On October 13 2013 14:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This is thinking way ahead but I wonder if the third movie will place the Dwarves and Elves in the LOTR setting and explain what happens with them. Eh...?
What do you mean? Place them in the LotR's setting. They are in Middle Earth already, just in the northern parts of it.
But we never saw them in LotR as the books they have "war at their doorsteps already", maybe see the war of the ring from their perspective or at least part of it.
The plot of Battle for Middle Earth 2, the 2nd LotR RTS, was based on the war in the north, using Hobbit characters. Gave one interpretation of the source material.
Iam really looking forward for the whole Trilogy.But i guess I will wait till they release all three movies on DVD/BR in a special extended version like they did with the LotR trilogy.If you ask why:Well I didnt watched any of the LotR movies in cinema but I bought them on DVD in extended version upping the length from 3 hours to almost 4(!) hours for all three movies adding a lot of extra scenes and a ton of bonus material.And not just your standard making of crap there were a map with the travelling route,a list what scenes were added or extended and more.That was totally worth 20€ for every DVD.I never read the books though but still think they were really well made(even if I cant compare them).The movies were so long that they were on 2 discs.The battle for the white city in the third movie lasted for more than one hour.This was a great experience I will never forget and I had a blast when I watched them.
On October 03 2013 10:43 Serejai wrote: At the end of the first LoTR movie I knew the names of all the main characters. I had a favorite, I had a least favorite. I knew the villains
At the end of the first Hobbit movie I knew... Gandalf and Bilbo - two people that I already knew from the LoTR movies. I don't give a shit about any of the dwarves, nor could I tell you any of their names or ranks other than that one was a king.
This just hasn't grabbed me the way LoTR did and I'm not sure I'll bother seeing the next two movies.
You do realize this is an issue that goes back to the source material? Thorin and to some extent Balin are the two standout and Fili & Kili just because they are younger. But what does Gloin really do in the book beyond quarrel with Oin in the first rainfalls before the Trolls. It is difficult to to portray 15 people separately when in the book they were light-heartedly named background characters (Ori, Dori, Nori, Bifor, Bofur, Bombur.) The rhyming scheme of the names helps collect them in our minds when reading, but you don't see that in the movie. I am hoping that the next two movies will further develop what Jackson has started in differentiating the Dwarves... particularly once Gandalf leaves.
It's kinda like... I watched Game of Thrones before reading the books, and despite there being so many characters (and so many changing constantly), I could follow it without trouble at all. Even after re-watching the Hobbit multiple times I still can't figure out who is who.
I've recently started watching Game of Thrones also. I see what you're saying, except you have to remember that Game of Thrones has 10ish episodes a season, each episode quite long, in order to help you get to know each character on a detailed basis. You simply can't do that with so many characters in a single movie.
Just to point out, most of the dwarves in the Hobbit are barely relevant other than to say "they're there". Most of the characters whom you are actually introduced to in Game of Thrones are relevant in one way or another, so they are given enough attention. Game of Thrones also did things like change character names from the books to the show to make it easier to remember and recognize them.
On October 03 2013 20:04 Vorenius wrote: Saying that it is an inherent problem with the source materiel, is just a bad excuse. If the materiel isn't there, either change it or don't make the movie. Using it as an excuse after the fact is pointless. The reason for a movie being bad doesn't matter, if it's still bad.
It was Peter Jackson's choice to take a childrens book and turn it into a PG-13 movie, a mish mash of different styles and themes. If it wasn't clear after the first part this trailer clearly shows that they are just milking it for as much money as possible before someone else can.
Why do people say this about movies. The people creating the movie aren't doing half-assed jobs. It's pretty clear from everything he does that Peter Jackson really has a passion for these films. About the only people I could agree are "milking for money" are Newline Cinema and MGM and that's their job.
When making LotR there was absolutely a great passion behind the movies, all the way from Jackson and down to every single person involved. With the hobbit it seems to be just going through the motions, doing the same things with a different story. It's only natural I suppose. It's one thing working 100+ hours per week for almost 5 years to make a trilogy, but to do it twice? I doubt that's possible. On the other hand when New Line comes to you with a blank check and asks you to make some movies for them you are gonna say yes regardless. I don't blame them that they are trying to make a bunch of money off of this, they just won't get anymore of mine. Also, don't tell me that adding in Legolas and having a his girlfriend was necessary progress to the story. It's an obvious marketing tool to target a specific audience.
I suppose comparing them to LotR isn't fair as that might have been a once in a lifetime achievement, but it's still the obvious thing to compare them to.
The story of the Hobbit (movie) is poorly structured and lacks focus. It's split between the small adventure of the hobbit and the grand epic of the White Council vs Sauron. Having two separate storylines could have worked if the mood and feel were at least similar. But they aren't. The dwarfs are fooling around and tumbling down hills, and then cut to Gandalf/Saruman/Elrond sitting in a dark room talking for 15 minutes.
The special effects of the Hobbit are pretty bad compared to LotR, despite there being ten years between them. It's so obvious what are effects shots and what isn't that is completely destroys any immersion. The first time I watched the LotR movies I didn't recognize a single obvious effect.
I call BS on this. The scene where Gandalf breaks the bridge of Khazad-dum looked terrible back then and it looks even worse now. Straight out of the 80s.
what are you talking about.. of all things you talk about a piece of rock breaking in half? it looks totally fine to me.. heres the scene:
These movies are stupid. After part 3 is done, i want someone to take all 3 movies, get rid of "Peter Jackson presents moneyleeching LotR actor scenes" and "Peter Jackson´s additional scenes to make 3 times as much at the BoxOffice" and make it into a 45-minute movie
On October 14 2013 04:41 plgElwood wrote: These movies are stupid. After part 3 is done, i want someone to take all 3 movies, get rid of "Peter Jackson presents moneyleeching LotR actor scenes" and "Peter Jackson´s additional scenes to make 3 times as much at the BoxOffice" and make it into a 45-minute movie
Except most of us enjoy them. There are plenty of low-content action movies out there. Go enjoy one!
On October 14 2013 04:41 plgElwood wrote: These movies are stupid. After part 3 is done, i want someone to take all 3 movies, get rid of "Peter Jackson presents moneyleeching LotR actor scenes" and "Peter Jackson´s additional scenes to make 3 times as much at the BoxOffice" and make it into a 45-minute movie
Sorry you didn't enjoy the movie. I thoroughly did and look forward to the next 2!
On October 14 2013 04:41 plgElwood wrote: These movies are stupid. After part 3 is done, i want someone to take all 3 movies, get rid of "Peter Jackson presents moneyleeching LotR actor scenes" and "Peter Jackson´s additional scenes to make 3 times as much at the BoxOffice" and make it into a 45-minute movie
They'll do that. Except they'll take all 6 movies, all the extras, and repackage it into the Ultimate LOTR Trilogy Collectors Edition with bonus shit they cut from the previous collector editions of both types and extra footage they shoot for fun. They will milk the shit out of this because that's their business. I like the books too but we can't really dwell in the past.
On October 13 2013 14:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This is thinking way ahead but I wonder if the third movie will place the Dwarves and Elves in the LOTR setting and explain what happens with them. Eh...?
What do you mean? Place them in the LotR's setting. They are in Middle Earth already, just in the northern parts of it.
But we never saw them in LotR as the books they have "war at their doorsteps already", maybe see the war of the ring from their perspective or at least part of it.
Oooh. Like showing what happened up in the Lonely Mountain area during the LotR's timeline? That's exactly the sort of stuff I would like (like the Battle of Azanulbizar in this film) but the average movie goer would wonder why the plot is getting so distracted.
I doubt it. I think between the Necromancer vs White Council (which might be bumped to the third?) and the Battle of Five Armies, they've got more than enough for the third.
There is not a lot that is mentioned, but one thing I like about Tolkien is that he DID write some some of what going on up there, the movies just streamlined it out because the scope is to broad... and also buried in the appendices. For example, Lorien gets assaulted three times by Dol Guldor. A servant of Mordor questions the Dwarves concerning rings (clearly part of the hunt for the One Ring.) And an army of easterlings attacks Dale and the Lonely Mountain. Tolkien just touches on it enough that you realize the story is much bigger, but only touches it so that you wonder and wonder so more on what exactly happened.
On October 14 2013 04:41 plgElwood wrote: These movies are stupid. After part 3 is done, i want someone to take all 3 movies, get rid of "Peter Jackson presents moneyleeching LotR actor scenes" and "Peter Jackson´s additional scenes to make 3 times as much at the BoxOffice" and make it into a 45-minute movie
I too blame Peter Jackson for wanting the movie to make money! How dare he?! This is stupid. If you don't want to support the movie or the franchise just don't waste your money on it and be quite about it. But if you want to criticize the movies quality you are more than welcome.
On October 14 2013 04:41 plgElwood wrote: These movies are stupid. After part 3 is done, i want someone to take all 3 movies, get rid of "Peter Jackson presents moneyleeching LotR actor scenes" and "Peter Jackson´s additional scenes to make 3 times as much at the BoxOffice" and make it into a 45-minute movie
Sorry you didn't enjoy the movie. I thoroughly did and look forward to the next 2!
Probably won'twatch part2 in theaters. I was so disappointed by part1. Apart from going back to middle earth and enjoying the scenery I found the movie way to shallow and diluted. The result of cutting a small book in 9h movie I guess. That's a first time when a movie is longer to watch than the book to read. That's sad, I really liked the first trilogy and rushed to buy it in DVD and then on BluRay. But this... meh. And the friends I went with also disliked it while loving LotR (well not my GF, she hated LotR and almost left during for the Hobbit :p).
On October 03 2013 20:04 Vorenius wrote: Saying that it is an inherent problem with the source materiel, is just a bad excuse. If the materiel isn't there, either change it or don't make the movie. Using it as an excuse after the fact is pointless. The reason for a movie being bad doesn't matter, if it's still bad.
It was Peter Jackson's choice to take a childrens book and turn it into a PG-13 movie, a mish mash of different styles and themes. If it wasn't clear after the first part this trailer clearly shows that they are just milking it for as much money as possible before someone else can.
Why do people say this about movies. The people creating the movie aren't doing half-assed jobs. It's pretty clear from everything he does that Peter Jackson really has a passion for these films. About the only people I could agree are "milking for money" are Newline Cinema and MGM and that's their job.
When making LotR there was absolutely a great passion behind the movies, all the way from Jackson and down to every single person involved. With the hobbit it seems to be just going through the motions, doing the same things with a different story. It's only natural I suppose. It's one thing working 100+ hours per week for almost 5 years to make a trilogy, but to do it twice? I doubt that's possible. On the other hand when New Line comes to you with a blank check and asks you to make some movies for them you are gonna say yes regardless. I don't blame them that they are trying to make a bunch of money off of this, they just won't get anymore of mine. Also, don't tell me that adding in Legolas and having a his girlfriend was necessary progress to the story. It's an obvious marketing tool to target a specific audience.
I suppose comparing them to LotR isn't fair as that might have been a once in a lifetime achievement, but it's still the obvious thing to compare them to.
The story of the Hobbit (movie) is poorly structured and lacks focus. It's split between the small adventure of the hobbit and the grand epic of the White Council vs Sauron. Having two separate storylines could have worked if the mood and feel were at least similar. But they aren't. The dwarfs are fooling around and tumbling down hills, and then cut to Gandalf/Saruman/Elrond sitting in a dark room talking for 15 minutes.
The special effects of the Hobbit are pretty bad compared to LotR, despite there being ten years between them. It's so obvious what are effects shots and what isn't that is completely destroys any immersion. The first time I watched the LotR movies I didn't recognize a single obvious effect.
I call BS on this. The scene where Gandalf breaks the bridge of Khazad-dum looked terrible back then and it looks even worse now. Straight out of the 80s.
what are you talking about.. of all things you talk about a piece of rock breaking in half? it looks totally fine to me.. heres the scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlaiBeLrntQ
Yeah wtf is that guy talking about that looks good still lol.
Still contemplating if i should try my luck at the red carpet at potsdamer platz next monday.
Would love to snap a picture with martin freeman, sir ian mckellen and especially evangeline lilly, no idea if stars actually take pictures with fans during redcarpet events though haha.
If xaver keeps destroying berlin and the rest of europa i wont go anyway.
EPT
