The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Tony208]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I'm not going to miss this train wreck, either.

When you try to embellish a work of genius and magic, you better bring your A-game. This felt like episodes 4, 5, and 6 of a 10 hour TV miniseries, with screenwriting from the good folks responsible for Agents of SHIELD. Also, to work the occasions where Smaug was speaking, he has to speak with his head sideways so he doesn't look cock-eyed. This led to repetition in staging and an ever-diminishing sense of threat, as the guy won't just shut up and eat somebody. Thorin standing on Smaug's mouth? Smaug just stares at him? Really?

well sometimes you miss a piece of food near your mouth but smaug did talk too much

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by rikraq

Why do Thorin, Kili and Fili not look as dwarfish as the rest? Of course, Tauriel falls for one of the hot ones.

because it makes no sense for a hot elf girl to fall in love with a funny-looking dwarf. Elves can be shallow.

[chris_sc77]

Domestic: $73,675,000 36.0%
+ Foreign: $131,200,000 64.0%
= Worldwide: $204,875,000

Smaug opened a little lighter domestically but did really well overseas

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

Domestic: $73,675,000 36.0%
+ Foreign: $131,200,000 64.0%
= Worldwide: $204,875,000

Smaug opened a little lighter domestically but did really well overseas

I don't care how much money it makes, it's still the worst movie I've seen in a theater this year.

[chris_sc77]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I don't care how much money it makes, it's still the worst movie I've seen in a theater this year.

do you not see many movies? I have seen over 200 2013 releases so far and it is the number 1 film for me.

the vast majority of people (audiences and critics seemed to love it or at least least like it a lot)

[assydingo]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I don't care how much money it makes, it's still the worst movie I've seen in a theater this year.

Guess I better lower my expectations if it's the worst movie of the year.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by assydingo

Guess I better lower my expectations if it's the worst movie of the year.

How did'ja feel about Attack of the Clones?

Not that bad. Not much better.

[Blu Myers]

Best movie of the year for me...loved it. I can't stop thinking about and want to see it again. The barrel scene, Legolis kicking ass, Smaug's awesomeness....I could go on and on!

[assydingo]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

How did'ja feel about Attack of the Clones?

Not that bad. Not much better.

That's an interesting comparison. The prequel trilogy is made much better by the existence of the original trilogy. How it's, "the other side of the coin", so to speak. Having already seen A New Hope rise up in the first films gives an extra layer to seeing Anakin, the original "hope", fall from grace.

The Hobbit benefits somewhat similarly from it's link to The Lord Of The Rings. Although the contrast isn't as stark as in the Star Wars trilogies, it does use many of the same themes and ties into the love we already have for Peter Jackson's Middle Earth. Maybe if LOTR didn't exist The Hobbit would be a bit less?

Yet it does and I'm thrilled to have The Hobbit expand that world.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by assydingo

That's an interesting comparison. The prequel trilogy is made much better by the existence of the original trilogy. How it's, "the other side of the coin", so to speak. Having already seen A New Hope rise up in the first films gives an extra layer to seeing Anakin, the original "hope", fall from grace.

The Hobbit benefits somewhat similarly from it's link to The Lord Of The Rings. Although the contrast isn't as stark as in the Star Wars trilogies, it does use many of the same themes and ties into the love we already have for Peter Jackson's Middle Earth. Maybe if LOTR didn't exist The Hobbit would be a bit less?

Yet it does and I'm thrilled to have The Hobbit expand that world.

Yeah but the original trilogy is made much worse by the existence of the prequel trilogy. And furthermore, the Hobbit movies blend better with The Lord of the Rings movies while the prequels don't blend seamlessly into the original trilogy.

[assydingo]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Yeah but the original trilogy is made much worse by the existence of the prequel trilogy. And furthermore, the Hobbit movies blend better with The Lord of the Rings movies while the prequels don't blend seamlessly into the original trilogy.

The Star Wars trilogies are meant to be different as one is dark and the other is optimistic. The prequel trilogy is a little weaker than the original trilogy but IMO they make each other stronger. Here's hoping the new films will continue that legacy well.

[L-Rouge]

I think at least DoS offers compelling characters, The acting is very good!.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Just poking my head in (since I'm probably outnumbered here) - loved the movie (even though Tolkien is surely rolling in his grave - wow). My HFR 3D viewing today made me wish we could watch the format at home. Watching this made me feel like I could have stepped into Middle-earth through the theater screen.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by assydingo

The Star Wars trilogies are meant to be different as one is dark and the other is optimistic. The prequel trilogy is a little weaker than the original trilogy but IMO they make each other stronger. Here's hoping the new films will continue that legacy well.

or one trilogy has awful dated video game cgi while the other trilogy has old school special effects and still is awesome and not dated.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

Just poking my head in (since I'm probably outnumbered here) - loved the movie (even though Tolkien is surely rolling in his grave - wow). My HFR 3D viewing today made me wish we could watch the format at home. Watching this made me feel like I could have stepped into Middle-earth through the theater screen.

It's OK, Tolkien has completed a 360 degree turn and is now face-up again. Yes, the movie looks good, but story-wise this monstrosity is an unmitigated disaster. I give Jackson credit for the effort, but he really should have had someone else write this thing.

[Blu-Ray Maniac]

How many fall asleep during this one ??

3 hours i will never take back from my life, i could have done better things even alone !!

To quote Gandalf one-liner in the first...

RUN, RUN YOU FOOLS !

It should be the critic of the 2nd installment !

[BaerGriggs]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

Just poking my head in (since I'm probably outnumbered here) - loved the movie (even though Tolkien is surely rolling in his grave - wow). My HFR 3D viewing today made me wish we could watch the format at home. Watching this made me feel like I could have stepped into Middle-earth through the theater screen.

I said before as well, the HFR in this movie was miles better than the first and I barely even minded it after a couple minutes, compared to about half an hour in the first film. But I just don't see it gaining widespread use due to so much misinformation about the first film's use of it. Several critic reviews I read regarding don't have the first clue about what it actually is.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

It's OK, Tolkien has completed a 360 degree turn and is now face-up again. Yes, the movie looks good, but story-wise this monstrosity is an unmitigated disaster. I give Jackson credit for the effort, but he really should have had someone else write this thing.

Hard to believe these guys made Fellowship of the Ring. I loved that so much, and felt it got robbed at the Oscars. I gave The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey some slack, because it was clearly a film setting up the exposition for what was to come, but this...can't defend it anymore. It's not that they altered the source material -- that happens for every movie based on a book, by necessity. It's the writing, the staging, the storytelling, the phony suspense around action scenes drawn out and out and out until Smaug himself becomes a bit of a joke..."I! Am Death!" Apparently not...you can stand on the guy's lips and he'll just stare at you like a cat tolerating a pet parakeet. It's like watching the shark from Jaws swimming around an Olympic swimming pool with 10 victims, not allowed to actually eat any of them because that would mess with the plot, and all the while the shark is monologging about what a bad-ass he is. Disaster is right. Really reminded me of Attack of the Clones.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by BaerGriggs

I said before as well, the HFR in this movie was miles better than the first and I barely even minded it after a couple minutes, compared to about half an hour in the first film. But I just don't see it gaining widespread use due to so much misinformation about the first film's use of it. Several critic reviews I read regarding don't have the first clue about what it actually is.

It didn't really add anything to the experience for me, though. It resembles that motion-flow setting on HDTVs. We see the world with motion-blurs, it's how our eyes work. Why is that a bad thing in how the camera sees life?

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

It's OK, Tolkien has completed a 360 degree turn and is now face-up again. Yes, the movie looks good, but story-wise this monstrosity is an unmitigated disaster. I give Jackson credit for the effort, but he really should have had someone else write this thing.

Just to clarify, I think the movie is great and an insane amount of fun - but I just wanted to point out that as a Tolkien adaptation, I agree the filmmakers are off the reservation.

I still loved it, though. (even though, as I said, I'm outnumbered on this board)