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

The Hobbit Review (no spoilers)


Movies

1 to 50 of 185 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I went and saw the movie last night and I must say that, in comparison to the Trilogy, it was lacking. Visually, it was fantastic, but that's pretty much where the good stuff ends. They cut the movie into two parts (Which is the single most annoying part of the whole movie) and they added a whole BUNCH of stuff that was nowhere in the book (I don't think they took anything out...something the Trilogy did to Tom Bombadil), 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? Digressing, they fed off of references to the Trilogy, which is to be expected. Some of these things truly helped to enrich the story in minor ways, mostly due to the fact that the Hobbit was written before LoTR. On the whole, The Hobbit (part 1) was a good movie, but if you stand it up next to the Trilogy itself, it falls tragically short. Perhaps I'm being overly critical, but this was the first book I truly ever read and in fact still have that specific copy floating around here, and as such maybe I sort of romanticized the movie to the point of idealization as the Hobbit holds a very special place in my heart. Maybe I'm just geeking out...anyway...go see it, it is worth the watch, but don't expect the same high quality as the Trilogy.

My 2 CP


[bubble bubble bubble]

I am going to see it on Sunday. Until then, [hides thread].


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Hobbit itself is a very different story from Lord of the Rings and seems geared towards children (lots of comedy begining) . I've reread up until where i believe part 1 ends and im very suprised Jackson was able to make a movie on just this part. It would seem based on trailers that he added a lot and just like LOTR the action scenes were better than the books (in the mines of Moria the troll battle i believe was 1 sentence?).

How would you compare it to episode 1 of Star Wars or other current fantasy movies out there (except LOTR). If LOTR is an At in your book is the hobbit a solid B?

My gut tells me that movie 2 is where the fans get a lot of stuff only briefly mentioned in the Hobbit (the white council, etc)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Luna_Silvertear wrote:
They cut the movie into two parts

Three parts.

Quote:
one of which is neatly described in detail in the appendices of the Trilogy as tobacco is clearly shown to be marijuana.

While I haven't yet seen the film and thus I can't speak to the exact context of how pipe-weed is portrayed, this doesn't strike me as being particularly "sacred". Tobacco is, itself, a drug with addictive and mind-altering properties. It seems silly to deride the movie for including "obvious drug references" when the original book (not to mention the LOTR) was full of them. Portraying the halfling's leaf as marijuana seems a natural fit for their way of life, not to mention injecting a bit of contemporary commentary into the film. Movies are not made in a cultural vacuum, and adaptations are just that - adaptations. Their faithfulness to the source is not and should not be the end-all of how they are judged.

Qadira

4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


It's going to be awesome. When do we ever get quality fantasy movies? First of 3 films of course and they haven't got to the good parts yet.


Scott Betts wrote:
Luna_Silvertear wrote:
They cut the movie into two parts

Three parts.

Quote:
one of which is neatly described in detail in the appendices of the Trilogy as tobacco is clearly shown to be marijuana.
While I haven't yet seen the film and thus I can't speak to the exact context of how pipe-weed is portrayed, this doesn't strike me as being particularly "sacred". Tobacco is, itself, a drug with addictive and mind-altering properties. It seems silly to deride the movie for including "obvious drug references" when the original book (not to mention the LOTR) was full of them. Portraying the halfling's leaf as marijuana seems a natural fit for their way of life, not to mention injecting a bit of contemporary commentary into the film. Movies are not made in a cultural vacuum, and adaptations are just that - adaptations. Their faithfulness to the source is not and should not be the end-all of how they are judged.

I just found out it would be in three parts. They did call it pipe weed, but it is, in fact, tobacco. You mention "contemporary commentary", and yet LoTR, though it focused a little too much on the relationship between Arwen and Aragorn, seemed to lack such injections...although I do now remember something mentioned by Saruman in FoTR about the halfling leaf slowing Gandalf's mind. Digressing, this review is MY opinion, and everyone has one. When I was a child, LoTR and the Hobbit were my outlit. When I opened those books, I was with Bilbo in Gollum's cave. I was there when the Battle of Five Armies was being fought. They're what led me to D&D and Pathfinder. Those books defined part of who I am, so you'll have to forgive me for holding them is such high regard. All the changes and additions aside, the Hobbit was a good movie and, @Wicked Cool, trumps Episode 1 by a LOOOONG shot, and pretty much most fantasy movies I've seen since LoTR. I watch a show on BBC called Merlin (the plug was pulled for a 6th season :[) that is the only thing I can compare to LoTR in...epicness...other than a good Pathfinder campaign.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Going to see the movie tomorrow with my girlfriend. Do they accualy show what they grow is marijuana? I took it from the LOTR movies as normal tobacco. Just named different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Considering that in current society mary jane is considered "healthy" (used for medicinal purposes) and tobacco is damaging, I think the trend towards making it more similar to marijuana is the more "responsible" choice in many people's eyes.

I liked some background of the dwarf-goblin war (especially explaining Thorin's name), but I wasn't too overly impressed with the antagonist related to it.

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:

Considering that in current society mary jane is considered "health" (used for medicinal purposes) and tobacco is damaging, I think the trend towards making it more similar to marijuana is the more "responsible" choice in many people's eyes.

Which is the dumbest thing ever. it is damaging and illegal.


Andrew R wrote:
pres man wrote:

Considering that in current society mary jane is considered "health" (used for medicinal purposes) and tobacco is damaging, I think the trend towards making it more similar to marijuana is the more "responsible" choice in many people's eyes.

Which is the dumbest thing ever. it is damaging and illegal.

Well, not more damaging than tobacco if you accept some of the studies made. Also the movie isn't shown just in the U.S., in fact it isn't even filmed in the U.S., and most of the actors are not U.S. citizens. So it is possible for some places it is shown, this particular material isn't in fact illegal.


i just came back from seeing the movie.
it was as enjoyable as seeing an old friend, and at times... an old friend who has overstayed his welcome.

if i knew how to do the "hide boxes" i would go into detail.


There is a button below the text box that says: How to format your text

Click on the [Show] button and follow the example.

I would suggest hitting preview before posting until you got it figured out.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just got back from seeing it. I loved it. The changes made worked well for the narrative on the big screen.


Andrew R wrote:
pres man wrote:

Considering that in current society mary jane is considered "health" (used for medicinal purposes) and tobacco is damaging, I think the trend towards making it more similar to marijuana is the more "responsible" choice in many people's eyes.

Which is the dumbest thing ever. it is damaging and illegal.

It is of questionable legality, depending on where you live, and certainly less damaging than tobacco.

I'm sure you never drink any alcohol, either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing is we have a looong mass cultural attachment to alcohol (and to a lesser extent tobacco) that cannot realistically be changed. Adding other dangerous substances which we don't really have much cultural link to historically seems a bad idea.

Anyhoo, that aside, I LOVED Part 1 of the Hobbit (and didn't mind the drug references), don't listen to purists - who were never going to like it, it's really good fun. Or if you're a purist, more power to you, but don't bother going - you won't like it. The only point I personally didn't like and thought unnecessary was the stone giant sequence - which was way over the top and really unbelievable imo. Okay, as with any movie there were little niggles, but really no more than in the excellant PJ LOTR movies - and less than I had with RotK.

Loved the main Orc bad guy, liked the Great Goblin, loved the (Gundabad-)wargs, but most of all (despite mainstream reviews to the contrary) the film splendidly succeeds in making the dwarves identifiable individuals and sympathetic. Thorin especially is very well done. I was able by the end to name almost all of the dwarves by sight - which is no mean feat for PJ to have achieved.

Oh and the scenes showing Dale and Erebor at their heights made me have a geekgasm in my pants. Brilliant visuals.

I'm not sure the 3d did much, beyond a couple of nice moments when a moth or a bird flew out over the audience, so I'd probably advising going to IMAX 3d for the first showing, and (as I will be next week some time) when you go for the inevitable second cinema viewing switch to a standard screen.

Btw, what potions of longevity have Elijah Wood and Kate Blanchett been guzzling? Those guys have not visually aged one jot.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

Is it really likely there are any plot spoilers possible for this movie amongst this crowd?


Andrew Turner wrote:
Is it really likely there are any plot spoilers possible for this movie amongst this crowd?

So, Gandalf doesn't die in the first movie?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Andrew Turner wrote:
Is it really likely there are any plot spoilers possible for this movie amongst this crowd?

Yes.:
While I'm pretty sure most of this crowd will have experienced The Hobbit through either the old cartoon movie or the book, not everyone's read the entirety of Lord of the Rings. And there's a fair amount of material from the Appendicies (and I think a few other Tolkien sources) ripped out to make the movie what it is.

I think it was an all right movie. It's certainly a high-quality fantasy movie, and it's not like we're drowning in those, so on that hand, it was well done.

But on the other hand, it's the Hobbit. And to me it felt like Peter Jackson just... kinda missed the mark a bit. It was like every scene was a little too grandiose. A little too epic. This worked for Lord of the Rings, but the Hobbit is a much smaller story, and turning everything into a huge "woha!" moment does the story a disservice. IMHO.

The movie was at its' strongest in the scenes that followed the book the closest. Such as the riddle scene between Gollum and Bilbo, which was just plain fantastic.

Also,

Spoiler:

Did the elves plan on robbing Erebor, or did they just put a huge army together, travelled however long it was, just to tell the dwarves "neener neener" and go back home? :P

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Too grandiose, yes, that was part of the problem I had with this movie. The second was too much action in the movie after leaving the Shire. It was like PJ was trying to cram as much excitement into the movie as he could, which seems unnecessary when breaking the story into three parts. The third was the complete cheapening of Gandalf's magic. Gandalf is better at swordplay in this movie than he is at magic, and worse yet, probably better at swordplay than at least 10 of the dwarves.

Overall, it was an enjoyable movie but lacked something as compare to the LotR trilogy.

Aside: Anybody else notice a correlation between the Maiar and the Timelords? Gandalf's always telling everybody to run in these movies, just like the Doctor. Then's that other trick he pulls...


Reckless wrote:
Gandalf is better at swordplay in this movie than he is at magic, and worse yet, probably better at swordplay than at least 10 of the dwarves.

Haven't seen the movie but to be fair, the Drwarves are pretty pathetic in the book...

As a matter of fact, other than

Spoiler:
orcrist that Thorin finds in the Troll lair and the bows they get from Beorn,
there is no mention of them being armed at all in The Hobbit before the Battle of Five Armies.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I just saw it today in 24fps, gonna see it the coming week in 48fps again.

I felt that it lacked the drama of the LOTR trilogy, which given the source material is probably logical. Jacksons desire to foreshadow LOTR added a lot of tonal inconsistency though, since it made the lighter story quite dark in a lot of instances.

All in all, a good film, but not as good as the LOTR trilogy so far.

I loved the prologue, though, which showed the dwarfen kingdom of Erebor. Really impressive and just how I'd imagine a prosperous dwarfen kingdom to look like.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just returned from seeing it. Ten times better than I imagined with all the negative reviews I had read. It was a blast.


what i do want to point out is the film was enjoyable and fun for me. i liked it alot but when compared to the trilogy, i find it lacking.

my biggest complaint was the 12 stupid gully dwarves and 1 stoic serious human like dwarf.

i think this movie will give future players a head start to play their dwarves like john belushi in animal house. i still hear the echoes of dwarven burps in my head. this movie actually had a song about washing dishes and pissing hobbits off! >=[

there is also a scene where it stokes the fire between elves and dwarves even further towards the middle of the movie in a comedic way. as if our crowd needed more elf/dwarf angst.


ravenharm wrote:

what i do want to point out is the film was enjoyable and fun for me. i liked it alot but when compared to the trilogy, i find it lacking.

my biggest complaint was the 12 stupid gully dwarves and 1 stoic serious human like dwarf.

i think this movie will give future players a head start to play their dwarves like john belushi in animal house. i still hear the echoes of dwarven burps in my head. this movie actually had a song about washing dishes and pissing hobbits off! >=[

That's actually in the original. I don't know if they changed the song, but Tolkien really wrote one in the Hobbit. "That's what Bilbo Baggins hates!"


thejeff wrote:
ravenharm wrote:

what i do want to point out is the film was enjoyable and fun for me. i liked it alot but when compared to the trilogy, i find it lacking.

my biggest complaint was the 12 stupid gully dwarves and 1 stoic serious human like dwarf.

i think this movie will give future players a head start to play their dwarves like john belushi in animal house. i still hear the echoes of dwarven burps in my head. this movie actually had a song about washing dishes and pissing hobbits off! >=[

That's actually in the original. I don't know if they changed the song, but Tolkien really wrote one in the Hobbit. "That's what Bilbo Baggins hates!"

thats the dish washing song.

i had read somewhere that jackson had omitted and took out alot of the whimsical funny things in the lotr books when he was making his previous 3 movies, adding very few of those instances.

i could have done without any of the songs especially specific portayal of dwarves.

Qadira

ravenharm wrote:
thejeff wrote:
ravenharm wrote:

what i do want to point out is the film was enjoyable and fun for me. i liked it alot but when compared to the trilogy, i find it lacking.

my biggest complaint was the 12 stupid gully dwarves and 1 stoic serious human like dwarf.

i think this movie will give future players a head start to play their dwarves like john belushi in animal house. i still hear the echoes of dwarven burps in my head. this movie actually had a song about washing dishes and pissing hobbits off! >=[

That's actually in the original. I don't know if they changed the song, but Tolkien really wrote one in the Hobbit. "That's what Bilbo Baggins hates!"

thats the dish washing song.

i had read somewhere that jackson had omitted and took out alot of the whimsical funny things in the lotr books when he was making his previous 3 movies, adding very few of those instances.

i could have done without any of the songs especially specific portayal of dwarves.

So you'd prefer that Jackson not keep to the book then?


yes. tolkien was not perfect.


If you were expecting LOTR then don't. This is the Hobbit, a much lighter tale than the Epic rings. Jackson added some material into the movie that wasn't in the book but Tolkien left on the sidelines which helpf make a fresher, richer story. They don't make fantasy epics much, and I will enjoy this when I see it next week.


super slayer is right i was expecting more lotr.

what i'm afriad of is this interpetation of dwarves will entitle future players to "gully dwarf" it out on my gaming table. the movie solidified the stereotype.

there is alot of new found species racism at my table that leans heavy towards pro dwarf, and in particular they dont play as honerable, stoic, loyal, and productive dwarves.
they are more inclined to play drooling, spitting, stupid, burping, farting, and disruptive dwarf.

i'll say no more on the subject however, as per i do want people to see the movie.


So what you are saying, is that you really disliked the LotR movies due to Gimli, these are just derivates of that character.


i actually loved the trilogy of the movies, and consider this trilogy as one the few times the movies are superior to the books.

if gimli was the only dwarf to act plucky and silly, i would be completly cool with that. hes a king who deals with humans, he would have to be more light hearted then the average dwarf.
but if gimli (in the sense of acting like a fool) is to be the standard personification of the race, then i would enjoy the movies a little less.
i had to look for the "cool moments" in the original trilogy to justify gimli as more then just comic relief.( like when he benchpressed 2 warg bodies and a dead orc as an amazing feat of strength, or when he asked the elf maiden for a token in the form of a lock of her hair becuase he thought she was beautiful)

but i would envite you to see the movie for yourself. its totally worth the 15 dollars. i loved thorin.


Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

Just saw it last night and overall I enjoyed it. It was a gorgeous movie and though I agree with some of the criticisms of it, those things didn't ruin the movie for me. Actually the cartoon version of the The Hobbit was my first introduction to the fantasy genre back when I was in 5th grade. I liked it so much I read the book, the LotR, and on to Moorcock, Lieber, Howard, and so on and then into D&D and now Pathfinder. Of course I own a DVD of the cartoon version and in many ways I prefer it to the movie (movies) that PJ is making, but that does not mean I did not enjoy this new version and I eagerly await the next two installments. Now for some specific thoughts:

Spoiler:
I did not like the Stone Giant sequence either. I wouldn't have minded seeing the stone giants fight or even throw rocks at each other or even at Thorin's co. but the whole roller coaster ride on the fighting giants was way too hokey.

Spoiler:
I was disappointed that the goblin song about burning 15 birds was dropped, but I can see why. That scene was altered to cater more to the epic adventure film this was being turned into. Still, I loved the goblin songs in the book and how they were done in the cartoon. Really that is, I am sure, where the main inspirations for Paizo goblin's love of fire and cruelly witty and deranged songs come from.

The pipe-weed as marijuana thing didn't bother me, but I think it was pushed a bit too far. A sly wink would have been better, not Gandalf and Radagast as Middle Earth's Cheech and Chong.

I loved the way Smaug's takeover of Ereborn was shown in the beginning. It really did make me think of the original Godzilla movie.

The riddle scene was great, though I think they cut off some of Gollum's riddle about time. It was almost as good as the way the scene was done in the cartoon, but I never liked the way the cartoon Gollum looked like a boggard more than a twisted halfling.

Some reviewers have deplored all the additional material and changes made in order to puff up the movie. It didn't really bother me so much as I understand a lot of the material did come from Tolkien's appendices and other notes. In fact, I found that some of the additions made the whole thing make more sense - such as why Gandalf picked Bilbo specifically (and not just any other random sneaky weed smoking hobbit), and why the elves and dwarves had such grievances, and why despite that Thorin and Co. went to Rivendell, and the interconnections between the dragon, the goblins and orcs, and the Necromancer which caused Gandalf to involve himself in Thorin's quest to begin with.

I like how Gandalf is shown to be a master manipulator, which really he was in the books if you pay attention.

Well, that's all for now. An enjoyable movie. Not perfect, but enjoyable and I think will inspire people to do what I did and read the originals and then move on to other fantasy books and then hopefully Pathfinder!


Taishaku wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
The stone giant boxing match was downright dumb. Like someone had just come back from watching Real Steel before pitching that idea.
Silver Crusade

I am looking forward to the movie. To be perfectly honest, the Tom Bombadil scene in the book never added any value as far as I was concerned. The author's writing style bored me, but the LOTR movies didn't.

Then again, I hated the recent Thor movie and have had no desire to see the Avengers. YMMV.


I liked the movie, though I was a bit confused at parts. I didnt remember some things, but just chalked it up to Jacksons additions. After expressing this to friends of mine though, I was informed that Jackson also included material from The Silmarillion, which I never read. I hope this answers anyone elses' confusion. Other than a little hammy acting at times, I enjoyed the flick.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually I think he included material from the appendices of the Lord of the Rings. I don't think he has legal access to The Silmarillion IIRC.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Why Dwarves are awsome

NSFW language. They should show that before each showing of The Hobbit.


CapeCodRPGer wrote:

Why Dwarves are awsome

NSFW language. They should show that before each showing of The Hobbit.

:throws up: this is the crap i'm talking about. my gaming table is 2.5 of these guys.

more of this, and i'll quit the hobby.


The Hobbit made $37.5 million dollars domestic on Friday alone. It's on track to be super huge blockbuster.

Qadira

Saw it tonight. It was good. Not great, but good.

They were hardly "gully dwarves." They all had IQs above 60 and there was no nose-picking at all. Pretty standard dwarves as far as things go.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, I don't get why the dwarves get hate. They were pretty much what I expected of dwarf adventurers, who are ( if you care to read the race entries ) normally the dwarves who conform least to the norms of their races life. The ones we saw in Erebor appeared very much to be the more stoic lawful people they also are.

If I have complaints about them, it would have to be that they really could have gotten more than one personality (outside of Thorin and "the fat one") and that apparently they come with a racial +2 bonus on Perform: Juggling.

The stone giant scene was superfluous and seemed to be just there to add a "big monster" moment.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought it was great! I was a bit worried, after reading several reviews and comments here on the boards, but I was pleasantly surprised.

Also, I loved the songs, and wish there had been more of them.

Osirion

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My reactions;

Spoiler:

I loved the parts added at the beginning about the rise and fall of Erebor. That's some really cool stuff to add.

I could have done without some of the other stuff added (all the tie-ins / foreshadowing to LotR reminded me too much of the last thirty minutes of Lucas' last Star Wars movie, which was pretty much entirely masturbatory self-referential setup for a movie I watched thirty years ago...).

48fps or whatever doesn't 'transition' well, for me. Perhaps it's just because I wear glasses and can't track movement as well as someone with 20/20 vision, but every time the camera panned around, particularly in the big panoramic sweeping shots that makes the New Zealand tourism bureau wet themselves, it gets all stuttery and digitized looking, like I'm in the Matrix and 'the world is glitching.'

Having read the Hobbit a day or two before watching it, I was surprised by how child-like the story was, and how utterly hapless and ineffectual the dwarves tended to be, walking into pretty much everything face-first and unarmed and clueless and taking it on the chin, and then having to be rescued, again and again.

Jackson's decision to make the dwarves *much* more competent (against the trolls, for instance, and against the orcs when trapped in the trees), and also to make Frodo himself much more competent (deliberately hiding from the goblins, instead of getting accidentally seperated, stalling the trolls, instead of having to be rescued by Gandalf, fighting to save Thorin, etc.) made the dwarves and Frodo much more heroic and interesting characters to me, than their book-persona.

Not a fan of the goblin bridge-free-for-all. Too 'Temple of Doom mining cart chase' for my tastes.

The arkenstone is much prettier than in my head. Reading it at age eight, and hearing it described as a sphere with a hundred facets radiating various colors, I pretty much grew up thinking of it as a disco ball, and that's hardly a majestic or awe-inspiring visual. [Cue roller-skating dwarves singing 'Xanadoo-ooh-ooh-ooooh!'] Making it more opaline and shimmery was a good choice.

I like that he saved a *real* view of Smaug for later, and only gave us glimpses of scale or tail or eye, and swooping shadows in the smoke. He teases us, precious.

Knowing what we know about which dwarves bite it (in the book, at least), it seems like calculated cruelty to make Thorin, Dain, Kili and Fili the most interesting and 'noble' dwarven characters in the company (being as only one of those four survives the book)!


Set wrote:

My reactions;

** spoiler omitted **...

Bilbo not Frodo and Dain turns up way later otherwise pretty much yes.

This is the first film in a very long time that I actually want to go to the cinema to see again so wish me luck as I'm hoping to see it at least twice more!

The part you had most problems with had me wondering why there wasn't more swearing but it didn't have the same effect as Bilbo in the Fellowship when he met Frodo at Rivendell and got to see the ring again...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I took the plunge last night and went full out, Imax HFR and was very impressed.

The movie felt like a comfortable pair of slippers, you just pulled them out of the closet back and they still fit perfectly.

The time didnt seem to drag at all. My opinion on the length is that Jackson considers this movie an homage to the fans. Details that could have been left out were added for us! (see when Bilbo leaves the Shire)

He is very respectful of the Lore and added elements make for more excitement. I liked it and likely will see it again (which i didnt do for the Trilogy!)

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The Erebor sequences were my favorite. Now THAT is a Dwarven kingdom.


magnuskn wrote:

Yeah, I don't get why the dwarves get hate. They were pretty much what I expected of dwarf adventurers, who are ( if you care to read the race entries ) normally the dwarves who conform least to the norms of their races life. The ones we saw in Erebor appeared very much to be the more stoic lawful people they also are.

If I have complaints about them, it would have to be that they really could have gotten more than one personality (outside of Thorin and "the fat one") and that apparently they come with a racial +2 bonus on Perform: Juggling.

The stone giant scene was superfluous and seemed to be just there to add a "big monster" moment.

dwarves really don't get much hate at all. =)

i think i'm one of the very few that expressed any dislike for a certain kind of dwarf, and even i'm still a dwarf fan.
i'm a fan of the lawful, stoic, traditional, honerable, and strong dwarf

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.

i will admit, i am biased against that type of dwarf, and even a hint of that style of dwarf was enough to taint my full enjoyment of the movie.

again its a good movie, and i think people should see it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Cards, Maps Subscriber

I just went to see the hobbit last night. I enjoyed the movie. I went with two good friends who play Lord of the RIngs online. There was one point

:
when the dwarves were working their way through a narrow gorge and then had to make a right hand 90 turn before going on the stone bridge over to Elrond's house, that my friends chuckled...they told me that in the game they had fallen off of that drop and off of the bridge many times
.

Rockheim made a good point about bringing individuality to all of the dwarves.

So in short we all had a good time. I would actually like to see it again, so i can pick up on all of the little things.

1 to 50 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.