Threads merged, with a liberty taken on thread title to make clear they all belong here in the future. 
The Hobbit: A Peter Jackson Trilogy
- Thread starter kongisking
- Start date
kongisking
Active member
Thanks, Attila.
I will admit, even though I'm one of those people defending the choice of adding more story from the background of Tolkien's world to these films to help build upon the rather sparse nature of the book as to better match the Rings trilogy...inventing a love interest for Legolas? At least Arwen and her relationship with Aragorn actually was from the books (expanded, of course, but for understandable reasons). This, more than anything, feels like an absurdly pointless addition.
But who knows, she may turn out to be a terrific character, and then her existence will be a plus for the story...
I will admit, even though I'm one of those people defending the choice of adding more story from the background of Tolkien's world to these films to help build upon the rather sparse nature of the book as to better match the Rings trilogy...inventing a love interest for Legolas? At least Arwen and her relationship with Aragorn actually was from the books (expanded, of course, but for understandable reasons). This, more than anything, feels like an absurdly pointless addition.
But who knows, she may turn out to be a terrific character, and then her existence will be a plus for the story...
Well they added her for more than story inflation and advertising. Praise the movies all you want, Tolkein wrote some sausage fest books. Not once has there been a female member of the gang. Turiel will be the strong, noble women character the series needs to attract women as well as help dim the near 100% male cast (save for Cate Blanchett).
On a side note, has anyone else watched Peter Jackson's production diaries for the first 2 movies? If not, you should, they take you inside the making of the movies.
On a side note, has anyone else watched Peter Jackson's production diaries for the first 2 movies? If not, you should, they take you inside the making of the movies.
kongisking
Active member
Spurlock said:
I acknowledge the unfortunate lack of prominent ladies in the books. I just cringe at the Hollywood tactic of throwing an action heroine/love interest into a story that was able to pull off being a fun and entertaining adventure tale in spite of missing such an element. It just strikes me as...artificial, when you alter a story to perfectly tailor to all the demographics. Sometimes great tales happen that don't involve spunky heroines. What's wrong with just giving the dudes a story that appeals to them? And if ladies end up enjoying it too, it's a testament to them not fitting into stereotypical gender tastes.
Example: I'm a guy (and without an ounce of homosexual feelings, to clarify), but I will still love a well-done romantic comedy. I don't subscribe to the "if you're such-and-such gender, enjoying stuff from the opposite sex's tastes is off-limits" mindset. If it's good, it's good, and all should love and appreciate it.
But fear not, I recognize that this works both ways, too: if Hollywood shoved a pointless badass male action hero into, say, a chick flick, I would find that annoying and pandering too.
Then again, two of the co-writers of the Hobbit movies are women. We should have seen this creative choice coming.
kongisking
Active member
Sneak Peek at the upcoming installment:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lfflhfn1W-o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lfflhfn1W-o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwYQcKK0Isg&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL06D56F197834BAD9
The production diaries of the films. Gave me a huge appreciation for them.
The production diaries of the films. Gave me a huge appreciation for them.
kongisking
Active member
Spurlock said:
These really are wonderful. This is why I love bonus features on discs, for the chance to see the ins and outs of a production, and hopefully see that it was a fun experience for all involved. That said, troubled productions make for great docs, too. Blade Runner, anyone?
kongisking
Active member
Spurlock said:
The ones for Unexpected Journey were included on the home media releases of that film, so it stands to reason video blogs for the other two will be on their respective home media releases as well. And I agree: it's one thing to have cool behind-the-scenes stuff after the fact, but to share them during production? Sweet beyond words, and heartwarming to fans who don't have to feel like they're being kept out of the making of their most anticipated movies. I am a big supporter of interactivity with fans during production.
roundshort
Active member
Went and saw Hobbit 2 last night. I hardly ever see movies in the theater anymore but I knew I wanted to see this. These movies are such a guilty pleasure for me.
Usually I do not like fantasy or CGI and I really disliked the Lord of the Ring movies. But for some reasons these movies are less serious and more fun to watch.
When you can watch a movie for almost 3 hours and not feel tired or bored is a great sign.
Two big thumbs up from this guy!
Usually I do not like fantasy or CGI and I really disliked the Lord of the Ring movies. But for some reasons these movies are less serious and more fun to watch.
When you can watch a movie for almost 3 hours and not feel tired or bored is a great sign.
Two big thumbs up from this guy!
kongisking
Active member
Saw it opening night, and was, as expected (no pun intended), very pleased. It certainly doesn't have the pacing issues of the first Hobbit, and the characters get to grow more, with Bilbo especially having become quite the little badass. The barrel escape was a major highlight, and Legolas, who I never was a huge fan of before, won me over with this. He was pretty damn sweet in this.
The elf heroine Tauriel was, as I had feared, mostly unmemorable besides being the only woman in the whole tale and, lo and behold, she falls in love. Can't we get some female action characters that don't have to fall into the "it's a woman, she's gotta have a romance!" thing? It smacks of Hollywoodizing this classic story, which irks me.
However, any issues are forgiven thanks to Smaug in this film. Never have I seen a cooler, more menacing and badass dragon on screen. Kudos to Benedict Cumberbatch and WETA digital for their amazing work here. A marvelous, timeless cinematic villain they have created. Now one of my favorite film nemeses, absolutely.
And that was a very effective cliffhanger, too...
The elf heroine Tauriel was, as I had feared, mostly unmemorable besides being the only woman in the whole tale and, lo and behold, she falls in love. Can't we get some female action characters that don't have to fall into the "it's a woman, she's gotta have a romance!" thing? It smacks of Hollywoodizing this classic story, which irks me.
However, any issues are forgiven thanks to Smaug in this film. Never have I seen a cooler, more menacing and badass dragon on screen. Kudos to Benedict Cumberbatch and WETA digital for their amazing work here. A marvelous, timeless cinematic villain they have created. Now one of my favorite film nemeses, absolutely.
And that was a very effective cliffhanger, too...
Dr. Gonzo
New member
Yeah, I too thought this was an improvement over the first Hobbit film and the pacing was mostly spot on until we reached that mountain.
Having said that, these films still have yet to hold a candle to any of the Lord of the Rings films. I understood many of the choices made... and it was an interesting way to end the film (many of the people in the theater I saw it at were really pissed).
For me though, there was just too much of that dragon. I really dug him for the first 20 minutes of screen time, but after that it was starting to drag. Could have been chopped together just a bit tighter. Like I said I understand why they did it, Cumberpatch has a very interesting voice and the dragon was supposed to be the main attraction of this film, but there is indeed too much of a good thing.
Minus that, it was an enjoyable film. Interested to see how they'll integrate the scenarios they've newly created into the conclusion.
Having said that, these films still have yet to hold a candle to any of the Lord of the Rings films. I understood many of the choices made... and it was an interesting way to end the film (many of the people in the theater I saw it at were really pissed).
For me though, there was just too much of that dragon. I really dug him for the first 20 minutes of screen time, but after that it was starting to drag. Could have been chopped together just a bit tighter. Like I said I understand why they did it, Cumberpatch has a very interesting voice and the dragon was supposed to be the main attraction of this film, but there is indeed too much of a good thing.
Minus that, it was an enjoyable film. Interested to see how they'll integrate the scenarios they've newly created into the conclusion.
With the recommendation of Round/Dr. Gonzo, I may watch this if it is in one sitting. I'm still sold on the Rankin and Bass version, and despise Jackson for being long winded...
we'll see. But hey, how about that Intersteller trailer?
we'll see. But hey, how about that Intersteller trailer?
Henry W Jones
New member
I haven't brought myself to watch these. I don't understand how one 300 page book is three 3 hour movies. I have heard it takes 45 minutes to get into the actual adventure and they add characters from the LOTR's that are not in the book to extend the content. I love the book The Hobbit but I'm in no rush to see the movies.
kongisking
Active member
Pale Horse said:
McConaughey weeping as he drives away...riveting.
In seriousness, that's a film I highly anticipate.
roundshort
Active member
Pale, remember I am not a fan of the books or Jackson. I just like a movie where I can turn off and not care about anything except being entertained. Which this movie delivered for me. More fun to watch this on the big screen. I did not so the 3-d as that usually annoys me.
featofstrength
Member
A slight improvement on the first one...but still quite a chore to watch. Bilbo and Sm-OW-guh just talking, like Bilbo and Gollum talking in the first one, was the one part that delivered for me. I wanted more of BEY-orn, but I fear that the third act is gonna be overkill that want...1 full hour of orc decapitations by bear claw?
Cant wait for it all to be over, so someone can take these already extended editions and pare them down to one 2-3hr edition of "The Hobbit." But who really wants to see a movie where Bilbo Baggins is the main focus/pov?
Cant wait for it all to be over, so someone can take these already extended editions and pare them down to one 2-3hr edition of "The Hobbit." But who really wants to see a movie where Bilbo Baggins is the main focus/pov?
I have seen this film twice (once in 48fps) now and I'm not sure whether or not I like it more than the first film.
-Exclaimer, I enjoy long movies, and I did happen to enjoy The Unexpected Journey-
I feel like Jackson was really forced into creating a faster, shorter, more action packed adventure. Great right? Well that's not what I signed up for, I love the length of the LOTR films, and this was the shortest one. I could feel that sweeping images of landscapes had been left out, simple scene of running dropped to the cutting room floor, which would have added to the amazement of Middle Earth, and keep the pace moving as a fluid. I got to see the sets they made for Beorn's house, Mirkwood and several other, and it felt like time wasted, as they were hardly used.
Next was the pacing. You'd start from action, which would immediately stop, then get started again, then the mood would swing, and it never feels coherent. I think this is an effect of the attempt at shortening the movie. At least in UJ, you have a release which continues, save for one or two moments of dialogue. The jumping around became tiring, right when you start getting into the action, ka-blam, you are with a whining Kili! I prefer a little less uninterrupted action, then a little more total action that is split up.
Next, this is a small thing, but bothered me; the coloration inside Erebor. If you go back to the prologue of UJ, you'll get to experience the richness of color summoned by the gold and jewels amassed. But in DoS, the gold has turned near colorless. What could've been immensely entrancing scenes, full of enough color to combat Pacific Rim, instead you got a bland color pallet in a rich environment.
So much focus was taken off Bilbo, as this became about everyone else. They should have called the moving Everyone Else: featuring a Hobbit. The first one made Bilbo the center, and in the movie where Bilbo finally gets to shine, you are off worrying about Gandalf, Kili, and Laketown. The movie is titled The Hobbit.
Small problem with the effects, specifically the green screen shots in the beginning. They just don't look real, with the coloration of the characters differing from that of the background.
I think we've all heard enough about the unnecessary love triangle, so I won't comment on that.
And where was the tone and music from that first trailer? This is what has really disappointed me about these movies, the trailers are awesome, with awesome music and images, only to later find out that those have been diluted. I know it's common for trailers to use other music, but still.
And lastly, where did the musical motifs go? UJ had such a powerful main theme which I thought would hang around to empower the rest of the franchise, only to find it nowhere to be heard. The LOTR soundtrack is so fantastic because of those few amazing tunes, the one for the Shire, Isengard, and so on. It was disappointing to find that the only motif I enjoyed was the one for Laketown.
Anyway, overall, still and entertaining film.
-Exclaimer, I enjoy long movies, and I did happen to enjoy The Unexpected Journey-
I feel like Jackson was really forced into creating a faster, shorter, more action packed adventure. Great right? Well that's not what I signed up for, I love the length of the LOTR films, and this was the shortest one. I could feel that sweeping images of landscapes had been left out, simple scene of running dropped to the cutting room floor, which would have added to the amazement of Middle Earth, and keep the pace moving as a fluid. I got to see the sets they made for Beorn's house, Mirkwood and several other, and it felt like time wasted, as they were hardly used.
Next was the pacing. You'd start from action, which would immediately stop, then get started again, then the mood would swing, and it never feels coherent. I think this is an effect of the attempt at shortening the movie. At least in UJ, you have a release which continues, save for one or two moments of dialogue. The jumping around became tiring, right when you start getting into the action, ka-blam, you are with a whining Kili! I prefer a little less uninterrupted action, then a little more total action that is split up.
Next, this is a small thing, but bothered me; the coloration inside Erebor. If you go back to the prologue of UJ, you'll get to experience the richness of color summoned by the gold and jewels amassed. But in DoS, the gold has turned near colorless. What could've been immensely entrancing scenes, full of enough color to combat Pacific Rim, instead you got a bland color pallet in a rich environment.
So much focus was taken off Bilbo, as this became about everyone else. They should have called the moving Everyone Else: featuring a Hobbit. The first one made Bilbo the center, and in the movie where Bilbo finally gets to shine, you are off worrying about Gandalf, Kili, and Laketown. The movie is titled The Hobbit.
Small problem with the effects, specifically the green screen shots in the beginning. They just don't look real, with the coloration of the characters differing from that of the background.
I think we've all heard enough about the unnecessary love triangle, so I won't comment on that.
And where was the tone and music from that first trailer? This is what has really disappointed me about these movies, the trailers are awesome, with awesome music and images, only to later find out that those have been diluted. I know it's common for trailers to use other music, but still.
And lastly, where did the musical motifs go? UJ had such a powerful main theme which I thought would hang around to empower the rest of the franchise, only to find it nowhere to be heard. The LOTR soundtrack is so fantastic because of those few amazing tunes, the one for the Shire, Isengard, and so on. It was disappointing to find that the only motif I enjoyed was the one for Laketown.
Anyway, overall, still and entertaining film.
Duaner
New member
So it's almost time for the last Hobbit movie to come out and I have still not seen the first two. On that note, I actually have not seen the last two Lord of the Rings films. I remember renting Fellowship of the Ring, watching it, and liking it, but I don't remember anything about it. When I mention to people I have not seen them, they think I am crazy. They figure someone who is into all the movie franchises I am would be all about LOTR and the Hobbit. It's not that the movies don't interest me, I just haven't gotten a chance to watch them. I also feel I should read the books first. Should I get on this?
I saw Hobbit 3 in 48fps, also Wild on one of the remaining 13% of theaters with celluloid projection. These formats really are steps on an evolutionary chain and it's hard to go back. Flutter from the intermittent sprocket during Wild was distracting. Once I convinced my brain I wasn't watching Hobbit 3 on interlaced video, 24fps seemed like the flickering picture show it is. 3D, however, should only be applied to specialty films like Gravity or The Walk.
Anyway, there's about 30 minutes of filler in this otherwise good movie. There's some toadyish unibrow who you expect to perish early on like Wormtongue but keeps reappearing to kill the pace. The decision to turn two movies into three was terrible. At 1 movie minute for every 200 book words, Hobbit surpasses the first two Narnia adaptations, and the relatively brisk first two Potter adaptations (1 minute per 500 words each). Bring on the fan edits and discounted box set.
Anyway, there's about 30 minutes of filler in this otherwise good movie. There's some toadyish unibrow who you expect to perish early on like Wormtongue but keeps reappearing to kill the pace. The decision to turn two movies into three was terrible. At 1 movie minute for every 200 book words, Hobbit surpasses the first two Narnia adaptations, and the relatively brisk first two Potter adaptations (1 minute per 500 words each). Bring on the fan edits and discounted box set.