The Hobbit Page 48

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

  • Deleted user 16 December 2013 15:55:52
    The LoTR trilogy were good, but they did have issues. Pacing, that awful drawn out cheesy smiling at the end, unexplained or unfulfilling moments etc...

    Edited by SG59 at 16:06:06 16-12-2013
  • FightingMongoose 16 Dec 2013 16:03:26 522 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Somebody just wrote on Tumblr that people are "uncultured illiterates" if they care about the third movie being spoiled and haven't read the book. A very sensitive debate.
  • FightingMongoose 16 Dec 2013 16:06:37 522 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I think people can be considerate of people who haven't read the book for one reason or another. It doesn't take much. This guy titled his post with fate of one of the characters. Bit of a dick if you ask me.
  • Deleted user 16 December 2013 16:10:14
    I haven't read the books and I don't plan too. I tried reading them before, but didnt enjoy the writing style. Credit where its due, the world, characters etc are all well thought out and cleverly done. I just didn't enjoy reading them.
  • sega 16 Dec 2013 16:19:38 908 posts
    Seen 8 months ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    cptjohnnycasino wrote:
    Firstly, I'm actually a little surprised at all of the love for the Hobbit films, over LOTR. I genuinely thought it was a universally accepted fact that the original trilogy was revered.
    It is. I'm just enjoying these ones more. See it more like saying I see Citizen Kane as a good film, but enjoy watching Die Hard more.
  • SolidSCB 16 Dec 2013 17:01:09 8,518 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Loved this for the most part. The barrel scene went a bit OTT and the 3D was utterly pointless, but otherwise it was good stuff.

    They definitely took liberties splitting the thing into 3 films though. I was a bit angry about where they ended this one at the time. I've simmered since, but still, fleecing bastards they are.
  • rockavitch 16 Dec 2013 17:03:19 535 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Saw the second one the other night as I reallyyyyy enjoyed the first one. Other than the Gandalf scenes I actually spent most of it bored, only so many times you can watch an action scene where people throw weapons like a perfectly coreographed dance before it loses all impact.

    Was actually surprised that the manliest thing about a film based on a group of rugged dwarves trying to get under a mountain to slay a dragon was Orlando Bloom... dressed as an elf.

    And that ending... can split the book easily into 3 acts and that's the best they could do.
  • Deleted user 16 December 2013 17:11:18
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Fair enough, the LOTR does creak a little under its length. But they aren't that far off Narnia or even Harry Potter.
    True, but like I said. It's the writing style I didn't like. I've read the Harry Potter books and never had an issue with them.
  • JiveHound 16 Dec 2013 17:26:27 3,654 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Lord of The Rings suffered for being overtly descriptive for anyone that grew up knowing all about orcs and elves etc. However at the time the books were released it was all new.
  • Dirtbox 16 Dec 2013 17:45:08 81,307 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    We were thinking about seeing this today, anyone know if it's any good or it's the same load of shite the first one was?
  • Deleted user 16 December 2013 17:51:05
    it's good. like doubleplusgood you know.

    Edited by statssonic at 17:52:03 16-12-2013
  • Dirtbox 16 Dec 2013 17:54:51 81,307 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I'll hunt you down if you're lying.
  • Deleted user 16 December 2013 18:02:10
    if you're expecting something deep then you might disappointed. it's essentially tolkien repackaged for the masses as you're probably already aware.

    Edited by statssonic at 18:02:27 16-12-2013
  • Dirtbox 16 Dec 2013 18:21:30 81,307 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I suppose my question should really be - how true to the book is it? The first part was so crammed with filler and unnecessary back story that I barely recognised the few parts that remained of the book.
  • Bremenacht 16 Dec 2013 18:24:25 21,631 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    /Jackson sits down and writes some filler
    /Time passes...
    /Fran says "Hurry up"
  • captainrentboy 16 Dec 2013 18:32:12 1,249 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Yep, this one's crammed with scenes, events and characters that are nowhere to be found within the book. So I'd say if you found the first one awful due to its lack of faithfulness to the source, then this one will annoy you in much the same way.

    Personally I thoroughly enjoyed the second film. Although I've read the book just once, for the first time this year and found it merely 'good'.
    So the alterations made don't really bother me in the slightest. :/
  • Deleted user 16 December 2013 18:32:50
    Dirtbox wrote:
    I suppose my question should really be - how true to the book is it? The first part was so crammed with filler and unnecessary back story that I barely recognised the few parts that remained of the book.
    i've only read the hobbit once years ago so i can't remember that much tbh, but i've read that jackson used some of the short stories and backnotes written by tolkien himself so even if it's not in the book then it's not necessarily made up.

    Edited by statssonic at 18:36:04 16-12-2013
  • Deleted user 16 December 2013 18:35:46
    I can understand some peoples' issue with the books, I couldn't read the LoTR trilogy the whole way through either. Tolkien just seemed to go on and on about inconsequential shite. It was tedious.
    I seem to have the same problem with Game of Thrones. I find the TV series absolutely enthralling but I tried reading the first book and could barely finish the first few chapters. It was like reading a newspaper article. Found out later Mr. Martin used to be a journalist, I wasn't surprised. And besides, reading about the Khaleesi getting her baps out isn't the same as watched her getting her baps out.
  • Dirtbox 16 Dec 2013 18:37:06 81,307 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Righto, cheers.

    Really annoying that they could have easily got the whole book into a single, well paced 90 minute movie.
  • Maturin 16 Dec 2013 18:40:52 3,619 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Dirtbox wrote:
    Righto, cheers.

    Really annoying that they could have easily got the whole book into a single, well paced 90 minute movie.
    Don't be rude, it was very nice of the Daily Star's culture critic to pop in.
  • JiveHound 16 Dec 2013 18:46:45 3,654 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    The problem they had was after a three part epic a single Hobbit film would feel like a non event.

    Three films is certainly pushing it and they still don't feel as epic despite the length but I'm actually enjoying it more than I thought I would.

    Really don't think I'll bother with the cinema next time though. Anything longer than 90 minutes in those seats is torturous.
  • Moot_Point 16 Dec 2013 18:48:38 4,778 posts
    Seen 5 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    3D or 2D Dirtbox?
  • beastmaster 16 Dec 2013 18:52:33 12,885 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    3D IMAX HFR is certainly an experience. As to if it's to ones taste or not is a different matter.

    I wasn't to keen on HFR first time around but it's much improved in this film. It's a lot less boring too.

    Edited by beastmaster at 18:53:12 16-12-2013
  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

Log in or register to reply