Watched it today, surely did not regret it. I'm in fact happy they did not make it exactly like the book, and while not all of it is better, some aspects certainly are. The barrely chase was a bit over the top, but funny to watch.The woodelfs are kinda meh, I can understand why they are portrayed that way. However I think the part in the book (iirc) where the dwarfs were lost in the wood, then saw a group of elves celebrating from far, approached it end then the elfs vanished; this part was a very revealing. I remember the elves in the book where not arrogant because they believed they could save themselves; but because they were captured by their own decadent way of life and did not much care about anything else then celebrating and getting drunk, in some way wasting their own enormous potential. Maybe my brain tricks me here; it's a long time since I read the book. The sea-town is in general very well-presented. The dragon is not any more or less silly as it was in the book; and this is something I definitely did not expect. The dwarf's arrival on the montain was a little underwhelming. The addition of Tauriel was a smart move, but it might have been even better if Legolas would have been just a small cameo.
Was there a scene about how gandalf found thorins (grand?-) father in saurons prison in the first movie, or is this yet to come?
On December 15 2013 00:23 ETisME wrote: I finally got convinced to watch the movie with my fd after the huge disappointment of the first one. definitly an improvement (or maybe because of the dragon??) but overall I am just a little too tired of Peter Jackson movies' CGI. I don't know if it's just me but the movies try so hard to present every locations as grand/magnificent/haunting as possible. It can be cool if it won't all CGI based and every single moment has some level of CGI applied to it.
it's not about the quality of the CGI, I am just tired of seeing grande scenery again and again and again.
Yes, gives us crappy scenery and ugly sets. /sarcasm.
People really like to hate on things, even if they have no reason.
It reminds me of people that are just annoyed at another. No matter what the annoying person does, no matter how innocuous, it's still going to seem very annoying because of the bias.
Barrel scene was so over the top it was comical at times and that was completely awesome, had a good laugh.
Smaug dialogue was simply amazing, gave chills.
How Sauron was portrayed put me in awe and showed just how powerful and evil he truly was.
Other than that I enjoyed the movie overall more so than the first one. Didn't read books at all just comparing movies, don't know how true they stayed etc.
On December 14 2013 11:01 Mothra wrote: I'm disappointed to hear that this movie continues the all action zero plot of the last. Peter Jackson did a good job with LotR, why are these Hobbit movies like amusement park rides?
$$$.
And guess what? Despite your bitchiness and claim of disappointment, you're going to go watch it.
Enjoy.
Uh, the LotR trilogy didn't make good $$$? That's news to me. Good job though trying to cover up idiotic answer with insults out of nowhere.
So what? You're still going to go watch it. Good job acting all anal about a movie that you are clearly going to go watch anyway. If you truly believe what you're saying, then let your wallet do the talking and boycott the movie. I bet you won't.
On December 14 2013 11:01 Mothra wrote: I'm disappointed to hear that this movie continues the all action zero plot of the last. Peter Jackson did a good job with LotR, why are these Hobbit movies like amusement park rides?
$$$.
And guess what? Despite your bitchiness and claim of disappointment, you're going to go watch it.
Enjoy.
Uh, the LotR trilogy didn't make good $$$? That's news to me. Good job though trying to cover up idiotic answer with insults out of nowhere.
So what? You're still going to go watch it. Good job acting all anal about a movie that you are clearly going to go watch anyway. If you truly believe what you're saying, then let your wallet do the talking and boycott the movie. I bet you won't.
You know, as much as tend to disagree with the naysayers, they are perfectly free to express their displeasure without you getting all hostile towards them.
It's a good thing that the predecessor dramatically lowered what I expected from this series of movies.
Well, where do I start? Ah, how about the CGI-laden roller coaster-like action sequences? At least the barrel scene was kind of fun. The last one with Smaug completely ruined the awesome dragon I thought he would be. How can anyone claim he's the best dragon ever put on the big screens when he chases a bunch of dwarfs (and a hobbit) like a headless chicken without doing any damage, only to fall into a trap that was blatant in the making. Yes, Smaug is too arrogant for his own good, but he's not retarded.
How about the introduction of Legolas and Tauriel, just to pad the film with something, anything, to fill the running time. Why stop there when we can talk about the awesome little love triangle that popped up between the she-elf and Fili, just to make us care for the latter when he's offed in the final movie? Yeah, that wasn't cheesy or thin at all. If they wanted us to feel something for him and his brother Kili, why not go more into how they're the last of Thorin's kin, and how their deaths would affect the line of Durin?
I want to say 'I told you so' to everyone who thought this stretched out trilogy would actually work, but it's way too easy at this point.
Just saw it and I enjoyed it. The pacing is much better, for certain.
I do like that we stayed in Lake Town a bit. While it worked in the book, I don't think you could satisfactorily introduce Bard in the same way: four pages before + Show Spoiler +
he shoots down Smaug
we get the "grim-voiced fellow."
I miss the introductions given by Gandalf to Beorn as that plus the goblin and warg hide, plus the 'do not go out at night'/ bear gathering really made Beorn. But the film really stayed too long in one place. Sure the barrels and the forge-battle were overmuch, but I was prepared to enjoy and so did enjoy. For me, the Lake Town sequences with Bard more than makes up for those two excesses. There's something rather Dicksonian about it, but I have a hard time identifying why I liked it so much.
Personally, I don't mind Tauriel as often fantasy/ sci-fi the Other cultures falls into monolythic viewpoints, but between Thranduil, Legolas, and Tauriel you get multiple views on exactly what elves ought to be doing. The face melted reveal was a nice touch for a couple reasons. One, I had been considering just how scarred a race might get if they never aged and suffered many battles. And two, it plays very much into the original idea of Elves aka the Faerie where things are not always what they seem.
And for that reason, it's actually littler things that bother me. Gandalf's staff breaking (again.) Or no hart/ hunters, enchanted river, and disappearing feast. This was where Tolkien was really pulling on the Faerie tradition, but I guess the outdoor feasts wouldn't worked so well with all those spiders & orcs running around.
They are playing up the Balin & Frodo connection which is good, because we didn't get Bilbo sneaking past Balin on watch in the first movie. Balin was the first dwarf to really accept Bilbo and it was after that skipped event, but we see that relationship more here, so I'm happy.
Allow me to give you the key for google to introduce you; his name.
Guillermo del Toro.
Granted he is very skilled I just don't think Jackson deserves all of the blame sent his way.
After watching the behind the scenes with Peter Jackson of the first Hobbit film, I'm not sure that is the case. When del Toro left and Jackson finally decided to take it over, what he saw was a great del Toro film, but he couldn't film a del Toro film not being del Toro, so a great amount of it was done over.
In other words, rather truly or not Jackson is basically shouldering whatever comes his way whether blame or praise. They honour del Toro at the beginning of the behind the scenes, but reading between the lines, I think they pretty much started over and the del Toro credit is more due to his work at the beginning, but not to any lasting changes that made it in. A great portion of the first film's excesses that people thought were del Toro (Radagast for instance) I seem to recall were actually Jackson's.
Just saw the movie and I must say, WTF Tauriel you biatch. She ran out knowing that Legolas was going to follow her and used his feelings for her to assist her in finding her dwarf lover. Then when he went off to fight 20 orc + leader, she abandon him. Atleast Lego got orc to put his stress upon.
On December 15 2013 00:23 ETisME wrote: I finally got convinced to watch the movie with my fd after the huge disappointment of the first one. definitly an improvement (or maybe because of the dragon??) but overall I am just a little too tired of Peter Jackson movies' CGI. I don't know if it's just me but the movies try so hard to present every locations as grand/magnificent/haunting as possible. It can be cool if it won't all CGI based and every single moment has some level of CGI applied to it.
it's not about the quality of the CGI, I am just tired of seeing grande scenery again and again and again.
Yes, gives us crappy scenery and ugly sets. /sarcasm.
People really like to hate on things, even if they have no reason.
It reminds me of people that are just annoyed at another. No matter what the annoying person does, no matter how innocuous, it's still going to seem very annoying because of the bias.
You completely miss his point.
Jackson sceneries are so over the top, and so obviously made so that you see them and say "woooaaaw so beauuuutiful" that it becomes utterly boring. You can't just throw for 3 hours 300 meters slow motion cascades at your audience and expect that people will engage with it, just like you can't add cream and sugar ad eternam to a dessert and expect it will get better.
ALthough, apparently you can since there are still a lot of people to like The Hobbit and LotR and to think it is great cinema, which, honestly puzzles me.
Why exactly ? Is a pothead who really has zero clue of how much work and effort was put in the lord of the rings trilogy. It is one of the most idiotic pseudo intelectual rants i have ever read.
I loved the LOTR films when they first came out 10 years ago but I haven't watched them ever again since. I've tried and every time I've wished for a shorter, more condensed cut with less drawn out scenes and irrelevant plotlines. LOTR had a good amount of source material to begin with, but now the hobbit lasts for the same nine hours but with less actual plot. The fact that it took a lot of hours, money and tons of CGI doesn't make it a good movie. Not to mention that the acting by pretty much everyone in the movie is on Keanu Reeves-matrix level.
It's a good money making machine no doubt, but I was just bored last night in cinema. The movie ending was actually a relief, and the only surprise in the entire movie was where it ended.
I'm not sure if some of what i write is spoiler, so instead of just hiding the entire post i will pick out the most "spoiler parts"
Watched it yesterday, summed up in 3 words : it was awesome, not a masterpiece, but a really good movie.
I can see where alot of the complaints about the first part comes from, but still disagree, it seems like people either complain about it trying to be to serious/epic (to be like lotr) or to silly and thrill ride (not like lotr). In the end i think the problem is that the Hobbit can never compare to the impact on the original trilogy. But thats another discussion
Some of the re-imagining were imo FUCKING awesome; Beon + Show Spoiler +
being a scary guy instead of the jolly guy was a good move,
imo the problem was in fact that the scene felt rushed.
Mirkwood was really well done, the Spiders was old Jackson horror.
Lake town was a cool place, but did not like the comical leader of the city, to much of a please-hate-me character.
Another really good reimagining was both that it was Bards+ Show Spoiler +
That special (magical-iron-somthing) Big arrows to kill a dragon and how the reason Smaug has a soft spot was that one of the dragon killer arrows open up + its gonna make so much more sense that a big arrow kills him than a small black arrow does. some elities are gonna bitch about it wasn't like that in the books, but i can tell you EVERYONE else would be pissed if a tiny arrow killed the mightest creature next to the Balrog.
Showin the rings effect on Bilbo is awesome, that is one of the instances where the the Hobbit really works comming after LotR, WE know how important and dangerous it is, but he don't, love it. Thorin being blind for everything but being king also is awesome caus it reflects on the the effect the ring has on people, and how Thorin in some way are totally like Smaug, the one all agree are evil and greedy
speaking of Smaug: Beautiful, simply mindblowing. Loved every part of it. The + Show Spoiler +
extended chase scene was good for 2 simple reasons: we got to see more of Erebor (reminds alot of Moria, suprise) and well.... more dragon, i always hated how the Dwarfs never even encounted the Dragon.
decides to leave to destroy lake town, he has a showdown with Thorin (fair enough) but how when he doesn't die of it, instead of REALLY wanting to kill them now, he goes with was he planned to do: go to lake town,
it was a good place to end the movie, if he had died, i honestly think alot of people wouldn't go to the third part at all.
The elven girl was cool. I have stopped getting angry at how over the top good elves are at this point, its just stupid, moving on. The romance was..... not as bad as i feared, but still kinda annoying how the female has to have something romantic to do.... so much for not making stereotypes. As much as i don't like Legolas, it was cool to see him being and asshole.
Oh and i love more Dol Guldor, love how we see what the hell happened down there + without it, people not familiar with the books would be confused - And ANGRY - that Gandalf all of the sudden dissapeares until the end of the story.
hmmm not sure if i have anything else to add. For the people who didn't like the first, i would say this one is far better.
Some warnings: So much CGI (but we knew that) A bit over the top ninja action but hey it made people LOL in the theater. All in all i was more than sadisfied with it.
Also the movie was (alot?) shorter than all the other it seems, the movie started 12 and we were already done 14:30, maybe he listen to the complain of it being to long (and yet people still bitch, suprise)
huh, that got a bit longer than i intended it to be, concider it a small review i guess.
PS: This is the end credit song, alot less underplayed than earlier songs. And tbh i think it in fact really fits, its somber tone is a really good transition according to the end where + Show Spoiler +
Smaug now is gonna go and fucking destroy lake town, and how Bilbo realized that becaus of their actions, they have doomed the
humans.
Instead of comparing this to "Misty Mountains" that is better both music-wise and context wise in the universe, what makes this song really good is how the first was a song from the Dwarf perspective, where this one is from the Humans POV.
I can see how it's a bit to... normal/Emo'esque, and as i said, the misty mountains is just such a good folk song that by direct comparison it doens't hold up, but as a .... story song(?) it's really good. The first 30 sec are really good.
PPS: where there any credit songs other than "May it Be" by Enya in LotR? not thinking of pippin songs and all the In-movie songs, but as credit songs
On December 15 2013 00:23 ETisME wrote: I finally got convinced to watch the movie with my fd after the huge disappointment of the first one. definitly an improvement (or maybe because of the dragon??) but overall I am just a little too tired of Peter Jackson movies' CGI. I don't know if it's just me but the movies try so hard to present every locations as grand/magnificent/haunting as possible. It can be cool if it won't all CGI based and every single moment has some level of CGI applied to it.
it's not about the quality of the CGI, I am just tired of seeing grande scenery again and again and again.
Yes, gives us crappy scenery and ugly sets. /sarcasm.
People really like to hate on things, even if they have no reason.
It reminds me of people that are just annoyed at another. No matter what the annoying person does, no matter how innocuous, it's still going to seem very annoying because of the bias.
You completely miss his point.
Jackson sceneries are so over the top, and so obviously made so that you see them and say "woooaaaw so beauuuutiful" that it becomes utterly boring. You can't just throw for 3 hours 300 meters slow motion cascades at your audience and expect that people will engage with it, just like you can't add cream and sugar ad eternam to a dessert and expect it will get better.
ALthough, apparently you can since there are still a lot of people to like The Hobbit and LotR and to think it is great cinema, which, honestly puzzles me.
How do you mean exactly? Like they should scale back on Mirkwood, the Elf Halls, & Laketown. Or more the giant forge stuff and mountain shots? Or something else. I mean we are going to different locales- to me the forges were much too large, but Laketown was wonderful.
On December 16 2013 01:04 Xxio wrote: Going to see it in a few hours. Expecting a safely bland action-adventure targeting ages 10-16. Oh well.
With your mindset going in at least you won't be as dissapointed as I was, I literally just got home from seeing the film and it was a terrible Youtube live-action'esq version of the middle/end of the Tolkien book. From the very first run and gun scenes I knew I was already in for a rude awakening since I had gone thinking it was going to be a masterpiece. I should have taken the hint that was "An Unexpected Journey".
Being a huge fan of Tolkiens work and also a big fan of the LotR trilogy that PJ did its sad that he went from making films that seemed aimed at young adults/adults to something that even a child would probably not enjoy. I hate to be such a downer but I personally don't think it could have been worse even if Jackson had tried. Glad I wasted 6.50 on the regular ticket and not Regals 30 dollar version that gives the digital film 4 days early, I won't be buying this one once it hits dvd.
Well now after watching the extended version of the first hobbit I have to say that there are a lot of really good scenes in it. All the dwarves get more screen time and lines so you get to know each one as you would in the books. I know alt of people didn't like that you only really knew some of the dwarves.
Also the crew and cast explain why they do the things they do, and a good amount of it makes sense. Like radagadt and his rabbits, because how can your ride a horse through a deep grown forest and how can a horse out run a bunch of wargs. So he imagined this slay of giant rabbits like slay dogs. They then found these rabbits that are the same size as some large dogs and put them in. Until the. I figured they wanted gandalf to be the only wizard on horseback or something trivial.
Basically for other people who liked the movie but have things they disliked the extended version is worth a consider. The scenes in rivendel are great in the extended version
EPT
