|
|
Post by Ivar-Jedi on Jan 8, 2015 18:34:40 GMT -5
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?  Dain is played by actor Billy Connoly so he is not CGI. But i think his beard is CG and since he had many close ups it might have looked odd for many people. |
|
|
|
Post by Newan on Jan 10, 2015 23:58:07 GMT -5
I just saw it with my Dad (he's seen all of them as well) while my Mom and Sister went to see Mockingjay (lol). I thought it was pretty good I mean Return of the King was better and probably Fellowship as well since it felt more complete but overall this was a pretty good movie Id say 9/10.
Lake town wasn't that short it felt good to me. The battle was sick but in 3D it felt meh sometimes like it was blurry but at other times it was one of the better 3D movies I have seen.
Glad they stayed to the book with the brothers and Thorin dying I kinda thought they would have killed more of them. Tauriel should have died IMO though. Oh and the part with Legolas being told to find Aragorn was a nice touch. For the extended edition Id kinda like to see a shot of Legolas meeting him and the memorial.
But yeah it was much better than DOS and quite a bit better than AUJ but tbh I found the other ones to be completely over rated films and didn't live up to hype.
|
|
|
|
Post by Newan on Jan 11, 2015 0:27:52 GMT -5
And I really liked Thorin still  But Aragorn > Everyone |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2015 9:26:54 GMT -5
And I really liked Thorin still But Aragorn > Everyone Thrandriul and Radaghast were my two favorite characters, at least for the Hobbit. |
|
|
|
Post by Newan on Jan 11, 2015 14:44:16 GMT -5
Id rate them... Return of the King Fellowship of the Ring Battle of the Five Armies An Unexpected Journey Two Towers Desolation of Smaug DOS was just disappointing to me. Two Towers was the weakest of the LOTR trilogy. BOTFA was pretty enjoyable just from a viewer aspect I mean sure if you're really into the franchise and lore and stuff it probably wasn't for you since 3/4 of the movie was the battle but I found it good and so did my Dad but we're obviously not into the whole middle earth story as much as some of you |
|
|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Jan 11, 2015 14:48:46 GMT -5
Id rate them... Return of the King Fellowship of the Ring Battle of the Five Armies An Unexpected Journey Two Towers Desolation of Smaug DOS was just disappointing to me. Two Towers was the weakest of the LOTR trilogy. BOTFA was pretty enjoyable just from a viewer aspect I mean sure if you're really into the franchise and lore and stuff it probably wasn't for you since 3/4 of the movie was the battle but I found it good and so did my Dad but we're obviously not into the whole middle earth story as much as some of you This is probably the same for me. DOS loses for that terrible final battle and stupid subplots. |
|
|
|
Post by Newan on Jan 11, 2015 15:08:49 GMT -5
Id rate them... Return of the King Fellowship of the Ring Battle of the Five Armies An Unexpected Journey Two Towers Desolation of Smaug DOS was just disappointing to me. Two Towers was the weakest of the LOTR trilogy. BOTFA was pretty enjoyable just from a viewer aspect I mean sure if you're really into the franchise and lore and stuff it probably wasn't for you since 3/4 of the movie was the battle but I found it good and so did my Dad but we're obviously not into the whole middle earth story as much as some of you This is probably the same for me. DOS loses for that terrible final battle and stupid subplots. Everything about DOS was pretty bad to me it just wasn't that enjoyable and I was somewhat bored for the most of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Newan on Jan 11, 2015 15:09:51 GMT -5
I guess I'll vote Best Hobbit but not as good as LOTR even though Two Towers was worse imo but the others where better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Namialus on Jan 11, 2015 15:24:34 GMT -5
None of The Hobbit films can compete with LOTR. I consider the LOTR films some of the best films ever (especially Two Towers and Return of the King) whereas The Hobbit is just fun to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by bane on Jan 11, 2015 15:28:32 GMT -5
Id rate them... Return of the King Fellowship of the Ring Battle of the Five Armies An Unexpected Journey Two Towers Desolation of Smaug DOS was just disappointing to me. Two Towers was the weakest of the LOTR trilogy. BOTFA was pretty enjoyable just from a viewer aspect I mean sure if you're really into the franchise and lore and stuff it probably wasn't for you since 3/4 of the movie was the battle but I found it good and so did my Dad but we're obviously not into the whole middle earth story as much as some of you To me all the original middle earth films were better than the hobbit ones. |
|
|
|
Post by Newan on Jan 11, 2015 15:34:47 GMT -5
Imo Two Towers was okay filler between the other 2
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivar-Jedi on Jan 11, 2015 16:32:05 GMT -5
I just saw it with my Dad (he's seen all of them as well) while my Mom and Sister went to see Mockingjay (lol). I thought it was pretty good I mean Return of the King was better and probably Fellowship as well since it felt more complete but overall this was a pretty good movie Id say 9/10. Lake town wasn't that short it felt good to me. The battle was sick but in 3D it felt meh sometimes like it was blurry but at other times it was one of the better 3D movies I have seen. Glad they stayed to the book with the brothers and Thorin dying I kinda thought they would have killed more of them. Tauriel should have died IMO though. Oh and the part with Legolas being told to find Aragorn was a nice touch. For the extended edition Id kinda like to see a shot of Legolas meeting him and the memorial. But yeah it was much better than DOS and quite a bit better than AUJ but tbh I found the other ones to be completely over rated films and didn't live up to hype. That Extended Scene won't be there because Viggo Mortenson (if i wrote that correctly) didn't want to be in The Hobbit. They've already made a timeline mistake with Thranduil telling Legoals about Aragorn. Aragorin should be aged 10 around this movie. I noticed this the first time i watched the movie but didn't (and still do) think much of it because i consider the films a re-imagining of the classic tale instead of a direct adaption. |
|
|
|
Post by Namialus on Jan 11, 2015 16:40:39 GMT -5
Imo Two Towers was okay filler between the other 2 It wasn't filler, though. It fixed the Saruman problem and introduced Rohan into the story. Without Rohan, Minas Tirith would've fallen in ROTK. |
|
|
|
Post by Newan on Jan 11, 2015 16:42:01 GMT -5
I just saw it with my Dad (he's seen all of them as well) while my Mom and Sister went to see Mockingjay (lol). I thought it was pretty good I mean Return of the King was better and probably Fellowship as well since it felt more complete but overall this was a pretty good movie Id say 9/10. Lake town wasn't that short it felt good to me. The battle was sick but in 3D it felt meh sometimes like it was blurry but at other times it was one of the better 3D movies I have seen. Glad they stayed to the book with the brothers and Thorin dying I kinda thought they would have killed more of them. Tauriel should have died IMO though. Oh and the part with Legolas being told to find Aragorn was a nice touch. For the extended edition Id kinda like to see a shot of Legolas meeting him and the memorial. But yeah it was much better than DOS and quite a bit better than AUJ but tbh I found the other ones to be completely over rated films and didn't live up to hype. That Extended Scene won't be there because Viggo Mortenson (if i wrote that correctly) didn't want to be in The Hobbit. They've already made a timeline mistake with Thranduil telling Legoals about Aragorn. Aragorin should be aged 10 around this movie. I noticed this the first time i watched the movie but didn't (and still do) think much of it because i consider the films a re-imagining of the classic tale instead of a direct adaption. I think Aragorn would be like 16ish which is fine for this universe |
|
|
|
Post by Newan on Jan 11, 2015 16:42:44 GMT -5
Imo Two Towers was okay filler between the other 2 It wasn't filler, though. It fixed the Saruman problem and introduced Rohan into the story. Without Rohan, Minas Tirith would've fallen in ROTK. Well it just wasn't that good imo |
|
|
|
Post by Star on Jan 11, 2015 17:23:13 GMT -5
The Two Towers was the most complex I felt. It had Treebeard's story with Merry and Pippin. It had a lot of Saruman (which was great!), both dealing with Rohan and the Ents. It also had Rohan being introduced and Gandalf's return. Not to mention Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli tracking the Hobbits to helping Rohan. Then there was Helm's Deep, which is probably the best battle of LOTR (accuracy-wise and effects). Don't forget all the Gollum in the film along with Frodo and Sam. Then there's Faramir in there as well. IMO it was probably my least favorite to begin with, but the grew on me a lot. IDK, I find TTT most complex, FOTR really enjoyable, and ROTK just epic. As for the Hobbit trilogy, it's more action based (since they need it in there with it being 3 films). I enjoyed all three a lot but from a critical POV, I didn't like the trilogy as much as LOTR. Although enjoyment-wise, they're pretty close. |
|
|
|
Post by Star on Jan 11, 2015 17:25:26 GMT -5
Also, am I the only one who actually liked all the Smaug scenes? The dialogue parts were really good, but I still found the battle part to be entertaining and creative. Yes, it was pretty pointless and unnecessary, but it didn't ruin the film for me. If the Hobbit trilogy was 2 parts, I bet that scene would've been cut out. |
|
|
|
Post by Ivar-Jedi on Jan 11, 2015 17:30:57 GMT -5
That Extended Scene won't be there because Viggo Mortenson (if i wrote that correctly) didn't want to be in The Hobbit. They've already made a timeline mistake with Thranduil telling Legoals about Aragorn. Aragorin should be aged 10 around this movie. I noticed this the first time i watched the movie but didn't (and still do) think much of it because i consider the films a re-imagining of the classic tale instead of a direct adaption. I think Aragorn would be like 16ish which is fine for this universe The Battle of The Five Armies is in the year 2941 TA Aragorn was born 2931 TA So he is 10 |
|
|
|
Post by Ivar-Jedi on Jan 11, 2015 17:32:45 GMT -5
Also, am I the only one who actually liked all the Smaug scenes? The dialogue parts were really good, but I still found the battle part to be entertaining and creative. Yes, it was pretty pointless and unnecessary, but it didn't ruin the film for me. If the Hobbit trilogy was 2 parts, I bet that scene would've been cut out. Smaug is fantastic and i don't hate any scene with him in it (i don't hate any scene in the trilogy basically) |
|
|
|
Post by Potato on Jan 11, 2015 17:37:26 GMT -5
I think Aragorn would be like 16ish which is fine for this universe The Battle of The Five Armies is in the year 2941 TA Aragorn was born 2931 TA So he is 10 The book timeline is different from the movie timeline. In the books there's like a 17 year gap between Bilbo's birthday and when Frodo finally leaves the Shire with the ring. Since Aragorn's in his 80s in LOTR he'd be in his 20s during The Hobbit (in the movie universe at least, if this followed the books then you'd be right). |
|
|
|
Post by Potato on Jan 11, 2015 17:39:04 GMT -5
I didn't mind all the Smaug scenes because Smaug is awesome. I feel like I could never get enough of him. So I was actually happy that he was in the second one a lot.  Plus it makes up for his short appearance in The Battle of the Five Armies. |
|
|
|
Post by Ivar-Jedi on Jan 11, 2015 17:40:57 GMT -5
The Battle of The Five Armies is in the year 2941 TA Aragorn was born 2931 TA So he is 10 The book timeline is different from the movie timeline. In the books there's like a 17 year gap between Bilbo's birthday and when Frodo finally leaves the Shire with the ring. Since Aragorn's in his 80s in LOTR he'd be in his 20s during The Hobbit (in the movie universe at least, if this followed the books then you'd be right). I know it is different and i am completely fine with that. I was just explaining the Tolkien timeline to Newan  |
|
|
|
Post by Potato on Jan 11, 2015 17:41:51 GMT -5
The book timeline is different from the movie timeline. In the books there's like a 17 year gap between Bilbo's birthday and when Frodo finally leaves the Shire with the ring. Since Aragorn's in his 80s in LOTR he'd be in his 20s during The Hobbit (in the movie universe at least, if this followed the books then you'd be right). I know it is different and i am completely fine with that. I was just explaining the Tolkien timeline to Newan Yes, but you said he'd be 10. He'd be in his 20s. |
|
|
|
Post by Ivar-Jedi on Jan 11, 2015 17:43:15 GMT -5
The basic reason Smaug had an extra 20 minutes of action scenes in DOS is because he is so technically impressive that it would be a waste to only use him for a few scenes. And since the films are already a re-imagening of the book it is okay to add this large (awesome) action scene and give Smaug more reason to attack Esgaroth.
Also, who wouldn't want to use Erebor as an action set piece? That place is great for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivar-Jedi on Jan 11, 2015 17:44:55 GMT -5
I know it is different and i am completely fine with that. I was just explaining the Tolkien timeline to Newan Yes, but you said he'd be 10. He'd be in his 20s. In the Tolkien Timeline Aragorn is 10 years old during the Battle of The Five Armies. Aragorn is born in 2931 TA and the BOTFA is in 2941 TA |
|
|
|
Post by Star on Jan 11, 2015 17:49:39 GMT -5
Yes, but you said he'd be 10. He'd be in his 20s. In the Tolkien Timeline Aragorn is 10 years old during the Battle of The Five Armies. Aragorn is born in 2931 TA and the BOTFA is in 2941 TA Potato meant that in the movie timeline he was in his 20s. You were telling Newan Aragorn's age according to Tolkein's timeline. |
|
|
|
Post by Star on Jan 11, 2015 17:50:49 GMT -5
The basic reason Smaug had an extra 20 minutes of action scenes in DOS is because he is so technically impressive that it would be a waste to only use him for a few scenes. And since the films are already a re-imagening of the book it is okay to add this large (awesome) action scene and give Smaug more reason to attack Esgaroth. Also, who wouldn't want to use Erebor as an action set piece? That place is great for that. Erebor is definitely a great set for an action scene. I bet if we hadn't gotten that scene, a lot of fans would be wondering what an action scene inside the mountain would've looked like. Now we know |
|
|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Jan 11, 2015 17:52:35 GMT -5
The basic reason Smaug had an extra 20 minutes of action scenes in DOS is because he is so technically impressive that it would be a waste to only use him for a few scenes. And since the films are already a re-imagening of the book it is okay to add this large (awesome) action scene and give Smaug more reason to attack Esgaroth. Also, who wouldn't want to use Erebor as an action set piece? That place is great for that. Erebor is definitely a great set for an action scene. I bet if we hadn't gotten that scene, a lot of fans would be wondering what an action scene inside the mountain would've looked like. Now we know Erebor looked like it was built for a action scene involving a dragon and dwarves, but not in a good way.  The battle made no sense and I don't think anyone who worked on the film understands how molten gold works... |
|
|
|
Post by Ivar-Jedi on Jan 11, 2015 17:58:23 GMT -5
In the Tolkien Timeline Aragorn is 10 years old during the Battle of The Five Armies. Aragorn is born in 2931 TA and the BOTFA is in 2941 TA Potato meant that in the movie timeline he was in his 20s. You were telling Newan Aragorn's age according to Tolkein's timeline. That's what i've been saying |
|
|
|
Post by Newan on Jan 11, 2015 18:23:03 GMT -5
Well I was thinking of the movies since I never read the LOTR books
|
|
Wars Story
Plus it makes up for his short appearance in The Battle of the Five Armies.
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