The Hobbit

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: The Hobbit

Postby charliepanayi » Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:25 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
Ixtellor wrote:is this movie worth seeing?

Not unless you really want to go to the cinema and there is nothing better to see. It isn't quite as excruciatingly long as the LOTR movies but it is even less memorable.


It sounds like you didn't much care for the LOTR films, so obviously you wouldn't like this. If you did like the LOTR films, you're not guaranteed to like this, but it is worth seeing so you can judge for yourself.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: The Hobbit

Postby eSOANEM » Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:32 pm UTC

charliepanayi wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:
Ixtellor wrote:is this movie worth seeing?

Not unless you really want to go to the cinema and there is nothing better to see. It isn't quite as excruciatingly long as the LOTR movies but it is even less memorable.


It sounds like you didn't much care for the LOTR films, so obviously you wouldn't like this. If you did like the LOTR films, you're not guaranteed to like this, but it is worth seeing so you can judge for yourself.


This.

The film is not LotR and most of the time isn't trying to be so liking LotR is no guarantee that you'll like it but still, if you didn't like LotR, chances are that you won't like this. On the other hand, if you thought the biggest flaw with LotR was the lack of humour to break up the action and exposition, you'll probably find the hobbit enjoyable (even if there are bits you don't like).
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
KrO2
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:35 pm UTC

Re: The Hobbit

Postby KrO2 » Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:32 am UTC

eSOANEM wrote:Firstly, the elvish blades, this one annoyed me in LotR too where sting glowed but Glamdring never did. Well, in the Hobbit, it's worse. In some shots (usually shots where the blades are not the focus) there is a clear blue tinge to both Glamdring and Orcrist but also shots where, as orcs approach the camera pans to look at the blade which is resolutely *not* glowing.

"He wields the Foe-hammer! Beater, bright as daylight!" They couldn't make Glamdring glow, since they had painted themselves into a corner by not doing it in LotR when they could get away with it, but at least they lampshaded it.


And I'm pretty sure Saruman did have the palantir by this point. Gandalf theorizes that it's the reason why he took over Orthanc way back in the backstory, so he's had it for a couple centuries. He didn't meet Sauron and get corrupted until later, though. (If only they had used it to find where the Ithil-Stone was, they could have had three known stones and all safe to use. Oh well.)

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: The Hobbit

Postby eSOANEM » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:19 am UTC

I guess so. Still, they ought to have had it glowing in LotR too.

Anyway, I meant to say that I didn't think Sauron had a palantir then and that therefore he couldn't have corrupted Saruman through it.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Prefanity
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:28 am UTC
Location: Reno, NV

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Prefanity » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:51 am UTC

Minas Ithil fell to the Nazgûl in T.A. 2002, but Saruman wasn't given the key to Orthanc by the Steward of Gondor until 2759.

Oh, and to refer back to the discussion on orc breeds. Treebeard hypothesizes that Saruman bred the biggest breed of Mordor orcs with men. The "goblin-men" thing is a change made for the movies. Both these orcs of Saruman and the Mordor orcs he used as stock were considered Uruk-hai.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: The Hobbit

Postby eSOANEM » Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:26 pm UTC

Prefanity wrote:Minas Ithil fell to the Nazgûl in T.A. 2002, but Saruman wasn't given the key to Orthanc by the Steward of Gondor until 2759.


But at that stage Sauron hadn't properly come to power in Mordor (he didn't until after the events of the hobbit when he fled Dol Guldur) so, even if the witch-king (or another Nazgûl) tried to corrupt him, being weaker beings they'd probably have failed. As such, I think it is still reasonable to assume Saruman was not yet corrupted.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Prefanity
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:28 am UTC
Location: Reno, NV

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Prefanity » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:20 am UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
Prefanity wrote:Minas Ithil fell to the Nazgûl in T.A. 2002, but Saruman wasn't given the key to Orthanc by the Steward of Gondor until 2759.


But at that stage Sauron hadn't properly come to power in Mordor (he didn't until after the events of the hobbit when he fled Dol Guldur) so, even if the witch-king (or another Nazgûl) tried to corrupt him, being weaker beings they'd probably have failed. As such, I think it is still reasonable to assume Saruman was not yet corrupted.


I get no sense from any of the material I have available that Sauron was using the Ithil-stone while gaining strength in Dol Guldur. However, the Tolkien Gateway seems to suggest that Saruman didn't use the Orthanc-stone until T.A. 3000, but that he was scheming to take the one ring for his own as early as 2851, almost a full hundred years before Bilbo left the Shire for the Lonely Mountain. In any case, I agree that Saruman wasn't in Sauron's thrall or being otherwise influenced by him during the events of the novel, but he was certainly already corrupted by his desire to have the ring for himself.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Lucrece » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:25 am UTC

Saw the movie, liked Radagast's interpretation. It was indeed a bit dragged, but the movie was enjoyable nevertheless. Dwarves are awesome because they get me -- fuck eating plants.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: The Hobbit

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:19 pm UTC

I enjoyed the movie, but I also enjoy complaining about it, so...

Nice to see the Seventh Doctor helping out, even if he did disguise himself as a bush to do so - though I can't help feeling he's partly in there to make up for having been left out of LotR (where, in the book, he delivers a message summoning Gandalf to meet with Saruman, and then, at Gandalf's request spreads word among the creatures of the wild to take news to Isengard, which is what brings an Eagle there, thwarting Saruman's plans because of Saruman's contempt for Radagast).

Too many long tracking-shots across endless stretches of New Zealand - I half expected to see a caption "this scene sponsored by the NZ Tourism Board" a couple of times.

As has been said, the hazards and enemies seemed too organised - even the trolls fit with a wider scheme.

Which swords are meant to glow when?

Bilbo watching Gollum drop the Ring.

Slapstick action sequences were a little overdone - anything that makes Jackie Chan look subtle and restrained is taking things too far...

Bilbo's character arc goes: stay-at-home Hobbit -> backpacking Hobbit -> Hobbit too squeamish to kill -> ass-kicking Hobbit hero. In the book, Bilbo spares Gollum, not because Bilbo's never used a sword before, but because he feels sorry for him, which becomes a plot point in LotR. Holding back from his first kill and then turning around and holding his own in the fir-tree fight detracts from that...

Gandalf's moments of awesome are also his moments of breaking character as a harmless old man - in the book, he defeats the trolls with his wits rather than raw power. For his entrance into the goblin halls, detonating a large firework would have been more in keeping with his cover than displaying raw power again...

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: The Hobbit

Postby charliepanayi » Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:50 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:Bilbo's character arc goes: stay-at-home Hobbit -> backpacking Hobbit -> Hobbit too squeamish to kill -> ass-kicking Hobbit hero. In the book, Bilbo spares Gollum, not because Bilbo's never used a sword before, but because he feels sorry for him, which becomes a plot point in LotR


He doesn't kill him in the film because he feels sorry for him too, it's made pretty clear in the scene.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

rmsgrey
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: The Hobbit

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:06 pm UTC

charliepanayi wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:Bilbo's character arc goes: stay-at-home Hobbit -> backpacking Hobbit -> Hobbit too squeamish to kill -> ass-kicking Hobbit hero. In the book, Bilbo spares Gollum, not because Bilbo's never used a sword before, but because he feels sorry for him, which becomes a plot point in LotR


He doesn't kill him in the film because he feels sorry for him too, it's made pretty clear in the scene.


That's not the impression I got from the acting and the earlier scenes - sat there in the theatre, I watched Bilbo realise he was about to kill someone and back down.

User avatar
The Scyphozoa
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Sector 5

Re: The Hobbit

Postby The Scyphozoa » Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:18 pm UTC

I saw him look at Gollum's face and realize how sad and alone he was, and spare him because of that.
Image
3rdtry wrote:If there ever is another World War, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "World War 2: Episode One"

doogly wrote:murder is a subset of being mean

shvedsky
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:39 am UTC

Re: The Hobbit

Postby shvedsky » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:39 am UTC

The movie is okay. It was fun to watch, but one thing irritated me.

The picture misrepresents the story. The story describes small, local adventure that does not focus on global events. However, the picture the director composed was too epic for such a small event. Panoramic views, prolonged battles and chases, and extra focus on potentially epic consequences of character actions shapes LOTR-like epic picture where changes happen kingdom-wise. What it's used to describe, however, is just a small story, where the global events and this whole epic-ness is external to what it focuses on.

Absent was the contrast between the flashbacks of bygone battles and the serious discussion of how darkness comes, on one side, and the small adventure of Bilbo Baggins who forgot his handkerchief: the battles were done just right, but the journey itself, sadly, didn't differ much from them. I know that Peter Jackson just applied his talent in shooting epic pictures; he's done it very well in "The Hobbit" too. In most scenes, however, a different style was appropriate, and Jackson would have mastered it too if he wanted to. He didn't, and the absence of this locality was very disappointing--and tiring to watch.

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: The Hobbit

Postby charliepanayi » Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:28 pm UTC

The third movie has moved from July 2014 to December 2014.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
The Scyphozoa
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Sector 5

Re: The Hobbit

Postby The Scyphozoa » Sat Mar 02, 2013 2:00 am UTC

@shvedsky: Well, we knew it was going to be like this long before the movie came out, but also...they couldn't do it any other way. I don't think they can actually give a movie describing the small adventure of Bilbo Baggins to a world that has already seen the LOTR trilogy in theaters. Like the documentary Ringers: Lord of the Fans said:
The world has changed. You can read it in the pages. You can see it in the screen. You can hear it in the music.
The LOTR trilogy made a profound impact on movie audiences ten years ago, and they had to take that into account.
Inversely, if you're showing these movies to your kids in the future, you wouldn't start with The Hobbit, because it was designed with an audience that's already seen LOTR in mind.
Image
3rdtry wrote:If there ever is another World War, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "World War 2: Episode One"

doogly wrote:murder is a subset of being mean

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5944
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Angua » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:35 am UTC

I disagree - I think having the hobbit as it's own movie without the LOTR flavour would still have worked out quite well even after the LOTR movies had come out. A lot of people think the fact that it's too LOTRy as a bad point against the Hobbit movie.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: The Hobbit

Postby charliepanayi » Sat Mar 02, 2013 1:40 pm UTC

I don't think a Hobbit film(s) without the LOTR flavour would have ever been possible.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
BrandiElizabeth
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:42 am UTC
Location: Tennessee

Re: The Hobbit

Postby BrandiElizabeth » Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:00 am UTC

I really, really enjoyed the movie overall. Without getting *too* specific, I think the effects were well done, it lined up nicely with the book, and the actors were pretty awesome. I look forward to the next one, but am curious as to why they moved it from July to December.

User avatar
The Scyphozoa
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Sector 5

Re: The Hobbit

Postby The Scyphozoa » Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:31 am UTC

It was the third movie they moved, not the second. The second movie was always December 2013.
Image
3rdtry wrote:If there ever is another World War, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "World War 2: Episode One"

doogly wrote:murder is a subset of being mean

User avatar
keozen
The Bearded FaiD Batman
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:31 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: The Hobbit

Postby keozen » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:21 am UTC

charliepanayi wrote:I don't think a Hobbit film(s) without the LOTR flavour would have ever been given funding by the studio.


Fixed for even more accuracy! ;)
Image

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: The Hobbit

Postby charliepanayi » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:20 pm UTC

First trailer for The Desolation of Smaug is up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idp6wjqG674
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
Ryom
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:52 am UTC

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Ryom » Wed Jun 12, 2013 12:17 am UTC

Can't say I care for the overly fake acrobatics by the elves.

User avatar
Vieto
Posts: 1558
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:44 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Vieto » Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:19 am UTC

With the advent of Legolas (who kind of makes sense, considering the Elf King is his father), I expect we are going to see Gimli son of Gloin in the third movie. (And perhaps we can get the whole fellowship going, and then Peter Jackson can do a LOTR reboot with Bilbo!)

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: The Hobbit

Postby charliepanayi » Fri Dec 13, 2013 7:44 pm UTC

So the second one is out - discuss and stuff!
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Dec 13, 2013 7:55 pm UTC

Ryom wrote:Can't say I care for the overly fake acrobatics by the elves.

Elves as ninja's is totally a thing.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Yoshisummons
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:47 pm UTC
Location: Happily curled up in a cardboard box alone

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Yoshisummons » Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:54 pm UTC

Well they do have that +1 dexterity -1 constitution modifier.
eran_rathan wrote:Listen to the man with the cone on his head - these are Words of WisdomTM.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Adacore » Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:36 am UTC

I think the problem with the elves=ninjas was that they already showed Legolas to be completely insanely badass in a fight in LotR, and they needed to have the female elf character be his equal, which means they had to show that Tauriel is just as good. Thus, crazy ninja fight scenes for both of them.

I thought the contrast with the other elves was a bit much, though
Spoiler:
When the orcs arrive at the river gate and the guards are just instantly killed without taking out a single orc, whereas Legolas and Tauriel take out half a dozen without appearing to be significantly at risk of injury at all.


I enjoyed the movie overall. I think it was still a little overly-long, and they could've cut another half hour or so without too much trouble, but it was fun.

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Zarq » Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:51 am UTC

Adacore wrote: I think it was still a little overly-long, and they could've cut another half hour or so without too much trouble, but it was fun.


Spoiler:
They could've cut the whole sequence with the gold statue and not lost anything.

I did not like Tauriel. All her scenes were horrible.
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8573
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Zohar » Sat Dec 14, 2013 7:47 am UTC

It felt like a fanfic reimagining of The Hobbit with elf/dwarf slash elements. Honestly, I didn't like the changes to the story - almost none of them made sense. But it sure was pretty in 3D and HFR.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Adam H » Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:08 pm UTC

The last 30 minutes kind of ruined it for me.

But Bombur in the barrel was the greatest thing ever. :)
-Adam

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Zarq » Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:19 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:
But Bombur in the barrel was the greatest thing ever. :)


That's what happens when you roll 3 natural 20s in a row when doing a skill check.
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

User avatar
Giant Speck
Bouncy Sex Marshmallow
Posts: 3819
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Giant Speck » Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Zarq wrote:
Adacore wrote: I think it was still a little overly-long, and they could've cut another half hour or so without too much trouble, but it was fun.


Spoiler:
They could've cut the whole sequence with the gold statue and not lost anything.

I did not like Tauriel. All her scenes were horrible.


Spoiler:
I actually laughed out loud at the Elven healing scene. It just looked stupid.

But I think Legolas takes the cake with all his glaring.
"Did I say recently that I love Giant Speck? Because I love Giant Speck. He is the best." - Weeks
BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Zarq » Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:43 am UTC

Giant Speck wrote:
Spoiler:
But I think Legolas takes the cake with all his glaring.


Spoiler:
It doesn't help that he looks a lot older than he did in LOTR.
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5944
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Angua » Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:00 am UTC

Giant Speck wrote:
Spoiler:
I actually laughed out loud at the Elven healing scene. It just looked stupid.

But I think Legolas takes the cake with all his glaring.

Spoiler:
Everyone in the theatre here laughed at that scene. We were assuming it was meant to be ridiculous? That whole romance between the two felt off. It would have been nice for Tauriel to have decided to help them for some other reason than the fact that she fell in love with a dwarf she just met.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Zarq » Sun Dec 15, 2013 11:01 am UTC

Angua wrote:
Giant Speck wrote:
Spoiler:
I actually laughed out loud at the Elven healing scene. It just looked stupid.

But I think Legolas takes the cake with all his glaring.

Spoiler:
Everyone in the theatre here laughed at that scene. We were assuming it was meant to be ridiculous? That whole romance between the two felt off. It would have been nice for Tauriel to have decided to help them for some other reason than the fact that she fell in love with a dwarf she just met.



Spoiler:
Her resentment towards Thranduil probably helped too.
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Adacore » Sun Dec 15, 2013 11:36 pm UTC

This is all criticism, which doesn't really give an honest account of my overall feelings of the film, which was that I actually really enjoyed it:
Spoiler:
Yeah, everyone in the cinema was laughing at the elven healing scene. That was entirely ridiculous.

I agree that the gold statue thing fell completely flat - I can see what they were trying to do with it, but it just didn't work. I think it might've been more interesting if they'd explained beforehand what the plan was, so you could see it coming together, then be maybe slightly surprised that it didn't work. Although since it was entirely obvious that Smaug was going to escape the mountain (with all that emphasis on the black arrow and his missing scale, there's no way he's going to be stopped in any other way), it would've been difficult to get much tension into that sequence at all anyway.

Orcs and the skin-changer was okay. The spider sequence was fine. The bit in the elven kingdom didn't need the romance subplot at all. I liked the elves vs orcs fights and the barrels in the river sequence, but they didn't need to be quite as long. The Laketown stuff was okay but a bit flabby (and an interesting plot idea, given they had to make Bard simultaneously a hero as well as a kinda-villain given he was trying to stop the other heroes). And the movie would've been just fine without the golden statue bit.

There just isn't enough material, even with the expansions, to make The Hobbit into three LotR-length movies. They should've kept it at two.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Diadem » Mon Dec 16, 2013 12:06 am UTC

Watched it today, and I thought it was pretty awesome. I mean, yes, the movie probably should get some kind of award for the most untrue movie adaptation ever, but judging the movie by its own merits, I was thoroughly entertained.

Spoiler:
I understand why the put in the gold statue sequence. In the book the dwarves never do anything to the dragon at all, they just hide and then Smaug gets killed, and they claim the mountain. I understand why they wanted to make the dwarves a bit more heroic. This way, they at least made a valiant and brave attempt to kill Smaug, which makes 'em more heroic. The scene fell flat because we all already know the story, and because they had already foreshadowed the business with the bow and black arrows. So they should have handled that better I guess. But it was still nice to see some really impressive CGI.

I thought the scenes with Beorn were a bit of a miss too. It felt squeezed in. It was kind of over before it even started, and felt like it had no narrative purpose. It's much more natural in the book.

The CGI was top notch tough. The barrel sequence was awesome, and the scenes with Gandalf and Dol Guldur were surprisingly well done as well. Well, up until the last 5 seconds. What the fuck were they thinking with the 'eye in an eye in an eye' sequence? It was utterly ridiculous and made absolutely no sense. Almost ruined an otherwise excellent scene.

I liked Tauriel though. I think adding in more female characters is a good chance from the books. Heck I wouldn't have minded if they had made some of the dwarves female. Love triangles generally suck because they are so cliche, but this one was pretty well done. All in all I think adding Tauriel was a good move.

Overall I really liked the movie. The story remains very good, most of the expansions they did were at least ok, and the CGI was excellent.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Nath » Fri Dec 27, 2013 8:32 am UTC

I liked the new Hobbit movie more than the last one, but I realized that I'm judging them on a completely different scale from the Lord of the Rings movies; Fellowship, in particular. I haven't watched LOTR in a few years, so I just went back and rewatched the battle of Amon Hen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4jz1yaGFms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgnfQKJEJ2g

Compare that to the four other movies in the franchise. There was actual tension in that scene. It was a fight, not a CGI roller coaster ride. If you hadn't read the book, pretty much any of the characters could have plausibly been killed off. Here's Aragorn, heir of Isildur, struggling against a random henchorc -- and losing, until Legolas bails him out. Here's Boromir, future steward of Gondor, about to be shot by an orc chieftain -- and nobody conveniently shoots the arrow out the air at the last possible second.

Compare that to Legolas swinging from mumak to mumak while Gimli made wisecracks, or Bombur knocking over orcs like bowling pins. CGI is a fantastic tool when used for the right things (Gollum), but I think Peter Jackson has given into the 'bigger and better' temptation, and chosen spectacle over dramatic tension in his fight scenes. Watching a few hundred CGI figures fight 10,000 orcs is not necessarily more exciting than watching ten actual characters fight ten orcs.

Fellowship was a legitimately fantastic movie, and I think you'll be able to watch it in ten years and enjoy it as much. The other LOTR movies, a little less so, but there's still lots of good filmmaking there. The Hobbit movies are fun to watch on a big screen, but I don't see myself coming back to them years from now. They are just a roller coaster ride, with just enough LOTR magic thrown in now and then to remind you how good these movies could be.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: The Hobbit

Postby PeteP » Sun Dec 29, 2013 5:33 pm UTC

God this movie was boring. (Though my family liked it.) If I didn't come with other I would have used the break to escape.
Some ranting: (though I wish there was more that actually annoyed me, that might have alleviated the boredom from this generic movie.)
1) Who wrote Smaugs dialog? Can you get any more stereotypical evil antagonist? It was painful to watch. They should have changed his dialog to:"Me Smaug, Me evil and big, Me evil and strooooong! Me crush puny hobbit. Me also Hannibal Lecter: fear the corruption of Thorin by shiny jewel and now hide it with full knowledge of it's importance. Me got that line from tvtropes!" At least it would have been kinda funny and it would have conveyed the same message.
2) Greedy major and evil corrupt advisor(?) and silly democracy talk. Come on can your writers generate anything creative?
Btw I said generic above, and smaugs dialog, the subplot in the town, the prophecy and the super special anti dragon arrows are part of the reason that I call it that. But there is also the tacked on shallow love triangle and the spider fight. The spiders didn't look bad but they were basically a random encounter quickly dispatched in a direct fight, how did the dwarves even get captured quietly? After getting out they fight them quite well.
3) The fucking statue made of gold which kept it's form forever before flowing apart.
4) Were the orcs supposed to be a threat? The ease with which they died in the river scene made them utterly non threatening.
Smaug wasn't very threatening either he was supremely inefficient. That damn poser.
5) I think the Gandalf fight illustrates that Jackson has no idea how to handle a character archetype like gandalf, but whatever

Also I didn't like the german intro.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: The Hobbit

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:30 pm UTC

You know, it's funny, I enjoyed the movie but don't think it was particularly true to the book, and it had glaringly obvious stupid sequences and disconnects.

That said Pete, I disagree with just about every complaint you levied. Stereotypical heroes/villains is what Tolkein does. Smaug *IS* a Disney villain. Gandalf *IS* a Disney hero. In Tolkeins world, Man is corrupt by government and greed.

I don't think these books are the total action romps Jackson made them, but they were absolutely products of their time.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests