The Hobbit Movie Thread.

1cmanny1 » Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:16 pm wrote:
Frank » Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:52 pm wrote:The Hobbit: There and Back Again

Was a much better title.

No it wasn't, it made no sense. He is already there in that movie, so it would have to be The Hobbit: Back Again. There and Back Again was the name Bilbo called his book about the entire adventure, so it would be sort of silly calling one third of the adventure that title.

Don't buy into Jackson's shitty reasoning. There and Back Again still works because he starts the movie "there" and then comes back again. Silly thing to be debating anyway, the nicer title lost out because The Battle of the Five Armies sounds much sexier and more marketable

Skippy » Mon Apr 28, 2014 8:24 am wrote:
1cmanny1 » Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:16 pm wrote:
Frank » Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:52 pm wrote:The Hobbit: There and Back Again

Was a much better title.

No it wasn't, it made no sense. He is already there in that movie, so it would have to be The Hobbit: Back Again. There and Back Again was the name Bilbo called his book about the entire adventure, so it would be sort of silly calling one third of the adventure that title.

Don't buy into Jackson's shitty reasoning. There and Back Again still works because he starts the movie "there" and then comes back again. Silly thing to be debating anyway, the nicer title lost out because The Battle of the Five Armies sounds much sexier and more marketable

And perhaps its because its something that will actually happen in the 3rd film.

Well yeah, obviously

Under that criteria The Hobbit: Long-Winded Exposition works too, maybe The Hobbit: We Couldn't Be Bothered To Do All That Orc Make-Up So It's All CGI, or The Hobbit: Benedict Cumberbatch is a Dragon What More Do You banana splits Want.

Well I thought the films were actually good fun to watch.

Maybe in a lobotomy recovery ward

Ok, Snob.

They are fun and do have some merit.

The biggest indicator of my happiness with them is how many times ive seen them.

I saw the films twice at the cinema. I've seen the first one once since. I have yet to watch the desolation of Smaug again - despite having a copy for several weeks.

Compared to the originals. I'd watched the Fellowship about six times before The Two Towers came out and i saw the last one 8 times at the cinema.

They are nowhere near as good as the LoTR movies, but I have enjoyed both of the Hobbit movies and am looking forward to the last one. :wub:

That's pretty much my feelings on it.

Stop being such a literary nazi, Denster - just because something wasn't in the book, doesn't mean Jackson shouldn't have used his creative license to improve on the source material. Or would you really rather NOT have had such amazing scenes as Gandalf's confrontation with Sauron?

In the case of Tolkien's work at least, the movies are a great deal better than the books.

I don't think I ever want to see Desolation of Smaug ever again. I was so disappointed by it.

I'll go and see the new one because I still believe they can make something great out of this trilogy.

I wonder if Jackson will go on to turn more of the Silmarillion into movies? Maybe cover the earlier ages' wars with the balrogs and massive dragons and such?

Skippy » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:58 am wrote:The Hobbit: We Couldn't Be Bothered To Do All That Orc Make-Up So It's All CGI

The CGI really bothered me in the first one. Didn't like it at all.

Didn't like the film at all, actually. It all felt very cash grabby. The whole Sauron already being blatantly evil thing really annoyed me. Haven't bothered watching the second.

Best thing about it (by far) was the Dwarves singing Misty Mountains.

mic » Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:53 pm wrote:Stop being such a literary nazi, Denster - just because something wasn't in the book, doesn't mean Jackson shouldn't have used his creative license to improve on the source material. Or would you really rather NOT have had such amazing scenes as Gandalf's confrontation with Sauron?

In the case of Tolkien's work at least, the movies are a great deal better than the books.

So obviously trolling that it's painful.

Brerlappin » Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:33 am wrote:
Harry Bizzle » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:24 pm wrote:
Skippy » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:58 am wrote:The Hobbit: We Couldn't Be Bothered To Do All That Orc Make-Up So It's All CGI

The CGI really bothered me in the first one. Didn't like it at all.

Didn't like the film at all, actually. It all felt very cash grabby. The whole Sauron already being blatantly evil thing really annoyed me. Haven't bothered watching the second.

Best thing about it (by far) was the Dwarves singing Misty Mountains.

Yeah, hopefully after the 3rd film comes out, well get a directors cut of all 3 films spliced together but with all the nonsense cut out and a total runtime of about 2 hours. Maybe then itll be tolerable. But these hobbit films have been a massive disappointment so far. Overly CGI'ed, overly long, flat action scenes, all the gooseberry fool that isnt int he books is terrible etc.

You know what a director's cut is, right? I think any "director's special version" we get from Wacko Jacko is likely to be longer, not shorter.

I essentially like the films, mainly because I just love the world and, say what you want about Jackson, he does a good job of bringing them to life.

But yeah, they are just too flabby. All I can remember about DoS was my chronic neck pain because I couldn't lean my head on my hand at the IMAX without everything going out of focus. :fp:

Two films would clearly have done the trick.

I was properly bored during the last half hour of DOS, was really hoping each cut would be the end.

Too long and padded Jackson.

It better strawberry floating be the defining chapter.

Lovely looking poster!

Hopefully we'll get a trailer at Comic Con.

The Hobbit Movie Thread.

Who is online

Affiliates