Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - - Part 16

[Marvolo]

This scene isn't also in the movie, so when Thorin, Dwalin, FIli and Kili ride up on Goats, they come out of nowhere.

So Jackson cut the introduction of the ram riders? Sounds like the editing of this film is ****. Honestly I'd rather Jackson have just given us a 2hrs. 45 minute runtime and got all the necessary bits and bobs in the film than him hacking out introductions and resolutions to meet some arbitrary runtime to give the film the appearance of a fast paced action film.

I'm still watching this in theaters, but the more I hear the more sure I am that I'm gonna dislike this cut more than I disliked the theatrical cut of DOS. And when I consider that I have to wait a whole nother year for the full and proper cut...

pisses me the **** off!

I probably wouldn't be this frustrated if I hadn't just set through an awful broken theatrical cut of Exodus. Another film I was looking forward to that was hacked up and ruined to meet a stupid arbitrary studio approved runtime.

*rant over* Sorry about the outburst.

 

[regwec]

Sorry to hear Exodus has those problems. I was interested to see that.

 

[Boom]

What a load of ****!

It boggles the mind.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Maybe he cut it because (judging from that still) it looks bat**** awful.

Nah, that's too optimistic an assessment.

 

[Greens]

If Jackson was trying to achieve a fast pace he failed. The movie felt long as ****. The battle was WAY too drawn out.

 

[Greens]

Maybe he cut it because (judging from that still) it looks bat**** awful.

Nah, that's too optimistic an assessment.

The goats did look bat**** awful. I suspect CGI rendering was at 50% and they said "**** it that'll do"

 

[regwec]

I dunno. Most of the action sequences in these movies have that Medieval Total War look to them.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Seriously I hate everything about that shot. The odd angle (so that they wouldn't have to render too many goats). The way the ground just seems flatly tacked onto the sky. The generic look of the terrain. The faceless riders, their helms half obscured by a stupid blur effect. The way the goats seem to be weightlessly floating off the ground. Pure crap.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

It looks like Jackson glared at the criticisms frothed at the first two films and like a petulant child, reacted by doing the exact opposite. The editing philosophy of the two films may be different, but they are also the same in their imbalance.

 

[Marvolo]

Sorry to hear Exodus has those problems. I was interested to see that.

Definitely wait to watch the Extended Cut. Scott has confirmed that originally the film was much longer and the holes and seams are really obvious in the Theatrical cut. If an extended cut never comes out then I guess watch the ****** theatrical cut, but for now I'd avoid it. It's just gonna spoil the film for you and put you off.

Seriously I hate everything about that shot. The odd angle (so that they wouldn't have to render too many goats). The way the ground just seems flatly tacked onto the sky. The generic look of the terrain. The faceless riders, their helms half obscured by a stupid blur effect. The way the goats seem to be weightlessly floating off the ground. Pure crap.

It really does look like something that belongs in 300: Rise of an Empire.

 

[Drz]

Maybe he cut it because (judging from that still) it looks bat**** awful.

Nah, that's too optimistic an assessment.

Most of the Dwarves and Orcs are CGI againts CGI sadly, so yeah it doesn't have the same impact as Two Towers has, because there you had real actors againts real actors in close distance battles, but here you got Dwarf actors againts CGI Orcs, CGI Dwarves vs. CGI Orcs, etc.

 

[jonathancrane]

I bought the tickets for the Tuesday screening. I am excited; regardless of whether it is great or horrible, it's the last time that this iteration of Middle Earth will be depicted on film, before the inevitable reboots.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Would you guys compare this trilogy to the Dark Knight Rises? In terms of the director clearly not having the same passion pouring out of him when making the previous film/trilogy and the product reflecting that void. Both of these products feel like they are going through the motions without the pulse of a hungry artist.

 

[Drz]

The Dark Knight Rises is actually a good movie with good plot, characters, setting, production work, etc. Regardless if Nolan didn't have the same "passion".

 

[ThePhantasm]

I think the Hobbit trilogy more closely parallels the Star Wars prequels.

 

[Boom]

If Jackson was trying to achieve a fast pace he failed. The movie felt long as ****. The battle was WAY too drawn out.

Shocking.

This adaptation had no business being three films. Cut out the "Scooby-Doo" chase scenes with Azog and Bolg, the entire Necromancer subplot, the entire Dwelf subplot, most of the nonsense with plasticine Legolas, the "Sunday morning cartoon" politics in Lake-town, and half of the overblown and over-the-top action sequences, and this is a tight two-film adaptation. Tops. And the pacing and overall narrative structure would be better off for it.

This was a blatant money-grab by WB. Shame on them. Also, shame on Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens for agreeing to take on a book they clearly had no interest in adapting. They've proven to me beyond all doubt that they were absolutely the worst possible choices for this.

 

[AnneFan]

If Jackson was trying to achieve a fast pace he failed. The movie felt long as ****. The battle was WAY too drawn out.

Not surprised. I'll probably still see the movie in January, but I'm not in any rush. I've only seen the Hobbit movies once each and have no desire to revisit them.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

This makes me want to re-watch the second season of Agents of Shield (since it gives me plenty to do in the mean time) and quite frankly, I'm beginning to have less desire to see the third hobbit film. so I'm in no rush.

 

[Marvolo]

Shocking.

This adaptation had no business being three films. Cut out the "Scooby-Doo" chase scenes with Azog and Bolg, the entire Necromancer subplot, the entire Dwelf subplot, most of the nonsense with plasticine Legolas, the "Sunday morning cartoon" politics in Lake-town, and half of the overblown and over-the-top action sequences, and this is a tight two-film adaptation. Tops. And the pacing and overall narrative structure would be better off for it.

This was a blatant money-grab by WB. Shame on them. Also, shame on Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens for agreeing to take on a book they clearly had no interest in adapting. They've proven to me beyond all doubt that they were absolutely the worst possible choices for this.

There is a lot in these films that didn't need to be there. Dwarf/elf plot being the most obvious of them. But the necromancer plot belonged in the films. Tolkien himself retroactively placed it in the Hobbit narrative during LOTR and wanted to add it to an updated version of the Hobbit but it never came to fruition. So that plot belongs in the story. And you can't have a film where Gandalf disappears for long stretches with no explanation cause then it looks like he is just abandoning his friends randomly for no apparent reason. His absences have to be addressed in some capacity. Now granted he could just tell Bilbo "I had urgent business to attend to away in the South." Which could have worked if necessary, but there is no denying that the audience memberz who haven't read the books would be wondering Wtf is so important in the South that would make Gandalf abandon our characters and their important quest. So the only options were to have Gandalf never leave the Company throughout the story, or have the film show what he is getting up to. Am I saying Jackson handled that part of the plot in the best possible way? No. But the necromancer stuff belonged in the films.

 

[Boom]

I'll share my thoughts more on that tomorrow (got work in the morning), but let's just say I profoundly disagree.

When the very own author of the book decided to abandon those very revisions, I believe that more than anything else speaks toward the relevance (or irrelevance, rather) of the Necromancer subplot as it pertains to the story of The Hobbit.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Tolkien himself retroactively placed it in the Hobbit narrative during LOTR and wanted to add it to an updated version of the Hobbit but it never came to fruition.

False. Tolkien started writing a version of the Hobbit that would be more tonally similar to LOTR, and abandoned it because "it just wasn't The Hobbit anymore." He had no real interest in altering the Hobbit after that. It never came to fruition because he didn't want it to.

 

[Marvolo]

False. Tolkien started writing a version of the Hobbit that would be more tonally similar to LOTR, and abandoned it because "it just wasn't The Hobbit anymore." He had no real interest in altering the Hobbit after that. It never came to fruition because he didn't want it to.

I never said otherwise.

I know joblo.com has its detractors, but JimmyO gave the film a 9/10. Which is probably much more than I will give it, but if y'all want to read th review: http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/review-the-hobbit-the-battle-of-the-five-armies-976

To those who have seen the film: how long does the Smaug attack on Laketown last? 10 minutes? 5 minutes?

 

[spider-neil]

3 movies and I was only truly engaged 3 times.
Movie 1 - Bilbo and Gollum.
Movie 2 - Bilbo and Smaug.
Movie 3 - Smaug v Laketown.

There was no reason whatsoever Hobbit should have been 3 movies. None.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

There is a lot in these films that didn't need to be there. Dwarf/elf plot being the most obvious of them. But the necromancer plot belonged in the films. Tolkien himself retroactively placed it in the Hobbit narrative during LOTR and wanted to add it to an updated version of the Hobbit but it never came to fruition. So that plot belongs in the story. And you can't have a film where Gandalf disappears for long stretches with no explanation cause then it looks like he is just abandoning his friends randomly for no apparent reason. His absences have to be addressed in some capacity. Now granted he could just tell Bilbo "I had urgent business to attend to away in the South." Which could have worked if necessary, but there is no denying that the audience memberz who haven't read the books would be wondering Wtf is so important in the South that would make Gandalf abandon our characters and their important quest. So the only options were to have Gandalf never leave the Company throughout the story, or have the film show what he is getting up to. Am I saying Jackson handled that part of the plot in the best possible way? No. But the necromancer stuff belonged in the films.

Do you know why he never did? Because he specifically said he asked some he trusted and they pointed out how it didn't fit into the story of the Hobbit. That it changed what made the Hobbit the Hobbit. So Tolkien never did it because it was wrong for the story. So we already got the answer on whether it belongs over half a century ago. The answer has and always will be no.

 

[craigdbfan]

Why does it seem like Jackson got really sloppy by the end? I even find the CGI in AUJ superior to what I've seen from Battle of Five Armies. It's like when you start a drawing well enough and then get tired by the time you have to draw the legs and hands and just take short cuts by giving said figure some stick fingers and feet and you decide to only use three colors to quickly fill it in.

The whole thing just screams "Eh, **** it! I have to finish this drawing in the next 10 minutes before I get out of this ****ing class. Whatever!"