The Hobbit (film series)

Remove all ads!

Well they could probably drag Frodo and company back for 6 more movies - the expansions to the first three (two more of each), made up of new material and all the crap that was left on the cutting room floor originally.

 

They could make several movies out of the Silmarillion and Lost Tales books. Hell, the Silmarillion story line would make for great speacial effects.

 

The only thing that would be good about the Silmarillion is it would be a great movie to go to if you needed to catch up on your sleep.

 

Blasphemer! May you fall into the clutches of the Orcs and be dragged to the pits of Angband to slave for the Dreadlord and his minions for all eternity! BRUHAHAHA!..... ahh, you're probably right...

 

I think it says enough about the film that I can't remember a fair bit of it. Nothing stuck out except for a couple of scenes, which was strange as it tried to be quite overt in some places, a fair bit of unnecessary exaggeration or ill timed humour which unfortunately does stick out.

 

Yeah, same here. I remember being vaguely satisfied/happy when I left the theater. I don't really remember much or any of it now.

 

Hobbit second part

Well, their claim was for part II within a year was just barely kept as opens on Dec. 13. The first part opened on Dec. 14, 2012. It seems so long ago I think I forgot most of the characters. I'm sure they'll snap back. See you at the flicks.

 

So, I saw The Desolation of Smaug yesterday. I doubt I am letting any spoilers out, but be advised, I suppose I could be. (Is there anyone on these boards who hasn't read the book already and doesn't already know what is supposed to happen?)

Much quicker, more action than the first film. Thorin is beginning to look half-crazy (Smaug tells Frodo the Arkenstone drove his grandfather mad, as it will Thorin) and Tauriel (a completely made-up character inserted by Peter Jackson) is actually kind of interesting. (My daughter, who hates that there are rarely tough female figures in these stories, is a big fan of Tauriel). Beorn is present; not sure I feel like they did a good job on him (he just seems very different than how I imagined him). Bard is more or less like I expected him.

I wasn't particularly impressed with Smaug, though he's not bad. The Sauron sub-plot really threatens to overtake the film. Legolas is a one-elf wrecking crew, like a Marvel superhero with swords unleashed on the Middle-Earth, like a kid's munchkin DnD character or an 80s action star who demolishes entire armies without sustaining a scratch in combat. Partially because of this, the orcs have become ridiculous as threats or foils; they serve no purpose but cannon fodder and have lacked all ability to intimidate (there is a line somewhere in the movie, something along the lines of, "You'll never make from here to the Misty Mountain, there are orcs everywhere and they'll hunt you down and eat you!" which made me nearly laugh out loud). The orcs seem to serve no other purpose than to provide interesting and visually entertaining ways for the dwarves and elves to one-up each other in terms of their martial prowess. I'm not sure how many hordes of orcs have fallen by the end of the second film, certainly several dozens if not hundreds--and by the end of the film, a single dwarf has been wounded and Legolas has a bloody nose.

At times Peter Jackson (who also has a cameo) seems to forget that the film is called "The Hobbit"; I'd have to go back and watch it again, but I wouldn't be surprised if Martin Freeman goes through the middle hour of the film with no more than a line or two of dialogue. I'm probably overstating it somewhat. On the other hand, it shows that the character Bilbo has (to all but Thorin) integrated himself into the dwarves.

Parts were quite amusing (including some of the dialogue). The barrel escape was fun and visually astounding and funny, too.

The film LOOKS very different than either the Lord of the Rings or the first Hobbit movie. There are a great deal of close-ups, more than I remember there being in any of the films, including during dialogue, as well as a lot of hand-held camera work. Some of it is shaky. Doesn't have the "glowing," ambient feel that the LoTR movies had.

 

I am looking forward to watching it soon. Nomatter how distant it is from the <3 books. Its my 3 hours of Zoning out of real life and just drifting away in amazing scenery and chuckling how they twist and turn the book Fantasy all the way!

 

I heard it's better than the first. Not matter. Good fantasy is rare these days, so not gonna miss out.

 

Saw it on release day with my boys. Sort of a family tradition that started with LotR.

Yeah, the standard PJ liberties were taken, but it was still a fun movie, and a treat for the eyes (especially in 3D).

Looking forward to number 3.

 

Peter Jackson's reasoning. Make of it what you will:

Source

 

But obviously, after reading the book, Legolas wasn't part of the action, let alone a one-man wrecking crew. Nowhere, that I can find in Tolkien's writings, is there a suggestion of Legolas' age, which could mean he was a "youngling" during Bilbo's original journey. Bilbo was quite young at the time and by Lotr, he was ancient, well over a hundred years. I believe around 130 without looking back into it. But who knows....

I think Jackson has done a decent job with the movies, but things like Legolas becoming a super-hero is ridiculous. He was just one of the fellowship. Orlando Bloom shield boarding down the steps while firing away was dis-heartening to me, let alone the War Mammoth scenes with him as well. If he wanted a super-hero, he should of added Glorfindel in the flight to the Fords. A true hero if there was one still alive in the 3rd age. Not change the whole story so that no-talent Liv Tyler gets a big scene. Or at least make Aragorn into the super-hero. His fighting scenes were good, but Legolas was better in the movies.

 

Arven's role was minor. Hence no talent requirements.