EPT
[Movie] The Hobbit Trilogy - Page 41
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
Dunmer
United Kingdom568 Posts
| ||
|
hp.Shell
United States2527 Posts
| ||
|
PushDown
Italy208 Posts
I would say that the ticket price you would get in any movie theater (8,50£ in my city) is worth the movie. It wasn't perfect to make me a fanboy, but it was a really nice experience. If I have to ask for a change inside the movie it will have to be: more dwarf songs along the way (instead of re-use of soundtracks). + Show Spoiler + I'll never get tired of Gandalf and his warrior sub-class; never doubt a mage that charges into battle with a sword hahah | ||
|
crazyweasel
607 Posts
Trying to be objective as possible, I'll agree with most of you that the movie might have been "spread too thin". the "frodo part" most definately isn't necessary, and most likely to be boring to any non-lotr fanboy. also the dwarves presentation could've also been shortened a littlebit. to me as a fanboy it was okay since I can watch and re-watch bits and parts of every lotr movie. in general the movie suits perfectly to anyone whos already into LOtr and thought the story stuck pretty well to the book just as much as its humor, chants and childish style. aside from the frodo and dinner part i think the movie was great, but id would liked it to be more Epic like LOTR trilogy was, battles for example were quite short, with little emphasis on characters strenghs (different from lotr where for example we have epic combat scene with legolas bow skills or boromir's epic last fight). I hope we get to see more of those missing points in the next movies. all that said i totally enjoyed the movie. objective(trying as much a possible) rating: 7 out of 10 fanboy rating: 9 out of 10 | ||
|
fifasnipe2224
United States243 Posts
On December 21 2012 03:06 fifasnipe2224 wrote: | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
About Azog, if I remember correctly his son leads the orcs in the battle of the five armies, most likely they made azog and his son be one in order to not introduce even more characters to the movie. It's certainly understandable and I have no problems with it. In fact, all the story bits they changed seemed to make perfect sense for a screenplay instead of a book. Keep in mind that this movie isn't only for diehard fans, people who haven't read the books need to understand and enjoy it as well. If you go the movie with that perspective in the back of your head you will enjoy it much more. The only two things I 'disliked' (too strong of a word though) were that it seemed like the movie alternated between the Hobbit (the lighthearted book style) and LotR style for the first half of the movie, the second half it settled on LotR style. The other thing was the lack of a sense of scale (for the first half of the movie, again). If I didn't know any better Middle-Earth would've seemed extremely small. As far as the three movies debate goes, I was pleasantly surprised. There was more than enough content to fill the 169 minute movie and they haven't even crossed the Anduin yet. Can't wait to see Gandalf going to Dol Goldur and the other things mentioned, but not shown in the books. I saw the movie in HFR 3D and was, again, pleasantly surprised. I had never seen a 3D movie before and it was a really nice experience. The high frame rate was enjoyable as well. I do not agree with the complaints of some people that HFR makes the movie look fake. I found it to be experience-enhancing. The only real complaint I have is that + Show Spoiler + the next movie is a fucking year away QQ | ||
|
DaCruise
Denmark2457 Posts
The movie itself isnt as good as LoTR imo. It lacks strong side characters such as Aragon, Boromir, Theoden, Eowin and the likes. None of the dwarfes are interesting and Bilbo and Gandalf doesnt make a good cast on their own. Overall its a solid movie but nowhere near as good as any of the LoTR movies. It lacks that epic feel. | ||
|
Frieder
Italy231 Posts
On December 21 2012 07:23 Thorakh wrote: About Azog, if I remember correctly his son leads the orcs in the battle of the five armies, most likely they made azog and his son be one in order to not introduce even more characters to the movie. It's certainly understandable and I have no problems with it. In fact, all the story bits they changed seemed to make perfect sense for a screenplay instead of a book. Yes, Azog's son Bolg leads the orcs in the Battle of the five armyies, because his father died a longe time ago (killed by Dain in the Battle of Dimrill Dale). The introduction of Azog is fine, as long as you tell the story of the War of the Dwarves and Orcs. But he is dead! And his pursuit of the dwarfs changes the character of the story completely. Most of the changes are unnecessary and bastardise the story. The movie is good, but it has only little to do with The Hobbit. | ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
| ||
|
RaelSan
Belgium223 Posts
On December 20 2012 09:08 corumjhaelen wrote: I'm not taking off points. I'm trying to put the movie on a scale from 0 to ten, 0 being the worse, 10 being the best. There are entertainment movies that are smarter than Die Hard (hello Titanic-9 by the way), and i'm pretty sure there are better action movies out there, who also have a meaning. I just don't have watched much. There is no reason why an action movie couldn't get a ten. It's improbable, but far from impossible. As for your other point, it's pretty uninteresting. If all the movie of a particular subgenre happen to suck, it's my fault. I mean, if the best blaxpoitation deserve a 6, are you going to argue I should give it a ten ? Because you know, in the subgenre of movie adaptation of the Hobbit directed by Peter Jackson, i'm rating out of 4. And now suddenly, the Hobbit deserves a ten according to your "logic". Edit : I give The Thin Red Line and Deer Hunter ten, if that's helps convincing you I have nothing against action movies. You seem to like old realistic war movies :p Really don't know why you went to see the Hobbit then : P But seriously I don't have problems with people having opinions ( usually :p ) but 4/10 is rly rly low, like I'd give 4 to G.I Joe or looper or something. But even if the Hobbit was all bad, I think only for the music, the pictures, and the overall beauty it'd at least disserve 6. I mean did you give TDKR a 3 and the Godfather a 5.5 ? | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
Best part of the movie? Probably the three trolls and their attempt to cook the dwarfs, the trolls were hilarious. | ||
|
Isualin
Germany1903 Posts
+soundtracks were amazing, +thorin was badass, +galadriel was beautiful +gollum was awesome. overall i really liked this movie. its easily 7/10(maybe more) for me | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On December 21 2012 18:52 RaelSan wrote: You seem to like old realistic war movies :p Really don't know why you went to see the Hobbit then : P But seriously I don't have problems with people having opinions ( usually :p ) but 4/10 is rly rly low, like I'd give 4 to G.I Joe or looper or something. But even if the Hobbit was all bad, I think only for the music, the pictures, and the overall beauty it'd at least disserve 6. I mean did you give TDKR a 3 and the Godfather a 5.5 ? I love plenty of stuff. I don't know how to tell it, I mean, I read each Tolkien novel at least 5 times... I have no bias against a Hobbit adaptation. 4/10 is not really really low it means rather bad, but not terrible, with a few good ideas. I wrote a review, the negative stuff was at least twice as long as the positive... For the worst movies, there are still marks below, don't worry. And I completely disagree with your point, if only because I disliked the music and I don't think the images are quite as good as you make it sound. I don't remember what I gave TDKR, probably 3-4 yeah (I have plenty of posts in the tl thread if you want to get mad at me^^), but the Godfather is a great movie, even if it has some terrible fans, and deserves a 8.5 at least. Finally I don't get why people get so upset at my mark, and apparently didn't read a single word of my review. It's not like I gave it a 1... | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
| ||
Poopi
France12907 Posts
The music and visual were beautiful, the pace seemed fine to me I didn't feel bored at all during the 3 hours. + Show Spoiler + I do think they ran away from fights a bit too much but I guess they weren't in enough numbers to fight straight up. Plus since I didn't read the books yet I always wonder why Gandalf doesn't just wipe out the enemies? I know he is limited in his human form but still. Too bad we didn't see much of Smaug also, dragons are cool but I read on this thread there is a battle or something that will happen between him and the middle earth inhabitants, can't wait to see it. Seeing it motivate me to read The Hobbit that I bought not so long ago, and the LOTR trilogy :D. | ||
|
Prevolved
United States573 Posts
| ||
|
fabiano
Brazil4644 Posts
Cannot wait for more! | ||
Falling
Canada11389 Posts
On December 21 2012 23:44 Poopi wrote: Saw it wednesday, in 2D (don't think we have as many options in theaters here in France, like 48FPS and stuff). The music and visual were beautiful, the pace seemed fine to me I didn't feel bored at all during the 3 hours. + Show Spoiler + I do think they ran away from fights a bit too much but I guess they weren't in enough numbers to fight straight up. Plus since I didn't read the books yet I always wonder why Gandalf doesn't just wipe out the enemies? I know he is limited in his human form but still. Too bad we didn't see much of Smaug also, dragons are cool but I read on this thread there is a battle or something that will happen between him and the middle earth inhabitants, can't wait to see it. Seeing it motivate me to read The Hobbit that I bought not so long ago, and the LOTR trilogy :D. Well honestly, most of Tolkien's magic doesn't really translate into what you could call ?combat spells? Much of it is more intangible- like the most powerful effect of the Nazgul isn't that they're flinging D&D fireballs or are these super epic warriors. Their sheer presence creates fear. Most men would fly from terror rather than stand in fight (unless hardened by Gandalf or Prince Imrahil and his knights.) Similarily much of the 'combat' through magic is amongst others that also have power. A contest of power or authority. Gandalf vs the Balrog or Gandalf vs Saruman- which is a much more subdued affair than Jackson made it. Or if you go back to the Silmarillion, many of the great battles between powerful beings: Elves and gods (Maiar) were through song creation. (Finrod vs Sauron or Luthien before Morgoth) or a contest of wills Luthien vs Sauron. None of this translates very well onto the screen. Going back to The Hobbit, Tolkien's thoughts on magic in Middle Earth were probably not fully formed, but it still is pretty subdued. Much of Gandalf's power is through influence or calling into being things that didn't seem to exist before- "If I say he is a burglar, then a burglar he is." This is consistent with Gandalf being known to send Hobbits in the past 'mad' for adventure or even his awakening of Theoden in Two Towers. (And perhaps his failed attempt with Denethor.) Gandalf "Stormcrow," but he tended to kindle fires in the hearts of individuals and peoples where-ever he went. Offhand the two main instances of true magic that I recall in The Hobbit was the big flash and explosion to distract the goblins and the fire-pine cones. And he was considering hurling himself down to take out the Wargs and destroy himself in the process. And his fireworks. I really don't recall much else in regards to combat magic in The Hobbit. | ||
|
Eppa!
Sweden4641 Posts
Basic fantasy movie that neither has great character development or "book magic" that most books bring out which is hard to capture in films 6/10. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11389 Posts
 | ||
| ||
