machinesxe Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Went and saw this movie last night at 12:01 AM in 3d RPX. Highly recommended if you are a Middle Earth fan. Great movie, the usual dwarf humor and amazing action scenes! Anyone else see it? What did you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stennick Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 I haven't seen it I'm a bit put off that they are stretching one book into three movies when there isn't enough content to warrant that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonmack Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 <p>more like one book into two. the third movie is more of a between hobbit and lotr movie. but I am actually fine with the stretching out of the book to two movies.. at least I will be when I can watch them back to back with extended editions in a year or so! <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> It allows them to spend more time on composition of events, and adding to story that the pace of LOTR didn't allow. Even in the extended editions, a lot had to be shortened or left out.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigtplaystew Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Yea that bastard Peter Jackson making a great film trilogy out of one book that was largely considered unfilmable until he took over! That kind of creative ingenuity isn't welcome around here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigtplaystew Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 <p>Sorry rereading it I think I came off a bit harsher than I mean to. I was going for a laugh but I came off arrogant and dismissive, which isn't helping anyone on a message board. </p><p> </p><p> I think Stennicks concerns are reasonable and he's far from the only person to hold those views. It's been a concern for a lot of people.</p><p> </p><p> But Jackson adding content to it makes it more enjoyable for me. Not less. Because I have the original story. The way it was meant to be told. It happens to be a wonderful book. But had they followed it closely it would have been one long boring movie or two kinda thin ones. So the added content and huge changes he makes tells this great story I know but lets me do at least a little bit of guessing at what surprises I may see. And really, it's the only way it was going to be good. I firmly believe that the book can't be shot into a strict adaptation in a film. At least not a good one.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 I've got to say, I'm tired of these movies. Especially considering how much they've gone out of their way to make the Hobbit into LOTR Jr. One of the problems with hitting every story point while padding everything else is that it makes the villains look awful (it also is just dull to watch). Inserting thousands of orcs into random scenes as pointless cannon-fodder just isn't interesting, because there's zero suspense that these goons are actually going to do anything, because they aren't there in the book and in the end can't really effect any outcomes. The movie turns into a cartoon and a dwarf gets a really big combo or Legolas surfs on something, and who cares? It all looks like a video game cut scene and has the same emotional resonance. I had more story issues, but the short version is I'm just tired of watching the same movie five times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaysin Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Then don't watch them? Seems like a simple enough solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Jaysin" data-cite="Jaysin" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="37253" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Then don't watch them? Seems like a simple enough solution.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Would that it were that simple. <img alt=":(" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/frown.png.e6b571745a30fe6a6f2e918994141a47.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> Seriously though the last hour of this movie is just so poor.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stennick Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 more like one book into two. the third movie is more of a between hobbit and lotr movie. Except the second movie ends on a cliff hanger so most of the third movie they still have to cover the last part of the book so I suspect the Hobbit to be 2.9 movies with a quick bridging of the two franchises in between. Its far from mostly just two movies for one book though. I'm ok with Jackson making this movie and I'm shocked anyone ever thought it wasn't possible to film especially since everyone has been talking about it since the first set of movies came out. I just don't think it takes much in the way of imagination and creative writing to as others said pad the story and drag out every plot point. There is a reason each Harry Potter movie wasn't two or three movies. I enjoy the story and I admire Jackson's work but I think this could have been EASILY done in one movie but they couldn't pass up a chance to get three times the money from one book. Although looking at the midnight debut numbers this one could be coming out of the weekend with just over half of what the first one came out with. I must admit I do love when the studio believe something is going to be a record breaking home run and it does about half the business they expect it to. Anyway in my opinion great book boring movies. Then don't watch them? Seems like a simple enough solution. So let me get this straight if he's going to complain about something he doesn't like then he shouldn't watch them but at the same time couldn't we say the same thing for your response? If you don't like his views then don't comment on them. Simple enough solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaysin Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="37253" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>So let me get this straight if he's going to complain about something he doesn't like then he shouldn't watch them but at the same time couldn't we say the same thing for your response? If you don't like his views then don't comment on them. Simple enough solution.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> He said he didn't like the other four movies, why would he watch the fifth and expect something different? That's just an asinine thought process.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 <blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Jaysin" data-cite="Jaysin" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="37253" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>He said he didn't like the other four movies, why would he watch the fifth and expect something different? That's just an asinine thought process.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> No, I didn't. I said I was tired of the same thing for five movies. It's right up there in my post.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonmack Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 The real issue with trying to make the Hobbit today like the original book is that the original book was more of a children's story. Especially as it was written like 20 yrs before LOTR. But then after Tolkien wrote LOTR, he went back and decided to tie in events from the Hobbit and make it a prequel, such as the riddle game and the importance of the ring. So now that it's firmly established as the Hobbit being a prequel to Lord of the Rings, and after having already set the bar with the LOTR movies, you can't really go back and treat it like the original children's story, especially not with the same director. So really, I have no problem with them elevating the action and drama up to the Lord of the Rings movie level. While they probably could have crammed it into two movies, or even one long movie, really what Jackson is doing is expanding on events that were alluded to off camera in the Hobbit, and actually showing them in the movie, such as the whole Dol Guldur story and the Council of Wizards meeting in Rivendell. Of the actual parts with Bilbo and the dwarves, while some of the events have been told differently than they actually happened in the book, pretty much every event that happened is from the book. The only part I saw that was extended out was the bit in Lake Town, where we see the actual machinations of the greedy Master and Bard's character is given some background and the bit with the Dragon and the dwarves in the mountain. But really , in the book, Smaug's presence was actually very small aside from the confrontation with Bilbo, which they kept the spirit of. In the book, he goes into a rage when an item is missing, flys out, smashes the side of the mountain where the door is, and the goes to burn Lake Town and gets killed. The movie just expands his role somewhat and Thorin's motivations against Smaug. Pretty much the only thing basically tacked on is Tauriel,and her little flirtation with Kili. Legolas, while not mentioned in the book, is mentioned in LOTR as the son of Thranduil, so it's no great stretch for him to be in the Woodland halls or added to the story. The feud with the orcs and the dwarves was very real in the Hobbit, although more embellished on in the movies, and with the difference of Azog not being killed at Moria by Dain, as in the books. Bolg is the one who led the orcs to the battle of 5 armies, so his character makes sense, but it should have been him replacing Azog in the first movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 <p>In case it's not clear, everybody else can feel free to like what they want. I'm not trying to "force" my opinion on anybody, but since you brought it up:</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Dragonmack" data-cite="Dragonmack" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="37253" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> So now that it's firmly established as the Hobbit being a prequel to Lord of the Rings, and after having already set the bar with the LOTR movies, you can't really go back and treat it like the original children's story, especially not with the same director. So really, I have no problem with them elevating the action and drama up to the Lord of the Rings movie level.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> One of the problems with these movies have been the intersection of the actual text- little characterization, no women, silly plot, with the attempts to sell the movies as LOTR-style action movies. I guess my only problem is that they only halfway commit to this, and the result is a movie full of dull action, interspersed by silly parts. Just cut shape-shifting bear-men if they don't fit into your story.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Dragonmack" data-cite="Dragonmack" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="37253" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Of the actual parts with Bilbo and the dwarves, while some of the events have been told differently than they actually happened in the book, pretty much every event that happened is from the book.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This actually becomes the problem I'm talking about. Why does the movie have to hit every story point? The effect is the film feeling "over-stuffed" or just flat-out padded. It's similar to the problems "The Walking Dead" had treading water between hitting plot points the past couple seasons. Hitting every story point only pleases Tolkien purists, who are still going to be annoyed that all that "other stuff" was cut and pasted from the LOTR movies (kingsfoil, wound that will not heal, etc.) or flat-out invented. Especially when it's coming at the expense of characterization for the bunch of interchangeable dudes who follow Thorin around. Of course, having goofy dwarves wasn't such an issue before the movie became an action melo-drama, but now, maybe we should spend some time figuring out who's who instead of including truncated versions of shape-shifting dudes popping up for one scene because it was in the book.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Dragonmack" data-cite="Dragonmack" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="37253" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The only part I saw that was extended out was the bit in Lake Town, where we see the actual machinations of the greedy Master and Bard's character is given some background and the bit with the Dragon and the dwarves in the mountain. But really , in the book, Smaug's presence was actually very small aside from the confrontation with Bilbo, which they kept the spirit of. In the book, he goes into a rage when an item is missing, flys out, smashes the side of the mountain where the door is, and the goes to burn Lake Town and gets killed. The movie just expands his role somewhat and Thorin's motivations against Smaug.<p> </p><p> Pretty much the only thing basically tacked on is Tauriel,and her little flirtation with Kili. Legolas, while not mentioned in the book, is mentioned in LOTR as the son of Thranduil, so it's no great stretch for him to be in the Woodland halls or added to the story.</p><p> </p><p> The feud with the orcs and the dwarves was very real in the Hobbit, although more embellished on in the movies, and with the difference of Azog not being killed at Moria by Dain, as in the books. Bolg is the one who led the orcs to the battle of 5 armies, so his character makes sense, but it should have been him replacing Azog in the first movie.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think the incredibly lengthy, suspense-less action scenes were pretty "extended out," too. And as mentioned, just adding a bunch of orcs into every fight scene just make the orcs look like jokes. I mean, spoiler alert for the next movie, but<span style="color:#FFFFFF;"> it takes the combined power of men, elves, dwarves and eagles to beat the orc army in the book. Why not just send Legolas out there by himself in the movie version? Hundreds of orcs repeatedly fail to kill a dozen characters who don't have weapons for most of the movie. Orcs are jokes at this point, which is a silly decision knowing what's coming in later movies/books.</span></p><p> </p><p> And Smaug just sort of turns into a generic monster. And the actual meeting with Smaug was pretty disappointing, especially after how good the encounter with Gollum was in the last movie. Blanked out novel talk/spoilers:</p><p> </p><p> <span style="color:#FFFFFF;">In the book, Smaug actually has personality beyond "evil." He's greedy and arrogant, but when Bilbo appears, invisible, he becomes curious, and just tries to get information out of Bilbo, even as Bilbo tricks Smaug into giving up information about himself. In the movie, he's basically "grrrr eat hobbit," which makes him look like an idiot when he can't (since the story won't let him and we can't change it). It's also personal preference, but the movie could've easily explained why Smaug wasn't at his best, since he just woke up from his slumber, and is portrayed in the novel to be ancient- just have him start off by moving slowly, like some kind of old crocodile, and then when the Dwarves think maybe he's lost a step, have him be back at "full speed," instead of having him immediately zipping around. Instead, Smaug just kind of sucks at killing people.</span></p><p> </p><p> Again, I understand that it's a sacrifice to the "make everything like LOTR" marketing campaign, but I just don't see why there's such an insistence that these movies feel like such clones. They could actually develop the world a bit and maybe try to add some drama. That's what I would've liked to have seen instead of just slightly better CGI fights.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capelli King Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 plan to see it with the kids on sunday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackman Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 <p>I liked the movie. Didn't look forward to it, got entertained nontheless. The ending was a little lackluster in terms of timing, but we all know what will happen anyways so they might as well get it over with.</p><p> </p><p> If that one dude doesn't shoot the dragon out of the sky with that last black arrow, I will eat my hat.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.