Anyone else seen the third movie yet? I went to The Hobbit marathon so I got to see all three today. It was a fun time. I am curious about everyone's thoughts.
Printable View
Anyone else seen the third movie yet? I went to The Hobbit marathon so I got to see all three today. It was a fun time. I am curious about everyone's thoughts.
Not until Wednesday >.> I will be sure to avoid this thread until then.
Except for this post.
Comes out Boxing Day here. Can't wait! I know a lot of people seem to really hate these movies, but as someone who never read the original book I am quite enjoying the journey so far. I love adventure movies.
:)
I have seen the movie. It is awesome. I love the elf and dwarf army in this one.
(SPOILER)Legolas hurricanranas an orc. Ridiculous.
DO TAURIEL AND KILI HAVE BEAUTIFUL DWELF BABBY
Uhh...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinxie Poo
*puts on the ring and goes invisible*
THEY BETTER.
I am waiting to see this when I visit my siblings in Wyoming. We've all loved the Tolkien movies so since it's out just a week prior to us visiting, we're all going to make the trip to watch it. Then probably go drinking afterward, ya know, normal sibling stuff.
I'm seeing it Saturday.
Not seeing this. I got what I wanted out of the series. No thanks.
The fact that this question even gets asked is just indicative of how badly the story has been ruined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinxie Poo
Tauriel & Kili spoiler
Kili dies. No babies. The end.
(SPOILER)Was Tauriel referenced at all when Kili died?Quote:
Originally Posted by ToriJ
I can't believe we're using spoilers for a book that's eighty years old.
It was my understanding Tauriel was a movie exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade(SPOILER)Was Tauriel referenced at all when Kili died?Quote:
Originally Posted by ToriJ
I can't believe we're using spoilers for a book that's eighty years old.
(SPOILER)Tauriel witnessed his death and all that nice dramatic stuff.
Spoiler alert, Moses makes it out of Egypt (UNLESS THEY CHANGED IT LOL).Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
I think his concern is less that we should care about this character's ultimate fate, and more that Tauriel was an unnecessary addition into an established story that lacks a twist ending.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToriJ
But then again, Azog is still alive at the beginning of the first movie, so it could be anything. It could even be a boat.
(SPOILER)Actually, my concern is that Fili and Kili died protecting Thorin. That their deaths should have been epic defense of their kinsmen, with no tragic "star crossed lovers" implications or anything of the sort. I'm guessing that Kili's death was completely ruined by the presence of Tauriel. Changing the themes, characterization, and impact of his death into something completely unrelated.Quote:
Originally Posted by TavrobelSpoiler alert, Moses makes it out of Egypt (UNLESS THEY CHANGED IT LOL).Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
I think his concern is less that we should care about this character's ultimate fate, and more that Tauriel was an unnecessary addition into an established story that lacks a twist ending.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToriJ
But then again, Azog is still alive at the beginning of the first movie, so it could be anything. It could even be a boat.
I thought the movie was pretty entertaining. It's kind of odd, as it wants to be high fantasy & intentionally goofy, while @ times being unintentionally goofy, all @ the same time.
My response was more directed at the "I can't believe we're using spoilers for a book that's eighty years old." comment. I only used spoilers tags because Tauriel is an original character so the story is obviously going to be different because of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TavrobelI think his concern is less that we should care about this character's ultimate fate, and more that Tauriel was an unnecessary addition into an established story that lacks a twist ending.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToriJ
But then again, Azog is still alive at the beginning of the first movie, so it could be anything. It could even be a boat.
Just got back. Started out awesome 10/10 because it was a bunch of awesome massive fights between EVERYBODY http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a1...pscd2687d5.gif
then (SPOILER)everyone I liked started to die and Legolas climbed up a bunch of falling rocks and I'm sorry I know he's Legolas and that this is fantasy but it was ridiculous and bothered me a lot
The ending kind of redeemed it a little but what the hell I recall The Hobbit being a fun and happy book? Then again it's been a while since I read it :shobon:
The ending was the best part of this movie. I loved how it ended(SPOILER) with Gandalf showing up at Bilbos 111th birthday
(SPOILER)Yeah, I called bulltrout on that scene. Oddly enough I thought he was more watered down compared to his role in 2, but I could just be remembering 2 wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike
Gonna be the blasphemer...
...but I actually got pretty bored watching this. I loved Parts 1 and 2, but Part 3 just never really hooked me at any point.
Off the top of my head, I'd probably rank them 2, 3 then 1. I like Bilbo a bit more than Frodo, but I think the LoTR trilogy beats this one.
I don't even remember the first two that well to properly rate them. I guess that means 3 wins by default.
I really liked the legolas part. I love his daddy. He's like the way I imagine blood elves in WoW.
I thought it was action all the way through. Which I enjoyed. I went in expecting a fantasy action click and that's what I got. Wasn't looking for some deep meaning. It filled that fantasy action need for me.
I didn't like it at all. I felt nothing. I rolled my eyes a lot. So essentially, this film fulfilled every expectation I had for it. going to copy my facebook post:
I was going to write out a nice long critique about Battle of the Five Armies and the conclusion to The Hobbit trilogy, but someone has already done it for me.
http://arstechnica.com/the-multivers...obbit-trilogy/
Cue the absurdly apt "the kids are barely developed at all and Bard comes off as a blandly heroic Diet Aragorn". I loved Bard in The Desolation of Smaug; he was the best thing about that film, aside from Bilbo's meeting with Smaug. This one, though, he just didn't cut it. Diet Aragorn is smurfing right.
Also, the film started winding down a good HOUR AND TWENTY-FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THE FILM ENDED. THAT IS FAR TOO LONG TO DRAG OUT AN ENDING. PETER JACKSON FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ANY MORE FILMS EVER, YOU HAVE GEORGE-LUCASED THE trout OUT OF THESE FILMS JUST STOP
"George Lucased" is probably the most appropriate term for PJ's Hobbit Trilogy. While I found it entertaining, & there were some aspects I really liked about it, it just didn't hit on the same level the LoTR Trilogy did.
It's seems to be the same w/ Star Wars, basing it on what others have said about the prequels (which I didn't bother seeing).
I actually thought the ending was only about five minutes long xD It seemed really abrupt to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty
I keep seeing people on Facebook bitching about the super cool rideable elks and pigs and rams and stuff and IMO they can bite me. It reminds me of Warcraft and Warcraft is great.
Peter Jackson doesn't have jack trout on George Lucas.
Thinking about it I think the first Hobbit movie is my favorite of the three. It's been a while since I read the Hobbit but I recall liking it because it was a fun, silly kids' book that didn't take itself too seriously. The first movie captured that feeling the best I think. After that it just wanted to be ~super serious~ and I didn't like it as much.
This was so bad, you guys.
Cannot tell if that was sarcasm.
Definitely not sarcasm. I really want to like these movies.
It frustrates me because on one hand I'm always excited to just bask in hundreds of millions of dollars worth of nerdy D&D aesthetics and see wizards battling evil shadow knights in decrepit ruins and the like (seriously, how do you f this up?), but then it's packaged with a nonstop assault of stomach-churning hackneyed cliches and unimaginable overindulgence to the point where I feel embarrassed even if I'm watching it by myself.
Here comes the computer-generated goblin overlord. He's hacking and slashing his way through hundreds of unimportant extras, and he's headed right for a character that we know! It's hopeless! He's slowly lifting his gigantic axe...he's smiling...what's that, he's licking his lips (so cruel!) Oh my God, he's going to do it any second now. He's making a war cry for maximum power! HERE IT COMES!!!! Oh, he was saved by another character that we know just in time! Phew!
Oh no! The bridge is crumbling, and our elven hero is doomed! No wait! He's Takahashi Meijin! He's jumping/gliding up the falling debris via bad special effects!
Personality status:
First Act: Selfish bigot
Second Act: Selfish bigot
Third Act: Great guy who sees the error in his ways! (Have a one-liner, ya rascal!)
The title of this movie has "Five Armies" in it, but can anyone say for sure who those five armies even are?
Like 7 characters that we know & love™ can somehow change the outcome of a war by charging in.
Ogres
Elves
Dwarves
Humans
Eagles
The eagles were an army? Weren't there two completely separate armies of orcs? I guess that counts as two parts of the same army? The hill dwarves and the other dwarves... Anyway, my point is...
I've not seen the movie so I don't know how it's presented there, but "Battle of Five Armies" makes it sound like five different groups of smurfers shows up and had a Royal Rumble, whilst that's not what happened. The armies were, as Colonel Angus said,
- The Orcs of Gundabad and assorted Wargs, Bats, and Goblins
- The Dwarves of Erebor (the Thirteen along with Bilbo) and 500 from the Iron Hills
- The Men of Long-Lake
- The Wood Elves
- The Great Eagles
The last four of these were allied together against the Orc host.
Given what Tolkein wrote about throughout his literary career, it's totally reasonable that a small number of individuals could change the outcome of a battle or the fate of the world - ultimately, that's his precise message. Bilbo is a humble Hobbit from a rural backwater, and he's very happy that way, but he along with the rest of the Fellowship change the fate of the entire world.
An alternative interpretation is:
Orcs (Goblins)
Wargs
Elves
Dwarves
Humans
By this interpretation, they don't consider any forces that weren't present for the original argument about who gets what. In this case, Eagles are left out because they end the battle. They don't actually wind up with any losses.
This is the interpretation I always took.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tavrobel
The thing that became incredibly clear from the first movie to me (and increasingly so with each movie afterwards) was that these movies were not an adaptation of the Hobbit book. At least, that wasn't the true goal. The goal was to make a prequel to the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy. Sure, the overarching story (at least with the dwarves and Bilbo) is ripped from the books, but the tone was changed to fit the original trilogy more than the lighthearted adventure of the book. This is why the old animated Hobbit will always be my favorite adaptation of this story, I think. Like Pike said, the first movie seemed to have that more lighthearted nature than the other movies, which made it a lot more of what I was looking for. We got a lot of the songs that I really enjoyed, we got a lot of humor, and it was just really fun and not serious (outside of the Azog and Sauron stuff). It was a much better mixture of the tone of the books and the more serious tone to match the trilogy.
I do like these movies more than Shorty, but of course my only experience with the third movie was while marathoning the first two movies. I think it works a lot better in the context of the first two movies. Bard becomes less bland for me because we're getting the buildup to his heroics, and to me it didn't feel as much like Aragorn-lite just because I had just seen the stuff from Desolation of Smaug. By the way, the Laketown folks were my favorite aspects of Desolation of Smaug. I liked Bard and I liked the sort of political look we got into the leader of the town and whatnot. That all was enjoyable to me.
There were too many nods to the trilogy to me though. Every time Legolas or Galadriel or Sarumon showed up, it was like Jackson was saying "please remember the LotR trilogy. That was good right? Just think about that." The adventures of Gandalf weren't terrible to me, but I felt it took too much focus away from the dwarves and Bilbo. I wouldn't have minded those bits to have been made (and even maybe expanded a little) as an extra on the DVDs or as a short series of mini episodes. I liked the mystery in the book of Gandalf's coming and going. Legolas was ridiculous. It makes sense for him to be present somewhat since some of the events do revolve around his dad. There was too much of him just bouncing around, being a superhero. Now, him appearing briefly wouldn't bother me. Honestly, the only nod to the original trilogy (outside of the Gollum stuff) that I liked was the short exchange where Legolas saw the picture of kid Gimli and the comments there. That's how references and nods should have been, just these subtle things that viewers of LotR would be able to have just that extra insight to really enjoy while not taking away from the focus of the movie.
Speaking of Legolas' father, I really enjoyed him in the second movie. He had a very unsettling way of moving and interacting that just really got to me. This was especially prevalent in the interrogation scene with that orc. It gave a nice message that this was an elf, but that he was also a bit more ruthless and wild than the elves we see in Rivendell. I think it was a missed opportunity to not extend this to more of the elves in Mirkwood or wherever. Also, he lost that unsettling nature in the third film which really bothered me. I can't remember what he was like in the first movie, but his things were very brief there.
Also, that elf/dwarf romance. It was way more cringey to me when I watched it the second time around, and the writing just got worse into the third movie with that stuff. I would have been okay without any of that. Female Legolas just felt really out of place to me. Maybe it would have been a little better had Legolas not been in the movie? There would have been less superhero elf action going on at least, and it wouldn't have been as overbearing to me. Even then, I just didn't think her character was done very well considering her sole purpose of existing seemed to simultaneously get Legolas to care about/participate in the events and to add more drama where it wasn't needed. I don't know. I just didn't like it.
Saw it again yesterday because, why not.
100% decided that this film was just rubbish.
There was pretty much 0 character development in it, 0 story, and was just 2 hours of various fantasy races beating each other up over a mountain that the supposed strategic importance of was never really clarified. Don't get me wrong, I still laughed at Ogre headbutting wall, at Dwarves on Rams etc but by the end of it I was like... well that was pretty much all style and no substance.
This film completely lacked the novelty, charm and quirky humor of the first two. The camaraderie between all the characters was sparse at best and it's attempts at humor were pretty much on a Beadle's About level of slapstick that at times I often asked my self "was that really necessary?"
All in all, a disappointing end for me.
If you're looking for 2 hours of various CGI'ed fantasy creatures beating the crap out of each other, then it nails that. But for a climax to the charming adventure we've had in the first two films, it fell miles short of the mark.
I must admit I was expecting a further hour of exposition at the end with evil wizard guy frolicking around with Sauradouchebag to tie into the first LOTR film more... so glad that didn't happen as I think I may have pulled my eyeballs out with the straw from my drink.
edit: Also I have never read any of the books, I'm also fairly liberal and easy going when it comes to films. I didn't really have any expectations going into this and it still left me feeling disappointed.
It's a huge fortified mountain filled with gold and supplies, it's strategic by definition. xD Guess I'm kind of a nerd for stuff like that though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aulayna
Yeah, Erebor has huge strategic value, for several reasons.
First because a mountain fortress is an inherently defensible position (to say nothing of one built by Dwarves, who are canonically the best builders in Middle Earth).
Second, it's the Lonely Mountain - it's the only one for hundreds of miles. Combined with the above and it will serve as a tremendous castle from which to project power, just as traditional castles did. No force could be sufficiently omnipresent to exert its influence all over the lands held by their leader, so you built a castle and have a safe base to sally out from as needed.
Third, Smaug's been hoarding unimaginable wealth within it for two centuries. I mean, there's enough gold in there to take a Scrooge McDuck-style swim in, to say nothing of the special treasures like objects made of mithril (remember that the mail vest Bilbo gets is worth more than the entire Shire) and the Arkenstone. Quite aside from any value in the fortress itself, it's totally worth a raid, either for personal wealth or to fund your armies for an extraordinary period of time.
Haven't seen it yet but I assume this is another action scene directed and animated by people who have never seen real objects affected by gravity (or any other physical laws)? That'd be par for the course for this series to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike
The scene in question is so far beyond what you can possibly imagine. I wanted to leave the theatre and take a shower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
I look forward to watching it and swallowing back my own vomit then. We watched the second Hobbit movie a couple of days ago since my wife hadn't seen it yet and the whole river sequence and everything with Smaug after the dwarves catch up to Bilbo reminded me of why I don't like Weta these days. In fact, I actually liked the scene in Bard's house when the Orcs show up and they fight them more than I remembered because they used actual people in Orc costumes and make up and it looked fabulous by comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by NecronopticousThe scene in question is so far beyond what you can possibly imagine. I wanted to leave the theatre and take a shower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
I'll just have to enjoy the movie enough for everyone.
On that Legolas bridge scene, I literally imagined it as a QTE event in a video game with a bunch of on-screen button presses.
Bilbo's vest was also a relatively minor treasure. A suit of combat mail for an elvish prince too young to be seriously considered for combat (much like the armor Pippin eventually acquired as the Guard of the Citadel, which was made for a young Faramir). Yet the craftsmanship and material make it worth more than a small country all by itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Adequate
Smaug's treasure is utterly enormous. Mountains of gold, and hallways filled with armor and weaponry valued at just as much.
Can we talk about how horrific Dain was, both in character and in CGI? The graphics were absolutely atrocious, and they must have known this because they didn't let us see his face for longer than half a second at any given moment. Also his lines were terrible, and he was all-around just a bad character.
I love Billy Connelly as much as the next person, but my god, what a mess.
You'll just have to wait for the extended version!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty
You mean to say it wasn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aulayna
Try bringing a controller to the theater next time. Let us know how it goes. Maybe the scene is different if you fail the sequence?Quote:
Originally Posted by ToriJYou mean to say it wasn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aulayna
I looked it up online. You just get a game over screen with Paul Eiding's voice telling you not to change the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by TavrobelTry bringing a controller to the theater next time. Let us know how it goes. Maybe the scene is different if you fail the sequence?Quote:
Originally Posted by ToriJYou mean to say it wasn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aulayna
... dude.
Spoilers.
Watched it and loved it. Nothing more to add.
I saw it last night with the girl I'm dating, I wasn't particularly glued to the screen if I'm honest. Smaug dies in like 20 minutes of the start of the film, frankly that should have been at the end of the 2nd film and not carried over to the 3rd it pretty much just felt out of place, a bad cutting point which means poor choice by the editors and producers. As for the battle with Smaug? Bard does a great job of being half way between Aragorn and the Legolas portrayed in the LOTR trilogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike
As to the question of the 5 armies, I figured the initial 4 were: The Elves, The Humans, The Dwarves and the Orcs of the Necropolis with the Orcs of Angamar being the 5th. Though you could consider the combined forces of the Eagles, Beorn and Radagast an army.
The battle between the forces of light and the 9 in the Necropolis was actually one of my favourite battles in the film. Ironically, not the final battle.
Legolas doing the climbing up the falling stones looked so terribly done? Also what is he? full of helium? Is he somehow lighter than air? I understood the fact that he was able to walk atop the snow in the LOTR trilogy because that was grounded in that he was light on his feet. There is light on your feet and there's light on your feet however!
Steve there are no places in Middle-Earth called Necropolis or Angamar. Stop making things up and trying to pretend you know what you're talking about :flirt:
smurf you for picking up on me being tired as trout when typing that (I got home at 7:30AM!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
Aside from that I clearly meant the place where the Nine were gathering their power, where the Necromancer was by the Necropolis comment.
As for Angamar, the place to the north, I cannot remember the spelling of, where the Orcs were coming from.
u wot steve
Dol Guldur. Or Mordor in general. Minas Ithil/Minas Morgul for the Witch King's actual seat of power and where the Nazgul primarily operated from. Necropolis is a level 75 map in Path of Exile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
Angmar. It's the name of a former kingdom led by the Witch King. Its purpose was to bring about the ruin of the kingdom of Arnor. At the time of the trilogy, it had ceased existing. Angamar is a location in Elder Scrolls.
Saw this today.
I wanted to love it as I did the other 2, but I really feel that it was just 2 hours of fighting. Which is okay and all, but I mean come on, once you've seen one you've seen them all man.
And yeah, Smaug was the best part of this. I really feel that it didn't need to a be a trilogy... it should have been 2 films at most. This last one just felt like OTT filler.
Saw it yesterday and I liked it simply because having five armies fight at a time is pretty epic. I didn't like how it ended though because it dragged on way too long. That and also how odd it was how the dwarves were so op.
well since the fighting in the lotr movies is literally their worst quality i dont think ill be seeing this anytime soon
I enjoyed it a lot I have to say! I didn't give a trout about the Kili-Tauriel love thing though. Thorin & Bilbo were magnetic in their scenes.
I didn't mind that. I always felt the dwarves are overlooked in these kinds of stories so it was nice to see them kicking ass for a change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiny
Now that my car is working again we finally got to see this. I was expecting a war crime or an atrocity based on the responses in this thread but you know what? It wasn't too bad. I mean, look, it's not Lord of the Rings by a long way but it wasn't Attack of the Clones bad either.
I absolutely loved the art direction and music scoring. smurf me, I even enjoyed Tauriel and Kili just because I really like their love theme. :shobon: Well, enjoyed is a strong word. Tolerated.
I don't think "it's just a load of fighting" does the movie justice. I thought the bit before the fighting where you have all these power struggles over Erebor was the best part of the movie. It was really tense and intense at the same time. I have read the Hobbit and know what happens, but it still felt like there was going to be a huge siege against it by the Elves and Men.
On the whole I really enjoyed the action. I don't mind ridiculousness and fantasy and enjoyed the pig and the rams and trolls bashing into things. Legolas and the falling bridge was stupid though yeah, and the "oh I wonder if he's really dead beneath the ice!" thing was lame.
I think Aragorn-lite is a poor description of Bard and doesn't do the character justice. I really liked him as a charismatic man of the people in both this and DoS. He's been put in a difficult position as leader unexpectedly and he's doing a top notch job of it. I didn't care for his kids a great deal as character, but I cared because he cared, if that makes sense, I care because I care about him. Alfred was also a surprise, I was not expecting him to get so much screen time but I thought he was a good piece of comic relief, Thernadier-style.
The one thing I didn't like was the ending. I mean, I liked what was there, don't get me wrong, I just didn't like what wasn't there. I can't comprehend the "too long" complaints. What? :confused: No! Not long enough! It seems Jackson took the LotR ending criticism to heart. There was no resolution for Bard, Alfred or the people of Laketown. None for Dain and barely any for Dwarves. But worst of all, what happened to Erebor, the Arkenstone and Gold!? The fate of it all was the major driving point for conflict in the first half of the movie! Was the reason for its omission to say "well there's more important things than that"? At least some nod to the Dwarves of Erebor and men of Dale realising just that and becoming bros would've been a better way to deliver that message.
Not an all time great like LotR, not garbage either.
First of all, I smurfing hated it. HATED it. Very nearly walked out.
Bad acting. Bad casting. Bad special effects. Bad scripting. The worst musical choices of the entire series. Bad pacing. Bad ending.
This movie made me hate Legolas, and I LOVE LEGOLAS. So smurf this movie.
While we're at it, smurf all the elves, especially Elfgirl. She should've stayed Lost. The Kili romance is just pandering bulltrout nonsense. Which is bad enough, but they didn't even write it well or act it well (there's no real tension or believable attraction between the two), and as somebody mentioned, it meant smurfing up the relationship between Kili, Fili, and Thorin.
Which gets me to the main problem I have with the Hobbit movies. This should have been one movie about some DWARVES and a HOBBIT, with some Bard thrown in. Other than Thorin and Kili, the dwarves were practically written out of the movies, especially in this atrocious third movie. Peter Jackson is a racist asshole.
I have so much more to say, but if I say much more, one or another of EoFF's resident smartasses might feel obligated to show their ass.
So anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Angus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necronopticous
The five armies SHOULD be:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tavrobel
Dwarves
Elves
Humans
Orcs
smurfING BEORN. (tbf, beorn+eagles)
In the book, Legolas doesn't kill Bolg, Beorn does. Beorn shows up with the eagles, kills Bolg, and wreaks smurfing havoc. I'd been waiting for this moment, anticipating through every agonizing minute of this horrible excuse for a trilogy of movies and Peter Jackson utterly smurfed it. I mean, we get Beorn jumping off the eagle and shifting midair (which made me hopeful) and then he lands and scene's over. Seriously? That's it? Yep, that's it. Instead we get more Twilight-esque fake dwarf/elf romance.
This was a movie centered around a battle that actually doesn't get detailed in the book. So Jackson was somewhat free to do what he wanted with it. And if he had changed things up and made an interesting movie, I'd forgive him. But the battle wasn't compelling. Much of it simply didn't make any sense. There was basically nothing interesting about it. Thorin's battle wasn't compelling, and was written to be away from the rest of the battle. That was such a troutty choice. I know it was to allow for the Legolas+Kili+Tauriel silliness, and that just makes it worse.
The fighting itself was almost all terrible. Bilbo shooting Orcs with rocks like it's a carnival game? What the serious smurf, man? also, Azog's chain was stupid. A horrible weapon. Dain's use of his hammer was badly animated and basically silly.
Why didn't the orcs just use the Dune-worms to gobble up their enemies?
Lame. Lame. Lame. Lame. Lame.
Beorn also makes part of the trip back with Gandolf and Bilbo, which could've been part of that ending, and should have. Just, more Beorn all around and this would've been a better movie. If you're going to add something to the movie that's not in the book, why not make it interesting? Beorn is really Bard's father? What? Yeah, sure why not, better than the additional trout we got.
Yeah, I'm a fan of Billy Connelly too, but that was soooo disappointing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty
To me, it was. And I'm not being dramatic. I rate them about the same, in terms of good vs. bad moments. And that makes this movie worse, because Jackson had a classic beloved-by-millions book as his source, and couldn't do it justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
It was okay, probably the only part of the movie that didn't have me utterly frustrated. But the way they played Thorin's madness kind of ruined it for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
I don't mind ridiculous fantasy violence, either. But there's good ridiculous fantasy violence and bad ridiculous fantasy violence. TBoFA is a case of the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
Alfred got too much screen time and so did Bard's kids, but I do agree that the Bard character was played well, and compared to most of the other characters, written well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
Yeah, I agree completely. For all the build up, the ending felt really empty, and there was shocking lack of resolution on all accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
Nope. Garbage. Big ol' pile o' garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
Oh yeah, Thorin's madness. I think they really beat you over the head with it and it went on too long. The resolution was shaping up to be nice with the voices of all his friends in his head but then the smurfing awful CGI gold whirlpool that wouldn't look out of place in a PS1 game just distracted and detracted from the whole thing.
Was it really odd to anyone else that the credits didn't feature character sketches of Luke Evans/Bard or Lee Pace/Thranduil? Both characters were really important to the plot - moreso than Galadriel or Elrond - but weren't featured at all.
Like Psychotic, I was really sad we didn't get to see the resolution for the dwarves and the humans of Dale. I feel like I missed some pretty significant closure in not seeing Thorin laid to rest with the Arkenstone and Orcrist - returned by Thranduil himself and giving that character a little more dimension, too. Or wait, is Orcrist the sword Legolas threw to him? If so, then I'm again irritated.
I feel like those things in the conclusion would actually help ease away from the thought of things being too long. The issue, for me, is that too much time was spent on lesser things that should have been given to more important things being cut out/getting short-changed.
I really need to pick up the extended editions of everything when they're all out just to see what they're like. For LotR, I enjoyed the extra character interactions and the chance to spend more time in the world. Also, the appendices were absolutely fascinating. I own the extended first Hobbit film, and I felt its extra scenes just through off the pacing more and really didn't add anything to the movie because they were so insignificant. I haven't watched the appendices yet, but I'm really interested into seeing more behind these movies. I feel like it could bring some interesting insight.
Odd? No. Annoying? Yes. I gave up on the movie's logic or credibility long before the credits started rolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon
I think it was supposed to be Orcrist. But who knows, Peter Jackson by this point has no regard for source content at all. I think the success of the LoTR movies turned him into a megalomaniac (if he wasn't one already).
I often take a film with a pinch of salt, such as the previous two Hobbit movies and Transformers films, all of which I enjoyed to various extents. The Battle of Five Armies had so much salt on it that I was concerned I may vomit.
Smaug was cool. I liked Smaug. Bilbo was, as ever, pretty freakin' great and I felt he was portrayed excellently when compared with the book.
Things that broke all immersion and had Danielle and I looking at each other, cringing or rolling our eyes...
- Any "Is he dead? OH NO HE ISN'T" moment.
- Legolas rock-climbing.
- Legolas auditioning for the WWE.
- Dain
- That guy who left us to die for most of the battle suddenly is here! Now we can win!
- Fili + Kili deaths. Not the method of death, but the reasoning and location. Mostly for Kili, because of the next point.
- The Tauriel + Kili LoveLove Moments
- Gandalf and Bilbo laughing up immediately after mourning.
- The Three vs. The Nine.
Probably more, but that's just from memory. Everything was either dragged on too long or was cut entirely or was just really badly done.
So yeah, in the end Danielle and I left the film blinking about how bad it was. And I had read nothing of what anyone had said about the film before then, because I hate living off the opinion of others. No, we made up our own mind and it's a relief that we aren't alone in our thinking. Yet, somehow, this film has a 7.8/10 rating on IMDb and I'm a bit :facepalm: about that.
Fangirls. And boys, but mostly fangirls.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who caught that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
It would be a decent movie if we stopped pretending that it was a LotR or Hobbit movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
Even though Viggo Mortensen expressed disinterest in reprising his role as Aragorn in The Hobbit films for logical and factual reasons, Peter Jackson still felt compelled for some smurfing reason to shunt a mention of him in there anyway, thereby smurfing up all history of Middle Earth and turning Aragorn into a time traveler. Or some other equally inexplicable explanation for Thanduil's recommendation to Legolas.
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/23...bc0d2a8205.jpg
I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment. Most of my points were nothing to do with the fact it was a Hobbit movie, they were just really bad Things That Were Done.Quote:
Originally Posted by TavrobelIt would be a decent movie if we stopped pretending that it was a LotR or Hobbit movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
Finally saw this at The New Parkway, which is a casual independently owned theater in our area. The theater is pretty cool but the movie was terrible. Worse than I could have guessed. The CGI was overused and horrendous. Legolas and his physics-defying feats was too over-the-top and the subplot with his dad & dead mom was unnecessary (and that little bit about Aragorn at the end was like wtf? He's like 8 years old at this time). Tauriel was one of the worst characters ever and I can now firmly say that that actress is terrible ((SPOILER)and Kili's death was all her fault). Thorin's 'dragon gold sickness' was stupid and that scene with him falling into the floor of gold was one of the worst things I've ever seen on film. That was Spider Man 3 pimp walk bad.
There were only two things I liked: 1. Bilbo was excellently played and Martin Freeman owned every scene he was in (and Bilbo was not in it enough). 2. I actually liked the fight scene with the White Council to rescue Gandalf and to see Saruman and Elrond fight like badasses, and the whole rebirth of Sauron. I wish Galadriel had fought too though. I'll also give some credit to the opening fight between Bard and Smaug though Bard was pretty stupid through the rest of the movie.
It's sad to see Peter Jackson pull a Lucas with this prequel trilogy but that is 100% what he did.
One thing I'll disagree with. I think she was no better or worse an actress than, say, Liv Tyler. In other words she was told to play an annoying romantic interest that is in places she was never written into by Tolkien, and suffered for it immensely. I dislike almost every female character Jackson worked on, with the exception of, perhaps, Éowyn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
What about Rosie Cotton, you monster?
Did she get a line in the end?
I think she says "Goodnight lads" when they leave the Green Dragon in Fellowship.
Clearly, in that case, she is not done justice as she should have had more lines. Which she would have got if Jackson added in the Scouring of the Shire.
Yes but if he'd added in the Scouring of the Shire you just know he'd have had Rosie in a swordfight with Grima Wormtongue.
Further proving my point, if anything.
But he didn't!
I'd say that was the case if she was annoying in one role, but she was also the most annoying character on Lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoBOne thing I'll disagree with. I think she was no better or worse an actress than, say, Liv Tyler. In other words she was told to play an annoying romantic interest that is in places she was never written into by Tolkien, and suffered for it immensely. I dislike almost every female character Jackson worked on, with the exception of, perhaps, Éowyn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
TRUTHQuote:
Originally Posted by Del MurderI'd say that was the case if she was annoying in one role, but she was also the most annoying character on Lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoBOne thing I'll disagree with. I think she was no better or worse an actress than, say, Liv Tyler. In other words she was told to play an annoying romantic interest that is in places she was never written into by Tolkien, and suffered for it immensely. I dislike almost every female character Jackson worked on, with the exception of, perhaps, Éowyn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
Let's put it this way: I might agree that a character is annoying, but I never found the actress herself annoying. I feel she acted out the scenes in appropriate ways for someone who was instructed to act out those scenes (for both Lost and The Hobbit films).
I went into it with low expectations and I thought I had fully prepared myself for disappointment. I was wrong. It was worse than I could have imagined and it was heartbreaking to witness. I left the theater honestly upset to the point of tears. I thought it was so so bad. And yeah it sucked as an adaptation, that stung the most, how PJ did such a disservice to the book. But it was flat out a terrible movie. It would be one thing if his changes made for a good film but Jesus Christ it was a wreck. I just don't understand.
I haven't seen this yet, but the first movie was AWFUL and the second movie was pretty bad, so surely there weren't high hopes here?
Completely unbelievable CGI fight scenes are truly the worst part of any movie like this, so I'll probably think it's really dumb.
I liked this one the best of the three. I know there was only like 20 pages left in the book but, the battle was cool. maybe now people wont be going on about he's the greatest director ever like they were after the LoTRs considering at one point he was voted the worst director ever.