Gabriel_Logan
Member
Finally just saw it, nothing really stands out except during the Final fight between Thorin and Azog I kept thinking about how the fight with Aragorn and Lurtz was like 10 times more effective and 10 times shorter.
The Hobbit trilogy - News, rumours and discussion
- Thread starter Edmond Dantès
- Start date
- Status
Megalosaro
Banned
To be fair though, lurtz was a one off villain for the first movie of its trilogy. Azog had to be the villain of the hobbit
Saw it yesterday. 48fps was cool as usual, but wow was this movie a mess. 90% bloat.
It was like they said lets make all the worst military commanders in Middle-Earth fight each other. The battle was so nonsensical and just dull. Going into this I was expecting huge amounts of CGI and silly sub plots but I figured they'd at least get the battle right, right?
Nope.
I was very surprised by how much I liked the White Council at Dol Guldur. Seeing all the Nazgul in unique armour was really cool. I could live with the liberty they took with this scene, it's a hard one to visualise and I think they pulled it off.
Everything else though? Bleh.
It was like they said lets make all the worst military commanders in Middle-Earth fight each other. The battle was so nonsensical and just dull. Going into this I was expecting huge amounts of CGI and silly sub plots but I figured they'd at least get the battle right, right?
Nope.
I was very surprised by how much I liked the White Council at Dol Guldur. Seeing all the Nazgul in unique armour was really cool. I could live with the liberty they took with this scene, it's a hard one to visualise and I think they pulled it off.
Everything else though? Bleh.
My ONLY gripe with the Dol Guldur scene is Elrond's
"You should have stayed dead!", it comes off as almost corny in the common tongue, and I feel it would have been way more effective in subtitled Elvish.
Undoubtedly.
Lotr had plenty of what could be called corny dialogue, but because the package it was wrapped in was of such high quality, you could look past it, or at least it didn't stand out. With these Hobbit movies... It's just lazy.
It's what I can't get my head around, Jackson and co still clearly have love for the world and lore of Tolkien. You can see it in the sets, the costumes and armour. Why do these three so half-assed? It's not just a different tone for a younger audience (there's plenty of beheadings) it's just way over the top and CGI-heavy for no good reason. Is Warner Bros to blame?
I wouldn't be surprised if even ten year olds were face-palming and going "really?"
Wreck-It Ralph
Member
How did Gollum survive for the 60 years between The Hobbit and The LotR without the ring? I mean we see that Bilbo's age catches up to him REALLY fast when he leaves the ring to Frodo. Why didn't that happen to Gollum?
Also, I don't know if anyone else here has watched it or even heard of it, but I just watched the fanedit of AUJ, the Arkenstone Edition. I'd heard great things about it... but I was seriously disappointed. It seemed like he cut out a lot of stuff just for the sake of making it shorter, and it really ruined the pacing of a lot of scenes.
Also, I don't know if anyone else here has watched it or even heard of it, but I just watched the fanedit of AUJ, the Arkenstone Edition. I'd heard great things about it... but I was seriously disappointed. It seemed like he cut out a lot of stuff just for the sake of making it shorter, and it really ruined the pacing of a lot of scenes.
It is rather bizarre that Jackson could do what he did with LotR and completely fall off base with the Hobbit movies. I can't imagine all of the blame falls on him.
There's still some good moments to be found in these movies and it was still a fun time at the movies but I can't bring myself to pair it with LotR on my shelf.
Ixion
Member
On the contrary, I felt that version removed most of the sections that dragged out the pacing either with unnecessary gags, unnecessary action, unnecessary side-plots, etc.
With that said, removing the entire Goblin Town escape was a pretty big change and so the climax is lacking in result. Ideally, there should have still been an escape scene, but not as ridiculous.
Wreck-It Ralph
Member
It's not so much the scenes he cut out, but the cuts he made to the scenes he left in that bothered me the most. You can just tell that there are lines of dialogue missing.
And there are a number of questionable little changes that didn't seriously affect the runtime, but still felt a little bit awkward. Like when Bilbo falls and the ring lands on his finger - there's a fraction of a second that's cut out that makes that shot not work as well.
I didn't like how he completely removed Frodo from the opening. I didn't like the removal of Blunt the Knives. I didn't like the removal of the line, "And nothing unexpected ever happened" when the subtitle showed up. Lots of little things like these bugged me.
The only cuts I really agreed with were the first Radagast scene and the stone giants scene.
ScottSullivan
Member
I'd actually like to know this as well, I'm re reading the book now and I don't see if this is explained at all, maybe he had the ring so much longer then bilbo ever did its effects still lingered?
Megalosaro
Banned
For one thing, in the book it should be noted that Bilbo almost literally did not age between the age of 50 and 111. At first the other hobbits thought Bilbo just got lucky. After a while, they thought it was almost creepy. You see a hint of it in the movie where Gandalf says "you haven't aged a day" in an almost alarmed manner. However, clearly they've backpedalled on that since they recast Bilbo as much younger in these hobbits movie.
Also absent from the movie is the fact that in the book time line, nearly 20 years had passed between Bilbo's birthday party and the time they see him again in Rivendell. So while Bilbo does in fact age noticeably from the time he left until the time they see him again, it is a much longer period of time for the ring's effects to wear off.
Now for the main point With regards to the Ring's effects on Bilbo wearing off quicker than it does for Gollum, the book does mention this. It lies solely in the fact that Gollum had the ring for five hundred years vs Bilbo's 60 years. Since Gollum possessed the ring much longer, it affected him more. Therefore the book states, it would take much longer for those effects to wear off.
Union Carbine
Member
Keep in mind that I haven't yet seen Hobbit 3 but one thing I found so disappointing in the first two films was Peter Jackson reusing imagery from LotR in the Hobbit. The one that caught my eye the most was the group-surrounded-by-spears scene from TTT replicated in the first film. To me, it just cheapens the moments in both films. This definitely reminds me of Lucas in the Star Wars prequels repeating sequences such as the asteroid chase, etc. Did they just run out of fresh ideas to just go back and pillage their older works for signature scenes?
bengraven
Member
So I finished the EEs of both movies available now. Thanks Christmas!
+ Journey is a much better film, breathing easier, though Desolation feels unchanged
+ the appendices are fantastic as usual, though I felt the ones in LOTR covered more
+ more Bofur!
My only gripe:
- Thrain. I'm actually angry about this. Thrain's purpose as a plot point in the novel was to give Gandalf the map and key. They literally had the set built, the actor cast and they decided this happened in the MIDDLE of the journey? And for nothing? Was this so Thorin had a personal stake against Sauron?
You could have easily filmed the scene from the book with the assets you had available and replaced the Desolation prequel with Gandalf meeting Thrain in the dungeons, then giving the key to Thorin in Bree. I can understand it creates complications because you don't want Gandalf to know there's evil in Dol Guldur yet, but you could have easily made it a different location.
TLDR: Thrain's point was lost, but we filmed him anyway
My other gripe:
- was that scene with Legolas fighting Bolg in the theatrical? It seemed overlong and the FX are pretty crap. I mean, there is zero reason we needed a CGI Legolas when Bolg is walking away except that maybe Orlando wasn't there. But they have such great stunt makeup...
+ Journey is a much better film, breathing easier, though Desolation feels unchanged
+ the appendices are fantastic as usual, though I felt the ones in LOTR covered more
+ more Bofur!
My only gripe:
- Thrain. I'm actually angry about this. Thrain's purpose as a plot point in the novel was to give Gandalf the map and key. They literally had the set built, the actor cast and they decided this happened in the MIDDLE of the journey? And for nothing? Was this so Thorin had a personal stake against Sauron?
You could have easily filmed the scene from the book with the assets you had available and replaced the Desolation prequel with Gandalf meeting Thrain in the dungeons, then giving the key to Thorin in Bree. I can understand it creates complications because you don't want Gandalf to know there's evil in Dol Guldur yet, but you could have easily made it a different location.
TLDR: Thrain's point was lost, but we filmed him anyway
My other gripe:
- was that scene with Legolas fighting Bolg in the theatrical? It seemed overlong and the FX are pretty crap. I mean, there is zero reason we needed a CGI Legolas when Bolg is walking away except that maybe Orlando wasn't there. But they have such great stunt makeup...
C00kie M0nster
Member
That would've been a pretty cool EE scene but I don't think they can do it for the BOFTA EE.
Or December like ROTK's EE.
Franchuzas87
Member
Wow, great art. I would have loved to see something like that on the big screen.
You're right, they have more time since there will be no Movie.
Fingers crossed for the EE.
tattooed_dwarf
Member
Finally I get to write here, it's been hard to watch these Hobbit discussions from sidelines, especially the hate they seem to get here.
And big thanks to Tolkien GAF, great content and vast knowledge of everything Tolkien, it's been pleasure to read guys like Loxley and Edmond, many others too.
And big thanks to Tolkien GAF, great content and vast knowledge of everything Tolkien, it's been pleasure to read guys like Loxley and Edmond, many others too.
C00kie M0nster
Member
Since BOFA didn't have an intro scene akin to the other Middle-Earth movies, I'm wondering if this could be it since these images would have to be shown before
Smaug's demise
...that is where the "ressurected smaug by the necromancer on the battle of five armies" rumor came from ?
Wait....20 years between him leaving and the ring quest? Are you sure there? That would have made the hobbits much older and wasn't Aragon 87 years old in the book? He would be 107 then.
CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls
Banned
Frodo was actually around the age of 50 or so when he undertook the quest. The movies really speed up the time between Frodo being handed down the ring and the journey. However, in the book he keeps it locked away for a long time before Gandalf returns.
Only downside of casting Ian Holm as Bilbo - he was never going to be up for the amount of running and shit that two (eventually three) Hobbit films required. In retrospect they probably should've cast someone else. Then again, bah - he was brilliant as Bilbo, so it was worth the retroactive stuff.
Franchuzas87
Member
That would be great, since I really miss not having a "proper" prologue in BOFTA. Feels weird after five films with it, just starting where the previous one ended.
Ixion
Member
I'm assuming the prologues were all there to start each movie with a bang. And PJ probably felt BOFTA didn't need one, since it began with Smaug wreckin shit.
tattooed_dwarf
Member
They usually add more character moments, like in DoS EE Beorn talking with Gandalf, Thrain in Dol Guldur and in AUJ Bilbo and Thorin eavesdropping Elrond and Gandalf to name a few. I think EE's help pacing with these movies.
Franchuzas87
Member
Well, the Bree chatter in Desolation of Smaug is pretty quiet, and the Return of the King one didn't have action for the most part.
I think this idea of the Palantir and the vision would be a good start for BOFTA, a "what if" to show the danger of Smaug for all Middle-earth (in Jackson's movieverse) and add more weight to the confrontation with Bard.
Aragorn was 87 in the book and the movie. But while he would only be about 10 during the Hobbit book, he'd be 27 in the movie timeline.
Megalosaro
Banned
I'm entirely sure. The book spells it out. Besides Hobbits age differently than we do. 50 is mid 30s for a hobbit. They come of age at 33.
Nah, we're good at this point.
Grinchy
Banned
I can just imagine the spoilers. "Remember when the big group of bad guys got slashed by the big group of good guys? You know, that 2 hour scene."
Great, because I watched the film again yesterday and Freeman's performance in this one, especially towards the end, just destroys me.
He is so good in Thorin's death scene. Just begging to his friend not to die, unable to comprehend how this fallen, but redeemed leader could die.
And then when he returns to Bag End and is asked by the auctioneer who Thorin Oakenshield was, and all Bilbo can muster is "He was... he was my friend."
So sad
Franchuzas87
Member
Funny thing is, the actual battle of the five armies and the Ravenhill part (together) lasts less than an hour.
Exterminieren
Banned
Great, because I watched the film again yesterday and Freeman's performance in this one, especially towards the end, just destroys me.
He is so good in Thorin's death scene. Just begging to his friend not to die, unable to comprehend how this fallen, but redeemed leader could die.
And then when he returns to Bag End and is asked by the auctioneer who Thorin Oakenshield was, and all Bilbo can muster is "He was... he was my friend."
So sad
I look forward to the inevitable Bilbo fancut, emphasising his brilliant performance and paring back all of the bullshit accumulating around it.
I look forward to the inevitable Bilbo fancut, emphasising his brilliant performance and paring back all of the bullshit accumulating around it.
I'm always weary of fan edits. Mostly because they're rarely done by people who are trained film editors and are instead irate fans who think they know better than the people who actually made the film itself. I've seen a couple fan edits of AUJ and DOS, and while they have general improvements like removing or cutting down scenes that cock-block the primary story, they almost always end up having pacing issues themselves.
Jackson recently said in an interview that he viewed this trilogy as Thorin's story, that's the arch he wanted to focus on. So when you cut all of that stuff out, you end up with a weird sort of Bilbo-focused story where no one will shut up about Thorin for some reason.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Grooooaaan. That explains a lot.
Thorin's arc:
Cunt -> Sort of not a cunt -> Cunt -> Monumentally big cunt -> less of a cunt -> dead.
tattooed_dwarf
Member
Naah, not a cunt, just a dwarf.
tryagainlater
Member
Thorin is a kinda more interesting character than Bilbo so it's not the worst thing ever.
Yep. He is just all over the place in a way that PJ probably thinks makes him a complex character.
In the films, he isn't at all. Every time these films remember Bilbo they are much better for it.
- Status