| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On December 17 2013 02:47 Xxio wrote: lol i'm serious, i enjoyed his acting the most (despite the stupid boss fight at the end) Especially his dead stares. Unlike Bilbo's most off-putting constant changes of expression. His monotone speech was also much easier to follow than Cumberbatch's varying tones. McKellen is long known to be terrible at acting, that's why get so few roles. /sarcasm. | ||
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
| ||
|
ImDrizzt
Norway427 Posts
The dragon looked cool and all, just weird seeing him being tricked and not managing to do anything vs all the Dwarfs and the hobbit lol, just stupid. And when he decides to kill the hobit, he later gets chances, but he just, nah, changed my mind, and goes off, also silly. But I think very young people will love this movie, but not anyone over 18. | ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
On December 17 2013 04:12 Xxio wrote: huh, it's almost as if you're mad Having not seen the movie, I can't really say much, but I'd be shocked if Orlando Bloom managed even thirty seconds of better acting than Martin Freeman, lol. Nothing wrong with enjoying Orlando Bloom's acting ofc. He isn't as terrible as people like to say he is ... though I admit that I haven't seen him outside of LotR and PotC -- which, let's be honest here, doesn't require much variation in acting -- but I'm sure he's better than Keanu Reeves. >_> | ||
|
Bluejava
Sweden135 Posts
I mean the book is so short  | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On December 17 2013 04:47 babylon wrote: Having not seen the movie, I can't really say much, but I'd be shocked if Orlando Bloom managed even thirty seconds of better acting than Martin Freeman, lol. Nothing wrong with enjoying Orlando Bloom's acting ofc. He isn't as terrible as people like to say he is ... though I admit that I haven't seen him outside of LotR and PotC -- which, let's be honest here, doesn't require much variation in acting -- but I'm sure he's better than Keanu Reeves. >_> I think his expression is pronounced "umad"... | ||
ImbaTosS
United Kingdom1718 Posts
On December 17 2013 05:22 IvorYchef wrote: I dont know if I have read the same book as you guys but do some of you really try to compare the book with the movie? I understand if you do it with longers storys such as Harry Potter etc etc but this little story doesnt even make any sense. I mean the book is so short Yeah, this is why it should have been ONE movie, made in order to bring the story to life. Not to bastardise a really charming and adventurous story, invent ridiculous lore and mythology to shoehorn in, or include shit like "The legends were true!" fighting mountains omgWTFwherefuckdidthatcomefromwhatlegends for the sake of Holywood-esque special effects wankery! | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
Loved the first trilogy but thought The Hobbit part 1 wasn't worth the ticket. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On December 17 2013 05:37 ImbaTosS wrote: Yeah, this is why it should have been ONE movie, made in order to bring the story to life. Not to bastardise a really charming and adventurous story, invent ridiculous lore and mythology to shoehorn in, or include shit like "The legends were true!" fighting mountains omgWTFwherefuckdidthatcomefromwhatlegends for the sake of Holywood-esque special effects wankery! There are many reasons why they made it a trilogy. One of the biggest being the money it would bring in. That's what Hollywood does guys. There's a reason why a lot of filmmakers are so adamant about having final cut. In every epic adventure, you're going to see the love story snuck in there every time like the last Pirates movie. Was it necessary? Not really, but they do it anyway so there's something for everyone and in many cases it makes the suits happy. That's the world we live in. | ||
|
HolydaKing
21254 Posts
Only thing I hate is that we have to wait another year for the next movie... I feel with some less unnecessary scenes it easily could have been done in 2 movies. Whatever. Also lol @ them adding Tauriel, well... needed a female character I guess. Not complaining, though, as I don't mind the movie to be a bit different from the books. | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
But I think very young people will love this movie, but not anyone over 18. Well that's a neat assumption/ projection. re: three films There are other reasons for expanding to more than one film. The number one complaint you hear from any adaptation is they 'skipped so much stuff.' This is perhaps the one interpretation where that did not happen. Things like the Laketown interpretation are what works better than a straight adaptation. However, beyond the money which would be from the studio exec side and given that the Plan was two films and only turned into three part way through... I think Peter Jackson fell victim of becoming lost in the fantasy storytelling... a classic problem that even great fantasy writers fall to: GRRM and Robert Jordan come to mind. The expansion isn't always always for mercenary reasons, but it seems restraint and the inner editor falls by the wayside, the longer authors write in fantasy. Perhaps a more positive example (I've never read them, so I can't commentate as to the quality) but even JK Rowling seemed to have lost the ability to tell a shorter story. I would defend the idea, that tighter editing would have made two very solid, efficient movies that would felt far less meandering. But I would not want to lose the amount of interpretative material that would simply happen if we dropped back down to one film. Not unless we're getting a film of Novocento proportions. Having seen so many great books cut down to a skeleton to adapt it to the screen, I don't mind seeing three films that finally throw in everything including the kitchen sink and a couple reno additions. (In high school, I dreamed how you could get two satisfying story arcs out of each LortR book to make it 6 films and actually include so much of the skipped stuff.) I honestly do not believe you can start with LotR's and then go backwards into The Hobbit and straight adapt without any regard to the LotR's and make it feel satisfying. Ten years from now (who am I kidding- 5) when someone reboots it, I think we could see a one film straight adaptation, The Hobbit and it would make sense because it exists independent Jackson's darker LotR's trilogy. But not now, not off the back of Jackson's original trilogy. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
Zooper31
United States5713 Posts
On December 17 2013 16:21 DannyJ wrote: I have to admit, as much as I find the none stop roller coaster scenes in these movies very tedious and repetitive, I found the barrel scene to be very enjoyable! They just went totally and insanely over the top with that one... When the fat dwarf started bouncing around in the barrel on the sides of the river I literally started laughing out loud in the theater. There's few and far between movies in which I will actually do that including comedies. | ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
On December 15 2013 10:44 Zooper31 wrote: How Sauron was portrayed put me in awe and showed just how powerful and evil he truly was. It's actually pretty accurate to the lore. It's said in the Silmarillion that Sauron was the mightiest of the Maiar while Melkor was the hands down Strongest of the Valar. They were all put some essence from Eru and maybe that this power strayed them away from collaborating order. Sauron the Great always admired Melkor's idea of order from only one person and he didn't like the mess created by all together meaning everyone doing his own thing. He was evil for the sake of order just like how he served Melkor in the first age. He did things Melkor couldn't easily achive on his own and surprassed all beings on rank in his service. There were 3 maia that could be considered as strong as Sauron were Ungoliant the spider spirit, Eonwe the maiar of Manwe and bannerman of his armies and Gothmog the head of Balrogs. Gandalf and other wizards in the Middle Earth was sent more like an advisor more than the protector. They were never meant to fight on their own and they were not that strong characters even though Gandalf the White was reraised by Manwe as a strong being. Gandalf the Grey is nowhere near the power of Sauron even without his ring. | ||
|
icystorage
Jollibee19350 Posts
On December 18 2013 08:37 Aelfric wrote: It's actually pretty accurate to the lore. It's said in the Silmarillion that Sauron was the mightiest of the Maiar while Melkor was the hands down Strongest of the Valar. They were all put some essence from Eru and maybe that this power strayed them away from collaborating order. Sauron the Great always admired Melkor's idea of order from only one person and he didn't like the mess created by all together meaning everyone doing his own thing. He was evil for the sake of order just like how he served Melkor in the first age. He did things Melkor couldn't easily achive on his own and surprassed all beings on rank in his service. There were 3 maia that could be considered as strong as Sauron were Ungoliant the spider spirit, Eonwe the maiar of Manwe and bannerman of his armies and Gothmog the head of Balrogs. Gandalf and other wizards in the Middle Earth was sent more like an advisor more than the protector. They were never meant to fight on their own and they were not that strong characters even though Gandalf the White was reraised by Manwe as a strong being. Gandalf the Grey is nowhere near the power of Sauron even without his ring. you read all that from the Silmarillion?! wow, i only read through the first few pages but got bored | ||
|
Raidern
Brazil3821 Posts
| ||
|
Vorenius
Denmark1979 Posts
On December 17 2013 05:37 ImbaTosS wrote: Yeah, this is why it should have been ONE movie, made in order to bring the story to life. Not to bastardise a really charming and adventurous story, invent ridiculous lore and mythology to shoehorn in, or include shit like "The legends were true!" fighting mountains omgWTFwherefuckdidthatcomefromwhatlegends for the sake of Holywood-esque special effects wankery! I was sceptical about the whole trilogy concept after the first one, but after seeing where they are taking the story that doesn't really bother me anymore. Also, the mountain giants are taken straight from the book aren't they? So that seems to be a weird bone to start picking at. There are plenty of things wrong with the movies, so no reason to start making up more On December 18 2013 08:37 Aelfric wrote: Sauron's ring or Gandalf's ring? ... Gandalf the Grey is nowhere near the power of Sauron even without his ring.  | ||
|
Dismay
United States1180 Posts
And I still liked this film more than the entirety of Peter Jackson's LotR. My only hope is that the third movie does not end up in one massive, retarded clusterfuck of a battle like Return of the King. I mean, it's going to, but I can hope. | ||
|
rkshox
Taiwan536 Posts
I watched the film on Saturday going in with no expectations, just looking for an entertaining movie. All in all, aside from Legolas' vampiristic bright shiny blue eyes, I enjoyed the movie. It was a little too predictable how + Show Spoiler + moonlight, not sunlight showed the secret keyhole Sucks we have to wait a year for the final installment. Which will probably be a Return of the King kind of battle. | ||
| ||
|
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Invitational
Cure vs Zoun
SHIN vs Classic
ByuN vs MaxPax
Percival vs YoungYakov
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
Serral vs Rogue
BlizzCon
IdrA vs MC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
