The Hobbit – An Unexpected Journey

December 30th, 2012



Ho Hum.

Very mixed on this.  I loved Peter Jackson’s adaptations of the Lord of the Rings, especially the first film, but I was rather worried when I heard he was making The Hobbit into three big films.  How can he be doing that with such a slight book?  I thought.  Won’t it turn out a bit . . . bloated?

And, yes, it did.

To be fair, for a three hour film it never really got boring, I wasn’t squirming in my seat or anything, but, man, it really did feel padded out beyond recognition, with barely a sequence or conversation left intact and offhand allusions in the book converted into weighty additions.  An interminable pre-title with the elder Bilbo, a ponderous exchange between Gandalf, Saruman and Galadriel, an utterly unnecessary aside with Radagast.  I felt like I must be watching the extended edition, where every scene goes on just that bit longer than it needs to.  Sometimes a lot longer.  Sometimes even longer than that.  I thought they cut and sculpted the Lord of the Rings books very well for the original films but, you know, it’s one thing – surely a tricky, skilled and difficult thing but one thing all the same – to cut down a wealth of source material and maintain the feel.  It’s entirely another to add great wodges of your own stuff to quite slight material.  The dialogue in those new sections clunked, the voice-over creaked, and for me it ended up just not feeling very much like the Hobbit at all.

What it did feel like was a less original and interesting prequel film to the Lord of the Rings series.  There was a whole lot of rather self-important repetition of things from the trilogy – the same sort of sweeping angles over a similar fellowship threading up a snowy ridge with the same sort of music playing, Gandalf giving Bilbo the same sort of dewy eyed bitter-sweet smile he gave Frodo in the same sort of situation, spindly collapsing bridges beneath the Misty Mountains were a lot like the ones in Moria, Gandalf sent a moth for help from his burning pine just like he did when he was trapped on Orthanc.  I could go on.  There was a sense of having seen it done before with a bit more conviction, and everywhere there seemed to be a ponderous weight of linking everything back to the Lord of the Rings that wasn’t really necessary.  Plus a strange desire to turn Thorin into a kind of cut-height Aragorn, all handsome, windswept and heroic that I found slightly . . . odd.

Perhaps it was just me, or the years have rolled by and what once looked good does no longer, but the film also felt a bit less artful in its visuals than the Lord of the Rings were.  Too much reliance on heavy CGI this time around, with a couple of the villains not looking all that convincing for my money.  In Fellowship of the Ring the Uruk Hai were very well made up and armoured real guys, and that gave the fight scenes a weight and punch and reality that was very much lacking here.  The action was a bit cartoonish, a bit uninvolving.  There was a cheesier sense to the whole thing.

Now, lest I am accused of giving this a panning let me say there was a lot to admire.  Martin Freeman made a very good Bilbo, I thought.  Gollum was brilliant and the scene of their Riddles in the Dark definitely the highlight.  Overall it kicked along after a languorous beginning, had some strong set pieces and a lot of the virtues of scale, look and stunning design that made the Lord of the Rings films such a success.  It was a decent way to spend an evening.  Certainly I’ll be watching the next instalment.

But, for me, it felt far more like the prequel the Lord of the Rings didn’t particularly need than The Hobbit.

Posted in film and tv by Joe Abercrombie on December 30th, 2012.

43 comments so far

  • Chris says:

    Oh dear.

    I was just about to use Gold Class vouchers to go see this, thinking that the “unexpected journey” bit was just a pointless subtitle, rather than an alternative way of writing “part one of three”.

    Three? Really?!

  • Gremlin says:

    I completely agree, though possibly the thing that irked me the most was the way that it was made to feel unnescessarilly cameo-ey and like they looked at the locations they didn’t manage to use in rings and said ‘right, how many of these do you reckon we can fit in?’

  • Dan says:

    Two, two hour movies would have been just right. Three, three hour movies is rediculous.

  • Doug says:

    You are spot on with them missing the feel of the book. The Hobbit is very whimsical. Much more a kid’s story than the LOTR books. Maybe the old animated version gets the feel better. It’s been awhile since I watched that one, but I recall being fond of it.

  • Doug says:

    Almost my exact criticisms after seeing it. I felt like you could have cut about 40 minutes of that material and not only had a film that didn’t suffer, but would have become leaner and more engaging from top to bottom.

  • Ads says:

    I also found the hobbit a bit overly padded with extra material, though overall I did like the movie. It felt unnecessary to add some much extra stuff in. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Tolkien originally wrote the hobbit for his kids? Couldn’t they have just kept to the heart of what really is just a children’s story, but for some reason they felt it necessary to stretch out what material they had to make it into three movies :-/ I would hazard a guess that prolonging the movies (as they have) would increase their Revenue considerably. Regardless I will be waiting to watch the other two parts when they are in-turn released.

  • Phil B-W says:

    Agreed. Plus there were numerous occasions where they totally jumped the shark on the no-one getting killed. It really made no sense at all.

  • Kieran says:

    I tried to listen to reviews and see this film critically, but in the end I just didn’t care. This film is essentially fan service, an excuse for Peter Jackson to make more Tolkien related movies. And I adore every second of it. Phantom Menace tried to do the same and failed abysmally compared to Unexpected Journey. Too long? Pah. I actually like it when a film slows down a little and creates atmosphere. Hell, if movies should be cut and kept short, why not books?

  • Chris Upton says:

    Too much cgi…….Bleh.

  • Mark C says:

    Another great review, Joe, you’re dang good at these! And I have to say I agree with everything you say, especially the bit about enjoying the film; I’m really looking forward to part two to see how the mighty Mirkwood gets rendered on screen…

    Have a great New Year when it comes and, as they (almost) say on Strictly, keep writing!

  • Redhead says:

    I had a very similar reaction to the The Hobbit. And more so, it couldn’t decide what it wanted to be. A character piece of genuine emotions? a violent and grimdark fantasy adventure starring a kingdomless prince who craves redemption and a final revenge against the one-armed Orc? a family friendly movie with a band of roly poly dwarfs who have amazing and dangerous adventures without sustaining as much as a papercut?

    ggrrrrr arrgghh

  • Galleymac says:

    Every word of this is true.

    This is also an extremely rare example of a film I would deem VASTLY improved by 3D. It still has its petticoats showing in that every cinematic and emotional manipulation is blatant — the long angles, the shout outs, the single tear of manly sadness, the extended framing of pretty people in archways for unclear reasons — but with the 3D you at least see why they got caught up in their aesthetic, and you get some of the payoff. Whereas the 2D was noticeably and confusingly blurrier. And I’m generally anti 3D. (Yes, I saw it twice. Not a difficult sacrifice for obligations to friends. 🙂 )

    I do wonder how it’s going to come across when they sell all 6 films in a box set. I think the shout outs in “Hobbit” are going to detract from the LoTR experience.

  • Joe Abercrombie says:

    I don’t really have a problem with them creating more revenue, it’s a profit making exercise for many of the people involved. But if it was solely about money they’d have made three shortish films, no? Much though I admire Jackson, I think he’s got a bit carried away with himself, and wants to out-huge his hugeness, and thought this was the way to go.

    Slowing down and creating atmosphere are not one and the same, in fact often they’re opposed, especially when slowing down to the point they did here. Why not make it five hours? Why not ten? Some of those scenes killed atmosphere rather than created it. I’d argue a film shouldn’t have a moment wasted, and a book should ideally be the same. That doesn’t mean a book or a film should always be short, just not ponderous. And after all the way we experience a book is very different – we can put it down, wander about, do other things. We can skim a section or spend hours mulling over a paragraph. With a film we’re on the director’s timetable, stuck in the cinema. So yeah, I think you need a good reason to go over two hours, especially when you’re adapting such slight material.

    You’re very right about that uncertainty of tone, which for me derived from their attempts to shoehorn it into being a prequel, with the same look and epic heroic feel as Lord of the Rings, which is at odds with the fundamentally lighter nature of the material. Hence all the uncomfortable cameos, the attempts at making Thorin Strider-lite with deep wells of emotion and lingering close-ups, and at making everything monumentally huge in scale beyond even Lord of the Rings when what you wanted was more intimacy. The ponderous pomposity sat very uncomfortably with the roly poly super CGI played for laughs quality of the action, and made neither work properly. Actually it was the more intimate stuff, focused around Bilbo and generally faithful to the book, like the riddles in the dark, that worked best for me.

    That’s an interesting point. I saw it 2d because my wife doesn’t have binocular vision, and a couple of shots did look kinda strange. Got to say with a couple of exceptions I’m not at all a fan of 3d. I think it gives the viewer more to process and limits what you can do with the editing quite a lot if you still want it to be fully comprehensible. Fast cut sequences become a total mess to watch. If I was a film maker I think I’d greatly prefer more flexibility in the editing than whatever it is 3d is supposed to offer you.

  • Mark C says:

    We accidentally saw it in 3D at the local Imax cinema and I have to say we were pretty disappointed. There was one brief second out of the three hours when it worked (a burning torch flying toward the viewer actually made me blink). But that was it. Even more frustratingly, the whole film seemed out of focus once the action started to move; it only appeared crisp when in medium to extreme close up and things were slowed down. Both my partner and I actually took off our glasses to clean them at more than one point! Really annoying, truth be told. I will prob go and see it in 2D early next year…

  • Kieran says:


    I see where you’re coming from, long running times have just never really been an issue with me. After watching The Good, The Bad and The Ugly for the first time I was surprised that it had been going on for three hours, I was just enjoying it too much to notice.

    PS, I think it’s funny to note that this is the first time an adaptation of a novel is getting criticised for being too long rather than for removing material.

  • pedro says:

    I agree with your opinion of the movie,after all,your work is so dark where in lord of the rings it was the birth of the good elfs in white and the bad orcs in black being grey

  • Elfy says:

    I very much agree and feel the same. I liked it and it passed 3 hours without really feeling like 3 hours, but I was left at the end asking myself how they going to get two 3 hourish long movies out of what’s left without padding it unnecessarily as they did here? I loved Aidan Turner as Kili, but couldn’t shake the feeling that he was just a really short elf.

  • Nick says:

    I enjoyed it, but did have quite a few issues with it as well.

    Firstly, the prologue – why was it so long?! I can understand the logic of introducing Erebor and Smaug (and in fact these scenes were superbly well done, I loved the hinting-at-but-not-showing of Smaug), but the extended scenes of Frodo and Bilbo just seemed an unnecessary “look! look! This film is connected to the Lord of the Rings! Look! It’s happening just before!”, in a (very) long film those scenes seemed pointless. And yes, why was Thaurandil on a moose and why did he bring his army ALL THE WAY to Erebor and THEN change his mind?

    When we got to the film proper it did genuinely seem like there wasn’t a single reference or even fucking similie made that wasn’t explained extensively in cut-away. Some of these (gates of Moria) were cool and well done, others (Radagast) just chimed oddly with me. I’m not sure it was necessary to show Radagast actually discovering the changes in the Greenwood – could he not just have appeared and told Gandalf?

    Also, the goblins didn’t work too well for me. I agree completely that the Uruk-Hai in Lord of the Rings had a physicality and menace to them. In The Two Towers, I always feel that Merry and Pippin are very much threatened when surrounded by the huge and intimidating Uruk-Hai. The CGI (or maybe motion-capture?) just made the orcs/goblins feel less threatening and more cartoonish. I never really felt that anyone was in that much danger from them, for some reason.

    Again, considering the length I think they could’ve have just edited a lot of the sequences down a bit and lost very little. i.e. the journey from the trolls’ cave to Rivendell could’ve lost a few minutes, likewise the flight through the mountains (though I did enjoy that scene).

    I do have to say though, the great eagles really are a bit of a crappy deus ex machina aren’t they? I know there’s nothing the film-makers could do about it, but I just thought it felt a bit silly on screen.

    But overall I really enjoyed it, and there were lots of positives for sure. I thought Richard Armitage was absolutely superb as Thorin, likewise I loved Balin, Fili and Kili. I didn’t so much get Thorin as a mini-Aragorn. There were a lot of lingering meaningful gazes, but he comes across as a lot more of a dick than Aragorn did. Which suits me fine, as it feels right for Thorin.

    Martin Freeman was the perfect choice for Bilbo, he really was excellent. And the riddle-scene with Gollum…wow. Absolutely excellent, beautifully tense and just all round brilliantly done. The see-sawing between Gollum’s personalities was really alarming when seen through new eyes.

    One thing though, I counted a grand total of ONE named female character on screen and only about four or five female extras. I know the source material really isn’t very helpful in that regard, and I’m not entirely sure how they could’ve introduced any more interesting female characters, but it still feels a bit off to sit through three hours of cinema and only have one scene that has a woman with lines in it. Maybe Bert was a girl?

  • Galleymac says:

    I’m definitely not a fan of 3D, and generally go out of my way to avoid it. But having the comparison available to me this time was really striking — the opening scenes of dwarves mining and forging and so on were downright magical, and the 2D (which I saw second) didn’t capture it in the same way. Generally, you could really see where they emphasised it in scenes that took place underground, with lots of dark vs. light contrast, vast cavernous drops, and shiny things.

    There are, as always, times when the 3D was just annoying. But on the other hand, there are scenes that were so obviously stretched out for the 3D prettification that in 2D were just ponderous (e.g. speed rabbits, going round and round and ROUND the cliffs…).

    So yes — not a waste, but my feelings are also mixed, and I’m wondering if I’ll go to any great lengths to catch the sequels. I do want to see the barrel scene…

  • eric says:

    The Goblin King had a scrotum under his chin, no?

  • Frank Fitz says:

    I agree with all of your points, however, flaws or not, I still loved it.

    It reminded me of being eleven again, watching the Fellowship for the first time, and having that yearly anticipation once more.

  • Johan says:

    Yes the hobbit sucked! :/ And wtf was that whole vengeance thing between Thorin and that orc. The movie didnt work at all and that it was boring too. The whole Radagast thing was just embarassing. Shame really.

  • jhasan says:

    I also thought Martin Freeman was the best part of the movie. To me, the issues with the movie are writ small in how they visualized the dawrves. Some, like Thorin and Kili and Fili, look like heroic adventurers. But many of the other are made to look like funny cartoon dwarves. The movie never quite decides which tack to take either.
    And this is probably a funny thing to say about a fantasy movie, but the fight scenes were unbelievable. In LOTR, at least the first two movies, I was able to fear for our heroes- – there was tension generated even if I knew what was going to happen. In Hobbit, dwarves were thrown down some sort of crazy slide, fought through hundreds of goblins, and fell about a mile on a collapsing bridge without even a sprained ankle. And I was never actually worried about any of them.

  • AntMac says:

    Johan, in the Silmarillion there is the tale of how Thorin gets his “Surname” Oakenshield, and it was pretty much exactly the story the other Dwarf tells of his father dying at the gates of Moria.
    The only licence they took was to have the Orc hunting Thorin, and in The Hobbit book, it could easily have been that way and Bilbo just never realised.

    I also saw it in 3D, and also kept feeling that the edges of the glasses became foggy in long shots.

    Did anyone see it in 3D and 48 fps ?.

  • Mark C says:

    @Antmac – Isn’t it all in 48fps? If that is what the film was shot in and today’s cinemas are digital then, regardless of where you go to see The Hobbit, it’s already been rendered as 48fps..?

    My limited understanding of frame rate etc., led me to think it would just be a smoother film to watch (though I wasn’t expecting to really notice the difference). But when it came to it the image just really annoyed me. I’m hoping it’s more to do with the 3D than anything else, hence wanting to see it in good ol’ 2D.

    Anyone see it in both 2D and 3D? Thoughts?

  • mathos says:

    They still managed to make the rivalry between Thorin and Azog a tired and overblown movie cliché. It was the plot of a Van Damme flick in the middle of Peter Jackson’s scrotum and rabbit enhanced Hobbit..

  • Sedulo says:

    I saw The Hobbit in the High Frame Rate. If you had seen the HFR (48 fps) version, you would have noticed. It was only offered on certain screens around where I live and it was the most bizarre effect in the film. Everything is normal in appearance and then they sudennly go into the HFR and it looks like it is a bad “re-enactment. It worked very well in dark plaves but in the light and in close-ups it was sort of liek the first time I ever saw HD TV but more intense by far. It really distracted me. The 3D was good I think.

    For me the worst scene(s) were the whole sequence with Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, Galadriel and Elrond hanging out in Rivendell. Bleh. The conversation between Galadriel and Gandalf re; “WHy the Halfling?” was really annoying and rang false and saccharine. Radagast was more like Rad-Aghast. Give me a break.

    But I liked the prologue and I remember Thorin being way more of a dick (but I suppost there is more on the way)…and Bilbo used to be rather more fretfuland confrontational…but I suppose more will come.

    Oh and I disliked Thorin’s “I love you man” action with Bilbo at the end. WHAAAAT? Also, why were orcs cruising around in the daylight??!!! I thought they could not do that but whatever….right?

    Despite my nitpicks. I had a good time.

  • Gary says:

    You hit a good point about the CGI. CGI is a little bit of a bane to the film industry at the moment, for me anyhow. Sometimes it looks good in films, but quite often I find myself watching something and knowing in the back of my mind that the actors are running around in front of a blue/green background with stuff put in by computer afterwoulds and it’s also the same with CGI creatures/beings. With live actors in costume, you will always get a level of realism that CGI will never have (at this moment in time). Like with your example of the Urak hai in LOTR, I know they are actors in costumes but I’m at least able to momentarily forget as I’m carried away by the film. With loads of CGI I struggle to see past it and it kinds of spoils the illusion/spell that films attempt to weave. Surely there are enough talented prop people and designers in the film industry as well as locations around the world that can be used without the need of computer and blue screen all the time?

    I suppose it’s just getting the right blend between live and CGI, an over reliance on either can look a tad pants on the screen.

    Oh well, Tolkien is a genius, I’m a huge fan of the LOTR and Hobbit books, so will more than likely see it at some point anyway.

  • Wilfred says:

    I agree with Sedulo about the HFR 3D version. I made the movie look weird, but above all made the cgi look even more fake in comparisson.

    I’ve never been a fan of 3D, but I’m sure that I will not be going to any more HFR 3D movies. I’ll still to good old 24fps 2D.

  • JackRandom says:

    I agree with you about the CGI. Channing Tatum did an excellent job as the White Orc.

  • JonathanL says:

    The inconsistency of tone was definitely the most frustrating part, with the uneven and unecessary CGI a close second. Azog, underneath whatever THAT was is actually Gregor Clegane from Game of Thrones, had a great physicality that was undercut by his overall fakeness.

    There were three movies there. A rollicking group adventure, a self-serious fantasy epic, and a small piece about personal growth. I just wish Jackson had stayed with the personal growth as part of the group adventure. Ultimately, if the most distracting CGI was removed (the Goblin King and his secretary looked imported from another film, the rock monster fight was like watching a video game, and the dish-tossing looked so fake it was impossible to suspend disblief), the film would have been better for it. I liked the sorrow of Thorin Oakenshield, but I would have liked it to be more flawed, more wrought with personal vengeance, less with Manly Man Feelings.

    I’m sure I’ll own it someday, which I don’t say for movies much anymore, but I’m in no hurry.

  • Dangerous Jim says:

    I really liked it, more than I expected to, my other half, who normally hates fantasy stuff loved it.

    I was actually thinking my daughter, who is one year old now, will get to see the Hobbit/LOTR films in the right order when she is older enough and I’m sure it will make a lot more sense to her than it does to us.

    I also thought they managed to keep the light childrens story feel to it, with hints of something darker underneath. Which is exactly where the tone should be. So for me it was a hit.

    I wasn’t really sure about the Hobbit being split into three films, but I think having seen the first one it really works.

    I mean, if they made the First law trilogy as three seperate films, and then made Best served cold as another trilogy it would work. Heroes would be tricker, three long extremely violent fight scenes with snappy dialogue. Hmmm, actually I would watch that.

  • Dan Simmons says:

    Saw the movie with my sons last weekend and we loved it, although my youngest son has the bladder of a pigeon and had to make a dash for the men’s room with only 5 minutes left to the movie.
    There aren’t many movies made of this caliber. We can’t wait for the 2nd.

  • drfishninja says:

    The Hobbit – An unexpected steaming pile of Shite

    I really wanted to love this movie.
    I’ve been following the internet chatter on this for what seems like 10 years with the feverish excitement usually reserved for a 12 year old female ‘one direction’ fan.

    The movie has had its share of production troubles with Guillermo del Toro, (pan’s labyrinth) originally hired to direct, stepping away reportedly due to the time it was taking for producers to sort out legal issues. But fear not, the lord of the rings himself, Mr. Jackson was back at the helm.

    Or so I thought. This movie is as bloated as Peter Jackson used to be. I would not deny him one cent of the $180 million he made from LOTR. But with ‘the hobbit’ I feel he’s stuck both his hands in my pockets, had a good feel of my balls with one while emptying my wallet with the other.

    Yes, Yes the movie is not without merit in places, but the whole exercise reeks of riding the fans all the way to the bank.

    More importantly Mr. Abercrombie, when will HBO be making The First Law TV series? or better yet the movie.

  • Yaceen says:

    I agrré with what you said… but I think the main thing bothering me is that the book is really about Bilbo getting out of his house and discovering the world around him, every adventure, every encounter he has revolves around that… he changes in the process and the kid reading is supposed to change as well!
    Bilbo is Middle Earth’ Huck Finn!
    But it is not the case about the movie, which is a shame really…

    But I want to give Jackson a chance to convince me… maybe will we see Bilbo being more and more involved in the story following the same path as his written self?

    Anyway, cootos on your books from a french fan!

  • Jeff Robert says:

    My extended family has had this whole discussion of book vs. movie since Unexpected Journey came out. While I agree there could have been editing of some parts (the silly Troll / Julia Childs scenes) I welcomed the expanded story. First, while it is true that the movie wasn’t a video version of the book, what movie is? Second, when you compare the movie to the book, which addition of the book are you referring to? The first (1937)? The second which had a more serious tone? Or the third that was never published. In the third draft Tolkien specifically wanted to rewrite The Hobbit to be more in tone and continuity with TLOTR. His publishers rejected the idea because they were very happy with their well selling childrens version.
    Finally, having gone back and rewatched the extended version of The Fellowship, it’s clear that Jackson has an eye toward someday having a 6 movie continuous epic, perhaps re-edited to be chronological. IMO, I believe Jackson is being more true to the spirit of Tolkien than he is being credit for.

  • Helkab says:

    Personally I always found the book a bit dull, for me PJ is actually a better storyteller than Tolkien (blasphemy, I know)so I really enjoyed the film, extra bits, bunnies,cute dwarves and all 😉

  • B0Y says:

    I really cannot understand, what there isn’t to like about this film? Apart from your obvious point. The CGI over the previous which agreed took some of the edge off the trolls and orcs, gimp them out a bit instead of the terror they had.

    Yes this film was extended with some of the pre Similarion content in the mix. Where this film was extended it added adventure to those locations. Where awesome to enjoy Middle Earth’s kingdoms, the mountains, forset and plains. The 3D pawned over the 2D providing depth. The 2D was lacking slightly it seemed out of focus on those backgrounds.

    The acting was incedible giving each of the dwarves personalities over just their names within a childrens book. Bilbo Bagin’s acting was 100% and was most of the others. The scene with Gollum and Bilbo had such dynamic I can’t think of to many movies recently with that kind of cinema.

    I sincerely see where PJ is coming from, making a prequel to LOTR in a similiar epicness.

    Personally I think he has done a fine job, yes a skeptic would argue, it is to lomg, it has added parts, its not the book, because of it’s extended content.

    Personally I would rather sit watching 3 hours of a film that I enjoy. Then watching something tedious like alot of the other 3 hour “Epic’s” this year which had been horrible adaptations. The Dark Knight Rises and many more. Or cringe at Game of Thrones bucthering their last season with the added storylines of littlefinger. Making ravens so epic they get the information to kings landing that quick because we have seen the previous scene. Even a religon has been changed the facless man. While missing crucial characters, see below. Killing others the handmaiden and fatso from Quarth maybe they escape the vault, yea right. I can only hope that this coming season as they add the Bastard, Jojen and Meera that is more in line with book 3.

    Thank you Mr Joe, for your First Law triliogy it is absolutely awesome. Please release the rights for it to be made into a movie/series.

  • Curtis says:

    Wow overanalyse much guys? The whole purpose is to escape….release preconceptions and enjoy the story. The Hobbit was the first book I ever truly read. My third grade teacher would read us a little bit out of it everyday if we were good. The school year finished before she could finish the book and I BEGGED my parents to buy it for me. They did and my love of a good book was born. I’ve waited to see this all my life. I was’nt dissapointed. I suspended my adult affliction of comparing and contrasting and holding the story up to it’s “faithful” interpretation of Tolkien’s book, and actually remembered a little kids excitement with a good story that you never wanted to stop. I think Peter Jackson did a good job of expanding a story that the third grade me entirely approved of, without disrespecting Mr. Tolkien. In the end it’s about recapturing that love of story we all have had. Quit thinking about it so damn hard….

  • Joe Abercrombie says:

    When I love something, I like to think about what made it so good. When I hate something, I like to think about what made it so bad. When I’m mildly disappointed in a much anticipated release, I like to think about what worked and what didn’t. For me, much of the enjoyment comes from thinking and, for that matter, considering what other people thought. Maybe that’s because writing is my work, and reflecting on where others might succeed and fail helps me to improve myself. Maybe that’s just the way I’m wired. Sure, very occasionally a film or book or game hits the spot so well for me that I’m just carried away in the moment. But that doesn’t stop me thinking about it later. It keeps me thinking about it longer. How did they do that? What was the trick of it? How did it work?

    So if you want to quit thinking, by all means drool into your popcorn with my blessing. But I’ll try and keep the brain engaged, if I may…

  • Curtis says:

    I’m not a writer. Never pretended to be. I’m just a consumer of good books and stories. My comments were more directed to some of the other posts here. I do realize that you dissect stories (whatever the medium)and this keeps you more engaged on a whole other level. As for me I’m just visiting these realms and I am very pleased that you are one of the tour guides.

    By the way I don’t drool in my popcorn I slobber on it…..can be quite distressing to the other patrons but that’s why I bring plastic.

  • Giasone says:

    Finally saw the film. It was awful. A travesty and an insult to Tolkien and the better actors.

  • Typhon says:

    Yhea, was very let down by this movie. Pretty much started off with me hating the dwarves as being dill-hole guests.
    The childish, WAY over the top, random, senseless situations (goblin king and the mountain giants with their rock fight).
    Little to no funny lines (I laughed once when the goblin king corpse fell on the dwarves-btw, that scene was in the previews so…no “new” laughs). Dwarves sneaking out of Rivendale? Seriously? Oh, and I liked the transition from the goblin riders to Rivendale…duck behind the rock and there you are! wth

Add Your Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *