Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[blacksinow]

So, this movie is out and all, but what I am wondering is if it was as good as the first Hobbit movie or any of the Lord of the Rings movies.

[GarandMarine]

I am going to see it tonight. I will post a brief review upon my return from the theater.

[Blue Kitty]

If you enjoyed the last one you'll enjoy this one, especially with Tauriel, Smaug, and Thranduil

[pwhodges]

It's unusual to see reviewers disagreeing as much over a movie as I've seen for this one.  There's clearly a fundamental division between those who watch an adaptation of a Tolkien story and those who watch a movie by Jackson.

[blacksinow]

It's unusual to see reviewers disagreeing as much over a movie as I've seen for this one.  There's clearly a fundamental division between those who watch an adaptation of a Tolkien story and those who watch a movie by Jackson.

What, even moreso then the whole "No Bombadil" discussion on the original LOTR movies?

[pwhodges]

Well, that was a misjudgement...

Hey, they've added so much to The Hobbit, perhaps they could have fitted Bombadil in there and killed two birds with one stone!

[GarandMarine]

From what I understand though, the additions are all canon Tolkein, and cover the events surrounding the Hobbit, leading up to the Fellowship of the Ring.

[ChaoSera]

I liked it, but I was somewhat irked by just how far they strayed from the event of the books.

(click to show/hide)

Most off all, this beginning love between Kili and Thauriel is just ridiculous.

[blacksinow]

I want a set of books that only contain the story of the Hobbit, not the Hobbit with other fragments of canon lore added. It's about the same to me as them not adding Bombadil for other people in the Lord of the Rings.

[GarandMarine]

Set of books? How about just "The Hobbit"?

I actually like what Jackson is doing with the Trilogy, hitting the real length and breadth of the story of The Hobbit, while digging in to the events surrounding the events of the same, which I feel makes The Hobbit an even better prequel to LOTR.

(click to show/hide)

For example the Necromancer and the return of Sauron are only hinted at in The Hobbit, but provide a VERY important backdrop to the coming events of LOTR. The weird romance sub plot's kinda out of nowhere... but other then that this shit is cash and I am fully on board with what Mr. Jackson is doing.

[blacksinow]

Movies I mean. I liked the fact that it only hinted about the return of Sauron, that it was an adventure for Bilbo and nothing really beyond that.

[GarandMarine]

Sure, but when you're bringing fans over who have only ever watched the movie, and you're prepping them for the movies, a bit more exposition is required to make everything make sense. Sure you could throw a wall of text at the end of The Hobbit to explain how all this leads into LOTR exactly beyond Bilbo finding the ring, and the various vague comments from Gandalf about dark powers rising, but that's telling, not showing. When in doubt show, don't tell, and Peter Jackson is showing us the complete story of The Hobbit and answering the question every single person who hadn't read the rest of the lore would be asking if JUST The Hobbit went to film "Where the hell did Gandalf go? Where the hell did all this stuff come from at the finale that isn't adequately explained?" While in the books The Hobbit just being a hell of an adventure for one particular hobbitses works for the books, but for what's going on with the films it's just not going to aim for mission success.

[blacksinow]

But... the orcs didn't chase the fourteen to Rivendell though.

[LeeC]

saw it last night.  I enjoyed it.  It was fun.  Rather liked how the book did things but this Jackson version is entertaining.

Plus seeing Stephen Colbert in it for a brief second was awesome!

[Metope]

Yeah I quite enjoyed it too, although somehow there seemed to be too much going on at the same time as nothing actually happened. Some of it seemed borderline unnecessary, but I assume it's mostly a build-up for the last movie so I'll let it slide until then.

It's been years since I read the book so I don't remember what's in it or not anyway, but I don't think it would have mattered to me since I don't want movie adaptations to follow their original source too closely. Might as well just read the book again instead. Sometimes it's difficult since I have images in my head about how certain things should be, but usually it's more entertaining to see how other people have interpreted it.

[blacksinow]

I also had just seen it, and I thought it was interesting, but the ending frustrated me to no end.

[RedWolf4]

You really do have to go into this understanding that it's not The Hobbit the children's book, but the historical version of events  that lead to The Lord of The Rings.

[Kugai]

[LTK]

You really do have to go into this understanding that it's not The Hobbit the children's book, but the historical version of events  that lead to The Lord of The Rings.

Even though I know it's appropriate given the scale of Tolkien's works, I can't help but do a double-take at your use of 'historical'.

I saw it tonight, in IMAX. It's amazing how much of a difference the high frequency recording makes. So smooth! So crisp! I don't regret spending €15 on it.

[Edguy]

So, this movie is out and all, but what I am wondering is if it was as good as the first Hobbit movie or any of the Lord of the Rings movies.

Definitively better than the first one, but doesn't measure up to the ROTR movies.

Saw it today, Smaug is pretty impressive, and the whole river scene was exhilarating. Would have loved to see a fight between Beorn and the warg riders, tho. Jackson obviously had the money and ability to put in extra action/effects scenes wherever he felt like it, not that I'm complaining

Being me, I'm always a little bothered by the lazy dramatic arcs and black/white characters, but that's Tolkien for you 

[Blue Kitty]

Don't worry, Beorn will be back for the Battle of the Five Armies hopefully

[TheEvilDog]

I saw it the day after release and while I enjoyed DoS, it did feel very much like all filler. Which isn't surprising, since the original idea for the series was to just make 2 films, the idea of having a third film coming up late in production. (Hence Gandalf's little quip in AUJ about all great stories needing a little embellishment).

With regards to the criticism of Peter Jackson cutting some elements from the books, I have to say....he's right to. We all know that what works well on paper, doesn't necessarily translate well to the screen, as shown by so many dreadful adaptations over the years. But the thing about the Lord of the Rings is that there was so frigging much there that you can't possibly get everything there and keep a coherent film. The most egregious example is Tom Bombadil, while a nice little distraction, it's also admitted by several Tolkien scholars to be a huge break in the pace of the story, especially the agency of getting Frodo out of the Shire.

As it is, Peter Jackson, while having a great deal of resources making these films, still only had a limited amount of time and money to make 6 films with a cast of major and supporting character hitting several dozen (as in characters with names and defined roles), while keeping incredibly loyal to the source material, sacrifices had to be made.

[Lupercal]

I do really like the Hobbit films - there are certain characters that stand out this far in, and ones that are still forgotten. I think this isn't quite as ...easy... to like as LOTR because the characters aren't quite as plain and likable. By this time in the LOTR trilogy, you're following three small, diverse groups - Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli, Merry/Pippin, Frodo/Sam. Gandalf also turns up. It's good, each group has their strengths. In the Hobbit, you've got Bilbo, Thorin, Balin...that's about it. Kili & Fili are getting a bit more screen time, but it's still hard to love, say, Bombur, or Bofur, and even Legolas here comes across as a bit of an arse, but I suppose that's what he's meant to seem like.

I thought DOS was well done - Jackson is very good at what he does. The only thing that really pissed me off and took me out of the film was the God-awful point of view shots from the barrels. Why? Why are they there? They look so out of place. Urgh. Excited for the conclusion through - and I really did like Bard's character.

[LTK]

I thought DOS was well done - Jackson is very good at what he does. The only thing that really pissed me off and took me out of the film was the God-awful point of view shots from the barrels. Why? Why are they there? They look so out of place. Urgh.

Those shots jumped out to me as well, but I actually thought it looked pretty good. It conveys a sense of peril and shows that the river is rough and they're constantly on the brink of drowning.

[Edguy]

Don't worry, Beorn will be back for the Battle of the Five Armies hopefully

It's over 10 years since I read the book, so I don't remember a think. Makes the movies more interesting, tho!

[ev4n]

Man, Smaug was well done.

[Edguy]

Man, Smaug was well done.

Agreed.

[LeeC]

its interesting that they are showing the forming of the armies sent to fight at the lonely mountain.

[Lines]

Everything with Smaug was so freaking good. Cumberbatch freaking nailed it.

[94ssd]

Everything with Smaug was so freaking good. Cumberbatch freaking nailed it.

I had no idea Benedict Cumberbatch was the voice of Smaug. Now I really want to see it.

[Lines]

He's both Smaug and the necromancer!

[RedWolf4]

Well now, I did not know that. That's pretty cool.

[TheFuriousWombat]

Finally got around to seeing this. First thoughts: Tauriel is Peter Jackson's JarJar Binks - just an awful, obnoxious, and useless character. I enjoyed the movie overall, but there was way too much filler, way too many endless and ultimately pointless Orc slaughtering sequences, and way too much superfluous nonsense - I don't give a shit about some dumb elf having a thing for some other elf and also for some dwarf she just met when it has literally no connection whatsoever to the plot or to character development. I don't see why Legolas had to be involved. I don't know why the Master of Laketown had to be such a goofy caricature or why Bard had to become such a major character with a cliched backstory. The movie could have been a solid hour shorter and would have felt a lot tighter. Turns out that the concerns over stretching the adaptation into a trilogy were pretty justified. That being said, Smaug was cool, Gandalf is badass as always, Martin Freeman is a good actor, the action scenes were a lot of fun up until they went on for too long, and it made me look forward to the third movie which is sure to be epic.

[LeeC]

Yeah, the whole political situation with Laketown kind of irked me.  Bard being some sort of revolutionary and the master being the goblin king of the humans.  Just over the top.  Really wish they kept it like in the book for that part.

My thoughts on Fili, Kili and Taureil.  Potential major spoilers for those who have not read the book.

(click to show/hide)

Honestly I really wish they kept to the book for this and not split the group.  I see what they are trying to do.  Thorin goes bananers over the Arkenstone (its his version of the one ring with Aragon, but going down a "what if" path if Aragon was seduced by the dark side).  Fili is next in line when Thorin dies (Thorin mentioned it) but will probably die in the big battle of 5 armies.  Kili next in line becomes king under the mountain. Kili and Tauriel mend relations between Dwarves and Elves (probably get married or some such).  Having a kin-ship with Bard, who undoubtedly will become ruler of Dale after they rebuild it) will strengthen all 3 ties more so after the battle of 5 armies.

And yes Legolas was more or less for the fans.  Calling Tauriel Jar Jar is a bit over the top to be honest.  She is no where near as annoying or racist a caricature.  I do agree that she is more or less a forced love triangle (not unlike in LotR arwen-aragorn-eowynn they teased at in two towers...which was dumb!).  Her only role is to show a badass woman character for female audiences, and to be shoed into a love story.  One of the actresses request was for there not to be a forced love story...only for them to put on in it after she signed up for the roll...

[Blue Kitty]

Tauriel is Peter Jackson's JarJar Binks

For the record, when I took this job, in 2011, I made one stipulation. That’s it. I just said… I swear to God, I said, ‘I will not do this film if you will not guarantee me one thing. You have to guarantee me there will be no love triangle.’ And there wasn’t. For the whole time I shot. For a year of shooting there was no love triangle...

...And then, I came back for reshoots in 2012 and they were like, ‘Well, we made a couple of alterations to some scenes and we added a couple more scenes,’” the actress continued. “And all of a sudden manifested a love triangle before my very eyes and the film was shot and I’m in and there’s no getting out and there was no escaping it.

[LeeC]

Thank you Blue Kitty! the gif, the quote, everything!

[Barmymoo]

I wonder whether there was any way she could have argued that they had breached her contract by forcing her to do something that she had made a term of the employment contract at the start? At the very least she might have had a good defence to being sued if she'd just flat out refused to film the extra scenes.

[pwhodges]

But you can get known as a trouble-maker even if you're right, with the inevitable effect on your future employment.

[LeeC]

old adage of "The show must go on!" comes to mind.  Also if it wasn't in writing there's no guarantee that its enforceable.  Chances are after shooting in 2011, they did a test screening of the movie script with the executives and they demanded a love story to entice the female demographic or some sort of BS boardroom ratings nonsense.

[TheFuriousWombat]

And yes Legolas was more or less for the fans.  Calling Tauriel Jar Jar is a bit over the top to be honest.  She is no where near as annoying or racist a caricature.  I do agree that she is more or less a forced love triangle (not unlike in LotR arwen-aragorn-eowynn they teased at in two towers...which was dumb!).  Her only role is to show a badass woman character for female audiences, and to be shoed into a love story.  One of the actresses request was for there not to be a forced love story...only for them to put on in it after she signed up for the roll...

The problem with Tauriel as the "strong" female is that she may be physically strong and good at killing stuff but she's still immediately befuddled by some hot dude and driven to act in an impulsive, dangerous, and illogical way as a result. Sure, it worked out OK for her, but she doesn't strike me as an truly meaningful version of a strong, independent woman as a result. I do agree that her purpose is to create sexual tension and needlessly shoehorn a love triangle into the story. Calling her JarJar may be a bit strong but she was boring, stupid, and a useless addition to the cast, hence the (perhaps exaggerated) reference.

[LeeC]

Oh I agree which is why the actress didnt want there to be some sort of stupid love triangle.  It really speaks to old school holliweird execs who think "strong female character" means being a bad ass but as soon as a hot guy walks into a picture she's, as you said, befuddled.  As I stated before, it just sounds like it was thrown together in a boardroom.  There is so much more they could have done.  Like make her an legolas the same person in this movie.  Make her hunt the orks because of honor or they killed her mom or something, maybe stop to help the dwarf real quick (even then, the one dwarf dude had it under control when he got the herb on his own), but on to her own character arc.  Legolas should have been a cameo only, like Haldir in fellowship of the rings.  Shows up to capture everyone and make a quick joke about Gimli and thats it.  As a wink to the audience.

[94ssd]

Have you guys seen the honest trailer for The Hobbit.

I was just thinking about the confusion over the pronunciation of "Smaug" and how its featured in the video.

It should go without saying, but video has spoilers for An Unexpected Journey:

[Aimless]

For my part, I kinda liked Tauriel and felt like she was among Jackson's better flawed decisions. I dunno 'bout strong female characters, I think it's a huge deal to give us a female character period in this sausage-fest (so to speak) of a story. And it's nice to see that being impulsive and harebrained is not the sole purview of male elvish teens

[Lupercal]

In comparison to Arwen and Eowynn, Tauriel is pretty weak and/or pointless. I mean, it helps that Arwen had an existing love-thing going on with Aragon, but she helps for the good of the people of Middle Earth and to stay true to her father's wishes. Eowynn again wants to be there for her father and fight for the freedom of Men and of the realm that she is a citizen of.

Compartively, we know nothing about Tauriel except that she and Legolas sort of had a thing but not really. What does she fight for? We assume, sanctity and safety of the Woodland realm. However, it seems more like she fights for a dwarf she just met who happens to have been shot with a Morgul-cursed arrow. It's almost like Arwen saving Frodo again, but just a lot worse, because nothing actually changes if Kili dies. That's part of the suspension of disbelief and our ability as audiences to buy into these characters - why should we care if Tauriel is putting herself in danger, what happens if Kili dies? These are questions that have no immediate answer, but also neither of these events stops the end goal - getting the Arkenstone, reclaiming the title as King Under the Mountain, getting rid of Smaug. Really, as long as Bilbo and Thorin make it, who else needs to go?

Oh I agree which is why the actress didnt want there to be some sort of stupid love triangle.  It really speaks to old school holliweird execs who think "strong female character" means being a bad ass but as soon as a hot guy walks into a picture she's, as you said, befuddled.

Almost 50 years after Goldfinger and this shit still happens.

[Barmymoo]

There were other female characters! The children of the lake man included two girls, and if I recall correctly one of them hit an orc over the head with a frying pan in a pretty badass manner.

[GarandMarine]

Sounds like May's supporting traditional roles for women there to me!

(I am to clairfy, completely joking here)

[Barmymoo]

I have a suspicion that bashing marauding invaders over the head with frying pans was a pretty typical role for women in Britain during much of our history. We were marauded a whole bunch.

[Kugai]

As Marten has proved, Frypans can be pretty dangerous weapons in the right hands 

[Blue Kitty]

[LeeC]

A-

-Mazing