The Hobbit Trilogy

[Aspie]

I enjoyed The Hobbit very much, I even watched it twice. But it still isn't memorable by any means. Honestly I think a nice comissioned painting of Middle Earth would've served the exact purpose of this movie. Throw in some autographs at the bottom of the painting...man, that would've been nice.

I mean, I like Damon Lindelof and all, but I'm crying with laughter right now.

I don't even like him.

Tell me more about Prometheus' writing, dude.

I'm not saying it was excellent at all, (It wasn't on any level), but atleast it wasn't a recycled by product of it's contemporaries Like The Hobbit was

What the f**k were you expecting from the adaptation of a novel written more than 60 years ago? That claim doesn't make any f**king sense.

Have you read the book? It was actually original and a stand alone installment to the novels (And just as long. But hey, we can split that into 3 three hour movies, just cause movie studios are so nice & stuff). Because it was written long ago doesn't mean it was cloned literature...lol. But thanks for the laugh.

[scarhunter92]

I enjoyed The Hobbit very much, I even watched it twice. But it still isn't memorable by any means. Honestly I think a nice comissioned painting of Middle Earth would've served the exact purpose of this movie. Throw in some autographs at the bottom of the painting...man, that would've been nice.

I mean, I like Damon Lindelof and all, but I'm crying with laughter right now.

I don't even like him.

Tell me more about Prometheus' writing, dude.

I'm not saying it was excellent at all, (It wasn't on any level), but atleast it wasn't a recycled by product of it's contemporaries Like The Hobbit was

What the f**k were you expecting from the adaptation of a novel written more than 60 years ago? That claim doesn't make any f**king sense.

Have you read the book? It was actually original and a stand alone installment to the novels (And just as long. But hey, we can split that into 3 three hour movies, just cause movie studios are so nice & stuff). Because it was written long ago doesn't mean it was cloned literature...lol. But thanks for the laugh.

Read it years ago. Have no problems whatsoever with the new stuff added into the mix. I was worried at first about the whole trilogy deal but came out of the theater with a huge f**king smile in my face. And zero worries.

From a writing perspective, The Hobbit was on-par with LotR for the most part, with changes merely accommodating the tonal shift.

I don't think Prometheus is as well written as it could have been. I enjoyed it, but I understand that it's full of holes.

My problem with The Hobbit is that it has no spine. At least Prometheus had a narrative structure to it, however flawed. The Hobbit has too many scenes where nothing relevant happens, the characters' goal has no urgency or stakes, action scenes can be removed without losing plot points and often end with deus ex machinas, and so on. In Prometheus, I felt like something happened. In The Hobbit, I don't feel like anything of importance has been achieved, which is a shame.

I can, however, agree with this. I think in the coming two parts it'll be amped up some more, but I think I've made my thoughts quite clear oh how conflict was approached in the movie. Sure, I felt foreboding as the Necromancer storyline looms into the fold, but nothing ever made itself present. In terms of how this journey goes, it literally still feels like they've only stepped out the door. But what a beautiful stride to the mailbox it was...

This. I don't believe it's a flaw thogh. If you look at it closely, the narrative is quite close to FOTR's. It builds the base for the real shit (plot-wise) to come...

[Aspie]

This. I don't believe it's a flaw thogh. If you look at it closely, the narrative is quite close to FOTR's. It builds the base for the real shit (plot-wise) to come...

Building for stuff to come is not the purpose of a feature length movie with sequels a year or more a part. That function belongs to television shows with weekly episodes. Movies need individual structure and pay-off.

[scarhunter92]

I felt like FOTR did the same. There's no closure. And everyone doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

[Nightmare Asylum]

This. I don't believe it's a flaw thogh. If you look at it closely, the narrative is quite close to FOTR's. It builds the base for the real shit (plot-wise) to come...

Building for stuff to come is not the purpose of a feature length movie with sequels a year or more a part. That function belongs to television shows with weekly episodes. Movies need individual structure and pay-off.

99% of the time I would find myself agreeing with this statement, but with The Hobbit seemingly being more of a three part film than an actual trilogy, I think I will be a bit more forgiving in the fact that a lot of it is set up for things to come. As I said before, the experience will likely be enhanced when watching all three parts in succession.

[Aspie]

I felt like FOTR did the same. There's no closure. And everyone doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

I thought LOTR was innovative in that they avoided just that. It felt like not only did I get a awesome movie in total, I actually got a pay off at the end. Not quasi-cliffhanger stuff.

This. I don't believe it's a flaw thogh. If you look at it closely, the narrative is quite close to FOTR's. It builds the base for the real shit (plot-wise) to come...

Building for stuff to come is not the purpose of a feature length movie with sequels a year or more a part. That function belongs to television shows with weekly episodes. Movies need individual structure and pay-off.

99% of the time I would find myself agreeing with this statement, but with The Hobbit seemingly being more of a three part film than an actual trilogy, I think I will be a bit more forgiving in the fact that a lot of it is set up for things to come. As I said before, the experience will likely be enhanced when watching all three parts in succession.

See, the thing is I would completely agree, if it wasn't for the fact that the LOTR avoided it everytime. With that in mind, I just couldn't bring myself to make excuses for The Hobbit.





Good movie though.

[JaaayDee]

[Aspie]

That has 92%

The Hobbit has 68%


HA! Nice try though.

[Space Sweeper]

Both FotR and TT gave me a sense of closure though, at least for a part that will lead into another. Mostly because there was a clear and concentrated emotional payoff. Either it's Boromir dying, Sam valiantly joining Frodo to carry onward and the fellowship breaking apart, or Helm's Deep being won, Sam's beautiful speech about a brighter day on the horizon... as they walk closer to the land of shadow. It's all there and it gave me an actual feeling that I was content with. I hate to sound like a broken record [because I keep f**king bringing it up], but AUJ just had

Spoiler

Thorin telling Bilbo that he was wrong about him followed by a bro-hug... and then a cliched awakening that was added in post as soon as they determined they would have to break the two movies they had into three.

[close]

It's going to be strange seeing the planned ending of An Unexpected Journey [buh-dum-tss] in the middle of The Desolation of Smaug.

[JaaayDee]

That has 92%

The Hobbit has 68%


HA! Nice try though.

With critics saying the exact same thing that they did.

[Aspie]

Both FotR and TT gave me a sense of closure though, at least for a part that will lead into another. Mostly because there was a clear and concentrated emotional payoff. Either it's Boromir dying, Sam valiantly joining Frodo to carry onward and the fellowship breaking apart, or Helm's Deep being won, Sam's beautiful speech about a brighter day on the horizon... as they walk closer to the land of shadow. It's all there and it gave me an actual feeling that I was content with. I hate to sound like a broken record [because I keep f**king bringing it up], but AUJ just had

Spoiler

Thorin telling Bilbo that he was wrong about him followed by a bro-hug... and then a cliched awakening that was added in post as soon as they determined they would have to break the two movies they had into three.

[close]

It's going to be strange seeing the planned ending of An Unexpected Journey [buh-dum-tss] in the middle of The Desolation of Smaug.

This.

That has 92%

The Hobbit has 68%


HA! Nice try though.

With critics saying the exact same thing that they did.

But not nearly as many times...

Spoiler

[close]

[Alienseseses]

One major difference between FOTR and The Hobbit is that in FOTR, it actually matters if the good guys get what they want. They're not just going out to try and get some gold, they're going out to try and destroy an evil being that threatens to destroy everything. And Frodo has a reason to go on this quest personally. And the bad guys are actually opposed to this goal.

Here, Bilbo joins their quest because why the hell not, and then does nothing for an extraordinary amount of time. All the bad guys don't care one way or another about the gold, they're here because they want to kill that one dwarf or because they're monsters and that's what they do. Because of this, all motives in the movie feel like excuses to have visuals and quote Tolkein, as opposed to actually existing to make us care about what happens.

And there are redundant scenes that do nothing but pad out the running time.

And then there's the fact that Gandalf can do whatever he wants because there aren't any rules set up in this movie (giant birds! flaming acorns! Why not.) and the fact that the entire Radagast/Necromancer/Rivendell scenes are entirely irrelevant... to this movie.

The fact that it's only part 1 is not an excuse. Jackson and co decided to make this part of the book into its own movie. Therefore, it was their duty to make it work as a movie and, on a story level, they failed. This isn't an adaptation, it's a translation, and it doesn't translate well as it is. Changes should have been made.

Because the story didn't work, I couldn't enjoy the amazing visual feast. I tried, believe me. But really, all the cool shots and effects did was make me not downright hate the movie. Instead, I simply don't like it. In every movie (or at least the narrative ones) the screenplay is the most important thing. Screenplay is king, and this one should have been whittled down and whipped into shape. Want to make 3 movies? Fine. But make 3 movies. Don't just ramble for two and a half hours and stop when the time is up.

BUT, again, the Gollum scene is the exception. Because it's exceptional. I bought the motives. There was an actual conflict, which lead to tension. And I really cared.

[BANE]

And then there's the fact that Gandalf can do whatever he wants because there aren't any rules set up in this movie (giant birds! flaming acorns! Why not.) and the fact that the entire Radagast/Necromancer/Rivendell scenes are entirely irrelevant... to this movie.

1) If they had allowed the birds to talk, they could have explained the eagles in one sentence.
2) He can do that.

And Aspie, the singing was great.

[Alienseseses]

Yeah, he can do that. But it wasn't adequately set up in the movie. So it's a deus ex machina.

[Aspie]

One major difference between FOTR and The Hobbit is that in FOTR, it actually matters if the good guys get what they want. They're not just going out to try and get some gold, they're going out to try and destroy an evil being that threatens to destroy everything. And Frodo has a reason to go on this quest personally. And the bad guys are actually opposed to this goal.

Here, Bilbo joins their quest because why the hell not, and then does nothing for an extraordinary amount of time. All the bad guys don't care one way or another about the gold, they're here because they want to kill that one dwarf or because they're monsters and that's what they do. Because of this, all motives in the movie feel like excuses to have visuals and quote Tolkein, as opposed to actually existing to make us care about what happens.

And there are redundant scenes that do nothing but pad out the running time.

And then there's the fact that Gandalf can do whatever he wants because there aren't any rules set up in this movie (giant birds! flaming acorns! Why not.) and the fact that the entire Radagast/Necromancer/Rivendell scenes are entirely irrelevant... to this movie.

The fact that it's only part 1 is not an excuse. Jackson and co decided to make this part of the book into its own movie. Therefore, it was their duty to make it work as a movie and, on a story level, they failed. This isn't an adaptation, it's a translation, and it doesn't translate well as it is. Changes should have been made.

Because the story didn't work, I couldn't enjoy the amazing visual feast. I tried, believe me. But really, all the cool shots and effects did was make me not downright hate the movie. Instead, I simply don't like it. In every movie (or at least the narrative ones) the screenplay is the most important thing. Screenplay is king, and this one should have been whittled down and whipped into shape. Want to make 3 movies? Fine. But make 3 movies. Don't just ramble for two and a half hours and stop when the time is up.

BUT, again, the Gollum scene is the exception. Because it's exceptional. I bought the motives. There was an actual conflict, which lead to tension. And I really cared.

This post...is perhaps the greatest, most truthful, non-oblivious, and logical comment ever in this thread.

And then there's the fact that Gandalf can do whatever he wants because there aren't any rules set up in this movie (giant birds! flaming acorns! Why not.) and the fact that the entire Radagast/Necromancer/Rivendell scenes are entirely irrelevant... to this movie.

1) If they had allowed the birds to talk, they could have explained the eagles in one sentence.
2) He can do that.

And Aspie, the singing was great.

...to an extent.