The Hobbit

#127
#127
Saw it last night - it was entertaining.

+'s: landscape shots continue to be amazing; if you love the outdoors it is a feast for the eyes. Special effects are awesome as well.

-'s: the pacing from tender, heartwarming to crazy action is getting old - all the Jackson treatments follow the formula - amazing visual, some tender moment, some crazy fight/action segment, repeat. Gandalf seems like more of a puss and absolutely too pure and full of hobbit love for my tastes.

Overall, I had to see it and will watch the rest of them but parts of the Jackson treatment are getting old IMHO.
 
#131
#131
saw it in regular - didn't see the need for 3D but then again I haven't seen a new 3D movie so what do I know.
 
#133
#133
I saw it and I felt like I was back home in Middle Earth (I am a huge nerd. I love anything Fantasy, play mmo's, huge gamer, etc). Overall I thought it was very excellent in its own right. Some things struck me as different. Bilbo was not as whimsical as the hobbits from the Lord of the Rings, and Gandalf somewhat followed suit to match Freeman's interpretation of being a hobbit. Not really a complaint but it was noticeable to me at least.

I personally felt Unexpected Journey fell a bit short of Fellowship. One thing I liked about the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was the fact that he used CGI sparingly and only in places that absolutely necessitated it like Gollum or the large scale fight scenes. It seemed in this one they created scenes just for an excuse to use CGI and then he also used it for some characters when they could have just used an actor with makeup/costume like the main Orc. And I can completely see the whole formula feeling too. Heck the entire goblin sequence screamed Moria to me.

Still knocks the pants off most movies that come out. But unfortunately in my mind the bar was set stratospherically high in the first romp in middle earth, and I think his over indulgence of CGI killed a lot of the heart and soul that made the first trilogy stand out.

Saw it in 2D. I personally think 3D is a gimmick and it drives me nuts. The 48 fps version seems it would resemble a video game more than an actual movie... but I'm not a film noir kind of guy so I could be talking out of my butt there.
 
#134
#134
I saw it in 3D and while it was cool I felt like it distracted from the movie at times. That said I agree that the over use of CGI was at times bad. I loved in the LOTR that the orcs were actual actors. That all being said I'm looking forward to seeing Smaug in the next movie.
 
#139
#139
Saw it a week ago, I loved it. Felt like I was merely watching another LOTR movie, which is a good thing.

Hey Lucas, that's how you do a prequel (yeah I know, Jackson has source material to work with, but still).
 
#140
#140
volinbham said:
Saw it last night - it was entertaining.

+'s: landscape shots continue to be amazing; if you love the outdoors it is a feast for the eyes. Special effects are awesome as well.

-'s: the pacing from tender, heartwarming to crazy action is getting old - all the Jackson treatments follow the formula - amazing visual, some tender moment, some crazy fight/action segment, repeat. Gandalf seems like more of a puss and absolutely too pure and full of hobbit love for my tastes.

Overall, I had to see it and will watch the rest of them but parts of the Jackson treatment are getting old IMHO.
Click to expand...

I felt the same as you. Pacing is awful. There is no way this story should be stretched into 3 three hour films! It's a 300 page adventure story, not some huge epic. I actually dozed off a few times during the movie.
 
#141
#141
Brave Volunteer said:
I felt the same as you. Pacing is awful. There is no way this story should be stretched into 3 three hour films! It's a 300 page adventure story, not some huge epic. I actually dozed off a few times during the movie.
Click to expand...

No. Dead Wrong. Completely inaccurate and totally false. Read the books, then come back. And before you say you have read them, read them again because obviously you didn't pay attention the first time.
 
#142
#142
volfanbill said:
No. Dead Wrong. Completely inaccurate and totally false. Read the books, then come back. And before you say you have read them, read them again because obviously you didn't pay attention the first time.
Click to expand...

in particular, read the appendices at the end of Return of the King and the Silmarillion

there is a lot that goes on in The Hobbit that Tolkien mentions, but doesn't elaborate on, particularly the goings-on in Mirkwood with the Necromancer (Sauron) at Dol Guldur and the battle that takes place between he and the Wood Elves at the same time as the Battle of Five Armies
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#143
#143
MG1968 said:
in particular, read the appendices at the end of Return of the King and the Silmarillion

there is a lot that goes on in The Hobbit that Tolkien mentions, but doesn't elaborate on, particularly the goings-on in Mirkwood with the Necromancer (Sauron) at Dol Guldur and the battle that takes place between he and the Wood Elves at the same time as the Battle of Five Armies
Click to expand...

there's that, especially the parts that Tolkien added in when it was requested that he create a sequel to The Hobbit, or There and Back Again to make everything fit and make more sense. But the bottom line is The Hobbit, or There and Back Again is not an adventure book, it is a fantasy novel about the quest in itself. It's not the story of the battle of Smaug, or the Battle of Five Armies or any other battle or even how a halfling got the One Ring. It's the whole quest, which included tons of just walking around. Jackson took a beating from Tolkien purists like myself, and several far worse than me, for omitting so much of the journey parts of LOTR, which by all indications he is not skipping out on this time. There's a reason the full title of Tolkien/Bilbo's book includes "Or There and Back Again."
 
#145
#145
Just saw it. It was good but I wasn't completely blown away like I was with LOTR. The CGI seemed over the top at times and the pacing seemed off. There was almost too much action and not enough story development. Which is amazing considering its a three hour movie. And what was up with that rock giant scene? Seemed completely unecessary and a way to shoehorn in yet another action sequence and CGI. I also wish they would have used more real actors in makeup for the orcs and goblins. And the goblin king's voice was a little off too. Too British and not beastly enough. And the dwarf songs at bag end were totally a throwback to the old animated version (which I actually like).

All in all it was good and I didnt leave feeling like I wasted 10 bucks and 3 hours.
 
#147
#147
The Stone Giants are part of the story in The Hobbit. They are talked about in The Fellowship, but the only time they are ever actually seen is in The Hobbit. There are no real ties to them in any age, be before or after The Third Age that both The Hobbit and LOTR books take place in that I've ever read or seen.
 
#148
#148
volfanbill said:
The Stone Giants are part of the story in The Hobbit. They are talked about in The Fellowship, but the only time they are ever actually seen is in The Hobbit. There are no real ties to them in any age, be before or after The Third Age that both The Hobbit and LOTR books take place in that I've ever read or seen.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that they were mentioned or written about by Tolkien. It just seemed to me like a unecessary scene that didn't do anything for the story.
 
#149
#149
VolinMichigan said:
I have no doubt that they were mentioned or written about by Tolkien. It just seemed to me like a unecessary scene that didn't do anything for the story.
Click to expand...

as mentioned a couple of times in this thread, I think it's just part of Jackson trying harder to make sure everything gets included. You're not supposed to be amazed by anything new, most who have read the books already knew several of the crises faced in the Hobbit are similar to those in the LOTR, but that doesn't mean you don't include them. He fudged on a few things, like yes, at some point we know Gandalf met with Elrond, Saruman and Galadriel, but it wasn't when the Fellowship was also in Rivendell, but it works to move the movie along in a more timely manner. I do think they could have limited it to two movies as was originally planned, but I'm excited as a Tolkien nerd to know everything is going to be played out to it's fullest extent.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top