Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Infern0, Feb 5, 2013.
Does Joe Q. Public know that the Hobbit is a trilogy? Or that it's from a single book?
Somebody recently told me that they went to see The Hobbit expecting it to be a single, self-contained movie. Let's say they were somewhat surprised by the cliffhanger ending.
On the whole, though, I get the impression that most people do know that it's part 1 of 3, even if they're not hardcore fanboys/-girls.
Critics wanted another LOTR, fans were prepared for something a bit different, which I think explains the relatively high user rating. I don't think The Hobbit AUJ is as good as the LOTR trilogy, but I still think it's much better than a 58% positive rating would suggest. Most people I know liked it, my wife has watched it several times since we saw it in the theatre, and she's watched the original trilogy dozens of times. I think the 80-something positive user score is more in line with my feelings. It was a better action/adventure movie than most I've seen in the past few years, and many of the weaknesses people see in the Hobbit story (like the lighter tone) are things you're kind of stuck with if you want the Hobbit to stay remotely true to its roots. You can't make another Two Towers.
I think the next two movies will have a bit more action on a grander scale than the first, and carry a slightly more serious tone.
As I often tell my brother, "Everybody you know" is not a valid sample for gauging the opinion of the general public.
Why would someone think it's a single movie if it's called The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey? Why wouldn't it just be called The Hobbit?
Does it count if Bob agrees?
No, doesn't count. Bob doesn't know what he's talking about.
Why would any being expect people to be as jazzed to see the Hobbit as the Lord of the Rings?
The HObbit is engaging and charming, but it isn't the work of Lord of the Rings. It isn't even close.
In my life I only know one person who likes the Hobbit more then Lord of the Rings, and that's only because that person couldn't ever get through Lord of the Rings.
I never, ever thought the film would be as popular or critically successful as Lord of the Rings, because the source material isn't.
Only recently I've seen The Lovely Bones, and holy shit, that was some horrible film. But then it's an adaptation, and the original novel is award-winning and best-selling. So it's probably just me finding it absolutely inappropriate and tasteless.
I think so too - which is to say, he's well known among movie fans and geeks, but is hardly a household name in the same vein as Speilberg or equally accomplished directors. The Lord of the Rings films were a great achievement, especially considering their contemporaries in the fantasy genre included the abysmal Dungeons and Dragons and Star Wars prequels.
I think he has just enough talent to make wonderful films out of another person's story and universe, and enough will to have sold the idea to a major studio. But I have seen no evidence thus far that he has any big ideas himself, and feel he should probably stick to re-imagining other people's ideas (as he is currently doing).
Separate names with a comma.