The new Hobbit movie

[Stormonu]

I liked the first two, this one felt like it was full of leftovers to fill in a 3rd movie that should have been two. A lot of what was built up just ... happens and it doesn't come off across as impressive or frankly interesting.

It felt like the the 3rd Matrix movie.

 

[trappedslider]

In a recent interview with Jackson that was mainly about what he plans and doesn't plan to do next PJ said the following regarding The Hobbit :

“It’s a weird thing, even when you look at the reviews for this movie, people are still bitter about the breakfast scene from the first movie. They say, ‘It took so long.’ Fair enough,” says Jackson. “But I always thought of these movies as a seven hour film. So you look at it as, ‘Why are we spending the first quarter of this movie at a dinner scene?’ I’m thinking that it’s not the first quarter, it’s actually one-sixteenth of a thing.”

Full article here https://www.yahoo.com/movies/the-hobbit-director-peter-jacksons-next-act-105871825637.html

 

[TrippyHippy]

These things I liked about The Hobbit:

a) Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. A pretty much perfect casting. Indeed, honestly, I don’t think we’ve really seen a bad casting call amongst the whole series.

b) Smaug the Dragon - aside from a firework effect, one thing that was palpably missing from the LotR trilogy was a memorable Middle Earth dragon. Smaug was fully realised in The Hobbit.

c) A variety of Dwarves - not just one, but a whole diverse bunch of them with varying levels of beardiness. While still played up for comic effect, they broke down some of the stereotypes.

d) Wargs as giant wolves, rather than giant hyenas.

e) More Middle Earth. As a fantasy fan is worth noting that this will be the last time we have a Middle Earth movie on the big screen for an awfully long time (unless someone decides they want to remake them, god forbid…).

While there may be some criticism of The Hobbit, it is sobering to recall just how laughably bad fantasy movies were before the LotR kicked off. Go see the original D&D movie (released just a year before) if you want a reminder. We’ve come a long, long way since then - and if we eventually start getting decent D&D movies in the future, The Hobbit films will actually serve as a pretty good blueprint for how to go about it.

 

[Bagpuss]

The breakfast scene feels short compared to the "battle" scene in the final movie. Why did we have to spend so long on that?

 

[TrippyHippy]

The breakfast scene feels short compared to the "battle" scene in the final movie. Why did we have to spend so long on that?

'Cos it was cool?

 

[Dioltach]

These things I liked about The Hobbit:

a) Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. A pretty much perfect casting. Indeed, honestly, I don’t think we’ve really seen a bad casting call amongst the whole series.

b) Smaug the Dragon - aside from a firework effect, one thing that was palpably missing from the LotR trilogy was a memorable Middle Earth dragon. Smaug was fully realised in The Hobbit.

c) A variety of Dwarves - not just one, but a whole diverse bunch of them with varying levels of beardiness. While still played up for comic effect, they broke down some of the stereotypes.

d) Wargs as giant wolves, rather than giant hyenas.

e) More Middle Earth. As a fantasy fan is worth noting that this will be the last time we have a Middle Earth movie on the big screen for an awfully long time (unless someone decides they want to remake them, god forbid…).

While there may be some criticism of The Hobbit, it is sobering to recall just how laughably bad fantasy movies were before the LotR kicked off. Go see the original D&D movie (released just a year before) if you want a reminder.

Yup. Remember the days when Willow was the benchmark for what an epic fantasy movie should look like?

 

[Mark CMG]

From over a decade ago on these boards -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?82555-Hobbit-movie-April-Fools-Joke-(I-hope!)

 

[Thunderfoot]

I kind of torn about this one. The additions of all the peripheral stuff doesn't bother me much (mostly because I didn't like "The Hobbit" as it was written (yeah, I know, just try and take away my geek card)), but the third one just seemed, there, it didn't really make a statement, it didn't really resolve anything, it didn't really deal with Thorin's madness so much as gloss it over, etc.

The mention of Ang Mar and the prodigious additions thereof, while interesting were unneeded. I don't know, I can't say it was a miss through total insanity (*cough* Lucas *cough) but it didn't feel like it was the story that needed to be told. Although I am glad that Bard actually shot Smaug with a bow (sort of) instead of that silly looking windlance; That whole seen with his son was something I thought the rest of the movies should have been like, thoughtful and lovingly crafted to the Professor's standards.

 

[was]

I broke down and saw it today. Tuesday is discount movie day at the local theater. I liked it. Definitely worth the $5.50 I spent on it.

 

[Richards]

I still haven't seen any of the Hobbit movies, and I won't for a while yet - not until all three of them are on DVD and I can see them all over the course of three nights. I didn't like the year-long wait between movies of the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, but at least those were movies of three different books. I refuse to pay cinema ticket prices three times to see a third of a movie each year for three years straight.

So I'm still looking forward to finally seeing Sylvester McCoy with bird crap all over him. I figure by next summer I'll have managed to finally see this trilogy.

Johnathan