|
I really liked it, but there were three things that bothered me.
1. It doesn't feel like a trilogy so much as a movie that was decided to be broken into three parts. It doesn't feel right and probably won't unless you just watch them all back to back. But that was probably the intention, so really, that's okay.
2. The trolls are going to eat people and then...Gandalf saves the day! And the dwarves are going to be over-run and then...Gandalf saves the day!!! And the dwarves are going to be over-run again and then...Gandalf uses eagles and saves the day!
3. Again, I understand that it's needed, and I understand that if it's meant to be one really long three part movie that it's intended to be this way, but I really feel like the backstory and the time at Bilbo's house took up at least half of the movie. I know it didn't in actuality, but that's what it feels like. There seemed to be very little in terms of things that happened over the course of the movie. Again that's a "feeling".
|
Canada11315 Posts
Isn't Gandalf saves the day kinda the beginning of The Hobbit anyways? The Dwarves really aren't terribly competent for a long while. Actually, as a counterpoint, I understand they gave Gandalf's iconic delaying tactics to Bilbo.
"Dawn take you all, and be stone to you!" 
And even when Gandalf leaves, it's up to Bilbo who has now started to come into his own that takes over as the truly competent one.
|
On December 15 2012 17:18 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 16:32 Holy_AT wrote:
Is it true that he made 3 films of a book with only 100 to 300 pages ???? i think it's supposed to not just be sourced from the hobbit, but also some stuff from the other books (like silmarilion)
No, they are not allowed to use Silmarilion. They use the Appendices from ROTK, and those are perhaps 100-200 pages, but not all of those parts can be used anyways since they consist of a guide how to pronounce names, Hobbit family trees and the Shire calendar for example.
|
Saw it tonight. Loved it.
I really am glad they are putting TOO much in, as opposed to leaving too much out like they did with the LOTR movies. Really makes the journey feel as epic as it was.
The bits of humor were well placed and well done as well. I lost track of how many times I laughed at something and immediately followed it up with a "fucking Dwarves..." comment.
|
On December 15 2012 17:28 Angel_ wrote:
I really liked it, but there were three things that bothered me.
1. It doesn't feel like a trilogy so much as a movie that was decided to be broken into three parts. It doesn't feel right and probably won't unless you just watch them all back to back. But that was probably the intention, so really, that's okay.
2. The trolls are going to eat people and then...Gandalf saves the day! And the dwarves are going to be over-run and then...Gandalf saves the day!!! And the dwarves are going to be over-run again and then...Gandalf uses eagles and saves the day!
3. Again, I understand that it's needed, and I understand that if it's meant to be one really long three part movie that it's intended to be this way, but I really feel like the backstory and the time at Bilbo's house took up at least half of the movie. I know it didn't in actuality, but that's what it feels like. There seemed to be very little in terms of things that happened over the course of the movie. Again that's a "feeling".
for #2, that is the book dude...
for #1 and #3, you are complaining that it is drawn out. K
|
+ Show Spoiler +4. The whole intro with Frodo was dumb and unnecessary. The viewer familiar with LOTR can figure out who Bilbo is without such sign-posting and for those who aren't it's meaningless. It kind of feels insulting when movies do this.
Disagree completely. COMPLETELY.
The use of Frodo, the signs and other references to the other movies helps to re-immerse an audience member into the world of the Lord of the Rings if they haven't seen one of the other movies in a while.
While some of the filler I thought was a little unnecessary or a little overdone, the Frodo cameo and Erebor backstory I thought were incredibly well done and didn't take away anything from the movie at all.
In fact, I think the Erebor backstory was probably my favorite part of the whole movie because it was the only part of the movie that wasn't straight out of the book. I never bothered to imagine what Erebor might have looked like in its hayday and the visual that the movie provides was a kingdom grander and more spectacular than any I had ever imagined.
|
On December 15 2012 18:00 firehand101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 17:28 Angel_ wrote:
I really liked it, but there were three things that bothered me.
1. It doesn't feel like a trilogy so much as a movie that was decided to be broken into three parts. It doesn't feel right and probably won't unless you just watch them all back to back. But that was probably the intention, so really, that's okay.
2. The trolls are going to eat people and then...Gandalf saves the day! And the dwarves are going to be over-run and then...Gandalf saves the day!!! And the dwarves are going to be over-run again and then...Gandalf uses eagles and saves the day!
3. Again, I understand that it's needed, and I understand that if it's meant to be one really long three part movie that it's intended to be this way, but I really feel like the backstory and the time at Bilbo's house took up at least half of the movie. I know it didn't in actuality, but that's what it feels like. There seemed to be very little in terms of things that happened over the course of the movie. Again that's a "feeling". for #2, that is the book dude... for #1 and #3, you are complaining that it is drawn out. K
Yea I'm going to echo this point, anyone complaining that Gandalf saves the party too much needs to go read the book. PJ was following along with it almost note for note in this regard.
|
On December 15 2012 18:00 firehand101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 17:28 Angel_ wrote:
I really liked it, but there were three things that bothered me.
1. It doesn't feel like a trilogy so much as a movie that was decided to be broken into three parts. It doesn't feel right and probably won't unless you just watch them all back to back. But that was probably the intention, so really, that's okay.
2. The trolls are going to eat people and then...Gandalf saves the day! And the dwarves are going to be over-run and then...Gandalf saves the day!!! And the dwarves are going to be over-run again and then...Gandalf uses eagles and saves the day!
3. Again, I understand that it's needed, and I understand that if it's meant to be one really long three part movie that it's intended to be this way, but I really feel like the backstory and the time at Bilbo's house took up at least half of the movie. I know it didn't in actuality, but that's what it feels like. There seemed to be very little in terms of things that happened over the course of the movie. Again that's a "feeling". for #2, that is the book dude... for #1 and #3, you are complaining that it is drawn out. K
I understand that. I was only voicing the things that bugged me a little. And I know they followed the source material greatly. But just like with the ringwraith and other things, i would have been okay with a little bit of artistic liberty to make the dwarves seem a little more competent.
Though to be fair i hadn't considered that eventually bilbo will probably take over as the competent one when gandalf leaves for a while.
|
Saw this film today so so so good especially if you've read the book.
|
Just thought I'd add my comments...
1) I wanted to love 48fps... and for the most part, I did. 90% of the time it looks great... but during quick cuts or fast hand motions, it looked really choppy and weird, like the film is being fast-forwarded. It was such a huge distraction for me that I can't recommend 48fps to anyone, I kept noticing the filmmaking instead of the film.
2) The added backstory about Erebor was an amazingly good idea and worked perfectly to help the audience really understand why this quest matters so much to the dwarves.
3) I wish they didn't have to make the bad guys so obviously monstrous looking. The horrible faces, the foul skin, and the immense size of the trolls in particular was really overdoing it.
4) The idea of including other bits of the LOTR story was a good one, but the execution was not. Radagast's section of the movie was bad, and the stone giant part of the movie was really really bad. If I see one more character on the verge of falling to their death, I'm going to be sick. Peter Jackson, stop using that please... it was bad enough when Frodo did it at the climax of ROTK.
5) Making Azog an important character in the story was an interesting way to play it... it worked OK, I don't mind it.
6) I think they really blew it, making this a constant rollercoaster of life-or-death nonstop action. There's supposed to be no danger at all until the trolls... and no serious danger until the goblin cave. The adventurers (esp. Bilbo) get used to a rising level of danger. But in the movie, everyone is a split-second from death almost the entire time. This isn't a Pierce Brosnan Bond movie.
7) On the positive side, they did a lot of things right. Everything that stuck close to the book's story in spirit was done really well on the screen. The adaption from the book to the screen was excellent... I just wish they had done more of that, and less of inventing new scenes.
8) I really liked that the tone of the movie is light-hearted compared to LOTR... just the way that the book is compared to the LOTR books. But it went too far... the goblin-king delivering jokes as he died was just stupid.
Overall the movie was fairly enjoyable, but the invented scenes and unending action really drag down what could have been a truly great movie.
|
On December 15 2012 16:25 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 20:06 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 14 2012 18:43 Slaughter wrote:On December 14 2012 03:28 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 14 2012 02:41 Steveling wrote:Let's see what the crowd thinks. Poll: How was The Hobbit?Entertaining (51) 72% Expected more (8) 11% On par with LOTR trilogy (7) 10% Horrible (3) 4% Nice but not close enough to the books (2) 3% 71 total votes Your vote: How was The Hobbit? (Vote): Expected more
(Vote): Entertaining
(Vote): On par with LOTR trilogy
(Vote): Nice but not close enough to the books
(Vote): Horrible
On par with the LoTR trilogy doesn't mean much. Wasn't the LoTR trilogy pretty well received? I mean I liked them a good amount. And I thought it was one of my most boring experience in theaters (and I'm not alone). I think something a bit clearer would be more useful. Obviously you aren't alone but most who saw it probably didn't think that way considering almost everyone I know loved the original trilogy (me included). I read the books first and was very impressed by the movies considering how most movies based of books are terrible, these ones were amazing. I can't wait to see the hobbit :D
Teenage boys loved it sure. The critics in France weren't really positive for instance.
I have no idea where this idea that most book based movie come from too, and LoTR is certainly not the best counterexample...
|
On December 15 2012 19:05 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 16:25 blade55555 wrote:On December 14 2012 20:06 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 14 2012 18:43 Slaughter wrote:On December 14 2012 03:28 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 14 2012 02:41 Steveling wrote:Let's see what the crowd thinks. Poll: How was The Hobbit?Entertaining (51) 72% Expected more (8) 11% On par with LOTR trilogy (7) 10% Horrible (3) 4% Nice but not close enough to the books (2) 3% 71 total votes Your vote: How was The Hobbit? (Vote): Expected more
(Vote): Entertaining
(Vote): On par with LOTR trilogy
(Vote): Nice but not close enough to the books
(Vote): Horrible
On par with the LoTR trilogy doesn't mean much. Wasn't the LoTR trilogy pretty well received? I mean I liked them a good amount. And I thought it was one of my most boring experience in theaters (and I'm not alone). I think something a bit clearer would be more useful. Obviously you aren't alone but most who saw it probably didn't think that way considering almost everyone I know loved the original trilogy (me included). I read the books first and was very impressed by the movies considering how most movies based of books are terrible, these ones were amazing. I can't wait to see the hobbit :D Teenage boys loved it sure. The critics in France weren't really positive for instance. I have no idea where this idea that most book based movie come from too, and LoTR is certainly not the best counterexample...
Critics generally didnt like it, but the general population likes it. There are a couple of low points, but certainly nothing bad. I found it rather enjoyable, and it felt like I was going on an adventure with Bilbo and Gandalf.
|
On December 15 2012 19:17 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 19:05 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 15 2012 16:25 blade55555 wrote:On December 14 2012 20:06 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 14 2012 18:43 Slaughter wrote:On December 14 2012 03:28 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 14 2012 02:41 Steveling wrote:Let's see what the crowd thinks. Poll: How was The Hobbit?Entertaining (51) 72% Expected more (8) 11% On par with LOTR trilogy (7) 10% Horrible (3) 4% Nice but not close enough to the books (2) 3% 71 total votes Your vote: How was The Hobbit? (Vote): Expected more
(Vote): Entertaining
(Vote): On par with LOTR trilogy
(Vote): Nice but not close enough to the books
(Vote): Horrible
On par with the LoTR trilogy doesn't mean much. Wasn't the LoTR trilogy pretty well received? I mean I liked them a good amount. And I thought it was one of my most boring experience in theaters (and I'm not alone). I think something a bit clearer would be more useful. Obviously you aren't alone but most who saw it probably didn't think that way considering almost everyone I know loved the original trilogy (me included). I read the books first and was very impressed by the movies considering how most movies based of books are terrible, these ones were amazing. I can't wait to see the hobbit :D Teenage boys loved it sure. The critics in France weren't really positive for instance. I have no idea where this idea that most book based movie come from too, and LoTR is certainly not the best counterexample... Critics generally didnt like it, but the general population likes it. There are a couple of low points, but certainly nothing bad. I found it rather enjoyable, and it felt like I was going on an adventure with Bilbo and Gandalf.
Alas, the success of a book or a film is not directly proportional to its quality. Unless suddenly Twilight doesn't suck.
|
Some of you people are trying really hard to find something to complain about...
|
On December 15 2012 18:39 Chocobo wrote:
Just thought I'd add my comments...
1) I wanted to love 48fps... and for the most part, I did. 90% of the time it looks great... but during quick cuts or fast hand motions, it looked really choppy and weird, like the film is being fast-forwarded. It was such a huge distraction for me that I can't recommend 48fps to anyone, I kept noticing the filmmaking instead of the film.
2) The added backstory about Erebor was an amazingly good idea and worked perfectly to help the audience really understand why this quest matters so much to the dwarves.
3) I wish they didn't have to make the bad guys so obviously monstrous looking. The horrible faces, the foul skin, and the immense size of the trolls in particular was really overdoing it.
4) The idea of including other bits of the LOTR story was a good one, but the execution was not. Radagast's section of the movie was bad, and the stone giant part of the movie was really really bad. If I see one more character on the verge of falling to their death, I'm going to be sick. Peter Jackson, stop using that please... it was bad enough when Frodo did it at the climax of ROTK.
5) Making Azog an important character in the story was an interesting way to play it... it worked OK, I don't mind it.
6) I think they really blew it, making this a constant rollercoaster of life-or-death nonstop action. There's supposed to be no danger at all until the trolls... and no serious danger until the goblin cave. The adventurers (esp. Bilbo) get used to a rising level of danger. But in the movie, everyone is a split-second from death almost the entire time. This isn't a Pierce Brosnan Bond movie.
7) On the positive side, they did a lot of things right. Everything that stuck close to the book's story in spirit was done really well on the screen. The adaption from the book to the screen was excellent... I just wish they had done more of that, and less of inventing new scenes.
8) I really liked that the tone of the movie is light-hearted compared to LOTR... just the way that the book is compared to the LOTR books. But it went too far... the goblin-king delivering jokes as he died was just stupid.
Overall the movie was fairly enjoyable, but the invented scenes and unending action really drag down what could have been a truly great movie.
I went to see it yesterday and I honestly really liked Radagast's part. And come on, not a single good adventure movie doesn't has a near-fall from cliff moment  . I went to see it in the normal 24 fps no 3D and it was fine.
You wanted the trolls to be midget sized? Smaller then Hobbits? 
|
Papua New Guinea1058 Posts
200 pages long book split into 3 movies - that has to be good. I'm hyped, but can't help to be sceptical.
|
On December 15 2012 19:19 corumjhaelen wrote:
Alas, the success of a book or a film is not directly proportional to its quality. Unless suddenly Twilight doesn't suck.
The quality of any movie is subjective and can only be determined by the viewer. As aptly demonstrated by this post:
On December 14 2012 03:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
On par with the LoTR trilogy doesn't mean much.
|
On December 15 2012 21:19 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 19:19 corumjhaelen wrote:
Alas, the success of a book or a film is not directly proportional to its quality. Unless suddenly Twilight doesn't suck. The quality of any movie is subjective and can only be determined by the viewer. As aptly demonstrated by this post: Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 03:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
On par with the LoTR trilogy doesn't mean much.
While my comment did refer to the subjective part of any judgement about movies, I will never agree with the legend of the internet that wants to put on equal footings Proust and Barbara Cartland, or 300 and Citizen Kane just for the sake of a so-called subjectivity which is in fact nothing but the worst kind of relativism.
|
On December 15 2012 21:42 corumjhaelen wrote:
While my comment did refer to the subjective part of any judgement about movies, I will never agree with the legend of the internet that wants to put on equal footings Proust and Barbara Cartland, or 300 and Citizen Kane just for the sake of a so-called subjectivity which is in fact nothing but the worst kind of relativism.
And you are perfectly entitled to hold your own opinion about that
|
On December 15 2012 21:46 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 21:42 corumjhaelen wrote:
While my comment did refer to the subjective part of any judgement about movies, I will never agree with the legend of the internet that wants to put on equal footings Proust and Barbara Cartland, or 300 and Citizen Kane just for the sake of a so-called subjectivity which is in fact nothing but the worst kind of relativism. And you are perfectly entitled to hold your own opinion about that
It's not an opinion. There are plenty of factual reasons why one is superior to another. Subjectivity is only a little bit of the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
