Why would ANYONE call "The Hobbit" a bad movie? i see people say....?

Everyone has their own opinions on movies, and these days a lot of people want lots of action and special affects. A movie like the Hobbit is longer and more dramatic and doesn't necessarily give instant gratification. Take for example, Transformers. I honestly thought those movies had horrible plots and were only interesting because of the special affects, but people love those movies...instant gratification. Hot chicks and stuff blowing up lol.

Ok, so I will go on a limb here and say most of the people who disliked the hobbit(me included) disliked it because it completely raped the book. I do understand that not everything can be included when being adapted from book to film. The things that were left out. When the eagles rescue gandalf and company, they drop them off, and gandalf speaks to the eagle king. The king explains that hw owes gandalf a life debt because he was saved by the wizard. Not hugely important, but really interesting, and adds character to the eagles. The cave trolls actually never catch bilbo, and instead catch all the dwarves. It's bilbo who frees them by cutting the roaps. This is just one of the many times he saves everyone!

Stuff they added for no reason, and did nothing to further the hobbit:

First off, my hugest complaint, what is with the white Orc? The defiler? It is completely stupid, doesn't further the story, and was never even a creation by Tolkien!!! I can understand changing events a little, but adding a character that never had a place in ANY writings by Tolkien? Than the including of the necromancer, who we know is sauron. The unlimited evil of this book is smaug, not him. After that, little things. The rock giants, the fact that they made ratagast look like a complete moron! He is a powerful, venerable wizard! Not a doped up pot head.

I have to say, since seeing this movie, I will not be seeing the other two. I'm so disappointed that Jackson, instead of being true to the book and true to tge fans, he made this movie a cash cow, and decided to milk it for all he could. People who disliked this are readers, scholars, people who wanted to see them do justice to the book, not destroy it. I'm happy you like it, at least someone does. But instead of belittling people for not liking it. Find out why and respect it! We are not asking YOU why you like it are we?!

The Hobbit is definitely not a bad movie on it's own. It's just that it's setting yourself up for disappointment if you expect Lord of the Rings, as I did. The Hobbit movie is more on the level of, say, the Johnny Depp version of Alice in Wonderland, than it is the LOTR trilogy. It's a nice enough movie. The length didn't bother me- but the kind of embarassing sell-out, cheesy modern-style action scenes, cheesy new stylings of the wargs and orcs, and overdone CGI fest of it all REALLY bothered me.

Also, it gets a feel of somewhat of a parody of LOTR because of how much of The Hobbit parallels the trilogy (in general plot line, method of introducing characters such as Gollum, esp. Gollum!, using the SAME music (possibly slightly changed) as they did in a scene that majorly parallels the trilogy). I've watched the Trilogy MANY, MANY times over the last decade+ and noticed just how many lines from the trilogy were given to the same characters in The Hobbit, presumably to give it a nostalgic, "return to Middle-Earth" feeling, but it backfired in my opinion. It was overdone.

On the plus side, the new cast was perfect, especially Bilbo, he was amazingly spot-on!

I wish they would have made it much less modern, CGI, cheesy-actiony-like..just made it more elegant (the Trilogy showed a majestic and elegant feel does NOT exclude humor and action!!), and still nostalgic and reminiscent of the Trilogy, but NOT to the extent of feeling parody-like to people like me. and I wish they'd been more true to the novel (especially when it comes to the Necromancer, Rivendell, and Radagast) and also, probably a two-parter instead of 3.

Some fans don't like the adaptions made. e.g. Thorin is the new Aragorn and Kili the new Legolas.

Thorin/Azog scenes weren't that emotional.

48fps/3D makes some of the people look animated.

^^ This is some of the reasons I've heard

It's funny how people say it's too long when all of the LOTR trilogy movies are longer. The only thing I didn't like was the Goblin King's chin.. I mean, was that even a chin? It looked similar to that of a testicle. Other than that, great movie.

I haven't seen The Hobbit, but I have learned not so say anything about the movie until I have watched AND to watch any movies that came before it before passing judgement. I love all the star wars movies(including the extended trilogy) because when I decided I liked them that meant all of them. There are things i don't like about each movie, but I didn't pass judgement until i saw all of the movies and watched them a few times. As you said a few reasons why people don't like star wars is 1. they didn't watch the oridginals. 2. they look at charicters like Jar Jar Binks and say that the movie is terrible because of a terrible piece of the movie(btw i love Jar Jar). 3. they don't understand it and therefore say that don't like it. not understanding it goes back to not watching the originals. Just wanted to have my say there. Sorry it was not part of your question really.

Personally I love the LOTR and the Hobbit movies. They did an amazing job on them.

You have to remember that the books and the story are very complex and detailed. Sometimes simple people hate what they can't understand or wrap their brains around something so awesome.

Don't intend to see The Hobbit, but having seen the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I can see why some people would think it is not very good. I hated the trilogy.

I haven't seen the movie ur talking about I think. Just finished the book and liked it 😊. I wouldn't blame anyone for disliking the CARTOONISH version tho. It wasn't horrible but it has it's cheesy side tho...haha

I would say because of how good lord of the rings was, even though they were different books and people expect it to be just as good as lord of the rings (its not going to be, still loved it though)

You mentioned it, length didnt bother me, the first hour did it was just nothing really, it developed bilbo but it was unnecessarily long peter jackson could of have cut it a good 20 minutes at least.