Hobbit 3 Talk

Reviews are coming in...and it looks like about what you'd expect. I'm surprised that this one is actually going to have the shortest run time out of all 6 though. Seems like maybe the 2nd Hobbit film could have been the shorter one, but it is what it is.

Still, really looking forward to it.

Like most fans, I usually watch the LotR trilogy in December, but my son hasn't seen any of the Middle Earth films yet, so this Dec we're doing The Hobbit. Part 1 tonight, part 2 next Friday, then the following weekend, part 3 in the theater.

Anyway, this'll be your all in one thread to talk reviews, thoughts, spoilers, etc.

In the meantime...grin and bear this parody.

i'm sure it'll be 'good' and that's about it. I'll see on the 21st at night

I'll definitely go see it. I liked the first two quite a bit. I guess I'm not in the camp of "How can they make three movies about a short story". I enjoyed all the books, and the silmarillion. I usually tell those people that I would watch a 9 hour walk through middle earth if they made one. So they added lots of background in the Hobbit...Good!

Personally I love the whole series. It's highly dramatic, overwrought fantasy of a type we rarely see and won't see again I'd wager, for a long time. Plus it's well done which is very rare.

My favorite fantasy movie will probably always be The Wizard of Oz but the LOTR series is right up there in the top five (as one entry). As good as genre films have ever been pretty much and on par with the crap that gets nominated each year for academy awards (they don't like genre pictures too much unless the genre is 'family struggles' or 'racism'... although every 10 years or so they might try to sneak one in there). I prefer these movies over the book, which I like ok but I find dated and I don't like Tolkien's prose all that much, or how he organizes a story. It's his imagination I like and these films bring his world to life beautifully. They add stuff, sure, but I've already read the book, I don't need an identical story what I like about the differences is that the things they add reveal how they see the series which might not be the same as how I see it. When you look at what someone adds or takes away from a book you see a sliver of their interpretation and if it's a little bit different than your's... great! You're learning something new.

Smaug is the greatest depiction of a dragon ever put on screen.. I don't say that lightly, for me, that's a big deal. Dragons have been screwed up so many times on film whether that be the crap D&D picture that should have never been made or Reign of Fire.. it's about time someone got Dragons right.

I've said it before but it bears repeating... if this was a TV series people would be going ape shit for it, but we've drifted away from film as the pinnacle of entertainment and the focus of pop culture conversation, TV is more appropriate now and Game of Thrones reception is the best example I can think of. GoT is ok... but it's no where near as well done as the LOTR/Hobbit films yet it has a huge number of fans who talk about it on a regular basis ... even when it's in off season mode. The Hobbit is barely discussed and when it is there is always someone saying they dragged it on too long... really? GoT has how many hours to tell it's story? These movies add up to one short season of TV.

I won't be going to the theater, I just don't do that anymore, but I'm pretty sure I'll buy it when it comes out on DVD and add it to the collection. I've seen the first two films three times already so there is no way in hell I'm missing this.

I agree with y'all...and love these films. As a whole, I enjoy these far more than the SW franchise (of which I only really like A New Hope). I also agree that had these Hobbit films been a TV series, folks would go nuts and there'd be next to no complaining.

Jacob, you've mentioned before the Jackson's LotR films replace the books for you. With Jackson filming The Hobbit to match the tone of his LotR trilogy a bit more than some would like (I understand his decision and agree with it), do you also feel these Hobbit movies replace that book for you? Do you think the lighter approach of the Rankin/Bass flick still the best match?

Regardless, I think there's going to be a sense of loss at the end of this film. An era coming to a close indeed. Going to miss trips to the theater for these.

The greatest depiction of a dragon on screen is in the movie Dragonslayer. No hollow piece of CGI will ever stand up to Vermithrax.

I certainly don't mind that they extended the Hobbit into three films. I like getting more of the backstory with Dul Guldur, etc.

However, it's really hard to enjoy the non-Tolkein additions like the elf/dwarf romance, the Laketown mayor/class struggle storyline, the resurrection of Azog, and the extremely undignified portrayal of goofy Radagast of the birdshit hair and bunny sleigh. I'm not a strict Tolkein-purist and I don't object to adjustments/additions that could have made the Hobbit work better as a movie. The issue is that the Peter Jackson additions are just...bad. There's so much great material to work with and yet we had to see a cliched star-crossed dwarf/elf lover's tale?

Way too much CGI in these films too. What they needed was lots of puppets at the fingertips of Frank Oz.

So yeah, I'll go see the third one. My expectations are low for it to actually evoke the magic of the book or even for it to be a good movie in it's own right, but I'll still enjoy watching the massive battle and sweeping vistas of epic sets. Just have to take it for what it is.

Mr. White wrote:
Jacob, you've mentioned before the Jackson's LotR films replace the books for you. With Jackson filming The Hobbit to match the tone of his LotR trilogy a bit more than some would like (I understand his decision and agree with it), do you also feel these Hobbit movies replace that book for you? Do you think the lighter approach of the Ranking/Bass flick still the best match?

Good question. Now that you've got me thinking the Hobbit movies are maybe better for keeping the book in tact because it is soo different there is still a fairly good reason to read the book. With LOTR I see almost no reason to go back but the Hobbit is a different situation.

This isn't really fair of me but I can't help myself...

Attrition wrote: There's so much great material to work with and yet we had to see a cliched star-crossed dwarf/elf lover's tale?

cli·ché : a phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought.


... what kind of porn are you watching.

Are you missing the "é," (e-acute)? It's correct without it. Very first entry when you type "cliched" into google (and the example is theirs, not mine):

cli·chéd
klēˈSHād,ˈklēˌSHād/
adjective: clichéd; adjective: cliched
showing a lack of originality; based on frequently repeated phrases or opinions.
"the clichéd storytelling lacks that vital spark"

Attrition wrote: Are you missing the "é"? It's correct without it. Very first entry when you type into google:

cli·chéd
klēˈSHād,ˈklēˌSHād/
adjective: clichéd; adjective: cliched
showing a lack of originality; based on frequently repeated phrases or opinions.
"the clichéd storytelling lacks that vital spark"

It's just a joke dude. I've never seen an elf/dwarf romance before. I just don't see how it fits the term.

Mad Dog wrote: The greatest depiction of a dragon on screen is in the movie Dragonslayer. No hollow piece of CGI will ever stand up to Vermithrax.

Well, I am talking about his personality and not his look. But that is a kick ass dragon for sure.

Oh, I just meant that we've seen the Sharks/Jets Capulet/Montague thing a million times and isn't original or interesting. I'm not sure how elf-dwarf porn would work either, but that would be worth seeing.

Attrition wrote: However, it's really hard to enjoy the non-Tolkein additions like the elf/dwarf romance,

I never got this complaint. Did't Tolkien himself write of Gimli's enamouration(sp?) of Galadriel? How is this 'non-Tolkien'?

Besides, it's not like they actually do anything, but I can totally see how the elf is attracted to this out of town stranger and also maybe thinking he could be a ticket out. Seems like she's pretty miserable at home.

Youths!

Mr. White wrote:
I never got this complaint. Did't Tolkien himself write of Gimli's enamouration(sp?) of Galadriel? How is this 'non-Tolkien'?

I meant the romance that was injected into the Hobbit movie in particular. Just too cheesy for me.

Also, it's not as if Gimli wanted to bang Galadriel. They might have been mind-fingering though, what with Galadriel's telepathy.