Oh, I don't know if that's the case. Sure, they were drawing parallels between the two items but it was clear that the "curse" of the Arkenstone was far more psychological than magical. That Thorin was affected by it shows he was really unhinged in the first place and when he more or less got what he wanted his psychosis only amplified.That scene was hard. The whole spiel about Dragon-sickness was pretty bad, though. Any "prequel" (and sequel) worth it's salt should make the original work better, or at least not screw it up.
Apart from being poor movies, the biggest of sins of the Star Wars sequels was that it undermined the Original Trilogy. The hobbit does this too.
It was certainly not coincidence that Thorin's lust for the Arkenstone had the same whispers and ambiance as that of the influence of the Ring. Just straight up cuts down the power and influence of the One Ring.
Yeah, it felt really gamey.I thought that the entire movie(and trilogy) was rather comical...And not in a very good way. It also seems that the heads of trolls, orcs, goblins, etc. are very fragile... Too bad they didn't take advantage of that in TLOTR.
And did anyone else think that this movie felt like a video game? Like a lot of the battle scenes looked and felt like level after level of a platform game. For instance, Legolas jumping around with Bolg, or the goblin bowling with rams, or even jumping up the mountain with rams... And what is it with all the collapsing bridges? I guess they gotta have at least one per movie.
I dunno... Maybe it's just the new 48 fps.
Except that they took deliberate steps to make his condition like that of the Ring's influence. It was clear that they were making it was more than just psychological.Oh, I don't know if that's the case. Sure, they were drawing parallels between the two items but it was clear that the "curse" of the Arkenstone was far more psychological than magical. That Thorin was affected by it shows he was really unhinged in the first place and when he more or less got what he wanted his psychosis only amplified.
Viggo Mortensen had a similar criticism of Jackson for The Two Towers and The Return of the King. He felt Jackson was relying too much on CGI in them, whereas The Fellowship of the Ring had the right balance. I can see his point. And it's never been clearer than his work on The Hobbit.Lord of the Rings, especially the first one, used minimal CGI to great effect. But this movie feels almost out of place, like it's not in the same universe. And when you're writing a prequel, that's a problem. This is also my major gripe with the Star Wars prequels, I might add.
In conclusion, I think this is a decent trilogy. It suffers from some serious issues, including pacing, special effects, and some questionable attempts to strengthen flat characters. It's not bad, but it's not the same caliber as the Lord of the Rings film series. Worth watching, but probably not worth buying unless you really, really love it.
There's a part of me that hates that.But, hey, it's good to know Middle-earth has sandworms. Can't wait until Jackson does a new trilogy taking place after The Return of the King that introduces the Fremen from Harad and we discover that Aragorn's son, Eldarion, is the prophesied Kwisatz Haderach.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests