I WOULD'VE Watched 'The Hobbit' But..

@Janey1966 (24127)
Carlisle, England
January 28, 2013 7:02pm CST
..well, there are a number of reasons, actually. This first is the most obvious..it's not out yet lol. Secondly, when I found out the franchise are dragging 'The Hobbit' story out over 3 films, well, that put me right off..have you SEEN how thick the book is? Not exactly 'War and Peace' is it? Thirdly, why wasn't 'The Hobbit' made FIRST? Why was 'Lord of the Rings' made first? That wasn't the order J R R Tolkien wrote them in...and no, I haven't watched the latter even though John has at least 3 variants of the film on DVD. What I'm trying to say is..these films are all about making money. They are not about J R R Tolkien's story-telling skills. I prefer the 'Watership Down' animated film myself. Bit violent in parts BUT there was violence in the book (written by Richard Adams)..it just got a bit..er..stretched in the animation. You DID remember it though! Which did I prefer? The book, hands down!
1 person likes this
3 responses
• United States
29 Jan 13
The Hobbit was not first because Peter Jackson wanted to make Lord of The Rings First. Lord of the Rings was a big risk as a movie when they we making it. our complaints are kind of ridiculous, The Hobbit is three films because they're pulling a lot from the Apenddicies. Of course films are about making money, I'm a big Tolkien fan and of course they add stuff to movies and everyone knows that the books are always better than the movies. Stop ragging on Peter Jackson, he loves Tolkien's work just as much as the rest of us, you're probably THE most annoying "Tolkien fan" I've seen so far, did you even watch the movie after it came out? If you did and you didn't like it, you can actually legitimately complain about it. Just because it's split into three movies doesn't mean that it's just about the money.
@burrito88 (2779)
• United States
29 Jan 13
When you take a shorter book and you add in material that is not part of the book, that's padding the material out to make three movies. I don't have to watch the movie to know Jackson was milking the material to make money. Either that or he couldn't come up with anything else to film.
@Janey1966 (24127)
• Carlisle, England
29 Jan 13
Well, Reviewmemedia, you've been well and truly sucked in haven't you? If you were a true Tolkien fan you would NOT go and see the films, which is why I haven't done so..and stick by my decision too. Oh, and I'm not 'ragging' on Peter Jackson (whatever that means), I just wanted him to stay true to the stories, that's all. I can't see anything wrong with that, plus the fact Tolkien himself isn't around to pass judgment. How convenient.
• Philippines
29 Jan 13
Yeah, that's true, though I watched it on big screen. I believe that producers just want to make more money out of that 1 book that's they tried to stretch it out. Well, most of movies are done in this sequence: sequel then frequel...
@cecil04 (409)
• South Africa
29 Jan 13
The first movie The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has already come out, it premiered on the 12 of December 2012 worldwide. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has already made over $939,548,000 worldwide. I was not going to see the movie at first but one of my friends got me to watch it. It's not as bad as you think, just wait for it to come out on DVD or Blu-ray so you can get a rental copie. I haven't seen the watership down movie but I have seen the animated series which was really good.
@Janey1966 (24127)
• Carlisle, England
29 Jan 13
The original Watership Down animated film was out in 1978 or 1979, somewhere around that time. I went to see it with my Mum and I'd already read the book so anticipation was high. It really was a scary film (for kids) but, on the whole, it was true to the book. I've seen a clip of 'The Hobbit' and he says 'OK' in it. Huh? I don't recall that word in the book but there again my copy is long gone.