The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Foggy]

Watched this evening, just for the record, I liked the first one, really liked the second one.

This was rather awful, it's a bit like Jackson got to do the bit he really wanted (Smaug's lair) and this is just him running through the motions. It's almost like he forgot how to direct any sort of drama, there's no build up or consequence to what happens, just footnotes that are over before they begin. The actual battle begins so nonchalantly that it barely feels worthy of the title.

It's essentially everything the series has been criticised for in one movie, the abundance of special effects (really poor ones at that) make the film feel like a video game. Billy Connelly is completely CGI'd creation for this and it just drags you out of the film, his mouth moves unnaturally and his eyes are really lifeless. After two hours of the film, you have about three shots in genuine countryside with no computer generated effects and you're eyes have to adjust after all the special effects in the film, and I watched it in 2D standard frame rate, can't imagine how painful it must be in 3D HFR.

It's completely excessive, the longer fight scenes go on and on for, the more ridiculous they become and annoyed you become. I think the moment I had to hold back a reaction and stop myself from walking out was when Legolas runs up falling stones. I know there are daft stuff in The Lord of the Rings, but that was genuinely physics defying and illogical. About half way through I just had enough of Middle Earth.

The tone is all over the place here, I think the first film handled the tone quite well, and the second film was paced far better, but here you'll bounce from high body count to comedy scene to big battle to dodgy drama, there's no consistency with how the film bounces around. Lastly, there is a reference to Aragon at the end, but I'm sure the way they reference him, it must make him about 80 when it comes to Lord of the Rings. Come on guys, think it through. EDIT: Last point debunked.

Is there anything I did like?

Martin Freeman is great, granted this is the first time in The Hobbit films where I felt he's really shunted out of the limelight, however when he pops up he's really good and raises the entire film up. Most of the best moments are involving him. It's also good to spend time with Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee (granted the latter literally gets his storyline cut so quickly you're kinda confused why he's brought back here).

And while I complained about the lack of drama, as the film progresses, there are a few quite beautiful and poignant moments pulled off, not nearly enough to justify the film as a whole, but some moments that work well.

As a fan (granted with a couple of reservations) of the other two films, I can't recommend this film to anyone really, but if you liked the other two films you'd be going to see these anyway, and you'd likely have the best chances of enjoying this. If you didn't like the other two, avoid this like the plague, it would only make you more upset and waste your time.

[aiman04]

Well said. But Aragorn was around 80 years old in the Lord of the Rings trilogy though. Humans have longer life in Middle Earth.

[Deathbymonkeys]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Lastly, there is a reference to Aragon at the end, but I'm sure the way they reference him, it must make him about 80 when it comes to Lord of the Rings. Come on guys, think it through.
.

Aragorn is 87 IN the Two Towers. They make a point of saying this IN that movie. Maybe you should think your posts through.

I was two years off.

[Optimus]

Originally Posted by aiman04

Well said. But Aragorn was around 80 years old in the Lord of the Rings trilogy though. Humans have longer life in Middle Earth.

Isn't that because he's descended from Numenor?

[aiman04]

Originally Posted by OptimusL

Isn't that because he's descended from Numenor?

You might be right. A little rusty about the details.

[Deathbymonkeys]

Originally Posted by aiman04

Well said. But Aragorn was around 80 years old in the Lord of the Rings trilogy though. Humans have longer life in Middle Earth.

Humans don't in general. They make a point multiple times of saying he's one of the dunedain bloodline which is what makes him live longer and look younger.

[TommySyk]

Booked my tickets last week for an IMAX 3D showing on wednesday! Can't wait!

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Deathbymonkeys

Aragorn is 89 IN the Two Towers. They make a point of saying this IN that movie. Maybe you should think your posts through.

I've not seen The Lord of the Rings movies in about 3 or 4 years now, but you're right. Everything I've stated is incorrect now, my opinion is null and void because of that point.

[GenPion]

If they had read the book and watched the extended Two Towers the Aragon bit might have made more sense given the plot-line.

[Deathbymonkeys]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I've not seen The Lord of the Rings movies in about 3 or 4 years now, but you're right. Everything I've stated is incorrect now, my opinion is null and void because of that point.

I assume I will disagree with most of your statements. But I won't see the movie until tomorrow. I'll let you know then.

Just sayin do your homework before trying to bash a movie based on a point YOU are wrong about.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Deathbymonkeys

I assume I will disagree with most of your statements. But I won't see the movie until tomorrow. I'll let you know then.

Just sayin do your homework before trying to bash a movie based on a point YOU are wrong about.

Sorry, I thought he aged the same way everyone else does, it's an easy mistake and I didn't immediately think that I should look up how ageing work in Middle Earth (if anything, at least I was right estimating he was in his 80's in Lord of the Rings)

After all, people have said it's a pretty small part of such a huge saga, it's easy to over look.

[Pizzamorg]

It's funny how criticisms of this film are being waved off each time with the same statements - and are generally waved away by people who haven't seen the film yet. Smh.

[Falaskan]

LOTR The Two Towers - Extended Edition - One of the Dúnedain - YouTube

[BaerGriggs]

I'm going to see this with about 10 other people tomorrow after finals and we're fully expecting to have a good time, regardless of what the reviews are saying.

[BaerGriggs]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

This is true, but of course the situation in the Silmarillion was somewhat more complicated by the fact that Glaurung was involved as part of a curse placed by Morgoth upon Hurin and his descendants. In The Hobbit book, it states that Bilbo was in danger of coming under the dragon spell but never fully succumbed to it. My take on the situation is that if Bilbo had actually removed the Ring and therefore became visible, in a matter seconds he would have been a pile of ashes. Similarly, had Frodo shown the Ring to the Nazgul at Osgiliath as Jackson depicted in The Two Towers, there would have been no reason for Sauron to attack Minas Tirith. Instead, he would have emptied his armies out of Mordor and quickly captured the Ring, thus dooming civilization. As Ernest Rister pointed out, these counter-intuitive scenes were added for drama.

All good points made. Regardless of how I or anyone feels about the scene, it's impossible to argue that it wasn't added for the sake of drama.

[Groge511]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I think the moment I had to hold back a reaction and stop myself from walking out was when Legolas runs up falling stones. I know there are daft stuff in The Lord of the Rings, but that was genuinely physics defying and illogical.

To be fair though, they would only do it with Legolas due to him being an elf. Elves are as light as feathers and physics are a little different for them. Yes, it did look a bit daft but logically he could do that. I mean, in Fellowship we see him walk right over the snow of the mountains while everyone has sunk into it, struggling to get out. A more recent example would be when we had him standing on top of the dwarves heads in the barrel scene in DoS.

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Watched this evening, just for the record, I liked the first one, really liked the second one.

This was rather awful, it's a bit like Jackson got to do the bit he really wanted (Smaug's lair) and this is just him running through the motions.

Thanks for sharing.

After spending untold amounts of money on Lord of the Rings, seeing Lord of the Rings in the theater, researching The Hobbit film adaption for years after ROTK's release, and watching the first two in theaters, it makes me sad to say that I won't be going to this one.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Groge511

To be fair though, they would only do it with Legolas due to him being an elf. Elves are as light as feathers and physics are a little different for them. Yes, it did look a bit daft but logically he could do that. I mean, in Fellowship we see him walk right over the snow of the mountains while everyone has sunk into it, struggling to get out. A more recent example would be when we had him standing on top of the dwarves heads in the barrel scene in DoS.

Fair enough, I think it might be a mixture of bad effects and fatigue of the film that caused such had adverse reaction. It felt like Jackson was trying far too hard to make the next really cool Legolas moment and it just came off as juvenile.

[Yoku]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Watched this evening, just for the record, I liked the first one, really liked the second one.

This was rather awful, it's a bit like Jackson got to do the bit he really wanted (Smaug's lair) and this is just him running through the motions. It's almost like he forgot how to direct any sort of drama, there's no build up or consequence to what happens, just footnotes that are over before they begin. The actual battle begins so nonchalantly that it barely feels worthy of the title.

....

+1000

Originally Posted by Foggy

Fair enough, I think it might be a mixture of bad effects and fatigue of the film that caused such had adverse reaction. It felt like Jackson was trying far too hard to make the next really cool Legolas moment and it just came off as juvenile.

He could have easily avoided the fatigue of the audience, if he simply trimmed those long stretches of uninteresting fights involving Legolas, Thorin/Azog, and that running gag with the Master's sidekick. The arrival of Beorn was absolutely glazed over, and i dont know what's his fascination with Eagles always saving the day. The movie not only sidelined the titular Hobbit but the Dwarves themselves (exlcuding Thorin and Kili to a certain degree).

[tigertron]

Saw this last night, I thought it was pretty enjoyable though much of it was filler and they could have easily fitted the series into two films as opposed to three.

8/10