point and the addition of her character is the one that I'm the most nervous and least excited about but in the end I do not think it will keep me from enjoying the movies either.

The Hobbit only had one female character in it - the doe the Company meets with in Mirkwood. I suppose that for the film trilogy, that boundary was crossed when they included Galadriel, removing any qualms there may have been about adding other female characters.

Yeah I suppose but Galadriel's presence makes sense with the addition of the white council and her character can stand on its own merits without needing the addition of another female character if as some of my friends have suggested the reason Turiel was added was so there would be a strong female character in the films. Of course I suppose there is an appeal there for audiences who may not have read the books. Again I do not think it will stop me from enjoying the movies but it is the one addition I've heard about that I cannot quite wrap my head around

It wasn't pure Tolkien of course. I don't think it would be possible to film it intact. But taken on its own I did enjoy the movie version.

Hello Tolkienites! I do not really need to expand, because I loved every bloated minute of it. Perhaps I wasn't too fond of the Gollom dropping the Ring scene, which was redundant. On the other hand, more Gollum is always welcome!

Loved the film... Although I still can't fathom why they decided to make it into 3 films. Oh well, it was a definite Peter Jackson take on Tolkien, but since he is a HUGE tolkien fan and is very carefully about his adaptations of the books I'm not worried. Like I said LOVED the film, now I just have to hang on for the next one!! :D

I never thought I wouldn't be able to see it on the day of its release, but as it is my wedding happened to be a couple of days before the release and I ended up watching it only the day before yesterday. The movie hall was full, a good two weeks after the release, which was heartening. I loved the movie, especially Martin Freeman's Bilbo! I went back and saw The Fellowship of the Ring and the dialogues made so much more sense ( not that I didn't know what they were talking about before). The fighting scenes did seem very extended and unecessary, but the background tune was fantastic. I also watched it in 3D which was painful because my vision kept blurring with the speed of the action scenes. Other than that I cannot wait to check out Cumberbatch in the next installment! That eye was epic!

Pallavi wrote: "I never thought I wouldn't be able to see it on the day of its release, but as it is my wedding happened to be a couple of days before the release and I ended up watching it only the day before yes..."

First...CONGRATULATIONS on your marriage!
Second...I agree with you completely about the opening and the extended battle scenes -- especially in 3D. I'll add that I am low vision, so the 3D actually hindered my ability to see and enjoy the movie. I gave the negative view in the poll just because battle scenes turned me off to the point where I cannot say I "loved" it.

Apparently I'm only 4.7% agree with me :'(

@laurel my boyfriend has the same problem with watching movies in 3D. Good news is 3D seems to wax and wane as far as film trends go lets hope we are almost on the down side of this one. I do not think 3D works the best for live action films though the Hobbit was not the worst I'd seen as far as that goes.

Emily wrote: "@laurel my boyfriend has the same problem with watching movies in 3D. Good news is 3D seems to wax and wane as far as film trends go lets hope we are almost on the down side of this one. I do not t..."

I agree...it works better for animated films. the only other film I've seen 3D was The Polar Express. THAT was wonderful as a 3D film. But I think 3D for The Hobbit is a poor match. I'm sure I'll like the DVD better!

Laurel wrote: "Pallavi wrote: "I never thought I wouldn't be able to see it on the day of its release, but as it is my wedding happened to be a couple of days before the release and I ended up watching it only th..."

Thanks Laurel!I hope the second movie will win your vote :)

I chose to see it in 2D.
I find 3D really distracting and it gives me a headache. On the other hand, I had no alternative when the most recent Pirates of the Caribbean flick was out, and I didn't object so much to having Captain Jack Sparrow jump out at me!

Gaijinmama wrote: "I chose to see it in 2D.
I find 3D really distracting and it gives me a headache. On the other hand, I had no alternative when the most recent Pirates of the Caribbean flick was out, and I didn't o..."

To me, Thorin looked more fake in 3D than he would in 2D. I compare my impressions between "Fellowship" (which I just re-watched) and "unexpected" and honestly...living beings just work better in 2D. Now RIVENDELL is where the 3D worked nicely, where I actually did like the visual effect.

I agree with the statements of most in here. There is no love or loathe. I enjoyed it for its parts but for sure the addition of Evangeline Lillys character and the love between elf and dwarf was NOT too pleasing and Im surprised JRRT son agreed to any of that. But the barrel scene going down the river was not well done. Nor a couple of other chase scenes. But overall it was good. I really enjoyed parts of it. But it does not compare to LOTR's in my opinion. But even w/out comparison, the movie had characters that had no business being in there. But I think it enticed new readers to The Hobbit so for that it gets an A+.

Tolkien's estate didn't agree, but as the Prof sold the film rights (I think, without double-checking) in the late 1960s they have no say. They are on record as hating everything Jackson has done with the Tolkien legacy.

As The Silmarillion was published posthumously, the estate still holds those rights, and which is why we're unlikely to see it adapted, as they insist it must be EXACTLY adapted to the screen as written in the book!

I despise the movies for much the same reasons that the family members hate the movies - they are an offence to the stories in the book and to their author. Jackson has done deliberate violence to the stories and subverted and perverted their meanings. In particular, he has deliberately chosen to remove the most important scenes from the stories, or else rewrite them so that they gain something the opposite of their intended meaning. Likewise, he has chosen to slander the protagonists of the story and to remove from the centrality of being the hero that they deserve.

For the Hobbit, examples of the cases in point:
1) The significance of the thrush carrying Biblo's information to Bard, which gives Bilbo an unknowing share in the dragon's death is removed from the story. How can you find so much time for battle scenes, but leave no time for this?
2) The quiet moment where Bilbo gather's his courage in the tunnel, which is - by the testimony of the book itself - Bilbo's high point as a hero, is given no time. If the author calls out a moment you might overlook, as central to the protagonist, it's darn well important. If you don't understand that moment, you don't understand the book.

Anyone that loved the story rather than saw the story as a means to an end, would film those scenes if they had to cut out half the work, leaving only the Riddle Game, Biblo's rescue of the dwarves from the spiders, Bilbo's peace offering of his share of the treasure, and the deathbed scene of Thorin. The whole episode with the elves and barrels could be cut for time if necessary without harming the story. But if you leave out those scenes, it's only because you hate the story.

I thought they were fine....as long as you didn't compare them to the book.

Ladymidnight wrote: "I voted "loved" simply because I enjoyed most of it. There were parts however that I was less enthusiastic about."

Same