Film of the Book: The Hobbit (Part 1)

Well my overwhelming reaction to The Hobbit? Disappointing. I had heard from a few people that it was disappointing so I was trying not to be hopeful, I thought I had readied myself for disappointment, but apparently not.

It was very long, especially considering it was only the first half and it isn’t exactly an epic book. I think maybe there was a bit of commercialism in that decision, the makers knew that the first one was likely to be popular and were hoping that a second part would spread out that popularity.

In reality it seemed like the first part was more or less all introduction. It didn’t feel like anything of great significance happened. Battles and scenes were added which just didn’t exist in the book, and it seemed that they were added just to stretch the book out, they didn’t really add anything plot wise- just broke up the walking.

There were things I liked however. The Dwarves were rather funny, and I loved their songs.

The actor playing Bilbo (Martin Freeman) was pretty great too. He made quite a funny, a little bumbling Bilbo which was just right, he was a part I expected to be good. The only real problem I had with Bilbo is that they made him into a bit of a hero, whereas he really isn’t in the book.

I also enjoyed the Gollum scene- generally. The riddle were a lot as I imagined (although the boyfriend thinks they cut some of them), and t made quite a funny scene, but they also made the ring more significant than it really was in the book. Probably to draw in the Lord of the Rings fans.

Part of me still wants to see the second part because I don’t like leaving things unfinished (not that that didn’t stop me leaving the film to get a drink, or noticing that the couple beside us left completely) but I also feel it’s a bad idea.

14 Comments

Filed under Film review

14 responses to “Film of the Book: The Hobbit (Part 1)

  1. I’m off to see it tonight, not getting my hopes up. But I’m excited to see all the scenery. I’ve missed Lord of the Rings.

    Like

  2. Umm… It’s actually part one of three…. Yikes!

    There were definitely riddles they left out. I would have enjoyed the riddles more than all the walking.

    I understand making Bilbo into more of a hero for the movie… and he’s not completely unheroic in the book.

    Like

  3. How, how, are they going to make it 3?! I just presumed it was 2 from not even really thinking they could make 2 from it but knowing there was more than 1.

    Yeah, I understand making him more of a hero, but I kind of like that he isn’t really that much of a hero.

    Like

  4. I loved Lord of the Rings, it’s part of the reason I was disappointed. I hope you like it more than I did anyway.

    Like

  5. It was originally going to be two, but for whatever reason, they decided on three…. Three, three-hour movies…. ugh..

    Like

  6. You are absolutely right.
    The book is better than the movie and that applies on all books that were turned into movies.
    When you read a book you use your own imagination which has no limits and your characters are the way you imagine them which doesn’t have to be realistic but a movie is only the director’s imagination .

    Like

  7. I do agree that that is true most of the time, I often find the more well I know the book the more likely I am to dislike the film. Not sure if this film was even good as a film though, I don’t even know the book especially well.

    Like

  8. I think if you don’t want to be disappointed you should watch movies before reading books considering it as a summary for the book. Of course that won’t apply for mystery books.
    Waiting for more of your reviews.

    Like

  9. I tend to find the opposite when I di it the other way around! I think I am just too eager for my favourite parts of the film to come up.

    I’m about to start a new review post, so hopefully that should be up either later tonight or tomorrow

    Like

  10. The extra material making the films so long is taken from other Tolkien material – The Silmarillion, The Lost Tales and even the appendices of The Lord of the Rings. Now, I get that maybe Peter Jackson thought there were some good stories in that material that deserved retelling but might be hard to draw in an audience for, but why butcher The Hobbit to do it? Couldn’t he have made a Middle Earth trilogy starting with The Hobbit? I suspect you’re right and it’s all about profit. Sad after he did such a good job with The Lord of the Rings.

    Like

  11. Yeah, there’s nothing wrong with the story as it is. I suppose it is better to take something from Tolkien’s other work however than to completely make it up

    Like

  12. Pingback: Top 10 best and worst film adaptations | Lucybird's Book Blog

  13. Pingback: Film of the Book: Mockingjay (Part 1) | Lucybird's Book Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s