The Hobbit trilogy - News, rumours and discussion
- Thread starter Edmond Dantès
- Start date
- Status
WadiumArcadium
Member
Really? Thank God that didn't happen.
Grinchy
Banned
Wow, people in my theater were whispering about being bored throughout the whole movie. The only clapping that took place was after we all tipped the guy who held the door for us while we walked out.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I really enjoyed part three, I think because I had absolutely no expectations.
But really it is not a good film at all.
Structurally it is a mess. The part at the start is excellent - too short - but very tense and enjoyable. However it belongs in the previous film. The battle scenes are nice enough, but don't match up to Helm's Deep. Plus the CGI is all over the place - Billy Connolly in particular is bad. But worst of all the film just bounces around for no reason between the different sections in an incredibly uneven and distracting way. There's very little flow.
Bard, Thranduil, Tauriel, Balin and Bilbo all deserve credit for their roles. Actually I don't think there is a weak point in the cast.
But Alfrid. Everytime he appeared I thought OH THIS HAS TO BE THE LAST TIME HE APPEARS. PLEASE. Sure enough he kept coming back. He was never funny and just felt disjointed. The comedy in LOTR was awkward - Gimli was badly misused - but never like this. When you have great comic actors already in the piece, it makes his inclusion all the more disappointing. I don't blame the actor - it was just a terrible idea.
Watching FF and TTT today just highlighted how poor the Hobbit films are. They are just uneven messes. Not because they use CGI too much or don't follow the book enough, but because they just aren't well made films. The tone is inconsistent, the plotting all over the place and the music not as inspiring. To their credit, the acting is a huge step up from the original trilogy.
Post Smaug has never been a good part of the book to begin with.
Structurally it is a mess. The part at the start is excellent - too short - but very tense and enjoyable. However it belongs in the previous film. The battle scenes are nice enough, but don't match up to Helm's Deep. Plus the CGI is all over the place - Billy Connolly in particular is bad. But worst of all the film just bounces around for no reason between the different sections in an incredibly uneven and distracting way. There's very little flow.
Bard, Thranduil, Tauriel, Balin and Bilbo all deserve credit for their roles. Actually I don't think there is a weak point in the cast.
But Alfrid. Everytime he appeared I thought OH THIS HAS TO BE THE LAST TIME HE APPEARS. PLEASE. Sure enough he kept coming back. He was never funny and just felt disjointed. The comedy in LOTR was awkward - Gimli was badly misused - but never like this. When you have great comic actors already in the piece, it makes his inclusion all the more disappointing. I don't blame the actor - it was just a terrible idea.
Watching FF and TTT today just highlighted how poor the Hobbit films are. They are just uneven messes. Not because they use CGI too much or don't follow the book enough, but because they just aren't well made films. The tone is inconsistent, the plotting all over the place and the music not as inspiring. To their credit, the acting is a huge step up from the original trilogy.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
Indeed. Merry Christmas Tolkien GAF and a Tolkien New Year.
Are all the Real-3D showings of this movie in HFR? I don't see anything about it on Fandango like I did for the last two movies.
Well yeah, it's 3rd film in a trilogy obviously you should watch the 2nd first.
Yes. This is one story stretched over 3 films. The movie starts right in the middle of a action scenes the second ended with.
Just got back from BotFA. It was ok, but I definitely felt a lot of silly with this one. I enjoyed a lot of the action sequences but once again, little tidbits thrown in (one particularly with Legolas) brought me really out of the mood. Pacing was pretty good and felt similar to the LotR movies, almost like RotK, to me. Character development was done pretty well, especially Thorin. Overall, I would say it was a fitting end to the trilogy and I'm sad that it's unlikely I'll see Middle Earth on the big screen for some time.
plagiarize
Banned
I don't disagree, but I think it's fair to point out that this is true of every battle scene in the franchise, other than Helm's Deep... and I struggle to think of something as good as Helm's Deep in another franchise.
Personally I'd put it above what we saw in Return of the King, because it was more logically laid out, and the geography of the battle was much clearer. It had some really cool moments
WAR GOATS!
As drawn out as the movies have felt, weirdly, the extended versions of the first two were the better versions.
I was disappointed by the first movie, didn't see the second one, and saw this one today. I really enjoyed it as an eye-fucking action movie, which is how it came off to me. Zero resolution to
But yeah, if you just think about this as one badass action movie without too much story, it's pretty sexy and has a bunch of cool-looking fights and camera shots. A reviewer likened it to someone taking pictures of carefully placed Warhammer figures on a game board, and I don't totally disagree.
the human side of things at the end kind of annoyed me.
But yeah, if you just think about this as one badass action movie without too much story, it's pretty sexy and has a bunch of cool-looking fights and camera shots. A reviewer likened it to someone taking pictures of carefully placed Warhammer figures on a game board, and I don't totally disagree.
If you've read the book, you don't have to watch the second flick to get what's going on. Heck, even if you haven't, I don't think it's necessary. I'm like you...I saw the first one, missed the second, and watched this one today. But I was already familiar with the source material a bit.
What shitty way to respond
Yeah, I haven't read the book, so I am not familiar with the whole Hobbit story. I'll have to watch the second one now. I just wish Amazon Prime Instant had it.
That makes sense. The reason I am asking is that, I have watched the second Lord of the Rings movie without watching the first one, and I have enjoyed it quite a bit. Too bad, the Hobbit movies are closely serialised.
Huh, it wasn't meant to be. Why would you skip over the second film?
This was a terrible movie. I liked the first and second movies but this movie... Something felt off about it. It felt pointless. Isn't this based on only two chapters from the book? There was a lot of pointless fluff. Too many comedic scenes with the master's old squire. Too much time spent on the pointless romance with Kate from Lost and the dwarf. Too many non-book inventions (like the aforementioned romance and the giant worm monsters).
And Peter Jackson is such a horrible director. When the gigantic troll with the boulder on his head charged headfirst into the town on the lake, he crumpled down in laughable manner - and our whole theater laughed at how stupid it looked. I'm sure Peter Jackson in his infinite wisdom thought it looked cool, and that highlights his exceptional incompetence. He could have had the troll sit down with dignified exhaustion after breaking down the wall - instead the troll collapses like a toddler. Was it intentional comedic relief? If it was, it looked stupid. If it wasn't intentional comedic relief, that's even worse - the whole theater cackled at your filmmaking decisions, Peter Jackson.
When Thorin decided to crash through the wall of the Lonely Mountain to help his comrades, they used the gargantuan golden bell from inside the mountain to break down the wall. This is another scene that highlights what a moron Peter Jackson is. The bell swings towards the wall and there is a triumphantly cool scene with mega effects showing the wall breaking down. Then the bell swings back into the mountain. From out the newly-destroyed door emerges the dwarves. But then the bell follows them. I swear that the bell was going to crush and kill them with the way it was swinging back. It's like Peter Jackson just has no concept of logic. The way he filmed that scene, those dwarves were dead and were without any doubt in my heart going to be squished by the giant bell. But the scene cuts away. Really, this movie had so many awful things going for it.
Why couldn't they have just made this two movies, or one movie, instead of three? The Tolkien estate should never let Hollywood get another crack at their movies again.
And Peter Jackson is such a horrible director. When the gigantic troll with the boulder on his head charged headfirst into the town on the lake, he crumpled down in laughable manner - and our whole theater laughed at how stupid it looked. I'm sure Peter Jackson in his infinite wisdom thought it looked cool, and that highlights his exceptional incompetence. He could have had the troll sit down with dignified exhaustion after breaking down the wall - instead the troll collapses like a toddler. Was it intentional comedic relief? If it was, it looked stupid. If it wasn't intentional comedic relief, that's even worse - the whole theater cackled at your filmmaking decisions, Peter Jackson.
When Thorin decided to crash through the wall of the Lonely Mountain to help his comrades, they used the gargantuan golden bell from inside the mountain to break down the wall. This is another scene that highlights what a moron Peter Jackson is. The bell swings towards the wall and there is a triumphantly cool scene with mega effects showing the wall breaking down. Then the bell swings back into the mountain. From out the newly-destroyed door emerges the dwarves. But then the bell follows them. I swear that the bell was going to crush and kill them with the way it was swinging back. It's like Peter Jackson just has no concept of logic. The way he filmed that scene, those dwarves were dead and were without any doubt in my heart going to be squished by the giant bell. But the scene cuts away. Really, this movie had so many awful things going for it.
Why couldn't they have just made this two movies, or one movie, instead of three? The Tolkien estate should never let Hollywood get another crack at their movies again.
I think that was the point, he was knocked out. I personally found it funny. Not sure how you can positively argue the audience also found it silly and not funny
tbh
The troll knocked itself out, possibly killed itself with the force of the collision. Your idea that it should have sat down in a dignified manner after such a violent impact to its head is completely ludicrous.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
Indeed.
The creature's actions were similar to that which caused the fall of the walls of Helm's Deep.
A suicidal berserker akin to legends of old that inspired
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
Indeed. The only other occasion where he is somewhat troubled is the fight with the cave troll in Moria, but even then, it was his arrows that felled the beast.
He truly is a representation of the might of First Age Elves. Glorfindel doesn't directly appear in Peter Jackson's Middle-earth saga, but his might and prowess certainly do via Legolas.
You can also class Legolas
in this movie a failure. Nice little gag there.
Just got back from seeing it again, but in HFR for the first time. Stunning.
A real shame we won't have access to the 48fps versions in the home anytime soon.
The Laketown/Smaug scene was breathtaking in HFR 3D.
running out of arrows
Just got back from seeing it again, but in HFR for the first time. Stunning.
A real shame we won't have access to the 48fps versions in the home anytime soon.
The Laketown/Smaug scene was breathtaking in HFR 3D.
Ixion
Member
I have to say, I'm very surprised that BOFA is getting the worst critical and fan response of the three films. All three films have stupid, unnecessary shit in them. All the common complaints for the film (unnecessary CGI, an overblown conflict, forced humor, etc) is found throughout all three films. But BOFA was definitely the fastest, most tightly edited of the three. And there were still plenty of good "character moments" among the action.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
In light of the festive season, here's a letter from Tolkien to his children:
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Edmond Dantès;144648067 said:
In TTT he fails to kill the berserker with the torch that blows up the outer wall of Helms Deep.
Wreck-It Ralph
Member
I was skimming through the book yesterday for the first time since I read it when I was little, and had a few thoughts:
1) They sure sing a lot in the book. Like every other page I opened to, there was another song.
2) Azog, Bolg, Radagast, the Arkenstone - I thought these were things that had been added for the movie, but I was surprised to see them all at least mentioned in the book.
3) For all the complaining about the liberties the movies took with the source material, I was surprised at how faithful the movies were to the book. Pretty much any page I opened to, I could start reading and say, "Hey, yeah, I remember that scene in the movie!"
4) Finally, and I know this is probably an unpopular opinion around here, but I have to say... it is not a well-written book. Dialogue is awful and narration often seems to skip over important parts and just generally rush through things.
Anyway, I also saw BotFA again, and I enjoyed it more the second time. I still think the ending could've used some more closure on a few things, and I hope some of that is in the Extended Edition, but I think it's overall a solid ending to the trilogy.
It makes me sad that so many people seem to have hated this trilogy so much, because despite its faults, I think it did most things right.
1) They sure sing a lot in the book. Like every other page I opened to, there was another song.
2) Azog, Bolg, Radagast, the Arkenstone - I thought these were things that had been added for the movie, but I was surprised to see them all at least mentioned in the book.
3) For all the complaining about the liberties the movies took with the source material, I was surprised at how faithful the movies were to the book. Pretty much any page I opened to, I could start reading and say, "Hey, yeah, I remember that scene in the movie!"
4) Finally, and I know this is probably an unpopular opinion around here, but I have to say... it is not a well-written book. Dialogue is awful and narration often seems to skip over important parts and just generally rush through things.
Anyway, I also saw BotFA again, and I enjoyed it more the second time. I still think the ending could've used some more closure on a few things, and I hope some of that is in the Extended Edition, but I think it's overall a solid ending to the trilogy.
It makes me sad that so many people seem to have hated this trilogy so much, because despite its faults, I think it did most things right.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
And it led to such destruction.
Very fair points.
In terms of the novel, the often rushed narrative places emphasis on the faerie tale nature of book. Short and swift, alluding to things to create a sense of wonder and enchantment, but refraining from detailing them due to the risk of losing the essence of faerie.
That's his Father Christmas handwriting. His actual handwriting looked like this:
Indeed.I think he knew his
kids recognized his handwriting now. Also, I love how he has cellars in his cliffs.
Tolkien really likes cellars and building underground, didn't he?Same, here.
I hope you enjoy it.Frohe weihnachten my fellow Tolkienites
According to LOTR wiki, he was killed by an Orc archer. The remaining Dwarves were gradually overrun by Goblins and Orcs, with Ori chronicling it all (he's holding the book that Gandalf picks up in Balin's Tomb).
Edit: Oin was killed outside by the Watcher in the Water.
zero shift
Banned
What was the
third army that came to the mountain (after the dwarves) in TBoFA?
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
Gundabad Orcs with a few mercenaries from the Misty Mountains
zero shift
Banned
Edmond Dantès;144772525 said:
So they are separate from the main bad guys?
Well other than the massive quality drop off.
Subjective.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
Bolg was their leader in the novel. In the trilogy, Azog is the commander of Sauron's host. Neither Sauron or his host are present in the novel and Azog is dead.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Second movie's not super important. Basically all you miss:
1) Introduction of elf fanfic character.
2) Looney Tunes style dragon fight where the dwarves try to kill the dragon with a statue made of... Molten gold.
3) People being dicks to Bard.
4) Dwarves being dicks to Bilbo.
5) GoPro footage.
6) Gandalf gets locked in a cage.
Skellig Gra
Member
You'll also miss the scene between bilbo and smaug which is very important.
+ better than any scene in the last movie.
zero shift
Banned
The second film is comfortably the least worst in The Hobbit trilogy. It would be a pretty good film if they didn't drag on the dragon fight and it actually have some sort of ending.
LowParry
Member
Other than the dragon going from clever, witty and just remarkably badass, to a dragon who gets trolled over and over by dwaves, I find the scene with him staring into the golden statue rather genius. Dragons hoard gold. Riches. Priceless artifacts. The look and awe with Smaug with the statue was enjoyable. It was such a huge distraction to Smaug. How molten gold could kill a dragon however, they sort of forgot the idea of doing a quick cooling. See: Alien 3. (If that would even have the same effect). Unless they were just trying to encase the dragon in gold, eh. Details.
Wreck-It Ralph
Member
I did the same! I love it when they mention stuff from Bilbo's journey.
Though on the mention of Balin, it confused me how Gimli kept calling him his cousin and assumed he'd still be alive. If I've got the timeline right:
Bilbo's journey was 60 years ago, and Smaug first attacked the mountain 60 years before that, right? And Balin was already really old during the Smaug attack. So 120 years later would put him at really, really, really, old. And Gimli's cousin? He'd be old enough to be Gimli's grandfather!
How long are dwarves supposed to live in Middle-earth?
Megalosaro
Banned
Dwarves live to be about 500 years IIRC correctly. They aged alot of the dwarves down in the Hobbit movies. Thorin was much older in the book.
As for Gloin calling Balin his cousin, it's not entirely incorrect but the movies simplified relationship terms. Take Bilbo for example. He's actually Frodo's cousin in the novels.
Regarding when Smaug attacked Erebor and Dale, that happened in Third Age 2770. Bilbo's adventure is in 2941. . The War of the Ring is in TA 3018/3019 btw.
As for Gloin calling Balin his cousin, it's not entirely incorrect but the movies simplified relationship terms. Take Bilbo for example. He's actually Frodo's cousin in the novels.
Regarding when Smaug attacked Erebor and Dale, that happened in Third Age 2770. Bilbo's adventure is in 2941. . The War of the Ring is in TA 3018/3019 btw.
- Status