That pretty much sums up my opinions on the first movie, too (and I haven’t seen the second one). The tone was all over the place.
Yes, but you see, all you guys are proving is something we all agree on. The Hobbit isn;t as great as LotR. No one expected it to be.
“Not as great” as IMHO the greatest film trilogy of all times does not make it a “failure”.
Why does everything have to be either A+++ or F-?
The Hobbit gets a solid B.
I almost needed to turn in my Geek Card last year when I said I had no interest in seeing “The Hobbit.” Still don’t.
“The Hobbit” is a nice children’s story. Everything I have seen shows me that PJ tried to make it into an EPIC!!!11! follow-up to LOTR. Which is wrong. It is the wrong tone.
A different director could have told the story of Bilbo’s adventure and still give us hints that this is the first act of a global situation without bloating the film with portents and call-backs.
I agree completely. The Hobbit is one of my favorite books. I read it over and over as a kid, including reading the whole book in a single sitting once when I was 13 years old.
PJ managed to strip out most of the good parts of the book, and insert tons of mindless dreck. The whole tone of the story feels wrong in these movies, and why make so many wholesale changes to the story? Why did PJ feel the need to alter the scene in which Gandalf tricks the trolls by mimicking their voices? Why the need for endless chases and battles? It wasn’t that type of book.
Further, why do some of the dwarves look human, and why does one look like a Klingon? And if you’re going to add a wizard to the story, does he have to be covered in birdshit? Why do the scenes in the goblin caves and in Smaug’s lair feel like a video game? Why trade Bilbo’s clever wordplay with Smaug for a stupid dragon chase?
For all of the length of the movies, why cut out or shorten key scenes in favor of adding more boring material?
I’ve rewatched the LOTR trilogy many times. The whole tone and feel was spot on. FOTR was nearly perfect. I don’t understand how the same person could screw up The Hobbit so badly.
Thanks for the comments everybody - I think Robby summed up my feelings so , so well:
“I’ve rewatched the LOTR trilogy many times. The whole tone and feel was spot on. FOTR was nearly perfect. I don’t understand how the same person could screw up The Hobbit so badly.”
Yet I still plan on going to the theatre to see the final film, and visit Middle Earth again. sigh.
This. LOTR is simply more epic. A battle against the forces of darkness for all of Middle Earth. The Hobbit is–what–pest control? 
I’ve read the Hobbit twice but the LOTR I’ve read perhaps a dozen times.
And how much easier to dismiss “moaners and groaners” and “fan boys in a hissy-fit” than argue with what they actually say. :rolleyes:
I just re-read the Hobbit - the book would make a mundane movie at best - it plods along. WHat makes it great is that it leaves ALOT to the imagination and ‘summarizes’ the adventure.
I think the movie is giving a pretty good impression of Bilbo’s adventure - its just not being told from Bilbo’s point of view.
I also agree that some things seem odd (splitting of the dwarfs) - but even in the book, the dwarfs split up @ the mountain - I would like to have seen Smaug smote the mountain once - they moved that scene inside - even in the book, the dwarfs were not injured when all that happened. (and yes - that inside chase was groan worthy in a way - but atleast our dwarfs tried something - in the book,they barely do anything)
The book is a much slower pace - the film keeps things moving - would you really want to see a full day or two of dwarfs sleeping and eating between the goblin king and the trees?
I don’t yet see a “love triangle” that everyone complains about - I do see the adventures of Filli - the horny - but I don’t see a love triangle.
I’m currently mixed on Asog - the attack on laketown by the orcs seems off, but it wasnt in the book because Bilbo wasn’t aware of it - etc.
In any event - I am enjoying the movies and I can’t wait for the 3rd installment. They are a totally different thing than the book - I can see why people would want a ‘faithful’ adoption (even me) - but I really don’t think that would work as well as it sounds - this trilogy exands the whole thing into the same world as LOTR and I think in the long run, will be worth every minute of it.
I think you missed the whole fact that Legolas is interested in Tauriel, as well, but that Thranduil (Legolas’s father) doesn’t consider her to be a good match for him.
Right -didn’t miss that - and if anything, Legolas seemed “surprised” by that notion and the feelings were on Tauriel’s side only - in any event - all I meant was that from Filli’s perspective - its more akin to being ‘star struck’ at this point. (and she did just save his life by chewing some weeds and spitting on him). She’s equally interested in him in that he’s “not your standard dwarf” - I just don’t see “romantic love” in there yet.
The stuff with Thandruil seems more to set that he is really an isolationist - etc - that is more about Thranduil then it is about legolas/tauriel/filli.
Thats because Orlando Bloom can only do ‘surprised’ or ‘earnest’.
Dwarves aren’t sexy. Try as they did with Fili and Kili, dwarves just aren’t sexy.
(Seriously, I agree with “wrong tone” and “too long.” I’m not willing to make an all day commitment to The Hobbit in terms of movie watching time).
And is probably even less expressive when they’re using CGI to erase 10+ years of aging from his face, so that his character doesn’t look older now than he did in LotR. 
The Lord of the Rings is a powerful trilogy with an ‘easy to follow’ set of heroes in the Fellowship. (Jackson chose to emphasise Frodo, but that worked well.)
The books include romance, strategic battles and have some excellent dialogue.
The Hobbit is a children’s book designed to be read aloud ,with a cliffhanger at the end of each chapter. (My parents read it to me and I’ve read it to friends’ children in turn. Both wonderful experiences.)
There are 13 dwarves (this number chosen simply so Bilbo could come along to avoid bad luck.) There is very little to distinguish these dwarves (Thorin is the leader; Balin is friendly; Fili + Kili are young; Bombur is fat.)
It makes almost impossible to identify with them in the film, since you can’t tell them apart!
I think Hollywood not only demanded that the Hobbit be made (“think of the money we can make!”), but also that the Hobbit strongly resembled the Lord of the Rings - so that viewers who hadn’t read the books could understand what was going on.
And that made life very difficult.
In one very minor way, the movie (Desolation of Smaug) is an improvement over Tolkien’s original book. In the movie, Thorin has an actual plan. He wants to grab the Arkenstone, and take it back to the Blue Mountains, to use as a recruiting tool to raise an army.
In the book, Thorin wanted to go to the Lonely Mountain, sneak down the tunnel, and… And? (“And then a miracle occurs?”) He didn’t have a plan! There’s a fookin’ great DRAGON down there! What’cha gonna do, Oakie? Poison his Purina?
Two things;
Smaug might have been dead. No one had seen him for a while.
Next- they might have been able to burgle enuf stuff back to make it worth the trip.
But yeah, PJ’s Thorin has a better plan than JRRT’s Thorin.
They lost me on that. I enjoyed the first movie, though I thought the whole book could have been one move. I was looking forward to seeing the second anyway, until I found out that there was a THIRD in the works. So, I figured if they wanna milk it, they can find another milkmaid.
I’ll see the other two when they hit Redbox or broadcast.
(Bolding mine)
Maybe it changed since you wrote this, but The Desolation of Smaug is currently at #203.
Your point stands however.
Criticisms like this give weight to the idea that people dislike the Hobbit because the book isn’t good source material.
I disagree entirely, you could make a stomping good film from the source material in the Hobbit. In fact, its almost perfectly set up for a cracking good adventure story where a band of brothers goes off to slay a dragon.
The book is good source material, it* can* be a good film, the problem is that Peter Jacksons The Hobbit simply isn’t. Its just padded, turgid rubbish.
Box Office, ratings and critics disagree.