Really enjoyed "The Hobbit" - cherry on top is the knowledge that Tolkien himself drew the pictures in the 1937 edition.
Same, I think even one movie could have done the trick - it's a 250 pages book, every part of lotr was longer, if I remember correctly. So a lot of time had to be filled with action scenes. But to be fair, it's such a great book that any movie would have had a hard time to capture it.
You've read the book.
[joking accusatory tone]
Haven't you.
I'm looking for someone who has recently read the book without (or before) seeing the movies. As I'm interested to see if they experience themselves as more creative when reading or viewing.
@skua @LaD_Hallo Other way around for me: I read the book ages ago (and should do again some day), but only watched the movies recently.
I found, as with LoTR, the book is better than the movies, though there are evocative, visually effective scenes that I enjoyed in the films. For me the movies added too much violence, had too little in the way of the ominous atmosphere of the book and too much extraneous, cheesy romance. The movies felt padded out with “action” sequences that just got a bit boring or Disneyesque. They should have been two movies rather than three.
@skua I had read it as a child so when first saw it, the pictures were already there. Reading it in the early 90s, I felt it was darker than the movie(s)...how about you?