- 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
2
Posted on 11/20/15 at 8:34 am to OMLandshark
I liked the Hobbit trilogy a pretty good bit. It wasn't LoTR, but I wasn't expecting it to be...that bar is FAR too high, and I knew that (LoTR is my #1 trilogy of all time). So going into the series, I knew it wouldn't be fair to expect that. So with tempered expectations, I think I likely enjoyed it more than most.
That being said, there are lots of flaws in it. Someone mentioned the cartoonish stupid shite, and I agree that is the worst part(s) of the trilogy by far. And there is definitely a lot of fluff as well. I didn't really mind, but there definitely was a lot of it. And I thought Five Armies was pretty awesome and was most similar to LoTR (with the huge battles scenes and shite).
Now all that being said, I need to check this out one day:
I've heard nothing but awesome things about it, and one day I'll have to find it and DL/watch it. I wish I could access it via DVD or something to make it easier.
That being said, there are lots of flaws in it. Someone mentioned the cartoonish stupid shite, and I agree that is the worst part(s) of the trilogy by far. And there is definitely a lot of fluff as well. I didn't really mind, but there definitely was a lot of it. And I thought Five Armies was pretty awesome and was most similar to LoTR (with the huge battles scenes and shite).
Now all that being said, I need to check this out one day:
quote:
The edited down version to 3 and a half hours is brilliant
I've heard nothing but awesome things about it, and one day I'll have to find it and DL/watch it. I wish I could access it via DVD or something to make it easier.
This post was edited on 11/20/15 at 9:06 am
Posted on 11/20/15 at 8:45 am to The Godfather
quote:
I enjoyed them, but they are not even in the same stratosphere as LOTR trilogy.
Also true for the source material.
Posted on 11/20/15 at 8:47 am to OMLandshark
I loved The Hobbit, but I never expected it to be as good as LOTR. As far as it being too long, I ate that up. I watch a three hour movie about anything set in Middle Earth.
Posted on 11/20/15 at 9:03 am to OMLandshark
I love the Hobbit trilogy for what it was. I think the first one was my favorite of that trilogy.
Obviously, Lord of the Rings is considerably better, but that is the greatest trilogy of all time. It's considerably better than nearly any movie ever made.
I think the Hobbit gets unfairly compared to Lord of the Rings because it's in the same world, but the books are much different in tone. Also, the Hobbit does retread some of the same motifs as Lord of the Rings, which does take a little bit of the awe and wonder away from it.
I am more of a Middle-Earth nerd than I am a Star Wars nerd, though, so I can watch and enjoy anything made in that world. I want parts of the Silmarillion next, though I understand the Tolkien estate hated the movies and won't give up the movie rights for the Silmarillion. The original war between Morgoth and Feanor and his sons was a far more epic story than what we got in Lord of the Rings. Sauron, a Maya or lesser angel, was just a lieutenant of Morgoth, a Vala or greater angel. Morgoth was the most powerful of all the Valar. It took the combined might of the good Valar and Mayar, the elves of old (who were incredibly powerful), and the men of Beleriand, of which now only the Dunedain remain, to defeat Morgoth.
Obviously, Lord of the Rings is considerably better, but that is the greatest trilogy of all time. It's considerably better than nearly any movie ever made.
I think the Hobbit gets unfairly compared to Lord of the Rings because it's in the same world, but the books are much different in tone. Also, the Hobbit does retread some of the same motifs as Lord of the Rings, which does take a little bit of the awe and wonder away from it.
I am more of a Middle-Earth nerd than I am a Star Wars nerd, though, so I can watch and enjoy anything made in that world. I want parts of the Silmarillion next, though I understand the Tolkien estate hated the movies and won't give up the movie rights for the Silmarillion. The original war between Morgoth and Feanor and his sons was a far more epic story than what we got in Lord of the Rings. Sauron, a Maya or lesser angel, was just a lieutenant of Morgoth, a Vala or greater angel. Morgoth was the most powerful of all the Valar. It took the combined might of the good Valar and Mayar, the elves of old (who were incredibly powerful), and the men of Beleriand, of which now only the Dunedain remain, to defeat Morgoth.
Posted on 11/20/15 at 9:09 am to LSUMJ
quote:
the Hobbbit book is half the size of the LOTR books, theres just wasnt enough material for 3 long films
People keep saying this, but the Hobbit book had a lot of stuff occur off page. Gandalf disappeared for long stretches only to return at an opportune moment. You find out he disappeared to meet with the White Council and defeat the "Necromancer." In the appendix to the Lord of the Rings, you get more detail on what he was actually doing. So the Hobbit combines both the book and the appendix to Lord of the Rings.
That being said, Tauriel was absolutely unnecessary and I hated her character. I get that there were approximately zero females in the original book, but no need to force feed us this terribly selfish female elf.
The movies also did something the book didn't even attempt, which was to give each dwarf his own personality. The book was not easy to adapt to film due to the fact that you had 13 dwarves with only a few ever actually talking.
Posted on 11/20/15 at 11:07 am to OMLandshark
The Hobbit trilogy is the first time that I have been seriously turned off by the overuse of CGI in a movie. The pure cartoonishness of some of the scenes just made the movies suffer in my opinion. The LOTR trilogy had quite a bit of CGI but if was not nearly as overdone.
Posted on 11/20/15 at 12:07 pm to Breesus
quote:
No it wasn't.
I haven't been able to sit through any of the Hobbit movies without falling asleep.
The LOTR films are cinematic masterpieces that I've seen dozens of times.
Posted on 11/20/15 at 12:15 pm to OMLandshark
He could have trimmed the 45 minute dwarf dinner scene.
Posted on 11/20/15 at 12:39 pm to LSUMJ
An Unexpected Journey and There and Back Again should have been the 2 movies.
Posted on 11/20/15 at 12:42 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
He could have trimmed the 45 minute dwarf dinner scene.
That is probably my favorite scene of the entire trilogy. It captures the tone of the book better than any other scene in the trilogy. I do not understand the dislike for it at all.
Posted on 11/20/15 at 11:32 pm to Haughton99
quote:
The Hobbit trilogy is the first time that I have been seriously turned off by the overuse of CGI in a movie. The pure cartoonishness of some of the scenes just made the movies suffer in my opinion. The LOTR trilogy had quite a bit of CGI but if was not nearly as overdone.
This, especially Legolas' orc surfing scenes. Just terrible.
Posted on 11/20/15 at 11:46 pm to piggidyphish
quote:
Also true for the source material.
This is the most retarded thing I've read today. The reason The Hobbit trilogy was disappointing to me is that the book is much better than The Lord of the Rings. The characters are better, the story is better, and the finale was much more satisfying, even if the stakes weren't as high.
Posted on 11/21/15 at 6:59 am to Froman
quote:
This is the most retarded thing I've read today. The reason The Hobbit trilogy was disappointing to me is that the book is much better than The Lord of the Rings. The characters are better, the story is better, and the finale was much more satisfying, even if the stakes weren't as high.
Umm, bullshite. Most of the characters in the Hobbit are caricatures. The only good characters in it are Bilbo, Gandalf, Smaug, and Thorin. Save for Legolas, I think every member of the Fellowship is great, along with Denethor, Faramir, and Gollum. But even Gollum wasn't realized at all in the Hobbit and is at this point still a monstrous caricature.
The story is pretty run of the mill and doesn't really compare to Lord of the Rings. I'll admit that the book drags at the end, but the book during the final battle and Mount Doom establishes a ton of suspense. While I was sure that the Ring would be destroyed, I was never certain that Frodo and Sam would survive their journey into Mordor. It's a better climax than the Hobbit. I like both the Hobbit book and films, but to say that either of them are on the same level as Lord of the Rings is laughable.
This post was edited on 11/21/15 at 7:03 am
Posted on 11/21/15 at 7:00 am to OMLandshark
I sometimes wonder if he ever read The Hobbit
Posted on 11/21/15 at 7:01 am to LeonPhelps
quote:
That is probably my favorite scene of the entire trilogy. It captures the tone of the book better than any other scene in the trilogy. I do not understand the dislike for it at all.
I agree. That entire scene really sets the tone. Tolkien would have loved that scene on screen. In the 3 and a half hour edit I spoke of, I think that scene is minimally edited.
Posted on 11/21/15 at 9:05 am to Breesus
quote:
quote:
The Hobbit trilogy was a disappointment
No it wasn't.
It was to me. I watched the first, tried to watch the 2nd and made it through but really lost interest and never felt any desire to watch the third.
Posted on 11/21/15 at 10:08 am to Methuselah
If someone wants to compare the two trilogies, they should watch the escape from Goblin Town, then watch the Fellowship's escape from Moria. Just mind blowing how inferior the Hobbit is to the original. With the same director/producer and an unlimited budget, one would think the trilogies would be close. I could talk for days about how the Hobbit could have been a simple, easy but brilliant film.
Posted on 11/21/15 at 1:57 pm to JohnnyBgood
The Hobbit doesn't compare to the LOTR trilogy. There were a couple of good scenes (Golem's cave, Smaug, and the first meeting with Bilbo) and a couple of good story line changes (specifically the Arkenstone being the item they want Bilbo to steal), but the rest is hot-fricking-garbage.
Posted on 11/21/15 at 2:05 pm to Breesus
I think you could've probably fit the entire trilogy into a single movie -- at least two films. The problem was the source material.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News