Christ Centered Gamer

This greatly amused me. It was terrible, even if not as bad as the last one, but it was hilarious for it.

Or maybe that was just the bomber of Hobbit limited edition imperial pils I smuggled in.

I really liked the first Hobbit movie. I was a li'l bit ashamed of the second. When the third came around, I went a week after it came out with tickets that were literally given to me, so I didn't pay for anything except the two miles of gas it took to get to the theater.


At least it's over

I dunno. I actually really enjoyed it. I went into it knowing Peter Jackson and the other guy were going to butcher it, so with that mind set...I felt more than happy when I left the theater.

I loved Dain, because he is what I think of when I think "dwarf". Plus, Billy Connoly. I also liked the way Bard killed Smaug, even if it's not quite as epic as it was in the book. You can't go wrong with a flaming tower fall.

I also teared up when Thorin died. If they hadn't had the elven/dwarven romance going for comic relief, I probably would've bawled.

There was a lot I liked...My dislikes/complaints are really too long to list without just looking stupid. Top of the list is the over-dramatized everything. and the fact that essentially, only two or three dwarves had lines. @_@ The rest of the them stood there and looked awesome.

Yeah, I enjoyed aspects of it immensely. I think if they had left legolas and tauriel out of the movies entirely, I wouldn't have been that disappointed. Pretty much any scene with Martin Freeman is golden, which is why Thorin's death managed to be emotional.

Any care I had for Thorin died with his terrible gold floor hallucination scene.

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.

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.

Yeah my dad actually said it looked like they took Battle for Middle Earth and made it into a movie.

ArchAngel wrote: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.

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.

Of the coals that can be heaped upon Jackson's head, this shouldn't be amongst them.

oregorn1997 wrote: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.

Yeah, it felt really gamey.
Although, the rams on the mountain, I thought wasn't so bad as mountain goats do some crazy scaling.

selderane wrote: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.

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.

So I saw it, and I didn't think it was too bad. It was better than the second one, that's for sure.

I actually liked the way they played out Thorin's descent into madness. Made his decision to go into battle feel more impactful, and I think it helped his reconciliation with Bilbo. That said, I wouldn't have had the bit at the end of the first movie where Bilbo and Thorin more or less "make up," but eh...

Likewise, while I find the romance between Tauriel and Kili quite contrived, I think I know why they added it: To give his death some emotional punch. In the book, Fili and Kili's death is basically a sentence. They weren't the most fleshed-out characters either (which in fairness, was something that a lot of the Dwarves needed), so I can kinda see that.

Also, Balin in this movie was one of my favorite characters. The scene with him and Bilbo talking about Thorin's madness over the Arkenstone really stuck with me. Balin in the book was, well...not quite so interesting. Neither were most of the dwarves, for that matter.

Something I really quite liked, actually, was more expounding on Morgoth and the associated plotline with Gandalf/Legolas. I would have trimmed it down a bit, but I really quite liked it. Legolas didn't strictly speaking need to be in the movie, but a familiar face helped, and even Legolas got some character development here! Also, I loved the fight scene where Saruman, Elrond, and Galadriel kick some serious butt. It was quite well shot, and fairly enjoyable.


tl;dr: Reasonable conclusion to a decent movie trilogy.


*potentially-inflammatory opinions inbound*

But here's my final thoughts on the movie series as a whole: Peter Jackson knows how to set up great shots. His cinematography is fantastic, even with movies that are far, far too long (*cough King Kong cough*). He also loves his chase and battle scenes, and he can shoot them reasonably well too. Even the artistic license he took with the story wasn't even that bad. It makes up for shortcomings that the book frankly had all along (See above, no character development besides Bilbo and Thorin and the extra Middle Earth lore).

That said, there are things I would have done way differently. Three movies? No. I am fairly certain I could edit these three movies into 2 quite compelling movies. With the additions they made, a single movie is not really feasible. But three movies was excessive, and I think due to both money and Peter Jackson's fight/chase scenes. The other issue I had was pacing. The first movie went along reasonably well (barring a weird place to end it), but the second had pacing problems so bad I was checking my watch throughout the movie (seriously, the chase scene with Smaug and the Dwarves in Erebor needed to be halved AT LEAST). The third move was much tighter in that respect.

Reading a fair number of reviews, there is a lot of concern over changing aspects of the story from the book. It's not a good thing, but it's not a bad thing either. The Hobbit book was, in my opinion, quite poorly written. I found the story itself pretty good, but the prose was bland, and the characters (excepting Bilbo and barely Thorin) flat (a problem I've also had with Lord of the Rings, but in a far lesser degree). While I wouldn't have made the specific changes Jackson did, I think he was justified in making changes.

The biggest complaints I have are pacing and CGI. I've already mentioned pacing, but the movies aren't well-paced and could have been condensed considerably. I found the CGI to be a distraction, like it was in early 90's films. CGI can be used the great effect, but the cartoonish feel this movie had (I seriously thought I could have been watching a graphic novel-based film like 300) cheapened the film. 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.

Deepfreeze32 wrote: 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.

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.

I'd love to know why what was originally planned as two films, and a third original film connecting the two books, was turned into a trilogy for The Hobbit.

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.

selderane wrote: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.

There's a part of me that hates that.

But a part of me that loves it.

I'd watch it so hard.

i melange boe rhibi
The Spice must flow.

I haven't read up on it, but was Dain Ironfoot completely CGI? Like, it's Billy Connolly's voice and nothing else?

Pretty much any great expectations I had were lost in the second movie... XD

Shrug, I do say though, the elf and dwarf armies were fantastic. (That dwarf wall formation. )
The movie is also better than a lot of movies this last year...

Still, it's a bummer knowing that the movies could have been so much more.
Also it's a shame Beorn lost his role, then again he already lost his character in the last movie...

@Soup, apparently so if this is correct: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheHobbit/comme ... s_100_cgi/