"I Finally Saw The Hobbit:TBoFA Movie..." Topic
30 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Fantasy Media Message Board
Areas of InterestFantasy
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile ArticleOur Man in Southern California, Wyatt the Odd , takes press pass in hand and reports from the Gen Con So Cal convention.
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Parzival | 16 Oct 2015 3:24 p.m. PST |
… and I'm wondering what the cheese was in Gandalf's pipe!?!?! [SPOILERS FOLLOW] Smaug talks to Bard? Fili practically proposes to an elf? Sand worms? I did like some nice touches; Bard actually did use his bow, not that absurd four-armed arbalest they kept calling a "windlass" in the other films. (Did somebody wise up a tad on that departure?). Yeah, he made it into a giant crossbow, but I could accept that as kind of a cool moment. But… No thrush talk. Beorn is just a cameo (and a fricking air-drop trooper… NO NO NO NO NO). Radagast on an Eagle. NO. Legolas… oh, just NO. Thranduil's elk: Whatever. Alfred: Why? Thorin's crazy until he isn't. Well, okay. Kind of booky, there. The fight on the ice with "the Pale Orc" ( You made them ALL pale, you nitwits.) Okay, mildly entertaining, if TOTALLY BOGUS. Bats that were way too much like flyimg monkeys. Dain sounds like Billy Connelly () and looks like a Warhammer figurine (meh). And where the -ing did those mountain sheep come from. No sign of them in any movie, no sign of them with Dain's troops, and then Hey, Presto! Thorin needs to get up a mountain side and he's got sheep to ride! What, were they hidden in Bombur's beard? Death of the Master. Fine, whatever. Fighting in Dale. Uh, what? Okay, whatever. The White Council Kicks Nazgul Butt. Okay, cool enough, but why didn't they do that in LotR, then? And the Galadriel bit was too much. Not to mention yet another death and resurrection for Gandalf and the ridiculous romantic nonsense there. (Puhlease; Galadriel does not have the hots for Mithrandir, or vice versa.) Biblo fights orcs: Uh, no, but whatever. Bilbo doesn't use ring in the fight, but does use ring to get to Thorin. Meh. Bolg is killed by Legolas. On a side note, what the -ing was the point of that side trup to Gundabad. Totally unnecessary, not to mention confusing (unless you knew the book, and then, still confusing). I did like Dain's troops and their shielfwall (though how the elves suddenly wound up behind them and able to leap over the wall was completely unbelievable, at least as edited). Battle tactics and depiction: What book? And "Somebody's Been Playing Too Much Warhammer, PJ." "Goblin mercenaries?" Why would they be mercenaries? Why would that even be necessary, or known, or stated, or even significant? "They're not just goblins! They're not just mercenaries! They're goblin mercenaries! New and improved!" Pffffft. In short WHAT A COLLOSAL WASTE OF STORY, CHARACTER, ACTING, AND SPECIAL EFFECT TALENT. Across the board. Here's the big rub; When Kili died, I didn't care. When Fili died, I didn't care. In fact, I was glad that stupid, practically Mommy-porn storyline was OVER. (And I wanted the she-elf to croak, too.) I didn't care about all the dead elves. I didn't care about all the dead dwarves. I didn't care about all the dead Lakemen (or women). I didn't care that the villains— any of them— were dead. And when Thorin died and Bilbo wept over him… I DIDN'T CARE. Overwritten, overfilmed, overdirected, overacted (by Freeman, though not entirely his fault) and overproduced. Oh and overlong. But thank Eru, at least it's over. Will *not* be buying this DVD, and certainly not any extended editions. Yegads, what a mess. |
Andoreth | 16 Oct 2015 3:36 p.m. PST |
It is hardly surprising that Dain sounds like Billy Connelly since he is being played by Billy Connelly. It was the sand worms that got me (narrowly beating into second place the gravity defying mountain sheep), if they were so good at burrowing through hills why didn't they just bore into the Dwarven city and save us all the over extended battle sequences? |
Who asked this joker | 16 Oct 2015 4:10 p.m. PST |
I only saw it via the condensed version that was online sometime back. So the Troll-a-pults and worms were not in it. The condensed version made the three movies serviceable up to the end of the second movie. There was just no saving BoFA. Even with ripping out all the extra "stuff" it just did not look or feel like the the BoFA. In short WHAT A COLLOSAL WASTE OF STORY, CHARACTER, ACTING, AND SPECIAL EFFECT TALENT. Across the board. That's kind of it isn't it? |
tberry7403 | 16 Oct 2015 4:16 p.m. PST |
I can answer all your questions with the answer I have given to my daughter ever since we started watching movies together (and which she now occasionally echoes back to me): Because it's a movie! |
Mister Tibbles | 16 Oct 2015 4:30 p.m. PST |
Can't stand those movies. A waste of time. I do love the LotR movies. |
John Treadaway | 16 Oct 2015 4:44 p.m. PST |
My Doctor says I'm not loud to watch them. Blood pressure tablets etc… John T |
Bashytubits | 16 Oct 2015 4:57 p.m. PST |
How can one do LOTR so well and do the Hobbit so abysmally? |
Dentatus | 16 Oct 2015 5:06 p.m. PST |
And that is the question. I suspect the studio execs saw $$$ signs and insisted he turn one small book into an obscenely bloated movie trilogy. |
Winston Smith | 16 Oct 2015 5:42 p.m. PST |
It reminded me of Goonies, but louder. |
Maddaz111 | 16 Oct 2015 6:00 p.m. PST |
but there wasn't an octopus, so it couldn't have been the goonies… (and anyone who gets this is waay too geek) |
Balin Shortstuff | 16 Oct 2015 6:52 p.m. PST |
And did you notice, despite all the bows, Legolas was the only elf that shot a bow? And the elves had a perfectly good shield wall to shoot from, but no, they jump over it. |
Parzival | 16 Oct 2015 7:46 p.m. PST |
I can answer all your questions with the answer I have given to my daughter ever since we started watching movies together (and which she now occasionally echoes back to me):Because it's a movie! Nope. That answer only works if it's a good movie, and if the reason for the choice furthers the characterization and story. For example, truncating the party in the first film worked because a movie has to communicate through action as well as dialogue, and has to move forward. Even the Goblin Town sequence worked because it was both fun and it allowed for a running underground fight involving numerous characters to be depicted on a screen from both wide and closeup shots with a variety of interesting angles, which would not be possible in a strict tunnel setting. Even the truncating of the Mirkwood journey in the second film was reasonable (as that's frankly a borderline tedious sequence in the book to begin with). And I had also liked the barrel escape for similar reasons: fun, more action, and you get to see the actors. Those are perfectly acceptable "because it's a movie" moments. But this travesty? No. Smaug doesn't talk to Bard "because it's a movie." No, that was clearly contract action with Cumberbatch, plus an inexplicable need to establish that this huge, fire breathing dragon, who's been the main villain from the beginning, is still a villain. Which we knew, and was damned obvious. He's burning up a town! There's no dwarf-elf sex banter "because it's a movie," but because Walsh and Boyer are romance hacks. And idiotic fears that women won't watch it if there's no woman to relate too. But that's not a case of medium, that's a case of money. In fact, none of my complaints can be covered by the "because it's a movie" argument as an actual source of legitimate explanation. Closeup hero fights on a roomy battlefield, rather than a dense formation scrum? Yes, that's a movie consideration. Inexplicably adding giant monster earth worms? Not so much. |
Winston Smith | 16 Oct 2015 7:52 p.m. PST |
It's different from the book. Badly. That's why it sucks. |
darthfozzywig | 16 Oct 2015 7:52 p.m. PST |
The only thing good about seeing that POS movie was when I cried out "Shai-hulud!" as the sand worms appeared, there were other Dune fans in the audience who echoed my call or responded "Muad'dib!" |
charared | 16 Oct 2015 9:05 p.m. PST |
Winston Smith… X 1000!!! Charlie |
sneakgun | 16 Oct 2015 9:27 p.m. PST |
It was as stupid as Game of Thrones. |
Gone Fishing | 17 Oct 2015 10:40 a.m. PST |
To be completely honest, I even had mixed feelings about the LOTR films. As regards The Hobbit, I simply can't bring myself to watch them. Tolkien must be rolling in his grave. |
The Beast Rampant | 17 Oct 2015 10:51 a.m. PST |
Peter Jackson's meatloaf recipe is two oz. premium ground beef and four copies of USA Today (Sunday edition). A 300-page book made into a ten hour movie. Seasoning and preparation aside, how well COULD it taste? I saw the first one, and the first five minutes of the third one. I'll probably lie on my deathbed wishing I had that particular time back. |
Norman D Landings | 17 Oct 2015 11:16 a.m. PST |
I saw all three at the cinema, in the company of a good friend who's a massive fan and whose buzz I didn't want to kill. So whatever you want to equate it to in metaphorical terms, I had to swallow three Big Screen-sized portions of it, and smile like I meant it. |
Marshal Mark | 17 Oct 2015 11:29 a.m. PST |
I recommend the fan edit known as the Tolkien edit. There is actually a reasonably decent, watchable 4 hour film in there. |
Korvessa | 17 Oct 2015 12:41 p.m. PST |
This is why they made it and why hard core opinions don't matter: World wide gross: Unexpected journey: $1,021,103,568 USD Desolation of Smaug: $958,366,855 USD Five Armies: $956,019,788 USD Per: link Yeah, they did all right. I enjoyed them |
Parzival | 17 Oct 2015 4:17 p.m. PST |
So they lost about $70,000,000 USD in ticket sales from the first to the second, and $2 USD million+ from the second to the third. Had the films been better, those numbers would have gone up, not down, especially as the whole thing was a trilogy with the story incomplete in the first two. If some 5-7 million people (give or take) won't pony up to see you finish your story, you botched the storytelling, no matter what anybody else did. Sequels should make more than the previous, not less. |
Parzival | 19 Oct 2015 10:22 a.m. PST |
On the positive side, no one will complain if any rights holder decides to make a redo in the next decade. |
Crazyivanov | 23 Oct 2015 6:58 a.m. PST |
This is a great review. Let me attempt to state some good points: Costuming, with a caveat, all the dwarves, elves and hobbits look great. Armour and arms seem fully realized for the world they live in. The orcs that attack Bilbo and Dwalin look great, swarthy, hulking, monstrous, conspicously CG but not in a painful half actor half CG way. Thranduil's Elk was nice, would have liked to see more, and the quadro-decapitate of orcs on the antlers was neat. Azog's command post was a cool detail, though it does open up the plot hole of the whole "Skirmish on Raven Hill" or "Raven Hill Debacle" thing. NEARLY made the romantic plot tumor pay off with cathartic vengeance. Some of the music was decent. Christopher Lee was in it.
Christopher Tolkien will never allow the Silmarillion to be filmed, at least not by these people.
|
Private Matter | 09 Jan 2016 7:07 p.m. PST |
I just saw this film and I am absolutely shocked at the utter crap put on the screen. There is no way that Peter Jackson can claim to be a fan on Tolkien with the butchery he performed on a literary classic. I was aghast at the awfullness of it all. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 12 Jan 2016 2:05 p.m. PST |
At the risk of being dissolved in acid,I must say I enjoyed, if that is the word, the Hobbit movies much more than the LOTR films,because 1-- I have far less investment,emotional and intellectual,in the former than the latter. This was certainly the case for Tolkien also,who said himself that he "did not much approve" of The Hobbit. And 2--The Hobbit films are so much further removed from the source that I could almost forget they were supposed to be connected with Tolkien at all. The river sequence in the second film was obviously done with an eye on the video game market, and during the Raven Hill sequence I kept having distracting thoughts of Wile E. Coyote, and "Out of my way,little robot", but for the most part,I could "enjoy" the movies for what they were,the bloated creations of someone with an ego the size of Sauron's,and a pile of gold the size of Smaug's. The odd thing for me all along has been the reaction of many people who loved the LOTR films. Surely the signs of what would be were obvious from the beginning? I got a clue as to what was going on when one blogger wrote of how,""as a kid",he couldn't wait till the next film in the trilogy came out.For me,for whom those films happened basically yesterday, this was a revelation. I guess if I had been 10 years old when Fellowship came out, I would have thought they were the greatest films ever made,and might still feel that way at age 25;I still feel that same thrill whenever I see "Jason and the Argonauts". And that would especially be the case for the many who saw the movies without having ever read the books. But for someone who had memorized much of the original, to anticipate Tolkien's words being spoken by the likes of Ian McKellen or Christopher Lee,only to find them supplanted at every turn by the "superior" lines of Peter Jackson and his cohorts(or even the last-minute additions of the actors,some of whom had themselves never read the books!),the films are a betrayal. Sorry this turned into a rant--I realize this belongs on a Tolkien blog more than here. And that those especially who read and loved The Hobbit as a child would have that same sense of betrayal--one blog I've seen is called "Peter Jackson Has Essentially Raped and Destroyed My Childhood"! |
bekosh | 14 Jan 2016 2:18 p.m. PST |
I saw all 3 and thought they needed to be edited down with a chainsaw. They were just to long with to much added in that wasn't in the book. Let me second the recommendation of THE HOBBIT:THE TOLKIEN EDIT tolkieneditor.wordpress.com All 3 Hobbit movies edited down to "just" 4 hours. Cuts out most of the extraneous add ins and is watchable in one sitting. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 16 Feb 2016 6:46 p.m. PST |
Resurrecting this topic to address one "minor" subject: Sandworms.Without having consulted any Tolkien forums or PJ interviews,and therefore on the basis of no documentary evidence whatever, I would guess that the source is Gandalf's speech in the LOTR chapter "The White Rider": "Far,far below the deepest delving of the Dwarves,the world is gnawed by nameless things." Of course,he immediately adds: "Even Sauron knows them not". Apparently PJ thought it would be great if orcs did. This necropost has been brought to you by Sandworms. Sandworms--When You Care Enough to Send Things That Gnaw the World. |
steam flunky | 24 Feb 2016 4:51 a.m. PST |
Resurrecting this topic to address one "minor" subject: Sandworms.Without having consulted any Tolkien forums or PJ interviews,and therefore on the basis of no documentary evidence whatever, I would guess that the source is Gandalf's speech in the LOTR chapter "The White Rider":"Far,far below the deepest delving of the Dwarves,the world is gnawed by nameless things." Of course,he immediately adds: "Even Sauron knows them not".
I know that somewhere in Tolkiens books he talks about Hobbits mentioning "great wyrms" in their forgotten past. We all know that the great wryms in the Silmarillion are dragons but i am guessing PJ decided to be thick-headed and chose to (accidently on purpose) understand it differantly. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 24 Feb 2016 10:23 a.m. PST |
That does sound suspiciously likely. But again,I haven't checked with the PJ fanboyz. There may be some perfectly logical "explanation". |
|