Ilosar said:
But you're right, The Hobbit did have a rather light tone, but it wasn't a children's book. Children's books don't have creatures like Gollum or giant spider, elves who are massive jerks, or large-scale battles in which main characters die. At least to me.
Oh, I'd care to disagree with you on that... Very much so, in fact. Children's books were ALL ABOUT that sort of tragedy, up until about 20-30 years ago. When I was growing up, the old fairy tales still had enough of a presence, so I recalled that there was either the Disney
Snow White where there was a handsome prince who'd come to save the day, or the original version, which had attempted murder, followed up by genuine murder, and no happy ending. And that was just one story... what about the HUNDREDS of others? I was freaked out by Rumpelstilskin as a child because of how he killed himself when he was bested; it was incredibly graphic. All of the old children's stories aren't what adults romantisize them to be about, nowadays. They were quite dark, and quite disturbing, and that's BECAUSE they were children's stories. You wanted to shut the little fuckers up, so you'd scare the shit out of them with thinly veiled tales about how brutally they'd die if they lied or stole...
But I digress. It can go either way whether
The Hobbit itself (the book, that is) could be considered a children's book. I first read it when I was 15 or so, and it felt a little TOO whimsical for me, at times, but I was left very satisfied by the story in the end. The movie, though, just felt a bit... silly. Not silly in a bad way, but perhaps it's because it hasn't gotten to the really good bits near the end of the tale, but none of it got me very emotionally involved. The most emotion the movie evoked was riotous chuckling from the various gimmicks of the dwarves. They were delightful, of course, and I especially loved Gandalf's "What do you mean?" speech at the beginning. But it was all just laughs, not much else. Sure enough, there were JUST hints of the music from the book, but it was more than I recalled from the previous trilogy.
I may have to watch it again a few more times to really solidify my opinion of the film, but I THINK the (somewhat forced) tie-ins to LOTR were its worst parts. The added complexity to the world was nice, but they usually felt out of place. If the next two films stop finding excuses for epic, sweeping battles, and the actual battles are epic and sweeping, and if they elicit more emotion out of me than just "Heh, that was funny" giggles, then I think I'll undoubtedly be looking forward to them! =)
Mjolnir said:
I too liked the Hobbit. Saw it in 3d. Don't know what the angry fuss is all about.
Ahah, BUT... did you see it in 48 FPS, 36 FPS, or 24 FPS? I, too, saw it in 3D, but it was just 24 FPS. (Most theaters which fail to specify will run it at the "standard" 24, 3D or otherwise.) I personally didn't enjoy the added gimmick, but maybe it's just because ALL theater 3D glasses are made for people without corrective glasses, like me, so it was always cumbersome and perhaps didn't come off like it would for someone with 20/20 vision. But the fuss wasn't really about 3D, it was about 48 FPS. I can't say whether it was warranted or not, since I haven't seen it in the highest frame rate, yet, but everything I've heard has indicated that indeed, the fuss is all very pointless. We're all used to seeing things crappy, by comparison, so being so starkly better is different enough that people get up in arms about it. If I can catch it in a theater that won't cost me an arm and a leg to attend, in 2D, at 48 FPS, I think I can say definitively if there's any reason at all to be upset over the "change".
