Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Flying Dice]

I don't see how anyone would find The Hobbit book good unless they're really young children.
I mean, I'm pretty sure the only reason people like it is because it's associated with Lord of the Rings.

It's a good, wholesome adventure story, that's why. Hero's Journey, all that shit. I knew and liked the Hobbit long before LotR.

I guess I just find it boring because it's not very magical in my perspective. I mean, I'd rather read Redwall.

I honestly like The Hobbit -- as a story -- more than LotR, which I suppose has a bit of sense behind it considering that, IIRC, it was derived from a fairy tale he invented for his children. Ofc. Tolkien was always more of a linguist than a storyteller, which bears a big part of the responsibility for most of the stuff he wrote being so plodding; it was less story and more fantastic history/mythology text. That said, he gets credit for an important contribution to fantasy (no, not all the tropes): subtle magic. That's always stood out as one of the best parts of LotR in my eyes, how magic manages to be simultaneously matter-of-fact and outright miraculous without ever being flashier than... well, a high lumen count spotlight.

[Xantalos]

That was pretty much the best part of Tolkein to me, how almost all the magic users in setting didn't really exert themselves at all, or if they did, did it offscreen, but left hints of 'holy shit so that's what that [odd event] was'.

[Helgoland]

Magic's never explained, though, is it? It never happens on-screen, and its off-screen instances are never explained.

@Hobbit: Liked that book much more than the LotR trilogy, which was just boring to be honest. Content of the first book: They leave a village and walk through a forest. That's it. What the hell, Tolkien?

[hops]

If you go on a Lord of the Rings tour in New Zealand, you've already done more adventuring than the first book.

[MaximumZero]

Happy Labor Day, Americans!

Today is a federally mandated holiday, created so that everyone could have a peaceful day off, because Americans in general and especially blue collar workers, work too much for too little pay.

Unless you're 1/4 of the population who works in the retail sector. Today is marked by sales of all kinds and is second in advertising only to Black Friday. Fuck you, retail jockeys, get back to work. >:C

[Tawa]

Magic's never explained, though, is it? It never happens on-screen, and its off-screen instances are never explained.

@Hobbit: Liked that book much more than the LotR trilogy, which was just boring to be honest. Content of the first book: They leave a village and walk through a forest. That's it. What the hell, Tolkien?

Spoiler: LotR spoilers (click to show/hide)

Second book: Tolkien finds an excuse to cram more backstory into LotR and then it gets interesting for a while.
Third book: Old guys talk for long periods of time, midgets attend a tree convention, and an army battle occurs in which orcs invent gunpowder.
Fourth book: The hobbitses take a really long stroll and aaalllmmmoooosssttt get to Mordor.
Fifth book: More old men exchange lectures, another army battle, everybody charges the black gate.
Sixth book: Gollum falls in a volcano and Tolkien takes this chance to explain everything that happened on the way home, including an otherwise uneventful stabbing of a minor villain from Book Three. Frodo then hops a boat and gets the hell out of there.

MASTERFUL BOOK 10/10 ☼

Naw, I'd say it's more like

GOOD BOOK 7.6/10 ☼

Because while it launched the genre of adult-aimed fantasy, it reads like a cross between a fairy tale, a history book, and the Bible.

[TD1]

I loved the Hobbit book, it is at least as good as LotR.

I liked the movies. The weird bits (dwarf+elf, seriously, come on.) were offset by the novelty of seeing the Hobbit on the screen, the good effects, and that I understand the desire to have changes between book and film.

That said, they made some stupid changes, and Legolas in particular looks as plastic as all get out. The only truly memorable scene is the one with Gloin's pictures of his wife and Gimli.

Still, I enjoyed it and would watch it again. But they could have made so much more of it.

[BlitzDungeoneer]

I liked the Hobbit too, actually.
Have yet to get around to reading LotR.

[miauw62]

LotR was more of an epic than a "normal" book. The Hobbit was a good book though. I can't really pinpoint what was so good about it, but it was great. A big sense of adventure. LotR is great too, but in a different way (then again, it's like five times longer than the Hobbit). The Hobbit is an adventure to get a big ole pile of gold, LotR is an epic about how Sauron was defeated.

[TD1]

What I liked about the Hobbit was the development of Bilbo. How the small became the mighty against all odds, gained the respect of Dwarves and Wizards, and Triumphed (Even in some small way) against a dragon.

It just makes me feel good.

[itisnotlogical]

I see Game of Thrones article on Facebook. "I'm caught up in the show, and I've even finished the third book. There's no spoiler warning, and besides, what are the odds of them spoiling something really awesome?"

Cue spoiler for the one thing I was most curious about after S4E10/Storm. I quit books and TV forever.

It wasn't even a real spoiler, it was one of those shitty "We're not saying anybody dies gruesomely, but something really bad happens to this character *wink wink nudge nudge fuckyou fuckyou*" style spoilers where it's easy enough to guess what's happening.

[Fniff]

I had to give up on Game of Thrones simply because I wasn't engaged enough for the stress of avoiding accidental spoilers to be worth it.

[Tawa]

The only truly memorable scene is the one with Gloin's pictures of his wife and Gimli.

Oh yeah, that was a classic. Loved that bit.

But in my mind, the movie would've been twice as good if they hadn't added the pointless ending (let's all coat him in gold to no effect, so that Peter Jackson can milk the franchise further!) and the whole "romance" subplot.

Oh, and in terms of comic effect, the part in the river 'chase' (which was a bad decision in its own right) where Bombur goes flying and knocks down a bunch of orcs was funny. Donkey Kong: Middle-Earth edition!

[nenjin]

I don't see how anyone would find The Hobbit book good unless they're really young children.
I mean, I'm pretty sure the only reason people like it is because it's associated with Lord of the Rings.

It's a good, wholesome adventure story, that's why. Hero's Journey, all that shit. I knew and liked the Hobbit long before LotR.

I guess I just find it boring because it's not very magical in my perspective. I mean, I'd rather read Redwall.

Wait a sec. You criticize The Hobbit as being for children, and then say you prefer Redwall?

Does not compute.

[Flying Dice]

I don't see how anyone would find The Hobbit book good unless they're really young children.
I mean, I'm pretty sure the only reason people like it is because it's associated with Lord of the Rings.

It's a good, wholesome adventure story, that's why. Hero's Journey, all that shit. I knew and liked the Hobbit long before LotR.

I guess I just find it boring because it's not very magical in my perspective. I mean, I'd rather read Redwall.

Wait a sec. You criticize The Hobbit as being for children, and then say you prefer Redwall?

Does not compute.

I thought we'd all made a collective unconscious decision to not peg him/her on that one? 

But seriously though, from what I recall those books were about a half-step away from being really grimdark, and most of that half-step was composed of the fact that all of the protagonists were cute, fuzzy animals. Because seriously, "vastly more powerful enemies that will eat you if they catch you, and they're fucking everywhere".