Hama |
Kthulhu wrote:I'm pretty sure Jackson will try to ride the Tolkien train through a dozen Silmarilion movies or so.I certainly hope so........
Nope. Tolkien enterprises will not part with the rights to Silmarillion. The only reason LOTR and Hobbit films were made was because Tolkien already sold the movie rights.
Bjørn Røyrvik |
I detested the first movie and everything I've seen and heard of the other two has not convinced me they get better.
Jackson should never have been given leave to make these movies and should be barred from doing anything in other people's creations from now on.
I wanted the Hobbit, not PJ's fanfic rewrite.
Slaunyeh |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jackson can probably eke out another trilogy from the story of how Legolas loses weight between the events of THE HOBBIT and LotR.
He could probably also do a movie (or a trilogy!) on the wacky adventures that Bilbo and Gandalf clearly gets up to on their trip back to the Shire.
As for the actual movie. That was, uhm, certainly a lot of fighting. Bard is pretty cool. Legolas is as lame as ever.
If only Kili had fallen in love with Legolas instead of Tauriel, he'd still be alive!
ShinHakkaider |
thenovalord wrote:Hobbit3 is best of the bunch so go see itAre you saying you've seen it? I thought it comes out this coming week ...
Also there have been screenings here in NYC over the past 2 weeks or so. I've just barely missed getting into a few due to scheduling conflicts so I'll be seeing it with the rank and file this week...
thejeff |
Kthulhu wrote:Sissyl wrote:Yeah, he wasn't as good in the films as he was in the book.That's saying something, given that he wasn't in the book.No Legolas was there.
He was one of the many tittering elves having the Tea Lights party that the dwarves kept trying to crash.
It would have been awesome (and required a different director and a completely different approach) to have Legolas (same actor and all) appear as an unnamed cameo in those scenes and nowhere else.
Quark Blast |
thenovalord wrote:Well it does end with ** spoiler omitted **** spoiler You mean the one whose only like, ten years old at the time of the Quest for Erebor? ... **
A more committed Tolkien geek can correct me but Aragorn would've been in his early twenties circa Bilbo and Smaug. And too young or not he was still the Heir of Elendil and that would've not been unknown to one such as Thranduil.
thejeff |
Dungeon Master Zack wrote:A more committed Tolkien geek can correct me but Aragorn would've been in his early twenties circa Bilbo and Smaug. And too young or not he was still the Heir of Elendil and that would've not been unknown to one such as Thranduil.thenovalord wrote:Well it does end with ** spoiler omitted **** spoiler You mean the one whose only like, ten years old at the time of the Quest for Erebor? ... **
Jackson's timeline is already known not to match Tolkien's.
lorenlord |
I saw it yesterday, my local Theater was showing the trilogy, so that was the only way to see it before Wed. I thougth it was very good. The battle scenes were awesome, especially the Dwarves, and the designers always seems to come up with interesting ideas for the big creatures (Ogres and such, don't want to give anything away). Plus Dain ws great.
Enevhar Aldarion |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I saw it yesterday, my local Theater was showing the trilogy, so that was the only way to see it before Wed. I thought it was very good. The battle scenes were awesome, especially the Dwarves, and the designers always seems to come up with interesting ideas for the big creatures (Ogres and such, don't want to give anything away). Plus Dain was great.
I just read a review where the reviewer was whining that Bilbo was not in the movie enough. Did this person not ever read the book and thus not know that Bilbo was unconscious and invisible for most of the battle? lol
I will see it anyway, but please tell me that Jackson did not change this and that he did not keep anyone alive who died in the book.
Rakshaka |
I thoroughly enjoyed it. The battles were great, the CGI wasn't as over-the top as the last couple, the characterization of Thorin and his descent into madness is great, and there's enough Simarillion sprinkled in to keep me happy. Yeah, Legolas is a total jerk who gets to use "Matrix" rules at two points in the movie, but otherwise the action seemed a bit more 'believable' than the last two movies. Oh, and the ending doesn't go on for 45 minutes; I had hardly noticed that 3 hours had gone by.
baron arem heshvaun |
I am going to see it today in IMAX and can't wait.
I have not read under the spoilers above, I am keen in seeing if they stay true enough to the books and certain Dwarves die in the end, something that would shock casual movie goers.
I have noticed since the first Hobbit movie that Gandalf's staff from the Lord of the Rings movies is Radagast's in this set of movies, I hope they don't kill off Radagast to make that some part of this epic because that certainly does not happen in the book.
Charles Scholz |
Dungeon Master Zack wrote:A more committed Tolkien geek can correct me but Aragorn would've been in his early twenties circa Bilbo and Smaug. And too young or not he was still the Heir of Elendil and that would've not been unknown to one such as Thranduil.thenovalord wrote:Well it does end with ** spoiler omitted **** spoiler You mean the one whose only like, ten years old at the time of the Quest for Erebor? ... **
That would make him 25 at the time of The Hobbit.
He could already have the nickname Strider.
I had hardly noticed that 3 hours had gone by.
The previews started at 7:00. The credits started at 9:30. Figure 10-15 minutes for the previews, the actual movie was about 2 hours 15-20 minutes.
This makes it the shortes of all Jackson's Tolkien movies.Terquem |
Well, I might go see it, might not. I've been disappointed by the first two movies, mainly in the way Thorin's character has been altered from greedy, grumpy, old dwarf looking to make a quick fortune, to young, dynamic anti-hero.
At this point, the denouement of the story, Thorin's realization that he was wrong all along, will seem completely out of place after spending so much time showing him so desperately wanting to reclaim his people's rightful place.
lorenlord |
Well, I might go see it, might not. I've been disappointed by the first two movies, mainly in the way Thorin's character has been altered from greedy, grumpy, old dwarf looking to make a quick fortune, to young, dynamic anti-hero.
At this point, the denouement of the story, Thorin's realization that he was wrong all along, will seem completely out of place after spending so much time showing him so desperately wanting to reclaim his people's rightful place.
I thought in the third one they did a very good job portraying the gold 'poisoning' Thorin. it was excellent overall. I was definitely not disappointed.
Terquem |
That's a cope out, and again, undermines the transformation of Thorin at the end of the book. Thorin was always greedy, never really interested in reclaiming the "kingdom"
only the treasure. it is mentioned, over and over again, how he expects Bilbo, as the burglar, to simply remove all the treasure from under the dragon's nose.
Dal Selpher |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having seen all the Middle Earth movies now, I think I've settled on the view that Jackson developed a bit of George-Lucas-itis with his prequels too.
The action scenes and set-pieces get rather gonzo at points, going so far as to sometimes seem more appropriate for a Pirates of the Carribean film rather than Tolkien's Middle Earth. There were missteps with the pacing and comedic timing, and I think of all the dwarves in Thorin's company only 6 had lines. If the others got to speak on screen, it couldn't have been for much more than a singular line.
That being said, this movie is probably my favorite of the three Hobbit films and what it does well it does very well. The portrayal of Thorin and his corruption by greed is extremely well done, Lee Pace's every word as Thranduil is like spun gold, and Martin Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo is endearing, heartwarming, and uplifting. The movie does a really good job of showing what the dwarves have come to mean to Bilbo.
If nothing else, Smaug's scenes at the beginning of the film left me wondering how anyone could ever kill a dragon. He is a veritable force of nature while assaulting Laketown and I found myself wishing we'd gotten to see quite a bit more of a dragon raging in the skies.
---
All in all, I enjoyed the movie a great deal and it was well worth the cost of the ticket. There's certainly things I'd have liked to see done differently, but overall it was a satisfying end to the Hobbit movies.
mikeawmids |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing to consistantly irritate me throughout this movie (and I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned it) was comedy Alfred. Yes, ok, I get it, he's greedy and a coward, yet he has equal screen time to Bilbo. I hoped it was all building up to a satisfying death, but no. What a completely useless character.