[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
For those interested in a good version of LotR, not the shitty new-zealand flic here’s the second best one:
(the best one is, of course, the '58 turkmenian silent film, but it’s only shown on the president’s birthday in adult cinemas as a sideshow.)
[/quote]
Lulz of the Wigs.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I liked the idea of Prometheus. I liked how they portrayed Wayland’s daughter…but hated how they killed her off. I hated Idrise Elba’s fake country accent (even though I loved him as an actor and the part he played).
It was like a movie with great potential that had it’s writer die half way through script.
It left way too many open ends and answered NOTHING. It was like cutting x-Files off in the middle of season two and saying, “Taddaaa!!”[/quote]
Aren’t they doing a sequel to the prequel? Lol
It really felt like they were setting it up for another prequel.
[quote]roybot wrote:
It wouldn’t have worked as a single movie. I’ve been pretty vocal about my dislike of trilogies being made for the sake of it, but one thing that isn’t immediately apparent is the amount of work Peter Jackson has put into making each of the dwarves stand as individuals.
The journey has to be protracted so relationships can form. Jackson has done an amazing job of giving them defined personalities, each with different reasons for joining the quest. That won’t be apparent until the ebd credits roll on the last movie. Thorin, Balin and Bofur got most of the attention in part 1, with the rest getting their moments to shine in the sequels.
And Smaug will blow our minds.
I’ve figured out Azog’s role (he’ll survive until the Battle of the Five Armies). [/quote]
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I liked the idea of Prometheus. I liked how they portrayed Wayland’s daughter…but hated how they killed her off. I hated Idrise Elba’s fake country accent (even though I loved him as an actor and the part he played).
It was like a movie with great potential that had it’s writer die half way through script.
It left way too many open ends and answered NOTHING. It was like cutting x-Files off in the middle of season two and saying, “Taddaaa!!”[/quote]
Aren’t they doing a sequel to the prequel? Lol
It really felt like they were setting it up for another prequel.[/quote]
So that would be a… sprequel?
[quote]roybot wrote:
And Smaug will blow our minds. [/quote]
I’m expecting something similar here, as well.
People in New Zealand LOVE The Hobbit.
I think the film encapsulates New Zealand - it’s awesome and fantastic but some people will say it is boring. Fact is, we bring the best of the Western world without the bad stuff.
We raw, just like Bilbo Baggins.
You can’t have the Hobbit as a movie in the same vein as the LOTR trilogy without the extras he added. The fact is, the Hobbit is a bedtime story (originally) and won’t sit on par with the feel of the movie trilogy without the padding (White Council, Dol Guldur) and additional stuff they have added.
It was epic and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I’ll be seeing it again with a lady friend.
[quote]csulli wrote:
Fuck all y’all who don’t like it. Dwarves are the shit; I loved the movie. I see myself liking this trilogy way more than Lord of the Rings. LOTR was full of gay ass hobbits and elves. This one’s all about a bunch of awesome dwarven powerlifters who kick tons of ass and drink loads of beer.[/quote]
x2 Bilbo’s the shit in this
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Seen it.
It’s decent if you’re a genre-fan. Some of the effects and fights are great.
The
spoiler
dwarfish underground chase
spoilerend
is amazingly done, in a shorter film with less fights it would have been even more impressive.
If you’re not a diehard fantasy geek, prepare to be bored.
It takes no genius to figure out why.
Partitioning a smallish book first into two, then three parts was motivated by money alone, not artistic integrity.
The Huffington Post nerd can go suck an intellectual orifice of choice, his argument is baffling at best.
It doesn’t matter what Tolkien in his nightly nerdogasms envisioned later on, in order to make his creation appear more solid and whole.
If we find Grimm’s lost annotations to “Red Riding Hood”, and they lay out a wolfish genealogy, explaining at great lengths why this particular predator could talk along with establishing the history of the “Hunters Guild” and other outrageously geeky stuff, a three part movie about a little girl visiting her grandma would still.
Suck.
Ass.
A lot.
It’s painfully obvious that a movie is bloated when it takes ~40 minutes to get the hobbit’s furry ass out of Hobbit Town and 20+ minutes for Bilbo and Gollum to sort things out.
Let’s hear it from the director and former director:
“one of the drawbacks of The Hobbit is it’s relatively lightweight compared to LOTR” (Jackson)
and
“The Hobbit is better contained in a single film and kept brisk and fluid with no artificial 'break point” (delTorro)
[/quote]
This.
[quote]ProRaven wrote:
This.
[/quote]
Whatever.
One could easily have said the same about Mario Puzo’s Godfather – which is as fantastic a read as is The Hobbit (imo) – but most would agree that multiple, full-length films worked just fine.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You can’t have the Hobbit as a movie in the same vein as the LOTR trilogy without the extras he added. The fact is, the Hobbit is a bedtime story (originally) and won’t sit on par with the feel of the movie trilogy without the padding (White Council, Dol Guldur) and additional stuff they have added.[/quote]
This.
(somewhat relatedly, I have little patience for those who never bothered to read the (short) book and yet still see fit to complain. Basically, from what exactly are they basing any opinion at all??)
I’ve always been a staunch admirer of the dark-palatted cartoon Hobbit from the 80’s, and read several reviews before seeing this one. I thought I wouldn’t like it, to be honest, just because of all the reviews I’ve read, but after seeing it I’ve changed my mind- I HAVE actually read the books (unlike most people who seem to be reviewing this movie) and Peter Jackson certainly has been reading his Tolkein too. It means that they take time to actually develop the characters, and it means that they take time to tell the story, rather than squash it into a little one-off movie. I thought at first, because of having read the rather slim novel many times before, and because of reading several negative reviews, that it would be too long and drawn out whereas the entire movie could’ve been better showcased as a single movie such as the old cartoon was… but that’s not the case at all, to my surprise. I think it was incredibly well done, with my only criticism being that the dwarf King seemed not quite strong/kingly enough compared to the LOTR Aragorn, but hey it’s a super minor criticism.
Anyway, seriously, all the haters out there who said it doesn’t have enough action are completely full of it- there was a ton of action, and it was a suspenseful good movie with a helluvalot of detail and Jackson obviously did his homework regarding the original Hobbit book. I originally thought it was lame of him to make it into 3 pieces for commercial reasons, but now think it was more his ultimate geekdom homage of the Tolkein fan in him that made him do it the way he did. I never started out to be a Jackson and/or Tolkein worshipper, but holy shiza these movies are above and beyond the pale here… acrew the haters, seriously. I love the Hobbit and can’t wait for the rest. 
[quote]chillain wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You can’t have the Hobbit as a movie in the same vein as the LOTR trilogy without the extras he added. The fact is, the Hobbit is a bedtime story (originally) and won’t sit on par with the feel of the movie trilogy without the padding (White Council, Dol Guldur) and additional stuff they have added.[/quote]
This.
(somewhat relatedly, I have little patience for those who never bothered to read the (short) book and yet still see fit to complain. Basically, from what exactly are they basing any opinion at all??)
[/quote]
I am willing to wager a lot of money that most of the complainers haven’t read LotR, much less the Hobbit. It happened with the LotR trilogy as well - people complained there were too many changes from the source. The source material copied verbatim to a movie would have been boring as shit.
Same goes here.
[quote]roybot wrote:
I’ve figured out Azog’s role (he’ll survive until the Battle of the Five Armies). [/quote]
How long did this take you?
Just kidding…I saw it with my 3 sons and we all came to the same figuring. Should be cool.
Good points on the character development.
[quote]HamishMcTavish wrote:
I’ve always been a staunch admirer of the dark-palatted cartoon Hobbit from the 80’s, :)[/quote]
That was awesome if we’re talking about the same thing…the Battle of the 5 Armies looked like a little football game (not intentionally).
One thing that was done much better than I’d imagined was the dwarves singing…the smash the whatever and chip the plates song was campy, but good…and was this before Thorin arrived? I think it showed the dwarves can be fun, but then it turns darker emphasizing the reality of their quest, etc…and the next song was dark and actually pretty cool. I assumed they’d leave the songs out entirely because I’m unimaginative I guess.
[quote]HamishMcTavish wrote:
I’ve always been a staunch admirer of the dark-palatted cartoon Hobbit from the 80’s, and read several reviews before seeing this one. I thought I wouldn’t like it, to be honest, just because of all the reviews I’ve read, but after seeing it I’ve changed my mind- I HAVE actually read the books (unlike most people who seem to be reviewing this movie) and Peter Jackson certainly has been reading his Tolkein too. It means that they take time to actually develop the characters, and it means that they take time to tell the story, rather than squash it into a little one-off movie. I thought at first, because of having read the rather slim novel many times before, and because of reading several negative reviews, that it would be too long and drawn out whereas the entire movie could’ve been better showcased as a single movie such as the old cartoon was… but that’s not the case at all, to my surprise. I think it was incredibly well done, with my only criticism being that the dwarf King seemed not quite strong/kingly enough compared to the LOTR Aragorn, but hey it’s a super minor criticism.
Anyway, seriously, all the haters out there who said it doesn’t have enough action are completely full of it- there was a ton of action, and it was a suspenseful good movie with a helluvalot of detail and Jackson obviously did his homework regarding the original Hobbit book. I originally thought it was lame of him to make it into 3 pieces for commercial reasons, but now think it was more his ultimate geekdom homage of the Tolkein fan in him that made him do it the way he did. I never started out to be a Jackson and/or Tolkein worshipper, but holy shiza these movies are above and beyond the pale here… acrew the haters, seriously. I love the Hobbit and can’t wait for the rest. :)[/quote]
My thoughts exactly.
Good post
[quote]HamishMcTavish wrote:
Anyway, seriously, all the haters out there who said it doesn’t have enough action are completely full of it- there was a ton of action, and it was a suspenseful good movie with a helluvalot of detail and Jackson obviously did his homework regarding the original Hobbit book. I originally thought it was lame of him to make it into 3 pieces for commercial reasons, but now think it was more his ultimate geekdom homage of the Tolkein fan in him that made him do it the way he did. I never started out to be a Jackson and/or Tolkein worshipper, but holy shiza these movies are above and beyond the pale here… acrew the haters, seriously. I love the Hobbit and can’t wait for the rest. :)[/quote]
There was plenty of action, but there was no meaningful action.
There was tons of action in the movie but outside of when the dragon took over the lone mountain place all of the action in the movie was pointless. Pointless battles versus pointless antagonists. Yawn.
Actually, it wasn’t that boring at the time I was watching it, but when the movie ended, I was pissed. I wasn’t the only one - people in my theater were booing when the movie ended. People clapped and cheered at the end of the other LOTR movies.
Side note: The Goblins are all so weak and pathetic as well - worst antagonists ever. When the Goblin King was like “OMG THAT IS THE FOE SLAYERR~!~!” it was so cheesy I felt embarrassed for whoever wrote the script.
[quote]HamishMcTavish wrote:
I think it was incredibly well done, with my only criticism being that the dwarf King seemed not quite strong/kingly enough compared to the LOTR Aragorn, but hey it’s a super minor criticism.
[/quote]
Well, Thorin isn’t as steadfast in his quest as Aragorn. He loses his way as soon as he lays hands on the Arkenstone.