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
The Hobbit • Page 48
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.
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.
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 908 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 10 years ago
cptjohnnycasino wrote: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.
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.
SolidSCB 10,179 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 9 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 1,003 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 7 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.
LeoliansBro wrote: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.
Fair enough, the LOTR does creak a little under its length. But they aren't that far off Narnia or even Harry Potter.
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.
it's good. like doubleplusgood you know.
Edited by statssonic at 17:52:03 16-12-2013
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
/Jackson sits down and writes some filler
/Fran says "Hurry up"
captainrentboy 1,682 posts
Seen 4 weeks ago
Registered 13 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. :/
Dirtbox wrote: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.
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.
Edited by statssonic at 18:36:04 16-12-2013
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 wrote:Don't be rude, it was very nice of the Daily Star's culture critic to pop in.
Really annoying that they could have easily got the whole book into a single, well paced 90 minute movie.
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 5,530 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 6 years ago
3D or 2D Dirtbox?
beastmaster 18,069 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 13 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
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.