Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

The Hobbit Review (no spoilers)


Movies

51 to 100 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Luna_Silvertear wrote:
and they had two OBVIOUS drug references in the movie, one of which is neatly described in detail in the appendices of the Trilogy as tobacco is clearly shown to be marijuana. Is nothing sacred anymore?

Yes, cannabis is very sacred and I smoked quite a bit of it before I went into the theater, but I don't think the references in the movie are as clearly marijuana as you seem to think.

I can remember back to when I first smoked a cigarette, oh, 20 or so years ago. It made me dizzy and have a headrush for about as long as Radigast reacts to Gandalf's pipe.

What was the second reference?

Anyway, ever since the LOTR books became big with hippies in the sixties there has been a lot of play with "what are those hobbits smoking?" The movie definitely alludes to all of that, but I don't think it's as OBVIOUS as you make it sound.


Overall, I thought the movie was pretty great. There were times that my butt went numb and I found myself wishing that they could have stuck to the script for the theatrical release and pumped in all the other stuff as DVD extras, but complaining that there was too much seems rather silly.

I also found myself, more times than I would like to admit, comparing the movie, unfavorably, to the cartoon that I have seen somewhere in the vicinity of a million times since childhood.

But it was definitely a good time. I watched it bare bones today, but I will try to see it Super Duper Surround-o-Vision sometime this week with my mother.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The second drug reference was when Saruman says he doesn't like Radagast due to his mushroom habit.

Qadira

ravenharm wrote:

i'm not a fan of the dwarves who barge into a home, eat, soil and break things in a strangers home, contribute to mass burping, then sing a stupid song about it. twice.

They were invited as far as they knew. They'd know the place when they saw the mark was what they were told. If you want to blame anyone for that, blame Gandalf.

Also, they didn't break a thing. The song was a playful bit of sport about their uptight host. In the end they cleaned up after themselves and left the place spotless. Seems honorable enough for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also given that Bilbo did in fact leave for the adventure, consuming the food that would go bad, was actually doing him a favor. Think about coming back to your home after a year, with all the food having decayed in that time. Nasty!


i enjoyed the dwarves in this film they made up for the lack of dwarves in LOTR, And as for their personalities they reminded me of my days in the air force, you know the whole work hard party hard thing comes to mind. and the only part i thought was unnecessary was the rock giant part, it was a unneeded and didn't add anything other than pj saying "hey look at the pretty graphics I can do, now move along theres nothing relevant to the plot here.

Osirion RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Went to see the movie this morning and loved it. I didn't think the movie was at all overstuffed, and in fact felt like it had a nice balance between action scenes and quiet moments. The prologue was amazing, the scenes at Bag End delightful, and loved the dynamic and kinetic depiction of Goblin-town. I also appreciated that the dwarves and Bilbo alike were made much more competent in this movie, rather than just bungling into every trap like a bunch of chumps, only to have Gandalf rescue them again and again. I liked the recurring villains from the past, setting up as it does events that will happen later in a much more credible way.

Also, Radagast was awesome.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you talk bad about Radagast, he will use the Hand of Omega to blow up your planet.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Caught the midnight showing Thursday night. I don't know why so many people are saying it's too long. Those three hours flew by for me. I was never bored and, the way things were going, I would have stayed another six hours to see the whole story. Sure a few scenes that were only footnotes in the book got embellished a bit, but I don't think any of them hurt the story. And I'm sure Tolkien totally meant to write in a part where Radagast drag races a bunch of orcs on the back of a sled pulled by awesome super bunnies. His editor probably cut that part out cuz he was a total square.

Of course the best part of the evening was when I discovered treasure. Some people left the theater without taking their collectible plastic Gandalf cups and Dwarf-covered popcorn bucket so I swept in and pillaged that loot before anyone else noticed it.


Sure, the film was over the top in parts but overall a blast to watch. Based on the mixed reviews I walked in with lowered expectations but was pleasantly surprised. The casting was fantastic.

Osirion

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like how Peter Jackson totally dodged naming the unnamed 'blue' wizards.

Qadira

Set wrote:
I like how Peter Jackson totally dodged naming the unnamed 'blue' wizards.

It was clever, but at the time I was certain that I'd seen their names somewhere and couldn't remember the. Checking up, in Unfinished Tales they are named as Alatar and Pallando.

It also seems that I'm the only person who liked the giant fight. It's pretty much as I imagined it thirty years ago.


pres man wrote:
The second drug reference was when Saruman says he doesn't like Radagast due to his mushroom habit.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Was fixated on the pot.


I saw it Saturday . I loved it but i'm shocked there isnt more outrage on how much Jackson added/changed material that was/wasnt in the book. There is a lot!! Purists will go crazy. Thankfully im not one of them.


Is the Pale Orc from the movie supposed to be there? I know he wasn't in the book. I looked him up in my Tolkien encyclopedia and it didn't give much of a background on him.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Nelson wrote:

Went to see the movie this morning and loved it. I didn't think the movie was at all overstuffed, and in fact felt like it had a nice balance between action scenes and quiet moments. The prologue was amazing, the scenes at Bag End delightful, and loved the dynamic and kinetic depiction of Goblin-town. I also appreciated that the dwarves and Bilbo alike were made much more competent in this movie, rather than just bungling into every trap like a bunch of chumps, only to have Gandalf rescue them again and again. I liked the recurring villains from the past, setting up as it does events that will happen later in a much more credible way.

Also, Radagast was awesome.

My thoughts exactly! After seeing how wonderful this movie was, I realize now that the few who have leaped onto various forums to criticize one thing or the other are just those same people that love to complain and find fault with everything.

Honestly, this movie is great. It's not too long at all (I too felt the time flew by and could have easily stayed for more!) The casting is pitch-perfect (Martian Freeman is just SO freaking great as Bilbo it's amazing). The action / drama / humor balance is perfect.

I love that they used one of my favorite bits of dialog from the book almost word for word - the part where Galdalf lectures Bilbo about the many different meanings of the phrase 'Good Morning'. Seeing that acted out on screen so perfectly by Freeman and McKelan warmed my heart. Oh, and yes - Riddles in the Dark really is THAT good :)

Go see it - you will not be disappointed! We are going back to see it again this week in fact :)


The pale orc exists but not in the Hobbit. Look up Thorin on wikipedia and the orc will be mentioned along with his backstory.

There is another major orc that must appear in the second movie and the third movie.Funny thing is that orc was made into an action figure and a heroclix miniature but isnt in part 1.

The toyline and legos that came out this year are potential spoilers for part 2 and indicate more major changes to the plot.

Was that bird bleep in Radagast's beard?


Yes, Radagast had some birds under his hat, and there was bird poop down the side of his face. Peter Jackson likes a certain level of "yuck" factor in his movies (see the scene in the Two Towers where the orcs ripe one of their own apart to eat him).

Ok some thoughts.

Stuff not in the book:
The background on the dwarf-goblin wars is located in the appendices of the LotR. Azog was the goblin chief. He killed Thorin's grandfather and started the war. Thorin indeed did pick up a branch and used it as a shield, thus gaining his name. Thorin did not defeat Azog, instead it was Dáin, whose father was killed by Azog, who cut off his head. Dáin looked into the doors of Moria and saw something that made him declare that it was not time to take it back. They did mention that the number of dead was staggering to the dwarves, they had to burn them, which was not the dwarven custom. I don't quite understand why they didn't have Azog die and then make Bolg, his son, the main antagonist, but whatever.

Radagast did not have a big part, but was mentioned briefly in The Hobbit when Gandalf met Beorn.

It is mentioned in the Appendices that Gandalf was worried about Smaug being in control of the area, and it was the due to his overthrow that the dwarves and humans near the lonely mountain were able to fight off some dark forces during the war of the ring.

What did I really like:
I was pleased to see the mostly accurate riddle game. Especially I liked that they put in the three guess, which Golem tried to sneak in four.

I liked that the dwarf song about what Mr. Baggins hates was included.

I also liked Radagast line about how he had rhosgobel rabbits, it cracked me up. I now have to include dire rabbits into a future game.

I liked the view of dwarven kingdom, mostly.

I also like how the troll scene was changed with respect to Bilbo and Gandalf. I thought the rock breaking a nice way to deal with it. Not overly magically, but still impressive.

I liked that it ended exactly at the spot I thought it should. Now if the second movie ends at the fall of Smaug, I'll be very happy.

What did I not really like:
The rock giant scene. There were somethings I liked, the saving of Bilbo and the interaction between the characters. But the whole moving mountains was silly.

The goblin town fight. Too long, my wife actually fell asleep for part of it and was only woken up by the Wilhelm scream. Both of these indicate a problem that Jackson has that is similar to Lucas. Just because you can do something with special effects doesn't mean you should. Sometimes less is more.

Also, no mention at all of 15 birds in 5 fir trees. I didn't need the song, but at least a single comment would have been nice.

The preview of spiders, I would have preferred to wait until Bilbo comes face to face with them.

Didn't really like the whole dwarf-elf issue. There were issues between the races, but not to the level Jackson suggested.

I didn't like the look of the dwarven treasury. Too disorganized, it looked like Scrooge McDuck's vault. It was corny. Yes, that makes sense for a dragon that nests on it, but not for a thriving dwarven kingdom. Also, I didn't like the view of Thorin's grandfather being already overcome with dragon gold, before there was even a dragon. I know they are setting up the fall of Thorin, but still it is a very crude way of doing it.

About dragons:
I believe that a big part you don't see much of the dragon is because Jackson doesn't want to get locked into an exact way of designing its appearance until he has to. Same thing happened with Golem in the Fellowship. I can't say this is a bad plan, makes sense to me.

Generally I give the movie an A-.

Qadira

pres man :

On dwarven avarice:

pres man wrote:
I didn't like the look of the dwarven treasury. Too disorganized, it looked like Scrooge McDuck's vault. It was corny. Yes, that makes sense for a dragon that nests on it, but not for a thriving dwarven kingdom. Also, I didn't like the view of Thorin's grandfather being already overcome with dragon gold, before there was even a dragon. I know they are setting up the fall of Thorin, but still it is a very crude way of doing it.

I think that his avarice comes from the fact that Thrór is a ring-bearer.


Of Dwarves:
@brock: I certainly believe that might be a view that Jackson might buy into. It is a bit of a direct contradiction of the description of the influence of the dwarven rings. Also that is a weird view, given that Thorin shouldn't have the ring, so why would he fall into dragon gold lust later on?

Re: Goofy dwarves
I blame a much older film, Snow White and Seven Dwarves. :P
Seriously, yes they were goofy at times, but when the rubber hits the road, then get serious quick. Bombur was always a bit of a comical character. There are certainly some more serious dwarves in the group. Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, and even Fili and Kili most of the time. Dori, Nori, and Ori are comical, but honestly I thought they could have totally dropped them from the movie before it was made because they aren't really very relevant to the story except for beefing up the number to 13 dwarves. In the movie, the only dwarves I didn't really get a feel for were Oin and Bifur, the rest seemed to have their own special moments.


Shadowborn wrote:
I'm still going to give Peter Jackson the benefit of the doubt, but I expect there to be a lot of padding to stretch The Hobbit into a trilogy.

I very much got the sense that they ended up with enough content for about 2 1/2 movies, and decided it would be easier to fluff out to 3 movies rather than trim it down to 2.

I suspect the 2nd and 3rd movies will feel more complete, if my guesses are correct about where they will draw the line between the two of them.

As it was, I certainly enjoyed the Hobbit. There was definitely more filler than in LotR, but there was also many good moments as well. Martin Freeman was excellent as Bilbo, and they seem to have decided to go with that as the 'theme' of the movie - showing his progression from reluctant adventurer to a proper member of the company of Thorin Oakenshield. Most of the scenes that were changed from the book had to do with emphasizing that transition.

In some ways, I think that is a shame, since most of those changes otherwise felt unnecessary - and if they weren't as concerned with filling out the length of this movie, they may have been able to leave them intact.

Still, it was a three hour movie that kept me engaged enough that I barely noticed the passage of time. It has left me eagerly awaiting the remaining movies. And I think, when all three are complete, it will stand as a solid counterpart to Lord of the Rings.


Marc Radle wrote:
...I realize now that the few who have leaped onto various forums to criticize one thing or the other are just those same people that love to complain and find fault with everything.

Probably not.

Qadira

Marc Radle wrote:

After seeing how wonderful this movie was, I realize now that the few who have leaped onto various forums to criticize one thing or the other are just those same people that love to complain and find fault with everything.

Or perhaps some of us just have differing opinions of the movie. It's worth, like all art, is subjective you know.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just saw it tonight and I really enjoyed it.

Likes-:
I loved Ian Holm's breakdown of Smaug/Erebor/Dale in the beginning. The visuals for them were amazing.

-I loved the entire setup for the adventure in Bilbo's home, the "good morning" conversation, the songs, the map/key and the massive consumption of food was great.

-Very cool to see more competent Dwarves fighting the goblins and trolls. And they did a decent job giving some personality to some of them.

-I liked the tie-in of the White Council/Dol Guldor/Necromancer. I would have just liked to see Cirdan and Glorfindel involved as well and maybe we'll see them in the later films.

-Radagast was pretty cool; I liked the costume, the the bunny sleigh and just how they worked him into the movie. I could have done with out the bird poop and drug jokes but oh well...

Dislikes:

-Stone Giants roller coaster ride. I never pictured them as actual stone, more like D&D Stone Giants.

-The Great Goblin's voice did not fit the design at all, it completely threw me off when he spoke. His dying words were too silly too...

-The bridge fighting was too crazy paced. I've always disliked those split second action shots that jump and jump and jump so you're not sure who is hitting who or what is really happening.

-My biggest complaint was Azog. They really changed his whole story and I'm not really sure why as his son, Bolg, would have fit fine too. His appearance at the end bugged me but I realize they are setting up the BBEG showdown with Thorin and hopefully after another viewing, I won't care. I remember the Elves at Helm's Deep bothered the hell out me but they grew on me. I imagine seeing how Azog works through the rest of the franchise will help.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nice analysis, Callous Jack. I think you are spot-on.

Osirion

Callous Jack wrote:

Just saw it tonight and I really enjoyed it.

** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

Good analysis, and it makes me wonder;

Spoiler:

Peter Jackson clearly chose to make the dwarves (and Bilbo) appear more competent and less hapless passengers in the narrative choo-choo during the scenes with the trolls, and later, with their actions in the 'fifteen birds in five fir trees' scene.

And then he adds 'hapless dwarves as strapped in passengers, oh so conveniently saved only by luck and happenstance' scenes with the stone giants and the collapsing bridges in goblin town.

It bugs me that he clearly recognized a need to 'dwarf up' the dwarves and Bilbo from their original presentation in the text, and yet then forgot entirely to apply that logic to his own little additions to the script. Editor, I say, edit thyself!

I mean, if you're going to have the balls to 'fix' Tolkein, you should at least follow through, right? :)


Well, I thought that the "power level" of the party varied rather dramatically, from "hyper-competent" when dealing with the goblins to "run away like scared chickens" when dealing with the orcs.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So when the DVD comes out, anyone else going to edit a couple of the goblin scenes with the Goblin song from burnt offerings?

Osirion

CapeCodRPGer wrote:
So when the DVD comes out, anyone else going to edit a couple of the goblin scenes with the Goblin song from burnt offerings?

I do kind of love how the goblins of Golarion evoke the goblins of Middle-Earth, with all their whacky singing fun.


At the risk of reopening the age old debate......

Dwarven women with beards was really the only thing that bothered me in the film, let alone the fact they are walking about in public. Well maybe the bird crap on Radagast's beard..... No, it has to be bearded women. Just plain stupid IMHO.

In Tolkien's world (as written in the appendices) :
Dwarven women are never seen.
One dwarf in seven is a woman, hence the low birth rate.
Only one is mentioned by name. I believe she is called Dis.
They are able to talk with deep voices which makes them indistinguishable from males when they are in the dark.

Still, it doesn't take away my enjoyment of this great movie.

The dwarves are a lot more resoucefull than in the book.

Thorin comes off as proud and strong, not the snob he appears to be in the book.

The battle of Azanulbizar was great.

Azog was meh.

Thorin's sword kick's the proverbial you-know-what.

The wargs look like wargs.

The interior of Bag-end looks great. I want to live in a smial.

Can hardly wait 'till the next one comes out.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I liked the bird poop on Radagast's beard. It immediately identified this individual as eccentric, to say the least.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mazra wrote:
I liked the bird poop on Radagast's beard. It immediately identified this individual as eccentric, to say the least.

Watching the movie it looked more like mold to me.

Osirion

Caineach wrote:
Mazra wrote:
I liked the bird poop on Radagast's beard. It immediately identified this individual as eccentric, to say the least.
Watching the movie it looked more like mold to me.

That's what I thought, too, that it was some sort of fungal / lichen growth. Although now that I've read people calling it bird poop, I'll probably never be able to see it as anything but bird poop...


Considering he had 2 birds stored under his hat ...


so awesome especially that goblin and Smaug


Mazra wrote:
I liked the bird poop on Radagast's beard. It immediately identified this individual as eccentric, to say the least.

I've got mixed feeling about this one. Bird poo aside, I'm not convinced Radagast's eccentricity contributed to make The Hobbit a better movie. I'm starting to resent Peter Jackson's tenacity about turning otherwise noble (if sometimes flawed) characters into ridiculous buffoons, whether they are amusing buffoons like Radagast, insane buffoons like Denethor or just idiot buffoons like Faramir.

*sigh*


Laurefindel wrote:
Mazra wrote:
I liked the bird poop on Radagast's beard. It immediately identified this individual as eccentric, to say the least.

I've got mixed feeling about this one. Bird poo aside, I'm not convinced Radagast's eccentricity contributed to make The Hobbit a better movie. I'm starting to resent Peter Jackson's tenacity about turning otherwise noble (if sometimes flawed) characters into ridiculous buffoons, whether they are amusing buffoons like Radagast, insane buffoons like Denethor or just idiot buffoons like Faramir.

*sigh*

Are you sure you're not upset that Glorfindel ended up on the cutting room floor? :P

But seriously, please expound on your idea of buffoonery. I'm not saying you're wrong, but however emotionally simple (or whatever) Jackson's writing/direction is, you need to watch Dead/Alive (aka Braindead) to see him doing buffoonery for its own sake.


Hitdice wrote:

Are you sure you're not upset that Glorfindel ended up on the cutting room floor? :P

But seriously, please expound on your idea of buffoonery. I'm not saying you're wrong, but however emotionally simple (or whatever) Jackson's writing/direction is, you need to watch Dead/Alive (aka Braindead) to see him doing buffoonery for its own sake.

:) no, I'm quite glad that Glorfindel didn't get butchered...

As for Radagast's buffoonery, his role was appropriately used to expose the darkening of Greenwood the great into what would be known as Mirkwood. The fact that he runs around like a mad rabbit (nevermind get pulled by mad rabbits) under the influence of "mushrooms" (if one is to believe Saruman) was unnecessary to provide plot exposition. His demeanor and appearance does not reinforce his role as guardian of Greenwood and of the woodsmen, and member of the same order as Gandalf and Saruman.

A wise druid-like character in a village of sturdy but worried woodsmen (Rhosgobel?) would have served the role equally well.

Spoiler:
And despite Saruman's resentment for Radagast, this whole plot exposition could have taken place at Rivendell. We just came out of a troll action scene and are about to delve into Goblintown soon. The rabbit-sled race seemed just as superfluous as the stone-giant scene IMO, but I digress...

I guess Peter Jackson (or his producers, let's be fair here) felt the need for an humorous character to lighten-up the mood of the story.


Right, Gotcha, I was just saying that the guy who provides a distraction while everyone else escapes is a buffoon so much as a hero.

Personally, I loved the movie, if only because I haven't read the book in, no kidding, dozens of years. During the past few decades id' forgotten how sympathetic character Bilbo is.

I know it looks bad, but I don't think the mushroom eating is a drug reference. I think it's foreshadowing that Saruman isn't in touch with the natural world to the same degree as Radagast, and that's that's why Saruman falls and Radagast doesn't. The bunny-sled looks stupid, but it's a fertility symbol, and that's exactly the language Tolkien wrote in.

I mean, I'm not telling you have to like the movie, I'm just saying I enjoyed it on more than one level.

Edit: If they'd wanted go all grimdark, they could have introduced a certain werebear in that role.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Providing a distraction, but continuing to lead them across your projected path is a bit of buffoon. How about leading in the completely wrong direction? You don't have to head West, but North or South might be nice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Right, Gotcha, I was just saying that the guy who provides a distraction while everyone else escapes is a buffoon so much as a hero.

Right you are, Radagast being a bit of a buffoon (in the movie) makes him no less of a hero. Closer to the script of Tolkien himself, Pippin from LotR can be a bit of a buffoon, and he remains one of my favourite characters. As Gangalf would say: a fool, but an honest one. But he didn't need to smoke pot in his pipe nor have bird crap on his jacket to make him so.

Similarly, Peter Jackson's "buffoonery" about Denethor makes him no less of a villain, and Faramir no less of a... well, I'm not sure how I should see Faramir from RotK, but it isn't the less proud but more clearsighted brother of Boromir that he should have been. Again, I digress...

As for the werebear, he's still only supposed to show-up in the next chapter :)


This movie really dragged for me. The pacing seemed all off. Some of that worked in the book (eg. the opening scene in the Shire) but didn't translate well. My friends and I all left disappointed I'm afraid - most of us because of the pacing and filler. I'm not a purist nor looking to criticize just for the sake of it. There were some great scenes as well, but overall it was kind of a dud for me.

My 2 cp.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Laurefindel wrote:
Mazra wrote:
I liked the bird poop on Radagast's beard. It immediately identified this individual as eccentric, to say the least.

I've got mixed feeling about this one. Bird poo aside, I'm not convinced Radagast's eccentricity contributed to make The Hobbit a better movie. I'm starting to resent Peter Jackson's tenacity about turning otherwise noble (if sometimes flawed) characters into ridiculous buffoons, whether they are amusing buffoons like Radagast, insane buffoons like Denethor or just idiot buffoons like Faramir.

*sigh*

To each his own. The Hobbit is for children. Radagast with his bunny sleigh was designed to amuse children, or the child in some of us.

I happened to like John Nobles's take on Denethor. I would have liked to have seen more of Faramir. He was a favorite of mine in the books.

It is very difficult for me to be too critical. Good fantasy movies are rare. Great ones nearly non-existent. I am very appreciative of The Hobbit. It is good fantasy.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

One thing I thought the should have done:

Spoiler:
When Bilbo was running out of the shire, they should have had Him run past the guy in the tan clothes that was sweeping up in front of his place. They showed him at the start of fellowship, and end of return of the king. Would have been amusing to show guy doing same thing again.


Well, in regards to Denethor, I think Jackson not including the revelation that Denethor had a Palantir of his own badly hurt the character, unnecessarily villifying him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I quite liked it. I hadn't read the book since I was a child, and after The Lord of the rings I just couldn't read The Similarian. So I enjoyed the background material as new for me. I do wish that PJ would recognize that often smaller scenes can often have a stronger impact. The best fight scenes in the original trilogy are in the 1st movie, with the goblins and cave troll in Moria, and the battle with the orcs by the river at the end. It's harder to be compatible with the dark themes when your characters are running around on moving roller coasters. The giant scene could have been great, but was wasted potential for that reason. That said, I actually quite liked the movie despite those two complaints. I recommend seeing and am eagerly awaiting part 2.


Mazra wrote:
To each his own. The Hobbit is for children. Radagast with his bunny sleigh was designed to amuse children, or the child in some of us.

I'm not convinced about The Hobbit being a children's story. The book might have been, but the movie is full of scenes of decapitation, graphic violence and physical grossness bordering the limits of what PG-13 allows. There are many grimdark elements in this movie.

So yeah, I didn't like what was done with Radagast and because I've been critically vocal about it, people assume that I disliked the movie. Mind you, I'm also of the ones who very much enjoyed The Phantom Menace, even though I disliked Jar-Jar Binx.

'findel


I'm glad it's PG13 and not some G rated Sesame Street tale. That would freakin suck.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Laurefindel wrote:
Mazra wrote:
To each his own. The Hobbit is for children. Radagast with his bunny sleigh was designed to amuse children, or the child in some of us.

I'm not convinced about The Hobbit being a children's story. The book might have been, but the movie is full of scenes of decapitation, graphic violence and physical grossness bordering the limits of what PG-13 allows. There are many grimdark elements in this movie.

So yeah, I didn't like what was done with Radagast and because I've been critically vocal about it, people assume that I disliked the movie. Mind you, I'm also of the ones who very
much enjoyed The Phantom Menace, even though I disliked Jar-Jar Binx.

'findel

I think most 13 year olds can handle The Hobbit movie. And that is about the age Peter Jackson was likely aiming for with much of what is in movie. There are many lighter tones compared to the LotR.

I didn't assume you didn't like the movie. But you clearly didn't like Radagast. And that is cool. Personally he was my favorite part. His manic care for the animals was amusing. The character was filled with whimsy. Sylvester McCoy did a splendid job. And I really liked the bunnies. So as I said, to each his own. I just disagreed with your comments. I thought Radagast added greatly to the movie.

Btw- I could handle Jar-Jar. It was Anakin that was annoying to me in The Phantom Menace. :)


Just got back from it. I haven't read the book in decades, but even I could tell it was very different from the original. For movies, that's inevitable, and I thought it was handled well and with due respect to Dr. Tolkien. PJ certainly loves him (to the tune of uncountable millions rivaling Smaug's hoard).

There was a certain "Pixar" kinda thing to it. All fights, falls, etc., have to be so epic as to have the most hair's-breadth narrow escapes possible. I kept thinking Shrek, the donkey, and Spiderman were all going to come flying by going "whooooaaah!" any second, then Danny Glover would run by and yell "I'm too old for this ----!"

It was more over-the-top than it had to be, but then again, the target audience is young enough to be my kid.

I know that's the stuff of action movies today, since it's so easy to do with computers, but like someone hinted earlier, the story is so good, you don't need to wow us with high-flying, one-in-a-million-chance, surf-the-explosion-on-an-escape-hatch thrills every minute.

The Hobbit, like any good tale, is good because it makes us care about the characters. It was good to see so many pop in from LOTR, and, no doubt, we'll see a few more before it's over.

The pacing was good, and they ended it at the perfect spot. Of course I'll see the rest of it!

51 to 100 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gamer Life / Movies / The Hobbit Review (no spoilers) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.