The Hobbit

[Misanthrope]

Just watching the movie now. Will give my more complete thoughts once I'm done.

 

[Frederick]

Just watching the movie now. Will give my more complete thoughts once I'm done.

f**k that. I demand a scene-by-scene commentary!

 

[Misanthrope]

f**k that. I demand a scene-by-scene commentary!

Don't tempt me. I love the sight of my own posts almost as much as the sound of my own voice.

 

[HowHigh]

I thought it was alright but I'm really just not a fan of the cinema experience, much less enjoyable than watching it at home
I enjoyed Part 1 more when I watched it on blu ray
I was not expecting it to end the way it did though, thought there was going to be another 30 mins

 

[adamkungl]

And every character does not have epic kill counts like Legolas. Bilbo has killed like 3 things. The dwarves were overpowered in the goblin tunnel but in this they couldn't even kill the three orcs in Bard's house. They bumbled about like idiots while Legolas and Tauriel killed the entire pack without trying. (how they even got in, when the dwarves had to be smuggled, is just another thing that doesn't make sense).

The Dwarves managed to kill a heap of orcs while floating along in barrels.

In Two Towers, at Helms Deep Legolas and Gimli actually make a game of counting their kills. At one point Legolas uses a shield like a snowboard and slides down the stairs while headshotting multiple orcs. If I recall in Moria he also manages to ninja his way on top of the cave trolls head.

And as for LOTR, none of the Hobbit characters have any killings of note except Merry. And no other character do the whole silly acrobatic crap that Legolas and Tauriel do in this movie. If the action scenes in LOTR were like the over-the-top cartoony things in The Hobbit (Bombur in the barrel anyone?) then they would be much lesser movies and the action would feel out of place. Boromir's death would be laughable.

Sam manages to beat Orcs with frying pans ffs :lol:

Anyway, despite your delusions about what actually occurs in LOTR, The Hobbit was always a far more lighthearted story anyway, and the occasionally funny action scenes reflect that.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Not to mention his leap onto horseback at speed in TTT

How can anyone say Legolas was anything less than Jedi-like in any of his action scenes. Elves, especially main character Elves, were always meant to be this way

I also liked the Taurial Killi scenes. Why should Aragorn the the only one to tap dat Elf arse?

 

[Springs]

Not to mention his leap onto horseback at speed in TTT

How can anyone say Legolas was anything less than Jedi-like in any of his action scenes. Elves, especially main character Elves, were always meant to be this way

I also liked the Taurial Killi scenes. Why should Aragorn the the only one to tap dat Elf arse?

Since when? Never read any acrobatic cartoony action scenes in the book that I remember.

Tauriel and Kili was such cliche-riddled nonsense I couldn't stand it. According to Evangeline Lily it was a studio-added subplot shot in pick-ups last year. She actually signed on with the agreement that there wasn't going to be a love triangle.

The Dwarves managed to kill a heap of orcs while floating along in barrels.

In Two Towers, at Helms Deep Legolas and Gimli actually make a game of counting their kills. At one point Legolas uses a shield like a snowboard and slides down the stairs while headshotting multiple orcs. If I recall in Moria he also manages to ninja his way on top of the cave trolls head.


Anyway, despite your delusions about what actually occurs in LOTR, The Hobbit was always a far more lighthearted story anyway, and the occasionally funny action scenes reflect that.

They kill a couple of orcs while Legolas kills about 20 alone.

The counting game is in the book. I said that legolas does silly action stuff in LOTR. To get on the cave troll's head he jumps on it from a ledge, hardly running along dwarf heads on a fast-flowing river. My point was anyway, that even though there's some over-the-top Legolas stuff in LOTR, his whole role isn't just that. In The Hobbit pretty much all he does is kill orcs in ever-increasingly ridiculous ways.

Sam hits goblins with a frying pan, so what? Most of the time the Hobbits are running away getting saved by Aragorn and Gandalf.
Of course the Hobbit is lighthearted, but the action scenes don't reflect it at all. They more reflect the fact that many thought the first one was too slow so they had to cram in as much action as possible in this one, as well as a lack of faith in the source material to make a good movie. They cut out most of the good funny (and classic) scenes from the book just for more action. Beorn and the barrels being the main ones (the barrel scene still being quite good apart from the Legolas crap).

 

[Misanthrope]

I wish people wouldn't get so caught up on the books. By present day standards, Tolkien is a f**king dire fantasy writer. If Lord of the Rings were published today, it wouldn't make a mark at all.

It basically created this genre, but as far as fantasy goes, it's a lame duck. Poorly written, horribly one dimensional characters, and a plot full of holes and cliche.

 

[Joker's Wild]

It's like you can't enjoy movies for being movies anymore.

It's a completely different medium to novelisations and requires a different approach, especially when they need to appeal to an audience outside the hardcore fans. Superhero films suffer the same fate and cop the fanboy wrath

 

[Cena]

Just got back from watching it. I like it better than the first one

 

[Springs]

I wish people wouldn't get so caught up on the books. By present day standards, Tolkien is a f**king dire fantasy writer. If Lord of the Rings were published today, it wouldn't make a mark at all.

It basically created this genre, but as far as fantasy goes, it's a lame duck. Poorly written, horribly one dimensional characters, and a plot full of holes and cliche.

:lol:

You'd be hard-pressed to find many who share that opinion. By your standards maybe, not by today's standards. Most people would laugh at you saying it was 'poorly written', there's a reason they are among the most popular books of all time.

What exactly are you comparing it to? A Song of Ice and Fire? His Dark Materials? Malazan Book of the Fallen? Dark Tower? The Wheel of Time? Harry Potter?

First off, pretty much all modern fantasy series take inspiration from Tolkien. Second, most long series fall away when originally they looked as good as Lord of the Rings. Game of Thrones and Wheel of Time especially. I enjoyed the first three ASOIAF books as much as I enjoyed Lord of the Rings, but books 4 and 5 were so shit they don't even reach anywhere near the Hobbit in quality.

And of course when you make a movie based on a book there's going to be comparisons by fans. Look at World War Z this year. I take adaptations as they are, but of course you're allowed to comment on whether or not you think things worked better in the books or films. Considering I liked the first one despite over half of it not being in the book. The second film had things that contradicted the movie universe itself, and just had a lot of things I felt didn't work as a movie. The entire last sequence in the mountain/Laketown being the best example. Thorin surfing on thousand degree hot molten gold and Smaug being an idiot the main ones.

And I liked most of the changes in the original trilogy, because they were changes to make the story work better as a movie. The changes in the Hobbit are changes so they can pad the material out over three movies when they only had enough for two.

 

[Dutchy]

Vote Springs. The second most boring human ever to walk this earth. (Second only to Jobdog)

 

[Misanthrope]

You're literally the first reader of fantasy I've ever spoken to who considers Tolkien a good writer of fantasy.

The guy had a knack with languages and deserves credit for his role in inspiring the entire genre, but as far as writers go he's rather weak. His plot was meandering and aimless, his characters largely two dimensional, and his narrative style too focussed on describing the scenery and not enough on describing emotions, dialogue, or action.

And I've talked to a lot of fantasy readers and fans. There are, of course, Tolkienites who won't hear a word said against him - but the vast majority agree that it's a vital book in fantasy's history and decent enough, but nothing remarkable narratively.

 

[Parra]

You're literally the first reader of fantasy I've ever spoken to who considers Tolkien a good writer of fantasy.

The guy had a knack with languages and deserves credit for his role in inspiring the entire genre, but as far as writers go he's rather weak. His plot was meandering and aimless, his characters largely two dimensional, and his narrative style too focussed on describing the scenery and not enough on describing emotions, dialogue, or action.

And I've talked to a lot of fantasy readers and fans. There are, of course, Tolkienites who won't hear a word said against him - but the vast majority agree that it's a vital book in fantasy's history and decent enough, but nothing remarkable narratively.

Any discussion of the strong Christian themes in LOTR or the biblical parallels with Tolkiens world?

 

[Misanthrope]

Any discussion of the strong Christian themes in LOTR or the biblical parallels with Tolkiens world?

I've discussed that a few times, as well as the potential allegory of the One Ring being nuclear weapons.

 

[Parra]

The nuclear weapon allegory I find interesting. I used to have a very good analysis of the Christian themes and LOTR - it was a while ago, it was typed! I recall it being written by one of his sons, but this could be wrong.

 

[Misanthrope]

The nuclear weapon allegory I find interesting. I used to have a very good analysis of the Christian themes and LOTR - it was a while ago, it was typed! I recall it being written by one of his sons, but this could be wrong.

Would make for an interesting read. While the religious themes aren't quite as painfully obvious as they are in the Narnia books, there's definitely some obvious ones.

 

[Misanthrope]

That Tolkien sure did know how to write a villain.

Read for LOLZ

 

[Pugzley]

Hey guyss, just saw the sequel. Did it look like bits of the film were shot like they belonged to a high quality BBC tv movie like the ones they show in ABC?

I get that evangeline lily's character was there to provide the cliche romance and futher improve Dwarf/Elf relations but seriously, Mary sue and Legolas Gary stue much?

 

[shiznit]

Hey guyss, just saw the sequel. Did it look like bits of the film were shot like they belonged to a high quality BBC tv movie like the ones they show in ABC?

I get that evangeline lily's character was there to provide the cliche romance and futher improve Dwarf/Elf relations but seriously, Mary sue and Legolas Gary stue much?

You may have watched the 48 frames per second version....

Movies are normally filmed at 24fps... So it looks very different to what your used to at the movies...

I think Peter Jackson and James Cameron have decided they are gonna make a bit of a stand and film there movies at the higher frame rate....

The high frame rate version is how Jackson intended it to be viewed... But it's not everyone's cup of tea...

It's quite an interesting topic IMO...

I must admit I watched the high frame rate 3D version.... And thought it felt a little like a local soap opera...

But once I got used to it I enjoyed it...

Here's an interesting read about it...

http://mobile.extremetech.com/elect...-like-the-hobbit-are-moving-from-24-to-48-fps