Angband Forums

Angband Forums (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/index.php)
-   Idle chatter (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (http://angband.oook.cz/forum/showthread.php?t=8181)

buzzkill December 21, 2016 23:27

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
 
Finally saw this and was disappointed after really enjoying the LOTR movies. I really wanted to like it, and kept waiting and waiting but what it finally came down to is I was just waiting for it to end. This could be due to it's 3 hour duration, which I didn't realize going in. Without going into specific criticisms, do any other Tolkien fans feel the same as I do? Are the sequels any better?

krazyhades December 21, 2016 23:35

It's garbage.

AnonymousHero December 22, 2016 00:16

There were a couple of fun moments, but the increased reliance on really-obvious CGI[1] (vs. practical perspective effects, etc.) was incredibly jarring. Can't remember if it was present in the first one (you'll probably guess what I mean if it was), but there's a really sappy and totally invented storyline in there... which has absolutely no impact on the story. Ugh.

[1] Alright, there's some really good CGI in there as well, but its mostly cancelled out by the bad stuff in the more mundane scenes.

Estie December 22, 2016 01:06

I watched it up to the point where Legolas enters melee range before shooting at orcs. That was too much for me and I left.

nikheizen December 22, 2016 07:42

It's garbage, and each successive movie is worse than the last.

I'll just tell you now that the entire 3rd movie comprises something like 20-30 pages of the version of the Hobbit I have at home. And it's about the length of every other damned film Peter Jackson makes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnonymousHero (Post 116763)
There were a couple of fun moments, but the increased reliance on really-obvious CGI[1] (vs. practical perspective effects, etc.) was incredibly jarring. Can't remember if it was present in the first one (you'll probably guess what I mean if it was)

I have this wonderful (sad) image of Ian McKellan sitting at a table with a set of post-it notes on standees where he's talking to essentially CGI versions of Bilbo and the Dwarves in Hobbiton. I can't find it now, but it shouldn't be too hard to find on google.

Mondkalb December 22, 2016 08:39

The first is sort of okay-ish in comparison. It gets worse. All three films are appallingly bloated and stuffed with ridiculous CGI action scenes, some of this mess probably was inevitable due to the decision to make three instead of two films.
Also, both the book and the films are dedicated to younger audiences, which may excuse some of daftness. But still, some of it is a pain to behold.

tumbleweed December 24, 2016 17:37

The little rant I had typed up got eaten, so I'll just agree with everyone else.

I for one never even bothered with the third movie.

krazyhades December 25, 2016 06:03

I've never seen such harmonious agreement in an oook thread before.

bio_hazard December 31, 2016 00:04

Extremely disappointing if you expect it to be half as good as LoTR. I didn't totally hate it, but I had to let go of expectations that it was a) going to be great b) going to be recognizable as the classic children's tale called the Hobbit that we all know and love.

It all went down hill when the White Orc became a character. ugh.

Nick December 31, 2016 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by bio_hazard (Post 116961)
It all went down hill when the White Orc became a character. ugh.

Indeed. The whole Azog/Bolg story line was horribly formulaic. Like all the other story lines except, surprise, surprise, the ones taken straight from the book (riddle game, Bilbo and the Arkenstone, etc).


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:04.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.