Critical Reception of The Hobbit: AUJ [Non-Spoiler]

[Pearly Di]

I don't think PJ is the only one who could have made a successful LotR, but I don't think it's necessarily an easy novel to adapt for a mass audience either. Among other things, there's a very unusual plot structure (especially the way the six books are divided) and a whole lot of backstory/exposition. And not every adaptation of a classic by a good director has been a good/successful movie. So while I'm sure there are some who could have duplicated PJ's success with LotR, I don't think just any competent director could have done it.

This. It's a shame we can't *like* posts on messageboards.

As a friend on FB remarked, "It's like everyone's going 'oh, it's not LotR!'" Well, no. It isn't LotR.

[Stranger Wings]

I don't think PJ is the only one who could have made a successful LotR, but I don't think it's necessarily an easy novel to adapt for a mass audience either. Among other things, there's a very unusual plot structure (especially the way the six books are divided) and a whole lot of backstory/exposition. And not every adaptation of a classic by a good director has been a good/successful movie. So while I'm sure there are some who could have duplicated PJ's success with LotR, I don't think just any competent director could have done it.

This. It's a shame we can't *like* posts on messageboards.

As a friend on FB remarked, "It's like everyone's going 'oh, it's not LotR!'" Well, no. It isn't LotR.

And it's not the Hobbit either.

[Pearly Di]

Yes, it is.

In the same way the Harry Potter films are Harry Potter.

And the 2012 adaptation of Susan Hill's novel The Woman in Black is The Woman in Black.

[SirDennis]

...and Apocalypse Now is Heart of Darkness. Wait, what?

[Stranger Wings]

I am astounded at how everything Quickbeam describes as a negative, is a positive for me. Here are some quotes:

To all of you expecting THE HOBBIT: AUJ to have major upheavals, multiple character deaths (Gandalf, Boromir), etc., the kind that left you crying and thunderstruck watching THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING in 2001, expect instead a more comfortable walking pace, with less bombast and careening around the story. I believe most fans will really enjoy it, but don’t expect lighting in a bottle twice.

This adaptation has a slightly different vibe. This filmic Hobbit is light-on-its-feet, less driven by harsh crises, more keen to savor a moment of literary indulgence than to rush.

a more leisurely Sunday drive with the top down

Also, not a negative,

Hidden text.

but a confirmation of the Thorin smithing scene:

"Once-noble Thorin sadly working cheap metal-craft in some nowhere town"

I mean, come on, it’s about 1 hour, 40 minutes into the flick before we reach Rivendell.

I wish that more than half of the Dwarves could have had dialogue. The lion’s share is all Thorin and Balin (a terrific Ken Stott), but come on!

- methinks Quickbeam doesn't like the way it is in the books either...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Rotten Tomatoes sure is strange! They list that Slate review as fresh, even though it is worse overall than some of the ones that they list as rotten. Oh well, I guess it is like a make-up call by a referee. Now up to 76%.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

SA, I missed your post about Quickbeam's review. I had the same reaction.

I also blocked out a spoiler, since this is supposed to be a spoiler-free thread. It is easy to forget where you are posting, but try to be careful about that!

[Stranger Wings]

SA, I missed your post about Quickbeam's review. I had the same reaction.

I also blocked out a spoiler, since this is supposed to be a spoiler-free thread. It is easy to forget where you are posting, but try to be careful about that!

My apologies! Here's a gift for your troubles:

[Alatar]

Tehanu's review is also pretty spoiler free I thought.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/12 ... c-telling/

I agreed with almost all of it. I wasn't disappointed with the soundtrack, it just didn't make much of an impact on me.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There are a bunch of new reviews at RT, with the mix between fresh and rotten staying about the same, and the overall rating sticking at 74%. But I'm noticing that with only a few exceptions in each direction, there isn't that much difference between the fresh and rotten reviews, with most of the latter being in the range of 2 and half stars out of 4, and most of the former being more like 3 out of 4. Most don't like the HFR, and most think the beginning is too slow, but that that it picks up. This comment from a New York Post 3 out 4 star fresh review sums things up nicely:

It’s the sort of epic that will be most fully appreciated by those who think the most important thing about an adaptation is religious fidelity to the text — not a sentiment that I especially share.

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/m ... ent=Movies

In other words, a film made for us!

[WampusCat]

And that is an encouraging thought.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Wow, all the way down to 69%!