Why I Say No to the Hobbit Trilogy


Maybe I should start this off by explaining that the Hobbit was one of my absolute favorite childhood books. 

Even though it was after the time in which I had given up the idea of a career as an actress, I of course auditioned when my Junior High staged the play version. I was the proudest little wood elf you have ever seen.

I watched, and loved, all the Lord of the Rings movie… even if the vilification of Faramir kinda makes me crazy (here’s defense of the rendition), plus there is wayyyyyy too much Liv Tyler. And let’s not forget the glaring omission of Tom Bombadil.

Still, for movie versions of a complex story, I find all three LOTR movies enjoyable.

And then they announced the Hobbit. Finally, my beloved childhood tale was going to get the same considerate and loving treatment that the Tolkien trilogy had. A movie for fans, by fans. (Insert excited fan-girl squeeeeeeeeee!)

Last Christmas I excitedly went to see The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey.

I was not happy.

Let me tell you all, the journey was indeed unexpected. It was straight-up BOOOOOOORING. Boring. A fantasy action-adventure shouldn’t be boring.

Via: wifflegif.com
Via: wifflegif.com



I had been a little nervous when they split the book into two movies. I became outright petrified and confused when it was stretched to three films.

The Lord of the Rings were three books, so three movies makes sense. Heck, with today’s trend of splitting many books into many movies (I am looking at you, Harry Potter), that was downright conservative.

In case you didn’t know, the Hobbit is about 300 pages long (Depending on the print size and version). 300 pages. Classic books of similar length include 1984, Lord of the Flies, Matilda, The Great Gatsby, Fahrenheit 451, and The Catcher in the Rye.

Anyone think any of those books require three movies to do their tales justice?



The Hobbit is a light and fluffy tale of adventure. We don’t talk about Sauron or the true power and evilness of the ring. Its a fun tale of adventure and singing and calamities barely avoided as one little silly hobbit comes into his own and finds his bravery.

At least that’s what I always thought.

The movie tried to be heavy and deep. It tried to be serious and hint at the darkness to come. The book wasn’t written as a true prequel. It was written for 12-year olds.

And why are we talking about the LOTR at the start of this anyways? Why am I looking at Elijah Woods’ airbrushed face? I wish the Hobbit could have just been left to exist as it’s own story without all the forced franchise tie-ins. I wish it could have kept the fun.



Concise action sequences were morphed into unnecessarily stretched-out ridiculousness. I feel like pretty much every fight scene was at least twice as long as it should have been.

The film made me fidgety and very aware of how long the movie was. I was not taken away into a magical world. Of all people, I most certainly should not be bored at a Tolkien flick. ‘Cause I am kind of your market.

And ugh… that Goblin King. Can we just never speak of him again? That chase scene was unintentionally comedic. I mean, really, NONE of the MILLIONS of goblins can hit a single one of our dwarfs? Not even by dumb luck? How in the world have they survived?

Just, no.



I might be totally wrong on this, but isn’t the point of a movie to tell a story?

You know, with a plot and beginning and middle and end? Didn’t Star Wars (NOT the prequels) show us that you can effectively have three disparate stories within a broader tale? Isn’t having a plot in a movie still a requirement?

Where in the world was the plot and complete story in this Hobbit film?

Twilight: Breaking Dawn (Part One) is a perfect example of failing at presenting a story. It was only half of a plot pawned off as a full tale. Say what you will about the source material, that film did not present a complete story. It wasn’t a complete movie.

Via: legit-response-gif.com
Via: legit-response-gif.com



So no, Peter Jackson. I will not go and see this second film, or the third. Even the dulcet tones of my favorite ginger, Benedict Cumberbatch, will not entice me. You have ill-treated my childhood quite enough, thankyouverymuch.

Even if it will make me lame and left out of essential pop-culture to not see this movie, as this (caution; spoiler and explicit language filled) article claims,  I will not be going.

I was totally on board with the Hobbit. I was on board with the casting choices and the return to the beauty of CGI Middle-earth. I was even on board with the additional source material to flesh out the tale. (Yes to more Tolkien, all the time!)

I was not on board with giving you money to watch a crap movie.

I say no more. I won’t be back for takes two and three. I am through.

2 thoughts on “Why I Say No to the Hobbit Trilogy

  1. I had pretty much the same gripes you did about the first one. I must say though, the second one was MUCH better! Yes, I did have some gripes with it, but it was just much more entertaining than the first one. I recommend waiting for video. I mean, you kinda need to see it, but I don’t know if I’d pay full price for it.

  2. I got roped into seeing the second one yesterday. That’s 3 hours of my life I’ll never get back.

    I think my butt is still numb from sitting so long. That’s about the best I can say about that movie.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s