The Hobbit movie

[richtea78]

JFReturns said:

Halb said:

richtea78 said:

But seriously, a female elf? I'm annoyed on behalf of Halb!

Yeah, but she is FIT.

She was. I can only assume though that Liv Tyler turned them down?

[Halb]

richtea78 said:

She was. I can only assume though that Liv Tyler turned them down?

Normally I'd say, 'don't be silly, that is Arwen!', but yeah, it's a PJ wkfest, so I guess she musta!

[richtea78]

I did enjoy it overall though Halb. Some of it was padded for sure but as I said earlier some of it was fantastic. Cumberbatch as Smaug was amazing. Smaug was pretty good overall I thought except for a bit of typical silliness.

I think it could be the first film where there is a cut that reduces the films to 2 and cuts a lot of the crap.

[Halb]

I still wanna watch it. I am starting to turn into a Bendbacky fan. He is a fine actor.

[Halmyre]

richtea78 said:

I did enjoy it overall though Halb. Some of it was padded for sure but as I said earlier some of it was fantastic. Cumberbatch as Smaug was amazing. Smaug was pretty good overall I thought except for a bit of typical silliness.

I think it could be the first film where there is a cut that reduces the films to 2 and cuts a lot of the crap.

Someone will no doubt edit it down to match the original book.

Wonder how many films it would take to do 'The Silmarillion' justice?

[zax]

Halmyre said:

richtea78 said:

I did enjoy it overall though Halb. Some of it was padded for sure but as I said earlier some of it was fantastic. Cumberbatch as Smaug was amazing. Smaug was pretty good overall I thought except for a bit of typical silliness.

I think it could be the first film where there is a cut that reduces the films to 2 and cuts a lot of the crap.

Someone will no doubt edit it down to match the original book.

Wonder how many films it would take to do 'The Silmarillion' justice?

I was very surprised to see an extended edition of the first installment, couldn't believe they found another 15 minutes of footage worth including in an already over-padded movie. I guess we can expect similar for parts 2 and 3 when they get DVD releases.

6.5/10 for this one from me, and most of that is for the dragon...

[irocfan]

Halmyre said:

Wonder how many films it would take to do 'The Silmarillion' justice?

now THAT would be a send your bum numb! Mind you IIRC didn't PJ say that he'd not return to Middle Earth again?

[Halb]

irocfan said:

ow THAT would be a send your bum numb! Mind you IIRC didn't PJ say that he'd not return to Middle Earth again?

Thank fk.

However, doesn't mean the Sil wouldn't happen. PJ doesn't own any of that, but I think Chris Tolkien might show interest in getting it of the ground, I am sure I didn't dream that.
But that endeavour is more suited to a lengthy epic HBO show (À la Game of Thrones than a rushed 3 hour film.

[irocfan]

Halb said:

But that endeavour is more suited to a lengthy epic HBO show (À la Game of Thrones than a rushed 3 hour film.

now THAT I'll agree with you on!

[Nom de ploom]

I agree with some of this - for me, I thought the second film should have ended with the battle of the 5 armies, and a third film - if it needed it, could explore some of the themes of the rising power of mordor, dwindling of the elves etc...but even so it wouldn't have much of a narrative to keep most cinema goers attentive.

plusses

Smaug - excellent voice over
set pieces, barrels and the doorstep and spiders
Beorn - not easy to cast but very good
Bilbo when he was on screen - captivating
cinematography - always beautiful to look at but occasionally too fast editing takes you out of the film.
elven kingdom and the lonely mountain interior beautifully rendered

minuses

love story
legolas and taureil - no need for either, shameless padding and added nothing imho
wargs et al in laketown spurious
Gandalf / necromancer - possibly not required although by no means a disaster to have them in

not enough Bilbo

I guess my point is that as good as it was, and it is a good film, don't get me wrong, a fair amount could have been omitted and we could have had more Bilbo, more dwarves etc - eg the spiders in the book is a whole chapter.

7/10 - a good effort but 45 minutes could have been better utilised.

[Halmyre]

Halb said:

irocfan said:

ow THAT would be a send your bum numb! Mind you IIRC didn't PJ say that he'd not return to Middle Earth again?

Thank fk.

However, doesn't mean the Sil wouldn't happen. PJ doesn't own any of that, but I think Chris Tolkien might show interest in getting it of the ground, I am sure I didn't dream that.
But that endeavour is more suited to a lengthy epic HBO show (À la Game of Thrones than a rushed 3 hour film.

Some parts of the book - The Children of Hurin, or the story of Beren & Luthien, would work well, although the former is pretty grim stuff.

[Halb]

Halmyre said:

Some parts of the book - The Children of Hurin, or the story of Beren & Luthien, would work well, although the former is pretty grim stuff.

Yeah, incredibly grim! Tuor and Turin! Nastiness to characters didn't start with GRR
It'd make what happened to the Starks look like a picnic!

[Steve vRS]

I must admit to starting to read both The Silmarillion and Thw Children of Hurin and failing.

Steve

[richtea78]

That's because they are really really boring.

[RobDickinson]

The Silmarillion gets good about 1/3rd of the way in the first bit is heavy and dry and not of much use.

I found hobbit.2 a mixed bag. This is the first Tolkein movie I've seen in 3d and the first HFR 3d, overall I liked the movie but..

A lot of the locations looked like sets. I thought it was the hfr/3d but heard the same of the 2d. The lighting I think was something that seemed not quite right. Some way short of LOTR trilogy.

The dragon was excellent. Not quite as compelling as Gollum but looked great and superb acting.

The additional story lines and changes were ok, but didnt appreciate the dwarvs being dumb when trying to figure out opening the door, they are a clever race.

The barrel scene was about a zillion hours too long and looked like some disney mockup for a Goonies remake.

Theres a fair few changes in the movie for no reason whatsoever that dont actually change anything - Beorn in human form was a jolly character, an opposite of his bear form and a break from the 'grind' of the trip etc.

[zetec]

Just seen it and thoroughly enjoyed it, saw it in 3D and HFR, I thought the HFR worked better in this film, visually it was stunning and some of the scenes were brilliantly done.

Smaug was great, can't wait for the last part.

[g3org3y]

Just got back from watching this.

JFReturns said:

I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.

Exactly the opposite. There simply isn't any peril imvho. You could have a thousand Orcs chasing them and there still wouldn't be any concern about the dwarves getting killed.

Barrel scene reminded me of the Shia LaBeouf swinging through the jungle scene in Indy 4.

Matthen said:

Halb said:

In what ways?

Poorly proportioned in the amount of time spent in the greatest forest in middle earth, to the time between them arriving at the mountain and the dragon leaving it. I thought the chase around the mountain was silly and tedious, and CGI with the liquid metal terrible.

The love seen between the elf and dwarf is ridiculous - would never happen for a number of reasons, bard was no criminal, nor common barge man - he was a bowman, captain of the guard, barrels don't appear out of no where for dwarves in desperate need, and most ridiculously, Thorin would have died in the wheel barrow on the gold flow - the heat would have killed him, and most likely destroyed his wheelbarrow also. In addition, Bilbo seeing Sauron when he put the ring on is bullst - if he had, he'd have crapped himself and told Gandalf as soon as he saw him, which would of course completely change The Lord Of The Rings.

The fact that they missed bits out was also a massive shock to me - they've got so much time to fill - why miss the black river out? Or not show the visit to Beorns house in greater detail?

In the films praise, the Gandalf story line was played very, very well.
Except him ending up in a sex cage, but im not bothered about that.

^What this chap said.

As a side note, anyone else think Legolas look a little odd? His face seemed a bit CGI, certainly not natural as in the LOTR films. Not sure why they felt it necessary to do this? (Or maybe they didn't and I'm totally off base).

7/10.

Not close to LOTR by a long chalk.

Edited by g3org3y on Sunday 29th December 09:26

[Prawnboy]

part 2 came on netflix and i tried it last night, (saw the first one in the cinema).

i think i made it half an hour in,(just past the spider attack) just like the first one it was so dull, and the dwarves have no separate identities.

the digital cameras make everything too shiny, and t's impossible to car about Bilbo as he is hardley in it.

the opening shot looked like a computer game.

all in all it just made me want to watch lord of the rings again.

i'm done with the hobbit franchise.

[Nom de ploom]

I've seen the trailer for Pt3 and it does whet the appetite and no doubt I will go and see this, who knows PJ may redeem himself with a cinematic tour de force worthy of the LoTR franchise.

I wanted so much to really love the hobbit films as I did immediately with fellowship.. but I just can't. yet.

[ZesPak]

g3org3y said:

As a side note, anyone else think Legolas look a little odd? His face seemed a bit CGI, certainly not natural as in the LOTR films. Not sure why they felt it necessary to do this? (Or maybe they didn't and I'm totally off base).

Posibly due to age:

The Hobbit plays in 2941, LOTR starts in about 3017, so over 70 years later.
Bloom was 24 in 2001 (LOTR:FOTR), he was 35 when filming the Hobbit.

I'm not sure, but that could be the reason. He's supposed to look the same or even younger, not older. But I noticed it as well, made me think about Xavier in X-men: Last stand, they did something similar.