Ulthosian Stark Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 (Spoilers ahead for those who haven't seen the films yet)I'm a long time Tolkien fan. Loooong time. Read the Hobbit for the first time in 4th grade. Loved the 1977 cartoon. I was afraid to watch the new films. Afraid to see what they (Hollywood) did to it haha.I'm pretty happy to say I love em so far. A few things are eating at me though.1st, Legolas, I mean really? Why couldn't we get a new badass wood elf? I get the feeling he was expressly added as a link to the main movie series. He didn't appear in the Hobbit book at all. His whole love triangle thing with Tauriel and Killie seems contrived. I did like the whole barrel run revamp, made it pretty badass vs just barrels floating down the river. And him insulting Gloin about the pictures of his wife and Gimli, that was good haha2nd, cmon why'd ya have to make Bard some vagrant bargemen. He's a cool character and I like him but he's supposed to be the Captain of the City Archers. That's a HUGE leap. The whole windlance thing is lame, it would have been better IMO to keep the Black Arrow as being able to be shot out of a normal bow. The whole point I thought was to show how the dragon could be killed by a simple bowman, not an ancient dwarven quad-scorpion.And the whole gelding of Smaug (the giant golden statue bit), that made the dwarves seem superhumanly badass. Way more badass as then I ever pictured them. And required so much knowledge of the forge none of them have seen in a VERY long time.The 1st one I got nothing to complain about really it was great, those few things about the 2nd though are sort of bugging me.Didn't find any thread for discussion of the Hobbit movies, so figured this could be it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howdyphillip Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 First of all, you are fairly late to the party... Second, did you really think that there wouldn't have been discussion about a movie based off Tolkein's work in this forum? Here is a link to one of the many threads discussing the movies. http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/99516-the-hobbit-part-3-one-that-never-shouldve-been/ The search function is your friend... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulthosian Stark Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 Oh I know I'm late hence the whole "I was afraid to see them" thingI should of been more specific, a *recent* Hobbit thread. I figured its been talked about but scrolling down for a bit didn't yield anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxus Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I should of been more specific, a *recent* Hobbit thread. I figured its been talked about but scrolling down for a bit didn't yield anything. And that's exactly why you should use the "Search" function Howdyphillip mentioned instead of "scrolling down for a bit". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibandar Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Well, I do agree with both points. It would have been better if they had introduced a new cool Woodland Elf character, because that character would have had a new look as well.The character idea is nice, but seeing Orlando Bloom in that role again, not so much. The windlance idea also just isn't very interesting. The whole dwarves vs Smaug sequence they invented was awful. The conversation between Bilbo and Smaug was excellent, but as soon as they came to the invented material between the Dwarves and Smaug the story was a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxus Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 The conversation between Bilbo and Smaug was excellent, but as soon as they came to the invented material between the Dwarves and Smaug the story was a mess. In both Hobbit movies so far, the best parts were those where Peter Jackson messed with the original material the least - riddles in the dark in the first and Bilbo and Smaug in the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Ulthosian,The 1st one I got nothing to complain about really it was great, those few things about the 2nd though are sort of bugging me.The giant rabbit sled where he's supposed to be drawing the Orcs away and keeps drawing them closer? The 10 minutes of mountains wailing on each other, that was pleasant and interesting not mind-numbingly irrelevant and boring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxus Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Ulthosian,The giant rabbit sled where he's supposed to be drawing the Orcs away and keeps drawing them closer? The 10 minutes of mountains wailing on each other, that was pleasant and interesting not mind-numbingly irrelevant and boring?Let's not even start with the whole Goblin-town fiasco.It looked more like something out of Diablo games than a movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3CityApache Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Oh, come on, wailers and complainers. You've already dominated original Hobbit threads, leave this one be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaimereborn Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Ulthosian,The giant rabbit sled where he's supposed to be drawing the Orcs away and keeps drawing them closer? The 10 minutes of mountains wailing on each other, that was pleasant and interesting not mind-numbingly irrelevant and boring? I liked the mountain bit. It had a magic and beauty about it that made it a real spectacle to watch and would have taken my breath away as a child. There were other bits that seemed totally ridiculous and I disliked most of the second movie pretty intensely, but I really enjoyed parts of the first one. That movie was quieter and had more depth to it than the empty-headed second one which had almost no characterisation and was just packed full of action romps in cartoon style CGI. That and the overwhelming feeling that there was never any real peril or darkness posing a real threat to the protagonists at any point - the main thing that set it apart from the LOTR trilogy for me, in which the characters were constantly grappling with opposing forces, both externally and within themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I've resigned myself to seeing the third movie in theaters, but this whole trilogy makes me feel like Peter Jackson has jumped the shark. There was no need to make this three movies, debatable it even needed two. And the whole thing has been so CGIed to death. It feels sterile and overdone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veltigar Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I've resigned myself to seeing the third movie in theaters, but this whole trilogy makes me feel like Peter Jackson has jumped the shark. There was no need to make this three movies, debatable it even needed two. And the whole thing has been so CGIed to death. It feels sterile and overdone. Sadly, this is also my opinion :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvinus85 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 (Spoilers ahead for those who haven't seen the films yet)I'm a long time Tolkien fan. Loooong time. Read the Hobbit for the first time in 4th grade. Loved the 1977 cartoon. I was afraid to watch the new films. Afraid to see what they (Hollywood) did to it haha.I'm pretty happy to say I love em so far. A few things are eating at me though.1st, Legolas, I mean really? Why couldn't we get a new badass wood elf? I get the feeling he was expressly added as a link to the main movie series. He didn't appear in the Hobbit book at all. His whole love triangle thing with Tauriel and Killie seems contrived. I did like the whole barrel run revamp, made it pretty badass vs just barrels floating down the river. And him insulting Gloin about the pictures of his wife and Gimli, that was good haha2nd, cmon why'd ya have to make Bard some vagrant bargemen. He's a cool character and I like him but he's supposed to be the Captain of the City Archers. That's a HUGE leap. The whole windlance thing is lame, it would have been better IMO to keep the Black Arrow as being able to be shot out of a normal bow. The whole point I thought was to show how the dragon could be killed by a simple bowman, not an ancient dwarven quad-scorpion.And the whole gelding of Smaug (the giant golden statue bit), that made the dwarves seem superhumanly badass. Way more badass as then I ever pictured them. And required so much knowledge of the forge none of them have seen in a VERY long time.The 1st one I got nothing to complain about really it was great, those few things about the 2nd though are sort of bugging me.Didn't find any thread for discussion of the Hobbit movies, so figured this could be itSince you call yourself a long time Tolkien fan I have to criticize you on a couple of things.It's Kili not Killie. I'm pretty sure the names were not changed in whatever language the book was published.Regarding the introduction of a new badass elf, they did that - Tauriel. And since Thranduil was in the book, it does make sense to have his badass son in it, too. It's certainly not the worst thing about all the added material. I agree with you on Bard being just a lowly bargeman, though he is not quite so lowly in the eyes of the people of Laketown. His care for the common people and being the descendant of Girion of Dale do clearly pave the way to his kingship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I've resigned myself to seeing the third movie in theaters, but this whole trilogy makes me feel like Peter Jackson has jumped the shark. There was no need to make this three movies, debatable it even needed two. And the whole thing has been so CGIed to death. It feels sterile and overdone. Agreed, except I didn't see movie 2 in theatres after the first one was utterly underwhelming. I imagine I'll see the third one on video or HBO or something, but no way am I paying theater prices for this dreck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 So I don't hate PJ that much, because the films clearly convey some of the magic of the original story, it's just that it doesn't appeal as much to adults. Well, it is based off a children's book. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxus Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Since you call yourself a long time Tolkien fan I have to criticize you on a couple of things. It's Kili not Killie. I'm pretty sure the names were not changed in whatever language the book was published. Yeah, but this is more likely a reverse translation issue. When I read them in Serbian, I didn't think original spelling was Fili, Kili or Gimli and saw that only when I read it in English. Agreed, except I didn't see movie 2 in theatres after the first one was utterly underwhelming. I imagine I'll see the third one on video or HBO or something, but no way am I paying theater prices for this dreck. I'll probably see movie 3 too, but I won't go out of my way to do it. Serbian networks are certain to annoy me in years to come by playing it over and over again so I'll catch it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 That said, my neighbour's kids are at the sort of age where they're getting the Hobbit read to them. They absolutely love the two films, and I imagine that's the case for many other young kids out there. So I don't hate PJ that much, because the films clearly convey some of the magic of the original story, it's just that it doesn't appeal as much to adults. But "kids love it!" is not an excuse. Kids loved the original Star Wars trilogy (which was good), and they also loved the new trilogy (which was not). There are plenty of crappy movies that kids love - I remember thinking the 1998 Godzilla movie and Jurassic Park: The Lost World were great. However, you can make movies that kids and adults both love, which is why movies like Star Wars, Aladdin, Frozen, etc are classics. There's a lot to like about Tolkien's Hobbit, and really everything bad about these movies was stupid Peter Jackson additions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvinus85 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Yeah, but this is more likely a reverse translation issue. When I read them in Serbian, I didn't think original spelling was Fili, Kili or Gimli and saw that only when I read it in English. I'll probably see movie 3 too, but I won't go out of my way to do it. Serbian networks are certain to annoy me in years to come by playing it over and over again so I'll catch it then. I, too, read the book in another language, and I never thought that the names would have been changed. The translation of dwarves, goblins, and elves was funny, though. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night's_King Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Ugh. That second movie was probably one of the worst adaption I ever saw. I was so excited to see the company coming to Beorns house, one after another and they ruined that. The barrel scene and the smaug scene were just ridiculous. I have no problem with adding some jokes and funny things, but those two scenes were just ridiculous to no end. But the worst part of the movie: Mirkwood. In the books: The company travels for weeks through the mirkwood, suffers from hunger and the nonexistence of daylight. Bilbo increases their despair, because when he climbs the treas, he doesn't see an end of the forest. He sees trees everywhere. Finally their hunger leads them to leave their path and to follow the fires of dancing elves, hoping to get some food. After their imprisonment they spend weeks in their cells until they are finally freed.In the movie: The company travels a few hours through the mirkwood, gets lost because of some supernatural illusions and stuff. Bilbo climbs the tree and sees that it's just a small way to the end of the forest. The dwarfs are captured by spiders, some truly overpowered elves save them. They spend a few days in their cells, before they are freed.I really wanted to see the slowly growing despair, the fires in the night, BOMBUR FALLING INTO THE RIVER!!! Why the hell did they cut those scenes out? And what's up with that stupid love triangle? In the battle of the five armies, does anyone else see Tauriel being attacked by an orc, Kili ridiculously dying when he tries to save her (in slowmotion of course) and Fili dying to avenge his brother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 And what's up with that stupid love triangle? In the battle of the five armies, does anyone else see Tauriel being attacked by an orc, Kili ridiculously dying when he tries to save her (in slowmotion of course) Oh absolutely, although it could be Tauriel dies for Kili instead. Either way, the killer will be that stupid big Orc they are trying to build up as threatening but actually isn't important enough for me to even remember his name. Assuming he has one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.