|
Canada11607 Posts
I can say one book stretched into three 2 hour + films is pretty Hollywood-esque.
Is it? I can't think of a single book that was turned into 3 films. Only recently have they started to split films into two with varying success- part of the problem is needing 2 separate and satisfactory story arcs rather than Harry Potter: The Camping and Harry Potter: The Battle.
But for pretty much the entire history of Hollywood, the Hollywood-esque thing to do with book adaptations to cut out everything except the skeleton or change it entirely: The Shining. At most you might get a 4 hour film like Gone with the Wind.
@Dismay
Prepare for 3 big battles. We've got some character arcs to complete, if the Laketown stuff is anything to go-by and they've been establishing Thorin's trajectory and we've still got some burgalry and a love story, but the battles will probably take up much the final film.
|
^
The Gathering of the Clouds gave me nerd chills
|
On December 18 2013 12:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote + I can say one book stretched into three 2 hour + films is pretty Hollywood-esque. Is it? I can't think of a single book that was turned into 3 films. Only recently have they started to split films into two with varying success- part of the problem is needing 2 separate and satisfactory story arcs rather than Harry Potter: The Camping and Harry Potter: The Battle. But for pretty much the entire history of Hollywood, the Hollywood-esque thing to do with book adaptations to cut out everything except the skeleton or change it entirely: The Shining. At most you might get a 4 hour film like Gone with the Wind. @Dismay Prepare for 3 big battles. We've got some character arcs to complete, if the Laketown stuff is anything to go-by and they've been establishing Thorin's trajectory and we've still got some burgalry and a love story, but the battles will probably take up much the final film.
Neither Harry Potter not LotR/Hobbit are Hollywood movies, incidentally.
|
Just got back from seeing it.
Was very pleasantly surprised. I liked it much better than the first movie. The pacing felt fine ... well, it was still a tad slow, but that is pretty fast for Peter Jackson. (I'd expected it to plod, but since they're at the meat of the story, it clipped along pretty well.) There were definitely some ridiculous moments (the entire barrel sequence and esp. the fight with Smaug in Erebor, which made absolutely no sense), but I enjoyed it for what it was, and I'm just gonna accept all the dramatic "it's a movie!" scenes, since there's no point in complaining about it, lol.
Liked the dragon well enough. Not too hot about the design, but can't criticize how they implemented the design.
Martin Freeman was wonderful, as always. 
No idea what Legolas & co. were doing in the film still. I don't quite understand their role in the story. I have to admit that Bloom has definitely grown as an actor; when he's trying to sound menacing, he actually sounds kind of menacing, and I no longer have the urge to point at the screen and laugh at him when he's trying to be all threatening.
|
On December 18 2013 13:11 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2013 12:47 Falling wrote: I can say one book stretched into three 2 hour + films is pretty Hollywood-esque. Is it? I can't think of a single book that was turned into 3 films. Only recently have they started to split films into two with varying success- part of the problem is needing 2 separate and satisfactory story arcs rather than Harry Potter: The Camping and Harry Potter: The Battle. But for pretty much the entire history of Hollywood, the Hollywood-esque thing to do with book adaptations to cut out everything except the skeleton or change it entirely: The Shining. At most you might get a 4 hour film like Gone with the Wind. @Dismay Prepare for 3 big battles. We've got some character arcs to complete, if the Laketown stuff is anything to go-by and they've been establishing Thorin's trajectory and we've still got some burgalry and a love story, but the battles will probably take up much the final film. Neither Harry Potter not LotR/Hobbit are Hollywood movies, incidentally.
Damn, he's right, neither of these films were filmed in the U.S., thus not Hollywood-esque.
Fail.
Change to Blockbuster-esque?
|
The film could be much improved by cutting out about 30 minutes especially at the end.
+ Show Spoiler +everything between "Bilbo meets Thorin while fleeing from the dragon" and "dragon makes connection/decision to attack town" is wasted time, bad action and bad cgi.
And whats with the grand music in every scene?
+ Show Spoiler +an arrow to the leg, cue "world is about to end" music.
It feels like the film desperately tries to impress and only fails because it tries so hard.
|
Honestly why can't Hollywood go back to its root of making stand alone films like the Hitchcock era to the early 2000s? All they are doing now is to milk any film franchise as much as possible w/o causing too much outrage from the public. They've found this perfect balance between having just enough materials for a new film while giving the audience a tiny satisfaction. The superhero movies (with the exception of The Avengers) have all been so boring these days w/ so many unnecessary scenes. All we wanted was to see them kick ass w/ the emotional stuff.
|
On December 18 2013 20:51 Doppelganger wrote:The film could be much improved by cutting out about 30 minutes especially at the end. + Show Spoiler +everything between "Bilbo meets Thorin while fleeing from the dragon" and "dragon makes connection/decision to attack town" is wasted time, bad action and bad cgi. And whats with the grand music in every scene? + Show Spoiler +an arrow to the leg, cue "world is about to end" music. It feels like the film desperately tries to impress and only fails because it tries so hard.
Was the CGI bad? I didnt think so but whaterever.
The grand music is just how they have done every tolkien movie with Peter Jackson, Howard Shore(think thats his name) produces some quality music.
Plus the dragon has to make the decision to attack laketown for insert book spoiler reasons 
|
On December 18 2013 13:22 babylon wrote:Just got back from seeing it. Was very pleasantly surprised. I liked it much better than the first movie. The pacing felt fine ... well, it was still a tad slow, but that is pretty fast for Peter Jackson. (I'd expected it to plod, but since they're at the meat of the story, it clipped along pretty well.) There were definitely some ridiculous moments (the entire barrel sequence and esp. the fight with Smaug in Erebor, which made absolutely no sense), but I enjoyed it for what it was, and I'm just gonna accept all the dramatic "it's a movie!" scenes, since there's no point in complaining about it, lol. Liked the dragon well enough. Not too hot about the design, but can't criticize how they implemented the design. Martin Freeman was wonderful, as always. No idea what Legolas & co. were doing in the film still. I don't quite understand their role in the story. I have to admit that Bloom has definitely grown as an actor; when he's trying to sound menacing, he actually sounds kind of menacing, and I no longer have the urge to point at the screen and laugh at him when he's trying to be all threatening.
These are pretty much my thoughts. The movie has grown up a little compared to the first one. Parts (slapstick like) i disliked in the first, didn't happend in the second. The barrel scene, i must confess, was better than expected. I imagined it worse lol.
By the way, is there a 48 frames version available too? I saw the first one in 48fps iirc, and felt like the one i saw in cinema now, was not so pin sharp. Some pictures were just blurred, especially the fast paced scenes.
|
Yes there is a HFR (48 frames) version. It makes things so much sharper, really nice during scenes with a lot of action like combat etc
|
When watching this I felt like the camera man was on crack or something. There were 4 camera angles: looking up from feet level, birds view, face close up or moving in a half circle and the damn thing would not stop moving and changing. Damn it was so ugly and bad. Any tension was lost and any drama meaningless.
|
On December 19 2013 08:57 Dunmer wrote:
Yes there is a HFR (48 frames) version. It makes things so much sharper, really nice during scenes with a lot of action like combat etc
I thought so, afterwards. Man, if the movie weren't that long i would watch it in hfr again. The cinema i was into was just bad. Blu-ray release should fix that too, i guess.
|
On December 16 2013 16:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Was good but have no idea why Orlando Bloom was even asked to be in this movie as he serves no role except as a jealous prince.
Besides fan service, I was under the impression that another reason was to show his growth as a character and why he joined the Fellowship in the first movie. Some fans speculate that Tauriel will die in the third movie, which will set him up for the Fellowship of the Ring. The Legolas in this movie is different to the Legolas in the FotR. He is similar to Thranduil, who doesn't care about what is happening outside of Mirkwood.
|
On December 20 2013 04:23 zoLo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2013 16:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Was good but have no idea why Orlando Bloom was even asked to be in this movie as he serves no role except as a jealous prince. Besides fan service, I was under the impression that another reason was to show his growth as a character and why he joined the Fellowship in the first movie. Some fans speculate that Tauriel will die in the third movie, which will set him up for the Fellowship of the Ring. The Legolas in this movie is different to the Legolas in the FotR. He is similar to Thranduil, who doesn't care about what is happening outside of Mirkwood.
But there was character growth in LotR: he originally wanted to join simply because he felt that the elves needed a representative in the fellowship, especially since the dwarves were getting in as well, but eventually he learned to respect Gimli and form a true friendship.
|
Can someone suggest times to go to the bathroom. :p
|
On December 17 2013 04:28 ImDrizzt wrote:
But I think very young people will love this movie, but not anyone over 18.
While I normally can't stand cheesy action intense movies, I actually feel like these hobbit movies are doing it right. They're fun and funny with a dose of dramatic. But what really makes them work is i get the feeling they don't take themselves too seriously. The amount of retarded no-sense action that happens is just stupid. So stupid that you can tell they're just doing it for fun, like a nod to the viewer saying isn't this just ridiculous?
The action is just absurd. Just so fucking absurd that you know its intentional and I think that makes it pretty hilarious. And the CGI is neat and the landscape is earth porn.
At first when I saw the trailer and I saw how much legolas was featured in it, I found myself shaking my head with my hopes down. Then I thought fuck it I'm just going to buy into it and enjoy it. And ultimately, I didn't mind him being featured.
My major gripe is the length. Its like being on a roller coaster you really enjoy, but it just doesn't stop. 2 hours would be a better length
Overall, this was good fun, just like the first one. Personally, I liked the first a little better.
On December 20 2013 12:13 Jerubaal wrote:
Can someone suggest times to go to the bathroom. :p
Just don't miss the barrel scene.
|
On December 20 2013 12:13 Jerubaal wrote:
Can someone suggest times to go to the bathroom. :p
I'd suggest the arrival at laketown. Or the departure from laketown/arrival at the mountain. Both are realtively weak parts of the movie.
But I myself can't remember seeing a movie of such length without a pause. I mean with some trailers, it may take up to 3,5 hours. I don't think a cinema wants to waste the chance to sell some additional food/drinks during the movie.
|
Just got back from it. Enjoyed it quite a lot. The only part that could have easily been skipped in my opinion was the love story between the dwarf and the elf, useless and boring. Other than that, all good. And holy shit that dragon...
|
On December 20 2013 16:14 itkovian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2013 04:28 ImDrizzt wrote:
But I think very young people will love this movie, but not anyone over 18. While I normally can't stand cheesy action intense movies, I actually feel like these hobbit movies are doing it right. They're fun and funny with a dose of dramatic. But what really makes them work is i get the feeling they don't take themselves too seriously. The amount of retarded no-sense action that happens is just stupid. So stupid that you can tell they're just doing it for fun, like a nod to the viewer saying isn't this just ridiculous?The action is just absurd. Just so fucking absurd that you know its intentional and I think that makes it pretty hilarious. And the CGI is neat and the landscape is earth porn. At first when I saw the trailer and I saw how much legolas was featured in it, I found myself shaking my head with my hopes down. Then I thought fuck it I'm just going to buy into it and enjoy it. And ultimately, I didn't mind him being featured. My major gripe is the length. Its like being on a roller coaster you really enjoy, but it just doesn't stop. 2 hours would be a better length Overall, this was good fun, just like the first one. Personally, I liked the first a little better. Show nested quote +On December 20 2013 12:13 Jerubaal wrote:
Can someone suggest times to go to the bathroom. :p Just don't miss the barrel scene.
I agree with you, the reason I found the first one a little bit better is because the second part seems to be the big setup for the third movie, which I have high hopes for. Maybe they can even trump the epicness the battle of the pelenor fields delivered.
|
On December 22 2013 10:07 hootsushi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2013 16:14 itkovian wrote:On December 17 2013 04:28 ImDrizzt wrote:
But I think very young people will love this movie, but not anyone over 18. While I normally can't stand cheesy action intense movies, I actually feel like these hobbit movies are doing it right. They're fun and funny with a dose of dramatic. But what really makes them work is i get the feeling they don't take themselves too seriously. The amount of retarded no-sense action that happens is just stupid. So stupid that you can tell they're just doing it for fun, like a nod to the viewer saying isn't this just ridiculous?The action is just absurd. Just so fucking absurd that you know its intentional and I think that makes it pretty hilarious. And the CGI is neat and the landscape is earth porn. At first when I saw the trailer and I saw how much legolas was featured in it, I found myself shaking my head with my hopes down. Then I thought fuck it I'm just going to buy into it and enjoy it. And ultimately, I didn't mind him being featured. My major gripe is the length. Its like being on a roller coaster you really enjoy, but it just doesn't stop. 2 hours would be a better length Overall, this was good fun, just like the first one. Personally, I liked the first a little better. On December 20 2013 12:13 Jerubaal wrote:
Can someone suggest times to go to the bathroom. :p Just don't miss the barrel scene. I agree with you, the reason I found the first one a little bit better is because the second part seems to be the big setup for the third movie, which I have high hopes for. Maybe they can even trump the epicness the battle of the pelenor fields delivered.
How can you possibly have high hopes for the third movie? It will feature the fight with the dragon, the fight with the orcs and possibly the fight with sauron. There will be no actual story, just a rehash of LotR fight scenes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
