The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:04 pm

He pisses during commerical breaks.

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:46 pm

Superbuu3 wrote:

Skip wrote:: Yeah, old Bilbo and dishes song could have been cut.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, doing the dishes is an essential daily task. I think what we should really be thinking about is how does Jack Bauer go 24 hours in 8 seperate days and never does them or go for a piss.

Steady on, Buu. I didn't say remove the dishes being done entirely, just the song.

Live Free or Don't Posts : 22124 Joined : 2008-08-01

Superbuu3 wrote:

Skip wrote:: Yeah, old Bilbo and dishes song could have been cut.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, doing the dishes is an essential daily task. I think what we should really be thinking about is how does Jack Bauer go 24 hours in 8 seperate days and never does them or go for a piss.

He doesn't eat or drink either, so he probably never needs a piss.

The first season is a true mystery though as it starts at midnight, so he's already been up a whole day before it even begins.

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:54 pm

Welp, seems like there'll be some kind of contrived reason to justify their odd use of the Nazgul music after all.

Quote :: Question: While we are at it – what meaning does the Ringwraith theme have in TH: AUJ finale?

The implication — although Adams cannot say — seems to be that there is some string of relevance between Azog and the Nazgul.

Azog's really reaching places, ain't he? First, He gets a big role in The Hobbit instead of just being some enemy in supplementary material, now he has some involvement with the Nazgul of some kind. The use of that cue was pretty awkward and something obviously done at the last minute, though. I wonder if this supposed plot element is gonna feel really shoehorned in itself.

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:48 am

don't feel like making a new thread about part 2 so here's what i think of it:

it was good, but it felt really, really stretched at some points, like they just dragged stuff on and on to make the movie longer.

I also loved some of the camera work they did, which felt really refreshing, especially the action scenes, it felt really dynamic, but the sad part was, every time there was a scene like this, you could literally see just how fake everything was. which made the whole thing kind of horrible to watch once you've noticed it.

there's a difference between knowing something is fake, and actually seeing that's it's genuinely made in a 3D program. and there were lots of those sections, especially the big fight at the end in the furnace/mines... every action scene they did, you could literally see almost everything was just computer graphics. it looked overly fake.

that's about my biggest gripe with it, not sure if it was due to it being a 3D movie in high framerate that made it more noticeable or if it really just is like that.

but all in all, good movie, could be a whole lot shorter.

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:57 am

Fixed the title for you.

That's honestly what I expected to hear about the movie though, the first was pretty much the same.

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:15 pm

The second one was better than the first one IMO. I saw it last night and I loved it. I feel like the slow pacing is fine for these films. To me, it is good for taking in the lore and the atmosphere without too much worry of it being rushed through. Tolkien's books have so much material and lore to them that it's overwhelming for a 2 hour movie or less to take in properly. These books paint a picture of an entire continent, you know? So I feel that a slow pace is justified in this case. That could just be my fanboy mode activating though.

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:08 pm

Yeah, this was markedly better than the first. There's less sitting around, and far more interaction with the world and its inhabitants. Smaug was fantastic too; he's absolutely terrifying, and Benedict Cumberbatch's voice suits him to a tee, all implied malice hiding behind a veneer of superiority. At least until he loses his shit and just threatens death to everything.

Gripes? A few. Again, some unnecessary padding (reintroducing Legolas and another female elf, who seems to have the hots for one of the dwarves) chasing yet more non-canon orcs through Mirkwood and into Laketown does slow the pacing somewhat, but it's never less than entertaining and is frequently thrilling, especially the final third.

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:20 am

TBH, I had a problem with the female elf's character. For me, whenever she was in and the romance thing started, I was thinking, "Get that shit out of here. Not in this film, please." Was she in the book? I don't remember, since I haven't read it in a decade. Legolas' intro felt solid to me. And he had some of the coolest stunts he's done in any of these films.

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:21 am

Zero wrote:: TBH, I had a problem with the female elf's character. For me, whenever she was in and the romance thing started, I was thinking, "Get that shit out of here. Not in this film, please." Was she in the book? I don't remember, since I haven't read it in a decade. Legolas' intro felt solid to me. And he had some of the coolest stunts he's done in any of these films.

There is no female elf in the book who gets any development, all just background characters, and I'm pretty sure if Legolas shows up it's for like a paragraph.

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Tue Dec 24, 2013 3:25 am

Skipio wrote:

Zero wrote:: TBH, I had a problem with the female elf's character. For me, whenever she was in and the romance thing started, I was thinking, "Get that shit out of here. Not in this film, please." Was she in the book? I don't remember, since I haven't read it in a decade. Legolas' intro felt solid to me. And he had some of the coolest stunts he's done in any of these films.

There is no female elf in the book who gets any development, all just background characters, and I'm pretty sure if Legolas shows up it's for like a paragraph.

I knew Legolas was mostly/all filler, but I don't think it was bad. None of it seemed like a forced cameo or a forced familiar face in the movie, which arguably Frodo's appearance in the first one kinda was. Didn't mind that one either though.

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:43 am

did any of you see Peter Jackson by the way? I seem to be one of the few of my friends who noticed him in the film.

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Tue Dec 24, 2013 2:15 pm

Yes, he was in Bree, walking out of a building in the first few seconds of the film.

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:54 am

Well, I'm going to preface this comment by saying I rather enjoyed the film and it's probably the most faithful adaptation since The Fellowship of the Ring.

So here's what I think about the changes they made:

Spoiler:

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:23 pm

So Benedict Comberbatch was in both films, he was the voice of Smaug and Necromancer. However I though he played this guy:

Spoiler:

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:47 pm

that's Manu Bennet, the orc

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:59 am

Benedict Cumberbatch looks like an otter, great actor though.

Saw this last night and thought it was a lot better than the first, although the elf from Lost was annoying and the big dragon scene at the end was half an hour too long, despite starting off very strong.

Live Free or Don't Posts : 22124 Joined : 2008-08-01

Conversation of Smaug more like. *snort*

But yeah I gave this a chance and it was better than the first. First half felt very episodic but it was entertaining and fun at least. I heard complaints about the barrel chase but I rather enjoyed it. Didn't mind Legolas being in it either since he was a complete dickhead most of the time, which suits him.

Tauriel... Eh. The incredibly sudden romance was weird but whatever. It didn't bother me that much. Stephen Fry really shouldn't be in films. He's not bad but I can never see him as anyone other than Stephen Fry. It bothered me in 24 as well, and I recently saw V for Vendetta which he was also in. It's really distracting to me because suddenly Stephen Fry is there.

The bit with Smaug did go on a bit, but he was cool so I can let it slide. All in all a prety enjoyable film.

...Is what I would have thought if weren't for the fact that...

Spoiler:

Some stuff was just outright boring though. Gandalf's whole story after he leaves the dwarves was very dull.

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Tue Aug 19, 2014 8:31 am

A_Nonny_Moose wrote:: Stephen Fry really shouldn't be in films. He's not bad but I can never see him as anyone other than Stephen Fry. It bothered me in 24 as well, and I recently saw V for Vendetta which he was also in. It's really distracting to me because suddenly Stephen Fry is there.

I can kind of sympathise with this, though I tend to land on the opposite side: "Hurray, Stephen Fry is there!" I think the only film where it didn't really matter was Wilde, where he plays Oscar Wilde. Because he's basically Oscar Wilde anyway.

Subject: Re: The Hobbit: An Unwarranted Trilogy Sun Dec 14, 2014 7:52 pm

Battle of the Five Armies was disappointing. Smaug's attack on Laketown was great, but so brief they might as well have just stuck it in the end of the last film and cut out ten minutes of that film's flab, and when the battle does come its disjointed, poorly paced and features so many characters you simply don't care about that it is hard to feel emotionally invested. You know something's wrong when the film has the final small-scale battle with Thorin, Azog, Bolg, Tauriel and Legolas all heavily involved and only one of which should canonically even be present.

Also, the love story between Tauriel and Kili is even more preposterous here than it was in part two. I really feel they made a mistake stretching the book out to three films. There simply isn't enough in it to warrant it, a fact the awful pacing and horrendous filler scenes have made abundantly clear.

» Three Hobbit Films
» I'm rewatching the original Spider-Man trilogy
» The Bourne Trilogy
» I'm going to watch the Robocop trilogy
» Kaio plays PoP trilogy