The Hobbit Movie Thread.

Going to see this tomorrow, hopefully it's better than the second one (all dat filler).

[iup=3640640]SquintyMcSquint[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3640159]Bigerich[/iup] wrote:Jackson is a talentless banana split.

The LOTR movies are strawberry floating awesome, Return of the King might be the best movie ever created.

Are you strawberry floating joking? It is at best an average film. Even though there's too much stupid stuff in it, Fellowship is the only good film among the three in my opinion. And that is largely because while he cut too much (especially the escape to Bree is still too quick even without Bombadil, the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs), he didn't add that much stupid things on his own.

It is very telling that the weakest points of all three movies is where he adds something new. And then there's all the stupid comic relief shite, like fighting with frying pans, dwarf-tossing etc.

The only improvement over the book in all three films is Boromir, and that's largely because he simply gets more screen time while he is alive, as in the book he only gets to be a more rounded character after his death, when you learn about him from his brother, his father, and his subjects.

And the casting is awful in parts as well. Liv Tyler as Arwen?

And the fight scenes are too long, and he adds too many new ones as well.

And what in the name of all that is holy is that red vagina above Barad-Dur

Whatever you think of the movies, to call the man a talentless banana split is strawberry floating absurd and hyperbole of the highest degree. :lol:

Even worse is your dismissal of the movie based on what you've read, not having even seen it yourself to make a judgement on it. Not that it would make a difference as you are clearly going into it with an agenda of wanting to hate it, which you most surely will.

Watched this today. I thought it was OK a firm 6 out of 10. It was more action/CGI and light on story, but i suppose thats the way it stretches. I do have 2 follow on questions;

1) Where are the drawves in LOTR?
2) What does happen to Saruman?

[iup=3641085]mcjihge2[/iup] wrote:Watched this today. I thought it was OK a firm 6 out of 10. It was more action/CGI and light on story, but i suppose thats the way it stretches. I do have 2 follow on questions;

1) Where are the drawves in LOTR?
2) What does happen to Saruman?

Those questions are not really answered in the films. The books and appendices go into more detail.

1) The dwarves have their own battles during the war of the ring. LoTR only really shows the battle in Gondor, but there were other ones going on.

2) Saruman was corrupted when he realised that the ring had been found and then when he started talking to Sauron through the Palantir. Sauron showed him the size of his army and Saruman realised that there was no hope of the good guys winning and he had to either join Sauron or get hold of the ring himself.

[iup=3640775]It's Christmas, Theo[/iup] wrote:Whatever you think of the movies, to call the man a talentless banana split is strawberry floating absurd and hyperbole of the highest degree.

Even worse is your dismissal of the movie based on what you've read, not having even seen it yourself to make a judgement on it. Not that it would make a difference as you are clearly going into it with an agenda of wanting to hate it, which you most surely will.

I saw about 30 minutes of the first film. That was enough for me to realise that there was no point for any person with taste to see any more.

The fact that you like this dumbed down gooseberry fool says more about you than it does about me.

I think the alterations made to the first movie were for the best. I don't remember those early sections of the book (the barrow wights and Bombadil) having any major impact on the overall story. The choice to axe them from the movie was right in my opinion. The pacing would've suffered tremendously.

I don't think there's any colossal deviations from the book with the LotR trilogy. The characters still follow the same, linear path. I think the vast majority of the changes panned out in the end. Not like the new set of films.

Also WHY DOES IT HURT SO MUCH.

Just back from the cinema

Again, Too much padding and overuse of CGI. The real locations shown right at the end only served to highlight how much real world was missing from this.

The hurt so much bit :fp:

I see freeman has a whole 4 mins screen time in this one too.

These bats were bred for one purpose. For war.

I laughed so hard at that. UNLEASH THE BATS OF WAR.

Yeah that was strawberry floating terrible :lol:

OH LOOK THE EAGLES DEUS EX MACHINA AGAIN

Literally the worst movie I've ever seen.

I'd like to see an edit of all three films stripped of padding so it's one brilliant film. I mean they could cut that entire last film out and miss nothing ffs.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even watched it. They'd miss the dragon attack and the final battle, wouldn't they, the two big (and best) sequences of the movie. The latter sequence is the entire point of the movie, no? Your movie would end with the dragon flying away and nothing resolved for anybody.

Also couldn't leave out the final scene which is the meeting scene of Bilbo and Gandalf of Fellowship shown from the opposite perspective. Wonderful way to end it I thought.

However, I would love to see a cut down version put into two 120 minute movies, though. I imagine it would be easily feasible. It's the first and second movies that have all the padding and overly long sequences.

[iup=3641525]It's Christmas, Theo[/iup] wrote:I'm beginning to wonder if you even watched it. They'd miss the dragon attack and the final battle, wouldn't they, the two big (and best) sequences of the movie. The latter sequence is the entire point of the movie, no? Your movie would end with the dragon flying away and nothing resolved for anybody. Also couldn't leave out the final scene which is the meeting scene of Bilbo and Gandalf of Fellowship shown from the opposite perspective. Wonderful way to end it I thought.

However, I would love to see a cut down version put into two 120 minute movies, though. I imagine it would be easily feasible. It's the first and second movies that have all the padding and overly long sequences.

The start of the third film was clearly the intended climax for the second, and if you chopped out the unessasary LOTR references from both you could slide the whole bilbo returning part to the end of the second. The battle while spectacular in places just wasn't neasasary for the overall story. I mean, if it's fighting over the gold then why didn't we get any resolution as to what happened to that?

I'd say I enjoyed about half the film with the other just being there for the sake of it. Shame there wasn't much hobbit in the hobbit film.

I thoroughly enjoyed the film, not as good as LOTR but nice to be in 'Middle Earth' again. Also always good when you see the armies marching and the horns blowing.

The best thing about the movie was the headbutt troll.

The extended edition box set will soon be mine, then I can see how bad/good these things are.

Should have been 2 films at most and that is certainly not jacksons fault. Its all about the money!

I enjoyed it. Yet it still feels padded with too much extraneous material.

[iup=3642381]Bethlehemster[/iup] wrote:I enjoyed it. Yet it still feels padded with too much extraneous material.

Sex thread is that way>>>

The Hobbit Movie Thread.

Who is online

Affiliates