The Hobbit Page 51

  • Page

    of 51 First / Last

    Next
  • drhickman1983 18 Jan 2014 00:42:26 106 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    The 2nd film was too long.

    I personally don't believe an adpatation has to adhere to the original source, but it does need to work on it's own merits.

    The Desolation of Smaug worked in places, but other places was needlessly drawn out. The climatic "battle" with Smaug was certainly an example of padding. I'd have preferred it without the
    running to the forge and shit.
    .

    Still, Martin Freeman is a good Bilbo. The Dwarves are largely forgettable though. I enjoyed the Mirkwood section, the barrel riding dragged on a bit. The low resolution p.o.v footage (from a go-pro?) was really fucking jarring for me.

    I did prefer it to the first film, but at this point I really feel making it into 3 films is a massive stretch. Unless the 3rd film really delivers I feel 2 films would have been enough.
  • Bananazniper 18 Jan 2014 02:13:44 443 posts
    Seen 56 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    With the negativity surrounding The Hobbit I thought it was superb. Regarding the books, I read The Hobbit, but got bored of the Lotr halfway through the Two Towers. There you go. Always thought The Hobbit would make a better film.
  • Mola_Ram 18 Jan 2014 02:25:19 6,239 posts
    Seen 5 seconds ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    I preferred the Hobbit book to LOTR. There was less superfluous shit getting in the way of the story.
  • wizbob 18 Jan 2014 03:18:06 762 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I love the 'Lotr is hardcore, the Hobbit is for kids' argument - it's very like the "games are serious bizness" arguments for CoD vs Nintendo. Let's face it, both books were for kids but at least the first one told a coherent story, without lapsing into academic norse saga parody.

    I love both, but I think the Hobbit will fare better as a film when someone on the internet edits it all back into one film without the goblin chase/smaug forge CGI filler.
  • the_dudefather 18 Jan 2014 10:30:01 8,977 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Fanedit of Desolation of Smaug but the Dragon forge battle is replaced with the Alien foundry battle scenes from Alien3

    (ง ͠ ͟ʖ ͡)

  • disusedgenius 18 Jan 2014 10:44:55 5,142 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The Hobbit is clearly for kids because it's structured as a bunch of bed-time stories with no attention span. That's not a bad thing, but it is what it is.
  • Mola_Ram 18 Jan 2014 13:19:47 6,239 posts
    Seen 5 seconds ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    I dunno, I think lotr would work better as a bed time story. Certainly puts me to sleep.
  • disusedgenius 18 Jan 2014 13:26:44 5,142 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Your face certainly puts me to sleep.
  • Mola_Ram 18 Jan 2014 13:30:14 6,239 posts
    Seen 5 seconds ago
    Registered 2 years ago
  • Bremenacht 10 Mar 2014 16:29:15 15,753 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Where did you buy your kitchen, Bilbo?



    Is there something you want to tell me?

    Once an eagle taught me courage. And I will never forget that day

  • M83J01P97 14 Apr 2014 11:55:36 6,386 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Too much padding!

    Watched Part 1 and 2 over the weekend and while they are no means terrible films at all, they both just feel so artificially padded that is kind of ruins the overall enjoyment factor for me.

    The story at the core of The Hobbit is just lost with all the unnecessary sub plots, extra characters, made up events and so on that Jackson is cramming into the films, when all I really want to see is the story of Bilbo, Gandalf and the Dwarves on their journey.

    Again, they are not terrible films, I just think Jackson should have restrained himself this time and focused on making one (at a stretch, maybe two) epic films that told the story of The Hobbit in all it's glory, nothing more, nothing less.
  • feeg86 14 Apr 2014 12:14:25 568 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    I'm in two minds about it. Watching it at the cinema, I defiantly felt that that there was unnecessary padding, especially in the first one. To the point that it kind of messes with the flow of the film. On the other hand, the more time I spend in Middle-earth, better.

    I watched the LotR extended editions recently and they are so perfectly crafted, the story flows beautifully and no scenes feels out of place.
  • Maturin 14 Apr 2014 12:15:54 2,733 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    M83J01P97 wrote:
    I just think Jackson should have restrained himself this time and focused on making one (at a stretch, maybe two) epic films that told the story of The Hobbit in all it's glory, nothing more, nothing less.
    I've just read the Hobbit for the first time in years. The book would be very difficult to film for a modern audience - the whimsy is very dated. Also Tolkein routinely makes a mockery of narrative structure by telling you very important things in one sentence after they've happened. Major characters are killed in the book and it gets a sentence. No context, no emotion, just a fact then the story moves on.
  • Rhaegyr 14 Apr 2014 12:23:30 1,111 posts
    Seen 18 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    The only characters that get a 'sentence' are Fili and Kili and they're hardly major characters. Thorin himself also gets a paragraph or two about his death and the book describes Bilbo's mood and weariness (though not to a great extent) after the above.

    Think you're underselling the book a little - it's still great. I actually prefer it to the LOTR.

    Edited by Rhaegyr at 12:23:42 14-04-2014
  • Maturin 14 Apr 2014 12:26:47 2,733 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I'm not. I only read it a couple of days ago, it's very fresh in my mind. The end of the book is very rushed - the events leading up to the battle and the battle itself happen too quickly on the page.
  • disusedgenius 14 Apr 2014 12:32:21 5,142 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    It's still a great kid's bedtime book (enough to make it enjoyable to read as an adult as well) - but it's not suited to a film structure in any way.

    I'm kinda the opposite in that I like what they added (in theory)... but the second one at least is just a genuinely terrible film.
  • ChiefGB 14 Apr 2014 12:58:29 225 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Maturin wrote:
    I'm not. I only read it a couple of days ago, it's very fresh in my mind. The end of the book is very rushed - the events leading up to the battle and the battle itself happen too quickly on the page.
    In fairness I read it for the first time last year and felt pretty much the same. It was all just very throwaway, it's a part that I welcome pj's tinkering an look forward to him giving it some resonance. After hearing about "the battle of five armies" in name only when it came to reading it, it was like the book was running out of pages to tell it. Having said that I watched the second film again this weekend and the ending just doesn't work for me, all that forge nonsense almost derails the entire thing.
  • FatSternKikwi 14 Apr 2014 13:44:42 276 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    The stuff at the forge was star wars prequel level bad.
  • ubergine 15 Apr 2014 03:11:37 1,227 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    LotR was a stellar adaption of a complicated set of book. The Hobbits are a greedy overinflation of a short and simple book. It's not as artless as the Star Wars prequels but it's still an indulgent wank.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/ubergine

  • Page

    of 51 First / Last

    Next
Log in or register to reply