|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Jan 3, 2015 14:33:16 GMT -5
Im on my way to see this tonight. From the reveiws i saw above it seems to be pretty cool. I'm excited to see it. Does it explain the 60 year loophole when the movie wraps up? ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2015 15:35:08 GMT -5
Im on my way to see this tonight. From the reveiws i saw above it seems to be pretty cool. I'm excited to see it. Does it explain the 60 year loophole when the movie wraps up? ? Well in the beggining of the fellowship of the ring Gandalf discovers the ring is still thriving and so he discovers the enemy has returned. He cant return in The Fellowship of the ring and in the hobbit as well. Once is beleiveable but twice, no. 60 years from the time bilbo found the ring in gollums cave to the fellowship of the ring is a big gap. So In the hobbit they fight him and then they are shocked hes back in he fellowship of the ring. That doesnt make sense. Cause for 60 years they were living in peace and there was no war until it started in FOTR. I may have explained it better in a comment a couple pages back. |
|
|
|
Post by haradian on Jan 5, 2015 23:31:30 GMT -5
I thought this was possibly the weakest of the three, but I still very much enjoyed the movie all the same. Lots of action but not much story. One of my complaints is that the smaug scene felt weird and rushed, would of fit much better in the second. My favorite characters are thranduil, dain, and bilbo
|
|
|
|
Post by bane on Jan 6, 2015 9:26:20 GMT -5
I thought this was possibly the weakest of the three, but I still very much enjoyed the movie all the same. Lots of action but not much story. One of my complaints is that the smaug scene felt weird and rushed, would of fit much better in the second. My favorite characters are thranduil, dain, and bilbo In the second they spend too much time on smaug, and on the third they spend too little. |
|
|
|
Post by Star on Jan 6, 2015 20:27:13 GMT -5
Yeah, from a critical standpoint, BOTFA wasn't that great, especially compared to LOTR. The same can be said for the Hobbit trilogy as a whole. It could've just been 1 really good (and accurate!) film instead. Or maybe 2, like originally planned. But if I choose to ignore some of the flaws, BOTFA/Hobbit trilogy was still very enjoyable and I can't dislike any Middle-Earth film.
|
|
|
|
Post by haradian on Jan 6, 2015 20:51:31 GMT -5
I thought this was possibly the weakest of the three, but I still very much enjoyed the movie all the same. Lots of action but not much story. One of my complaints is that the smaug scene felt weird and rushed, would of fit much better in the second. My favorite characters are thranduil, dain, and bilbo In the second they spend too much time on smaug, and on the third they spend too little. Yeah I agree, I loved bilbo and smaug one on one convo scene which was epic but the whole dwarfs versus smaug scene wasn't really interesting |
|
|
|
Post by haradian on Jan 6, 2015 20:57:17 GMT -5
@stastarwarrior247 I think that the hobbit movies were enjoyable but weren't near the level of lord of rings. I mean it's kinda obvious they made one small ass book in 3 long movies as a cash cow. I love these movies though because they bring me back to middle earth but in their own right the hobbit movies aren't that very good
|
|
|
|
Post by bane on Jan 6, 2015 20:58:20 GMT -5
In the second they spend too much time on smaug, and on the third they spend too little. Yeah I agree, I loved bilbo and smaug one on one convo scene which was epic but the whole dwarfs versus smaug scene wasn't really interesting Yes, it was unrealistic and dragged on. And by the way welcome back. |
|
|
|
Post by haradian on Jan 6, 2015 21:04:20 GMT -5
bane. One of my problems with desolation and somewhat five armies is the unrealistic action. It took me out of the scenes because the action was too cartoonish and just didn't make sense. Also with all the crap the hobbits have gone through the first two movies it just didn't make sense how none of the hobbits died throughout the first two films. Like are any of the villains a threat at all
|
|
|
|
Post by bane on Jan 6, 2015 21:07:03 GMT -5
bane. One of my problems with desolation and somewhat five armies is the unrealistic action. It took me out of the scenes because the action was too cartoonish and just didn't make sense. Also with all the crap the hobbits have gone through the first two movies it just didn't make sense how none of the hobbits died throughout the first two films. Like are any of the villains a threat at all True, I guess they wanted no one to loose interest in terms of none of them dying. And yeah, probably a lot of filler so they could make it 3 movies. |
|
|
|
Post by Namialus on Jan 6, 2015 21:13:28 GMT -5
I watched this on the 19th but I forgot that I didn't say anything about it.. heh...
Well, I watched it, and it was pretty disappointing, eh. It was still a good movie on its own but it is the worst of all Middle-Earth films. I think I expected too much from it, and so did Peter Jackson when he attempted to adapt a small chapter book into an epic trilogy. The biggest reason it failed was he tried to make what was a small story into something as big as LOTR, when it simply isn't.
Now, if it were only two movies, they both would've been VERY strong films.
Seriously, Alfred seemed to have as much screentime as Bilbo, who was underused IMO (and Martin Freeman is one of the most enjoyable actors to watch). I enjoyed all the Bilbo and all the Dol Guldur scenes very much. Legolas was overused. At least Tauriel had a plotline with Kili... Legolas was just there to look cool. And Thranduil telling him to go find Aragorn was stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by haradian on Jan 6, 2015 21:16:25 GMT -5
Namialus Yeah no idea why Alfred had so much screen time when it could've been given to other more important characters and plotlines
|
|
|
|
Post by Namialus on Jan 6, 2015 21:20:42 GMT -5
Namialus Yeah no idea why Alfred had so much screen time when it could've been given to other more important characters and plotlines He wasn't even an interesting character. |
|
|
|
Post by Potato on Jan 6, 2015 22:00:26 GMT -5
I've seen this twice now, and I think I enjoyed it a little less the second time watching it. I still liked it and if you just think of it as a fun action film then it's really enjoyable, but I do agree it's probably the "worst" of the Middle-Earth films. I didn't really notice this when I saw it the first time, but when I watched it the second time the pacing did feel extremely weird since two hugely climactic scenes (burning of Lake Town and Dol Guldur) happen so early on. Once Smaug and Sauron are gone, there just isn't a large enough threat to fill the void. Not that Azog was a bad villain, but he's nowhere near the same league as Smaug or Sauron. I don't think The Hobbit would have worked as one movie. It needed to be two. If it was one movie, everything would be graced over and some things would likely be skipped over (which was what happened with the cartoon in the 70s). I'd rather get more from the story than less, so overall I was fine with the trilogy split. However, I do think 2 really long films would have been better. Cut Legolas' part significantly (only give him a couple lines), cut out the love triangle because it's out of place, cut the Alfrid subplot, and shorten the end battle. And then maybe shorten some other parts too. But if those changes were made then this all probably would have worked better as two films. It's not that I didn't like The Hobbit trilogy, I loved it, but it definitely had a fair amount of flaws. And, strangely enough, I think An Unexpected Journey is still my favorite.  It felt the most "Middle-Earthy". |
|
|
|
Post by Potato on Jan 6, 2015 22:02:54 GMT -5
Also, if they really wanted Alfred to have some scenes, they could have just saved it for the Extended Edition. Apparently, Thorin, Fili, and Kili being laid to rest is in the Extended Edition. That really should have been in the theatrical cut. And more of the Beorn fight's in the Extended Edition as well (which seems to be a reoccurring pattern for his character now).
|
|
|
|
Post by Star on Jan 6, 2015 22:07:53 GMT -5
I've seen this twice now, and I think I enjoyed it a little less the second time watching it. I still liked it and if you just think of it as a fun action film then it's really enjoyable, but I do agree it's probably the "worst" of the Middle-Earth films. I didn't really notice this when I saw it the first time, but when I watched it the second time the pacing did feel extremely weird since two hugely climactic scenes (burning of Lake Town and Dol Guldur) happen so early on. Once Smaug and Sauron are gone, there just isn't a large enough threat to fill the void. Not that Agog was a bad villain, but he's nowhere near the same league as Smaug or Sauron. I don't think The Hobbit would have worked as one movie. It needed to be two. If it was one movie, everything would be graced over and some things would likely be skipped over (which was what happened with the cartoon in the 70s). I'd rather get more from the story than less, so overall I was fine with the trilogy split. However, I do think 2 really long films would have been better. Cut Legolas' part significantly (only give him a couple lines), cut out the love triangle because it's out of place, cut the Alfrid subplot, and shorten the end battle. And then maybe shorten some other parts too. But if those changes were made then this all probably would have worked better as two films. It's not that I didn't like The Hobbit trilogy, I loved it, but it definitely had a fair amount of flaws. And, strangely enough, I think An Unexpected Journey is still my favorite. It felt the most "Middle-Earthy". Yes, I love the movies and always will (along with the book). But if I were to be more critical to the Hobbit trilogy, then it really wasn't as amazing as LOTR. At least LOTR was believable with most of the action scenes. The Hobbit was more so a CGI fun-feast. good point about one film as well. If it was just one film, it probably would've been a little rushed in areas (Mirkwood, lake-town, etc). But two films at about 2.5-3 hours would've been perfect I bet. The scenes you suggested shortening are probably the right choices too. |
|
|
|
Post by Potato on Jan 6, 2015 22:10:46 GMT -5
So... how long do you think it's going to be until we see the Silmarillion? I'm willing to bet we'll see it within 15 years or so. Once Christopher Tolkien dies it probably won't be long until they sell the movie rights for it... |
|
|
|
Post by Star on Jan 6, 2015 22:12:31 GMT -5
Also, if they really wanted Alfred to have some scenes, they could have just saved it for the Extended Edition. Apparently, Thorin, Fili, and Kili being laid to rest is in the Extended Edition. That really should have been in the theatrical cut. And more of the Beorn fight's in the Extended Edition as well (which seems to be a reoccurring pattern for his character now). A LOT felt cut out after Thorin's death in the movie. Where's the burial scenes, Bard scenes, and so on? Instead, they give us Legolas being told to look for Aragorn.  I understand trying to relate this to LOTR, but that felt pretty forced and kids stupid. Also, I'm wondering if Radagast dies during the battle, since Gandalf has his staff in FOTR. Guess we won't know for a bit. We see Beorn and him fly into battle, but that's it. And once the dwarves went to Ravenhill, the entire ground battle was just forgotten. Not to mention after Fili and Kili died and it was just Thorin vs Azog and Legolas vs Bolg, Dwalin vanishes. It could've been cleaner for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Star on Jan 6, 2015 22:15:03 GMT -5
So... how long do you think it's going to be until we see the Silmarillion? I'm willing to bet we'll see it within 15 years or so. Once Christopher Tolkien dies it probably won't be long until they sell the movie rights for it... Sounds reasonable. Around 2030 is possible. Although I wonder how that will be. Should be pretty good if done right and not stretched out or condensed (doubt it'll be condensed though ). Do you think PJ will direct it? |
|
|
|
Post by Potato on Jan 6, 2015 22:19:41 GMT -5
Also, if they really wanted Alfred to have some scenes, they could have just saved it for the Extended Edition. Apparently, Thorin, Fili, and Kili being laid to rest is in the Extended Edition. That really should have been in the theatrical cut. And more of the Beorn fight's in the Extended Edition as well (which seems to be a reoccurring pattern for his character now). A LOT felt cut out after Thorin's death in the movie. Where's the burial scenes, Bard scenes, and so on? Instead, they give us Legolas being told to look for Aragorn. I understand trying to relate this to LOTR, but that felt pretty forced and kids stupid. Also, I'm wondering if Radagast dies during the battle, since Gandalf has his staff in FOTR. Guess we won't know for a bit. We see Beorn and him fly into battle, but that's it. And once the dwarves went to Ravenhill, the entire ground battle was just forgotten. Not to mention after Fili and Kili died and it was just Thorin vs Azog and Legolas vs Bolg, Dwalin vanishes. It could've been cleaner for sure. Yeah, just one more quick scene that shows Bard becoming the new Lord of Dale would have been all we needed for him. It would have been good to get another with Dain as well since he disappears after the battle. Average movie goers might be wondering who becomes king under the mountain now that Thorin, Fili, and Kili are dead, so a scene mentioning Dain becoming the new king would have been good. The Aragorn scene was totally forced and was pretty cringe worthy... especially because it's literally the scene right after Thorin's death. Radagast doesn't die. He probably just gives his staff to Gandalf since Gandalf needs it more than him. Gandalf has it during the battle, so he had it while Radagast was still alive. |
|
|
|
Post by Potato on Jan 6, 2015 22:22:06 GMT -5
So... how long do you think it's going to be until we see the Silmarillion? I'm willing to bet we'll see it within 15 years or so. Once Christopher Tolkien dies it probably won't be long until they sell the movie rights for it... Sounds reasonable. Around 2030 is possible. Although I wonder how that will be. Should be pretty good if done right and not stretched out or condensed (doubt it'll be condensed though ). Do you think PJ will direct it? They'd only do certain stories from it I'm sure. There's so many different stories that it just wouldn't work as one movie (or trilogy or saga or whatever they'd do). I think PJ's done. I know he said that after LOTR and then went on to do The Hobbit, but Guillermo del Toro was originally going to do The Hobbit anyway and I think PJ's pretty exhausted from Middle-Earth. Plus, by the time they do release anything from the Silmarillion PJ might have retired. |
|
|
|
Post by Star on Jan 6, 2015 22:24:19 GMT -5
A LOT felt cut out after Thorin's death in the movie. Where's the burial scenes, Bard scenes, and so on? Instead, they give us Legolas being told to look for Aragorn. I understand trying to relate this to LOTR, but that felt pretty forced and kids stupid. Also, I'm wondering if Radagast dies during the battle, since Gandalf has his staff in FOTR. Guess we won't know for a bit. We see Beorn and him fly into battle, but that's it. And once the dwarves went to Ravenhill, the entire ground battle was just forgotten. Not to mention after Fili and Kili died and it was just Thorin vs Azog and Legolas vs Bolg, Dwalin vanishes. It could've been cleaner for sure. Yeah, just one more quick scene that shows Bard becoming the new Lord of Dale would have been all we needed for him. It would have been good to get another with Dain as well since he disappears after the battle. Average movie goers might be wondering who becomes king under the mountain now that Thorin, Fili, and Kili are dead, so a scene mentioning Dain becoming the new king would have been good. The Aragorn scene was totally forced and was pretty cringe worthy... especially because it's literally the scene right after Thorin's death. Radagast doesn't die. He probably just gives his staff to Gandalf since Gandalf needs it more than him. Gandalf has it during the battle, so he had it while Radagast was still alive. Unless you read the book, no one would know what happened with those characters. This is the one film of the 6 I feel you really need to see the Extended Edition for. And since it's the shortest, you'd think they would've at least had a Bard and Dain scene to boost the run time up by 10 mins. Guess not... |
|
|
|
Post by Star on Jan 6, 2015 22:27:46 GMT -5
Sounds reasonable. Around 2030 is possible. Although I wonder how that will be. Should be pretty good if done right and not stretched out or condensed (doubt it'll be condensed though ). Do you think PJ will direct it? They'd only do certain stories from it I'm sure. There's so many different stories that it just wouldn't work as one movie (or trilogy or saga or whatever they'd do). I think PJ's done. I know he said that after LOTR and then went on to do The Hobbit, but Guillermo del Toro was originally going to do The Hobbit anyway and I think PJ's pretty exhausted from Middle-Earth. Plus, by the time they do release anything from the Silmarillion PJ might have retired. I haven't actually read the book, but I'm aware that it's like 4 different stories from different time periods. They'd probably choose the Morgoth one since it's the most different and probably has the best plot. Maybe not, but who knows. And yeah, also depends if people will want PJ to do it after the Hobbit as well. And 15 years give or take is a long time. I'm sure they'd find a director that they'd like a lot. Just hope they don't decide to remake LOTR (at least for a long time). |
|
|
|
Post by haradian on Jan 6, 2015 23:13:22 GMT -5
Was I the only one that burst out laughing when bilbo threw rocks at the orcs and they apparently died from it
|
|
|
|
Post by Namialus on Jan 7, 2015 7:29:51 GMT -5
So... how long do you think it's going to be until we see the Silmarillion? I'm willing to bet we'll see it within 15 years or so. Once Christopher Tolkien dies it probably won't be long until they sell the movie rights for it... I don't think I want to see The Silmarillion as a film. I've read the book, and it's great, but it's not all one story - it wouldn't flow very nicely as a film. Imagine adapting the whole Bible into one film. It would just be a bunch of different scenes that yes, look nice on their own but won't work as a whole film. Children of Hurin would be much easier to adapt IMO but still wouldn't be very good as well. I just hope they're done with Middle-Earth films. |
|
|
|
Post by Namialus on Jan 7, 2015 7:32:39 GMT -5
I've seen this twice now, and I think I enjoyed it a little less the second time watching it. I still liked it and if you just think of it as a fun action film then it's really enjoyable, but I do agree it's probably the "worst" of the Middle-Earth films. I didn't really notice this when I saw it the first time, but when I watched it the second time the pacing did feel extremely weird since two hugely climactic scenes (burning of Lake Town and Dol Guldur) happen so early on. Once Smaug and Sauron are gone, there just isn't a large enough threat to fill the void. Not that Agog was a bad villain, but he's nowhere near the same league as Smaug or Sauron. I don't think The Hobbit would have worked as one movie. It needed to be two. If it was one movie, everything would be graced over and some things would likely be skipped over (which was what happened with the cartoon in the 70s). I'd rather get more from the story than less, so overall I was fine with the trilogy split. However, I do think 2 really long films would have been better. Cut Legolas' part significantly (only give him a couple lines), cut out the love triangle because it's out of place, cut the Alfrid subplot, and shorten the end battle. And then maybe shorten some other parts too. But if those changes were made then this all probably would have worked better as two films. It's not that I didn't like The Hobbit trilogy, I loved it, but it definitely had a fair amount of flaws. And, strangely enough, I think An Unexpected Journey is still my favorite. It felt the most "Middle-Earthy". Yes, I love the movies and always will (along with the book). But if I were to be more critical to the Hobbit trilogy, then it really wasn't as amazing as LOTR. At least LOTR was believable with most of the action scenes. The Hobbit was more so a CGI fun-feast. good point about one film as well. If it was just one film, it probably would've been a little rushed in areas (Mirkwood, lake-town, etc). But two films at about 2.5-3 hours would've been perfect I bet. The scenes you suggested shortening are probably the right choices too. I agree on the CGI! I like CGI in sci-fi films (it makes sense in them) but one of the reasons the LOTR films were so great is because not too much CGI was used. Even Dain was made CGI, it just looked bad. The battle just looked so unrealistic, how they all moved and stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Namialus on Jan 7, 2015 7:33:28 GMT -5
Now, the one nice touch I liked was Thranduil disliking Tauriel because one must assume that she reminds him of his dead wife.
|
|
|
|
Post by Star on Jan 7, 2015 22:19:44 GMT -5
Yes, I love the movies and always will (along with the book). But if I were to be more critical to the Hobbit trilogy, then it really wasn't as amazing as LOTR. At least LOTR was believable with most of the action scenes. The Hobbit was more so a CGI fun-feast. good point about one film as well. If it was just one film, it probably would've been a little rushed in areas (Mirkwood, lake-town, etc). But two films at about 2.5-3 hours would've been perfect I bet. The scenes you suggested shortening are probably the right choices too. I agree on the CGI! I like CGI in sci-fi films (it makes sense in them) but one of the reasons the LOTR films were so great is because not too much CGI was used. Even Dain was made CGI, it just looked bad. The battle just looked so unrealistic, how they all moved and stuff. Yeah, that's something I always loved about LOTR - the little use of CGI. The Hobbit used as much as it could it seemed. It gave it a cleaner feel in a way, by making the characters look "newer" and "not as crudely shaped", but it looked more fake and not as good in other places, especially action scenes. And Dain was CGI?  |
|
|
|
Post by Star on Jan 7, 2015 22:23:25 GMT -5
Now, the one nice touch I liked was Thranduil disliking Tauriel because one must assume that she reminds him of his dead wife. Yeah, Thranduil and Thorin are two characters I felt were much better in the movies compared to the book. I guess one could argue Thorin had some debatable scenes (i.e. when Balin tells Bilbo things about Thorin, Thorin just stands about 20 feet away, looking into the distance. They're trying to make it look cool, but it's kinda cheesy ). Still, I feel they gave Thorin more depth, a darker tone, and more motivation in the films. |
|
|
|
Post by Namialus on Jan 8, 2015 15:40:40 GMT -5
Now, the one nice touch I liked was Thranduil disliking Tauriel because one must assume that she reminds him of his dead wife. Yeah, Thranduil and Thorin are two characters I felt were much better in the movies compared to the book. I guess one could argue Thorin had some debatable scenes (i.e. when Balin tells Bilbo things about Thorin, Thorin just stands about 20 feet away, looking into the distance. They're trying to make it look cool, but it's kinda cheesy ). Still, I feel they gave Thorin more depth, a darker tone, and more motivation in the films. I really liked Thranduil in this. Thorin bothers me, both in the book and the films, but he was written well. |
|
Wars Story
It felt the most "Middle-Earthy".
I understand trying to relate this to LOTR, but that felt pretty forced and kids stupid. Also, I'm wondering if Radagast dies during the battle, since Gandalf has his staff in FOTR. Guess we won't know for a bit. We see Beorn and him fly into battle, but that's it. And once the dwarves went to Ravenhill, the entire ground battle was just forgotten. Not to mention after Fili and Kili died and it was just Thorin vs Azog and Legolas vs Bolg, Dwalin vanishes. 
it’s been quite a while. I’ve been pretty good, how about yourself?
Sept 30, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
it’s been quite a while. I’ve been pretty good, how about yourself?
Sept 30, 2024 21:29:31 GMT -5
Nov 11, 2024 16:43:58 GMT -5
Nov 11, 2024 16:43:58 GMT -5