Home    General Stuff    General Media
#1

The Hobbit

Archive: 46 posts

I watched The Hobbit last night. I'm a big fan of the book, so was very interested to see what they would do with this story. Seemed to be some very mixed reactions to this film, some people being very critical and dissapointed while others thought it was fantastic and loved it. Personally I really enjoyed it and I'm looking forward to the next one, great fun.

Your thoughts, what did you think of it?
Or are you just looking forward to watching it, and wish to share your excitement?

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Blibble/hobbit_zpsa1ce7140.jpg		2012-12-16 19:32:00

Author:
LieutenantFatman
Posts: 465

I loved it! The cinematopgraphy was gorgeous as ever!

I thought they did really well with the book. I know it didn't follow it exactly, but I thought it lent a bit better to anyone that hadn't read the book.		2012-12-16 19:34:00

Author:
jwwphotos
Posts: 11383

Indeed, I know the book pretty much inside out as I read it several times when I was younger. Most of the changes I noticed immediately, but I have to say, most of them made sense, and I understood why they had been put in. I'll happily watch it again, (several times, no doubt) very entertaining.2012-12-16 19:43:00

Author:
LieutenantFatman
Posts: 465

I thought it was very well done. Loved that they kept a lot of the "lightheartedness" of the book. I thought I would be disappointed because I expected tons of filler, since they're turning a relativity short book into three 3+ hour movies, but from the first one it seems that the story is just as action packed as it was in the book.

Still always wondered why the lord of the rings wasn't just a short story about Gandalf catching a butterfly, whispering to it, and getting giant eagles to carry him and Frodo to Mt. Doom... Those eagles seem to be just helpful enough to keep all the important people from getting dead, without really helping in any way that would make anyone's life easier. Tolkien must have really thought birds were A holes.		2012-12-28 05:25:00

Author:
Madafaku
Posts: 738

Still always wondered why the lord of the rings wasn't just a short story about Gandalf catching a butterfly, whispering to it, and getting giant eagles to carry him and Frodo to Mt. Doom... Those eagles seem to be just helpful enough to keep all the important people from getting dead, without really helping in any way that would make anyone's life easier. Tolkien must have really thought birds were A holes.

LOL!!

Yeah.. but most stories are that way. Even in the Hobbit those eagles dropped them all off hundreds of miles from the Lonely Mountain rather than just taking them there and probably could have right from the Shire.

..but that is what makes a story better.. all the extra stuff even if logic dictates a better solution. Like in Alien. If they lowered me into the cargo hold of that spacecraft and saw all those pods, I would have said... "Nope!! Nothing to see here!" and had them pull me up. End of movie! .. but no, the silly writer has him down there whopping on one like a ripe melon. STUPID!!! lol

..but back to Tolkien. I am also amazed that it will be 3 movies considering LoTR was at least 3 books. The Hobbit is not that long of a book, unless they really start looking more into history of middle earth or just expanding events like that underground Orc battle in the 1st movie.

Regardless... I will watch them all and love every second. 		2012-12-28 12:29:00

Author:
jwwphotos
Posts: 11383

I thought it was very well done. Loved that they kept a lot of the "lightheartedness" of the book. I thought I would be disappointed because I expected tons of filler, since they're turning a relativity short book into three 3+ hour movies, but from the first one it seems that the story is just as action packed as it was in the book.

Still always wondered why the lord of the rings wasn't just a short story about Gandalf catching a butterfly, whispering to it, and getting giant eagles to carry him and Frodo to Mt. Doom... Those eagles seem to be just helpful enough to keep all the important people from getting dead, without really helping in any way that would make anyone's life easier. Tolkien must have really thought birds were A holes.
Just because they're eagles doesn't mean they don't have lives. They possibly have better things to do. Would you like to carry a wizard and some Hobbit around for hours?

That's what I thought.		2012-12-28 13:13:00

Author:
bigMoose_
Posts: 183

If I recall correctly, the eagles didn't go anywhere near Mount Doom because of the Nazg?l and the monsters they rode. Once Sauron was defeated, they weren't a problem any longer so the eagles could move in to rescue Frodo and Sam. It's not the best excuse, but it isn't nowhere near the gaping plot hole people make it out to be.

About the Hobbit, I liked it a lot. I was in awe from start to finish. The only bit I think was unnecessary is the stone giants fight. Even though it was awesome, it also was a little bit too over-the-top.		2012-12-28 13:54:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

I can't remember, but was that stone giants fight even in the book? I don't remember that, but I read it a ton of years ago.2012-12-28 14:38:00

Author:
jwwphotos
Posts: 11383

No, there weren't.2012-12-28 14:41:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

I'm going to have to watch this movie again to make a decision on how I felt. I liked it but I'm not sure if I loved it like LOTR. I felt the pacing was a little massaged here. The action was meted out too evenly for me... but, like I said, I'm going to have to watch it again to make a better judgement.2012-12-29 07:24:00

Author:
GribbleGrunger
Posts: 3910

I loved the movie. My only problem was I'm not a fan with sitting in a movie theater for 3 and a half hours but none the less the movie I felt was amazing. However I've never read the Hobbit so I don't know how well it follows the book or not but to me it was as good, if not better, then the LotR movies.2012-12-29 17:40:00

Author:
argetlam350
Posts: 212

Yeah.. at that long a movie you definitely don't need the HUGE soda with the popcorn, though you probably need the HUGE popcorn!! lol2012-12-29 17:45:00

Author:
jwwphotos
Posts: 11383

Having read/watched tens of reviewers review this, only one stated exactly what was on my mind in the movie review:
"Majority of reviewers often rate this movie based around three complaints, none of which should actually be there: 1) 48FPS. It is a movie, not a display of the new 48FPS filming-style. 2) It is a movie made from a scratch called the Hobbit: There and back again. It is not supposed to follow the book step-by-step. 3) It is not "a new version of the Lord of the Rings" and it isn't trying to be."

Personally, the movie was a ten-out-of-ten to me. My favourite dwarf was Thorin Oakenshield because he was a badass, but if I had to choose from Kili, Fili, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur or Balin (I only remember them) it'd be Balin for me.		2012-12-29 18:54:00

Author:
FreeAim
Posts: 2462

Well, it's a Peter Jackson epic. The LOTR movies and King Kong were more than 3 hours long, so you know what to expect.

Fortunately they have a short intermission in the theatre I go to. It breaks the immersion, but it's great if you need to go to the bathroom, stretch your legs or buy more popcorn.		2012-12-29 18:59:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

Well, it's a Peter Jackson epic. The LOTR movies and King Kong were more than 3 hours long, so you know what to expect.

Fortunately they have a short intermission in the theatre I go to. It breaks the immersion, but it's great if you need to go to the bathroom, stretch your legs or buy more popcorn.


Lucky you. Our theatres don't do intermissions. Thankfully it was a Cinebarre, so I got pizza to eat during the movie. A full meal, yet still justifiable in the world of theater food. 		2012-12-29 19:51:00

Author:
Dragonvarsity
Posts: 5208

Yes, it is a bit late for this, but since it's still in the theatres and there are still people out there who haven't seen it for a reason or another. In my opinion, 98% of criticism the movie has gotten exists because the reviewers feel as if they can not be honest with themselves, as they would appear as fanboys. Well, I am Lord of the Rings fanboy and I also consider myself as the Hobbit fanboy... For a good reason.

The movie's plot is simple: Bilbo Baggins, played by Martin Freeman, who in my opinion is one of the most underrated actors today and also one of the best, joins a company of about a dozen dwarves and Gandalf the Gray to go to the old, abandoned dwarven kingdom of Erebor to get it bag from a big dragon, Smaug. I won't spoil anything else about the plot if you haven't seen the movie, but I only can say this: it is awesome.

Actors all do a very good job. Personally, my favourite actor in the movie is Martin Freeman. He must be one of the best actors of today, who sadly doesn't get recognized since academy-awards don't know a good actor if one flew over their heads like Superman. He nails his role perfectly and he really steals the show here. There are plenty of other good actors here, really good actually. Ian McKellen owns it as Gandalf and the dwarves are acted very well as well.

Special effects are really good and the pace is also great. Reviewers always hate the "long beginning," but they shouldn't. Reviewers always complain about characters not getting enough character development, but once Hobbit comes along with some (and really high quality character development), they just constantly... ***** about the movie being too long (I censored it myself). While special effects really look good, it is the only thing one can complain about in the movie. There is a lot of CGI here, so it can take one out of the movie a bit, but it really doesn't as it isn't really Avatar.

Also, I would like to give a special-mention to one character people don't seem to like: Radagast the Brown. I... I get why people don't like him, but I personally do like him very much and even if one doesn't like him... he isn't in the movie that much so it is no reason not to see this masterpiece. Another thing is the music. It's the best music in movies since... Lord of the Rings.

In conclusion, this movie is a great time. It's not going to win you over if you didn't like Lord of the Rings, but if you enjoyed Lord of the Rings, you will love this. To me, it is a better movie than Fellowship of the Rings which was a great movie as well, not just as good as the Two Towers and not near as good ad 12/10 Return of the K?ng. I can only say that this legendary movie is 10/10 and should be given a view.

I don't review 48fps because it isn't a part of the movie, but if you are interested about seeing it, then go and see it in 48fps.		2013-01-16 19:32:00

Author:
FreeAim
Posts: 2462

Bilbo Baggins, played by Martin Freeman, who in my opinion is one of the most underrated actors today

Martin Freeman is not an underrated actor. He was critically acclaimed for his role in Sherlock and got a lot of media attention because of it. And if there's something all critics agree with about this film, it's how good Freeman, Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis are at portraying Bilbo, Gandalf and Gollum.

Personally, I loved the movie. But I get it if it's not what some were expecting: The Hobbit is not another LOTR. It isn't as big, as ambitious or as epic, and the tone isn't as serious. People who go watch it should keep that in mind. But they can expect the attention to detail Peter Jackson is known for.

It's not as good as Fellowship though. No effing way.		2013-01-16 23:15:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

Yes, it is a bit late for this, but since it's still in the theatres and there are still people out there who haven't seen it for a reason or another. In my opinion, 98% of criticism the movie has gotten exists because the reviewers feel as if they can not be honest with themselves, as they would appear as fanboys. Well, I am Lord of the Rings fanboy and I also consider myself as the Hobbit fanboy... For a good reason....


Merged with existing thread		2013-01-17 00:12:00

Author:
Lady_Luck__777
Posts: 3458

I watched this movie a few weeks ago. I have to say, it didn't feel like three hours. When they were rescued by eagles and put on the rock, I thought "oh, the movie's probably halfway over now". I was surprised when it was the end of the film. I thought it had only been about an hour and a half! I think that's what made the movie excellent. It was gripping, and it didn't seem to drag at all. I wasn't bored once watching it.2013-01-17 04:33:00

Author:
Kalawishis
Posts: 928

All I can say is I loved it. I first read the Hobbit and LotR in High School and these films have been a dream come true. Cannot wait for the next one! 2013-01-17 12:44:00

Author:
jwwphotos
Posts: 11383

It's not as good as Fellowship though. No effing way.
I did say "To me, it is a better movie than Fellowship of the Ring which was a great movie as well..."
It just worked better for me. While Lord of the Rings is still the best movie ever made, I do have strong faith in the Hobbit and I believe it can be, while not as good as LOTR, an awesome movie-trilogy that can be just as epic... in its own way.

Now, what are your speculations for "The Desolation of Smaug?" Expectations?

I think, while it can be a bit similar to this, it'll be an awesome movie. And also, I haven't read the books, not the LOTR ones or Hobbit, so don't spoil it people, without them fancy "Spoiler-"things.		2013-01-17 20:08:00

Author:
FreeAim
Posts: 2462

Erebor seems close, but their journey is far from over. They still have to go through Mirkwood. Expect shenanigans with the elves, and they won't seem as friendly as they do in the LOTR trilogy.

A performance I can't wait to see is Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug. He and Martin Freeman have great chemistry as Holmes and Watson from Sherlock, so the scenes with Bilbo and Smaug should be very interesting to watch.		2013-01-18 03:34:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

No spoilers, thank you. I am not a book-person and I haven't read the books.

Now I know more than I had hoped to know when I was going to see the Desolation. I don't say that what you have done is unforgivable, as you didn't reveal anything major, but I don't like it very much either. I didn't know anything about the Hobbit's story before the Unexpected Journey and I only want to know this much before going to see the Desolation, but now I know something I wouldn't want to.		2013-01-18 13:35:00

Author:
FreeAim
Posts: 2462

I didn't spoil anything. What I said was too vague to be considered a spoiler... and you can pretty much guess these things are going to happen. Besides, didn't you ask for speculations and expectations?

You're overreacting immensely. You'd get a bigger spoilers fom reading the movie's description on a theatre leaflet.

Hell, casually visit any news site and you'll find out that a major cast member from LOTR (other than Gandalf and Frodo) will also make an appearance in Desolation. That's a hundred times more spoilery than what I said.		2013-01-18 14:23:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

If there is a way I annoyed you, I apologise. However, I can not risk it further. I have to ignore you just not to see more from you. No offense, and apologies if I came off as aggressive or something someway somehow.2013-01-19 17:54:00

Author:
FreeAim
Posts: 2462

I thought it was great!, saw it in the cinema in 3D and it was very nice!, a little slow on the beginning but it gets really, REALLY good, cant wait for the sequel!!2013-04-08 22:46:00

Author:
Ragnarok
Posts: 898

First poster for The Desolation of Smaug:

http://i.imgur.com/hbZpSGO.jpg

Should this be the general Hobbit trilogy thread? It seems like a waste of time creating three different threads.		2013-06-09 22:31:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

First poster for The Desolation of Smaug:

http://i.imgur.com/hbZpSGO.jpg

Should this be the general Hobbit trilogy thread? It seems like a waste of time creating three different threads.
I read your post, and then I thought about editing the thread title...but then I realize I don't have editing powers anymore.

I really like that poster, and it stands out because it avoids poster cliches.		2013-06-10 04:15:00

Author:
warlord_evil
Posts: 4193

I really like that poster, and it stands out because it avoids poster cliches.

Yeah most blockbusters choose to depict the charaters. Either a shot of them standing and looking into the middle distance, or doing something bad ***, or a crappy colage of the whole cast. It's pretty generic

Not this poster though. This one focuses on the world and the wonder of the ruined but still beatiful Erebor. Makes it clear that Bilbo is just an insignificant little Hobbit caught up in something much bigger than himself.

It's radically different than Unexpected Journey's posters, which focus mostly on Bilbo.		2013-06-10 09:04:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

Here's the trailer. Don't watch it if you want Smaug's appearance to remain a mystery.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnaojlfdUbs

@FreeAim: I told you a simple trailer would spoil much more than I revealed back there.


Can a mod edit the title of this thread so it's just "The Hobbit" or The Hobbit trilogy"? Since creating three separate threads is kind of redundant.		2013-07-22 10:19:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

My only complaint about that trailer is that Bilbo doesn't have a single line of dialogue in it, considering he's supposed to be the main character. Sure, he makes funny noises, but I wouldn't call that dialogue. Peter Jackson may be taking this into a different direction than I originally expected, consisting more around the dwarves than the Hobbit, but I won't question him, as he is easily among the best film directors today.

And yeah, sure the trailer spoiled a bit, but it's "controlled" spoiling. Never really telling anything that is vital in terms of the plot, but telling you just enough to get excited. Some movie trailers show too much, such as "Oblivion's" or "The Conjuring's" trailer, but gladly not this one. However, I'm often p***ed if someone just hints at spoiling something beyond the trailer, since I have had some seriously bad experiences before, such as just recently someone spoiling the twist in "Now you see me," which I was really looking forward to.		2013-07-27 08:19:00

Author:
FreeAim
Posts: 2462

I guess I'm late to the party for this thread. I saw the movie months ago in theaters and I loved it. It all starts with the characters. The original 9 companions in lord of the rings were great. There are more characters in The Hobbit, so I think some of the dwarves were lost in the shuffle. I swear I saw one dwarf at the end of the movie that I never saw before lol. Martin Freeman was awesome as Bilbo! I actually liked Radaghast the Brown, but the bunny sleigh ride was just too strange and weird lol. That threw me off.

I read reviews saying the beginning was slow, but the beginning was my favorite part. I love Hobbiton and the green burrows. Actually the three stupid trolls were my favorite part.

I saw someone mention the stone giants weren't in the book. I thought they were in the book, but I haven't read it in a long time.

Looking forward to the next movie.		2013-07-27 09:53:00

Author:
Greensmurfy
Posts: 300

I changed the thread name to The Hobbit.

Looking forward to the next film, I hope they keep it as close to the book as possible.		2013-07-27 18:43:00

Author:
LieutenantFatman
Posts: 465

The first hour or so of the first Hobbit had me interested, but like loads of setpieces from the LotR trilogy I soon felt a detached special effects fatigue, when I should have been digging into the plot and really connecting with characters. Just didn't happen. Hasn't happened with all of his adaptations, actually. I think it's a problem with pacing. The visuals are great, the casts are great, something's wrong in the way the stories unfold, though. His watershed film was the The Frighteners, which grows in my heart year after year. It was wonderfully fresh and wonderfully brief, compared to his stuff since. It was an original concept and his quirky way of being grandiose at the wrong times and hyperreal when focusing on characters doing mundane things was jarring in a good way, as suits the horror/comedy genre. He brings moments of compelling horror and humor to LotR, King Kong, Lovely Bones and now the Hobbit, but those are moments in much longer films. I really think it's a problem with pacing.2013-08-01 08:28:00

Author:
Unknown User

New trailer:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfflhfn1W-o		2013-11-05 08:03:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

http://i42.tinypic.com/or3wgp.jpg2013-11-11 01:20:00

Author:
ConverseFox
Posts: 2333

Life hack here: If you go see the movie during its night of release, don't follow it up by going to drink alcohol like a freaking camel at your friend's house until you pass out.

I don't remember anything else than paying for the ticket last night, but apparently I thought it was the best film of the year. I really don't know if that's true, so I am going to repeat-view the movie either Thursday or Friday.		2013-12-11 08:04:00

Author:
FreeAim
Posts: 2462

going to see it probably this weekend, i want to avoid the release date since its probably going to be packed :s2013-12-11 08:51:00

Author:
Ragnarok
Posts: 898

I just came back from my second viewing of the Hobbit. Along the road I started recalling more and more about the movie and I can safely say...

The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug is the best movie of 2013.

Everything in the movie works so well. Instead of simply starting and going with what we have, the movie takes moments to catch its breath and develop the characters, including some of the dwarves, mostly those dwarves that were left in the background in the last movie. But at no point did these character development moments feel boring or uninteresting. All characters that are either new, old or familiar from the LotR movies are found material to work with and they all feel important as far as the story is concerned. While in the last movie I could safely say that Bilbo was the strongest character, in this movie I really can't say. But unlike in movies like Titanic, this is actually a good thing.

No spoilers here: The story picks up where the last one left off. Unlike some trailers felt like, the characters continue changing with the story. They don't suddenly reset to their old selves for the purpose of drama. That kind of drama is mostly for poor soap operas and J.J. Abrams's Star Trek movies. Instead of dabbling in drama, this story is exciting, funny and very well paced (even for those who may have found the character development in the previous movie a bit too plenty), but it doesn't forget to have heart as well. The morals of the actions are subtle and the story actually succeeds in what many modern films fail at: being the center of the movie, even though it is highly character driven.

The subplots are all culminating slowly in this movie into something that will most likely blow the cinemas around the world when the third part is released. Even though they never feel as important as the main quest (even the subplot about the Necromancer) of the dwarves, they all tie in with the main action without the need of cutting corners simply to do so. Every single scene feels important in the main story, even if they are not directly a part of it. That is brilliant film-making. However (this is not a criticism), there is one subplot which I am a tiny bit concerned about. It's not that it was badly made, far from it. Even it was made to feel important and as a stand-alone subplot it is nearly perfectly executed. You know the one when you see it.

The love for the source material of the movie is also visible in every single part of it, not only the story and the acting but the minor things, like the amount of details in the set pieces and the clothing of the characters. Also, those who feel the need for LotR-style grittiness find this movie much more fitting for their needs. The movie is not as dark as those are, of course not, but notably darker than the previous one.

Oh, and the CGI in this movie is spectacular. The way the CGI is combined with practical effects is very pleasing for the eyes, especially when watching in IMAX 3D (not promoting the 3D, just saying that if you see the movie in 3D, you are getting your money's worth). The landscapes are all diverse yet equally beautiful and the final scenes of the movie are just pure eyegasmic joy. The CGI is also some of the best I have ever seen (like, Gollum good) with a certain CG-character in the movie (oh yes, that one).

The two tiny nit-picks I have are of no importance in the final verdict of the movie. However, for the sake of saying them, here they are: The beginning doesn't immediately make you feel like you are in the world, which makes the first 10 minutes after the prologue feel a little dragging (which, I am sure, gets better on multiple viewings) and the other thing is that there is one minor character that doesn't play such an important part in this chapter of the movie as one would expect. Then again, I suppose the character is spared for the final chapter, so it is good.

Whether you like the fact that the movie is not 100% accurate to the book or not, for someone who has never read the book and simply cares for the quality of the movie, this movie is nearly perfect. In fact, out of the 5 Middle-Earth movies so far, I'd actually rank this the second best (only beaten by the Return of the King). This is not movie-gold. This is movie-platinum and I can not wait for the final part of this awesome journey.

I would give this a number, but if you read what I just wrote, you know what it is.		2013-12-12 20:26:00

Author:
FreeAim
Posts: 2462

I saw it yesterday and liked it a lot. Much better paced than the first movie, the payoff is much more satisfying.

Highlight of the movie? Benedict Cumberbatch. He totally nailed the menacing, majestic vibe of Smaug. And once again he proved that he and Martin Freeman have a great chemistry.

However, the non-canonical parts that were created to pad out the length of the movie felt really pointless. Tauriel was just added as a token action girl. And her flirting with one of the dwarves felt like the typical "Obligatory Romantic Subplot that Is Completely Unnecessary But Was Included Anyway Because Why the Hell Not". The insight into the politics of Esgaroth was also really unnecessary to the main plotline.

All in all, a great entry into the Tolkien Cinematic Universe. But the decision to expand the story into a trilogy kind of turned it into a diluted mess. The actual main plot is spread so thin among so much padding and secondary subplots, that the narrative feels really bogged down. Two movies should have been enough.		2014-01-07 20:07:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

My brother got the book for Christmas and as it was relatively short, I decided to read it. I used to be annoyed by people criticizing the movies for not being like the book, but now, I have grown a different perspective: those criticisms baffle me.

While I don't think that making three three-hour movies from the book was entirely necessary, I do find the fact that there are exactly three movies to be a must. Now, minor spoilers (not spoiling anything from the story, but some criticisms about the book):

People seem to be under the assumption that since "Lord of the Rings" movies could follow the exact plot of the books "The Hobbit" movies can too. However, while I do think that "The Hobbit" is a good read, it is far from perfect and I now know that those people either haven't read the books or don't know anything about films in general. The reason is that the book isn't exactly coherent and it has a very awkward structure. The first half of the book (about) is a series of mini-events, mostly based on somebody or everybody getting captured and then escaping the situation. Then, when the dwarves finally reach Smaug, one would expect it to be an ending climax of the book. But there are still about three more climaxes after that. The reason is that the book wasn't meant to be read from beginning to the end at once.

Before Smaug is reached, there is much to be built up: several characters, kingdoms and cultures need to be set up before it (not to mention that Bilbo has to get the ring), especially in the movies, so if the dwarves reached Smaug in the first movie, it would be either far too fast-paced (ironically) or far too long. Also, the climaxes I mentioned come all very close to each other, so you can't exactly have all of them in one movie, so the book basically must be three movies in order to work. There are other aspects unique to the books that need to be worked out as well, most importantly Gandalf. He just buggers off with no explanation whenever the dwarves need to get into a tense situation. In the movies, this is gladly addressed as he is given a subplot which seems to nicely tie in with the climax of the third movie and the "The Lord of the Rings" as well.


In addition to that, I also find the criticisms concerning Tauriel at this point to be completely useless and merely show that those people (no offence, SnipySev) just want to hate something just to hate something. We do not exactly know where this character is going in the third film and what her point in the overall picture is, so saying that she is completely useless now is blatantly ignorant. That being said, I really do like the character and she also helps us see more of the elf-culture, or at least a different side of it. Her addition also brings a nice little character-building moment to Thranduil, who wasn't, apart from being a complete a-hole, exactly a character in the book. So what I can say about her: so far, so great.

Not to mention all the nice references (though as a nitpick, I didn't like the one about Gimli too much) to other books and stories, the great cameos and the interesting build-up which concludes in...

...one of the best movie-cliffhangers in recent memory.

I think that the movies are, so far, more than perfect manifestations of the book and I feel sad for everyone who didn't like the fact they didn't see the entire adventure in one movie and therefore refuse to see the others.

(Another tiny nit-pick: I think that, unlike in "The Lord of the Rings" the deleted scenes were not exactly on par with the movies themselves.)

However, while the movies so far are almost perfect, I have to wait until the third movie to see whether these hours spent until now actually pay off. Arguably the third movie is the most important, especially in a trilogy based on a single book.		2014-01-09 21:50:00

Author:
FreeAim
Posts: 2462

I'm not criticizing the movies for not following the books. I'm criticizing them because they have so much unnecessary padding they've become a bloated mess. Even with all the extra material, the Hobbit movies still tell a pretty simple story in essence. And a simple story doesn't need to be bogged down with unnecessary subplots and additions.

If the Hobbit trilogy were a steak, half of it would be fat. The actual meat is still delicious, but it doesn't need to be attached to all the fat.

Hell, I support movie adaptations altering the source material. A movie can't tell the exact same story as a book. Here's the thing though: the alterations have to make sense. And more often than not that is accomplished by cuting away the fat, not by adding it. You know, Jackson made a lot of changes to the LOTR trilogy. And believe me, they are very extensive. The fact that you think the LOTR movies followed the "exact plot of the books" demonstrates how little you know of the Tolkien legendarium.

Ever heard of the Scouring of the Shire? After Sauron was defeated in Return of the King, Saruman and Wormtongue occupied the Shire. Gandalf and the hobbits had to defeat them again. Just one of the many chapters Jackson cut from the story.

I support those cuts, because a movie needs to be concise. Fantasy books can have narratives that drag on and on, because books are an appropriate medium for long, expansive stories. But a movie needs to know when enough is enough.

Unexpected Journey and Desolation just don't know when enough is enough. I'd rather see Jackson put this kind of effort into a movie about the Children of H?rin or a miniseries depicting some of the stories from the Silmarillion, instead of overdeveloping a story that wasn't meant to be overdeveloped.		2014-01-10 10:52:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

I know the changes to the original books in case of "Lord of the Rings" and I, in fact, consider them to be better than the book. Do not mock me for not bringing them to the discussions. I was simply stating they were more... well, I try to look for a better word than loyal to the books.

(That being said, it doesn't matter worth a darn, because all I care about is how good the movies are, and they are brilliant.)

It looks like we have entirely different points of view in this case. Also the stake metaphor is kind of one-sided, so let's use a better one: a bag of candy. There are four flavours: red, blue, yellow and green. You are saying that the yellow ones don't need to be there, because they are not as good as the rest of the candies, but I think they are just as good. You just don't like their flavour and I like their flavour. We have two different opinions.

I mean, when I first watched the movie without having read the book, I couldn't tell what was in the original book and what wasn't. It was all equally brilliant. If anything, I'd say that reading the book after the first two movies only makes them better.

That being said, you do agree that two movies or one movie wouldn't work because of obvious reasons, right?		2014-01-10 20:20:00

Author:
FreeAim
Posts: 2462

I don't think a single movie would have worked. But two movies would have worked perfectly. In fact, that was their original plan before they decided to milk the saga a little bit more.

If the trilogy was a bag of candy, most of the added material would be biscuits. They aren't bad, but they're not really candy, and they were included just to make the bag seem bigger than it needs to be.		2014-01-11 11:44:00

Author:
SnipySev
Posts: 2452

Smaug was pee-your-pants material for me. The lines, voice, personality was perfect.2014-01-13 22:20:00

Author:
Sackativitron
Posts: 61

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgNNb8bm_b8

I was surprised by the music.		2014-07-29 12:55:00

Author:
FreeAim
Posts: 2462


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.