Why the fuck is Peregrin Took singing?
THIS IS NOT THE BATTLE OF THE PELENNOR FIELDS!
Official Trailer 1
Why the fuck is Peregrin Took singing?
THIS IS NOT THE BATTLE OF THE PELENNOR FIELDS!
That was awsome. Not that am suprised it is.
My body is ready!
Another basically dumb Tolkien movie. No thanks.
i will go on premiere night, see it, and go "meh" just like the first two but thats ok, at least I didn't pay for transformers 4
Oh look, a boring movie.
they replaced oversized rabbits with rams?
evangeline lilly is looking pretty banging
Damned if I can't wait to see it despite the general disappointment of the first two.
I almost fell asleep during the elf section of Desolation of Smaug. The last film I paid to see and nodded off during was Attack of the Clones. I hope this one is not so heavily padded with romance subplots.
They should've just made it 2 movies. There just isn't enough that happens in the book to warrant three, 3 hour movies. Now, we'll get a bunch of shitty filler and more of the love triangle from the last movie. The fact that Bard is going to kill Smaug with a harpoon gun instead of an arrow already drops this movie down to a 6 at best.
The first movie was pretty good, it follows the story fairly well still. The desolation of smaug is when the filler and changes really become apparent. The whole love-triangle thing and smaug chasing the dwarves was just the worst.
Finally an end to this abomination of a series
So much negativity! I enjoyed the first 2 and I'm really looking forward to this one.
I like how so much of the marketing says how this one is "the defining chapter!" It's clear that they are aware that the first two were not nearly as acclaimed as they expected them to be, so they're saying, "Ok, guys. This is really where we get it right, all the rest was just us fucking around!"
I enjoyed the first two well enough, but it's obvious that they're desperately trying to win back the detractors.
I honestly don't know, after seeing the last one, if I can make it to this movie.
It kinda shoulda been one movie. I dunno, this one might be ok. I doubt it's rageworthy. It'll be pretty and stuff. But at over 9 hours they've kinda overstepped what the hobbit actually is.
"At least its not Transformers 4" is just about perfect.
I was a huge Lord of the Rings film fan and the Hobbit was my favorite book as a child. The fact that I've never even bothered to see the Desolation of Smaug after watching the first Hobbit film just goes to show how completely they fucked these movies up.
Loved the first one, loathed the second one, really looking forward to the 4-5 hour fan edits that will be coming out.
I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I loved Hobbit 1. I liked Hobbit 2 a bit less but it was still a good film. I don't think there was material to do 3 movies but I'm not complaining because it means more movies that take me into a visual universe I enjoyed reading about for many years. I'll gladly see the third and buy the bluray box with all 3 extended versions.
Too many angry people in this thread.
liked the first two movies, will see this.
People have every right to be disappointed in whatever movies they choose, you can't please everyone. That said, I am old enough these days to learn to make a difference between two different versions of a thing I love. I dearly love the Hobbit book and the Lord of the Rings books and even though Tolkien is by no means the best writer out there, he created a world that I love to immerse myself into and that I can just pick up and read any time I want.
Peter Jackson made movies that I also enjoy, and while I will obviously agree that the Lord of the Rings movies are more faithful to the books than the Hobbit movies (because they had to create a lot of filler), those movies also changed a lot of things from the books, things that in some circles would be called nothing less than heresy (such as the Elves coming to help at Helm's Deep for example).
The fact that I'd think some of the changes made to the movies make it better or less good than the same part in the books does not alter my enjoyment level for the book. Just like the fact that the Hobbit movies are clearly made with a more "put bodies into the seat" spirit than the Lord of the Rings movies does not make me appreciate the book any less.
I'm just happy that a LOT of kids these days are learning about the book by seeing the movies, that they'll want to read it maybe because it just got reprinted with that nifty cover with the movie dragon on it (oooh shiny) and that it'll make them want to learn more about Tolkien's works. It will also create a bunch of merchandising for people who love statues, weapon replicas and collectibles and will all around make Tolkien's TRUE work even better known, even if you dislike the media through which it was rediscovered by these newcomers to the genre.
TL;DR : Here or in Middle-Earth, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
But, honestly, wouldn't you rather watch a movie that was at least able to stand on it's own legs without replacing narrative interest with CGI spectacle, and using bland filler plot to make it artificially longer?
At this point I have 100% accepted the fact that there won't be some gloriously reverent adaptation of Tolkien works. I don't even think there needs to be one if they could manage to make something that wasn't
a sappy, melodramatic cash grab.
It sounds like you have a pretty good attitude about the whole endeavor, but isn't it kind of an admission that the movies suck a little that we have to fall back on the "but it promotes the books, which are better!" spiel?
I felt I got my $12.50 worth from the first 2, I am looking forward to the third.
As to your post, I don't really care that people enjoy the new Hobbit movies, and their existence doesn't diminish my enjoyment(past, present, or future) of the book. I'm not raging here, I just have no real interest in seeing the films that are being marketed as Tolkien's The Hobbit and that's pretty sad considering how fine a job was done with the Lord of the Rings films and considering the original material was so strong they really had to work to fuck it up for me.
It's not hyperbole or spite or anger for me to say I'd rather watch the Rankin/Bass cartoon, it's just a fact I was that disappointed by Jackson's offering.
Last edited by The Ancient; 07-29-2014 at 05:23 PM.
Rankin/Bass cartoon Smaug > Peter Jackson's Smaug. That's the only thing I like better from the cartoon than the new movies.
First two were meh (jackrabbit powered sled) but I think this one will actually be good. He saved the best for last with the LoTR movies as well.
Jackson seems to only have one setting when it comes to action scenes and that is full retard.
full retard with EPIC DWARF THEME SONG PLAYING AT ALL TIMES
Yeah after the previous two hobbit movies I have no desire to see this one. Movies would have been much better as just two movies. Three was just too much, far too much padding added and it shows.
"Well, that was it. But I won't stop. I won't give up. Because when I look at what is happening in the world, I know that now, more than ever, ...we need to be all that we can be. Now, more than ever, ...we need the Jedi."
To each his own. The hobbit was the first book my father gave me when i was a kid with a lill message from him written inside. Its simply the most precious book in my entire collection nowdays. We have this pilgrimage where we always see the Jackson movies together in theater. Started with lotr and now its the hobbit. Now wether i like all of these movies because its a moment i share with my old dude or because the movies are great could be discussed for a while. Sorry for the rambling but my point is, i dont approach these movies has if any changes to them would be like raping my childhood memories. I simply enjoy the moment i share with my dad and appreciate the ride Jackson created for us in a world we both love.
I respect the diehard Tolkien fans but sometimes, you gotta learn to lay back, grab a pop corn and just, you know, enjoy the moment. Plus like someone else said, the more people are exposed to the Tolkien world, the better it is. At the very elast it will make some viewers curious to pick up a book and see what its all about.
The Rings Trilogy was pretty good. It's hard to say which was "the best". No bombadill... fellowship suffered. Skateboarding legolas + dwarf toss + orc killing competition + elf archers out of nowhere... TTT suffered. I'd almost say Return was the best, but it wasn't really.
They're all good for different reasons and flawed in different ways. The books that they're based on are too, so overall I think PJ did a great job there. With the Hobbit he's just milking it. But you know it's no worse than King Kong or wtfever he did. He's not a travesty of good taste or anything.
i didn't read no tolkien books, they just decorate the bookshelf, with that the rings trilogy played out exactly like the original star wars trilogy.
1. enlightened/wow something new
2. wow a dark turn, best in the series
3. eh... trying to wrap up loose ends, throw in fighting porn in lieu of a better film
i mean really, the hobbits were ewoks that could talk, everyone of them were annoying, really wished they'd die or just hurry along.
the hobbit 1 and 2, were stupid, they were so long and boring. and wtf, i couldn't tell one dwarf from another except the king dwarf. story is horrible too, you'd think by now after saving their lives countless times, these low intelligence dwarfs and their stupid king would actually care about bilbo, nope their racism won't allow it, fuck him, it's the only way to move this horrible story along is for bilbo to be the ultimate underdog with a stupid ring that kinda makes him invis.
otherwise you could kill 5 dwarfs and i wouldn't notice a difference, or care, fuck these dwarfs, what a waste of time.
the worst parts of RoTK was how they fucked up saruman's subplot and the fact the movie didnt know when to fucking end, there are like 5 endings in it. still a great movie though.
the hobbit should probably have been just 2 movies. "people will be like, uh why did smaug die so early and whats all this buildup to a big battle that has no consequence later in the LOTR movies? bring back smaug!" i will give the third part a looksee. trailer was ok. the second movie was passable, but the smaug scenes were pretty awesome. as someone said, i look forward to the fan edits. i bet you can easily encapsulate all the important story stuff from all 3 movies into a single 3 hour film.
Let's take the most epic plot twist with Frodo's "death" to Shelob at the end of TTT, and put it half way through RotK so it is resolved immediatly.
The visuals for the ghost army really took me out of RoTK. ruined it for me. It looked so shitty.
Well, I see his point about the ghost army. I imagined they would look badass and sort of scary, but to be honest when you see them in the background mowing down oliphaunts by just climbing onto them like a huge green bubbling flubber, I think the only thing lacking is the Benny Hill theme.
Still a great movie though.
I saw a little piece of RoTK the other day. It surprised me that the visual effects have aged as much as they have.
I compare the direction of the hobbit movies to the differences in dining culture. You could either go to a michilin star restaurant and get a 5oz steak with a small serving of Zucchini fries that tastes like perfection or you can go to your run of the mill steak joint and get a 17 oz sirloin with a giant baked potato and some broccoli that tastes fine.
Sure, they both are good but any rational person is going to choose the first one based on taste alone. But a lot of people are totally fine eating at the place with less quality because there's more of it.
Meh, I'll go see it just for the Dwarves riding goats...and the $10 popcorn.
I think greed overcame Jackson here; the Hobbit should have been a single 3 hour masterpiece. Nothing more, nothing less.
Well, two movies would have been fine, they wouldn't have really had to stretch it much at all. Three movies out of a single book smaller than any part of the LOTR trilogy is fucking ridiculous.
I didn't see the second one in the theater and I won't be seeing this one there either. I'll wait to Redbox it. This book should have never been made into 3 movies.
PSN: Araxen, Xbox Live: Araxen II, WiiU: Araxen, Steam: Araxen
Nah, my complaint has been the same for both series. I enjoyed the LOTR movies for the most part, but both those and the Hobbit movies have made such odd departures from the books. I fully acknowledge that you don't go to see a film that is the book. No complaints there. It's just why they differ as they do. This is much more pronounced in the Hobbit movies, as there is so much less book than LOTR. He made the terrible decision to make it into three films. Two would have been more than enough.
It's not that at all. PJ chose to kill certain scenes which are integral to the story in order to overdevelop other scenes. Of course some redaction and reduction has to be done in order to fit a huge book into a movie. But when central characters are left out because 'we too stupid' or minor things that could have been added that are in fact 100% required for the story to function... well it just begs the question why.
The swords that the hobbits find at Weathertop were crafted by the Westernesse. RotK makes a big deal out of the fact that Merry stabbing the King of the Nazgul only accomplishes something because of the lineage of the swords. It's a big story arc of fate that ties the character arc to the back story and lineage of Gondor. It's a really subtle way to reinforce the importance of the ancestry and nobility of the humans which are basically portrayed as worthless failures the entire series.
maybe he felt it was too much lore that needed explaining in a movie that is already way long.
or maybe they wanted to show that women can be "empowered" so they had the princess do in the witch king herself. if a male had weakened him first it may have tainted her accomplishment.
i remember the homos clapping and cheering in the theater during that scene.
I have no idea how a person who is into fantasy/adventure movies could not like the LOTR/Hobbit movies... They are wildly entertaining films with very high production value. They spread the cheese on a little thick sometimes, but I don't mind that too much.
I'll definitely be seeing this in theatres, as I have all the other instalments in the series.
Bunch of whiny babies, the lot of you. Deserve to have someone piss in your cereal and let you choke on the soggy mess that follows.
i have been a peter jackson fan since dead alive and the frighteners. with exception of the lovely bones his movies have been enjoyable while not always completely awesome. i still trust jackson to make a good movie. yeah three hobbit movies is a blatant cash grab, but this isnt the first time he has done that. how many versions of the lotr trilogies are floating around? 3? more? as long as people are still willing to plunk down their money for these things, i cant blame the guy for continuing to do what he's doing. i wonder if he will ever do the silmarillion or branch into other "unfilmable" adaptions such as The Dark Tower?
I swear guys no one has a fucking gun to your head to watch these movies. The same people that disliked the first one needed to tell us all about it in the first thread. Then before and after the watched the second movie we were told at great length about how the first AND second one weren't good. And now you fucking retards are doing it again with the third.
50 shades of grey is coming for the haters, i heard they didnt split one book into 3 movies! Rejoice!
People in this community hate everything.
That being said, there was plenty about them that I enjoyed too. They just aren't the movies I wanted him to make. Let alone the decision to make three of them instead of two.
I have read LotR once and the Hobbit multiple times. I have not read the other works. From my understanding, a lot (not all) of the "extra" scenes are from those other books and notes. Sure we could have two movie Hobbit, then in five years we could see a stand alone movie with these scenes and your average person would have no idea what's going on.
Isn't one of the questions most people have when they read the hobbit "where the hell does Gandalf keep going?" You're seeing it on screen. Yeah yeah go to the elf love and barrel fight and Benny hill argument if it makes you feel justified. Personally it doesn't bother me that much.
I understand that the average audience isn't like me. They don't scour the internet looking up nerdy stuff. Unfortunately, film makers have to spell shit out. Adding Legolas and Frodo makes average shitheads feel warm and fuzzy inside.
If movies like LotR andThe Hobbit make money then all the better. It will tell studios that people will go see fantasy movies and that makes ME warm and fuzzy.
Well yeah he added the obvious Gandalf stuff we all wanted and expected. He also added dragon chase around the mountain while building a giant golden dwarf to give Samug a nice bath.
I'm actually waiting for after this comes out on DVD / Blu-Ray and we start to get some fan edits.
Someone can make a really good ONE movie out of the material ( access to deleted scenes etc )
They should start a kickstarter that builds a big pool of funds that is to be used as a prize pool for the best fan edit. A big international competition.
Plus, I think there's just a general understanding that the completely needless shit (love triangle and barrel scenes) aren't worthy of inclusion at all because it already feels stretched.
Never read hobbit or lotr. Just watch these films as a fantasy/cinema fan.
The best version of the LOTR films is accomplished by removing every scene with just Hobbits in it. From the 3 films you end up with a 3 hour epic fantasy battle movie. It's the story of the races of middle earth coming together to vanquish a great evil. The redemption of rohan and it's return to greatness. good conquering evil with swords and magic and talking trees. This is accomplished by removing from the 9 hours of film, the 6 hours of BORING short people walking places and shit and a whole lotta nothing happening. This is especially necessary when you realize they have giant eagles who basically invalidate the need to walk anywhere and the entire premise of the story as presented.
The hobbit movies so far, out of 2 movies thus far, is only 6 hours of short people walking places and shit. And yeah, they got eagles here too so what is the point? So when I try to make it into a good movie, I end up with the opening credits and 1 scene with some stupid gandalf like guy on a rabbit sled.
If one of PJs goals of these films is to encourage people to read tolkien, then with LOTR he kinda succeeds. Take away all the short people walking and there's a decent story left over. might be worth reading. With the hobbit? based on what i've seen in the 2 films thus far, no thank you. based on these movies (yes i know, that's what you guys are bitching about) not even sure how this shitty story got published.
Last edited by Sylas; 08-01-2014 at 06:51 PM.
people have been mirroring that "walking and eagles" schtick since kevin smith fed you those lines 8 years ago. its meant as a joke and not a serious critique of the films. sauron's eye is in the sky watching. whats he more likely to see. something coming at him at his level or 2 small creatures shuffling along at the corner of his view? the fellowship mission was one of stealth as was thorin's, bilbo was their burglar. yeah stealth. i cant wait for the next clerks movie so people can get new memes to work with.
Hell what was probably the worst scene in all three movies was when Pippin offered his service to Denethor in payment for Boromir giving his life to save him. In the book it's a very serious thing, showing that Pippin has a strong sense of personal honor, and Gandalf compliments him for it afterwards. In the movie, the scene is awkward as hell and Gandalf calls him an idiot.
I mean they're still really good movies, but the scenes with Merry, Pippin, Gimli, and Legolas are generally pretty awful and the biggest departures from the books.
I realize that small/weak/useless race like hobbits can contribute and ultimately be the heroes who save middle earth is kind of the premise of LOTR, but only when you frame it just so.
How it should have ended version of the LOTR trilogy:
scene 1, the shire. gandalf realizes that bilbo/frodo has the 1 ring.
gandalf: "hey frodo, put that ring back in an envelop. put that envelop in a box. lock that box. aight let's go" whistles for magical eagles to appear.
scene 2, montage scene from elf city, rohan, Gondor, etc.
gandalf: "Yo i need you ppl to stand in front of the gates at mordor and distract sauron's army for about 3 minutes."
scene 3, while sauron is distracted, flight of eagles flying over volcano. drop box (and frodo if you want) into volcano.
2 minute movie.
again I never read LOTR so I don't know if there was more to the story than that. but in the films, as presented, that giant eyeball couldn't do shit but watch. it's not like it could shoot laser beams or anything. at best it could command the ringwraith dudes on their flying lizard eel things to go and try and fight the flock of giant eagles, but as shown in the films sauron is very easily distracted and he's already sent those dudes out scouring the country side. He's a shitty tactician basically and wouldn't have had enough of those dudes in reserve to stop gandalf from getting to the volcano and destroying the ring, not that he would even know that he'd need to keep some flying units in reserve for an aerial battle. in all honesty they'd all still be on horseback in the shire trying to ride back.
Last edited by Sylas; 08-01-2014 at 07:17 PM.
It never occurs to Sauron that they would try to destroy the ring. That's the only reason their plan works. He assumes they would either hide it from him or try to use it against him in desperation.
Sauron wasn't omniscient or omnipotent even with the ring, he was defeated not once but three times in the Second Age, the last defeat being when Elendil cut the ring from his finger. The problem is that in the Third Age, nobody is left with the strength to oppose him directly. The Dwarves are broken and scattered, the Elves are leaving, and Men are divided and weak.And far away, as Frodo put on the Ring and claimed it for his own, even in Sammath Naur the very heart of his realm, the Power in Barad-dur was shaken, and the Tower trembled from its foundations to its proud and bitter crown. The Dark Lord was suddenly aware of him, and his Eye piercing all shadows looked across the plain to the door that he had made; and the magnitude of his own folly was revealed to him in a blinding flash, and all the devices of his enemies were at last laid bare. Then his wrath blazed in consuming flame, but his fear rose like a vast black smoke to choke him. For he knew his deadly peril and the thread upon which his doom now hung.
The eagles couldn't take the ring because it would have corrupted them, as it would any powerful being who handled it. This was driven home in the movies pretty frequently. At the end, even the "incorruptible" Hobbit Frodo couldn't destroy it. And yes, Sauron would have noticed a flock of giant eagles flying into Mordor. A tiny group of travelers on foot would have had a much better chance of evading notice.
No, the Eagles are a huge plot hole from the perspective of possibilities within the universe, but not in practice. Tolkien used them as a Deus Ex Machina and he was aware of it. He made them intelligent enough for the reader to make sense their actions, but also kept them spirits and distant. He very gingerly used them in LotR because he understood the issues of explaining them any further and complicating the story when they can seemingly do anything by air.
Any excuses in the stories themselves are fan fantasy. At most you can know they did not do it in LotR, so they either would not or could not carry the ring(bearer). But that really isn't a plot hole per se, because the Eagles are never illustrated to be anything other than a force of nature. That's like saying 'Yea but what if that cop the bad guy had attacked was a black belt in Kung Fu and he arrested the lackey and foiled the villains plans 3 minutes into the opening scene?'
The LotR MMO did a good job of explaining it, go near a place where the enemy's power is too strong and you lose control of your character and run away in panic. The Eagles would either get corrupted by The Ring on the journey or be seen by Sauron (like Frodo was in the film) and freak out under his mind powers.
The eagles were also only helping gandalf as a favor, they got better things to to do than take a bunch of food sized morsels 3000 miles through nazguls on drakes fucking with them and between 2 dark wizards who will see them coming .
Its really damaging to the movie. The Hobbit is NOT a LOTR prequel. Adding ALL this shit about Sauron, and the upcoming war totally fucking ruins these movies. It completely rewrites what is going on.
Every fucking time Bilbo touches the ring, we get the same stupid, "OMG THE RING IS EVIL AND CONTROLING HIM", from LOTR. Except.. none of that happened the first time. The entire plotline, of the The Hobbit, has been redone, to be a prequel here. Its not about Bilbos adventure, or Smaug. its now just a giant sidestory, about Gandolf building an army to fight Sauron(and failing), Legolas being awesome, and Bilbo finding the ring, with Gandolf again being super retarded for not noticing the ring for another 50 years.
why the fuck did Bat-legolas just steal the show in a book/movie he was not even in?
Well, Gandalf did save Gwaihir's life before the events of the Hobbit, but Gwaihir then saved Gandalf like three times. At any rate, I like to assume the great eagles are sort of like the centaurs from Harry Potter, considering it beneath themselves to serve as mounts and pack mules except in dire circumstances.
Also the movie birds are smaller and dumber. In the books they're capable of speech.
They worst part is gandalf being wtfpwned by "The Necromancer" which clearly should have told him that he eas really dealing with Sauron and not some new threat.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)