Red Mosquito

dimejinky99 wrote:FWIW the extra ten minutes in the extended cut of the first hobbit movie did actually add a lot.

But for me, whatever it adds, it's not taking away all the chaff. In the first film: the Hobbit is reduced to a supporting role in his own film, Radagast has a strange extended and dull intro, the Stone giants are unnecessary padding, Frodo's cameo is a nice nod, but utterly pointless, and that goblin chase scene...

And, of course, the CGI is generally merely competent and absolutely terrible at points. LOTR also did a better job differentiating and making me care about its characters. Here, there's pretty much Bilbo, hero dwarf, old wise dwarf, handsome dwarf, fat dwarf, and a bunch of others.

I do think Petey handles battles well, so hopefully he doesn't bloat up the Battle of 5 Armies, and keeps it to the size it is in the book.

I am finally finding that there is a subject about which I totally agree with ABNorman.

The saddest thing in all of this is that Martin Freeman is offering up the best performance of any of these movies (Rings included). He's created a very likeable representation of that character, who is out of his element just enough that we can relate to him and see the story expand and explode through his eyes, but who is not so bumbling that he isn't also capable of great achievement. But he's getting pushed into the corner for Droopy Dwarf's kingdom rush story, some CGI overindulgence, and the first annual all-Orlando Bloom staring contest.

McParadigm wrote:I am finally finding that there is a subject about which I totally agree with ABNorman.

It won't last . Freeman is excellent in this, more's the pity.

I agree the stone giants were unnecessary. I don't like the troll sequence either, but it's in the book. It's off in terms of the darker feel of the movies

as I've said in the past, whereas lotr was 3 seperate books, with some discrete and logical stopping points, the hobbit is really one story being told in 3 parts. The optimistic part of me wants to withhold judgement until the payoff. Most of the story has been set up so far.

Plus I enjoyed the second film much more than the first.

Having said that, I agree a much tighter focus on bilbo would have made what we have much more enjoyable. The best scenes are always his. But bilbos scenes are also more discrete moments with definitive endings (golem/smaug, for instance). We are still waiting for the payoff of the extended dwarf story and the added elf/gandalf/lake town stories


It sounds like the third film will be mostly climax and set pieces, which I think Jackson does very well

stip wrote:I agree the stone giants were unnecessary. I don't like the troll sequence either, but it's in the book.

statements like these make me re-assess my priorities

People want different things. PJ including the stone giants self serves. It makes it more faithful to the book and only takes 10 or 20 seconds to depict, thus leaving him room for his own insertions/changes later. I realised that the moment I saw it.

The extremely sizeable population of fans of the books want them to be as true as possible to the books( they've all but given up, almost to a man) and the gen pop want chase sequences/action sequences/excitement. There's little or none of that in the original story, so Pj takes what is there and ramps it up to 11. Hits n misses but that's ok.

But Stip is correct..we've had two films of nothing really but exposition and set up for the finale. Sure, Smaug was in there, but while his sequence starts off perfectly, it descends into farce quite quickly.

The last film will hopefully be worthwhile and hopefully not too much battle laden...



And I'm betting the house that the last thing you're going to see is a pull out shot of gollum cursing bagiins and going searching for the ring. PJ is FAR more interested in matching these films up to the LOTR films than he is staying faithful to the books. A poor mans comfort but that's the logic he's working with.

Guys, you keep forgetting that the hobbit kinda sucks. It's the story of bat-baggins helping a clan of interchangeable Jewish stereotypes win back their gold.

I don't know where to look when Stip makes with the funnies..

You look up Stip's ass that's where he lives.

Fortunatley I'm extremely limber

But seriously, the book is mostly terrible.

You're mostly terrible.

its a short one though, right? Maybe I'll read it.

Burt. Read the silmarillion. It explains everything.


Stip, have you ever tackled the silmarillion?

i'm not sure i want things explained.


check this out.

http://io9.com/these-medieval-style-tol ... socialflow

Medieval-Style Tolkien Illustrations

dimejinky99 wrote:Burt. Read the silmarillion. It explains everything.


Stip, have you ever tackled the silmarillion?

Twice

dimejinky99 wrote:Burt. Read the silmarillion. It explains everything.


Stip, have you ever tackled the silmarillion?

Also, nobody should ever read the silmarillion unless they are obsessive about tolkien

Yeah it's rather sprawling but there's some really great stuff in there.

Maybe only for the smokers among us, but If you watch The Lord of the rings and replace every mention of the ring or reference to the ring, with 'the last smoke'. It's an entirely different movie. Just sayin

stip wrote:But seriously, the book is mostly terrible.

Hey sexy. Wanna grab a drink some time?