- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Hobbit Trilogy
Posted on 1/15/15 at 5:19 pm
Posted on 1/15/15 at 5:19 pm
tl;dr: The Hobbit sucked
I'm assuming I've already missed out on the discussions here about The Hobbit trilogy. If this new thread is old/annoying news then I apologize. But I wanted to get a general idea of what everyone thinks of the hobbit now that its done, even though we haven't gotten to the extended edition of the last one yet.
I was highly disappointed with the trilogy. It wasn't as bad as the star wars prequels (yes I'm making the reference) but I would say I'm just as disappointed with the hobbit as I was with the star wars prequels.
After seeing all 3, I think the first one is the best (that's not saying much). I'm not sure if the third is worse, better, or equal to the second one. In some ways I think it was probably better (maybe). In a lot of ways it was worse, or at least just downright awful.
I have 2 major issues with the hobbit, which ultimately destroyed the trilogy:
The first is the expansion of the story. The problem isn't the fact that they expanded the story. The problem is what they chose to expand. The right way would have been to focus on the characters. You have 13 dwarves in the hobbit who are very underdeveloped. 3 long arse movies is the perfect opportunity to really flesh out their characters so the audience can get to know and like them as they travel the journey with them. But we hardly know any of them by the end of film 3. But Tauriel and Legolas were sure to get their screen time.
Instead of expanding characters, PJ decided to film the time with overly long, elaborate and over the top action sequences that looked like something out of a children's cartoon or video game. What happened to the realistic gritty battles from LOTR?
So now I go onto to my second major issue: PJ's love for the new tech. While filming in 3D, 48fps, on digital might be cool, it should not have been done for the hobbit. The filmmakers claimed to want to create the same Middle Earth. But everything they did was just not that. The new technology meant that PJ had to abandoned his time honored techniques, of which he was so proud when making LOTR. This means no miniatures, an over saturation of CGI, color, and an overly crisp and bright picture that actually makes everything look more fake. Additionally he decided to CGI the frick out of characters he would have put in prosthetics or costume in the original trilogy: Orcs, Goblins, Azog, Bolg, soldiers in the various armies... AND FOR frick'S SAKE DAIN IRONFOOT! I almost lost it when I saw him on screen.
In the end there's no pay off or resolution to the elements PJ spent so much time dragging out and building up. Radaghast was a big disappointment, as I thought he would pull out some cool moves at Dol Guldur. The entire Dol Guldor story line was done within 10 minutes in a really underwhelming confrontation. Beorn has 15 seconds of screen time in the third film so what the hell was even the point of putting him in there? Oh and what happened to the Arkenstone? last we saw of it, Bard had it in his hands. Yet no mention of it after that... the heart of Erebor which was built up over 3 films. After Thorin dies, there's no funeral, and no discussion of who becomes king under the mountain, and no discussion of what happened to all that gold everyone was so worried about.
Well, that's all for now. I really hope someone takes the time to read this, and more importantly I hope someone takes time to share their opinion. I'm really wanting to see others feel the same way as me. I just don't know if I can post on theonering.net message boards anymore. It's been overrun by delusional PJ apologists.
I'm assuming I've already missed out on the discussions here about The Hobbit trilogy. If this new thread is old/annoying news then I apologize. But I wanted to get a general idea of what everyone thinks of the hobbit now that its done, even though we haven't gotten to the extended edition of the last one yet.
I was highly disappointed with the trilogy. It wasn't as bad as the star wars prequels (yes I'm making the reference) but I would say I'm just as disappointed with the hobbit as I was with the star wars prequels.
After seeing all 3, I think the first one is the best (that's not saying much). I'm not sure if the third is worse, better, or equal to the second one. In some ways I think it was probably better (maybe). In a lot of ways it was worse, or at least just downright awful.
I have 2 major issues with the hobbit, which ultimately destroyed the trilogy:
The first is the expansion of the story. The problem isn't the fact that they expanded the story. The problem is what they chose to expand. The right way would have been to focus on the characters. You have 13 dwarves in the hobbit who are very underdeveloped. 3 long arse movies is the perfect opportunity to really flesh out their characters so the audience can get to know and like them as they travel the journey with them. But we hardly know any of them by the end of film 3. But Tauriel and Legolas were sure to get their screen time.
Instead of expanding characters, PJ decided to film the time with overly long, elaborate and over the top action sequences that looked like something out of a children's cartoon or video game. What happened to the realistic gritty battles from LOTR?
So now I go onto to my second major issue: PJ's love for the new tech. While filming in 3D, 48fps, on digital might be cool, it should not have been done for the hobbit. The filmmakers claimed to want to create the same Middle Earth. But everything they did was just not that. The new technology meant that PJ had to abandoned his time honored techniques, of which he was so proud when making LOTR. This means no miniatures, an over saturation of CGI, color, and an overly crisp and bright picture that actually makes everything look more fake. Additionally he decided to CGI the frick out of characters he would have put in prosthetics or costume in the original trilogy: Orcs, Goblins, Azog, Bolg, soldiers in the various armies... AND FOR frick'S SAKE DAIN IRONFOOT! I almost lost it when I saw him on screen.
In the end there's no pay off or resolution to the elements PJ spent so much time dragging out and building up. Radaghast was a big disappointment, as I thought he would pull out some cool moves at Dol Guldur. The entire Dol Guldor story line was done within 10 minutes in a really underwhelming confrontation. Beorn has 15 seconds of screen time in the third film so what the hell was even the point of putting him in there? Oh and what happened to the Arkenstone? last we saw of it, Bard had it in his hands. Yet no mention of it after that... the heart of Erebor which was built up over 3 films. After Thorin dies, there's no funeral, and no discussion of who becomes king under the mountain, and no discussion of what happened to all that gold everyone was so worried about.
Well, that's all for now. I really hope someone takes the time to read this, and more importantly I hope someone takes time to share their opinion. I'm really wanting to see others feel the same way as me. I just don't know if I can post on theonering.net message boards anymore. It's been overrun by delusional PJ apologists.
12
Posted on 1/15/15 at 5:29 pm to red_giraffe
Although you make some awful good points, I was highly entertained by all three films. I have no complaints..
Ignorance...bliss...etc etc
Ignorance...bliss...etc etc
Posted on 1/15/15 at 5:44 pm to red_giraffe
I also agree with the 1st one being the best, which is the minority opinion on this board I think. I felt that it captured "the spirit of the book the most". I know that's a vague and poetic term but I don't know how else to describe it. I know there is no action at all but the first 40 minutes of that movie in Bilbo's house I felt was one of the best stretches in any of the 3 movies, perhaps because it generally stuck to the book pretty well there.
I also have no issue with PJ diverting from the book, especially where it makes sense when referencing other Tolkien books (like Legolas being in Mirkwood for example)
I really didn't care much for the 3rd one but I did enjoy the arrival of the Dwarvish army and the Dain was great. I had looked forward to that scene since I read it in the book for the first time years and years ago. Disappointed in the battle as a whole though. I found it confusing and hard to tell where everyone was (armies I mean, not necessarily specific characters)
I also wish PJ had kept using the Dwarvish theme music that was often played in the first one. I thought that was a really good one.
Smaug-Bilbo scene was great.
I also have no issue with PJ diverting from the book, especially where it makes sense when referencing other Tolkien books (like Legolas being in Mirkwood for example)
I really didn't care much for the 3rd one but I did enjoy the arrival of the Dwarvish army and the Dain was great. I had looked forward to that scene since I read it in the book for the first time years and years ago. Disappointed in the battle as a whole though. I found it confusing and hard to tell where everyone was (armies I mean, not necessarily specific characters)
I also wish PJ had kept using the Dwarvish theme music that was often played in the first one. I thought that was a really good one.
Smaug-Bilbo scene was great.
Posted on 1/15/15 at 5:46 pm to red_giraffe
I liked it a lot. Much better than TLOTR trilogy.
Posted on 1/15/15 at 6:03 pm to red_giraffe
I loved each Hobbit movie immensely - saw each one at least twice in the theater and multiple times on DVD. I am a fanboy of the world, though, and would be happy with literally anything that was made in Middle Earth. I even really enjoyed that fan made movie about Aragorn's father from about 10 years ago.
I understand the urge to want to measure this against Lord of the Rings. I think if LOTR had never happened, these movies would be much better received by fans and critics, though the trilogy will still end up grossing over $3 billion at the box office.
The Hobbit was always meant to have a much lighter tone than LOTR. I understood this, but many did not. The dinner scene in the first Hobbit movie is one of my favorite scenes of the trilogy.
I also enjoyed the Star Wars prequels, though, which many did not due entirely, from my point of view, about how they felt about the original trilogy. I though episode 3 was the best out of any of the 6 movies.
I also loved Superman Returns, which many hated, partly because they felt it was not a true Superman movie given the limited action.
I also loved the third Godfather movie even though it clearly was not as good as the first two.
I don't go into movies with preconceived ideas of what it should be based on previous movies ion the series. In fact, if I loved the previous movies, I am far more inclined to love the current movie because of how much I enjoy the universe, mythology, what have you. I could have watched the Hobbits just mill about the Shire for 3 hours and been perfectly content. I guess I just get something different out of these movies than others. Better for me because then I can thoroughly enjoy these epics.
I understand the urge to want to measure this against Lord of the Rings. I think if LOTR had never happened, these movies would be much better received by fans and critics, though the trilogy will still end up grossing over $3 billion at the box office.
The Hobbit was always meant to have a much lighter tone than LOTR. I understood this, but many did not. The dinner scene in the first Hobbit movie is one of my favorite scenes of the trilogy.
I also enjoyed the Star Wars prequels, though, which many did not due entirely, from my point of view, about how they felt about the original trilogy. I though episode 3 was the best out of any of the 6 movies.
I also loved Superman Returns, which many hated, partly because they felt it was not a true Superman movie given the limited action.
I also loved the third Godfather movie even though it clearly was not as good as the first two.
I don't go into movies with preconceived ideas of what it should be based on previous movies ion the series. In fact, if I loved the previous movies, I am far more inclined to love the current movie because of how much I enjoy the universe, mythology, what have you. I could have watched the Hobbits just mill about the Shire for 3 hours and been perfectly content. I guess I just get something different out of these movies than others. Better for me because then I can thoroughly enjoy these epics.
This post was edited on 1/15/15 at 6:04 pm
Posted on 1/15/15 at 10:37 pm to red_giraffe
quote:
Oh and what happened to the Arkenstone? last we saw of it, Bard had it in his hands. Yet no mention of it after that... the heart of Erebor which was built up over 3 films. After Thorin dies, there's no funeral, and no discussion of who becomes king under the mountain, and no discussion of what happened to all that gold everyone was so worried about.
Well, Dain Ironfoot took over as King under the mountain. The arkenstone was placed in the tomb with Thorin. But I know that from the books. You're right, it wasn't covered in the movie. That was a little upsetting. Maybe the extended edition will show us this. I read somewhere that this one was edited down a lot.
ETA: The fate of some of the other dwarves were actually covered in LOTR. Remember the tomb in Moria?
quote:
over saturation of CGI
I understand this complaint, but I thought they did a pretty excellent job with it.
quote:
You have 13 dwarves in the hobbit who are very underdeveloped.
To be fair, they weren't all that developed in the book either.
This post was edited on 1/15/15 at 10:41 pm
Posted on 1/16/15 at 12:16 am to red_giraffe
I was disappointed but they had their moments. The Smaug-Bilbo dialog in the second movie was an awesome scene.
Posted on 1/16/15 at 6:25 am to red_giraffe
There were parts of all 3 that I thought were excellent but overall I was very disappointed.
Several times during the movies I found myself waiting for a scene to end.
Maybe if they would have cut it to 2 instead of 3 books it would have been better but only a few times in the entire series did I feel connected to the story.
LOTR I was all in most of the time but even that series suffered from some scenes that were just plain dumb which shows the Jackson signature at times.
Several times during the movies I found myself waiting for a scene to end.
Maybe if they would have cut it to 2 instead of 3 books it would have been better but only a few times in the entire series did I feel connected to the story.
LOTR I was all in most of the time but even that series suffered from some scenes that were just plain dumb which shows the Jackson signature at times.
Posted on 1/16/15 at 10:37 am to red_giraffe
quote:
I have 2 major issues with the hobbit, which ultimately destroyed the trilogy:
These are the same two arguments I've made all along as well. Almost word for word.
There were people who were going to love these movies no matter what they were though. It could have been three 3-hour long movies about a dragon giving birth as long as PJ directed and you called it a lotr prequel.
I guess I need to stop arguing with people about them because it's like I'm taking crazy pills when nobody agrees about how crappy the cgi is and that not having much of it in lotr was part of the reason it was so great. O well.
quote:
After seeing all 3, I think the first one is the best (that's not saying much). I'm not sure if the third is worse, better, or equal to the second one. In some ways I think it was probably better (maybe). In a lot of ways it was worse, or at least just downright awful.
Still having a hard time figuring out this sentence but I just went ahead and skipped the third one.
I was at least going to give PJ props that he did my favorite part of the book justice. Bilbo's conversation with Smaug. I was in the theatre thinking "wow, not bad, thus is actually a little creepy like I was hoping it would be." But of course he goes and screws it up by finishing the scene like your on a 3D roller coaster ride at Disneyland. I hate that guy.
Posted on 1/16/15 at 12:34 pm to red_giraffe
quote:
he decided to CGI the frick out of characters he would have put in prosthetics or costume in the original trilogy: Orcs, Goblins, Azog, Bolg, soldiers in the various armies...
This probably annoyed me the most.
Posted on 1/16/15 at 1:39 pm to red_giraffe
I was very underwhelmed, especially by the third movie. I was holding out hope for the third to settle some of my reservations, but it left me feeling more disappointed. It seems like it isn't a popular opinion from what I've heard, but I agree with you that I liked the first the best. I actually thought that the first movie was really promising for the rest, and I didn't have much if any problems with the silly action sequences. It fit the tone as I thought it was supposed to be.
Taken by themselves and not being compared with the books the movies were probably a 4/10 for me. Solidly entertaining but not something that I care if I ever see again. At the end of the day, I feel like I really just saw them because I felt an obligation to my childhood.
Taken by themselves and not being compared with the books the movies were probably a 4/10 for me. Solidly entertaining but not something that I care if I ever see again. At the end of the day, I feel like I really just saw them because I felt an obligation to my childhood.
This post was edited on 1/16/15 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 1/16/15 at 1:50 pm to red_giraffe
quote:
what happened to the Arkenstone? last we saw of it, Bard had it in his hands. Yet no mention of it after that... the heart of Erebor which was built up over 3 films. After Thorin dies, there's no funeral, and no discussion of who becomes king under the mountain, and no discussion of what happened to all that gold everyone was so worried about.
Those were some of my biggest complaints as well.
Posted on 1/16/15 at 1:59 pm to red_giraffe
I thought they were all pretty good movies, but not nearly as good as LOTR. I felt that the first was the weakest myself. The silly mountain trolls, goblin king and the escape from the goblins were just meh to me. I think the second was the best b/c of Smaug..
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News