|
On March 22 2013 11:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: But how can you adapt a book that is/was 276 pages into 3 movies that will be 11-12 hours total?
add in a bunch of stuff like the white council meetings, removing sauron from dol guldor, who knows
|
I gotta say that after watching the hobbit 3 times now, I don't think I plan on watching it again. I've seen LOTR trilogy a dozen times and I'll probably watch it again, but the hobbit so far isn't up to the standard for me
|
I saw it and have to say that....it satisfied me. Yeah, one of the reasons they're making it into a trilogy is to milk the LOTR franchise a bit more. There are a couple of pet peeves I had with the film but, overall, I found it enjoyable. It managed to bring back a little bit of nostalgia of watching LOTR for the first time and kept me interested. I'm sure that the other two films will be worth watching as well. I guess the good thing about it being a trilogy is that I'll have a movie to look forward to for the next two Christmases.
I think the key to enjoying it is not to be such a 'Tolkien purist' and film critic and just enjoy it as a nice high-budget fantasy flick, which are oh so rare.
|
I actually liked The Hobbit more than LOTR trilogy. It's more action packed less boring scenes.
|
the start was really promising, with the dragon. then it plummeted like a dove losing its wings mid air. 2 hours with 7 dwarfs, a hobbit and a wizard. talking ALOT. when the 30 minute quiz with gollum wouldnt end, i was ready to choke myself with popcorn. ;( 0/5
|
First one has to build the story up, can't blame it for not having too much action. Fellowship started out slow too.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On March 22 2013 20:39 Nekovivie wrote: First one has to build the story up, can't blame it for not having too much action. Fellowship started out slow too. But that was a necessary build-up, As much as you might make a case for the FotR being slow, it was trim, and there was very little fat, at least when you compare it to the first Hobbit film, which has to build up for an unnecessarily inflated and indulgent tale.
|
On March 22 2013 11:44 MaestroSC wrote: As a cinefile and HUGE fan of extended cuts.. (literally refuse to watch LotR without extended versions) I am quite pleased with it being 3 movies, and 3 long movies at that.
Beware: The DVD/BD disc being sold right now is NOT the extended edition. That won't come out until right before the next movie is released. Bilking customers who don't know the difference.
|
On March 22 2013 11:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: But how can you adapt a book that is/was 276 pages into 3 movies that will be 11-12 hours total? Where are you getting the figure for 11-12 hours?
Anyways, probably the same way you can split GoT into 10~ hours, and that had far more explicit descriptions of what was going on, while the Hobbit was full of general references to things + the appendices elaborated a ton on what else was occurring during the story but away from Bilbo's eyes.
|
The beginning of the film was entertaining. The rest was boring and I almost fell asleep. I didn't care for any of the characters, compared to LOTR where I liked almost all the characters (Aragorn, Legolas, Boromir, etc.). And what's funny is that the only Dwarf in LOTR was a more likable character than any of the dwarves in The Hobbit.
I must say though that I expected the movie to boring, since I knew most of the scenes would be drawn out so they can make a trilogy.
Were there any "epic" moments/scenes at all in this movie? I can think of tons in the LOTR movies but none in the Hobbit.
|
Canada11320 Posts
The dwarf problem exists in the books too. Actually Tolkien went back and consolidated most of the speaking lines to a handful of dwarves rather than evenly distribute them. The movie put far more effort into creating distinct personalities between them. (Dori and Bofur come to mind.) Maybe it wasn't enough, but they are trying within the constraints of the story. I'm hoping the second will allow more time for the Dwarves as well.
As for the 'epic' moments- it's a smaller story. You aren't going to get a massive siege of Helm's Deep. In fact they went out of their way to make everything bigger- Troll battles, goblin sequence (problematic swashbuckling granted, but still) and the Azog story line. Even if they shot it straight from the book, it would be even less epic. It's just not that kind of story.
And expecting to be bored is a doubtful way to got to theatre in my opinion.
|
I don't really understand the argument that scenes would be obviously drawn out just to make it a trilogy. The movie is almost 3 hours long, if they really were lacking content that badly, there's no reason why the it would be that long. They could have easily chosen a faster pace.
I understand that some people may not like it, but for me it was clearly a design choice. It really feels like the sort of thing Peter Jackson likes to do. Blame the production, not the fact it was a "money grab".
|
On March 23 2013 07:07 Falling wrote: The dwarf problem exists in the books too. Actually Tolkien went back and consolidated most of the speaking lines to a handful of dwarves rather than evenly distribute them. The movie put far more effort into creating distinct personalities between them. (Dori and Bofur come to mind.) Maybe it wasn't enough, but they are trying within the constraints of the story. I'm hoping the second will allow more time for the Dwarves as well.
As for the 'epic' moments- it's a smaller story. You aren't going to get a massive siege of Helm's Deep. In fact they went out of their way to make everything bigger- Troll battles, goblin sequence (problematic swashbuckling granted, but still) and the Azog story line. Even if they shot it straight from the book, it would be even less epic. It's just not that kind of story.
And expecting to be bored is a doubtful way to got to theatre in my opinion.
Well I exaggerate a bit, but the reason I did not have high expectations is because of the story too, like you said. For me, the book was just alright. It had its fun moments and sense of adventure, but nothing epic. I think the next movie will be better though.
|
On March 23 2013 01:15 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2013 11:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: But how can you adapt a book that is/was 276 pages into 3 movies that will be 11-12 hours total? Where are you getting the figure for 11-12 hours? Anyways, probably the same way you can split GoT into 10~ hours, and that had far more explicit descriptions of what was going on, while the Hobbit was full of general references to things + the appendices elaborated a ton on what else was occurring during the story but away from Bilbo's eyes.
This is Peter Jackson we're talking about here. The man who made King Kong, a monster movie, and then had a scene of said monster playing on the ice with a woman for 10 minutes.... We'll be lucky if this movie with the extras included doesn't push the 20 hour mark after all three DVD's are released.
|
On March 23 2013 08:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2013 01:15 Dfgj wrote:On March 22 2013 11:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: But how can you adapt a book that is/was 276 pages into 3 movies that will be 11-12 hours total? Where are you getting the figure for 11-12 hours? Anyways, probably the same way you can split GoT into 10~ hours, and that had far more explicit descriptions of what was going on, while the Hobbit was full of general references to things + the appendices elaborated a ton on what else was occurring during the story but away from Bilbo's eyes. This is Peter Jackson we're talking about here. The man who made King Kong, a monster movie, and then had a scene of said monster playing on the ice with a woman for 10 minutes.... We'll be lucky if this movie with the extras included doesn't push the 20 hour mark after all three DVD's are released. King Kong was a pretty good movie tho in it's defense
Boat Captain was billy badass imo.
|
So the hobbit, the controversial (not really) movie of the moment. For someone who already read the Hobbit, the LOTR trilogy and the Silmarillion, I really liked the movie, aside from some lore inconsistencies + Show Spoiler + Azog, literal Mountain Giants, the entire reason Thorin and Co. go to erebor, some bits in the White Council like the part with Saruman and the mushrooms, Mirkwood being turned evil suddenly, and i think that's it
The beggining was epic, showing an AWESOME intro for erebor and the dwarves in general, those 2 giant hammers for smithing where really "dwarven". The rest was equally great, the only thing i disliked was that Bilbo was telling the story. The journey, the songs, the characters (who i suppose the rest will be fleshed out in th sequels), the trolls (who sound like Warhammer orks), goblin town, etc... each getting them closer and closer to erebor.
So what did i think about it? i really enjoyed it, maybe because there haven't been many high fantasy movies recently or maybe because the scenes taken from the book to the movie were memmorable. I think this movie was made with love and care, unlike other blockbuster movies, so go watch it if you can.
|
|
I've read the book when i was pretty young, so i don't really remember it all that well. Just watched the first part of the movie, and i enjoyed it a lot.
Don't care if it differs somewhat from the story. I enjoyed the music, story, landscapes, characters and their actors. Overall very beautiful movie and i'm actually glad it will be a trilogy. The only minus is the waiting part.
I should read the book again in the near future, but i doubt it will change my view of the movie that much. I guess i'm one those who won't be that bothered by the differences and will let it slide.
|
|
Canada11320 Posts
Time for a clean slate in the OP
|
|
|
|